[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 32 KB, 275x406, 9780140275360_p0_v1_s550x406.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13277247 No.13277247 [Reply] [Original]

Okay, so something struck me last night. As we all know, if you can't condense your thoughts down to a five word sentence, you don't really understand what you're trying to say. Now, two great examples of thinkers not knowing their own thoughts are Homer (specifically in the Catalog of Ships aka. Iliad) and Hegel in PoS.
Both of these works and their ideas stretch far beyond the acceptable limit of five words to express their ideas. How hard is it to say, "there were many ships," and "everything is rational" respectively? Now, seeing as I understand these people better than themselves, I am offering this refinement or, more aptly, a synthesis of their thoughts.
If we accept the Catalog of Ships > 5 words and Phenomenology of the Spirit > 5 words, then it would seem, for all intents and purposes, the Catalog of Ships = Phenomenology of the Spirit, at least in regard to being incoherent ramblings.
With this, we can safely combine these works and create a new name; "Catalog of Spirit," "Phenomenology of (the) Ships," "Phenomenology of Catalogs," or "Catalog of Phenomenology."
However, seeing the natural equality in these works, the title "Phenomenology of Phenomenology," or "Catalog of (the) Catalogs" are also valid.
And from this understanding we should see that the synthesis between, "there were many ships" and "everything is rational," yields either "there was everything" or "every ship is rational." But seeing as all these are all saying the same thing, it is just as well to say, "everything is ships."
So, what you should get from this is that if you write something you don't understand down and pass it off as an intelligible point, someone much smarter than you after your death will make you look like a fool.

Good day.

>> No.13277261

>>13277247
What the actual fuck are you on about you pretentious little shitstain? The Catalogue of Ships isn't meant to be summarised into five words. Why do you even think this is the case? Not everything needs to be constructed this way. How does Homer not know his own thoughts? Ridiculous. The CoS is long because it's meant to evoke pride in the people that would have stood around and listened to it. It was like a list of everyone that participated in the war and when a name was read out people could feel like they were taking part if they were from that area. You've literally no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.13277263

>>13277247
> Now, seeing as I understand these people better than themselves, I am offering this refinement or, more aptly, a synthesis of their thoughts.
Can this fucwkit get an award for the most rage inducing post on /lit/ in years?

>> No.13277268

>>13277247
I don't think you've made anyone but yourself look like a fool.

>> No.13277269

>>13277247
Is this supposed to be smart? You do realise none of this makes sense, yeah? You've basically just asked why a long thing is long. >>13277261 already gave the reason.

>> No.13277270

>>13277247
Hegel clearly meant for his absolute spirit to be modeled after the Odyssey coming back, it's the state of becoming. Iliad was a stepping stone to show Being and not Being were appropriately self contradicting

>> No.13277287

>>13277247
>Fagles
top lel

>> No.13277288

>>13277247
This post could be shorter.

>> No.13277303

>>13277287
>bickering over translation
What is your preference? Or is it just the
>fag
?

>> No.13277491

>>13277263
>not butterfly
No way this guy is more annoying than "her"