[ 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: 160 KB, 600x800, Image0376.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1410968 No.1410968 [Reply] [Original]

/lit/ I have a problem. I can't read fiction. Every time I sit down to read a fiction book I feel like I'm wasting my time and then I inevitably either grab something on philosophy or something on particle physics.

/lit/ should I just forget about fiction and keep reading non-fiction or should I seek mental help?

>> No.1410973

You should fuck off.

>> No.1410980
File: 9 KB, 250x237, 1280437947582s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1410980

>>1410973

To where though?

>> No.1410985

I'm the opposite OP. I can't read non-fiction.

>> No.1410984

>>1410980
Cute Male or wherever. Just go away.

>> No.1410987
File: 28 KB, 329x480, 3ynj5ow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1410987

philosophy IS nonfiction

>> No.1410994
File: 13 KB, 208x199, 1265486603121.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1410994

>>1410984

>Cute male

wat

>> No.1411001

>>1410968
That's because you haven't met a book with right taste yet.
What books have you tried? I can make some suggestions.

>> No.1411002

Keep reading about particle physics /sci/bro. Fuck the haters.

>> No.1411014

>>1411001

Vonnegut, Burgess, Conrad, D.H Lawrence, Homer.

Mikhail Bulgakov's Master and the margarita is still my fav.

>> No.1411018

>>1411014

Oh and Lovecraft.

>> No.1411028

You're wasting your time with the fiction and the particle physics, and if you have to ask this stupid question you're probably reading the wrong philosophy

>> No.1411029

>>1411014
>>1411018
I see. Too much classic works and not enough modern lit.
Try Haruki Murakami for a change, then. I'd suggest The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. If you are onto philosophy, you may check out Paulo Coelho as well (Veronika Decides To Die and The Alchemist).

>> No.1411030
File: 24 KB, 319x254, puahatelogo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1411030

#

Revealing the scams, deception, and misleading marketing techniques used by dating gurus and the seduction community to deceive men and profit from them.

#

>> No.1411031

>>1410968
moar pics of the cat plz :3

>> No.1411033

>>1411031
You do and this board dies, intellectually.

>> No.1411036

>>1411033
moar elucidation plz :3

>> No.1411037

>>1411028
Thanks. I've had Murakami recommended to me before. I will check it out.

>>1411028
What philosophy do I read? I'd say everything analytic or continental. Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kant, Badiou, Derrida, Husserl, Deleuze are my favs. Putnam and Churchland rate pretty high on my list though.

Zizek is shit imo.

>> No.1411039

I'm the same way, I mostly hate fiction. Personally I would just keep on reading philosophy, but if you really want to read fiction try Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov. If that doesn't catch your interest, then nothing will.

>> No.1411041

>>1411029
>philosophy
>Paulo Coelho
does not compute brah
i'm brazilian and i hate him

>> No.1411042

>>1411031

His name is Behemoth, from the Master and the Margarita. I don't have any other pics of him :(.

>> No.1411043

>>1411037
Žižek is almost retarded.

>> No.1411044

>>1411039

I have read Notes from the Underground. I liked it. It was a painful read though.

>> No.1411047

>>1411043

Occasionally I lol at his jokes.

>> No.1411050

>>1411044

Brother's K is much better. Still dark, but it at least it has some comic relief now and again.

>> No.1411052
File: 80 KB, 432x1015, l_b0f05483a2f94514a1bdf685668c9581.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1411052

OP you named your cat Behemoth? I'll admit it. I'm impressed.

>> No.1411051

>>1411037
>What philosophy do I read?
Dogen, Kukai, Lao Tzu, Mencius, Tsong-Kha-Pa, Nishitani, Nishida, Confucius, U. G. Krishnamurti, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Sogyal Rinpoche, Osho

good luck

>> No.1411055

>>1411051

I can't read weak pseudo-philosophy man. If I get even a hint of buddhism I'm out of that bitch.

>> No.1411059

>>1411055
Why? Isn't that prejudice?
Buddhism in itself is philosophy, not religion. Not weak, not pseudo, better than nihilism.

>> No.1411060
File: 16 KB, 200x224, saidloling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1411060

>>1411055
That's okay bro not everyone gets it.

>> No.1411064

If you're reading philosphy and have to ask this question...you're either a troll or you're not 'getting' philosphy at all.

You're probably that person who reads book about zen...and not getting it's a non-sequitor and the last page of the book has 'burn when finished and start living ' in invisible ink.

>> No.1411068

>>1411059
Buddhism in itself is a religion, take away samsara and you have nothing. It is based around that one RELIGIOUS idea.

>> No.1411071

>>1411060
>That's okay bro not everyone gets it.

Ed Said was pretty average as well. Let me guess you are about to call me an imperialistic Western orientated troglodyte. I'm ok with this, since I'm not a literary studies poser whose philosophical and theoretical knowledge extends only to post-modern thinkers.

You can talk about the Other all you want. I

>> No.1411073

>>1411068
Then you didn't know about Buddhism. It's okay though, I can't convince you otherwise anyway.

>> No.1411074

Try the Neverending Story.
DO EET

>> No.1411075

>>1411073
Yes, it can be very hard to convince people of things that aren't true.

>> No.1411080

>>1411075
Well what a fighting spirit.
I'm no Buddhist myself, but I quite like the philosophy of Buddhism. If you have any interest, may I offer you some intellectual conversation on the subject?

>> No.1411083

>>1411071
>Let me guess you are about to call me an imperialistic Western orientated troglodyte.
I don't care. Work out your own salvation with diligence.

>I'm not a literary studies poser whose philosophical and theoretical knowledge extends only to post-modern thinkers.
Nor am I

>> No.1411085

>>1411080
If you like, there are some elements of buddhist thought I like, but the way the puzzle is assembled seems wrong to me.

>> No.1411091

>>1411085
What do you think is wrong? It may be merely misunderstanding, caused by stereotype and prejudice.

>> No.1411094

>>1411083

Heidegger is not comparable to Krishnamurti. Badiou is not comparable to Confucius.

I appreciate that you wish to respect the Other by treating such thinkers as equals, but I assure you they are not.

I'm sick of this type of vacuous politically correct machismo. Thinking has interests beyond political correctness.

>> No.1411100

>>1411091

I'm OP. I never said it was wrong.

>> No.1411101

>>1411094
>Heidegger is not comparable to Krishnamurti. Badiou is not comparable to Confucius.
Of course not, they are both engaged in radically different language games and neither the twain shall meet, but this is all responding needlessly to words you've put in my mouth.

>> No.1411102
File: 134 KB, 417x576, portrait_schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1411102

>>1411083

>> No.1411105

>>1411085
Well ultimately if you reject samsara, which we have no real reason to support, the first of the noble truths becomes all the grimmer for its ready solution.

The fact that enlightenment itself should be valued seems unjustified to me.

>> No.1411104

>>1411101
I know your type.

>Of course not, they are both engaged in radically different language games
Language games. Confirmed for post-modern relativist.

>> No.1411106
File: 8 KB, 269x215, varg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1411106

>>1411102

>> No.1411107

>>1411104
>implying Wittgenstein is postmodern

>> No.1411108
File: 75 KB, 480x321, 1291582774328.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1411108

>>1411104

"Language games"

YES, YES, YES. welcome to THE GAME.

>> No.1411109

>>1411105
that should be a reply to:
>>1411091

>> No.1411110

>>1411104
>I know your type.
No, you only think you do because of this prejudice thing you've got going on and the good ol' western will to systematising

>> No.1411111

>>1411107

>implying Lyotard language-game relativists are not post-modernists.

>implying the later Wittgenstein was not a post-modern relativist.

>implying all philosophical problems are the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.

>> No.1411113
File: 11 KB, 320x350, photo19.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1411113

>>1411106
touche. i know how you be thinkin.

>> No.1411114

>>1411111
no
yes
yes

>> No.1411115

>>1411110
>No, you only think you do because of this prejudice thing you've got going on and the good ol' western will to systematising

'Western prejudice'? Interesting how you fit into my stereotype perfectly.

>> No.1411117

>>1411115
You slapped on the western for that part bro. Also,
>stereotype
dat systematisation

Just as an aside, I've seen arguments for Wittgenstein as a pyrrhonian skeptic, interesting stuff

>> No.1411121

>>1411105
Buddhism, as a religion, started when Hinduism was at its best in ancient Nepal. Samsara, karma, nirvana and the like is the inevitable product of a newborn religion, struggling to survive and thrive.
Buddhism, as a philosophy, does not concern much about enlightenment. Yes, its core, ultimate purpose is still achieving enlightenment, but the teachings itself revolve around your daily life. It's a way of life, the method to reach enlightenment, not enlightenment itself.

Now, onto enlightenment...

>> No.1411120

>>1411114

If you don't think the language-game game is a major aspect of the post-modern relativists tool-kit, then I suggest you read more philosophy.

>> No.1411124

>>1411121
Ultimately buddhism is the religion, if you want to talk about various of the component lines of thought that grew out of and around it that's fine, but they're not buddhism.

>> No.1411126

>>1411120
Post modernists talk about language games, but post modernism is a more specific label than just "person who makes use of language games"

>> No.1411127

>>1411117
>dat systematisation

Oh yes. Systematisation is just part of the enlightenment attitude and the disenchantment of the world. How dare someone call you a cliche politically correct humanities student. This is just western imperialism.

Herp derp derp derp derp.

>> No.1411129

>>1411121
... it requires discussion about the ultimate purpose of Life. What is Life? What is Existence? Why am I here? What is my purpose? Well, I cannot answer that for you, I never can. The Buddha himself also said, discussion in those matters are pointless and solve nothing. Instead of thinking where you'd go, Buddhism teach you how to walk to your target. And by doing (and successful at) that, you have achieved enlightenment.
So, enlightenment is not a purpose, a goal after all. It is, in fact, an achievement you earned yourself without knowing, on the path you're walking.

>> No.1411134

>>1411129
That's not really consistent with anything I've read on the matter.

>> No.1411136

>>1411117

Protip: If you want to get out of the stereotype. Stop shitting out politically correct platitudes. As I said thinking has interests beyond politics.

Who is the systematiser here. You say I'm making you out like a cliche stereotype, and yet you say I'm just Western systematiser.

See how you are doing the same thing? The exact same thing?

>> No.1411137

>>1411127
>Systematisation is just part of the enlightenment attitude and the disenchantment of the world
I would say it is a tendency within the Western either/or mindset but it was certainly focalised in Enlightenment thinking. If you've read your Frankfurt School, which happens to not be strictly post-modern although there are of course elements there, you'll know how that project turned out.

You seem kind of perturbed, maybe you should take up meditation in the lotus position.

>> No.1411138

>>1411136

No he can put you into a box because he reads Eastern thinkers, but if you put him in a box, you are just an imperialist.

This is how they work bro.

>> No.1411140
File: 19 KB, 500x375, BcIS6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1411140

>>1411111

WICKED GET. as if /lit/ cares about such things...

>> No.1411142

>>1411136
>Stop shitting out politically correct platitudes
haven't done this a single time in this thread

>You say I'm making you out like a cliche stereotype
haven't done this

>I'm just Western systematiser
didn't say this either

>> No.1411143

>>1411124
Well, yes, Buddhism is most famously known as a religion. The religion maybe foolish, but that does not automatically invalidate the Buddhism philosophy. It's a box of present given to you; you may discard the box and keep the present inside afterward. No one is forcing you to keep the box.

>> No.1411145

>>1411137

The Adorno-esqe idea that Western rationality has some kind of imperialistic essence is laughably reductionistic. We can debate Adorno and Horkheimer if you wish, but both thinkers have been soundly critiqued in the literature.

Think about your position for a second. You are calling me a Western systematiser, and yet the position of enunciation from which you say this is itself western i.e. Adorno Horkheimer et al. Do you see the problem here?

>> No.1411146

>>1411134
The Buddha himself once said: don't promptly believe anything you're told, just because someone else (even the Buddha himself) told you so.
Buddhism text, much like any ancient text, was written and edited by many people, through many eras. You have to think while reading them. Discrediting the whole system of thoughts just because some trivial inconsistency is like discarding the whole tree just because of some rotten area. That's arrogance at best.

>> No.1411148

>>1411142
>>1411142

No that is exactly what you are doing. Try less sophistry next time.

>> No.1411150

>>1411145
>The Adorno-esqe idea that Western rationality has some kind of imperialistic essence is laughably reductionistic. We can debate Adorno and Horkheimer if you wish, but both thinkers have been soundly critiqued in the literature.
I have absolutely no interest in imperialism, even though this is apparently what you have been trying to hang on me throughout this entire thread

>You are calling me a Western systematiser
no I'm not

>> No.1411152

>>1411148
>No that is exactly what you are doing
It's not though.

>> No.1411155

>>1411117

>dat systematisation

>>1411110

>No, you only think you do because of this prejudice thing you've got going on and the good ol' western will to systematising

>> No.1411157
File: 217 KB, 500x500, 1279771329848.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1411157

>and the good ol' western will to systematising

>good ol' western will to systematising

>systematising

>> No.1411158

>>1411146
I'm not saying some trivial inconsistency, I'm speaking of the general conception of enlightenment, my reading of it, is not consistent with yours, its been awhile since I did my serious reading on the matters so I can't give specifics, so there's not much to argue about. That's why I simply said voiced incredulity towards your assessment.

>> No.1411161

>>1411155
>>1411157
Where at any point do I say you are a systematiser tho

>> No.1411162
File: 7 KB, 252x240, 1263207747996.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1411162

>>1411150

>You are calling me a Western systematiser
>no I'm not

Herp derp derp

>because of this prejudice thing you've got going on and the good ol' western will to systematising

>> No.1411166

>>1411162
You still haven't pointed out the part where I reduce you to a "systematiser" (whatever the fuck that means) instead of simply pointing out that you are caught up in a process of one particular system of thought

>> No.1411167

>>1411161

You said my position was a product of prejudice, and the good ole western will to systematisation.

So I was partaking in systematisation, hence I'm a western systematiser.

Hence you called me a western systematiser. Stop with this fucking sophistry you pseudo-intellect.

>> No.1411171

>>1411166

There is no nuance about it. You were pulled up for talking shit. Just admit it.

>> No.1411173

>>1411167


/lit/ I have a problem. I can't read fiction. Every time I sit down to read a fiction book I feel like I'm wasting my time and then I inevitably either grab something on philosophy or something on particle physics.

/lit/ should I just forget about fiction and keep reading non-fiction or should I seek mental help?

>> No.1411177

>>1411173

Relevancy?

>> No.1411180

>>1411167
>You said my position was a product of prejudice
Of course, as is any

>So I was partaking in systematisation, hence I'm a western systematiser.
you came to that conclusion by yourself. I don't even know what the fuck you mean by "systematiser"

>sophistry
this is basically a quaint way of saying reasoning you don't agree with

>>1411171
I am the best

>> No.1411184

>>1411180

No, me calling you a sophist in this context simply means you are engaging in linguistic prestidigitation for the sake obviating criticism. This much is obvious to anyone.

>> No.1411186

>>1411184
>linguistic prestidigitation

>>1411184
>reaasoning you don't agree with

>> No.1411190

I'm not looking down through this thread, so this has probably been said. I used to be in a similar state of mind. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. If you don't have either of the following 2 reasons for reading fiction, then just don't bother:
1) It's enjoyable, and you are willing to spend time on enjoyment
2) You want to appreciate literary form and development

>> No.1411196
File: 941 KB, 227x175, sogood.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1411196

>mfw Eastern Phil gets these chump philosofags every time, without exception

my work is done here

>> No.1411204

>>1411196
>>1411196

HURRR I TROLL JOOO