Let me tell you why I don't like reading

[Anonymous No.14783395]

Reading requires an open mind. This leaves you vulnerable to other peoples politics. This is dangerous, because I know them to be wrong. Further, I trust people I sympathize with to try to sway me with their sympathies, as is their right.

But I can't conflate what I know to be true with what I want to be true. I need people to be capable of arguing in way that relies on critical thinking and logic, not by playing on my heartstrings.

Frankly I haven't seen any author that motivates me to pursue literature in any form, because literature is generally for arguing the finer nuance of an idea, and not in the ideas principle itself, which is easily enough summarized that it doesn't require a story.

[Anonymous No.14783424]

>>14783395
While we all appreciate the novelty of a new idea, its never the idea itself, buts its implications and applications, that generates conflict and controversy.

You may analyze any idea free of prejudice, but establishing conflict over an ideas consequences is how a story is made, its an argument for your personal bias, your own interpretation of an idea and your attempt to guide it towards its ultimate consequence.

To simply bounce an idea back and forth like you were studying it in a lab is to present that idea in a vacuum, which is not literature. Literature draws from human experience, it is in incorporating it into our collective and individual experiences that make it relatable and present its maxim or moral.

[Anonymous No.14783435]

>>14783395
>because literature is generally for arguing the finer nuance of an idea,
and because this finer nuance is argued more on the basis of an appeal to ones emotions, rather than ones understanding, I find most literature to be somewhat soothing nonsense.

[Anonymous No.14783455]

>>14783435
You can still tell a compelling story which relies on understanding, but its harder to do. Its often easier just to give into ones bias or ones sympathies, its easier to go with the kinder interpretation of a series of events than it is to think critically of them, especially regarding its moral or maxim.

If a moral is to be compelling, we can't all roll our eyes at the end and say, "Of Course", we owe it to our hosts to respond critically to the morals they expound upon.

[Anonymous No.14783474]

>>14783455
And I think we are all a little fed up with our little jr. scientists cyberpunk phase, in which morality is of no consequence and by morally compromising our self anything is capable, again with the implication that even happiness and self fulfillment is available with the proper application of the correct philosophical principles. (Including that most dreaded of all ideals, Nihilism)

[Anonymous No.14783516]

>>14783474
So yes, in our youth, we cling to alternative moralities in order to maintain our idealism, we radicalize, we obsess over the finer points of our principles, while perhaps losing sight of the forest.

Humanist values are near universal values, you can find them in every story in one variation of another. Love, Compassion, Kindness, Forgiveness.. we all tend to relate to these values and agree that they are good.

Abandoning these values in exchange for more leverage in telling a story leaves its characters missing an essential trait which makes them seem human in our eyes, one which makes makes us care and sympathize with them.

Just as we need to sometimes indulge in the suffering of awful people, must we sometimes indulge in sympathizing with people we find appealing.

[Anonymous No.14783540]

>>14783516
If we didn't so much as like a character, or at least enjoy watching them, how relatable could they be to us, what celebrity could they enjoy?

a character could no longer be famous or infamous, well liked or hated, we'd feel nothing for them the same way we'd feel nothing for a block of wood.

[Anonymous No.14783551]

>>14783540
So we must then have at least one sympathetic virtue in a character, he must possess some trait that others will relate to. People will often sense when the attempt is disingenuous as well, if your morals are so skewed that you have to resort to cynical manipulations to make your character likable, you will have a hard time selling your moral or maxim.

[Anonymous No.14783567]

>>14783551
flaws are what make people interesting, not virtues. Its their weaknesses that define them, and overcoming them in a way that feels genuine is the only way for a character to grow and the best measure of good storytelling.

[Anonymous No.14783579]

>>14783567
of course, we all love the tragedy. But its harder to write a genuine comedy, not like a ha-ha comedy but a literary comedy, in which the characters learn, grow, and experience change and pursue life in good faith of their virtues.

[Anonymous No.14783769]

>>14783395
You sound afraid of the unknown and how it may change you in ways you cannot know in advance. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

[Anonymous No.14783782]

if your ideas are correct it won't matter what you get exposed to because you won't change your mind.
you are a coping brainlet, you don't like reading because you don't have the attention span. just own it.

t. person without the attention span to read

[Anonymous No.14783817]

>>14783782
what'd you think of the rest of my posts?

[Anonymous No.14783833]

>>14783817
i didnt read them because i don't read.

[Anonymous No.14783855]

>>14783833
ha! exactly.

[Anonymous No.14784188]

>>14783855

[Anonymous No.14784372]

>>14783395
>Reading requires an open mind.
Absolutely false, hundreds of millions of people read Harry Potter and the Bible

[Anonymous No.14784652]

>This leaves you vulnerable to other peoples politics. This is dangerous, because I know them to be wrong

shit nigga just consider their ideas while retaining what you know to be true it's not that hard, do you like get brainwashed by every opposing idea you hear or something?
at the least it'll help you to understand other people's mindsets and how to better communicate with people the next time you try to convince someone else of your own ideas.

[Anonymous No.14784682]

>Reading requires an open mind.
5 minutes of Goodreads will destroy that theory. Browse the review section of any canon classic to realise that 99% of people are incapable of not projecting their own petty little selves on everything they read and crying when the two do not match.

[Anonymous No.14784693]

>>14783395
>open catalog
>"I don't like reading"
>"I only read textbooks for school"
>"I've never read a book before"
>"Why should I spend my time reading when I could be jerking off?"
>"Is anime /lit/?"
>"Are video games /lit/?"
>"What things other than literature are /lit/, I don't like reading."
Is there any board on this site as totally opposed to actually discussing its subject matter as /lit/ - Literature?

[Anonymous No.14784702]

>>14783395
Sometimes when I read philosophy, which requires assuming a writer's perspective and entertaining their concepts, I feel like I'm only going through a process of brainwashing. I sometimes find it hard to parse because one hand I avoid imposing my own perspective and concepts to derive conclusions/understanding (as I would say most fail to stop) and on the other I'm instinctively resistant to the world a book is trying to paint in me. Once learnt, it seems so right, leaves you blind. I think unformed minds shouldn't be reading anything, instead slowly eased into thinking for themselves (then able to read whatever, even the most domineering work).

[Anonymous No.14785695]

>>14784693
>Is there any board on this site as totally opposed to actually discussing its subject matter as /lit/ - Literature?
/v/ by far. No contest.

[Anonymous No.14785756]

Look at it this way: you were barely self-aware in the first 10 years of your life. You never thought deeply about yourself as an independant agent in the world, and easily allowed others to mold you into anything. Age 11-20 you were finally coming to see yourself as a being separate from your immediate surroundings, yet you were likely very stupid and shallow, easily guided down the wrong paths, your rapidly growing and changing brain dragging you through the familiar stages of maturing - edge, emo, rebel, normie, outcast (this is where you are).
And now, after at least two decades of being a dough blob shaped and changed by the world outside during your most important and formative years, you suddenly decided to worry about some book slightly affecting your political outlook. Sorry, m8, but the damage is done. You were never really there, from the onset you were a creature-mirror merely reflecting what others wanted to project onto you. The only noble thing left for you to do is allow the greatest minds of history cast their bright light upon your mangled persona, hoping that the beauty of their minds will leave a trace of beauty in you.

[Anonymous No.14785904]

>>14783395
Lol, and you think you have "correct" politics. Fuck off, moron

[Anonymous No.14785916]

>>14785695
Are they really opposed to the idea of video games or just their equivalent of authors?

[Anonymous No.14787509]

>>14783395
bump

[Anonymous No.14787857]

>>14783395
>I need people to be capable of arguing in way that relies on critical thinking and logic, not by playing on my heartstrings.
Then read Guénon. Sentimentalism is the logical outcome of the rejection of true intellectuality (metaphysics). Anything that is not metaphysics is not truly intellectual. But remember; the entire Western tradition plays on our heartstrings. It is our defining caracteristic, we will never reach the heights of hindu metaphysics because we are sentimentalists at hearts. Admitting otherwise would be dishonest.

>because literature is generally for arguing the finer nuance of an idea, and not in the ideas principle itself
You're right. Read the greeks, especially Aristotle and Plato. They are the western authors least polluted with sentimentalism.

[Anonymous No.14787910]

>>14783395
>haha
>not xaxa

[Anonymous No.14787958]

>>14783424
Fpbp. Very well said, anon.