[ 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: 4 KB, 239x200, 4EAFA669-19D8-4E5D-A470-81A7CCCB74A2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17230816 No.17230816 [Reply] [Original]

Recommendations for books that are extremely dull, flat, boring, hard to read, maybe too verbose, hard and understand? Ideally something that still contains valuable information or insight, just not entertaining or pleasurable.

>> No.17230820

>>17230816
*and hard to understand

>> No.17230825

>>17230816
Read a German Idealist.

>> No.17230827

>>17230816
my diary desu

>> No.17230828

>>17230816

I am currently working through Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action and it's pretty mush exactly what you want.

>> No.17230837

>>17230816
Get some random mathematical proof (I can't recommend anything, sorry) that is pages long, anon. I thought about doing it, must feel rewarding and I'm sure it is worth it, even if it is just for the sake of appreciating the aesthetic overview of a complicated thought.

>> No.17230925

>>17230816
Spinoza. Here is a random excerpt from Ethics

> Proof.—A true idea in us is an idea which is adequate in God, in so far as he is displayed through the nature of the human mind (II. xi. Coroll.). Let us suppose that there is in God, in so far as he is displayed through the human mind, an adequate idea, A. The idea of this idea must also necessarily be in God, and be referred to him in the same way as the idea A (by II. xx., whereof the proof is of universal application). But the idea A is supposed to be referred to God, in so far as he is displayed through the human mind; therefore, the idea of the idea A must be referred to God in the same manner; that is (by II. xi. Coroll.), the adequate idea of the idea A will be in the mind, which has the adequate idea A; therefore he, who has an adequate idea or knows a thing truly (II. xxxiv.), must at the same time have an adequate idea or true knowledge of his knowledge; that is, obviously, he must be assured. Q.E.D.

>> No.17230930
File: 709 KB, 744x725, 1606584521843.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17230930

>>17230925
at last i truly see..

>> No.17230971

>>17230816
wtf is this commutative diagram, some kind of ergodic theory?

>> No.17231073

>>17230925
Wow what a load of absolute shit. I read slowly thinking it was gonna be some grand revelation

>> No.17231099

>>17231073
well you really HAVE to read II. xxxiv. for this one to pop off

>> No.17231131

>>17231099
Clearly

>> No.17231154

>>17230971
Looks like monad

>> No.17231172

>>17230925
>>Spinoza. Here is a random excerpt from Ethics
Spinoza is the pinnacle of ''atheist dude I love science and let's put my ramblings in mathematical from so i can larp as a scientist and my ramblings will be automatically true''

>> No.17231211

>>17231172
definitely not dotard

>> No.17231270

>>17230816
You posted the answer yourself. Pick up literally any book on higher mathematics and prepare to be bored out of your mind.

>> No.17231442
File: 99 KB, 333x499, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17231442

>>17230816
i read this a bit ago, i confess to being entertained by it because of how hard baldwin commits to tearing apart the prevailing attitude about sanctions. it's also not insanely difficult but idk, i have some education on the subject so i probably can't say for sure

>> No.17231571

>>17231172
Spinoza is not atheist, didn't really love science (at least in the redditor sense, the man sometimes borders on occultism), tried to use the aspect of a geometry book because it was trendy at the time and daddy Descartes did it.
He's still wrong about many things. The tryhard presentation didn't prevent being btfo by actual logicians like Leibniz.

>> No.17231587

>>17230816
Appolodore's Library of Greek mythology.

>> No.17231592

>>17230816
Category Theory for the Working Mathematician is not really that dull, but it's still a math textbook, and it fits your pic related. For max tedium be sure to try solving all exercises.

>> No.17232795
File: 36 KB, 325x499, DC4022CD-AAE1-46D8-9AE9-410BD87673E7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17232795

>>17230816
My pick would be Making it Explicit by Robert Brandom. It’s 700 pages and develops an original theory of linguistic meaning.

>>17230828
This is another great pick

>> No.17233080

>>17230925
This isn't difficult to read (or dismantle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(knowledge_representation)

>> No.17233296
File: 77 KB, 460x727, 70F5D31F-F306-42E4-A5BD-4B486CDDE351.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17233296

>> No.17233455

>>17230825
Fichte and Hegel I’m guessing would be the ideal then
>>17230828
Have that on my library, so I might start with this one.
>>17230837
>>17230925
>>17231270
>>17231442
>>17231587
>>17231592
>>17232795
>>17233296
Thanks, I’ll try these out
>>17230971
>>17231154
It’s a monad

>> No.17234168

Call of the Crocodile. An anon from here wrote it. It’s not boring but it’s one of the most confusing books you’ll ever read.

>> No.17234309

>>17233080
So weird computer scientists are discovering things philosophers of language have understood and talked about a LOT since Frege.

>> No.17234317

>>17230816
No idea anon, if I've finished a hard to read hard to understand verbose book then chances are I actually like it, and wouldn't call it dull flat or boring. And if it was dull flat or boring chances are I never finished it. I can recommend a lot of hard stuff but I love all of it.

>> No.17234486

>>17234309
The point being that the semantics of reified linguistic content are different from the semantics of normal linguistic content. This is why including intentionality in logic introduces a bunch of new issues with regards to interpretation.

I would have linked one of the other pages for reification but this one gets the point across better.

>> No.17234959

>>17230816
Husserl