/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17939196]

What are some good books for a 19 year old who’s tryna make sense of this thing we call life? Preferably philosophy

[Anonymous No.17939197]

The Waves

[Anonymous No.17939203]

>>17939196
Crime and Punishment

[Anonymous No.17939210]

>>17939196
Catch 22, The importance of being Ernest, The Outsiders, The Prince.

[Anonymous No.17939298]

>>17939196
the Bible. almost everything else is a psyop to make you a depressed materialist.

[Anonymous No.17939324]

>>17939210
>The Prince.
lol

[Anonymous No.17939331]

>>17939298
take your meds

[Anonymous No.17939397]

>>17939196
Hume(pbuh)

[Anonymous No.17939424]

>>17939196
Promethius Rising

[Anonymous No.17939444]

>>17939196
History: Fiction or Science by Anatoly Fomenko

[Anonymous No.17939450]

>>17939196
Death on the Installment Plan

[Anonymous No.17939459]

>>17939196
>tryna
please do not write like a nigger here, kudasai

[Anonymous No.17939462]

>>17939196
Nietzsche, Darwin, Dostoevsky
Trust me.

[Anonymous No.17939465]

>>17939298
unironically this

[Anonymous No.17939466]

>>17939196
>philosophy
>make sense of life
Lol

[Anonymous No.17939469]

>>17939444
Meds

[Anonymous No.17939471]

>>17939196
You should be reading literature

[Anonymous No.17939482]

>>17939196
You must be at least 21 years of age to post here

[Anonymous No.17939489]

>>17939298
Proof that religcucks are literally insane

[Anonymous No.17939608]

>>17939298
This first. Then greeks. Then back to bible eventually

[Anonymous No.17939623]

>>17939196
YOU LITTLE BABY SLUT TIME TO FUCKING!!!!!

[Anonymous No.17939684]

>>17939298

[Anonymous No.17939696]

>>17939196
Historia sencilla de la filosofía by Rafael Gambra
Also, learn Spanish

[Anonymous No.17939704]

>>17939196
>tryna
>this thing we call life
r/books

[Anonymous No.17939712]

Augustine, Confessions.

[Anonymous No.17939718]

>>17939196
Capitalist Realism and Ghosts of My Life by Mark Fisher
Understanding Media and The Medium is the Massage by Marshall Mcluhan
Neuromancer, Count Zero, and Mona Lisa Overdrive by William Gibson
Simulation and Simulacrum and The Ecstasy of Communication by Jean Baudrillard

[Anonymous No.17939733]

>>17939444
Garbage. Post the last history book you've read this decade

[Anonymous No.17939845]

Lev Shestov
Despair is the penultimate word, the last word cannot be said in human language. Perfect for a 19 year old.

[Anonymous No.17939930]

>>17939298
>3=1
Biggest psyop in the world right here

[Anonymous No.17939938]

>>17939196
Start this, come back to us in about 2~3 years once you've begun understanding it.

[Anonymous No.17939979]

>>17939196
> tryna make sense of this thing we call life?
Just don't. Trust me, you'll get through it with a lot less effort if you just refuse to grasp life. Slide through life as every other norman would. Get a job, get a gf, raise some kids, pay your taxes, prepare for your retirement, and you're through with this shitty existence. It doesn't merit any more reflection than that.

[Anonymous No.17940029]

>>17939930
It never occurred to you that something can have 3 aspects that repressent it?

[Anonymous No.17940035]

>>17939196
Sigmund Freuds work -> Alfred Adlers work -> Carl Jungs work

[Anonymous No.17940038]

>>17940029
>It never occurred to you that something can have 3 aspects that repressent it?
That's not the correct Catholic interpretation of the Trinity, prepare to be burnt on the stake

[Anonymous No.17940045]

>>17939718
this

[Anonymous No.17940074]

>>17940045
I guess Mark Fisher is a good way to start as a 19 yrs older, and maybe William Gibson will fit nicely in with him, but for the rest I wouldn't vouch for. To be fair, you have to have a very high iq to understand Baudrillard.

[Anonymous No.17940083]

>>17939196
Jesvs G Maestro(pbvh)

[Anonymous No.17940102]

>>17939196
Because you are 19 and your brain is in a critical state of turmoil, it is imperative to avoid Nietzsche, and generally recommended to avoid starting with the Greeks unless you have the proper state of mind.
Read Camus or Emmanuel Mounier, log off, step away from the computer, go make friends, pick a hobby like painting or music, fuck a bit. When you lived a bit you can come back to philosophy, it'll still be there.

[Anonymous No.17940106]

>not a single good answer
Anyway,
>>17939196
I’d recommend “The Courage to be Disliked”. Albeit having a relatively cringy format, it is very memorable and actually helped me in life. Maybe even Demian or Siddhartha by Herman Hesse

[Anonymous No.17940146]

>>17940102
>avoid Nietzsche, and generally recommended to avoid starting with the Greeks unless you have the proper state of mind.
I mean, you should avoid all philosophy up until you're middle aged, period. But avoiding Nietzsche at the ages of ~16-22 is critical.

[Anonymous No.17940148]

>>17940146
>critical
I meant "paramount."

[Anonymous No.17940155]

>>17940029
And besides, why should God need three different aspects to represent it?

[Anonymous No.17940203]

>>17940155
Because God doesn't exist and he needs our help in order to get manifested?

[Anonymous No.17940343]

>>17940102
>huurrrrr burrrr your mind just like can’t handle it bro it’s 3deep5u
pussy

[Anonymous No.17940370]

>>17940102
>step away from the computer, go make friends, pick a hobby like painting or music, fuck a bit.
These are all diversions and indulgences which divert people from the true philosophical path. It is known that all of a man's mental development occurs in the first 25 years, and you want it to be defined by generic teen romances? Philosophy will still be there, but you won't be.

[Anonymous No.17940377]

>>17940203
>God doesn't exist
Then he cannot need, nor even manifest.

[Anonymous No.17940385]

>>17940343
>pussy
Is on your mind. Go get it.
>>17940370
>the true philosophical path.
Unless you are 130+ IQ, have been raised in the good environment, it doesn't matter, you shouldn't try philosophy before you are 25~30.

[Anonymous No.17940412]

>>17940385
it is too late
I already read neetzuh
i am become gone
goodbye

[Anonymous No.17940444]

>>17939196
ξεκινήστε με τους Έλληνες

[Anonymous No.17940446]

>>17940385
In between the age of 15 and 30, what event in life enables you to study philosophy? Surely you are not arguing that it is all about age?

[Anonymous No.17940460]

>>17940412
> Be me, 16 years old in the early 2000s
> Find a copy of Thus Spole Zarathustra my mom is using as a level for her beauty cabinet. Start reading it.
> "Holy shit this is mad, who is this dude"
> Start reading the Gay Science (lol, funny name, let's make sure my friends don't see me reading that at school)
> My mom ask me what I'm doing going into the least used sections of the family's library (she probably thought I had found my dad's stash of erotica, which I had done when I was 10), and why her cabinet is all shaky.
> Tell her "I'm starting to read Nietzsche and thinking of getting into philosophy".
> The absolute look of disgust on my mom's face.
> "It's great that you are getting interested in philosophy, but there is a reason I use this book as a level. Let me help you."
> She brings out her personally annotated copy of The World as Will and Representation. "Read this."

[Anonymous No.17940557]

>>17940446
>In between the age of 15 and 30, what event in life enables you to study philosophy?

> as said before, being 130+ IQ
> being raised in an upper middle-class setting, probably going to private school.
> probably not being an urbanite
> probably not being Anglo
> Having read a lot (fiction, most of it not YA, some classics (you don't need to have read Voltaire, Corneille and Shakespeare's complete works, but you should have read and liked stuff like Jules Verne, for ex.)
> Having had you first "deep" philosophical thoughts (stuff like "this is all meaningless", "most social norms lack foundational justification", "anything that doesn't sustain, prolong or ameliorate my life is a waste of time" between the ages of 8-12.
Essentially you need to have a complete cognitive logical scheme (i.e. Piaget), which most NPCs statistically do not display until well above the 30s (your initial logical scheme is set around 20~25, but reflexive critical thinking (i.e. "what are the foundational values which support my thinking this way" doesn't happen until much later).
Being above the curve isn't enough. Being born lucky isn't enough. You need to be in the 90+ percentile *and* be born lucky.
And not be too much of a chad, because otherwise you won't see the fucking point anyways.

[Anonymous No.17940576]

>>17940557
You need to be between 130 and 150iq.
Those with exceedingly high intelligence will realize that studying philosophy will not lead to anything good, and stop short of the cliff .

[Anonymous No.17940588]

>>17940576
>Those with exceedingly high intelligence
Never met anyone above 160 who wasn't completely dysfunctional. Any opinion on non-technical/scientific matters provided by someone above 160 is automatically wrong.
> I know this goes directly toward my point of the 30 IQ point gap rendering people incapable of communicating but I don't fucking care, every single one of them was a degenerate schizo scat loving freak, regardless of gender.

[Anonymous No.17940611]

>>17940102
>it is imperative to avoid Nietzsche
filtered

[Anonymous No.17940635]

>>17940588
That's been my experience as well. My grandfather's half brother, an oxford grad/geophysicist/smart guy literally just let squirrels live in the cupboards for weeks and didn't say shit to my dad when they were living together. I don't know, but I don't think he was all that degenerate. He only ever had 1 girlfriend that he was autistically fixated on. Still kept a picture of her on his dresser decades after they broke up. Apparently he did good work though, and he's still alive, maybe.

Anyways, that's the end of my blogpost.

[Anonymous No.17940648]

>>17940635
The Jew fears the indoor squirrel farmer, anon.

[Anonymous No.17940667]

>>17940557
I'm glad that IQ is just something you can grow and develop like a crop.

[Anonymous No.17940673]

Do you watch Wisecrack videos on YouTube?

[Anonymous No.17940678]

>>17940377
You took the cheese but did not die, you little rat

[Anonymous No.17940698]

Read books on leadership and self leadership. Learn how to steer your life in the directions you want it to go.

Read "the pilgrims progress". It's a quick enjoyable read which presents the process of becoming a christian as a travelog.

[Anonymous No.17940721]

>>17940678
Suppose god did exist, you want to call him needy?

[Anonymous No.17940739]

Please read boring Greeks and work a stupid job. Nothing matters past the fact that you get some of those phrases in your head and you learn the workings of power.

[Anonymous No.17940753]

>>17940588
>Any opinion on non-technical/scientific matters provided by someone above 160 is automatically wrong.

It isn't wrong, it's coming from an alien worldview and set of experiences. Climb up the academic or technocratic ladder far enough and you will loose contact with the rest of humanity.

[Anonymous No.17940860]

>>17940667
>I'm glad that IQ is just something you can grow and develop like a crop.
What? It sure as fuck isn't.

[Anonymous No.17940866]

>>17940860
yes, (((they))) are harvesting your iq to power their superbrain

[Anonymous No.17940898]

>>17939196
date people or join clubs to meet friends. books are for girls and gays.

[Anonymous No.17941287]

Write a suicide note and then read it back

[Anonymous No.17941347]

>>17940106
>“The Courage to be Disliked”
>self help
NGMI

[Anonymous No.17941364]

>>17940860
If that is so, you can literally never understand philosophy because your IQ will forever be too low. If you can understand philosophy despite a low IQ, then IQ means very little, and we would also have to hold in doubt your other statements.

[Anonymous No.17941395]

>>17940667
yes and no
you can get much higher scores if you start solving iq tests regularly but your fluid intelligence remains the same

[Anonymous No.17941415]

>>17940074
That's why I'm recommending those baudrillard titles and not symbolic exchange and death

[Anonymous No.17941423]

>>17941415
>>17940074
also baudrillard is as foundational for fisher as d&g, but those titles are a lot easier to swallow than anti-oedipis or ATP

[Anonymous No.17941427]

>>17939196
DSM-5 LMAO

[Anonymous No.17941667]

>>17939196
Thus Spoke Zarathustra

[Anonymous No.17942155]

>>17939196
start with Fanged Noumena... lol, I can't do this, maybe OP is serious.

honestly something like this is perfect in that age, to open you up for accepting other points of view:
>>17939424
you should still be learning how to learn and change your mind.

and there is absolutely no shame in getting a textbook on history of philosophy (or just wikipedia page for that matter) just to get a vague view how ideas formed and changed through history and you can always zoom to an era/philosopher/trend that interests you to find out more.

if particular movement/philosopher is interesting to you, history and literature from the same period is great supplement to philosophy. being familiar with historical context and zeitgeist prevents your le spooks from using your knowledge for their own needs.

about recommending wikipedia unironically - in many cases (most French philosophers) there is no point in reading original texts at all, you can learn far more from articles and books about them. sounds like a pleb thing to do, but if you are interested in ideas and not in their writing style, this is the way to go. granted, sometimes style helps to understand ideas and sometimes style is more important than text itself, but those cases are not for beginners anyways.

[Anonymous No.17942180]

>>17939444
>Dealing professionally with biased information in the media, at some point Fomenko became obsessed with an idea that the entire history of mankind was skilfully falsified on purpose, and decided to apply the same methods he used during his contemporary studies to study ancient events. Thus, he simply ignores many written sources, as if they are biased media, and it is usual for the contemporary media to copy and reprint with minor copy editing some stories, originally published by the others, implying that if the original source is itself biased, then its renderings in other sources are no better, and multiplied by language barrier and broken telephone-effect they only add a confusion to already inaccurate picture.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Why does the rest of the wikipedia article portray him as some kind of pseudoscientist?