/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19089390]

>YOU'RE WRONG I STUDIED THIS IN COLLEGE

[Anonymous No.19089437]

>>19089390
Do not argue.

[Anonymous No.19089494]

>>19089390
As a college textbook OP's impression of the book was boring and he didn't enjoy it. So, he failed the book, the writer, and fellow /lit/ anons.

[Anonymous No.19089499]

>>19089390
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.19089500]

>>19089494
It's usually the people who go to college who have shitty hot takes about the classics.
t. OP

[Anonymous No.19089504]

>trust the science

[Anonymous No.19089514]

>>19089390
>YOU'RE WRONG I READ A GREAT EFFORTPOST MADE BY SOME AANON AND HE DISAGREES

[Anonymous No.19089760]

>it's the academic consensus

[Anonymous No.19089808]

>NOOOOOOOOOOO ACADEMIA HAS FALLEN. LOOK AT WHAT THIS LITERAL WHO ON TWITTER IS SAYING

[Anonymous No.19089880]

>>19089390
>read the wikipedia for 1984 and watched a video review
>when it gets brought up say I don't like it and it's trash
>people try to dispute it
>they can't because books are all subjective
>"n-no you can't say it's not politically relevant and is boring and poorly written it's one of the greatest books of all time"
>instantly filters most people
it's actually a very useful thing because you can do it for almost all media regarded as good or incredible though it only works IRL because people online are much more dishonest but it's still useful because I think two huge red flags are
>they can't tell if you've watched/read the media being talked about
>they can't accept that you could dislike something universally seen as good

[Anonymous No.19089884]

>>19089390
This is absolutely true for STEM

[Anonymous No.19089894]

>>19089390
The T-A-S explanation is not the most nuanced explanation of Hegelian dialectics, but it is serviceable and illustrative. Lectures are not really meant to be 1:1 representations of the texts themselves, otherwise they would be redundant, but rather they try to present the contents of those texts in a way that is more accessible and comprehensible to newcomers, so that they can later deepen their understanding by actually doing the assigned readings.

On the internet people are too quick to point out that "actually, X never said Y, instead they said Z, and if you believe they said Y, you and your professor are incompetent idiots" because it makes them feel smart, but they are missing the point entirely. Even if your understanding of Hegel is not yet at its most nuanced, you are better equipped to read his works and understand his general line of thinking than most people (including redditors who regurgitate explanations they read from other redditors).

The same can be said about the run-of-the-mill expositions of Plato's Allegory of the Cave or Nietzsche's Übermensch. They're obviously not exhaustive but they get the point across for you to then read more or attend more advanced lectures in the future.

[Anonymous No.19089930]

>>19089880
This is why I never debate someone in earnest if they can't clearly demonstrate they've actually read or understood the material. I always ask for specifics and don't get them 99% of the time.

[Anonymous No.19089950]

>>19089880

I haven't read 1984, but Brave New World is insanely badly written I couldn't even get through it.

[Anonymous No.19089983]

>>19089760
Bros, how does one argue against this without coming off as stubborn know-it-all?

[Anonymous No.19090002]

>>19089983
>so we should never question or challenge consensus?

[Anonymous No.19090006]

>>19089983
>>19090002
Usually by looking up a recent review article on the topic (NOTE NOT BOOK REVIEW) in a high standing journal, reading the article, and then citing it to prove the unread cunt wrong.

You know.

By reading.

[Anonymous No.19090221]

>>19089983
You can't.

[Anonymous No.19090863]

>>19089983
You don't argue against academic consensus, you disprove it. It's genuinely as simple as proving that you're right, if you can't do that maybe you aren't right

[Anonymous No.19090892]

>>19089390
I have a friend who is an english major and its impossible to talk about books around him because he always barges in to "let us know" everything about the book and all the real meanings and "correct interpretations" and its impossible to disagree with him because "muh english major" and "muh academics" and shit

[Anonymous No.19090959]

>I'm right because I independently deduced it by applying a priori pure reasoning

[Anonymous No.19090988]

>>19089884
It's absolutely true for anything that has any actual depth or significance
But this is the schizo/pseud board
Non est disputandum