/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19553644]

I didn't expect this to be so mindblowing.

[Anonymous No.19553658]

Did you used the book on itself?

[Anonymous No.19553675]

>>19553644
can someone post that infographic of "learn to learn pill" ?

[Anonymous No.19553687]

>>19553644
Meh, never bothered reading it

[Anonymous No.19553789]

>>19553644
Just read the wiki page

[Anonymous No.19554235]

Don't just read the wiki page anon, it leaves out far too much to be a replacement for reading the actual book. The people who wrote it didn't pay close enough attention to the importance of understanding a book's structure and approximating that structure towards recursive perfection in the article, otherwise the article would be more complete. For a start, they might bother explaining what what the first and second levels of reading are and their steps. They include the reading list, which is nice, but not as important as the main subject matter of the book.

[Anonymous No.19554258]

>>19553644
For fuck's sake, how many threads about this damn book are we going to keep having ?

[Anonymous No.19554308]

>>19554258
Since it's a good book I imagine quite a lot.

[Anonymous No.19554366]

>>19553644
Is there an audiobook version so I can get started?

[Anonymous No.19554372]

>>19554258
Weclome to /lit/ newfriend

[Anonymous No.19554469]

>>19554235
I looked around for a few seconds and found this site, which is much better than the wiki article and may even be sufficient information-wise.
But a reader who refused to practice the skills with How to Read a Book itself would be disserving themselves because the book itself is structured well enough to work with (which may not be the case for the book you want to shortcut through Alder to read), your book probably won't be as prescriptive about correct apprehension even if it is a good/great book, it has some interesting insights about reading and why we read for knowledge you might not get in the book you want to hurry to, and you deny yourself the practice of understanding the book in your own terms.
Use this at your own expense:

https://fs.blog/how-to-read-a-book/

[Anonymous No.19554500]

>>19553675
this?

[Anonymous No.19554538]

Jesus fuckign Christ what a cuck of a reading list.

"You know, like, every overrated surviving greek text and then every pretentious asshole who's name gets dropped in philosophical discussions? Just read literally fucking all of those, even the especially shitty ones."

[Anonymous No.19554566]

>>19553687
>define the problem the author tries to solve
Well I think Telemachus wants to kill all these suitors and wants to solve it by killing them

[Anonymous No.19554619]

>>19554566
if you're honest with yourself, most of the time the author's problem is that they're bored, neurotic, and need money to live but don't want to do work. for shitty books, the problem is that they feel stupid and are trying to feel smart by writing a book.

[Anonymous No.19554694]

>>19554500
There's another too I've been looking for

[Anonymous No.19554850]

>>19554694
It's this then

[Anonymous No.19556378]

>>19554500
>>19554850
The only field I'm an autodidact on is mathematics, i have successful grades and I study atleast 4 hours of mathematics every day with textbooks and youtube videos. This along reading Russian literature. I also have good habits.

I don't view myself as in need of external help but is there anything these books can help me with?

[Anonymous No.19556386]

>>19553644
Ironically Adler should have read 'How to write a book' first - the main thrust of his work could be summed up in about 20 pages instead of him waffling interminably for 300

[Anonymous No.19556858]

>>19553644
Yeah it does fill a gap in today's education. It needs a dumber, more modern version though, too many get filtered by it.

[Anonymous No.19556866]

>>19556858
It needs some better chapters too. That "Science" part was a disappointment. The philosophy one, isn't that bad, but was underwhelming.

[Anonymous No.19557036]

>>19554694
this?

[Anonymous No.19557214]

>>19556866
>That "Science" part was a disappointment.
True, his take on the worthlessness of labwork and belief in the boundless teaching potential of the Great Books shows that he has limited understanding of other fields. It's definitely crucial for philosophy, but I'm pretty sure you can be a top mathematician without ever reading the OG Euclid as well as a top physiologist without ever reading the OG Harvey. It's true that nobody can teach you Kant better than Kant himself, but Lavoisier's experiments can be explained by others just as well or even better.