/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21376064]

>Why, yes, I did in fact just publish my 4th book, how could you tell?
>Yes, you can read it for free online, here's a link
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V3-yqqF_dgp2R6joben0D_WWMfNmGyEf5ETywg6SoJc/edit?usp=sharing

[Anonymous No.21376068]

>>21376064
>just publish my 4th book
>https://docs.google.com/
>publish

[Anonymous No.21376070]

>>21376068
You laugh but this is just the free version online, I actually did publish it in a physical format on amazon self publishing

[Anonymous No.21376103]

>>21376064
Congrats, anon. I’m not going to read your shitty Google docs book, but it’s pretty based you produced something of this magnitude.

Good for you. I mean that earnestly

[Anonymous No.21376107]

Post opening paragraph/first page

[Anonymous No.21376130]

>>21376107
INTRODUCTION
>On the general aim of this book.
>I called the following philosophical writings ramblings because they are not at all a comprehensive system of any sort. Rather they are a disconnected series of ideas, not ones which necessarily add up or combine into some overarching system. Nor do the collected writings here in some way tackle thoroughly some specific one idea. If that were the case, then I could have merely titled the book something related to whatever that one specific idea was. As it is, this book is an assortment of philosophical concepts I have had in the background of my idle thinking. Hence that is why I'm inclined to call this work philosophical ramblings. Because I undertake to write it as an excuse to do exactly that.
>However, to merely say that these are completely disconnected ideas would not do them justice. There are a few things which bind them. Firstly they are all my own, obviously enough. Although yes I absolutely stole them from a variety of different sources, I have spruced them up and changed them around and altered them enough so as to even forget myself where they originated from. In fact, I hope that all these various ideas have been changed around so much that it would be false to claim them as the ideas of their original inspirations. That said, I will mention the names of the philosophers which are relevant when applicable.

[Anonymous No.21376140]

>>21376130
Obfuscation is not the same as insight.

[Anonymous No.21376147]

>>21376140
Are you saying I wrote it in an obscure and hard to read way? I apologize, that was not at all my intention.

[Anonymous No.21376170]

>>21376130
You took two paragraphs to say what you should have put as a footnote. I'm not reading this.

[Anonymous No.21376179]

>>21376147
Strive for clarity. The preface seems superfluous, and is quite a bit if rambling to exemplify nothing concrete in relation to your actual thesis.

[Anonymous No.21376187]

It says I don't have access.

[Anonymous No.21376192]

>>21376130
>I called the following philosophical writings ramblings
stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.21376193]

>>21376187
Weird, here let me try and fix it.
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V3-yqqF_dgp2R6joben0D_WWMfNmGyEf5ETywg6SoJc/edit?usp=sharing
That should about fix it, and the original link should start working too

[Anonymous No.21376213]

>>21376064
I tried to read some of your book and it made me ANGRY

This phiolosophical stuff always boils down to the interpretation of words. LANGUAGE is AMBIGUOUS. It is a poor tool to try and say SPECIFIC things about natural phenomena or to try and state OBJECTIVE things about HUMAN EXPERIENCES

I'm so fucking angry right now!

[Anonymous No.21376218]

>>21376213
I mis-spelt philosophical that's how unhinged reading your "book" made me

[Anonymous No.21376595]

13k words isn't much of a book.
More like a long essay.

[Anonymous No.21377342]

>>21376064
>Book
Ahh yes, I love 27 page books.

[Anonymous No.21377552]

>>21376064
>27 pages

[Anonymous No.21377619]

>>21376213
Formal languages are described and created through natural language, so thus science and math would need to be insufficient by your criteria. Saying language is ambiguous is reductionist because it completely abstracts away differences in ambiguity in different sections of language, which is relevant if we want to take the clearest part of language and use it to describe phenomena.

[Anonymous No.21377671]

>>21376192
exactly the same, me

[Anonymous No.21378463]

>>21376064
This is genuine aids

[Anonymous No.21378479]

>>21376064
This is fucking terrible, but what really hurts is the fact that it looks like something i would write. Fuck me.

[Anonymous No.21378631]

>>21376064
Some actual constructive criticism:

I read the first few pages, Anon. You've got a pretty solid writing style, at least by todays standards. Keep that up.

>they are a disconnected series of ideas, not ones which necessarily add up or combine into some overarching system

^In all honesty, if you could somehow wrap these writings together, or at least include the ones with an overarching theme, you could very well write a decent modern philosophy book.
Otherwise all the reader has is exactly what you have stated in your intro, ramblings. The ramblings of some random dude. Why should I, as a reader, care about some dudes ramblings? I recommend you bring it all together, with a summary of some sorts, then you could very well have something good.

I hope this helps OP, or anyone else reading this.

[Anonymous No.21379151]

>>21376064
bump for original content