[ 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: 38 KB, 719x720, considertheff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2996758 No.2996758[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Does anybody else find literature incredibly puerile and shallow, after having studied philosophy?

>> No.2996760

no because i do a real degree

>> No.2996766

No, I still find literature to be the best way to convey a philosophy.

For not everyone can recognize a good philosophy, or wether they want to follow it.

Everyone can recognize a good story though, as it's something we've been practicing since primeval times.

>> No.2996783

I do feel slightly that way when I'm reading fictional literature yes. I do it any way because I love it.

It's kind of unsurprising really. Much of /lit/ feels strongly against some types of literature (genre fiction) presumably because they've encountered more difficult literature which the find more important. It follows a similar logic to what you're saying OP.

I actually feel that my time is spent more productively when i'm watching (non-mainstream) cinema oddly enough despite the prestige factor generally dictating literature > film. I do both in equal measure.

>> No.2996798

No. It's still amusing to me.

>> No.2996799

>>2996760
Not OP, but you can self study philosophy and do other degree meanwhile.

Regarding OP post: somewhat, BUT philosophy is literature as well, especially if you don't attend collage for that. Second thing is that it really depends on the author, some can write great story which is simultaneously really deep on many levels not only storywise.

>> No.2996800

No, quite the opposite.

I only got into literature after studying philosophy.

>> No.2996837
File: 49 KB, 470x341, 1345358278830.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2996837

>>2996758
>literature
Some examples, please, because I get the feeling you're working with a limited definition.
>philosophy
Since when is literature not, in a way, applied philosophy?
>puerile and shallow
Isn't it the world-view contained within the work that is shallow?

>>2996783
The mpression I get from so-called alternative cinema is that is above all edgy, and secondly naive in the message it's trying to convey. It's as if the form is unable to give nuance to either an explicitly humanistic world-view or a preposterously nihilistic one (pic related, Lynch manages to combine them into an interesting mix, but it's still a play on their black-and-white nature). Could you give me some examples of films you felt were worth watching again?

>> No.2996871

No.

Literature makes philosophy seem puerile and shallow.

>> No.2996879

they're both quite different from each other.
i don't know why your perception of one would influence your perception of the other.

>> No.2996880

*Does anybody else find philosophy incredibly puerile and shallow, after having studied Physics?

>> No.2996882

>>2996837
Not the anon yer talking to, but try any of Tarkovsky's films (I recommend Stalker)

>> No.2996901

Does anybody else find philosophy incredibly puerile and shallow, after having studied philosophy?

>> No.2996932
File: 174 KB, 421x506, laughing_tears_man.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2996932

>>2996901

Yes.

>>2996880

>hard sciences
>not even shittier

>> No.2996946

>>2996932
>science
>not the only thing worth studying to degree level

don't touch me you filthy serf

>> No.2996950

It really depends on the literature and what it's trying to convey.