/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3227641]

Just finished reading this. Its by far one of the best novels I've read. Discuss and what's your opinion on this book /lit/?

[Anonymous No.3227651]

Enjoyable reading through and through. But being a philosophy student I have to say that the philosophical value of the book - taken by itself - is highly dubious.

[Anonymous No.3227655]

>>3227651
>phil undergrad thinks himself qualified to diss nietzsche

smdh

[Anonymous No.3227658]

>>3227651
Suggestions for further reading? Philosophy specific. It has been my main interest after having read this.

[Anonymous No.3227661]

>>3227655
>Undergrad

Nope.

[Anonymous No.3227669]

I don't have any reason to pick up Nietzsche right now, I'm not even done with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.3227684]

>>3227658
Well the philosophical commentary written on the book is very flat at best but I'd recommend looking into the other Nietzsche classics (Beyond Good and Evil, Human, All too Human and especially Twilight of the Idols gives a good outlook on his though) and reading some more comprehensive commentarys that touch on his whole ouvre.

[Anonymous No.3227689]

>>3227651
Haha you don't know shit.

2deep4u

[Anonymous No.3227701]

>>3227684
What about Kierkegaard? I've been suggested that but haven't looked into all that much. Nietzche's personal philosophy has been my faborite so far but any recommendation on Greek philosopher's or others in general?

[Anonymous No.3227703]

>>3227661
so much worse for you

[Anonymous No.3227719]

>>3227641
>best novels
>>>>>>>>NOVEL
It's like calling Die Vrage nach die Techniek a novel, or 1984 a political essay.

>>3227651
Have you even read Von den Hinterweltlern seriously? That is one of the most profound texts I have ever encountered. As a fellow Philosophy student i call bullshit on this one.

[Anonymous No.3227730]

>>3227651
>>3227719
Duel !

[Anonymous No.3227743]

>>3227730
Spinoza, I choose you!
(The only rationalist who was consequent until the end, opposed to that cowardly poof René).

[Anonymous No.3227747]

>>3227719
Yeah, I realized I called it a novel after I posted. But thanks for the suggestion. Any others?

[Anonymous No.3227755]

>>3227743
>The only rationalist who was consequent until the end
>Spinoza

that's an odd way of spelling Kant

[Anonymous No.3227862]

>>3227755
>calling Kant a rationalist
>not knowing Kant brought empricism and rationalism together

I'll draw you a rough scetch:
{ Locke -> Hume;
Descartes -> Spinoza;
} Kant

[Anonymous No.3227876]

>>3227862
lel what?

rationalists { descartes, spinoza, liebniz, kant
empiricists { locke, berkeley, hume

[Anonymous No.3227896]

Utter shit, Nietzsche was the Prince of Edgy. Ideas like the Ubermensch are pretty obviously just extrapolations based on the fallacy that species somehow advance in a linear progression. This is incontrovertibly untrue. He says we become ubermensch via self mastery, but we never stop, we just continue self mastering... what happens at the end? It's total bullshit. I feel sorry for the guy and honestly don't know how or why he got the reputation that he did.

Ps. I am being deliberately controversial in order to stoke debate.

[Anonymous No.3227898]

>>3227862
Kant tried and failed to bring empiricism and rationalism together.

[Anonymous No.3227905]

>>3227898
>Kant tried and failed to bring empiricism and rationalism together.
>failed

how so?
>principles endeTyp

[Anonymous No.3227908]

>>3227876
Have you ever heard of synthetic, a priori arguments? They are the ultimate bringing-together of empiricism (synthetic, a posteriori arguments) and rationalism (analytical, a priori arguments). Learn yor basic philosophy, boy. kant thought of them. You wouldn't find any philosopher claiming Kant was a rationalist, without also claiming he had large empiricist influences.
Well, what should I expect, debating /phi/ on /lit/. Let's all get back to our novels.

[Anonymous No.3227911]

>>3227905
>>3227908
>synthetic, a priori arguments

Don't exist.

Not to mention that Quine brought the whole thing down.

[Anonymous No.3227924]

>>3227908
>You wouldn't find any philosopher claiming Kant was a rationalist

The philosopher that wrote this article on Rationalism thinks differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

[Anonymous No.3227934]

>>3227911
>Not to mention that Quine brought the whole thing down.

no, he didn't

>Don't exist.

your evidence?

[Anonymous No.3227938]

>>3227934
>no, he didn't

lel

Keep being delusional, kid.

[Anonymous No.3227940]

>>3227911
Quine didn't. Sayings like: "there is time" or "there is place" are perfect examples of synthetic, a priori arguments. They are not derived from any definitions and add some knowledge, without that knowledge being gained from some sort of experience. Time and place form the basis of our experience, are the kind of format used to store experience in (so one could say), and are therefore not gained by experiencing anything. Experiencing anything already implies the existence of time and space, Kant claims.

>>3227924
Wikipedia? Don't make me laugh. Read this instead: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/
Second sentence: "He synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism, set the terms for much of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, and continues to exercise a significant influence today in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields."
Come on people, is all your philosophical knowledge based on wikipedia articles?

[Anonymous No.3227945]

>>3227940
>They are not derived from any definitions
>without that knowledge being gained from some sort of experience

If neither definitions or experience are required to derive those sentences, would a newborn agree with them if you asked it?

[Anonymous No.3227952]

>>3227911
Wasn't Quines claim that it is not possible to clearly formulate a method of distinction without becoming circular, rather than claiming the non existence.

[Anonymous No.3227960]

>>>1984 a political essay.

B. . b... but it would have been better as a political essay.

>>>Ideas like the Ubermensch are pretty obviously just extrapolations based on the fallacy that species somehow advance in a linear progression

"Zarathustra: I mean, as an "idealistic" type of a higher kind of human being, half "saint," half "genius." Other scholarly oxen have suspected me of Darwinism in this connection. Even the "hero worship" of that great unconscious and involuntary counterfeiter, Carlyle, which I repudiate so maliciously, has been read into it"

- Nietzsche

Notice his prodigious use of scare quotes. He uses "idealistic" in scare quotes to distinguish between philosophical idealism and "common sense" idealism. The mixture of saint and genius is an interesting one as it joins mercurial intelligence to moral purity, and yet it is supposedly the overman who is supposed to annihilate morality. Not all morality, the hypocritical Christian morality whose logical result is nihilism.

[Anonymous No.3227959]

>>3227952
Well, talking about the existence of concepts that we are unable to define is rather pointless.

[Anonymous No.3227956]

>>3227940
>Come on people, is all your philosophical knowledge based on wikipedia articles?

>The philosopher that wrote this article on Rationalism thinks differently.
>The philosopher
>Wikipedia

[Anonymous No.3227958]

>>3227945
Yes, they form the framework of our mind and perception, something universal to all humans, said the classical Kant. They are true a priori, so the newborn (assuming he would understand what the hell you were saying) would agree.

[Anonymous No.3227965]

>>3227958
>assuming he would understand

You literally just assumed one of your conclusions is true. Are you retarded or do you think I am?

[Anonymous No.3227968]

sorry for offtopic, but didn't want to start a new thread:
i remember there being some website that archived all the threads on lit, can anyone link it?
thanks

[Anonymous No.3227982]

>>3227965
He would have an idea of time and place without being able to understand language, that's my point. Are you deliberately provoking me with feigned retardation, or can you really count to potato?

[Anonymous No.3227988]

>>3227684
>Beyond Good and Evil

>mah_nigga.jpg
second favorite after Thus

[Anonymous No.3227994]

>>3227896
why would you add the P. S. you fucking ruined the whole thing you fucking tardface, goddamit you're so fucking stupid!?

[Anonymous No.3227995]

>>3227988
baby hasn't read the geneology of morals

laffinelves.gif

[Anonymous No.3228007]

>>3227896
i didn't think ubermensch was teleological, nor evolutionist

i thought he was talking about a state of mind

that said, i think ubermensch and will to power are his most disposable ideas

[Anonymous No.3228010]

>>3227968
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/
Ur welcome anon.

[Anonymous No.3228015]

>>3227995
I'm a fuckin' angry baby now bitch. What's that? Just because you've read some fucking book you think you're better than me?! I'll have you know I'm a goddamn college dropout, but I'm still smarter than you any day of the week. I live my life to the fullest. I don't waste it reading boring long books. I like the book I mentioned because it's fucking good and short, like any normal human wants. You useless piles of brain who sit at your seats all day and read bullshit without actually doing anything. You should just end your life now, You'll contribute more to society.

[Anonymous No.3228017]

>>3227995
>>3228015
on a side note. Should I read geneology or an analysis of Thus. I'm really not sure what to go with next.

[Anonymous No.3228018]

>>3228010

thanks!

[Anonymous No.3228024]

>>3228015
>>>/psychiatric_hospital/

[Pretentious No.3228031]

>I like Nietzsche's shit because his rhetoric supports my power fantasies

[Anonymous No.3228037]

>>3228024
>doesn't know a may-may when he see one

do you even browse?

Probably too busy reading the next phil paper to get ahead in the rat race.

[Anonymous No.3228047]

>>3228017
Go for genealogy.
Make your own opinion.
Then read analysis.

[Anonymous No.3228063]

>>3228047
That pic.
Saved.

[Anonymous No.3228068]

>>3228037
>rat race.
>implying i could give a glorious winged fuck about rat race
>implying food, shelter and water isn't enough to sustain my material manifestation

you, on the other hand, are probably too busy stroking your abandoned head as you're having a difficult time deciding whether you should update your iphone to 9G or buy that newly manufactured gadget called an Adradiond 360

[Anonymous No.3228090]

OP here.. I just wanted philosophy book suggestions..

[Anonymous No.3228117]

>>3228090
Zarathustra is baby-tier. You might want to check the sticky.

[Anonymous No.3228155]

>>3228068
>implying I use a smartphone

Please, I have my iPad, netbook, desktop, and dumbphone, That's all I need. enjoy your superior minimalism. I will be enjoying the many constructs and features of our higher existence.

[Anonymous No.3228175]

>>3227896
Some of the craftiest of trolls come here.

Stay away from this one, lads

[Anonymous No.3228188]

>>3228090
Maybe it would help if you could further specify what you expect, or is "like zarathustra" the criteria?

[Anonymous No.3228241]

>>3228090
People are going to come with the obvious suggestions. You need to have read the Greeks first, basic understanding of Kant and Hegel and then probably read Schopenhauer.

The Greeks are great to read, but I think Kant and Schopenhauer can be quite a mouthful, if your goal is just to read Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. And Hegel is, for me at least, so difficult to understand that just reading ABOUT his writing, is better than reading his writings.

To delve deeper into the ideas Nietzsche expresses, you might want to start with reading The Republic. Nietzsches whole revolt is against Platonism. (keep in mind, Plato's cave allegory was a revolt of the homeric religion expressed in the Odyssey).

Then you can either read works about Nietzsche, there are some great bits in Hannah Arendts book about tradition and religion, or you can just read Nietzsche straight on.

The Genealogy expresses his thoughts pretty clearly, else read Beyong Good and Evil, Human all too Human, and most importantly Twillight of the Idols. I would leave Antichrist till the end.

There is a book called How To Read: Nietzsche, i would advice you to buy it.

>if you want a thread about suggestions, i suggest you make a new one and link it here.

[Anonymous No.3228251]

>>3228241

I am very tired /lit/, i am sorry for any errors and also if i came off as if i had any substantial knowledge. I just tried to respond to OP.

[Anonymous No.3228284]

>>3228090
There's a great stanford class online (audio only) that follows through one of Kierkegaard's books. I can't remember the title, but it's a really great listen and covers a lot of his stuff quit well. It also gets into some heidegger after that if I remember. It's something like existential philosophy, I can't remember. Good intro to Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.3228302]

>>3228284
I would love if there was room on lit for elaborate discussions of Kierkegaard and the existentialist tradition. Either, the space on /lit/ is used up by troll may-may threads, or when discussions actually do arise, elitist jerks start shouting nonsensical things about how other peoples views and interests are wrong.

Which book of Kierkegaard was it? Fear and Trembling would be optimal, Either-Or would also make it well for an introduction

[Anonymous No.3228328]

>>3228302
It was Fear and Trembling. I sadly didn't read much of the book while listening to the class, I was basically just working all day and listening to the class-cast. Really an excellent lecturer, I'm sure it helped that the topic he was covering was so deep.

That book was what turned me off of my ignorant hatred of christian philosophy.

>when discussions actually do arise, elitist jerks start shouting nonsensical things about how other peoples views and interests are wrong.

I find it difficult to do here in /lit/ but on other boards once you have a good understanding of the subject matter it's not too hard to get rid of those people, or get them into an actual discussion. On subjective topics it can be quite hard though.

[Anonymous No.3228346]

>>3228302
you are so not anon. It's disgusting. Get a trip or something.

[Anonymous No.3228413]

>>3228346
I am sorry
;_;
>>3228328
>That book was what turned me off of my ignorant hatred of christian philosophy.

Are you me? I read Hitchens, Harris and Dennet when younger, I really needed Kierkegaard (and a later study of philosophy) to get rid of the arrogant and puerile view i had of religion in general. Sadly, I think i am unable to do the leap of faith.

I read F&T twice, gave it to my aunt last christmas, and bought it for my mother this christmas. My aunt is getting some Camus this christmas, slowly educating my family.

I think the 'greatest' moments of existentialism are when you get ideas and interpretations of your own, formed from texts itself or helped by other peoples interpretations. I think we need a /phi/ board, because /lit/ is so attached to posts being related to books.

[Anonymous No.3230564]

>>3228413
A more accurate translation would be "leap TO faith," not "leap of faith." You can do it just as easily as you can do anything else; that is to say, not very easily. life never stops being hard, kid. but once you make it, it sure will be easier to deal with.