Good evening /lit/, I'm looking at getting into Continental Philosophy, starting this summer. Question: should I learn German and/or French before I even try to do this?

File: 48 KB, 318x460, Martin_Heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:13:07 2013 No.4223309 [DELETED]

Good evening /lit/,

I'm looking at getting into Continental Philosophy, starting this summer.

Question: should I learn German and/or French before I even try to do this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:16:07 2013 No.4223315 GERMAN GERMAN FOR THE LOVE OF FUCKING GOD, GERMAN STAY AWAY FROM THE FRENCH

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:18:07 2013 No.4223317 >>4223315 Care to explain why? And what I mean is, is it really important to avoid reading an English translation and read the works in their original languages instead?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:20:07 2013 No.4223318 >>4223309 you can just read in english... don't bother learning german if you're just getting started. also, idk if you could learn german fast enough.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:21:07 2013 No.4223320 >>4223318 This is the thing: >>4223317 I'm really uncertain as to whether it is okay to read just in English.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:23:06 2013 No.4223324

>>4223320
you're eventually going to want to consult the german if you want to be an "expert," but you're just getting started, so just stick with english. two questions: 1.) what have you read in philosophy so far? and 2.) do you think you'd actually be able to learn german before summer?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:28:06 2013 No.4223328 >>4223315 germans are the gold standard for continental philosophy, but the french aren't THAT bad.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:29:06 2013 No.4223329

>>4223324

Well, obviously I won't learn German before summer, and I didn't mean to imply I would try to. I meant that I would start learning German if an English translation is just going to mislead me (seeing as there is no such thing as direct translation).

I've read a great deal of English language philosophy, such Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Russell, Moore, Quine, Searle, Putnam, Kripke, Davidson, and so on.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:33:07 2013 No.4223330

>>4223329
ok yeah i would just start with english. the translations are fine, not ideal, but they won't totally mislead you or anything. don't invest time in german yet, but if you find you really enjoy it, then go ahead and learn it. you don't know if you like german philosophy yet, so don't jump the gun.

just make sure you also have a decent background in premodern philosophy as well as early modern "continental" stuff (descartes, leibniz, spinoza). then go in chronological order, because everybody relies on the people who came before them. kant is sort of the "beginning." if you like critique of pure reason, then you'll probably be good to go.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:34:07 2013 No.4223331 >>4223330 >they won't totally mislead you or anything. How do you know?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:37:06 2013 No.4223334 >>4223331 because nobody actually thinks they will but ok learn german then who the fuck cares

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:41:06 2013 No.4223339

>>4223334

Excuse me for not wanting to waste a great deal of time reading some translator's facile and unreflective interpretation of Kant/Hegel/Nietzsche/Heidegger.

I just want to know if anybody can give me some reasons not to be concerned about this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:43:06 2013 No.4223341 >>4223339 why don't you make sure you can get through the first critique first

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:44:07 2013 No.4223342 >>4223339 You already know English, so study mathematics and physics and you won't have to worry about what Kant, Hegel and Heidegger think. Nietzsche you can still enjoy, since he's artful.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:45:07 2013 No.4223343

>>4223341

What do you mean by "get through"? Obviously you don't mean "read it", because anybody can do that. But if you mean "understand it", well, I don't think interpretation of a text is ever complete, so it would just be a matter of patience w/r/t "getting through" Kant.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:47:07 2013 No.4223345

>>4223342

If I read Nietzsche in translation I'll have to live with not having "really read" Nietzsche.

Unless someone here can offer me a solution that would make it acceptable to read an English translation of any foreign language work.

And how do maths and physics refute Kant etc.?

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:54:06 2013 No.4223360

>>4223345

It wasn't so much that those subjects refute them, but rather are more interesting and rewarding than their speculative system building ;). If you want refutation, read Schopenhauer -- then read Nietzsche. In translation is fine; of course some nuance is lost. but language isn't porcelain anyway; we're all human, and these are all still Indo-European languages you're talking about, so the concepts don't diverge that fantastically so as to be completely misconstrued or misunderstood.

I admit, the math/phys thing was sort of a joke, but not the Schopenhauer part.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 03:57:06 2013 No.4223364 >>4223360 >so the concepts don't diverge that fantastically so as to be completely misconstrued or misunderstood. Unless I actually translate it for myself there is absolutely no way for me to know this.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:06:43 2013 No.4223384

>>4223364
If you think you're going to be able to accomplish this in isolation anyway, I'm hopeful for your Platonic definition of knowledge, but fearful for your progress. There's simply too much to try to grasp without an enormous background in philosophy (as some previous posters mentioned) and supplementary commentary--and you can seek out that which pertains specifically to translation. So the German word 'geist' has many possible English translations? Ok: evoke them all in your understanding of Hegel. By which I mean, show a bit of faith in the scholarship of the translators, and show a bit of iconoclasm in accepting the other possibilities than the one so chosen. Is it Schopenhauer's World as Will and Idea, or World as Will and Representation? Lacan (who I would not normally want to invoke) used the metaphor of the Mobius strip for the signification of words, and it fits the bill in this circumstance I think.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:07:44 2013 No.4223388 >>4223384 Just as a little add-on -- I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that not every great continental philosopher learned ancient Greek so that they could read Plato, but that didn't stop them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:11:44 2013 No.4223394 >>4223384 >World as Will and Idea, or World as Will and Representation The only answer is neither, and this is why it's a bad idea to read translated text.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:12:44 2013 No.4223398 >>4223394 You could say neither, or you could say both.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:12:45 2013 No.4223399

>>4223345

Nietzsche wrote in his last book that he prefer to read schopy in french lol

"n. In this France of intellect, which is also
the France of pessimism, Schopenhauer is already much more
at home than he ever was in Germany, his principal work has
already been translated twice, and the second time so excellently
that now I prefer to read Schopenhauer in French (—he was
an accident among Germans, just as I am—the Germans have no fingers wherewith to grasp us; they haven't any fingers at
all,—but only claws)."

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:15:44 2013 No.4223402 >>4223399 also apparently german students like to read kant in english, because it's easier translations may not represent the intention of the author, but they can be pretty great regardless

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:15:45 2013 No.4223401 >>4223317 german existentialism is manly french existentialism is gay

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:16:44 2013 No.4223404

>>4223398

No, not both. Neither. Translation is subjectively made up by the translator.

On the other hand, this: >>4223399 makes me consider the possibility that it would be alright to read English translations. It just means that I would have to give up on caring what the authors actually meant. Which, then again, leads me to wonder why bother reading philosophy at all if there's no meaning there.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:17:44 2013 No.4223408 >>4223399 what happened Nietzsche?, you used to be cool

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:17:45 2013 No.4223410 >>4223404 like seriously this is not that big of a deal lol. a lot of philosophers read other philosophers in translation, translators are great scholars (usually, and if they aren't, you'll hear about it).

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:17:45 2013 No.4223411 >>4223401 Danish existentialism is despairing.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:20:45 2013 No.4223418

>>4223410

It is a big deal. From where I stand, I don't even have a definite way to interpret the posts you are making. How do I even know you are a real person?

How do I know that the books that have "Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant" on the cover aren't actually all different books on the inside?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:21:45 2013 No.4223420 >>4223404 derrida would think it was cute if people were worried about reading the 'original derrida'

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:21:45 2013 No.4223421 >>4223418 >It is a big deal. From where I stand, I don't even have a definite way to interpret the posts you are making. How do I even know you are a real person? omg boring epistemological problems please give up on the foundational quest

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:21:45 2013 No.4223422
File: 40 KB, 424x168, ScreenHunter_04 Oct. 29 01.19.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4223410
%100 agreed. Here's a little snippet I came across the other day which coincidentally bears some scant relation to the argument at hand.

Sidenote: it never hurts to learn languages anyway OP, so have at 'er. But the decipherment of some of history's most complex texts is hardly where it's going to matter most for you; at least not for a long, long, long long time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:22:44 2013 No.4223426 >>4223418 You know there's not only one translation right? You can easily find 3 or 4 different translation of any popular book about philosophy just with google....

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:22:44 2013 No.4223427 >>4223422 >of why?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:24:44 2013 No.4223428 >>4223421 I don't know what you mean by "foundational quest", and there is no determinate way I can interpret that expression to derive any meaning from your post.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:26:45 2013 No.4223429

>>4223428
the foundational request refers to the attempt to have epistemology be "first philosophy," meaning the belief (loosely beginning with descartes) that to do philosophy at all we have to solve boring epistemological puzzles like the one you just posted

of course, you have to give up on it because it is impossible to accomplish

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:26:45 2013 No.4223430

>>4223427
Cuz them there are centuries old problems with a great deal more nuance than an introduction to these ideas needs be concerned with. Sure, they're important, but you oughtn't worry about how you're going to attack the summit when you don't know the layout of the land.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:27:44 2013 No.4223435 >>4223429 There is no determinate way for me interpret any of what you just posted. I don't know what you mean.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:27:45 2013 No.4223433 >>4223429 >request lolme

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:28:44 2013 No.4223437 >>4223435 what don't you understand exactly

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:30:45 2013 No.4223439 >>4223437 Sentences.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:32:45 2013 No.4223443 >>4223439 tell me true: have you actually read anything by davidson or quine? or have you just read an essay for them in phil 100?

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:33:45 2013 No.4223444

>>4223439
Herp. Derp. Continental philosophy sounds like it will suit you just perfectly, since you seem to enjoy spiralling down the drain towards the past. Just accept that language can communicate ideas, but that its precision is a matter for serious discussion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:36:31 2013 No.4223450 >>4223444 >Just accept that language can communicate ideas Which language?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:37:31 2013 No.4223453 >>4223450 how old are you and what books have you actually read

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:38:31 2013 No.4223455 >>4223450 Seems like perhaps whom you ought to read is Chomsky. And not his political philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:39:31 2013 No.4223457 >>4223450 all of them m8 it's why we came up with them

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:41:30 2013 No.4223461 >>4223453 >what books have you actually read None, they were all translations.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:42:30 2013 No.4223464 this thread is a trainwreck

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:42:30 2013 No.4223466 >>4223457 Can you recommend a braille translation of Sein und Zeit, please?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:43:30 2013 No.4223468 File: 53 KB, 400x268, ketamine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4223461 Arright. Time to go do some serious philosophy instead. Pic related.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:43:30 2013 No.4223469 >>4223466 braille isn't a language

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:44:30 2013 No.4223471 >>4223461 op pls be srs

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:45:31 2013 No.4223472 >>4223469 KJjsdggndafg sdiofe we o s d so dfjd l s

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:47:31 2013 No.4223475 >>4223472 op pls

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:50:30 2013 No.4223483 >>4223475 Maybe you can tell me about authors to AVOID reading in translation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:50:30 2013 No.4223485 >>4223483 op what have you read pls answer with actual books

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:54:19 2013 No.4223491

>>4223485

Tintin in the Land of the Soviets
Tintin in the Congo
Tintin in America
Cigars of the Pharaoh
The Blue Lotus
The Broken Ear
The Black Island
King Ottokar's Sceptre
The Crab with the Golden Claws
The Shooting Star
The Secret of the Unicorn
Red Rackham's Treasure
The Seven Crystal Balls
Prisoners of the Sun
Land of Black Gold
Destination Moon
Explorers on the Moon
The Calculus Affair
The Red Sea Sharks
Tintin in Tibet
The Castafiore Emerald
Flight 714
Tintin and the Picaros
Tintin and Alph-Art

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:55:33 2013 No.4223494 >>4223309 ABORT EJECT GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN MAN

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 04:56:33 2013 No.4223496 >>4223491 dis guy

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:06:33 2013 No.4223516

>>4223309
I think you don't have to learn German for getting an understanding of German Philosophy. Today, there are good translations to English and considering the language used by Kant, Heidegger, even Hegel, you would have to learn for a very long time to be able to get into the texts yourself. Even the average native German speaker (like me a few years ago) won't get a single paragraph of Kant/Hegel/Heidegger, because they are so idiosyncratic.

My advise would be to read these works in a good translation and then do a bit of internet searching to find the German terms for important conecpts: Geist, Dasein, etc.

I can't imagine there would be any significant gain in reading these works in German. The only reason would be the poetic beauty of their writings (especially Heidegger), but I guess that's not why you want to read philosophy in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:17:33 2013 No.4223530 >>4223516 >read these works in a good translation And to do that all I need to do is tell the good translators from the bad ones, but that would mean... a-HA! Sorry, reading other than the original language is not valid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:19:33 2013 No.4223533 >>4223496 op ran away b/c he didn't want to admit that when he said he'd read a "great deal" he meant he read a few essays for intro to philosophy class

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:20:34 2013 No.4223536 >>4223491 probably the best reading list ever put up on /lit

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:21:34 2013 No.4223537 >>4223533 Still here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:21:34 2013 No.4223538 >>4223537 what have u red tell me tr00

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:23:33 2013 No.4223541 >>4223538 Books, books, books.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:25:34 2013 No.4223542

>>4223541
op when you said "I've read a great deal of English language philosophy, such Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Russell, Moore, Quine, Searle, Putnam, Kripke, Davidson, and so on" what specific works by these authors did you read

and were they perhaps assigned readings for phil 100

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:26:34 2013 No.4223545 >>4223542 omg u deleted your oh so clever post

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:26:34 2013 No.4223546 >>4223538 Words, words, words. >>4223542 No, I have read texts by these authors. I didn't do philosophy at uni. Lol, where did this "phil 100" shit come from. Projecting much?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:27:50 2013 No.4223547 >>4223546 >No, I have read texts by these authors. WHICH TEXTS

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:28:50 2013 No.4223548

>>4223309

>starting this summer

What the hell, man?

>should I learn a language before I even try to do this?

That's the last thing I want to hear from you.

Quit sitting around holding your dick and read some stuff in English. If you really love it, then learn the language. This is like asking whether you should learn Ancient Greek before you read Plato's Republic. Dude, just go for it!

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:28:50 2013 No.4223549 >>4223547 specifically what did you read by quine and davidson

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:34:50 2013 No.4223556

>>4223549

By Quine:

Methods of Logic
From a Logical Point of View
Word and Object
The Roots of Reference
Two Dogmas of Empricism
The Ways of Paradox
Set Theory and its Logic

By Davidson:

Actions, Reasons and Causes
Truth and Meaning
Mental Events
Semantics of Natural Languages
Problems of Rationality
Truth, Language, and History

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:35:51 2013 No.4223558 >>4223556 i don't even believe you at this point idk, summarize two dogmas for me

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:37:50 2013 No.4223562 >>4223558 also another question before that one: are you autistic? srs question, i'm tired of having these discussions with people and then finding out they are autistic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:37:50 2013 No.4223563 >>4223558 Quine attacks LP for presupposing a distinction between analytic and synthetic truths. You gonna stop crying now?

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:38:50 2013 No.4223564

>>4223556
>Methods of Logic
You took that list straight from Wikipedia? Nice. I love how you blew your cover by listing "Methods of Logic". His textbook on Logic is outdated by contemporary standards.

I doubt anyone has read and understood such towering figures as Quine, Davidson and Kripke on /lit/.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:39:50 2013 No.4223568

>>4223548

Are you saying I should read Plato's Republic or a book a translator made up and then put "Republic" on the cover of?

>>4223562

Not autistic. I guess that's a value judgement on your part though.

>>4223564

I don't know what you mean. I've read those books.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:40:50 2013 No.4223570 >>4223563 >two dogmas >lists one dogma lol you have a really poor understanding of two dogmas if that's all you got out of it

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:42:50 2013 No.4223573 >>4223570 I don't agree with Quine's critique of reductionism so I didn't bother with that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:43:50 2013 No.4223576 >>4223573 and apparently you didn't think it was worth mentioning anything else in the paper why don't you agree with quine's critique of reductionism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:44:50 2013 No.4223578 >>4223564 I read Naming and Necessity because Zizek cited it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:45:51 2013 No.4223582 >>4223576 It's shallow and pedantic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:45:51 2013 No.4223583 >>4223578 lol it's so weird that he cited it

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:47:51 2013 No.4223589 >>4223582 ok explain to me his critique then and then explain how it is shallow and pedantic you can only go so far with the wiki article, bud

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:49:51 2013 No.4223593 >>4223589 It's not my fault you don't understand his critique. It isn't my job to explain it to you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:50:51 2013 No.4223595 >>4223593 oh my god just admit you haven't read this stuff. it's the first step to recovery.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:55:50 2013 No.4223600 >>4223583 He also makes jokes about no-one reading Making It Explicit, I think it's neat seeing what a unrepentant Hegelian like Zizek thinks are the 'worthwhile bits' of analytic philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 05:57:51 2013 No.4223604 >>4223600 yeah it's actually really interesting both ways. seeing what people like zizek think are the worthwhile bits of analytic stuff, and what the people like brandom, davidson etc think are the worthwhile bits of continental stuff

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 06:16:39 2013 No.4223631 >>4223595 bye my sweet :(

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 06:18:39 2013 No.4223634

>>4223530

>but that would mean...

that would mean you have an irrational fear of pronouncing judgements, which is the only way to really egage with and progress philosophy, without which the most you can hope for is circiteous masturbatory abstraction.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 06:28:39 2013 No.4223646 >>4223401 >thinks continental phil = existentialism kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 06:31:39 2013 No.4223650 >>4223399 That's from Beyond Good and Evil, no?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 06:50:39 2013 No.4223675 You're making a huge mistake. Read Heidegger and be done with it. Everything besides him is worthless. Analyticism is the one true methodology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 06:52:39 2013 No.4223680 >>4223675 r u the guy who says heidegger said something good by accident

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 06:58:40 2013 No.4223692 File: 33 KB, 358x358, 1371507651049.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4223675 >Analyticism is the one true methodology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 07:01:39 2013 No.4223696 >>4223680 Yes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 07:06:40 2013 No.4223708 >>4223696 you post in like every thread remotely related to this topic

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 07:08:29 2013 No.4223711 >>4223568 I'm saying you should get reading. Read the stuff in English. Then, if you think it's worthwhile, learn an entire language for the sake of that text. Let's go! By the way, you're being far too scrupulous about translations.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 07:43:29 2013 No.4223750 >>4223675 How would you define analyticism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 08:05:29 2013 No.4223783 Reading in translation is fine for non-poetry, although you should learn German if you want to be a true patrician. You wouldn't be able to read someone like Heidegger in German for years, though.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 10:41:42 2013 No.4224099

>>4223388
>not every great continental philosopher learned ancient Greek so that they could read Plato

Practically all the Germans did know Greek. Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger certainly did. I´m not sure about the rest, but I suppose they did as well, because back then being educated meant knowing Greek and Latin.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 11:04:30 2013 No.4224160 >>4223408 Nietzsche always talked shit about everything German. He disliked the Germans so much that he claimed to be Polish and did away with his German nationality officially. He spent a large part of his life in Switzerland and Italy.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 11:07:31 2013 No.4224170

>>4223404
You will never read German like a native speaker does. And a native speaker will not read it the same way as a contemporary of Nietzsche would have. And a native speaker of German who is also a highly educated contemporary of Nietzsche who was the personal friend of Nietzsche still wouldn't really know what Nietzsche meant. You may even argue that Nietzsche didn't know fully himself.

Everything is a giant clusterfuck, communication is shit, abandon ship.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 11:10:31 2013 No.4224176 >>4224170 >abandon ship. B-but we are not on a ship, sir. I, for one, am sitting in my cozy computer chair.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 11:13:30 2013 No.4224184 >>4224176 >not realising that the universe is grain of rice in a cargo ship in a universe that envelops ours Kek.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 11:23:30 2013 No.4224203 >>4224184 What? So there are 2 universes?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 11:26:31 2013 No.4224211 >>4224203 No, a lot more.

Anonymous Tue Oct 29 21:28:44 2013 No.4225702

If i was to choose between those two, i'd choose french, but if i really could learn a languague, it'd be brazilian portuguese, read some translated stuff about colonialism and democracy and Luhmann that just blew my mind

I'm starting to read peripheric literature, it's a whole new world

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 21:34:45 2013 No.4225725 >>4225702 >but if i really could learn a languague, it'd be brazilian portuguese ass-man brofist

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 21:37:45 2013 No.4225733 >>4225702 tell me more

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 29 23:21:57 2013 No.4225905 >>4223650 Nietzsche contra wagner

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 30 02:50:34 2013 No.4226129 File: 66 KB, 630x465, 1377620200191.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4225702 Brazilian here. Go ahead, man. It's a beautiful language with a rich literature.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature