/lit/ - Literature

surprised there hasn't been a kebab joke itt

Lost Highway
Oslo, 31, August
A Bittersweet Life
A History of Violence
Evil Dead II

>LAST THREE

Confucius - 'The Analects'
>old chinese men running the world

Cormac McFarty - 'Blood Meridian'
>the odyssey-type comparisons on the back of the book are pretty accurate: mythopoetry out the wazoo. a beautiful, violent book but I never felt like I could really get into it because of the biblical form. McCarthy never really allows you to get into the heads of the characters or get to grips with what they're feeling, which of course suits the form but still feels very cold. Judge Holden is cool but I think he ends up stealing too much of the show, which is again because the rest of the characters are dumb tough sons of bitches we're not allowed to care about.

Stuart McRobert - 'Brawn'
>HARDGAINER HARDGAINER HARDGAINER HARDGAINER HARDGAINER HARDGAINER. haven't gotten into fitness literature much but it seems reasonable enough when emphasizing that a lot of routines fail for the common man because they're based on advantageous genetics or roids. Stuff that is just common knowledge on /fit/ but a good beginner's book.

>CURRENTLY READING
Blaise Pascal - 'Pensees'
>2wretched4me
>guy couldn't deal with boredom.

GRRM - 'ASOIAF: A Game of Thrones'
>using italics to emphasize what a character is saying
>2013
>Whenever a Catelyn or Daynyrees chapter comes up I put the book away in disgust
>I like the show better

Miyamoto Musashi - 'A Book of Five Lings'
>Still on the ground book, not seeing the relevance to business yet unless it's normal to get ahead in japanese business by dueling and killing people.

>NEXT THREE
Ralph Waldo Emerson - 'Nature'
Yury Dombrovsky - 'The Keeper of Antiquities'
Alan Watts - 'This Is It'

i'm just surprised someone cared enough to crack his tripcode

>everyone more interested in talking about me than Iaiaian M. guy
looks like i got my sticky after all

I bet Behemoth wishes people make posts about him the second he shows up on /lit/ again

culture industry's an easier read and gets the most attention in classes

>>3834675
>I wish people would respect the D&E
i'm okay with being feared

>It invokes the same sense of awe as traditional religious literature

ya mang we are all just like guitardust or something waaowww

yeah okay bud glad we have sorted this whole thing out we're all glad you'll try to keep the outrageous knee-jerk stan-tier bullshit statements to a minimum around here from now on and there won't be any trouble remember I run things here I'm the boss a. no. 1 the game is mine no-one makes a move without my say-so cheers thanks

>>3527778
>Deontology may be present on Ethics, but it doesn't mean it's good.
No, it means it's a persisting field that constitutes Ethics, so you can't study Ethics in full without studying Deontology. I've never said anything about the quality of Kant or his ideas, that's fairly irrelevant to the principle being disputed.

>I only care about good arguments
In Philosophy overall?

>>3527792
>This is exactly why I particularly hate Kant so much. It's like the academic world of philosophy resists its own evolution.
So you think that philosophy is evolving in a fixed direction?

>>3527670
>You don't even need to read Kant to know what the synthetic a priori is.
Of course not, you can look it up on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (I suspect you are familiar with the site) in two minutes. You can't, of course, build a strong knowledge on a concept or subject simply by reading encyclopedia articles on it. You can talk shit over the internet with them though, I guess.

>>3527670

>It's like saying velociraptors are still relevant to today's chickens.
Yes, if you are an Ornithologist or an Ornithologist whose specialty is velociraptors or chickens, or any subject that draws particularly on either. If I wanted to understand the chicken then a necessary part of that is what it evolved from, which is the velociraptor. The analogy is poor on your part because there are no velociraptors around to this day along with chickens, while there are still plenty of straight Kantian theorists around along with Kant-influenced theories.

>Nah, the body of work of people who studied his body of work is.
That's empirically false; I'm fairly sure, and I think most people will agree, that every year people produce new dissertations, books, essays, speeches primarily (but not necessarily only) on Kant's work, not on secondary literature.

>You remind me of those fags who say all philosophy is just a footnote on Plato
Of course not, that's just Western Philosophy

>>3527670
>Outdated
So you think the Critique of Practical Reason is shit because it's outdated? What exactly do you mean by 'shit' here? Do you mean something like: "it's shit because the arguments in don't hold up nowadays"? or Something equivalent? I think most relevant folks would not agree, given Deontology's remaining presence in Ethics, and given the manner in which the arguments have disseminated into and been refined in later works across a number of periods.

>I was arguing
I'm not sure that's what you were doing, considering most, if not all, of what you have said so far has been a matter of assertion or guarantees on the part of someone else who has done the actual hard business of arguing.

>It's really long to explain it here extensively, just get into Millikan's site, there she explains it with great
That's okay, I'll check her site out some time. Do you know if she has anything specific to say about Kant in any of these articles? Like, "I don't take Kant seriously" or "Kant is not important for philosophy" whatever?

>Yes. Preferably someone who made some kind of relevant contribution.
Philosophers like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Quine, and Rawls all would recognise in one way or another the importance of Kant for understanding philosophy, and their work has several veritable mountains more of research done by philosophers than those you mentioned. Which is not to say that the work of your cited philosophers is no good, it's simply to say they are nowhere (yet, at any rate) near as influential as the philosophers I have cited.

>empiricists are pretty outdated today too
What makes you think that?

> The synthetic a priori may be discussed today, but in a way Kant would have never imagined.
philosophical concept sees use in a manner its originator did not intend more at 6

1/2

>>3527594
It's in the Self-Overcoming of Nihilism.

>>3527584
>Only anyone interested on history of philosophy should read him, someone who isn't studying a philosophy grade doesn't really need to bother with him
Anyone studying philosophy as a major subject in a college degree should have Kant on their syllabus. Anyone studying philosophy as a major subject in a college degree should have a working knowledge of the history of philosophy, and you are in a minority if you think Kant should not be included in that knowledge. There isn't very much more to say, unless you have any strong arguments as to why he's not important (and no, the claim that all of his theories have been superceded is not a strong enough argument, if even an argument at all).

Anyone studying philosophy in general should study Kant, because his theories influence a vast number of major philosophers in the western tradition that come after him, many of which are either responding to him or developing on what he has written. Your understanding of these philosophers will therefore be significantly crippled if you therefore are not familiar with Kant's ideas and arguments. And as a consequence we have idiots like you coming here and yammering outrageous shit that no-one is going to take seriously. *I*, for example, do not take a single thing you say seriously, I'm simply humouring you in order to see if you'll come with even more outrageous nonsense the rest of us can have a good chortle at.

>Neither of them would have existed without Australopithecus' rudimentary technology.
You're missing the crucial point, Kant was necessary and partly constitutive of the writings of all the people you enshrine over him. How can you possibly hope to fully understand them if you don't understand him? This would be like trying to grasp Althusser's concept of the ideological subject without ever having read Kant on the subject. You can do that but your understanding is certainly going to have some big holes.

2/2

>>3527584
>Yes. And it's shit.
What makes you think that?
> Give me one single argument you like about it.
I personally don't like Deontology, and I've never advocated it, although that has nothing to do with not thinking Kant is an important thinker.

>Transcendental idealism is AND Hegel&company's idealism.
lolque

>his arguments about the phenomena are unnecessary if we take into account how representation systems work
How do you think "representation systems" work?
>a correspondentist perspective about truth which is what today's philosophy is all about.
About what? Truth? Or correspondence theories of truth?
You realise that the correspondence theory of truth is only a tiny portion of what constitutes the overall field of Philosophy now, right? I mean, this goes without saying.

>Serious philosophers? On this subject Millikan, Ted Sider, Nozick or Boghossian.
So when you say "serious philosophers" you mean four recent to contemporary academic philosophers, one of whom draws significantly on Kantian theory in his most popular text?

>In a way only kantian circle-jerks take it seriously.
So Kant's epistemology is a joke in the sense that only kantians take it seriously? I'm pretty sure Quine took Kant's epistemology pretty seriously enough to argue over the synthetic a priori. Like, this is still an open debate in analytic philosophy. How is any of this a joke?

>some years ago I wrote an essay about why Kant's and Schopenhauer's aesthetics miss the point with that "interest-less" of the sublime
Wow, this sounds really interesting. Can you tell me some more?

>The man who invented the wheel was great on his time too. Step up. Only irrelevant continental second-line philosophers continue sucking his cock.
This is totally besides the point. Kant himself is not the subject of Kantian philosophical studies, his body of work is.

1/2

>>3527456
>Kant's ethics are bullshit for autistic christian fags who want to believe there is some transcendental stuff out there giving meaning to their shitty sheeple life.
Have you ever read so much as a page of the Critique of Practical Reason? Or even taken a single class in Deontology?

>Kant's metaphysics are inconsistent and eventually lead to idealism
The idealism it leads to is Transcendental Idealism, more specifically, What about Transcendental Idealism is inconsistent? And who do you think is a serious philosopher today?

>Kant's epistemology is a joke today
In what way?

>Kant's aesthetics take things from Burke (which is good) but fall again into that "self-less" bullshit which nobody defends anymore
Besides Kantians?

>Yep, Kant is definitely great.
He sure is. Not everyone agrees with him but there isn't anyone on the planet, besides you, who is enough of a dimwitted imbecile to say that the founder of critique, a keystone of Enlightenment, and the modern conception of the subject is less worth reading than a mentally ill french actor who occasionally said something worthwhile.

> The only thing why I would recommend anyone to read him is to get why Nietzsche laughs at him on the genealogy and why Kierkegaard criticizes him on Fear and Trembling.
Neither of these people would have existed or written a single word on philosophy if not for Kant.

>>3527437
mate the problem's that i understand all too well

>villains whose motive are hard to find fault in and arguably better than the heroe's'es(s)

>villains
>hard to find fault in
>arguably better than the heroe's'es(s)

>villains

is anyone else seeing the problem here

>>3524213
where did I say I hated him? I think he's alright. like, I prefer him to marx or feuerbach or any of the other post-hegelians. When i read him most of what he was saying seemed to have a more developed analogue in Nietzsche. Everything from his genealogy of ideology to his psychological egoism. And what you're left with after that, i.e. the emphasis on total and unflinching negation, isn't elaborated on or developed very much through the course of the book. He gets the ideas down in the first 1/4 and spends the rest of his time re-stating them.

that's not to say that OTHER people haven't done interesting things with those ideas. Nishitani's reading of Stirner is particularly interesting to me, and i've seen him deployed as both the logical conclusion of hegelianism and as a critique of the ideological subject. Those are legitimately interesting avenues that take Stirner's thought and develop it, but that's usually altogether a different thing to what Stirner himself was doing. Someone once paralleled Stirner's emphasis on negation to Zen, and that's interesting, but Stirner didn't know shit about Zen, and I suspect I could learn a vast deal more about negation from Zen than I could from Stirner, again because he does develop his ideas very far in his book.

>>3524233
>Because he didn't really read him.
mate you think antonin artoad is more worth reading than kant don't presume to speak for me cheers clown now fuck off out of it thankssss

Stna-rector, ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha
Hooah, hooah, hooah, hoo!
Danger, enter the graveyard, chamber
It's like, diggin, in yer EAR, with a hanger
I inject my poison stinger, into your finger
Of all your life forces, I'll take ya
I'm blood, thirsty, thirsty for sure
About to bust up the same ones, who bust up the poor
You're, not safe, anymore
To all the holy spooks, I declare war

>what I read
Shadow of the Torturer and 3/4 of the second book

>what I expected
Dark Sun: the novel with less fantasy and more sci-fi.
Torturing.

>what I got
a little bit of torturing and an abject abuse of narrative time. An entire novel just for leaving the city, fucking hell. I kept turning the page thinking 'okay let's get this show on the fucking road already' and it never happened.
The second one picked things up a little but I lost interest towards the end.

Writing's good enough I guess, but not at all what I was looking for.

>why do you even bother reading translated books?
why do you even bother thinking about what it's like to be bat

>people favour a straight reading of The Road as a "post apocalyptic" novel even though all all you can reliably infer from the descriptions is that America, if not even anything larger than just a state in America, has gone to shit

>there are actually a gaggle of plebs out there who don't interpret the novel as biblical allegory or a commentary on post 9-11 America