[ 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

Search:


View post   

>> No.2442319 [View]
File: 54 KB, 315x475, TheNeverendingStory1997Edition.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2442319

Incredibly epic book when you're about 10. Might even be epic now.

>> No.2442306 [View]

Not the maximazation of originality, no. "Emotion" does not tell us enough. Technical skill is a part. It is very difficult to analyze good art into parts because it will have overwhelming unity of effect. It will have personal force as well as impersonal force, but these will be one. I can't say anything beyond that now, I'm tired.

>> No.2442164 [View]

thread failed

>> No.2442093 [View]

rambling, sounds like you were high writing it.

>> No.2442080 [View]

>>2442070
In German. Haven't read any translations of him but there is one of his complete works coming out.

>> No.2442032 [View]
File: 23 KB, 250x355, trakl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2442032

Writers that /lit/ never talks about. I'll start.

Georg Trakl
Giacomo Leopardi

>> No.2442010 [View]

Sophia
Iphigenia

>> No.2442000 [View]

>>2441992
egoistic mysticism

>> No.2431162 [View]

ITT /lit/ thinks Harold Bloom a hipster

>> No.2431148 [View]

>>2431128
It is the result of an interpretive process. But it is the kind of result that it is that matters. Quoting Meillassoux:

"For the problem of the arche-fossil is not the
empirical problem of the birth of living organisms, but the
ontological problem of the coming into being of givenness as
such. More acutely, the problem consists in understanding how
science is able to think - without any particular difficulty - the
coming into being of consciousness and its spatio-temporal forms
of givenness in the midst of a space and time which are supposed
to pre-exist the latter. More particularly, one thereby begins to
grasp that science thinks a time in which the passage from the
non-being of givenness to its being has effectively occurred -
hence a time which, by definition, cannot be reduced to any
givenness which preceded it and whose emergence it allows."

>> No.2431108 [View]

That feel when receiving better education without spending $80,000.

>> No.2431102 [View]

>>2431090
Certainly not. But science works through phenomena and in doing so uncovers evidence that the earth, asteroids, the sun all existed before any mind or even life could exist to interpret. So we bottom out when we encounter this evidence of a world that existed without us. I am following Quentin Meillassoux and Ray Brassier here if you are interested.

>> No.2431077 [View]

>>2431065
Hold on. I meant bootstrapping only in that to say something about the world as it exists independently of us we have to go through the phenomena, that which is immediately at hand. In other words, the fact that we only have direct access to phenomena does not mean we cannot access anything else: we just do it by figuratively pulling ourelves up by the phenomena.

>> No.2431062 [View]

>>2431056
I don't see what the problem with bootstrapping with regard to interpretation/mediation is. The alternative is to pretend you have direct access to the world or give up on the idea altogether and become an irrealist.

>> No.2431052 [View]

>>2431029
Wonderful. None of that precludes it from being a concept. All I'm taking issue with is that you seem to think we can't say it's a concept because that's saying too much. And you thought I was reifying whatever the relation of truth happens to be. I think we can agree that people use the word "truth" in a similar way in varying contexts and that it pretty much always is used to mean some kind of relation.

And for "out there": we can say what it subsists as but only by ourselves going through interpretation. Bootstrapping is necessary and we don't avoid it.

>> No.2431012 [View]

>>2430993
You originally said truth isn't a concept: "'true' is only meaningful when it's applied to something specific. 'Truth' isn't a thing - you can't figure out what makes things true, only what makes a specific thing true."

I say it is a concept. It matters because you seem to think I'm reifying truth by saying we can have a concept of it. No. It's a mental heading, a concept. You're now trying to make up problems to dissolve, Wittgenstein Jr.

>you have to be able to make the case that you can get at what "out there" looks like, which requires interpretation

Of course it requires interpretation. We can only access "out there" via interpretation. But through this interpretation we can reach the conclusion that "out there" existed before us and will exist after us. The fact that any conclusion we come to about "out there" is via interpretation (mediation) does not disqualify its subsisting completely independently of us.

>> No.2430983 [View]

>>2430972
You're complicating what I'm saying. The resemblance is not an object like the noses are. It's a concept. We can analyze *how* it is that they look alike and abstract their looking-alike, conceptually. I'm saying nothing that contradicts what you're saying, you're just presenting your ideas as if they conflict with mine. Something being "out there" does not imply that it is not interpreted. "Out there" means that it exists even if it is not interpreted.

>> No.2430968 [View]

>>2430959
>it isn't a relation between propositions and a Platonic form

ok. it's some kind of resemblance between propositions and states of affairs "out there".

>And while I agree that it's a consequence that there can't be a "concept of truth," it doesn't take away "true" as an adjective for the beliefs that we've justified.

There can be a concept of truth. It's just a heading titled "resemblance between propositions and states of affairs". Of course we built this concept up by noticing individual truths.

>> No.2430960 [View]

>>2430958
no, mods don't give a shit about /lit/.

>> No.2430957 [View]

>>2430954
Truth is a relation. It may be a very simple kind of relation. But if what you're saying is "true" then there is nothing different cases of truth have in common and there can be no concept of truth.

>> No.2430950 [View]

>justice, truth, best, etc. don't imply a criteria in a vacuum
negro, what?

>> No.2430909 [View]

>and provide
a point of difference
between its
identical neighbours

not very poetic, little cliche.

I'm pretty tired right now, but this is enjoyable.

>> No.2430884 [View]
File: 13 KB, 459x271, brassier.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2430884

>Why does philosophy appeal to you?

Because it is in some sense the most earnest, encompassing and critical (in the sense of critique) striving for knowledge.

"The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term. Under 'things in the broadest possible sense' I include such radically different items as not only 'cabbages and kings', but numbers and duties, possibilities and finger snaps, aesthetic experience and death[...]What is characteristic of philosophy is not a special subject-matter, but the aim of knowing one's way around with respect to the subject-matters of all the special disciplines."

>Do you hold knowledge in high regard?

Yes.

>Do you believe the inherent nature of a concept or object can be surmised by observation alone, without sources of external knowledge? If so, have you chosen to utilize this capability?

"Observation" is a very specific word. Not even science is comprised only of observation (theoretical explanations, for instance). Concepts are mind-dependent and changeable, they don't have "inherent natures" in the way objects do.

>What stock do you place in the notion of intuitive understanding, or intuitive knowledge?

Our intuitions about things are our starting point for philosophical inquiry. They are very frequently wrong.

>What moment in your life do you regard as the most enjoyable or valuable?

Reading poetry, writing poetry, thinking about philosophy, being outside away from people.

>Do you subscribe to the idea of distinct psychological archetypes? Esp, the separation of Physical and Mental? Action and Theory? Insight and Impulse?

What the fuck?

>> No.1747771 [View]
File: 7 KB, 200x150, ..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1747771

>mfw I use both paper books and ebooks depending on whether I want to pay for the good stuff or just read the fucking text

>mfw when people pick sides over everything

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]