/lit/ - Literature

i found a room full of mediocre books

"yes, i became a man that sold himself hand by hand, hour by hour, name by lost name until there was nothing left to sell, nothing left to buy"

Phillip levine will fuck your shit in a beautiful way

>>20756179
Mars attack

>>20748647
This, seriously. You better get book as a joke or...
Search for more philosofy

Niggers

>>19028348
Literally for frogposters
>>19027474
Dumb frogposter

>tfw been here since 2008

>>17889772
> Any recomendations for other books/authors ?

Jim Crace is quite clearly influenced by McCarthy, especially the pest house.

To me he seems to have several different writting styles. Early novels are derivative/influenced by faulkner. Then blood meridian which is like the king James bible, then he adopted a very minimalist style which I'm not a fan of.

I think suttree is my favourite book by him.

>>16875935

I am kind of experiencing the same thing anon. Honestly I recommend exercise in order to reduce your anxious tendencies and forming more clear goals about what you want to achieve when you choose to do something. When you rationalize why the thing your doing is worth doing it should reinforce your focus as a means to achieve that goal. Then you will get some sense of accomplishment which is closer to fulfillment and further from instant gratification pleasure.

Hello /lit/ I am recovering gamer/media consumer. I want to actually learn about things like philosophy, economics, history. I have found that Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro's books have stimulated the most intrigue for me. For some reason though it seems like I am turned off by mostly everything. Books often seem either to dry or whimsical. I really cannot stand history books or fairy tales. What's wrong with me? What are your favorites?

My boy

Just got my own place and took some of my books from my parent's house that am currently reading

>>16035374
>although strangely forgettable.
>has a plot twist where main characters get brutally murdered suddenly

>>15993450
>If you never bother to figure out what the reasoning behind that was, and instead just study the things that the people who led the eugenics movement did, then you will likely never be affected.
Fair enough.
>Morality is one of the many fundamental beliefs that people must share in order to build a strong relationship.
I've come to the same conclusion from my own observations. Do you have sources that build on this perhaps?

>>15993296
>OP, there are many areas of "history." Anyone who isn't doing intellectual history with a focus on moral systems will never actually encounter a serious challenge to their moral beliefs.
That's interesting. So you're telling me that by the mere observation of history different moral systems are not obviously implied? I thought moral relativism was one the most fundamental lessons historians could learn. What kind of intellectual cope is needed to ignore this lesson? Adding to that, if the lesson of moral relativity is not learned, couldn't that harm 'objective' historical work?

> they'd likely lose most of their friends.
Why's that? Also, would you say that historians in that sense are completely influenced by their Zeitgeist and are not even TRYING to be objective regarding cultural values?

>>15993293
>which brings proximity to the One, the Soul whose attribute is the Good.
I agree with you except for this. Why would you attribute a ethical judgement to the 'thing' you are attaining by refraining from ethical judgements like good or bad.

>>15993229
>Because you're 250 years removed from learned positions also being populated by the philosophically high minded.
Please, elucidate.

>>15993184
Thanks for the recommendation. Being an ecologist is also 'just a job', however, this job grants the insight of nature's disastrous current position and thus produces, very often, a common anti-polution mindset.

My point is that some knowledge provokes certain ideological positions. Having historical knowledge, for me atleast elicits more of an observing frame of mind in relation to a more activistic type of mindset.

I don't see how, with the knowledge of moral relativism, it is possible to still be a hard activist, conforming to contemporary morality.

How can anybody, especially historians, have strong moral convictions with the knowledge that these convictions are merely placed in a certain historical epoche? Shouldn't the individual with this knowledge atleast try to unchain himself from the pushing currents of contemporary morality?

Fair enough, the individual is always part of his or hers Zeitgeist and morality will always be, more or less, formed by this but there still is a major difference between being completely swallowed by contemporary morality and having some sort of own moral conviction.

>>15930018
The Lost World by Arthur conan Doyle
10000 leagues under the sea by Jules Verne

>>15148287
Fair point. But this assumes one has the volition and means to spend time on 'putting the undercoat down' or waiting for the opportune time, Kairos. First, let's say you've finished the work but still have many other works that are still undone and need time and attention. Putting time in making sure the public has an easier time digest your first work is already taking time away from the rest of your potential work. Why would you sacrifice for that so it can be a bit more easy for the public. Secondly, what do you think, in concrete, are those 'stepping stones'? Are those other books (easier versions) of the same treatise? essays? forum posts?

>>15148218
This involves sacrificing the potential complex elucidation for a more 'dumbed down' version. Could you manage to maintain the original form and publish to the public?

You spend the last 5 years working on a philosophical treatise that will completely revolutionize the Western canon. You have trivialized almost everything for your project and are left with no degree, academic relationships or friends that can provide help.

You finished your work and want to bring it into the world.

What steps do you take? Remember, you ideas are light years ahead of current thought.