249 posts and 58 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
A thread for wizards to discuss books.
Previous thread hit bump limit:>>40869
I think it's a piece of shit.
So, to enjoy philosophy fully, you have to be a nihilist? Or someone who changes his opinions very easily and quickly?
I don't see how nihilism comes into this at all.>Or someone who changes his opinions very easily and quickly?
If reading many large books is "very easily and quickly" to you, then what the hell would it take for you?
Philosophy often brings to the table new ideas that you may have never considered, so it's not always a matter of agreeing or not.
If you're reading something you agree with, then the book might give you more and stronger arguments for why what you agree with is true, or make you consider other aspects of the issue.
If you're reading something you don't agree with, it can serve as a foil for your ideas, and you can try to find holes in the philosophy, reasons for disagreeing, or reasons for preferring whatever you think is correct.
All of this is kind of vague but so was your question. >>49944
You don't need to adapt the ideas of every philosopher you're currently reading like a succubus adopting fashion trends. Even if you don't agree with everything a philosopher says they might still help expand your mind or force you to examine your beliefs more closely.
If you are wrong about something (which is always a possiblity) then you should change your mind, right?
But if you never read or listen to anything that you disagree with, then you may never change your mind, even if you are wrong.
So, reading things that you disagree with is the most effective way to determine whether or not you are wrong. It is a good idea to listen to the opposition, just in case they might be right.
Well, I've finished the book. It was written in first person. I liked it but the end felt weak. I was expecting more, something more exciting. If it was a movie, there would be a part 2.
Nonetheless, I recommend it. It's not the best novel I've ever read, but it's pretty good.
Could someone explain to me the value of the rhythmic aspects of poetry?
I guess I have a tin ear, so I've never had an appreciation of the lyrical aspect of poetry. Although I've gotten more into music over the years, so I can relate in that way.
Part of me still thinks of rhyming as a pointless sing-song decoration like nursery rhymes. Although obviously very intelligent geniuses take their hands at it so its more than doggerel.
idk to me it seems almost like a leftover of the Homeric oral tradition, where it helped with memorization and was semi-musical
While I don't get rhyming, I do relate to the form of poetry. This is especially apparent when I read translated poetry that doesn't preserve rhyming. Translated poems is like a weird hybrid of fiction and philosophy. Its like a stream of consciousnesses essay, that doesn't have to follow the usual rules of grammar. A little bit when I pour my unorganized angst onto a page.
Rhyming in poetry does two major thing in my opinion, aside from the aspects you mentioned. For one it’s a bit of a challenge for the writer, to be able to articulate your thoughts so well that you can bend the language your liking. The second aspect is to add emphasis and connections between words that may be hard to express otherwise. And this isn’t necessarily only accomplished by rhyme. Other meters and forms like haiku accomplish this.
>>49970>add emphasis and connections between words that may be hard to express otherwise
To expand on this, there are also phonetic aspects that reinforce or make an idea in a poem more clear or representative of what it's trying to depict. There are parts of Pope's translation of Homer which when read aloud mimick the sound of the sea, one must always keep in mind the sound of the poem when one reads it, it's often a good idea to read it aloud to yourself, doing this has often led me to a greater appreciation of whatever poem I was reading.
I finished Dracula earlier today and it was good overall but I was expecting more from something that made it this deep into the western culture. I also thought it would go more into the Count's personal life. Ending was quite predictable and almost everything was set in stone in last 50-100 pages.
That book is horribly biased and presents Russell's own very narrow view of philosophy. You'd be better off reading Copleston instead.
It's good. What I find interesting is that the philosophers most place in feminist schools of thought, or who are taken to be formative influences to feminist philosophy (Foucault, Adorno, etc.) are usually not that awful. I guess things went bad as the discipline ossified and became more about cranking out degrees and papers and scholarship than engaging in critical thought. I would honestly even say that Butler isn't as bad as people say she is, even if she's not ultimately correct. She at least presents interesting ideas, which is the best philosophy can do.
It may be that I'm able to tolerate succubi more when I'm reading what they've written in a formal academic text, instead of listening to them speak or reading their social media posts.
Thanks for posting this, I started reading and am a little over 2 chapters in. It's really good so far and his all his ideas seem spot-on.
>>50050>his all his ideas
all of his ideas*
ha, I just had a dream that someone replied and said he got the book
yeah, it's an eye-opener and a damning analysis of human nature, people are so freaking stupid
Yeah I finished it last night and he does a great job of tearing apart a lot of habits and traditions. Of course he qualifies it by saying the discussion is only considering the overall economic value an individual is contributing to the community and how well they're adapted to the modern industrial society, but it certainly doesn't lessen the impact of seeing that all these supposedly sophisticated and/or sacred traditions and habits have their roots in past primitive communities and aren't much different.
Which book will most change my life?
I know nothing about your lifestyle your philosophy/worldview any of that shit. 3 books that have changed my life are
-Camus 'the stranger'
-J.P. Sartre 'Nausea'
-Celine 'Journey to the end of the night'
And anything by Hemingway
The Brothers Karamazov
I'm not even Christian but it changed my outlook on a lot of things.
I read a chunk of it and got bored by all the christian ramblings
Probably some religious book you find agreeable.
Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man
tb12 method by tom brady
the flexible exercise stuff is bullshit but the nutrition and recipes are surprisingly useful.
"Even marijuana didn’t seem to faze Dad too much. In 1991, when I was a junior in high school, he discovered a cigarette packet in my room filled with ten perfectly rolled joints that I’d prepared for my junior prom. Actually, “discovered” gives him too much credit—I left the open box sitting in my open desk drawer. It was hard to miss. When he confronted me about it, I actually had the nerve to get indignant with him. I told him I’d paid £15 for the pot and if he took it, it was like stealing from me. He didn’t give me back the joints but he did reimburse me the £15, which I proceeded to spend on a new rock of hash.
I ended up taking that hash with me to the junior prom. Erin, my girlfriend at the time, was shy, very sweet, and not into drugs at all. After the prom, there was a school-organized boat party on the Thames, but as we walked toward the dock to board, I could see that they were searching everyone. I told Erin, “I can’t go on that boat. They’re going to take away my hash.”
She asked me straight out, “Which is more important to you, going on this cruise with me or your hash?” I turned around and went home with my hash."
KILL THE DEAD by RICHARD KEADY
the most fun book I've read in ages!
You could do both, lots of books you can find online for free or get on amazon for ~1$ (if they're old). But you might be able to get a better price on some books physically.
He was a dictator of Russia.
So grammar wise it could be said that he is a Russian dictator.
English is not my main language, but from the (blurred) context it seems pretty clear they are referring to nationality. Ill still try to finish to book for learning good habits.
Georgia was part of the Russian Empire when he was born so he was technically Russian.
well if its a serious academic book on USSR history, they probably wouldnt use that terminology. But it depends on the topic of the book.
I can relate, that sometimes minor mistakes on topics I know about, make me distrust the author on everything.
To be fair the US contemporaries of Stalin, very often used the term Russia and Russian.
>>49146>Not just your typical misanthropic ramblings, but something more personal, like an account of struggling with depression, but more artistic
The Book of Disquiet
>>50269>I can relate, that sometimes minor mistakes on topics I know about, make me distrust the author on everything.
This is what caused me to start distrusting news. They bring some "expert" in to talk about something I am quite knowledgeable on and they are just laughable uninformed. Makes you wonder why you should trust them on things you don't know anything about.
That's like saying all Indians born during british rule are british.
Philosophy are ideas, these ideas won't ever have a total adaptation to reality. However we use these ideas as role models. Christianism didn't stop wars but our moral code, the art, our aspirations were deeply influenced by it. But Nietzsche saw how the idea of a God, of a trascendental plane that substained and gave meaning to our lifes was no longer followed; this wasn't mere rethoric: the life of a medieval peasant was completely defined in relation to religion whilst we live in uncertainty. I could continue about how Aristotle or Descartes built our mode of relation towards the world and how this was vital to the development of modern science, etc.
> I don't see any value in learning philosophy, besides personal entertainment> Even they didn't take their own ideas seriously.
Nietzsche was revolutionary and Schopenhauer pointed some dark and uncomfortable facts about life. Still I somewhat agree with you, philosophy at universities almost always consists of a bunch of academics wading in their mental shit and just concerned with getting published and winning prizes…guess what, Schopenhauer was precisely a strong critic of this. Seneca, Marcus Aurelis, Epictetus lived according to what they preached. What you talk about is a problem of modernity: man merely oriented towards efficiency and everything else considered as leisure.