/lit/ - Literature

>english not my first language
>still don't understand the difference between gender and sex
>google translates them both to the same word in my language

>ebooks start out super cheap
>the minute Amazon cornered the market on ebook readers, suddenly the prices went up to the same and sometimes higher than the physical books

really makes you hmm

I would like to read this but have little education about political philosophy besides what was briefly covered in a few high school law courses. Is there anything I need to know/read before starting it?

>>10912908
>don't make me use your pronouns or I'll shit in someone else's food

>>10219526
>angel bending its back because you fuck it so well

hot.

What are some books that will lead me on the first step towards becoming the man i wish my father was?

>>10071927
Why did you mention hume twice?

The culture of /lit/, consisting of a bunch of pseudo intellectual humanities students knowingly or unknowingly influenced by the perverted incentives and aims of academia, is demoralising.

I'm not even talking about political views. I am solely talking about the approach to art. I am going to talk about some stuff but I am not going to emulate humanities sophists and try to string a narrative through everything or use broad brush, ill defined labels. I will make discrete points, not all fully made up of deductions but I trust my inferences and I think there will be others who will agree.

Firstly, literary theory consists of the construction of unfalsifiable extrapolations based on the content of fictional works. There are infinitely many unfalsifiable extrapolations that could be made. The judgement of the worth of these extrapolations are arbitrary and typically adhere to prevailing fashions. Not only that, nobody has shown any ability to use literary theory to create entertaining books. In short, all "literary analysis" or "critique" is intellectual snake oil, heavily incentivised by the academic citation circle jerk fueled by government subsidised student loans.

I view books as "mere" entertainment. Every time people claim to find books "profound", they can only give unfalsifiable extrapolations and angry pointing towards popular consent. I think part of the reason people scorn the idea of books as "mere" entertainment is that they have willingly or unwillingly adopted academia's desire that books facilitate the creation of "literary theory". What this means in practice are books that are dense, filled with references, unclearly written, extremely long, and refer, lazily or meaningfully, to philosophical, or psychological concepts, usually in a very shallow way. I don't think these are automatically bad characteristics but they are the desired ones.

The veneration and praise of boring old books is clearly due to the pressure to fit in with the crowd. It's clear that many of these old books would not be praised as much if were released today. It's obvious that the business models of old books alone would be enough for them to be dismissed if they were written today (serialisation, self publishing).

There's a huge disrespect toearss the idea of enjoyment as a quality filter. It's easy to write a book filled with the characteristics listed above. It's hard to write an enjoyable book. What is it about a book that makes it enjoyable? Is it the same for everyone? The answer to the latter seems like no but the first probably has no easy answer, and is not a question that facilitates the Literary Theory circlejerk, which is an additional reason for academics to ignore the question and denigrate the idea of enjoyment.

>>10064042
Have you read Philosophical Investigations?

You are allowed to feel superior until you hit your 30s. If by then you still have accomplished nothing you'll either have to humble down.
Also
>feeling inferior because you have failed at life so far
>not understanding that your feeling of superiority does not come from your current traits, rather it comes from the potential you can genuinely see in yourself
You are probably a stupid edgy teen, but this means nothing when you live a life that costantly accounts for self-improvement: given costant improvement every single past version of yourself will look irredeemably stupid to you at any point of your life.
The potential will always be there, and the worst thing you can do is to waste it

>>10055350
>poor die in the streets conservative
Hows freshman year?

I'm in the British library

Feeling sad about life

It has been a very long time since I read a book that I thought was one of my favourites ever. I think it was the secret history which I read two years ago. I have been trapped reading for pseud cred since then.

I'm 2/3 through the fountainhead which is good but not tip top tier.

What is a book that will really be incredible? Everything is disappointing. The brothers Karamazov, great expectations, snow crash are recent books I was disappointed by.

A lot of post modern books are completely awful lolsorandumbshitheaps. Most old books would be ignored or slaughtered by people today, the same that praise them.

I think the idiot and demons will be typical rambling Dostoevsky shit. I read Bartleby and it makes me fear that moby dick is written by a 19th century new Yorker faggot equivalent.

War and piece seems ok from the first 50 pages. Anna Karenina sounds dull as fuck

>>10023972
>Touches on Buddhist philosophy
>Touches on Nietzchen philosophy
>Explores in depth what it means to be human and animal while blurring the line on whose who between Humans and the Chimera ants

>No intrinsic literary value

What's the point of being pol or conservative if you surrender everything all the time?

In the past

>Women can be based, give them the vote!
>Asians can be based!
>Blacks can be based!

Present
>Based black man fucker! I hate trans fuckers!

Future
>Based trans fuckers! I hate kid fuckers!
>Based kid fuckers! I hate animal fuckers!
>Based animal fuckers! I hate plant fuckers!
>Based plant fuckers! I hate martian fuckers!
>Based martian fuckers! I hate within 10 light years alien fuckers!
>Based within 10 light year alien fuckers! I hate galaxy fuckers!
>Based galaxy fuckers! I hate 5 dimensional fuckers!
>Based 5 dimensional fuckers! I hate infinite dimensional fuckers
>Based infinite dimensional fuckers

And near the end of time, when the socialists have almost succeeded in their end goal of a universe with evenly distributed entropy
>Based blob of entropy differing from universal average by 0.1 %! I hate evenly distributed entropy! The conservatives are winning guys!!! I'll never evenly spread my entropy like they want me to!

And then the socialists win.

It's 7.47 pm, laditos. What shall I do? Go outside drinking coffee to feel less alone? Thursday is busy enough to make me feel less alone but not a party like Friday and Saturday where Chads and Staceys are ready to enjoy life.

Or shall I sit at home and read more of the fountainhead? Howard Roark reminds me of me, though I haven't yet found my passion so I am like Roark when he sits at his desk or doesn't know how to interact with the normie hivemind

I'm trying to figure out what I can do tomorrow to feel fulfilled and i have no ideas apart from junk food, coffee, and carb filled sandwiches. Of course those give temporary feelings but the problem remains.

Reading feels like a pathetic consumercuck activity. This idea that erudition matters is bs.

I'm looking for books to expand my view on economics.
Anyone got anything on
>Strasserism
>Syndicalism
>Falangism
Also any normy books are fine too.

>>9716135

>>9661504
>Implying the western Romans were the true Christians

>>9613319
what did he mean by this?

>mfw people actually believe a collection of tests created a century ago to determine the level of retardation of children is a proper way to determine intelligence
sure nice number bro