/lit/ - Literature

>>18639881
Good take. Haven't been in a public library in years (because why would I?) but I seem to recall all the computers being occupied by retarded boomers on Facebook, weekly events that had absolutely nothing to do with books, and an atrocious selection of books.

>>16409759
Depends on the number of coins in the remaining pile. You can easily calculate this but idk what the fuck you do if this isnt an option.

Do any of you know of any works of objectively bad, poorly-written, incomprehensible, flat-out wrong, loosely-described, complete gibberish, or otherwise "bad" philosophy? I've heard of plenty of great works of philosophy, but I want to disabuse myself of the idea that people get things right on the first time and that philosophical thought is a linear progression from muh Greeks to the modern era.
Who has fallen by the wayside in that span? Who tried to find a higher truth, and failed? We know whose ideas have stood the test of time, whose haven't? How many of those who managed to get published were just complete retards who had no clue what they were doing?
>inb4 horia
>inb4 your least favorite philosopher
>inb4 my favorite philosopher
>inb4 ASS

yer goin to jail, /lit/

>>14490129
1

>>14305175
Mathematics exists and will always exist with or without man. The numbers are a human label, true, but the relation between the numbers and how they behave is the same. Assuming you accept the same axioms as math you will end up with math no matter what you label the numbers and operations as; it's each mathematical object's relation and influence upon each other that is unchanging, not a label like "four".

>/lit/, why d'you have all these here philosophy books?
...to read
>Just to read?
...yeah
>Were you molested as a child?
no
>Then why do you have all these philosophy books?