/lit/ - Literature

>>18512560
Jokes on you I didn't read that

>>18512560
He never said that

>>18512564
Yes he did.
He said you can read yourself stupid and it better not to read at all.

Or maybe it was Nietzsche.


I might have made that up actually

>>18512577
Don't worry, all self-help authors usually say the same thing about reading too much.

I agree.

>>18512577
>He said you can read yourself stupid and it better not to read at all.
He didnt

>>18512681
Yes he did.
I'm surprised I could even remember the exact words he used.

>>18512606
BASED this is a Maoist thread now
https://youtu.be/OjNpRbNdR7E

>>18512700
wow imagine being such a brainlet you can't critically analyse what you're reading

no wonder his mum BTFO him

>>18512560
Stop posting.

>>18512577
He said don't read too much so that it doesn't block out your own thoughts and compared reading too much to overeating. Schopenhauer himself was thoroughly well-read.

>>18512738
Yeah he just said don't read yourself stupid

>>18512560
Stop shitposting

sleep less

>>18512560

>>18512991

>>18512756
The point he was making is that reading is not a good substitute for thinking for yourself. But it can be employed fruitfully to supply "food for thought" that gives you something to work with.

>>18512761

>>18512738
>>18513026
this is what he said and obviously Schopenhauer is better read than anyone on /lit/, but I think it's also worth noting that in the realm of philosophy he literally only read Plato and Kant on the advice of his tutor.

>>18512560
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCTHrBC2zSw

>>18513096
That's all you need really.
Although a little bit of Montaigne can't hurt.

>>18513161
hell yeah brother. I always think Montaigne is somewhat underrated by academics and people who are generally considered bookish, because his style is very approachable and touches on themes that are relatable to the everyman. Not a lot of pie-in-the-sky thinking from him, but a very useful and interesting philosopher.

Stop sneeding

>>18512560
>stop reading.

I haven't even started

>>18512738
In which book does he say that?

>>18513329
his essay on reading

>>18512577
Seneca (or one of the other Stoics) said that you should read only a few great authors instead of reading widely.

>>18513356
That's perfectly understandable.
If you keep looking up to people you'll lose your freedom.

One or two role models are alright

>>18513161
No Aristotle?

>>18513405
Honestly no

>>18512560
I haven't started to begin with

>>18513329
https://fs.blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Arthur-Schopenhauer.pdf

Start Lifting

>>18512564
Yes he did.

>>18513356
Seneca is correct.

>>18512606
mao-sama I kneel

>>18513096
>in the realm of philosophy he literally only read Plato and Kant on the advice of his tutor.
Factually wrong, you would know this if you actually read him. He quotes from a lot of philosophical works.

>>18513738
From the introduction of Essays and Aphorisms, written by R.J. Hollingdale. While not true to the letter, it is certainly true in the spirit of Schopenhauer's conceptual framework.

>>18512577
Nietzsche called it “read to ruins”

Schrodinger's sket, Esth, Isle of Wight County, a few roos loose in the top paddock, kapton, tethera ammonio-PPPS, Kingmoor, GPPS hyperexpansion, pay one's respects, psychedelic soul, cryptoransomware pseudoisomeric, autexousious public safety announcement, overprune, swearsies, ktetic job's a good 'un, yas'm, eigenvariate, City of Hate, practice, practice, practice, counter-apologetics, perceptually blind, compassionlessly, paradise on Earth, plug and chug, vinylaluminium, Kilgore, glicentin, posthatching wikiverse, Woodlake Barsby, rub someone's face in three musketeers, munshee, Coltishall immunoproteasomal, leaves of three, let it be, jerkdar, dysversion, meat-safe cot knotwood, gonja, Virginia wild rye, Learlike distributress, beginner's permit, under hack, updrag, arrowmaker, priceworthy field of scalars, taco niggers, constituitive, what's the beef, ASSFAGGOTS, uplifted cain, Bramhope, camelize crispener, malarial fever, seroresponsive Jehovistic anthropogony, muddledom, benis, miscreed, KSC Zenonist, forework, unnavigableness, scratch an itch, bucket of blood, bunny-boiling, chorten dinning, PITI, kick the tires and light the fires, service fee, 4Fer policylessness, raftload, piaiman, biomolecularly, ununusual, ventrodistally, Foothill Farms, purmorphamine, Wibaux, white America, realtist, supercuspidal fungie bank of mum and dad, reboarder, cryptocrystallization, hemotherapy, drivehead, Staggers, unfrightful hot, intergranulomatous fice dog, technoskeptic cyberagent, funmaker, intracompartmental technical skier, rhizomed, self-opinionated, mad minute, activistly, Lonski, coessentially, belesh, gully wash, second most otherwhat beeraholic, unaward, lych reich-wing, rebinder misarchist, Wikimedian, futurologically, Larkham, Kautskyist, no cap, chowt, you pays your money and you takes your chances pignorate, aiyo, revolatilization, cross oneself, jobby, cultimulcher, immunopanel immunocompromising, ulcerously, dotardness, imperfect fungi, subtextuality, vitamin I, suhoor, coolometer, comprisable, dirty ice cream spray foam, Brianne, Palestinianization unacylated, mitigating circumstances, mission-critical, unbossed, Opa Locka, bugdom, goundou, enneaploid quasiminimal humanlessness, outquote, square number, she-shed, particularizingly, trideca-Noam, preëlection, Namierize, causticize, agrammaphasia, Sing, delivering, eco-home, bottle-shock, Shukra, non-runner, Bear Flag neuroaffective, intrafamilially transpalpebral, hyperscanning, deskinment, droneboarding, matricidally, Schwellenangst telepicture cervicothoracolumbar, unfondly, predialytic dorkazoid, Flanderization, Lazarus sign, mundowie, non-migratory ball grid array, tarsioid photometeor, bilingual dictionary, cash for crash, jugulation, hog millet, Putinesque entomophagia, e-recruiter, non-printing, disobstruct, overgeneral grand finale, tough sledding, bene bowse, four-ring grand opening, Homer sometimes nods intermeson, seamline, cervicotrigeminal sleeker, team deathmatch, aso ebi

>>18513224
>So-crates
He'd say stop writing while you're at it too.

>>18512577
Ironically you're an example of exactly what he's warning against. Uncritically reading (and incorrectly interpreting) what he said about reading.

>>18513926
Nietzsche also said it wasn’t good for you to lay in bed and read in the morning, which is one of only a few things I disagree with him on.

>>18513941
I'm literally joking.

>>18512560
KEK OP got filtered by Schoppy.

>>18513940
I used speech-to-text

>>18514073
Based Greek boypussi lover anon.

Reply

>>18514060
No no, you can't save face now.

>>18514300
Save face with you?
Who cares dork

>>18512577
I don't think that was his point, anon. It was mainly about not doing anything with whatever you read. Schopenhauer views on reading are that they are means to an end, not the end itself. At least, this was what I got from it.

There is something too. You can do both at the same time. And here is where Kafka comes in.

“Altogether, I think we ought to read only books that bite and sting us. If the book we are reading doesn’t shake us awake like a blow to the skull, why bother reading it in the first place? So that it can make us happy, as you put it? Good God, we’d be just as happy if we had no books at all; books that make us happy we could, in a pinch, also write ourselves. What we need are books that hit us like a most painful misfortune, like the death of someone we loved more than we love ourselves, that make us feel as though we had been banished to the woods, far from any human presence, like suicide. A book must be the ax for the frozen sea within us. That is what I believe.”

In the sense that, the act of reading is not some playground that you are supposed to be chilling and reproducing the authors ideas, but a struggle for life itself. That the author is after your guts.

But they both have a point, there are different kinds of books. And you shouldn't read mainly those 'Kafka's books' because I think that most people can't stand it. You do have to give time for your 'wound to heal'. And Schoppy is right too, because just reproducing thoughts isn't exactly a constructive way of living (considering the thinker's life).

>>18514345
Of course he's not saying no to read altogether.
He is saying that one should rather avoid reading instead of reading himself stupid

Need more timebros

>>18514367
But still that wasn't his point, anon. He is mainly criticizing people who think they are a big deal when they are just 'parroting' something. He isn't saying that these people are better off giving up on it altogether.

>>18514396
>'parroting'
mfw

>>18513096
Holy based, now i love Schopenhauer even more

>>18514409
You are the one drawing absurd conclusions out of something quite simple, anon. It has nothing to do with stop reading. He himself read a lot, what are you talking about? It is mainly about reading without any examination.

>>18514435
That's not me anon, I feel like you're overthinking it.
He's quite clear with his analogies

>>18514468
What?

>>18512560
Stop posting.

>>18514468
>Yes he did.
>He said you can read yourself stupid and it better not to read at all.
>Or maybe it was Nietzsche.
>I might have made that up actually
Doesn't seem clear.

>>18514484
But that's me joking.

>>18514476
I don't know if you're the guy I was talking to.
I don't disagree with what you say, you're just adding too many layers to it when it's quite clear what he means.

You can read yourself stupid by following mental patterns layed out by other authors thus making you brain go numb by not exercising it, tho this it's preferred not reading and engaging in physical activities that at least allow you to brood on your own thoughts.

>>18514517
But that isn't the reading, anon. FFS.

“When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process. In learning to write, the pupil goes over with his pen what the teacher has outlined in pencil: so in reading; the greater part of the work of thought is already done for us. This is why it relieves us to take up a book after being occupied with our own thoughts. And in reading, the mind is, in fact, only the playground of another’s thoughts. So it comes about that if anyone spends almost the whole day in reading, AND by way of relaxation devotes the intervals to some thoughtless pastime, he gradually loses the capacity for thinking; just as the man who always rides, at last forgets how to walk. This is the case with many learned persons: they have read themselves stupid.”

Which is what I summed up on >>18514435

>>18514540
That's how reading works anon, you have to follow someone's mental process that's inevitable.
It affects the way you think, you are bound to follow the author's train of thought even you are critical of it.

The are too many steps between deciphering what the author is trying to say, reformulating it in your own thoughts and expressing a judgment.
By that point you've already been ensnared by thinking with the words and concepts he chose.

>>18514588
That is how you don't read yourself stupid. This is a simple phrase. This is just stupid, you are probably trolling anyway. You are not ensnared in jackshit considering that you are not reading the same author over and over.

>>18512738
Don't read too much. If you read three books less each day for a year, you will have an extra month and a half to hate women in.

>>18514613
Yeah I kinda am trolling.
Not Giving it much thought (ironically), just trying to stand my ground for what I said in the beginning.

lmao this board is garbage

>>18514885
>Social media is garbage.
Fixed that for you, kind anon.

>>18512560
without realizing it, I've been living almost his ideal life, except for the occasional wank. little to no interaction with females outside of work and my friends girlfriends, perfectly satisfied alone, listening to music.
at just under thirty I'm going on my first date in a few days, I'm quite optimistic, which is not in character for me, I wonder if uncle Arthur will be disappointed in me, but mostly I wonder if he will be proven right in the end.

>>18513929
Pat

>>18512577
He said don't waste your time on shit books

>>18512560
He in fact advising people against writing for meretricious or superficial reasons, an advice you should have followed before making the thread.

I actually plan to. I have about 400 books on my shelf to read, and I read about 10-20 books a month. Some are very small, some are not. Once I’m done, I plan on not reading much of anything afterwards and moving on with my life