/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11724088]

Carl Sagan explains why reading anything other than good scientific publications is a waste of time. Stop reading bullshit fiction. Life is short. Don't waste it on reading wrong books. Thanks.

https://youtu.be/_JTN7YnM72A

[Anonymous No.11724101]

>>11724088
I see no point in science, either.
>muh progress
>muh evolution
who cares.

[Anonymous No.11724103]

He literally wrote a novel that was adapted into a movie. Quit being such a turbo faggot.

[Anonymous No.11724104]

>>11724101
Then you should destroy your computer now.

[Anonymous No.11724105]

>>11724088
Cool.

[Anonymous No.11724107]

>>11724103
So? Making extra money on idiots is always a great idea. Listen to his argument.

[Anonymous No.11724113]

>>11724088
He didn't say what type of books to read, he just says you need to be picky with what you read, and I cant see anyone disagreeing with that

[Anonymous No.11724121]

>>11724104
easy with the hyperboles, kid.

[Anonymous No.11724127]

If he were alive today I bet he wouldnt approve of wasting time in weave basking forums like this. Leave while you can!

[Anonymous No.11724128]

>>11724113
What's the value of reading fantasy for example? All these books are the same. Same stories over and over again. They teach you nothing. Criminal books? Romanses? The Bible?

[Anonymous No.11724134]

>>11724127
I'm on a mission here.

[Anonymous No.11724136]

>OP doesn't know that science FICTION encouraged a lot of scientists to become scientists

[Anonymous No.11724143]

>>11724136
Yeah, and then we end up with meme scientists like Tyson.

[Anonymous No.11724148]

>>11724107
You say that like I haven’t watched this episode of Cosmos a thousand times. I was even going to get the original translation of “books are nourishment for the soul” that a museum did for me tattooed on my shoulder but I lost the fucking translation.

Anyway, all he says is you can only read so many books in your lifetime. Even one of his sons is a sci-fi/fantasy writer. Get fucked.

[Anonymous No.11724162]

>>11724128
There is no "value" in anything, there are however different ends for everyone. A theologian is interested in different books than a scientist, a philosohper is interested in different books than a 12 year old girl

Thinking there is some "objective value" to books and you should only read the most high value books is a moot point

[Anonymous No.11724164]

>>11724143
It's quite a stretch to even call him scientist. He is about as useful as Bill Nye.

[Anonymous No.11724180]

>>11724162
I can tell when a book is wrong about reality. This book goes into trash. It teaches me no new skill.

[Anonymous No.11724187]

>>11724164
At least Tyson is a legitimate educator. He’s a museum director, for fuck’s sake. Nye just has a bachelors in engineering.

[Anonymous No.11724188]

>>11724180
Learning about reality isn't the be all and end all in case you didn't read between the lines

[Anonymous No.11724192]

>>11724088
>t. underage /lit/
>misunderstands the point of his own source
>muh science has all answers
>can't talk esthetics, morality, consciousness
>>11724107
>look at me, I'm Mr. Science and all about the truth
>fools people to make money, literally acts against his own denomination of morality
>>11724128
>It's all just the same story bro
>what is literary progress
>what is poetry
Damn incels. Grow up and go take a walk in the park. Better yet, get a job.

[Anonymous No.11724194]

Cool story, bro

[Anonymous No.11724212]

>>11724088
wasn't he a literal cuck or something?

[Anonymous No.11724213]

>>11724180
>I have skillz
>posts Carl Sagan
>misunderstands what he says
If you actually had skill, you wouldn't be such a sperg.

[Anonymous No.11724214]

>>11724192
>t. the post

[Anonymous No.11724226]

>>11724088
>not reading both and getting the best of both worlds
fucking close-minded retards. I'm never going to restrict myself to one single genre, that must be boring as fuck

[Anonymous No.11724227]

>>11724188
It is though. Nothing else matters.

https://youtu.be/wupToqz1e2g

[Anonymous No.11724236]

>>11724226
You will never become an expert.

[Anonymous No.11724277]

>>11724236
I don't want to be, Mark. I have broad horizons, a lot of topics to discuss with people and a well-paid job. But you can keep reading scientific publications and hope to... discover something someday. Or whatever it is that you wish to achieve.

[Anonymous No.11724289]

>>11724104
you're equating technology and science.

[Anonymous No.11724293]

>>11724289
No technology without science. Technology is the purpose of science.

[Anonymous No.11724302]

>>11724088
How did he come to that realization? How does he come to realize what is good and worthy and otherwise bad and unworthy? His pursuit to spread this certainty of his to a mass audience, this certainty based on what he thinks is good, certainly he must be able to articulate this feeling since he has been so lead by it as to not only dedicate his own life to the pursuit of this, his certainty on what is good, but to motivate and direct others to pursue a similar path. Come now, his findings on what is good and noble to pursue he makes quite plain, but as to his certainty on what is good, not only for himself but for all, that knowledge takes priority over all others. For if he could articulate how it is we can be certain about what is good for us, we would, by our own reason, come to the same conclusions he has, that is, if his claims are true.

[Anonymous No.11724306]

>>11724293
but anon said he didn't care for science (I'd assume he means physics, chemistry and the like), not technology. so you're just being a cunt.

[Anonymous No.11724317]

>>11724302
Good is what you can use to manipulate reality according to your purpose. Bad is what doesn't lead you to your goal. In the Universe utility is king.

[Anonymous No.11724322]

>>11724306
If he doesn't care about science then he doesn't care about creations of science. Can't have one or the other.

[Anonymous No.11724580]

>>11724317
So you are saying goodness is Utility, and you define that by what you can use to manipulate reality according to your purposes and Bad as that which has no Utility, that which doesn’t lead you to your goal. Ok. Now say there was 100$ between you and I, and whoever can define goodness best wins. According to you, we would continue to out define each other, as we would both be participating in what is good for us, winning the 100$, but then we would never come to an agreement of what goodness is, because it would conflict with our own good. So by your definition, we’d be both participating in goodness and be conflicted as to being able to define what the good was. What I’m saying is, we would both be good and yet unable to agree on what goodness is because being good, under these circumstances, would forbid this. That doesn’t make much sense to me. Surely we can agree on what goodness is, as that which is good for you is the same as for me, but by your definition, a circumstance where our purposes conflict, goodness would be both something we can participate in but be in disagreement about. That’s contradicting.

[Anonymous No.11724598]

>>11724580
Dude, what?
Time is money. If it would take too much time my best interest would be to move on or fuck the entire argument altogether. More money, more time I'm willing to spend.

[Anonymous No.11724604]

>>11724322
yea, you can. most people don't give a shit about physics but are looking forward to the next phone or game console.

[Anonymous No.11724609]

>>11724088
k

[Anonymous No.11724618]

>>11724604
This makes them uninformed at best. They need to be educated about facts.

[Anonymous No.11724630]

>>11724088
What one does he recommend? I'm on mobile data and I don't want to waste it on videos.

[Anonymous No.11724646]

>>11724630
He reccomends reading good books.

[Anonymous No.11724655]

>>11724598
Say someone has a gun to their head, and they are ordered to hold guns to our heads and force out of one is the definition of goodness, and the person who can define goodness best survives. According to your definition, all three of us would be dead and we’d all have been participating in what was good for us.

[Anonymous No.11724674]

>>11724192
this isn't wrong
>>11724227
this is unbearably wrong

[Anonymous No.11724676]

>>11724162

Philosophers are far more interested in 12 year old boys...oh nevermind...

[Anonymous No.11724678]

>>11724646
>science chad: just read good books bro
>someone who wants to learn: what books?
>science chad: good ones

Why do science folk do this

[Anonymous No.11724686]

>>11724655
This example is retarded. The guy without a gun on his head decides which definition he likes the most. He can chose the wrong one because of his feelings.

[Anonymous No.11724687]

>>11724618
You can be interested in the product itself without being interested in the explanation behind it. It's really not that a difficult concept. Most of humanity is like this.

[Anonymous No.11724697]

>>11724678
Because you are too poor to watch the source material and yet reply.

[Anonymous No.11724703]

>>11724687
They may have an opinion but their opinion is factually wrong.

[Anonymous No.11724722]

>>11724686
And according to your definition, he would be good doing so

[Anonymous No.11724727]

>>11724697
>Chad scientist: we want to spread knowledge to everyone for the benefit of society so we can eliminate poverty
>normal person: what books would you recommend to start with considering the vast array of them. Time is precious after all
>Chad scientist: bro if you can't even figure out what books to read you're poor and stupid

Again, who do scientists do this

[Anonymous No.11724728]

nice bait

[Anonymous No.11724735]

>>11724722
Sure. If I failed to kill him first It wouldn't really matter what my opinion was. I would kill him as well if I were in his position. No hard feelings.

[Anonymous No.11724740]

>>11724728
/pol/ trained me well.

[Anonymous No.11724746]

>>11724703
Not really. One can live without understanding supernovas and blackholes yet love technological advances.

[Anonymous No.11724761]

>>11724746
Their love means nothing to me. If they love technology, they love science as well even though they don't see it. They are blind.

[Anonymous No.11724781]

>>11724735
So to recap, Goodness is Utility, and you define that by what you can use to manipulate reality according to your purposes and Bad as that which has no Utility, that which doesn’t lead you to your goal. And in the situation where a crazy gunmen was forced by threat of death to hold guns to our head and our lives being at stake we are forced to give the best definition of goodness against each other, we would all be dead and we would have all been participating in goodness and doing what was good for us.

[Anonymous No.11724792]

>>11724781
I would lie to them, retard.

[Anonymous No.11724793]

>>11724761
Loving the mother and loving the child are two different things, though. And it ultimately doesn't matter if they're blind or not. They love the product, not the abstract interpretation of its inner working.

[Anonymous No.11724805]

>>11724793
Not my fault that they don't understand what science and technology are.

[Anonymous No.11724943]

>>11724088
To speak about literature implies that it has identifiable traits which set it apart from other forms of discourse. So, you may want to think on what is and isn’t literature. What is it’s purpose? Literature performs three functions, it presents human experience for our meditation and contemplation, it offers an interpretation of those experiences, and it does so in a form/technique/beauty that is enjoyable to readers.

It consists of technique, form, beauty, and creativity, and these elements are self-rewarding as a form of enjoyment and aesthetic enrichment. Literature’s content has a lot to do with human experience, beyond the presentation of abstract thoughts and ideas. However, this is not to deny that the perspective, values, and ideas present in a work form an important part of the literary enterprise.

Literature is not, in itself, a direct rendition of reality, which is were many people tend to make their most grievous mistake. It is an imaginary world, having its own characteristics and it’s own integrity as a world created by the author. That is to say, literature is a construct of the imagination which exists and works by a set of rules which are (even in the most “realistic” of fiction) always to a degree fantastical and unlifelike. Literature is a form which takes human experience as its starting point, transforms it through the imagination and interplay of the author/reader relationship, and then sends the reader back into the world, reinvigorated and with a new understanding of life, along with a hunger for more of it, because of a purely imagined world of fiction.

The impulse to reduce literature to a series of ideas or arguments is to avoid its most important characteristic, which is it’s imaginary dimension.

It is, alone, built on the paradox that it is a make-believe world which nevertheless reminds us of true life, and further, clarified that life. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, literature is not meant to be mistaken for reality, but instead brings realities to mind. Reading literature and fiction relies on the reader respecting the ability of our imagination to embody truth, for some of us, we realize that many times it does so more successfully than what is “real” ever could. Literature is not a solely didactic form. It is a truthfulness to human experience and external reality, but it’s benefit is not necessarily that it tells us the truth about an issue or the right way of thinking, instead, it is that it serves as a catalyst for thinking about life’s most important issues.

Most non-fiction books, like Sagan’s will tell you facts, what to think. Who knows in the future how much of the “fact” in non-fiction or “scientific publications” (whatever that means) will be wrong, and thus cross over into the world of fiction. And then what does it have to offer you? It is literature which will teach you how to think, instead of blindly telling you what to think.

[Anonymous No.11725627]

>>11724322
yeah he can, he clearly does. Are you going to go stop him?

[Anonymous No.11726742]

>>11724792
>I would lie to them retard
A philosopher for the ages.

[Anonymous No.11727047]

>>11724212
when someone sticks their cock in your wife
all your arguments magically become wrong

[Anonymous No.11727059]

>>11724088
he didn't even mention science though
Also, you would be stronger having read Moby Dick rather than compsci

[Anonymous No.11727062]

>>11727059
Reading doesn't make you stronger, lifting does.

[Anonymous No.11727067]

>>11727062
I'm talking about spiritual power

[Anonymous No.11727070]

>>11727067
No such thing. There is only matter.

[Anonymous No.11727083]

>>11727070
Call it mental fortitude. Even if you're a filthy materialist, there are many complex physical interactions which are not yet understood by science and which manifest in extraordinary human endeavours. The work of the gods is wrought by godlike men

[Anonymous No.11727089]

>>11727083
>The work of the gods
Who?

[Anonymous No.11727136]

>>11724293

By what science did missiles and agriculture come to be?

[Anonymous No.11727145]

>>11727136
It literally did. Scientific method is present in every non retarded human activity.

[Anonymous No.11727153]

>>11724761
If you love the world you love god for it is his creation. You are blind.

[Anonymous No.11727159]

>>11727153
God exists only in your head. Take that shit to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.11727172]

>>11724805
But what does the science matter to the end user? He just uses the product as means. Do you think about how processors work and how they are made when using a phone? Likewise people are oblivious to science in general and can get on fine with their life. Moreover technology relies on being useful without requiring scientific knowledge as obviously not everyone can have it. Science has contributed immensely to tidaus living conditions but is still irrelevant to the average Joe. We just live life, we don't do science.

[Anonymous No.11727174]

>>11727145

Can you name some notable papers, theories, people responsible for the leap from no missle and no agriculture to cosmopolitan missiles and agriculture?

[Anonymous No.11727187]

>>11727174
People who invented agriculture didn't write things down. There are later clay tablets. Missiles were invented by Nazi scientists.

[Anonymous No.11727215]

>>11727187

I meant missiles as in bows and arrows, slings, spears, spear-throwers, firearms, etc. Cosmopolitan distribution in effectively pre-imperial times must have entailed titanic scientific effort. Surely it's not that hard to provide a single name or text.

[Anonymous No.11727223]

>>11727215
It is hard because they invented these branches of science before writing was a thing.

[Anonymous No.11727236]

>>11724088
What are some good scientific publications specifically? Wouldn't want to waste time searching and reading bad ones.

[Anonymous No.11727241]

>>11727236
Depends on your field of study. What do you do?

[Anonymous No.11727244]

>>11727241
neet

[Anonymous No.11727252]

>>11727223

How could the rigors of such endeavors lend themselves to word of mouth? Science is awesome by sheer volume alone, even its trivialities surpassing our memories' best efforts.

[Anonymous No.11727281]

>>11727252
Selected people back then had better memory and memorized entire knowledge of their people.

[Anonymous No.11727351]

>>11727281

Big if true.

[Anonymous No.11727390]

>>11724104
Done

[Anonymous No.11727397]

>>11724104
I mean, let the science people do science. If I get a laptop out of it: nice

[Anonymous No.11727411]

>>11727159
Well so does science. I'm not even religious, just want to show how retarded you and your argument are.

[Anonymous No.11728441]

>>11724192
hurr durr i have le sexi secks xDDd

[Anonymous No.11728461]

>>11724128
>What's the value of reading fantasy for example?
To get more out of your bits.

[Anonymous No.11729684]

>>11724128
Entertainment, sometimes they teach you simple morals or about themes in a base way.

[Anonymous No.11729707]

>>11729684
Nothing teaches you morals better then interacting with real people.

[Anonymous No.11729721]

>>11727159
Wow you told him to go to /pol/
Got him good

[Anonymous No.11729736]

>>11729707
But then I wouldn't be reading you pseud

[Anonymous No.11730197]

>Carl Sagan

[Anonymous No.11730328]

>>11727236
Reading whole journals hasn't made sense for over 50 years (maybe +100). What you do is that you follow journals covering subjects that interests you, and each time there's a new issue you go though the table of content to see if there's anything noteworthy. If there is, you read the abstract to determine if you want to read (some of) the article. Monographs are nearly always a waste of time. Researchers write them to wrench some money out of their research (journal articles are unpaid, but authors of monographs are paid). They are usually just the authors older research papers collected in one text, made as long and winding as possible to make more money. If you find a monograph that really peaks your interest, just look up the authors older research and you will in almost all cases find better papers, with the same content.

There are no journals dedicated to the subject of NEETdom. You are better off searching in google scholar with relevant terms (or use a proper indexing service if you can get access). You'll find a good deal of papers and you can go on investigating the journals the NEET research has been published in. With such specific subjects it is often better to identify relevant scholars that work with your subject of choice, and follow their research.

t. research librarian

[Anonymous No.11730353]

>>11727244
Found a review of hiko-reseach for you. It seems of okay quality. They mix the concepts of hiko and neet. At least the references should give you a good starting point for searching further in the literature.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0004867415581179

[Anonymous No.11730953]

The best fiction is borderline autobiographical