/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15029463]

>I wish I had more time to read fiction, but in college I made the conscious choice to avoid doing so. We only can read so many books before we die, and so if you are looking to know the truth you are going to have to prioritize what is real over what is fake: and fiction, by definition isn't real. I won't go so far as to say you have a moral responsibility to read nonfiction over fiction, although Eliezer Yudkosky made a pretty strong case for that [...]The spread of the truth seems to increase the total amount of wellbeing in the world, while the same isn't true for pretty stories.There may be some problems with his argument: there are probably some people who find greater pleasure from reading fiction than nonfiction, and for those people reading fiction probably is one of the peaks on the moral landscape. But I unfortunately don't share that pleasure, so I can't say that I have read much fiction, and I think most people are better off not doing so.

>I would reccommend all my listeners to try to open their mind to reading brilliantly written literary nonfiction instead: Derik Parfit's "Reasons and Persons" comes to mind.

[Anonymous No.15029504]

>>15029463

>Non-fiction
>Brilliant

Non-fiction doesn't exist. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15029511]

He's unironically right. The best fiction will always been inferior to film or television so your better off actually reading to learn things.

[Anonymous No.15029571]

>>15029463
This demonstrates that the people who hate the idea of reading fiction are soulless bugmen. You should read lots of non-fiction but no appreciation of fiction demonstrates inhumanity.

[Anonymous No.15029598]

>>15029463
is this a real quote

[Keynes No.15029684]

>>15029463
BASED.

[Anonymous No.15029705]

>>15029463
> Of course, no matter how keenly, how admirably, a story, a piece of music, a picture is discussed and analyzed, there will be minds that remain blank and spines that remain unkindled. "To take upon us the mystery of things"—what King Lear so wistfully says for himself and for Cordelia—this is also my suggestion for everyone who takes art seriously. A poor man is robbed of his overcoat (Gogol's "The Greatcoat," or more correctly "The Carrick"); another poor fellow is turned into a beetle (Kafka's "The Metamorphosis)—so what? There is no rational answer to "so what." We can take the story apart, we can find out how the bits fit, how one part of the pattern responds to the other; but you have to have in you some cell, some gene, some germ that will vibrate in answer to sensations that you can neither define, nor dismiss.

Vladimir Nabokov

[Anonymous No.15029730]

>>15029511
Hard disagree. Reading fiction lets you explore perceptions, thoughts, and reflections of the author on society much more than television.
You can compare Catch-22 the book to the miniseries and/or movie.

[Anonymous No.15030628]

>>15029463
bumping for such a bold statement

[Anonymous No.15030632]

>>15029463
What a load of bullshit

[Anonymous No.15031189]

>>15029463
absolute silliness

[Anonymous No.15031326]

>>15029511

Let's use the analogy of Adler's "How to read a book", in which reading, never passive is more akin to catching a ball that is thrown than simply watching someone throw it.
You are having a game of catch with the author, if you don't understand them, you don't catch the ball.
By the mere process of having to "render" meaning for each sentence yourself, or more accurately, keep up with the author's conversation, it is much harder to delude yourself into believing that you understood it or ascertained a better outlook on a topic.
Whereas film/television has more visual elements, unspoken scenes that leave themselves open to interpretation and it is much easier to misinterpret the entirety, because for one there is no one author, and the tone of the conversation is not clear.
This is essentially the reason people will mostly say "the book is better", because the conversation is what they took from the book and it is not there in its full form in the adaptation, nor could it possibly be.

[Anonymous No.15031359]

>>15029511
Nice bait

[Anonymous No.15031360]

>>15029463
you can get through a book a day
fiction is better for transmitting ideas

[Anonymous No.15031390]

>>15029504
what's your definition of non fiction?

[Anonymous No.15031413]

>>15029463
100% agree. I concluded the same years ago. Fiction is mind sugar. >>15029463

[Anonymous No.15031419]

>>15029463
>In this moment, I am increasing the total amount of wellbeing in the world. Not because of any phony fictional narrative. But because, I am enlightened by nonfiction.

[Anonymous No.15031425]

>>15029463
>Believing in the false fiction/non-fiction dichotomy
Oh I'm laffin

[Anonymous No.15031435]

>>15029571
Absolutely right. Denying yourself some of the highest forms of art ever conceived.
You must really be souless to dismiss fiction as fake stories, it seems unthinkable to me.

[Anonymous No.15031506]

>>15031326
You're undermining your point by quoting from a non-fiction book.

[Anonymous No.15031513]

>>15029463
does anyone have a nonfiction chart?

[Anonymous No.15031565]

>>15029463
What a lot of people don't understand is that fiction can bring more real-world value than non-fiction. A great illustration of this is 1984.

[Anonymous No.15031576]

>>15029463
Fiction is the only thing worth reading in the literary (meaning, non science) world.
If you are going to read non-fiction, stick to scientific peer reviewed papers.
Anything that is not the above mentioned (which I think is what OP is talking about) is useless mental masturbation.

[Anonymous No.15031592]

We all know the superior word artform is nonfiction subconsciously made out of fiction about nonfiction

[Keynes No.15031608]

>>15031576
fuck you. Philosophy exercises the mind greatly, but fiction doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15031649]

>>15029463
>We only can read so many books before we die, and so if you are looking to know the truth you are going to have to prioritize what is real over what is fake

An interesting opinion for a man who has clearly never read a fucking book. This guy is the definition of a midwit. What sort of ret-
>Eliezer Yudkosky

Ah.

[Anonymous No.15031658]

>In the midst of this ordinariness, however, I was suddenly struck by the knowledge that I loved my friend. This shouldn’t have surprised me—he was, after all, one of my best friends. However, at that age I was not in the habit of dwelling on how much I loved the men in my life. Now I could feel that I loved him, and this feeling had ethical implications that suddenly seemed as profound as they now sound pedestrian on the page: I wanted him to be happy.
>That conviction came crashing down with such force that something seemed to give way inside me. In fact, the insight appeared to restructure my mind. My capacity for envy, for instance—the sense of being diminished by the happiness or success of another person—seemed like a symptom of mental illness that had vanished without a trace. I could no more have felt envy at that moment than I could have wanted to poke out my own eyes. What did I care if my friend was better looking or a better athlete than I was? If I could have bestowed those gifts on him, I would have. Truly wanting him to be happy made his happiness my own.
>A certain euphoria was creeping into these reflections, perhaps, but the general feeling remained one of absolute sobriety—and of moral and emotional clarity unlike any I had ever known. It would not be too strong to say that I felt sane for the first time in my life. And yet the change in my consciousness seemed entirely straightforward. I was simply talking to my friend—about what, I don’t recall—and realized that I had ceased to be concerned about myself. I was no longer anxious, self-critical, guarded by irony, in competition, avoiding embarrassment, ruminating about the past and future, or making any other gesture of thought or attention that separated me from him. I was no longer watching myself through another person’s eyes.
>And then came the insight that irrevocably transformed my sense of how good human life could be. I was feeling boundless love for one of my best friends, and I suddenly realized that if a stranger had walked through the door at that moment, he or she would have been fully included in this love. Love was at bottom impersonal—and deeper than any personal history could justify. Indeed, a transactional form of love—I love you because…—now made no sense at all.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one

[Anonymous No.15031666]

>>15029463
Looks like it’s been proven that the people who refuse to read fiction are soulless NPC bugmen

[Anonymous No.15031687]

>>15029463
>lol guys why don't we exchange the bible for like marcus aurelius

nice truth there fag, if it was any other writer I'd believed it

[Anonymous No.15031692]

>>15031608
>but fiction doesn't.
Not sure if this is trollposting or if you're really that stupid.
Have you ever had to use a metaphor or allegory in your fucking life to explain a concept to someone? You know how powerful those can be to convey meaning, right?
If you agree to this, it shouldn't take you too many more steps to understand why Fiction can be powerful. If you think fiction = fantasy strictly, you're a sad fuck.

[Anonymous No.15031713]

>>15031658
teenage tier

[Anonymous No.15031718]

Chad

[Anonymous No.15031730]

>>15031608
Philosophy IS fiction

[Anonymous No.15031745]

>>15031718
Yeah, this it what it boils down to. Dumb fucks who think fiction has to mean fantasy, and who think non-fiction books are automatically truth even when they are just regurgitated opinions with no peer review.
It's the worst type of combination. They can't grasp good works of fiction or the power they have to convey ideas non-fiction can't penetrate, and they also don't have the necessary knowledge to read primary source, peer reviewed work.

[Anonymous No.15031788]

>>15031565
Good point. The Bible is fiction, yet it's the most important book in the history of humanity.

[Anonymous No.15031794]

>>15031788
>the most important book in the history of humanity.
cringe....

[Anonymous No.15031848]

>>15029463
Definitely recommend the Holy Bible if you want some great non-fiction literature.

[Anonymous No.15031875]

>>15029463
Where would you draw the line between fiction and non fiction? What about speculative fiction or stories constructed to demonstrate principles or lessons? How are you going to trust someone's account of something as truthful?

[Anonymous No.15031886]

>>15029463

[Anonymous No.15031898]

what a prick

[Anonymous No.15031917]

>>15031713
It's Sam Harris, so what were you expecting?

[Anonymous No.15031943]

>>15029463

>Sam "You misinterpretate my thought experiment on nuking muslims" Harris
Yeah, nah

[Anonymous No.15032045]

>>15031419
Based and euphoriapilled

[Anonymous No.15032064]

>>15029598
It is now

[Anonymous No.15032091]

>Fiction does not hold truth
I know this guy is retarded but still how can you even make such a bold and completely unfounded statement.
And does he even believe in truth, from what I know he does not even think truth is real.

[Anonymous No.15032136]

>>15029463
Pic guy is a pseud

[Anonymous No.15032179]

>>15032136
this

[Anonymous No.15032206]

>>15032091
Nice to see people are finally on Jordan Peterson's side!

[Anonymous No.15032215]

>>15031794
It is.

[Anonymous No.15032301]

>and fiction, by definition isn't real

Most fiction is a waste of time, but how much of a midwit do you have to be to not understand that fiction can communicate through fake, non-real stories the deepest truths no science can capture? Fiction is just another way of modeling the truth.

[Anonymous No.15032357]

>>15032301
You on the right

[Anonymous No.15032394]

Fuck understanding culture amiright?
When reading Herodotus do you skip over the parts you dont believe?

[Anonymous No.15032455]

>>15029463
If you're a man on a mission, I get it.

[Anonymous No.15032460]

>>15031943
poor muslimerinos, what a frickin meanie!

[Anonymous No.15032518]

>>15032301

[Anonymous No.15032734]

>>15031794
It literally is, it is not even debatable.

[Anonymous No.15032756]

>>15032734
>It literally is, it is not even debatable.

[Anonymous No.15032759]

>>15029463
The bugmen cometh

[Anonymous No.15032809]

>>15032756
Nice wojak faggot, what year is this?

[Anonymous No.15032815]

>>15031745
>convey ideas non-fiction can't penetrate
Those ideas are likely to be worthless

[Anonymous No.15032827]

>>15029463
>>15029463
The term "fiction" deserves to be burned alongside the young adults that write it.
Novels are already real because they exist. They are products of reality and therefore express some aspect of reality. It is through literature than reality first comes into focus.

[Anonymous No.15032968]

>>15031506

No I'm not. I was talking about the film vs reading point. But anyway, reading nonfiction and fiction is not a real dichotomy, I read both.

And anyone with an iota of understanding of what makes literature literature and not just "nonfiction" would find Sam's point redundant too. Literature uses a world, a character, events, whatever that may or may not be real to express real political/religious/social/psychological phenomena.

Literature isn't held in high-esteem or separated from the rest of the books "because its old", no. It's because those books expressed a real time period, a real way of life, a thought, a feeling that people wanted to express and idenfitifed with through the author. The only reason it tends to be old is because we can vet out what was actually culturally relevant to the time period and what still resonates with people when we are detached from that specific moment in time.

The retard problem with "nonfiction" is they see it as a story that didn't happen. When literature is what did happen to many people or could happen to you.

[Anonymous No.15032981]

>>15032968

with "fiction"*, I should have said.

[Anonymous No.15034537]

>>15029463
>the only visual art you should look at is product schematics and blueprints, otherwise your wasting your time
Fucking atheists man. They can't understand what they're missing

[Anonymous No.15034558]

>>15032815
or maybe the techniques of your non-fiction are impotent

[Anonymous No.15034580]

>>15029511
I realized how wrong you are when I was 11 and read Jurassic Park.

[Anonymous No.15034741]

>>15029463
There is more truth in fiction than in non-fiction

[Anonymous No.15034816]

>>15031943
>nuking mudslimes
b&r

[Anonymous No.15034863]

>>15032460
Go to bed, sam

[Anonymous No.15034878]

I fucking hate Americans so much it's unreal.

[Anonymous No.15034942]

>>15034878
Me too. We should get a plane and fly into some towers.

[Anonymous No.15034970]

>>15029463
Fiction doesn't exist. The fact that a work is coherent to you makes it as real as any other story, whether some of the details of that story happened to someone at some point in history is largely irrelevant to this primary point.

[Keynes No.15034985]

>>15031608
Maybe this is the reason my fiction is so terrible.

[Anonymous No.15035629]

>>15034558
Tu quoque is the lamest fallacy

[Anonymous No.15035702]

It’s astounding to me that this is even an argument that goes on here. Some fiction is brain dead tripe but some fiction can also be beautiful or tragic stories and teach valuable life lessons or grant knowledge or insight to things you would not have otherwise considered or thought of. Steppenwolf is a very good example of this but there are countless. Reading only books of facts is one of the most pseud things humanly possible if one is aware and doing it on purpose, and is autism comparable to reading encyclopedias from A-Z if the person is unaware.

[Anonymous No.15035743]

>>15031419
kek

[Anonymous No.15036109]

>>15029463
I have a friend who parrots this chump all the time and unironically describes him as his "hero"

>"science can answer moral questions!"

Okay does your "moral landscape" account for those who feel like their "moral peaks" consist of murdering others for their own utilitarian (or even purely hedonistic) benefit?
"no because society arrives at a general consensus this is wrong."
Well how do different societies come to wholly different "consensuses"?
If you contend that morals can be discerned scientific, consensual fiat how is this any different from moral objectivity? Furthermore, how can you sustain this line of argument when you eschew the idea of any divine moral arbiter?

Trying to meet his guy head on as an intellectual is futile, he is the epitome of edgy materialist-rationalist utilitarianism that most serious thinkers grow out of after they read (ironically) 19th century literature which deals extensively with his ideas (repackaged utilitarianism).

Even when he has these problems of moral relativism explained to him AGAIN AND AGAIN he never seems to even grasp why he is getting btfo (i.e. he's too conceited and outright DUMB to even comprehend WHY he is wrong). All anyone needs to watch is his debate with William Lane-Craig to understand just how out of his depth he is when debating serious theologens and ethicists. He can't even structure his arguments properly - he just finishes what he has to say without concluding and its VERY jarring. He doesn't demonstrate any knowledge of the differences between moral epistemology, semantics or ontology and when questioned about knowledge outside the scope of the purely rational, divine revelation/ miracles (e.g. miracle of Fatima), he just brushes the questions aside.

[Anonymous No.15036183]

>>15031608
You get out of fiction as much as you're capable of bringing to it.

[Anonymous No.15036206]

>>15035629
No; I'm saying that fiction can get to the ideas that nonfiction "cannot penetrate" because those ideas are more valuable. Saying that ideas are less valuable, as you do, because nonfiction cannot address them is implying that the techniques of nonfict are "better" in some way, which I'm refuting.

[Anonymous No.15036599]

>>15035629
What has my exgf been telling you?

[Anonymous No.15036643]

>>15031713
True,but its very sincere.I tend to value that more than actual quality.

[Anonymous No.15036656]

>>15029463
What does /lit/ think of HPMOR?

[Anonymous No.15037378]

>>15031608
Philosophy is a genre of fiction.