Reading philosophical texts

[Anonymous No.5476575]

Hey everyone

I have a problem with a large number of philosophical text. Whenever I read them, it seems that they just go on and on with pointless drivel. Once in a while, they throw me a bone, though, and it convinces me to keep reading. But then they continue with their drivel. It kind of goes like this:

Blablablablablabla [profound statement] Blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla [valuable insight] blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla [interesting remark] blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla [a small gist of things] blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla and so on

Now what I want to ask you is this: is it just my poor perception that I can't decipher what 90% of the stuff is supposed to tell/illustrate for me? Or is it just badly written? Both?

Thanks for the insight.

>pic related, the last book I read. Similar experience

[Anonymous No.5476579]

There's no shame in sticking to videogames.

[Anonymous No.5476876]

>>5476579
So you think the problem is me? What can I do to improve my reading skills?

>pic related also gave me lots of problems

[Anonymous No.5476893]

Seems unlikely he just added things for filler doesn't it

[Anonymous No.5476907]

>>5476575
I mean, some philosophy is a bit ambiguous so in a few instance what you're struggling with is pretty universal. However, from my experiences, those few profound statements interspersed in a text don't just randomly appear, but are the result of a layering of ideas by the philosopher. Maybe just reread some passages again and just to focus a bit more and you might see that sort of story unfold.

[Anonymous No.5476923]

>>5476575
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

Life is absurd, our only real choice is to accept this absurdity, only then can we be free and find happiness in the ultimate futility of the human condition.

[Anonymous No.5476970]

>>5476575
It's called obscurantism, OP. And yes, it Is pointless drivel.

[Anonymous No.5477044]

>>5476575
Oh, you're stupid alright, but that essay is some of the worst thinking ever amalgamated. Camus was a retard.

[Anonymous No.5477152]

I fucking hate you, /lit/, you're all bunch of elitist fucks

I didn't come here to be called an idiot, I only wanted an insight on how other people perceive philosophical texts


Fuck you guys, seriously. Fuck. You.

[Anonymous No.5477196]

>>5477152
Sorry that you're stupid. If it helps, most are like you. You will have an easy life, comparative to an intelligent individual.

[Anonymous No.5477223]

>>5477152

>goes on a literature board and gets mad that his /b/ tier "Blablablablabla" spamming isn't being perfectly pandered to and placated

Fuck off back to whatever board you came from.

[Anonymous No.5477227]

>>5477152
Epik.

[Anonymous No.5477241]

>>5476575
Just read around the bits that you don't find interesting.

[Anonymous No.5477245]

>>5477196
Much like this retard

[Anonymous No.5477254]

>>5477245
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.5477260]

OP: perhaps you have the wrong idea about philosophy. it has never been about explaining man's position in the world.

it's about showing off. peacock feathers. none of those postmodernists believe a word of that drivel; they are simply trying to make themselves look deep in case a cute girl happens to be listening.

[Anonymous No.5477273]

>>5476575
You are just a pleb and not born for this, as Plato would say. Also you've been brainwashed by materialism.

[Anonymous No.5477284]

>>5477152
You have no imagination. Enjoy being worse than some illiterate peasant that could atleast sing in the country fairs.

[Anonymous No.5477286]

Most of that blablablablabla is the guy setting up the context in which to understand their profound statement. Not essential, but important if you want to understand their profundity in anything but a vacuum.

[walf !.P87xQl3Pg No.5477315]

>>5476575
Try reading or listening to something on the philosopher you want to learn about, rather than going straight to the philosopher him/herself. The Partially Examined Life is good at giving a basic rundown on a text within an hour or so while still being entertaining. So you can listen to your funny podcast, then sit down and read the text with an idea of what you're getting into and what to pay attention to. Or just read a wikipedia article or something.

[Anonymous No.5477394]

>>5477260
Ha, so true.

[Anonymous No.5477721]

You had trouble with Myth of Sisyphus? What the fuck? Lol. That shit is ez pz. In all seriousness, a lot of the problems are contextualized and are usually posed in critic of a previous philosopher. Thus, it creates a sort of academic setting that isn't so easy to access unless you have a deep understanding of the history of philosophy. Hence, the criticism of philosophy. Nevertheless, I don't think you should be as cynical of some on here, whereby they think its entirely obscure. You wouldn't except to go into a quantum mechanics class and immediately understand the momentum operator and how it fails to commute with the position operator and hence generates the uncertainty principle. Philosophy is in the same position, that is, it takes rigor to build-up in philosophical knowledge to tackle problems.

[Anonymous No.5478780]

For me the problem was attitude. When you read a normal book, it's a relaxing action you can joy without keeping 100% of your attention at it (unless you're analysing the story or something). It's just a fun read.
With philosophical texts, you have to -actively- read it. My teacher once said, 'you have to read philosophy with a pen'. By doing this, you're keeping your attention on the text, you mark things and try to summarize views in a few words.

Of course there's a lot of pointless drivel inbetween, but everything is probably there for a reason. You might not be interested in X, but someone else may. The thing is, you have to take out what's important for you, and you do this by marking/summarizing.