/lit/ - Literature

>>12263712

>>12176351
>trumpism
>redpilled

>>11306256

Source? Also, this seems to indicate that you'll do just fine if you get a bachelor's degree. Date relatively within your educational background? That would seem natural merely from a conversational stand point. I would hardly expect someone with a PhD to maintain a good conversation with someone who didn't graduate college.

>>11306260

I'm not going out to google your source for the point you are trying to prove. Man, if you want to say something, let it stand for itself. Don't make me prove your point.

>>11306281

It may be your right to be ignorant, but I believe that is what Peterson, if he is your guy, is against. Build a better standard for yourself, or sink into stagnation. Your call. Did you make your bed today?

>>11185952
lost

>>10808757
Nice "media" you have there. Quite the "fourth estate."

>axioms
Why is "I have no proof whatsoever of this but let's just assume it" accepted as valid in an argument?

Is it just philosophers trying to justify their paychecks and mistaking activity for achievement. "We can't have a debate without axioms so instead of examining whether or not a debate based on axioms is worth having, let's just talk shit endlessly."

Recommend me some positivist literature.

>>10581852

Nice one anon, really made me chuckle.

>>10579869

>>10306011

Come on...I'm being serious stop trying to make me laugh.

>>10263809

>he asks why a for-profit simplistic and generic advice book written for gullible/retarded people is a bad thing

>>9975333

>>9774669

>>9708202
> a butcher you are sir
> of the words that you speak
> you do our language a disservice

>>9638017
>I'm sure you see a SJW prototype and a Jewish conspiracy in everything.

>>9388399
>Strindsperg

Ok, explain something.

Why this board dismisses so easily the plot if all the western canon shit I've read it seems more important (by important I mean impressive) the plot of the story being told and the ideas behind the work.

It seems as if the plot and the quality of the ideas (that are simply tropes and retellings of previous authors tropes, or philosophical mumblings over ethical concerns) matters more than the quality of the written text.

Am I on the right path?
Does most authors simply use the language in eloquent (but not amazing) ways, this includes most of the western canon.

By not amazing I mean, the language reads as simply the use of someone well read, but doesn't go beyond something extraordinary.

Am I wrong in my impression that inmortal writers are mere humans, who also shat and peed themselves, with failures and love in their lives, mere mortals of flesh and poop.

The only writer I've seen that comes near to make something impressive to me, is shakespeare.

Oh dear shakespeare.

Is he the only one who fulfill my desire to see greatness or am I a pleb for not taking seriously the other mere mortals?

>this thread

>>9019871
hot damn

>>8722720

Alight buddy, thanks for the productive discussion and the laugh.

>>8643893

>>8565389
It's respectable

>>8565923
>The Economist
>New Left review

>>8552178

>>8550290
>Trust me I was just acting retarded
Thanks for the kek