/lit/ - Literature

>>9177938

>Implying most people SHOULDN'T listen to an arbitrary ruler

>>9175400
that's not what happens in Catholic school you fucking liar

>>9161649

Here's the pic.

>>9156509

>"I used to be an atheist, but then I saw a big scary painting!"

why am I downloading all these books that I'll never read?

>>9140856

>BA in Philosophy

Wow, it's fucking nothing.

>>9130765

>Shifting the goalposts and changing the subject this hard when you get called out

Like pottery.

Have you realised that the information age, with the huge amount of reading material, everything in English or translated to English, and vastly increased number of (sub-)media for books alone (physical, magazine, tablet, phone, e-reader, website, blog etc.), has destroyed the idea of being "well read"?

I think this for two reasons. First is the huge volume of stuff. You could read all day and never even read 1 % of all that "valuable" stuff. When it was 1600 and you could have read everything during your 3 years of formal education (more than 99 % of people) you could immediately join the intellectuals club. Now that's not true and it's demoralising.

The second reason is the killer. The idea of some sort of central planning bureau setting the list of required books is seen as farcical. We truly live in a much more multipolar world. Back in 1100 the Church told you to read the Greeks and the Bible and you are suddenly intelligent and well informed. There were no universities or companies or groups to tell you otherwise. These days, the huge increase in education means that everyone has an opinion and the arbitrariness of the "canon" has been exposed even to the most soody of pseudo intellectuals. Not only due to the multipolarisation within literature, but also the multipolarisation among activities. Who would claim that some Fields Medallist winning mathematician is an idiot because he hasn't read the Bible? It would take a high level of soodiness. But it would have been easy 1000 years ago.

Ultimately all this "well read" stuff was just a way for groups of people to signal social status / intellectualism or deriving other benefits by grouping their claimed interests together. We see it today when the academia-media-publishing industrial complex tells you that you have to read books or you're stupid. But this has been taken to a farcical new level now that writers like Tao Lin / Mira Gonzalez exist. It's also clear in other activities.

>>8955777

>Implying a """critique""" like that merits anything other than mockery on /lit/

>see a university student holding her books in her hand when she could have just bought a larger bag
>realise she does it to affect the "innocent girl" look when she is 99 % likely to be a cum guzzling whore who fucks Chads constantly from tinder

I didn't ask for these post-ideology glasses, they chose me!

>>8927388
>We like literature too

>>8915909

>Reading female authors

>2016
>He reads fiction

>buying this godawful formatted monstrosity instead of using Project Gutenberg or buying them individually with proper introductions and supplementary materials

That's a reference. Not a book you just read.

>I myself thought like that, and do you know what saved me? Freemasonry! No, don’t smile.

>>8889960

>Believes man-made global warming is significantly responsible in any way for climate change

Dropped.

>>8886058
>mentioning Hillary in a discussion about Trump makes you a /pol/tard
You can't make this shit up

>>8884798
>>tfw she still reads more (and better) lit than most here
>>tfw she can discuss ideas more in-depth than pretty much anybody here
I seriously doubt this. You probably overestimate her intelligence because you want to fuck her.

>>8883881

>tfw racism actually upsets me because I'm a nigger
>I'm a nigger

Yeah, I'm not buying it.

>>8880517

>All that fiction
>Only 1 book that could qualify as philosophy

>>8852906

>>8825417

>2016
>Needing secondary literature for anything other than Kant

>No one posts the philosopher's turtleneck jumper