/lit/ - Literature

I have a weird hang-up. Since childhood I've always wanted to learn the true nature of reality, but the only epistemological tool I find valid is "Seeing is believing." So every religion and philosophy I've come across is unsatisfying, and I have to proceed on the basis of induction for any truths. But the problem with induction is you never know that you don't know something, so as soon as you set down some rule about reality, there's likely some phenomenon you don't know about that shatters your idea completely.

So it seems there are no real secrets about reality to be learned. What you see is what you get. So tell me /lit/, are there any thinkers you know who could challenge this view of mine? I've read most of the big philosophers already, and it's their whole "a priori logic" approach which I find unconvincing. I need a radical challenge to my views

>>18938138
Ignore this faggot, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
You should be taking notes just as you would for a scientific textbook on biology or homotopy or something. Philosophy is a way of understanding, and you can not understand a way of understanding unless you try understanding things in that way and take note of the intricacies of such a view. Have a dialogue, ask questions and try to answer them. Do not be one of the faggots who just reads a book, reads some commentary, and then decides they get it. There is no rigorous introspection in that and if you don't record your ideas they become fleeting.
Besides, the dialogue between you the read and the author, by way of commentary and text, is not tedious and is not distract from anything, it is natural. I believe Plato critiqued books for being bad teachers, in that they could not give feedback to their pupils, this is the closest you can come to that I believe. It's pretty fun imho too.

>pick a random classic
>swap out all the names and idiosyncrasies that could identify the real author
>claim it's a modern work made by some virgin incel loser
>look at all the incoming replies stating it's shit
is this the surest way to catch a pseud?

>>18357340
I keep a notebook next to me when I read, and pause after each sentence to reflect whether I've understood it, then pause again after each paragraph. I'll reread frequently, when I don't find on reflection I've understood it. I usually take a note on the notepad, briefly summarizing what I've understood, for each paragraph. Sometimes a note will cover multiple paragraphs, sometimes multiple notes per paragraph, it depends on how dense the text is; basically I take a note for each crucial point covered in the text. If the text's editors give no other guidelines for references, I'll number each note with a [page].[paragraph] notation. When I'm done a section of text, I'll go back over my notes, and I'll review the text for any note I read that doesn't make sense to me, appending the note if needed. Then I'll try to organize the (roughly) paragraph summaries on my notepad into groups, describing the major divisions of the argument in the text, and make marginal notes on my notepad grouping together multiple lines of my notes as a division of this sort, and making a brief marginal note summarizing what goes on in this division. If the text is sufficiently long or complex, or I'm working with it a lot, I'll start a second version of my notes, where instead of (roughly) paragraph summaries on each line, I write a summary of these divisions of the argument, and then in the margins of this set of notes I'll organize these divisions into groups (super-divisions, if you like) in the same way. Ideally, I'd like to be able to give a statement of the text in (roughly) one sentence, to be able to expand that out to a statement of the major divisions of the text in (roughly) a quarter page (for an article) or half page (for a book) or full page (for a long book), to be able to expand that out to the (roughly) paragraph summaries I take while reading, and expand that out to the actual text. If I find that the overall argumentative structure of the text does not match its written structure, I'll make an additional version of notes which depicts its argumentative structure. Often this will involve diagrams rather than just written notes, and I'll label the diagrams with page/paragraph references based on the notes I take while I'm reading. And if I'm working closely with a particular section of the text, I'll make another version of notes, which tries to model the argumentative structure of the section I'm working with in a more formal premise/conclusion way. Here there may be several notes per paragraph if the text is particularly dense.

I have no longer faith in educational institutions to teach us anything worthwhile, especially concerning the realm of Classical Studies.

We must do it ourselves.

But how?

How does one get good at autodidacticism?

Why are there so few good books on myth-making and mythology in general? I can seriously only think of The Golden Bough (dated), The White Goddess, Hero With a Thousand Faces and one or two by Strauss. Everything else is fluffy or new age shite. I can't find any serious works on this subject outside of these.

Classic (not Classical) essays/writings on creativity? No plebshit neuroscience white cover red title 16k reviews on Amazon Yuval tier book please.

I would like to get into poetry and write my own, but I frankly can't be bothered to learn such a technical form of writing. It's unbelievably dense and complicated for what it is and it honestly puts me off. Even mainstream books like Ode Less Travelled admit it's complex.

Feeling a bit down, /lit/. I graduated with first class honours in a science subject, but since then (and really before graduation) I began to feel like this isn't my primary interest now. I've always loved art and literature and most of my reading revolves around this. Maybe it's naive or childish to say, but I feels like everything I learn about art and history isn't valid or I'm not validated as someone with knowledge because I don't have a degree in it. I feel like I've went down the wrong path. My question, is whether or not one can read just out of interest but, more importantly, is one's knowledge base valid even without a formal qualification?

To give you an idea, I just read a large book on medieval manuscripts and script development. I was happy with what I learned, but then I thought of the people studying this subject. I'm just some guy to them. Maybe I put too much stock in academic institution and I shouldn't care. Of course I know that a lot of people read things just for interest, but I've always felt like I needed to somehow match up what I read with some grand academic idea.

Reminder that there are 18 year old American kids on this board. Ugh. This is not a space for intellectual discussion.

/lit/, I'm an atheist scientist type who is growing gradually more and more disillusioned with liberals and scientific 'truth'. I used to think that being a scientist and caring about reason was all that mattered, and that everyone like that was smart and in the right, but now I know that's not true. I'm sick of all these woke people with their purple-red-green hair styles. What do you suggest for getting into conservatism and understanding more about what it means to value meaning and culture more than nihilistic bullshit? I've always been more interested in the past and with objective standards of classical beauty etc. not this progressive, woke, "we must make everything diverse" mentality.

Hey, /lit/. Are there any legit, non-pop books on the history and development of creativity? I know it's a vague subject, but I'm really interested in human creativity in all fields.

Get
This
Shit
Of
This
Fucking
Board
Now

/lit/, should I feel bad for having no interest in games or should I take some joy in this? My only real hobby, now, is reading and writing. Since about the age of 17 I've had no real interest in games (25 now) and no matter how hard I try to get into them I just can't see the point. Now I just read and occasionally watch a film or a tv show.

>>13192091
Maybe you should stop talking in such objective terms. I read the Iliad very quickly as I found it very easy to read. I even enjoyed the catalogue of ships since I like names...

Stuck on what to read next. Could someone suggest anything like the following works?

-Hunger, Knut Hamsun
-Le Horla, Guy de Maupassaunt
-We Have Always Lived in the Castle, Shirley Jackson
-Notes from Underground, Dostoevsky

Much appreciated.

Just wanted to share that I'm excited to have begun my classics studies. Just reading for fun, but I'm near book 10 of the Iliad, have read a book on ancient greece and now I'm also reading an overview of classical literature and the different forms. Looking forward to reading The Odyssey and Aeneid. Very interesting how these stories were handed down over centuries and make one long epic story.

These threads feel like punishment for being interested in these topics, as you feel compelled to enter, yet there's never anything of substance. Could you not have picked some other grounds to start a flame war?

Up.

I'm beginning to think that the worst error we can commit is to hope for other people to fix our lives for is. It may be comfortable to fantasize about receiving pity for your misfortune, and using this excuse to double down on yoir mistakes, but life can be much better when you fight that urge. No matter what form your life is in, there is always a best possible set of choices that will lessen yoir suffering in the long run. The only person who cares enough to save you is yourself. In other words, if you're going through hell, keep going.

That part about choice especially keeps coming back up in my head. Oftentimes I will be out walking, think a random thought, and go "Why does it matter anyways? My life is practically over." But we must realize that these thoughts are both not necessary and not indicative of the truth. When these occur, lately I have begun reminding myself of those facts and considering more valuable lines of thought for the context I am in. There is too much value in our society placed on the act of thinking, and not enough on the quality of it.

What do you think?