/lit/ - Literature

>tfw can't read fiction because it doesn't feel like i'm learning anything

My current GF hasn't read anything longer than a tweet in 5 years

Why do newer philosophers always get off scot-free when they butcher older philosopher's arguments.

They know taken as a whole their predecessor's work most of the time just by itself contradicts their vapid counterarguments.

But they just act as if it's not there or assume a priori their take is simply "better" and "that's that".

Why is this allowed?

You finally feel confident that you understand one guy but then the next one just goes around putting words in their mouths, quote mining or making a superficial or misrepresentational criticism which can easily be countered simply by pointing to relevant counterarguments in the work itself.

Guess I'm too high IQ for philosophy or something.

Feels bad man.

"Writing novels" isn't even listed.

>French language and literature seminar
>Le Bateau Ivre by Rimbaud
>"curtains are just blue" kid pipes up
>"Well, how can the boat see anything in the first place?"
>mfw this is an A-level course