/lit/ - Literature

After 10 years as a blue collar worker who likes to read a lot I decided to take university entrance exams and got in to study literature. After a bunch of mandatory nonsense courses tomorrown will finally see me take the first exam in an actual literature course.
We have studied the poetics of Aristotle, the Russian formalists (like Roman Jacobson) and the French structuralists (like Gerard Genette).
Wish me luck, gentlemen and if you wish, share your own experiences of studying the shit we're all on this board to talk about. Some of you must've done it, right?

Is his analysis of Greek tragedy correct?

Where do I start with him? Is there a recommended reading order?

I am an empiricist and a nominalist, not by metaphysic only, but by temperament also. Yet after a few years of contemplating Parmenides, Aristotle, Thales, and the Dao De Jing, I believe I have come into the possession, in fact that I am currently in possession, of the metaphysical key required to comprehend and deduce in an act of pure reason the exact nature and geometrical structure not only of Matter, but also of all Nous, and not only in the abstract sense, but also in the physical sense. How ironic it is that I, an empiricist, a nominalist, have discovered the holy grail of rationalism and realism, and now understand, without performing a single experiment or induction, the nature of the entire universe. Through abduction only I have grasped the All.

>form is imminent because…IT JUST IS, OK

Was aristotle an atheist?

Would he consider most modern fictional works, yes even the ones that are considered "great" (that includes your favorite book) to be meaningless garbage or simply bad?

>>22355040
>best of all Greek philosophers
>his name is literally best of all
heh, nothing personal kid

What secondary books do you recommend for someone who’s struggling to comprehend Aristotle’s epistemology on Posterior Analytics?
I’ve read the Organon books prior to it, and I am following Barnes’ commentary, but I’d like something that follows some better organization, because Aristotle shifts from one thing to another then later comes back to the same topic and it’s being hard to grasp the full idea with such a dispersed way of presentation.

this nigga really thought the world worked like avatar the last air bender biggest fraud ever

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1974/1974-h/1974-h.htm

So, I'm looking to get into Aristotle, specifically his theory of action. Could I get some recommendations where to start?

I'm obsessed with the Aristotelian "method" of intellectual research. Whenever I write an essay or anything I automatically try to imitate Aristotelian treatises. How do I get past this?

>>20329463
Aristotle is chronically underrated. His Nicomachean Ethics is not an abstract debate, it's a guide on how to live like a man.

>And the more completely a man possesses virtue, and the happier he is, the more he will be distressed at the thought of death. For to such a man life is supremely worth living; and he is losing the greatest blessings, and he knows it; and this is a grievious thing. But that does not make him any less brave; he is probably even braver for it, because in preference to those blessings he chooses a gallant end in war.
-Nicomachean Ethics, 1117b10-15

Half of his metaphysics is refuted by modern physics?

>>20079449
Rapid response unit is on site:

1. Soul is not material, i.e. an element like fire or air or any combination of
them: 403b28 ff.; nor is it a spatial magnitude (vs. Plato): 407a3-33.
2. Soul is not joined to body unnaturally or painfully: 407bl-4; but body and soul
must be of a special nature so as to join connaturally; it is absurd to think
any chance soul could be joined to any body; each body must have form and shape
suitable to the soul it serves as instrument (vs. Plato ? , Pythagorea.ns):
407bl3-25.
3: On the other hand soul is not simply the harmony, ratio, or blend of the opposing constituents of the body; one reason, among many, is that it has the power
to originate motion: 407b26 ff.
4. Soul does not move body by moving itself; rather, while not itself moving, it
is moved only indirectly by reason of the body, its vehicle, like a sailor on a
ship: 405b31-407a2, 408a30-33; when soul is said to change, as in emotion, it
is the physical organ (the peart) that changes locally or qualitatively; not the
soul but the composite changes; movement is from the soul and to the soul; decline of mind in old age is due to deterioration of the interior organ on which
it depends; soul is not changed, nor changes itself: 408bl-32. (Hylomorphism)
5. Souls are not all of the same kind, e•g. not all that have sense perception (animals) can originate local motion; plants have soul but cannot perceive or move
locally; and many animals are without power of reason: 410bl6-27.
10
6. The soul is not divided into a multiplicity of really distinct parts each
serving a separate function, e.g. perception and knowing, appetition, local
motion , etc., or one part thinking, another desiring (Plato?); so the soul is
one: 4lla26-bl4.
7. Parts of the soul do not hold together parts of the body, but rather the whole
soul with all its parts is present in each part of the body , though in plants
and some insects the whole soul can be divided , since these organisms can be
divided into living segments of the same species ; but they do not survive if
in them the soul does not possess organs suitable to preserve their nature:
4llbl5-30.

>>19705667
Women are nothing but deformed men.

If your rhetorical opponent is being irrational and cannot concede a point, here is how you should deal with it:

*murders them*

Books on how to grow up? I feel like many of the internet users today are 'manchildren' and i identify some of those characteristics on me but i would like to change. For me, not having adult posture and attitudes is a problem
Pic not related

I can only get one.
>The Metaphysics
>The Nicomachean Ethics
>On the Heavens
>On the Soul
>The Organon

Which authors have influenced you most personally?

I know this sounds like a title for a cheap undergrad final thesis but hear me out. I have a right wing friend (I myself am not really that into politics) who is pretty well-read and last time we met we were talking about woke stuff like trannies and faggots. He defended gender essentialism and traditional marriage by invoking Aristotle's concept of definition which consist of genus proximum (proximate kind) and differentia specifica (specific difference). Now his argument ran along these lines - the left has it all wrong attempting to make gender and marriage more "inclusive" to account for the existence of non-heteronormative people because definitions are always not inclusive i.e. are based on pointing out the kind to which the defined object belongs and what makes the object stand out from the rest of the kind or what makes this object so unique that it cannot be regarded as a typical representative of the kind. This observation prompted him into a schizo rant about how leftists want to do away with definitions of all kind and in the process abolish reality itself because to Aristotle (and this is his interpretation) reality is not fully perceived unless it is perceived conceptually with the aid of definitions. My question is - are there any books that develop something like a Platonist/Aristotelian gender theory or are there any specific books in which Plato and Aristotle themselves adressed these issues?

Is he the end of philosophy?

No