/lit/ - Literature

>Sam Harris
lmao

>>13143823
>+Sam Harris: "Free Will" (2012)
HELL YEAH

>>13143823
Why does he always impose is opinions as "The Best X of The century !!!!"'
He should stick to eating pasta and roasting the Beatles, the pseud .

>Dawkins

>>13143823
it was fine until sam harris.

>he redid his Being and Time review and didn't bother to delete the old one

read it before it's gone!


>I don't know if this book had anything to say or it was merely a giant bluff, but i know that it doesn't prove anything. Heidegger provides no proof whatsoever for what he claims. Even if he is saying something, he doesn't prove it. So it becomes a little pointless to try to figure out what he said.
>To me Heidegger's convoluted and unscientific style seems to have more in common with psychiatrists than philosophers. I shudder at his grotesquely naive analyses of existence, fear, anxiety, the uncanny, conscience and death.
>If you pick up this book at a library or at a second-hand bookshop, you will notice that only the first few pages have annotations and bear signs of having actually being turned. Virtually nobody had ever read this book to the end. But it is routinely listed as a milestone of philosophy. I personally think it represents a milestone of everything that gives philosophers a bad reputation: unscientific, incomprehensible, incompetent, and, ultimately, just plain silly.
>Be suspicious of any philosopher who hailed this as a great book. Heidegger stated that Sartre had misunderstood most of his ideas, and that's the biggest compliment ever paid to Sartre.
>Then again any summary, written in ordinary language, of this book constitutes a misunderstanding of his "ideas", because those "ideas" depend entirely on being written in a convoluted and unscientific language.
>https://www.scaruffi.com/phi/heid1.html

>>13143856
Only if you read from right to left.

>Yuval
>Benatar
>Pinker
>Zizek
>Harris
>Dawkins

>>13143823
Why does every album that he recommends has like one really good song and the rest is mediocre? I just got memed into listening Down Colorful Hill by him. I imagine it must be the same with books.

>>13143823
>no Montaigne
Does he even fucking read?

>>13143823
awful

i havent looked yet, but

>>13143893
>Montaigne is a 20th or 21st century philosopher
Are you really this fucking stupid? "Do you even fucking read?"

>2019
>Still claiming you like Guns, Germs and Steel
Brainlet tier

>Whitehead, Deleuze, Cioran, Benjamin
Based
>Russell, Pinker, Harris, No Adorno
Cringe

>>13143823
There’s a lot of good stuff on it e.g. Deleuze, Jameson, Whitehead, Brandom, etc. but I mean... fucking Sam Harris, Jared Diamond, and Stephen Pinker? Really?

Who here has problems with my list? Explain your reasons, cowards, don't just say meaningless words like "cringe" or "brainlet".

>>13143949
>he doesn't know

>>13143865
So does it mean that Heidegger is The Beatles of philosophy?

>>13143949
the fact that

>>13143992

Him and Neechee

>Full disclosure: the first time i read Nietzsche i felt that his books were just a ridiculous collection of nonsense, written in poor German, and largely based on an embarrassing degree of ignorance about anthropology, sociology, art and science; and i haven't changed my mind since then. I still have to understand why he became so famous. I am not sure that he also became influential because i think the century that followed had little use for his philosophy and/or his method (assuming he had one).

>In general the book is annoyingly vague and pretentious while containing precious little meaning. We never learn what the Superman is or does. We never learn what is the thing that died and that Nietzsche calls "god" (my feeling is that he is simply referring to traditional morality and the traditional way of life in the Christian world). We never learn what kind of morality should come next.
>I have rarely been so utterly bored reading a book. I think that Nietzsche had nothing to say and, in fact, didn't say it.

>This is another extremely confusing book. If i didn't know how famous the writer became, i would think that this book was written by an ignorant idiot who didn't study history, and didn't study philosophy, and was simply a verbose, delirious individual. So much for a book that was written to "explain" the obscure ideas of "Zarathustra". In general, the book is an attack on traditional morality. Most of the book is, in fact, just the "attack". He keeps insulting philosophers (and not only philosophers) without really explaining what is wrong with them. It's like me beginning this article by saying that you are an idiot, your father is an idiot, your brother is an idiot, your neighbor is an idiot, etc.

>>13144081
Based. Fuck Nietzsche

>>13143949
It reads like a list of someone who was recommended books, not someone who discovered them

>>13143865
Who tf is this guy?
>That's why we invented science: to explain things that appear beyond comprehension.
No we fucking invented science to understand things that 'appear' quite explicable.

>>13143949
cringe, what a brainlet

>>13144132
Learn history.

>>13144144
Elaborate with case studies from history. I have time.

Not sure why he's including so much psychology and cognitive science works.

Also Dawkins

>>13143823
Too much continental garbage.

why would someone include both Being and Time and Being and Nothingness. pick one or the other

>>13144808
only half is continental you whiny bitch

>>13143949
>implying pierro would know how to post on here
fucker isnt even fluent in english

Such, however, is the case with many men of learning: they have read themselves stupid. For to read in every spare moment, and to read constantly, is more paralyzing to the mind than constant manual work, which, at any rate, allows one to follow one’s own thoughts.

Just as a spring, through the continual pressure of a foreign body, at last loses its elasticity, so does the mind if it has another person’s thoughts continually forced upon it. And just as one spoils the stomach by overfeeding and thereby impairs the whole body, so can one overload and choke the mind by giving it too much nourishment. For the more one reads the fewer are the traces left of what one has read; the mind is like a tablet that has been written over and over. Hence it is impossible to reflect; and it is only by reflection that one can assimilate what one has read if one reads straight ahead without pondering over it later, what has been read does not take root, but is for the most part lost. Indeed, it is the same with mental as with bodily food: scarcely the fifth part of what a man takes is assimilated; the remainder passes off in evaporation, respiration, and the like.

Also,
> Wittgenstein and a bunch of continental garbage in one list

>>13143823
I like that he picks several analytic and continental works, and not just surface continental titles either, which is great, though he also picks stuff like Dawkins and Harris which is a shame, but I'm more just surprised there is no David Lewis. Guess the guy cares little for contemporary analytic metaphysics. I like how some of his picks are just articles not books. Gettier's 2 page article is on his list.

>>13143856
No it wasn't. Harris isn't even the worst.

>>13144847
Wittgenstein was pretty influencial in continental circles

Why do people care about this guy's opinion on matters?

>>13144958
Deleuze called him the killer of philosophy. I guess Wittgenstein would call Deleuze the same.

I realize what's wrong with Dawkins, but what's wrong with Harris?

>>13145036
No Wittgenstein called himself that in Tractatus. Though I haven't figured out what Deleuze meant by that. Also Lyotard cites Wittgenstein's Tractatus in the Postmodern Condition, I think. And that his later work is as relativistic as it gets goes without saying.

>>13145042
He is a pseud who pretends to be a philosopher while refusing to engage with existing literature in philosophy, and often times ending up either spouting misconceptions about philosophy or arguments that have been made centuries ago, only to present them as new. He's honestly a fraud and a joke. Nobody in academia takes him seriously.

>>13144762
I think, however he is, he wrote a book on consciousness.
>>13144901
I love that he reviews Langer's fantastic book. Philosophy in a new key is very good and I think neither strictly Continental or Analytic, though more of latter. The review is not that great, unfortunately.

>>13144836
he btfo'd wikipediafags, he could go on 4channel

>Sam Harris

Holy shit he was doing so well.

>>13143823
That's highly meme.

>>13144095
Think hard about what you're saying

>>13144081
Wow good critique, so original and it's clear that he understood Nietzsche very well.. Boy, why did I waste all that time reading when I could think the same as everyone else and who knew common thought was so profound? "What does the Superman do?" Wow, never occurred to me to think that.

>>13144081
If you want proof that Scruff is a talentless pseud, you need only to read this post.

>>13143823
Review of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (1891)
>The format was original for its time: a mixture of philosophical meditation, allegorical fiction, poetry and (for lack of a better word) prophetic rambling. The protagonist is Zarathustra/ Zoroaster (presumably the prophet of the ancient Iranian religion, but possibly just someone whose name happens to be Zarathustra, because this character shows little respect for traditional moral values, including the very Zoroastrian concept of good and evil fighting a cosmic battle).

>In general the book is annoyingly vague and pretentious while containing precious little meaning. We never learn what the Superman is or does. We never learn what is the thing that died and that Nietzsche calls "god" (my feeling is that he is simply referring to traditional morality and the traditional way of life in the Christian world). We never learn what kind of morality should come next.

>I have rarely been so utterly bored reading a book. I think that Nietzsche had nothing to say and, in fact, didn't say it.

>>13146160
fuck you beat me to it
>>13144081

Review of "Beyond Good and Evil" (1886)
>This is another extremely confusing book. If i didn't know how famous the writer became, i would think that this book was written by an ignorant idiot who didn't study history, and didn't study philosophy, and was simply a verbose, delirious individual. So much for a book that was written to "explain" the obscure ideas of "Zarathustra".
>Chapter 2 is a long discussion of how smart i am (Nietsche calls himself "a free spirit" and rejoices in telling us how smarter he is than all the previous philosophers). He also points out that scientists are idiots and in particular that "atomism is one of the best refuted theories". Seriously, at the beginning Nietzsche accuses philosophers of having invented theories to justify their own moral preferences ("to justify his moral prejudices, which he solemnly baptizes as truths"). Their quest for knowledge is just an excuse: they are not after knowledge, they are after imposing their favorite morality on the world. Physics is not the way to explain the world, psychology should be considered the "queen of sciences" because it studies human nature. The list of all the philosophical schools that he insults would be too long.
I can only imagine Scaruffi sitting there, reading this book, as Nietzsche completely deconstructs and destroys all of Scaruffi's passions, his philosophy and thought, and his entire livelihood right in front of him, causing him to write this. I wish I could see the look on his face.

>>13146223
>deconstructs
cringe

>>13144918
Cringe

>>13143823
Jesus Christ /mu/ is spreading

>>13147190
Can I interest you in some albums? Have you ever listened to trout mask replica?

>>13147193
I only listen to real meme music

>>13143875
every song on down colorful hill is good tho

>>13147193
where do you even find it?

>>13143823
>no Plato
>no Socrates
>no Aristotle
>no Kant
>no Nietzsche
>no Kierkegaard
>no Augustine
>Harris
>Pinker
Lol

>thinking Scaruffi has actually read all those books

>>13149298
The more I think about it, the more it looks like he's pretending, because I don't think it's possible for a single human to experience so many things from those mediums (music, literature, movies etc) in his lifetime. Maybe he does things like skim through, but then he shouldn't be writing texts on those things.

>>13149245
20th century dumb nog, learn how to read

>>13143823
>Camus
>Harris
>Dawkins
Jesus Christ

>>13149470
congrats, you've basically just figured out your average, pompous modern-day "polymath"

most of them are just LARP'ing pseuds

>>13143865
What an inconsistent idiot. Why would he include writers like Deleuze or Derrida in his list if he wants philosophers to "prove" their claims?

What did he say about Philosophical Investigations? I doubt he understood it properly.

>>13143949
Post your face with timestamp

>>13145042
Harris is worse than Dawkins. At least Dawkins was a legitimate, and influential, scientist.

>>13149549
>most of them are just LARP'ing pseuds
How can they live with themselves, though? I would feel extremely bad if I pretended I experienced (read, listened to etc) so much stuff.

https://scaruffi.com/fiction/bestpo.html
Reminder Scaruffi put himself in his greatest poetry of all times list.

>>13149691
probably having a nearly-sociopathic, aggrandizing sense of self-importance plays a big factor into this type of mentality desu

either way however, most of the music Scaruffi holds in high regard on his website is often times some really good, unique-sounding shit, so I gotta give him that at least

>>13149245
>No Marx
>No Hegel
i think this guy is joking, i don´t even believe he read all that stuff on this list, and even if i don´t think its healthy for his reasoning

>>13149743
Yeah, bcause he won some literally-who prize in italy for his poetry

>>13149865
20th-21st century ...

>>13149920
Is there a list for the 19th century?

>>13149924
No clue, I refuse to browse his site.
That's what the OP says.

>>13149939
Appearantly there is: https://www.scaruffi.com/know/mileston.html

>>13149969
I don't even dare lookin into that

>>13149470
Some people are extremely good at picking what is acclaimed in some group without even actually getting to know the pieces themselves, that's what /lit/ is by the way but with less competent retards

>>13143823
lol hes a pseud

>>13143823
>first fucking one is freud
nah

>>13150683
Lmao

>>13143823
looks like he just threw together a bunch of memes

>>13150683
he's not wrong

>>13143875
>Down Colorful Hill
it is literally a perfect album, that and Spiderland are the two things from the 90s that never age

>>13145068
Based, though pointless.