Reading

Being NEET helps for sure.

worth all the praise, moments of literary magic all over

What's the best app in IOS to keep track on books read?

Goodreads website?

Working 5 days a week 11 hours a day so I'm pretty limited, since I came back from holiday I've finished reading The Hunt for Red October, was very nostalgiac journey for me because my dad read it to me when I was a yungun

>columbine by dave cullen
literally the most shitty, inaccurate book about columbine. makes me mad that it's the most popular one.

What would you recommend?

Good. I actually tried to read less and write more. The bar was tops 3 books per month. I've read so far...
-antifragile
-the importance of being earnest
-all quiet on the western front
-the comic toolbox
-born digital

apparently the best one is wij zijn maar wij zijn niet geschift (we are but we are not psycho) by tim krabbè but it hasn't been translated so unless you understand dutch there is no way of reading it yet. columbine by jeff kass is great, as well as no easy answers by brooks brown, their friend who managed to get away from eric before he entered the school. haven't read the memoir by dylan's mom but i've heard that's good too.

Does Brooks say anything about the shooting itself or just talk about bullying?

I read about 30 books this month. In all honesty, I was only planning to read 6, but I've heavily limited my internet use, and have abstained from movies, vidya, etc.

I'm getting on an airplane tomorrow and I need a book for the flight. What are some good books related to history or philosophy I could conceivably find at a Library?

I don't care what history it is or what philosophy, I'm a brainlet and I need to rejuice my stem.

>he didn't start with The Greek Empire: A Very Short Introduction

>tops 3 books
>reads 5, including a book on EARNESTY

>30 in 26 days
Do you eat/sleep/work/do anything but read?

Gulag Archipelago?

>Do you eat/sleep/work/do anything but read
I rarely eat or sleep (in cases of either situation, I will only do so in the shortest amount of time possible). I can't enjoy most mediums of art anymore, so it's incredibly hard not to read.

well to be fair I only read the Roman Republic one because I attended a lecture series by the author. There was nothing new in the book. Plus I find anything before the Hellenistic period to be boring

what a literal autist get a life or something lol

I'm not reading nearly as much as I would like too. I'm having a difficult time starting a book so I've started to ease my way back in with reading H.P. Lovecraft's short stories while I take a dump.
On a positive note I've begun writing again, which in my opinion, is superior.

I can't rate your list, because I haven't read a single one of those books.

Doing preddy good with this year so far.
I've knocked out:
Against the Day
Animal Farm
Silence
The Castle
and currently working on The Sound and The Fury.

>30 books
wich was the longest?

Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger

yeah it does. the second half of the book is heavy on describing a legal battle brooks brown went through, which is not really that interesting, but the first half is great and has a lot of insider info

Just finished reading Elective Affinities, which I started at the beginning of the month. It’s taken me so long to finish because work and life has gotten in the way.

Once I've finished with War and Peace, I should be going through more stuff.

>Read
Mere Christianity
The Abolition of Man
>Currently Reading
Oxford Annotated Bible
The Romance of Tristan and Iseult

Started reading the Bible Jan 1, this is my first time reading cover to cover. I'm going though the Catholic/Christian/Bread Pill lists have have been floating around for some time. Any recommendations are welcome.

Not doing too well. Read a handful of history books, currently working my way through my first novels of the year.
>Lincoln in the Bardo
>A Month in the Country
>Orfeo

I'm on track for my one book a week goal, but aside from Wordsworth (which I started in December), most of these reads have been fairly light. Like another user ITT I'm trying to read less and write more.

>Why Fiction Works - James Wood
Entertaining and insightful. If nothing else, many promising book recommendations
>The Stranger in the Woods - Michael Finkel
A sort of biography of the North Pond Hermit and his capture. Very light and journalist-y, was able read it in one sitting. Again, promising recommendations
>The Moon and Sixpence - W. Somerset Maugham
>The Major Works - William Wordsworth

Now I'm doing The Longest Journey by E.M. Forster, which is enjoyable so far.

Only read the Feminine Mystqiue so far. I didn't enjoy it much, so I dragged through it.

I just started Why Liberalism Failed

>Young Carl Jung - Robert Brockway
>Psychology and the Occult - C.G. Jung
>No Longer Human - Osamu Dazai
>Confessions of a Mask - Yukio Mishima
>The Setting Sun - Osamu Dazai
>Hymns to Hermes - G.R.S. Mead

Read:
>Wuthering Heights
>The Tale of Murasaki

Currently reading:
>1984

Read
>Walden
>George Washington's Secret Six

The last one was an easy but interesting read.

Currently Reading
>The Illiad

I haven't read shit. I plan on beginning next month though. A classic, non fiction, and some /sffg/ shit to keep it balanced.

Read:
>Ubik
>Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Currently reading:
>Mythology (Edith Hamilton)
>Crime and Punishment

Just got into carver over winter. Very good stuff

I am also reading crime and punishment

Same, just started part five. To hell with that Luzhin.

Oh he's prob my fav side lol. So ridick

yeah, having only read Cathedrals and a few other shorts I can't remember names of, I always had Carver on my to-read list and I finally stuck to it and got Be Quiet as a gift for myself. I wasn't quite let down per se but the style was very intimate, the stories reminiscent of something shared to you in confidence they won't be repeated. It's comfy, I am looking forward to more

I just read Utilitarianism by Bentham and I have to say that it was the worst book I have ever read.

>tfw I read an obscure poet from my country whose work isn't on goodreads

Why? I haven't read Mill's work on Utilitarianism yet, but I plan to. I hear he borrowed heavily from Bentham's thought on the subject. Why was Bentham's book so bad?

He spends a tiny portion of the book trying to convince the reader that he is right, unconvincingly, and the rest of the book is spent going over what actions can make us experience pleasure and displeasure, and what kinds of pleasure and displeasure we have. It reads more like an autistic list he made trying to categorize what caused him to feel pleasure/displeasure rather than a philosophy text about morality.

You've read thirty whole books? Woweee. Whoop de doo.

I think I read about... three.

Everything by Lewis is premium stuff for open-minded beginners.

Oxford Annotated is a study bible for scholars not for reading, I suggest picking up KJV or Douay-Rheims
without the secular clutter, just a clean run.

Anyway, afterwards follow with Eusebius and then the Church Fathers + Didache

If you started with the greeks everything will make a lot more sense.

And you have read Plato correct? I'm just trying to make heads or tails of whether or not your criticism is valid.

Oxford is invaluable IMHO, I have both the Oxford plus a standard durable NSRV just for reading and annotating, and it's nice to be able to refer to the Oxford whenever I need it but not be forced to read from it.

Invaluable for all kinds of weird textual things and curiosities.

If you want to know if what I'm saying is valid why not just read the book.

That's what I'm saying friend. I'm either giving you a lot of credit or none at all. Tell me a bit about yourself. Because this grading of pleasures is exactly what other philosophers have done in their respective languages as well, like Plato.

So tell me why Bentham's ranking is any less valid than Plato's

Bentham didn't rank the pleasures that he listed. He just listed the different causes of pleasure such as remembering something pleasurable from the past or eating a nice meal.

That's pleasure time-displacement. Plato talks about this as well. I'm sure you would agree that a truly pleasurable thing has ripples of pleasure through time, decreasing with intensity over time, like an exponential function.

You would agree?

Yeah, everyone who has ever lived knows about that. But without adequately explaining why that is morally relevant makes that bit of information about as interesting as pointing out that most people can't lick their elbows.

So, does Bentham rank, or in this case list, the various pleasures in addition to using this metric, or does he just flat out list them and grade them?

Because if it's the latter I'm not really interested. If it's the former, I might be.

Here is a page from the part where he is listing the pleasures. The numbers don't mean anything as he is not grading them or ranking them.

...

I think that's perhaps rather interesting, user. Wouldn't you find some pleasure (no irony here, I swear) in listing out the various types of feelings felt? I mean, isn't that necessary for a working form of utilitarianism, anyway? That's his objective right? He has to design a system around these things.

Trying to systematize these sorts of things has its faults, for sure, but this sort of thing is creative, user. It's very intelligent as well to be able to define all the ramifications of pleasure, if he can do it well. I dunno I think it seems interesting.

>speedreading
stop this meme and start sub vocalising again please

> read
Made to stick
>Reading
Epictetus discourses , Robin hard translation
Mind for numbers - Barbara oakley
Cities - John reader

> Skimming
Overcoming gravity

I agree it is necessary to do this under his system. But working out the details like that is much less interesting and necessary to me than actually convincing the reader why his Utilitarian system is actually correct. Its one thing to lay out how a particular system would be implemented and what one would have to consider and its another thing to actually support the system itself with good arguments. Putting the supportive arguments on the back burner in favor of working out the ramifications seems backwards.

Not at all. If you wrote a piece of non-fiction, I would expect you to do the same.

This is how philosophical/moral systems work. First you conceive of the idea itself through numerous countless deliberations throughout your life. While thinking, you have most likely created the terms and philosophies within your head. But in order to explain how everything works to someone who isn't inside your head i.e. everyone, then you'll need to explain the thought processes of the idea itself.

How a book works, or how a good book should work, is first the terms are defined, then the author works with the terms. You see, when an economics book goes over its system of economics without first defining the objective of the system itself or the questions it aims to answer, I get a little nervous upfront. The same with political philosophy. I need an objective. Hobbes, Rousseau, et. al. had objectives that their treatises aimed to follow through with. They had questions to answer. And then they had terms to define in order to answer these questions. Sometimes equations or logic were even necessary to explain them, in the case of Hobbes for certain.

In other words, Bentham is actually being very thorough because that is how you write a work which is based on so subjective a topic like morality. Clearly he is trying to define benevolence and malevolence, and the various sorts of other states of mind that can be affected by pleasures or displeasures.

Regardless, I don't think I am going to read Bentham. I liked Mill, I think I'll just read J.S. Mill for a refinement of his ideas. Still I will keep this work in mind, as I am not completely opposed to the idea of what he's doing like you seem to be.

>But in order to explain how everything works to someone who isn't inside your head i.e. everyone, then you'll need to explain the thought processes of the idea itself.
That is exactly what I said he is putting on the back burner. He just gave that step a small consideration at the start of the book then moved on to other things.

Right but I'm saying in ORDER to do that you must define terms.

I'm sorry, but a personal philosophy based on ethical considerations requires a lot of definitions before you even get started on talking about the ideas, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I guess its no surprise I couldn't get through to you since you're a fan of Mill of all people. I'll just say that Bentham never made it past your stage of defining the terms and leave it at that.

Resorts to Ad Hominem, insults Mill.

What you greentexted was a quote saying that he needs to explain the thought processes of the idea.

Now you are telling me you want him to deliberate longer on the definitions of the terms.

Which is it? Because you cannot have both at the same time.

I have a copy of Stoner from the library, but I don't know why I should read it except for I've seen it on here. Why should I read this book? I've been procrastinating big time.

>Resorts to Ad Hominem, insults Mill.
Not at all, you just interpreted what I wrote wrong. I meant that its no surprise someone who is a fan of Mill would be convinced by what I am saying about Bentham because the two are so connected. I said I'm leaving it at that so bye.

Ah I see what you meant. Sorry about that.

Bomp

Read
Elric Saga Part 1

Reading
Chronicals of Forum

Going to read
Infinite Jest

All Quiet on the Western Front and 100 Years of Solitude down so far. I missed AQotF in high school somehow, was rather pleased with how good it actually was. I figured it might have been pleb trash. 100 Years of Solitude was more or less Columbian East of Eden, so I liked it quite a lot.

Reading Hard Times now. Dickens is funny at times but is such a ridiculous pedant.

How are you liking the Iliad user?

Technically I started in December but:
>Nineteen Eighty-Four
>The Count of Monte Cristi
>Frankenstein
>currently reading: Moby-Dick

quit while you can. the meta shifts fast and you cant keep being competitive without buying cards. not worth it

Oh and I am currently reading:

Hyperion
Shadow of the Torturer
Monadology and other Political Writings of Leibniz
and some Hume

Yeah I've noticed that even at rank 20 most decks have two or three legendary cards which I'm not gonna spend money to get

Why not get audiobooks you can listen to during work?

Well I dunno like maybe if you like reading then maybe you'll enjoy reading it

>read
Foucault's pendulum
L'étranger
The name of the rose

>reading
The fall

>abandoned (might pick up again later)
Inflation

>next read
Brothers Karamazov

And by The fall I meant The plague

mate you can't refer to an author with "of all people" then try to play it off as non-derogatory

why

I’ve only read Brave New World nu Huxley and Cannery Row by Steinbeck. I did, however, really enyoy them, especially Cannery Row.

I've only read the trial and the caste by Kafka this month. I'm so behind on the books I actually want to read. I seriously do not recommend the castle because of it's slow pacing and shitty dialogue

Just read Life of Pi, about to read LOTR.

I am definitely a fan of the Oxford edition, but as I said it is for scholarly purposes.

If you plan to explore your faith it will make reading much more like studying a textbook than studying the scriptures. I find the notes downright counterproductive from a religious point of view, as a Catholic they turn a spiritual reading into an academic exposé. Although many would murder me for suggesting KJV I still believe the translation is the most beautiful.

I own all 3 I mentioned.

Read Fire & Fury, Paranoid Style in American Politics, How Democracies Die and The Naughty Nineties for obvious reasons

...

Can't argue with digits like that. I'm sold.

How are the Very Short Intro books? I have a few on my wish list but haven't pulled the trigger on them yet.

How are the Very Short Intro books? I have a few on my wish list but haven't pulled the trigger on them yet.

how was the trial? ive been thinking of picking it up. ive heard kafka has a lot of dark humor, but is it to the point where its depressing or is it actually enjoyable?

>foucaults pendulum
that'd take me a full month to read. how was it?