There are people on here who spend their whole lives reading fiction instead of philosophy

>there are people on here who spend their whole lives reading fiction instead of philosophy
How can they possibly live such a meaningless existence?

You tell me senpai.

Kant, for example, is dry on literary terms and boring to read. For this reason I prefer fiction. Kant is concentrated autism; fiction works of high quality, on the other hand, are full of life.

>reading for fun

it's only dry if your logical category is flaccid

>doesn't think it's fun to read Kant
I have bad news for you...

>thinks reading will give his life meaning

Keep trying kid

>I'm smart and my life is meaningful because I read the right books
Yes somebody like you probably would need to read Kant. If you're this bad while devoting yourself to philosophy I can scarcely imagine how wretched you'd be without it.

>reading to appear intellectual to your peers and family

I might read Kant, but since I don't enjoy the lecture, I avoid him

>actually reading
embarassing Tbh

If reading fiction is meaningless so is all of philosophy

i unironically enjoy reading Kant. I have mental problems and he calms me down and makes me feel not crazy, like everything can be put into a system and be made clear.

>can't even comprehend someone wanting to read in order to better themselves
>can't even see the objective use in literature
sad

If you read to better yourself, then why do you post on Veeky Forums?

Good point; your post certainly took off a few IQ points.

I really like when this divide comes up on this board.

>Beauty is truth, truth beauty

>There is no truth saving in thyne own heart;
>Dream, then, for this is also sooth.

I'm firmly of the above camp, which I think puts me in the minority. What is the one best counterexample, that I might read and be convinced?

Fiction is fun to bolster a creative mind but philosophy can be fun too. I had fun reading Machiavelli. It reads almost like a story being played out through the actions of the prince in question as he becomes a better(?) person.

Philosophy gives you no actual knowledge, and it's not as powerful as fiction, nor does it expand the boundaries of imagination in a similar manner.

All philosophy can do is clarify. What does it clarify, however? Very esoteric aspects of very esoteric things. Did you know that knowledge is not justified true belief? Oh, my God, my world has changed!

2500 years on and philosophers still talk about these strange invisible things called 'good' and 'evil' of which the first seems to always coincide with the beliefs of their favorite political parties and the second with the beliefs of the opposition party. That shows you all you need to know about how intellectually honest they are.

The only good philosophers are those that think carefully about life and give you good advice based on their thoughts and experiences, such as Seneca or Epicurus. But they are no better than, say, the Bible or Confucius, and they give you no objective knowledge: just a good path which, if followed, might lead to a happier life for you. Neither are they necessary for you to live well: Homer never read a philosopher, neither did my grandmother.

Then there are philosophers who are great writers and great men of imagination, such as Plato, Descartes and Nietzsche. These can be enjoyed and talked about, but not in any non-literary way.

“Personally, I am a hedonistic reader; I have never read a book merely because it was ancient. I read books for the aesthetic emotions they offer me, and I ignore the commentaries and criticism.”

― Jorge Luis Borges, Seven Nights

Philosophy is more fictional than fiction

>there are people here who can't enjoy both philisophy and fiction
OP, I'm looking to you.

>better(?)