Daily reminder that if you've read 10+ books this year so far you are most likely not reading anything worth reading at...

6 books out of which 4 were genretrash

I've read eight books so far this year, all fiction.

that wasn't my list, I'm speaking for Veeky Forums in general. The truth is you either haven't read much fiction or have such little analytical skill that you think fiction serves purely as entertainment.

80 days x 4 hours = 320 hours x 50 pages an hour = 16000 pages or x 30 pages an hour = 9600 pages. I don’t get it. Unless you’re saying under 10 pages an hour, which would put you around 10 320-page books, you are lying about the amount of time you spend reading, or you are lying about the number of books you’ve read, by ginving a number that is lower than the reality, which would completely contradict the snobbish attitude expressed in the post. I honestly have no idea what the reality of your situation is, but I read 5-7 hours a day (actually) and it has been very manageable to get over ten books under my belt since the turn of the year. I aim for 200 pages a day x 80 days = 16000 pages. I promise I’ve read more than those pictures.

Attached: image.jpg (3264x2448, 1.76M)

>goodreads

Go back to Rebbit faggot

I have read it, and I don't have interest in it anymore.

I'll post the books I'm reading, how about that?

No one ever talks about Vilfredo Pareto, I'm reading this man right now. A great read. Sociologically, this man had precise vision of what makes a society and man in general.

Attached: books.jpg (449x1023, 126K)

kys. I'm serious. Do it or I'll sick the mods om you.

>he updates his pages read
>"Not insecure, trust me."

what a laugh

It depends on what you're reading, snob. I read mathematical texts and differential economics (sometimes). These sorts of things can take a little while to comprehend, grasp, and understand. It all depends on WHAT you are reading.

And some of us have to actually work in order to live.

sure, just don't shit on fiction as if it is less valuable. Also I can't believe you actually update your progress, you're such a pseud

>he doesn't

Everyone I follow on Goodreads does the same.

>7% into a book
>"A great read."

what a laugh

Your thread sucks faggot and no one gives a shit that you read a Stephen king book every couple weeks

I'm reading it right now. At page 80 of like 340 or so.

Why don't you update your goodreads every time you turn a page?

That's not me. I'm OP.

Goodreads is actually not a terrible site. You just need to learn to not want to hide behind the anonymous banner and disparage anyone who besmirches the name of fiction.

Even Plato said that tragedies are worse for your soul than metaphysics.

OP again. I would know because I've read 33% of a Plato book. You can tell because I update my progress on my Goodreads page. Did I mention that fiction a shit?

Uhh the real OP here. I like to read the introduction to various important writings because I'm too busy to process fiction because I have a job

I only read at work. Get a job that lets you read. It’s the only way you’ll make it. I read math too. I was reading math all day today. Unless you’re just getting used to operations or concepts, I don’t understand how it takes people that much longer than pages with words all the way down. People normally use the ‘but maths!’ Excuse when they don’t even read math. It’s just something people say here these days, but if you actually read math, for a while, you’ll find that it can actually turn pages faster than fully worded pages. But seriously, I wasn’t saying that under 10 pages an hour is bad, I just didn’t understand the numbers of op’s situation

Attached: image.jpg (3264x2448, 1.79M)

Mathematics is truly Veeky Forums

Just how economics is Veeky Forums

I would venture to say most subjects are Veeky Forums, in actuality, EXCEPT for exceptions. For instance, even though literature is written about Finance, I would say it's not Veeky Forums, it doesn't support intellectualism or rigorous study, just rudimentary application of practices or formulas to securities.

The same with certain areas of math, actually.

Specifically speaking, I would revere Geometry and Arithmetic as a literary hobby much, much more than Statistics.

Kurt Vonnegut's best books are pretty short. Also some people like shortly condensed stories more than really long commitments.

>the federalist papers
>by Alexander Hamilton
Suck shit Jay.

I've finished 35 book so far. The number could have been higher but I stopped buying those individual Shakespeare books and got a complete edition. I'm currently reading Augustine's Confessions, the Fifth head of Cerberus by Gene Wolfe and a book called Illiberal Reformers.

Attached: 433.png (364x3519, 517K)

That list made me feel so many things. Holy shit. It is a work of art in itself. I need to brush my teeth and remind myself never to have children in this god-forsaken fucking planet. But don’t worry, next time you see that picture posted, I will have been the one to post it.

I unfriended OP because of this thread

Attached: 1510049330627.png (223x87, 14K)

I don't see what's wrong with it

>Sowell

He's a good writer. I don't think most of the people who criticize him on here have ever bothered reading him because the comments are always vague.

I understand that. Or else you wouldn’t have posted it. (In b4 ‘bit I didn’t post it, I’m a 3rd party that also doesn’t see anything wrong with clumping a bunch of silly child meme books with Hayek and then some ridiculous right wing bullshit and other ‘classics’ that, if a person were actually reading on a 13 book/month pace, would have been read years ago, oh, and fucking Herodotus. But seriously, a 40 page paper could be written on why this list is so funny. I probably won’t write it, but I’d read it. It would be a pretty wonderful showcase of why our world is fucked.)

I only started reading regularly a few years ago and up until fairly recently I've only read about scripture or Christianity and politics. I never read throughout highschool or my 20's so I missed out on those books and I'm playing catch-up. I think you're trying a little too hard to be cool.

Are you in high school?

When it comes economics, many people who associate with Austrian economics are just wrong.

This is the general sentiment. And it's coming from people who believe in God. I'm not going to lie, I don't like the idea of a Democratic and Republican dichotomy too much anyway. The point I'm trying to make in particular is that there are certain immutable economic truths, and what you're talking about are not immutable economic truths. For instance, Sowell is an '''''economist'''''''' who believes that all drugs should be legal.

No economist that I have read has ever asserted anything about the nature of drugs in their books, or in general. And certainly none of them have said that all drugs should be legal.

To give you an idea, it is the common understanding that, frankly, Mises is just wrong about his idea of interest and production cycles. Like just flat-out wrong. You can be a conservative neoclassicist, or even ascribe to the Chicago school if you want to. But from what I've heard Thomas Sowell is not great.

Yes that's right. That motherfucker sneaked in what he had to say right at the beginning. Kind of creepy if you ask me. Like he was trying to frame the public opinion. In anything political like this, you have to pay careful attention to little details like this: most likely what John Jay said at the very beginning of this endeavor was intended to form the opinion of the entire body of the work.

But what he said was clearly biased and obviously a simplified version of what Hamilton later expressed. Alexander Hamilton portraying the most useful examples of historical validation of immutable political truths. The Roman government, the Athenian government, etc. are all utilized very well by him.

You aren't serious are you? I don't care.

I do actually care :3

>The Thomas Sowell Reader
Y-you need a r-reader for..... Thomas Sowell??? What is he Keynes level of complexity or something???

It's a collection of articles and essays that hes written throughout his career. He's not just an economist, he writes about all sorts of things. Some I agree with and some I don't. I enjoy him because even when I don't agree he at least has a good reason for believing as he does. He's not the type of guy who would say "he's just wrong" and act like that means something.

That’s possible. I’m sorry for being rude, but I am certain that my gut reaction of guffaw-vomit was honest and I’m sure that the fact that our society has filtered people’s interests in such a way that they can be drawn in each of the directions shown in that list within a 3-month time span is symptomatic of the underlying cancer that is sure to bring down civilization. I know that people like you are out there, like, all over, but I honestly can’t begin to put myself in your shoes. I have a degree in literature, economics and theology (and worked under the father of supply side economics, so politics also interest me), so I take all of those subjects seriously, but fuck... after spending so much time on all of those subjects it gives me a visceral stab-and-twist to see someone standing in diametric opposition to all of the conclusions I reached from all of my work, but this other person has as much power as I have when it comes to choosing the way things should be governed (assuming we aren’t an oligarchy, which is an impossible assumption, so I don’t really know why this should bother me). Ah, fuck it. Just try to open your mind to the possibility that the opinions you hold at present are formed more by insecurity than reason. I mean, if all arrows point in that direction (‘govment caint taik ma muney’, xenophobia, needing a God described by historical presence in the material world), then there is probably something to it. There is more to life than that shit. I genuinely hope you see past it. It’s an anonymous board, I’m not seeking some sort of cred, I’m just hoping you might explore other options by putting an ounce of value in the opinion of someone that has spent a lot of time interested in the same things. My post deserves to be made fun of. I know. Good luck

The reality is that you don't know a damn thing about me or what I believe. All you've seen is the books I've read the past few months and you don't even know if I liked any of them. Instead of acting like a human and asking me you make assumptions and subject me to this wild ranting. Then you have the nerve to tell me to open my mind. You're a maniac.

What? OP here, I haven't commented anything besides the first few comments. I only read non-fiction.

Stop, you're not funny

No nerve necessary, we’re anonymous. I’m definitely a maniac. Don’t take it personally. I was mostly venting about the situation, not about you. Sorry, I should have deleted it instead of posting it. Best of luck out there (Hayek is smart, I just disagree with his conclusion), thanks for reading books.

I'm not being funny, the reason why I created this thread is to see what other anons have to say about their progress, I've been using Goodreads for about 2 years now, to have some control over my readings and it's not so bad, being honest.I have a stack full non-fiction lit that I want to read for the whole year. Don't get the hate.

Okay, this is kind of funny.

Those are the dullest books I've seen on Veeky Forums all day, maybe all week. kys.

>I only read non-fiction

Attached: 1513889547536.webm (1280x720, 1.79M)

You're a faggot, that's what you are. A pillow-biting, cock-sucking faggot. Ventilate this, faggot.

literally anyone who reads plays

You're the dullest book I've seen on Veeky Forums all day, fag.

>The point is, I'm not interested in reading stories
They tell you more about the psychology of the past than historical texts to. I say this as a person who mostly reads non-fiction historical texts or essays. Also it teaches emotional truths, which are important for a functioning mind.

Faggot!!!

If you haven't read at least 100 books by now, you're never gonna make it

You know it's true, and that makes you a bigger faggot.

>has only read 100 books this year

You are like a little baby watch this
>reads the shortest dialogues of Plato over and over every day for the rest of the year

I don't care if you think that they're 'dull'. The truth is, mathematics is fascinating. Especially the synthetical method.

And, I don't think anyone considers Laws to be 'dull', either. I mean c'mon. Laws is not dull.

Apart from being ridiculously obtuse, you know nothing about Joan Didion, obviously.

>And, I don't think anyone considers Laws to be 'dull', either. I mean c'mon. Laws is not dull.
You're kidding right? It's eastily one of the top 5 dullest topics on existence. Reading an entire book about it just for pleasure? Go ahead.

Faggot!!!

Samefaggot. gud 1

Faggot!!!

You're right, who cares?

Plato's Laws is hardly about laws, you pseud. It's about forming a colony: the same subject that The Republic was about. They reach vastly different conclusions because the colonies in question are in vastly different situations and the people in the dialogue are vastly different as well.

>Plato's Laws is hardly about laws, you pseud
I thought you were referring to the stupid Murifag book you got there. "The Federalist Papers".

Ehehehawhaw, hehawaw. AHAHAHA. Anyone that reads Laws doesn’t understand what its purpose was. It was an exoteric text that Plato wrote out of necessity. No early secondary sources place, really, any value in it at all. It’s a stupid book. The republic was not talking about an actual city. God damnit.

>exoteric
exotic + esoteric?

shelley read 16 hours a day when he was at oxford.
when radiguet was 11 he read 200 books in one year.
you should consume your enthusiasms quickly.

(Ya, but don’t tell anyone)

I’ve read 7 books this year, my dudes. 2,156 pages. Just one fiction book. Read to increase your understanding not your book count. I love you, OP, don’t stray into the wrong path.

Attached: image.jpg (750x1334, 254K)

>shelley read 16 hours a day when he was at oxford
by ignoring his classes

>I love you, OP, don’t stray into the wrong path.
Too late. He already became a faggot.

ITT: faggots

The Republic was not talking about an actual city, The Laws were.

Just because others don't reference it, doesn't mean it isn't a valuable text. I place much more importance on Plato's political theories in The Laws, then The Republic, which we can assume are compromised of Socrates' socialistic/religious theories primarily.

Plato is at his worst when he's playing Sim City. The Laws is boring as fuck and so is most of the Republic.

>The Federalist Papers
>stupid
Not even close. A broad historical analysis of immutable political truths a bad paper does not make. All evidence points towards a confederate republic being the best system for the colonies at that time.

My only complaint is that the question of aristocracy rarely, if ever, comes up in The Federalist Papers. It seems John Jay and the others were determined to set the dichotomy of republic and monarchy in the hearts of men, as opposed to any sort of other political system.

Reference isn’t a verb. *importance in. Plato really just cared about the salvation of the soul. I would say political philosophy was secondary, but it wasn’t. He really couldn’t give less of a fuck about the political world. He made that pretty clear. That is why I said Laws was sort of a necessary evil. He didn’t want to write it. It is significant that early writers had a negative view of Laws because they told us of the view of the academy and Plato himself. It was a stupid text. You meant to say comprised, I think, not compromised (maybe not), but you definitely mean ‘social’ not socialistic. Were you born in a barn? How do you have an opinion? (I am just going for a strong, violent reaction, so you win if you don’t give me one (or maybe I’m scared you will react strongly and expose the fact that I’m full of shit)). I should get out of here. I used to be a good person.

>don't reference it
don't refer to it*

The republic has socialist ideas with regards to properties and families, which we can attribute to largely being due to Socrates, since both books are by Plato, and The Laws has no socialist theories at all.

You're right, I did mean comprised. I'm sorry.

So you’re taking a literal reading of the republic? Not saying that the guardians giving up possessions is actually talking about the opinions formed and held in the spirited part of the soul (of the guardian part of the soul) not holding onto inherent, assumed value instead of allowing the actua value of opinions be determined by reason as he says is actually what he is taliking about in that section? Or the commonality of women and children actually speaking to the commonality of pleasure and pain in the soul? That pleasure and pain operate on a single spectrum and by not acknowledging this and treating pleasure and pain similarly, we run into issues with regard to establishing justice in the soul and allowing reason, the philosopher-king, to have complete control over all parts of the soul? Or is it just a coincidence that he talks about both of these topics sequentially? Or do you think Plato changed his mind in between writing these two dramatic fictions? Or do you think Socrates (‘The Ruler of Life’) was a real person that forgot everything about himself, even his name, was born of a god, considered himself to be a midwife by trade?

What non-fic do you read and would recommend OP?

The benefit of giving up personal possessions is bascally everywhere throughout the dialogues. All early Platonist communities were actual communists. They had to give up all possessions to join

>not insecure, trust me
kek

I think you're onto something. I do think that Socrates is describing a divine society, where everyone is Good. I do not believe that, as long as sin exists, this society could be possible. But as many other people throughout time have asserted the same sorts of things as he asserts, I do believe those socialist theories were genuine, if quixotic.

But don't you think they can be BOTH symbolic and actual? For instance, the most divine truths have symbolic meaning as they currently occur. We could say democracy is emblematic of the democratic man.

And that monarchy is emblematic of the king.

And so on and so forth, every system is a reflection of the people in it, and vice-versa. This has been said by many and will be said by many to come. So clearly in The Republic, they are describing a citizen which will act as if he is in The Republic (which is said at the very last page), but also they are describing a physical Republic as well (as it would best benefit society).

I just honestly believe if you want a more pragmatic, practical view of a perfect society, you would do well to give a read to The Laws, who seem to have an actual colony in mind (towards the South East of Crete, ten miles from the coast)

What are you interested in? Have you read Elements by Euclid yet? How about Walden by Thoreau? The Prince by Machiavelli?

These are all must reads imho

Except in The Laws, where Socrates is not present.

Thank you, you have proven my claim :)

I-I'M NOT I SWEAR

what are you, fucking 14 years old?

this reading challenge shit reminds me of primary school savants reading 200 books a year
You must be incredibly smart to read such a volume, right? turns out it counts for a little less where it matters when you're reading shitty books out of a sole motivation of "reading". I have spoken to people invested in this about books they have read and entire characters, chapters, dimensions slip their minds, if the vital details were ever roped into those sties in the first place.

>autism

>turns out it counts for a little less where it matters when you're reading shitty books out of a sole motivation of "reading"
Turns out nobody on here reads plays or poery. 8 fiction books in >10 weeks is shameful – get to work.

Attached: iq of low sort.png (645x729, 59K)

exactly

That sounds like a waste of effort. Unless done authomatically, of course.

>the Federalist Papers

Literally "REPUBLIC not DEMOCRACY ok." the book. The only reason Americans still use this terminology in such an autistic way.

It is but it isn't.

Like that's what I'd say John Jay's contributions are like. And like I've already said, bringing up the concept of Aristocracy would not have mattered in the long run, since a democracy would have been the best government for the fledgling union. I just wish they had explored a couple different avenues of government instead of setting up a dichotomy.

Hamilton is an excellent writer.

I would to see the world in two thousand years just to see if Americans are regarded in the same way the Romans are today.

First of all, there are countless great stories that are less than 200 pages long. Secondly, those of us who aren't in school or working have a lot more free-time than you. And finally, only insecure pseuds turn reading into a competition. Piss off, OP.