/QTDDTOT/

practically asocial and the pay is guaranteed to be garbage. They'll probably let you loan books for free but otherwise you're just stacking shelves, doing inventory and walking around.

If you're trusted to be a cashier then you get to stand in one spot handling money for 6 hours.

complex, ambitious, idealistic

but down to earth has positive connotations. shouldnt it's opposite be negative

Pretentious, self centered
this is English 101 you fucking nigger

What is the best bildungsroman?

if you want negative you can try scheming, conniving, or cunning (although cunning can go both ways)

But the real opposite for down to earth doesn't necessarily have to be positive. Someone who is down to earth can also be described as being simple, or uneducated.

head in the clouds

not that guy, but: not necessarily. down to earth often has an undertone of having downsides. it's not really a bad thing to say someone is "salt of the earth," pragmatic, keeps his head to the ground, etc., but you are usually also saying that he isn't really ambitious, idealistic, visionary.

like the reverse is true too. saying someone is idealistic, depending on context, can have undertones of naivete.

Is it normal to actively enjoy almost nothing one reads? I feel accomplished for reading but so little affects me in any way that I feel it might not be worth it.

nice try you lose though

thanks m8

...

Who's Hes French?

what city?

'above us' for colloquial.

Depends on why you are reading. if it is to feel accomplished then you are probably reading for the wrong reason, hence no enjoyment.

What are some good audio books? I am specifically looking for anything in the topics of history, science, or philosophy.

The topic being less important than how comforting voice of the reader is.

Jane Eyre

I have three questions.

>What is /lit's/ favourite writing software to use (if any)?

Secondly, I know that fanfiction is seldom posted here and are looked down upon, though I have a query and I'm not sure where else to ask.
When writing this sort of fic as a pairing, is it acceptable to write up to a 1,000 words on average about things that simply build misc. characters up but does not affect storyline whatsoever, nor goes with the canon storyline that has already been set?

I've been doing a lot of comparing to other fanfictions that are in the same universe and/or pairing and I've become quite self-conscious of how I tell stories because I'm not sure if the paragraphs of descriptive and non-dialogue texts are what people WANT to read when they might just be there for the dialogue and general banter between characters.

>Also, if applicable, what fanfiction sites does Veeky Forums use?

>What is the best bildungsroman
Stendhal's The Red and the Black, imo.

q10
baara.com/q10/

or libre office.

Write your fanfiction the same way you would write a serious novel or short story. Don't believe in the nonsense about fanfiction having its own rules. Readers are receptive to work that is similar to the style of the source material or work that is just good.

I used fimfiction when I was a brony.

Which should I read?

Lawrence Durrell - Justine
Kurt Vonnegut- Cat's Cradle
Cervantes - Don Quixote (Grossman Translation)
C.S. Lewis - The Screwtape Letters

I need a good book to read. Just finished Bergman's filmography and I'm in the mood for a book for a change.

>libreoffice
Funny you should say that, I just switched from Windows (aka Word) to Linux and it has that software. Liking it so far.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, user. I'm currently on Ao3 and it seems that many prioritise dialogue over any other kind of writing. I'm just going to keep on pushing my version and hope that people will like it.

How is the Constance Garnett Translation of Crime and Punishment?

Disregarding italics or any similar font to emphasise a word, how do you spell a prolonged word?

For example:
"Yeeeesss!"
or
"Ye-e-e-e-s-s-s!"

Which looks better?

haven't read it but judging by the amount of threads i have seen with this question. Go with garnett.

Not as bad as many people say. Magarshack works, I believe, from her translation while correcting her more egregious errors. His was the translation I read.

Also, this article may be worth reading:
commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

youtube.com/watch?v=2jmbUh5iTfY

You should only be stressing one vowel or consonant sound.

"Yeeeeeees!"

or be cool like me and use the tilde.

"Yes~!"

I'm looking for a russian book about mayor corruption in a small village, I read it when I was a kid, so details are kind of opaque in my memory. It was written in the 19th or 18th century.

Thanks!

The Inspector General by Gogol? It's a play, but sounds like what you're looking for

thanks a lot, i'm reading the plot summary right now and the images i pictured when i read it are coming back, felt kinda nostalgic

underrated post

I like the split (second one)

I see it more often than not in the books I read, but only see amateurs use a prolonged vowel with dashes.

Still, I think without splits/dashes, it just looks better. I'm unsure why.

I have a fantastic world full of interesting mechanics and awe-inspiring gods but every attempt at writing it has turned out shitty.

What do?

>amateurs use a prolonged vowel with dashes

Disregard that, I suck cocks. I was supposed to have written WITHOUT dashes, not with.

How can I understand books better? After I finish a book I always feel like I didn't get everything there is to get about it.

Read slowly and thoughtfully. Maybe journal your thoughts as you read

I have three volumes of a World War 2 chronicle from Readers Digest.

Its the Second Edition and was published in 1965, it also describes itself as a ''compilation of 500 books from authors of both sides''. Pic related could be the ones distributed in North America.

However, I did wanted to ask (if some of you know of reader digest) how accurate and unbiased could these books be?

...

What are the best publishers in terms of material quality and in terms of actual literary quality? I'm asking this because I was thinking of buying some Wordsworth books, but I'm not sure if they'll crumble or not, or if they'll actually be good translations/reprints.

if you havent read a book twice you havent really read it at all

Why DOES Veeky Forums look down on those who read for fun?
It's pretty much their own version of /v/'s
>enjoying video games
>having friends to play with in video games
>I shiggy diggy

Despite their cringe-inducing cover art choices (which are only for the novels anyway), and their average translations, the quality of their bindings and the paper they use are actually very good for the price. Their poetry publications are even better, with the added benefit of lacking despicable cover art. Their philosophy publications are also great.

Sorry, I forgot to mention in I was talking about Wordsworth.

Does anyone here follow any blogs? If so, which ones?

How long does it take to git gud at philosophy?

Can I skip everything which attempts to "prove" gods existence or presents god as the proof of their idea without harming my philosophical maturity?

Is science the end of philosophy?

Depends on intelligence, dedication and time spent understanding and then applying.

I don't see why not. In fact, I feel like that question is a meme.

No. And now I'm certain I've been memed. Well done. You hooked me on those three sumptuous, squirming morsels.

"God" and theology have zero relevance to philosophy. Become a priest if you're into that nonsense.

Does anyone recommend secondary literature on Aristotle?

Yes. Translations vary in a slight degree which, yet just un-slight enough to change what Aristotle is trying to say if a word is ambiguous. Secondary literature on Aristotle is not only essential to understand what the fuck he really means, but also necessary if you want to sidestep ambiguity in the translation of the terms he uses.

Years

No, because #1: ontology inherently involves talking about possible divinity, and #2: most of the god dudes were doing non-god philosophy disguised as god philosophy, #3: most of the "real" philosophy guys were still talking about god in one way or another (Kant and Hegel eg)

Science is part of philosophy but modern "science" is a fairly simplistic worldview for people who don't know much about philosophy. Being super good at interpreting astronomy data or crunching numbers isn't really philosophical, but even the super smart "big picture" science guys are basically just recycling #1: recycling a mishmash of old worldviews, #2: oblivious to the fact that there are "worldviews" and think theirs is the default/only possible one (similar to a naive person rejecting the historical study of capitalism because "isn't it all just people exchanging things for what they want to pay for them???"), #3: oblivious to the fact that there is a lot of criticism of their worldview as instrumentalized / incomplete, both in the "you're causing social problems!" sense and in the "you will never have a complete science of reality if you just keep hammering away at this busted worldview"

Veeky Forums isn't even that slow

>Is science the end of philosophy
Modern science is based on certain philosophical axioms. Scientific theories postulate certain non-observable entities which means it assumes a certain philosophical worldview about reality: realism. And so on.

Once you realize that there is no philosophy-free science you'll tend to see things from a different prism.

larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/

Thanks senpai, I was thinking of getting some of their philosophy stuff which is why I was asking.

Don Quixote

Both look absolutely terrible

Use another construction to convey exclamations

It's ironical

>Use another construction to convey exclamations

Elaborate. Preferably with an example.

I used to absolutley love reading from my childhood up until 3 weeks ago, then i stopped reading for a while and now whenever i try to get through a book I can only get through 5 or 6 pages until my mind trails off and all of the words just jumble together in one big mess. Is my attention span shot? Can i ever get back into reading? How?

read something easy and enjoyable.

To those who have read Anthony Kenny's New History of Western Philosophy, did you read it front to back or in categorical chunks (e.g. reading the Book 1 Ethics section, then the Book 2 Ethics section and so on...)?

Do I need to read Homer before Plato? I've read Hamilton btw

Is there a point to pondering god when he's infinitely above any human concept?

chances are someone has already pondered your banal thoughts on god hundreds of years ago and it's only a matter of finding the writer.

I'm not understanding why you're making a correlation between the two. Homer was a poet, and is seen as the "start" of western literature, Plato was a philosopher and his work is seen as the "start" of western philosophy.

The two don't any common points other than they were both ancient greeks

God, if He exists, isn't a concept, but God.

You're conflating concepts with what these concepts denote.

Did I make a mistake by ordering a german copy of The ego and his own?

Being above human conceptions is itself a human concept.

Depends if you can read German or not

I can.
Maybe having a dictionary will help a little.

This isn't a question, but I made a Telegram group for Veeky Forums. Here it is if anyone gives a shit.
telegram.me/joinchat/CdkLez9L0cf3kPKjqaW6Ug

Telegram is a cross-platform messaging application if you don't know.
Someone had the idea that this group could be used to share books. I think it's a good idea.
It's a new group, so completely baren. I expect someone else to shape it.

all the guides tell me to do so. thanks for the clarification

I read it front to back. Without going into detail it's very compelling and informative

nobody?

What in god's name is god though?

>telegram.me/joinchat/CdkLez9L0cf3kPKjqaW6Ug

problem loading page

Etheral?

"head in the clouds"

...

Is anyone apart of a book club?

What font is this book in? (I asked this in another thread and someone replied with a dead link) It's so sexy, I just want a name/download.

...

In a universe with seemingly infinite matter, and infinite time -- how is it that I exist at all? How is it that matter can think, and call itself "I?"

Is this perhaps Powell's in Portland?

I know this isn't a critique thread but let me know if this opening is a little too "Gregory Berrycone":

Act I: In which our protagonist Leopold Garnet III learns that he is not (as previously foretold) the reincarnation of a 2nd century BCE Suebian warchief.

The temperature was approximately 498 degrees Rankine on Leopold Garnett III's 16th birthday, and accompanying this was a rather stubborn and gusty wind that was not to subside for another sixteenth of a fortnight. Because of this, Leopold's traditional ex-uterine anniversary party was held inside his family's palatial manor rather than on its spacious front lawn.

Leopold was just placing a glass containing a sweet gin and tonic up to his lips when a plump girl with blonde braids approached him, at first surreptitiously, but then with confident measured movements that suggested at once both hours of practice and spontaneous intent. The two locked eyes for several millenia, an icy pool of blue spring water meeting the matte black finish of a custom Ford GT. Blonde braids jostled slightly as their owner vocalized the all encompassing emotional range of the Homo Sapiens.
"Hey"
"Hey"
"You're not the reincarnation of a 2nd century BCE Suebian warchief."
"Shoot."

It's it essential to be familiar with Kant's COPR to be able to read his ethical and political writings?

can I also ask nonexisting ones?

Could someone suggest a book (non-fiction) that analyses inconsistencies/anomalies/hypocrisies in modern political discourse? For example, a common one would be the 'regressive left' and how the left's approach to Islam is inconsistent with their other beliefs (at least, that's how it's discussed here in the UK).

I'm not looking for a repository-type text that lists off a load of positions. Rather, I want to understand broadly how these supposed inconsistencies arise, and how and why prospective voters react to them in the ways that they do.

I think of "down to earth" as:
Relatable
Open
Understanding

Opposites of that would be:
Distant
Callous
???