Well, this is surprisingly fun to read. Is all philosophy this lively, or is it just the form of a platonic dialogue that imbues it with such readability? I read Crito and Meno before this -- suggestions for where to go next? I was thinking Symposium.
Also, general questions.
Should one make or should one find the right philosophy?
How individual should one be?
Epictetus' Discourses is another fun read, mostly 'class notes' from his students
He discusses like people on Veeky Forums - when someone complains he answers 'Hang yourself'.
This is from another thread.
Whats the best version for the Critique of pure reason?
In English, Guyer is pretty much the standard now. Kemp Smith can be done, if for some reason you really want to, but Guyer's has several advantages. It follows a German practice of presenting both the A and B editions in the same translation, except where they overlap. It goes for internal consistency in Kant's idiom rather than subjective English readability (Zoller's review describes its intent as being the creation of an English-language equivalent of the original German, as opposed to an interpretation in support of readability or internal coherence). It's also part of the Guyer-headed Cambridge edition of Kant's corpus, which means consistency of idiom across Kant's other works as well.
I also found the apparatus and introduction extremely helpful for a quick crash course in Kant's intellectual context and intentions in writing the first Critique, as well as the muddled waters of Kant's ambiguities and their interpretations in subsequent philosophy, which can pollute the Critique by biasing your reading of it and purporting to be definitive. A lot of Kant, and especially some crucial stuff, is just plain ambiguous. Also I liked their brief discussion of the Critique's structure and what it owes to contemporary conventions.
But if you have access to JSTOR, you should just ignore me and read Zoller's review.
Anything else (i.e. outside of Guyer or Kemp Smith) is down to niche preference or scholarly reasons.
Also, definitely use secondary materials. Kant scholarship is huge.
Symposium is very fun.
For readability, it depends on your tastes and interests. Many find Aristotle dull, but I enjoy his to-the-point prose quite a bit.
Just read books and live
Not op but thanks for this
How does one live the literary lifestyle?
What does t. mean?
t. Clueless
Am I the only one who tink Socrates questions are pure tautology?
What do you guys make of the epilogue in Blood Meridian? Been trying to find some interpretations but mostly been reading about others confusion and curiosity
How does Veeky Forums feel about supplementary sources when reading? Good ones? Bad ones?
In reality, it's like a signature to something, like "sincerely, X," but here, it's used as a way to intentionally strawman other posters, or jokingly imply that the poster is someone other than a random anonymous person. That's why if you see someone post a progressive viewpoint, there's a good chance that someone else will respond with "t. Heisenberg" or some other Jewish sounding name. Or if someone talks about breaking the conditioning, someone might respond with "t. Alex Jones"
For philosophy I'd say it's essential, if you're reading on your own.
He rapes the kid's sister, Phoebe.
It comes from Finnish. It's short for "Regards, X". It's used as signature for letters and emails.
Not 100%, but I've read that the man "progressing over the plain" is depicting someone building a fence. Which I guess relates to the ironic theme of the novel, of the civilized characters, the Judge and Glanton and the gang, "civilizing" and fencing in the wild west, despite being utterly barbaric themselves (hence, ironic).
It's pointless to come up with a single meaning for the wanderers looking for bones, because its such a vague image. McCarthy wants us to interpret that in whatever way we like really. Searching of whose bones, I guess is the question.
Also, I see the linearity of the holes as an ironic comment on narratives, i.e progress, history etc, but that's my reading of it, I don't know if McCarthy was thinking that way. I think it's important to note that the man is traveling not just while making these holes, but "by means of" these holes, i.e. this linear demarcation of progress is the means by which he progresses, not the result of his progress. (Little bit of cause-effect fuckery).
The BM epilogue I don't think is really meant to be "understood". It's meaning depends so much on how you've read the rest of the novel, that I'd say there are very few dependable symbols in it, which remain the same for every reading.
My two cents :)
What are some good resources to learn formal, structured writing concepts and tropes? I know there's a lot of things to understand when it comes to treating writing as a craft and I'd like to understand as much as possible before I try.
does anyone seriously read an introduction ever? unless it's by someone who would be interesting to read, like Pynchon or something, what the hell is the point? to suck off the book more? i always skip them, let me get to the actual book for crying out loud.
especially if it's by Professor Cocksuckington of Oxford or Dr. Dicklewitz, why would i give a single toss? why would anyone ever read a literally who? is it filler to make the book look thicker? it's nonsense.
I think the best philosophy is that the one that could provide the answers for you. But this can only be achieved only when you are able to make the right questions regarding your problem.
Thus, if you can form your question correctly, and then you can find books / philosophy that addresses about the theme which were formed from your previous question.
But then you've got to live first. Enjoy your life. After reflecting on what had happened to you, you can ask these questions and find the philosophy you were looking for.
It is trial and error, but that's the point of learning. Good luck user
since when is the definition of justice a tautology
t. narcississm
I think it's usually for "classic" books that are short, so they both look bigger on the shelf of the pseuds that will buy them, and give other pseuds the gratification that they got to write a forward for a classic.
Every once in a great while an introduction will convey relevant information, such as historical background that is helpful in understanding the text. But yeah they mostly seem to be "I am an important person who was asked to write this introduction, here's a thirty year history of my academic life which bears little relevance to the text."
My thoughts exactly.
Relevant historical background is important, though. That's the only thing I can think of other than seeing another classic author giving his thoughts on it, you know, something that actually might be interesting.
What about Pluhar's translation? Is it good?
Has anybody read Little Man, What Now?
Is it worth reading?
Kafka's Amerika: good, bad? I went to get few books, had some credits left on the store, didn't know what to get, got Amerika, have never read Kafka. Also, should I read Metamorphosis before Amerika?
don't think it warrants its own thread, but may i get some obscure horror/gothic recs (untranslated works are fine)? i've read quite a bit in this area already- but i'm always looking for more.
Where should I start with D.H. Lawrence?
And is there a lot on incest in his books? If so I may lose interest in reading it
What do I tell people who read fantasy and erotica what kind of books I read without sounding like a pretentious asshole?
Who the fuck reads erotica?
Lady Chatterley's Lover is probably the best starting point, The Fox if you want a short story. No incest at all other than implied.
What's the best English translation of The Divine Comedy?
Longfellow.
Horny people?
>'Sub Julio' was I born, though it was late,
>And lived at Rome under the good Augustus,
>During the time of false and lying gods.
First time reader? Musa is recommended, particularly for the quality of the notes.
hmm i am of the belief chatterly is his weakest work. i would start with sons and lovers or rainbows.