Is anyone else sick of these fucking philistines who just say that a book is good depending on how much you like it and...

Is anyone else sick of these fucking philistines who just say that a book is good depending on how much you like it and what you get out of it? I try to convince people that reading the western cannon is a better idea than reading crappy stuff which isn't worth your time, because there is objectively heavier topics, and I tried using Harold Bloom's analogy of a table not being good if it's legs are about to fall off. How do you handle philistines, lit?

western cannon is shit

with love from india

>"wow, these people are so dumb that they won't even listen to this point that I am unable to successfully defend alone"

You are so damn boring

to hate plebs, thou shall first be patrician

Just remember where you started.

If you are an English major who has spent the last 4 years studying the use of phonetic, morphological, syntactical, stylistic uses, devices, etc. and their use in literature, it is hard seeing plebs who completely disregard any of these.

>depending on how much you like it and what you get out of it.

So, taste.

Much of Western canon is irrelevant outside of a few literary circles, and even then it is considered redundant to hold it to such high regard as you do

tl;dr OP is a pseud

Calm down, hipster

I'm actually quite happy that most people read garbage. That way they'll never get on my level.

You highlight "the western cannon" in such poor form I can't help but believe that you're in fact a philistine that got called out for being a philistine and simply made this thread to make sport at the western cannon. It reeks of being much the same as a unlearned philosopher defending an opposing argument.

People can read whatever they want if they find it interesting and worthwhile. In my experience its often the plebians who throw the first stone making comments like
or
"Those books are so old and outdated" or "You don't actually ENJOY reading those do you?". They find it incomprehensible that someone would enjoy reading great works from western history because "they can't" though I think they could if they actually were willing to try. That's what makes them a philistine.

Reasons to read the western cannon
>Learning is fun
>Connected in thought to great people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago having a back and forth conversation within your mind
>Its almost impossible to read shit because if the work was shit it would have been weeded out and forgotten by time
>You begin to understand how everything is connected through time and gain a better picture of your place within it

For example I was reading Plutarch last night and he was discussing Numa Pompilious. I never before this connected why they call the western calendar the Roman Calendar, "duh its from rome" and never even thought about the names of the months or weeks or that there might be history within them.

>SEPTember, OCTober, NOvember, DECember were all part of the original 10 months that were simply numerically named.
>July and August were added for Julius and Augustus Caesar.
>January (Janus) the roman god
>March (Mars the roman god)
>June (Junas the roman god)
>May (Maia the roman god)
>February was a month for forgiving sins.
>April was for the word Aprilis
>January was moved before March because honoring the gods should be preferable to war.

>its often the plebians who throw the first stone making comments like #
Call me plebeian again, piece of shit

What a pleb.

leave people ALONE

>I tried using Harold Bloom's analogy of a table not being good if it's legs are about to fall off.
Lmao so cute

>people are dumb because they don't read a list of books selected for them by people smarter than them like I do

Indian canon doesn't even exist

t.Marathi

I'm going to kill all your family tonight

>reading the Western canon makes you boring
yeah fuck books by dead white men xD

When its time to be a pseudo you will pseudo hard (pseudo hard)

>who just say that a book is good depending on how much you like it and what you get out of it?
>better idea than reading crappy stuff which isn't worth your time, because there is objectively heavier topics

So the canon is good because of what you get out of it? At least make a consistent argument.

why won't you let people read books they like you fucking book burner

>Harold Bloom's analogy of a table not being good if it's legs are about to fall off
Fuck off and don't come back until you've done some research into the schizophrenic table. Practicality or functionality should not form part of your aesthetic standards. There's a reason why a craftsman and an artist are not the same thing.

Not talking to them is a good start.

Don't try to unpleb the plebs.

>shit
>India

POO

>irrelevant outside of a few literary circles

But these literary circles are the only relevant thing.

"Posterity is not the sum of future generations. It's a small number of tasteful men, well raised, erudite, in each generation." (N. Gomez Davila)

lol

/thread.