What exactly should one read for?

Understanding of what? To what end? How does it lead to enlightenment?

You're a human being that wants things.

Enjoyment

Homoerotic stimulation

only one reason: to expose yourself to new ideas, to keep yourself from stagnating and stuck in obsolete minsets.

It's a nice way to pass the time. It's beats going to work or watching TV. Not as good as a Eurotrip or having a gf though.

You either read for entertainment or you read for personal enrichment. If you're not reading for one of those two reasons then you probably aren't actually reading.

>beats going to work
Proof that you can read while still be totally oblivious about how the world works.

Basic reading without testing yourself is mostly entertainment; it's not the most effective way to build your vocabulary, it's not the most effective way to improve your prose, it's not the most effective way to learn how to effectively express your ideas to others, however it is the most enjoyable way to improve upon all those aspects, while improving your critical thinking skills and meta cognition.

Look no further friend

Reading is a way to make solitude more bearable.

I don't enjoy reading, I don't enjoy anything. I read because I kinda want a personal enrichment, but then again, in this apathetic condition I can only lie to myself that I'm enriching myself and think that I'm doing something productive. Well, at least I read classics only.

Are you me, motherfucker?

pusi obviously

entertainment
or, if you have to ace the test.

>For boredom
>Exceeding the general knowledge imprinted from the media, who don't know a thing in the end besides "how 2 journalism"
>See how wrong the "plebs" (politicans) are
>Supporting your own interests

In the end it may or may not help you with anything. It's a escape to hypnogogia-state of mind to go with your own thoughts. After a while you see that you don't have that much in hands, just written words, memes of one sort, and concluded and crystallized mumbling of authors' thoughts and researches.

Cognitive complexity is a possible output. Seeing from multiple perspectives. Overdo it and you have the perspectives and views of light from most directions but not your own or something to converge them to.

It's hobby of words and games of language like every other situational arena of play. Do or don't. Especially for antisocialites or these self-identified "introverts" the books are the place where you get the external stories and analogies you need for communication with others. Ofen they are misused and covered lies that people seem to use, but there are no fact-checkers in ordinary life.

Pleasure, intellectual pursuit or money if they pay you to do it.

What a load of fucking nothing you've just said

You think there wasn't anything real as in non-nothing compared to your own thoghts? Good. Comprehension from a load of interconnected words in their utmost and extreme reality is nothing but a nothing but common mind.

We don't seem to share that transcendental geist.

But it's not like literature has much to offer. It may be the core reason behind our intelligence, the unaltered education that it can offer and the subconscious membrane-level understanding that it requires to understand the letters set together, sets us on the plane where there is room for continuity of the same set of these alphabets.

Why to read if you can already read and your social environment doesn't need the stories and plain ?

Reading is merely for own fun or misery.

You are a silly person

To add it's the same question as why to live.

There is no defining answer and real reason. Most of the time it is just for others around you.

>implying that there aren't any real introverts for who the books are the place where you get the external stories and analogies you need for communication with others
>imlying that external stories and analogies are enough to keep living
>implying that external stories and analogies don't only make it worse by reminding you of what you can't have

go impregnate your mother

>implying that there aren't any real introverts
I am not implying there are not people who are real introverts. I am implying that we really do not know what is an introvert. It is more of temporarily mindset and an escape from the real 'cruel' world that is before us.

Look at the studies. People get more 'extrovert' over time as their age goes neared to the inevitable death. Behind that there is a reason to think again what is to be an human in his equivocal addled world. Even a narcissist can be described as introvert who doesn't know what the objectivity of his persona is.

It is the situation, the setting. It's not the most clarified indicator who you are. You can say it as an excuse or a argument to do and fulfil your own will.

>analogues, metaphors, linguistic approaches to hidden subjects of mind and perception lead to the ever-so bitter and lousy jealousy

These external stories make you social life. It is more common and more devoted way of phrasing the experiences. You don't go out there and speak only about yourself. You objectify it to norms and mores implemented from your surroundings. Only 'I' sentences are fill to the talk that others want to use and abuse and have the feeling of you contributing something to not exactly yourself but common to others.

What you will have is the subject talking with the 'I'. The mediums that are under accommodation of your apperception may rise the thought of what you could have had but that's only after the thought that the one giving the play went through you as yourself being the one who experienced it. There is the thought that it, covetousness, thoroughly unnecessary but widely held emotion.

Anyhow, implication is with all the heuristics shifted here

Dude just stop, you're embarrassing yourself and you're not actually saying anything

No, I am not saying anything. I am just sitting here silent in my small and rather empty room with similar thoughts.

It is not as I am vigorous enough to make this a point to describe it better, even to myself.

May it be that the "sheepe" do the reading in question.

You're not alone, user.

That kid

and children of today.

There is no arguably specific and explicit reason for literature.

I guess this is the Rousseau's argument for going back to the nature, to the absolute reason to where we as humankind belong to.

If you meant Emile and not Lolita.

I have this condition. I have too much dopamine. It makes me seek out novel information. For my it is not a choice to read, my brain requires me to do it.