What deadly fangs it must have. Can lit describe the creature to the hunters who trail it in the city? How many will it kill?
>I'm sure you want to know whats going to happen to these characters you've spent 800 pages with >but first, let me tell you about the history of the french sewers and explain how all the parts function together why didnt this style catch on?
>>24966472>muh sewersThat digression is incredibly entertaining, relevant to the plot, and quite short. It's 30 pages at most. People who complain about it haven't read the book. The only boring digression is the one about slang, which simply doesn't translate well, so it's a slog to get through. I imagine it wouldn't be as bad in French.>>24966562Yes, it's worth reading. Hugo's breadth of knowledge is what makes it one of the greatest novels of all time. It truly is a book about everything. If you, like OP, read solely for the plot, just get an abridged version like all the other plebs.
>>24966698your post has been invalidated because les contemplations is not les miserables
>>24966472>>but first, let me tell you about the history of the french sewers and explain how all the parts function togetherThose are unironically the best parts of his books.
Didn't read Les Mis but I certainly could've did without the 30 page description of Paris in Hunchback of Notre Dame
>>24966717My bad, because OP mentioned Les Mis I assumed the other post was asking about it too so I skimmed it and replied.
It's that time of year again! Vote for which books you wish to see on this year's top 100 chart. You can vote for as many books as you want. If there are any books not on the list that you wish to vote for, request the author and title ITT and they will be added. Responses can be changed after submitting.Voting closes on the New Year, after which will be the tiebreaker poll. To prevent spamming, a Google account is required to vote, but will not be collected or stored.Vote here:https://forms.gle/LqHa5xS1q5CVikem6
Why is Tolstoy always so low on this board? Filtered because War and Peace is "too long" and Anna Karenina is "about a woman"? Just seems a bit odd to me
>>24966672I just don't think he's that good. I'd rather read James for his character psychology or Flaubert for his prose.
>>24965793Yes. There's absolutely no comparison with Crime and Punishment. It's far, far better.
this chart is missing a post structuralist book, either mythologies from barthes, ecrits by lacan, simulacra and simulation, anti oedipe etc etc
>>24951578Moby dick is bullshit. People keep pretending it isn't but it's just dull, boring bullshit with nothing on it.
Is nominalism really that bad? A lot of galaxy brained people seem to say so. CSP says that individualism (his term for the combination of nominalism and the belief that particulars are ontologically fundamental) is "a tool of the Devil if Devil there be" in a letter.
>>24965704>There is nothing nominalist about what I said, the essence only exists in the intellect and in God analogically it does not actually exist independently or "in" something somehow unless you want to say God is something which things are "in".You quoted a direct contradiction of this.>In singular things [essence] has a multiple existence in accord with the diversity of these singular things>essence as such is undesignated and not particular, Essence considered absolutely is a type of mental abstraction, it does not mean "essence itself" or "essence most purely." The point is that it is individual in creatures, universal in the mind, and can be considered as neither.>The essence is that through which the existence actualizes the thing, but it is not "in" the thing.Aquinas speaks of essences and natures being "in" real beings (i.e. not mental) over and over throughout the entirety of the work you are citing.
>>24966681>>24966683>A cup doesn't stop carrying water if your mind changes.Neither does a cloud. And yet, only one of them will be a cup due to the relation to embodied human cognition. The category is not defined objectively, it is defined by relation to embodied human engagement. Which is by definition subjective.I am inclined to believe that there do exist "objective" essences/logoi that aren't defined by human cognition. But cups, tables, games etc. aren't even close. They are so cognition-driven they don't even have precise definitions, any one you can make will have thousands of false exclusions or false inclusions, and we will spot all of them by ... remembering engagement. If you will reply to this, I will appreciate you telling me what exactly triggers the emotional response. Someone disagrees with you, says something that seems stupid yeah, yeah, but this happens daily and you don't melt down like this. What is it about some categories having no independent essence that makes you afraid?
>>24966683>the category existed before the mind mapped the category as usefulWhere?
>>24966864I would tend to agree that artefacts lack essences, at least in the sense that beings do. However, I feel like the categories of objective versus subjective are basically just doing the work of the old reality versus appearances distinction, only the distinction has been calcified into an absolute dichotomy (so that appearances are no longer "real," no longer real properties of things). The subjective/objective distinction tends to have all sorts of extra unhelpful conceptual baggage layered onto it as well, such as assumptions of representationalism, or metaphysical assumptions about the metaphysics of appearances. For example, often 'objective' is often taken to be something like a synonym for noumenal, so that it turns out that absolutely no knowledge could ever be objective.Whereas, when we speak of news stories being more or less objective, the difference between news and propaganda, etc. this is not what we mean.There is an obvious sense in which a sign on a store's door that says: "closed" is objectively means that the store is not open for business. Every competent speaker of the language knows this. Facts do not cease to be facts or objectives because they involve mind. Such an account only makes sense on certain (bad) assumptions.But in terms of being a true being, obviously a principle of unity is essential, as Aristotle lays out in the Physics. So organisms are most properly beings and most properly have essences, just as those who are more psychologically, noetically, and spiritually unified are more fully persons (hypostasis). Whereas the unity of a cup is imposed from without and is less intelligible in itself.But unity, like truth and goodness, is a case of contrary not contradictory opposition. So being, and possession of an essence, is a matter of degree. We can speak of the essence of accidents and properties in a derivative and subordinate ways (whiteness, roundness, etc.).I would like to say that things are beings with essences that are more or less intelligible in themselves according to their logoi (according to their causes as unified in the divine energies) and that being is a matter of reflecting the divine energies more or less (of participation). To be a creature is simply to reflect this light while not being the light.
>>24966894>The subjective/objective distinction tends to have all sorts of extra unhelpful conceptual baggageCompletely agreed. Which is why I tend to use "relational" wherever possible, as it steps outside this old dichotomy.>noumenal, so that it turns out that absolutely no knowledge could ever be objective.Besides revelation, self-reflection etc., perhaps.>a store's door that says: "closed" is objectively means that the store is not open for businessWe can create propositions about any "subjective" event and then make "objective" statements about that proposition and its handling. This doesn't make the aforementioned event objective. What a sign is intended to communicate is completely subjective, I can sell drugs and "closed" will be a sign that you need to knock 8 times and I'll sell you some meth. You are right that there is a statistical mode of these intended communications, and that is an objective statement, but this doesn't necessarily characterize how the events go. It characterizes how we aggregate the events. >things are beings with essences that are more or less intelligible in themselves according to their logoiThos that do have a logos, definitely. I don't see that human-centric categories have a logos besides extending the human one, which I think is what the other posters disagreed with. To them, it seems "the category existed before the mind mapped the category as useful", which in cases of cups makes no sense.
What is the greatest Russian novel and why is it A Hero of Our Time?
It's Eugene Onegin. I don't think anything like it has been written before or since. The closest thing in English is Byron's Don Juan
>>24966175It really was max comfy and max prose hey, I'm curious to hear what people think is Pushkin's best work if it's not Eugene Onegin
>>24966148Reason only exists to justify desire
>>24966424Without reason, why would desire need to be justified?
Tough choice. Either the master and margarita or the Gambler for me.
Has anyone here read Emmanuel Mounier?I’m getting into personalist and Christian existential philosophy lately.(like Gabriel Marcel, Paul Ludwig Landsberg, mounier) And I must confess I’m very intrigued.Does anyone have some suggestions on personalism and Christian existential philosophy? I have read: problematic man - GabrielMoral problem of suicide - LandsbergPersonalism - mounier (reading currently)Man against mass society - Gabriel
>>24964898OK ill keep that in mind
>>24963201OP, you'll enjoy Mounier's "Existentialist Philosophies - An Introduction" per the names you have listed. It's a short and rewarding read.Personally, and to answer your question, I was fortunate enough to find him in a local library among other early 20th century French philosophers, now forgotten (Maritain, Sertillanges)
>>24965247I still have to read my Maritain books i bought a long time ago.
>>24964807my bad
>>24965327Maritain and sertillanges are flying around on my bookshelf, too.
You need more?
Literally 100 pages of him bitching about publishers
>>24964838It's shit. the whole "write like i speak" with a thousand "..." and "!" is insufferable. Read anything else by him but don't bother with this one, it's not that good>t. french man
>>24966832BASED
>>24966832
>>24966856This is his most technical one. If you write this is his most interesting one. But it's not very pleasant I agree. It's funny though
As a film fan, I've always loved Gandalf as a character, but ever since I began reading the LOTR a little over a month ago, my admiration for him increased substantially. Ian McKellen's performance was very faithful to the source material, and I feel like it's emblematic of PJ's stance towards it (excluding Tom Bombadil's or Glorfindel's absence).Which begs the question, what do the diehard book fans take issue with in the film adaptations? Christopher Tolkien's words about Peter Jackson's work are very jarring to hear, considering the films' colossal success.
>>24964867The movies are fucking awesome never be convinced otherwise. In Christopher's case, imagine hearing the hobbit/lotr take form as your dad reads it to you every night. I'd guess he's far too biased to really appreciate what PJ did. A film can't adapt everything.
>>24966830>In Christopher's case, imagine hearing the hobbit/lotr take form as your dad reads it to you every night. I'd guess he's far too biased to really appreciate what PJ did. A film can't adapt everything.I would imagine he's just too familiar to the source material to be truly objective in analysing the films independent of the books
>>24966194I reread the books recently and I was surprised at how little character development Gimli had. I don't think he ever even says a single word to Boromir, maybe one or two to Gandalf
>>24966835PJ stripped the narrative payoffs. Bakshi did the text to screen translation for fellowship.That is why everything after is crap, where PJ had to go alone without known what should become a scene and how it should be enacted.
>>24966868>how little character development Gimli had.Are you insane
if you don't own this in 2025, you don't love literature.
>>24966640unironically true. i've owned kobo, pocketbook and boox and all of them started lagging after a year of use. then i got kindle basic and its basically same after 3 years of use. kindle just works. i dont use calibre tho, just send to kindle via email service.
>>24966640>>24966646I hate to glaze the Bezos (damnation be upon him) but I do have to confess that my Kindle is from fucking 2011 and still chugging along fine for the job. Battery only lasts some days with airplane mode on and it's obviously not particularly fast, but I've read 20+ books on it now and it's perfectly alright for the job it's meant to do.I really do want to buy a new ereader that is *not* Amazon but damn I don't wanna skimp on quality
>>24966639>ReadEraSimple: I'm not a third-worlder. I heard the cheapest kindle you have in brazil goes for $450usd.
did anyone try this thing out?
>>24966046My friends and I were talking about how collecting is cool and all but when I said I like collecting books the ereaderfag immediately said I'm just wasting money
Any book recommendations that are similar to this
>>24966266epic dood
>>24960754Based dirtbag leftist retard basically advocating for his own race's genocide.
>>24960636>>24960754>>24962938>BAP thread>poster righteously denigrating dysgenic habits that directly puts the sanctity of the white race at stake instead of letting entropy play out gets mocked by other so-called """whites"""Kek, why am I not surprised?
>>24960838Consumption of raw meat is a cultural artifact emblematic of subhuman communities that reject the invention of fire.
>>24966823>Japan>Germany>Levant>EthiopianCope nigga
Trillions of species have lived on this planet, with unfathomably more throughout the cosmos. So, yeah, I don't give a shit about human life. The Earth is hurtling through space and we have no power over that. Similarly the current of evolution is largely out of our control, a series of accidents fortuitous for some elevate certain species to the category of apex predator. But I have no respect for accidents. Maybe, yeah, the grandeur of nature is worthy of respect, but none for those chimp-men who dominate human hierarchies.
>>24966475Keep your projections to yourself, weirdo.
>>24965561So basically the top guy?
>>24966493Dualist divide and conquer infohazard png
>>24966500Monism = Mental illness.
>>24965575your opinion is wrong
>you know how we started a huge world war after a chain reaction of alliances and self-interests dragged all of Europe in against us and our country was absolutely obliterated because we didn't have anywhere near the resources to sustain an effort like that?>i guess we need more resources>what if we get more resources by invading our neighbours, starting another world war we already know from experience we cannot sustain?>this will be the central in-practice goal of my new ideology is this nigga serious?
>>24961965good book
>>24962519What do you mean? The US supported Hitler until 1945.
>>24962046Britain during its height thought they could rule the world just by being British, and they were proud of it, "the sun never sets on the British Empire" and all that. They opposed German expansion because at the end of the day they hated Germany and needed an excuse to go to war again.
>>24962680>hitler was insane and stupid because he only liked the art he liked and excused the flaws of the people he likedthis is your brain on "logic" btw
>>24966508The British Empire lasted 400 years while your country still hasn't figured out how to use a toilet, Sukdeep.
>The villain is the narrator>The protagonist rapes the villain
>>24966785You probably deserved it
>>24966785What do you mean “I think”?
>>24966785KWAB!
>>24966785You will be raped in 2026 too.
>>24966667you can drop the title any time now
You think he'll put out another book before he croaks?
>>24966267Don't care, will still read it.>>24966189I also believe there will be a posthumous publication.
>>24966189the civil war book was a rumored sparked from a friend of his catching wind of him looking into the Mason-Dixon line which separated the yanks from the confederates. at the time the friend supposed his point of focus was the civil war and not the actual creation of the line. the civil war book turned out to be Mason & Dixon and certain sections of Against the Day
>>24966189>>24966836i should mention, however, that at the time of Gravity's Rainbow's creation, in the late 60s, another friend reported Pynchon was working on *four* books. This would come to include GR, AtD, M&D, and an unknown fourth project. There very well may be another tome left for posthumous publication.
>>24966189>>24966839>confirmed that Pynchon has a second completed novel in addition to the one that will arrive in October
>>24966849Christmas came early and so did I
i thought it was just autistic rules about preparing food and bathing
>>24966817So the Torah is the central text of the talmud?
Secular jews refuse to walk under the Arch of Titus btw. They cannot get over things that happened 2000 years ago and their actions show for it.
>>24966809Discussing the talmud with a jew always ends up like this. They really rely on you not reading it
>>24966817You’ve not proven how the talmud is the central text in Judaism. Why won’t you prove that?
>>24966387How do they act right now? Like any other state would you mean?
