God I wish I was Icelandic.
>>24971039They've had quite a fewGus Gushttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwuAlsdnrHEHafdis Huldhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUd1XqwyI5oEmiliana Torrini (More a singer for hire. They approached Björk to do this song)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPwZQiYsL4wSigur Roshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf1h2PMPCAoAmiinahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv21VedVXpk>>24971108Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24971071>Political correctness does spread among scandies like wild fires.They christianized much later than most of europe althoughbeit
>>24975849That's the holiday version of a more famous commercial; it was what this classic Simpsons gag parodied.
>>24972768only a very specific kind of American, namely a white or a med American from Maine or Alaska with a large detached house and a wealthy neighbourhood, no European wants to live in the 56% areas, the Bible Belt or the California-esque lib cities: homeless edition.The only qualities that America has which Europe doesn't have are the wealth, the detached houses, and a sense of optimism only to be found in the former areas.I like America and have many American friends, but America only looks good now because your president isn't shipping millions of migrants into Martha's Vinyard... YET
>>24971071nordics and germanics confuse naive ideas of social cohesion with a sense of moral intelligence.I have no idea what's going on with Belgium though, I think they're tired of pretending to be a country.
English is such a shit language. For me the nail in the coffin for English was when I learned that the problem of ambiguity between argument and explanation, where all you have to disambiguate is context, which they talk about in logic books, is not something which is universal in logic, but rather is a problem of English. Other languages don't have this problem. English is a low IQ language. All it's good for is dumbing down the masses.
>>24975390You're overselling the difficulty here. The entirety of German inflections can be distilled down to a single table or flowchart which you can memorize in an afternoon. Your statement that in French you learn one thing and you're done just isn't true. A person learning French adjectives has to learn:>masculine singular>gender agreement>feminine patterns (-if -> ive, -el -> elle)>irregular forms (blanc -> blanche)>plural agreement>plural + gender agreement>irregular plurals >adjective position (BAGS)>invariable adjectives (marron)French also has more unique verb forms than German because German uses modal verbs to express things that require entire moods in French.
>>24966373>ambiguityBut isn’t one of the strengths of English that two words that are similar on the surface actually have different tones apparent to a native English speaker? My understanding is that to look at vs to peer at have different tones, for example, whereas other languages lack such specificity. And there are a ton of examples of this. As an EFL, it seems true when learning Italian.
>>24975968Stick to the topic dumbass. German is harder than French, period. 1000 km out in fucking orbit tangential nigger. Study whatever fucking language you want idgaf.
>>24966833No one needs to defend the English language because it can speak for itself.
>>24975910I take it from your dismissing the substance of what I said that you disagree with the idea. Nonetheless, the grammar point pertains to the argument insofar as the comment I'm replying to brought up the perceived complexity of German 'grammar rules' to suggest that it was more difficult than French on this basis. To elaborate on the vocabulary issue (because, apparently, you didn't quite grasp what I was driving at there, or why it's relevant), German-English word-overlap, as another anon suggested, is most prominent when it comes to the basic, more frequent terms. Thus, the 'headstart' that an English speaker may have with respect to German, I am surmising, will soon become irrelevant purely on the basis of the familiar words occurring so frequently that one would have become accustomed to them in French, German, or any language, long before gaining a reasonable level of proficiency. Where French-English overlap starts to shine is precisely at the level of frequency which makes coming across the words in context less likely. The slightly more technical, fancy, or latinate vocabulary in English (that one is less likely to hear a foreign language's equivalent of so frequently) being etymologically familiar in French could perhaps facilitate an English learner's acquisition of it. The bare bones Germanic words sharing a root, I posit, isn't practically valuable beyond a superficial glance. All of this aside, it's worth noting that I've listened to only a very small amount of German thus far, and that I can somewhat understand Spanish, so I can't be sure my assumption that French is simpler (I'll disregard, because I don't believe that it's fundamentally relevant, that I understand this to be the general consensus) is not merely a symptom of my knowing something of a Romance language all ready. Granted, when I think about it more carefully, it seems silly that I would be willing to dismiss someone's intuition that one or the other is more difficult for them, because I have to imagine that people have a better idea of their own limits than I do.
R.L. Stine is a better writer than Stephen King for a multitude of reasons. But chiefly because he recognized that horror as a genre is a subject matter for Children.
>>24976791Bait/10
>>24976791They both suck ass who cares
>>24976791be african slave, phisiognmy of the left closes the market on sabbath so he can't sell you to the right in new england. Get sold to the south instead.... hundreds of extra years before you can drop your mixtape on soundcloud.
>>24976791King's personality and idiosyncrasies come through in his fiction, to the point where it all feels the same if you keep reading. Stine on the other hand delimited his writing to formulae because he wrote for children, and I think this made his style very clear and clean. I don't know how you would compare them directly given the difference in reading levels, but Stine to me is more impressive.
Was he right? What comes after the Faustian civilization?
>>24975242You know when you make a bunch of idiotic statements we don't actually read the whole post and skip after being assured you're a tard
>>24974207This is pseudo-orientalism and is bereft of any value besides a look into the psychology of its author. Honestly, you write like the type of person who really supports Ukraine but only does so as an extension of his negative feelings towards Rusgolia. And you seem to get your information from sensationalists on X, to boot.You could probably get more constructive discussion with a Putin-worshipping geriatric from Khabarovsk.
>>24976408But it's true. There are only three types of Russians: 1) The person who never talks about Russia because they're probably ashamed. They're probably already in exile. These are the Russians who are most similar to Europeans and the most successful. They're mostly liberal, though sometimes deeply religious Christians, but compared to the others, they're very non-nihilistic. They're not particularly good, but they're tolerable.2) a person who openly says, "I love Putin and agree with him on everything."3) A person who supposedly hates Putin but agrees with him on everything. He might even join the army.The last two types make up the majority of Russia's population. There is also a significant minority of ethnically non-Russians who want to establish an Islamic state in Russia.Unlike you, I've interacted with Russians in real life. Much more than I'd like.
>>24976408Once a sensitive person develops a strong opinion on Russia, and it doesn't matter whether the opinion is positive or not, they begin to mutate into a vicious gremlin whose new sole purpose in life is to perpetuate their own idea of Russia. Russia is the great cognitohazard.
>>24960355Sex gifs
books you read because reddit told you to
>>24975676iliad is greek marvel
>>24975360I stopped reading this book when she drugged the dude and fucked his brother at the end of Part 1. Cuck fiction is disgusting.
>>24976540PICKED UP
>>24976546if you're genuinely looking for NTR, it's really not that great.
>>24975360I thought it was okay, no interest in reading Grapes of Wrath on account of it however
Hobbes was fucking evil and fucked up everything prove me wrong.
>>24975882Read Strauss + the Greeks. Nothing but the maggotized mindset of a modern you’ve expressed.
>>24975236He's right. After you read Leviathan and really understand what Hobbes was getting at, you will realize it is the same as the sin of Cain and Lamech
>>24975902>posted from: the world
>>24975183>if it wasn't for the social contract i would immediately start raping, stealing and murdering on a mass scale and nobody could stop me, especially the person reading this bookdamn hobbes you cray cray
>>24975248christcucks and wh*toids might be, i on the other hand have a natural kinship with others like me and would have no reason to commit crimes if my basic needs were provided for>>24975348>>24975359>>24975536>>24975909>a free person (nonstandard definition of free) cannot be a slave (nonstandard definition of slave)if you actually wrote out what you intend those words to mean your argument would have no meaning>>24975670the standard attacks on hobbes are these; people aren't individuals and people aren't going to start killing or murdering if their basic wants are provided for. no idea why you're blithering on about "le power" because most ideologies accept that morality is a social construct
How should I react if somebody told me that my writing is shit?
>>24976364If their taste in writing is bad enough to call my work shit, why would I humor fucking whatever /they/ have picked as their wife?T.notOP who is a frogfag
>>24976392>>24976403it's not critics responsibility to tell you how you can improve, as an artist you have to figure it out and usually by yourself
>>24976360Being a frog poster, you react like you do to most everything, you make a thread about it on /lit/.
>>24976914Yea I bet you’re quite the artist
>>24976360My trick is to tell them that they're wrong and then secretly implement their advice.
A nine volume series originally written for Catholic students, the fairness, scholarship and objectivity of the work made it popular far beyond its intended audience. The author believes that understanding the context of philosophers, whom they were responding to, and what influenced their views, is vital to engaging with their work in good faith. The history stretches from the pre-Socratics to Sartre.Next week we begin the first volume; giving a few days of grace in case you plan to read from physical copiesIf you wish to keep track of threads or look for other resources, they will be posted on the Criterion Club server on the philosophy and math channelhttps://discord.gg/XhFGx57VKm
Why do it over discord? We have a very nice board here.
>>24976196Audiobooks when?
>>24976824We are doing it in the board unless there aren't enough takers to sustain threads
I've had these books on my shelf for years, so this might give me an excuse to read them, but I. will most likely skip books II and III.
I might participate but I fear that I will get bored during the first three books. I've already read vol.4 and was looking to read the 5 and 6 during next year
Looking for recommendations on futurist novels. It seems like their literary output was mostly poetry. There's pic rel but I don't think it has a complete English translation unfortunately.It doesn't have to be Italian or strictly within the movement, a novel with "futurist themes" would be good too.
>>24976071you didnt answer my question, you copied from a review or synopsis someone else wrote and didnt mention the prose at all. either way i had a flight so i downloaded it and read the first few chapters, its decent but nowhere near as energetic as mafarka and so far not much extended metaphor. i might give it time to make its case (after all, the second to last chapter of mafarka is by far the best).
>>24971558I really need to learn Italian. So much interesting literature
>>24976332French anon, French. Mafarka was written in French and only translated into Italian by somebody else.
>>24976385Yes yes. But Marinetti wrote other novels in Italian. Also Palazzeschi, Corra, Carli, Rosà, Papini, Bontempelli, ecc.
>>24976897All only relevant insofaras theyve been translated to french, sadly.
The purpose of literature is to entertain. Since time immemorial, from the fireplace to the stage to the big screen, the primary function of the storyteller is to entertain.Grug's tale of the hunt is entertainmentThe Iliad is entertainmentThe Oresteia is entertainmentBeowulf is entertainmentShakespeare is entertainmentFlashman is entertainmentWhy did literature turn away from entertainment in the 19th century? For example, Moby Dick is a patently boring book. It is impossible to enjoy. It is not an engaging story. You could not read it out to someone and expect to keep their attention. Yet it is praised for every other reason than being entertaining. It is praised *despite* the absence of anything compelling.In my view, someone who reads fiction for reasons other than entertainment is a decadent and degenerate. They pretend to read. It is subterfuge. They have ulterior motives. They are liars.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I've got midwit fatigue
>>24974777Entertainment is only bad in proportion to how much it makes you forget yourself. Any arrangement of activities that puts *you* in control, in other words doesn't appeal to pure senses, or pure reason alone too much is good.
>>24974777>The purpose of literature is to entertainSays who? Consumerism is relatively new.>Moby Dick is patently boringAs opposed to the thrilling plotline of Symposion or Leviticus?
>>24975229>>The purpose of literature is to entertain>Sez who?Sez me>>24974777Boy do I have an author for you
>>24974777The claim that “the purpose of literature is entertainment” oversimplifies the entire history of storytelling. Entertainment has always been one function of narrative, but never the only one. From ancient epics to medieval sagas to Shakespeare, stories have served to transmit cultural memory, teach moral lessons, explore identity, critique power, and shape the imagination. Even the works cited as “pure entertainment” — the Iliad, Oresteia, Beowulf — were deeply tied to ritual, religion, and moral instruction. Reducing them to entertainment alone flattens what they actually were.The idea that literature “turned away from entertainment” in the 19th century also misunderstands the period. That era didn’t abandon entertainment; it expanded the possibilities of fiction. Popular writers like Dickens, Dumas, and Conan Doyle thrived, while others used the novel to explore psychology, society, and metaphysics. Works like Moby-Dick may not appeal to everyone, but calling them “impossible to enjoy” is a subjective reaction, not a universal truth. Many readers genuinely find them profound, funny, or moving. Disliking a book is fine; declaring that anyone who likes it is lying is not a literary argument — it’s projection.More broadly, fiction has always been more than amusement. As thinkers like Chesterton argued, stories shape the moral imagination. They help us rehearse virtues, empathize with others, and imagine what a good life looks like. Children instinctively use stories this way, and adults need it just as much. When fiction is dismissed as mere entertainment, we lose sight of its deeper role in forming character and meaning. A culture that stops telling rich, aspirational stories doesn’t stop needing them — it simply forgets how to cultivate them.
I've never personally found any argument against suicide that really convinces me. The more philosophy I read, the more many common objections seem based on instinct or emotion rather than careful reasoning. When people call suicide "murder" or "unnatural" they often ignore that a right to life should also include the right to give it up, and that nature itself isn't a moral authority. If it were, we wouldn't use medicine to prevent or delay natural deaths. The claim that suicide is selfish also feels very one-sided. It can just as easily be seen as selfish to expect someone to keep living with unbearable mental or physical suffering simply so others don't have to feel grief. None of us chose to be born, and being stuck in a life that has become intolerable is a tragedy, not a moral failure. I think society has a strong optimism bias that makes people assume life is better than it really is for everyone. When someone experiences life mainly as a heavy burden, ending their life can be a rational way to take back control over something they never chose.
Any conception of reason necessarily negates suicide. Only the living have purpose.Any values whatsoever demands a life to have them. So unless death leads to a better life then suicide is self defeating.
>>24976419How many times must I explain thisDon't commit suicide, go out in a kamikaze strike against politicians, CEOs, critics, insurance bankers, corporate lawyers, lobbyists etcThe argument against suicide is that by only killing yourself then you're wasting a life that could be used to kill actual parasites instead
>>24976672Idk man, seems evil to send people with mental illness or chronic pain to hell for killing themselves after you engineered their existence
>>24976771>bringing new lifeIt's just recycling
>>24976441>>24976529Totally absurd. The Father killed countless times, even, and especially, when banishing Adam and Eve. The Son killed the fig tree, and possibly some demons. The Spirit killed Judas. Angels killed Sodomites. Your salvation is contingent on yourself being, at least partially, killed.
Whenever I read literature pre-1960s I kind of amused at how normalized it is for characters to seek out prostitutes. I was just reading lolita and Humbert has many moments with french streetwalkers in the beginning.It's almost like they were a normal facet of men's lives back before internet porn and feminism. It's almost like the concept of casual sex with a normal woman was unimaginable Were brothels really that common back then?
>>24976815But they're hypergamous they would much rather date wealthier more educated men
>>24974623this is bait
>>24976759Paris
>>24974649He's right tho, catholic countries have historically been less sexually prudish. Protestants don't have the confession sacrament.
Yes, very common, consider how much more widespread poverty was, what was the path of least resistance for a starving woman who was also attractive? Consider also courtesansNowadays we are much less lustful too. Imagine in the past when men were not eating much processed slop, weren't pacified by the internet, and engaged in hard physical labour, their libidos would appear demonic to us, the men of past would make us look like sissy faggotsIn general, the underworld of the past was much more prevalent. Hell even in the last 50 years you can see how much the underworld has disappeared, what was once a place of freedom away from the constraints of "peaceful civilisationn"
Hey guys, I'm from /tv/ and wanted to talk to you guys about the best translation for the odyssey to read before I watch the movie. Do I also need to read the illiad as well or can I skip that one, I've heard its sort of a prequel but surely isn't that important if they're not making a movie of it. I've done a a bit of digging and heard that Fitzgerald, Wilson and Fagles are among the best translations but wanted to know what you guys think. I know these might be stupid questions but please go easy on me guys, I don't really read books with translations (or books in general) but wanted to give it a shot.
>>24975070Fagles or nothing
>>24975489Lattimore for accuracy, so you can properly understand what's being said.Fitzgerald for the poetic experience, so you can appreciate it after you understand it.
I recently heard someone describe Green's translation as "the modern revision of Lattimore's more faithful translation of the Illiad". Any anons able to confirm or deny the validity of this claim? I wanted to like Lattimore but he has some real odd word choices here and there that really pull me out of it. I want to read something a little more faithful to the original Greek text before reading a more poetic version that takes artistic liberties.
What's a good Spanish translation?
What the closest version to the Butler but with greek God names rather than Roman?
no i amn't
>>24976147
>>24976184looks like a fag no cap
>>24971735>>24976046>>24976184Imagine the smell.
I would like to have sex with a beautiful trans girl
Kind of impressive that a man can profess Marxism for decades, study it to its entirety comfortably from the ivory tower of a cushy position in literal Marxist academia under a Communist regime, finding out from a sympathetic position everything that there is to be found about Marxism from its earliest proponents to its latest ones, the least and the greatest, only to eventually arrive at the conclusion that... it's all fundamentally wrong and can never workI mean when even this guy with all his sympathy and effort gave up, it's telling, isn't it?
>>24976163Newtonian physics is a model used because it works for everything that isn’t subatomic or going at non-relativistic speeds. I take it Marxism is a model? Value in an economy is a quantifiable metric, it needs to have formulas to derive it.
>>24976175What do you propose the agreement to quantify it be based on?
>>24974879Orwell already observed this back in the thirties. It's a fixed characteristic of Marxism.
>>24974879Every other group of people pretends the working class is doing fine, which necessarily means they have to pretend their plebeian degeneracy is 'fine'. Workers don't understand what's good for them at all.
>>24975233>no one would pay for 8 hours of labor creating mudpies,This is clearly false. Many people do get paid to do basically nothing productive or they produce useless things people pay lots of money for. And they are often not capitalists but wage slaves. What's the explanation for that? Is it entirely a psychological side effect of people living under capitalism? I doubt that very much. >>24975794How does the LTV account for the quality of different nail designs, raw material and labor being equal? How can these fundamental aspects of a commodity's value be quantified based on labour alone? How is the unit of labour value even computed in the first place once mechanization is implemented?Also what about the systems that need to be designed, refined, implemented, and maintained to actually create the means to produce commodities, let alone innovate? Those do not require any labour per se and produce no commodities directly, what is their value?It seems obvious to me that fitness for intended purpose or some other metric that depends on the buyer's perceived value of the commodity is just as if not more important than the labour input.
