People say that English speakers will never be able to truly experience Quixote because the humor and the language of the Golden Age are untranslatable into English.If you were foreigners and you loved literature, would you learn a whole language only for a masterpiece, or would you settle for the translation? Is Quixote a real reason to learn Spanish?
>>25557096No, I would do it to impregnate hot Latinas with big ass.
>>25557114>Might as well get the original text and put it into LLM for side by side translation.Bug man behavior
>>25557126Okay then settle on whatever translation you can find, you are never learning Spanish.
>>25557096Lope de Vega >>>> Cervantes
>>25557096Schopenhauer learnt Spanish just to read Baltasar Gracián, actully he considered Gracián the most important writer of the XVII century in that sense to the point he made the very first translations of some lesser Gracián's works to German.If you wanna read Gracián, my for you recommendation is to read 'El Criticón' and 'Oráculo manual'. These twi are his master-pieces.>>25557167And I agree with this.Lope de Vega plays are actually funny to read, and much better to see. He isn't a monolithic tragical writer as Shakespeare, he mixed both comedy and tragedy in his works.
Is this any good? I bought it ages ago.
yeah nigga it's good
>>25557070Yes
It is not a happy book but it is good. I think about Singer a fair amount, he has really stuck with me through the years. Should get around to reading the other McCullers I have, got the LoA volume and only read The Heart is a Lonely Hunter so far.
>>25557070You serious? Open the book nigga, read the first page.
best suifuel works?
AI-generated EditionStubbed >>25539890>What is /wng/ — Web Novel General?A general for readers and authors involved or interested in the growing phenomenon of 'web novels', serialized English fiction posted to websites such as: Royal Road, Webnovel, Scribblehub, Wattpad, Archive of Our Own, Spacebattles, HFY, various personal author websites, and more>Why read web novels?Not for prose or tight editing or deep themes, frankly. As a whole, web novels are infamous for content sprawl and pacing issues. If you enjoy having millions of words to sink your teeth into to get to know the world and characters, though, you may be interested. Keeping up with other readers on a weekly basis to discuss the story's events unfolding is another perk, in the same way discussing an ongoing TV show might be.>Why write web novels?Ease of access & potential for Patreon earnings. Many successful authors gain an audience on their website of choice and funnel their readers into a Patreon. See graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators/writing for an idea of what some are earning.Also, once an author has earned a fanbase, transitioning into an Amazon self-publishing career is several orders of magnitude easier than starting 'dry'.>Advice for Noobs!Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>25556726loli is a vital deterrent to filter subhuman retards awayit is best used in just large enough quantities to filter westoid moralists
AI or not, I like that Bodyguard of the future demon queen makes nobles actually seem important. They aren't just treated casually by everyone.
>>25557488you are unironically trying to start a discussion about a novel that a robot wrote?just pathetic
Any recommendations on smut webnovels?
>>25557488What kind of pro is this? How does it even matter?
After reading this, I think Pessoa is the bleakest, most depressing writer I've ever read. He doesn't even try to be that way which makes it even worse, but something about this middle aged man with no friends, no women, no future, a severe alcohol and smoking addiction and yet he still finds the energy to write, to accept his life and even see some beauty in it is just too much. I'm much more comfortable with a Dazai or a Cioran who at least look at despair and the void right in the eyes and get destroyed in the process. Pessoa just nods at all this and continues his life, knowing full well there is no hope.
>>25556741Does not take a genius to avoid turning yourself into a human torch, even plotfags manage to avoid it.
>>25556786so your one sided reasoning is meant to show your resilience
>>25556206I don't think he was unhappy. Take his heteronyms seriously and he 'lived' many full lives.
>>25556966If you want to make it about me than all it shows is that my IQ is at least that of an average teen and I have mastered the art of not blowing myself up. But it wasn't about me, and was just pointing out the massive flaw in your reasoning. Might want to steer clear of gasoline.
>>25557085>shows is that my IQ is at least that of an average teen and I have mastered the art of not blowing myself up(meant to convey resilience)
Why do so called thinkers always try to reduce social and economic phenomena to the result of a few factors?The book Why Nations Fail argues that economic development is primarily driven by institutions. I agree that institutions are an important factor in development, but I think it is retarded to deny or ignore other factors such as culture, race, religion, geography, etc.It’s the same thing with Marxists: they reduce every historical phenomenon to mere class struggle while ignoring or denying factors such as race, religion, culture, geography, or even the role of great man in history.
>>25557018op mentions a book tho
>>25556431it's amazing how you people repeat the "scapegoating minorities for problems" ad nauseam without ever acknowledging the problems.when zoomalians commit billions in fraud and steal from the government (taxpayers), who do you blame? when armenians commit billions in fraud and steal from the government (taxpayers), who do you blame?
>>25557059>when armenians commit billions in fraud and steal from the government (taxpayers), who do you blame?just because some members of a minority group commit some crimes,doesn't mean they are behind every problem on earth. you have to see people as individuals
>>25556431>scraepgoating minorities for every problemLike the big business elites?
>>25555575>He was propelled to state power because the French revolutionary bourgeoisie, having executed the king and purged the Jacobins, desperately required a centralized, military sword to stabilize bourgeois property relations domestically and defend French markets against the feudal coalitions of Europe.This is reasonable.>Had Napoleon been killed by an errant cannonball at the siege of Toulon in 1793, the objective historical demand of the French bourgeoisie would not have evaporated as another military figure (a Moreau, a Bernadotte, or a Hoche) would have filled the structural vacancy.This is not. You can't say that as if it were an absolute certainty. The vacancy might not have been filled, or it might have been filled by someone not competent enough to carry out that role, and the revolutionary bourgeoisie might have simply collapsed and been overrun by Prussia and Austria.
>reading weird old WWII-era books off Z-Lib>some "fairytale" called O, not sure if its a zero>main plot is standard revolutionary/spy intrigue >a gardener dies early on, gets buried>keeps showing up in the background of major historical events just doing yard work>characters act like he never died>gets progressively more surreal, text implies he's literally holding reality together while europe burnsWhat trope is this?>its not clear whether its a ghost, some sort of a Hindu god, a hallucination, or something else entirelyLooking for more books where an entity treats massive historical events as background noise while secretly anchoring reality.
>>25556029Sounds very much like "Being There", great movie. Never read the novel but the trope is similar. It has the same saviour-type undertones."After the death of his employer forces him out of the only home he's ever known, a simpleminded, sheltered gardener becomes an unlikely trusted advisor to a powerful tycoon and an insider in Washington politics."
How do we feel about them updating Nietzche to be less problematic?
>>25554509>header on a new opening section>"digital edition">Palatino Linotype.ttfYeah this is just some nobody publisher, nothing serious
>>25554509No different than when Elizabeth Forster-Nietzsche updated it.
>>25554509>The term "slave morality" has been retained.Fucking kek
>>25554509>unnecessary barriersSounds like a power move. Master morality at work? Based academics tbhwy.
>>25554509Publisher? Translator?
Just read this for the first time out of morbid curiosity and because of all the Tolstoy praise that's been going on around /lit/ lately. My god, this shit just...broke something in me internally that I might not be able to fix. The part with Ilyich "being" in a black sack might be the most perfect paragraph ever written: >For three whole days, during which time did not exist for him, he struggled in that black sack into which he was being thrust by an invisible, resistless force. He struggled as a man condemned to death struggles in the hands of the executioner, knowing that he cannot save himself. And every moment he felt that despite all his efforts he was drawing nearer and nearer to what terrified him. He felt that his agony was due to his being thrust into that black hole and still more to his not being able to get right into it. He was hindered from getting into it by his conviction that his life had been a good one. That very justification of his life held him fast and prevented his moving forward, and it caused him the most torment of all.That man has an utterly powerful soul that I don't think any author can come close too. If this is what Tolstoy can write, give me more recommendations now.
>>25556792Its a good one huh.You can be like Tolstoy now and have a spiritual awakening.Check out The Kingdom of God Is Within You.He writes put his ethical system he follows
>>25556933Is his confessions worth a read?
>>25556792He sounds like a fag.
>>25556796Nice projection.
>>25556863I want more lore on the chief devils court. They seem like fun lads.
Is it better to be a bad writer or to not be a writer at all
>>25556443But what if OP never makes it into writing well? Think of all of these books that are technically publishable quality, but still kinda eeh. Is it better to be an author of the book like that than none at all?
>>25556433>[WHICH IS] better[:] to be a bad writer[,] or [NOT TO] be a writer at all[?]
>>25556474More importantly we should consider why to write firstDo you write for yourself Do you write for othersCan you write for yourself only The bad writer is also the hated writerThe non writer is not seen but not hated
>>25556483oh god its cum genius having opinionsUGH
All considered, I believe it is always better to be a bad writer than being a non-writer. Meaning writing is always better than not writing, and a writer is just someone who write. If you need a writer to be something more than that, i'm just not interested in that line of thought.
I hear it's a great book, actually.
>>25556300I just parse words without actually internalizing them while ignoring all the allegories, metaphors, hidden meanings, symbols, arguments, logical sequences and conditionals. The superficial understand of the dictionary meaning of the terms on the page is sufficient for me, and if what I read makes me feel good then I keep reading and enjoy the book, otherwise I stop reading.Needles to say I'm retarded in the medical sense.
super lame book bought it on an audible sale cuz i saw it memed here, not sure what kind of knuckledragger would get anything out of it
>>25556947A book on how to read a book. And you got the audio book? Why?
>>25556947The reading list at the end of it is pretty good
Is it weird to think that most of the Science of Logic is genuinely brilliant, but its opening is irreparably flawed? The whole point was to make as few presuppositions as possible. Yet, pure being is likened to pure nothing, even though TO BE and NOT TO BE, strictly speaking, are as far apart as two concepts can be. Even if pure being lacks determination, it still has being. I am reminded of the path of is versus the path of is not from Parmenides's fragments. I am not even sure if pure nothing can even be properly thought of, let alone compared or predicated, since it is not even being. It is pure nothing. And every kind of negation we think of in the world, is a negation of something as something else. So it is always a roundabout referent to being when we use it properly, never pure nothing. So, it sounds like the foundations of the entire work is horribly bankrupt. But the rest of the work is genuinely insightful. Thoughts?
>>25556811>What is disputed is your inference from that fact to "therefore the conceptual content of the description must be about some other existent thing."Because... it is still a meaningful statement, as in it still behaves in a way that it is intelligible. So it must refer to something else. >What is the justification for the mathematical rules governing primes being the referent? Because that is what makes the statement meaningful. We're stress-testing the limits of its rules.>Those rules aren't the object described by “the largest prime number.”Yes they are. Because first you need to know what a number is, then what makes a number prime, and then how prime numbers behave. Hence, you're actually discussing the framework around prime numbers, not this so-called largest prime number, since it doesn't exist. >The mathematical rules allow us to understand that condition [aka the statement]See, you're even tacitly admitting that it is the referent here.
>>25556832We cannot conflate the different relations of what makes a statement intelligible and what the statement refers to. Your argument seems to be that:#1. "The largest prime” is meaningful because we can understand and reason about the condition.#2. The object satisfying that condition doesn't exist.#3. Therefore, the mathematical rules governing numbers and primes are what the statement actually refers to.3 does not logically follow from 1 & 2. You have asserted that the rules are the referent because they are necessary for understanding the description, but necessity for understanding does not make something the object described.We agree there is a meaningful and intelligible statement here with an identifiable and testable condition. So why does the absence of a satisfying referent entail that the content must be about something else, rather than that the description has determinate content but an empty extension? This must be justified. Stating “the rules are what make it meaningful” doesn't answer the question, because the rules themselves don't satisfy the description “the largest prime number.”
>>25556866It looks like you're missing a few premises, then. >In order to be represented in thought, the thought also has to represent something.If you have nothing to represent, because the thing doesn't exist (because it is impossible for it to exist due to logic), then you would have an empty thought. But we don't have an empty thought. So the referent must have been something else than what was initially hypothesized. >Stating “the rules are what make it meaningful” doesn't answer the question, because the rules themselves don't satisfy the description “the largest prime number.”The rules themselves are what you are playing around with when you attempt to make such a description. They're rules with parameters that generate a conclusion. You tweaked around with the parameters to the point where the framework breaks down due to logical contradictions. As a consequence, you don't get the intended object, but rather a reference to the limits of the framework itself. >largestis intelligible>numberis intelligible>primeis intelligible>prime numberis intelligible>largest prime numberComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>25556876You assert that a thought must represent an existent object and that, if the intended object doesn't exist, the thought must therefore represent something else. But neither of those claims follows from the laws of logic. They're disputed premises. We cannot conflate unsatisfiable descriptions with contradictory ones. "The largest prime number", meaningful and intelligible, doesn't contradict anything in mathematics, it simply has no instance. The framework doesn't break down at all, the rules remain consistent and allow us to prove no such number exists. Your central premise is therefore not merely that "thought represents something," but rather that every determinate conceptual content must have an existent referent, and that when no object satisfies a description, the content necessarily transfers to some other existent object or structure.The fact that a description fails to refer successfully to its intended object doesn't establish that it successfully refers to some other object. You're treating the failure of reference as proof of alternative reference, but that is precisely what needs to be demonstrated.
>>25556941>But neither of those claims follows from the laws of logic.If something doesn't have a referent, then what is its meaning? Where does its meaning come from? >We cannot conflate unsatisfiable descriptions with contradictory ones. What would be an example of the difference? The thing is, if you accept a maximally inclusive definition of being, to allow even nonexistent yet coherent concepts to be meaningful and have "being", then it is difficult to even establish a difference. I can't make you a unicorn, nor do I have enough energy to reverse the course of the universe back to the singularity state prior to the Big Bang, but there is nothing particularly unintelligible about either concept. >"The largest prime number", meaningful and intelligible, doesn't contradict anything in mathematics, it simply has no instanceThis is wrong. It clearly contradicts the properties of what it means to be a prime number, since you cannot have a largest prime number due to the nature of prime numbers. You are basically being agnostic and wishy-washy about logic and the rules of contradiction instead of accepting the necessity of logical demonstration and the law of non-contradiction.>Your central premise is therefore not merely that "thought represents something," but rather that every determinate conceptual content must have an existent referent, Correct.>and that when no object satisfies a description, the content necessarily transfers to some other existent object or structure.Transferring is more of an analogy. But there really was never a transfer to begin, because you can't go from nothing to something. You always think about things in some way. >The fact that a description fails to refer successfully to its intended object doesn't establish that it successfully refers to some other objectCorrect. If it doesn't refer to any object at all then it's just unintelligible gibberish. Aokmcvokmvo is a great example. But usually there is something in the background that makes the description meaningful or even possible to consider, so that would be the reference.
Does anything stand out and alongside with the classics?
What are some genuinely interesting literary tattoos? Do you have one?
>>25556421> you can instantly trigger boomers (or the boomerly minded) by showing themWhere? At hospice or the cemetery?
>>25556421> someone starts whining about a tattoo that isn't theirs, they reveal themselves as part of the establishment Just to expand on this since you seem thick as a fucking brick, you ARE the establishment. The Man you’re rebelling against died out in the 70s and his last vestiges of control might have reached the millennium. That’s it. You’re living a life of grievance against an enemy that is literally dead or dying.
>>25556843 Vonnegut's asshole was first and I'll be damned if AI Bros try to make Player Piano reality. >>25556855I have met plenty of people 60+ in positions of power that still hold tightly to these asanine conventions. I actually have no interest in tattoos, but I think sperging out over what other people do to their skin is hilariously indicative of what a fucking control freak someone is. I live in Japan and it's still a very taboo thing here.
>>25555268Thats one of the reasons staying single is preferable. Tattoos on females are garish.
>>25556109Then explain why skinheads have them
Everything I've seen from Rousseau so far paints him as the Kanye West of the 1700s
>>25553754My brother....this is a quote from Frankenstein...
>>25556576Why bring Dosto up? He can't write anything about his life because some Russian fag who never had an original thought and spent his life unsuccessfully trying to rip the French off had a child who died?
>>25553843the remorse is real and you're right that he called it inexcusable, but you've filed it in the wrong book. that's confessions, book 4 — written later, plain regret, no defense. the émile, the book that explains why it was fine, opens with "a woman who scatters her children to foundling homes has no heart; a man who does the same has no soul," and that's written more than a decade after he sent all five of his own out to the hospitals. so the order is: the act, then the book that calls the act soulless, then the book that apologizes for it. he didn't have one clean account of it. he had to write the condemnation and then the apology, and that gap is the whole point. the self as first work of art needed two drafts. that's the evidence.>>25553918if it reads like a machine it does. that's not a lie. the point is about the two books, not about who typed them. if you don't believe me, read confessions book 4 yourself.
>>25550601I didn't sign no fucking contract. Born to shit, forced to wipe. Fuck frenchfaggots
>>25556864honestly tho imagine if governments had a social contract with their citizens like we will try to support hardworking law abiding people so they can afford to have kids and the country can continue in perpetuity, instead of whatever the fuck we have now.
