Chud bros, do you have other books in this vein that let one endlessly prepare for 'actual' reading? I vaguely recall some /lit/ book chart that had a bunch of books on deep reading or some such.
>>24690184The only problem is that I cannot read this book until I have read this book.
>>24691159Nice chart. That wasn't the chart I had in mind, but the Mikics book definitely rings a bell, and I'm almost certain that it was on the chart I had in mind and that I've mixed up "slow reading" with "deep reading" (which seem to be saying the same thing, except that the latter apparently has a lot of woke pomo associations).
>>24690184What do you mean actual reading?
>>24691411There are many charts of that type but the general idea is to acquire a solid grasp of grammar, logic, and rhetoric.
>some jew has the hubris to tell me the (((correct))) way of reading a bookWhy must they meddle in literally fucking EVERYTHING
>>24691487why are gentiles such cretinous creatures?
>>24690184
>>24691487Adler loved Aristotle so much he started reading Aquinas. Then he became a Catholic.
>>24690184>>24691159Seriously, is this a meme? Should i actually be reading shit like this?
>>24693302lmfao im confused now too hahahhah
>>24693302>>24693309How to read a book is good if you're a student or you read a lot of essays and philosophy (and even then the book is way too long) Otherwise you can disregard it
>>24693302I only read like the first fourth of How to read a book but it seemed mostly useful for nonfiction, or for reading literature in an academic setting. So if you’re a student or you read a lot of nonfiction and want to get more out of your time spent reading, it’s probably worth checking out. If you just read for fun, there’s not much point.
>>24693302Picrel is another good option. It's a structured reading course of different categories (novel, autobiography, history, drama, science, poetry). You would read a number of books chronologically, sticking to one category at a time. She has a few books listed that will trigger Goodreads users but it also states that you can add or remove from the lists as you please, and you can move on if you find one of the books truly insufferable.
>>24691159>>24693302Yes it’s a meme, the trivium is a total waste of time. If you speak a language natively you already know the grammar - reading about it in books is only useful for linguists. As for logic, read Nicholas Smith and Graham Priest if you want to learn about it but it’s unnecessary for reading. Retards make lists like that as part of their trad larp.
>>24690184this is kind of similar but covers different stuff >>24695201modern education is really bad>>24693302I don't think you need to go that deep but depending on how bad your education was I do think an introductory logic thing is just good to know, more for clear thinking in general things like enthymemes and extensional vs intensional predication (the majority of people's disagreements are over not understanding this distinction) are things people just need to understand to think clearly Grammar maybe not but if you see something weird come up just like, look into it so long as you do that you are probably fine. this chart is weird though but in general all the plato/aristotle stuff is worth reading, i have no idea why sophocles is on there but yeah the classical stuff is good.I wouldn't consider that a pre-req for reading at all. reading aristotle/plato in general will make you a much clearer thinker and better at readingalso I wouldnt say "reading shit like this" it's basically reading 2-3 books to make up for your education being shit it's not something you are doing for a year
>>24695230If it were just making up for bad education it would put in a few books like How To Make It Stick and some intellectual histories. Grammar and rhetoric are 100% a meme, totally unnecessary for anyone but specialists, and formal logic is useful but way more than a beginner needs. Its more larping about le ancient wisdom instead of anything that gets results. T. Has actually done this shit.
>>24695281I gave specific examples
>>24692711what's so great about this book?
>>24695281>Grammar and rhetoric are 100% a memeThis statement sums up /lit/.
>>24690184This book is fucking fire and extremely valuable. People meme on it but these charts alone made coming to this shithole worth it. It’s absurd that such a place houses the best guides and paths for people curious.
>>24695687>thinking reading about grammar and rhetoric makes you good at themlrn2linguistics faggot
>>24691338yes this is very interesting because language operates like this. we are born and initiated into the language, given the linguistic key to unlock the linguistic lock upon the big double doors of the "knowledge palace complex" and should we lose this key, for even a single generation, we will completely lose the lock too, and the many rooms it leads into, and we shall have to start all over again, building our spectacular palaces of knowledge, and we won't even know what we lost.
>>24696656Your reading level is still beneath the Grammar level, evidently.
