>>12220243
anon.. head over to >>>/sci/ and try name dropping Dawkins. See what happens.

>>12220307
youre acting like Dawkins is some popsci charlatan who isnt respected by academics. Look at the names on the back of the Selfish Gene praising

Probably the best popsci book on biology there is.

>>12220307
/sci/ is just as shitty as any of the other boards on here

>>12220307
I bet it would be the same vapid superficial criticism he gets here, nothing about his actual content. Nothing about whether he makes a compelling case for a particular theory, instead only the most stale of old memes and things about his tone or demeanor.

>>12218420
I doubt it. I read his translation of the overcoat and it seemed like half of the sentences were cliches.

>>12220041
old language. but its an old book so thats kind of a non-problem
megashark is basically a more polished Garnett, who rushed through her translations at a very fast pace

>>12218420
I read it OP, about 100 pages, before putting it down out of frustration bc he renders it really weirdly. Then i got McDuffs translation (the current penguin classic edition's) ans it solved all the problems in Magarshacks and now Myshkin lives in my heart and The Idiot might be my most memorable dosto read. Magarshack's Karamazov is much better

>>12218538
kek

>>12218503
kill yourself and take that meme with you in your grave

>>12219651
That's because the closeted denizens of lit are commie beta cucks who only read philosophers that satisfy their addiction to seeing their own edgy thoughts confirmed more eloquently than they would ever take the time to do independently. This is because deep down Delezue and Neeto cucks are at odds with the people who are living the lives these betas can only imagine.

Jean Genet

>>12219645
Heidegger

>>12219626
fucking idiotic, what are you talking about? he studied with the world's foremost logician at fucking cambridge. you can't get more formally trained than that

>>12219651
like 3 years ago witty was the most posted philosopher on this board.

>>12219645
Camus? He was more known as a novelist, but anyway he grew up pretty poor before he became the guy who won a Nobel prize.

>>12218088
Hubert Selby, his work definitely has a certain grittiness to it.

>>12220583
>Jean Genet
only correct answer

>>12220330
Everyone's read it, Anon. It's a book for 15 year old effete prettyboys.

Which is why it's one of my favourites

>>12219167
cool atmosphere, overlong plot development, fairly incoherent themes, hot 17 year old, cults and shit, i forget

>>12219167
>People keep saying it's good
I don't know what people you've been listening to, a lot of people say it's his worst.
It's not bad, it didn't need to be as long as it is. The author's method is just to sit down with no fixed end goal and see where his mind leads him and it kind of shows here.

>>12219234

I've finished the book myself and I agree with this.

Read Mishima instead

>>12220793
cringe af tbqh

File: 1EE37F5D-6B18-4D6B-8921-F(...).png (511 KB, 960x415)

511 KB PNG

“The title of my book is How to Serve Man”

>>12220833
more like 'to serve men' haha what a homo haha

File: adler.jpg (9 KB, 200x280)

9 KB JPG

>>12220793
>And you may remember an occasion where someone said to a speaker, in one breath or at most two, "I don't know what you mean, but I think you're wrong."
>I have gradually learned that there is no point in answering critics of this sort. The only polite thing to do is to ask them to state your position tor you, the position they claim to be challenging. If they cannot do it satisfactorily, it they cannot repeat what you have said IN THEIR OWN WORDS, you know that they do not understand, and you are entirely justified in ignoring their criticisms. They are irrelevant, as all criticism must be which is not solidly based on understanding. When you find the rare person who shows that he understands what you are saying as well as you do, then you can delight in his agreement or be seriously disturbed by his dissent.

How can one single man be this based? You literally don't have to know anything else if you want to use the internet.

>>12220935
scholastics thought of it before him

Bump

>>12220527
lmao, shut up /pol/

And? The role or women is not to be an intellectual. It’s a good thing that she doesn’t engage seriously with literature. To me, to do so would be a sign of some sort of dysfunction in her, a lack of proper femininity that she is attempting to compensate for. Only men, who treat the subject of literature with the actual respect and seriousness it deserves, should be the ones to engage with it. Her role should be not an “intellectual partner” but the future mother of your children and a part of the foundation and proof of your manhood.

>>12218976
yikes

>>12220937
JBP

>>12218942
Which house was she sorted into?

>>12217241
it seems that you have sociopathic tendencies rather than being a psychopath. the two are quite different. maybe you have an undiagnosed mental disorder as well. who knows!

>>12220729
Sure but it’s ONE indicator. Kids kill animals all the time, throw on some burzum and drown some cats in a bag. It’s nothing definitive or even consequencial by itself.

from purely a practical perspective, being a sociopath -- read: not a full blown psychopath because i think that that would be a tad uncomfortable! -- seems like it would be a nice thing. it's the embrace and the pinnacle of what i think human nature is.


but from a being-a-person and a human experience perspective, being a sociopath seems like it would freaking stink!

What is the esoteric viewpoint on psychopaths; are they just demon spawn?

Nearly everyone in this thread is a fucking retard and just pulling stuff out of their ass. Psychopathy and sociopathy are just forms of retardation. Sociopathy is more severe than psychopathy. Sociopaths have lower IQs and more violent urges. It’s literally impossible for sociopaths and psychopaths to “””blend in””” because blending in requires you to understand other people (LITERALLY the definition of empathy).

The smart psychopath meme just exists because of movie villains and female pseudopsychologists who have fantasies of being raped by a strong and callous older man.

>>12219296
Eumeswil

Bump for interest

>>12219296
Frankenstein

>>12219276
Why did i read it with a Limp Bizkit voice in my head

Would have some sympathy for this kid if he was younger but 12 year olds are retards, so fuck him

He's only going to get it even worse now lmao

>>12219276
It's mostly crap; the ending seems good because it's a bit punchy but then "born to stand out" is almost absurdly arrogant. If I were his bullies I'd double down on the bullying as a result. Just spew doggerel calling him a bitch until he gives up writing poems.

>>12220754
It's also unoriginal. I have a strong suspicion that either he saw Wonder, or his parents did and used that line to console him one day.

File: image.jpg (2.42 MB, 4032x3024)

2.42 MB JPG

>>12220792

Roger that

>>12220807
Cute; are you a boy

based 4channel exegesis poster

These things are so reddet

>>12220867
we must overcome becoming-reddit to not limit ourself to things that are not-becoming-reddit.

Hall and Ames

>>12220896
Addiss&Lombardo, the only one I've read.
One of the popular translators doesn't even know the language, he just makes mashups from other popular translations, so beware that guy.

>>12220936
Thanks, I'll be on my guard. The first translation I read was Robert Brooke's - middling, not very exciting. Hope he's not the guy you're talking about.

Just learn classic chinese lmao

>>12220489
It's really not sadly. Just read more Burroughs, have you read The Soft Machine?

>>12220496
Ah, no just naked lunch and junky. The revised boy scout manual looks nice too.

>burroughs thread
nice. Are there any books that I would like if I love Junky? I don't think anyone writes about drug use in fiction as god as Burroughs does.

>>12220941
Jesus' Son by Denis Johnson was a pretty good read.