|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 7, 2023 18:15:38 GMT
There was one girl and she read damn lots of serious books. She was definitely obsessed with reading serious literature. She was unbelievably smart, and intelligent, but even despite that fact I couldn't accept her point of view about philosophy. Just couldn't.
She claimed that there was only one way to get philosophy. One way, no more. As soon as a person read and understood such writers as James Joyce, William Faulkner, Virginia Woolf, Friedrich Nietzsche, Oscar Wilde, etc only then a person could start reading philosophy.
Hell. I didn't read much. I like reading, but except for Shakespeare, Percy Shelley, William Blake, Charles Dickens, Mary Shelley, and so on so on – mostly not that "difficult to read and to understand" writers. Yeah, easy or merely easy writers are not worse.
So, I could only envy her talents, and to keep reading H. Lovecraft, E. Poe, B. Stoker, S. King, C. Barker, and others. I don't get the serious literature, well – this means I'm doomed? It really drags me down if the serious literature is so important for philosophy, but what do you all think about it?
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 8, 2023 1:07:16 GMT
She's a fool if that's how she sees it
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 8, 2023 2:04:03 GMT
She's a fool if that's how she sees it Must say not once I thought the same, however she got damn lots of followers (which doesn't make her ideas clever or wiser). I'd say it was not easy to argue with her face to face. By the way there were so many fools who followed by fooles :)
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 9, 2023 2:41:52 GMT
She's a fool if that's how she sees it Must say not once I thought the same, however she got damn lots of followers (which doesn't make her ideas clever or wiser). I'd say it was not easy to argue with her face to face. By the way there were so many fools who followed by fooles A society with a social system that is degrading faster than I write banana sitting on the dash of a hot car in the middle of the summer I consider popularity to be a negative and not a positive the more people agree with somebody and the more popular they are the more I assume that person is wrong and their ideology and their methodology But I optimistically stay willing to be proven wrong despite unfortunately not having that occur yet
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 9, 2023 11:51:52 GMT
Must say not once I thought the same, however she got damn lots of followers (which doesn't make her ideas clever or wiser). I'd say it was not easy to argue with her face to face. By the way there were so many fools who followed by fooles :) A society with a social system that is degrading faster than I write banana sitting on the dash of a hot car in the middle of the summer I consider popularity to be a negative and not a positive the more people agree with somebody and the more popular they are the more I assume that person is wrong and their ideology and their methodology But I optimistically stay willing to be proven wrong despite unfortunately not having that occur yet Oh, yeah, how often it happened during the history, when someone became popular, and mostly those popular ones were not smart enough, except for bathing in spotlights, and get others applause to him.
|
|