Give me your favourite non-fiction book

The Power Broker by Robert Caro. Sometimes it's A Distant Mirror by Barb Tuchman. Depends on how I feel.

I guess maybe but I dont really see philosophy as a nonfiction/fiction thing.

Strict nonfiction probably Understanding Power. It's just so fucking well argued and wide ranging.

See but that's fucking retarded, bud. I hate people like you.

It doesn't matter what you see something as or not. Philosophy/economics/mathematics/history/whatever is nonfiction.

Fiction is just stories. Novels. Tales.

When people say they hate fiction, they are basically saying they hate fictional things.

The Enneads

If the fiction/nonfiction divide is not real//real, then under which category do you put a concept like the ubermensch? It's not real in the sense that we talk about the Vietnam war, or evolution. It is made up so in a sense it is fiction.

Napoleon in Egypt by Paul Strathern

Attached: 71M24Pwl+2L.jpg (1200x1200, 199K)

Ringside: A Treasury of Boxing Reportage

Attached: c92e452913e6c7ae21acb61b9f391128.jpg (299x400, 33K)

Philosophical Investigations

Would you classify Herodotus' Histories as fiction or non-fiction?

"Obsolete" nonfiction but a valuable primary source

What differentiates fiction from non-fiction other than one's possibility and probability over another? I.e. there is nothing separating a "true" historical document over a forged one other than someone saying one is right and the other wrong. Furthermore, given one historical account, and one historical fiction in a vacuum, literally nothing could indicate one was wrong and the other right.

holy hell you're an idiot.

please stop posting. the secondhand embarrassment I feel because of you is almost too much to handle.

Behave

This, minus the pretentious tone.

Woooooooow. The sharpest mind if his generation.

Such an answer. Literally what is the difference. You can admit there isn't one, it's ok

>there's no difference between fiction and nonfiction.

Attached: whatthefuck.jpg (400x399, 37K)

Reads second essay once

That’s not how it works. The categorization isn’t subjective. Fiction and non-fiction actually aren’t the best NAMES for it actually. Should be stories and non-stories. But the categorization is what it is.

I don’t agree with evolution, but I still understand The Origin of Species is a non-fiction work. Much like how Archimedes’ Sand Reckoner is a non-fiction work even though it uses the geocentric theory of the universe

Or, now that I think about it, Ptolemy’s Almagest is a better example of geocentrism. His theory of the universe was more complex than ours, although verifiably incorrect.

I wouldn't go with more complex. That gives it a tone of credibility. Go with desperate. Cycles and epicycles and epi-epicycles were imagined in order to explain the motion of the heavenly bodies in a way that preserved the perfection of circularity.

It was definitely creative though.

No, it is more complex. In fact, if that system were as fleshed out today as the current cosmological system, Ptolemy’s would have to be more complex than ours. Don’t try to act like because something is old it’s not as complex. Euclid’s tenth book is more complex than all of set theory, functional calculus, and topology combined.

I didn't have a problem with the word complex. I had a problem with its connotations. I agree, it was more "complex". I just wouldn't use that word to describe it.

In my summary of cosmological thought pre-kepler, it's clear that the order created was "complex". But it was also the result of a drowning man's grasp on incorrect, preconceived notions. So I don't want to give it too much credit by calling it complex. But you're right, it was.

You assume a primary source is written from when it's said to be written. You have no way to prove a document is as old as another. As such, both historical non-fiction and fiction are founded on assumptions. Extend this to all fiction/non-fiction circumstances and the distinction is worthless

But my point is this: complex has no positive or negative connotations. Sometimes I feel people misinterpret English words. Although you must force yourself to realize these words carry no positive or negative connotation, the fact that they teach that in grade school annoys me to no end because I think it bastardizes an otherwise potentially beautiful language

You’re retarded

>you assume a primary source is written from when it's said to be written
what does this have to do with whether the work is fiction or nonfiction?
>you have no way to prove a document is as old as another
what does this have to do with anything at all?
>as such
delete this nephew
>both historical nonfiction fiction are founded on assumptions
what does this have to do with whether the work is fiction or nonfiction?
>extend this to all fiction/non-fiction circumstances
oh okay

connotations are real, friend. but they're subjective, so instead of wishing students won't be taught they exist because they "bastardize an otherwise potentially beautiful language", you should just disagree with the connotation I perceive.

But see you’ve slyly slipped in something there.

I’m saying complex doesn’t have any connotation at all. 0 connotations. You are saying it has at least one, so >0. There is a huge difference

The Bible