/qtddtot/ - Questions that don’t Deserve Their Own Thread

Do you guys take breaks between books? If yes how long do you usually wait before starting a new book?

i once read something about some modernist-era writer driving another one's pregnant wife to the hospital when she was giving birth. does anyone know what i'm talking about? maybe they weren't modernists but it was for sure around that time.

Attached: eliot-13058-portrait-medium[1].jpg (496x744, 42K)

Just start with Borges.
Not really. I usually immediately move on to another book but it's almost a bad thing. Sometimes I feel like I don't mull over what I read enough.

I can't understand half the shit in the KJV Old Testament. Am I a brainlet? The language is so archaic.

Does anyone have recommendations for books about human suffering and the philosophy behind it?

pick up a RSV-2CE friend - orbe a real Bible boi and learn Greek and Hebrew and never worry about crappy translations - ever again -

anybody else get really annoyed if they read a book and the author doesn't use 'whom' where applicable?
i know it's acceptable to not use it, but it still makes me feel like i'm reading a low brow book written by a low iq author

I tend to alternate between "heavy" books and lighter books to cleanse my pallet

You fucking godamn bitch I hate you so much
Call me a poltard in the other thread while I’m literally reading fucking pic related
Godamn you are stupid and I fucking hate you so much why won’t you die???

Attached: image.jpg (3264x2448, 1.45M)

Did my diary desu ever get published? What happened to it?

Looks interesting. Is it similar to Alinsky? I like Alinsky. Does it give socialist tactics or is it just a history?

Just history, but still very focused and informative with lots of interviews of actual Eastern European Jewish militants/activists

Okay that could still be fun. Thanks I'll check it out

post feet

We’d probably get along in real life.
And I’d probably not mistake you for a poltard if you had a name and rep on here and not the same name as everyone else.
Aside from hating me, how’s your night/day?

What's wrong with /pol/ users.

Butterfly, do you wish more people used tripcodes, or are you proud to be one of the few on Yea Forums who does?

Thanks,

user

SOME LIGHT FROM ALL YOUR FIRE.

>brainlets
>cumbrains

If you are an Atheist, and a Atheist being someone who doesn't believe in a higher power i.e. gods or some type of absolute power, than aren't you a Anarchist as well?

>gods or some type of absolute power
The second part isn't denied by atheists, their lack of belief is purely metaphysical, they do necessarily reject political power.
Although the majority of anarchists tend to be atheists (anarchism excluding ancaps of course)

Yea but those who believe in a political power are essentially moralistic right? To separate human beings and 'the human being' and judge the the former by the latter is all in the hierarchy of the political power...right?

You don't need some pre-conceived spooky notion of "humanity" to have political power, it might help in some ideologies to give legitimacy to your cause (e.g nationalism, humanism...), but you can still make arguments for a lot of political ideologies without moralistic claims, anarchists being the prime example, a lot of them appeal to egoism and self interest

has anyone ever read musashi? did you like it?
the cover art is cool as fuck and the description sounds interesting.

Attached: 81H7+mxJk9L[1].jpg (1102x1500, 267K)

Read Lovecraft

Depends on the context.
Basic Writings of Nietzsche.
Wilde (de profundis)
Too long
I'm not sure but I heard Proust and Joyce shared a cab once and didnt talk the whole way. Dunno who would know something like that unless the cab driver wrote a memoir.
Your fault for reading KJV. So stupid to be interested in the bible solely for its influence on a few centuries and nothing else.
Ciaran and Schopenhauer. I just dont like Schopenhauer.
Chill out.
I dont mind you but anonymity is what makes the website somewhat tolerable.
I think there is a strong link yes but I also consider naturalists atheists and they do have a 'God' and believe in order.
I'm sure someone has.

Doubt it
You’re presumptuous, self obsessed and arrogant
As for the anonymity thing, you realize rei kos the other insufferable tripfag literally believes in ariosophy right?
Your projection knows no bounds, typically brainless for a tripfag

Cringe

>cringe
Interested to hear why

based

Any sci fi book about a patriarchal society where only men exists and reproduces via an artifical wombs and rendering women obsolete with the technology?

the essay "The Use and Abuse of History" would be the most relevant
O'Connor

I don’t really wish for anything like that, but it might be good for you all (names I mean. Tripcodes are dull formalities)

I believe the opposite. I’ve seen it. Maybe the only tripfags you’ve seen were anonymous trolls.

I presume about anonymous all the time because I have to. One cannot recognize any of you. I am not self possessed, I’m always thinking about others. And some people’s “arrogance” are other people’s confidence. And here you are being presumptuous.
Rei can be ignored all the more easily. I can speak to him on issues related to conversations had ages ago. Real life interaction is superior to this troll farm stuff. But go and hide. I’ll try not to offend you, whoever you are.
Nice book btw

>possessed
Obsessed* fucking spellcheck

>real life interaction is better than this shit
Dude then fucking take everyone’s advice and leave lol
All these other excuses are just that: you know damn well how people are here and how they feel about anonymity yet you’re here to snub them and ‘rise above’ this just so you can feel better about your own way of doing things? Tell me again how humble and not self possessed you are, I’m in need of a good laugh

>shit
*troll farm
0/10

Wait, do you ignore Rei or hold long-standing conversations with him?
Cause for one you can just as easily ignore any user, and if you are interacting with Rei you’ve made an exception for your ‘anti-pol’ rule that you level against other anons
You claim that identities can be used to pragmatically ignore certain people but then stress the importance of being able to hold long dialogues with the same people- how is this anything but a poor excuse?

>maybe the only tripfags you've seen were anonymous trolls
No I used to frequent /fit/ a few years back and genuinely enjoyed seeing and recognising the few people that were actually informative. On the other hand, I absolutely loathe the egotrip that comes with a name on sites like Twitter and Facebook which is why I'm here so fucking often instead of reading or doing something useful with my time.

See pic

But also this is where your identity plays against you: hundreds of people say retarded shit on this site every second but they get a chance at ‘face saving’ because they haven’t revealed heir identity
Well all know your stupid the more threads you post in; you have nowhere to go but down and swiftly in terms of repute

Attached: 5A5273D8-F591-42A6-8083-083AA7F610E0.jpg (720x529, 68K)

>people who tell me to fuck off are ‘trolling’
The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one

This is aimed at polyglot anons: How do you keep up with more than two languages? At the time I am a native Spanish speaker as well as relatively well adjusted in the usage of the English language. However, I also wish to learn French mainly because you made me feel inadequate for only speaking two languages. However, I am worried about maintaining that ability once I obtain it. How do you polyglots keep all the languages you use sharp and fresh in your mind? The Internet is my main means of practice in English, since that's the dominant language online, but integrating French into my schedule seems kind of daunting.

Dedicate time to practicing each one every day until you die

biblehub.com/interlinear/
biblehub.com/multi/genesis/1-1.htm

how much do you guys spend monthly on books?

I want to create a best selling children's book. There's a market for it considering schools and parents still buy them. The question is, do you think it's possible?

You'd be a whore for them in real life but they'd still hate you.

By children's book I mean shit like the caterpillar, pat the rabbit, etc

House of leaves was awesome.
A fair well to arms had like two good parts.

My power is out so I’m phone posting by candle light.

I was the 3 part book shelf post in the other thread. My house is littered with books I haven’t read. Half of it is non fiction that makes me fall asleep. Should I try for infitine jest again? A Joyce book? Something short like lord of flies? Should I try neromancer for the 5th attempt? Should I try out Grisham or King for the first time? A biography?

>Wait, do you ignore Rei or hold long-standing conversations with him?
I do both. I ignore or speak to some anons, and I never know who it is. And here we part. It’s sad really.
Calling someone /pol/ or /r9k/ is more of a guess insult (not unlike calling people R*dd*t*rs)

I’m not citing a typo. I owe up to my mistakes. All who mistake me for stupid are welcome to filter me. Goodbye.

I’m against prostitution and not into men in the least. But we all know what you’re masturbatin to tonight now don’t we.

Why is masturbating to mommy hentai once a day a bad thing?

>replying literally 13 hours later
You’re fucking embarrassing dude

>There is also no closure because the relationships we are attempting to establish to account for a singularity as an effect, this network of relationships must not make up one plane only. These relationships are in perpetual slippage from one another. At a given level, the logic of interactions operates between individuals who are able to respect its singular effects, both its specificity and its rules, while managing along with other elements interactions operating at another level, such that, in a way, none of these interactions appear to be primary or absolutely totalizing. Each interaction can be resituated in a context that exceeds it and conversely, however local it may be, each has an effect or possible effect on the interaction to which it belongs and by which it is enveloped. Therefore, schematically speaking, we have perpetual mobility, essential fragility or rather the complex interplay between what replicates the same process and what transforms it. In short, here we would have to bring out a whole form of analyses which could be called strategies.

is it possible to translate this into english?

Roger Scruton but I don't like him very much

Because of the prevalence of troll farm operatives and their marks who echo the same aliterate trash in e-toddler speak, I would never adopt a name here for the purpose of consistency in discourse--which requires names. I mostly lurk out of morbid fascination with the down-dumbing rhetorical tricks used by the pathologically manipulative--cult leaders, demagogues, despots, and the garden variety frauds who, like gamblers too addicted to the process to quit while they're so far ahead they could retire in luxury, crash into prison, infamy, or a long tedious stew in surroundings safely uniform with sad lackeys. In real life conversation I confess myself, reflect out loud, sometimes to the point of dishing on my worst frailties, mostly to get the other to relax into likewise freely reflective thought. It would be an effort to do otherwise, because I really want to know what they know, from experience. Driven by curiosity I listen more deeply than I seem to be because I forget myself, and remember them. And if they have much to tell, I'll be happy to see them again. And if not, not. Life unfiltered and undistorted by the mechanical apparatus of organizations is almost unbelievably content-rich, and people who grew up mostly offline are correspondingly richer for it. And the paradox is that without anonymity or the distancing effect of text, less is forbidden: Privately, one-to-one, mature and amiable virtuosos of insinuation are 10 times thicker on the ground of reality than they are in this virtual cage of mutual abuse. Remember that emphasis of the difference, if you forget who signals it from outside.

What defines judgement? The effectual of the latter or the immediate? Or the Categorical Imperative in the case of relating to life? Or must we strive for a medium between the latter and immediate?