Paper, any one?

Throughout this week I've managed to start piecing together my paper (in fact I'm almost finish now), but I was wondering if other people had as much struggle as I did starting it.

I tried to write my paper last weekend and I found my incapable of doing it. I must've started five different essays on the same topic, but I found myself bitter about it all. Now I'm managing to pump out ideas like it's no problem, but before it seemed like such a difficult process. I think what's making me even more nervous is that I'm presenting on Monday and while I'm confident in my beliefs, I'm more passive when it comes to other people questioning them and would rather not deal with it.

I was just wondering what other people might be worrying about or if this paper is coming any easier to someone else.

On Reading and Books

This reading was quite interesting...as are most of them. What was interesting to me what the fact that Schopenhauer suggested not to read. It's an interesting concept though, to his point of people losing their own point of view and ability to think for themselves without the influence of what they read. I'm not sure I would vouch for not reading, but I would agree that we are definitely influenced by the things we read and how we think. The same goes for the people we're around.

Something else that I thought about was his point to "it would be a good thing to buy books if one could also buy the time to read them." I'll be honest and say I'm not an avid reader, which is weird because I buy books all the time. I like to look at books and read through the beginning pages of them, but I life seems to get too busy that I loose track and interest until the available time rolls back around. I would like to read more though...soon...graduation is just around the corner.

While reading I couldn't help but think...

What did Schopenhauer think of Descartes for writing his philosophy is French instead of Latin, so that the common man could read his works versus exclusive academia? Schopenhauer makes a point that common knowledge is petty and naive and that there is practically no hope in it. He also states that worthless literature placed on the shelves leaves the works of great thinker's undisturbed. Yes, I see the truth in that statement, but all books have a purpose, whether to entertain or to educate. If the work's of the thinker's are so great then they will be able to stand on their own and are not comparable to those of writers who writer for money and fame. Descartes's purpose was to educate and he succeeded by writing in French. Schopenhauer has created a very narrow outlook on what is acceptable readings or literature.

So Schopenhauer made a few points that I found interesting, particularly his analogy of the food we eat, and the things we read; that though we take it all in, only some of it becomes a part of us. When we read, we are just a pallet for another persons thoughts, and that we only accept the points which align themselves with our own way of thinking. Then what should it matter that we read "bad" literature? Though I concede that if we spent all our time reading, or, in the modern version, watching movies or TV, we would cease to have original ideas.
On the other hand, he also comes off as an arrogant, miserable little prick, and I was tempted to stab myself through the eyes halfway through the reading.
Just sayin'.

That's the way I like it Uh hu uh!

So I actually enjoyed reading Schopenhauer!

It kind of justified me not want to reading in High School! If there were actually good books I would read them but reading for the sake of reading is non sense! I found it quite comical how he would start a point and them justify it with another point and then contradict himself! I feel like if I read more of his books I would talk like him making me the best debater in the world, ya know because if you are reading you just following in the writers footsteps but not really seeing what they saw!

Shcopenhauer

What i got from this writing that if we read too often, we only focus on what the author thinks and basically let them think for us. We don't learn any important literary skills by reading, except when we read great literature, because it lets us see how to use literary skills effectively, but we have to already possess these skills in order to apply them. Most authors are only writing books to make money, and most readers only read because its entertaining, or so we can have something to talk about with our friends. since we only have limited time on earth to read we should only read good literature, because reading "bad books" is a waste of our time, and will rot our minds. While I agree that we should think to ourselves I don't think that if we read we forget how to think. In my opinion, reading steers our minds in new directions that might not have occured to us without reading, and gives us new ways to think as we apply the books to our lives, and if read intelligently, a reader can still choose to agree or disagree with a book, which allows thought. I think there is a difference between good and bad books, but throughout history the line between them is often unclear. Often things regarded as vulgar by their contemoraries went on to become some of the most highly regarded works of art in history. Schopenhauer also seems to focus immensely on the works of former masters, and is in my opinion too critical of contemporaries, because it is hard to know what works of art and literature will later be recognized as great for reasons that the audience in the past couldn't yet see or understand. this opinion of literature seems to me slightly contradictory, because if artists and writers only look to the past, then they are still not thinking for themselves, and there is limited room for innovation.

Capitalism Kills Literature (among many other things...)

Schopenhauer criticizes contemporary literature for being written for its own sake and to exploit consumers and I agree. The majority of consumer products are not based on benefiting the mind's acuity and precision by exercising its comparative, analytic, and perceptual skills, or to enhance its spirituality and ability to synthesize emotion, but to feed some insatiable desire to escape the reality of our own isolated existence. Romance novels that target sexually-deprived and/or obsessed, lonely middle aged audiences flood the shelves of supermarkets and gas stations come to mind when I read Schopenhauer's bitterly critical essay on books. The fact that someone aims at writing such books for no other reason than to reap a cheap profit from those preoccupied souls willing to pay for it is beyond me. Why waste the precious little time you have on such fruitless endeavors?

Elizabeth Gilbert: A new way to think about creativity

This is the video I was talking about in class the other day. It's really good, enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86x-u-tz0MA