I cannot, and won't ever try to read a book without any images

[coomer13]

It feels so mundane to just get some book called "42 practices for great dictatorship" and read its small text, just there sitting.
Now if it had some images attached to it or maybe some huge lines of spaces, I could possibly get through it. But if there's anything less I'd throw it away tbh.
Even ancient philosophers from Greece have told us that true wisdom is ineffable, true experience is in-transferable by words. Images however are different, they are an evolved form of expression to words. Letters themselves were hieroglyphic not so long ago, and they gave it up for convenience. If I focus on an image, its artistic patters, its motions and colors. I would know what the person who created it was thinking, meanwhile letters are very vague at that.
There's no fault in combining the good of both, though. And that's why I respect image-literary based works.

 

[idioteque]

It feels so mundane to just get some book called "42 practices for great dictatorship" and read its small text, just there sitting.
Now if it had some images attached to it or maybe some huge lines of spaces, I could possibly get through it. But if there's anything less I'd throw it away tbh.
Even ancient philosophers from Greece have told us that true wisdom is ineffable, true experience is in-transferable by words. Images however are different, they are an evolved form of expression to words. Letters themselves were hieroglyphic not so long ago, and they gave it up for convenience. If I focus on an image, its artistic patters, its motions and colors. I would know what the person who created it was thinking, meanwhile letters are very vague at that.
There's no fault in combining the good of both, though. And that's why I respect image-literary based works.

are we serious rn bruddah

 

[Vitriol]

Grok please summarize and add some illustrations

 

[Night]

It feels so mundane to just get some book called "42 practices for great dictatorship" and read its small text, just there sitting.
Now if it had some images attached to it or maybe some huge lines of spaces, I could possibly get through it. But if there's anything less I'd throw it away tbh.
Even ancient philosophers from Greece have told us that true wisdom is ineffable, true experience is in-transferable by words. Images however are different, they are an evolved form of expression to words. Letters themselves were hieroglyphic not so long ago, and they gave it up for convenience. If I focus on an image, its artistic patters, its motions and colors. I would know what the person who created it was thinking, meanwhile letters are very vague at that.
There's no fault in combining the good of both, though. And that's why I respect image-literary based works.

I agree with the image-text correlation, it "probably" feels better to read and understand some concepts or parts of the story

But I don't understand why you would not read a book without any type of ilustration, its not vague effort, it is also captivating.

 

[coomer13]

Grok please summarize and add some illustrations

This is a very small amt of lines of text, I'm talking about huge books like Dr. Peterson tier ramblings.

 

[coomer13]

are we serious rn bruddah

Yes, and I'm tired of pretending like everyone disagrees with me on this.

No one likes dullness, everybody wants to decipher purer expressions. Not just letters.

 

[idioteque]

Yes, and I'm tired of pretending like everyone disagrees with me on this.

No one likes dullness, everybody wants to decipher purer expressions. Not just letters.

the rise of anti-intellectualism is frightening.

you’re mistaking personal boredom for philosophical insight.
“No one likes dullness.” you speak for yourself. plenty of people find beauty in text that doesn’t hand everything to them at a glance. difficulty isn’t dullness; it’s depth.
and that “purer expression” you’re chasing through images? it’s not purity but immediacy. words slow you down because they demand thought, not because they’ve lost their power. it seems like you're confusing difficulty with dullness. if something requires focus, that doesn’t make it dull. difficulty isn’t a flaw, it’s the price of precision. images can stun you, but words can transform you, and transformation takes time.
the fact that you’d throw away a book for lacking pictures doesn’t prove writing is obsolete — it just proves you don’t want to sit with ideas that can’t be flattened into color and motion.
pray tell, how do you plan on having a real-life argument without any images provided for you? words contextualize and, when properly utilized, can create that picture in your mind. just be engaged theory. just because you personally struggle to stay engaged with a text doesn't make written language inferior or outdated lmfaooo. philosophers didn't reject language, and in fact there is a reason plato, aristotle, and socrates chose to have their messages written instead of making them an artwork. if wisdom is ineffible, they wouldn't have expressed it through words. images evoke emotion but thoughts provide a guided, structured way of thinking about it. writing provides logic, complexity, and contradiction in ways words can't.

pick up a good book lil bro, I recommend "the rebel" by albert camus, "the genealogy of morals" by nietzsche, and if you have a short attention span "the myth of sisyphus" by camus

 

[hannah]

 

[vespertine]

View attachment 197220

boiiii ts so relatable! the charges were dropped even though they were true im so lucky

 

[idioteque]

View attachment 197220

my exact reaction tbh what have we come to as a society

 

[vespertine]

^