Leave a comment

seriousaura January 28 2010, 15:30:59 UTC
I find myself in disagreement with your tag of 'I read too much'. There is no such thing.

Reply

himitsunotsuki January 28 2010, 15:37:20 UTC
I would disagree with your disagreement. I think there can be multiple ways one can read too much.

Reply

seriousaura January 28 2010, 15:39:07 UTC
Of course, I'm referring to books. Reading as it pertains to other things, then yes, perhaps I would be inclined to agree with you.

Reply

himitsunotsuki January 28 2010, 16:48:14 UTC
True. Reading too much into people, into words and meanings, all spell difficult roads ahead. But I do wonder if there is such a thing as reading too many books.

Reply

seriousaura January 28 2010, 16:50:51 UTC
Exactly.

If there is such a thing, then I am clearly in the wrong business.

Reply

himitsunotsuki January 28 2010, 16:54:08 UTC
Hmm, but there's then the question of the nature of reading itself. Even with books, you'll agree that there are different kinds of reading.

Reply

seriousaura January 28 2010, 16:58:26 UTC
Of course. Analytical, skimming, pleasure, et cetera. Though, pleasure usually seems to be the most rewarding.

Reply

himitsunotsuki January 28 2010, 17:11:32 UTC
Naturally. Reading for pleasure would be the only one that involves reading that which one desires to read.

There's also the problem of what to do with the philosophy one gains from said reading, which brings me to Wilde.

Reply

seriousaura January 28 2010, 17:14:37 UTC
If you desire to read everything, it might not be so pleasurable any longer.

That is to state there can be philosophy found in all books. I wonder if you can say that about some children's books that parents purchase to teach colors and shaps.

Reply

himitsunotsuki January 28 2010, 17:17:15 UTC
To a literal definition of everything, yes.

Wilde would disagree, but all literature tends to have a purpose. The children's books, as you said, teach.

Reply

seriousaura January 28 2010, 17:19:03 UTC
Actually, I disagree with my statement. Merely speculation. However, teaching is not the same as garnering some philosophical intent from them.

Reply

himitsunotsuki January 28 2010, 17:25:20 UTC
Ah. But an innate philosophical intent is rather designed to teach, isn't it?

Reply

seriousaura January 28 2010, 17:28:13 UTC
Thus why I am not a philosopher.

Reply

himitsunotsuki January 28 2010, 17:30:14 UTC
I think we all are on some level.

But you will forgive me for being particularly... rambly today. A product, as I said, of reading too much.

Reply

seriousaura January 28 2010, 17:31:33 UTC
Not one that teaches, at least.

I don't find you ever to be particularly rambly. We usually have quite interesting discussions.

Reply

himitsunotsuki January 28 2010, 17:56:11 UTC
And here too I would differ, Tezuka. I'm certain there is plenty we can learn from each other.

We do and I thank you for putting up with my musings all the same.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up