The novelist can be questioned. The scientist wants you to shut up and calculate or follow. The philosopher wants you to accept his visions. To prove his vision is the one. — Mystic

Itself mythos, though I kind of get you.

@Kenosha Kid The novelist is sneaky enough to pretend he is writing fiction and not preaching like the other two...

Funnily enough, I always thought that 'Being and Nothingness' would be dry to read and I actually read it about 6 weeks ago. I could see see parallels with 'The Nausea'. It seemed that it was the same author's voice coming through in a slightly different way. But, also in response to your earlier comments to me I do think that interior monologues offer so much scope. But, I think that when that happens, it usually ends up creating literary fiction. However, I do rank the genre of literary fiction and I also think that crossovers of genres are extremely interesting, and give scope for experimentation.

Though "common sense" isn't really that common (as your trolling shows), I prefer, rarer still, good sense (i.e. freethought + cultural & scientific literacy) instead.

:up:

:up:

Mystic, why are you on a philosophy forum?

@Jack Cummins I don't think satre is a great novelist.
His best writings are his essays.
Interior monologues are interesting as they highlight some of the absolute nonsense that runs through people's minds. And can also show some of the more astute thoughts that can be had.
Academia suffers from terrible use of jargon and dodgy writing.

@180 Proof An oxymoron! Free thought in bowing to science and philosophy. You read to ruins matey!
Run along. You need plenty of luck for your debate defending your provisional certainty!
Google is your friend mister book worm!

@bert1 Because I'm better at it than those who worship it.

Because I'm better at it than those who worship it. — Mystic

:rofl: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:

Because I'm better at it than those who worship it. — Mystic

You haven't done any yet. Do some and you might not get banned.

:up:

180 Proof An oxymoron! — Mystic

Well, at least that makes me more interesting than mere morons like you. :nerd:

@180 Proof Lame shrimp.

@bert1 It's too hot for you old man.

@Ying Not enough yang stalker.

I know hardly any music from the period of my youth 1970's and 1980's - I find it ugly — Tom Storm

Sounds like I’m maybe a decade or so older than you, but I find it surprising that you call music of the 70s ugly. Of course, some of it was, but certainly not all of it. Along with the coarser rock&roll, to which I was not generally attracted, nevertheless there was Seals and Crofts, John Denver and Dan Fogelberg, just to mention a few, who wrote/sang some beautiful music. Seals and Crofts were vapid lyricists, influenced by some fringe mystical religion, but their harmonic progressions could be complex and enchanting. Witness “Hummingbird”.

The only jazz that ever touched me was Dave Brubeck’s Take Five. Other than that, I have never been attracted to either jazz or blues.

I know hardly any music from the period of my youth 1970's and 1980's - I find it ugly. I too stick with 18th to early 20th century music for the most part. I find it more accurately reflects my experiences. I do listen to some jazz (Coltrane, Davis, Monk) and some Blues (Muddy Waters/John Lee Hooker/ Little Walter/Albert King). — Tom Storm

I lost interest when rock lost its roll. Mostly jazz and blues for me too. The Chicago blues guys could swing. The later blues-rock guys not so much, with the exception of some of the Austin guys.

Taste is a funny thing. I notice also that I have a strong preference for black artists doing jazz and blues but almost never white ones. Didn't plan it that way. Chicago blues is great and I often alternate Mahler with Howlin' Wolf.

But the more astute novelists pick up insights consciously and unconsciously which correlate with actual human behaviour and motivations.
Amongst psychologists it's guys like James,freud,adler who also have great insights,but they are also exceptional writers,especially William James.
Even Nietzsche is great writer. Not your standard philosophical prose.
In contrast hegel,Kant,Wittgenstein,just turgid,with a few lines of oasis in a desert of jargon. — Mystic

What’s the difference between these two sets of writers? One adheres to and attempts to further the original purpose of the Enlighteners: to dryly and academically make sense of the idea that all men are created equal through the use of reason for both their own and their community’s benefit (Locke); the other promotes the notion (Rousseau) that ones own personal benefit and that of the community are at odds; that adjustments must be made, compromises with ones true self, in order to become a citizen.

My musical preferences almost exclusively fall on blues & jazz 1940s to 1980s, rhythm & blues (rock'n'roll) 1950s to 1970s, and some soul funk reggae & qawwali until 1980.

I lost interest when rock lost its roll. Mostly jazz and blues for me too. The Chicago blues guys could swing. The later blues-rock guys not so much, with the exception of some of the Austin guys. — Fooloso4

:cool:

↪Fooloso4 Taste is a funny thing. I notice also that I have a strong preference for black artists doing jazz and blues but almost never white ones. Didn't plan it that way. Chicago blues is great and I often alternate Mahler with Howlin' Wolf. — Tom Storm

:party:

Given those you named I suspect it has more to do with the fact that they were the originators more than anything else. They laid the ground rather than followed the path.