Library

Life has no rehearsal. No two lives can be compared, and there's no chance to do it better the next time because we only live once. So I've decided not to dwell in regret. The thought consoles me more than I expected. I used to regret certain past decisions. But their consequences aren't even settled yet, and regret changes nothing either way. So I'm keeping my attention on what comes next - on stepping forward. The first few pages of this book have me thinking a great deal about the once-ness of life. The characters still feel thinly drawn, and I'm not warming to them yet - but I'll keep reading.

Tillich called the mind "a permanent factory of fears." It keeps dressing formless dread as a fear of something, because a named fear is survivable and dread is not. So your worries can be decoys: you fix one, another takes its place. But the dread underneath isn't a flaw to fix. It's the cost of being finite. You were never meant to delete it, only to carry it. So what if the goal isn't a life without the fear, but the strength to hold it?

Raskolnikov could've avoided 500 pages of suffering if he'd just had a friend text him back.

"It is not Goethe who creates Faust, but Faust which creates Goethe." I think this sentence captures the essence of relationship between psychological archetypes and psyche. But do you believe that such "psychological archetypes" actually exist?

"뜨거운 줄 알면서도 뜨거운 불 앞으로 다가가는 이 모순, 이 모순 때문에 내 삶은 발전할 것이다. 나는 그렇게 믿는다." 나는 아직도 이 문장을 완전히 이해하지 못하고 있다.

흠... 마지막 진진의 선택에 놀라신분? 무엇이 그녀의 선택을 바꾸게 했는지 아마 진진 그녀도 완전히는 모르겠죠?

혼모노... 영 읽히지 않는데 저만 그런가요? 꼭 단편이라 그런건 아닌것 같고 뭘 표현하고자 하는 것인지 잘 모르겠달까? 태극기 편까지만 읽고 저는 결국 하차합니다. 😭

The book's actual claim is that love is "primarily giving, not receiving." A thing you do, not a feeling you catch. Most of us were raised to ask whether we are lovable enough, not whether we can love. Do you buy that love is a skill you practice, or is that self-help dressed up as philosophy?

Everyone quotes big brother is watching. But the part that stays with me is not the telescreen. it is being forced to say 2+2=5 and mean it. Do you read 1984 as a surveillance book or a book about who gets to decide what counts as true?

Was 1984 assigned to you as anti-communist homework? Orwell was a democratic socialist. his 1949 letter to the UAW says the book is not an attack on socialism or labor - it is about the perversions a centralized economy is liable to. so which reading did you get first: anti-socialism, or anti-betrayal-of-socialism?