Nothing like an old money English gent getting all ruddy.
Those prurient puritans
>>25468241Being molested by your uncle will do that to you.
>>25468272Ahyuk
>compassion is the basis for morality>fuck you bitch down the stairs you go!
>>25463259basado!
>>25463286>>25463363lmfao
She violated the NAP. Schopenhauer was metaphysically libertarian
>>25468270>Why is compassion moral?it benefits me, and it benefits you>what if it doesn't benefit you?then it isn't moral. morality is mutually beneficial. simple as.
>>25468270how is defining morality as subjective to a particular form of human judgement wrong, but defining it via the will of an agent not?
What was your favourite book/book series as a kid or young teen?I loved the CHERUB books. Read most of them, they were in the school library. I don't know if they hold up or not, but it was the first book series that really got me into reading.
>>25466377Chick detected.
Let me guess, you "need more?"
>>25467552We got a real Sherlock Holmes over here
Goosebumps and Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. In retrospect, I just liked the illustrations and covers. The stories were never as good as they were in my head.
>>25462162Not much of a reader as a kid but I did read these in school when we had to read.
>"Those who seek pleasure should buy a dildo, for art, literature and music does not have the enjoyment of people as it's objective">"Literature demands much more intelligence than medicine, or mathematics">"Philosophy is the religion of those who do not feel comfortable with that of their parents">"The enemies of freedom are philosophy, religion, and political ideology. It's friends are literature and science.">"Put yourself to work, it's the best form of self help">"If Germany had understand Don Quixote it would have saved itself 2 world wars"What does /lit/ make of this guy?
>>25468017>his point is that Don Quixote is an anti idealist bookOHNNONONONO AHAAHAHHAHADon Quixote’s number one fan got giga-filtered by it, you can’t make this shit up
>>25468150How is it idealist?
Never heard of him and without context don't care about his opinions.
>>25468192A significant part of the book is sancho learning the value of idealism and the beauty of nobler ideals despite the earlier stupidity, particularly in the superior second “half” of the book (because it’s two books, not one). Also, when Quixote gives up his idealism, he literally dies, becoming a cynic like everyone else literally kills him. I’m not saying that Cervantes didn’t intend Quixote to be absurd at all but there’s also such a clear theme of the value of idealism above material cynicism.
>>25468017https://youtu.be/OUb40BdYbcI>Nobody else has a Quixote, no one else could ever have it>You could never have a Quixote in any other language >It's impossible >You don't have the vocabulary to have a Quixote>Best case scenario you could have some smart translator so that you can more or less see from afar what it's like to have a Quixote>You either know Spanish or you cannot understand Quixote>There are things that can only be appreciated in Spanish>Now if you want to learn useless languages... >*prrrt!*
>mechas >shotacon>mindrapeThis is just like my Japanese animes
>Doctorow
>>25465948yeah and it shits on Walt Disney... go figure
The idea that a philosophy's validity, or how seriously it should be taken, depends on how well the philosopher lives up to their own advice or musings is one of the stupidest opinions I've seen repeated on this board. A philosophical viewpoint should be judged on its own merits and nothing else. A philosopher's biases are only worth raising if they affect how the idea should be interpreted, e.g. if a philosophical claim is presented as grounded in empirical fact, but research shows the author lies by leaving out evidence that contradicts it.
>>25466508 honestly struggling to pin down what your actual gripe is. the language is pretty direct and the terms simple. also you’re using ‘pedantic’ wrong. pedantic means fussing over technicalities or minor details, if anything’s it’s the opposite.
>>25465732I challenge you and everyone to a debate!
>>25464667>>25464665Someone not living in line with their arguments doesn’t mean they don’t believe them or that the arguments aren’t true. A fat person can argue that being in shape is the optimal way for one’s body to be, that doesn’t make them wrong because they’re fat. Ideas transcend the individual positing them.
>>25467861if someone writes a philosophy of the body, and if it’s any good (honest, rigorous, true), it doesn’t just float free as pure ideas. it becomes a diagnostic of the writer. it shows us the precise shape of the gap between what they can think and what they can feel, what they can argue and what they can live. a philosophy that pretends the body is one way while the philosopher’s own body quietly testifies to another isn’t ‘transcending’, it’s just incomplete. or dishonest.
>>25465720Agreed. Think of all of the Danielle Chelosky threads we could be having instead!>>25465739TAG threads got you again?
>The last popular "new atheist" author is some skinny gay jew.Has ever a movement destroyed itself so completely?
>>25467670Darth Schwab's buttbuddy.
>>25467663a gay midwit atheist jewbut the fact he is a midwit propped up by (((the publishing industry))) is his biggest crime, it's painful how fucking uninspiring he is, yet somehow so popular. the atheism is a cherry on top of his midwittery
>>25467663Most of the new atheists were jews. They spent their vital momentum trashing Christianity. Really makes you think. Before you (you) me about them talking about islam: brown people shouldn't live in europe regardless of their creed.
>>25467663I thought new atheism died when Christopher Hitchens did.
>>25467663Atheism was largely a response to Christianity being the dominant global force that influenced culture, which is why they seemed to almost exclusively attack Christianity rather than any other faith. Now that Christianity isn’t as influential as it once was, Atheism is kind of redundant as a means of rebellion.Plus, a lot of Gen Z are spiritual in some respect. Even putting aside that they’re the most Christian generation since the Boomers, lots of the ones who aren’t Christian are into Pagan and New Age spirituality. It’s common for them to believe that there’s SOMETHING out there, even if they can’t agree on what it is.Another reason is that Reddit Atheists were so cringy that no one wanted to be associated with them.
I might be mistaken, but a lot of feminist utopian novels and narratives seem to prefer the idea of a world in which males are all extinct or, at best, under a reverse Handmaiden's Tale sort of scenario, over imagining actual equalist societies. For example:>"A Brother's Price" by Wen Spencer>"If I Pay Thee Not in Gold" by Mercedes Lackey and Piers Anthony>Ursula K. Le Guin's short story "The Matter of Seggri">Joanne Russ's "The Female Man"Sheri S. Tepper's "The Gate to Women's Country">Pamela Sargent's "Shore of Women">"The Cleft" by Doris Lessing>"Houston, Houston, Do You Read?" by James Tiptree Jr.>"The Power", by Naomi AldermanIs this a "mask-off" moment, or do they just think that actual equality would be too unbelievable or uninteresting to portray? Are there actual examples of feminist fiction that don't seem to be entirely based on resentment?
>>25467315You kidding? Just look at the ones on 4chan. They're dumb.
The best feminist fiction are works that don’t primarily focus on feminist themes and just feature interesting female characters that are consequential to the plot. This is why Japan has been doing stories with strong women in them for decades with zero issue.
>>25467360>with zero issue.Like the screeching weasels of South Korea or the US.Yes. They also funny books for not-child abuse among many other exotic fetishes. But I do like your point. Not directly addressed is the best.
>>25467360>The best feminist fiction are works that don’t primarily focus on feminist themes and just feature interesting female characters that are consequential to the plot. This is why Japan has been doing stories with strong women in them for decades with zero issue.In the case of japan that's because their strong women aren't focused on being better than men, proving that men are shit, trying to pretend women can do the things men unequivocally do better than women can be done by women without some kind of magic or technology to allow them to do it. They take care to make the woman who is in that role make sense within the context of the world and story. >MEANWHILE AMERICA : Rey Skywalker is literally perfect and you're evil for not liking her walking all over and girlbossing over everything you ever loved in this story oh and btw diversity is our strength and you're evil for not thinking that's true. btw have we told you how evil you are today moid, were still angry that original sin is attributed to eve (a woman) so were going to attempt to project that back upon you because were petty and bitchy cunts.In any case what I mean is that well written characters are usually written without some kind of attempt to preach to the audience for the sake of extolling the virtues of your worldview
>>25467976>trying to pretend women can do the things men unequivocally do better than women can be done by women without some kind of magic or technology to allow them to do itJapan produces a lot of stories where a woman is able to beat a guy barehanded simply because she’s more skilled. But this is fine as well because said female characters usually aren’t considered untouchable Mary Sues by the narrative. The problem with a lot of modern western portrayals of strong women is that the treat the fact that they put these girls on a pedestal and make them invulnerable propaganda pieces rather than characters who are truly equal with the rest of the cast. Modern western female characters are also afraid to show any kind of feminine traits or vulnerability, which is ironically more sexist than if they just made the character super feminine. Japan can have a female character who’s tomboyish, aggressive and can do everything men can do, but they’re also not afraid to have that girl have moments where she likes cute things, shows motherly qualities or cries over something. They feel like an actual woman with masculine qualities rather than a character that exists to prove a point.
itt: required reading to post on /lit/
>>25467724He rapes his sister, Phoebe.
>>25467724Well, that’s disappointing.
>>25467722>>25467761Haha nigger but if you think about it for longer than a second it fits the woke message perfectly. The point is that whites still hold all blacks in contempt and only show them basic respect when it's to their advantage. Did Malcolm X talk about that?
>>25467730>although most people don’t know it was intended as a criticism of liberalism within the communist party in AmericaI mean it's spelled out clear as day in the novel. The whites are seen as wanting blacks to rape their women for fetishistic purposes, and the blacks are shown as being hypocrites with no real clue. People just pretend to not see this because they would rather parrot the liberal idea that the book is about black people's struggles and the civil rights movement, simply because it is the best book written by a black person ever. If there was another great book written by a black person, that was more in line with the liberal worldview, I doubt we would even hear The Invisible Man being spoken about. And that being said, I haven't seen it promoted in the Black Authors section of my local chain bookshop for a few years now, so maybe they've finally caught on. Hell, in the first few pages Ellison basically establishes a black chaste system, where someone like him is higher up whereas the illiterate rapist negro of the South is all the way at the bottom. And he also writes about how blacks will destroy their own communities rather than attempt to build them up and reinforce them. The Invisible Man was a great book and Ellison was really the hero the black community deserved.
>>25468116Yeah there is a reason the cover never gets updated in new prints, the establishment is extremely uncomfortable with the book.
"A personal message to the previous OP" editionPrevious: >>25458094/wg/ AUTHORS & FLASH FICTION: https://pastebin.com/ruwQj7xQRESOURCES & RECOMMENDATIONS: https://pastebin.com/nFxdiQvCPlease limit excerpts to one post.Give advice as much as you receive it to the best of your ability.Discuss the written works below for practice; contribute, and you shall receive.If you have not performed a cursory proofread, do not expect to be treated kindly. Edit your work for spelling and grammar before posting.Expect critique, not praise.Shitposters should be ignored and reported.>Garbage gudie(s) on writing:Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>25468799>>25468799>>25468799
>>25468608FYI, his work isn't exactly like yours, but J.G. Thirlwell's lyrics have some pretty fun wordplay. Check out "The Throne of Agony":https://open.spotify.com/track/0mrRm6hVWag7Qv6DqAfmJlHello, operator... give me no-man's landCollect call to no one at allBeen yelling into an empty closetTo the point of no return, and no depositFiddlin' and watchin' while Rome burnsA roll of the dice: the worm turnsHello, central... give me no-man's landFrom a walking waste disposal unitA transfusion from me'd kill the faint of heartAlas poor Yorick... I knew me wellComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>25463494Schwab here. I'll pay you 2 million dollars in NGO funbux to write more of this
>>25468881Cha-ching! You've hit the big time, Wing!
>>25463151holy purple prose batman!
The Iliad is just pic related for hundreds of pages.
>>25467338>>25467338Technically it should be called the Williad because the original Hittite name for the city was Wilusa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WilusaIlium is just the Greek transliteration of this name.
>>25467338
>>25466871I can into art, just not homer. masons started overrating him to lower the aesthetic bar for their modernist/multicultural projects.
>>25467746What do Hittites even have to do with that
>>25467746>Technically the Canterbury Tales should be called the Durouernon Tales because it was the original name of the city
Will I become more intelligent after finishing this?
>>25467032That seems right, re: the soul, as long as the emphasis is on "personal." The arguments of the Phaedo kind of skirt around whether the "personality" of the soul persists in favor of arguing that the soul, whatever it is, persists, and Socrates still seems open at one key point there to death being followed by nothingness (and that openness is present in the final speeches of the Apology). It seems more a matter of uncertainty, and it has to be admitted that he doesn't go into what the soul *is* as clearly or as often as we'd think or like to imagine (the Republic is itself a notable exception, but Socrates says, surprisingly, in book 10 that the discussion of the soul they've run with isn't sufficient, it's a view still too attached to the body; there are otherwise passages in Phaedrus, Timaeus, Laws, going into it some, but...).Can you say what you have in mind, re: the PNC and the tyrant's soul? That sounds interesting.As far as how literally to take the five civic souls, I'm not sure. On the one hand, there's that thorny book 10 passage I just mentioned, which makes it hard to say how true those accounts are. On the other hand, they do sometimes appear to match something in experience, and Plato generally seems interested in "types" of souls, e.g., what compels on type to be stuck between philosophy and political ambition, what impediments dispose someone to not following logoi or actively resisting them, etc. And of course there's the fanciful 99 types of souls in the Phaedrus. It might be that the teachings about soul and the five types in the Republic are useful as heuristics, at least.
>>25458800>plato Lol. Rolfmao
>>25467376>Can you say what you have in mind, re: the PNC and the tyrant's soul? That sounds interesting.Honestly I think I have more a silhouette of a question, let alone any idea of any claim regarding it. The PNC seems the most foundational principle regarding any discussion or theory (see also Aristotle in the Metaphysics). The dialectical method that Socrates employs is very often essentially making the interlocutor realize he's implicitly denying the PNC by holding opposing beliefs. In the Cratylus and Theaetetus Socrates shows how truthful communication through language, and knowledge, become impossible if one follows the theory of flux (in the Theaetetus, he seems to "lump" the doctrines of Protagoras and Heraclitus together). These objections Aristotle makes as well. But Aristotle almost writes it off as a kind of ridiculous position, that people won't jump into ravine because they think it's also not a ravine. This is proof that even the deniers of the PNC still live like it is true. Okay, sure, but how consistent have people ever been? People may not jump into ravines, but they might think good and bad are all the same. They might think the murder of thousands is a small matter and in the Republic there seems to be a (somewhat fragile?) line between ethics and the PNC. The hierarchy of reason, spirit and desire is established with the differentiating of them in the first place, which Socrates does through explaining the PNC. And sure, any investigation of any science must rely on the PNC to work, but Socrates uses it to ground the hierarchy in the soul, which seems to be the ground for the ensuing discussions of political regimes, but this seems to work better the more literal you take the tripsrtite soul taken. In the Cratylus and the Theaetetus his objections are more like that of Aristotle, in simply showing how ridiculous or undesireable the consequences of denying the PNC are (without explicitly mentioning the PNC in either of those dialogues IIRC+Aristotle does briefly mention "the bad being also the good" with regards to denying the PNC but leaves it at that) By having this connection in the Republic, I suppose I come to ask in the direction of whether it is a real attempt to establish some logical sequence of truth necessarily excluding untruth (PNC) necessarily leading to an ontology of goodness. Is there truth without morality? Does the very notion of truth necessarily, logically, follow that there is morality, and is there an (attempt at an) argument for this in the Republic? I think this is roughly what I am wondering on here
>>25467637Ah, very good. I have to admit that I'm in no way sure, but it does occur to me that the effect of using the PNC is to diminish the relation between reason and desire, such that desire becomes merely appetitive (I'm sure you already know this), but that then stands in tension with how Eros (which is located in the Republic only in appetite) is treated in the Symposium, Phaedrus, and any dialogue where Socrates says he only knows erotics. So there's affection for learning (philos) but no Eros for it. (On the other hand, it could also perhaps be said of these dialogues that they have nothing to say about spiritedness, and it would be legitimate to ask why their presentations of Eros should be taken as baseline; they might not be true just because Plato appears to pronounce on Eros that way more often in them.)I'll have to chew over this more, and hopefully have something to say tomorrow (I have to help a friend brace his porch today), but I suspect that the moral reasoning that Glaucon and Adeimantus want to see justice defended by also transforms somewhat over the course of the Republic, possibly as an effect of making rationality calculative; I'd have to review the arguments against the tyrant in book 9, but I recall some of them being less moral in their reasoning and more of the sort, "he calculates poorly and so doesn't get anything near what he desires."
mine's squirrelflight! I like her a lot but i wish brambleclaw would be nice to her.
>>25468120i remember being fucking devastated as a kid when graystripe had to leave thunderclan
I'm seeing how many books I can read in 365 days. As of August 10, I've read three:>Back to Blood by Tom Wolfe (6.5)>Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson (8)>The Secret of Secrets by Dan Brown (7)I'm going to do a YouTube video where I talk about the top 10 on my list.My next read will be Graveyard Clay, translated from Irish, followed by The Grapes of Wrath.
If I close the book before the end, does the main character still die?
>>25467979No, it's an indisputable fact that if you close the book, they avoid their fate. That's why Sayori is my wife after I cured her depression. We have two kids together and a third on the way.
>>25467979The thing about fiction is it can be whatever you want. Every aspect can be changed to your liking.Those written words are just a recommendation or inspiration what you can think about.
>>25467979Yes, if you closed it because you feared he was going to. You have to be more vigorous.— Read book— Main character is fine fellow— He dies— NOT ON MY WATCH— Tear out last chapter— Write new chapter where hero does not die— Stick in book— Take book back to library— Generations of readers will now enjoy the improved upbeat version— Smile with the knowledge that you have, in a humble way, made the world a better place
>>25468090>picrelholy massive all of my keks
>>25468005It’s Moby Dick and I already know Ahab dies.
