>open /lit/>see same tired “jbp bad” thread for the 900th time>people who’ve never read a page of his work confidently explaining what he “really believes”>rightoids hate him because he doesn't spend all day obsessing about jews>leftists hate him because he knows stalin was a mass murderer and told them to stop buying funko pops o algoNot even a huge Peterson fan, but it’s wild how triggered people get over a guy telling lost young men to clean their room and take responsibility for their lives. He’s a clinical psychologist with decades of practice and a pretty standard background in personality research, yet somehow he’s treated like some kind of comic book supervillain.The funniest part is how critics always quote-mine one sentence from a 3-hour lecture, strip all context, and then act shocked when normal people don’t buy the narrative. God forbid someone acknowledges biology and culture at the same time, or says meaning comes from responsibility instead of endless irony and doomscrolling.Anyway, cue the NPC replies.
Peterson will touch a nerve by simply pointing out something that is blatantly ignored in the way an ideological group frames an issue. He exposes ideological blind spots in a simple and straightforward way; this leads to the fellow travelers of whichever idea is being discussed having a breakdown and exposing themselves. He's valuable as a media personality if even for that reason alone.>Peterson: it would be productive to involve men in the conversation about violence against women in a way that doesn't label masculinity as inherently negative>Libtard: so you're saying in order to make men care about rape women have to be returned to the status of men's property>Peterson: the rise of identitarianism is linked to reactionary politics that sublimate personal resentment into collectivistic extremism>Chud: so you're saying white people don't have group interests and therefore shouldn't exist>Peterson: transgender ideology specifically targets a group of people likely to be confused and open to mental pathologies via social contagion--we shouldn't give hormones to children let alone surgically mutilate minors>Tranny: so you're literal nazi saying we're a disease and we should be exterminated like one>Peterson: anonymity increases the likelihood of pathological behavior so perhaps one way to alleviate the negative repercussions of its overall influence would be to segregate accounts on these specific widely used social media websites--it's definitely better than secret and selective control of the public narrative as it exists now>/pol/tard: so you're saying you want everyone everywhere to be tied to whatever they say and do at all times...I'm a freedom fighter [goes to another thread to post about AOC's asshole while writing "nig*er" 50 times]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maXXTXIgpu8Jordan Peterson is evil and stupid. He has a daughter and says, “We are here to suffer so learn to suffer like a man.” A potential paradise could be like a never ending DMT trip with the constant pleasure level of heroin. If you get bored then it’s not paradise. There don’t even have to be human bodies. His is just a severe lack of imagination. And there is no sense in which suffering or mediocrity create meaning. All the meaning you need would be packaged into the paradise experience. But I am not experiencing such meaning and perhaps never will. That’s why despite the abundant grace and mercy I think I am not subject to a fully benevolent God. Perhaps God is like Jordan Peterson and I therefore consider him my enemy.
>>24952996>rightoids hate him because he doesn't spend all day obsessing about jewsThat is an obtuse and coddling misrepresentation and you know it.
>>24952996I dont hate him as much as others but he still deserves to be put in a work camp
>rightoids hate him because he doesn't spend all day obsessing about jewsCan the glowies just fire this dei hire already.
How do you learn to philosophize? I read philosophy books but i never learn to philosophize. I never learn to use those fancy words like epistomoleogoogy; i only learn what they kinda mean but i never have a sure feeling of it and have to look it up all the time. Is philosophy only for high iq people? I feel utterly lost so much so i don't even bother to talk about it with other people.
>>24950632Mathematics is like linguistics. They're tools. Descriptors. You're missing the forest for the trees.>math is the interrogation of the properties of mathematical structuresLike the snake eating its own tail. I get it, math is cool, math can be hard, math is incredibly useful, but it's not philosophy. If you come up with an abstract model with defined rules you will get something "beautiful" in the eyes of idiots fooled by magic tricks. That's math. Language is also symbols and rules but less precise. There's nothing magical about either.
In fact, the more you peer into the real world (particles) the more random shit is. Shit popping in and out of existence, shit vibrating everywhere. Randomness is a feature and math fails reality.>but randomness is a mathematical featureGiant cope.
>>24946020To become skilled in philosophy you lock yourself in your room and grind the books for a few years. That’s the only way, autistic immersion in primary sources. It is good that philosophy makes you feel retarded, it should, that means you respect it. If you put in that work you will have genuine moments of insight, even emotional experiences. Aristotle said philosophy was the free science, it’s liberating. Many philosophers even say the purpose of life is to study and practice philosophy - these men were not retards, they meant what they said. If you subject yourself to the tedium of study and the dialectic of clashing opinions you will eventually get a sense of what they meant. But you have to do the work, there is no royal road to science. The standard advice here is to start with Aristotle and Plato, I think that’s sound. But it is a major undertaking and will take time.
>>24953658Pretentious rubbish. Lucretius says philosophy is like sitting on top of a tower watching a shipwreck. It’s escapism for high iqs and a way to stand above/dissociate from the pains of life, nothing more.
>>24953644Have you read A Mathematician's Apology by G. H. Hardy? Try, at least
Give me some good 20th century French Romantic 100-150 page novels
Can this fucking board be useful for once
>>24953197>20th century French Romantic
>>24953197I'm afraid romance was dead an buried by the 20th century, OP.
>>24953197Why'd you write "French Romantic" like it's an established literary movement? Did you mean "romantic French?"
>>24953531>>24953522>>24953514You can be useful by suggesting a book
Recommend me some short 20th century french romance books
what the fuck? there's already this one thread in the 'log, you 'tardplus, i hate how licentious artists tend to be
>>24953494Looks like Stevie Nicks.
>>24953500Fuck you all for not responding to the other thread
I know it sounds corny but the consolation of philosophy has now saved me multiple times. It saved me from sadness and confusion and it invigorated my faith. It’s the most important book besides the holy scripture.
Why did he wear a jacket and quilted hat while living in the deep south?
>>24953341What?
>>24953371Ignatius. Ignatius J. Reilly.
>>24953341You wouldn't understand, you don't have his pyloric valve.
>>24953057God isnt real but I guess if it saved you I'll give it a pass
Man, you're right, Aristotleanon. Christian apologists are the worst when it comes to anally raping the Aristotelian corpus beyond recognition. They don't fucking understand anything. They don't understand dunamis, they don't understand energeia, they don't understand Metaphysics Zeta, they don't understand syllogisms, and they definitely do not understand the four causes. I just had apologist tell me, definitively, that Palamas was a top scholar of Aristotle (lmfao), and that De Anima isn't about life at all, since according to Palamas, only human beings have life because you somehow need "intelligence" to be "self-subsistent" (fucking LOL). Even when you read Aquinas's commentary on passages like the controversial active intellect, you can see him at pains to make the active intellect cohere with the passive intellect into one united soul. And then he fails to do so. But then magically says "but it has to be the case, and so it is." I ask another apologist, is an intellect which becomes everything, something which changes or otherwise remains as it is? And obviously, they short-circuit. Because obviously, that's the kind of intellect that we have, and it can't be active in any pure sense. So Aquinas is wrong and our intellects are perishable in the sense that it is soul. Oh the horror!!! These fucks have absolutely destroyed Peripatetic commentary throughout history, and they polluted literally everything, especially the translations, with the most hamfisted articulations possible to the point where intelligent conversations with them are not possible. Their brains are wrapped in verbal poison. If you ever get caught up in it, you basically have to spend years unlearning Scholastic hackery as it pertains to the deepest parts of the Aristotelian thought to even have a CHANCE at beginning to understand its depths.
>>24950666>First of all, I couldn’t care less about Palamas and what he actually thought.Yes, you've made that much obvious.>The only thing I’ve claimed is that, to the extent that soul, life, essence, activity, etc., operate the way they operate in that passage, it’s clear to me that it’s not Aristotelian.Sometimes, you have to read more than one passage of a thinker (in translation at that) to understand them, particularly if they are using technical vocabulary. But your initial point was that "Christians" are "anally raping" Aristotle, and "don't understand fucking anything."When corrected on your misunderstanding of the passage in question, you've just doubled down on it. Although we since seem to have established that "Christians" here means, "one random guy I talked to on the internet" and "Palamas" means "this one passage from Palamas."Finally, I don't think anyone would call Palamas a proto-Cartesian, since what makes Descartes unique is not the widely help belief that the life of the soul extends beyond the life of the body. If that made a position "Cartesian" than Plato and the Hindus would be Cartesian. But what sets Descartes apart is not that he thinks the soul is immortal but that he thinks it is a sui generis substance (using "substance" in its early modern register, which is very different from Aristotle).
>>24952998>When corrected on your misunderstanding of the passage in question,You've harped on my so-called reading comprehension, but you've failed to understand the whole point of me bringing up the excerpt. It was not *MY* claim that Palamas was an Aristotelian. It was *SOMEONE ELSE'S* claim. And they used this excerpt as part of their argument, to the unanimous agreement of other people within that community at that time. I don't care to understand Palamas as Palamas. He can do his own thing. But if you are to read that passage as some kind of commentary on Aristotelianism, then it's clear that it is deeply flawed from that POV. You are so obnoxiously stuck on a straw man that even the most basic premises of the conversation escape you. >Although we since seem to have established that "Christians" here means, "one random guy I talked to on the internet" and "Palamas" means "this one passage from Palamas."We haven't established anything. Yes, there are general trends. Yes, I've encountered many such misunderstandings, conflations, and sophistries before. Yes, I only brought up a few examples in this thread. You are doing the trick of sophistry in which you reduce the extension of any list of examples for a given point as merely the sampled examples, as these misunderstandings aren't rampant. There is no amount of sampling I can do at that point to make it clear that it is a trend, nor is any such a project possible on a medium like 4chan. You can always wiggle out and say that it's an isolated case. Either you notice it or you don't. There's not much more to say here except to agree to disagree, though I would think that either you are very lucky in your ignorance, that you are doing a no true Scotsman thing, or that you are deliberately lying.
>>24947161Go figure. You have Scholastics who ignore the culmination of Aristotle's Metaphysics, that essence is a particular form, so that they can argue that essence is a universal (but a totally real thing guise or else trannies take over), only then to argue that matter individuates. Fucking MATTER makes you who you are. Yup. Totally Christian. And somehow immaterial souls still exist and persist after death, even though they've been robbed of their individuating purpose. It's a mess.
>>24953029Bro trust me you’re playing a miserable game. As an outside observer you are obviously correct - Aristotle did not believe in personal immortality, Christian Aristotelians sometimes distort the text here and in many other places, generally making him more Platonist (because their own traditions of thought owe more to Platonism and a Platonized reading of Aristotle than the man himself). And yes you go online talking about this stuff, most of the people you encounter will be trads who take philosophy as a neat extra to religion rather than something to study for its own sake, and you will have long shitty arguments. You’re the only person here regularly citing Aristotle himself, there’s a reason for that. Fwiw I hate the trad thing but I’m Catholic myself, Catholicism is definitely the religion most interested in philosophy. Online though it just sucks, there’s no one to talk to. Try cold emailing a philosophy professor, I did that and had a great conversation with the guy at his home.
>>24953631Honestly man, I'm just venting. I don't mean it that deeply. I still learn a lot from these discussions, I get along with most of the people I talk to about it, and the way things can derail into the nitty-gritty makes me think about how the work as a whole coheres together.
I've noticed that a lot of sophist philosophizing is based around this concept of "nonexistence". But it seems obvious that "nonexistence" just isn't a real thing right?How can something exist that by its own definition does not exist? It's just a nonsense idea made up of circular reasoning. There cannot exist a thing that doesn't exist. Everything that exists exists and there is nothing else. Existence by definition is an all encompassing concept. You can't logically accept that things exist and then turn around and say there are things that don't.And logically the concept of nonexistence is already nonsensical but if you believe in determinism the idea really just gets defeated many times over.
>>24953075Another sad case of hegelgegger madness. Get well soon, anon.
>>24953393such a smart boy you are!
>>24953063>Time machines it exists as a concept not as a real thing the idea of non existence also exists as a concept and not physical
>>24951290What's the underlying sameness between the two states of meat? What can we say about the process that links meat in one snapshot and the link in the other snapshot? What makes one story more cogent than another story? e.g. "I applied a certain amount of heat to raw meat, which caused a chemical reaction to its tissues that makes it more a palatable" versus "I did a magical ritual, and that meat just... did that... and now I can eat it."
Which books should I read to best understand the argentinian soul?
>>24947942No wonder this place is such a shithole then >T. Boliviano
>>24951891"Provincianos," Peruvians, Bolivians, Paraguayans, fresh off the boat Africans.
>>24952502>fresh off the boat Africans.are there a lot of those these days?
>>24943388Read Argentine history. Then read the postmodern condition. Then read literally whatever describes modern life because Argentina right now is just a mirror image of every single western nation out there. Just poorer and with more white persons
Anything by Roberto Arlt
prev >>24941253
>>24953502Stop using Chromium based browsers
Momberg decided today was the day to clean the house, and I've got to help her.
>>24953528Okay, I downloaded Opera. This is awful. I'm going to have to manually move everything over. At least now I have 4chanX.
Think i figured out why gained so much weight this year despite not changing eating habbits. It because I started taking naps an hour or 2 after waking up. I did not know this was bad and could cause weight gain
she got a new nigga
He would have absolutely loved modern pornography, wouldn't he?
M-M-MADE FOR BBCMADE FOR BBC!
he would be disappointed by the lack of underage prostitutes, though
>>24953572>the exhilarating thrill of fresh alpine airwas he exhibitionist?
Gooners are the ubermensch
>>24953557Yeah probably
is Maya Angelou just a simple and basic everyday poet?how can people put her on Great Poets lists alongside Dickinson, Whitman, Neruda, Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill, et al?is she a nepo baby or something?
Prop 1 - Substance is by nature prior to its modificationsSubstance is prior to modificications (modes), this makes both logical and ontological sense, in that substance is that which is in in itself and is conceived through itself, in that it is a self sufficient, self caused entity that cannot be contingent upon anything external. Spinoza presents his proof through definitions 3 and 5 as it logically follows, however here I will give more context. This establishes substance as the ontological foundation of reality in that God is not the divine creator of the world, but rather that god is the world, within all that exists. In such substance which is infinite, eternal and indivisible. This rejects the classic view of god (maybe why he got kicked out of the jewish church) that god sits apart from the world. In this modes, or determinations of substance, are not substances in themselves but exist within the substance, in such they are dependent on its existence. In link to Axiom 1, “Everything that is, is either in itself or in another.” (pls read the other writing on axioms for clarification) which reaffirms the ontological priority of substance over its modes, modes are in substance but substance is not in any mode. This reflects Spinoza's claim that all that exists as finite expressions of the infinite attributes of god, this undermines the notion of a transcendent deity, in that Spinoza's god is positioned as necessary to the constitution of all being.
>>24953388>Anyone with even a cursory examination of the actual ethics in Ethics would see why that is incorrect.It doesn't matter because Spinoza does not answer the problem of evil. >But the issue is even though Spinoza wrote a treatise with the utmost rigour to demonstrate his position and its logical conclusions, it is easier for his opponents to ignore his arguments and just posit ridiculousness.This sterile rationalist anti-humanism is exactly why Spinoza is and will remain a relic of the enlightenment.
>>24953398Spinoza addresses the problem of evil at length, and also clarifies it in his letters
>>24953388The universal laws of reason which should rule society and individuals are not separated from the universal laws of nature, you should know that this was the conception of 18th century French Enlightenment.
>>24953593That's not true for Spinoza. The laws of nature for him are things like gravity, the world *must* abide by them. The laws of reason however are normative and peculiar to many because he has the faculty of reason
>>24953633Peculiar to man*
I went to a local bookstore in my town a couple months ago (that I have gone to many times before). It actually has a decent selection. I usually browse the classic science fiction section, although I do occasionally detour to the classics section or find some postmodernist authors. I went 1.5 hours before closing and it was way busier than normal. I realized soon that there was higher foot traffic than normal because of the 'no kings' protest that was going on downtown. Normally this place is a ghost town with 1-2 people in it. Yet, I heard the owner say to someone they wanted to shut the store down an hour early to join the protest. I thought he just meant it in a 'yeah, wish I could, but I gotta do my job type of thing". Then, 1 hour before the real closing time, I realized I was the only one in the store left and he was starting to close windows and doors. I hurried out quickly after, and then he locked the door behind me.I didn't really care that the owner kinda pushed me out or that he has bad politics. What I was surprised by was that this seemed like one of his best days of the year to stay open and actually make money, but he closed it down!I don't know how he stays open with his normal 1-2 customers walking in, browsing, and leaving with nothing most hours of the day. Are book stores a money laundering front? Is it just what some loaded boomer does as a day hobby, and he only hopes that he breaks even?
>>24951970>Is it just what some loaded boomer does as a day hobbyIt's this. A local independent bookstore makes no money. A lot of them cheat to stay afloat by offering trade (getting inventory for free).
>>24951970What if he was worried they were going to go ape and riot and trash the store?
>>24951970Independent bookstores that only offer new books are the worst of the worst petit bourgeois would-be-hitlerites ever. I'm not paying some libtard $10 more for a book I could get on amazon. Their entire business model is hoping tourists and rich liberals will "support local businesses" because uhh you just should okThey all need to go out of business ASAP. Crush them.
>>24951970The thing is that despite bootok, there was probably more of a customer base for independent bookstores during the hipster era. Granted, that's still also around the time Borders went out of business. But as far as proximity to hipster enclaves, like Wicker Park in Chicago, or Portland, go, you had a more literate public where older books were valuable commodities and status symbols to rely upon. With zoomers, that now doesn't exist whatsoever. So business has slowed considerably.
Based diaryposter.
Mention here literature according to /lit/ suitable to matriculate as a real /x/-ian. Or if /x/ was /lit/ cohorts first.
>>24951488I stumbled upon that channel about a week ago. I feel jelly of how many impossible to find books he has.
Is Behold a Pale Horse worth reading? Do any of the conspiracy classics have worthwhile writing?
>>24952010Yeah he knows his stuff. Mostly political/conspiracy oriented though.
An anon recommended me picrel a few years ago, seemed interesting so I bought it but haven't read it beyond the first few chapters yet. It seems like absolute woo lol.
For me it's satanic panic stuff. Michelle Remembers may have been fabricated but SRA totally exists.
Other than A Christmas Carol. What are the must read Christmas literature?
>>24951717Dickens wrote four other Christmas books, and also organized a collaborative Christmas ghost story with four other authors, and of course wrote several Christmas short stories.And as long as you're reading old time English ghost stories for Christmas, Ghost Stories of an Antiquary and the Stoneground Ghost Tales are quite comfy.
>>24951790>>24952630>The other Dickens Christmas storiesIs there any order? Are they short stories or is there a nice long one to bite into?
>>24951717Gift of the Magi. You've probably already seen a tv show ripoff of it.
>>24953521There are 5 main Christmas books all of novella-length. The order in which they were written is>A Christmas Carol>The Chimes>The Cricket on the Hearth>The Battle of Life>The Haunted Man and the Ghost's BargainThere's also a bunch of short stories you can find if you look for them.
>>24951717Dylan Thomas's A Child's Christmas in Wales
