The guys who wanted to make the Houellebecq porn just dropped one of the most interesting discussions on art that I've listened to in the last years.>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTndTJEZer4&t=7657sPart of the video goes on to talk about their manifesto, which you can find here:>https://www.keepingitrealartcritics.com/wordpress/ennobling-portraiture/Overall, many debatable ideas, but many things relevant also for this board insofar as we talk about literature as art. These seem to me to be more or less like the only people trying to go beyond the woke/nazi duality of 2016, which, as you may have noticed, has grown very stale in the last years.What lies beyond empty culture wars? What form does power have today and how does it interact with art? And what purpuse does art serve in a world where institutions are crumbling and people with means are not interested in it?
>>24699508>What lies beyond empty culture wars?More emptiness, of course
>>24699556>I am a 19th century artist.You're objectively not, meaning whatever you create is necessarily affected, meaning it's automatically bad.
>>24699538KIRAC is /lit/.
>>24699574>19th century artist>speaks like an 11yo in a CoD lobby
>>24699574>I'm a 19th century artist>spergs out on an imageboardif you're going to larp as an aristocrat you need to act like an aristocrat
If every event has a sufficient reason, does that rule out free will?
>>24700280Can you explain the difference between having and not having free will?I don't understand how someone does not have free will.
>>24700911not having free will means you are not in control of your destiny, maybe your father wished for you to be a doctor but nah you want to be a dentist
>>24700936The latter sentence doesn't actually disprove free will
"Reading Rambo" editionPrevious: >>24684535/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.Follow prompts made below and discuss written works 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.Violent shills, relentless shill-spammers, and grounds keeping prose, should be ignored and reported.(And maybe double-space your WIPs to allow edits if you want 'em.)Simple guides on writing:Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24700916Less than a dozen out of the hundreds of stories they talk about and it's all royalroad.
>>24700921Why do you need ChatGPT if you're still using Google Maps anyway? Cut out the middleman. Better yet, crawl out of your hovel, visit the place, and get some genuine experience with it
>>24700946They talk about webnovel.com and scribblehub.com serials plentyWhich major web novels do they shun? You're talking out of your ass
>>24700946you're making no sense and this coming from nowherebe honest, are you just baiting a threadwar to pass the time?
>>24700948Because LA is fuckhuge and trying to find certain features is like finding a needle in a haystack. And hell no, I couldn't be paid enough to visit that dump.
who do you think he's way too much credit from people? for me it's Dostoyevsky. he has a strange cohort of 18-22 year old zoomers who obsess over his work and treat him like the next coming of literary Christ. meanwhile, i rarely see older, well-read people discuss him beyond a favorable mention or comment.
>>24699509just dive into a Faulkner book without overthinking it. you can always consult reviews or lit guides or essays on a reread. no need for self-inflicted pressure.
>>24699509Try as I lay dying. I understood it and I'm a complete midwit compared to most of you guys. I am catching up, though. Slowly.
Trying to wrap my head around you guys complaining about booktok and reddit. Just don't go to those places? I don't respect their opinions at all, it has nothing to do with actual reading, it doesn't affect me. If you are mad at somebody doing something performative it's because you think it reflects on you as a reader, are you also reading performatively?
>>24700228I don't think their reading preferences or the way they read lit affects me. They're just annoying as shit and I'd like to beat them to death with a brick
>>24700228> Unironically defending r*dditorsYou need to go back.
>[T]he relation of the Elohist to the truth of his story still remains a far more passionate and definite one than is Homer’s relation. The Biblical narrator was obliged to write exactly what his belief in the truth of the tradition (or, from the rationalistic standpoint, his interest in the truth of it) demanded of him—in either case, his freedom in creative or representative imagination was severely limited; his activity was perforce reduced to composing an effective version of the pious tradition. What he produced, then, was not primarily oriented toward “realism” (if he succeeded in being realistic, it was merely a means, not an end); it was oriented toward truth. Woe to the man who did not believe it! One can perfectly well entertain historical doubts on the subject of the Trojan War or of Odysseus’ wanderings, and still, when reading Homer, feel precisely the effects he sought to produce; but without believing in Abraham’s sacrifice, it is impossible to put the narrative of it to the use for which it was written. Indeed, we must go even further. The Bible’s claim to truth is not only far more urgent than Homer’s, it is tyrannical—it excludes all other claims. The world of the Scripture stories is not satisfied with claiming to be a historically true reality—it insists that it is the only real world, is destined for autocracy. All other scenes, issues, and ordinances have no right to appear independently of it, and it is promised that all of them, the history of all mankind, will be given their due place within its frame, will be subordinated to it. The Scripture stories do not, like Homer’s, court our favor, they do not flatter us that they may please us and enchant us—they seek to subject us, and if we refuse to be subjected we are rebels.
>The Biblical narrator was obliged to write exactly what his belief in the truth of the traditionAbsolutely no reason to believe this. At all. The Torah has an authorship ascribed to Moses but the scribes who collated it surely knew better. Homer also believed he was divinely inspired, and unlike the authors of the Gospels didn’t have to use someone else’s name for the sake of credibility The reason the Greeks could question their religion is because when dealing with clear contradictions they just applied Occam’s razor (not the same as saying all accounts are false) instead of presuming satan was whispering doubts in their brainsPutting this all aside, both Homer and the Bible are outstanding literature and a must for anyone who loves great books. However the nonsense in the OP is still nonsense
>>24700831Homer focuses almost exclusively with external struggle and conflict. The Bible focuses mostly on internal struggle, mainly conscience, moral dilemma and faith. This is consistent with the cultures that produced each. The Greeks were imperialist, sportsmen, colonialist, explorers. The Jews at the time of writing the Bible were slaves or at least highly subjugated and denied any autonomy. The Iliad is meant to be an origin story for the Greek ethnicity, so to speak: it is defined as the people who fought Troy, that’s the significance of the catalog of ships. The same with the Bible: for Jews, so were not seafaring pirates and colonists, their homeland is much greater importance to their ethnic identity, and their origin deals with the origin of their captivity. Hence while Greeks tend to reflect on victory, Jews more do on defeat, and their great historical victory remains God saving them from captivity to a foreign nation. Because they are helpless in an external sense, they are concerned about what they can do or become internally that would relieve their external helplessness As modern man we are in circumstances really much closer to the Jews than the Greeks which is why the Bible seems to us less fantastic and more human, despite having miracles and fantasy. Because they are humans in it remind us of us; Ajax and Diomedes do not remind us of us but they reminded the Greeks of themselves
>>24700857>Absolutely no reason to believe this.The following parenthesis addressees that.
>>24700904There is no reason to believe that whatsoever. If the truth was any concern to him, as it was to, say, Livy, he would have added his own commentary that, “I cannot verify this, but it’s all we have so I include it without comment,” etc. That the scholars added no commentary on way or the other shows they were cleanly disinterested in truth, it was not a value that was relevant to them. They were concerned mainly with Jewishness and collating writings about Jewishness. They might have asked themselves “is this true, you reckon?” Or they might have thought, “so…this is the truth” or “this can’t be true”, but probably they didn’t think that much. They thought “is this Jewish, do you reckon?” “so…this is the Jewish” “this can’t be Jewish”They put mutually contrary accounts side-by-side with comment and were probably more concerned with keeping the right chronological order than truth
>>24700857You're conflating the tradition, which attributes mosaic authorship to the Torah, with the redactor of the Torah itself, which does not (at least, not for Genesis). But your perspective is what he terms "rationalistic" in that passage, i.e., that the authors of the biblical stories were serving their own interests rather than transmitting their own beliefs. But his point is basically that, whatever you think of the author, the effectiveness of the story upon the reader is entirely dependent on whether the reader accepts the story as true. This bears out in the story's foundational relationship with religious and legal precepts, its time scale (from creation to the eschaton), its intolerance, its omission of details that the reader must use his imagination to infer, its relative lack of harmonization of its sources.
/wng/Anon Ascends Alone EditionStubbed >>24695473>What is Web Novel General?A general for readers and authors involved or interested in the growing phenomenon of 'web novels', serialized English fiction posted to websites such as: Royal Road, Webnovel, Scribblehub, Wattpad, Archive of Our Own, Spacebattles, HFY, various personal author websites, and more>Why read web novels?Not for prose or tight editing or deep themes, frankly. As a whole, web novels are infamous for content sprawl and pacing issues. If you enjoy having millions of words to sink your teeth into to get to know the world and characters, though, you may be interested. Keeping up with other readers on a weekly basis to discuss the story's events unfolding is another perk, in the same way discussing an ongoing TV show might be.>Why write web novels?Ease of access & potential for Patreon earnings. Many successful authors gain an audience on their website of choice and funnel their readers into a Patreon. See graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators/writing for an idea of what some are earning.Also, once an author has earned a fanbase, transitioning into an Amazon self-publishing career is several orders of magnitude easier than starting 'dry'.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24700835rude
Its amazing how much my own Cultivation progression system has in common with "He Who Fights With Monsters" more videogame-like systemEven his plot point of High-gods wanting to expanding their influence isn't that different from what i had cookedThe thing is, i completely forgot the story existed before yesterday's thread. Its strange that i was influenced so much by the story when i fucking hate the MC.
>no one answered my question last thread>>24698053So is there really no shonen-esque webnovels? Huh, that's genuinely surprising.
>>24700926read literally any japanese light novel my guy
>>24700929>read literally any japanese light novel my guyWhich ones though? I'm new to japanese light novels.Also, I want to know if there's any of them on RoyalRoad.
Are there any books about dynasties and succession to thrones? Books heavily focused on plot, with involvement of other dynasties as well.I'm not sure what the exact term is.
Are you looking for history or fiction?
>>24697774Julian, by Gore Vidal. And Res Gestae, by Ammian, if you want the primary source
>>24698612Either would be fine
>>24699480Try the accursed kings series
>>24697781>>24699377>>24699691I'll check those out.
Do you think Monks are "wasting" their life? Books about monks? already read A Canticle for Leibowitz and Narcissus and Goldmund.
>>24698719The Koran literally praises Christian monks directly. A Christian monk named Bahira announced the prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.A Christian ascetic named Waraqah ibn Nawfal supported Rasul Allah, peace be upon him, in his early prophetic revelations. When Waraqah died, Nabi Muhammad, peace be upon him, was so depressed that he attempted suicide multiple times. Only to be saved each time at the last moment.The Early Church had a huge part in bringing us Islam. We would not have Islam if not for Christians, and Islam confirms the Torah and Gospel before it. The Koran teaches that Christians are believers that go to Heaven and are the closest spiritual brothers of Muslims.The Arab Christians of Palestine, including Bethlehem, use the name Allah for God as it is the Arabic name for God. Constantly dispelling outright lies about Islam told by zionist propagandists.
>>24700791Personally, I love Christian monks. So did Habib Allah, peace be upon him. He spent a lot of time discussing religion with the monks of Mt. Sinai and drafted a treaty between Muslims and Christians because of it. It is called the Ashtiname of Muhammad, peace be upon him, and the document is preserved at Saint Catherine's Monastery at Sinai today.My favorite Christian monk is Saint Francis, who was also a close friend of Sultan Malik al Kamil and therefore an early proponent of inter-faith dialogue between Christians and Muslims. It is the Sunnah, the tradition of the Prophet, peace be upon him, to have enlightened inter-faith dialogue with Christians. The religiously educated understand the value of this.
>>24700821Muslims have institutions that the West translates as monasteries, but celibate monasticism is not a thing in Islam. Muslims have Zawiyas, lodges for poor and unmarried ascetics led by a Shaykh, like an Abbot, that also serve as houses of worship and houses of learning. These institutions are generally obscure to the West and are found mostly in North Africa and West Asia (Middle East). This is what you would call an Islamic monastery, but celibate monasticism is not allowed. It is rooted in the Sunnah (tradition) of Al Suffah in Madinah. The Prophet, peace be upon him, built a platform in his Masjid (mosque) in Madinah to provide lodging for the poorest and unmarried followers of Islam. He also shared his daily meals with these homeless Muslims and lived in a small home without any luxury.Al Suffah literally means the shade, as the platform was shaded with palm leaves. The Sufi tradition, the Islamic mystical and ascetic tradition, is rooted in Al Suffah. It is the inward, intellectual aspect of Islam that is peaceful and spiritual. Some of these ascetic brotherhoods number in the millions and form an invisible network that spans nations from East to West. Some have chains of transmission directly from the Twelve Imams. Muslims also have saints in the mystical tradition.It is the Sunnah to house and feed the homeless in the Masjid. The Faqir, literally meaning poor, live full time as ascetic mystics inside Masjids and Zawiyas. They spend their days praying, meditating, studying Islam, and doing basic chores as well as economically valuable labor much like Christian monks. Christian monasteries are highly successful institutions as they take vows of voluntary poverty and spend all day working and praying. Some make cheese, candles, incense, and so on. They sell these things to provide for the monastery. Monks are not lazy, they work hard. They achieve complete economic self-sufficiency in balance with nature and in my view are the model of the perfect human society.The Sunnah is heavily influenced by Christian monasticism. For example, praying seven times a day like the Divine Office as well as voluntary fasting and charity. The Sunnah, in my view, provides the model of the perfect human society. It is like celibate asceticism without the celibacy. Shariah, translating as the clear and well-trodden path to water, provides the divine blueprint of the perfect human society where all needs are met and humanity lives in perfect harmony with nature and each other. The Shariah is the combination of the Koran and Sunnah.The mystic seeks spiritual perfection. To become an individual citizen of Shariah by strictly followint the Koran and Sunnah. The ultimate goal of the Muslim mystic is to achieve a mystical understanding of God and to reach a point where it is possible to receive divine revelations and perform miracles.
>>24700914>To become an individual citizen of Shariah by strictly following the Koran and Sunnah.The Sunnah is mostly based on Hadith, sayings which are attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. This is a lot of reading, and not all Hadith are valid. Each has a detailed chain of transmission and Sunnis and Shias have different books of Hadith.Seeking knowledge, Ilm, is intellectually rigorous. It is a lot of book reading. The four books of Shia Hadith together contain 44,344 Hadith. A Hafiz is someone who memorizes the Koran from cover to cover and can recite it from memory. Islam has a very rich intellectual tradition with a lot of depth to it, most laypeople do not study Islam at this level.Muslims depend on Imams and scholars to study religion and provide guidance from this. In Muslim nations, Islam is literally the basis of the legal system and courts, where experts in Shariah function as judges and lawyers in Islamic courts under Islamic rulers such as Emirs and Caliphs.To bring things full circle, the Asthiname of Muhammad, peace be upon him, says that Muslims have a duty to protect Christian monks, devotees, and pilgrims. It also states that Christians should not be offended, disturbed, coerced, or compelled into paying a religious tax or from practicing their religion. It effectively grants religious freedom to Christians and exempts them from religious taxation.
>>24700670This is false, monks take a vow of poverty and often spend years as initiates doing the most basic chores before receiving their robes. Being a monk is hard work and not everyone who seeks it are granted it.It was and is entirely possible for someone to go from unrobed initiate to Abbot, head of the monastery. The Christian virtue of charity is what led to academic scholarships, where tuition is granted on intellectual merit regardless of economic status.The various monastic orders each have a clear and defined set of rules which defines the role of each monk. Someone prepares the food, someone keeps the garden and grounds, someone makes the candles, and so on.
This is more like Dark Souls than The Book of the New Sun isSo why do people shill The Book of the New Sun when people are asking for "soulslike" books and books like "Elden Ring" instead of this?
>>24700939Most people have not read the Faerie Queene,
i'm reading it right now and can't believe how entertaining it is. every canto is plot twist upon plot twist, fights, monsters, sexy evil ladies, nefarious sorcerers etc etc. and yeah i get the dark souls thing, even down to people talking in self consciously retarded olde-tyme speech that isn't even how people spoketh backeth then
The first part of this book is a masterpiece. The rest: not so much.
>>24699946>he didn't enjoy Humbert going back to her hometown and in a fit of nostalgia>he didn't feel anything at Humbert meeting with pregnant Lolita and having to pretend he is her parental figure (the ULTIMATE and FINAL cuck)>he doesn't consider the Humbert-Quilty confrontation as one of the most iconic duels in all of literature, equal to Pechorin facing off Grushnitsky in the Caucasus and Kirilov facing off himself.It is so fucking over for ya>>24700082Nabokov's side characters just die off for no reason like Chinese factory workers. When he said he considered them galley slaves he meant he could throw them overboard whenever necessary for the smooth sailing of the plot.
>>24699946Is lit/ contractually required to always have at least one thread about this book going at all times?
>>24700665>galley slaves he meant he could throw them overboard whenever necessary for the smooth sailing of the plot.more so that he wrote non-chronologically so that events stay the same and characters cant "get out of control" and do something outside of his initial or larger plan for the plot, which is what he was responding to with that, and which i think was his intention with the galley proof pun. the surviving characters tend more to be minor once the book ends.>>24700692its a controversial book with two movie adaptations that also happens to be incredibly well written (by an author with controversial opinions known also for hiding things that only later generations find) and either shorter or the second shortest book in the top 10s of those top 100 lists. its only natural.
>>24700933Do you think these threads are used before the coomers jump on over to b to search for the cartoons, and then elsewhere?
>>24699946Why did they make her jewish in this edition?
Can you write better poetry than this? Give it a try.
My modest Balkan honest friendHas never wanted better lifeI wonder why the case with him wasThat his preference really was to die
>>24698804wise words
Cunt, cunt, cuntYou're mother was a cunt onceAnd probably still is
>>24698679>my fertile, brown field>fertilized by white seed>i hate the bulb that grows inside of me>writhing>twisting>from formlessness springs being>fermenting>and parasitic>i've already made>an appointment>at the>abortion clinic> -rupi kaur
>>24698810Unironically good
>writes a scene in his book about childrens having a gangbang
>>24700882I think your post is weird and gross. I think a man masturbating in public is weird and gross. Your post is equivalent to a man masturbating in public. You're masturbating in public!!!!!!
>>24700882>It offends me therefore it shouldn’t exist
>>24700863Yes.
>>24700882You have to open a book and read it to be offended by it. A group of public masturbaters doesn't have the same barrier for entry.
>>24700894On a long enough line of relativism we can eventually equate child erotica to opposing child erotica? I don‘t think you thought this through. >>24700896Yes>>24700903No>>24700909That doesn‘t make it right.
Thought, in thinking itself, thinks what it is to think as such, and what it is to think as such is to think the object of thought per se, that is, pure being.Pure being, as the formal object of thought, is, analytically, the first concept of thought. As the first concept of thought, it has an infinite extension and no intensional content. That is, it has no given definition. Thought, in thinking pure being, thinks nothing.Thinking nothing is not not thinking. To think nothing is to think thought as unfettered by any given determination. To think nothing is to think the beginning of thought's own self-determination. Thought, in thinking nothing, thinks the illimitability of its formal object: pure being.The opening of the logic repeats Aristotle: thought is nothing before it thinks, for it has no given nature. If it did, it would delimit the formal object of thought.This is all that is needed to get started on the greatest philosophical adventure ever. Please start reading the Science of Logic.
>>24696955>>24697020>>24696903>inauthentic shitAuthentic to what? An anxiety emptied of content or some arbitrary historical contingency? How do you discern between the authentic and the inauthentic? Hermeneutics try to be "authentic" to the historical contingency, but this just leads to relativism. Gadamer tried to solve this problem by going back to Hegel and limiting the scope of dialectics. But for the dialectics to work, it must be thought itself the one that introduces new determinations into the dialectic by its own potency, and this movement must be the same as the movement of the thing itself, or better yet, thought and being must be identical. If those conditions aren't met, the relation between one thought and another (or the moment of synthesis, fusion or whatever you may call it) is external, thus a mere contingency that can be negated with no problem at all; and the relation between what we think and the thing itself is contingent too, thus relativism.The second Heidegger is aware that the hermeneutic circle is indeed vicious, so he tries to go back to the nothingness of anxiety or primordial openness of being before any ontological horizon is posited. His treatment further shows that Heidegger is the one limited by abstract thought, since he's unable to move within being's self-contradiction. This leads him to reject thought, instead of thinking of thought as the self-movement that finds itself in its negation. His reasoning is quite close to Spinoza's. I think that Hegel's critique of Heidegger would be similar to his critiques of Schelling and Jacobi,he was quite critical of isolating both sides of oppositions or uniting them while excluding difference. They accept that everything that is, is being, but when we point to this or that being, we lose being itself and now we have determinate being. Every being is invariantly being, therefore in order to grasp being itself, we must negate every determinate content of being. Thus being is both the absolute affirmation and negation of content i.e. Being and Nothingness are the same and the opposite. Spinoza avoids Nothingness since he's on the positive side, whereas Heidegger stays on the negative side. Because of this reason, the transition from indeterminacy to determinacy fails. Determinacy comes from the self-negation of indeterminacy. It's not just that indeterminacy is both pure positivity or negativity, but that its already determined to be undetermined. If was not determined, then it wouldn't be determined to negate determinacy, and thus it would affirm determinacy. That's implicit on Spinoza's omnis determinatio ist negatio. If determination is negation, then indetermination is the negation of negation. Determinacy is contained within indeterminacy, and determinacy is ideally related to indeterminacy. The ontical is ontological and the ontological is ontical. A thought unable to grasp this movement is not thought but an abstract and dead understanding.
>>24696955>Reason isn't that special. It isn't the ground of knowledgeBoth the concept of knowledge and ground entail reason. To give a ground is to give a reason. We say that one thing grounds another one if one is the explanation of the other. In a strict sense, the explanation contains the whole of the explained, since if it's not contained then it's outside the explanation, thus the explained wouldn't be explained at all; and the explained must contain the whole of the explanation, since the explanation is the very essence of the explained, hence if the explained does not contain the explanation then the essential would be something external, but the essence is precisely the internal. The activity between the explanation and the explained is reason as such.On the other hand, what differentiates knowledge from opinion is justification. You could say that knowledge is the web that ties the objects of knowledge together. But the web must always mantain the figure of necessary connection, for if the connections were contingent then the web could be easily negated by anyone.>>24699128I'll give you a hegelian response later. Rn I'm too tired to write
>>24699426An explanation need not and cannot contain the explained in its entirety. It can only gesture at a relationship. Reductionism is in principle impossible and the whole of analytic philosophy has demonstrated what a dead end it is.
>>24696906For that there's the Philosophy of Mind (Encyclopedia v III) and the Aesthetic Lectures
>>24697009>>24699406Heidegger does engage with Hegel's Logic in both Identity and Difference and in the addresses and notes collected in GA 68 (simply published as "Hegel"), as well as a discussion of the Encyclopedia section on nature (Logic: The Question of Truth), and the Philosophy of Right (On Hegel's Philosophy of Right).Heidegger's Seinsfrage, while often coming across as though he were after the Sein of metaphysics, is not in fact what he's after, but rather the phenomenological account of the pre-theoretical experience with beings that allows us to understand them as beings of whatever sort (truly, indifferently, theoretically, falsely, poetically, as equipment, etc.).
Write a story with five sentences or less and use the Balldo as a prop.
>>24700008>For sale: Balldo, never used
>>24700446Its the only choice for gays.
>>24700421You fuck with your balls not your penis using this>>24700446Once you can get yourself off handsfree you will understand
>>24700806Not true, gays should stick to handjobs, blowjobs and the like
>>24700446Blood and shedded vaginal wall come out of the vagina. Fucking ass is the same suspension of disgust as fucking a woman on her period
What's one book you enjoy immensely but would be embarrassed to admit so?
>>24700887>Explain why ephebophila is le evil or whatever, without sounding mad. Hard mode: provide sources.
>>24699505qrd on this book? is it some romance for men incelkino or something?
>>24700887Simple. Would you have sex with a 6 year old kid? No, right? Of course not. So then why is it suddenly okay if you put a 1 to the left of it?
Why do McCarthy fags always swallow the bait?
Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern WorldI enjoyed it a lot and it practically got me into reading history
