Privacy by Danielle Chelosky (new story!)>A folder on her laptop held the stories she was not allowed to publish. One boy forbade her because there was an entire paragraph about his dick size (it was complimentary, she didn’t understand the problem). Another was worried his girlfriend would end up finding it. Another said he would cancel her for invasion of privacy. >These were rare instances. Mostly boys were flattered, considered it an ego boost, no matter how they were portrayed. People in general liked to be immortalized. In a way, she resented their narcissism, like they couldn’t appreciate what she’d written because they were just staring at themselves.>The truth was whatever reaction the boys offered was not what she wanted, even if they lavished her with praise, called her a genius, it was never enough. She thought of writing as not just a plea to be seen but a plea to be loved. It never seemed to have the effect that she yearned for, probably because it was impossible. Maybe, she thought, if she killed herself then her words would take on a new, heavier meaning.>She used to think that a boy being mad about a story she’d written about him meant the writing had done its job. It touched a nerve; it was controversial and had a direct impact on real life. Then she decided that mindset was banal, stupid. She thought her writing was at its weakest when it was a weapon.>On the internet she stalked a writer she had once done a literary reading with. During the reading he had spoken candidly about his sex addiction, and his girlfriend at the time stomped off. Now he was dating a different writer and they were constantly writing about their relationship, hosting readings where they read about each other with each other, publishing the history of their love in glossy magazines that paid by the word. She felt put off by this masturbatory spectacle. Like she couldn’t imagine anyone caring about it or finding it as anything other than insufferable. She wondered how one could make interesting art if they viewed their life as a project—then isn’t the project about the project, not about life?
>>24962028Why would releasing a log of her sex life be 'committing herself to art'? Who would read that...Who the hell cares. Women should write about something other than sex, jesus fucking christ.Such narcissism.
>>24975472Sorry chud, but women have been forced into silence by the patriarchy for too long. Shut up and listen. A women is speaking. What she is saying is unfathomably wise, wiser than any man's prattlings.
>shaved pitsWaste of a thread
DANIELLE'S TWITTER GOT DELETEDHOW THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO GET PICS OF DANIELLE NOW?
>>24977019I‘m glad you‘re miserable over this.
I have heard that the Neoplatonists taught the Platonic dialogues in a particular order, but I cannot seem to find any information on said order or anything else there pertaining to.
>>24976428The primary ancient source for the specific curriculum/reading order of Plato’s dialogues attributed to Iamblichus is not found directly in the extant works of Iamblichus himself, but in a later text known as the Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, a late ancient (6th-century CE) introduction to Plato’s works that preserves this tradition. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy+1 Key Source for Iamblichus’s Platonic CurriculumAnonymous Prolegomena to Platonic PhilosophyThis is a late antique, anonymous Greek text (often attributed to a sixth-century Neoplatonist in the school of Olympiodorus the Younger) that preserves the reading order of Plato’s dialogues ascribed to Iamblichus. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy+1In this text (chapter 26 in the edition of Leendert G. Westerink), a list of twelve Platonic dialogues is given, described as offering a systematic overview of Plato’s philosophy — a canonical curriculum rooted in Iamblichus’s teaching tradition. Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24976428The curricula actually vary a bit, but the AI slop here >>24976457 is mostly right.The thing is, you're supposed to have run through the Aristotleian corpus before the first Platonic dialogue. Things like Porphyry's Isogogue and commentaries on Aristotle might be consulted around this point. The Prolegomena would often be read first though.However, from what I've seen the Philebus is often last.
They also thought you should read all of Aristotle first
>>24976851this kills the average /lit/ user
>>24976851>>24976840>starting with the sequel first
God I wish I was Icelandic.
>>24970661And gay !
>>24976948>europe doesn't have wealth the cope is unreal
>>24970659I have heard that Icelandish bitches give up the pussy quite easily and freely. Always wondered if that is true.
>>24977047yes. but not to you
>>24970659>Inceldur brought Finnegans Wake to Jobalocoffee again
Is there a point in reading classical works about formal sciences and natural sciences? I'm looking at western canon lists and there's stuff like Euclid, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Copernicus, Newton, etc., but I don't get why people other than historians should bother with all of this. It's mostly outdated and any school textbook seems like a better choice.
>>24975863>>24975875Non-shitpost response: the treaty is mainly centered on the kidneys as Asclepiades of Bithynia taught that urine is actually a gaseous vapor inside the body and the atoms rearrange as urine in the bladder meaning the kidneys serve no purpose at all in his schema which Galen refutes
Whats a good history of science besides picrel?
>>24976619that one is no good
Berkeley's critique of Newton's Calculus is highly relevant and a joy to read. Should get taught in history as well.
>>24973077>Is there a point in reading classical works about formal sciences and natural sciences?It's fun
How should I react if somebody told me that my writing is shit?
>>24976392>>24976403it's not critics responsibility to tell you how you can improve, as an artist you have to figure it out and usually by yourself
>>24976360Being a frog poster, you react like you do to most everything, you make a thread about it on /lit/.
>>24976914Yea I bet you’re quite the artist
>>24976360My trick is to tell them that they're wrong and then secretly implement their advice.
>>24976360start writing stories about actual shit so that your writing quality matches the content
I've written an account of my travels which lasted around six months. During this time, I tried to make myself as vulnerable as possible: hitchhiking, wild camping, sleeping in abandoned churches, travelling with no possessions etc. So that in my frail state I might enter a purely emotional state of being, and in doing so learn from my feelings more about what it is to be human, unobscured by thoughts polluted by the modern age. I'm deeply inspired by the Romantics like Wordsworth and my goal was to learn from all nature, incl my own self, as much about humanity as possible. This piece I wrote is the first finished piece of writing i've ever written and since it is such a peculiar piece I would really appreciate some feedback to really understand what sort of level it is at. I know most anons will squeal at the lack of irony and cynicism, it is purposefully earnest to the point it will put people off, but any feedback is appreciated. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Np6ZWpuBUVRu7vErExCus2OVylaXezwX/view
>>24976958really bad lol. why did u even bother? should have just made a tiktok and put some emo music over your shitty trip pics
what was the best book you read this year?
>>24971290and quiet flows the don. (I'm reading it rn)
>>24976731It's a real travelogue, but it reads in places like a shitpost. Part of his standard travel pack apparently includes 'blue pills' -mercury and sugar- as a syphilis treatment. I'll cop to skimming parts of it where he described the individual churches in each monastery. The author, Athelstan Riley, a son of a stupidly wealthy railway speculator - has his job listed as 'hymn translator'. It's a fun read and online.
>>24976878Thanks man maybe I’ll check it out
It's a skit.
Pic rel without a doubt.>>24972978John Hawkes is fantastic and deserves more love.
How many books did you read this year?
As someone whose 2nd main hobby is language learning I respect reading slopGood for her
>>24976854Why not shoehorn another novella into 2025?
>>24976150Hoooooooooott.
>>24976870I mean I guess I could read all of Metamorphoses?
>>24976530Yes. You’ll either love it or hate it. It’s not for someone looking for The Exorcist pt. 2. The cases become increasingly hard to believe, and concerned with theology / christology. There’s only one “occultist gets possessed” case. The rest of them concern dogma. The conclusion is either “this whole thing is horseshit” or “Only because of God’s Mercy there are not billions of possessed people right now.”
I just want to learn what's so appealing this genre
>>24976992>male rapist>basically good, talented, virtuous, powerful, strongkek
>>24976992>Storming the beaches at D-Day is in so many games and movies and various fictionalized forms that it's basically a meme.well d-day wasn't a human wave assault, it was a combined arms assault against undermanned positions and german forces. casualties on d-day were quite light>Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a fantasy involving a dark but basically good, talented, virtuous, powerful, strong, etc. man and a reality involving the sort of Chud who seethes about romance litraped by a chad, raped by a chud, the difference is one vowel
Just read Throne of Glass, holy shit.
>>24976975Doesn't this make video games responsible for violence?
>>24976995Chuds rape, Chads ravish. It's a simple distinction.
Why is poetry less popular now than it's ever been? And why are people so bad at pronouncing poetry? I've seen poetry professors read poetry as if it was prose and without a hint of self-awareness.
>>24974465Honest answer, it feels heavily moderated, probably a symptom of the time. Its just sickly and fake feeling. Here is an example.O, Wert Thou in the Cauld BlastO, wert thou in the cauld blastOn yonder lea, on yonder lea,My plaidie to the angry airt,I’d shelter thee, I’d shelter thee.Or did Misfortune’s bitter stormsAround thee blaw, around thee blaw,Thy bield should be my bosom,To share it a’, to share it a’Or were I in the wildest waste,Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24974465>Why is poetry less popular now than it's ever been?Because it's never been easier to add fitting music to it to create a song instead. Songwriting > poetry
>>24976804Music was always used for great poetry, Schubert composed over 600 pieces specifically for poems. But the music was far better then and so was the poetry.
>>24974465Post a poem of heroic virtues. No whining, no yearning, pure He-Man shit.
The Marshall Mathers LP is high art and fits poetry. Remember original classic poetry had a beat and rythm attached to it.
What's your favourite budget publisher? For me it's Arcturus. Their books are dirt cheap and often come with tasteful, bright designs, with a wide selection of classics.
>>24976810Dover
The purpose of literature is to entertain. Since time immemorial, from the fireplace to the stage to the big screen, the primary function of the storyteller is to entertain.Grug's tale of the hunt is entertainmentThe Iliad is entertainmentThe Oresteia is entertainmentBeowulf is entertainmentShakespeare is entertainmentFlashman is entertainmentWhy did literature turn away from entertainment in the 19th century? For example, Moby Dick is a patently boring book. It is impossible to enjoy. It is not an engaging story. You could not read it out to someone and expect to keep their attention. Yet it is praised for every other reason than being entertaining. It is praised *despite* the absence of anything compelling.In my view, someone who reads fiction for reasons other than entertainment is a decadent and degenerate. They pretend to read. It is subterfuge. They have ulterior motives. They are liars.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24975229>>The purpose of literature is to entertain>Sez who?Sez me>>24974777Boy do I have an author for you
>>24974777The claim that “the purpose of literature is entertainment” oversimplifies the entire history of storytelling. Entertainment has always been one function of narrative, but never the only one. From ancient epics to medieval sagas to Shakespeare, stories have served to transmit cultural memory, teach moral lessons, explore identity, critique power, and shape the imagination. Even the works cited as “pure entertainment” — the Iliad, Oresteia, Beowulf — were deeply tied to ritual, religion, and moral instruction. Reducing them to entertainment alone flattens what they actually were.The idea that literature “turned away from entertainment” in the 19th century also misunderstands the period. That era didn’t abandon entertainment; it expanded the possibilities of fiction. Popular writers like Dickens, Dumas, and Conan Doyle thrived, while others used the novel to explore psychology, society, and metaphysics. Works like Moby-Dick may not appeal to everyone, but calling them “impossible to enjoy” is a subjective reaction, not a universal truth. Many readers genuinely find them profound, funny, or moving. Disliking a book is fine; declaring that anyone who likes it is lying is not a literary argument — it’s projection.More broadly, fiction has always been more than amusement. As thinkers like Chesterton argued, stories shape the moral imagination. They help us rehearse virtues, empathize with others, and imagine what a good life looks like. Children instinctively use stories this way, and adults need it just as much. When fiction is dismissed as mere entertainment, we lose sight of its deeper role in forming character and meaning. A culture that stops telling rich, aspirational stories doesn’t stop needing them — it simply forgets how to cultivate them.
>>24976941First of all, the claim that literature’s primary purpose is not entertainment oversimplifies the evolution of storytelling. While ancient epics and medieval sagas certainly served cultural, moral, and historical purposes, they were also created to engage and entertain audiences. The idea that we can simply separate entertainment from deeper meanings ignores how central enjoyment was to these stories’ existence. Saying they were “purely moral” also misses the fact that audiences came for the thrill and emotional impact of these works, which is still true today. Reducing literature to just a tool for instruction leaves out the complex, layered experience stories provide.Secondly, the argument that literature in the 19th century “turned away from entertainment” misunderstands the evolution of storytelling. Writers like Dickens, Conan Doyle, and even Melville expanded what entertainment could be, combining it with deeper reflections on society, identity, and human nature. To say something like Moby-Dick is "impossible to enjoy" is not only subjective—it’s dismissive of readers who find profound meaning in it. Dismissing a work because it doesn’t meet your personal preferences isn’t a valid literary argument, it’s a projection of your own tastes onto others. Everyone's experience with literature is different, and declaring that enjoyment is impossible for others because you don't like something is pretty arrogant.Finally, I have to call out the fact that you’re using AI to write this, which seems a little ironic given your stance on the value of human storytelling. Literature has always been about human expression, emotion, and complexity. Yet here you are, relying on a tool that generates content without the deep human experience behind it, to push your argument. While AI can help with structure or ideas, it can't replicate the nuance, voice, and creativity that literature has always offered. It’s kind of hard to talk about the depth of storytelling when you’re using an algorithm to push your ideas forward. It’s a bit of a contradiction to champion the human qualities of literature while leaning on technology that strips away those very qualities.
>>24974777i'm esl so everything is educational even smut since am also a volcel
>>24977012Your causality is backwards. They werent entertaining therefore developed a deeper meaning. They had a deeper meaning, and therefore were entertaining. And I am not separating the moral from the emotional impact. I am saying that they are the same thing. Why id a heroic story thrilling and exciting? Because we get to see someone acting heroically, and we can learn to act heroically as well. You second paragraph agrees with me. I dont know why you though you needed to write it. And as for using an AI, yes, I am busy, so I have my secretary handle my correspondence.You seem to agree with everything I wrote.
Philosophy certified high T
>>24976797You just know a woman made that chart.
>>24976490Philosophy, literally, means love of wisdom, so yes they do.
The Novel really was literature’s biggest mistake. Fucking midwit magnet.
>>24976816Wisdom ≠ Knowledge. Sure you utilize knowledge with wisdom, but wisdom also employs uncertainty ie: most of metaphysics
>>24976816>sterile analytic hands typed this
Was thinking of reading some labor history. Which one of these should I pick and why?
>>24976566I'm just saying, the whole discipline of labor history seems like an explicitly Marxist ideological project.
>>24976545I interned at one of these labor law firms. Shit was repetitive and uninteresting as fuck
>>24976488My employment record desu
>>24976488Volume 1 of the penguin classics translation of Das Kapital covers the working conditions of post-industrial revolution English poorfags quite extensively.
>>24976571It just seems like they'd know what they're talking about
I've never personally found any argument against suicide that really convinces me. The more philosophy I read, the more many common objections seem based on instinct or emotion rather than careful reasoning. When people call suicide "murder" or "unnatural" they often ignore that a right to life should also include the right to give it up, and that nature itself isn't a moral authority. If it were, we wouldn't use medicine to prevent or delay natural deaths. The claim that suicide is selfish also feels very one-sided. It can just as easily be seen as selfish to expect someone to keep living with unbearable mental or physical suffering simply so others don't have to feel grief. None of us chose to be born, and being stuck in a life that has become intolerable is a tragedy, not a moral failure. I think society has a strong optimism bias that makes people assume life is better than it really is for everyone. When someone experiences life mainly as a heavy burden, ending their life can be a rational way to take back control over something they never chose.
>>24976419How many times must I explain thisDon't commit suicide, go out in a kamikaze strike against politicians, CEOs, critics, insurance bankers, corporate lawyers, lobbyists etcThe argument against suicide is that by only killing yourself then you're wasting a life that could be used to kill actual parasites instead
>>24976672Idk man, seems evil to send people with mental illness or chronic pain to hell for killing themselves after you engineered their existence
>>24976771>bringing new lifeIt's just recycling
>>24976441>>24976529Totally absurd. The Father killed countless times, even, and especially, when banishing Adam and Eve. The Son killed the fig tree, and possibly some demons. The Spirit killed Judas. Angels killed Sodomites. Your salvation is contingent on yourself being, at least partially, killed.
>>24976419About 2 years ago, I was skiing in France and having a blast. Saw a guy zip right past me, turn to me in an effortless 360 spin-move while simultaneously taking a draw from his cigarette. Coolest shit I've ever seen in my life. Is there a convincing argument against suicide? Yeah, right there. Life is awesome.
