prev: >>24935706Erich Heckel edition
>>24949346You think you're controlling them.
>>24941253And further awayFrom my homeBaying behind meI hear the houndsFlock chasing to findMe aloneA trail of sicknessLeading to meIf I am hauntedThen you will seeSearch in the darknessAnd emptinessI'm hiding awayComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24949319Everything short of perfection is sin and I can't be perfect.I'm from the tribe of dogheaded men, sought power in the court of the devil who told me about Christ so now I barely rob or pillage anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6WACiAQkj4>>24949358Think about how it actually works. You do control them so when your goal is sin like sloth they give you exactly what you asked for. As you grow weaker from sloth you grow lazier, feeding the established sloth based system more power, more of your will.
Demons are cringe and are destined to be thrust into Hell to make soijak faces while screaming forever. All they can offer are things you can already give yourself.
>>24949394Well, they can offer you human flight, but it's unwise to take them up on it
>viz.>to wit>in a word>withal>as it were>inasmuch >in light of
>namely
>needs must
>thoughbeit
>hitherto
>[sic.]
Why is it that all great minds of antiquity thought that love was more than a crude neurochemical reaction? Would they have been redpilled if they were alive after the 20th century when advancement in chemistry demonstrated that love/eros is basically just a powerful drug? Honestly explains many things about the current perception of love in relation to modernity.
>>24946653interesting. i hope you realize you are very very luckyonly similarity of your story to mine is that i also fell in love in college but only thing i got from that is extreme, prolonged and intense suffering for 5 or so years. i tried to make a move, she would leave me in orbit always, late replying to texts etc. then she started running through boyfriends and that's something that if not breaks you irrepairably( hopefully not), just makes you suffer immensly. im happy for you bra, i always wanted true love.let's hope i will have better luck with love in future
>>24948203Are you really using terms like "word cells" unironically while posting on /lit/
>>24945823ABSOLUTE TRVKE
I wonder what gay people think. What are their philosophies about love? Do they believe true love is possible between gays? Are they purely lust driven? I think you can glean a lot about reality just from how gay people perceive things. If monogamy is near-impossible among gay people then love is probably doomed purely from a behavioral standpoint for how the average man behaves.
>>24945804I wish I had a menhera wife against my better judgement.
So they adapted a Pynchon novel for filmI've never read Pynchon before but like"One Battle After Another" - what the FUCK is this turbo jogger leftist power fanstasy bullshit?I always realized Hollywood is a bunch left-leaning cucks but holy fuck they outdid themselves with this one.The level of blatant propaganda is on par with fucking commie films of Stalin's era or something.This guy made "There will be blood" and now this what the fuck. This movie doesn't even feel real, it's a caricature of a movie.Tell me bros is Pynchon cringe plebbitor shit like that and not based? Le speaking truth to power
>>24946217I have a dream of rampaging through a parking lot full of buzzword spouting freaks like you and caving your skulls in with a tire iron
>>24946267Truth social might be more your speed, Cletus. Now calm down, the suboxone clinic will be open first thing in the morning.
>>24948538Nta but I believe the credit at the end of the movie was "Inspired by" rather than "Based on". It arguably shouldn't be called an adaptation; its similarities with Vineland are much looser than Apocalypse Now's use of Heart of Darkness.
>>24946229Yarvin is a typical nerd that prefers nonfiction and in case of fiction he is a plotfag.>>24946217If it didn't raise any flags for you that it was that much over the top and full of nostalgia for libtards and seethe for chuds, you're obviously retarded (libtard or chud, it's just different flavor of retardation).
>>24948538Wikipedia is not a source, see me after class
I'm a published writer, but I only have a dozen or so publishing credits in magazines, and I am not getting anywhere in terms of recognition, so my plan is to play up how much of a minority I am. I want to shill myself as an underrepresented voice to get a brand or to at least make it look like I'm sidelined or suppressed by the establishment, in the hopes it garners sympathy. I think this will be a good business plan and, if I pull it off correctly, it may project me as the next big name in my genre (horror). After all, people are already saying Stephen King is an old white male, and his spot will need to be taken when he dies soon. I can use my mixed heritage (I am only half white but have middle eastern and indigenous ancestry), lived experience with mental illness (GAD, paranoid schizophrenia), and experimentation with homosexuality as an expression for LGBTQIA+ inclusion. Do any anons have experience in the game of publishing, or know which agents are looking for a horror writer with minority clout and has overlapping disabilities or stigma?
>>24949324>I write TEXT BOOKS which means I get ... $500 a year!Kek. You're bottom of the barrel. That's not even writing. Also, textbooks go out of date as soon as you put them out. So get to work, you'll need to revise and update every fucking semester.
>>24949275>>24949316I wish that people talked more about this. Do you guys know anyone that writes about it?
>>24949333What did I say I wrote? One thing very specifically. And it isn't textbooks. And writing is not how I pay my bills, so I can write what I want.
>>24949352>I write academic slop and make good profit margins (false)>I work another job because writing alone can't support me (true).>I’m a REAL creative writer operating outside identity politics (false).>I don’t do much creative writing, my work is institutional slop (true).In the span of one thread, you have claimed all these contradictory statements. Well done.
>>24949356No. I suggest working on your reading comprehension.
I am reading deleuze’s what is philosophy at the moment and the part about the creation of concepts, the analysis of their components and the resulting impossibility of discourse in philosophy is blowing my mind. The discourse becomes impossible or at least fruitless because the terms and concepts discussed, although homophones, aren’t comparable because they’re on different planes of thought and have different components. So we think we are speaking about the same things, while only confusing ourselves and wasting our time. I mean the idea is almost trivial, while the execution and explanation is outstanding.
how the frick do your formulate any concepts in ur mind.then
>>24947693It says that philosophy is basically just creating concepts, but once they’re established the discussion between philosophical school becomes impossible. Take e.g. a platonist and a Kantian: these two won’t be able to meaningfully discuss the concept of time, because the ancient understanding of time and the transcendental understanding of time are so different, that they can’t possibly talk about the same concept with the same components (which would make a discussion possible).
>>24946039I am familiar with it. I think it's wrong because all concepts are born from contact with the same world, which includes real forms and essences. Of course, Deleuze is extremely committed to the nominalism/individualism of his era, and above all the voluntarist conception of freedom as power (the ghost of the Reformation on almost all modern thought), so we won't agree here. But suffice to say, if there are really such things as cats, dogs, trees, etc. as organic wholes (being, plural) and "whatever is in the intellect is first in the senses" then it seems obvious to me concepts can find common ground.Actually, what undermines communication is a lack of faith in the transcendent and ecstatic powers of reason and the misology that comes from saying "reason doesn't apply here, or there, etc., and thus I will use reason only instrumentally, as a path to power." That is how reason is ruined. Everything is reduced to power relations. But the ontologies of violence whereby truth, form, and telos are themselves always violence because freedom is just potency (freedom from reality you might say) make this slide into instrumental misology inevitable because they render reason sterile. This isn't some awful discovery of modernity thought. The ancients say the same thing about what instrumental rationality driven by the passions (or when the will becomes its own object, the voluntaristic notion of freedom as power) is all over the ancients. It's a major theme right up to Dante, or even in Milton's Satan (although there God has already begun to drift in this direction).My ultimate conclusion then is not that there is no common ground but that Deleuze is just part of a much older pathology stretching back to the Sophists. But his particular brand is really a Reformation pathology that "post" modernism has never left behind because it very much never transcended modernity, but keeps its core assumptions. One can disrupt one's understanding of the Great Chain of Being, the great Ladder of Ascent by becoming infatuated with a mere rung on the Ladder and absolutizing it. But this is simply a misordering of the soul.
>>24948192Thanks for the effortpost. It’s very insightful. I will keep it in mind while engaging with deleuze (I am not very familiar with his thought yet).
>>24946039Not real philosophy, not a real philsosopher.
Everything else just seems so spooked and retarded. Like these "philosophers" can't even see past their own circumstances or analyze their own thoughts and motivations, only (poorly) justify their own particular neuroses. Has there ever been a half decent attempt at addressing, let alone refuting him?
>>24947751Whoever reads Marx is a huge faggot
>>24948046>StirneriteEek
>>24947731> Like these "philosophers" can't even see past their own circumstances or analyze their own thoughts and motivations, only (poorly) justify their own particular neuroses.Please understand that attempting to be "free of your own circumstances", or a "true egoist" or, even worse, a "stirnerite" is as "spooked" as anything else. It's very similar to the buddhist joke about "but you desire to be free of desire!".Read everyone and anyone. Steal useful ideas from them (yes, other philosophers also have useful ideas), and discard useless ones. Do not take any of them very seriously, and do not fully buy into any one of them. That will allow you to come up with your own framework, and you will swap out parts of it as your life and opinions change. It will be a syncretic patchwork and not "original", yes, but the point is that it will be tailormade to your life, not anyone else's.
>>24947731
>>24947751Marx knew that Germany couldn't afford another Stirner.
So has everybody on this board just read Fagles' Iliad translation? I know we're all actively avoiding Wilson's translation, and I never see Lattimore mentioned, so I assume for everybody on here the go-to is just Fagles.
>>24938203Lattimore is the best, but Fagles is alright. These are the only translations I've read though, besides Butler's prose Iliad.
>>24940972Dactylic hexameter doesn't work in English, it's based on vowel lengths which are quite regular in Greek (and Latin and its descendents) but not in English. Poetry in English is based on stress, which is not equivalent to vowel length, so trying to substitute stressed/unstressed for long/short vowels doesn't produce pleasing prosody.
>>24938203I finished reading Pope recently (it was my first time) and I loved it.
>>24938203>I know we're all actively avoiding Wilson's translationwilson's translation is pretty good, actually. don't believe the shills
I have read the Emilio Crespo translation, which is btw far better than any english translation.
The deepest thinker on the left (Hegel scholar) Vs the deepest thinker on the right (Nietzsche scholar)... A debate between these two would be priceless
>>24943914>quoting a genreslop author as an authoritykek
bump
>>24942307Kek
>>24938370>Displacing native workers is actually le based you goysFucking disgusting, kill yourself posthaste
>>24932740this but unironically
Sapient Species, Races, and Miscellaneous Sapients EditionFAQ:>What is worldbuilding?Worldbuilding is the process of creating entire fictional worlds from scratch, all while considering the logistics of these worlds to make them as believable as possible. Worldbuilding asks questions about the setting of a world, and then answers them, often in great detail. Most people use it as a means of creating a setting or the scenery for a story.>"Isn't there a Worldbuilding general in >>>/tg/ already?"Yes, there is. However, that general is focused on the creation of fictional worlds for the intended purpose of playing TTRPG campaigns. Here you can discuss worldbuilding projects that are not meant to be used for a roleplaying setting, but for novels, videogames, or any other kind of creative project.>"Can I discuss the setting of my campaign here, though?"If you want to, but it would probably be better to discuss it on >>>/tg/ . We don't allow the discussion of TTRPG mechanics, however. If you want to discuss stats or which D&D edition is best, this is not the place.>"Can I talk about an existing fictional setting that is not mine?"Yes, of course you can!>"Does worldbuilding need to be about fantasy and elves?"Worldbuilding, as already stated above, and contrary to what many believe, does not inherently imply blatantly copying Tolkien. In fact, there are many science-fiction setting out there, and even entire alternative history settings which do not possess supernatural elements at all. Any kind of science fiction book has an implied setting at least, which involves a certain degree of worldbuilding put into it.Old Thread: >>24748733
>muh soft magic retardI wish people actually fucking knew what the hard vs soft magic distinction was actually about
>>24948146It was about Brandon Sanderson marketing his books to stupid nerds.
Anyone else making a "non-magic" world? Everytime I see worldbuilding forums it is either hard fantasy or sci-fi
>>24949315A non-magic world would be technically science fiction even if the world contains no futuristic technology. See for example Nightfall by Isaac Asimov.
>>24878110Not op.I think we would get along.
Everything you call "living" is just a massive cope to disguise the fact that your biology is desperately trying to return to the inorganic state it crawled out of. You think you have a will to power or life goals but that's just a mask for the will to nothingness. You are essentially a complicated rock that unfortunately gained consciousness and is now taking a circuitous path back to being a rock. The science is clear that the inanimate existed before us and the only real drive is to restore that silence, meaning your entire existence is just a temporary glitchy detour toward the grave. The universe is indifferent, cosmic extinction is guaranteed, and when the heat death of the universe hits it will be like none of this ever happened, so stop deluding yourself that this life is anything other than a long pointless walk back to zero.
>>24949210>I have a single disabled homeless friend with AIDS and he's happy. He also has a gf
>>24949243I know but he's made this same thread like half a dozen times at least
>>24949184Nihilism is a self defeating belief since believing in nothing is itself a belief in something. It is simply an animalistic self loathing used to evade responsibility for one’s duties. The current paradigm of physics and cosmology is wrong just as previous paradigm have been wrong. This is just an aspect of the modern worldview made more clear. Modern man’s desire for power and belief in his own godhood, wanting to control everything and turn reality into base material so that he can reform reality into a creation that exists only to pleasure him.
>>24949290Are you misinterpreting Nietzsche?
>>24949278well, stab him then!
>>24944482AI reponses should warrant a permaban kill yourself you cocksucking faggot
>>24948477What's your argument? That AI post is literally more intelligent and meaningful than your post.
>>24944496>Gregory HayesI think Hayes is an interesting case.He has made the best translation of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations by far.But he also has shown he knows fuck all of Stoic philosophy in some texts of his about it in the George Floyd era.
Best translation for this scene?
>>24944446>Emily Wilsonoh no
I just finished reading Journey to the West for a book report. holy shit Chinese books are awesome. Does anyone have the china /lit/ recommendations?
>>24947522There were some great poets. Du Fu and Li Bai
>>24948241The difficulties with Three Kingdoms and Water Margin for the English-reader are the number of characters and remembering their names and plot lines, as well as the really really fast pace of the plot. Otherwise, Water Margin is very fun and easy to read.
>>24947549Poetry is also a lot harder to meaningfully translate because it's so tied up in form.
>>24948810Give it a rest man. This "poetry can't be translated" thing has been a dead end non-point for centuries. Just read some. Read this, for example.
>>24947522YOU UYGURYOU HAN HATE FIERCEWHY YOU ARWAYS FUCKING RATE
Read C.S. Lewis' nonfiction.
>>24947599Oh, I thought OP said fiction. Oh well, read the fiction, too.Mere Christianity is the best introduction to his non-fiction works, and probably the most famous.
>>24947032He was a conservative Anglican. Church of England, before they went totally gay. He is admired by Protestants and Catholics alike, he's not really a theologian, and doesn't get into denominational controversies in his writing, but sticks to fundamental Christian truths. Read him, he's not going to yabber on about Marian dogma or anything. He's very popular among Anglicans, Catholics, Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, etc.
No. I will read HG Wells nonfiction instead.
>>24947629is his history of the world any good?
>>24947013it’s just apologia nonsensethe funniest part of mere christianity is when he argues that all cultures have the same set of ethics (and this proves that morality is objective)lolLMAO
Is this actually poorly written, or is that just the thing where they try to bash him any way they can (small dick, missing testicle, secretly gay, etc.)
>>24942860>>24945451>>24946866I just skimmed through it right now and it seems more like a rant than anything. He also seems close-minded, in the sense that he's figured out everything in life and condensed his worldview to a black and white model. It's much more evident in his history of Europe in the 1800's than it is with his hatred of the Jews. He just doesn't seem to understand his own history, or just understands it poorly.
>>24942860Rudolf Hess was his stenographer (most cosmopolitan of the inner circle, raised in Egypt, 5x languages). It likely owes much to Hess' editorial hand, or lack thereof as far as the conversational structure goes. The intended mass readership practically guaranteed something anodyne at best.
>>24947932>capitulation>I definitely understood his history better than himself, b-because... uhhh... he's close-minded!!!Kill yourself you niggerfaggot
>>24942898That is indeed what real niggers do and dont do
Its written in a era where coffee table books where common.Which means one of its uses is to pick it up, and randomly skim it. Which means few people would read it cover to cover, unless it produced anything interesting. So, its not a bible. Its a podcast. I agree with >>24946866The stenograph most likely do all the hard lifting.
