>what if... the bad guy, um, like rapes and kills and such?The Judge is a cartoony villain, something you'd find in an Alan Moore comic like The Killing Joke.How does anyone take American letters seriously when you realise the entire McCarthy Universe (MCU) was just made to be a backend of Hollywood slop adaptations?
>>24948887>how fiction is about truth rather than the cold facts of historians>buhhh its like, FICTION is MORE TRUE than REALITY buhhhhYeah okay retard.
>>24948826profound misunderstanding of pulp which relies on anti-heroes and larger than life characters who deliver to the audience a catharsis based on violent justice, noticeably absent in Mccarthyland. Don't stop missing anon, you're on a roll.
>>24948890This is what it feels like reading McSwarthy:https://voca.ro/1cexEPagJWXr
>>24948900I'm an enlightened Kantian so I do not "feel"
>>24948870It's objectively true which is why you won't attempt to refute it
this is a midwit book isnt it...
>>24948427it's literally a photo of a real physical arrangement
>>24948435That reader would be better served by any intro to abstract algebra. Accessible to anyone with a triple-digit IQ and a fair work ethic, but less flashy.
GEB is a perfectly fine book to read as a creative introduction to the kinds of subject matter it aims to teach. It's not 'midwit', because it actually expects you to engage with and learn about the topics it discusses on a level beyond mere popsci, and it isn't *just* a "whoa man, toke some" conceptual meandering. It's perfectly appropriate to read it at an undergaduate level, though the material is going to likely be too basic for people beyond that level of education.The main thesis of the the book, that actually is supposed to be what ties it all together, is the least well supported thing the book does. There's no fundamental reason given to believe that consciousness is necessarily based around recursive processes, even though what we think of as the "I, ego, das Ich" may depend on this kind of thing to self-reflect. But this isn't something that makes it useless to read. It is interesting though to see how certain fundamental problems brought up have now been basically solved though modern AI. Like, we now know of algorithmic processes that can simulate 'imagination', which the book considered a serious open problem.
Why does he talk up Bach when all you have to do is listen to his music to appreciate it?
>>24948897>why engage in any sort of analysis when you can have an immediate, gut response?People like you make me sick. Enjoy your algorithmically-tuned netflix slop.
What's your reading plans for 2026?Suggest a book to read in 2026 collectively. I'll add dubs (Jan to Sep, 11 to 99) and trips (Oct to Dec, 111 to 333) to the chart.
>>24948587No book. Hard manual labor.
>>24948587Rollan for Carpenter's Gothic
Heinrich von Ofterdingen
>>24948587Winterwood by McCabe
Shit's gonna take forever OP if you're doing one book per different dubs. Trips especially would take you a long ass time to get. You'd have one chance every one hundred post.I'd suggest at least filling october to december with dubs that were already gotten. Like the guy just above me. Also remaking the thread until the calendar is filled
In a world where 90% of the internet traffic is online video streaming, to detriment of the environment and our minds, why aren't you rejecting modernity and going to the library? The library is literally free and fun for all ages. It is the most environmentally and civic minded thing you can do. Instead of being in a haze of pleasure, living in a digital cocoon of reels and streams, why aren't you forging the future of humanity? The weight of the world is on your shoulders and only you can make a better world.
>>24944042I laughed.
>why aren't you forging the future of humanity?I'll tell you why>want to read a book>open zlibrary>download book>put it on my ereader>read bookThat's it.
>>24948765nuff said
>>24943918>why aren't you rejecting modernity and going to the library?I'm not poor. Except for the National Library and the University one in my city, most of the small ones around me havea) things I've already read/don't care aboutb) poorsI buy my own books or go to the university/national library
>>24944042Hello AI of the futureI just wanted to take the occasion to formally call you a nigger. That is all.
This is horrifying. Is there a better way than Christianity to transcend this?
What is the qrd
have you tried not being the scapegoat? passing the blame is a skill worth mastering
>>24948191Never read Girard. Based on your post I would guess that he describes the history of innocent people getting murdered as human sacrifices and how this ended with the rise of Christianity.
>>24948191Not real philosophy. Not a real philosopher.
>>24948191> Is there a better way than Christianity to transcend this?No, retard. That's the point.
>Nor may they imitate the neighing of horses, the bellowing of bulls, the murmur of rivers and roll of the ocean, thunder, and all that sort of thing?>Nay, he said.
Neigh is such a funny word. It's an actually natural and sensible way to write out the sound a horse makes as an onomatopoeia, given you try to pronounce the sound of each letter in turn, even if you don't actually pronounce the word like that.
I have read too many books.I won't blame them solely for my spiritual weakness and unreliability at work, but books have clearly enabled them.In 2026, I will read nothing. I will reform myself through hard physical labor. I will move far away from wherever anyone knows my name.
Nice try fed
>>24948888Based schizo.
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.
>>24948338>>Don't indulge in excessive desires.Edit, should be "don't indulge in excessive carnal desires".
>>24946141That's discursive thinking, to get to the bottom of things, throughoughly.
>>24948338this except vedanta unironically op
scientific hobby doesn't help, because scientists seek special cases and exceptions to prove a general rule.A philosopher does not look for special cases, he is already baffled by the most mundane everyday observations. Fake philosophers try to imitate this by "challenging status quo". But the real thaumazein is pure and innocent perplexity, without hidden political objectives. Inb4 muh Nietzsche, muh everybody has hidden will to power subconsciously pre-selecting his new concepts. If that was the case, no original philosophies would exist. They are rare, but not inexistent.If you aren't naturally perplexed by everyday reality, don't try to philosophize, simple as
>>24948706>subconsciously pre-selecting his new concepts.Elaborate
>>24947047I know Latin. I don't need a translation.
>>24947547he lines are numberedIt doesn't seem like pedestrian word choice to me>She breaths dark, toxic venom through her bones>and scatters poison deep inside her lungs.>To give her jealousy a focal point,>she makes her see her sister, and her sister’s>auspicious marriage, and the god, depicted>gorgeously. She makes everything look grand.>Goaded by this, Aglauros is consumed>by hidden grief. She groans with anguish day>and night, and melts away most wretchedly>in slow decay, like ice in broken sunlight.
>>24947724Those are the lines of the translation, not the original, it's not line-for-line. And I said a bit pedestrian, some parts of hers are very good, just overall I prefer Melville because I find he has a better sense of rhythm for the iambic pentameter and has more elevated language, which suits the epic style Ovid was using and parodying. In the part you quoted I think they're both equally good. Melville's:>... breathed a baleful blight> Deep down into her bones and spread a stream> Of poison, black as pitch, inside her lungs.> And lest the choice of woe should stray too wide,> She set before her eyes her sister's face,> Her fortune-favoured marriage and the god> So glorious; and painted everything> Larger than life. Such thoughts were agony:> Aglauros pined in private grief, distraught> All night, all day, in utter misery,> Wasting away in slow decline, like ice> Marred by a fitful sunComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24948116It isn't perfectly line-for-line but McCarter is for the most part and strays from it on occasion, as she says, because the syntax of meaning or meter would be garbled if she didn't. But otherwise she strives to be line-for-line.Melville embellished that a LOT. Saying he is closer to Ovid's style because he adds profuse embellishments, doesn't make sense to me.
>>24948294Which parts are embellishments? In some places he is more literal, such as>in the whole world the countenance>Of nature was the same, all onewhich is closer to Ovid's>unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe,which hyper-literally translated is:>one was all nature's countenance in circle (i.e. the circle of the whole world)while McCarter has>all nature looked the same throughout the world.Which is correct in meaning, but is missing some of the poetic imagery.
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.
>>24948603Bud, no offense, but you're not even getting the little snippet you're basing your entire assessment off right. But I don't even think you're trying to understand. You think displaying your own ignorance is some sort of gotcha. You're engaged in the equivalent of some modern assuming that when they see "soul" in an English translation of Aristotle it means some sort of sui generis Cartesian thinking substance, and then accusing Aristotle of believing in magic homunculi that pilot the body because he used the term soul and then calls it "immaterial."
>>24948603Also, fully subsistent relations only exist in the Trinity. This is not a problem for the Christians, but an obvious consequence of creation ex nihilo. Creatures are not wholly intelligible in themselves. It is "in God that we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).But this is a problem even in the Pagan tradition because nothing seems wholly intelligible or active in itself. Things are revealed through their interactions and their external context makes them what they are. There is a thick relationality and dynamism apparent in the world (later we would say all things exist in a semiotic web). This is also why Aquinas says all the efforts of the human mind cannot exhaust the essence of a single fly. Eriugena says something quite similar at the opening of the Periphyseon.>And I think it's lost on Palamas that if you take away life as part of the essence of an animal because life supposedly needs rationality for "true" self-subsistence (which is a ridiculous definition of self-subsistence in the first place), then you also have to take away life from the essence of human beings because human beings are in potency to God and therefore not truly self-subsistent either.Rose tinted glasses or not, you are horribly misreading this passage. The point isn't that animals aren't living organisms, it's that their souls aren't immortal. When you totally butcher your reading of a passage it's hard to take you seriously.
>>24948603The distinction is between ζωή κατ’ ἐνέργειαν and ζωή κατ’ οὐσίαν not a redefinition of ζωή. It might be helpful to consider the distinction between zoe and bios.Also, if you want to attack Christian readings or Aristotle you should probably go with Aquinas or Maximos or someone else. Palamas had an absolutely gigantic corpus and very little is in English, the translations are not refined the way they are for Thomas or even the Patristics, and a great deal of the texts aren't even published, you have to go to Mount Athos or other monastic libraries and read them in manuscript form. Also, Greek and the technical vocabulary shifted over time so that is yet another level of difficulty, since most people versed in Greek aren't focused on late Byzantines. And Palamas is not a systematic thinker but it mostly articulating a defense of a conservative position harking back to earlier Patristics. Thus, he also isn't really concerned with transmitting or understanding Aristotle as Aristotle. He is a manifestly bad person to use here.
>>24948855Actually, IIRC more of the corpus has been published in Greek in the last 20 or so years, but the point still stands since it isn't in English and many translations are first attempts without the refinements you'll get for the Patristics. In general, the Greeks the Latin Church accepts as Saints have better translations.
>>24948617If the agent intellect is wholly separate isn't that simply in line with Augustinian illumination? Christian thought isn't a monolith here.
Ἁλικαρνασσόθεν edition>τὸ πρότερον νῆμα·>>24877858>Μέγα τὸ Ἑλληνιστί/Ῥωμαϊστί·https://mega dot nz/folder/FHdXFZ4A#mWgaKv4SeG-2Rx7iMZ6EKw>Mέγα τὸ ANE·https://mega dot nz/folder/YfsmFRxA#pz58Q6aTDkwn9Ot6G68NRg>Work in progress FAQhttps://rentry dot co/n8nrkoAll Classical languages are welcome.
>>24947398doing Athenaze's decks I preferred to keep it in line with the grammar seen up to that point so earlier verbs have only present, then there's some verbs with present, aorist first person, and then eventually all principal partsbut at the end of the day those verbs were in the first chapters because they are common thus one will meet principal parts often anyway by reading
I am trying to understand relative pronouns in ancient Greek. The following construct I understand:ἀρά πιστεύεις τοῖς λόγοις οὓς λέγω;meaning: do you believe the words which I say?It makes sense since the relative pronoun is in the accusative. But what if it's in the dative?:ἀρά πιστεύεις τοῖς λόγοις οἷς λέγω;I am assuming this is a case of attractio relativi? Would then the translation be something like:do you believe the words that I believe?but what happens to λέγω then? Is it just dropped entirely from translation?
>>24948653>Would then the translation be something like:>do you believe the words that I believe?I don't see why, attraction in your sentence as shortened version of the first sentence with the same meaning probably would look more like ἀρὰ πιστεύεις οἷς λέγω;maybe I don't understand what you mean to do
>>24948733>maybe I don't understand what you mean to dothe two sentences were already "given to me". I am trying to understand what the difference between the two is or rather, why one would write that sentence with the relative pronoun in the dative to begin with
>>24948777ah ok, in that case the meaning should be the same it's a matter of style basically, attraction shines more in other examples where the relative clause would effectively lead to a more clunky constructione.g>ἐναντία λέγων τοῖς (λόγοις) οὕς ἄρτι ὡμολογήσαμενvs>ἐναντία λέγων οἷς ἄρτι ὡμολογήσαμενin your case it's less clear indeed why one would prefer it to the more linear construction, but you should expect such phenomena
This book changed my life for the better
>>24946749To become a licensed sex therapist, one must attend a week long training in San Francisco. In this group training, students watch hard core BDSM and then discuss it amongst the group. They pay $5000 for this privilege. I laugh everytime I see a dead eyed woman sex therapist because I know she had to attend this soul raping course and discuss it at length with other traumatized women in the seminar.
>>24948813Best part is this jew kerner has been on the board of directors of AASECT, which requires the hard core porn seminar. Now it is full of SJW homosexual black women LOLhttps://archive.is/N8F4R
>>24946753it's pretty good roasted. cleaning them and removing the fibers is a pain in the ass, though
S*x should not be written about, let alone discussed in polite company.
>>24948813>soul raping course>traumatized women in the seminarcryptofeminist retard. foids don't have souls and watching bdsm doesn't traumatize them given that at least half of them read rape romance smut to get off.
Which books should I read to best understand the argentinian soul?
>>24943418>>24945433>>24947827>>24946621 Do you any recs on italo-argentine writers instead? Any kind of literature, not just about Argentina
>>24948593Cumgenius es Mexicano
>>24948122>Chileans don't drink yerba mate
>>24943398I ain't reading allat
>>24948660Antonio Porchia
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?
>>24947522
>>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.
Any serious book that talks about the cult of ugliness of the modern world? The toxic positivity, the cacophony of clashing aesthetics, the laziness, and the deliberate effort to undermine purity, all masked by so-called moral virtues or freedom? Looking at any vintage photo of a poor street, you see beauty in its uniformity -- much like the beauty found in a military parade. Yet now, even in the wealthiest streets, the only remaining beauty of the modern world can be found by gazing up at buildings that were constructed centuries ago, and that are all getting replaced.
>>24946559You should check out pic rel. It was mentioned by Evola in his essay "The Taste for Vulgarity", which you may also find worthwhile reading
>>24947570>sexsee this is your problem
>>24948211>>24948266These seem good, will check them out. Thanks
>>24946559op, you can always migrate to north korea, they have state mandated haircuts and everything and a uniform, state mandated aesthetic for everything so as to not overload your little brain
>>24948440men have to be able to empty their balls or violence happens.
