"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world"The normie scholar reads this as "limits of thought limit one's interpretations" and "my world is limited by a personalised language of interpretation". Wittgenstein makes a much deeper claim: "The world is a posteriori to a metaphysic more fundamental than the self". The world is but the current material configuration of facts. Whence come facts? The same place where the meaning of language comes from. Now this deeper fundament of the Self and every fact is utterly unknowable to us. Beyond reason, beyond logic, we can not philosophise our way to this place. The apparent arbitrariness of the meaning of words, of the origin of natural laws, and logic it self prove this to us. There is no point in trying to go into mysticism like some Guenonists think as this does not even touch the fundament of every-thing. All of philosophizing, natural, moral, religious, is a forlorn activity. So, what are we supposed to do? Quit. Just live your life. All meaning is hidden from us, only delusions are possible. We delude ourselves by interpretation. We always misinterpret sensory input, leading to delusions of knowing "the" patterns in natural phenomena. We delude ourselves into believing a set of facts like the position of the sun and moon has particular religious meaning. We delude ourselves into thinking the sounds of speech have a power of leading us to correct interpretation. You are Totally Estranged from Truth itself. Do not waste your time (if it is possible to waste) thinking you can uncover things beyond what is revealed to you through conjuring spells of interpretation. Give up. Walk away from the Perennialists and Platonists and prophets.
>>24986505>>24988635as if the product of hermeneutic activity is something other than an interpretation, as if an interpretation is given in something other than a text, as phenomenon is anything but restatement and representation of the Word.
>>24982712I am skeptical of the claim that Buddha was actually a prince.
>>24981979The source of meaning is unknowable =/= meaning itself is unknowable. These are different claims but you seem to be conflating the two. The first is defensible, but the second can be easily disproven with the simple everyday usage of language. The real question is, would you have come to an anti-philosophical conclusion had you not philosophised yourself there in the first place? When has philosophy only ever been about Truth, and not also The Good Life?
>>24988635>god-given hollow of divinityunknowable if God gave you anything. Give up. you err
>>24981979If this were really true, it would not be possible to build an airplane. You need good philosophy to do good science and you need good science to build a plane, and people evidently can build planes. This evident reality (and many similar ones) should break us out of this solipsistic despair. I agree with part of what I think you're saying, that the ultimate nature of reality is beyond knowledge, but only on the most fundamental level, everything besides that is up for grabs.
forgiveness of sin (deror) in the old testament meant a debt cancellation (jubilee), this was abolished by the pharisees, jesus tried to return debt cancellation and was persecuted for it.if you look at the early history of islam, zakat was quite literally an introduction of the debt jubilee into a usurious society filled with debt slavery that had accumulated too much debt to fully function, this is why the theme of forgiveness is so prominent.now how exactly did zakat function in the earliest generations of islam? everyone nowadays believes zakat is some form of personal charity you give to some random bum or your mosque and thats it.in reality, it was originally collected (this is why zakat is annual) and distributed to free muslims from debt slavery, with duty being eventually being completed when every indebted muslim had reached the nisab (something like a starting capital) of 85-90 grams of gold (10.000 usd today), giving the community financial autonomy and financial freedom to fight for its cause.this is actually a lot more extreme than the biblical debt jubilee, which was every 7 years or so, and only erased the debt, meaning you were simply left with no money to spend.when you realize this shift in perception, its clear why muslims nowadays are so unsuccessful compared to their pious predecessors.
What are some books on the origins of homosexuality and homosexual inclinations? Pic related was pretty interesting to me, especially for its willingness to discuss biological differences between gay and straight men (lower competitiveness, higher conformity and agreeability, tendency to get on better with female peer group rather than male peer group in childhood)
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble
Alone Once More EditionStubbed >>24982319>What is /wng/ — 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'.>/wng/ authors.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24988629Is it isekai, native isekai or what?>MC walks towards the city, and meets someone (a caravan, a trader, a merchant, a peasant farmer, or whatever)>Your MC immediately tries to take advantage of the person, or vice versa>Some small conflict or other. If you want to be fancy, perhaps foreshadow something later in the storyUse the first character interaction to teach the readers about the world (a *very* light introduction, not some info dump please) and to test the merits and personality of your character. Hopefully, do something here that can subvert expectations and make your character not seem some bland archetype.
>>24988694Start with the murder. Something along the lines of (and less corny than) "Freeze frame. You're probably wondering why my best mate just stuck a knife in my back. I'm wondering too." Then you roll with the story that led to that moment for chapter 1.>>24988701>>24988812>Set chapter 1 to a prologue and set chapter 2 to chapter 1.This is bad advice; I've heard that a prologue is popularity poison. RR readers hate prologues and will skip reading the prologue, or skip the story altogether.
>>24988817If you're asking for feedback, I feel like the biggest issue here is that you need to drastically cut down the length of this. There are good parts. The MC personality is grounded pretty well, and the scene with him fighting the little girls was entertaining. But very little happens and much of the stream of conscious writing gets pretty repetitive. It takes 2k words to get to anything interesting, and until then its just varations of "I'm dying", "I'm in the military", and "fuck whores" which again is good, but only in moderation.
>>24988192>>24988219Girls are throwing themselves at him and he's unhappy. Joni Mitchell was right.>>24988430Never seen 5D's?
>>24988817asked ai to fix it according to my specificationsmore in media res, cut it off, etc my style guide applied to itthen more nicknames and military background boogaloo by me for flavor it with some creative writing exercise as a testdid the anime names out (maybe overreach)ordered it to put a combat evacuation as opening this is just a lazy testhttps://files.catbox.moe/ulfrpo.txt
So? What did we think of it?
>>24987130It was alright. The context of it is far more interesting than the material itself. Aside, the Sokal Affair is fairly well known so it's surprising that that fat fuck, the guy who lays out problems well but somehow always comes to the wrong conclusions, got away with ripping it off.
>>24986593>believes in materialism but also believes in equality and the blank slate and the noble savage and human perfectibility and inherent progress and rationality.
>>24988765>lank slate and the noble savage and human perfectibilityI haven't read the book but this doesn't sound like Slavoj at all. Are you sure you are not pulling this out of your ass?
unmitigated ass
>>24988765>believes in equality and the blank slate and the noble savage and human perfectibility and inherent progress and rationality.Kek
You do have a basic understanding of how human language works, don't you?
>>24988686I'm sorry you married a public school teacher, shit happens.
trivium chads > anti-grammar linguistics cuckshttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?app=desktop&list=PLNnqqvK2yDEFVdM_5wV4Od8kV2GaSo7jz
>>24988943We do not post our diary entries here clown.
>>24988998You have no clue what a premise and a conclusion are.>only insofar as your lot can continue to shame people into not propagating it, because linguists are descriptivists and descriptivism is cuckoldry which will fold to usage.Very confused writing. Literally making two contradictory claims at once. As I said, you can't even make up your mind what it is you are asserting, let alone make actual arguments for your claims. Read https://www.juristpanel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-Rulebook-for-Arguments_compressed.pdf as your first book ever in critical thinking/logic, and then keep reading critical thinking/logic/trivium books.https://youtu.be/vgqpuQ4QnlE
>>24989026I mean, nta, but >>24987848 becomes clear if you assume that by 'descriptivism' he means 'prescriptivism'. And I can't but delight in the irony of correcting him on this front, given the point he's making (if I'm understanding him correctly, though perhaps I'm not).
Vote for it here:https://forms.gle/LqHa5xS1q5CVikem6
>>249887113 Nephi 11:29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
Is it worth it trying to get a Latter Day Saints gf?
>>24988790>For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.Burn your copy of the Book of Mormon. Do yourself a favor.>>24988989The only thing they have going for them is that they are mostly blondes.
>open Book of Mormon>look inside>Solomon Spalding's Manuscript Foundcurious
>>24988790>>24988790>I answer that, Anger, as stated above (Article 1), is properly the name of a passion. A passion of the sensitive appetite is good in so far as it is regulated by reason, whereas it is evil if it set the order of reason aside. Now the order of reason, in regard to anger, may be considered in relation to two things. First, in relation to the appetible object to which anger tends, and that is revenge. Wherefore if one desire revenge to be taken in accordance with the order of reason, the desire of anger is praiseworthy, and is called "zealous anger" [Cf. Gregory, Moral. v, 45. On the other hand, if one desire the taking of vengeance in any way whatever contrary to the order of reason, for instance if he desire the punishment of one who has not deserved it, or beyond his deserts, or again contrary to the order prescribed by law, or not for the due end, namely the maintaining of justice and the correction of defaults, then the desire of anger will be sinful, and this is called sinful anger.https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3158.htm#article2 Here is a statement from someone that wasn't the devil's pawn. Let's review why I'm zealously angry:>You were raised by lies by your parents and accepted it>The very existence of mormonism undermines Christianity systematically and leads people to Hell>Joseph Smith was clearly a sexual degenerate>I want nothing bad to happen to you whatsoever but only for you to repent of the lies that were infested in your upbringingLet me be clear, you were raised in Hell. You articulate a religion that is vile, disgusting, and wrong. It has NOTHING to do with Jesus Christ other than to pervert it for yourselves (your baptisms aren't even valid) and make Christians look like gullible sentimentalists (like Mormons). It only exists because they keep a stable full of blond people wince-smiling and biting their tongues for the devil. Didn't the "church" teach that black people couldn't be priests? Didn't they already change their "teaching" on contraception? That was fast.
WHEN>tomorrow morning (Friday 2nd) at 10:00am GMT the character and theme requirements will be released. RULES>1. incorporate the theme and character requirements (creative interpretations allowed) into a piece of writing>2. submissions must be made by Monday 5th at 21:59 BST>3. you must submit using rentry.co >4. link of your piece under a unique tripcode (Namefield: Name + "#" + Password)>5 you are allowed to edit your work on rentry.co page until the submission deadline.>6. entrants must vote or will be disqualifiedVOTING>anyone can vote>a Strawpoll will be made where you can rank your top three: 1st gets 3 points, 2nd gets 2, 3rd gets 1 for entrants:Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24987534>it fucks my text upI genuinely don’t understand what you mean by this. Explain?
>>24988742I usually try to hit 1K and cap at 2K. Some do longer some waste everyone’s time with 100 word shitposts.
>>24988742no hard limit, but anything over 3k. in my experience, becomes tiresome and just too hard to read and critique for this comp. usually 2k is a good target to aim for.
>>24988796But there's no minimum right? Asking for a friend
>>24988396But you're using a special emulator. How can you go around gaslighting people like that?
This nigga GOATed.
even sweet ermengarde? https://youtu.be/kwOorZ5j57U
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?
>>24986479I dont listen to hippity bop so I cannot translate your jungle runes into a civilized tongue. Im just going to assume that you are rambling on your dick and how much you hate the white man.
>>24963259>https://www.daniellechelosky.com/things-i-likethese is legit middle / early high school taste. actually embarrassing that a self styled writer would admit to such pedestrian taste. what do all the people with refined taste do now? they certainly arent part of the journalist / writer / wannabe writer class.
>>24988022Actually I was talking about how much I hate the white woman
This thread is useless if pictures or large mammaries are not longer posted.
hairy arm, legs, inner thighs, pussy, ass, and armpit lovers were eating not so good
We get it, this gaylord main character and his pen pals are very bored with their life made of parties, hard drugs and gay sex, now can the narrator drop the pop references and make the plot go forward? I'm at page 100 btw
>>24988452I don't know, maybe a bit more action
>>24988441The first 100 pages take their time but the second half is pretty good
>>24988452I don't like to read about fat people like BET having gay sex.
>>24988441Maybe it'd make more sense if you had ever been a junkie for a significant amount of time. I thought the novel was great and rang true even though im a poorfag I knew exactly where this book was coming from
>>24989010Perhaps junkie of the stimulant variety
Why have nonfiction authors recently started saturating their books with footnotes? I have noticed it in several books I have recently purchased. This is a particularly egregious example.
It's how most are trained to write in school.Any statement made must have a reference and that reference should be instantly accessible on the page rather than at the back of the essay/book to make it easier to check/grade. Otherwise you get a lesser grade for "doing it wrong".
>>24987268it's so people can actually verify that u didn't just make up a bunch of shit up. obviously for tards who believe all kinds of stupid shit, the idea of actually verifying a source seems weird, but in academia people are actually expecting ur ideas to be based on sth.
>>24987273Back in my day we used a combo of inline citation with detailed citation notes at the end. We did not use on page footnotes. My complaint is about footnotes not about citation in general. No need to be a passive aggressive midwitted bitch.
>>24983187>>24983450I thought that's what endnotes are for
>>24983187Formatting these old books is very, very boring. Takes an afternoon and you're mostly just playing with margin sizes.Let them have the footnotes anon, they had to get a PhD for this and are probably making less than minimum wage. It's probably the only thing preventing them from self-deleting.
Learn Hebrew
>>24987755only reason i would is to read the talmud and neither task seem enjoyable
>>24987872>And when push comes to shove, marshal ALL of your rhetoric to encourage votes for the ZOGSLOP candidate. You forgot a premise
>>24987755I'll visit Israel at 30,000 feet and Mach 2.0, delivering sunshine in a can, IYKWIM.
>>24987872i dont celebrate it as i am all alone. everyone is dead
>>24989052sorry for your losses, anon. i pray one day you'll be able to find someone to start a family with.
What are the best books to get into music?By that I mean what are the best books to learn about music theory, music history and music criticism?I'm also looking for books that catalog the bands that were the most innovative and important to the medium./mu/ was no help so I'm asking here on /lit/
>>24986925we're living in weimar germany 5.0, why do you think?
>>24986932Why can't women have their own opinions?
>>24988863That's why I have no real issues with rape. They don't have morals, neither do I.
>>24988873I don't know why your reply is funny to me, I applaud your reasoning anon
PBUH?
>>24988690>He maintains the same critique of graded ontology that Ibn Arabi gives to the neoplatonists. Wrong, neither Ibn Arabi nor al-Qunawi critique gradation as such, what they both critique is the ontological framing of Neoplatonic gradation (ontological intermediaries that enjoy a quasi-independent status). Qunawai's critique is just a more formalized version of Ibn Arabi's and their joint critique targets the assumption that the higher principles are ontologically distinct hypostases whose reality is in some sense other than the lower levels, which is of course negated by the Akbarian unity of Being. All gradation for Qunawai is within the One Being and not a separate ontological category in dependence upon Being. In Qunawai's view the only acceptable form of gradation is of the modes of manifestation of one Being as this is the only kind of gradation that Qunawi views as being consistent with Tawhid.>First you adamantly said Ibn Arabi was the same as ShankaraI never said that anywhere you liar, cite the exact post. I said their description of enlightenment was ~90% the same which is factually true, not that their metaphysics was the same. Qunawai codifies it in a way that makes it even closer to Advaita but the metaphysics is still obviously not the same even though both are indisputably non-dual.You seem to be pathologically incapable of describing the views of Guenon or those defending him without telling lies. > You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
>>24988772No you simply haven't read him deeply. Qunawi and Ibn Arabi disagree that there are real differences of ontological rank. This is the whole point of his Oneness of Being and why they are constantly trying to distance themselves from the neo-platonists and say that despite their similarities people should not see them as the same. This is why it's important not to wave away their critique of neoplatonism, like you did. Your argument boils down to "It's okay to join a Vishishadvaita-like tradition where the metaphysicians explicitly critique Advaita-like positions, that's a win." Take the L.
>>24988784>No you simply haven't read him deeply. Qunawi and Ibn Arabi disagree that there are real differences of ontological rank.Completely wrong you pseud, both Qūnawī and Ibn ʿArabī deny that Being itself admits of degrees, while affirming real and asymmetrical differences of ontological rank at the level of manifestation and determination, there isn't any fundamental disagreement between them on this and Qūnawī introducing an Advaita-style graded ontology is just formalizing what is already affirmed by Ibn Arabi in an unsystematic and informal matter.>This is the whole point of his Oneness of Being and why they are constantly trying to distance themselves from the neo-platonists and say that despite their similarities people should not see them as the same.Nowhere do Ibn Arabi or Qunawi critique graded ontology as such, they both constantly affirm hierarchy, levels, ranks, presences, and asymmetrical dependence. If “graded ontology” means “reality is ordered in levels,” then that is something they explicitly teach. So saying “this is the whole point of the Oneness of Being” is incorrect, because the doctrine of the Oneness of Being does not abolish hierarchy within the way that reality is structured.The Neoplatonic explication in their view leads to unity being located at the very top of the hierarchy or beyond being whereas for Ibn Arabi and Qunawi this is backwards since the Unity of Being is the reality of all that is and the gradation is within the manifestations and determinations of this one reality that makes up everything.>This is why it's important not to wave away their critique of neoplatonism, like you did.That's not hand-waving by definition, I explained exactly why your understanding of them is wrong and what they actually do affirm and critique.>Your argument boils down to "It's okay to join a Vishishadvaita-like tradition where the metaphysicians explicitly critique Advaita-like positions, that's a win."Setting aside the fact that Qunawi's formalized ontology is more like a synthesis of Advaita and Vishishtadvaita, whatever critiques Sufis would have of Advaita in Guenon's view simply reflect their own provincialism, dogmatism and narrow-mindedness that stems from the particular cultural conditions and religious taboos etc that inform their worldview, some of which is common to Abrahamics as a whole which is part of why Islamic culture is a hybrid of East and West. You can choose to disagree with this but it's perfectly consistent. Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24988784Also, as someone who has actually read almost all of Ramanuja I can tell you right now that if you actually understood anything about his thought you would stop trying to assimilate him to your dualistic vision of Christianity and constantly cite him as some sort of foil to Shankara.Ramanuja conceives of the individual Atman/Jiva of every living being as being totally impersonal awareness, as being comprised solely of knowledge and bliss and as being completely and utterly devoid of all the properties that Christians and western theology in general assigns to souls and persons like emotions, agency, volition, willpower, memory, moral conscience, anything that is not either pure knowledge or pure bliss. It's really not so different from the Advaitin Atman aside from stuff like being individual vs supra-individual and interacting with the intellect in a different way. The Vishishtadvaitin Atman only appears wrongly to be an agent etc because of its temporary conjunction with or proximity to the gunas that form intellect of the individual living being but this is a mere accidental product of ignorance/karma and doesn't pertain to its essential properties.So, 90% of your bitching about the Advaitin Self can be equally applied to Ramanuja's model too.And when the freed jiva dies, all that happens is its knowledge is no longer contracted by avidya and it enters a state of permanent unembodiedness where it's knowledge expands infinitely to the degree of becoming omniscient and participating in the omniscient knowledge of God. You effectively experience eternity from the perspective of God himself knowing all things, since you don't control the universe but in your omniscience you have the complete and direct knowledge of God's own awareness of himself controlling the universe as well as all else that God knows.There is none of that gay "hold hands and sing kumbaya (when I'm not satisfying my base urges)" sentimental materialistic nonsense
>>24988952>You effectively experience eternity from the perspective of God himself knowing all thingsThere is no body or interaction with other people in eternity by the way. Just like in Advaita, for the liberated jiva in Vishishtadvaita all emotions, agency, volition, willpower, memory etc dissolve with the death of the physical + subtle body and the jiva only continues onwards as impersonal awareness comprised solely of knowledge/bliss, without any of the conditions that characterized embodiment being present ever again.As awareness that is devoid of agency or a body through which to interact with souls, there is no interaction with souls in eternity, whenever you see them on earth is the last time you will ever interact with another living person. There is no love between souls in eternity, they don't even have love for God as love is a mental mode which is absent in impersonal awareness that doesn't possess a locus for mental modes.As omniscient, you have knowledge of all things include all peoples, events etc included in your total global omniscience, but as the discriminative/thinking faculty is intellect and not the Atman, in eternity you completely lack the freedom to focus mental attention or knowledge on any person, place or thing or to even have thoughts in general, even your omniscient knowledge is totally unchanging and not subject to your control in any way. You are completely incapable of knowing or perceiving any particular thing in distinctive mode to the exclusion of all others. All of eternity, past present and future is contained in one timeless and immutable disclosure of knowledge which leaves you unable to focus on particular things at your leisure. This is actually phenomenologically-speaking extremely similar to the Advaita account of post-death liberation, where your Atma abides as self-luminous completely-free unconditioned Awareness that is Bliss itself and totally non-dual, undifferentiated, a unlimited and inexhaustible fullness of Being, Light and Joy. The Advaitin account does not say you have distinctive knowledge of all particular places, events and things in distinctive mode, but if you incapable of focusing on specific things in distinctive mode because you lack an intellect and are made only of knowledge and bliss like Ramanuja says then the primary aspect of the experience really boils down to consisting of bliss with the knowledge of all things contained principally in this, as you cannot escape or deviate from immutable bliss to focus on any one thing, or even have thoughts about something. Thus, Vishishtadvaita is almost a way of teaching Advaita-style non-dual (which are really Upanishadic) teachings about the soul and post-death liberation but smuggling them in under a metaphysics that makes it more amenable to normie and naive-realist assumptions about plurality, causation, duality etc so it's not too much of a red-pill for them to swallow and they end up going crazy or misunderstanding it.
