>>24967213
Wait, is Ariholic the same guy as the "Aristotle was a representationalist" Anon?

>>24967213
>that natures must be only in the mind,
It's not that nature must be "only" in the mind but that universals are only in the mind and any attempt to reify the essence is equivalent to reifying a universal. Someone who doesn't recognize where I'm coming from here, or why I'm saying it, really doesn't understand Aristotle and hasn't read him. I've explained time and time again that Aristotle thinks the world is genuinely intelligible and here, again, you accuse me of thinking intelligibility is 'only' in the mind because you don't understand the terms of the debate because you don't know Aristotle.
>universal" is used in a different sense in defining nominalism and realism in contemporary thought than it is in Aristotle.
I'm actually the guy who is constantly saying this. This is why denying the subsistence of universals is not the same as radical skepticism etc. Here you're accusing me again of being some kind of skeptic/subjectivist because you're too retarded to follow my posts and have not read Aristotle.
>realism versus nominalism is not about subsistent forms/essences as beings.
It absolutely is - not that they are or are not 'beings' but that there is anything besides 1.) the real particulars; and 2.) the universals in our mind. It's depressing as shit that we've had this conversation so many times and you still manage to get everything backwards. I realize it is incomprehensible that someone could only endorse 1.) and 2.) and yet think the world is intelligible, but this is what the Metaphysics is about if you would care to read it. I insult you because you're retarded, a few months back you didn't even have any awareness of Aristotle's arguments against the existence of universals in the Metaphysics, actually no one did of those participating in the threads. So most of you really are useless pseuds and you can take cheap shots at me all day but nothing will change that.
>>24967190
Ngl niggie you schooled me a bit with this post. But what you describe here is not what the tradcath zoomers I've been arguing take as Thomist realism. But Aquinas always speaks of essence as the 'what-ness' of the thing - 'horse' is a thought in my mind but 'horseness' is some real something-or-other. But this is to conflate the essence with the universal, the ground of intelligibility with what is understood. To go back to my dumb example above with the Mennonite - if the horse is a horse by horseness, how come I can also say it is <x> breed of horse, or the horse of Mr. B, and in thinking this make THIS its essence in my thought? So I'm on board with asserting the intelligibility of being but not with saying that this intelligibility just is the nominalization of the universal - that's just another universal, a thought.

>>24967223
Aristotle was a representationalist, a universal is not a particular. He attacks this thesis in DA actually and associates it with Empedocles. He says in thinking the passive intellect is identical with what it thinks in the same sense, and he says the same thing here in the same language, vision is identical with what it sees - as seen. He consistently DENIES that a universal, a thought, it the same as a real, particular being, all over the place - in the Categories, in DA, in the zoological works, and all over the Metaphysics. He also, again, holds that the thing IS genuinely intelligible, so you are truly knowing its nature, but not it itself. As he says in Meta 1 the particular is not genuinely known; the 'knowing' of the particular is like perception. He says this also in other places. So you are another useless pseud who hasn't read Aristotle and cobbled together a fantasy reading based on what you've heard from other people, in secondary sources, maybe three or four of the dozens of books Aristotle wrote, etc.

>>24967298
on the other hand he is not a representationalist as thinking that we 'only' know our thoughts and being is this absolute other. But you guys thinking 'being just is thinking bro', when in fact thinking thinks being but being as such is not thinkable. Being is immediate, thinking is mediated. He talks about this for example at the end of Post An 1 when he's talking about the relation between doxa and episteme. I realize most of you can't understand what I just said, it's like talking about philosophy with a fucking five year old. "But... everyone KNOWS Aristotle thought the world was immanently intelligible!" That's correct, he does think this. But he still has this dualism between the particular and the universal, this is the crux of his break with Plato. It's just so frustrating you have no goddamn idea, everything I'm saying is IN ARISTOTLE explicitly. Then you want to blow up this dualism - when I know horse, the essence of horse is in my brain, illuminated by the divine intellect. Then why don't you know all about the horse? Why can you carve up this 'essence' at will in any number of ways? "Well then you're saying our understanding of the horse is arbitrary!" No, it is caused by the particular. As he says in DA the horse is 'potentially' the universal, is potentially UNDERSTOOD as what it is universally. It's not that the universal thought is hovering around constituting what it is, on the contrary reality grounds our thoughts, and God grounds the intelligibility of reality. You guys can read as much Palamas and fucking Maximus the Confessor as you want I really think it's a waste of time if you haven't studied the master and these threads offer abundant proof every time.

>>24967333
>>24967298
>>24967290
1.) No one here thinks an essence is a being. Talking about the relationship between essence and matter if a way of thinking about the relationship between intelligibility and contingency or particularity. Aristotle uses the exact same language when he talks about Callias and Socrates being one in form and two in matter.
2.) No one here denies that the particular is as such unknowable or that thought is mediated, these are commonplaces.
3.) The position you hold is not actually nominalism. As >>24967190 showed you don't even really disagree with anyone here as much as you think you do. And yet you still rage on because you're probably drunk.

I never read the 60's version, but I can tell you the 80's one has better, more poetic language than the 2013 edition. They are all tools to manipulate people into a dangerous cult, a for-profit corporation formerly dedicated to sell magazines and other publications; now they operate on the real estate market; disguised as a wholesome religion.

I would sincerely advice everyone to step away from anything related to the JW unless to get yourself informed on their origins and practices. There are many useful websites for that.

Source: I've been what some call a PIMO since a few months ago (Physically In, Mentally Out); baptized in 2009 and an elder since 2021. Getting out of this organization is harder and more painful than you would think: They teach that when someone renounces, that person is an apostate (a renegade from God), crazy and most likely possessed by the devil.

Be careful.

>>24966094
>>24966555
>it's weird seeing other mtl writers here
Yo. The only Montrealer I've recognised here was a guy posting from Prac La Fontaine complaining about Metatron Press, though I've met a couple (former) /lit/ users at events. I'm also from outside the MFA/academic creative writing crowd.
>I focus on encyclopedic maximalist postmodern stuff [...]
I'm curious about your work. My own stuff is surreal short fiction or prose poetry, mostly as extended metaphor.

Feel free to shoot me an email at unofficial.drivel@gmail.com.

>>24967300
>former users

No such thing.

Who is down for a Montreal meetup?

>>24966555>>24963000>>24967300

I made a discord if you guys wanna join

>>24967360
https://discord.gg/H2AktmbX

>>24965721
>(((Levin)))

>>24965698
Yes it's a very chuddish novel

>>24965859
>you prefer your women simple, subservient, and chaste (but only in a really specific way where they're hypersexual for your unwashed, ashy, overweight ass)
Unironically yes. Realistic women in fiction are always insufferable, just like in real life.

>>24965698
Yes, it will make you hate women significantly more

>>24965859
The edition in the OP has a foreword laying clear that Anna’s path in the novel is one of the world and its entire purpose is to contrast negatively with Levin’s eventual turn to Christ.

>>24967308
>The worse variant is, that I don't have ADHD and that all my problems are caused by low willpower and bad organization skills.
This scenario is better. You can find ways to become more disciplined, organized, logical and productive. Challenging yourself is great. I couldn’t write a better post because I’m on the phone.

>>24967330
post theme:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4ckWZ73OtXU

>>24967259
All pajeetas crave the bwc

Someone was telling me about (older) ballistic missiles and apparently they knew where they were by checking known star positions. They really used stellar navigation, which I found funny. Like ancient sailors three millennia earlier, steering by the stars.

>>24967355
best i can give her is the mwc and that’s on a good day.

>>24967234
>Religion is nothing more than the collective will of a race
Let's hope someone your "race" told you that.
>>24967288
>we should really close our eyes to the fact there's people teaching their children
I did not say, infer, nor even suggest ironically this mischaracterization. Those beliefs are repugnant and stem from their refusal to accept Jesus as the Messiah of Judaism and to live out a two millenia long LARP of rabbinic "Judaism" which has no prophets, ark, or revelation. Jesus says, in Revelation, "Those who call themselves the Jews are not the Jews but the Synagogue of Satan." This doesn't mean burn them all but to understand that they are sad, deluded, and confused. We must bless those who curse us, lest you deny the Master Himself, and yet we must seek to bless them by also healing them of this grave error.

>>24966316
If Israel is defending itself, then why is it starving civilians? Or outright shooting children through the skull? Why do Palestinian hospitals get priority treatment by the Israeli military, and promptly bombed without further explanation, despite 2 years later not a single iota of evidence exists that hamas is using them as a military base?

Why do you bother lying so much on the internet? Got skin in the game, moshe?

>>24967307
>We must bless those who curse us
How pigmented is your stepson?

File: future_nugget.jpg (111 KB, 960x958)

111 KB JPG

>>24967317

>>24967345
>>24967317
You are a retard and don't understand arab nature. They chimped out and now reminded of the brutal reality of war. Think all you want that it's genocide but for Israel it's survival.

>>24966875
κλῆρον πάλλω

>>24967065
>Ippocrates' On the Nature of Women(Περί γυναικείης φύσιος)
>On the topic of the nature of women and their illnesses I say this: first of all the divine is most responsible in human conditions, then their nature and their complexion: exceedingly white women are more supple and fluxy(?? I guess if opposed to the dark ones as follows, it means more subject to change i.e less stable?), the dark ones sturdier/stiffer and harsher/austere, the ruddy somewhere in the middle. Likewise with age: the younger are more supple and full of blood* for the most part, the older drier/leaner and with little blood, those inbetween somewhere in the middle. Whosoever intends to treat these matters right must first of all start from the divine, then analyze the physical condition of the women, the ages, the seasons and the places in which they find themselves, for in cold places they are more fluxy, in warm ones drier/leaner and stabler. I'll start my exposition from the conditions of moistness.

*I assume fullness and its opposite maybe refer or are brought up because they affect behaviors?

>>24966875
Εὐχαριστῶ.

>>24966875
Does anyone know if Dr. Ammon Hillman a good source on learning Ancient Greek?

>>24967297
isn't that the guy with weird interpretations about the NT including jesus being a child trafficker or something? I'm no christian but that seems quite an outrageous interpretation of the scriptures

I want to learn French and Latin, which I imagine will be a struggle for someone as old and dumb as I am.

>>24967059
>simple mistakes and getting tripped up by mild archaisms and things any native would pick up on
like what?

>>24967258
There was a thread on here just last week where some ESL got filtered by shit like “thou hast”, “nay”, “didst”, and “friar”.

>>24967266
lots of native speakers can't even use lose/loose correctly, and I doubt they'd know what the fuck those are

>>24967047
This, fluency isn't an attainable goal unless you're immersed in the language or at least have other people you can converse with in the language.

>>24967135
You're reading the script for the 1958 play "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett.

>>24967232
Clearly you've never read nor watched the play.

>>24967135
According to Beckett, a play about symbiosis.

>>24967135
A play where nothing happens, twice.

>>24967135
This will help: https://youtu.be/1ddsl5nPfAc
>>24967183
You're a pseud.

>>24965793
Yes. There's absolutely no comparison with Crime and Punishment. It's far, far better.

this chart is missing a post structuralist book, either mythologies from barthes, ecrits by lacan, simulacra and simulation, anti oedipe etc etc

>>24951578
Moby dick is bullshit. People keep pretending it isn't but it's just dull, boring bullshit with nothing on it.

>>24966686
I'd rather read Flaubert for his character psychology or James for his prose.

File: 78825_v9_aa-1629949695.jpg (218 KB, 1080x1440)

218 KB JPG

Why hasn't Dickens ever made the cut? A Tale of Two Cities is better than some of these turds on the list.

He's literally the Slavs' James Gunn

>>24967211
Why so, beyond the pedo angle (too non-specific for hollywood)

>>24967215
because he's an edgelord better at parodying media than at inventing something new.
Compare Gunn's "Brightburn" to his "Superman". Then compare "Pale Fire" to Lewis' commentary on "Paradise Lost".

>>24960113
Do you want a little trophy for reading?
When you write and FINISH a story or novel (something original, not a retelling), let me know.

>>24966689
Literature is EXTREMELY enjoyable, but philosophy ACTUALLY makes one intellectually better (relative to oneself). OP limits himself to others instead of limiting himself to himself— sad.

>>24967237
Herself*

>>24962608
because physiognomy/phrenology is pseud drivel that only twttier crackheads take seriously.

>>24960113
>honestly believing this
we love a self-negating argument. nobody of any real value or status has to explain to themselves why they have value or status.
you're probably a burnt-out wagie in his mid-20s whose highest aspiration is middle management.

>>24960532
I have to assume a lot of Manson's success came from offering easy women and drugs, and less from remembering people's names and using them whenever possible

>>24966968
>truth is when I insert my autistic headcannon where it isn't welcome
why are spergs like this?
low/no theory of mind?

>>24967028
No, truth is when I point out that you forgot to capitalize and punctuate your sentences, it's also spelled 'canon', with two N's, is a different word from 'cannon' and I expect you to thank me because I taught you a valuable lesson on grammar, which you will use to self-improve.

>>24967098
sperg-kun...

>>24967098
I didn't make this post but you made my point better than I ever could. You're very eloquent. Thanks anon.