Is it worth it except for the pictures?
>>24851259>>24851251Thanks, I’ll save these. I am interested in getting a firsthand introduction to the ideas and their foundations.
>>24851208You still jack off to this? pathetic
>>24849803See >>24848834you need to realize neetscha was one of the biggest things he is responding to in those books
>>24851275Should be added that Arendt within Origins of Totalitarianism goes further back and theoretically pins imperialism origins in the state theory of Hobbes, but is lacking in some regards like technology, which is intertwined with political economics. To fill the gap read Carl Schmitt book on Hobbes state theory, it’s excellent. You’ll be all set then and more informed than the overwhelming vast majority of people.
>>24848148>we all have our bad sides and we need to face themdo people really need to read books to understand this?
I'm a 32 year old loser (not a neet) with practically no life experience who spent the last 10 years playing vidya and smoking weed although I don't do either anymore. Can I still be a writer?
>>24852242I am that nordic dweller. 27 years of age, weed and nothing going on but I have written (1) autobiographical book.
>>24852242I, too, am that nordic. It's not so bad as long as you're close to nature.
>>24850130create a sheltered loser genre
>>24850130Read "a confederacy of dunces" before you kill yourself
Im29 and dedicated half my life to writing and learning how to write a killer story. If you guys need some organic help. I could use the company. It’s my passion. Sure you came to the worst place. But at the write time Tik tok: remohschannel_official
After seeing the catfights go on over the past year, I decided to read the book for myself. Joe Sachs translation. Fantastic book. The autist in me loved Metaphysics Delta in particular. But I felt like I left with more questions than answers. I feel like the topic that Aristotle dealt with goes beyond what it means for something to be universal or particular, and it seems like Aristotle thought that essence is a form that is neither universal nor particular. But Aristotle made it clear that boilerplate Platonism does not logically work, although Sachs makes an effort in his footnotes to point out that something like Platonism can still be salvaged. I also don't know how we can think of the active intellect aka the unmoved mover as the pure being-at-work of thinking with its object being itself. How can it be akin to wakefulness or meaningfully compared with anything we call thinking when our own wakefulness relies on a capacity or a power to be moved, something that the unmoved mover does not have? It seems like such an austere concept that we might as well treat it as the thinnest, brute fact aspect of being that we were looking for all along.Idk. Thoughts?
>>24851014The Unmoved Mover is BOTH Efficient and Final Cause, for without it, there is no Final Efficient Cause too. That means though, it is not a Final Cause decoupled from Efficient Causation, so it lacks a simpler Aseity, and so, the Unmoved Mover is not The Unmoved, for it is a complex as the Active Intellect whereas it is Being and Intellect(Noeta of Being) in a perpetuated state of Power(Dunamis).Plotinus's One is not that different from the Proclusian "One-Being", but his improvement over Proclus retroactively is simply the complete rejection of "Henology" between the Indeterminate One and Being. He also didn't divide the One into Ineffable One and Indeterminate One as the Athenian Neoplatonists does, since after all, Ineffability is said in relation to the perspective of an Intellect that tries to become a Purified Intellect, letting go of Being and Intellection by abiding within the pure Dynamis of the One that is only known by what it isn't apophatically speaking as it is self-extricated away from kataphatic realities as the Intellect transcends its Manifold Being in a Hypernoetic ascent that becomes the Good, which that Good is the sake of which there is any Necessity of Audacity(Tolma) that emanates from Good as its goodness that of which goodness is purely kataphatic in procession away from the Good so that Goodness from the Good can't be the Good, which is why Being isn't the Good for it is Goodness from the Good that is compounded by intellection and has power borrowed from the Good to know its Beinghood and so know of itself as One-Being, One-Power, One-Intellect, but not the One itself, and not in a succession one thing after another thing as it's still one thing but its attributes are many without being Many itself. Since that which rises beyond Being leaves behind its Beinghood, Being doesn't change at all. Therefore, it's not Being that seeks to ascend Being ultimately, but rather the disembodied Soul that ascends at the level of Being navigates past through Being to become the Absolute.There's a lot more arguments in the book I've cited >>24850805 concerning the nature of motion that Aristotelians butcher the Platonic arguments, but Aristotelians only abide to their own orthodox beliefs and not beholden unto consistent reason and argue muh Alexander of Aphrodisiac and be done with it, ignoring how Platonists don't deny the unity of the intellect is in a way complete, but, it's in another way, not just itself but contingent upon many things.
>>24851400Yeah I was wrong to suggest that all efficient causes are physical things in contact with other physical things, the soul being an obvious exception. The key passage for touching is De Gen et Corr 1.6. So the soul, like God, touches without being touched, but is an efficient cause not a final cause. I’ll try to resp to more later.
>>24852335>The Unmoved Mover is BOTH Efficient and Final Cause, for without it, there is no Final Efficient Cause too.This makes absolutely no sense, sorry. You seem to be saying that, because the final cause causes efficient causality, it is efficient. But that’s absurd. If you go to the store to buy hot fries, are the hot fries moving you efficiently? Read Aristotle for yourself, you’re mixed up on basic physics. I can’t respond to the Proclus stuff, I’ve never read him.
>>24852361Sounds like there's a "Cartesian dualism" in Aristotle, except instead of in substance (nevermind the fact that substance means something different to Descartes altogether) or even as matter and form, it's more like efficient and final causes.
>>24852335Do neoplatonists really think Nous is “contingent on many things”? Plotinus definitely doesn’t. If you want my pseud hot take the real issue isn’t how “One” Aristotle’s God is or isn’t but that Aristotle assimilates theology to physics with his theory of heavenly spheres as intermediaries. At the same time look at how close these guys all still are. Plato: One -> Decad -> Mathematicals. Aristotle: UM -> other UMs -> spheres. Plotinus: One -> Nous-> Psyche. I’m not really an orthodox Aristotelian I recognize the naivety of Aristotle’s cosmology. But still, his God is One, not a One-Many.
many of kafka's novels were never finished before his death. do you think you could do them justice and complete them?
>>24851854> to what extent are they even unfinished?How would anyone know? Are you retarded?
>>24852007by reading the story and inferring something was missing based on the context? I don't know man. a part might be incomplete, might be a lack of continuity, maybe something in the manuscript would indicate it, whatever it might be. I'm asking because I haven't really read any of it and for all I know his other stories are half-composed, unedited, and full of holes.use your head faggot.
>>24851800Me on the half left
>>24851854Amerika, which was intended to be the only novel Kafka wrote with a happy ending, wa quite unfinished and so was the The Castle. Amerika is pretty important too because the first chapter of a part of the sons trilogy, and because the novel was hugely influential on Invisible Man which is considered perhaps the most important African American novel (Harold Bloom considers it the only great African American fiction along with Their Eyes Were Watching God)
>>24852047>long, seething post that ends with you admitting to not having anything worthwhile to contribute
Most overrated book of all time.
>>24851791>does it have to be so cringe and gay?Afraid of a little sincerity son? Free yourself from the zoomer irony poisoning that you have been subjected to.
>>24851808Fuck off dad
>>24851808got him. You read his soul like a gypsy
>>24851467No, it's that you're just retarded
Zoomers have limited vocabulary
Do conservative intellectuals exist?
>>24852107>>24852114Remove the pseudointellectual rhetoricians Sam Francis, Roger Scruton, Auron MacIntyre, Thomas Sowell, Charles Murray, Curtis Yarvin, Pat Buchanan, Rudyard Lynch, and Jordan Peterson.Keep Paul Gottfried, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, and Eric Voegelin.Add Edmund Burke, Michael Oakeshott, Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt, Daniel Bell, Thomas Mann, Peter Sloterdijk, George Santayana, David Hume, etc.
Nuke the word "intellectual", it's just a whitewash to pass ideologues at the service of political causes as valuable, when they nothing but subtle and more complex politicans to bait midwits who won't listen to actual politicans. You are either a philosopher or you are not, and if you aren't, we shouldn't care about what you say.
>>24852114Also Christopher rufoJames Lindsay Richard Hanania Christopher lasch
>>24852131No
>>24851539>intellectualswhat even is your metric for that?
>“Youth was the time for happiness, its only season; young people, leading a lazy, carefree life, partially occupied by scarcely absorbing studies, were able to devote themselves unlimitedly to the liberated exultation of their bodies. They could play, dance, love, and multiply their pleasures. They could leave a party, in the early hours of the morning, in the company of sexual partners they had chosen, and contemplate the dreary line of employees going to work. They were the salt of the earth, and everything was given to them, everything was permitted for them, everything was possible. Later on, having started a family, having entered the adult world, they would be introduced to worry, work, responsibility, and the difficulties of existence; they would have to pay taxes, submit themselves to administrative formalities while ceaselessly bearing witness--powerless and shame-filled--to the irreversible degradation of their own bodies, which would be slow at first, then increasingly rapid; above all, they would have to look after children, mortal enemies, in their own homes, they would have to pamper them, feed them, worry about their illnesses, provide the means for their education and their pleasure, and unlike in the world of animals, this would last not just for a season, they would remain slaves of their offspring always, the time of joy was well and truly over for them, they would have to continue to suffer until the end, in pain and with increasing health problems, until they were no longer good for anything and were definitively thrown into the rubbish heap, cumbersome and useless. In return, their children would not be at all grateful, on the contrary their efforts, however strenuous, would never be considered enough, they would, until the bitter end, be considered guilty because of the simple fact of being parents. From this sad life, marked by shame, all joy would be pitilessly banished. When they wanted to draw near to young people's bodies, they would be chased away, rejected, ridiculed, insulted, and, more and more often nowadays, imprisoned. The physical bodies of young people, the only desirable possession the world has ever produced, were reserved for the exclusive use of the young, and the fate of the old was to work and to suffer. This was the true meaning of solidarity between generations; it was a pure and simple holocaust of each generation in favor of the one that replaced it, a cruel, prolonged holocaust that brought with it no consolation, no comfort, nor any material or emotional compensation.”
>>24850292>you're a jew if you don't believe in my jewish godMake it make sense.
>>24850528Hi kike
>>24850528this isn't really about godI was thinking more the spiteful jealousy of youth, the whiny forced pessimism, the attempts to subvert family relationships, and the pedophiliaIt all seems rather jew-like of you ask me
This guy can’t fathom any existence higher than that of a fly. Newton and Vivaldi are incomprehensible to him because they weren’t flies
>>24849203>I'm a degenerate hedonist forced into an honorable lifeWhy didn't he just start taking hard drugs? His art would have been better and his life more pleasurable and shorter.
Do you lock-in when reading? or is your focus elsewhere?
>>24852316We just call it concentrating in the adult world.
>>24852316why is lil nigga bleeding
>>24852356G force
hizdahr zo loraq editionASOIAF wiki: https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Main_PageBlog: https://georgerrmartin.com/notablog/Old blog: https://grrm.livejournal.com/So Spake Martin (interviews): https://westeros.org/citadel/ssm/Book search: https://asearchoficeandfire.com/SSM search: https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=006888510641072775866:vm4n1jrzsdyGeneral search: http://searcherr.work/TWOW samples: https://archive.org/details/411440566-the-winds-of-winter-released-chaptersold: >>24822405
it will always somewhat irk me that none of the Riverlords yell "KING OF THE TRIDENT" after the Greatjon names Robb King in the North. I love the moment in one of later books (can't remember if it was ACoK or ASoS) where the northern lords shout "the King in the North!" and the riverlords answer with "the King of the Trident!" I dunno, I just love the idea of these two very different kingdoms that honestly don't even have that much in common (besides a border and a monarch) uniting into one realm, not out of conquest or scheming or backstabbing but because they became true brothers-in-arms. They just genuinely had eachothers' backs. Which is of course why gurm had to destroy it.If Robb had lived and won the war, I wonder how his kingdom might have developed in the long run. It could be quite an interesting place.
Winds will be announced within two weeksSource: I can feel it in my bones squatted down for my morning shit
>>24850418King Orys II
>WE WUZ VALYRIANZ N SHIIEETT
>>24852367I'm still mad
What does /lit/ generally think of books written by anons/namefags? Do they shill their own work here, and how are they received? Assuming the work is freely available.
And yes I'm planning on doing that.
Shilling yourself is generally a bannable offense, but I think it might be permissible if the work is free. I still wouldn't do it outside of the writing general threads. It's poor form. You're supposed to write something that'll make other people post about your work for you.
>>24852301We are anons. Self promotion and attention seeking is looked down upon.
>>24852327Speak for yourself
>>24852322>You're supposed to write something that'll make other people post about your work for you.Yeah my wildest dreams right there. But first I need to get their attention so they will take a look at my offerings. I'll keep the /WG/ in mind.>>24852327I am aware. My argument is that the book has elements related to gen-z imageboard culture, and that is why I want to bring it upon /lit/ first.
Any books that will give me the same feeling as listening to Bill Evans does? Or just has a similar mood/vibe?
>What type of university did you attend?>What era?>What did you learn? How do you feel about your education now?I did an English Lit degree at the premier university in my country (hah!). The Australian National University. I was told it was the best, hardest to get into, highest ranked, etc. Turns out that just meant the place had more postgrads than undergrounds, was predominantly research oriented and got a shittonne of citations. Doubt it made it better than half the other universities in Aus. Was a helluva place though, beautiful, bright and stimulating.My era - thank fuck! - was pre-woke. We still had blue hairs screeching but there were approximately zero mentions of critical race theory, gender theory, grievance studies or the like. 20-ish years ago.My fading memory of the curriculum, in order of importance/volume:- poets, poems and poetry- shakespeare, milton, chaucer, donne, wordsworth, blake, probably a few others i'm forgetting- literary movements (medieval through to modernism with the most time spent on romanticism - weirdly, don't think we did any postmodernism let alone postcolonial)Another fun fact, we studied a shitload of australian authors, like books of poetry by former anu students, but not a single American work. Oh wait, no, Emily Dickinson was big and T.S. Eliot if you still count him as American. But I only learned about what Americans consider 'the classics' years after - Melville, Hemingway et al. Funny to think how invisible all that was to us back then.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24852013>>24852198>>24852200Have either of you fellas seen Danger 5?
>>24852013What are you workings as now?
>>24852013Did an English Degree at an East Coast elite school, with a focus on early modern Lit and a minor in European History. Loved it, taught me to formally express my thoughts and how to find a credible premise for a claim. Sadly only the soft skills, people skills of expression and communication not the hard stem type to get instant great employment but doing ok now. I found that universities are not infested with woke morons, only certain majors are. Anything political having to do with borders and migration, anything historical having to do with the ethnic studies of a people or gender, def have "wrongthink" and you will be ostracized if you think the law should exist in some capacity beyond punishing rapists and corrupt cops. overall great experience but wish I had mixed with a hard skill to make money immediately, only academia and law are built for the humanities.
>/lit/>educationlmao
>no mention of employmentlel
Why do people pretend to like this book?
>>24851363Is the movie better than the book? I've never seen it.
>>24851372I don’t think you’d be asking if it was good if you had seen it. Your second sentence is completely unnecessary.
>>24851363Hot take territory. It's not a thriller, and the key is not a gotcha reveal, it's the moments where he fails to take his chance at life, and then the scenes where he realizes what he could have had.OP, people love this book, and it launched his career. Why do you pretend not to know that?
>>24851475I've been thinking whether I should leave the second sentence in or omit it, and ultimately decided that it made my post feel more conversational. You could've at least answered the question.
>>24851372yes, it's good.
What are some of the best Romance Novels you have personally read?
>>24849383Salammbo
>>24849383"Victory" ~ Conrad
>>24849383Dafnis & Chloe
Fahrenheit 451 takes the cake
Dead Inside by Chandler Morrison
The idea of an "ultimate fate of the universe" is a lie spread to keep the masses in line. There is no heat death. All of the literature on this topic is incorrect.Every book written on the topic of the "ultimate fate of the unverse" is full of propaganda meant to threaten and terrify the masses.Dark energy decays into dark matter, and dark matter decays into baryonic matter.
>>24850513It's doesn't really matter if heat death actually comes. Once there're no observers, eternity becomes an instant. Everything that can happen will happen. Quantum fluke will trigger a new Big Bang, or something else. What was there before you were born? An eternity of darkness. What will happen after you die? An eternity of darkness. But from your point of view, the eternity before was instantaneous. So, from the perspective of universe the eternity after will be instantenous also. There will be no objective time after the heat death anyway, so the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" becomes meaningless. Once there is nothing, something will appear no matter how improbable it is.
>>24850513"fate of the universe" is spread by those that wrongly believe that causality is only unidirectional when everyone with a head on their shoulders can tell that causality in reality is both push/pull in all directions at the same time. Those who believe causality is unidirectional believe all the vectors of the universe point towards one direction.
>>24852349Note that some event having probability 1 does not mean it must happen. You can flip a coin heads, forever. How? It just comes down heads on the next throw, always.
>>24852359If there's no time, there're no observers, infinity collapses to certainty. Some event necessarily will happen. And it will happen right at that instant. And events will keep happening until they produce an observer, and this event in turn will trigger the beginning of space-time.
Nahhhh. Guys. By then we will have the tech to reverse the expansive nature the Big Bang and commence the great stretch. So much more time will pass that when the great stretch comes to an end and everything collides once more we’ll be too enlightened to interfere. Bang.
