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.
>>24948577>you seem to think he is advancing some sort of Cartesian position where animals aren't alive, or one where animals don't have an essence which you would know is an absurd misreadingNo, I'm tracking exactly what Palamas is trying to do, which is to talk about the theology of "everlasting life" and the immortality of the soul. But in doing so, he has to redefine what life is and what soul is as set forth by Aristotle in De Anima. The consequence, which he states extremely clearly, is that animals are not living in any essential way, which is clearly pants-on-head retarded. This is what happens when you get carried away by poetic language and start to taking it first literally, and then backport the literalism into the ontology. It makes a complete mess of everything, and you're doing everything you can to ignore the downstream consequences of haphazardly tinkering with first principles. 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. But, of course, you're not tracking any of these moving parts because you don't understand the debate and you have your rose-tinted goggles for anything Orthodox to the point where you miss basic entailments and their problems.
>>24948602>You worded the question dishonestly with your own premise embedded in it so any answer acknowledges the very thing in dispute.If quoting claims from the passage and then rewording it as a question is "dishonest", then I am all for being dishonest here. You are being ridiculous. Aristotle puts forth several criteria for what he is talking about, and he makes a clear distinction between two kinds of intellect. You need to exercise your brain to figure out what entity or phenomena those criteria fit. Newsflash, if your mind can change in some sense, then it is not active intellect, which is described both as a first cause and as an activity in Bk3Ch5 in such extreme terms that there is no potency leftover. The suspected entity described here can only be the unmoved mover, which it lines up perfectly with in Metaphysics Lambda. In contrast, the way passive intellect is described can only apply to a mind which becomes all things or has movements from potential to actual, aka it applies to something hylomorphic, something with both potency and act. What does that describe? Oh, right, human minds. >In part 5 he's talking about how humans think.No, he's not talking about how humans think at all except in the sense that it happens as a hylomorphic entity, e.g. as a passive intellect *relative* to the active intellect which makes all things intelligible for the passive intellect in the first place. When does the human mind create all things? When is the human mind impassible? When is the human mind prior to the universe as a whole? When is the human mind fully actual? When is the human mind unmixed qua substance? Do you know of any human mind with thinks without stopping? Chapter 4 is where we have the discussion of what the mind is actually like qua passive intellect, as in it becomes all things. That actually matches with how a human mind operates as a vessel to "receive" the being of objects. It certainly doesn't make anything, and by that point in De Anima, all of the cognitive functions necessary for intellect have been described, so there's no more functions to attribute to any other aspect of the mind, let alone to make up a smorgasboard headcanon for what the active intellect is supposed to do.>The mind, as free of memories is beyond time. It's not an organ of the body or a product of the material.The mind is not material, but it is part of the form of something material in the case of human beings. That's what soul is. It's the form of living beings, and some souls have powers of thinking. This is the whole point.
>>24948617So it's schizophrenia then.Your question doesn't help interrogate anything. It's manipulative nonsense that now turns out is based on your inability to read, not any coherent thought process we can actually explore.Like all things the mind needs potency and action. The mind becomes all things through senses but it also creates through imagination.For imagination the role of potency is played by the possibility space of all reality, not a passive part of the mind like when the mind acts to recognize a cup. The book up to then is mostly about the human mind except in this sense:>the soul is in a way all existing things; for existing things are either sensible or thinkable, and knowledge is in a way what is knowable, and sensation is in a way what is sensible: in what way we must inquire.>Knowledge and sensation are divided to correspond with the realities, potential knowledge and sensation answering to potentialities, actual knowledge and sensation to actualities.He then turns to the souls of animals which can't access "actual knowledge" through the active intellect.
>>24947161Christians are quite literally subhuman morons, there is no such thing as a christian with a 130+ IQ. They're too stupid to study actual philosophy and math so they study christian theology.
>>24948617>That's what soul is. It's the form of living beings, and some souls have powers of thinking. This is the whole point.What I don't understand, and maybe you can clear this up, is how those powers are attributes of the form (eidos, yeah?) itself. Because it seems to me that then the form (of the man) is changing whenever you cognise a new thing. If that's what is meant then fine I just need to think about it more but it seems at odds with a man having a persistent form, which is what he is to keep on being / essence, for that form to change passively while he's thinking.>>24948685>So it's schizophrenia then.I am a Christian and when the guy you're replying to is being a lot more lucid than you are (like now) I don't think this sort of remark helps at all.
>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?
>>24948673>He was just an average kid, looking for some adventure>But when adventure finds him . . .>*cuts to The Kid (played by Finn Wolfhard) getting woken up on his horse* Wait, what's going on?>*Glanton (played by Adam Sandler) is shaking him "Wake up, lazy bones! We're gonna sack this village!"*>*cuts to wide shot of the Gang approaching the village (which is notably white, so as not to anger the Native American market) as dramatic BWOMMMMS play*>*Suddenly, the dramatic tension cuts as one of the villagers shoots an arrow at Glanton's crotch, causing him to cringe*>*The Judge (played by The Rock in white-face, for some easily marketable controversy) winces and goes "Ooooh, right in the Toadvine!"*>*Cormac McCarthy himself rides up on a little indian war pony to say "'Nuff said!"*>. . . he's gonna need some friends along the way.>THE BOYS ARE BACK IN TOWN THE BOYS ARE BACK IN TOWN>This summer . . .>*The kid yells "This desert is our home! We can't let the army take what's ours! Who's with me gang?" as everyone cheers*>. . . the west . . .>*shows The Kid and Toadvine (who is now played by Leslie Jones) beatboxing on their horses*Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24948674
>>24948666>if villains do villainous things then they’re cartoonyYou’re so stupid it hurts.
>>24948693Just because he hides behind purple prose and unusual punctuation doesn't mean this is any less Marvel coded:>The Leonids it was called went flowing over the sky like strange fingers of light as woken gamecocks clucked and coyotes scattered bones amidst the wolves howling on the prairies where in those strange, clockless hours the mad moonlight cast milky spectres against the immense naked Caucasian neonate that jumped up and pirouetted with a screeching fiddle in his big white baby hands as the preacher violated in the livery of his own god the child.>What's an egg Judge.>An egg's what you get when a gamecock lays after resting with a hen.>What's a hen Judge.>A hen's what ye get when ye move out to Californy.>What's a gamecock Judge.>A gamecock's a suzerain.>What's a suzerain Judge.>A preacher that is a judge of all things. And like a judge he must make rules. And like a game, rules must ...>They is four things in this world that can kill a man. Eggs, war, gamecocks, and whiskey.>Nuff said, the Judge spat.
>>24948666The actual real flaw in BM is that all the plot points are mapped to a philosophy, and a rather unimpressive one at that. That is no way to write fiction
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
It was definitely a fun watch but yes it was classic leftist punch nazis/this machine kills fascists LARP. Leftists always make my heart hurt a little bit - they are obsessed with violence and sex and are just truly unwell people. I have never known a leftist who led a good, normal, honest life. They are always dirty (unshowered, dirty apartments), they speak too much and ramble and say horrible things, they are very self-centered. They truly do wish death on people they don't like. They really do see their sexual pleasure (which is never normal: it always involves some form of shame, or some extra layer of dirt) as a virtue. They consistently invite chaos into their lives in small and big ways, they do not seek harmony or true love with anyone. this movie perfectly encapsulates their incoherent, unpleasant lives, and although you'll have a nice time watching it, it leaves you with that same soul aching you feel after hanging out with one
So if you guys don't like this book what is it exactly that you DO read that is post modern? Do you read anything modern?
>>24948690what was postmodern about vineland?
>>24948696I came here to understand what people today read. You can't just answer the question can you?
>>24948699it's a poorly formed question.
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.
>>24946020>How do you learn to philosophize? I read philosophy books but i never learn to philosophize.Stop. Don't do it. You are potentially better than those who "philosophize" themselves into delusion.Don't listen to anyone else in this thread.Don't fall for any big new political trend, no matter how they brand themselves, either now or in the upcoming years.Don't indulge in excessive desires.Be aware of your own foolishness, and try your best to suppress it. An example is to be cautious when speaking about people or things, because they may be false.Help those in need as much as possible and protect yourself.These are the core philosophical messages you need.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>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
I'm interested in a reading group focused on art books. Most you can get through your library if you can't afford them, or as PDF's from Anna'a Archive.To start with I'd like to go with Umberto Eco's On Beauty, and then On Ugliness, but I open to alternative suggestions for our starting book.The reading for the week will be posted Sunday if there are enough takersIf you want, although it's not necessary for participation, there will be linked to threads and so forth on the Criterion Club server under the visual-arts channel https://discord.gg/XhFGx57VKm
From On Beauty
I would join probably, although I have never read any Eco, because I already think him to be a turbo midwit. I also want to throw in Roger Scruton as a suggestion
>>24946864Both Scruton and Eco are midwits and both have an intricate understanding of art and aesthetics
The entire docuseries is on youtubehttps://youtu.be/J3ne7Udaetg?si=3Pup49Z5T9sCSU45
>>24945775bump
And what size?
>>24946347Latin Modern Roman 20 when writing, 12 when exporting.
>>24948276>20 when writing, 12 when exportingjust zoom in dude
>>24946557He's right, Calibri looks like putrid shit
>look at me, i'm a wolf. I have worms, ticks, lice and mange, i sleep in a muddy ditch and watch my sister getting fucked by the alpha male!
>>24948298I don't find Times New Roman very easy on the eyes for extended readingI think the characters are too tall, there's not enough uniformity in stroke widthI find Sitka much more legible
Which books should I read to best understand the argentinian soul?
https://youtu.be/a6c9tj9dFMg>>24948076>NO CREES QUE, SI YO FUERA ARGENTINO, HUBIERA ESCRITO «SOMOS», EN VEZ DE «SON»?https://youtu.be/x1jjDyOaKMk>son ellos nosotros ustedes, vos sos>>24948075>you don't have to go that far. right across the border in chile they eat charqui.https://youtu.be/C4ELzf0u7Q8?t=163Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Dios mío por qué siempre tiene que entrar un autista a postear puras citas? Si máquina, yo también puedo leer la fuente primaria
>>24948076yo creo que te estas haciendo el lindo.que sos sino argentino?
>>24943418>>24945433>>24947827>>24946621 Do you any recs on italo-argentine writers instead? Any kind of literature, not just about Argentina
>>24948593Cumgenius es Mexicano
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?
>>24948046then you obviously haven't heard of Ben Klassen.
>>24948046All billionaires are egoist
>>24947750So, Taoism?
>>24948041>ignoring the reality of the world and power...Stirner didn't ignored nor denied it, he actually recognized it by what it is instead of justifying it with some bullshit pretext like law, politics or god.He pierced through the bullshit like no other philosopher.Other philosophers would have written a super mambo jambo salad of words just to not say "real power is whoever wields it". And that applies to property ownership too.His writing style is shitty and chaotic though, but that doesn't diminishes the lucidity and accuracy of (some) of his ideas.Spooks everywhere, you too got spook'd.>>24947773You too, spook. Your ego is a spook.
>>24947731You dont enjoy philosophy, you live it.
>surcease
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?
post sample or fuck off
>>24948614I've already posted samples and people just seethe because I'm better than them.
>>24948616>source: none
>>24948460I think you should just try differente avenues, like, have you tried screenwriting, writing for comics, games? If you're a published writer you have a higher chance of getting a role in these fields.
>>24948616I come here every now and then and I've never "seethed" at anyone's work. I have however critiqued. And that makes the authors seethe pretty regularly. The problem isn't us. It's that you can't take any sort of criticism. And if you can't do that then don't expect to get anywhere brown boy.
Just ordered thisWhat am I getting into?
>>24946167>and Jehoshaphat begat Lemuel who begat Erud who begat Aram who begat Samoch who begat Asraphal who begat Penuel who begatWow so beautiful and inspiring, let's turns to another passage>he shall take a sheep of the flock a year old, and a hin of oil and a kor of flour, and he shall make a cake of the oil and he shall make a cake of the oil ans flour, of choice flour, to dedicate to the LORD as an offering, and he shall slaughter and prepare the lamb and the thigh he shall place on the fire as a burnt offering, of a pleasing odour to the LORD, and the priests shall burn the entrails thereof as an offering, but the flesh ans the forelimbs they shall cook as their own portion (continues for 100 pages)Brilliant stuff, brings a tear to my eye
>>24947336>isn't everything after the gospels, maybe aside from revelation, just expository teachings OF the gospels?Uh no? Paul never read the gospels, wtf are you talking about.
>>24947413Paul did meet Jesus, though. That encounter is so important there are three references to it in the Acts of the Apostles alone (Acts 9, Acts 22, Acts 26). Paul's meeting with the glorified Christ is the most significant event in world history outside of the gospels themselves. Have you people even read this book?
>>24946190Based, it's wildly out of date. Use the NRSVue instead
>>24948219Paul just heard a disembodied voice. It was more like a telephone call than anything.
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.
>Alice in Numberland_ A Students' Guide to the Enjoyment of Mathematics - John Baylis, Rod Haggarty (1991)>Anatomy of Mathematics, The - R. B. Kershner, L. R. Wilcox (1950)>Fundamentals of Abstract Analysis - Andrew M. Gleason (1991)>Mathematics_ Form and Function - Saunders Mac Lane (1986)>Mathematics Made Difficult_ A Handbook for the Perplexed - Carl E. Linderholm (1971)>Mathematics_ The Music of Reason - Jean A. Dieudonné (1992)>The Mathematical Experience_ Study Edition - Philip J. Davis, Reuben Hersh, Elena Anne Marchisotto (2012)
>>24948587The Anatomy of Melancholy, What it is: With all the Kinds, Causes, Symptomes, Prognostickes, and Several Cures of it. In Three Maine Partitions with their several Sections, Members, and Subsections. Philosophically, Medicinally, Historically, Opened and Cut Up
Rolling for Emile, or On Education since it's on my list.
It is not exactly well known in modern circles but much of Hemingways writing had fetishistic undertones for the sexual fetishes be possessed. It is well known that in most of his novels the main women has some sort of ratchet short haircut. Lady Brett Ashley,Maria and Catherine Barkley all had very intense details on the short hair they had. Further most of his wives had short hair and it was a subject of contention for His first wife Hadley Richardson and a mainstay with his second Pauline. Further the topic of women on male anal stimulation comes up in some of his works but more overt. The garden of Eden book truly is the embodiment of the Hemingway sexuality. Hemingwaybros how do you cope with the great man’s man writer liking women with boy haircuts and getting his buddy tickled. Personally I enjoy it.
>>24944831>open up Hemingway novel>he's self inserting as a cuck againBro... please, give me at least one 20th century modernist novel that doesn't involve cuckoldry, please....
I had the same reaction.
>>24944831Based. I love Hemingway's writing, and I love women with short hair too.
>>24948644I hate women with short hair, but I like reading.What is something short but sweet from the old Earnest? Then which is his best novel?I have read Old man and the Sea.
>>24948659Farewell to Arms is his best novel. That said, Hemingway really shines most in his short stories. If you only read one thing by Hemingway, the Finca Vigia collection is the one to go with.
I can't remember anything this guy said.
>Consider, for example, the writings of the school of Schelling, and observe the constructions that are built up out of abstractions like finite and infinite—being, non-being, other being—activity, hindrance, product—determining, being determined, determinateness—limit, limiting, being limited—unity, plurality, multiplicity—identity, diversity, indifference—thinking, being, essence, &c. Not only does all that has been said above hold good of constructions out of such materials, but because an infinite amount can be thought through such wide abstractions, only very little indeed can be thought in them; they are empty husks. But thus the matter of the whole philosophising becomes astonishingly trifling and paltry, and hence arises that unutterable and excruciating tediousness which is characteristic of all such writings. If indeed I now chose to call to mind the way in which Hegel and his companions have abused such wide and empty abstractions, I should have to fear that both the reader and I myself would be ill; for the most nauseous tediousness hangs over the empty word-juggling of this loathsome philophaster.t. Schopenhauer
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.
>>24946623im with him, they dont even make a point, so subtle it's likely indicative of a fed post
>>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
