There’s a classical criticism of German Idealism — Fichte, Schelling, Hegel — that compares their philosophies to a spider’s web. The Idealists, the charge goes, spin their vast conceptual systems entirely out of inner resources: reason, the self, pure concepts. The result is intricate and impressive, but ultimately self-referential — a web connected only to itself, touching nothing solid outside. Fichte’s ego-philosophy gets the worst of it: how can you derive an entire external world from the pure self-positing Ich? Critics from Jacobi to Herbart to the Neo-Kantians argued that genuine philosophy must begin with something given, not merely posited. The web is beautiful, they said, but it catches nothing.But this criticism rests on a distinction that dissolves under pressure.Consider what “the given” actually means for the empiricist. The world is simply there — presented to a passive mind that receives it. This is supposed to be epistemically innocent, unproblematic, pre-philosophical. But Kant already showed that the given is never simply given: it is always already structured, conditioned, taken up by the forms of intuition and the categories of the understanding. The “raw datum” — pure, uninterpreted Stoff — is itself a philosophical posit, not an observed fact. The critic who appeals to “what is simply given” is spinning a web too. They’ve just forgotten they wove it.Now consider Fichte’s Tathandlung. The Ich is not arbitrarily constructing itself from nothing by an act of sheer will. It finds itself as already there — given to itself, which is exactly what the Tathandlung tries to capture: an act that is simultaneously a fact. The Ich is the one case where the condition of appearing and what appears are identical.Here’s the point: the I‘s self-positing is a limit case of givenness, not its opposite. In the same way that the world’s existence is inexplicably given to the empiricist — no explanation of why anything is given at all, it simply is — the I is inexplicably given to itself. Both are philosophical bedrock. Neither admits of further grounding without regress. The asymmetry the critic assumes between “positing” and “givenness” collapses: they are both primitive, both unexplained, both foundational.The spider-web criticism would only land if the empiricist had some genuinely neutral, unposited ground to stand on. But there is no such ground. The empiricist’s “given” is as philosophically loaded as Fichte’s Ich — it’s just hidden behind the appearance of passivity.
>>25182224That spooky af no cap
Total bullshit LLM composed thread
>>25182237Not yet but whenever I get back into reading philosophy I probably will. I've only read Kant in isolated sections and it's probably smart to dive deeper into that first though.
>>25182197Great post, made my morning. A lot of people read Kant as saying something like ‘everything is mediated by your brain or mind, you never see the true reality’. Kant uses language sometimes that would seem to support this. But for Fichte there is no “given” (and there’s another legitimate sense in which you could call being ‘given’ which you’ve done). There is limitation, but no thing in itself. It’s hard to get people to see that this isn’t schizo, nor is it pointless wordplay. Why does Heidegger think Hegel is the end of philosophy? I haven’t read him yet but it seems sus af, Hegel was just a brilliant dogmatist to me.
>>25182197Too long, yes idealists, rationalists, whatever fuck-mindists all end up making true but useless things, Art. Well, more like sometimes true, sometimes not true, but always retarded because standing on wrong metaphysics, wrong axioms, wrong priorities.It always starts like this: "At first there is God and God is important so bullshit bullshit bullshit"or"At first there was a whole humanity, it had always been there, and humanity is important, never mind why or how, so bullshit bullshit bullshit"
how do you deal with a lack of purpose and a lack of faith? i can't seem to find meaning or purpose in things, and i cannot create it for myself as of yet. individual things are nice, but as a greater whole it all ebbs together into a "ehh it's okay" whatever.
>>25182916firstly what is your country of origin?
>>25182920norway desu
>>25182925Nei, egentlig. Hvor kommer du fra? Bevis det hva din frossenpizzabestilling er?
>>25182946sensasjonell
idk why this is on the lit board but if youve suffered quite badly in life to the point of dissociation, a lot of what jesus and the buddha say instantly makes sense. (dhammapada, gospel according to luke, ecclesiastes, job, acts of the apostles, all very good.) you dont have to explicitly "be" a christian or buddhist in order to appreciate their wisdom, if you dont want. i think this gets a bad rap because of grindset bros but unironically get a skill to a level where you start making independent derivations if you want self-fulfilling purpose. this takes a lot of time and at least an hour a day but it really does start happening. the confidence you get from seeing yourself actually become good at something (youre probably lacking purpose because you are skeptical about your own abilities in life) is life-changing and it is a feeling you unlock for sure, not one youre raised with or taught by schoolif you want some books that really got my ass moving, pick a couple from here, whatever catches your eye:Condensed Chaos by Philip HineWalter Isaacson's book on Einsteinthat American Prometheus book about Oppenheimeranything biographical about like Newton/da Vinci/Gauss/Euler/Ben Franklin/etc., anyone we typically conceive of as "genius" - you probably relate to them more than you think, and they have very distinct characters which are fun to read about. Rachmaninoff especially if youre depressedInfinite Jest/The Pale King/Brothers Karamazov but read only from the perspective of trying to understand your own emotions and getting the language to comprehend themStructure and Interpretation of Computer Programs' first chapter (i think its section 1.6 or 1.8) details a way to break down any problem of any kindThe Soviet Experiment by Ronald Grigor Suny really gives you a fat fat nonfiction book to sink your teeth intoSteven Moore's two volume The Novel an Alternative History gives you the same experience but for novelsMW by Osamu Tezuka was an appropriately japanese manga that expanded my taste a bitThe Republic by PlatoComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>read book >cry >not even sad scene just cry But why?
>>25182458Sometimes happens to me with random songs or movie scenes. Something would just go straight go my heart and i have not been able to figure out the cause.Guess things just affect me sometimes.
>>25182458If the beauty of language cannot make you cry can you even consider yourself a living, breathing and thinking human being?
>>25182760>>25182558For me it is usually two things - adversity and sacrifice against the forces of evil or a rare act of sincerity in a world that doesn't reward it.
>>25182764For me, it's the attempt to do/be good and to be misunderstood, and when someone fails utterly despite their best efforts. It gets me every time.
>>25182458Good question. Some passages affect me more than seems reasonable. For example, from the end of Alice Through The Looking-Glass:“Now, Kitty, let’s consider who it was that dreamed it all. This is a serious question, my dear, and you should not go on licking your paw like that — as if Dinah hadn’t washed you this morning! You see, Kitty, it must have been either me or the Red King. He was part of my dream, of course — but then I was part of his dream, too! Was it the Red King, Kitty? You were his wife, my dear, so you ought to know — Oh, Kitty, do help to settle it! I’m sure your paw can wait!” But the provoking kitten only began on the other paw, and pretended it hadn’t heard the question."He was part of my dream, of course — but then I was part of his dream, too!" is the bit that does the trick. No idea why. I did think at one point that it might be because Richard Adams quotes it as part of the epigraph for the epilogue of Watership Down, but I've decided it isn't that.I do think that things like this are probably triggering something from very early childhood though, even though consciously forgotten.
>Society tames the wolf into a dog. And man is the most domesticated animal of all.
trvth nvke
>>25182223People with autism truly are the last bastion of wild and free instincts in mankind.
>>25182036Thats ruff.
>>25182036This some Wolfi Landstreicher/FeralFaun (pedo btw) ahh shit
>>25182036very sad to be standing here at the beginning of civilizations, where everyone tires to them to explain to you "Hey I hate myself, I do not wish for my self! I give away my life, aren't I so good! Do it like me too" Why do people not want more for themselves? I hate women, the female psyche, self-annihilating sympathy, just so fucking ugly
what books to read to a baby so that it does not go full chud
>>25182504You want a president that appeals to your vague center left sensibilities.
>>25181649> They just do whatever the powerful sayExplain women becoming nuns and sisters in the current year.
>>25181544>He doesn't understand that "nation" was synonymous with race back then.Imagine failing nationalism 101 this hard lol.
Why are brown people so butthurt about white people?
>we just want a le high trust society shitlib>*constantly vice signals about being a racist gay pedophile who loves rape, murder and hitler to appeal to his third world nazi e-friends on xitter and the 'cord*How to explain this contradiction? You can just own being an antisocial pederast, it's more transgressive anyway. You don't need to do this tortured bit about secretly wanting to live peacefully among others.>>25182407youre a liar
Chtorr editionHere we discuss any kind of science fiction and fantasy.>Recommended reading charts (Look here before asking for vague recs):https://mega.nz/folder/kj5hWI6J#0cyw0-ZdvZKOJW3fPI6RfQ/folder/4rAmSZxb>Archive:https://warosu.org/lit/?task=search2&search_subject=sffg>Goodreads:https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/1029811-sffg
>>25182318kekthat's fucking brutal
>>25182318> "First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either."His ego was only matched by his lack of talent.
>>25182782Post your writing, kiddo
I just finished reading Watership Down. It was a really nice relaxing read. Just the right amount of tense. It's kind of interesting because all the rabbits have their own personalities but the book still has to treat death as a sort of casual affair because in the end they're still rabbits. Makes the book both whimsical and grim at the same time. Lot of interesting tone shifts too. There's a horror segment, a spy thriller, battles, some slice of life stuff. Just really enjoyable from start to finish.
>>25182370The comments... comment was ~20 hours before the artist commented.But yeah what a piece of trash lol the author doesn't pay or even CONTROL what goes on the cover if you're tradpub.
Thoughts on this whore?
You should try The doll - Boleslaw Prus. Kind of mirrored story where Anna turn to a romantic intelligent man (main character) and Wronsky becames pretty, bitchy queen. I didnt mean to simplify those great books but its interesting to see such how many simmilarities are between those two, and how story differs based on main character sex
>>25182469Something feels very artificial about this book. It's all self-inserts and memories presented as an objective view of social life.
>>25182469One of the best books ever written
>>25182968That's all authors. Trying to infect your mind, like germs. Don't pay that much mind to them and their fiction.
>>25183004It's so hard to get through. I hate the characters. I hate the narrator. And I hate Russia.
I wrote a fiction story that was mid, so I recreated it into this weird "poem", made it rhyme. I'm ready to put this writing project aside now. How is it? It the story understandable? It's 3k words, which is like less then 10 pages. I was trying to be like Homer's Odyssey because I am autistic.
>>25182483for fuck sake, forgot the fucking link ;>https://pastebin.com/TpjdxQEq
>>25182488sorry, i don't read
>>25182483sorry, I can't read, been awake 24hrs too tiredbut I'll say thisI hate rats, I hate that ratatouille, a good movie, is about rats, a horrible creature. I wish rats would all disappear even though I don't think I've seen one other than at a pet store, I just dislike them existing. It's like humans, I'm eugenicist you know, I wish we could wipe everything below 105IQ and start other
So Clive is just a BDSM Stephen King? What are your thoughts on his work
>>25181895why gays seem/seemed to do so much hookups?what was stopping them from just fucking the same ass and being in a long term relationship?
>>25179227how many films has your work inspired, fucko?
>>25180491barker writes longhand. king uses a word processor
>>25182634It's not just the hookup count, anal sex spreads disease at a higher rate than pretty much any other sex act (barring rare and exotic stuff like bloodplay). It's true for straight couples too.
>>25178800His earlier books are good but by the mid-90s he ran out of steam and became very repetitive. I'd still like to read the third book of the Art series, but it's unlikely he'll finish it.
why did he betray the German people? >In 1942, he wrote in his diary that he was ashamed to be a German soldier after seeing Jewish children in Paris forced to wear the Star of David.he even wrote jewish propaganda in his "diaries", mentioning various alleged atrocities the german army committed throughout ww2 i thought this guy was supposed to be based, but he was a full on jewish race traitor. why do people here push this loser so hard?
who cares, history repays people like him by destroying the very society which would read his writings in the first place, same for Tolkien's
>>25182601I don't see the problem. That is shameful. Being ashamed of evil does not make you a race traitor
>>25182601Your mistake was ever thinking he was pro-Nazi. He openly said he hated that the Nazis used his writings as propaganda.
>>25182601He didn’t have access to internet so he wasn’t ruined for life like you.
>>25182612There is no better way to start hating the French than living a year in Paris.
What makes something "deep"? Is this a subjective quality? Can everyone have a different and valid view of something that is deep? Does the term imply emotional or intellectual complexity? What are authors that are deep?
>>25179521>What makes something "deep"? Is this a subjective quality?Yes.>Can everyone have a different and valid view of something that is deep?Yes.>Does the term imply emotional or intellectual complexity?Yes.>What are authors that are deep?Generally speaking, dead.
>>25179521A thing in itself is not "deep". Deep is just a place you go so to speak. So you can go "deep" with anything.Complexity is something different but it doesn't define how deep you can go.
>>25181529Good way of thinking about it. A line in a poem can be deep. It can take you to place inside that a long complicated novel cant
Why did this thread not get even ten replies? Was it too deep or not deep enough?
>>25182990Probably because you were unwilling or unable to engage any of the comments and the board is dead. Even before it died it was difficult to generate original discussion on books and ideas instead of the>should i read harry potter>woman hating thread>shelf posting thread>woman harry potter thread>woman shelf posting (dumb whores are totally performative! But not me! I only buy classic i have not read before!)
admit it, /lit/.there are definitely instances where the film is better than the book
>>25181142this. the enjoyment of a book and the film adaptation are mutually exclusive. I laughed my ass off reading Clockwork Orange, and I hated the film after that, although I generally liked all Cubrick films. I will never know if I liked the film if I hadn't read the book beforehand.On the other hand I found LotR very boring and pointless after I watched the movie, so I will never know if I had liked those books, either.Books create deeper memories and define you as a thinking human being, so I would always prefer to experience the book.
>>251806682024 Count of Monte Cristo is leagues ahead of the book, it actually manages to preserve the pace and suspense instead of wobbling all over the place, although it is sad that the old man didnt make it into this version
>>25180673>Retard actually thinks the medium defines the qualityLet me guess fan of James 'brainfarts' Joyce, right?
>>25180673This. >>25180668Only when it was slop in the first place.
>>25180818>You can't make a great film out of a good book— Master & Commander: The Far Side Of The World [yes, it draws from several of the books but I don't think that invalidates it]— Lawrence of Arabia— True Grit (2010)— The Maltese Falcon— Deliverance [Maybe. The book is definitely good. The film is on the border of being great I think.]— Gone With The Wind— Blade Runner [Film & book are very different, but you didn't say it has to be a super-faithful adaptation. Book just about scrapes into 'good', I would say.]— Apocalypse Now [Again, film & book are very different, but so what?]— The Talented Mr Ripley [not a profound film, but pretty much flawlessly made, so maybe it makes it into 'great']— The Assassination Of Jesse James [book is not well known but it's quite a decent historical novel]Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Can some Aristotle Christcuck please explain to me what differentiates Aristotle from Plato? From everything I've read of Aristotle, it just seems like he was embarrassingly filtered, like a 12 year old atheist. Please, if there are Aristotle tards out there, justify this nigga's existence. I'm at the point where I believe that the only reason he exist is because Jews want to portray Christianity as a consequence of his metaphysics which are ultimately retarded.
>>25182930Not fond of either but from what I recall offhand>Plato believed in metempsychosis while Aristotle believed it was at best unproven>Plato believed matter was shaped by form while Aristotle believed that form was the result of the expression of an innate property in matter>Plato believed that good ethics were the result of knowledge of the absolute supreme good while Aristotle believed they were the result of intelligently engaging in deliberately good actions
>>25182930chicken thing mainly
Talk about poems/poets you like, post your own work, and critique others.
Its path erased by men who sell the riveras developers carved silence into its banks.
The sun has downed beyond the garden;Fingerblades of grass meant to stretchAnd sing Cliotic axes instead are dumb inGray and fruitless mourning, chokedWith the unpicked lilies of ambition
What are lies?Truth’s broken shards reshaped to fit desire’s disguise?Or hollow words, born from the hunger to deceive?Are they fragile stones beneath tomorrow’s fall,or the golden road that tempts us all?They said, nothing in life comes easy.Yet lies they hum so sweet, so flimsy,filling the void with borrowed peace,a comfort stitched from false release.We rest upon that fleeting ease,blind to the rot beneath our knees.Why?Fools, we arebelieving deceit demands no scar.Lives collapse, hearts decay,Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Between a golfing supply placeAnd the green cuboid warehouse of an angler's outfitters,I slipped - it was my lunchbreak - into the undeveloped back-plotsAnd ascending a sandy ridge of high pines,onto gravel paths within sound of the highway,I saw a sign, painted white and proppedAgainst a slender, coral, conical stone;It said, Cult of The Black Bat: Headquartersand High Temple, and in a smaller font:Members Only.Disturbed I returned through the staff room(Breezeblock cloister, familiar humid silence,Haunted by the motionless form of a brother-employee),Affixed my branded golf-cap, and sold golfing suppliesUntil the sun shot flares through the pines,Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>25182887revised prose version. an improvement imo.
Isn't "the unique one" or "the only" or "the ego", a product of society? It is produced by intercourse and womb and raised up and molded. No desires except the simplest, instinctual ones, arise within the individual, they are inputted from his world. His clothes, his language, his habits. There is also nothing the individual does per se, no more than a cell in his body does anything per se. All of his thoughts are woven from the material manufactured by countless other minds and forged by his imagination. He is constantly bombarded by messages and conditions, to have certain desires and drives and to find in these his sense of purpose. How are these subliminal or unconscious "spooks", less spooky than conscious ones? How is it that a union of individuals is a spook, but a conflicting bundle of desires and individual brain cells, is not?
>>25182295>How are these subliminal or unconscious "spooks", less spooky than conscious ones?"There is a difference whether one is determined by an other or by oneself, whether one is a living one or a reasonable one. Love lives on the principle that everyone does what he does for the sake of the other, freedom lives on the principle that he does it for his own sake""But how does love appear in the face of freedom?"Stirner, Preliminary Remarks on the Liebesstaat (pic)>How is it that a union of individuals is a spook, but a conflicting bundle of desires and individual brain cells, is not?I don't think you understand what a spook is, it is not just any idea. A spook is a concept which holds power over you because you've made it real and forgot you were the creator of that concept, that idea, and therefore its master, and therefore capable to abandon it whenever, because it holds no power. A spook is an idea that holds power of decision over you. By "you" you must understand the conscious ego, that must evaluate things for itself. >Isn't "the unique one" or "the only" or "the ego", a product of society? It is produced by intercourse and womb and raised up and molded. No desires except the simplest, instinctual ones, arise within the individual, they are inputted from his world. His clothes, his language, his habits. There is also nothing the individual does per se, no more than a cell in his body does anything per se. All of his thoughts are woven from the material manufactured by countless other minds and forged by his imagination. And when you describe things like this then, what advantage does 'Society' have over the individual more than Nature, or Reality or a God? And so what? Why? What does that have to do with anything that the child is born into the world from the world? Why would that prevent him from claiming acquiring things by himself, for himself? Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>25182964(continuing)another pic from "Philosophical Reactionaries", with a rant that I likeThe hard part is always being clear about what it is to be a slave, or a master. What does it mean to be addicted, and lacking choice, or what does it mean to 'choose' something.To me it always comes clear with that question "Can you say 'no'?". It comes clear that someone addicted to drugs, or food, or TV, is simply unable to say no, and has one desire that eats up every other, It's an imbalance in a way. You could say "but if you desire that thing A(e.g. drugs) and you fulfill that desire isn't that a choice? Isn't that fine? Aren't you saying 'Yes' to it?", You are indeed right that you say yes at all times to a particular desire when you are addicted, but what makes it not a choice, is that you confront one single desire with every other you incapable to say no.Similarly, what is 'choice'? To me choice only happens with a power of evaluation and the *possibility of rejection*, it is saying Yes while having the potential to say No, otherwise it is no choice at all."Where does unselfishness begin? Right where an end ceases to be our end and our property [Eigen/um] , which we, as owners, can dispose of at pleasure; where it becomes a fixed end or a - fixed idea; where it begins to inspire, enthuse, fanaticize us; in short, where it passes into our stubbornness and becomes our - master. One is not unselfish so long as he retains the end in his power; one becomes so only at that 'Here I stand, I can do no other', the fundamental maxim of Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>25182984(continuing)I'll add one last point because I have seen it being brought up against me many times.Continuously saying Yes to living in society is not proof or admission of slavery, or an argument that you should live *for* it, if you say Yes to society continuously because you recognize it benefits *you* when compared to the alternative of being a hermit or committing suicide then it is still a choice so long as you keep the power within you to end yourself at any moment you'd see society being irremediably bad, the Ultimate No, suicide. Live free
