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?
>>24850428I was thinking about picking up Post An next, actually. Hippocrates Apostle or Barnes? Wish there was a Sachs version. =(>Learning isn't the coming to be of a substance, it isn't an alteration like a wall becoming white, it's a 'falling into place' and a coming to rest of the intellect in relation to something else, the particular which is potential in the universal.Well, it's just very confusing to see how the Platonic bent isn't in line with the anti-becoming aspect of Aristotle's "resting of the intellect" here, unless perhaps you are suggested that Aristotle is flanking Plato from Platonism (i.e. if Plato's anamnesis is like a potency of sorts from an earlier actuality, Aristotle's anamnesis never posits a forgetting and was always actual from the very beginning).
>>24850289> Again, why would a perfect Being make imperfect beings? Aristotle doesn't even try to answer this. Aristotle is 1.) very afraid of being too speculative, he was traumatized by all this schizo mumbo jumbo he experienced in the Academy; 2.) one of his main ideas is that some things are the way they are and we can't seek further explanations for them.> If anything, however sort of perfection of Being has, Being-Itself is also engaged in an imperfect teleology. Throwing around Necessity and Eternity and such doesn't get rid of this initially Platonic problem that resurfaced in an Aristotelianized schema of the Platonic One and the Indefinite Dyad flattened in a superimposition as Unmoved Mover that's also Active Intellect. There's your Spinozian Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata, where One and Many is {One Many} prior to a oneness and a manynessI agree, his theology is flawed and it does indeed lead to Spinozism. The idealists are the heroes in this story. I'm just trying to give him his due. I am not an astrotheologian and if you throw out the astro- part, none of it makes sense. This is another thing Thomists will never understand.
>>24850428Were you the same guy that was arguing that Post An is about knowledge as opposed to merely pedagogical teaching?
>>24850458Barnes is the only one I've read and it's perfectly fine, very literal. His commentary sucks though. I know how retarded that sounds, some random anon criticizing a great scholar, but he really did not understand, partly I think because he never read any of the Arabs. He thinks the syllogism is a deductive argument and this is fatal to understanding the Organon. The Greeks themselves did not understand the Analytics, it's an absolute cunt of a book, the sketchiest thing Aristotle wrote. I've heard good things about Apostle and he seems highly congenial to me, like I know he is critical of Barnes, but haven't read it. Aquinas' commentary is useful in the sense that he explains the structure of the work - there is a method to Aristotle's apparent madness. But on some of the details he is wrong, partly because his translation was bad, partly because he relies on a bad commentary (Philoponus). Still for a crutch to help you figure out wtf is going on in some of the trickier passages you could do worse than Aquinas.>Well, it's just very confusing to see how the Platonic bent isn't in line with the anti-becoming aspect of Aristotle's "resting of the intellect" here, unless perhaps you are suggested that Aristotle is flanking Plato from Platonism (i.e. if Plato's anamnesis is like a potency of sorts from an earlier actuality, Aristotle's anamnesis never posits a forgetting and was always actual from the very beginning).I might be misunderstanding you but the 'coming to rest' aspect doesn't have to do with our 'already knowing' whatever we come to know, it's just a psychological observation about how when we know something we 'rest' in our knowledge of it. When I know something my intellect as such is not in motion in any way; if it was moving, I wouldn't be knowing that thing.
>>24850486Yes, and it is about knowledge, and he says this right at the start of the Analytics. There are passages certainly that do talk about pedagogy (thesis vs. hypothesis and so on) but the subject of the work is episteme. I don't care to argue about it if you think otherwise, you're wrong and should read it again, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming and literally every single Aristotelian that I have ever read, besides whatever modern jackass may have influenced you, agrees with me.
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.
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?
>>24850337There's external and internal experience. If you have an inner world with ideas and feelings worth expressing, you can write. If not... well, that's on you.
Write what you know
>>24850130Anyone can be a writer. You did some writing just now. Can you be a good writer? That's another thing entirely. There's no upbringing that always produces a good writer, no life experiences that universally transform people into good writers, seemingly no key attributes that all good writers must have. The only way to tell whether you can be a good writer or not is for you to write, and when you've written every word you'll ever set to paper, people can look back on your corpus and decide how good you were.
>>24850130This was me but I got a wagie job to make me talk to people to have material for my writing. The book I'm working on is pretty much a collection of the bizarre social interactions I see every day strung together with a loose plot about messiahs
>>24850130Yes, but you won't be, because you decided to make and lurk in this thread instead of writing something
Do you do a fiction and a nonfiction concurrently?
>>24849267YesI'm currently reading Kim by Rudyard Kipling and the Modern Library Ethics anthology
Yeah, I'm reading a Quaranic concordance with my left eye and The Complete Works of Schism R. Asunder with my right.
>>24849267lol i was hoping that david weber book was like a dank dense history of the schism of 1054 but apparently it's just some shit the author made up about a space church or something. should have known from the cover art cuz it was sus but i had a hope.
What can we learn about the "Holden Caulfield Archetype" from recent revelations that Sam Altman raped his sister
>>24850472>recent revelations that (((Sam Altman))) raped his sisterAre there proofs or is it just claims?
Serious question: do you think the 21st century will be seen as a sort of dark age? From where I’m looking, market of art and ideas is too oversaturated for anything interesting to stick out. The notion of rebelling against the dominant culture no longer has any weight, because due to decades of waning attention spans and centuries of similar rebellion, we simply don’t have a culture coherent enough to rebel against. The avenues left open to contemporary writers seem to be1) - mindless bestseller slop that we all know about (romance, YA novels, poetry books by bitter women and ethnic diaspora groups)2) - /lit/-bro rehashing of the classics, attempting to live in a past which no longer exists and perhaps never existed3) - hyper-obscure avant-garde literature, written by fairly intelligent academics but destined to be read by only three people.The transformation is probably irreversible. There will never be a return to the older world of literature, and whatever comes after us will have to be completely original. I’m welcoming recommendations of anything written in the 21st century that you think is quite good.
>>24850037It will be another generation or two. All physical media has to be phased out firat, then there will be a period of hyper accelerated retardation before the plug is pulled one way or another, erasing 99% of everthing
>market of art and ideas is too oversaturated for anything interesting to stick out.sounds to me like one of those old timer jokes>nobody goes down that road anymore, it's too busyhave some faith in man's ability to get bored with the current scheme. maybe this will last a hundred years, maybe a thousand, maybe a decade, but eventually some novel way of thinking will emerge, some modality of artistic endeavor shall roar, and all will take heed.
>>24850037>...and perhaps never existedWhat a cliche.The period from the printing press to the internet was pretty unique, and this digitization and then by copyright utter destruction of everything that came before will wipe out nearly everything. Absolutely a dark age, but mostly due of a culture of anti-intellectualism and corporatism. Almost nothing will survive the evolution of digital media and copyright. Give it a few hundred years.
>>24850037>The transformation is probably irreversible. There will never be a return to the older world of literature, and whatever comes after us will have to be completely originalI strongly disagree. It's the other way around: the problem is we have no great unifying literature or art. Where's our Grapes of Wrath? A Tale of Two Cities? Frankenstein? Moby Dick? Three Musketeers? Dante's Inferno? Etc etc. At most you have genres. Markets. Hobbyists interesting in a specific genre, those are still around. But a literary work that will be read and examined by the general public in 20-40 years are dying off.
Atheist-sisters, our response? He has five of them!
>>24843519Intelligence is somewhat irrelevant to whether they were right or wrong in this. Aristotle believed eels began as worms that themselves began as wet soil, for example. In my experience, people who equate being correct with being intelligent are quite ignorant and often very stupid.
>>24849187Pascal’s wager:You play the lottery. You can either win or not. If you don’t win, nothing happens. If you win, you become a millionaire. What does “odds” mean?
>>24843490good book goes over the subject quite wellFor all the people arguing about this each of these arguments is specifically laid out in formal argumentshttps://archive.org/details/edward-feser-five-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god/page/n71/mode/2upWith tons of text arguing for each specific proposition.Point out which proposition is false or does not follow in each of the arguments please Doing anything other than this is just being a retard
The whole atheism thing kind of rests on a false framing of the argument as1) There is a Godand2) There is no Godit's between1) There is more to reality that which can be measured, modeled, and predicted in accord with predictive sciences vs2) There is nothing real except that which can be measured, modeled, and predicted in accord with predictive sciences But to lay it out clearly like that is obviously retarded. Everyone who denies the existence of God just accepts the second view implicitly or explicitly even though it is completely retarded, incoherent, and ungrounded. Anyone who does not assume reality is only a bunch of empty physical matter we can measure and manipulate believes in God, or they are just retarded and participate in our "scientific" culture and are unwilling to abandon it, so they say they are vaguely spiritual while wanting to stay attached to the idea that actually it just is a bunch of atoms and nothing really exists. I think this is why eastern religion larpers are drawn to it, it has the scientific rejection of reality and the self as illusory but makes them feel like there's still some spiritual "orientation" to it. I don't think they are genuine participants in the eastern religion though, they are still fundamentally still doing the same western scientific project and spreading it.
>>24846564>Everything must have a cause, or a mover>Therefore something must exist that doesn'tIt would be funny if theists weren't so brain damaged and shallow
This is the only genre that makes money and the money train isn't stopping any time soon. Short of a puritanical John Carpenter style government, there will always be demand for this shit.The question is, can a dude write successful girlporn? This is the literary question.I'm going to read this milking farm thing and see if I can't get a knack for how women write. I'm suspecting it's a bit like this:>Minimal attention to details and the world, emphasis on personal impressions and feelings; the world as a set of things that make you feel different ways.>Braindead, 12-15 year old brain simplicity. Imagine a Middle School girl trying to "speed download" social gossip updates to a friend.>Vanity, ego, zero accountability, petty delusions, cliches. This will require a bit of research and marketing savvy just to collect up what today's cliches are. Fortunately, women are dead simple and just go on TikTok/Twitter and see what buzzwords come up a lot.>Sultry language.This one's tough. From what I understand explicit, gross language is what sells this shit and is the female equivalent of visually seeing porn. On the other hand, I have a feeling that I could write porn that is vastly more detailed and explicit than what women read and would alienate them. I have a feeling it's just stuff like, "sweaty" "bulge" "heaving" "cock!" "pulsing". Words that sound distinctly naughty but remain vague. It's not about visualizing, even through text, sexual mechanics. It's about breaking social taboos so women feel "naughty" and liberated from their neurotic sexual restraints.>Female attractionThis is tough. How far do you go with "big muscles, ripped body"? How much do women want to read that, and when is it too much? Women like being dominated but they like to feel it was their choice to be dominated. As a man who understands women very well, I don't want to tap into their sexual triggers too accurately because that might lead to a sense of "revealing too much" about female sexuality which women don't like. They like most of it to remain implicit and simple.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24850035>Minimal attention to details and the world, emphasis on personal impressions and feelings; the world as a set of things that make you feel different ways.>Vanity, ego, zero accountability, petty delusions, cliches.This is on point for feminized writing, but I could never sell my soul by adding more of such trash to the world
>>24850035Being a writer is one of the worst get-rich-quick schemes you can embark on. Even if you acquire the skills necessary to tell a cohesive, marketable story your odds of making a killing—or any cash at all—are extremely low.
"Next Generation" editionPrevious: >>24845792/wg/ AUTHORS & FLASH FICTION: https://pastebin.com/ruwQj7xQRESOURCES & RECOMMENDATIONS: https://pastebin.com/nFxdiQvCPlease limit excerpts to one post.Give advice as much as you receive it to the best of your ability.Follow prompts made below and discuss written works for practice; contribute and you shall receive.If you have not performed a cursory proofread, do not expect to be treated kindly. Edit your work for spelling and grammar before posting.Violent shills, relentless shill-spammers, and grounds keeping prose, should be ignored and reported.(And maybe double-space your WIPs to allow edits if you want 'em.)Simple guides on writing:Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24849453You're projecting, anon
>>24850147Yes weWHAT IS GARDNER'S FIRST NAME?WHAT IS GARDNER'S FIRST NAME?I NEED TO KNOW!
>>24850273*are
Do you guys use Vectorpea and Photopea to design your book covers? I've found them to be just as good as the Adobe products. Kind of amazing actually everything you can do just in browser.
>>24850475i used to hate web app shit, but now that i have a real job with a locked down work laptop where i can't install photoshop and it's not a mac so can't use pixelmator, i've realized the appeal of just opening your browser and using some shit. i get that they have to lock down work computers or normies will install a horror show of malware but it's like i actually need photoshop for this project tho. pain point alleviated, thank you entrepreneurs.
What is your favorite novel, short story, or poem from 1925 (the year which some have called “the greatest year of literature”)?
>>24850245just looked at the Wikipedia page '1925 in literature', and the only ones i've read are:>Virginia Woolf, Mrs Dalloway>Franz Kafka, The Trial>William Carlos Williams, In the American Graini've never seen In the American Grain discussed on here, it's pretty interesting.
>>24850287Thank you for your paranoid racism, Mr. Buchanan.>>24850298How have you not read Gatsby? Everyone has to read it for school.Might as well knock it out now before the year’s over so you can get in on the centennial celebratory fun:https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/f-scott-fitzgerald/the-great-gatsby
>>24850245Is metropolis a novelization of the film?
>>24850245Great Gatsby had a reference to Lothrod Stoddards Rising Tide of Color - yes its truehttp://www.google.com/search?q=great+gatsby+reference+rising+tide+of+color
>>24850245I have recorded 3 things that I have read from 1925:The Great GatsbyMockery Gap (T.F. Powys)The Heart of a Dog (Bulgakov) Probably Heart of a Dog has stuck with me the most.
where are all the contemporary conservative philosophers?
I wish I could kill everyone who disagrees with me
Libtards and the left expend a lot of energy defining their identity according to their political beliefs and a lot of time patting themselves on the back. What a bunch of midwits.
Conservatives spend all their time in a futile attempt to make the clock run backwards and blaming the other for their various spiritual and sexual failimgs.
>>24847254>philosophy without epistemic humilityNow that's a fucking disaster waiting to happen.I bet these people are Act-Utilitarians too.
>>24849075this
Why hasn't he won the big one yet /lit/? He's more than deserving.
>>24846006It's ok to be retarded anon
No he sucks big white cocks you moron. Fuck off back to goodreads
>>24847749You don't even know why you like it dipshit. No one with unironic bike-cuck psychology (as the book advocates) is a basket weaving forum user. Not even our trannys.You like it because you want to be seen as the sort of person who likes him.
>>24842420My Murakami > Your Murakami
>>24849253both Murakamis suck though. what a cursed surname
Give me one good reason why he isn't the greatest writer to have ever lived
>>24848880Seethe
>>24848106This sounds very gay.
>>24849140>What are his essays/critiques like?Against sainte beuve is a must read. On reading is alright and iirc it also contains the neat inciting incident that lead to the recherche. The rest is not life changing but if you like him so far you will like the rest as wellHaven't read his other novel and only skimmed his verses which I found unimpressive but tbf I don't really get poetry generally
>>24848297You've been missing a lot
>>24848423>sprawling verbosityIs that really what you got from his prose?
Previous: >>24841342
>>24850382Are you referring to the action-adventure NES/SNES/Turbografx action-adventure platformers, or the PS1/GBA Metroidvania ones?Because Aria of Sorrow is fairly different to Super Castlevania IV.
>>24850390Metroidvanias
Wrote a shitpost short story about my friends. I like to ask AI what it thinks of my story, as a baseline for the average reader. It described my story as dysphoric. Suffice to say, I'm not going to take AI seriously anymore.
>>24847640Dead eyes, dead eyesAnd are you just like me?>>24847745>Adrion HirschiYou just know he was a /g/fag, and not the linux kind.
This is a weird thread. >>24847856 is wrong because I don't wanna see animals dying. But he says his points well. Meanwhile >>24847891 writes like an ESL middle schooler in the projects and is focused on the irrelevant points. Which is he can have one, two, five, ten, hundred animals of dying hippos, they're all irrelevant. The fundamental issue is I don't want to see it. But I don't want to agree with someone who says "lol idk" in the literature board, so hippofag you have my blessings to keep posting your gross shit.
When you read a book, do you visualize the landscape and the people, like a movie scene flowing through your mind?
>>24843673I agree, that it is hard to really visualize truly foreign things you've never seen before. And this has tripped me up, reading some speculative fiction that deals with alien concepts, because my visualization defaults to more familiar memories and I have to remind myself of the differences. This is why I like to look at art of strange, alien places and beings. It broadens my familiarity with things outside my experience and makes my imagination richer. The same logic behind training generative AI models, I guess.
This thread actually makes me wonder if some people don't enjoy reading plays or even fiction in general just because they can't imagine what's happening.
>>24847693This is exactly how I operate. I've had running stories or 'scenes' that I day dream or think about before bed. I add little bits or change bits, I don't write it down though. I just remember it all.
>>24842322I can't see or hear anything at all. For me, the main part of the enjoyment I get from reading is how the author is using language, as well as the concepts he's coming up with. I don't like film adaptations of books I've liked, because they're so slow compared to my reading speed and they (by necessity) miss out the myriad of small details and prose quirks of the author. It's just a film and I know the actors are just actors and everything is fake. With text, it feels as real as any of my memories are, because I have no ability to visualise those either. When I think back to things that have happened to me in the past, I'm essentially describing those events to myself in prose. My pet theory of aphantasia is that it's a fundamentally different "operating system" that a certain percentage of people are running.
>>24842322I don't tend to visualise as I'm reading, I just read and remember the words. When I'm thinking about certain scenes afterwards they'll manifest visually without needing to think of the words.
