>If it can't be written in formal logic, it is not a philosophical position; it is not a proposition at all, and cannot be proved for or against empirically, or logically. It's just sophism.the most retarded thing i've ever read on this board by a mile. stirner is the only philosophy related image i have btw
>>24958956your god has spoken
>>24958967No one is debating that. You've fallen down a pit of your own pretentiousness. And now you're assuming I think generative AI is some sort of secular God. Unless you wish to pull your head out of your ass, further discussion is pointless.
>>24958972https://gprivate.com/6jelw
>>24958980Post whatever you say here, not in some spammy link to a probable virus site.
>>24958921>for people that like to use their brainyou are giving the responsability of your thoughts to a literal predictive machine and you will be happy about it. >Books can do that, but there are too manythis is like the classical problem of reading secondary literature about another book instead of reading the original book. you are happily entering a reclusive infinite loop of secondary literature and the only reason why you think is great is for your faith that LLM have undoubtedly a more cohesive and brilliant capacity to resume thoughts. you are a product of your time, you are elon musk jacking off in space, you are a "trust in us" camaraderie of entrepeneurs talking about fucking lazy bastards, you are producitvity, you are efficiency above all, you are the crumbs of discourse, a nothing, a desperate mystic in the making.
How does kojève’s Hegel interpretation hold up. Is it faithful to the source material? In other words can I trust him to transfer the essential Hegel to me?
>>24958751Thanks. Do you prefer his approach over a more faithful one?
Like the other poster said, Kojeve doesn't give a shit whether it's really Hegel or not. He is about as faithful to Hegel as Schopenhauer is to Kant: both see something they like, something that is "so fundamentally right that it's the obvious important bit," and scrap the rest. Just like Schopenhauer guts basically everything other than appearance/reality dualism in the Critical Appendix, and replaces 99% of Kant's actual conceptual scaffolding with bits of British and classical epistemologies, Kojeve doesn't give a shit about Hegel's metaphysics (definitely) and doesn't give a shit about 95% of his philosophical interpretation of history. He secularizes Hegel's philosophical history completely, turning it into something more like Kant's "Ideas for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Purpose" than what Hegel actually intended. All he cares about is the social-level, intersubjective dialectic of mutual recognition. He is basically a Left Hegelian in this, and it's obvious that he's basically one Left Hegelian in particular: Marx. He essentially just steps back from vulgar Plekhanov-style historical materialism into the "social Hegelian" Marx that underlies so much of contemporary academic Marxism. It's interesting but in my opinion you can get the gist by reading very little of it. Again, it's just Kant's "Universal History" + Hegel's Cunning of Reason + Marxist philosophy of history but without the materialist fatalism. Instead it's liberal-constitutional fatalism. The argument is not metaphysical, it's simply that once "good enough" constitutions were created that allowed mass-democratic distribution and homogenization of political rights, there was effectively no going back, because this has been the engine and telos of constitutional theory since the beginning of human association. But it's only a telos in a functional sense, not in the literal metaphysical sense Hegel tried to save/sublimate from ancient metaphysics. It's the END of history in the sense that the function reaches a steady state, not the teleological end of history in the sense that a form has reached entelechy. In this sense it seems to me that it's almost a hybrid of early modern social contract theory (= reductionist, psychologistic, post-metaphysical/non-teleological theories of why humans formed political associations in the first place) and Enlightenment progress fetishism (Condorcet e.g.), but adjusting the latter so that it's not the triumphant utopian march of reason understanding the world and perfecting the social world, it's just the grim calculus of "fat retarded Mexicans aren't going to give up legal equality even if all they do with it is live consumerist lives." It's basically exactly what Nietzsche feared with the "last men" and "passive nihilism." Apparently Kojeve mildly preferred a haut bourgeois European form of his end of history, so even he was capable of typical European horror at "Americanism" (fat Mexicans watching TV).
>>24958850>Apparently Kojeve mildly preferred a haut bourgeois European form of his end of historyA Japanese form, actually
>>24958714No. Hegel's master dialectic (which is essential to Kojève) is only the start of society for Hegel, and not its actual motor. This is where Kojève departs from Hegel and uses recognition and the master/slave dialectic as an engine.Other than that, >>24958850 is very clear and right about Kojève. Great effort post
>>24958850Oh ok. I unfortunately have a hunch that kojève might be right with this analysis.
What is /lit/'s view of DFW? To some, he is the apotheosis of brolit, the pretentious fave, arrogant, library fratbro, majority white audience, suburban mayonnaise ass.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S85K7lHoL0Q
>>24958495a black woman is speakinglisten and learn
>>24958495>>24958495 (OP)To some, this reviewer is the apex of niggardliness, the obese fave, bossy, virtue-signalling hooker, majority black audience, ghetto nigger ass
>>24958966and those people have never heard her speak
>>24958495Black girls have thoughts now?
>>24958495She says she loves Infinite Jest but feels the way David treated race, specifically black matters, was pretty weird and uncomfortable—but that that still doesn't undermine its real greatness in her eyes. She admits too she is not close to 100% able to articulate what exactly is wrong with his portrayal, because it's complicated.
What is there even left to read after him?? Why is his prose so good?
his prose can be a bit confining, read someone else and you're freed
>>24946325Nabokov will not be thought of as a serious writer 150 years from now
>>24956591Nope, that's just as contrived as Nabokov's slop. Real literature is simple and sincere, proceeding from a measured view of the world
>>24954592oh, now I understand the Nabokov decriers. They are troubled by their own desire to coom while reading Lolita and project it onto the author and his fans, to then denounce them as pedos. Sorry you're subhuman but it's not Nabokovs fault bucko.>>24958898>Real literature is generic comfort foodsimple indeed
>>24958981Ah yes the 'no u' defence, unbeatable.
Sapient Species, Races, and Miscellaneous Sapients EditionFAQ:>What is worldbuilding?Worldbuilding is the process of creating entire fictional worlds from scratch, all while considering the logistics of these worlds to make them as believable as possible. Worldbuilding asks questions about the setting of a world, and then answers them, often in great detail. Most people use it as a means of creating a setting or the scenery for a story.>"Isn't there a Worldbuilding general in >>>/tg/ already?"Yes, there is. However, that general is focused on the creation of fictional worlds for the intended purpose of playing TTRPG campaigns. Here you can discuss worldbuilding projects that are not meant to be used for a roleplaying setting, but for novels, videogames, or any other kind of creative project.>"Can I discuss the setting of my campaign here, though?"If you want to, but it would probably be better to discuss it on >>>/tg/ . We don't allow the discussion of TTRPG mechanics, however. If you want to discuss stats or which D&D edition is best, this is not the place.>"Can I talk about an existing fictional setting that is not mine?"Yes, of course you can!>"Does worldbuilding need to be about fantasy and elves?"Worldbuilding, as already stated above, and contrary to what many believe, does not inherently imply blatantly copying Tolkien. In fact, there are many science-fiction setting out there, and even entire alternative history settings which do not possess supernatural elements at all. Any kind of science fiction book has an implied setting at least, which involves a certain degree of worldbuilding put into it.Old Thread: >>24748733
>>24956069Throw a stone in a pond. The ripples are the universe. Eventually the ripples stop and the universe ends.Then throw another stone in the pond.
>>24868370>What kinds of magic, psychic abilities, and/or other powers exist in your world? And if multiple types exist, how do they interact with each other, if at all?there's "magic" which is kind of sci-fi where it's amassing energy and manipulating it. really more akin to some of the fantasy-tech in Final Fantasy. and then there's psychic abilities which are more like, empaths and spritualists who can commune with the unseen world, the dead, nature, shit like that.>How do people use/gain access to the magic?being a psychic is just a genetic lottery thing, generally all people are at least somewhat spiritually attuned. but to do the cool shit you have to be lucky. and it tends to favor women. while 'magic' is purely a knowledge thing, either you know what you're doing and can do it or you don't.>On the subject of hyper-advanced technology, what exists in your world and what do you need to remember when creating/including it?fortunately all that is downstream from 4 people who were not from this world so it's all very easy to track. most of it is lost technology.>Do the people in your setting believe in any celestial beings like Angels or something similar? And do these beings actually exist, and if so, how accurate are the beliefs?kind of, there were gods, real gods, but they fucked everything up. so most people are atheistic now, they worship other things like primordial concepts. >What about the gods in your world, what are they like, how are their pantheons structured?two of them died, the other two are still kicking around. one is trying to undo the damage they did, the other is trying to complete their mission of getting off this rock at whatever cost. one died and took an entire continent with her, the other willingly gave his life to save the people that worshipped him. people have very complicated relationships with the spiritual and with higher powers and the like. people who are like cultists and worship beings would be seen the same as like these crazy COVID labs that are purposely trying to create Super AIDS.
>>24956457I'm reading a book about Africa now. I would appreciate it if you guys had any cool info about ecology and agriculture during the 18th century. Or in Southeast Asia/AFrica/America.China too. ig.
>>24882432Conan is bronze age
>>24880559last era where people actually believed in magic
sansa 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: >>24922194
>>24949686BUILT for getting hounded
>>24952244>https://archiveofourown.gay>>>>.gayHuh?
>>24951523KINOOOOOOO
>>24958520>what does the fat man want to say with ASOIAF?That incest is pretty hot but ultimately not worth it
>>24957759Yeah, Maegor's impotent retardation made Jaehaerys look good in comparison. Also Maegor's impotence ensured there would be no succession crises for the retarded line of Visenya.
Rereading McCarthy after reading better authors like Henry James and Marcel Proust, and it becomes obvious McCarthy was bitter he couldn't reach the heights of literary realism and domestic fiction.
>>24958938>It's like there's nothing really underneath this grand show-no master prosaics, no deeper understanding of the human condition, no profound spiritual realisationsYou're too much of a midwit and need it spoonfed, but all of that is present. The narrator never speaks on it (but it is evident in the narration or by the narration to any intelligent and discerning reader), but he places many a characters that can carry these ideas directly in long socratic dialogues. Experience of the world and interpretation of the world co-exist. How and if they overlap is for the reader to figure.You're just not used to this sort of presentation, having only dealt with the cliches of long religious debates or 1st person monologues. These are opinionated and immediate, requiring little cognition. Mccarthy's expression makes a grander statement than what each individual conversation can carry.
>>24958938You're right
>>24958350Still less bitter than assblasted Jamesfags and proustfags
>>24958938>>24958963Samefag
>>24958938You're clearly posing. Your critiques are in line with what are most normies' problems with McCarthy.
Do edgy book titles make you want to read it?
>>24957902Is Safety Orange a sequel to Clockwork Orange?
No. Also never understood people who write out curse words but censor them.
>>24957774I did once, never again. what a waste of time
>>24958883To give the impression of edginess while actually being the most soi shit ever.
>>24957774Seeing these at a bookstore makes me physically cringe. At least at my local B&N, there’s always a hoard of middle aged white dudes swarming these books in the self-help section. I always thought these were white women books but ig white bros are down bad lol.
A lot of Jews on here try to besmirch the tradition of virtue ethics by claiming that our Christian ancestors were not virtuous and that virtue has historically not existed.You are semitic Marxist filth stemming from a religion of child molesters and foreskin-snatchers. Jews have no right to speak of virtue when they wholly embody the archetype of the merchant, content to sell off every last bit of tradition for a couple more shekels.
>>24957960This. The true, ultimate and unavoidable spiritual logic of the ontologies of difference is violence, truth as violence, and so fascism.Instrumental mastery over nature becomes the instrumental mastery of the human being by himself. But there is no rational core to this ordering of desire to desire, there cannot be. It's all ultimately arbitrary and so empty, a slide into sheer multiplicity and potency, materialism in the truest sense. This sort of "instrumentality all the way down" is revealed as diabolical in the Desert Fathers, Dante, etc. Hume's dictum that reason ought to be the slave of the passions is an inversion of all past wisdom. If you want an idea if where this bottoms out, read R. Scott Bakker's Crash Space. Huxley's A Brave New World is just one of the kinder rest stops on the way to this sort of total disintegration.Modernity is a shipwreck and every man must swim for his life.
>>24957991>The true, ultimate and unavoidable spiritual logic of the ontologies of difference is violence, truth as violence, and so fascism.could you elaborate?
>>24957416bump
>>24957916this but unironically
>>24957416>virtue ethicsMan can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills. Man can do evil, but he cannot will to do good.
The Winter Solstice is almost here, /lit/. What do you like to read in Winter? What are your favorite depictions of Winter in poetry and prose?
>>24958198SNOWDROPNow is the globe shrunk tightRound the mouse’s dulled wintering heart.Weasel and crow, as if moulded in brass,Move through an outer darknessNot in their right minds,With the other deaths. She, too, pursues her ends,Brutal as the stars of this month,Her pale head heavy as metal.— Ted HughesComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
what do you think about Harold Bloom
>>24958603isn't this just called 'knowing how to play chess'?
>>24958632But saying you know how to play chess isn't pretentious enough
>>24958576Not worth reading.(He has some sensible opinions, some sensible opinions pushed too far, and some silly opinions. His "Western Canon" is worse than useless because people think it's definitive and it's not even very good.)
>>24958836>it's not even very goodWhich one is good?
>>24958576As much shit as he gets for pivoting to a kind of pop great books mentality he was right about the values of canon-formation. But ultimately his own literary criticism was not very insightful, he could be fun to read but if you actually stopped and considered his analysis it usually was either shallow or misguided according to his own idiosyncrasies. The only decent bit of scholarship he ever wrote was that book on Wallace Stevens and that isn’t even all that good.
Does Aristotle ever talk about how the four causes interact with each other within a framework of an explanation, i.e., a chain of causes from a major to a minor through a middle? Is there a meaning of cause in a primary sense the way that being is substance in a primary sense, or perhaps a genus of cause where the "four" causes fall under as species? I was thinking about what a cause was after thinking about why the first cause had to be a final cause and not an efficient cause. And then I thought, why couldn't it be multiple causes at once, the same way that going for a walk for it's own sake (e.g. a leisurely stroll in the park) is both an efficient and a final cause in itself. And then I realized that I didn't understand causes as well as I thought I did.
>>24958530The premises are material because they are as it were the “parts” that make up the form. It’s intelligible matter. See Post An 2.11, and even more importantly the discussion of hypothetical necessity in Physics 2. >>24958627> If an efficient cause could be taken on its own, then can't it serve as a first cause, then?Yes it could be taken as a first cause, of course it can. He gives examples of this. But big picture there is a final cause there somewhere even if for inanimate substance the final cause is in the heavens. As to your second point this is what the first part of post an 2 is about, the difference between definition and demonstration.
>>24958627> I'm confused by the direction that you took this in. Aristotle talks about several kinds of action depending on what the ends are and how the action is completed. Kinesis have ends outside of themselves, but energeia have ends in themselves. I'm not sure how the "real ground" has anything to do with this, but I'm not familiar with Hegel desu.I’m talking about the difference between doxa and episteme as he discusses in post an 1, ne, etc. Your scenario of multiple potential causes falls into the realm of doxa, not episteme. Real ground is exactly what you’re talking about, multiple potential explanations that the thinker can select arbitrarily.
>>24958653>But big picture there is a final cause there somewhere even if for inanimate substance the final cause is in the heavens.I wonder if multiple causes can be reduced to something simple. Because an efficient cause which is its own end is both an efficient cause and a final cause. So if we need a final cause, then perhaps it's a single cause that is both efficient and final that can serve the purpose, rather than merely a final cause. I'm not sure if I'm getting lost in the weeds here. >I’m talking about the difference between doxa and episteme as he discusses in post an 1, ne, etc. Your scenario of multiple potential causes falls into the realm of doxa, not episteme. Real ground is exactly what you’re talking about, multiple potential explanations that the thinker can select arbitrarily.I'm still a bit confused here. Maybe I should clarify. When I said multiple causes, I don't mean multiple separate causes, like A, B, C, D, etc., but rather one cause fulfilling multiple functions, like A being both efficient and final.
>>24957807>Surely, there is some focal meaning to it.Yes, furthering your understanding of the thing in question.
>>24958925Yes, but to know something is to know its causes or explanations if you will. So, you have to know what it is, what it is made of, what originates it, and what is its end. And to me, that just sounds like it's derivative of Aristotle's sense of being, in which things are hylomorphic, everything has ends in some way, and perishable things have efficient causes. So then it becomes a question of how do these causes interact within a framework of explanation. And to me, it sounds like you are either answering a question of "what it is", or you're answering a question that, in some way, approaches "why is it this thing and not some other thing", which approximates the distinction between act and potency. That's at least how I would sketch it.
>can't win over blacks>can't win over poorfags>outright enemies of blue collar workers>not taken seriously/ seen as useful idiots by their intellectually inferior middle class liberal pragmatic allies >can't/won't win over the armed forces>can't/won't win over the intelligence agencies>can't/won't win over the politicians>decent success rate with middle class children (dropped by junior yr), academics, homosexuals and trannys.Is there a book which explains how this leads to revolutionary success or should i just see all the le-science-of-hisory 2-more-weeksism from the past 200 years?
>>24954502Not my intention, they're messed up, recruit kids to be used as cannon fodder. They're just among the few remaining holdouts, kind of a historical artifact. I think Cuba is going to collapse too. All I'm saying is there was a time when communist tactical doctrines posed a serious challenge to governments in many different parts of the world.A lot of what Lenin tried to do was work out how to get a voluntary organization to act with the discipline of an army without (usually) having the kind of legal power that a state army does or the ability to isolate the troops outside of jungle groups like that. The Leninist group does that in special ways.
>>24955273No. It's in the same prison cell you and I are in
>>24950477Every poorfag in america thinks that they are one lucky day away from becoming filthy rich.It's a delusion akin to the one of Scientologists and similar.>>24951081>True national socialismNever will happen, natsocs will rather blow the big players in said sectors.
>>24954658>>24954917copethe brown masses aren't your revolutionary reserve army, they're more trapped in capitalist logic than your average white
this thread has taken an unfortunate turn for the worse
If only I knew back when this was published how right he was
>>24958095>Man doesn’t stop sinning by ceasing to be finite. He retains his finitude but is healed by grace. A created will cannot secure eternal rectitude on its own, its dependent on and made stable by God.Ok, so why doesn't God bestow grace before the Fall? This doesn't answer the question.>A man who doesn’t sin is not the same as a man who is indefectible by his merit alone. A man who doesn’t sin is theoretically possible, but a created will that is sinless, indefectible and self grounding by nature is a contradiction on par with a square circle. That will requires confirming grace.Which thinkers are you getting this from? I have never heard the claim that it is a "logical contradiction" for man to be unable to sin (except obliquely in that freedom presupposes the possibility of error, which is of course the very problem I am talking about).I don't think this makes sense either, since you haven't addressed the problem. Either:A. When man gets beatified and is no longer capable of sinning he is like a "square circle" and grace is actually contradictory (and so seemingly impossible);B. For some reasoning *creating* a man who cannot sin is a contradiction but gracing him out of sin later isn't (you'll need to explain that one if that's how it works);Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24956288Letting you knoe I feel with you bro. These people are only playing dumb and missing the obvious either because they don't want to confront truth or they're actively trying to deceive others from it. They are either unensouled hylics or bound for hell.
>>24956128Liberalism isnt merely democracy anon. It's also the idea of private property, free trade etc. Nowadays, it seems to be that we are heading in a future where either corporations get enough power to replace democracy effectively, or where democracy extends to corporations to control them.>>24956215Twitter slop. Billionaires are spineless and only care about profits. Multiculturalism has declined but it isn't inherent to liberalism, unless you consider through the optics of a positivist materialist framework.>>24957038This.>>24957209christian slop. It all falls apart once you stop presuming that God exists
>>24958914>christian slop. It all falls apart once you stop presuming that God existsAllah does exist and its clear he is punishing America and Europe
>>24958739You don't have a soul buddy, dualism is false.
Imagine your party arriving here after a long and arduous journey, the smell of freshly baked bread in the air
>/tg/off board topic but do the innawoods thoughts go away
