You have 30 seconds to justify not having a typewriter (you can't).
>>23818295and Hadassah for Hebrew
>>23818151PI6OUP.TTF seems to be a webdings font for OUP.
>>23812602No, you don't.
>>23812770how was working on paper terminals, you boomer fuck? You know sed but you're hyping typewriters? You're a fuckin' Real Article, man.
>>23819592style is for retards
Where to start with them? I’m thinking of either Le Morte Darthur or Le Livre du Graal, which one do you think is the better one?
>>23816333Those works were written many centuries after the time of King Artur, midwit retard.
>>23813936Start with the Geoffrey. (of Monmouth)
>>23818855>starting with the dessert instead of chewing through 3 courses of french chansons de geste
>>23817555Then why are all his myths just retellings of Celtic pagan myths? Christians are such lying retards, true to their jewish religion
>>23818392Get the internet archive downloader add on
>Reviews say this is bad because of unintentional racismSo it's worth reading?
>>23818495>>23818593>>23818595Taming individual zebras is not the same as domesticating the species.Unlike horses, zebras do not have a clear family structure or social hierarchy, which is crucial for domestication. Add in the jittery survival Instincts they possess to avoid becoming lunch for the innumerous predators that surround them and you have an animal with a nature too highly defensive and aggressive rendering full domestication unfeasible.>>23818458>>23818463Whites didn't get lucky, they benefited immensely off the achievements blacks bestowed upon them.Then once they got their weight up sufficiently to assert their own power, sought to erase their now shameful past. As the maxim goes"History is propaganda of the victor". A fact that white supremacists would rather be forgotten.The antithesis to "Guns Germs and Steel",and just an overall better book, is "The Ruins of Empires" by Count Constantine Francis Volney.>>23818463It was written in 1791 by the way.
>>23818388
I'm not longer aghast at black crime in my neighborhood because now I realize, thanks to Mr. Diamond, that Africa was an especially tough continent to live on. Way too bumpy for the wheel to be useful. Thanks, big J!
>>23818458A Jew writes it so you shouldn't believe anything written in it. I'm sure the libtards only disparage the book for not being radical enough.
>>23818388its bad because its retarded and full of copes trying to explain away niggers being retarded. The fact that his defense of nigger retardation is not vigorous enough for modern niggerfaggot communists is hilarious.
Reading older philosophers it is clear that they must have been on the spectrum to devise their all-encompassing systems of metaphysics, their projects of perfect commonwealths and the like. By contrast modern philosophy is largely a business of well-adjusted and sociable neurotics anxious to gain social recognition by policing the morals of society which is why modern philosophy feels incredibly shitty, unimaginative and derivative, consisting as it does largely in commentaries to older philosophy. A question arises - when and why did autistic people lose their interest in philosophy and how can we get humanities back by populating them with autistmos?
>>23817871no degree chads... we are going to make it
>>23817871>no degreeReassuring.
>>23817878>>23819595Remember that Plato did not have a degree either.
Hardly. The autism of older philosophy is what makes it so lacking in real substance - just look at Bentham. It was all just mental constructs barely corresponding to reality at all.
>>23817871Analytic philosophy is way less rigorous than people think imo.
>Be a high IQ "philosopher">fall for the vegan meme>stop being vegan because your body is less of a fag than your mind isWhy are philosophy shills so weak mentally and inferior to scientists ? Has philosophy never recovered from a book published in 1687 ?
>>23818903>philosopherTechnically he's a theologian.
>>23819102It's not bait, I'm just better.
>>23819080Not philosophers, every single country that replaced economist consensus for the takes of some philosopher went to shit.
>>23819025Other way around, retard.
>>23818903>>23818903>scientiststhese niggers are bad philosophers and create shit models.
I am deeply unsettled.
>Gay ScienceLOL!!!!!
>>23814589Try writing your own thoughts about literature instead of saying I am deeply unsettled with an impossible to read AI conversation. This thread is low effort and extractive.
>>23814589I was going to object, but after reading the absolute hypocrisy and retardation in this thread >>23801116 I figured that you are indeed very correct.THD
>>23818212This
>>23814854Reverse engineering has also been the only thing that really impressed me with AI. That thing is a god in both x86 and ARM, it unironically saved me years of work
>literary magazine published by and for literary outsiders>developed into a home for writers like H.P. Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard etc>some of those writers became friends or at least regular correspondents>allowed for a genuine community of odd-but-lovable effortposters>goes out of print>never really recovers its reputationWeird Tales is literally the ideal magazine for /lit/ to help revive. We could develop a real community and identify the next generation of overlooked writers. I know magazines have come and gone, but this is a venerable title that has genuine staying power.Where else are aspiring but socially maladjusted writers from /lit/ going to publish? Granta? New York Review? Tinhouse? The Shabbos Quarterly?>b-but muh Tyrant! muh 3:AM! m-muh n+1!Please, Anon. These people do not like you. They do not want you. One sniff of spaghetti and you're back spamming substack hoping for a single heart emoji.
>>23818946Bro needs to lock in and get to work on the best of.
>AI slop covers that don’t even look good>Discord trannies>DoxxingThis is the board’s best foot forward? I would donate to them to pay for a real cover
>>23819341Trust me, your money would be better spent elsewhere.
>>23819341No one is stopping you. Go commission that cover you’re envisioning, and then come post it here and show us how easy and simple it can be.Alternately, if you really feel like you have a story which deserves a professional art commission and flawless copy editing and a full-spread advertising campaign then by all means, feel free to submit to a publication which has the resources to do that.
>>23819432I don’t need a publication to do all that, but at the very least I would like to submit somewhere without the possibly of the team I submit to doxxing me
/lit/ humor thread
>>23817485I liked Inside Out & Back Again by Thanhha Lai.
>>23817517>Doesn't watch scary movies
>>23817635Based
>>23811400You’ve only ever imagined talking to one, I assume?
>>23818081I'm not arguing for or against free will, and the same for whether meaning exists or not. I'm saying it doesn't actually matter. The fact is, whether it's an illusion or not, we can still decide to live and think a certain way to lead a better life. Metaphysical philosophy about the nature of existence is just an intellectual exercise as far as I'm concerned. It's interesting, but people place far too much importance on these ideas. As a different anon has said in this thread, it is essentially nothing more than justification for thinking, feeling, and acting a certain way.In other words, he's not depressed because free will might not exist. He latches on to the idea that free will might not exist because he's depressed.I used to think about free will, and the meaning of the universe almost constantly, but eventually I realised that it just doesn't really matter, because it doesn't change our actual lives and the facts of what we have to do in order to live a good life. So I don't care anymore. I might not have free will, my thoughts might not be my own, my life might be an echoing void of meaninglessness in the face of uncaring universe. I don't care, I'm still going to shower in the morning because I stink, therefore I am (going to take a shower).
if you have>watched a tv show or a movie (especially if the movie has been nominated for the oscars)>played a vidya>listened to a albumyou have no business existing on /lit/
>>23818527What are you, 35? If you're still doing laundry at your parents' house at 35 you have definitely lost.
>>23818523 What's the point of your retard post?
>>23818523>OP can't watch a movie, play vidya, listen to music, and read all at onceNgmi
>>23818523>1 (one) shot at life>choose to not indulge in all the whimsy and fun it has to offer for no other reason than to appear better than everyone else, even though no one but you will think thatngmi
>>23818523I listened to Selected Ambient Works Volume II while reading Anti-Oedipus the other day am I somehow invalidated now
What would happen if the Balrog got hold of the One Ring?
>>23819525>Only question is, would a Balrog wielding the Ring be able to assail Valinor?Obviously not.
>>23819525Didn't Tolkien said that some maias were massively more powerful than others?
>>23819525>They’re of equal spiritual strength and rankYou’re wrong. They’re of the same order of Ainur, but that doesn’t mean they are equals. Sauron is far stronger than Gandalf and the Balrogs.
>>23818633>What would happen if the Balrog got hold of the One Ring?The Balrog would probably become like a living volcano, an avatar of fire, smoke, and total destruction & devastation, and wreck terrible havoc on Middle Earth until it got bored and went back to bed. I don't think Durin's Bane is strong enough to release Morgoth, but I don't think anyone in the setting is powerful enough, nor clever enough, to really do anything about the Balrog's subsequent unsophisticated rampage.I also think this would be the 'death' of Sauron. I don't think Sauron, in his weakened state, would be capable of taking, nor corrupting, the Balrog in such a state. The Ring corrupted and rotted lesser people, but Durin's Bane is probably one of the handful of entities in the setting that would subvert Sauron's influence and become an even greater evil than he could muster.
>>23818633He would have set himself up as the Dark Lord of Moria and conquered Middle Earth. Sauron would have little recourse to combat the Balrog, he'd spent to much of himself, and tied to much of his power to the ring. The elves are far too diminished to put up any real resistance, and the Gondorians are a shadow of Numenor. Durin's Bane would spend a decade or so consolidating the orcs of the Misty Mountains, then destroy Lothlorien to open up his border with Sauron's existing power bases at Dol Guldur and Mordor. There are few heroes left in the world able to go toe to toe with him before he has the ring, after he has it the number shrinks even further. Saruman would likely become his lieutenant rather than ask Gandalf for forgiveness. Gandalf would likely build a coalition force out of the free peoples. Lothlorien has likely fallen by this point, as has Gondor, and Dale, and the Lonely-Mountain. Thranduil and the surviving Dwarves and Men conduct guerilla wars in Mirkwood. Main coalition forces gather under Gandalf and Aragorn at Dol Amroth, while a second front is led by Elrond and Glorfindel at Tharbad. The Dunlending clans would play a vital role for good on the second front if they could be turned from Saruman. The Free Peoples would likely link up their two armies and aim for a pitched battle near the gap of Rohan, hoping against hope a hero among them can bum rush Durin's Bane. Merry and Pippin pelt the Balrog with stones stunning him while Aragorn cuts his hand off.
>The fairy/folk tale universe is inhabited by character archetypes, seen here in the form of Little Red and The Wolf, who embody unconscious, ‘eternal’ psychic forces and processes.’ >Accoring to Maria S. Kardaum, ‘Fairy tales are to be considered as raw archetypal material […] hardly influenced by the conscious mind at all, or only ex negativo, in a compensatory way.’>Little Red Riding Hood then, is the classic female figure, the ‘Angel in the House,’ unquestioning, willing and virginal. >Innocent and touching in her naivety, she doesn’t hesitate to volunteer information to the very first wolf she encounters.>The Wolf, on the other hand, is the classic base male – representative of the id, he is predatory, driven by instinct and hungry with desire. Little Red Riding Hood and The Wolf mirror one another – both masculine and feminine counter parts to the same character.>The dark forest of the mind – Red’s sexual awakening>If the forest is symbolic of Red’s unconscious mind, then it’s possible that The Wolf is a manifestation of her latent desires. Little Red, in her red cape, the colour of lust, desire and mestrual blood, strays from the safety of the path into the dark, dense trees which hide her secrets and harbour her deepest thoughts. The story can now be read as one of female sexual awakening.>“The uncanny is in reality nothing new or foreign, but something familiar and old – established in the mind that has been estranged only by the process of repression,” Freud, ‘The Uncanny.’>Because the wolf is a manifestation of her own repressed and dormant feelings, Little Red recognises the animal when she reaches Grandma’s house, allowing herself to question his ‘big ears’ and ‘big legs,’ but reluctant to piece together the whole. The hungry wolf gobbles up the young girl, feasting on her innocence until they are at one with each other.This is BS, right?
>>23819409It's just intuitive symbols that can easily be allegorically applied to other situations, but don't themselves directly "allude" to anything in particular. Trying to find "deep, hidden" meanings in fairy tales is a fool's (worse than a fool, a pseud's) errand.
>>23819409>don't talk to strangers>don't go into the woods alone >don't try to befriend wolves there is nothing sexual about Little Red Riding Hood except the one or two versions where the girl takes off her clothes before getting into bed with the wolf.
>>23819604I think there's some implied sexuality.. that you could be killed or raped if you're not wary of bad characters.. but the idea that the progenitors and preservers of this myth over the ages had the idea that it was about a little girl's sexual awakening and lost innocence.. well c'mon, that's some coomer shit
The original version has Red Riding Hood getting distracted by the flowers (which are sex organs of plants). Red Riding Hood is also rescued by the positive masculinity of the woodsman. Definitely a sexual story.
>>23819620>so your cunt has started to bleed.. well, now are ya gonna fuck good dudes, or bad dudes, little girl?
I am a fundamentalist Christian who before going into seminary wants to encounter the absolute strongest refutations of my religion possible.What books provide the strongest arguments against it possible?I've been recommended Beyond Good and Evil, and pic rel so far.
>>23819313>belief in God to be more fundamentalGod is no less a mystery than any other.>the most basic parts of the ideological system are supposed to be provable from principles a rationalist philosopher would agree with.The most basic parts of the ideological system, like belief in God? We have reasons to believe in God, but not restricted to a particular view of him, we might have some to doubt his existence. But as I said, reason cannot be dispensed with at more fundamental stages, as in the formation of the very arguments, what they point to has way less monopoly on reason.>he first to formulate that there are no moral facts? Stirner? De Sade? Even Hume said that moral claims amount to statements of emotion.Hume removes morality from objective standards, but he still maintains them as stemming from custom, habit and, developing beyond a bit, from the natural advantage of having morals than not having them.Sade had inverted morals, he believed being an immoralist was provided by natural laws, whereas morality was a disease and deformation.Stirner might be the one Nietzsche should be most indebted to in this regard, but Nietzsche also proceeds with rhetorical tools in order to emphasize and polemicize. Although he himself will write about how there are philosophers with different characteristcs, those who create, those who synthesize, develop from others. Hegel took ideas from many philosophers, Schelling even accused him of stealing some of his ideas. But yeah, slightly different still than claiming priority.>I'm not sure what you mean, but if you mean what I think you mean, Stirner, Spinoza, and even Hegel were more clear about this.No, I mean the epistemological difficulties we find in order to establish criteria for knowledge, truth and the inescapable presupposition of a particular committment.>The former is what Spinoza denies,not the latter.Uh, so? The point was your reference about ''denial of evil'' within Catholics.>For where he implies he is alone aside from Spinoza...Well, because he found in all aspects of Spinoza's philosophy his own? Not that particular point about the unegoistic.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
A SCIENTIST BOOK XXXXDDDDDD
>>23819316You've been brainraped by msnbc and sjw teachers congrats!
>>23819212Bart Ehrman is useful to Christians insofar as he effectively destroys the Christ Myth Theory bullshit despite not being a Christian. His other books aren't really that shocking and he's lost debates before (like Brant Pitre forcing him to admit that Mark makes a bigger claim of Christ's divinity than he let on).If all atheists were like Bart Ehrman atheism would be a lot more respectable.
>>23819619Because Bart Ehrman is actually a scholar. Dawkins’ understanding of what religion is is so antiquated that even Fraser looks like a decent scholar by comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYgv7ur8ipg>Drinks a fifth of whiskey before the showBased>Humiliates the other panelists as pseuds within the first 5 minutesVery based>Drunkenly shills for Catholicism the entire timeUnbelievably based>Compares himself to Dionysius the AreopagiteUNFATHOMABLY BASED
>Do you hear me Ed? I was arrested, I was arrested two weeks ago. And he said, I am arresting you for decay. >raucous laughterIt's sad because he was smart enough to know he was self-destructing and he didn't care if people laughed at him.
>Ed: At fifty I plan to be an... emotional paraplegic smoking peace herbs>Kerouac: A neurasthenic psychotic?
>"Beware of false prophets who come unto you dressed in sheep's clothing, and underneath they are raaavening wolves. . .">>> "But who's that?"
Based
>>23818334this was mainstream televised public discourse in the 50s-80s. not a high watermark, by any means, but far above our current sealevel
Why did he hate Germany/Germans so much?
>>23819439He was a disciple of Luther, whether he liked it or not.>If this is the way things are to go in the German lands, then I am sorry that I was born a German, or ever wrote or spoke German.
>>23819489Ah yes, and Luther did a great by job shiting and shattering christianity. Luther truly was an antichrist of respect.
>>23819502>it takes one man to destroy your religionThat's hilarious.
>>23819439His later life was entirely based around seething resentment towards Wagner. Kind of hard to take him seriously when you realize this.
>>23819439Unlike southern and Greek/Latin Europeans who affirmed their being without any problem, Germans didn't have their own Latin identity (they had a "barbarian" language), but were trying to fit in with that Roman/Latin civilization (hence the whole Holy Roman Empire aspirations). The biggest lie today is that "Germans" are some master race of self-affirmers. In reality their psychology is a deeply slave morals psychology. Nietzsche knew this. He felt even the Poles (and the French, the Italians, the ancient Greeks) were more life-affirming than the Germans. The Germans turned to ultramontanism because they had a reactive attitude to theological papal sovereignty over them. It led to Luther and the Reformation, a slave morals revolt through and through. And then, it led to further revolt against that. While their neighbors achieved nation-states, Germany was a bunch of fractured small princedoms. They had an envy of that effortless master-morals status, so they made up for it by engineering modern nationalism, which by its nature is too us vs. them to ever be master morals. Nietzsche preferred pan-European post-nationalism, he says so in The Gay Science. But this envy against other Europeans (and against Jews) turned the Germans into militarists. They couldn't get empires when the other Euros did, so they tried to make up for that again. You have to imagine yourself living in Nietzsche's time, the late 1800s. Germans during this time had this whole psychological complex about how much they NEEDED to be like the other nation-state Europeans (via nationalism and German unification) to compete, how much they NEEDED to have an empire in Africa or whatever to compete, etc. And after Nietzsche died they just kept at it. Nazism was full-on slave morality complex: it employed the same tactics of projecting everything onto a chosen enemy taken to stand over and against you and oppresisng you, be it Jews, or Anglo-American capitalists, or Soviet communists and European socialist allies, Hitler's three major enemies which he lumped into some Judeo-Marxist-Masonic hodgepodge bogeyman enemy. If you look at neo-Nazis today they're exactly like what they paint their opponents as: easily flustered, always enraged, always hating their enemies and resenting them to an unhealthy degree, always defining everything about themselves around their opponents, inverting their values. This is slave morality. Nietzsche did not hate slave morality entirely though, nor did he like master morality entirely. But he disliked when both degenerated into dead ends. He supported the sublation of both (the overman). This is to take from slave morality the transvaluation of all values, and from master morality the affirmative (rather than negative) attitude. The problem is the Germans clearly were going down the dead end route, and it got worse after Nietzsche died with Hitler. But remember: Nietzsche loved everyone he hated. He has nice things to say about Germans sometimes.
Theres tons of talk here about Buddhism but whats actually more popular right now in society is this thing called nonduality. Basically all pop spirituality all over the internet, including tiktok youtube and instagram, is sort of a form of nonduality. Buddhism tends to be more for nerdy men, boomers, and colorado female types. Nonduality is basically "the thing" behind what people refer to as spirituality nowadays. So has anyone here gone down the rabbithole of reading people like Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Rupert Spira, etc? The big variants are the indian influenced traditional type and then the neo advaita type which tries to frame things in less hindu terminology.My own thoughts on it are that while its initially appealing in that it purports to solve psychological problems faster than Buddhism (and western psychology) it leads to a type of semi nihilistic world denialism and anti intellectualism and anti curiosity and a sort of closed system (despite initial claims that its all based on your own direct observation and not authority) of unhealthy idealism. Concepts are the problem, thinking is the problem, etc, seems to be sort of a root issue with almost all of modern spirituality I think.
>>23815101You mentioned Nisargadatta, and I remembered a non-dual PDF that was going around on /x/ called You Are That. http://files.catbox.moe/92xli9.pdfI've been meaning to read Spira's Presence books. I keep pushing it back though and I'm very scattered... somewhat ironically
>>23817076>read Spira(experience)as corny as that sounds
>>23815101Dialectical monism is the only way
>>23815101Non-duality is a metaphysics before it is a spiritualism. It's not a de facto religious belief, it's an assertion about the nature of being. So there's no reason to muddy the already murky philosophical topic with spiritual connotations as they add nothing to the conversation.Dualism never sat right with me because of the quantificational arbitrariness. Why should existence be split into two general substances? The mental and the physical? This division, at best, is inelegant. Why should these two arbitrary substances be in tension? Couldn't we just have an expanded definition of what's physical to include the mental, or vice versa? Then, to deny the pure mentality of mental predicates, you have to twist your thoughts into pretzels to eliminate qualia or ignore pure psychological properties (like Dennett). Physicalism struggles to find the right words to explain conscious states. The more you think about it the more physicalism seems the less plausible... I have more direct, intuitive understand and access to mental states than I do physical states, which are wrapped and abstracted by a sheath of perceptions. Ontologically it's actually more sensible to start with consciousness and try to view the physical in terms of it, rather than to start with the assumptions of the physical and try to make consciousness fit. For mature non-dualist metaphysics: see CS Peirce's objective idealism. The mental and physical are really one substance in different phases.
>>23815962Depends.>all mental constructs are one thingYou get realist idealism monist.>all mental constructs are an illusion of a big soul/thing/guy behind the curtainYou get psuedo-solipsism, but with the personal self being dissolved into a greater ocean>all mental constructs are constructs that dont point to anything and they're all compound phenomenasYou get a weird deconstructionist anti-foundationalist anti-anti-realist type that Buddhists use
