bump

As always none of you are defining your terms. But words like realism and nominalism have changed meaning over time. Most of you think a nominalist is someone who thinks truth is “just in our heads”. But the word nominalist can mean someone who denies that universals Exist, ie are independent entities of some kind. Most of you won’t even grasp the significance of this distinction. Aristotle was definitely a nominalist by this definition, so was Aquinas for that matter (Coplestone for instance characterizes him as a moderate nominalist). If you want an overview check out the Sep article on medieval theories of universals, it’s a good one. I get annoyed by pseuds here who think Aristotle believed in something like (immanent) Forms because he actually constantly argues against this position. Beyond that, it’s complicated, but most of you have no idea what you’re talking about and should simply study Aristotle. I’ve given my arguments against Avicenna’s essence existence distinction many times as it is and it’s a waste of time because most of you are not serious readers and have no way to understand or evaluate what I’m saying. “But… but… everyone knows Aristotle was a moderate realist!” Depending on how you define this, he could be characterized that way, and I’ve said as much in the past. This always comes down to “but… catness IS real!” You don’t know what the debate is about and I absolutely despise you.

File: images (41).jpg (15 KB, 455x297)

15 KB JPG

>>24760826
>Aquinas was also a nominalist

Like for you to think the denial of subsistence of universals = solipsism is simply bizarre. Solipsism is wrong for the same reason any other radical skeptic theory is wrong for Aristotle. Do you know what that is? As for “representationalism” - what do you mean by this? Yes, an abstract concept like cat is not identical to a particular cat, which has its own essence as a living creature and its own particular nature (see for example meta 12 in the first few lectios, or the opinion/science distinction in post an 1, or what he says about the relation of universals to particulars in meta 13, or what he says about primary and secondary substance in the categories, etc). All universals are representations in that sense and this is what he argues for. It’s incredible that what I’m saying is even controversial, even my “nemesis” Aquinas would agree with what I just said. Just fucking READ THE BOOKS, carefully and repeatedly. But I know most of you are too retarded for Aristotle.

>>24759629
You were right. Another classic crashout.

Read The Solar Anus by Bataille

>>24760387
The Life Divine by Sri Aurobindo

>>24760393
it's still kinda top 5 even after you listen to all their material

Unironically just read The Hobbit if you're literally Brand New to books. The Hobbit is a children's book but if you don't read at all it's not a bad place to start.

>>24760387
Hogg

>>24761161
Panagiotis Kondylis would be better. He actually explains hoe demographics are destiny, which modern states live in constant retardation of. Third world, reactionary people will replace europeans because nobody wants to have kids and economics have jack shit to do with it.

>>24759526
>Patreon banned Benjamin in December 2018, when he was earning over US$12,000 a month.[11] According to Patreon, Benjamin violated the site's rules on hate speech by using "racial and homophobic slurs to degrade another individual"

Well damn, 12k a month being a public intellectual really does pay off and he knows his audience.

>>24761173
I don't know why one of these nations with birth rate troubles won't just bite the bullet and ban birth control. Why South Korea hasn't done it at this point baffles me. Just give all your women the finger and take their birth control away. It's for their own good.

>>24759526
Your reality is fake

>>24761173
I would but consent is a thing and I don't want to go to prison.

>>24760793
Death to France

RIP. he btfo dennett and that was really funny to read about.

Are you well-educated, /lit/?

>Nonetheless, our lack of a well-defined objective is not a good enough reason to avoid stating some features of a general theory of education. In fact, it does not seem to me very difficult to describe some of the necessary conditions for being a well-educated person.
>First, the student should have enough knowledge of his or her cultural tradition to know how it got to be the way it is. This involves both political and social history, on the one hand, as well as the mastery of some of the great philosophical and literary texts of the culture on the other. It involves reading not only texts that are of great value, like those of Plato, but many less valuable that have been influential, such as the works of Marx. For the United States, the dominant tradition is, and for the foreseeable future, will remain the European tradition. The United States is, after all, a product of the European Enlightenment. However, you do not understand your own tradition if you do not see it in relation to others. Works from other cultural traditions need to be studied as well.
>If these two streams, both the political-social and the philosophical-literary, are well organized and well taught, the claims of the various minorities should have their place. Intelligently taught social and political histories of Europe and the United States, for example, should recognize the history of all of the major components of European and American society, including those that have been treated unjustly. It is important, however, to get rid of the ridiculous notion that there is something embarrassing or lamentable about the fact that most of the prominent political and intellectual leaders of our culture over the past two thousand years or so have been white males. This is just a historical fact whose causes should be explored and understood. To deny it or attempt to suppress the works of such thinkers is not simply racism, it is unintelligent.
>Second, you need to know enough of the natural sciences so that you are not a stranger in the world. This means, at a minimum, that you need to know enough about physics and chemistry to understand how the physical world is constructed. This would also include at least a smattering of knowledge of the general and special theories of relativity, and an understanding of why quantum mechanics is so philosophically challenging. Furthermore, at a minimum, you must have enough biology to understand the Darwinian revolution, and to understand recent developments in genetics and microbiology.
>Third, you need to know enough about how society works so that you understand what a trade cycle is, or how interest rates will affect the value of the currency, for example. In short, you need to have some knowledge of the subject matter that used to be called political economy.

>>24761218
>Fourth, you need to know at least one foreign language well enough so that you can read the best literature that that language has produced in the original, and so you carry on a reasonable conversation and have dreams in that language. There are several reasons why this is crucial, but the most important is perhaps this: you can never understand one language until you understand at least two.
>Fifth, you need to know enough philosophy so that the methods of logical analysis are available to you to be used as a tool. One of the most depressing things about educated people today is that so few of them, even among professional intellectuals, are able to follow the steps of a simple logical argument.
>Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you need to acquire the skills of writing and speaking that make for candor, rigor, and clarity. You cannot think clearly if you cannot speak and write clearly.
>Just acquiring this amount of "education" will not, by itself, make you an educated person, even less will it give you what Oakeshott calls "judgment." But if the manner of instruction is adequate, the student should be able to acquire this much knowledge in a way that combines intellectual openness, critical scrutiny, and logical clarity. If so, learning will not stop when the student leaves the university. None of the books I have been reading about higher education makes even these elementary points.

https://www.ditext.com/searle/searle1.html

>>24761220
Man he'd hate me. My foreign linguistic skills are below average.

>>24759834
>This is patently wrong.
no it isn't lol. what are you talking about? "the novel has nothing do do with the trial"? which book did you read?
>When I started, fifty-six days ago, to write Lolita (...) I thought I would use these notes in toto at my trial (...) In mid-composition, however, I realized that I could not parade living Lolita. I still may use parts of this memoir in hermetic sessions, but publication is to be deferred.
"hermetic sessions," as in closed sessions of the court. he very much did intend and continues to plan to use the text at his trial, as evidenced by the penultimate paragraph of the whole thing being a plea regarding his sentence, directed to the literal judge. of course the trial never happens because hh drops dead, but the text is absolutely portrayed as both a document for direct legal use AND a memoir to be published later. this means it had to be written with the knowledge that it would be subject to verification. in fact, even the author of the fictional foreword has performed some fact-checking: he knows which town "ramsdale" really is, he has interviewed the neighbors etc, and yet mentions no revelations about charlotte's death - because she died the way humbert describes.

i don't know how many times i have to go over this. the carefully constructed frame narrative makes the idea that he's lying about basic plot events untenable. humbert didn't kill charlotte. get over it.

>You are reading this novel the wrong way
glass houses bro

>>24760067
In the same line, he says he's writing his account not to save his life but to save his soul. He also addresses winged jurors at one point. He could absolutely be using "hermetic sessions" in the other sense. This is a point of interpretation.

>glass houses bro
More important than the conclusion, reading this book the right way is being open to the ambiguity of its narrative, while trying to discern the truth of the author's invented world behind Humbert's mask. I'm glad you've at least conceded that Humbert is manipulating the audience. I don't see why you're so against the idea that he could be fabricating events in the plot, when he clearly fictionalizes other details, lies by omission, is manipulative and dishonest in his presentation, etc. When you already have this gradient of dishonesty, why draw the line at the outright lie?

>>24750679
he did nigga, he ruined her life and led her down a path that got her killed at 18

>>24760721
>This is a point of interpretation.
no it isn't. whatever other metaphorical or spiritual "jurors" he could be argued to be addressing, it is always ALSO a literal confession to a literal jury because "jailed man writes confession for his trial" is the premise and literal plot of the novel. you cannot interpret that away.

>I'm glad you've at least conceded that Humbert is manipulating the audience.
i haven't "conceded" a thing and you're a dishonest little weasel. changing names for privacy is not manipulation. withholding the identity of quilty for dramatic effect is normal storytelling. he "manipulates" the audience only to the degree all storytellers do, and one of his chief tools is frankness. can you frankly concede that the shit you've been writing itt, like "the novel has nothing to do with the trial," is just blatantly stupid and wrong? or are you less honest than humbert? suddenly when you're caught writing nonsense "conclusions" don't matter, only open-mindedness? come on.

>I don't see why you're so against the idea that he could be fabricating events in the plot
for the reasons i have outlined in detail multiple times and that you still pretend not to understand.

>>24760927
>you cannot interpret that away.
Watch me:
But in all seriousness, there's really very little to show that Humbert intends the book as a defense in court. Like genuinely what kind of court would admit a book that's 90% "oh woe is me I'm a hebephile". The people who term it "confessions of a white widowed male" or whatever are psychologists added to the frame, mostly to make fun of the psychological and moral interpretations. One of the people John Ray cites is literally named White-Blackman.

I will give you a much more plausible and interesting interpretation than this one, given in the final paragraph: “I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita.” The novel is intended as a completion of his bluebeard arc with Lolita, "safely solipsising" her after death as he remembered her. In the same way that in the tennis scene we see that Dolores has not been broken in the way Humbert imagines--note the butterfly crossing the court--the novel Humbert creates as a piece of dead art is instead living, a game played with the audience.

>>24759455
in computer science they call it abstraction

>>24758214
>I was waiting desperately for my turn in line to pee before my interview. A fart bubbled in my rectum, causing unfathomable agony, that I can not let it go and risk pissing myself, and that holding it in perpetuates this indescribable pain. As the line ahead of me dwindles, I sweat profusely and my perception dulls. At some point I realize there's nobody in front of me, and someone from behind, with the most friendly of intentions, pats my ass to move me forward.

>Oh, no.

>The dam is released and a fart that registers at more decibels than anyone can imagine shreds the ears of anyone within ten meters, and my bladder expels what feels like two gallons of fluid. I slump on the floor immediately, knowing that I have completely ruined any hope of succeeding with this interview.

>>24758214
>He peed, felt a pressure in his behind at the force exerted on his prostate, ceased his stream, sat, and forced. Only a fart. The pee resumed, slightly cloudy and foamy, yellow as Lemonheads.

>>24761135
That's hilarious.

>>24761210
Thanks, anon!

>>24729495
very good execution actually

>>24750387
man door hand hook car door

File: 7894A351-0C2E-4A6C-8462-6(...).jpg (39 KB, 568x237)

39 KB JPG

The bilious ballad of bards bowls
Sitting pon porcelain tempest and howls
Twisting tempest in his tummy, grimace with swollen jowls

Methane fueled flatulence was his verse from the
The sloppy Indian food, his worst
Twas the kind that curdles cream
A stinging ring a yelp, then a scream

So strain on dearest bard - spill your spastic sonnets slime
Your thrones only a temporary tomb, whereas my stools are sublime

>>24758997
I was no lonesome loader
Nor a frostbit fiber-optic fog
I was the end game engineer, devouring data like a dog

Sync your soul, sub-route your romantic spill, all in spite
Just log off, lost lamb: loading’s over, due to perilous screen glaring light
Your cursor, sad in despair so hit enter, embrace the end
Your echo fades, my reign - eternal never needing to amend

>>24749029
Your maiden mocked
Whorish verses vexed
Never will to be sexed

A blushing bard of bovine blood
Genitalia akin to crud
Cheeks aflame with cheap chagrin
Heart? Or merely hampster wheel within?

Bliss of bilge and of bluster
Nothing more than lusty duster
Yet onward we go
Oafish ode-weaver
Just to touch a wenches beaver!

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: Library-of-Congress-Makes(...).jpg (89 KB, 1600x840)

89 KB JPG

>>24760655
if you loved junkie and naked lunch you will like cities of the red night too, it actually has a story thats pretty coherent for burroughs standarts. It actually contains several different stories that are connected. It has noir, bit of scifi, occult and adventure. Bit of lovecraft influence. Reminded me of cloud atlas. In the end it gets a bit too spacey and burroughs rehashes a few things and motives from his earlier stuff but it was a pretty fun read. And it isnt too long. But the penguin edition has one of the ugliest covers ever, so beware, maybe get another one. Fucking ginsberg made the coverpic i think. I hate this fuck so much. My biggest criticism of burroughs is that he was friends with that fucking prick

>>24756975
theres a book titled "A Philosophy On Walking" which has an entire chapter dedicated to Nietzche and how his extreme volume of walking coincided with his cognitive ability. i dont recall a single mention of him using opium. i felt like the chapter was kinda sus bc i never heard of this habit of his before and the fact that it directly implies his exercise alone dictated his mental health makes me disappointed in that book after reading this

>>24760888
His walking is well known. I've heard of it before.

>>24756820
How does one score opium nowadays? Is that even possible?

>>24761178
Ah, wait: according to a Google search, it turns out here in the west, pure opium can't really be found easily, and most "opium" that can be found in non-medical settings is Heroin, an opium derivative.
How fucking gay

File: 81FdRMYt8ZL._UF1000,1000_QL80_.png (864 KB, 652x1000)

864 KB PNG

>>24760124

>>24760124
>Books on how to be a good person?
just watch cuck porn that's what it means today

>>24760397
What book though?

>>24760124
The Bib-
Oh wait if you’re autistic that’s probably to non-literal for you.
The Jeffersonian Bible then.

>>24760752
>Jeffersonian Bible
I know you're being sarcastic but thank you

>>24760979
>>24760981
Matthew 6:6: But when you pray, go into your room, shut the door, and pray to your Father who is in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

appearances bad
things in themselves good

>>24760979
>everything is...the opposite of what it is
wow such profound wisdom thanks chinks

Imagine a beautiful woman dressing in a way that leaves little to the imagination. She looks trashy

a corollary of the scholastic principle that "the good is diffusive of itself", is that "beauty makes itself known". it doesn't need any added help. or look at it like diminishing returns to scale. 'beauty' is the optimal scale, and any additional scale (through ostentation) diminishes beauty.

File: 1729415183300178.webm (2.15 MB, 616x656)

2.15 MB WEBM

I found a first edition hardcover of Vineland at a thrift store for one dollar.
A month ago I found Annihilation (Houellebecq) for two dollars and it looked new.

>>24759850
tell me you bought the first edition.

File: IMG_9089.jpg (1.77 MB, 3463x2719)

1.77 MB JPG

>>24759449
>>24759498
>>24759850
Nice.
I also got these recently, just purchased regularly this time.

I wonder what kinds of books I could dig up by rummaging around some local thrift stores.

>>24759454
Why do Americans buy books when they can't read?

>>24760910
Inferiority complex. They think if they pose their chud book alongside their firearm they're impressing somebody like they're some kind of warrior-philosopher, when they're just jingoistic retards.

File: workaholics_top_gun.jpg (44 KB, 600x598)

44 KB JPG

>>24760089
Big words are just for show; plain speech wins. Words with more than one beat just puff up the text.

>>24761122
>his post is actually only one syllable words

Fuck off