If you like reading for prose then your thoughts on works of philosophy are questionable at best because you're more susceptible to being swayed by sophistry. You're the intellectual counterpart to the consoomer, devouring content simply because it has been given a certain form, with little regard as to the internal coherence of any body of work.
>>24118270every human is attracted by beauty you imbecilejust because you find other things beautiful doesn't mean you won't be seduced by sich eitheraesthetics matter
>>24118270>beauty doesn’t matter I’m le ebin rational manI look forward to your inevitable suicide
Hylic thread, worse yet, as atheist as it gets
>>24118270What if I like certain prose for its clarity and effectiveness of communicating?>>24118296>Hylicstop posting this forced bullshit everywhere
>>24118301>he had to look up what hylic meansKek, hylic alert
>>24118270congratulations for discovering rhetoric, you punk ass bitch
>>24118306Well, I don't anymore, because you've been posting it for years now, but I like posting the definition anyway from a sunlight is the best disinfectant principle.
>>24118316People here know what hylic means retard, you aren’t shaming anyone by explaining it, you’re just making yourself look like you grossly overestimate your own intelligence. It makes more sense as an insult for someone who can’t appreciate beauty than “faggot” or “retard”
>>24118323I just think it's silly to forcedly inject gnosticism into random posts and will continue calling attention to it. Evidently I've struck a nerve.
>he latched onto the second half of the post because he really can't help being swayed by evocative wordsYou people really don't think do you?
>>24118330Yeah you struck my “annoyed by smug self important spergs” nerve, you’re the one who literally got triggered by the use of a gnostic term in a shitpost reply to someone else’s post so bad that you couldn’t help but respond to it
>>24118270>anime poster>obvious low iq >incapable of appreciating actual beautyMany such cases!
>>24118343anime site, by the way. marxist, too.
>>24118351>anime site, by the way. Fair but what I said is still true>marxist, too.hang yourself
>>24118270You’re forcing a very dumb and false dichotomy. Reading beautifully put-together language offers aesthetic enjoyment, whereas philosophy admittedly offers a more abstract, cognitively-oriented, conceptually-oriented or intellectually-oriented stimulation. You’re right that these are different and clearly distinguishable, but there’s nothing to prevent a person from enjoying and being drawn to beautifully-written literature, while on the other hand also being interested in and seriously engaged with philosophy, even in philosophy written by philosophers with famously clunky prose-styles, or, on the other hand, very technical and non-poetic styles. All you have to do is compartmentalize it. It’s like saying, “Anyone who likes listening to good music, appreciates music for the wonderful sounds it can make and what a rapturous experience it can be to listen to it, clearly isn’t worth taking seriously on matters of philosophy.”That’s a dumb dichotomy, again. Enjoying beautiful music doesn’t somehow make you incapable of engaging with Aristotle or Heidegger or whoever. Now, it’s possible that the following COULD be true in cases — someone likes listening to beautiful music, or enjoys literature for beautiful language (whether in prose or verse), and isn’t very good at engaging with philosophy. But there’s no direct X —> Y relationship there.
Philosophy and religion are literally hylic bugman tier on par with science. If you study philosophy or "believe" in a religion you may as well be a programmer and listen to "hustle" culture podcasts while worshipping Elon Musk.Only those with the inner essence of an aesthete can appreciate art, music, and literature.
>>24119157further, there's a total domain mismatch between the aims and accomplishments of philosophy and literature. op apparently treats art as a subset of epistemology.
>>24119162yeah and that's the other way to be an idiot about this
>>24118270Your thoughts on works of philosophy are questionable at best because you're a moron.
>>24118270I don't understand the psduds who read for prose, nor those that read for the plot. A work of literature should the embodiment of a philosophical insight in action.
