/lit/ - Literature

>Doesn't get interested in nothing other than fantasies about power and sucess
>Literally doesn't like Lord of the Rings and any book that doesn't relate to his fantasies
What do i do? While i don't wanna be a mid-wit, i also don't to read shit.

>>14170236
>The only people who enjoy the Republic are those of a certain age

I'm not one of those.I'm a twenty-something now.

The Republic was never good to me. It's the Republic that ruined me, really.

I hate the idea that there were things I'd done that didn't count, and I'd like that to be a thing that isn't there. I want my past to be more like how it was in reality

I'm not just talking about the good parts. I'm talking about the shit I've done that's shitty.

>>13999916
You haven't explained anything. You keep explaining how there is no change or causality in terms of causality. It would be fine if you admitted that you were simply spooling out a myth, because you are talking about how language misleads us, but you seem to think that you are actually arguing. You aren't. You keep contradicting yourself.

It is as if you said "there is no truth" and someone said "well you are asserting a truth when you say that" and you responded "but from my standpoint there is no truth, because all is flux" and someone said "well you assert all is flux, and use it as evidence so you obviously believe that is true", and you responded "but there is no truth, as I have explained."

Your series of posts demonstrates an intellect completely incapable of thought, so caught up in their own ego that they are unable to admit that possibly their freshman-level vomiting-up of Parmenides is incoherent, and that they did not in fact know what they think they know. You are one of those "so-called" philosophers, the "Late-learners" that Plato sneers at, who have caught a rather stupid idea and cling onto it for dear life. Pathetic.