/lit/ - Literature

>>17996748
We all know there's a reason /pol/ could only ever exist on an anonymous shitposting site

>>15806803
I agree completely on your characterization of Mao and Stalin as geniuses and your disregard for the perceived intelligence of liberal leaders.

I also find it interesting those whom I would be absolutely confident in calling geniuses often appear to be marxists/socialists such as einstein, malcolm x, wittgenstein, joyce, kafka, turing, etc.
Although I don't think this has any significance beyond being a useless interesting fact.

I heavily disagree on your points about your general points on the perceived ruthlessness of communist regimes and the power of "undemocratic" revolutionary activity, but I feel like this would just devolve into typical marxist leninist against socialist sympathizer argument. The only thing I heavily disagree with you about is social democrats as I view them as failures especially those who do not properly engage with kautsky and seem to use him as an excuse to be comfortable in their opposition to most marxist developments after marx, like how white westerners latch unto the trot.

Also I agree most of the french existentialists are not what they are made up to be, but I wouldn't call them pseuds. Sartre and camus are obviously the most dissapointing but even then I think there is something to be learnt.


It felt fitting heidegger would end up a fascist if we look at his work AND himself as a person.

I'm not sure how to describe it, but it is very similar to gentile as in they both write as if they are very far detached from something like fascism, but once we combine our readings with a view of them beyond their philosophical work it feels obvious they would end up completely bending and forcing their "systems" for and towards fascism.

Stalin! What a based man!

Reminds me of a story from Kurt Gödel, who is also another based genius.
Gödel said he did not believe in evolution, and when pressed about it he said:
>"You know Stalin didn't believe in evolution either, and he was a very intelligent man"

>>14673653
>>14673679
>>14673701
>>14675163
>>14677183
>>14677787
What a based man. Reminds me of a story from Kurt Gödel, who is also a based genius. Gödel said he did not believe in evolution, and when pressed about it he said:
>"You know Stalin didn't believe in evolution either, and he was a very intelligent man"

>>14245366

>>14061020
Stalin is so based

>>14002220
>Bolano. Aurundhati roy. George saunders. Umberto eco. Alissa nutting. Hanya Yanagihara. Mahmoud Darwish. Jeff vandermeer. Murakami. Pynchon. Radwa Ashour. Liu Cixin. Khaled Hosseini. McCarthy. Kazuo Ishiguro. Chabon. Ian mCewan. Franzen. Lethem. Toni Morisson. Zadie Smith. Houellebecq.

Personally I think Bolano, Roy, Saunders, Eco, Ishiguro, Darwish, Pynchon, McCarthy, Franzen, and Houellebecq are almost guranteed to be in the canon,
with bolano and pynchon the only ones that could rival the likes of faulkner

Just been kicked from a top school then got tested with a 180 iq.
Reccomend me some bloomer-esque philosophy

God please give me cope. Please give a cope strong enough for me to keep living. Please give a cope strong enough for me not to question life. Please give me cope strong enough to delude myself into loving life. Please make me believe in you. I don't want to fail like kierkegaard, wittgenstein, and kafka.