/lit/ - Literature

>>14024594
It's another meme. Dude seems to reply with every post that has something related to "Your opinion on 'x'?" with "'x' is self-refuting".

>>14021411
>In the end they really were The Brothers Karamazov.

>>14019611
Yeah I get the
>We must imagine Sisyphus happy
part, but why is this bloomer? Can it not be interpreted, that the fact [a man will have to adopt the 'delusion' that eternal, objectively void of meaning, fruitless struggle is what leads to meaning] is a more doomer approach? I feel there are some underlying assumptions that aren't entirely clear are self-evident in what you're saying, but correct me if I'm wrong. Is it a delusion or reality? It's not clear to me that there's a meaningful distinction.

>>14018879
No. I like his work. But asseting he has a "philosophy" in the sense that is usually defined on this board is wrong. He has a way of 'informing action' as well as theory of 'why this action is the Good'. No more, no less. His "philosophical" theory as derived from Maps of Meaning is more akin to a scientifically grounded virtue ethics than any metaphysical assertion.
Also, as a word of personal advice, ignore most posters claiming he's a 'charlatan' or 'pseud'. These posters only seem to decry him because they do not properly understand his work. (a common criticism of your ideological enemy, I know, but in this case I feel it is justified as I will explain) As long as they present any actual refutation of his work that is not emotionally grounded, or based on this board's "mainstream opinion" of JBP without further critical thinking, though, do feel free to denounce his work.
I tend to see a lot of this, people posting intellectually void things, only to respond to proper arguments or replies posed against their baseless assertions with "seethe", "cope", or the like. This, I feel, runs contrary to what this board could be, if we just drop the tribal un-nuanced feud that usually colors the posts on here.
Shitposting is fine and all, but I know for a fact a lot of you people are intelligent enough to say something of worth, and I urge you to do so, not for this board's, or anyone else's sake, but for your own intellectual purity's sake. A common reply when faced with this suggested line of action is "Why would I?", but then again, consider: "Why would you refuse to? Why would you not?"

>>14018954
>Ignoring my existence
Perish in your insolence. Your disbelief in my divinity and personal sacrifice through posting on this board will be your downfall.

What did Hegel say that can't be boiled down to "Unga Bunga middle road radical philosophical centrism"?

>>14018299
The word class 'interjections' might be what you're looking for

>tfw when

>>14005476
>hide butterfly threads
>ignore butterfly posts
>do not reply to butterfly posters

>>14005508
>What does /lit/ think of literature?
Based

>>14004544
>that change is an illusion
But isn't that the entire premise behind the essence / accident dichotomy. Or was that Plato's idea?

>>13998438
The distinction between subjective and objective at an experiential level is an empistemological question that cannot be answered fully. Though the most commonly accepted answer, and the one I choose to live by is:

Every experience is a subjective interpretation. There is an external reality with which your interpretations either align or misalign with. This does not mean alignment = objectivity, as an interpretation takes the only logical form it can have within a subject. They are subjective, and will never fully be reality. Essentially; phenomena =/= noumena

>>13997849
I can't help but notice that Pringles can in rhe background. It gets me thinking about how a pringles chip probably wouldn't fit into her mouth. Is that what normal people do, eat their pringles in bite-sized pieces? As what some would call a "fat fuck" myself - although not being visibly fat or even accusable of any abnormal size in any regard whatsoever - I eat the whole chip at once.

>>13999999
>God does not play dice

>>13999419
very little

>>13991127
rr

No, it's shit

>>13982180
Bloomer/Zoomer- quadrant; Stirnerite

>>13975704
Thanks for watching,

>>13968049
You're allowed to say it, anon. Free your mind, remove the chains of the age old morality. All is naught before your supreme intellect. Scream into the abyss as you relinquish your prison, and shout at the top of your lungs that which can only be said by the philosophical ultimate Man:
"Nigger"

>What cannot be said above all must not be silenced but written

>>13940083
That's implied in
>What did you read to come to the retarded conclusion that it's right?

>>13930336
>he brings up Freud at parties
Either you're an autist or you got parties I wanna go to.

>>13931454
Elaborate