/lit/ - Literature

>>18208341
Never its the newest high IQ move that they have learned
>its now edgy to believe in god
Tips fedora m'lord ahem

>>15546920
Did you not even get the point? He's asking why you didn't ask for anons source on him being in bio, not why you would trust someone who was in bio

I don't have a favorite, but I particularly like:
Book of Disquiet
The Man Without Qualities
War and Peace
The Idiot
Hopscotch

might reread W&P soon, and I come back to some passages on BoD very often

Yes. I, as a frequenter viewer and occasional contributor to the image board known as /lit/ - Literature on the website 4channel.org, support the criminalization of certain writings, speech, and ideas, because this policy is most consistent with my personal interests in writings, speech, and ideas of all kinds.

So I have completed all of lit top 100
audio only
What's next ?

>tits butt

>>12611575
>What the fuck does per capita mean?

>>12070754

Which translation of the Critique of Pure Reason should I read? Is there any reason to read the 2nd edition?

>All analytic judgements are a priori, it's independently of any experience that I can say that a thing is what it is.

How is this true? How can we have a concept of identity without experience? Or does identity transcendentally derive from the formal unity of apperception somehow? Help me out here /lit/

>>11872359

>>11858472
>indoctrinated to like

>>11816923
>But even those biases are objective

Essential literature for waiting for your immediate family to die so you can kill yourself?

>>11715333

>To use a Plotinian image (see V.1.11.11–13), we may think of all things as the many different points on the circumference of a circle. If we imagine all the points moving toward the center, each along its own radius, the circle will become progressively smaller. When all the points meet at the center, the circle will “blink out” altogether. That is the One: not any thing, but the undifferentiated containment of all things.

w-what did he mean by this bros?

>>11644170

>>11633673

>Nothing really exists which is not self-determined and self-related, — which has not a self which it maintains through all its changes.

w-what did hegel mean by this bros?

>>11588861

>It is spirit knowing itself in the shape of spirit, it is knowledge which comprehends through notions. Truth is here not merely in itself absolutely identical with certainty; it has also the shape, the character of certainty of self; or in its existence – i.e. for spirit knowing it – it is in the form of knowledge of itself. Truth is the content, which in religion is not as yet at one with its certainty. This identification, however, is secured when the content has received the shape of self. By this means, what constitutes the very essence, viz. the notion, comes to have the nature of existence, i.e. assumes the form of what is objective to consciousness. Spirit, appearing before consciousness in this element of existence, or, what is here the same thing, produced by it in this element, is systematic Science.

lmao what the fuck did he mean by this bros?

>The living substance is being which is in truth subject, or, what is the same, is in truth actual only in so far as it is the movement of positing itself, or is the mediation of it's self othering with itself. This substance is, as subject, pure, simple negativity, and is for this very reason the bifurcation of the simple; it is the doubling which sets up opposition and then again the negation of this indifferent diversity and its antithesis (the immediate simplicity). Only this self restoring sameness or this reflection in otherness within itself - not an original or immediate unity or such - is the true. It is the process of its own becoming, the circle that presupposes its end as its goal. Having its end also as its beginning; and only by being worked out to its end is it actual.

w-what did hegel mean by this bros?

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Isn't Heidegger's Lichtung Aquinas' God without the faith? Why is Heidegger dissatisfied with Aquinas' treatment of esse? Isn't the being whose essence is existence more or less the Clearing whose essence is "essencing"?