/lit/ - Literature

>>23246579
Let's see Paul Allens voluminous hate speech in the Zohar, Talmuds, and especially Schulcan Aruch.

>>21387061
William Gibson and Philip K. Dick was right

>>17111000
>wouble triples
The post that saved /lit/

>>16214333
this is the chosen translation

>>16169366
>>16169377

>>15519066
>baudrillard poster gets dubs

>>15509000
mmmmmmm

>>15480000

>>15346666
>>15346799
Slow-board gets are the best gets

>>14533333
Quintz of truth have spoken

>>14145555
also, check out my quads
I just want to see Cthoomhu fly

I've dropped countless tabs of Dutch sent LSD that was so clean u can stay up the whole high and come down smoothly. I face ego death in almost every experience but I find it enjoyable asf just gotta start acting like your body is a robot and that everything is mind over matter. As for shrooms ego death was non existent just enjoyable asf. Then I smoked a heavy dose of DMT and this shit was in effects as I sucked the pookie. Straight came out enlightened Asa lol hell. More profound then 450 UGs of LSD. But of course one has to reach an enlightenment in a natural sense to fully appreciate the psychedelic high. There must be a high level of strong will and the ability to let the drug overcome them and flow with it even though some feel like fighting it hence bad trip and no profound experience. Psychedelics have a special place in my heart. I've seen it turn people into zombies and unmotivated shits. One must realize that one is their own master and teacher. Follow your aspirations and passions cause if you ain't waking up and instantly have the go get it mindset then your being amerifags lazy and should kill yourself.

One thing that stuck with me was this
If God is real then he would want us to be the gods of our own life and have faith in ourselves rather than him cause he made us with supercomputer brains. But I don't believe in God but the saying works either way. Hope fellow intellectuals will relate to thus

>>10281127

>>6825066

Is there a more retarded movement than transcendentalism?
>hurr durr life is about smoking weed and looking at the stars XD
fuck this shit

>Is it true that a little philosophy inclineth a man to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion?

I didn't really know what Bacon meant by that at first, heh... Took me a while, but I finally start seeing his point. I'd even expand the argument by saying: "No philosophy [as in no thought, no intellectual activity] brings naturally a man to religion, little philosophy inclines a man to atheism and finally depth in philosophy brings a man's mind back to religion."

After studying evolutionary psychology followed by Rene Girard's work on anthropology I started seeing the true significance of religious activity, not necessarily Abrahamic, however the mimetic desire is so strongly portrayed in the Passion of the Christ on Golgotha, it's absolutely fascinating. The expanded version of Bacon's quote I'd say groups the "unthinking mass" as religious out of natural drive to explain the seemingly unexplainable by works of a greater Being. The "little" philosophy, or little intellectual activity leads a man to this "fad atheism" so common in [post] modern world. The man starts to recognize religion superficially as a tool of supposed opression, often rightfully so! "Fad atheist" is under impression that religion is really a collection of unsubstantiated myths and begins to reject it. Finally, a man well versed in "philosophy", an intellectual realizes the depth of anthropological mechanisms (like Freud's and Girard's "scapegoating") installed so brilliantly in most religious texts, rituals, begins to understand what role religion plays in linearly developing, collective human psychology. Depth in "philosophy" in my opinion as Bacon's said bring's a man's mind to religion, however it not necessarily make the man religious. Look at Jaspers or Wittgenstein, intellectual juggernauts with a deep concern for religion, both agnostic nevertheless.

>>5129072
I've researched Quran and it does deliver everything that Old Testament delivers in terms of themes and essential truths about reality. Why would I need to mention it in my first post? It's an Abrahamic religion and no surprise here, it does derive most of teachings from the Old Testament. Most metaphysics and anthropology (in terms of mindset/social outlook) at very least. The point is New Testament delivers absolutely singular and revolutionary message. New condition in relations between deity and man. The whole atonement theory. In Passion of the Christ it's explains how (Rene Girard calls it so at least) "mimetic desire" of humanity calls for blood to reduce the psychological group trauma. The resurrection breaks that cycle making humanity aware of its violent nature and turns it from collectivist, primitive state to idea of personal salvation which later shapes currents such as personalism etc. etc. etc.
>>5129003
I'm not a native speaker. I'm from Europe. Excuse me.

>>5105303
What I find really funny is how "analytic" thinkers pretend to be "scientific" when actual scientists laughed at them.

Poincaré writings on Russel contains many legitimate keks as he exposes how far Russel is from an actual mathematician. Cantor also made fun of him.

Some more laughs with the Frege Russel - Hilbert controversy. At least Frege was sensible enough to come back from his retarded "analytical" days at the end of his life.

Hermann Weyl came out as relatively funny when he spoke of the Vienna circle. I also recommend reading actual logicians such as Gentzen, Ackerman, Lukasiewicz (I leled when someone presented him as an analytic) or Gödel instead of fucktards like Russel, Wittgenstein or, God forbids, Quine.

Fun fact : Cantor became interested in philosphy at the end of his life but did not write, allegeddly because his co-worker at Halle Husserl had written all he thougth.
Then in 1900 Hilbert engaged his responsability against the Göttingen University to get Husserl to work with him and became best buddy with him.
Lukasiewicz and Weyl both said to be like Husserl's pupils. And Gödel said he was the greatest philosopher after Leibniz.

The only analytic philosophers I regard worthy are Frege and Whitehead, and it's probably because they are not really analytic.