/lit/ - Literature

>The german semester abroad guy gets all the girls in our american philosophy degree
books to explain this?

>lays out a beautiful Meta-ethics, that describes Morality as necessarily monistic and possible for a transcendental object but in the phaenomneological plane this can never be realized leaving the inability to perfectly define morality in our world and therefore a continuous struggle to find the underlying principle morality rest on; states such grandios things as the closest to true morality is the greater abundance of choices
>immediaetly after:
>introduces the glorified golden rule that completely fucks over the importance of what he stated before and basically stands on its own in a different relm of all previous Meta-ethics.
What did kant mean by this?

Do any of you guys read any scandinavian lit? Hamsun, Ibsen, Strindberg, Petterson, Knausgård, Ulven, Lagerlöf, Undset, Jacobsen, Andersen, Holberg, the list goes on. Any recs? Favourite scandi books?

>>12398584
Does he actually think that though? He was agnostic about the thing-in-itself, but said that it probably exists otherwise phenomena would be left to themselves, woth nothing to stand on or something like that.

>>12326427
This might be a bad question, but what about Carl Schmitt? I know everything about the context in which he wrote is controversial, but I've seen him read and discussed by leftists without any hesitation. Maybe it's because they don't side with him, but to me he seems a bit like Sloterdijk in that he can be appreciated by any side. Sorry if this doesn't fit with neocons, paleocons etc., I don't know that much about the subject. Also, I get that you're asking about books that signal something, but does it have to be stuff that's strictly related? Kant had some political texts as well and you could also put Nietzsche on there since everybody likes (and hates) him.

>>12289790
>I just read this for the first time and I feel enlightened. We need to put this into every school's curriculum, the amount of fuckery politicians are allowed to get away with is astounding, just because of general populace's ignorance.
Pseud, the post.
Fitting. Economics is a pseudoscience.

>>12253688
>implying they read it.
They probably read a summary themselves.

>>12229531
I believe that you in fact have won a debate here and challenge you to a debate which I shall then lose in order to win. Refusing to debate me is a victory by default because the only winning move is not to play. Unless you win the debate, which you will, since that also counts as a victory according to the rules that I just made up.

>>12211683
>Weed has the peculiar fate of being able to intoxicate the rare breed of user into a state of mind not unlike that of the acute Foster Wallace who passed away ten years ago today. Whether this state of mind should be sought after, is a question perhaps better reserved for a later work, but we, in our current state of philosophy, should question not whether this state should be sought after, but whether this state is even attainable. This question, though of the utmost importance to anyone who seriously thinks of the matter, is a question that has hitherto escaped all the serious thinkers of the past, who, like I, have been willing to instead set their ships on sights more metaphysical. Plato, in the first book of his Laws, when discussing drinking parties, does indeed preternaturally pose the statement that if there ever were a drug that makes one feel pain rather than pleasure, then that drug should be sought. And Herodotus, in his histories, in a more passive manner, mentions the marijuana intoxicates of certain pagan bathhouses. But despite the former case, which is as attuned to genius and judgment as it is mystic, and the latter case, which is almost purely historical, the goal of our present inquiry lies in a complete critical examination of the topic of whether or not a higher state of mind is indeed achievable through that common drug.