/lit/ - Literature

>>20352539
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/

>>17102359
Machines aren't autonomous and only do what they're designed to do by people who then make new ones which make the old ones useless

>>13811713
>will affect the literary culture and canon of these countries?
irrelevant, we post-literate now no matter what, the question is memetics

>>12259295
>I personally feel that the current Western World is somewhat similar to Ancient Rome

literally every pseud for 1000 years has thougth this

>>12215625
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xUwhbH5XIg

crazy

>>9273563
>rediscover spirituality and love once more
why would you want to do that you weak willed bitchboi

i didnt read as a kid and other people wont allow me around their children so i cant help you sry

screw the pomo shit read Ideology and Utopia by Karl Mannheim for da real shit

>>7435472
But I fancy one of you objecting: This may be very true, but it neglects the fundamental distinction between matter and life, namely the phenomenon of consciousness. Very good, my dear sir, let us endeavour to analyse this phenomenon of consciousness, and see whether denying consciousness to matter may not be just as dogmatic as asserting that matter possesses it. Now let me ask you a question: Do you think I am a conscious being, and if so, why? The only answer you can give to that question will be agnostic. You really do not know whether I am conscious or not. Each individual ego can assert of itself that it is conscious, but to assert that that group of sensations which you term me is conscious, is an assumption, however reasonable it may appear. For you, sir, I and the rest of the external world are automata, pure bits of mechanism; it may be practically advisable for you to endow us with consciousness, but how can you prove it? You will reply: I see spontaneous actions on your part, similar to those I can produce myself. I am compelled by analogy to endow you with will and consciousness. Good! you argue by analogy that I have consciousness; you will doubtless grant it to the animal world; now you cannot break the chain of analogy anywhere till you have descended through the whole plant world to the simple cell, there you find apparently spontaneous motion and argue life—consciousness. Now I carry your argument a step further and tell you that I find in the ultimate atom of matter most complex phases of motion and capacity for influencing the motion of others. All these things are to me inexplicable. They appear spontaneous motion; ergo by analogy, dear sir, matter is conscious.

Now the only thing, which I am certain is conscious, is my own individual ego; I find nothing, however, more absurd in the assertion that matter is conscious, than in the assertion that the simple cell is conscious, or working upwards that you are conscious. They are all at present unproven assertions. That matter is conscious is no more nonsense than that life is mechanism; possibly some day, as the human intellect develops with the centuries, we may be able to show that one or other of these statements is true, or more probably that both are true.

just give up on trying to be happy m8

it's never gonna happen

life is a solitary march to the grave tbqh