/lit/ - Literature

Everyone in this thread is an agent of the counter-initiation, if "Traditionalism" is true than why wouldn't agents of counter-initiation infiltrate here - don't you understand the gravity of the situation? This is no laughing matter!

Is it a sign of anything if no girl has ever shown any sign of being attracted to me? Like is that something that most people experience or is it pretty common to not have it happen until you try putting yourself out there and going on dating sites and stuff?
The girls I knew growing up would always awkwardly look away or say stuff like "I'm sure you'll find the right girl one day anon" or "haha I can't really picture you in a relationship with anyone, it feels too weird" whenever the topic came up in conversation.
I don't really think about it very often but when I do it makes me feel like I'm missing something most people have, or that there's something wrong with me that no one felt like saying to my face.

>>18266061
The habits of the brain builder:
>Coached Chess for fun with milestone progress, or have Russian parents who do that for you
>Keto diet, or just eat like a Russian
>Wim Hof breathing and cold exposure
>Or just walk outside in Russia
>Read the Classics and raise your Verbal IQ effective capacity (The Russians do this and your American lard ass does not)
>Having read a Classic Great Work of writing you can now transact or barter or discuss and exchange a new frontier of value with big brains instead of processing too much info on your own overloaded math boy style
>Have sex with Russians to increase your genetic descendant's DESIGN capacity
>One chance at life
>Not even Russian or Japanese or Chinese or Scandinavian
I blame you, Mom

I'll give you a Kantian response.

>Morality, like any other set of rules, is only effective as long as it can be enforced.
Yes, but for Kant it is enough that you apply it in your own life.
>However, unlike any other set of rules, morality is neither subjective nor objective, but universal.
Yes.
>No authority on earth is capable of enforcing a universal law, so faith in God is necessary.
Complete non-sequitur. First of all, for Kant there is a moral authority in my life: that moral authority is me, as long as I determine my will using purely rational maxims. For the to follow the CI, God is simply not required: I know what I should do, so it is up to me to do it.
Kant prescribes a belief in God only to spiritually weak people.
>If you don't believe in God, you can't be moral.
Divine Command theory is literally incompatible with morality.
Let me ask you this question: what is moral in following God's commands?
>Because atheists do not have a theological doctrine that serves as an "axiom" of their system; which reduces atheistic ethics to a circular logic, vague and unprovable statements, based on feelings.
Read chapter 1 of the Critique of Practical Reason: atheists can have an axiom, namely the CI, which is not circular, is not vague or improbable (in fact it is not an empirical statement in the first place), and unlike Divine Command theory is not based on frelings (such as the fear of Hell, the desire of Heaven, the desire of pleasing Jesus, etc.)
>They cannot be refuted because they are correct within the axioms on which they are based
In the case of Kant, the "axiom" is fully formal and universal, and it involves no arbitrariness. If God exists, he would follow the CI too.
>To this day no one has devised an irrefutable moral system
Yes, apart from Kant.
>I can take an ethical system (like Kant's categorical imperative) and say that it is correct given the axioms on which he bases his system
If the CI fits those requirements, then it is literally an objective, universal moral law which entails the self-determination of the willing subject (and with it, it also entails free will).

One last note: how do you pick between religions? You say that Kant's CI is arbitrary: why is picking your morals from, say, the Bible or the Quran not arbitrary? Only because you associate those teachings to God? But that would be reasonable only if you were to be absolutely sure that a specific God exists (depending on the religion you've picked).

>>17965630
Marxists are not against personal property. You wouldn't have to share your toothbrush, or your house. You definetely would have to share the means of production (which is what they call "private property")

How do I get my virginity back?

>>17469037
just get a cat

>>14967117
Have you ever thought about the possibility that it could be you that's living in a hivemind and that you have thought through your beliefs much less than /pol/acks who have them constantly challenged on a daily basis?

I love reading, but I hate starting to read. Once I've started I can read on, but every interruption makes it very hard to start up again. HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLPPPPPPPPPPPP MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

>squat 30kg, bench 90kg, deadlift 90kg
>holy bible and a book on biblical studies
>catholic book of prayers
my knees are all fucked up :^(

>>13392624
When will Fascists/Nazi retards understand they are Wrong and their pathetic ideology is nothing but Trash meant to D&C?

30
Medical Software Instructor
All Systems Red

>>11762736
>tfw i live in an east asian country and all the women around me are ugly
Curse and a blessing

>>11300874
>leftism is an ideology
whoa...

>Kant was a STEMfag who changed his mind
>Freud was a psychiatrist
>Nietzsche was a philologist
>Stirner had no degree lmao
>Wittgenstein was an engineer
>Russell was a mathematician
>Kripke is a mathematician
>Chomsky is a linguist
>Foucault was a historian/sociologist
>Adorno was a musician and sociologist
>Spengler was a mathematician
>Guenon was a mathematician
>Popper was a psychologist, mathematician and physicist

Are there any philosophers who were actually philosophers? It seems all the influential ones just did philosophy as an afterthought.

>>11070272
No reason to be anxious; if everyone bad mouth your work just use mental gymnastics and your developing avoidant personality desorder to psych yourself into believing its just another anon getting shit on and laugh along with us.

What's the saddest and most melancholic book you've ever read?

if human beings do you think it's even possible? i'm concerned about this

>>10950113
>>10950120
>>10950127
are you ok, dude?

>>10927008
>>10927029
>you should go to reddit

Disgusting

>>10886638
>He declared individual exist how highest value

>>10875444
im not really sure what set you off but i was just pointing out that in enders game man secretly started the war by mistake. wasnt the bug queen only mistaken during their very first interaction? i thought that after the human "counterattack" both parties understood they were attacking intelligent creatures

anyway the bugs in starship troopers also attacked earth and was a galvanizing point of the war

>durr read a book

I hate this phrase. It implies that reading will make you smarter, but technically, this is sound reasoning. Can any Anons point out what's wrong with this phrase? Does anyone else feel like something about it is wrong, or off?

>Shilling a glorified rollerball