/lit/ - Literature

New book rec pls. And by "new" I mean something in the last decade or so. Why does it feel like sci-fi is so stagnant?

Pain has an element of blank;
It cannot recollect
When it began, or if there were
A day when it was not.

It had no future but itself,
It infinite realms contain
It's past, enlightened to perceive
New periods of pain.

>just a reminder that the e-dick is the only /lit/ approved female.

>>9506041
>Weak people need
Stopped reading there. I already know every stupid sentence that could possibly come out of your mouth.
Now, I did read your post, after typing that first greentext. The only thing that caught me off guard was the very end conclusion.
Your picture of religion is the only thing that's murky and simplistic here. First of all, the religious picture of reality is different depending on religion, so here I will take Christianity, because the following is not all true for the others.
Okay, so let's take the proposition that somebody who views the world through the lens of Christianity ultimately views a murky or murkier picture than somebody who views the world through the lens of science. This is not a good proposition, because you are supposing that the scientifically inclined person views the same world as the religiously inclined person. A better analogy: there is only one lens, and many different worlds to view with it. The lens is the individual, the different realities he can view are his varying moods and mentalities. Let me clarify.
Religion deals primarily with universals, that means the poetical, the aesthetical, the ethical and etc. Science deals with particulars, that means relationships from one thing to another, models of things, abstractions of things, observations made about a thing not in itself but through some medium, the medium might be time, motion, or other properties known only in relation to another property.
The more immediate kind of knowledge is the former, religious knowledge, because it is immediate, a medium is not needed. One simply becomes the thing known through his inclination to it, this is the notion of knowledge via connaturality, and it's the basis for all artistic or universal knowledge.
Science cannot for instance adjudicate beauty in its immediacy, it can only adjudicate beauty through the medium of what constitutes beauty. This fact constitutes something your allegorical satellite would not be able to see, which religion could. Making religion (here Christianity) ultimately more precise when it comes to universal knowledge. I'll stop here, for who knows why. Maybe I'm beating a dead horse. I'm Catholic though, just fyi.

>>9459472
Cioran's Short History of Decay. Have y-you read it, senpai? It's a bit esoteric but I suppose that's Cioran's sacrifice, r-right?

>>9321279
Because I'm afraid that nobody will understand me if I say what I really think.
I keep my mouth shut, speak only when spoken to, and typically answering in single-word responses like 'yes,' 'no' etc, because the moment I say what's actually on my mind they think I'm weird and stop coming around me. Or even worse, they understand what I'm saying to them but in a watered down way, which is the most hurtful thing to me, because then you don't even get the credit of being incomprehensible.

>>9321289
See, if somebody said this shit to me in real life, I would be thrilled, to tell the honest truth. But nobody ever does.
There are billions of people on earth and we can only meet a few, the odds of encountering somebody who actually understands are slim to none.
On the internet we can see maybe hundreds of thousands to millions of people over a given time, and even then the 'real deals' are few and far between.
Personally, I can remember specific posts on /lit/ that shaped me more than the events in my own life did. It's so tragic because you have to come to the internet to get reality, while real life is filled with bitter shallow stupidity and fat people.

>>9321728
Absent mindedness doesn't so much mean absence of mind as much as it means presence of mind somewhere else.

>>9226059
I'm impervious to that shit because I'm from /g/ and long since replaced my consumer shit cellphone with an iridium satellite phone and using pagers and motorola C123s running osmocom firmware on a custom GSM loop. The idea of taking a picture with a phone is repulsive to me since I have dedicated hardware for that (AKA a camera). Anyone who accepts the Bourgeoisie notion of all-in-one tech gadgets is not a power user but is subordinated to the device and by extension the state through the device. Stay cyber af, stay schway, stay free.

>>9051564
I like it. One setting should definitely be cyberpunk. I think almost all of /lit/ likes it.

>>8484082
Exactly, subjectivity and objectivity actually aren't different things unless you are thinking about reality abject from experience. Determinism is the same a probabilism. One can be expressed in the other, that's what love is, it is redemption by the power of sin, conscience by the power of unconscious matter, it's the self-imparting force which differentiates being from non-being, it generates all incommensurability, and without it the universe would be uniform or in quantum equilibrium so to speak, nothing could be said to exist.
So it's no surprise that logical positivists have been saying exactly that for ages. But they are assuming that love is not equatable with being and that's where they fail in their thinking.