/lit/ - Literature

>>17957185
The only reason i'm complaining about it while it may be "simple" it's because normies make a big deal due to the lack of nuance on the subject.
>>17957223
That is the perfect example of a narrow view on human emotions and their applications.

I fell asleep a few hours before that post
can anybody post the screencap?
I need to know how those digits were spent

The most obvious common denominator of the midwits I've met is they've a lack of understanding of genuine critical thinking processes. Really it's just ambiguous concepts like nuance, dichotomies, spectrums, or any abstract construction that is fashionable to the individual that obfuscates or supplants literal comprehension of a particular subject that makes clear, simple writing so helpful in contrast. I think reading books is so valuable because it helps guide you to a place where you can learn about ideas/reality and ignore the types of people who think that the practice of comprehension is a matter demonstrating one's wit or """"""""nuance""""""""" by obfuscating an idea with fashionable, pretentious, and nonsensical cliches.

>this thread

>>16324694
>Human preferences have nothing to do with what is/isn't sustainable.
So do you not prefer the sustainable over the unsustainable?

when will they learn

>>15623176
>Marriage has no value to begin with

>>15041455
>phonetics aren’t Transcendent

>>14895058
>there is no faith, i know god doesnt exist
have you read a single philosophy book in your life? Are you underage? Is your IQ below average?

>>14844706
>If morality exists, then necessarily God exists

>>14826077
>"And what is the purpose of pleasure? What is its reward?"
>"Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward."

>>14610993
>"God"

>>14607325
>for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.
To do that which is good for you is moral, and this does not require an incomprehensible freedom from causes.

>>14535006
So the point of being moral is to make ourselves happy, yes? Isn’t that the true good-in-itself? Will and freedom are only means to that end. But Kant doesn’t think consequences of actions are important, or that we should strive for happiness. What a confusing mess. Hegel was right: Kant wrongly places reason above our subjective, irrational nature, as if the foundation of everything we do isn’t based on irrational desire. Reason’s only goal should be to assist our irrational nature. With reason alone, there is no reason to do anything.

>he doesn’t derive his morals from God and God alone

>>14462232
>it’s the right thing to do because it’s the right thing to do

>>14378926
>it’s the right thing to do because it’s the right thing to do
>consequences? irrelevant. It’s only a coincidence that doing moral actions is beneficial to you
>why be moral, you ask? what are you, a psychopath?
>human emotion and personal experience? that has nothing to do with morality...
>you think the most moral action is that which benefits you the most? But that means you support rape and murder!

>>14374113

>>14267651
>Your system would let rapists and murderer free if they can demonstrate that they are not in the same mental state to do that again
No because this would not deter crimes if the punishments were not carried out. So regardless of what the criminals think, they must still do their time. Otherwise, everyone would do whatever they wanted and start crying once they got caught and get off free.

>>14236865

>>14229450
hopeless

>this thread

>>14188520

>>14169121
>I do what my body tells me to do therefore I have free will
No, you have a will.