/lit/ - Literature

>>14653548
You replied to my post just to lump everything I reccomended into the same group. Ok, retard. Leopardi's Canti's and Artaud are both generally not necessarily pessimistic at all, in fact the former you could consider a realist in general. In Canti he slowly goes from this melancholic dreariness to a absolute ball ennui. Artaud has a warped world view that is a complete negation of everything, he is not pessimistic but rather completely innovative. In fact this "I WANT SAD BUT NOT LIKE PESSIMISTIC BRO" can be found right in the open with Schopenhauer, he gets memed a lot but has the most beautiful writing out of most German philosophers, what you'll find is a man upset at the nature of life almost as if he's apologizing throughout, not some pessimistic misogynist old man like he's made out to be(that description fits Nietzsche much more easily). Schopenhauer's managed to influence more people in the non-philosophy field then he has philosophy. Also, Coldridge and Dazai are both very 'sad' in nature without being pessimistic. Fucking retard do some fucking retard you fucking retard do some fucking research you fucking retard do some fucking research research it you fucking retard FUCK YOU

>>14114121
Same anon again. Bad night again, have to go to uni hell tomorrow. Have to go to the place that reminds me i'm a loser and untalented again.

Sole Soul suffering.
Sole Soul wishing to send prayers
Standing above a void when its only solace was lost
The emptiness dig deeps, the emptiness echos
Wishful thinking, powerful willing, lazy determination
Sit and blunder the day away, torch the night away to sit and suffer
Blessed to be whole, I never was

So I managed to find a baggy containing a few grams of dry amphetamine would it be wise to take this while reading or is this stuff only good as a writing drug?

>>13049649
just because i think this world and a humans existence constitutes nothing but suffering does not mean you cannot combat this suffering albeit usually futile imo. You can engage in the arts/philosophy and stare back in to mirror of despair; of-course a life a hedonism will have you at the ignorant side of life for most of it but no matter what you do life will always constitute a suffering its the essence of it. The mind cannot be left dormant; inactive, if it is, it suffers. With the shroud of death hanging over everybody everyday an inescapable anxiety life is only an anxiety. But back to your questions, i've considered it truly, everyone has, when fate comes fate comes

>>13019740
i love (pic) so much

when is the end? I hate to relapse on this particular but when is the revolutionary or the big change coming? Every day every decade their seems to be some sense of impending doom; in the now. This clearly shows with alot
of the post-modernist thought just being kinds fucking dark? DFW wrote a book that was suppose to be sad or atleast no hilarious like people thought it was, the amount of drug use is just kinda sad. And Pynchon...like seriously this guys books are just drug crazed inspired hugely by the old beats but amplified in the drug factor 10x more and the prose beautified beyond odler margins. American Psycho, Fanged Noumena(all of land),Fisher,celebrity's of-the-time self-hating attitude,so much drug use(like i dont know the stats but the amount of people doing drugs or romanticizing or people are just getting desensitized has increased),consumerism or materialism in full swing, stimulation & stagnation of younger generations and so and so forth. Everything and everyone is impending current doom. But before you say that Late capitalism recurring though on impending doom is what im explaining, its not, if you look at the decades prior people thinking and theorizing on the end or fin are thinking about the future, why is that we no longer are thinking about the future? We don't idealized the future anymore its the now. All the accelerationist have backed up on their thoughts and really taken steps back, they have not predicted the future physically or in a really relative sense but ethically and morally they had it down. Everything has gone to shit, the hope and the doomsayers of the then have all been knocked off, dead and nolonger there, wanted or even made. Is it cause we are already dead? Emerged in the depths of the capitalist stage? Terrorism rather than knocking of the armor of capitalism only makes it even more reinforced because the neo-liberalist. Anyone else feel like this? Like why the fuck is everything so sad? But life is intrinsically beautiful is this what keeps us going? Any books on this?(Ive read alot of accelerationist stuff already) Hauntology-the thought of the relapse is itself relapsing, what do I mean by this? You know what i mean...

>Does the world need religion? Is atheism the new religion? wtf is going anymore

>>12854172
Sure, recently I've been reading about the presocratics specifically right now the mileasians. What makes these philosophers especially special is they are essentially the "first" being the farthest people can date back philosophical thought i.e. the transition from mythos to logos. Thales, like a-lot of the presocratics based their principles off certain elemental aspects. Thales the founder for this "natural scientist" type of style believed Water is the first principle as it governs all things, of-course he reached this consensus by recognizing everything in one way or another has relation to water and also a-lot of theorys of origin flooding flew in and out of his small city of Miletus. He believed that the Earth floated on water like a piece of driftwood, this of-course made him believe that earthquakes were a result of the Earth rocking back and forth on this mass of water. Anaximander and Anaximemes were very similar except for a few things here and there, but for the sake of making this short I'll leave you with an excerpt by Aristotle on Anaximander so you can see why I find the Milesians so interesting
>
"Anaximander said that the first principle an element of existing things was the boundless; it was he who originally introduced this name for the first principle. He says that is is not water or any other so-called elements,but something different from them, something boundless by nature, which is the source of all the heavens and the worlds in them. And he says that the original source s of existing things are also what existing things die back into 'according to necessity;for they give justice and reparation to one another for their injustice in accordance wit the ordinance of Time', as he puts it, in these somewhat poetic terms.-"
>
Theres much more to all the Milesians but its hard to describe everything about each of them in one pose albeit there is very few fragments left of them. Anaximander also got very close to Darwinian thoughts---> "He says, further, that in the beginning man was born from creatures of a different kind because other creatures are soon self-supporting, but man alone needs prolonged nursing. For this reason he would not have survived if this had been his original form (Plutarch, 2).". I suggest you google about if you want to know more about them im sure all their stuff is available
on the internet. Anaximander never did explain what he meant by the boundless btw.
>>12854204
lol