/lit/ - Literature

>>22974721

>thoughalbeitever

>>22165342
>God is a decahedron
Really?

>>20834127
I refuse, CHUD.

>>20324014
>and/or

>>18459833
Guess you'll never be truly epic then, anon.

>>17165485
4 books it is

>>17045327
Memes are the greatest art

>>17038650
>am feeling desire?

>>16998976
I have a PUZZLE for monolonguals (EOLs, English as the only language). Europeans pls don't spoil it.
Here it is:
In my language there is a word that I will denote by A, which translated into english means "Jack", B which translated means "loves" and C which means "Jill".
The sentence A B C unsurprisingly means "Jack loves Jill".
However, if we reverse A and C we get C B A, also a grammatically correct sentence, and if we translate it into English it also means "Jack loves Jill", and not "Jill loves Jack" like you would expect. What's going on here? How is this possible?

>read a book in public
>people look at me
>they think I am smart

>>16867996
I haven't read it; just The Stranger and The Myth of Sisyphus. Would you recommend it anon?

Good thread.
I would kick the cup and then pray for forgiveness.

>>16432187
Thanks for the reply.
>we don't have an exact causal chain that tells us exactlyehy an effect has 0.3 intensity, but we have a causal explanation for it not having a 0.9 intensity
Right, that makes complete sense. Probabilities can indeed tell us a lot about the world and I in no way mean to undermine the value of probabilistic sciences like quantum mechanics.
>A probabilistic range is enough to distinguish a probabilistic system from a chaotic (or lawless, if you prefer this term) one.
Again, strongly agree.
>This is mechanicism, not determinism.
Can you explain to me how you understand determinism? As for me, I already stated that by determinism I mean the notion that knowing everything about the (physical) state of the universe at a given point in time (we leave alone here the objections about the nature of time and admit an absolute time, for purposes of simplicity) is theoretically enough to know the complete state of the universe at all subsequent points in time.
If this form of determinism is true, then indeed we have a defeater for the notion of free will. I think we both by now agree that this notion is not correct.
The issue seems to me to be that once we admit probabilistic causations, we no longer have a defeater for the belief in free will. Given this, do you believe that there is any form of determinism that provides a philosophical defeater for the belief in free will?
> I would also point out that your trust in your intuitions seems to be at odds with evolutionary theory, since we now know that many of those intuitions are mere biological products which are not selected for their accuracy regarding general truths
This is an interesting objection. However, I'm sure you'd agree that it's a completely different kind of objection. it does not concern itself with the notion of free will specifically, but about the value of ALL intuitive and ontological statements. It's essentially an attempt to a defeater for objective truth itself. This is an interesting subject to talk about but I think it would be better suited for another discussion.

>>16216331
Can you dm on zoom? Dm her normie memes about how stupid the lecture is.

What books can I read to have the most accurate predictive analysis on the future of geopolitics and breakout powerhouse economies?

>>16003590
Why was the thread locked?

Interesting observation I've made: whenever someone talks about taking some idea to its logical conclusion the conclusion is never a good thing.

>start by posting the real image
>posts the exact same image

>>15106975
PhD on sexual violence&masculinity

You know I don't think there's any such thing as a meme degree, and I detest the kind of people who put down things like women's studies. People should get their degrees in whatever they're passionate about. But becoming a "Doctor of the philosophy of sexual violence and masculinity" has a really weird connotation to it.

I know it's probably about the study of the pathological components of these things, but when you read the title as I have layed it out above, it's reads paradoxical to that. It sounds like she has studied to become an advocate for sexually violent males. I feel very assured that this is not the case, but I can't help but laugh a little now, having seen it. I wonder if she has noticed this, too.

>>14537032
Logic is certainly a thing with properties. As a system, it can be regarded as a whole defined by the relationship of it's rules. The semantic treadmill is a useless divergence, it matters not whether the term "thing" or "noun" is used as they are both signs of the same concept. There is a long lecture to be had about intuition and such, but this is just as much of a waste of time as arguing about concrete vs abstract "things". The true meat is in the idea that epistemological considerations serve as insurpassable limitations, however this is already placing limits on the limitless. The starting point is to understand that if you are keen to apply limitations to omnipotence, then we are doomed to continue talking past each other. Differentiation between weak omnipotence and strong omnipotence is clear, and I only care to discuss the latter, which is contrasted against the former by being notably outside all bounds. Omnipotence being boundless, altering the internal relations and parts of any system-structure falls within this domain-less description. An assertion that omnipotence relies on a pre-existing interface upon which to act is an absurdity, as it both precludes the inability to produce such an interface, and an inability to act without interface, both of which are necessities to fit the definition of omnipotent as a boundless capacity of actions being performed upon subjects.

Further more, the assertion that one cannot prove axioms is reductive. One is not capable of doing so only in the same system that the axioms are applied in, but it can hardly be said to be the only system available. Conventionalist semiosis is a powerful tool set aside from usual reasoning, and within its own domain is the very foundation of the necessity of axioms. There are more components that can be fit within this dialectical manifold, but now is neither the time nor place to discuss such geometries.

>>14163899
You are implying that a large swath of anons have the emotional depth required to even notice the gaping difference of psychological development between themselves and a young girl.

Consider that many excuses posted on this site assert that a 30 year old dating a 15 year old is equatable to a 65 year old dating a 50 year old. Lacking the fundamental insight and social competency of a healthy human being, these anons just see it as a number game, failing to account for timelines of development that influence the appropriateness of a relationship.

Then again, most of these anons also aren't interested in a relationship at all, but merely are just thirsty for sex. Their pedophilic tendencies are put in combination with their lack of romantic depth, and in the end they simply have a desire to fuck underage girls.

There is very little to do to appeal to these wretched souls, they have no eyes to see and no ears to hear the harm they do.

>>14147377
>he doesn't draw his own map

>>14080357
looks like hes got panties in his mouth