/lit/ - Literature

>>16362539
>In short, a Jungian
For saying that, I'll let you know that this critique of yours comes off as out of touch arrogance more than anything, like a child trying to impersonate an adult. I'm sure it sounded clever in your ears. You don't know what a "neoliberal" is, your prose sucks, masons are irrelevant, and you can leave Jung out of this.

>>16362539
>In short, a Jungian

For saying that, I'll let you know that this piercing critique of yours comes off as out of touch arrogance more than anything, like a child trying to impersonate an adult. I'm sure it sounded clever in your ears. You don't know what a "neoliberal is", your prose sucks, masons are irrelevant, and you can leave Jung out of this.

>>15332052
no, neither can you have sex without becoming a great writer

>>15114785
man your arms sure must be tired, luigi

>>15114785
>and you are a schwarmerer and a failed poet whose main intellectual fulfillment is vindicating your petty jewish god from your own ridiculous ghosts.
philosophy has always been pleasure, not a cure from mental diseases, you coarse zealot
man your arms must be tired

>>14552829
>>14552841
First of all, this is easy to simulate by posting on your computer and your phone, which are addressed differently. Which is why one of your files is from a phone, and the other is a named and cropped file from a computer. I'm astonished by your commitment. It wasn't believable from the first place, like I was supposed to believe four people responded in four minutes as if they all found our conversation significant, as if two people would independently come up with the "clown" thing - one saying "clown" and the other having a clown pepe ready - within two minutes of each other. It's too specific.
Why not just be authentic

>>14439851
>Isn't this wrong due to the fact humans have hardwired biological instincts that determine a great deal of their behavior?
"A great deal" is meaningless. Do you mean "majority"? Then you'd have a real argument. But then you'd be factually wrong, too.

>Neuroscience shows instincts are hard wired though.
That's the literally the definition of an instinct, what the fuck are you appealing to neuroscience for? Do you even know any neuroscience?

>Does dialectical materialism imply that all human behavior is the result of economic forces and classes etc?
No, believe it or not Marx does recognize the existence of a natural world, and does not believe that humans determined themselves into existence from spontaneous society.

>I've seen marxists claim that racism, sexism, transphobia are the result of capitalism. This doesn't make sense.
That's because you're stupid and don't think your thoughts through