/lit/ - Literature

therewith
thereto
whereof
wherefrom

pronominal adverbs are an underrated aspect of English. It's always nice to see them outside a legal/archaic context

>>19830472
Fuck posted the wrong one

>>19365409

>>19157709
>Potentially good thread gets off topic by some pea brain that thinks soul specifically means a particle and equally pea brains sperging against him instead of talking about research into ontology and meaning making of beings. Like how the Hopi conceptualize time, or how the idea of self might be considered an illusion.
I'm livid.

There was one article I read on Jstor about Islam schools in west africa and how knowledge was conceptualized there as partially a physical as well as a didactic experience. Shit like soaking passages of the quran in a liquid and drinking it. As well as critiques of the practice and potential interest in it.

We can pretend, sure, but we can also agree and from there find a suitable comparison for 21st century. In what way do you think Nietzsche was right about the 20th century?

Also for the 21st in general I'd say Brave New World or, I dunno, Revelation from Bible?

>Start with the Greeks
Why? When I'm learning math I don't start with Roman numerals and Euclid's Elements. When I'm learning the piano I don't start with harpsichord pieces. When I'm studying history I don't start with Herodotus. When I'm studying philosophy and literature, why should I begin with a people who didn't know light worked or what zero was? Surely in 2,400 years we've come across better ideas, or at least better ways to communicate them? We don't even teach the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica anymore because of how obtuse it's written.

>>16995570
Opposite for me. I went into it expecting a book that might give me new perspective have some unusual ideas, but it's 90% junk.
The advice he gives isn't inherently bad (flawed in some parts), but the way he presents it is all jumbled and makes him look like a dick. Every chapter has some long winded example of how Jordan Peterson saved the day, his examples are all over the place, and it's just tiresome.
The biggest problem are his little horrid insinuations that he presents alongside the decent advice.

>>16997447
IIRC, in 12 rules he says something about how men are driven to order while women are driven to chaos.
'Sexist' doesn't feel quite right, more like 'obscenely old fashioned'.
I've listened to more Peterson than I ever should have, and most of his stuff boils down to this:
>we should live in a traditional way because it was effective for so long it must be useful
He's a neophobe with a PhD. He simplifies and glamorizes the past in an frankly stupid way and acts like traditional solutions to modern problems won't give us traditional side effects that we've worked so long to iron out and acts like his anti-progress stance is revolutionary.
>pic unrelated

>>16478273
They don't know anything about it because they don't read. "Marxists" ideal society is fascist that is called something other than fascism

>>15883002

>>15271160

>>15148457
>my great grandpa
Dead
>my future nonexistent children
Don't exist

>>15148457
They're either brainwashed environmentalist vegans or fart-huffing, self-aggrandizing pessimists with a victim complex and a loose grasp on reality to boot.

>>15149826
>argument of consent
Yep, can't ask a nonexistent entity for consent; there's no analogy to be made with comatose people, because they actually exist. Also, not everyone believes every action requires consent.

>>15150048
Here comes the anti-natalist, shambling from whatever subreddit or facebook group pity party brainwashed him.

>it would be better if nothing existed, or at least if life or consciousness didn't exist.
No it wouldn't, because there wouldn't be anyone or anything to experience that lack of existence/life/consciousness. It's like having a cake and not getting to eat it- it's nice and objective and all, but it's MALIGNANTLY USELESS.

The rest of your post is just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that beg a whole ton of questions.

>>15150225
Straw man.

>>15150312
This means everyone we hate is telling the truth. What an absurd standard

>>15150372
Greek antinatalism is obsolete and probably mired in Hellenistic religion anyway. Modern anti-natalism and its troupe of pusillanimous philosophers are entirely new heads on the Hydra.

>>15150822
No, because they are incapable of reproduction due to natal complications and thus cannot be faulted, because they did not choose to be this way. They might also be able to artificially inseminate

>>15151076
>No, but it will be
Life has its troughs and peaks. That I will wane in whatever intelligence/muscle I had shouldn't perturb me, as I'll get over it. Also, you imply that it will be- I'd say you're too optimistic in thinking so.

>merely spend years in progressively escalating pain and boredom
Implying I can't still enjoy my hobbies or find peace in something.

>You being one of the pampered & fortunate few right now doesn't negate the fact that are guaranteed to still die
I thought the dead envied the living? Now we're pampered and fortunate? And for those in extreme suffering, death is all the better, so my point still stands.

>Oh sure the majority of humanity suffers, but I personally am comfy, thus is all existence affirmed through my majesty
A baseless caricature. Besides, how will you stop humanity from suffering? Anti-natalism is the comfiest philosophy of all- you just have to abstain from something you already can't get and don't want (sex). Forget going out and helping people or giving to charities, all you need to do is pat yourself on the back at the end of the day for being a "moral person." Even if most stop reproducing, they'll leave more resources for those who want to reproduce. Humanity will rebound, and mass killings will only lead to mass suffering and failure. This is why efilists always dream of a "red button" that erases all life painlessly, to no avail.