/lit/ - Literature

>philosophy

Why were people brainwashed into thinking that Fanfictions = Bad, like every time it gets brought up its always the Cringey or absurd ones.

>write a character that's supposed to turn into the main villain and antagonist later on
>accidentally made their name rhyme with "villain"

The Doors of Perception - Huxley
A New Artificial Paradise - Havelock Ellis
The Psychedelic Experience - Timothy Leary
TIHTKAL - Alexander Shulgin
Articulations: On The Utilisation and Meanings of Psychedelics - Palmer

>>20189557
So David Foster Wallace borrowed 90% of his style from Ulysses?

>>19450398

>>19420408
>okay imagine an apple
>uhm... no... nothing
>okay now imagine Asa Akira
>pic rel

Why is it that Latin American poetry is so vastly superior to Anglo literature as a whole?

>>16268346
>the federalist papers were written for the wrong reason
>safety protocols are written for the wrong reasons
Dang man, I at no idea...Thanks for letting me know.

>>15856912
>>15856923
That rape scene he wrote in "brief interviews with hideous men" was coming from experience. Dave was the rapist, think about it.

>>15292865
They really are, aren't they?

>>14393164

>>14263536
>>14263999

>>14088702

>>13929161
>yfw at the same time it's metaphysics align with both platonism and quantum physics and btfo all modern philosophy

What must be faced is that ultimately and practically speaking there are no "consumers", since the word obviously should have the opposite of "producer", a someone which often lies unnamed and forgotten. Seeing that every man and woman to some degree participates in producing the something of the everything, the consumer and the producer are generally speaking one and the same. This state of affairs renders both terms useless in describing any actual group of people in larger society, beyond loose statistics.
In some sense the idea of the "consumer" could be seen to exist only to alienate the labourer from his produce. In this context the rarely imagined "producer" reappears as a counter, but is only materialized a corporation or a business, not the people themselves (beyond token PR appearances).
Under these conditions the actual people have only the task of working to earn themselves a living, and to consume. After all, what would happen if they realized they alone are both sides of the coin, and could just stop buying back from their masters the things they themselves make?

>>13760108
>"the only clue we have is that is there is a God or primordial being, it would have to have original intuition. The reason is that such a being's cognition must be intuitive, but it could not intuit anything sensibly, as this would be a limitation, which a God could not have"
>yfw Advaita Vedanta escapes Kants criticisms because when it posits the Primordial Being as the inner Self of all beings it answers Kants question of how anyone could possess intellectual intuition by fulfilling Kants requirement that such a being would have to be God

>>13728576

>>13711526
Not even need to go that far. Humans evolved only because we thought of that!
>>13711908
>math is a lie because you can't express square on a line, baka
>w-what is vector algebra?

>>13586892
t. slav

>>13584818
>Don't be shy
>Some stacies have a kink for shy guys

>>13515871

>>13488992
>It doesn't come down to 'without discernible beginning', with no explanation of its origin
>because the Supreme Being is eternally and beginninglessly existing