/lit/ - Literature

>>13306113
It was fucking satire, but good satire nonetheless.

Nick was a huge republicanist

>Just got this book
Ok? Read it
You're supposed to look for review before you buy something

Complete garbage. I got about 50 pages in, suddenly I started bursting of laughter. Same for Republic

>>13306113
It definitely suffers from Seinfeld Syndrome

>>13306113
The prince is really a reminder that if men were as desired as women, they'd be even bigger sluts than we are. anyone saying female promiscuity is "bad" is bitter grapes personified. if you COULD fuck, you would. the term is "incel" not "volcel." if incels could become chad tomorrow and fuck 1000 people they would in a heartbeat.

>m-muh roast
there's no difference taking one dick 200 times or 200 dicks one time, or even a dildo 200 times. either way, that's not how anything works, you retarded incel mongrels. my pussy is picture perfect.

i fuck who i please, and you can't. i turn down about 98% of the men interested in me because they aren't good enough.

i can afford to have exactly what i want, when i want. you take whatever drops on the floor in front of you.

most dicks are concentrated around an average. they're essentially the same. or does eating 200 different apples chip away at your teeth? wearing 20 different shoes deform your feet?

>>13306273
based

>>13306313
This is forced meme pasta but you're right.

>>13306313
SHUT
UP

>>13306134
No, this is his true work, The Republic is satire

>>13306319
I know I’m right. i've yet to hear any response that explains how being a (condom-using) slut is detrimental. i've received memes, retardation, k*ntposting, strawmen, and ad hominems.
just repeating "categorical imperitive" is not an argument because all kantian thought is just a thought exercise as to what a retard might believe and does not, in any way, represent the end all be all answered question of morality. i'll say that, fundamentally, all of morality is a massive spook. they can whine all day saying how bad it is, but they can't come up with a concrete reason why it's supposedly bad.

stirner already blasted that little gremlin k*nt the fuck out ages ago. It’s like nice empty platitude you massive window licking shallowbrain. how is it beneficial to waste my time and resources to personally have a kid, when the condition for my benefit from kids, in general, is that as long as society-wide everyone has enough to carry the show on, it's satisfactory? i gain no benefit from taking on a personal share of that burden.

Now look everyone, i'll put it in plainer terms. having sex is nice. you fuck a hot girl, you feel nice, you feel good. sluts have a net positive value on society. we create love and happiness and good feelings. whereas, all incels contribute is seething asspain on an autism awareness forum.

>>13306134
>>13306328
The entirety of the Western Canon is satire you dolts.

>>13306113
Read James Burnhams the Machiavellians after OP, your not going to find a copy to buy unless you got a grand burning a hole in your pocket so find a PDF online

>>13306330
the worst thing about you is that you probably won't even suffer the negative externalities people like you inflict on society

>>13306330
What should incels do? If ”have sex”, how?
>incels do not choose to be seething, they are simply trapped

>>13306355

Incel should realize it is not a choice betwen "momentary pleasure" and lifelong fulfillment. you CAN have both. there's absolutely a time before a woman is ready to find a life partner, during which she doesn't know what she wants yet. extremely young age marraiges get dirvorced a lot. sorry drunk. during that period you shouldn't commit yourself to a nunnery, it derives no benefit to do so. women go crazy later in marriage because they keep expecting to find some reward for that volcelling and instead find it thankless. self deprivation does NOT lead to any reward. it's taking a wonderful gift of opportunity and throwing it in the trash out of misplaced moral aspirations that, in the end, resovle to nothing, bring about no sense of accomplishment, and build nothing.

>>13306393
Can you be anymore embarrassing

>>13306393
And why should men be expected to take a sexex up post-slut as a wife?

>>13306393
>>13306330
>>13306313
Shut the fuck up degenerate. Die already.

>>13306403
>>13306407
he can only know you fucked 50+ guys if you tell him. there's no neon sign over my head.
the guy four guys back i fucked honestly thought i was a virgin and kept asking me if i was. it was hilarious.

as long as he wasn't a fag or niggerfucker and doesn't have a disease i wouldn't care how many women a guy has slept with, probably because, unlike pointy elbows 2/10 incel dweebs, I'm not insecure.

I won’t shut the fuck up! You know why? I’m a real writer! You know why? the best authors were all promiscuous. the worst authors were disgusting incels like k*nt.

>>13306424
>he can only know you fucked 50+ guys if you tell him
And that is why men are more and more distrusting of women. You aren't even aware of the cultural damage you are causing, like a boiling frog

>>13306427
i've yet to hear any response that explains how being a (condom-using) slut is detrimental. i've received memes, retardation, k*ntposting, strawmen, and ad hominems.
just repeating "categorical imperitive" is not an argument because all kantian thought is just a thought exercise as to what a retard might believe and does not, in any way, represent the end all be all answered question of morality. i'll say that, fundamentally, all of morality is a massive spook. they can whine all day saying how bad it is, but they can't come up with a concrete reason why it's supposedly bad.

nice empty platitude you massive window licking shallowbrain. how is it beneficial to waste my time and resources to personally have a kid, when the condition for my benefit from kids, in general, is that as long as society-wide everyone has enough to carry the show on, it's satisfactory? i gain no benefit from taking on a personal share of that burden.

>>13306433
>i've yet to hear any response that explains how being a (condom-using) slut is detrimental.

Do you prefer a new, clean bed, or a whole bed used by all sorts of people who are sick, mental and physical?

>>13306456
again, you're spooked. you're drowning in spooks and mistake the sea for the sky.

you've yet to debunk stirner
kant was never correct to begin with, there's nothing to argue against. do i need to disprove the world-on-the-back-of-a-tortoise theory first, too?

>>13306113
Machiavelli intellectualized the instinctive actions of power politics and ironically made political struggle an accessible thing. Christian morality was to European rulers a rhetorical device to which highly instinctive, anti-social behaviors were to be judged or compared. To more pious rulers, it would be a series of limitations to the will that would guide just government. Beneath that, lay the beating heart of competitive, predatory lordship the nobility have been practicing for generations. Most political actions were horizontal; being committed by and against men of high standing to increase their standing. They had no need for a work like the Prince to be published because many of them would be indirectly educated in this by their predecessors, courtiers, wards, etc.

The Prince ultimately reoriented the rhetoric of politics back to discussion of the possible and became something of a handbook to people who, in the turmoil following the Black Death, were increasingly enfranchised. Thus, true class-conflict in the non-Marxist sense became a prominent theme in politics. That's why the centuries following it's publication, Europe became rife with Lord-Protectors, High Cardinals, men not necessarily of the political class but who taken rulership not necessarily from an agreement or a grant or a right but by power in it's rawest forms.
Regardless of your personal feelings towards political pragmatism, you should read it as a historical document. Something to help you better understand liberalism, the Enlightenment and the discourse of policy in the present day.

>>13306463
Why you can't answer one simple question? Seek help.

>>13306433
Keep pushing and the dam will break at some point.

>>13306463
grow up, your unhealthy lifestyle is obvious just by how much you need to shill it to a bunch of anons

>>13306273
How does it look when an idiot is laughing?

dont read machiavelli unless youre an italian prince in the rennaisance

>>13306273
>Imagine being of such high caliber stupidity that you neither understand the intention of Plato/Machiavelli's statement as well as look past historic misunderstandings and individual perspect.

>>13306306
Well he is an Entp as am I so he has a quick with and likes wisecracks, you'r one high caliber idiot - get it cause its nigh an oximoron and leads the person into the false sense of security arising from their predispotion of the statement as complemtary residing within the conversational framework and so a tick only unlike the other conversational ticks such as hand and eye movement by its conscious nature as the generally conscious word and linguistick tick exist to progress motive knowledge while the generally unconscious physical tick exist to progress thought progression and difference within the said conversational framework in an example such as the staring eyes while listening but now flickering and sporadic while speech and thought is given. Given the literary tick it is of such telological difference that it oft is not even considered a tick.

Amazing how man attaches such innate motive to the physical movement so much so it in end serves to advance the movement of the Psyche in turn. However such attachments are not without instinctive predispotition.

>>13306330
Memewords

>>13306471
The only good response ITT

Decent analysis. :3

>>13306134
you're a literal brainlet if you think this can't be reconciled with the prince being genuine, which it clearly is, as every serious authority on the subject acknowledges (fuck rousseau).

>>13306313
stop shitting-up my board and spam your copypasta to /r9k you larping robot

>>13306337
this

>>13307326
The Prince's message was genuine, the book was semi-satirical.

Rousseau admired Machiavelli and was greatly influenced by him :3

There is a problem with academia and that is why you did not realize this. Read The Prince and then read The Social Contract. They are extremely similar.

The Prince was not satire but it was a subversive text. It was political science for Machiavelli's friends. An example of satire would be Utopia by Thomas More, whereas Machiavelli aimed to accurately depict what an politically motivated high level aristocrat looking to rule would do to achieve and keep the power of the state. Built in to his model, Machiavelli built in hints for his friends to pick up on in order to help usurp these power-hungry individuals, but these are hidden in subtext, since it was commissioned by the Medici family. Look up "Machiavelli open conspiracy" to read more about what he did to subvert the powers he "advises". In reality, his book is meant to advise those who would aim to fight the Medici types.

>>13306113
Discourses is better

>>13306113
Everything he said was very practical.

>>13306330
>Now look everyone, i'll put it in plainer terms. having sex is nice. you fuck a hot girl, you feel nice, you feel good. sluts have a net positive value on society. we create love and happiness and good feelings. whereas, all incels contribute is seething asspain on an autism awareness forum.

holy shit schopenhauer BTFO

>>13306134
>still thinks it’s the seventeenth century