/lit/ - Literature

>>20064146
https://m.youtube.com/user/saintdonoghue

>>20064146
why does he look like a very sad bruce campbell?

For me, it's Kat from Paperbackdreams

>>20064146
Isn't this the guy that said men who like big tits are more prone to being leftists or something

>>20064179
Your “taste” is abysmal.

>>20064185
Retarded take

>>20064206
I don't remember the video very well, and he seems to have taken it down anyway.

>>20064146
>I’ll start
>…with someone only I listen to

>>20064223
Would you rather I recommend some run of the mill YouTuber with 2 million subscribers? That wouldn’t introduce anyone new to anybody you fucking zoomer moron

>>20064146
You are a refined fellow, OP. Dutton is an autistic genius madman. Love 'im.

>>20064444
I’m actually a woman (not a Troon), but thanks

>>20064146
Dutton is okay but not /lit/. He has mentioned that he doesn't really read outside of his work.

>>20064146
John David Ebert

leafbyleaf is good

>>20064146
https://youtube.com/c/TheLivingPhilosophy

Not strictly about literature, but someone else on /lit/ once recommended me this channel and I don't regret checking it out.

Very thoughtful and well researched content. Especially like his videos on Nietzsche and Baudrillard.

>>20064146
This channel has some decent videos on utilitarianism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BYUlKSY4wk&list=PL_HJ0tBxcTkZq-_b-P2xkKFhPkn85-_H9

>>20064146
Andrés Gómez Emilsson is worth watching if you're interested in the science and philosophy of consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/c/Andr%C3%A9sG%C3%B3mezEmilsson/videos

>>20064146
>Edward Dutton
JF Gariépy thinks he's a pseud

>>20064146
G.C. McKay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Nav-1LbeU

What does /lit/ think of Kill(ss)ing Asuka? He was a schizo who convinced himself that he lived in a simulation and killed himself.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeLURmm1ICIg46GkQpWOhIw/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtMZ_0fwv-IiRlctf_pl90A/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzuwHaHrA7_ClPjfeiVj1yQ/videos
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/

>>20064648
Inmendham also made a video about him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFdj41ndC5E

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvTC0uHgI7kB5OJjpCHldHg/videos

>>20064255
I’d rather you not put these off topic shit posts here

It's Clifford Lee Sargent aka Better than food for me

>>20064648
>schizo who convinced himself that he lived in a simulation and killed himself

Wait, like for real? Was this some kind of elaborate shit post or did he actually cease to exist?

Anyone got a link to that church of England minister who reviewed Houellebecq?

>>20064146
The queen of /lit/
https://youtu.be/-zbIniawSkw

some of the YaleCourses are interesting

None. If you watch youtube, you a subhuman.

None. If you watch youtube, you are a subhuman.

https://www.youtube.com/c/THUNKShow/videos

>>20064690
>did he actually cease to exist?
He believed that he continued existing after his death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uz6anwm47g

>>20064690
https://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2020/04/16/missing-waukegan-man-found-dead-in-lake-michigan/
https://www.thememorialchapelofwaukegan.com/obituaries/Mario-Alejandro-Monta-O-Gonzalez/

>>20064146
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheRationalFuture

>>20064146
I tried to like dutton but after you've seen a few videos of his you've seen them all
>muh 2 life strategies
Also British people are fucking repulsive

>>20064146
I found this channel with videos about transhumanism.

https://www.youtube.com/c/TRANSHUMANIA/videos

>>20064146
Edward Dutton is a typical retarded social darwinist for whom everything must be explained in terms of biology, "mating strategies", and eugenics. The contradiction in this worldview is abundantly clear: on Darwinism there is no reason that we should seek to "preserve the race" or have as many kids as possible like he advocates. There's no reason to do anything, because there are no moral imperatives in a materialist worldview.

>>20064835
>or have as many kids as possible
Are you retarded? Natural selection selects for maximizing reproduction.

>>20064146

>>20064835
>conflating objective facts with objective morality
Objective morality not existing doesn't imply that Darwinian forces can't exist. Natural selection is just a mathematical property of replicators.

>>20064899
Yes but there is no reason that we SHOULD engage in behaviours that are favourable for passing on our genes. Natural selection is not a moral force in the world. There are no "shoulds" or "should nots" in a darwinist materialist worldview. Dutton can complain all day long about "hedonists" and "nihilists" who are ruining society but his worldview is just as nihilistic, it's just that he likes to larp as something different.

>>20064912
Yeah that's exactly my point bro. Dutton is the one contradicting himself because he's obviously presenting a moral critique of society in his videos even though his own worldview precludes the possibility of morals.

>>20064923
>there is no reason that we SHOULD engage in behaviours that are favourable for passing on our genes
So? That doesn't mean that people won't engage in those behaviors. All that means is that natural selection selects for irrationality. The people who fool themselves into thinking there are good reasons for why they SHOULD reproduce, even if there objectively isn't, are going to be the people who pass on their genes.

>>20064997
Ok so you agree with me then. Dutton is a moron for offering a moral critique of society when his own worldview is nihilistic.

>>20064664
>bases entire philosophy on non-existence
>it doesn't even exist

>>20064681
It’s not exactly off topic though is it?

Oops, sorry, maybe we should have another post about Thomas Pynchon?

Or maybe we could REALLY liven things up around here by creating more threads with titles like: “books explaining doomer philosophy”, or “books to help me get a girlfriend”.

Apologies if you find this thread to be off topic, but the fact is this board talks about the same ten or so things ad nauseam, so getting a bit “off topic” is necessary for reducing the autistic Groundhog Day nature of this board. Again, it’s not even off topic lmao, autist.

>>20064923
>there is no reason that we SHOULD engage in behaviours that are favourable for passing on our genes.
The thing is, if you engage in the kinds of behaviours that nature shaped you to engage in, your life will ultimately be more fulfilling. Be a man, be strong, gather resources, find a cute young woman to be your wife, provide for and protect her, sire many children by her, and one day die an aged patriarch surrounded by multiple generations of a family that loves and admires you.
...or die alone in your room, surrounded by Funkopop's and bathed in the ethereal blue glow of some diversity porno Netflix original.
Which way Western man?

All I can say is that I hope I don't go to the gave wishing I'd spent more hours jerking it to anime catboys./s

>>20064934
99% of people fail to grasp this concept because it either undermines thier worldview or cannot think in the abstract.

>>20065216
>Go to the gave
KEK. Maybe get one of those grandkids to proof read your posts, breeder

>>20064934
>not knowing the difference between moral nihilism and moral subjectivism

>>20065139
How many children do you have?

>>20064146
I enjoy watching these 1950s high school exchange debates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0K12jOumYA&list=WL&index=98&t=1s
Also really like both history and archival footage channels like the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63R2aBqwsPg&list=WL&index=66

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uG0GllhJno&list=WL&index=117
And the absolute legend, Connor O Malley:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCyoia54iw0&list=WL&index=329

>>20065484
Zero. But is what I said false?

>>20064146
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxCpLm2Eyn0&list=WL&index=373

>>20064146
Free Audiobooks and other writings out loud:
https://www.youtube.com/c/Learnoutloudcom/videos

>>20064146
This channel has a lot of videos about Ted Kaczynski.

https://www.youtube.com/c/TheUnists

>>20065543
You told a story using emotive language and tried to imply that one way of living is better than another. I can do the same, watch.
>If you live against the way nature designed you, your life will ultimately be more fulfilling. Be a man, be strong, fuck as many women as you can but don't let them tie you down with marriage, pursue your goals (artistic, intellectual, career, whatever), settle down with a woman only when you want to and have as many kids as you feel like having.
>Or would you rather sit in a noisy house populated by 8 children running around screaming and messing around, your wife forbidding you from doing what you want, family committments tying you down, living all your life based on religious superstition, only to eventually get divorced and fight in court to be able to see your kids more than once a week.
>Which way, Western man?
I mean I ultimately agree that Christian family-oriented life is better but your emotional story didn't prove it.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJIIMmCfJxBv5-jGTK3iIMw/videos

Augustus Invictus's livestreams have some good redpills on how the (((legal system))) works.

https://www.youtube.com/c/AugustusInvictus/videos

>>20065813
Is this supposed to impress me? I'm not autistic enough to think that these things need to be "proven" with "facts and logic". If a person denies that human nature ought to be the basis of ethics, then I honestly have nothing else to say to them except, "good luck with that".
Likewise, by the standards you purpose, your criticisms of my post fail. All you did was use language in a manipulative way under the guise of being critical and rational. Is there anything wrong with using "emotive language" as a way of presenting an idea that we all know is right and true? If I use "emotive language" to make a point, does that mean I have said something false, or that we should not believe that what I've said is true?
The difference between my post and yours is that (1) I was being sincere while you were deliberately trying be satirical and (2) what I said is correct, while what you said is false. Does you ability to satirize someone make them wrong?
Ultimately, the difference between how I presented my ideas and how you presented yours is just a matter of style.
Finally, the poster I was responding to gave no arguments or evidence in favour of their position. They merely asserted that their beliefs are true without any justification.
As far as I'm concerned, if the goal of ethics is to facilitate human flourishing, then our ethics ought to acknowledge human nature and, by extension, natural selection. To think otherwise is foolish.

>>20064835
its not just that hes also just fucking wrong even from a materialist pov i dont know why people suck him off so much all his vids are the exact same.

>>20066022
natural selection isnt real and neither is human evolution.

>>20064835
>social darwinist
>biology
>materialism
You have no idea what you're talking about and people laugh at you for it.

why would I watch a video about literature? can these fuckers not write an essay or article? then why watch them? visual media is a waste of fucking time.

>>20066022
You can’t construct an ethic from materialist principles. The is—ought gap is not traversable. At most you can say, like you said before, that we would be happier if we lived an “old school” lifestyle but of course a lot of people disagree with that. Most men and women don’t want 8 children, most women don’t want to be housewives. Now as a Christian I can make arguments against their position but as a Darwinian materialist you can’t, because your attempt to make natural selection into a moral principle is just completely arbitrary and people see that.

This nigga is wearing a carafe in 2022. You can’t get more TradLARP than that.

>>20066205
Cravat I meant not carafe

>>20064146
David Mitchell looking headass

>>20066190
what i also dont get is why social darwinists have such a deterministic worlview yet try so hard to push their views and ideas almost as if they subconciously dont actually believe their deterministic worldview and are just ideologes.

and if everything is simply a result of biological determinism then so is the world they criticize a result of human nature and the elites who they view as being biologically superior allow it.

>>20064146
>>20064785
Yeah his content is extremely formulaic. He's based in that he'll stay committed to his viewpoint even on controversial topics (though not that committed if >>20064221 is true), but the viewpoint itself isn't very nuanced or interesting.

>>20066190
>Now as a Christian I can make arguments against their position but as a Darwinian materialist you can’t, because your attempt to make natural selection into a moral principle is just completely arbitrary and people see that.
This is yet to be demonstrated.
>The is—ought gap is not traversable.
I fail to see how it's relevant to this case.
>Most men and women don’t want...
People are dumb and "their" desires are largely a reflection of their social ecology, especially for women. And what "they" desire is generally not what's conducive to their happiness and well-being.
If I can't prove to you that you should want to live a good life then please tell me how you can prove to me that I ought to live in accordance with the will of God.
I see no reason to believe that "God wills it" is any better a basis for human action than "It is conducive to human flourishing". In fact, it seems to me that any justification for acting in accordance with the will of God will be downstream from the belief that we should act in accordance with the conditions of human flourishing. I can't see what else would motivate me to act in accordance with the will of God.

>>20066248
Group survival heavily relates to personal survival. It turns out that not being murdered by a bunch of hypocritical ideologists because their priest called you a demon is in your genes' interest and also presumably mankind's interest if intelligence is indeed a benefit to survival of the species.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gqmbpSJ-1iE&list=PLcwkClQz6qvAgDP42aW_HVLK2ZoBNopi0&index=5

>>20066248
>social darwinists
>deterministic
Instead of imposing labels and ideologies on your interlocutors, it's best to leave your assumptions at the door engage with what they themselves are actually saying.
The claim that we ought to acknowledge human nature and the evolutionary theory of biology is in no way advocacy for social Darwinism, nor does it entail determinism.

>>20066322
Natural selection is amoral. You can’t conclude from the fact that a practice is evolutionarily beneficial that we ought to preserve it; that’s where the is—ought gap is relevant.
You can argue a traditional lifestyle will make people happier but once again by the is—ought gap you can’t conclude that they ought to choose it. Maybe they prefer individual expression, sexual freedom, and the perceived autonomy of a non-traditional lifestyle.
You’re both moral relativists, with no conception of an absolute, objective, metaphysical “Good”, so both of your moral positions amount to little more than personal tastes.

>>20066325
>>20066523
>missing the point his hard
>seething this hard
hbd fags are truly npcs

>>20066325
youre simultaniously promoting and demoting both groupthink and individualism.

>>20065861
a man of culture i see

>>20064146
>Makes almost the exact same video but with a different opening a billion times
Bravo

>>20064713
basically this

>>20064912

Nigs have the most fucked out of proportion and asymmetrical faces ever

>>20064835
He advocates those things because hes group selected, you're not which is why you're seething about him.

>>20064146
I wish michael would come back.

>>20064486
Post tits

>>20064146

>>20064146
Hes good but not really /lit/, more /sci/. Its no wonder people in the thread are sperging out at the mention of his name.

>>20066909
This image triggers me. I don't even know who he is, yet ive watched his face turn into four-cheese beef lasagna more times than was clearly necessary. But what keeps me up at night is wondering if his dog is somewhere happy and safe.

>>20066937
I wish 4chan would get over it's weird fascination with trannies.

>>20066562
>Can't come up with a counter argument
>y-you're s-seething!!!

>>20064486
Femanon... you know the rules..

>>20066538
>You can’t conclude from the fact that a practice is evolutionarily beneficial that we ought to preserve it
Try to actually engage with your interlocutor instead of just rehashing imaginary arguments you've had in the shower. And please don't try to pull your precious "is-ought gap" out of your pocket anymore. It's getting tiresome. Find a new trick.

My argument *is not* that we ought to perform actions which are consistent with natural selection because they're consistent with natural selection. Notice how in my previous post I talked a lot about living a good life and human flourishing? And yet for some reason you want to make this conversation about your weird fixation with natural selection and the tedious little "is-ought gap".

I'll try to make things more clear for you because it seems that you have trouble with reading comprehension. My stance is that we all want to live a good life, we all want to engage in actions that are conducive to our well-being and flourishing. As I see it, acting in accordance with human nature and, by extension, the principles of natural selection is the best way to get there. A person is free to contest this, but if you're going to deny that we ought to pursue the good life, then I don't know what to say to you. I honestly don't think it's worth my time to engage with such a person.

Nor do I think that if you believe that moral nihilism would be correct in the absence of God, that God in any way provides a solution to moral nihilism. Why would this be the case?

Also, as I said before, I don't think that individual preference satisfaction is in any way salient to this discussion. I'm not going to recapitulate what I already said about it, so either address what I already said about it, or drop it.

>>20066953
>not the hecking dogerino

>>20065861
Really comfy channel ngl

>>20064529
I like his topics but found him hard to follow for long periods, something about his delivery.

>>20064625
>JF Gariépy thinks he's a pseud
so he must be a genius then