/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11677453]

>bad writer
>female
>ugly
>Jewish
>atheist
>capitalist
>Republican
>pro abortion
>pro Israel
>pro colonialism
>objectivist
How can one person have a combination of basically all of the worst traits of humanity? Does it get any worse than Ayn Rand?

[Anonymous No.11677461]

>>11677453
No, she is literally one of the worst.

[Anonymous No.11677479]

>tfw reading this now on bert cooper's recommendation

[Anonymous No.11677513]

don't be so prejudiced. you can do and be anything and everything you want in this game of life

[Anonymous No.11677604]

>>11677453
Isn’t objectivism antithetical to colonialism doe?
This thot was insane

[Anonymous No.11677637]

Haha dude republicans suck and stuff lfmao

100% taxes and treaching kids about anal sex are harmless haha

[Anonymous No.11677641]

>>11677453
She's Jewish?

[Anonymous No.11677653]

>>11677637
>haha dude if you're not a Republican you're a left wing SJW
Anon you can do better than this.

[Anonymous No.11677659]

>>11677453
At least she ain't black.

[Anonymous No.11677663]

>>11677641
Just look at her.

[Anonymous No.11677674]

>bad writer
>ugly
that's just, like, your opinion
>female
>atheist
>jewish
>capitalist
>pro abortion
nothing wrong with these.
>Republican
no.

[Anonymous No.11677686]

>>11677637
Shit reading comprehension straight out of r/thedonald and boomer banter.
Read OP again, he is not even close to being a democrat.

[Anonymous No.11677702]

>>11677674
>ugly
>that's just, like, your opinion
Do you honestly believe that she’s not ugly as fuck by any human consensus!

[party rawcocker No.11677713]

>>11677453
>jew
wrong, that is an edomite and so are all the other fair skinned cretins. these so called "white" jews are the spawn of satan and will be roasted alive soon on the day of the messiah, to attone for all the sins they have cursed to the so called "black" people who are the real jews.

[Anonymous No.11677719]

>>11677713
She might be an edomite
But your a sodomite Xd

[Anonymous No.11677727]

>>11677713
>nog thinks we don't have genetic proof of Jew's MENA descent
>nog thinks his ancestors who are from the Niger-Cogo complex are Jews even though they hadn't left the fucking Congo by the time Abraham and David existed

[party rawcocker No.11677731]

>>11677719
fuck you edomite, you are going to be a slave soon and tend my fields and watch as i fuck your woman.

[Anonymous No.11677741]

>>11677674
>nothing wrong with these
You are disgusting.

[Anonymous No.11677752]

>>11677731
This is not the american south pre-civil war and I ain’t no zambo, boss, what you say is impossible

[Anonymous No.11678087]

>>11677453
Who are some writers who are basically the complete opposite of Ayn Rand?

[Anonymous No.11678125]

>>11677674
>capitalist
There's something very wrong with this.

[Anonymous No.11678164]

As an Ancap I think rand was retarded because she still held to statist bullshit and wasn’t full blown anarchist

[Anonymous No.11678190]

>>11678087
read literally any book on cog neuroscience and thermodynamics and you will understand the world in a way no randtard will ever be allowed because they're almost always half-wit psychopaths uninterested in learning anything but about how much better they are than people who didn't inherit money like they did (if you respond seriously to the last insult you're a fucking idiot)

[Anonymous No.11678202]

>>11677453
agreed OP. Add in being a pathetic hypocrite welfare queen at the end of her life. She was basically among the worst scum who has ever existed. Her and Allister Crowley are probably tongue kissing in hell right now

[Anonymous No.11678281]

>>11677453
Any good male authors who are physically attractive anti semite democrats, completely subjectivist, pro Palestine, anti imperialism, pro socialism, pro lifers?

[Anonymous No.11678394]

>>11678281
me desu

[Anonymous No.11678407]

>>11678281
damn, that's me except I'm more neutral than pro life and I'm also racist in general in addition to the antisemetism.

[Anonymous No.11678414]

>>11678407
>actually being a Democrat
>supporting any party at all

[Anonymous No.11678423]

>>11677453
>>female

[Anonymous No.11678427]

>>11677637
yes this guy who said being jewish is one of the worst traits of humanity is definitely an ess jay dubya

[Anonymous No.11678442]

>>11677453
>writer
>female
>cute
>Jewish
>Capitalist
>Republican
>Pro-Israel
>philosophical
>thinker
>driven
>accomplished

I'm seeing a lot of good things here.

[Anonymous No.11678454]

>>11678087
tolkien

[Anonymous No.11678457]

>>11678442
Sides are in orbit

[Anonymous No.11678458]

>>11677453
>implying there is anything wrong with colonialism

If you're so butthurt about it, abandon everything of English, Roman, Greek origin etc, and return to your country of ancestry.

[Anonymous No.11678460]

>>11678442
>philosophical thinker
>doesn't believe in God
come on now

[Anonymous No.11678461]

>>11678427
White Nationalists are 100% SJWs, they put Jews in the Marxist oppressor category and whites in the oppressed category

[Anonymous No.11678464]

>>11678461
Jordan Peterson please go

[Anonymous No.11678472]

Any of you guys read Anthem? I was convinced to give it a try and it was one of the most grating work I've ever read.

[Anonymous No.11678473]

>>11678464
i dont even like Jews but white nationalists are just bitches

i am also not an 'individualist' or whatever JBP's thing is, i have all the evil opinions or whatever as dictated by the society that JBP goes against but still basically adheres to on race and thigns like that

i just don't care about politics, politics is just impotent rage, except for those very few, and then it is just power-grabbing

[Anonymous No.11678474]

>>11678442
kek

[Anonymous No.11678479]

>>11678454
Wasn't he pro Jewish though

[Anonymous No.11678484]

>>11678473
Half of that was illogical

[Anonymous No.11678491]

>>11678484
but which half dude

[Anonymous No.11678494]

>>11677453
get lost ahmed

[Anonymous No.11678526]

>>11678461

[Anonymous No.11678563]

>>11678461
>white fucking nationalists
>subscribing to any sort of Marxist philosophy
NAZBOL GANG

[Anonymous No.11678566]

>>11678526
is this graphic supposed to be portraying the radical egalitarian as obviously wrong? because it is not doing that

[Anonymous No.11678568]

>>11678563
nazbols are the real sjw's

[Anonymous No.11678592]

>>11677741
>>11678125
Begone, commies.

[Anonymous No.11678596]

>>11677453
>female
>Jewish

There's nothing wrong with either of those.

[Anonymous No.11678618]

>>11678592
>Dude the two economic systems are capitalism and communism. There's nothing else.
shut up retard

[Anonymous No.11678640]

>>11678464
Hes not wrong

[Anonymous No.11678649]

>>11677453
Ayn Rand was such a naughty whore, just like all Jewess'. She fantasized about getting fucked and sucking cock daily. Like her thirst for finances, she had a very greedy Jewish pussy. She was so selfish and I want to hatefuck her. I'm getting erect just thinking about it...

[Anonymous No.11678654]

>>11678461
>White Nationalists are 100% SJWs, they put Jews in the Marxist oppressor category and whites in the oppressed category
nothing says social justice like ethnic cleansing stupid redditor faggot

[Anonymous No.11678656]

>>11678472
Fuck, I was literally a hard right libertarian-going-fash when I read Anthem, and I still thought it was stupid.

[Anonymous No.11678677]

>>11678281
Hemingway

[Anonymous No.11678712]

>>11678414
My cat

[Anonymous No.11678733]

>>11677653
>If you are a republican you're a corporate shill or brainless hick
OP can do better than this. The moral philosophy that is incrementally implemented by Democrats will, without a doubt, lead to the destruction of everything that's sacred

[Anonymous No.11678739]

>>11678596
Finally someone comes to his senses

[Anonymous No.11678743]

>>11678733
When did I ever claim to be a Democrat you stupid neocon retard

[Anonymous No.11678748]

>>11678743
When did I claim to be a neocon you stupid faggot
Alternatively, when did I claim that you were a democrat you stupid faggot

[Anonymous No.11679409]

>>11678618
Third way? A country would be more than fine going full capitalist but not full socialist. What does that tell you about socialism?
https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/scandinavian-unexceptionalism-culture-markets-and-the-failure-of-third-way-soc

[Anonymous No.11679415]

>>11678473
If you're a White European and not a White nationalist by now, you haven't been paying attention.

[Anonymous No.11679418]

>>11679415

[Anonymous No.11679420]

>>11679418

[Anonymous No.11679427]

>>11679420

[Anonymous No.11679450]

>>11679427

[Anonymous No.11679452]

>>11677453
also
>r*ssian

[Anonymous No.11679458]

>>11679415
Or you can be paying attention and avoid deliberately being a piece of shit. Can go either way.

[Anonymous No.11679464]

>>11678460

[Anonymous No.11679472]

>>11678649
Rand unironically gives the best narration and description of female sexuality.
All the females characters are desperate to be raped by a chad that they look up to like he's the second coming.

[Anonymous No.11679476]

>>11678479
He wasn't anti-semitic (hence le blue pilled) but I wouldn't call him pro-Jewish.

[Anonymous No.11679487]

>>11677453
>bad writer
Good enough for her to be widely read.
>female
Necessary for humanity's survival.
>ugly
Debatable.
>Jewish
Not in and of itself bad. However, Jews that have been historically relevant and also friends of Western Civilization are rare.
>atheist
Only rational position.
>capitalist
Only rational position.
>Republican
Better than the alternative.
>pro abortion
Bad. If I push someone into a lake that can't swim, it makes me a murderer should they drown.
>pro Israel
Hopefully all the Diaspora will move to Israel one day and leave the West alone.
>pro colonialism
Bad, but the colonized did receive some beneficial civilization.
>objectivist
Meh, could be worse.

[Anonymous No.11679568]

>Being against colonies
>Being against abortion
y tho?

[Anonymous No.11679585]

>>11677637
Out of all the traits listed, you chose the least relevant one. This an attack on a person, not your precious retarded american party. Also, as other have pointed out the opposite of republican isn't a libtard, it's 2018, the opposite is a person that doesn't drink russian semen for breakfast.

[Anonymous No.11679589]

>>11679487
>>atheist
>Only rational position.
>>capitalist
>Only rational position.
lmfao shut the fuck up brainlet

[Anonymous No.11679603]

>>11679589
he's right though. go suck a cock mouthbreather.

[Anonymous No.11680240]

>>11678526
>I AM SILLY

[Anonymous No.11680291]

>>11679589
It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man’s mind.

[Anonymous No.11680326]

>>11678526
Totally not just an inversion of this shit.

[Anonymous No.11680401]

>>11677453
No one is convinced by your tantrum throwing r/philosophy. Objectivism was and remains hard-irrefutable and the great metaconceptual validation of capitalism's morality.

[Anonymous No.11680447]

>>11680291
As no surprise in an immensely stupid age, you spout actual heresy, against which official anathemas have been made: "If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema."

The faith is in and to actual persons, like the Christ and his little children of spirit, but the proof is external and grounded in fact.

[Anonymous No.11680459]

>>11680326
One is more accurate than the other :-X

[Anonymous No.11680466]

>>11680447
Do not say that you’re afraid to trust your mind because you know so little. Are you safer in surrendering to mystics and discarding the little that you know? Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life. Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority. Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience—that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible—that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error.

[Anonymous No.11680530]

>>11680466
On the contrary, we have too many who trust too well in themselves despite the utter impoverishment of their thought. Case in point, one Ayn Rand. The most insane people are often so certain of their rightness. Visit any mental asylum if you doubt.

[Anonymous No.11680613]

>>11680530
Doubting yourself is fine.

Doubting yourself so much that you create a separate being who is sovereign over you isn't.

It's not about being 'right', it's about SHIFTING what 'right' is to being limited on evidence instead of faith. That's all.

[Anonymous No.11680614]

>>11680530
>too much
"Too" much in what context and and compared to what baseline? You have it exactly backwards the philosophy that is the cause of the current malaise gripping the world is the phiosophic thought that is impoverished. Ayn Rand discovered the true nature of the conceptual faculty and Objectivism is a essentially meta-cognitive assessment. Though I don't expect you know anything about that concerning her ane you simply detest her for her anti-altruism and laissez faire advocacy like the 95% of the mouthbreathers I've debated who think they know anything about her.

[Anonymous No.11680619]

>>11677641
Who isn't?

[Anonymous No.11680683]

>>11680613
>>11680614
All I meant was we can prove God's existence and have confidence in such proof. This however will never satisfy some, a few of which will always reject it and even pretend they've reached some higher state of being by doing so. In addition, the Christianity is based on blind faith meme is a complete fabrication and distortion of the facts. That is all.

[Anonymous No.11680705]

>>11680683
No higher state needed. I don't think you know how 'proof' works, or a scaling expectation of evidence in relation to the complexity/radical'ness of the claim.

'The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question.'

[Anonymous No.11680713]

>>11680683
>all I meant was we can prove God's existence
I'm listening.

[Anonymous No.11680722]

>>11677453
>female
>Jewish
>pro Israel
these are good things

[Anonymous No.11680727]

>>11680713
All I will say to you, if God is a metaphysical being, then metaphysical arguments should suffice to prove His existence. If you don't want to accept this, it is not a problem with the arguments, but with you. Read Aquinas if you're being sincere. Take care.

[Anonymous No.11680732]

>>11680727
That was a pretty lame cop-out for someone claiming such surety and confidence. But for some reason I'm also not surprised.

[Anonymous No.11680737]

>>11680732
That isn't, because these arguments are themselves quite powerful. They are not easily summarized though.

[Anonymous No.11680744]

>>11680737
You're proving something that the world has struggled over for a long time. Since you're so sure it's right, it's probably worth the time to present it.

I'll hang out here and read in case you do, instead of doing the "lol google it, amen my brothers" routine.

[Anonymous No.11680753]

>>11680744
Read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525

[Anonymous No.11680756]

>>11680744
That's a link to Amazon.

Please go ahead and make the argument here. It's proof, it's convincing, so it shouldn't be too much trouble. I'm very, very susceptible to evidence too. So you've got this.

[Anonymous No.11680758]

>>11680756
Seek and ye shall find.

[Anonymous No.11680763]

>>11680758
"google it lol"

Let me give you an example of how silly a response that is: "God doesn't exist, I'm right. Google it, dude."

If I copied your format of proof, we'd be nowhere. :-/

[Anonymous No.11680776]

>>11680763
As I said before, they are not easy arguments to summarize as they depend on a somewhat elaborate framework alien to most moderns. Please read the book.

[Anonymous No.11680790]

>>11680776
Go ahead, present them. You've typed a lot, telling me everything about them except for the things themselves.

If it's evidence, if it's proof, present it and make your point. Otherwise you're seriously wasting everyone's time.

[Anonymous No.11680799]

>>11680727
>this metaphysical shit I made up suffices BECAUSE I made it up
Lol no fag

[Anonymous No.11680817]

>>11680790
I can provide one interesting argument from the book that requires little background knowledge. Here's an argument taken verbatim proving why the intellect, what in Aquina's vocabulary is responsible for the understanding of the essences or forms of things, must be immaterial:

"Consider first that when we grasp the nature, essence, or form of a thing, it is necessarily one and the same form, nature, or essence that exists both in the thing and in the intellect. The form of triangularity that exists in our minds when we think about triangles is the same form that exists in actual triangles themselves; the form of “dogness” that exists in our minds when we think about dogs is the same form that exists in actual dogs; and so forth. If this weren’t the case, then we just wouldn’t really be thinking about triangles, dogs, and the like, since to think about these things requires grasping what they are, and what they are is determined by their essence or form. But now suppose that the intellect is a material thing—some part of the brain, or whatever. Then for the form to exist in the intellect is for the form to exist in a certain material thing. But for a form to exist in a material thing is just for that material thing to be the kind of thing the form is a form of; for example, for the form of “dogness” to exist in a certain parcel of matter is just for that parcel of matter to be a dog. And in that case, if your intellect was just the same thing as some part of your brain, it follows that that part of your brain would become a dog whenever you thought about dogs. “But that’s absurd!” you say. Of course it is; that’s the point. Assuming that the intellect is material leads to such absurdity; hence the intellect is not material."


Pretty neat, huh?

[Anonymous No.11680836]

>>11680817
This this simpoe the theory of concepts in it's infancy

[Anonymous No.11680895]

>>11678460
I believe in God, but you're a pseud if you think there aren't philosophical thinkers who are atheists.

[Anonymous No.11680898]

>>11679464
Pah hahaha haaaaaah!! *tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.11680899]

>>11680836
*simply

[Anonymous No.11680910]

>>11680898
>obnoxious onomatopoeia
This never flied on OG 4chan.

[Anonymous No.11680912]

>>11680817
That's an argument claiming that ideas exist physically by nature of the brain being physical.

That doesn't translate into the object of the thought existing in the extend of the object's nature.

IE: thinking of no god doesn't make god exist, thinking of god doesn't make him exist, thinking of a purple triangle ethereal dog doesn't make it exist.

It's a sleight of hand trying to say "Ah, but the IDEA exists, so it exists" which is a misuse of terms. It's pretending an idea's existence relate's to the object of the idea's existence.

Is it neat? Sure.
Does it prove god exists? No more than Anselm's ontological argument by nature of qualitative definition does.

Does it, then, follow that the intellect is not material? No, because the author fails to understand how the brain works. It's a good example of someone mixing up words and failing to understand neuroscience.

Definitely neat, though, sort of in the same way Descartes thinking the spirit exists in the pineal gland is neat. Not accurate, not real, not convincing, but neat.

So thanks for ACTUALLY providing something, but it doesn't prove god's existence yet. So go ahead and give some evidence of god.

[Anonymous No.11680963]

>>11680912
It's not a proof for God's existence, and the subject never enters into this particular argument. It simply shows why the "intellect" must be immaterial because of the nature of forms themselves. There are many accompanying arguments also showing why these forms must also be immaterial. Nothing you have said has provided a refutation of the argument, you simply claim that it's a mixing up of words and a misunderstanding of neuroscience but you fail to show where that misunderstanding falls exactly.

Again, please read the book, I'm not going to go into this here.

[Anonymous No.11680970]

>>11680963
It doesn't show why intellect must be immaterial. Intellect is material. It's mistaking a representation of a thing for the thing itself.

Your brain doesn't become a dog when you think of a dog. Your brain DOES become a set of electrical charges through neurons that you experience as a dog when you think of a dog.

It's a direct misunderstanding of how the brain works.

[Anonymous No.11680983]

>>11680970
If the so-called representation of the thing were not the thing itself then our knowledge, language, and understanding would not be possible. How do you account then for this mysterious translation, where on the one hand the mental representation has no relation to reality, yet on the other we invariably reach this reality regardless?

[Anonymous No.11681000]

>>11680983
Explain how if representations of things aren't themselves, how that makes language/knowledge/understanding impossible? That's a big leap, and I think you should back it up.

It doesn't have NO relationship to reality. It has a direct relationship to reality and the physical world. BUT it's a mistake to think that the thought of an object is the object itself. Just like a statute of a dog is not a dog - it's representing the dog - so I can't use the qualities of the statue to assert the dog's existence. IE: I make a statue of a dog that can speak english fluently and can fart nuclear missiles. I can't point to that statue and say "See, that dog exists!".

Thus I can't use it as an argument to assert absurdity on the part of the statue itself, since I'm failing to understand the distinction between the topic and the object.

Language, similarly, is symbolic and useful. We know that the word "knife" isn't a knife. It represents a knife, and we share that understanding. He is effectively asserting that the word "knife" makes my mouth turn into a knife when I say it, failing to understand that the word is separate from the object - and the most I can do solely is create a representative reference to the thing itself, not the thing itself.

The brain does not become X when it thinks of X. It becomes Y which you experience as X. Welcome to the difference between references and reality. Reality matters.

[Anonymous No.11681035]

>>11680970
Intellect is immaterial. It is a characteristic present in something, that is all.

A man can have intellect, but so can a statue. Both are designed, and both represent something.

[Anonymous No.11681055]

>>11681035
That's not the assertion here. Read the quote again.

He is saying that thought itself isn't material (not that intellect, a descriptor used to reference fluency of thought, is). He is arguing that the mind itself, the thing we think with, the thoughts within in, are not physical - because otherwise it would be ABSURD since we'd have a dog in our brain.

If you want to argue that "intellect is immaterial", then sure, I'll agree if you mean it as a descriptor as to someone's general intelligence comparative or otherwise, in the same way 'tall' does not exist, it's just a thing describing the actual thing.

If you want to argue that "intellect is immaterial" in that thoughts are immaterial (consciousness, etc.) then no, I object. I object to his explanation since he misunderstands a representation of a thing for the thing itself, invalidating his argument.

A man can have thought. A statue can't. A thought is physical. A thought of a statue is physical. A thought of a statue is NOT a statue. That is why his statement (essential to his argument) that your brain turns into a dog when you think of a dog is wrong. Thingness isn't the thing itself, thoughts of a thing aren't the things themselves, and our experience of a thought of a thing isn't the thing itself.

[Anonymous No.11681083]

>>11680817
This is the most retarded thing I've read all day, and that's an achievement. Specifically the "dog" line of reasoning that's summed up in >>11681055
Congratulations, I think you've effectively killed any credibility your arguments in this thread could've had.

[Anonymous No.11681183]

>>11681000
This. At the end of the day all Ayn Rand did was stress that the contextuality of concepts matter. And to integrate them into a philosophic sum and not misintegrate them. Or purposefully disintegrate all cognitive content.

[Anonymous No.11681224]

>>11679487
>Jewish
>Not in and of itself bad

[Anonymous No.11681280]

The Jewish people are stronger when they are scattered about in a diaspora. True Jewish supremacy requires the destruction of Israel.

[Anonymous No.11681291]

>>11679409
>third way
>democratic socialism
You're still thinking in terms of materialism you braindead faggot. Just like neoliberals and neoconservatives, everything is about economic growth to you. You can't imagine anything beyond the material. You're no better than Marxists.

[Anonymous No.11681379]

Why does /lit/ turn into echoesposting tards the second advocacy of capitalism is brought up?

[Anonymous No.11681395]

>>11681379
It's a trick the commies, jewish or otherwise, like to use to make the right render itself ineffectual.

[Anonymous No.11681443]

>>11681379
>>11681395
Who do you think owns the world under capitalism you brainwashed drones

[Anonymous No.11681623]

>>11681000
>>11681000
When we contemplate the essence of something external to ourselves, it must be the same essence as in the object itself, or otherwise we wouldn't be talking about the same thing. For you to have translated the impression of a real dog to a representation of it in the form of a statue means that you would have had to understood its essential form, what makes a dog most like itself, instead of say a bird or a cow or any other animal. The statue's fidelity to a real dog is beside the point because that isn't what is meant by essence. These features of an essence or form are necessarily universal and lacking in particularity. When we think of the essence of a triangle, the form of a polygon with three sides, we are not thinking of any particular triangle, again, because an essence is universal. For the essence of a triangle, it is lacking in all those features that we would normally encounter in the real world like color, space, size, etc that would make it into a particular triangle instead of a universal one, instead of its essence. All essences on the other hand which have particularity are embodied and take physical space, so in the original argument that is what is meant by dogness becoming a dog in the intellect, if the intellect in fact were just to be made of matter.

[Anonymous No.11681827]

>>11681623
I have a few problems with that, with one being my largest issue, but I’ll hit them all. First, I don’t think you need to understand dogness to imagine a dog. I don’t think everyone who can imagine a circle actually understands circle’ness in its truest form or anything like that. I think it’s quite easy to think of something you have seen without properly imagining its actual essence.
Second, even if one does, I don’t think that translates into creating the essence of the thing within the brain as physical. Thought is physical, but the way thought is composed DOES NOT mimic the thing being thought about. That is to say, me thinking of a dog (or dogness, since you seem to be focused on that) does not physically create a dog or dogness in my brain, instead my brain creates a series of charges that TRANSLATE into an EXPERIENCE that I am subject to. You can think of it as if I were making a dog out of legos. When I make a dog out of legos, there is no dogness in the legos. I have not made dogness. I have an object created of things that I experience as a dog by means of translating the experience (in this case of viewing it) into the actual concept of the thing it is referencing.

Similarly, the brain does not operate by taking essence and creating a physical manifestation of essence when thought (this is all absurd, but I’m sticking to the line as presented to emphasize the physical nature of thought). The brain instead creates something that it, itself, finds digestible and easily accessible which is simply a reference or translation of the thing, which I (by means of the way my brain works) experience the thing.

So dogness does not become a dog in the intellect. Thinking of a dog, or dogness, does not turn ANY part of your brain into a dog or dogness. Instead it creates a sort of referential chain that is used to convey the thought, without it being the thing itself.

That’s why I said earlier the guy fails to understand a basic function of the brain. He phrases it more like the amusing things some kids think – that if you’re thinking of it, it’s actually in your head. But if I cut your brain up and zoomed in very deeply, there would be no dog. There would instead be something that can be READ as ‘dog’, same as the word dog here. If you think the brain works like that, you’d similarly have to think that by using the word dog I am creating a dog within the computer (which clearly isn’t happening, no part of the computer turns into dog, nor the server, nor the language, etc).

1/2

[Anonymous No.11681828]

>>11681623
So it is a NEAT attempt. It is definitely amusing, but it’s empty. It’s definitely something that would be convincing to people who don’t care about how the brain works, or understand it, since it lets you have an over-simplified explanation of “see, thought isn’t physical!”. But any deeper examination of it shows that it’s pretty hollow.

TLDR: Thought/intellect is physical. No thing (or thingness) is created on thought/intellect/conception of a thing. Thinking does not create the thing thought of. Thinking does not turn the brain partially into the thing thought of. That misunderstands that thoughts are referential, and even conceiving the essence of a thing does not create the essence in thought, it simply creates an experience in the mind that translates to the thing. Just as the word ‘dog’ isn’t a dog, the thought of a dog isn’t a dog. Anything beyond that is throwing fog up and trying to argue around an important distinction, sacrificing accuracy for a short-cut/simple view of the brain (which isn’t helpful when trying to do something as specific as deny the physical nature of consciousness).

All that said, thanks for trying to rephrase it/reiterate it. It's not that I don't understand what he's going for. I do. I just object to it.

2/2

[Anonymous No.11681830]

>>11681443
You think I don't know what you're doing reddit? Stop pretending to be a Hitlerboo outsid of /pol/. NatSoc is a philosophical and economic embarrassment and the ven the layman knows it.
Rest assured you belong with the left side. You're not a third option. You're option A: racial collectivism version.
LfCap Objectivism is the real third option.

[Anonymous No.11681845]

>>11681830
wrong, the third option is NAZBOL GANG

[Anonymous No.11681902]

>>11681830
You really don't see the irony of using Jordan Peterson's "dude Nazis are just like SJWs" argument, and yet calling the other guy reddit?

[Anonymous No.11681930]

>>11681902
Peterson opperates off contradictory premises everywhere but things he is getting to right are right and me sharing in one of them does not make me complicit in the rest
Do you honestly argue this way?

[Anonymous No.11681936]

>>11677453
Woah hey what the fuck is wrong with colonialism?

[Anonymous No.11682036]

>>11677453
>bad writer
You and other just aren't used tk her Romantic Realist aesthetics. Which she lifted out of historical stagnation
>female
>One in a million rarity a female of her genius. Honorary man. As Ludwig von Mises can atest to
>ugly
lmao look at the picture you posted. She's a solid 8/10
>Jewish
Creator of the most anti-corruption ideology to ever exist
>atheist
mysticism is poison of the mind.
>capitalist
Laissez-faire capitalist. None of the Mixed Economy inferiority
>Republican
Only insofar as a republic>democracy. She was not a conservative. Eviscerated big-R republicans all her career
>pro abortion
tricky subject. Arguments sgainst abortion always came from an authoritarian religious base. So on those grounds she rejected them.
>pro Isarel
Vs Palestine? Anyone should be. Islamic savages.
>pro colonialism
More like recognition the natives really had no moral defense. They too opperated by a creed of conquer and tribalism.
>objectivist
redundancy

[Anonymous No.11682077]

>>11682036
>She's a solid 8/10
Are you serious? she looks like a fucking bird with that disgusting beak of a nose

[Anonymous No.11682268]

>>11682077
I don't see it

[Anonymous No.11682354]

>>11677453

>>female
>>ugly
>>Jewish
>>atheist
>>pro abortion
who cares

>>capitalist
>>Republican
>>pro Israel
>>pro coloniali
actually good


>>bad writer
bad prose, but good message still came across to millions of people

[Anonymous No.11682363]

>>11682354
>>>pro abortion
>who cares
Yeah dude, who cares if women want to have promiscuous sex and sacrifice her children to Satan? Her body, her rules!!

[Anonymous No.11682374]

>>11682363
The demographics of who gets abortions makes me less opposed to it.

[Anonymous No.11682658]

>>11677674
>>11677702
she's a 5/10
not good looking but not that ugly either

[Anonymous No.11682719]

>>11679487
>Good enough for her to be widely read.
>popularity is an indicator of quality
nah pseud

[Anonymous No.11682838]

>>11678281
Ed Said

[Anonymous No.11682850]

>>11677453
ugly and jew are synonymous.

[Anonymous No.11683007]

>>11677453
How is she a bad writer? I blew threw The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged incredibly fast. Great books

[Anonymous No.11683903]

>>11679487
You must think JK Rowling is good too then you absolute redditor.

[Anonymous No.11684072]

>>11678460
>philosophical thinker post-1900
>believes in God
pick one

[Anonymous No.11684170]

>>11684072
*blocks your path*
>muh current year

>>11683007
The pacing is off, the prose is middlebrow, the characterization is a bit dull. In terms of progression, it alternates between soap opera level adventures and long speeches preaching to the choir.
The books only redeeming value is that they trigger lefties so much.

[Anonymous No.11684192]

>>11684170
Except I don't think so, and you can't prove your points

[Anonymous No.11684238]

>>11680910

God forbid we ever attempt to make a point, lest we not be cool. The Internets greatest sin may prove to be it's acrimony.

[Anonymous No.11684728]

>>11677453
as a god's chosen i personally have nothing against her apperance and or writting
severally underated and somehow overrated -both in diffirent aspects

[Anonymous No.11684744]

>>11677453
No don't think it gets much worse

[Anonymous No.11684754]

>good writer
>male
>attractive
>non-Jewish
>believes in God
>liberal
>Democrat
>anti abortion
>anti Israel
>anti colonialism
>humanists
>How can one person have a combination of basically all of the best traits of humanity? Does it get any better than DFW?

[Anonymous No.11684773]

>>11684754
*does it get any more hack than DFW
ftfy
/s

[Anonymous No.11684952]

>>11680326

>heratige

[Anonymous No.11685101]

>>11678461
how does it feel being absolutely braindead? i was always curious

[Anonymous No.11685350]

>>11678281
corbyn

[Anonymous No.11685555]

>>11684754
Was DFW actually all those things or did you just make that up

[Anonymous No.11685601]

>>11685555
Yes read his political stuff

[Anonymous No.11685649]

>>11684238
You made no goddamn "point" with that regurgitated maymay. Fuck off back to twitter

[Anonymous No.11685651]

Fuck off back to r_ddit

[Anonymous No.11685654]

>>11677453
>Does it get any worse than Ayn Rand?
Nope

[Anonymous No.11685662]

>>11677479
>Randian weeb
was he /ourguy/?

[Anonymous No.11685921]

>>11684754
The majority of those who are loosely identified by the term “liberals” are afraid to let themselves discover that what they advocate is statism. They do not want to accept the full meaning of their goal; they want to keep all the advantages and effects of capitalism, while destroying the cause, and they want to establish statism without its necessary effects. They do not want to know or to admit that they are the champions of dictatorship and slavery.

[Anonymous No.11685967]

>>11685601
Where did he stand on the Jewish question

[Anonymous No.11686015]

>>11678472
I read it in high school, in retrospect it seems pretty masturbatory

[Anonymous No.11686024]

>>11677713
Sure kid

[Anonymous No.11686025]

>>11685662
i can think of worse /ourguys/.

[Anonymous No.11686042]

>>11679415
By 2060 it will be 0% of everything
We will all be monkeys

[Anonymous No.11686059]

>>11677453
>>Republican
>>pro colonialism
Yeah...I don't think so
>>11677641
Yep, so is her intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff.

[Anonymous No.11686083]

>>11678563

[Anonymous No.11686091]

>>11679415
We're all one race, the human race. It doesn't matter what the color of America is, which is why White people should be completely replaced and their history erased.

[Anonymous No.11686094]

>>11679458
t. SEETHING leftypol

[Anonymous No.11686097]

>>11679415
t. Amerimutt

[Anonymous No.11686120]

>>11686091
Capitalism has been called nationalistic—yet it is the only system that banished ethnicity, and made it possible, in the United States, for men of various, formerly antagonistic nationalities to live together in peace.

[Anonymous No.11686127]

>>11686120
>made it possible, in the United States, for men of various, formerly antagonistic nationalities to live together in peace.
*unzips FBI interracial violent crime statistics*

[Anonymous No.11686196]

>>11686127
lel

[Anonymous No.11686289]

>>11677674
Jew detected.

[Anonymous No.11686327]

>>11677453
>Does it get any worse than Ayn Rand?

Twitter Activists
Lena Dunham
Soros
Republicans with zero knowledge of their own party outside of memes
The person in charge of Foreign Policy in England
>yes

[Anonymous No.11687169]

>>11679415
>>11679418
>>11679420

What a sad fate. One day they will tell you that it was never your country, they will erase your history, tear down your statues, and make the blue-eyed brown. Stand strong, my friend.

[Anonymous No.11687200]

>>11677674
>jewish
>nothing wrong
Lmfao wow
Put me in the screencap

[Anonymous No.11687390]

>>11678460
>the magic story my parents taught me as a kid is automatically true even with no evidence and most of the rest of the planet believing differently
>"thinker"
come on now

[Anonymous No.11687399]

>>11678526
>the government should criminalize hate speech to protect the racial group I care about
>the government should criminalize free speech because it subverts the racial group I care about

horseshoe theory absolutely applies on certain subjects

[Anonymous No.11687412]

>>11679418
>caring about this shit at all

My great great grandchildren will have a darker tan.

It’s over for us all.

[Anonymous No.11687420]

>>11679420
The “nightmare scenario” doesn’t even have a single country with even 1/3 of the population being Muslim.

Incredible. Absolute hyperventilation.

[sauce(dead)pan No.11687425]

>>11687420
I'd be mad too.