/lit/ - Literature

I'm a fascist
Also i like to use lewd pictures to start my threads on blue boards and i don't exactly know why.

>>10745116
>The conception of the expansion of the concept can also be applied daringly to the idea of an open-marriage or "cuckolding" as it has now become known on internet sites as reddit and so on. Here we see the application of what Badiou would call "the One is not" (indeed should not be), finds its logical conclusion in the realm of love, where one can no longer stay with "one" but must share this "one" with the Hegelian Other. Yet we must not confuse this with the erratic excesses of one like Foucault, who did not dialectically engage with the Other, but instead distanced himself by delegating the role of sexual agent to one of his young attractive students.

Zizek really writes some crazy shit. How is he a respected scholar?

>>10713724
My God why are they so fucking ugly?

>>10646892
>Google gives nothing
>Suggests "Flesh"

>>10635976

>>10619583
>he couldn't handle his Heidegger
Lemme guess, /r/badphilosophy commie?

>otherwise realistic novel suddenly claims the horses are "flying through the streets" when the protagonist has to get somewhere fast

>>9828152
d-delet this

What are some books that women will never understand?

>>9486079
don't listen to this guy>>9486098
a kindle is worth it. get a paperwhite.

I am proposing another /lit/ readalong, whether for those who missed the last one or want to do another.

If there's a book you've always wanted to read but have never found the motivation to do so, post it ITT and I'll make a strawpoll. Then we decide upon the winner. My suggestions (some of which I've already read) are as follows m8s:

>Don Quixote
>Madame Bovary
>Gravity's Rainbow
>Blood Meridian
>Moby Dick
>Vanity Fair
>LOTR

Standard format, one chapter a day (or more/less, depending on the book and question) and then discussion/etc. Let's make it happen.

>>9135596

It made me a professional dilettante.

The really sad thing is that it STILL makes me smarter than 99% of those whomst'd've I encounter in daily life.

>>9132129

Because modern Liberals/Lefties have become so fucking stupid/melodramatic/sensitive/etc than even attention-seeking/whoring hacks seem intelligent by comparison.

Milo/etc are symptoms, not causes.

>>8887853

Ad hominem.

>>8823439

I'm appealing to de Maistre not because I'm a traditionalist/monarchist/etc, but because he dismantles the Enlightenment philosophy/argument so well. In the end I'll actually come down in favour of Burke and his reformist/'gradual change' Conservatism - rather than the 'Reactionary' de Maistre. I say 'Reactionary' because, when you scratch the surface, he was actually somewhat more of a Machiavellian realist who was prepared to compromise on his total devotion to monarchy/etc when it came to his measured defence of Napoleon/etc as a means of restoring order.

My argument will also closely follow Nietzsche's line - namely, a sceptical examination of what Paine calls 'Reason.' My point will be that Paine's deification/fetishization of 'Reason' betrays a much deeper philosophical disease that reached its crescendo during the Enlightenment - that is, a cult-like devotion to the Apollonian.

This is a legitimate question: what is a meme? Is it anything with viral potential? Is it only images with superimposed text? Does it require user generated meaning??? Help, I'm in a huge argument with my friend

>>8773980

>His views on Trump are legit embarrassing.

When you consider that he's an accelerationist, it makes perfect sense.

Clinton was the establishment/status-quo candidate par excellence.

>>8720028
>>8720028

What's your problem, the pronunciation?

And you're never going to see 80% of those words in 99% of your life.

>Save for when I use them in conversation, because I'm a dilettante who likes to draw a gulf between himself and the plebs

>>8716804

Omniverous diets are still the most healthy, as studies based upon the Okinawans (most long-lived population on earth) demonstrate.

We certainly eat too much of it in the West, however. The only way it can be excused is if you work out (which everyone should be doing) - in which case you're building muscle, which makes you healthier by every metric. Of course, the most limp-wristed of vegetarian/vegan fags who insist you don't 'need' muscle in this day and age can get fucked - or rather their girlfriends can, by ripped Chad. They might retort and cite hemp/sunflower/rice protein and so on, but these are painfully inefficient for muscle growth/maintenance compared to animal sources.

If you live an inactive life, you should be eating way less meat.

Also, if you are eating meat, there's almost no reason to have anything other than chicken/turkey and maybe tuna in limited amounts. The beef industry is full of hormones/etc, and artificially kept alive by subsidies. Likewise, the pork industry is also very dodgy.

If you're lucky and live in places like Scandinavia, you have a tasty exception in the form of deer/venison: incredibly healthy, and you're encouraged to hunt them (within limits) to keep populations in check.

>>8702749

He supported Bush Jr., was a professional contrarian, and was surprisingly anti-PC.

He'd have been supporting Trump alright.

I read the first couple of chapters, but it ended up being as pathetic as I expected.

What is it with the mentally ill and their making it so difficult to have sympathy with them?

>>8671703

Hegel was actually surprisingly conservative, if you read his letters/correspondence outside of the actual philosophy itself.

I think the Left Hegelians got it all wrong. The Right Hegelians were probably closer to what Hegel was thinking, but it's too late now. Left Hegelians won the war.

Lately I've been thinking whether the modern Western diet (High carb/sugar, high fat, high caffeine, low protein) is merely a coincidence or a conspiracy.

If I was a totalitarian/dictator, it's precisely the sort of diet I'd want my oppressed masses to be living on - rendering them both lethargic yet highly strung, and above all else, weak. Not just in terms of health problems, but their actual level of fitness. Little-to-no muscle mass on account of the protein deficiency, and what little they might have would be rendered useless with the copious amounts of body fat. Not only would there be a lack of strength, but also stamina, as these fat wheezing fucks would struggle to move - if at all.

On the other hand, it could just be a coincidence. The sad fact is that sugar, and to a lesser extent fat, are much cheaper to produce than protein by several orders/magnitudes. That's not to say there's no such thing as cheap protein: a man could live quite easily (and well) on chicken eggs and chicken, but at my local store you can get (for example) a whole roast chicken for £4.50 and 24 tins of Coca Cola for £3. There's no context, in terms of calorie per £.

It could just be a "happy coincidence" however, or a "happy accident" - sugar/fat being both cheap to produce AND simultaneously useful in keeping a population weak/unhealthy. What is more, the guilt/blame for this is relatively negligible on the part of whatever state/regime is involved: most people will willingly consume fat/sugar over protein - or at least much more, proportionally speaking. This we can ascribe to both a lack of will power (common in Last Men) - but also the biological/psychological quirk that sugar and fat combined, as in a doughnut for example, actually bypasses the brain function that would normally tell us to stop eating when we've had too much sugar or fat (by themselves) in one sitting.

>>8667353

>ensconced
>porky palm
>sweat of his clasp
>slimy balm
>oozing pore

Purple as fuck.