/lit/ - Literature

Will he ever come back?

It's the best and most prosaic fantasy since Tolkien and far more intricate and philosophical.

I am planning on rereading asoiaf. Many people claim that asoiaf is a very liberal series and that it is trying to subvert traditional social norms. But I disagree. Martins world is pretty apolitical. If people complain about brienne well eowyn exists in lotr. There are plenty of good and honorable men in Westeros. The one thing id say that you can tell is in the series that comes from Martins world view is his atheism. The world is very much an anthems it’s fantasist world. But other than that it is apolitical and one that in my mind looks like a history and fantasy nerd has created becuase he things knights and magic are cool.

So I was looking to see what I’d read after asoiaf and Bakker has come up often as a suggestion. Ive investigated him and what I’ve found leaves me unsure if I want to read his books. It seems his entire point of writing is to deconstruct the idea of free will as well as Christian values. I am very much not interested in reading a long fantasy series where the author is trying to explain how horrible and oppressive western culture is and how it’s all meaningless. Of course I imagine he will somehow try to justify why being a liberal progressive still is the right to influence to do even if religion, morality and free will are all fake

For someone who is not just a fantasy book enthusiast. Just someone who wants to read something worth reading. For instance you would not need to be a fantasy enthusiast to appreciate Tolkien. Not even Martin. But for something like Sanderson you really need to enjoy western fantasy and anime shonen to be able to like his stuff. So what’s the deal with Bakker?

I'd like to read something with his skill in prose imagery and philosophical ideas, but without all the fetishistic faggots, cuckoldry, and demonic semen that frequently plagues the plot.

>This is one of those books that make me wish I could travel back in time to catch the author drafting notes. So much brilliance, so much erudition, all devoted to beating straw—at least as far as ‘Second Culture’ Enlightenment critiques are concerned. Nietzsche is the most glaring example. Ignoring Nietzsche the physiologist, the empirically-minded skeptic, and reducing him to his subsequent misappropriation by fascist, existential, and postmodernist thought, Pinker writes:

>>Disdaining the commitment to truth-seeking among scientists and Enlightenment thinkers, Nietzsche asserted that “there are no facts, only interpretations,” and that “truth is a kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live.” (Of course, this left him unable to explain why we should believe that those statements are true.) 446

>Although it’s true that Nietzsche (like Pinker) lacked any scientifically compelling theory of cognition, what he did understand was its relation to power, the fact that “when you face an adversary alone, your best weapon may be an ax, but when you face an adversary in front of a throng of bystanders, your best weapon may be an argument” (415). To argue that all knowledge is contextual isn’t to argue that all knowledge is fundamentally equal (and therefore not knowledge at all), only that it is bound to its time and place, a creature possessing its own ecology, its own conditions of failure and flourishing. The Nietzschean thought experiment is actually quite a simple one: What happens when we turn Enlightenment skepticism loose upon Enlightenment values? For Nietzsche, Enlightenment Now, though it regularly pays lip service to the ramshackle, reversal-prone nature of progress, serves to conceal the empirical fact of cognitive ecology, that we remain, for all our enlightened noise-making to the contrary, animals bent on minimizing discrepancies. The Enlightenment only survives its own skepticism, Nietzsche thought, in the transvaluation of value, which he conceived—unfortunately—in atavistic or morally regressive terms.

Who's right?

Why didn't you tell me Achamian is a literal faggot ahead of time, and saved me 17 bucks. Into the trash it goes.

I Hate the No-God edition

Bakker the king of prose
Dick long like a hose
Sandi licks his toes
Its a fact, everyone knows

The ways of Bakker is true

He was the ghost writer, because GRRM couldn't write a thing and ended up writing two pages of pozzed crap, then Bakker came for the save and reigned supreme in the studio of japanese twinks and made them make a supreme medieval game.

His Prose is so supreme, every page is sublime and is oozing with prime prose and supremacy, this is why Bakkerchads win, this is how it goes and this is how it is.

this is how it is

Kino is back on the menu boys

B A K K E R
I I
N N
O O

Bakker thead.

Previous thread >>19906403

Is he the best writer in modernity? his epic medieval fantasy really takes you out of this modern cesspool and make you reign in medieval times.

Daily reminder that Kant was fully retroactively refuted by Bakker.

For example, while Quine fatally weakened the synthetic/analytic distinction, it was Bakker who provided the proof that calcified dogma is not observably different from analytic fact using a combination of the philosophy of information and semiotics of abstraction, joining the logical systems of Floridi to the physics of messaging via Landauer's Principal and computational entropy. Incomputability, Krylov Complexity, Yao Entropy, have disasterous consequences for proving analytics that are not tautologies, and nowhere is this more apparent then in the Dunyain-Logos Paradigm, as viewed from the Absolute Judging Eye Vector, Whale Rape Gang Bang Hypothesis laid out in The Great Ordeal. Bakker brings philosophy from Kant to Quine full circle, unsublating both, so both can be resublated as an organic whole into the dynamics of whale-mother-cave-rape-as-logos, which provides proof of the incompleteness of Logos due to the incomputability problem. Turing would have been proud!

Note that Kant is also more seriously retroactively refuted vis-á-vis the transcendental aesthetic via the proof of Meat Fueled Murder Rape Orgy (where the inefficiency of the alien space nuke, and resultant high level of radiation released, reminiscent of primitive, WWII era nuclear weapons, results in the Scalded as a boipussy dynamical system, which, shows that even a simple system represented by a differential equation can, and will necissarily produce chaos if it reaches a phase of three in any cycle.) The result is that the faculties cannot be an anchor of anything, as strong variance driven by "initial" conditions invariably leads to chaos. Bakker symbolizes this using the stochastic forces of nuclear radiation, as from those quantum activity we still see the larger classical objects of emergence in the rape orgy.

This shows the teleology of rape, the Inchori Theory and defeats appeals to classical ethics as such.

Again, even more than retroactive refutation, which others have done, Bakker RETROACTIVELY SUBLATES Kant.

Is this guy really worth reading or just the latest /lit/ meme?

Bakker thread, I hate the no god

What did Bakker mean by this ???

King Bakker Rules Supreme
King Bakker Makes me scream
King Bakker hey hey hey
King Bakker makes me gay

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/01/post-intentional-depression.html

Old but still good.

I just finish reading Bakker
And his series is nothing but tryhard edgelord garbage with philosophy wank from a guy who dropped out of his philosophy program. Literally nothing more than a pretentious midwit.

Why are so many people filtered by him?

Rank em, fantasybros