/lit/ - Literature

>>19870087
Dopey lookin' mf

>>19870883
I agree only with the idea that it relies too heavily on a weak plot. But in my opinion, for it being nothing more than a polished undergrad thesis, it's pretty good.

>>19870873
Epic

>>19868350
That fucking painting must be on the cover of like 500+ different cheap printings of books

You just didn't like it

>>19870824
I disagree, but I'd be interested to know why you think so

>>19870839
This exact joke was made in the first reply you absolute dunce

I think it's a mostly pointless concept to argue over because really it's just mental masturbation over the idea of what "will" really is. Let's say I have in front of me two tokens, identical except for their color; one is red and the other blue. I am challenged to choose a token. Ignoring all predisposition or aversion to certain colors, or the idea that one may be right or wrong, how am I to know why I chose one or the other? Is it will? Is it random? Let's say I'm aware that the exercise is to examine "free will", so now I'm making a conscious effort to exert my will in my choice. I could just as easily choose either, but how could it ever be proven without a doubt that it wasn't simply the result of certain dispositions, or inevitabilities, or fate? It couldn't be. It's a pointless endeavor. There's no possible way we could ever truly prove the existence or nonexistence of free will. This might be a schizo ramble, I apologize if it is; I'm a bit drunk.

The stranger, old man and the sea, the death of Ivan Ilyich, the body artist. A few others I've come close, but I'm a pretty slow reader. Most of the time I'd honestly prefer to take a little longer