/lit/ - Literature

>>4565441

There's an extent to which big fancy words are required to discuss big fancy concepts. The reason why Kant or Heidegger are incredibly dense and verbose is because they try to get at things that could barely be touched by language as they knew it. Unfortunately this leads people without any good ideas to assume that density and verbosity are what makes a piece of writing important. And if you wrote something important, you might receive acclaim which you could turn into food on the table...

>>3471332
Are you using a whole lot of jargon or are you some sort of hypersubjectivist, or both?

Definition of IDEALISM
1
a (1) : a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena (2) : a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason
b (1) : a theory that only the perceptible is real (2) : a theory that only mental states or entities are knowable

I think that's just wrong. To say that *only* the perceptible is real is an illogical statement, because it's acknowledging the existence of the imperceptible while simultaneously stating its non-existence.
Of course... The imperceptible is, in a sense, not real.. But our language is stunted and incomplete and doesn't seem to allow for the different ways in which something can exist.

In any case, I think it's totally possible for someone to be wrong about their own values. I think that's a fact of life and cannot be altered by your opinion, unless you have no opinions. Otherwise there's bound to be conflict, and you're to eventually declare someone wrong at some point.

>as a side note, markets can be seen as an extension of alternating ideal frameworks accounting for each other in recursion to a point.
pic related? Anyways, markets are just a mechanism for the distribution of scarce resources. I don't think it's very related. Or is it? Perhaps markets are just the result of everybody attempting to steal from everybody else. i.e. Would it be more efficient if all actors were altruistically attempting to achieve optimum allocation? Probably.

>>3449309
I've tried reading Hume and he seemed very pic related.

>Moral philosophy, or the science of human nature, may be treated after two different manners; each of which has its peculiar merit, and may contribute to the entertainment, instruction, and reformation of mankind. The one considers man chiefly as born for action; and as influenced in his measures by taste and sentiment; pursuing one object, and avoiding another, according to the value which these objects seem to possess, and according to the light in which they present themselves. As virtue, of all objects, is allowed to be the most valuable, this species of philosophers paint her in the most amiable colours; borrowing all helps from poetry and eloquence, and treating their subject in an easy and obvious manner, and such as is best fitted to please the imagination, and engage the affections. They select the most striking observations and instances from common life; place opposite characters in a proper contrast; and alluring us into the paths of virtue by the views of glory and happiness, direct our steps in these paths by the soundest precepts and most illustrious examples. They make us feel the difference between vice and virtue; they excite and regulate our sentiments; and so they can but bend our hearts to the love of probity and true honour, they think, that they have fully attained the end of all their labours.

tl;dr: 'Someone could say, if she wanted, that humans are creatures of passion.'

>>3434489
This is a slow board, don't worry if it takes a while to get replies.

'fraid I haven't read the book but from my vague understanding of it from having watched the film when I was about six, say something about the exploitation of Gulliver by whoever being analogous to the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Remember the number one tip to writing in a Marxist sphere is not to make salient and well-explained points, it is to make your work as incomprehensible as possible. The less sense it makes (as long as that lack of sense is reinforced by enough big words and maybe even one or two you make up yourself, the closer to genius it is).

Also if you can try and work in some angle to do with misogyny and/or racism, it doesn't matter how anachronistic it is as long as it's retarded.

Welcome to academia, enjoy your stay

relevant

>Historians arguments