/lit/ - Literature

>>10810516
In what sense "cause and effect"? It is fair to say that consciousness is a cause, since through the act of willing something to be the case and the execution of this will the self can be said to have caused something. It is also the very wellspring of the laws of empirical designation (quantity, causality, power, etc.) as well as the forms (space and time) which bound the use of these laws. Consciousness would then have to be the absolute cause in its own realm, since it is the subject of all things that are thought: it would have to be considered as an unconditioned free cause. But for it to be an empirical cause absolutely, something which, though a cause, would nevertheless of another cause be the effect, is not determinable. Since the self is not determined with regard to experience (it is not an object of experience specifically), it can't be said to exist in time, and because of this, physical causality can't be applied to it.

The law of causality can't be applied to things that are not objects of experience. If it is granted that the self is not an object of experience, it must also be granted that the law of causality can't be exercised on it as it would on an object.

>>10343823
Thank you. I enjoyed this discussion immensely.

Any still existing anti-capitalist sentiment (which hardly exists outside of backwater anime image boards) are just rapidly dissipating ripples from the Industrial Revolution.

Socialist countries have been at worst utter failures, and at best barely mediocre.

All economists have totally abandoned any non-capitalist system.

Even economists who are supposedly leftists (Krugman, Stiglitz) are card-carrying capitalists and love the market.

It's time to just rest guys. It's over.

Took me around 30 minutes to read Chapter 1 of Don Quixote, that's maybe 68 wpm

Am I fucked /lit/ or does it get easier

>>9407648
The notion of "reading for entertainment" is itself vague: if I am entertained by, say, "The Sublime Object of Ideology," does my emotional reaction itself obviate the "intellectual" purpose of the venture? Or does OP merely act out the obverse of the common, philistine conception of all art as "entertainment," i.e. that art exists to the end of alleviating the audience's boredom? To me it seems the latter, since to adhere to the former position is (only slightly) more foolish. OP is, in part, attempting to assail the notion that art exists to "keep one occupied": that art should be distracting.

But to use the word entertainment here is, I have shown, disingenuous. One can be entertained by a work that probes philosophy as easily as one can be entertained by e.g. the stock drivel of young-adult fiction or Stephen King. That is, all works can be "entertaining" as long as one entertains their notions. I can analyse Stephen King's writing from the perspective of Kantian deontology, and I would not call this undertaking "plebeian" as long as it is carried out sincerely.

Further, there is nothing wrong with entertainment. That OP attaches a negative connotation to this word displays a working ideology, namely, that of the academic elite: art should be consumed because it is "intellectually edifying," not for so base a purpose as being entertained (interested). Thus, especially since OP probably copied this without reading it fully, the ideology of postmodern spiritual elitism can be seen working in conscious and unconscious dimensions. Consciously, OP wishes to demonstrate his erudition, and unconsciously, OP is determined to attack the disavowed "plebeian," the worthless "art-destroyer" who himself consumes art at an unconscious level: at the level of "feeling good."

This is not a defense of philistinism, which assuredly exists. This is to show that academic authoritarianism breeds it (philistinism), and vice-a-versa. They are two sides of the same token of artistic misunderstanding.

Post literature maymays