/lit/ - Literature

>>11206467
>community
then, based on that definition, what groups within this world oppose community? if nobody opposes your idea of "community," then it is meaningless as a way of distinguishing yourself from others.
>tradition
alright, it's a satisfying enough answer, though i still think tradition is too vague a concept (in addition to having fundamental disagreements with perpetuation from generation to generation without questioning whether it is a worthwhile tradition or not)
>not sure what you're talking about re free speech
you say you want free speech in discussing these works, but you have created barriers before people show up (we oppose liberalism, globalism, etc). if you want perspectives that may change your mind OR if you actually want to change someone else's mind then having other people join you than those who already agree with you may be worthwhile

good luck senpai, if i saw that i would probably show up, despite (or perhaps because of, to some extent) having disagreements with reactionary ideas

>>10648135
>>Well, if that is the case, then I'd like to see a good argument made for why I should not prefer being ignoble.
I didn't see much of a point; one's character will tend towards nobility or ignobility. If you do not see how transcending the need for struggle is superior to persisting in it, then there is no way to convince you. You've chosen to suffer and inflict your sufferings on others either because you cannot see any way beyond it, in which case you are ignorant or stupid (unless you can provide reasons for why transcending the need for struggle is impossible), or because you enjoy inflicting suffering on others, in which case you are a sociopath, for whom the only proper response is violence.
>>10648161
>A universe that "transcends" this one's nature of action and reaction is a frozen one where there is no passage of time, transformation, or motion; an inaccessible, hypothetical one, except in a state of ignorance (a self-contained mind, Rei's concept of autism I assume); an otherworldly one; a Christian one. The in-itself is a dead concept in philosophy; it was moved past centuries ago.
I do not know how to respond to this because it is so far removed from any idea REI has written. I will merely say that you should actually read Mundus Millennialis, or refrain from speaking about matters you are ignorant.