/lit/ - Literature

I find people that can't take enjoyment out of life incredibly irritating.
I do not hate anyone - not niggers, not weebs, not furries - as much as I despise those faggots that wake up with that 'Ugh, another day of this shit' attitude towards life. And it's amazing to me how they always talk about how bored they are and how meaningless life is when they do nothing at all. They're either playing video games or indulging some sort of real life vice - if they read history or philosophy, it's only so that they can say they "know" what they're talking about when they're less informed than a first year undergraduate and read at a snail's pace.
I'm actually too untalented and skilled to express in words the amount of loathing and hatred I feel for people, especially privileged ones in the West, that do not wake up every day eager to live life to the fullest. They are truly the greatest cancer and I would unironically gas them all. There are clinically depressed people that show more enthusiasm at another day and optimism towards life than your average angsty 20-30 yo that likes to wax poetic about how meaningless our human existence is only to follow up with a talk about his favorite Marvel character.
FUCK THESE PEOPLE.

why is there roleplay in every pynchon thread, it's like clockwork

>>11439471
To be fair, Plato was a literal proto-Marxist. There's a reason so many of his and Socrates' pupils ended up being ideologue tyrants and murderers.

>>11417650
Hello, it seems our thread is still up.
Okay, so I have to say that I don't find that argument compelling at all. Why in the world would communism be the only mode of being in which we find answers to the deeper questions of life? I think this is way, way too anthropocentric to even stand the slightest scrutiny. Objective truths (I mean that loosely, we could be talking about metaphysical truths as well, or even moral ones) are either out there to discovered or they are not. If they seriously think communism is the only mode of being which leads to them, then what are we to say of different species that don't even resemble humans in their organization and thinking, yet are nevertheless self-conscious in the same way we are? Are we just going to be dismissive? Just too unworthy of speculating on the meaning of it all because they happened to be born as non-humans in a non-communist system? Does this sound at all fair, or reasonably likely? I'd say no.
> I'd say I reject the concept of "perennial answers"
But you still have to clarify in what way, or rather, what your real stance is. Are you saying there's nothing that's always true, or are you just saying truth depends entirely on the consciousness that's behind it? I'd like to know where you stand. I'll take the next post to explain where I'm coming from and go a bit more in depth.

>>11359486
>I'm so bored of all these people who don't understand tools and appendages and how consciousness actually works.

if you know the answer to this question then by all means share it. not baiting you, although it's somewhat uncharitable to dismiss the guys we're talking about as being trapped in the 19C and completely outdated. deleuze wasn't (and he would have argued that spinoza was way ahead of his time also). nietzsche was 19C but he's far from irrelevant. we *know* our language is insufficient and that consciousness is mirrored person to person. for sure. so where is all this going? that's the question.

>and idiot philosophers keep pointing to capital. wonder why? wonder why they project systematic thinking onto chaotic properties?
come on. do you really think land is projecting systematic thought? read teleoplexy. if anything it's that an alien systematic is being projected onto us and with which we are inextricably colluding. one which we can maybe kinda-sorta intimate through economic processes, but not completely. land is saying - and correctly - that we have no fucking idea what this thing we're calling capital is. the least we can do is begin realizing that we don't have our ducks in a row.

and hegel was no idiot, and neither was marx, heidegger, lacan or any of the rest.

>wouldn't have anything to do with an age of anxiety?
of course it does. it's about how to into anxiety usefully.