/lit/ - Literature

>>19877335
A few years of unguided, unstructured, uncommitted, fragmentary reading of a random grouping of texts, and to your surprise none have revealed their depths of experience after a few texts and mantra sessions. So you move to the next when they don't immediately provide transcendental experience. I think what you learned here is how to be a puffed up dilettante. Reading random excerpts from the history of physics across the world and history in no particular order or with no particular depth, dutifully dropping a bowling ball and feather off the roof, expecting it to give you the insights of say a Heisenberg after a few weeks is bordering on sociopathic megalomania, but that's what you suppose you're doing about the nature of reality/soul/God whatever. Also, your whole blog post was better stated by Descartes several hundred years ago, and he had solutions instead of being a little whiny bitch, how'd you miss that? You haven't "built any metaphysical models" anymore than some flakey soccer mom with a salt lamp. Laughable, truly.

>>19826354
Thay may not even be a protrait or Descartes; even if it is, it's a copy of an original that was dashed off by Fran's Hale on a small wooden panel. That man could be literally any Dutch merchant.

>>19775788
>the ruse has ended
Good.
>as though it required effort. you just used image search.
Counts as a noteworthy effort in my book. Reverse image search doesn't pull the reverend's name straight up right away and I might've just ignored this thread altogether but for his looking interesting enough for me to investigate (and the fact that I don't like not knowing important people).
> nice try at being clever
Not trying to be clever, just calling you out, boy.
> but three posts above you i have already come clean
You mean >>19775705? Yeah, no. The post above mine IDs him though.
>confirmed that /lit/ uses the reverse image search instead of just stating the subject author's name
You wish. I could tell by your little ruse that you were one of those anons that got pissy about people discussing (the work of) some picrel without outright naming them, but you're wrong; nine times out of ten, it's obvious who the picrel is for anyone who's read them (read: the anons whose opinions are worth something in said thread) and it's simply you're fault for being a pleb and not being able to recognize the person in question's countenance outright.

>>19721595
Thanks for this, OP. I was really looking for someone to co-opt a controversy about two borderline nobodies and make it about their even less significant self.

>>19670121
Portrait reminded me of a book I'm reading and don't mind recommending: The Philosopher, the Priest, and the Painter: A Portrait of Descartes
by Steven Nadler

> *Sleeps in a stove*
> Woooaah, I'm having weird dreams bro, this must be, like, a sign....
Really?

>>19565531
All of his books are like a 100 pages and easily understandable, anon.
You can go read them now and become just a little less of an illiterate faggot.

Why did Frans paint him so smug?