/lit/ - Literature

>>17310214
Mental processes are part of the self.

>>15357418
- I have free will.
- Consciousness exists.
- Nihilism is a psychological, not a philosophical condition.
- Materialism is internally consistent and it's possible to live a happy, fulfilling life while being a materialist.
- Proust is not worth reading.
- Les Miserables is overrated.
- James Joyce had nothing interesting to say and his books are not worth reading.
- Nick Land is a dumb junkie with nothing interesting to say.
- The accumulation of physical books just to show them off is very shallow and low IQ behavior.
- There are good science fiction books.
- Science is the best way to find truth in its own epistemological domain.
- The greeks for the most part are not worth reading. They are important but the important and relevant bits of their philosophy have already been absolved by our society and is seen as something that is common sense.
- Most good books are not in the top 100 literature lists.
- Reading too much can make one stupid.
- Some women are alright.
- Incels are right about a lot of things.
- Reading for the purpose of reading is dumb.
- Most good books should be reread.
- Modern art is better than it has ever been.
- Kaczynski was smart but wrong. Progress of technology is a good thing. It is already slowing and should be accelerated.
- Belief in humanity and pro-social behavior is a sign of maturity and intellect.
- Pointing to a book or an author when confronted with an argument is an admit of defeat.
- Hemingway as a writer is alright, but the "iceberg theory" is bullshit, an attempt to praise his own writing. His short stories are better than his long books.
- Life is not all about having sex.
- Freud and Jung were not even wrong.
- A lot of users in this board display a shocking lack of empathy towards others.
- In most cases, when someone actually knows about something, they will be happy to engage when asked about it.
- We were born in the best possible time (not counting the future).

>>15218066
As I have explained in other posts, I did not make this thread and the title is not mine.
I made the post that you see in the OP in another thread in response to an anon who, after I refuted his arguments for why he thinks no one has free will attempted to retort with "Well then why don't you prove to me you have free will?". The post is me explaining why there is no point in trying to argue for free will. It only makes sense to argue against it.
>and with the strong implication that no one would be able to convince you out of yours, right?
I implied no such thing. I like arguing against people who believe no one has free will. That's how it all started.
>And, if so, what would be the point of arguing?
To have fun and to understand the arguments better.
>And yet you did argue (something) and now allude to your airtight 'reasoning' that relies a little too heavily I feel on the misreasoning of others-- or do you disagree?
Yes, I argued why it makes no sense to argue in favor of my free will.
>At any rate, if you cannot convey your 'free will belief' to anyone, for whom or of what did you argue?
As I said before, I like examining the arguments against free will and pointing out logical flaws in them. It's fun!
>My guess is that you argued for yourself in more than a single sense-- not the integrity of the argument per se, but for your *own* integrity, or integralness, or self, or soul.
No, that post was just me explaining to another anon who asked my for my arguments for why I have free will, why all such arguments would be futile.
>If you had definite knowledge of 'will' then you'd be able to argue for or against it, but you do not
Why? I don't see how that would be true. You can have definite knowledge of something without being able to convey it to others. Especially knowledge as fundamentally subjective as one's own free will.
>Everyone, however, possesses a sense of self some with more some with less strength, which dovetails very nicely onto your codicil belief that some are unfree
The posts in these kinds of threads indicate strongly that there are many people who do not believe they have free will. I take them for their word. They probably don't.
And yes, you're right, it doesn't contradict my beliefs at all and fits nicely into them.
What's your point?

I want to transform my environment into something kind, orderly and beautiful, like in anime.
Books about people whose ideals don't match their reality and who struggle to change the world around them?