/lit/ - Literature

>>20128389
Irrefutable proof that Schopenhauer was right about women.

>>19675158
This is hilarious

>>19643659
>Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense.

>>19473871
It's unbecoming for a patrician to be too reflective on such things. Welcome to the upper crust.

>>19407717
>Probably for eternity because
Intelligence is perfection, and you have subverted your own claims in precise, pre-ejaculate pretense. Let the silence of your own empty mind be your eternal punishment for daring to elevate yourself over other infinite minds.

>>19377776
BASED SCHIZO OFF BY ONE

You heard 'im

>>19340166
Better to choose good sex then.

>>19263214
Shut the fuck up you retard

>>19214421
Pathetic liberal who uses their nepotism to step over others and spread their bullshit beliefs. Many such cases

Pussified millenials (and sadly a lot of zoomers) always telegraph their faggy spoken mannerisms with their written prose style - it mainly involves abusing question marks and ellipses in ways that convey noncommittal passive-aggressive semi-irony. I say 'semi-irony' because it often doesn't commit positively to a simple inversion of meaning, but instead tries to invoke a sense of uncertainty for which a perceived/characterised social transgressor is implicitly deemed responsible, for example:
>"umm..... idk??..lol..."
This means; "you have transgressed in some way against the delineated boundaries, and this is so anti-social and (in a way) inhuman to me that even being consciously aware of the fact of your having expressed it gives me an unheimliche, uncanny-valley kind of feeling". It mimics how they (millenial NPCs) respond IRL to confronting or 'weird' statements (especially, but not at all exclusively, non-consensus ethical and political statements).

Examining their idiosyncratic use of question-marks is very instructive. Observe how >>19180680 makes an ostensibly assertive statement that would merit a full stop (or just a blank space and/or line break implying an end to the sentence if nothing follows it, when writing informally), but he inexplicably follows it with a question mark:
>"Because it's bad writing? [...]"
This isn't a question, it's an assertive claim. The purpose of the question mark in this sentence isn't to make the sentence into a question, but to make the reader's internal voice mimic the poster's passive-aggressive, implicitly homosexual rising inflection ("up-talk") which would otherwise only be able to be present in audible speech. Why would anyone want to convey this? If it isn't just a typo, the decision to write such to convey rising inflection indicates that such inflection isn't just a meaningless habit, but actually conveys some modified meaning upon the sentence. To put it another way, the deliberate and contrived use of the question-mark to retain the rising inflection in translation via the written form shows that the writer feels that a part of the sentence's meaning would be left out if he did not do something to convey that inflection.

So, what is this dimension of meaning? The essential meaning of a rising inflection is something along the lines of:
>"look! I'm a faggot!"
The poster who feels the need to signal this LITERALLY CANNOT communicate without letting the other person know that he is gay, and that this fact conditions and undergirds whatever else he thinks and says. So an alternative rendering of the earlier example from >>19180680, conveying the same essential meaning, would be as follows:
>"Because it's bad writing (and I, a gay faggot, think this - my opinion being very much informed by the fact that I'm a neurotic fruit who desires male colons filled with shit and hair instead of the smooth curvature of a woman). [...]"
Watch out for this, it's more pervasive than you might realise.

>>19055880
>Fuck Hegel
yes
>He’s an obscurantist
nope
>He's a charlatan
yes

>>19035682
>I don't know what you're saying; are you a dualist or something?
intensive quantities as heat or pressure are non-additive like extensive quantities like height or weight.
The causes of pleasure and pain cannot be determined as extensive sums, nor as differences of intensive homologous quantities as "cualitative temperature x = warmth x / cold x". Pain and pleasure are multiplicities of heterogeneous intensities in the way that they are non-dialectical (as warmth/coldness), just as Schopenhauer said, but complicated and compositive as taste with temperature with medium with matter, etc.

The fact that pessimist babies aren't capable to understand this tell all you need to know about them and why you should avoid taking them seriously (beside Schopenhauer himself, that was a cool person).

>>18953037
Phenomenal post, anon. I can't believe it's real.

>>18941781
Because he always talk about that on a dialectical level, something that is alien to pessimism. The world as will, for any constitued pessimism, can only be analytically understood. You cannot apply categories to non-objectual phenomena, something that Schoppy aknowledged to Kant, if you don't want to look like an imbecile or a charlatan. CAHR must be an entertaining book, but makes no sense on a philosophical level being that illconstructed ---at best, you can say it is a fun mental gymnastics to impress ignorant people.

>>18914791
All German idealists are low IQ brainlets who tried to surpass Kant. Of course, you kant do that unless you're as based as picrel.

>>18904966
keked and checked

>>18842959
>to really get this book you have to read it twice
He says that expecting that you take him seriously and read the book as a philosophy book. If you want to read it as a curiosity, you can read it just ightly and once.

>also i published "On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" 5 years earlier and is required reading to really get this book...i really didn't want to write everything again in other words, so pls go read that
There were no internet back then, so take it easy, is not that necessary if you read it for your own sake.

>ah also the first chapter of "On Vision and Colours"...pls read
not necessary

>other than that...to really appreciate me, go read kant, he's like the best since 2000 years, so i just assume you read him
just give an eye to some good introductory video on the structure of kant's philosophy

>altough he's so great i discovered some errors in his philosophy, i wrote it in the appendix. pls read that twice too
You should seriously read that, its gold

>and yeah also read plato ok?
not necessary; Plato's philosophy is part of our cultural background (and unconscious)

>ok and it would be could if you also read the vedas
not necessary

Go on, that book is gold.