/lit/ - Literature

>>23248778
>I said I'd do it, here it is.
Let's fucking go. Get me in there. Just a fucking screenshot of the post, if you're so inclined. It's tradition, trust me on this.
"Read Jordan B. Peterson" for the history books.

>>23308243
What's wrong with normal? Plenty things are regarded as normal that are also fascinating. I hate to get platitudinal, but beauty (and significance in general) is to a great extent in the eye of the beholder. I have a rock I marvel at once a week at least. Rocks are not only normal but fairly regular and well studied and they're also everywhere in uncountable numbers. You can be or make the equivalent of a rock and someone will still think that great and unique. Don't sell normal short, because normal is a front for a lot of what is interesting.

>>23303514
>everything is like, everything, bro
Mind boggling.

I have a zero followers. I have no ambitions to break into any other enterprise let alone to capitalize on my shitposts. I'm anxious about nothing since there are no stakes involved and nobody takes me seriously.

>>23300579
>Read Jordan Peterson
>...
>Read Jordan Peterson
Yep, it's academia time.

Pondering the marvel of Jordan B. Peterson

>>23307427
That's the editor in your head yelling at you for not meeting expectations and deadlines. Call him up when you've finished a draft. He's inimical to creativity in the moment, but a good aide when you want more from your work. Loose guide to writing "well" - quotations since I can't guess at your baseline quality as an author:
>1. have an idea (hard)
>2. let yourself be inspired
>3. write free of forethought until you're exhausted
>4. go over and note everything you'd like to change
>5. critique your notes and keep only what makes sense
>6. revise draft in accordance with your notes
>7. wash rinse repeat 3-6 until exhausted

Editor-san is cruel so the criticism part is especially important for step five. You should think of him like that friend who argues just to argue. Sometimes he's right but a lot of the time he's wrong and only there to make sure you've thought things through. He's a real one, but also a real dick. Treat him well.

>>23306414
Why wouldn't the internet be good? It can do everything the traditional book or letter exchange does. Faster, as well. Any ignorant misuse of this is entirely the fault of the user.

>>23306734
>what are symbols

>>23238555
>when you find a post that makes you question your preconceptions

>>23241490
People like to bone. A lot of people like to bone raw. There's your population problem solved. With a lot of people you tend to get collaborative communes with tightly knit clusters of people. You could use the history of the Kowloon Walled City as a reference.

>>23241896
>Group A hates group B
>Group B hates group A
Hope this helps.

>>23234575
>What do you think is next for the so-called /lit/ renaissance?
Just posting? I don't see what's wrong with posting. It's a perfectly cromulent genre of postmodern fiction, well suited just about anything you'd wanna talk about whether that's a deep discourse on the size of DFW's balls or Plato. What we already have but tend not to recognize in its full scope and value is what I consider to be properly grassroots, if you ask me. That said, I miss &amp. Mostly because it had me in it.

>>23143093
>12 More Rules For Life by Jordan Peterson

>>23047255
Jordan Peterson quickly passed away
West has fallen, millions gone astray

>>23051158
Allusions may be of help. You could go biblical and say something like "she had him carnally." (re: sodom)

>>23051130
Ye of little faith
There are art hoes lurking
I can feel it in my pineal gland

>>23048931
Was about to post this. Hope mans is doing good.

>>23045975
doubtposting: posting with doubt in mind
either with the intent to sow doubt or to express it

>*informs you gently how jordan peterson is a herald of the good age to come in spite of his personal iniquity*

>>23050782
You're not meant to, and that's the entire point. Nigga was intentionally waffling. Hegel is the way.

>>23048653
>Do you I need to know anything about Buddhism?
Not sure what you meant by this, but I'll have a guess:
>Do I need to know anything about Buddhism?
Not really. If you find its tenets appealing - which you very well might, given the amount of variants out there - you would yourself benefit from reading up on it. If you know nothing a good starting place is the diamond sutra. It's more favored in the mahayana tradition but you still get a feel for what it's about in all of the varieties.

>how is it not just nihilism?
Buddhism in its doctrinal core, and in general, has little to say on the meaning of life. It's a philosophical and therapeutic system purporting to free you from the bondage of mortal existence (which, if you take the Buddha's word, is suffering.) Reality or unreality of reincarnation notwithstanding. Since every Buddhist heuristic and activity is directed at achieving nirvana (iow. extinction) you could say the "meaning" of the Buddhist religion, insofar as it exists beyond the lay religions that tend more so to take on the form of spirit worship merging with local folk mythos (as with Shinto in Japan), it's not nihilist. Taking some creative liberties one could say that it assert that life is a dance around nothing but this I think would be an unfairly western reading of the phenomenon. You're still free to treat it that way, however. There is good reason to be had for thinking this way if you hold to a different idea of life.

Zen is a different matter since, as I mentioned, Buddhism has had the tendency to merge with belief systems around it. Zen is a Japanese outspring of Chan Buddhism which itself is loosely Mahayana and Taoism based. It features eclectic and esoteric doctrines unique to the island nation that thematically on many points would seem to run entirely diametrical to orthodox Mahayana Buddhism. A good starting point for Zen if you already have basic knowledge of Mahayana Buddhism is Dogen's papers. More western friendly is Alan Watts but I can't recommend him wholesale.

This but unironically.

>>23045770
>Aquinas
>Marx
>Guenon
One hell of a round table. Add to that Stirner who made M&E seethe so hard they set out to formulate communism in the first place, and maybe Derrida, Heidegger, or some other radical existentialist, and you have a recipe for a banter session for the aeons.

>>23049108
Too much of a dysgenic freak. Jk. I like Neetsch and his mustachio almost as much as I do Peterson. Setting out a theology without God is unadulterated genius. Sometimes simple *is* better.

>>19734681
>I'm listening to Jordan Peterson, and I'm a bit confused by his whole position regarding "Marxist post-modernist-types". Can someone clarify this for me?
I believe I've posted about this before. But the gist is he doesn't care for Western philosophy besides its being a cultural cornerstone. And so he has no problem generalizing or abstracting from philosophers points, at risk of mispresenting their theses. I wouldn't say he's wrong about Derrida per se, but because he puts no effort into parsing, reading, and commenting on him in detail, Peterson doesn't exactly know how he's right. Understand he's trying to answer to a specific part of Derrida's work, the problem of how to interpret and what interpreting means at all. If you want a bridge between Jordan Peterson and Derrida the latter's most lucid and closest to assessing the former's points in a lecture he gave called "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences". You might be surprised to see their concerns overlap quite a bit. Not to say they're at all commensurate.