/lit/ - Literature

French sounds like a plucky, snot-nosed kid trying to impress you with his performative manner of speaking. I say this in an affectionate way but the idea that it has some abnormally strong quality of romance or beauty is hard to take seriously. Pretty much every language can be beautiful, that is by far the most generic quality of language, and anyone exalting it as a virtue of a particular tongue makes himself look like a pseud. What makes the Romance languages stand out is how fun and playful they are, not beauty.

>>14691708
>What is it with TK that fills people with dishonesty when they read him? IF they have read him, which I'm not even sure
see>>14691426

>>9459684
Your mind isn't archaic enough. You have to ground your vocabulary in etymology and classical definitions. That way you get access to other forms and modifiers that you weren't able to tap into before.
Note how in latinate languages the classical definitions of words that would otherwise be quite mundane can be emphasized by separating a compound word with a dash or by contrasting it with an opposite term, as in 'contra-distinction' or as in 'essential' contrasted with 'substantial,' or as in 'remote' modified to a verb: 'remotion.'

>>8924317
Now think really hard about what constitutes logical inference. Probably brain matter, which exists and is thus after ontology since existent things have being in as much as they exist.
Don't get smart with me pls, you want to talk formal logic we can talk formal logic, but understand that philosophical reason proceeds from intuition and first principles, not axioms, because axioms and axiomatic-symbolic systems such as mathematics are an abstractive construction, which means they are abstracted from something real and observable, and as such have limited domains.
You can structure your philosophy in an axiomatic way literally speaking (proposition 1 etc), but the content of any philosophical submission from one man to another must be of a primarily poetical extraction.
Not to say that that type of knowledge is any less valuable than strict axiomatic rigor, on the contrary the opposite is true.

>>8704791
I've always thought that university would be a place of unconditioned knowledge and learning, but as it turns out universities were only like that during the medieval and renaissance periods seeing as education became a strictly utilitarian prerogative after atheists and protestants teamed up with satan to take over the world by beheading Louis XVI and making everybody believe that democracy was a good idea.

>>8388386
No

>>8383701
Who knew Plato was so based?

I don't think its a coincidence that there pederasty in Afghanistan considering the ancient Greeks conquered the know world back with Alexander, went all the way to Bactria.

>>8368805
Humans suck but Jesus loves us anyways, we just gotta bend the knee to daddy and all will be fine.

>>6646440
>And it also seems vain to me, as a nonbeliever, to say that one *knows* anything about whatever cosmological forces are outside human understanding.

Aquinas understanding the general unknowability of God. The way he goes about it is illustrating what God is not. He came about "God is immaterial" by first getting to "God is not material", if you get me.

Could someone please explain to me how homosexuality is any worse than masturbation? and if it's not, then can you not be a priest if you masturbate?

>>6632035
Getting sick of the Milbank spamming