/lit/ - Literature

>>21505765
If there's one thing about incels, it's that they have the most disingenuous possible style of argumentation. What if grown women do actually have a conception of "fuck boys"? What if it isn't a phenomenon limited to "histrionic tweens" on tiktok? You've made a pretty substantial implication here: that grown, adult women haven't also recognized these behaviors in men as undesirable. But you've couched it in dismissal without any accompanying argument, unless you take the gesture towards "partying in high school and early college" as a rigorous argument.

Can you guys — literally, any of you — take a break from defending your egos and just have a man-to-man discussion? It's really not the end of the world if you you're "wrong." I'm open to it myself. It's just that the level of discussion on this topic is frankly pretty fucking low. It makes sense, but incels in general seem to get incredibly defensive in these discussions. I've had many discussions with incels whose sense of self is so fragile that they couldn't admit that a stop sign is red if asked to argue against the idea that they shouldn't hit pedestrians at a stop sign, even if they're women in Ontario or whatever.

There's another way of interacting with information, frens. You can detach your ego from the argument a little bit and still survive.

I have a challenge for anyone here: go into a thread and get into a discussion with someone on some non-incel topic you care about. Remain interested in the conversation, put forth your best effort to discuss it in your faith, and "lose" the argument. Instead of calling the other guy a nigger or otherwise engaging in standard 4chan argumentation, just lose the argument. See how it feels. Notice the fact that afterwards, the sky hasn't fallen and you've still got all four limbs.

I know I'm way off in fantasy land right now, but please... don't just give up and feed each other's anger. Things could be so much better if we as men were better at handling our emotions and examining ourselves.

>>21464126
>There's no truth in the world,

Don't listen to this op. People disagree, yes, but this doesn't mean everyone is therefore wrong and there is no truth. There is the case where there is truth and some see and some don't, and those who don't see it keep arguing with those who do because whereas they only can see from their point of view, the ones who see have experienced both points of view. Accordingly, many different apparently opposed and contradictory beliefs asserted as truths may be (and really are) only the different stages of development of the conciousness and knowledge of one reality co-existing in time. As an example, think about infants, children, adolescents, adults, etc., all co-existing in the same place and time, yet each has it's own accumulated knowledge gained over time of their one shared reality. Lower stages simply cannot understand higher stages because of their lack of experience and lower stages will always view higher stages as false because they lack the prerequisite experience to see their truth. You can and will find the truth in time, or rather when you've at last seen through the veil of time.

Hegel:

>Stated in exact terms, such is the origin and development of philosophy. But the History of Philosophy gives us the same process from a historical and external point of view. The stages in the evolution of the Idea there seem to follow each other by accident, and to present merely a number of different and unconnected principles, which the several systems of philosophy carry out in their own way. But it is not so. For these thousands of years the same Architect has directed the work: and that Architect is the one living Mind whose nature is to think, to bring to self-consciousness what it is, and, with its being thus set as object before it, to be at the same time raised above it, and so to reach a higher stage of its own being. The different systems which the history of philosophy presents are therefore not irreconcilable with unity.

>We may either say, that it is one philosophy at different degrees of maturity: or that the particular principle, which is the groundwork of each system, is but a branch of one and the same universe of thought. In philosophy the latest birth of time is the result of all the systems that have preceded it, and must include their principles; and so, if, on other grounds, it deserve the title of philosophy, will be the fullest, most comprehensive, and most adequate system of all.

>We may either say, that it is one philosophy at different degrees of maturity: or that the particular principle, which is the groundwork of each system, is but a branch of one and the same universe of thought. In philosophy the latest birth of time is the result of all the systems that have preceded it, and must include their principles; and so, if, on other grounds, it deserve the title of philosophy, will be the fullest, most comprehensive, and most adequate system of all.

Holy based. If you know you know.

>>21442344
It can't. The content of experience (the brain) can not be responsible for experiencing itself. The mind is not in the brain; instead the brain appears as a cognitive representation of mental activity in the mind. "Matter" doesn't exist.
Touching or seeing something is not evidence for noumenal existence. If it was, nightmares wouldn't exist. Falling in a dream feels indistinguishable from falling when awake, as does seeing a person and hearing a sound.
In a wet dream, the idea of haptic stimulation (a mental object) can cause a "physical" reaction. Curious.

Mathematics, physics and words are what humans came up with to describe the contents of their sensory perceptions, they are the map and not the territory and don't exist without humans as sometimes proclaimed by physicalists or platonists.
Your sensory perception is evolutionary optimized for survival, not for perceiving truth.

>inb4 qualia doesn't exist

>>21263162
watch this
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL64CzGA1kTzi085dogdD_BJkxeFaTZRoq