/lit/ - Literature

>>18728986
>I am retarded, please perform the herculean task of justifying my retardation for me /lit/

>>18427998
I really like this for some reason

>>18427710
this is also great

>>18406285
get raped by a broken glass bottle

we will never EVER leave this image board, anon

>>18200602
bold of you to assume that i didnt enjoy the rambling

>>18192358

Decent book but it's a long haul

>>18085561
>author thanks you for reading his book
>write "You're welcome" underneath

>>18010660
that's a shame anon, post some of your lore! what do you write about for DnD? I've never played it and only know bits and pieces through osmosis

>>17999684
loh - gohss
lo - jik

ye i he r gh an it but no

>>17992968
it would be "even though I mastered it fluently" as it's past tense, you have already masterED it.

>>17985278
is Ulysses the final exam of the Western canon??

>>17836305
writer frens

>>17705131
literally this, utterly based anon

I read 300 pages today. A new personal best

>>17351892
OP, were you a believer before? If so, this anon may be correct >>17352829
In answer to your question, there is no way to justify living when living is meaningless. If life is meaningless, and your life brings you only misery, then it would seem almost logical to end it if there is no real attainable way to escape that misery and make it pleasurable. Maybe you can give your own life meaning through some arbitrary principles, but those too are inherently meaningless. The whole sham topples after any introspection that goes more than skin deep.
When I personally was in your position, the way I justified living was by working a lot to make money to fund my hedonism. I personally found that as long as I still had the opportunity to obtain strong enough pleasures(typically from beer and fat women off of tinder/parties, but also pleasures like travel, hiking, etc), that the misery of labor was worth it. That's what kept me from ending it.
Still OP, in all honesty I must admit my bias. I no longer live my life that way, and while I said that I was in your position before I do not know if that was entirely accurate. I was raised as a devout believer myself, and even during that time of lost faith there was the smallest spark of the Christian belief in my heart(even though I didn't recognize it myself). All it took was the terror of my Mom getting cancer and a few failed operation attempts to get me to drop to my knees and pray again. Now I understand that my faith, albeit illogical, is inescapable.

>>17288402

>>17061414
thank you

>>16939459
Alright, let's address seriously what seems to be the consensus on what's wrong with Peterson's thesis, sans any considerations of his personal life: His pseudophilosophical narrative is self-refuting, being based in nothing but mere conjecture. This idea seems to stem from the consensus surrounding Peterson's thesis, which for the sake of argument I take to be found in its most lucid expression in Maps of Meaning, that seems to be that its core claims are either philosophical or psychological. This categorization leads to the following critiques:
>If labeled as philosophical: Peterson has no prior experience with the field, is said by many to misinterpret or misuse the names of major philosophers and traditions, and especially so when at certain times it becomes clear he hasn't the slightest knowledge of the 'enemy' he's critiquing.
>If labeled as psychological: This interpretation grants the thesis some credibility based in Peterson's former experience as a practicing clinician and his PhD. This credibility is sort of lost when Peterson draws on the psyschoanalysts, a field widely considered defunct within academia. This holds especially true when you consider that many neo-Jungians have come forward and denounced Peterson's alleged butchering of Jung.
I disagree with the implicit notion that just because his ideas can't be neatly labelled, they lack intellectual worth. The closest you'll get is depth psychology, but even then the label is insufficient when you take into consideration the thesis' sociocultural implications. Any person willing to take Peterson seriously must realize that the content of the thesis by nature cannot be categorized as either of these, and must be taken as-is. Only then can a proper investigation and/or critique of his ideas be attempted, and any potential 'final blow' be dealt.
tl;dr Peterson's memery is a grand transdisciplinary hypothesis and you have to treat it as such both if you wanna understand the guy or establish a real critique of his ideas.

>>16901632
Best of luck. I'm sure you'll conjure up something tangible and satisfactory eventually.

I'm writing but with no real goal in mind

>>16783517
THIS IS WHY WE MUST HONPOST. You too can save an innocent anon! Just remind trannies every single day they will never pass and never be a woman

Appian's The Civil Wars
Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars
Tacitus' Annals
Augustus' Res Gestae

Based frog. Made me laugh. Have a bump!