/lit/ - Literature

>>16425119
A favourite.

>>16364210
Reminder that Plato eventually encapsulated(as much as one great thinker can another)Heraclitus in his later philosophy. And Heidegger agrees.

>Ἐξαίφνης

>>14536087
>93
Mainly genetics; good looks, physique, intelligence and charisma that saved me. Pretty accurate still.

I just gotta do some things like get a job/ and reciprocate the interests women show in me and I'll reach 130+.

>>14477400
>You are aware that animation is simply an expanded form of painting?
You're officially a dumb dumb anon. It is you, the monkey, that makes such simple yet obviously wrong statements. You grasp one simple and visible point which you had not held before and you think you know all of art. How you talk is the equivalent of the developmental stage of a 13 yr old. Only latching onto it because of its simplicity. Something which against all laws of reason and intuition. Just because of how stupid your statement is, I will ask a simple thing, show me a single scene or image of anime that is equal to any high plastic art, not even painting necessarily.

>And that a vast amount of the greatest works of western civilization have emerged in painting?
You blew my mind anon. It's rely quite sad how you think some basic lines and colours can even be considered remotely similar to the Sistine Madonna. You insult art, and by that, true religion with childish fantasies of anime. IT'S A FUCKING CARTOON YOU NUMBSKULL! Not a painting, there's a reason why cartoons originated for children.

>But just this ridiculous statement on the limitation of animation and thus painting
AHAHAHAA Anon I'm laughing at you.

Lets just mash painting and drawing together interchangeably for this gay example.

You're saying a form of "painting" which is precisely defined by an extremely simple and plain use of shape and colour, which does not make an attempt (and can not) to present an ideal, and is in constant motion, and is almost universally done by ugly technology now, which all of these principles(being of course the definitions of animation) only result in producing a limiting(entertaining) effect which further has a unique aesthetic form(true, and so of some unique value) only by way of the negative outweighing the positive nigh infinitely so for as long as you persist it is a high art and so held to the same standards, when it could be content in its own unique aesthetic as entertainment(what it is) and an aesthetic image at best. Not Art.

And you would degrade most importantly not only true art, but also your own cartoon entertainment, by saying it is in anyway similar to not even the greats of Western painting but Western painting in general? Claiming it(anime) to be something it is not.

>>14429390
>>14429402
Both of you faggots are wrong and both of you misunderstand the idea of Mitsein, and the inherited Geschick of this.

The number of a population is not an abstract significance, it relates most directly to the individual and his own understanding of himself. It would be reductive to only see this in some linear sense of a reducing or improving value. This happens in only so far as the individual allows it to within a Volk. The difference between that mass and our own current late stage capitalist system is that we do not have a Volk, it is egoism. And so modern man mistakes his own dread that he feels for this system, for another and blames that. Or let me rephrase it, we have a Volk, but of egoism. Self destroying. And so it is no longer "self to other(self)" but "self to mass". In the prior he may be mutually joined(creating and in under Volk) but in the latter he is not and can never be.

There is no reason why a positive/negative value change should occur to the individual to himself just by a collective size, rather than simply an aesthetic change, for any reason other than a very particular case, or a state of egoism. Because as I said, it then becomes a problem of "self to mass", though this is still really the problem of a simpler man or one still simple in education. While in a Geschick, which necessitates as previously mentioned a directed Volk, one is fighting for "a" good. And this does not mean there is no alternative or that the only alternative is egoism, as there is also the conservative. To have this controlled fate does not necessitate the dissipation of stately effect of the general individual as within Fascism. If so conservatism would be the contradiction of that. Though a democracy can only work under a homogeneous society to direct its destiny. Both states direct their Volk. For one, the action is implicit of principle, and the other, principle is implicit in action. Both have their own forms of good and evil.

The state of egoists has a destiny, true, but it is like an implicit one, unconscious and left to itself, to degrade and crumble. While that of ours, what we hope towards anyway, wrangles with fate. Democratic or Authoritarian.

>>14384694
My point being that even if the ultimate "system" may change the turtle word, if one image is of a quality at a time, then it is in that point eternally true. I used the term mask to show only the mental value changes(for the Aztec belief) or at least within the time we may comprehend the physical does not change so further mask over a mask, exterior over exterior, who knows if there is a centre or if it is merely an aesthetic point in the Op pic>>14380131 . However we also see that the psychological quality of the physical action/image/mask does not also change lest the object itself change hence not changing. One may also make the argument that the immaterial, is more eternal than the physical rather than just equally coinciding with it. The moral for example. Such a sublime thing it is that transcends over any single object. And this is why the Aztec philosophy is more the expression of its peoples than an actual philosophy. An immoral primitive people acting only by their base un-thought urges, and this "philosophy" which only shews the format of experience of an intelligent being(that is above animals) but lacking in the greater self consciousness and further intelligence. You may say the moral does not exist(it does), but it takes a higher moral conception to create greater civilisation and culture(the progression of self consciousness), which is reflective of a superior and more beautiful mind, the European. Now faced from one definite idea(morality) to another(race and our superiority).

This is why I consider the shit smearing merely a symbolic and ceremonial representation, and worship, of the ultimate divine rather than a literal portrayal of it. What the Aztec believes here is of no consequence to to the psychological reasoning behind it.

If you think I have mixed the immaterial and potential up, and other things, you are mistaken for the lumping of mass knowledge together only seems that way.

Pewds watch this, I think it will help where you're at right now quite well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoybTk6TEX4

>>14359161
>Writers like Goethe, and especially Shakespeare, are often praised for not having a philosophical system.
If anything, this is simply the direction of ones life, of a poet and not a philosopher. Their thought, unmarked by rational interpretation true or not. Just as language in general, can also obscure original thought. For the rational man who has been endowed with some fire, this must be trained and self reflected upon. So as to preserve that creative endeavour.

>>14353232
>>14353297
Art must have its meaning in the exterior to be meaningful. "anything can be art", this is the illusioned conquest of the subject, for it is said understanding must be related to ones subjectivity for true knowledge to come as Plato taught. However that understanding must necessarily be of the object.

It is the movement of the subject which drives history, but the object which allows it. Naturally one can see Hegel's dialectic here.

Art achieves a sort of universal realisation, it exists within its own continuum divided from practical value it is the consolation itself. Let us say the ideal of human feeling yet not necessarily separate from rational premise. The total emergent synthesis between subject and object, an easing into an individual wholeness of all factors, and a transcendental 'homecoming' if you will. Existing no longer in self conscious aversion to ourselves but united fully focused on other and a general experience(which implies collective which states tribe which asserts identity).

This thread has succeeded in making me scared.

I don't want to lose my love of life, the destruction of this is making me feel as if drugs are the degenerate way to spiritual enlightenment. Think I'll just stick to philosophy, religion and practise for now. Do it at best in a controlled and meditative environment which I have mentally prepared for, to achieve something meaningful and not just materialistic entertainment as sadly seems to be the focus in this thread.

>>14322387
That understanding must be related to our own subjectivity. Individually formulated. Problems arise here when we attempt to understand in some impersonal abstract, both psychologically and philosophically. Plato was the first to realise this(maybe Heraclitus).

I could write further an essay long response about this but I doubt it would do much good.

>>14321382
You'r just insecure, I readily call myself by such a description. It may be modestly impeded in some way(and coloured by my local vernacular, being of course Australian) such as "Yeah I'd say I'm fairly well read." But it still remains a statement of confidence in my higher education, yet no less bragging than those famous words of Socrates. Intention changes meaning, and as a result of knowing this shews your own lack of confidence. This you must build upon, speaking every word with the confidence of your own being. PROST!

Weil er ein guter Freund ist,
Weil er ein guter Freund ist,
Weil er ein guter Freund ist

Trinken wir auf seine Gesundheit,
Trinken wir auf seine Gesundheit,
Trinken wir auf seine Gesundheit.

Weil er ein guter Freund ist,
Weil er ein guter Freund ist,
Weil er ein guter Freund ist ...

Trinken wir auf seine Gesundheit!


t. entp(it's ironic)

>>14282092
I don't know, fresh out of high-school.

Maybe an actor, I enjoy doing that in my spare time, theatrical of course. As method acting is only useful for purely personal entertainment or particular situations like lying(for me this is). Maybe an artist of sorts, better hurry and learn then I suppose. Some sort of philosophical career, though this would have be a work rather enduring my way through the ranks and ranks of marxist degeneration.

Guess I'll be homeless.

>>14224301
>Christianity
>Hinduism
>Buddhism
>Taoism
>Zoroastrianism/Mithraism
>Gnosticism
>European Paganism
>Islam
>Judaism
>Atheism

>>14222916
Lol what a fucking retard, he doesn't realise that this "*is*" is still of course -- in his understanding -- including the ought of what we should do by understanding human values. Secondly his statement that "if we were to learn everything there is to know about physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, economics, etc., we would know everything there is to know about making our corner of the universe suck less" is a vast materialisation of mans experience. It is more than just simply the collection of "facts", for which if it were just that, nothing could be done about it. But it is instead a driving philosophical and religious experience. How or why we achieve this spiritual desire is the direct destruction and contradiction of its own existence, and finally ours. We exist in this moral arbitration by its own aesthetic revelation and achievement. It does not exist "to make us happier" as only an egoistic materialist could see. We exist for its continuum as human nature states, and the philosophical enforces = the Religious and its experience.

Quite literally just a shittier version of Molyneux's "mutually acceptable actions".

>>14219554
And another thing: we would also put greater focus on the own individuals appreciation and interpretation of the works(within the obvious moral guidelines of course) rather than a confined technical system. There would still be essays and the likes but relying a great deal more on creativity rather than memory. An example I could think of during my high school experience was this:

There were multiple "motifs" that the teacher outlined for us within Macbeth, and we had to learn all of them. Things as basic as "the blood Macbeth is seeing on his hands is representative of his shame", or "sleeplessness". Completely departed from any moral doctrine or ideal and so only resulting in a meaningless identification. As I said in high school at the time I also say now, "they define Shakespeare without understanding him". This is the result of a students experience with this type of teaching. Furthermore we had -- this is all after reading a "translated" version of Shakespeare I might add -- on the day of the test a random question which would be asked revolving around one of the motifs. We had also had to prepare by memorising certain given or individually chosen lines of Macbeth and explain how they enforced the motifs given, while all under the main question of the test. I believe my question was something about how the motif of chaos relates to night time, something very basic like that. But unable to make any sort of individual expression within it all. We had our question revolving around a motif, our quote, how this quote enforces something in relation to that motif, written in the context of an essay; introduction, thesis, paragraph etc etc. Relied completely on memory and no emotional understanding from the student which, being of course an art form, is the most important and primary experience one should have, not the explanation of that experience primarily(obviously).

The test would still be within the essay criteria still, but focusing on the students ability to understand content(that includes varying levels of vocabulary and the aesthetic appreciation), as well as his/her own ability to write/create. Not necessary but would be advised to students to use their vast history of the Western Canon.

>>14208825
Can someone give me a qrd on Dugin?

I know almost nothing and need to understand something, is he advocating for the "unity" of the three primary systems in a convergence against the enemy, and so in a unity of the political, or for a new system of totally original quality in its composition between these structures. Rather a mix of the two I think. As he most definitely seems to be suggesting this new fourth system, may come about by a unity of the three other. When he should really realise -- if my understanding is correct -- that this is not a synthesis, but impossible, not only from the long term perspective of integration but also of uniting these diametrically opposed and competing movements in the first place. It must be something new, or nothing. That is, for his "Fourth Way".

>>14116645
You better read Plato quickly, even 2000 years on he has one of the strongest moral arguments yet within philosophy. And so of all great religions in preaching the same essential morals were in attempt to save man from himself, his own eternal damnation. But here are some ideas:

After all what is the difference between that(eternal damnation) and spending ones only lived life in the lowest of wasted forms? Atheism in the modern world has become but the dogma of the masses, unable to break from the current of the time. You could also play the Epicurean argument of "To a pleasurable life, one must live ethical, and to live ethical one must live pleasurable". So not as to say one does totally everything for individual pleasure but also not to say that one can achieve the highest pleasure without ethics. Of course I disagree with Epicurus but he'd be a swift cutting through of their argument in leading forth to the statement of :"man is at his greatest pleasure when in the thrills of self sacrifice, asserting his life by the willing destruction of it", and further, "naturally this destroys any form of intentional egoism, of belief of which can only be saved by the grace of such, an exterior self justifying principality necessarily of metaphysics (doesn't infer immaterial) which is a direct contradiction of the tenets of egoism itself; and that is the ego first and as its own justification". If they just say no to this then pull up some study of religious people being vastly happier, it's a good enough general example. And if they then suggest some resort to "but at least I have the truth" then explain to them the truth has no value beyond pleasure within the ego and so must be secondary to happiness in general. Not to mention that the total assertion of atheism is an irrational statement of belief(considering that the idea that life just exists is more idiotic than the conscious intent of a being as we ourselves have proof of the conscious by ourselves), all the more than their perception of religious faith. From faith you could bring in the relation to human nature and its necessary correlation to intuition and creativity based on their particular unconscious lumping of together. Explain to them that they have no moral basis for not only good or evil but also their own existence (in the case of the latter) besides egoism of which you shall call them cowards because of this, only wanting excuse to exist, and to exist by degeneracy at that. Talk about the family unity, bring up J.D. Unwin's Sex and Culture. Talk about collectives as the all extending wheels of history and God as the total and utter individual asserting by free willed rejection. Spirit beyond value of distance but a definitive vagueness of definite value of which only the higher minds of intuitive thought may apprehend in its total irrational consciousness.

But most of all be suited to what they are saying, not just "FACTS". Be cunning in your Socratic tricking.

>>14088087
>this nigger's never heard of an architect
Everything about this is cringe and gay, "a category is a category" wow, absolutely revolutionary thought here. How would I have ever thought emotion is emotion. Like for example stating that "consciousness is noting more than highly complex processing of sensory input data" literal changes nothing in effect, it doesn't deal with what is processing, it doesn't explain the vast aesthetic and philosophical ideals of which man has the potential to experience apart from individual sensory data -- and you can call that the collective unconscious, collectively formulated methods/patterns, you can call that

Data is just another word for content ultimate or minuscule in human value, by your very use of this word it shows you came into this by a specific intention rather than pure and unbiased 'rationale'. And that's the next thing, you don't focus on what the human experience means to humans. We evolved (or at least somehow got to this point perfectly suited) to our current existence, do you think we would develop our own relation and perception of to reality by an unfounded purely unintentional series of nothing? There is a something, and we see that something in what art means to us, in our ever searching climb for truth, in our heroic virtues and will of character. Only a peasant cannot see this for what it is: It is not the climate which shaped us, but the sufferings and joys of which we experienced within it. A self propelling aesthetic which can only be, for us, to an ideal. And that encapsulates the fundamental experience of man of desire, of ideal, failure and victory. In the very essence of a 'being' being, apart from all preregistered and internalised patterns of existence (and we must remember existence is experience) there is a desire, and a will simply to something.

>>14010701

For total self contemplation can never be done by the acceptance of the incomplete, man is at his fullest when in desire, when in movement, when in evolution. That is to say between origin and end, as destiny.

That eternal Will, that eternal suffering the struggle by the Void with which a desire by contradiction. It
is a nothingness by self contemplation but Will by experience. The animal's Will is weak and a beautiful
ever lasting simplicity of experience yet Man's not sated by life itself and yet it still yearns for this
animalistic experience through which there is no returning and through this yearning is birthed art, religion,
ideology, society, all that is apart from the necessity's of the Animal but a part of the necessity of Man.
The verility of the Wills children does not sway from whatever truth it be. Life for us is this, both an
individual and collective Will in which is born of imperfection yet is the Father of perfection. The aboriginal
man be closer to animal than the Nordic and so his Will is sated far easier by trivial and basic occurances,
he does not have the drive nor necessity for creation or greatness.

There is deep beauty in death and struggle, of all despairs counterparts not alone from reflection, comparison,
as the compensatory factor to joy and ease, nay from it's own identity it's own heart of independance in which
a great passion flows forth as many forms, the sacrifice, pure experience, causation of improvement ect. Yet
it remains unknown to me. Only as experience of purity and beauty do I know it, yet not its origination apart
from comparison. Perhaps it have no origination in itself and the same may be said for joy and it's counterparts.
Only can despair or joy be birthed together whether out of a nothingness of experience or a transcendental unity.

The possibility of self contemplation or the appearing void which originated consciousness. In other words did
the conscious mind and its understanding of oneself apart from environment and experience expand this void into
a hunger of which art and truth is the product or did such a void, a creative and generative urge appear as the
characteristic of a Man'a Soul and forced such consciousness, self contemplation. Can this Will be born from
accident, can this consciousness be born from despair, are they both causations and reciprocates to this
necessity of Truth.


How'd I do?