/lit/ - Literature

>>16760418
any /lit/ for this feel?

>>15164315
this, basically. the same reason why christLARPers here are always so vindictive and mean-spirited even though Jesus had some of the most beautiful messages of universal love in existence.

>>15092698
What idea am i supposed to be attacking?

>>14716439
Would you consider this a faithful representation of your argument?
(P1) The question of race and IQ is an 'absolute cultural obsession' (Premise)
(P2) /pol/ holds the position that there is an essential link between race and IQ (Premise)
(P3) An examination of all possible evidence would suggest that /pol/ could be right (Premise, P2)
(P4) An examination of all possible evidence would suggest that there is no possibility of race and IQ not having an essential link, as It is impossible, or at least extremely unlikely, that all human populations have an identical intellectual potential (Premise, P3)
(P5) Academia, The Press, and 'these powerful institutions', constantly push the concept of no essential link between race and IQ (Premise, P1)
(P6) As these institutions constantly push an incorrect position, they cannot be trusted on all positions (Premise, P4, P5)
(P7) This knowing push of an incorrect position is used to justify a policy forced labour through taxation (Premise, P5, P6)
(P8) If P1, P2, ..., P7 is even possibly true, then the entire /pol/ worldview slides into place (Premise, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7)
(P9) P1, P2, ..., P7 is possibly correct (Premise, P8)
(PC) The entire /pol/ worldview slides into place/is correct (P8, P9)

theory dependence of observation

>>14369134
>When did you realize that libertarianism as a political rather than a personal philosophy is only defendable based on a purely egalitarian want to allow other persons to pursue their best interests within the limits of their material power?
i'm not sure why one would need to "realise" what is explicitly argued by libertarians
>There is no discussion as to whether or not libertarianism is conducive to the long-term survival and possible flourishment of a nation
there is, if you actually read a book rather than listening to chattering dwarves on the internet. also, libertarians don't reify the 'nation'.
>It is mostly a destructive ideology, the true aim of which, liberation of action, can either be let go to flow freely, hereby weakening and splintering the society adopting such a belief
libertarians have a different conception of what society entails and the 'laws of nature' which bind it together. they also delineate between the state and society, and don't think the splintering of one entails the other
>or contradicted outright with strict cultural or perhaps even legal institutions; and so become only liberalism in name, in the promise that an act is technically possible.
libertarians don't argue this
>But what is it that makes advocating for .... etc
pointless psychologising, and shows a lack on understanding of how libertarians view self-interest.
>What are some books/authors to elaborate on this feel? As you might imagine, i already took a look at Nietzsche, but that's pretty entry level.
i would suggest first reading books on libertarianism before searching for refutations. the entry level is a good level to begin with.

>Most philosophy and psychology classes just cite and quote dead philosophers
???
maybe in 101 classes, but more advanced courses cover contemporary philosophers. Philosophy ages well anyway, so learning what the greatest minds of the past have said isn't a bad thing.

How do i know what the morally right or wrong thing is to do under virtue ethics? It seems to tell me to be virtuous, but doesn't explain how i will know what is virtuous or not. Like, if i asked the same question of Utilitarianism they would say "do what creates the greatest good for the greatest number", and Deontology would say "follow the categorical imperative and respect others as moral agents". So how would Virtue Ethics answer the question "what is the moral thing to do?"

This is the literature board of 4channel. Based on the content of your post, you may be looking for the politics board >>>/pol/. Next time please be mindful that you post the appropriate content on the appropriate board.
Thank you.

Here's the gist
>i was always a genius
>man i read all these books and mastered every subject
>fuck marxism because it isn't nationalistic
>actually the jews are behind it
>actually the Jews are behind everything by their very nature
>that's because race is behind it all
>that's because The Law of Nature is behind it all
>the Aryans are the best race, because they grew up in cold climates that selected for the strongest
>somehow that makes them the only race capable of creating culture
>all culture that has existed came from the Aryans
>the jews, however, are the opposite, they only destroy culture
>in fact, the only reason Germany lost WW1 was because of a small munitions strike that didn't effect supply on the front at all
>which was the cause of marxism
>which was the cause of the Jews
>infact both liberalism and marxism, though seeming enemies, are the cause of the Jews
>infact marxism is a tool of jewish international finance
>here's how i would make a community which revolves around race
>if you make your blood impure you magically lose the ability to create culture
>that's why every civilisation fell
>that, and the Jews
and it goes on like that for 680 pages, with even more boring intermissions about his personal life. One part which is interesting about it is that you can recognize /pol/ talking points and arguments verbatim. especially comparing his story about how he became Anti-Semitic with what /pol/tards say about interracial advertisements and such.
The only valuable parts are when he talks about propaganda, oratory, and how to create a mass movement, as these are things he had a very keen understanding of.