/lit/ - Literature

>>9164921
>heinrich wolfflin for making me comprehend impressionism, in a book that doesn't even talk about impressionism, better than all essays ive read about the style
Elaborate.

>>9164872
>>9164960
>>9165017
>>9165065
>>9165573
>>9167920
>>9168101
>>9168156
>>9168191
>'liberal' or 'red-pilled' intellectuals (ressentiment-filled 'political' thinkers)
>artists
>pop sci/phil hacks
>youtubers

Nonentities.

OP here, this is an example of why i feel this way.

these are my fav thinkers after 10 years of study. and yet these are all ive been able to really enjoy;

>the only other people with Nietzsche ITT are anarcho-capitalists, democrats, nationalists, traditionalists, and pessimists
KEK

>>9106086
You can tell the philosophical fraud immediately from dislike of referencing anyone. But even Heraclitus gives names, at a time when there were barely any names to give. Entirely separate from the millennia-long philosophical and cultural traditions of all the nations, all the fraudsters, pretending to have never heard of anyone else, or of each other, or to have ever cared about the ideas and themes that all the world's greatest thinkers have cared about. And in a sense, it's true. They really don't care about the issues that the thinkers they have plagiarized have cared about. They only care about fame and money, and they go about acquiring them in such a vile and fraudulent fashion that I'd even take the gratuitous name-droppers and hipster intellectuals over them. These mangle the great thinkers too, of course, but at least they respect them enough to mention them.

>>9106187
There is, of course, a lot of merit in the ongoing nature vs. nurture debate, but only for the purposes of practical, everyday applications. For as to the ultimate solution of the dispute, that's already settled. No research or experiments are needed: it is a simple philosophical problem whose solution I can provide with barely 5 seconds of thinking. So yes, culture does indeed influence human development, but who creates culture in the first place, if not humans themselves, and therefore human biology and genetics? It is true that SOME DAY our culture will hopefully get to the stage of directly determining our descendants' genetics, as opposed to leaving them up to the crapshoot of sexuated procreation, but even when that day arrives, it will still be our initial genetics that created the culture that reached the point of being able to directly influence our genetics (as opposed to, for example, the culture of African baboons or Greenlandic Inuits or whatever). In other words, the past, the past, the past, and nothing but the past: The moral in all this is that you can't flee from your past, gentlemen and gentlewomen, no matter how dearly you would like to! (which is what all appeals to the supremacy of culture over biology ultimately amount to). There are no "blank slates" or "new beginnings" — these conceptions are merely the delirious hallucinations of the genetically weak and culturally desperate among us: every step forwards and upwards will necessarily have to be built on every other step taken hitherto — all the way back to the Big Bang — and no wishful thinking or verbal gymnastics have ever or will ever suffice to make up for any deficiencies there. Or do you find that surprising the realization that the ultimate structural soundness of a building depends, first and above all, on the structural integrity of its foundations?