/lit/ - Literature

>>12956756
>remarkably
Well, you know, Cunt's metaphysics significantly influenced Niels Bohr (et al.) and is basically one of the cornerstones of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
>Do not ask me to elaborate further, since this is /lit/ and I have already wasted enough time with this comment.

>>11302235
>it is obviously true
It's obviously stupid, that's all it is. We know pretty much nothing about the mind, how it works and if (and how) it can be "free".
What you call "obviously true" is just a believe, something completely unproven. We even have proven evidence the mind (whatever it is) can influence materialisitc processes -> see for example the prove of the placebo effect which shouldn't be possible from a strictly materialistic point of view (that means: if the mind didn't have any influence on your acts at all).

>>11230352
Honestly, why are you even arguing about this.

Aristotle thought beings with a soft skin where more intelligent than beings with a hard skin (and he most probably bore crabs and reptiles in mind when he said it). It's just bullshit - like he said small women weren't human beings. A lot of stuff Aristotle said was bullshit. He was simply wrong, that's pretty much everything.
It doesn't mean Aristotle didn't write valuable stuff, it simply means, his method of philosophizing wasn't flawless, especially when it came to natural philosophy.

>>11161855
>>11161868
>birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering
>Ah yes, the 16 year olds greatest philospher.

Both are interesting, both are bullshit. Wait until you get a little bit older and you'll see...