/lit/ - Literature

>>14457831
>But you do things because you desire them, if you didn't desire anything you would never do anything.
Anon, you are so certain. Perhaps it would do you good to meditate on how you can change these things.

>>14180844
>You can't formulate a question that way
>Okay but what about this question formulated in the exact same way
Are you even reading what I am writing? You're dragging the domain into nonsense. The question posed isn't answerable, it requires an additional subordinate clause at the very least. You've also thrown in a dummy predicate that's almost vague enough to be malicious.

In your vain attempt to argue against subjective morality, you continuously construct sentences that rely on encultured implications to try and make your point, beyond the bare semantic axioms. Encultured implications are the threadbare fabric of our perspectives, and are inarguably the stuff that informs our subjective judgements. Do you not see the irony? At this point I'm growing frustrated FOR you, because you're going about this in the absolutely worst way possible. The points that you're trying to make are possible without falling back on subjective semantics, but for some strange reason you refuse to do that.

You would instead prefer to keep reframing the same structure that I tell you is unanswerable without semantic extensions. Stop that.

>>14163997
It never ceases to amuse me when this rhetoric is brought out. It really was ingenious, to call an outlook that is simple wish-fulfillment a "red pill", as though some hidden truth had been arrived to.

It's a curiosity for me, as through my own anecdotes and those of my friends and family it can only be asserted as a strong stage 3 simulacra, nearly approaching stage 4. So I am left wondering how this can be reconciled with my own material experiences that paint such ideology as a bold faced lie of the internet, the lack of baudrillardian self-awareness would indicate an earnestness that truly there are a large volume of young men on the internet who believe this trite.

Some years ago, I came to the conclusion that this was a combination of coincidence and self-fulfilling prophecy. With these ideas informing the perspective of young men, it stands to reason that women of quality character and intellect would trend to avoid these men. This creates a skew where those who buy into this ideology are more likely to engage in endeavors with women of poor character and intellectual quality, which in turn reinforces the view. Additionally, I would posit that those who would take such views to heart are those who received poor socialization during their formative years, and use this ideology as a mortar for their own experiences. This poor socialization naturally creates a deficit in ability to navigate the complexities of social engagement, and a reliance on this "red pill" perspective as a quick-guide to help them gain easy, incorrect answers to silly questions.

To truly understand how people can take such a blatantly stupid ideology seriously, one has to change perspective. By simply getting rid of the figures as a statistical measure of a total population, and instead substituting them to be a self-selected sub-population, the ideology fulfills itself. It's self-referential, and it's solipsitically stable. What an absolutely curious ontological consequence.

>>14135762
>smoking
>insemination

>>14060253
hmmmm

>>14043892
Finnegan's wake is the best book ever written. Fuck all the memes, it genuinely is non-stop "AHA!" moments when you learn what Joyce is on about. Then you run back through and analyze the passages deeper, picking up on more layers of the narrative that completely flip your expectations around. The amount of hidden puns and jokes on every page is absolutely fucking astounding. You'd imagine that because you're constantly in the highest gears of autism as you carefully analyze each passage, jokes have a hard time landing, but this isn't the case. In Joyce's absolute genius, he's completely anticipated this mindset and structured this ethereal metahumor that's constantly evolving throughout the book. It's constantly knocking you out of your detached examination, landing joke after joke after joke. The book being hard to read is just as much to do with the fact that it will make you roll around on the floor with laughter once you understand it, as much as it is to do with how difficult it is to understand it in the first place.

It's very much like that Foucault quote about escaping Hegel. Joyce is always 12 steps ahead of you with every word you read.
>We have to determine the extent to which our intellectual analysis is possibly one of Joyce's tricks directed against us, at the end of which he stands, laughing, waiting for us.

I find it such a shame that the Wake is considered a complete and total meme. It's easily the peak of literary human achievement, so overflowing with artistic merit and human spirit that there doesn't exist a single rival in any sensible metric.

>>13739417
why

>>13738660
>logical