/lit/ - Literature

>>23262346
>Why is Canadian literature so stagnant?

Because in almost every aspect we are unironically stagnant? Culturally, technologically, economically, domestically. It's actually a very serious problem- even the Bank of Canada had to admit it recently because it's finally debilitating our gas station economic growth. Canada has had essentially no substantial development since the 70's, *MAYBE* the mid 80's, with cultural development slowing down to almost nothing after the 90's and the 00's (when most of our writers, thinkers, and creative-types essentially died of old age, and the younger ones having been siphoned off to contribute to American media). We're running on fumes and immigration, and even now those things are proving insufficient.

Canada has kind of become the quintessential "idea borrower & CONSOOMER" : we truly don't generate any of our own content anymore and the 'spook' of American Media has ceased being spooky and has become entrenched in the psychology of Canada from top to bottom. "Well you're just overreacting"- have a look at Canadian political thought sometime, unironically, and tell me it isn't just American Political Talking points: Gun Control, Abortion, Globohomo, Trump, Bill Gates, our dramas, our conspiracies, our social issues, our progressive ideas, none of them are organic, they're all imported from America.

It's all a little depressing and frankly I think Quebec has been vindicated.
You do just kind of have to enforce culture to some extent or not only will the population become >THIS, but because it scales up, compromises our elected officials (since they come from the public) and now the whole system is just retarded and uninspired.

>>23139592

>>22261726
>I genuinely dislike prose. Holy fuck get on with your point I want to be stimulated by the [prose]

>>21815864

>>16922655
There's usually a lost and found box at the security desk.

>>16882849
>>16882930

i think he considers there to be an endpoint of human development that is "Truth", but not that it will necessarily result in a cessation of thinking. after all, there will always be the specifics of life, which would be the application of the principle of justice and the application of virtue to everyday life. presumably, considering his doctrine of necessity, there is a teleological endpoint.

more's utopia. It's quite ambiguous what more really believes, considering his character within the imagine dialogue as well as the etymology of the names of several characters and places.
why'd you get banned op?

The merchant was there with a forked beard
in motley, an high on horse he sat
upon his head a (?) beaver hat
his boots clasped fair and fetishly
(?) away the increases of his winning
betwixt middleburgh and orwell
well could he in exchange (?) sell
this worthy man full well his wit beset
there (?) no right that he was in debt
so estately was he of his governance
with his bargains and his (?)
for soothe, he was a worthy man without
but, (?) , i not how men him call

Unironically really liked attention. Everyone knows this is cringe, and you're a smart guy who knows what you're doing, so you have to pretend its, uh, something else or something, and also you want to encourage everyone else to do it, which you don't have to do because they are all doing it already anyway.

But vanity is a sin. Sin has consequences. A lot of people pretend that it doesn't, but it does. Every so often something will happen to make you that you are reminded of this. Some people get scared and quit trying to get so much attention, and some don't. Some of the ones who don't quit get made into examples for the rest of us. Sort of like when ISIS cuts people's heads off, or when they put Ted Bundy in the electric chair and flipped the switch to ON because he murdered girls for thrills.

Kids, don't do this. Do you understand? No, of course not. After all, here I am, drawing attention to myself again. The lesson here is to write more and post more on 4chan and text everyone you know and draw more attention to yourself, right? No. No, that is not the lesson. If I die messily, like David Foster Wallace did, will you understand then?

Maybe one or two people will understand. Probably not even that. But I'm going to quit writing now, and hopefully someone else will be the example next time and not me. Because I don't want to die like that. And that means I should probably stop writing. Like, right now.

>>13803601
Hegel, at least in the Philosophy of Right, creates a very different conception of freedom and liberty than that of liberalism. Hegel considers freedom as something which develops in stages as it realises itself in the world. The absolute freedom of the individual (which is similar to the traditional liberal view) is seen as the first and incomplete stage of freedom; " The man in the street thinks he is free if it is open to him to act as he pleases, but his very arbitrariness implies that he is not free". Freedom develops further when it is situated in an ethical community. This is a community of moral agents whose freedom is realised in the form of duties which he has as a result of his position in society; "Thus duty is not a restriction on freedom, but only on freedom in the abstract, i.e. on unfreedom. Duty is the attainment of our essence, the winning of positive freedom". The free agent only has freedom insofar as other free actors recognise him as such—freedom is presented a relational concept, not a purely atomistic one. due to this idea, the most basic unit of political life is not the individual, but the family, as the family represents the first set of duties and restrictions the free will encounters, the foundation of common life. The highest freedom is realised in the political community, which Hegel seems to view as a coherent ethical group similar to the Greek polis, but which carries its own sacrifices to individual action is service to "true" self determination. Hegel's actual prescriptions for what this political community turns out to be should be taken less seriously (surprise! it's the Prussian state!). So i put him there because of his criticism of conventional liberal views of freedom. Though Hegel himself can't really be considered "right/far right" (which is why i added "in a way"), this idea of freedom was more influential in later right leaning authors than left leaning.

At least, that's my understanding of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. I'm a neophyte when it comes to Hegel and don't know much of his complete philosophic system, so i could be (and probably am) wrong on a few points.

>sub-symbolic xenocapital
>molar/molecular dichotomy of subjectivity
>q-difference (social) and hyper-difference (epistemological)
>xenosemiotics
I could go on forever, it's like a hobby of mine

You like the image of philosophy because you attribute it with some kind of prestige, social and likely quite mystical, and, by indulging and partaking in it, or thinking you do, you attribute yourself with this same prestige. It is likely that you lack another source if pride or strong identity in your life, and as such have latched onto one which flatters your ego with little investment. A genuine interest in a topic will usually manifest externalisations in the form of identity, but the identity is superfluous to the individual; whereas, if the identity IS the genuine interest, the topic itself is usually superfluous to the individual. Basically, you may be a poster who likes the idea of being "philosophical" more than philosophy itself. Or at least, that's my guess from the little information you provided. If /lit/ is your main source of philosophy then you are truly doomed.