/lit/ - Literature

>>18591350
oui

>>13912395
Existentialism came about in the 50's, although people like to retroactively label people before that point as existentialist (Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dostoy, Kafka, ect.).
>>13911376
Okay OP, get ready for a non-meme answer. Nietzsche had the best definition of a nihilist: someone who chooses to put their faith in a /certain nothing/ rather than an /uncertain something/. Existentialism does not put faith in a certain nothing, but an uncertain something in the form of personal freedom and the possibility for authenticity. Existentialism says there is no objective meaning to the world, but they absolutely believe in meaning, that was the whole point of the movement.

>>13818138
this is some very tactical bait; you can use this as a reply to almost any post on /lit/

>French
>ugly as hell
>openly pedo
>gets the best /lit/ gf
>gets praise for IRL shitposts
>goes down as one of greats in history
His very existence makes /lit/cels seethe and their aneurysms burst.

if you want the academic rundown it's probably something like:
The Republic
-Nichomachian Ethics
-The Enchiridion of Epictetus
-Summa Theologica (you can read an abridged version but don't read Summa Contra Gentiles they were written for different purposes)
-Meditations on First Philosophy
-The Ethics
-An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
-The Critique of Pure Reason
-The Phenomenology of Spirit
-Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
-Being and Time

>post-modernism amirite?
>*posts Land instead*
this is a double pincer bait

Just a proposed model for Piety, beauty, or hipness: anything that is fully determined by taste, i.e. not necessarily justice.

For all Judges from 1 to L (Gods in the case of Piety, humans for others) on the naturals.

Piety(on x)=how much X likes it, based on it's innate characteristics

Piety= [sum, x from one to L:Piety(on x) ]

Thus, given a set of judges, Piety of Action is determined fully by the characteristics of Action. Given a particular Action, Piety is determined entirely by the set of judges.
This resolves the Euthyphro dilemma, but in a sad way, as it does not supply any substantive theory of what will be pious. Perhaps Piety(on x) and Piety(on y) differ so that a thick definition is impossible.

>>11649159
the video in OP is her calling out bullshit academics (e.g. John Milton inspiring ISIS), but of course the fact that she wears a dress is the REAL threat to academia. I think people are just threatened that a trans has read more books that they have.

What is ontology? Everyone uses it but no one ever defines it. Is it just as important as ethics or metaphysics?

>>11445906
you literally made a post critiquing a file name lmao I'm just making fun of you at this point

>>11350997
>oh look, it's another 'grade-schooler thinks Stoicism equals moral nihilism thread'
sage'd for 1/10 bait

>>11319754
I claimed Parmenides wasn't written in Plato's late period (something which is generally accepted in the field based on routine stylometry and content analysis). I also claimed the wording wasn't consistent with his earlier work on forms, which is absolutely correct. I skipped the very obvious point that Plato made Socrates a very young man in the dialog, not the mature Socrates who is most often associated in the dialogs with the theory of the forms. You sperged out over a reply to fucking green text; maybe you should move on from Plato and pick up some Epictetus, anon.

>>11258585
study, then develop your theory. you are looking for validation, not knowledge. also
>my manifesto

>>11229999

>>11164899

>>11148462
>keep myself "philosophically pure" allowing only one book to strongly guide my philosophical thought
>said literally no philosopher who ever lived ever

>>11141459
>>11141463

>>11121192
If a human practices degenerate demonic thought, then they should be executed by firing squad
∀H ((H>D) H > E)

>>11045814
Do your intro political philosophy homework yourself, OP.

>>10940211
Oh wow, deep thinker here. At least give some examples of contemporary thinkers you think are bullshit. Where did you draw the line, historically? German Idealism? Logical Positivism? Existentialism? Poststructuralism? When did it go to shit? Any sort of philosophical thought bouncing around in there or did you just fail an exam or something

>>10913395
I have a BA in phil (graduated with honours), I was recommended for grad school by my professors (might go for a law degree before I finish the philosophy meme though) and have several backlogged papers that I have written over the last year or so that I consider publishable in philosophic journals. I still don't think of myself as a philosopher in a formal sense, but I honestly think we get hung up on who is and isn't a philosopher. Any who writes can call themselves a writer, a painter a painter, a dancer a dancer. Why is philosophy so abstracted? If Heidegger could pull philosophy from A Pair of Shoes, how was Van Gogh not a philosopher? What about Dostoyevsky? Tolstoy? Both had written work that was deeply philosophical. But Camus wrote the "real" philosophical novels because he had the degree. It's all posturing; if you are philosophizing you are acting as a philosopher. That's the long and short of it. Just because you are a philosopher doesn't mean you are any good at philosophy.

Is writing a screenplay /lit/?

>>10589169
>Smoking out the roof it's like a chimney
>like Michael Vick in the whip
>getting thicker everyday, it's looking like the casket of Benjamin Franklin
If this was satire it was pretty good. I really hope it's satire.

>>10367431
this but unironically