/lit/ - Literature

>>23191788
Nietzsche admired jews for maintaining a culture and achieving material success. he thought that other ethnicities should do the same. he noted what the jews did well, but to call him a philosemite is a bit dishonest.
his "philosemitism" would literally be described today as anti-semitic conspiracy.

>>23183114
>Most academics don't read. The average lit prof has never read Moby Dick, for example. It's all received opinion.
This is 100% true. In the humanities, no one in academia today has read any of the "classics" of western canon. Most of them started, at the earliest, in the 1940s with Saussure (as a way to get into cultural criticism thru linguistics as a jumping-off point). From there they probably went to the French deconstructivists, and then straight to 80s and 90s critical theorists.
They do NOT fucking read. They don't believe its important. To them, every single work before approximately 1880 was merely a product of phallogocentrism not worth reviewing. These are the type of faggots who will teach Marx without having ever read Hegel, or the Greeks.
I pray for anyone who has to endure the humanities department of a modern university and deal with the absolute dribble that comes out of these professors' mouths. It will redpill you faster than anything else.

>>23137609
>The point that you can not prove logic well enough to use logic to prove anything as complex as subjective morality
What? I have no intention of proving subjective morality, I am seeking to discern whether I can rule it out or not with the help of logic and the good people of this board. If you'd like to argue, I'm not going to engage further than this response.

>and having faith in logic is just a middle man at that point and serves no purpose.
More a pre-requisite that necessitates acceptance of anything. To see, interpret, and respond to the words on the screen you see right now necessitates reasonable belief that your mind exists, that the words exist, that there is no trickery afoot sullying the interaction and leading you astray from whatever you believe is "objectively" before you. Am I incorrect in assuming this? That a leap of faith is necessary prior to engaging in logical behaviour? If not, what then is an axiom? Can you necessarily prove logic without it being circular? If so, please do so.

If your contention is actually that logic is the unnecessary middleman given my stated opinions, then I'm more inclined to understand your perspective. Nonetheless, I still value the use of logic in providing me greater understanding and articulation of that which I can come to experience or have experienced. Because I do believe in things external to myself that I have not always known, I am willing to try and better understand them using the tools available to me. Faith is one such tool, but faith alone does not fit where logic does, nor logic where faith does.
My hands are tools in themselves, but are required to use an axe, or a screwdriver. Hopefully that is a more fitting analogy for the place of faith. I admit I've never been the best at analogies.

>logic is much better at disproving things than proving them
Hence my request for somebody better than I to explain to me how it could be, or has been used to disprove subjective morality.

>I suspect that is what you really want, to disprove other people and imply that means you are right. Logic can do that but you have at least a few years worth of hard studying before you can do that given your current state, just preempt them and call them assholes for trying to disprove your faith with their faith and point out how that strongly suggests they actually lack faith.
I'm sorry you feel that way.

I have a friend who read Brothers Karamazov and thought it was meh and not worth it, but thinks the Harry Potter books are some of the best shit ever. What should I do with him?