/lit/ - Literature

>>12399761
Thanks boi that's a sound thing to say have a gorgeous Bergman still.
>>12399579
I don't know he really has blown up, tho most of the threads are just shit like this where OP asks for people to explain cause they're too retarded and then there's like 50 replies and none of them have more than 20 words. So this is an achievement already.

For me I just got interested in Process Philosophy cause a bunch three of my favourite youtubers (Truediltom, Then & Now and Philosophize This!) started to make Deleuze vids all at the same time, it was really weirdly coordinated. Especially considering they're all quite different and I happened to be reading about Deleuze for this DichotomyTests site I made. (This one:
http://dichotomytests.com/ )

>>12399724
Much appreciate the effort you put into this I'll bear it in mind once I get around to finishing DotW and read that Pelgrave book on the three thinkers I mentioned.

For your explanations:
>1
Mostly convincing, I guess the only question then would be whether we just use the information we gather now out of practicality, or is it just futile?
>2
'muh language games' doesn't seem too convincing. It's just I have an Orthodox Christian friend who is an absolutist in terms of this stuff and when I debate metaphysics with him I doubt he'll take that, and rightfully so.

>Rember Parmenides: Being is, non-Being is not.
And apologies I'm like 105IQ so may it's futile, but how does this relate to the question of paradox of relativism exactly? Are you saying the fact that everything is in a state of flux is non-being? Also I'm curious as to how Parmenides relates to all this as I always thought Heraclitus seemed like the clearer influence (tho ofc the mere fact that Parmenides doesn't make the subject/object distinction is enough for him to be relevant).
>3 & rhizomes
Thanks I'll check them out later

Appreciate it boi