/lit/ - Literature

>>22921451
>>22921340
What are you two writing next?

I've never been to this board before, but I'm going to just off a bridge if I don't get past my writer's block.

I'm writing fantasy, and I'm at a part of my story where I need a character who is in charge of a village to leave on a journey.

Just throw ideas at me regarding how I can get a character onto this journey that isn't convoluted or contrived.

It's deliberately vague as I want any and all answers.

>>22527772
>(Who in the future has been corrupted by a tranny goat devil like figure)

>>22274229
Honestly fuck the opening paragraph. My thing has a short intro, probably a little bigger than a paragraph, but if the ending of the intro doesn't hook you, I don't know what will.

>>21782139

The idea that suffering is simply part of the human experience seems pretty popular in most western literature and religion. Usually justified in that suffering is what gives joy meaning, and thus real tragedy is an unfortunate necessity if anything positive is to be achieved.

Now suppose in the future we develop technology that can stimulate in the human brain the feeling of suffering and the trauma of tragedy (or any emotion or feeling we so choose for that matter). Could humanity then achieve a utopia, without needing to justify the existence needless tragedies?

>>19423109
>It's legal for a woman to abort her baby but
it's murder if a man kicks a woman in the womb and thus causes an abortion.

What is it called when your interest in a story is mostly fueled by a fascination with the setting and history that's portrayed in it, rather than the characters involved?

>>18202405
ATHENIAN: Take reason on the one hand, and motion in a single location
on the other. If we were to point out that in both cases the motion was
determined by a single plan and procedure and that it was (a) regular, (b)
uniform, (c) always at the same point in space, (d) around a fixed center,
(e) in the same position relative to other objects, and were to illustrate
both by the example of a sphere being turned on a lathe, then no one
could ever show us up for incompetent makers of verbal images.
CLINIAS: You’re quite right.
ATHENIAN: Now consider the motion that is never uniform or regular
or at the same point in space or round the same center or in the same
relative position or in a single location, and is neither planned nor organized
nor systematic. Won’t that motion be associated with every kind of unreason?
CLINIAS: Absolutely true, it will.
ATHENIAN: So now there’s no difficulty in saying right out that since we
find that the entire cycle of events is to be attributed to soul, the heavens
that we see revolving must necessarily be driven round—we have to say—
because they are arranged and directed either by the best kind of soul or
by the other sort.
CLINIAS: Well, sir, judging from what has been said, I think it would be
rank blasphemy to deny that their revolution is produced by one or more
souls blessed with perfect virtue.
ATHENIAN: You’ve proved a most attentive listener, Clinias. Now attend
to this further point.
CLINIAS: What?
ATHENIAN: If, in principle, soul drives round the sun, moon and the
other heavenly bodies, does it not impel each individually?
CLINIAS: Of course.
ATHENIAN: Let’s take a single example: our results will then obviously
apply to all the other heavenly bodies.
CLINIAS: And your example is . . .?
ATHENIAN: . . . the sun. Everyone can see its body, but no one can see
its soul—not that you could see the soul of any other creature, living or
dying. Nevertheless, there are good grounds for believing that we are in
fact held in the embrace of some such thing though it is totally below the
level of our bodily senses, and is perceptible by reason alone. So by reason
and understanding let’s get hold of a new point about the soul.
CLINIAS: What?
ATHENIAN: If soul drives the sun, we shan’t go far wrong if we say that
it operates in one of three ways.
CLINIAS: And what are they?
ATHENIAN: Either (a) the soul resides within this visible spherical body
and carries it wherever it goes, just as our soul takes us around from one
place to another, or (b) it acquires its own body of fire or air of some kind 899
(as certain people maintain), and impels the sun by the external contact
of body with body, or (c) it is entirely immaterial, but guides the sun along
its path by virtue of possessing some other prodigious and wonderful
powers.

>>17063461
>just because DFW says art shouldn't be shallow trash doesn't mean it's true
hmmm

>>16866482
Persian diaspora detected. Shouldn't you be at a trump rally demanding an invasion on your beautiful totally zorastrianism *pinches nose* eeeeeronnnn.

>>16715199
Spinoza - Jew
Freud - Jew
Wittgenstein - jew

Verdict. We're getting jewed here.

>>16421272
Everything we say about the one is actually about the Monad and Indefinite as Intellect. Or as Being-Life-Intellect. The cycle of Nous is in-fact the infinite circuit of Soul in trying to grasp the One. This all culminates in the Three Henads of Damascius, or the 'shining forth as three' of Proclus.

>28.1 All Things Are a Symbol for the One
Now the One is all things before all things and is known and knower, and it is each of the other things, not in the way that I am talking about them, and not in the way that each thing is itself, for these things are all in a state of differentiation, and they are mutually discriminated from each other, but rather as One that co-exists with each of the things that are distinct in a manner unique to that with which it coexists. For example, the one of humanity is more truly humanity and the one of the soul more truly soul, and the one of the body is more truly body. And in this way, too, the one of the sun and the one of the moon are more truly moon and more truly sun, and yet the One is none of these things that have become distinct, than which the One more truly is, but rather it is One as seated before each thing. Thus please, if you will, refer even the one that coexists with each thing and appears as parceled out, to the universal, undivided, absolute One. For perhaps the One is not even divided, but remains the same for all things and for each thing as unique to it, not divided into it, since the existence of all things in the One does not require division.
Does the One know? No: knowledge belongs to differentiation. So then is the One not known? This too is a mark of differentiation, if the following is true, namely, that “knows” is opposed to “is known.” None of these predicates accords with that, nor yet does the designation “One” accord with that, nor the designation “all things.” For these things all imply opposition and they divide our consciousness. For if we look at the simple, that is, at the One, we completely dissolve the vast and complex totality of the One. And yet if we conceive of all things together simultaneously, we obscure the One and the simple. The (I 81) reason is that we are ourselves divided and that we focus on discreet characteristics, and, although we nevertheless yearn for any knowledge of the One, we tend to confuse everything, thinking that we might in this way get hold of that great nature. Nevertheless by keeping watch over the plurality of all things which is [an aspect of the One that] is present together with the confi ned uniqueness of the One, and by taking joy in the simple and the first, with a view to the mark of the highest principle, in this way surely we can apply the [designation] “One” to that reality as a kind of symbol of its simplicity, as in fact weapply the [designation] “all things” as a symbol of its containing all things, whereas we can neither conceive or name that which is before or above the One and all things.

>enter bookstore
>the classics literature section is alongside YA
What did they mean by this?

>>15984476
>>showered with God’s energeia
>When does this happen?
deification is participation in God through his energies (grace), according to orthodoxy, it occurs to everyone in the Eschaton (everyone are resurrected and given eternal life in our nature, we aren't forced to be good thus our hatred is what makes this experience into hell).

>>15768036
>jewish guy doesn't like antisemitism
really activates my almonds

>>15721094
>then I would never purposely choose that which I know is bad for me.
that is not freedom
Freedom is neutral, it is the power to choose the most evil option "just cause", this of course only happens to an already extremely self-corrupted individual. Necessity then weaves all choices into our fate and the fate of the world, for we are all little demiurges to be "archons" of evil heroes of virtue.
We do not exist here for solely our own leisure, we all have a duty to help others. In Republic the Guardian is told to re-enter the cave and leave "liberation".
>>15721112
Regurgitating facts is no believing them or wanting them.
>>15721136
there's only fire that burns the world due to us igniting ourselves

>>15700950
Because capable philosophers are typically sensitive to making such elementary mistakes of reasoning in the first place.

>>15702509
Why did g*d make you so stupid? The atheist can simply evaluate such behaviours by a standard of adaptivity. Even if isolated incidences of such things aren't necessarily maladaptive, it's very likely that normalizing such behaviours would be (or we wouldn't be prejudiced against them in the first place).

>>15702539
Social strategies (like morality) are also a component of the 'is'. You're an idiot.

>>15702729
nice, I didn't have that one
also:
>what is the sun

>>15664644
>doesn't even name one

>>15346723
>philosophical empiricism was virtually abandoned after Kant

>>14436360
>literally had no problems with the Soviets deporting people to the gulags and letting the East German security and police forces magically disappear uncomfy people and shooting on striking workers.

Puts all his humanitarian and anti-nazi stuff in a different light imo.

>>14043706
Enlightened

>>14019785
>the model limited in comprehensiveness only by the amount of variables one can process is the lowest IQ

>>13979525
>dedicates his entire life to fighting the religious establishment
>coward
hmmmmmmmmm