/lit/ - Literature

>>4355172
How was Wittgenstein "verifiably wrong" at the time he was writing?

>>3806809
>>3806847

Sure, it's a matter of taste. But I think that's why Wittgenstein liked Tolstoy so much. Tolstoy didn't (?) guide the reader intellectually through his writing. Like he was more aware of that he's constructing something in language, which is sufficient to present a kind of a world-view. I think this is more subtle. Of course it depends on what you're looking for in literature. Dostoevsky is more about a confrontation I guess...

>>3806890

I don't know. My friends, who read are into fantasy and s-f. Murakami at best. They don't hold controversial nor popular views on Tolstoy. But they know he's the guy with the beard.

>>3774033

>>2597156
never said I was a part of any kind of school, as a student that would be kind of silly. Just explaining which particular one I like. Why u grump?

>>2566459
This thread went from shit to Schopenhauer pretty quickly.

christmas is p gay. just read. eat with ur family tho

agree w/ u my bro.

Hume proved this centuries ago. Non-cognitivists reiterated the same point. Nietzsche showed us how to fucking deal with it. Ethical nihilism is 'okay'

>2011
>being anything but a fideist

don't buy into this psuedorationalist bullshit on either side.

>>2246981
I actually agree with you, I was just playing the devil's advocate.