/lit/ - Literature

>>17077999
He's never heard of paper
Also
>joke

>>15801113
>The dubstep drop is a comparable change to moving from 8 track mixing.

This is what zoomers actually believe

Why are there so many hysterical, histrionic faggots on this website?

>>14218682

>>13966440
>2666
>nonpatrician

>>12915644
yikes

>>12886241
>reading full books
>not just jumping erratically from text to text and deriving your own holistic conception of the knowledge received therein

>>12837076
>You may as well say that the computer you're currently posting from ceases to exist when you aren't directly perceiving it.
I never said that and I don't think you understood my post.
>That you do not perceive something does not make you "unable" to perceive it.
I never said that and I don't think you understood my post.
>That you do not perceive something does not make you "unable" to perceive it. And despite that a living thing will never witness the motion of these planets with its eyes, we have nevertheless already perceived many of them with the aid of measuring devices, and are perceiving more daily.
I know that. You're completely supporting my points. For someone who criticizes my reading comprehension yours seems to be less than impressive.

>I never said language "is" objective reality
And I never said you did. Quoting you in >>12836974
>Things only exist for humans according to the forms of perception inherent in the human mind.
You use the qualifier "for humans" which I understood. Part of my point is that you're too anthropocentric when considering a god, but we can get to that later.
>To say that a thing can have objective reality and not be communicable in language is analogous to saying that something can have deductive certainty and be an invalid logical construction at the same time.
That's assuming that the language is describing the thing perfectly, which it can't. It can do a good job, but it can't describe a thing perfectly. There are plenty of phenomena that humans experience that don't translate into language very well. My point with this wormhole you dug yourself into is that language is imperfect at describing reality which then contributed to my greater point that a god could not be expected to be wholly understood through such a primitive tool.
>Have you read a book of philosophy in your life?
A fair amount, nothing impressive.
>I'm astounded you even know how to use the internet.
I'm astounded you get this upset when we agree on most things anyway.

>>12805243
>trying to recover like this

>>12778186
>>12778190
abysmal

>>12758353
>But if a book like that were to be written the fellows at any whitenat org would be in an uproar much like social justice warriors when Ben Shapiro speaks at their university.
Pretty sure that these books exist and contrary to being banned by amazon are standard highschool curriculum. I know you're probably being intellectually dishonest but especially with that being the case you must realize how ridiculous this looks? Who do you presume to be fooling?

The Unfortunates is an experimental "book in a box" published in 1969 by English author B. S. Johnson and reissued in 2008 by New Directions.[1] The 27 sections are unbound, with a first and last chapter specified. The 25 sections in-between, ranging from a single paragraph to 12 pages in length, are designed to be read in any order.[1] The number of possible combinations the sections can be read in numbers 15 septillion.