/lit/ - Literature

>>20969857
>It is not a history book or a genealogy book, because its history is inaccurate and its genealogy is mostly fictitious.
Based

>>20946525
>psychology
Hate to say this OP, but anxiety is rarely pinned down to one specific cause. It's also more of a process, not something you easily change or figure out suddenly

But yeah maybe check out Hamlet or something like that

>>20944148
>was it projecting
Anon I don't think machines can psychologically project, that's just you

>>20921031
She deserved it

>>20903157
>these are the jackasses taking over /lit/

>>20891237
Discarding most opinions in this thread, actually.

>You should just read more books and let your unconscious mind pick out patterns.
>That's the best way to improve.
You guys seriously give this out as advice?

>>20892541
You alright man?

>>20888187
Then.. what exactly.. what is the end goal of philosophy? Shouldn't you have at least one goal in mind?

>Philosophy isn't meant to help anyone.
>You'll understand when you read more philosophy.

>>20882444

>>20864070

Just tell them they might burn in hell for eternity (problem of evil paradox), watch them stutter and fail to argue god is loving

>>20848730
>posting about free will on /lit/
You have to study multiple different scientific fields to even get a basic grasp on the free will debate. The barrier to entry is 140+ IQ. If you have to ask here, don't even bother

>>20847100
>on 4chan
>talking about importance of morality and tradition

>>20829316
This isn't even about books or literature

>>20822468
>your king archetype is fucked
Man, this is why people don't take depth psychology and Jung seriously. What do you even mean "your king archetype is fucked"? Just leave this stuff to brighter minds

>>20811847

>>20803331
>gets mad because people know about tropes
Dude, this is a part of writing. You need to improve your writing if readers consistently point out your tropes. Truth is, people want to read something new, not the same boring stories again and again

It's not so much a matter of "normies ruining storytelling", it's more about openness to learning the cliches

>He criticized Plato, disputed his interpretation of Socrates, and sabotaged his lectures, sometimes distracting listeners by bringing food and eating during the discussions.

I wonder why humanity has this propensity towards "justice" or believing concepts like "how you've impacted other people"

There's this idea about life providing objective moral 'lessons', I guess. Instead of a person focusing on how badly they've gotten burnt, or seeing a situation for what it is, they choose to keep rose tinted glasses on and romanticize people/places/ideas until it brings their demise

I really don't think life provides any objective 'lessons' or anything similar. Even from a metaphysical perspective, I don't believe in karma or justice from any divine higher up perspective. I think someone's luck, or life situations can just be awful and that's it. The universe doesn't seem to prove otherwise. Frankly I don't think the universe gives a fuck either about what happens and life was never supposed to be fair

But everyone has to cope and rationalize away the bad things I guess

Do all women fundamentally misunderstand philosophy?

>>20404187
based schizo

Is behaviorism compatible with free will?

>Behaviorists are strong believers in hard determinism. Their most forthright and articulate spokesman has been B. F. Skinner. Concepts like “free will” and “motivation” are dismissed as illusions that disguise the real causes of human behavior.
>Hard determinism sees free will as an illusion and believes that every event and action has a cause.
>In Skinner’s scheme of things the person who commits a crime has no real choice. (S)he is propelled in this direction by environmental circumstances and a personal history, which makes breaking the law natural and inevitable.
>For the law-abiding, an accumulation of reinforcers has the opposite effect. Having been rewarded for following rules in the past the individual does so in the future. There is no moral evaluation or even mental calculation involved. All behavior is under stimulus control.

Even in soft determinism, most people are just products of their environment reacting to the stimulus in front of them. This means most people live inside a pre-made feedback loop without realizing how to escape it. Thoughts?

>>20366110
Please sir. God will punish you if you don't help me

>>20360603
Fascist magic books and dead philosophers