/lit/ - Literature

>>16581109
make it 1000 words and have it on my desk by friday

analytic literally means "adds no new content" - of course they are a bunch of empty nerds, lmfao. When was the last time an ANALytic talked about love, beauty, joy, or God? Pretty much never. BTFO.

We're still in a crises of knowledge which denies the possibility of "good" and "bad", no matter how obvious it is that they exist, though. The problem eugenicists have now, and will continue to have for a while in the future, is "who gets to declare what's good or bad?" Who are the eugencists? How is it that they decided what the good genes were? What if I, one of the people that is not part of the eugenicist class disagree with what they judge to be good or bad? Whatever they decide is the good genes and the bad genes are a matter of THEIR perspective, they are the ones that have decided what life itself is for, but that is just the same as my perspective, which can differ.

This is the problem we are stuck with, and it is a big problem. There is a solution to it though. The very crisis I described can often result in the denial in people's minds that there is even such as a thing as good and bad. This is obviously false though. Perhaps I should bludgeon you over the head? Oh, that would be bad for you? This example seems extremely stupid, but, it is in direct contradiction with the belief that there is no such thing as good or bad. Truthfully, we all know that genes that make us prone to disease and sickness are bad. Now again, you may argue that what a disease or a sickness is, is too relative! Is Autism a bad disease? Not to many autists. But this has just taken the same problem of good and bad and offloaded it to a new concept of sickness and health. Within this concept we can still be sure there is such a thing as good and bad. Perhaps we can begin with the gene that is responsible for irritable bowel syndrome?

Currently we are stuck in a world where people deny that good or bad genes could even exist, because they see themselves as their genes (naive/reductive materialism), and therefore any denial of the reproduction of their genes is the denial of their own lives, which is basically mental self-harm. This is of course stupid, because we know we are greater than our mere genes, because there is a reality outside of our mind and body that affects us. We also know that we do not know if the essence of our minds and bodies inside is actually JUST our genes.

The real way that we might have eugenics is the conscious decision by individual human beings to not reproduce, because they have decided their own genes are bad, and for people to do this, we need to knock down retarded scientism (I am my genes, nothing more!) and retarded epistemology (we all have different perspectives therefore there is no such thing as good and bad!)

>be a failure
>read and write to escape it
>start to get good
>constant escapism keeps me fueled
>persistence adds up and I become good
>people read my work and say it is good
>not a failure anymore

any flaws in this life plan, lads?

>>14885441
>thinking thing would be best ruled by the best thinkers
im thinking this guy makes sense.

>>14589526
bro, have you read Will to Power? He calls the philosophers frauds. He calls scientists frauds. He's a mystic.