/lit/ - Literature

>>12192025
>>12192037
Here's a repost of mine from a past thread, which got unsatisfactory responses and no convincing rebuttals. Pic related is a great example that showcases exactly what I am talking about. Here is what I wrote in reference to it:

>He undermines human nature in the first paragraph with his vain moralizing, aka "artificial goals" — there are no goals which are not visibly about satisfying our biological needs, even if the goal is to gain mastery over the field of marine biology. His concept of a "biological need" is arbitrarily defined by his own anti-philosophical convictions.

To which someone chimed in: "If Hirohito would suddenly stop doing marine biology he wouldn't starve or become homeless or ill." And my response was:

>Do you not have any concept at all of what passion does to a human? Have you never read poetry in your life? What do you even make of the Epic of Gilgamesh, when Enkidu dies, and Gilgamesh is so heart broken and becomes so full of fear of death that he pursues to the ends of the earth the plant that will grant him eternal life? Humans are more than just their stomachs, livers, and body temperatures. When you define our "biological needs" in such a way as to include only the most basic physical needs, you disregard SO MUCH that makes humans humans. Civilization was a natural occurrence and only vain moralism judges it otherwise.

Original thread:
>>/lit/thread/S12096766

How does anyone take this guy seriously when he doesn't seem to understand the first thing about how life works?