/lit/ - Literature

>>20076974
How about a dissection of NPCs, found on a page opened at random?
>Don Quixote is the prototype of the subjective madness in which the passion of inwardness embraces a single finite fixed idea. But, when inwardness is absent, we have the madness that rattles away and is just as comic, and which one could wish some experimental psychologist were to portray by taking a handful of philosophers of the kind and bringing them together. When the madness is a raving inwardness, what is tragic and comic is that this something, which is of such infinite concern to the unfortunate, is some fixated particular that is of no concern to anyone.
>But when the madness is absence of inwardness, what is comic is that, although the something which the blissful individual knows is indeed the truth, the truth that concerns the entire human race, it does not concern the much-respected rattler in the least. This is a more inhuman kind of madness than the other. One shrinks from looking the former in the eye, lest one plumb the depths of his ferocity; but one dare not look at the other at all, for fear of discovering that his eyes are not real but of glass and his hair made from a carpet-mat: in short, that he is an artificial product.
>Should one chance to meet someone with his mind so deranged, and where the derangement consists in his not having a mind, one listens in cold horror to what he says, hardly knowing whether to believe it is a human being speaking and not perhaps a 'walking-stick' [...]. It is always unpleasant for a proud man to find out that one has been drinking a toast of brotherhood with the public hangman; but to become engaged in a rational and philosophical conversation with a walking-stick, that is just about enough to drive one crazy.

Hegel is an idiot that lacks, as Schopenhauer correctly argued, the clarity and systematic rigor of Kantian philosophy as well as the penetrating insights of Kierkegaard's subjectivity. He fucked up philosophy for decades and befuddled fools who think that prolix words = prolix thought. May he be thrice damned by Sophia herself.

I'm a complete piece of shit to women. I draw them in with this persona of being traditional, self-respecting, a paragon of morality, etc. and on some surface level I believe that to be accurate. But the reality is that I fuck around on girls relentlessly. No I never cheat or take it to turning into physical contact, but I absolutely play the field and keep my options very open. I hold my girlfriends up to these very high standards of fidelity and responsibility to not put themselves in situations that would disrespect me, and for the most part they do. Meanwhile I've got 3-6 other girls on reserve at all times that I'm talking to that I know are into me and me into them.

It doesn't go beyond light flirting but it essentially means that I can't commit to any girl completely. I'm so intense with holding girls to these ridiculously high standards because I know I myself don't meet them at all. I'm the exact piece of shit I try to avoid with girls. I am everything I hate and everything I fear. I can hide behind the excuse of being cheated on making me unable to commit myself fully and never give myself over completely to any one girl but at the end of the day I'm just a complete manipulative hypocritical loser.

I don't know if I would go so far as to call it 10/10, but Moldbug's "Gentle Introduction" was the most fun I had since reading Kierkegaard:
>If you actually read all this, yet remain a damn’d Whig — congratulations Sir! You are poffeffed of an unusually thick Skull — not unlike yr. ancestor, the Pithecanthropus. Indeed Samuel Johnson put it best: the Devil was the first Whig. And to him with you Sir! For the Remedy hath failed.

My real 10/10s are Kierkegaard's "Concluding Unscientific Postscript," "Either/Or," and "The Sickness Unto Death." Mint!

Finally made it past the preface yesterday

Here's an excerpt of a letter from a Kierkegaardian character to biblical Abraham.

>Most venerable father! You whose plodding leap echoes in the minds of men — would that it still echoed in their spirits. In this moment I write to you, I am rent between the inquisition I wish to hold for you and the belief that, the moment you put ink to paper, you would become menschlich, wenn Du das Geheimniss zeigst. Then write not to me, but listen and see if your faith cannot be shaken.

>My soul is wearied by the trivialities of my age, which you were so lucky to have been denied. The crowd, like a mob of wethers, has cut off their humanness in so meek a procession. You may be dismayed to learn that we have abandoned your church en masse for the hallowed universities, where human reason triumphs über alles. We modern and well-bred men have no accommodations for Gods that cannot be explained or lectured on.

>I have much longed to see a faith that moved mountains, but I will settle for yours that only names them. Doubt! Rancorous, pernicious Doubt! Would that my doubt took form so that I might wrestle with it as did your seed on Penuel. A viscous grease has overtaken my skin, presumably from indolence of heart, mind, and legs — this can be nothing but helpful when grappling with doubt.

>Would that you never know the devil of refrigeration! I can think of nothing so pacifying as this instrument for ruminants — if only they could ruminate. The comforts of domestication have reached a pitch, convincing the weak-minded that a good job, a faithful wife (an oxymoron), and the wisdom of consensus are all that is needed for life’s meaning. As for faith? You might see it once a year in Christ’s mass — twice at Easter if you’re lucky. The end of the world approaches fast, and the wiser in our society welcome it as a joke.

>The father of many nations! You must see how all nations approach their untergang with the leeching of passion from their so-called faith. I ask you: even if you had the faith I seek, what is its worth when your seed falls on the soil of barren souls? Either father many nations or do not father any nations — you must regret both.

It is, in part, a critique of Hegel and the German Idealist project.

>nothin personnel kid

Was he right about Hegel

Is there a /lit/ Discord?

>>10351584
>Will this actually give me guidance?
Yeah it's kind of a saying on this board, the "Start with Phenomenology of Spirit" meme because it's a good, compact way to get into reading

Reminder for people that got memed into Hegel that his lectures on Aesthetics or History are much more enjoyable, penetrable and "useful" than Phenomenology. He has quite a few analyses of literature, poetry, Greek philosophers and culture that are incredible. Basic understanding of PhS consciousness, self consciousness and manifestations of absolute spirit are good but not a must

>>10303699
>Kant > .....
Hegel literally completed the system you just outlined. He combine elements of Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and of course Kant.

>>10298936
thot detected