/lit/ - Literature

I almost never read forwards.

If self evident truths exist, then self evident wrongs must also exist.

>ywn work in a think Tank

>be me, massive sperg
>never had an interest in fantasy bc it never made sense, was too much for my brain to follow
>wanted to learn about the legal system so i got a book explaining it
>got overwhelmed and a little scared with all the info
>also read science because i sucked so much ass at fiction at the age of 6
>teachers wanted to see if i was actually retarded so they checked to see my understanding
>read a packet of 3 pages on the solar system, recalled it word for word, then used analogies to express my understanding

Has this happened to anyone else growing up?

The principal complaint that Fr. Hogg refers to–that the West insists that there is no distinction between God’s essence and his energies–relies on an equivocation. The equivocation involves the usage of the term “distinction.” Fr. Hogg quotes from Aquinas in support of his claim that the West draws no distinction between God’s essence and his energies: “God is all the things that He has…” (On Spiritual Creatures article 11). Aquinas here uses what some metaphysicians call the language of Izzing and Having to mark the distinction between an essence and a property: what God is is his essence, what God has are his properties. Thus, if God is all the things that he has, his properties are identical to his essence, and the Eastern complaint would appear to be warranted. The equivocation here is this. If by “distinguishing” one thing, p, from another thing, q, we claim that p and q are ontologically distinct from one another, and that p can exist without q and q can exist without p, then there is one sense in which God is not all the things that he has, but there is another sense in which he is all the things that he has. Suppose we say, for example, with the Johannine corpus, that God is love, and with the Matthean tradition that God is mercy. Since love and mercy are not identical to each other, it would seem that God is not identical to himself, which seems absurd. But clearly what is intended here is that love is one of God’s properties and mercy is another, and the two properties are not the same property. Hence, on one way of understanding “distinguish”, we see that it is not true that God is all that he has: it is not the case that God is identical to love or identical to mercy. However, we do not want to say that it is possible for God not to be love or for God not to be mercy, since both claims would be heretical. And yet if “to be love” and “to be mercy” are energies that are not essential to God, then necessarily God can either have them or not have them. But this is impossible. Hence these properties are not accidental to God, they are essential. The same analysis would hold for all of the properties (energies) of God: none of them is accidental. In short, for any property, p, that is a property of God, p is included in God’s essence, and God’s essence just is the conjunction of all properties that God has. In this sense, God is all that he has, just so long as the emphasis is on the word “all”: God is not love, and God is not mercy, but he is “love+mercy+…+”. This (presumably very long) conjunctive property is similar to the disjunctive property I discussed above: although it is analyzable in terms of items that, in human beings at least, are separate, accidental properties, there is nothing other than God that has the whole conjunction of pure actualities as an essence, hence this conjunctive property is unique to God and is God’s essence.

>>19495090
>Hes essentially trying to justify his ideas being mediocre
Umm I'll have you know he's actually quite the intellectual heavyweight and totally not a word-salad sperg who makes up anything to justify remaining permanently on campus. From his totally not self-written Wikipedia:

>To begin, Bakker imagines an explanatory vehicle he refers to as a Recursive System, the brain architecture which has evolved to track even more the basic architecture of itself, possibly akin to the relationship between the frontal cortex to the rest of the brain. Bakker suggests two parts to a Recursive System, the system "open," all the information processed by the brain, and the system "closed," referring to the information accessible to consciousness. The basic assumption regarding the existence of a Recursive System implies a limit on the information available to the RS-closed, conscious awareness, which Bakker dubs Informatic Asymmetry and its Asymptotic Limit. As specific examples Bakker refers to the cognitive psychology literature citing change blindness and inattentional bias (cognitive bias), wherein there are clear divergences between the information processed by the brain and information from the self-reports of perception.

Yeah, bet you feel stupid now, huh?

>schopenhauer
>plato
>kierkegaard
>aquinas
>st augustine
>wittgenstein
>any german idealist besides kant, hegel, schelling (romanticists adjecent to these are also based, but not counted as philosophers)
>all existentialists
>all marxists
>all postmodernists who care about psychoanalysis besides deleuze (his works with guattari are worthless)
>any and all analytic philosophy that doesn't engage with continental counterparts, beside the original vienne circle guys

What are some books about smart people?

Golf players writes books while the holes don't

>In a book

most books don't feel like they stretch my brain much
some math books, some programming projects, and only a select few philosophy texts
what was the last book that made your brain work hard?

>b-but bro, if there's 'nothing' after death, and you were 'nothing' before you were born, and now you're 'something', doesn't that like, prove there's life beyond death?

A language is a reflection of the society which surrounds it. Words/phrases like:
>lowkey
>fax
>finna
>boutta
>ngl
either originate from negro slang, or convey a passive-aggressive, soi vibe. Thus, it is clear that our society is degenerating into a negrified, soi-infused hellscape.

What is "critical thinking" really? This phrase gets thrown around a lot.

psychology = based
psychiatry = cringe

>Read part one of the Summa Theologica
>Start writing college assignments in Latin, in the format: objection 1; objection 2; on the contrary; I answer that; reply to objection 1; reply to objection 2

>Read one part of the Summa Theologica
>Start writing college assignments in Latin, in the format: objection 1; objection 2; on the contrary; I answer that; reply to objection 1; reply to objection 2

I look at people who play video games and watch porn all day and I pity them. It gets very lonely being an intellectual who reads books.

>get kindle as gift
>now no one can see what I’m reading
Think I might just hollow out a copy of Infinite Jest and put it in there for when I’m out in public

>>17133551
I have re-read Infinite Jest eight (8) times this year, and believe it to be the only book I will read for the rest of my life.

did Jesus know the thing-in-itself?

So, I desire to get a basic idea of the things that defines our world and living. Like, after my studies in laws I feel like I understand (world) events and their impacts so much better (I worked a while before I studied).

Please, if you are an expert in any field and feel like a certain book would help an outsider to understand the world or the corresponding field, share (History, Physics, Biology, Arts, Craftmanship, Medicine, etc.).

Thank you very much.

I´ll start off with something not specifically my field but I am working in management:

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahnemann

>>15205122
>but it seems even things in the digital world can't escape time's soft embrace.
they can, if you use lossless compression

I have found the truth. I have ascended beyond mere isms and ideologies, I have burrowed my way through to the roots of the universe itself.

>Religion
>Philosophy
>Ideology
>Morality
>Art

All of it hints at the truth but none of it ever hits the nail on the head. If I told you the truth you'd laugh at me, it's something you have to find for yourself. The majority of people will never succeed on their own but a small handful will eventually get there. You'll know when you've arrived at your destination, you just will. I know this is vague and frustrating, but every good teacher knows all they can do is guide, it's up to the student to make their own way to the truth.