/lit/ - Literature

>>22355927
>a genius repeatedly produces great work
how long do these works have to be? can I write one really long genius work, then divide it up and slowly release over the course of my life and then be called a genius?

your attempt to inject quantity into a qualitative discussion is asinine, by the way.

>Discovered my extreme anxiety issues are because my ego is trying to prevent me from realizing I resent my father and his psychological hold over me

What are some fiction or non-fiction books that explore this topic?

>>20903569
>liked this book as depressed teen
>gained muscle and started banging ho's
>think the book is laughable now
It's literally that simple. Gym -> shower -> pussy. Stop thinking and start fucking.

What is the best guide to western philosophy, /lit/?

I found le "/lit/ Philosophy Project 1.2" to be the best. Am I missing something?

Years of drug use have left me with abysmal short-term memory and I struggle to read long sentences with many clauses and asides or complicated points so basically anything from before the mid-19th century. I was never particularly bright as you can tell from me being a retard who brain damaged himself with drugs but I was always a good reader and now I'm just repulsively stupid. I'll forget the beginning of a sentence while still reading the fucking sentence. You guys spend all day discussing philosophy and it makes me feel like such a brainlet because I just can't understand it.

>>18994986
Wittgenstein became THE Wittgenstein because someone greeted him with "How's it goin?" And he logically informed the stranger exactly how things were going when the stranger just wanted to hear "What's up?" And this illogical Amerimutt bullshit sent him insane because he peeled all functions of language shared by femoids and groids and deference to femoids is devoid of symbolic logic. Know the nonsense you speak. Inception has layers. LAYERS. You are your own. You are on ye own. Onion. ONIONS HAVE LAYERS.

>>18192272
>>18192287
Same here bros. I got tested as a child by a neurologist and I got 115.

>>16907937
>Why does Parmenides assume that “unity” cannot be made of individual parts as a whole, such as 1=(.5+.5),

because

If things were parts of a greater whole (X); then, were this whole to exist anywhere, then it must necessarily exist in the parts of which it is made, because if it did not exist within its parts then it wouldn't exist anywhere else and would be non-existent. But if X is the whole, then it cannot exist within its parts, because the whole, by definition, cannot be contained within individual parts which are incomplete components of the whole; because then the same X would be both the complete whole and the incomplete non-whole, violating the law of non-contradiction.

Ergo the relation of parts to whole is false and everything is one undivided partless reality