/lit/ - Literature

>>19479103
Try harder, cunt.

Empedocles - no kids, an hero
Heraclitus - no kids
Silenus - no kids
Parmenides - no kids
Plato - gay nigga
Epicurus - no kids
Epictetus - no kids
Seneca - no kids, an hero
Buddha(not Siddhartha) - no kids
Bodhidharma - no kids
Zhuang - no kids
Nagarjuna - no kids
Jesus - no kids
Abhinavagupta - no kids
Shankaracharya - no kids
Mani - no kids
Al-Kindi - no kids
Al-Farabi - no kids
Averroes - no kids
Avicenna - no kids
Aquinas - no kids
Spinoza - no kids
Kant - no kids
Pascal - no kids
Leibniz - no kids
Hume - no kids
Kierkegaard - no kids
Fourier - no kids
Schopenhauer - no kids
Stirner - no kids
Mainländer - no kids, an hero
Nietzsche - no kids
Weininger - no kids, an hero
Michelstaedter - no kids, an hero
Spengler - no kids
Wittgenstein - gay nigga
Zapffe - no kids
Weil - no kids
Evola - no kids
Arendt - no kids
Beauvoir - no kids
Sartre - no kids
Debord - no kids, an hero
Caraco - no kids, an hero
Cioran - no kids
Althusser - no kids
Foucault - gay nigga
Kaczynski - no kids
John Gray - no kids
Land - no kids

Schopenhauer is the Truth but you dualist copelords with never learn.

>>19147703
Schopenhauer still stands side by side with Darwin.

UG WAS TALKING SCHOPENHAUER'S WILL-TO-LIFE YE FAGGOTS WITH IN SAME PESSIMISTIC FRAMEWORK AWOOOOOGAAAA BOOOGAAA BOOOOOGAAAAA


https://youtu.be/4ebv8U97xL4

Was anyone else into Schopenhauer before Nietzsche and then reject Schopenhauer for Nietzsche but then eventually go back to agreeing more with Schopenhauer?

Who is the next step after Schopenhauer and Nietzsche?

>get into metaphysics of sex through Schopenhauer and Evola
>sex with condoms is ruined, now feels empty and useless
>like fucking a plastic bag
>don't trust 21st century thots enough to go raw
>tfw

>>16614514
>It's really meant to be read by kids around the same age
sounds like propaganda
>If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own existence. Hardly one in ten thousand will have the strength of mind to ask himself seriously and earnestly—is that true?

Hey, everything is will, will will, will and will... you are nothing, you are a puppet of will and you dont even know it, will is everything, will, just will, nothing is real,i talk about wil yet?... you are only a manifestation of will.. hahaha, porrr litle braintard, i pity you, but my pity is will. You wouldnt understand. Nobody ever understand it my way, maybe my freak friendo Kant. In this momento, im euphoric. i am enlightened by my inteligence. If you want to know more read my book about will, i resolve everything there... is just will bro, just that. Hey, and dont forget to treat well to animals, we are not trash, we need morals for gods sake.

>just this evening reading parerga and paralipomena

>”Consider the Koran, for example; this wretched book was sufficient to start a world-religion, to satisfy the metaphysical needs of countless millions for twelve hundred years, to become the basis of their morality and of a remarkable contempt for death, and also to inspire them to bloody wars and the most extensive conquests. Much may be lost in translation, but I have not been able to discover in it one single idea of value.”

>>13177085
>Considered in the light of day and impartially, this famous ontological proof is now actually a most beloved piece of nonsense. That is, at any opportunity, someone contrives a concept assembled out of all sorts of predicates, taking care, however, that among these, either plainly and nakedly, or, as is more decorous, wrapped up in another predicate, e.g, 'perfection', 'immensity', or something of the sort, there is also a predicate of reality or of existence. As is well known, from a given concept one can extract all of its essential predicates, i.e., those implicit in it, and just so one can also extract the essential predicates of these predicates by means of pure analytical judgment. These predicates, as a result, have logical truth, i.e., have their cognitive ground in the given concept. Now accordingly, anyone can also fetch the predicate of reality or existence from his arbitrarily contrived concept, and therefore there is now supposed to be an object corresponding to the concept, independent of it, existing in actuality.

Rationality is nothing but the collection of emotions informing each other. Nothing but the emotive will of consciousness exists.

prove me wrong libtards

>Accordingly, we will find on the whole that people are sociable to the degree that they are intellectually poor and generally common. For in the world we have little more than the choice between solitude and vulgarity. The most sociable of all human beings are said to be the negroes, who indeed are intellectually inferior; according to accounts from North America in French papers. Black people, free ones and slaves altogether, shut themselves up in large numbers in the smallest space, because they cannot look often enough at their black snub-nosed faces.
OH NO NO NO NO

dude hinduism lmao

>>11332528
The low-midwit trifecta: politics, talking about video games as if they were art, and arguments about theism.

>>11327380

top ten list

1) Start with the Greeks
2) Meme trilogy
3) Katie fiasco
4) the 3 novels /lit/ wrote
5) my diary t.b.h.
6) various iterations of library penis inspection day, failing the library test etc
6) threads where authors are mocked with their entire idea(s) being greentexted as DUDE (idea) LMAO
7) threads where we mock the author for including the title of book in a sentence
8) pic of girl in bookshop reading or standing in the isle with *blocks your path* or *see this wut do*
9) God I wish that were me
10) the guide to American literature that someone made

honorable mention: Jet's Pizza, that guy who kept trying to include Culture of Critique in the meme trilogy

>>11310688
Schopenhauer, of course. When it comes to serious theory Schopenhauer is almost always right and Hegel is almost always(-already) wrong.

>>11274456
Funny post, guy

>>11168940
>it's a Hal chapter

>>11133828
Alright buddy

>inb4 404

>>11053409

I myself eagerly await the sardonic Tao Lin novel that delves into Urban Moving Systems and the absurdity that of all people it was the Jews who did 9/11, and that it's incredibly ironic that one can risk one's reputation and career for pointing out basic facts about suspicious Israeli links to the attack because of the ritualized fetishization of the Holocaust in the modern west.

>>10399189