/lit/ - Literature

authors who announce the end of grand narratives created by western enlightenment, rationalism and materialism (people like kant, hegel and marx)

everything, as in every ideology or worldview, or the most credible historical or philosophical analysis is open to interpretation, because everything is discourse, can be altered, was altered because it came from a human
even scientific knowledge is targeted, because the way it arrives to us through news or scientific authorities can have an ideological interest or scheme in it
it denies that we can ever discover a truth, because multiple truths are available, and all can be questioned and altered, because as time advances, new interpretations will appear, and they can be just as forgeable or credible

it stands completely opposite to marxism or dialectical materialism, which is a modernist, materialist ideology, who indicates that there is a truth, a correct societal diagnosis, that can be achieved only through the economical point-of-view, since everything else, from culture to politics is determined by it

The first/last philosophical opus you must and will read:

http://mundusmillennialis.com

>>7195185
>Is it possible for a philosopher to also be a great writer in 2015?

Yeah, REI for example

http://mundusmillennialis.com

>ONLY THE HEROES, AND THE CHILDREN, OF THE AFTERMATH WILL BE ABLE TO COMPREHEND THIS "WORK", FOR IT IS FOR THEM THAT IT IS WRITTEN.

Wut? I guess it's not for me then, I already don't understand the "preface"..

What were the best arguments in favor of free will? I mean arguments that stayed unrefuted. I'm interested in the following: Now that we have scientific proof that free will doesn't exist, did someone take their time to go through all the old arguments and figure out scientifically or logically why they were wrong? If not, I think it would be a fun exercise for /lit/ to do it.

Three analytic philosophers walk into a bar..
The bartender asks, "would all three of you like some beer?"
The first one replies,"I don't know"
The second one replies, "I don't know either"
The third replies, "Yes, we would."

>>3007003

>His system is based on the idea that the world is in its core irrational

obviously only read an introduction to Schopenhauer between sucking nigger dicks

If someone were to psychoanalyse you based of your bookshelf or e-reader library, what conclusions would they draw about you?