/lit/ - Literature

>>10063806
>He also wrote some of the greatest novels of all time.

That's funny.

>>9530468
If you want me to elaborate, the point isn't "moot," but I'll humor you. Nihilism is commonly characterized as a denial of all sacred things. So what does this, strictly speaking, mean? The nihilist says, "Nothing is sacred." The logical inverse of this statement is, "All things are profane." The nihilist is the person stuck in nonage against god, who finds the perfect world lacking in perfection but cannot see that "perfection" itself is merely an idea in the mind: it is not factual. The nihilist complains about the profanity of all physical things when compared against the Nothing, which is their god.
>the only thing a religious person could try to get out of this argument.
This statement doesn't make the former garbled mess any clearer. If you're indeed meaningfully religious, I'd give Tolstoy and this guy >>9530301 as examples of how a religious person can still be egoistic. The last line of Anna Karenina (Edmonds translation):
>But my life now, my whole life, independently of anything that can happen to me, every minute of it is no longer meaningless as it was before, but has a positive meaning of goodness with which I have the power to invest it.
>with which I have the power to invest it.
What is this if not an egoistic self-affirmation?

If you want descriptions of unrequited love, Anna Karenina parts 1-4