/lit/ - Literature

>>22513847
>my gaze falls from her joyful innocent eyes to a copy of Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant from Cambridge University Press in my hand
>instantly remember that by categorical imperative if I accept her invitation I must also wish for my action to become universalized, meaning every cute girl would have to date an incel freak that I am, which would end the human species in one to two generations and thus there'd be no one left to be moral, which entails a contradiction to the goal of acting morally
>mumble out "I prefer tea" on a single breath, turn on my heel and make sure I never step foot in this bookstore ever again

>>22177075
how will we ever recover...

Sex is monkey bullshit bro

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
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
Kripke - no kids
Feyerabend - no kids
Foucault - gay nigga
Kaczynski - no kids
Gray - no kids
Land - no kids
Kastrup - no kids
Brassier - no kids
Benatar - no kids
Thacker - no kids

Kant without his wig

Why do you think philosophy got so convoluted in writing style during Enlightenment, with Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? Simple reason: to hypnotize the reader into subconscious agreement with the underlying dogmas while his attention is directed to parsing the complicated sentences, and to details of textual interpretation. All with one goal of one world government, the victory of dictatorial monotheism, the "categorical imperative" but with a more sinister underlying meaning.

By reading these works, you equate being able to parse these complex sentences with brilliance of the text, since it feels like you solved an equation that was "hard", hard to approach, obscure. But in reality this brilliancy you feel is constantly being connected to the simple underlying idea of unification of anything, the creation of the ultimate global hierarchy.

With this strategy, you can connect people to a religious ideal without the requirement of conversion or outright belief. The belief is encrypted within the multifarious intellectual and textual debates to be had with this type of philosophy, up to the point that every alternative besides globalism seems "obviously" foolish, since the philosophers have limited the discourse to a pre-arranged set of seriousness, things that you have to engage with, repeatedly.