/lit/ - Literature

>>18957209
nice anon. I also found that writing poetry (or even short pieces that have creative meaning) is alot more fulfilling than writing something super long.

feels more honest to the things that you are feeling day to day

I've just realized that translated poetry is impossible. I thought it could be done, but after reading Shakespeare I realized that there is no way of translating poetry, without losing too much. Considering it's not possible to learn all the world's languages, how should I deal with this fact?

I'm sorry anon, I was in a similar situation once. I think you should also be happy that you got out early. Academic philosophy is probably as soul-sucking as it gets, since the reality of meticulously citing papers and hyper specializing is so far from the romantic and grand ideas which get most people interested in philosophy.
Many phil professors that I have talked to or worked under (from university of michigan) have told me that they understand this feeling, but they got so far that they cant really turn back. There are many who do enjoy academic type philosophy but ususally these people have a very exacting personality which enjoys the specialization.
Get a job that pays money. Do something that you want to do. philosophy is something that is far too large to be confined to peer reviewed journals. I felt that as I moved away from academic philosophy, I was able to appreciate philosophy more, and the philosophies which I read had much more concrete impact on my thoughts and actions. I was able to stop thinking about how one author fit within the context of the philosophical tradition, or artificial arguments that were much more mental sport than philosophy.

Hopefully you have other skills. If not, then learn CS. There are are unique angles which you can get with your philosophy degree. For instance, learn basic coding and then learn some artificial intelligence. This field is quite murky and so they are more interested in hiring interdisciplinary people (for instance, AI ethicists) than more straighforward fields like web design.

>>16720601
share pls

Books to help me learn to write poetry?

>>11406100
Nice

>>10570914
Vorarephile here. I can sympathize.

I believe it will get better with time; now that I'm a few years into my 20s, my sex drive has diminished significantly. I find that when I get deep into the woods of a hobby (whether that's reading, running, gaming, etc.), I experience almost no lust. Perhaps I'll never truly shake it off; the only solution then is to just live with it.

So, yeah, don't leave any traces of the fetish. Don't tell anyone about it. Immerse yourself so deeply into the normal world that you don't have time for it.

>>10536193
this, desu

Help me find a book about the beauty of life, a book that will keep me motivated. I've enjoyed Sun and Steel by Yukio Mishima but have yet to find anything similar. Should i start reading Stoicism? If so, whre do i start?

Immortalized cult leader.

He sought fortune, fame and power.

Whatever is written in the DSM becomes reality and the cultists preach and teach accordingly.

They use drugs to alter those they seek to control.

>All this 3D on this thread

>>9874197
That's an unfair representation of what I'm saying, and I think you know it.

>>9765038
Are you just going through the lectures to cherrypick something you can then extrapolate into some sort of strawman? Because that's what you're doing. What are you implying? That he is just a christian shill who want's to indoctrinate people with conservative ideology? He isn't even a real Christian. Nothing about his claims requires theology to work. Do you think Jung and Chambell we're also nothing but religious charlatans? Seems you're just a fedora tipper.

>>9765066
>Why try to then? My critique was of how vague and nonsensical his opening paragraph was compared to actual academia
These are not opening paragraphs, but a really rough summery of an entire chapter. The chapter itself is where he goes into detail and starts providing footnotes and sources. The point of these short paragraphs are not meant to convince anybody, but are merely a pointer to show people roughly where he is going with this. You're complaining that something which isn't supposed to be an academic text in the first place is a poor academic text. Genius.

>Does not logically follow
>False and irrelevant
>Doubtful
Your 4 word maximum sentences are not arguments. Why did you even bother to type that horseshit? Petty.

>Poor comprehension. See you on another Peterson thread.
Unlikely. I'm just a crossboarder from /g/, /his/, /v/ and /pol/

>>9255187
>reading through the list
>What is this feminist bullshit
>book called "It Gets Worse"
>tfw "No buddy, this is about as bad as it gets"

>>9239923
Well the restriction of his own power in order to create beings with free will is the whole idea with open theology, and on the surface I agree with that.

I take it further than that however, and argue that he was never "perfect" in the first place, i.e. he can make mistakes, be wrong about things, etc. This makes the whole "restriction of power" argument redundant, since there was no absolute power to begin with.

In my view there are different "levels" of omnipotence that people ascribe to God, each one further down limiting his power.

1) Absolute omnipotence
2) Non-contradictory omnipotence, like that Thomas Aquinas described, e.g. he cannot create a square circle.
3) Non-contradictory, self-preserving omnipotence, e.g. he can't create a square circle, and neither make himself not omnipotent. Like creating a rock he cannot lift. This level has a bunch of paradoxes (as do the earlier ones).
4) Self-restricting omnipotence. This is basically open theology.
5) Not omnipotent at all, he is flawed, which is my view.

That's probably the simplest way I can put it.

You can learn all you want in self-study if you're disciplined enough, but most people, especially people on 4chan, have nowhere near the level of discipline to gain college level education on their own with zero help.

Have you actually completed and gained anything from self-study, or is it one of those things you'll start "tomorrow"?

"Here begins the most epic tale of adventure the world has ever seen, starring our hero Na'than, the half demon half angel, who was out to prove once and for all that god didn't exist'

Kill yourself

I don't actively say to myself "alrighty time to analyze", but I usually read for more than just the plot, unless it's genre fiction. I try to notice the prose, word choice, any allusions they make, etc. This especially applies to something that I know is supposed to be philosophical, though sometimes I do fail. I feel like The Fall by Camus went in one ear and out the other. Meant to watch a lecture on it on YouTube but it got taken down.

>It should only take us around eight-hundred and fifty days if we break it down section by section.

Are you being for real here?