/lit/ - Literature

Will someone explain the getting published thing? Why is that desirable?

>>20068507
I imagine solipsism has a tiered-existence view, where there is the higher tier - self, the am, which is all the concrete your evidence you get. There's also a lower tier, which is what could be contrived by an unknown for you to experience. I could be wrong about this, but here is my case.
>What’s the epistemological difference between telepathy and the “thought” that you’re reading now?
Origin. It seems to me that with telepathy you either concede an expanded self, destroying solipsism, or that the demon controls your thinking, which destroys any evidence for the self. The Descartes demon should control the world you experience, not how you think about it. If the demon begins tampering with your thought directly, you cease to be.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/nc4c3n63l2ifqa4/a_refutation_to_solipsism.pdf/file

>>17116128
Is it racism to want your genetic cluster to surive and not be overrun by divergent populations?

>fantasy setting
>humans are extremely racist towards other species
>racism towards other variations of humans is non existent

>main language is romance
>latinate vocabulary comes naturally and rolls of the tongue
>my interlocutor either thinks my parlance is impressive and that I have 200IQ or that I'm trying to sound smart because I'm not talking in ebonics

>>12969134

People don't actually understand what they're disagreeing with, other than a caricature provided by the bourgeois media. It's a little bit annoying to say the least.

>>12969112
>>12969169

I like paragraphs and I visit Reddit but I can still be right.

>>12656574
>Kindly mock

>Kike
>what a vain piece of shit

"N-No I'm not emotional!"

The history of liberal betrayal goes back millenia. You see, liberals are usually part of the middle class, and sometimes part of the upper class, but never part of the working class. As such, their interests lie in maintaining the status quo. They are worse than conservatives. At least with conservatives, we know we are enemies. Liberals say they sympathize with revolutionary causes, but in reality, sympathies only go so far.

Soft Magic or Hard Magic?
Which is better for good writing?

>>11411409
>>11411511
If arete is good habits, how can you respond to Socrates's problem that distinguished and virtuous men such as Perikles can have non-distinguished sons, that are good at everything that can be taught because their parents paid good teachers, but that apparently couldn't be taught arete, which would be number one priority for fathers to teach their sons? Surely Perikles would have taught his sons the good habits he possessed.

>>11241154
>thought police
>books give thoughts
>burn books -> no thoughts

Gender is a concept created by society, no one is born with a prefixed identity. Trannies identify as the opposite sex after they learned to do so, usually though the same mechanisms teenagers ordinarily develop an identity.

Transgender disorser is less of an illness and more of a symptom, a coping mechanism for people that are emotionally unstable. It's easy to think life sucks because you were born in the wrong body, and for a lot of people it feels good to be part a group.

Gender is incidental in this whole discussion. What we really should address is how people behave according to an imposed external identity rather than building their own identity based on their actions. What I mean is Bruce didn't see that he liked dresses and thus decided to be Caitlyn, he first saw other women wearing dresses and then concluded he liked them.

>>10577544
So whats the point of swords, hammers, mauls, knifes, daggers and bows if guns exist?

>>10345989
>Peterson is dangerous.
lmao

I'm interested in hearing reasonings from those who don't consider themselves nihilist.

It's often characterized as an overly simplistic ideology or flat out naive, but I'm yet to hear a compelling argument against it. I might come off as defensive but I'd genuinely like to hear some. Just today I was reading from an author (not translated to English) who I generally consider to be well in touch with societal phenomenons but his arguments against nihilism just sounded like he didn't put much thought into it and they could've been counter-argumented with a single sentence.

I've been "nihilist" since before I knew what the word meant or before I read anyone describe the ideology outright. To me it just seems like common sense, how the world works, and I struggle to understand how people, intelligent people, can have an interest in philosophy or psychology without believing in moral or existential nihilism. I guess it's like growing up in a religious household vs. living in a nontheist environment, the way those two people construe everything around them is fundamentally different and therefore either one can't understand the reasonings of the other.

Just to be clear I'm not an anarchist. I believe murder is bad because it causes social unrest. I believe thievery is bad because it violates the principle of private property which our society is built upon etc. To me arguing against nihilism sounds like arguing for "because I said so" arguments. But like I said smart people do it, so there must be more than that to it.

>The video still has more dislikes and likes
>No top-rated comments that criticize the methodology of his criticism
Is /lit/ content to let plebs be like this or

>Non-american on /lit/
>Women on /lit/
>Non-white people on /lit/
> Non-american women on /lit/
>Non-white women on /lit/
>Non-american non-white women on /lit/

This board is likely to be very homogeneous