/lit/ - Literature

>>2811349
In their prime they were glorious. The conservatism finally did them in though, as another anon said.

They also whipped slaves who got fat and all the Spartan girls had to dance naked yearly for all the men, and if they were too fat or weak and skinny they would be mocked and unwanted. The boys had to be fucking hard or they would be beaten by the men, mocked and shunned by the women and despised by their mothers.

Sparta was the ultimate proto-fascist state. And for the benefit of a people as a whole, as a collective, this can be supremely beneficial. I think they could be loved both by Plato and Diogenes. By the first for their politics, by the second for their austerity.

I think they were one of the most fascinating peoples ever to have lived. They surely weren't perfect, but we can learn a lot from them.

I don't know any books about them. Would be interested as well.

>>2808244
I know, but I figured I could still make a point.

>>2808301
I've known plenty of people who only indulge in shallow media but aren't shallow people. It's just that they don't get their depth of character by what they watch, read or hear.

>>2808353
>I sure as fuck wouldn't enjoy conversing with her about music
Those are the least interesting conversations anyway, I'm sure there's more to talk about between people than what comes out of their noiseboxes. A person helping the homeless probably has more interesting stories to tell than some blasé nose pierced bitch who went to see the Post-Vegan Uniquehornz that day.

>do you believe also that your job defines you? that would technically be a logical conclusion from the statement you made. but of course it's a ridiculous proposition, or perhaps just as logical as judging someone by their consumption--at the very least there is hardly a difference between the two.
I believe that it can, but often doesn't define a person. But work is often a necessity, so I don't tend to judge people to harshly on it. Unless they're the careerist type. I mostly judge people on what they do with the time they do have for themselves. Doing nothing else but sucking in other peoples creativity like a cultural parasite isn't high on my list of approvement.

A Stirnerite society would be a continual shitty negotiation of principally selfish little people. Don't get me wrong, I love Stirner, but I'd say a bit more vision and idealism, however faulty it may be, will lead to a greater society.

Truthfulness isn't the most beneficial for life at large. Vitality is.

>>2603330
>>2603343

In addition:

>There must be a higher judge of which preferences overrule others when in conflict.
This is merely might, I'd say. In some cases it comes to violence, and it is physical might that overrules. In most cases in our society, it is might if the mind. I'd say that convincing someone with a sound justification is nothing more than tricking him into agreement and not more profound than outmanoeuvring someone in combat.

This is why I am so fond of the Sophists. In being pragmatic bastards they were actually more truthful than the idealists and moralists, who claimed the superiority of their preferences over others. The Sophists realised the arbitrariness and instead just focussed on arriving at their satisfaction.

I'd say morality is no more than "preferences regarding behaviour" with the distinct quality of getting people very engaged, angry or upset. It's just a category of preference which people take more seriously than other categories of preference (say taste of foods). Taking morality more serious than food is however still completely arbitrary. There is no rational reason to do so.

Still, the fact remains that people do mostly find it to be so. So we'll have to take that in consideration when trying to convince them to agree to our preferences. I actually find it quite convenient that people take morals so seriously, it makes for a /very/ powerful rhetoric instrument.

>>2524875

Someone 404 this ? It's hijacking all the attention from /lit/

Pic unrelated, it's my cat.