/lit/ - Literature

>>10227997
none of them were good or evil, their deeds were to a greater or lesser degree good or evil, separate the wheat from the chaff, choice by choice, not person by person. As:
"Thus wisdom eventually results from the effort to cope rationally with the problem of the unknown." so good/evil is not (in) the object/person(what is the etymology of person?) it doesn't exist. It is created and only exists by the choice of man. Like wisdom, it is created by divine sparks.
"SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." You self-aid your creation of good/evil by the matrix you put onto the world. But if you place it on things that don`t conform to it you will get confused. Apply alignment only to actions/choices, never people/objects/anything else, for all of it is both good <and> evil. Only consciousness has the freedom to /choose(create)/ good <or> evil. Everything(man included) exists, as per Heraclitus, in the strife(union) between good <and> evil only the choice/act of consciousness can choose/create good <or> evil. The duality of its results in no way affect the non-duality of the choice/intention. Intentional duality in the act/choice is floating in the river. Intentional non-duality is steering the river, as much as the university of duality allows us. In short you are the _creator_ of all Wittgenstein says we should shut up about.

Am I just too stupid for books?
I recently got into reading the classics and had a pretty good time. But there are books from Dazai or Dostoevsky where I have to read every sentence several times or where my mind goes blank halfway through and I have to start the page anew. No Longer Human has like 135 pages, but I finished it after 4 months, because I got so frustrated while reading. Should I just go back to The Cat In The Hat?

Help.

>>7046146
>tfw you will never live in ancient Hellas
>you will never be the first in your polis to read Heraclitus' book
>you will never spend the mild Mediterranean autumn deciphering through Heraclitus' wordplay
>you will never grasp the theory of flux as you watch the fire in your hearth wax and wane
>you will never be the closest to coming to terms with Being through Dasein
>you will never live a life worth remembering, or think thoughts worth discussing

one of the very first threads on /lit/, in March of 2010:
>>>>/lit/thread/S410803
>implying /lit/ was never not shit

>>6825259
>I hated it because it had no point. It was just a meaningless story with nothing going on.

mother fucking HERACLITUS

the greatest thinker to ever walk this earth.Without him there would be no aristotle,no plato no hegel no stirner no nothing.He was the unseen and unheard force that influenced many philosophers.Once you read one of his fragments you wont ever forget the depth of his knowlegde.

Τοις εγρηγορόσιν ένα kαι kοινόν kόσμον είναι, των δε kοιμωμένων έkαστον εις ίδιον αποστρέφεσθαι.

>>4872487
Hey, you're the psychologist. I don't play on the pleasure principle.

I am given to gestures at times, in name of some wildfire. Perhaps I do weep.

>>3577364
Nope, i was spot on. Epicurus is hedonist. And to understand this you need to understand his definition of pleasure, and Pleasure is "the lack of pain", now re-read my post again, and you will see taht i made no transgression against their teachings.

Calling Epicurus "a hero", kinda gives off bells that tell me that you are not really aware of the "Pythagorean" aspect of the school. Or more notably, Epicure is an amalgam of every though inside that school. Now that aside, his idea of "not fearing death" is much older than him. And has been around since the pre-philosophical homeric period of ancient Greece . So giving him the credit is sorta fan-boysih. I'd rather give that credit to Heraclitus.

>>3577371
Note, that it is not my intention to portray Epicurus as something "bad". Im just stating it as i have learned. The plane scenario is also on of the reasons why i said what i said about it not being adaptable to modern day. You simply cannot live in a modern world (which is so heavily co-dependent) that you could emulate the Epicurean ethical code.

You could, as you said, compromise and form it to the modern needs. But that would be you, and not Epicurus.

So why haven't you embraced philosophical pessimism yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimism#Philosophical_Pessimism

It's clearly the superior philosophy for philosophers of the future.