/lit/ - Literature

>Ultimately

I genuinely believe there is something uniquely perfect about the way that I think. I evaluate everything dispassionately from first principles but at the same time, I do not hesitate to include anecdotes, correlations with unconfirmed causality, and vague estimations into my evaluations. So that I can rapidly develop an understanding of anything that is often better than cutting edge science or prevailing heuristics. My mind is like a perfect bow. Flexible where it needs to be and rigid where it needs to be. I used to spend a lot of time explaining how things work or why things they are they way they are. I have stopped that though. People are too tiresome. Coming up with a perfect analogy, only to have it rejected by some retard who cant even think symbolically, it kills your spirit. Much better to keep these things to yourself.

>>19598317
>The Assyrians (ܣܘܪ̈ܝܐ, Sūrāyē/Sūrōyē) also known as Syriacs/Arameans or Chaldeans are an ethnic group native to the Middle East.
They literally call themselves "Syrian" in their own language (which most of them dont speak as they're diaspora, which conveniently allows them to LARP as the "Assyrian" identity was established in English), they're no distinct ethnic group, their identity and holidays were invented in the early 20th century by the British, they're no more or less Syrian than a Syrian Arab, Egyptians are Arabs too yknow.
>hurr durr genetics
kill yourself

>>19598317
>The Assyrians (ܣܘܪ̈ܝܐ, Sūrāyē/Sūrōyē) also known as Syriacs/Arameans or Chaldeans are an ethnic group native to the Middle East.
They literally call themselves "Syrian" in their own language (which most of them dont speak as they're diaspora, which conveniently allows them to LARP as the "Assyrian" identity was established in English), they're no distinct ethnic group, their identity and holidays were invented in the early 20th century by the British, they're no more or less Syrian than a Syrian Arab, Egyptians are Arabs too yknow.

>Millennials today may have the highest IQs of any generation
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160929-our-iqs-have-never-been-higher-but-it-hasnt-made-us-smart

>>17428037
1) Pratityasamutpada involves 12 links existing in a relationship where they sustain and give rise to one another
2) To presuppose these 12 links existing in the specific aggregation that allows them to give to one another in an ordered manner is to consider them as already existing in such an aggregation as can only have been established by a cause, just as the 12 links if imagined as threads cannot exist *as* an aggregated whole in the shape of a cloth until someone decides to form them into one using various means.
3) The organization of the 12 links in their form as pratityasamutpada cannot be admitted to just spontaneously spring into existence already in that aggregated form because there is no cause which will permit it to exist in that form, but to have them retain that pre-existing relationship is to introduce something which must have been caused by something.
4) This pre-existing design in pratityasamutpada cannot be caused by pratityasamutpada itself, because it would already have to exist as such in the untied form with its 12 links intact and functioning in order to cause that aggregation of itself, but this is logically impossible, just as something which depends upon its parts being united cannot assemble itself from disparate parts left scattered for the reason that when are separated it is unable to act and thus assemble itself.
5) With this, we can rule out as logically impossible the Buddhist explanation that instead of God there was just pratityasamutpada for all beginningless samsara, and that's what accounts for us being here in the as conscious beings.
6) Vedāntic Hinduism and other religious and metaphysical doctrines involving God don't suffer from this paradox like Buddhism does.

>>17053374
>The aggregates are always changing and I can't (fully) control how they change. So why call them "me" or "mine". Simple as
But who observes that the aggregates change? It surely cannot be the aggregates if the aggregates are responsible for all conscious experience, because that would be like the eye perceiving its own color. Things don't act upon themselves but upon other things. Furthermore that change would not be able to be perceived without a lasting observer who registers the status of the aggregate before the change, after the change, as well as the transition between them.
>>17053442
>You can see Thomists and Advaita Vedantins seriously reifying the idea that the world works off of the principles of Hebrew and Sanskrit grammar (respectively).
No they don't, this is a strawman

Pride was Achilles' Achilles' Heel.

>Eat felon death years

>>16235434
Try my fanfic.

It was so big brained I got shadowbanned for being a sceptic thought-_-

https://m.fanfiction.net/s/13626022/4/You-Must-Promise-Not-to-Laugh

>>16172426
https://m.fanfiction.net/s/13626022/1/You-Must-Promise-Not-to-Laugh

God does not exist but he should

What is up 4chan Nation.

It's ya boy, extremely handsome brainlet.

I've had a sort of spiritual literature enlightenment recently, mainly focused in philosophy (it's what I majored in 4 years ago and I'm currently unemployed).

I've realized over time, after manifesting anger and contempt at authors that express themselves in overly verbose, elongated sentences, that the only reason I'm angry at these folks is simply because their level of thinking is far above mine and I simply cannot comprehend their run-on sentences because my vocabulary is a tiny, stinking pile of 2-4 syllable words complemented by an even smaller pile of shit that is my working memory.

So, after realizing this, and after spending some time reading above my level of intelligence, but importantly, stopping to debate and consider sentences, paragraphs, and general concepts that my very smooth brain had a difficult time comprehending, and seemingly becoming a better writer and thinker in that intervening time, I came to the debate with myself that is:

Is it better to read fast and intake a great deal of information, but only skim ideas to get general concepts? Or is it better to stop and debate with yourself so you can reach a deeper understanding of an author's concepts, even though that will mean you will read much slower? Which approach yields a better, wiser understanding of reality?

It's the old breadth vs depth argument.

Fire away lads, please.

You must embrace the inner dialogue. It's the sign of a more creative mind.

Inner monologue's are for pussy's.

what happens when discontent over liberalism reaches critical mass and becomes uncool. the "anti-idpol" left and neostrasserites (all 3 of them) already have a few "prominent" mouthpieces, so their time is essentially past. should i just vote for biden
books for this feel?

>>15382789
>Marx was actually an idealist who wanted to free people from materialist pursuits of wealth via a classless society