/lit/ - Literature

>>20255002
You consider your political affiliation as such a major part of your identity. Surely there is vastly more important things between you two than who you vote for every 4 years? If someone asked a similar question as OP in my country they would be laughed out of the room. You are first and foremost a man, singular and individual. Don't let some extraneous label define you and your future.

Generally you should acknowledge the history of scholarship in your given topic of study. However, with philosophy this is less important. Typically in philosophy, cite someone if you are directly relating to their argument or work in someway. Typically you will cite someone when doing this anyway as most topics have an on-going debate you typically are departing from (and hence offer your reasons for disagree with contemporary views). But as long as your ideas aren't too similar, i don't think it will matter.
Raise the question with the editor if this idea for the book ever amounts to anything.

The reasons for holding a position are as important as the position itself.

>>19395739
you shouldn't be calling anyone a retard when you don't even know what moral cognitivism is

>According to these proofs, god must necessarily exist
>Furthermore, god is a bearded man in the sky as well as a jew on a stick, and we must obey a two thousand year old desert fable
Come on now.

>>19134230
They're still finishing up. Death-grip, you see.

>no y axis

>>17941556
>Nietzsche
>Collectivist

>>17699772
>why did a domestic terrorist who murdered several people and attempted to blow up a passenger jet get life in prison

It seems everyday someone is making a thread like this. I assumed it was just poor bait, but I'm beginning to think it's actually some form of projection.

>>16399228
Well, if you have the discretionary spending for it then i guess it isn't too bad.
How long did the test take?

Even though this is a topic i'd like to talk about, and i think your views are mostly incorrect and uncritical, i will refrain from doing so because it is off topic. If i were to will my indulging become a universal law, it would lead to a /lit/ of such low-quality that any sophisticated discussion of the topic would be impossible. As such, i cannot give you an effortpost without breaking the categorical imperative. Sorry.

>>16308769
>There are more books than anime
>It takes longer to read a book that watch a show
>People will have read less of an even larger pool of possible discussion subject
>/lit/ is flooded with newfags who haven't read much
>There has been a degradation in board culture so there isn't a "meme trilogy" or common expected to read list anymore.
>even those who do read are reticent for whatever reason or don't coincide on the board at the same time
>/lit/ has become a fast board so the above returning before thread dead is less likely.
So there many factors are conspiring against decent discussion about specific books on /lit/. But a thread also quickly dies on /a/ if the show is 4+ years old and not a fan favourite.

>>16302024
It's the names of the tests
VM = Visual Memory
EM = Exposure Memory
V = Vocabulary
A = Anagrams
MR = Mental Rotation
CP = Centre Point

MIQ = Memory Intelligence Quotient
VIQ = Verbal Intelligence Quotient
SIQ = Spatial Intelligence Quotient

>>16247591
Pascal answers this (if unsatisfactorily):
>You want to find faith and you do not know the way.-* You want to cure yourself of unbelief and you ask for the remedies? Learn from those who have been bound like you, and who now wager all they have. They are people who know the road you want to follow and have been cured of the affliction of which you want to be cured. Follow the way by which they began: by behaving just as if they believed, taking holy water, having masses said, etc. That will make you believe quite naturally, and according to your animal reactions.' 'But that is what I am afraid of.' 'Why.? What do you have to lose.'' In order to show you that this is where it leads, it is because it diminishes the passions, which are your great stumbling-blocks, etc.
And here's a something by William James:
>A practical observation may end this chapter. If belief consists in an emotional reaction of the entire man on an object, how can we believe at will? We cannot control our emotions. Truly enough, a man cannot believe at will abruptly. Nature sometimes, and indeed not very infrequently, produces instantaneous conversions for us. She suddenly puts us in an active connection with objects of which she had till then left us cold. We realize for the first time,”we then say, ‘what that means!” This happens often with moral propositions. We have often heard them; but now they shoot into our lives; they move us; we feel their living force. Such instantaneous beliefs are truly enough not to be achieved by will. But gradually our will can lead us to the same results by a very simple method: we need only in cold blood act as if the thing in question were real, and keep acting as if it were real, and it will infallibly end by growing into such a connection with our life that it will become real. It will become so knit with habit and emotion that our interests in it will be those which characterize belief. Those to whom “God” and “Duty” are now mere names can make them much more than that, if they make a little sacrifice to them every day.
So the consensus seems to be LARPing, just don't be obnoxious about it. Or at least no on /lit/.

>>16240669
oh, i'd never heard of trilism before.
I don't see how his politics is ad hoc when it was based on his study of the 170 constitutions and city-states of ancient Greece. Most of it is more political science than philosophy. His accounts of constitutional dissolution, different types and causes of revolution, considerations on economic and household management are all based on past or existing systems. It's only in his ideal republic that things get more speculative.
If man is a political animal, and you follow Aristotelian metaphysics (that is, everything has a teleology), then it is part of his final cause to be a member of a polis. Following this logic, you literally cannot realise yourself as a person without belonging to a society. You aren't even properly human in Aristotle's eyes if you aren't a part of one. After all:
>He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.
Ethics mostly concerns itself with the proper conduct between individuals. As such, most virtues that can only be pursued within a society; and within a society, only if you have some influence over its direction, or are a included a part of its actions. It is necessary that someone who participates in politics has more virtues open to them than someone who does not. And participation in public affairs is considered a duty of the citizen, as it is necessary to prevent the dissolution of the state or its slide into another form.
By democracy he specifically meant a corrupt form of majority rule; he did not think all majority rule was corrupt. His ideal form of majority rule is what we would call today representative democracy.
You can criticize the accuracy of his metaphysics (as many have) but i don't think it is fair to call it ad hoc. And it isn't surprising that one of the first metaphysicians to put pen to paper didn't have a perfect system.

>>16173673
You would think it would be the Gramscian idea of ideological/cultural hegemony as necessary for revolution.
But actually it's just a catch all for idpol. Presumably they think intellectual influence=equivalence so the fact that prominent Feminist theoreticians were influenced by Marx somehow makes Feminism (and the studies/movements on sexuality and race that have sprung from it) Marxist.
Though they also include the Frankfurt School and French Existentialists, so really who knows?

>>16134368
I think it might be just you. I don't mean to be rude, but you shouldn't mistake trends on 4chan for the IRL. The only place i think of where religion is gaining is maybe Russia, but i don't live there and it's a state initiate so it's difficult to know just how real that resurgence is.

>>16110777
Half of those monarchs were either cowed by democracies, were terrible leaders, or de facto figureheads. i mean, Napoleon III? If that's your A list, i don't want to know about you etc. You can run hypotheticals about perfect monarchs and imperfect parliaments all day, but when the chips are down republics come out on top. By every measure—socially, culturally, economically, militarily—people and nations have done better under parliaments than monarchs.
You're the one who started talking about the monarchs ruling by the grace of god and now suddenly you don't want to talk about religion? If not religion, give me another argument for monarchical legitimacy; it clearly isn't moral legitimacy or performance legitimacy so i'd like to hear it.
>How can I take you seriously?
rich coming from the unironic monarchist