/lit/ - Literature

>>11067252
Reading books was never exactly mainstream since the invention of writing. Even if we count pulp, the numbers aren't that strong compared to the human population.

>>10838808
The subject is fundamentally unknowable, as >>10838911 seems to half realize, but he does not take this thought to its logical conclusion, namely, that since the definite content of the self (which I identify as an instantiation of the knowing subject) cannot be known, it is impossible to determine it along objective lines: for how can the actions of an entity that cannot be described completely according to physical laws be accounted for solely within the material content that these laws give form?

The idea that the self is an "illusion" is very much in line with materialist thinking, because materialists can give no coherent account of the self, other than that it is a mass of perceptions and pre-determined judgments. This is, of course, mere assumption, not something that anyone has proven along materialist lines with any certitude. Usually the arguments run like, "oh well your brain 'knows' what you think eight seconds before you consciously think it, this means all of your thoughts are predetermined." They pay no attention to the fact that freedom, as the faculty of spontaneous generation, aligns perfectly with this fact, for instance.

It's really distressing that there are people on this board right now who get outdone by determinists to the point that they are "in tatters."

>posts nu-wojak
>browses reddit

What's your favourite Aristotle book, and why, /lit/? I once took a Philosophy 101 class with a guy who claimed we should all go back to Aristotle, was he right? I had no idea what he was talking about... being qua being... and it struck me as quite peculiar. Just ordered "Physics" Oxford Classics edition, what am I in for?