/lit/ - Literature

>>17693973
fukuyama was almost right

>>17465511

I'm very curious to read OP's enlightened thoughts about the world. I am sure he is on par with great thinkers such as Steven Pinker, Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro.

>>11030625

It must be emphasized that in what follows, the principle of induction is not being applied. With this said, it has been demonstrated time and time again (and to the dismay of many intellectual 'giants' like Chomsky) that heuristics dominate and subterfuge any and every attempt at analytically dealing with problems. Technique does not need to know why it works, it merely needs to do more of what it's doing, and we don't even have to know the nature of a function (e.g an utility function) in order to maximize it, since in general just studying its variations will do.

We have little reason to believe the same can't be said of ethics. That's not even to mention Wittgenstein's [still very strong and relevant] proposition that we shouldn't even speak of ethics in such terms as absolute and universal.

While I think that utilitarianism is a silly meme (specially when those people try going from 'is' to 'ought' in a dozen twitter posts), there is a point to be made against maniacally looking for universals when we can barely establish contextual relations among entities. Just as much, there is also a point to be made about loltilitarians pretending that bending over to the machine dick of Technique is in any way similar to maximizing human utility function, let alone think that said process is by all means going to make us happier/satisfied.

>>10992323

/lit/ is a collective of underachieving geniuses wasting their intellect by shitposting about jezebels. So everyone here basically

>>10932897

This books gets meme'd so hard here it's not even funny. Is this mandatory reading in all of the anglosphere or something like that? Nabokov obviously gets off on that stuff, it's of little value beyond its face-value (Humbert is obviously unreliable, he's manipulating a child, Lolita and Dolores are obviously fake names alluding to a suffering he can clearly recognize, etc.). Many anons have made many a thorough analysis on this time and time again and it has basically been beaten to death.

Also Nabokov has shitty opinions and would have been a regular shitposter in here these days. A Jezebel poster, even

>>10805360
>There's literally no reason why not.
except for your country being outcompeted by more orderly and productive countries who don't waste their time talking about trans rights and fags and black lives

Are there any recent books dealing with China's propensity for totalitarian regimes? Is it really something exclusive to China or are we just seeing the realization of Landian prophecies of Enlightenment decay? What does an ultra-capitalist (the strongest economy in the current world) dictatorship even looks like?

>>10727090
long may he reign

>>6750084
>mfw OP can't define even one word in his post

Those of you who like Christian ethics but not Christians metaphysics or find it hard to believe in Jesus: why aren't you a Confucian? Or if Communism is too extrime, why not try Moism?
>Based culture with deeper worldly roots than even Catholicism
>Ethical doctrines that make objective sense
>Mandate of Heaven means revolutions are OK
>Not as violent as Legalism
>Compatible with most major world religions

Why haven't you changed with the Chinese, /lit/?

>>6585058
You're a shitposter and you'll always be a pleb no matter what post you respond to