/lit/ - Literature

How are these Russians aware of so many /lit/ memes?

>tfw fell into the speedcore/breakcore hole

The Perfume Nationalist

>When watching for the distant clock to strike, our mind is so filled with its image that at every moment we think we hear the longed-for dreaded sound. So of an awaited footstep. Every stir in the wood is for the hunter his game; for the fugitive his pursuers. Every bonnet in the street is momentarily taken by the lover to enshroud the head of his idol. The image in the mind is the attention; the preperception, as Mr. Lewes calls it, is half of the perception of the looked-for thing

I thought i shared this board with dainty femmes not literal trolls whose toe jam is a biological weapon. wtf

The board is too fast to put any effort into posts because the thread will just get bumped off the catalogue in 2 hours. The chances of anyone else being on /lit/ at the same time who has read the book and can meaningfully reply is very low outside of meme-texts. Only those threads that relate to the broadest subjects that everyone can participate in can survive.
You can be the change you want to see, but no one will see your change as it sprints to the archives. If you really want the board to get better, halve its traffic.

>>16988009
I don’t want to criticize capitalism from a Marxist perspective, or for that matter, read theory at all.

>>16932133
His conception of Justice is when all the other virtues—Temperance, Wisdom, Courage—are in the correct balance/alignment. Which is reflected in the three classes of the republic, which all do what they are most suited for. The justice in the city is used to explore the justice of the individual, which should have the virtues in comparable alignment (as depicted in the tripartite division of the soul in Phaedrus). That isn't to say that the republic is only a metaphor, but that the Justice in both are the same because they are both reflections of same form.

Say goodbye to the internet as you knew it lads, the pajeetification is already well underway. and it will only get worse from here. no great-firewall this time, no language barrier; just pure, unadulterated bobs and vagine. There's no reason to expect the chans would be sheltered from it.
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yg6FpeNj0w
they're all phoneposters too

Even if we accept the premise, the conclusion doesn't follow.

If you have the patience, then check out Max Weber. 'Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism' is short and to the point, but 'Economy and Society' is grueling but kind of a gestalt experience.

>>14581710
I don't know where the meme about equality as relating to a literal physical equality between people comes from. liberalism, marxism, socialism, and every other -ist and -ism have never claimed that everyone is equal in their physical and mental capacities, or in their material possessions. it has been explicitly stated by every major theorist that equality relates to moral and, to an extent, metaphysical equality between people as 'people', not as an equality in faculties (remember, they were writing when most of the people were illiterate and uneducated simpltons). the equality is an equality of consideration, that there is no supernatural force that makes one person of inherently greater moral or political worth than another. this was a reaction against the institutionalised hierarchies of monarchy and aristocracy, which often claimed a divine origin or ordination as a basis for rule and privileged treatment—by having this divine or 'time immemorial' legitimizer, they could often claim to be metaphysically superior to the common folk, as being more than just human. so when someone says we are equal, what they are saying is that every member of society should have their political, social, and moral needs considered equally, and that there is no intrinsic characteristic that makes one person of greater political concern than another. even if we were to believe every /pol/tard statistic and image macro, it still does not constitute an argument against equality as a political value, because equality as a political value has always existed in societies where physical, mental, and material inequality exist, and has never been refuted thereby. the only reason that people get mad about it is because racial essentialism goes against meliorist sensibilities. it confuses me to this day that so many people think it has every been otherwise.

conservatism is a part of the liberalism though. burkean conservatism anyway, which is what most people mean when they say conservative.

>>10058660
Serious question, how do we fix moderation?