/lit/ - Literature

Definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept, setting a cognitive boundary to better grasp a concept’s fundamental characteristics.

>>19657186
That is indeed the point of philosophy to figure it out. You have to figure out who you are, what you value and what is important in life.

Ignore this >>19657336 idiot charlatans as he gives no answer with his bullshit 'you gotta figure it out for yourself maaaaan' which is muddying the waters and being unhelpful, as with nearly all philosophers. The method by which you find happiness is by first recognizing that happiness is sustained coexistence with reality and the method by which humans, who are sapient beings, achieve this is by interacting with reality, reshaping it in a productive way. This is done by creating art, creating new inventions or enacting your physical abilities to their maximum potentials like being an athlete or mercenary. This is the proper function of morality. It comes down to figuring out who you are, what you consider important in life that promotes life-affirming values and continually commits to it which makes life and reality mutually shine and makes the world better by your mere existence. The endpoint is that your actions become a push that leads to achieving immortality, the endpoint and desire of humans.

The final boss of philosophy is one that doesn't muddy the water and tells the answer without pretense because having the answer means you want everyone to be happy and find their happiness. Stirner is right that you are not bound to ideas, but that's as far as he goes. Nietzsche was right that you create your own values through art, but that's as far as he goes. Ayn Rand got it right that you have to be rational, examine reality, systemize it, act productive and create life-affirming values through your actions.

>the church has a monopoly on morality

>>12645848
How spookish to deny objectivity.

Individualism and independence.

>>11968674
Poetry is the combination of literature and music through rhythm and rhyme.
Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence.

>>11879461
The desire to improve your self-esteem through the process of achievement and find joy and happiness in life. If you are unable to impose yourself on the world, obtain joy and happiness, then you have no reason to live. At that point, you might as well already be dead and commit suicide.

>logically sound
>tried to mix Aristotle and Plato
HAHAHAHAHA

>>11526574
I meant insect but whatever. The point is that, following the law of identity, things do not become something else at random. By looking at reality and forming classifications to underline universals, we know that things do not randomly turn into other things randomly. Reality is not chaotic to the point where nothing exists and anything can happen. A human does not randomly turn into an insect tomorrow. Saying 'who knows' is just claiming ignorance and being smug about it but only insofar as you do not need to think. If I point a gun to your head, do you think I can kill you? If you understand the nature of thermodynamics, and how the entity of a bullet travels, and the nature of consciousness ends the moment you lose the capability of your mind, does that mean that you will claim that causality isn't real just because you're too stupid to understand the nature of entities and reality?

>By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

>>11463052
Can I sacrifice you?

>>11381888
The chair is real. Reality is not a spook.

>>11065293
>How does she know what the self is
By properly defining it.

Ayn Rand on the self:
>A man’s self is his mind—the faculty that perceives reality, forms judgments, chooses values.

>what is really?
I have no clue 'what is really' so I'll assume you mean 'what is reality?'

Ayn Rand on reality:
>Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason.

>Or what is the good?

Ayn Rand on the good:
>The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason.


Instead of asking how she knows X, why don't you find out what she said on X and finding a contradiction?

>>8659363
Pffttt, please, a spook is a spook in of itself. It's an offhand dismissal of any ideology or idea instead of what it actually represents, which is simply a negation to any duty towards an ideology.

The funny thing about people on /lit/ is that they cannot see that Nietzsche sought to destroy Nihilism while Striner embraces nihilism. What people fail to understand is that a spook is simply used as a negation towards any ideology and duty. Nationalism? That's a spook if it holds you down. You don't need to have an admiration of your state to live your life. But when you identify Nationalism to be a spook and decide to not be nationalistic because you deem it to be a spook, then you've let spookism spook you.

Rationalism is good because it helps you survive. If you do not think, you are at the mercy of nature and of anything in civilization that may kill you. To not think is to be anti life; nihilistic. You cannot acquire more property without thinking. You cannot live without thinking. And your life is the basis on which all values are permitted. By thinking, you allow yourself to hold values. Without thinking, you let yourself be engulfed by nihilism.

Ayn Rand argued that because we do not have any innate survival mechanism, rationalism is the only think we can depend on to live. We need to think to build tools that can help us survive, hunt, etc. Though I would argue that we need to think because we live in within a civilization. We live to sustain civilization and thinking is required to live within civilization. If one stops thinking and just does whatever, they will lose money, property and soon their life. You could just say that civilization is a spook, and that it doesn't matter, which is fine, but if you go in the forest, will you survive if you don't think? Will you survive if you also do whatever without thinking?

I doubt it.

Hence, rationalism is important and not a spook.
It's only a spook when rationalism is the only basis for everything and that you deny any other ideology or idea.

>>8659397
>K says that when you realze reason doesn't actually help you make decisons, because you can apply it indefinitely to existential problems problems regardng how you are going to interpret themselves, the metaphysics of the world without ever reaching a definitively rational position:
He's incorrect but that's his position on it. He says that you cannot think because you cannot have a rational position on anything. You can. You can have a rational position but it doesn't mean it has to be a correct position. And having an incorrect position does not mean that all thinking is thereby incorrect. The search for truth is to simply arrive at a rational position that does not have any contradiction. Once a contradiction is found, it is debated until no more contradiction is found. And the process continues until truth is uncovered.

>But it's spooks or nihilism.
I disagree. It's life or death. Spooks are needed but not duty to spooks.

>>8654032
Have you actually read Eichmann in Jerusalem as well of any of Hannah Arendt's thoughts or are you just spouting shit just because the mere mention of Ayn Rand makes you lose all rationality?

The fact is simply that what the nazi did was ignore individualism and treat the jewish people as a collective. It became a banality to ignore individual as part of a collective, as irrelevant, as the enemy, all for the greater good. Duty is the function in which banality is created. That someone can simply follow orders and not display any personality or decision. People expect evil to be committed by psychopaths, but it can be done by anyone who lacks conviction, values or the basic understanding that every human being fears death and does not want to die.

Collectivism is the source. Duty is the method. Banality is the outcome.

Everything about Hannah Arendt is almost a parallel of Ayn Rand's view on the topic on individualistic responsibility, treating people as individuals and thinking as the prime source of determining values. Her examination of Eichmann shows the direct banality of people who disregard individuals as simply being part of a collective, and as justification for murder.

>>8654032
Have you actually read Eichmann in Jerusalem as well of any of Hannah Arendt's thoughts or are you just spouting shit just because Ayn Rand makes you lose all rationality?

The fact is simply that what the nazi did was ignore individualism and treat the nazi people as a collective. It became a banality to ignore individual as part of a collective, as irrelevant, as the enemy, all for the greater good. Duty is the function in which banality is created. That someone can simply follow orders and not display any personality or decision. People expect evil to be committed by psychopaths, but it can be done by anyone who lacks conviction, values or the basic understanding that every human being fears death and does not want to die.

Collectivism is the source. Banality is the tool. Duty is the method.

>>8641078
They have some similarities. I've seen people argue that Rand is just Nietzsche in a capitalistic system which isn't entirely accurate but meh.
I would argue that both hold similar individualistic grounds of loving life and want to destroy nihilism. They also have similar stances on despising altruism and the concept of duty.

>>8612096
By existing.

I'm stuck between following a combination philosophy mixture of Nietzsche, Striner and Ayn Rand, which is just an overarching individualistic philosophy I guess.

If I had to give a name to my ideology, I'm more of a less rigid Objectivist.

>>8419223
>it is not work
What do you define as 'not work'?
Reading the books he's interested in for his channel can be considered leisure time and to a certain extent, his job paid by his patrons.
However, being forced to read materials he has no interest in reading and giving his opinion on them is work, as it isn't part of his leisure time of reading what he's interested in reading.
You simply assume all reading is leisure reading.

>>8419238
>he acts a certain way, we must destroy him for acting in a way I deem distasteful.
Is there anything inherently wrong in acting snobish if you do not know him and are not expecting work from him for money?
His arrogance and snobbishness might be an issue if it reflected in his work, but you have nothing to say except criticize the person. How typical and boring.

How boring boring boring.
And here I thought /lit/ would raise above its own pettiness.

Says the collectivist fool.

>>8224033
That does not exist. For love to not be selfish, you would have to love someone unconditionally. You would have to love someone without that person giving you anything of value in return. I don't mean like that person giving you sex, but something of substance that gives you happiness. How can you expect someone to love you back if they have no selfish interest in you? And how could you do the same? A love that is not selfish is worthless. You must have a hierarchy of values in which you place the thing you love above all others for it to become meaningful. Without selfishness, you have no hierarchy in which to set your love above other values.

>inb4 family love
That is also selfish.

>>8224180
>I love every one
If you love everyone, then you love no one.

Fucking Stirner.

>>8224055
His life and the right to exist.