/lit/ - Literature

>>5814803
Because if someones action is a reaction to an external event it is predictable. Take any situation and your reaction to it. For there to be choice in your action you would have to have been able to will other than you did in that situation.

If you make a decision in a situation, and then repeat that situation a infinite number of times, given the absence of any new factors, you will make the same decision an infinite number of times. Choice cannot exist in a deterministic model.

>>5705408

>“One can never read too little of bad, or too much of good books: bad books are intellectual poison; they destroy the mind. In order to read what is good one must make it a condition never to read what is bad; for life is short, and both time and strength limited.”


I'm not going to give you a list of names, because it will only cheapen my comments but also my taste is not interesting enough to be singled out.

A lot of the names you will see on this board frequently, some from time to time. Others hardly, if ever. That is all I will say.

>>5678946
>The chief objection I have to Pantheism is that it says nothing. To call the world "God" is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word "world." It comes to the same thing whether you say "the world is God," or "God is the world." But if you start from "God" as something that is given in experience, and has to be explained, and they say, "God is the world," you are affording what is to some extent an explanation, in so far as you are reducing what is unknown to what is partly known (_ignotum per notius_); but it is only a verbal explanation. If, however, you start from what is really given, that is to say, from the world, and say, "the world is God," it is clear that you say nothing, or at least you are explaining what is unknown by what is more unknown.

>We find accordingly that what is described as the great advance from Theism to Pantheism, if looked at seriously, and not simply as a masked negation of the sort indicated above, is a transition from what is unproved and hardly conceivable to what is absolutely absurd. For however obscure, however loose or confused may be the idea which we connect with the word "God," there are two predicates which are inseparable from it, the highest power and the highest wisdom. It is absolutely absurd to think that a being endowed with these qualities should have put himself into the position described above. Theism, on the other hand, is something which is merely unproved; and if it is difficult to look upon the infinite world as the work of a personal, and therefore individual, Being, the like of which we know only from our experience of the animal world, it is nevertheless not an absolutely absurd idea. That a Being, at once almighty and all-good, should create a world of torment is always conceivable; even though we do not know why he does so; and accordingly we find that when people ascribe the height of goodness to this Being, they set up the inscrutable nature of his wisdom as the refuge by which the doctrine escapes the charge of absurdity. Pantheism, however, assumes that the creative God is himself the world of infinite torment, and, in this little world alone, dies every second, and that entirely of his own will; which is absurd. It would be much more correct to identify the world with the devil, as the venerable author of the _Deutsche Theologie_ has, in fact, done in a passage of his immortal work, where he says, "_Wherefore the evil spirit and nature are one, and where nature is not overcome, neither is the evil adversary overcome_."

Schopenhauer thread

ITT we discuss why women are evil

>>5606534
No, they just skirt around the issue and change definitions constantly.

Only ivory tower intellectuals defend free will.

I think I might be a philosophical genius like Schopenhauer. Just like him I realized that women are shallow bitches and whores.

Should I publish my thoughts in a book?

Is there a female version of Schopenhauer? Like a female virgin philosopher who is bitter about not getting laid and complains about men being shallow and stupid?

OFFICIAL SCHOPENHAUER THREAD

Women are bitches and whores. Why do they always go for Chad's alpha dick and reject the nice guys?

>inb4 >>/r9k/
Schopenhauer is /lit/, dummy.

What did/would he say about the gays?