/lit/ - Literature

>>10869785
That's not even the best. The best is in The Annals of Philosophical Tone-

"Anyone who does not agree with what I am going to say must either show that my reasons for defining philosophy in this way are insufficient, or, if he cannot do that, he must show that some of my specific deductions are incorrect. Or, if he can do neither of these things, he should just say nothing at all. But what do these persons do instead? When I tell them that I have here deduced a priori the necesity of assuming that there are other rational beings like ourselves, they reply: "Of course you have deduced a priori the necessity of assuming that there are other rational beings like ourselves. Just think of it! Ha ha ha!" I tell them that I have here given an a priori deduction of air and light. They answer me: "Air and light a priori, just think of it! Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! Come on, laugh along with us! Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! Air and light a priori: tarte à la crème, ha ha ha! Air and light a priori! Tarte à la crème, ha ha ha! Air and light a priori! Tarte à la crème! Ha ha ha!" et cetera ad infinitum.
Stunned, I look around me. Where did I lose my way? I thought that I had entered the republic of scholars. Have I fallen into a madhouse instead?"

I'm in Melbourne but I'm originally from the US, does that count?

I just finished making the latter half of this guide today. Regards, a philfag.