/lit/ - Literature

Our language is heavily flawed for philsophy. For instance there isn't a casual way to distinguish whether you are stating how you believe things are or how you believe things should be. Often in discourse, especially banter, you will see people in bad faith sarcastically adopt a straw man of their opponent, and the audience is supposed to just pick up on this as though it weren't sincere without having received any signal to do so. In another thread on this board someone posted a picture of Schopenhauer and asked whether it was moral to have children. Someone said "only if you're not white." to which multiple people responded with a /pol/ redirect. One anon however said "no, idiot, he is reverse /pol/" as if to imply that the original statement was one positing how things ought to be, (i.e., white people shouldn't be allowed to have children) versus one positing how things are (i.e., this SJW-riddled society thinks it's bad when white people reproduce). What did anon mean, really? I have no fucking clue because our languages offers no immediate distinction in these kinds of statements.

I propose an alteration to the english language so that declarations stating how things SHOULD BE are clearly distinct from declarations stating HOW THINGS ARE, as well as verb conjugation to indicate SARCASM. No I am not "autistic."

>>13622583
All this sophistry. People commit suicide for selfish reasons, sure. They also commit suicide because they're terminally ill, in massive pain, about to die anyway, about to be captured by an enemy, because they perceive themselves as having done some dishonor punishable by death. Suicide happens for as many reasons as there are suicides.

>>11035522
sure is heheh

>>10655225
Been 3 forever.
Very lucky to be able to be 3. Most don't have the support network necessary to be 3. I was born on 1st base, which isn't so hot, but it's better than being born in the dugout, and I'm loads more self aware than the chumps born on third base who think they hit a triple.