/lit/ - Literature

Anyone else here feel a need to write, but no one to write for? And since writing anything decent is hard work, don't even do it since it's no use because no one will read it.

>>9387507
>blood lad

Is sci-fi a slum?

From all the lectures I've seen, I still can't tell

What sort of government does he actually endorse?

>>6298283

>>6250171
>handsomer

How do atheists justify their morals?

>>5841933
>The New Yorker is terrible

>>5765960

What is the greatest thing ever written by a woman?

What is a spook?

Why is "romanticize" still a word?

I cant think of any other commonly thrown around anti-emotional degenerate pop-verbs that utterly kill whichever conversation they're being flung in.

>Stop romanticizing X and Y
>You're romanticizing Z

Furthermore, why is it being used in the negative sense in a sort of derogatory manner? There is nothing wrong with romanticization of any kind for whatever reason. It provokes emotion, intensity and is a great way to express desire. So why use it as the center piece for whatever retort to whichever argument you may be having?

>>5389395
>mfw I just noticed that the th in 'breathing' is different from the th in let's say 'thing'
What's the linguistic difference here called? As far as I know there's only two phonemes represented by th, not three(not counting shit like where it stands for a t).

Is the concept of the Aesthetic axiomatic in the sense that it exists for no purpose other than itself?

Is post-modernism simply an excuse for authors and artists lack of substance?

>>4627163
>why is determining whether the foundation for philosophical or metaphysical structures sound, in accordance with reason, or reliable in the search for further knowledge important?
i dunno, opee, let's just say it's Justice to imprison or execute anyone who disagrees with us and call it a day.

Are all axioms tautologies?

Is all poetry pretentious

Or is pretension poetry?

What defines literature?

Most people who criticize Rand either didn't read it and are just repeating some non-sense they got from some statist on the internet, or did read it and didn't get it.

I would go further and say that the vehemence which people dislike her is an emotional reaction due to the history of abuse which children are exposed to as they grow up. From the moment we are born we are instructed that we must obey our parents, that there is a priori value in the family, we must go to school and we must obey the law simply "Because".

We are first and foremost biological organisms, with our strongest instinct being that to survive. Human beings only came to dominate the earth because of our minds which are capable of adapting incredibly well to survive in whatever environment we are placed in. Growing up in such abuse from authority, especially in the form of corrupt moral commandments which are inflicted in our earliest years shapes the mind into accepting them, not for any sort of logic or truth value, but for utility.

Thus, when someone comes along and says that you don't have to obey authority and there is no moral obligation to others through such superficial relations, it is emotionally traumatizing. People are faced with the fact that their parents, their teachers, their society, everyone they put their trust in lied to them, and even worse, that they accepted those lies as the truth and inflicted those lies on others thinking what they did was supposed to be true.

No one wants to ever admit they are wrong, to do so is so ego-crushing and emotionally painful that people will go through leaps and bounds in order to justify what they believe to be true and to discredit any sort of counterarguments which would be presented. I don't fault those people for acting in that manner whatsoever, the pursuit of truth is something which takes a degree of moral rigor which is extremely rare in most. Even though their relationships are with abusers and moral highwaymen, people have formed intense personal relationships with them throughout their life. To challenge the status quo of what is believed would mean that they could possibly be throwing away all those years of relationship building, their friends and family, their entire community. To do all that for the sake of an idea would be, for most people, insane. How else do you think religion has been able to survive past the enlightenment, scientific revolution, and to some degree, the rise of new atheism?

Of course, Rand doesn't directly address much of that in her works, but the implications are there for those who have the aptitude to read between the lines.

Will we ever see literature evolve and transcend the barriers of language?

How can something die if it never existed in the first place?

Is all poetry pretentious?

Perhaps one of the greatest stains on the history of western thought is the steaming pile of utter shit that is german idealism. It is nothing more than fanciful mysticism with no grounding in anything scientific or analytical; nothing but rudimentary empiricism without the establishment of any significant principles.