/lit/ - Literature

>>22001737
I bet you think the mind isn't real or "has no basis in reality" too

>>21421286
Honestly, to me it seems like "atheists" are more often obnoxious moralfags than Christians. Perhaps it is possible that for many people, without God, nothing is permitted; whereas you retain a sort of supranatural freedom when you believe in the transcendental which might push you beyond basic ethical concerns. Though, I think most "atheists" are implicitly theological - in the worst sense - insofar as they naively take positivism and physicalism for granted. The irony of most "secular humanists" is that they insist on maintaining a rational regime with no actual law giver or base, and so it becomes very muddied and confusing. If you question it at all, it completely crumbles. Not to say you should be religious; I personally am an atheist. Just saying that most atheists really couldn't rationally justify why they consider something like murder to be wrong, and so you have a weird phenomenon where they reactively double down on their moral predispositions and force them on others in order to cope with this reality.

Sorry, this is real life, evangelicals get the girl

Not the OP, but I am interested in some actual answers to his post. I've been going through /lit/s top 100 in order to develop better taste in literature. While many of the books have been good, I'm kind of disappointed that they weren't really as perspective changing as I had hoped.
I just want to read unusual books, I suppose, not just the best ones. Any suggestions?

>>21399131
I don't understand the point of any of it, given the reality of peak oil. All ideologies are basically just diversions from the elephant in the room, which is widespread environmental collapse. And communists are often the worst offenders of this. You can read as much of Capital as you want, it won't change the fact that you have no solutions and will be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. And they'll of course play word games, and escape into their obscurantist lexicon, while impotently prattling on about praxiological nonsense (which is essentially just LARP) over a cup of coffee in their urban sprawl. Marxists are a joke. You don't need a book to see it.

>>21397576
Because the right is full of moralfag poseurs, just like the left. They talk big and bad as if they are some kind of revolutionary movement, and then you realize they are just mundanely concerned with issues most people are generally sympathetic to - such as having a digital bill of rights, or reducing our deficit, or fighting inequality. I find myself coming upon these people who get cancelled, and I say to myself, "That's it? That's all they did?" Are these our "rebels"? Nobody actually reads these books anyways, so its not like it matters.

>>21391651
Still going to piss on communist graves. I will paint the grave of every Marxist pseud with my urine.

>>21381760
>The pleasure arrived at through pain is not lasting.
And the pleasure that isn't, is? Oh please. This is just a outgrowth of your own personal conservativism. Pleasure does not need to last forever, and the idea of a pleasure which lasts forever is basically nihilistic. A pleasurable act which lasts forever is empty and devoid of any actual content.

>>18509151
>Does it have a dust cover when I purchased it?
>Yes.
Keep the dust cover on.
>Does it have a dust cover when I purchased it?
>No.
Don't worry about it.

Simple as.

>>7369764
Added to my to-read list. Thanks, OP!