/lit/ - Literature

The highest form of argument is direct ontology.

>>10369934
Anime and philosophy go hand-in-hand in the modern world kid, if you ain't a weeb you're a normie and if you're a normie you don't worry much about philosophy besides your one sided studies in stoicism (lol) and all that COOL looking analytic philosophy, besides that you don't give a flying HOOT and u know it.
THIS is why once the supranational theocratic world-state rolls around the weebs will be welcome but you will by used as toilet paper by the distributist autistocrats.

>>9596283
>9594661
>nice

>9596126 (You)
>weak
EW don't TALK to me.

>>9114397
>How could you know that you don't know?
My vision is finite, yet I can know what does not fall within it in as far as I don't see it but know that it's there since vision and comprehension are connected. In the same way what falls under my comprehension is known to me differently than what is formulated to me but does not fall under my comprehension. I can know exactly where my understanding leaves off, because things which I understand manifest themselves in a particular way that I am familiar with. So when I read words on a page and they don't take on this quality in my mind then I know without a doubt I don't understand them.
How do I know when I've understood something? Two requirements must be met; firstly, I have to be able to place this knowledge comfortably within my personal philosophical context wherein it is connected with other kinds of knowledge and thereby attaining relevance to me and my picture of the world of ideas. Secondly the historical-critical dimension; my understanding of a thing must be in alignment with the external, historical, and structural form of the idea in question and be based on what the author himself intended to express.
This is my process of heuristic, it works very well for me, so you can take your little miniature powerpoint presentation and shove it up your already prolapsed anus.

>>9094219
Pretty fucking surreal how something so profound just rolls off these dudes like semen rolls off your moms back.
Oh but mention foucault and everybody jumps for joy. I think I'm gonna fucking puke desu.

>>8931568
Such stupidity.
If I ever saw your lumbering ass in real life I would fucking hogtie you and murder your family.

>>8919142
>>8919146
>>8919207
>>8919447
Ugh, these kinds of people.
How about nobody cares about your stupid apartment full of shit ikea furniture, or your shit PC, or your shit brainlet opinions you got from other brainlets at uni.
It's not that you don't like philosophy per se, you just don't give a shit, not enough to lose any sleep over it, at the very least. Different thing altogether, and also the stuff of brainlets. Adieu.

>>8721827
>Because we didn't forge a document called "The Donation of Constantine."
YOU TAKE THAT BACK MOTHERFUCKER BEFORE I FORGE YOU A NEW ASSHOLE

>>8675572
Romanticism gave us something good, which was the refocusing on the importance of the inexplicable aspects of existence, and intuition etc. Things which romanticism asserts can't be properly adjudicated by any shape or form or convention alone, hence there were composers like debussy, who saw music as some kind of aethereal thing that is totally subjective and as such can't be judged on paper or according to any rules of composition.
However, romanticism is guilty of several empirical errors; first, the noble savage. Romanticists assert that since there is no objective measure of virtue then virtue cannot be a knowledge but rather more like an inner nature or pattern of behavior undertaken without any mediation by the rational intellect.
This is incorrect, the truth is that an uneducated man is uneducated, no matter how good artists want to portray him.
That image of the humble luthier or craftsman sitting in the woods with the wisdom of his old age and a heart of gold is one that you inherited from fairy tales, not experience.
Artists wished to portray such people as virtuous as a kind of attack on the french monarchy.
Romanticism is very much protestant propaganda.
I'd like to point out that art is neither a magical non-substance nor a particular organization of matter, but rather art is (or should be) the expression of the universal in the particular.
It's well known that bruckner marked out his bar lines even before he began composing the score, and although he adhered to the rigid contrapuntal forms of the ancients, he did so with such dynamism that the resulting symphonies had qualities that were transcendental and uniquely metaphysical in character, and generally unrivaled in complexity and form during his time, meanwhile other composers were doing everything unorthodox to revolutionize music, yet nobody will ever call a mahler symphony 'art' in the patristic sense of the word.
In any system, when the dis-integrating elements are uneducated savages, it is called a revolution; when your dis-integrating elements are intelligent, it is called reform. Remember this.