/lit/ - Literature

What does /lit/ think of John C Wright?

>I was represented by a historical record number of nominations for my short fiction: no one in his right mind can look at my archaic diction, concern for the highest philosophical matters, erudite allusion to the classics, and consummate craftsmanship and claim my work is not literary, but that grotesque experimental stories about lesbian were-seals being splashed by dinosaur water from nowhere onto Tibetan gay men when the world flips upside down because a punk loser lost his cheating harlot because priests murder people is literary.

>>7021876
>I write high culture. What the puppy kickers write is lowbrow crap that pretends to be high culture. They would not recognize a Homeric metaphor or a Shakespearean allusion if it bit them on their barbermongerish cullions. (I am insulting their foppish testacles, for those of you who do not recognize Shakespearean allusions).

>These are halfwits pretending to be wits.

>To pretend that their joyless, godless, brainless pro-perversion hatemongering lecturing, hectoring and fingerwagging is somehow more civilized or refined than the edifying and educational tales written by and for persons of a civilized background and refined tastes is an absurd and unconvincing conceit, if not a neurosis.

>>6474995
>I think lust is a sin and that pride is a worse sin. Any man who demeans a homosexual for being afflicted with same-sex sexual attraction is guilty of pride. Look to your own sins, Pharisee. It is akin to mocking a drunk afflicted with alcoholism.

>However, those who think it right and just, a holy crusade, and a way of sticking to The Man, to offer a drunk a drink, and hand him the car keys to drive, and urge him to his destruction, knowing he is afflicted — such a vile, pitiless, foolish and ghastly hypocrites as this are guilty of something far worse than pride, and will answer a far sterner judge than I for the crime. The pity and respect I owe and show homosexuals struggling with their perversion I do not owe to those who undermine that struggle, or belittle it.

>I also think that two opposite sexes are needed for mating, and that marriage is a mating ritual used to establish chastity hence paternity, ergo the ritual is not merely unneeded, but actually absurd and pointless, if used to celebrate the erotic non-mating behaviors of two or more non-mates not of the opposite sex, where neither chastity is sought nor paternity is possible.

>Sorry for shocking you with my bigotry. In the old days, bigotry was called logic.

>One of the greatest innovations of postmodernism is the removal of all traces of logic from public discourse.

http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/28/politics/why-christianity-is-more-logical-than-atheism/

>There are many brands of atheism, but they all have some points in common. First, one common point is that none have a rational explanation of the objectivity of moral rules.

>Not all cultures agree on what priority to place on various moral rules, but one thing that is so obvious about moral rules is that they are objective. When guilt pricks us, it does not say we betray a matter of taste or opinion; the feeling of guilt is the feeling of having offended a law. When injustice rankles, we do not accuse those who trespass against us of having breached a matter of taste or opinion; we refer to a standard we expect the other to know and acknowledge. We cannot help it.

>In all human experience, everything is open to doubt but this. No man with a working conscience can escape the knowledge. It is the one thing we cannot not know. And yet atheists are at a loss to explain it.

>I do not call atheists immoral, but I note they cannot give a rational reason to account for morality.

>In any atheist worldview, moral laws are an invention of man and serve his contingent purposes, or an imposition of Darwinian survival mechanisms that serve the contingent purposes of the Selfish Gene. Such purposes as the preservation of life or the pursuit of happiness are subjective, hence not laws at all. Whether selected by nature or by man, if moral maxims are selected merely as a means to an arbitrary end, they are merely expedient conveniences.

>If I avoid murder and theft only because this decreases my odds in the lottery of reproduction, then when circumstances arise where murder and theft increase rather than decrease my odds, what reason can any man give me to avoid murder and theft? If I eschew lying only because it causes me self satisfaction to live with a sense of integrity, what reason can any man give me to eschew lying on the day when I discover lying satisfies me more?

>A second common point is that no atheist of whatever school can account for the rationality of the universe: that is, none can account for the fact that the abstractions of math and the concrete things of physics so perfectly happen to match.

>Atheists either must take rationality as a given, or assume that the processes of the universe evolved man to think in a procedure called logic. But if an unthinking Darwinian process formed our thinking process, we have no reason to assume the thinking process is truly rational, as opposed to a merely useful self-deception.

>Again, atheism admits of no supernatural causes or effects or dimension to life, making philosophical questions about the nature of reality, the nature of truth, and the nature of logic all suspect. These things cannot be a product of a divine decision for the atheist; but neither can any natural process account for reality, truth, logic.