/lit/ - Literature

>>22858403
He's a pseud who misreads almost every philosopher he quotes. Worse, he runs a lifestyle brand marketing overpriced garbage to an impressionable public. Like all self-help e-celebs, he belongs in the trash.

>>22391856
this is correct, virtue ethics is simply an elaborate way of begging the question

>courage is the golden mean between cowardice and rashness
>what are cowardice and rashness?
>uhhhh here's some examples
>and a definition that defines them only in relation to other character traits

if every character trait can only be defined in relation to other such traits, then there's no grounding for the system. it's a house of cards and it deserves to be knocked over.

unlike utilitarian, kantian, or egoist ethics, virtue ethics has no solid foundation. this causes virtue ethicists to talk past each other, often arguing the same thing without realizing it, because every concept is slippery.

virtue ethics is also bad at guiding behavior -- the thing ethics is meant to do. should i be a cannibal? according to the virtue ethicist, it's contingent not only on circumstance, but also on my own (culturally situated) understanding of prudence, justice, and so on. is it just to devour the corpses of my enemies? who's to say?

there's a reason very few working philosophers are virtue ethicists today. it's a weak position.

>>17777777
Oh ffs

>>16436994
>This guy shits on retards giving bad advice online
>He must be a citycuck
Yeah, nah.

>The fact that you cannot figure out HOW to do this in a reasonable manner means you are a fucking retard.
I already have the land and a temporary home on that land and a plan; right now I'm focusing on making and saving money and honing my DIY skills because I'm planning on doing my house right, not cheaply, and I need to hire at least some professional help here and there. If I could earn as much in the place where I'm going to live then I would but I can't so I'm delaying gratification; it's either that or live in a half-done house and doing that once was enough for me.

>>14763316
One of their "slogans" is literally "it's not a metaphor, there are no metaphors" so why would you want one to begin with?

Have you read the BwO chapter in ATP? Many people just read Anti-Oedipus, a book in which D&G disagreed about what the BwO even is.

D&G state that it's best described as a practice. A BwO is something like a mode of the body (to semi-borrow from Spinoza). It's when you touch a loved one as opposed to an ordinary object. It's when working out feels good despite pain being involved or when a masochist/sadist abstains from all sexual gratification in order to increase the intensity of all sensation. It's when a thought is felt throughout your entire body, as Nietzsche felt the thought of the Eternal Return. It's when troubadours engage in courtly love through poems and letters without ever acting upon it, merely basking in that plateau of energy.

Remember that in his book on Masoch, Deleuze invokes Nietzsche as someone who transfigurated pain by painting (no pun intended) it in a different light, as something that brings potential for growth or that's linked to actual redemption instead of perpetual guilt or even a kind of festival (albeit a barbaric one) rather than being merely an argument against life as such.

Of course BwOs are connected to assemblages because no thought or practice exists in isolation (it always brings with it concepts, affects and past experiences) so once you put all of this together you get politics in its most fundamental sense and at its most immediate (rather than the political process itself which seeks mostly to block any development by reactivating, often through sheer repetition, the same old assemblages that it benefits from).

Would a story Writtle in complex prose or verse like Canterbury Tales be published in today's world?

Asking for a friend.

>>12218757
>It’s clear his presence upsets you but you really shouldn’t be asking anons about this. I don’t feel like spoon feeding it to you.

>I don't want to have a discussion about this so I'll just dismiss this post in many needless words.

Look you can make the argument that JBP is against the dominant liberal-leftist (emphasis on the liberal) politically correct control over academia, but someone else can also state that JBP is for the current capitalist situation (including in terms of saying that trying to fight man made climate change is fruitless). You're most likely biased if you aren't willing to admit that what you see as dominant isn't to an extent dependent on your political position at least due to it being an abstraction (imo the left dominates socially, the right dominates economically, but the terms are a bit vague). Point being that there is a discussion to be had, your post sounds almost like those shitposts saying "just browse /pol/ brah, it's obvious!"

>Conservative General
What the fuck is this? Do you really think that humans could start LARPing as some posh faggots after decades of transgressive debauchery?