/lit/ - Literature

>>12457613
>Oh yeah i'm a pacifist, even though i'm filled with hate
Most pacifists are. Pacifism is an ideology of impotent rage.

>>12457656
Pure ressentiment

>>12457613
>Here's an authoritative list of what counts as "canonical"
>Here's a book of my really shitty point-missing opinions about Blake
>Literature is primarily a visual experience, pls just ignore these centuries of oral tradition
>Here's a terrible "gnostic" novel that I'll later try to have every extant copy destroyed

>>12457757
true

>>12457613
>doesn't know pacifism is born out of ressentiment and hatred
t. brainlet

>>12457845
t. Nietzsche

>>12457928
>>12457845
t.Rex

>>12457797
why does he look like that? Who the fuck poses like that for a picture?

this cunt

moot
zuckerberg
elon musk
steve banonon
the jews
the saudis
the guy from that70's show that fucked demi moore
yes

>>12457613

I'm willing to be all the money I have that you are just a butthurt christian who read this

https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

>>12457613
What did wittgenstein say about him?

>>12458431
hes too retarded to even understand TLP without guidance

>>12457613
>Oh yeah i'm a pacifist, even though i'm filled with hate
Fuck off Lawrence, you homonazi pornographer.

>>12457613
Agreed. Hoppe, Ayn Rand, and Milton Friedman are detestable for their sheer stupidity as well as Keynes, Rawls, and Searle for their insipidity.

>>12457613
Schopenhauer.

I HATE KANT AND ALL THE SUFFERING HIS ETHICS BROUGHT INTO THIS WORLD

James Baldwin is a talented writer, but I don't think he had much to offer beyond a puffed-up sentimentalism.

>>12459264
Go back to r/badphilosophy

>>12459387
To which camp do you belong?

>>12459264
You can hate Rand's ethics and politics but there is no denying Rand has the barnone best theory of concepts.

>>12459387
I don't think they hate Rawls over there.

>>12458431
He though Russell was parochial, unintelligent compared to him and ultimately just barking up the wrong tree regards analytic philosophy.

Wittgenstein didn't like the analytic, and relatedly liberal, anti-traditionalism of Russell.
You can try and break down language into its components but you can't even begin to comprehend how all of our language is interconnected.
You can try and break down life, sex for example, into merely an act of pleasure but again you will neglect the many complexities of sex's relation to other things - our pair bonding or psychological development, for example.

that one traditionalist that everyone shilled here for a bit, and jung.
I would probably like them if I read a bit more of each, but both struck me as people claiming to have intense understanding of religion and philosophy and peddling their own diluted, perennialist views to westerners claiming them to be the real deal.

>>12459423
I don't know. Seems like an over complication. Humans can already cogitate a "unit," the "unit" is necessary in the construction of a "concept." But the "unit" is already a generalized abstraction, a proper concept: it seems like she has constructed a circuit in which the concept of a unit is necessary to conceive of the concept of a concept. But that's how she typically behaves.

>>12457613
This massive flaming faggot, along with P*nker

this idiot right here.

>>12457934
very funny

>>12459425
i wouldn't know since i would never go to a shithole subreddit like that.
>>12459479
If you're talking about Guenon, then you should give him more of a try. He has a genuine deep knowledge about many eastern religions, and he often warns against the many pitfalls that other westerners fall into. His work on freemasonry is not great, though.

>>12458459
Nah, Russell is just an insufferable prick who is filled with resentment.

Russell is a cuckold and it shows.

>>12458212
What did Benjamin Franklin do?

>>12462155
a literal one

>>12458245
>moot
I really begin to understand the feeling of hatred AI is supposed to feel towards its creator for creating it desu.

>>12457613
Rawls is a terrible, TERRIBLE philosopher. When Nozick looks good by contrast, you really have something that is spectacularly awful.

>>12463100
Whats so bad about Rawls, besides being an Anglo liberal?

>>12459387
Is Norman Mailer a cunt? Recently bought The Naked and the Dead because if was really cheap.

>>12457613
Russell is indeed the only philosopher that doesn't even surpass stupid Wittgenstein.

What's wrong with Rawls?

>>12463297
He bases his entire ethical framework on an easily dismissed hypothetical.

>>12463500
pls elaborate, im not familiar with him that much

>>12457613
Bertrand Russel, Marx, Herbert Hoover, Charles Dickens, Jared Diamond, and anyone who claims to be a post-modernist. Also these >>12458245

>>12463513
His Veil of Ignorance hypothetical postulates that if each person were to elect a form of governance without knowing who or what they would be socially, they would choose the most socially just form of governance by default.

>>12463717
Apart from that never happening in reality, how could it be refuted?

>>12463717
That doesn't sound too retarded by usual philosophical measures desu

>>12463744
>>12463748
Rawls upholds equality as a moral end. As such, he derives the hypothetical in such a way that the conclusion of socially just min-maxed distribution must necessarily be true. However, there is no reason to make this assumption other than to arrive at his conclusions. For example, an impartial elector may advocate for sortition by personal aptitude rather than social unity. Alternatively, they might advocate for one in which use determines rights and resource allocation. Ultimately, Rawls runs into the same wall as 19th century utiliarians.

>>12463786
*selection, not sortition

>>12463744
I don't know about refuted, but it's retarded. It assumes we're all reasonable people who want sensible things
I'm an Isis jihadi who thinks unbelievers should convert or be beheaded. The veil comes down, and I don't need to change anything about my beliefs.

>>12463786
You sound like a fascist, bro

>>12463801
What is a fascist?

>>12463808
Someone who rejects equality as a moral good

>>12463800
Social contract theorists of the anglo-consequentialist persuasion like Rawls should be concerned with the efficiency rather than the morality of resource distribution. I would argue that the most efficient means of resource allocation will also be the most ethically consistent. Currently, this is the system of private property.

>>12463813
So, late Marx was a fascist?

>>12463813
what is 'equality' in your mind

>>12463786
>As such, he derives the hypothetical in such a way that the conclusion of socially just min-maxed distribution must necessarily be true.
What alternatives are there then? As far as i see it, Rawls just takes the individualist notion that people will choose whatever benefits them the most and then gamble on a system that minimizes risk and maximizes chance of success.

>>12463846
Ok, here is a simple thought experiment. A group of 20 people have to decide a means of allocating some oyster crackers. If one member of the group selects option A, they get 1 oyster cracker, but if more people choose option A, each member can have up to twenty oyster crackers. The first person to select option B is guaranteed 40 oyster crackers, but will have 2 less for each additional person that selects option B. Why would an electot not choose option B over A? Remember, there is no social pressure behind the veil of ignorance. This is by no means an exhaustive critique. For instance, you can go after Rawls for assuming a zero-sum game in advocating for egalitarian distribution of resources. Alternatively, you could just call out social equality for the spook that it is.

>>12463890
*elector

>>12463890
so why is this so destructive for his entire philosophy?

>>12463940
Because Rawls would assume that nobody would ever bet against group A. Even if we assumed that nobody would know if they were assigned to group A or B after voting, we'd still have to assume that all electors are 100% risk averse. If we know that they are risk averse, then why not vote for group B on the 5% chance that we are assigned to it rather than group A? There is also the issue of assuming a tabula rasa in the absence of socialization.

>>12458420
Nah, there are much better reasons to despise Russell

>>12464254
Why tho? I want to one day grow up to be a charming old gentleman with a pipe.

B.F. Skinner. He completely misunderstood philosophy and contributed to the shit “philosophy is dead” phenomena.

>>12464518
You ever read "Walden Two"? Totally fucking idiotic.
>Oh yeah man, like, all of society's problems will just go away if we pay janitors more than CEOs because they have to do, like, a grosser job and stuff.

Kirk Vonnegut’s pube head ass

>>12458420
Opened it. Scrolled down “JESUS SAID DONT JUDGE AND YET I KNOW CHROSTIANS THAT OR JUDGES”

Fuck that dumb nigger

>>12460268
God?

>>12464490
you can do that without being a retard

>>12465064
Jesus did judge, though. He grabbed a whip and threw those jews out of the temple.

Also people always quote "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" without quoting "go and sin no more"

Slavoj Zizek by far.

>>12467657
why? sniff

>>12467128

He was a Jew, dumbass.

>>12459387
kys
>>12463297
he denies biology and anthropological records, economic theory, has an ungrounded and illogical set of presuppositions. the image of a progressive liberal 110 iq communications major’s mind.

>>12469059
how does he deny biology?

These two cunts are my worst

>>12469072
humans have inescapable stratified cognitive capacities, genetic interests, behavioral trait distribution and are bound to irrational and fitness depressing behavior. no one can be equal by the very mechanics that drive evolution and shape organisms. The idea you can “zero out” these traits is insane.

>>12457797
>implying anyone agrees over Blake
>implying Bloom’s canon doesn’t cover everything worth reading (except the great Catholics ofc)

>>12457797
A Stratfordian, too...
:-P

meme meme moore, karl popper and every l*beral ever

>>12469097
>>implying Bloom’s canon doesn’t cover everything worth reading
he doesn't

>>12457613
Can you elaborate on this? Who or what was he filled with hate towards? Also please don't embarrass yourself by bringing up Wittgenstein as a contradiction to hypocrisy, an absolute monster who ruthlessly beat innocent children all-the-while pretending to believe in God and to be able to see transcendent, ineffable truths which the people around him couldn't see. Absolute fraud he was, and how upsetting his family's status ensured he never went to jail for such crimes.

>>12459376
What did Kant's ethics do to the world? Please explain.


Are there any legitimately moral philosophers out there? Ones who preached of saintly values, led genuinely saintly lives along with it? Seems like every famous philosopher in the world is a hypocrite of some degree. Shameful.

>>12459376
>pain
>intrinsically bad
Begone utilitarian scum.

>>12469401
>Seems like every famous philosopher in the world is a hypocrite of some degree. Shameful.
To philosophise is to become a hypocrite

>>12457797
>Literature is primarily a visual experience
Where does he say that? Isn't one of his favorite lines that we live in a "too-visual society"?

>>12469583
He was slagging off audiobooks and spoken-word pieces iirc
>>12469407
>saying intrinsically when you mean inherently
Tu quoque, etc.

>>12469602
Fair enough, though that does still sound uncharacteristic for him. At any rate audiobooks deserve to be "slagged off," and Bloom certainly does not diminish the auditory qualities of literature. For all of his whinging and posturing, he is still a great intellect in my opinion.

>>12469617
Here, found it:
>"Deep reading really demands the inner ear as well as the outer ear," said Harold Bloom, the literary critic. "You need the whole cognitive process, that part of you which is open to wisdom. You need the text in front of you."
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/style/loud-proud-unabridged-it-is-too-reading.html
I think Phillip Pullman or someone called him a twit in response, it was a whole thing.