/lit/ - Literature

If you don't at least flirt with anti-capitalist ideas, you fail to be a true intellectual.

>>13256649

TFW you will never get AIDS from a qt trap.

>>13256649
You get to see lefties getting assblasted by logic every day

>>13256660
>flirt with anti-capitalist ideas
I only flirt with women, incel. Have sex.

>>13256666
Wasted.

>>13256673
>t. lefty assblasted by logic AND by digits

>>13256649
Read the earliest thread in the archive.
>>/lit/thread/S407872

>>13256649
Yes I just came up w proof for objective morality that everyone necessarily agrees w and must adhere to

>>13256698
Well that concludes it.

>>13256703
Kant already did that.

>>13256762
Kinda he didn't develop a metaphysical structure for it, that's what he was searching to do

I developed it

>>13256777
>he didn't develop a metaphysical structure for it, that's what he was searching to do
Spinoza already did that's why he didn't have to and why he was so buttblasted that he claimed Spinoza was using math.

>>13256799
Mine is a simple syllogism w one preceding question

>>13256777
Nah. Kant based the possibility of the categorical imperative on our phenomenal understanding of free will as a form of causal law we will into existence in application to ourselves.

>>13256698
>Never. I'm only 21 though, so it's not too bad. I'm giving myself four more years and then I end it all, or just cut out the middleman and join a monastic order.
Anons been dead for five years.

RIP.

>>13256824
Yeah but it was based in the copula of should ought implying an essence for morality thus making it universal. He didn't go into that in any detail he just assumed because it's a priori it is universal but Aristotle, along w many other philosophers, spoke about n+v and causes

>>13256649
Smart for the subjects I cared about, dumb for the subjects I hated. In the end I had to buckle down and fucking do all of it even though half of it was largely distasteful, just to get my diploma. My God, I hated highschool.

>meme trilogy
>/lit/ core
>start with the Greeks
>everything is spooks
If you look at the older memes you can see there was at least consistency in that the user base pretended to read with taste. Now the shitposting is banal and trite, even more so since /pol/tards left their containment board.

>Those who know do not talk.
>Those who talk do not know.

>>13256864
Ironic.

Nobody has asked me about my syllogism yet :3

>>13256846

>>13256886
what's the syllogism

>>13256910
If universe's laws of logic precede man's laws of logic
P1: objective is a nature of (universal) laws of logic (metaphysical structure)
P2: metaphysical structures are adhered to by ethics
C: objectivity is a trait of ethics

Basic syllogism
A>b
B>c
A>c
For instance
Socrates is man
Man is mortal
Socrates is mortal

>>13256886
Not me

>>13256911
I copy pasted explanation to normie friend but the first bit is a question I ask but it's kinda hard to disprove even if u accept solipsism the nature of how all physics works in ur head now necessarily has that past before u were born in which everything followed the laws of nature

>>13256911
wow you are really stupid

>>13256919
It's pretty good, if u accept deduction but ud have to argue against it

(Which I'm willing to defend) c:

>>13256911
Now justify the stipulation of P2. :3 (I am the real catface poster). I agree with the conclusion, yet P2 is a solution that requires explanation further (and the more involved it gets, the more concrete and comprehensive the solution becomes).

I was thinking about this the other day, that every syllogism is derived from the first syllogism as well (which says something about Metaphysics). In his Prior Analytics, Aristotle goes over the only logically consistent three combinations of relations of things.

The first

AB
BC
AC

the second

AB
AC
BC

And the third

AC
BC
AB

You get the second by reversing the place of the last two relations in the first, and you get the last by moving the first after the last two in the second. But the third is just the first in reverse, so how Aristotle proves the validity of many third syllogisms is simply by reducing them to the first.

All proceeds from initial logical intuition, and all is reducible to it as well. That much I see, :3

>>13256938
It does need an explanation

I like the syllogisms and I'm never going to remember this so I'll never be fluent in it:
Barbara celarent darii ferio baralipton
Celantes dabitis fapesmo frisesomorum;
Cesare campestres festino baroco; darapti
Felapton disamis datisi bocardo ferison.

I say ethics necessarily can only act in a metaphysical structure it knows (it's impossible to act outside what u know). Ethics necessarily is an adherence to what u believe to be true or the best or correct way forward.

I guess I should try and make a syllogism leading to that? Wat u think?

>>13256980

>>13256870
>>13256870
It would be ironic - and maybe also paradoxical - if Tao Te Ching were meant to be interpreted rationally. It is, however, an "arational" work that invites the reader to accept apparent contradictions and paradoxes as part of a larger mystery.

It is not an anti-intellectual principle as much as it is a detached observation about perception. Rationality is a narrow range of behaviors that comprise only a tiny slice of life - most states of consciousness are irrational, or have no need of rationality.

>>13256994
>I'm so stupid look at how smart I am hurt durr

>>13257002
lol, ouch. pls no bully

>>13256994
Essence precedes existence chump

>>13257010
Sry
just

>>13257020
Can you explain how that contradicts what's in my post? This isn't meant to be a jab, I'm just /brainlet/ and trying to understand

>>13256811
So?

>>13257037
Oh yeah sry this >>13257034
U necessarily must intuit prior to sensing

For instance https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html

>>13257038
Read >>13256911

>>13257034
I'm on-board. With Lao Tzu, though, I believe both the writer and the practitioner are operating on a very inchoate level - the instant you try to judge or qualify the totality he describes with thought (aka intuit rationally) you have "lost the Tao." The Taoist believes the best sort of mind to be a blissful, before-the-Fall sort of one that just accepts whatever it receives through the senses: it does not qualify with thought, nor does it discern through observation (if that's possible for a human).

If you were Lao Tzu and saw a man walking on water, for example, you wouldn't permit your mind to scrap and revise the entire order of the world you've apprehended through rationality - instead, you'd just think "Huh, there's a guy walking on water. Neat." The very impulse to rationalize is what Lao Tzu seeks to slowly reduce in people.

>>13257102
you may disregard, as the premise contradicts >>13257048

>>13257102
I disagree w that, it teaches passivity, we have structures to find essence in western philosophy, so talisman must have essence or it doesn't exist

>>13257115
Taoism or the tao*

>>13257115
Very good response. There's really no way to disagree with this. I appreciate the input.

>>13257135
I appreciate the conversation thanks c:

>>13257054
So you're retarded? I thought OP already held that assumption and am proceeding as though that problem is already solved.

>>13257262
Okay op

hello

>>13256696
Based

can I still be smart even if I like anime girls

>>13256649
Yes. Once upon a time I could post this unironically

>>13256649
I got a 95% in Calc III. That's when I reached my intellectual peak. It's been downhill since I finished that final exam.

>>13257320
I'm just anonfaggot, not OP himself.

>>13256649
/lit/ is for anons who realized that they can't really be talking about the purity of the white race and the degeneracy of SJWs if all they ever do is watch anime.
So they decided to force themselves to like reading the canon of Western Literature. The canon sucks, it's all old shit written by dudes who shat in a pot and fucked little boys. But it's the easiest part of "western civilization" to pretend to like.
So yeahh, /lit/ has pretty much always been majority dudes who would be much happier watching anime, but virtue signal by reading books they don't enjoy.

>>13257979
No. Painfully wrong.

>>13257979
I'm a left winger who enjoys anime though.

>>13258002
leftists have been forcing themselves to pretend to enjoy horrible giant old books for decades

I'm distrustful of anyone who read books that don't have wizards, spaceships, or BDSM billionaires.

>>13257979
Makes sense to me bro c:

>>13256649
*burps*

>>13257995
I saw u on discord