/lit/ - Literature

>>13311389
yes

>>13311389
I explained my metaphysical beliefs to someone in a thread months ago and was told that they are pretty much in line with what's written in this book. Feels bad to be cucked by the creator of "Dilbert". Scott Adams is unironically correct, and is the latest in a long line of pandeist philosophers

THERE WAS PALM TREE DEBRIS EVERYWHERE AND A ROMAN COLOSSEUM

>>13311400
Can you give a qrd? I know Scott said that this book would be by far his most influential, even if it's 50 years from now. Curious to read it

>>13311602
Basically, the totality of existence constitutes a single conscious being. There really isn't much for this being to do as it is dealing with an infinite timeline. The only sort of change that is possible, like the kind we are familiar with, is a conscious choice to self deconstruct by this being. Adams proposes that the Big Bang is a sort of demonstration of this: a singularity suddenly becomes a multitude, like the being splits itself so that it can learn about itself through reconstructing itself. It's just one phase in an infinite cycle of death and rebirth of which we are a part. I can write more later, gonna take a quick shower first

>>13311602
He poses that an existing God's only motivation would be to destroy itself, and that the universe, then, would be composed of the remnants of his death.

The rest of the book touches on his philosophy about a variety of things - psychology, relationships, etc. He says that the book is based on a particular logical flaw that you're supposed to uncover while reading, but I suspect that this is just one of his usual feints and a way to get people to actually read closely and think about what he's saying.

It's a pretty fascinating book, I'd recommend for sure

>>13311666
>>13311669
>Science but just aping Mainlander with none of the poetics and reincarnation cop out ending.

Oofed. Spinoza does a better job.

>>13311669
>>13311666
I hope you idiots are kidding

>>13311602
The book is literally about duping retards into thinking there is anything significant or meaningful being said by using lofty language.

>>13311602
>The central character, according to the introduction, knows "everything. Literally everything." Adams, whose knowledge is as incomplete as the next person, got around this by using the aforementioned "simplest explanation" for each concept raised in the book because, while "in this complicated world the simplest explanation is usually dead wrong", a more simple explanation often sounds more right and more convincing than anything complex.

>>13311979
>literally

>>13311389
I read it a while ago, forgot most of it. Still have it, I could read it again

>>13311400
>another pandeist pseudo-stoic

>>13311389
>Mainlaender but for people who can't take the pessimism
yawn

>>13312350
Or read German

>>13312499
What's relevant isn't the text itself but the underlying idea.