/lit/ - Literature

>>15890823
FUCK OFF HORIA BELCEA.

>>15890823

His ontology is dualistic and comparable to Nietzsche's Dionysian and Apollonian dialectic but worked out from a platonic perspective.

>>15890905
>maybe if i copy Goodreads' reviews people will think i'm intelligent

>>15890914
Not copying, I wrote that review.

Belcea’s work is intoxicating in a particularly Dionysian sense.

>>15890851
Based

Chapter 9. Atheism and God is pure gold.

>>15890955
>t. Belcea

I'm pretty sure he's going to Stockholm Syndrome himself into believing that his work was intended to be satire all along, in a similar fashion to The Room.

I should avoid these threads. The spiteful bully inside of me wants Horia to kill himself in shame, but my superego is constantly trying to remind me that it's not good to convince morons to kill themselves.

Try Nick Land and Mencius Moldbug.

>mfw Horia is actually well-read on strategy and has realized that by spamming on 4chan people will actually start to buy his self-indulgent wank simply because:

A) They have exhausted their cynicism
B) Everyone on /lit/ wants to believe that they too can post self-indulgent wank and become rich, famous and powerful

I really wish I had the wisdom to not crave these things.

>>15891459
>>15891404
holy fucking based

>>15891509

>>15891509
Philosochad

>>15891485
You can get his book for free. There's a link to it in previous threads if you look on the archive.

>>15891528

>>15890823
HEY LISTEN HERE (((HORIA BELCEA))), YOU HOOKNOSE KIKE. YOU'RE NOT AN INTELLECTUAL. READ MORE.

>>15890823
My Twisted World

>>15890823
Foundation for Exploration by Sean Goonan
Lacan should also prove an interesting read.

>>15890823
Orgy of the will, Mundus millenialis.

>>15891623

>>15890823
i came from /pol/ just to find this thread. your book is trash Horia. And your fake review is hilarious.

Horia, esti cancer sa moara mama.
Da-ti foc!

>>15891404
>>15891459
>>15891528
>>15891623

>>15893247
Say hello to /pol/ from me, anon.

>>15893358
>one of the best video games that I ever played was called "League of Legends"
YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP
He explains it like he's expecting the book to be read in a thousand years.

>>15893358
>Machiavelli, which I had never read

>>15891551
it's not motherfucking libgenerino

>>15893448
s/not/on

I recommend this edition anon

Anyone has the latin translation?

>>15893616
Nah mate, but I do have the one written with hieroglyphs.

This is what happens when your worldview is grounded in infographics, image boards, and YouTube videos. This person clearly hasn't read very much philosophy, and whatever he has read he clearly hasn't understood.

>>15893640
>This person clearly hasn't read very much philosophy
That's the point dogmatic brainlet. Can your kind ever think? You only know one thing and nothing else

>>15893647
Oh well, then let me operate a surgery without any medical background.

>>15893694
Yes, you can do that kind of stuff in writing/art/literature. Did you miss most of the histoy of ideas for the past centuries? It's called experimentation

>>15893647
Why do you think you can write something profound without having read any theory from the last 2500 years? You have no grounding in anything you believe, no foundation to work on or investigate. You wrote this book (I'm assuming you are shilling yourself) to stroke your ego. You think that if you collect your half-baked, uninformed opinions on things as a "book" with a le epic statue for the cover, and chapters and everything! then those opinions become theory, become something of value to the world. That is pseudo-intellectualism in its true sense, as you are wrapping up pseudo-analysis, unfounded opinions and ramblings in the imitation of a serious philosophical work. You go so far as to use words like synthesis and objectivity in the title without even the most basic knowledge of the meaning of these words, or the contemporary debates concerning concepts of objects, ontology etc.

You are no different to a mentally ill incel ranting in his manifesto. This is manifesto, not theory or analysis.

>>15893738
>bugman rant
I'll pass thanks

>>15893729
Ha! Your pseudo-philosophy is not "art". You can't escape critique by claiming your half-baked opinions on things actually represent great literature.

>>15893750
You're the bugman, and pseud because you created this book as a consoomable object purely to give legitimacy to your pseud opinions.

>>15893729
It's not art. Philosophy and art are deeply intertwined, but yours is neither.
It's the diary of a wimpy kid by and for people who never read philosophy.

>>15893801
>>15893764
>>15893755

Why do all these midwit schizophrenics keep coming here to shill their parody of a work?

>>15893830
You sure showed us how wrong we are by posting a wojak. Lmao
Give up.

>>15893830
Whoa! you got me. I'm just so TRIGGERED by your fucking epic theory!

For those who are unaware, this is the worst book to be shilled on /lit/ in /lit/'s 10 year existence. Check out any of the posted excerpts. Or scroll to any page of the pdf.

>>15891454
YES it is literally as incredibly bad and outrageously tone deaf as The Room. And as teeious and overly long. In the opening lines of the 500 page book the author whines that people often write two pages to explain something when it could be done in a paragraph.

>>15893764
This is accurate. The book is normie-bugman to the EXTREME, which is why it seems like a parody. It's also how we know it isn't from a genuine 4chan user.

>>15893801
I wouldn't say this book is "for" anyone. To sum it up perfectly, it's a 500 page diary of a 34 year old guy who hasn't read any philosophy—BUT brings up philosophers, STATES that he hasn't read anything of their work, then goes on to talk about what he thinks their ideas are, always wrong, for 500 pages. It leads exactly where you'd expect: wet hot cringe.

It's so bad that the Amazon and Goodreads reviews are further icing on this shitcake, since no one and I mean NO ONE except the author could have written them using sockpuppets.

>Early Belceanism (2014-2017)
Feminine and masculine are modes of thinking: feminine is thinking focused on understanding and developing the physical world, and masculine thinking is focused on understanding and developing ideas. e.g. an engineer would engage in feminine activity while a philosopher would be masculine.

>Middle Belceanism (2018-2019)
While initially mostly focused on psychology, Belcea starts to consider metaphysical concepts more and proposes his physical-spiritual dualism similar to body-mind. Spiritual is the realm of ideas and physical is the material world; it's "spiritual" instead of "mind" because Belcea considers that it must lead to a connection with God. Naturally, masculinity is related to the spiritual realm and femininity with the physical plane.

>Late Belceanism (2020)
This is where Belcea explores uncharted territory, and I don't know if I understand it very well. He now focuses on systems: each system has an objective-center that commands subjective-peripheries. These systems may exist both in the physical plane (solar systems) or in the spiritual plane (religion, ideologies).

An objective-center keeps together its system and establishes harmony. For example, the state is an objective-center that describes the system, and the citizens are the subjective-peripherals that take orders from the state, but they can e.g. leave the nation and go somewhere else. The objective-center cannot do that because that's when the system collapses.

But as you can see, the objective-center has a wide perspective over the system, while the subjective participants mostly have a perception of themselves. If you, as a citizen, start to look outwards and experience the entire system and its harmony, you are exhibiting objectivity as a subjective observer. This is not limited to states: your own self is an objective-center which you don't fully know as your consciousness is just a subjective-peripheric of the system. However, as you start understanding your actions, your thoughts, your desires, and other subjective-peripheries, you start to gain an objective view of the system even if you cannot fully understand your own self (the objective-center). Similarly, the objective-center may be subjective relative to another system as your self may be affected in a larger system by a higher objective-center (could even be God)

Thus, in a system with an objective-center and subjective-peripherals, the subjective-periphery can look outwards and perceive itself as a part of a harmonious system (objectively) while the object-center is unknowable to anyone, including itself, and thus it is perceived differently by all entities (subjectively)

Thus, the objective-center and the subjective-periphery unite together to form a harmonious system that is both objective and subjective, resultant from the synthesis of the subjective and the objective.

>>15894038
Does he think this is profound? What does he even mean by “objective” and “subjective” here lmao?

>>15894049
So his method is reification + autism + misunderstanding of recognition?

>>15894049
Another thread trolled him into posting examples of his "philosphy" and he keeps reporting it LOL

>>15894049
You can see him 1. posting in his own thread here and 2. confusing his own terms in the summary.

IMAGINE being so hopped up on your own sheltered ideas that you just HAVE to get this drivel out into the world.

And keep in mind that this is all from pondering Competitive Gaming (chess? NOPE: League of Legends), Christopher Nolan, and the movie Drive. Yes, REALLY.

Some other highlights:

• Fixes the MBTI

• Proves the existence of God (not included in the pdf)

• Solves the mysteries of capital m Music (it's the musician's RELATIONSHIP with their instrument—Horia can't read sheet music but doesn't need to)

• Solves Game Theory (turns out it's useless bullshit)

• Uncovers a system of interaction among animals called Hierarchies

• Explains the deep and true meaning of Bronze Age Pervert

• Disproves Kant

• Masters 5-dimensional Thinking

• Explains why geniuses (explicitly calls himself one) shouldn't sell their ideas to the elite

>>15894040
>I wouldn't say this book is "for" anyone
You're right. I was going for shit like "by gamers for gamers" but it's still too far-fetched.
>BUT brings up philosophers, STATES that he hasn't read anything of their work
Lmao, this shit always gets me.

>>15894142
>
Bugman the post

>>15894147
Gamers would laugh at this.

>>15894148
Hi Horia. Your book is fucking cringe.

>>15894142
>• Proves the existence of God (not included in the pdf)
Is there actually any proof or is like >>15891573 ?
>• Disproves Kant
How does he do that?

>>15894090
>>15894049

Subject just means whatever object he is considering at any one time.. Every object is a "subject" because it is distinct from every other object. This is clearly trivial, and is a long-winded way of writing that there exists more than one object. He piles on top of this his own pseud rantings about politics and mgtow.

His view is: There are multiple objects distinct from one another. That's it. That's the be all and end all. He doesn't address the 2500 year old problems with this assertion raised by Parmenides and Xeno. He can't accept a dynamic monist view because he presupposes objects are static and unified, and he contradicts any kind of hylomorphism. So there's just no grounding or basis to anything he is writing.

He There are as many systems as "objective-centres", and as many objective-centres as objects. Systems are not themselves objects but relations of objects. Even if you objectify them we still have infinite objects. So what he is writing is not so much trivial as overdetermined. His theories are not just cringe, but pointless even if they are valid.

>>15894163
No proof. As for Kant, it's sarcasm. He waves him off after what we have to imagine was watching a youtube summary.

He apparently thinks posting threads about his memoir will drum up interest. The thing is... if you read any of it you'll just start participating in mocking him. Buuuuut you'll also realize this is the most attention he's ever gotten jn his entire life, which is a bummer. So I expect it to persist.

>>15894171
Hey Horia. Explain Parmenides to us and prove you're not as dumb and cringe as your memoir shows.

>>15894186
I'm showing why Horia's ranting is trivial/idiotic if you re-read my post.

>>15894186
There is no way to prove this.

>>15894049
Are you okay?

>>15891485
This is overlooking how bad this really is. It's not Landian techno babble. It's a memoir about League of Legends and mainstream movies. But not about *going* to see movies, just that he saw them and that they have narratives. And why Donald Trump is cool.

>>15890955
The "work"—it's really from a journal kept in a Word document since college—is intoxicating only in the sense that it's horrifying that bugmen like this are out in the world.

>brainlets filtered by low-hanging fruits like league of legends and trump references
>can't even into metaphysics
>they think they can discuss Horia's work
These threads are always good at outing pseuds

>>15894245
There are no metaphysics in the book. I don't think the author knows what the definition is. Instead it's subpar Ouspenkian nonsense. And Horia, get some new reaction images...

>>15894258
Metaphysics doesn't even have a consistent definition, and you'd have known that if you had read any philosophy, you obvious pseud

>>15894273
And there you go. Need any more proof that Horia is the ultimate bugman?

>>15894273
>and you'd have known that if you had read any philosophy
Horia didn't, why should we?

Also:
>>can't even into metaphysics
>Metaphysics doesn't even have a consistent definition
Nice going, retard.

>>15894284
>>15894301
It is obvious people in these threads are double digit IQ pseuds who are desperate to feel intellectualy superior to anyone at all. Pic very related

JD Salinger's IQ was tested at 100. What does this mean about Horia? He claims to be Romanian and the average IQ for Romanians is 92. But no Romanian has ever been this publicly stupid before, outing Horia as at least one standard deviation lower than 92. Maybe /lit/ doesn't *get* his diaries because the intended audience is very different.

>>15894302
That's obvious, but it's hilarious to see Horia (and, if you really want there to be double digit IQ "people" in these threads, maybe some other anons trying to defend him, be it serious or ironic) trying to prove the worth of his 'work' just by dismissing those who criticize him as pseuds or bugmen.

Does any one have the bugman BINGO meme? iirc this guy fills out BINGO at least two ways

>>15894321
It's more funny to simply post excerpts than to pretend to defend it

>>15894319
This actually explains a lot

>>15894321
Anyone who still believes Horia posts in these threads is the real double digit IQ person, and anyone who believes anyone is non-ironically defending him is also an NPC

>>15894302
This. Just read pic related and tell me this doesn't scream 130+, hell 150+ IQ. Sure, it might look indistinguishable from the ramblings of an uncultured 110 IQ-at-most /r/movies self-proclaimed intellectual, but only true geniuses can read between the lines.

>>15894349
This would imply Horia has an army of acolytes.

>>15894351
The semicolon FUCKING LMAO

>>15894351
So this book is just a long af troll?

>>15894038
>earth is objective for everyone living on earth
Fuck, does this guy even know what objective and subjective mean?

>>15894377
No.

Einstein BTFO

>>15894408
Is every page this outrageously cringe?

>>15894408
literally Derrida without the academic obfuscation

>>15893358
Is this satire? This isn’t actually from the book right? If this isn’t an elaborate shitpost... I don’t even know.

>>15890914
>i copy Goodreads' reviews
That's probably the author himself.

>>15891485
Nice self-aware cynical marketing bait.

>>15894432
A 500 page shitpost?

>>15894437
If you read a few pages of it, you'll realize that it has to be. I've never been exposed to something so poorly thought out.

>>15894349
>muh double digit IQ
>muh NPC
Grow up.

>>15891404
that's kind of schopenhauerian