/lit/ - Literature

>>18363541
Based, gmi

>>18363541
That's an abridged translation. Read Gerson's.

Perhaps getting into metaphysics is the way

Has there ever been a book that has done a better job of exposing theists as the brainlets that they are?

>>18363606
If every word which was written down was essential they wouldn't bother making abridged versions.

I don't think there's anything in that work that would sway a materialist.

>>18363541
No one serious has ever used the word atheist like this, you brainlet reductionist.

Has there ever been a book that has done a better job of exposing theists as the brainlets that they are?
When I say atheists, I do not mean just people who reject the belief in a god or gods but who accept the premise that there is something like a soul that transcends the physical world.
I can’t believe I was so blind for so long.

is Uždavinys 'heart of plotinus' any good? I heard he has a tendancy to inject his own views rather than properly analyse the enneads

>>18364084
There's no work that can. There's a reason they're called hylics and not pneumatics. They only consist of matter, no thought.

>>18364084
Spinoza is a crypto-atheist

I think there are essentially two ideas of who God is. Either God is the highest Knower, or God transcends even that, making Him completely unknowable. The problem with the former is that then the hindus are right and we are all God (maybe that isn't a problem but there it is). The problem with the latter is that it becomes meaningless ot call something completely unknowable "One". So I lean toward the former view. Which view does Plotinus take?

>>18364198
How is Spinozism is against transcendence? Surely existence is itself transcendent? Spinoza's God is not physical.

>>18364349
My argument is very bad. Spinoza states that there is nothing that is nowhere limited by itself (paraphrasing poorly). This rejects transcendence I suppose.
I want to know, in your eyes, what the nature of spinoza's god is.

>>18364349
>How is Spinozism is against transcendence?
PROP. XVIII. God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things.
Proof.--All things which are, are in God, and must be conceived through God (by Prop. xv.), therefore (by Prop. xvi., Coroll i.) God is the cause of those things which are in him. This is our first point. Further, besides God there can be no substance (by Prop. xiv.), that is nothing in itself external to God. This is our second point. God, therefore, is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. Q.E.D.
>>18364349
>Spinoza's God is not physical.
PROP. II. Extension is an attribute of God, or God is an extended thing.
Proof.--The proof of this proposition is similar to that of the last.
Last proposition's proof (just replace the word ''thought'' with extension).--Particular thoughts, or this or that thought, are modes which, in a certain conditioned manner, express the nature of God (Pt. i., Prop. xxv., Coroll.). God therefore possesses the attribute (Pt. i., Def. v.) of which the concept is involved in all particular thoughts, which latter are conceived thereby. Thought, therefore, is one of the infinite attributes of God, which express God's eternal and infinite essence (Pt. i., Def. vi.). In other words, God is a thinking thing. Q.E.D.

It should also be worth noted that for Spinoza God's nature isn't reduced to extension, but rather it is an attribute out of an infinite number, and all of them express one and the same thing. Therefore thought/intellect (which is the other attribute humans experience) is just another way in which the same thing is manifested, instead of having some type of priority over matter/extension.

>>18364524
I dont understand how prop 2 means that god is physical. Are thinking things physical, for spinoza?
I thought it was that there is one substance, existence, manifested as the physical or as ideas. How do the two reduce to materialism? Existence is both material and immaterial (thinking). Am I wrong?

>>18364524
Follow up, god is a being of infinite attributes, expressed both in the actual and possible. He is also said to be an infinitely existing being, not limited by Himself. Is this not transcendent?

Has there ever been a book that has done a better job of exposing theists as the brainlets that they are?

>>18364630
>I dont understand how prop 2 means that god is physical.
As I've mentioned, replace the word ''thought'' with ''extension''. What Spinoza is trying to say, is that since extended things exist, and since God is the sole cause of things, then it should be followed that the property of being extended was caused by God.
>Are thinking things physical, for spinoza?
Yes
>>18364630
>I thought it was that there is one substance, existence, manifested as the physical or as ideas. How do the two reduce to materialism?
If by materialism you mean that the totality of substance and things can be reduced to matter, then no, matter (extension) is only an attribute out of many.
>Existence is both material and immaterial (thinking).
Yes, and also an infinite number of attributes we don't know about.
>>18364638
>Is this not transcendent?
''Transcendent'' usually refers to a being that is beyond or outside of another one, whereas ''immanence'' means inherence of a being with its property. Spinoza's God is immanent since there is nothing outside of him and everything is within him. For Plato, the world of Forms is transcendent because it is outside the corporeal one. For Spinoza, you could say that the world of Forms and the corporeal one are one and the same, or more precisely, both follow the same order and the same connection of the same being (God). In regards to finite modes (that is to be, particular things), they're modifications of those attributes.

>>18363606
The abridged parts are uninteresting

>>18364084
High art can.

>>18364102
Oof. Seethe and cope. One day mortality will catch up with you and you will wish you hadn’t been a tranny commie

>>18364680
based retard

>>18364795
Thanks for the answers anon. I have another question if you do return to the thread. If god is immanent, doesn't this mean he is not the cause of himself? It might be that I am misunderstanding this application of immance.

>>18365043
heh

>>18363983
Ngmi

>>18364795
Kek what a trainwreck of a post defending a pseud philosophy

>>18364524
Spinoza's God is the Absolute, Ain Soph, The One. Schelling's Naturphilosohie is basically a vitalist Spinozism. Spinoza is not an atheist nor a mere pantheist since the concept of Being itself is contained within God, but Being does not contain God. Spinoza offers a sort of immanent model of Platonism that does away with the Forms in favour of structures of mechanical morphogenesis, in which God does not emanate but rather imbues reality in a similar manner to the function of Sense in the Proposition (God is thus a sort of Differential principle mirroring the development of the Hegelian Absolute, but with a chaotic element). Anybody who thinks Spinoza was a reductionist Physicalist atheist is illiterate. Note the tripartite nature of the Ethics corresponds to the divisions of the Self in some esoteric strands (Physiological/Alchemical Body -> Mechanism, Structural Self (Mitsein), Absolute beyond all Being).

>>18364084
Material

>>18364236
Uždavinys was really good in terms of the historical background to Plato in Orphism but idk about his Plotinus book

>>18363606
>Gerson
I had him as a prof in university. He's actually the biggest cunt on the planet.

>>18363940
Cicero was a cuck that got what was coming to him

>>18364680
that actually does the opposite by exposing atheists as the brainlets they are.

>>18368672
Really? He's probably one of the greatest authorities in neoplatonic studies right now, even in an international context. What did he do?

>>18366559
>If god is immanent, doesn't this mean he is not the cause of himself?
On the contrary, being cause of itself and not being constrained by anyone make God an immanent being, since everything is inherent to its own nature.
>>18366794
>Kek what a trainwreck of a post defending a pseud philosophy
Could you please point out my mistakes and/or fallacies?
>>18366798
>Anybody who thinks Spinoza was a reductionist Physicalist atheist is illiterate.
Yeah I agree, that's why I mentioned that God is physical in the sense that it has a physical attribute, but taken as an Absolute it's a different story.

>>18365068
dude that's the biggest cope, you're admitting you only believe in a transcendental soul because you're scared of death

>>18364310
God is both.

>>18364680
Dawkins can't even wrap his head around the cosmological argument why would you take him seriously? The whole book is "God can't be proven within my positivist epistemological framework". No shit retard, neither can other people having subjective conscious experience of the world like your own but you don't go around assuming everyone but you is a p-zombie because "muh evidence" do you? It's entirely rational to make valid inferences without any direct empirical evidence.

>>18364795
>What Spinoza is trying to say, is that since extended things exist, and since God is the sole cause of things, then it should be followed that the property of being extended was caused by God.
God causing extended things doesn't mean it follows that God is extended. God created things, does that mean God is created? Of course not.

The eternal autism war between atheists and theists rages on, truly the day it ends is the day /lit/ dies.

>>18368720
Anon most probably failed his class.

>>18364198
>When I say atheists, I do not mean just people who reject the belief in a god or gods but who accept the premise that there is something like a soul that transcends the physical world.
Spinoza is a dualist though? The whole book is centred around the fact that mind and matter are two reflections of the same truth.

>>18369303
>God causing extended things doesn't mean it follows that God is extended.
A caused thing is always going to be conditioned by the nature of its cause (pretty self evident). Then it should be followed that everything is gonna be an expression of God's nature, since God is the sole cause of the world. If that is not the case, then either 1) God contradicted its own nature in order to produce an attribute he does not posses, or 2)Those attributes were not caused by God. Both are absurd, hence everything is an expression of God's nature.
>God created things, does that mean God is created?
Being created is a predicate that describes a formal relation (creator/created being, as is analogous to the antecedent/consequent of a conditional). Whereas being extended is a predicate that describes a property, and since the existence of that property can only be conceived through God, then that property follows from God's own nature.
>>18369408
>Spinoza is a dualist though?
lol no
>The whole book is centred around the fact that mind and matter are two reflections of the same truth.
That's right. A dualist would say that a being is the union between two substances, while Spinoza would say that there's only substance that can be explained in different ways, and those ways follow the same order and connection.

>>18366798
Is there a single pantheist who accepts the label? They seem like such trannies, constantly seething about pronouns as if it absolves them of any critique.

>>18371471
This really, the only people iv seen who are openly pantheists are some of the new age crowd

>>18368672
how else could he be an icoclast of the iconoclastic tradition spawned by the dredge that is protestantism and the "enlightenment"? Only a cunt can stand against the idiotic masses of the past 200 years of "scholarship".

>>18371471
because pantheism like monism destroys the ascent, for them there the cannot be anything to attain for that would imply real difference

>>18371495
so? most pantheists don't argue you're 'attaining' anything, just uncovering what always was true

>>18371505
exatcly, midwits

>>18363541
Imagine having a fat fedora man living rent free in your head

>>18368720
Here's my personal story from another thread >>/lit/thread/S18192280#p18200196

He's just a shit person.

>>18371720
>THE PASSAGE ANON, WHAT DOES IT MEAN?!?!

>>18363541
Can we settle this once and for all? Gerson or MacKenna (or any other translator im not aware of)?

>>18363606
I don't get that. They abridged it because the text has some repetitions and would make it too unwieldy. Who cares. Give us the whole thing or nothing. And it's not like the abridged parts are even that substantial. They'd add about another 50 pages to the book, and the book isn't even that long. Like Penguin doesn't already print gargantuan tomes like Tolstoy and Clarissa.

>mfw when atheists can’t refute the transcendental argument for god popularised by jay dyer

>>18368720
In that post, I should have mentioned that he would yell to the point of sweating and even turn red. Also, the mature student I mentioned was being mocked for being in his class as a "retirement activity" (Gerson had singled him out in his opening salvo).

Anyway, the point was that he's a shit person. It doesn't denigrate his authority in scholarship or undermine the idea his work stands on its own merit.

>>18364198
Based

>>18371806
>mocked for being in his class as a "retirement activity"
kek

>>18371888
Yeah, it was actually pretty funny if I'm being honest; assholes can be hilarious (and if they're actually smart/clever, like Gerson, that goes double). It's more about the pattern of behaviour though (I'm sure you can look Gerson up on sites like "rate my prof" and see a mix of people hyping his brilliance as a scholar and others calling him out for being a terrible person).

In that specific case, it was just an old man who was sitting quietly in the back of the class with a notebook open. Gerson took a malicious joy in humiliating people (not specifically ones who might deserve it).

>>18368694
This, he's an overrated hack

>>18371971
>I'm sure you can look Gerson up on sites like "rate my prof" and see a mix of people hyping his brilliance as a scholar and others calling him out for being a terrible person
He sounds pretty based desu.

>>18371790
What would falsify this argument?

>>18372289
Idk

>>18372422
Why should I care then? This is just astrology tier then

>>18371888
>>18371971

He should be happy anybody is taking his class. There isn't exactly a demand for what he is teaching.

>>18372196
I said it on the other board: it's difficult to distinguish between extreme arrogance and charisma, especially when you're an 18-year-old university student. He took joy in abusing people and that's a serious character flaw, not only when it comes to teaching but, moreover, when it comes to being a human being. It wasn't just holding bad students to account or making fools out of pretentious assholes...he actually enjoyed being in a position of power and using it to demean others. It was pretty fucked up.

That reminds me of another thing he's known for on campus. He works out at a particular gym and screams while he lifts. Good for him, keeping in shape and all, but he doesn't know people make fun of him and see it as a joke.

>>18372467
If you wanted to major in philosophy at UofT, with any focus on the Greeks, you had a 50/50 shot of having to take his class. There were only 2 meeting sections available for that prerequisite course. That said, his class was worth it if you can deal with him as a person (or just ignore his behaviour); the lectures were great and he's a world-class authority on the material.

I also mentioned on the other board that he isn't widely known outside of his field (he does lectures for the fucking Mises Institute). He also has the reputation of being a huge asshole among his colleagues (other professors in the department even brought up his behaviour in other classes...he has negative notoriety).

He gave us a set of rules on the first day of class. No hats (old school), no chewing gum (grape/watermelon would result in an automatic expulsion from future classes), no eating (based), and only water is allowed (he mentioned he had to allow that but wouldn't abide other fluids). He also locked the door 5 minutes after class started (he'd make a show of it, checking his watch and locking it at the precise second); if you arrived before that time, but after class had started, you had to sit in a specific row reserved for tardiness (it was meant to center you out from the class and allow him to note people who were late more than once).

>>18371790
1. Jay Dyer stole the apologetic from protestantism.
2. Alex Malpass refuted it.

>>18363983
nigga what?

Well...
Plato's Euthydemus, Theaetetus, Sophist, Phaedrus, and Book X of Laws.

>>18372924
he is a jew afterall, Porphyry of today.

>>18372924
He's searching for a genius and though soul to give something to.
widdling out the weak
I also believe this is must be why his books are so intense and revolutionary, he goes all out and holds nothing back.

>>18373033
That's a nice romantic way to see things. However, I was there and can tell you he's actually just an asshole who gets off on being abusive.

>>18371720
>>>/lit/thread/S18192280#p18200196
>Based Lloyd Gerson giving basic college kids what exactly they deserve. Its good that not every professor coddles their students. He's absolutely right to mercilessly dab on plebs, because 90% of college students just treat it like an extended day care/summer camp while bitching non-stop about every minor inconvenience.
>If I ever became a professor I would be the exact same way.
This.

>>18372956
And how did alex do that

>>18373084
Yeah, I read that at the time. I already said it's difficult for people, especially immature ones, to distinguish between narcissism/arrogance and charisma. He's a university professor, not a rock star.

He's a shit person. If you want to justify his behavior under the idea that the people it's directed toward deserve it...you should reread the part about how it was indiscriminate and how he's the type of person who gets off on using a position of authority for the sake of abuse. (Imagine him as a cop and see if you're still such a fanboy).

>>18369297
It’s bait, m8. The God Delusion was one of the first books everyone collectively hated on this board, and Douglas Adams.

>>18370599
>Then it should be followed that everything is gonna be an expression of God's nature, since God is the sole cause of the world
That's where you're wrong bucko. Gods essence transcends all created categories.

>>18372956
>Alex Malpass refuted it.
No he didn't. He flailed about and tried to argue that because he could utilize logic that it didn't matter whether he had a rational foundation to explain why it works.

>>18373143
>He's a university professor, not a rock star.
Yeah and you're a university student not a princess. You're there to learn, not to be coddled in daycare for adults.

>>18373066
>Get yelled at by your uni prof
>Still seething about it years later
You don't know it yet but he planted the seed of greatness within you

>>18373418
Not the argument. The argument is that you don’t have to know what logic’s ontology is to use it, you just have to know that it works.

>>18373515
Right so he has no rational explanation for logic but he'll utilize it anyway because it "works" while also having no rational justification for saying it "works". Saying something works is making a statement that something is achieving the ends for which it exists. Malpass doesn't think logic has an inherent purpose so he can't say that it "works" except as a subjective judgement, which is not an argument

So his position is irrational.

>>18373532
No. Again he knows that logic works. He doesn’t need to know the ontology of a fact. Presuppositionalists fail to understand basic philosophical concepts like axioms.

>>18373548
>Again he knows that logic works.
No he doesn't. He subjectively judges that logic works based on his own criteria. That is not an argument, at least not one of objective reality, only Malpass' personal opinions. Again to say that something "works" means knowing the cause for which something exists. If you don't have any justification for the ontology of logic then you have no justification to claim logic works because you need to know the former to justify the latter.

>>18373066
I emailed him cause im looking for a PhD in Platonism and Toronto is the only school with actual scholars in Platonic studies. He seemed nice enough in the emails. I love his work so this is a bit odd. That being said, Ive had fantasies about being a professor of Plato and yelling at retards who dont get it.

>>18373556
>Again to say that something "works" means knowing the cause for which something exists.
No it doesn’t. It’s an axiom (a thing so self evident it doesn’t require further justification).

>>18373454
>still on seething on 4chan
>greatness
I don't think so.

>>18373435
Look, an immature midwit who can't tell the difference between charisma and narcissism! Your opinions are based on soundbites alluding to simplified trends; you read shit about snowflakes and can't form your own take with regard to a specific context.

The truth: you're a social retard with a pathetic level of self-esteem. Your opinions are basic and predictable, you have to dress them up as contrarian so people will pay attention to you. I guess your parents failed to teach you the difference between positive and negative attention so you still have to play it out in your 20s. Grow up edgelord.

>>18373678
Imagine seething this hard.

>>18373603
As a scholar, you probably won't find someone better. If I were you, I'd put out some feelers regarding his relationship with grad students and PhD candidates (if you have a personality clash with him, you're completely fucked).

>>18373691
>Imagine seething this hard.

>>18373606
Thats just special pleading. If I claimed Humans just "work" and claimed its self evident they're achieving their ends your sophistry immediately becomes apparent. You have no justification so your claim becomes the justification. Irrational position founded on nothing.

>>18372924
>Yells at his students
>Yells when he lifts
>Obsessed about Plato
Powerful autism

>>18373454
If I were to credit Gerson with anything aside from being a great academic, it would be he's memorable. I had Peterson as a prof that same year and Gerson actually had better lectures.

>>18373760
Crazy UofT has so many good profs. I got into to go to Trinity as a transfer around 2017 and decided against it (was a huge peterson fag and realized he wouldnt teach again probably) Kinda wish I had gone

>>18363983
Each word written down has its own significance. Abridged texts only really fly with modern works, or fiction. Philosophy (especially classical philosophy which has been translated from its original language) should stay as it was.

>>18364084
To be fair not much other than personal experiences can sway a materialist.

>>18364290
Spinoza is a mystic you fucking plebian

>>18374046
It isn't crazy, it's the best school in the country (the only school on the same overall level is McGill). It has an international reputation (my ex got into med school in Korea and her average was only high 70s with sporadic marks in the 80s).

>>18374191
Spinoza was a materialist atheist brainlet his system doesnt even make sense

>>18371720
>>18371738
Fuck Gerson. Return to Mackenna.

>>18372196
Get this American the fuck out of my country.

>>18371971
How can you read Plotinus and act like this though?

>>18374298
Because he is a 21st century academic and not a philosopher.

>>18374239
I went to McGill (got accepted to UofT also) and I don't think it's on the same level. UofT has better profs on everything. McGill is full of twats and they overrate themselves so hard The Simpsons had to make fun of them.

When I learned about the legacy of great profs at UofT (from McLuhan, Frye, Gilson, even meme Peterson) I really regretted my choice.

>>18374305
The accounts of Plotinus say he was really friendly and encouraged class discussion. I always got a bit of a bad feeling with Gerson's Enneads and his ur-Platonism trilogy. I wasn't sure if it was genius or just the latest academic fad, albeit very well edited.

The rule about older translations is almost always right. Read Mackenna's Plotinus, people!

If I ever see Gerson on the streets I'm going to give him a piece of my mind...

>>18363541
Lol, imagine believing in a soul.

>>18373603
>im looking for a PhD in Platonism
You’re gonna be working in McDonald’s like that one 36 year old Husserl PhD who was on here.

>>18363541
Why would you take a book seriously that was written in a time when they thought the world was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe?

>>18374343
You are a legitimate retard. Even Pythagoras thought the Earth was round.

>>18374340
I only play Pharaoh (1999)

>>18373678
Wow cringiest post I’ve read on chan this week

>>18374343
Because they make far better arguments than any modern materialist midwit who thinks knowing the spin of electron has any impact on the fundamental nature of being.

>>18374239
I went to the Ivy leagues here and was unimpressed. No one one a peterson or Gerson level.

>>18374314
The profs at UofT stand out (and it's the same across almost all subjects being taught). The only thing that sucked was the courseloads (but that's par with McGill as well).

Seeing as this is /lit, Nick Mount was a solid prof in the English Department:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO8rEIddgrI (The Waste Land)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULFotqofhNk (To the Lighthouse)

https://youtu.be/1ddsl5nPfAc (Waiting for Godot)

https://youtu.be/5Lz_f1qjGiA (Lolita)

Unfortunately, these are only condensed/reworked lectures he gave for TVO/the general public (most of these are cut down from 3 hour class lectures). His series on Canadian authors don't suffer from the abridgement as much (here's one of those on Mavis Gallant: https://youtu.be/p-jFd4zYSDo )

>>18374421
Materialists are the most based of all time.

>>18374353
you will never be white

>>18371790
Transcendental argument is for retards. Logic is not the rules of the world but rather the rules of our conditions of access to the world. Read some critical philosophy and throw out of your retarded dogmatic metaphysics.

>>18374727
our access to the world is already a property of the world

>>18374742
What I'm saying is that the world is not logical. Logic is merely the rules that function as necessary conditions for experience of the kind we have. Logic, like non-contradiction or the principle of identity or whatever, along with stuff like space, time and causality, are perfectly applicable to our experience and our understanding and will always apply to anything we may sense but are not rules of the world in itself.

>>18374756
why would you posit a world in which non-contradiction doesn't hold?

>>18374756
>Psychologism
lol, this shit got debunked by Husserl

>>18374727
>Logic is not the rules of the world but rather the rules of our conditions of access to the world.
Any philosopher who tries arguing this is almost certainly a retard who doesn't realize this is basically just solipsism.

>>18374727
>>18374742
>>18374756
>>18374763
>>18374770
>>18374773
you need logic to go beyond logic

>>18374791
and a logic beyond logic is just mathematical metaphysics

>>18374773
Don’t the laws of logic get pretty bendy and shit though. Like possible worlds where the law of contradiction doesn’t hold and stuff

>>18374336
>not believing in a soul

>>18373012
And Porphyry was extremely based

>>18374249
filtered

>>18374327
>Read Mackenna's Plotinus
This. Modern academia is too cucked to produce a good translation 99 percent of the time.

>>18374249
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjHkyHS_tQk

>>18364680
He barely approaches the argument made with any sort of honesty. If anything this book makes him and thus atheists look like idiots. If he had more of a philosophical background attached to his scientific knowledge he might have been able to approach the topic at hand genuinely but this is a joke at best.

>>18364310
Both.

>>18374343
Because Plato though the earth was round and the sun the center of the universe.

>>18375414
>If he had more of a philosophical background attached to his scientific knowledge he might have been able to approach the topic at hand genuinely
No, if he had more of a philosophical background, he’d be working at a McDonalds

>>18373405
>Gods essence transcends all created categories.
That's exactly the premise I was arguing against, you're just repeating your position. In order for God to be transcendent he must negate his own nature, thus contradicting himself. The only way to maintain this position is with hegelianism, but ironically enough, Hegel admitted that the negativity of God's transcendence should be assumed by the sensible (thus becoming immanent) so the spirit can keep living. In other words, God must die so we can live.

>>18375635
>In order for God to be transcendent he must negate his own nature
I think you're getting confused with the distinction between the nature of created things and the nature of God who is ipsum esse subsistens. God doesn't need to negate His own nature to be transcendent because His nature is to be transcendent. You're applying theories that simply do not apply to God. It is not necessary at all for God to possess the nature of all things that God creates. That's just awful philosophy. You're thinking of God as the nous, not God as the One.

Hegel was also wrong.

>>18375635
>He doesn't know about the essence/energies distinction
ngmi.

>>18370599
>Then it should be followed that everything is gonna be an expression of God's nature
Yes, but the expressions come from the divine ideas which are not physical. God contains the IDEA of extension, but the IDEA of extension is separate from extension being instantiated in an actual thing. Just like the idea of redness is seperate from any specific red thing. Redness is not physical and the fact God contains the idea of redness doesn't mean God is actually red, that's retarded. The divine ideas are finite expressions of God and can only relate to Him analogically, not univocally as you are making the mistake of doing.

>>18374353
>Wow cringiest post I’ve read on chan this week

>>18374721
And you will never be a woman

>>18374336
How could you be experience your own consciousness without having a soul? Rocks don't have souls buddy.

>>18368672
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGH62P9htNc
he's a pretty based kike though