/lit/ - Literature

>>18749712
>T. Porn addicted zoomer

>>18749712
>get your news from the papers, not from twitter tiktok
uhhhhhh should I tell him

>>18749712
Proselytizer. While shit ideologies can corrupt young minds, a strong mind can endure bullshit and keep creative and wise. Many of us aren't zoomers.

O! Sensibilities of Youth! O! Humanity!

>>18749712
nigger kike buck breaking sneed

>>18749712
>get your news from the papers
Kill all journalists unironically. Remove the parasites that can do nothing but "represent" things. No, you actually don't need a celebrity telling you Timmy died in a police shootout on Wednesday.

>>18749712
>get your news from the papers

>>18749712
>not telling you to cut off your friends or do anything crazy like live in the woods or even stop using the internet, but

>>18749712
It's a great point connecting social media to Schop's quote about good and bad books. It's utter cancer that rots your brain. You should delete whatever accounts you have that aren't needed for work.

>>18749712
>you thirst for aesthetics without taking into account the many bad influences in your life, which is ruining your aesthetic wisdom i.e. your taste. im not telling you to cut off your friends or do anything crazy like live in the woods or even stop using the internet, but make sure what comes into your cognition are only the purest most patrician ideas. keep the retarded shit at a minimum. and remember the words of Spinoza, "true happiness is knowledge of God"
Spinoza was a genius. The last book of his Ethics is the most genius aesthetic theory that has ever been written. Let me explain more:

Aesthetics produce a measure of happiness or unhappiness in us, and this is typically the only measure which people judge aesthetics on when ranking them. What people have forgotten about is the measure of happiness or unhappiness produced when something contrary to that aesthetic is forced upon you. Not only ugliness and hatred, but also a measure of frustration, is involuntarily produced, as well as a distaste for the aesthetic which you were before enjoying. How do we solve this issue?

The first method is to isolate yourself from contrary aesthetics. The problem is that memory of your previous experiences will be produced upon looking at an object, and these experiences will produce a contrary aesthetic insofar as your past is aesthetically contrary. Also, since we need to renourish ourselves, we are forced to look at different brands, logos, and boxes which each attempt at being as flashy and noticeable as possible in order to catch the attention of people. This yet again disrupts us, and this argument can be reused in relation to stores, signs, advertisements, and the clothing people wear, outside. This method is obviously flawed. This leads us not to change our environment to meet the aesthetic, but change the aesthetic to meet the environment.

The second method consists in choosing an aesthetic that meets the types of environments you come across, to minimize the disharmony and disruption that comes with contrary aesthetics. Due to the prevalence of recollection and rememberance in our day to day lives, this leads us to need to consider a relational principle that fits our whole life (in the words of Kierkegaard, we must find the relation that relates itself to itself, or in other words the synthesizing principle of our life, the self). This aesthetic of the relational principle of our lives must not only synthesize our past, but our future to our past as well, for the future can bring something which cannot be synthesized under the relational principle, bringing us into a disruption, which means just finding the relational principle of our past is not sufficient to not have disharmony forced upon us. This relational principle, therefore, must be one which is based off of the eternal, necessary, and universal, i.e. god. Spinoza, in his fifth book, gives instructions on how to live this aesthetic, which can never be disrupted.

>>18751428
thank you for this post; will definitely read spinoza now. I've always wondered in what way do we preserve our aesthetic and not treat it as a commodity for self-flattery and immediate short-lived pleasures. I've read either/or and the book only showed me both sides (aesthetic/ethic) and not how to synthesize them into a higher state of living. maybe kierkegaard defined it in another book. maybe spinoza can help.