/lit/ - Literature

Wow sweetie, have you even read the books I've read?? Educate yourself

>lit

>>20098859
Yes. If they don't have anything to say, they shouldn't say anything at all.

>>20098867
We should be thankful that being told to read books without explanation is the problem we have here, this is what they deal with on /his/

When someone tells you that [insert subjective source] is guaranteed to totally convince you of a certain worldview, you know they are borderline NPCs and have barely read anything else at all. People only get 'blown away' by explanations of ideas if they don't already have a wealth of knowledge and experience, it's all new to them so any semi-professional piece of writing is going to sound like a work of unfathomable genius. Also there's the classic 'friend simulator effect', they are lonely retards and thus get emotionally attached to any author they spend a lot of time absorbing.

>why don’t you read th-
>NO

/lit/ - Literature

>>20098867
>ty

>>20098962
DISCUSSION

There's no discussion to be had if you just say "Uhh read XYZ". Tell me what XYZ says and we can have a discussion. But you won't, because you didn't actually attain any knowledge you just read it to say you read it and so you can go online and say "Uhhh read XYZ".

>>20098864
Do you even know what I'm thinking right now? No? Kill yourself, retard.

>>20098859
>fucking summarise his point.
That's not how it works, the person is not going to understand or agree with you if you just summarise the content.
Read Åsa Moberg

>>20098859
spoon feed me Im a fucking dumb baby waaahhhhhhhhhh

>>20099016
>That's not how it works
Yes it is. You read to tell others you read, I read to share information and knowledge with others.

>>20099021
If you don't want to give people a taster of why they should give a fuck about [literal random nobody] then fuck off. Your recommendation is worthless. You are some stranger on 4chan, your word alone carries 0 weight.

Don't fucking bother telling me to "read X" if you're not gonna give me a reason why I should waste my time.

>>20099016
you might actually be retarded

>>20099065
Whenever someone tells you to "read X" you should immediately tell them you already did and it completely supports your own view.

>>20098859
>No idiot, fucking summarise his point
no. i don't owe you shit

people love doing this when they dont have any actual point to make

>>20099289
You're so full of shit, go read the entire canon of western literature and see that nothing you just said is true.

seethe

>>20099269
And I don't owe you my time to read the book you recommend. Moron.

>>20099328
then you lose the debate

>>20098859
I do that all the time in philosophical discussions, because some of you teenage/early twenty fags make trite points that are shot down in even elementary books on the subject. I get paid 40 euros an hour at my real job for teaching this elementary stuff to undergraduates, and fuck me if I'm going to do it for free to some contrarian giga-retard who is more interested in bloodsport polemics than informed discussion.

>>20099349
Oh so that's what it's all about is it. Finally the truth comes out. You think "read X" is a debate ender. Cretin.

>>20099351
>Teaches philosophy
>Is a pretentious gatekeeping twat
What a surprise

>>20098983
anon, people discuss things they have a common knowledge of, that's... literally how a discussion works. you don't go into a lecture hall at the end of a semester, scream at a lecturer to explain to you what's going on, then get mad if they were to say "read the textbook", right?

>>20099367
Giving resources to retards for them to teach themselves to no longer be retards is the exact opposite of gatekeeping.

>>20099368
We're clearly talking about people bringing up books no one else was talking about and insisting that no other pieces of information matter.

>>20099404
>>20099368
It's an imageboard, stopping every single conversation dead with "go read this 200-400 page book" is a retarded way to interact with others. Nobody learns anything from that. Nobody takes your advice. But if you dripfeed them something to whet their appetite, if you post an excerpt or summarise an interesting point of view THEN they might go "oh I want to know more about this".

>>20099404
Everything you've said is entirely wrong. Don't come back until you've read this work from start to finish AND got the point.

https://www.amazon.com/Merriam-Webster-Dictionary-New-2016/dp/087779295X/ref=sr_1_5?crid=35W7B95REQLFJ&keywords=dictionary&qid=1647890594&sprefix=dictionary%2Caps%2C136&sr=8-5

Whenever someone on /lit/ tells me "Read _______", I immediately go and read their works before returning to the conversation.

>>20099423
Read Waugh's Scoop

>>20099428
I just did, it sucked.

>>20099420
Already read it, it says you're gay.

>>20099442
Read it again, you obviously got filtered.

>>20099445
Already did, it says you're very gay.

>>20099453
Nope, you didn't get it. Try again.

>>20099456
It says I'm gay and that it's your fault.

>>20098896
there also seems to be a "knowledge comes from books" mentality.
it's like when you say something and at first the person doesn't believe in you, but when you show them the book then they believe in it.
or sometimes, if you use an argument that the other person has never heard before, they will ask you which book you've read.
to them, any argument whether it's right or wrong, has to come from books. they expect you to use arguments from an author they know, so that they can ad-hominem the author instead of countering the argument.

>>20099269
>>20099349
telling people to read is not a substitute to a valid argument. if you want to make a claim, then the burden to convince me is on you. if you don't owe me an argument, then I don't owe you agreement.
telling people to read is not how you win a debate, it's how you loose them.

>>20099497
finally you got the point

>>20099572
That's the midwit view, which is obnoxious but not quite retarded. What I described is the actual retard view.

>>20099328
i don't care what you do with your time

>>20098873
jesus christ.

>>20099016
kek

>>20099618
>burden
another fucking redditor found his way here, I see

>>20099223
this is great advice. especially if they ask you to prove it because then you can just tell the to "go read x" and if you want to be super chad you can tell them to "go read (secondary source on x)." I bow to your genius.

If you haven't read it, then I have no need to continue the discussion, and I have now quietly slotted you into my "inferior" drawer. I am 100% serious.

>>20099269
then why post at all if you dont want to actually engage in discussion? its what this shit is for after all.

>>20099223
>pages xx-yy say otherwise
>care to elaborate?

>>20099303
no you

>>20099704
>I am superior to you because I read a book you haven't
You are the worst type of brainlet

>>20099719
I'm superior to you because I read a book you'll never read*
I'm also taller.

>>20099351
If you dont want to waste your time then why say anything to those people at all. or post at all for that matter. if you are truely tired of explaining the same stuff you do at work then go out and actively try to explain those things (all be it with some dipshit reading list answer) and the complain about having to explain it you are the retard.

>>20099722
my wee-wee is much bigger

>>20099709
You got it. Either they will fold entirely or actually hold the discussion as you wanted them to.

>>20099404
its not really about the dissemination of good sources though is it? its about being a part of an ongoing discussion where someone already has a view point (and thus some understanding of the material, even if it isnt a good one) and putting a 200-400 page wall up with no context as to why the person in question should read that material in stead of continue to hold on to the knowledge base they already have and thus keep their world view. And in some cases, to go even further, to consider the fact that you can name drop that book and that your opponent hasnt read it as some kind of victory in the discussion. Thats the problem here. It is more like if a professor came in to a class with a prerequisite that all the student have, makes some claim the students dont get, and when the students ask about it the professor says read the text book and smiles at you smugly.

>>20098859
I understand your frustration. There's actually a sneaky way to get around these annoying posters. Trying reading books beforehand so that when they post that stuff, then you can say "I already have read it" and either make a counterargument or concede the point.

>>20099786
but thats cheating though.

If your opponent cannot elaborate their point without making you read a lengthy toilet roll why continue to be cordial? The biggest decisions in the world don't wait on reading shit

>>20099404
>>20099784
sorry there was meant to be a >>20099368
where I started to go on with the analogy. I didnt mean to imply you were the same people.

>>20099813
Im telling you>>20099223
is the best way to handle this shit

>comes to a literature board
>complains when he's expected to read something

>>20099832
What you said is plain wrong, read Fomenko's New Chronology.

>>20099824
There are even more applications of this principle. I was in some argument on /his/ and made some simple point about social structures or something (don't honestly remember) that this retard didn't like and without any explanation he said ">t. never been to china" and I immediately responded "I have been to china" and he shut up.

>>20098859
So you'll make threads complaining about how poorly read you are instead of, you know, actually fucking reading?

Out of curiosity, what were the last 5 books you read this year?

I reply to random posts with "Not an argument" and invariably the anon responds with some tldr seethe. Why are people so stupid? I think /lit/ is especially vulnerable because of all the intellectual insecurity.

>>20099858
Proof?

>>20099832
>posts on a literature board
>complains when he's expected to explain something he's read

>>20099849
>I've been to china and the architecture is as I described
>utterly mystified sperg stunned to find that people can actually go outside and experience things
you are a true chad sir. had you actually been to china?

>>20099858
I think that /lit/ has a strong divide between the savvy and the gullible. Most other boards have a lot of people in the middle but here you have few people who aren't either 4chan veterans who came here due to developed sophistication (you start at the retard boards and then out grow them, learning along the way), or extremely new redditors.

>>20099867
absolutely not

>>20099858
>I think /lit/ is especially vulnerable because of all the intellectual insecurity.
add to that the loneliness of not having anyone to talk to in real life about the subject that they think they know a lot about and you hit the nail on the head as to why that shit happens. every l. single. time.

>>20099873
It's insane the amount of anons that can't recognize a troll thread.

>>20099880
kek

>>20099856
In the last month
>Gravity's Rainbow
>Aion (Jung)
>Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (Hegel)
>The Three Musketeers
>Dairy of A Wimpy Kid: The Last Straw

>>20099858
Were you the one responsible for the historically low quality thread about who you should view as your enemy (in the biblical sense)? That was pretty funny

acquaint yourself with requite background knowledge before engaging in interrogatives with my person as represented via 4channel.org

>>20099423
Read some gay pornographic comics

>>20100035
suck my ass

>>20098859
Why are you on /lit/ then, you fucking idiot?

>>20100111
to discus literature. If I wanted to read Id be reading.

>>20100121
Then read what discussion has brought to fruition. Nobody has to spoon feed you.

>>20100111
I am on /lit/ for schizos from discord to ignore my arguments and tell me to read Thomas Aquinas

you're the reason why /lit/ is so shit

>"Dude read flibbity bibbit". YOU READ IT ALREADY. You internalized the presented information
this shows your fundamental misunderstanding of the situation

>cousin says fruits and vegetables are full of 'toxins' and that anything good from them can be had from throwaway scrap organ meat
>yeah bro read this book by the liver king
kek

>>20099858
tldr, didn't ask, don't care, not my problem

>>20099885
>It's insane the amount of anons that can't recognize a troll thread.
A far bigger problem is the amount of brainlets who write off everything they disagree with as "bait" or "trolling".

You'll have a 2 hour long back and forth with someone and then they'll go "oh you're baiting dude, no more replies for you" and it's like why did you even bother talking to me, why did you waste my time. Or you'll see someone make a reply starting with "I'll take the bait heh", as if their rebuttal to the OP is now ironclad because any critique of it is met with "UHHH NICE BAIT THREAD BUCKO". It's so boring. That's such a boring way to go through life.

>>20100408
you will never be a woman

>>20100415
Fuck up dude god damn

>>20100132
based

>>20100353
if thats too long its no wonder you've never read anything other anons draw from.

The second someone says "uhh source?" I stop talking to them.

You're guaranteed to be talking to someone who's not interested in a discussion, they just want to score points. They're incapable of employing basic common sense or reasoning or just taking a leap into the unknown and trying to piece things together themselves, they just want an authority figure to explain it to them. There's nothing inherently wrong with sources of course, but you'll almost never run into someone who's seriously asking because they're actually interested in what you have to say.

>>20100445
It entirely depends on the topic. Asking for a source to support a subjective worldview is retarded, asking for a source about an issue of fact is not.

>>20100043
I already have

>>20099016
>>20099223
>>20099442
>>20099701
>>20099722
>>20099839
>>20100121
>>20100415
this thread is actually peak /lit/. dont ever change my bastards.

>>20100445
I agree with this but also it sucks sometimes because there are those occasions when someone makes a compelling argument I want to know more about but when i ask for source they dont gimme.

>>20100464
I would argue most people (and thus odds are you and I are part of this group) conflate those two things which makes dealing with the mentality tricky.

>>20100510
projection

>>20100445
>the second my beliefs are challenged, I give up
Bitchmade faggot.

>>20100555
Asking for source is not challenging anyones beliefs.

You just want to score points because your goal isn't to learn anything it's to feed your ego. Sit there and wank yourself off all day combing over "sources" if you like, the rest of us are going to engage in enjoyable and fulfilling discussions where we learn from what the other has to say.

>>20100570
It's clear you spend a lot of time on the retard parts of the internet. I don't see this very often.

>>20098859
The reason this happens is that most people don't commit the supporting arguments for a belief into memory, so instead they merely internalize the belief that it's true once they become convinced. This is a direct cause of most poor discussion out there, alongside stuff like, "Person has a vested interest in X being true".

>>20100592
Good for you sport. Now fuck off.

>>20100610
No. I'll stay right here, faggot.

>>20100594
I think the topwit thing to do when faced with a challenge to these sorts of beliefs is to go and brush up on the information and establish a stronger basis for the belief or replace it. You'll understand the issue way better.

(within reason, some things are not worth the trouble)

>>20100445
You're feelings aren't facts, tranny.

>>20100669
Peer reviewed studies are works of fiction.

>>20100537
if you say so

>>20100697
It's obvious that I don't, I'm the one who drew the distinction.

>>20100687
You're a moron if you reject the concept of evidence just because pop-psychology produces some garbage.

>>20100705
The entire peer-review system is corrupt and broken and I don't trust a single thing those people come out with.

In fact I do the exact opposite of what they tell people to do. I eat red meat, I throw garbage in the street, I pour hot oil down my landlords drains.

>>20100733
if the majority of studies can't be replicated, it means the majority of studies are worthless. so them it should logically follow that it's a waste of time to read any study.
science niggers can't even use science on their science top kek

>>20098859
What exactly do you want to be told? I could tell you I read and enjoyed Blood Miridian and then explain to you that it's a western novel following a gang as they make money taking the scalps of Indians but that not why I enjoyed it? How can I convey to you that the enjoyment of such a novel comes from the novel descriptions and beautiful language in a way that promotes any form of discussion if you've not read it?

>>20100760
This is obviously a thread about non-fiction.

>>20100733
I don't believe that. You sound like a faggot who lets people bully him.

>>20100750
The 'replication crisis' is about the soft sciences, not STEM.

>>20100778
>You sound like a faggot who lets people bully him.
Uhhh where did that come from? You got some unresolved issues bro?

>>20100785
then where is the replication of the big bang or a fish turning into a monkey turning into a human?????????

>>20100750
It can still be useful to be aware of the studies even if they are wrong. It's like traversing a maze by touching the walls. And besides, when people are digging for gold, they know most of it will be mud

>>20100803
Big bang theory is not science. That's like saying the geocentric theory is science. It could very well be the case that the universe is just rotating, but from our perspective it looks like it's expanding. We have no idea how limited our perspective is and that ignorance should be accounted for.

>you're wrong but I can't explain why, so here's a study that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand
And they wonder why I don't like them

>>20100698
wait i am confused are you or are you not saying that my statement was me projecting?

>>20100733
kek

>>20100803
bait

>>20100871
Of course that's what I'm saying.

>>20100827
>And they wonder why I don't like them
No they don't, they don't think about you at all.

>>20100785
this just isnt true. though the reason for stem reproducibility issues largely comes more from funding constraints. not everyone can afford to build super computers, particle accelerators and sterile vacuum chambers needed to conduct many of the condensed matter, molecular biology and astrological studies and thus the evidence or validation from reproducibility can not be called upon to support the claims that come from said studies.

>>20100698
you made the distinction but you have not proved that what you believe to be a pure fact is not just something that supports your world view.

>>20100890
Which is a whole different issue, they just remain in limbo for a long time until someone gets the chance to try to replicate. The soft studies actually get replicated and are show to be bullshit.

>>20100902
well obviously, retard

>>20100803
these things are not proven in peer review studies. certain facts that appear to support these theories have been. for example there are many studies that show that cells reproducing mutate and that some of those mutations are beneficial to reproduction and survival and these advantages lead to supremacy of the new cells. this is used as evidence that props up evolution as a theory. there are other things that prop up other parts of these theories that make them hard to discard, but they are still just theories (but then again so is gravity).

>>20100921
This is what that guy meant by people here not knowing how to recognize trolls. The guy may as well have just given us a signed confession, but here you are.

>>20100904
its not really a different issue though. The end product is that you have a bunch of theories being published with the backing of science that are missing a key part of what it takes to deserve such strength of conviction in its truth value.

>>20100775
When is someone ever having an argument in which someone says "read x"? The entire basis of the thread is a work of fiction.

>>20100930
Things not being proven one way or the other are totally different from things that are proven wrong. STEM has a better grasp on this anyway, they don't just eat up whatever they want to hear.

>>20100931
All the fucking time, you retard.
>*Lengthy explanation of the Epicurean Paradox*
>Shut up atheist, go read Thomas Aquinas.

>>20100907
I am a retard because my point was made? I was simply saying that it doesnt make dealing with people easier to know their is a distinction when that distinction can be conflated within peoples point of view.

>>20100928
I care not. what was lost in me taking the time to make a coherent point even if it was to a troll post?

>>20100935
I would argue that wrong theories taken to be true and built upon, eating up brainpower, time, and resources, are more dangerous than those that are proven false and discarded. at least in the later case the scientific method is working to weed out false information.

>>20100941
>you haven't proven that you are totally reasonable on an anonymous forum, checkmate!
Is always a retarded thing to say.

The original point was not complicated but your sperglord brain took it in this ridiculous manner. Asking for evidence that a historical event happened is different than asking for evidence that it's 'good' to be nice to your mother. One is a tangible thing that could possibly be resolved by evidence, the other is about subjective values.

>>20100937
Maybe if you're throwing around the epicurean paradox people refuse to argue with you because you're a giant faggot and telling you to read something is a good way to shut the conversation off and get away from your fat fedora tipping cunt personality

>>20100975
again, if you say so

>>20100987
They refuse to argue because they have tried before and learned that there is no good response to it.

>>20100987
pure /lit/ gold

>>20100990
This is so fucking cowardly

>>20100994
The epicurean paradox is refuted wholly by the term free will.
>but God could have created a universe with free will and no evil
No he couldn't have. Evil is a product of free will, if you remove evil then free will is limited only to that which is good and therefore it isn't free at all. Plus, evil as a concept was created by man, and has changed dramatically over the course of history. People don't like arguing with you because people whose entire existence is based on their disbelief in God are dickheads. Sometimes people just want to have fun.

>>20101022
Make a universe without free will, retard.

>>20101022
>evil is the product of free will
yeah free will was totally responsible for every natural disaster and plague

>>20101009
>you are acting in a way I dont like on an anonymous forum, check mate!
is always a retarded thing to say

>>20101041
There has been absolutely zero substance to anything you have said.

>>20101031
a universe that acts based cause and effect is retroactively deterministic and thus is a universe without free will.

>>20101022
God himself has directly terrorized me and threatened to kill me for eating cheddar jalapeno cheetos, all dressed chips, popcorn chicken, chalupas, snickers, etc and playing video games, because "they're for rich people" and "I'm a peasant" and "it's important that he make sure desirable things remain exclusive for the rich" etc He would have killed me for hosting video game tournaments or buying a video game fansite if I didn't give it away, he says expecting a contract be fulfilled is "not respecting my betters", etc.

There's absolutely nothing you could ever say that would convince me that God isn't 100% adamantly on the side of the most evil people in this world. He induces them to behave more evilly than they would were it not for his inducement. It's God who wants me to believe that I'm a worthless and if it were possible for my soul to die permanently then I hope it does.
-I don't believe that eating cheetos is wrong but God will kill me if I eat cheetos. I don't believe that playing battle brothers is wrong but God will punish me for playing battle brothers. I don't believe that fantasizing about being a desirable person in some sci fantasy future planet us wrong but God constantly harasses me if I do it. This is just scratching the surface of things that I don't consider wrong that God will punish me in some way for doing, bicycling, eating snickers, eating chalupas, juggling, doing well in school, wanting to go to college and get a white collar job, going on a date, cooking food, etc the list just goes on and on.

I don't have the power to choose for myself what I consider right or wrong because God will impose his beliefs on me and his beliefs often contradict today's concept of good and also any notion of an "absolute good" as evidenced by the fact that he feels the need to constantly deny the evil shit that he does to me in order to continue telling himself that he's good.

>>20101039
>natural disasters and plagues are evil
>bro people die from it so it's evil!
OK dude

>>20101048
Yeah

>>20101039
'Evil' is not the same thing as 'bad'. A volcano isn't evil for erupting. A tree isn't evil for falling on someone's house. For something to be evil, it needs to actively choose to do wrong. Inanimate forces of nature cannot be evil

>>20101055
If you say this you have to abandon pretty much the whole of whatever moral system you have.
>children dying is okay
okay

>>20101060
>the world is run by inanimate forces rather than decisions made by a conscious higher power
so you're an atheist

>>20101022
Free will is not real. Many Christians accept this as well. It makes sense in neither model of the world.

>>20101059
yeah

>>20101067
>If you say this you have to abandon pretty much the whole of whatever moral system you have.
No I don't. Evil is a human trait, borne from free will. Your anthropomorphisation of nature does not change my stance.

>>20101083
>Your anthropomorphisation of nature
so theism

>>20101083
see
>>20101048

>>20101089
The existence of a semantic argument does not beget its relevance.

>>20101083
God created these people and allowed them to do these things unimpeded, he is at least as much to blame for the evil as they are. It's not about wanting "status and fancy things." They think they can define literally anything desirable as "for the rich," "fancy" no matter how cheap or accessible it is and terrorize people for buying or engaging with it. They threaten me with death/mutilation/starvation/slavery over the pettiest things imaginable like playing video games or eating cheetos/snickers/literally any food that is good and of course over anything larger than that like owning property, getting a gf, making myself attractive, wanting to go to college, starting a business, educating myself, etc.

They want poor people to be miserable and have shitty lives, they want my life to be actively harmful, distressing, unpleasant. Rich people don't just want to have fancy things while I have regular things, they want to have everything and they want me to have nothing. They don't want a dichotomy where regular people drive regular cars and rich people drive luxury cars, or where rich people live in mansions and regular people live in regular houses, or where rich people eat food prepared by professional chefs who went to culinary school and regular people eat what they can buy at walmart, they don't just want me to not have a desirable job they want me to not have a tolerable job, they want me to work a job that is as harmful as possible that will cause the maximum amount of pain, suffering, physical and mental destruction. they want to be the only people to have anything, they want to be the sole enjoyers of reality, they want to be the only ones with cars, houses, food with any sort of "flavor", any money at all

There's no amount of "acceptance" that will make the life that they want me to live good because it's important to them that the life that I live causes me to suffer. They literally won't be happy unless I'm unhappy, so if I "accept" my role in society I will be abused and made unhappy because they believe that's a core feature of my role in society.

>>20101099
I guess you're retarded enough that I'll have to abandon brevity. In the theist model of the universe, God is a conscious being and controls all of nature. Natural disasters are acts of God, and thus fall squarely into the scope of the good/evil discussion.

You're the only playing dumb semantic games, anyway. "If God is real then why do bad things happen?" is another way of stating the question, it doesn't have to involve this poetic concept of "evil"

>>20101119
Theism is a broad concept and its application extends beyond saying "God made volcano go boom God bad". God gave humans free will, humans settled near a volcano. Evil, good, bad - they are all human concepts.

>>20101119
if you believe god to be good as well as his creation inevitable and meaningful, then evil must exist because it is required to give good meaning and it exists in gods creation (because for it to exist it most be, there is no outside of god and god is good so evil must not be him and thus it must be in his creation) and is separate from god because god is good. faith in god is the belief in these 3 things. gods grace is accepting that evil exists in gods creation because of the meaning of gods creation, and venerating the holy within us.

>>20101164
> Evil, good, bad - they are all human concepts.
So God can't possibly be inherently good

>>20101169
If God was all-powerful he would not be bound by rules, least of all these silly rules.

Plus, there's a matter of ratio. If evil has to exist for good to exist, why not make it extremely rare? Certainly don't facilitate a system where most intelligent people have trouble saying with a straight face that life has more good than bad.

>>20101164
>God gave humans free will, humans settled near a volcano
You guys lead yourself to such ridiculous places with this shit. So being a normal ancient human being and unknowingly settling next to a mountain that is actually set to explode warrants fiery death? This is your moral system? How is that different than just having a materialist view that "shit happens"?

>>20101169
>because for it to exist it most be, there is no outside of god and god is good so evil must not be him and thus it must be in his creation
You realize this makes no sense, right? You just said there is nothing outside of God, so everything is within God. This includes creation, and creation includes evil, so evil is within God.

>>20101237
he is all powerful in the sense that all power is in his creation (and all that power comes from the meaningfulness of his creation, which inevitable due to his existence, this all power comes from him simply being).

>>20101248
>You guys lead yourself to such ridiculous places with this shit. So being a normal ancient human being and unknowingly settling next to a mountain that is actually set to explode warrants fiery death?
God didn't snap his fingers and make the volcano explode.

He made the Earth and like humans, just let things run their course without interference. The Earth itself is alive, do you weep when you crush an insect? Then why cry fowl when a volcano destroys your tribe?

>>20100931
>>20100937
>>20100987
beautiful

>>20098873
Honestly, I would prefer this over being told to read an entire book of somebody. I'd just pick one of those videos that is maximum five minutes long.

>>20101259
this is now clearly bait

>>20098859
Read
>Atomic Habits
>The Bible
>48 Laws of Power
Am I doing it right?

>>20101264
It says right there that it's 55 minutes

>>20098873
Based

>>20101262
So God is amoral and doesn't give a shit about us. That's just deism, which is barely different from atheism.

>>20101229
God just is

>>20101237
how is there more evil in the universe than good when there is much more of what contains only good (the holy aspect) than evil (that which springs from the negative of that aspect)? The only things that have the power to enact evil are things with the capacity for evil, which we do not consider inanimate objects or even lesser intelligences then ourselves to wield. and all evidence points to the universe being largely made up of these things. in b4 "you cant ascribe good to them then either," you can because object has a divine aspect that is good due to its relationship with god (the good).

>>20101279
>So God is amoral and doesn't give a shit about us
If he intervenes every time something "bad" happens, then you don't have free will anymore. Do you want your entire life dictated and controlled by a higher being?

>>20101279
The application of human principles to God is your problem. God can give a shit about us but let us live free of his imposition the same way a parent can love their child and still be happy when they move overseas.

>>20101288
By the "the holy aspect" you mean God, and your idea of God is everything, so of course it will outweigh 'the evil' in a basic sense. This is really not very profound.

>>20101301
>Do you want your entire life dictated and controlled by a higher being?
If you believe God is perfect then of course you should answer "yes", you fucking retard. I don't even believe in free will so nothing is lost, anyway.

>>20098859
I'm confused, is this when you're discussing an idea or concept that was first presented in the book in question. Or when you're discussing something else and someone is seemingly out of left-field presenting a book that you have to read?
Because in the former, then they're right to do it - don't debate without doing your homework (not that you should be 'debating' at all, instead of trying to score points, try to learn - make other posters work for you).
However in the latter, I understand your frustrations: there's thousands of books out there, why should I move this one to the top of the list?
But which case are you complaining about?
>>20098873
there must be a special place in Hell right next to divorce lawyers for people who provide walls of links without context like that
>>20099223
>>20099709
But of course! It's such a simple technique!

>>20101256
creation dosnt include evil, its meaning requires evil to exist. so even though it is in gods creation it is not of god, it is a consequence of gods creation existing with meaning. if the universe was unintelligible there would be no evil, only the holy aspect, but life has meaning. (I would also like to point out that this is an argument based around axioms that are matters of faith, so them seaming weird when you dont have that faith is 100% understandable).

>>20101303
That's retarded, mate. You just compared it to a situation of stepping on a bug, don't try to bring in these analogies of human family dynamics.

I completely understand why you hate having these discussions and just tell us to read giant books that you have never opened yourself, you suck at this.

>>20101318
so God doesn't control creation

>>20101279
you bandy about these titles like anyone should give a fuck. read ivan ilich

>>20101317
>Or when you're discussing something else and someone is seemingly out of left-field presenting a book that you have to read?
that definitely seemed to be the point, we see this all the time

>>20101334
I did. It proved that God doesn't exist.

>>20101304
its not god. it is the good aspect of what comes from being of god (the Good with a capital G) and being in a meaningful creation.

>>20101343
now you're just saying random words, very sad

>>20101321
>God is bad because if I was God I wouldn't allow things which I think are bad to happen
Your argument is bad

>>20101304
also never claimed to be profound. This was just a response to "if god how evil?" shit that gets thrown around all the time.

>>20101349
If God's idea of good is your idea of bad then his reward for you in heaven could very well be eternal torture. Do you think you'll like that, being tortured forever but being told it's good?

None of this works if you abandon basic empathy, it's the whole selling point of religion.

>>20101350
So you're an atheist playing games, thought that might be the case.

>>20101327
gods will is what we call fait but it doesnt really work in what we would consider to conscious decisions like some guy sitting in a chair making people do things. (some people would claim it is a much higher form of consciousness that we wouldnt recognize and some people say its just a fluffy way to say determinism. I dont make philosophical claims in that area).

>>20101368
so God is an NPC

>>20101342
teaching by example. I lold

>>20101271
Yes, that one video. I would hope there's at least one that's shorter.

>>20101362
Good and bad are human concepts. Natural phenomena just are. God didn't give volcanoes free will.

>>20101401
so God is not good

>>20101419
God is.

>>20101347
I have introduced no new concepts and am using the same terms. but I can if you like. creation is a subset of god. there is god aspect in everything. one of the 3 things needed for this discussion which I have laid out (and acknowledge is a matter of faith) is that the set god is good. thus all sunsets of god must have good in them. there is also a set called the meaningful of which both gods creation and evil are a subset. but evil is not a subset of gods creation, it occupies the same set as gods creation to make up the meaningful. does that make anymore sense. it is exclusively a statement about how evil can exist without being of god.

>>20101365
not that either but its clear that this is going no where. >>20101374

>>20101429
thoughtful response, but it's not formed in a shape that he's asking for.

>>20101374
not sure what you mean by that. I guess you could say that god has no inner monologue (unless you want to get into a discussion about the divine word as defined as the will of god like in muslim faith).

>>20101442
The concept of good or bad is not applicable to God. God is. Good and bad exist independant of God because of free will. Concepts of goodness in the west are not the same of those in the world elsewhere, good is a creation of man borne from free will. So is evil. God creating us in his image goes only as far as free will and our ability to manipulate the world around us.

God is. To go further is a fruitless effort.

>>20101446
I really didn't want to get in a discussion with you in the first place, honestly.

>>20101494
then why did?

>>20101432
I hate God and I will always hate him. Imagine loving someone who gets triggered over me eating walmart brand popcorn chicken because "it's for rich people" and "I don't deserve it" and "I'm a peasant", threatening to kill me over all dressed chips, cheddar jalapeno cheetos, terrorizing me and withholding food or making me eat disgusting things if I eat things like hot rods or snickers, or the above mentioned foods, barbecue flavored hoops, a chalupa, etc. God is a retarded tranny and he's been a piece of shit to me my whole life. I will always hate him and I would never want to be part of any of his putrid disgusting creations.

>>20101365
see
>>20101334

>>20101504
beats reading Thomas Aquinas

>>20101429
You could have just said this from the get-go. The whole paradox relies on the God in question being alleged to be all good.

>>20101507
to be fair the god in our discussion only gives a shit about what you eat in the sense that, in his creation, they are not healthy for you lol

>>20101513
does it? Ive never read him.

>>20101462
>God is. To go further is a fruitless effort.
so there is basis to take any action in relation to God's existence

>>20101515
to be fair its one of the 3 axioms that i outlined...

>>20101526
Leave and don't come back until you've read all of his works and the entire canon of classic western literature

>>20101515
I did say it from the start. My entire argument is that good and evil are human concepts. I've been saying the same thing the entire time.

>>20101533
Maybe don't be/throw in with people who respond to the mere mention of the epicurean paradox with >>2010098, at least without making your distinct position known up front.

>>20101544
>>20101533
>>20101540
the 7 cut cut off lol >>20100987

>Maybe if you're throwing around the epicurean paradox people refuse to argue with you because you're a giant faggot and telling you to read something is a good way to shut the conversation off and get away from your fat fedora tipping cunt personality

>>20098859
No

>>20101556
You're mixing people up. My position is that God is. I also think OP is a faggot for thinking people want to talk to him when he only wants to discuss God. Of course conversations aren't fruitful or meaningful in real life when you bring up the epicurean paradox.

>>20101400
Anon, I...

>>20101578
The epicurean paradox is an illustration of a classic question, one of the most important questions around religion.

>>20099223
Based

>>20101400
Why would you watch anything that tranny "assigned" you?

>>20099858
Same but I randomly post "wrong" on a heated debate

>>20101535
i already have and he said you're a faggot

Full of nigger loving faggots in this board wow

I take every /lit/ thread deadly seriously and will chimp at the slightest provocation.

>>20101872
>38 IPs
Not really. They're just contained into one thread.

>>20099423
read every thread in /pol/

>>20099351
Wow. They really let anyone teach, don't they?

>>20102151
based

>>20098859
Dude, you never read Flibbity Bibbit ?

>>20101611
you got filtered, read him again

>>20100760
I really can't believe that anyone is dumb enough to think OP was talking about a discussion on a single fictional book.

>>20100824
it's a tv show, retard

>>20098859
Just take the L, loser.

>>20098859
Read Lenin.

>>20103199
I just did, it validated my view.

>>20098859
As much as namedropping thinkers in arguments rather than paraphrasing their ideas is cringe, this “post-argument shower thoughts” thread is also cringe, so I’m not sure who the real loser is here.

>>20099423
>not just gleaming their basic ideas from Wikipedia, googling academic refutations of their points and then copypasting said refutations to own the anon you’re arguing with
Bro do you even dishonest online discourse?

>>20098962

You're supposed to posting something mind-numbingly retarded that will piss them off enough to seethe and explain their point.

>>20098859
>>20098896
>>20099572
Based. The entire point of reading books and discussing them here is to address problems by reasoning about the differences between great thinkers. Usually midwits with nothing to add to the conversation don’t understand this and are either searching for or trying to pass off a given book/author as the final word on a given subject.

>>20103578
The sad thing is that now even actual schizo "the end is near" types don't put in effort to explain their thesis. My university's screaming nutjob in the square outside of the library (every university has one) didn't even write out his message on a sign, he put a youtube url for someone else's channel. I'm talking like www.youtube.com/HJahqjfofjahbqhqoqjfjd handwritten in marker, with no description of what it was about.

>>20098859
If you can't restate the main themes or central argument of a book in your own words, then you didn't read it. Simple as.

>>20103612
Ideally *profound* words. Some people think that simply naming the genre counts.

>>20098859
I don't really have a position on this argument. But I would just like to say I love a good meta thread.

>>20098859
This

If you can't sum up the concepts and explain it to others, why would I bother?

>>20103605
Sad. My university's local schizo had some real works of genius. It's part of a broader cultural shift - for example, normies and boomers place this outsized emphasis on whether a source is credible when they engage each other online, to the point of excluding any real conversation about the actual proposition being made be the source.

It goes back to Plato and Socrates' idea that writing everything down would mean that people would no longer have to remember any of it. Obviously the majority of human knowledge being accessible via your cell phone has changed the way we engage with and reason about it in some way.

>>20101022
>"but God could have created a universe with free will and no evil"
>No he couldn't have. Evil is a product of free will, if you remove evil then free will is limited only to that which is good and therefore it isn't free at all.
This implies that our universe's logic is superordinate to and precedes God. It's only impossible according to the rules of this universe which God himself putatively established
Zoroastrians were right in rejecting the notions of omnipotence that Abrahamists cling to

>>20103863
This. The epicurean paradox is immediately defeated if you put some moderate limitations on God in any one of three categories (power, knowledge, benevolence), but these are sensitive children who can't handle accepting things like this.

>>20099423
Read Six Days in the Life of David Vallejo. Please, I'm begging you.

This entire fucking thread is just strawmans and aphorisms about "people" who probably don't exist.

>>20104104
I can't imagine being so much of an NPC that you haven't noticed these archetypes

Philosophy is just academic circlejerking. No, you don't need to read what some gay German wrote 300 years ago to understand basic logic and have an opinion on things.

>>20099298
kek

>>20098859
Retard.

>>20104596
Are you one of these hopelessly low IQ children who thought he was talking about fiction?

>>20104084
I see people recommending this book on here all the time, is it really that good?

>>20099423
How do I do think like this instead of being a slave to my ego and discourse?

I tell people to read a certain thread and link them to the archive

>>20104132
exactly. at best its an appeal to authority which is the most effeminate of homosexual acts

>>20104609
>entire premise of the thread is a work of fiction
>"you're a retard for mentioning fiction"
The only way the people OP mentions exist is if the person to whom they are speaking is some pseudo faggot who brings up religion at the slightest hint of a potential conversation
>oh hi anon, how are you
>YOU LOOK CATHOLIC, THE EPICUREAN PARADOX REEEEEEE
Grow up

>>20105174
low quality bait

>>20105231
>anyone who thinks I'm stupid is baiting
Grow up dude seriously

I don't get how anyone disagrees with OP. He's obviously right. If you disagree, please refer to the complete works of Marcel Mauss. Hope you can read French. These books prove us right. No I won't tell you how, just trust me.

>>20099899
Nigga Im not your teacher, read it or google it

I've got an acquaintance IRL that does this same thing with psychoanaylsis and it's the most retarded shit ever. I literally don't have time AND don't want to read 2-4 books on something I don't have an interest with just because you want to bring up specific ideas, but at the same time refuse to explain them.

>>20106025
I'm being merciful by calling it bait. You don't want people thinking you actually sound like that.

>>20106059
this

>>20098873
yeah /his/ is somehow even worse than this board. At least *some* people here read more than Wikipedia.

>>20099223
>>20099223
>>20099223

>>20109510
thank you

>>20109484
reading wikipedia is already astronomically superior to watching youtube friendsimulators

>>20098873
>/his/
their problem is their gaping axe wounds

>>20099899
>Dairy of A Wimpy Kid: The Last Straw
I got filtered by the cheese touch plotline, maybe I'll give Kinny another attempt after I get through the Vedas

>>20106309
what

>>20103312
Read Spinoza, retard.

>>20103312
Cope. I had and won a complete argument within this thread.