/lit/ - Literature

If hes so smart, why is that monkey stealing his wallet?

>>20499470
i think it was that german gibbon shoopenhaber who, correctly, remarked that low intelligence is often correlated with poor eyesight,

as: that is not what is happening in the picture.

also, one other point I noticed,

there's possibly some Chrysippus in this phrase:
>this asks for food, that answers, “What’s o’clock?”

i.e. Chrysippus "if this (cause), then that (effect)",
a persons reasoning deduces cause (hunger) correctly, but then impedes the obvious answer in the equation by putting an artificial contrivance in place of the solution; this being a perversity of the faculty of reason; and not then "true reason".

>>20499488
He's clearly taking a crisp $100 from his wallet mate, I sincerely hope you don't live anywhere with monkeys as they are going to fleece you

>>20499517
i uhmm.. no.. but thanks for bumping the post.

>>20499517
still, no I'm wondering 'should i pretend to find this funny' - because "my reason" seems to be destroying my capacity "to enjoy". hmmmmm

no, this comment wasn't at funny, it was low brow.

but .. then ... that's the joke anyway..?

that: you win a laurel crown, anon no. 20499470

hm.

>>20499517
No.The monkey is innocent.

Which is the basest creature, man or beast?

Birds feed on birds, beasts on each other prey,
But savage man alone does man betray,
pressed by necessity, they kill for food;
(but) man undoes man to do himself no good.

With teeth and claws by nature armed, they hunt
nature’s allowance, to supply their want.

But man, with smiles, embraces, friendship, praise,
inhumanly his fellow’s life betrays;
with voluntary pains works his distress,
not through necessity, but wantonness.

I'll be honest. I expected this thread to actually go somewhere.
op

You type

like a faggot

t. anon

>>20500065
you are not fluent in your own native language, anon. This is sad to me.

His boasted honor, and his dear-bought fame;
the lust of power, to which he’s such a slave,

and (for political power) alone he dares be brave;
to which his various projects are designed;
which makes him generous, affable, and kind;
for which he takes such pains to be thought
(therefore) wise,
and (to which aim he) screws his actions in a forced disguise,

(thus) leading a tedious life in misery
under laborious, mean hypocrisy.

>>20499437
Is having monkeys the key to being a based libertine? Aretino had one too, to whom he dedicated his books

>>20499470
rochester btfo

>>20499470
He isn't smart period. That's just what a glutton would say to justify his obesity. A smart person doesn't allow his stomach to control him.

>>20500548
wow, talk about fucking retards who can't read or think. That was your takeaway from that? To interpret it literally as if he's talking about food?

Holy fucking shit.

>>20500518
>a based libertine
Point is, anon, if you could also read properly; that this is the employ of libel and slander against superior reason.

see: epicureanism (or hedonism) as en ethic and how immoral people in puritan times liked to pretend it was somehow an advocacy of 'bad behavior'.

The conflation beginning out with that Rochester was in the first place a 'libertine'; and the desire of people to shame superior philosophical and moral arguments as being 'evil' if they find that the superior philosophical and moral arguments make them personally look stupid, unlearned and ultimately viceful.

i.e. >>20500282

>>20500518
>Is having monkeys the key
probably, but who needs monkeys when you have common fuckwits?

I'm reminded of Joseph Addison mentioning how common people in the coffee houses can only imitate conversation. I don't like to believe this is truly true for the majority, but...

>>20500548
>. A smart person doesn't allow his stomach to control him.
he actually abducted and seduced a real Woman, anon. We understand your fap-cup society culture can't really understand how actual Men and actual Women think. But it's nice and affirming that your greatest remark in refutation, to demonstrate your superficial sense of thinking, was to imply that,

>He isn't smart
(because)
>He was fat
mmm hmmm.

>>20500711
didn't this nigga and his whores die of sexually transmitted diseases when they were young
i get what you mean but basically they were avowed degenerates too with no good vision for life. intellectualism aside.

>>20500798
>didn't this nigga and his whores die of sexually transmitted diseases when they were young
well... yes he did but he was a distinguished war veteran by that point.

and age 30 is old enough to die imo

pssfhh xd

>>20499437
Bernard de Mandeville had a similar degree of independence of thought, though not a satirist; and yes, satirists by definition are moralists, or at least that was their original purpose. But I agree that Rochester is remarkable for his clarity and honesty. Swift is not very similar at all in his actual morals but has the same sort of refreshingly unpretentious misanthropy.

>>20499470
fpbp

i am bumping this for my lunch later today

>>20501618
indeed!

>>20501618
>satirists by definition are moralists,
This is true and this is the thing that is really overlooked and I would say purposefully overlooked; Rochester for a long time was deliberately cast as if he was the worst most depraved sort of person but his writings are nothing of the sort.

That's what I was saying as well about Martial especially, and Aristophanes to take the thing even further back. It's a strange fucking thing, I then noticed, that the people with the strongest 'moral-rationalism' are widely disparaged as being depraved or nihilists by the people who the society generally is supposed to regard as being the 'moral' ones.

Rochester highlights this perfectly and expresses it even more perfectly; it's a shame he's not considered on par with the later enlightenment era philosophers because he's absolutely one of the first and strongest inspirations - in the english language world anyway.

>the people with the strongest 'moral-rationalism' are widely disparaged
i mean:

the people who you would actually read and be convinced by their arguments to live a good life, versus the false piety and cliched language of other hypocrites who are more interested in converting you to an ideology-religion than actually 'being and living a good life in a real actual manner',
But a meek, humble man, of honest sense,
who preaching peace, does practice continence;
whose pious life’s a proof he does believe
mysterious truths, which no man can conceive.
Thus sir, you see what human nature craves:
"most men are cowards, all men should be knaves."

The difference lies, as far as I can see,
not in the thing itself, but the degree,
and all the subject matter of debate
is only: "Who’s a knave of the first rate?"

All this with indignation have I hurled
at the pretending part of the proud world,
who, swollen with selfish vanity, devise
false freedoms, holy cheats, and formal lies
over their fellow slaves to tyrannize.
If upon earth there dwell such God-like men,
i’ll here recant my paradox to them,
adore those shrines of virtue, (to them) homage pay,
and, with the rabble world, their laws obey.

If such there be(!) - yet grant me this at least:
man differs more from man, than man from beast.

https://jacklynch.net/Texts/mankind.html

>the people with the strongest 'moral-rationalism' are widely disparaged
i mean:

the people who you would actually read and be convinced by their arguments to live a good life, versus the false piety and cliched language of other hypocrites who are more interested in converting you to an ideology-religion than actually 'being and living a good life in a real actual manner', rather than not.


Thus sir, you see what human nature craves:
"most men are cowards, all men should be knaves."

The difference lies, as far as I can see,
not in the thing itself, but the degree,
and all the subject matter of debate
is only: "Who’s a knave of the first rate?"

All this with indignation have I hurled
at the pretending part of the proud world,
who, swollen with selfish vanity, devise
false freedoms, holy cheats, and formal lies
over their fellow slaves to tyrannize.
But a meek, humble man, of honest sense,
who preaching peace, does practice continence;
whose pious life’s a proof he does believe
mysterious truths, which no man can conceive.

If upon earth there dwell such God-like men,
i’ll here recant my paradox to them,
adore those shrines of virtue, (to them) homage pay,
and, with the rabble world, their laws obey.

If such there be(!) - yet grant me this at least:
man differs more from man, than man from beast.

https://jacklynch.net/Texts/mankind.html