/lit/ - Literature

Anything by Fyodor

aquinas i guess

or some neoplatonist thing

If you don't want to confront nihilism you pretty much have to limit yourself to pre-Enlightenment philosophy. And even then..

>>2698276

Right... Because he's not existentialist.


Anywho, why wouldn't you want to become a nihilist? A lot of good literature is. I like Sound and. Fury and Fernando Pessoa. And machado de assis

>>2698288
>Right... Because he's not existentialist.
No fucking kidding

>>2698290
confronting nihilism doesn't mean accepting it.

>>2698288
>why wouldn't you want to become a nihilist?
If so many young pathetic imbeciles on this chan are nihilists then there is obviously something wrong with it.

anything thats not existentialism. in fact just stay away from philosophy. dont even think about because as soon you contemplate the slightest metaphysical question then you're an existentialist. The best solution is just to read doctor's surgery waiting room literature.

>>2698301
lol

>nihilism is popular therefore it is obviously flawed

philosophy isn't a fashion accessory, you dead-brained shit.

>>2698307
Fuck nihilism.

>>2698316
so edgy, so alternative

>>2698294
No one is a nihilist, though. Nihilism is just a truism that features in most modern philosophy, but particularly existentialism. Being a nihilist is like being a fatalist, impossible, because holding a philosophical stance presupposes desire, and desire presupposes purpose, even if it's subjectively felt purpose.

Everyone is an existentialist if they've read existentialism, read about nihilism, and either rejected or affirmed (and then passed through) it. Even if they never talk about it again or consider it a dead issue, they still have a stance/opinion/belief regarding existentialism and nihilism. If you don't want to ever do that, you need to limit your reading substantially, because almost all modern philosophy has been more concerned with the origin and foundation of purpose than pre-modern.

>>2698324
I could take nihilism to an extreme that you couldn't even dream of.
But I won't because of my natural optimism and "experiences" that show there is something more.

>>2698263

Serious answer?

Bertrand Russell or Noam Chomsky.

>>2698331
>I could take nihilism to an extreme that you couldn't even dream of.

confirmed for underage b&

>reading something just to escape from other thing.

hahaha omg what tha fuck. i wanna fucking kick your face.

anyway, as a serious answer i think the best thing to read in order to avoid nihilism and existentialism is actually reading them and thus find out they are pretty naive and irrelevant today.

if you just escape from them they will haunt you everywhere.

trust me.

>>2698339
Your lack of emotional sensitivity annoys me.

>>2698343
Your lack of intellect annoys me.

The bible

>>2698352
Philosophy requires both intellect and emotional sensitivity.

you lack both, you pseudo-intellectual 20 year old piece of shit

>>2698343
0/10

>>2698352
10/10

>>2698356
Have fun wanking to your uniqueness.

>>2698362
Have fun wanking to your wrongness and open-mindedness.

>>2698331
>my natural optimism and "experiences" that show there is something more.

>2012
>reading events as they are present themselves to us

laughingfeels.jpeg

>>2698370
*-are

>>2698370
ssh, don't even tell him about anti-realism, he'll cry himself to sleep.

>>2698341
/thread

>>2698370
>>2698373
I will not give into your peer-pressure.

>>2698356
>emotional sensitivity
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I can see a context where this might make sense, but still, they're not fucking equal.

>>2698381
The board is just mocking you, not pressuring you.

>>2698381
>not being sure of his arguments and escaping just because he is challenged by more than one.

that says a lot of you arguments and about your "natural optimism and "experiences" that show there is something more".

>>2698388
>>2698389
>>2698390
If this work seems so threatening, this is because it isn't simply eccentric or strange, but competent, rigorously argued, and carrying conviction. ~Jacques Derrida

>>2698400
you're adorable

>>2698400
>rigorously argued

why dont you try yourself to argue with that rigor?


also, and off debate, those are the great minds: not those who say great ideas but those who simple minds can use to defend opposite arguments. (cause i dont see how u can use derrida to defend yourself, but you do anyway. hence the simplicity of both our minds)

>>2698263
It's inevitable

>>2698400
Right, when he was referring explicitly to his work - a specific, individual subject. Likewise, this statement illuminated the subject and didn't seem contradictory to it. You absolutely don't get to use that quote.
I repeat; what the fuck is wrong with you?

>>2698263

stop recommending the bible

it's hardly convincing. the guy who mentioned aquinas was right.

>>2698400
That's a quote from Sarah Palin - not Derrida, asshats.

the obvious answer is never let yourself be exposed to or contemplate the validity of any philosophy beyond Aristotle