/lit/ - Literature

I read Dickens and Shakespeare.

I read Finnegan's Wake everyday.

>>2924756
>finnegan's

Rand's books are made of doodie.

>>2924765
Yeah you may not of heard of it. It's a irish comical ballad that loosely inspired the more famous Finnegans Wake novel, the readaptation of the ballad for children.

I don't bother reading philosophy.

I am
I branch out my tastes in many creative arts and entertainment mediums to the point of obsession

anyone who disagrees with me is an edgy teen

i am also versed in presuppositionalist masterrace philosophy jesus is my hero kill the gays

>>2924770
>reading lyrics
Casual.

Anonymous is the most intellectual on this board because he's not a tripfag

I'm not. I still play Skyrim.

>>2924794
did get the latest dlc
if you didn't then your at least smarter than me

ITT: I am soo daerk ppl think im amazin, mylif suks evry1 stupid.

>>2924821

>/lit/ in a social situation

I'm the most intelligent poster on 4chan because I'm quitting right now

bye

>>2924838

you could that about every 4chan board

>>2924838

Oh god I laughed way too hard

>Why am I better than everyone else

I am not. But, are you ?

>>2924912
That's deep, breh

I argued with a nihilist, a feminist, and an atheist and used logic and reason to convince them that they are ridiculous.


I, therefore, am the most intellectual.

D'averc as in Deep&Edgy is.

>>2924976

>>2924976
Good one.

>>2924846
Yes, indeed you could that.

>>2924838
>tfw /mu/, /lit/, /fa/ are symptoms of the same problem

>>2924966
you can defeat nihilism without logic, dmbass. so well dumb you won an argument against an idiot.

I do'nt think this board has any real intellectuals. Knowing things about philosophy or literary theory or whatever doesn't automatically make you an intellectual...

>>2925142
>Knowing things doesn't make you an intellectual

aight

me i read nietzhieaeze

>>2926067
It's true. You have to create original thought in order to be an intellectual

I am genuinely the most intellectual on the board. Ask me anything.

Pound-for-pound I am because I'm just as stupid as everyone else here but I'm only 16.

>>2926795
You're also leaving.

How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnished, not to shine in use!
As though to breathe were life. Life piled on life
Were all too little, and of one to me
Little remains: but every hour is saved
From that eternal silence, something more,
A bringer of new things; and vile it were
For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
And this grey spirit yearning in desire
To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.

>>2926923
OH fuck you just quoted some of the best words ever fucking put down on paper. dammit now I have to tear up a little.

>>2926793
it would be pretty easy to argue that knowing more means it will be more likely for you to have an original thought, for a wide variety of pretty obvious reasons.

well i'm the one in the process of writing this so all of you are rat-species bacterium scum suck my dick retards

>>2927035
Oh it's you
Hurry up and finish that I want to read it

>>2927043
should be ready at the end of spring

>>2924771
oh god are you me
>mfw my knowledge of television, film, literature, music, history, politics is beyond that of 99.99% of humanity

i am become information

>>2927075
>i am become
>television, film, literature, music, history, politics
>the most consumable and easy to understand trivia, rather than the sciences or maths

u sure no alot

>>2927035

Hey, I remember you! You're the guy who didn't know what meaning meant, and had a silly idea about nihilism being the most accurate philosophy or something.

Fixed up those errors yet?

>>2927035
where's alchemy? If you're working on religion and phenomenology you should perhaps be familiar with Edith Stein's Infinite and Finite Being, which explores Aquinas' conceptualization of act and potency via Christian phenomenological hermeneutics. Good stuff! Definitely the best purchase I've made at any Christian bookstore.

I called a lady a grimalkin today because she called noise "techno" at a jazz concert, if pedantry counts.

>>2924782
>he
check yr privilege

>>2927191
Not him but nihilism is definitely the most accurate philosophy. Come on.

>>2927221

Nah bro, existentialism totally is. Following the axioms of reality it has to be this (well not so much axioms of reality, but the axioms of perceived reality through a human perspective). And do you mean nihilism or solipsism? The last guy got them a little confused too...

>>2927221
Look at this uneducated idiot right here.

>>2927221

I'm sorry I might have misheard you. Did you say that AMERICAN PRAGMATISM is the most accurate philosophy?

>>2927239
>>2927236
Sorry, but if you guys are religious in any way we're going to have to end the discussion right here.

>>2927236
Nihilism is just the rejection of religious or moral principles with the inclination that morals are subjectively contrived. Which is right. Or it can be epistemologically arrived to, once you realize that nothing ultimately means anything. You can be existentialist if you want, but it's not accurate. What you're talking about I don't even know. Axioms of reality as in knowledge?

>implying I'm an intellectual
>implying I don't write op-eds filled with lowbrow humor encouraging people to slack off and follow their dreams for a living

>>2927259
accuracy is overrated

Sunhawk

>>2927259
so I suppose you're a radical activist fighting to do away with social constructions like race and gender?

oh wait, you're just a fucking uninformed person

>>2927259

Not religious, it's cool.

-the rejection of religious or moral principles with the inclination that morals are subjectively contrived.

I agree with the beginning of this, but I dismiss the end point. Humans instinctively correlate and investigate information. We both accept his.

-you realize that nothing ultimately means anything.

This is the part I have a problem with. From a logical positivist perspective, you are correct. I am not going to do that however. Until you can 100% accurately distill qualitative information quantitatively, then I can't agree with logical positivism.
There is meaning in everything because we as the beings who perceive reality value meaning, and we value meaning because we use it to understand the world. We, as beings who have been given flawed methods to understand reality, can only understand reality in a flawed way. That involves giving things meaning. Even nihilists place meaning onto things, and you can't argue that without proving my point. Now, if you were an artificial intelligence program, I would say, 'okay, you are a nihilist.'

Are you? It would be cool if you were.

>>2927291
>that turrible reading comprehension

>>2927297
>We, as beings who have been given flawed methods to understand reality, can only understand reality in a flawed way.
Exactly. This is what nihilists realize, and why they become nihilists. For example, the meaning of life for a Christian is to serve God or something. But the meaning of life for a Muslim is to praise Allah. Continue down this path ad infinitum and you'll see that nobody can agree on an objective meaning of life.

>That involves giving things meaning.
Of course. But it's an anthropocentric concept of meaning, ie fake. Once you realize that everything is just an attribution of how much value people put into it, you realize that everything is we we concern ourselves with is simply our perception of the thing, and inherently meaningless.

In other words, they realize the "meaning" is not really real. Hence nihilism.

>>2927325

>Exactly. This is what nihilists realize, and why they become nihilists. For example, the meaning of life for a Christian is to serve God or something. But the meaning of life for a Muslim is to praise Allah. Continue down this path ad infinitum and you'll see that nobody can agree on an objective meaning of life.

But... This is... exactly what I said... Nobody can agree on an objectively meaning of life, so it is up to the individual to make their own. There is meaning, because we are human. You might disagree with it, but you can't escape it. A meaningful life brings so much more happiness than a meaningless one. We're given the tools to have meaning, so what's the harm in it? You aren't losing anything.

>Of course. But it's an anthropocentric concept of meaning, ie fake. Once you realize that everything is just an attribution of how much value people put into it, you realize that everything is we we concern ourselves with is simply our perception of the thing, and inherently meaningless.
In other words, they realize the "meaning" is not really real. Hence nihilism.

I dunno, you're welcome to keep believing it, but I feel that my philosophy is kind of building upon yours in a more hopeful way.
A child says, "this means this," you say, "nothing has meaning," and I say, "nothing has intrinsic meaning, so we can give our lives whatever meaning we please."
Also, if nothing has meaning, then why are you clinging onto logic and rationality so desperately?

>>2927325
the point is, you're still arguing the same thing feminists do when they say "gender is a social construct," you're just not doing anything about it. Doing nothing about these constructs is giving into inevitability, which is a self-negating nihilism that's equivalent to believing nothing at all. It's not strictly invalid, but it's hard to see the value in it.

>>2927353
>Nobody can agree on an objectively meaning of life, so it is up to the individual to make their own.
>There is meaning, because we are human.

I feel like life is way too complicated to just come up with a cut-and-dry meaning for it. How would you even do that? "My meaning of life is _______." I don't see it.

>Also, if nothing has meaning, then why are you clinging onto logic and rationality so desperately?
Too much philosophy

>>2927378

But that's the beauty of it! Who cares if you think you're wrong? If what you said before is what you actually believe then it's not like you can be right. If one day it doesn't work, you can just go okay, "okay, let's try something else." It's what everyone else does anyway. And if this philosophy is anything, it's doing what everyone does but in a way that's more honest and in-tune with yourself.

>>2927401
>but in a way that's more honest and in-tune with yourself.
I out of my own free will choose not to be honest (in your view) and in-tune (in your view) with myself.

how about we all respect the skills we all have, and agree that none of is is better than the others.

>>2927259
>>2927353
>>2927378
This guy gets it. This guy gets it real good.

>>2927193
Sorry, but as you can see Aquinas is rat-tier. It's a shame. Were he not a theologian his work might have been good. As for alchemy it's not really what I'm concerned with.

>>2927419

That's two different people, but thanks anyway.

>>2927411

>reading fictional stories.
>skills

>>2927429
>athiesm
>not a dogmatic pseudo-religious belief sysetm

>>2927419
but act and potency are themselves Aristotelian terms and not rooted in his theological work. You needn't discount his philosophical hypotheses because of his religious theses, though you're certainly welcome in disregarding when he takes "but this is contrary to faith" to be a solid refutation.

I speak of alchemy only because the Opus Magnum is rich in philosophy (certainly the only place in Christian thought you can get away with talking about the womb of chaos) but I'm too tired to pull out any good examples. Taschen's Alchemy & Mysticism is full of interesting images on the subject but it's a fairly large book and not on sale anymore, I think.

>>2927434
It's not so much dogmatic as it is 'not believing in obvious bullshit lol'

>>2927429
Comprehension is a skill

I'm certainly not.

I come here for the fantasy.

Thomas Pynchon is.

I will never consider someone who rattles off philosopher names/quotes during arguments especially intelligent.

In sanskrit, one who is possessed of intellect is often translated as 'wise.' I wonder if we could just do the same with this question, because I don't like the way it is at the moment, since 'intellectualest' is not what I think OP means, and means something else. Who is the wisest here? The problem with this question is that /lit/ cannot answer it except by sorting out men in the same way the freemasons do, with various orders &c. The wisest people are probably those who don't post regularly, and only use the board in order to contribute towards some kind of sociological critique of the effects of the digitalisation of man.

>>2927584
>sociological critique of the effects of the digitalisation of man
>new media faggot

>>2927597
What is a new media faggot? If you are implying that I study 'media' or something, I don't.

>>2927584
>>2927584
Counterpoint: fuck you

>>2927483
What do you mean?

>>2927483
>I like this place already
What do you mean by that? I hope you aren't new here, and are already posting.

>>2927656
>>2927665
>(Dead)

Great. Is litmod censoring posts again?

me

>>2927681
It's not even showing up in the archive. What the...

Haha, you guys are all idiots.

Whoever among us has an actual doctorate, or is working towards one.

I'm still an undergrad and unlike many /lit/ posters I acknowledge that as long as that's true I couldn't begin to harbor any pretense of being an intellectual.

>>2924771

So you're artistic not intellectual.

>>2927075

>television
>film
>politics
>claims to be intellectual

shiggydiggydor

>>2929276
Having a piece a paper from going to school does not equal intelligence.
You just knocked yourself out of the contest with that one.