/lit/ - Literature

>>8063172
lol

Even if you were genuine - and I don't believe you are, as you'd have given better, more thorough explanations for your supposed change of heart, especially if you'd actually internalized the protea ways of continentality - your post is liable to start another idiotic political shitposting thread, the likes of which we don't need.

Sadly, good bait.

>>8063180
I have read works of actual academics, works based on years of research, there is a whole body of study on those particular subjects.
It's a whole field.
You're dismissing it because you saw couple of crazy trump protesters right?
I seriously hope that isn't the case.

>>8063190
My problem is that you guys never provide counter-arguments, only name calling.
When confronted with those theories you think start to talk like peasant laymen.
>b-but it's simply sounds CHURAZYY
If that's your argument, then it's the argument about any political change that challenged the status quo.

>>8063205
Man, I'm as much as a pomo leftie as you supposedly are, if I look at my bookshelf the first titles I see are Deleuze, Baudrillard and Foucault, with a healthy side dish of anarchist thinkers, I just think the way you started this thread will result only in inane shitposting and no pointed discussion of what you claim to have learned. Give us a topic, a book, a name, anything.

>>8063172
Okay, but Derridaddy was the grandpa of post-structuralism. He believed that signs (let's simplify signs to words) were made up of two things, the signifier and the signified. He also believed the more important of the two was the signifier, what's implied by the person using the word. Now, lets look at what third wave feminism and sjws believe in- specifically, not wanting ppl to use specific words like nigga or cunt, etc. Except that by not wanting to use those words, you value the signifier over what is being signified. Instead of seeing the truly implied meaning of nigga to be friend/homie, you take it as an offensive slur. So maybe, then, you say "It's not what you think the word means, it's how the word affects me." But even if the word affects you, you're the one giving the word it's implied negative value.
tl;dr gr8 b8 m8

>>8063172
>conservative, resistant to change people in history.
Implying any of that is even the slightest bit of a bad thing!

>>8063217
I really want to formulate a good case for these values, which I believe are simply the next step of cultural evolution.

There are many people that I know that are resistant to these things, if I penetrate them I'll have a good strategy to 'convert' more people.

For example the wage gap.
The "anti-sjw"(what's a proper name to address them even) claim that is a myth.
Obviously the gap exists, their justification is that 'women simply choose different occupations', they don't realize how deep upbringing, social expectations etc impact a person's mind.

It's no less arrogant than a filthy rich person saying to a homeless man "well why don't you buy your own building?"

How can you decrease the gap other than by regulating employment, which is in and of itself sexist? The best way is to grant opportunities to women to succeed

>>8063172

>>8063264
>Obviously the gap exists

No it doesn't.

>>8063264
>they don't realize how deep upbringing, social expectations etc impact a person's mind.

Genes matter more. Evolution did not stop from the neck up, nor are women physically equal to men. If you're trying to argue some asinine bullshit about how women make equally good firefighters and marines etc. you should take it to tumblr where someone might fall for it.

>>8063274
No no no no, that is fear mongering.

The strategy feminism uses is to simply SHOW young females that they can too get into leader positions, STEM fields etc.

The typical argument comes from meritocracy.
Judging each person based on his own skills.
While that is absolutely a good strategy, you have FIRST to SHOW young females that they can, so you CREATE artificial positions, equity.

It's not fair for those individuals who miss the positions due to quotas, but it will break the mental, cultural barriers women face, in the long run it will solve the problem.

The sacrifices are too small compared to the benefits, of having a true equal society.
Sure, in western civilization everyone is technically under the same fair law but these people have no clue or completely underplay the cultural aspects of it.
Gender roles, expectation, etc
They all play HUGE role in your life decisions.

>>8063293
That is simply being superficial.
Read this
>>8063294

>>8063205
The problem is that you're on /lit/. This place needs time to redeem a long sought quality.

>>8063294
>It's not fair for those individuals who miss the positions due to quotas, but it will break the mental, cultural barriers women face, in the long run it will solve the problem.
What was the problem exactly and what are you making better?

>>8063172
Dude, I know it's Friday afternoon, but that was just such a sorry, half-assed, lazy attempt at bait. Put a little elbow grease into it next time.

>>8063293
/lit/ is basically tumblr
i really wouldnt bother discussing this kind of thing seriously here, its mostly undergrad libarts students browsing

>>8063294
>make the workplace more equitable
>women are less happy than they were before
>"Yay we fixed it! Onwards!"

>>8063172
>as I read more continental philosophy, post-structuralism, lacan and generally post-modernist works

The vast majority of these works totally contradict the tenants of mainstream Social Justice presuppositions though, you see the problem is that SJWs are entirely structuralist, they believe in race gender and sexuality as some all important categories for which identifiers have to be reified and constituted into legal force.

Rather than as Derrida aimed towards to deconstruct narratives of violent hierarchy they aim to adjust the narratives.

>>8063264
Or alternatively, our whole economic system is absurd and most people of either gender are trapped in objecively pointless jobs that they hate. The only thing liberal feminism does is whitewash an inherently exploitative system by placing token minorities on positions of power. Lionizing female business executives does much more to legitimize corrupt executives than for the status of the average woman. Or look at Hillary Clinton's campaign for example, full of empty pop feminist signifiers.

>>8063301
>>8063313
>>8063311
>>8063310

Women not even considering STEM/leadership/etc positions due to preconceived, millenia old notions of gender roles.

Sure there are biological differences between women and men but they hold almost no relevancy when it comes to mental competency, unless you believe a macho tall man is smarter than you just by being bigger.

>b-but it's biology
That is a naturalistic fallacy, if we consistently applied it we'd still live in caves and men would still grunt and eat mud.

But look where are we, look what we achieved, absolutely unbelievable societies, science, culture etc.
Just by changing minds.

Imagine living in 5000BC
Lets assume you were immortal and lived for 2000 freaking years, you'd see almost no change in gender roles, no real difference in behavior in society etc.
But in just couple of centuries we saw almost impossible changes in societal and mental structures, how we behave now is NOTHING to what is expected by 'biological standards'.

>>8063313
This. The corporate workplace and political spheres are antithetical to satisfaction in the great majority of both genders. Re-organizing people by genitals and color within those spheres is just denying the root cause of the dissatisfaction that lead to the reforms.

>>8063294
You miss the point. Progressives always assume that """creating equality""" is a virtue everyone else shares. I don't.

The reality is that for every job slot A that any given women could fill, there is always a male that is better at it. That's just the way sexual distributions work. I'm not concerned with creating opportunities for women because I don't even think they should be working anyway, they should be making babies, and it's funny that progressives who are supposedly academically educated such as yourself never question the capitalist pressures that brought about women entering the job market in the first place.

Furthermore, the entire history of biological life has been a massive thresher of pain and misery, countless individuals being culled from the gene pool to make what we are now enjoying. Civilization actually arrests this process. The progressive notion of equality, of humanity as a gray mass, ends with Nietzsche's Last Man and is in any case completely at odds with the system of capitalism in which you would like to """create opportunities for""" these women, minorities etc.

tldr long hair don't care

>>8063310
Another fallacy.
Why are you so blind to this?
RIGHT NOW, we have the most comfortable life in history, greatest justice, meritocracy, life expectancy etc, but depression rates skyrocket and rise.

Does that mean we should go back to the caves or throw away the civil rights we fought over?
That is insane, it shows you really haven't bothered with it at all.
You dismiss it because you watched some guy ranting on it, picking on naive teens and shitting on them on video.

>>8063324
Oh dear...

>Women not even considering STEM/leadership/etc positions due to preconceived, millenia old notions of gender roles.
Why do this? Are women more satisfied in the new roles? If not, would you even consider not pushing more of them into those roles?

>Sure there are biological differences between women and men but they hold almost no relevancy when it comes to mental competency, unless you believe a macho tall man is smarter than you just by being bigger.
There are ways to determine who's smart besides eyeballing them, you goober. Why not use those? Have you already decided that anything that shows a disparity in capability is to be discarded?
>b-but it's biology
>That is a naturalistic fallacy, if we consistently applied it we'd still live in caves and men would still grunt and eat mud.
Saying biology contributes to someone not wanting to do something or having inordinate difficulty doing it is only a naturalistic fallacy if you attach an ought to that is. You still need to justify any ought you assert.

>But look where are we, look what we achieved, absolutely unbelievable societies, science, culture etc.
>Just by changing minds.
Possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read here. History is a constant question of "chicken and egg."

>Lets assume you were immortal and lived for 2000 freaking years, you'd see almost no change in gender roles, no real difference in behavior in society etc.
>But in just couple of centuries we saw almost impossible changes in societal and mental structures, how we behave now is NOTHING to what is expected by 'biological standards'.
But that's not true if you account for the material conditions and adaptive pressures acting on us. We have our current attitudes about work and gender roles because of the current state of technology and the economy, not because humanity has been teleologically striving after some "ultimate society."

>>8063324
>Sure there are biological differences between women and men but they hold almost no relevancy when it comes to mental competency, unless you believe a macho tall man is smarter than you just by being bigger.

Stop posting and read up on sex IQ curves.

>>8063340
>Does that mean we should go back to the caves or throw away the civil rights we fought over?
Why not? You threw in some cute hyperbole about living in caves, but why not sacrifice wealth and certain societal structures for a compromise between old and new that will allow us to live well? Surely that's a choice we get to make. There's no such thing as Progress with a capital P that makes us do things a certain way.

>>8063324
>Women not even considering STEM/leadership/etc positions due to preconceived, millenia old notions of gender roles.
They are, in a very large degree. The more conservative the country, the more women are in STEM fields, ironically. I'd say that at least 40% of all STEM students here are women and have been for over half a century. Women aren't morons you make them out to be.
>Sure there are biological differences between women and men but they hold almost no relevancy when it comes to mental competency, unless you believe a macho tall man is smarter than you just by being bigger.
They do. There is a thing known as interest. Women like children more on average, hence you see more women trying to become teachers and work with children in other areas.
Also women tend to chose family over careeer while men devote themselves more to their work, simple division of work everyone is satisfied with. My closest family is all highly educated and all women I know chose children as their primary goal in terms of how much time is devoted to us, the husbands do so by working more stressful jobs (lawyer and a STEM professor in a college, politics there is brutal).
>That is a naturalistic fallacy, if we consistently applied it we'd still live in caves and men would still grunt and eat mud.
No, it doesn't even have to be naturalistic. Esscences are different for men and women to a degree. Women like less stress and more kids, men like to strive to provide for the family.
>But look where are we, look what we achieved, absolutely unbelievable societies, science, culture etc.
We are at the brink of colapse, people are miserable and devoid of meaning, suicide and depression are at an all time high. But yeah, we have cell pjones.
>Lets assume you were immortal and lived for 2000 freaking years, you'd see almost no change in gender roles, no real difference in behavior in society etc.
And what we are seeing now is women debased, devoid of dignity and self respect, stupider than ever.
>But in just couple of centuries we saw almost impossible changes in societal and mental structures, how we behave now is NOTHING to what is expected by 'biological standards'.
That happened because capitalists wanted to exploit women too, not because of your idiotic egalitarianism.

>>8063368
First of all, it's just one guy.
Second, why is that even bad?
He shows empathy that you could never understand.
That level of empathy requires intelligence, maturity, responsibility and much more.

>>8063368
>>8063375

>>8063375
I'd tell you to not have kids but I don't think there's any danger of that happening

>>8063172
>regressive left
Anyone who uses a term this retarded should go to the gulags

>>8063375
>First of all, it's just one guy.
We know you are the second one
>Second, why is that even bad?
Because he's been brainwashed to the point of insanity
>He shows empathy that you could never understand.
Yeah, him and people with stockholm syndrome
>That level of empathy requires intelligence, maturity, responsibility and much more.
I don't think feeling bad about a person who was a danger to people around him and has severely broken the law is mature, responsible or intelligent. It's the opposite. Imagine a legal system which took pity on people who came into your country and commit disgusting crimes for hospitality. It wouldn't be a very just one, that's for sure.

>>8063384
He'll abort 1-2, but he'll have kids that's most probable.

>>8063172
>I can see why the "regressive left" is actually the positive force.
>the positive force
>positive
>valuative statement
>claims to have read continental philosophy
>using valuative statements in the year of our false god 4032/2
>positive
This is how I know you're a troll or a wikipediaer. Post-structuralist and Postmodernist would destroy you for using such a incredibly loaded statement.

>>8063402
>>using valuative statements in the year of our false god 4032/2
"Sodomy is the highest value"
-Focault

This men was right
>Slave morality is a "nay-saying" attitude or herd morality which holds to the standard of that which is useful or beneficial to the weak or powerless. The virtues are sympathy, kindness, and humility. Strong and independent individuals are evil.

This is a "good" thread

>>8063408

>he google a quote without knowing the context
That's Foucault strawmanning to prove a point.

>>8063311
This is a good post. Sadly, it's not what people usually mean by SJW. At least in my experience, I far more often run into
'SJW' the term as a sort of haphazardly constructed strawman. But regardless, if that's what SJWs are to you, then good; In your lingo, SJWs are a "bad" thing.

But you also have to consider that this is a counter-narrative you've created that, rather than reifying race, gender, and sexuality, reify a political group. We should aim to deconstruct the narrative of the so-called 'sjw' the same way we should deconstruct the much more widespread memes of "conservative" and "liberal."

>>8063375
You just showed your hand troll. 7/10 you have just the right amount of misinformation and undefined terms with no specific argument to make to convince me you're legit. Nice work

>>8063408

Until you get AIDs, kek.

>>8063410

>Lambastes Schopenhauer for building a philosophy around his own pessimism
>Makes his own philosophy to compensate for a pathetic cuckold life wherein, among other things, he gets rejected by a girl 3 times and finds his best friend doesn't want to die for the Jews

>>8063172
>>8063205
>>8063340
>>8063375

haha

cuck

>>8063410
Nietzsche was totally wrong, though. His philosophy is a joke, and has already been proven false.

>>8063456
By?

>>8063456

>has already been proven false

Where? By whom?

I find that hard to believe; considering he never really 'codified' his philosophy. You can't really find any agreement over what it is; even over simple concepts like the 'Will to Power'.

That he wrote like someone in one of mental institutions in which he would eventually find himself, did not help.

>>8063205
There is no reason to do anything but call you names. Academics are disconnected retards reading involuted nonsense peddled by losers who never achieved anything in their life save for bullshitting a bunch of failed rhetoric. If you're unironically some sort of Marxist or anarchy-hyphenation whatever because you read a book by some sex fiend about how "well you know if you really think about it in theory" when it has failed every time it's ever been tried as the world is facing a very real resource crunch V. population boom in the coming decades you are a fucking retard. It doesn't really matter how many hours you've spent dragging your eyes across the whining of abject losers and artists. The fact that you wasted your time on it doesn't entitle you to any response at all, much less one more detailed than "fuck off faggot".

It doesn't really matter what you say in your sarcastic effeminate reply because by 2040 I'll be right one way or another and in all likelihood you will still be an irredeemable moron with no social skills.

>>8063455
I remember last decade when anons were busy removing any remaining meaning inherent to the words "faggot" and "nigger."

They are literally farts in the wind now, and don't hold the fire they used to in the civil rights era, where even people who supported the racist/homophobic status quo were hesitant to use them.

You are doing this with the word cuck. Rather than throwing it at anyone vaguely liberal, why not use it when you actually mean to refer to someone who actually shares his wife with other men?

>>8063478
Expressing remorse over the legal and fair punishment of your rapist is on the same level of self-loathing as sharing your wife.

>>8063478

>Rather than throwing it at anyone vaguely liberal, why not use it when you actually mean to refer to someone who actually shares his wife with other men?

Well, then what words do we use to address (and disparage/mock) liberal faggots?

You're also not getting the more nuanced implication/meaning of 'cuck' as an obscenity. A cuckold is someone who forsakes that to which he has an exclusive right; in the cuckold's case, conjugal rights. Applied to liberals, it also carries a similar meaning; only as opposed to conjugal rights, it refers to culture/tradition/etc.

>>8063355
>>8063346
>>8063324
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
and stfu

>>8063241
The Day I deconstructed /lit/ or How the right was Won

>>8063494
It's no sin to allow other people to enjoy your culture.

>>8063535

>Civic Nationalism

>>8063494
>assuming there is such a thing as a shared culture
>assuming there is such a thing as a shared tradition

There are only competing interpretations of a nation's history, none of which are objectively true and each of which must be defended on merit alone. An appeal to tradition has no force.

>>8063474
>There is no reason to do anything but call you names.
>There is no reason to do anything but employ ad hominem.

Okay, so you already lose on the logic end of things. Maybe your rhetoric can still sway idiots, but that's not exactly a worthy goal, I should think, on the basis that it emboldens fools.

> Academics are disconnected retard
> disconnected

Which ones? In what way? In all fields of study? Just in humanities? Be specific. Couldn't non-academics hypothetically be disconnected in completely different ways than academics are?

>reading involuted nonsense peddled by losers

The above question also applies, here, my staunchly anti-intellectual friend.

> who never achieved anything in their life save for bullshitting a bunch of failed rhetoric.

I don't know of your achievements outside of this website, and am not interested in strawmanning you as some kind of loser, but you are engaging in failed rhetoric, right here.

> If you're unironically some sort of Marxist or anarchy-hyphenation whatever because you read a book by some sex fiend about how "well you know if you really think about it in theory" when it has failed every time it's ever been tried as the world is facing a very real resource crunch V. population boom in the coming decades you are a fucking retard.

Thank you for being concerned about the world. The thing about ideology and it's implementation in the real world is, is that when an ideology "fails" it's usually because of sabotage by opponents of the ideology, so that they may point, and say, "see, it fails."

Maybe an immunity to sabotage should be a part of any good ideology, but this is difficult to achieve as the methods of and motives for sabotage are numerous and evolving. If an ideology relies on everyone believing in it and collectively following its rules, then maybe it is idealistic, but I have not run into a single ideology in my life whose implementation doesn't depend heavily on widespread assent, ideal conditions, and immunity to sabotage, which things are usually inherent to the evolving situation and come from outside the ideology.

I hope you know what I mean and don't think that was a meaningless rant. It's a counter to your counter to the "never been tried" argument.

If I cannot counter your counter, what else may I do but capitulate or remain silent?

>It doesn't really matter how many hours you've spent dragging your eyes across the whining of abject losers and artists.

There's that certainty again. Why are they losers? Which ones are they? Why are they a waste of time? Besides, one might work and learn simultaneously through the aid of video and audiobooks. Philosophy and ideas (which you dismiss as whining) can be consumed via countless methods, thanks, yes, in large part to the market and the proliferation of digital consumer goods. (Doesn't mean there aren't still problems with Capitalism, or any ideology for that matter)


> doesn't entitle you to any response at all.

Clearly.

>>8063558

>Denying objective truth

Subjective morality and moral relativism is a one-way ticket to nihilism. Be my guest.

>>8063565

>He respects and/or admires academics

Heh. There's a reason why Schopenhauer/Nietzsche, to name a few, shat all over them.

>>8063487

This is a strawman. Not everyone vaguely liberal supports soft laws on rape. Where is this even coming from? I see cuck getting thrown at literally everyone. Even conservatives sometimes. It makes no damn sense, has zero to do with rape, or being soft on rape. GTFOuttahere with that tripe.

>>8063579

Rapists should be hanged. Do you agree?

Alternatively, if we absolutely must not have any death penalty, then life sentences should mean life; and in the most basic cells you can think of, not the pseudo-hotel-rooms we have in most modern prisons.

>>8063313
This is a good post. Everyone is operating with false a priori assumptions, running around like headless chickens, sad and angry. The left/right wing axis is not a line, but one of the bars making up your cage.

>>8063494
>Well, then what words do we use to address (and disparage/mock) liberal faggots?

>Implying this is a goal worthy of pursuit.

Are you interested in disparaging, or convincing people? If the former, use original phrases, rather than ones which have been worn thin. You won't win anyone over, and at best you'll temporarily satiate your impotent wrath.

If the latter, provide detailed, logical arguments deconstructing and critiquing their points. It will show you respect them, and wish them to change for the "better" (where "better" here is defined as whatever ideas you're trying to push).

>>8063594

I don't want them to change. I want them to die, preferably whilst being laughed at; which words like cuck/etc will achieve.

>>8063478
cuck in general is a beta male who shares his resources with a strong alpha male

Even if you agree with all the modern lefts values 100% ("SJW stuff" in particular), I find it only logical if before you go and fight for it, you should stop for a second and think if it's possible to change society fully enough. If not, then (realizing now that halfed ass ways bring about a horrible scenario) you should stick to an conservative way. If you think it's possible and you see others agreeing, then okay, go for it.

>>8063578
You clearly didn't read my post. Nowhere did I say that I respected or admired academics. I asked the gentleman (perhaps you, perhaps another anon) to *specify* his claims. I found them melodramatic and angry, and thought perhaps that getting him to deconstruct his own ideas was a decent place to go with the discussion. Because even if he's correct, it might be for the wrong reasons.

The world is full of people who are wrong for the right reasons and right for the wrong reasons, as I'm sure you already know.

I also implied that reading is less of a waste of time if one does it while multitasking.

>>8063579
See
>>8063368
>>8063375

>>8063602
Quite deluded.

>>8063603
Yes, I suppose, if we're using your NewSpeak internet-era definition of the word cuck, and not the definition that existed hundreds of years before that.

Guess what, most of society shares its resources with stronger people. It's called collaboration. It's called teamwork. It's called the social hierarchy. If you have a job working for anyone other than yourself, you're a cuck, by your definition.

That definition is excessive, superfluous, stupid, and alienating to the vast majority of your audience. Rework your shit.

>>8063631
>prescriptivism

>>8063586

I'm the guy you're responding to.

Under circumstances where it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, sure. I don't really care about the method of the execution.

I care about the person being neutralized as a threat. I think lifelong hard labor which, while technically slavery, might be a better punishment, as far as infrastructure is concerned. Would not satiate the victim's need for vengeance, should they have that need, which I hope not, for even the ancient Greek Tyrant Draco realized that was a foolish path thousands of years ago.

>>8063631

>The dictionary defines the meaning of words

Heh.

>>8063640

Fair enough. I subscribe to ol' Schoppy's belief, personally:

>...the law and its fulfillment, namely punishment, are directed essentially to the future, not to the past. This distinguishes punishment from revenge, for revenge is motivated by what has happened, and hence by the past as such. All retaliation for wrong by inflicting a pain without any object for the future is revenge, and can have no other purpose than consolation for the suffering one has endured by the sight of the suffering one has caused in another. Such a thing is wickedness and cruelty, and cannot be ethically justified. ...the object of punishment...is deterrence from crime.... Object and purpose for the future distinguish punishment from revenge, and punishment has this object only when it is inflicted in fulfillment of a law. Only in this way does it proclaim itself to be inevitable and infallible for every future case; and thus it obtains for the law the power to deter....

>>8063637
Sure. Whatever. Okay.

You're right. I'm wrong.

Please, redefine words to mean any number of things you want, or expand current definitions to encompass anything you like, and use those words on people whenever and however you want, especially when and because you want them to die.

That will totally be effective at fixing those problem people, I was wrong to take exception to calling everyone on Earth who disagrees with you a cuck, the world will totally continue to have impact, please disregard my noticing a trend.

Have a good day,

t. Nigger Faggot, Lord of the Cucks, The First of His Name

>>8063547
What? Are you one of those "cultural appropriation is bad" faggots?

>>8063648
What a nu-male

im not sure what is more disappointing

the idea that OP might be serious

or the fact that if he is serious everyone got baited so hard

/lit/ is dead

>>8063652

>He thinks that a dog born in a stable is a horse

>>8063645
This is one thing I actually disagree with Big Daddy Schoppy on. "Justice" is not and has historically never been about deterrence of future crime. If it was, we wouldn't have crime. It's about removal of undesirables from society. If the crime is sufficient enough, hard labour (chattel slavery) or execution is sufficient, in those cases where it would be beneficial for the rest of society that that person not be allowed to procreate.

The deterrence theory of law and justice also sees free will where there are only incentives, and vastly over exaggerates punishment as a strong deterrent.

>>8063645
I do think a dictionary is a useful standard, and prevents words from continually decaying into hollow shells which are continually emptied of meaning and stuffed with new meaning, faster than people are able to grapple with and get used to them.

It also creates countless sub-arguments about what a word means unless you have precise, official definitions to go off of.

I suppose dictionaries are just too much big-government for sergeant ItMeansWhatIWant to handle.

I agree with your Schopenhauer quote. I just really am confused as to how we got here, because the word cuckold has nothing to do with rape consent unless you vastly inflate its original meaning to encompass new territories of thought.

It literally just means a guy who is okay with his wife having *consensual* sex with other men. People who fear emasculation, STDs, humiliation, or being left by their spouse for superior partners tend to be confused and or disgusted by the "cuckold" as He is defined here.

But nowhere have I heard of a man consenting to the rape of his wife, unless he simply hated her.

Pic related, it's the sort of punishment Schopenhauer's talking about in that quote.

>>8063653
Yes. I somehow embody liberal SJW stereotypes because I take exception to calling anyone vaguely liberal a cuckold.

Consider purchasing pic related.

>>8063663

I'd say people actually underestimate punishment as a deterrent. The two main reasons are thus:

1) Private prisons have a vested interest in having inmates, as opposed to prospective inmates being subject to the death penalty. This is because they make money out of them, and ergo have an interest in keeping criminals alive.

2) Liberal prison reformers, in turn, have the criminal's best interests at heart, wherever you look.

Both have the same anyway; ergo you find the figures constantly 'massaged' to create the impression, both public and otherwise, that rehabilitation is so much better than punishment.

Punishment, in any case, is better on principle.

>>8063516
When I saw this some months ago it changed my mind on a lot

>>8063676
I really hope you don't think you're a smart man, but it really seems like you do think that.

>>8063693
> u must think ur smart

>>8063698
You think that dictionaries are all it takes to solve immense problems of philosophy and linguistics. That's a very bold, very pretentious, very stupid claim. I meant exactly what I said.

>>8063693
I only regret that your inability to address what I've said results in you pretending to know what I think.

shitstreak

>>8063711
>I do think a dictionary is a useful standard, and prevents words from continually decaying into hollow shells which are continually emptied of meaning and stuffed with new meaning, faster than people are able to grapple with and get used to them.

>It also creates countless sub-arguments about what a word means unless you have precise, official definitions to go off of.
These are statements that combined with previous posts about the changing and context-dependent nature of many words, make a lot of implications. I oulined the nature of those implications.

>>8063709
> This is what you think Mr.

My only position, once again, is that superfluously redefining the word cuck to mean whatever you want, is dumb and sad, and deflates the word of meaning and impact.

I never set out to propose that a dictionary alone could solve complicated problems, that is an embellishment of my ideas, courtesy of you.

In much the same way as you have redefined your words to mean what you want, so too have you redefined mine.

No one is fooled, hombre. The jig is up.

>>8063716
> he insisted

>>8063339

>never question the capitalist pressures that brought about women entering the job market in the first place.

Huh? Women have always worked. Usually in agriculture, later in factories. Even middle class women usually did some kind of sewing or piece work. The only new thing is upper middle class white women getting jobs.

Women in China used to tie up their babies in sand bags because they didn't have time to take care of them while they toiled in the fields. If they can do that then Janet can work in the accounting firm and have her own life while birthing out a few offspring to continue the white race.

>>8063729
>Women in China used to tie up their babies in sand bags because they didn't have time to take care of them while they toiled in the fields. If they can do that then Janet can work in the accounting firm and have her own life while birthing out a few offspring to continue the white race.

She can, but she doesn't. Not in America, not in Europe, not in Asia. Why is that?

>>8063339
>You miss the point. Progressives always assume that """creating equality""" is a virtue everyone else shares
> always assume
> always

ONLY sith deal in absolutes, senpai

>>8063324
No.
Naturalistic fallacy is arguing more "natural" means inherently better.
Naturalistic fallacy is NOT arguing that natural factors satisfactorily explain an observable phenomenon.
You then go on to tear apart the naturalistic fallacy itself without touching the actual opposing argument, assuming you'd shown that's what it amounts to. This sort of linguistic bait and switch is extremely common among you intersectionalists, but this is the first time in a while I've seen one of you actually fuck up obvious terms by mistake.

>Women not even considering STEM/leadership/etc positions due to preconceived, millenia old notions of gender roles.
This is something you need to provide evidence for, love. Occam's razor is against you here.

>>8063516
>citing a documentary as evidence
Now you're just acting like a parody of yourself.

>>8063735
>ur bad and evil

hot opinions brah

>>8063750
>Thinks I was serious
>Doesn't even point out that what I said was itself an absolute .

God. Not only didn't you see my joke for what is was, you missed the low-hanging fruit.

I even put the word ONLY in all caps, to associate it with always, paralleling your fucktarded ideas, fighting fire with fire.

Christ you're a troglodyte.

How are you even getting wi-fi in that fucking cave, cretin?

Clearly you're too stupid to be properly Evil.

Pic related, it's you.

>>8063729
That isn't the problem, the thing that people don't like. Its the quotas and the demonetization of the majority, the childlike, literalness view on what equality and forcing it at the expense of the individual.

There's nothing wrong with a cattle farmer switching to a career a a chicken farmer
But your trying to take the chickens away from the chicken farmers and giving them to the cattle farmers, even though they would rather be raising cattle.

>>8063205
your a dorable

>>8063734
But she does, more and more.

>>8063766
>But your trying to take the chickens away from the chicken farmers and giving them to the cattle farmers, even though they would rather be raising cattle.

> Your Ideas Are My Bad Analogy, The Post

>>8063771
Birth rates of educated, working women are on the rise? This is news.

>>8063776
No one is born educated and working. More and more women are becoming educated and go on to work.

>>8063788
*Birth rates among educated, working women*

>More and more women are becoming educated and go on to work
But are they having kids at a rate comparable to uneducated women? No, they are not.

>>8063799
the uneducated women are having kids (girls and boys) which become educated and work. Not the same rate because there are always more poors. But there's progress.

>>8063809
>progress

>>8063774
>le ebin smug pepe maymay, the post

Explain how it isn't then.

>>8063734

Only a tiny percentage of the population has ever been a housewife. The causes of the decline in birth rates are much deeper than a few upper class women going to college and having careers. Japan is still a very patriarchal, traditional society and they're literally dying out.

>>8063766

You're not making a lot of sense. Are you thinking of the job market as zero sum game, that there is only a limited pool of jobs (chickens?) and that women are taking up too many of those jobs that should rightfully belong to men? I can't really understand your post desu.

>>8063814
when I drive past your mother as she walks to her night shift at the dildo factory I can see that she is going somewhere. She progresses towards the dildo factory (which my father bought and is preparing to close, your Mother is going to be jobless soon, she might have to walk the streets again). That's what progress is: something moves.

>>8063809
Tell me, why do you think work is good. And no I'm not implying its bad either, I'm just wondering why that's your holy scale of progress.

Especially when a lot of you are piggy backing off of the ideas of a dude who wanted people to not have to work so much.

>>8063836
I don't think work is good. The fact is, these women have to/want to work and there's no reason no to let them do it.
Progress is not for me like some kind of sacred revelation, "oh yeah, we should have done this all along, now the world is better'. Not that. Progress is what's going on, and women working is what's going on.
As a man I want to get food and pussy. If women want to work I'm not that much of a cuck that I'll kill myself because I'm out of work.

>>8063826
>You're not making a lot of sense. Are you thinking of the job market as zero sum game, that there is only a limited pool of jobs (chickens?) and that women are taking up too many of those jobs that should rightfully belong to men? I can't really understand your post desu.
There was a window of time when a man could earn enough to support a family doing barely skilled labor for regular hours. This was when workers had the highest spending power per time worked. When women worked they often made less because their wages weren't supposed to be enough for a whole family, leaving more available for the men who were supporting a woman and children.

Then we added more women to the workforce until it became expected and reflected in the laws that a woman has to earn about as much as a man in the same position. Wages have fallen relative to cost of living and inflation from that point onwards, meaning more people have to work and work longer without the efficient division of labor in the household that a housewife/breadwinner pair could have. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game to be detrimental to the average household enough to limit their time, energy and money available to raise children or even just have free time to enjoy.

>>8063851
>Progress is what's going on, and women working is what's going on.
So because women are working we should encourage more women to work and to work in all fields? I don't see how that follows or leads to a useful or coherent idea of progress.

>>8063494
>You're also not getting the more nuanced implication/meaning of 'cuck' as an obscenity. A cuckold is someone who forsakes that to which he has an exclusive right; in the cuckold's case, conjugal rights. Applied to liberals, it also carries a similar meaning; only as opposed to conjugal rights, it refers to culture/tradition/etc.

People don't marry their cultural/traditions though. They are free to accept, reject or change it. Just like you are free to accept, reject or change the definition of cuckold (you have chosen to change it. Does that mean you're cuckolding the traditional definition of cuckold? LOL)

This is what has always been done. There will always be those who cling to the status quo like punk ass busters, CJ.

>>8063857
Why do you want to encourage or discourage things? and in what sense are you usign "progress here"? Don't you socratic method me.

>>8063865
>Why do you want to encourage or discourage things
Are we not still talking about how someone who I thought was you thinks women need to be encouraged into STEM fields?

>and in what sense are you usign "progress here"?
I don't think "progress" is a very useful idea at all without underlying values to progress towards. You're the one saying that progress is whatever's happening, which doesn't really mean anything that I can tell.

>Don't you socratic method me.
fuk u

>>8063818
> refute my refutation of a non-claim that I strawmanned into a bad analogy

Sorry papi, it'll cost you more than that.

>>8063826
There is only a limited pool of jobs, you'll find this out soon enough.

And no I'm not saying that at all, there's no 'rightfully' about it, my first line was about there being nothing with people choosing whatever they want to do.

You however seem to think that a lack of a demographic in a workforce gives an individual belonging to that minority demographic more of a right to that job than an individual of the majority demographic regardless of anything else.

This is what it at least looks like your advocating

I don't give a shit about what those demographics actually are, what I care about is you trying to fight your purported unconscious institutional biases with actual conscious institutional biases.

>>8063873
I'm not the first anon (I think he is OP). I'm not specifically encouraging women/blacks/gays/dwarves positive discrimination, because it sets a precedent and is kind of a shitty way that will backfire sooner than it will make a change, and that change, whatever it is, is not very certain anyway.

What seems fair to me is that at least women and all the discriminated fauna do not get discouraged (by peer pressure and wage gap, should they exist in various societies) from doing what they want, that they have the choice.

Every year hundreds of thousands of young people study art history and wine tasting at university. These people will never get a job in their field of study. But they are not specifically disadvantaged by society when they make their choice clear that they want to study poetry or some shit.
(Though to be fair in burgerland they have these student loans and I don't know if you can come up to your banker and ask for a loan to study wine tasting at a shit tier university. But burgerland is outside the realm of logic and science).
It's the same for women and gays. They should be allowed whatever others have, but also to chose not to study. On that note:

>>8063896
>there is a limited pool of jobs
I'm not the anon you're replying to, but I have to say something about this.
Isn't the pool at least slightly expandable? For example,
>a man and his wife have kids
>they both chose to go on working
>they earn big money
>they take in a nurse for the kid
>the nurse has a job
I'm not saying everyone should have a job being someone's nurse, but isn't there at least more variables to the pool of jobs than the simple economical situation of the country?
___

The way this thread exploded got me thinking: maybe OP is an innovative /pol/tard who is into lucrative new ventures and converted himself to the opposite side. Maybe all /pol/tards crave is only (You)'s and some love, and they will do literally anything to get that.

>>8063809
>But there's progress.

The death rattle of the idealistic progressive, never stopping to reflect on where said progress is heading or what the logical conclusion, the end, is.

>>8063924
read the thread nigger. Literally read it and come back.

>>8063881
I didn't say you believed in any of that, I was informing you of what people don't like and why they don't like them.

I didn't refute you, because I wasn't trying to refute you.
I didn't build a strawman of your side of the argument, I dismantled your strawman of mine.

>>8063375
I hate how turning the other cheek is the worst thing to everyone who has responded.
The guy should be taken out of society, but if they just put him back in Somalia he might rape someone there. Why do you care about a man raping strangers in Norway, but not Somalia?

>>8063922
>slightly expandable
That's a long way from doubling because we allow twice as many people to apply.

>>8063931
Nobody has given a useful idea of what they think progress is.

>>8063938
Where is he not gonna rape anyone? Solitary confinement? Death? Maybe he'll be dealt with by Somali authorities (yes there is such a thing).

>>8063942
I'm not OP. I'm not as extreme as he is, bless his tiny heart.

both of the post you are answering to are mine
>first post
I'm not advocating positive discrimination. I'm refusing negative discrimination

>second post
read this one, :>>8063851 (also me)

>>8063958
So you value nothing beyond food and pussy and not getting bitched at by people who feel they're being mistreated?

>>8063172
i just threw up in my mouth a little
>>8063324
>relevancy
men and women are different mentally as well as physically and therefore have different mental and physical competencies, stop lying @ yourself

also some people do still eat mud, quit culture shaming

>>8063947
Prison with armed guards who actually defend prisoners. Just because prionsers are neglected in the united states doesn't mean the first world does the same.
I also don't assume that a country from which people seek asylum has much law and order.

>>8063962
Your pic comes from an episode of ER. I watched these with my mom when I was little.

>>8063961
What do you value beyond food and dick and not getting bitched at?

>>8063981
I take a longer view and when things change in unprecedented ways I consider whether that might interfere with my food, dick and peace. Pretty much the same values though.

>>8063922
And what of the other qualified nurses waiting for a job to come up? Were you imagining this job only having one applicant.

Though I think you understand this already from your wine tasting post, which I agree with (nice save with the 'should they exist').

>>8063991
What qualifications do you need to be a children's nurse? Literally anyone does it, even other children. It's housework. Making housework into a job with a wage.

>>8064010
>>8063991
The idea being that when people need to work they'll work and won't be discouraged from doing so, and that's a good thing.

>>8063961
I'm sure a child who was shouted at by their parent for being obnoxious feels like they've been mistreated. It doesn't mean they were.

>>8064019
Thanks for explaining the subtext of the post you quoted...

>>8063684

>le private prisons profit motive

Private prisons are commissioned by the state and stringently regulated. They operate under the law and are completely subordinate to the higher legal infrastructure in which they are ancillary to. Only internal operations are really private an any sense at all, resource allocation, rules and protocol, stuff like that. Prisons do not govern court sentencing and punishment. Whether or not someone gets the death penalty has to do with law, legal precedent, and social vagaries.

>>8064010
You know this isn't true. Pedophiles for example are a thing.

Also I was imagining you were describing a careworker, not a babysitter. Babysitters also tend to be family members/ close friends, and are payed little to nothing.

>>8064037
>what is lobbying

This is high quality bait; OP did his homework. Kudos.

>>8064021
I thought you were implying the opposite actually.

>>8064038
I'm not planning to give everyone a job being a babysitter. I only wanted to point out that the argument "women working makes it that there are less jobs for everyone" has flaws. I may have badly expressed myself, it's late and I have this thing in my head where I feel both very excited about nothing in particular and very calm and unconcerned. I don't really know how to describe it, other that it is a feeling that stems from the eyes and the forehead.

This thread didn't devolve into a shitstorm.

>>8064052
I know you didn't.
And there's nothing wrong with women working, who cares?

>>8064052
>insists ad nauseam that any ill effects from major social changes can't really be worth worrying about
>has mental problems
This checks out

>>8064052
can you feel it in your chest as well?

>>8064060
I can see how that's funny, I really do.

>>8064062
No it's only in the head. Most of the time it happens on the computer, I think it's a combination of my position and my breathing.

It's no coincidence that the people advocating for women to work outside the household and for an end to LE WAGE GAP are effeminate beta miladylords; they're progressives who have no gf, no wife, and no kids because they turn women off with their incessant groveling and pedestalizing

http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/05/12/the-amazing-1969-prophecy/

I'm going to drop this here. Positive discrimination has directly caused the imaginative oversupply of racial grievance and collective victim mentality we see today.

>>8064092
Most people ITT agree with that.

>>8064101
by agree I mean that they acknowledge it.

You guys are faggots.
We could stop at ANY point in civil rights movement and white men could asy "ok we don't need more rights, we're good" and it could be the same argument you're having today.

You KNOW there is injustice and inequality when a woman must always go out and worry about rape and harassment constantly.
You take it as something trivial because it's "normal".
Also you're engaging in doublethink.
You claim sexes are different and should be treated as such, but when it suits you (like alimony pays, military service etc) you just forget all that and demand "equality".

It's frustrating to deal people who can't even sort out their own thoughts.

>>8064173
>You KNOW there is injustice and inequality when a woman must always go out and worry about rape and harassment constantly.

Everyone worries about things like these.

>You take it as something trivial because it's "normal".

It is.

>You claim sexes are different and should be treated as such, but when it suits you (like alimony pays, military service etc) you just forget all that and demand "equality".

No one has said this.

All of those movements benefit transnational capitalism immensely, though (aside from Cultural Marxism, which is a myth). SJWs contribute to the fragmentation of the proletariat, and create particularist identities. Feminism feeds more women into the workforce to drive down labour costs, and creates a new class of consumers. There is nothing truly emancipatory about the modern Left- it is Capital's handmaiden.

>>8063172
I don't really have a dog in this fight and I can't tell if this is bait, so i'll bite.

To make an eye catching OP it is fine to use these vague categories but we should stick to specifics if you want to talk about this.

Why is the "regressive left" the positive force in regards to lets say, the well being of the black community within America? Keeping in mind the "regressive left" is within the last 10 years or so as they are not just "the left" for whatever reason.

I feel so alone, even among those who post here. I don't know where to go anymore. The entire conception of the dichotomy of political and social ideology in the reductionist terms that popular thought of the modern world imposes upon it, the Right/Left Conservative/Liberal dichotomy, fail entirely to from an adequate model to represent the systems and structures of society. This isn't an ignorance only perpetuated by "stupid" people either, as the majority of intelligent people share in it all the same.

I feel at odds with every single person I come across. The zeitgeist of popular thought in the modern world inherently reduces all conceptions of ideology and perceptions of reality to their most inferior and insignificant parts

>>8063172
I can't say this is low quality bait given the number of responses, so I'll just call you a feygele.

>>8064254
state your particular political/social/economic thoughts

>>8064278
are you a cop? cause you sound like one

>>8063172

>supports SJWs
>post a very racially problematic picture

You fucked up OP, now you'll be torn to shreds by your own crowd.

>>8064300
state them or stfu

>>8063355
Not OP, and I agree with most of your post but this

>We are at the brink of colapse, people are miserable and devoid of meaning, suicide and depression are at an all time high. But yeah, we have cell phones.
this

>And what we are seeing now is women debased, devoid of dignity and self respect, stupider than ever.

and to a lesser extent this
>That happened because capitalists wanted to exploit women too, not because of your idiotic egalitarianism.


Are fucking retarded

>>8064307
It's not the same anon, dum dum.

>>8064278
The ills of the modern world can all be traced to a foundation of ideological thought built from a materialist conception of the human identity that reduces what we understand as human to classification from a basis of biological anthropology, which foists upon humanity a flayed, dissected understanding of our sense of "being" extrapolated from our most inferior and base aspects. This ideology began in Enlightenment era movements like Rationalism and Naturalism, but really took root in the popular thought of civilization with Darwinian Evolution and the ideologies that took root from it.

It's these ideologies that impose upon humanity a dehumanized, materialist identity which reduces them to a means of production within an economic system, brought about mass scale industrial exploitation and corporatism which brings into society a "cost effective" tyranny that urges all human effort towards self gratifying convenience, and instituted all ideologies of racial supremacy in the 19th and 20th centuries. It's these ideologies that has driven humanity away from all that is truly and uniquely human.

>>8064366
>dum
You're stupid that I should have understood that wasn't the same person.
Autistic shitter.

>>8063241
nice

>>8064379
So you are essentially anti SJW, anti-authoritarian.
The anti-SJW aren't a side of the spectrum.
Literally there is hate from all the spectrum for SJWs.

>>8064401
You've misinterpreted my essence pretty radically anon. Even now you're demonstrating exactly what I'm describing with modern thought, a pervasive urge towards reduction and the dissection and classification of all concepts based upon their most inferior aspects.

>>8063257

>!

>>8064414
Labels are necessary.
Names too.
Descriptions.
Sure the universe and everything in it can be very abstract and arbitrary and non-linear in nature but we have to make sense as much as we can.

>>8064423
I'm not arguing against the concept of names anon, I'm arguing against the classification of humanity in biological reductionist terms. You aren't making as much sense out of the nature of reality as you can by trying to view it through a dissecting materialist lens, you're actually only making yourself and popular thought as a whole more ignorant of it's purpose and identity than it ever has been. Modern science has an absurd sense of arrogance and cannot accept the inherent inferiority of empiricism and numerical quantification as a model for understanding the nature of human existence. Scientism is a false authority and only urges human effort and purpose towards gratifying it's base desires in the most convenient way possible. Understanding the human experience in terms of Darwinian social theory reduces our understanding of human experience to only be a struggle for survival. It marks a rejection of all higher ordered existence.

>>8064446
I think you're a crypto-romantic.
Idealizing relativism.
No anon, the world isn't that complex.
Empiricism has produced the best and most concrete results.
In the end, no matter how abstract, no matter how deeply philosophy, life, biology is sort of 'trivial' we apply those ideas into a casual, concrete world.

>>8064173
i'll bite your little liberal rant
when will we be good?
When will humanity be truly equal and "free"?
When will inequality be vanquished?
What needs to be done for this to happen?

I have no interest in the gender namecalling btw.
I'm more interested in your first paragraph

>>8064470
>when good
>when truly free
>when vanquished

I don't know.
I don't have some kind of proof.
I don't have to.

If we go back to french revolution and ask them:

>when good
>when truly free
>when vanquished
They wouldn't know how to answer, they just KNEW things should change.

Proposing that I predict the future of a chaotic system to justify anything is absurd.
Same goes for anything really.
You're setting proof burden standards to me but everyone else gets it for free.
That's dishonest to say the least.

>>8064379
You're not alone m8.
I feel very much the same. I have some other quips with classical liberal thought and the enlightenment and its core metanarrative and the fac that while its flaws have been thoroughly identified after WW2, society at large still follows the same narrative uncritically, still falling for radical positions, dogmatism and a narrow obsession with "progress" as some sort of teleological historical path.

Go read Spengler anon, if you havent yet. It offers interesting insights into some of what troubles you.

>>8064479
>They wouldn't know how to answer, they just KNEW things should change
And so they proceeded to chop heads at an increasingly rapid pace

>>8063746
Hjernevask is based, you should watch it. They interview biologists and Social scientists and review studies

>>8064459
Anon, it's you that has atrophied your capacity to perceive the complexities of the world by aligning your thought with the triviality of the false "concrete" world empiricism has built for you. Empiricism, even considering all advances in brought, has ultimately only resulted in a humanity that is uniquely ignorant of it's purpose and identity, that rejects all higher functions of the human consciousness and butchers and dissects itself and the world it lives in with a cold inhuman detachment that has never been seen before in all of human history. It's lead to all ideologies of racial and genetic superiority in the modern world. The quality of thought, the quality of human expression, the quality of the cultures formed by humanity have all declined explicitly because of the reductionist ideologies based upon empiricism and the scientific method, bringing only a degeneration in the human condition.

>>8064479
>If we go back to french revolution and ask them:
They literally raped and massacred people, you whiny little toad, and you're holding them up as some paragon of morality

>>8064254
Man you really hit the nail on the head for exactly how I feel

>>8064493
you should definitely read Spengler.

can you give me a reading list so that i too can learn more about these things that i think are fucking retarded?

>>8064489
>>8064495

And it produced results, results you're enjoying today.

Anything else?
At first I was reluctant, but the more I debate Social Justice the more I realize you guys have no case at all.
Only reaction from "absurdity" and superficial counterclaims that can be blown up in two steps.

>>8064479
>They wouldn't know how to answer

For fucks sake dont spread your idiocy to the French revolution. Of course they had a fucking answer whether right or wrong, you just don't know history and are projecting.

>>8064493
You're religious aren't you?
I hope you don't dodge that question.

>>8064514
Bullshit see
>>8064523

You act as if these people didn't consistently debate one another on the roles and context they were creating.

Embarrassing.

>>8063172
read Harrison Bergeron

>>8063324
>But in just couple of centuries we saw almost impossible changes in societal and mental structures, how we behave now is NOTHING to what is expected by 'biological standards'.

and what do we have to show for it?

Falling birth rates
And because of that, the West is being invaded by brown people who still uphold gender roles who are breeding like rabbits.

>>8063340
>You dismiss it because you watched some guy ranting on it, picking on naive teens and shitting on them on video.
someone's projecting. I'll bet your opinions were formed by The Daily Show.

>>8064543
That story is absolute trash, whatever your politics.

>>8064552
This has got to be the world's biggest nitpick.

So because we have falling birthrates the civil rights we have achieved so far, the medicine, the quite stable societies, science, culture, art, etc we have create are for nothing.

How did you manage to survive this long being so stupid?

>>8064534
Completely strawmanning it.
Let me say again.
1.You/he asks: when will we achieve equality? how long, how etc
2.Me: I don't know, but just because you don't know exactly how the future will turn out, you shouldn't stop from chasing more quality and equality or anything that is worth believing.

The French revolution is just one example, I could even use the scientific method, tell them they shouldn't utilize scientific method because there's no concrete end in sigh.
Or just fucking about anything.

You know you're wrong, stop strawmanning.
Just because you can't know the future DOESN"T MEAN YOU SHOULD NOT ACT ON WHAT IS AT HAND AND PRECIOUS.
Fucking hypocrite.

>>8064564
so just read the first half

>>8064573
>So because we have falling birthrates the civil rights we have achieved so far, the medicine, the quite stable societies, science, culture, art, etc we have create are for nothing.
I dont see how you could have derived that nonsense from what I said, but i'll spell it out.

The destruction of gender roles has led to the collapse of our society and the cultural heritage of the west. We have nothing to show for it.
The West is superior to other cultures which is why I want to see it preserved.

Can you sell me on the destruction of gender roles using evidence that they improve a society in any way? Becuase it seems like you haven't really thought this through. Look at the big picture and tell me it's worth it.

>>8064527
I order my life towards alignment with spiritual Tradition most certainly. Theological study of sacred texts allows one to establish a framework of the fundamental relationships within the nature of the human experience and the reality it existence in.

>>8063172
That girl is hot.

>>8064591
is she an embodiment of the cultural marxism and feminism when the orc-like creatures symbolize capitalistic cis males?

>>8064586
>>8064552
Your belief that life is a Darwinian struggle for survival defined by a battle to out breed one another and the fact that you stake your claim on a false sense of genetic superiority is literally a direct rejection of the true meaningful essence that imbued Western civilization with the quality it had. You are literally diametrically opposed to Western civilization with your entire conception of reality.

>>8064514
>And it produced results
wrong
any positive results from liberalism originated from anglo-saxon political tradition, not continental liberalism.

>>8064573
>Completely strawmanning it.

That isn't a straw man. I pointed out a premise that was wrong. Do you understand how fallacies work? I didn't say "your entire argument is wrong because of x", I just said x was wrong. We are on a fast pace anonymous chinese image board so it is easy to miss the subtle things.

>The French revolution is just one example

Actually it isn't a valid example, you're just wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

They had an answer, right or wrong. Hell it wasn't even an answer, it was a universal declaration.

>you shouldn't stop from chasing more quality and equality or anything that is worth believing.

Well I'm not saying otherwise, I don't know who is, but you should also be wary that your good intentions are not leading to further equality.

I posted an earlier question and you never responded to it, and you seem just as bad as the people you are debating, and it is difficult to go through this entire thread and try to start a conversation in it.

>>8064527
not the other anon, but I parly agree with him, and I'm agnostic, so I dont see how that is in any way important to the subject

>>8063456

>>8064586
>The destruction of gender roles has led to the collapse of our society and the cultural heritage of the west.

How in the hell are you going to prove that?

>The West is superior to other cultures which is why I want to see it preserved.

I don't see how that is possible since when we were peasants in our "dark age" the Caliphate was in its golden age and we only came to the renaissance through trading with them.

Then there is China. China beat Rome once with crossbows. So yeah, checkmate whitey.

>Can you sell me on the destruction of gender roles using evidence that they improve a society in any way?

We did double our work force.

>>8063852

They got paid less because employers could get away with it and increase their profits. Employers don't factor in a worker's living expenses when they decide on their wages, what planet are you living on?

>>8063896

lmao that's not how economics work

>You however seem to think that a lack of a demographic in a workforce gives an individual belonging to that minority demographic more of a right to that job than an individual of the majority demographic regardless of anything else.

What? Where did you get that idea?

>>8064612
it is.
If you believe in anything spiritual then you're deluded.
I know that sounds the most arrogant thing ever but it is simply true.

You wouldn't take seriously someone who believed in santa claus, if you're smart enough you'll see god and spirituality and all that is just another santa claus in disguise.

If you're so far behind in understanding reality then there's no point.
Get on my level first, then we discuss.

>>8063172

>I used to think retarded things were retarded, but when I became retarded they started making sense

>>8064379
>Muh humanity.
You have no idea what your talking about do you?

>>8064625
keke

>>8064573
>you shouldn't stop from chasing more quality and equality or anything that is worth believing.
>believing

so, you support rabid fanaticism in the name of a complete abstraction like equality?

>The French revolution is just one example
Indeed, a good example of fanaticism taken to its most bloody savage extremes.

>Just because you can't know the future DOESN"T MEAN YOU SHOULD NOT ACT ON WHAT IS AT HAND AND PRECIOUS.
Action towards abstract ideals is in no way more just or preferable.
How am I being an hypocrite? You seem a bit confused?

>>8064603
No, I just think some guy likes drawing magic cards with hot chicks on them.

>>8064608
>That isn't a straw man. I pointed out a premise that was wrong. Do you understand how fallacies work? I didn't say "your entire argument is wrong because of x", I just said x was wrong. We are on a fast pace anonymous chinese image board so it is easy to miss the subtle things.

At least be honest and say that was your goal.
You wanted to discredit my point based on that.

Show me the question and I'll answer.

>>8064634
>Indeed, a good example of fanaticism taken to its most bloody savage extremes.

You sound like a Tory faggot.

>>8064623
No, you're epitomizing the pervasive narrow minded arrogance of the modern world that has produced the wide spread ignorance of the world we live in. I believe your materialistic conception of reality is more absurd than you believe my conception of spiritual reality is, the difference between us is that I don't dismiss you off hand out of an egotistical assurance in empiricism.

Your rejection of the metaphysical is the rejection of all higher ordered functions of the human consciousness.

>>8064586
Oh my fucking god.
You're as deluded as SJWs.
You're the opposite side of the coin.

>>8064626
Whens the last time you had a conflict in worldviews with someone without primarily making your argument against them amount to an attempt at belittling them?

>>8064646
Can you show any kind of proof (EVEN non-empirical) that what you suggest exists?

>>8064641
>At least be honest and say that was your goal.
You wanted to discredit my point based on that.

No dude.
You are jumping the gun because you have a bunch of people talking to you at once and you missed that I didn't say anything about your conclusion. You be honest.

Now you think me correcting you is a rhetorical move, when it isn't, it's just the truth but I can't prove it.

>>8064234

You should honestly just ignore the people who have a hard on for the west being number one.

>>8064606
>You are literally diametrically opposed to Western civilization with your entire conception of reality
opposed at most to radical precepts of rousseau's liberalism

Go read Tocqueville, Mill or Hobbes and you'll see that the very forefathers of western liberal tradition were a lot more suspicious of human nature than you and "SJWs" seem to be.

I'm not the other anon, and I dont claim some sort of inherent genetic superiority, but to ignore hierarchy and darwinian struggle in the human condition is ill advised at best

>>8064634
>everything is abstract xDD

>>8064606
>Your belief that life is a Darwinian struggle for survival defined by a battle to out breed one another
not my belief. You aren't addressing my point, just lashing out emotionally.

>>8064661
>opposed at most to radical precepts of rousseau's liberalism

The general will is literally spooks.

>>8064622
>Where did you get that idea
Wage Gap as an issue
Diversity Quotas

And what do you mean economics don't work like that?

>>8063645
>The dictionary defines the meaning of words
It describes them fairly accurately. You should be wary of people who try to redefine words to suit a political goal, especially when those words are so emotionally laden as "cuck" or "racist", to use common examples.

It's something I've thought about doing as an experiment. Shill an altered definition of "paedophile" or some other such word online and see if my definition catches on as a political buzzword. I'd make a few Urban dictionary entries and send people to it whenever the questioned my new definition.

>>8064642
Then the Tory faggots must be right

>>8064620
>the west isnt superior because other cultures were advanced 1000 years ago
well currently, we're the high water mark of humanity.
>Then there is China. China beat Rome once with crossbows. So yeah, checkmate whitey.
this isnt a race thing and anyways I'm not Roman.
>We did double our work force.
and lowered wages. economics is a bitch.

>>8064648
not an argument.

>>8064623
I'm not proposing anything transcendental or methaphysical, but I do find that reducing every aspect of human experience to narrow materialist interpretations shows an incredibly hollow understanding of humanity and human action and being

>>8064681
No, they lost.

Go enjoy your monarchy somewhere else.

>>8064661
I never claimed genetic superiority, just cultural superiority.

>>8064642
>>8064662
hot opinions yo

>>8064659
>Why is the "regressive left" the positive force in regards to lets say, the well being of the black community within America? Keeping in mind the "regressive left" is within the last 10 years or so as they are not just "the left" for whatever reason.

What are you implying with that?
BLM is a valid movement, the justification isn't (cop-black-death) but the overall theme is, blacks are trashed by USA.


>You should honestly just ignore the people who have a hard on for the west being number one.

The west objectively did the most for the human race as a whole than any other.
I'm not riding it's dick but just a basic understanding of history shows this.
No matter how cultural relativist you are, you have to give this point to the west.

>>8064689
can you please give me a fucking perspective to work on?
Or at least show me the horizon of possibilities?
If not then you're just being obfuscationist for the sake of it.

>>8064648
>not an argument
Well delusional people can't into arguments.
But I'll try.
Your case comes from race, nationalism, traditionalism, etc, monolithic primitive concepts, and you're waving them around like they have some kind of intrinsic value.

Your reasoning isn't any better than the SJW's.

>>8064685
>well currently, we're the high water mark of humanity.
Yeah and ever other "high water mark" of humanity thought the same. Doesn't mean shit when trying to figure out what should be our values.

>this isnt a race thing and anyways I'm not Roman.
No it was a cheeky example of the west not being as great as everyone thinks it is. The legacy of the west is a Roman one.

>and lowered wages. economics is a bitch.
Yeah but we doubled our work force in a globalized economy. Economics is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

>>8064606
I never claimed genetic superiority, learn to read.

I dont think breeding is the point of the West (again, learn to read) but it is certainly necessary to preserve the west and western traditions and culture. It was a mistake to inject this idea that wives and mothers are oppressed prisoners in their own homes. It has lead to a culture of victimization and declining birth rates. The globalist solution to this is to import people from an inferior culture en masse while accommodating them such that they never have to learn our languages or cultures or traditions.

"Patriarchy" as feminists call it was a prerequisite to leaving the stone age.

>>8064692
They didn't and I am.

>>8064654
The higher functions of the human consciousness such as our capacity to perceive contemplative mystery within reality and understand symbolic imagery through artistic expression are in and of themselves proof of metaphysical reality. The mechanistic conception of the human consciousness as understood through empiricism will attempt to explain the human consciousness in terms of the physical reactions that take place in the brain, as if these physical reactions are in and of themselves the cause of human consciousness. This is an absurd notion that is dogmatically believed by those who adhere to the ideologies of modern science that only further proves the inherent inadequacy of the scientific method and numerical quantification as a model for understanding the human identity. These physical reactions in the brain are not the cause of consciousness, but occur as a result of the metaphysical existence of the human consciousness.

The mechanistic terms of empiricism can only define the physical structure of a subject but fails to grasp the reason for it. In mechanism, you will be taught that the reason a thing moves is merely the change in physical location, the fulfillment of it's base physical capacity rather than the true essence of why the movement is occurring. In this same way, empiricism outlines the physical structure of the brain but fails to understand the reason for it, and in it's arrogant refusal to then admit it's inferiority as a means to understand the human consciousness, instead asserts that because consciousness cannot be dissected and reduced to material terms, it must be a meaningless illusion, a random result of the brains physical mechanistic structures.

>>8064697
>The west objectively did the most for the human race as a whole than any other.
I'm not riding it's dick but just a basic understanding of history shows this.
Holy whig history dusty balls
This is just pathetic

>>8064703
its super late right now, and I dont really have the hability to write anything decent to explain my position
if this thread is still up tomorrow, I'll try to write something

>>8064573
your entire post is fucking retarded and not only do I not have the time to dissect it, no amount of arguing will change your mind

>>8064714
>monolithic primitive concepts
>primitive

when will the linear history meme die?

>>8063305
T. Someone whose never browsed /lit/ before

>>8064661
No anon, your entire worldview literally rejects the spiritual Traditions of Western civilization on every essential level. You only have an egotistical fascination of Western civilization as a hollow aesthetic. Every single thing you believe in otherwise is adamantly opposed to the very notion of the sacred and the transcendent that the soul of Western Tradition is comprised of.

>>8064697
>What are you implying with that?
What I am implying is looking at the contemporary left as opposed to the older left of the 1960's when considering the black community.

BLM can be a part of that.
>blacks are trashed by USA.
How? And how is BLM a valid movement because of that? Blacks being trashed by the USA could be true while BLM being a valid movement be false.

>The west objectively did the most for the human race as a whole than any other.
I'm not riding it's dick but just a basic understanding of history shows this.
No matter how cultural relativist you are, you have to give this point to the west.

I don't think you understand how history works.

Prove to me "objectively" that the silk roads are less important than the west to the human race as a whole and you'll quickly see that this idiotic tribalism is freshmen level banter.

>>8064716
Yeah, except you reject the spiritual tradition of your culture outright in every aspect of your existence.

>>8064723
>as if these physical reactions are in and of themselves the cause of human consciousness.
They are.
How arrogant of me.

And that doesn't make them meaningless

>>8064715
>Yeah and ever other "high water mark" of humanity thought the same. Doesn't mean shit when trying to figure out what should be our values.
A lot of those cultures would have been right (Ancient India, China, Greece, Rome, Persia, etc.). Most fell to foreign invaders or rotted from within.

>Yeah but we doubled our work force in a globalized economy. Economics is more complicated than you are making it out to be.
A globalized economy that frequently utilizes outsourcing to keep wages low. Also before women had careers, they were still consumers. We have doubled our labor supply while keeping the number of consumers the same. Globalism is a failure.

>>8064670
You don't adhere to your culture or your tradition to begin with, so you have no ground to stand on to complain about how others are treating them.

>>8064743
What meaningless drivel. Here's your (You).

>>8064723
Man, I truly, deeply, widely, absolutely disagree with that.
I truly think that consciousness is just the aftereffect/byproduct/illusion of higher functions of the human brain.

I'd suggest you look into neuroscience, once you dig in to that, you won't go back to the metaphysical.

Being on earth, looking at the moon, you can assume anything, that is an angel, or an object far so far away that it has the size 1000000 of the sun, or that it's just in your mind, or just a picture in the sky or anything really.

If you take a spaceship, land on it, you'll see for what it is.

Learning the fundamentals of neuroscience, biology, physics and evolution in relation to the human mind is the analogous of taking that spaceship to the moon.

There will be no room for metaphysical explanations after you reach that point.

I wish reality was that romantic and magical as you suggest it is.

>>8064736
>Every single thing you believe in otherwise is adamantly opposed to the very notion of the sacred and the transcendent that the soul of Western Tradition is comprised of.
rousseau and hegel arent the western tradition
get a grip

funnily enough, you seem to be falling exactly in the same kind of rabid fanaticism that I was talking about in regards to the liberalism expoused by the French Revolution
"If you dont agree with me, you're totally against everything that is good and just!"

>>8064745
No, they really aren't anon. That is an absurd backwards understanding that you hold. These physical reactions occur as a result of the functions of human consciousness,

>>8064749
So far you have misrepresented everything i have said, so you have absolutely no clue what it is that I believe. Every reply has been met with willful ignorance from your end.
I would like you to elaborate out of morbid curiosity. In what way am I betraying my culture?

>>8064746
>A lot of those cultures would have been right (Ancient India, China, Greece, Rome, Persia, etc.). Most fell to foreign invaders or rotted from within.

Point being they had different values than us yet thought "we need to preserve our culture" because they thought they were superior, yet some were conquered.

This sort of thinking is just weak when trying to figure out if western ideals should be held. Just argue for the values themselves, not this baby ass tribalism.

>Globalism is a failure.
See you say that, but there is whole lot of other stuff going on that you are just not talking about, which makes me think, you don't know what you are talking about.

>>8064736
>>8064743
>>8064749
where the hell did this drivel came from all of the sudden?
How do you even justify this position?

>>8063311
>tenants of mainstream Social Justice

I think you meant 'tenets' there but tenants makes for a pretty cool phrase too

>>8064752
No anon, it's your entire conception of the human consciousness that is extrapolated from an absurd, reductionist ideology that fails to grasp the complexities of existence. All you're doing is proclaiming your ignorance and standing behind what you perceive as intellectual authorities in this post. The rejection of the metaphysical is the rejection of all higher functions of the human consciousness.

You don't see how absurd it is to believe what you're suggesting here, that all human consciousness is an accidental illusion created as a result of the physical reactions that occur in the brain. You're literally suggesting that all perceived reality existences within individual subjective spheres of experience and that we in fact do not share the same reality as one another.

>>8063172
I know this is a troll post but please leave Lacan out of this mess

>>8063172
I came the other way mate, I've been where you're now, you're wrong.

>>8064756
You understand your culture as nothing but a hollow aesthetic to be superimposed about modern ideals that are diametrically opposed to it's spiritual tradition.

>>8063264
Read a fucking economics report on the subject and get back to me. Don't get your information on matters like these from ideologically aligned bodies.

>>8064742
>Prove to me "objectively"
Why are you so deliberately dishonest?

I could show you a painting of DaVinci and a drawing I made in 3rd grade and ask you """objectively""" prove that DaVinci is better.
No matter what attempt you'd make, if I had to defend my drawing i'd fall back to the subjectiveness, the whole epistemology of aesthetics.

In that realm you can play with goalpost of objectivity as much as you want.
Not saying it is as subjective as art but it can be very subjective, you could argue to infinity in circular order.

There is no absolute "proof", but there is a pragmatic proof.
For example science and medicine.
You could argue:
"yeah, that's all what it takes to make a culture superior? then what about x or y that did z.."

You can nitpick anything and devaluate anything
if you're in the mood for it.
But the objectively measurable good things for humanity as a whole, are at least those things, that got developed in western civilization.

OP makes a silly zero-sum argument. Their are feminist ideas which are interesting / useful and there is a contingent of regressive leftism founded on unsound principals. The world's big and complicated.

>>8064775
Any psychoanalyst/psychologist/or anything akin to that pre-21th century is completely retarded, with no scientific evidence to back up anything.
Just wild theories.

>>8064787
There*

>>8064754
no it isn't. The paint isn't a consequence of the portrait, the ink isn't the consequence of character, the hardware isn't a consequence of the software, and brainfunction isn't the consequence of the thought.

It is you who has the absurd backwards understanding.

>>8064789
>21th
did you mean 20th or 21st?

>>8064789
Your adherence tonthe scientific theory as the ultimate authority in reality inherently requires a reduction of all concepts into their most inferior material aspects in order for you to accept them as valid, rejecting all else within reality that does not conform to material dissection which includes the majority of philosophical and psychoanalytic concepts. You are unable to accept the inadequacy of the scientific method as a means of understanding these concepts, so you can only reject them off hand from undeserved stance of intellectual superiority, when you're really only barely able to perceive the nature of reality from it's most exterior structure.

>>8064746

>before women had careers, they were still consumers. We have doubled our labor supply while keeping the number of consumers the same.

kek you were the slow kid in school right?

Before women had careers any money they had with which to consume things came from their husbands. There was only one consumer, the husband, who possibly divided his consumption into two smaller parts.

Or maybe you're still plodding through ninth grade? In that case, my apologies, learning disabilities shouldn't be held against anyone.

>>8064802
That's the problem, you can't demonstrate that the your non-empirical method can reasonably prove anything.
And by reasonably I don't even mean rigorously but with sufficient reason.

For example, it appears you do hold that view, that there is something "immaterial" to the brain, what kind of proof standard you used to accept that in the first place?

>>8064802
>Your adherence tonthe scientific theory as the ultimate authority in reality
>To the scientific theory
>the
And Anon's misunderstanding of what science is is revealed, what a sight it is to behold.

>>8064791
The portrait is the result of the alignment of the painters metaphysical artistic vision and the material expression of painting it upon a canvas. Even now you're conforming to the reduction of all thought brought forth by mechanism, trying to equate thought with tools. You don't even understand how absurd it is that you just said "brain function isn't a consequence of thought". When you've moved your body throughout your life, are you moving merely as a accidental result of the physical reactions of your body, or are you moving as a result of the expansive complexities of your consciousness and it's functions? The only way your conception of reality even begins to make sense is if you wholly deny the higher functions of human consciousness and the human identity.

>>8064803
>Anon doesn't understand the nuclear family.

Keep those classes up kid, you'll pass tenth grade eventually.

>>8064819
>accidental
no
> the expansive complexities of your consciousness and it's functions
yes
But its software, running on the movement of energy through physical hardware. My body, which was made first.

>>8064812
Thought is not material. That alone should be self evident. The metaphysical cannot be dissected into inferior material aspects, thus you reject its existence off hand. In doing this, you also reject the notion that your thought actually exists, accepting the notion that everything you are is an accidental result of the physical reactions of your brain.

It's honestly just petty arrogance at this point to refuse to acknowledge the inherent inferiority of empiricism as a means of understanding reality. You know this, and you know how these ideologies have reduced the quality of human expression to abysmal levels as a result of this refusal.

>>8064778
I have a feeling you understand very little.

>>8063294
what if women arent good at it

fag

>>8064835
No, you are not analogous to a computer. This is another materialistic conception that further reduces the human identity to it's most base aspects. You are not a result of the physical reactions of your body, the physical reactions of your body are a result of you, consciously or unconsciously.

>>8064803
>Before women had careers any money they had with which to consume things came from their husbands. There was only one consumer, the husband, who possibly divided his consumption into two smaller parts.
you're calling someone else slow?
The wife and Husband both bought what they wanted. Employers had half of the labor pool to choose from, giving workers the ability to negotiate for higher wages.

Consumption essentially remains the same, but now there are 300 million workers instead of 150 million. Thus some are willing to undercut others. This keeps wages low. That's to argue nothing about globalism.
This is seriously Econ 101. No, this is remedial pre-econ taught in a third world country.

>>8064844
>Thought is not material
correct
>Therefore it cannot be dissected into material aspects
incorrect
>In doing this, you reject the notion thought actually exists
Incorrect
>everything is the accidental result of the physical reactions in your brain.
>accidental
incorrect

Your the only one refusing to understand

>>8064778
Modern ideals are our culture though. You're the one who is misunderstanding your culture. You're idealising an alien spiritual tradition in which you have never lived and can't begin to comprehend, despite this tradition being "diametrically opposed" to your lived experiences.

>>8064864
Cultures of Western civilization take varied forms, but they are always built upon the same spiritual Tradition. The spiritual Tradition of Western civilization hasn't changed. It's you who's moved away from it. Don't stake claim to a Tradition that you wholly reject in the way you live your life. Don't assume a failure of comprehension on my behalf that I don't actually exhibit.

>>8064862
Physical functions of the brain occur as a result of metaphysical functions of the human consciousness. This is what you're failing to grasp.

>>8064852
I'm going to sleep now. But just so you know, there is only one thing that exists. And is it material, nope.
Its energy. Only energy exists. That's it. There is no creation or destruction, only changes in form.
The Universe was created by Chaos, and your conscience, your soul is a consequence of that chaos.
You are an animal, and you are alive, and you are an automaton, a machine.
And no flagellations of self importance are ever going to change that.

>>8064900
Possessing energy is what it means to be "material", asshat.

>>8064884
>Physical functions of the brain occur as a result of metaphysical functions of the human consciousness
>if I don't understand how an effect can arise from physical causes, it must be magic
kys

>>8064880
>The spiritual Tradition of Western civilization hasn't changed.
It most certainly has

>It's you who's moved away from it.
The present has moved away from the past, as it is wont to do

>Don't stake claim to a Tradition that you wholly reject in the way you live your life.
I live life like a westerner does, as I assume you do. You're rejecting your own lifestyle in your beliefs but I doubt that is the truth in your actions.

>Don't assume a failure of comprehension on my behalf that I don't actually exhibit.
I think that to understand a culture you must live in it. I don't think you have ever lived in the past.

>>8064937
>I don't think you have ever lived in the past.
before incoming autism, I obviously don't mean your life when you were younger.

It's funny how no one managed to disprove Social Justice.
Only reinforce it.

>>8064884
>Physical functions of the brain occur as a result of metaphysical functions of the human consciousness. This is what you're failing to grasp.
That isn't true though.

>>8063205
You can't expect a counter argument without first giving an argument.

Also, this is a literature board not an argumentative one. Post what books you base this off of

>>8064900
At this point, I understand your point of view to be a nihilism born out of the inadequate information regarding the nature of reality as provided by modern thought. It is ultimately the consequence of materialism. You have simply unrealized your capacity to perceive the metaphysical. It's not a matter of sensory perception of physical perception. It's a perception of your consciousnesses higher nature and it's functions, the capacity to perceive open ended contemplative mystery within the symbolic and allegorical artistic expression we conceive and within reality itself. It's a matter of intuition, knowing the illogical nature of reality and the human experience as opposed to the logical structures that material ideologies attempt to impose upon it through reduction of the very conception of their reality.

This metaphysical perception of reality is the essence of the human identity. Denying it is denying meaning itself.

>>8064954
>my brain has a strong capacity for conceptualizing beyond it's experience and finding patterns
>ergo what it conceptualizes is real
lad...

>>8064928
You're falling prey to modern thoughts urge towards reduction again, trying to reduce the concept of a dualistic reality in which the metaphysical and material exist superimposed over one another in a parallel space and can find alignment through the human consciousness and our innate ability to perceive it, with something you think is silly so you can dismiss it off hand.

Materialism only allows the perception of the exterior, our sensory and physical perception, it fails to perceive the interior nature of reality.

>read philosophy
>still manage to fall for the """"""progress"""""" spook

>>8064963
We all share in the same reality, you just can't perceive beyond your own immediate sphere of experience.

>>8064982
>>8064976
The "interior nature of reality" fails to be consistent across peoples in any way that isn't explicable by brain functions, so I'm inclined to see it as an overgrown side effect of our socialization abilities rather than something that I should be considering a "higher" existence.

>>8063474
This is the most wonderful post I've seen in a while. And as usual OP is a fag

>>8064992
That isn't true at all, there is a transcendent unity in all ancient spiritual Traditions that form a consistent framework of symbolic imagery and allegorical expressions of culture across all human civilizations on earth. You only fail to perceive this metaphysical unity in reality if you assume the primacy of modern thought.

>>8064976
>the interior nature of reality.
what does that even mean?

>>8065030
I'm afraid our friend is schizophrenic :(

>>8065030
What is beyond the capacity of your perceptions of the physical nature of reality. It is the essence within reality

>>8065049
ah, speculative realism, I see

>>8065040
why do you say this friend?

>>8063172
tl;dr