/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14944111]

What is the scariest book ever written?

[Anonymous No.14944124]

the Necronomicon

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14944129]

Origins of the Species, apparently. People around here are still howling about it and trying to refute it.

[Anonymous No.14944131]

my diary desu

[Anonymous No.14944142]

>>14944111
The Inferno, if you're high and on your way to Rome.

[Anonymous No.14944156]

>>14944129
>trying to refute it
That's not how you say "exasperated at how easy it is to refute it".

[Anonymous No.14944159]

>>14944111
the technological society

[Anonymous No.14944199]

>>14944156
what specific claims would you refute, and how?

>>14944111
probably history desu. JBP would recommend the Gulag Archipelago

[Anonymous No.14944220]

>>14944111
stuff about nazis and unit 731, etc

[Anonymous No.14944340]

>>14944199
>what specific claims would you refute, and how?
For example the claim that natural selection and mutations can explain the diversity of life. It's pretty clear that almost all mutations are harmful or neutral, and that a horse who outlives other horses for whatever reason is still a horse. Or the claim that cells arose from "abiogenesis", something which has never been observed in nature, and never will be.

[Anonymous No.14944422]

When i read Pet Sematary I remember laying in bed paralyzed with h fear.

[Anonymous No.14944533]

>>14944340
>abiogenesis
i don't think abiogenesis is part of Darwin's theory, perhaps of a modern interpretation / integration with "~modern physics based science~" though

>something which has never been observed in nature
true, but we've generated amino acids in labs by simulating early-earth (admittedly, with much more electricity than plausible), so its not that far of a claim

>a horse who outlives other horses for whatever reason is still a horse.
i don't understand what is being said here

>the claim that natural selection and mutations can explain the diversity of life.
its the best we have. you can't quite "explain" "causal" mechanics in a dynamical system in the same sense as you would per newtonian-causality

>It's pretty clear that almost all mutations are harmful or neutral
sure, but the point being is that by increasing genetic diversity / phenotype diversity, the species as a whole becomes adaptive to retroactive change to the environment.

the claim isn't that species will (usually) mutate to become superior, but that value-neutral altercations will become useful as the environment changes. this is a subtle but important distinction that many people get wrong
in any case the primary contention with evolution seems to be that it claims that all species and such come from the same origin, which is pretty (very) strongly supported by archologal evidence of bone development. you need to be more specific with your critiques

[Anonymous No.14944542]

>>14944533
to get from amino acids to self-replicating molecules is a large stretch. the RNA world seems like the most plausible hypothesis but it's still insanely unlikely for a molecule like that to randomly come together

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14944560]

>>14944340
Have a listen/read. It'll clear things up for you. Help with the fears you're feeling right now.

[Anonymous No.14944635]

>>14944533
>amino acids
Not enough to make a cell.
>its the best we have
It's only the best you think you have, because you forbid yourself from entertaining other, more credible theories, which is dogmatic.
>but the point being is that by increasing genetic diversity / phenotype diversity, the species as a whole becomes adaptive to retroactive change to the environment.
Do you sincerely believe that accounts for the diversity of life ?
>the claim isn't that species will (usually) mutate to become superior, but that value-neutral altercations will become useful as the environment changes
The end claim is the same: mutations are good, which is wrong in almost all cases.
>all species and such come from the same origin
That's simply because of a common designer.

[Anonymous No.14944643]

>>14944533
>the claim isn't that species will (usually) mutate to become superior, but that value-neutral altercations will become useful as the environment changes. this is a subtle but important distinction that many people get wrong
This is literally not true. Where did you even get this idea?

[Anonymous No.14944645]

>>14944560
I'm not bothering with that guy.
You should read Behe.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14944655]

>>14944645
That guy is an expert in his field.

[Anonymous No.14944667]

>>14944111
my diary

[Anonymous No.14944690]

>>14944655
(((expert)))

[Anonymous No.14944784]

>>14944542
yes: i agree this is the part where science becomes quite iffy, but its not directly related to darwin, so i don't see how this is a direct critique of darwin

>>14944635
see above

>other, more credible theories, which is dogmatic.
please tell me about them. as far as i am aware darwinism is very rigorously demonstrated (demonstrated, not /proved/: these things can't be proved in the same sense that other empirical theories can be, but they can be shown to be a "true heuristic", so to speak)

>Do you sincerely believe that accounts for the diversity of life ?
i dunno, but so far it seems sufficient and powerful and (most importantly) demonstrable: wings of moth turned black not too long after the beginning of the industrial revolution. this can be explained by darwinism. evolutionary algorithms also can produce "agents" that "grow/learn" over time. its also a theory that doesn't rely on "strong supernatural magic powers woo woo"

>That's simply because of a common designer.
technically you can say that darwinism is the designer: you need to be specific

>>14944643
>This is literally not true. Where did you even get this idea?
it literally is true, why do you think it is false? im not saying that this is the only way it happens, but that it happens in conjunction with mutations that become superior. oh but wait as you guys mention mutations that become superior are far less likely, and therefor we postulate that most "evolutionary adaptations" were in fact value-neutral which became "value positive" once the environment changed. thats how the logic goes

[Anonymous No.14944838]

>>14944784
>>14944643
follow up: point being is that the set of plausible value neutral mutations are much more common. once the environment changes, anything that increases in number is, basically by definition, value-positive

[Anonymous No.14944852]

>>14944784
>but so far it seems sufficient and powerful
Not really.
>its also a theory that doesn't rely on "strong supernatural magic powers woo woo"
Yeah, because believing life arose from rocks and evolved from random mutations is so much more rational than believing an entity outside of time controls this setting for the sake of a moral experiment.

[Anonymous No.14944933]

>>14944852
>Not really.
yes really, in fact if there was a problem with it, it would be that its /too powerful and sufficient/, in a sense that you can ask anything in psychology/biology/etc and say "why this why that? oh yeah because its ~evolutionary advantageous~ is why" without going in depth into an ~explanation~

>life arose from rocks and evolved from random mutations
iirc darwin doesn't say this. darwinism is indeed a critique of the whole "animals are so pretty and complex so there must be an intentional design" argument, but as presented, it doesn't directly comment towards whether life comes from rocks-or-the-likes or not. its a natural leap that most scientists would like to make, but its not as rigorously demonstrated as the other parts of darwinism-as-in-biology are

>an entity outside of time controls this setting for the sake of a moral experiment.
darwinism does not make any comments about that at all, though it might be a critique of certain specific aspects of certain religions

[Anonymous No.14944938]

1984 is pretty scary. But if we're talking horror then maybe The Exorcist or something

[Anonymous No.14944970]

fifty shades of grey because THATS what the majority of women are into...scary stuff

[Anonymous No.14944972]

>>14944970
I refuse to believe women actually like that. I just want a wholesome marriage with kids.

[Anonymous No.14945054]

>>14944111
Trips checked.

Bible & Koran. Think about how many millions of people have been killed because of them.

[Anonymous No.14945297]

>>14944159
Agree with this. Ellul is so good

[Anonymous No.14945305]

>>14944111
Books aren't scary

[Anonymous No.14945465]

Read and try Enochian texts
Magick given to vile men by Angels themselves
Many go mad for it tores the mind asunder purifying the true seeker for heaven.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!U2pzs1fMZB1 No.14945469]

Any book that I haven't read.

[Anonymous No.14945497]

>>14944852
>more rational than believing an entity outside of time controls this setting for the sake of a moral experiment.

it actually is much more rational. you had to purposefully minimize darwin's claims ("life arose from rocks") to make your claim sound the slightest bit considerable.

i do think that a higher power is plausible, but why is that contrary to the theory of evolution?