/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15518670]

>person x has bad physiognomy therefore their argument is false
Do you accept this line of thinking /lit/? Why?

[Anonymous No.15518681]

>>15518670
yes but only insofar as it doesn't apply to me since i am hideously ugly

[Anonymous No.15518694]

>>15518670
No. Arguments are judged based on their individual merits. Lookism and incelism are for the r9k crowd exclusively.

[Anonymous No.15518724]

It's not that their argument is false, it's that it impacts the thinker they became.

Kierkegaard was an ugly hunchbacked gremlin. It informed his worldview. His answer to the Problem of Evil was to simply throw himself into "God works in Mysterious Ways" as even though some people are poorly off (like he was), others aren't, and there are little joys in life. Ultimately, he accepted his condition and tried to make the most of it. His used his deformities to fuel his question for truth and virtue. He did not wish to see his ugliness reflected upon the world, because he knew what it was like to be ugly, and he wanted no one else to suffer that.

Sartre, meanwhile, was an ugly cockeyed manlet. He hated people for being prettier then him, so he became a grovelling sycophant to literally anyone who would let him, simultaneously working with Jewish Communists trying to turn France into a Jewish Ethnostate from which to establish Jewish World Communism AND with the Nazis, ratting out Jews to them for food rations and access to prostitutes. After that, he accessed sex by having a colleague of his (Simon de Beauvoir) drug gentile women so he could rape them (an act she cooperated with because gentiles aren't human). Sartre's ugliness was reflected upon the world, and he wanted to make everyone suffer ten times what he did. It culminated in "Kill Sartre" parades in the streets as the French populace demanded he be murdered for his foul and frankly idiotic views (specifically, he was advocated the genocide of the French people, which is why the parades were held).

A person must be judged by their ideas and character, because ugliness outside does not necessarily reflect ugliness inside. But people who are ugly on the inside and the outside deserve to be viciously and brutally mocked for it.

[Anonymous No.15518738]

>>15518670
No, the opposite is true. Only the ugly are truly capable of thinking. It's how God compensates us.

[Anonymous No.15519058]

>>15518738
>us
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHA

[Anonymous No.15519069]

>>15518724
>It's not that their argument is false, it's that it impacts the thinker they became.

This.

[Anonymous No.15519093]

>>15519069
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.15520539]

>>15518738
based and bluepilled

[Anonymous No.15520562]

>>15518670
Yes. If someone is just kinda ugly within reason, no but if they're a fucking freak like pic related, then I will not listen to a word they say.

[Anonymous No.15520569]

>>15518670
I will never trust a man with no chin, ever

[Anonymous No.15520615]

>>15518670
do ardono's arguments against jazz apply to bossa nova? it doesn't have so much bass and and its has great harmony

[Anonymous No.15520664]

>>15518670
No, but it's like a stupid person making a valid argument, it's a possibility but not usually the case. ugly people are also ugly inside.

[Anonymous No.15520676]

>>15520562

Based anon who fantasizes about kicking Sartre's shit in

[Anonymous No.15520684]

>>15520676
>hell is other people
Yeah maybe for you, short ass cross eyed fuck

[Anonymous No.15520721]

>>15520664
>ugly people are also ugly inside.

Usually because of the way people treat ugly fucks.

[Anonymous No.15520911]

>>15518670
I remember reading that being born ugly or cute has three times more impact on how fair/just you estimate the world to be than being born rich or poor, and I often see people mention such social status when talking about writers.

>>15518724
>it's that it impacts the thinker they became.
This. Ugly thinkers will still have a view of humans and society influenced by regular rejection and uneasiness, no matter their optimism at a metaphysical level.

[Anonymous No.15520941]

>>15518670
No.
1) In the case where the truth of the statement cannot be ascertained independently, where I depend on the word of the other, because I do not believe in phrenology.
2) In the case where the truth of the statement can be ascertained independently (philosophy), because, in that case, I ascertain the truth, and there the personal characteristics of the writer are irrelevant, because they do not impact my capability of discerning the truth.

In 1), it could be entertained as relevant. In 2), it cannot be relevant, because you do not depend on the writer at all, but on your own capability in determining the truth of his words.

[Anonymous No.15520969]

Only on /lit/ would something like this be asked and seriously entertained by people.
>HURRR DURRR IS AD HOMINEM GOOD????
I just hate this board.

[Anonymous No.15520985]

>>15520721
not necessarily. an ugly fuck can have an easy-mode life and still seethe over struggling decent-looking people and the world in general. their self-perception informs their ugly minds too.

[Anonymous No.15520993]

>>15520969
dishonest ugly jew that you are, you failed to read the thread or even OP.

[Anonymous No.15520995]

>>15520664
>>15520562
>>15518724
I think Sartre was cute in the same way a bulldog is cute, he was ugly but in a cute way

[Anonymous No.15520999]

Can i have a quick rundown on adorno?

[Anonymous No.15521003]

>>15520684

If it wasn't for his eye he would be sort of cute

[Anonymous No.15521009]

>>15520993
>>person x has bad physiognomy therefore their argument is false
>Do you accept this line of thinking /lit/? >Why?

Only on /lit/, 4chan’s reputed smartest board, is this something that merits discussion. You literally asked if ad hominem was good unironically and people are unironically entertaining the possibility. /lit/ is trash and I need to get out of here.

[Anonymous No.15521010]

>>15520969
your analytical witchcraft doesn't work on us, you slime

[Anonymous No.15521050]

>>15521009
Physiognomy isn't an ad hominem if you accept it has any level of legitimacy. You still didn't read the thread. When reading someone's ideas you always parse them through one frame of mind or another. To get the most out of all, and to avoid being mentally castrated or misled, you need to tune this parsing to produce accurate/useful frames or at least to save time and frustration. This is especially important today because everyone is dishonest and manipulative or otherwise castrated by some other ideospheric entity pecking at their mind, the more intellectualised the more dangerous.

[Anonymous No.15521075]

>>15521050
I literally quoted the OP in its entirety. Yes physiognomy is ad hominem even if you’re a retard who believes in it because you’re literally pointing at someone’s character — or whatever else physiognomy purports to predict — and using that to dismiss the person’s arguments instead of looking to the arguments themselves. Try to write a paper in uni refuting a philosophers ideas by talking about how ugly they are or how bad their physiognomy is. You will get kicked off the course. Read any serious book. Go to any serious blog or forum. Join any serious book club. Only on /lit/ where everyone is a 90IQ wannabe genius is this kind of trash acceptable discourse. Yes, you literally asked if ad hominem was valid and instead of calling you a retard people are engaging with you.

[Anonymous No.15521094]

>>15520999
Jew hates niggers, women, decadents, jazz but has to be uber-subversive to the goyim for tribal interest.

[Anonymous No.15521575]

>>15521094
this. he hated american culture because jews generally hate anything made by goyims. But if you want a good critique of american capitalist culture it's pretty good since he was a smart motherfucker, still a kike tho.

[Anonymous No.15521995]

Just the opposite. The ugly see through the hypocrisy of all beauties.

Thinking is an adornment of the mind. An alternate strategy for value. In form and intent it is no different than making oneself beautiful, but it does, quite accidentally, also offer insight (that is, on the terms of 'insight', on the terms of the mental - a nepotism)

Those condemned to a mental life, failing a test of outward beauty, want to reek some revenge on the material and superficial. They would sooner celebrate rot than beauty. Though who could blame them, for...

Beauty is cope. Lovely at times, but it couldn't last. A tapestry of lies has been set alight. What was behind it? Is truth ugliness cured of beauty, and so made, by negation, beautiful?

[Anonymous No.15522018]

>>15521995
tell us more based retard

[Anonymous No.15522048]

>>15518738
God is punishing you for your previous lifes

[Anonymous No.15522057]

>>15522018
I'm sorry.

If I spoke any other way I would cede too much ground to mind.

If I said nothing, beauty would prevail.

Better to speak gibberish and make a mockery of both.

Pic (intimately) related.

[Anonymous No.15522867]

depends on if they agree with me

[Anonymous No.15522937]

>>15520969
/thread

[Anonymous No.15523001]

I have never met a good ugly person or a bad beautiful person.

[Anonymous No.15523023]

I have never met a bad ugly person or a good beautiful person.

[Anonymous No.15523024]

>>15518724
>Kierkegaard was an ugly hunchbacked gremlin.