/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17389435]

When will literature move back to objective truths and values?

[Anonymous No.17389444]

>>17389435
>/lit/ - television and movies

[Anonymous No.17389888]

When society does
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

[Anonymous No.17389890]

>>17389435
It never did.

[Anonymous No.17389912]

Never, because the notion that truth and values are objective has been wholly disproven.

[Anonymous No.17389921]

>>17389435
What would those objective truths and values be?

[Anonymous No.17389932]

>>17389435
What is some literature that exemplifies objective truths and values in your eyes OP

[Anonymous No.17389934]

>>17389888
Checked.

[Anonymous No.17389942]

>>17389932
brothers karamazov
the man who would be thursday
dubliners
absalom, absalom
suttree

[Anonymous No.17389949]

>>17389942
>>the man who would be thursday
*who was

but also kipling

[Anonymous No.17389962]

>>17389942
i'm confused, why do you believe there exists a definite set of objective truths? are you implying that there are specific values shared universally? what even is an *objective* value?
can you name an objective truth?

[Anonymous No.17389970]

>>17389962
Here's an objective truth: you will never be a woman

[Anonymous No.17389977]

>>17389962
>can you name an objective truth

epistemology is a dead end
global optimization leads to hell
jesuits are evil
postmodernism is worthless

[Anonymous No.17389987]

>>17389970
>>17389977
just more internet nihilists posing as dogmatists..

[Anonymous No.17389989]

>>17389970
hilarous, original, amazing. just to bite, are you using an essentialist definition of "woman", like in a sense that there exists some pure, divine notion of womanhood that's above the notion of existence?
or are you using a nominative definition, in which the term "woman" refers to a shared set of experiences by a finite number of people, a shorthand for a group of humans with particular characteristics?

[Anonymous No.17390004]

>>17389912
ok tranny

[Anonymous No.17390005]

>>17389977
global optimization leads to hell? what the fuck are you even referring to? here's a dumb counterexample, i'll choose to interpret optimization in the math sense, now global optimization could lead to finite sets in some well-behaved functions.

postmoderniism is worthless? so now there's a universal sense of worth that we all share? why wouldn't you establish what that is?

[Anonymous No.17390022]

Wait till my book drop family!!

[Anonymous No.17390040]

>>17389987
nihilism is also objectivelly dead end
read demons

>>17390005
you need not look any further than the current globohomo culture we 'share'

>there is a universal sense of worth that we all share?

that is something else, and can be easily warped. for example, if you harbor homosexual feelings you might feel validated by flaunting them for dopamine hits. however, you are objectively a degenerate (to an extent, larger or lesser)... if you're an artist, you can turn your misfortune into decent stylistics and good decadent works (such as those of oscar wilde or burroughs) but in the end you're just exploring your own corruption.

[Anonymous No.17390047]

>>17390040
this reads like dogma, not an exploration of *why* what you're stating is objective truth. your axiom is that gay = degenerate, and you're exploring the ramifications of that axiom.

[Anonymous No.17390050]

>when will the art of creating make-believe mental pictures with words return to objective truths and values?
Hmm

[Anonymous No.17390053]

>objective truths and values
These never have existed and never will, certainly not in literature, which is the literal origin of the very idea of the narrative

[Anonymous No.17390056]

>>17390040
>>17390047
are you conflating objective and divine? are you conflating objective and vulgar (common)? are you conflating objective as intuitive?

[Anonymous No.17390074]

>>17389989
I think you know exactly what I mean

[Anonymous No.17390089]

>>17389989
>essentialist definition
>nominative definition

there is only one objective definition of a female. you're spasming like a demon under a shower of holy water.

[Anonymous No.17390096]

>>17390074
I don't. Your original post does *nothing* to resolve whether you're talking in an essentialist or nominalist way. it's an easily answerable question, why are you unable to answer it? are you unsure yourself?

[Anonymous No.17390100]

>>17389977
>jesuits are evil
KEK. Why do you believe this?

[Anonymous No.17390115]

>>17390074
>>17390089
>>17390089
don't even understand why you've comedy chevronned those two lines. from your response, I'm guessing that you believe objective truth and value come from a biblical understanding of a divine source?

also, how have we gotten this deep in the convo without even answering my original question? do you need me to rephrase it?

[Anonymous No.17390124]

>>17390053
Literature that makes no statement on what is good vs what is evil is pointless.

[Anonymous No.17390150]

>>17389435
>>17390074
>>17390089
it's crazy that none of the people who demanded there are objective truths and values have even bothered to defend their point in the face of the slightest criticism, despite it being *their thread*. what's the point of all that reading and education if you're just going to be cowards on a fucking anonymous message board?

>>17390124
HOT take. there's no more point to literature than to moralize?

[Anonymous No.17390174]

>>17390150
objective values and truths have nothing to do with moralization. if anything they explore degeneracy and bring rot to the light of day. your poisoned mind can only cry for these truths to be made obvious, like a set of principles you can then ridicule.

[Anonymous No.17390177]

>Sophie Marceau

[Anonymous No.17390199]

>>17390174
of course I call for those "truths" to be made obvious, like a set of principles I can then "ridicule". you claim to have a divine Truth hidden away in your pocket, all I ask is to take a look. if it were an objective truth, why should you even be afraid I might try to refute it? I'd necessarily fail, right?

don't be a coward, put your beliefs out there if you really stand behind them.

[Anonymous No.17390201]

>>17390150
>HOT take. there's no more point to literature than to moralize?
Yes. Literature has only one purpose: say what is good and what is wrong in a beautiful way.
Literature that does not do this is an exercise in triviality.

[Anonymous No.17390222]

>>17390201
still an interesting take. what about literature that explores existensialism, absurdism, or nihilism? are they valuable because those correlate with evil, or are they valueless because those represent a liberation of notions of right and wrong?

(i've only read camus, so am mostly ignorant in those fields)

[Anonymous No.17390237]

>>17390199
i don't really need to put my beliefs out there just for the sake of it, at random, that is pure nonsense. they guide my worldly (in)actions.

[Anonymous No.17390251]

>>17390222
not him but i think those books are simply exercise in stylistics - if the author fails to see the light of day at the end.

good examples would be au rebours, picture of dorian gray, and blood meridian. they are simply gorefests of morals. well written, poisoned, pointless.

[Anonymous No.17390269]

>>17390237
it's not at random, it's in order to demonstrate that you *truly* believe they're objective, and that you're not afraid to put them out in the world and expose them to criticism. you could have summarized even ONE objective truth...
...which you've just retreated into calling a BELIEF
... in the time it's taken us to have this conversation.

Don't be a coward.

[Anonymous No.17390329]

Oh boy another neocon whining about the supposed """objectivity""" that he sees in his personal life in a world that is random and confusing. This thread will be fun!

[Anonymous No.17390374]

>>17390251
This. That’s why true atheists (i.e people who believe there is no such thing as objective truth) such as Nabokov are always stylists. If there is no objective truth, then the only thing that matters is aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.17390404]

>>17390374
this is the precise reason why nabokov hated dostoevsky (apart from the fact that his own weasely grandfather sent him to gulag) and why he thought less of tolstoy's twilight works.

[Anonymous No.17390407]

>>17390329
world is neither random nor confusing. we're living in technological oligarchy maintained by relentless spread of disinformation via dopamine slivers.

[Anonymous No.17390411]

It is one thing to suppose that such a thing as objective truth exists. It is another thing to positively assert that you have access to it, or know its nature, aspects, etc. Lots of people in the thread are doing the latter, but provide precious little justification for their certainty.

[Anonymous No.17390426]

>>17390411
The quest for truth requires objective foundations though. Like acknowledging the importance of family, of reading proper writers (as Bloom would have said), of learning to value art.

[Anonymous No.17390482]

>>17390426
The importance of family seems like an empirical fact that can be measured in the light of certain value judgements, not an axiom. The only reason you would take it as an axiom is for reasons of propriety. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that you are some kind of conservative or traditionalist, when what you're saying is completely alien to the sceptical attitude of Western philosophical inquiry. Socrates' willingness to question everything, and everyone's pretensions to knowledge about them. Even orthodox religious thinkers are often radically sceptical of things like worldly art and family life.

[Anonymous No.17390541]

>>17390482
I agree. Why is there such a strong correlation between conservatism and a never-justified demand that there are objective truths? And the SPECIFICS? the importance of FAMILY?

>>17390426
If that were an objective truth, I shouldn't be able to come up with ANY counterexample, right? what about insects whose relation to their parents extends only to giving birth to them, and in no way constitutes a familial relationship? for those insects, family (as defined as more than just genetic parents) has ABSOLUTELY no impotance. Or are you about to "amend" your definition of an """objective""" truth post-hoc, in response to this post?

[Anonymous No.17390567]

>>17390541
>Why is there such a strong correlation between conservatism and a never-justified demand that there are objective truths?
A philistine conservatism, to be fair. Conservatism as a political attitude at its best derives from more or less sceptical principles - particularly scepticism about speculative and a priori claims - and their respect for tradition and organic social forms reflects a kind of empirical attitude, a "this is the best thing we have" mindset, rather than pious credulity.

[Anonymous No.17390586]

>>17390541
>what about insects

non-humans are not important, it's cynical to compare human society to any other form of organization.

>>17390482
socrates' method valued truth and objective values above all else. majeutics was about birthing the final truth of a given subject and not weasel words and half-way definitions.

[Anonymous No.17390592]

>>17390567
very fair point, but I can't remember ever having interacted with ANYone on the internet (or in real life, but that's a biased sample) who'd fall outside of your "philistine" subset.

[Anonymous No.17390605]

>>17390586
>non-humans are not important
That seems like a subjective attitude.
>it's cynical to compare human society to any other form of organization.
Human beings have been doing it since time immemorial.
>socrates' method valued truth and objective values above all else.
Of course, but he didn't pretend that he possessed it, at least not in its entirety, and exposed people who thought they did. His entire enterprise is about yearning, searching for it. Not being content with the idea that you do in fact know something. You seem to believe that you know something. Plato says that rhetoric is a form of flattery, and the most we have been offered as justification in this thread has been rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.17390609]

>>17390586
"it's cynical to compare human society to any other form of organization."
is that an objective truth too?

"non-humans are not important" is refutable in SO MANY WAYS. you haven't defined important, but you don't actually believe that e.g. livestock is unimportant, or that physics is unimportant.

I predicted that your goalpost moving would be to amend your definition of "objective", not to say that my counterexample is "unimportnat".

[Anonymous No.17390614]

>>17389921
Op is a retard

[Anonymous No.17390631]

>>17390609
i'm not moving anything, you jumped to insect societies. non-human species have no capacity for abstract thought, no spark of divinity.

[Anonymous No.17390643]

>>17390631
>non-human species have no capacity for abstract thought
What about great apes? Also that is irrelevant to the notion of importance, unless you believe that things are only subjectively important - i.e. important for me, because important for human life, because I am human.

[Anonymous No.17390654]

>>17390631
now you've just moved the definition of important to having abstract thought AND spark of divinity. the person refuting the claims is allowed to interpret vague things liberally, if done in good faith.

you only answered half my post; you really claim livestock is unimportant? physics is unimportant? what about viruses?

[Anonymous No.17390684]

>>17390089
>there is only one objective definition of a female

Would you care to give it?

[Anonymous No.17390713]

>>17390654
well no one is denying the biological facts of life, what about that? they are important as bread or teeth or gorge is important. like stomach juices. all that is just an environment within which humans build their societies and values.

physics - in theoretical sense, post-einstein - is completely useless, as is space exploration. it is completely detached from reality and the human condition.

[Anonymous No.17390716]

>>17390684
It has a penis

[Anonymous No.17390718]

>>17390684
yes, born with a vagina.

[Anonymous No.17390723]

>>17390718
So you are a woman

[Anonymous No.17390726]

>>17390713
>all that is just an environment within which humans build their societies and values.
So you value human subjectivity over objective conditions.
>physics - in theoretical sense, post-einstein - is completely useless, as is space exploration. it is completely detached from reality and the human condition.
Well ostensibly it is not detached from reality - non-human (objective?) reality - insofar as it makes approaches to understanding it.

[Anonymous No.17390729]

>>17389989
woman are produce egg for to make internally babby
if cannot this do, defective woman

[Anonymous No.17390734]

>>17390729
T. Defective "man"

[Anonymous No.17390743]

>>17390734
hav 2 girls impregnated
girls rightfully of me apprehensive and distrusting kill babby sapling within

[Anonymous No.17390752]

>>17390743
Try typing whatever you're trying to say in English

[Anonymous No.17390795]

>>17390752
It was a feed and seed Michael!

[Anonymous No.17390819]

>>17389912
The only Truth that matters is Eternal.

[Anonymous No.17390831]

>>17390726
the fact that i stated that theoretical physics is worthless it's obvious that i value objective influence on the human condition over theoretical nonsense.

[Anonymous No.17390847]

>>17390831
Theoretical physics has practical applications. Also isn't the pursuit of truth in itself worthwhile? Ultimately it seems like you are a subjectivist.

[Anonymous No.17390860]

>>17390795
See >>17390752

[Anonymous No.17390867]

>>17390847
scientism is by definition subjective because it negates all other forms of searching for truth. morality is forever beyond scientific reach.

[Anonymous No.17390868]

when you stop being gay

[Anonymous No.17390872]

>>17390860
The whirligig absconder de-budded my red goat-head Michael!

[Anonymous No.17390885]

>>17390867
Theoretical physics is distinct from scientism, no?
>morality is forever beyond scientific reach.
Of course, but whose reach is it actually within?

[Anonymous No.17390894]

>>17390885
considering theoretical physicists claim to be looking for the very fabric of cosmos i think it's a fantastic parable of human vanity.

morality is fully within our grasp considering it is nurtured within ourselves and passed on to us by tradition, familial ties and sets of objective values we must uphold if we do not wish to corrupt our very souls.

i can give you one more thing that accompanies this - compare personal lives great humanist writers, those who wrote moral tales, stood up for these values and truths in their work, compare them with decadents, nihilists, avant-guarde stylist, what they did and how they ended.

[Anonymous No.17390920]

return to Tradition

[Anonymous No.17390990]

>>17390718
Beings yet unborn cannot be female? Hmmm...

>>17390894
(not that anon)
>theoretical physicists claim to be looking for the very fabric of cosmos
The physical fabric of cosmos. Nothing more and nothing less. Has nothing to do with your "objective values". But I guess everything has to be of absolute and mythical proportions in your eyes, everything has to deny anything else. Mythical "objective values" vs. mythical crazy godless physicists, like a cartoon.
>compare personal lives great humanist writers, those who wrote moral tales, stood up for these values and truths in their work, compare them with decadents, nihilists, avant-guarde stylist, what they did and how they ended
An argument literally on the level of Sam Harris "put your hand on a hot stove". Surely you can do better?

[Anonymous No.17391001]

>>17390990
>mythical crazy godless physicists

surely no such thing exists

[Anonymous No.17391013]

>>17389912
It doesn't matter if they aren't "objective", you must treat them as if they were.

[Anonymous No.17391037]

>>17391001
You mean that guy whose most famous quote is about how much nukes worry him?

[Anonymous No.17391053]

>>17391037
no, the leading american scientist who equated death and destruction with god's properties

[Anonymous No.17391063]

>>17389912
Go outside

[Anonymous No.17391097]

>>17391053
Well, it's not like God didn't do some death and destruction in the Bible and promise more of it later, but anyway, could you remind me, where did Opp equate those things?

[Anonymous No.17391115]

>>17390894
>morality is fully within our grasp considering it is nurtured within ourselves and passed on to us by tradition, familial ties and sets of objective values we must uphold if we do not wish to corrupt our very souls.
the morals passed on by tradition differ radically from one another.

[Anonymous No.17391140]

>>17391115
and this is precisely why it's important to uphold the values of our (preferably orthodox) christian civilization lest we become pagans again.

[Anonymous No.17391141]

>>17390074
unironically best and ultimate response
well done anon

[Anonymous No.17391150]

>>17389977
Is there continuity between the Jesuit order of the past and the Jesuits of today? The scientist-priest archtype is literally the greatest possible model for mankind—but Jesuits have stopped being scientist-priests

[Anonymous No.17391151]

>>17391140
You say that objective values are nurtured in the soul and passed on via family and tradition, but obviously this is not enough if different cultures using these same mechanisms can have earnest disagreements. So what is the criterion for deciding which values are the objectively true ones?

[Anonymous No.17391161]

>>17391053
He quoted directly from the Bhagavad Gita, what Arjuna says when Krishna shows him his true divine form, aka every moment of reality flowed before his eyes and he saw God's omnipotent necessity. You may disagree with that theology, but I can't imagine a circumstance where God isn't equated with all powerful control over life and death and destruction and fruition.

[Anonymous No.17391165]

>>17391115
irrelevant. as long as there is an implicit totality. once you eat the fruit of knowledge you leave eden. the best you can do once you eat it is to recognize the very paradoxes it brings and accept the absurd.

[Anonymous No.17391167]

>>17391165
meaningless babble

[Anonymous No.17391168]

>>17389912
>I have proven that there is no proof!

Do you like crayons with your paste, monsieur?

[Anonymous No.17391169]

>>17391115
>implying sodomy was a publicly recognized cultural norm in ancient greece
You drank the revisionist kool aid. It wasn’t uncommon, but it wasn’t approved by the majority either among the aristocracy nor especially the commoner.

[Anonymous No.17391177]

>>17391151
christianity is the only religion that put humanity on a pedestal, and taught humility and sacrifice. obviously not the papal nonsense, but true christian tradition. what are the alternatives? pagan nonsense? animal worship? multifaceted guru-breeding systems of the east? assimilative warlord cult that is islam?

>>17391161
god never destroyed that what he created, the key component of hinduism is the denial of oneself, it is the ultimate nihilistic religion; jesus krishna would die on the cross to free himself, not to save others.

[Anonymous No.17391190]

>>17391177
But every self is the same self in hinduism, to save yourself is to save a portion of the single self we all are. It is not nihilism in the western sense, its a meaningful nihilism that says "don't worry, you're God and you will find your way back to that truth; live life and enjoy it, also here are traditional values you should follow if you wish to become God again."

[Anonymous No.17391200]

>>17390718
So individuals born with Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome aren’t female?

[Anonymous No.17391212]

>>17391167
im sorry if i stated it aphoristicly.
As long as their is an implicit sense if good in a community, that is good. once you accept a more perspectivist take, specifically an antithetical one, you are on the route to mediocrity and inevitable moot and internally hypocritical points.

[Anonymous No.17391213]

>>17391169
Homosexuality != sodomy. Anal sex was not their preferred means of male-male copulation.
>but it wasn’t approved by the majority either among the aristocracy nor especially the commoner
Source?

>"No one used to despise those who had a passionate nature: love affairs were such an open and everyday matter that the great poet Aeschylus, and Sophocles too, put sexual themes on the stage in their tragedies, Aeschylus showing Achilles’ love for Patroclus, Sophocles love of the boys in Niobe (which is why some people call this play Paiderastria)—and their audiences enjoyed such themes.
>". . . And many men, overall, prefer love with boys to love with females. In the very cities of Greece that have the best laws by comparison with others, this is the mode of behavior that is fashionable. The Cretans, as I told you, and the Chalcidians of Euboea, are both especially fond of love with boys. Notice that Echemenes in Cretan Studies says that it was not Zeus but Minos who stole Ganymede; while those Chalcidians, for their part, say that it was Zeus, but that Ganymede was stolen from their very own territory, and they can show you the place: they call it “The Stealing,” and lots of myrtles grow there. Minos even gave up his enmity with the Athenians (though it had arisen from the death of his own son) once he fell in love with Theseus; he gave Theseus his daughter Phaedra to marry, so says Zenis or Zeneus of Chios in his book about Chios.
>"Hieronymus the Aristotelian says that love with boys was fashionable because several tyrannies had been overturned by young men in their prime, joined together as comrades in mutual sympathy. In his boyfriend’s presence, a lover would go through any suffering rather than have the boy think him a coward. This was demonstrated in practice by the Sacred Band, formed by Epaminondas at Thebes; by the Peisistratid assassination, the work of Harmodius and Aristogeiton; and at Acragas in Sicily by the story of Chariton and Melanippus."
—Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae

[Anonymous No.17391226]

>>17389435
Whose objective truths and values do you want to move back to?

[Anonymous No.17391230]

>>17391177
How about none of them?
>>17391212
Right. Sorry for my insulting words. That's a fine pragmatic statement, but not itself an argument for the truth-value of any 'objective' perspective.

[Anonymous No.17391246]

>>17391230
you have to have an external anchor.

"if there is no god, everything is permitted"

>>17391190
>you're God

pure heresy. just look at the despicable society that their religion has wrought.

[Anonymous No.17391252]

>>17391246
>you have to have an external anchor.
That may be the case, but it doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous No.17391259]

>>17391246
>"if there is no god, everything is permitted

Oh man we’re back to this? I realize Zizek is shit on in these parts but his work in God in Pain does a pretty good job of putting that one to bed.

[Anonymous No.17391275]

>>17391200
well malformed unfortunate people certainly were on their way to become male or female, but horrendous deformities are just that. when you become maimed in a war you don't become another type of man.

>>17391252
it is the essence of any possibility of moral life.

>>17391226
christianity, faith, banishing of postmodern thought from universities, finding out who is that you cannot criticize today and dismantling the structures that enable them to exert this power... whether it's a lost cause or not is another question. certainly internet would be the prime target for any moral person, its very inception will lead humanity to a collapse in few decades at most.

>>17391259
zizek is a stalin worshipper and a blase exhibitionist

[Anonymous No.17391296]

>>17391275
>it is the essence of any possibility of moral life.
The human traditions are interchangeable in this regard. The fact that all of them share a general social utility despite advancing wildly different accounts of reality makes this a bad criterion for determining the truth-value of any particular religious system. Again, are you arguing for the objective truth of a particular system, or just for the pragmatic value of having a social consensus? If you can't explain why your favoured worldview is truer than any other, just admit you are proposing a Noble Lie.

[Anonymous No.17391300]

>>17391275
But anon if they don’t have vaginas how can they be female? You’re moving the boundaries on your own definition already.

[Anonymous No.17391303]

>>17391275
>zizek is a stalin worshipper and a blase exhibitionist

I’m not seeing a counter argument anywhere in there.

[Anonymous No.17391308]

>>17391230
>Right. Sorry for my insulting words. That's a fine pragmatic statement, but not itself an argument for the truth-value of any 'objective' perspective.
i agree, though then again i think there is a difference between internally objective and big O OBJECTIVE. the particular within the absolute and all, hypothetically closed systems, etc.

I may be giving op more credit than he is worth (and if i am, i think it still speaks to the “sensation”), but that creating apparent objectivity in terms of implicit beliefs and shit, we are generally more content and capital s SUBJECTIVELY more able to find an objective in aperance rather than wallowing in implicitly moot activities and directions.

[Anonymous No.17391317]

>>17391300
they're defective females

[Anonymous No.17391333]

>>17391317
No they’re not. Females have vaginas. They don’t.

You wanna just jump to the finish and say they’re featherless bipeds, cause I figure that’s where this is going.

[Anonymous No.17391337]

>>17391246
You are God insofar as you reach a state of enlightenment and, through that enlightenment, spontaneously and willingly act perfectly Good through realization that it is intrinsically what ought to be done and simultaneously what heals the rest of the world fastest. All societies fall short of their ideals, though they continuously approach them, and Christianity has not saved the west from degenerating into the pit of vice it is today. The right religion won't fall, Christianity was lacking or the world spirit would never have left it.

[Anonymous No.17391342]

>>17391333
females make eggs which get fertilized into fetus which they develop into a baby and give birth to. There are females that are defective in various ways and can't do this properly

[Anonymous No.17391344]

>>17391303
well you're talking about a man who is fond of psychoanalist babble and contradicts himself five times per page on average

>>17391296
it is an objective truth that white race, civilization and culture is superior to all others. white people can only have an uneasy co-existence with other races, and there is no such thing as multicultural society when miscegenation is involved. it is an objective truth that the pragmatism of central african tribes or the horrendous jesuit abortion that is south america functions within its own nightmarish laws, that continental culture has the luxury to abstain from.

>>17391337
we are moulded in god's shape, nothing more. as for the west, it was taken over by the papal strain of satanism way way back, and crusader states were demonic properties that worked with their islamic counterparts on dethroning of the church-state of byzantium, dimming the light of the world for centuries.

[Anonymous No.17391355]

>>17391344
>it is an objective truth that white race, civilization and culture is superior to all others
I don't remember this in the bible.

[Anonymous No.17391364]

>>17391342
But three posts ago the definition was “females have vaginas”. So now it would seem the definition is more complex than that. Especially since you’re describing the larger genital apparatus, specifically ovaries and uterus. How many refinements of a once objective truth do we need before we settle on a new objective truth?

And do I need to start bringing other species into this, such as the seahorse, where the male of the species gives birth to the young?

[Anonymous No.17391371]

>>17391364
>“females have vaginas”
That wasn't me, my definition is based strictly around reproduction, since that's why sexes exist. The vagina is for insemination and birth after all.

and yes different species have varying roles for sexes, but the only sensible definition is always based around reproduction.

[Anonymous No.17391372]

>>17391355
Hell I don’t even remember any whites in the Bible period.

[Anonymous No.17391373]

>>17391355
this does not forbid other races from trying to understand christianity. however, you might have noticed that i have a very adversarial stance on jesuits and especially lutherans (basically godless people), and it's these people who evangelized primitive races for their nefarious goals.

[Anonymous No.17391408]

>>17391344
>it is an objective truth that white race, civilization and culture is superior to all others.
Not really. Europeans, Middle Easterns, Indians, Chinese, among others, are all on a similar level of civilization. It's natural if you are European to prefer European culture(even more natural to prefer French culture if you are French and so on down to wherever you specifically live) but it doesn't make it objectively superior.

[Anonymous No.17391409]

>>17391371
Ok. You’ve been replying to an entire comment thread that started with that definition without proffering you’re own but ok.

Give me the clear, concise, “objective truth” on what is a female. I knew this was coming and we’re gonna end up at “featherless bipeds” anyway but fuckit.

[Anonymous No.17391411]

>>17391373
what denomination of Christianity do you adhere to then

[Anonymous No.17391414]

>>17391409
I just said what it was for humans, they make eggs, gestate, give birth etc. the XX chromosomes develop these sexual characteristics, give them ovaries, vaginas, etc. so that they can fulfill this reproductive purpose.

[Anonymous No.17391494]

>>17391411
none, i am not educated enough to give such answers, but i've seen the evils of secularism and i would be closest to orthodox christianity. unfortunately i don't believe in god but i do believe in moral necessity. i especially despise post-structuralism.

>>17391408
>similar level of civilization

that's just a globohomo facade. just because you now have a global teutonic / hanseatic type of economy that seems to obliterate identities does not mean that much has changed once the basic exchange of goods is done.

i have to go to sleep. i apologize to anyone if i presented myself as hateful towards other races and cultures but i do not think there is a way to present a honest objective stance without making some unwielding delineations.

[Anonymous No.17391522]

>>17389912
*Blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.17391527]

>>17391494
>none, i am not educated enough to give such answers, but i've seen the evils of secularism and i would be closest to orthodox christianity. unfortunately i don't believe in god but i do believe in moral necessity.
In other words, you don't believe that Christianity is true but you want to give Christians the power to force everyone to conform to Christian doctrine, great thinking comrade

[Anonymous No.17391571]

>>17391527
no because again, i don't consider jesuits to be representative of christianity nor do i equate it with islamic assimilation. not conforming to certain moral principles is a choice that will lead to one's doom however, but not because orthodox commandos will start pogroms.

[Anonymous No.17391614]

>>17391571
You talked about the evils of secularism. The obvious alternative to secularism is some form of government were religious morality is baked into the law, like integralism.

[Anonymous No.17391627]

>>17391494
sorry i forgot to add: fuck niggers. alright, goodnight, /lit/.

[Anonymous No.17391656]

>>17389435
Got a question for you, OP. When did Literature move away from objetive truth and values? Homer?
Because I understand what you are saying as that the times/the society aren't propitious to deliver literary works that contain objetive truths and values.
If that's not the case then it means that if in this exact moment some randome fuck writes and publishes a literary work that contains objetive truths and values Literature would have turned back to the place you demanded. How much time do you give it so one can say Literature moved away from the objetive again?
If your talking about the values of our time you can put this question all the way inside your rectum as Literature itself can't answer it, it doesn't even have any power for it.

[Anonymous No.17391730]

>>17389435
>to objective truths and values
What the actual fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.17391748]

>>17391494
>unfortunately i don't believe in god

[Anonymous No.17391866]

>>17391213
and sodomy != anal sex, but any unnatural sexual act, which includes slippin and slidin between boy thighs
> Aeschylus showing Achilles’ love for Patroclus
was never explicit
> Notice that Echemenes in Cretan Studies says that it was not Zeus but Minos who stole Ganymede; while those Chalcidians, for their part, say that it was Zeus
The myth was accepted, as noted, in only parts of greece, and did not originate with the classic canon. It was most likely made to rationalize pederasty among the nobility there.
There is as much (if not more than) ancient criticism of same sex relations as favorable accounts. Plato explicitly condemns pederasty and male to male sexual in laws and elsewhere, condemning it as unnatural. It was clearly not a normalized or accepted issue, even if it was less uncommon than in other societies. One popularized notion in favor-of hardly makes the cut for arguing it was non-chalant and mostly tolerated

[Anonymous No.17391959]

>>17391866
>was never explicit
In Homer, no. In Aeschylus, yes.
>It was clearly not a normalized or accepted issue
It's taken completely for granted in the dialogues. The characters in the Symposium (both Plato's and Xenophon's), Phaedrus, Lysis, etc. all default to talking about homosexual relationships when speaking about love. I can't think of a better fit for the definition of 'normalised'. Plato's objection to the practice isn't evidence of widespread opposition to it, since he was a radical social critic proposing an extreme vision of society, rather than a conservative.

[Anonymous No.17392537]

>>17391522
Based blocking.

[Anonymous No.17392546]

>>17389912
I hope you die in your sleep tonight, doubting fag.

[Anonymous No.17392580]

>>17389435
>>17389912
Both of these posters are coping tards, the difference is one also worships Jewish gods

[Anonymous No.17392595]

>>17390174
>degeneracy
Spotted the incel

[Anonymous No.17392618]

>>17389435
We don't even need such high standards.
It's not like we live among thousands of other intelligent species, do we?
Humanity's context provides enough of a restriction for you to be able to solve your 'values' problem satisfactorily.

[Anonymous No.17393307]

>>17391656
When realism ended

[Anonymous No.17393323]

>>17389435
never before the collapse and rebuilding.
It is up to us to purge as many books and genocide as many subhumans as possible so that the successive generation might to worthwhile art.

[Anonymous No.17393325]

>>17392595
>incel
lmao it's not 2018 anymore. get with times grandpa

[Anonymous No.17393330]

>>17389912
you will never pass as a girl

[Anonymous No.17393338]

>>17393307
realism is a modernism

[Anonymous No.17393343]

>>17393338
No it isn't

[Anonymous No.17393349]

>>17393343
look at medieval art.

[Anonymous No.17393378]

>>17393349
Modernism is deliberate

[Anonymous No.17393714]

>>17391275

[Anonymous No.17393830]

Few years in Europe.
Secularism is synonymous with American hegemony and everybody is tired of nigger dildo gay shit and war.
The age of Islam is upon us.

[Anonymous No.17393860]

>>17393830
Speak for yourself, Lutheran.

[Anonymous No.17393881]

>>17389435
OP, list the last ten books you read beginning to end or your mother will die in her sleep tonight.

[Anonymous No.17394255]

when you write a novel with objective truths and values that get published

[Anonymous No.17394346]

>>17391013
>being deluded is good, reject reality 1!!

[Anonymous No.17394362]

>>17389435
>Sean Bean isn't dying in this scene *ting*

[Anonymous No.17394411]

>>17394362
he dies offscreen past the end