[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 111 KB, 900x1200, 1592167166404.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17808915 No.17808915[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Chad fucks sluts while you read books

>> No.17808926

>>17808915
good for him

>> No.17808930

I read books while you post miserable bait threads on 4chan

>> No.17808932

my name is Chad and i am a virgin who reads books.

>> No.17808933

>>17808930
I read books while you spend your time on 4chan

>> No.17808956

chad gets dickrot and loses 80% of income to child support
you turn page and snigger

>> No.17808961

>>17808956
Chads do not get cheated on. And child support isn't that much.

>> No.17808987
File: 9 KB, 189x267, rgdb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17808987

>>17808915
You think readers and writers aren't chad? You're a fucking retard, bruv.

>> No.17808990
File: 278 KB, 1200x1800, 1610305749920.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17808990

>>17808915
You choose syphilis
I choose gnosis

>> No.17808997

>>17808961
virgin detected

>> No.17808999

>>17808961
>Chads do not get cheated on.
everyone gets cheated on

>> No.17809003

I wish I could form a meaningful bond with a women and maybe start a family but that seems even less likely than fucking sluts

>> No.17809011

>>17808915
>there is no higher ideal for men than being hedonistic and sexually promiscuous.
Here's a better idea: cultivate virtue and self-discipline instead of being a slave to the chimp's need to nut in a warm female body.

>> No.17809012

>>17808987
Post face, let's what you are

>> No.17809021

>>17809003
Really? Are you just unattractive, or is it bad social skills?
Genuinely, man. You can always start attending a church.

>> No.17809024

>>17809011
Why can't you do both

>> No.17809032

>>17809024
the more you do the former the less inclined you are towards the latter

>> No.17809041

>>17808915
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>> No.17809043

>>17809032
Literature's most of disciplined writer was sexually voracious.

>> No.17809050

'Fucking sluts' isn't that great

>> No.17809056

>>17809032
This is what cucks tell themselves to sleep better at night. You're compensating for the fact that deep down you are a sexual coward.

>> No.17809058

>>17809056
>a sexual coward.
What the fuck is a sexual coward?

>> No.17809061

>>17809050
it really isn't desu. It actually gets kind of annoying how loud and into it they get. Like, I'm just sticking my cock in you like has happened hundreds of times before, nothing to freak out about. They also start to panic if you stop thrusting for literally 3 seconds. I prefer cumming nice and gently in a good girl who has a sexy yet petite body that she doesn't realize how hot it is

>> No.17809062

>>17809056
No one's telling you to not have sex, just don't let your dick control your life bro.

>> No.17809063

>>17808915
>Chad fucks sluts
Is that enviable?

>> No.17809067

>>17809058
Afraid of doing what you want. Fear of being seen as promiscuous, etc.

>> No.17809069

>>17809062
Your dick shouldn't rule your life, but neither should your rational faculty.

>> No.17809072

>>17809024
Being virtuous precludes sleeping around. Abstain, find a good woman, start a family together.

>> No.17809081

This board fucking loves these threads

>> No.17809085

>>17809069
True, but I'd rather be ruled by reason than by muh dick. The former wont get me into as much trouble.

>> No.17809092

>>17808915
i cuddle with my girl while I read, dgaf what “chad” does

>> No.17809102

>>17809085
>but I'd rather be ruled by reason
No, this is just as bad. You're a human being, not a computer algorithm.

>> No.17809103

Generally I read before fucking your girlfriend's chad.

>> No.17809104

>>17809102
I'm not a cumbrained bonobo either. Where do you draw the line?

>> No.17809112

>>17809102
>being reasonable and having self control makes you a computer algorithm
just off yourself, coomer retard.

>> No.17809121

>>17809104
You need a rational framework, but you need to trust your instinct and break that framework sometimes. This is an ontological reality more than anything. It's what seperates us from animals on the one hand and robots on the other.

>> No.17809128

>>17809112
Never said that fuck face

>> No.17809144

>>17809121
What's so bad about robots?

>> No.17809146

>>17808915

I once bagged an Alina Lee-looking stripper girl I met in a cafe after explaining her Husserl and phenomenology for 3 hours (she hilariously understood more of it than most of my classmates)
Your move, OP.

>> No.17809151

>>17809144
They're spiritually defective.

>> No.17809161

>>17809146
Was it a pump and dump?

>> No.17809169

>>17809151
How so?

>> No.17809170

>>17808915
I fuck dudes and read books, anon

>> No.17809177

>>17808915
I'm not chad and know better than to pretend to be.

>> No.17809182

>>17808915
i'll do it

>>17808932

hi chad

>> No.17809185

>>17809169
Their will is not their own.

>> No.17809195

>>17809185
>says the human

>> No.17809197

>>17809170
What's your genital?

>> No.17809207 [SPOILER] 
File: 1.53 MB, 3264x2448, 1616035295785.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17809207

>>17809161
Nah, we kept hooking up for the next 9 months. Sex was too good, kinda left me broken desu, hard to find girls that much into hatefucking.

>> No.17809213

>>17809185
How do you know that? With most autonomous AI, they merely have a goal which they figure out how to achieve themselves. Much like humans in every respect, the only difference is humans are "programmed" by circumstance and genetics.

>> No.17809219

>>17809207
Why didn't you wife her

>> No.17809225

>>17808915
>>>/r9k/

also, that didnt rhyme

>> No.17809229

>>17809146
How did you start a conversation with her? I thought about walking up to women who're reading in cafes or restaurants but always thought it'd be awkward

>> No.17809230

>>17809213
>the only difference is humans are "programmed" by circumstance and genetics
No, what you're describing here is the nature of non-human animals. Humans are set apart by our capacity for symbolic language.

>> No.17809260

>>17809230
>Humans are set apart by our capacity for symbolic language.
How does symbolic language alter anything that I just said? Robots are also capable of symbolic language, so it doesn't even create a distinction at all between these two.

>> No.17809268

>>17809219
Hard to tell really. All my friends hated her and especially started shitting on me when I told a few that I was starting to think I was in love with her.
She had this oddly ultra materialistic outlook toward life which was completely against everything I believe in, but also, in a way, she was completely honest about it. Every other plastic Stacey I had ever met had this ultra complicated way of justifying her vapid sluttyness, for picrel however, she simply explained to me, "I noticed around 12 that all men wanted to sleep with me because I was a cute asian girl. I never had trouble with it, and I just decided to make money out of it".
Which explains why I got involved with her on the long term. She was fascinating to me. I honestly hated her on so many levels, we actually talked about it openly, but at the same time, we each were incredibly drawn toward each other.
But that isn't wifing material. At least not unless your fine taking the cuckpill wholesale, and it isn't really something appealing to me.

>> No.17809289

>>17809260
Animals are not capable of symbolic language and robots are only capable of it by virtue of an ontologically prior human. Any "intention" a robot is capable of is reducible to the original intention of a human. You can't have computer code without a coder.

>> No.17809304

>>17809260
>>17809289
Also there's a reason why robots didn't exist before humans; why animals didn't build robots. That reason is: animals do not have any intention to bestow; they cannot create extentions of their own will.

>> No.17809320

>>17809289
Ok, but you still haven't even shown why symbolic language is important with respect to what I previously said.
>How do you know that? With most autonomous AI, they merely have a goal which they figure out how to achieve themselves. Much like humans in every respect, the only difference is humans are "programmed" by circumstance and genetics.
How is symbolic language even relevant to these facts?
>Humans possess language
>therefore humans are ensouled / possess free will
What?
>robots are only capable of it by virtue of an ontologically prior human.
Theoretically speaking, robots could exist by a random act of nature, just as life originated and resulted in humankind. Robots are also capable of self-programming, they are called genetic algorithms, which can result in entirely new machine behavior spontaneously.

>> No.17809321

>>17809268
>>17809229

>> No.17809355

>>17809229

Literally just said "Hi, I'm anon, how are you?".
I had noticed her walking in and ordering, and she had noticed me noticing her, and she came to sit down specifically next to me in an empty cafe.
I have always believed deeply that God loves me. I don't have great luck, but I'm an absolute manlet weighing 120 pounds. By all odds I should be a virgin still at 36. And yet, once in a while, some absolute 9 out of 10 (can't be too greedy) shows some interest in me. So I've learned to take all the chances I can take, if a cutie sitting next to me exchanges looks with me and gives me a nice half smile, you can be sure I'll engage.

>> No.17809356

>>17808932
the virgin Chad

>> No.17809398

>>17809320
Symbolic language's specificity to the human should be a clue as to its importance. In sum, it allows the human to defer its animalistic appetites (its "hard wiring") and differentiate it, producing what we call "culture".
>Theoretically speaking, robots could exist by a random act of nature
They're called animals.
>Robots are also capable of self-programming
But even then, they're still reducible--as distant as it may be--to an anthropological origin.

>> No.17809405

>>17809355
Why aren't you married at 36 lmao

>> No.17809422

>>17809405
>Why aren't you married at 36 lmao
>Why didn't you willingly buy into an abusive contract from which you gain nothing?
Possibly because I became a lawyer.

>> No.17809435

>>17808915
i'm sorry that he is enslaved to his libido, but i cannot help him

>> No.17809450

>>17809398
>In sum, it allows the human to defer its animalistic appetites
There is virtually no proof that language itself is responsible for this, whatsoever. Even apes are capable of deferring animalistic appetites, albeit they are less likely.
> they're still reducible--as distant as it may be--to an anthropological origin.
And that origin is itself reducible to a random origin in nature. They're all reducible to the same random, material origin.
For example, you're seeming to claim that humans became "differentiated" spontaneously from animals somehow, without an explanation, and yet when robots become differentiated spontaneously by self-modification, this doesn't count for some reason?

>> No.17809460

>>17808915
yes

>> No.17809475
File: 767 KB, 2734x4096, IMG_20210215_081428.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17809475

>>17808915
So what? I am just into dudes wearing anime masks

>> No.17809479

>>17809422
Based

>> No.17809481

>>17809475
I hate to break it to you, but underneath all that, it isn't a dude.

>> No.17809486

>>17808915
Sex has diminishing returns.
Reading and learning has compounding growth.

But it's probably not best to live in such an extreme way; everyone needs a bit of intimacy to flourish. Even Tesla regretted his celibacy at the end of his life.

>> No.17809489
File: 375 KB, 2048x1280, IMG_20201116_082200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17809489

>>17809481
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>> No.17809504

>>17809450
>Even apes are capable of deferring animalistic appetites
Then where is their religion, art, economics, science? Why haven't we observed them using symbolic langauge in the wild? When we teach them "language," why can't they teach it to their fellow ape?
>And that origin is itself reducible to a random origin in nature
No, it's reducible to its original intention which is grounded in language, which itself does not have a simple evolutionary origin--their is no language gene. That is, language is a cultural phenomenon and could only have arisen culturally.
>became "differentiated" spontaneously from animals somehow
Through the invention/discovery of language. See above.

>> No.17809510

>>17809504
psst, virus is a language kid.

>> No.17809523

>>17809510
Let me poz you, son.

>> No.17809528

>>17809510
It's a code that only has symbolic significance by virtue of our own language.

>> No.17809544

>>17809355
I don't know how one can turn the direction of a conversation to phenomenology on first meeting. I always fear she'd find me pompous if I start to bang on about those stuff randomly. Also, I don't even see opportunities in a conversation to smoothly transition into such topics. How did you do it?

>> No.17809555

>>17809081
because /lit/ wallows in self-pity

>> No.17809588

>>17809544

I was reading Ideen and writing a paper at the time. She mentioned she knew a few philosophers but had never heard of Husserl, so that is where it started. As I said, she seemed genuinely interested, and she kept asking me more questions about it.
Fuck this is making me want to text her.

>> No.17809646
File: 489 KB, 1600x900, soulmidwit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17809646

>>17809504
>Then where is their religion, art, economics, science? Why haven't we observed them using symbolic langauge in the wild? When we teach them "language," why can't they teach it to their fellow ape?
Because they lack a higher level of intelligence, which is also genetic.
>their is no language gene.
Yes there is, but it is more like multiple genes. It's the reason humans learn language after birth and most animals don't. The only difference between machines is that instead of genes, it is code.
>Through the invention/discovery of language. See above.
Begging the question, which you never answered.

>> No.17809709

>>17809646
>Because they lack a higher level of intelligence
Which would imply that there is a continuum of symbolic practices existing across the animal kingdom corresponding to different levels of intelligence. Wrong. There is no ape "religion" or "economics."
>Yes there is, but it is more like multiple genes
And the lonely proto-human cursed with the correct combination of language genes thus allowing him to use language, who would he have in his midst to talk to? A fellow proto-human also cursed with the exact same combination of genes? Wow! What are the odds!?

>> No.17809736

>>17808915
Not to be outdone by Chad, I do both.

>> No.17809744

>>17809736
chad and sluts? I like your style.

Its hard to read when you're fucking people though.

>> No.17809748

>>17809709
Apes do engage in economic behavior, not to mention tribal wars among bonobos, basic property rights in the form of tribal land possession, etc. It's all informal and non-written but it does imply some degree of continuity, just that we are very far ahead in complexity, which is easily explained by an accelerating degree of evolutionary success once a species passes a certain threshold which gives it a massive advantages over its environment (which would arguably be social organization, agriculture, rather than symbolic language in itself, which is only a means of artistic expression).
>who would he have in his midst to talk to?
Evolution does not necessarily occur in jumps (this is more likely when there are multiple genes which give rise to an effect). I shouldn't have to explain this. There are genetic diseases which result in speech and language impairment too, so I don't see how you could possible believe that symbolic language is not genetically rooted.

>> No.17809754

>>17809646
>The pure soul is a pure lie
He is saying there is a soul but there isn't a pure soul

408 The Journey to Hades. I too have been in the underworld, even as Odysseus, and I shall often be there again. Not sheep alone have I sacrificed, that I might be able to converse with a few dead souls, but not even my own blood have I spared. There were four pairs who responded to me in my sacrifice: Epicurus and Montaigne, Goethe and Spinoza, Plato and Rousseau, Pascal and Schopenhauer. With them I have to come to terms. When I have long wandered alone, I will let them prove me right or wrong; to them will I listen, if they prove each other right or wrong. In all that I say, conclude, or think out for myself and others, I fasten my eyes on those eight and see their eyes fastened on mine. May the living forgive me if I look upon them at times as shadows, so pale and fretful, so restless and, alas, so eager for life. Those eight, on the other hand, seem to me so living that I feel as if even now, after their death, they could never become weary of life. But eternal vigour of life is the important point: what matters "eternal life” or indeed life at all?

>There is no self
He is saying there is no conscious, just/only the soul

Looks like all written ideas are just footnotes to Plato's complete works, again

>> No.17809757

>>17809744
That's the real use of foursome, anon.
Two sluts on your dick, one reading out loud.

>> No.17809796

>>17809754
>He is saying there is a soul but there isn't a pure soul
Correct, but he does not mean a soul in the sense meant by Plato or Christians, at all.
>He is saying there is no conscious, just/only the soul
Anatman is the doctrine of no-self. All conscious beings are formed by composition (multiplicity) in Buddhism. There is no transcendent, simple dimension, the soul, to the average human life.

Both of these differ strongly from Platonic and Christian philosophy. Heraclitus is the closer successor of Buddha in Greece than Plato. He even uses fire as the symbolic force of life, just like Buddha did (although Buddha recast "life" into "desire").

>> No.17809803

>>17809011
you’re fighting you better judgement

>> No.17809817

>>17809748
>"if I define X in non-symbolic terms, then of course animals engage in X"
That's a given. The fact that apes can't teach the supposedly symbolic forms that we teach them to others apes is demonstrative here.
>Evolution does not necessarily occur in jumps
Exactly. It's for this very reason that language couldn't haven arisen evolutionarily. Language is composed of meaning, and there's no such thing as 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 etc. of a meaning—something either means something or it doesn't. There was a time before meaning existed and there was a time after it existed. A punctual event—the invention of language—separates these two times.

>> No.17809823

>>17809796
>in the sense meant by Plato or Christians, at all
What's the difference? They both refer to it as immaterial.
>There is no transcendent, simple dimension, the soul, to the average human life.
I don't understand, what are you saying( simply)?

>> No.17809845

>>17809021
I was thinking of trying this method. Could you further explain the process/success rate in attending a church?

>> No.17809869

>>17809823
>What's the difference? They both refer to it as immaterial.
Nietzsche's soul is not immaterial, it is just a compound of material influences which interact with each other (his "wills")
>I don't understand, what are you saying( simply)?
That there is no simple soul underlying any or all humans. "You" do not have "a" soul, nor are you "a" soul. In Buddhist teachings the closest thing is continuity of consciousness between lives.
>>17809817
>It's for this very reason that language couldn't haven arisen evolutionarily.
No, that does not logically follow.
>Language is composed of meaning, and there's no such thing as 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 etc. of a meaning—something either means something or it doesn't.
Meaning has always "existed" so long as there have been minds capable of making judgements. Cats are instinctually fearful of dogs, the symbolic meaning of a dog to a cat is terror, until/if the cat learns to reinterpret that particular dog as friendly. Just because they cannot express it in language, does not mean it does not exist for them. And we can see in chimpanzees that they communicate non-verbally, and even verbally sometimes, just in a very primitive manner compared to humans, with a limited ability for complex expressions. This would reinforce, again, the evolutionary possibility, because it is a stepping stone from primitive language to more complex language.

>> No.17809997

>>17809869
>No, that does not logically follow.
Yes, it does. The word "cat" has *a (whole)* meaning. Because "half" of the meaning of the word "cat" is either not a meaning at all or simply *another (whole)* meaning, this meaning, and meaning itself, necessarily came into existence all at once. You then have two options: the absurd language gene scenario (which the scientists themselves have even given up on) in which random mutation coincidently produced the ability to produce the meaning of the word "cat" in two individuals simultaneously; or the scenario in which language, as a series of cultural events, was invented like any other cultural form; was inaugurated by a first use of language, a first cultural event.
>Meaning has always "existed"
Well then you're still obliged to explain how meaning could have arisen evolutionarily i.e. gradually while grappling with the dilemma outlined above.