/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21298040]

>135. Writer's block is bullshit. I've been writing for close to a decade now, and have not the faintest notion of the thing; it's merely a euphemism for slaves who want to make a living out of scribbling because they are too lazy to do anything else. If a writer has something to say, it comes out by itself, if he doesn't, then what's the point in WANTING to write? — Money, of course.

[Anonymous No.21298046]

>>21298040
can this be made a banner for /lit/ and forever kill the pandering general writing threads?

[Anonymous No.21298073]

orgy of the will amuses me
he tries so hard to create the ultimate philosophy book, yet he bogs it down with so many irrelevant details that it becomes self help instead

[Anonymous No.21298076]

>>21298040
This is mostly correct in principle, but he's being too harsh. There are different kinds of the writer's block.
>can't decide on the direction of the plot (too much to say)
>too perfectionist to write (can't start a new project or keeps revising/editing)
>procrastination and laziness (literally the devil), although it could be argued that procrastinators don't want to write enough for it to qualify as the desire to say something
Maybe more, but I'm conking out here.
Also a bit of >>21298073

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.21298117]

>>21298040
>135. Writer's block is bullshit.

YES.


>I've been writing for close to a decade now, and have not the faintest notion of the thing; it's merely a euphemism for slaves who want to make a living out of scribbling because they are too lazy to do anything else.

IDEOLOGICALLY BIASED OVERSIMPLIFICATION; YOU ARE PRESUPPOSING THE NIETZSCHEAN DICHOTOMOUS FALLACY OF «MASTER – SLAVE»; MOST INDIVIDUALS WHO «WANT TO BECOME WRITERS», NOT HAVING THE TALENT, NOR THE SKILL, TO WRITE, MUCH LESS THE STYLE, HAVE THAT DESIRE DUE TO AN IDEALIZATION OF THE LITERARY AUTHOR, NOT BECAUSE OF «LAZINESS TO DO ANYTHING ELSE»; WRITING IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL AVENUE THAT APPEALS TO THE ACTUALLY LAZY.


>If a writer has something to say, it comes out by itself[...]

NO; WRITING —IN CONTRAST TO MERE SCRIBBLING— IS AN ART; ART REQUIRES TALENT, SKILL, AND STYLE; NOT EVEN PROPHETS USED TO WRITE WITHOUT THINKING, NOR ARTLESSLY.


>[...] if he doesn't, then what's the point in WANTING to write? — Money, of course.

FAME, STATVS...


ADDENDVM: I PREFER «GANGBANG OF REASON», MUCH BETTER.

[Anonymous No.21298126]

>>21298117

[Anonymous No.21298131]

>>21298117
>GANGBANG OF REASON
huh?

[Anonymous No.21298135]

[Anonymous No.21298175]

>235. The most important thing in judging the grammatical validity of a sentence is how it sounds. If it doesn't SOUND good, it's wrong, even if all the grammarians in the world can find no fault with it. If it does sound good, on the other hand, a good writer will use it no matter what the grammarians might say, and they will have to modify their grammar afterwards to account for how he used it. Speaking comes first, even historically, and grammar much later, not the other way around, as Chomsky and his followers still seem unable to understand. Woe to the race of beings who waited for grammarians to invent a language before they began to talk! Woe to the child who must learn their rules before being allowed to open its mouth and say "mommy"! Language is a living thing, and what the Chomskyans are busy "analyzing" is so unreal it's not even dead. Theory comes AFTER action, not the other way around, and a priori knowledge of the kind which all philosophers (aside from our lord and master) have been hitherto fond of is no concept that can be grasped at all but a contradictio in adjecto.

[Anonymous No.21298190]

>>21298175
not wrong but also not well written

[Anonymous No.21298195]

>>21298040
If you could write all the time at anytime, you're a dogshit self fellating "writer". I'm not even going to entertain your delusions with the latter of being a good writer. No one could do this and produce quality with quantity.

[Anonymous No.21298203]

>>21298195
>No one could do this and produce quality with quantity.
Agatha Christie?

[Anonymous No.21298213]

>273. The fact that there is not a single successful artwork — whether a novel, movie or videogame — depicting "utopian" conditions, proves that we, as mankind, DO NOT WANT THEM. The prevalence of so-called "dystopias" in art, on the other hand, proves what we really want — and where we're headed...

[Anonymous No.21298240]

>>21298213
>not a single successful artwork — whether a novel, movie or videogame — depicting "utopian" conditions
Uhhhhh More's "Utopia"?
>what we really want — and where we're headed...
Ah, so he's conflating the two.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.21298255]

>4994. For cynics, nothing is black & white. Everything is greys to them. This is evidence of slavish mentality as a consequence of slave morality. The cynic doesn't have the power to change himself, nor the circumstance around him, so he resorts to resigned, buffoonish relativism, as a coping mechanism for his impotence against the world. Dogs are Man's best friend, most loyal slave. Dogs see in black & white, or, rather, in greyscale.

[Anonymous No.21298259]

>>21298213
>whether a novel, movie or videogame
Hold on, I just remembered: THE BIBLE. GARDEN OF EDEN. HEAVEN.

[Anonymous No.21298263]

>>21298255
>not in all caps
do better cum genius

[Anonymous No.21298289]

>>21298040
It depends. You can always just throw words on the screen, so in that sense there's no block. But, if you want them to be good... some days they just aren't.

[Anonymous No.21298480]

>>21298255
lol this actually fooled me, good job
did you give up on mundus?

[Anonymous No.21298507]

>>21298117
You seem a bit anal retentive.

[Anonymous No.21299452]

>>21298040
can this be made a banner for /lit/ and forever kill the pandering general writing threads?

[Anonymous No.21299901]

>362. What is "capital"? It is simply another word for money, which is a medium that facilitates exchange. Capitalism, then, is merely a state of things in which individuals are able, and allowed, to enter into exchange. That's all it is. Capitalism = Exchange. And since it is impossible for any culture and civilization at all to exist without exchange (indeed exchange is the number one prerequisite for civilization, with language itself understood as a form of exchange, the exchange of feelings), we might as well say that Capitalism = Civilization.

Capital is a form of exchange, but not all forms of exchange are capital. Labour is not the same as stocks or a factory unless you boil everything down into power ontological gumbo. This is silly reductivism, Anthony.

But he has to unqualifiedly endorse capitalism, to the point where capitalism = will to power because he imagines it is the best ideology to get to his cartoon Dune-like future of technological overman warlords waging endless war across the galaxy.

Alex is a compelling and persuasive writer, but this isn't because his philosophy is compelling and persuasive. It's because he's an intelligent and well-educated narcissist/psychopath/pick whatever dark trait you think applies. In terms of objective accomplishments, what speaks for him? The occasional thread on /v/ arguing that Far Cry 2 wasn't such a bad game? The tendency for video-games and artistic media to adhere to the incredibly broad and general aesthetic principles he espouses? You mean to tell me people like playing games that more effectively represent the world as they perceive it? Crazy!

Objectively speaking, on the virtues of his own pragmatic conception of influence, there's nothing. The world's not going to remember some anon posting yet another revelation about how high scores are for subhuman beta males. All that's going on is a dude who grifts and writes for passive income in a community he established, like hundreds of other people. He has a handful of pet projects that have gone nowhere and more likely than not will never go anywhere.

Likewise, the philosophy will go nowhere. It has nothing to say. It's entirely insulated and circular, with very little room for development, growth or engagement. Truth is power. Language is power. Reality is power. Inequality is a product of power relations. But let's throw in some qualitative evaluation so that this isn't just nihilism. Muh good = more power. Muh bad = less power. Muh orgy = the most power.

It's a wonderful theory for the blonde beasts of the world, of which Alex is definitely one (oh wait, Alex isn't JUST a psychopath, he's a psychopath with an elevated artistic soul who has manic episodes and can't get to sleep with a mosquito in his room, because the most developed organisms are the most fragile). I imagine for the rest of the subhumans and masses it's an incredibly myopic perspective. But neither perspective can interact with the other anyway, so why argue?

[Anonymous No.21299925]

>>21298040
What is this? It reads like something written by a college sophomore pretending at Auctoritas. Googling it just brings up more 4chan threads, all probably made by OP.

Yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikes.

[Anonymous No.21299929]

>>21298259
kek
nicely done anon

[Anonymous No.21300459]

>>21299925
this one’s retarded

[Anonymous No.21300470]

>>21300459
>probably assblasted OP
lmao why don't you try actually answering next time enjoy this pity bump dude don't spend it all in one place

[Anonymous No.21300723]

>>21298040
>Writer's block is bullshit. I've been writing for close to a decade now, and have not the faintest notion of the thing;

But that’s not impressive when you smear all your shitty thoughts on the wall with no regard for who reads/understands it. Obviously a blogger will never have writers block, that’s like someone finishing up a day at the batting cages and feeling proud they didn’t develop any joint injuries and managed to avoid steroid addiction. Writers get blocks when they address the need to be read and the innumerable ways to attempt to do this. The only people who care about OTW only do so because of it’s pointless longevity (obv to the author Apple rely because he drops tht fact lol) and grandiose vocabulary that adds fuck all.

[Anonymous No.21300754]

>>21298259
>>21299929
We dont have a fulsome depiction of christian heaven's characteristics

[Anonymous No.21300760]

>>21300723
>obv to the author Apple rely
Meant to be obv to the author as well clearly

[Patrician No.21301222]

>>21298117
btfo

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.21301261]

>436. FUCK YOU. I'm overman, the real deal, right down to the fuckin' marrow of my bones. Don't lump me together with you faggot-ass subhumans.

[Anonymous No.21301349]

>>21299901
You ignored the meaning of that passage, which is that capital, capitalists, and capitalism as a theory, are all synonymous with civilization and everything we praise civilization for, such as culture, art, science, philosophy, and so on. These things, civilization as a whole, exist only because of the process of exchange, of which capitalism is merely the culminating theory. There was capitalism for as long as there was exchange; capitalism is nothing new, in other words. It's as old as civilization itself, and the demonization of it is really just the demonization of civilization and what it has produced over time. Those who demonize capitalism are merely outside the ongoing process of exchange.

[Anonymous No.21301485]

>>21301349
>which is that capital, capitalists, and capitalism as a theory, are all synonymous with civilization and everything we praise civilization for, such as culture, art, science, philosophy, and so on
so wrong. the definition of capitalism:
> an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
in practice, that excludes feudalism, slavery, any totalitarian government, any communal societies

[Anonymous No.21301671]

>>21301349
>capital, capitalists, and capitalism as a theory, are all synonymous with civilization and everything we praise civilization for, such as culture, art, science, philosophy, and so on.

>exchange is synonymous with civilization and everything we praise civilization for, such as culture, art, science, philosophy, and so on.

Stop and think for a moment about how vacuous and meaningless this statement is. It doesn't become any less so when you slap the word capitalism or capital onto it.

[Anonymous No.21301696]

>>21301485
You're taking it too literally. The point is that the philosophy behind the theorization and implementation of capitalism is really the same philosophy that has been behind all theories and implementations of exchange processes. Nothing has changed at a fundamental level. Thus, anti-capitalists are anti-civilization, anti-culture, anti-art, anti-science, anti-philosophy, and so on.

>>21301671
>t. dipshit who doesn't understand the meanings of words and blames the writer for it

[Anonymous No.21301730]

>>21301696
>the philosophy behind the theorization and implementation of capitalism is really the same philosophy that has been behind all theories and implementations of exchange processes.
And what is the philosophy behind all theories and implementations of exchange processes?

>>21301696
Who else should i blame for using the word exchange to signify every human interaction under the sun, as though this conveys useful knowledge about anything whatsoever? Do you really think anyone seriously or productively thinks of economic systems like this?

[Anonymous No.21301761]

>>21301730
Where do I start with marx.

What should I read besides him?

[Anonymous No.21301782]

>>21301730
>And what is the philosophy behind all theories and implementations of exchange processes?
Nietzsche summarized it with his phrase will to power.

[Anonymous No.21301788]

>>21301782
And what's the will to power?

[Anonymous No.21301810]

>>21301788
The evolutionary process by which life becomes more complex over time. "Growth."

[Anonymous No.21301816]

>>21301810
What is an evolutionary process or growth made up of?

[Anonymous No.21301828]

>>21301816
Good question, but one which is irrelevant to the conversation we're having. The point is that capitalism, like all theories based on exchange processes, is synonymous with health and everything produced by healthy organisms, and anti-capitalism with sickness and everything produced by sick organisms.

[Anonymous No.21301848]

>>21301828
>Good question, but one which is irrelevant to the conversation we're having

But it is relevant. You said

>The point is that the philosophy behind the theorization and implementation of capitalism is really the same philosophy that has been behind all theories and implementations of exchange processes

I asked you what that philosophy is, you responded that it's will to power, I asked you what that is, you said evolutionary process or growth, and seeing as neither of these concepts by themselves explain anything fundamental or basic, we need to know what an evolutionary process or growth is composed of.

The conversation is about what the philosophy behind capitalism, and according to you and Icy (although he might not be too happy with how you're mucking it up), everything else is.

You are basically wasting your time shifting the concepts to those of health and sickness, because the same questions will simply be asked of those.

[Anonymous No.21301853]

>>21301261
lol

[Anonymous No.21301861]

>>21301848
>neither of these concepts by themselves explain anything fundamental or basic
The philosophy is that will to power IS the fundamental process. It doesn't need anything further added to it; that phrase suffices to say what needs to be said. All healthy organisms—healthy as in non-depressed—share the same instinct, the instinct to expand for the purpose of dominating one's environment, which is the growth, which is the will to power. Theories designed to facilitate exchange in a tribe / society, like capitalism, have all been founded by this instinct. The instinct behind all such theories has remained the same. Capitalism is fundamentally nothing new.

[Anonymous No.21301887]

>>21301861
>The philosophy is that will to power IS the fundamental process.
What kind of process? Physical, mental? Neither? Both? Is it force? Is it temporal? Does process just mean change? Because if it's just change then you have to explain how you can describe anything in flux.

So here is where we've arrived at so far. Capitalism is will to power, which is an evolutionary process or growth, which is the fundamental process. Are you aware of how devoid of any explanatory content this is so far?

Why are you so reluctant to tell us what this fundamental process, whether you want to call it will to power or anything else, is made up of?

[Anonymous No.21301895]

>>21301861
And another basic question: what within the fundamental process of will to power determines what makes an organism healthy or sick?

[Anonymous No.21301920]

>>21301887
anon it’s not that difficult. Capitalism is a natural expression of the will to power, which is simply evolutionarily advantageous. Communist societies will be driven to extinction in an environment of capitalist societies. Communism is anti-growth, anti-progress. It does not serve an evolutionary benefit. Rather it exists for the sake of the downtrodden. But that isn’t gonna help us defeat alien species, now is it?

[Anonymous No.21301955]

>>21301920
>Capitalism is a natural expression of the will to power, which is simply evolutionarily advantageous.
Okay, but for the fifth time, what is the will to power, the fundamental process, and what is it about it that makes it evolutionarily advantageous

[Anonymous No.21301993]

>>21301887
>What kind of process? Physical, mental? Neither? Both?
What difference does it make?

[Anonymous No.21302001]

>>21301993
The difference it would make would be in determining what kind of principle it is.

[Anonymous No.21302009]

>>21302001
It's a biological process.

[Anonymous No.21302014]

Post your own favorite hypercringe from it. Here's my choice:

>968. In the end, if it came to a choice between allying with religious nuts and Jew-bashers, or letting civilization go up in flames, I'd add wood to the fire and burn the whole thing down myself. Let civilization die if the only alternative is going back to the unthinking past. The alt-retards are entirely consumed by religious psychosis and anti-Jewish hysteria, and though I love their civil war plans—since I love war of all kinds, and I'd fight it even for no reason—I'd rather fight them first before turning my attention to their enemies. Hopefully that's where the Iron Man suits will come in. With a few of those, Thiel, Musk and a few of their friends and me could probably turn a few billion subhumans to ashes in a few days. It's either that or the drone army. Or we might have to use both if the subhuman apocalypse turns out to have been too big. Drones or a squad of Iron Men? Or perhaps the Matrix "fry their brains" plan I proposed before? Or more old-school methods like poison in the water supply? How will we solve the Subhuman Question [[[SQ]]], my dear human and superhuman friends? This is the issue that neither the left nor the right are discussing, naturally enough since [[[they]]] are its subject. But that's precisely the issue that will dominate the present century once this book is done and philosophy has ended. As usual, the left and the right are discussing everything except the only thing that ultimately matters: how we'll get rid of them so we can usher in the new era of superhuman supremacy.

[Anonymous No.21302016]

>>21298040
>writing
>money

[Anonymous No.21302029]

>>21302016
>he isn't writing niche erotica and self-publishing on amazon
You don't even need talent to make money off of it, you can just plagiarize some of the highly rated content on literotica.

[Anonymous No.21302040]

>>21301955
Will - an inherent desire/instinct
Power - energy divided by time.

So the will to power is an instinct that drives organisms to maximize their potential for manipulating their environment. It is evolutionarily advantageous because organisms with such an instinct outcompete those without it. The “process” is just the ongoing interaction between the organisms and their shared environment.

As a man, depression or bad health is functionally equivalent to the loss of power, while satisfaction, success, etc. are equivalent to the gain of power. It is not money or looks or status that ultimately matters, but power. But a necessary and sufficient condition for power is the will to power, the desire for expansion, growth, always increase. This is how capitalist societies operate, as they allow the increase of power through exchange, which is incentivized by competition and driven by the will to power.

[Anonymous No.21302046]

>>21302009
So if it's a biological process, does that it is subject to and explainable in terms of the laws of biology?

[Anonymous No.21302064]

>>21302046
Yes.

[Anonymous No.21302105]

> "/lit/ thinks they can understand cryptic 19th century Nietzsche in original German
/lit/ is actually too dumb to appreciate icycalm written in 21st century surfer vidya gama English (not even his first language)"

/lit/ continues to be incapable of understanding orgy even after a decade since it's first appearance

[Anonymous No.21302126]

>>21302105
Orgy is just memes. It's more comical than actual philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21302186]

>>21302040
>will to power is an instinct that drives organisms to maximize their potential for manipulating their environment.
This doesn't sound remotely scientific or biological. How would you go about even proving this? First you'd have to establish that an organism knows, consciously or unconsciously, it's own potential, whatever that means, and it doesn't, unless you have some spooky vitalistic force to appeal to. Secondly, on pure observation alone, hardly any organism tries to maximize its potential, it simply gets by or does what it can do, and if that's all potential means then that's a truism.

Anyway, if you strip out all of this unprovable perspectival gobbldygook you get a very simple claim: capitalism is physics, and if you're criticising capitalism you're criticising physics. Only subhumans are dumb enough to criticise physics. It's a type of theoretical, physicalist reductivism that Alex invariably trots out in every area to ground his arguments, which leads to saying silly meaningless things like capitalism is merely exchange, and the only way to remedy this reductivism in order to actually make claims of meaning and substance is to introduce evaluative concepts like will to power, overman, master slave, that are themselves either just as meaningless when they undergo the same theoretical reduction into simple physicalist terms, or that are unverifiable and perspectival (who makes who the authority on what makes one quantum of power life-affirming or life-denying) leaving him waving his dick with the rest of the prescriptive and speculative tradition of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21302259]

>>21302186
>First you'd have to establish that an organism knows, consciously or unconsciously, its own potential
Organisms understand food and water sources, as well as dangerous and safe territories. An animal of prey would prefer to be in an open space where it could see everything. Or perhaps camouflaged. Etc.
>hardly any organism tries to maximize its potential
they are ALWAYS trying to maximize their potential. Doesn’t mean that they’re perfect or omniscient.

[Anonymous No.21302471]

>>21298040
False. You can see this kind of shit among the genre wannabes and the truth is they actually do have something to say, it's just that the thing is really dumb. They genuinely want to recreate the feeling of living in an epic vidya game forever just like when they read Lord of the Rings for the first time, and for some of them it would probably be fine to live on cup noodles like a modern "journalist" if they could get away with it. I wanted to be an epic fantasy writer when I was a kiddo but at least I wanted millions of dollars too.