/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3077535]

I haven't read a book in the past decade

I attend a prestigious university and have scored HDs in essays

I haven't even read 'To Kill a Mockingbird'

Ask me anything

[Anonymous No.3077541]

>>3077535
>I haven't even read 'To Kill a Mockingbird'
dont bother, women cant write for shit

[Anonymous No.3077544]

That's not really an accomplishment. If you had said, "I have received HDs without picking up a pen," or "without using a computer," then I would have been impressed. I would be like, "but how did he get his words on the page? I am totally dumbfounded."
There's no correlation between academic achievement and the amount of books you've read. So, you know, congrats on the marks.
But no-one fucking cares.

[Anonymous No.3077559]

I'm a gardener and I have no idea how to juggle.

[Anonymous No.3077560]

>>3077544

What do you achieve by reading books that I can't achieve without reading a book?

[Anonymous No.3077564]

I am a prolific artist. I am also a bird and hold the brush using my beak.

[Anonymous No.3077568]

>>3077560
The experience of reading a book

[Anonymous No.3077578]

>>3077560

Here's a better question: without having an intimate knowledge of "How to kill a mockingbird" how do you plan on not acting in the way that Scoot doesn't believe is not the incorrect way for the primary antagonist to conduct himself in that pre-tKaM-era world? How would you even go about not causing offense? Race-relations worldwide are built on the themes of that book. You can't even get into an African-American studies class without having written 8 essays on it.

Trust me man, you're fucked.

[Anonymous No.3077580]

>>3077568

Seems like a waste of time

YOLO

[Anonymous No.3077591]

>>3077560
If you consider reading an activity whose chief or solely interesting purpose is "achievement" then you, my friend, are lost.

There are spiritual gains which may be discovered in some literature, which is what the high-brow on this board look toward. The others enjoy literature as a distraction from the chief spiritual mission of their life which is namely to pretend they don't have a spirit. I am sure you share that mission with them.

In regard to those latter people, they are a complete mystery to me. I suppose it is because, for whatever reason, some people are more pleased to seek distraction among books than among video games and pornography, and other prolefeed.

[Anonymous No.3077613]

>I haven't read a book in the past decade
You got to be trolling.

[Anonymous No.3077645]

>>3077613
You're lucky. I knew a guy that claims he never read a full book in his life and he was proud of that.

[Anonymous No.3077654]

>>3077591
>spiritual gains

Confirmed for bullshit nonsense

[Anonymous No.3077656]

>>3077645
>"I never read a book because I'm too busy having a social life."

[Anonymous No.3077664]

>>3077591
but... but... I want to be better and to be better I need knowledge and I don't know what to do and I don't know if I'm wasting my time. I wish I could read to just enjoy it but I feel this 'weight' of doing something before I die while knowing I'm not really that special. How do you not think of this?

[Anonymous No.3077681]

>>3077656
Even if they want to take that approach (this isn't a teen or anything, it's a 35 year old guy), it makes me wonder how he made it through the schooling system.

[Anonymous No.3077699]

>>3077654
You're giving the word "spiritual" away to the quacks and charlatans who use it to for personal gain. Properly speaking, spiritual is the only word in the English language that addresses our deepest what-it-is-to-be-human-ness, sitting at the cross roads where feelings, ideas, desires, instincts, or where "reason and the passions" meet and it is felt at a distinctly chilled intellectual level so that the passions become intelligible to reason and reason becomes intelligible to the passions.

This is an artificial way of explaining it and I wish I could render it more justice but those who get it have already got it and those who won't won't.


Just preaching to the choir: holla @ my spiritually enlightened peers.

[Anonymous No.3077709]

>>3077664
You could start by making your desires a little more specific than the English comparative form of the adjective "good." Lol - that would already be "better."

(Note to the "I want to be better" (beta): As far as "better" goes, you're already and will always be "better" than other humans, because for starters, you're not dead.

[Anonymous No.3077711]

>>3077699
>deepest what-it-is-to-be-human-ness
>where "reason and the passions" meet

Confirmed for bullshit nonsense

[Anonymous No.3077730]

>>3077711
No, you are the nonsense.

They are the most serviceable and common abstractions for categorising certain parts of our humanity, of which we must speak, so we cannot be silent.

If you have a problem with those abstractions, feel free to provide others.

[Anonymous No.3077777]

>>3077730

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD-mVUFqxh0

Are you one of these guys?

[Anonymous No.3077814]

>>3077777
& you're one of those faggots who've just discovered "empiricism, science, and reason" through reddit? You won't like /lit/ then.

Btw, your idols, Dawkins & Hitchens are completely incoherent snobs when they talk about philosophy, humanity or science. Dawkins, the poppa smurf of the two, is incredibly embarrassing to watch as an antagonist of the faithful. Pynchon knows more about science than him. As for that fatass Hitchens, his critique of fundamentalism and terrorism and so on was completely meaningless. Nietzsche super-lite.

He should've stuck to what he was good at, marxist hack journalism.

[Anonymous No.3077829]

>>3077814

This is where reading books get you LOL

[Anonymous No.3077830]

>>3077814

Come on, Dawkins is a good guy. I haven't read anything by Hitchens, but Dawkins makes his points well, he knows what he's talking, and he writes because he's (completely justifiably) worried about the future of science. He's only had to take on the antagonist role because no-one else was doing it. I mean, I know you dislike the guy, but give him some credit, he knows his shit. Pynchon knows more about science than the majority of authors (and probably most scientists) but don't say that, it makes you sound like a fucking child.

[Anonymous No.3077853]

>>3077830
As if no one else has been antagonising the faithful or combining that with a kind of fake adoption of empiricism (platonism as practiced by the roundheads)to combat the post-modernists, the post-structuralists, et fucking alia until this idiot Dawkins showed up, having studied closely next to none of his fellow antagonists, Nietzsche least of all, with a kind of indignant donnishness and sappiness, that speaks hugely for how much he is a product of English parochialism and completely out of tune with the zeitgeist - philosophically and politically - which he even admits to. Pynchon knows more about what is going on, and doubtless because one probably needs either American or European eyes to see the world today - definitely not English eyes... (post-Empire England has produced nothing but its own parochial trash) ... Every debate I've seen Dawkins in has been the same. He's an actor who plays the concerned middle-class Englishman with little science and lesse philosophy, or he's a madman, the Don Quixote of this "concerned" and fundamentally blinkered type. He, and Hitchens, are "confirmed" for tilting at antique wind-mills.

[Anonymous No.3077856]

>>3077829

And this is where not reading books gets you.

[Anonymous No.3077863]

>>3077853
The fake, post-colonial middle-class hokiness and sincerity, that slightly effeminate, semi-Splengarian parochialism, an already very dated 20C attitude, middle-class tolerant English values turned into "Scientific values", speaking about a world it can't even understand.

A naive poppa smurf moralist whose hauled himself through enough scientific milestones to be "respected" in a very middle-class and snobbish England for his trite, schoolmamish opinions.

[Anonymous No.3077865]

>>3077863
who has*

[Anonymous No.3077868]

In the final analysis, Dawkins is a type of human being who strives, lives, and finally eats and thinks for middle-class respect and respecting the middle-class, which now likes to pretend it could hold some kind of "technocracy" over its inferiors, who are tweeting and social networking and consuming prolefeed as we speak.

[Anonymous No.3077869]

>>3077853

Holy shit you must be trolling. No-one can be that pretentious.
But... I guess that's my mistake for presuming we could discuss science on /lit/.
There's this great quote about everything looking like a nail when you have a hammer. You obviously have a thesaurus, a stack of postmodernist books, and a few completed units in a useless degree. Don't think you can do anything meaningful with them, especially not discuss science, or know anything in legitimate academia.

[Anonymous No.3077881]

Dawkins has no truly personal intellectual conscience, just the one he inherited from his class for four score. He's not an original man, not even a madman except as part of his maniac class, but shared madnesses are rebaptised as an oddness, an eccentricity.

Look at the way he looks at the audience, how he looks out of himself when he speaks, constantly searching by the corners of his eye the corners of the room for some form of respect and admiration and praise from his class cohorts. He's always anxious about it, and he is never at ease, because he is always being watched, and ranked, and filed by the bourgeois whom he serves with vile psuedo-polemics against its spiritual enemies.

[Anonymous No.3077888]

>>3077869
Shut the fuck up. Dawkins is full of bourgeois pretenses.

I'm attacking the ideology of a class as manifested through the pussilamous gestures of a sort of contemporary attempt at being a cultural polemicist, viz. Dawkins. You're conflating that with an attack on Science, or the academy, or its class-based legitimacy.

[Anonymous No.3077892]

>>3077881

A response to Richard Dawkins, by someone with a STEM degree: "So, he wants people to understand evolution, and he's pretty enthusiastic about it. Oh, he was Oxford's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science? That makes sense, so he's an expert in biology, and he wants to share his knowledge of science while attacking human rights issues that he could feasibly stop with the knowledge he has. What a great guy."

A postmodernist from /lit/: " Dawkins has no truly personal intellectual conscience, just the one he inherited from his class for four score. He's not an original man, not even a madman except as part of his maniac class, but shared madnesses are rebaptised as an oddness, an eccentricity. Look at the way he looks at the audience, how he looks out of himself when he speaks, constantly searching by the corners of his eye the corners of the room for some form of respect and admiration and praise from his class cohorts. He's always anxious about it, and he is never at ease, because he is always being watched, and ranked, and filed by the bourgeois whom he serves with vile psuedo-polemics against its spiritual enemies."

No-one here's surprised right?

[Anonymous No.3077898]

>>3077892
Lol at calling me a post-modernist.

Either we're all post-modernists, and that's a good thing; or it's the specific ideology that pullulates around the like of Judith Butler and Rorty et al. or the French since Sartre, and neither of those do I read gladly or often, and I would not dedicate myself to being an intellectual devotee of weak 20C sociology as philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3077900]

>>3077892
are you the guy who was posting in that abstract art thread?

[Anonymous No.3077903]

>>3077898

>all he takes from the comment is a small error by someone who doesn't give a fuck about his exact philosophical orientation
>laughingwhores.jpeg

[Anonymous No.3077905]

>>3077892
How a naive bourgeois scientific technician responds to the blinkered polemics that favour his class and educational background and how a cultured man of letters responds to the same.

[Anonymous No.3077906]

>>3077900

Maybe, which one?

[Anonymous No.3077909]

>>3077892
Dawkins has no field specific capacity in Theology. It is that simple. Now let me build a bridge with my BA.

[Anonymous No.3077910]

>>3077903
As if I'm going to lower myself to getting involved in the retardation of an internet STEM vs. HUMS debate.

[Anonymous No.3077911]

>>3077905

>bourgeois

Lower-class

>scientific technician

high-school teacher

>responds to the blinkered polemics that favour his class and educational background

responds to someone actually trying to help millions of people

>and how a cultured man of letters responds to the same.

and how a teenager studying a useless degree does that same.

[Anonymous No.3077915]

>>3077911
Please do your shitposting and trolling in /b/.

[Anonymous No.3077920]

If a thread promises to be about "which degree is better" or "nihilism vs. everything" I never click on it. As a future reference, I'll do the same with "Why should I even read?" threads.

[Anonymous No.3077923]

>>3077910

You're just like the religious people Dawkins argues with. You can't accept the inherent supremacy of scientific inquiry, but for some reason a subscription to a meaningless set of beliefs about how no-one can really know anything makes you more clever, and more worth listening to. You don't listen to people who study, you listen to people who write stories, and call those pieces of fiction better than truth. It's fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.3077925]

>>3077915

Not even shitposting.
You guys can't respond to anything I say because you don't know how to think.

[Anonymous No.3077930]

>>3077535
Does it feel good to be ignorant?

[Anonymous No.3077931]

>>3077906
the one with rothko.

[Anonymous No.3077934]

OP here

ITT: People who read books demonstrate why reading books hasn't made them the more-refined-than-thou person they envisage themselves as

Thanks for proving my point morans

[Anonymous No.3077938]

>>3077911
You do realise that high-school teachers are the same as CEOs as far as maintaining the society of the spectacle?

Unless you are also a militant unionist, the commodity you are selling is human misery, just like an arms dealer but more insidious given that your comprehension of science and society (the name of a great journal by the way) is almost pre-Popperian in its infantilism.

[Anonymous No.3077940]

>>3077934
I'll mark that down as a "yes" in answer to
>>3077930

[Anonymous No.3077941]

>>3077923
Since when was the thread about the supremacy of scientific inquiry? You just mentioned that then after the idiotic STEM-vs-HUMS post.
Just to get you straight, you think absolutely nobody should study in the humanities. Second, what are the limits of scientific inquiry?

>>3077923
Lol @ at seeing the world through the prism of Dawkin's shallow polemics. There are a lot of STEM majors who are far smarter than you and you are making them look bad with this trolling/ retardation.

[Anonymous No.3077943]

>>3077923
I totally forgot that what Dawkins says is true and that the group you identify with is inherently superior. Thanks for the reminder, but please next time proclaim inherent supremacy earlier in the thread so we don't have these misunderstandings.

[Anonymous No.3077945]

>>3077923
I'm guessing that you only acted like a retarded asshole as a cry for attention in order to get people to respond to your own spiritual crisis about the relative value of a STEM degree.

Don't worry, no one will tell you that it is worthless, and anyway, it shouldn't matter what others say if you personally enjoy it.

[Anonymous No.3077946]

>>3077934
Whoa, look out guys! Looks like we've been tricked.

[Anonymous No.3077952]

>>3077931

No, not me.

>>3077938

I get paid to teach kids what a hypothesis is, essentially. But, since I'm a good guy, I take extra time with some kids who need to learn differently from the others, and I try to teach them all in a way that develops their overall cognitive ability. I follow up-to-date neuroscientific research to develop their critical thinking neuroplastically, rather than bombard them with facts like everyone else. I don't sell misery, I teach them how to learn things themselves. They enjoy my class. I'm a fucking posterboy for how education should be. Don't talk down to me you fucking child. You have no idea what I mean by that, or how I would do it. But that's okay, because it's more complicated than the things you do.

[Anonymous No.3077955]

>>3077952
That's a pretty periphrastic way of saying "I'm better than you because science."

You don't even understand society because scientific inquiry stops at the threshold of society. Science cannot say anything meaningful about contemporary society that is not a biological platitude.

[Anonymous No.3077956]

>>3077941

No, please do. We need some people to. Just don't forget what's important.

>>3077943

Thanks, don't forget to finish that poem you need for that super-important class.

>>3077945

It's a diluted form of what I think. You kids annoy me. I'm fine with a few people studying useless things, but I hate it when they get the idea in their head that writing a book is comparable to cancer research or something. Someone attacking another person for advocating atheism and spreading evolution is despicable. It's like they actually enjoy the problems the world has.

[Anonymous No.3077960]

>>3077956
No one has attacked anyone here for advocating atheism. It's just the atheists here have attacked Dawkins for the specifically ineffective and class-bound ways he understands and polemicises against theism.

What is "what's important" in your opinion?

[Anonymous No.3077961]

>>3077955

Group psychology and sociology are useful for that. What you guys are spouting is nothing like those fields though.

[Anonymous No.3077964]

>>3077960
Precisely this. Dawkins is a bad and ineffective atheist.

[Anonymous No.3077970]

>>3077955
Nope, you're still forcing a fucking commodity down their throat—the commodity of labour power.

You aren't Paolo Freire and this isn't the fucking insurgent jungle collective.

I congratulate you on being an excellent worker in the service of capital. I like to think I am too. Your job is no more edifying than the social worker who cuts people off, or the prison officer who minimally restricts rape culture.

[Anonymous No.3077971]

>>3077961
Group psychology and sociology are not examples of scientific inquiry. They are examples of various forms of inquiry. There is different kinds of sociology. Psychology and psychiatry is ideologically dominated. The kind of naive positivism which you probably adore is not the only ideology these fields operate under. Marx and Nietzsche have about as much influence, at any rate, as Darwin.

[Anonymous No.3077972]

>>3077956
>I hate it when they get the idea in their head that writing a book is comparable to cancer research or something. Someone attacking another person for advocating atheism and spreading evolution is despicable

Depends on how good either the book and research are, and how the advocate is advocating, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.3077973]

>>3077970
Quoting the wrong person methinks

[Anonymous No.3077975]

I can just hear people reciting their posts on this board as they compose them, as if they're reading some dramatic prose at a coffee shop.

It makes me kind of laugh.

No, not really. If I laughed I would laugh, but I don't laugh because I don't even OW HOLY SHIT my kitten just climbed up my bare leg with its claws fuck

[Anonymous No.3077981]

>>3077960

I think it's incredibly effective. The kid I teach got through it, and they're a very diverse group. The reason that class is often a redundant variable in research is because, more often than not, it is redundant.

What's important to me is the advancement of worldwide understanding. What else is there?

>>3077971

Yes they are. Please learn how to science.

>>3077972

No... the book will always be a way to waste time, the research will eventually work out what they want.

>>3077970

I like to think of myself more as a Ken Robinson-type actually. If we look at it historically, my kind is the reason that your type is alive to think your meaningless drivel.

[Anonymous No.3077983]

>>3077956
So you're a deplorable philistine (like Dawkins) & a naive secular moralist (like Dawkins) & an instrument of class oppression (like Dawkins), & a teacher of scientific methodology as a substitute for spirituality through literature, religion, or philosophy.

Ap-fucking-plaud this clown.

[Anonymous No.3077989]

>>3077983

If by philistine, you mean that I don't devote the entirety of my life to your stuff, then yes. Hardly a secular moralist, I don't know where you got that. Instrument of class oppression? Holy shit, it's like I'm actually talking to an 18-year old!

There is no spirituality. It's a psychosomatic response that pretentious people feel when they stroke their mental cocks.

[Anonymous No.3077990]

>>3077981
"Advance of human/worldwide understanding."

Why's that what is most important?

[Anonymous No.3077992]

>>3077975
>read your post out loud
10/10 would guffaw again

[Anonymous No.3077996]

If you tried your bestest, how far into "To Kill a Mockingbird" do you think you could make it.

Also, what is your favorite sports team?

[Anonymous No.3078002]

>>3077990

Once we have the rules of the universe figured out, we have a way to sustainably live, and we've cured the major causes of disease, then I imagine people would be much happier. I imagine it would bring along a golden age where people can literally sit around all day reading DFW and talking about worthless things like how teachers of the past where class oppressors. Really, we all should be working towards the same goal here.

[Anonymous No.3078018]

>>3077989
Do all Dawkinite children realise act this naive? Almost every fucking single statement you are making is a moral claim.

>>3077989
Your equation of marxism with puerility is so cute.

Spirituality is not a description of a biological or psuedo-biological process, it's a literary and intellectual metonym for those, an abstract noun.

?BUT THERE ARE NO SPIRITS, THERE IS NO SOUL, WE ARE ALL MATTER!"

Well, matter is a myth akin to the Ding an sich.

And spirituality is discursive word for describing the "world and discourse of ideas and thoughts and feelings" which, if you want to be strictly physical, all have some - probably trivialising - expression in scientific nomenclature.

Chanting a few scientific terms doesn't turn humans into philistines. Science is not a complete witchcraft. It's got a long way to go before 1984 arrives.

[Anonymous No.3078025]

>>3078002
>then I imagine people would be much happier

Oh, so the whole goal of you being as miserable and insulting as possible to everyone who doesn't share your mindset was universal happiness! Should have known.

Well, apart from you, since you'll have brought on your own personal hell, what with everyone having nothing left to do but waste time.

But thank you anyway for the miracle of science making it finally possible for people to sit around reading. I had no idea such things were even possible, but what do I know, I'm not a scientific atheist.

[Anonymous No.3078029]

>>3078018

Do you want to edit what you wrote? You're a little all over the place.

[Anonymous No.3078035]

>>3078002
So there is no spirituality but there is happiness? Nice hypocrisy.

Why not just invent some drug in order to get all the "happiness" chemicals you need firing in your brain.

Seriously, lol. This is just Aristoppean hedonism. Why am I not suprised? The thing about happiness, as chemicals or whatever, is that after we've done all that we'll be miserable because we'll have nothing left to do but read DFW etc, decadence will set in etc., there'll probably be a return to primitivism/a new romanticism/luddism in order to get those happy chems, or people will grow bored of finite health.

Immortality? I don't think many people would be "happy" with that, were science to go that far. If you took present suicide+murder stats and stretched them over eternity, we'd all die by our own hand, unless science can change human nature completely. But then it's pointless to talk about making present day humans "better", you're not improving them, you're replacing them.

[Anonymous No.3078041]

Didn't we have this thread just the other day?

[Anonymous No.3078045]

>>3078002
So you're striving to bring about a scenario which Socrates has already shown to be impossible?

[Anonymous No.3078048]

if guns don`t kill people, people kill people, then toasters do not toast toasts, toasts toast toasts?

[Anonymous No.3078055]

>>3078002
Whoever said science isn't benevolent? It wants to give us what we already have.

[Anonymous No.3078063]

>>3078029
Take out the "realise", for the rest, meh, it's intelligible enough, the fast-food points for fast-food debate.

[Anonymous No.3078068]

>>3077981
>If we look at it historically, my kind is the reason that your type is alive to think your meaningless drivel.
You aren't even Marat, you sir are Robespierre.

[Anonymous No.3078069]

>>3078025

I'm not miserable. I'm married with 3/12 months set aside for holidays. You guys are the sad ones. You really should consider science and atheism. It's better.

>>3078035

Happiness is observable.
That's stupid.
You think that refutes anything I said? Happiness and achievement are changeable. People in the future won't think as they do now. Look up "The Brain that changes Itself" and extrapolate. The book is worth more than anything in your philosophy course.
Present day stats mean nothing. Immortality will make people happy, because people will be different. That's a given.

>>3078045

He didn't show, he used what he knew to extrapolate. He didn't prove, he used a thought experiment. Different things.

[Anonymous No.3078070]

>>3078002
If Science can't provide the human race with "happiness" or a "golden age" what can it provide humans with?

[Anonymous No.3078074]

>>3078068

>Robespierre
>He doesn't even realise how much of a compliment that is

[Anonymous No.3078075]

>>3078069
You know what I find sad? Being married and telling people about it on a website devoted to pornography and trolling in order to PROVE to the people there that you are not miserable - nope, never, certainly not -- DEFINITELY NOT MISERABLE.

I get it man. Marriage can be hell. You don't have to be such an insulting jerk to us though. We can be your bro-friends.

[Anonymous No.3078079]

>>3078070

Science can, and science will. Haven't you been paying attention to history?

[Anonymous No.3078081]

>>3078069
Things only exist if they are observable? The characteristics of spirituality could be analysed and observed, since the concept subsumes so much. For example, despair could be observed at the end of a battle, or love could be observed among certain people who claim to be in love.

[Anonymous No.3078084]

>>3078079
Feyerabend; Lakatos. Science isn't anything other than a practice.

[Anonymous No.3078085]

>>3078075

Sorry about that, should I have said. "I have a PS3" or "I have a big stack of DeLillo books on my desk"? It was a short way of saying I have something nice and my life is pretty good.
I have plenty of bro-friends here. And once I'm done in this thread I'll talk to you, probably you exactly, and we'll agree on a bunch of stuff.
Why not take advantage of the anonymity?

[Anonymous No.3078096]

>>3078081

Things are only provable if they are observable. Spirituality is the same as happiness on a molecular level, and I would no doubt expect it to be triggered with pretentious mental masturbation.
What I meant was, you are pretentious cunts. Does... does that make sense?
That's very clever of you to notice when things happen, yay!

[Anonymous No.3078098]

>>3078079
You do realise where the word "golden age" comes from? Before the necessity arose/curse began of human technology.

>>3078069
Why do you assume I/anyone here has taken a philosophy course/even been to college? This part of your posts is just pointlessly insulting.

The point I made was that if we are different, we are not "we." You're changing our biological identity as we are in this time. That would not be an improvement, it would be a radical alteration.

Call it a "thought experiment" if you like, but it involves the basics of happiness. Happiness, or feelings of high spirit or whatever you want to call it - chems firin' - is got through achievement. Sure, happiness can be GOT by MEANS of scientific inquiry, but it can't be got from the ENDS of scientific inquiry, - which you said - were allow us to be lazy, read literature, etc. which we can do now anyway lol.

>>3078079
What do you know about history? Surely you wouldn't lower yourself to studying such a loathsome non-STEM subject written by non-STEM scholars, people who take things like "spirituality" and "class oppression" seriously?

[Anonymous No.3078104]

>>3078084
Not if you're a desperate reddit atheist from a lower-class background overthrowing its oppression by the middle class and upper clas---- I mean RELIGION, it's all religion. We need the Science to fight the Religion.

[Anonymous No.3078112]

>>3078069
I know that your wife, and women who want strong mates in general, would find that insufferable arrogance paired with little understanding rather amusing, a sign of strength and likelihood to stick around and be faithful even when that's stupid, your wife is old and ugly. But here it just makes you seem like an intolerable cunt.

[Anonymous No.3078117]

>>3078098

I assume because when I speak to /lit/ people outside of /lit/ they're almost always students. Sorry if you aren't. I just can't imagine a grown person reading that shit with as much fervor as a student.

I see it as the same thing... People will have to change radically, but that won't be bad.

I love history, it was my minor during college. Spirituality is bullshit, but it's how people back then thought. I love learning about it, but I'm not going to start advocating shit because of it. Don't misunderstand me, I'm fine with non-STEM, I just hate it when you guys get ahead of yourselves.

[Anonymous No.3078118]

>>3078098
rather than "achievement", it would be more precise to say "successfully doing."

[Anonymous No.3078130]

>>3078117
Not everyone's maturity is marked by a physical or spiritual narcotisation.

Everyone has a particular spirituality, and some and some are not marked by bullshit. Each period of history has its own particular spirit. A country does too, in any given time. History is the spiritualisation of individual facts. Literature is the spirituality of words.

[Anonymous No.3078131]

>>3078069
>I'm not miserable. I'm married with 3/12 months set aside for holidays. You guys are the sad ones.

Well, I guess this demonstrates why you find what you do "fulfilling," in the crassest sense.

[Anonymous No.3078133]

>>3077996

>If you tried your bestest, how far into "To Kill a Mockingbird" do you think you could make it.

The whole thing

>Also, what is your favorite sports team?

Bharat Earth Movers Limited (2012 Bangalore Super Division Football League Champions)

[Anonymous No.3078140]

>>3078131

Okays guys, sorry. I'm leaving.
It's okay though, I'll let you guys have the win.
I was just trolling the whole time.
Bye /lit/friends :D

[Anonymous No.3078142]

>>3078130
The naive scientific positivist, though, has a pretty limited consciousness of his own spiritual concerns, objects, and values, to the point where he even denies that there is the or a "spirituality." I assume that people who don't read are offended by the word's implied immateriality, but the more literate members of the board should be able to reassure them that it comes from the latin word for 'breath.'

[Anonymous No.3078144]

>>3078140
Put this son of a bitch to death for corrupting the youth of /lit/

[Anonymous No.3078152]

>>3078144
Personally I'm voting to give him a gymnasium membership.

[Anonymous No.3078173]

Our Dawkins who art in Science,
Hollow be thy Brain.
Thy Lectures come.
Thy Antitheism be done
on Facebook as it is on Reddit.
Give us this day our daily snarky quip
and increase in us our Autism
As we berate those who agree not with us,
and lead us not into Sunday School,
but deliver us from our parents' lapsed, liberal Christianity
For thine is the Materialism, and the Reductionism, and the Empiricism
Until you you die and don't go to Heaven because it doesn't exist and religious people are stoopid fagetz.
Dar-Win.