/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6514461]

Why did Thoreau precisely describe all of the plants and animals he saw, giving their scientific names, measurements, etc. when he was capable of profound philosophical thought?

[Anonymous No.6514504]

Because philosophocal inquiry is no more interesting than the natural world around us.

[Anonymous No.6514582]

Can someone direct me to literature related to the following? What subject is this touching on?

Okay, so a living thing, let's say a cardinal exists because of a complicated evolutionary life history which is at bottom based on replicating molecules. On the other hand, a tornado's existence and structure is at bottom based on some other reaction between molecules. Organic and inorganic beings are the same at some level. Why do molecules interact? Why are there molecules? Are there molecules? Why is there anything? Even if you can explain the mechanisms of how something came to be, it does not explain why the basic components of reality (whatever they may be) are the way they are or why they are there at all.

[Anonymous No.6514583]

>>6514582
'Nothing is inorganic'- Thoreau

[Anonymous No.6514650]

>>6514582
That's pretty similar to Schopenhauer's metaphysics, actually

[Anonymous No.6514782]

>>6514461
>when he was capable of profound philosophical thought?

Because he wasnt.

[Anonymous No.6514790]

>>6514582
I don't even study philosophy and I can tell how babby-tier this view is. The problem is, I think, that this would be dismissed by most philosophical thought as a futile exercise.

[Anonymous No.6514797]

>>6514582
This might be Kantian, since most of his philosophy was so pointless. Thing-in-itself (ding an sich) maybe.

[Anonymous No.6515761]

>>6514461
Basically he had a different approach to nature than Emerson. According to Thoreau, you got to be closer to nature's details. Emerson is the other way round; he's more about a general approach.
He always more or less wanted to try an attempt similar to Audubon's.
I shall quote him, from the Dial:
«Books of natural history make the most cheerful winter reading. I read in Audubon with a thrill of delight, when the snow covers the ground, of the magnolia, of the Florida keys [...] and owe an accession of health to these reminiscences of luxuriant nature »

He even compared Linnaeus to Homer and Chaucer, putting him amongst poets. Describing animals and plants is like poetry to him.

[Anonymous No.6516177]

>>6515761
>He even compared Linnaeus to Homer and Chaucer, putting him amongst poets.
where was this

[Anonymous No.6516186]

>>6514782
/thread

He was the equivalent of yuppies who go slumming it for a year and then write a book about it. HIs prose is decent but there is practically no content. It was the stupidest book I've ever been tricked into reading.

[Anonymous No.6516190]

>>6514461
he understood that the description is the only certainty in the world

[Anonymous No.6516196]

>>6516186
back to reddit pleb

[Anonymous No.6516214]

>>6516186
define content

[Anonymous No.6518309]

Why was Thoreau such a bro. He didn't give no fucks paying taxes.

[Anonymous No.6518322]

Thoreau is a genius, but not as much as Emerson. Why were all the transcendentalists so intelligent? Truly some of the greatest philosophers, very eloquent and sometimes rigorously logically inductive.

[Anonymous No.6518400]

>>6516186

>no content

The aesthetic is wasted on a boorish dullard like you.

[Anonymous No.6518429]

Tfw the judge character in blood meridian represents Linnaeus.

[Anonymous No.6518488]

>>6514461

Your question doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.6518498]

Science is anti-intellectual.

[Anonymous No.6518523]

>tfw born too late
>tfw mustacheless beards will never be popular again

[Anonymous No.6518548]

>>6518523

>>tfw mustacheless beards will never be popular again

super sperg detected

[Anonymous No.6518557]

>>6518523
>I am easily swayed by "popular opinion and standards".

[Anonymous No.6518582]

>>6518523
Feels good man. Beards are shit. Mustaches are cool but they look silly most of the time.

[Anonymous No.6518639]

>>6518582

>Beards are shit.

No man who can grow a decent beard when he feels like letting it go would ever say this.

Confirmed salty kid face.

[Anonymous No.6518653]

>>6518639
>>>/artofmanliness/
You city dwelling hipsters make me cringe with your views of masculinity.

[Anonymous No.6518657]

>>6518639
>No man who can grow a decent beard when he feels like letting it go would ever say this.
Kek. Then why beards are becoming less popular?
Just get over it. Beards are a thing of the past.

[Anonymous No.6518661]

>>6514582
There is no 'why'. Asking 'why' is an anthropocentric approach to existence. Just because people tend to be able to think up reasons to do stuff doesn't mean that stuff done by non-people has reasons.

Unless you're just asking for a first cause, in which case 'why?' would be answered with 'because le big bang' or something.

[Anonymous No.6518674]

>>6518523
Soon they'll be the norm throughout the world.

As-salamu alaykum, brother.

[Anonymous No.6518681]

>>6518653

Be real here you've decided that they're all shit because you know that you're incapable of growing one.

Don't get defensive. Just be honest.

[Anonymous No.6518686]

>>6518681
Go back to Starbucks, hipster. Beards are unfashionable and ugly.

[Anonymous No.6518692]

>>6518686

>knows that he can't honestly respond to that because I hit a nerve

Would lol again.

[Anonymous No.6518693]

>>6518681
>someone doesn't like what I have
>I bet he's just a jealous hater who can't have what I have
>if he won't admit to this he is obviously in denial

Sounding quite defensive there yourself, lad.

[Anonymous No.6518721]

>>6518693

I am not the one declaring something uniformly shit. I shave my beard all the time, I don't let it grow to incredible lengths because that is hipster douche tier. And I only ever have a beard for a short period of time usually. But it remains an option for me if I want to grow one. It's a nice change of pace to grow one every so often and change it up. Most guys would agree.

The only guys who choose to hate on the very option of growing a beard are salty kid face motherfuckers who can't even grow one to begin with.

[Anonymous No.6518733]

>>6518692
>>6518721
>calling something ugly and unfashionable means you hate the option
Why are beardfags so defensive? Is it because of their weak chins. Their Foucauldian chin envy?

[Anonymous No.6518761]

>>6518721
Some people just genuinely don't like how having a beard feels and looks.

This does not mean they are secretly resentful. Or do you think the only women who choose to hate on the very option of growing leg hair are silky smooth calved motherfuckers who can't even grow leg hair to begin with?

Sometimes not liking things does not involve some elaborate psychological defence mechanism dealing with how you are better than them. Insisting that it does is silly on your behalf.

[Anonymous No.6518783]

>>6518733

>I'm calling it ugly because that doesn't mean that I hate the option

Swing and a miss.

[Anonymous No.6518794]

>>6518783
>not liking having the option to look ugly
>not liking to have the option to change how you look for practical purposes despite finding the alternative look ugly
>not liking to have the option because it's warm

There's more to a beard than aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.6518814]

>>6518761
>leg hair
>hair on a female's body
speaking of which, not as unattractive as one would be uh conditioned to believe: [conditioned is the wrong word, but y'know] http://smolderingphoenix.tumblr.com/
I mean, at first glance, sure.
But I'd probably be okay w/ it after a while.

[Anonymous No.6518826]

>>6518794

I never said that there wasn't.

Anyway I'm over derailing this thread on a topic too dumb to warrant it. Even by /lit/ standards this is stupid.

[Anonymous No.6518843]

>>6518826
>I never said that there wasn't.
Actually the post you deleted was implying that. Which may very well be why you deleted it, because you realised you were talking nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6518854]

>>6518843

Na it was just a typo that accidentally flipped the context. Pretty innocuous tbo.

[Anonymous No.6518905]

>>6518814
Disgusting tbh.

Hope it will get deleted once we can meme our genes.