BOOK IS FINALLY OUT, THE FUTURE IS BRIGHT

[Anonymous No.15824974]

It's me again, I couldn't have done it without you lads. I made a promise more than a month ago that I was going to publish my finished book of philosophy, and now after every mind-numbing obstacle overcome, my book "The Synthesis of the Objective and the Subjective" is finally available on amazon for purchase. I've been using 4chan as my primary community for many years now and I want you people, and /lit/ specifically, to be the first people that have access to it.

This community is filled with smart, curious, and ambitious minds and it's time we asserted ourselves in the wider world and made a difference. I hope I am among the first to encourage others to step into the wider culture. My book presents the philosophical foundation for the right wing to become the dominant intellectual current of the 21st century, I bring about many new philosophies and ideas which improve upon the existing intellectual world we live in and which place our concerns at the center. For us to really have influence, we have to create a coherent project for the future, with better ideas than anybody, we cannot simply react to the news and shitpost all day. The foundation in this book should serve all of dissident right wing thought and I hope many of you are inspired and incorporate my ideas further and make them part of the discussion.

The book is kinda big, 420 pages and 150 separate chaters, and I organized it as a sort of chronological journal detailing my intellectual growth, it's super easy to read and follow along.
I made it really cheap compared to other such works, hardly making any money with the paperback being $15. I actually make more money on the ebook, but go ahead and buy the paperback caus it looks cooler.
Make sure if you buy it to leave a positive review, and to recommend it to others and discuss its ideas. I promise you the book is not a waste of your time.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1777255511

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08CJK9492

[Anonymous No.15825023]

A bump for u

[Anonymous No.15825059]

>>15825023
hey, man thanks!
Here's what the cover looks like, all done without much drawing skill.

I'm going to be opening a few threads over the next days and weeks to let people know about my book being out, and I will also make available free chapters for anyone that wants a taste of what's inside.

I don't know if it's a good idea, or not, but since the book has 150 chapters, you can ask me for any chapter between 1 and 50, and I could post it in the thread below so that people have something to talk about, and criticize my
ideas. Be warned though that the book is a bit of a slow start, the real heavy-duty new ideas start maybe after chapter 80.

If you want to know the title of each chapter to get a taste before requesting it, the amazon page has the whole table of contents available for you to look at.

[Anonymous No.15825138]

Side-specific, political philosophy? Not a fan, really.
I'm glad for you, though, however cocky you sound and however much I don't care about politics in the classical sense.

[Anonymous No.15825161]

>>15825138
it's not really political philosophy though, only incidentally. It actually delves heavily into new metaphysics, and philosophy of science.

It's kinda everything, and I totally understand the thought that political philosophy is not that important, it's downstream from more important questions.

[Anonymous No.15825209]

>>15824974
I read bits here and there, this is not for me

[Anonymous No.15825247]

>>15824974
>This community is filled with smart, curious, and ambitious minds and it's time we asserted ourselves in the wider world and made a difference.
o-oh

[Anonymous No.15825267]

>>15825161
Can you post an excerpt concerned with metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.15825281]

post some of the interesting bits to generate interest, to prove it's worthwhile to even consider purchasing

[Anonymous No.15825286]

>Modern Western civilization has lost the ability to maintain itself. People and institutions now operate without seemingly any historical or moral context. This book concerning philosophy comes out at a timely moment to provide the reader with the intellectual tools necessary to put society back together. The author began his journey to make sense of the chaos of present society more than six years ago, in 2014, and he documented all of his findings in a personal journal, later turning it into a narrative.With no previous background in philosophy, the author brings a fresh, personal perspective to tackle every conceivable topic, both big and small. The author plumbs the depths of his personal experiences, subconscious mind, sociopolitical happenings, and every field of science to arrive at grounded, yet far reaching philosophical discoveries. What are the key concepts of the future that must be understood to reconstitute civilization, and permit it to grow? Going beyond equality, we must understand how a synthesis of unequal parts is possible. Join the author on his unlikely journey as he progressively uncovers one idea after another, each leading him ever further away from the established boundaries of intellectual thought. The view is one of a kind.
ngl that sounds terrible
good on you for publishing tho

[Anonymous No.15825298]

Not gonna lie OP the opening is extremely off-putting to me and makes it seem like the same self-indulgent crap that gets paraded on the crit threads.

[Anonymous No.15825320]

>>15825267
sure, I mean there's plenty. The bulk of it comes in the later chapters. What's special is that I was never trained in academic philosophy, so I tease out the ideas slowly.

Here is a copy/paste of Chapter 51, probably the first chapter on metaphysics.

Chapter 51
The first spiritual laws
First of all, the spiritual plane was probably infinite in some way; this is because the masculine was not as obsessed with short-term power as the feminine. While the feminine thinkers worried about resources and power, the masculine thinkers worried about personal excellence and ideas. Somehow this spiritual world still had competition; it still had differences, status of some kind, but it wasn't based on accumulating resources but accumulating virtues.
And I was almost certain that time did not exist in this spiritual plane either, because time brought upon entropy which caused decay, and the masculine law did not decay. Even space had to be different in some way because the masculine law was universal, and it was instantaneous everywhere. You couldn't say that this masculine law was localized somewhere; it had locality everywhere. So space and time had to operate differently in this spiritual plane.
The third property of the spiritual plane was that the laws permitted some freedom to exist as long as you followed them. The laws had to be simple, few in number, and they were quite indifferent to who was in power. As long as you followed the basic laws of the universe, you were free to act as you wanted. In a way these laws existed separate from the universe, but united to the universe. They were separate from the universe because they were not affected by the physical universe; there was no way of disputing them, but they were also seen and felt everywhere by the physical universe.
I couldn't go any further for now, but I felt through my many experiences a conception of a spiritual world separate but related to our physical world. I continued studying many details in particle physics, but I couldn't quite figure anything out. I was captivated by antimatter, but it was impenetrable to me. Then antimatter led me to studying imaginary numbers for the first time and that idea also led nowhere. Imaginary numbers are both different and connected to real numbers, and they can be drawn at a 90 degree angle to real numbers, much like an extra dimension, but I just couldn't go any further. I couldn't connect imaginary numbers in any way to the spiritual plane.

[Anonymous No.15825332]

>>15825298
what am I doing wrong? I'd love to not sound idiotic.

The book is a very personal journey, the entire length is organized in a personal journalistic fashion, so I guess I feel the need to tell people that it's more than a personal story, but can have a large impact.

[Anonymous No.15825341]

>>15825320
nigga this is fucking trash on god

[Anonymous No.15825356]

>>15825341
oh fug

how?

I know I don't sound like describing laws, but that's not the point. It aims to capture the act of thinking.

[Anonymous No.15825380]

How many philosophy books have you read before writing yours?

[Anonymous No.15825406]

>>15825332
my 2 cents is people generally don't really care to hear about other people's lives or takes on things, unless they have a reason to be interested or respect them
like, hopefully you know the phenomenon where people are wildly uninterested in others dreams, others epiphanies, others day to day minutiae, or other people's diaries. this stuff is interesting to the person that it concerns, but no one else (except maybe a very close friend, family member, or lover)
i'm not saying this is quite that level, but that's definitely the impression i get.
the prospect of reading someone's "journey" or "diary" sounds like torture. Don't spin it so personally. The description sounds like what the book means to YOU, which means nothing to me. I want to know what the book can do FOR ME.
just tryin 2 help u bro

[Anonymous No.15825425]

>>15825380
very few, that's sort of the point of the entire narrative. I mostly read philosophy -after- I discover an idea. Every idea is first teased out or discovered by me and then I read about it from someone else.

Eventually, I come up with entirely new ideas after the half-way point of the book.

[Anonymous No.15825465]

>>15825406
you're totally right, I made that decision consciously to make it sound like a journal.

Thing is, many people need to know what it's like to think, they need an actual behind the scenes look. I hope to motivate others to engage in the same type of activity, to show that it's not that hard.

What it does for you is that it presents new philosophy, see that's the fucking problem with metaphysics. What the fuck does metaphysics means for -YOU-? I don't fucking know, but somebody's gotta write the future of metaphysics, and I start the ball rolling for sure.

The book uses big ideas, big simple synthesizing ideas that work everywhere, they work in relationships, in politics, in science. I show what the perfect marriage should be like. I show what the perfect hierarchy should look like. I explain the relationship of the "being" to the body better than anyone ever has, at least. I just didn't call it the being because I didn't read other philosophers.

[Anonymous No.15825529]

>>15824974
I'm not buying your book. I don't buy books. I've read great works from great people, and not paid for it; I think your book embodies a lot of what I think is wrong with authorship. You have people that aspire to the act of authorship, rather than authorship as a means of sharing their ideas; I think the book stinks of aspiration in its laziest incarnation, and what you've done is spitball an essay for 6 months into something you could self publish. I admire you for getting this far with the work, but I don't think what you've written really represents much. I hope you'll find the aspiration to pour love into your craft, rather than clamouring to craft for validation in future.

Good luck anon.

[Anonymous No.15825620]

>>15825425
>>15825465
Are you the poster with the elaborate shitposting schemes? Writing a 450 page philosophy book sounds like something he would do just to make the shitpost more authentic and believable.

[Anonymous No.15825659]

>>15825620
those two posts you quoted are me, the others disliking my work are not.

I mean, I kinda disagree that a 400 page philosophy book is just a 6 month essay, but I accept the criticism.

[Anonymous No.15825722]

>>15824974
>self published

so, it's not out yet then.

[Anonymous No.15825747]

>>15825722
Is it not available for purchase? Yeah I self-published, I figured I'd save many months and fees by doing it this way. Plus, others have done it, like BAP.

[Anonymous No.15825763]

>>15825659
>I mean, I kinda disagree that a 400 page philosophy book is just a 6 month essay, but I accept the criticism.
>this isn't a 6 month essay
>but I talk about academic writing styles
Mate... You brag about not trying to emulate academics, but it's obvious from the front bloody cover that's what you're going for, so why not just admit it?

This is a really rough read, I didn't expect to find fucking SPAG errors in your introduction. I don't know what possessed you to write this drivel.

[Anonymous No.15825774]

>>15825747
No marketing means nobody will read it. Get a publisher or don't bother. Unless you've been published in philosophy journals it was pointless anyway. This isn't how you do philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15825814]

Begone schizo!

[Anonymous No.15825835]

>>15825774
>No marketing
That's exactly what OP is doing.

[Anonymous No.15825854]

>>15825774
useful info, I had no idea since I (indeed) do not have an academic background.

So, what's the road? Publish in philosophy journals first? What if it's a long book?

I plan on writing more later, I have it in me to continue improving the new ideas.

I just wanted the right wing to be the first to benefit from it.

[Anonymous No.15825860]

>>15825320
>I continued studying many details in particle physics, but I couldn't quite figure anything out. I was captivated by antimatter, but it was impenetrable to me.

this reads like the zen and motorcycles book. that's not a complement

[Anonymous No.15825880]

how much did you drop in self publishing this? at least you're trying to produce cultural output OP. im not going to read it but i imagine it has some worth in it. bless you

[Anonymous No.15825890]

>>15825860
never read it.

It's unfortunate most of the comments are negative, I did have high hopes with this book, the optimism carried me to publishing.

But like, what should be done differently? Bronze Age Pervert wrote the same 2 page chapters, with broken english, and people read his interesting ideas. (I understand he has a following)

[Anonymous No.15825899]

>>15825880
I dropped $0.

[Anonymous No.15825909]

ITT OP learns that writing and publishing a book is a harsh process.

[Anonymous No.15825918]

>>15825890
>But like, what should be done differently?
1. Research.
2. Use a glossary.
3. Edit your work.
4. Proof read your work.
5. Compare your ideas against existing ideas.
6. Find new ways to apply those ideas (modernising and synthesising them).

You've put out a 400 page book in 6 months. What did you think was going to happen? Did you believe everything you were writing was deep, profound, and poetic? Your head is simultaneously up your own arse, and in the clouds, it's quite a feat.

[Anonymous No.15825937]

>>15825890
I don't know, I never read bronze age, but I think he writes for his audience. yours just sound like your masturbating all over the page
' i could go on'
'was probably infinite in some way'
so was it or not, nigga?
it just reads like half - ideas, before meeting any real life challenges to your ideas. masculine thinkers? permits some freedom to exist?
at least be definite in your bullshit. you sound as if you aren't confident in yourself.

[Anonymous No.15825971]

>>15825918
Don't listen to this moron. Here is my advice:
1. Don't do research. Stick to your own thoughts.
2. Definitely don't include a glossary (or an index or any citations)
3. Don't edit your work. Revision is the death of truth.
4. See above
5. Compare your ideas only to your own ideas
6. Do not modernize, do not synthesize. If anything, write faster!

[Anonymous No.15825980]

>>15825937
it captures the thinking process, that's what my thoughts were at the time. I understand really well how important specificity is when dealing with metaphysics and the ideas become really accurate and well defined eventually.

I did a lot of editing and proof reading. I guess the journalistic format isn't a good idea though. Btw, ask for more chapters that I could drop if you want. Any from 1 to 50, hell any from 1 to 100, see what it's like.

[Anonymous No.15825984]

>>15825971
This OP! Do not under any circumstance taint your work with that of other writers or thinkers. You should be able to write at least a thousand pages in six months with this method.

[Anonymous No.15825992]

>>15824974
Hey OP, could you describe the nature of thinking?

[Anonymous No.15826001]

>>15825984
Didn't Kierkegaard write like 6 books in a year?

The advice I am receiving is tough, but fair. The crazy part is that I like my method of only half reading what other philosophers have said. It served me so far in generating new ideas. I'm torn man.

[Anonymous No.15826017]

>>15826001
>It served me so far in generating new ideas. I'm torn man.
How do you know they're new if you don't know what's out there?

[Anonymous No.15826028]

>>15826001
I do it too, its intuitive.

[Anonymous No.15826033]

>>15825992
the nature of my thinking, which I get a bit into, is that I have a combative personality. I read someone else's thoughts and ideas and then I get frustrated with an idea that's vague, or an idea that's wrong and I try to improve it.

When it comes to synthesizing a new idea, I do it by holding two contradictions in my head at the same time, and trying to reconcile them together into a bigger, simpler united thought.

Later, I also talk about how my thinking is very "masculine" as I call it, or based in universal concepts and images. I do not have a thinking like Heidegger which is very grounded.

[Anonymous No.15826043]

Publish in journals and expose your ideas to scrutiny.
If you are too lazy to read other philosophers, however, I doubt you will produce much of merit.
Philosophy isn't a LARP where you brainfart all over the page, it is about producing internally consistent frameworks which accurately deal with some aspect of the world.

[Anonymous No.15826048]

>>15826017
because the entire book is so full of ideas, eventually I convince myself that some of them are new. And because I do a survey of the sciences, and the philosophy, and the culture.

It's not about inches, it's about miles, at some point I convince myself that I am well ahead of others because of how much work I did.

[Anonymous No.15826058]

>>15826033
I think similarly. It makes a lot of sense thinking in a dualistic way

[Anonymous No.15826059]

>>15826043
totally agreed. So should I publish a book in the philosophy journals? I mean, most philosophers I know have books attached to them, not articles

[Anonymous No.15826063]

>>15824974
I would actually order if it were available in my country. Congrats anon! I drink to your development as a thinker! I hope you find the endeavor worth something great.

[Anonymous No.15826069]

>>15826048
Much like this book, I can't tell if this is a serious post, or satire. That's commendable if nothing else.

[Anonymous No.15826073]

>>15825854
>the right wing
So why are you here?

[Anonymous No.15826076]

>>15826058
the book is very dualistic, and I create new dualities that I (very justly) consider to be entirely original and entirely innovative and important.

Hence why the book ultimately aims to answer the question of the connection between objective and subjective.

[Anonymous No.15826093]

>>15826063
thanks man, we're all gonna make it.

[Anonymous No.15826094]

>>15826063
This. Keep to your intuitive thought OP, but polish up your ideas with other philosophers who follow the same line of thinking.

[Anonymous No.15826104]

>>15825320
What the fuck are you talking about? The spiritual plane? Masculine and feminine power? Accumulating virtue? Laws localized everwhere? Particle physics? Antimatter? Imaginary numbers? What?

Slow the fuck down. Even if the ideas behind this passage are profound and meaningful, I, the reader have no fucking clue what youre talking about. It reads like a schizo bum read a book called 'smart people words' and took a try at writing some of his own.

Break down the first part of this passage, what is the spiritual plane? What are these laws, both masculine and feminine? Explain like were in the 5th grade

[Anonymous No.15826113]

>>15826076
I'm interested man

[Anonymous No.15826122]

Realistically, you are likely not going to easily get published in a journal because you are clearly not a trained philosopher. Your only option for getting people to read whatever this thing is, is to make Molymeme style videos or go the other route and embrace the cringe and go full meme retard, then people will read it out of curiosity. In that case you'll have to change the book to make it more memeable though, not just basic bitch dualism redux.

[Anonymous No.15826147]

This is Fucking terrible. You drank the /lit/ juice too hard, took it all seriously, and now have dedicated hundreds of hours of your life on what is essentially a 400 page shitpost.

You claim modern society has scorned its roots and ignored tradition, but you haven’t read any of that tradition. In fact, you BRAG about being unfamiliar with that tradition, as if it makes you better. You have no logical consistency because you have no understanding of logic, no understanding of metaphysics, ontology, or anything.

Hannah Arendt addressed what you discuss, about the rootlessness of modern society, in her book Between Past and Future. Because she is familiar with philosophy in a real way, she is equipped to address these heavy issues. She has the basis of understanding to draw logical conclusions and make actual propositions, and addresses and utilizes the history of philosophy in the process. You have nothing except an inflated ego and a completely misguided sense of self worth. You’re not ready for this and you write like an egomaniac.

Read a Fucking book dude. Until you can prove your worth to the world, nobody has any interest in your personal adventure. You need your ideas to stand on their own before you get personal, and neither has any value. Seriously reassess yourself, your ego, and your views. Because all of them are currently wrong.

[Anonymous No.15826149]

>>15826076
What would be one duality that you think is of interest to you?

[Anonymous No.15826175]

>>15824974
but right wingers are stupid

[Anonymous No.15826177]

>>15826104
let's see. In Chapter 15 (Eureka) I detail how I manage to categorize the whole entire world into "masculine" and "feminine." It is vague, I know but the chapters from that point on try to explain these ideas in various contexts.

Eventually I present that some people (related to the MBTI) are "feminine" thinkers, and thus they think in a very earthy, grounded, materialistic way. Their thinking is action driven, it is causational, it is in linear time.

Then I present the opposite, the "masculine" thinkers who think in a more spiritual way. Their thinking is more about circular time, about images and concepts and the connections that things have to each other, it is perhaps closer to "right brain" thinking.

The masculine thinker then, are presented as actually -experiencing- a real place, just like the feminine thinkers experience a real place, but that place is the "spiritual plane." The spiritual plane is the world of ideas, it is the world where ideas, concepts, and minds and beings all exist. It is close to our world, but separate in some ways.

Then, I try to imagine how this spiritual world is separate, different, or how it is similar to the material world which we all see and experience. This goes on for many hundreds of pages, as I explore differences in things like science, politics, interpersonal relationships and so on. By highlighting the differences I try to build a series of separate laws for this spiritual world, the laws being dualistic opposites of the physical world. The objective and the subjective are related to all of this.

[Anonymous No.15826189]

>>15826147
let's not do this, like only a few are allowed to criticize the experts.

My thinking is ultimately, Christian. That's my tradition.

[Anonymous No.15826190]

>>15826177
>Eventually I present that some people (related to the MBTI) are "feminine" thinkers, and thus they think in a very earthy, grounded, materialistic way. Their thinking is action driven, it is causational, it is in linear time.
Son, are you aware that MBTI was devised to assign careers to women in war times?

[Anonymous No.15826205]

>>15826190
not an argument. I present in the book how it is entirely "scientific" and how an AI could be trained to instantly tell what your temperament is. It's not voodoo.

Maybe now you understand why new knowledge is hard, it takes the kind of person that isn't afraid to experiment with unpopular systems or ideas.

[Anonymous No.15826209]

>>15826147
>the same dfw pic used by everyone on this board who hasn't read his work
>cites a woman

As misguided as OP is, he's infinitely less cringe than you at this moment. Deleuze debunks the 'read the classics' meme anyway. What OP needs to do is improve his thinking, not because some cringe derivative femoid.

[Anonymous No.15826217]

>>15826205
>not an argument
That's the spirit.
Start making youtube videos and try to get on bloodsports, make a few pseuds seethe and you will get recognition.

[Anonymous No.15826231]

>>15826217
I had a feeling I had to go the Youtube route, after all, the book is organized in small chapters, each the length of a small video. I'll keep putting it in text form though, since it's faster and cheaper, and a few brave souls might give it a try.

I am well aware that big philosophical ideas do not change the world overnight, if they even worthy in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15826250]

>>15826189
>My thinking is ultimately, Christian. That’s my tradition.

Ok faggot, how is anything you wrote remotely Christian? You still haven’t read anything by Christian philosophers. You know nothing of Aquinas, nothing of Kierkegaard, nothing of your own fucking reflection in the mirror. I’d be surprised if you’ve done anything more than a light skim of the Bible.

In order to criticize you need to understand, and you don’t. That is why your writing is so bad, and that is why your ideas are such spag faggotry. Maybe if you considered having less of an ego and read people who are famous for their ideas rather than assuming you know better than them, you’d learn and improve or even CHANGE your ideas. But you never will, because you are hopelessly lost to the abyss of right wing ego cuckery that blinds you from any actual thought.

[Anonymous No.15826255]

>>15826177
>related to the MBTI
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.15826281]

>>15826205
>Maybe now you understand why new knowledge is hard, it takes the kind of person that isn't afraid to experiment with unpopular systems or ideas

Please, father god, let this be a god tier shit post. I hope in your infinite wisdom you would not create someone who claims inspiration from your greatness while being so egotistical and lacking any semblance of self awareness. Let him develop the attention span to sit and read for more than 5 minutes without going back on 4chan, and let him gain the wisdom to realize other people smarter than him exist. Amen

[Anonymous No.15826282]

>>15826250
I've done what most people do these days, read secondary analysis of those thinkers. I did begin in 2020, earnestly, to study the big thinkers. And many of the ideas of someone like Aquinas are embedded in society, it's not even society that needs deep thought.

Most of the ideas of the enlightenment philosophers are embedded in society today, ideas like equal rights or liberty. You don't need a Phd to understand important philosophers. I'm accepting all criticism though, this is a long journey but I wanted to share with others. Sometimes I go on /lit/ and I just see people fighting over the same issues over and over and I feel like the conversation has to evolve.

[Anonymous No.15826289]

>>15826205
>I present in the book how it is entirely "scientific" and how an AI could be trained to instantly tell what your temperament is
You're going to use MBTI to run linguistic analysis? I mean, I specialised in forensic linguistics and wrote a 100 page dissertation on the subject, so I'd love to hear this, but I'm not buying your book.

I can't tell if the OP is legitimately a schizo gone off the rails, or the thread has been hijacked. What a wild ride.

[Anonymous No.15826309]

>>15826209
>this guy’s ego and masculinity is so fragile he can’t believe a woman could be smarter than him, a Virgin sperg on 4chan
>this guy is so threatened by a woman he immediately disregards her without even reading or considering what she says with any validity

The fucking state of the right

[Anonymous No.15826318]

>>15826289
so what's linguistic analysis?

When you say that, what I imagine is that you record someone's speech style and try to predict what their personality is based on how they talk.

But I have problem with this very method, it is a very "objective" form of analysis, but what it lacks is a subjective form of understanding someone's personality. I'd say that what makes a subjective analysis different from an objective analysis is the ability to ignore data. The MBTI offers a subjective way to figure out someone's temperament.

[Anonymous No.15826320]

>>15826048
explain what is a 'muscline thinker'

[Anonymous No.15826336]

>>15826318
>so what's linguistic analysis?
>But I have problem with this very method, it is a very "objective" form of analysis, but what it lacks is a subjective form of understanding someone's personality. I'd say that what makes a subjective analysis different from an objective analysis is the ability to ignore data.
So you're criticising things you've never read about, never studied, and don't understand? It sounds like you wrote a book of pub wisdom aimed at pseuds.

[Anonymous No.15826350]

>>15826309
>he immediately disregards her without even reading or considering what she says with any validity

[Anonymous No.15826355]

>>15826320
it's masculine, the entire book was thoroughly edited to eliminate such errors!

A masculine thinker is, in a precise sense, someone of the melancholic temperament or the choleric temperament. To link this to the MBTI, it is anyone that has a "P" in their type, so xxxP are all masculine thinkers.

I also describe how masculine thinkers essentially have a thinking style which is more about making use of circular time, or a continuous time rather than trying to understand the world in terms of causality. Instead of making any definitive conclusions for how to obtain something in the world, they try to make mental models, images and create connection between different ideas. Their thinking has a type of "infinity" attached to it, in that they consider the universal consequences of something.

A practical example would be that a feminine thinker would think whether theft personally benefits them, while a masculine thinker has a tendency to naturally think of theft in a universal way, and with universal consequences.

[Anonymous No.15826360]

>>15826350
>looks in the wrong direction

[Anonymous No.15826367]

>>15826336
Dude, wtf? It is not my obligation to read whatever you consider as linguistic analysis. There is more than one way to obtain knowledge. I asked you nicely and you didn't even provide an answer.

This kind of mentality, that we must all read the canon before even being allowed to criticize anything is precisely the problem with intellectuals today, if anything they are so stuck up their own ass.

[Anonymous No.15826376]

>>15826177
youre describing conscious and unconscious thought. read jung.
>>15826355
again, read jung. I think you don't understand mbti

[Anonymous No.15826379]

>>15826282
>I’ve done what most people do these days, read secondary analysis of those thinkers

Who is doing this? Who is most people? Since you have no academic background I know you’re not getting this from an educational perspective. Read the source texts.
>I did begin in 2020, earnestly, to study the big thinkers
My nigga it is July. You’ve been writing this book for 6 of those months. I really hope I’m being baited effectively right now, for the sake of the world

>many of the ideas of someone like Aquinas are embedded in society, it’s not even society that needs deep thought.

Then why the fuck did you write a book.

I really appreciate you dedicating your time to showing us how your inflated ego is able to so effectively distort any understanding of reality you have. I look forward to future threads where you no doubt will continue to surprise and impress us with new levels of complete delusion. I might even show some friends your writing so we can laugh at the state of the right. Pathetic

[Anonymous No.15826386]

>>15826367
>wants to conduct linguistic analysis
>doesn't want to understand linguistic analysis
https://goascribe.com/linguistic-analysis-explained/#:~:text=Linguistic%20analysis%20is%20the%20theory,the%20basis%20for%20Text%20Analytics.

It was the top link on google, that gives you some insight; you're an absolute cretin, and the more you speak, the more I'm confused as to why you thought you had anything at all worth putting in a book.

[Anonymous No.15826389]

>>15826355
What made you give them gender-based names? Do you have any hard data on women doing feminine thinking more often?

[Anonymous No.15826391]

>>15826350
tiny peepee bitch boi

[Anonymous No.15826394]

>>15826379
>muh right boogieman
>posts literal who feminist authors

go back.

[Anonymous No.15826395]

>>15826376
The MBTI vastly improved on Jung and left him a long time ago. There's no need to do that.

Furthermore, the same ideas could be given different labels by different people. I have no obligation to use Jung's terminology. I do in fact use the MBTI terminology because it is very useful and popular today, far more than Jung nerds. And he was deeply incorrect in many subjects, because he dabbled with occult subjects.

[Anonymous No.15826409]

>>15826394
This isn't a right safespace

[Anonymous No.15826415]

>>15826386
I can figure out someone's temperament based on how they look. Is that linguistic analysis? Probably not.

And at no point in the book do I really teach anyone how to correctly type anyone, the MBTI already does it. I simply use the MBTI as a source of understanding of the mind.

[Anonymous No.15826417]

>>15826395
kek I like this anon. keep triggering the lefturds with based and true statements that can't be invalidated by their feminist logic

[Anonymous No.15826422]

>>15826409
but it should be. Funny lefties have so many safe places but love to invade the spaces of others.

[Anonymous No.15826426]

>>15826147
>>15826250
>>15826379
He’s being an asshole, but he’s right to be honest. Ask yourself why anyone would want to read your book on philosophy when you have next to no knowledge on the subject yourself.

[Anonymous No.15826434]

>>15826415
Oh no no no, I thought you were going to use some kind of actual process, but you've just gone full phrenologist. Ok, tell me what an ISTP looks like.

[Anonymous No.15826438]

>>15826422
You’ve exposed an inherent problem in your mentality with this. You should want to hear opposing viewpoints to your own.

[Anonymous No.15826443]

>>15826389
I have subjective data that women are more likely to be "feminine thinkers" (meaning any type ending in xxxJ) while men are more likely to have a type that is xxxP.

That conclusion was made personally, but it is roughly based on the studies the MBTI did to find out what type men and women are. Because men are more likely to be xxxP, I call the xxxP masculine thinkers. But the separation is like 60-40, it's not that huge.

[Anonymous No.15826449]

>>15826394
>someone mentioned a female writer on 4chan
>she must be a feminist, and Ben Shapiro totally owned the feminists >wemen bad because they no touch my peepee
>people on 4chan said women are dumb, so I don’t read them even when people say they’re smart because I, the enlightened man, know I am smarter

Tiny peepee brainlet level thinking

[Anonymous No.15826452]

>>15826443

[Anonymous No.15826453]

>>15826443
Why are you such a fucking pseud? I'm convinced this isn't bait anymore. You're just retarded.

[Anonymous No.15826460]

>>15824974
Great job, anon, keep it up. Sometimes i think this board is just for dumb toxic pseuds, but threads like this remind me that it is not always true. Congratulations once again

[Anonymous No.15826462]

>>15826438
The book does indeed, extract many valuable ideas from the left wing. It is not a right wing hug box.
But the thing is that I used many left wing ideas in my book which I discovered myself, not when some angry chapo barked at me that I was wrong. The problem with the left is they are too emotional, they are honestly hard to argue with. They only exist to be unhappy it seems.

[Anonymous No.15826464]

>>15826443
So anecdotal evidence? This is the new way of philosophy that will help "evolve the discussion" in 4chan?

[Anonymous No.15826476]

>>15826462

[Anonymous No.15826479]

>>15826453
it's not pseud. We're doing fucking philosophy mate, not hardcore academic publishing.

there are studies out already that show the MBTI types of all men and all women. I made use of those studies and put them together and about 60% of men have an xxxP type, as those studies indicate. That's the source of my language.

I am not going to fucking argue like an academic in my book, inserting 300 published papers and the like, not everyone has to argue that way.

[Anonymous No.15826480]

>>15824974
>He's still playing into the hand of left-right divide and conquer
Why no, I will not read 420 pages of that.

[Anonymous No.15826490]

>>15826479
>I'm not going to give sources in a philosophy argument
What do you think a philosophy argument is?

[Anonymous No.15826493]

>>15826462
>the left wing is too emotional

>writes an entire book about his feelings with no grounding in any other texts or knowledge because he feels he knows better

>doesn’t check or even grammar proofread because he feels he knows better

>uses faulty shit logic to draw conclusions that validate his feelings that women are bad and niggers are dumb

[Anonymous No.15826497]

This whole thing demonstrates some notable dedication to shitposting.

[Anonymous No.15826500]

>>15826480
Based. You can tell he must be an American.

[Anonymous No.15826509]

>>15826449
>ben shapiro
I'm america first, bitch.
Now go back.

>>15826462
based and true

[Anonymous No.15826510]

>>15826479

[Anonymous No.15826511]

>>15826479
Great. You're trying so hard to be antithetical to those pesky academics, and in doing so, completely void yourself of all credibility. Have you ever considered that the academics so things a certain way for a reason?
>We're doing fucking philosophy mate, not hardcore academic publishing
If works of philosophy are just incoherent ramblings, you're doing great. Fuck you, and fuck your book. You won't sell more than twenty copies.

[Anonymous No.15826516]

>>15826395
you barely understand jung, and you want to understand his followers? comon man.

[Anonymous No.15826518]

>>15826493
>validate his feelings that women are bad and niggers are dumb
Those are both self-evident truths (axioms) and do not require validation.

[Anonymous No.15826520]

>>15826493
that's a weak bait mate, here's your you.

Understanding people is not the same thing as acting like an angry barking dog. Take a look in this thread, there are some people that think all knowledge must meet the requirement of academic publishing. Knowledge, especially philosophy, existed before the publishing industry.

I understand this method may not convince everyone, I totally understand. It will especially not please the left, because they are very protective about their institutional processes. But this is early knowledge, published before it is institutionalized, use it if you are brave enough. This is why I mostly aim this at the right, I am under no delusion that academic philosophy will accept this book. I won't even market it to them.

[Anonymous No.15826530]

>>15826520
>I won't even market it to them.

[Anonymous No.15826531]

Fuck and I thought I got roasted on 4chin hard for my egoposting. Sorry OP, but you fell for the memes pretty hard.

[Anonymous No.15826533]

>>15824974
Well done on actually following through with something.

[Anonymous No.15826538]

>>15826511
you might be right, and thank you for your advice.

I have observed most known philosophers get known for the books they publish, not their academic papers, so I thought of going in that direction. And then you have people like BAP who also combine philosophy in a casual, personal manner. I figured some preferred it that way.

[Anonymous No.15826542]

>>15826479
This is just anti-intellectualism OP. You need to unironically have sex, but failing that read actual books.

[Anonymous No.15826549]

>>15826443
>ENTJ's, INTJ's & ISFJs are feminine
bruh

[Anonymous No.15826550]

>>15826520
>I mostly aim this at the right
What does that have to do with this board?

[dullard No.15826559]

>>15824974
ill check it out

[Anonymous No.15826562]

>>15826549
they are in how they think. INTJ are hyper focused on getting things done. Anyone that has that materialistic, grounded intelligence is what I deemed "feminine". The language used is also in line with historical uses and historical symbolism, the femininity was often attached to the earth and masculinity often attached to the spiritual.

[Anonymous No.15826563]

>>15826549
Pro tip:none of those types are a real thing

[Anonymous No.15826566]

>>15826550
this is a right board and always has been.
Go back.

[Anonymous No.15826574]

>>15826559
thanks! Don't be afraid to post your review then, I'll read it.

[Anonymous No.15826576]

>>15826566
You seem to be confused.

[Anonymous No.15826578]

>>15826562
femininity is attached to earth, masculinity to sea.
which is more spiritual? the giving earth or the raging sea? Gaia, or zeus?

[Anonymous No.15826581]

>>15826562
See because when I think of "masculine" I think of the earth, ruggedness and planning ahead- which is what NTJs within MBTI are known for. But then these views are subjective within world-wide culture and gender perceptions, or even within only the West.

[Anonymous No.15826592]

>>15826578
I only use the masculine attached to the sky, or the air, or what I often call, the spiritual.

The sea, symbolically, can represent the unconscious, a sort of replacement for the mind, which is masculine.

[Anonymous No.15826593]

>>15826562

[Anonymous No.15826598]

This is just fucking embarrassing. You think like stereotypical savages think from hollywood movies. If you were my friend and you started talking like this near me i'd slap you. Very unskilled thinking. If you have thoughts in the shower it doesn't mean you have to publish them. Now if you worked on your thinking and made it more nuanced, this kind of fierce naivety could pay off.

[Anonymous No.15826603]

>>15826592
How's this OP. If you work for me at my firm- get this- $200,000. Per annum. I've seen what you can write on the computer. I've seen what you think. I need you on my team kid.

[Anonymous No.15826612]

>>15826603
haha

uh, will I have time to work on my 2rd edition of the book?

[Anonymous No.15826616]

>>15826612
Not him but could you post another excerpt? I think some anons are treating you unfairly here. Do you have another paragraph on the "masculine and feminine"?

[Anonymous No.15826618]

>>15826059
>most philosophers I know have books attached to them, not articles
That's not true. You just haven't read these articles because they are written for other formally trained, academic philosophers. Without formal training in philosophy, these articles won't be comprensible to you: they will use specialized vocabulary, refer to philosophical concepts you haven't learned about, and will justify their conclusions using the philosophic method.
Conversely, your articles will not be accepted into these journals unless you have training in philosophical reasoning. Philosophy is not a catch all phrase that can be employed to legitamize stoner thoughts; it is a serious academic disipline. And - just like all academic fields - you can't just write down cool ideas and expect them to be taken seriously without proper justification.
Here's my advice: if you are really serious about philosophy, sign up for philosophy classes at an online college. Complete your bachelors, and THEN start thinking about publishing in an academic journal. Once you pull that off, then you can start writing a book. Also narrow your scope, your writing's all over the place. It's not even clear that your book has a central thesis that ties it all together.
That being said, you're taking the criticism in this chat very well, so props to you for that. You COULD be a good philosopher one day, you just need to put the work in.

[Anonymous No.15826621]

>>15826592
so you use the age old attachment of sea and earth, yet disregard the same age old attachement of mother earth, goddess of bounty etc etc

[Anonymous No.15826624]

I would prefer to read Ha, Ha, Ha. Delightful. It is much shorter, funnier, and lighter on the brain.

[Anonymous No.15826643]

>>15826618
This. At the very least go on Google Scholar. People slate taking the Humanities at university but you simply cannot gain an in-depth understanding of philosophical and metaphysical concepts nor as quickly without an education.

[Anonymous No.15826646]

>>15826624
>lighter on the brain
I wouldn't go that far

[Anonymous No.15826649]

>>15825890
>>15824974
Why are Romanian scumbags such pretentious "right-wing" egomaniacs? The book project of Bronze Age Mindset Anon grabbed at least a bit of attention from those seeking one. Your efforts and desires shall be annihilated by the time this thread is archived by your utterly shameless incompetence and delusional aspirations, despite your "sincere" efforts in discussing "the masculine realm of ideas". It takes more than 6 months of not-reading philosophy but thimking about it for one to unshackle a consistent metaphysical framework. Try again maybe in 5 years after serious study. Hopefully this will be a more useful lesson for yourself than the preachings you are trying to share with a sane community.

[Anonymous No.15826666]

>>15826616
sure, let me link perhaps a different application of the concept. I use it in all places.

(1 of 3)
Chapter 22
Masculine and feminine in the institution
Besides taking a good look at the economic system, I wanted to go further and look at something else. I had always been good at economics; and although I had lost some interest in it a few years ago, my interest was coming back. To imagine this complex economic machine in simple interactions was quite spectacular, and I was going far beyond the materialistic, money-driven explanations that economists love to use. That was the problem I had with the science of economics. I had used their tools and their data, and I had studied their theories, and it was all so obviously lacking in describing the real world.
The next place I applied my new concepts were the corporations and institutions running our lives; what was there to uncover? We can start to ask if corporations are a masculine force in our lives or a feminine force in our lives, and what would that mean? I was taught that corporations existed purely to satisfy market demands, meaning that corporations simply responded to what people wanted and gave it to them. Under such definitions, a corporation would, therefore, be seen as being completely feminine, the corporation being only a tool that assembles products and services for us to use. Charities could also be considered to be purely feminine. Any institution that existed exclusively to satisfy public needs would be considered feminine.
But corporations lately want more power; they believe that they deserve the same rights as humans, including the right to free speech, the right to political representation, and so forth. Is this valid? Corporations today do try to change people's thoughts, and they are increasingly positioning themselves as the indispensable pillars of any community. Perhaps the long standing theory that corporations only existed to please the customer was a cover; because, now that their economic power is greater than ever, corporations are going outside their traditional boundaries and want to run the social life of a nation, the moral life of a nation; they even want to supersede the nation.

[Anonymous No.15826675]

>>15826666
(2 of 3)
We clearly see corporations today that strive to change the world, as though having some masculine force on the rest of society; they are not simply responding to the present conditions, but they are enacting a vision for society. The trouble with the corporations today is that if they want to compare themselves to people and governments, they need to be treated more harshly than they have been in the past. In the past, the laws regarding corporations were simply those of some tool that had to be regulated and guided along the right path. But now, if a corporation misbehaves, should it not be treated with the severity of a moral agent? Governments are replaced, toppled, and rendered obsolete. People have to obey moral laws or else they face jail time. If corporations desire a greater role in society that goes beyond just responding to our immediate needs, if the corporation wants to assume a leadership role in society, then they have to be open to much harsher punishments for making the wrong moral decisions.
What I see in all of this is simply a case of privilege; the corporations want all the power with none of the responsibilities. A population has no obligations towards treating corporations the same as in the past if the new corporate agenda is to oppress us on every level.
And what corporations should governments be most suspicious of, or what kind of laws should be passed? While I did not consider the specific policies that may have to be followed, because that's purely of the realm of speculation, I did consider how a corporation works from the inside and what makes them different from each other. We can look at an institution like a corporation to be made up of several departments such as production, marketing, finance, etc., and each of those departments exercises a different masculine or feminine force on the rest of the institution.

[Anonymous No.15826678]

>>15826649
>didn't even read the book

[Anonymous No.15826685]

(3 of 3)
The masculine and the feminine can really be used at any scale, from the human individual to the largest states. Inside a corporation, certain departments like product development or marketing exert more of an influence on the overall direction of the company than others. So even inside an institution, there are always those who are more preoccupied with change, and those who are more concerned with making sure the whole business works as well as it can.
There are those who manipulate the world of things, the feminine force, and those who manipulate the world of ideas, the masculine force. The masculine force, therefore, is most linked in an institution with innovation and change, while the feminine force is most linked with growth. That's the interesting part; that if you maintain the same strategy but simply keep expanding more and more, you are essentially remaining feminine. But as soon as you desire some change in the ideas or strategies, it is more the realm of the masculine force. Which departments in an institution are more powerful or more important than others completely depends on where the institution finds itself; does it need growth or to reinvent itself? We also see that outside of government regulating the behavior of a corporation, private banks have a tremendous influence on the corporation because they control how much the company can grow or not.
We see the benefits of having this universal concept of the masculine force and the feminine force when dealing with complex entities like a corporation. This is because, I believe, that, when we face a problem, we can solve it in two different ways. We can use past experience to solve that problem, or we can use wisdom. And this powerful new tool is universal wisdom because it can be used to understand a corporation, or any other institution, that you've just recently started working for. By quickly categorizing people or departments into masculine or feminine, on one side or the other, you can get a quick assessment of a complex situation. From this point on in my journal, in fact, I did precisely that. The first layer of analysis I applied to any intellectual problem was a preliminary masculine or feminine layer. It's a kind of replacement for not knowing more, but it's also a kind of intuition that gives you knowledge about any situation you're in.

[Anonymous No.15826692]

>>15826624
Are you unironically advertising your book on this corner of the 4channel, Guppy? Wasn't all the spamming on Twatter enough?

[Anonymous No.15826694]

>>15826666
>I had studied their theories
What economy books did you read?

[Anonymous No.15826703]

>>15826538
>most known philosophers get known for the books they publish, not their academic papers
This is like saying that Steven Hawking is better known for his pop science books then he is for his for his research papers.

[Anonymous No.15826704]

>>15826692
This is the only post I have made and I promise I won't make any more.

[Anonymous No.15826710]

>>15826666
>>15826675
>>15826685
Holy fuck. This is some top tier genius.

/lit/, what do you suppose this man's IQ is? Honest answers.

[Anonymous No.15826716]

>>15826694
Where is this credentialism coming from? This is weak stuff, and it is elitist. It seems to always emerge from insecure leftists that want to justify their education as not being wasted. Guess what, the future will weaken the university and its important in intellectual life, and it's due to your kind of elitism and narrowness.

I actually have 2 economic degrees, but it really shouldn't matter.

[Anonymous No.15826718]

>>15826666
modern economic theory has started incorporating psychology.
>>15826675
> People have to obey moral laws or else they face jail time.
no. people obey real laws or they face jail time. moral laws are the unspoken laws.
>>15826685
bruh

literally read about anima and animus. You seem to have based your whole philosphy around categorizing everything into two blocks, masculine and feminine. Which is reductionist, but ok. You should read people that already thought about that division.

[Anonymous No.15826725]

This may end up rivalling Elliot Rodger's masterwork or those Tundra books.

[Anonymous No.15826738]

>>15826718
I go beyond categorizing the world into two blocks eventually. As previous posters have pointed out, it follows a journalistic narrative which largely ignored established philosophical thought. And as they've pointed out, it can pose a problem to many to re-read old ideas in a new form. But they are also mixed with the new.

[Anonymous No.15826744]

>>15826716
You stated you studied it. It's natural to ask. What books did you read?

[Anonymous No.15826745]

>>15826678
Nor does one need to.
The paragraphs look like schizoramblings of a mediocre (Horia Sima tier) "right-winger". At least he should read some Schmitt, Evola, Spengler and - I cannot stress this enough - start with 'em Greekz.

[Anonymous No.15826751]

>>15826744
He's the proud owner of two economics degrees from the university of Phoenix, Arizona. Even then, one of them has SPAG errors on it, hence why he had to buy the second.

[Anonymous No.15826753]

>>15826710
Single digit for sure :))

[Anonymous No.15826760]

>>15826753
He must be an 8, I haven't done any reading about IQ, but I can't imagine it goes above a 9.

[Anonymous No.15826766]

>>15826710
At least 160. I am too low IQ so my non-essential job was lost in the Plandemic, so I cannot buy this work of pure genius. I wish he would post it for free online so we could all bask in his glory

[Anonymous No.15826768]

>>15826745
>claims OP should read x,y, and z
>but you yourself are exempt from reading him

If you're so great at philosophy how come this glaring contradiction escaped you, hmm?

[Anonymous No.15826769]

>>15826744
dozens dude, I have two full degrees in it. I read far more than the curriculum. For starters, I actually read and I think I still own Krugman's book on trade.

I know you're a leftist because your question is so inconsequential. What are you going to do exactly, grill me on my economics theory? And what would that prove? There are perhaps 5-10, not more, chapters in my book on economics.

[Anonymous No.15826777]

This is embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.15826778]

>>15826725
>masculine is army
>feminine is beuracrats
>rest of the page is jerking himself off
kinda based desu

[Anonymous No.15826790]

>>15826769
Krugman... The list goes on.

[Anonymous No.15826791]

>>15826725
He was definitely one of my inspirations when writing this book. It’s not often the world is given thinkers who are capable of new ideas, and he was one of them. I’m glad my writing compares to that of my hero.

[Anonymous No.15826792]

>yet another thinker falls to the left vs right
its so tiresome

[Anonymous No.15826794]

>>15826725
btw man, thanks for the purchase! Hope you keep reading.

[Anonymous No.15826800]

>>15826792
>implying this retard is capable of conscious thought

[Anonymous No.15826804]

>>15826725
Can you upload the DRM stripped version and post a link in this thread?

[Anonymous No.15826806]

Another major theme in my book is balancing the feminine polar ideal with the fact that I crossdress. It operates addressing the multilateral layers of post modern capitalist society and cultural Marxist social institutions.

[Anonymous No.15826808]

>>15826806
KEK

[Anonymous No.15826812]

>>15826800
the left and right have existed for over 200 years. I understand today that the oligarchs have taken over both sides, but this fundamentally duality of politics into left and right won't end.

Do you consider 200 years of worldly political history to be irrelevant?

[Anonymous No.15826816]

>>15824974
*Sniffs the thread*

AHHH YES. THE CRITIQUE OF PURE GENIUS!!!

But besides the joke, can (You) upload the entire book on libgen. Me and my mates will be gathering this evening for our literature club (topic is Abelard's intentionalism), but this might just do the trick!

[Anonymous No.15826820]

>>15826806
k, thanks for bumping. Glad I am offering you entertainment. I just wish you weren't so mean.

[Anonymous No.15826825]

>>15826812
>fundamentally duality
So fundamental only a single country is obsessed with it.

[Anonymous No.15826827]

>>15826820
Why do you think there is something negative about cross dressing? Defend this position.

[Anonymous No.15826828]

>>15824974
Rename the book 'The Zoomer Diaries'
The premise of a disenfranchised incel trying to into philosophy is much more interesting than any half-assed idea in the book itself.
This isn't a dis, I'm for real. TRUST ME.

[Anonymous No.15826833]

>>15824974
Huh, a philosophy book from a 4channel.org anon. Is it peer reviewed or-
>>15825763
Oh. Oh dear.

[Anonymous No.15826837]

>>15826828
googling it right now.

[Anonymous No.15826841]

>>15826812
you just call people leftists as refutation. youve been poisoned by the narrative.

[Anonymous No.15826858]

>>15826828
Very funny. You could at least post a relevant critique. Even ignorant leftists should put some effort, besides gagging at a book title.

[Anonymous No.15826868]

>>15826806

[Anonymous No.15826869]

>>15826769
ah yes the krugman book on trade. truly a classic of economic scholarship. few minds are able to penetrate such a text, but based on your mention that you own it (and may in fact have read it) I agree that you are a superior intellect

[Anonymous No.15826875]

>>15826858
K you could have actually made some money but if you want to be like that go fuck your mother

[Anonymous No.15826880]

I'M NOT SICK BUT I'M NOT WELL

[Anonymous No.15826884]

>>15824974
What specific philosophers or people have inspired your thought?

[Anonymous No.15826888]

>>15826858
You write like an unrestrained me, and I am a narcissist

[Anonymous No.15826890]

>>15826880
Based

[Anonymous No.15826892]

>>15826880
Ok. Now that is epic

[Anonymous No.15826907]

Out of interest OP, do you have a passage relating to sex or the female gender?

[Anonymous No.15826910]

>>15826884
The pre-preSocratics. You wouldnt get it. I was there. Reincarnation.

[Anonymous No.15826914]

>>15825320
Absolute garbage. Is this just an elaborate joke?

[Anonymous No.15826918]

>>15826884
As I mentioned earlier, Elliot Rodger was a big one.
I don’t believe in academia or classical philosophy, but ContraPoints on YouTube was great at informing me about the left. Besides that; the works of Stefan Molyneux informed my metaphysics, a book by Paul Krugman about trade I may have read informed my 5 chapters about economics.
My understanding of masculine/feminine dynamics comes from personal experience- this is the more biographical part of the book, where I talk about my experience with hormones, breast enhancement, facial feminization, and finally my sex change surgery. The experience of living on both sides of the gender spectrum informs a methodology that doesn’t require a glossary of terminology, my audience is the common man.

[Anonymous No.15826934]

>>15826907
there's many, not sure what to paste without appearing too far into the work and losing all meaning. Here are a few sentences from chapter 84 - the minds of men and women.

When a woman and a man form a relationship together, their tests are also different. For the man, the test is one of leadership, to be dependent and worthy of someone's trust and support. But for the woman, the test is one that today's society has entirely forgotten; a woman's test in a relationship is one of faith and loyalty. Sometimes, feminists are angry that men judge them negatively for having had a troublesome sexual past. They say it's unfair and so on. But it is much more important for a woman to demonstrate chastity than a man, though that is also desirable. The reason why a woman's chastity is so much more important is because it shows that the woman can maintain faith in something, faith in love and marriage in this case. And when women forget how to keep the faith, the entire society forgets how to do that as well.
When a relationship is successful between a man and a woman, the two are loyal to one another; the woman permits the man to make a mistake but she criticizes him for it; and the man can bear these criticisms and use them as a way to improve on his ideas and moral leadership. The woman and the man serve much of the same role as the left wing and the right wing. The left wing is feminine, and it must learn to keep the faith in its society but also criticize it; while the right wing must make itself worthy for leadership and improve on the society and narratives it defends.

[Anonymous No.15826936]

>>15826918
spanish laughing guy.jpg

[Anonymous No.15826940]

OP is an absolute madman

[Anonymous No.15826947]

>>15826918
Impersonating me, the OP, is not a moral thing to do anon. And Contrapoint, yeah, you wish anyone right wing ever watched that filth.

[Anonymous No.15826949]

>>15826934
this reads like my grandfather. do you have a chapter on the jews?

[Anonymous No.15826956]

>>15826949
no, I don't.

[Anonymous No.15826957]

>>15826918
This is the greatest shitpost on lit of all time. Imagine writing a 400+ page book just for a bit thread. Put me in the screencap reddit

[Anonymous No.15826961]

>>15826934
>For the man, the test is one of leadership, to be dependent and worthy of someone's trust and support.
Proofread your shit you cretin.

>But it is much more important for a woman to demonstrate chastity than a man, though that is also desirable.
>The reason why a woman's chastity is so much more important is because it shows that the woman can maintain faith in something, faith in love and marriage in this case.
>The woman and the man serve much of the same role as the left wing and the right wing. The left wing is feminine, and it must learn to keep the faith in its society but also criticize it; while the right wing must make itself worthy for leadership and improve on the society and narratives it defends.
This is what a 6 month long shitpost looks like, holy fuck. So who are you planning to shoot up?

[Anonymous No.15826962]

>>15826918
Brilliant.

[Anonymous No.15826966]

>>15826949
I am Jewish. My Judaism informs much of my worldview and is visible throughout the book, why do you ask?

[Anonymous No.15826969]

>>15826918
Holy. An unironical tldr; to the entire passages and comments the OP sperged out

[Anonymous No.15826970]

>>15826956
are you sure? maybe the feminine thinkers were the jews all along?

[Anonymous No.15826981]

>>15826966
Oh god. Please don't tell me you went to yeshiva, whoever taught you needs to be shamed publicly

[Anonymous No.15826983]

>>15826961
dependent -> dependable, you're right I let that one slip through.

[Anonymous No.15826984]

I am proud and honoured to be here for this historic thread.

[Anonymous No.15826986]

>>15826934
If you haven't had a relationship yourself, what makes you qualified to make these observations?

[Anonymous No.15826995]

>>15826966
>judaism visible throughout the book.
in judaism, women are holy. That's why we call the shabbat 'queen'. man is seeking holiness, women are already so. Contrast between your own ideas. see the difference?

[Anonymous No.15826999]

>>15826947
Moral under what morality system?

[Anonymous No.15827006]

>>15826981
My rabbi helped co-write this book. He kept mentioning stuff about “subverting the goyim” and “5G mind control” but when I asked about it he’d just say it’s the masculine and feminine spirits- he said the Jew (masculine) gives and the Goy (feminine) receives. If you buy my book you can see more about this in chapter 69

[Anonymous No.15827012]

>>15826999
let's not start this. I did not imagine I would be interacting with the most cringe-worthy God-hating people on /lit/. I had higher hopes.

[Anonymous No.15827015]

>ITT OP wastes thousands on 2 eco degrees and writes a 500 page philosophy book that reeks of masturbating tching JBP videos and reading Jack Donovan and literally nothing else

[Anonymous No.15827017]

>>15827006
weird. are you ashkenazi or spanish? spanish jews hate 5G control, they prefer old fashioned television subliminals

[Anonymous No.15827019]

>>15826806
>>15826934
Not as funny as Horia's own paragraphs. Hopefully this gets screencap'd, for I, laughed so hard that I, hit my testicles.

[Anonymous No.15827024]

>>15827012
How many times do you faggots need to remember that lit is an egoist board

[Anonymous No.15827029]

>>15827012
I'm a Christian. Answer the question. Have you read the bible or other Christian thinkers?

[Anonymous No.15827049]

>>15826969
nice

[Anonymous No.15827053]

>>15827029
You should know that as a Christian, faith is what counts above all. Did you expect to enter a Biblical battle or something?

And it is immoral to impersonate me and add absolutely nothing to do the conversation outside of making yourself feel superior. What exactly is Christian about that?

[Anonymous No.15827054]

>>15827029
Yes, I read descartes, but only the chapter where he describes a heart. The rest I came up on my own.

[Anonymous No.15827067]

>>15827053
>faith is what counts above all
I wasn't asking about your faith. I asked what morality system you use. What thinker?

[Anonymous No.15827069]

>>15827053
>I’m a Christian
>Writes an uninformed 400 page book

(((interesting)))

[Anonymous No.15827080]

>>15827067
Moral instinct is innate, maybe you lack it, I dunno. I guess much of my work is somewhat instinctual, but rational. It's one way that I find allowed me to progress further in my philosophical thought.

[Anonymous No.15827106]

>>15827080
How can you be a Christian if you haven't read the Bible?

[Anonymous No.15827117]

>>15827080
At this point, I cant even distinguish whether this is OP or someother imitating him. What a bliss of a thread

[Anonymous No.15827133]

>>15827117
Well, it looks like my work here is done. OP, you Fucking retard, I hate you. I enjoyed making you suffer. I hope next time you write a 500 page book you write a few of those pages about the Jews because this Jew certainly savored making you suffer. Idiot.

[Anonymous No.15827140]

>>15827106
What kind of a piss-poor protestant take is this? I read the gospels multiple times, and I was baptized, and I have faith in God and Jesus. Faith is what counts above all, bible readers that use it for their own wicked ambitions likely don't even quality as Christians in God's eye.

I think chapter 3 actually talks about starting that journey, I was an agnostic before.

[Anonymous No.15827147]

>>15827133
I'm still here, though.

[Anonymous No.15827152]

>>15827133
Nice try OP. You think you can just blend in back by pretending to hate your own book? Are you that narcissistic that you won't allow anyone else to call you an idiot, so you do it for them. Pathetic, really.

[Anonymous No.15827154]

>>15824974
>>15825320
OP, it's good that you managed to drive yourself to complete a written project and got it published. Good on you for that. I believe your work's content is not just bad, but bad in the sort of sense that it will stand in the way of you being remembered for having written it by the history of mankind. Sometimes people write stuff that is terrible, but the terribleness somehow boosts their visibility, so they'll be remembered by some. I don't feel you've accomplished even that.

Tips for visibility that /lit/ ngmi's won't like to hear, but are true:

1. Avoid vanity presses. That means get published by respectable presses.
2. If you want to write philosophy, that further means being trained in academic philosophy, not just because you will be credible, and also better at doing philosophy, but moreover because the non-vanity presses are all academic, and they're going to publish quality academic work, not run-of-the-mill pseud content.

You're welcome to rail against academia and write a manifesto for the right if you want, even though I think that's all crap, but the best way to make yourself visible if that's your aim, is by making your ideas publicly famous. Writing a book and publishing it on amazon when no one knows you yet probably won't do anything for you.

Look I know you hate academia. But you would be lying to me if you told me, 'Look I published a book, please read and leave positive comments!' and then denied that what you want is visibility. So you clearly want visibility, not just now but probably historically through time. If the visibility you desire is philosophical attention and recognition in history, you really need to be good at philosophy and get published in presses that get attention. We live in 2020. Even the craziest philosophers in the 20th and 21st centuries get their stuff published in competitive presses, and at worst they get published by presses that already have integration with an existing academy-aligned movement (example: Urbanomic). That's not to mention that basically all philosophers are academics today, again even the crazy ones had PhD's in philosophy or taught in the academy as professionals or (more often) both. Nobody else is gonna make it, history won't remember them, certainly not you. Assuming you're in your 20s and not your 80s, you have time to turn around. Kant published his transcendental idealist system aged 50.

[Anonymous No.15827156]

>>15824974
Good Luck.

Even though i'm not interested in philosophy anymore after Heidegger solved it.

[Anonymous No.15827159]

>>15827133
I knew it

[Anonymous No.15827165]

>>15827154
>>15827156
thanks mates, gonna read all your criticism. It's a long journey and I likely am not done adding my philosophical thoughts.

[Anonymous No.15827167]

>>15826497
I think this book might have some interesting things in it. Of course it is not up to academic standards, but it seems like it is full of unique ideas. Might read some parts of it sometimes.

[Anonymous No.15827175]

>>15827167
OP, you faggot.

[Anonymous No.15827185]

>>15827165
No need to thank anyone. Nice effort, but shameful display

[Anonymous No.15827199]

>>15824974
Good on you for publishing anon.

[Anonymous No.15827203]

>>15826209
Deleuze is a damned dogmatist, a trickster. He is a what he hates, a philosopher in the vein of Hegel, a twister of all into his own narrative. Muh emancipation lies at the bottom of all his "work'.

[Anonymous No.15827205]

>>15827199
He self-published.

[Anonymous No.15827210]

>>15825286
What a load of self serving tripe.

[Anonymous No.15827218]

>>15827185
I am young, and I know nothing about academic publishing. I think someone in this thread said that if I am not already an academic, the journals will be closed anyway.

Furthermore, I checked around and most philosophers today are really specialized, and left wing establishment conformists to boot.

[Anonymous No.15827221]

>>15826816

[Anonymous No.15827232]

>>15827203
You didn't comprehend a single word then, if that's what you took from it. He's specifically anti-Hegelian, to begin with.

[Anonymous No.15827239]

>>15827140
faith in what?
>>15827218
no they arent?

[Anonymous No.15827248]

>>15827218
Anon, please. Stop embarassing yourself even more. My laughter has transformed into sorrow and pity, sentiments with which I shouldnt be familiar in this thread

[Anonymous No.15827251]

>>15826177
>right brain

[Anonymous No.15827271]

>>15824974
Nice homoerotic fanfic, OP. True in the right wing spirit!

[Anonymous No.15827277]

Well done anon, hopefully it's the first step to greatness/

[Anonymous No.15827281]

>>15827251
I later criticize the entire idea of the left brain/right brain as reductionist. I simply mention it because, like people in this thread, I anticipated criticisms that the masculine/feminine wasn't scientific enough.

[Anonymous No.15827289]

>>15827281
ANON PLEASE

Your assumptions are killing me :^)

[Anonymous No.15827297]

>>15827239
Ok, maybe you're right that the academics are not right wing.

My conclusion was based on the fact that almost all students graduating philosophy programs become left wing, and that almost all philosophical blogs (outside of a few christian ones) are clearly left wing blogs.
I had no ambitions to get this work known to academia at all, but maybe I should focus harder on that in the future.

[Anonymous No.15827318]

>>15827281
Why would they say that? What's unscientific about making generalizing statements on the entirety of the genders through anecdotal evidence?

[Anonymous No.15827342]

>>15827297
yes, academia is left leaning. id say 60ish percent left. not 'almost all'

[Anonymous No.15827353]

>>15826995
this is a cop-out to keep women on the small side of the mechitza. it’s on the women to enforce tzanua (to differing degrees, depending on sect) because otherwise women’s ankles may present a nisayon that when failed invites the yetzer hara in. so holy that women cannot be in a minyan, cannot make kiddush levoneh, cannot sing in shul, cannot dance with joy as the men do when they daven. STOP THIS KIKERY, PLEASE. “buh uh you’re already holy so you don’t have to daven shacharit and maariv you can just uhhh put the kasha in the warming drawer” fuck off shmulik

[Anonymous No.15827375]

>>15827353
true, true.
the best part is the women believe they are the holy ones as well.

[Anonymous No.15827395]

>>15827375
they buy into it hook, line, and sinker with “orthodox feminism.” that is a pathetic acceptance of your status as lesser and you’re signing yourself on to a life taking care of fifteen children while your worthless nebach learns in kollel until the cows come home. enjoy being the breadwinner working at a part-time daycare while your husband has no fucking job. stop pretending women’s holiness in judaism is anything but a chain from your ankle to the kitchen table. fuck the whole eshes chayil thing.

[Anonymous No.15827453]

You know self advertising is banned right? If we let anyone do it, the board becomes an outpost of Amazon self publishing. The fact that you're vanity publishing probably makes that principle obscure and unreasonable to you, but the tl;dr is stop shitting up the board.

[Anonymous No.15827562]

>>15827453
yeah you're right, let's have another butterfly simp thread or the 50 millionth thread talking about DFW despite that no one's even read his work
Waaah self advertising
You sound like a little fucking dweeb, I wish I could smash your teeth down your throat

[Anonymous No.15827582]

>>15827562
I just want to say that I, OP, did not write that :P
I am a rule respecter.

(I think people can check anyway)

[Anonymous No.15827589]

>>15824974
Congratulations, OP. As someone who just finished up my master's on Aesthetics, who has been studying philosophy for over ten years now, who has learned German in order to read Kant, Goethe, Schiller, Hegel in their original form, I just want to leave you with my kindest, most sincere fuck you. It is fucks like you that make the world hate what I do. Get properly educated before you try to sell you stupidity to the world. You're like a kid that calls themselves a F1 driver but hasn't even been able to beat a Mario Kart level. You are a disgrace and nothing you'll ever produced will be of any philosophical merit. This is /lit. Read a book before you try to write one.

[Anonymous No.15827608]

>>15827589
I mean, come on. Many great philosophers in history did not have a philosophical degree. Their work was certainly of high quality, but philosophy is a tolerant and open field which many people can contribute to.

[Anonymous No.15827611]

>>15827608
Yeah, so long as the people contributing it are educated. You're not. You're a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.15827638]

>>15827611
You don't have to feel like you're competing against me. I find that given the amount of work you've put into your philosophical education, you'd make a great teacher of other people's work. I'll keep writing, and maybe it will please you more next time.

ps, I think that learning German just to read philosophers who have been largely embedded into societal functions is kind of wasteful. Take intellectual shortcuts, all the greats learn how to do it.

[Anonymous No.15827682]

Haven't read the thread, but just going off of the Table of Contents and the Opening, you've taken a rather hefty portion of Philosophical topics. There's no way you'll be able to adequately discuss them in one text, even if that text is 450 pages. You may think 450 pages is a lot, but all I see is that each chapter is an average of three pages long. You should have more thoroughly and honestly explored specific interconnected themes. This should be 4 books. As a bonus, you'll grow as a thinker as you create these new texts.

[Anonymous No.15827816]

Haven't read thread but gonna just say well done man. Congrats. You are now a published author. Good luck in all future endeavours and to all of those trying to join him.

[Anonymous No.15827819]

[Anonymous No.15827825]

>>15825763
What a bombastic admittance of pure narcissism.

[Anonymous No.15827837]

>>15827589
We don't hate what you do. We hate your arrogance and superiority complex. Fuck off. You're the kind of person who will go 'Diogenes has no place in any conversation about the subject!!!' when people like Plato found him fascinatingly inciteful. This is like saying the Twilight books make people hate authors of great sweeping epics.

[Anonymous No.15827856]

>>15825320
Are you schizophrenic by any chance?

Congrats on publishing though.

[Anonymous No.15827870]

>>15825763
>First line
Weird.

>Second line
That he isn't classically trained and is providing a view point that isn't constrained by such protocol, I guess. You're right about the glossary though.

>Third line
Correct, 'nor' would have fixed that. Or just cut it to 'I did not labor them'.

>Fourth Line
See my second line.

>Fifth line
Yeah they are, but I don't think he is tackling that.

[Anonymous No.15827883]

OP has trolled the ENTIRE /lit/ community in this thread, just as he has done many, many times before.

Congrats, OP. You are the Andy Kaufman of /lit/ trolls.

[Anonymous No.15827886]

[Anonymous No.15827908]

>he's a nolanfag

[Anonymous No.15828047]

OP, accept failure and keep improving

[Anonymous No.15828050]

OP trying to be the Tommy Wiseau of philosophy
kinda based desu

[Anonymous No.15828061]

>>15825320
This is like someone trying to poorly imitate Julius Evola.

[Anonymous No.15828104]

>>15824974
>written by a /lit/zen
>not a waste of time
How you make me laugh

[Anonymous No.15828107]

Never have I met a community more pompous, useless and arrogant than the philosophical community here on /lit/. You people can never and will never write any original thought, you people are destined to become tiny footnotes, grovelling at the feet of great men, forever to write references and sources. You scorn and mock an original thinker, you are a traitor to your own. Write! I tell you, for a naive original thinker is far greater than a sage who feels superiority from memorizing the works of greater men.

[Anonymous No.15828127]

OP, I might have been in your position right now if I lacked any self-awareness. As a fellow brainlet narcissist prone to philosophising, I urge you to reconsider everything and start being much more self-critical before you embarrass yourself further. This is not a drill.

[Anonymous No.15828141]

>>15824974
No offense OP, but this comes off like the type of shit I would write in highschool during my "traditionalist" phase.

I read your posts, you still use left-right dichotomy to describe political views which is silly and you assert that Leftists (whatever that means) are emotional beings who can't be argued with when Marxist philosophy is ingrained in scientific, material thinking.
I'm not as well read as some other anons in this thread and even I can see you are talking out of your arse.

I have gone through a plethora of views and """ideologies""" since I started shitposting on 4chinz. Gommunism included.
For the past few years I've considered myself a Fascist, and my views have changed more as a Fascist than any ideological swap I had previously.
Please please please read more books LOL.

[Anonymous No.15828217]

>>15824974
>this pseud swill got published
I'm happy for you but I can't help but feel a great injustice in the world has occurred here. But still, Godspeed.

[Anonymous No.15828243]

>>15826745
>Horia Sima
what was his philosophy? some romanians who knew him at the time called him a satan incarnate

which sucks too, i like his aesthetic

[Anonymous No.15828255]

>>15826745
>Horia Sima
what was his philosophy? some romanians who knew him at the time called him a satan incarnate

which sucks too, i like his aesthetic

[Anonymous No.15828262]

>>15828217
self-published.

[Anonymous No.15828284]

My sides are in orbit. I came into this thread hoping to congratulate OP but after reading the excepts and his general idiocy and the much wittier anons' jests, I'm crying from laughter.

[Anonymous No.15828289]

>>15828262
Oh... anyone can do that. Hell, I could fucking write 500 pages of 4chan philosophy and "publish" it.

[Anonymous No.15828394]

>>15827589
based

[Anonymous No.15828411]

I know I'm just pissing into an ocean of piss, but the OP, a past-master of the epic troll, has trolled the lot of you.

[Anonymous No.15828499]

>>15828411
I wish that were the case. It’s be less sad and make this more honest fun. But... anyone who writes 500 pages of drivel for a joke isn’t the one poking fun anymore

[Anonymous No.15828516]

>>15828499
fair point.

[Anonymous No.15828541]

>>15828499
you sure bout that?

[Anonymous No.15828583]

>>15828541
This is different. This isn’t trolling, this is humorous passion writing — very different from the pretentious garbage OP clearly spent too much time on even if you claim he did so “ironically”

[Anonymous No.15828598]

are there any dinosaurs in this book OP? if so i will buy it


if not i will not buy it

[Anonymous No.15828675]

>>15826476
Oh I get it, it's an armchair.

[Anonymous No.15828682]

>>15828598
What if there's a wooly mammoth?

[Anonymous No.15828714]

>>15826497
This book has merit only as a monumental feat in shitposting. OP has zero grasp of Geopolitics. I can finally dunk on someone's lack of knowledge in a field I am knowledgeable in. OP, google Breton Woods. I know you do not purport to be a stuffy academic, but this is actually entry level knowledge necessary to even open your chapped lips about Geopolitics.

Also, this passage, which is a dramatization of real world events, reveals that you have zero talent in the art of storytelling and no understanding of prose.

[Anonymous No.15828801]

>>15826562
It seems like this book, which boldly claims to eschew research and the practices of Academia, required a good bit of research. You understand that this invalidates your entire work, right? This is a zero sum game you're playing, you can't claim knowledge received through osmosis and experience and also selectively substantiate certain claims with actual research.

[Anonymous No.15828853]

>>15826710
A Midwit for certain, but on the low end. Syntax suggests the harried mind of the Dunning Krueger afflicted.

[Anonymous No.15829033]

>>15828255
Wasn't Codreanu like...way better?

[Anonymous No.15829039]

>>15829033
Yes of course but what did Sima do to make him so hated even among his own party?

[Anonymous No.15829389]

your book is garbage. The real victory for /lit/ would be if anyone actually buys it. congrats on getting published though

[Anonymous No.15829529]

good for you, anon, wish you best luck

[Anonymous No.15829593]

>>15829039
He was a sevond-hand Codreanu.
Which I can't say about OP, who lacks not just in knowledge and style, but also in experience.

Had a nice laught though

[Anonymous No.15829601]

>>15824974
this thread is one bruh moment after the other.

[Anonymous No.15829665]

where the pdf at nigga

[Anonymous No.15829703]

>>15826394
>Hannah Arendt
>literally who
OHNONONONO

[Anonymous No.15829705]

do this
>>15826828

play the metagame

[Anonymous No.15829713]

>>15826497
>dude it was a show of STRENGTH
>oo ee oo aa me lift BIG weights
>orange man be BIG STONG too?
>oo ee OO AAAAAAH

[Anonymous No.15829714]

>>15827886
scientists researched this phenomenon. it turns out that a lot of people tend to think they are special/different and intelligent. This is an psychological defense mechanism to keep your mind healthy

[Anonymous No.15829727]

>>15824974
A new classic. 420 pages of My Diary Desu. Holy fuck, OP, you are some bold motherfucker. Have you EVER seen a library from inside? Do the words "German Idealism", "Frankfurt School", or "epistemology" mean anything to you? Without any expertise you write as if you were a savant universal genius wunderkind. NASA has to study the material your balls are made of, because, damn it, that's the stuff you can travel through a black hole in one piece.

[Anonymous No.15829779]

Well /lit/, have we reached a consensus? Is this the most dedicated shitpost in the history of this board or self published my diary desu

[Anonymous No.15829781]

>>15824974
I imagine this is what Raskolnikow would have written.

[Anonymous No.15829797]

>>15826777
>trips of truth
this thread reads like A Confederacy Of Dunces 2 Philosophic Boogaloo

[Anonymous No.15829799]

What the fuck is this OP

[Anonymous No.15829854]

>>15829779
This is the ultimate my diary desu. We've peaked as a board. This thread is delightful

[Anonymous No.15829902]

>>15824974
>My book presents the philosophical foundation for the right wing to become the dominant intellectual current of the 21st century,
For fucks sake, I stopped reading right there. Jesus fucking christ can all these right wing chuds and incels get a fucking grip on life and stop being such whiny assholes.

[Anonymous No.15829914]

>>15829727

[Anonymous No.15829935]

I'm glad I progressed from a trad to a libertine, this thread is one of the most serene pleasures- I actually feel pity for those born before they could spend their prime on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.15830020]

>>15828714
You are as cringe as OP if not more

[Anonymous No.15830031]

>>15829665
This. Can't become a /lit/ meme if we don't have the PDF

[Anonymous No.15830066]

>>15829799
got me good anon, thank you

[Anonymous No.15830100]

>>15824974
Love it OP, a truly staggering work of heartbreaking genius!.

[Anonymous No.15830117]

>>15824974
>This community is filled with smart, curious, and ambitious minds and it's time we asserted ourselves in the wider world and made a difference

[Anonymous No.15830123]

>>15826147
>Hannah Arendt

[Anonymous No.15830129]

>>15826934
LMAO at your stupid writing OP, this is 2014 r/theredpill tier.

[Anonymous No.15830195]

>>15826769
so defensive, damn OP, are you insecure?

[Anonymous No.15830227]

I'm the Egyptology anon from Cambridge University. I just wanted to leave my mark in this thread when historians read about it in my autobiography.

[Anonymous No.15830316]

This is embarrassing. Insane cringe.

[Anonymous No.15830405]

>no anon even bought OP's e-book
now that's just sad, at least toss him a few bucks for the keks and show us what else he wrote

[Anonymous No.15830430]

>>15830405
You first

[Anonymous No.15830443]

>>15830405
poast the epub if you buy it

[Anonymous No.15830469]

>>15830227
based scholar

[Anonymous No.15830503]

>>15824974
>The Synthesis of the Objective and the Subjective
Formerly "The Sneed of the Feed and the Seed

[Anonymous No.15830543]

>>15824974
Are you publishing, son?

[Anonymous No.15830560]

Did op kill himself

[Anonymous No.15830562]

>>15830560
It was self-publicide.

[Anonymous No.15830611]

I am become the sword that cuts through darkness, the samurai in the rain. Kneel and be spared through subordinating yourself to my unequaled intelligence.

Genuinilelly laughehed mi as of thanx to this

[Anonymous No.15830626]

>>15825320
You would do better if you write book about yourself, It'll be 21st century's "Notes from underground".

[Anonymous No.15830680]

[Anonymous No.15830691]

>>15826751
reminds me of gogol's the inspector-general where the mayor character considers himself a free-thinker because he's read 6 books in his life kek

[Anonymous No.15830713]

>>15830680
>be OP
>never ever read
>write only once
>instant King of /lit/

[Anonymous No.15830715]

i feel like Your ideas are very interesting, but that the book format is not the right way to get the ideas spread to the masses. i mean, no one reads books anymore, not even Yourself. if you start a youtube channel i'd subscribe to it.
pls start a youtube channel

[Anonymous No.15830853]

"brings a fresh, personal perspective to tackle *every conceivable topic*"

Surprised this book isn't longer desu

[Anonymous No.15831222]

>>15826355
>To link this to the MBTI, it is anyone that has a "P" in their type, so xxxP are all masculine thinkers.
INFPs use Te, which you said in another thread was feminine thinking.
Are INFPs masculine or feminine?

[Anonymous No.15831229]

>>15826395
>The MBTI vastly improved on Jung and left him a long time ago. There's no need to do that.
I spotted a pseud anons!