/lit/ - Literature

>>14726071
>I love getting down on my knees daily... and begging Jesus to come.

>>14726029
You think shit on a canvas "posesses an advanced complexity", and that "entertainment" art "doesn't have noble (lol) goals". I don't think you speak english, too. Your theory is less than worthless: it is actually harmful to yourself. Oh well.

>>14725878
>I define art as any creative endeavour that tries to have an idea, tries to convey an emotion and uses the medium language and techniques (craft) to deliver the message.
art has not and has never been about messages, faggot. So what if I didn't "try to convey" an emotion? Is a jumble of sticks that fall from a tree that land to perfectly reconstruct brad pitt's face not art? Is me dropping a pencil and the pencil hitting the paper in such a way that the mona lisa is drawn not art? Is a hunk of snow that melts in such a way as to look identical to an elephant not art? You have misunderstood everything. You don't have to have a "message" for it to be art. This is just something that pseudointellectuals want because they aren't smart enough to read philosophy. Also, what doesn't fit your definition? Men can be art! Phones can be art! Chairs can be art! Everything "conveys an emotion" that uses "craft" to deliver the "message".
>As such a perfume can be art, food can be art, martial arts can be art, soccer can be art.
lol
>As such I define them as entertainment, fine art and real art.
"Real" art lol. Entertainment seperated from "real" art, lol. Pseudointellectuals, never change.
>I define entertainment as art that doesn't have noble goals, doesn't try to be deep about any real life issue and usually is about having a good time, it usually is the realm of most commercial art done for money.
Yes, because I only have a bad time with "real" art. "Real" art has to be boring! You can't have fun with "real" art!
Pseudointellectuals, never change.
>As such entertainment art can be most art like anime, pornography, radio pop music, rap, videogames.
Lol. AKA "art that my parents have gotten mad at me for excessively indulging in that I now have developed a bad conscience about" lol.
>I define then fine art as any art that doesn't care about aesthetics and is more concerned as using art as a comunication tool to debate ideas.
>As such, a lot of the crappy shit on a canvas art, atonal music, cubism, noise music, avant garde music, literary fiction, are fine arts.
"fine arts". Static as music is "fine" to you. "shit on a canvas" is a "fine art" to you. What a disgusting person. Pseudointellectuals cannot hide from themselves.
>And finally, I define real art to be any art that has both intelectual goals about deep philosophical issues, but also tries to deliver an aesthetical piece, but the piece also posses an advanced complexity most fine art pieces usually kind of has.
>As such, the work of beethoven, van gogh, cervantes, shakespeare, Bach and other more popular shit like Evangelion is also real art.
Your entire though-process is flipped upside down. You believe that the "fine arts" (aka shit on a canvas) is more complex than a multi-million dollar videogame (mere "entertainment" to you). You cannot even spell intellectual. Van Gog beside Beethoven... never change, pseudointellectuals. You at least serve as something to laugh at.

>>14725710
>searching truly for meaning

>>14714363
>Kant claimed that it wasn't possible for humans to have intellectual intuition because he couldn't think of how it was possible (Guenon (pbuh) succinctly flays Kant in 'Intro to Hindu Doctines' for wishing to impose the limits of his own ignorance upon others and for wishing to impotently substitute a 'theory of knowledge' for Knowledge itself).
Do you not get it? This is so simple that you might as well give up on philosophy right now. You cannot percieve the "thing-in-itself" because that would mean you percieve it identically which would mean that your perception would be equivalent with that you are attempting to percieve. This is and always will be impossible. It is the equalization of unequal things.
So why do you think you can gain the ability percieve the "thing-in-itself" (truth)? Precisely because you want this ability so badly, this truth, so that you can use it to dominate and tyrannize over everyone else. It is not out of overabundance that you think you can percieve the "thing-in-itself", it is out of hunger, an emptiness, a desire and yearning for power that you will forever lack, a cowardice.

>>14724988
"Analytic" "philosophers" are not philosophers.

>>14691708
>>assuming everyone else will suffer from it the same way he did.
>Wrong. He is explicit about this.
Even here you are dishonest. And you have the audacity to call ME dishonest? The first line of your pathetic hero's work is "the industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race." What is that but the most extreme generalization of his suffering, extending it to the whole abstraction, humanity, and externalizing the blame on "technology", "industry", etc.

>>14691972
That is the best reply you could muster to that complete sodomizing of your hero. All I have to say is: lol. Not one life was sacrificed to capture him. Not ONE. It seems like you have no knowledge of history at all. The word "war" is not even in your vocabulary.

>>14695181
>Men are such a curse
And Butterfly has taken off her mask.

>>14695204
The pessimist, or in 4chan retard-speak, the "doomer", is someone who adores the feminine feelings of sadness, despair, fatality, hopelessness, inevitability... such people have a constant infatuation and morbid curiosity with suicide... they hold disgust for optimism precisely because of this attachment with and to the aforementioned states... they are these states, essentially... this is what they are... this is what defines them... this is them.

This leads to a preoccupation with worlds of despair, of tragedy, of crushing sadness, to further this faith in inevitability... that their fate is inescapable... that their life will end to their own hands. Their life is a desire for complete resignation. Such people always become determinists of some type or another.

>>14695228
I guess all lifeforms lacking the "moral faculty" are pedophiles. Schizophrenic.

>>14694381
>so you would rather delude yourself with weak justifications for abhorrent behavior
abhorrent to whom? I have found benefit from such behaviour, thereby making it no longer abhorrent. It is YOU WHO THINKS IT IS ABHORRENT, precisely because it is "socially unacceptable", "not right in the eyes of god", "immoral", etc. etc. all feminine reasons (aka not reasons, the definition of "weak justification", hypocrite).
>The "god works in mysterious ways" is a better excuse than this shit, and that's saying something.
Yes, "better", according to you, precisely because it aligns more with your own nihilistic and feminine ideology that cringes at every suggestion of violence, war, force, any allusion to these realities.

>>14694165
>what a disgustingly egotistical opinion.
All opinions are egotistical: they express the ego. To do otherwise is an impossibility, as far as I am concerned.
>if pedophilia never existed nothing of real value would be lost
Nothing of real value would be lost to you, which I am perfectly fine with. For me, though, I would rather find something of value in pedophilia so I can justify it's existence, and I find this in art, and in the families it has inadvertantly produced that have had children that created and evolved technology and science a few steps forward. You have your way, I have my way. As for the correct way, it does not exist.

>>14694139
Literally who?

>>14694048
It is you who made rape and pedophilia bad.
Rape and pedophilia is good, at least from my perspective. In fact, I bet you that somewhere in your lineage someone was raped and produced the next generation, and without that rape you wouldn't exist.
Pedophilia is also great from my perspective. Think about how much great classical art that worships childlike beauty would cease to exist that I have been entertained by and has heightened my existence. Think about how many lineages would cease to exist if it was erased, how much technology therein that I use everyday would cease.
Meanwhile, your worldview is that these things are "bad". But imagine if they never existed?

>>14692845
God doesn't allow evil. To him everything is good, he loves everything. It is you who calls it "evil" and "bad".

>>14693979
>Directly engages with ugly degenerates on an app you downloaded
>"OMG WHY IS THE WORLD SO DEGERNETE???"

>>14692398
Post-modernism doesn't exist.

>>14682527
What you want to do is make a list of the pseudo-intellectual films and directors above, and never watch any of those (they are usually slow and boring, while trying to masquerade as "deep")
Then you want to look at the films those types of people specifically repudiate. That is where you will find the best movies. Some newer movies of that type:
Captain America 2: Winter Soldier
Iron Man
Transformers 2 (best one)
Elysium
6 Underground
Mad Max: Fury Road
etc. etc.

>>14693667
Books for everybody are worthless. If OP is willing to read this, then they might as well just click on any summary of his views on the internet, and start reading.
I personally recommend reading the presocratics instead.
[a gift to those paying attention: when someone adds "personally" to the start or end of some writing, it is always with a means to making every other sentence appear more truthful, "objective".]

>>14691784
And yet you do nothing but type on your keyboard and flap your lips. You don't actually believe Ted. If you did, you would move into a cabin in the woods and go to war with "civilization". But you WONT do that precisely because you don't believe it, and find advantage in modern technology and civilization. At least Ted believed in it and wasn't a pathetic poser like yourself.

>>14691708
>Wrong. He is explicit about this.
I have read his shitty book. He imposes his stupid "power process" on everyone in civilization.
>Anyone doing politics is just "trying to reorder civilization according to his wishes"
I know. I was breaking down all of his claims to being "irrefutable" here by showing what he is really doing.
>Youngest math professor of his time, at Harvard. One of the most successful and accomplished living person in the world.
Apparently you didn't read the book, where he scorns all education? Why would he ever do that? Maybe it is because BY FOCUSING ON NOTHING BUT MATH HE BECAME A PATHETIC MESS OF A COMPLEX OF RESENTFUL EMOTIONS, STRIVING FOR ANY SORT OF ESCAPE, WHETHER INTO THE BODY OF A WOMAN, FURTHER INTO ACADEMIA, OR INTO A FUCKING RINKY-DINK CABIN IN THE WOODS.
>Did you know the TK manhunt was the most expensive manhunt until bin laden?
It was never serious. If it was serious, they would've called in a million troops of the fucking US army and went to town. They went the pussy route because they knew he was a joke using homemade explosives that any group of physicists designing nuclear weapons for the army would've fallen over laughing at. Your hero is a pathetic mess. I wonder what that makes you?

>>14691612
I don't have a definition of "normal". All I see is people hitting every branch on the way down in modern civilization, and THEN getting diagnosed as mentally ill, and THEN hating all of technology and civilization out of pathetic ressentiment.
You want to destoy technology because it hurts you and you don't know how to use it to influence others.
You want to destory civilization because you hit every branch on the way down it.

>>14691537
Civilization is technological evolution. You aren't going to make a flat screen TV with a bunch of savages at war with eachother.