/lit/ - Literature

>>20829790
elric seems like a more high fantasy kinda thing. i'm a native Polish speaker and in my view the Witcher is YA tier but then again pretty much all fantasy is YA tier except maybe LotR and a few other examples.

the Witcher is basically GoT but with much less thought-out worldbuilding (Sapkowski just didn't care much about this) and just 2 main characters who drive the story forward (Geralt and Ciri). that is to say, it's dark fantasy, politically it's liberal, kinda woke even, apathetic, cynical, iconoclastic, medieval-realistic-like without too much magic

it was great entertainment when i was about 13 but i'd cringe at it now. but then again i cringe at the vast majority of fantasy. i will say this, it is one of the better fantasy settings

>>20831429
i didn't say it isnt. but it's not complex either. it's just perfect and smooth like a good blogpost

>>20830208
>They were parasites of their society
it's what makes this doubly funny. he has to both explain his point and also constantly justify the existence of philosophers all the time kek

when i first read his dialogues i was wondering how the fuck he thought getting into philosophy instead of politics is the safer way out when his mentor literally got executed for doing that

I dig Plato's writing. It really feels like basically a blogger's style, the e-celeb of his day, speaking in a fairly ordinary, breezy way

Most based chad of philosophy. By far.

>Baconis
latin is such a meme

yeah can i get uhhhh burgerus cum baconis?

>>20820478
you thought wrong, and I do not worship any philosopher fully, Schopenhauer's critique of Hegel is valid

>>20816806
>Admittedly, at 16 one is definitely ready for adult literature
depends, i wasn't ready for PKD until very recently

Imagine knowing as much about society as he did when he wrote the Technological Society in 1954.

No wonder he was so smug

>>20821177
lexical gap really isn't a revolutionary idea. well, maybe in russia it is

herbs

>>20821314
>So reality comes down to the way energy/matter is distributed. The funny realization is that this distribution is homogenous across the universe. 1/2
and so a sort of code behind this distribution can definitely be worked out. the actual funny realization is that the precise distribution of energy in an otherwise empty space (which without all energy, simply wouldn't exist!) can be summarized in a code of correctly intermittent T and F statements, or 1s and 0s

we don't have to study the universe on a microscopic scale or have a theory of everything to accomplish this. rather, i posit, we would find out the theory of everything following from these studies, instead of trying to pick the universe apart in terms of precise physical laws and then trying to combine them all into one grand unified theory

>>20820981
there's the mathematics as invention or discovery debate. but I would say this. the total set of physical laws and interactions is very finite, the multitude of results only come from the sheer number of objects interacting with each other. That is to say, reality can be strictly quantified and the way reality moves through time (arrow of time) can be codified, that is to say, expressed as a language or as code.

So my explanation is that there doesn't exist a single "mathematics" upon which reality is based. For example, reality doesn't always correspond to euclidean geometry. The geometry of spacetime is non-euclidean. So I can't say that we discovered mathematics as if it was the underlying code of the universe. Mathematics is a tool, a language. It can be definitely used to describe reality, but reality can be described in other languages, among them binary code.
Of course you wouldn't be able to simulate all of the universe with it, but one practical example would be an android with strong AI. If you didn't program empathy into him, you would end up with T-1000. It's doable but hard. Even the topic of programming empathy is weird. That is also where pneumatics come into play. Pneumatology provides a very consistent code of ethics that is fundamentally similar to Christian ethics, but improved and strictly codified.

The question of "decoding" reality ultimately relates to the question of decoding consciousness. And how do you define consciousness. How do you define abstract thought. It's all there in the first general. The bottom line is that all consciousness (and in fact even the algorithm behind Life) comes down to making True/False statements about reality by judging the level of Truth in "statements" from the outside world (external stimuli), and the way Truth is defined is whatever helps the organism survive better and procreate better. But there is a way to bypass this biological notion of Truth and get to actual objective Truth. Our True/False statements are ultimately adjacent to objective Truth but how close they are depends on each individual, for a lot of different reasons. There is a way to bypass individual bias and work out an approximation of objective Truth that more or less everyone would more or less agree on

Then you also need to realize that there's nothing in this universe besides energy. The total energy of the Universe is 1 (conservation of energy) and energy as we deal with it in our local scale is simply a sort of pressure differential. I'm simplifying a lot, but there is only one underlying field (we have not found a way to unify all the theories yet) which is in excited state in one locality (and manifests itself as a quant of energy, for example an electron) and a quantum vacuum at rest in another locality.

So reality comes down to the way energy/matter is distributed. The funny realization is that this distribution is homogenous across the universe. 1/2

>>20820992
analyticucks are forever seething that they never came up with a single system/theory/philosophy worth hearing about

>>20820337
nah. there are people who read. i read two books a month.
>>20820329
i've been getting into philosophy since i read neeche at 16

>>20820190
isn't that guy some well-known model?

>>20820204
>Nobody knows, anon.
i do...

>>20820057
t. shitskin or schizo
>>20820095
*mouths* WRONG
>>20820070
the implications are laid out in the 1st general.

1. All is Number
2. One is the only number which is an actual entity (in the classical sense)
3. One and zero are the only numbers needed to describe the code of reality
4. This code of reality can be used to make the program behind a strong AI

>>20820148
because of what you said

>>20820088
>there is not nearly as much to discuss about Schopenhauer as there is about Nietzche.
the only thing Nietzsche gets debated about are his various critiques, his actual philosophy is rarely brought up and usually raped in one way or another

so I see plenty of things to debate about when it comes to Schopenhauer. his critiques, of Hegel, idealism, his general pessimism, cold and realistic outlook on life

>>20820122
plato and other greeks already came up with that like 2400 years ago

>>20820008
why are you trying to get dating advice from /lit/ of all fucking places kid... talk to your dad maybe?

>>20820000
literally touch grass

nice quads tho

>>20819992
/pol/ is pathetic and /lit/ being illiterate is pathetic, too

it's still the best board on here, tho. maybe /g/ too. but that's not saying much

>>20819977
t. seething russubhuman