/lit/ - Literature

>>17810763
cope

>>17810563
no he was lying.

>>17810743
4chan has way more soul than reddit are you fucking retarded?

>>17810747
let me know whos sad and insecure in a little bit when reality strikes and your gf gets long-dicked by an actual male while you write shitty stories that she thinks you're gay for writing, and say things like "I want to be held."
I'm srs too lmao. The only men who say shit like "insekurrreeeee" when another man tries to tell them about how woman are, and how they should respond; are boys who ain't been through it yet.
You threw away a fuckin' diamond on this one champ, trust me. RIP

>>17810639
>if solipsism is unfalsifiable, what makes it a ridiculous belief?
This made me laugh audibly
anon, you should read Karl Popper. You will find out why.

>>17808790
>>17808627
this straight up isn't true. There are entire sub-fields within analytic philosophy dedicated to this one problem. Now, if what this anon meant to say is that there are no real philosophers who claim to be solipsists, then yeah I agree there pretty much aren't but there are LARPers who claim that they are and then prove within their own philosophy that they actually aren't but they don't ever admit it.
Solipsists for the most part don't become philosophers or write any books because its an absolutely retarded thing to believe, and if one believes it in a way thats not retarded, then they are basically agnostic, their answer every time that question comes up is a humble shrug. shrugs don't make for interesting books

>>17810685
i take it back you are an artist. bravo

>>17810662
faculties were also just made up things that he claimed to realize were made up and that he was just using as an exemplar, but they became real convenient didn't they? Kant even started explaining the way that faculties worked by way of....but of course! *other* faculties!
It's literally all made up bullshit.

>>17810662
Okay, will do: he was a dumb faggot that didn't know what he was talking about
Also the anon you responded to is retarded, Kant's deontological ethics are probably what he was the MOST wrong about

>>17810661
no, that's not the problem; its that Aristotle's strong suits don't actually solve any problems regarding human behavior and irrationality, they simply view it as anomalous or something to be remedied and assimilated to a "reasonable" system, which is actually something Foucault pointed out among many others.
Aristotle was a master of applied reason and practically invented the sciences. But none of that addresses human irrationality or its consequences other than to say "we should get rid of it," or "we should be lasseiz-faire and let entropy destroy the world."

>>17810649
yeah well I mean look man I'll honestly try to tone down the snark, but I would argue that that's because your conception of "decline" is way too narrow. Rome *survived* under Christianity for more than a century, but "flourished" is hardly a matter of fact and a lot of people would disagree, justifiably, too. The Roman aristocratic values are what drove the civilization through most of its ascendancy and peak, and this is actually also true for Greece, they were the same basic value set, Hellenism. The values in Christianity were completely the inverse of Hellenism, particularly with respect to the idea of "excellence," which was at the core of Hellenist virtue.
Rome may have flourished as a Christian Rome, but to a lot of people, a Christianized Rome in a state of flourish looks a lot like hell beginning to be unleashed. It depends upon your historical sense and understanding of the factors involved.
Surely what I am arguing is not the sole or ultimate explanation as nothing ever really is, but there is a lot of weight to the notion that Christian values caused the decline of Rome, through the decline of Roman values; and that the same issues inherent in this value system are what initiated and exacerbated the Dark Ages, which are not called "Dark" because they were bad, but because they were an age of relative ignorance compared to the Hellenistic period for Europe.

>>17810645
at least he read the kid's work and tried to help hi out. we're on a literature forum. you could visit one of the daily circlejerk threads on Kant instead? im sure youve got weally important things to say.

>>17810628
>I hope the people on this board take a serious look at themselves and what they believe, and begin to consider if what they believe has any effect on anyone's lives whatsoever, and if not
is there a point to believing it in the first place.

>spends entire thread negging the idea of philosophy
>tells people to think about their beliefs
kill yourself

>>17804201
>It just feels like he's pulling shit and assumptions out of his ass.
you are already basically an expert in philosophy compared to most people who have been doing it professionally for years based on this one observation right here OP
>>17810453
the level of retardation here astounds me endlessly but then I remember that these are probably 15 year old kids and I'm actually the fucking loser for fucking around on /lit/ at my age in the first place

>>17804201
its literally just babble Kant is a fucking little girl. Read secondary literature or even cliffnotes desu and don't waste your time.

>>17810626
he's literally agreeing with your sentiment you fucking asperger clown

>>17810611
yes yes I've heard the debate many times before, and its not even close to the grand finale that you faggots think that it is. There are, as a matter of fact, a virtual kaleidoscope of new and arguably worse (not worth it) problems which have developed as a result of our world going down Artistotle's path. This is obviously true, but is easier to drown out if you simply choose to treat everyone who recognizes it as a whiny fuck or "stupider than me." Its also easy to do if you're such a fucking simp for intellectual abstraction that you miss the entire point of intellectual endeavor to begin with and think that every problem we have is worth it because reasoning is so elegant and pretty.
That sentiment is pretty much everything I hate about you faggots honestly. Plato had a method behind his madness, and it wasn't nearly as unreasonable as Aristotle cucks like to believe, they just do not understand it because they are essentially alien to human life, robots who cant function around the rest of humanity. Plato, ironically, would have found an economized use for their nature ;)
And I'm not even a Platophile, but I'm so sick of hearing this retarded reductive analysis.

>>17810589
dude go read this one guy who claims no can refute his theory, no one in philosophy has ever claimed this before

>>17810581
omg you're the fucking Gödel fag.
I've seen enough here boys, burn it down.

>>17810581
>I'm following you
>you weally need to study logic
been there and done it, all that engaging in that debate proves about me is that I'm petty and enjoying wasting time fucking around with low-hanging fruit because my life's meaningless
but it does not prove what you're implying, cutie pie, you know not who you speak to

>>17810572
a lot of continentals *don't* look for truth, not in the sense that you take the word to mean. But you do not understand that side of life because you are a faggot.

I not only read but directly responded to your faggot little link that's just a rehash of ideas that have been around for a looooong fucking time buck-o. Its not as profound as you think it is

>>17810574
the dark ages didn't happen because they embraced Platonism. This is probably the most retarded shit I've ever heard desu, but shockingly its not even close to the first time I've heard it. This is actually a pretty standard take among "important" people.
Are you Vox Day? Can I have your autograph faggot?

>>17810562
you're legit baked potato level retarded

>>17810230
I read through it OP. It is a very typical amateur attempt for a writer: but, note that I said "for a writer."
This is not the best thing I've ever read, but your sentence structure is exactly the way it needs to be, and your sentences flow in exactly the way that they need to, for you to build upon that foundation and become a good writer. You have the seeds. All that you need is better diction, and a more relaxed style; but both of these things come with exposure to more writing. In other words, if you continue to READ, you will become a pretty decent writer, at the very very least.
I say this because writing is somewhat of an inborn skill, not everyone will make use of it, but you have to have the seeds or you're basically fucked. Some people still write out sentences like they are in third grade even when they are professional adults.
You don't do that in your writing and that means that you have an intuitive grasp of how it works. Just keep reading more, and more complicated, books to naturally improve your vocabulary and loosen up that style (your prose reads a little rigidly), and you'll be good.
Most importantly don't get discouraged, and man up a bit, I wasn't just trying to fuck with you with what I said with that gf shit, I know it seems mean but I was trying to help, that's real advice. Best of luck

>>17810540
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/
>all language is truisms
yeah this is the closest that the analytics ever got to understanding the continental frame of mind and the only reason Wittgenstein has any of my respect. The irony therein being that Wittgenstein disavowed most of his work by the end and said that his contemporaries were a bunch of faggots who didn't know what they were talking about.