/lit/ - Literature

>>21679283
>rhetoric
you are the first to bring up rhetoric in this thread as far as I see. People were discussing the legitimate use of philosophy and theology in evangelization, which is a complete distraction imo, because there cannot be any faith without doctrine and doctrine has to be taught. While some truths are available to the mere use of reason, others are only accessible through accepting the revelation. But both can and should be taught.
Rethorical games are a completely different topic.

>>21680599
wrong anon adressed by >>21680599
>>21679426 anon, this >>21680599 is for you.

New ‘toss

Looking for more of a narrative to follow than a biographical account :-)

>>19439500
Thank you this is what I was looking for. Just want to understand more so I can better understand metaphysics.

>>19439461
How do I even start approaching philosophy, like a reading order for the Greeks, etc

>>19439450
You suck

How do I start with the Greeks. Reading guide Pl0x.

Hi Guys, looking for a book that talks about Noam Chomsky's Formal Language Theory, could you recommend one of his books or maybe a book that talks about all of these grammars/ algorithms. Thanks

>>15169263
Fire=clear sighted living, painful life
Meteor showers=astronomical fortune telling connotation
rain=pleasure
clouds=blindness induced by pleasure
current=time, movement through life
scale=choice between pain and pleasure
Pain and pleasure must constantly be swaying. It's the way things must be. Balance would entail the end of the song, the final flourish, the crescendo of life.

>>15168855
When you write something scant and very minimal you are trying for maximal effect, a compactness of meaning and you need tremendous impact in order to make a 3 liner work.

>>15168847
The first paragraph is huuuugely improved. So much more smooth of an intro. Good job.

>>15168772
Big thumbs up. Self conscious in the most healthy sense, effortless, shows the targets you're trying for and hitting them accurately. "Unc's shit himself again," made me laugh my fucking ass off good job you beautiful motherfucker keep it up

>>15168711
Big thumbs down waaaaay too dark.
If you want to have some really dark thing you either depict it straight up with a harrowing frankness or you make it beautiful. The horror and darkness is all about tension whereas humor is all about release. The humor sabatoges the tension, the tension sabatoges the humor. Doesn't work.

>>15168133
Very fucked up and disturbing while also managing to be domestic and mundane. I don't think it's necessarily a good thing, but definitely hard to achieve.
At the end of paragraph 1 you switch to second person which seems like its on purpose I guess but I am unaware of what your purposes are. You don't want to insert me into the story, you want to insert me into the character. Also "denoting an entertainment service" just seems too autistic. We all know what it is, what that means, what it looks like. Making something that is so obvious and so normal in our lives seem like alien object being looked at under a microscope doesn't contribute to the unsettling tone, it's like driving a car with square wheels. It's bumpy and unwieldy, and fake profound.

>>15168034
Very british and therefore very gay. I like the singsong rhythm, the tireless energy. The thing is definitely breathing, but this abundance of energy can be hard to sustain in the long term. Think about some dramatic detours you can take, some shift in tone, to give the thing a life. Very good overall I really like it. But I am not proud of liking it.

>>11806838
married people and bachelors both exist. They are simply classifications of people, not something exclusive from a human being.

I don't think you understand what I mean by proving a negative. First the claim has to made that something exists, but instead of proving it, you ask skeptics to prove the negative of it. That is illogical and nonsense.

>>11806821
I did not make the claim god doesn't exist, the claim was made by OP that god does exist in the first post. Nice try turning the tables but that was pretty weak.

>>11806807
Depends on what degree of science, I guess, but I'll grant you that science isn't necessary to prove EVERYTHING.

Like I can look at my keyboard and tell that it's real. A peer can look at my keyboard and confirm it is, in fact, real. No science needed - just eyes and hands.

The point is, if I see a leprechaun on my keyboard, I cant just say it exists and expect my peer to accept my delusion. I sure as hell can't say "Prove that the leprechaun DOESN'T exist!" as a valid argument for my delusions.

>>11806801
that's silly and you know it.

>>11806678
I suppose so, but even David Lynch has metaphors to be analyzed. Wind-Up Bird was just side stories and events without much meaning, without even a shred of symbolism as far as I can tell (even after looking for explanations online).

>>11806741
I don't know all things, true. But I cannot be called upon to prove a negative (i.e. Prove that God DOESNT exist) because that argument a pit of nonsense where anything I conjure up in my mind is true because it can't be unproven. Proving negatives is not logical. If you make a claim that something exists, you have make evidence for it, not turn the burden onto the skeptics.

>>11806696
>reliance on evidence is a major weakness

Science and mathematics only work as evidence because they coincide with logic and truth. Give your head a shake.

>>11806689
Yes, yes I can know that kind of thing. The same way I can know there is no boogyman in my closet, or that dragons don't exist.