/lit/ - Literature

>>3271485
>another annoying american in israel
>me
>annoying
Whenever I visit another place, I'm a very introverted person. I guess I shouldn't have used the phrase "old school," that was stupid; but, you get my point. Seriously though, I'm thinking taking a year off of school and studying at a good yeshiva. I always wanted the opportunity to sit down and learn in a more religious sitting on a more consistent and frequent basis.

Torah. It has a lot of disease in it last time I checked.

In all seriousness, I would check out some Middle Age stuff with the plague. Possibly Catholic religious literature? Some of the stuff written by priests that survived the plague is brutally depressing.

>Biology
Oh, I guess you wouldn't want these suggestions then.

>>3271458
I sometimes have brain farts, I'm sorry. :(

>>3271468
Oh, I guess I don't need a fraternity then, since I have connections to the Illuminati and all.

THE SONG of songs, which is Solomon's.

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth--for thy love is better than wine.

Thine ointments have a goodly fragrance; thy name is as ointment poured forth; therefore do the maidens love thee.

Draw me, we will run after thee; the king hath brought me into his chambers; we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will find thy love more fragrant than wine! sincerely do they love thee.

'I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

Look not upon me, that I am swarthy, that the sun hath tanned me; my mother's sons were incensed against me, they made me keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.'

Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon; for why should I be as one that veileth herself beside the flocks of thy companions?

If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock and feed thy kids, beside the shepherds' tents.
I have compared thee, O my love, to a steed in Pharaoh's chariots.

Thy cheeks are comely with circlets, thy neck with beads.

We will make thee circlets of gold with studs of silver.

While the king sat at his table, my spikenard sent forth its fragrance.

My beloved is unto me as a bag of myrrh, that lieth betwixt my breasts.

My beloved is unto me as a cluster of henna in the vineyards of En-gedi.

Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thine eyes are as doves.

Behold, thou art fair, my beloved, yea, pleasant; also our couch is leafy.

The beams of our houses are cedars, and our panels are cypresses.

>>3268956
It's surprisingly okay for economics.

I never needed to join a fraternity for a few reasons, but my primary one is that I just had too much crap to do. I never had free time because I was either working, studying, reading, or just writing. That doesn't mean that I didn't have free time, but why would I pump my money into that crap? I'd be better off flying to Israel and study at a Yeshiva down in Old School Yerushalayim. Those places have tuition fees, but they are hardly accountable. It's just a number on paper for them and they are often bankrupt a billion times over but still manage to run.

>>3271422
Do it in Middle English at least. I mean, speaking in Shakespearian English (I mean the language that Shakespeare used in his plays that he knew was archaic for his time period) is nice, but it isn't hard if you just learn a few some vocabulary and the older definitions.

>>3271345
>Egypt
Don't do that, the stormfront people will come and... it's already too late.

>>3271148
Not a single economic, peer-reviewed essay has concluded that copyright is economically beneficial and there are plenty of essays and books by economists that actually say the opposite.

Copyright is complete bullshit (unless in contractual form as Rothbard states, but that is inherently worthless as pointed out by Stephan Kinsella.

Do it in Old English and I'll call you a wizard.

I guess I possibly could, but unlike you I would like to think a bit before I type. I wouldn't want to just make a blatantly poor thread on /lit/ or anything. :)

No they don't. They know what they're getting paid to do, to be advertisements. None of them think they have a single shred of writer's ability.

>>3265208
He's a bit of a social drone. Imagine your generic /g/ stem student, but in philosophy. Crazy, right? Anyways, I'm going to sleep. It's pretty late for me.

>>3265148
>It only makes his philosophical and theological arguments based around evolutionary biology, memetics, or ethology substantiated. that's nothing to do with tautology.
Which means he can only make arguments based on what he knows; which, to be honest, isn't very lot outside his own discipline. That won't cut it for serious philosophical discussion. Philosophy is more than just memetics, it's logic, it's metaphysics, it's a whole load of concepts that you have to properly understand (along with the history behind it) in order to be taken seriously in academic circles. Almost any academic philosopher who has read "The God Delusion," thinks it is a layman's book. I've had one friend (getting his doctorate in philosophy) describe the book as "a book filled with incorrect syllogisms and belittering insults."

>>3265096
How is it circular? You have a guy arguing very superficial arguments that are literally things that undergraduate philosophers yell over, you don't see Dawkins appear in any academic philosophical or theological literature at all and those prove that he's not really in the discussion. It's like having Bill O'Reily and Michael Moore argue over economics. Just because they cause a media shit storm doesn't make them academic economists.

>>3265028
I've watched like one video of his, but I mostly see his name pop up in papers more often (I read some academic papers on philosophy and it's interesting stuff to say the least).

>>3264999
He might be, but he's an academic philosopher who has been published and part of the discussion for some time now. It's kind of his right to act douche-baggy when someone from another discipline is given authority in another discipline after he writes just one book (of which hasn't been received too well by philosophers in general).

>>3264946
The argument is that he isn't an authority within the discipline because he doesn't attempt to engage with it. It's clear he hasn't read much on the subject and it's clear that he certainly isn't publishing papers or having discourse with other academic philosophers. He's probably a great evolutionary biologist, that much is true; but, he isn't credible at all as a philosopher.

>>3264905
It's basically common knowledge. Go to any philosophy or theology department and ask the professors, "Is Richard Dawkins involved in philosophical or theological discussion?" They will certainly say no; not because he's an atheist, but because he's an evolutionary biologist that doesn't have a shred of qualification. So what if he wrote a book that pissed off some fundamental Christians? That doesn't mean he's suddenly an expert on philosophy. It's like saying Glenn Beck is an academic economist because he writes a book on gold or that George Bush is a political scientist because he talks about democracy on live TV.

People like William Lane Craig and Paul Copan have both blatantly pointed out that Dawkins is a novice philosopher that hasn't even begun to dive into academic philosophy. They're both Christians, you might say? Even Atheist philosophers think he shouldn't be taken seriously for philosophical discussion. Michael Ruse, an atheist philosopher of science at FIU has said, "“Richard Dawkins makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.”

Again, it's common knowledge from theists and atheists in the discipline of philosophy that Dawkins is not an authority at all.

>Blood type determines how you're supposed to eat
Your blood type doesn't automatically change how your body processes certain foods. That is retarded and I can almost guarantee that it has zero credibility in academic/medical circles.

>>3264877
He doesn't understand the discussion, he doesn't attempt to participate in the discussion seriously because he doesn't attempt to even understand what is being discussed, and those facts disqualify him from being an authority on the subject. When someone wishes to be taken seriously in any topic, they must know what is being discussed, what has been laid out, and not try to argue like babby's first attempt at philosophy. Again, just look at the sage post I linked you to.

>>3264756
Ad hominem? When did I? Did you mean argument from authority? Also, what about what I've said is true? Show me academic philosophy literature that engages with Dawkins at all.

See:
>>3264132