/lit/ - Literature

>>23455412
It's a negation, but not a positive denial. He aligns with buddhism in that desire is suffering, and his will-to-life is that which wants in all living things.

>>23455403
Because (unlike what the divisive elite want you to think) boys and girls are very much alike, hormones aside.
Girls have cool and edgy thoughts too

>>23455242
A short story module I took in uni had us read one short story each by Nirmal Verma, U. R. Ananthamurthy, and Perumal Murugan. No idea about Verma and Ananthamurthy, but I recall the lecturer tell us that Murugan caused quite the stir due to a novel that did something controversial with gods and the caste system, which is pretty based tbqf.

Women are the quintessential ephemeral beings, from epi - hemera, meaning "of a day," or "pertaining [only] to [a] day." Their only happiness is to live unthinkingly and well, they are so much the epitome of "live fast and die young" (i.e. without maturing or ever reaching a point of reflexivity and thus self-differentiation and taking the world seriously) that for women the ultimate existential question isn't "What is the meaning of life?" or "Why does something exist instead of nothing?" but "Why did the party stop? What is the point of living past 30? Why am I still here???" Their souls, or whatever it is that women have, literally cannot comprehend being Old as a Woman, the phrase Old Woman is a contradictio in adiecto to them, it's like saying "creature whose only telos and enjoyment is to eat food, who is barred from eating food." It's the female equivalent of a male contemplating the theoretical possibility of a Boltzmann brain whose only purpose is to suffer and scream in solipsistic despair, it's basically the pure abstract thought of hell.

This manifests at two different levels for female consciousness: first within the extremely thin, wispy, rare and occasional (and usually left totally to atrophy) abstract/conceptual thinking they are capable of, and second at the level of symbolic thinking.

At the conceptual level, it manifests as insubstantial henids forming and dissolving, as they try (with their defective, sub-conceptual minds) to "grasp" (begriffen) onto the Apollonian abstract universal (something women also can't understand, as their cognitive "center of gravity" is sensuous immediacy united with Ockham-like paradoxically unaccountable and infinitely contingent particulars that simply "are") that they are a creature of pure Life (which is dionysian fun, parties, penis) and yet they are not only Going to Die, but they are in a state of decay, which becomes a state of Death in Life (unable to party, unable to be the center of the party, unable to be "forever turning 16-21," unable to be forever "finding herself" because eventually she will be "found" and the finding will stop).

>>23455494
Philosophy is gay and meaningless

>>23455244
A boomer. Because you post here.

>>23455098
>>23454910
Your whole argument is a no true scotsman fallacy

>>23455411
>is is

>>23455507
fuck me, wrong book. girl on the fridge. An Exclusive. man my memory is shit

>>23455459
In my case, the prologue is a story experienced through a secondary character's POV before the actual protagonist appears, so as to frontload the reader with a sample of the context and themes that will appear.

>>23455382
Your post makes GenX seem based, and I can confirm that millennials are fucking twinks.

Revision of something I posted here before, critique welcome.

https://pastebin.com/83Gxs413

>>23455464
>read Tanith Lee
>checks out the authors Wikipedia page
>"Lee's writing frequently featured nonconformist interpretations of fairy tales, vampire stories, myths, and the fantasy genre;[24] as well as themes of feminism and sexuality.[1][30] She also wrote lesbian fiction under the pseudonym Esther Garber"
>"Themes of homophobia, racism, and sexism are seen in Lee's sequence The Blood Opera, and The Venus Cycle features themes of love, loss, and revenge".

Nice try anon. I read some samples from Death's Master and I'll admit the prose seems very poetical. But don't try and shill this woke stuff here.

>>23455409
You are brown. And the Scots-Irish aren’t actually Irish dipshit, it’s a misnomer.

>>23453695
Appreciated

>>23455405
>It cannot be refuted since it’s incontrovertibly and irrefutably true.
No is not, the mere presuposition of a god is not an irrefutable truth, is just dogma

>This is just a matter of simple logic, to deny this betrays a misunderstanding of basic logic
not only is not logical to presupose a god (petitio principii fallacy) but you end up in a contradiction, since anything you want to establish as prior to experience will be in the end articulated "in the experience" making again, experience, the ground of any metaphysical "truth"


>If there is a metaphysical source of all beings, then it automatically logically follows as a necessary consequence that this source is more primordial and fundamental than whatever phenomenology of experience those beings come up with, since that metaphysical truth ends up being both the source of those beings and their phenomenology of experience in such a scenario.
>if

>You can choose to believe your own speculative and nonsensical theory of how phenomenology or experience is more fundamental, but it’s engaging in the question-begging fallacy to say “Its true because Heiddeger says so and I will dismiss any contrary theory as unproven speculation until its proven otherwise even though my own position on this is also unproven speculation”.
I don't need any "Heideggerian dogma" to back up the assertion that any metaphysical claim made in the realm of human experience, has human experience as it basis, is basic logic, you on the other hand, can't defend the existence of anything beyond existence without resorting to mere especulation, that's why you always start your argument with "IF god exists", i don't need to do that, saying "IF this experience exist" is ridiculous and contradictory, since the fact that i'm having the experience is in itself the proof of its existence, i can't "experience non-existence"(how can i have the experience of something that doesn't exist/nothingness), or "non-experience existence" (how can i experience non-experience?)and i can't "experience something beyond experience" (if i'm having that experience then is not something "beyond" experience)either, all of those cases end up in clear contradictions,so i can say that experience is the basis of experience without falling into contradiction(i don't need Heidegger system for that) but each instance in which you want to go beyond that you end up in a logical error, so your only option is to just speculate that maybe "if" a god exist then metsphysics won't rely on experience as it basis, but at that point you're out of the debate, since no one need to entertain your unfounded speculations, saying that "if the spagetti monster exist all dogs bark for him" is just as insightful, Heidegger clearly didn't have time to waste in such trivial issues

>>23455356
You have to wait 10 minutes to delete.

>>23455443
His anti Semitic pamphlets are fucking hysterical, even the nazis were annoyed at how he wrote

>>23455068
I agree on all counts. I'm amazed by how good they are. It's been a long since I felt the same way.

Can someone please remind me where this is from? I thought it was from bus driver but I looked through the whole damn thing and couldn't find it. Gonna drive me up the wall.

That bastard Jean-Baptiste Sartre... in my anus is where you can find him! Asshole!

>>23455469
Because boomer vernacular is just “classic slang” for lack of a better term, whereas millennial vernacular has a very gay, effeminate, faggy feel to it. Boomer slang was just something they came up with as kids and it sounded fun, accessible, and casual so they kept using it as adults and now it’s just everywhere. Millennial speech sounds debilitated, like you put a mushy baby consciousness into the head of an adult. Even using swear words it sounds so babyish. Boomer-talk might be cringe because it’s behind the times and out of fashion, but millennial speech is just repulsively gay on a spiritual level

He's right. Nietzsche just hates everything but never presents a solution other than vague poetic musings. He's the quintessential 4channer.

>>23455490
>>23455495
They're really letting OP have it! . . . bastards . . . they won't shut up about it . . .