/lit/ - Literature

>>23010853
>kys wholesomefag go watch my little pony or stay on /a/

>>22296612
THAT WASN'T REAL SOCIALISM REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>!

>>21781974
>You know there's a general right, you genrefags can't be this fucking retarded to not know how to use the search feature of 4chan.

>>21533479
>Science is the method where we achieve the One through physicality.

>>21386245
>scientists said it so it’s real and determines my basic beliefs about reality

>talking snakes don’t exist ok?
>but tiny bugs you can’t see will kill you if you don’t wash your hands with soap and water

>>21355844
>>21355863
>

>>21350853
>magic fake even doe in the law of God, it is plainely prohibited. But certaine it is, that the Law of God speakes nothing in vaine, nether doth it lay curses, or injoyne punishmentes vpon shaddowes, condemning that to be il, which is not in essence or being as we call it. Secondlie it is plaine, where wicked Pharaohs wise-men imitated ane number of Moses miracles, to harden the tyrants heart there by. Thirdly, said not Samuell to Saull, that disobedience is as the sinne of Witch-craft? To compare to a thing that were not, it were too too absurd. Fourthlie, was not Simon Magus, a man of that craft? And fiftlie, what was she that had the spirit of Python? beside innumerable other places that were irkesom to recite.

>>20265657
inb4 "I know what it means. I asked you to define it."

>Gene Wolfe sucks

Nyanaponika asserted that in the light of Bare Attention, the seemingly uniform act of perception will, with increasing clarity, appear as a sequence of numerous and differentiated single phases, following each other in quick succession. This basic observation, he continued, will prove to be a truly scientific observation. But how do we know that everyday active perception is really made up of a sequence of single phases as opposed to being a continuous flow that gets turned into a sequence of short-lived phases as a result of practicing bare attention while sitting still or deliberately walking very slowly (as one does in the practice of modern Theravada insight meditation)? Does bare attention reveal the antecedent truth of no-self? Or does it change experience, so that experience comes to conform to the no-self norm ... Is bare attention more like a light that reveals things or a mold that shapes them?

My point isn't that Buddhists can't come up with answers to these questions. Rather, it's that simply appealing to the experience of bare attention won't answer them. The answers must come from the Buddhist mind-doctrine, that is, from Buddhist philosophy, which is not just descriptive but also inherently normative (it makes value judgments) and soteriological (it is concerned with salvation and liberation). In other words, it's not the case that the experience of bare attention independently establishes the descriptive truth of the Buddhist mind-doctrine; rather, the Buddhist mind-doctrine is needed to give meaning to the experience of bare attention. Buddhist meditation and Buddhist doctrines go together and mutually reinforce each other. Furthermore, Buddhism contains many different theories of the mind, conceptions of liberation or salvation, and meditation practices. So, there is no one Buddhist answer to these questions.

>>18914735
>the science of X

>>18532692
>>18532728
>>18532719

which ones to understand this subject ?

>>18336338
>magic
You are the idiot. Guenon always said that magic is the most inferior of the sacred sciences.
Chemistry is a degeneration(materialization) of Alchemy, and astronomy is a degeneration(materilaization) of astrology.

>>18223163
Ok, how does science tell you the meaning of life?
If you say life is meaningless, prove it. You know how.

>>18106514

>I need people to tell me literature isn't just escapism because I can't tell the difference between Jane Austin and Danielle Steele
>Video games are a waste of time because every waking moment can be spent woodworking while listening to Death Grips
>I think "all reading is just entertainment so it doesn't matter" is an interesting point (because taxing your brain reading Heidegger is on the same level as reading a BuzzFeed article about which Disney Prince you match up with most)

In all seriousness though, I'll give you a tip. Usually when someone is condescending towards something--it's because they suck at it. Take sports. A lot of nerds will act like they're meaningless and a waste of time...but that's really because they've never been good at one and hide behind intellectual pride. Lame platitudes go well with poor attitudes.

And I never said you were trolling...you're just an idiot.

>>18084706
this goes to /basedence/

>>17744593
>Meaningless shit, Barnum effect at best.

>>17743922
>weak reproducibility

>>17744404
>This is literally just astrology

>>17744697
>Read a book on modern astrology. It's not related, but it'll give you enough brain damage to understand MBTI

>>17485844
you faggot, issue is economical

>>17435874
This article has nothing to do with literature. The author wrote this article to bolster his cred as a 'progressive' fuck yeah science! ally.

>To bring philosophy closer to the form of science, to the goal where it can lay aside the title 'love of knowing' and be actual knowing

>>17192816
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST USE MY WORDS NOOOO YOU MUST RESPECT MUH SCIENCERINO YOU FUCKING CHUD!!!!!!!!