/lit/ - Literature

>>15439023
If you consider for a moment that we live in 3 dimensional space,
that being three perpendicular lines possible... than what about
4 dimensional space? (Which can be simulated by a computer,
not only in this fancy gif, but in VR space as well, where playing
with these seemingly 3d objects causes "slippings" of their volume,
due to that fourth 'elusion') If you consider this to be true, than how
can you ever prove, say, hypothetically, a 'conscious' and 'able'
being(s) don't exist in this space, potentially existing in a place where
our version of space isn't their paper, and our version of time isn't like an animated flipbook?

I don't think we should act as if we know what lies here, so the
way you feel towards life shouldn't change much. Just know that
anything is possible.

Nanotesseract.

As a more introverted creative person, I enjoy being alone. For the past 3 years I have slowly alienated myself from larger crowd of friends (while still keeping contact with the closest homies). Mainly because I was just chilling, smoking weed regularly, didn't wish to drink, trip or party anymore. Instead I was skipping highschool and researching things on different topics, art, politics, films, music, religion, philosophy etc. Now I feel like my confidence and motivation is coming back. I have started creating mind blowing visuals for my exhibition which will be held next year. 2019 is a great year for collecting the gathered information and ideas to bring them to life.

What are some books that talk about higher dimensional geometry? Like in depth mathematics surrounding multiple dimentions

It's good that women have finally obtained equality in the US, but feminism has become a plague on the humanities. Like the newbies to the intellectual realm they are, so many women want to decry so many things pre-feminist with ridiculous theories- e.g., "two-thousand-year-old-dead-white-le" used as academic terminology. As a young man approaching literature and philosophy, I don't want to blot out entire expanses of history or write off brilliant opportunities for understanding. In order to learn you have to relinquish arrogance and admit that there's something you don't know. Thanks to feminism, students of the humanities in American universities are expected to accept impetuous theories like social constructivism or performativity or the instability of text as dogma, instead of at least approaching theory as an open question.

TL;DR women are relative beginners to the intellectual scene, and like good beginners they ought to keep an open mind instead of agendized pursuit.

>>3392608

>ignore the linguistic turn and it will go away
>ignore the postivistic turn and it will go away

Look up the "problem of universals"/read Republic and Parmenides, look up realism and idealism, being, necessity, causation, time and space, identity, mind, determinism, and freedom.

Oh, and most of all, don't talk about it with literary critics or philosophasters. Learn to spot the lemons and avoid them.

Absurdism: "I saw everything and it's all so absurd!"
Nihilism: "I saw everything and it's fucking nothing"
Quietism: "I saw everything and there is nothing I can say about it"
Taoism: "I saw everything and I call it Tao"
Pessimism: “I saw everything and it sucks”
Optimism: “I saw everything and it rocks”

They all saw the same thing, but reacted differently because of the way they approached the thing when they began thinking about it:

Absurdism: had hopes for some sense in things
Nihilism: had hopes for wholeness and completeness
Quietism: had hopes to have something to say once they get there
Taoism: had no names for their hopes, so they had to come up with a name for what they found
Pessimism: had hopes for something that is not bad
Optimism: had hopes for something that is not good

To me, they are not conclusions, but reactions to the same thing. I find it cool that some of these philosophies acknowledged that there is no intrinsic value to the everything, for not having it is intrinsic to it.

>>2779166 cont.

>“Half victim, half accomplice, like everyone.”
>Sartre

tl;dr:
We have a choice because we can predict outcomes, we can determine things because we can predict choice, science has very little to do with this discussion, it's all about the way we relate to the future and to the past, determinism vs free will is like egg vs chicken.

I want to read a book by the end of October, so I need something short. Any recommendations for a short book to read? I've already read Anthem by Ayn Rand, but something about that length.