/lit/ - Literature

>>21305143
Based...

Schopenhauer considered that the the virtue of art was that it allows the astute observer for a moment to transcend the will and focus on pure representation.

However I find it strange that he considered the female body to be unaesthetic. Is the female body not the ultimate object of desire for a man? Therefore the physical body is the purest representation of the will. According to his hierarchy it should place the female body as the singular important piece of art, perfectly crafted not by man but by nature.

This machine filters the midwits

>>17508066
>If somebody was a dirtbag in his youth, comitted pety crimes, was the bully in school etc does this mean he will forever be a dirtbag in his life
yes
and its easy to know when a person is good or evil
when someone is "evil" he/she will always make troubles with someone else, be a bad employee etc
I know persons with 70+ years that didn't change a bit from its youth
others just pretend to change and make evil things by more subtle ways
a person "spirit" doesn't change, good and bad people are born that way

What is some Schopenhauerian literature? And don't fucking say Ligotti.

>>17315076
Schopenhauer

>>17135000
>You can read a Sanderson novel or whatever, and a movie will play in your head, but it’s still your movie.
>tfw I have a aphantasia so I never had this happen

>>16783638
Oh poor child, regret is here to stay.

>>16637565
desire for Pringles

I am halfway through the first book of the first volume. When does it get good? He just keeps talking about the most boring abstract bullshit. I mean who gives a fuck? I don't care how angles in a triangle are constituted or how much wordspheres overlap. Where are the good bits and can I just sip to them?

>Nick Land
>Unabomber
>Moldbug
>Spengler
>Kant's moral philosophy
>Sam Harris/Jordan Peterson
>Someone complaining that Hegel is hard to understand
>/pol/bait
>Incel thread
This place never changes. You are all hopeless.

>>16144829
>happy
He took the Buddha pill

>>16062221
>If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood

>Marrying means to halve one's rights and double one's duties

>Marrying means, to grasp blindfolded into a sack hoping to find out an eel out of an assembly of snakes.

>Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing

>Life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom.

>Again, you may look upon life as an unprofitable episode, disturbing the blessed calm of non-existence. And, in any case, even though things have gone with you tolerably well, the longer you live the more clearly you will feel that, on the whole, life is a disappointment, nay, a cheat.

>They tell us that suicide is the greatest act of cowardice... that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person

Yes, it's pretty clear that Schopenhauer was an optimist

Just got done listening to the masterpiece that is William Shatners Tekwar. Started a Star trek novel afterwords, but find it hard to give a fuck about this new alien character they introduced.
LOTR and the Hobbit are some of the best audiobooks made, narrated by Robert Inglis.
Does anyone have any decent suggestions for audiobooks to listen to while I'm at work?

The books themselves should be good (or at least entertaining), but the narration is as important I think.

>Work, worry, toil, and trouble are certainly the lot of almost all throughout their lives. But if all desires were fulfilled as soon as they arose, how then would people occupy their lives and spend their time? Suppose the human race were removed to Utopia where everything grew automatically and pigeons flew about ready-roasted; where everyone at once found his sweetheart and had no difficulty in keeping her; then people would die of boredom or hang themselves; or else they would fight, throttle, and murder one another and so cause themselves more suffering than is now laid upon them by nature. Thus for such a race, no other scene, no other existence, is suitable.

post books which refute this statement

>>15471320
based and schopilled

>>15470359
Rationality leads to pessimism and suicide.

AHHHHHHH I NEEED MORE PRINGLES

>>15333671
HAHAHAHAHA cute post.
oh my sweet summer child, this hunger for pringles is endless and there is no escape except death.

Is he correct?

Are we really just stuck in a state of non-stop suffering until we finally reach our pointless death?

If so how does one cope with this knowledge

There is no refuting antinatalism. Here's a short summary:
>"HAHA THEN KILL YOURSEL-"
If you weren't born you wouldn't have to drive a knife onto your own throat just to escape this life, you wouldn't have to risk offending some deity that will throw you into hell if it exists for doing so, and you wouldn't need to hear clowns with no empathy telling you to kill yourself as if this somehow is mean to show how life is worth living, or how this makes for a good word to have children in. None of this refutes anti-natalism, and perhaps just strengthens it. Watch the absolute amount of scurrying, ad hominem and goal post moving to deflect this.
>Well but some people are happy.
Yes, some people live average lives. Perhaps a lot of people, even those who suffer, manage to gather enough coping mechanisms to balance it out before a reasonably merciful death (AKA dying swiftly, usually around your 50s to 60s).
But since you were put into this world without anyone asking you, and you don't know if you'll be one of those, making this bet with some other person without having a very good justification is immoral.
>Well I have a very good reason to have children.
Saving your marriage is not a good reason. Needing hands to work on your farm is not a good reason. None of these things should fall on the shoulders of your progeny. Wanting to perpetuate your family or your ego by keeping your last name alive is also not their responsibility. They might want to bear all of these things, but the fact is they are not mandated to bear them. You are making these choices for them. You know how much people rage about circumcision because it happens before the child can consent to it? That is nothing close to the amount of suffering a person goes through in a lifetime, yet this doesn't stop people from birthing others, even when they are wholly unprepared to raise a child.

I don't really need to look at the replies to this post to know the kind of dishonest shit that will ensue because I've seen this a million times. Just have your fucking kids, hope you pass away peacefully and etc like everyone else and try to rationalize your egoist needs to put more people in this planet despite being part of the only species smart enough to choose not to do so.

>>15217605
Incredibly based. Can we put this as the /lit/ banner?