/lit/ - Literature

>>20273745
Even if I could murder or rape someone, I wouldn't do it, and not because of any empathy I have for other humans, but because it would be beneath me. The easiest actions are those that are natural and apparent to all, even animals and insects. That being said, one must not sanctify human beings; they are as worthless and repulsive as other animals, and the death of any single one demands no more consideration than what is given to the death of a pig.

>>19447266
good point

I really do not like the concept of union with god or ego death. I like individualized existence; I don't want to get absorbed into some all-compassing entity without any sense of what it is (or rather what it isn't), even if it would be a wholly positive experience and that being an individual is technically a limitation. Most religious/esoteric teachings treat union with God as the only endgame though. Why can't I, in an universe of infinite possibility, just have my comfy spot in heaven with all the things I like in the moment forever (or what feels like forever)? I guess I can't cope with the fact that my idea of my self is constantly changing and illusory. What I considered "me" a millisecond ago is dead, but it's ghost is still being dragged along time to possess new mes, perhaps mes wouldn't like, until it may forget the me it originally inhabited. But God forgets nothing; there would have to be a heavenly index of sort for every version of me in their own Planck unit thin slice of time. What would happen if you were to choose one and pop him out of this slice, if a thing was possible? Would he be like a static character in a novel that never grows or changes from how he is from the moment, with his likes and dislikes? I think if the most recent slice was popped out (me this very moment) and was catered to his every like and none of his dislikes, that would be ideal existence. I hate change.

>>16208308
Kantbot I'm not even hating, I'm truly genuinely impressed that you're able to reply multiple times to every tweet that might remotely be about you, even taking shots at tweets not at all about you, all the while bumping these threads. Tremendous energy.

>>15226839
Based and autism pilled.

>>14345763
>Der Walküre

is it that hard to just google it and avoid mistakes like that?

>>14268081
When it comes to Nietzsche and Deleuze you can add pretty much everything they've written to the list. For what it's worth, the quotes I encountered the most in Nietzsche scholarship on the topic of libido and drive (and eventually will to power and perspectivism) were from The Dawn, an often neglected text.

>>14267057
This is a bit misleading if you consider Nietzsche's entire oevre, including his more speculative usually unpublished moments. With Nietzsche and certainly Deleuze it's more of a combination between a "free" wobbly undulation that functions as a chaotic relation that nonetheless has its own logic and the fact that it is itself in some sense "determined" and perpetually differentiating and self-differentiating. Of course this must be understood as always a plurality of competing and connecting logics (relations) that make up the "chaosmos" rather than an isolated relation. So it cannot be called free will in a theological sense, but it isn't hard determinism or how fatalism is traditionally understood. Hence the term vitalism. Also, it's not that there's no responsability, it's just that it's more of a tool of building connections among things already given (the ability to promise, a self-consistency that tries to persist and get stronger by connecting many alternating selves even as it usually ends in failure due to the fragility of matter). In any case, Deleuze's emphasis on this oxymoronic concept of transcendental empiricism tries to get at a kind of opposite of what psychoanalysis is constantly accused of creating: an unconscious that dictates everything before it happens and an epiphenomenal consciousness that obeys unknowingly. The two must be somehow thought together rather, as with the strange continuity of the virtual-actual (virtual being the rich ideality of everpresent relations that make up the world, constantly seeking to actualize themselves, a reality richer than what is already actual and taken for granted in experience).

Even so, as Deleuze and many others often point out, most of what we call thought is rather automatic and repetitive, people in fact rarely think and it's usually due to some external constraint so moments where the movements of differenciation are quite rare so that they can feel meaningless, but in fact function like a weak muscle due to the rarity of their exercise. And if we think consciousness as one thing, one level, we can never understand thinking as anything other than a byproduct of either determinism or chaos on a more fundamental level (matter, unconscious) and therefore we're forced to concede not just that it isn't free (free will is what allows guilt for Nietzsche, it is what makes possible religious judgment), but also that it is entirely hopeless and powerless.

I was reading Tlon Uqbar Orbus Tertius. And then it occurred to me, why don’t you ever see a ‘tl’ phoneme?

Why would the ultimate creator of everything have a personality?