/lit/ - Literature

>>13604085
I started doing this and have gotten like 10-fold more attention from girls, but now most of the girls I attract are into ddlg shit and have daddy issues and it skeeves me out. A lot of them are insanely cute but I feel super fucked up when they call me daddy, use baby talk during sex, etc. I'm being completely serious. I don't know if it's even worth it.

>>13510521
Go to /r9k/.
They can (not) help you. We discuss literature here. No place for this

>Does X exist?
>Never define what X is
>Contradictory opinions follow accompanied by arguments against strawmans which no one holds

>I'm non-ideological

>>12780592
>chapo
just radical liberals at this point. fuck off

>order "Used - Good" copy of The Wizard Knight
>actually just barely "Used - Acceptable"

>peoples problems

>>11756487
I would argue that this is the perverse underbelly of Law. Law bears with it the super-ego imperative that is the opposite of the law; the urge and temptation against the Big Other of Law. We read "Thou shall not kill" and the superego sees "Thou shall not... Kill!".
The tension of Law with its own opposite that is inherent within it and sustains it leads to this perverse fascination with the violation of Law.
This spawns the popularity of the gangster/criminal genres. But is there also not the sense of upholding the law as in itself subversive? That the orthodoxy of Law is the great revolution? We see this too represented in the plethora of the procedural, with policemen as intrepid and dubious protectors of the Law.
This is absent in beliefs that dissolve the tension of the Law through its replacement. An example being truly devout Pauline Christianity, wherein Law is dissolved through Love.

>>11725214
>rational life

MEIN GOTT!!!!

>>11625830
>all these fucking STEMFAGS on my BOARD telling people that psychology has "progressed" beyond psychoanalysis
mein gott eading from ze drashgan

>>11362598
>annoying prose
my mind automatically corrected that to "annoying noise", which is what it is
keep this disgusting roastie "writing" out of my /lit/ please

>>11321430
>people masturbate using other people while believing themselves to be having passionate and loving sex
M E I N G O T T !!

>had had

>So I was surprised to learn that Peterson is challenging me to a debate, in response to a tweet operating under my name. If he really wants to, I am ready to do it during my next visit to New York next October.
Lmao it's actually happening

the amount of ideolojee that is about to go down

>>10642232
Reposting from the other thread that died earlier today:

Btw some interesting stuff Zizek has to say about commodity fetishism in The Sublime Object of Ideology:

>fetishistic misrecognition
"Being-a-king is an effect of the network of social relations between a "king" and his "subjects"; but--and here is the fetishistic misrecognition--to the participants of this social bond, the relationship appears necessarily in an inverse form; they think they are subjects giving the king royal treatment because the king is already in himself, outside the relationship to his subjects, a king; as if the determination of being-a-king were a "natural" property of the person of a king."
"How can one not remind oneself here of the famous Lacanian affirmation that a madman who believes himself to be king is no more mad than a king who believes himself to be king--who, that is, identifies immediately with the mandate "king""

Essentially, under capitalism, for Zizek, the relationship between commodities parallels that of the feudal relationship between king and subject or lord and serf, in that, we misrecognise the value of a commodity, which emerges as the result of a social relation with other commodities, as a part of the commodity itself.

"The real problem is not to penetrate to the "hidden kernel" of the commodity--the determination of its value by the quantity of the work consumed in its production--but to explain why work assumed the form of the value of a commodity, why it can affirm its social character only in the commodity form of its product."

So, essentially, acc. Zizek, Marx is saying in this section that commodity fetishism entails that the relations of domination which were clearly understood in feudal societies, have been repressed by being displaced onto commodities under capitalism.

Any thoughts on this from anyone? Does this interpretation have a basis in what Marx is saying?

>author writes

>>10639170
Btw some interesting stuff Zizek has to say about commodity fetishism in The Sublime Object of Ideology:

>fetishistic misrecognition
"Being-a-king is an effect of the network of social relations between a "king" and his "subjects"; but--and here is the fetishistic misrecognition--to the participants of this social bond, the relationship appears necessarily in an inverse form; they think they are subjects giving the king royal treatment because the king is already in himself, outside the relationship to his subjects, a king; as if the determination of being-a-king were a "natural" property of the person of a king."
"How can one not remind oneself here of the famous Lacanian affirmation that a madman who believes himself to be king is no more mad than a king who believes himself to be king--who, that is, identifies immediately with the mandate "king""

Essentially, under capitalism, for Zizek, the relationship between commodities parallels that of the feudal relationship between king and subject or lord and serf, in that, we misrecognise the value of a commodity, which emerges as the result of a social relation with other commodities, as a part of the commodity itself.

"The real problem is not to penetrate to the "hidden kernel" of the commodity--the determination of its value by the quantity of the work consumed in its production--but to explain why work assumed the form of the value of a commodity, why it can affirm its social character only in the commodity form of its product."

So, essentially, acc. Zizek, Marx is saying in this section that commodity fetishism entails that the relations of domination which were clearly understood in feudal societies, have been repressed by being displaced onto commodities under capitalism.

Any thoughts on this from anyone? Does this interpretation have a basis in what Marx is saying?

>And so on

What if all of philosophy has been solved and all contemporary philosophers are just snake oil salesmen beating a dead horse?

Any book for this feel?

Why does Peterson stay with Christianity when alchemy is the continuation and more complete myth of Christianity which is more true to psychology like Jung showed?

I don't watch Peterson.

>Optimistic Nihilist
>Swing dancing

https://www.instagram.com/collin_andrew_yost/?hl=en