/lit/ - Literature

>>5304927

Is "IT" your cat? What happened to your cat? Why isn't your cat in this pic?

>>5262081

Were the apostles dog people or cat people?

We should start a literary movement called "cat-fishing" where we slowly trick unsuspecting victims into developing feelings for us in order to get info on and potentially physical contact with their cat/s. We can develop some kind of standardized series of messages that are sensitive to the type of person being cat-fished.

>>5207427

Alright, sweet. I put my email in the name field btw do you have any cats?

>>5207296

say that to my face not on the internet and see what happens to your cat irl.

>>5207297

Please tripfag as FemiMISTER

>>5207259

*grabs cat's throat*

BACK THE FUCK OFF, YOU KNOW!!!??!?!

>>5207232

Tell me more about your cat please. Do you ever let it outside without supervision?

>>5207169

lol I can be. Want to be friends?

robfromlit@gmail.com

>>5207135

It wasn't originally roadkill. I skinned it slowly to make sure it stayed alive as long as possible. Then I fucked it's bare guts and came on it's red muscly face right as it took it's last dying breath. Finally, I tossed the remains on the road. I've recounted this event to many people in my harassing emails but it mus have been twisted a bit. Gossip, you know?

>>5207114

CAT KILLER EVERYONE. PROOF IS HERE: >>5207080
>>5207111
>>5207116
>>5207125
>>5207129

>>5207104

The question was whether or not he's actually a lesbian, not bisexual. If he (pretending to be a she) says he has a bf, clearly he (pretending to be a she) wouldn't be a lesbian. Ever hear of reading comprehension? Forgot your trip, FemiMISTER

>>5207102

EVERYBODY, robfromlit@gmail.com KILLS CATS

>>5207077

Regardless, he's fucked up and has yet to prove he's a female. Until then, it's almost certain he's a man. Also, you forgot your trip, FemiMISTER.

>>5205718

Feminister=FemiMISTER!

Will the real Butterfart please stand up and tell us how you feel knowing that your online soulmate was catfishing you?

>>5206552

BIG FUCKING SURPRISE. I've constantly been referring to him as a him (given that there was literally no evidence of Feminister being a girl) and every time people are like "um Feminister is a girl. Fucking called it.

>>5180566

I think you lack an understanding of Continental philosophy as well as a lot of Analytic philosophy. Pretty much no one in Continental philosophy is arguing that the world is made of Forms and people in both traditions are working in ontology and metaphysics so I don't see how your complaint there is relevant. Also, phenomenology is something that is also relevant in both traditions. Analytic philosophers tend not to concern themselves exclusively with phenomenology but take pretty much anyone like Nagel and you have some pretty blatant appeals to phenomenology. So, I also don't really get your complaint here. There's good/useful ways to consider phenomenology and there are bad/useless ways to do so.

>>5178881

It's a pissing contest. There are obvious stylistic differences and emphasis on some different issues but nothing clear enough to make a meaningful distinction.

>>5178889
>Analytic has decided to use the incorrect approach, continental uses the correct approach.

This comes across as "My way is right, yours is wrong," which adds nothing to the conversation.

>Incorrect and correct are language games only definable within continental philosophy

This is an assertion which needs support. It also seems like you're using "language game" in an unusual way.

>the have no theory of truth.

This just betrays your lack of familiarity with Analytic philosophy.

>>5179426

This seems mostly right and I think there are some pros and cons to a lot of the things you mention. For example, having an understanding of the history of the discipline is important (some disagree but I think they're wrong) and many people trained in Analytic philosophy lack this. On the other hand, people trained in Continental philosophy often seem to develop a quasi-religious reverence for particular philosophers/theorists which makes them more like ideologues than real philosophers.

>>5179429

Glad to see you're still contributing quality posts like this one. How has your trip not been permabanned yet?

>>5179456

It is reputable though. You and others might not like that it is but it doesn't cease being reputable as a result. Also, Leiter is an Analytic philosopher and is constantly making fun of the "charlatans" in the Continental tradition. He does so without being a closed-minded ideologue, which should be clear due to the fact that he's a Nietzsche scholar who also likes Foucault and Marx and has been part of a surge of interest in Continental philosophy on the part of Analytic philosophers. He makes a lot of the points you made.

>>5179638
>link is total nonsense.

That's just not true. There's increasing emphasis on engagement with other fields in philosophy. If you mean that philosophers aren't producing things that are significant to other fields, that might be true in a lot of instances, but that's not the point Leiter is making. The point is that, in pretty much any area of philosophy, there's almost a necessity to engage with the products of other disciplines. This wasn't always the case (people used to think philosophy could just poop out important things without any engagement with empirical sciences, literature, etc.).

>>5180384

This is true. Now I think the problem is inverting. More and more Analytic people are interested in Continental figures while Continental people continue to just ignore Analytic philosophy.

>>5137848

I disagree. One of his main points, if not the central point to the entirety of his work, is the importance of freeing nascent geniuses from the undermining potential of taking slave morality seriously. He sees himself as shocking them out of it and often uses imagery in reference to himself, and to everyone else actually, of trees growing and bearing fruit. A seed is "fated" to grow and bear fruit just as we're fated to grow and "bear fruit." There are certain things that can undermine this though. Nietzsche recognized and cursed his own mental and physical ailments and in Ecce Homo, he calls himself great and all that because he truly believes it. He's bearing his fruit so to speak. The extent to which he's humble is that he doesn't really give himself credit for being so great, it was a matter of fate. I feel like most people wouldn't recognize that as humility though.

>>5137862

Awesome, good discussion. Also, I'm definitely not Feminister. It was a play on her name and her butterfly sidekick. I feel like she's well-intentioned but, in my experience, doesn't stay on topic or engage with people's points in a fair manner.

>>5137834

Okay, we agree, in substance on everything then except the noumenal issue. Life may conflict with what is independently true but in those cases I'd say it's more along the lines of a "terrible truth" or a truth better left unknown, as opposed to a truth which we, by definition, cannot know.

>>5137758

Also, I should specify in regard to your "Nietzsche was a metaphysical anti-realist." I agree that he dislikes realism but, I'll cite the Twilight passage one more time, I think the anti-realist view would also be rejected since it's defined in relation to idea which N thinks make no sense to begin with.

Also, glad to have an intelligent discussion on here as well.

>>5137758

I'll just be upfront and say that I pretty much agree with Brian Leiter's reading of Nietzsche which you read in his "Nietzsche on Morality." I view Nietzsche as a naturalist and I think that there's more textual evidence to support that view than many of the other readings of Nietzsche which I think rely on a lot of speculation (whether those speculations produce interesting philosophy in their own right is another issue). I think we need a naturalistic account in order to more clearly distinguish N's perspectivism from high-school-relativism. There is necessarily always a perspective but this doesn't mean we're learning something that isn't true. The same passage from Twilight of the Idols illustrates this. Assuming there's a mysterious substrate with which we can never be acquainted and only "interpret" is a hangover of religious ideology. Perspectivism means that we can gain actual knowledge about the world but that that knowledge may always be partial and subject to revision (as it may be an illusion which necessitates illumination via other perspectives).

>>5137724

>You don't think Nietzsche intends humility? Maybe you haven't read him cleverly enough

I'm not sure what you could possibly mean by this other than that a clever reading equates to one with which you agree, specifically on the issue of whether or not Nietzsche is humble. Maybe tell me about what you mean by clever if, in fact, you mean something other than a way of reading that amounts to being the same as yours. I don't know what could count as evidence for your view and you haven't presented any. I also don't really see the significance one way or the other.

>You're being kind of dense if you think his ideas are meant to be literal; "eternal recurrence", really?

Not sure why we can't just deal with the ideas instead of shielding our ideas by name calling. Eternal recurrence has been read to mean a lot of different things by a lot of people. The view which seems most plausible given what he actually published about it and given the context in which we find it is that he means something roughly like, "the greatest life is one which you would will to live over and over for eternity." You could certainly disagree over whether or not that's really the greatest life but it seems like something a sane person with which a sane person could understand and agree.