/lit/ - Literature

>>2183104

no fucking way you are still going on about this, you redundant disease of rampaging gayness...


...deep, your mother and I need to have a talk with you

>>2183079
>>2183079

haha

i was being disingenuous when i said that...i had a few things in mind...but nothing too devastating to boltzman's intuitive concept of time


im done with that thread though...i got bored pretty quickly

>>2183075

>implying you're not a bunch of highschoolers yourselves

>>2182953

It's funny how, when in the process of trolling, one can tweak the troll premise to fit new incoming trollees.
Im finna wriet a fucken book yo!

sagg for not /lit/ related

Funny thing is,
that i had absolutely nothing in mind when i said the graph was flawed...HIGHLarious

>>2182353

Having the same boring debates every single day is no way to deal with depression you monotonous sad fuck...i swear man, the eagerness with which you attend to the same fucking discussions is nauseating...

>>2179295

you are saying the same thing, which i have already replied to...this is getting very boring.
im done here,
have a good night.

ps.

connotation means implication

>>2179245

fucking hell...having a concrete and formulated 2nd order belief is not needed for a perfectly coherent usage/application of the 1st order belief. (one knows he is looking at a painting without having a degree in aesthetics)
there is nothing arbitrary about the metabelief... it is simply not needed.
there's your connotation, now fuck off

>>2179219

that has nothing to do with what i said, and their definitions are not arbitrary.
Confirmed for being a complete fucking idiot. Don't post here anymore.

>>2179001

>implying metabeliefs are needed for a coherent understanding of concepts
>implying defining your fucking terms will prove anything about /lit/
>implying you're not a teenage girl on her period

honestly, the eagerness with which you are replying to these inane posts (which fit perfectly in such an inane thread) is making me nauseous. take some fucking midol.

>>2177679
>When great literature reaches a wide enough demographic it suddenly loses all its value. Everyone should dig up the most unheard of authors, even though their lack of talent was what established their anonymity...

Common pathology in the /lit/ teenager, mistaking obscurity in taste for intellectualism, and looking like a complete fucking try hard idiot in the process.

>>2177679

>When great literature reaches a wide enough demographic it suddenly loses all its value. Everyone should dig up the most unheard of authors, even though their lack of talent was what established their anonymity...

Common pathos of the /lit/ teenager, mistaking obscurity in taste for intellectualism, and looking like a complete fucking try hard idiot in the process.

>>2178292

>>2178104

no, you just fucking killed it.

>>2177436

I see what he's trying to do here..
He's trying to place Nietzsche within stirner's heaven building concept, the overman being a continuation of the "possessing" idea of spirit,phantom,etc.
But that's to imply that the overman is bound by it, this overman "ideal", where in reality he is completely free; his actions set precedents, he does not follow any. His will cannot bend to an idea of the "overman", he is the overman, every action is a completely free exercise of the will, which to me seems perfectly compatible with Stirner's egoist...
that's some pretty interesting stuff though.

wat?

>>2177413

I don't owe you a better reply than that.
Don't be a fag with delusions of entitlement if you're going to offer no argument of your own.

>>2177366

>I've read an argument somewhere on the internet that Stirner's egoist is closer to the last man

if you're going to say something like that... at least post some sort of argument accompanying it. I've never heard this sort of interpretation before...
stirner's egoist is the antithesis of the weak-willed last man...but i would still be interested in that argument, if you can find it.


and Nietzche never mentioned him because he probably wanted to take full credit for his ideas, though they were obviously influenced to some degree by stirner

>>2177344

>doesn't realize two separate philosophers can have perfectly compatible systems
>hasn't read either of them

You should write according to whichever process you find suitable.
Though d&e might pop in here and have a period about following set methodology and standards, this is usually something which only uncreative people resort to...

so yes to the first 3 questions
no to the 4th
and whatever you feel like to the 5th

>>2177033
>>2176979

...this is disappointing.
Though i would be initially happy to see other Stirner readers.. on a second look I come rue the bandwaggon's pathetic causal chain of shallow mimicry, which has culminated in your possession of the book... only for you to completely misunderstand it.

The phantoms and spirits (ideas) which poses the victim do not apply to the master, the overman, the egoist. One who embraces master morality is not possessed, there are "no wheels in his head", for each of his token actions is in a class and moral realm of its own, untouched by conscience, or ressentiment.

The egoist is the embodiment of master morality; by removing precedents and imposing his will, he has exorcised the phantoms.

You two sluts better check your facts before you misrepresent one of the greatest minds to ever live.

This is my professor talking about free will and the implications of Libet's experiments, which he has been trying to discredit. (he recently got a 4.4 million dollar grant to do work in the subject and try to somehow make free will compatible with determinism, which Libet's experiments have basically proved impossible to do.)

though all in all, all this talk is useless in the practical sense, because the illusion of free will ultimately reduces to free will...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCM5BFU01YU

I'm sorry, but no written text could ever capture the visceral magnificence of the worst and best actor to ever live.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plz-bhcHryc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCVSyhjBhro&feature=related

>>2174264

of all the random replies...you chose that?
a pocket pussy? what the fuck lol

>>2174254

i bumped it once (when i addressed the topic) see>>2174228

unlike most people here, i actually know when it is appropriate to use sage