if you're going to try and make fun of poets you might as well try to be clever about it
Fine, I'll bump a bit. Starting with the one that shouldn't be absent from any /lit/ humor thread ever.
>yfw Varoufakis mentions this scene in a conference with Zizek and now it's stuck in my head forever, to be eternally recalled whenever someone mentions individualism
Also, too bad the pic doesn't contain the part where one of them says "I'm not!" right after.
>tfw beards are the halos of materialism and neckbeards its saints
Not sure about literature, but there are a few good philosophy ones. You should probably make a thread rather than ask here. Unless mentioning reddit and identity politics is part of lit humor and I didn't get it.
I've only listened to Partially Examined Life and they're decent albeit entry level in their analysis. Still, they have interesting guests and topics and voice some of the concerns that I'm guessing most people have when reading certain philosophers (and for me at least it feels good to know that I'm not the only one noticing certain obvious problems). The History of Philosophy Without Gaps or something like that is also often recommended here.
Do you think Nietzsche used to beat up younger kids and take their lunch money? He certainly looked the type.
No idea why that was in my lit folder. It's from a book so it counts, I guess. Also, the sense of dread it induces beats many books that try to do the same through actual literature.
> On Page 122, in making a negative point about 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant, Levy cites the research of French philosopher Jean-Baptiste Botul.
> Trouble is, Botul is not real (a fact that even Kant can agree on).
> Rather, Botul is the well-known creation of Frederic Pages, a philosopher himself and journalist for the satirical weekly, the Canard Enchaine.
> Said to have lived from 1896 to 1947, Botul has spurred a school of thinking known among knowing Parisians as Botulism.
I have not seen half of these before but they're absolute shit. Stop posting.
Oh come on, the idealists vs materialists one at least is interesting.
After all the warnings I still read it. Curiosity kills the cat, or at least stops him from sleeping for a while
But it doesn't even has to tear, besides they come in all varying forms you literally can't tell.
Maybe in America docs still think they can but in Western-Europe that concept has long been abolished.
Man how I wish Harold Bloom would see all our memes just before he dies. His old mind would struggle to understand what that could mean, yet curiosity would be too strong and he would wonder who these naughty young literature aficionados are, maybe a new generation of fruitful writers hailing from this place which not even tv presenters know of. But too bad, old man, thy vital clock may run no more, you have to answer death's unyielding call just when you've regained hope in the field that has given spark to your otherwise bleak and sorrowful life.
Not exactly /lit/, but I suppose language jokes count as well.
I howled, you dog!
I am a happier man for having read this
Probably some shitty transcription or font conversion, I'm not sure what the proper terms are for such operations.
I thought >>7678347 at first too, but after checking my copy of GR I realized the accompanying picture is from the physical copy, not the .epub, which most likely means OP's .epub had faulty formatting causing the header (DDDDDDDD) to appear on the same line as the first sentence and therefore a part of the narrative.
what is this shit about Kants categorical imperative?
It states that you should think about your actions in a way that they instantly get implemented as a natural law that everyone follows.
I don't see the joke in this picture, the OP puts Kants words over his own (previous) actions and lives the life of a hypocrite because he has to get !randomly! reminded of Kant with a mnemonic to hold onto his beliefs. Sounds like a beta cuck.
> "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."— Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals
Using others as means to an end is prohibited by the logical coherency necessary for an action to be held as universal law according to the categorical imperative's relation to rational free will.
How do you not know this? It's almost as if you didn't read Kant and think that the categorical imperative means nothing more than the universality of rules and rather than read him you spend your time calling others 'beta cucks'.
he's using cuck in a metaphorical sense.
you're enjoying the idea of giving pleasure to a woman. At the end it comes down to the pleasure of vanity on your part. "Oh man /I'm/ making /her/ feel like /this/??"
i hope one day you mature to the point where you are able to get off to the act itself, rather than using the situation to stroke off your ego, plebfriend. Until then, enjoy being cucked out of properly enjoying sex by your own sense of inadequacy.
Nah, mate, there are two different things here.
What he's saying is that, "you're enjoying the idea of giving pleasure to a woman", what I'm saying is "you give her what she needs".
Every form of love is juvenile, that's the point. I hope one day you mature to a point where you're able to realize that.
>tryhard response kiddo, get bodied
Guys guys guys.
Literally noone of you got the very simple imperative correct.
The version that you are looking for (he comes up with a few definitions) is this: "Don't treat people only as a means to an end".
What you thought it was, is this "Don't treat people as a means to an end".
It is very simple but very important. If morality required never to use sentient beings as the means to an end, you would never be able to interact with anyone. Like buying a newspaper. The point is to treat the other as an end in itself, besides as a means to an end.
Don't go to /lit/ expecting people to know philosophy
>tfw the categorical imperative is universal and you most likely have it imbedded in your intuitions whether or not you know it
I wonder how many euphorics have been driven to suicide by the old Baron.
Though infinite jest does show off his talent and skill it doesnt devalue it is an artwork. I say artwork because it's too spasdic to be a novel. It borders on literature too, but it's a damn good work of art.
Urethra fucking is the most patrician fetish. It goes really well together with the second most patrician fetish, urethral infections.
I forgot how much old stuff was in my /lit/ folder, I'm getting nostalgic.
Chocolate with bubbles massively increases the surface area: weight ratio of the chocolate. More taste for the same amount of calories, imho. Also the texture is nice.
Britfag here, love Aero bars...
Lol its an honest, not a honest. Anon is wrong, as always. You just go by thesound, if it sounds like it starts with an a e I or u, you use an, otherwise its 'a'.
Eg University sounds like yooniversity, so you say a university.
>you're enjoying the idea of giving pleasure to a woman. At the end it comes down to the pleasure of vanity on your part. "Oh man /I'm/ making /her/ feel like /this/??"
Is this your way of trying to tell us you can't find the clit?
"meaning is all about philosophy, so it can't be scientifically verified. But meaning is also not about facts, when i say 'has to be scientifically verifiable' i mean facts. You can't base your facts about physics on things that can't be verified"
Wow, i realize i sound like a douche there, but if i didn't it would sound weird
/mu/ user comes to /lit/, tired of wading through spouted memes to find remnants of a somewhat coherent board. Every thread he knows he is out of his depth. He waits, patiently, for a moment to interject with something relative to the conversation at hand (as he does at parties) but time passes and his expectations of interjection are lowered. He sees the one /lit/ joke anybody could understand, the lowest denominator, and he rejoices. Spouting all that he knows like a whale's eureka, to then - shuffle back into the shadows.
There is a set of rules for yugioh, but it's goddamn impossible to find and it's fucking complicated. Konami puts out arbitrary rulings every other day to justify new cards, etc.
For example, the criteria for disallowing a certain move that would lead to an infinite loop, depends on multiple factors and the method by which the game state is repaired is dependent on some general rulings and many specific rulings about particularly offensive cards implicated in causing loops.
And infinite loops are some of the simpler aspects of the Yugioh rules. Though, honestly, you don't need to know 99.9% of the rules to play the game at most levels.
t. guy who's failed the Dueling Network admin test like 4 times
I wonder if the veracious criticisms of his moral philosophy share the same root with the critiques of his moral reasonable stance on Islamism and conservative Islam.
Like, both are different sides to the same cuck freak coin with one face true by happenstance.
The fact of the matter is that most anti-Sam Harris types take their most visceral gripe with his most reasonable stances, then use his least reasonable as some sort of ancillary ad hominen as proof of his stupidity to contrast it with your own implicit lack of stupidity.
Sam has been suffering a brutal character assassination campaign for the last couple years, started and perpetuated by pseudo-leftist idpol cucks taking issue with his opining on Islam. That conservative Islam is not sufficiently better than extremist Islam (nor is extremist Islam even rare in the Muslim world in the first place). Do the anti-Harris posters on /lit/ belong to this camp?
>meaning is all about philosophy
I don't know what you mean by philosophy here.
>so it can't be scientifically verified
If something is about philosophy it can't be scientifically verified?
>But meaning is also not about facts
So there is no meaning in facts? What do you mean by meaning?
>You can't base your facts about physics on things that can't be verified
How does this link with your previous statements?
No it has to do with the toxic masculinity associated with the base and disgusting desire of needing sex to have a culmination, a proper and defined climax at ejaculation, and then needing same, and then expecting same out of a woman, similar conspicuous pleasure, etc, etc. It reduces the act to the rubbing of an ego, and it becomes all masturbatory and gross.
I'm saying that meaning is something we give things, there is no meaning to anything other than the cold hard facts
because of that, any opinion, even the "anything that can't be scientifically verified" is something that we've come up with as a way to put meaning into things
so you can't scientifically verify an opinion, meaning we've come up with
but you still shouldn't put too much faith in things that can never be verified,
but yea, i realized i worded it worse than i thought at first, and there i was thinking i did it properly