Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 4300. page

Second, because it leads to total epistemological relativism (which would then lead to moral relativism), and this is the relativism of modern philosophers. If all we understand is our own mind, then whatever we think is true, actually is true; because there is no external or objective order (of being) by which we can judge the truth of our own thought. If reality is just that which is in our minds, or the only knowable reality is that which is in our own minds, then there is no measure external to our minds by which we can judge its contents. Thus, every one of perceptions is true, which would ultimately violate the law of contradiction which states that something cannot be both true & false simultaenously, because all of our perceptions would be equally valid, so if 99% of humanity found a fruit sweet and 1% found the same fruit bitter, there would be no reason to say that the 1% is any less valid than the 99%, indeed, the fruit "in itself" would neither be sweet or bitter, it would all come to down to a "matter of perception" or opinion; this extends to the moral sphere, "there are no objective goods or evils, it all comes down to what one perceives to be good or evil":

>Secondly, it is untrue, because it would lead to the opinion of the ancients who maintained that "whatever seems, is true" [Aristotle, Metaph. iii. 5] and that consequently contradictories are true simultaneously. For if the faculty knows its own impression only, it can judge of that only. Now a thing seems according to the impression made on the cognitive faculty. Consequently the cognitive faculty will always judge of its own impression as such; and so every judgment will be true: for instance, if taste perceived only its own impression, when anyone with a healthy taste perceives that honey is sweet, he would judge truly; and if anyone with a corrupt taste perceives that honey is bitter, this would be equally true; for each would judge according to the impression on his taste. Thus every opinion would be equally true; in fact, every sort of apprehension.

All modern philosophy is based on this one simple error that we understand our own thought and sense our own senses, thus trapping us in our own minds and making us the unjudgable gods of our own sealed mental universes.
But, as St. Thomas himself states, following Aristotle:

> A small mistake in the beginning is a big one in the end.

>>7715587
>Thus, every one of perceptions is true, which would ultimately violate the law of contradiction which states that something cannot be both true & false simultaenously, because all of our perceptions would be equally valid, so if 99% of humanity found a fruit sweet and 1% found the same fruit bitter, there would be no reason to say that the 1% is any less valid than the 99%, indeed, the fruit "in itself" would neither be sweet or bitter, it would all come to down to a "matter of perception" or opinion; this extends to the moral sphere, "there are no objective goods or evils, it all comes down to what one perceives to be good or evil":

And this figures into modern democracy. Because modern philosophers did away with the objective order of being and made the mind the judge of its own self, all of our minds become equal inerrant gods (as I have said above). Before, it would be that wisdom or knowledge or truth meant that your mind understood the objective order of being (truth is the correspondence of the mind with being). Now, however, that the mind has turned away from being and in on itself, there is nothing whatsoever to judge it. So all minds are equal. Therefore, the political order must treat every one equally; politics is founded on the "social contract" of these individual and equal gods agreeing to something based on their own radical freedom and sovereignty. If there is to be any doctrine imposed on anyone, it can't be based on truth or knowledge, because each of us has equal right to say something is true or false; therefore, it has to come down to democratic vote: it's true if >50% of the gods say it is true, false if <50% of the gods say it is.

>>7715585
see
>>>7715219

chronological, like you'd read any other artist.

>>7713513
Chronological works. What I did was

V.->Gravity's Rainbow->Bleeding Edge->The Crying of Lot 49->Vineland->Slow Learner->Inherent Vice->Mason & Dixon(almost done)->Against the Day(will read last)

Basically, other than V. and Gravity's Rainbow you can read them in any order, though some people will say that you can read GR first. I disagree though, because V. introduces a lot of the concepts used in GR which makes it much easier to follow on a first-time read.

It doesn't matter. Read his best works first: GR, V, M&D, or CL49. Ultimately, Pynchon being a difficult writer is a meme perpetuated by dorks who bought Gravity's Rainbow and just left it on their shelf.

File: 1423683662777.jpg (204KB, 1400x1786px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1400x1786px

>>7720023
Zizek. (Less than Nothing)

There is one thread already.

>>7719948
yes
gtfo
worthless pleb

Some do. Some don't. Do you think every teen in the 17th century cared about theater?

>>7719948
You peasant swain! You whoreson malt-horse drudge!
Methink’st thou art a general offence and every man should beat thee.

>>7719931
Yep, it’s worth it for the archive alone.

>>7719931
oh god thought that said nick land
yeah it's good

>>7719938
Thats what I was thinking. They are doing a discount for new customers, no harm in giving it a go I guess.

With band t-shirts you at least directly support the band even though you look like a tryhard, book t-shirts are infinitely worse

>hay everyone i know this book look at meeeeee
>im very smart

>>7719855
>wearing graphic tees
>liking Murakami

Real talk, though, OP. You shouldn't be wearing tees if you're an adult. If that's your style, though, at least wear a plain, solid-colored tee. Logos and graphics are trashy.

>>7719855
Look at me everybody I have read a book.

Met up with a guy and sucked his dick as he read Infinite Jest

>>7719794
on the one hand, a fucking stupid thread, kill yourself

on the other, an charming and whimsical image, I approve

>>7719796
Patrician.

i feel like if you say things like "hunting a new read" you shouldn't be reading books. I feel like you should just make youtube videos about books you've bought but haven't read.

>>7719814

His post was completely innocuous and didn't warrant such an emotional response.

OP, try 'Under the Volcano'.

>>7719814
Feel free to edit and revise my post, I can't guarantee that I'll give a shit but go for it.

>>7718922
No that would be "I am Legend" you're thinking of.

>>7718922
Lel the hunger games doe

>>7718922
Honestly though, the road was like 6/10 for me. One of McCarthy's worst.

Morality is only relevant to non-human entities insofar as they are relevant to humans.

Thats why you eat it practically

Do you personally kill your animals before you eat them? Then yeah, you might have an argument.
Do you buy your meats at the supermarket? Then no, there's nothing unethical about that because your actions change literally nothing at all.

They don't have to be long.
"twig" is a fantastic word.
"mulch" embodies its meaning very well.
"inveigle' and "seraglio" just sound cool.

>>7718036
Agree with your thoughts OP, especially pulchritude.

Love
Shmuck
greatness surely self-evident

Lugubrious
a word I find hilarious, a way of saying sad so overwrought it can only be comedic

Malevolence
downright lascivious tongue and lip action (Lascivious is another one I like too)

Marooned
A howl of a word best expressed by the dog Mundo Cani

Sarcophagus
A word that rings hollow, and perhaps foreboding, at least in my mind if not the ear

Orangutang
Orangutan seems a sad echo of the jolliness of Orangutang, so Orangutang is how I say it

Indubitably-
my love stems from a giant undead bug saying it in Warcraft 3 but I like the way the syllables roll out one after another

Pareidolia, Personification, Anthropomorphize
The words less so, the meanings, very much so

Hop
almost onomatopoeia, but not quite

Hate
Onomatopoeia- can't spell it

Noisome- etymology be damned, this should have to do with sound

Ogle- I never hear it, so I always mispronounce it if I try to say it myself, and forget how to say it by the time comes to say it again. Oggle? Oh-gle?

I hate the word "pretentious" because I see it used very often in many different contexts. It's developed a very vague meaning over time and is often just a placeholder for "I don't like this".

An American ww2 spy loses his humanity post war

Post apocalyptic pedo porn. Bunch of adolescant and pre-ad's, only boys, alone on an island, half naked, shaggy, skin glistening in the sun, all the grown ups absent or dead. Blow my conch shell!

A bunch of stuff from the 80s with some fedora aphorisms tacked on for good measure.

File: 41Cx8mY2UNL._SX130_.jpg (7KB, 130x199px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 130x199px

>>7717840

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
ISBN: 9780765334565
Lowest Price: $1.45
Source: http://www.textbookly.com/Search/?id=1451673310

>>7717849
The price of a book doesn't determine the value of its prose or message, you fucking goon. You can find copies of Ulysses in a thrift store for fifty cents.

Personally, I've read Fahrenheit 451 twice, once in high school and the second time about a year or so ago. The first time around I quite disliked it but I really enjoyed it a lot more on the rebound. Bradbury has quite a bright style of prose which may come off to some more arrogant readers out there as unnecessarily flowery and purple. I find however that his prose reflects the natures and personalities of his characters.

>>7717913
You've put it a good way, I still think there's much better material out there but it certainly doesn't commit any acts of literary tastelessness...except the razing of the city imo

>>7719753
We already have a thread, nigger.

Use the catalog

maybe have an autistic character who gets mad at people for telling him that he shouldn't use racial slurs and he cries about free speech and gets fired from his minimum wage job

Make him a transgendered, multi-ethnic, women's major who does everything he/she can to destroy anyone who disagrees with he/she.

But the theme is that we need freedom of speech, if you think otherwise maybe you belong on tumblr.