Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 564. page
- Home
- Board: /lit/ - Literature
- Reading: Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 564. page
Is it just me or are some of Nietzsche's arguments *really* fucking facile?
Check this shit:
> If self defence is in general held a valid justification, then nearly every manifestation of so called immoral egoism must be justified, too. Pain is inflicted, robbery or killing done in order to maintain life or to protect oneself and ward off harm. A man lies when cunning and delusion are valid means of self preservation. To injure intentionally when our safety and our existence are involved, or the continuance of our well being, is conceded to be moral. The state itself injures from this motive when it hangs criminals. In unintentional injury the immoral, of course, can not be present, as accident alone is involved. But is there any sort of intentional injury in which our existence and the maintenance of our well being be not involved?[129] Is there such a thing as injuring from absolute badness, for example, in the case of cruelty? If a man does not know what pain an act occasions, that act is not one of wickedness. Thus the child is not bad to the animal, not evil. It disturbs and rends it as if it were one of its playthings. Does a man ever fully know how much pain an act may cause another? As far as our nervous system extends, we shield ourselves from pain. If it extended further, that is, to our fellow men, we would never cause anyone else any pain (except in such cases as we cause it to ourselves, when we cut ourselves, surgically, to heal our ills, or strive and trouble ourselves to gain health). We conclude from analogy that something pains somebody and can in consequence, through recollection and the power of imagination, feel pain also. But what a difference there always is between the tooth ache and the pain (sympathy) that the spectacle of tooth ache occasions! Therefore when injury is inflicted from so called badness the degree of pain thereby experienced is always unknown to us: in so far, however, as pleasure is felt in the act (a sense of one's own power, of one's own excitation) the act is committed to maintain the well being of the individual and hence comes under the purview of self defence and lying for self preservation. Without pleasure, there is no[130] life; the struggle for pleasure is the struggle for life.
I don't see how you can wriggle out of this argument being shit by saying I've 'misinterpreted' or 'misread' him.
His point stands alone with out any need for prior reading, and it sucks.
He's basically saying:
We can't know how much pain we're causing people unless we share their nervous system, so when somebody attacks someone else they're exempt from guilt because they don't know wtf they did.
This is just such outrageous reaching, I can't even.
>I don't see how you can wriggle out of this argument being shit by saying I've 'misinterpreted' or 'misread' him.
But you have absolutely misinterpreted and misread him. At one point is this passage talking about guilt? To say that an act is not one of wickedness is not the same as saying that act is permissible.
>>7995992
If harming somebody in self defense is morally justifiable, then many things considered immoral becomes morally justifiable.
If harming somebody innocently/accidently is morally justifiable, then many things considered immoral becomes morally justifiable.
>>7995992
In general, the people Nietzsche is responding to believe the act of causing pain, injury, or death to be immoral so long as the act
a. is intentional -- exempli gratia, you are not at fault if somebody dives in front of your car and paints the pavement.
b. is understood to be causing harm -- if you play a game of football and kick around the ball, but later learn that the ball was filled with small, fluffy animals, you have not done anything wrong, as you didn't know what was in the ball.
c. is not intended to do good -- if a surgeon breaks your ribcage and rips out your organs, you are caused severe injury and pain and are at a significant risk of death, but generally, these procedures are done for your eventual benefit.
Nietzsche takes it for granted that, if an individual harms another to save himself from pain, injury, or death, then he has not committed evil, even if he causes more harm to another than he prevents in himself. If a victim cripples her rapist or murders his torturer, it would be argued, she or he has done nothing wrong, even though more harm has been done than would likely be done otherwise.
His response, then, stems from a number of observations:
1. We always learn that others feel pain, die, etcetera by analogy. We feel pain ourselves, and we in turn assume that when others exhibit the same symptoms that we do when we are in pain, that they feel pain as well. Nietzsche conjures the image of a child who tortures an animal but does not understand that the animal is in distress. Is the child at fault if it can't identify the symptoms of distress in a species that isn't even its own? Of course not! The child hasn't even been taught. Imagine a more colourful example: a creature that exhibits pain and terror by laughing uproariously and stating in plain English it's absolute pleasure, and which is driven to agony whenever fed chocolate and given sexual favours. How could you be at fault for torturing this creature if every bit of information you have learned about it informed you that it felt the opposite of pain?
2. Extending this somewhat, the child itself experiences a great deal of pleasure from tormenting a kitten, and you would feel a sense of pride and charitableness at torturing the faux-masochist. There is no biological reason at all for you to believe that you are inflicting pain.\
3. Humans have a capacity for sympathy. That is, when another individual feels pain, we feel pain also. However, we, as far as seems reasonable, don't feel as much pain as they do. Since we cannot be certain of how painful their injury is any more than a very young child can gauge the degree of a kitten's pain from the loudness and intensity of its screeches, we cannot be at fault when we misjudge the application of pain against the weighted benefit.
(1/2 Cont . . .)
What novels have suicide in them? How do different authors deal with the topic? What's your favourite way the topic is dealt with?
the quintessential suicide novel would probably be Werther
It really depends on what you're looking for. If you're just beginning to look into the subject, I think you should start by reading the book Notes on Suicide by Simon Critchley because he explains a number of different perspectives on suicide ranging from Christian to Buddhist to Philosophical and everything in between and lays out each of their arguments thoroughly so you can come to a conclusion on your own.
Personally, I like the writing of Camus on the subject, starting with Myth of Sisyphus and then reading his novels (especially The Fall and The Outsider). Quite a few great writers on suicide are in pic related and I definitely suggest reading Cioran, Miller, and Williams.
I love Frobisher in Cloud Atlas. I am a big fan of Cloud Atlas and I herald it as a masterpiece.
Why was he so based, /lit/?
>>7997966
>refuse empiricism
>based
>disproved and embarrassed by Sam harris
>based
>disproved and embarrassed by John Stuart Mill
>based
I like to describe this book with all my anonymous /lit/ brainiacts.
I love this board.
the book is okay, definitely not the best book I've ever read about a traveling salesman who transforms into a giant bug and gets apples chucked at him
Gregor was a dung beetle.
The cleaning lady called out for Gregor and called him a dung beetle. I'm thinking fermentation because the book was published in Germany translated to other languages.
>>7997621
By his own father.
The mother loves him by the sister doesn't althought she cleaned the room his was in for some time.
Hey /lit/, I am writing a paper on the validity of synthetic, a priori principles. Most of what I know comes from Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" and "Prolegomena."
I critique Kants' proofs from a logical viewpoint; mainly via the framework used in Oliver A. Johnson's "Denial of the Synthetic, A Priori."
I will need to field questions from my class and then in a one-on-one with my professor. I was hoping some of you well-versed in the subject could toss up possible problems/challenges/interesting implications/general discussion regarding my argument or the topic/philosophical works in general.
I will update the string of my argument in separate posts, accompanied with the diagrams/proofs I'll be writing on the board during my presentation.
Does reading exist? Where is reading?
It's about the same question.
Part I: Kant's Synthetic A Priori
We should begin with what Kant considers a ‘judgment.’
- Judgment: “I think [subject + predicate]” = A statement or assertion
RE: ‘I think' ...
"The ‘I think’ must have the ability to accompany all my representations; for otherwise something would be represented in me that could not be thought at all, which is as much as to say that the representation would either be impossible or at least would be nothing to me (Transcendental Deduction of the Categories, Part 16).
- A judgment may either be analytic or synthetic.
In all judgments in which the relation of a subject to the predicate is thought, this relation is possible in two different ways. Either the predicateBbelongs to the subjectAas something that is contained in this conceptA; orBlies entirely outside the conceptA, though to be sure it stands in connection with it. In the first case, I call the judgment analytic, in the second synthetic (Critique of Pure Reason, 6-7).
- Analytic: “true just in the virtue of how the subject relates to the predicate”
- Synthetic: “something entirely different from that which I think in the mere concept of body in general” (Critique, 7).
Knowledge comes from judgment and is classified as either empirical (a posteriori) or a priori.
Judgment --> Knowledge
a posteriori: grounded in experience
- Limited in its application
- Susceptible to contradiction
a priori: based upon reason alone
- Independent of sensory experience
Are there any good philosophers/books which deal deeply with the importance and effects of self-acceptance and love which are not Eastern?
X
>>8000122
That movie is so shit
>>8000284
I know
About to start this. What should I expect?
Boredom
You're reading something literally available from the infowars shop, put that into perspective
http://store.infowars.com/search.asp?keyword=tragedy+and+hope&search=Search+Products
>>8000083
So?
Is it worth reading or nah? I picked up the first book in a thrift store earlier today.
containment thread: >>7996125
Has anyone here read the Mahabharata? What did you think?
I'm considering reading it but I have no idea which version to get at the moment since they are all condensed. Would I need to read anything before it to understand it better? Like Edith Hamiltons Mythology before the Illiad.
>abridged version
>translation
Wew
>>7999965
I know but I don't have much choice.
Are there standards of professionability for multiple exclamation and interrogation marks? I expect many people will see no problem with '?!', but what about '?!?!?!' or even "!!!!' and '???'
These days everyone uses the interrobang (‽) for their combined exclamatory and inquisitive punctuational needs. Get with the times.
>>7999909
Why are you using exclamation points in a professional context anyway?
>>7999909
Literally the only person to whom my communications ever include an exclamation point is my wife. That's a pretty good rule.
What are some good books on toxic masculinity?
Read My Twisted World.
Laugh at how /r9k/ and related sites fuck up young men's lives.
Try not to be one of them.
not a book but Neon Genesis Evangelion is one of the greatest
>>7999390
>toxic masculinity
nice spook
Post every interesting book dealing with (Neo-)Luddism, either from a historical perspective of actively advocating it, you know of. Preferably non-fiction, but fiction is ok, too,
as long as it's still informative
Pic related, he wrote an essay on the topic which I've yet to read
>>7999090
maybe quit being a dipshit and read the article first, it's short (also, read his article from NYT abt the Watts Riot).
>>7999090
Haha, hey there little guy! :-)
Unabomber manifesto
What's some philosophical readings for me if I find my philosophy is something towards an optimistic smiling nihilism?
i.e. we all die and nothing matters, so might as well be a good person and enjoy life
>>7998799
just watch some female youtubers
>>7998959
one must imagine Sisyphus masturbating even though he pushin a boulder with his other hand
Question for everyone but particularly for Classicists: How good are the translations? I noticed some discrepencies when I read the same work from Penguin series. It seems Loeb is more literal and better? What publisher would you recommend for people who want to read classical works but don't know latin-greek?
>>7997255
>translation
>>7997258
Dude, Loeb pairs the original text along with the translation.
>>7997258
I read from the right side. I don't know latin-greek, being the pleb I am
You are now the leader of the world and all the copies of the books of your choosing get thrown into fires across the world. Which books do you choose to burn and what reason will you give the people for their removal?
>>7996795
All of them
>implying anyone gives a shit about non digital copies
everything by: Dostoevsky, Camus, the wiener kreis, stirner, Nietzsche, theodore beale, ayn rand, mises, hayek, Cathy Brennan, Thomas Aquinas, Hegel, Sam Harris
