Last book I read was Harry Potter.

Reading the Three-Body Problem since my Chinese friends (I'm Canadian) recommended it. It's actually pretty damn good so far.

I just finished Stoner and I'm starting on Moby Dick tonight.

>>2
but why

>>4
>didn't read moby dick as a child
>questions me reading some book

>>5
I read Harry Potter as a child and I am reading Moby Dick as an adult. This makes more sense to me than the other way around. So why did you read Harry Potter recently, anyway?

I just finished reading 1984 and just started on Brave New World.

>>6
Anon, don't get finicky with me.

>>9
I asked you a question, son.

>>1
>reading
No on reads in 2016 any more

>>1
I just finished reading this thread. It was pretty good.

what would you rate it

>>13
As a short story it was a solid 7/10. Some classic names were dropped, >>3 mentioned a book I've never heard about. The thread really shown around >>2 when it revealed itself as a comedy.

wwwww
very good

>>10
I-I never read Harry Potter...

>>1 the stranger is one of my favorite books? I think Mersault is a good character. I might start reading my copy of Crime and Punishment when I have time, I'm excited to read it I hear Dostoyevsky is great.

>>7
I read those books in that order as well. I have Aldous Huxely's writing style but the point that he's getting across and the over all story really makes the book worth reading imo.

I'm reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and I'm enjoying it so far, though to be honest I'm not well read

>>1
Rereading LotR, on The Two Towers.
Great books.

Just grabbed What Ever Happened to Gloomy Gus of the Chicago Bears? by Robert Coover when it grabbed my eye sitting on the library shelf today. Any Coover fans here?

Currently reading Joyce's Portrait, as well as Leaves of Grass and a philosophy anthology (Philosophies of Art and Beauty).

>>21

Have you read Portrait before? How far are you?

Almost done with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. After that I'll hunker down and try to finish The Covenant.

Flatland. Pretty good, doubt I caught all the references either. I got a load of political stuff from my grandfather recently so I guess I'll try and make my way through some of that.

>>22
It's my first "proper" reading -- I've started it and bailed out before due to a lack of time (I'm a painfully slow reader). Just started to dig into chapter five and I'm really enjoying the change in style.

I feel my understanding of the book at this point is still quite surface-level. Would you mind sharing some of your thoughts on the book?

I recently re-read Roadside Picnic. It's a fantastic short novel and I think it's painfully under-appreciated, the only reason people seem to read it or talk about it is 'it's vaguely connected to some video games'.
Can you guys recommend me some good sci-fi novels? Anything goes. I like reading those, and I read Metro 2033 but I don't really know where to go from there.

>>26
Anything by these guys, especially Asimov.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction#Hard_science_fiction

>>27
Thanks for the tip, I'll do that! Though a little later, as I'm reading Heart of Darkness right now.

>>28
Blindsight was a good sci-fi novel, might be worth looking into.Also, if you want to solidify your reading ability, read Paradise Lost (huge meme but very well

>>29
What about Paradise Lost makes you think it would be good for that purpose? Not disagreeing, just curious. I'm not >>28 by the way.

>>30
The use of English is advanced, but due to its age more than a little outdated: people say that whatever is used in Paradise Lost is perfectly valid English, so it's worth reading if you want to fill out your vocabulary.

>>31
Noted! Thank you, tabafriend.

Just starting The Iliad, first time reading. I'm a little intimidated to be honest.

The Glass Bead Game by Hesse.

Nearly finished, really not enjoying it. Siddhartha and Steppenwolf are far better.

>>25
My understanding of the book probably isn't much deeper than yours. I just think it's an astonishingly beautiful work. The sermon chapter gave me my first fear of hell in quite a while just because it was so vivid.

>>35
I agree, Portrait was probably the most beautiful work I've read since Woolf's To the Lighthouse.

One thing I noticed is the prevalence of "mirroring" or reflection throughout the novel. Take for example the way that the book is organized: Stephen first as a small child, taking in the world and living for the external; then becoming more inwardly-focused, spending lots of time inside his own head tackling issues of angst ("reflecting"); and finally, having more/less dealt with that angst, seeking to express himself and focus once again on the external world. I think the concept is demonstrated most neatly in the ending: Stephen's leaving Ireland in order to, ironically, establish his country's place in the artistic tradition -- maybe he believes that the spirit of his country can be most accurately distilled only after being "reflected" in another land?

I can't help but draw parallels to Joyce's process of writing the book, as well. I imagine it was an intensely reflective process, and probably one through which Joyce was able to better understand his experiences and put them to more effective use in his later works. That idea seems reasonable enough given the semi-autobiographical nature of the text, but especially so given the resonance of the reflection/mirroring theme.

Anyway, I'm no lit scholar, but there's some food for thought. I'd love to hear your take on it.

Just finished Homer's Iliad, starting his Odyssey now. I didn't expect to enjoy it so much, but the poetry of it (even in translation!) along with the gripping plot kept me pretty glued to it, as slow a reader as I am. One thing I found interesting was how little people seem to have changed, in certain respects. For example, the way men trash talk each other, or the manner in which people bond through difficult experiences (Achilleus' bond with Patroklos was really touching).

What is everyone else reading?

>>37
I read the Odyssey in high school and hope to read it again, and the Iliad sometime. Greek stuff is cool.
I recently finished The Silmarillion: it was nice. I also read the torah, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings this year.

I also read Colin C. Adams's The Knot Book, and Gary Chartrand's Introductory Graph Theory.
I'm also working on Unix Power Tools. I read The C Programming Language sometime in January.

I also read an early 2000s western-doujin comic. It was called Circles. It started out okay but was worse by the time it ended.

I also have a textbook called New Czech Step by Step but I very sadly haven't had the time for it.

I'm currently reading Welcome to NHK. It's quite a good read, aside from being relatable, I feel. An anon over at the share thread shared it, so I'd like to thank you from here, anon. You're a cool dude.
When I'm finished however I'm thinking of reading Solaris by Stanisław Lem. I'm wondering if I should get the new ebook of it from Amazon or if I should seek out a more 'native' translation of it. I'll have to think about that, I suppose, but there's no need to worry for now.

I've been digging into Shakespeare's sonnets lately. Really beautiful works.

>>38
>the torah
Are you Jewish? If not, what drew you to it?

>>40
I'm not religious, and neither is anyone in my immediate family, as far as I know. I decided I wanted to learn more about religion, and more about all the influences on western culture. The major influences have been indo-european culture and semitic culture, so I thought it'd be a nice thing to read.
It was! Some of the stories were interesting and fun to read. And the boring lists of laws were still educational. All in all, I'd recommend anyone interested in mythology or western culture to read it. I read it cover to cover, and recommend that's how anyone else reads it, too. I specifically read The Living Torah, and while I have no other translation to compare it to, I liked it. There were a lot of footnotes about alternate translations, orthodox jewish interpretations, and modern jewish interpretations.
A more specific reason I chose to read it: I've generally been very dismissive of people who find symbolism in everything they read. I think that in reality, symbolism exists, but is rare. But in twelfth grade, we read this story which I was amazed by: it had real, wonderful symbolism!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son
So I plan to read the rest of the old testament sometime, then read the new testament, the quran, maybe some bahai stuff, then greek, latin, and sanskrit classics. Of course I'll read them in English, though.
Then I'll move on to buddhism, confucianism, taoism, and other east asian works.
With that, I'll have understood the religious and early texts of the three cultures of classic literature: Europe, India, and the sinosphere.
I'm hoping to get the Oxford Annotated Bible for christmas since I hear it's one of the better and less biased translations of the bible.

I love reading, but in all of high school I didn't have time to read at all. It's good to be reading again.

>>41
It's quite an interesting way to look at it. Huh. Now that I think about it I'm rather interested in reading about such things. Though my parents are religious people and they'd probably kill me if they'd catch me reading Torah or something.

>>42
What religion? Remember, the entirety of the torah is contained in the bible's old testament. If your parents are christian or muslim, they'll have no problem with you reading the torah.

>>43
My parents are muslims. They're iffy with stuff like that for some reason, at least they seem so.

>>41
That's very noble of you, I look forward to seeing updates of your progress in this thread! I think I'll probably start on the King James Bible soon myself, both for historical/cultural reasons and personal/moral ones.

>I've generally been very dismissive of people who find symbolism in everything they read. I think that in reality, symbolism exists, but is rare.
Have you read anything by Franz Kafka? His works are incredibly "open" in the sense that there is not enough information to make any one interpretation stick, and yet suggestive enough that I think you'd be hard pressed not to apply some sort of symbolic meaning to them.

>>44
mudslimes pls go

>>44
Remind your parents that other than for Jewish distortion of the true word of Allah, the Torah was still a book originally made by Allah for people on Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah_in_Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrif
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_holy_books
Just linking Wikipedia links you can use to get information that can help you with your parents. Don't tell them this, but remember that Jews and Arabs are both semites, and are generally very similar in culture.
>>45
>noble
Reading for fun isn't noble. All the reading I do is for fun, since I find learning to be fun.
>personal/moral
Don't be religious. Religion is incompatible with freedom.
I think I may have read The Metamorphosis a long time ago. I barely remember it. I'll have to read more of his stuff! Thanks for the recommendation.
>>46
I hope his parents don't post here, too~

started reading Neuromancer

>>47
My parents aren't very smart people, indeed. It'll probably fly over their head but oh well, can't know without trying. They've also proven themselves to be not smart enough to browse internet, so have no worries, they certainly don't post here.

>>47
>Reading for fun isn't noble. All the reading I do is for fun, since I find learning to be fun.
What I meant was that putting in the effort to find pleasure in learning is noble, especially when many easier forms of entertainment exist. Give yourself some credit, friend.
>Don't be religious. Religion is incompatible with freedom.
I believe there are many things more valuable than freedom, and the kinds of "freedom" religion opposes (hedonism, etc.) actually do a better job at limiting freedom than any religious doctrine.

Do post here if you decide to pick up one of Kafka's works, I'd love to discuss them with you!

>>50
I see.
Religion does actually oppose freedom though. It promotes a hierarchy, a class system, not only between you and people higher up in the religion, and also the inherent hierarchy of ``there's a god or force who is higher than any human, including myself''.
I think equality is important, and no person or god gets to say he's above or below me. You might think it sounds edgy, but ``no gods no masters'' is an idea that comes from 19th century thinkers. Religion is simply not compatible with the idea of a world of freedom.
>the kinds of "freedom" religion opposes (hedonism, etc.) actually do a better job at limiting freedom than any religious doctrine
That's an interesting statement, it makes me think you'd probably understand the difference between anarchism (which is functionally identical to communism) and libertarianism. Only in the latter is anyone free to take away someone else's freedom. Also, only in the latter is religion possible.
>Do post here if you decide to pick up one of Kafka's works, I'd love to discuss them with you!
Shall do!

>>51
Not all freedom is good.
What about my freedom to murder? What about that?
Then you say, what about my freedom to catch you?
These oppose each other.
Freedom is not the natural state of things, it's a dumb romantic idea.

>>52
>freedom to murder
That there isn't a freedom, but a chance to take away someome's freedom. Taking away someone's freedom is incompatible with anarchism but compatible with libertarianism.
>natural state of things
Not only is that not a very good argument, but I'd say it's less unnatural than authoritarianism, as authoritarianism takes a lot more effort to uphold.

>>53
Authoritarianism benefits people and society more.

>>54
Isn't that against the definition of authoritarianism, though?

>>51
>Religion does actually oppose freedom though.
Yes, it opposes freedom in a more obvious and superficial way, but only as a means toward a deeper liberation: liberation from desire, from sexual/sensual urges, from guilt and from human suffering. Total freedom leaves people reeling -- just look at the difficulty the modern man faces when attempting to "find his calling". Another example that comes to mind is the internet. There is so much valuable information available: a pretty much infinite expanse of things to learn and experience. And yet social media and porn reigns supreme. Are these people really choosing what will benefit them the most? Or are they falling victim to their base desires and a lack of direction/self-control?
>I think equality is important, and no person or god gets to say he's above or below me.
Humans have evolved under a rigid, uncompromising hierarchy (nature above man, powerful over weak, etc.) Guaranteed equality is little more than comfort that has not been worked for, and results in weakness and a lack of direction. People are built for struggle, and when we don't have it we invent it (depression, anxiety, "social justice.") When man knows his place in the world, has both someone to order him and someone whom he can order around, he is secure in his role on Earth and nihilism/depression/whatever is kept at bay. As much as it may be considered fallacious to argue in terms of what is "natural," it is important to consider the role that evolutionary psychology plays in this.

>>56
>liberation from desire
The easiest way to do that is to die, and I'm certainly not against suicide. I've been wanting to die for five years now. I want freedom from suffering too, but anarchism/communism, not authoritarianism, is the best way to achieve that. I want to improve the quality of life, not to make it so bad that people forget what good is.
But truly, to not have desire is pathetic, you may as well not exist. If you don't want to do things, you shouldn't do life. Anything else is bordering on masochism or parasitism. Buddhism is no less worse than any other religion.
>social media and porn
>people really choosing
That's not the choice of people, but of capitalists looking for profit. When money stops existing, the internet will become more like how it was before commercial enterprise was permitted on it. People are only falling prey to capitalism, which twists their lives away from their own self-interest. Sex itself isn't a bad thing either, but a positive social activity, a form of bonding and recreation. ``sexual urges'' my ass

>rigid, uncompromising hierarchy
That's not true at all. Man has just about conquered nature, other than for a select few natural disasters.
>not been worked for
And so what? Losing your job is a good thing. The idea of a future where robots do menial work and people do what they want in life (arts, sciences, engineering, philosophy, mathematics, gardening, papercraft) is a good thing. People can't go in their own direction if they have to do things they don't enjoy doing.
>people are built for struggle
????
>depression
Depression is just a word for realism, coined by a society that shuns realism and tries to force everyone into pure optimism.
A man cannot be in his place if someone is ordering him: he's not in his place, but under someone else's place. The person he's under probably isn't in his place either.
>depression is kept at bay
There are two solutions: to make a fantasy, to have people lie to themselves, or to actually solve the problems people worry about. I prefer the latter. Your post seems to imply the former.
>psychology
The human brain is very powerful and flexible, don't underestimate it. We're animals, but we can overcome so many things.

>>57
>The easiest way to do that is to die
>to not have desire is pathetic, you may as well not exist
>masochism or parasitism
It's not as black or white as you make it out to be. The termination of all desire through death defeats the whole purpose of defeating these desires -- that is, living a meaningful and productive life. As well, it's not like all desires are necessarily evil. Religion (I'm speaking of primarily of Christianity here) doesn't do away with the desire to bring good to the world, or the desire to create things, or the desire to improve oneself. It merely encourages its followers to focus on the desires that result in some tangible good (viz. something beyond mere gratification). Food, drink, sex, these things are all important to human life and culture. But when you focus on them at the expense of the rest of your life, you suffer. Think gluttons, sexual deviants, drunkards. These people have fallen victim to gratification. Sure you can avoid these things without someone telling you to, but how many people are strong enough? Not many, I would wager. And those that are strong enough may not give it enough thought to see the benefit of doing so anyway.
>That's not the choice of people, but of capitalists looking for profit
And why are they able to take advantage of people? Because they are not strong enough without the influence of religion. There will always be people attempting to take advantage of the desire of others, whether it be for profit, political sway, or otherwise. You can argue that these "bad guys" shouldn't do that, but it's impossible to control others. Why remain at the mercy of ever-present and ever-changing evil when you could temper yourself to avoid these pitfalls?
>Sex itself isn't a bad thing either
It's a bad thing when it's seen as just a path to pleasure. Porn addiction, objectification of women, (the spread of) sexually transmitted disease, infidelity, pedophilia, and marital instability can all be traced back to this error in judgment. These are only a few examples.
>Man has just about conquered nature
This is an illusion. We haven't conquered death, we haven't conquered the limits of space and time, we haven't conquered our own psychology, and clearly we have not conquered even our own primitive drives. There will always be forces above us, as well as forces below us. Even our attempts at "conquering nature" are just a feeble attempt at reordering the natural hierarchy, and putting ourselves above nature. Humans are not above these natural laws.
>people [will be able to] do what they want in life (arts, sciences, engineering, philosophy, mathematics [...])
Tell me this: if we allow everyone guaranteed comfort, and nobody is forced into working, what motivation is there to bust one's ass working on "serious" matters like these? Why would they spend their time on difficult things when they could eat, drink, fuck, consume media, and get high all day without working? Surely you are not so naive as to think that people would prefer a difficult life if given the choice. The easiest state is always one of consumption rather than creation, and people are naturally attracted to ease and comfort.
>Depression is just a word for realism, coined by a society that shuns realism and tries to force everyone into pure optimism.
How is it, then, that depression responds to sunlight and exercise? Do you really think that it is impossible to both view life for what it is and be happy? Happiness is not an illusion. It is a state that must be worked for, and as long as you convince yourself you're correct in your unhappiness, you'll remain unhappy. Feel free to disregard this as anecdotal, but I battled with depression and suicidal ideation for years before adopting a strict set of morals that limit my behaviour (essentially Christian). I am now the happiest I've ever been. Take that for whatever it's worth.
>There are two solutions: to make a fantasy, to have people lie to themselves, or to actually solve the problems people worry about
(a) It is impossible, in our current philosophical climate, to argue reality from fantasy. You are basically free to take your pick. It's not about fooling oneself -- we know absolutely nothing.
(b) If this "fantasy" ends up solving the problem, why is it not valuable? Just because it is "pretend," (and this notion in itself is objectionable) that somehow invalidates the fix? Whether/not you believe in religion from a theistic perspective, it is impossible to discredit the value of religion from a psychological perspective. It makes people happy, and frees them up to spend their lives on things that will make them happy in the long run. Pleasure is short-lived.
>The human brain is very powerful and flexible, don't underestimate it. We're animals, but we can overcome so many things.
And yet we still trip over our own pleasures and desires, unraveling our own lives and the lives around us. Interesting.

>>58
You can't live a meaningful or productive life without desire.
>mere gratification
What about people who create for creation itself, and are gratified by that? I suggest you read into what Tolkien has written about the elves he invented. To him, he created them as a living force of creation for creation itself: as the ideal otaku. They create just for fun, fun being the mere gratification you dislike. It's better to create because you want to than because you feel obligated to by your religion or capitalism.
Specifically, in the second edition of The Silmarillion, there's a letter included that Tolkien wrote to a publisher, and that's where he writes about elves being otaku.
>food, drink, sex
Those are the foundations of life that you can build other things on top of, if you interpret drink as water rather than alcohol. Without a foundation, a building is likely to sink or break. So you may as well enjoy the existence of this foundation rather than hate what you're made of. I love cooking, it's a creative endeavor. Without cooking, life would be more dull.
>not strong enough
Then why not make them stronger, rather than feed them lies?
>impossible to control others
Sadly it is possible. You and I are controlled every day. Some people may think they want to follow the law, but for a lot of those people, it's more that they don't want to be punished than that they actually agree with the law, whether it be secular or religious. And it is possible to remove these bad guys. If you could stop every religious figure, every politician, and every millionaire from being those sorts of people, in any way (reasoning with them, or at worst, killing them) that would lead to a change in civilisation.
>pleasure
Pleasure, by definition, is a good thing. The list of things afterwards are mostly negative, but those aren't caused by sex or pleasure existing.
>death
Ah, I forgot about that, since I forget about people who don't want to die. On that topic, this is a pretty good essay:
https://ashspace.org/contribs/carthago_deleta/living_as_a_suicidal.php
As for time, you're right that time is important. Time is the only scarce thing in the universe.
>"serious"
>bust one's ass
>difficult life
You're implying people can't find these things fun. But when people have genuinely free time, free as in freedom, they'll have a larger chance to find these things fun. Without money, the border between hobby and work entirely fades away, such so that the word work won't be meaningful. People will do many things for fun, and many of those fun things will be very productive and useful for humanity.
>consume media
Without capitalism, all of the media made solely to turn a profit will go away, and thus, a higher percentage of media in existence will be made solely for the act of making art. For a small teaser of that, read Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke. It's not a very long book, and it's a good one.
>easiest state
It's actually kinda difficult to create nothing at all.
>attracted to ease and comfort
You contradict yourself: you said humans were built for struggle.
>Do you really think that it is impossible to both view life for what it is and be happy?
No. it is possible to see reality and be happy, if your reality is good. What I claimed there is that many people live in bad realities today, so for them to not be depressed about their bad reality is to be dishonest with themselves. My goal in life, if I don't kill myself, is to make everyone's reality good, so no one ever has to lie again.
I agree that happiness is not an illusion.
>I am now the happiest I've ever been.
Lowering your standards, making your dreams smaller, and lowering your expectations can do that to you. I'd never do such a thing, though. People should strive to be the best they can be.
>If this "fantasy" ends up solving the problem, why is it not valuable?
In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, there's an object that represents this. There are special glasses, special sunglasses specifically, that whenever you're in danger, they blind you so that you cannot see the danger you're in. That's what this fantasy is like. A blindfold. I consider it better to fix the situation than blindfold one's self from the situation. That's simply my preference, and I feel it'd be beneficial for the world.
>frees them
It ``frees'' them from making their life better. Feeling better is not the same as being better.
>trip over our own pleasures and desires
?
If I understand what you're saying, you're saying it's better to not climb so high, so that the falls can be smaller.
I agree with what Tennyson has said, instead:
>I hold it true, whate'er befall;
>I feel it, when I sorrow most;
>'Tis better to have loved and lost
>Than never to have loved at all.
To strive for greatness and to suffer a great fall is better than to have done nothing.

>>59
>You can't live a meaningful or productive life without desire.
The point is not the elimination of ALL desire. The point is eliminating those desires that run contrary to a meaningful existence by obscuring the mind and "nagging it" in the direction of gratification.
>What about people who create for creation itself
These people are exceptionally rare, and even those that feel this way often fall victim to their pleasures/vices. For one very narrow example, consider all the incredibly gifted jazz musicians that have fallen victim to drug use. Creation is intrinsically valuable, that's true, but people, speaking generally, do not have the self-control or motivation to devote themselves to these things.
>you may as well enjoy the existence of this foundation rather than hate what you're made of
I absolutely agree. Food, drink (I did mean alcohol, but either way), and sex are all important and valuable. However, each of these can quite easily become a vice, and when you pursue them solely for hedonistic pleasure, this is all the more likely. In the case of sex, obviously it feels good, but it has a much more valuable role in cementing a relationship and creating life. If a person values it solely for pleasure, divorced from these things, what reason do they have to stay faithful to their partner? They would be denying themselves pleasure -- and why would anyone do that?! Cooking is a good example of how food can be enjoyed in a more valuable way. It is an act of creation. Compare this with someone who eats entirely for pleasure, divorced from value: they will prefer the food which pleases them the most, i.e. junk. Pleasure plays an important role in life, but it must be tempered with limitation, and the "higher" roles of these activities must be observed.
>Then why not make them stronger, rather than feed them lies?
How do you plan to make them stronger? Religion has, historically, done a fantastic job of tempering people. Why reinvent the wheel?
>for a lot of those people, it's more that they don't want to be punished than that they actually agree with the law
This sort of control has its place in society, and I'm not sure why you see it as a negative force. When a child does not agree with a rule and breaks it, they are punished -- not so that the parent can fulfill some sort of power fantasy, but so that the child grows into a functioning member of society.
>If you could stop every religious figure, every politician, and every millionaire from being those sorts of people [...] that would lead to a change in civilisation
How will this stop the common thief from pursuing his own self-interest? How will this prevent the angered man from committing murder? People will always, without fail, pursue their own self-interest. The root issue is that these interests often conflict with the interests of others, the interests of society, and even the interests of the self (due to ignorance).
>but those aren't caused by sex or pleasure existing
You're right. They're caused by the prioritization of pleasure and self-interest, and ignorance of the higher purpose of sex. Like I said, pleasure is not intrinsically bad; it just requires limitation, and people are very poor at administering these limitations on their own. This is one major benefit of a religious life.
>People will do many things for fun, and many of those fun things will be very productive and useful for humanity.
The world cannot depend on some unknown quantity of people that feel like contributing on a given day.
>a higher percentage of media in existence will be made solely for the act of making art
If there is a lack of dumb media, people will be motivated to create more dumb media. It is not the case that people are somehow being "forced away" from more artistic experiences -- if people really preferred these things, there would be a greater market for it and TV corps would be capitalizing on that. The corporations are not the issue, the people are. Without a trusted, guiding hand to show people the value in more serious entertainment, they will always prefer the easier and more immediately pleasurable.
>It's actually kinda difficult to create nothing at all.
How is this so? It is always easier to consume than create.
>You contradict yourself: you said humans were built for struggle.
I may not have been clear enough. Humans are built to surmount their struggles in pursuit of comfort. Unfortunately, when people are given a shortcut to comfort they will take it, even if it neglects a crucial component of their nature. It is this easy comfort and lack of struggle that plagues the modern mind -- ennui, etc.
>for them to not be depressed about their bad reality is to be dishonest with themselves
It is possible to realize how bad things are while still carving out a life of happiness. Depression does not motivate a person towards action, it sucks them dry of life and motivation. It is a state of having given up.
>My goal in life, if I don't kill myself, is to make everyone's reality good, so no one ever has to lie again
This is very noble, and I dearly hope that you won't resort to suicide. But if this "lie" will free you from your suffering, and still allow you to pursue your goals, why do you deny yourself this?
>Lowering your standards, making your dreams smaller, and lowering your expectations can do that to you.
None of these things are the case. I hate the world as it is right now, and I think we desperately need some fundamental changes. However, I spend my time pursuing improvement in myself and my art in hope of sparking some sort of change. I also have a girlfriend that I love, and I allow myself many wholesome pleasures, like reading and learning and listening to music. I also do my best to help others live more valuable and moral lives, and I've influenced at least a few people for the better. Even though i recognize the horrible state of the world and our society, I'm happy almost all the time. Please don't deny yourself happiness under the guise of "being realistic".
>I consider it better to fix the situation than blindfold one's self from the situation
Nothing about religion or moral living is anything like a blindfold. A moral and self-limited life leaves a person much more capable to pursue what they want, as the mind is not limited or bogged down by the pursuit of gratification or vanity. In fact, I'd say that pleasure is a better blindfold than any other.
>Feeling better is not the same as being better.
No, but they go hand in hand. A person that feels shit about everything will have a very hard time improving their life. Religion is a boost that can enable a person to pursue the (often very difficult) things that will make them truly happy.
>If I understand what you're saying, you're saying it's better to not climb so high, so that the falls can be smaller.
I hope by now you realize that this is not the case, but in case you haven't: I'm saying, rather, that by living a moral/religious life, a person can more effectively focus on the climb, attaining greater heights, while cushioning the fall if they fail.

>>60
>The point is eliminating those desires that run contrary to a meaningful existence by obscuring the mind and "nagging it" in the direction of gratification.
I could not understand this word salad sentence. I'm sorry. Please provide details.
>These people are exceptionally rare
They're only rare because authoritarianism discourages these sorts of people from existing.
>fallen victim to drug use
I dislike drugs and never use them, but why shouldn't they?
>creating life
Having children is the most selfish thing a person can do: to have sex for recreation isn't a vice at all if compared to the act of bringing people into the world. Forcing a person to live, by giving birth to him, is cruel.
>faithful
By actually being friends with the person they have sex with.
>they will prefer the food which pleases them the most, i.e. junk.
You're implying everyone has low standards. I assure you that gourmets actually exist.
>pleasure
>it must be tempered with limitation
Why? Can you give a reason? Why should someone limit his participation in papercraft or reading, if those provide him pleasure?
Asceticism is disgusting and unproductive, and makes people less human. Being an insect or robot is not a goal to strive for.
>reinvent the wheel
Except I don't want to reinvent a wheel: I want to remove shackles.
>control
>place in society
No. People should only control their own selves, and no one else. No one is so wicked as to warrant being controlled in any way by another person.
>When a child does not agree with a rule and breaks it, they are punished -- not so that the parent can fulfill some sort of power fantasy, but so that the child grows into a functioning member of society.
>not so that the parent can fulfill some sort of power fantasy
I'm so happy that the beatings my parents, sadistic bullies, gave me
>but so that the child grows into a functioning member of society
helped me become a broken NEET with no chance to do anything with my life, for myself or for others.
punishments :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
also
>rules
Rules are not inherently correct or good. Don't claim that democracy or any form of governance can make them inherently correct or inherently good, because it's not so.
inb4 ``your situation was unique, rules help MOST people''
One failure is 100% failure. If a scientific theory said x = 2.20 and it worked for decades but then observation found x = 2.23 on the far side of the moon, then the whole theory is disproven.
Rules are black and white, while real life is so complex it's not even greyscale, it may as well be of many hues too. Rules are inadequate for reality.

4taba said my post body was too long when I tried posting the whole thing. ('*w*`)

>How will this stop the common thief from pursuing his own self-interest?
By eliminating the need for thievery.
>How will this prevent the angered man from committing murder?
Good question. It certainly wouldn't be any more or less effective than it is today: one would hope for a society in which freedom is valued. Murdering someone takes away his freedom.
>People will always, without fail, pursue their own self-interest.
And? That doesn't conflict with altruism at all.
>The root issue is that these interests often conflict with the interests of others, the interests of society, and even the interests of the self (due to ignorance).
As long as a person doesn't take away anyone else's freedom, there's no reason to stop it from happening. That'd basically be the only limitation left of earth: taking care to not take away someone's freedom by accident
>higher purpose of sex
You're implying there's a defined purpose to things and that that purpose isn't just invented by some humans.
>pleasure is not intrinsically bad; it just requires limitation
You still need to explain why limitation of baseball, papercraft, farming, etc needs to exist.
>The world cannot depend on some unknown quantity of people that feel like contributing on a given day.
Then maybe the world shouldn't exist. I still feel it's not an unknown quality. There are a lot of people today who don't contribute: politicians, clergy, finance, day traders, etc. I think those people outnumber the number of people who will genuinely seek to do nothing in a post-scarcity society.
>It is not the case that people are somehow being "forced away" from more artistic experiences -- if people really preferred these things, there would be a greater market for it and TV corps would be capitalizing on that.
Now you're saying the markets are always right. They're not.
You're also implying that art is inherently difficult.
>It is always easier to consume than create.
Not so. Let's say a person watches a movie. Perhaps he writes a review: that review is a creation.
Perhaps he only talks about his thoughts in an IRC channel rather than writing a review: that conversation is a creation.
Let's say a person takes a hike in the forest and chats about it in an IRC channel, along with a couple photographs: that's a creation too.
>ennui
People often experience ennui when capitalism stops them from making the things they want to make.
>It is a state of having given up.
Wrong! When you give up, you stop desiring for things. People are depressed because they desire things still, and haven't given up on wanting to do good for the world and for themselves. Depression is a (not enjoyable) fight against a system that wants people to give up, and give up on desiring goodness.
>why do you deny yourself this?
My parents lied to me and about me a lot, and still do. Perhaps related to this, honesty is a very important value to me. It's one of the few values I value above everything else. The other two are probably freedom and happiness. So I won't lie. Not to anyone, especially not to myself.
>dearly hope that you won't resort to suicide
In some situations, a person has to be a masochist to enjoy life, and it turns out I'm neither masochistic nor sadistic. So I don't enjoy life. A 0 is much better than a -9001. Of course, 100 is better than 0. But that's not what this life is. And a lot of people unfortunately share with me the reality of having a bad life.
>wholesome
While I too consider some activities to be better uses of time than other activities, please remember both my preferences and your preferences are subjective opinions. A third person's preferences might be totally different from ours, yet he too should be able to seek his own happiness.
>Even though i recognize the horrible state of the world and our society, I'm happy almost all the time.
That's saddening that you could be happy with such a thing.
>Nothing about religion or moral living is anything like a blindfold.
Were the word religion not in that sentence, you'd be right. Ethics/morals are about opinions rather than truths, but religion is different. Some people say I have strong morals, simply because I don't make any exceptions to mine.
>Religion is a boost
In lowering someone's standards and re-aligning someone's goals to be smaller. I've seen it happen before to multiple people, both online and offline. But in these cases, it was usually with antidepressants rather than religion.
I also feel that a person who feels something is shit is more likely to fix the problem then someone who thinks ``oh i guess it kinda sucks a little''
I like this Shakespeare quote quite a bit:
>Be this the whetstone of your sword. Let grief
>Convert to anger. Blunt not the heart, enrage it.
Everyone else, all the religious, all the complacent: they just, in the way phrased there, blunt their hearts. They fall to inaction.
>by living a moral/religious life, a person can more effectively focus on the climb
Maybe if you mean climbing downwards rather than upwards. Climbing down to base camp, getting a cup of tea, and saying ``it's fine that I didn't make it to the peak of the mountain. I never wanted to do that anyway''

Also, this discussion definitely belongs on a different board. We're both trashing this thread. Reply on a board of your choice. ありがとうございます

Just finished The Plot Against America by Philip Roth. Startlingly relevant to today's American political climate, although there are also many obvious differences between Lindbergh's and Trump's ascension and ascendancy.

>>63
Would you mind summing up some of those relevant bits? I haven't read this, but I'm interested.

>>63

The circumstances under which Lindbergh wins the election are similar to Trump's: he is a non-political celebrity who runs a flashy, attention-grabbing campaign based on promising to protect Americans from foreign threats and stirring up distrust of a religious minority. He's also suspected by the more paranoid of being a Manchurian Candidate for the Nazis in a way that parallels modern America's anxiety about Russia's relationship with Trump. The biggest difference between the two is the enormous resistance Trump has faced in the first weeks of his office. Everyone in America loves President Lindbergh except for the Jews, like 80%+ approval rates. His single campaign promise is to keep America out of the war, so the general population is happy when that's what he does. He also is far more subtle than Trump about his anti-Semitic agenda, working with a prominent rabbi to form a government agency called the Office of American Absorption with a positive-sounding mission to integrate Jews into American society. And his administration is competent.

>>63
>>65
definitely will add this to my backlog. i've been meaning to read his American Pastoral too, only because it's based in a town my father grew up in and I believe Roth did as well

>>65
Thank you for the explanation, that sounds really fascinating. Funny to note that the same things that had made Lindbergh so popular (cult of personality, enemy as political opportunity) have been decried as "fascist" in Trump's case.

>>65
>He also is far more subtle than Trump about his anti-Semitic agenda, working with a prominent rabbi to form a government agency called the Office of American Absorption with a positive-sounding mission to integrate Jews into American society.
>implying Trump is anti-Semitic
He completely supports Israel, and has the support of Israel's leader. Many of his kids are converted Jews. He's not anti-Semitic, or, at least, he's great at hiding it.
>And his administration is competent.
Trump's administration isn't that bad.

I didn't mean to imply that Trump is anti-Semitic, but I see how my wording was ambiguous. I was contrasting Lindbergh's anti-Semitism with Trump's attacks on Islam.

>Trump's administration isn't that bad.

bad thread

>>70
who are you to decide this?