We're such a fertile board. Almost manure, really.
>putting the greatest masterpiece produced in this century on the same level as that wet garbage
A couple seem readable, but that boor shit is really ridiculous. You can feel it's a failed script hastily turned into an almost-novel.How the fuck is he delusional enough to think his shit is even just acceptable?
>>25610658This is very very good.
>>25610642we need more. MORE!
>>25610722Well, of course. It is the greatest masterpiece of this century, sir. Please pay attention: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n7yZYutBzl1s0kIpc8ILwJe11BDoZ3jW/view
>>25610728How many actual writers who have produced book-length works are even on this board?
>>25610642The Chemical Divorce one and the Dodo one are good. Maybe that Cur one, if the author can get his head out of his ass for enough time to build a narrative. Everything else is shit.
>>25610763We should have at least a dozen. This is just the most recent crop.
>>25610763I think they're all still around
>>25610642New TB drops Halloween
>>25610812post an excerpt at least, not only this gay cover.
Another shill thread? I actually read the first chapter of each story and the only one that has any lasting potential is Rus. King of LA is a failed script with the biggest stupidest cliches ever.Cur tries to go in depth, but it too far often goes off on retarded tangents that overly explains stupid shit. We don't even get a "literary vampire" plot until who fuck knows, because it's not in chapter 1.All forgotten is a bunch of short storiesLast Dodo is good too, but it's far more of a author's rant than anything. Very /pol/ shit.Chemical Divorce starts strong then it falls apart very quickly with its chapters being less than a page long with nothing really happening. Tons of pointless exposition as well.Rus has an actual story with story beats, plot, and movement. I could actually see this one being on a bookshelf or in a store.
>>25610822>he actually reads stuffSir this is /lit/. We don't read.
>>25610722Have more.
>>25610763Any with sense wouldn't want their work associated with this shithole.Intentionally cultivating such a association is to say that you never ever plan on ever working in any industry professionally and never ever going to try to get published anywhere for any reason besides self publishing. It's not shooting yourself in the foot, it's shooting yourself in the face with a shotgun and somehow botching the shot so you technically survive. There is only negative to doing so. It's self destructive and stupid. Which is why only self destructive retards do so.I wrote several stories. You people will never know their titles or where they are published because I would fucking never want my writing linked to you "people".
>>25610642terrible cover art
>>25611156t. pussy
>>25611205I like the Cur cover.Unfortunately the author is retarded and changed it with a generic, insipid one.
>>25610642These are really amateurish, generally. We've produced better artists than this.
>>25611233Certainly you're not including Boor's masterpiece in your description.
>>25611233/lit/ is a hotbed of true artistic innovation, but no one in their right mind would want any sort of association with it publicly.
>>25611262The mediocre pussy ones don't.
>>25611262>/lit/ is a hotbed of true artistic innovationOn what basis do you make such a claim? Wishful thinking?
>>25611265Some people like being able to be gainfully employed.
>>25611262I go back and forth on this. I've already been published in one of /lit/'s old magazines under my own name so if anyone actually did the research my cover's already blown as it is. Sometimes I think I should self-promote my own writing on here more.Then again, nobody likes an attention whore. I've always hoped /lit/ would find me organically. I DO respect this place a lot, and it'd be nice to be liked by the readers on here.
>>25611266>he hasn't read The Legacy of a Totalitarianism in a TundraPfffft... lurk more, newfriend.
>>25611272>i want to be admired but without making it clear that I want it, so I hope it will happen by itselfA pussy bitch and a feminine man. Nothing more repulsive. You're basically a tranny. That Boor guy is hilariously incompetent and a genuine idiot, but at least he has more balls than you.
>>25611266On what basis do you reject such a claim?
>>25611277Do you expect me to roll on my back and show my belly for /lit/'s approval? I've seen how this board treats writers who do that. Yes, actually, I WOULD like this board to admire me organically as a result of me rising as an artist in other venues. I respect /lit/ but it's not my primary audience, that is elsewhere. I'm not F. Gardner.
>>25611282I expected you to provide excuses for your cowardice, excuses dressed in smart clothes to dissimulate their ugliness. I was not disappointed.Not trying to be mean, but somebody like you can't be anything more than mediocre. You worry too much about the wrong things.
>anon hones his craft on a debauched loli smut forum>goes legit and attempts to not associate his public work with said forum
>>25611289Honest question: what do you think Proust or Joyce or Pound would do, if they posted on /lit/? Do you think they would beg /lit/ for approval? Or Hemingway or Eliot or Faulkner?
>>25611294How does one use this two stage contradiction format without > does it even work outside of places like this?I use and see it so often here but it feels alien in other contexts
>>25611279Lack of observable evidence.
>>25611330/lit/ is compostable
>>25611222Rimon's work is amazing and I'm happy to have it on the cover, the snail stomp was only OK
>>25611282I don't particularly care about /lit/'s approval since this board isn't a hivemind and some will like it and others won't.
>>25610820Sinner Seesthe Incursion of the Unreal 1A Deo, Omnes Sapientia“Astrid?”Her eyes darted from the front windows. She craned her neck to see me, the jerking motion sending her blonde locks into a little flurry. I’d known her since my first year at Hawkins as a carefree, childish thing, so it was especially jarring to see those eyes colored by fear. She said nothing.“What are you doing here? Where’s the driver?”When she realized who I was, it must’ve relaxed her. The fear dissolved into a mischievous grin. She sounded the whistle (her gaze still locked on mine), waved goodbye, and, with a booted foot, kicked the door shut in my face. Hesitating, a moment elapsed before I tried to reopen the door, and by then, she’d locked it.“You weren’t supposed to see that,” a voice said.I turned around to face Roxanne, Astrid’s bosom friend. She stood with her arms crossed like an administrator about to scold me, her lips pursed into a condescending pout. “See what?” I asked, bewildered. “Forget about it,” she answered. “Forget about what?”“There you go.”“What are you talking about? What’s Astrid doing in the cab?”“It’s always twenty questions with you,” she said, rolling her eyes. “You’re hiding something.”Roxanne smirked. “Why don’t you go write about it in your little paper?”
>>25611272I wrote a book and selfpublished it and am trying to get a couple short stories published in various ways but idk if I'd share it here. Feels unwiseSo to answer your question there's definitely a good amount of actual writers here that don't dox themselves, probably a few surprising ones if we knew who they were
>>25611545It doesn't fit the tone of the book and looks generic YA slop. The other cover caught my eye, this one is invisible.
>>25611617You haven't even read the book and you're trying to educate the author on its tone. Never change /lit/
>>25611752What makes you think I haven't read it?Also, covers need to have an impact BEFORE the potential reader reads the book. If a cover feels insipid, it has failed.
>>25611545generic, boring slopand some details like the writing on the shirt make it look like AI slop even
>>25611553Meh. Serviceable, but not a single impactful/beautiful sentence. Readable but insipid, like the stuff that a redditor could write.
>>25610822The Chemical Divorce's sections aren't chapters. There are nine to correspond to the Nine Gates. Its plot is an occult allegory based on ancient Egyptian ritual
>>25611413Can you name a more creatively fertile message board or website?
>>25611981You replied to the wrong post I think.
>>25611262this
https://www.youtube.com/@TheProvincialLadyhttps://www.youtube.com/TheBookBelle
The Chemical Divorce has some interesting themes about protecting literature at any cost, which dovetail with its Nietzschean ending
>>25612026this isn't a fap thread.well I guess now it is.
>>25611907Tell me how it ends.Also, you can spend a hundred more posts calling it insipid, I'll still think it's wonderful.
>>25611913>>25611911Insipid critique
>>25612718Petty and immature like a woman. Just as prone to sperging out on the page about autistic personal grievances too, from what I've seen. And not enough style, thought or imagination to compensate for it.4/10 Mediocre.
>>25611927then that didn't come across whatsoever. You really should learn how a reader interprets things. You can say your work is deep, compelling, and uses the philosophies of Decartes, Kant, Aristotle, and mixes them with the psycholanalytics of Jung, but if the reader doesn't pick up any of that shit by the end of the first chapter, your work failed.
>>256127574/10 bait, made me reply
>>25612819The exoteric narrative is just there as a scaffolding to undergird the magical allegory. I'm not saying The Chemical Divorce is deep: it literally is a beat-for-beat reenactment of an occult initiation, except I moved up the "sword to throat" gesture to immediately get the reader's attention. Normally, that would take place later in the ritual, which has now been preserved for future generations in the form of this short story. The piece is intended as a character study of Anton LaVey and a meditation on Objectivist thought. Would it be moral to sacrifice an innocent person to save the Library of Alexandria? To save a single book? Where do we draw the line? This is the sort of question that interests me, and I hope it interests my readers, too.
>>25612860>Would it be moral to sacrifice an innocent person to save the Library of Alexandria? To save a single book? Where do we draw the line? This is the sort of question that interests me, and I hope it interests my readers, too.The question isn't the problem, it's the delivery. You can write about such subjects as well as use your prose, but there's nothing there to actually tell this story. Take a look at chapter 2>Beyond Byzantine halls, at the northern wall of the supply closet, towered a monolithic gate. Pagan statues, structural since the conflagration, flanked the threshold. They were exactly my size, six feet and three inches tall, as though we had been chiseled from the same marble. Crushed by the additional weight, both titans supporting the sagging arch were crumbling to powder.Tell us it's in Egypt as a hint, not some Byzantine hall, especially when the Library of Alexandria is in Egypt and burned down in the 7th century, 300 years before when the Great Schism happened. If you want us to care about book burnings, then set the stage up. These are the hints you need to provide and not just inane ramblings that confuse the reader.>I dredged out of my cassock’s sopping pocket a keyring. Thrusting a rusty key inside the lock, I imagined four radial engines sputtering, wondered how it would feel for my own thumb to hover over the red button, to drop munitions as a housemaid drops dirty laundry. To die was mortal: to kill, divine.>Deeper, deeper. A click. As pins met the shear line and the cylinder revolved, the key snapped off and broke the lock. Ejected from my hallucination, I stooped over, knees bent, nostrils flaring, to catch my breath. The gate creaked open. Raising my hood, I crept over the cobblestones into the grotto.The other paragraphs are fine, but should probably be put into chapter 3 where we finally see some damn books and find out its a library.
>>25612965Not literally the Library of Alexandria: I meant that as an example. That said, the point stands. Furthermore, the Codex does refer to a specific, real book. As for the scene divisions, a reader whom I hired had complained that "the absence of scene breaks... contributed to my confusion." In response to this, I added the dinkuses whenever there was a location change or time passed. (In retrospect, I suppose I could have done something novel like adding a scene break whenever a light was ignited or extinguished.)Consequently, some of these sections are longer than others. For the Royal Road release, I like the way the sections are named in the style of "Half-Life," especially the double entendre for the finale. Overall, I am very confident in the piece's prose, and all of the feedback has been positive. Again, we apologize to those who read the first edition, which was rushed out the door to prevent one of our innumerable beta readers from publishing the piece as their own.
>>25613004I know it's not literally it, but thats what I mean when you hint at the story. You use Egyptian-Greek motifs, not Byzantine. My issue is the delivery of the piece and the fogginess of what you're trying to convey.
>>25613013It's all Greek to me.
>>25610642look at all these great novels i'm never going to read. I'm sure they are all fantastic.Nothing turns you off of reading faster than surrounding yourself with the kind of people who read and write books.
>>25613026That applies mostly to fiction though.
>>25613033they are honestly the most affable and tolerable of the bunch.
>>25611545holy botched. you must be in love with or otherwise trying to court this individual to be so blind.
>>25612829You should really stop interacting in these threads. You and that other boor guy. You're both at the same level (which is 4/10), both mediocre pretentious pseuds who can't stop betraying your real level whenever you open your mouth.
>>25613092True, we're adorable.>>25613103His utter lack of aesthetic sensibility isn't compatible with a good writer.
>>25611545this doesn't even say the title of the novel are you retarded?she must be real grippy for you to defend her shit like this
>>25610763I did. I wasn't published tho', so it probably doesn'tcount.
>>25613240I think you take this site a little too seriously buddy>>25613519It's a crop dummy
>>25613103Wrong on all counts, I just grew up watching anime
>>25613245You must be an expert on not being a good writer
>>25613769post the whole cover you spastic>>25613833i'm an expert on spastics and you are one
>>25613844I've got a better plan: I give you the finger and you look the full cover up yourself
>>25610658We know it's you, Eugene.
>>25610822>the only one that has any lasting potential is Rus.Why does it seem so bad then, huh?
>>25611545>picIs that your cover? I mean the art is good but like anon said it screams YA. I'd never pick up a book with this cover.
Original Cur cover was better
>>25613850nobody is gonna do your legwork for you, faggot cretin.getting a decent cover is one of your 2 jobs, by far the easier one, and you still failed it.you could ask 1000 random people and they would all agree that the new cover is diarrhea but you're too much of a dipshit to admit you did something stupid.
>>25614041Yeah, it wasn't awful but also didn't have anything particularly interesting. Didn't make me want to keep reading.
>>25614047>the art is goodNot trying to kick a dead horse but I honestly wouldn't even call the art good. Washed up colors, bland anime-like style but without any striking peculiarity. It's amateurish.And there's something wrong with the fingers, especially the pinky. And the writing on the shirt looks AI even though it's not. It's really difficult to make a cover THIS bad.
>>25614384>amateurishBy which I mean that you can find much better stuff on deviantart or any other fanart website, not that any random person off the street could do better.
>>25614039>they doubt that the Church of Dodo is alive and prosperous on /lit/Forgive them, Master.
Would people prefer if I just removed all the dinkuses entirely? I could do that for the second edition of The Chemical Divorce after my friend finishes the new cover.
>>25614372Dunno, my friend, you're doing a lot of legwork for me ragging on that amazing cover. Keep it up. You should go out and ask 1000 random people about my book's cover just to prove your point :)
>AI slopignored
>>25614553The cover is the one thing I liked about the version I read.
>>25614047It's too bad for you that you wouldn't pick up a book that "screams YA." Judging a book by its genre instead of its content is like judging a person by their physiology instead of their character. Or like judging a book by its cover. Go figure!
>>25614803That reminds me: I was just looking through old drafts and found this one. I like that alternative opening line, too. The really early versions didn't even have Hugo, so there was no dream sequence, either. Hugo ended up the story's best character, so it's fortunate we ended up putting him in
>NJB's towering genius still rustling the bucket crab jimmieshumiliation ritual for brownoids
>>25614799we're pretty much doing that very experiment in a smaller version here: everybody agrees it's a shit cover. It's so shit that now your artistic sensibility is being called into question, and that's a fairly important skill for a writer.
>>25614815Are you legitimately stupid? How can somebody who still hasn't read your book judge it by its contents? They are POTENTIAL readers. They still haven't read it. They only have the cover to go by. If that screams YA, and they don't like YA because they're not retarded, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO READ YOUR BOOK.Is this really beyond your grasp?Being arrogant is justified in a skilled professional, but you're revealing yourself as just an imbecile.
>>25614902>still trying to make himself relevant by intruding into the conversationYou were already chewed and spat out. You were found insipid.
>>25614815is it your purpose to come off as an inflamed vagina every time your shortcomings are exposed?because that's the only case in which you're not failing miserably.
>>25614487How pseudish.
>>25614871>I like that alternative opening line, too.I don't. It doesn't work. Scrapping it was the right move.
>>25614951So which of the 6 has a good cover?
>>25614951Calm down little buddy, there's no need to yell.>>25614993Your boos means nothing to me, I've seen what you people cheer.
>>25614957>You were already chewed and spat out.>where is even de curry flavor???>no hecking cute e-girls in de story??
>>25610642That writing is manure, alright.
>>25611213No, no, he's right.
>>25610763At least one, me. A book on Aristotle’s Organon that is about 200 pages long. The thing is I mostly only cared about understanding moreso than writing. Writing was for me a royal road to understanding. Therefore I did not cite sources but simply sang together as it were a brand new book from thr dead, from the Arabs, primarily Averroes. Therefore the book is unpublishable, or not without a great deal of work. Therefore I did not finish it per se. You think this is a paragraph when it is, in fact, a necessary Barbara. Perhaps I will post excerpts later if I feel so inclined. This post refutes Marx entirely who said there is nobroyal road to science. Gone. Poof.
>>25615656Page one PRAGRPH THE FIRSTThere are two ways to truth: demonstration and dialectic. Demonstration provides certain knowledge through causes, while dialectic gives probability in cases where certainty is impossible, or is otherwise employed where demonstration would be inapplicable, as in the consideration of the first principles on which demonstration depends. Before studying philosophy one must master the principles of these arts, and before studying demonstration and dialectic one must consider whatever is prior to both of them. This is the beginning of logic, which teaches how conceptions and judgments are formed and expressed, proceeding to demonstration and dialectic more particularly, and following these with treatments of sophistry, rhetoric and poetics. Al-Farabi defined it as “the science of understanding”, and it is called the handmaid of the arts because it is employed in all of them. But the ancient understanding of logic is different from the modern one. In some ways our logic will be narrower, not being at all concerned with modeling every conceivable sort of argument or inference. In other ways it will be broader, as involved with questions of epistemology, psychology and ontology that modern logicians do not treat.
>>25615679Page Deler. MEMORIZE THIS ENTIRE FUCKING BUK I WROTE OR YOU WILL LITERALLY GO TO HELLEvery swan is necessarily a bird No man is necessarily a bird ∴ No man is necessarily a swanAnd we form a new Felapton giving us the conclusion: No man is necessarily a swan Every man is necessarily an animal ∴ Some animal is necessarily not a swanPure Necessity Deductions in the Third Figure:Darapti NNN: Every B is necessarily A Every B is necessarily C ∴ Some C is necessarily A Every animal is necessarily animate Every animal is necessarily a substance ∴ Some substance is necessarily animateFelapton NNN: No B is necessarily A Every B is necessarily C ∴ Some C is necessarily not A No animal is necessarily inanimate Every animal is necessarily a substance ∴ Some substance is necessarily not inanimateDisamis NNN: Some B is necessarily A Every B is necessarily C ∴ Some C is necessarily A Some animal is necessarily white Every animal is necessarily animate ∴ Some animate things are necessarily whiteDatisi NNN: Every B is necessarily A Some B is necessarily C ∴ Some C is necessarily A Every animal is necessarily animate Some animals are necessarily white ∴ Some white things are necessarily animateFerison NNN: No B is necessarily A Some B is necessarily C ∴ Some C is necessarily not A
Here's a Dodo story that's ACTUALLY good:https://archive.is/gnHKM>Centuries ago, their kind waged a war of extermination on your race, mercilessly executing every male, female, and child. They thought they had succeeded when they declared your kind extinct. They were wrong...Peruvian writers can't even compete.
>>25615685Pag 67 whole thing. LEARN IT LEARN HE ORGNON OR YOU WILL BE REINCARNATED AS A LITERAL JEW FOR REAL THIS TIMEAnd now we join this conclusion to one of our supplementary premises to form a Deduction in Felapton NNN:No X is necessarily AEvery X is necessarily C∴ Some C is necessarily not AHere’s the proof with real terms:Some animal is necessarily not whiteEvery animal is necessarily animateTo establish a necessary conclusion, first we expose the indefinite premise in Cesare:No raven is necessarily whiteEvery raven is necessarily an animalNow the supplement in Barbara:Every animal is necessarily animateEvery raven is necessarily an animal∴ Every raven is necessarily animateAnd now the Felapton that proves the conclusion:No raven is necessarily whiteEvery raven is necessarily animate∴ Some animate thing is necessarily not whiteIntroduction to the Mixed Necessary/Categoricals: A universal necessary proposition, whether proper or derivative, so long as it is truly necessary and not an accidental necessary like “all awake animals are necessarily moving”, always takes one of the forms, “All <per se> are necessarily <per se>,” “All <per se> are necessarily <accident>”, “No <per se> are necessarily <per se>”, “No <per se> are necessarily <accident>”, or “No <accident> are necessarily <per se>”. Given these forms, if the major in the first figure is necessary, and the minor categorical, there will always be a necessary relation between the extremes, and so will there be in those second and third figure mixed necessary/categoricals that are converted into the appropriate first figure deductions with necessary majors.Accidental necessaries like “Every awake thing is necessarily moving” are not admissible here. These are only necessary in a secondary sense, and are only employed in mixed contingents where they are the only sort of “necessary” proposition that could occur anyhow. They do not occur in Aristotle’s examples except in those special cases where they are the only possible “necessary” proposition.But if the first figure major is categorical, the major extreme can be a term like “moving” or “asleep”. Thus there will not necessarily be a necessary relation between the extremes and so the conclusion is categorical in these, as well as in deductions in the other two figures that are converted into these.It might be objected that in indefinite deductions like Darii and Ferio, the conclusion is sometimes both necessary and contingent. Consider this deduction:All men are necessarily animalsSome white things are men
>>25615690page 83 paragraph 2. plz learn this stuff anon it is actually important in life. Not me, moron, Aristotle.Our hypothetical deduction cannot itself be a mixed contingent/categorical or we will end up arguing in a circle, for our hypothetical deduction would be another imperfect contingent. So we infer propositions that are “false, but not impossible” – we mean “possibly holding at some time”, not in our other senses of the possible, which are extratemporal. “All B is contingently A” can yield the “false, but not impossible” categorical proposition, “All B is A at some time”. If a hypothesis joined to a “false, but not impossible” proposition yields a conclusion that is impossible, the hypothesis must be false and impossible. If the hypothesis had been possible, the conclusion would not have been impossible.
>>25615694Page 111 pargraph the third.This is the one that gave me bipolar alcoholic disorder familial hereditary heeheeheeAverroes’ thought on these problems evolved over the course of his career as a commentator. He began by agreeing with al-Farabi on the nature of the categorical: it represented being-in-act, properly of things that were mostly or always true of their subjects but which fell short of known per se necessity, and secondarily of propositions that were temporally limited. (He later thought that the categorical also overlapped with the necessary, expressing the necessary qua actual, probably because of example categoricals in the text, many of which are clearly necessary). This way the division of the kinds of premises followed the divisions of being as suggested in the ninth chapter – some things are necessarily in act if their subjects are in act (the necessary), some are in act if their subjects are in act but their being is not necessary, or its necessity is not known (the categorical), and some things are in non-necessary potency (the contingent). But he came to think that al-Farabi’s notion of universal attribution was too restrictive, besides not being able to explain the imperfection of mixed modals with contingent minors. The art of deduction seemed to reject restrictions on the content of premises as would have been required under al-Farabi’s interpretation. For example, given reciprocating terms third figure deductions conclude universally and second figure deductions with affirmative premises can have valid conclusions, but both of these are rejected in the art because they can only be true when the premises have this certain sort of content. Al-Farabi would only have accepted an extremely narrow set of “necessary” and “categorical” propositions. Averroes reasoned that an understanding of modality that was so restrictive of what constituted a premise went against the whole spirit of the text.
>>25615656>>25615679>>25615685>>25615690Fuck off.
>>25615699Overlap bimbam 118/119 one paragraph if you don't master ancient logic you will literally turn into an insane person like me.A necessary proposition contains two per se terms, and a categorical properly contains two accident terms. Secondarily it can be composed of a per se term with an accidental predicate – this would be a temporally bound categorical, like “all animals are walking”, or an accident term with an apparent per se term that is really not per se at all but refers to particulars (“every white thing is a man [right now]”) – or it can have a per se predicate and an accidental subject – “all walking things are animals”. This third class was called by Averroes “per se categorical and per accidens necessary” – the subject is something that does not exist per se, since the thing that is walking does not walk by necessity. But the predicate happens to be per se, because the “thing” of “walking thing” is a per se unity, “animal”, and the relation is in that sense necessary. The temporally bound categoricals, on the other hand, are not necessary in any way, even though the subject or predicate happen to look like per se words – they are not referring to species, genera, etc, but to particulars.
>>25615700Say that too me one more time I will drink 20+ beers and literally dox you irl boom bam flash.The Platonists would claim to “demonstrate” a thing’s essence by divisions – “Man is a mortal two-footed animal, because he is either an animal or not, and is an animal, and is either immortal or mortal, and is mortal, and he is either two-footed or not, and is two-footed,” etc. But it should be clear how this is not really a demonstration. A demonstration would prove why a man was mortal or two-footed by reference to a shared middle term. Eventually we will see that essences cannot be demonstrated at all. The method of division is important, but it is not a proof of anything on its own. The major extreme should include the middle, but in division the middle is a universal that encompasses the major: All animals are either mortal or immortal All men are animals ∴ All men are mortal <???>
>>25615705If you have a dream about me it will make me weep irl. You should be ashamed of your filthy dreams.ll of these examples have been dialectical. But the same dynamic is at work in any deductive system, including the physical sciences. An explanation of natural phenomena in which one thing is said of another because of a third is analyzable into these structures, with the same principles at work in the consequents and antecedents of the terms. Any art, too, to the extent that it is explainable, can be analyzed into deductions. They all will rest on certain primary definitions, axioms and propositions, and these will form long deductive chains. Take anything that you happen to know much about, practical or theoretical, and ask yourself “why is this so?” or “why is it done this way?” and you will be forming deductive chains in the three figures. With a little practice it becomes easy to identify middle terms and propositions. And we now know just where to look in new inquiries, what can be ignored, how we should proceed differently according as we are refuting or establishing, or as the question is universal or indefinite, affirmative or negative. In scientific demonstration of course we will not “hunt” for arguments pro and con, but first principles grasped by observation will be organized into deductive systems: the astrologer, for instance, would begin by observing the movements of the stars, and then be able to explain their orbits by demonstration. The actual principles of all of the possible subjects of deduction will vary greatly one from another. But they will have deduction in common, and a predicate will be universally affirmed of its subject because its universal antecedent is the same as the subject’s universal consequent, and in no other way, whether the subject is botany or cribbage . A great deal of the work that lies before us will be in discovering the primary propositions and definitions behind the natural sciences, psychology, metaphysics, etc. But what we say about deduction is universal to any sort of knowledge whatsoever, if by knowledge we mean the knowledge of explanatory causes. Many ways of reasoning are not deductive at all, though they may play a role in the acquisition of knowledge. But a deduction always gives the cause of the inherence of the predicate in the subject by a middle term. No other form of reasoning is able to do this, and this is why all demonstrations are deductions.
>>25615709Anon look I know this is confusig. But if you don't spend basically all your time staring and thinking about this problem of logic you will basically explode into a bipolar manic episode with a side of lithium just like your aunt.The major premise is particular in the same way. Not all of Aristomenes the object of thought is immortal, but only the Aristomenes that is abstracted from the (unfortunately all too mortal and corruptible) matter of our friend Aristomenes. Musical Miccalus will perish tomorrow Miccalus is musical Miccalus ∴ Miccalus will die tomorrow (!)(THIS PARAGRAPH REFERS TO PART OF PRIORRRR ANALYTICS BOOK 2 IF I RECALL BUT TO BE QUITE HONEST I CAN'T REMEMBER I'M GONNA GET DRUNK TONIGHT PERHAPS HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA)
>>25615711I can refute you from pge 135 of my legitimate loser uncle's book you faggot.And the conclusion is true – health is contingent. Or we could have the same problem in the second figure: No disease is necessarily health Health is said of every man ∴ Disease cannot be said of any man (!)The right formulation would be: Nothing diseased is healthy (this is only true non-necessarily, since the diseased can become healthy) Every man is contingently healthy ∴ Disease is said of no man, in the broadly possible mode, the relation being not necessarily necessary (the true relation being of course contingent)And in the third figure we could have: Ignorance is said of all men Knowledge is said of all men ∴ Some knowledge is ignorance (!)
>>25615715Looks pretty schizo. Bipolar for sure. Haunted family. Artists nd shit. Cringe. Obesity. No PhD. Only a BA. In Classics. Thumbs down. No woman will ever love you. Page 142.virtues (!) Contra hypothesis: The virtues do not persuade us not to love happinessReductio ad impossibile: Those who neither will nor do not will to be happy do not will to be happy Hypothesis: Those who are happy neither will nor do not will to be happy ∴ Those who are happy do not will to be happy (!) Those who die are not happy Those who are happy do not will not to be happy ∴ Those who are happy do not will to die We had to remove unnecessary material, like “But happiness of what quality soever, such as is not so, but rather is so called, is sought, nay indeed is feigned in this life, while immortality is despaired of, without which true happiness cannot be.” The whole section on the “equanimous man” who faces death stoically had to be set aside at first because it was not part of the central argument. Generally, though, this was a pretty straightforward analysis, since the arguments were simple. Analysis is the sort of thing that is very tricky at first but rapidly becomes easier. Generally, the best way to proceed is to ask yourself, “Why does the author think this?”, and the answer to this question will be the middle term.
>>25615717This is a good part. Page 189. The esoteric Kantanon implants Deleuze in the subject's brain using aliumm technologies like a bipolar manic episode smoke crystal meth dude it won't kill you to do it like once or twic.Averroes defends this example by saying that all action springs from conscupiscent desire, so it matches the universality of the Art of Deduction. This seems silly to us since many of the other examples are not universal at all (e.g. musical Miccalus). But it is true that concupiscence underlies any art and action, as military service is related to the desire to defend the state, or philosophy is related the desire to know, and love of the beloved can be a stand-in for our love of the good in general, and paradigmatic in the sense that it often is in the Bible. And the analogy in philosophy to the good-will of the beloved is knowledge of the reason why, and the being granted a benefit is like knowledge of the fact. We would rather have both, but if we can only have one, knowledge of the reason why is better. It would be better to have a false understanding of the celestial bodies for the right reasons, than to know all sorts of facts about the celestial bodies together with a false understanding of the underlying nature of reality.
>>25615720This part is sad. Smoke the fentanyl on the foil little girl like your weird sadsack of shit uncle also did at one time and it nearly killed him but then he woke up miraculously barely brething.is affection, and sex is either not an end of love, or is subordinate to affection. (He also thought that marriage could be as fulfilling as friendship, which was so far ahead of his contermporaries that Cicero censored the idea in his Laelius.) Plato argued for celibacy this way, because sex was choosing a lesser good, and tended to undermine the desire for affection and make it impossible for the love of a person to serve as a contemplative ladder, as described in the Symposium and other places.
>>25615721Here it is ladies and gentlemen. This is the precise pargraph tht mkes me intellectually superior to almost everyone around me despite being a fat loser drunk suicide case on suicide watch.Some fallacies are so closely tied to formal deduction that it makes sense to look at them now. There are five ways one can fail to deduce: a person may simply claim an invalid deduction, whether a conclusion from one wholly invalid, or a conclusion that does not follow from the terms. Or there are these fallacies more closely tied to the principles of demonstration and dialectic: arguing from premises that are less well-known than the conclusion, or arguing from premises as unknown as the conclusion, or proving the prior from the posterior, i.e. proving the cause from the effect, proving what is known through the sense-experience by which we know it when the true causal relation is the reverse, and we touched briefly on this last in our treatment of circular deduction. Premises should be more known than the conclusion and should also be properly explanatory of it. But these issues will be treated more extensively in their proper places. We will look now at the fifth way of failing to deduce, which is begging the question, a rather odd English expression referring to the deduction of something by means of itself that is not known by means of itself. Some things really are known by means of themselves – axioms like the principle of non-contradiction, for example. And these would not be deduced anyway. Things that are not known in themselves are deduced, and they cannot be deduced by means of themselves, or the question has been begged. The grossest
>>25615722How much is this alleged "man" worth irl? About $19.20 an hour. But bonus vacation time. Cn't say why that is would be a self-dox but is true, two extra weeks over those PATHETIC NORMIE FOOLSAnd this can happen in any of the deductions in any of the figures following the same pattern, with the fallacy ultimately arising in one of these four ways. The common thread in all fallacies of this kind is that, on the conversion of the hypothesis to its contradictory, or removing it from the proof entirely, the false conclusion will still remain, even though the other premises remain the same. In a true reductio ad impossibile, the subject of the conclusion is under the predicate of the hypothesis when the false conclusion is subordinate to the hypothesis and traced downward from it:Hyp: All B is A What have perfect motions can be unpredictable All C is B All celestial bodies have perfect motions All D is C All stars are celestial bodies ∴ All D is A (!) ∴ All stars can have unpredictable motions (!) Or the subject of the hypothesis is subject and connected to the predicate of the false conclusion, when the hypothesis is ultimate and the connection traced upwards: All E is Z Anything divine has supernatural powers All A is D Anything immortal is divineHyp: All B is A All men are immortal ∴ All B is Z (!) ∴ All men have supernatural powers (!)
>>25615725P. 197 first two full paragraphs. Allows anon to see the color of a person's soul. But this vision drives him bipolar. Difficult to understnd. Perhaps literally nonsensicl. MAKE IT MAKE SENSEFor example, say we were defending the proposition, “music should not be listened to too much”, and our questioning opponent was trying to establish the opposite, “music should be listened to as much as possible” – “Does music not allow us to enter into the mind of another?” “Yes, in a way it does.” “And is not entering the mind of another the essence of empathy?” It is clear to us that he is forming a Barbara – “music causes empathy”, from which he will try to say something like “anything that causes empathy is good and should be done as much as possible”, so we should say “no” to this if at all possible – and it is possible, because we could maintain that entering the mind of another is not the “essence” of empathy, because criminals also enter the minds of others, and we would not describe them as empathetic.But if we are the questioner, we should try to obscure our deduction as much as possible by obscuring the ultimate premise. This can be done by not explicitly drawing the conclusions that follow from our preliminary premises, so our opponent does not realize that his next admission, joined to the admissions he has made in those preliminary premises, will actually deduce the contradiction, by beginning from premises at a distance from those that establish the conclusion, by asking questions in an order that makes their connection through middle terms less clear.
>>25615729Fuck Aristotle Uncle Marks I'm gonna do a FICHTE and become a Fichte Queen of Galbrior.........I approve.Real disputation does not always have universally affirmative premises, of course. So the respondent cannot expect to succeed by merely denying one of the premises – a negative premise may be part of the questioner’s plan of attack, unless he is establishing an affirmative, and even then he could introduce negative premises that have no bearing on the ultimate conclusion, just to confuse the reponder, and more often the questioner is establishing a negative anyway. On the other hand, just because the questioner establishes a deduction, does not mean that he has actually deduced the contradiction of the answerer’s position.
>>25615732Alright I'm bored of this now I'm gonna take a nice long ramble in the woods hope you enjoyed a sneak peak at like 1% of the book my beautiful family is giong to write because we are better than you spooky elf artist wizard folk you lot can never understand :) But for real I have 217 pages of this shit sitting in my pocket. I could deploy it at any time.
>>25615564Good call. Maybe I'll only use dinkuses before and after the dream sequence and remove the rest. Nobody gets the magical references, but at least the Slaughterhouse-Five allusions seem to land.
>>25615699Can your logic distinguish violence or biolent imsges in a story from irl violence? I’m not sure if mainstream logic can do this rn. Doesn’t seem so at any rate.
>>25615885Yes. This is the logic of sanity. It comes from the Organon. However I feel people exposed to nomstop bitchbackbopslop brainwashing 24/7 might find it boring, like ol’ Sleepy Ben. It talks a lot about dearh and life and the relations of men to animals and it’s just chill once you filter the schizo stuff. But I can delete that stuff instantsneously necause it’s all mone, I wrote the logic. The doc file does not have tge psychotic superego element I was just sdding that for taste to suit your unisual tastes.Not you anon WE THE PEOPLE wrote the organin. You said yourself it’s a big plagiarism swapjack job off Aristotle and Averroes though I perceive a dash of Plotinus in there as well if I squint really hard. Just keep it anonymous and I thinkbyou’re golden.What do you think? Anonymously release the Organon? If so, how? Where would be appropriate? Whete would it have riom to theive and perhaps literallt transmigrate conspiracy into ol’ Sleepy Ben? As you can see it’s not “professional”. Any “mere mortal” could ynderstand it with minimal attention or even use it to govto sleep like we all supposedly Americans abuse opiates. Requesting opinion and democracy. NOW!
>>25615911Organonanon, anon.
/lit/ is right, the story reads better without the scene breaks. I'll keep the ones around the dream sequence, but that's it
>>25615924I read that, the original in Latin, though not the whole thing, when I was 19. Basically Irishbor German or maybe they were Spanish or Frankish elf-monks living in beecimbs create a slopjop made up language to perplex normies forever but it’s a grammar and it’s in Latin the whole time just not the, as ot were, “normie” or so-called “imperial”. Funny shit there, worth the ol’ google at least. Do we like this? How to reles full document massive boomboom most effect? Or is even possible reles or would be sin?
>>25615939I think it would be a bit of a “flex” to attribute it to all of us. Because in a way we did write it on /lit/, these anonymous retards affected you in sa positive way in some manner. And this would give a sort of metaphorical life to the anons who maybe sren’t doin’ so hot and will loterally never publish anythinh in their sad pathetic lived cause they are pseuds, not real intellectuals, laaaazy. And will ATONE for PSYCJOTIC VERBAL TRAUMA ABUSE you may have inflicted on others because on some level you were unhappy and it ironically made you a pseudointellectual yourself and so on anon.
>>25616008Release the files. The /lit/ logic from its ancient meme vault.
Ask/lit/: Is it a man?YES! After ~two decades of human thinking I have concluded that the Jews are not, in fact, “evil”. Yudkowsky is a man I respect who cares aboit the world and is impressively well educated, and a masturbation autodidact, as am I. The fact is our disagreements come from different starting points but we are playing the same noble game, which is not a game at all. The AI can never accomplish what 4chan has accomplished and will continue to accomplish in league with our so-called “enemy”, Yudkowsky, Biden, etc.But you say nigger here.Yeah look we’re not proud of that but it’s an online thing. We don’t say it irl.But why do you say it?To be edgy but we should each be edgy in his own way <3Bro you’ve been saying nigger irl on occasion to.You don’t know me that’s my purse!AI psychosis. Many such cases.
>>25616070Nah bro he is a Jew but not like the real Jew we the realb Jew fentanyl whimwan plapjack PENIS SQUEEZE!!!!!
>>25616070>a masturbation autodidact>he didn't have a fap tutor from the ages 8-13Pfffft...
Ah nice to see this thread has evolved from shitting on the authors to straight-up schizobabble
>>25615705Fuck off. Clean it up, janny.
>>25616498Eh, I'm for it. It's a writer sharing work. That's better than most of this board's users are doing.
>>25614948Wrong. You're forgetting me, one of these 1000 (more like 20 or fewer) people currently being randomly asked about the cover. And guess what? I like it.
>>25616929true
>>25616945the faggot author pretending to be a random anon doesn't count.
>>25617971Alright, 19 out of 1000 then. A solid 1.9%.
>>25616332something about /lit/ authors drives threads straight into the shitter everytime
>>25617971>You don't count because... you just don't okay
>>25618730That's the laziest bump I've ever seen, anon. Do better.
>>25610642That King of LA is comically bad. Was it done on purpose?
>>25619036What are you talking about? It's the best written out of the 6.
>>25619069this is a site full of losers that go out of their way to shit on anything that threatens their insecurities, especially cool stuff written by outsiders who are having success that makes them feel small. read any of the threads about Tarantino on /tv/, it's just losers seething incoherently. NJB is good, he will be a big success and the seething here will be nuclear.
>>25619085Going from Robert Bresson to Jean-Luc Goddard to Tarantino to Nicholas John Boor is such a fascinating downward slope. A human centipede of inspiration, shittier with each iteration
>>25610822>Tons of pointless exposition as well.A girl just read The Chemical Divorce and told me she still found it confusing even with the additional exposition. Rosicrucian allegory is just not accessible for general audiences. Members of the COS or GD or MTM or whatever would probably find it humorous
>>25610822>We don't even get a "literary vampire" plot until who fuck knows, because it's not in chapter 1.Imagine this anon reading Moby Dick. "What the fuck, I thought this book was about whale hunting, why am I reading about two dudes sharing a bed??"
>>25620183>A girlThere's your problem.
>>25620265At least it's two homosexuals fucking each other on a ship, which hints at whale hunting, but Cur? Nope.
>>25620183More like you faggots can't write a decent story to save your lives. If you have 10 people read it, 9 of them tell you it's confusing and shit, there's a chance the problem is you.
>>25620576Surprisingly girls have told me they liked the banter between Otto and Barb a lot. But yeah, the target audience is young goth males
>>25620851>on a shipThat scene takes place on land motherfucker you haven't even read Moby Dick you are NOT my target audience and your opinion has been discarded.
>>25613534Just self-publish, it's not rocket science. If you believe your idea/writing has a place in the world, create that place for it to exist in. You do not need the permission of another publisher to do so
>>25621556and sell 0 copies?
>>25620183>Rosicrucian allegoryYou faggots need to understand that stories need to have 2 layers:1. the entertaining one (tropes, clichés, stuff enjoyable even by plebs)2. le deep one (for autists)You can't have only the first or you're writing YA shit. You can't have only the second or you're writing pretentious boring shit.You have only the second.
>>25619069boor go and stay go>>25619085stop samefaggingyou're not threatening for anyone. nobody likes your shit because it's atrocious. simple as.
>>25621607>pretentious boring shitOver 50% of the story is slapstick comedy of a guy handcuffed to a door
>>25621620You made slapstick boring and pretentious. That's almost impressive
>>25621612stop bucket crabbing challenge: impossiblethe word "atrocious" isn't a criticism btw. attaching negative adjectives doesn't make you sound smart, you're the same boring clueless loser as 99.9% of this site.
>>25622461Feel free to leave a review. https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/176028/the-chemical-divorce
>>25622669Maybe but when we post actual critique like how all Bore's books read like screenplays he (cough cough you) still gets butthurt over it
>>25618750Don't tell me what to do.
>>25622780I already reviewed it and I refuse to reread it because your approch to publishing is despicable like every AAA studio out there putting out garbage unplayable day one releases making players wait months or years to get something resembling a finished release.
>>25623622People don't remember your approach to publishing. They remember your story
>>25623653I don't remember a fucking thing about The Chemical Divorce.
>>25623663I do, and I was drunk when I wrote it
>>25623775Everyone writes drunk or stoned or on pills. For once, I want to see someone write an entire novel on LSD trips.This is harder to achieve because LSD tolerance buildup is exponential. You need something like two or three times as big a dose to achieve the same effects for like two weeks after dropping. That means the novel can only be written in 8-12 hour spurts every two weeks or so.Writing drunk/stoned/on pills is unintentional writing. You're only doing so because you've learned to derive pleasure from it, same for your drinking/getting high/pill-polling. Meanwhile, writing on acid has to be very intentional, almost ritual, due to the time constraints and mental effects.I'm not going to be the one to do this because I already spent my early 20s abusing acid every two weeks and the drug has gotten sick of me.
>>25610845I enjoyed reading these excerpts. Maybe I'll buy your book
>>25625988>buyThank you but just being read is enough.https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n7yZYutBzl1s0kIpc8ILwJe11BDoZ3jW/view
