So /his/ is for discussion of humanities but they have to be historic.
Philosophy is discussed on /his/ but cannot be political.
/lit/ is now for literature as long as it doesn't concern law philosophy religion philosophy or anything else.
Am I missing something or is it a very spooky halloween around here?
The ideal is to allow some overlap on all three boards. While they can share the same topics, the conversations all have a separate focus to them. That is to say that you can discuss politics on all three boards, so long as the conversation falls within the context of the board's subject. Adding a third board too the mix is an attempt to refine the conversations had on the other boards, while also opening up a new place to discuss those topics with a new contextual lense.
Of course, that is to say
>implying that the mods won't just b& everyone on every board for just talking about shit
Ok, what's your big issue here? Can you explain it so I can figure out why you're so xenophobic to the very idea that people can talk about similar topics in different places?
Am I just missing something here? I'm really not trying to beg the question, I just want to understand where you're coming from here.
Anybody else like Stirner's writing that's not on egoism? His assessment of the state of education after the French Revolution is incredibly interesting and still relevant. I might make a thread about it later.
/lit/ is pretentious as hell, we don't want them here. you don't have to read books to enjoy philosophy, you don't have to have a degree to enjoy history, and if you do read, you don't need to read just the list to impress people
Dude, you don't have to have a degree to go on /lit/ and you don't have to be pretentious as fuck if you post on there either. That's just a meme that people on the board use to try to get people to actually engage with the the board's culture.
4chan's culture is incredibly storied and complex, but it's also extremely stupid. It shouldn't be taken lightly, but it's nothing to get upset about.
I just sound pretentious when I'm being serious because of my verbage, but that's just me and my fucked up speech patterns bleeding into my writing.
Anyway, I'm still kinda confused on what you said >>26415, could you elaborate on that a bit? I want to understand why you think crossboarding is cancer. It's relevant to my interests.
You know, I've never really looked at anything directly after the Revolution. I might go check that thread out if I'm lurking later. Sounds cool.
/his/ has been fun today but I'll probably go to sleep soon and do it tomorrow. The gist of Stirner's essay is that education used to be for a select few to create better, rounded people through learning about arts and the world but once everybody got in on it the focus shifted to purely practical teachings so that everybody's equally skilled. This meant that there was no more enlightened elite and the peak of education is now STEMfags with amazing grades but who are utterly unrounded and unwordly autists.
I just butchered the piece for the sake of brevity but I really think it deserves a lot of discussion so I felt like I had to get the gist of it out now.
That's actually something I've discussed a lot with a friend of mine, both of us being STEMfags who are intrested in history and philosophy. Legitimately didn't know Steiner wrote about that.
>I want to understand why you think crossboarding is cancer. It's relevant to my interests.
Why? Because I don't want /pol, /int/, /lit/ /whateverthefuck/ fags on here.
They have their boards already and should fuck off
I barely go on /lit/, and I honestly can't be bothered to read half of that crap that I'm supposed to read to actually be "/lit". I just like poetry, fantasy novels, and philosophy, and that's where I was supposed to go to talk about those things. I'm just a simple crossborder who has fun taking 4chan seriously once in awhile.
I posted this in the /lit/ thread, but would be interested in hearing your opinions:
I'm reading the Ego and It's Own now. Maybe about 70 pages in and loving it. Is this man's position basically irrefutable? Because any evidence or argument is subordinate to his own individuality as his basic (pretty sound) premise?
Also, co-reading it with the Stanford encyclopedia on him (just read the bio, curious actually if you guys do this, going to see their thoughts on it once I'm through book one), and it seems like his life doesn't exactly match with his philosophy, a bit perhaps like Nietzche, in that they themselves seem quite passive personally. The article said that people believed he had a "tempered egosim" or something, but I haven't read far enough to figure out of that's just apologist bullshit or actual fact. It shouldn't really detract from his raw philosohy, but I just found him and Nietzche's superficially quite mundane/non-sucessful lives an interesting correlation given their somewhat similarities.