A brief excerpt from the chapter I'm reading now:

"God was a fine thought in the Middle Ages, and religion and organised priestcraft, which was not evil, but which has now outlived any practical utilities it may have had. God is subjective: He is an idea: He is the creature of man's mind. If there be any real truth in religion, it must be looked for in the direction of pantheism. But the world is too busy to think much even of that. This is practically their view, or would be, if they took the trouble to have a view at all.

What it comes to is this. Men are masters. They begin and end with themselves. Humanity marches onwards with great strides to the magnificent goal of social perfectibility. Each generation is a glorious section of the procession of progress. Liberty, independence, speed, association, and self-praise, these compose the spirit of the modern world. The word creature is a name, an affair of classification, like the title of a genus or a species in natural history. But it has no religious consequences: it entangled us in no supernatural relations. It simply means that we are not eternal, the remembrance of which is salutary, in that it quickens our diligence in the pursuit of material prosperity."

That first sentence has bogglingly poor grammar

Dubious. He was, after all, an Oxford literary scholar (an elected fellow at Balliol, too).

Seems fine to me

The first sentence is littered with error

Idek where to begin to dissect it

God (as a concept) was a fine thought in the Middle Ages

religion and organized priestcraft is treated like a single thing

There

You're saying that "and religion and organized priestcraft" is an appositive? If so, then it is wrongly placed. Appositives must modify the immediate noun

I see it the same as "and also this, which..."

Then the sentence has no predicate

I'll fix it to show what I mean

If that's what he wanted to say, he should have written:

"God was a fine thought in the Middle Ages, and religion and organized priestcraft, which was not evil, has now outlived any practical utilities it may have had."

The issue with the original sentence is that "but which" makes the ending a dependent clause. The current sentence lacks a predicate.

The predicate us the same as God, it was a fine thought in the Middle ages

No, but the second half is lacking then

There is a predicate for the beginning but not the second half

He makes an independent clause at the beginning: "God was a fine thought in the Middle Ages." This is fine. Then he uses a comma followed by a conjunction. This is ***only*** done when the following clause is independent

There is no predicate in the second half though, making it grammatically incorrect.

If we remove the comma, then we have an interesting sentence. He would be saying that God was a fine thought in 3 contexts( the middle ages, religion, and priestcraft), the last of which was not evil but which has now outlived any practical utilities it may have had

I don't think that's what he meant though.

Furthermore, if that was his message, then the second which is unnecessary and should be removed for concise language and easier reading.

May not be relevant for a lot of you (yet, i hope) but i want to make a recommendation for a wholesome children's book you can without doubt or worry read to your children. Ditch Harry Potter and it's ilk.
Many Dutch children have read or have been read by their parents Tonke Dragt's magnum opus: The Letter for the King (De brief voor de Koning).

The main strongpoints of the book is the clear destinction of good and evil but that good in the end through hardship will always triumph. It emphasizes duty, chivalry, courtship (no GoT or other garbage nudity etc.) and even masculinity and how a boy grows into his role as a knight and a future fiefholder and supordinate to a king.
Christianity is never mentioned but the story starts with a vigil in a chapel and one of the first character the protagonist meets are brown monks (probably Benedictines), who help him in his time of need without any questions, upholding their duty to assist those in need.
I do not know how the translation in English is, but in Dutch it is a masterpiece of a children's book. It received the Griffel der Griffels (award for the best Dutch children's book of the past fifty years). The authoress illustrated the book with minimalist but fitting black artwork and a good map. Also in Dutch it has reached it's 22nd printing in 2007, i do not know at what print we are today.
In short, highly recommended.

don't speak dutch, so can't compare the two, but the english version is as good as what you've described. this and the sequal 'secrets of the wild wood' was one of my favourite books as a kid.

tfw Netflix is making a series about it with a nearly all-black cast

Bruh moment

since this got renamed to /lit/ does that mean we can shitpost DFW and books we'll never read?

what was this ? bookclub?

Yeah

I just wanted to make it short like some of the other channels

I can change it back if its too triggering

Very triggering.

https://youtu.be/2gsMPL3dBfU

Reminds me of this.

IT'S HORRIBLE

EW

We so lit

Dab like this

Nah this is discord /lit/

Nobody reads here

Or on the 4chan one

Right. Fixed

Yeah, I actually read so...

I'd rather it not be "Book I've never read /thread"

That's the joke

Any of you fans of Blake by any chance? Recently wrote a paper on him(also saw his works displayed in the tate) and I think he is such an interesting (and at the time controversial) figure. Definitely my favorite poet. Also, though its been a while since I've read fiction but blood meridian was/still is/will forever be my favorite novel. I'd love to hear some of your recommendations. Now I have to work on my dissertation and it's going to cover the topic of nihilism and its effects on an individual and societal level, and I'm going to cover schopenauer, Nietzsche, Cioran, Zappfe and Ligotti. If you have any books that cover the psychological dimension of nihilism, hmu.

I used to read a lot of sci fi like p.k. dick, Asimov, Ellison and vonnegut, outgrew that shit (still enjoy it from time to time though) I mostly read philosophy, cause its my major. Looking also to broaden my theological knowledge cause its limited/ non existent since I used to be one of those "god is a fairy tale for fools" retard.

>any books that cover the psych dimension of nihilism
explain further please

As in what nihilists, not necessarily clinically depressed individuals, believe. Studies on their mental state and such.

On a mildly related tangent, what's everyone's thoughts on Kaczynski? I'm working my way through Industrial Society and It's Future right now, it seems mostly pretty solid as far as I can tell

He's decent. He actually helped me understand the "evils" of modern technology and how it creates apathy

I'd argue it even creates Schizoids

I mean, I'd take him as a shining example of what it does to people tbh, even if you could argue self fulfilling prophesy

He did write another manifesto

That I want to read

But I empathize a lot, CS Lewis and GK Chesterton wrote a lot about nature too, I think it's an aspect of life that's been criminally appropriated by liberals with petitions and neglected by the church in favor of blind fellowship (which isn't a bad thing in its place, but insight into peace is rarely found in a loud gathering hall).

Creation shouldn't be worshipped, but it was given to us to enjoy, and was created to bring us joy, and urbanization and industrialization spits in the face of that

@SUPER MALE VITALITY™ environmentalism in general is something neglected by the modern right a lot, when agrarianism was one of the main tenets of fascism in general. Hess was a major greenie, and spearheaded 'blood and soil'. Much of the animal rights laws were introduced because of him, but nowadays the right doesnt give a fuck about nature. Its quite sad. I wrote (but didnt finish) an aplogetic article about the role of man according to the story of Eden, as stewards and caretakers of the environment

It's vital, a lot of the grassroots right is really into conservation as well, it isn't even a fringe belief, the right is just spearheaded by corporatists. Personally, I think cities by principle are anti-christian. They're just behemoths, created to feed into themselves to concentrate large purportions of the population away from the gifts God has given to them and condemn generations to misery when the land they left is replenished by those who stayed behind, trapping the impoverished in the machine

The devil has decieved people into thinking that living in a 200'x200' box with a toilet and sink 40 stories up is a dream to aspire to, where you never leave a six block radius from cradle to grave, never see the stars, never breath the fresh, cool morning breeze blowing off a creek

Its not wrong, many of the bible stories about suffering and disharmony comes when the israelites become urbanised, or when they are conquered by an urbanised people. Egypt, Assyria and Babylon were all "cultural centres" if you catch my drift. When the Israelites failed to drive out the Canaanites, they followed in the same path of suffering. I think its very difficult for someone who is subject of the cities to... fully become christian

So people become bitter and twisted, and out of touch with the grandeure of reality, they reduce it to phone wallpapers and instagram likes. It's exacly like Babylon, or more specifically Babel. The first truely cultural sin man ever comitted was building a city where they could all live, to try to reach paradise by scheming and machination densely packed into a tower

Now we have Babel x1000 and nobody expects that tower to fall, but those centers are so fragile, and when judgement falls on even one the consequences are brutal. More than a few at once is collapse and mass suffering and death. Judgement is coming to cities, and it hurts my heart to see the volume of decieved they have birthed to wreak havoc on the rest of the world, and the fates awaiting them. But nit much can be done anymore I suppose. The deception has played its course, and the best we can do is get far away

Idk if it'll be an EMP, natural disasters, a solar flare, invasion, or what, but it'll be a horror as yet unseen when things fall apart

Part of the issue with leftist environmentalism stuff is that they lie constantly, and their solution is always government regulations that tend not to fix the problem or fix it, but very inefficiently

The left doesn't actually care about the environment. It's literally just a money/power grab to raise government revenue and reach

The right has historically cared about the environment actually. It's neo-cons that don't care at all.

Paleo-cons and paleo-libertarians are usually very much about preserving nature

I disagree. The left NPCs care about the environment and are herded along to be useful idiots by the leftists in power to power grab with a righteous purpose. @Quarantine_Zone

Like how they use children who believe in what they are saying to push their agenda. They use their voting block who are too dumb to think for themselves to advocate more control for bogus reasons.

I think the the actual organizations and the voters do care about the environment

But I don't think the government bureaucrats do

I'd recommend listening to Molyneaux videos on climate change

Nah, I'm red pilled on climate change already

They only care about public image

climate change is real goy

((((believe it))))

Climate change is real

Is real

Israel

And now look at Palestine

Look at how Palestine is melting

It is due to global warming

GLOBAL WARMING IS A CREATION OF ISRAEL TO MELT DOWN PALESTINE

Tbh, while I wouldn't choose to finance Israel, I also don't mind them fucking Palestine because Palestinians are worse than Jews

Israel is a good distraction for the savages in that part of the world

Climate change is hilarious though

people throw a fucking fit when I say "why worry about whether or not I believe in climate change when I'm advocating for solutions that would fight it even if they're for different reasons"

Like, yeah, I think we should transition away from coal, not just drop it and fuck everyone stuck working in that industry, and I think we should invest in renewable energy where it's practical, just for the sake of immediate environmental pollution

Whether or not we cause climate change, I do support efforts to clean up the fucking garbage patch the size of Texas in the Pacific

but the moment you start proposing concrete *and* practical solutions people lose their shit

It's either "literally just fuck everyone who works for a living in all these industries and only use hemp to build anything" or "Guess the whole fucking world is gonna burn unless you give (((us))) complete control of your life and property immediately"

"WE NEED TO STOP OUR RELIANCE ON FOSSIL FUELS WITH A MUCH MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AND EFFICIENT SOLUTION"

"Well, Nuclear power is probably the next be-

"ABSOLUTELY NOT, YOU FASCIST"

Fucking greenpeace backed the left into an eternal corner on that one

Alright I might as wel ask here