Learning communities

Is it just me, or is it crazy hard to find good online communities focused on the humanities? All I can find are crappy ones centered on politics, filled with dumb people. Are there groups for poetry, literature, philsosophy, et. al. and I'm just missing them?

Hasn't anyone told you? Everything is political now. Recently I found someone talking about the Greek poet Archilochus. Neat. Later he started talking about vaccine mandates and I think he was trying to imply that the Greeks at the foundation of WeStErNcIv wouldn't stand for it. I thought about a famous plague and quietly noped the fuarrrk out. True story. As a general tip, you should look for the specific things you want to find. If you look for literature or philosophy or God forbid "intellectual" discussions, you will find sludge and probably ancient aliens. If instead you look for Tolstoy or Popper's philosophy of science of Cicero in Latin, this is less of a problem. If you're trying to sell a soykafty house, you talk about how cozy the kitchen is. If you're trying to sell a nice house, you just say the kitchen has granite countertops. Look for granite. >et. al. Et is not an abbreviation. Et al. is used for people, usually belonging to a well defined group, usually authors. Et cetera is for everything else.

There are some discord servers out there for actually interesting stuff where people do talk about the topic, ask questions, and hold interesting conversations. I've seen servers for astronomy, biology, and even very specific things like quantized manifolds. I joined a few ancient languages servers and the people there actually do carry interesting conversations, mostly about linguistics and phonology, as well as stuff about the culture of the languages. Most of the stuff they talk goes over my head.

>>8595 Discord seems like an inconvenient platform for long-form discourse. Any traditional forums you might know of?

>>8596 Reddit and Discord are the new forums. Are they unsuitable for some things? Doesn't matter. People are going to go where the people are going to go.

>>8597 >Are they unsuitable for some things? Doesn't matter. To you.

>>8589 yeah i just want write essays again with each topic begin a social justice topic

>>8596 Agreed, and for privacy concerns Discord is also a bad choice, it's just what I've found so far. Reddit is also unfit forlong term discussion as threads tend to have quick turnover like in 4ch. Forums are unfortunately a dying breed, there are some out there, but they can be slow, I have found over time some forums but I always end up not using them, forgetting the user/pass and forgetting about the site eventually. It's weirdhow the internet became the exact opposite of what it's creators and early users envisioned. Today it seems to do a lot more harm than good, it's a cesspool instead of a hub for knowledge.

>>8596 Just use IRC, most modern platforms for online communications are far too rotten to have any insightful exchange of views.

>>8603 The paradox of the Wired is you have tons of people who would participate in X community or watch Y media if they knew they existed, yet you have no clue how to find these people. I went to a few different sites, proposed a new community built around Ancient Greece (where the goal is deepening everyone's knowledge of the history and culture), and no one cared. These were in "intellectual" communities, yet no one was interested in learning more about Ancient Greece, despite likely no one having a classics education. The truth I've uncovered is that all "intelligent" people online nowadays organize around technology and their stance toward it. You have guys like Effective Altruism and Substack users that believe we'll shape it in our favor. And you have Reactionaries like the Ted Kaczynski guys and Neoplatonists who oppose technology. So while most middlebrow and lowbrow groups are still arguing about left vs. right, all these smarter groups of people debate the real issue, which is tech. So, maybe that's fate. I think Ancient Greece is still relevant to modern times, and so are many other cultures, but in the meantime there may be no community for it. I'll keep looking though.

You know Lains, the more I dwell on it the clearer this becomes. A couple days ago, I read the intro to Linkola's Can Life Prevail?, where a guy misquotes Houellebecq's Atomised in an interesting way. What Houellebecq says in Atomised is that humans can be viewed as either particles or waves, where the defining traits of a person can be viewed as nothing notable in the context of his generation. But what the Linkola intro said is more interesting: The French writer Michel Houllebecq, in his book Atomized, used a metaphor from quantum physics in which he described people as either belonging to waves, or movements outside of themselves, or particles, in which in the same isolation that makes them ‘free’ makes them lonely, apathetic, unable to form connections. I've read Atomised before, and Houellebecq never says this (I Ctrl+F'd to be sure). Obviously it's mistaken (See pic related) -- Houellebecq is referring to the Double-slit Experiment, which showed us that light can be viewed as either particles or a wave. So to say humans are either particles or a wave makes no sense. However, it's still a great observation: Nearly all humans act as 'waves', but a small few act as 'particles'. Culture is dominated by a few big waves, like "Techno-Humanist-Materialism" with guys like Steven Pinker, "Mainstream leftism" which focuses on social justice, and the conservative equivalents. Ted Kaczynski is an interesting case, because he acted in isolation as a 'particle' -- at the time people just went WTF? -- but now people are actually reading him. So anti-tech is no longer for 'particles' but for 'waves'. So this wave is reactionary, but new waves don't always have to be. Like new genres of music are also waves. What you need is some way to convince a vast number of people that something matters. Until then, no one will care. It will be of interest to no one. I've been wondering a lot the past few days, "How do I make a new community for people who want to learn X niche subject?". And I realized you don't just create communities from nothing. There must be a wide swathe of people with the same motivation, acting as a wave. Until then, you can only act in isolation, as a particle. Even if you find someone else interested in X niche subject, they'll likely care for a different reason than you -- C'est la vie. This post is pretty disorganized and likely verges on "DUH", but I think it's close to some big knowledge. I might try and write an essay about it.

>>8609 i think it's a mix of being ahead of their times, and having a martyrdom like ending (Kazcynski being arrested) it's similar to what happened to Nieztsche: you might think that he was really famous when he was alive, having influenced so many works and even nations in our times (many artists, philosophers, leaders and dictators like hitler and mussolini) but the number of books he managed to sell in his lifetime were very very low (200 or so if i remember correctly). He became famous 30 ~ 40 years after his death (which was by the way terrible, bed ridden and almost blind for 10 years). The analogy of the particle and the wave makes sense, but i would make it more like a snowball analogy, where the snowball initially falls over a snowy slide and then gets bigger and bigger.

>>8609 I think Linkola was discussing the metaphysics of what was said. This isn't something a lot of people really comprehend or discuss very often. This isn't something that one is taught but rather something you absorb over time, in certain circumstances. I can't properly explain it in this way or I would. Anyways, I run into this problem a lot and I have had to re-explain myself many, many times in order for someone to comprehend. Sure, one could say "Just say what you mean" but there is an instance where an idea is too difficult to speak in such a way where one has to discuss things in a tangential and metaphysical manner... Although, in some cases, the discussion is intended to act as a filter for only certain types of people.

>>8609 >I've been wondering a lot the past few days, "How do I make a new community for people who want to learn X niche subject?". And I realized you don't just create communities from nothing. You touch on an important point that I feel (personally, perhaps erroneously) is not always felt in communities like these. Lains complain that they can't find friends, or girlfriends, and conclude that the normal's extrinsically motivated nature is evil. That their unwillingness to tolerate our condition(s) is their fault. It's more than that. One needs to find those whose extrinsic motivations align with their own. A related concept is that one cannot do away with their personal evils. They have to align them towards their meta-goals. In all, communities, relationships, have to be founded on mutual interest (whatever it may be) to work. Otherwise, they are a hollow imitation of the real thing.

>>8610 We often hear of the Nietzsches, the Van Goghs and El Grecos and Thoreaus and Bachs who died unknown. Mediocre artists, all of them -- is what society in their time said. Nowadays, they are all legends. What changed? Obviously the work is the same. What changed is people. The waves of society morphed until people could think, hey, this guy was onto something. Your snowball analogy is true. But we have to add something: Most snowballs never go anywhere. Take Nietzsche's contemporary, for example: Philipp Mainländer Here are some facts about Mainländer: >Nietzsche insulted him, called him a sentimental Jew >Max Seiling wrote that he believed Mainländer to be one of the few wise heroes to have walked on this earth >Mainländer's work was not well received by authorities. In Imperial Russia, Mainländer's essay on the esoteric meaning of the Trinity was derezzed >Prominent socialists however took interest in his work >Alfred Kubin, one of the founders of Der Blaue Reiter, wrote about Die Philosophie der Erlösung, "this work – which expresses my actual thoughts and steels and strengthens me – this philosophy, forms the consolation of my life and death." >The Japanese writer Akutagawa wrote in A Note to a Certain Old Friend, "I read Mainländer, whose work has become deeply ingrained in my consciousness."[34] He also refers to Mainländer in his novel Kappa. >Emil Cioran was very impressed by the work of Mainländer.[6] When he discovered that Jorge Luis Borges had written about Mainländer, he started a correspondence with Borges on Mainländer. Clearly, he was talented. But in the end, he was not very popular, and he hung himself from a pile of his own books. So his name has disappeared from history. Why Nietzsche, and not Mainländer? Well, Nietzsche was a great writer, no doubt. But that's not the main reason why Nietzsche is popular. No, Nietzsche became popular because society was rapidly losing faith in religion, and even in philosophical metanarratives like Kant's Categorical Imperative, Schopenhauer's Will-To-Life, or even Nietzsche's Will-To-Power. Basically, Nietzsche preaches the doctrine of the individual: An individual is mightier than everything! Mightier than morality! Mightier than God! So fitting for an atheist materialist society like ours. Compared to Nietzsche, other philosophies feel terribly out of date. We follow Nietzsche because he is the only philosopher that feels relevant. Everything before him feels terribly out of date. So that's why Ted Kaczynski is more popular now. Back in the 90s it was like, "Technology is bad? How could you think that?". But now people get what he means. It's not as if Kaczynski was destined to be vindicated either. It's because Tech kept getting worse, that people follow Kaczynski now. A reaction, you know? My point is: Guys like Nietzsche and Kaczynski and Van Gogh don't get "rediscovered" because they're geniuses or correct or w/e. They get rediscovered because it's relevant to people NOW, in the present. Humans are like waves. All that matters is now. Anyone who doesn't conform to the current waves will be shunned -- no matter how correct they are. It's weird.

>>8595 What ancient lang servers do you know?

>>8611 That quote's not by Linkola btw -- it's by Brett Stevens who wrote the intro. Also, what do you mean? Do you agree with Stevens? >>8612 Yeah exactly. Community is about becoming part of something bigger -- joining a wave. Being friends is weird, like being an amorphous blob of 2 or more people. So to expect others to just have the same motivation as you is backwards. At minimum, you have to convince others to have the same motivation as you.

>>8615 >That quote's not by Linkola btw This is, incidentally, exactly what I am referring to. Do you see what I mean? I felt that I was clearly referring to Linkola's interpretation, but for some reason you were thinking that I was talking about the original quote. Now if you revisit, you'll likely think "Oh, I see!" -- I opt into not agreeing nor disagreeing with the sentiment, I choose to remain removed.

>>8616 Well, Linkola himself has nothing to do with the topic, so I dunno why you brought him up. The reason you have trouble communicating your ideas is probably because they're too vague.

>>8617 >But what the Linkola intro said is more interesting: >... >Houellebecq never says this >Houellebecq is referring to the Double-slit Experiment I'm concerned you will continue to fail to understand was communicated here. You're showing Linokla's interpretation of what was said, and you're saying he "misinterpreted" it. I'm explaining to you that he did not "misinterpret" it but rather is talking about it on a different level. You're misunderstanding him and making the assumption that he is "merely mistaken". Now you are misunderstanding me, and accusing me of "being too vague". I am not being vague in the slightest, if I were any more explicit this would be a course of linguistics and metaphysics. Wait, is this some kind of joke? I was just talking about the metaphysics of communicating ideas and how many individuals struggle to comprehend it.

>>8618 >You're showing Linokla's interpretation of what was said Lainon, no - Linkola did not write the introduction to that book; Brett Stevens did in 2005. The one who misquoted Houellebecq was Brett Stevens (I am pretty sure Can Life Prevail? even predates Atomised). But, if you are just saying that Stevens never misinterpreted Houellebecq, and just interpreted it in a different way, that makes more sense. I would still disagree though, because Houellebecq states humans as a whole may be viewed as either particles or waves (like light), while Stevens states humans as individuals may be viewed as particles or waves (mutually exclusive). That's a pretty big difference IMO

>>8619 >I am pretty sure Can Life Prevail? even predates Atomised The 2nd edition was released after, but I would say the commentary can still exist there within the Introduction. Anyways, I understand. You meant the Foreword. I took what you wrote as the Foreward referencing what was written in Linokla's Introduction and Stevens' interpretation against what Linokola's interpretation against what Houellebecq had written about. That is, I thought you were comparing three view points. I do maintain my point. However, but I am not arguing that they are saying the same thing exactly. I am saying that their interpretations of the topic are different. Houellebecq's statement implies there is an ebb-and-flow to humanity and its functions, maybe a sort of global/connected consciousness, while Stevens somewhat accepts this notion, but inserts in the idea of radical components, the particles, that have a ripple effect into the aforementioned ebb-and-flow. Does what I wrote make sense?

>>8621 Yeah I get you. To me Stevens misunderstood the idea, since the Double-Slit Experiment itself says "We can view this thing called light as either waves or particles" (so, one or the other), and the narrator in the novel thinks the same is true of people. So humans can be viewed as being 100% particles, or 100% waves at all times. What Stevens claims is that, say, 99% of humans can be viewed as waves, while 1% of humans can be particles who don't move with the wave, and both of these observed at the same time. In physics, from what I understand, this is impossible -- light cannot be viewed as both a wave and particle at the same time. Rather, it's a difference of perspective: All light is waves, or all light is particles. But I still think the Stevens quote is great, because even if it's not scientific, he has a great point: Nearly all humans act according to waves, but not all them (By acting in waves, this is to say: Acting according to what everyone else is currently doing or thinking). Some act as a particle: Independently of the current era and its waves, they act according to some other principle. Look at this chart for instance. Let's say that red outlier is Galileo. By disobeying the wave (i.e. the Catholic church and the whole era), he made great strides in science. So outliers are effectively the particles we're talking about here. They don't follow the wave, but in doing so, they may help change society, or predict the future in incredible ways that no one following the wave can.

>>8603 >but I always end up not using them, forgetting the user/pass and forgetting about the site eventually. I don't know why this specific thing doesn't get more attention, because 1. it's at the heart of the problem 2. it's inherently a UX problem with straightforward solutions All you have to do is find ways to poach network effects from the mainstream sites and/or remove the need for actively remembering and returning. It's solvable purely with technical measures.

>>8589 >>8596 >>8603 Leftypol.org is definitely centered on politics but I really think it's a good place to find people who actually read and there are now many different boards there. Posts per hour are pretty high as well and sometimes very good quality at this time. Not an ounce of woke soykaf, thank god. There's a thread there right now made by a conservative guy and people aren't responding with malice, engaging respectfully et cet. Not a bad place in my opinion but it becomes a cesspool of lapsing stalinists/maoists during elections, so be warned. It reminds me a bit of 2012-era 4chan. What I like about a chan like leftypol vs. perhaps a discord is that I feel the chans attract a more eclectic type of person. And the anonymity is a great screener for narcissistic personalities who will disrupt or stir drama.

>>8632 Leftypol.org is a reddit front ruled by LARPing power trippers who will ban you for months over hurting their feelings. leftychan.net is all right.

>>8622 Why only one? Why only two? It’s some dumbass ancient greek ass logic. If you look at a tree one way, it has leaves. If you look at a tree another way, it’s wood. Therefore a tree is sometimes wood and sometimes leaves. Looking ass. It’s neither and both. It’s a tree

>>8636 Because they are mutually exclusive categories?

>>8589 >humanities >public communities there's a reason all the most famous literary figures kept close-knit, private salons.>>8589

>>8636 This guy gets it. Value judgement is in the eye of the beholder. Excluded middle and greek logic are great tools, but they are not universal.

>>8632 >Leftypol.org is definitely centered on politics but I really think it's a good place to find people who actually read This is sarcasm, right? That board is ran by degenerate Stalinists and sorts of profligate communists. Like all left-wing online communities, they are censorship and ban happy. They even fuarrrking derezzed Pepe The Frog because they said its "Fascist." It was pretty funny that aus user took it down for months with spam.

>>8633 Jesus, leftychan.net is worse than leftypol.org when it comes to censorship and vulgar marxism. If you are a regular browser there, I doubt you're getting a better political education than you would at leftypol.org. I've never been derezzed on either site, and before the split I never got derezzed as well. Just use Tor to post, it's really not that difficult. You shouldn't be trusting the mods of an obscure leftist internet forum to not be federal agents after so many years of COINTELPRO. It's probably too late for you though if you're bragging here about being derezzed there. >>8693 As I put in my original post, the stalinist/maoist problem only emerges in full force around American 4-year elections. You can usually find a couple worthwhile trotskyist or leftcom posters otherwise, though. I also enjoy the 2-5 Stirnerites that drift in and out and the anarchists. Mods will not ban you for not being a stalinist or a maoist. Although I will say that I feel the Ukraine-Russia war murdered discourse on the website. I haven't been there regularly for a long time, and watching people immediately become political opportunists when the invasion began was very depressing. I don't know what you are talking about with the "aus user" taking the site down, I don't remember this ever happening.

>>8704 >Jesus, leftychan.net is worse than leftypol.org when it comes to censorship Utter nonsense and I doubt you actually post there to say something so inaccurate. If you actually post there you'll find the opposite problem is the case: they're so terrified of moderating anything that sometimes Langley rats get a free pass to spam threads with propaganda. leftychan has some issues, but censorship is certainly not one of them. This is in contrast to the current soykafhole that leftypol.org has become where blatantly corrupt mods who think their power is carte blanche to be abused will ban you for a month with the flimsiest of justifications imaginable. >If you are a regular browser there, I doubt you're getting a better political education than you would at leftypol.org. Imagine relying on a web forum to get an education in the first place.

>>8589 >Are there groups for poetry, literature, philsosophy, et. al. and I'm just missing them? One thing I do that helps me find better discussions online is I don't search for "literature" or "philosophy" discussions. Making a group based off those topics alone makes it to broad leading to "jack of all trades, master of none" posters and the fact it's so simple to search midwits can find it. Searching for something more obscure like places to discuss bio politics or Graveyard poets filters out people who know nothing about the hobby because they wouldn't know terms like that. Personally I have no need to engage in back in forth forums, so most of my discussion online is in the comment section of blogspots that are somehow still running. You could honestly contact them from there and try to talk to them through email. You'd be surprised about the amount of grad+ people who own blogspots and what to share their passion with people. Also my last note is we might be the problem. Like I don't think 70% of lain posters have the intelligence to hold the discussion they want and they can't find people to discuss topics with because listening to a lainposter if you have and knowledge in a topic is more like charity work than an actual discussion. I'm no exception to not having much to say. Also the amount of time it takes to become skilled in discussions means you have to spend that time gaining skills rather than posting. Once you calculate a 9-5 shift, sleep schedule, life maintenance, rleaxiation, and hours of gaining skills and life maintenance that leaves little time to post online. one would rather use that little time on close friends than randos online.

>>8706 >Also my last note is we might be the problem. Like I don't think 70% of lain posters have the intelligence to hold the discussion they want and they can't find people to discuss topics with because listening to a lainposter if you have and knowledge in a topic is more like charity work than an actual discussion. I'm no exception to not having much to say. Sadly this. We expect "intelligent discussion" but whenit comes down to it we are oftentimesnot prepared to meet some arguments, and the other lains are clearly also arguing on limited information but they're now sunk in the need to prevail.

>>8589 You might like the effective altruism/rationality groups. Some of the best good faith discussions I've seen on the internet. Politics isn't strictly off limits, but it's generally avoided as "the mind-killer".

>>8589 I like r/true lit for discussions. Although I wish I new an active traditional style forum where threads can stay up for however long people keep posting

>>8609 Biggest pseud-flag is when someone takes Houllebecq seriously. >>8632 >/leftypol/ I got a year ban for arguing that any "leftist" that uncritically supports Russia's invasion into Ukraine has brain rot. 0/10 would not recommend. >>8706 This post has good points and I want to elaborate on it. It's not worth searching for intelligent discussion online. After spending half of my life "in the Wired", I've learned that 99.999% of people online (almost certainly including me BTW) are morons with nothing of worth to say. IMO, the only material worth reading will be found in old books written by wise men/women. You will be much better served by reading Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer, etc. rather than reading inane ramblings from some random anon. The only worthwhile discussions will be with a select group of actually intelligent people who are smarter than you; I understand that such is extremely hard to find in this day and age. For instance, I once went to a philosophy meetup which comprised philosophy majors, professors, etc. in which I came to the realization that these people were also morons—that I'd better served just reading the material firsthand and coming to my own conclusions (with the supplement of analyses of a select few of professors and authors that I respect). I've been talking about philosophy, but I also argue from personal experience that the method of self-engagement applies to other disciplines such as music, literature, language learning, and so forth. You're better served engaging solo with the Greats than fruitlessly endeavoring to find intelligent discussion online. P.S. A good teacher/coach can also be beneficial - you won't find one on an imageboard or discord. Open to any criticisms of my "self-engagement" theory, if you can call it a theory.

>>9623 My high school math teacher once told me that I'd have to unlearn everything that was taught to me in physics and even some of the stuff taught in mathematics, smart guy I've talked to a few professors, yeah they were all morons only concerned with earning the next paycheck, with nothing really original to say

>>8589 unironically just use facebook groups for your specific interests. just make sure it's not too general and not too niche and they're usually great. I'm in a Facebook group for Hegel and another one for Kant that serves me quite well. plenty of great discussions and very few idiots.

>>9624 They have research to do; they are bad at teaching and don't care that they are.

>>9627 I'm not convinced, if someone is interested in something they usually have something to say about it Take Sussman, even after all these years of being active in his field he is still interested in the subject that he teaches and he doesn't act like he's an authority on the subject of mathematics for example, his attitude is that he's always learning This one retired professor that I talked to acted like he was an intellectual authority, he always knows better. I didn't talk with him for long because his face cover in cancerous growths

>>9623 >I got a year ban for arguing that any "leftist" that uncritically supports Russia's invasion into Ukraine has brain rot. Exact same thing happened to me a few weeks ago. Didn't even post anything inflamatory, was just curious why the thread was full of reactionary propaganda and how they square it with their beliefs. What a weird community.

>>9629 >>9623 Gettin off-topic, but you know there was a big split over exactly this kind of soykafbrain moderation right? Go to leftychan.net if you want actual censorship-free left discussion.

>>9630 >check out leftychan >first post I see is "total hohol death" Forget it, maybe left wing politics just isn't for me.

leftychan is revleft the imageboard. you can have some fun there but the mods will ban you over stupid soykaf and its filled with brain damaged leninist stalinists and anarkiddies

>>9637 Nice fiction, if anything the mods there are terrified of banning anyone over anything.

just use Facebook groups oh my god.

i want to find another philosophy group that meets in virtual space. i used to go to a weekly meeting for years in second life but don't go on there any more. the addition of avatars adds a lot. one member always came completely naked, and said that male philosophers bear their breasts while speaking their philosophy, so should women. i was like 0.0 this is tough to search for, anyone knows a philosophy club that meets somewhere with y'know puppets and talks actual philosophy not just regurgitate cable news? >>9625 >>9639 no f off bewmer cu<|<

>>9630 >Go to leftychan.net if you want actual censorship-free left discussion. Does blatantly lying like this make you feel powerful or do you actually believe it?

>>9672 Pot, meet kettle. For over two years, what can only be described as an actual glowie agent was allowed to run rampant in the Ukraine conflict thread spamming war gore, neo-Nazi propaganda, and every lame neocon talking point you can think of straight out of the West's favorite spook rags. They clearly weren't a leftist, they weren't interested in leftist political discussion, and they just wanted to justify their bullshit proxy war against Russia. That's how committed to censorship-free discussion that webzone is.

>>8595 I’d be wary with discord.

>>9672 I’m not too familiar with leftychan. How does it compare to the others?

Have you thought of going to a book club? It should be no different.

>>9986 Follow his advice. It’s better to mee people in-person.

Yeah, no. I am in a book club where I discuss the things you listed.

>>8594 Yeah, everything is viewed through a political lens nowadays.

>>8597 The two worst platforms. Sigh.

>>9623 wise post, dare i say wiseposting

>>8589 All modern humanities is flawed because the simple statement "Races generally have different abilities and behaviour" is deemed heretical, thus humanities is filled with people unable to see through lies or to accept lies and move on. Regardless if the statement is true or not, the starting point is built on political foundations instead of intellectual foundations. You cannot have interesting or authentic things when certain things are marked as forbidden, see great authors or philosophers who get their work "edited" or brought to attention only to be dismissed as inherently wrong because they held a heretical belief. The people willing to accept it or bow down aren't interesting people because they lack the necessary rebelliousness needed for stimulating conversation. Anti-racism is the bonfire of vanities of the modern world. You will have to embrace loneliness if you want authenticity.