If no one reads a book...

What would you say to this though- Whether or not people read a book does not have anything to do with the accomplishment of its creation.

There is more meaningful and widely read Harry Potter fan fiction. What the fuck is your point?

What are you talking about buddy?

Kill yourself, Sean.

That's a bit harsh.

You should kill yourself.

Yudkowsky, desu. He's like you, if you had something to offer.

What does what a few random people say about a book have to do with the content of the book?

Fuck you, kike. My intelligence will not be brought down by your Talmudic bullshit. Now go cry to papa Soros.

If the purpose is not to communicate the knowledge or the author the only other real measure of success is whether the author did it for money or pleasure. If its for money and no one reads it then it is a commercial failure. The only measure of achievement left then is simply whether the author enjoyed writing it or not.

As for the latter remember that the overwhelming majority of humanities papers/books will never be cited or referenced by other authors (and even in the social sciences its still around the 50-60% mark). Secondly If you don't believe me you can experience this firsthand. Large university libraries sell of excess books every few years or so, when they have such a sale you can go there and see hundreds of books decades old but borrowed and in mint condition each made by those who sought to share their knowledge with the world.

It says that the dummies who read your book didn't like it. That tells us a ton.

So you read The Foundation for Exploration in its entirety?

Please stop kvetchig in my face, idiot.

It's free online. There's so little depth, it was a quick scan.

Read it in its entirety, front to back as it was intended.

>The most important organization of thought in the history of our species. Human history will forever be classified as this: Before-Foundation, After-Foundation. Groundbreaking understanding of free will, power, the sexual nature of man and woman, and what it takes to actualize society's potential in order to bring true happiness. Contents: Preface- Understanding the necessity of working with subjectivity. Introduction- The Question: Should I continue to exist? Basis of philosophical thought in creating an existence that allows humanity to thrive. Section 1: Welcome to Not Nothing- The duality of human nature- rejection and destruction, or acceptance and building given the inherent structure of existence which is- "We have free will, we are not all powerful, we are not all knowing, and we experience the universe with a biological framework and consciousness." Section 2: Destruction and Building- Cultivating power, facing powerlessness. Path of destruction involves a lack of self-control, courage, wonder, and/or humor, with the person succumbing to powerlessness through either wrath, depression, madness, hedonism, or ignorance due to the lack. Path of building involves self-control, courage, wonder, and a sense of humor. Section 3: Power, Biology and Society- Maintaining a strong society(and individual) through a balancing of the pursuance of our animalistic nature completely with a complete rejection, and a balancing of the desire to obtain all-power and a desire to relinquish all power from oneself. A society comprised of men and women pursuing an animalistic/hedonistic sexual nature will crumble. The polar nature of masculinity in men and femininity in women must be upheld. Section 4: A World Completely Off the Mark- Application of the philosophy into the areas of Government, Politics, Economics, Agriculture, Environment, Crime and Punishment, Mental Illness, The Media/Entertainment/TV/Internet/Porn/Advertising, Lack of Freedom/Technology/Overpopulation/Overcomplication/Globalism, and The Exploration of Outer Space. Focus is in creating a society in which people feel the most power, connection with one another, and connection with the universe.www.thefoundationpress.com
No line breaks; this is how it was written. It sound so unimaginably horribly bad.

It represents tangible truth. There is no purpose or pleasure, it is only truth.

Why. You're comparing it to Mein Kampf... but for /pol/.

My Twisted Goonan

Im not the user in >Whether or not people read a book does not have anything to do with the accomplishment of its creation.

It depends on the purpose behind its creation, and the circumstances of the author. For instance what might be a trite work in the United States would be a very impressive achivement if created and distributed without permission in North Korea.

What was the purpose of this book's creation and what were the circumstances of its author?

Had to google that term as Im not American. What part of my post strikes you whining or complaining?

Here is a source if you think all those numbers were just opinion

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.5250.pdf

Stop shilling on my board you literal jew.

Are people retarded? When on an anonymous chat board, do you think every post is by the person you think it is?

>It represents tangible truth. There is no purpose or pleasure, it is only truth.
As a conscious product of the author there is by necessity a purpose being its creation.

When it's promoting a book, yeah. Obviously. Looking at Amazon, discounting your sock puppets and friends, no one has really read it. So, any post here that's defending this book is clearly you.

So you're a moron.

Does is have to exist for anything but for the sake of the creation of truth?

Because no one has ever lied on the internet, right? You don't think faggots pretend to be the author?

Cut the shaman shit. What's one worthwhile aphorism from your nest of bullshit?

Existing produces mental and physical suffering. Other people or society as a whole can exacerbate suffering produced by existing. The
source of this mental and physical suffering is powerlessness. An individual that feels powerless may reject the conditions that produce
the powerlessness and retaliate through wrath as an attempt to gain power. The attempt to gain power through wrath is either the attempt
to supersede the powerlessness by trying to obtain all the power one can get (which indirectly creates destructiveness in the individual
and society), or the direct destruction of anything that creates powerlessness.

So you're insane. And babbling.

Holy shit, this pseud faux-philosophical brainlet garbage

Cucks, go away.

>Does is have to exist for anything but for the sake of the creation of truth?

Not necessarily - afterall do you think fantasy authors create their works for the creation of truth - however the expression or creation of truth can be done in a number of ways.

The fact that someone organises and publishes it as a book demonstrates that it goes well beyond the mere desire to knowledge and record truth - were it otherwise they would be content with one or two personal copies - instead the author wants other people to read it/pay for it ect.

More kikes for the gas chamber. You won't keep my people from reading my work. We will rise. We will put you in you ash heap.

Does making it available for others to read have anything to do with the content of the book?

>Does making it available for others to read have anything to do with the content of the book?

It depends on why it was made available for other to read. Dostoyevsky and Dickens who relied on the money generated from their books had a vested interest in producing numerous and longer works given how publishers would pay them. Likewise for the person who wishes other people to adopt their ideas the work may well include language designed to speak/appeal to the audiences level of understanding - Newspapers and Journals are a classic example of this.

Forgot to add to this public works also tend to be far less candid than private ones. Hence the divide between what would be written in a diary compared to other types of works.

If a book is not successful in its initial publication, is it a failure, or are the people a failure?

Its going to have to depend on the nature of the book and audience.

Here is an interesting example for your: When Hubbard first wrote dianetics he first sent it to the peak Psychiatry organisation. They investigated and then rejected his work yet it became a New York Times best seller.

Would you consider this a success or a failure? and in either case which people or person was at fault.

>comparing yourself to Dickens & Dostoyevsky.
Your book has typos, mate. You are ill. Seek help.

It's a failure. Its ideas are stale, there are mistakes grammatical & logical throughout. It's a mess.

When did you read it?

Seek help.

Presented without comment.

...

>contains incredibly important new revolutionary knowledge
>that could change the course of the species >drastically
>for eternity
...
>If a woman is in a relationship the man in the relationship is a cuck and/or a menace if he enjoys/allows the showcasing of his woman.
???????

I have written the most important organization of thought in human history. I have discovered the most true understanding of human nature ever, as well as the most necessary course of action to lead to individual and and societal True Happiness. I would like to get across to people that this is so. My ideas will lead to the end of pointless unnecessary destructiveness and excessive suffering. All other discussion and course of action is futile. Focus must be made towards understanding and enacting The Foundation for Exploration.

Christ loves you, brother. Even if you don't love yourself. And what a shame it is not to love God's creation.

What Mein Kampf was for the rise of the Nazi Party, this book will be for the rise of the brotherhood of /pol/ into becoming the most powerful group on Earth.

Given your understanding of human nature should you not know the best way to reach a corrupt and inperfect public?

They won't listen. I fear my intellect may be out of reach for many. Please buy my book.

It’s pretty embarrassing desu. If there is anything that so painful embodies the death of the west it’s the fact that a 23 year old who’s stated ‘biggest influences’ are just the high school canon can write not even a book but an extended essay and think they’ve done something important. I can at least respect that Lauren Southern knew she was going to make some money from her 90 page pile of amazon delivered garbage.

Hey Sean, you want to know what the difference between you, and the great thinkers of history is? They all spent years and year studying deeply on every subject they came across, and were also completely up to date on the cutting edge of what it was they were investigating. Name me a great thinker who *actually* came in from the woods, presenting something radically new with little to no knowledge of the subjects their there intervening in.

If you want to actually do something profound, plan to spend the next decade studying. Read Freud, Marx, Spengler, Weber, Darwin, learn mathematics, physics, read history, listen to Rick Roderick, read The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, or Jordan fckin Peterson, read some Zizek, Butler, Laclau, Mark Fisher, see what Wittgenstein, Quine, Kripke, Grice, Dennett, Putnam, Davidson, Chalmers, and Lewis has to say, also be sure to check out the thought of Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, and Badiou. Read Shakespeare, Balzac, Goethe, Faulkner, Gladis, and David Foster Wallace. Read up on the Brenner debate, know the difference between Hobsbawm and AJY Taylor, have a favourite historian.

Once you’ve done at least that, then you are starting to approach a place where you can write some sort of grand theory.

>If you want to actually do something profound, plan to spend the next decade studying. Read Freud, Marx, Spengler, Weber, Darwin, learn mathematics, physics, read history, listen to Rick Roderick, read The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, or Jordan fckin Peterson, read some Zizek, Butler, Laclau, Mark Fisher, see what Wittgenstein, Quine, Kripke, Grice, Dennett, Putnam, Davidson, Chalmers, and Lewis has to say, also be sure to check out the thought of Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, and Badiou. Read Shakespeare, Balzac, Goethe, Faulkner, Gladis, and David Foster Wallace. Read up on the Brenner debate, know the difference between Hobsbawm and AJY Taylor, have a favourite historian.
>This is his list of "great thinkers"
Holy. Fucking. Shit. And you're talking about OP being embarrassed. The fucking irony.

Its not up to the author of a book to be God.

You are a faggot and you should feel bad.

He's right.

I don't deny that "he" (you, you samefagging faggot) is correct. OP is autistic. I'm laughing at his shit recommendations.

Remember to put 'sage' in the options field, kids.

>I don't deny that "he" (you, you samefagging faggot)

lol alright

>I'm laughing at his shit recommendations.

How so? The only embarrassing part of that user's post is responding seriously to this thread, but on the other hand there's always value to lurkers and other posters who might think you can actually create a revolutionary work without a robust understanding of the canon and its great thinkers.

You all seem so insecure, probably due to the fact that Goonan wrote a book, and apparently an important one, while you all just continue to read book by book by book and get nowhere, and get no pussy.

Lmao Goonan did that bookstore cancel your dumbass event? Where are you gonna be in DC? i want to come flip your table.

I may not get pussy, but I did get some twink ass due books (even though it was a comic by Jay Naylor)

And your 300m time in HAS was abysmal Goon. You should learn to try harder.

I suppose my point of ‘being contemporary’ was lost on you? Do I think The Bicameral Mind is good or true? No, it’s probably bullshit, but it’s amusing bullshit that makes you think. I also think Peterson is a dumb meme, but Sean would already be a step up if he sat through the Maps of Meaning lectures.

My point is if you actually want to attempt something as silly and futile as producing something radically new, the idea that you can just sit and think real hard is a piece of arrogant fantasy and the product of American ‘genius worship’. Great works are the products of top tier geniuses spending decades working far harder than the average person ever could. People who write great things aren’t successful because they are smarter than you, they are successful because they are both smarter than you and also work far harder than you. I’m advocating that if you want to do something great read the great thinkers, but also read the new thinkers, spend sometime figuring out whether or not memes are worth the hype, and consider their critics as well.

If somebody thinks they’ve written something radically new on the nature of ‘man and woman’ I’d expect them to have something to say both about evolutionary psychology and Judith Butler’s theory of performative gender, and if you haven’t even heard of one of those things I’m not sure you are sufficiently educated to be making grand sweeping pronouncements on the nature of man and the universe.

If I’m saying anything it’s just that if your influences list includes a bunch of novels you read in high school, you aren’t well rounded enough to attempt anything like a grand project. Read the classics, read some meme trash, read the secondary literature, you’ll be better for it.

athletic.net/TrackAndField/Athlete.aspx?AID=1714031#/L0
Not a bad 600m at 1:31.07, but the top of the field in the local competition was usually 1:28.00 to 1:30.00 with the rare sub 1:28.00 freak show.

Imagine? Goonan actually posted this.

"Apparently an important one"... My fucking sides are destroyed.

You're a pussy ass bitch.

Fuck off, Goonan.

>Calls me a pussy
>Won't say where you'll be

Gooch, come on man. I Wana see that disgusting pressed in mongoloid face irl.

>Its not up to the author of a book to be God.
Do you think it takes a God to understand how to sell books and educate the masses?

Have you approached any academic publishers or journals to publish or review your work?

Email me to arrange a place and time to meet and I'll be sure to kick your face in like you want to be done.

Lmao do you not want to post it? A 12 of your fans want to come smell the cum on your breath. I'll make sure to bring some friends when we meet up.

>acting like Russians

independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-man-shot-in-quarrel-over-immanuel-kant-s-philosophy-8820327.html

Two things;
-make a better website, your website is shit. Just use squarespace or something, if you have enough money for vanity publishing, you have enough money for a website maker.

-why are you only doing a us tour, come to Canada. Specifically Toronto.

at least my work has cool words in it

I at least know that I don’t know, and aren’t going to make anybody waste their time on me.

I suppose I shouldn’t mock too much, of actually is possible for a fairly short book to completely fuck you up top to bottom on a whole range of topics.
Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism is one. Sean if you are reading this, read this fckin book and try again;
libcom.org/files/Capitalist Realism_ Is There No Alternat - Mark Fisher.pdf

Excuse me but he's the voice of our & subsequent generations

Whomst would pretend to be you? I mean we have some inbreds around here but come on

I'm Jewish

Self publishing doesn't cost any money.

The Foundation solves economics.

>Fuck you; go back to your kike masters. One day you will be begging for my mercy.
>Fuck you, kike. My intelligence will not be brought down by your Talmudic bullshit. Now go cry to papa Soros.
>Please stop kvetchig in my face, idiot.
>More kikes for the gas chamber. You won't keep my people from reading my work. We will rise. We will put you in you ash heap.
>What Mein Kampf was for the rise of the Nazi Party, this book will be for the rise of the brotherhood of /pol/ into becoming the most powerful group on Earth.
These seem a little out of place in this thread.

hey goonan you're completely retarded and delusional, and your work is a pile of steaming shit

STFU goon

Kill yourselves.

Pretend that mom's knives are dicks and choke on them.

>incredibly important
Example, Goo.

>new
Example, pls.

>revolutionary
Lay it out for us briefly.

>change the course of
How would it change the course of my day, first.

>the species drastically
By...?

>for eternity
And that's how we know you're ill.

Plus all the bizarre antisemitism. /pol/? Really? Mein Kampf?

>why are you only doing a us tour, come to Canada. Specifically Toronto.
Why?

If you come to Toronto I’d love to chat.

So I can tear you a new one.

He won't tell you where he will be even if he comes. He's too scared of getting his creepy little face broken.

Post your face on here pussy.