/lit/ - Literature

>>5619037
Existentialism is particularly bad. It's written to expose the reader to existential dread.

>>5619024
Chicks should dig better books, then. This applies to anyone who reads and likes existentialism.

>>5619016
Absurdism is a form of existentialism.

I wish people would stop reading existentialist literature. It isn't good for your mental health and the philosophy is shit-tier. The characters are all stock characters the authors use to demonstrate their philosophies. When Ayn Rand does it, you guys get mad, but when Camus does it it's brilliant.
Existentialism is shit-tier philosophy and literature. Absurdism is even worse.

Read Stirner, Hegel, and Nietzsche instead of Camus, Sartre, and their Francophriends.

I wish people would stop reading existentialist literature. It isn't good for your mental health and the philosophy is shit-tier. The characters are all stock characters the authors use to demonstrate their philosophies. When Ayn Rand does it, you guys get mad, but when Camus does it it's brilliant.
Existentialism is shit-tier philosophy and literature. Absurdism is even worse.

>>5618089
The Stranger was written to showcase Camus' philosophy and for no other purpose. Mersault exists to demonstrate absurdism.

He doesn't receive a wage when he provides his services

I couldn't finish On The Road
Dharma Bums was good

A fearsome sky hung low over the Axis Mundi,
And the Dreamer dreamed a hurricane.
The world was quiet that night,
Knowing it was over.
Tomorrow awaited revelation beyond the dawn,
The joy of beginning spoke from the future,
The day the One would speak!

The eye stared out of the human,
Who, speaking in tongues of flame,
Becoming an eternity of its own beyond the confines of all confinement,
Shattered all chains to breaking, shouting:
"Let the slaves be masters, and let the masters be no better than slaves!
All are one and one is all; never mind which for which!"

The Dreamer woke, but the dream went on.
The oneiric cavern opened up to the light of day,
The stone rolled away,
The day showed itself,
And in the day the Dreamer beheld his dream.

I love good science fiction and think most 'literature' is overrated.
Most science fiction deserves its reputation, though.

>>5613373
thx

A fearsome sky hung low over the Axis Mundi,
And the Dreamer dreamed a hurricane.
The world was quiet that night,
Knowing it was over.
Tomorrow awaited revelation beyond the dawn,
The joy of beginning spoke from the future,
The day the One would speak!

The eye stared out of the human,
Who, speaking in tongues of flame,
Becoming an eternity of its own beyond the confines of all confinement,
Shattered all chains to breaking, shouting:
"Let the slaves be masters, and let the masters be no better than slaves!
All are one and one is all; never mind which for which!"

The Dreamer woke, but the dream went on.
The oneiric cavern opened up to the light of day,
The stone rolled away,
The day showed itself,
And in the day the Dreamer beheld his dream.

You can't be anyone but you, OP.

Religious texts shouldn't be put into either category.

An important part of the dialectic is the place of consciousness within it.
Some (Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus, Hegel himself) claim that the dialectic can be used to understand any aspect of human experience, largely because it's based on seeming truisms. Our experience of our world shapes our thoughts, and our thoughts shape the experiences (or the way we interpret them, rather, which is vital) we have of our world. There is the thesis, the conscious being, or rather its abstract thoughts about its world; the antithesis, the concrete things in the world from which the conscious being is separated; and the synthesis, the growth of the individual through the mediation of the concrete and the abstract.
Consider the dialectic Hegel presents in the Phenomenology of the master and bondsman, or master and slave, depending on your translation. A slave is a slave in both his own eyes and the eyes of his master. If/when the slave manages to earn or buy his freedom, he ceases to be a slave, but he is still himself. The transition from slave to free man is not in fact any real transition. Nothing in the essence of the man who was a slave and is now free changes. All that has changed is the situation he finds himself in: he is no longer in bondage to the man he once thought of as his master, but who is now his equal, both being free men.
In this dialectic, the thesis is the notion of the slave; the antithesis is the notion of the free man; the synthesis is the transition of the slave to freedom.
This is essentially the path Hegel says history takes. In Philosophy of History, he argues that history is governed by Reason, and it is progressing toward the universal realization of freedom, which he holds to be the highest good. His concept of freedom is rather complex, but it amounts to the freedom to become the being one wants, which (according to him) is only fully realizable within the State, the spiritual embodiment of the will of a people.

>>5588895
I burned a copy of The Fountainhead when I was 16, so you clearly aren't talking about me.
I use the word 'liberal' outside of the American Liberal-Conservative/Democrat-Republican context, meaning economic and social liberalism, as opposed to ideologies like fascism, anarchism, communism, etc.
If you didn't catch onto that in the beginning, please, don't bother to respond to this post.

>>5588878
What the fuck are you even talking about?

>>5588844
I didn't come here for a debate about the history of the US labor movement, I came here to make a comment about how my idiot liberal bourgeois classmates thought Confucianism was justification for oppression. I wouldn't have made assertions if you hadn't called liberalism a 'dead horse,' which it blatantly isn't.

Mixed.

>>5588818
I don't feel like reading radical literature because I'm too busy reading the rest of the books I'm currently in the middle of, not to mention all the shit I'm reading for school.
>He thinks not wanting to read anarchist literature is a sign of functional illiteracy
>MFW
Enjoy your revolution.

>>5588793
>I'm arguing for a continuous and processional account of revolution, and you're calling me vulgar?
Yes, because you used the terms 'wage labour, democratic organisation, and recurrent crises of production' as if they were all that's necessary and sufficient for a revolution to occur.
>Time for you to read Black Flame until you get it
I don't feel like becoming a radical at the moment, sorry.
>When did I ever say that?
I don't know, did I ever imply that I actually cared about the revolution? You were the one that got me into this stupid argument anyway. What exactly do you expect me to do?

>>5588591
#

>>5588610
Fuck off, m8, we aren't all vulgar Marxists like you. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist but not to the point of violence. Why? Well, why are you so willing to fight for the Communist Party? And what will your fight consist of, O Idiot? I don't feel like risking my neck at the moment for a movement that will obviously fail the moment it starts (I don't think a revolution is a 'momentary cataclysm,' I think you're a shill) and I haven't even read Lenin.
The American people aren't going to start a Communist revolution, that's what I mean by 'the material conditions aren't right.' Wage labor, democratic organization, and recurrent crises of production have been present in America since America declared independence. It hasn't happened yet and I don't see any reason to think it'll happen now. Please fuck off.

>>5588428
It's a dialectic, m8.