/lit/ - Literature

>>23182110

Have you noticed the sudden surge of posts about Hegel on this board? It seems like every other thread is about this German philosopher and his trash ideas.
Let's resist their brainwashing and fight for our right to read whatever we damn well please. And most importantly, let's not let Hegel's popularity on this board go unchecked.
Let's uncover the truth about Hegel and his mysterious followers.

>>13726239

>>11851571

Since you were born after Hegel, yes, philosophy is pretty much the activity of the Thought thinking about itself. Some would claim that even if you were born before Hegel you would also be self referencing but not realizing it.

>>11155098

Doesn't it really make (You) think though?

>>11016120

Seconding this, it's more Hegelian than a lot of posts on the internet about Hegel (which is not much but the OP want's to know /lit/ anime so there it is)

>>10983120

There is nothing he didn't try to extrapolate. When you want to think about thinking about thinking, the logical conclusion must be thinking all that there is to think

>>10890300

The easiest path to be able to argue in favor of violence would be to atomize it into distinctive and non-mutual kinds of "violent act". I believe I can only recall of Zizek doing this explicitly (too bad because I'm not exactly his greatest fan) by differentiating between what he calls "subjective violence" and "objective violence".

Subjective here is a direct relation to actual people perpetrating outburst of violence. When someone punches you and when you punch back, when someone kills a robber and when a robber kills someone, when people break glasses during a riot, etc. Objective violence would be something that is not necessarily perpetrated by any particular subject (this is where I have issues with the definitions but I'll do my best to explain it neutrally), meaning A. symbolic violence which is embodied in forms and language (one example would be words we use that are explicitly traced back to oppressive relations among individuals), or B. systemic violence which arise as if "natural" consequence of the ebb and flow of our political and economical schemes. I can only assume Zizek is talking about a subtle notion of segregation and alienation here.

With these definitions in mind you can proceed to defend the use of the former kind of violence to combat the structural ones present in the form of objective violence. This is problematic in itself but the advantage is that you don't have to make any moral claims other than "I don't like being stomped by the system", it doesn't even need to acknowledge that people inside a society are purposely not being virtuous to each other or any such thing, and even though you are plainly making use of subjective violence, all that you want to do is break down the structure that is actually doing harm to you.

>and so on and so on

>>10879709

WHY?! WHY MUST YOU TORMENT ME SO WITH THESE JEZEBELS? All I want to do is come here for an asexual experience that will exercise my brain but I am constantly titillated by these vixens with their prodigious hips and provocative figures. Can I never satiate this thirst, will I ever know the touch of a woman and enter between her loins? Will my seed ever drip from her moistened hole?

>>10852270

>Productive, rational, well-adjusted individual
>Using mathematicians as example

You don't know many mathematicians in private life do you?

>>10807478

It more or like internalizes inside me what Zizek means by pure, empty ideology when I see that image and how it basically serves both sides of the same argument at once depending on who's reading it.

According to [what I think I understand from] Zizek, whatever attempts at social models we come up with and claim are "modern", are truly just many different ways of trying to come to terms with a fundamental "struggle" that lies at the core of our lives, in every aspect. This "struggle" is not something we can push aside, but rather is the thing from which we start, the departing point of our way of thinking, so to speak.

All fine and dandy, but now I'd like to consider things such as this opinion piece about Japan ( https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/05/how-japan-weaves-caring-and-sharing-into-all-layers-of-society ). In this (and also in other sources) it is claimed that the Japanese are effectively removing "struggle" from their society (at least in the way I understand it, which is also open to correction). They are "polite" or "orderly" to the point that everyone clearly knows which directions to take in order to do absolutely anything. They don't have to truly come into contact with anyone unwillingly, there are no doubts of where to go and daily conflict has virtually been eliminated.

Now, I assume this trend is able to disseminate into other areas of their lives (or even stemmed from there, if the archetypes about their work ethics are to be true), which means that, regardless of whether or not there is still "struggle" in this society, their participants have been made to largely ignore and/or suppress it through social order. Which leads me to my point (of which things like https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/05/20/national/media-national/miserable-case-unhappiness-surging-japan/#.WpNbt-fQ_Dc are related to): if people needed to start from this "struggle" in order to build their relations with external things, is a society like Japan not taking away their humanity rather than becoming more humanized? Are they not practicing something akin to "inhumanism", that we should actually not strive to get to? I'd very much like to read more about this (from the point of view of a society like Japan's), are there actually any books which *criticize* Japan's (and I guess any other insular society like theirs) "politeness"?

>>8960670
>Should I read essays before books
It makes the reading easier, but there's always more interpretation and you could end up following one.

>criticisms?
They're good as you can understand what you read more as the flaws are exposed. Plus it avoids falling in the trap of >"X said everything that had to be said"

>>8960701
For anything basic, get on wikipedia. I'm not memeing, there's always references and a general comprehension of the idea.

>>8960746
Sadly I didn't have a lot of lessons about language. Can't really give anything. Perhaps look into rhetorics.

>>8961087
Basically Plato wrote fiction, but with philosophy in mind. On the other spectrum, you have the likes of Kant, which is highly technical, and not easy to read. However, being more literate doesn't mean the philosophy meaning is easier to understand.

>Plato is easier to read but harder to comprehend on a philosophical, precise level because of the way he decided to wrote (with dialogues)
>Kant is harder to read but easier to comprehend. Reading two pages and understanding them requires ten minutes or more.

>>8961576
Even as a philophy student I don't have time to read everything. Just get a book which is rather synthetic on a theme or stream. Ask your local librarian if you seek quality. They're supposed to be there for that.
Something about Rawls: Mulhall et Swift, « Liberals and Communitarians » (Wiley Blackwell)

>>8961607
Answered here >>8961614

Hope it helps.

I made a new video improved the script a bit, thoughts?
https://www.youtube.com/watchv=KDWOM5TOiUA&feature=youtu.be

>read tons of communist works
>still can't bring myself to become a communist

I don't know, but despite the fact I love checking it out, I am unable to identify as such or even want to fight for their cause.
Anyone else know these feels?

>Kids, fiction is the truth inside the lie, and the truth of this fiction is simple enough; the magic exists

Is Stephen King a Hegelian?

>>7337092
holy shit

Other than that he is funny, why does this guy matter? He's not brilliant or cutting edge. He's a clown.

>>7259247
You're all right.
>>7259248
How could anyone forget?
>stone gays
Stoning is a bit harsh but I don't see why objections to homosexuality are bad.
>>7259251
The Floating Man argument, right?

>>6951742
he might plagiarize it but it'd still maybe be worth it?

>>6907315

whatever you do OP, don't read any fucking Hegel

https://pervegalit.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/how-to-fake-your-way-through-hegel/

Reading Hegel is better than sex.