/lit/ - Literature

>>12705779

Again, that only means Marx is not only relevant but also taken seriously, if only through negation of his ideas. Whether or not we like it (I don't, even), opposition to Communism and to Marxism in general has been a fierce driver of finance based economies for decades. I find it hard to believe that this would be as effective if he was the sociological equivalent of flat earth movements.

>>11295530

I've never read it as having much to do with AI but rather with capital being an emergent effect of the whole ensemble of humans, including society, governments, markets, families, etc.

Emergent effects do not have a will of their own but they appear to due to showcasing properties that none of the individual components have. Kind of like the statement "it might appear that you as a whole being crave for cake but this is a mere emergent effect cascaded by gut bacteria and carefully orchestrated by a myriad of other cells. None of these elements would alone correspond to the desire for cake in itself, but the whole set does "feel" this craving *in the sense of* an emergent property.". Most of the posters here are assuming Land is ascribing to some "Gaia" theory for capital and that he thinks it is a literal organism, but the analogy with an emergent property of a set of humans goes way further and makes much more sense than that of capital "being a being".

>>10876157

The Bhagavad Gita is not a complicated passage and does not even delve in anything too deep. I'd even go as far as saying it might as well be considered >pure ideology if it can serve just about anyone to claim anything like that

>>10756867

>>10757958

This is it OP. Alienation gives a feeling of power because you are the only frame of reference left. I unironically believe this is a consequence of 2000 years of twisting Plato and the many other idealists into our current fake materialism (fake insofar as we are still idealists at heart, only that we idealize and reduce into material every previous abstract value we might have had).

Western culture is cold and distant because it requires surrender to meet the Other. Viewing yourself as a cog or a cell underlying a larger complex phenomenon is somewhat frightening to our canon. I also wouldn't cite Ellison as African literature, for you can still see in him the typically American disparity of isolating yourself in order to not be inferior (which is not as opposed a view to isolating yourself in order to become superior).

From a short work trip I made to China some time ago, I'd say they get this much more than we do. They realize and accept inequality inside their society and many of them [do not seem to] crave superiority, nor by isolation or any other means. There's a lot of stuff I'd consider fucked up going on there, but they are ironically not as alienated from each other as we are. I'd say (as a BR huefag) that Brazil is also a showcase for how people can bond to each other, at the price of leaving behind this feeling of superiority. Brazilians are known (and it is true) to regard themselves as underdogs and resign themselves to mediocrity even in areas where they could feign relative superiority. Yet it has come to be that solitude is only a relevant theme in here to people who purposely isolate themselves, and (probably not by coincidence) these people are usually "up there", socially and economically speaking.

>>10704293

Everyone after him has to reference themselves as post-Kantian because he took after Plato to become a turbo-bitch who wrote about, quite literally, every fucking thing that exists (and doesn't). Basically you can't get away with saying anything (yes including this post) without it having something to do with an obscure Kantian reference.

>>10586874

This. If anything, the fact that there is external stimuli to engage in commodity fetishism and atomize yourself and take part in an exchange of social capital only makes the point more glaring, not nullified.

>>10476724

If literature has a place in a world where Chinese rule it, sensitivity readers are going to be a short lived experiment.

Are there any books/essays dealing specifically with the insidious presence of capitalist/market elements inside of contemporary SJW elements, starting from their very conceptions?

Specifically, I would like to know more about the replacement of large/global/over arching causes (such as the ones derived from the great wars, "war on drugs", "war on terror", "war on poverty"), by micro-causes such as microaggressions and micro-racism, which are fought individually and through segregation rather than aggregation. I believe this, in turn, facilitates the process of increasing the market spectrum, a great triumph of late capitalism since even anti-capital revolutions become markets to exchange (social) capital instead. But of course this last part is only my conjecture.

Closest I can recall from memory about this is some stuff from Nick Land but he is rather enthusiastic and abstract about it (which is fine), whereas I would like something more precise in the history department. I don't remember enough of Hoppe to claim this but I suppose he kinda mentions it too? Thanks ahead of time to everyone who has anything to suggest.

>>9906800

I never saw her recommending any of their documentaries

>>9595685

The very question of what does it mean for something to be useful already poses a philosophical inquiry OP. It is not about whether or not you should do philosophy, but at what level. Because philosophy is already what you do lying in bed at night wondering why do anything at all or what does certain acts and concepts mean for you and others around you. Whenever you wonder if it's right/wrong to do something, wonder if it's better lying to someone in order to protect them/yourself, think about how some public policy is fair/unfair, etc. you're already "using" philosophy insofar as you're engaging in matters philosophers ask themselves about and provide answers to great length.

In a way, you might even actually claim philosophy cannot be useful, because it precedes and even concerns itself with defining usefulness to begin with. "Why philosophy?" means as much, and can be conflated with, "Why live", at least as far as our modern society is concerned. You and everyone else are free (and somewhat stimulated by a section of the elites) to refuse diving into the underlying meaning of things (beyond their immediate usefulness) but there is no choice about being affected by these underlying concepts and patterns.

>>9565883
write whatever the fuck you want OP, there is a market of at least 1.4 billion+ people outside of the west who don't give a flying fuck about cultural appropriation and indeed may even despise you for worrying so much about it