/lit/ - Literature

>>13026136
Being anti-beat is babby's first non-Reddit literary opinion. True /lit/erati can rescue the beats from their stereotype as being transgressive druggy hippies by reinterpreting them through the lens of their decadentism and the common influence of Spengler on their aesthetics. In doing so, we realise that the beats (except late-ginsberg, who really was just a filthy hippy pedo) were in fact using their transgressivism as a outer shell to cover their esoteric opposition to and revulsion with the modern world and its moral laxity. They chose self-consciously to make themselves monsters of hedonism as if to say, "look at us, look what you will become." But of course, the letzter menschen of the counter culture took them at face value.

Reddit: thinking the beats are advocating degenerate hedonism unironically

Fresh of the boat from reddit kid: the beats are so bad lol read real writers like Pynchon

Trve high iq /lit/izen, seasoned veteran of the board (me): at last I truly see! The beats are to Spengler what Baudelaire was to De Maistre. Both took reactionary critiques of modernity and became a dark mirror of their societies, as depicted by those critiques. I now finally understand that writers like Pynchon would be inconceivable if it weren't for the influence of the beats, who laid the groundwork for his sense of comical decline, of parodying the excesses of liberal hedonism in order to critique it.

>Beat doesn’t mean tired, or bushed, so much that it means beto, the Italian for Beatific: to be in a state of beatitude, like St. Francis, trying to love all life, trying to be utterly sincere with everyone, practicing endurance, kindness, cultivating joy of heart. How can this be done in our mad modern world of multiplicities and millions? By practicing a little solitude, going off by yourself once in a while to store up that most precious of golds: the vibrations of sincerity.
>our mad modern world of multiplicities and millions
Get past the hippy lingo which was cribbed from the beats and misused and try to get at what Jack is actually saying here. It's probably not what you think if you get your opinions on the beats from their popular image.

18th century
>physical/material turn
>revolutions in scientific method lead to radical overturning of our previous ideas about physics
>gives rise/credence to materialism, scientism, fatalism/determinism
>cf. Descartes, Newton, Locke etc.

19th century
>historical turn
>revolution in social scientific method leads to radical revision of our relationship to the past
>gives rise/credence to the idea that our concepts have a history, moral relativism, positivism and historicism
>cf. Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx etc.

20th century
>logical/linguistic turn
>revolutions in formal logic and semiotics creates new self-consciousness about what language is and leads to us realising that most prior epochs just took certain aspects of it for granted
>gives rise to analytic philosophy and postmodernism (in France), to a renewed interest in classical philosophy, new recursively and need for metaphilosophies
>cf. frege, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Post-structuralist, Kripke (sort of)

Do you guys think there will be a similar "turn" in the 20th century? What d'you think it could be? Like a cognitive turn (with all the attention people are paying to intelligence bc of AI)? What is it we're not noticing yet?

Let's speculate bros

>inb4 I've not given an accurate history of all philosophy
>inb4nitpicking
Bruh I'm just generalising

>>12313620

>>12227238
>A GROUND <ratio> is that from which it is knowable why something is. What has a ground, or, that of which something is a ground, is said to be its CONSEQUENCE and DEPENDENT on it. The predicate by virtue of which something is either ground or consequence, or both, is the NEXUS