/lit/ - Literature

>>12537690

this is, unironically, pretty much my profession as a human being. i run (successful, congressional) political campaigns.

what exactly would you like to know? what type of "secret" would you be pretending to possess? not all secret societies are born the same...

>>12537703

this is categorically false. a simple Weberian reading would suffice to argue against such superficial analysis: at the very least, what matters most is your FIRST FOLLOWER. the idea is NOT to "say nothing to anyone," but to build a small, dedicated cohort "behind the scenes" that support you and know, for the most part, what is going on, and then use that cohort to SELECTIVELY leak images/information and cultivate a sense of mystery and/or a "centralizing" "focal/optical/coordination point." no secret society is ever a secret--the secret lies rather in what they LACK, not what they possess.

>>12177577

i've read a lot of them--it's my job.

i've managed two successful congressional campaigns and currently work with a political PR group; i also am on the board of a hedge fund.

my wealth and power are drawn directly from this library/body of knowledge. will happily keep posting if you are interested--can also provide in dept reading lists on a range of topics. what are you most interested in?

>>12156651

thanks man, ill answer what i can

i go into lobbying after working within the actual structure of campaigns; among other things, i was really interested in problems of rhetoric and conversion throughout my undergrad and grad career, so finding ways to actually apply the various philosophical theories of persuasion i had encountered became and still is a major part of my general life's work. i really, really enjoy taking esoteric concepts born in philosophy/political theory and churning them into hard campaign and PR strategies. to be honest, i also have an inbuilt penchant toward duplicity--it's not that i lie a lot, it's that i enjoy crafting realistic myths and i'm pretty good at it. it's my way of aestheticizing the world in the manner of kant and schiller: i find my work the perfect example of "play" i've personally encountered

ima be straight up honest with you since this is anonymous and i'd rather just answer you directly, so please excuse the obvious egotism: yes, i have great social skills, and would consider myself a particularly charismatic person--others seem to agree. the essence of my charisma is drawn from weber and geertz and shils: 1. i am very good at owning and bearing honestly my own unique soul (this sounds lame, but is the basis of much of it), and 2. i am very good at relating myself to the "center of things," both politically/economically and spiritually/metaphysically. i manage both the material and idealistic aspects of my character in the same way one might manage a custom-made suit. i very much enjoy walking into a wall street boardroom and being the guy who can quote shakespeare--as long as you are not a pretentious cunt about your learning, knowledge in these contexts really is power, and i know how to mine that power with considerable precision.

i read constantly and non-stop. truly, the source and essence of my wealth and power has been knowledge. it has not only granted me an exceptional career, it has also saved my life, in some really real and profound ways. i own a private, hand-selected 10,000 book academic library and share as much of it as i can: senators, businessmen, artists, authors scientists and academics associated with DC pass through it, and i love being the nexus of a type of intellectual salon-culture. i'm currently reading: "the committee: a study of policy, power, politics and obama's historic legislative agenda on capital hill" (bryan marshall and bruce wolpe); "the sit room: in the theater of war and peace" (david scheffer); "the seer in ancient greece" (michael flower); "the problem of political authority" (michael huemer); "german idealism: the struggle against subjectivism, 1781-1801" (frederick beiser); and "emotion and high politics: personal relations at the summit in late nineteenth-century britain and germany" (judith hughes)

I AM THE STILL-SMALL VOICE; I AM THE WHIRLWIND; I AM THE SOUND FROM THE WILDERNESS

YOU WHO FEEL PURPOSELESS, YOU WHO FEEL WITHOUT MEANING: TELL ME, WHO AMONG YOU HAS ENOUGH CARE, WHO AMONG YOU IS BRIMMING WITH ENOUGH WONDER, TO FOLLOW ME? WHO AMONG YOU CAN BEAR THE MEANING I CARRY: THE BURDEN OF ETERNAL LIFE? WHO AMONG YOU HAS ENOUGH LOVE TO MAKE ME YOUR ENEMY?

COME UNTO ME AND BE REBORN

PER ME NON EST FINIS

>>12003646

this.

despite what anyone else will reply to you, from the perspective of another stable human being, you are by far the most well-adjusted person in this thread, and your judgment doesn't seem compromised.

keep pursuing the good.

>>12003646

this.

despite what anyone else will reply to you, from the perspective of another stable human being, you are by far the most well-adjusted person in this thread, and your judgment doesn't seem comprised.

keep pursuing the good.

>>11955225
Entreating thing, her gown trimmed gold,
Within pink-violet petals sewn,
Of cotton fresh and softest fold,
She sits upon an azure throne.
Too soon, with blush and maidenhead,
She goes to her far cloistered bed.

i want an invite back into the good /lit discord, please. until then, art.

love,

rapture

Morning mountains in the mist,
Sorely sights of you I've missed,
For from sea to silver sea,
None your mettle did I see,
That when fixed upon a cot,
Sickness for your shades I caught.
Fin’lly back my journey led
Dodging flus and flying lead,
For that danger, my just due,
Well-earned, thy slopes in sunris’d dew.

and

The misted hillocks, sunbeam blazed,
Where shining-coated cattle grazed,
And kids below their mothers lazed,
A scene serene was this.

The shepherd, distant cries malaised,
Then cattle, sudden violence, crazed,
The kids, by deaths's confusion, dazed,
A lion glutted, heedless.

That massive orb, so hung there far in space,
Of flames white and red and gold fire mixed,
Like humors balanced, yet not surely fixed,
As it blood red did sit, with sickly face,
And melted 'cross the doleful pale sky,
Where grimly cast it burning light upon
All that it saw, alike God’s eye, its gaze
Forth shone, and flames out summoned were which raze
The very earth, so too my mind anon
Delusions racked, at least believed they must
At first, but realised them truth of past
And present, of the coming days and last
Of days to be, both righteous and unjust;

>>10986726
even if your first statement were true, which you have not established, the question then becomes why you necessarily link representation to will.

there are many theories of representation: simulacra, substitution, resemblance, etc. Outside the will, there is the aesthetic dimension of representation, its epistemic and didactic value, and so forth--there is more to it than simply power, and at the very least you need to tell me why it is linked to power for you so specifically.

Hannah Pitkin has probably THE political theory book on the subject of representation. Lefort has an essay or two on the body of democracy that matters; Hobbes, Madison are primaries, with even Socrates' notion of the mirror of soul and society being something of a central contribution. i dunno why you just go a watered-down Berkeley/Schopenhauer/Stirner route.

>>10614888

to understand modern feminism you need to begin with german idealism

follow that through its appropriation into american transcendentalism

then follow that through american pragmatism and the early 20th century americanization of marxism

only then will the true antinomean abstractions of modern feminism be made totally clear

>>10587363
pay no attention to these fools, OP:
>>10587397
>>10587443
>>10587473
>>10587546

they have the reading comprehension of retarded 2nd graders, along with an undue sense of authority.

from someone who has taught machiavelli at more than one ivy-league, here are some lessons that the prince can introduce you to:

1. the notion of the verita effettuale. machiavelli's method teaches one to peer beyond the various illusions that surround daily political life, and begin to look at things are they really are. this in part relates to two things: 1a. machaivelli's notion of multiple perspectives--that one must see things from the point of view of both ruler and ruled to get the world in view; and 1b. that, insofar as one sees the truth for what it is, a choice must be made--either you can choose a life of virtue, and therefore renounce the possibility of wealth or power; or you can choose the path of wealth and power, and therefore renounce the path of virtue. the myth that one can be both is one of the greatest lies of christianized modernity. on a broader level, this further leads to a reading of contemporary politics akin to what >>10587711 accurately described.

2. that duplicity has its place in human affairs. machiavelli's distinction between the fox and the lion educates one to the fact that different circumstances call for different attitudes: whether to be cunning, or to be bold. this relates back to 1. insofar as the right perspective enables one to inhabit the right role for the given occasion. moving between these roles is key to success in the realms of wealth and power.

3. leading from 2.--that the greatest enemy one will face is oneself. this is in part machivelli's point re: Borgia. the same tools that brought you to power may not be the tools necessary to retain that power. what this requires is a sense of dynamism and a willingness to change oneself as the situation/times change.

4. that contingency matters. whatever plans you make, whether small-scale or large, expect things to change, alter, prove resistant. this attunes you simply to the nature of reality itself, and leads to the sort of dynamism of self i referred to above. against this contingency, a type of virtu or boldness is recommended. you know that girl you've been wanting to ask out for months but don't have the courage? it'll never happen until you simply act. on a larger scale, this privileges the vita activa above the vita contemplativa. stop thinking about it and simply do it--this is not to say that one should act unintelligently, but rather than reality will always fortune the man who acts over the man who doesnt.

beyond these points, there are various further ideas that exist in the discourses, etc. that are worth covering as well. you know how people use the term "machiavellian" to describe those who believe the ends justify the means? machiavelli would find this a deplorable bastardization of his thought. the whole point of machiavelli's (cont)

>>9604150
>>9604169

Sometimes I do think with Zizek this is at least partially true. Using contradictions or subverting expectations is a useful tool but there has to be something firm and coherent behind the provocative claims and his explanations are often lacking.

greetings fuckers,

i've been reading a particularly interesting tract titled "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism" by R. H. Tawney, and, along with Weber's treatment, it has got to be one of the more erudite considerations of the relationship between christian theology and capitalistic practices i've ever come across. a particularly provocative section ended with the following quote, important enough that i thought to share:

"Mankind,it seems, hates nothing so much as its own prosperity. Menaced with an accession of riches which would lighten its toil, it makes haste to redouble its labours, and to pour away the perilous stuff, which might deprive of plausibility the complaint that it is poor. Applied to the arts of peace, the new resources commanded by Europe during the first half of the sixteenth century might have done something to exorcise the spectres of pestilence and famine, and to raise the material fabric of civilization to undreamed-of heights. Its rulers, secular and ecclesiastical alike, thought otherwise. When pestilence and famine were ceasing to be necessities imposed by nature they re-established them by political art."

thoughts?

hey /lit,

where can i publish philosophy online? i'm currently working on a new philosophical model, and i want to introduce it to a greater critical audience, but don't really know where to look. i'm an academic, and want to avoid philosophy journals given the project's nascent and inchoate status; besides, this particular work harbors a series of analytical holes that i have chosen consciously to overlook.

in any case, any suggestions would be great--i'll post some good art in the meantime (all titles/artists are in filename).

Which literary movements are your favorite?
Which one do you dislike?

Where do you guys store your writings? I only have them on my laptop so if it something happens everything will perish.

What are your recommendations?