/lit/ - Literature

>>4114942

i empathise with your reason for opposing abstraction (more understand is always good) but i have to disagree with your path for achieving it.

ok maybe Baudrillard or Kierkegaard isn't for everyone, and they will only ever help a small group of dispersed people over time. thus the need for something that will connect and affect positive change more broadly.

but can this be achieved by a unified, totalised process? i think not, and actually it would probably work exactly in the opposite direction. it would lead to the ossification of thought and action. we need to retain different approaches so that the tendency towards an authoritarian unity doesn't consume us all and make us think: the world is fine as it is, or there is only one way to this this one thing which we have decided is good (because we can't think any other way).

let us rethink what "abstract" thought actually is. i don't think flowery, dense prose is what makes something abstract or not. it is whether the thinking is connected to the concrete processes that affect our existence. i don't think empirical thought is connected to these processes, so although it may appear direct and "to the point" it is actually far more removed from the real world and the people in it than an irrational, poetic treatise on oppression would be.

philosophy should rekindle its love of style once more. as it now stands it is dry, bland, difficult for the eyes and the soul to absorb. which youth's heart is inflamed by some modern logician or scientist? why does each generation keep returning to Nietzsche? to affect change we need to inspire, and only style inspires.

also have you read habermas? seems like he would be right up your alley.

>>3861308
>ITP person who is too stupid to enjoy a book he wasn't told to enjoy

>>3820175