/lit/ - Literature

When Kierkegaard distinguishes the religious from ethical (which in turn is distinguished from the aesthetic), it makes me wonder if the will to moralize is really contiguous with the will to religiosity. In a sense it seems in Christianity this comes to pass, after all Kierkegaardian "situational ethics" sometimes leads to religion transcending ethics through a sort of moralism transcending religion (a prime example is Ishmael from Moby Dick engaging in idolatry with Queequeg because he uses situational ethics to justify it as a Christian). Islamic religiousness by contrast seems extremely divorced from moralism in any contemporary sense because it fuses rightness and wrongness on one continuum spanning from things like ablution to penal codes to table manners to sexuality to prayer, thus the ethical domain becomes completely subsumed or sublated by the religious, as oppose to the inverse which Christianity paradoxically leads to?

What's the consensus on BAP's critique of Marxist solutions to "atomization"? He says the community they already try to build is artificial and feels like a carnival, it's fake and forced. He said imagine you are forced to live with Lena Dunham and give her cunnilingus. He said organic community arises from things like racial or ethnic association which it is illegal under globohomo to foster because there is no freedom of association in things like race (one could add religion), you cannot have housing or work based on it. This is why he says the libertarian critique of Marxism is very strong, though adds he isn't suggesting you convert from Marxism to autism (libertarianism).

Does Foucault's History of Sexuality cover child marriage? Did he push for abolition of the age of marriage, or just consent?

>In Homer young women are booty and are handed over to the pleasure of the conquerors, the handsomest being picked by the commanders in order of rank; the entire Iliad, it will be remembered, turns on the quarrel of Achilles and Agamemnon over one of these slaves. If a hero is of any importance, Homer also mentions the captive girl with whom he shares his tent and his bed. These girls were also taken back to Greece and brought under the same roof as the wife, as Cassandra was brought by Agamemnon in AEschylus; the sons begotten of them received a small share of the paternal inheritance and had the full status of freemen. Teucer, for instance, is a natural son of Telamon by one of these slaves and has the right to use his father’s name. The legitimate wife was expected to put up with all this, but herself to remain strictly chaste and faithful. In the heroic age a Greek woman is, indeed, more respected than in the period of civilization, but to her husband she is after all nothing but the mother of his legitimate children and heirs, his chief housekeeper and the supervisor of his female slaves, whom he can and does take as concubines if he so fancies. It is the existence of slavery side by side with monogamy, the presence of young, beautiful slaves belonging unreservedly to the man, that stamps monogamy from the very beginning with its specific character of monogamy for the woman only, but not for the man.

Similar to concubinage in Islam

Thoughts? holds monogamy is the origin of oppression and it stems from man's desire to ensure his children are legitimate to transmit private property.

In The Origin of the Family Engels says the expectation of a wife's fidelity to her husband is the beginning of all oppression. This article goes a bit into his analysis but I'm still not seeing his reasoning completely, could someone who's read him break it down for me?

>Marx and Engels developed a theory of women’s oppression over a lifetime, culminating in the publication of The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State in 1884.2 Engels wrote The Origin after Marx’s death, but it was a joint collaboration, as he used Marx’s detailed notes along with his own.

>Before class society, the idea of a strictly monogamous pairing of males and females with their offspring–the nuclear family–was unknown to human society. Inequality was also unknown.

>Engels adds, quoting Marx, "The modern family contains in germ not only slavery (servitus) but also serfdom, since from the beginning it is related to agricultural services. It contains in miniature all the contradictions which later extend throughout society and its state."38

>But there was a further contradiction between earlier communal social organization and rising class society, Engels argues. Wealth was owned by men, but since most societies were matrilineal, inheritance was passed through the mother, not the father. Moreover, without strict monogamy, a man cannot be certain that his wife’s children are also his own.

>Engels makes it clear that the development of a family based upon strict monogamy has nothing to do with morality: "Marriage according to the bourgeois conception was a contract, a legal transaction, and the most important one of all because it disposed of two human beings, body and mind, for life." He quips, "And if strict monogamy is the height of all virtue, then the palm must go to the tapeworm, which has a complete set of male and female sexual organs in each of its 50 to 200 proglottides or sections, and spends its whole life copulating in all its sections with itself."46
https://www.isreview.org/issues/02/engles_family.shtml

Are there are modern conservatives worth reading? With the loss of Russell Kirk and Roger Scruton seems like the movement is dying down

Does evil have an ontological existence in Kant's work? I know Nietzsche rejects good and evil but at least good and bad have an ontological reality (unless he seriously rejects ontology itself as he suggests a few times).

Good children's books?

Hardmode: no magic

What are the best religious books for women?

>>14976551

Does Foucault's History of Sexuality cover child marriage? Did he push for abolition of the age of marriage, or just consent?

>>14890120

Has anyone besides Houellebecq written fiction about an Islamified Europe that isn't survivalist?

Does Evola recommend complacency, or actually taking up the sword in opposition to modernity?

>>14665803
Anglos get mad at the mere mention of child abuse. Unlike muslims

>>14655454
Boomer

>implying there is a defense

What would Nietzsche say today about Islam? Would he still feel positively about it, or would he rather see it as a dangerous threat to the west?

>>13986220

>>13978199

Anyone else find it a bit confusing when Roger Scruton in "The West and the Rest" (the one by him) uses pornography as an example of freedom of speech that Islam is incapable of tolerating unlike Christianity? Like up to that point he seemed to be painting Islam as an existential threat to western civilization, but then I was unsure if he expected his audience, obviously right wing, to see intolerance of porn as a negative.

Are there any good books besides Submission about Islam in modern Europe?