/lit/ - Literature

>>11685140
>>11685165
Doing its job like it was designed to.

>>11652490
I saw him on Joe Rogan podcast

I will never read Kant.
I will never read Hegel.
I will never read Fichte.
I will never read Spinoza.
I will never read Nietzche.
I will never read Kierkegaard.
I will never read Bergson.

Continental philosophy is charlatanism. It is naked emperor nonsense that is praised by oversocialised bugmen.

One of the essential elements of the literary pseud is his worship of the past. He exalts all writers who died more than 50 years ago as literary and intellectual superhumans. While today's writers write for childish reasons such as money and, worst of all, "fun", the writers of the past, no doubt, wrote for profound existential, religious, psychological, and philosophical reasons.

Like a man with horrendous breath who hasn't yet realised that it would be polite to stop aiming his face at people when speaking, the literary pseud makes his proclamations on the worthiness of literature then and now without grasping the essential fallacy: that he would be content if he was only lucky enough to be born 100 years ago. It is obvious that this is wrong. He would merely ignore all the writers who were his contemporaries and worship writers who were at least 50 years old, at the time.

In our present day, it can become tedious to watch the literary pseud decry the latest trends while all intelligent people know full well that if the pseud was alive in the far away past he would complain about all sorts of radical changes that he currently takes as a timeless given: domination by a few large publishing companies; the printing press; the rise and fall of serialised novels; the rise of literature as an academic subject; MfAs; the concentration of writers in a few major cities. This post doesn't pass judgement on these trends but it is clear that the literary pseud doesn't have the slightest idea of literary history.

And what can be said about the influence of the media and academia on our pitiful literary pseud's admiration of the past? Clearly it would be hard to separate the two, as literary pseuds make up the majority of the media and academia. Perhaps we can separate literary pseuds in to two groups: the naive and oversocialised pseud and the cynical pseud who puts on an act to gain money and acclaim.

Open up a long novel from the 19th century. You realise that it is divided up in to short chapters.

Open up the republic and realise how concise it is compared to later philosophical works.

Look at the length of British novels in the 20th century until around the 60s to 80s (not sure on the end period) and realise how short they are.

Now look at Gravity's Rainbow, JR, Infinite Jest, Broom in the system, all these magnum opus books. Look inside and see the long chapters, if any. What we are seeing here is "progress" in literature that is parallel to the changes in philosophy going on in academia. The novels in this paragraph are by and for the intellectually insecure humanitiesfags who need "insights" and so called profundities. There is the pathetic insistence and hope that long stretches of turgid, uninterrupted prose can add up to something more than the sum of its parts. We see the same pathetic yearnings by litizens who want "to experience the transcendental". It is like the pseudointellectual version of "The Secret".

>mfw I have surpassed this board

I easily see that philosophical axioms are arbitrarily chosen. I see that the idea of "objective literary quality" is promoted to have a common set of canon books and criteria to facilitate in group status signalling through praise and "criticism" of these books. Publishers also have financial incentives to promote this.

I easily see that there are infinitely many interpretations of art. I easily see that some of these interpretations are promoted for the above social signalling reasons and fuel for citation circle jerks. I easily see that enjoyment of art was an important criteria in all early forms of art but is now discouraged due to its uselessness as a concept in academia.

I easily see that modern pseudo intellectuals venerate Ancient Greece and Rome in order to signal intelligence while ironically they are too unintelligent and lazy to understand modern advances in science and mathematics (which they dismiss as unimportant while using these as their intellectual launching pads).

I easily see that all successful art forms start as derided hobbyist and experimental activities among males for enjoyment, become more popular with the mainstream of society while new peaks of expertise are reached, before losing popularity as commercial interests, academia, and female attention whoring eliminate organically accepted standards and impose their own.

I see that literature is in the stagnant female and academic dominated phase. Poetry is even further gone. I easily see that any attempt to deny this by appealing to "our dumbed down society" is clearly false because of the incredible progress and interest in hard sciences and mathematics (through actual research, not pop sci). These activities require skills while people, consciously or not, realise literature has descended in to a signalling game.

I easily see that the discussions around Hegelian philosophy or Marxism or any philosophy represent trivial symbolic manipulations and deductions with zero predictive value.

I've just had the realisation that Dostoevsky was simply an obnoxious zealot of, yes, Christian morality, but more importantly the dominant and most popular morality. If he was alive today then he'd be calling people sweety on twitter.

I'm reading a history of ideas book and I am realising how much philosophies and exalted non-fiction books are a product of their time. This is rarely emphasised. The aspect of history surrounding philosophical works that is emphasised is usually just the philosopher himself. In effect, the philosopher is always deified and pseudointellectuals then find this person above criticism, which leads to worthless discussion. This describes the pseudointellectual literary and philosophical community.

I am always posting about the strain of pseudo intellectualism that goes through lit and people who read books and this emphasises it even more. You guys who unthinkingly claim that people must read the Greeks or shit like Leviathan (really all those boring non fiction books that are frequently quoted) don't realise how they were written to discuss the current issues.

Why do you guys ignore current issues? There are many possible reasons but mainly because worshipping old books is guaranteed pseud cred in comparison with attempting to discuss current issues, where you could be exposed as a low IQ person.

>>11561836
>authoritarian communism
Which is just a misnomer for socialism since communism cannot be authoritarian or it is not truly communism

>>11547383
Just accept that people hated your lesson plan. Nothing personnel, teach.

Almost all continental philosophy is worthless.

Rather than try to make me understand Hegel or Marx or Fichte, just make some falsifiable predictions while using their philosophies. Surely it should be really fucking easy because humanitards never shut up about the inherent contradictions and the dialectics of Economy and Capital and History, as analysed through continental works.

If you are unable to make falsifiable predictions then I will take it that these are completely self enclosed logical systems with arbitrary assumptions*. Anybody could invent their own. In that case, I don't care about them.

*Not really desu. I doubt they are even coherent or willing to state their assumptions, due to mass charlatanism.

Reading translated poetry is for pseuds who want pseud cred.

Poetry is dead and irrelevant, with one of the symptoms being female dominance of it, the vacuum of all standards, and its use as an attention whoring medium.

Most modern so called literary fiction books are half assed barely disguised memoirs.

Reading is a consumercuck activity, with "serious reading" acting as its own speciality, completely separate from writing fiction or non-fiction. The juxtaposition of producers such as writers (or film directors etc.) with "serious" consumers or critics is stark. The latter have clearly created their own systems of values that are divorced from the former's. The producers are individualised while the consumers operate and sort themselves within conformist social hierarchies, which can be nothing but social due to the lack of real world feedback.

Many old canon books are extremely boring.

Literature was originally created for enjoyment, not "insights" according to arbitrary academic standards that of course didn't even exist back then. People who take academia seriously with regard to literature have low IQs and / or are oversocialised cucks. "Literary theory" doesn't even give its acolytes the ability to create worthwhile literature.

Nietzche is a Rorschach test for pseudointellectuals. Like many continental philosophers, he provides future "scholars" the opportunity to use his works to tee off all sorts of unfalsifiable speculations.

Ulysses is unenjoyable and pretentious and the praise of it is the result of pseudointellectuals ignoring the fact that aesthetic beauty comes from ornamentation / novelty that is 100 % necessary in terms of function. Anyone can pack in allusions. Any tennis player can hit a great shot, judged post-hoc, if all court markings and rules of tennis are ignored.

Academia is unable to explain how prose is aesthetically pleasing or how enjoyment works. So these are derided as factors necessary to rate books. Only oversocialised people will disagree.

Reading translated poetry is for pseuds who want pseud cred.

Poetry is dead and irrelevant, with one of the symptoms being female dominance of it, the vacuum of all standards, and its use as an attention whoring medium.

Most modern so called literary fiction books are half assed barely disguised memoirs.

Reading is a consumercuck activity, with "serious reading" acting as its own speciality, completely separate from writing fiction or non-fiction. The juxtaposition of producers such as writers (or film directors etc.) with "serious" consumers or critics is stark. The latter have clearly created their own systems of values that are divorced from the former's. The producers are individualised while the consumers operate and sort themselves within conformist social hierarchies, which can be nothing but social due to the lack of real world feedback.

Many old canon books are extremely boring.

Literature was originally created for enjoyment, not "insights" according to arbitrary academic standards that of course didn't even exist back then. People who take academia seriously with regard to literature have low IQs and / or are oversocialised cucks. "Literary theory" doesn't even give its acolytes the ability to create worthwhile literature.

Nietzche is a Rorschach test for pseudointellectuals. Like many continental philosophers, he provides future "scholars" the opportunity to use his works to tee off all sorts of unfalsifiable speculations.

Ulysses is unenjoyable and pretentious and the praise of it is the result of pseudointellectuals ignoring the fact that aesthetic beauty comes from ornamentation / novelty that is 100 % necessary in terms of function. Anyone can pack in allusions. Any tennis player can hit a great shot, judged post-hoc, if all court markings and rules of tennis are ignored.

Academia is unable to explain how prose is aesthetically pleasing or how enjoyment works. So these are derided as factors necessary to rate books. Only oversocialised people will disagree.

Have you noticed that silicon valley style leftist intellectuals have completely separated from humanities department style leftists? And that the latter really abhor the former?

The SV style ones are on Twitter or "rationality" communities.

The humanities style ones, characterised best on the internet by /lit/ and /r/badphilosophy, hate the SV types. I'm fairly sure that this is because humanities departments require people to produce and read lots of Marxist drivel and "critiquing" before they are allowed to say commonsense stuff. So, for example, Zizek can't just say "Make the EU bigger because it solves these problems". He has to say lots of dumb Lacanian bs first.

I'm not saying that the SV style is perfect but their approach is clearly adapted for the internet age. The humanities style intellectual is embarrassing. There are people who say that bill gates is stupid.

I think the Stephen Pinker style of using lots of statistics is boring as fuck but I can see that he's taking an honest attempt. In 2018, reading a Marxist armchair approach is laughable. People keep parroting the "deep insights" of Marx. I am always open to hearing them precisely stated by him or others, but these "deep insights" always turn out to be vague and unfalsifiable statements, like fairground psychics.

Reading translated poetry is for pseuds who want pseud cred.

Poetry is dead and irrelevant, with one of the symptoms being female dominance of it, the vacuum of all standards, and its use as an attention whoring medium.

Most modern so called literary fiction books are half assed barely disguised memoirs.

Reading is a consumercuck activity, with "serious reading" acting as its own speciality, completely separate from writing fiction or non-fiction. The juxtaposition of producers such as writers (or film directors etc.) with "serious" consumers or critics is stark. The latter have clearly created their own systems of values that are divorced from the former's. The producers are individualised while the consumers operate and sort themselves within conformist social hierarchies, which can be nothing but social due to the lack of real world feedback.

Many old canon books are extremely boring.

Literature was originally created for enjoyment, not "insights" according to arbitrary academic standards that of course didn't even exist back then. People who take academia seriously with regard to literature have low IQs and / or are oversocialised cucks. "Literary theory" doesn't even give its acolytes the ability to create worthwhile literature.

Nietzche is a Rorschach test for pseudointellectuals. Like many continental philosophers, he provides future "scholars" the opportunity to use his works o tee off all sorts of unfalsifiable speculations.

Ulysses is unenjoyable and pretentious and the praise of it is the result of pseudointellectuals ignoring the fact that aesthetic beauty comes from ornamentation / novelty that is 100 % necessary in terms of function. Anyone can pack in allusions. Any tennis player can hit a great shot, judged post-hoc, if all court markings and rules of tennis are ignored.

Academia is unable to explain how prose is aesthetically pleasing or how enjoyment works. So these are derided as factors necessary to rate books. Only oversocialised people will disagree.

>>10754215
I know that feel, brother.