/lit/ - Literature

>>19928389
Most of these people are volunteering to do useful work so what's the problem? The dumbass white women all want to do fairy jobs but the others just want to do unailientaed work which benefits their community. They're more trad than the /pol/ fags seething about them.

Of course video game writing can be art lol.

Imagine how much trash literature there is, why don't half of this thread count this against literature being art? Harlequin romances and shitty airport detective story smut vastly outnumber the artistic novel, and yet everyone here think literature is art lol.

It actually makes perfect sense to me that books are changing to become more like this, because the only people who actually read and write books these days are part of the same class of overly educated parasites on the body economic.

Women have written men and men have written women for ages and have both been accurate in their descriptions. If you believe one gender can't accurately depict the psyche or personality of the other gender, this is actually you acknowledging that you're a sociopath who lacks empathy.

>>18144906
I don't understand the hype around Remains. I read it recently, I enjoyed it very much, but I don't see anything more than a decent story about a master-servant relationship in the British tradition. In interviews, Ishiguro says "we r all butlers." Is that it? How on earth is that Nobel Prize worthy?

Even if the claims in that book are true, the problem with it is that it it's using science as a justification for a class hierarchy. I can fully agree that some people are more intelligent than others, but what /pol/goloids and right-wingers in general think that this means, is that the intelligent people deserve to have all the money and all the power, which is just a recreation of racism under a different name.

>>17982332
>most everyones parents managed to raise kids alongside a full time job and still managed to have some life beyond

The incel phenomenon is the most refined evidence of what Max Weber called the "iron cage" of modernity. After modernity everything became rationalized, and everything has to be rational, so much so that people put themselves into knots trying to explain something is mysterious and random as love through reason alone.

The reality is that while incels might have certain facts on their side, that doesn't mean average and even ugly people don't fall in love and have great relationships all the time. They demonstrably do, and the reason I know is that most people are painfully average in every way and yet they get married and have children all over the world.

>>17933495
>>17933502
Seething? I don't even like Evola

The destruction of marriage is just a logical consequence of capitalism and individualism, you can't really have families if everyone is supposed to be an individual consumer with zero obligations to other people other than whatever is transactional.

This is also why people are barely having kids too, kids are seen as obstacles to the individual being able to consume freely for the next 20 years, and this isn't even wrong.

Because modernity introduced state individualism. Not only does the market itself corrode social relations in order so that everyone is a single, individual consumer(the Amish for example know this, which is why they refuse to engage in social technologies such as insurance), the state is also complicit in this by introducing a handful of technologies designed to make individuals less dependant on other people.

I mean, for example Social Security(which some Amish sects also won a Supreme Court case to be exempt from), is a technology that allows old people to get money from the state when they can't work, which means the state has taken over the responsibility the old person's children previously had to care for their parents.

There are innumerable other things like this which are designed to make people into individuals who aren't bound by a duty or obligation to anyone else.

Well first of all, she stole her entire ethics from Aristotle and she claims capitalism fits Aristotle's ethics like lock and key, which is just asinine. The ancient Greeks didn't view liberty the same way as modern people do, which is an individualist cult constructed by John Locke.

Secondly, her defence of capitalism is just retarded; not only does she deny that whole groups of people have antagonistic interests towards each other and that these have asymmetric power relationships(e.g workers and owners), she also has a romantic conception of the heroic capitalist which has never existed in the history of humanity, there are no John Galts lol, they literally aren't real, and even if they were real, their ideas would be built on the backs of centuries of people before them, and hundreds of people that currently live, such that claiming they individually deserve every single piece of capital they accumulate is ridiculous.

>Marx: entire systems of governance, power centralization and property concentration exists to deny workers the fruits of their own labor, and thus they are exploited

>Stirner: "Man, you have wheels in your head, spooks and thus fixed ideas, just stop believing in them! *lights blunt*

While I enjoyed reading the Ego and His Own, lets not forget that Marx is the only one of the two that is actually grappling with the world as it is.

>>17850028
>>modern linguistic experts acknowledge this
source

>knowing something is boring
>Knowing you don't know something is exciting
>Knowing you don't know what you don't know is boring
Explain this.

Of course he can. The idea that men and women are that different is a joke. The biggest difference between men and women is their interests. Men are, on average, more interested in things and ideas, and women are more interested in people.

It's called propaganda OP.

We already live in Rand's world except in practice it's not as idealistic and romantic. In practice, capitalism and individualism means a society where the state serves the interests of capital.

Clearly academics have to pretend that she represents some kind of polar opposite to what we actually have, when in reality 90% of her ideas are already true.

>not including the link

Here's the (You) - now hand it over

I'm still an atheist, but the older I got the less hostile I got towards religion, I think that's because the older you get as a man the more sentimental you get.

But the fact that I have more sympathy for the social aspects of religion now than before, unfortunately doesn't make the theological claims any less inane or incorrect.

Because Hegelianism and Marxism is about the primacy of ideas over material circumstances. Hegel believed ideas moved history through his sublation process, e.g abstract, concrete, synthesis, whereas Marx thought society changes based on the internal contradictions of a given economic system. Marx also believed aspects of a former society are sublated into the new one, but that they are no longer movers of the society, e.g capitalist society still has aristocrats from feudal society(e.g. Barons and Lords), but unlike in feudal society they are now only the elite of society to the extent that they are also capitalists.

Japanese culture is very similar to Nordic culture imo. Strong cultural cohesion and collectivism which produces certain individuals with an extreme sense of anomie, and all their literature shows it quite succinctly.

Murakami's literature is mostly about being an angsty teenager that struggles with their identity and with women and 90% of Mishima's literature is literally about being a neurotic bisexual in a culture that doesn't accept neither neuroticism in men nor any kind of sexual expression other than traditionalist mating.

In this sense Japan is actually more Western than it is traditionally Japanese.

What exactly is controversial about this guy other than the NYT shit? Has he said something that made him an enemy in the eyes of the liberal establishment?

The society is totalitarian but for some reason people can still take trains to the countryside, this is obviously Orwell self-inserting as a sentimental Englishman.

There's plenty of good art everywhere, you're just not going to get it from the elite art circles because they are too busy trapped in the "transgression" paradigm, even though there's nothing to transgress against anymore, because people don't really believe in anything.