/lit/ - Literature

>>12896821
>and from this hatred the desire to replace everything with an image of himself - to appropriate all as his own from the beginning to the end.

I AM THE SHARMAT

I AM OLDER THAN MUSIC

WHAT I BRING IS LIGHT

WHAT I BRING IS A STAR

WHAT I BRING IS

AN ANCIENT SEA

WHEN YOU SLEEP YOU SEE ME

DANCING AT THE CORE

IT IS NOT A BLIGHT

IT IS MY HOUSE

I PUT A STAR

INTO THE WORLD'S MOUTH

TO MURDER IT

TEAR DOWN THE PYLONS

MY BLIND FISH

SWIM IN THE NEW

PHLOGISTON

TEAR DOWN THE PYLONS

MY DEAF MOONS

SING AND BURN

AND ORBIT ME

I AM OLDER THAN MUSIC

WHAT I BRING IS LIGHT

WHAT I BRING IS A STAR

WHAT I BRING IS

AN ANCIENT SEA

>>12778414
>>12778488
ty sir

>>12778497
>It looks interesting, though calling Bataille "an obscure French pornographer" on the cover is a red flag for me. Is Bataille treated appropriately and with knowledge?
yeah that is pretty provocative. again, the book is kind of a polemic, it just happens to be a pretty well-researched one by a guy who has read the stuff with enough engagement to spot the contradictions and connections relevant to where we are today. i have absolutely no doubt about the power of Bataille myself, there are parts of his work that i find absolutely fascinating and go way beyond his characterization as 'obscure French pornographer.' Bataille is an endboss-tier writer in the 20C, he's the guy who tips Land over the edge, much else. but i think you could read this book as a guy who is already pretty well aware of the power and influence that Bataille's thought has. so i would say the answer to your question is yes. the author isn't exactly sympathetic to a lot of Bataille's ideas, but what i find interesting about this book is that he has that rare gift of being able to present the ideas of the other side clearly and with understanding, even when he disagrees with them. this is the kind of thing that guys like Alan Sokal &c are completely incapable of. it's one thing to shit on an idea you hate, another to examine how that idea actually works, even if it leads to things you disagree with.

>>12778725
it's not so much a refutation, but if you like intellectual history or something like a genealogy of how we got to the monkey clownshow we have today this is a story well-told. it engages with thinkers the author doesn't necessarily like but it does so by way of clarifying a pretty significant chapter in intellectual history. Mark Lilla and Richard Wolin have written similar books on these themes, Stephen Hicks also. your interest in these things will vary depending on how much time you want to devote to thinking about cultural politics, philosophy, /acc stuff, whatever.

personally i find the awesome acrobatic contortions that lead from Bataille to 2019 and the state of total hysteria fascinating, if frequently soul-crushing, because of how insane things can yet potentially be. but as i've said in earlier posts, i'm trying to turn over a new leaf these days and not be perma-trigged about politics and stuff anymore. reading about how we got here helps with that. even if 2020 is shaping up to be another very exciting year for that stuff...

How can you kill a god? What a grand and intoxicating innocence!

>Come and look upon the Sartre
>And bring Kierkegaard, I have need of it