/lit/ - Literature

>>19256013
Most of it; publishing standards are inversely related with time

>>19235043
>High Brow: Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger
they are just low-budget versions of husserl

I can't tolerate any fiction at all. I hate reading shit I know isn't real and takes place entirely in the context of the author's headspace. It's all just what the author wants or believes of the world, and fantasy adds on another layer of bullshit with reams of made-up histories, languages, religions, etc. It is the ur-fiction.

>>17737636
>tfw you now have to share this board with pseuderson spawn and read their assfucks of takes on classic philosophers after their inability to crossreference with secondary texts halted their meaning-quest and led them back to their guru faggot
As if the brainrot of this place wasn't bad enough

>For I have known them all already, known them all:
>Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,
>I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;
>I know the voices dying with a dying fall
>Beneath the music from a farther room.
>So how should I presume?

>>16921592
>Does mimetic theory explain the rapid spread and insidious nature of pic related?
>does scapegoating explain scapegoating
You're free to read Girard, but the praxis of using mimetic desire as rhetoric to dismiss the motivations of a movement as evil (or 'insidious', as you put it) may itself fall under scapegoating.

>ebook released as a PDF
>Has special formatting that looks like shit when converted to epub

>make a thread about author
>pseuds will flock in by the dozen to shit talk them
>make a thread that requires you to have read said author
>complete silence
Why is /lit/ like this?

>ywn watch anime with butterfly

>>16141779
Habermas gives a history of the public sphere in politics (a kind of interpretive history/genealogy akin to Nietzsche's genealogy of morals and a lot of Foucault's work). His major thesis is that the development of democracy was tied to an open and interactive public sphere which comprised of individually owned presses and pamphlets/newspapers, distributed and debated in coffeehouses and public squares. However, eventually these presses became centralized under major media companies and ceased having any interactive quality, along with the development of new forms of mass-media (radio + television) and techniques/philosophies (public relations) turned the public sphere from one of interaction to one of asymmetrical top-down relaying of information. This essentially destroyed the vital forces which created genuine democracy and replaced it with a kind of elitist plutocracy of media owners who generate and control public opinion, and parties + media corporations work hand-in-hand to obscure the public from their self-interested machinations. It's written in a very academic style so i'm not surprised that it isn't widely popular.

Is this election going to wreck 4chan as much as 2016?