/lit/ - Literature

>>14616497
ISAIF
Simulacra and Simulation
Pensées

>>14616529
Do I need to read this to get a qt occultist big titty rootless cosmopolitan european style socialist gf?

>>14616603
No, it won't help you with that. You'll have to settle for a qt Anne Frank gf.

>>14616497
How did this break your reality ?

>>14616497
Salvia

>>14616497

Few books can break your reaity but any book can break your anus.

Is Leviathan worth a study? I've generally avoided it because I'm not into politics (more into metaphysics and ethics).

>>14616497
Why Leviathan?
His analysis and theoretical structuring of a sovereign is seriously impressive, but it's not really one to 'break reality'.

Geneology of Morality.

I still don't really know how I am supposed to live in a practical sense now. I had a pretty consistent value structure for a while but upon reading this, but now it has just justified the pre-existing the 4chan ideology of seeing all moral actions as "cope." I am pretty dissatisfied as a result. I was much happier before.

>>14618108
I kinda agree, though the idea of authority, giving, agrigating and embodying it may be what he means. Or maybe it’s his introduction to the Aristotlian notion of the Corporate body with people acting as specific notions and the idea of the sovereign.

Again, not exactly reality breaking, but altering ones use of society.

>>14618115
read more Nietzsche

>>14618172
what more?

>>14618172
That won't solve anything. My problem is that I'm stuck between two worlds, one very value based, and another very libertine, not some lack of reading.

>>14616497

>>14616661
Kek, would read.

>>14616497
The only thing that book broke was my belief that Hobbes had any grasp on the English language

>>14618204
This is my shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U9WMftV40c

>>14616497
mein kampf

>>14619667
So close to the number of the Beast.

It was a combination of reading few posts here and coming to experience by living. I read some books, but most of them weren't philosophy. Yet they produced more understanding than if I ever was to set a goal of "understanding". The things I've seen. Reality never broke. It has just become entirely plastic to me. Besides some base assumptions which are healthy to have, such as - great heights kill, bullets are dangerous, etc.,etc. - all is possible. Even if things that seem impossible would become possible through an entire change of thinking and sensing, they'd be as real as the letters you're reading now.

>>14616497
jesus put it back together, unironically

>>14618802
Kek

>>14618108
Yeah, I agree with this. I’m reading it atm and finding it interesting but I’m not quite sure why it has such a status in the canon as it does...? What I find most interesting about him is how, unlike some conservatives who see society as based on a natural hierarchy, Hobbes seems to see the sovereign as merely a figurehead, a necessary symbol of authorisation and power to allow society to function without any inherent value in himself, with all men seeing themselves as virtually equal. Where I think his thesis fails is his definition of human nature: he doesn’t seem to realise that his individualism, constituted of all men trying to increase their power relative to others for their own safety, is in some ways produced by commonwealths/societies, not pre-existent to them. But William Gass has an interesting way of looking it, seeing Hobbes’ view of human nature not necessarily scientifically objective or all-encompassing, but still a necessary part of ourselves we shouldn’t forget: the desire to submit to authority, the suppressed desire for gaining power over others, the “fascism of the heart”. This are all fairly interesting things, but these ideas aren’t really ground-breaking for me? Is there something else about the book I’m missing?

>>14616497
the jewish scriptures, it made me realize that the abrahamic God and even the abrahamic tradition was only meant for the jews, christianity and Islam are both a sham. Judaism is only supposed to be an ethno-religion

>>14616497
How are you supposed to read books like this? I can't read more than 50 pages at a time because my head starts to feel extremely heavy, very big. It's not a book you read for personal enjoyment.

>>14618190
BGE, twilight and will to power

>>14618204
Totally

>>14622000
>he doesn’t seem to realise that his individualism, constituted of all men trying to increase their power relative to others for their own safety, is in some ways produced by commonwealths/societies, not pre-existent to them.
Why do you think this?

Hobbes is significant because he offers a defense of monarchical and hierarchical generally forms from the perspective of individual rights, rather than the divine right of kings. Compare this with Filmer's religious justification for monarchy and Locke's more republican tendencies(also based on individual rights, though he does attack Filmer on religious grounds as well).

>>14618108
>>14618126
>>14618802
>>14622000
>>14622657
>>14622783
I am truly embarrassed to share a board with such brainlet philistines as you anons.
>tfw one of three Straussians on /lit/ and the other two don't post anymore

>>14622887
What do you disagree with in my post? Hobbes' justification for monarchy is entirely based on protecting the safety and interests of individuals.

>>14622893
Midwit historicist interpretation. The real reason of Hobbes is that he wanted to do to Christianity what Christianity had done to Greco-Roman values. "muh individual rights" and "muh absolute sovereign" are the dog and pony show to distract the brainlet aristocrats and churchmen

>>14622909
You haven't explained what he's replacing Christianity with, and regardless of whether you think it's a midwit interpretation, that is in fact the main reason Hobbes is still taught in political philosophy.

>>14616497
Rene Guenon''s writings (pbuh) illuminated me from my slumbering ignorance by igniting the fire of gnosis in my heart

>>14622950
Ah yes the democratist argument comes out whenever the orthodoxy is challenged

>>14622962
It's uncontroversial that that was Hobbes's most significant contribution to political philosophy. If you feel this misses something more important, by all means explain what that is.

>>14616497
Freud's Psychopathology of everyday life, Nietzsches Geneology of Morals
N did it for me, you just can't remain the same person after this book

>>14622000
>conservative
>fascism of the heart
thanks. this makes it easier to stop browsing this board if this thread is any indication of lit's level of intellectualism.

>>14622657
It's very easy to read, well-written and enjoyable.

>>14622958
forced meme

>>14619660
That talk was mesmerizing.
What necessary reading do I need before I get into Baudrillard?

>>14616497
unironically mein kampf

>>14622657
If you only read 50 pages a day you'll be done with it in less than two weeks.

>>14616497
the denial of death

>>14616571
>Simulacra
the verbose obfuscation and neologism diarrhea are breaking my patience. Its so ridiculous nick lands work like meltdown are starting to make total sense.

can you please elaborate on the context of how this book broke your reality?

>>14623109
>>14619660
how can you subscribe to thought like that and still maintain the delusion that most of the human bodies around you are people worthy of respect, let alone life?
how can you ignore that they are the abyss pulling you in?
how can you ignore the need to neutralize them violently?

>>14618097
>ethics
>not politics
that sounds difficult to keep seperate. impressive

>>14622893
that's the entire basis for any idea you fucking retard

>>14622909
how can you say he wants to replace christianity, isn't it more parsimonious to say he would transform it?
I mean obviously we have seen what simply removing it does, a total breakdown of society as the retarded masses suck more and more better people into their abyss

>>14623542
No it is not which is why I said
>>14622783
>rather than the divine right of kings. Compare this with Filmer's religious justification for monarchy

Hobbes is part of the modern liberal tradition based on individual rights even if he's the far right edge of it.

>>14622887
The other two grew up. It's time you did the same.

>>14623518
stop scaring me. what does neutralizing unworthy abyss people have to do with baudrillard?

>>14618204
>>14619660
>>14622756
do you guy have any comment or input on this?
>>14623517
I am challanging that its not saying anything substantial and probably exists to signal that youre "obscure" or something.

>>14623566
>he doesn't know

>>14623614
baudrillard in no way implies this and you are insane, his verbose obfuscation is a rorschach test for you to project your own "kill them all, johnnie" voices.

>>14623681
what kind of appeal to authority is that?
he didn't say it so it's not worth talking about?
idiot

>>14623566
isn't this an obvious question? if these people are products of layer upon layer of simulation, how can they said to be authentic and human?
what is the point of developing this framework to judge reality when you refuse to use it to execute an evaluation of what should be and what should not be?
you think the point of all this is just to observe?
you have no will in you that refuses to only stand by and spectate?

the simple fact is it's not all the fault of the controllers of society propagating perverse simulation that removes the space for free will to exist, it's a problem with these people being vulnerable to this in the first place. And more to the point, it doesn't matter, these simulants are in the way of real life and they deserve no regard in the process of removing their masters.

Fuck them all, kill them for any reason, they don't matter.

>>14623733
>posted this
>suddenly google decides that from now on I have to fill out multiple captchas per post

>>14618204
Oh definitely. Ruined everything for me, in showing just how shallow pop-culture and the mainstream are. All whilst never offering any alternatives or means to counter that shallowness. Bastard.

>>14623915
What does he say about reading old poetry or whatever? Is that just some larp in his mind

>>14623090
Honestly only starting with political theory, not really my area, so I may have gotten some stuff wrong. Still, I don't think it's wrong to call Hobbes a conservative, even if it's approaching it from the view of liberalism, as I now understand?

>>14622783
Thanks, you were very helpful anon. As for why I thought that, my thoughts were that humans aren't naturally pre-disposed to fighting against each other unless there are values/powers/places in a hierarchy to get by fighting against them. In a natural state, humans are more pre-disposed to co-operation and communication with each other, allowing them to more easily attain resources and protection against other non-human threats. Only with the creation of hierarchies, values and private property, as well as the safety of the state meaning people no longer have to co-operate to be safe, do men become desirous to overcome others. I hope I've made sense??

>>14623943
My man you gotta get on that Rousseau shit.

>>14623943
You do make sense but human prehistory does not really seem to tell that story. Tribes fighting each other is one obvious problem for this view of harmony, but even within tribes there will be conflict, and more subtle forms of soft hierarchy. If anything it seems that many more males used to die from violence from other males in hunter gatherer conditions than in agricultural ones, and certainly in modern industrial civilization.

I think humans are adapted for both cooperation and conflict, and the balance depends on many specific factors.

>being so dumb you can't understand Hobbes's genius
Some people should be banned from reading philosophy

>>14624016
banned from taking breath*

>>14623531
You'd be surprised how different they really are. Ethics is about how the individual should live to be both moral and fulfilled. Politics is how the polis/city/whatever can be ran to form a stable, prosperous state. War is generally immoral, as is slavery, but you'd be hard pressed saying Britain were politically wrong in their empire.

>>14623943
you are a complete and total mental retard

can you fucking believe how fucking many of these fucking retards trot out this "humans luv eachother lel" 'objection' to the one-sentence blurb they read about Hobbes?

>>14624147
are you a nigger? because you are literally retarded

>>14624165
Well he isn’t wrong :3

Ethics and politics are widely different, although the combination of the two is essentially the objective of all benevolent lawmakers.

>>14624171
what the fuck are you?
yes you are wrong about literally everything
>samefagging to avoid making an argument defending what you said
kill yourself

i'm not kidding, your brain is an irreconcilably tangled mess of shit and you're a worthless subhuman, just stop living

'ethics' and 'politics' have the same end and are completely analogous and symbiotic

war is used to maintain your morality against the influence of some one else's

literally everything you think is retarded and wrong, kill yourself

>>14616497
If that book "broke your reality" then you must be a really dumb person with no social experience.

sorry bud

>>14624147
>>14624165
>>14624171
>>14624191
ethics and politics are both just consequences of metaphysics retards

>>14623733

Pilgrims progress

>>14616497

>the first part with Hobbes outdated materialist chapters
>>14624226
wow how rude

>>14622909
I’m >>14618126, and I know I phone posted and it autocorrected, but what did I say that was so repulsive? I didn’t even defend the point, just tried to extrapolate what OP might have meant by Leviathan “breaking” his conception.

>>14616497
>Conspiracy Against the Human Race (literally makes me suicidal every time I crack it open and read a chapter, kind of stimulating in that way)
>Mein Kampf (just as a curiosity, couldn't get past chapter 3 before getting distracted).
>Clockwork Orange (babby's first intro to hard problem of consciousness)

I read Simulacra et Simulation in high school because I was a fan of the Matrix (it's briefly featured in the movie as a prop). I like his ideas on hyperreality, but I couldn't get past his opaque rhetoric.

Can't stand what this asshole did to my brain

>>14618172
Nietzsche, telling you shit you already know as if it’s profound and unknown to the masses

>>14616497

>>14625734
Hobbes is a graceful and subtle writer, and one of the best philosophers. Seeing him reduced to "surface" level treatment he got in this thread is like people discussing Plato "hurrrrrrrr like Theory of Ideas mannnnnnnnnnn"

It's exactly as insufferable as listening women talk among each other

>>14616497
Literally anything by James Fetzer

>>14626387
Can you elaborate on clockwork orange and the hard problem of consciousness?

>>14616497
critique of pure reason, then being and time, then the PoS

>>14623451
But I'm more used to reading over half a book at a time, the thunks in the book are too big

>>14619660
Is religion a simulated reality?

>>14616678
Begone pedo

>>14626465
isn´t that book edited by his sister? i thought it was non-canon

>>14627660
religion is the attempt to return to what is ontologically superior/more real

>>14618197
Nietzsche doesn't assert that you must live a life sans values. He just wants you to choose/invent values instead of conforming to them.

I would say the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. It not so much broke my reality than busted it wide open. The entire world and every domain of knowledge and thought be came instantly clear, as if I possessed the key that could unlock all reality and saw the relation of thought, language and the world in perfect alignment.

>>14624191
>Have morality
>I should not kill
>Some fag wants me to think like him
>Should kill him to maintain my morality

>>14616497
120 Days of Sodom

>>14616497
my diary desu. when I crossed the canadian border they searched my car and ended up reading my diary and I thought that was pretty weird, but they sure did too

>>14616497
Unironically what 1st drove me into Fascism.

>>14627001
I actually agree with you, and I find his opening chapters about sense and the basics of his process succinct and intuitive, especially as compared to the legalistic likes of Spinoza. But again, I saw very little in it that was “reality changing” proper. It was more context changing. It changed how I saw the process of reality and the interaction between individuals instead of breaking the very notion of it. Especially if we are talking about Leviathan since it is more a political/societal treaty that one specifically focused on metaphysics and reality proper. I think he wrote more of that kind of stuff in another treatise.

>>14627001
I guarantee that you, like everyone else who criticized the discourse itt will not yourself say a single fucking thing of value about Hobbes, you just cry and complain.

>>14628320
I honestly like how Hobbes uses words and their meanings to develop a chain of intellect which is apparently universal. And how words seems to be the final resting place of the un-material universe

>>14628487
Agreed. I find most modern, (as in aquinus onwards) to be rather legalistic and muddled in writing even if ultimately still logical, but Hobbes has a great sense logic in the common sense that makes intuitive sense. Imo I much prefer Hobbes over Locke. Pls don’t tell my American overlords.

>>14628504
Hobbes does a great job showing how nonsense terms arise which would put to shame much of the Hegelians. Also his arguments against anarchism put to shame all of the anarchists on this board

>>14628537
True. Even though I prefer Hobbes, I usually consult Locke while I’m at it. I vastly prefer 90% of Leviathan over the biblical interpretations and conclusions of Two Treaties, largely because Hobbes seem like a more complete systematic approach, but I recognized one core difference in premise that vastly changes the interpretation of the idea of the political body.

They both agree that freedom is the ultimate persuit of Man , but they disagree on if that freedom and the natural state therein necessarily implies war as a function of two peoples freedoms being in conflict. Locke concludes that it does not, and that extrapolates into the ideal of government being one primarily regulative, that maximizes this innate freedom in a system where individuals must interact, leading to libralism. While Hobbes believes the conflict of desires is innate, so to reduce conflict one must give up some amount of authority for peace, which is an artificial construct, leading to ideals of totalitarianism (not necessarily in a negative sense even welfare can be considered an Hobbesian ideal).

I also find it hard to understand anarchism with these rather strong premises. Though I assume it’s a postmodernist thing and I should read more.