/lit/ - Literature

arab

>>16593949
This was already debunked.

>>16593980
I just checked, It's rebunked.

>>16593949
>>16593980
>>16593322
He's an Arab and an IYI. There's no saving him. He needs to join the 41% fast.

>>16593322
A moderately intelligent guy with a chip on his shoulder and a weird inferiority complex who has nevertheless made an admirable career for himself.
Would have a beer with once but probably not a second time/10

>>16594227
>and a weird inferiority complex
Why do you say that?

he will be one of the only philosophers of this age to be remember at all. a true stoic

>>16594235
because he insists on being phoenician/mediterranean whereas he obviously an arab
>imbecile
t. seething aself-hating arab

>>16594235
Look, I don't care whether or not he counts as Mediterranean or Arab or whatever, but he seems to care an awful lot about how others see him in that regard. The possibility of being perceived as non-european weighs on him heavily in a peculiar way. I dont think you get that from just being a stickler for detail, I think it genuinely makes him anxious.

Everyone has their quirks, so not judging him harshly about it. The first chapter of black Swan explaining that he was not in fact an arab was pretty funny in a way, but that doesnt undermine the point he was trying to make with the rest of the book.

>>16593322
he's right

>I received plenty of questions about the Bildungsphilister in my Black Swan Glossary. Trivial: someone commoditized in his knowledge and tastes, lacking idiosyncratic traits. Say someone who likes Matisse because it is the thing to do and, when he travels, makes sure to visit Impressionist galleries arts museums in order to be sophisticated (true someone may be genuine in his love of Matisse but it should come from personal trial and error, after disliking the sculptures of the third floor, not because the vagaries of the auctioneer’s hammer. The same Bildungsphilister would have scorned Matisse before it penetrated our consciousness). Or someone who tells you that he “loves French literature” and then announces that his favorites are Flaubert, Sartre, Camus, literally authors commonly selected in a French literature class (there are thousands of French authors so you know that it is not his taste that is driving him, but that he is following a script and borrowing his selection from general accepted guidelines. It would be different is he said Modiano, Cesbron, Déon, Vian, Allais, Bove, Gary, and Elsa Triolet. No two people have the same tastes so why should someone be exactly lined-up to the common canon?).
This board BTFO

>>16593322
The Swedish Investor on Youtube
breaks down all his blabber
for free.
why spend hard earned cash on that
pridefull...

>>16595324
>"let me tell you what you REALLY think"
Worst kind of pseud shit, honestly.

>>16593322
he's a midwit with autism

>>16593322
A man who puts his money where his mouth is and became a multi-millionaire doing so.

>>16595324
>look at muh obscure patrician taste you pleb
He is literally talking like /mu/ faggot who make taste chart threads for upcummies

>>16595324
He is correct.

I am Brazilian, and when I look at the Brazilian canon that is usually sold as "the" Brazilian canon, there are so many names that should be there and which are not, so many names that are there and perhaps shouldn't be.

The same applies for the English canon, by the way. Is Auden really a better poet than Theodore Roethke? Why isn't Manley Hopkins more famous? Why have people forgotten Walter Savage Landor? Why is Byron more famous than Crabbe? Why wasn't Tom Wolfe as respected as Philip Roth among the American glitterati? Why is Hemingway more famous than the great Flann O'Brien?

>>16594320
>The first chapter of black Swan explaining that he was not in fact an arab
no fucking way, I'm moving this book up a few positions on my list

>>16593322
>tfw all my grandparents were either dead or retarded before they could give me meaningful advice

>>16596017
You have completely misunderstood his post.
You should read his section on Balzac and Illusions Perdues if you wish to understand his point.

Briefly speaking, Taleb's point is that, in extremistan (i.e., realms in which winner-takes-all effects can occur, including the realm of literary fame) luck always plays a very big part. Therefore, the accepted canon is, to some extant, dependent on luck - doesn't mean that the canonical authors aren't great, because they are, but it means that there have been many other authors, perhaps even better ones, who have been ignored for unlucky reasons, and thus forgotten. Therefore, according to Taleb, the real lover of literature is someone who reads not only inside the accepted canons, but also peruses many other authors in an attempt to discover those who have been unjustly forgotten, so that his "personal canon" usually ends up being very different from the traditional ones.

Needless to say, he is correct.
Borges, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, for instance, all had very personal canons which included many books that aren't usually considered among the greats at the time: Borges was a great admirer of De Quincey, Swedenborg, Cansinos-Asséns; Pound admired the provençal troubadours in a time when few people still remembered them, as well as authors such as Andreas Divus, William Golding, John Wilmot, and Crabbe, while at the same time despising canonical heavyweights like Milton; and T.S. Eliot was fundamental in reassessing the value of the metaphysical poets, as well as of obscure Elizabethan authors such as Lancelot Andrewes.
In fact, many of the authors who are now considered great owe their fame to the efforts of previous writers who "rediscovered" their works. In my country, Brazil, we have had many interesting authors rediscovered in the second-half of the 20th century due to the effort of truly curious readers - writers such as Sousândrade, Odorico Mendes and Qorpo-Santo, all of whom are mandatory reading nowadays, but were pretty much unknown before 1950.

No work of literature is born canonical. If there were no readers willing to read outside of the canon, no new works would ever be added into it.

>>16596087
Not the guy you're replying to and I only know what Taleb said from that quote, but you really seem to be reading something that isn't there (and you improve Taleb's dumb point considerably in the process).

>>16596006

>>16596041
>>16596087