/lit/ - Literature

>”Why?” Because I said so, okay!

Applying CT to aesthetics & philosophy:
>Shakespeare - good
>Nabokov - bad
>Dante - good & bad
>Chekhov - good
>Dostoevsky - bad
>Lem - good
>Tarkovsky - bad
>PKD - good
>Pynchon - good
>Nietzsche - good
>Otto Weininger - bad
>Schopenhauer - good & bad
>Kierkegaard - mostly good

>>20672940
i'm pretty sure the frankfurt school ended up producing a bunch of books.. anyway, start with the Greeks!

>>20672929
>>reactionary - bad
But why though? Before the Big Bang, there was communism in the universe. After Big Bang everything went bad, if the pessimists were present at the creation we would have told God to go back.

Pessimists are the only true Reactionaries.
Pessimists are the only true Communists.

>>20672959
there is productive reaction, and just being a "reactionary." you don't get the basics. start with the Greeks unironically

>>20672929
This thread bad
My post good

>>20672973
>productive reaction,
kek, fucking gommies man

>Why yes I believe in the fact value distinction. Why yes I know that values are historically contingent. Despite this, my values are objectively better than yours!

>>20673003
start with the Greeks then read Hegel

the future will either be harmonious or there will be none

>>20673026
>the future will either be harmonious
>pipe dream of every now dead and forgotten civilization
sure bro, just any day now

>>20673026
There will be none.

>>20673066
>>20673097
there will be no future to a declining civilization, but to assume that there will be no civilization built on the grave of the following one is foolish, it is to assume that there will be no humanity at all. that's what i meant by
>the future will either be harmonious or there will be none

>The civilization of the future has to be compatible with my arbitrary and unjustified moral prejudices, because it just does ok? Read some theory.

>>20672929
It be like that. Read Fredric Jameson.

>>20672929
adorno was a racist kike with no aesthetic taste

>>20673119
What is a "declining civilization"? Are you a Spenglerian?

>>20672929
>strong sense of Self
What does this actually mean in a non-astrological way though? Are you really ever that sure about your self? Or is it just a cope you feed yourself, a concieved idea of yourself which you then try to act out to the best of your abilities? Either way, sounds egotistical.

>>20674253
declining societies are these which don't reproduce. not kidding, low fertility isn't some uniquely modern thing. fertility was low in late Rome, in the early middle ages, after the collapse of the high middle ages, and so on

>>20672929
Sounds like liberalism. Do you guys ever think Adorno dreamt of getting raped by big and strong homofascists?

>>20674276
Are you the CT anon? And fertility was not low after the plague.

>>20674287
fertility was low before the plague. also it took a while for the baby boom to start following the Plague. the same pattern occurred during the Justinian plague

>>20674294
Ok so? Is reproduction the only thing that matters to civilizations? Are you a bacteria? Are you the CT anon?

>>20672929
Now you only need to finish your transition you disgusting freak

>>20674299
>Is reproduction the only thing that matters to civilizations?
yes? without reproduction how do you imagine civilization? what's your IQ?
here's how Aldous Huxley presciently put it:
>If we evolved a race of Isaac Newtons, that would not be progress. For the price Newton had to pay for being a supreme intellect was that he was incapable of friendship, love, fatherhood, and many other desirable things. As a man he was a failure; as a monster he was superb.

>>20672929
>jews=good
>goyim=bad

Truly the pinnacle of the western philosophical tradition

>>20672929
critical theory genuinely ruined everything. totally neutered revolutionary leftism and is largely responsible for the current progressive orthodoxy that's promulgated by liberalism

>>20674308
It's not the only purpose though. Are you the CT anon?

>>20672973
What is "productive reaction"?

>>20672945
This is unironically almost completely correct, with the notable exception of Nietzsche.

All critical theory is just a series of various lenses to read text with. That's it. I view Russian Formalism the same as Post-Structuralism or Post-Colonialism. Just different theories of reading text with. Whoever thinks it's more than this, or if people try to take these theories and apply them to sociology, they're dumb as fuck.

My entire exposure to "critical theory" has been people saying "this thing is bad because I think it is bad". Why the fuck do you need a special term for that lol just say you're giving your opinion

>>20674341
can you prove it?

It was all just resentment wasn't it?

>>20674406
definitely latent trannyism in that one

>>20672929
If theories are good at something is ruining one's abillity to think and to extreme cases it makes one unwilling to think. What's the point of studying sociology if a person like Parson pre existed you and ended up with such a shitty theory? It is over anons, none of us is going to make it.

>Eisegesis and bias are good but only when we do it
It really seems like this is all critical theory is, just an intellectualized justification for intentionally engaging in intellectual errors that a grade schooler could readily point out.

>>20674406
that's all that leftism is

>>20674322
Thing I dont like vs thing I like.

My one thing was that a lot of the general stuff feels reactionary in nature, overly focusing on "correcting" particular extremes, rather than organically coming to a nuanced conclusion then explain how this particular interpretation came to be in a more wholistic way.

Like I remember reading an article that said it was unfortunate that various accents had stereotypes about them, like someone with a southern accent being dumb, but didnt even bother to explain why that might have come to be and the hint of truth that the lack of adequate schooling and the rural nature of the south might have contributed to this correlation. But it didn't want any degree of something that could be seen as justifying a stereotype even though the stereotypes very existence means that some development occurred term of sequentially. Of course its retarded to say that someone is dumb just because they speak in a southern drawl, but its equally as retarded to not even attempt to explore why this connotation evolved in the first place and the hints of truth it might indicate, just label it "bad".

>>20674438
>What's the point of studying sociology if a person like Parson pre existed you and ended up with such a shitty theory?
parson wasn't entirely wrong. he was a structural functionalist

the reality is that The theory of sociology that has not been named yet would be called post-structural functionalism, or essentially, using deconstruction as Praxis

>>20675698
>My one thing was that a lot of the general stuff feels reactionary in nature, overly focusing on "correcting" particular extremes, rather than organically coming to a nuanced conclusion
of course? because it's not a philosophy, it's just a tool for critical thinking/analysis

or are you trying to say that CT isn't a good enough hermeneutic? i would disagree

>>20672929
literally just a dumber rebrand of cynicism french pedos used as carte blanche to rape children
stop falling for spooks

>>20675710
I mean, I do t disagree, but it offen seems to be prescriptive about what its trying to correct. This thesis (which is bad btw) is wrong… like it focuses on making its own scapegoats when the scapegoats themselves are usually not entirely indicative of a whole of a trend (not that they are wrong, but presented in a skewed manor for an intended effect). like making a paper to support a particular thesis, rather than the thesis being the conclusion of the body of work.

It serves the purpose more of dividing opinion rather than actually being focused on the wholistic nature of a subject. Just seems unproductive much of the time outside of the intent to create a particular narritive, when we live in a world where there is never JUST one particular narritive. seems almost recursive.