/lit/ - Literature

yes

>>5204351
Yes.

>"Let me repeat. I have not read all the work of this present generation of writing. I have not had time yet. So I must speak only of the ones I do know. I am thinking now of what I rate the best one, Salinger's Catcher in the Rye, perhaps because this one expresses so completely what I have tried to say. A youth, father to what will—must—someday be a man, more intelligent than some and more sensitive than most, who—he would not even have called it by instinct because he did not know he possessed it because God perhaps had put it there, loved man and wished to be a part of mankind, humanity, who tried to join the human race and failed. To me, his tragedy was not that he was, as he perhaps thought, not tough enough or brave enough or deserving enough to be accepted into humanity. His tragedy was that when he attempted to enter the human race, there was no human race there. There was nothing for him to do save buzz, frantic and inviolate, inside the glass wall of his tumbler, until he either gave up or was himself, by himself, by his own frantic buzzing, destroyed."

Let me repeat. I have not read all the work of this present generation of writing. I have not had time yet. So I must speak only of the ones I do know. I am thinking now of what I rate the best one, Salinger's Catcher in the Rye, perhaps because this one expresses so completely what I have tried to say. A youth, father to what will—must—someday be a man, more intelligent than some and more sensitive than most, who—he would not even have called it by instinct because he did not know he possessed it because God perhaps had put it there, loved man and wished to be a part of mankind, humanity, who tried to join the human race and failed. To me, his tragedy was not that he was, as he perhaps thought, not tough enough or brave enough or deserving enough to be accepted into humanity. His tragedy was that when he attempted to enter the human race, there was no human race there. There was nothing for him to do save buzz, frantic and inviolate, inside the glass wall of his tumbler, until he either gave up or was himself, by himself, by his own frantic buzzing, destroyed.

http://faulkner.lib.virginia.edu/display/wfaudio23_1

>>5204351

>Obviously there is such a thing as "morality"-- we have a word for it.

sweet, where's my unicorn?

>>5204376
Anon, what are you doing?

>>5204360
>>5204360
>>5204328

This is unacceptable. It would be a shame if we let /lit/ slip in quality.

Mods... since some are responding in another thread, I guess that you could please delete the ones without spam. But please note that I am the OP of this thread, so if you are doling out punishment, I have not done wrong.

>>5204351
>Obviously there is such a thing as "morality"-- we have a word for it.

We have the word "magic", too. But it usually refers to clever tricks and self-deception.

>What is the nature of this thing called "morality"?

It is, like most human constructs, an attempt at categorization. And, like most categorization, it is imposed from the outside. There is nothing "inherently" good or bad, etc.

>what is "identity", and what is its relation to action?

Any attempt at "identity" is a fracturing a man's being-in-the-world, his relation to the world and to other people. To reduce a man to his "vices" or "virtues" or any other attributes is to fracture a part from the whole. Because of this, it is very much possible and often common for "identity" to resemble nothing of a man's action.

>Is there such thing as moral progress or regress?

Within the bounds of some particular usage of "morality", yes. Like any game, there are rules which can be learned and a sense of progress to be had. However, which game of "morality" you are playing is largely dependent upon who you are interacting with, who is judging you, where you are, the place in history, etc.

>Be sure to mention what kind of conceptual schema your description of morality relies upon.

Pointless categorization makes it easier for handwavers to handwave. No thank you.

>Do you think that morality can be descriptive, or does morality necessarily implicate "prescriptive" or "normative" language?

It is descriptive, but that means that there can be no singular morality and that all conversations about morality depend on the participants. There may be a dominating view, but even then there are shades of ambiguity and discrepancy thanks to the nature of language.

>Do leaders lead the State's construction of morality, or does the State reflect the morality of the people?

It is reciprocal.

>But, simultaneously, there are common threads amidst the moralities of different cultures... why is that?

I couldn't possibly know, but most cultures still glorify murder despite what the dominant morality preaches...so long as it is murder performed by the State.

Bump

>>5204455
>>5204408
I'm pretty sure that it's the work of some anon who is playing le master trole >8^).

>>5204444
Good post and good quads... I am inclined to agree with much of what you are saying. I sense an air of pre-Socratic One about your post.

As far as
>It is, like most human constructs, an attempt at categorization. And, like most categorization, it is imposed from the outside. There is nothing "inherently" good or bad, etc.

Do you reject only qualities of humans? Do you only reject that sort of "divvying up" human experience?

Or do you categorically reject any inherent qualites? Do you feel that all things in the world escape inherent qualities or categories?

The fucking mods, I swear.

>>5204351
Yeah, sorry. Obviously, unintentional.

>>5204360
dubs for a duplicate thread
>>5204351

polite bump

Just to be clear, mods, this is the real thread.

These duplicate threads are your most creative work yet.