/lit/ - Literature

WHY IS LOLI CLINTON SO FUCKING QT

WHY CAN'T I VOTE FOR LOLI CLINTON

WHY ARE MY ONLY CHOICES UGLY ORWELLIAN FIGUREHEADS AND PERIMENOPAUSAL GOBLINS

GIVE

ME

LOLIS

I want it to be true, so it's probably not

Who rationalistic here?

>>6819141
I'm a handholdless 20y/o virgin

>>6819136
Well, I'm reading it, and the guy seems to be extremely critical. For instance, with the Iroquois, he takes a good while to explain how their culture was impacted by being the first to come in contact with whites, and even notes they may have picked up certain superstitions from whites, and that scholarly attention to their sexual habits has been more limited because their military and political organization were focused on to the extent that their culture was neglected, and goes through all that just to note that knowledge of their sexual habits has to take all that into account, and all this even though he's pointing out that the Iroquois were a lot more sexually restrained than most other tribes, correlating that with their relative advanced tendencies. He adds he cannot say for certain whether or not they got that from Jesuits, though, and it came after their cultural achievements. Looking at that, it's clear to me he's as objective as possible, because if he weren't he wouldn't bother mentioning at length that their sexual proclivities might have changed from white influence, since it impacts his case.

>>6819126
>positive correlation between the cultural achievement
>cultural achievement

Pretty spooky chap

>>6819157
He defines it along pretty reasonable lines, like development of agriculture and things like that.

>all energy is erotic energy
>all you're doing is creating a bottleneck

>>6819182
I think it has to do with the amount of attention devoted to sex.

>>6819159
>reasonable lines,
>using spooks to justify your spooks

development of things like agriculture techniques is a very different thing to cultural achievement. It seems like the author just arbitrarily selected a few values and stated that anything that doesnt live up to it is lesser.

Its reminiscent of those critiques of Buddhism that "fail it" because it doesnt acknowledge christ as the son of god.

>>6819189
His definition is as limited as possible so it can be more rigorously and clearly applied.

His complete definition is how much a culture masters its environment, including society, other tribes and nature, vs. how much it depends on rites to do all that and doesn't actually put forth effort. In gauging the primitiveness of a religion, he uses the criteria of rites rather than belief; not the elaborateness of rites, but rites as ways to control the environment, such as rain dancing and shaman medicine. More advanced cultures will figure out signs and patterns of rain and devote their attention to that rather than trying to control rain through rites, more advanced cultures will work on rational medicine rather than trying to control sickness through rites.

>>6819212
>His definition is as limited as possible so it can be more rigorously and clearly applied.
His complete definition is how much a culture masters its environment, including society, other tribes and nature, vs. how much it depends on rites to do all that and doesn't actually put forth effort. In gauging the primitiveness of a religion, he uses the criteria of rites rather than belief; not the elaborateness of rites, but rites as ways to control the environment, such as rain dancing and shaman medicine. More advanced cultures will figure out signs and patterns of rain and devote their attention to that rather than trying to control rain through rites, more advanced cultures will work on rational medicine rather than trying to control sickness through rites.

That doesnt make it less spooky. Throwing around terms like primitive and advanced just introduce even more.

At best this book can entertain or tickle your peculiar fancies but that is about all unless you plan on using it as kindling or a coaster.

Its no different from those people who go on about the noble savages and the "purity" of postindustrial society as it it were some golden age.

>>6819227
What's wrong with using terms like "primitive" and "advanced" where they are specifically and relatively simply defined in how they are applied in the case's context?

>
Its no different from those people who go on about the noble savages and the "purity" of postindustrial society as it it were some golden age.

It's hugely different, as he doesn't have a monolithic view of Native Americans, for instance, he analyzes each tribe as having distinct cultures. Marx's idea of primitives, for instance, was based on a single study of the Iroquois, whereas this guy is using several studies of each individual tribe. Also he's not comparing the primitiveness of tribes with whites, he compares tribes to other ones on the continent. The Iroquois, for instance, might be "primitive" compared to whites, but he's not holding them to European standards, because that deals with too many variables; instead he's comparing how advanced they are relative to other Native American tribes.

European cultures are similarly contrasted with each other, rather than with tribes.

>>6819126
>exhibiting the least amount of energy
what does this mean ?

>>6819239
>for instance
>for instance
>for instance
Fuck, I'm autistic.

>>6819241
It means putting the least effort into actually mastering your environment, which includes nature and other societies.

1) It could very well be that "cultural advancement" makes the society more prudish, rather than the reverse.
2) The ancient greek/roman empires were fairly liberal when it came to sexual matters.
3) Ultra-puritanical societies today are extremely backwards, so theres probably a sweet spot in the middle. Common sense really.

>>6819241
It's similar to Spengler's concept of civilizations having rising and falling levels of activity.

>>6819239
>What's wrong with using terms like "primitive" and "advanced" where they are specifically and relatively simply defined in how they are applied in the case's context?

I never said it was wrong only spooky.

>It's hugely different, as he doesn't have a monolithic view of Native Americans, for instance, he analyzes each tribe as having distinct cultures. Marx's idea of primitives, for instance, was based on a single study of the Iroquois, whereas this guy is using several studies of each individual tribe. Also he's not comparing the primitiveness of tribes with whites, he compares tribes to other ones on the continent. The Iroquois, for instance, might be "primitive" compared to whites, but he's not holding them to European standards, because that deals with too many variables; instead he's comparing how advanced they are relative to other Native American tribes.European cultures are similarly contrasted with each other, rather than with tribes.

No its actually the same as it too applies an arbitrary standard of success/advancement to these cultures. He might compare Indians to Indians and Europeans to Europeans but he is still using the same arbitrary standard in both instances.

>>6819133
You can still vote for based Trump so there's that.

>>6819257
The industrial revolution occurred during a very sexually conservative time.

>>6819278
It's not arbitrary, it's relative, you idiot.

>>6819257
He goes into differing Greek customs for different areas, notes that they fluctuate pretty heavily, but even still some trends can be found and they correlate with the state of cultural advancement. For instance, he notes that aristocratic sexual morality deteriorated significantly in Athens in the decades leading up to Solon, and the city state reached a cultural nadir before Solon brought in sweeping reforms, including new limits on how much women could spend on adornment and nights out.

>>6819288
Defining success as how a society reacts to rainfall or how much agricultural produce it generates is done at the arbitrary whim of the author and is not a question of relativity.

>>6819305
Are you suggesting the term "advanced" is completely useless?

>>6819257
>2) The ancient greek/roman empires were fairly liberal when it came to sexual matters.
What kind of koolaid did your history teacher had?
The treatment for sexual offenses was extreme. Cato pushed for Arab-tier laws on making women chaste-looking. The slight sexual fault could mean ostracism. Vesta priestess were buried alive for touching men and some men were beheaded for looking at these with lust. Overall, misogyny was through the roof.

As for the gay maymays, it applied to some (far from all) Greek (not Rome) cities (notably Thebes and boetian cities, Athens was not gay friendly at all) for a certrain era and concerned in most cases pederasty (love of young boys).

I don't know why people to ths day maintain the idea that classical Antiquity was some kind of free love massive orgy.

>>6819305
Oh, you mean the question itself. Then he is just producing evidence and defining it as advancement. You are bringing in the spook through your preconceived definition of advancement.

>>6819309
Mostly anti-Christians who romanticize pre Christian times, or super Christians who do the opposite by saying the same thing.

>>6819282
>>6819302
>>6819309

I don't really feel like arguing about this, I'll just say that technological advancement was going to happen no matter what due to the nature of (the western) man, and that while it's only natural that having rampant infidelity and no sexual security is obviously going to slow things down, things beyond that point aren't really beneficial. You only have to look at the advancement we've made in the past few decades if you want proof, and the deterioration of ultra-puritan states and peoples.

>>6819323
Our technological advancement is actually getting more and more focused on things like entertainment, while projects like space are being left to rot.

>>6819323
>no matter what due to the nature of (the western) man
That sounds oddly familiar. Now just where have I heard that before?

>>6819307

>Are you suggesting the term "advanced" is completely useless?

Not at all see my post in >>6819227

>Then he is just producing evidence and defining it as advancement.

Just like those who propound the noble savage idea.

>You are bringing in the spook through your preconceived definition of advancement.

Not at all in none of my posts do I even state a definition. Even if I were to provide some definition the fact that I dispose of it as my own property precludes it from becoming a spook.

>>6819316
Probably true.
Which is bizarre considering there were times with less sexual stigmatisation.
I remember reading about homolust in the middle ages, which was casually accepted. In France we had a contract named affrèrement ("brothering") which had similar repercutions on fiscality and civil and common law status than marriage except for children. Most people using this were simply friends that paid taxes together or represented each other before judges, but it openly served as "gay marriage".

When Charlemagne learned of realtively spread homolust in monasteries and imperial administration, he just issued an edict condemning it morally with no legal sanctions.

Things are different according to each era. In the 13th century, reformers tried to sublimate sexuality in general.

>>6819335

Is this supposed to be satirical? Entertainment and public relations shit played a far bigger role in our astronautical development that any other factor. And I really, really hope that youre not trying to imply that religious fundamentalism is beneficial to modern-day scientific advancement.

>>6819336

I have no idea what you're trying to say, I just didn't want /pol/ to jump down my throat with some sort of "actually niggers never..." comment.

>>6819336
that picture makes me feel bad

>>6819367
>Is this supposed to be satirical? Entertainment and public relations shit played a far bigger role in our astronautical development that any other factor. And I really, really hope that youre not trying to imply that religious fundamentalism is beneficial to modern-day scientific advancement.
I don't think Christian fundamentalists are all that sexually restrained, tbh.

Basic entertainment didn't play a big role, or else it would funded now. The issue was pissing contest with the Russians...we were competing with another society about who could dominate their environment, including space and each other.

Technological development of today has very little to do with increasing our society's strength in the universe, it's focused a lot on things like video games, junk food, phones with more accessories, advanced advertising techniques, etc.

>>6819337
you're a pseudo-intellectual prat

>>6819385

While it's true that the space programs aren't what they used to be, I think that the current situation has a lot more to do with the fact that there simply aren't as many discoveries left to be made. And besides, we, as a society, have reached a point where there isn't really much more "strength in the universe" to be attained. The average first-world human lives a perfectly comfortable life, and that's all we really need, the chances of an alien doomsday approaching are much slimmer than you seem to think.

Furthermore, the research needed for projects such as terraforming microorganisms, immortality, and genetic enhancement are deemed unethical by - guess who - religious fundamentalists.

>>6819385
>Technological development of today has very little to do with increasing our society's strength in the universe, it's focused a lot on things like video games, junk food, phones with more accessories, advanced advertising techniques, etc.

Weapons technology receives more funding than any of those things.

>>6819415
>The average first-world human lives a perfectly comfortable life, and that's all we really need
People actually live pretty comfortable lives in hunter-gathers societies.

>>6819425

Go join one then my friend, no need to be here then, right?

>>6819420
Yeah, but that's mainly about lining pockets today. A lot of the weapons development is just doing it because of the funding, it's not about actually developing superior weaponry. You familiar with the book, The Pentagon Wars (made into a comedy film)?

>>6819437
I have friends and things I'm attached to. I like books

But my point is perfectly valid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

>>6819437
If you weren't wiping out the last of them and privatising the forests, I'd be right happy to.

>>6819413
All I am is the creative nothing :^)

>>6819444

I just realized that your earlier comment had no bearing on my argument whatsoever, and that I got baited by your ridiculous romanticism of something that ancient humans spent ten thousand years trying to drag themselves out of. In fact, your whole anti-consumerist sentiment has nothing to do with anything, and is purely juvenile, I might add. I don;t really have anything left to say, seeing as how you weren't trying to defend fundamentalism in the first place, but please do try to stay on-topic in the future.

>>6819478
It actually had a great deal of bearing on your point, which is that living in comfort "is really all we need". In fact, it makes me realize more fully why Huxley thought Sex and Culture to be such a significant work.

>>6819239
>>>6819126

>implying there is something like cultural achievement
>implying there are different cultures as if there was somehow a way to segregate one "culture" from another without being arbitrary

>>6819385
>Technological development of today has very little to do with increasing our society's strength in the universe
yeah energy technology, medicine, computer learning, materials research, genetic engineering, biotech, cybernetics, 3d printing, robotics and things like that is all consumer rubbish

>>6819527
>implying this outlook isn't an achievement of Western culture
>implying he's the one segregating the cultures and it's not the cultures who define themselves and what cultures are seperate

>>6819537
Yeah, quite a lot of computer learning and cybernetics is consumerist rubbish, actually, and all those other fields are very underrepresented in allocation of scientists.

>>6819540

>implying this outlook isn't an achievement of Western culture

It very much isn't, because outside of "western culture" (how stupid does that sound? do the French and Americans have the same culture?) it wasn't a "thing" to segregate "cultures" into little pieces. Nationalities, yes. Ethnicities, definitely, but not cultures. So if anything "we" reversed something "we" believe in for a long time.

>implying he's the one segregating the cultures and it's not the cultures who define themselves and what cultures are seperate

Who segregated themselves? America had different tribes, not different "cultures", they might not even have a word for "culture" in their native tongues. Even if they did, how could you possibly deny that those tribes influenced each other? As a conclusion, how can you view cultures as holistic? I actually want to know.

There is not a single pure "culture", never has been. If you consider how nations are formed, how a continent like Europe changed and how completely arbitrarily the borders are set after each war, how can you talk about cultures as if they were single entities? How can there be a modern spanish "culture" without the influence of arab "culture"? How can there be a modern cuban "culture" without the influence of the colonial powers? How can there be such a thing as American "culture", when it is just a mixture of french, british, german, spanish, who were in turn influenced by, who were in turn influenced by.. ad infinitum.

>>6819566
>It very much isn't, because outside of "western culture" (how stupid does that sound? do the French and Americans have the same culture?)
They certainly share the Greco-Roman-Christian legacy, which is pretty much what defines Western culture.

>) it wasn't a "thing" to segregate "cultures" into little pieces. Nationalities, yes. Ethnicities, definitely, but not cultures. So if anything "we" reversed something "we" believe in for a long time.
A lot of pre-globalist cultures are drawn almost completely along ethnic or tribal lines, so this is somewhat of a ridiculous point.

>how could you possibly deny that those tribes influenced each other?
Where did I deny this?

>There is not a single pure "culture", never has been.

So what?

>. If you consider how nations are formed, how a continent like Europe changed and how completely arbitrarily the borders are set after each war, how can you talk about cultures as if they were single entities?
He doesn't. Especially when dealing with Europe, he stresses the constant changing of cultural borders and the fluctuating of culture do to economics and outside influence; but mostly that doesn't impact the specific criteria he's concerned with as far as "advancement" goes, unless sexuality impacted significant, in which case, you have a similar shift in advancement rate, or even a decline.

>How can there be such a thing as American "culture", when it is just a mixture of french, british, german, spanish, who were in turn influenced by, who were in turn influenced by.. ad infinitum.
How can there be such a thing as a burrito be a "snack" when it's just a mix of beans cheese and a tortilla? How can there be "Mexican food" when it's just an amalgam of various Mestizo....

>>6819126
It's worth reading if only because there has been no subsequent study on the same subject due to cost reasons.

Nowadays it's just too expensive to gather such a huge amount of data for a study.

>>6819257
>2) The ancient greek/roman empires were fairly liberal when it came to sexual matters.

No they weren't. They had Victorian-tier sexual mores.

>>6819126
The book and its thesis are absurd, and its methodology about what you'd expect for the day:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1935.37.4.02a00210/pdf

>>6819813
Access forbidden. Mind explaining?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQeRu7BUEr8

>>6819157
>materia a spook
you have no property

>>6819866
Sorry. Here you go. A quick recent review that destroys it. I'd just be repeating this.
filedropper com/unwinreview210

>>6819126
Old sociology is a bit like Freud: interesting to read, historically important, but ultimately it follows a completely different set of prejudices and conventions than we do today and as such can't be mentioned and discussed seriously outside of historiographical settings.

>>6819126
>hilary clinton young
h-holy shit

>>6820222
Please, tell me the prejudices this work is impaired by.

1) Correlation does not equal causation
2)"Success" of a civilisation clearly isn't possible to measure

>>6819126
I have never read a piece of text in my entire life so thoroughly imbued with with pure, unadulterated ideology as this one in the OP.

>>6819282
Yeah, y'know James Watt said he invented the steam engine the night some chick blue-balled him.

>>6820921
1) No, but it strongly implies it if you have repeat of the same scenarios of correlation with innumerable societies all over the world over the course of 5000 years
2) It is if it defined by specific parameters. What you're saying is because intelligence is arbitrary, it's silly to try to measure it

>>6820931
>some texts have more ideology than others
Now THIS is pure ideology

>>6820957
It doesn't imply that at all, what the hell is wrong with you?

>>6820957
>>some texts have more ideology than others
>Now THIS is pure ideology
pomo detected

Threads like this make me realise the people on /lit/ are not smart at all.

>>6820975
why don't you contribute yourself then instead of just stating. point out where we are wrong and correct us

>>6820964
Yes it does. If every single studied society didn't advance heavily relative to its peers with liberal sexuality, and every one that had restrained sexuality advanced relative to its peers, then, so long as the variables causing sex restraint are factored out as cause for advancement, there is a strong case that the sexual restraint is itself, if not precisely the cause, is a requisite for advancement.

>>6819157
>>6819305
>>6819471

Be honest, are you the faggot who was in the Iwata treads yesterday being a fucking edgy cunt?

>>6820989
It doesn't show that at all, that isn't how you prove things. You could probably find hundreds of arbitrary connections of that kind. You have to have at least a theory as to how the one might cause the other.

>>6820996
Uh, he does.

>>6820987
Same reason I don't argue with my dog tbh.

>>6819126
It's dated, but doesn't mean you shouldn't read it to have more insight onto the field. This is true to all soft science and philosophy.

e.g. Mead was wrong about many things, but you have to read her to understand the legit critiques raised agaisnt her arguments and her impact in the study of gender roles.

On hard science like physics you can just skip to the most recent papers, of course.

>>6821042
*on

not onto

>>6819425
That's a lie.
http://www.economist.com/node/10278703
According to this article and whatever sources they used, half the adult males die from violent deaths in hunter-gatherers societies. They are in constant warfare.

>>6821952
>base men don't enjoy war

>>6821963
That's why civilised men invented video games.
>be at war for a couple of hours at the end of your 20-30 years life
>be at war a couple of hours every weekend or day your whole 80 years life

Checkmate primitives!

>>6821973
>video games
>not paintball
Step up.

>>6819279
>Trump wouldn't be an ugly Orwellian figurehead

>>6819126
Who is this ejaculate immaculate?

>>6822553
Apparently this Cum Plum is Hillary Clinton.

Go figure.

>>6819126
>Greeks
>sexual restraint
Tip top kek

>>6822662
>>6819302

>>6822553
>>6822659
I bet Joyce would get a kick out of these. I'd like to have seen what he could have came up with.

>>6822689
I might also point out that Plato and Aristotle both heavily favored sexual restraint, and that includes homosexual restraint. For all the flirting Socrates does in the dialogues, it comes out the character never actually does things sexual with the boys, and even rejects homosexual relations as per Phaedrus (much to the shock of the youth who learns it).

>>6822659
What happen? She used to be a Goldwater republican.

>>6822751
She had a lot of sex

>>6822751
Amusingly the OP pic is photoshopped. The original has no cross.

Christposters are at it again

>>6822762
its a reference to that cute christian mascot girl, isn't the red hair a dead giveaway?

>>6820890
Silly anon, all academic work is impaired by prejudices.

If any work finally managed to transcend said prejudices, the topic would be closed for discussion and we'd all be unemployed.

>>6819335
>while projects like space are being left to rot.
Said as two probes near Pluto and Ceres simultaneously and congress passes laws allowing private companies to mine asteroids.

Space isn't dead, we are just overcoming our planet bias. What's the point of going to space if all you are going to do is jump into another gravity well?

>>6819385
>Basic entertainment didn't play a big role
Look up Walt Disney's relationship with Wherner Von Braun. The idea of manned space travel was pretty much sold to the american public before Sputnik had even launched, all thanks to Walt Disney.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_in_Space

>>6819157
Fuck off with your "muh spoogs."

Life is a spook, so you should opt out.

>>6821952
Sounds awesome. Maybe the whole reason we're unsatisfied is because society has tamed us. Perhaps half of us should die violent. Maybe the only reason we shun violence is because the establishment benefits from monopolizing it.

>>6819126
It's important that you bring your own intuition and wisdom when reading these myths

>>6819309
>misogyny

>>6819126
Those claim just sound retarted to me. You can find plenty of types of sexual restriction or ascetism or whatever in primitive societies. From the top of my head, the argonauts of the pacific contain valid exemple of variabilities in attitudes toward sexuality and relationships.

>>6824126
This doesn't disprove correlation, but it does a kind of weird causation.

>>6819242
petty

>>6824126
He's not saying shit like "the American Indians were more primitive than whites because they were more sexually liberal". His study consists of comparing tribe and societies to their peers, whites are and Indiana and Africans etc. are not studied as monolithic societies

>>6819182
we r/nofap now?