/lit/ - Literature

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384486]

Share thread. Nothing new from me this time, sorry.

A bunch of literary essays in no obvious order:
http://www.mediafire.com/?4azqs1v94kys2k1
Schopenhauer - On Authorship and Style
Orwell - Politics and the English Language
Benjamin - The Storyteller
Wimsatt - The Intentional Fallacy
Jakobson - Linguistics and Poetics
Barthes - Death of the Author
Foucault - What is An Author
Derrida - Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences
Abrams - The Deconstructive Angel
Miller - The Critic as Host

A bunch of Introductory books on Literary Theory:
http://www.mediafire.com/?g45vmdoyt1c6ra5
Culler - Literary Theory - A Very Short Introduction
Eagleton - Introduction to Literary Theory
Key Concepts in Literary Theory
The Blackwell Guide to Literary Theory

[Anonymous No.1384504]

>mfw i got number 9

also thanks, downloaded

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384516]

n
3n
3n+3
9n+9
(9n+9)/10=9

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384533]

>>1384516
hey bunionsting what's your take on literary theory? From what I can tell you are a bit of a one trick pony so far.

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384545]

>>1384533
never studied it, doesn't seem to be worth the time either.

[Anonymous No.1384555]

So has anyone got Monk's biography of Wittgenstein? I've been told again and again to read it.

>>1384545

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384567]

>>1384545
k chandlerbing maybe you enjoy being able to read texts on the level of children idk 2 each their own

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384579]

>>1384567
well, i don't read the stuff that requires lit theory to understand, so i'm pretty okay there.

[Anonymous No.1384580]

>>1384579

But like, dude, every text is written in the public language and suspect to deconstruction.

[Anonymous No.1384585]

>>1384580

Also, there are, like, totally inescapable power relations between you and the author.

And the capitalist fascists that are oppressing the common man.

[Anonymous No.1384588]

Everyone should skip Barthes and Wimsatt because they are bullshit

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384589]

>>1384580
doesn't mean it's productive to do so. if it is, i'll read it when someone translates all that frenchy stuff into american speak.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384604]

>>1384589
what's productive about productivity onionwrong?

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384616]

>>1384604
of interest, helpful and stuff.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384623]

>>1384616
That's not even a coherent sentence don't you pull that sloppy shit with me dude

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384625]

>>1384623
it's the appropriate level of sloppy given your cute question.

[Anonymous No.1384628]

>tripfaggots duel over nothing and furiously f5

sigh

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384641]

>>1384628
it's really not a duel.
>my face when talking with d&e

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384643]

>>1384625
It's about the only level you can manage to pull off although that is not surprising from a guy who does economics (if i recall correctly) and does not recognise that all an economist can be is a mouthpiece of capitalism

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384678]

>>1384643
productive there is a shorthand for of philosophical interest or fun/helpful insights. the word is purposefully vague and a bit functionalist, because it's not easy to describe the exact reason for reading philosophy. you are assuming that i am using a vulgar sense of productive.

as for economics, all...can be is wrong. it can be much more. sure, lots of common "capitalist" traps, but it's a baby field with a lot of room to improve.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384693]

>>1384678
>philosophical interest
you should know better but at least we can all see where that's going
anyway, I could go on to ask what is philosphically interesting about philosophical interest or what is fun about fun or helpful about helpful but that would be beating a dead horse

not gonna need economists when the Global Proletarian Revolution happens bro just letting u know

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384707]

>>1384693
not really. the buck pretty much stops at interest. i get to define what's interesting to me, and in this particular instance, i am citing the authority of a widely accepted convention of what's philosophically interesting as well, for /smug effect.

and unless proletariats develop telepathic powers to allow for spontaneous and effective organization, they are going to need equivalents of economists.

[Anonymous No.1384712]

>>1384693
>not gonna need economists when the Global Proletarian Revolution happens bro just letting u know

Wow, is this what you actually believe? Jesus Christ. You realize that scarcity exists no matter who is running the show? You realize that there will still be subjective valuations that can be quantified, even without currency to guide it? If communism actually increases our collective understanding of the world immeasurably, as Trotsky seemed to think, then intellectuals like economists, far from being made obsolete, would be exalted sources of understanding. Unless you think the Global Proletarian Revolution will also transcend numbers and their interpretation, or goods and their valuation.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384714]

>>1384707
>i get to define what's interesting to me
says who, and what "I"?
>i am citing the authority
more like appealing

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384717]

>>1384712
>You realize that scarcity exists no matter who is running the show?
No that is a product of false consciousness and a concept that is only exacerbated in a capitalist system of thought

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384729]

>>1384714
the "i" that made this post here. >>1384589
it's not productive to me, so i don't want to read it.
but in the interest of honesty, sure i'm appealing to convention on what constitutes philosophical interest, which roughly means contributes to knowledge in the field, helps with understanding philosophical history, serve glorious normative project, or being funny.

[Anonymous No.1384732]

>>1384717
so ur saying limited resources on our planet is unjustifiable due to false consciousness?

wow so its like the government is hording all our water amirite ^_^

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384740]

>>1384717
that's pretty deeply anti-naturalistic thinking. what happened to your evolution stuff from earlier

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384743]

>>1384729
>the "i" that made this post here.
How do you know that was you bro?
>knowledge in the field
>philosophical history
so many presuppositions how do you even sleep at night

>>1384732
>so ur saying limited resources on our planet is unjustifiable due to false consciousness?
That is not what I am saying, that is what your inferior brain is trying to process it as because you can't grasp the magnanimity of what my thinking implies.

[Anonymous No.1384744]

>>1384717
Well, no, it's not. If your village gets a certain disease and you have limited medical supplies to treat it, then even if you have perfectly collectively rational doctors, you have triage, you have scarcity, and unless the solution is not to care about the outcome of the treatment, you need economic solutions. More generally, you can have food shortages, shortages of shelter, shortages of the infrastructure and basic goods and services by which a collectivized society can effectively exist. And you also have plans. This is what economics is, the positive study and normative treatment of very natural conditions of scarcity, individual and collective. Saying it will go away is like saying philosophy will go away - at the most extreme, individual philosophizing will be transmuted dramatically, but thought will continue, no?

You mentioned the concept of emptiness/not-self from Buddhism in an earlier thread, and that seems like a plausible basis for a form of communism - the very real recognition of the emptiness of the form of the self might be called communism, and might be called a step up. But the next level of thought from that is that the self hasn't truly been eliminated, but merely transmuted to eliminate its boundaries with other selves. You still have thought, you still have planning, you still have separation based on the differences between individuals - it's just that those differences, that separation goes 100% towards serving the community in a way that reflects communal consciousness. There will still be economists.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384746]

>>1384740
consistency is for dweebs

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384754]

>>1384743
by claiming dat old post is by me i am constituting my present self. seriously though, that's too cute even for you.

but sure, i am perfectly comfortable with presupposing some of my values, what else can i do. of course, if you want to object to any particular item in my idea of what is a productive read, feel free to do it.

[Anonymous No.1384772]

>>1384743
then why do you congregate with the inferior brains of mortals if you know we cannot grasp the magnanimosity of what your thinking implies

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384776]

>>1384744
>limited
>scarcity
>solution
>shortages
These are all thinly veiled descriptions of states of power in relation to certain groups, favourable or no. When the revolution comes we won't need these terms because there will be no difference in relations of power between people.

>There will still be economists
Sure if you twist the term far enough bro

>>1384754
>by claiming dat old post is by me i am constituting my present self.
How you know dat old post happened bro? Don't sound like a very epistemologically stable way 2 construct a self 2 me bro. It is never 2 cute.

>what else can i do
examine them, get rid of them

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384777]

is this what they are teaching you in lit theory, how to troll? if so they are doing a pretty good job.

[Anonymous No.1384794]

>>1384776

How is collective scarcity a "thinly veiled description of states of power in relation to certain groups"? Seriously. Or maybe just answer this: Your village, or maybe the whole world, needs medical supplies and infrastructure to treat a new outbreak. Current medical supplies and infrastructure are limited. How will you, as a community, address this problem in the most favorable way? Is this an unreasonable post-revolution thought? Is "favorable" laden with connotations that don't hold after the revolution? If so, on either, count, explain how?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384795]

>>1384777
>is this what they are teaching you in lit theory
This is freshman epistemology bro, kiddy stuff rly

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384798]

>>1384795
you should have better form. i am bored.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384806]

>>1384794
>collective scarcity
scarcity is only scarce in relation to some perspective, and that it is described as scarce implies something bad or unfavourable to whom it is addressed, disregarding the use of the term 'scarce' to designate precious items

>needs
>limited
>problem
>most favorable way
there you go with these redundant terms again bro

>Is this an unreasonable post-revolution thought?
You're couching it in terms of instrumental reason, something inextricably intertwined with late capitalism. When the revolution comes there will be no use for instrumental reason because it is also simply a bundle of thinly veiled terms designating power relations.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384813]

>>1384798
it was a bit rough but maybe you will learn a lesson and get away from all this superfluous trash you have clogged your head with and do some reading on foundationalism and some of its critiques, maybe a lil coherentism, then go and read cartesian skepticism, agrippa's trilemma and pyrrhonian skepticism

[Koroviev !!bFY778Jwu68 No.1384814]

>>1384806
>When the revolution comes there will be no use for instrumental reason because it is also simply a bundle of thinly veiled terms designating power relations.
Jesus christ with sentences like these how can you not tell he's trolling you?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384830]

>>1384814
hey look it's that guy who tried to tell us philosophical thought underlies all philosophical action, even the scratching of one's arse, and didn't get away with it

[Koroviev !!bFY778Jwu68 No.1384845]

>>1384830
I didn't respond to that question in that thread.
But since you mentioned it:
Did you scratch your ass of your own free will? Or was it determined?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384850]

>>1384845
Causation and Agency are pathetically small-minded concepts borne of the human perspective in coming to terms with its world, I have no use for them

[Anonymous No.1384858]

>>michael_jackson_popcorn.jpeg

mfw this thread

[Anonymous No.1384860]

So DE, how do you know this Revolution will take place?

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384862]

>>1384858
you need a .mp4

[Koroviev !!bFY778Jwu68 No.1384866]

>>1384850
>doesn't negate that they are philosophical ideas applied to his example as an underlying concept.
>simply argues the quality of such philosophical ideas
>mfw

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384884]

>>1384866
>>doesn't negate that they are philosophical ideas applied to his example as an underlying concept.
I don't need to negate them because I want nothing to do with them. You can keep your shoddy thought system to yourself for all I care.

>argues the quality of such philosophical ideas
I am not arguing anything, argument is something a slave and degenerate engages in.
>quality
whywhat a lollingtonlaughable numbnutsnotion, concerncare to shootspring a bitsbunch of other looseuseless crapconcepts at me worthlesswhile you are here Koroviev?

>>1384860
Because it is the necessary outcome of any capitalist system. It's kind of like finality, you can keep putting it off but eventually it's going to happen one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.1384894]

>>1384884

>argument is something a slave and degenerate engages in.

What do you call what you're doing right now?

[Anonymous No.1384899]

>>1384884

>mfw deep&edgy has watched a few zizek youtubes and found someone new to parrot

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384902]

>>1384899
Actually I saw all that shit like 2 years ago when maybe it wasn't all that popular

>>1384894
watching people argue against themselves

[Anonymous No.1384900]

>>1384884

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

[Koroviev !!bFY778Jwu68 No.1384905]

>>1384884
>I am not arguing anything, argument is something a slave and degenerate engages in.
You're arguing plenty and you know it. The fact that you resort to insults shows quite clearly that you're in an argument, as well.
>I don't need to negate them because I want nothing to do with them. You can keep your shoddy thought system to yourself for all I care.
Yes, yes you do. You said I was wrong for saying that philosophical ideas underlie everything humans do. Your rebuttal was the example of scratching your ass. I showed that there is a philosophical idea which underlies scratching your ass. You made a statement:
?hey look it's that guy who tried to tell us philosophical thought underlies all philosophical (note: I said all action, I made no such qualification of philosophical at this point) action, even the scratching of one's arse, and didn't get away with it
My response: I have just gotten away with it. Causation and Agency are philosophical ideas, ideas you yourself recognized without myself even having to provide their agreed-upon labels in the field of philosophy. You specifically used terms which are philosophical jargon. And I demonstrated they underlie such an act, that is, scratching one's ass.
Your rebuttal, sir? Because we both know this is indeed an argument. You stated a thesis, I have stated an antithesis, and you and I have already engaged in communication that is conflicting over these statements.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384908]

>>1384900
is that supposed to mean something beyond signifying what they taught you in reason and argument 101?

[Anonymous No.1384910]

>>watching people argue against themselves

oh dear

[Anonymous No.1384912]

>>1384908

It's a reference you weren't Deep&Edgy enough to get :(

[Anonymous No.1384914]

>>1384884
And where do you derive that outcome from?
Your judgement on the finality of capitalism is not synthetical or analytical a priori. It needs the proof of reality, it must be a posteriori, and until we do not see that Revolution, your comments about it having a 100% chance of happening are asburd.

[Anonymous No.1384919]

>>1384905

since when did throwing jargon at something mean anything underlied it?

[Anonymous No.1384922]

>>1384914

I like this new word, "asburd." Everybody knows that asburd is the word!

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1384924]

this thread is diving off of a cliff.

[Anonymous No.1384926]

>>1384922

[Anonymous No.1384929]

>>1384924
>implying it was not initally shit to begin with

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384932]

>>1384905
>he fact that you resort to insults shows quite clearly that you're in an argument, as well.
maybe they're insults to you bro, I already talked to one clown in this thread about using stupid words to mask power relations. Maybe you should take a leaf from the guy one or two posts above me who parrots his shitty freshman logic glossary.

>You said I was wrong for saying that philosophical ideas underlie everything humans do
I never said you were wrong bro, that is another dumb word for masking power relations.

http://green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/lit?task=search&ghost=&search_text=%22scratch+my+arse%22
lol this reminds me of that time I pointed out something dumb you said and you denied saying it, only you did

anyway let's take a look at this next bit of horseshit you are trying to peddle through hemmingway's bullshit detector.

>Causation and Agency are philosophical idea
so is anything else in the proper context

>, ideas you yourself recognized without myself even having to provide their agreed-upon labels in the field of philosophy
where did I say: "oh ya bro I recognise this as a philosophical idea"?. I have agreed upon nothing and you have made a bunch of assumptions about me, that is all

>You stated a thesis, I have stated an antithesis, and you and I have already engaged in communication that is conflicting over these statements.
You took it as a thesis, there is no conflict

[Anonymous No.1384937]

>>1384924

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1op3ZoNeflc

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384939]

>>1384932
>Causation and Agency are philosophical idea
>so is anything else in the proper context

I should elaborate: and in the appropriate context

[Koroviev !!bFY778Jwu68 No.1384947]

>>1384919
I stated that a philosophical idea underlies scratching one's ass. If I scratched my ass right now, even if it didn't itch, am I exercising free will? This is a philosophical idea which underlies everything humans do. He identified as philosophical by using definitively philosophical terms, that's all I meant by that sentence.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384958]

>>1384912

not a fan of monty python bro it is all too much lulrandam jollygoodshow and the odd bit of academic influence to make sure everyone is aware of how we all went to college for me

>>1384914

>synthetical or analytical a priori. It needs the proof of reality, it must be a posteriori
I care very little about your boring and limited systems of logical thought which are to be found either incomplete or inconsistent and to be traced back to axioms which are arbitrary and involve an acceptance that is just as absurd of whatever you accuse me of.

[Anonymous No.1384963]

>>1384958

No it isn't!

[Koroviev !!bFY778Jwu68 No.1384965]

Internet argument paradox: Nobody wins, but we're all losers. I'm done for now.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384975]

>>1384965
take a hikeywikey with your clippetyclops

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1384983]

also I am going to sleep

I am the best.

[Koroviev !!bFY778Jwu68 No.1384992]

>>1384975
Somebody's still mad I've been published? Wow. It's happened a bunch of times, let it go man.

[Anonymous No.1385009]

>I care very little about your boring and limited systems of logical thought which are to be found either incomplete or inconsistent and to be traced back to axioms which are arbitrary and involve an acceptance that is just as absurd of whatever you accuse me of.

The postmodern reduction of coherent worldviews to "arbitrary axioms" is a self-serving, reductionist take on the process of understanding. After all, if someone's worldview is based on arbitrary axioms (and through *what possible system* could this claim ever be coherently established?) then nothing they say can be of value, and their ideological statements can therefore be dismissed out of hand, without respect to empirical validity, expressiveness, or any other of the properties that separate good thoughts, usable thoughts, life-giving thoughts, happy thoughts, from their opposite. It simply is a sophisticated form of nihilism that pretends to be more than the negation of everything it encounters.

[Anonymous No.1385015]

>>1385009

You're somewhat misrepresenting pomo, man, but I cbf to respond coherently because I am drunk :(

[Anonymous No.1385029]

>>1385015

Yeah, I suppose I'm attempting to troll D&E back with the "postmodern" term, but fuck, I spent way too fucking long with an obviously (God I hope so, right?) trolling D&E. I'm pissed. Apparently there is as little of solid substance of him as people have been claiming. That's so disappointing. It was nice of him to link the essays though.

[Anonymous No.1385037]

>>1385029

He's somewhat clever, but I've never seen a really substantive post by him. And it's funny how obviously jealous he is of Isabella Huppert.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1385603]

>>1385009
>self-serving, reductionist
mebbe for you bro

>nothing they say can be of value
there is nothing of value in the world, or it is transcendent

>their ideological statements can therefore be dismissed out of hand
all statements are ideological

>It simply is a sophisticated form of nihilism that pretends to be more than the negation of everything it encounters
Not particularly, this negation stuff is really only needed when it comes to shitting on numbskull westerner metholodogy to make a point

[Mogwai !!YOt9Y28V773 No.1385608]

HUH WAW

This is full of entry level plebeian tier writings..

[xtrbya No.1385612]

>>1385037
>Anonymous 12/23/10(Thu)03:00
>it's funny how obviously jealous he is of Isabella Huppert
>>1385603
>Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ 12/23/10(Thu)11:39

[Anonymous No.1385615]

HOW ABOUT WE GO AND TRY TO SHARE HARD TO FIND NOVELS?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1385656]

>>1385615
How about you read the essays or at least the intros and actually have something meaningful to say about whatever tosh you read

[Anonymous No.1385659]

>>1385656
WHEN I READ FOR MY OWN ENJOYMENT? FUCK THAT.

[Anonymous No.1385660]

>>1384693

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1385670]

>>1385659
>reading for enjoyment
who the fuck does that I mean srsly

I only read books because it's such an awful pain in the ass and having the capacity to interpret them on multiple levels that enrich my overall reading experience only makes the whole process worse

[Anonymous No.1385676]

>>1385670
WHY DO I READ RUSSIAN LIT? BECAUSE I ENJOY THE STORIES AND CHARACTERS.

THAT FUCKING SIMPLE BRO.

[Mogwai !!YOt9Y28V773 No.1385678]

>>1385670
Are you fucking retarded?????

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1385681]

>>1385660
great argument

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1385698]

>>1385681
He knows how to avoid an infinite regress, which is more than u can say

[xtrbya No.1385700]

>>1385676
lolno. you read it because its 'russian'. you had no idea at first what 'russian lit' is like since you weren't familar with it.

I cannot understand why people commit themselves to certain genres of lit only rather than on a book by book basis.

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1385705]

>>1385698
you already failed if you try to set up an infinite regress there.

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1385708]

entirely sincere compliment btw.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1385710]

>>1385708
>circular

[Anonymous No.1386262]

>Not particularly, this negation stuff is really only needed when it comes to shitting on numbskull westerner metholodogy to make a point
>he thinks he's above and able to discern "numbskull westerner methodology", even when apparently immersed in it, and proves this by pointing out words that indicate slave morality.
>his whole worldview is a response to and negation of what he thinks westerner means, in a way that is deliberately designed to avoid having to explain himself
>he thinks instrumental reason is inextricably tied to late capitalism, even when referring to collective need and scarcity
>he thinks capitalism means whatever he wants it to mean, and therefore even (inarguably) communist societies fall under his definition.
>useless hack, contributing nothing
>uses the frame of trolling to hide a legitimately terrible person in plain sight.

Get back to me when some of this is less true.

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1386286]

>>1385710
it's called an emotive gesture, silly.