[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 7 KB, 313x161, literature.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14685330 No.14685330 [Reply] [Original]

Is there any reason to publish, other than narcissism?
You may write for artistic explorations, for catharsis, but the moment you start trying to publish things, isn't it only an exercise in trying to get approval/validation from others? Akin to getting the most amount of likes/retweets?
Say Kant wrote his entire works, exactly as he did, but never published them. Would that mean he is less insightful? That his thoughts are less important? If he knew in his mind that he unlocked the key to some higher understanding, does he have any obligation to share it just for likes? Isn't that incredibly petty, selfish and stupid?
And if we can agree that Kant's works wouldn't be less meaningful if not published, what's to say of the people who far surpass Kant, but have their works stashed away in some drawer? Or maybe even not written, simply stored in thought?
Is literature just a giant game of likes/retweets?

>> No.14685345

>>14685330
Are you fucking retarded? If Kant hadn't published his books we would be living in literal dark ages now. It's a blessing for the rest of us that geniuses feel the need to publish their works.

>> No.14685355
File: 214 KB, 1200x1200, serveimage (8).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14685355

>>14685345
>If Kant hadn't published his books we would be living in literal dark ages now.
good

>> No.14685389

>>14685330
Not necessarily.

It *may* be as you say: the work is being hawked because the author is an attentionwhore.

But, certain instances the work might be significant (in author's opinion) enough to be worth blowing up by publication.

Recently read Erl King bc it won a heap of prizes; agree it deserves publication.

>> No.14685399

>>14685330
To garner a income, a mans gotta eat.

>> No.14685405
File: 60 KB, 267x334, Rene-Guenon_6207.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14685405

>>14685355
kek. Primitivist and traditionalist alliance when?

>> No.14685426

>>14685345
Kant had no way of knowing this when he first set off to publish his works, and if he believed this of his own work it is incredibly narcissistic.
The reason he published them was probably because he felt very smart, but not smart enough that he could forego of the approval of others.
He needed that fame.
I can't see how someone ultra enlightened would give a fuck about the approval of others.

>> No.14685438

>>14685330

The weak should fear the strong.

Kant knew this and wanted to bully the inferior writers of his time who were publishing excrement and making a lifestyle of it.

He portrayed excellence and set the bar for future generations to follow.

>> No.14685446

>>14685426
He was a philosopher not a fiction writer so he atleast had a imperative to get his work out there.

>> No.14685452

>>14685426
Let's see.
>be Kant
>spend years reading books by other philosophers
>find something that you believe is a solution to the problems that preoccupied those other philosophers for centuries
>shouldn't publish because that would be narcissism
So we should only be listeners in conversations because expressing ourselves would be narcissism? He published merely because he knew other philosophers would be interested in his works, similarly you speak in a conversation because you know people conversing with you are interested in hearing your reply. I don't deny that there are cases of narcissism in authors, but among genuine ones like Kant, this is not the case.

>> No.14685457

>>14685446
Which is?

>> No.14685462

>>14685457
the truth

>> No.14685465

>>14685462
If you truly believed found it, why should you have to share it?

>> No.14685468

>>14685465
Because other people want to know the truth too. Why should you want to keep it to yourself?

>> No.14685474

>>14685465
For the sake of other truth seekers, by publishing it he also risked criticism

>> No.14685483

>>14685474
>by publishing it he also risked criticism
This. OP thinks Kant was always revered like he is today. When he published it, people crudely misread it and critcizied it.

>> No.14685515

>>14685330
>Implying that seeking the approval of others is stupid
Everything in life comes from the approval of others - people only give you money if they like you or something you do, for example. And I'd say that when you publish fiction you're aiming at building a community of people who can identify themselves with your work. And you'd write non-fiction in order to pass on the knowledge you've aquired from other great authors. Philosophy/science is an endless chain of refutations to human perfection. But sure, you can be the though and independent guy and go live in the forest, but if you do please abstain yourself from any kind of literature or knowledge produced by society, for you aren't willing to give nothing in return for it.

>> No.14685606

Was there any reason to make this thread, aside from narcissism?

>> No.14685672

>>14685330
Says the hypocrite seeking approval/validation on a taiwanese pottery forum.
Not only are you a narcissist but a coward, incapable of putting your name out there for criticism. But still I deride, you nameless cunt, for you deserve nothing but derision.
The selfish thing for a philosopher would be to not publish for if his work is worthy then it must be shared and taught. The narcissistic thing is to not publish, thinking yourself an insightful genius but scared of the chance that others might find flaws in your work.
If you think yourself a genius but refuse to publish than you are nothing but a selfish cowardly narcissistic fool.

>> No.14685724

>>14685606
Of course not. Does that in any way invalidate the question?

>> No.14685728

>>14685405
All traditionalists are primitives so the prospective alliance is just around the corner probably.