/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15080128]

What books might reconcile me with (post-) modernity?
I hate it immensely but it's not like I can bring it down single-handedly. I need to reduce this dissonance or I might kill myself.

[Anonymous No.15080318]

http://orgyofthewill.net/

664. A comprehensive history of "analytic philosophy".

1. All philosophy has been analytic, from the beginning of philosophy (quite simply because that's what all philosophy, indeed all thought, consists of: analysis).

2. Nietzsche arrives on the scene. Anglo-Saxons do not understand his analysis, ergo it is not analysis. Also, he made fun of them repeatedly for not being able to understand him. This at least they understood.

3. Anglo-Saxons: "Screw the priggish continentals: We will make our OWN philosophy." (= "The continentals are mean to us, so we won't play with them anymore.")

4. Wittgenstein's On Certainty. Illegible rubbish, but it set the tone for all future "analytic philosophy".

5. No one pays attention to the Anglo-Saxons' illegible rubbish, while book sales and star status of the continentals (many of whom are charlatans indeed but at least not boring) are soaring.

6. Finally Rorty turns around and proclaims the end of "analytic philosophy". "I wish I'd read less of our autistic bullshit and more novels instead."

7. According to the Anglo-Saxons, then, novels are the culmination and ultimate expression of philosophy.

8. And that's where Anglo-Saxon "analytic philosophy" stands to this day. Nothing more than a gigantic reaction movement to Nietzsche calling them names and making fun of them.

[Anonymous No.15080330]

From the same book: http://orgyofthewill.net/

848. Just as "analytic" philosophy is the farce that occurred when Anglo-Saxons read Nietzsche and tried to understand him and failed, "postmodernism" is what happened when the continental philosophers did the same. Allow me to explain.

[Anonymous No.15080332]

http://orgyofthewill.net/

Nietzsche truly split the history of philosophy into two. There is a before him, and an after him. No one before had fully espoused "evil", let alone elevated it above "good": not even the daoist sages, not even Heraclitus. But that is only part of it. The other part is that, though he was very good at presenting complex ideas simply, his most valuable ideas were nevertheless terrifically complex. Witness Alain Badiou telling us that doctors create a disease by naming it, then being chased off stage by doctors laughing at his pathetic attempts to explain what that means. The idea is correct, but you have to be a fucking genius to understand it, much less explain it to people, especially to doctors, who will roast your ass over hot coals, as they should, if you are not a complete and total master of the idea. These are such complex conceptions that non-geniuses simply have no hope with them. At best, they grasp one part here, a corollary there, some application to their daily life; but the essence of the idea, and its relationship to all others, remains forever beyond them. Deleuze, Artaud, Bataille: they each grasped some things, and Baudrillard by far the most. The mess of gibberish produced on the continent is the result of their sometimes sincere, sometimes dishonest grasping with these terrifically complex conceptions that Nietzsche bequeathed us, just as the simplistic stupidities of the "analytic" morons is how they dealt with the same stuff. No one would propose that Rorty or Dewey invented their best stuff: it's got N's mark all over it, and they copied it straight off him (and in the instances where they denied him credit, they plagiarized...) Or Adorno and Horkheimer. Or Heidegger. One after another, failed attempts at understanding what N had said. And the HIGHEST ideas of his of all have not even been TOUCHED on. I have yet to read of anyone even MENTIONING his invention of the central ideas of quantum mechanics, decades before the quantum mechanists ran up against them in the lab. Or the Big Bang-Big Crunch cycle decades before the astronomers dreamt it up. I am literally the first person to find these ideas and the beginnings of such ideas in Nietzsche, while everyone else had trouble parsing such simple statements as "men aren't equal". Deleuze was still trying to "deconstruct" that lol (read: convince us that he meant the opposite lol). All this is simply what happens when genius texts fall into the hands of merely above-average intelligences, and the fact that two entire massive traditions — the "analytic", and the "postmodern" — flowed directly from him, is merely a symptom of how vast the power of his intellect was, and therefore, naturally enough, how vast his influence, for better or worse (and in the case of the "analytics" and the "postmoderns", clearly for the worse).

[Anonymous No.15080364]

Stop trying to find collective solutions, the world will not be fixed. You need to live your life individually.

[Anonymous No.15080368]

>>15080318
>4. Wittgenstein's On Certainty. Illegible rubbish, but it set the tone for all future "analytic philosophy".
What? Are you stupid? Are you literally, seriously, mentally disturbed?

[Anonymous No.15080385]

Literally no part of Nietzsche can withstand husserl. Bottom text

[Anonymous No.15080393]

>>15080318
I'm not sure what this is, but it has piqued my interest. thanks anon

[Anonymous No.15080427]

>>15080364
>trying to find collective solutions
Well that's what I'm trying to do, but how on earth can you live "individually" nowadays?

[Anonymous No.15080552]

>>15080128
>What books might reconcile me with (post-) modernity?
unironically this

it's a decent introduction to the work which gets groups together as "post-modernism" and the key ideas therein

[Anonymous No.15080560]

>>15080128

Here, OP, I'll genuinely help you. But know that your mission has been tried before, and is likely doomed to fail.

Begin with this book - the Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Habermas basically tries to do exactly what you're proposing: he presents a history of postmodernist thought, and then presents essays on individual PoMo thinkers (such as Foucault, Derrida, etc) and why he thinks they're wrong and that he can salvage a collectivist notion of truth.

Know that some of his essays are criticised as misunderstanding the targets of his critiques, but this would be a very fast way to get acquainted with all the relevant players.

The book is incredibly dense. Few people could read and understand it. If you manage to get through, and still want to try and go ahead with your project, I would suggest further reading of Habermas' "communicative theory of action", and objections as to how it fails.

From there... you're on your own.

Best of luck.

[Anonymous No.15080597]

>>15080128
>I might kill myself.
do it. stupid pathetic faggot. lol

[Anonymous No.15080604]

>>15080560
>Begin with this book - the Philosophical Discourse of Modernity
>The book is incredibly dense
Not OP. Any preliminary reading?

[Anonymous No.15080609]

>>15080128
Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church (The Church and Postmodern Culture): James K.A. Smith:

[Anonymous No.15080626]

>>15080604

Too many preliminary books to count. You basically just have to either have a good foundational knowledge of the projects of analytic philosophy, or you'll have to use this to build it up from the deep end.

My suggestion is just have the Plato SEP on hand and if a relevant term or author appears and you lack familiarity, look up an article.

https://plato.stanford.edu/

It might be hard going, but you'll get out what you put in.

[Anonymous No.15080662]

>>15080626

addendum: the book isn't huge, and is broken up into 12 manageable sized lectures (chapters), and if you dedicated a serious month to it, you'll already probably be more educated about postmodernist thought than 99% of /lit/ for life, for what that's worth

[Anonymous No.15080679]

>>15080626
>>15080662
Thanks, anon

[Anonymous No.15080778]

>>15080560
Thank you anon, from what I can gather this book will most likely be very helpful.
>>15080552
Can you elaborate ? I'm interested but can't find a lot of resources on this book.

[Anonymous No.15080949]

>>15080778
>Can you elaborate ? I'm interested but can't find a lot of resources on this book.
'Otaku: Japan’s database animals' relates the condition of otaku, and otaku subculture, in early 2000s Japan to various ideas in post-modernism. I would say it primarily builds on Baudrillard (ideas concerning simulation and the hyperreal) and Kojève (with the breakdown of grand narratives.) It also lends a perspective on the recent (post-war) history of Japan and how Japan itself is post-modern (especially in regard to the post-war reconstruction) drawing on Kojève's views and the views of a couple Japanese academics. It's pretty "pop philosophy" but still interesting, especially if you're in the cultural weeb mode. There are some insights into the consumer culture of Japan which you wouldn't really get being a western anime fan (but makes some minor moments in something you watched 10 years ago a little clearer). The titular metaphor of the book, the "database" seems a little strained but ultimately works.

The PDF is pretty easy to find (literally 2nd Google result for me).