/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20749689]

Why is it that any sort of in depth thought, or any deep observation is considered "edgy", neckbeardy or having some type of teenage faux depth?

Are people just that anti intellectual nowadays? It feels like any sincere or genuine discussion is just "whatever buzzword is in now". No actual discussion takes place now. People are hyperemotional and now get their political and moral stances from literal memes. They're too afraid to get out of their meme fuelled ironic zeitgeist and actually engage with anything. It's the most cucked shit I've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.20750382]

This is a great question I wish I had the answer to. It’s happening with films too. Anything that isn’t “good vs evil” or “coming of age” is le edgy, le pseud, or whatever.

It was not always this way.

[Anonymous No.20750398]

>>20749689
>is considered "edgy", neckbeardy or having some type of teenage faux depth?
decades of media satire directed by DoD, CIA, FBI, etc, made to make any critique of the existing state of things blasé and annoying. Think of the image in your head when you read the words ‘the system is holding you down, man’ - this is implanted mental control. Of course the system is holding you down, man, but you don’t want to hear it from some retarded hippy

[Anonymous No.20750416]

Appropriate picture OP. It isn’t the children, it’s the school system itself.

[Anonymous No.20750622]

If you don't show your happiness with the system through social media and if you ever doubt too much then your social value/capital is lowered.
Social credit system is already in effect and will be rolled in slowly in the public sphere to more efficiently crush opposition

[Anonymous No.20750664]

A thread about shit that actually matters? Delete this.

[Anonymous No.20750680]

>>20749689
I don't know if the attitude is anti intellectualism as much as it is just sheer stupidity and laziness. People would rather repeat soundbites or memes instead of thinking.

[Anonymous No.20750684]

because sincerity and frankness are masculine qualities and those are bad now

[Anonymous No.20750815]

>>20749689
because most conversations that appear to be deep really aren’t deep and they’re reducible to “kill everyone that I don’t like”

[Anonymous No.20750850]

>>20749689
They are not, but your audience is filled with indoor ignorants and, therefore, they will take your statement as true. Great /lit/ thread. Illiterates love diffusing their opinions.

[Anonymous No.20750857]

>>20749689
Read those books

[Anonymous No.20750884]

>>20749689
>Why is it that any sort of in depth thought, or any deep observation is considered "edgy", neckbeardy or having some type of teenage faux depth?
because sincerity and frankness are masculine qualities and those are bad now

[Anonymous No.20751808]

>>20749689
Read the allegory of the cave. It will answer your question. I do not have the capacities to elucidate better than Plato did.

[Anonymous No.20751821]

>>20750664
no

[Anonymous No.20751829]

>>20749689
It's not

[Anonymous No.20751833]

>>20749689
This is a problem that started in the early oughts after the grunge explosion and flannel, irony-clad cynicism.

[Anonymous No.20751842]

>>20750884

[Anonymous No.20752127]

Memes like "Im14andthisisdeep" are a form of anti intellectualism. They're used to put down anyone who isn't thinking in the hyper emotional internet zeitgeist.

[Anonymous No.20752318]

Just finished pic related, and I'm honestly astounded at how positive the reception was. Every review talks about how "human" she becomes, but she literally cannot experience most negative emotions. How can someone be human if they can't experience anger, hate, frustration, etc. The book is filled with such blatant contradictions that it never addresses, and yet still managed to make so many "best of 2021" lists. So along with everything people have already said here, I also think that the "critical" side of literature is content to praise shallow works. It's not just that common people are content with easily digestible morals: this stuff is apparently Nobel worthy (which, even if it doesn't matter to you, it's the perception of authority and authenticity which is significant).

[Anonymous No.20752340]

>>20752318
idk didn't read it but remains of the day had a lot of subtle shit going on beyond the "butler was sad he had a lame career" shit, so i wouldn't dismiss his other shit so easily, then again maybe he pulled a pynchon and just totally fell off.

[Anonymous No.20752360]

>>20752340
I've read five of his books. The only reason I keep giving him a chance is because I started with Remains of the Day, which as you say, did actually have something going for it. Nothing else I've read has come close, and Klara in particular is just vapid.

[Anonymous No.20752477]

>>20749689
Because when you do so, you are being pretentious in the literal sense. Which is necessary if you're not going to be superficial when discussing something.

I'm not being honest. If I really like something, I'm never going to bring it up to somebody. I don't want to hear their stupid opinion it.

[Anonymous No.20752566]

>>20749689
Social media is literally DESIGNED to cause outrage.
Getting you to feel angry, depressed, envious, any negative strong emotion is proven to increase engagement, clicks and revenue.
Turn off your computer bro, there’s a whole world outside waiting for you to discover it

[Anonymous No.20752889]

>>20749689
Liking anything is cringe these days. You can still do it, but you have to pretend you're doing it ironically. The healthiest approach of course is to simply not give a shit about what others think about you, though.

[Anonymous No.20752961]

>>20751842
dilate your pagina

[Anonymous No.20754005]

>>20750382
fpbp

[Anonymous No.20754138]

We are fucked. The death of sincerity is the death of humanity. What's even the point of existing if the only thing that really makes you human, that really makes life worth living, is systematically eradicated?
Yeah, we can close ourselves off and enjoy the many wonders of the world in solitude, but we are inherently social beings.

[Anonymous No.20754287]

>>20749689
I've learned to disregard these kind of remarks as coming from the other persons political bias; false rhetoric, where they just don't like what's being said or approached. You can test the same people by saying the same thing and swapping out the author/book titles for one you know its favorable to them, then make the point, and watch them agree emphatically.

But actual discussion with those people beyond this is not possible, and I would argue is not worth the time to do or to make the mstake to consider them as capable as to discuss or reason in the first place;

French term for this is "idee recee"(or something) meaning "received ideas," that they are only repeating things they've overheard as if they were mimicking speech;
>the rabble of mankind, that crowd our streets, coffee-houses, feasts, and public tables. I cannot call their discourse conversation, but rather something that is practised in imitation of it.
https://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/fowlerjh/chap3.htm

Whereas 'edgy' is just the latest phraseology that's been introduced to them to dismiss a thing. It can be accurate though; like it 'can' be accurate to recognize XYZ as autism or schizophrenia, but it seldom ever is used properly and is more a false accusation for the sake of a political goal; i.e. false-rhetoric.

You might not be able to stop this from happening but it does allow you to know for sure when to disregard another person; it begins when they fail to make a case - this is how you can tell the difference between one person and the next.

[Anonymous No.20754411]

>>20749689
Still, I don't really know what's meant by 'edgy' in any context; it seems to imply that the (remark, thought) is a put-on where the person is saying a thing they know to be false in order to posture or provoke. This could be true of a person, of course. But in what society does this occur in the first place? Who pretends to believe something they know to be false in order to annoy other people? It's a very sparse set of possibilities in which such an accusation could be actually true of a person (unless they are a youtuber or a politician doing it for clickbaity reasons) and none of these possibilities really apply in the real world.

It does touch on the fundamental unwillingness of people to deal with reality; using instead the false rhetoric to dismiss or minimalize other humans,
e.g. Sophie threatens to cut her wrists; Sophie is being 'edgy' and "she wants attention", Mark says he'll kill Jim if Jim comes near him; Mark is being 'edgy',
The dismissal stems from the unwillingness to acknowledge the real context behind the two examples; "why XYZ would be said by (those two people)," so it's almost as if a 'cry for help' is being ignored which in turn guarantees the most poor outcome for not having bothered to investigate the potential causes of the statements,

It's laziness and unwillingness to take responsibility, I think. With the put-down word serving as a tool to brush away, minimize and otherize the speaker.

[Anonymous No.20754441]

>With the put-down word serving as a tool to brush away, minimize and otherize the speaker.
It's Ego (or Narrative) preservation, I mean.

e.g. the comfy world view has the person dismiss any evidence (against the world view) by utilizing the local narrative that (any evidence against the world view) is XYZ; edgy, autistic, emcel/incel, schizophrenic, etc.

With this being noticeably engaged as a trigger response when the statement made that the person does not want to think about is a statement that contradicts their personal world view; the narrative in this instance, for example, is that,
Any girl who threatens suicide is just seeking attention,
Any man who threatens violence is just posturing,
etc.

So, when Jim announces to Mark he doesn't watch MSNBC a whole heap of narratives are kindled in Marks brain; Jim is equated with this, this and this, and Mark settles upon one narrative to dismiss Jims statement as to imply that Jim is not serious and is in some way pretending to claim not to watch MSNBC, Mark settles upon 'Edgy' but only because Mark has been warned not to use the word Spastic or Faggot or Nigger, which he otherwise would have used earlier in the decade.

[Anonymous No.20754448]

people who are cushioned from the realities of life and death are going to mock wisdom coming from those who aren't. the 'neckbeard' is a liminal person who can't quite channel the magnitude of death but tries to anyway, appearing weak to those who sexhave on the upswing of life

[Anonymous No.20754453]

>>20754441
very based, the more i walk my path the more koan-like even 4chan posts become, all of you are filled with wisdom to anyone who struggles to be wise

[Anonymous No.20754466]

>>20751808
>I do not have the capacities to elucidate better than Plato did.
Sure you do.

For instance, what is not often noticed about the cave is that the peope inside it are not merely shut off from reality, but that they are starving to death as they stay inside the cave.

i.e. to be outside of reality; to ignore it in favoro fantasy narrative (be it ideology or religion) is to starve to death; ones efforts are not focused upon the necessities or maintenance of the real world,

i.e. squirrel, whatever he is doing that is not collecting nuts for the winter in the real world; thinking of the real world and basing his actions and time upon real world things, ... whatever he is doing doesn't matter as to any merits as fundamentally whatever he 'is' doing he is 'not' collecting nuts for the winter.

[Anonymous No.20754475]

>>20754466
are squirrels serotoninergic gods?

[Anonymous No.20754513]

>>20754475

[Anonymous No.20754550]

>>20754466
They are literally shackled, that's the point. You faggots never read The Republic.

[Anonymous No.20754567]

>>20754550
>They are literally shackled
that's really not the point though; the cave allegory is presented as if the people there are just harmlessly put away somewhere and enjoying their brainwashing, the point I made was that they may be happy but that they are starving to death at the same time.

that is: they're outside of reality in their heads but are still very much subject to reality in their bodies.

it's not the same point.

[Anonymous No.20754577]

>>20754466
>>20754567
None of this has anything to do with Plato. Read the book.

[Anonymous No.20754589]

>>20749689
Why are you so fragile? Why do you live your life solely as a reaction to what other people think? Why are you physically incapable of acting without having your hand held at all times?

[Anonymous No.20754611]

>>20754577
>None of this has anything to do with Plato. Read the book.
Nobody was talking about Plato directly until you arrived. Shan't.

[Anonymous No.20754648]

>>20754611
Literally the first post that mentioned the cave was talking about Plato and reading him instead of making assumptions.

>>20754567
>let me use this specific allegory with a specific point to talk about something that has nothing to do with that specific allegory because I am taking things out of context
At least use a different metaphor or whatever. Any time you mention the cave trying to strengthen your point you keep falling flat because that's not what the cave is about.
Not that I disagree with you, I do share very similar thoughts, it's just that you're a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.20754670]

>>20754648
>Not that I disagree with you,
oh.

>. Any time you mention the cave trying to strengthen your point you keep falling flat because that's not what the cave is about.
Well I only chimed in to add, "there is more than just the cave if you think about it, which people don't think about" - e.g. you don't actually care about the philosophy or logic behind the allegory, you're telling me to stop thinking about the practicality of the thing as to its broader meanings and to just go and read Platos Republic again - where I recall the point about them starving to death due to their disconnection from reality is not mentioned (i may be wrong though but i don't recall it being made by Plato).

> it's just that you're a fucking retard.
Demonstrably not, in fact, if this point has not en made before by anybody it means I've discovered something and ought be given a sack of money and a laurel crown in reward for my great genius. If we're being academic about the thing.

[Anonymous No.20754948]

>>20754411
This

[Anonymous No.20754973]

youve made this thread before word for word

[Anonymous No.20755271]

>>20752889
Being ironic is the weak mans shield against anyone criticising things he likes.
Admitting you like something, truly and sincerely, means that if people laugh at it, you have to have enough conviction in that thing to stand by it and risk them laughing at you as well.
But if you're ironic or sarcastic and make a nod and a wink to the audience then you can pull the uno reverso and call them a loser for taking seriously the thing that you obviously did tongue in cheek and not noticing, lmao what a faggot right everyone.

It's the most cucked thing in the entire world, letting people shit all over things you like and instead of standing up for them or defending it, you join in and make it even more of a joke.
To stand without irony as your get out free card is to have balls in the current world.
So don't expect it from anything mainstream.

[Anonymous No.20755380]

>>20749689
Because deep thinking is critical, and being critical sounds like you are complaining about things. That opens you up to harsh misinterpretations. Additionally, complaining about the state of things makes you appear weak because it exposes your failure to tolerate the absurd conditions under which we all live. Some people will take your "weakness" as an opportunity to gain status by acting as if they are tough enough to tolerate the absurdity, or by pretending the state of things is not absurd... actually, everything is cool and normal, and you are just maladjusted.

[Anonymous No.20755540]

>>20755271
There's also the problem of "what comes next" in a statement; if a statement is taken to be true and if the statement demands serious action as a consequence of it being true,
>e.g. Peter is raping his baby sister
Then to accept the statement demands inquiry which a person may fear to undertake; they don't want to trouble themselves with the information, so again it's a defense mechanism or ego-preservation to construct a list of narratives whereby any otherwise actionable statement can be dismissed,
e.g. the citizens are angry about the government, it would be very dangerous to embark on a remedy of the government, it's very easy to pretend the citizens complaints aren't legitimate or are make-pretend or false, whatever, in some way.

They 'can' be false, of course, but the person who responds with immediate dismissal most likely was thinking the same thing as the speaker and is terrified to admit that XYZ is true, as then they'll seem like a coward for having known it and not done anything about it.

>>20754973
I noticed this too, it's a good topic though.

[Anonymous No.20755555]

>>20755380
>>20755271
Best way to consider it is that people are terrified all the time and believe the worst possible things about the world around them, hence the proclivity to disconnect from reality.

I'm really fucking reminded of this again,
"to believe absurdities," : >>20749120 with the idea of the profession in the verbal affirmation that everything is okay, being used to select professionals and professors, stemming from the religious or ideological action of making a profession of one nonsense or another.

[Anonymous No.20755578]

my first thought is that people are fleeing complexity in the face of an ever more inscrutable world

[Anonymous No.20755587]

>>20749689
>>20750382
>>20750398
To play devil's advocate...

Because most critiques come from those resentful of not having their "place" in the system, often due to their own vice. It's hard to distinguish between sour grapes and genuine insight. And even if there are problems, usually the problems can't be fixed without some complete overhaul that works for everybody. Do you really want to rework society based on the whims of some effete, drug-addicted spaz? Probably not. If you can't come up with a better alternative, then you better make do with what you have.

Better to succeed in the system, THEN critique it after having demonstrated that you understand it enough to make it work toward your own ends, yet still hate it.

[Anonymous No.20755598]

>>20749689
Cause such talk doesnt make any money

[Anonymous No.20755661]

It's just nihilism. People can handle a little depth, but only so long as it's wrapped up in a joke so as to be indirect, and offers no solution so as to not overwhelm with the thought of consequences should said solution go unachieved, as would be the expectation.
We're in an information age, people are bombarded 24/7 with everything that's wrong with the world and accustomed to no resolution since there's no time to resolve a story/problem before the next one's hot off the presses. Knowing it is bad enough, you can't ask people to think about it too.
In addition to that, the volume of accessible information makes it glaringly obvious just how improbable it is for anyone to have a single worthwhile thought in their entire life. What are the odds that, among thousands of years of recorded history, with a population creeping towards 8bil, in an age where just about every online platform dealing with an exponentially inflating pool of content to draw from, that old mate Stevie "Bonghogger" Rodgers is really going to stumble onto some invaluable insight into the human condition while you're doing a midnight munchie run to 7/11?

[Anonymous No.20755706]

>>20755587
>Better to succeed in the system, THEN critique it after having demonstrated that you understand it enough to make it work toward your own ends, yet still hate it.
This may have been true when the 'system' had anything to offer anybody; when you see so called 'successful' people living on debt and ready to lose everything if they lose their job then it seems like the value judgment says to stay the hell away from those things.

I know we're generalizing here but it's like this,
>>20755598
>Cause such talk doesn't make any money
But it will save you money if you know better than to go along with something stupid.

And not to forget the mental health problems that come from going along with stupid things or the various other consequences of ripping people off and having them come back for you later.

>>20755587
>Do you really want to rework society based on the whims of some effete, drug-addicted spaz? Probably not. If you can't come up with a better alternative, then you better make do with what you have.
Still, this is always going be true.

[Anonymous No.20755737]

>>20750884
why the fuck did you just copy my exact post?

[Anonymous No.20756034]

>>20755661
This too.

[Anonymous No.20756062]

>>20749689
The common usage of the word “pretentious” is the biggest cancer for any attempt at intellectual discussion or attempt to create profundity in art or literature. So often it is used by midwits to simply debase a work they do not want to deal with or approach genuinely. It’s only natural that this coincides with the rise of hyper-irony and the enveloping personas we see on the internet. Most often people call something pretentious without being able to articulate what pretense a work is affecting, not to mention if it is at all.

[Anonymous No.20756075]

>>20756062
The pretense of being more than it actually is. Which, to be fair, is understandable when you live in a society that does not think that "actually is" is even a thing. Think about how many people get called a narcissist simply for voicing a strong, yet true and even necessary, opinion that makes others uncomfortable. It's a form of aesthetic nihilism. You're not supposed to try to make sense of the world anymore.

[Anonymous No.20756092]

Because most of it is. Scrolling through youtube recommendations gives me gigacancer with all those tryhards making some grand stand over THE TRUTH of how generic pop culture thing DESTROYED the american/modern whatnot.

Add to that that older people will have most likely experienced most of the conflicts younger ones are going through and have grown out of them seems like sufficient explanation

Funnily enough we didn't see one example of valid in depth thought being dismissed by a substantial amount of the population. Most of you seem just buttmad to not get validation.

[Anonymous No.20756108]

>>20756092
>Scrolling through youtube recommendations gives me gigacancer with all those tryhards making some grand stand over THE TRUTH of how generic pop culture thing DESTROYED the american/modern whatnot.
This. I think most people are literally talking out of their ass when they deliver pop culture commentary, at least when they try to sell the importance of their commentary. Like anybody today is capable of capturing the zeitgeist of every moment in American culture, so they can understand change, in continuous line stretching back to some golden past... hold up, we had Jim Crow and slavery, so according to these nasal woke scolds, that wasn't a golden past either. So... nothing ever fucking happens. Nobody has any sense of the big picture.

[Anonymous No.20756146]

>>20749689
Thought is a thing of the XXth century

[Anonymous No.20756249]

Probably has something to do with the pseudo-democratization of intellectual culture. Relative to the past there is extremely high access to education and the arts for the plebs so you shouldn’t be surprised when you get hit by a flood of plebeian takes when trying to discuss anything in public. Combine this with a permissive ethic i.e. “everyone is entitled to an opinion” or “live and let live” and you get the present situation. Really think about those phrases, now almost everyone agrees with them but in the past they would be treated as shocking and outrageous. Pleb types are relational thinkers at heart: How will this help my career? How will this help me get a girlfriend? Is this useful? Why would you major in that, what a bad investment! There is no “life of the mind” or “ideas in themselves” to these people. It’s either useful to one’s economic and romantic prospects or it’s pretentious/edgy/cringe/incel/pointless.

[Anonymous No.20757003]

>>20756249
This.

[Anonymous No.20757706]

Bump

[Anonymous No.20758761]

>>20756249
I feel like the first part of your post is arguing the opposite, that there are too many cringe takes that aren't being called out, rather than OP's argument that too many thoughtful points are being called cringe.
Far from “everyone is entitled to an opinion” or “live and let live,” it seems like people these days are all too eager to go for the throat and stamp down budding thought in its infancy because it's too insufficient to deal with. Cringe takes they may be, but that's often a necessary step in the development of fully formed thought, and it seems like it's often being prematurely shamed as trash these days. Sort of the 'New York' effect, where there are just so many people (thoughts) around that no one has the stamina to be kind, and so harsh, instant rejection becomes a coping mechanism to block out the excess.
But I guess I can see how the attitudes your describing could LEAD to this situation, since the platitudes of “everyone is entitled to an opinion”/“live and let live” inevitably lead to apathy. And once we cease to truly value thought (which by design means deeming some more worthwhile than others, which “everyone is entitled to an opinion” refuses to recognise), it then becomes easier to stamp down.

[Anonymous No.20759719]

Bump

[Anonymous No.20759724]

>>20756249
>>20758761
>Far from “everyone is entitled to an opinion” or “live and let live,” it seems like people these days are all too eager to go for the throat and stamp down budding thought in its infancy because it's too insufficient to deal with.

It's more like even if a thought is in error there's still some legitimate grievance behind it otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned by anybody in the first place. These things always seemed to me like putting duct tape over the hole in the nuclear reactor in Mr Burns power plant - the problems don't go away but only get worse if they're ignored.

[Anonymous No.20759745]

>>20749689
Because your thoughts are edgy, neckbeardy, and have faux depth probably. Stop screaming into the void of people who aren't interested in your basic bitch takes.

[Anonymous No.20759754]

>>20752318
>NPR

[Anonymous No.20759806]

>>20759745
I think the point is this one: >>20758761

That the voicing and discussion of things are a necessary step in developing the brain and that the act of stamping down on it is a sort of species self-harm. I mean, this place is a good example; demoralization of any ideas are fine to some people insolong as the idea isn't something that agrees with their own personal politics, which they then ascribe false praise and false verbal affirmation to if it does. There's nothing at all constructive about this, of course, it's purely signalling for social status - as if a Woman was looking over your shoulder and was turned on when you called that person a Retard, or something, the act of this is almost delusional as if the self is operating on unconscious memory response and just go forth to attack their own kind (usually the younger of their own kind).

>>20758761
>arguing the opposite, that there are too many cringe takes that aren't being called out, rather than OP's argument that too many thoughtful points are being called cringe.
There's massive censorship today and the press doesn't talk about 95% of the things people actually care about so.. we don't get resolution on the important things anyway. It's an artificial playing field you're looking at today with public discourse, is what I mean, it's not a real thing.

>>20752318
>even if it doesn't matter to you, it's the perception of authority and authenticity which is significant).
yeah exactly.

You could compare it to the current youtube vs. youtube of 10 yrs ago; the frontpage is flooded with abject garbage tailored to accommodate advertising clips, which pop up to break concentration, and it's that 'thing (or medium)' which constitutes the public forum. I think understanding that it's been created artificially and subject to censorship to remove important topics (under various false accusations or made-up pretexts of word crimes) which allows you to recognize that its not a reflection of reality.

[Anonymous No.20759870]

Who is voicing these 'deep thoughts'? What exactly are these deep thoughts being derided? Who is demoralizing and disparaging them? In what arena -- academia, public forums, where? OP sounds more like an edgy teenager who is desperate to convince his boomer parents about how it's da jooz or something.

[Anonymous No.20759877]

>>20759870
>Where are they being derided
Pretty much everywhere in both online culture and in real life. If you aren't aware of this reality you need to step outside.

[Anonymous No.20759889]

>>20759877
Everywhere is not a place. Surely you can cite one specific example instead of the broadest generalization possible. If it's everywhere surely I can't have missed it and you would the flush with examples.

[Anonymous No.20759891]

>>20759745
>>20759870
>Because your thoughts are... le edgy!
Way to prove OP's point immediately.

[Anonymous No.20759894]

>>20749689
It's how America is and has always been culturally. Dogmatic protestantism has its downsides.

[Anonymous No.20759897]

>>20759889
YouTube, Twitter, Discord, almost every Social Media platform is rife with ironic dismissal of any sincere thought and filtered through this lens. Real life is the same way. Colleges, schools, real life gatherings, the average person just doesn't want to hear it.

[Anonymous No.20759907]

Even another way to look at it is that society is an open mental hospital; lots of damaged people take pleasure in just walking into a place and burbling their lips and crapping their pants until anybody of sense has left.

My time on 4chan has made me see the positive applications of censorship, to censor and remove the 'thread-destroyers' (people making false arguments, one-liner refutations that don't refute, etc.), but on the other hand this 'is' society already. I mean, you don't develop the ability to deal with errors or deranged thought if you don't encounter it. It's probably worse to be sheltered from reality in that sense; as it makes tiny easily-defeated opposition or argument seem much more powerful than it is, but it's definitely an impediment to resolution of any issue to allow 'thread-destroyers' to do as they please.

In fact, 4chan is society. Being exposed to insult and abuse for talking sense is a tutelary experiences which forces a person to improve their own powers of reasoning and argument.

[Anonymous No.20759918]

>>20759897
>>20759907
oh snap

>>20759907
>as it makes tiny easily-defeated opposition or argument seem much more powerful than it is,
also,
virtually all of the "politically-charged" issues that have resulted in censorship are bad arguments on flawed reasoning which are easily refuted. Whereas to have refused to allow them to 'be' refuted has only made those positions seem 'powerful', in exchange for justifying greater censorship using those positions as the false-pretext;
TLDR: the online Neo Nazi is the Neo Liberals best friend; if the Nazi didn't exist the Liberal would be forced to invent them (as is kind of evidenced already when non-racists non-sexists etc. are used as examples of racism and sexism).

[Anonymous No.20759921]

>>20759897
Why are you looking for deep sincere thoughts on social media platforms full of the lowest common denominator? Why do you think people are supposed to exist in a constant liminal state of introspection and 'deep thoughts'? I don't use Youtube or Facebook to express my innermost being. I don't go to social functions to debate philosophical positions. I didn't go to school to have my worldview validated. You're free of pretense with people you trust and have mutual understanding. Not everyone everywhere all the time and it's specious to think the world would be a better place otherwise.

[Anonymous No.20759926]

>>20759921
Oh, so are you conceding now?

[Anonymous No.20759931]

>>20749689
>the post

[Anonymous No.20759933]

>>20759889
all the memes dunking on billie eilish lyrics and girls who think they're deep

[Anonymous No.20759950]

>>20756075
The pretense of being more than it is the fundamental way to describe it. But most often people can’t even articulate how a work formally or representationally is affecting this illusive profundity. What specifically within the work makes it fake deep, what is it actually pretending it is, why it doesn’t obtain this ideal. These are all answers one must be able to give when using the critique “pretentious”.

[Anonymous No.20759951]

>>20759926
I'll concede that if you're only window into the world is the internet and college and you have absolutely no peers who share your interests, you will go around thinking everyone else is a soulless hylic and you're the only person interested in esoteric discourse. There are plenty of people willing to engage with your '''deep thoughts'''. You're just isolated from the intelligencia or far more likely nowhere near as insightful and charming as you think.

[Anonymous No.20759956]

>>20759933
(also to be clear, I'm not suggesting billie is a super deep lyricist or anything, but she's babby's first deep thought, a stepping stone. to shit on her for being cringe might debatably be accurate, but it's also to instil anti-intellectualism in the next generation)

[Anonymous No.20759992]

>>20759950
>pretentious
from false pretense;
meaning an affectation; a put-on, an act, a false opinion / a fake comment (with some ulterior unspoken motive : political or self-status).

[Anonymous No.20760025]

>>20754138
From DFW's E Unibus Pluram:
The next real literary "rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew consciousness and hip fatigue.
These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point. Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today’s risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the “Oh how banal.” To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law. Who knows.

[Anonymous No.20760226]

>>20760025
One thing though.
>This country's hard on people.

[Anonymous No.20760321]

>>20760226
So that's it?

[Anonymous No.20760357]

>>20760025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0xIaRaFvV8

[Anonymous No.20760425]

>>20754670
>Demonstrably not, in fact, if this point has not en made before by anybody it means I've discovered something and ought be given a sack of money and a laurel crown in reward for my great genius. If we're being academic about the thing.
Let me preface this by saying I teach academic philosophy. You're doing something I find very common to students just starting to do philosophy. Rather than focus on the main point of the cave anology, that those within see only shadows shaped like the true things which cast the shadow, you're tied down worrying about the practicalities. How do the people in the cave eat? Where do they shit? Are more people ever added to the cave? Your point that they'd starve is true, but that's not the point of the allegory. The allegory is about knowledge and how we perceive the world. You've missed that point entirely, but stumbled onto something that sounds philosophical and so claim it was Plato's point all along. Stop fighting the allegory. Don't worry how they eat in the cave and focus on what Plato is trying to tell you about knowledge.

[Anonymous No.20760446]

>>20760425
NTA, but while I understand the point of not fixating on the literal details, I don't see what's wrong with extending an analogy that is already complex enough to be rich in meaning. He wasn't fixating on literal details, either. That was an uncharitable interpretation of him. You sound like an anti-intellectual buzzkill who refuses to think outside of the constraints you were taught to consider all the implications.

[Anonymous No.20760468]

Because unless you are prepared to commit great acts of violence to achieve whatever goal you are whinging about youre just polluting the air waves. And if youre ready to commit those acts its better to simply do and talk about them after. Be a man of action not some feminized bitch talking a lot

[Anonymous No.20760480]

>>20760425
Another anon jumping in here. You say all this as if pedantry isn't standard fare in every "who would win in a fight between spider-man and wonderwoman" or "what would you have as your last meal before an execution" bargain basement hypothetical. If this is something your students are unironically struggling with before they've even engaged with the allegory on its intended merits (unlike anon, who has clearly appreciated as much and then used it as a jumping off point of mutual knowledge in order to explore further thoughts), then your students are fucking retards who wouldn't even make it through a standard pub debate between high school dropouts.

[Anonymous No.20760484]

>>20760468
yeah because the unabomber's tactics worked so well, really brought about a revolution with that one.

[Anonymous No.20760486]

>>20760446
I think the point that anon was making can work, my issue is claiming that it's Plato's intended meaning of the allegory. I'm fine with finding new uses for existing examples.

[Anonymous No.20760489]

>>20760486
>Plato's intended meaning
uhhhhhh anon... this is hotly contested

[Anonymous No.20760491]

>>20760484
Thanks for proving my point anon! When ted talked no one listened and no one wouldve known his life philosophy. It is only because he was willing to commit great acts of violence that his ideas got out there. And now worldwide there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who ardently believe in his message.

[Anonymous No.20760493]

>>20760480
If you read some of the shit they turned in to me as serious assignments you'd know exactly how right you are.

[Anonymous No.20760497]

>>20760493
Fail them all

[Anonymous No.20760499]

>>20760489
Disagreement doesn't mean that any random take is equally valid though. Posting a plausible sounding reading without any textual support and then stating that there's scholarly disagreement isn't enough to show that's the intended meaning.

[Anonymous No.20760504]

>>20760489
Yeah but only one person is right and its that guy

[Anonymous No.20760505]

>>20760491
they don't believe his message because of him, few know him as anything more than some lone nut, and his actions if anything make people less willing to be associated with ideas that he may have happened to have a point about.

[Anonymous No.20760511]

>>20760493
kek

[Anonymous No.20760515]

>>20760505
This post doesnt even make sense you are just coping because you didnt understand how the unabomber literally proves my sentiment. Dont worry guy. Im right, no one cares to listen to a man bemoan the problems of the world unless hes prepared to take action

[Anonymous No.20760531]

>>20760499
Nobody knows what the intended meaning is. And fixating too much on "intended meaning" when dealing with an author like Plato, whose dialogues focus on inquiry and almost always end in aporia, and who himself acknowledged the drawbacks of writing in communicating intended meaning, is missing the point so hard. If you're reading Plato's dialogues carefully, and a particular analogy causes you to consider the full picture, then you're doing what Plato wanted you to do.

Keep in mind, nobody was trying to claim what Plato "intended" one to think about than you. That other anon was only trying to extend the allegory of the cave metaphor, which you started to seethe over without even bothering to try to examine whether it was a valid extension. I was only pointing out that the idea that Plato wanted people to have rigid interpretations is so laughably absurd that you have to be a cantankerous, unimaginative pseudointellectual to believe it.

Now stop squashing the nascent spirit of philosophy in people starting on the path and start nurturing it. If you're actually a teacher, I genuinely feel bad for your students. You've probably killed many a penchant for philosophy in inquiring young minds.

[Anonymous No.20760534]

>>20760515
uhuh. that's why we're all here discussing philosophy all day, because who gives a fuck lolol.
go back to being dead, elliot, no one read your manifesto.

[Anonymous No.20760539]

>>20760534
Yeah rejects and other losers tend to band together so that their weakness doesnt stick out like a sore thumb. Give it up man. Additionally speaking about philosophy is not the same as whining. Youre incredibly dumb

[Anonymous No.20761285]

>>20759992
Why are you quoting this at me. This is precisely what I am saying. The claim that something is pretentious is the claim that it is a disingenuous act, “putting on airs”, in order to, in most cases, affect more profundity than there really exists in a work. We see this when novelists overuse superficial references to great works of literature in their books. But in many cases, people use this as a buzzword to things which earnestly, sincerely attempt to approach profundity.

[Anonymous No.20761365]

>>20760425
>Let me preface this by saying I teach academic philosophy. You're doing something I find very common to students just starting to do philosophy.
OH REALLY ANON, MEAN I MADE A FUCKING SELF-DEPRECIATING JOKE. jesus h christ.

you are destined for a ditch with a bullet in your head unless you learn how to lighten up and be more constructive and optimistic.

alright, let's ignore this.

>Rather than focus on the main point of the cave anology, that those within see only shadows shaped like the true things which cast the shadow, you're tied down worrying about the practicalities. How do the people in the cave eat? Where do they shit? Are more people ever added to the cave? Your point that they'd starve is true, but that's not the point of the allegory.
Yeah, fair points. But I wouldn't discourage this kind of thinking myself; recalling that extrapolating upon allegory is the same as proof testing an allegory to explore each facet of the thing. You're probably right that young people do this a lot, and it's a black mark against the didactic instructor who doesn't notice the value of them doing this. In my view it depends whether your focus is on the logic, as perhaps a Chrysippus would explain, or whether your focus is on teaching Plato as if he were a Quran or Bible who must be rote memorized and never exceeded or expounded upon, as if the student of logic seeking to be a Fabian Wise Man (MF.Quintilian) must not think logically but this 'idolism' kind of way, which does go nowhere.

[Anonymous No.20761372]

>>20761285
I think I mean to reply to everybody bickering over the word in that thread; the word has a meaning, of course, it's understood when used properly.

>The claim that something is pretentious is the claim that it is a disingenuous act, “putting on airs”,
yes. It's often misused though to refer to polite manners or being well-spoken in our part of the world, and seldom recognized as being "false piety", hypocritical posturing, etc.

[Anonymous No.20761439]

>>20749689
I can see your point but I honestly agree with the anons who are saying who gives a fuck lmao
some people don't want to talk about stuff you think is "deep conversation" and vice versa. each person has their own idea of what deep is and if they don't like mine or want to discuss, who cares? I know what I feel and what I believe in and that's all that really matters
most people i've met in real life (at work, in my family and friends) seem to feel the same way. hard fact of life is that people are worried about their own opinions and problems, not so much about others'. there comes a point where you learn to keep your valued points and ideas to yourself since they only serve you and don't worry what others think. if they ask, give them my 0.02 and then if they want to continue, wonderful. if not, that's fine too.
Can it be annoying? of course. I've got friends my age that spend most of their time on twitter living in the whole memes and irony thing. but it's their life, not mine, so what the hell do i care? who made me the arbiter of taste? Your happiness and sanity in this world has to come from your own confidence (NOT cockiness/narcissim) in yourself and what you believe regardless of what people think

[Anonymous No.20761483]

>>20752477
>I'm not being honest. If I really like something, I'm never going to bring it up to somebody. I don't want to hear their stupid opinion it.
I feel this. I hope you find some friends you can trust to not shit on you though. Sharing something I love with friends who will also cherish it is another great joy.

>>20756075
>Think about how many people get called a narcissist simply for voicing a strong, yet true and even necessary, opinion that makes others uncomfortable. It's a form of aesthetic nihilism. You're not supposed to try to make sense of the world anymore.
I'm thinking about what you said from the perspective of twitter. The thing is, these people are often narcissists, and the thing they're saying is wrong, sadly. Take Elon Musk. He'll say something like "I won't let Tesla employees WFH, because we actually need to get stuff done". Plenty of people agree with this, plenty don't. No one knows whether what he's saying is even true (that WFH implies not getting stuff done), including Elon, but the people who agree will praise him and the people who agree will attack him. Oftentimes when people "make sense of the world" (on Twitter), I find it hideously reductive and harmful to actual understanding.

[Anonymous No.20761496]

>>20761439
>I've got friends
Stopped reading. Nice LARP

[Anonymous No.20761513]

>>20761483
Here's the thing. How can you call Elon Musk a narcissist? Say what you want about him, and believe me there's a ton to criticize him for, he's literally the richest man in the world operating a cutting-edge company with a grand purpose. It's hard to have an ego that doesn't "fit" his station in life. I say the same to those who criticized Trump for his ego. Well, he's billionaire turned leader of the free world. Wasn't he the most important person on the planet? Shouldn't the most important person on the planet have an ego that's capable of leading the world? Imagine if these folks were quiet, uncertain pushovers. We'd all collectively get the "ick", and perhaps disaster would arrive in the ensuing anarchy.

[Anonymous No.20761516]

>>20761483
>friends you can trust
this is my main reason why i don't actively try and talk to people, i think. i just don't trust anyone anymore. my brother relentlessly made fun of every waking movement i made when we were growing up and i think every person i meet is going to snap and tell me i'm a fat worthless retard who should kill himself because everyone thinks i'm weird and no one likes me. i guess i have to laugh about it now because there is a nugget of truth to stuff he's said but it was definitely not constructive the way he said it. I've learned the only, and i mean only, person you can rely on in life is yourself
sorry for the blogpost, that kind of struck a nerve

[Anonymous No.20761610]

>>20755271
If you actually stand up for anything, people shrink back like they're a slug that just encountered salt. Conflict is foreign to people today.
I defended cousin marriage to some of my friends for a laugh, and they basically said "omg are you actually defending incest??" And then moved on because they had no clue how to react.
Outside the internet, everyone will be completely dumbstruck at nonconformity. People think they'll get the internet ratio brigade coming after them IRL but unless you do something that merits a phone recording everyone will just concede immediately

[Anonymous No.20761636]

>>20758761
Thoughts are stamped down because "live and let live" on the plebeian frequency actually just means "everyone has to tolerate my trashy 'refined peasant' middle-class behavior but if they criticize it, off with their heads ".
It's entirely self-serving and dishonest. Also, it's invincible to arguments, because the core axioms are totally populist

[Anonymous No.20761665]

You wouldn't believe the shit that comes out of peoples mouths. I gave up trying to start discussions long ago, now I'm like the therapist for my group. Hearing all their pitiful baby like problems.

>>20761610
>dumbstruck at nonconformity

You'd be surprised what repulsive thoughts fly through the heads of many 'normal successful type' (idk) people who repress these thoughts all day long and grow slowly more and more embittered.

not healthy.

Surprisingly though where 15 yrs ago i'd be the one talking about deep/politics they're the ones who start it now, and I'm the one talking them down from the edge, "people are trying their best in a crazy world" "NO I WANNA RUN DOWN THESE FAGGOTS AND KILL MY CUSTOMERS" "sigh, smile face,"

[Anonymous No.20761677]

>>20749689
>Why is it that any sort of in depth thought, or any deep observation is considered "edgy", neckbeardy or having some type of teenage faux depth?
>Are people just that anti intellectual nowadays?
Because you fell for the late-stage liberal Shapiroist rationalism
People have always been emotional first, and rationalizers second. People are not actually rational in any way. It is impossible to convince anybody of anything with the right argument, and any worldview that depends on this naive outlook is doomed.
These are fundamentally aesthetic conflicts and they are fought on an emotional basis. So insults and even physical violence is more legitimate than argumentation, and always will be

[Anonymous No.20761695]

>>20761665
>You'd be surprised what repulsive thoughts fly through the heads of many 'normal successful type' (idk) people who repress these thoughts all day long and grow slowly more and more embittered.
That's probably true for your generation but I'm an early zoomer and all of these people are basically cardboard cutout pushovers despite their internet LARPing.
And that goes for most gen zvprogs and trads, they're just pathetic

[Anonymous No.20761727]

[Anonymous No.20761928]

it usually is. please shut the fuck up about how some retarded cartoon about robots and underage girls is some deep profound art and get a girlfriend.

[Anonymous No.20761955]

>>20761928
But he was just a shy boy and then the robots attacked and he had to save the world and have sex with all the schoolgirls. The twist is he's literally me.
The message is my metaphysical penis is far larger than my physical penis because the jews stole the penis I should have.

[Anonymous No.20761999]

>>20761928
>t. anti-intellectualism this thread is lamenting
> + strawman

[Anonymous No.20762020]

>>20755598
Sadly, this.

[Anonymous No.20762842]

>>20761999
People keep coming in here and proving the point immediately.

[Anonymous No.20764059]

>>20761610
kek the morally neutral consentual incest discussion literally shatters the mind of the normalfag, always funny to see those reactions

[Anonymous No.20764329]

A good reason might be because how modern entertainment is structured.

Until recently you still had some big budget projects that were completely serious existing alongside more light hearted works. But then Disney found the infinite money glitch with the MCU which are basically comedy action movies. The market demands more of that MCU style on all fronts and the related industries deliver (there are exceptions in form of localised entertainment, like anime or European stuff, but they have their own issues that I won’t get into).

Therefore most people these days are bombarded with the same archetype from all sides and get implemented in their mind that the uncaring, joking nihilist is what a modern man should be. And someone who’s more introspective is labelled as ‘Edgy’ and that’s it.

There has been a slow resurgence of more serious media recently so there’s still hope!

[Anonymous No.20764588]

>>20749689
because sincerity and frankness are masculine qualities and those are bad now

[Anonymous No.20764610]

>>20750884
Damn. Too right.

[Anonymous No.20764955]

This one image exemplifies OP's point perfectly.

[Anonymous No.20765974]

Bump