Durden

[Anοnymous No.21982702]

Why did he demonize self-improvement and champion self-destruction?

[Anonymous No.21982723]

Self improvement leads to complacency while self destruction is eternal potential

[Anonymous No.21982731]

>>21982702
He is the dark side. Et in Arcadia ego.

[Anonymous No.21982755]

>>21982702
Because he's the Lion.

[Anonymous No.21982768]

>>21982702
>
Fight Club is Toxic Masculinity: the book. If you idolize Durden you didn't get it

[Anonymous No.21982772]

>>21982702
>It’s only after we’ve lost everything that we are free to do anything.

He thought that self-improvement was worthless as it only served to help you consoom more. Get a better job to make more $ to buy more things; improve yourself to get a wife so you can make a nice little nuclear family unit that is perfect for consumption. In the end, everything about self-improvement is in service for something else other than yourself.

Self-destruction allows one to fundamentally change their outlook on what it means to operate in modern society. It’s kinda cringe, which is why he an hero’s at the end.

[Anοnymous No.21982793]

>>21982768
This is too shallow a take.

[Anοnymous No.21982810]

>>21982772
>improve yourself to get a wife so you can make a nice little nuclear family unit that is perfect for consumption
Wait, did he actually say that?
Antinatalism is cringe as fuck

[Anonymous No.21982840]

>>21982768
>>21982793
Agree with both of you to some extent.

Tyler is the idealized male of a middle school boy. He can fight, he fucks hot girls, he smokes cigs and looks badass doing it. He's untamed masculinity incarnate-- he doesn't give a fuck about the rules or anyone's opinion of him. He's very much a lone-wolf renegade type of guy that immature young men who want to get more women, or respect among their male peers, look up to as a role model. Tyler's a projection of the narrator's desire to break free of his monotonous, dreary day-to-day life. There's something very appealing about that to many men.

However, he's literally schizo-babble incarnate. He feigns being educated event though most of his 'wise' sayings are pretty shallow platitudes. He's a man with no ambition other than the destruction of the pitfalls of modern society, of which are basic criticisms that have been thrown around for years. Yeah, work is boring and meaningless sometimes and our culture is too focused on consumerism. Got it. He has no vision for an ideal future, and he becomes a literal terrorist that has no greater perspective on life other than seething over the perceived weakness of modern men. He's like if an undergrad student shaped their personality around Baudrillard and the Joker.

He certainly raises valid points about modern consumer society and its effects on masculinity. But he is not a man to be idolized. The narrator realizes this at the end of the book, and so should the reader.

[Anonymous No.21982860]

>>21982840
/thread

[Anonymous No.21982890]

>>21982702
Fight Club is a satire of popular discourse on feminism of the 80s and 90s. Men feeling trapped in decadent bureaucracy founded on violence while women argued that men just needed to stop being evil and that they deserve the same privileges (which ultimately derive from that evil). Tyler is everything the fragile male ego wants to be: strong physically, tough mentally, creative, unhinged enough to derive respect but not crazy enough to set off red flags, and also entirely misses the point of life, having been trained by society to view domination as the ultimate goal instead of a means to an end. He develops a strong cult of personality, and instead of using the club to strengthen one another, they only tear each other down until one dies, whom they then martyrise. This is cargo-cult soldiering, aggression without protection or even purpose. Since all this is a response to women nagging them, the mentality is that anything women do must be bad, so, given the contemporaneous self-help craze, self-improvement is verboten.
Feminists say "men should fuck off and just leave men alone," and Palahniuk tries to illustrate his vision of masculinity divorced from the feminine in the club. In the end, the only way to truly extinguish this drive to harm that society fosters in men is to annihilate the men entirely, and even that won't work, the cult continues without Durden.

[Anonymous No.21982914]

>>21982723
That doesn't make any sense. It seems like you got the message messed up in your brain while it was reconciling it into something palatable.
The idea is that Durden was who the protagonist wants to be.
And at the heart of that is the destruction of everything society has made.
It's not that there is more potential in destruction at all. It is that what we want is destruction.

[Anonymous No.21982915]

>>21982768
>Fight Club is Toxic Masculinity:: the book
You're retarded. Stop thinking in ideological jargon and loaded buzzwords.

[Anonymous No.21982975]

>>21982840
Looking at this from the perspective of someone who has only watched the movie (I tried picking up the book, I thought the prose was awful and could not stand it), I think Tyler is more of a significant character than you're giving him credit. Tyler appears like "schizo-babble" because of sayings like the one OP is referring to which go against more conventional ideas of masculinity that Tyler otherwise seems to typify (ie. "Self-improvement is masturbation. Now self-destruction.../ "Maybe self-improvement isn’t the answer, maybe self-destruction is the answer.", "You have to give up", etc.) Actually, Tyler's quotes are often less "masculine", at least in the idea of the male protector role of the nuclear family that we have come to associate with what men should be, than masculine in a Christian sense. There are echoes of some of the more extreme aspects of Christian morality that are somewhat sidelined in modern society in a lot of what he says: the call to give up all worldly posessions ("It’s only after we’ve lost everything that we’re free to do anything.", "You are not your job, you’re not how much money you have in the bank, etc..") which conflicts with the capitalist image of the ideal male as provider, to calling people to remember their own individual mortality ("You have to realize that someday you will die. Until you know that, you are useless"). Tyler Durden at least in one aspect represents those more extreme spiritual beliefs of Christianity that are typically swept under the rug for the capitalist nuclear family model, like Jesus' proclamation: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, etc.". It's why the moment when he only fights back by allowing himself to be punched to the point of becoming a bloody mess is so powerful, he's showing just how powerful the passive suffering of a man who is not afraid to lose everything can be, as true martyrs do. He's not a role model, but then not everyone can be martyrs. That's also why he believes in self-destruction, because those with true faith don't care at all about self-preservation let alone self-improvement. Tyler's a secular but spiritual martyr in a world that's lost faith. But feel free to call me out on my bullshit if you've actually read the book.

[Anonymous No.21982982]

>>21982914
>That doesn't make any sense.
Correct, Fight Club is about a mentally ill man running away from his responsibilities. Durden is a self-destructive delusion. He's not supposed to make sense.

[Anonymous No.21982992]

>>21982982
I dig that. We can then go to say that the two characters, Durden and the protagonist, are effectually identical but simply have a different way of going about things. Since it is implied that the protagonist is capable of everything Durden does but he does it in an atypical way.
In some very deep level the question isn't even about the dissociation with reality but rather where is the third "good" persona?
The simplest answer is that there isn't one.

[Anonymous No.21982999]

>>21982975
>Looking at this from the perspective of someone who has only watched the movie (I tried picking up the book, I thought the prose was awful and could not stand it)
Stopped right there. The movie is the exact same as the book up until the last section which totally undermines the storys themes and is the reason retards watch the movie and want to be Durden.

[Anonymous No.21983003]

Self-improvement makes you stop once you reach your goal in your life.
Self-destruction? The only limit is death.

Not trying to sound metal, but that's my take. But, please, 4chan frens don't try this. It's just a book. With questionable ideas.

[Anonymous No.21983004]

>>21982810
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqeN2RRR3xQ

[Anonymous No.21983006]

>>21983003
Haven't the best authors always been self destructive assholes?

[Anonymous No.21983030]

>>21982999
>Book: Target is the Museum of Natural History (an entirely different symbol that underscores just what nihilism is aiming at). Marla saves The Narrator by making him conscious of himself (i.e. traditional archetypal role for a female love interest). The bombs fail to go off (it's an anti-climax). The Narrator tries to kill himself but fails and ends up in the psych ward. In the end, he's lost his mind and he sees what he did as an achievement; Project Mayhem still lives (i.e. the violent impulse never goes away).

>Movie: The target is credit card companies (i.e. instead of the true nature of nihilism we get a mission the audience sympathizes with and cheers on). The Narrator figures out he's Durden as a plot twist. The climax is a heroic rescue mission to save Marla (now a damsel in distress). He sacrifices himself by shooting himself in the head to kill Durden and save Marla. He embraces Marla, starts making out with her (even though he just shot himself in the mouth, kek), The Pixies blare, and the bombs go off in the background. There are no consequences and all irony is lost.

P.S. Most retards miss the use of irony in the story as well, for example:
>the violence of the Fight Club is ironic: the characters destroy their bodies in an attempt to reclaim them
>they don't catch that the Fight Club develops into a cult (i.e. Project Mayhem) and its adherents merely sublimated their personal emptiness/lack of agency into a destructive nihilism that's the same thing (only reactionary)

The story is about cultural malaise from a masculine perspective (represented by consumerism and illusory social connections that result in the destruction of the personal identity of the individual and, on a larger scale, a social stratification devoid of meaning or real value) and the turn to nihilism that results from it. The differences between the endings of the book/film change the moral and, as stated before, the movie ends up becoming what it was criticizing. The book is very accessible lit but I'm sure a lot of retards read it after seeing the movie and still don't get it.

[Anonymous No.21983041]

>>21983006
Yeah, they usually kinda are. I discussed with ChatGPT about this, and the most profound response is that, most good writers explore what it means to be human. So, self-destruction is sorta necessary as to one require evidence to test what whether the maxims handed from one generation to another is correct.

However, that pose a concern, self-destruction is what it is - destruction; and destruction is generally widely accepted as a bad thing. So are these writers really good or are they just hypocrites?

What reference can we use to measure truth?

Going back to self-destructive writers, that's why we read them. We don't want to peek into the abyss, but these writers do and we just ask them what did they see.

This pose a question, is self-destruction bravery? Or foolishness? Or was it intelligence especially if you survive the trauma from the exploration?

[Anonymous No.21983044]

>>21983041
Hmm. I think it starts to touch on ontological issues then. Because great things have come from destruction and terrible things have come from creation.
For me the question is beyond the scope of this thread.

[Anonymous No.21983053]

>>21983041
>I discussed with ChatGPT about this

[Anonymous No.21983076]

>>21982914
Wrong. We don't want destruction, we want change. That's why the Devil disguises destruction as change to trick us into sin.

[Anonymous No.21983083]

Because self-improvement oftentimes comes like "little progress is great!", "remember to give little treats to yourself!" "you are loved and capable!".

To man up is to recognize you're a faggot loser and take responsibility, willingly choosing to suffer in order to grow.

[Anonymous No.21983087]

>>21983053
Ayy, it's the only one who reply my texts.

Nobody wants to answer "What do JD Salinger, Chuck Palahniuk, F. Scott Fitzgerald have in common?" at 3 AM. Also, I need the answer immediately. It
still surprised me that ChatGPT managed to give me a good suggestion.

[Anonymous No.21983094]

>>21983076
It is my Truest belief that stagnation is the only real sin so I agree with you.

[Anonymous No.21983095]

>>21982702
because he was the product of a wagie's insanity. really it's because chaos is never stagnant by it's nature of always changing and adapting, of course that lifestyle is dangerous and unsustainable which is why we see the protagonists have their falling out.

[Anonymous No.21983098]

>>21983076
That's a good one!

[Anonymous No.21983165]

>>21982982
>Correct, Fight Club is about a mentally ill man running away from his responsibilities. Durden is a self-destructive delusion. He's not supposed to make sense
>psychoanalyzing characters and narratives
The true mark of the death of the soul is the inability to understand symbols. You, spiritually, are a woman. Ironic, since you will never actually be one

[Anonymous No.21983171]

>>21983165
I am very confused. Why are men spiritually a woman? Whaaat??

[Anonymous No.21983188]

>>21983171
He walked right into that one.

[Anonymous No.21983191]

>>21983188
Oh shi--

[Anonymous No.21983231]

>>21982768
>>21982982
It’s an anti-capitalist crusade, people who complain about muh toxic masculinity are domesticated, oversocialized bugmen and women who will never pose a threat to a vile social order

[Anonymous No.21983239]

If you lift weights to look like the Calvin Klein ads and work hard to get your IKEA furniture, you’re doing the opposite of self actualizing. You have the do things that are dangerous and difficult to really come into your own masculinity. It’s a pretty simple concept.

[Anonymous No.21983243]

>>21983231
I don't see Fight Club as toxic masculinity. They never once hurt a woman. Also, the people who said that, I safely can say never read Solzhenitsyn or any encounters in WW2 or any wars at all. Or history in general. Despite the brutality of Fight Club, it's just a play club in comparison to real world problems.

I think it's time to say we might be taking Fight Club too seriously.

[Anonymous No.21983250]

>>21983239
Maybe masculinity is not caring what people say, especially if it's just isn't a big deal. I understand Palahniuk's stance of consumerism but it's the least of our problems, I think.

[Anonymous No.21983268]

>>21983250
Kind of a bugman “just let people enjoy things” take anon. The real critique is that consumerism has raised a generation of men who have never really had their metal tested. We’re already seeing the negative downstream effects of this and it’s likely to only get worse in our lifetimes.

[Anonymous No.21983271]

>>21982755
That's such a shitty metaphor. Camels don't become lions. The point of a metaphor is to find an analog to demonstrate a concept. This is just pure mental retardation.

[Anonymous No.21983308]

>>21982772
Yeah this is how I feel
I do self improvement for myself but it can be hard to stay motivated
For example I lift and run but I do it for health reasons and because it feels good, there is no hot 8/10 woman dangling at the end of the stick for me
>>21983243
Toxic masculinity isn't about hurting women though?

[Anonymous No.21983342]

>>21982755
>>21983271
Yeah this is shit, there needs to be a logic, like egg, then chicken, then food.
Lions and camels and babies don't intersect.

[Anonymous No.21983366]

>>21982975
I like your point. It makes sense that Tyler isn't advocating for hedonistic destruction but instead offering Hellenistic stoicism. Tyler wants his followers to self sacrifice for a great cause they believe in, not because they were told, but because they wanted to.

[Anonymous No.21983534]

Did self improvement even exist in 1996?

[Anonymous No.21983638]

>>21982702
The Durden character was the embodiment of the masculine drive to DO, to work, to fight, to build. Since the "normal" side of the character is so inadequate, being enslaved to purely desk work, menial and cognitive, the Durden side is a lashing out of the brute force, a force that would be released on productive endeavors, but is instead bottled up until destructive.

I could be totally wrong though, it's been a while

[Anonymous No.21983709]

>>21982840
>he fucks hot girls
>only ever fucks Marla
I think you're giving too much credit to Tyler

[Anonymous No.21983869]

This is one of few cases where the movie easily surpasses the book. It was a good choice to scrap the island meeting scene and the ending in heaven.

[Anonymous No.21983957]

>>21982702
Because the self-actualization of the Aryan man is impossible until the yoke of judeo-capitalism is broken for once and all. This will take tremendous self-sacrifice to achieve.

[Anonymous No.21985511]

A student had already meditated for many years, and said to his teacher, I can't go on doing this anymore, it's all pointless. I practise and practise, one Koan after another and don't wake up. The teacher replied, Good, that seems convincing to me. But try again for three more days. If you can't manage it by then, you'd better kill yourself. On the second day the student was enlightened.

[Anonymous No.21986165]

>>21983869
>the ending in heaven.
He's in a psychward.

[Anonymous No.21986171]

>>21983083
based

[Anonymous No.21986249]

>>21983342
>>21983271
It makes sense if you read Zarathustra.

[Anonymous No.21986264]

>>21982768
Here you dropped your tampon

[Anonymous No.21986270]

>>21986165
Lmao

[Anonymous No.21986279]

>>21983869
The book has connotations that main character is a homosexual

[Anonymous No.21986280]

>>21983308
>Toxic masculinity isn't about hurting women though
It... don't?

[Anonymous No.21987168]

>>21986279
example

[Anonymous No.21987290]

>>21986280
It means "facets of the patriarchal masculine ideal that lead to harmful outcomes," broadly. Things men are expected to do that hurt themselves, make it harder for others to help them, and hurt others. Think powering through a work shift on a broken ankle and ending up needing major surgery instead of just a setting and cast, or refusing to try knitting because that's girly when you might find it satisfying and relaxing.

[Anonymous No.21987347]

>>21987168
> Meets Tyler on a nude beach, spends pages admiring his physique, exchanges phone numbers
> Keen interest in interior design/his apartment
> Tyler (aka the manifestation of a mental breakdown) appears in his life after he is told by his father to meet a woman and get married
> Tyler is the ideal version of himself, aka someone who can fuck a woman (Marla)
> starts a secret man only society to “fight” (in the book this is largely done independent of Tyler)
> Republican politicians try to shut down these “fight” clubs
> Project mayhem is clearly a violent gay liberation movement
> Author was in the closet at the time

[Anonymous No.21987372]

>>21987347
ty

[Anonymous No.21987391]

>>21982755
Nietzsche was a fag and deserved the agonizing fate he got

[Anonymous No.21987393]

>>21982768
Actually it's repressed masculinity: the pendulum. If you don't idolize Durden on some level you're a slave.

[Anonymous No.21987407]

>>21982702
The author was under the misapprehension that men only improve themselves to impress other people. Of course the author is a literal cock sucking faggot so that checks out.

[Anonymous No.21987440]

>>21982890
Tbh as I got older, I realised that women overall just have this nature in them to want to control things. The problem is, although they can get control very easily they more often than not aren't very responsible with it. Or they misuse it that it leads to destruction, most of the times without even meaning or intending to. Eg. Being accepting of things that are blatantly wrong to gain favor.

It always starts in the homes, where they destroy the husband by making him a weaker (simp) version of himself just to survive her (remember that silly "happy wife happy life" motto that basically implies to give in to her every whim which then often backfires long term), or he ends up leaving. Then they have free reign to impose their nature onto their kids and control them in some way. Sometimes it's done covertly, through excess coddling which they claim is "love" but then destroys the kids long term as it leaves them unprepared. Or they impose their own traumas, neurosis, complaints about other people (like their father) onto the kids which they then start to identify with passively. Then the cycle continues where the daughters become like her by being controlling with future partners and kids, and the sons either become straight up incels or end up marry women like her who weakens them which stops them from protecting their kids as they should from her. Both sons/daughters thinking it's the normal way to be.

Cont.

[Anonymous No.21987444]

>>21987440
Cont.

Seems to be the reason why a lot of issues in society stem from absentee father's or weak father's. I feel there really needs to be a balance of energies. Women need to be self aware of their nature and give up this controlling nature and men need to be strong enough to be able to HANDLE that nature so that it doesn't ruin their kids and protect them from it. You need to be the type who is strong enough as an individual that your woman submits to you to keep her own controlling nature in check. If you aren't that type, she will eventually walk over you AND resent you for it to boot. Why do you think even most succesful woman still wants a man of even higher status than them? Behind closed doors they want to feel safe and be able to relax or else they over compensate and try to control everything. Women HATE weak men despite what society tries to say.

You really do need to be the leader in the relationship and she needs to be able to trust your judgement to lead her or else she will try to take over and eventually things won't work out. Follow the woman and it will only lead to suffering (sexless unappreciated marriage or divorce). And I'm sure deep down you've seen this situation so many times.

Seems to be why women are the more neurotic, anxiety ridden types. It all stems from wanting to control things, or not being able to control things

So the question is, what's the solution?

[Anonymous No.21987477]

>>21987444
You're just describing insecure people anon, get over your misogyny. Everyone hates weak men, everyone imparts their neuroses on their kids.
I'm only being dismissive because of how incredibly lazy and common this take is, and how straightforwardly it always plays out for people who embrace it. It is an obvious psyop, as much as mainstream feminism, and just like mainstream feminism, it tricks its adherents into feeling special for not challenging themselves to understand others. If you're mad at this interpretation, or think I'm somehow coping by expressing sincerity, please keep your seething to yourself.

[Anonymous No.21987484]

>>21982723
>self destruction is eternal potential
until you're dead

[Anonymous No.21988543]

>>21987484
everyone will end up dead no matter what

[Anonymous No.21989289]

>>21986249
>it makes sense if
>you read
>zarathustra

[Anonymous No.21989295]

>>21982702
Every interpretation is garbage and so is pretty much every "why" question.
Sure, Tyler Durden symbolises prophet Abraham, coming to save the people. There, good interpretation, eh?

[Anonymous No.21989438]

>>21983271
>>21983342
This. He forgot the last step where the Child becomes the Autist and posts on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.21989453]

>>21987444
>So the question is, what's the solution?
Get over your divorce, stop drinking and especially go back to /r9k/.

[Anonymous No.21989500]

>>21985511
what did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.21989520]

I read this years and years ago, but what I got was that since we all die someday we should all be carefree and embody the dangerous, masculine, spirit as earnestly as possible, to the point of nihility. Natural selection isn't as important to the themes of the book as some think as the most important theme is acceleration unto death.

[Anonymous No.21989558]

>>21987347
>Admires another man’s physique.
Men noticing how attractive another man is isn’t inherently gay. If a man can comment on another man’s body and be secure in his sexuality, I would consider him far less gay than a man that pretends he can’t tell. Exchanging numbers on a nude beach is pretty fucking gay though.
>Keen interest in interior design
There are plenty of straight dudes that obsess over this shit, and I’m sure there are plenty of gay dudes that are slobs.
>Tyler is the ideal version of himself aka someone who can fuck a woman.
Being a rockstar in the sack has nothing to do with homosexuality, and it’s also not the primary reason Tyler is his ideal version. I’d agree if you removed the rest of the content of the book.
>Starts a secret man society to “fight”
Yes, that’s why the book is called Fight Club. Hundreds of years from now men are still going to want to inflict violence on other men, and have it inflicted on them. It’s in out DNA.

All your shit is just the way you see the world because of modern rhetoric. You’re either a homo or a woman. I don’t think you know anything about sexuality or yourself.

[Anonymous No.21989566]

>>21982702
He demonized the kind of vapid self improvement you do to get ahead in the social rat race; the one that ultimately leads to an empty, meaningless existence of consumerism and nurtures neither spirit nor soul, leaving you an empty husk. The self-destruction he champions is his way of breaking out of that conundrum. It is to him the ultimate way to attain freedom and agency over himself, showing himself and the world that his body, mind and soul are his and only his to corrupt and destroy; a destruction not in the service of the machinations of the modern world but purely in service of himself.

[Anonymous No.21990741]

>>21989566
checked

[Anonymous No.21990878]

>>21982702
the ego is a form of control

[Anonymous No.21991192]

Self-help is rooted in cope about being downwardly mobile. Your granddad could afford a house and a muscle car on a Joe Lunchbucket's paycheck. Meanwhile, for you working a 9-5 job is no longer enough, you need multiple income streams and a ‘side hustle’. Stable economic situation and relations are unimaginable in the current climate which demands constant transformation, acceleration, overproduction and overachievement. The self-help genre is geared towards guiding people to accept this as normal, and enter a state of tunnel vision experience of subjectivity isolated within its bubble of the self.

It also creates the myth of "mindset": the notion that your frame of mind is the only thing that’s holding you back from success. You start treating external systemic issues like they're personal character flaws, and then overwork and exploit yourself to meet the ever-accelerating societal expectations.

[Anonymous No.21991284]

>>21982975
great point.

[Anonymous No.21991296]

>>21982810
The author is gay

[Anonymous No.21991301]

>>21991192
That hurt.

Delete this.

[Anonymous No.21991307]

>>21983030
Great take

[Anonymous No.21991306]

>>21991296
Has nothing to do with anything. He literally wrote a sequel where he gets married to Marla.

[Anonymous No.21991676]

>>21990878
But without an ego you are nothing but a husk. You need a little ego. Like salt in the human stew.

[Anonymous No.21991728]

>>21982702
>Why did he demonize self-improvement and champion self-destruction?
Because self-improvement has been comped by the Market, because all kinds of identites are now commodities we buy. Our Psyches are measured by the Market, our livestyles and social gatherings are feedback loop'd with what we see in Movies and Media which in turn is selected because of "market potential" to maximize profits ; the entirety of society is but a Husk, an inanimate body that twangs and twitches ; products meant to evoke from you decisions in relation to a taste, a like, an fucking affect
>here have this, dont you want to be the alpha male!

We are being turned into dogs ; fanbases , consumer behavior as different dog strains.
We are the Hollow Men,
There is no Community outside market relations.
Your house, your school, your holiday vacations, your tastes ; everything is within the Economy.

You see this shit with the trends and Memes that come from Forums like this that are then shown for Profit on Youtube...
To become familiar with the Meme , you had to form a part of the Board Community ; when it is shown in Youtube, the relation to the users is one of consumers and not members of the community.

[Anonymous No.21991903]

>>21991192
That mindset thing was huge for me. Once I admitted that some external things just suck, my depression decreased a lot.