/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22455100]

>high literature has been the jewel of the crown of all cultural elites in every single civilization, and oral tales were the bread and butter of the common folk
>now, academics care only about race and sex, and the general public only watches 30 second videos all day
>the only people that care about high literature are a bunch of virgin autists that congregate in a mongolian basket waving forum
How did this happen?

[Anonymous No.22455109]

>>22455100
>now, academics care only about race and sex
I’m sorry to say anon but this isn’t true. I know you think every academic is a work transvestite or whatever that only cares about strange things but most still do care about the classics. You go on the net to much. I think your insane and disconnected from reality

[Anonymous No.22455142]

>>22455109
>So you think the sky is blue, huh? Lemme tell you, silly, that it's actually purple!

[Anonymous No.22455156]

>>22455142
Have a pity (you) for such a lame reply

[Anonymous No.22455167]

>>22455142
Anon is right man. As many retarded social-oriented academics as there are, there are still many others who genuinely give a shit about literature, philosophy, and the like.

[Anonymous No.22455175]

>>22455167
This throws a wrench into his agenda though. We must seethe and obsess over troons 24/7. If you don’t you want children’s ducks to be cut off

[Anonymous No.22455180]

>>22455100
OP is to stupid to see how race and sex complicate the human condition and why it’s important.

[Anonymous No.22455185]

>>22455100
Academics are supposed to be the elite? Maybe in 1890.

[Anonymous No.22455340]

>>22455109
OP might be exaggerating, but you can't deny these topics are overwhelmingly popular. It's because they are so easy. It doesn't take brains to make out some discrepancy with current morals, or in fact with the Platonic idea of perfect equality and respect, in writing from centuries ago. But the nuances of meaning that open up when you read oldschool criticism by actual scholars - the current generation of midwit academic worker bees doesn't have the capacity for it, which is already obvious by their lame prose, let alone their infantile thought patterns.

[Anonymous No.22455343]

>>22455340
agreed. anyone that disputes this is lol. try opening up literary critiques from 1923 and compare to 2023 literary professors

[Anonymous No.22455410]

>>22455340
>>22455343

chud moment

[Anonymous No.22455424]

>>22455340
>>22455343
>nooo you can't just hold the dead white males accountable for their misogyny, racism, or colonialism
this doesn't have anything to do with intellectual level of modern academia, it's just you getting zero pussy

[Anonymous No.22455442]

>>22455424
Modern academia is the modern priest class.

[Anonymous No.22455461]

>>22455424
Yes, those modern luminaries also love to feel superior over a dead genius by """holding him accountable""", lmao!
The fact that you think getting laid is some sort of achievement (in your case probably by some insufferable skank) proves the point about infantilism.

[Anonymous No.22455465]

>>22455109
>>22455167
>>22455410
>>22455424
The minimisation and denial of woke influence is hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.22455525]

>>22455465
There are at least two explanations
>the posters are extreme contrarians and whereas the normal 4channeler projects his self-loathing onto society, these posters project theirs onto 4channelers
>the posters are troons or women and only know how to argue disingenuously

[Anonymous No.22455527]

>>22455465
it's bait, newfag.

[Anonymous No.22455538]

>>22455525
There is a third explanation, it's normie/semi-normies in denial in order to uphold the System's values.
Most likely it's a combination of all 3. There's rarely a singular cause of anything.

[Anonymous No.22455824]

>>22455424
Yes let's do literary critique, and all of our thinking, but thhrough a lense of moral accountability. SURELY this is will not limit our thinking in any way.

[Anonymous No.22455923]

>>22455424
> arguing with holes

[Anonymous No.22456236]

>>22455167

[Anonymous No.22456465]

>>22455167
> give a shit about literature, philosophy, and the like.
Yeah, and then they deconstruct it along the lines of sex and race

[Anonymous No.22456483]

>>22455442
Are you complimenting modern academics? Priests were and are mental juggernauts.

[Anonymous No.22456499]

I took about a $100,000 a year paycut to work at a university because people actually do talk about those sorts of things there and have a passion for them. Whereas before I worked for a start up and they just read biographies of rich people, stupid self-development books, and business shit or discussed TV.

It's funny how people hold STEM up as some sort of zone of virtue when it in fact attracts a ton of soulless people.

I now have friends I can actually talk to about Rashi, etc. and they not only know what I'm talking about but have read it.

[Anonymous No.22456542]

>>22456499
>It's funny how people hold STEM up as some sort of zone of virtue
Nobody does this. Most STEM people, including the hyper-successful ones are genuinely bug-people when it comes to shit the average /lit/ person cares about.

[Anonymous No.22456546]

>>22456499
y'know I was going to mock you but that is kind of inspiring

[Anonymous No.22456558]

>>22456499
>STEM up as some sort of zone of virtue
No, they hold it up as being less decayed as a result of identarian mindrot (which is true, but only comparatively, the same trends are absolutely present). You didn't respond to the content of the OP at all.

[Anonymous No.22456691]

Technology is the biggest problem imo. If it weren’t screens, we might still exalt bad literature like we exalt bad television, but it would at least be literature and the objective would be clear. The technologization of our culture has really allowed for terrible things to happen to it.

[Anonymous No.22456718]

>>22456691
Humanity is engaged on building a big machine that turns humans themselves into machines. The mode of thinking currently en vogue, including the gender/race deconstruction, is very algorithmic in its nature. People adopt computer logic and feel very smart doing it, because it feels so precise and satisfying. They will accept "AI" as a genuine mind, because they'll have forgotten what a human mind is supposed to be like.

[Anonymous No.22456734]

>>22456691
>but it would at least be literature and the objective would be clear
Do you seriously believe people didn't posture before this last big wave of technological advancement? That women weren't going out with the latest best-sellers to cafés or to the salon just to be able to say they went? You've got a lot more reading to do if you think this is in any way a new problem. Really, this mindset that so many young men on the internet have where everything came to a head in the 60s and it's all been downhill from there reveals just how little life they've lived. Put on a few more years, read a few more 19th-20th century classics, then you can start taking hard stances on things. Otherwise, you're just going to be tilting at windmills your whole life.

[Anonymous No.22456769]

>>22456734
While I half agree with your position,
>19th-20th century
> classics
Makes no sense

[Anonymous No.22456774]

>>22456734
First of all, you’re no older than middle or late twenties at most so stop the posturing yourself. Second, I was pretty clear that posturing is not the point. If there were no screens, people would still be reading books. If women are going out to cafés and reading books, they’re still reading books, not sitting at home scrolling TikTok and YouTube and watching Netflix. Lastly, culture has totally disintegrated since the 60s. That is not say it wasn’t in decline before, but that since the 60s the pace at which the culture dissolved itself to make room for institutionalization, bureacratization, consumerism, hedonism, and especially technophilia has been ratcheted up to a degree not seen before. You really cannot engage with history seriously and not come away with that obviously conclusion.

[Anonymous No.22457379]

>>22456483
No, they're occupying a vacant position in society, but they're doing an awful job at it. Which is to be expected, they are not supposed to fulfill that role in the first place.
Although your view of priests is very skewed. Of course we'll only remember the very best of any time past.

[Anonymous No.22457434]

>>22455424
>>now, academics care only about race and sex
>I’m sorry to say anon but this isn’t true.
>it's just you getting zero pussy
Pottery

[Anonymous No.22457449]

>>22457434
The truth is constant.

[Anonymous No.22457547]

>>22456718
can you elaborate? this is pretty interesting

[Anonymous No.22457663]

>>22457449
Indeed. As much as they want to deny it, their real behavior is inevitably exposed as they realize they are losing the argument and need a quick smoke bomb.

[Anonymous No.22458470]

>>22455100
It's quite simple really. It's the West........ I have some bad news for you anon.......

[Anonymous No.22458781]

>>22457547
Just an idea I had with regard to the 'Turing test', which is ofc dubious as a concept, but taking it at face value, a machine might ace it by being smart *or* by the humans being dumb, or at least machine-like in their thinking.
Don't have time right now to elaborate too much but anyone interested in the best technology critique ever should read Gunther Anders ('The Obsolescence/Outdatedness of Man'), whom I've tried shilling in countless threads but never got any (You)s...