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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 549 KB, 600x800, Schopenhauer.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3531930 No.3531930 [Reply] [Original]

Is it pretentious to only read the canon?

>> No.3531934

You will never read the canon; you will never have to read anything else

>> No.3531933

It's a good start

>> No.3531936

it's pretentious to read period

>> No.3531939

No, but it does mean you are entirely subordinate to the opinions of others.

>> No.3531952

I think it's quite

http://vimeo.com/46671116

>> No.3531959

>>3531939
What's wrong with listening to people who are more educated than you, and respecting that which has stood the test of time?

>> No.3531970

>>3531959
What is education?
Why has it stood the test of time?
The with being entirely subordinate is that you never learn to think for yourself.
May as well be a machine or animal.

>> No.3531978

>>3531939
>>3531970
really clever
really good use of irony
10/10

reiterating an opinion you read about how reading causes you to reiterate opinions

>> No.3531991

>>3531970
*The problem with

>>3531978
Yep

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/lit/chapter5.html

>> No.3531992

>>3531970
Education is a commonly used word.

>Why has it stood the test of time?
The idea is usually that the work didn't rely on the trends of it's time and has benefited from much more studying than the reactionary reviews which immediately come in response to a work.

>The with being entirely subordinate is that you never learn to think for yourself.
But the reader IS thinking for themselves. They use their mental faculties to decide that listening to experts is a good idea.

>> No.3532008

>>3531992
>The idea is usually that the work didn't rely on the trends of it's time and has benefited from much more studying than the reactionary reviews which immediately come in response to a work.

You don't think that's essentially saying that a certain group of influential people liked the work and as a result of their influence convinced people that they should like the work? If you don't like the canon, is the problem with the works, or with you? I think people who subscribe to this idea often feel it is the latter.

>But the reader IS thinking for themselves.
No, they are selecting people to think for them, or at most, picking how they should think. Which mould to use.

>> No.3532048
File: 44 KB, 387x375, 1352343927140.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3532048

really /lit/...it's not what you read, it's how you fucking read it. This entire discussion is disgusting. Read what makes you thirst, that's it that's all. Not even that hard to understand.

>> No.3532071

>>3531959
It creates stagnation. Culture is created by not listening to the rusty oldfags and disrespecting the status quo.

>> No.3532128

>>3531978
No, it's specifically about the canon. Those authors present a fairly consistent view of society, and thus may cause you to ignore significant opinions.

>> No.3532146

It's futile is what it is.

>> No.3534256

>>3532008
So you're thinking by yourself? Only by yourself? You use words, langage, concepts that dont come from you. Your desires, your dreams, your taste, etc. dont come from you.
So what do you mean by thinking by yourself? You have your own logic, your own concept, your own language, your own idea's, etc? I doubt it. I can only think because of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Gadamer, etc, etc.
Someone who "think by himself", who haven't read any of the classic author will mostly say nothing interesting. To say something new, to "think by yourself" you have to master the whole tradition.
I hate people who think they're the universe, with their own idea's, with their own concept, language, etc. They are an island; no one will ever reach them, and they will never reach someone else (why would they? They are the whole universe, "thinking by themself"). Remind me of the Aristotle God, who only think of the greatest thing in the world, himself. What a sad life.

>> No.3534267

MAKE IT NEW MAKE IT NEW MAKE IT Noh shit everything sucks now

>> No.3534268

>>3531930
Why would it be pretentious? It is pretentious to ignore the canon. As i said before, you cant think without the canon, and the canon is mostly the greatess thing that humanity hold. It should be a duty to read the canon.

And why would it be pretentious? By doing this, you're admitting your ignorance, and you consider the knowledge of the canon to be greater than your, which is true and honest. It would be pretentious to say that everything is relative, that your thought = the canon. Like if the little sketch you wrote on a napkin would be the same as Hamlet. Come on, need some humility.

>> No.3534271

>>3534256
>You use words, langage, concepts that dont come from you
Granted.

>Your desires, your dreams, your taste, etc. dont come from you.
To a certain extent that culture influences, sure.

> I can only think because of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Gadamer, etc, etc.
You are ascribing causation to them?
How did these thinkers learn to think?
Is there some original thinker that all thought derives from?

>will mostly say nothing interesting.
They will say nothing that interests you apparently anyway.

>you have to master the whole tradition.
That would be synthesis, and I also disagree.

>I hate people who think they're the universe, with their own idea's, with their own concept, language, etc. (They are the whole universe)

Read as: Nice strawman. I never said it was exclusive.

>> No.3534277

>>3534268
>As i said before, you cant think without the canon
How did people think before the canon?
How did the canon writers think?
How did the creator of the canon think?

> It should be a duty to read the canon.
Why?

>you consider the knowledge of the canon to be greater than you
The OP didn't type anything like that.

>It would be pretentious to say that everything is relative, that your thought = the canon
Don't you mean that everything is equal?
You are using relative incorrectly here.

>> No.3534304

>>3534277
>How did people think before the canon?

First of all, i'll give you an exemple : the word Idea. Idea come from the greek word Eidos, which mean to see. Before Plato, there was no word, no concept, etc. of what we take for granted : "I have an idea". Plato introduced eidos in idea sense to express the intellectual sight, when you see an idea, when you think. Im not english, so its hard to express myself (it's hard to think in english, because i dont have the words). Do you see (lol) what i mean? Without Plato, all of our notion of thinking, idea, etc. would not exist or be the same as it is. Without Plato, we wouldn't say : i have an idea. Idea basicly mean : i have a vision, kind of intellectual eidos, and this sense was only possible because of Plato.

>>3534271
>How did these thinkers learn to think?

They think from somewhere (their language, their culture, their society, rues, etc) but never by themself, like if their self was a kind of supra-historical, non-cultural, etc. You, me and everyone of us are nothing "in itself". We always think with words, which are historical. Read Beckett's trilogy if you want an exemple : what am i? I am words (because i can only express it by words, without words i would be nothing). But words are always historical, changing. No one is thinking by himself, you're always thinking with something that is not you (words, culture, etc). So you can really think without the canon when all you says implies them.

>>3534277
>You are using relative incorrectly here.
I'm using a french expression : tout est relatif. Which means everything is relative to the person who express it. "this book is good" is relative to me, but it is not to you. That's what i means, and my search says that my using was perfectly correct, that's also english.

>> No.3534333

>>3534304
>was only possible because of Plato.
So for the 1000's of years before Plato such thought wasn't possible anywhere in the world, and nowhere else in the world was such thought possible until they learned of Plato's teachings?

Rather silly and Eurocentric.

> their self was a kind of supra-historical, non-cultural, etc.
I was never arguing that for the exclusivity of the self, but rather that the self exists at all, and that isn't exclusively derived from others.

>french
Well, ok. The woes of semantics with non-native languages I suppose.

>> No.3534358

>>3531930
It's humble and necessary.

>> No.3534365

>>3534333
>So for the 1000's of years before Plato such thought wasn't possible anywhere in the world, and nowhere else in the world was such thought possible until they learned of Plato's teachings?

Yes, that's what i'm saying. Can you tell me where in history, before Plato, we used Eidos as idea? Where, before Plato, the notion of "having an idea" was possible. Same with form/matter (which come from greek words of Mother and Father).

Same argument, before Kant, did we talked about synthetic a priori judgement?
Before Hegel who talked about dialectical struggle?
Before Marx, who talked about class struggle?
etc. etc.
Today, we take all those concept for granted, they are common words, but those words were brought in a historial date.

>>3534333
>> their self was a kind of supra-historical, non-cultural, etc.
Let me use a mean exemple : who are you? and please, do not use words, cultural reference like date, era, nation, art, etc. Please, tell me (you wont be able), or ask yourself this question. Be honest. You wont be able to anwser this question, because you'll need something out of yourself to think what is your self. (this is why i wont be able to anwser who i am in english : because i dont master the english langage well enough to THINK in english.

>>3534333
>Well, ok. The woes of semantics with non-native languages I suppose.

Please, google everything is relative... it is a well known expression. I know my semantic is weird, that i make a lot of syntaxe mistake, but everything is relative was ok.

>> No.3534386

>>3534365
>Yes, that's what i'm saying
I think you are confusing naming/defining something with its prior existence. A lot of this is jargon. Something to explain in technical terms what already exists. There were many people before Plato, especially in China. It's not all about Europe.

>who are you?
At this moment, I am person questioning your fallacious assumptions.

>it is a well known expression
It is slang is what it is. Relative is a tricky word though, since it has so many different meanings in different contexts. Your usage seems to be of the "it depends on your viewpoint" or "Each person has their own opinions" rather than "As compared to each other".

This is rather silly, so this my last response.
If you feel that this makes you "win", then cheers for you.

>> No.3534390

>>3534333
i'll give you an other exemple :
Some civilisation in America (before the european collony) didn't have interest in math before european come. So, when they had the number one, number two and the number not-determinated. It is hard for me to explain but, i think you will understand what i mean. They did not have the number 3,4,5.etc. they stopped at 2. So the concept of 3,4,5,etc dont exist for them. They never see 3 objects, this concept dont exist. We can only think 3 objects because of our culture history.

an other exemple. In french, a Sheep is a Moutton. Sheep meat, in french, is also Moutton. There is no difference between the animal and his mean, in french. In english, Moutton = sheep, but the meat is Mutton. There is a difference, a cultural difference (because in England, cook were mostly french cook, so the words used were the french words).

An other exemple : in French, we have the word Blue, in Russian, they have an other word (i dont know the word). BUT, in Russian, they have a kind of blue, that is not called blue. In french, both are called blue. So when a french and a russian see the same coulour, they dont see it the same way. The french guy will say : it is blue! While the Russian will say : this is not blue. (because they have made a difference (différance, Derrida)).

Those exemple are true, i'm pretty sure you can find a validation on internet.

>> No.3534404

>>3531930

Pretentious? No. Limiting in terms of cultural awareness? Absolutely.

>> No.3534407

>>3534390
I am aware.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguishing_blue_from_green_in_language

>> No.3534414

>>3534386
>>3534386
>I think you are confusing naming/defining something with its prior existence. A lot of this is jargon. Something to explain in technical terms what already exists. There were many people before Plato, especially in China. It's not all about Europe.

Well, i suggest you to read a bit of history. Tell me the chinese word of Idea, and please tell me the word for Idea before Plato. Same with causality, form/matter, etc. I suggest you to read some Marx, Structuralism, post-structuralism, Hegel, phenomenology, Hermeneutics (contemporary european philosophy) if you want more arguments.

>>3534386
>>who are you?
As i see, you used english words. You haven't thought by yourself, you thought with words that appeared in history.

>>3534386
>It is slang is what it is
Please, just google it. All words have different meaning in different context, what's the point? "Everything is relative" is a well-known statement, and it is not because you didn't know it that it do not exist.

>>3534386
>This is rather silly, so this my last response.
>If you feel that this makes you "win", then cheers for you.

I dont want to win, i just seek the truth! And i cant win since those ideas are not mine!

If you read this : i think you disagree because, i think, you have a positivism conception of language, while mine is idealism. But please, if you're interested, i've suggest you some of idea (Hermeneutic, phenomenology, Hegel, Derrida, etc).

>> No.3534418

>>3534404
> Limiting in terms of cultural awareness
The canon is the entirety of culture.

>> No.3534426

>>3534414
Not who you've been really to but:
>As i see, you used english words
You didn't build that house.
You used tools with materials to create that house.
The tools and materials together made the house, you had nothing to do with it.

>> No.3534440
File: 150 KB, 782x1002, Schopensaurus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3534440

>> No.3534441

>>3534426
>You didn't build that house.
>You used tools with materials to create that house.
>The tools and materials together made the house, you had nothing to do with it.

this analogy do not work since : you didn't build objects and you didn't build words. Words were never invented, people dont invent word, if they wish. I'm against positivism : people didnt walk the word naming the objects with word. The object began to be notice when the word manifest itself to the man. If you want the entire argument : Sence certinity, Hegel, first chapter of Phenomenology of the Spirit. No words = no perception. All you see is words. Heidegger : word is the house of being, and man live in this house. Word is the mediation between man and object, the is not immediatety (Hegel). Concept are "invented" or "created" alway from words that existed before, so there is no creation ex nihilo.

As i said before, you cant think without culture.

>> No.3534455

>>3534418
As decided by academia.

>> No.3534457

>>3534455
There is no culture outside of academia.

>> No.3534460

>>3534457

Well that's the dumbest thing I've read all day.

>> No.3534464

>>3534460
By which you mean, that which you have least understood this day. Thus ascribe your own lack of understanding onto it rather than accepting your inability to comprehend.

>> No.3534468

>>3534426
An other exemple : Before Rousseau, people were totally scared of Forest, Mountains, etc. Because those things means death, danger.

After Rousseau, and in romantism. Forest, Mountains, Hills, etc. were consider beautiful. And today again, we perceive forest as something calm, peaceful. While pre-Rousseau perceived forest as something dangerous. But we are talking about the same object, the forest haven't change. What changed is the meaning of the words, and the understanding of people. Today, when you perceive a forest you say : ah, this is great, i can go relax. But is it you, by yourself only, that perceive this forest as something relaxing, or is it your cultural surrounding that make you think the forest is relaxing. History is more important and form the subject.

This is also why we call Hegel, Marx, structuralism and contemporary european philosophie : post-modernity. Because we left the supra-historical subject to something more fondamental : history, language, culture. Subject do not have a immediate, supra-temporal relation with object. Their relation is always mediated by language, culture, etc. We dont see the same way the world as people 100 years ago, because our language changed, culture and everything.

>> No.3534469

Is it canon to only read the pretentious?

>> No.3534471

>>3534468
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aokigahara
Today, when the Japanese perceive a forest they say : ah, this is great, I can go relax (kill myself).

>> No.3534484

>>3534471
I dont know if you try to refute me or just post this as a joke, but i'll take it as a joke haha.

An other exemple :
Chinese word for Humanity is : 人
Chinese word for sky is : 天

Look closely. Humanity is actually a drawing of a man (head + two legs).
Sky is the same drawing of a man, + a bar on his head. Like if, the sky is the thing over our head. When we talk about the sky, we dont talk about something that exist (cause in fact, the sky is nothing in itself). Sky means : the thing over myself that i cant reach.

I like this exemple cause it says a lot.

>> No.3534617

>>3534471
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aokigahara

>"Tower of Waves" (波の塔?) by Seichō Matsumoto.
There's no English translation, right?

>> No.3534643

>>3534468
>This is also why we call Hegel, Marx, structuralism and contemporary european philosophie : post-modernity

The historicisation of the subject is modernity. More-over Marx's claim is historical and his claim about mediation is determinate not indeterminate.

For post-modernity you want indeterminate mediation, not determinate mediation.

>> No.3534653

>>3532048

>> No.3534660

>>3534468
>Before Rousseau, people were totally scared of Forest, Mountains, etc. Because those things means death, danger.

lmao

>> No.3534659

>>3534653
Once I read the instructions on a packet of arsehole cream and discovered, by my reading, the secret of capital's expanded reproduction.

>> No.3534663

>>3534484
Why are you ignoring the bar that's in the middle of the man?

>> No.3534678

Pretentious: characterized by assumption of dignity or importance

Canon: the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art

In the sense that you are assuming their importance is valid without recognition of the arbitrary nature of validity, yes.

>> No.3534776

>>3534643
It depends what you mean by post-modernity. I meant by "post-modernity" (if a such thing exist) philosophy who rejected the supra-historical point of you of the relation subject/object.

By exemple :
Antiquity period was Being understood as Physis, or pur presence of Being.
Middle Age was Being understood as creation ex nihilo from God.
Modernity as Being understood by a subject.
Well, "post-modernity" as Being understood as language, culture, civilisation. That's why i said Hegel, Marx, etc were "post-modernity", because, with them, go have left the subject to see that language and history were a more appropriate, and fundamental object to understand being.

>> No.3534805

>>3534776
Marx posits the proletariat as the only subject of history.

Also your schema is disgusting and reductionist.

>> No.3534814

>>3534468

Top lel

>> No.3534931

>>3534805
Well it's a schema i took from Histoire de la métaphysique, from the well-known historian of metaphysic and the writer of Gadamer's biographie Jean Grondin.

And Marx do not take subject as modernist philosophers do. Marx is not interested in epistemology and modernist metaphysics. Modernity is interested in how a subject perceived an object. Marx is interested in the classe struggle in the dialectical materialism. So i hardly see how it is a refutation of what i said, but i could be wrong.

And why is it reductionnist?
Antiquity understood being as physis, which mean as something that manifest itself.
Middle Age understood being as a creation of God.
Modernity understood being as something perceived by a subject (which started with Descartes, who introduced the fondamental concept) and has been the best expressed in Kant who expressed all the conclusion of the nominalism of the Middle Age (and is implied in modernity). As for Hegel, and post-Hegelien, it is hard to say, since we clearly leave the subject/object dualism for an absolute idealism.

If i reduce something, please tell me.

>> No.3534940

>>3534814
Please, if i have said something stupid tell me. Your lel make me feel stupid and i would like to know what is the stupid thing i have said, and correct myself if i have to.

>> No.3535047

The "Canon", which is an absurd term in the first place, gave rise to modern systems of logic. Modern systems of logic gave rise to statistics and primitive computer science. Basically, your computer came from the canon in a no less than direct way.

The combination of Aristotle's syllogisms (quantification) and the Stoic's primitive propositional logic gave rise to modern logic -> computer science -> information theory. Leibniz, Frege, Russell, Turing, and then finally Shannon (the father of modern information theory).

Thomas Bayes, who was heavily immersed in the western tradition gave rise to statistics. Modern statistics and economics were brought to us by other western thinkers such as Keynes and the further revival of Bayesian thinkers.

I can't give you a priori reasons for justifying the "canon", but thinkers in that tradition have made great strides. Perhaps thinkers in non-western traditions could have done this as well, and may have directly pre"thought" such inventions with their theories. But they have no practical results to show.

The western tradition and its canon are pretty important if you want to study the history of the things that have impacted mankind the most - for better or worse (no value judgments here).

Though, (A MAJOR CAVEAT, CAPS SO YOU FUCKING READ THIS AND DON'T THINK I'M A COLONIAL/ORIENTALIST FUCK-WAD) other cultures have obviously made important contributions to algebra, astronomy, etc. I would argue that immersion in non-western philosophy/thought is a necessity, so that's a non-sequitur to my defense of western thought. The importance of other cultures' thought doesn't mean that western thought isn't also important.

>> No.3535059

>>3535047

I'm ignoring important things, such as Islamic scholars preserving Aristotle's texts, the impact of Scholastic scholarship, and a lot of things. This is obviously a simplification of that.

That ultimately has no effect on my argument for the importance of the important works in western thought.

>> No.3535060

>>3534931
>Jean Grondin

So you're using an ideosyncratic schema. You might want to say that in future "Using Grondin's schema of the history of ideas..." because your definitions are uncommon.

>And why is it reductionnist?
Because you've reduced the actuality of history into a trite catechism. Reality has been forced into your categories, that's reductionist. The categories aren't sufficient to contain the content.

And Marx's "proletariat" as a subject displays the characteristics of any Enlightenment subject, only collectively and with the potential for the supercession of the contradiction between the subject and the world.

>> No.3535801

>>3531936
Is it pretentious to read manuals?

>> No.3535807

>>3531936
how do you absorb informations?

>> No.3535840

Babby Stirnerites, individualists and solipsists ruined a perfectly good thread.

>> No.3536838

>>3531930
Whose canon?