[ 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: 37 KB, 640x352, Top Gear S12E01_LP-560-4 Dog[2]-806774541.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4863245 No.4863245 [Reply] [Original]

How come 4channers are proudly promoting patrician literature on this utterly plebeian-creepy website, while traditionally patrician and high-end institutions (Oxford, prestigious journals, etc.) are spouting plebeian content like studies on Stephen King (no joke), or even Laurie Penny's infamous writings?
More generally, how come a website filled with low-value people (i.e. autistic teenagers with no power) promotes patrician hierarchism, while institutions filled with high-value people promote plebeian egalitarianism?

>> No.4863250

>>4863245
Because the world is a joke.

They are promoting Laurie Penny's because maybe they can get some money by having her come speak? Also, "high-end institutions" are seen as Archaic in the modern day, so they have a sweet new PR team that tries to "jazz" it up. Liberal paradise

>> No.4863253

>>4863245
>muh reason
Didn't Kant teach you anything.

>> No.4863256

You are so new it hurts.

I suspect you're female too.

Just leave

>> No.4863260

Money.

Most money in the arts goes to plebian works in a free market, because plebian works are defined by popularity. Therefore, in order to attract the most attention arts programs must follow.

tfw you realize capitalism is egalitarian.

>> No.4863271

>>4863250
>>4863260
I hear you, but this doesn't explain why the modern, plebeian and egalitarianistically anonymous users of 4chan deride anything but patrician art!

>> No.4863272

Because the world has moved on and we're all autistic fucks clinging to the dead past.

>> No.4863273

>>4863271
Because we don't like plebian art?

Because Art should be attested by how beautiful/complex/pleasing it is. Not how well a hollywood team put it together for the most mass appeal to emotional vapid drones (read "the majority of pop-culture participants"

>> No.4863289

>>4863245
4chan is full of insecure elitist assholes desperately trying to prove that their appreciation of one mostly irrelevant subject (hipster music, semi-intellectual literature, japanese cartoons, video games) distinguishes them from and elevates them above the masses.
You'd fit right in.

>> No.4863296
File: 282 KB, 451x600, 7ec.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4863296

>> No.4863298

Read some Kant

>> No.4863331

What did Kant have to say on this matter? Also, why the personal attacks?

>> No.4863339

>>4863331
>babby's first 4chan thread

>> No.4863342

>>4863245
i hope you understand we define what is and what isn't patrician
also
>>4863253
also
everyone here is insecure

>> No.4863345

>>4863339
Thanks for your interesting contribution, will never forget.

>> No.4863347

>>4863331
critique of judgement

>> No.4863351
File: 44 KB, 700x396, subway 9 11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4863351

>>4863345

>> No.4863353

>>4863342
I am not new here, and I understand. It doesn't dampen the fierceness of my question.

>> No.4863371

>>4863353
Your question is built on misconception, abstract essentialism, and false dichotomy.

>come you like reading from top to bottom and right to left, but you prefer sex against the wall???

>> No.4863374

>>4863371
Guess that would be left to right in fact, at least in English

>> No.4863381

>>4863245
Because 4chan is most likely the most liberal website on the web, in a classicist sense, I halso have a belief that a lot of people here are quite intelligent, and when I say here I mean 4chan, not /lit/.

Also, the anonymity allows people to promote books they actually like instead of newness and identity politics and whatever flavor of the month is on everyones mouth.

>> No.4863394

>>4863245
because the people at the bottom need to hold onto pretenses that they are at the top while the people at the top are actually free to do what they like

>> No.4863396
File: 9 KB, 256x196, blankslate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4863396

>>4863381
>in a classicist sense
Tabula rasa?

>> No.4863409

>>4863396
Enlightment ideas basically. Free speech, progressive development (that's basically how the entire site work), right to anonymity and discontent, fan of 2nd amendment and individual weapon ownership rights, supportive of free information on the web, not to mention the openess to sexual deviance.

People (usually newfags) usually thinks that 4chan hate this and that, girls gtfo, and hating on gays because we use faggots, or furrys but it's not really like that.

We only hate tripfaggots and in extent, people who identify themselves as a gender or through any form of social behaviour. Be anonymous, be the argument.

>> No.4863418

>>4863409
Seems like your definingt liberalism by "issues", rather than the philosophy behind it.

>> No.4863428

>>4863418
I said enlightment ideas, the ideas of natural governance and that man has a right to be free. Get fucked you fucking moron.

>> No.4863431

>>4863409
Great post

>> No.4863433

>>4863428
>Enlightenment ideas having nothing to do with philosophy you fucking idiot!

You do realize that the liberal conception of man's rights was contingent upon philosophical arguments, right? It wasn't just FREEDOM :DDDDDD

>> No.4863437

>>4863433
And enlightment ideas wasn't based upon philosophical arguments formed in classic antiquity? I still don't get what the fuck you want. For someone who claim to read a lot of classics you seem like an utter idiot.

>> No.4863439
File: 390 KB, 660x798, 1369615666852.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4863439

4chan:
>Reputation or Position cannot influence what people think of your opinion, everything you say is held up by the merit of what you're saying
>Nobody forces anybody to go to 4chan, or even implies that they should, meaning that everybody on hobbyist boards is interested in that hobby and wants to either learn from others or add to discussions with the sole purpose of educating themselves
>Dissenting opinions are not censored, and there are no consequences for those who reject the "status quo" of what people think

College:
>All truth comes from authority, disagreeing with the Professor is a one-way ticket to failing their class
>Almost all careers require some form of post-secondary education, and the majority of people in any major do not have a legitimate interest in what they're studying
>People who express extreme opinions can face prejudice, expulsion, and criminal charges depending on where they live, and so people who disagree with the norm often opt to remain silent and allow discussions to become an "echo chamber"

>> No.4863441

>>4863409
>fan of 2nd amendment and individual weapon ownership rights

Is that an Enlightenment ideal (at first I wanted to insult you, but I'm really curious whether the right to bear arms plays a role in Enlightenment 'liberalism'.

>> No.4863446

>>4863437
Liberal philosophy is very much grounded in tabula rasa, which was extensively explored and argued. That is why it was in opposition to the importance of blood.

>> No.4863447

>>4863441
Right to defend your liberty and free spech as well as private ownership rights?

>> No.4863457

>>4863439
>>Nobody forces anybody to go to 4chan, or even implies that they should, meaning that everybody on hobbyist boards is interested in that hobby and wants to either learn from others or add to discussions with the sole purpose of educating themselves

Except when they want to shitpost.

>> No.4863464

>>4863457
That's a good point, yeah.

However, it's true of some boards more than others. The boards it seems to hit the hardest are boards for plebeian interests, like video games and sports. Most of the boards where it takes significant effort to acquire the knowledge base you need to join discussions have very little funposting.

>> No.4863470

>>4863464
So why do /jp/ and [s4s] exhibit patrician fun posting.

>> No.4863474

>>4863470
Is it perhaps the case that funposting is itself a patrician counter-culture to the cultures of plebeian interests?

>> No.4863476

>>4863289

this. i take comfort in the smallest thing that might make me better on some level than those with girlfriends and their own house.

but also genre fiction is almost always objectively bad and modern art is like the gay plague.

>> No.4863553

>>4863245
I think you have several problems:

1)You have a view that is restricted to uk and american universities. Elsewhere the curriculum is still very classical. When I studied humanities both in france and italy we mostly studied the canon and occasionally contemporary authors (like tom stoppard and fowles) but never dealt with the plebeian.

2) You assume that users here are low value, but they are fairly well read. A lot of them are either too young to have a position or are people that for one reason or another (mostly because of economic reasons) have chosen another career path even if they still have a strong interest in literature.

So what I think is the case of the affirmation of popular literature in humanities departments nowadays is a distortion that is caused by having private universities charging incredible rates for their education.

If you see courses on Stephen King happen only in those universities that have to attract students to survive. In Italy and France where 80 to 90% of the budget is paid by the state this does not happen.

The result is that the department are struggling to stay relevant in a time when most students choose what to study not depending on what they like or what they need, but depending on the economic return that they will get.

Thus this humanities department try to attract interest by being "down with the kids" and by making courses that target what they consider their main consumer: 17-year-olds who are middle class enough to go to college but not smart enough to get a more sellable major.

The result is that this creates a whole group of people, the truly passionate about literature the ones that have a vocation for it, who are doubly excluded: they are excluded from society at large since they are not useful to make money, they are excluded from the university since the canon is not of interest anymore.
Hence they turn to underground networks and the internet to form groups that share their interest.

I don't believe in those posts that say that is a way just to get status and feel better than others.
I've seen too much too sincere discussion when people talk about mishima or celine, people that seemed really touched and influenced by those authors. I've seen too much love in certain discussions of philosophy, like when there was the guy explaining lacan, to believe that it's all about one's ego (even if there is certainly a little bit of that too).

>> No.4863557

>>4863371
Your answer is built on pretentiousness, refusal to admit common concepts of this board, and ignorance of the writings of Roland Barthes about mass culture.
Now do your homework, kid.

>> No.4863569

>>4863557
I'm well read of Roland "language is fascism" Barthes, he's the antithesis of Harold Bloom.

>> No.4863572

>>4863409
>>4863553
I agree with both of these.
As a hippy Christian kid raised w/ no tv, who later self-educated by reading al classic literature I could get my hands on and learning French and Hebrew (nice to live in Berkeley,Ca), I have found an amazing group of peope who are actually interested in the literature that I enjoy.
I am so glad for the occupy movement: never would have come to 4chan otherwise. (realy mostly only enjoy /lit/ and sometimes /ck/)

>> No.4863586

>>4863553
Thanks for your post. I am actually French and I know that our universities are not too plebby as for their programs. However, the students themselves are often maximal plebeians (lit majors read Nothomb in their spare time, when they do read something) and... anyway French universities are irrelevant, as you know, on a global scale. UK/US colleges show us the sad way.
Regarding the low value of 4channers: they are well read on /lit/, for sure, but they're socially despised because young, poor, not "a minority", and not obedient. Hence they're labeled white trash, even if they read Gilgamesh in Akkadian.
Can't answer more for the moment, I'm on a phone and battery dies!

>> No.4863596

>>4863586
>anyway French universities are irrelevant, as you know

That's because real French higher education happens at the grandes écoles, not the shit-tier, public, legally-obliged-to-accept-every-student institutions known as universities. The ENS is the equal of any American or British school.

>> No.4863606

>>4863586
>plebby

>> No.4863617

>>4863569
Barthes was fucking destroyed by Nabokov at the time when he was supposedly "relevant", The Death of the Author is a moronic belief, because it nullifies the entire point of communication.

>> No.4863624

>>4863596
Not that anon, but I don't think that french universities are so bad. I've been to a couple from Paris XII to the Sorbonne to Bordeaux and they are pretty cool. The problem is that university are not valued on their teaching ability but on their research.

So it's clear that universities with a lot of money lead because they have more money to conduct experiments and to print and distribute articles.

And this is also a reason while non us/uk universities are lagging behind: while everyone reads their scholarship because not only is in English and they have the money to print it and distributed they are completely insular and rarely read (let alone quote) research that is not validated by their institutions.

And yeah this is the way it's going and it's not surprising, I always knew it because most of the literature I read warned me to be distrustful of illusions of progress.

>> No.4863628

>>4863245
All of this has to do with your own judgemental attitude and sweeping generalizations about groups of people. This does not deserve an answer and no one else should reply
Fuck off kid

>> No.4863634

>>4863617
Too bad Death of the Author is seen as a foundational element in contemporary theory. Lit. theory now dictates that the author is largely irrelevant when interpreting literature.

It's bogus, man.

>> No.4863641

>>4863617
But why do you people confuse the death of the author with a belief when it is actually a fact.

I mean your inability to accept the consequences has no effect on the fact that the author is dead. And it is not dead now because we killed him, but it has always been dead. The point is simply that doing literary criticism by trying to find the intention of the author does not work with writing.

I really have a hard time to understand how anyone can believe that the point of literary criticism is to construct an author function and decide what he meant while knowing anything about either reading or writing.

>> No.4863642

>>4863617
Pretty sure it was mainly about fiction, bruv, (especially in the sense of "writerly" text--a text that isn't writerly is like Atlas Shrugged).

But, hey, let's address shit like philosophy. If we have to consider works purely from author intent, then a lot of philosophy is pretty much useless. The movie version of 120 Days of Sodom applied a totally different meaning to the work; is this not acceptable? or maybe we're only allowed to perceive this meaning when we watch the film? would it be forbidden upon reading the work?

What about the Bible? Imagine, we can't ask ourselves what something means except as explicitly intended by the author. How drab.

>> No.4863645

>>4863624
>The problem is that university are not valued on their teaching ability but on their research.

Maybe there is a lesson to be learned from Germany here, where the universities are specifically teaching institutions and research is typically done in separate (but often embedded) 'Institutes."

Because yeah, it's true that anglosphere universities are concerned mainly with research, and teaching is basically a secondary concern. These universities have tons of money so they can fund a lot of good research by brilliant people, but they're potentially failing to train the next generation, and all that money is going to be worth nothing if they have no-one but sub-par researchers to fund. Or we may see the anglosphere higher-education bubble go through constant cycles of upheaval as the newer generations are required to endlessly "reinvent the wheel" so to speak.

>> No.4863646

I have a better question OP. Why are you so insecure that you must use terms like patrician and plebeian outside of their intended meaning to mock the tastes of others and elevate your own taste? Why can't you just let people enjoy things without mocking them? Oh that's right, you are insecure so you must bring others down to elevate yourself. Carry on then.

>> No.4863651

>>4863646
Because open communities with no barrier to entry or to the highest levels of participation, like 4chan, cannot survive without adopting an attitude of abrasive elitism. Go to reddit if this bothers you.

>> No.4863653

>>4863245
Because universities use familiar "plebian" literature as a foot in the door to attract students so that later on they can introduce them to more advanced texts and criticisms.

4chan is full of people desperately seeking validation and a sense of identity so they regurgitate the most high-quality texts they've read, half-read or pretended to read so that they can impress people on an online forum and go back to playing video games and holding onto that last remaining sliver of superiority they hold dear.

>> No.4863654

>>4863353
>It doesn't dampen the fierceness of my question.
Jesus you're a bad writer.

>> No.4863658

>>4863645
Or just outsource the teaching part by importing more grad students from foreign countries.

In this way they can keep cultural hegemony with monetary hegemony.
If anyone wants to make a career in research has to accept first their assumptions.

>> No.4863660

>>4863634
And that begs the question of the quality of contemporary critical theory, doesn't it.

The Death of the Author is built on the assumption that the author does not want to communicate or even if he does that the reader has the privilege to totally disregard it.

Imagine that in any other form discourse, wether it's talk about the weater, a job interview, instructions on how to build a space rocket, writing love letters, speaking to your mother, being sweet to your girlfriend, political debate and so on...

Come to think of it, the only events where this regularly happen is when adults communicate with either animals or infants. This is how lowl critical theory now finds itself: "Agagah, aboo bee boo gaga goo"... "Oh look he totally said that Momma is a cutie, didn't you" or "Meow, meow meow" ... "Awww, couldn't you hear... Fluffy wants us to pat her belly, didn't you... didntchuuuuu".

It's dreadful

>> No.4863661

>>4863653
Yah brah. Keep believing that no one appreciates good literature and that having standards is all about being self-important.

>> No.4863662

>>4863660
I don't think you even understand what death of the author is about. It's about literary criticism, not shit like office memos.

>> No.4863663

A big reason, I think, is that in modernity everyone is motivated, and often pressured, to live a busy, fast-paced life. That leaves little time for serious contemplation. Sure, everyone thinks about things, but most people seem to me to be too busy to really follow a longs trains of thought, even (or, perhaps, especially) those at high-end institutions. The benefits of idleness have been for the most part forgotten; those that value idleness don't take advantage of it. So what I'm getting at is that here on 4chan, where a good portion of users are NEET, and those who aren't still often have a lot of time to spare, have more idle time, more time spent in contemplation. For this reason I think a lot of us value and enjoy literature of a higher standard.

Also, universities, being egalitarian as you said, necessarily need to lower their standards if they are to achieve the equality they yearn for. A healthy society won't lower its standards to accommodate those at the bottom of whatever hierarchy, but try to help those at the bottom achieve higher standards. Having elitist groups who are highly respected for their high standards is ultimately good for a society, because that those not part of that group will have a higher standard towards which to strive. 4channers are striving to be 'patricians', and those who put in the effort do actually better themselves and then soon realize how silly they were for bettering themselves for the wrong reason (i.e., to be a patrician) -- the benefits of hard work are far greater than being able to consider yourself a patrician.

I won't be surprised if this post is derided. What I've always liked about you guys is how self-critical you are (this scrutiny helps encourage thoughtful posts, if we can for a second set aside the 'trolls'). Anyway, I'm just speculating. I may be wrong here.

>> No.4863664

>>4863245
Because 4chan likes to construct barriers and concepts of what's good and what isn't and defend them like pitbulls.

Having a clear definition of what's "good" makes you seem good by assosiation and it's easy to dismiss all nuance in appreciation of art and literature as being shit because it's not part of the esoteric catalogue you've built in your mind.

Has anyone here ever been to the Louvre? There are two gorups of people there, those who just want to see the Mona Lisa because it's the best piece of art, and those who scoff smugly at the tourists because the Mona Lisa is an overrated piece of crap. 4chan is that second group.

>> No.4863667

>>4863651
I wouldn't say it bothers me, I just find it silly that someone would derive such a great sense of worth just because they read "elite" works of literature. Reading is just another form of escapism, no need to turn it into a dick measuring contest. But really its the frequent use of patrician and plebeian that I find the most inane

>> No.4863671

>>4863245
If chantards can't even contain it when someone mentions their gender (or if they were a GIRL), why do you expect them to conform to Academic standards (which is arguably shit).

tl'dr: You're a shit and everything is shit.

>> No.4863673

>>4863642
Trying to understand the author and a books message doesn't mean you agree with it. If you are going to be CRITICAL you have to fucking understand what you are going to be critical against.

And is "drab" actually your argument for an entire scientific field?

>> No.4863678

>>4863662
Office memos are literature wether you like it or not, but that is not the point. The point is that you stupid and doesn't understand that fiction is a form of communication.

>> No.4863681

>>4863660
Critical theory at the moment is a joke; however, the sad thing is that most English university tracks live by it to some extent.

The problem I have with the death of the author, is like you said, the assumption that they are not trying to communicate or do not really know what they want to communicate to the reader. I really think there needs to be more balance between authorial intent and reader interpretation.

But as Feminister said, authorial intent does not really work well with writing and analysis. Even if you go through the author's biography, essays, personal letters, etc. your interpretation of their intent (regardless if it is correct or not) is really not going to lead to anything worthwhile, at least not in crit theory's eyes anyway.

>> No.4863686

>>4863678
Fiction is a form of art.

>> No.4863692

>>4863673
>scientific
Ha, almost had me, anon

>> No.4863696

>>4863686
And art doesnt COMMUNICATE anything? Well I'm glad that you've come to terms with contemporary art at least.

>> No.4863701

>>4863696
Art communicates, but in a way that is subject to interpretation

>> No.4863702

>>4863692
It's a social science.

>> No.4863705

>>4863245

Because "patrician" as we define it on this website is an intense interest in something. A patrician on /lit/ is someone whose whole life is literature and they are curious people and they seek out literature wanting to grow more and more (usually toward form and away from superficial things like plot).

Schools are basically trying to get you to think critically or to create well-rounded human beings. I guess the presumption is that literature is but one of many things you're filling your mind with.

>> No.4863707

>>4863702
There's "social science" as research that uses detailed research and scientific method, then there's "social science" as an honorific for humanities.

>> No.4863708

>>4863245
cause we have too much time on our hands. regular people with jobs and lives don't have the time.

>> No.4863709

>>4863701
Everything is subject to interpretation. That doesn't mean that you are exempt or absolved of trying to understand the creators intention, unless you seek the most shallow experience of it, thus removing the part of being critical toward art.

Even the most outright and straight-forward military orders are subject to interpretation, which history has shown numerous times.

>> No.4863717

>>4863289

Everybody has one thing that "elevates them above the masses". I don't think anyone thinks they are a better person, but it's pretty evident that the more you read (critically), the more you know about literature. If the subject is books (which is always is on this board, one dedicated to books), then I might feel superior to someone who doesn't read. But I'll defer to a motoring enthusiast if I was talking about cars.

>> No.4863721

>>4863660
I think you heavily misunderstand the concept.

So let' go in order:

-First of all do you agree that language when used in strong rhetorical ways is by nature equivocal?

-Do you agree that the author while an important authority on the text is not the ultimate authority? If the author says "that's what I meant" it cannot be taken face values. Author know that often they themselves do not know and what about when they openly contradict themselves (good luck trying to understand from flaubert what madame bovary is).

3) Do you agree that once the author is that, contrary to live conversation, we are even much more in the fog because we cannot ask him questions? We find for example a deleted passage. Why was this passage deleted? Was it deleted because of pressure from the editor as he claims in a letter to a friend? Or was it deleted because he didn't like it? The passage is present again in the third edition and not in the fourth for example. Should we use the standard edition to understand what the author meant or should we use the extended third edition? And what does that passage mean?

Of course you can make some investigative work and you can try to come up with your best guess but it's a desperate enterprise and you understand that the more you purse the authorial intention the more this becomes a fiction that you try to construct out of pieces of texts. A thing that might even not exist because it was fragmentary to begin with: maybe the author started with an intention and then stuff happened and he just kept working on the work with a complete different set of problems.

Trying to piece what the author meant, is almost as desperate as trying to understand who the real batman is by trying to piece together all the information you get from the comics, the movies and the tv shows. Of course there is no one real batman, there is different fragments, images, inventions and reinterpretations.

The final point is: the author reinterprets and revisions his intention multiple times and is as obscure to him as it is to you, there is no use in looking for it beyond the principles of charitable interpretations.

>> No.4863725

>>4863709
Military orders are subject to interpretation, but they aim to avoid that, which is probably why they aren't given artistically--interpretation in art, each viewer finding his own meaning and value is one of the major points of art itself.

"That painting reminds me of an experience I had as child--"
"STFU THE PAINTER DIDN'T *INTEND* THAT!

>> No.4863748

>>4863725
Yeah, I was talking one time about farewell to arms to a grad student from harvard. And his point was that farewell to arm is just about hemingway's experience in war. Why? Because Hemingway says so in a letter.

And I'm "but what about the fact that 90% of the book happens outside the battlefield?" "It's all about his experience of the war." "And what about the cosmological reflections at the end of the book?" "Nope, he says that it's about the war in a letter and that is final."

Also most people don't realize that the death of the author is actually a consequence of the kantian idea of beauty in the critique of judgment. That is the idea that art is finality without concept, which can be paraphrased that art is communication without meaning.

>> No.4863818

Because people on the internet are forced by institutions and public organizations to plebitize their curriculums

>> No.4863819

>>4863818
Aren't* forced

To add to that just realize that there is a lot of public pressure and your reputation to protect.

Oh you want to not diversify your or pleb out your curriculum, RACIST?

If you haven't noticed the people who who fight for all this stuff basically hold a gun to every other organizations head and thereaten them with negative attention and boycotts

There is no more free speech. If you don't agree you either are bashed into submission by the media or you succumb.

>> No.4863830

>>4863381
>>4863409
What a load of rubbish, lol.

>> No.4863832

>>4863721
>The final point is: the author reinterprets and revisions his intention multiple times and is as obscure to him as it is to you, there is no use in looking for it beyond the principles of charitable interpretations.

No it isn't. Have you ever written anything? Fiction isnt magical hocus pocus. If the author decided to stop editing and finalise his work then that is what you live with. Not everything has to have meaning, but you are still subject to the author the creater of whatever was written. It is still communication from one person to another, the text or the fiction is purely the medium. And you still have to understand what the author is trying to say.

>>4863725
Strawman

>>4863748
I think your definition of war is little bit weird. If I lived during the second world war but stayed at home, and never fought a single bit. Would that book be about my experiences during the war? Maybe that was what Hemingway was trying to communicate? You see trying to understand what the book was to him and why he wrote him gives us a focal point of trying to decode the work.

But I think he really was talking about his childhood abuse because I had this experience when I was younger...

>Also most people don't realize that the death of the author is actually a consequence of the kantian idea of beauty in the critique of judgment. That is the idea that art is finality without concept, which can be paraphrased that art is communication without meaning.

I doubt you've read Kants critique of aesthetic judgement, because then you would know that your comparison is as ludicrious as saying that the Holocaust was actually a consequence of the Nietzschean idea of a übermensch.

But anyway, you're all dead so why bother arguing with a bunch of spooks on internet.

>> No.4863834

>>4863830
Nice argument

>> No.4863842

>>4863834
Meh. I was just laughing. 4chan is the land of shameful depravity, not high value of argument or tearing down gender, lol.

And then I doubt the /lit/ board (or wherever) is so bunch of egoless geniuses, but more so that anonymity allows a freedom of retardation/uncastigated intellectual growth

>> No.4863847

>>4863842
I guess that second part ties in with what you said, and there's something good in that, but way to over-romaticise dude

>> No.4863851

>>4863842
>>4863847
And there's also something good in the first bit, I think, in that it brings about the addressing of issues that wouldn't be addressed otherwise ---but that's a different sort of romanticisation, less vain.

>> No.4863857

And then why hate tripfags? Because you're a fucking faggot, lol.

>> No.4863866

>>4863847
Over romanticizing, yeah you are probably right. It's hard to condense something rather complex to something small in one post, but I still believe that 4channers are overly liberal. And when I say classic liberal I mean the kind that are inspired by the enlightement ideas and the classic ideals, instead of what have become contemporary liberals (progressives) whom often argue for censorship, bigger government and less self-control and sometimes social engineering programs.

I mean that is what 4chan does, spend enough time here and you will eventually come to the conclusion that it is virtually impossible to create an artificial system leading to a society that works perfect – try to fit all the ideas and the sad and weird people into that system. It's impossible, only a liberal society can enable a world like that (far from perfect) but respecting to all peoples opinions and values.

>> No.4863872

>>4863832
Yeah I have even published a couple of short stories here and there.

And I don't know why you think I'm arguing for a magical hocus pocus. There is nothing mystical in what I'm saying nor magical.

The fact is that literature is not a product of a communicative effort (like I'm doing in this post) but it is the result of multiple forces.

When I write a story I'm not trying to make a point, I'm mixing ideas, moods, experiences from my own life, quotations, jokes that are funny and sentences that are in there just because they sound good.

There is no finality to the process and often it is done in multiple times. Like one story I published was completely rewritten five years after the first draft. I just picked apart whole paragraphs and inserted them in the new structure and rounded them so they would have a sense of elegance in the whole.

But there was no meaning, there was no intention, there was no "what are you trying to say?"

>I doubt you've read Kants critique of aesthetic judgement, because then you would know that your comparison is as ludicrious as saying that the Holocaust was actually a consequence of the Nietzschean idea of a übermensch.

Why do you doubt? First of all is not aesthetic judgment, but just judgment. He inspects the faculty of judgment and the aesthetics are just the first part of the book the second is teleology in nature.

Second I don't think it's a stretch. Finality without concept means simply that we see an organization that points to an end but we can't know what that end is.
It's not different then how we see a communicative intention in works of art (we recognize that there is a subject behind them) but we don't see what they actually aim at.

>But anyway, you're all dead so why bother arguing with a bunch of spooks on internet.

This is a common misunderstanding. If I can reply there is no really death of the author, the death of the authorial function kicks in only when the author cannot or does not produce further text to explain his meaning.

>> No.4863874

>>4863866
I like to go into trap threads and loli threads and explain their fetishes to them, lol. It's funny too, they're all ears.

>> No.4863882

>>4863874
I'd finished doing so one time and some anon created a "creep" thread with an unusual addition to the OP of "Why do we like this stuff?" 4chan is humanity's dark or miserable side, afraid to come out in the light, nothing more --and it doesn't want to be that way either. The egotists flock to forums where they have names, to wallow in the attentions of others; that's where you're going to find intelligence, such is the world.
>liberalism
>being addicted to traps and loli and doxing 14 year old girls
lol

>> No.4863883
File: 36 KB, 625x626, bait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4863883

>> No.4863890

>>4863882
It is a beauty as far as the pscyhologists are concerned, though. No student of the human animal is worth his salt if he's not making some study of 4chan.

>> No.4863892

>>4863342
What does insecure mean besides "they're mean I don't like them"?

>> No.4863898

>>4863874
Well I don't go into the loli threads because that shit is just too weird.

>> No.4863900

>>4863898
Sounds like you're a closeted lolicon
t. psychologist

>> No.4863903

>>4863882
Was Marquis de Sade a liberalist?

>> No.4863904

>>4863874
What are the explanations?

>> No.4863918

>>4863900
Nah, I think it just really disgusts me, to be honest. I spend a long time ashamed of my sexuality, too (afraid of myself, basically), and I guess I really don't appreciate seeing children being objectified by that, as though it's the ultimate extreme of that frightening animalism. And there's also less psychology to it, I think, less humanity, but that it's just straight monstrosity or on the verge of it.
>>4863903
All faggots are liberals?

>> No.4863923

>>4863904
Traps is women as men, men as shameful men, but they're men too so it's okay, let's fuck. DP, bukkake, all that stuff --it's a lusting after brotherhood, basically. There's a rationality behind all of it, always.

>> No.4863926

>>4863918
spent* spent
I'm over it, lol.

>> No.4863928

>>4863923
That seems awfully freudian.

>> No.4863930

>>4863928
The man knew what he was talking about for the most part.

>> No.4863931

>>4863832
>Strawman
Fallacy fallacy

>> No.4863937

>>4863930
Ha....hahahaha..HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>> No.4863943

>>4863918
I was just fucking with you anyway. Not everybody that's grossed out by something secretly wants to fuck it. I think shit smells gross and I avoid going into dirty public bathrooms, but I don't have a shit fetish. I have a piss and tit milk fetish.

>> No.4863945

>>4863937
What's obvious is obvious, mate. So you're going to read what I said, attach Freud to it, and then discard it? Or what? Would you like to talk about Freud?

>> No.4863947

>>4863923
I think it's just pavlov'd from jerking off to porn. If you watch hetero porn instead of lesbian stuff you're jerking off to girls and dicks that aren't your dick. Eventually the brain begins to like seeing dicks in order to get off.

>> No.4863948

>>4863943
Your tit milk fetish is fucking hilarious, mate, lol.

>> No.4863953

>>4863947
Interesting idea,

>> No.4863956

>>4863947
That open doors, too, I think, and is incredibly informative as regards what sexuality is, but there's definitely the rational consideration to it that I'm talking about too.

>> No.4863958

>>4863948
I figure if you're gonna have a fetish, it may as well be tits. Big ol' lactating h-cup tits.

>> No.4863959

>>4863945
That wasn't me. I'm not sure on what grounds you claim Freud was right. No modern psychologist takes him seriously any more. Something as vague as the need for companionship generally has no effect on what people are sexually attracted to. Concepts like sexual imprinting have far more weight these days.
There's very little rationality behind things people do. Just evolutionary hang-overs misfiring in modern contexts.

>> No.4863960

>>4863245
>How come 4channers are proudly promoting patrician literature on this utterly plebeian-creepy website
because of trolling, and because we are the only patrician tear thinkers left on the internet
You have already taken the bait, I just have to watch you correct my grammar.

>> No.4863961

>>4863958
Snooze fetish more like.

>> No.4863963

>>4863956
I mean it's not just "oh, needs another dick for extra stimulus". That's not how sex works. Dicks, tits, etc. ---they're just triggers really, inert outside of rational consideration, and two dicks isn't better than one, lol.

>> No.4863967

>>4863961
That's the point

>> No.4863971

>>4863959
Incorrect, we're massively rational, just programming lusts. It's like with Stockholm syndrome for example. The tabula rasa is largely true, just that outside of it we can program likes or dislikes ---none of which are ever truly irrational, we're not so random as that.

>> No.4863972

>>4863963
well another thing to consider is that when you jerk off your body's also adjusting to the feeling of having a dick in your hand when you jizz
That's maybe why after a few months of not getting laid but jerking off all the time, it can be hard to get it up when you bang a girl.

>> No.4863974

>>4863971
>stockholm syndrome
I really, really hate this term. It's fucked up to tell women that their sexuality is some kind of disease

>> No.4863975

>>4863971
Incorrect yourself. Define rational. There's nothing rational about sexual and romantic attractions to buildings, yet it happens, presumably due to imprinting. Most paraphillias are irrational. You're talking bollocks.

>> No.4863976

>>4863972
I really fucking doubt that's true, mate, lol. Wet dreams are also a resounding example of it all being mental, really, though.

>> No.4863977

>>4863975
But your house loves you enough to keep you warm, why shouldn't you love it back?

>> No.4863982

>>4863975
It's not just imprinting, though, because that fucks the whole thing up. There's always a "what if" to it, a rational consideration, otherwise we are indeed truly retarded. Feelings are another sort of awareness, really. They're not the blinding thing some people make them out to be.

>> No.4863983

>>4863977
Who said anything about houses? It's become painfully clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.4863984

>>4863976
You can learn to get off to feelings as well as to images, man, just like if you bang a girl doggy style in the ass a lot, it'll be different when you go back to missionary in the cunt.

But of course it's all mental, I do agree to that. I've had wet dreams about just jerking off, though

>> No.4863985

>>4863974
It doesn't just apply to women dude, but men too. It's just a resounding example.

>> No.4863987

>>4863983
A house is a building, m8

>> No.4863989

>>4863984
That's interesting, lol.

>> No.4863994

Well this is a delightful conversation, lol.

>> No.4863995

>>4863272
overlooked comment right here

>> No.4863997

>>4863985
I was 'avin' a laff at womyn's expense, m9, but I do still hate the term. If a guy's charming he's charming, it doesn't mean the other people have a disease.

>> No.4863999

>>4863995
>my own comment right here

>> No.4864000

>>4863983
>It's become painfully clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I think this is the sentence that best sums up this websites proceedings

>> No.4864001

>>4863982
True, it couldn't solely be imprinting because otherwise we'd have no standard sexualities, they'd all be completely all over the place. But it's not down to something like a need for brotherhood or whatever you were saying. The unconscious processes of the brain simply don't work like that: it's as silly as saying that boys literally want to kill their fathers.

>> No.4864002

>>4863995
More like "typical comment made in every thread" here. I think autism and nostalgia are probably /lit/'s favorite go-to self-insults

>> No.4864003

>>4863999
i just came into the thread m80 and i happen to agree with that anon
its not like its a contentious statement anyway

>> No.4864006

>>4863987
No shit, you're still retarded.

>> No.4864008

>>4864006
That's not nice

>> No.4864016

>>4864001
It very clearly is, though. There is a lingering lust for unity deep within us all. Some of it comes out when you're paying attention to a person, for example, and when they'll move suddenly, you will do --it's harking back to primordial programming, the child in a bid to become those around it. Eh, I'm going to muddle things a bit here, but people forget that we're primarily feeling. This is where bias comes from, for example, and often the individual is completely unaware of their being biased.

>> No.4864019
File: 255 KB, 384x288, 1396356897302.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4864019

What a fucking catastrophe of a thread.

>135 posts and 5 image replies...

>> No.4864020

>>4864016
There's a kinda paradoxical relationship between feelings and thought.

>> No.4864021

>>4864019
Shut the fuck up, nerd

>> No.4864023

>>4864016
There's still no reason to make the leap from "lonely" to "wanting to fuck a boy who looks like a girl".

>> No.4864028

>>4864021
U calling the god of postmodernism a nerd m8?

>> No.4864029

>>4864016
And that's also how you tell a psychopath from a "normal" person, btw --in that they don't share that deep, overpowering need for unity; in that they wont conform like that, wont involuntarily move when those they're paying attention to move

>> No.4864030

>>4864023
If you like being alone it's different
If you don't like being alone you're probably a would-be social person that just has no friends, and that means you're 2pussy to make friends, and being a pussy makes you gay

>> No.4864032

>>4864023
It's the most sensible explanation, IMO, knowing how the mind works and its general considerations in this world

>> No.4864033

>>4864028
Yep. Do somethin bout it, kid

>> No.4864035

>>4864029
>I ain't movin'
>ight then, sit there like a bitch
>I will
>whatever
SOCIOPATHY!

>> No.4864041
File: 125 KB, 500x345, 3323165752_17c0ef27dc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4864041

>>4864033
You think this bandana's for show or something?

>> No.4864042

>>4864029
Which I'd consider self-assuredness more so than anything to be honest, and relegate "love", but it's a reasonable classification all the same I guess. A danger is a danger regardless those besides it aren't dangerous because they're pathetic.

>> No.4864046

>>4864032
It might be the most sensible explanation with your personal interpretation of how the mind works but it's not one I share, and it's not one in any modern work of psychology that I'm aware of. You don't give the impression of being very well informed on the matter. It's not important if either of us are right, I suppose.

>> No.4864047

>>4864035
Such is the state of psychological analysis. Dem stereotypes doe

>> No.4864053

>>4864046
I'm glad to hear it's nothing you've read of before >:D

>> No.4864055

>>4863995
That's what people say but I think it is false.

It implies a value to modernity over the past, but for this to happen you need a sense of history, but for a sense of history to exist you have to cling to the past instead of deleting it in hypermodernity. Hypermodernity destroys the past in an eternal present but by doing so it erases also its justification.

Secondarily the enjoyment of complex literature requires a complex theory of mind and the ability to understand the subtlety of verbal communication. If anything those who enjoy the highest achievements of literary culture are the few non-autistic people in a culture that is both infantilizing and alienating.

If you put together this two points you start seeing how many of us are in the thrall of the ideology of the "adaptive" and how that concept, as a synonymous of success, is to be criticized.

In a time where all the pressure is to put us in line in the production of more capital, being maladaptive, out of step with the times is the way for many of us to have access to a deeper and more satisfying form of humanity.

Adorno said that the bourgeois loves man how it is because he hates man how it can be. I think that the egalitarianism of universities and their dismantling of the canon follows this principle.

>> No.4864057

>>4864047
It disgusts me, but it's only getting worse.
And now I don't feel qualified to talk about it because I got locked in the loony bin 2 weeks ago. Feels batman

>> No.4864061

>>4864053
There pretty much isn't one iota of randomness to human being, outside of just being.

>> No.4864064

>>4864053
Don't be a prick.

>> No.4864066

>>4864041
I think it looks like CRAP

>> No.4864075

>>4864064
Well you'd basically just called me a faggot, lol. I am a hugely aware person, mate.

>> No.4864077

>>4864066
CRAP being an acronym for 'Cultivating and Reaffirming Artistic Pedigree'

>> No.4864078

>>4864075
I'm reminded of Crazy Larry from Layer Cake's line: "Fucking females is for poofs"

>> No.4864082

>>4864075
Uhuh.

>> No.4864085

>>4864078
And another funny joke I heard a comedian make about Alexander the Great recently, where he got sick of all the war and murder and so went back to Greece and invented homosexuality, lol.

>> No.4864093

>>4864082
I don't think I have all that much new to add, if that makes you feel better. See above: Crazy Larry and Alexander the Great. Someone really needs to hammer it in, though.

>> No.4864120

I know one dude who has a really hot, slightly older sister, and I guess that fucked with his father because he definitely grew up without a strong male role too ----but it's fucking profound, he basically has a time of the month to be in competition with her for their parents' attention (and things along those lines), and was not aware of its forming. I did delight in pointing it out to him, lol.

>> No.4864281

Your premise is wrong. Universities that have garbage books on their syllabus' are by far the minority. Its not even worth mentioning.

>> No.4864296

>>4864281
I guess you've looked through all of them?

>> No.4864353

>>4863245
Read the fountainhead by Ayn Rand.

>> No.4864372

>>4863959
that's simply not true.

take arthur danto for example

>> No.4864391

I haven't even read Freud to be honest, just picked up on some of his stuff along the way that rings true with the rational being that I'm aware of from my own personal obsevations

>> No.4865145

>>4863832
>Strawman
Ad hom

>> No.4867441

>>4864281
My examples (Laurie Penny and a study on Stephen King) were actually taken straight from Oxford. Hardly "not worth mentioning".

>> No.4867739

Anyway, thanks for your answers, some of them were quite interesting/helpful (even the off-topic ones). I'll find another topic that will infuriate /lit/ soon!

>> No.4867762

>>4867441
At MIT:
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/02/this_is_what_junot_diaz_wants_his_undergrad_students_to_read/

Plebbiest curriculum

>> No.4867849

>>4867762
>shitskin has shit taste

Gee, what a surprise. If students are stupid enough to register for a class taught by MIT's resident AA nigger, they deserve the sub-par education that they get.

>> No.4869166

>>4863409

Been here since the SA migration in early '05.

This is garbage.

You are just teenagers being teenagers.