[ 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: 42 KB, 480x362, bookburning.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5272034 No.5272034[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is mass book burning for the sole purpose of suppression of thought ever morally ok?

>> No.5272036

>>5272034
Yes, if the books are immoral.

>> No.5272040

No, but it is fun.

>> No.5272045

Yes, but only if the books are objectively bad, like everything that disagrees with contemporary progressivism.

>> No.5272058

>>5272036
How would you define immoral?
Is it justifiable to suppress thought simply because it is considered incorrect at that point in time?

>> No.5272076

>>5272034
No. Any act designed to control thought, the ability to think and the ability to make choices is wrong. That being said, an actual book burning would effect exactly 3 people today.

>> No.5272075

>>5272058
It is not too much to require that what the wisest of mankind, those who are best entitled to trust their own judgment, find necessary to warrant their relying on it, should be submitted to by that miscellaneous collection of a few wise and many foolish individuals, called the public. The most intolerant of churches, the Roman Catholic Church, even at the canonization of a saint, admits, and listens patiently to, a "devil's advocate." The holiest of men, it appears, cannot be admitted to posthumous honours, until all that the devil could say against him is known and weighed. If even the Newtonian philosophy were not permitted to be questioned, mankind could not feel as complete assurance of its truth as they now do. The beliefs which we have most warrant for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded. If the challenge is not accepted, or is accepted and the attempt fails, we are far enough from certainty still; but we have done the best that the existing state of human reason admits of; we have neglected nothing that could give the truth a chance of reaching us: if the lists are kept open, we may hope that if there be a better truth, it will be found when the human mind is capable of receiving it; and in the meantime we may rely on having attained such approach to truth, as is possible in our own day. This is the amount of certainty attainable by a fallible being, and this the sole way of attaining it. 8

Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.

>> No.5272085

>>5272058
>How would you define immoral?
What the power in place views as such.

>> No.5272086

if book burning is so bad, why don't you also burn people who don't spend all their spare time reading?

>> No.5272093

>>5272076
How is it wrong?

>> No.5272096

>>5272076
all thought is controlled by limits. the fact that you won't read say a text of chinese philosophy in classical chinese and understand all its nuances means that your thought is being controlled by your ineptitude. your very existence is 'wrong' QED

>> No.5272101

>>5272096
wow that was retarded

>> No.5272108

>>5272034
>is it okay to burn bits of tree pulp covered in ink

What a dumb question.

>> No.5272125

>>5272093
It's wrong because we're taught that it's wrong. We're taught that freedom is an imperative to finding happiness and that happiness is the highest good a human can obtain.
Not only that, but you're crippling human social evolution based on your own, subjective views. And, statistically, if you're willing to take such drastic measures to ensure that your view is propagated then it's probably counter-intuitive to begin with.

>> No.5272134

>>5272125
>Not only that, but you're crippling human social evolution based on your own, subjective views.
States your shallow culture might view as not "moral" are contained within History, thus within human progress.

>> No.5272135

It's okay as long as the books are your property

>> No.5272139

>>5272134
What?

>> No.5272141

>>5272034
Sure, when god tells you to.

>> No.5272143

>>5272134
History progresses and thus teleological suspension of the ethical within human progress because morals are stuck within your times, but mankind encloses it all herein and thus is amoral and superior and a synthesis of it all thus nothing's either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

>> No.5272165

>>5272143
You know you could have just left out the whole first 2/3 of that sentence and still made the same point.

And a book burning (if done properly) doesn't have an effect solely on society, but on the base knowledge pool of humanity. People still bemoan the library of Alexandria today, not because society is dumber for it, but because we as a species lost so much knowledge. We lost part of our history, something that defines us as a people.

>> No.5272173

i like it on an aesthetic level. fascism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, whatever you want to call it are definitely the most fashionable forms of government

>> No.5272176

>>5272165
>muh library of Alexandria

Jesus Christ.

This is an ahistorical myth promulgated by Carl Sagan in his pop science book Cosmos.

In reality the burning of the library of Alexandria was not particularly significant.

>> No.5272180

>>5272165
I think the burning of books mostly is about books seen as immoral, thus no knowledge is to be lost from it, only perhaps some beauty.

>inb4 nazis burned einstein
fuk u

>> No.5272210

>>5272058
Well apparently you define burning books as immoral, so books that encourage that for one

>> No.5272213

>>5272176
Look, it was an example you cock. It doesn't change the fact being made at all.

>>5272180
Why isn't beauty important? And immoral... What the hell was immoral to the nazis? The nazis burned anything that blatantly support them. Which has nothing to do with moral, it's hate mongering and propaganda.

Or if they were more puritan, than anything that claimed sex wouldn't kill you, anything that didn't name Jesus Christ lord and savoir of all, like, say, science?

What the hell are you trying to say, immoral? Do you think the nazis only burned porn?

>> No.5272222

>>5272213
holy shit ya forgot a chromosome behind in yer mums womb

>> No.5272229

>>5272222
No, seriously, I want to know. What do you think the nazis qualified as immoral?

>> No.5272244

>>5272034
Eh nowadays it depends on the context. It's nearly impossible to destroy information once it goes public so book burning becomes a symbol

Clearly though, if information is scarce it becomes egregious

>> No.5272248

>>5272213
Nazis have been mentioned

Thread value has fallen from 2/10 to 0, good work op

>> No.5272255

>>5272034
The act itself isn't immoral, there are books that probably should never see the light of day in my opinion.

The problem is just that you can't trust anyone with the power to decide which books are deserving of that.

>> No.5272266

>>5272248
What did you expect? It's the most famous book burning in recent history.

>> No.5272267

>>5272229
You are responsible for your lack of culture; I am not to waste my time educating imbeciles over the internet, even though that's all I do.

Read about the entartete kunst.

>> No.5272287

>>5272267
Bitch, I'm fucking German. I know all this shit. Are you going to sit there and tell me that abstract art is immoral?

>> No.5272306

>>5272287
see >>5272085
and get schooled
crack-ass nigga

>> No.5272313

>>5272287
Abstract art is objectively immoral. It's no surprise that as a German you would fail to recognize this since Jews make sure to indoctrinate German kids from a very young age with loathsome and degenerate ideology.

>> No.5272319

>>5272034
It's really laughable, never offensive. It's like when they told people to destroy their Beatles albums after John said they were bigger than Jesus. It just seems hilarious now.

>> No.5272320

>>5272313
I want /pol/ to leave.

>> No.5272323

>>5272320
>wahhh someone said something I don't like, gb2/pol/

kek

>> No.5272325

>>5272076

Like spanking a child for punching his sister in the face?

Your thoughts have been controlled for your whole life, and there is no free will anyway.

>> No.5272329
File: 12 KB, 100x141, Warm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5272329

>>5272267
>Tripfags

>> No.5272333

>>5272173
you're a degenerate who would be killed immediately if you lived in a fascist regime

>> No.5272335

>>5272313
>Abstract art is objectively immoral.
What a moron.

"Objectively" is the new "literally".

Also, always remember, friend, Hitler was gay.

>> No.5272337
File: 1.85 MB, 2448x3264, 20140520_193821.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5272337

>>5272329

>> No.5272339

>>5272306
Fantastic. What brilliance.
Except when you posted this:
>>5272180
>I think the burning of books [...] seen as immoral, thus no knowledge is to be lost from it

You're implying the things that were burnt were actually immoral, not just subjectively.

Pay attention.

>> No.5272349
File: 283 KB, 1145x1600, queenie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5272349

>>5272335

>> No.5272353

>>5272339
Also that's implying that immorality and knowledge are mutually exclusive, which is also stupid.

>> No.5272358

>>5272353
>mutually exclusive
I'm not even following your argument, I just hate that phrase. Try wording your sentence differently.

>> No.5272363

>>5272339
holy shit how fucking dumb are you let me get things straight when I said that the books were immoral it was perfectly implied for anyone bearing a full amount of brain cells that indeed it would have been either fiction or non-scientific non-fiction for scientific works would bear no morality upon their pages and thus you disgusting subhuman piece of shit I'll cave your fucking skull in oh shit cant you fucking read oh shit of course the works were literary (and within literary I enclose philosophy and all this shit that aint science) and thus bear no knowledge that matters if its lost for its all discourse; holy shit can you fucking read

AND I SAID
SEEN AS IMMORAL

SEEN AS
SEEN AS

DID I SAY OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL

DID I YOU PIECE OF SHIT ANSWER ME

DID I?

NO I DID NOT
SEEN INCLUDED SUBJECTIVITY


IMBECILE

I WANT TO BEAT YOU UP

>> No.5272370

>>5272349
>queenie

Lol'd

Also, has anyone fapped to this

>> No.5272372

>>5272036

>Yes, if the books are immoral.

No, censorship is anathema to truth.

We must always promote education over censorship. Any other answer is simply incorrect.

>> No.5272380

>>5272034
That depends on what your morality is. I would say "yes" because it's an act symbolic of is the destruction of information, which is about as regressive as it gets.

However, I *will* say that it points out weakness. Any regime or social movement that practices book-burning implies that said group is afraid of the information contained within, which further implies that they have reason to fear it. Only societies and organizations that have a structural reason to fear for their existence try to symbolically destroy the perceived source of their discomfort.

>> No.5272381

>>5272363
Calme tes seins. Ta copine de 14 ans t'a largué ou quoi?

>> No.5272386

>>5272363

>let me get things straight when I said that the books were immoral it was perfectly implied

I like how you're feverishly trying to qualify and editorialize yourself after the fact because you made a shitty post.

I have never seen you fight this hard to keep your head above water before lol.

>> No.5272387

>>5272372
"Truth", "Good" : and let us ask why, dear, truth? Ah, but truth, is, ---- for truth. And what is, dear, this truth yours? --- but, truth, is what is true; and what is true is truth. And what is, this "Good" that I see drooling off your lips? Oh, it is what is good, of course.

Shall I go on?

>> No.5272388

>>5272363
Oh... I'm sorry, right. I thought I was talking to someone with an actually opinion. But this is /lit/ and you're a tripfag. I should've fuckin' known.

You pretentious cuntstank.

>> No.5272390

>>5272076
*affect

>> No.5272393

>>5272386
Let me say it in a few words.

If books are considered as immoral by the power in place, they are immoral. If you burn them, within this state, it is not immoral, it is moral.

>> No.5272398

>>5272306
>if the books are immoral

There's no such thing as an immoral book.

>>5272173
It's that unity, anon -- that goal-driven single-mindedness. Religion fundamentalism has it too. It's just pleasing some how.

>> No.5272400

>>5272387

>Shall I go on?

With your coy pageantry? Why not. You seem to be quite adept at it.

You've yet to address how one can arrive at truth through censorship. If you'd like to stop tripping over your e-peen and have a go at a legitimate answer you have the floor.

>> No.5272404

>>5272398
shut up wilde

>> No.5272409

>>5272400
If you censor lies then they won't lead people astray as they seek the truth.

>> No.5272414

>>5272400
>You've yet to address how one can arrive at truth through censorship.
Truth is a word, and an empty word. An empty word signifying nothing. Truth is the loudest opinion. The power in place is truth.

>> No.5272417

>>5272393
Now you're at relative morality, which is boring and unsatisfying and you can't retroactively change the parameters of the discussion just to make sure you come out on top.

>> No.5272418

>>5272409

You're missing the point just like that clown is.

Dialectically you cannot arrive at understanding through censorship.

>> No.5272423

>>5272404

No. There's no such a thing as a moral or immoral book.

>> No.5272432

>>5272414
>Truth is the loudest opinion.
you know im all for not believing in absolute truth but you could at least be less banal about what truth is. all you're doing is redefining the word, you're not actually getting to what it really means. sometimes truth is the loudest opinions. often it isn't.

>> No.5272433

>>5272414

>Truth is the loudest opinion.

History is the loudest opinion. It has nothing to do with truth.

>> No.5272434

>>5272417
There is no transcendental absolute, except my throbbing dick. There is no categorical imperative, no world of ideas, and teleology ends with "y". There is language and words spoken and strung together, and people making out of some words different things, and thinking they signify anything. Believe if you will; strut and fret all you want --- morality is eight letters brought together and means nothing more.

>> No.5272438
File: 51 KB, 500x500, kill_la_kill_18_satsuki_kiryuuin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5272438

>>5272414
UGH. NO. Jesus you're getting worse with every post. You sound like a low budget anime villian.

>> No.5272441
File: 90 KB, 500x700, 1397957668227.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5272441

tallis is really off his game today

bro you fucking up

>> No.5272447

>>5272434
It sounds like you're having a stroke.

>> No.5272458

>>5272438
Words send back through différance and mean nothing in themselves and you build stories with fleeting ghosts, stories well-built enough that you can actually start believing in it; but suppose truth were a woman :^) and I still ask myself how can people in our days still believe, be believers, pious to the narration --- I prefer to believe in a God than in a closed, self-referencing system (forgive the redundancy) signifying itself or the picture of itself.

>> No.5272465

>>5272458
oh by system I was speaking about language


the worst about this is that most of you have read nietzsche stirner debord and quite a load of similar stuff, perhaps even some saussure, and yet wake up in the morning and believe

>> No.5272466

>>5272447

You can gauge the times when he really doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and is trying to save face by the amount of sing song circumvention he employs.

>> No.5272482

>>5272458
Tallis stp
va te coucher, écris des alexandrins, baise une meuf de 14 ans mais stp calme-toi

>> No.5272491

>>5272466
Stop hating on based Tallis, he's among the few "good" tripfags we have left and he writes well. He's probably just a little pent-up because he didn't fuck his 14-year-old gf today.

>> No.5272509

>>5272491

He normally is good. But in this thread he's a sigh.

>> No.5272516

>>5272509
He's just using too many useless words and quotes to say that all that is not bodily is nihilistic.

>> No.5272552

>>5272349
Dayumn, she was a babe.

O Time, you late, evens-wrought avenger!
To escape your grasp is counted censure
From the human race, and everyone in't,
from the lowly clerk to the profligate bint.
Rerouting, acquiring satellites
To chart a path un-linear, which might
Avert that impending catastrophe
-But a frame from the past arouses me,
A floral melding of her dress and chaise.
Over the glass-faced desk's chasm she traces
Either verse or a line to a caliph,
With a face bemused or slightly miffed.
I will never suck (her chastity unharmed)
This middle-class German's golden forearms.