/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9175857]

Is politics the most important aspect of art, literature, and entertainment? Of life?

[Anonymous No.9175863]

>>9175857
of course

[Anonymous No.9175868]

>>9175863
But why?

What about aesthetics?

[Anonymous No.9175872]

No, but on Cultural Marxism it is.

[Anonymous No.9175875]

>>9175857
hell no they're a barely necessary evil

[Anonymous No.9175958]

>>9175872
this. the replacement of aesthetics, ability and depth has given way for disruptive narratives that cant hide its doubled purpose as indoctrinating advertisments to be the incentive. devoid of the self-trial challenging experience, the emotional numbing of repetitive gestures and shock stimuli is nothing more than an implosion of a games masturbatory feedback loop of the currency of narrative.

[Anonymous No.9175968]

>>9175872
>>9175958
This.

Art and entertainment have become medics through which a certain group of people are trying to subvert the minds of people in order to institute worldwide genocide of the white race.

As Hitler pointed out its cultural Bolshevism, and destroys white culture and tradition through encouraging white women to breed with black men at the expense of someone like us

[Trippy de$utU5YN7 No.9175969]

>>9175857
>Is politics the most
Least.
'Politics' only 'exists' as a circusy distraction to the masses while they are being swindled every other which way.

History has been the progression of an ever more perfecter world. At this point, with all the scholarly study of politics, and our great big books of history, politics should have been solved by now, and in fact it has been, around 2300 years ago.

[Anonymous No.9175973]

>>9175857
Politics means everything and nothing. People write fiction and poetry without thinking to politics and once they're published critics make them or their words politicised.

Politics, literally the most disgusting thing created by man.

[Anonymous No.9175979]

>>9175857
ew gross no

[Anonymous No.9175984]

>>9175973
If the only people allowed to be involved in politics were white heterosexual conservative men of aristocratic breed, then we'd be living in a much better world

>inb4 bait
No, I mean this unironically

[Anonymous No.9175997]

>>9175973
We've "solved" solved a lot of problems already
New problems keep coming up
This is a reason why people are so obsessed with identity politics, for the first time in history we're humoring minorities and listening to them

[Anonymous No.9176003]

>>9175984
Bullshit.
>inb4 insults
I'm not a liberal cuck, but neither a /pol/tard.
>white heterosexual conservative men
>men (plural)
Here is why you're wrong. The much better world can only happen under an enlightened monarch (think of Augustus) or in anarchy. One (but perfect) or none. No way democracy can work.

[Anonymous No.9176004]

>>9175857
It's the least important
But small men flock around it like moths to keep their souls warm

[Anonymous No.9176009]

>>9175997
We must get rid of minorities to save our race

[Anonymous No.9176018]

>>9176003
>The much better world can only happen [...] in anarchy

[Anonymous No.9176031]

>>9175868
I think aesthetics. There's more than just physical aesthetics (which is also very important) there's also emotional aesthetics.

Basically, if everyone kept their little corner of the world as nice as possible, then the world would be a better place. And since we don't know what happens after we die, keep everything nice.

Sounds stupid, right?

[Anonymous No.9176035]

>>9176018
It can only happen under a man like Hitler.

[Anonymous No.9176040]

>I am politicising video games. I am politicising the way we (you) make games. I am politicising the way we (you) teach our (your) students to make games.

th-thanks

[Anonymous No.9176042]

>>9176018
Unaware anarchy, of course.

[Anonymous No.9176047]

Absolutely not, Politics sucks the fun from everything. Mediums that were commonly used for escapism are packed to the brim with social commentary this, virtue signalling that.
Some of the least interesting and ""fun"" people I know have strong political stances and will literally interject it into any subject. It has It's place and obviously important, but in Entertainment specifically It has no place and is unfortunately being shoehorned in, because it's so prominent and important in today's society that it has to be everywhere.
In short - It has it's place in Literature and Art, but not in Entertainment ofwhich it is slowly sucking the life from, as it has prominently done with Art in the last half century.

[Anonymous No.9176049]

>>9176040
politicising and policing are two different things anon

[Anonymous No.9176050]

>>9175868
Aesthetics are inherently political. What we consider beautiful is not an objective effect, but a subjective construct of social values. What one cultural considers beautiful is often not what another culture considers beautiful.

Beyond that, you should ask, why create beauty? The two most common answers are pleasure/hedonism or a moral argument that beauty offsets the terror and horror of the world.

>>9175857
I'd agree with that pic, except I think it's expanding the concept of "politics" too far. If by politics we mean the legal functions of the state, then no, art is not political. For instance, Bakunin thought of his theory of anarchy as apolitical. His revolutionary ideas functioned outside of the legal system of parties, legislation and politics.

This gets down to how the culture wars have subverted the term political to refer to any ethical/moral dispute. "Everything is Political" really means "Everything is an Ethical Question". Which is true.

Any attempt to create art is an attempt to push the creator's, or his patron's, value system. There is no escape from ideology.

[Anonymous No.9176054]

>>9175968
"Art" has always been a mode of propaganda, if you actually knew shit about art you'd be able to see it.

And politics isn't the most important thing in life, but the medium in which important things in life happen in. If you had started with the greeks, you'd already know this.

[Anonymous No.9176055]

>>9176047
>Politics sucks the fun from everything
Stopped reading here because too satisfied.

[Anonymous No.9176061]

>>9176054
>If you had started with the greeks, you'd already know this

[Anonymous No.9176074]

>>9176055
If you were to boil Politics down to it's simplist form, it would just be "boring" or "fun hating".

One of the biggest shift in fun I've observed over the last decade has to have been in comedy and most importantly the way in which our society now views comedy. "It can be offensive, but not TOO offensive. You can say these words, but not THESE words, also these people, strictly off limits because feelies" Which, inherently sucked the fun out of comedy.

[Anonymous No.9176084]

What political statement is Pong making?

[Anonymous No.9176097]

>>9175872
This. Making politics the embodiment of everything could very well be the definition of cultural Marxism (or just Marxism).

It's kind of a mindfuck to think that that might not be true. But when everyone around you is political - right? Politics is contagious. You can either be a bluepilled normie retard or a redpilled angry retard. Being anti-Marxist or alt-whatever is still politics. It's insanity. "Drain the Swamp" - yeah, right. If you drained the swamp at this point there wouldn't be anything left.

I wish you all good luck, anons. Regardless of what side of the fence you're on.

[Anonymous No.9176134]

>>9176097
So the ultimate way to live life is to distract yourself from Politics with Art and Literature, only interracting with it when it's your cival duty to do so?
Being as far away from Politics as you can will surely bring the most happiness and fulfillment?

[Anonymous No.9176146]

>>9176084
it might seem simplistic, but there are ethical values in pong. Winning is Good. Winning is Fun. Competitors should be equal.

You can certainly find games that push other values. Cooperative games, asymmetric games, unfair games. There are even games which are not intended to be fun. The Jeepform Gang Rape game come to mind, along with Romero's "Train".

Historically, unfair "games" were pretty common. Think about the gladiator bouts that were to function as historical reenactments. It was assumed one side would lose, through pure disadvantage, but the "game" was still played, not staged.

[Anonymous No.9176161]

>>9176146
Not the anon you replied to, but I can kind of understand what your getting at, mind explaining your idea behind Asymmetric games?

[Anonymous No.9176168]

>>9176146
Does someone really learn those values when playing Pong, though?

[Anonymous No.9176170]

>>9175857
No. The idea that everything is political is pure cancer. Politics brings out the worst in people, I have no idea why some think the politicalization of everything is a good idea.

[Anonymous No.9176186]

>>9176161
Yeah, so a symmetrical game is like Pong or Street Fighter. Each player has the same set of options to chose from, even if they chose different fighters, they chose from the same pool of fighters.

In an asymmetric game, players do not have the same tools or even the same win conditions. For instance in some first persons shooters, you'll have one team that defends a base, while another team tries to destroy the base. I forget the name, but there was a video game where one player is a monster and the other players are hunters trying to kill the monster. There is also that Friday the 13th video game where one person plays Jason and everyone else plays the teenagers running in fear from Jason.

The game of Tag is asymmetric. One person is "it", the other players run from that player chasing them.

[Anonymous No.9176197]

>>9176146
values aren't politics, value comes before politics

[Trippy de$utU5YN7 No.9176208]

>>9175984
>If the only people allowed to be involved in politics were white heterosexual conservative men of aristocratic breed,
They had their chance for hundreds and hundreds of years. Their greed and lust ruined the world (as much as it built it) and caused the 'equal and opposite reaction' of now what you are referring to as 'problems' desiring to harken back.

Maybe we give those guys power again, yeah everyone sits down and shuts up, but if all you want is some peace and quiet, there are many ways for that to happen.

[Anonymous No.9176209]

>>9176168
It reinforces those values. Our culture believes games should be fair and safe. The Romans were perfectly happy to play unfair games that were not safe (the coliseum). We have a democratic society that (ostensibly) believes all people are equal. The romans did not have this notion, and felt some people were less than others.

It isn't that you play pong and BAM, you believe in democracy. It's part of a long term indoctrination towards believing that equality and fairness are just principles.

That you don't perceive Pong as political shows how sublime these ideological values are. You don't even notice it, it's subconscious.

>>9176197
Yeah, so in a strict sense of the term "political" (the operation of legal governance, of party politics, legislative activity), yes all games operate outside of politics.

But no one really means that strict defintion of politics when they say "all things are political." What they really mean is "all things ethical/unethical"

I went over that here >>9176050

[Anonymous No.9176219]

>>9176209
But ethics are just a subset of aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.9176235]

>>9176074
>You can say these words, but not THESE words, also these people, strictly off limits because feelies"
How would you feely if you grew up in a family of 22 siblings, and all of them, viciously made fun of you growing up since you were old enough to think? No love at all, just constantly making fun of you?

[Trippy de$utU5YN7 No.9176246]

>>9176134
>our cival duty to do so?
>Being as far away from Politics as you can will surely bring the most happiness and fulfillment?
Politics is:
What should the laws be?
and
How much taxes should we collect how often and what should we spend them on?

The only reason the public needs to pay attention to 'politics' is so they can vote for '''''representatives''''' who align with their desires in regards to laws and taxes. And to make sure their elected Philosopher Princes are not corrupt (but who will police the police? The police policers of course. And who will police the police policers? Why the police policer policers of course)

[Anonymous No.9176247]

Video games are a product, there is no reason to make a game that panders to people who do not play games (aka vaginas and negroids).

[Anonymous No.9176260]

>>9176219
I think you're trolling me, but traditionally the branches of philosophy are Ethics, Aesthetics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology.

And emphasis should be put on "traditionally". Aesthetics has always been the weakest branch of philosophy and suffers a lot from classical philosopher's inability to see/think/know beyond their own culture. Aesthetics today isn't really studed outside of historical/social/cultural contexts. The last gasp of aesthetics is neuroscience statisticians who are unable to differentiate biological effects from cultural ones.

[Anonymous No.9176264]

>>9176209
>It isn't that you play pong and BAM, you believe in democracy. It's part of a long term indoctrination towards believing that equality and fairness are just principles.

>That you don't perceive Pong as political shows how sublime these ideological values are. You don't even notice it, it's subconscious.

While I kind of agree with what you are saying, what non-masochist would want to play a game where they just get their ass kicked repeatedly, to no benefit? Not even a quasi-Christian "suffering is good for the soul" benefit, just no benefit at all? Like having a breath-holding contest with a fish?

[Anonymous No.9176271]

>>9176074
Are you honestly so fucking blinded by ideology you think this is new? Have you ever heard of the "pregnancy" situation with I Love Lucy?

>>9176097
>>9176097
>Making politics the embodiment of everything could very well be the definition of cultural Marxism (or just Marxism).
H O W

>>9176170
Not only everything is politic, everything is also a game.

You niggers should get your Huizinga on, you fucks.

>>9176260
Bullshit
Source: I'm currently studying aesthetics, CONTEMPORARY aesthetics btw

>>9176264
This is already getting a lot of social notions about what a game should be

[Trippy de$utU5YN7 No.9176272]

>>9176209
What does political mean to you? Are all games political? What isnt a game?

[Deep&Edgy !!PcCd5unWPKc No.9176287]

HUIZINGA

[Anonymous No.9176291]

>>9176271
>I'm currently studying aesthetics, CONTEMPORARY aesthetics btw

Aesthetics is all about beauty/pleasure, and celebrating the artist (and the art consumers) taste and talent/skill?

[Anonymous No.9176298]

>>9176264
Forget the masochist. Most video games are not fair and are not competitive, aka single player games that are stacked in favor of the player. In these situations, you are the fish and the computer is the human holding it's breath. It has to give up eventually, it never had a chance

.>>9176271
>Bullshit
>Source: I'm currently studying aesthetics, CONTEMPORARY aesthetics btw

What exactly is bullshit? Based on your other comments, I think we're on the same page about art being a social/cultural phenomenon.

I'd guess that most of your studying is based around the ethical/cultural implications of art and not on the psuedoscience theories of yore that held "objective truths" on the nature of beauty.

And since we're making appeals to authority, I'm a published art critic.

[Anonymous No.9176333]

>>9176134
I've been mulling this one over. Short answer: basically, yes. I realize how much there is to find wrong with an answer like that but rather than write an obnoxious text-wall, I'll just say, basically, yes. Developing and cultivating yourself as an individual is better than distracting yourself, however.

>>9176271
Huizinga is an interesting guy, I read Homo Ludens a few years back. Anyways, what do you mean, how? To my mind, the reason why people are so thin-skinned these days is because we seem to be living in a very political world, with a lot of triggers, and the unpleasant sense that we are alone on this rock and that capital is incompatible with liberal democracy. Among many other things.

The keyword here is ideology. I don't agree with all of Zizek's conclusions, but I think he's more or less right about the state of things today.

[Anonymous No.9176338]

>>9176272
Well, I try to only use the term Political when we're talking about the interactions of parties within a system of governence. Ussually this would mean organized parties within a democratic government and their struggles against each other. But I'm also okay with talking about "court politics" within a monarchy or even "office politics" within a business. Politics are legal struggles between official entities that recognize each others legitimacy. Thus there are no "revolutionary politics", its an oxymoron as revolution takes place outside of legal bounds.

But when most people say "political" they're talking about cultural wars. What is right and what is wrong. "Everything is Political", or "All Games are Political" (OPs image), means that all actions and all products reflect ethical choices made within society. I'm not a fan of this use of the term politics, though I agree with the sentiment. All art is "political", there is no escaping ideology.

Game is tricky thing to define. The 21st century west has a very different notion of games than the Roman Empire. Games were a matter of life and death then, today they are not. For the aztecs, games had metaphysical importance, they were directly tied to religion.

So, "what is a game?". much like "what is art?" is going to vary from culture to culture and throughout time. I doubt the Aztecs conceived of their ball games the way we conceive of pong. In many cases, when we call something a game, we're projecting our values back into history. Just like cavemen had no concept of art, and yet they painted on cave walls.

[Anonymous No.9176373]

>>9175857
This is exactly why Western games are so shitty compared to Japanese games.

[Anonymous No.9176392]

>>9176291
What

>>9176298
I haven't made any other comments itt, but you're just using a very narrow and personal definition of aesthetics here, even if you go into Hume, Kant or Baumgarten they already realize - to different degrees - how art and the aesthetic experience are contingent on the individual, the sort of systems you're thinking of are much closer to art criticism than aesthetics, ironically (though I'll grant, even these days there is very little distinction between the critic and the aesthete).

And no, my work has little to do with this, I'm just now beginning my research but it's about memes in relation to Vilem Flusser's notions of aesthetics and communication, and I can't think of many people in the department with a work that falls under your description.

>>9176333
How is this marxism fault. I think the problem is that bare life has been extremely politized (and the SJW situation is more of a response to that than anything) while everyone has been completely alienated from the possibility of political action.

I don't wanna elaborate on this because I'm high, but honestly, just read some Benjamin, then Debord and then some Agamben.

[Anonymous No.9176399]

>>9176373
Fuck off back to /v/ kid. Western games suck just as much as nip games. Don't be delusional

[Trippy de$utU5YN7 No.9176410]

>>9176338
The, everything is political, or ethical, being spoken of; can pretty much be said to be (as is said; "politically correct") "unwritten laws".

Manners and such. The danger, or battle, or worry, about this, is when people get in power to legislate, and the bound is kept being pushed for unwritten laws to be written; (extreme exaggerated example, but the slippery slope that is feared, that 'the people who say cultural marxism' are "too late to be preemptively" fighting back; and as Milo referenced recently in a talk I happened to see, in the 90s this is the same thing with the 'music and video games cause school shooters'): From now on there can not be a video game which does not have a female character (and she must never be dressed lewd (unless it is at least 10 happy/exp points of empowering), if "the authorities even accidently stumble upon your computer and find a video game without a female in it", it is minimum 3 years in jail, $5,000 fine.

it is this, liberal facsism, the desire for everyone to be friends and play nice and not say any mean things to each other, or be put to death.

It is this hard distinction between: These are the laws We The People of this Area of the States United, agree to; already laid on the foundation of 1st amendment, Free Speech. And the potentially infinite... wellll... maybe it should be illegal to say or think that.

Even in the loose ways (wanted to say liberal) you and others use the term political, I dont see/know how pong is inherently, fundamentally, in and of itself, political.

Two cavement could have picked up a stick each, and found a rock and grunted, 'you hit the rock past me, you get a point, I hit rock past you, I get point'

Two separate gusts of wind can blow a leaf this way and that. So I just hope you if you were the one who brought up, could clarify on how pong is inherently political, I read it said, 'already has concepts about 'winning', I mean is the concept of winning political, of doing something and gaining something? Of reaching up and taking a piece of fruit from a tree (in the precivilized world) (or you would said, that was relatively before politics, and than once civilization exists, yes you cant just go around stealing fruit?... but I meant more abstractly, using your body in any way, to continue living, is 'winning', life is inherently this gameness, and we have long since developed and refined our laws (the rules we all obey to play the agreeably best way the game can be) and so if that is the case, then you would be sort of right in saying, all is political, every milisecond, every single pulse of every single person is political?

[Anonymous No.9176446]

>>9176392
>be high
>recommend other anons read Benjamin, Debord and Agamben

I like you, anon.

>I think the problem is that bare life has been extremely politized (and the SJW situation is more of a response to that than anything) while everyone has been completely alienated from the possibility of political action

This is what I think as well.

[Anonymous No.9176452]

>politics

[Anonymous No.9176456]

>>9175857
Not even close. Politics is just necessary bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9176461]

>>9175857
If by that you mean leftist moralism, no.


If by that you mean Hegelian anthropological historicism and dialectical, structural, linguistic, conceptually rigorous analyses, then perhaps!

Aesthetics is always thoroughly political.

But firstwards, it is a case of desire which is at work.

The dialectic of desire at work in the text is what you want to privilege.

I'm not talking about any stupid 'deconstruction' nonsense here. I'm talking about finding the Spirit in the text as discovered in language and writing.

Just as separating things in literature as so:
--aesthetic
--political
--ethical
--historical
--linguistic
--metaphorical
--linguistic
--rhythmical

Is just as bad as separating your readings of literature into the false abstractions of the 'reader response theory'.

I have never heard a more absurd metaphysical abstraction than that of the so called 'emotions'.

Nobody can say anything about these supposedly existing and self sufficient 'emotions'.

Looking for these 'emotions' inside a text is theurgy. The desire that breaks apart at the gaps in the text is the truly sublime in literature, but this isn't anything to do with the imaginary things we call 'emotional effects'.

The reader doesn't matter at all to the text, this is to be considered false, American individualism.

Don't ask, what can the text do for you, ask, what can you do for the text!

Politics is a similar abstraction, as if we can draw a line of good and bad thoughts in the text, as if, for instance, the lusty masochism of women in the texts of the pasts, women who enjoyed their own disappearance and erasure --- can be brushed away!

There's no sense in that. The truth of the text is in the desire which emerges in the text, the impersonal striving of speech.

And yes, unlike certain deconstructionist nonsense magicians, we can speak of the truth in literature.

Politics, ethics, the rest. It doesn't enter the text.

You cannot take the text from outside and purport to use some kind of outward textual analysis in order to know the text, you have to lose yourself in it, and feel for the soul in it.

Even though every interpretation is partial, this is only the expression of the universal which can't be found within the field of the text directly expressed, i.e. that of desire, or the "Why?", reflected in it's necessarily failed enunciations.

It is best to take texts first of all as a response to a certain question. What is the question? Truly great literature asks the most fundamental questions, though these questions cannot be directly stated. A problem, a desire, a shaking, a discomfort, an eclipse, a 'feeling' in the non-psychological sense.

This is why the worst literature is that which simply asks: "how do people act and feel?". There's no space for desire here. There's a reason poetry was invented, and that's because the truth and desire can only be said indirectly, through artificial conventions and contrived rhythms.

[Anonymous No.9176638]

My problem with the idea "everything is political (and inherently so)" is that it comes across as meaningless, if not a little tautological. If you look at the world through a political lens, the world becomes political. All you have to do is say "concept X is not working towards political goal Y, giving it a negative value on a political scale", thus it is now a political. Nothing is going to be a true "0" on this scale, but that itself seem valuable in a larger sense - unless you are completely driven by one such political goal at the expense of all other things (namely, the individual perspective and all the forms that can take). It also brings up a line I've heard: "If everything is political, nothing is".

Politics (governing and being governed) is something of a game humans play, abstracted from social interaction and increasingly more fundamental effects: philosophically, psychologically, physically. It seems completely backwards and hallucinatory to make politics the fundamental force of existence over any of these - "all socializing is political", "all philosophy is political", "all psychology is political", "all physics is political". Seems like you would have an easier time saying the exact opposite, working back to the root (e.g., "all politics is psychological").

We engage in politics to fulfill various desires. It's nothing more than cooperation driven by (and constantly subverted by) individual interests. If it wasn't for our societal advancements, you could say politics wouldn't really exist at all, let alone be fundamental. Maybe as a basic animal hierarchy at the family-level rarely going beyond pure instinct.

In comparison, the appeal of art and games seem much more fundamental to the human experience, which is likely why we have found cave drawings older than agriculture and see that animals engage in playing (assuming we can make a meaningful distinction between play and work for animals in the first place). Putting aside their propaganda effect of brain-washing us, they can affect us at the deeper levels I mentioned above, physically, psychological, physically, etc. It goes beyond being a tool, a means to an end. The whole process of getting immersed - forgetting the real world while you are completely engrossed into a smaller one (perhaps with a fictional set of rules you will abide by) - in an excise of playing around with the very way we experience existence. Watching a movie is like dreaming (are dreams political too!?), a game is like crafting out an alternate reality from this one (is reality political!?), reading a book is like having thoughts implanted into your brain (thoughts!?).

I don't really have the knowledge base to explain this well and I welcome anyone to tear apart what I just said. I'm hoping to read more criticism lit about the importance of aesthetics and experience over the political usefulness of art. Seems like a hopeless battle though.

[Trippy de$utU5YN7 No.9176648]

>>9176461
>Aesthetics is always thoroughly political
explain plz

[Anonymous No.9176689]

>>9176648
Aesthetics is impossible without desire, and desire is organised by the common social fabric of language and ego identifications.

The nature of speech is that it belongs to someone else, beyond any individual, and hence eventually we get to god, who is the final speaker: logos.

All identification necessarily is a bond with something else, even if it's a bond of hatred or envy.

[Anonymous No.9176697]

>>9176461

>the dialectic of desire at work in the text is what you want to privilege
You're good at writing hollow truisms but no good at rigorous philosophy, I'm afraid.

>The reader doesn't matter at all to the text, this is to be considered false, American individualism.
>don't ask, what can the text do for you, ask, what can you do for the text!

why did you put these two next to each other when they so obviously contradict?

[Anonymous No.9176703]

>>9176697
>reading comprehension

[Trippy de$utU5YN7 No.9176722]

>>9176638
At one point in the relatively not distant past, slavery was legal, women could not work or vote. Would it have been apt for a slave to say 'everything is political'? "I wish I was not a slave". The main reason you are against the thought 'everything is political', is because you believe the world is much different and much better than it was (and ever has been), and that we are all working on making it even better every day?

And even if a slave did exist today, it would not be that 'everything is political', it would be 'this political fact is undesirable for him; this political fact of slavery is not that totality of political facts, or the totality of all',

So maybe 'everything is political' is always used semi flippantly, superfluously.

There is Freedom and there is The Law, everything that is not The Law is Freedom; everything that is Freedom, is likely not political.

If The Law was perfect, there would be nothing to complain about?

And now we see (or I see where and why this is going); The Law is relatively fine, (we all champion liberty and freedom!), but there is seemingly all these problems in the world, poverty, 'the economy' (as if it is a collective issue), etc. etc. people dying in the streets, legal immigration, illegal, tax havens, corruption, bail-outs, wars, '"sketchy" nation to nation trade agreements' etc. etc.

But The Laws exist... and they are quite perfectly fine... yet there are still all these problems in the world... so what can/should we do about it, if anything? We The People cant just all focus on ourselves, let the police, and military and politicians and prison owners and lobbyists take care of the worlds problems... because they have been in power how long... and how many problems remain?

Oh... thats right, no problems remain; because The Law is very quite perfect and agreeable, and there is only The Law and Freedom. All those "problems" I mentioned are the work of Freedom and The Law, and that is all there is, can be, and all we can want there to be.

All is politics because: Oh, now this regime is in complete power of this nation, "Hey, we are changing the law, now the top 10% will be taxed 80% and all that money will be given to the poor in cash, Law effective immediately"

All is political, because life is at least partly then a constant collective battle to make sure that does not happen.

[Anonymous No.9176726]

>>9176722
Are you schizophrenic by any chance

[Anonymous No.9176737]

>>9176703
If the reader can do "something" for the text, then evidently they do matter to the text, no?

[Anonymous No.9176749]

>>9176737
Not at all, the reader is a link in the chain of the text, the text isn't a link in the chain of the reader's life.

[Trippy de$utU5YN7 No.9176750]

>>9176689
>Aesthetics is always thoroughly political
So how...? There exists right now in America, "a political landscape" (whatever that means); there exists, a bevy of Aesthetics.

What is political mean, what is political landscape? What are political beliefs?

Millennial A has x political beliefs therefore Aesthetics y

Grandma B has z political beliefs therefore Aesthetics w

Grandpa M claims to have 0 political beliefs, therefore has 0 aesthetics? Or can 'consume', 'enjoy' any aesthetics? (as anyone can?)

But once he enjoys this or that aesthetics, hangs this or that painting in his house, wears this or that brand clothing, he automatically has political beliefs? (well... of course, obviously, if he buys this clothing where the material was made in a sweat shop or if he buys this clothing that was made by well paid members of a collective)

[Anonymous No.9176755]

>>9176750
Autism diagnosis confirmed.

[Trippy de$utU5YN7 No.9176757]

>>9176726
>Are you schizophrenic by any chance
I will tell you if you copy paste the first sentence you failed to understand.

[Anonymous No.9176760]

Politics is probably the lowest endeavor of mankind, especially in the modern world.

To be political is to be deplorable.

[Anonymous No.9176761]

>>9176749
When the BS bites back

[Anonymous No.9176764]

Worst thread so far this year, keep it up lads.

[Anonymous No.9176766]

>>9176761
Read up on what's called the Spirit in Hegel.

[Anonymous No.9176778]

>>9176722
thanks for replying, but I'm having a hard time linking what you just wrote to what I did.

Uh, if anyone else wants to give it a shot, please go ahead.

[Anonymous No.9176779]

>>9175857
Why, it's very important

[Anonymous No.9176780]

>>9176298
>Forget the masochist. Most video games are not fair and are not competitive, aka single player games that are stacked in favor of the player. In these situations, you are the fish and the computer is the human holding it's breath. It has to give up eventually, it never had a chance


Sure but people aren't going to choose to play a game where they're predisposed to lose. The example of gladiators is a good one because they were forced by treat of torture/death to participate. I'm sure Roman schoolchildren didn't play asymmetrically unfair games

[Anonymous No.9176784]

>>9176749
>the reader is a link in the chain of the text
so what you're saying is if there were no reader there would be nothing to hold the text together?

[Anonymous No.9176792]

>>9176784
Of course, since text is only possible via a subject.

[Trippy de0tU5YN7 No.9176795]

>>9176689
>>9176755
So, are you more saying; There are nations. Nations have governments. Laws, written and unwritten.

The written and unwritten laws of a nation are unavoidably interlinked with the possible aesthetics to be created in that nation?

I personally dont know if I believe that so absolutely, is all, certainly to a degree, if a nation had a law: Every artist must be kept in a cage their entirely life and not allowed to make art. But I think more biologically, different humans from different places and different times, had some artistic styles and inclinations (maybe from different cultures, different laws) and ideas about beauty and aesthetics, that had more and less overlap, similarities?

But still, your point is that, all these aesthetics were created in a realm with written and unwritten laws, we do not have evidence of the possible aesthetics created in a lawless/politicaless realm, therefore you state your statement: Aestehtics is always thoroughly political:

Which hung me up, on the thoroughly part, just how extreme you mean. I was just attempting to venture into my ignorance and argue, not 100%

[Trippy de0tU5YN7 No.9176809]

>>9176778
>but I'm having a hard time linking what you just wrote to what I did.
I sincerely mean no offense by this, but how old are you? Because I am wondering if I should be offended by this

[Anonymous No.9176853]

>>9175857
Who should I read for a good renunciation of this, particularly in respect to artistic endeavors?

[Anonymous No.9176871]

>>9176853


AHEM


Shakespeare literally INVENTED the human. no human before the Willy Shake.

Who am I?

[Anonymous No.9176884]

>>9176779

[Anonymous No.9176885]

>>9176871
Harold Bloom lol
that's on my list. Will people start calling me alt-right if I go around talking about the school of resentment?

[Anonymous No.9176890]

>>9176885
People might call you stupid.
And they might be right.

[Anonymous No.9176937]

>>9176779
I hope this is fake. Absolute delusion.

[Anonymous No.9177036]

"Politics" is really the science of concentrations of power in a society, so by that definition it inevitably interferes with every other endeavor

[Anonymous No.9177041]

>>9176766

>read
>hegel

[Anonymous No.9177045]

>>9177041
>he has Hayek reaction images

*loads handgun*

[Anonymous No.9177050]

>>9177045

>he doesn't have Hayek reaction images

[Anonymous No.9177057]

I'll ask this here: I am not a very educated person and there is something I'm very confused about. Do intellectuals agree on what "left-wing" and "right-wing" even mean? These terms are used all the time in the media and yet they always seem like loaded terms.

I understand that in the French Revolution, the left supported the revolution while the right supported the monarchy. And yet over time the terms "left" and "right" seem to morph and evolve to mean countless different things. These days, it seems that it's mostly about one's stance on immigration.

[Anonymous No.9177058]

Individual freedom ≥ economic freedom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>political freedom

[Anonymous No.9177062]

Okay, now this really is the worst thread on lit.

[Anonymous No.9177066]

>>9176779
Im quite confidence in my confidence that that is sarcastic

[Anonymous No.9177069]

>>9177057

left-wing = big, expensive, restrictive central government full of bureaucrats and political megalomaniacs

right-wing: small, cheap, restricted, efficient government with as few officials and politicians as possible

[Anonymous No.9177079]

Not at all.

[Anonymous No.9177085]

I don't understand why everyone still loves democracy so much. Even attacking the idea of democracy will get you labeled as a fascist or authoritarian. But the truth is that democracy is oppressive by design, why should the majority view get pushed on people with the minority view? I don't understand why democracy is considered so peaceful and free.

[Anonymous No.9177086]

Imagine a world without politics and politicians. Imagine true meritocracy.

[Anonymous No.9177099]

>>9177085

It's a compromise. The problem with monarchy (which is inherently superior to democracy) is that you need a good monarch, and the structure of society today is not such as would be conducive to producing good monarchs.

Democracy limits both the harm that bad leaders can do and the good that excellent leaders can do. We live in a mediocre age full of mediocre characters. Democracy is the best we can manage at present.

and it fucking sucks

[Anonymous No.9177102]

>>9177058
>Individual freedom ≥ economic freedom iiiiiiiiiiissssssssss deeepppeennndddeennttt ooooonnnnnnn political freedom

[Anonymous No.9177105]

>all these 10 year olds in this thread

[Anonymous No.9177108]

>>9177069
"""""""""""""in""" """"""""""(((theory)))""""""""""""""""