/lit/ - Literature

I don't care about those books but I support your project.

So your tastes are to read only those authors that appeal to your inner manchild and avoid those that my incense your despair..well..you did quote some VU so I'll forgive you.

He was a BAMF

>>1942162
I totally agree--Freud is not being followed by apostles anymore--his ideas are more diffuse and general than particular..I only bring this up because there is a very popular idea that Freud's ideas were discredited--when really, therapy just really moved on, like I said, to different approaches mostly drugs and CBT--I also think it's a mistake to assume that the most current approaches are necessarily the best (there's this fallacy about the idea of progress) I think if drugs hadn't become a quick and easy answer for psychological problems, psychoanalysis would have developed on its own lines into a therapy which to me would be more substantial than what we have today--but honestly, this idea of mine is based on experience as a patient, not a doctor.

>>1942151
He may think that, but he is a book critic and not a therapist..there are many therapists working in the field today who believe that Freud's theories still have therapeutic value.

Tennessee Williams or Jean Genet--but of course all the romance and erotica is homosexual..

>>1942132
The ''recovered memory'' movement was a misapplication of Freud in much the same way that lobotomies were a misapplication of neurobiology..Freud's ideas have not been discredited..in fact they are still being used in therapeutic settings..You suggest that someone read a detractor's opinion to arrive at the truth--but this is absurd...it's like saying "if you want to know whether gay marriage is right or wrong, read this pamphlet published by the westboro baptist church'' (of course i'm making an absurd example, but it illustrates my point) Freud's ideas are not discredited by any means because of how they are still being used not only in their original therapeutic application, but also because they are the foundation of structuralism-which is of course a very important tendency in critical theory. Psychoanalysis was largely abandoned due to the wider use of psychoactive drugs in behavioral therapy--a far more efficient and profitable way of doing business..

>>1942113
When I read your posts, I don't feel or think anything at all.

This is why I think the word ''literature'' is a nasty one, and why I favor the use of the word ''text''.

This idea of influence is a fiction propagated by readers who would play at writing, like Bloom. Have any of you tried to read that junk-pile "The Flight to Lucifer"? It's sad, it really is.

>>1942089
Hm, that's funny--where did you get such personal information about me?

>>1942082
Fair enough, but you don't know me.

I dislike it when a talentless writer butchers the message of two great thinkers in order to profit from their names and prestige. Critics should be executed.

>Favorite book(s):
Our lady of the Flowers
>Favorite author(s):
Jean Genet, Dylan Thomas, W.S. Burroughs
>Favorite genre(s):
I like books about the underworld criminal or otherwise
>Favorite publisher(s):
Grove Press, Gallimard
>Favorite country in terms of their literature:
France
>About how many books do you read per year?:
~20?
>About how many books do you read per month?:
Varies--honestly it's quality not quantity (of reading, not of the writing necessarily)
>Last three books read:
let the right one in, the wanting seed, a book about a pedophile sex ring where European royalty are heavily involved--can't remember the title (it was a manuscript) nonfiction, toovery disturbing
>Currently reading:
The Gulag Archipelago
>Book(s) you plan to read soon:
never plan this in advance
>Link to your Goodreads/Librarything/etc, if you have one:goodreads.com/argentumastrum (not updated in a long time)
>Post picture of bookshelf/book pile, if you have one.

>>1897992
Well originally when I said live more it wasn't even coming from an idea that I had lived more for you and was admonishing you to get on my level, that is just general advice..i think it came across wrong..but I generally think that the only way to enrich a philosophy is to actually live in the world and when I hear people who say that life is nothing but suffering, I can't help but feel like they are missing out on the nuances of this..having said that..I think life is truly defined by its suffering, but I disagree with the idea that this means you should only look out for number 1..mostly i disagree because I think that it doesn't work...usually whenever i have only tried to look out for number 1 i have inadvertently created circumstances that turned out to be worse for me..it seems paradoxical, but helping others is really the only way to help yourself..but maybe you're on to something when it comes to family...honestly the ways family have deteriorated is really regrettable.our western supposedly liberal ideas about the ''brotherhood of man''' have only created a weakened sense of brotherhood instead of expanding our feelings of brotherhood..it all seems to play into this idea of individualism..the truth is that if we insist on viewing ourselves as individuals, we only end up isolating ourselves and making ourselves all the more vulnerable to groups who would team up and exploit us..most liberal ideas make themselves appear like they are so caring, but really they serve the interests of those who would control and exploit men.

>>1897956
I doubt this very seriously, and you have no reason to base that on. I have traveled quite a bit, lived in very diverse conditions, experienced many complex relationships, tested fundamental aspects of my character such as sexuality, philosophy, etc. I have been in and out of prison, I have been clinically dead and revived. I have lost my best friend, and been in true love. I have learned very little about life from books. The reason I think I know more about life than you, is because I don't make broad, cliche statements about life and then insist upon them. How old are you?

That question is almost impossible to answer. The best existing form of government, and I say this because I perceive the role of government to be equitable distribution of wealth, would probably be the semi-socialist governments in Northern Europe. They have many problems, of course, and they are far from perfect, but I think it might be better to only discuss forms of government that are currently in existence, and are not just an abstract notion.

Well it sounds like you subscribe to the really basic idea of ''natural selection''. I really suggest that you just read more, and live more. Do you personally feel like you've suffered a lot? Anyway, Buddhism might help you as well.

You misused the word ''classic''.

This isn't a philosophy, it is an attitude. You might benefit from reading the philosophy of Ernst Junger (specifically his concept of the Anarch) or you might enjoy Nietzsche (although, it would probably give you an undeserved sense of superiority--and have the woeful consequence of inspiring you to make threads where you believe you have discovered some real truth that ''sheeple'' haven't) The dimension of ''comfort'' also throws off the first part where you say life is hard in cruel, because can it be so hard and cruel when comfort is a possibility? You are basically just saying that selfishness is a virtue--so you might like Ayn Rand.

Yeah you've gotten some pretty g ood advice in this thread. I think everyone has a problem retaining information that they can't help but feel is either boring or not useful to them. Another thing you can do, is make sure you are reading in the right conditions..no unnecessary distractions..read in a place that is comfortable physically, but it's best not to get too comfortable by laying down for instance..make sure you eat beforehand and that you're hydrated..things like that..

>>1897906
I meant to say they would have a lot to lose by denying that race is anything but a social construct..or by saying that race is nothing but a social construct..i'm really smacked out right now so forgive these lapses.

Reactionaries ITT: Do you realize that when you attempt to characterize and attack ''liberals'' you are really just addressing an abstraction--one that you, perhaps inadvertently, project all of the qualities that you feel undesirable onto? Wouldn't you prefer to actually deal with specific, substantive realities rather than just make a lot of dogmatic statements? For instance, when saying that race is not a social construct, one of you has just made a anecdotal statement about Jews coming up with this idea. I wonder, how would it benefit the Jews? A lot of the major discourse about why Jews have a right to Israel comes from the fact that they claim that Judaism is a race, and this is a very tenuous argument to say the least..the Jews would have a lot to lose by denying that Race is nothing but a social construct. It is shit like this that undermines the integrity of anything that you say.

Titus is his most violent play--It was put down for a long time by critics, but I suppose there is always a tendency to ''redeem'' what was in previous generations looked down on...I would say that it is of middling quality for Shakespeare, which is still really good..and it is easily one of the more badass plays that he wrote..badass in the sense of a grindhouse movie.