Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 3130. page

>>8380968
(continued)

I'm not trying to promote some high-handed elitism. I'm simply of the opinions that people don't all have the same opinions and the same sensibilities, and thus they naturally divide themselves into subsets, like optimists and pessimists, for example. And only those who belong to the same subset as the author will, in all likelihood, understand and appreciate his works. You might call this an echo-chamber mentality, but even Ligotti admits this much when he says that it is unknown what makes a pessimist a pessimist and not an optimist, and it seems to be an almost innate quality that is nigh-impossible to change, no matter how many optimistic books you read. And really, since on most matters we have no way to ever confirm what the real "truth" is, all that matters is whether or not we enjoy a certain literary work, regardless of its truth value in any system of logic. And I find it hard to believe that a pessimist would enjoy a book filled with optimism and vice versa optimists will disregard pessimists' books deeming them bitter and melancholic. Therefore I think that books should be written for everyone, there is always a target audience, and that target audience can only be your kindred spirits.

Because of this, the act of plainly spelling out your opinion is an exercise in futility: your kindred spirits would have understood you even if you weren't so open about it, and your non-kindred spirit will not buy into your bullshit no matter how you try to cook it, so don't bother. Actually, not only it's futile, it's also harmful, because your work will most likely lose artistic value when you turn it into an essay of pseudo-philosophy, and thus you will disappoint your kindred spirits while the non-kindred ones will keep ignoring you or criticizing you regardless.

And then there is also the concept of "the death of the author". In the off-chance that some optimists enjoyed Ligotti's fiction in the past, now those optimists will be biased towards his work because Ligotti just went and flapped his gums about his personal beliefs. And to think that Ligotti had always been a kind of recluse until recently, he just had to go and ruin it all.

At any rate I think an artist should not wirte essays that spell out every detail of their views.
Like Voltaire said: "The secret of being a bore is to tell everything."

I dunno about the book you mentioned, but how are ligotti's other horror books? I've heard a lot of good stuff about him, like he's a modern day Lovecraft and such. Any truth to this?

>>8380968
>>8380969
I think the issue with Ligotti isn't so much "edginess" or "fedora tipping" - those are usually associated with someone trying desperately to look cool - but a really deep depression and paranoia. It's pretty obvious even without TCATHR, for example the bit at the start of My Work is Not Yet Done where Frank talks about how he's "always been afraid" is lifted almost word-for-word from one of Ligotti's interviews.

Also I think it's significant that pessimism, antinatalism etc. are very much minority views - the mass of human culture and storytelling revolves around happy endings, hope for the future, moral messages, and similar themes. From what I've seen, some people seem to find value in Ligotti's philosophical work because, not in spite of, the fact his worldview matches their own so closely - for a certain type of person, it's refreshing to know that someone else has had "that feeling" too.

>>8380963
>here is the bombshell: reflexivity permits us to see that the belief in rationality, induction/generalization/categorization, imagination, intellect, reason does not lead us to the good life.

>animals are the most rational beings, but they lack reflexivity since they fail to see that the faith in abstraction to reach knowledge/truth/objectivity/reality/universality is sterile since it brings only conventions which are, by definition, always fluctuating through, at least, time and space... rationality brings is a deception and a disappointment.


>the point of reflexivity is to notice the failure of rationalism, to embrace PURE empiricism, that is to say, to stop fantasizing about a collective reality, but rather to stick to personal phenomena in analyzing them.
the point of reflexivity is to make us wonder what do we want.

>Do you want to create norms, conventions in order to claim that you create norms and that these norms are truths that you try to impose on others, until some people will come to you and claim that their conventions are the truths and yours are lies ?

>>8380963
The fact of a cause preceding an effect in one case does not establish that it will do so in another case. To the extent we are convinced it does, it is because we draw a connection between the two occurrences and come to expect it again.

Whether an instrument does this or a human is irrelevant. There is no 'glue' holding these two facts together. All we can say is tat one happened, then the other. Though in practice we too must observe the measuring instruments to draw conclusions by experiential proxy.

There is no non-quesiton-begging way to rationally establish the belief that the future will resemble the past.

I think one ought to be careful here with what Hume is saying exactly. He's not denying the existence of causality, only our ability to observe it.

>>8380929
To those who don't know, pic shows the anthropomorphic personification of Death from the Sandman series

>>8380929
i dunno, discworld portrayed a pretty funny and irreverent Death

>>8380929
Literally the best thing Gaiman ever created

>>8380918
lol he looks black

>>8380918
he writes for people who want to feel edgy, end of story.

I just read his latest book of short stories. Most of it was as passe' as you'd think and a general chore to read, but there were three or four really beautiful stories that made it all worth while.

Ultimately, I think he's too prolific.

>>8380895
My twisted world, elliot rodgers
now fuck off you fruit

I don't think there are any supernatural action thriller books in this world. sorry, friend.

Good omens

>>8380824
I don't know if that's where I'd start with comparing Nietzsche and Schmitt. What Nietzsche means by "will to power" is very obscure and can probably only be elucidated by reading more Nietzsche and not more Schmitt.

There is, however, a clear connection between Nietzsche's view of politics and Schmitt's. A more obvious starting point would be Nietzsche's interest with preserving the classical virtues and his disgust at the Last Man with Schmitt's arguments against the bloodlessness and legality of liberalism. Read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil with Concept of the Political and The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy.

Leo Strauss is also an excellent (Nietzschean!) interpreter of Schmitt. He wrote an article on Schmitt's Concept of the Political that so impressed Schmitt that the latter recommended Strauss for the scholarship that got him out of Germany (yes, the Nazi legal jurist saved the life of one of the best Jewish philosophers of the 20th century). Strauss's work on Schmitt is included in the Chicago edition of The Concept of the Political.

Also relevant is Strauss's essay on German nihilism, which was reprinted in Interpretation some years back. Here's a link: http://www.dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Strauss/GermanNihilism.pdf

>>8380851
Thank you very much for the response! Thank you for the clarifications, and I appreciate the pdf to the Strauss essay as well. I will be reading it later tonight.

I like that Schmitt is our new meme, he seems to be eliciting actual good discussion, unlike some past memes.

Philebus - Plato

A bit disappointing. Went in expecting it to be ethics and good-life teaching, but has ended up being mostly ontology -- it's getting more ethical now though.

The Histories - Polybius

Great, aside from being incomplete (not all books are extant). A good history of the world at the time, but can be a slight slog.

>>8381062
>>8380751

While we're on the subject of arcane helenic literature, why not mention Plutarch?

Anyways, I'm reading The Chronicles of Clovis by Saki

>>8381073
Because I'm not reading him right now

>>8380736
quality thread

>>8380736
It is pretty pathetic that so few people here have actually read it, but to be fair, Gaddis is a lot more obscure than you'd assume in spite of his accolades so I'd give most of them the benefit of the doubt for simply not having even heard of him.

Agapē Agape is the only thing of his I've read, and I thought it was awful. Reminded me of the stuff I used to write in college when I really wanted everybody to think I was smart and clever. "My dear Siggy!" this and that. Fucking painful.

Nadine Gordimer

I saw the movie but I honestly don't know if Cry, the Beloved Country is actually any good.

Try other Coetzee novels. The Life and Times of Michael K comes to mind. A more allegorical one is Waiting for the Barbarians.

>>8380586
I had a fucking sick batman choose your own adventure book

File: 125592.jpg (55KB, 318x470px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 318x470px

GOAT

>>8380618
I heard a rumor that all of these had a secret ending that actually wasn't scary at all.

>>8380583
R.A.W. was a sophist, a smart man but still subsumed by Plato.

>>8380598
What?

File: 1457807459404.jpg (260KB, 900x948px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 900x948px

>>8380583
>xpilled

Define "free will".

They were created by minds operating according to the laws of physics. Free will being an illusion isn't the same as people being an illusion.

File: 723_seconds_in_mspaint.png (23KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 1000x500px

>All the works of literature that i love werent created by brilliant minds, but the laws of physics.

me

>>8380527
james joyce's asshole grandson

and ban drown

>>8380697
>james joyce's asshole grandson

Oh shit, I didn't even know Joyce had any living relatives.

>>8380511
God, I love omorashi

This board is a reddit outpost OP. I checked /r/books once and the overlap in taste is almost 1:1. Kids here are too chickenshit to own their own taste.

>>8380511
Lot's of people have read those 50 "core" books because they are popular classic books that everyone should read. Beyond that there are millions of books and people read different ones based on their taste (obtained while reading the core books). It if far less likely that enough people have read one specific non-core book recent enough to talk about it in any depth.
Unfortunately the design of /lit/ makes talk of lesser common books very difficult.
Reading groups were attempted, but I don't think they turned out very well.

>>8380502
i see no point in actively seeking out these places.

its like you are planning to be emotionally touched by being in the same location as someone who wrote something that you like.

these moments come from alone.

Does anyone still have the greentext about the guy who went to Berlin to see Max Stirner's grave and went home without ever finding it ?

>>8380502
I've always wanted to visit Dublin and passionately kiss the Joyce statue on the mouth.