Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 4209. page

I watched the TV show of this and it was awful.

>>7775589

I quite like the TV show, but the main toon is still a whiny cunt even there.
And they skip over how hard they actually work and study there

Just started the third book
When does it get good?

>>7775559
checked

yeah it was pretty grand

I had wanted to write a story about someone having a successful American life who then has to contend with death and the realization that his life was meaningless, but Tolstoy fucking nailed it like nothing I could hope to aspire to.

> the curtains did him in

File: 1453979777214.png (262KB, 686x377px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 686x377px

>>7775559
It made me go out and purchase a couple packs of cigarettes mid-way through. I would go out to smoke one periodically as I finished it that day. Would recommend.

File: orientalism.jpg (64KB, 306x475px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 306x475px

Edward Said is rolling over in his grave over what these people did to his field.

bump..

>>7775466

Said is a tier above SJWs, in that he's actually read and understands what he's complaining about, but he's still fairly awful.

File: 1456339006121.jpg (1MB, 1832x2302px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1832x2302px

In ancient times, the primary function of art was (according to Aristotle, but obviously not totally) catharsis (similar to blockbusters or tearjerkers today). But with the rise of Christianity, art took on a new purpose that was beyond the synthesis of the binary Dionysian-Apollonian or ever Socratic spoken of by Nietzsche; art became about expressing truth which could *not be expressed by reason*. This was not emotional truth (we will get to that), but a higher true which reason could not order properly. Art eventually became about materialist truth or emotion later on in the West (it started in the Gothic period Giotto's "The Massacre of the Innocents" is a good example). Materialist art. especially in the Renaissance, started to trend toward an extremely fleshy aesthetic in contract to the Christians aesthetic (Byzantine icon of Adam and Eve for illustration).
cont

Where can I read more of this?

File: 11.png (2MB, 750x1063px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 750x1063px

Now it is not that Christian art did not have emotion in it, but that it was not about Catharsis (this is why Orthodox icons do not depict Christ suffering on the cross, but always already dead, they do not aim for some catharsis). The major difference between Christian literature and Christian pictorial art is that the former conveys constant action, whereas the latter is tries to convey a stillness for holy figures, an absence of action and total calm (sometimes contrasted with the less than holy figures); this utilizes the medium very well, since pictorial art is frozen, whereas text is active.

I think the basic understanding of how this ties with Biblical aesthetic can be shown in Christ's parables, literature within literature. Here we see the full purpose and dynamic of Biblical of aesthetic in the illustration of truth. Touching back on Aristotle's theory on the function of art, I contrast the pagan Aesop's literature to illustrate the same aesthetic as the Christian function of art.

It's not about catharsis, it is about expressing truth in a way reason cannot. This is why art ceased to be naturalist during the Christian period, because naturalism is a kind of rationalism of art (not naturalism couldn't be used, it occasionally was, but here it was an element employed to facilitate a particular truth of a particular piece of art, as opposed to something always employed for the sake of being considered more true in and of itself).

To give you a visceral contrast between these two aesthetics, Here is a Roman Catholic hymn, followed by an Orthodox hymn, follow by a Roman Catholic hymn, follow by an Orthodox hymn. The Roman Catholic hymns embody the modernist aesthetic, whereas the Orthodox hymns embody the Christian aesthetic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0iOBOIwQ2o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mgn2Y1Yvhs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8r5r4R2yuE

With the onset of modernity, truth ceased to be expressed in this unique, Biblical way (the Bible is also not about catharsis). Instead truth was expressed either rationally or trough catharsis, the return to the Apollonian-Dionysian synthesis. This is why modern variants of Christianity have difficulty reading the Bible, everything in is read as either cathartic or rational truth. This is also why scientism is increasingly marginalizing the humanities where they are not cathartic, since they are seen as inadequate to expression rational truth. We have lost touch with the use of art and philosophy as expression of truth in a way unique to art, that isn't about either rationalism or being an emotion junkie.

>>7775424
>satire or not

1. Read the "Discourses"
2. Kill yourself

It's not satire m8y.

That being said, Machiavellian is usually a term used to decribe someone that appears to be withholding truth from someone (the public) and/or subtly manipulating them behind the scenes. Fits the bill for most dictators and sociopaths.

>>7775424
I've made the satire argument before, that The Prince was a tool to get its namesake to do stupid shit that would obviously erode one's power in order to facilitate a regime change that would get Machiavelli's job back.

No one's put much stock in it.

what's updog?

>>7775401
updog is that thing under there

YTMND

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPjvDE-rKo0

School of Life, I guess. Videos are about 6 min. so it's very brief when explaining different philosophers. I like watching it when I need a reminder of who thought what.

they have relationship videos (the one I saw was like "why your relationship failed") which make the creator sound like a forever alone perma virgin.

>>7775364

Don't get trolled.

Also, PEL is amazing but their videos are a little too long to get over in my commute (and I hate stopping mid way).

History of philosophy by Peter Adamson is really good too, definitely check it out if you are interested in philosophy and especially in starting with the Greeks.

I love PEL, also on the lookout for anything similar to those podcasts. Do any other philosophy podcasts compare? Particularly interested in Stoicism, Cynicism, Epicureanism and Buddhist philosophy.

why do you ask

Not enough. I'm in dire need of adjusting my sleep schedule to open up time for reading and writing. I work 5-2 every weekday and am always too tired to focus and too awake to nap in the afternoons.

I go to bed late and sleep late, I drink huge amounts of coffee, I try to write and read every single day. Depending on what my circumstances are, I can spend a day either not writing at all or writing many thousands of words in the span of a few hours.

>>7775191
Nabokov and Bloom.

They're morons who parrot STEMLORDS who need proof.

>>7775192
>>7775196
/thread
even psychoanalysis has moved past him but reading Interpretation first hand is mindblowing

It's not gibberish lad I swear on me mum's life

I can't

>>7775096
Why would I. Don't read it if you don't want to read it. Though anti-intellectualism won't get you anywhere

>implying is not Plato himself talking

>>7774920
>Implying not everyone comprehends that Socrates is Plato's mouthpiece.

>implying that Plato, by using Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own ideas, wasn't guiding himself by Socrates' own ideal of self-knowledge and subjective freedom.

>>7774780
Start with the Greeks.

I enjoyed The Namesake as far as novels go

DESIGNATED

File: butterfly12.jpg (37KB, 641x482px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 641x482px

>>7774641
butterfly

>>7774641
all of them desu

>>7774098
>Does it ever pass?

Yes. Read more.

>>7774148
When did it pass for you?

>>7774157
After I read more.

almost everything you dip

>>7773994
So what isn't worth reading?

>>7773993
"Hey guys, i want to start working out but i don't want to get too big. What should i do to not get too big?"