File: House of Leaves cover.jpg (231KB, 1104x1475px) Image search:
[Google]
231KB, 1104x1475px
Can we please talk about this book? Despite its gimmicky (as some say) layout and some peoples' problem with the Johnny Truant narrative, House of Leaves really is beautifully written. It's also incredibly clever with the insane variety of ways the book as a whole can be interpreted, plus the incredible number of ways Danielewski conveys emotion, meaning and imagery is amazing. Take for example the chapter (by Zampano) on echoes: at first the chapter seems out of place and irrelevant, boring even, but it adds to the horror of the novel in a way which only the format presented by the author can achieve. The many ways darkness is described and presented in the book are in themselves frightening and Lovecraftian. Even many parts of Johnny Truant's story are like this, although on a different level and with different nuances. The subplot of his relationship with his mother and father are subtle and can only be deciphered by inference and reading in-between the lines. There are moments in Johnny's narrative (in particular the opening chapter and his concluding chapter) that are some of the most memorable in the book. I do not understand why there is so much hate for House of Leaves on /lit/. It is an incredibly nuanced novel, subtly written and gifted with many, many Easter eggs and ways of interpretation.
15 Posts / 6 Images
View this topic
>>
It's a great idea. I don't know if the execution is as strong as it could be though. It's definitely his best work by a mile or so.
It would get more hype if he had written more books like it.
>>
yeah I'd agree that /lit/ gives House of Leaves too much shit. It's definitely gimmicky but it's also a one-of-a-kind read: it's written pretty well given the kind of writing involved, and HoL is fantastic at setting up an atmosphere. I remember reading the book and being legitimately plagued by anxiety the whole time, not just while I was reading it but even when I took breaks and that is something that no horror novel has been able to do with me so far (granted I don't read much horror). I had a panic attack in the shower one time during the two weeks I took to read it, and I had not had a panic attack in years at that point. I love that you brought up the Echoes chapter, because I think it was one of the most clever moments in the book: like you said, when you're reading it you feel as if it's pointless, but I believe at the end of the chapter following it, Zampano describes the father playing with his young daughter and how you hear the daughter whisper "always", but then Zampano describes how "always" sounds like the echo of "hallways". That part blew me away, not because it was an incredible revelation, but because of how at that moment, you realize that the Echo chapter did have a point after all and it became clear that it would serve as very important later on. Anyway, I think that it is a fantastic modern novel, nothing groundbreaking, which is perhaps why /lit/ hates it so much, but it's a fun novel nonetheless, definitely very interesting.
>>
>>9603038
It's not his best work. Only Revolutions and The Familiar both blow this out of the water .
File: Max_stirner.jpg (10KB, 200x237px) Image search:
[Google]
10KB, 200x237px
Premise #:1
Although Stirner's philosophy is radically skeptical of moral judgements, it recognises the validity and communicabiliy of value judgements. The basis of Stirner's principles are an esteeming of the individual life governed by rational self-interest.
Premise #2:
Paradoxically, human self-interest is best fulfilled in self-giving, humility, and prioritising other's needs above one's own. This is not necessarily in conflict with the roots of Stirner's philosophy: if one recognises that they find maximal satisfaction in altruistic behaviour and follow it out of rather than being compelled to by delusions or "spooks", that may be perfectly resonant with amoral egoism. (Contrast with Ayn Rand's nonsensical moralistic egoism).
So far, the Catholic morality and Stirner's are not especially dissimilar, except for metaphysical disagreements.
However, here is where the two philosophies come into conflict:
Catholic ethics suggest that one should perform good deeds even when they experience no tangible uplift from it, when they derive no discernible satisfaction from it. It is legitimate to experience self-development, self-realisation and self-satisfaction through altruism, but it is illegitimate to negate others if one thinks they will find more satisfaction in selfishness, isolation and cruelty.
Christianity also assumes a base-level human essence where Stirner decrees there is none. Stirner considers the idea of an intrinsic commonality between men a limiting "spook", and instead considers the "creative nothing" the root principle/premise. Whereas Christianity says that humans have root causes and needs that can only be fulfilled by certain means, Stirner says that such a generalisation is ungrounded and false, and that such ideas may have no relevance to the individual, an entirely separate entity.
THEREFORE:
If the metaphysical bases of Christianity are in fact true, and its assertions about human nature do in fact apply to a universal principle to which all humans do (or can) correspond, then Stirner's value judgements must recede into the Christian system, since the egoist can only find full satisfaction and rational fulfillment of his self-interest in following the path outlined by the Christian ethic. The omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God wishes for the maximal fulfillment of all individual beings, and through submission to God all individuals will find their innermost being most fully, vibrantly and rewardingly expressed.
20 Posts / 7 Images
View this topic
>>
File: 1433457228160-3.jpg (31KB, 380x590px) Image search:
[Google]
31KB, 380x590px
In other words, God's commandments are not arbitrary and not detrimental to the individual. They belong both to God and to the individual, who belongs to God and is fulfilled in him.
Which is more true to the world as it is? The sciences suggest an inherent human nature defined by DNA expression, biological and psychological needs, do they not? Whether from an essentialist, formalist, Marxist, theistic or purely materialist point of view, is Stirner's existensialist definition of the creative nothing faulty, and in fact damaging, deceptive, self-defeating and undermining to and of the individual? Individualisation is dependent on socialisation.
>Faith sees in Jesus the man in whom - on the biological plane - the next evolutionary leap, as it were, has been accomplished; the man in whom personalization and socialization no longer exclude each other but support each other; the man in whom perfect unity - "The body of Christ" says St. Paul, and even more pointedly in "You are all one in Christ Jesus" - and perfect individuality are one; the man in whom humanity comes into contact with its future and in the highest extent itself becomes its future, because through him it makes contact with God himself, shares in him, and thus realises its most intrinsic potential. From here onward faith in Christ will see the beginning of a movement in which dismembered humanity is gathered together more and more into the being of one single Adam, one single "body" - the man to come. It will see in him the movement to that future of man in which he is completely "socialized", incorporated in one single being, but in such a way that the individual is not extinguished but brought completely to himself.
- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), Introduction to Christianity
More simply, more domestically and more poetically:
>There are no real personalities apart from God. Until you have given up your self to Him you will not have a real self. Sameness is to be found most among the most 'natural' men, not among those who surrender to Christ. How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerers have been; how gloriously different are the saints.
- C.S. Lewis
>>
>>9603006
>>THEREFORE:
only rationalists use this word
>>
File: ghost-story.jpg (17KB, 390x310px) Image search:
[Google]
17KB, 390x310px
Are you perchance thinking of comparing yourself with the ancients, who saw gods everywhere? Gods, my dear modern, are not spirits; gods do not degrade the world to a semblance, and do not spiritualize it.
You have much profound information to give about God, and have for thousands of years “searched the depths of the Godhead,” and looked into its heart, so that you can doubtless tell us how God himself attends to “God’s cause,” which we are called to serve. And you do not conceal the Lord’s doings, either. Now, what is his cause? Has he, as is demanded of us, made an alien cause, the cause of truth or love, his own? You are shocked by this misunderstanding, and you instruct us that God’s cause is indeed the cause of truth and love, but that this cause cannot be called alien to him, because God is himself truth and love; you are shocked by the assumption that God could be like us poor worms in furthering an alien cause as his own. “Should God take up the cause of truth if he were not himself truth?” He cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must “serve a higher cause.” — Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is — a purely egoistic cause.
God and mankind have concerned themselves for nothing, for nothing but themselves. Let me then likewise concern myself for myself, who am equally with God the nothing of all others, who am my all, who am the only one.[Der Einzige]
If God, if mankind, as you affirm, have substance enough in themselves to be all in all to themselves, then I feel that I shall still less lack that, and that I shall have no complaint to make of my “emptiness.” I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.
Away, then, with every concern that is not altogether my concern! You think at least the “good cause” must be my concern? What’s good, what’s bad? Why, I myself am my concern, and I am neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me.
The divine is God’s concern; the human, man’s. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is — unique,[Einzig] as I am unique.
Nothing is more to me than myself!
File: IMG_1211.jpg (169KB, 628x525px) Image search:
[Google]
169KB, 628x525px
Why do these style of books get no respect? They are some of the finest literary works Ive ever read.
13 Posts / 3 Images
View this topic
>>
People judge books by their covers.
Though to be honest Vance has always been an underrated author. G.W. stole his limelight.
>>
>>9602784
I've only read the Dying Earth short stories, surely once you've read these then you've read them all as far as Jack Vance is concerned right? All the descriptions on flowers, gardens, the sky, architecture, just seem like they repeat themselves across all of his works.
I'm probably completely wrong though.
>>
>>9602784
Sell me on them, Anon.
Anonymous
Philosophy died in 1953. Let it go. 2017-06-06 06:44:55 Post No.9602511
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Philosophy died in 1953. Let it go. 2017-06-06 06:44:55 Post No.9602511
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Philosophy died in 1953. Let it go.
Anonymous
2017-06-06 06:44:55
Post No. 9602511
[Report]
[View this topic]
36 Posts / 6 Images
View this topic
>>
analytics and their nonsense
>>
dude. spoiler alert plz. im only on heidegger
>>
File: Screenshot_2017-06-06-17-53-41-1.png (294KB, 720x839px) Image search:
[Google]
294KB, 720x839px
>>9602511
Also the year the only good communist died.
File: bob_dylan_0.jpg (234KB, 1280x960px) Image search:
[Google]
234KB, 1280x960px
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zf04vnVPfM
27 Posts / 2 Images
View this topic
>>
Goddamn he has such a great speaking voice. Dude should do audiobooks.
>>
he quotes moby dick
“Some men who receive injuries are led to God, others are led to bitterness.”
but that quote is not in the book. what did he mean by this?
>>
>>9602788
he emphasizes words in a weird and sporadic way. as if he's speaking english as a second language.
File: umineko ending.png (318KB, 500x375px) Image search:
[Google]
318KB, 500x375px
What book has the most beautiful ending ever written?
126 Posts / 21 Images
View this topic
>>
>>9600793
Dubliners
>inb4 not a book
>>
>>9600793
Is there any correct answer besides Ulysses? The ending is absolutely sublime.
>>
Moby-Dick is probably up there.
File: 1418405052233.jpg (377KB, 1200x1600px) Image search:
[Google]
377KB, 1200x1600px
discussing capitalism and communism; the 'socioeconomic myth' and the agendas of materialistic political systems -
>The true significance of the socioeconomic myth, in any of its forms, is as a means of internal anesthetization or prophylaxis, aimed at evading the problem of an existence robbed of any meaning and at consolidating in every way the fundamental insignificance of modern man's life.
on science:
>None of modern science has the slightest value as knowledge; rather, it bases itself on a formal renunciation of knowledge in the true sense... The system of science resembles a net that draws ever tighter around a something that, in itself, remains incomprehensible, with the sole intention of subduing it for practical ends.
sounds about right to me
89 Posts / 7 Images
View this topic
>>
>>9600483
>sounds about right to me
>t. Has never held a job
>>
>>9600488
this is going to sound gay, but i make six figures
>>
Give me your best iron pill guides and related infographics pls
File: All Boys Leave Home Someday.jpg (28KB, 480x345px) Image search:
[Google]
28KB, 480x345px
Who will carry the torch of literature in the West, after the current banner of great writers dies? Pynchon, DeLillo, McCarthy, and others, you can think of at least a few, are near to the grave.
We can safely discount Tao Lin and his ilk, those whose trite portraits of millennial ennui, vulgar and self-indungent, owe what meager critical acclaim they've seen to a stilted, gimmickal style, and moreover the unfamiliarity of the establishment, agèd as it is, with the reality of (if you permit) the Millennial Condition.
Other classes of writers whose candidacy can well be discarded out of hand: middlebrow American staples (Franzen, Chabon, etc. - for the banality of their vision); PoMo continuationists, writers of "difficult" doorstoppers (Josh Cohen, Adam Levin, etc - for their puzzling dedication to a vacuous maximalism better abandoned at the turn of the millennium); writers of "socially minded" fiction (Ta-Nehisi Coates, Roxane Gay - for their conflation of political urgency with formal merit); confused postmodernists that call themselves metamodernists; imitators and wheel-turners; fads (Danielewski); and mere revivalists (Knausgaard vis-a-vis Proust).
Who is the next generation of literary greats? And where are they now? And have we it in us? Or is this generation consigned to be an embarrassment of literary history, like the Beats were? I should think the farcical course our history has taken should serve plenty for inspiration and urgency, yet it seems nobody from my crop of men (I am in my twenties) has yet said anything really worth saying at all.
105 Posts / 12 Images
View this topic
>>
Me.
>>
Jacob Hurley
>>
File: anne-garreta.jpg (74KB, 580x773px) Image search:
[Google]
74KB, 580x773px
sup m8
File: violence-of-God-in-the-Bible.jpg (18KB, 492x325px) Image search:
[Google]
18KB, 492x325px
Why is God such a dick in the Old Testament?
Let's talk about him as a literary character, not a religious figure. What are his motivations, really?
100 Posts / 14 Images
View this topic
>>
File: AhY1bXv.jpg (63KB, 540x536px) Image search:
[Google]
63KB, 540x536px
>>9599856
Interesting thread. I bet his motives were kinda like Hitler, make a master race ya know?
>>
File: is-god-angry.jpg (20KB, 200x267px) Image search:
[Google]
20KB, 200x267px
>>9599856
"fucking degenerates" - God
>>
>>9599856
>Why is God such a dick in the Old Testament?
Because God is such a dick in real life.
File: IMG_0651.png (100KB, 944x518px) Image search:
[Google]
100KB, 944x518px
How exactly do so many Stirnerites espouse anti-capitalist views?
101 Posts / 10 Images
View this topic
>>
>>9599539
Because they're edgy mongs with no reading comprehension.
>>
>>9599539
Because they haven't actually read him
>>
>>9599539
because capitalism is a spook
File: bookhaul.jpg (1MB, 2740x1500px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 2740x1500px
Just finished a trip with a lot of used bookstores, and came away with these. How'd I do, /lit?
109 Posts / 25 Images
View this topic
>>
>>9599537
How much did that Jerusalem cost you?
Anyway I got the following, sorry no pics:
The Melancholy of Resistance-Krasznahorkai
The Woman in the Dunes-Kobo Abe
Hard to Be a God-Boris and Arkady Strutgatsky
Rate
>>
>>9599551
$10. Considering it was "not for sale", it looked like a good find. Don't know how much different it'll be from the official version though.
Also,
>Hard to Be a God-Boris and Arkady Strutgatsky
v. nice
>>
(has anyone here read either copy of Jerusalem yet?)
File: d19c3b-20070503-amyreadingabook.jpg (209KB, 1000x1250px) Image search:
[Google]
209KB, 1000x1250px
What are you reading this summer?
Name three books.
>Resurrection - Tolstoy
>The Seagull - Chekhov
>Fathers and Suns - Turgenev
78 Posts / 12 Images
View this topic
>>
Meditations - Marcus
Plato writings number one Hebrew edition ma'adurat שוקן אתם גוים
I and Thou - Buber
>>
I'm reading
>The Onion Eaters
and
>Life: A User's Manual
>Remember Why You Fear Me
are being delivered this week. I'll read a lot more than just them, I don't usually plan ahead.
>>
File: Capture.jpg (58KB, 1220x493px) Image search:
[Google]
58KB, 1220x493px
Should I do it, /lit/?
49 Posts / 5 Images
View this topic
>>
>>9597976
No. You will read less on a kindle desu.
>>
>>9597976
Yes. I love being able to learn about a book, download it, sync up and just then HAVE that book. Pretty dope. Libraries and public domain have ebooks too if you're not about piracy. If you have prime there are a few (not that /lit/) books you can read for free, too. The vocab builder/word look-up/recall feature is amazing and on wifi I've had the wikipedia function be really useful as well. Not amazing for annotating but good for highlighting and also carrying around 1000 books in your back pocket.
>>
>>9597983
I actually find that I barely read anymore. I think I've been corrupted by screens into horrible attention spans and I just can't make it through a physical book unless I have to for a grade. Yet I read tons of shit off of screens without the feeling of labor I get from a physical book.
File: IMG_0479.jpg (36KB, 220x280px) Image search:
[Google]
36KB, 220x280px
I think there can be no God based on the following argument. Let me know what you guys think:
Premise 1: God is defined here as a deity who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good
Premise 2: Somone who is all-good would do everything he could do to stop suffering
Premise 3: Someone who is all-powerful would be able to stop suffering
Premise 4: Suffering exists
Conclusion: God does not exist. He is defined as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. An all-good being who is also all-powerful would not only try to stop suffering but would be able to stop suffering as well. Thus suffering should stop if there is a God, but suffering is still there. Thus there is no God
214 Posts / 19 Images
View this topic
>>
If he's all-knowing he probably has a better idea of what is good than you
>>
>>9594878
Wow, this argument has never been thought of before. Are you one of those enlightened redditors?
>>
>>9594884
But we are the ones that decided or "was told by God" that he is all good, therefore either we decide what is good or God has already showed us what is good.
File: lovejoy.jpg (65KB, 850x400px) Image search:
[Google]
65KB, 850x400px
Anyone ever read Lovejoy's Great Chain of Being?
I'm writing a short paper on it right now, specifically on what exactly a unit-idea is. It's surprisingly hard to get a grasp on what he means, because he's working with such a weird metaphysics of mental contents. For him, ideas ARE susceptible to all sorts of blurring and interpretative glitches, so they aren't Platonic forms for example. But they also have necessarily internal "logics" to them - they aren't purely constructivist/perspectivalist.
It's like my mind constantly wants to say "Lovejoy, either ideas have 'logical essence', or they are purely perspectival. Pick one or the other."
Anyone read it and know what I mean?
22 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
Been awhile, but still have a copy. Will look through it and whatever notes i took and return if i feel i can contribute.
>>
>>9594287
I'd be grateful for any other insights.
I've been looking into it more and it seems that most of his interpreters (including his biographer) see the unit-idea as a "family resemblance" concept, which I didn't get at all from reading it.
Two more recent things, one PhD thesis and one article, say that the unit-idea implies more that there's a "core" of something unchanging that makes the idea "the same" when it's held by different people.
>>
>>9595647
Just taken this up-- focus on the unit idea.... (bump)