Existentialists and Misanthropes

>>8323695
mishima

>>8323695
I took something different from The Tunnel. I saw it as the story of Castel's self-isolation/self-defeat. He saw himself as an outsider and so of course he ended up alone, in his cell, in his tunnel, due to his actions.
His paintings weren't an attempt to communicate - they were supposed to confirm and excacerbate his isolation. Which is why he had to, in the end, kill Maria, the one who understood. Allende was not the only blind one.

The only escape is sincere communication, and it's not a foolproof method. It's hard to be sincere to others when you have dug yourself that far.


You might like 'The Dark Stranger' by Julien Gracq. If you haven't read 'The Trial' then that too.

>>8323701
Anything in particular by him? Where do I begin?

>>8323762
I see it as a story of self isolation and defeat although I do not view it as a defeat that was entirely self inflicted.

I agree that they weren't an attempt to communicate but to confirm his isolation. An expression of his complete loneliness but not an exacerbation though.

Sincere communication is impossible anon. There never can be anyone who will completely understand anyone else. It is impossible to completely fill the void of someone else's heart because to do that you need to understand them completely and that will never be possible. Sincere communication will always be painfully limited. We're all a bunch of brutes speaking like cavemen unable to fully express what we feel or fully share it with someone else. Which is why all relationships are fundamentally failures. Castel's story is just a caricature of this failure that plagues every relationship between any two individuals. Don't you agree?

Thank you for the recommendations anon. Will check them out.

>>8323762
About the trial, isn't it about the madness/strangeness of a totalitarian bureaucracy? How is it relevant to the despair and anguish that one feels stuck with the human condition and in the human world and the cry and anger one feels against it?

>>8323845
I do agree with that, though it is possible to reconcile communication with its inadequacy. It can increase in accuracy but remains limited by the gap between empathy and abstraction. However, simple connections serve their own purpose. I don't think that all relationships are fundamentally a failure. The purpose of a relationship is not to have a complete mental model of a person; even less is it to become that person. Never even mind that complexity theory declares this impossible. We need to connect, but not to identify wholly with another person. That is not the goal of a relationship. There needs to be distance for appreciation.

>Castel's story is just a caricature of this failure that plagues every relationship between any two individuals
That is a good point, but it misses all of the successes of relationships. Perfectionism is pursuit of the impossible; it is an attitude that can change.

>isn't it about the madness/strangeness of a totalitarian bureaucracy?

I mean you could take it like that but that would reduce its scope rather a lot.

> How is it relevant to the despair and anguish that one feels stuck with the human condition and in the human world and the cry and anger one feels against it?

In every way

Nausea by Sartre, The Fall and The Stranger by Camus.

>>8323924
>>8323924
what do you study? I ask because I briefly studied complexity theory when learning theory of computation as a cs student.
Anyway, I sort of agree that perhaps it might be a bit too much to expect one to be completely able to understand the other. But I feel that simple connection is not necessarily sufficient and that this isn't the only goal of a relationship.

Of late I've come to see all relationships as transactions where we barter our empathy, experience, wit, conversation, affection with someone else's. And the more I think about it the more I feel that such transactions have the capacity/potential to go horribly wrong (more so than splendidly right). How often have you felt that you've found love and affection from the other in equal measure as you expect? How often have you felt satisfied with a simple connection (whatever that means)? The more you entrench yourself in such a transaction, the more you end up wanting and needing and expecting which only sets you up for disappointment and regret and guilt.

>In every way
I haven't read "The trail" but since you mentioned that it has a lot to do with what I mentioned I'll give it a go. Ty for the suggestion.

Atomised by Houellebecq

>>8323939
I didn't like Nausea too much. After reading The Book of Disquiet it was a bit lacklustre.

>>8323948
Physics.

No, it's not necessarily just simple connection. I think a good relationship has a variety of connections, however, single-purpose relationships still have a place as long as you don't spend too much time with that person.

A simple connection, to me, is having a pleasant exchange with someone. Nothing heavy, just a ripple on the surface; there are probably barriers between you.

A deep connection can go wrong as well if it's too much too fast. Suddenly you have nothing of yourself to keep and you feel threatened.

I think part of what is interesting about relationships is that you can't understand them. I hate to say it but I get bored of people, or at least of the kind of relationship we have, if it stagnates. For me there has to be enough new stuff (ideas, activities, emotions, whatever - some people base relationships on the new events in their lives if that's all they can share, not my cup of tea though).

There are some cases where you just inexplicably get on with someone and feel totally comfortable in their company. That's the best kind. When nothing is required.

No Longer Human by Dazai. Imagine the Notes From Underground guy x100.

>>8324018
Have read it. Ty for the suggestion though. That book is really close to my heart desu because of the extent of the alienation of the individual that it captured.

>>8323979
>when nothing is required.
from either individual? how often do people experience this? When there are no expectations and they just fit together and are content with whatever state they've achieved.

>I think part of what is interesting about relationships is that you can't understand them.
This part drives me up the wall desu. The inexplicable nature scares me because it introduces the possibility of not knowing how to deal with it and therefore going horribly wrong.


Also, would you recommend book of disquiet? I've had it on my bucket list for the longest time. Which translation would you suggest?