Literature is just the mind afraid it won't survive death

really

>>9612854
>psychoanalytical reduction of art is truth

>>9612864
poo poo fart stinky :)

What did he mean by this?

>>9612854
this is applicable to everything creative and/or notable, not just literature. by reducing it to literature you prove the ineptitude of your critic and your real intention shitpost this board with no survivors.

>>9612854
I know this is bait but this really is why I write

>>9612867
haha!

File: IMG_1597.jpg (6KB, 147x147px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 147x147px

___ is just (vast oversimplification)

Episode

Why isn't it just using the neurotic mind as a vector to replicate itself?

>>9613034
>>9613037

Camus devoted a whole chunk of Myth of Sisyphus ("Absurd Creation") to how glorious this impulse is compared to others.

It's annoying when people try to find a utilitarian purpose in everything, so it's almost comforting for me to hear "this is pointless". Camus even goes on to say that thesis writing, writing that states its purpose and tries to have a unified perfect meaning is dull and is more like a legal testimony than art.

"Camus this, Camus that, get your own ideas you faggot" might be a natural response to what I'm saying but I can't help but fully agree with him. Take Paradise Lost, for instance. We all remember Satan and how wonderful Satan's parts are, but does anyone really care if Milton proved the ways of God to men? A similar example of this that Camus uses is Ivan from The Brothers Karamazov. These are both philosophical writers and even more so appealing to cognition than, say, German metaphysicians who seek to perfectly organize and categorize thought because novelists deal directly with observation and phenomena and in their own imperfect, irrational terms. Another example would be Moby Dick. It's basically pointless to find a single "point" to it but after 500 odd pages the reader begins to see the world and the whale through Melville's lens.

It's not my idea nor have I explained it quite as concisely, but it's a beautiful thing.

>>9614808
I agree with everything except for
>more appealing...german metaphysics

G. Metaphysics are pretty damn cognitive my friend

>>9614826

I don't necessarily approve or disapprove, but the point is mostly that a novel (think of something like a Dostoyevsky novel, Hemingway, Moby Dick, Ulysses, Kafka's oeuvre, although I suppose any example might technically work) is just as much a "system" as a work like Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Kant's categories, distinctions, forms, moral imperatives, etc. are based on just as much a limited viewpoint as Dosto or Shakespeare's fictional characters. Rather than proposing a theory and asking that it be modified, perfected, and whatnot through the scientific method until it is a perfect, unified, objective description of the human intellect, it almost makes more sense to describe the world through mortal, subjective fiction.

Not to say that Kant isn't interesting!

>>9614852
read the idealists who came after kant and hegel, they're better