ITT: shit plebs, dilletantes and pseudo-intellectuals say
>Heidegger was a Nazi and Nazis were terribad therefore we shouldn't read or try to understand his philosophy
>Judge Holden is the devil
>The chapters about cetology, the color white, ship rigging &c. in Moby Dick were superfluous and boring
>Pynchon is just the literary equivalent of *~-lolsorandum-~*
>Wittgenstein's tractatus is the end of philosophy
>Modern art is shit
>I didn't like Catcher in the Rye because I didn't like Holden as a character
>One must imagine Sisyphus happy
>The state of literature today is awful compared to the state of literature in the past
>I have a problem with the way people use the word 'literally' nowadays
Well yeah people who reference the myth of sisyphus in response to the suicidal are idiots
Its such an utterly void argument
Why didnt Camus give up everything and go live on a hillside to prove his point then?
>>7829180
>>Heidegger was a Nazi and Nazis were terribad therefore we shouldn't read or try to understand his philosophy
That's a prime example of ad hominem, so anyone who says that is an idiot
>Wittgenstein's tractatus is the end of philosophy
wittgenstein disregarded the tractatus later on in life. philosophical investigations is much better
the rest of the statements boil down to subjective taste. we can speak about them from the perspective of aesthetics, but likes and dislikes are a personal preference.
so, i agree with most of what you say.
>Im a relativist
>>7829180
>>The state of literature today is awful compared to the state of literature in the past
But that's true. Please, unironically, recommend me a contemporary short story/novella/novel that compares in any way or sense of your choosing to Borges or Tolstoy or Joyce or whoever else
>>7829251
brief history of seven killings
the map and the territory
seiobo there below
a visit from the goon squad
my struggle
there are simply far more people educated and writing today than there have been in previous literary eras. the amount of literary fiction being published is deafening and a considerable amount of it is high quality. when you look back at the last 400 years of literature its easy to pick out titans because the flotsam and jetsam has drifted away.
if all you do is browse the best seller list anyone might come to the conclusion literature today is stagnant. it's the wrong impression though. it's like listening only to the top 40 radio hits and concluding today's music sucks compared to decades past. nah, you weren't born in le wrong generation, you're just a) not looking in the right places and b) you've basically been spoon fed all of humanity's artistic achivements of the last 3 or 4000 years in the mere couple decades you've been alive. you can't expect to keep being spoon fed art of the same calibre at the same rate. you can't expect to keep being spoonfed period. also if you look into what constituted best sellers in the past its always been pandering, sentimental hogwash. often enough, authors we regard as canon today died believing themselves failures, or at least they did not get the kind of recognition in their time as they would have in the future.
>>7829372
Not the person you're replying to but thanks, enlightening response.
I may start reading more literary magazines or looking at award winners
>>7829372
>often enough, authors we regard as canon today died believing themselves failures,
very true. i hate it when people talk about getting professionally published and gaining fame.
most of the famous authors we know today were not popular in their lifetime. fitzgerald died with all his books out of print; rimbaud published all his own stuff. the list goes on.
>>7829180
>was a Nazi so terribad
Whenever somebody does this i ask them about the tales they were told as children, if it was anything from the Brothers Grimm then I just point out they were heavily for Nazi Germany, and the Nazis were for them, so much so that it was recommended that every German household have a copy of their tales.
>>7829372
A Visit From The Goon Squad????
> basically another psychodynamic realist trudge through boring bourgeois ideas with a "oh my god le jumps in time" structure.
>>7829395
Wut?
>>7829395
yeah you need to explain that
>I'm an atheist
>modernist poetry is good
>modernist prose is good
>post-war art is not vapid kike garbage for goy brains rotted by poisonous talmudic doublespeak
>the ancient greeks were a middle-eastern culture
>
>>7830168
desu senpai I used to be an atheist then I started coming on Lit and began to question Dicky Dawkins and dem crew and then I went away and read a lil but of philosophy on the matter and now I'm still an atheist.
>>7830190
word filter T B H F A M
>mfw someone says Heidegger was a Nazi
Care to provide some counterexamples to the penultimate item on that list? By now, this century should have produced some masterpieces on a par with the important works of prewar modernism of the last century, and, while it may well be the case that I'm just not aware of the cutting edge of today's literature, I don't see anything even remotely comparable in contemporary literature. It seems like the 'avant-garde' of today consists of alt lit and the monotonously self-aware schlock that MFA-holders crank out, neither of which impress me very much. In fact, given the broad availability of good education today, we should have far more great writers than they did in the early 20th century. But where are they? Can someone point me to them?
I agree that the rest of those are pretty bad, though. The thing is, those sound like exactly the sort of underthought views that would be espoused by the avant-garde youth of today - if, indeed, they dare to express any meaningful views at all, which cannot be said of, for example, the alt lit crowd. Where are the Joyces and Eliots of the last couple decades?
>>7830303
Same with Schmitt, even respected New Left authors like Mouffe and Agamben continually get shit for utilising his work. I'm reading a book about Schmitt and the Spatiality of his work and 1/3 of it is exposition about his relation to Nazism
>>7830275
Well, it's true. Of course, he was still a very important thinker, but he was just because he rejected Hitler's biological racism in favor of some views concerning the 'metaphysical Jew' doesn't make him less reprehensible in his sociopolitical beliefs. But that should not exclude him from curricula by any means. Ezra Pound was a fascist, but it would be lamentable for people to ignore him simply because of that.
>>7830190
Exactly hehehe
Heidegger's thought offers so much to consider. He was well ahead of his time, and watching idiots dismiss him as a Nazi is as frustrating as watching some weirdos on the Left refuse to read Sartre because he was a "Stalinist". Heidegger created a whole new way of discussing existentialism.
>>7830328
but just because he rejected Hitler's biological racism etc.*
>>7830331
do you mean cus I only read a lil bit? PLEASE HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND MUH GOD IS REAL. I WANT TO BELIEVE
>>7830328
Nobody even knew about his views on the "metaphysical jew" until the black notebooks were published last decade. People will believe what they want to and jump any oppurtunity to prove themselves right. It's not nazism per say that scares these "progressives", it's the ideological criticism of modernity and associated thought (liberalism, communism etc)
>>7830343
Why do you want it to be real?
Put some actual thought into this.
I will reveal my opinion in the end.
>>7830348
I'm not so sure of that. How do you explain green progressivism if you claim that the modern left-wing is merely an extension of the postindustrial system of abuse or what-have-you? And, certainly, Heidegger is not a good example of the stubbornness and/or dishonesty of progressives, because he WAS just as antisemitic and bigoted as any other Nazi - that bigotry just came from a slightly different, and arguably even stranger, place.
>>7830365
save it
>>7830367
Ain't nothing bigoted about hating kikes to be honest.
>>7830370
NO
I will reveal my opinion in the end, go on
>>7830328
Actually Ezra Pound is rarely taught today for that reason...
>>7830367
Green progressivism as in what - Social democracy style environmentalism? Any Green party that compromises itself to make its way into government has shown itself it cannot combat a system packed against it.
The modern left is anything but left, it's a structurely flawed and counter productive synthesis that buys into all the myths of liberalism (global captialism, "growth/progress", linerar time, universalism, rationalism etc.)
> because he WAS just as antisemitic and bigoted as any other Nazi
This is the sort of sensationalism that equates Heiddegger with the likes of the Wannasee attendents
>>7830365
I'm not sure I have that much thought to put in but if I believed in God then I'd just be so much happier. It's such a wonderful idea that my existence has a purpose beyond that which I am capable of perceiving. Also, an after-life would be pretty fantastic.
>>7830430
The last thing I read was about how prior to the universe there must have been a state of meta physics and for this to cease and the universe to begin there must have been a change. The argument then went "change = choice" but of course it doesn't, it just means change.
>>7830442
anyone speculating about things before the beginning of the universe is slinging bullshit.
>>7829208
huh? what I got from the Myth is that everyone is carrying their own burden which seems to be attached to their existence, and it's up to them to make something of it i.e. it's all about perspective
I don't understand your point of why didn't Camus just give up everything and go live on a hillside to prove his point?
>>7830400
I'm not quite sure what you mean in regards to Green parties. I think the whole point of Green parties is to change 'the system' from within. You may not think that's radical enough, but I think it's unreasonable to say you have to be calling for an armed revolt in order not to be part of 'the establishment.'
And, in regards to Heidegger, it's NOT sensationalism because it's TRUE! As you said, you can look at the Black Notebooks and see his opinions on the Jews. Obviously, he had nothing whatever to do with the Holocaust (beyond doing his little part in creating a general cultural-intellectual air of antisemitism), but if you'll recall he claims he thought that the Holocaust was wrong in the same way that industrial farming is wrong. Ignoring the fact that it seems implausible that he would have lamented a weakening of the Metaphysical Jew, that way of looking at the Holocaust to me shows a morally deficient person: people are not grain. It's not the same thing at all, even if they are both bad to varying degrees. Again, there are plenty of great thinkers and artists who are in various ways morally deficient who nevertheless must be taught. After all, they are only human. But don't try to tell me Heidegger's obvious moral deficiency is a sensationalist illusion put up by progressivism.
