You are lost because you are free.
thanks Kirk
I have read his novels translated by Harmon and his short stories translated by Muir
I am interested in reading The Castle, at least, by Muir, because I read his translation emphasizes the theological reading
I prefer Harmon's prose translation however, and am wondering if the newest Schocken books edition of his collected stories is still primarily Muir or if it has new translations by Harmon (it doesn't list one translator online because though Muir does most of it in my edition it's various translators throughout)
>>7891856
Shut up Franz
>>7891856
He'll never know the mark he left on literature..
>>7891856
Ishida-sensei? I didn't know you shitposted here. I'm a huge fan of your work.
kierke was saying this before you, franny-boy
>>7892085
This
Define lost
Define free
>>7892883
Fuck off Plato we're not doing this today
>>7892892
If you don't then this quote is 'deep' wallpaper quotes tier.
>>7892899
Good doubles. Alright, let's do it. You and me, Glaucon can tag in if I fail. Would you like to begin with lost or free?
>>7892903
You can start with lost or free. I'm only here to criticise until I deem it not to be bs. Even then I'll probably find some roundabout way to criticise. This is the only position I'm willing to take.
>>7892907
So Socrates minus the insight, wisdom, proposed alternatives, and general utility. I'll take it, because I want to think today. I've got a thing, brb.
Thrasymacus on standby.
I am the best flute player
In order then, let's begin with lost. If we do not begin with lost, we will not understand what the OP means when they say that one is lost because one is free. Besides, this would seem the easier definition to cover and I should like to get it out of the way. The traditional nomenclature for the term lost is that one is unaware of their location, or that their state of mind has slipped. Here we see the OP using the more abstract form of the term, and we should consider their meaning in our definition, as it applies to the problem directly.
When we are lost, is it a failure of direct perception? No. Our eyes still see, our ears still hear, and so on. If one is made not to see, they are called blinded, not lost. We still, in a state of being lost, can call one direction from another, forward and back, but perhaps not North from East. What is lacking for the lost man is the relation of his knowledge to his senses, the inapplicable nature of his crystalized knowledge to his sensory inputs to create fluid knowledge and meaning. A failure of the working memory's synthesis to the central executive as it relates to choice and orientation.
>A man lost can still imagine possible paths in front of him. "What if I were to walk along the creek only?" "What if I apply for this job?" "What if I marry only her?"
If a man is lost, he may say that forward is North, back wards is South and so on. This direction is arbitrary, but as soon as he makes them, he is no longer lost. He may be misguided, incorrect, but he is not lost. Lost then, is not a factor of being misled, merely meaning not applied to possible paths.
>Our man then can perceive, can plan, but cannot associate meaning with said plans.
To be lost then, is
1. To perceive, understand, and integrate information in so far as possible paths are concerned, however many and
2. To be unable to crystallize meaning associated with those paths.
>Remember, we still have the definition of "free" to cover, and that's a whopper.
Thoughts so far?
Why is he the only one that understands?
>>7893028
>When we are lost, is it a failure of direct perception? No
Why not?
Those who mistrust their perceptions are likely the most lost. It is not on or off in these cases. There are gradations. For example, those with mental issues both 'know' that their visions are mental constructs but can not turn them off. This causes a double mindedness which makes paths even more uncertain but the ability to perceive, understand and integrate is severely impeded.
Why should these people not be included in the category of 'lost'?
>>7893028
>If one is made not to see, they are called blinded, not lost. We still, in a state of being lost, can call one direction from another, forward and back, but perhaps not North from East. What is lacking for the lost man is the relation of his knowledge to his senses, the inapplicable nature of his crystalized knowledge to his sensory inputs to create fluid knowledge and meaning. A failure of the working memory's synthesis to the central executive as it relates to choice and orientation.
Well put.
As for free, it's probably the least complicated of the two here, because it has a referent--otherwise, it would be impossible to define.
To be free is to be without, or to lack. In this case it means to be free of direction, to be without the means to reach your end; to possess those means however, would be to be bound by them, to be given no choice but to go in that direction. So to make a choice, is to be in lack (free) of surely knowing which way is better, to not know where to go, is to be lost.
>>7893059
Mistrust implies that there is concrete information which could create a path. Mistrust only comes once the path is created, and it is considered. Their integration is perfect, actually. It just may not be real, factually correct, directly existential, or have any
>meaning.
They are not included
1. We're presupposing normal faculties, see blinded. The person of whom you're speaking is initially ill, not lost. The prime condition is ill, which creates their dissociation. I'm talking about someone who is only in the lost state, to clarify the problem.
2. They can create meaning from their non-existential paths. "I will kill all the aliens." This is not lost. They are on a path, merely misguided.
>>7893076
Moving on to free then? I'm willing to go back if you or any would like.
>>7893088
Do go on.
>>7893098
Alright, will do. I have class at the moment and some work to do after that, but I'll keep the thread open and answer later tonight. If anyone wants to jump in for me, they're perfectly welcome.
>>7893107
Ok, I'll do free.
Free is just like you can do things if you want to and so on.
>>7893112
Great stuff.
So to combine the two:
We have many paths because we are free but can not assign any meaning to them because we are lost.
Having said this it's not just lack of meaning I.e. It's not that the paths are unintelligible I.e. Without coherent meaning. More that they're perceived meaning is not deemed worthy of pursuing
Here, let me summarize:
You are free, because you have very reasonable power to choose your path. However, you are lost because you cannot determine what path to choose.
>>7893028
Surely to be 'lost' suggests not a lack of orientation or perception as you see it, but rather a lack of purpose and direction in the sense of an aim. You're looking at the concept of being 'lost' through an entirely physical lense. You're right that we can't create meaning associated with the paths we perceive, but it's more that there is no inherent meaning in these paths in the first place.
Also when you're defining freedom you're pretty much going to be using Kierkegaard, Camus, Nietzsche and Sartre, who argue much the same thing - the lack of inherent 'meaning' in a conventional sense is just what renders us free as individuals. By this definition the original statement is tautological.
>>7893107
That image looks comfy as fuck
>>7892085
Homer as well
>>7891856
Obviously. What else is new?
>>7892085
Kierkegaard is a handsome looking dude.
>>7892063
:(((
>>7893076
>So to make a choice, is to be in lack (free) of surely knowing which way is better, to not know where to go, is to be lost.
I may be misunderstanding you but does this imply that someone with knowledge of the exact consequences of their decisions is not truly free in regards to that choice?
I.e. A man is aware of two possible paths home, one longer than the other. He decides to take the longer path home rather than the shorter one, against logic, but he was still free to decide right?
I've always seen freedom as having control or options, as opposed to not being in control. Someone in jail isn't free because they can't decide when they want to leave.
My other thread died.
Still looking for The Big Lebowski gag in Kafka's works
It's not in The Trial (my edition anyways)
>>7893784
Your example is pretty reductive, because what the man thinks he's doing by disregarding is very important--people don't expend energy just because.
A better analogy to my position would be a man that goes down a path not knowing, or being capable of knowing, there's a different path.
As for having control and options, think of breathing or eating, are you free to not eat or breathe? Is a prisoner not free to escape in the right conditions, but then not free of those conditions?
It's not a matter of what you want, but a matter of what is needed to reach something you want.
>>7891856
You are lost because you were born a person that would grow up to think they were lost because they are free. It was inevitable.
>>7893791
OK i have reread The Trial and am now almost done rereading The Castle
what the fuck is up with this? one other anon said he thought he remembered this... if it isn't in the last 1/3 of the castle .....
maybe it's only in one translation? or maybe it was in orson welles' adaptation of the trial
>>7895138
use the archive meme monger
>>7895143
Just did, I remember the part you guys are looking for. It is in the beginning of the trial when K has his first interview with the examining magistrate, he looks in the books on the desk and sees a bunch of lude material. I will return with page numbers.
>>7895143
>>"K. opened the book on top, and an indecent picture was revealed […] K didn't leaf through any further, but simply opened to the frontispiece of the second book, a novel entitled The Torments Grete Suffered at the Hands of Her Husband Hans."
page 57
>>7895162
thanks
>>7895162
i just skim read the whole book yesterday looking for this, how did i miss that?
anyhow, thanks
