Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 220. page
- Home
- Board: /lit/ - Literature
- Reading: Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 220. page
>The sex play of children has always gone on. Everyone, I guess, who is not abnormal has foregathered with little girls in some dim leafy place, in the bottom of a manger, under a willow, in a culvert under a road—or at least has dreamed of doing so. Nearly all parents are faced with the problem sooner or later, and then the child is lucky if the parent remembers his own childhood.
>>8188506
>muh timshel
Kys
>>8188506
>and then the child is lucky if the parent remembers his own childhood.
Such a good book.
>>8188506
What's so bad about it.
What is the best way to go about learning Latin and (Ancient) Greek?
start off by not doing that
>>8188392
Alright, and then what?
>>8188401
Continue to not do it
hey /lit/, rate this excerpt from my novel
>>8188001
Ok ok ok all jokes aside where did you get this fucking kek
>>8188001
it should be pretty sad if you want to kill the first survivor whom you met
>>8188001
Oh shit, movie when?
If i told you there was something called The dragontails, what is the first thing that comes to your mind
>>8187763
I immediately think of an semi-literate Fantasyshit pleb
This tbbh
>>8187774
sci-fi/fantasy > you
Where should i start with Cicero? and which are the best translations?
That is a man's foot.
>>8187714
Really makes you think...
>>8187708
Honest question, do footfags realize how rancid feet can smell and is that part of the appeal?
I want to learn more about Psychiatry/Psychoanalysis.
Should I directly start with books from Freud, Jung or Lacan, or is there any general book I should look into beforehand?
>>8187651
>Psychiatry/Psychoanalysis
two different things
do you want to learn about either, both, or freud, or jung, or lacan?
>>8187651
Why don't you just learn phrenology whilst you're at it?
Astrology?
Reiki?
>>8187651
I would definitely start with Freud. If you pick up The Freud Reader, ed. Peter Gay (Norton), you'll find a really fabulous introduction to psychoanalysis, theory, history, and practice, from the horse's mouth, as it were. Gay's commentary isn't invasive, but provides very smart and contextual introductions to each of the texts.
I wouldn't touch Jung until you have a firm grasp on most if not all of the concepts Freud touches on in the Three Essays, included in the Reader. Jung drastically revises psychoanalysis, turning it basically into myth criticism—of which, by the way, much smarter forms can be found in American literary theory from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, if that happens to be your thing.
As for Lacan, his calculus has been introduced countless times by countless scholars, but the best of them in my opinion is that of Fred Jameson, who provides a powerful reading of the three registers in an article in Yale French Review. I can track it down for you if you like. Bear in mind, however, that like Jung, Lacan is also a revisionist; so don't expect his Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, for example, to be an introductory text by any means.
>We have every reason to suppose that Nietzsche had a profound knowledge of the Hegelian movement, from Hegel to Stirner himself. The philosophical learning of an author is not assessed by the number of quotations, nor by the always fanciful and conjectural check lists of libraries, but by the apologetic or polemical directions of his work itself. We will misunderstand the whole of Nietzsche's work if we do not see 'against whom' its principal concepts are directed. Hegelian themes are present in this work as the enemy against which it fights. Nietzsche never stops attacking the theological and Christian character of German philosophy (the 'Tubingen seminary') — the powerlessness of this philosophy to extricate itself from the nihilistic perspective (Hegel's negative nihilism, Feuerbach's reactive nihilism, Stirner's extreme nihilism) — the incapacity of this philosophy to end in anything but the ego, man or phantasms of the human (the Nietzschean overman against the dialectic) — the mystifying character of so-called dialectical transformations (transvaluation against reappropriation and abstract permutations). It is clear that Stirner plays the revelatory role in all this. It is he who pushes the dialectic to its final consequences, showing what its motor and end results are. But precisely because Stirner still sees things like a dialectician, because he does not extricate himself from the categories of property, alienation and its suppression, he throws himself into the nothingness which he hollows out beneath the steps of the dialectic. He makes use of the question 'which one?' but only in order to dissolve the dialectic in the nothingness of the ego. He is incapable of posing this question in anything but the human perspective, under any conditions but those of nihilism. He cannot let this question develop for itself or pose it in another element which would give it an affirmative response. He lacks a method, a typological method which would correspond to the question. Nietzsche's positive task is twofold: the Overman and Transvaluation. Not 'who is man?' but 'who overcomes man?' 'The most cautious peoples ask today: "How may man still be preserved?" Zarathustra, however, asks as the sole and first one to do so: "How shall man be overcome?" The overman lies close to my heart, he is my paramount and sole concern — and not man: not the nearest, not the poorest, not the most suffering, not the best' (Z IV 'Of the Higher Man', 3, p. 297) — the allusion to Stirner is obvious.
Alright /lit/, can we cut the Stirner is better than Nietzsche shit now?
>>8187625
>We have every reason to suppose that Nietzsche had a profound knowledge of the Hegelian movement, from Hegel to Stirner himself.
[Citation Needed]
>>8187660
He did read Hegel & liked it tho. It's Kant he didn't like.
OP, tl;dr
>>8187687
>/lit/
>tl;dr
This is why people on lit say so much stupid shit about philosophy
questions that don't deserve their own thread
has anyone read this?
the english dept. at my university is giving copies out for free and I'm thinking about grabbing one tomorrow
it's pretty good
>>8187089
Eh. Some okay jokes. Some TV drama style sentiment. Goes down quick and easy
>>8187089
>woman author
no idea, still boycotting women writers.
It's over two years now. I keep waiting to miss them, but it hasn't happened yet.
What does /lit/ think about Jung and his influence on literature? Pic related, I'm currently reading this
>>8186642
Star Wars is good
>>8186668
Are you referring to Joesph Campbell's influence in start wars?
Are any of Jung's ideas even still accepted in modern psychology?
Can anyone help me with the riddle of the shepherd? Not meming, genuinely stuck on its meaning.
Its a meme, first occurence was in Gospels, than some guy at the times of Jesus said "tee hee hee what i am referencing now;)))" and now you have Jesus as shepherd meme fresh from meme oven
>>8186649
No, that ain't it....
>>8186636
What is the riddle?
The "state of nature" that Hobbes and Locke discuss seems like nothing more than speculation. Aren't evolutionary and cultural anthropology much more effective at describing this base humanity?
>base humanity
>effective
>describing
Cease to persuade.
>>8186577
That image doesn't make any sense.
>>8186577
These notions didn't really exist when Locke and Hobbes were writing. State-of-nature is now an outdated notion in political philosophy, but it's important for students of political philosophy to be able to trace the development so they know what newer writers and thinkers are responding to.
Hey /lit/, what can you guys tell me about the genre "slipstream"? I know that it has surrealism elements and that it crosses genres like fantasy and scifi but that's about it. What else is there to know about it? Also I would love some book recommendations.
I have never heart of this genre but it sounds interesting. Are you sure you're not just thinking of the Mark Hamill movie?
>>8186685
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slipstream_(genre)
>>8186687
Yeah the wiki is no help as usual
goodreads threads. post your goodreads and others rate and discuss your books.
goodreads.com/katielovesclassicbooks
Not this katie shit again
I will if you post yours first.
>>8186269
who cares about that kid?
Rikke has better taste
Did Nietzche write about his illness in any of his texts?
ask Stirner
>>8186184
This must be homework or you'd know
Ecce Homo
lmao did wyatt just eat his dad?
>>8186177
Yes. Everyone else who ate that bread ate him too.
>>8186187
loooooooooooooool
