/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.Check the wiki, the catalog, and the archive before asking for advice or recommendations, and please refrain from starting new threads for questions that can be answered by a search engine./lit/ is a slow board! Please take the time to read what others have written, and try to make thoughtful, well-written posts of your own. Bump replies are not necessary.Looking for books online? Check here:Guide to #bookzhttps://www.geocities.ws/prissy_90/Media/Texts/BookzHelp19kb.htmBookzzhttp://b-ok.cc/http://libgen.rs/Recommended Literaturehttp://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Recommended_Reading
Are you incapable of making decisions without the guidance of anonymous internet strangers? Open this thread for some recommendations.
Anybody read this? I've just started and it's a crazy read to say the least lol.>The most complex episode in Roth’s life was his infamous anti-Semitic tract, Jews Must Live. It was self-published in 1934, coincidentally at the time when it would be most help to the Nazi movement. Roth used arguments of late-nineteenth century writers such as Chamberlain, Sombart, Trietschke, and Weininger, who described the Teutonic race characteristics necessary to establish a German nation and believed lacking in the Jewish character, specifically because of its degenerate language (mauscheln, inability to create rather than copy, and hostile business tactics). Written under the pressures of bankruptcy and the advantage taken of that by colleagues in the underground economy of erotica publishing, this example of ethnic self-hatred is a terrified response to insecurity and a substitute for self-examination. It is also a possible example of the Hasidic concept of redemption through sin. An embarrassment to his family, and to the writer himself, Jews Must Live is also evidence of an imperiousness and irascibility that served Roth in his iconoclastic efforts against the established legal and moral absolutes he fought.
>>23347273So it's an anti semitic text written in Nazi Germany by a Jewish man? That is rather interesting isn't it. Wow
>>23347392>>23348956This is completely false. Go look up the bill (it's short) and scroll to the bottom (Sec. 6) - it explicitly has no bearing on your first amendment rights. All the bill does is codify the executive order Trump made in 2019 to add Jews to the groups protected by Title VI, and even then specifically with respect to the department of education. It will not be a crime to criticize anyone.
>>23349012My understanding of it is that any organization which receives federal funding can have that funding revoked if they do not follow the dictates set out by the law, meaning they'd have to punish or "clean up" any member of their organization engaging in these acts. That means it's not criminal, sure, but if you go to any school or work for the vast majority of organizations that receive some federal funding, you will get fired. Jews were already a protected class. What this means is that the definition of "hate speech" against Jews as a protected class now encompasses criticisms of a State. That isn't criminalizing speech, but it's insane and does border on unconstitutional.
>>23349012>even then specifically with respect to the department of education.Where does it say that? My understanding is it's any organization which receives federal funding.
>>23348485retardpilled and zoomer memedkys
I tried listening to this for the first time. I'd read a bit of philosophy but not much. I don't know if I caught even a single word of it.The introduction said for Hegel, we know what he's talking about even though we can barely understand his sentences, but with Nitschze, we understand his sentences even though we have no idea what he's talking about.Should I listen to Nitschze next?
>>23346699>dense philosophy audiobooklmao
>>23348491surefire way of dying on the highway
>>23346699he is difficult, i tried too but i stopped and listen to some of his easier books.anyway i was interested only in one chapter that i found it in something related in other book
>>23349046 i am not really interested in his system or philosophy, i just want to know what a scholar at his rank thinks about some particular subjects, at that period in history
>>23346829>start with the greeksNot OP, but disagree. Most philosophers are responding to the landscape as it is in their time. You should understand the philosophical problems that they were attempting to solve, not attempt to know every philosopher who remotely influenced them. If OP really doesn't know much about philosophy, he should read an introduction (NOT a history) like https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Problems_of_Philosophy/HuPGLTYv5wUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=problems+of+philosophy&printsec=frontcover. Then read some Plato or Aristotle, the English Empiricists or the rationalists, and then Kant. That should be more than enough to understand the arguments contained.
This must be the most covertly racist book I've ever read. It made me hate Turks with a passion I've never knew I possessed.
>>23347045That is hardly disculpatory. Bonus for setting up the main base of Jewish power at the same time.Becoming irrelevant gave you the easy way out.
Are his books good? I'm interested in some of them since they're lesser known periods, at least for me.
>>23347737I looked into the "spice" one releasing soon and the "constantinople" but hard to say without really reading them. Looks interesting for the narration type of writing.
>>23347015Prots have always been pro-muslim. The more niche denominations like unitarians or mormons even resemble them quite a lot.
Is the Constantinople book any good? I'm looking for books about the Ottoman (any other writer welcome too)
People are driven by self-insert, they only delude themselves of normativity because society wouldn't function otherwise. Anyone who truly believes otherwise, is a sucker and there are many. That is why the rich and powerful keep winning. Religion, Politics, consumerism and even family relations are nothing more than tools used to control the individual. A individual who can break free from all of this rises to the top, the others drown in the swamp. The only person you should focus on is yourself. I know anons will call me an edgy teenager but I honestly feel like a clown for realising this, this late. I need books written by intelligent people who can articulate these thoughts better than me?
>>23340269>>23347893>>23347898>>23347959self-interest*. I suffer from schizophrenia.
>>23348637Gotta love based Schmidt. He’s one of few that shows both sides as wrong, proves it soundly and assuredly, and doesn’t even appear like an asshole despite Engel’s and others butthurt depictions that became a meme about him being smug.
>>23348807Got to be the first time I've heard Stirner being referred by his real name.
>>23349031Kek. I did it to see if someone is like ‘Who’s Schmidt” for Johann. Just to see if people reply that who think the weird, abstract name is actually theirs.I did the same for Mordechai (Marx) too a few times.
>>23340269Freedom lies in actuality, the ability to actually know and do the good. Modern individualism is based on an incoherent idea of freedom where freedom is defined solely in terms of potency, the "ability to do anything," without any focus on the good. It becomes hollow and incoherent, such that action itself is a limit of freedom because having chosen one thing means not being free to choose something else.Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, St. Augustine, St. Maximus, St. Bonaventure, etc. have the right idea.
Doomers get in here and talk about anything Houellebecq. I'm currently reading Interventions 2020. Approaches to Distress (3) is full of his potent cynicism that I'm loath to enjoy.
>>23348044Yeah I wish he would just be pro tradition or purely antimodern. His refusal to be either is why I dislike him. It's very French. He accurately percieves the intellectual problem but arrogantly refuses all of its posed solutions.
>>23347994>You can say he was being ironic but that closing chapter is full of mystical, forward-gazing hopeThe same forward-gazing hope is in his other novels too. In Possibility of an Island there's a pessimistic positivist ending, an sort of inversion of the epilogue in TEP. In Submission there's a traditionalist solution. And in Platform there's a capitalist solution. Just because he constructs these thought experiments and works them into his novels doesn't mean they explain his entire worldview. My >>23347058 point is that judging him on TEP alone is incomplete.
>>23348098For sure a writer cannot be judged on one work alone, and this post is a nice clarification which I appreciate. Perhaps I just dislike the nauseating explorations of meaningless modern life. I tend to already see the world that way, and see literature as a way to escape, illucidate or lend meaning to that pessimism. And his prose, in English and I imagine also French, is not at all rich or beautiful.
>>23347994>refuses to see traditional society as a solution to the social ills he describesThe only way back to a ‘traditional’ society in say France or the UK, on a more broader scale than small Amish-esque communities, would quite literally entail something resembling an apocalyptic collapse. To get rid of the pill, social media/the internet, and to successfully indoctrinate the population with the edifice of your choice is impossible. Of course this is basically the plot of Submission, but would a Muslim France (‘the eldest daughter of the church’) or Britain be desirable? Would it even last long term? The Gulf Arabs are liberalising at an alarming rate. It’s interesting how even relatively conservative/traditional countries like Japan, South Korea, and Iran struggle with low birth rates. I think once you grant any level of autonomy to women you start losing your traditional society. It seems like we have reached a stage where how we live and how we should live are diametrically opposed.
>>23348981I agree with all of that, this world is fucked. Modern society rushes to doom, unaware it is running out of gas. Mushroom clouds: soon. Save yourself and cut the wires connecting you to the metaverse.
>Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value ">In the expression “value of labour,” the idea of value is not only completely obliterated, but actually reversed. It is an expression as imaginary as the value of the earth. These imaginary expressions, arise, however, from the relations of production themselves. They are categories for the phenomenal forms of essential relations. That in their appearance things often represent themselves in inverted form is pretty well known in every science except Political Economy Karl Marx. Capital Volume OnePart VIChapter Nineteen:
>>23349035>anti-racistIn comparsion to compatriots (both Fascist and Socialist/Marxist) he may of well been. Lots of calls of culling and eugenics. He’s racist for this time though. He lost his virginity through rape.
>>23349047>. Lots of calls of culling and eugenicsMusso called for that?>He lost his virginity through rape.sauce?
>>23348953>because all of these statements are flawed from the get goI'm aware, I'm operating under Marx's logic, not by his (hardly innocuous) definitions.>he doesn't intend to describe any value system at all, though.This is bullshit - you agreed that he's attempting to describe the pricing of a commodity system. The very "labour" of penning these thoughts is a clear and distinct contradiction of this sentiment, no matter how hard you or he wills one thing or another to be true, and no amount of qualified "categorization" of type, be it objective or "imaginary" changes this fact. Playing fast and loose with philosophical terms yet relying on historical norms and the works of greater men then him to explain social organization and forecast that process without explicitly saying "well just trust me bro I know it'll work out like this you just gotta believe" is tantamount to upholding a value that his theory will come to actualize in some form or another which just feels like some wicked economics-based gerrymandering. He picked fights with politicians because they smelled that he was one and he avoided them and disparaged them because he was too narcissistic to se the truth.>yeah, that's why he calls it 'abstract'.Yet labour, despite being fundamental to his perception of value, and somehow the substance of value, which is also a necessity for the socialist system to stand, is just a corollary to some abstract thing with an exchange rate, and we are to trust that it be treated and respected as such? If labor cost has such a strong relationship to commodity pricing, why would you expect people to work for free when you want, own nothing and do this with the ends of controlling the market in a utilitarian manner? In other words, why would someone with the skill/facility to meet a mass set of needs willingly do anything without some cost to his work, and why, on top of that, should his cost not rise over time? Any why, further, should a populace where this is a functional process, necessarily end in a utopia?>>23349035>i wish he would rape me vgh>wants a small forceful man to administer rapeOf course you do, you're probably a MarxistReminder that communism will require eugenic efforts to realize
>>23349051He did? Cullings in genera, yesl, but of race?>sauceAdmittably, The Zoomer Historian on Youtube through a comment of his on the topic of Mussolini. He’s pretty defensive and whitewashing a little about Fascist and National Socialist ideology, so I was shocked to hear that from him. He’s also very blunt, apprehensive and well-read on the topic, so I believe that along with all the Hiterlites and Fascists that read the comment didn’t object to it being false or incorrect. So I guess they knew and believed it. Which makes me think it could most likely be true.
>>23349075>behold, the intellectual prowess of a commiewhat a shit thread, you limp-wristed narcissistic trannies will always think you have the answers no matter what
Both Socrates and Christ were fierce critics of their culture. They did not, however, utterly reject the foundation of it, as a leftist would today. Socrates saw in the polytheism of his day a misguided and infirm philosophical foundation, but one which nevertheless supplied his society with a decent moral code. In the Meno, for example, he pointed out that most men know what Virtue is, but cannot justify where it comes from within their worldview, and as we learn in Euthyphro appeals to polytheism always result in the dilemma that the gods themselves are contingent. Plato then developed an incomplete but nevertheless more monotheistically-aligned philosophy, where the One was the foundation of all things. Christ, on the other hand, fought against what you could call a polytheism of ritual, whereby the Jews elevated their religious ceremonies to an absolute and divine status, not knowing the true spiritual and symbolic reason behind them. Unlike Socrates, He spoke with moral authority, as the Son of God, and not with mere reason.Both Socrates and Christ were then hated by their society, put on trial for heresy, and executed. Both of them had the chance to escape their execution but both went willingly to it. Socrates drank the hemlock willingly because he did not wish to violate the laws of his society; Christ surrendered himself for crucifixion to carry out the will of God.Both had a resurrection, one real, the other cultural. For when Socrates died he became an icon of the Greek intellectuals, who carried on his tradition in the Academy, and changed the course of history significantly. Whereas Christ really rose again, and founded the Church.Who can doubt then that Socrates happily accepted his baptism when Christ descended into Hades, and is now basking in the glory of the One, of God?
>>23348870The Jews that created Christ stole from Socrates and many more Pagan traditions. Mystery solved.Also Jesus did not exist, unlike Socrates.
another 1/2>The fate of the Gospels was decided by death—it hung on the “cross.”... It was only death, that unexpected and shameful death; it was only the cross, which was usually reserved for the canaille only—it was only this appalling paradox which brought the disciples face to face with the real riddle: “Who was it? what was it?”—The feeling of dis may, of profound affront and injury; the suspicion that such a death might involve a refutation of their cause; the terrible question, “Why just in this way?”—this state of mind is only too easy to understand. Here everything must be accounted for as necessary; everything must have a meaning, a reason, the highest sort of reason; the love of a disciple excludes all chance. Only then did the chasm of doubt yawn: “Who put him to death? who was his natural enemy?”—this question flashed like a lightning-stroke. Answer: dominant Judaism, its ruling class. From that moment, one found one’s self in revolt against the established order, and began to understand Jesus as in revolt against the established order. Until then this militant, this nay-saying, nay-doing element in his character had been lacking; what is more, he had appeared to present its opposite. Obviously, the little community had not understood what was precisely the most important thing of all: the example offered by this way of dying, the freedom from and superiority to every feeling of ressentiment—a plain indication of how little he was understood at all! All that Jesus could hope to accomplish by his death, in itself, was to offer the strongest possible proof, or example, of his teachings in the most public manner.... But his disciples were very far from forgiving his death—though to have done so would have accorded with the Gospels in the highest degree; and neither were they prepared to offer themselves, with gentle and serene calmness of heart, for a similar death.... On the contrary, it was precisely the most unevangelical of feelings, revenge, that now possessed them. It seemed impossible that the cause should perish with his death: “recompense” and “judgment” became necessary (—yet what could be less evangelical than “recompense,” “punishment,” and “sitting in judgment”!).
>>233490242/2>Once more the popular belief in the coming of a messiah appeared in the foreground; attention was rivetted upon an historical moment: the “kingdom of God” is to come, with judgment upon his enemies.... But in all this there was a wholesale misunderstanding: imagine the “kingdom of God” as a last act, as a mere promise! The Gospels had been, in fact, the incarnation, the fulfilment, the realization of this “kingdom of God.” It was only now that all the familiar contempt for and bitterness against Pharisees and theologians began to appear in the character of the Master—he was thereby turned into a Pharisee and theologian himself! On the other hand, the savage veneration of these completely unbalanced souls could no longer endure the Gospel doctrine, taught by Jesus, of the equal right of all men to be children of God: their revenge took the form of elevating Jesus in an extravagant fashion, and thus separating him from themselves: just as, in earlier times, the Jews, to revenge themselves upon their enemies, separated themselves from their God, and placed him on a great height. The One God and the Only Son of God: both were products of ressentiment....
OK. That's all of them. That's every time Nietzsche mentions Jesus. As you can see, he both criticizes and praises him. He does not fully reject him or what he says or stands for. What he is rejecting is Christianity, not *necessarily* Christ. Again, he blames Paul for taking the values of one man, and turning them into what he sees as a superstitious dogma that cheapens the man's intent and message.
Pic related is a good work. It's from the Christian frame but it is very positive on Plato too.
The greatest piece of art ever made.
>>23348882I just saw Rhinegold and Walkure. I plan on seeing the other 2 in a week or so. I'm inclined to agree.
>>23348899Yeah "Operaist" He was best at bringing it all together but he was not the best any individual category. He wasn't the best composer and wasn't the best writer
>>23348899Further proof that Mozart is underrated.
>>23349003So he was the greatest at doing the exact proffession he was doing and not other ones? Fucking retard. This is like complaining Shakespeare wasnt the greatest novelist because he still used words for his plays.
Where the fuck do you guys go to watch the opera? Also, aren't a lot of operas incredibly long and have to be broken up in multiple days' worth of viewings? Is it not super fucking expensive to see per show? I'd like to see an opera one day but I grew up quite poor and have no idea how I go about such things.
Why aren't books made of high quality materials anymore?
>>23348719He said no homo
Posting in an elephant bread
>>23348561I just looked at my nipples and they're pink. How have I never noticed this, living with them now for over 25 years?
>>23348819KILL YOURSELF FAGGOT
>>23348719>>>/r/eddit
How you, uh... How you coming on that novel you're working on, huh? Anon?
>>23348336It's phonetic sounds right now, but they will become words soon...
My next novel comes out next month. Been mostly working on short stories since I finished it to get some advertising with. That is mostly done, one has been accepted and hopefully a few more will as well. Have some ideas for the next novel but have yet to commit to anything, previous novel will not really feel done until the release happens which makes it difficult to start in on the next.
>>23348373
just wrote another short story, waiting to hear back from the literary magazines I sent off my other ones to
I finished my first novel. It took about 6 years and 5/6 top to bottom rewrites, but I think it's finally in a good place. I don't think I'll be published but I'm glad I did I have the monkey off my back. I'm now working on my next one.
should this be my weekend read?
You don't need to read Japanese authors in the original German, OP.
posh spice takes it up the arse editionprevious >>23343802
>>23348947Are you upset because I don't swallow the lies of the Western media?The same people who are currently supporting the Palestinian genocide?Those very morally upstanding and trustworthy fellows?
>>23347851btfo
>>23347473spent a bit of time in the mental efteling, did you?
I've noticed the girls who've taken an interest in me, would always talk about shows and when I recommend them something they might like they'll always go like "we should watch it together sometimes". This has happened to me like 3 times now. >first one was technically underage so I didn't go through the idea>second one I went and she showed me some fucked up gore movie; had to drink the memory of that shit away and we ended up making out>now a third one is saying the same thing to me
The amount of overall liberty in any given political system is constant and therefore its distribution resembles a zero-sum game.
Published writers of /lit/, come and shill your work, without fear of judgement or shame. I would like to read some of the work from the so called /lit/ renassiance; to see what the deranged anons I interact with have written.All I ask is that you don't spam. Other than that this thread is all yours
>>23347632There is also a second work on link no. 2. I’ve calmed down a bit since the first one.
Not mine, but a litizenhttps://imgur.com/a/ZCLsXFW
>>23347645>>23347650interested to read it, anon
>>23347662Have fun!
>>23347542How much did it cost you to self-publish?Also, did you design the cover art yourself? It's very metal, quite cool
Ever since I got into classical literature, philosophy, theology, history, physics and mathematics, I just can’t enjoy anything else anymore. I can’t play a game, I start thinking it’s a waste of time, I can’t watch a movie or an anime, I start thinking its story won’t even come close to the greatest classics, I can’t go out with woman anymore as well, I can’t communicate with them anymore, I can’t stand their shallowness. Did this happen to anyone else? Is it just a phase or is it a part of growing up intellectually?
>>23344591For a little bit. But there are also some very worthwhile films. I do think literature is the highest among all the arts. But film can be good too.
>>23347844Bite your tongue. Aqua Teen was a work of art.
>>23344591>I can’t go out with woman anymore as well, I can’t communicate with them anymore, I can’t stand their shallowness. Did this happen to anyone else? Is it just a phase or is it a part of growing up intellectually?I'll tell you what anon. In my experience, the only thing that seperates an actual smart person from the average joe or dumbfuck when it comes to media consumption is insight.I've seen so many people act enlightened and talk down on other media or works within a specific a media because they've consumed the "classics". Yet, when you ask them what they learned from these classics, what makes them great and what makes other media they look down upon inferior, do you know what they respond with? Completely mind numbing and vapid takes. At best, they'll paraphrase reviews and analysis they've read online.An actual smart person can talk about what makes a Kung film work with amazing insight while a pseud can talk about the best of classic cinema and have nothing interesting to say. They're still the same boring people that they were before they consumed all these intellectual. Basically, it's not about what you consume but what you have to say about it. Hell, it's about you say in general. Cringe posts like this is more telling of your intellect than any book you claim to have read.
No, because I'm not a pseud.
>>23349061In the Victorian Era, when they would have parlor meetings, snotty women and gentlemen used to buy and carry around these small booklets, and they'd be titled something like "Glossary of Allusions." They would use these books to either bring up allusions to "great works" in conversation, or, reference them to pretend they understood what someone else was talking about. So none of these people had actually read these works, probably because they didn't care to, but they understood the need to keep up appearances in polite society, and would spend money to carry around a manual on how to be a snobbish fraud. Your reply made me think of that. I agree with you btw.
