/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16320166]

>dismisses and btfos historical materialism on a single page in a single paragraph

[Anonymous No.16320173]

That's one helluva pipe.

[Anonymous No.16320174]

Dismissing historical materialism is like kicking a lying person. Historical materialism dismisses itself

[Anonymous No.16320176]

[Anonymous No.16320186]

Is that Tony soprano

[Anonymous No.16320232]

>>16320166
>>16320176
He puts it fantastically, but I mean this(what he says) was obvious from the start.

[Anonymous No.16320270]

>>16320176
This is dumb, he thinks he's above ideology. Also this quote from Marx is relevant:
>The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

>Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

>The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

[Anonymous No.16320293]

>>16320270
>he thinks he's above ideology
broken record

[Anonymous No.16320320]

>>16320293
>Ideology is strong exactly because it is no longer experienced as ideology… we feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom.

[Anonymous No.16320349]

>>16320176
>ignores the aristocratic form of classical art
>ignores medieval symbolic status
>ignores all renaissance patronage
>ignores the ABSOLUTE STATE of modern art

[Anonymous No.16320362]

>>16320349
That dude is a cultural historian, who learned under a Hegelian, so he probably knew more than you or Marx.

[Anonymous No.16320377]

>>16320270
Whole lot of statements
Whole not of evidence
Why do people take Marx seriously again

[Anonymous No.16320394]

>>16320377
>evidence

[Anonymous No.16320414]

>>16320176
I’m not a marxist myself, but Shakespeare, Ibsen or Bach seem less important in the making of history than the socio-economic conditions people live under.

[Anonymous No.16320477]

>>16320174
Came here to post this, it only works if you mentally impair yourself and ability to objectively see history. If we looked at everything through this our understanding of history would be even worse than it is now. So dismissing historic materialism isn’t exactly a Herculean feat

[Anonymous No.16320482]

>>16320414
People like Shakespeare ARE history. When you think of the nation of England you are thinking of Shakespeare, Locke, Hume, Handel, etc. Germany is Goethe, Bach, Leibniz and Kant among many others. All these men contribute to the idea of what a nation is, who a people are. The British empire was no accident of history, it was driven by the thoroughly English pragmatism of its thinkers.

[Anonymous No.16320510]

>>16320482
I don't think anyone serious subscribes to great man theory, anon.

[Anonymous No.16320530]

>>16320510
I don't see how you can NOT subscribe to Great Man Theory. To say otherwise, that humans play no role in history, is simply ludicrous. Ideas don't just float around in the aether, they're in men's heads (for simplicity).

Are Napoleon and Shakespeare the same "kind" of man? Certainly not, and there were many men who put them were they were. But to say that their actions had no impact on history is just dumb. If it's not men that shape history, then what is it? The Gods?

[Anonymous No.16320533]

>>16320510
I don't either. I think it's a false dichotomy. History creates great men and great men create history. Great men arrive at their precise moment because the current of history has need of them, but they in turn may influence its flow through their deeds.

[Anonymous No.16320548]

>>16320173
Does he have an oral fixation and believe the pipe to be a phallic member?

[Anonymous No.16320553]

>>16320176
wow I hate how many commas, he uses.

[Anonymous No.16320564]

>>16320553
Never read Hume then
>Hence we may discover the reason, why no philosopher, who is rational and modest, has pretended to assign the ultimate cause of any natural operation, or to show distinctly the action of that power, which produces any single effect in the universe. It is confessed, that the utmost effort of human reason is, to reduce the principles, productive of natural phenomena, to a greater simplicity, and to resolve the many particular effects into a few general cases, by means of reasoning from analogy, experience, and observation.

[Anonymous No.16320589]

>>16320553
>t. anglx saxonex tranny

[Anonymous No.16320596]

>>16320530
This
If great men never existed we would be in the Stone Age still

[Anonymous No.16320622]

>>16320530
even communists subscribe to the great man theory, just in official propaganda they give all the credit to the proles. it's just some of those proles actually believe it.

[Anonymous No.16320688]

>>16320176
>Religion art and philosophy
Yeah try having all of that without churches, paint and books see where that gets you.

[Anonymous No.16320699]

>>16320688
And who made the churches, the paint, and the books?

[Anonymous No.16320706]

>>16320688
He literally says
>Economic life [...] does not belong to the Culture at all, but only contributes one of its most preliminary conditions, and not even the most vital one at that

[Anonymous No.16320731]

>>16320699
Human because of their needs and through their labor. The complexification of those needs only possible though the development of productive forces.
>>16320706
>and not even the most vital one at that
You think complex architecture, philosophy or religion the like of today's is possible without material development? Through oral traditions and cave paintings only?

[Anonymous No.16322004]

Where is this from?

I've read parts of Friedell's A cultural history of the modern age as a companion to when i read other, more in depth, books of history.