/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4490005]

books that changed your life :/

[Anonymous No.4490020]

>>4490005
That book changed my life OP, since it validated my desire for my waifu to be real.

[Anonymous No.4490023]

>>4490020
is that a drawn girl?

[Anonymous No.4490027]

>>4490020
baudrillard talks of the power of images to 'murder' (murdering the real, and murdering their own model) 'waifus' probably do 'ruin' real females i guess.

[Anonymous No.4490043]

>>4490023
do you not know what waifus are
/lit/'s not a starting board who the fuck comes to 4chan for the first time and thinks /lit/'s the place the check out
fuckin nerd

[Anonymous No.4490051]

>tumblr_....jpg
>no capital
>no puctuation
>:/

Damn shame this isn't real. Baudrillard is great (even if wrong). You should all read this and The Ecstasy of Communication.

[Anonymous No.4490057]

>>4490051
wait, what isn't real?

[Anonymous No.4490059]

>>4490057

The interest in Baudrillard.

[Anonymous No.4490060]

>>4490057
Correction, what he meant was "Damn shame everything is equally real and any sort of ontological duality that would have falsified such a statement is now obsolete"

[Anonymous No.4490068]

>>4490059
no, it is real. im just a person that really likes his books and found a couple semiotexte little ones in my school library and have been reading them, without understanding much of it tho

[Anonymous No.4490094]

>>4490051
>>4490005
>google image search
>find an appropriate picture
>quickly save and post
>Picture was from tumblr
>Tumblr in filename, thread derailed completely
>SJW, red noses, I need feminism because pics everywhere

I'm not saying this it what happened here, but if I had a dollar every time it happened to me I would have two extra dollars.

[Anonymous No.4490113]

Should I read anything specific or have any background knowledge before reading Simulacra and Simulation?

[Anonymous No.4490128]

>>4490113
Skim the system of objects and for a critique of the political economy of the sign.

read the first part of the mirror of production (you can skip his genealogy of the idea of labour/production as long as you just take his word for it).

Be aware of Marx (obviously... Simulacra & Simulation)
Be aware of Lacan (semiotics; psychoanalysis)
Be aware of Heidegger
Be aware of the situationists, specifically the connection between Bataille (not a situationist) and Debord.
Be aware of Deleuze, Foucault, Barthes, Benjamin, McLuhan, etc.

The main difficulty is all of the specialized philosophical/critical terminology that you might not even realize are specific terminology as they are being used (repression, myth, sublimation, de/territorialization, deterrence, Real and Imaginary, etc.)

[Anonymous No.4490137]

>>4490128
ok thanks, anon!
How aware ought I be of Heidegger, Deleuze and McLuhan?

[Anonymous No.4490144]

>>4490137
Heidegger - very
McLuhan - basic
Deleuze - basic+

[Anonymous No.4490199]

the Baudrillard Dicitonary

?

http://en.bookfi.org/book/1024713

[Anonymous No.4490202]

>>4490128
Fuck that shit. I'm going in blind.

[Anonymous No.4490209]

>>4490202
no condoms

i let his words wash over me

[Anonymous No.4490216]

>>4490202
You can do this. I read it as an undergraduate who had done no philosophy or critical theory. With the help of classmates and the tutor I came to understand the key ideas.

[Anonymous No.4490220]

>>4490202
you have no idea what is about to happen to you

[Anonymous No.4490382]

after reading the society of the spectacle i went out to the streets naked with a flashlight and anounced the death of capitalism

[Anonymous No.4491036]

i don't like baudrillard that much, but this is his best

'system of objects' is the worst

[Anonymous No.4491210]

When I read 1984 at 15, I felt like I'd stumbled upon the secrets of the universe. That book set in motion my concern for the well being of the world and society.

[Anonymous No.4491371]

>>4491210
when i read Lord of the Flies in grade 7, i think i felt something similar to you.

if you've read Brave New World, do you think it is more relevant than 1984 now tho?

[Anonymous No.4491375]

>>4490382
you should have just had sex with a woman anon.

[Anonymous No.4491385]

>>4490202
how did it go?

is this a /lit/ waifu from the library? animooted.

[Anonymous No.4491390]

>>4491371
Unfortunately I only finished the first half of Brave New World. But while 1984 is a bit out of touch with the modern world, I think what it has to say is much more universal and powerful. That book just hit the bulls-eye for something that exists regardless of time or place.

Not being inflammatory, just a friendly word of advice, I'd try to fix up your typing a bit. At the very least, don't use "tho". It just helps people take you seriously easier.

[Anonymous No.4491418]

>>4491390

> I'd try to fix up your typing a bit. At the very least, don't use "tho". It just helps people take you seriously easier.

not him, but hahahahahahhaahahah

hahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahah


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.4491438]

>>4491210
After reading Homage to Catalonia I thought I understood politics of war, I still do after I have supplemented with Chomsky and Baudrillard. Both actual fit with Orwells narrative of the rationalized (propaganda) chaos of war.

[Anonymous No.4491452]

>>4491371
>>4491390

One of the funniest trolls I've seen in a while

[Anonymous No.4491481]

[sole No.4491496]

I have always wandered to vaious hierarchial angels in humanities but although crafted works very often intrigue, educate, illustrate and unheavel my senses, I cannot fathom a single work to have changed my own being, rather I am grateful for those works that operate (albeit adversely as often is the case) with existing comprehension (either as intended by the author or otherwise), and I reckon should be the case for an appreciative scholar as such unique times that seem to have harnessed times in subjective intervals.

[Anonymous No.4491597]

>>4491496

>intrigue, educate, illustrate and unheavel my senses

Sorry for being the dunce around here, but isn't that an inherent (dynamic) part of your being?

[Anonymous No.4491732]

>>4491418
>It just helps people take you seriously easier.

he/she responded to me. i think it was some good ol classic tell someone to write better with your poor english comedy. but not that funny -.-

[Anonymous No.4491751]

>>4491597
usually yeah, not if you're an autist i guess

[Anonymous No.4491755]

>>4491481
where were u when robojesus come?

[Anonymous No.4491806]

>>4491210
sometimes when I'm on the bus and see every single person all staring down at their smartphones, i wonder if I'm living in a dystopian science fiction novel.

[Anonymous No.4491821]

>>4491806
Don't be melodramatic.

[Anonymous No.4491852]

>>4491821
I'm not, this has legitimately occurred to me several times. There's just something bizarre about being on a bus where every single person is doing the exact same thing, with extremely similar objects. All wearing clothes manufactured in similar ways, similar brands, similar styles. And these same smartphones have systems in there that not only have cameras that may or may not be looking at their faces, could report their locations at any time to various corporations. My phone suggests various routes for me to get home, because it knows where I go to school, knows where I work, and has figured out when I get off most days. Sometimes if I press that home button three times, the voice command suggests that I ask a girl from my facebook I haven't spoken to in a while (but I know is single) if I'd like to text her asking to out with her for dinner. I didn't even think of doing that, but my phone is telling me to ask a girl out on a date.

I'm not being melodramatic, I think I'm just being justifiably paranoid. Smartphones are bizarre inventions, and most people have allowed them to become the epicenter of their lives. When I see tons of people sitting on a bus, none speaking to one another, none looking at each other and all just looking at a phone doing anything from texting, playing candy crush, browsing facebook or twitter, something just seems very bizarre and altogether alienating about it. I'm on a bus with maybe 50 other people, and yet I'm completely alone.

And I'm sure everyone else is alone in completely the same way.

[Anonymous No.4491868]

>>4491852
How is this bad?

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.4491882]

>>4491852
phew

[Anonymous No.4491890]

>>4491852
People never talked to each other on the bus, dude. There's photos of people in the 1920s all neck deep into newspapers on the subway. The only time people do talk to each other, and did, was if they knew each other. In some places, like NY, that's more likely because of the public transit system.

What concerns me is people using phones in their middle of doing things with other people. It really bothers me when I go to see my friends and our conversation is regularly inter-cut with that person text messaging or checking Facebook. It dramatically alters the dynamic of conversation. People don't use the down time to think about what to say or think about what has been said as much.
There's also a lot less empty space in our lives now. You can be watching T.V literally every minute you're not asleep or working. More and more, you choose to reflect on your life.This is especially troubling given the quality of the average person's philosophical education and the abominable state of media discourse on civic matters.

Also, an aside for pedantry: justified paranoia is not paranoia - paranoia is definition-ally dysfunctional -- the word you're looking for is suspicious, skeptical, or concerned.

[Anonymous No.4491892]

>>4491868
> every single person is doing the exact same thing, with extremely similar objects. All wearing clothes manufactured in similar ways, similar brands, similar styles.

Not him, but how wouldn't this be a bad thing given that every person is born with their own agency, imagination, ability to develop skills and invent, etc.?

[Anonymous No.4491896]

>>4491868
I don't know how to explain it, I used to be a computer science major because I liked making programs that could do useful things. Eventually I dropped out, not because I couldn't program or understand the material, but because I felt very alienated by the direction the industry was taking. Technology is no longer about functionality or productivity seemingly, it's about trying to create (or emulate) social experiences. People don't talk nearly as much face to face, they just text people and use facebook.

I remember when I was a kid, people would make fun of me because I would bring a Gameboy to school or I would spend so much time with computers, I taught myself how to install and write little scripts in *nix OSes as a kid. I really loved computers. But everyone would make fun of me, saying that I cared more about technology than I did people. Eventually I learned to socialize myself more, because the adults in my life were right. I cared so much about technology, I forgot about personal interaction.

Now I look at everybody else, and it's like they're all behaving like me when I was 10 years old. Everybody. And no one seems to think it's strange anymore, it's perfectly normal.

I've just slowly grown to have a distaste for technology entirely. It's still the thing I'm better at using than anything else, everybody asks me to fix things for them or recommend them things to buy.

I don't know how to explain this fully but I really, really dislike what the internet has done to people. And yes I realize the irony of me using the internet to communicate this.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.4491907]

>>4491896
^ hipster's confession

[Anonymous No.4491925]

>>4491896
Hey, at least you learned to think, while all the monkeys just want a paycheck. Can't you get werk as an autodidact programmer on projects you deem worthy?

[Anonymous No.4491922]

>>4491907
what does any of that have to do with being a hipster. how is that a confession.

[Anonymous No.4491930]

>>4491896
>because I felt very alienated by the direction the industry was taking.

Coward. You could have just as easily been the qualified voice that took technology away from capital, that led it to its creative oasis via DIY projects, open source, etc. You could have gotten a job at Google and taken them down from the inside, man.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.4491940]

>>4491922
you admitted that you ceased to love computers because people got used to them and began widely using them in everyday life so they lost their status of nerd toys

[Anonymous No.4491997]

>>4491892
Wearing similar jeans doesn't make people lesser individuals. It's a shallow and trite observation.

Also, we are in the least conformist age of all time considering fashion and personal aesthetics and probably all other things as well.

>>4491896
Before the internet age, people would all dress even more alike, read papers or pulp or stare morosely out the window. It's not that people have become antisocial because of smart phones, they just have some to do instead of merely evading eye contact. The same think happened, including the complaints, when walkmans and regular cellphones came about. It hasn't changed things fundamentally in such situations.

Of course smart phones have changed communication and such among friends with certain people, to the point that you notice people paying more attention to their phones than to the people they're actually with. I consider this more of a temporary hiccup than anything else though. It's not that the internet is too all invasive, it's rather that it's too primitive. Look at how things like video chatting and second life and media sharing etc are steering online communications into a more human direction again. I think it'll just be a matter of time before talking to a friend online isn't necessarily a lesser experience than talking irl anymore. We're not going to turn back to the former state anyway. The only thing you can do is take the right steps going forwards into a more technological world.

[Anonymous No.4492022]

>>4491997
>Also, we are in the least conformist age of all time considering fashion and personal aesthetics and probably all other things as well.

This is a good point. Part of the reason this guy even has the anxiety about people "wearing clothes manufactured in similar ways, similar brands, similar styles" is because plurality of style is possible. Back in the day, when people were hand-making clothes or getting them from a few stores, they were anxious about seeming different. There was a much stronger sense of decorum.
It's anxieties like the one he has that actually drive people with divergent styles. There is a critique to make about the commodification of expression, and valuation of it, but that can only be considered in contrast to the very inception of this sort of thought, back in the Punk days or whatever where to be different was to reject looking presentable or neat or whatever. Now self-expression has entered into the mainstream it naturally exists in the medium of the commodity.

[Anonymous No.4492380]

yes maybe we all want to collectively cry out.
and maybe there is a baseline sadness under all of this.

capitalism spiritually fucked us up, and there is nothing we can do about it. if we oppose it, we are only its opposition, and it still makes us.

i think baudrillard would say we need more ambivalence towards objects and their meanings, in order to get past this.

[Anonymous No.4492402]

>>4491896
>And no one seems to think it's strange anymore, it's perfectly normal.
That sentence right there was one of the more unnerving things I've heard in a long time. Not the fact that things have changed, but that no one would know any better. Thank you for that.

[Anonymous No.4492414]

brave new world in 7th grade really got me into reading and i started to pay attention world news
the idiot/crime and punishment (read in succession over a camping trip) turned me on to existentialism when i was 15 which just made my life a bit more miserable
basically fuck dostoevsky

[Anonymous No.4492418]

>>4491997
>Wearing similar jeans doesn't make people lesser individuals.

He's not just talking about jeans, he's talking about behavior. Your reduction is a "trite" (what are you five?) habit of this board, but I guess the only way to seem correct is to cut out the parts that you can't argue against.

The rest of your post is just you literally making shit up. Oh? People dressed the same in those old pictures you have from the 20s, let's totally pretend that means something. It's impossible to legitimately compare fashion trends from pre and post industrial times, let alone pre and post internet times and the statement that we are in "the least conformist age of all time" is useless. There is a trend among some of you to dismiss any complaints about the present age, which I understand, but it doesn't apply across the board. It doesn't give you a free pass to keep your head in the sand. If the world is so free from conformity, why do millions of people only use the same five websites, talk about the same "news" topics, and joke about things in exactly the same way?

[Anonymous No.4492421]

>>4491997
>The only thing you can do is take the right steps going forwards into a more technological world.

lol wut. you can very easily just go live in a cabin in the woods and hunt your own food if you want. the "more technological world" your suggesting is only a fraction of the actual world, it is not the actual world itself. you can still avoid it. nothing is stopping you.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.4492425]

>>4492402
awww
too bad horo is shit as personality

[Anonymous No.4492429]

>>4492418

>If the world is so free from conformity, why do millions of people only use the same five websites, talk about the same "news" topics, and joke about things in exactly the same way?

The real reason is that the basis for conformity, the locus of the stereotype to which conformity pays homage, has changed. Has itself fallen under the domain of the market rather than remaining in the hand of god.

[Anonymous No.4492437]

im being 100% serious when i say that every good book ive read has changed my life or at least the way i look at some things in life. i think the stranger has changed my life the most though

[Anonymous No.4492441]

>>4491852
dude, shut up! Just talk about something innocuous and pretentious like we always do.

[Anonymous No.4492443]

>>4492437
How so? I didn't really take much from it, but I read it in my mediocre french.

[Anonymous No.4492444]

recommended order of progression:

marx, nietzsche, freud --> heidegger, lacan --> debord, foucault --> deleuze, guattari --> baudrillard

[Anonymous No.4492446]

>>4491997
>Also, we are in the least conformist age of all time considering fashion and personal aesthetics and probably all other things as well.
Ren fops were a lot more non conformist in a certain sense but if non conformity can be judged in a general sense this is true yes

[Anonymous No.4492450]

>>4492418
>He's not just talking about jeans, he's talking about behavior. Your reduction is a "trite" (what are you five?) habit of this board, but I guess the only way to seem correct is to cut out the parts that you can't argue against.
He was literally mentioning people dressing the same while dress has never been more versatile in the history of humanity.

>The rest of your post is just you literally making shit up. Oh? People dressed the same in those old pictures you have from the 20s, let's totally pretend that means something. It's impossible to legitimately compare fashion trends from pre and post industrial times, let alone pre and post internet times and the statement that we are in "the least conformist age of all time" is useless. There is a trend among some of you to dismiss any complaints about the present age, which I understand, but it doesn't apply across the board. It doesn't give you a free pass to keep your head in the sand.
You said nothing here but 'i disagree and you're ignorant' without any argument.

>If the world is so free from conformity, why do millions of people only use the same five websites, talk about the same "news" topics, and joke about things in exactly the same way?
I never said the world was free of conformity. I merely said that before now people were even more conformist. They also had even less information sources.

>>4492421
I meant as a society, not as an individual.

[Anonymous No.4492451]

>>4491997
check out society of the spectacle kiddo

[Anonymous No.4492459]

>>4492425


like a 3d pig like you would know anything about best waifu.

[Anonymous No.4492461]

>>4491997
yeah, but rampant individuation is the real enemy. The modern obsession with the creation of an idealized external self drives and sustains the construction our power structures.
Everyone wants to be different and unique so they have to consume goods that are reflections of their "true" self, they have to behave in a way that is true to themselves, they have to separate themselves from society as a whole.

[Anonymous No.4492464]

I don't know about you but I think that it's incredible empowering that technology enabled me to engage with the people I hold the most dear and people I share common interests with almost regardless of time and place.

I can talk with a guy from the other site of the world about a scene of my favorite chinese girl cartoon instead of being damned to stare out of the window.

[Anonymous No.4492467]

>>4492446
>if non conformity can be judged in a general sense this is true yes

I heartily disagree. Think about what the models for family and community were before television (yes, that's right). Things were much less interconnected, leaving much more room for variation. The fact that these multi-faceted variations went undocumented makes it easy to forget that they existed. Each town or village or commons was full of different characters with their own stories, characters, legends, interpretations. And while this is still true today, the models for life and living are much more normalized and streamlined. Growing up is not an adventure so much as it is a checklist.

[Anonymous No.4492468]

>>4491997
Go away tech-fluff, tech-gimmick, tech-frivolity apologist.

[Anonymous No.4492469]

>>4492451
>tfw détournement is commodified

[Anonymous No.4492472]

>>4492461
The real enemy to what?

[Anonymous No.4492476]

>>4492464
technology is neither good or bad. It lets us communicate directly with others on an unprecedented scale, but it also allows for unprecedented levels of surveillance and control by institutional powers. It allows us to connect with people far away, but separates us from those close by. It gives us access to amazing stores of knowledge, and an unfiltered onslaught of propaganda.

[Anonymous No.4492477]

>>4492467
>The fact that these multi-faceted variations went undocumented makes it easy to forget that they existed.
like giants?

[Anonymous No.4492482]

>>4491852
>millions upon millions of people around the world own the tracking devices known as smart phones and use them every day, completely unaware of the dangers towards society they possess by feeding all of your information to big brother and the corporations
>if you were to confront this issue with 90% of people they would completely disregard it and scoff at you as a lunatic

I hate society. I'm going to live in the woods.

[Anonymous No.4492504]

>>4492472
freedom and authenticity.

[Anonymous No.4492509]

>>4492468
Progress is lovely.

[Anonymous No.4492511]

>>4492476
>technology is neither good or bad

Agreed. That's where the Unabomber fucked up. Technology can be put down, modified for personal advantage, used for good, etc. The individual is still there. Even in premade, prepackaged products like iPods, the individual is still there, free to modify it and pick it apart, make it do what he wants. Use it how he wants.

[Anonymous No.4492524]

>>4492504
What's so valuable about those things? Sincere question.

[Anonymous No.4492526]

>>4492476
>nor

[Anonymous No.4492530]

>>4492524
If someone finds those valuable, then they are valuable.

[Anonymous No.4492540]

>>4492524
I mean, thats really entirely dependent on your system of values. if you are a utilitarian then they are probably bad things. It is certainly true freedom is responsible for the most violent crimes in history.

It's actually probably really selfish to want to free yourself from institutional control. Or maybe it is the only truly moral act. I don't know.

[Anonymous No.4492546]

>>4492540
Selfishness to a certain extent is a very good thing.

[Anonymous No.4492551]

>>4492540
What do you mean by true freedom? Doing whatever you want when you want and freedom from not doing what you don't want? If that's the case, I'm much more free in contemporary society than I would be in any former age.

Authenticity really puzzles me though. I can understand it in the sense of a painting being the original and not a reproduction or something, but to be authentic as a person seems to really on a completely arbitrary idea of what constitutes a 'real person' or 'being yourself'. As if people could be fake or not themselves. Completely spooky.

[Anonymous No.4492559]

Chris Poole has made a spot-on analysis on the cancer that is Facebook and Google http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-and-google-degrade-our-humanity-2013-7

[Anonymous No.4492569]

>>4492551
Freedom is a bit of a puzzle. Kant thought that freedom meant to have complete autonomy as a rational agent, But I think that that is pretty impossible. We are all severely limited in our rationality, and anyways that would only be supported the domination of the Ego over the Libido. You could say that freedom really only emerges in the moment of resisting power. The act itself constitutes freedom, like how Bruce Lee talked about how the only way to resist death is to be in the process of growth.

[Anonymous No.4492573]

>>4492559
For all that he sells out, I still respect moot's attitude. No other big name in this industry has the balls to stick their finger to the entire direction the world is going, let alone even feeling that way to begin with.

[Anonymous No.4492580]

>>4492551
Authenticity is easier to understand, but it depends on people believing that there exists an authentic self beneath the constructions and prescriptions of ideology. A lot of people don't believe that.

[Anonymous No.4492586]

>>4492569
I'm afraid that seems like mere sophism to me. Everyone and everything is perpetually exercising and resisting power, which makes freedom just another word for existence, which means it is present under all situations.

[Anonymous No.4492590]

>>4492569
of course since this was originally a Baudrillard thread, we should acknowledge the proposition that we are all truly free and cannot handle the crisis of achieved utopia. Long Live the Orgy!

[Anonymous No.4492611]

>>4492586
>which makes freedom just another word for existence, which means it is present under all situations.

No, thats exactly it! Freedom is inherent in humanity, so it is only through the process of dehumanization that it can be challenged.

[Anonymous No.4492636]

>>4492611
The notion of dehumanisation requires requires a fixed definition of what it means to be human, which is itself dehumanisingly reductionist.

[Anonymous No.4492690]

>>4492444
Can you explain why Marx is your number one? Sincerely curious.

[Anonymous No.4492698]

>>4490094
lol

[Anonymous No.4493338]

>>4491940
>Altering your behavior after seeing it's adverse effects mirrored in countless other people.

>hipster.

You quit smoking just because your father and three other relatives died horribly from cancer? What are you, some kind of hipster?

[Anonymous No.4493389]

[Anonymous No.4493433]

>>4490094
>red noses
wat

[Anonymous No.4493436]

>>4491210
http://samkriss.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/forget-orwell/

[Anonymous No.4493441]

Being and Time by Heidegger
Patriarchy & Accumulation on a World Scale by Maria Mies
Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici
Divided World, Divided Class by Zak Cope
Accursed Share by Georges Bataille
The Thirst for Annihilation: George Bataille and Virulent Nihilism by Nick Land

[Anonymous No.4493465]

>>4491896
You = me.
It's like I'm reading in the mirror.
I think many people who used to be 'the nerds' are feeling the same way, at least I hope so.

[Anonymous No.4493651]

>>4491896
This was actually my life. I did not realize until grade 12 how much i hated the new "social" aspect of our newest generations because my friend introduced me to lsd. This view has literally pointed my life in a much different direction away from computer science now im double major in kinesiology and organic chemistry. I feel like whatever you make into your version of "art" is what is going to move the world in the right direction until the technology takes over. My art would of course be the body and eventually i will develop the best new psychedelic drugs.

[Claquesous No.4493662]

'Capital,' Karl Marx
'Les Misérables,' Victor Hugo
'Homage to Catalonia,' George Orwell

'Lolita' and 'The Neverending Story' also deserve a mention, though "changed your life" might be an exaggeration.

[Anonymous No.4493731]

>>4492559
un-anonymity doesn't need to degrade humanity, in fact you could argue the opposite.

[Anonymous No.4493732]

>>4493441
tits

[Anonymous No.4493895]

>>4490128
>>4490144
>Heidegger - very

Could you (or anyone) explain the need to know Heidegger before Simulacra & Simulations?

I've been wanting to get big into Baudrillard. I know a decent bit about Heidegger, and am taking a seminar on Being & Time this semester. What should I make note of thinking about in preparation for / in relation to Baudrillard?

Also for Deleuze, should I read anything other than the SEP and A Thousand Plateaus?

[Anonymous No.4493904]

>>4492636
Wait...what?

[Anonymous No.4493922]

>>4493895
> taking a seminar on Being & Time this semester
I envy you, but you are going to suffer

>read 10 first pages of being and time
>understand literally nothing

[Anonymous No.4493933]

Why the fuck are none of you reading ancient-modern philosophers? no kant?
why/how the fuck can you start with Marx and then keep going from there?

This is what I'm doing, fuck you guys.

Plato, Aristotle, Poltinus, Lucretius, Marc. Aur., Augustine, Aquinas, modern philosophers and then Kant

AND THEN I start with the dudes you guys are talking about.

[Anonymous No.4493980]

The Yellow Pages book changed my life ...

when it fall on my mom's head and killed her

[Anonymous No.4493985]

>>4493933
See you in 15 years.

[Anonymous No.4493993]

>>4493922
better than

>read the introduction of Being and Nothingness on a whim with no class to back me up on it
>average sentence looks something like "If the being of phenomena is not resolved in a phenomenon of being and if nevertheless we can not say anything about being without considering this phenomenon of being, the the exact relation which unites the phenomenon of being to the being of the phenomenon must be established first of all."

Need a machete to get through the introduction.

[Anonymous No.4493994]

>>4493985
Haha you're right, it's taking me awhile. But whatever.

[Anonymous No.4493997]

>>4493993
*then the

[Anonymous No.4493998]

>>4493993
That actually makes sense.

[Anonymous No.4494003]

>>4493994
Yeah it's a good list.

[Anonymous No.4494010]

>Simulacra and Simulation
>Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
>Philosophical Investigations

Nothing will ever be the same.

[Anonymous No.4494012]

>>4494010
made me lol for some reason

[Anonymous No.4494019]

>>4493922
>>4493993
Sein und Zeit is really the worst possible introduction to Heidegger. Try this one instead.

[Anonymous No.4494022]

>>4493904
You say dehumanisation challenges freedom. What is dehumanisation? Becoming less human. What is human?

Here then comes some kind of limited definition of humanity. By defining humanity you fix it as a concept. Any change that humanity goes through can be deemed dehumanisation after that. To define what is human is to limit what is human. By resisting dehumanisation, you're defending only a certain perspective of what it means to be human, thereby limiting the full spectrum of what it is to be human, thereby actually dehumanising humanity by attempting to conserve it.

[Anonymous No.4494023]

>>4494010
This. It's just a game.

http://youtu.be/GZQRp9Mup0w

[Anonymous No.4494052]

>>4493895
>Could you (or anyone) explain the need to know Heidegger before Simulacra & Simulations?

Not that guy, but: you don't need to know Heidegger in order to grasp Baudrillard, but in order to understand the ground that a lot of his critique rests on it is beneficial to understand Heidegger's concept of Enframing and critique of functionality (probably best related to Baudrillard in The Question Concerning Technology, to which Baudrillard's "The System of Objects" is a natural conclusion).

>for Deleuze, should I read anything other than the SEP and A Thousand Plateaus?

Yes. Difference and Repetition is essential. A Thousand Plateaus isn't something you necessarily want to jump right into, either.

[Anonymous No.4494061]

>>4494010
>Philosophical Investigations

Imagine all of the arguments that could be avoided if more people read this.

[Anonymous No.4494075]

>>4493933
>studying 2000 years of specious reasoning and naive metaphysics before learning anything of value

skim a summary of Plato and Aristotle and then skip to Descartes, then Hume

[Anonymous No.4494094]

I read it as a young teenager, and it heavily shaped my kind of thinking.

[Anonymous No.4494111]

Imperium - F.P. Yockey

I read that book religiously and still find new things that make me change my worldview

[Anonymous No.4494153]

>>4494075
>specious reasoning and naive metaphysics

Wow.

[Anonymous No.4494159]

>>4494012
Maybe because they did not understand any of the works mentioned?

[Anonymous No.4494201]

continuity and discontinuity: the fundamental principles of all existence.

[Anonymous No.4494204]

>>4494023
It's more like pic related than actually cyclical though. People don't get knocked back into pre-agrarian states pretty often.

[Anonymous No.4494250]

>>4494052

Thanks. I actually have The Question Concerning Technology, but didn't get around to it (mostly because I forgot which paper it was supposed to relate to). I'll get the Deleuze book.

And to the other person who replied to me, the class is definitely going to kick my ass, but I have some experience with Heidegger already, just not the full work.

[Anonymous No.4494282]

>>4494204
I'm that guy and this is my theory as well.

[Anonymous No.4494287]

>>4494282
>>4494204
[cont.]
Provided of course that the x axis is time and y axis is complexity. The point being actually having a enjoyable existence ought not to be scratched for perpetuation of the spiraling into eternity or extinction that would be absurd.

[Anonymous No.4494339]

[Anonymous No.4494535]

>>4494204
that is not how functions work
my eyes

[Anonymous No.4494602]

>>4494022

Well being a human is a matter of neurological cybernetics.

Stupid assholes who have integrated themselves with money arousal machines and artificial meth-analogues as a sort of "natural", an omnipresent "water" of their environment without being able to visualize or imagine a more meaningful state of things are probably more dehumanized than hunter-gatherer tribes who are following the instincts and behavioral patterns which developed in a hunter gathering culture. Signification systems integrating constant narrative coding of landscapes, diets which are relatively optimal for health, and vast oral memories. Spiritual systems which curb the megalomania of drives into less psychotic (of course also less "free") systems of desire...

And these are tribes who are secluded to the most untameable sections of the Earth. Civilization literally has wiped off thousands of different modes of caloric gathering/modes of production off not only this planet but the most fertile parts of it.

[Anonymous No.4494609]

>>4494602

or rather, what we valorize in being "human" is a fullness of experience and of emotional and propositional processing. It honestly takes less "brains" to be a bureaucratic asshole than to be part of a direct mode of survival where you personally have a duty in assisting with caloric gathering and shelter building. A lot of our virtual modes of production are stupid simple, brutally fucking simple in comparison.

[Anonymous No.4494652]

>stupid assholes who have integrated themselves with money arousal machines and artificial meth-analogues as a sort of "natural", an omnipresent "water" of their environment without being able to visualize or imagine a more meaningful state of things
aka people who visit 4chan

[Anonymous No.4494787]

>>4494652
4chan is a pretty astounding set on contradictions. Most people here are much more integrated with technology than your average person, but it's headed in a completely different direction from the trends of social networking and media.

[Anonymous No.4494794]

>>4490005

:/

[Anonymous No.4494799]

>>4490005
jesus christ this made me puke and then I understood its concept and thought it's great.

[Anonymous No.4494803]

>>4494787
>but it's headed in a completely different direction from the trends of social networking and media.

the direction doesn't matter when we're all jogging in place.

[Anonymous No.4494809]

>>4494803
Fairly sure I get your point. Mind elaborating?

[Anonymous No.4495073]

>>4494602
>>4494609
I don't think you got my point. Any definition of humanity is limiting. There is no such thing as an unnatural person.

[Anonymous No.4495098]

>>4495073
If it can happen; it's natural. Am I right? I don't know how faggots could get any other idea of what natural is.

[Anonymous No.4495325]

Probably 1984
Read it when I was a kid. It opened my my eyes to see how the world was really like.

[Anonymous No.4495419]

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

[Anonymous No.4495622]

Learned the importance of being model agnostic. Interesting ideas about how the brain forms beliefs and how to challenge them for personal growth.

worldup outrun

[Anonymous No.4495691]

>>4495622
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.4495723]

>>4495073

Well if it's limiting, then it's a more precise "tool". If a word bloats to include too many concepts, you can't dissect or use it as an arrow for a goal.

When you evaluate one vision of humanity, "humanity" being a word CHARGED with positive connotation, over the other vision, then you try to support the superior "humanity".

It might be "natural" to be brutalized to more primitive and more fetal components of an ever more complex cybernetic system but that doesn't mean we have to value it as
1. Inevitable
2. Desirable

"Humanity", as is, is probably a midwife to something far superior whether that will come with genetic engineering, robotics, AI, or a combination of the previous. At that point we'll have something far different from the reference points that once defined mere "humanity" though and the modes of production that will arise therein will produce new jargon to describe the "evolved" state of humanity.

[Anonymous No.4495743]

>>4495691
I want to believe.

[Anonymous No.4495890]

>>4495622

The problem of "God"

So you have a set containing all the possible psychologies and motivations of an intentional being coupled with "power over the set of mechanics which define the world".

WHICH COMBINATION DO YOU GAMBLE ON? Pascal's wager is fucking useless because you aren't gambling against some insipid notion of "A God must establish a judgment of a soul as a one-to-one correlate of moral actions" but ALL POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS.

Even if "God" were "real", YOU'D HAVE NO IDEA IF IT MEANT YOU AS HARM OR INDIFFERENCE. We are able to evaluate other neurological entities based on physical evidence and empathical intuition. This falls apart when examining the infinite possibilities for a potential analogue.

[Anonymous No.4496153]

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4496447]

>>4490005

[Anonymous No.4497118]

>>4496447
top kek

[Anonymous No.4497155]

>>4496447
Into the fedora he goes.

[Anonymous No.4497170]

The essays and poems of this man. Brilliant.

[Anonymous No.4497176]

>>4497170
his poetry is shit though

[Anonymous No.4497639]

>>4496153
Is an interesting book.

[Anonymous No.4499368]

>>4490051
>>4490057
Shit's hyper-real, yo.

[Anonymous No.4499393]

>>4494287
So, according to your graph, there are, at some intervals, three simultaneously occurring time lines each featuring a distinct level of complexity?

Learn to graph, nerd.

[Anonymous No.4499401]

>>4499368

[Anonymous No.4499408]

>>4497176
no though

[Anonymous No.4499410]

>>4499401
10/10
best lol this week

[Anonymous No.4499498]

>>4490128
is it worth it to read all of that? this guy liked simulacra and simulation and he sounds nuts >>4490020

[Anonymous No.4499507]

>>4492482
>completely unaware
It's in the news every other day.

> dangers towards society
Like what?

>>if you were to confront this issue with 90% of people they would completely disregard it and scoff at you as a lunatic
You sound like a lunatic. Not because of the issue, but because you say "dangers" without substantiating it.

>>millions upon millions of people around the world own BAD THING known as "BAD THINGS" and use them every day, completely unaware of the DANGERS TOWARD SOCIETY they possess by feeding all of OUR FRAGILE GOOD THINGS to EVIL THING.

[Anonymous No.4499517]

>>4492590
Did you just align random words at the end there or is that some famous saying?
I'm French and I'd never get the idea to read any of these people.

[Anonymous No.4499527]

>>4490005
>philosophy
never understood it really. I've read passages from Thoreau, Marx, Wittgenstein, but I don't see what's so special and most of the time I think I'm missing the point

[Anonymous No.4499534]

[Anonymous No.4499538]

>mfw there are people on /lit/ who actually respect continental philosophy

[Anonymous No.4500914]

>>4492590
never read B-dog.

is that an accurate summary?

[Anonymous No.4500919]

>>4492636
so the dictionary must make you feel really abused, eh?

[Anonymous No.4500927]

>>4491896
>Technology is no longer about functionality or productivity seemingly, it's about trying to create (or emulate) social experiences.
This is spot on, bravo.

[Anonymous No.4500938]

>>4500927
except that its a gross generalization.

[Anonymous No.4501043]

>>4500927
>tfw your electric kettle asks you out to the movies

[Anonymous No.4501057]

>>4500914
No it's really not. B-dog is >implying a lot far more ominous implications about reality. We might be unable to recover reality from simulation again is one of them, but what does that even mean? Read him yourself and make your guess.

[Anonymous No.4501071]

uhhhhhhhhhhh sophocles perhaps???????

[Anonymous No.4501101]

>>4491210
You know, pic related reminds me: While Haruhi wasn't really my kind of show, her 'Aww shit! Look how many people there are.' speech succeeded at illustrating that simple truth much more vividly than anything I had seen before it. In all honesty, it probably did change my views on life a bit.

[Anonymous No.4501137]

>>4499527

either you didn't read the works for read about the works
or you are "smart", that is, a lot of appreciation for great works in any art form, is the fact that they introduce previously unknown ideas/thoughts/feelings/emotions, thus the audience actually appreciates the making of the art rather than the art itself.

[Anonymous No.4501156]

>>4500927
wow
such truth
much shock

Seriously anon, who hasn't had these thoughts before? It's the most basic social/cultural observations there are:

Google gives you personalized search algoriths, so you get the information it believes you to find agreeable, while also shaping you in a way that benefits it, Facebook groups you with people of similar interests and views that are similar to yours, giving you a feeling of affirmation, and I'm not even going to bother talking about YouTube.
Most, if not all popular Online portals with communities at their center use comment systems that punish criticism and encourage blatant populism simultaneously.