/lit/ - Literature

>>14499563
>be me
>kinda like peterson, think he has some good things to say
>introduce him to my friend
>week later friend tells me he's a jungian and he's watched peterson's entire religion series and more
>starts listening to audiobooks of jung and joseph campbell
>absorbs so much jungian quackery without even the slightest grasp of other traditions of thought (he's an engineer) that he sees the world solely through the lens of archetypes and chaos vs. order
>judges how good movies are based on how well they conform to the 'hero's journey'
>says he respects alex jones because he manifests the shaman archetype
>joined the local jungian society to meet girls

what have i created

>>13960064
When art is rooted in “the fabric of tradition” (meaning the development of tradition or traditions that retain some relation between the original substance of a work and its substance in the present) it is sovereign and untouchable, meaning only what tradition permits and therefore changing only as tradition itself changes ; because this root cannot be manufactured, reproduced art can never have the kind of substance or meaning, the same sovereignty, as an original.

An artwork that is sovereign possesses an “aura”, a substance or meaning that does not depend on subjective apprehension; the substance or meaning of such an artwork precedes apprehension; it does not depend on an audience; it is a kind of art that demands that its audience adapts to itself, unlike in reproduced art, which, lacking roots, adapts to its audience for lack of anything else.

Originals become like reproductions for those ignorant of its traditions, or more accurately, those ignorant of the category of tradition and therefore do not notice its absence.

With the processes of reproduction severing the ties between an original and its origins, therefore making it as flat and democratic as reproduced art, the notion of ‘art for art’s sake’ emerged, "which not only denied any social function of art but also any categorizing by subject matter."

Because ritual cannot be changed by ‘fiat’, any art that is grounded in ritual (and therefore tradition) can never be political, because politics (in the modern sense) is the defiance of ‘fiat’, perhaps even the rejection of ‘fiat’ as a valid source of legitimacy; for this reason Benjamin sees a positive potential in reproduction, because it severs once and for all the dependence of art on ritual , for in the age of reproduction it can be rooted in the people.

>>12411781
A moment of silence for our fallen board
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McCDWYgVyps

>>12244905
>>12245070
>>12245075
Just because you want to be a woman doesn't mean you are actually trans, since transgenderism isn't supposed to be a choice is it? It's a biological fact, apparently. Honestly though, I feel your pain in a way. I went through an autogyne-confusion phase as well, and at the end of it I realised, fuck this self-determination bullshit, that I get to choose my destiny, I'm a man and that's as stable a fact as I'm gonna get, because it is literally a fact. Transitioning will just throw you permanently into a convoluted aesthetic form of living, where you feel secure in-the-world by being a ridiculous hyper-feminised caracature of womanhood. Don't do it. Learn to bear the pain, It's what hte rest of us have done.

>>11399093
Is our society today unusually toxic, or this how its always been?

>>11264945
>move to a monastery
almost have a preference for this one

>>11199251
>Show me someone raised literally atheist, by a completely irreligious family and school, who then became religious.
Literally me. My family actively hates religion, and so did I until I saw the light.

to go home