/lit/ - Literature

>>13675792
clean your fucking room

>recommend me books to confirm this specifically defined belief that I already subscribe to

>>13675792
It's not the fault of neo-liberalism, humans evolved in environmental conditions that required constant productivity to survive otherwise you would die or get expelled from the tribe or killed like the pathetic parasite that you are.

>>13675792
In the chart thread there's literally that.

Daodejing. Anything by Eckhart.

Those do not praise laziness as much as encourage a type of activity others might mistakenly define as laziness.

Praising laziness is a contrarian thing to do because as a vice, laziness is by definition not praiseworthy. Praising it would be like praising envy or wrath.

>>13675816
>that required constant productivity to survive
lol no they didn’t, life is easy as fuck in tribal type societies. just forage hunt and do a little fishing and chill the rest of the day

>>13675835
>vice
Spook

>>13675835
a lot of great achievements were made due to envy

>>13675792
I agree. Don’t do that. Don’t read books that support that idea. If you feel a book does, examine it against your biases and come to a conclusion of whether yoy should stop reading it. Now fuck off

>>13675792
Cioran, Pessoa

>>13675867
The idea is that the envy/laziness are not in themselves good, even if they can lead to good things on rare occasions.

My point is that it's easy to point the finger and call misunderstood types of activity, e.g. meditation or prayer, as lazy because one has a restricted notion of "activity."

Boredom, on the other hand... Nothing wrong with that unless you're a teenager! Proust is probably the best promoter of a beautiful kind of boredom.

>>13675853
Lmao
Then move to some primitive tribal society retard

>>13675928
non sequitur, try again

>>13675957
And don't forget to stop using the IPhone daddy bought you

>>13675792
anything by bukowski

>>13675792
tfw my boss told me unless im on time for the next two weeks he'll have to let me go. I was 5 hours late yesterday lmao. 5 fucking hours. today only 2 hours late

>>13675977
I'm not even the same anon, one more chance

>>13675816
>he hasn't taken the Leviathan pill

OP, Against His-Story, Against Leviathan by Fredy Perlman

>>13675816
Lol humans didn't evolve in the Sahara you troglodyte. Please stop retroactively projecting the misery of the American work week into the past, it's pure propaganda

>>13676055

>Human evolution is encouraged in conditions of scarcity and competition.

That must be why there are so many well-developed, balanced individuals coming up out of hard-scrabble lives. And why our prison recidivism rates are so low (they're not).

The problem isn't that people work too hard. Work and activity are inevitable and good.

The problem is that our world recognizes too narrow of a scope of activity, and relegates everyone else to poverty and shame, branded lazy.

>>13676174
the conditions have to be stable for generations, and welfare makes any selection towards self-reliance in those areas impossible. Not to mention birth control is generally used more by smarter people, the whole situation is quite dysgenic.

The smartest people on earth, western europeans, and east asians, both evolved in a climate where you had to prepare for the winter by stocking food you grew during the warmer seasons. If you live in the actual arctic then you can never grow food so you just live hunter gatherer style and this foresight isn't needed. Same for the places that never get too cold. There are also little ethnicities like Ashkenazi Jews and the Jain in india, who appear to have become intelligent by actually being selected for because of social conditions, Jews were doing basically just business and banking and the like in Europe for 1000 years, and the Jain are thought to have occupied a similar role, where fertility was related to wealth, and wealth was related to jobs requring higher iq.

This is just speculative theory obviously, you can't run experiments on this stuff.

Legitimate question: how could someone who espouses laziness write an entire book?

>>13676223
They could have stopped being lazy.

Walter Benjamin wrote about boredom and the flaneur (which is dead now)
>>13675882
these are great

>>13676223
As established earlier in this thread, certain types of effort/work are not recognized as legitimate and thus lazy.

A person with a reputation for laziness may reveal an immense capacity for work, but work which is overlooked.

Such a person may publish a book or construct an elaborate edifice in private.

>>13676209
>The smartest people on earth, Europe and and east asians [...] You lost me there.

Monesquieu supported a theory similar to what you laid out, describing social structure as affected by climate:

Cold climates foster calculation and planning. At their best, they produce justice. At their worst, they breed dehumanization and anarchy.

Warm climates foster social solidarity and kindness. At best, they produce pure-hearted morality. At their worst, they breed anarchy or corruption.

None of this concerns intelligence. We're talking about fundamentally different ways of life, each with perks and drawbacks. Try going from Minnesota to Alabama (USA) some time. You'll see what I mean.

>>13676389
I wasn't talking about culture though, but shit like IQ and time preference, which are supposed to be genetic. I added at the end that im not 100% on the theory because nothing about evolutionary logic can really be studied except in very quickly reproducing species like flies. We obviously can't do that to humans.

I was just explaining what the idea is, and when I said the smartest populations, I mean based on iq tests and the basic sophistication of the civilizations, which I know are not rigorous science, and massively impacted by historical factors, as all of the social sciences are. IQ does have a lot of good research though, so it shouldn't just be discarded.

Read anti-work literature, as well as some Kierkegaard

>>13676480
>anti-work literature
like?
>as well as some Kierkegaard
why?

>>13676410
>IQ should not be discarded as a criterion for intelligence

Why? What I have seen suggests that IQ is good for predicting instrumental reasoning only and has no relation to things like moral intelligence, emotional intelligence, or, God forbid, wisdom.

>>13676489
>Anti-work literature
There isn't much of this out there. Perhaps the closest you'll find is discordian/subgenius stuff, which you can Google. There are also specific theorists like Bob Black. I can't really reccommend any of that stuff though, because I haven't read much of it.

>Anti-exploitative work literature
Marx

>Kierkegaard
Because Jeebus save yer soul if you but have faith and discard foolish, vain, manmade reason!

>>13675853
It really isn’t, 50% infant mortality for one (if we go by present day niggers), if you had a decent grasp of mathematics you’d understand that small populations suffer would massive growing pains and indeed we went through many phases of starvation to get here

>>13676538
>Why? What I have seen suggests that IQ is good for predicting instrumental reasoning only and has no relation to things like moral intelligence, emotional intelligence, or, God forbid, wisdom.
I would agree with that. But it does allow people to function in more productive ways, the correlations are pretty strong. It's certainly just one aspect of the question, but it's the only one in psychology with that much research that backs it up.

I dont think we know fuck all about the brain really, and IQ is a very crude metric, it just seems to have some predictive power, so it matters imo.

How to be Idle.

>>13676595
アイドル?

>>13676581
>IQ allows people to function in more productive ways.

But now we're far off the original topic, which was whether it is possible to conceive of an advanced or advancing civilization made up of people who are called lazy (unproductive) today.

People who are called lazy today are not productive in a recognizable way. But the burning question is this: is it possible to live and NOT produce? In the past, production was mostly focused on survival. Today, we have a great amount of production oriented exclusively towards producing more riches. How much industry is related to profit, and how much to basic needs? By the standards of yesteryear, an executive working 80 hours a week would be considered lazy because the work is not even remotely related to survival.

It seems that at some point, there will be more room (there is already a small amount) to recognize productivity beyond subsistence/survival, profiteering, and meta-profiteering, but that world is getting harder and harder to imagine.

>>13676660
anon i half get what you're saying, the dichotomy between working for survival and working for producing shit. Could you maybe take a moment to make it more clear, because I dont quite get what you mean, i think we just have different backgrounds of thought so it's not intuitively clear.

>>13676667
What is considered productive shifts over time. With civilization comes a notion that there is valuable production that is only loosely related to survival. The issue today seems to be that people can't agree on what this kind of intangible production consists of. So they've reached a kind of stalemate and decided that it must mean producing production. Ever notice all the sanctimonious "job-creators" running around these days? Everyone's doing work so that someone else can work, so that someone else can work.

But it's not clear where the real production is happening, or why there are certain kinds of production that aren't valuable. Some people would claim that it's just healthy market forces, but if that's true they are extremely arbitrary.

>>13676720
well you can analyze it in terms of energy, or even more simplistically, power. Work that creates greater sources of energy, or work that creates more power(that encompasses energy, but also stuff like technology and science which find new ways to harness energy and relate various things to each other in ways that promote greater control of energy, greater ability, power).

That has to kind of run it at heart, because it will dominate anything that doesn't go along with it, by definition.

>>13676646
That's the name of the book.