/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14867374]

Does Neil Postman provide any different insights to Mumford, Heidegger, McLuhan, Ellul, etc. or is he regurgitating what they said, but dumbs it down? Is this book still relevant despite the fact it was written before the internet and social media?

[Anonymous No.14867478]

>>14867374
>Is this book still relevant despite the fact it was written before the internet and social media
You'll immediately see how relevant it still is if you do so much as watch a Destiny "debate."

[Anonymous No.14867664]

>>14867478
second this

[Anonymous No.14867677]

does Postman even cite any of those authors besides maybe McLuhan? I didn't think there was really any comparison between him and them

[Anonymous No.14868209]

>>14867374
Postman intended his book as a diatribe for general circulation. Only Mumford really compares, New Yorker journalist that he was, but his concerns were more fundamental (as well as more sustained) and designed to reach a more literary audience. That said, I liked Postman's book; I picked up a 25th anniversary reissue at a used shop not too long ago. It isn't Technics and Civilization, however.

[Anonymous No.14868227]

>>14867374
>Does Neil Postman provide any different insights to Mumford, Heidegger, McLuhan, Ellul, etc.
No. Except perhaps its historical application, but even that is dubious.

[Anonymous No.14868270]

>>14868209
>It isn't Technics and Civilization, however.
Is that the best book when it comes to critics of technology?

[Anonymous No.14868582]

>>14868270
Well ironically the Luddite of the bunch actually is Postman, and only he was the kind of culture critic when flourishing that writers like Bill McKibben (The Age of Missing Information), Matt Taibbi (Griftopia), Chris Hedges (Empire of Illusion - classically /lit/ hates this guy fwr btw) - and Michael Lewis (Liar's Poker, Moneyball, Boomerang) are in their respective spheres today.
Mumford's famous book was written in the 30's and though it does double as a historical survey of how technological artificiality has effected human behaviour through time- and therefore worth reading if this kind of literature interests you- I can't imagine that his very polished suggestions still apply in 2020, or are the best thing going.
For raw intellect one chooses Heidegger, for raw not too difficult to comprehend verbal power on a number of burdensome topics Ellul, for all things 'media' minus the serious technological aspects McLuhan, for infrastructure Mumford --and NOT because they provide what's needed now, but because they're classics. ..One for instance reads Gibbon *now* either because one loves literature or because one is interested in the formation of modern Europe out of the dissolution of the two Romes, and recognizes the necessity of reading a classic. Same applies to most of the guys on your list, all of whom are very helpful in one's own critical self-development, but very little else aside from what's now general knowledge (more or less).
If what youre interested in is *right now* (and on a more philosophical plain of discourse) then the fellow whose works I recommend that you check out are Peter Sloterdijk's. Much of what he writes is in this vein, and Heidegger is a major concern of his in this critical way; his prose is also both literary and legible. Sorry for this mess but I'm at work and on a freaking phone!

[Anonymous No.14869060]

>>14868582
Ok but what about Ted?

[Anonymous No.14869129]

>>14869060
To be honest I've only read the manifesto (weirdly my dad saved the Washington Post in which it appeared and finding it in a box about 4 yrs ago it is now in my possession). Obviously his complaint's a legitimate one- the human body no longer exerts the purposeful energy that made living life more fulfilling in the past. Clearly he read Mumford, and his notion of the 'power principle' has the look of one who read both Nietzsche and Freud; I wish I could remember more. I have no clue what all came next. Any recs?

[Anonymous No.14869270]

>>14867664
Explain

[Anonymous No.14869650]

>>14868582
The one brief summary of Sloterdijk's work that I've come across made him out to be a eugenicist freak (in the context of that discussion), but I guess there's more to him than that. What would you recommend starting with? or will I be able to understand him without having read Sein und Zeit?

[Anonymous No.14869746]

>>14869129
That's really cool Anon! These are his only two works but they are both well worth reading. I know he is a bit of a meme on this board but honestly, he is really good and very thorough.

[Anonymous No.14869890]

>>14868582
I’ve read a bunch of Ellul’s oeuvre, and found I’m quite prescient while still being relevant as he wrote two sequels to ‘The Technological Society’. I like his intervention of Christianity as a method of resistance much like in the it’s early manifestations against Rome. Im hoping to read Mumford next and maybe Heidegger. I will say Chris Hedges is probably a closest successor to Ellul considering his theological background, though obviously more ‘praxis’ and real world related, since he was a reporter, and less theory based. Still a depressingly interesting writer.

[Anonymous No.14869897]

>>14869890
Check out Gasset's The Rebellion of the Masses

[Anonymous No.14869957]

>>14869897
I’ve seen that mentioned here and it looks interesting, yet from my cursory reading the author attacks mass man, rightfully so, but not the systems in place which create and sustain mass-man; which Ellul did an excellent job showing in his work, especially Propaganda: The Formations of Men’s Attitudes

[Anonymous No.14869978]

>>14867374
Yeah he lays a pretty clear analysis on how TV News and Junk Media; "information" is "disinformation" when it's meaningless information giving a false sense of "being informed" but knowing nothing of any substance after learning it; and the content format of the TV News being closer to "vaudeville" than real analysis.

I've not read McLuhan but he mentions him in this book, and the two were contemporaries.

As to the rest of the authors mentioned, they were too far back to have really been able to comment on this, unless they mentioned theatre or the junk newspapers of their day which certainly existed.

fun fact, George Washington in his farewell address warning the American Assembly about the dangers of a two party political system blaming each other and cycling in and out of office on policies of revenge, actually mentions the press as being "checkered with abuses" even then in the late 1700's.

[Anonymous No.14870040]

>>14869978
>George Washington in his farewell address warning the American Assembly about the dangers of a two party political system blaming each other and cycling in and out of office on policies of revenge, actually mentions the press as being "checkered with abuses" even then in the late 1700's
I knew from my history class in high school.It's more of a prescient warning than a fun fact, or do they not teach this important tidbit about Washington anymore? Please, tell me the public education system in my beloved burgerland hasn't gone that much to shit in the 12 years since I graduated.

[Anonymous No.14870055]

>>14870040
>in the 12 years since I graduated.
haha I'm just happy to hear they taught it 12 years ago at least.. I couldn't tell you tho, I'm across the pond in that loving colonial oppressor state you can't shake off ;)

really though, him saying that and then they just have a two party system anyway? at what point did it go so badly wrong...? oh, i know, when they invaded themselves and fought against Thomas Jefferson grandson.

[Anonymous No.14870060]

>>14870040
>a prescient warning
i disagree there, I mean - I agree - but he wasn't seeing the future but seeing the past, the continental or british parliamentary system being the shit show they'd all fled from in the first place.

[Anonymous No.14870523]

Wow. A good thread!