/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4607316]

Hi. I was wondering if anyone could recommend any books with anti-western/modern culture themes? Not any "le wrong generation" or "get off my lawn" kinda stuff but something that's level headed and reasonably written. I want something that will challenge my views on the world and the culture I grew up in.

If any of you are familiar with the punk band Sleater-Kinney their album The Woods is similar to what I'm looking for. Specifically the songs Jumpers, Modern Girl and Entertain. Also Brave New World is kinda similar to what I'm looking for but it's been a while since I've read it so I'm hazy on the finer thematic details.

Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous No.4607353]

I should clarify:

By modern western culture I mean the valuing of wealth and material goods over most anything else, the ubiquitousness of entertainment, the worship of celebrities and pop icons, super individualism, blind acceptance of technology, etc.

[« 零 » !Ry9.Zir1EM No.4607352]

"MEN AMONG THE RUINS" BY JULIUS EVOLA.

"REVOLT AGAINST THE MODERN WORLD" BY JULIUS EVOLA.

"RIDE THE TIGER" BY JULIUS EVOLA.

"IMPERIUM" FRANCIS PARKER YOCKEY.

"THE MYTH OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY" BY ALFRED ROSENBERG.

"A HANDBOOK OF TRADITIONAL LIVING".

[Anonymous No.4607379]

Naked Lunch
La Distinction
On the Road
The Birth of Biopolitics
À Rebours
The Motorcycle Diaries

[Anonymous No.4607384]

>>4607352
You recommend two books that are clearly linked to Nazism or Nazi-ish ideas, Imperium and The Myth of the Twentieth Century, so that makes me weary of you other recommendations. I'm not interested in being red-pilled or reading texts that are racist, sexist or in any way discriminatory towards other people.

[Anonymous No.4607386]

Food of the Gods by Terence Mckenna

[Anonymous No.4607389]

If you want some theory on the topic you could try Bruno Latour.

I'd start with We Have Never Been Modern or On the Modern Cult of Factish Gods

[Anonymous No.4607413]

>>4607386
>>4607379
Thanks, all these books seem fairly interesting I'll see if I can't find a PDF or epub of them and get started right away.

>>4607389
These books seem pretty pro-modern in the philosophical sense. These books seem to be pro rationalism and empiricism. Am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.4607435]

>>4607379
Oh, and "We", definitely We.

A whole mess of shit by Hunter S. Thompson is good as well.

[AnelCrist !m9jxTLhLcw No.4607459]

Civilization and its Discontents: Basically Freud ripping off Schopenbro and Nietzsche but adding erotic repression to the mix. "Why we're fucked and there's nothing you can do about it" the book.
Empire: if you are specifically upset about this system and don't think marxism was complete bullshit.
Industrial society and its future (Unabomber's manifesto): some angry dude rambling about anarcho-primitivism.

[Anonymous No.4607464]

>>4607413
>These books seem to be pro rationalism and empiricism.

If you're looking for books that are against rationalism and empiricism, you're looking for bad books. Against consumerism, short-sightedness, etc., sure. But if you're talking straight Romanticism vs. Enlightenment...

You should probably start with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Short, enjoyable, good introduction and consideration of the basic positions. It's the "inquiry into values" you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.4607478]

>>4607384

Why not? These are all modern notions. You should keep an open mind. Evola is a fun read, he is a crackpot sex wizard and some of his thoughts are on point.

[Anonymous No.4607481]

>>4607464
>If you're looking for books that are against rationalism and empiricism, you're looking for bad books.

Can you demonstrate this empirically?

[Anonymous No.4607489]

>>4607464
Honestly why? There's more to life than raw scientific fact. Yes that has it's place in our society but when people ignore human emotion for scientific fact I think that's pretty shortsighted.

>>4607478
I have no patience for people who hate others based on their religious beliefs, sexuality or some unchangeable physical attribute.

[Anonymous No.4607497]

>>4607316


modern culture is already 'anti-western' op, you either dont really know what you want, or are complaining about the dish you ordered.

[Anonymous No.4607502]

>>4607459
This Empire?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(book)

[AnelCrist !m9jxTLhLcw No.4607504]

>>4607502
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(book)
Yes.

[Anonymous No.4607512]

>>4607464
>If you're looking for books that are against rationalism and empiricism, you're looking for bad books.

The building of the Integral will be completed in one hundred and twenty days. The great historic hour when the first Integral will soar into cosmic space is drawing near. One thousand years ago your heroic ancestors subdued the entire terrestrial globe to the power of the One State. Yours will be a still more glorious feat: you will integrate the infinite equation of the universe with the aid of the fire-breathing, electric, glass Integral. You will subjugate the unknown beings on other planets, who may still be living in the primitive condition of freedom, to the
beneficent yoke of reason. If they fail to understand that we bring them mathematically infallible happiness, it will be our duty to compel them to be happy

[Anonymous No.4607513]

>>4607489
>I have no patience for people who hate others based on their religious beliefs, sexuality or some unchangeable physical attribute.

You sound like a filthy modern.

[Anonymous No.4607522]

>>4607513
Postmodernists also have that attitude.

[Anonymous No.4607544]

Raoul Vaneigem - The Revolution of Everyday Life

[Anonymous No.4607546]

>>4607522


most pomos are afraid of the natural conclusions of their own observations.

they repudiate enlightenment formalism, trumpeting the glorious return of beings powers of arbitrary judgment in the academic discourse, yet they retain the same morals, the same arbitrary judgments of the enlightenment. they gaze into the abyss and recoil in horror, and as a result do not really change anything, new rationalizations for the same preconceptions, the same insecurities of the enlightenment thinkers.

[Anonymous No.4607547]

>>4607546
apt, bro

[Anonymous No.4607548]

>>4607481

Well, it was more of a slam than a statement of fact, but I'll take a crack at it. Sounds like fun.

A book that argues against rationalism either uses rational argument to support its position, or it does not. If it does, it is self-contradictory, effectively arguing that you should discard its arguments. If it does not, if it has no logical arguments, then it is simply an appeal to emotion and has said nothing of substance.

In practice, these books tend to fall into two camps: "The modern world is bad and you should feel bad," which is basically just articulate whining, and "The modern world is bad and you should feel good," which is airy hippy bullshit.

Modern society has fed you, educated you, cured your illnesses, and kept you from being murdered by bandits. If you can't find a way to be happy under these circumstances, that's on you, pal. You're free to take a walk out into the wilderness, because your legs work, because empiricism cured polio.

[Anonymous No.4607557]

>>4607489
>I have no patience for people who hate others based on their religious beliefs, sexuality or some unchangeable physical attribute.
Then you are undisputably part of the thing you dislike so very much. Pathetic being.

>>4607352
Add to this Guénon and Ortega y Gasset.

[Anonymous No.4607562]

>>4607489
>Honestly why? There's more to life than raw scientific fact. Yes that has it's place in our society but when people ignore human emotion for scientific fact I think that's pretty shortsighted.

You've never met a scientist, have you? No one's ignoring anything.

[Anonymous No.4607577]

What happened to /lit/ guys? Why is it so /pol/ lately?

[Anonymous No.4607582]

>>4607577


op asked for criticism of modernity, and he got exactly that.

[Anonymous No.4607583]

>>4607562

>using xkcd to attempt to argue that scientists aren't soulless spergs

[Anonymous No.4607599]

>>4607577
>wah I don't like opinions different from mine

[Anonymous No.4607620]

>>4607562

just cruising by not planning to stop into a BNW thread, ooOO a cartoon I think. Read it, read the posters comment, read the comment below.. pic related.

>>4607489
>Honestly why? There's more to life than raw scientific fact. Yes that has it's place in our society but when people ignore human emotion for scientific fact I think that's pretty shortsighted.

[Anonymous No.4607624]

>>4607620
You should probably go back to posting on Reddit.

[Anonymous No.4607682]

>>4607546
They don't repudiate Enlightenment formalism, they simply ask who is serves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problematization
You don't even know what postmodernism is, brah. The majority of this "smart" board doesn't.

[Anonymous No.4607722]

>>4607682


>they simply ask who is serves.

it having such a quality being a repudiation of formalism/foundationalism, the idea that a 'first philosophy' of perfect epistemic felicity is necessary to know anything about anything, and so that virtue and righteousness may be impersonally, atemporaly calculated.

but of course, systematizers are always and already superior to the systems they can create.

[Anonymous No.4607753]

>>4607722
You miss the point. It's not a question of criticizing method, it's question of to what end the method is being put to.

[Anonymous No.4607783]

>>4607753


you dont think none criticise enlightenment presuppositions vis. epistemology, doing ethics, analyzing information, and et cetera? little things like subject object divides, nominalism, and the like?

regardless
>It's not a question of criticizing method, it's question of to what end the method is being put to

will translate to the same thing if you take either far enough.

[Anonymous No.4607806]

>>4607783
>you dont think none criticise enlightenment presuppositions vis. epistemology, doing ethics, analyzing information, and et cetera? little things like subject object divides, nominalism, and the like?
They do, but only in the sense that they feel limited by them. The limit-experience, for instance, is about transcending subject/object, not rejecting it altogether.

>will translate to the same thing if you take either far enough.

Nope, not at all. It will simply translates to always asking questions.Postmodernism doesn't reject science, for instance, it simply asks toward what advancements science focuses on and who those benefit. Are you saying that asking questions like that of science, is a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.4607824]

>>4607806


if you criticize a given end, it follows naturally that methods must change such that the end will not happen.


and regardless, the initial point, that you also iterate, that saying an enlightenment system is intentional and not 'value less', is a fundamental repudiation of the enlightenment project as such. youre not getting around this.

[Anonymous No.4607835]

>>4607824
>if you criticize a given end, it follows naturally that methods must change such that the end will not happen.
No it doesn't. If I want to make myself dictator of a country, hypothetically I have a variety of means at my disposal, for violent to peaceful.

>and regardless, the initial point, that you also iterate, that saying an enlightenment system is intentional and not 'value less', is a fundamental repudiation of the enlightenment project as such. youre not getting around this.

No, it isn't. Being against gathering data on everything in violation of privacy in order to make power more complete and efficient, is not a criticism of gathering data per se.

[Anonymous No.4607850]

>>4607806

Lot of modern "pomo" cultural theorists and post-structuralists perform extremely wanky inquiry that is neither pursued in a reasonable fashion nor at all useful or reliable. There are certainly people who get labeled postmodern that are not doing this, but they are the exception rather than the rule. General loose sense in which the term is applied by haters doesn't help this either, it becomes a big psychological ghetto to which "pretentious shit, according to me" gets condemned. But Chomsky's slam is still best.

>I would simply suggest that you ask those who tell you about the wonders of "theory" and "philosophy" to justify their claims --- to do what people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc. These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames.

[Anonymous No.4607854]

>>4607850
Except they can do that.

[Anonymous No.4607859]

>>4607854

Many can not.

[Anonymous No.4607860]

>>4607859
Sure, but the ones who can't tend to get attacked pretty hard by the rest.

[Anonymous No.4607890]

>>4607860

Who will then go on to yammer booksful of nonsense themselves, likely as not. Merely because Deleuze's reading of Lacan was less stupid than Lacan himself doesn't mean Deleuze is putting his mind to a worthwhile or needful task. Nor are these two the only ones who are wasting their ink.

[Anonymous No.4607911]

>>4607835


>variety of means
>methods must change

now youre just being a pedant

>...

it is most certainly a repudiation of the pretenses underlying the project (that certain knowledge requires impersonality and atemporality (in a phrase, complete objectivity), that the project itself is/can attain complete objectivity, that values dont tell us anything about facts, or vice versa, and so on).

sure once properly understood, you may agree anyways with the inherent teleology of the system (which are useful because they can be used naively), but its important to realize what youre actually doing, and that if theory gets in the way of the goal, so much the worse for theory.

[Anonymous No.4607995]

>>4607806
>it simply asks toward what advancements science focuses on and who those benefit.

Well, ok then. Science is as irritated as post-modernism is that there's plenty of funding for making new dick pills, but no one's willing to front the dosh for a research castle on Europa.

But as for who benefits... everyone. Fucking everyone. Everyone benefits when our species has more knowledge. The entire world's been getting better. You know the global severe poverty rate fell by half in the last 20 years? And there was that time we invented dwarf wheat and saved the billion people on the Indian subcontinent from famine. And we just eliminated guinea worm! Oh, and cell phones are a huge boon to African countries that didn't have landlines or internet access or banking or anything before, really, it's amazing how much they help.

So, you're free to ask the question, and waggle your eyebrows meaningfully, and imply that someone's exploiting someone. But your question has an answer, and the answer is a Dhalit kid in mumbai eating dwarf wheat nan and walking down the street because he doesn't have polio.

[Anonymous No.4610086]

>>4607890
Barthes and Bourdieu and Foucault (the first and last actually the founders of postmodern theory) are pretty damn clear and quite critical of those who are not.

[Anonymous No.4610100]

>>4607995
>You know the global severe poverty rate fell by half in the last 20 years?
Good one.

[Anonymous No.4610141]

>>4607995
You have to ask yourself at what point does the advancement of technology pose a thread to human kind(physically or sociologically.) If science isn't inherently good or evil but rather people use it for good and evil then what happens when someone can make a weapon of mass destruction with just a few household goods? Obviously that's a bit hyperbolic but more realistically you can say what happens when 3rd and 2nd world counties have the ability to produce nuclear bombs? Who benefits from the death and destruction of all man kind?

I'm not anti-science but science seriously has to be questioned sometimes. Inventing for invention sake doesn't make the world a better place, it's dangerous to not think about the side-effects of unobstructed scientific progress.

For a more well formed and better presented argument watch the Black Mirror episode "The Entire History of Us." It's technology at it's worse.

[Anonymous No.4610145]

>>4607316

Fahrenheit 451.

[Anonymous No.4610150]

>>4607353

'Blind Faith' by Ben Elton basically satirises all of those things. It doesn't really challenge them or provide alternatives but it is fucking hilarious.

[Anonymous No.4610178]

amusing ourselves to death

[Anonymous No.4610216]

>>4610141

>Inventing for invention sake doesn't make the world a better place

Neither does criticism for the sake of criticism. Myself I don't have much patience for quality-of-life arguments for science or their inverse, "you am play gods!" arguments against science since all of that could be laid at the feet of capitalism/statism/spook of choice just as fairly as at the feet of "science" per se. Fact is that genuine knowledge is a perfectly fine goal for people to have, and if genuine knowledge of how atoms work leads to destruction of humankind, then that's how it is; sometimes shit happens: culpability for such an event (as if culpability for such an event could even be assigned in reality!) should rest just as much in political ethicists who did not obstruct such behavior as in nuclear scientists who made it possible.

Most "pomo" questioning of science however has zero repercussions in practicality thanks to ridiculously insulated, naïve, limited state of modern academia - and you could make the same criticism of a lot of scientists just as fairly. Honest rational and empirical inquiry after knowledge may destroy humanity - so what? Someday humanity will become nothing regardless of whether nuclear bombs go off or not. Solution is not for professors about whom nobody but other professors care to write circlejerking hagiographies of each other's jargon-dominated ramblings.