Classic vs Modern Literature.........

[Ophelia]

I've been absent in this thread because the majority of what I read is contemp. literary fiction. However, I have to take a couple of courses in order to apply for my masters in publishing and one of them is British Lit. So...Moeshe and Cat -I may come screaming to you for help every now and then.

[MissyO]

^ F*cking great to hear you've gone back to study lit, my baby! Good to see you're following your dreams.

[Moshe..]

Originally Posted by Cat

Moshe: Wow, I haven't been here in a while. I'm still going to attempt to reply to this even though I am no longer in that mindset.

Part of him is following him around...yeah, I can see that. I can see where you're going with this, and it does make sense. Still though, I don't quite think Goldberg is trustworthy. He tells his stories differently every time. And he lies, he's an obvious liar. Anyway, get back to me as soon as you've read it. Let's make a new thread about it then. I'll re-read it as well. It's really a very interesting play.


I think Goldberg flirted with Meg. He called her tulip and gladiola, and I think he mentioned several other flowers as well. I think Goldberg seduced Lulu, yeah. Didn't Stanley rape/strangle her in the dark at the party?

Also, I remember reading somewhere that Pinter had said that the line Petey says when Stanley is taken away is the most important one he's every written or something; "Stan, don't let them tell you what to do." McCann and Goldberg could be "society" who's, like I said, forcing him to see things and do things in an acceptable way (according to, well, society). Or they could be a part of Stanley (like you said) that's forcing him to conform to society's expectations.
Why are they celebrating his birthday party even though Stanley himself says that his birthday isn't until next month? Is it because he doesn't want to be himself? Maybe. Just thinking out loud

I’m so slow! Ok have eventually got round to skimming the first two acts. Found a lot of clues, my copy’s already covered with notes! -- we should be able to solve the mystery now. It is so much easier to follow when you read it.

Goldberg is definitely in charge and mccann is his sidekick. Goldberg’s the most sinister character by far. He’s always recounting his idyllic cockney childhood, trying to sound nice and innocent. It’s like those propaganda films showing hitler stroking kittens. I noticed he also sometimes uses language from ancient theological arguments. During the party, he says he gave a lecture at ‘ethical hall’ on ‘the necessary and possible’ (i know this is just the language of a medieval scholastic argument). So he has something to do with medieval religion? He also talks about possibility/necessity during the interrogation (which sounds like scholasticism and maimonides: e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will).

AT the beginning of the second act mccann and stanley both whistle a song called ‘mountains of mourne’ in unison. I looked it up on the internet and it’s about an irish man living in london,, very cynical about the english ect, in the last line of each verse he says how his heart will always be with ireland. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountains_of_Mourne).

I've found photos of the mountains of mourne on wikipedia (they're on the southern coast of northern ireland): they go straight down into the sea!
http://www.duffus.org/photos/d/9504-2/cimg0116.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...urnes_wiki.jpg

Have no idea what the connection means! but they must somehow both be joined by it. And then straight after stanley says he's met mccann before (in boots library, fuller’s tea shop ect), but mccann gets very defensive and denies it. It’s funny because boots is still around, i thought it was just a pharmacy; but googled and they really did use to have a library too (http://www.boots-the-chemists.co.uk/main.asp?pid=1709). WHat’s strange is at the party, when goldberg makes a speech he says he’s only happy so long as he can go to fuller's tea shop and get a library book from boots. This really makes me think all three of them are the same person!

Also don’t you think it’s weird how they manage to find him? Stanley even asks the question and says how they couldn’t have known since it’s not an actual boarding house, and mccann just changes the subject. The next page, stanley starts talking about how he knows and loves ireland really well too (maybe that’s his mccann side coming out).

Then they suddenly start bullying stanley. They make a kind of montage of nonsensical one sentence accusations. But everything they say is such a cliché! They’re cliche accusations, contrapuntally laid over each other, almost musically. It sounds like the inner-voices of a panic attack maybe. What they say is quite revealing: “why do you treat that young lady [i.e. lulu] like a leper?”; “what did you wear last week”; “what would your mum say”, “when did you last wash up a cup” ect. I think they’re accusing him of having given up on life. But then the key is “why did you leave the organisation”! The organisation must mean society? Because he’s escaped from society. And then they start claiming he killed his wife, or ran away from the wedding, ect even though he’s never had a wife. I’m sure this is about lost opportunities and potential – because if you miss an opportunity it’s as if you’ve killed something. Goldberg goes on to talk about an ‘external force’. This sounds like medieval theology again! Goldberg is a religious figure, i think he has something to do with the psychological idea of the super-ego (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superego#Super-ego)? This so supports my theory.

I don’t think goldberg flirts with meg, he just know how to charm her up, saying she looks like a gladiola ect. And then it’s more the other way round: lulu chats up goldberg? Lulu is a cliche bimbo.
BUt I don’t understand why lulu says she knew goldberg and he used to give her piggybacks – it suggests goldberg is her dad?

I think meg has been released from a mental hospital (she says her father is an important doctor and her brothers and sisters all lived in different coloured rooms).

Didn't think stanley actually rapes lulu. He tries to strangle meg. Lulu feints and stanley jumps on her like he’s going to rape her and then starts giggling. I don’t understand it at all. I'll have to read the third act next week.

Oh and i don't think it's his real birthday. Maybe it is, and stanley wants to be someone else. BUt i thought it was more like goldberg suddenly decides they're having a party, so then it has to be his birthday? Pinter said that "don't let them tell you what to do" was his favourite line. So that makes it sound like he's siding with stanley against goldberg?

I honestly can't see much magic in his images, period. I don't think I've ever seen much magic in them. I've been to the Louvre and seen the Mona Lisa, and even though that painting is plastered everywhere, it still had this amazing glow to it. Maybe I just don't like Munch? Shh, don't tell anyone. I have been to London, yeah. The fact that a lot of the parts of the city are very different really appeals to me. London is so multi-cultural and I think the city reflects the diversity. We lived close to Earl's Court once and I absolutely loved it there. I felt like I got to see so much of London seeing as we had to walk for a bit in order to get to the tube. I've also stayed literally in the middle of Oxford Street, and even though that was very convenient, I just didn't feel like I got to see as much of the city. Plus, I'm not used to that many people!

Yes exactly it’s so diverse. London is a whole world - it contains the best and the worst, and everything in between. I want to quote johnson: “When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford." Staying in earl’s court was clever of you. And that way you got to see where real londoners live, not just other tourists. It's such a beautiful area too, victorian and georgian. And you can spend all day shopping in chelsea. Did you see the v&a? That's the real london. I do hate oxford street. The only justification for the existence of oxford street is selfridges! And maybe the arab shisha bars on edgware road, oh so conveniently near selfridges. A few stay open all night - you have to experience baklava & shisha at 4am. For a short time we lived less than 10 minutes walk north of earl’s court, just behind high street ken, south of holland park. And yeah you can walk everywhere, that's the main thing. The best time was in the summer when the private gardens in the squares open up, and everyone plays hopscotch together, it’s so social for kids. But my parents loathed it; our adult neighbours were far too unfriendly. ALso the houses have such small rooms and ridiculously vertical - walking up and down six flights of stairs all day isn’t fun. After that we lived on the north side of holland park. And then hampstead. Have you visited hampstead? – it’s really pretty, but you have to drive around to see it, it’s far too vast. I really hated living here before i learnt to drive. Apart from the highstreet, it’s so uncrowded too, maybe three people walk down our road in a day. But it’s on a hill way above the city, so you don’t get any pollution, and we even have foxes.

Norway is a beautiful place. The crazy thing is that it looks like that in reality as well. Even more mystical and glowing, I'd say. I remember driving to the west when I was a kid, and as soon as you get close to the mountains the light changes and everything looks blue. It's exactly like that. You should look at some of Theodor Kittelsen's drawings. He sees Norway so well, and even though he always doesn't use that colour, it's almost like you can still see it...and the magic is there. If I wanted to go to Norway I probably wouldn't spend much time in Oslo. It's just a capital like any other (though smaller), but there really isn't much to see. Except the fortress and the harbour. I'd go to Bergen, or Sognefjorden where that philosopher of yours went. That's the real Norway right there.

So you have to rent a car to get there – do you need a range rover to get west? It looks very mountainy. Do you live east then? I’d love to go now just for the mystical light. It's looks too mystical. I want to see a troll. It’s weird how i’ve never met anyone who goes on holiday to norway. But then most of my friends won’t go anywhere which doesn’t involve beaches and casinos. There’s actually a norwegian on my course who’s always boasting about it too. I don’t know the guy well, but there are many strange college rumours about him: people say he eats pickled fish for breakfast and can down whole bottles of wine in a single gulp. I was reading about trolls a few months ago in a book about fairy tales (by marie-louise von franz). She says that they’re always a symbol of meaningful coincidences, or weird coincidences. So if you miss your flight because you can’t find any socks, and the plane crashes, then it’s something to do with trolls. But they also cause trouble, like eating your cat and making alarm clocks run out of batteries on the day you have to wake up for an exam. By the way I hope you don’t eat fish for breakfast.

Originally Posted by Lowlander
I forgot to mention: Faust is verse from the first page to the last, which is 1 reason I like it better than Werther. (The other reason being that I had to read Werther at school when I was suffering from a heartache. Couldn't really enjoy it...)

When I read faust, this will be a real book club. An international book club. I’ve bought my first copy you'll be pleased to hear. I really wanted to read some before I wrote this post. At least I’ve read the translator’s introduction. I bought the translation by david constantine, don’t know if he’s any good – typical me just got it because it had a nice cover. But surely the reason you like faust better than werther is because faust isn’t a complete sissy. I can feel no sympathy for werther, he’s so histrionic. If he didn’t do it himself, I would have gladly volunteered to pull the trigger for him! God and charlotte is awful too. Charlotte should have murdered werther; that would have at least redeemed her character for me!

Maybe his sister was 1 reason for what he wrote about women in Beyond Good and Evil.

At least he’s nothing like schopenhauer. Schopenhauer’s rantings about women read like hitler’s rantings about jews & slavs & gypsies. It’s that horrible. I think nietzsche knows better, he’s just a bit sexually frustrated. The strange thing is that it is precisely when he rants about women that he sounds most effeminate - he sounds exactly like a ranting peasant woman (the tabloid papers in england have this tone: it's the same the world over). If you reject the feminine part of your soul, then you become emasculated. What you reject, becomes you. Such an important lesson for life hey. But he secretly knows better. His life shows how he knows better: the two girls he fell for were super intelligent and self-possessed - cosima liszt and lou salome. SAlome was a feminist’s dream come true.

Nietzsche was born into a such peasanty family. And his life is dominated by two peasant type women – his mum and sis. Of course peasant women can be really nice and generous too, but they do love their ranting. The ranting simply sounds like his sister and mother talking through him and yet they’re talking through him about themselves. It’s some very weird psychology. Maybe more simply put a problem of sample size: mother and sister were the only women he really knew & he unconsciously had traits of them in him, very very bitchy.

Your sophisticated humour is why I've always liked you, Moshe. Yet only *one*.
While pointing out Nietzsche was not racist or nationalist I think it's important to always keep in mind he was *not* for modern democracy and parliamentarianism ("the parliamentary nonsense") because he had an inkling that this would lead to a reign of the stupid. The thing he was dreaming of was a unified Europe led by intellectuals (by philosophers mainly, who "create new values" and dump Christian morality). Such kind of system was a dream that could, of course, never come true. Modern author Esther Vilar (who I consider a philosopher too even though most ppl don't) shows in her books that reality tends to be the direct opposite of Nietzsche's dream: the stupid govern the intelligent (sadly!!!!) and there isn't much we can do about this problem. Étienne de La Boëtie, a contemporary and compatriot of Montaigne, hinted at the same dilemma in his essay "The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude".

He has a strange political philosophy. He doesn’t have any truly original political ideas (nothing a frenchman hasn’t already said!). He has lots of clever little observations. BUt what’s really new is his emphasis. If you imagine an artificial forest and a gardener. MOst gardeners would arrange the forest so that the average height of the trees is as tall as possible. And then maybe some communist gardeners would be more interested in making sure that all the trees are exactly the same height. Nietzsche’s emphasis is on arranging the forest so that it can hold at least one super tall tree, regardless of the condition of the other trees. It is as if there is another purpose to the forest, as if it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. This would make sense if you wanted to use the height of the tree to climb up into space (it makes you think of jack and the giant beanstalk). If you wanted the forest just to help you climb as high as possible, then Nietzsche would make sense. COmpare plato who only cares for the beauty of the forest. He’s a total aesthete! For him it’s the beauty in the arrangement of, and relation between, the trees, which matters. You know how the republic is structured isomorphically to the well-ordered soul (or is it the other way round?). That's aesthetical fascism; society becomes a work of art. I don’t think Nietzsche is an aesthete like plato; he’s more like aristotle. The only goal of aristotle’s politics is to create a society which allows the great-souled man to exist. The politics is just a subsidiary to the nicomachean ethics; society is subsidiary to the greatness of the individual soul.

My intuition is nietzsche’s strange emphasis comes from the fact he wasn’t trained a philosopher. He taught comparative philology at the university of basel and would have lunch in the canteen with jacob burckhardt (lucky nietzsche!). So he’s immersed in the study of comparative history. When you study the italian renaissance you can get a bit carried away. The old street maps of florence, where amongst the open sewage you have a world-historical-genius living on every street corner! And then, you look at switzerland, and it’s much nicer place to live, yet what have they accomplished in 500 years? – milk chocolate and the cuckoo clock. A peaceful and happy society will not likely create a leonardo, a botticelli, a titian, a raphael, a donatello - let alone a michelangelo! I’m sure this was his cognitive path (i know I should write a paper on this!). Afterall he was such an italianophile: e.g. the fetish for cesare borgia. I want to talk about his metaphysics & epistemology next too, because I studied plato so seriously, and I think nietzsche's philosophical underpinnings can be derived from first section of the theaetetus. BAsically he agrees with theaetetus's first response, and much of his work reads like a matter of deriving the consequences (through heracleitan ontology, then a protagorean truth theory, ect). But I can tell you're more interested in his ethical genealogy stuff, which i care for so much less (I think he had a very dodgy understanding of ancient history).

I purchased a best-of-Montaigne's-essays collection (published under the title "The Art of Loving Life") some time ago, but I ditched it after only a few pages as I realized Montaigne must have been a very emotional fellow, and I felt like reading something more sinister

I could have guessed, he is too french for you! Zivilisation not Kultur. YEah he is definitely the most french man who ever lived. The most aristocratic and spoilt guy (his family owned half the dordogne), but still a genius, with very similar brain to nietzsche or schopenhauer, but better educated, totally immersed in latin and greek. He was the greatest influence on shakespeare and nietzsche (and donne)! He started the whole style of introspection, of deconstructing one's soul, of staring into the darkest voids, ect. It was his project.

You can see the influence oh so clearly:

Shakespeare:
I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth, foregone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition, that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave ov'rhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire -- why it appeareth nothing to me but a foul and pestilent congregation of vapors! What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me: no, nor woman neither, nor woman neither.

Montaigne:
Who has persuaded man that this admirable moving of heavens vaults, that the eternal light of these lamps so fiercely rowling over his head, that the horror-moving and continuall motion of this infinite vaste ocean were established, and contine so many ages for his commoditie and service? Is it possible to imagine so ridiculous as this miserable and wretched creature, which is not so much as master of himselfe, exposed and subject to offences of all things, and yet dareth call himself a Master and Emperor.

[Lowlander.]

And lowlander we're gonna have to talk a lot about german philosophy!

Please don't expect me to be a living compendium of philosophy. I'm sure I haven't read as much as you have. What I said about ritalin was *no* joke actually, and I'm very selective when I choose books! What I've read about philosophy is:
a whole lot of Nietzsche
a whole lot of Vilar
a little by Schopenhauer
Hobbes's Leviathan (but 20 years ago)
a little by de La Boëtie (as mentioned above)
and the contemporary fellas Rüdiger Safranski and Wilfried Gottschalch (who are somewhere in-between philosophy and psychology)
and a little by Demokrit
and a book by Ludwig Feuerbach (who sucks to no extent, IMHO, he was more like a preacher than a philosopher)
and that's pretty much it.

I decide to read a book *only* if I'm convinced that it can help me understand the human soul. And a book should not get on my nerves …
…by repeating too many thoughts I've already heard elsewhere, or
…by sounding like a sermon (see above, Feuerbach…).

I tend to catalogue (in my head) almost every thought I find in a book and to compare every thought with similar thoughts that have been expressed by other writers. So if I read too many books, it would kill me, or I'd end up in a loony bin just like Nietzsche did. No sh!t. That's why I stick to good old Friedrich N.'s own advice: "Read little, but *carefully*".

Besides, Nietzsche and Vilar are authors that can really deter you from reading too many other philosophy books, because they both explain how deeply most other philosophers in history have been manipulated by what their contemporaries called "morality". And what's more: Vilar explained in what way Nietzsche was manipulated too (at least: manipulated in what he thought about women). So, knowing about these things, should I really torture myself reading a weighty tome like, e.g., Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? No, I'm not gonna do that.

At least he’s nothing like schopenhauer. Schopenhauer’s rantings about women read like hitler’s rantings about jews & slavs & gypsies. It’s that horrible. I think nietzsche knows better, he’s just a bit sexually frustrated.

I don't think Nietzsche's books captured the essence of the feminine soul either. I've never come across a male philosopher who was clever enough to understand women. I keep asking myself: Why the hell do so many men believe that a woman who talks or acts like a fool is stupid by nature? Couldn't it be that many a woman only pretends to be naïve for tactical reasons? Scientists have proven beyond any doubt that there's no primary difference between women's and men's intelligence. Couldn't it be that the differences between the female soul and the male soul are due to education and to the rules set by society, and not innate? Is it mere coincidence that the most important statements about the feminine soul were made by a female philosopher (Esther Vilar)?

As for Schopenhauer: I think the main difference between him and Nietzsche is the fact that Schopenhauer was afraid of the dark sides of the human soul and said "no" to them while Nietzsche said an emphatic "yes" to them. Nietzsche believed that too much fear of the "dark" side will lead to a reduction, a minification of the human being who will then turn into a "grigorious animal". So, in that respect, Nietzsche was an aesthete. He made clear that the beauty of the human mind gets destroyed by people's tendency to workaholism. (He puts it best in "The Gay Science".) Looking at modern Western societies there can't be a shadow of a doubt that Nietzsche was right with what he predicted. The development we are witnessing today is what I always call the decline of Western civilization, and in my personal environment: the decline of Germany. I feel deeply depressed when I look at the society surrounding me. Some centuries ago many people outside Germany admired my country for its profusion of poets and thinkers… And today?? Today the rest of Europe mocks Germany because almost nothing's remained of what it used to be. It appears to me that at least 75% of the people in my country are square. They only think about work, cleanness, law and order, and mow their lawns with nail scissors once a week. (They wrinkle the nose if the neighbour's grass is taller than their own.) They call every person with an ill-paid job a wuss or a failure, no matter how creative and imaginative that person is. Some even use the word Intellektueller as a contemptuous word,imagine that! – Nietzsche KNEW this was going to be the result of a trading society's automation processes. Yet nobody would listen to him.

Unfortunately one of his predictions was completely wrong: he said numerous times that new philosophers would come up and enhance his theories. That was wishful thinking. The exaggerated rationalism of the modern world (mentioned in the paragraph above) is the very reason for the absence of such creative philosophers nowadays. Most people judge themselves (and others!) by their earnings, so it's too much of a risk for a contemporary philosopher to work hard on writing about inconvenient truths that don't sell. (Vilar is an exception, some of her books sold well, but she received death threats for what whe wrote and therefore lives in near-anonymity now.)

My intuition is nietzsche’s strange emphasis comes from the fact he wasn’t trained a philosopher. He taught comparative philology at the university of basel and would have lunch in the canteen with jacob burckhardt (lucky nietzsche!). So he’s immersed in the study of comparative history.

Good point. He would have been 0% of the great philosopher he was if he hadn't been so fond of philology. There was no other way of sussing out the development of human mentalities. History lessons at school or university are not helpful because what people learn in history lessons is 99% political history, not psychological history.

When I read faust, this will be a real book club. An international book club. I’ve bought my first copy you'll be pleased to hear. I really wanted to read some before I wrote this post. At least I’ve read the translator’s introduction. I bought the translation by david constantine, don’t know if he’s any good – typical me just got it because it had a nice cover. But surely the reason you like faust better than werther is because faust isn’t a complete sissy. I can feel no sympathy for werther, he’s so histrionic. If he didn’t do it himself, I would have gladly volunteered to pull the trigger for him! God and charlotte is awful too. Charlotte should have murdered werther; that would have at least redeemed her character for me!

Read only what you really *want* to read, boy! But, anyway, I'm sure you'll enjoy Faust although some passages in part 2 seem somewhat tedious. You're 100% right when you say Faust is not a sissy. I believe that Goethe was, to some extent, influenced by Shakespeare when he wrote it. His style is different from Shakespeares, but his hero Faust bears some resemblance with Shakespeare's heroes. In 1771 Goethe held a speech about Shakespeare, showing deep admiration for his work, mainly because of the fact that so many leading characters in Shakespeare's dramas were persons who took great risks, and who really *went* for it (despite all their doubts) as soon as they'd made up their minds about something (in contrast to the lazy, romantic dreamers of the 18th century whom Goethe sometimes loved to mock). In Faust Part 2 you'll find a monologue in which Faust expresses his joy of leading an *active* life with the words: "he [= the human being in general] only deserves freedom and life who is daily compelled to conquer them". On the other hand, Goethe was a sceptic as well. At the end of Faust 2 he shows how easily a human being can lose control when taking bold decisions. Yet I don't want to tell you too much about the contents before you read it.

Fire pretty, tree bad.......

@ MissyO
Is this a metaphor? I don't know the meaning. Did you burn your Christmas tree?

[MissyO]

^ Absolutely. It is a deeply philosophical ass back-wards quote from Buffy.... It has deep import. Read into it what you will.

[Lowlander.]

^ "Read into it..."? Hmmmm... no, I feel like reading some different stuff now.
*looks at watch*
Damn, it's too late to read. My alarm clock will annoy me at 6am tomorrow...My job reminds me of one of my favourite songs:

I know it's out of fashion
And a trifle uncool
But I can't help it
I'm a romantic fool
It's a habit of mine
To watch the sun go down
On Echo beach, I watch the sun go down

From nine till five I have to spend my time at work
My job is very boring I'm an office clerk
The only thing that helps me pass the time away
Is knowing I'll be back at Echo Beach some day...

[Moshe..]

Originally Posted by Lowlander
Please don't expect me to be a living compendium of philosophy. I'm sure I haven't read as much as you have. What I said about ritalin was *no* joke actually, and I'm very selective when I choose books! What I've read about philosophy is:
a whole lot of Nietzsche
a whole lot of Vilar
a little by Schopenhauer
Hobbes's Leviathan (but 20 years ago)
a little by de La Boëtie (as mentioned above)
and the contemporary fellas Rüdiger Safranski and Wilfried Gottschalch (who are somewhere in-between philosophy and psychology)
and a little by Demokrit
and a book by Ludwig Feuerbach (who sucks to no extent, IMHO, he was more like a preacher than a philosopher)
and that's pretty much it.

I decide to read a book *only* if I'm convinced that it can help me understand the human soul. And a book should not get on my nerves …
…by repeating too many thoughts I've already heard elsewhere, or
…by sounding like a sermon (see above, Feuerbach…).

I tend to catalogue (in my head) almost every thought I find in a book and to compare every thought with similar thoughts that have been expressed by other writers. So if read too many books, it would kill me, or I'd end up in a loony bin just like Nietzsche did. No sh!t. That's why I stick to good old Friedrich N.'s own advice: "Read little, but *carefully*".

Besides, Nietzsche and Vilar are authors that can really deter you from reading too many other philosophy books, because they both explain how deeply most other philosophers in history have been manipulated by what their contemporaries called "morality". And what's more: Vilar explained in what way Nietzsche was manipulated too (at least: manipulated in what he thought about women). So, knowing about these things, should I really torture myself reading a weighty tome like, e.g., Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? No, I'm not gonna do that.

You’re german so of course we expect special insights from you.

I did some philosophy at oxford. It was such a fun anglo-saxon course (i.e. set theory, formal logic, philosophy of maths, philos of language, computational linguistics ect – I could work for google now no joke!). So i haven’t got round to reading enough soulful philosophy. But i did at least learn plato and aristotle! And I also found out about different religions just from hobby-reading. My reading style is the exact opposite of yours; I love haphazardly skimming across the library shelves. Of course I’m still looking for a hypnotist to help me live down my traumatic memories of the critique of pure reason, the most elaborate system of torture devised by man.

Oh and who’s this vilar person?

I don't think Nietzsche's books captured the essence of the feminine soul either. I've never come across a male philosopher who was clever enough to understand women. I keep asking myself: Why the hell do so many men believe that a woman who talks or acts like a fool is stupid by nature? Couldn't it be that many a woman only pretends to be naïve for tactical reasons? Scientists have proven beyond any doubt that there's no primary difference between women's and men's intelligence. Couldn't it be that the differences between the female soul and the male soul are due to education and to the rules set by society, and not innate? Is it mere coincidence that the most important statements about the feminine soul were made by a female philosopher (Esther Vilar)?

Plato is amazing on the subject, although you have to read him way too carefully. I haven’t done any vilar though. You get the sense nietzsche knew less about women than the average person working in a donut icing factory (what are we supposed to call them nowadays - donut engineers?). He was so intimidated by the masculine teutonic girls. Maybe he’d have been better off in italy.

German culture seems to have the most difficulty relating the sexes. It is a problem in all the northern european cultures of course! In paris or turin they generally relate more easily. It’s paradoxical since there’s a greater differentiation between the sexes in france and italy. French women are so ostentatiously feminine. You can even hear it! The difference between the average pitches men and women speak is so much greater there.

Nietzsche was prophetic (he had a very good nose!) on the declining differentiation in northern europe. And in england today it’s got to the extent where the class differences have taken primacy; class has overtaken gender! Girls from a certain type of school will have more in common with boys from similar schools than they will with girls from a different class of school. But god knows what it’s like in america! One always gets the impression that everyone has exactly the same soul regardless of ties of family, job, height, weight, race, class or sex. Mass production of humanity, you see. Henry ford would be oh so proud.

We need to talk about plato. Here is someone who understands that masculine/feminine is just a clumsy distinction for the person in the donut icing factory. You have to study plato. A well-developed soul is as complex as any city (it is isomorphic to the well-developed republic) and contains both male and female parts.

As for Schopenhauer: I think the main difference between him and Nietzsche is the fact that Schopenhauer was afraid of the dark sides of the human soul and said "no" to them while Nietzsche said an emphatic "yes" to them. Nietzsche believed that too much fear of the "dark" side will lead to a reduction, a minification of the human being who will then turn into a "grigorious animal". So, in that respect, Nietzsche was an aesthete. He made clear that the beauty of the human mind gets destroyed by people's tendency to workaholism. (He puts it best in "The Gay Science".)

Yes the difference is schopenhauer was totally emasculated. Life was too much for schopenhauer. There is a fundamental weakness of spirit. He was way too delicate! Cynicism is idealism gone wrong; it's the left over from when a delicate idealism gets shattered by reality. What a miracle he didn’t blow his brains out like his dad. But he had an incredibly powerful mind for metaphysics. He weaves together kant and buddhism so beautifully. His ideas on re-incarnation and music are utterly spectacular. He also writes very clearly (because he went to an english boarding school i say). I’ve only read a few secondary sources and his aphorisms though (haven’t had time to do ‘the world as will & rep’ properly). But as you say nietzsche said yes to life in its reality. Schopenhauer is like the child who refuses to eat anything which isn’t cake, which isn’t sugar-coated and covered in marzipan.

Looking at modern Western societies there can't be a shadow of a doubt that Nietzsche was right with what he predicted. The development we are witnessing today is what I always call the decline of Western civilization, and in my personal environment: the decline of Germany. I feel deeply depressed when I look at the society surrounding me. Some centuries ago many people outside Germany admired my country for its profusion of poets and thinkers… And today?? Today the rest of Europe mocks Germany because almost nothing's remained of what it used to be. It appears to me that at least 75% of the people in my country are square. They only think about work, cleanness, law and order, and mow their lawns with nail scissors once a week. (They wrinkle the nose if the neighbour's grass is taller than their own.) They call every person with an ill-paid job a wuss or a failure, no matter how creative and imaginative that person is. Some even use the word Intellektueller as a contemptuous word,imagine that! – Nietzsche KNEW this was going to be the result of a trading society's automation processes. Yet nobody would listen to him.

It can't be that bad. The children still play schubert sonatas! And just thank god you weren’t born in zimbabwe, canada or the sudan.

It does sound like the obsessions of the lower end of the bourgeois (i.e. health, wealth and fear of death) have prevailed over love, warfare, beauty and pride. Afterall juliet & romeo & achilles would never have cared about something so trivial as death, let alone taxes! You see this is the worst of the lesser bourgeois. But at least you’ve managed to stop gassing jews.

Most of english society is as badly off as germany. Some of it is a lot worse trust me! I’d take the lower bourgeois over football hooligans any day. The class system (which has its downsides too obviously) has managed to slow the degeneration in certain parts of english society. There is still some aristocratic sentiment (evidenced by the enduring popularity of evelyn waugh who is an otherwise inferior english novelist). There’s still something of an attractive historical continuity in england. We have millions who read books. We have old families who behave like they were living in the sixteenth century. And the ancient schools stay the same. This provides a small counter-weight to the present, and the belief that the present is all there is - what a dangerous belief! Yet england is also more vulnerable to deleterious american influences since they borrowed our tongue.

Compare the other serious cultures of europe: france & northern italy. Italy will always be the most beautiful place in the world. Nobody’s producing art nowadays (armani doesn’t count), but they’ve preserved the ancient peasant traditions. The peasant culture’s vibrant. And there’s the aesthetical morality. Beauty is still the primary value, even if nobody wants to paint anymore. Apart from that though, hardly anyone reads, and have you seen the state of the television!

And france is falling apart; their immigrants live in another dimension, totally un-integrated. And god the trade-unions. But they’ve still got so much class in paris. French are just classy. They killed their king and replaced him with the haute bourgeois. It’s not that bad. We can always move to france.

Unfortunately one of his predictions was completely wrong: he said numerous times that new philosophers would come up and enhance his theories. That was wishful thinking.

He knew something was brewing; he didn’t know what. My favourite observation from the gay science: he hears the intonation of the prussian miltary everywhere, even in the speech of a school-girl. He knows something's going down (as he would have phrased if he'd been an american detective, if only!). Nietzsche has an uncanny sense of intuition which is unfortunately perverted by his wishful thinking. It’s like he was wishing for another renaissance last century (yeah right darling). ANd the germans had a full on mental breakdown instead.

Read only what you really *want* to read, boy! But, anyway, I'm sure you'll enjoy Faust although some passages in part 2 seem somewhat tedious. You're 100% right when you say Faust is not a sissy. I believe that Goethe was, to some extent, influenced by Shakespeare when he wrote it. His style is different from Shakespeares, but his hero Faust bears some resemblance with Shakespeare's heroes. In 1771 Goethe held a speech about Shakespeare, showing deep admiration for his work, mainly because of the fact that so many leading characters in Shakespeare's dramas were persons who took great risks, and who really *went* for it (despite all their doubts) as soon as they'd made up their minds about something (in contrast to the lazy, romantic dreamers of the 18th century whom Goethe sometimes loved to mock). In Faust Part 2 you'll find a monologue in which Faust expresses his joy of leading an *active* life with the words: "he [= the human being in general] only deserves freedom and life who is daily compelled to conquer them". On the other hand, Goethe was a sceptic as well. At the end of Faust 2 he shows how easily a human being can lose control when taking bold decisions. Yet I don't want to tell you too much about the contents before you read it.

Can’t wait to read faust.

From nine till five I have to spend my time at work
My job is very boring I'm an office clerk
The only thing that helps me pass the time away
Is knowing I'll be back at Echo Beach some day...

I'm a post-grad student with nothing to do (apart from reading faust) - my 9-5 job tomorrow is reading and finishing a box of cigarettes, then maybe i'll go to pub. Don't worry, i have to get a job one day. Arbeit macht frei. No seriously but i've got to hand in an essay tomorrow morning, it's an all-nighter for me.

[Lowlander.]

Arbeit macht frei.

Please don't come up with a phrase like this one, you probably know who used it (and it what context) and it isn't even good as an ironic joke.

Don't get a job as long as you don't really need the money. It's unwise. You'll find reasons in this post. If you want to know 10 more reasons you should never get a job, go here: http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...ver-get-a-job/.


Don't get me wrong: the list I mentioned contains mainly what I read in full, but I'm a passionate shelf-skimmer like you (off-line as well as on-line), which helped me find Vilar, for example. Like a chicken pecking grains I read a philosophical chapter here, a scientific article there, listen to religious and philosophical discussions on Holland's Radio 5 (great radio station!), hop from English wikipedia to German and Dutch wiki and so on. Having said so many negative things in my recent posts I now feel the need to say that I'm thankful for all the sources we have today. We can type a few key words into a search engine then click once and lots of intriguing texts will be right there at our feet. Besides, my home town is paradise for bibliophile people. But my memory drops many of those "grains" again later cause they're simply too many. And there's still a lot of stuff waiting on my own shelf at home that I haven't yet had the time to deal with. Sometimes I hold a weighty tome in my hands and say to myself: "My aching head can't read all this, but let's check the table of contents, find out about the book's structure, and pick one or two of the most promising chapters."

But I cannot contradict you when you're saying that Plato and Aristotle should not be skipped. BTW, one of my all-time favourite movie scenes comes to my mind whenever I hear those 2 names:



Purchased Plato's Phaidon yesterday to start with. Hope I will enjoy it. Phaidon will tell me a bit of Plato's and of Sokrates's thoughts, so I can kill 2 birds with 1 stone hehehe. *looks at budgie in cage*. No, not you, Ronnie, don't be afraid.

Of course I’m still looking for a hypnotist to help me live down my traumatic memories of the critique of pure reason, the most elaborate system of torture devised by man.

Cool. Are you taking the mickey out of me there?

You’re german so of course we expect special insights from you.

I can dig deeper than I have so far. No problem.

He was so intimidated by the masculine teutonic girls. Maybe he’d have been better off in italy.

German culture seems to have the most difficulty relating the sexes.

Masculine? Do you believe German women are all blonde, broad-shouldered and toting a sword like Kriemhild in the legend of the Nibelungs? There are lots of nice-looking women over here (except for East Frisia where it's easier to find a pretty cow than a pretty girl). The trouble with German broads is not masculinity but the sad fact that they're uptight and stubborn (well, at least the *young* women are). And that's an international problem, not a national one. The last time I was in France I had the impression (like you) that many of them were better dressed than the ones over here, but big psychological differences are unlikely. Let's not forget the current, basic rules of society are pretty much the same in all countries of Western Europe (even though they're not all in the same stage of development).

French women are so ostentatiously feminine. You can even hear it!

But lots of French men have high-pitched voices too (which sometimes gets on my nerves).

Girls from a certain type of school will have more in common with boys from similar schools than they will with girls from a different class of school.

Do you believe that modern education makes well-read girls as ambitious as boys? If so, it's a misapprehension, dude! Many boys who have taken their A-levels and enter college/university dream of running around in suit and tie later, of building a house and of supporting a family while a female will try to find a guy who's at least as successful as she is. "To make a career like a man" means to support a family, i.e. support yourself, your kids and your spouse! Have you ever heard of a female graduate who says "I want to earn enough money to build a house and support a guy who stays at home to do housework"? Or one who says "I can't have children yet because I don't yet earn enough money to support them and a stay-at-home-hubby?" I haven't.

Most of english society is as badly off as germany. Some of it is a lot worse trust me! I’d take the lower bourgeois over football hooligans any day. The class system (which has its downsides too obviously) has managed to slow the degeneration in certain parts of english society. There is still some aristocratic sentiment (evidenced by the enduring popularity of evelyn waugh who is an otherwise inferior english novelist). There’s still something of an attractive historical continuity in england. We have millions who read books. We have old families who behave like they were living in the sixteenth century. And the ancient schools stay the same. This provides a small counter-weight to the present, and the belief that the present is all there is - what a dangerous belief! Yet england is also more vulnerable to deleterious american influences since they borrowed our tongue.

The negative things I wrote apply to rural areas mainly (I moved from a city to a village in 2004). Many people in Germany read too, but not the most thoughtful books of world literature as far as I can see. Most women love books that are somewhat wishy-washy. Lots of people love books on natural sciences (we're the country of inventors), others like pure entertainment like police stories, and millions love political magazines such as Der Spiegel. But only a few people are into philosophy or ask themselves: Where is this world going? When discussing politics, most Germans look at details of the world we're *now* living in, not at the future. And most of the futurists we have reduce their visions to environmental questions, without regarding possible changes in the human soul.

Yes the difference is schopenhauer was totally emasculated. Life was too much for schopenhauer. There is a fundamental weakness of spirit. He was way too delicate!

Yes, Schopenhauer even went as far as to say: "Life is an awkward thing." This is a phrase Nietzsche would have called nihilistic. Schopenhauer was lucky to inherit a lot of money, so he had the opportunity to write without having to fight for his survival. Nietzsche was also very delicate, but smart and noble enough to realise that his own sensitivity did not give him the right to ask for a world made for sissies. Besides, a world for sissies would not have served his interests anyway.

Now to your most important question: Who is Esther Vilar? She is a German publicist who was born in Argentina in 1935. She studied medical science and sociology, worked as a doctor, later as a radio journalist and translator before she began to write her veeeeeery unsettling books in which she unveiled what she considers the true causes of mass consumption and mass stultification in Western societies. As a result she was bullied everywhere and most of her work was not translated into English. Her first two big hits The Manipulated Man and The Polygamous Sex are available in your language.

Why do I mention her in this thread? As I said, she explains why Europe is getting sillier every decade. Her basic theory is that intelligent people (who practise abstract thinking because they like it) are ruled by dimwits who don't like abstract thinking. Now, why is that? Intelligent people have a need for religion (which needn't be a "religion" in the theological meaning of the word, in can also be something else that a person idolizes, like e.g. their own spouse, or an ideology). This need for religion, and a need to *believe* in something and in its value is why intelligent people are constantly looking for something they can be good for, and that they can obey – they want non-freedom. They don't want freedom for 2 reasons:

- Freedom (e.g. life without a 9 to 5 job) would mean that they would have to take new decisions almost every day, but their abstract thoughts make them afraid of new decisions and their possible consequences.
- Freedom wouldn't give them anything to be "good for" (see above) or to "obey". They want to be tools, and tools are not free.

Silly people, on the other hand, who don't like abstract thought and thus ruin their own intellectual capacity intentionally, do not need anything to believe in or to be good for. And they don't want to know the meaning of life either. Everything they do they do because it serves their own need for coziness, and that's enough for them, so life is much, much easier for the stupid than for the intelligent. This is why the intelligent are the slaves of the stupid, not vice versa.

Religion (now in the theological meaning of the word) is always dangerous, and a source of violence according to Vilar. Why? Because people are afraid of death and see religion as an insurance policy for the entrance of Hereafter. But if I believe that the Hereafter of my own religion exists, how can there be a different heaven of a different religion? Doesn't the notion that another heaven also exists threaten the belief in the heaven of *my* religion? Or does it mean that there are several heavens (e.g. a Christian *and* a Muslim heaven) to choose from? Choice would mean freedom, but intelligent people don't want freedom. They want *one* heaven to believe in. This is one mechanism that causes violence between religions (which we witness these days in the form of 9/11/01 or the killing of film director Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, or fanatic Hindus destroying mosques in Kashmir). What's more, fanatics tend to believe that their god will carry the responsibility for them, so they can act without scruple. These and many other thoughts can be found in her Vilar's tremendous book "Denkverbote" which means "taboos". It's only available in German and in Spanish (Prohibido Pensar – Tabues de nuestro tiempo). (which goes to show yet again how difficult it is to climb down deep into the abyss of the human soul without understanding the "language of poets and thinkers", mwahahahaha). Well, maybe you can learn Spanish, it's easier than German and of higher international importance.

Vilar's next conclusion: Due to the danger of religion (in the theological meaning) a human being should look for something else they can believe in, e.g. a lover. This is less dangerous because there's only *one* person praying to *one* there, and not many to one.

Besides she suggests that in every society rules are introduced that make it impossible for people to materially benefit from their own intentional stupidity. As long as this change does not happen, moral imperatives of any kind are useless because shallow people will not voluntarily stop using silliness as a weapon.

Next question: Why do I find Vilar so important for philosophy? Because at first we have to keep philosophy from dying! "Philosophy" is Greek and means "fondness of wisdom". This means that mass-stultification has to be stopped. Look at the situation now: guys like the two of us and a few others are exerting ourselves arguing in a kind of intellectual niche while most other humans out there are indulging in their shallowness without even taking guys like you and me seriously. And it's getting worse every decade. So let's try and keep philosophy alive, and that's what Vilar is about. And after accomplishing this highly difficult monster task we can return to questions of the kind e.g. Sokrates and Plato were evaluating, like "Is there a Hereafter and what does it look like" and so on. (However, this doesn't mean I'll make you wait 50 years for my opinion on Plato and Aristotle).

Vilar also points out that women have more power than men because they can often choose to live as a luxury item. This might mean that some parts of the field of psychology will have to be re-written. I might explain this in detail in this forum… but I won't, sorry... because I'm intending to write my own book about it and I don't want anyone to copy my ideas hehehe.

It's 8 days until Christmas, but already time for me to say "Merry Christmas and a happy new year" to everybody at FH! ...because I might not find the time to return to the forum in the next 2 or 3 weeks.

[SilverSpoon]

Here's the thing about classic literature...you wouldn't know what was classic unless someone told you.

Here's the thing about modern literature...too many Star Trek books and Margaret Atwood.

[Cat]

Moshe: We're both slow! I just read the first act and I also have a ton of notes. So here goes. My first thought after reading Stanley's reaction to the fact that two men were coming to the boarding house was that this was some kind of intervention. It was like he already knew they were coming. And Meg's comment when Stanley asks for their names ("Don't you know them?"). Also the fact that she insists it's his birthday makes me think that they've set a date for something (that's probably not his birthday). Goldberg is actually the one that presents the idea of them throwing Stanley a party. And he also says "If we hadn't come today, we would've come tomorrow." So something's going down.

Also, I think there's something going down between Stanley and Meg. It's like he's constantly putting her down, but in the first act when she goes to wake him she comes back rearranging her hair. There has been wild laughter and shouts heard from upstairs. Stanley says "it isn't [her] place to come into a man's bedroom and---wake him up" and Meg says "We've had some wonderful afternoons in that room!" Also, I love how she tells him not to say the word "succulent" to a married woman. Hah. Anyway, this is totally sick seeing as she treats him like a child. She even gives him a "boy's drum"!

And then there's Lulu. Well, Lulu seems to be the only one that makes Stanley wants to change. She tells him to was his face and take his glasses off, and he ends up doing it as soon as she leaves the house. I thought that was great, but I haven't quite figured it out yet. I really do believe what I wrote previously about when McCann and Goldberg breaks his glasses later in the play they change the way he sees the world, his outlook on life. The fact that he took off his glasses when Lulu told him to helps do the same thing. It's like he realizes that he has to change. He takes the glasses off and washes his face because a girl told him to do so. But then later, when G&M breaks his glasses he is forced to see the world differently. By being around Lulu more he might just've chosen to change himself?!

Page 24 (in my edition) is really interesting. It kind of points back to the fact that I think it's some kind of intervention, but I haven't quite figured it out. Stanley mentions that "They're coming today" and that they're coming in a big van with a wheelbarrow in the trunk. He also says that they're looking for someone. Meg dismisses it. It's like she knows something but is either trying to calm him down or is just trying to forget about it.

You mention that it's weird that G&M can even find him. And yes, it is. I was thinking about that myself. Goldberg even says he wasn't looking for a number on the house when McCann mentions that there wasn't a number there. It's like he knew exactly where he was going. McCann keeps asking about the job saying he's nervous, but that he'll relax as soon as he gets to do his job. Goldberg says it's going to be a little different from what they're used to, but that it'll go down just fine.

Now, I only started the second act, and AGH! The paper McCann tears into strips. I've been trying to figure that out. I remember my teacher saying that it could've been just to add sound, because everything is so....over the top in the play. She said that when she'd seen it they had added a loud noise to the action. I really want there to be an explanation other than that one! It's really interesting. And well, this is about as far as I've come. It seems you've focused the most and the second act, whereas I've only read the first one right now and have found a lot of clues and interesting stuff in that one. I'll get back to you as soon as I've read some more!

Earl's Court is gorgeous. The hotel was in a "regular building" as well. What I mean is that the rooms and everything were very British, and the hotel was surrounded by all these beautiful buildings were people actually lived. I love that. I really felt what it was like living in Earl's Court. You know it's a beautiful city when it managed to keep me happy and smiling just three days after the terrorist attacks! I love it there. I didn't see the V&A, no! I have to go back for a while and go see all of the touristy things I have yet to see.

I have never been to Hampstead, no. I don't even drive a car! Is it a must-see? I might just go anyway, so I get to see something besides London. According to my phonetics and intonation teacher London's not England!

You don't have to rent a car to go to the west. There are trains that leave from Oslo two times a day or something. The trip takes 7-8 hours, and it's upsetting cause they built tunnels for some reason, so you can't really see anything. I can remember seeing some crazy vast areas with this small wooden shed and snow in June/July, though. And not to mention this one area the train passes that has mountains and a fjord. It's lovely, what you get to see of it anyway. You don't really need a range rover to get there if you choose to go by car. The roads are okay as far as I know. I think I was about 6 when we drove there, though. So all I can remember is that we had a regular car. I also remember how we stopped at the top of the mountain and how I went towards the edge. It was INSANE! It was like it was pulling me down. I live in the south-eastern part, yeah. Oslo suburbs. We'd call it the east though. Seeing as Norway's so narrow there really isn't anywhere else we could call the east.

Uhm, yeah. I guess Norway isn't the most common place to visit when you're on vacation. It's definitely the place to go if you want to see something different from the usual vacation sights. We do have beaches. I think a place in the north brags about having one of the world's longest beaches. But it's not really what people visit for. You should go swimming in a fjord! That's what we do. I've also heard several people say they're interested in going, but yet they never do. I guess it's just one of those places! People want to go they just never do.

Haha, well, I don't really know what you mean by pickled fish, but yeah, we eat fish. Yes, yes. Trolls are sneaky. And if they do exist, they definitely live in the mountains of Norway. And yes, I sometimes eat fish for breakfast. Canned macrel in tomato sauce! You know, there's a funny story about our canned macrel. In the sea where they fish the macrel used in the production of this product a ship or plane or whatever once went down. Long story short; several people died. So they say the macrel has been feeding off of the dead bodies for ages. That's why the macrel in tomato sauce has been nicknamed "dead man in a can" and "plane crash" ;)