There's a risk that Plush, our current platform, will cease operating before we manage to set up a new forum and move all the data across, so I've tried to ensure the community doesn't fall apart. The downtime this morning made me worry enough to set up the Discord server.

(In case anyone's wondering, I don't think there's a significant risk of our losing all our data, i.e., the posts.)

It's not a replacement for TPF or the place that TPF is moving to. It's to make sure nobody gets lost if the worst happens, or just somewhere to hang out whether or not the site happens to be down.

Also note that voice chat is merely an option.

Take pleasure in it while you have the chance, for a storm is brewing on yonder horizon.

I'd be interested to hear your views on using 'Aesthetics' as a category or sub-category? It seems broader in scope with non-argumentative approaches as to what we find beautiful and valuable in human experience. Also, our aesthetic experience, response or attitude to works of art, including objects and nature. — Amity

Aesthetics is cool. It comes under philosophy of art, and we have a category for that. There's no requirement for elaborate argumentation; there just has to be some philosophical meat. More than just a mention of an idea.

As @javi2541997 has just said, his aim was not really to discuss the aesthetic ideas, but to share his appreciation with others, so the Lounge was the right place for it. But as I said, I likely would not have removed it from the philosophy of art category if it had originally been placed there.

:up:

If started by anyone else other than the site owner, then it 'probably' would have been moved!
The privilege of power, huh?! :smile: — Amity

I don't think so. If I recall correctly, I started it because there had been one on the old forum, and if anyone else had done it that would've also been fine.

Isn't that 'philosophical' enough? — Amity

It certainly would be if explicated and developed, because it's a good thought.

Yes, but I think he wasn't in that theoretical frame of mind. He primarily just wanted to share poems, thoughts or recommendations — Amity

It's because it's non-theoretical that it probably doesn't belong in a philosophy category.

just as he does in the Main Page 'Currently Reading' thread — Amity

Yes, that thread is something of an anomaly, though I'm happy with where it is.

It probably doesn't fit in Philosophy of Art, but I might not have moved it to the Lounge if it had been placed there originally, because I just like to see threads about art, literature, etc.

Anyway, the germ of some possible philosophical content in the OP is probably this bit:

that's precisely what I feel when I read poems: Unbearable nostalgia — javi2541997

If Javi had made a brief argument as to how and why this is an important part of the appreciation of literature, that would have been enough to make it belong unambiguously on the main page, in my opinion.

Surely. Though outside beauty may not stand up to inner beauty, it is still very important. At the end of the day, when we walk into bookstores, we do judge books by their covers, at least a bit. — Lionino

Indubitably. But what happens is that once I've found the inner beauty, the outer beauty of the book as physical object pales into insignificance; it loses its novelty and pristine attractiveness. (This is partly because I can't read a paperback without creasing the covers, crushing the corners, etc.)

I love the NYRB Classics cover designs.



Shadows of Carcosa: Tales of Cosmic Horror by Lovecraft, Chambers, Machen, Poe, and Other Masters of the Weird, New York Review Books Classics.

It's the cover that makes me want the book as much as or more than the content. And it's not just the cover art, but also the livery of the whole series.

I like that suggestion actually. — Hanover

My updated suggestion is that you're talking out of your hindquarters.

The OP was not a hit and run. I promise I'll come back and respond to some of what's been said.

Also, I'll remove any more posts that include personal abuse.

There's also the fact that Marx and Engels were using the term Wissenschaft, which is broader than science as commonly understood in English today. They meant that their socialism was systematic, not merely Utopian. They certainly didn't mean to equate it with empirical sciences.

Although you're probably right, @Moliere, that they were attempting to reach beyond that older sense of science to something modern.

Wittgensteinian is interesting to the extent he lets you know the logical conclusions of analytic philosophy where the only objective is to define your terms and forget about the world — Hanover

Do you mean that he revealed this about analytic philosophy with his criticisms, or do you mean to characterize his own philosophy as exemplifying this "objective"? The former is an interesting take, but the latter seems obviously wrong.

I give up

Almost. I fixed it for you.

:party:

:up:

A nuanced view is possible, like the following from Allen Wood, philosopher and scholar of German Idealism:

This book attempts to expound the philosophy of Karl Marx. But the first question it must address is whether Marx has a philosophy at all. Marx’s principal academic training was in philosophy, but in his mature thought Marx focuses on political economy and the history of capitalism, and usually tends to neglect the philosophical side even of his own theories. Even in his early writings, Marx does not often address himself directly to philosophical questions, but treats such questions only in the course of developing his ideas about contemporary society or criticizing the ideas of others. If it is possible to describe Marx as a philosopher, it is probably more accurate to describe him as an economist, historian, political theorist or sociologist, and above all as a working class organizer and revolutionary.

Yet Marx is also a systematic thinker, who attaches great importance to the underlying methods and aims of his theory and the general outlook on the human predicament expressed in it. In his mature writings, every topic – from the most technical questions of political economy to the most specific issues of practical politics – are viewed in the context of a single comprehensive program of inquiry, vitally connected to the practical movement for working class emancipation. Further, Marx views his own thought as heir to a definite philosophical tradition, or rather as combining two traditions: that of German idealist philosophy from Kant to Hegel in which he was educated, and that of Enlightenment materialism which he greatly admired. Most of all, Marx’s social theories consciously raise important philosophical questions: about human nature and human aspirations, about society and history and the proper business of those who would study them scientifically, about the right way to approach the rational assessment and alteration of social arrangements. At least in some cases, Marx supplies some original and distinctive answers to these questions. Thus the tradition of thought in which Marx’s social theory consciously stands, the breadth of its scope and the questions it addresses all justify us in speaking of Marx as a philosopher. — From the Introduction to Karl Marx by Allen Wood

It's a great book, by the way.

:cool:

Thanks. To keep the site running smoothly over the next while I've just deleted some of the bigger old ones.

The site was down for a while some time in the last 5 hours due to a lack of disk space. I'll have to solve this by deleting lots of file uploads and blocking or restricting further uploads.

Stranger Than Paradise (1984)
Down by Law (1986)
Night on Earth (1991)
Dead Man (1995)
Coffee and Cigarettes (2003)
Broken Flowers (2005)
Only Lovers Left Alive (2013) — SophistiCat

I like Ghost Dog (1999) as well.

Currently Hothouse by Brian Aldiss. — Jamal

I had vague and tantalizing memories of this book from the first time I read it, as a teenager. I've just read it again and that memory has been replaced by the mundane reality: it's good for the first 75 pages, then pretty bad.

:up: Yeah that's probably the one I'll read too.

Currently Hothouse by Brian Aldiss.

I could never work out why the monk was a beautiful Japanese fashion model — Tom Storm

Yeah, that was baffling to me too. I think that just added to the mystery.

Piggsy was my favorite. — Tom Storm

I think I like Monkey himself most of all; his arrogance is endearing. But I do find Pigsy to be the most relatable character, since he prioritizes sex, food, and booze.

Ended up reading the original stories. They are similar. — Tom Storm

Worth reading, would you say?

Yesterday I indulged my nostalgia by watching clips of the Japanese TV series Monkey, which was on British TV, and apparently in Australia too, back in the 80s. I remember finding it very strange and entertaining.

Well, I found out it's based on the 16th century classic of Chinese literature, Journey to the West by Wu Cheng'en, which became popular throughout Asia. It was translated into English in abridged form under the title Monkey. I'll read that some time soon.

Currently Mercury by Anna Kavan, which, depending on who you listen to, is a first draft or alternative telling or rejected version of the story that was published as the more famous novel Ice.

Apart from Monkey I have the following to read soon:

• Mordew by Alex Pheby, a newish fantasy novel. I would normally avoid popular contemporary fantasy, but this looks interesting, somewhat weird and Gormenghastian.
• Malone Dies and The Unnamable by Samuel Beckett (I really liked the preceding novel Molloy)
• The Complete stories of Kafka
• The Jaguar Hunter by Lucius Shepard

Born from an egg on a mountaintop. :cool:

To those who have seen Tarkovsky's Solaris: what do you make of the surprisingly long (even for Tarkovsky, I think) bit where the ex-pilot Burton is in a car going through a big city, along motorways, overpasses and tunnels?

Normally I like the slow stuff in Tarkovsky, but this seems awkward and perplexing. The sounds, which I think are meant to be futuristic, do not even seem to match the familiar urban scene.

It ends with an abrupt cut to the wildflower meadow at Kelvin's house (which looks exactly like a Russian dacha), so it looks like a juxtaposition between inhuman modernity and bucolic serenity, but it still seems odd. My guess is that in fact, Tarkovsky made do with footage that did not turn out as well as he'd imagined.

One of the reasons I like Kindle so much is that I can link directly to Wikipedia and GoogleEarth. It's become almost automatic. I often find myself going off on tangents. I love it. — T Clark

Yes. I've been using an iPad to read books and it's been great for that. However, a few weeks ago I propped it against the window to play music while I was cooking a chicken Madras, but then forgot I'd put it there and opened the window, and it fell out and got smashed up.

Since then I've been reading the old-fashioned way, and it's been really good. No distracting rabbit holes.

The Choptank and the Susquehanna are my two favorite rivers. We crossed the Choptank on the way from my childhood home in southern Delaware to my grandfather's farm. The house I grew up in is a couple of hundred feet from the Nanticoke River, which is still tidewater there, 30 miles from the bay. It was not unusual for me to lose my shoes or boots in the mudflats and there was always danger when we used our sleds because our favorite hill, the only thing even close to a hill in flat southern Delaware, there was always danger of missing the turn and ending up in the water. — T Clark

I'm getting nostalgic and I wasn't even there.

But I did think of Barth a lot when I read Cervantes. — Tom Storm

In particular, the relationship between Ebenezer and his manservant Bertrand owes a lot to the Don Quixote-Sancho Panza double act.

One quality about the "Joyous science" that differs from the other works is the sense of freedom to do something different. The works before and after picture change as a struggle with other views. This work is a claim for his land, unoccupied by others. — Paine

Nice way of putting it :up:

How does it compare to M&D (aside from the differences with po-mo) in terms of entertainment and fun factor? — Manuel

It’s equally entertaining and fun, I’d say, but it’s a difficult comparison. It’s less wacky/goofy/hippy stoner than M&D, but also more consistent: it feels more like an adventure story than M&D, so I guess it’s more entertaining from that point of view; and it’s much easier to read than M&D and contains far fewer obscure references—which makes it both more fun and less fun, if you see what I mean.

It also has a lot more sexual and scatological humour than M&D (“But say, thou’rt all beshit”).

But it’s not all low humour and adventure fiction: it also contains long (but also entertaining) discussions on diverse interesting topics, and a profusion of penetrating insights, and the writing is incredibly good.

I was born in Easton, Maryland and grew up on the Eastern Shore and in nearby Delaware. My grandfather's farm was on the Chesapeake Bay about six miles north of the mouth of the Choptank River near Cambridge. Looking south from the shore, I could see land in the location where Cooke's farm was located, although I didn't know it at the time. — T Clark

Cool! Reading the novel has prompted me to spend hours exploring the region in Google Maps. I’d never heard of many of the names, like Choptank, and though of course I’d heard of Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay, I knew nothing of their geography and history (beyond what I’d gleaned from Pynchon’s Mason & Dixon).

The characters in the book are — among other things — tracking down fragments of a journal from the late 17th century. One part of this old explorer’s journal reads as follows:

From Wighcocomoco to this place, all the coast is but low broken Isles of Moras, a myle or two in breadth, & tenne or twelve in length, & foule and stinking by reason of the stagnant waters therein. Add to wch, the aire is beclowded with vile meskitoes, that sucke at a mans bloud, as though they had never eate before. It is forsooth no countrie, for any save the Salvage...

“That picture doth apply to one place only,” laughed Burlingame, who had read the passage aloud. “Do you know it, Father?”

And the priest, his historical curiosity aroused despite his circumstances, nodded stiffly: “The Dorset marches.”

“Aye,” Burlingame confirmed. “The Hooper Islands, Bloodsworth Island, and South Marsh. Here is a morsel for your epic, Ebenezer: the first white man to set foot on Dorset County.”

When I read things like this I have to go on the internet and have a look at these places.

Late in the book, Ebenezer, who from the beginning has been attempting to fulfill his role as Poet Laureate of Maryland, has to amend his earlier rosy view of the place following a string of unfortunate events:

“What price this laureateship! Here’s naught but scoundrels and perverts, hovels and brothels, corruption and poltroonery! What glory, to be singer of such a sewer!”

So I’m glad to now be able to place you culturally.

In some ways, TC Boyle's Water Music is that book for me. That said, there's little quesion that Barth is a genius. — Tom Storm

Looks interesting.

The Sot-Weed Factor by John Barth.

How did you get on with it? It's an extraordinary book, I thought, but hard going in all its self-reflexive cleverness. It's like someone on the spectrum, with a gift for wordplay, has just let rip. — Tom Storm

I'm at page 545 of nearly 800, and still loving it. It's a masterful parody, a technical tour de force, beautifully and transparently written. It's convincing and involving and brilliant.The basic experience is of reading an 18th picaresque novel, not remotely like reading other books labelled as postmodern. If it's self-reflexively clever it's in the same way that, say, Don Quixote or Tristram Shandy are.

On the other hand, it's not an 18th century novel, but a late 20th century one, and that makes it something else, something of an oddity.

It's made me realise that some of what's been called postmodernism is a sort of reactionary reaction to modernism—a traditionalist return to the art of storytelling. It's a masterpiece in my opinion, but would be much easier to digest if I didn't know it was so modern; this fact turns it into something else (the important reference here is the Borges story, "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" in which an author faithfully reproduces Don Quixote but in doing so produces an entirely different thing, since it has been produced in a different time and by a different person).

Despite the similar setting and language it's not at all like Pynchon's Mason & Dixon, which is postmodern in subject matter while maintaining the period veneer: Barth isn't willing to mix in conspiracy theories, science fiction, and esoterica—he sticks faithfully to literary tradition, as if in an effort to be comprehensively and performatively anachronistic.

With 200 pages to go I'm getting tired of the convoluted plot, but there's always an adventure, a hilarious mishap, or a fascinating discussion around the next page.

So people have recommended me to start reading the other books by Nietzsche then give TSZ another shot. — NickGoodfella

In philosophy people seem to talk mostly about Genealogy of Morals and Beyond Good and Evil. And in my opinion a great way of approaching those two is to read The Gay Science (or the Joyous Science in a recent translation), which is brilliant and enjoyable.

I gotta go with Vera Mont, here. — tim wood

Of course, you're obnoxiously wrong, as usual.

:up: