THE GOAL OF READING FICTION IS ANALYSIS ITSELF Benjamin Franklin If a person’s goal in reading narrative fiction is only to come to an understanding of the truth, then that is indeed childlike. In my view, the goal is not to come to an understanding of the ideas, but the goal is the analysis itself. It’s the same goal one has when they are solving a puzzle. Of course you eventually solve the puzzle, but the outcome is not that important compared to the act of solving the puzzle. Someone could just give you the solved puzzle, i.e just present the ideas in essay format, but the subjective experience would be qualitatively different from solving it yourself. Those who study fiction in the way one would study science or law are misguided, in my view. The level of seriousness in the two pursuits are incomparable. I find serious commentators who quote fiction to be as annoying as you probably do. The worst authors of fiction are those who put ideas or some notion of truth in the foreground. It comes off as preachy. Ayn Rand is a notorious culprit of this style of writing. For these kinds of authors, the philosophy does indeed transform into the veneer and the narrative slips into the background. Good authors make the narrative the veneer and the ideas become a puzzle to be solved by the observer. Now, you can argue about the time worthiness of analyzing fiction. It is potentially not as worthy of a time investment as doing science. But, if you consider the long term, the potential inevitable extinction of humanity along with all traces of their existence, then all actions are equally worthy of time or equally unworthy of time.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Goal of Reading Fiction Is Analysis Itself
THE GOAL OF READING FICTION IS ANALYSIS ITSELF Benjamin Franklin If a person’s goal in reading narrative fiction is only to come to an understanding of the truth, then that is indeed childlike. In my view, the goal is not to come to an understanding of the ideas, but the goal is the analysis itself. It’s the same goal one has when they are solving a puzzle. Of course you eventually solve the puzzle, but the outcome is not that important compared to the act of solving the puzzle. Someone could just give you the solved puzzle, i.e just present the ideas in essay format, but the subjective experience would be qualitatively different from solving it yourself. Those who study fiction in the way one would study science or law are misguided, in my view. The level of seriousness in the two pursuits are incomparable. I find serious commentators who quote fiction to be as annoying as you probably do. The worst authors of fiction are those who put ideas or some notion of truth in the foreground. It comes off as preachy. Ayn Rand is a notorious culprit of this style of writing. For these kinds of authors, the philosophy does indeed transform into the veneer and the narrative slips into the background. Good authors make the narrative the veneer and the ideas become a puzzle to be solved by the observer. Now, you can argue about the time worthiness of analyzing fiction. It is potentially not as worthy of a time investment as doing science. But, if you consider the long term, the potential inevitable extinction of humanity along with all traces of their existence, then all actions are equally worthy of time or equally unworthy of time.
-
More Method To The Madness
—“When you intersperse, or do intermissions from the hard core Propertarian stuff and add tips/topics on life, love, money, programming/tech and business especially, it psychologically shows others (not our guys, but the general public), “Shit, this guy is not a failed austrian immigrant painter living in a flophouse”, but very well studied and successful. It also teaches Propertarian utility in real life and it makes it fun. Lastly it makes it harder for enemies to attack because if they say, he doesn’t know about business, they open up and pull that out and get crushed and that association makes what you say stronger on Propertarianism.”— A Friend
[T]here is method to the madness…. I also play king of the hill and bait constantly to make it a game. I also post things that I disagree with, or that can be interpreted other ways, to start debate. Congratulate even the smallest success. Edit and quote others to inspire them to keep trying. Audit the feed and comments.Ask others to contribute or handle those i can’t. Run experiments so others can help me and themselves. Keep a loose inventory and estimate of people who are talented and drip ideas to them as needed while letting them own the discoveries they make. And i also try to include thinking women without demanding they think or play the game as males. And Include people from as many cultures as I can so that we all transcend the century of pseudoscience and sophism. 😉 Thanks for appreciating it. 😉
-
More Method To The Madness
—“When you intersperse, or do intermissions from the hard core Propertarian stuff and add tips/topics on life, love, money, programming/tech and business especially, it psychologically shows others (not our guys, but the general public), “Shit, this guy is not a failed austrian immigrant painter living in a flophouse”, but very well studied and successful. It also teaches Propertarian utility in real life and it makes it fun. Lastly it makes it harder for enemies to attack because if they say, he doesn’t know about business, they open up and pull that out and get crushed and that association makes what you say stronger on Propertarianism.”— A Friend
[T]here is method to the madness…. I also play king of the hill and bait constantly to make it a game. I also post things that I disagree with, or that can be interpreted other ways, to start debate. Congratulate even the smallest success. Edit and quote others to inspire them to keep trying. Audit the feed and comments.Ask others to contribute or handle those i can’t. Run experiments so others can help me and themselves. Keep a loose inventory and estimate of people who are talented and drip ideas to them as needed while letting them own the discoveries they make. And i also try to include thinking women without demanding they think or play the game as males. And Include people from as many cultures as I can so that we all transcend the century of pseudoscience and sophism. 😉 Thanks for appreciating it. 😉
-
The Rational Veneer of Literary Philosophy
The problem with those who favor literary thought is that they mistake the suspension of disbelief necessary to empathize, sympathize, and comprehend an author’s work, with the truth, goodness, and possibility of it. They rationally justify the quality and desirability of whatever arguments, no matter how sophomoric, but they are only making excuses for the fact that they as suggestible as children, and entirely dependent upon intuition: their reason is just a veneer. Science and Law are not seductive. Just the opposite. They are commercial transactions of commodities that allow you to act in the real world, with real costs, and real consequences. Fairy tales are for children. Even children of adult and later ages.
-
The Rational Veneer of Literary Philosophy
The problem with those who favor literary thought is that they mistake the suspension of disbelief necessary to empathize, sympathize, and comprehend an author’s work, with the truth, goodness, and possibility of it. They rationally justify the quality and desirability of whatever arguments, no matter how sophomoric, but they are only making excuses for the fact that they as suggestible as children, and entirely dependent upon intuition: their reason is just a veneer. Science and Law are not seductive. Just the opposite. They are commercial transactions of commodities that allow you to act in the real world, with real costs, and real consequences. Fairy tales are for children. Even children of adult and later ages.
-
The Needs of The Weak, the Will of The Strong
Moritz brings up yet again that many young men want a new religion. And their criteria for a philosophy, is simply an inspirational theology. And I’m fully aware of this criticism. Propertarianism is structured as a philosophy out of utility – the utility of falsifying rationalist philosophy. But what I’m writing is LAW. Uniting science (physics, economics, sociology, psychology, metaphysics), and law into a single commensurable language across all disciplines providing a means by which we can suppress falsehoods, and particularly the abrahamic falsehoods (pilpul/critique) and the modern versions of them (postmodernism/marxism). And with that law providing a constitution that makes it possible to restore the specific uniqueness of the west, and our ability to drag ourselves, and humanity, kicking and screaming into transcendence: evolutionary progress. There is no reason for you to like the law. On the explanatory power and commensurability and decidability it provides. It slaughters all your sacred cows. But then again, why do you need falsehoods? My position is that the weak of body, spirit, and mind, need them and the strong of body, spirit, and mind do not. Those who are weak will never judge, never govern, never rule. They are only important in that they will fight for the material incentives provided by defeat of the parasites and the rescue of our civilization – or not. Very few of us our needed. The weak can stay home. Meaning – if you need a cult, you and your genes are a part of the problem, and of no value to the solution. The meek won’t inherit the earth. They will only live with the permissions give to them by those that do.
-
The Needs of The Weak, the Will of The Strong
Moritz brings up yet again that many young men want a new religion. And their criteria for a philosophy, is simply an inspirational theology. And I’m fully aware of this criticism. Propertarianism is structured as a philosophy out of utility – the utility of falsifying rationalist philosophy. But what I’m writing is LAW. Uniting science (physics, economics, sociology, psychology, metaphysics), and law into a single commensurable language across all disciplines providing a means by which we can suppress falsehoods, and particularly the abrahamic falsehoods (pilpul/critique) and the modern versions of them (postmodernism/marxism). And with that law providing a constitution that makes it possible to restore the specific uniqueness of the west, and our ability to drag ourselves, and humanity, kicking and screaming into transcendence: evolutionary progress. There is no reason for you to like the law. On the explanatory power and commensurability and decidability it provides. It slaughters all your sacred cows. But then again, why do you need falsehoods? My position is that the weak of body, spirit, and mind, need them and the strong of body, spirit, and mind do not. Those who are weak will never judge, never govern, never rule. They are only important in that they will fight for the material incentives provided by defeat of the parasites and the rescue of our civilization – or not. Very few of us our needed. The weak can stay home. Meaning – if you need a cult, you and your genes are a part of the problem, and of no value to the solution. The meek won’t inherit the earth. They will only live with the permissions give to them by those that do.
-
Dugin’s Book Says:
DUGIN’S BOOK SAYS: The book declares that “the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians” has not ended and Russia remains “the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution”. The Eurasian Empire will be constructed “on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us.“[9] Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia’s gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.[9] The book states that “the maximum task [of the future] is the ‘Finlandization’ of all of Europe”.[9] In Europe: Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term “Moscow–Berlin axis”.[9] France should be encouraged to form a “Franco–German bloc” with Germany. Both countries have a “firm anti-Atlanticist tradition”.[9] The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[9] Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be “donated to Murmansk Oblast”.[9] Estonia should be given to Germany’s sphere of influence.[9] Latvia and Lithuania should be given a “special status” in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.[9] Poland should be granted a “special status” in the Eurasian sphere.[9] Romania, Macedonia, “Serbian Bosnia” and Greece – “Orthodox collectivist East” – will unite with “Moscow the Third Rome” and reject the “rational-individualistic West”.[9] Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because “Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics”. Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[9] In the Middle East and Central Asia: The book stresses the “continental Russian–Islamic alliance” which lies “at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy”. The alliance is based on the “traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization”. Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term “Moscow–Tehran axis”.[9] Armenia has a special role: It will serve as a “strategic base,” and it is necessary to create “the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran”. Armenians “are an Aryan people … [like] the Iranians and the Kurds”.[9] Azerbaijan could be “split up” or given to Iran.[9] Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and “United Ossetia” (which includes Georgia’s South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia’s independent policies are unacceptable.[9] Russia needs to create “geopolitical shocks” within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[9] The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including “the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)” and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).[9] In Asia: China, which represents a danger to Russia, “must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled”. Dugin suggests that Russia start by taking Tibet–Xinjiang–Mongolia–Manchuria as a security belt.[1] Russia should offer China help “in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia” as geopolitical compensation.[9] Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[9] Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[9] The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: “the main ‘scapegoat’ will be precisely the U.S.” In the United States: Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke “Afro-American racists”. Russia should “introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics”.[9] The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[9]
-
Dugin’s Book Says:
DUGIN’S BOOK SAYS: The book declares that “the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians” has not ended and Russia remains “the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution”. The Eurasian Empire will be constructed “on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us.“[9] Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia’s gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.[9] The book states that “the maximum task [of the future] is the ‘Finlandization’ of all of Europe”.[9] In Europe: Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term “Moscow–Berlin axis”.[9] France should be encouraged to form a “Franco–German bloc” with Germany. Both countries have a “firm anti-Atlanticist tradition”.[9] The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[9] Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be “donated to Murmansk Oblast”.[9] Estonia should be given to Germany’s sphere of influence.[9] Latvia and Lithuania should be given a “special status” in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.[9] Poland should be granted a “special status” in the Eurasian sphere.[9] Romania, Macedonia, “Serbian Bosnia” and Greece – “Orthodox collectivist East” – will unite with “Moscow the Third Rome” and reject the “rational-individualistic West”.[9] Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because “Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics”. Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[9] In the Middle East and Central Asia: The book stresses the “continental Russian–Islamic alliance” which lies “at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy”. The alliance is based on the “traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization”. Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term “Moscow–Tehran axis”.[9] Armenia has a special role: It will serve as a “strategic base,” and it is necessary to create “the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran”. Armenians “are an Aryan people … [like] the Iranians and the Kurds”.[9] Azerbaijan could be “split up” or given to Iran.[9] Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and “United Ossetia” (which includes Georgia’s South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia’s independent policies are unacceptable.[9] Russia needs to create “geopolitical shocks” within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[9] The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including “the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)” and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).[9] In Asia: China, which represents a danger to Russia, “must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled”. Dugin suggests that Russia start by taking Tibet–Xinjiang–Mongolia–Manchuria as a security belt.[1] Russia should offer China help “in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia” as geopolitical compensation.[9] Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[9] Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[9] The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: “the main ‘scapegoat’ will be precisely the U.S.” In the United States: Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke “Afro-American racists”. Russia should “introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics”.[9] The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[9]