Men Explain Lolita To Me

[John Bailey]

If you approach pop literary criticism with the same standards you
expect of Kantian philosophy you may end up with a reasonable amount
of stomach trouble.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Tommy Pinecone <endaflynn345 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I had originally extended that message to cover that point but then decided
> to take it away.
>
> To show the weight of thought that needs to go behind a conclusion. Kant is
> astoundingly painstaking, as you likely know. That's why I recommended a
> short introduction, the excerpts can be shocking to someone not used to it,
> it is an education you are not likely to find anywhere else apart from first
> hand in Kant. I could just as easily recommended some of Aristotle's work,
> but Kant is more illustrative of the point.
>
> Wittgenstein's big ideas and posthumous work are constructive in a similar
> way.
>
> On 18 Dec 2015 01:09, "Danny Weltman" <danny.weltman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What in Kant's first critique do you find helpful for hitting on "a fast
>> track way to make someone who is uneducated aware of the blatant flaws in
>> certain ideas and movements that are just unsustainable, and somehow having
>> their day the past few years?"
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Tommy Pinecone <endaflynn345 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is why I make it a deliberate priority not to go on Twitter or to
>>> follow any new intellectual voices.
>>>
>>> Every time it is some unfamiliar, alleged authority voicing a loud
>>> opinion that's appointed a flashy title; for some reason Twitter is
>>> frequently mentioned along the way.
>>>
>>> I hope the majority of you can see through this pettiness. It's
>>> unfortunate that we are swamped with the hack work and profound blanketed
>>> hate in modern academia, it is however a fortunate thing that we can merely
>>> look away and concentrate on human issues instead of coining new derogatory
>>> terms and stirring up the rabble with a short article.
>>>
>>> I often wonder how different these outlooks would be if these people were
>>> introduced to literature in a different way, free from ideology and
>>> identity-that is an unbiased, philosophical way. I make it a hard point with
>>> any aspiring student to start off with a short introduction to Kant's
>>> primary Critique and a short introduction to Wittgenstein's thought; no
>>> doubt it is an anomalous approach, but it's a fast track way to make someone
>>> who is uneducated aware of the blatant flaws in certain ideas and movements
>>> that are just unsustainable, and somehow having their day the past few
>>> years.
>>>
>>> We shouldn't have to pause to think of these things when there are bigger
>>> issues than female characters not being put in the center of the stage. What
>>> if I wanted to pen an article on how I wasn't happy with the lack of empathy
>>> Beckett shows in all of his works, to individuals of both genders no less?
>>> Sure, the circumstances are different here, but not dramatically. It's
>>> simply absurd. I struggle to believe these type of things when I see them
>>> being taken so seriously by so many. Makes one feel hopeless, especially
>>> when these are still the early years of the internet and the loudest voices
>>> are reaching aspiring students through social media poisoning their nascent
>>> opinions and thoughts.
>>>
>>> On 17 Dec 2015 20:51, "Matthew Taylor" <matthew.taylor923 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts on Rebecca Solnit's latest?
>>>>
>>>> http://lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-to-me/
>>
>>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l