Should literature be comitted to political ideologies?
My view: yes, because of all the fine arts it is the only one with intellectual rigor in its core creative process. Art is in itself an antisocial assertion of the self. Selfishness, intellect & "political association" are the most important traits of this sub-species of primates.
Bump.
Literature will never be apolitical. As long as there are stories about any kind of human interaction, politics will be in the picture. Trying to disassociate politics from literature is not only stupid, but also wrong. If done from the position of power, it equals censorship.
>Rise up brothers, the revolution is now
If all literature is political what is the politics of Hairy Maclary?
There are several kinds of literature, literature can try to aim higher than shitty social concerns like politics. An example is borges, he did make his political views clear but he always said that he wanted (and succeeded at) keeping his writings apolitical
Wow. That is such profound bullshit I can't even respond. Fuck politics.
Daily reminder that whether your on the left or on the right, this mentality is myopic and goofy.
It is really unbelievable that Zizek is probably the most recognizable Veeky Forums meme and no one understands his analysis of ideology.
>Should literature be comitted to political ideologies?
Nigger it is literally impossible not to be committed to ideologies. "Pure" ideology is found in your spontaneous reaction to the world in those moments when you believe you are free from it and in an apolitical, asocial, or acultural situation.
If youre asking whether or not it is desirable for literature to concern itself primarily with heavy handed political allegories and symbolism at the expense of aesthetic then fuck no of course not.
nabokov and harold bloom would like to have a word with you
But Zizek is trash. He takes pretty simple ideas and jazzes them up with bombastic language. Great for your 22 year old brosocialist. Not so useful for anyone else.
Could you summarize where you think theyve made a good argument against this? Both are talented in their fields (Nabokov especially), but Harold Bloom's critique of the "school of resentment" could not be more obviously an ideologically (and politically) charged insistence that good literature is not political (i.e. does not contain explicit or implicit critiques of the status quo). I dont think he even suggests otherwise. Dont know what Nabokov's argument was but considering he arbitrarily dismissed half of his best contemporaries as hacks I'm skeptical of his good analytical sense.
Marxist-Hegelian shamanism is outside of ideology.
>makes notoriously difficult Hegelian concepts digestible for laypeople by using pop media other intellectuals consider too lowbrow to involve themselves with
>he's obviously just a pretentious hack trying to sound smart, what do you mean, of course watching a few videos and browsing *sniff* memes was enough to understand him, it's his fault i dont read
Also you should kill yourself for unironically saying brocialist
Of course it isnt.
He's right though. There's literally nothing in Zizek that isn't in Marx and Lacan.
Basically you only have to study Hegel and a 5-minute wiki of Lacan (mostly his misogynist shit about how women don't know what makes them orgasm etc) and you've got Zizek all figured out.
Go you can go right the fuck back to Facebook, where you came from.
So the revolution isn't guaranteed.
Stick to Foucault and Deleuze & Guattari.
Zizek is only good at taking down Derrida and some redditors.
Of course not. Zizek does not believe so either, by the way. Hegelian and Marxist dialectics are both basically religions, the right wing is correct about that much.
Can you tell me what you think the essence of Hegelian thought is? Because his work has countless interpretations and one quick reading of Phenomonology is going to give you an entirely different understanding than five other people who read the same thing.
>Zizek does not believe so either
that's bullshit and you know it
You don't need to distill the essence of Hegel to know that for Zizek, Hegel is THE philosopher. He's admitted this many times. His reading of Lacan brings Lacan closer to Hegel than to Heidegger anyway.
>women don't know what makes them orgasm
What was his reasoning here?