Catcher in the Rye

And what would that be opposed to? What's the alternative?

>Because he's a teenager, he's meant to be a teenager?
Because he is a teenager he is meant to act like a teenager.
>Wouldn't you agree that focusing on the age is a copout?
Judging people without considering their circumstances, experience and level of cognitive and emotional development is a copout. Judging people for judging people is hypocrisy.

The acceptance of a full range of emotions. Sure, nobody wants to see others suffer, but our culture should not show aversion to it. We should embrace our suffering. I know for a fact that people will propagate this false image of happiness to show that they're living life "correctly". Don't feign any emotion. Feel how you feel. No phoniness.

>This philosophy troubles me on a very deep level.
Good. It should trouble you, or part of you at least.

>This is practically conformity and partial death.
Yes, it is. Growing up is painful and tragic. And it forces you to make decisions, in general choosing between being a child or a grown up.
etymonline.com/index.php?term=decide
>from Latin decidere "to decide, determine," literally "to cut off,"

>Why conform?
You don't have to, but know that it has consequences.

On a more casual note, most societies nowadays are pretty liberal and I'm not at all telling you to be a regular wageslave or whatever.
Adults acting like children (in both good and bad sense) aren't that uncommon. So you won't stand out that much if you stay an "idealistic rebel" and if you find like minded people you might have enough company to keep you mentally sane.
If you plan on changing the society you live in, good luck, and I mean this sincerely. Just realize that there have been lots of different kinds of societies throughout history, some better, some worse and all were and are flawed in some way.

You make it seem as if you could denounce every judgment ever made without every piece of information considered. We survive on judgments made without every piece of information.

Educating people to accepting that it's perfectly normal to not be happy sometimes and that you are not a bad person for that and that it's not the end of the world.

I understand you perfectly well. But this is a very black and white way of thinking. Conformism in itself is not bad. It's just harmful if it endorses a belief that doesn't match reality.

There's a thin line between phoniness and politeness. In a way presenting yourself in "good mood" signals that you're safe to interact with, or something. It's one of those unwritten rules. Although societies differ in how much this is applied... there's a significant difference between the US and Russia, for example.

Of course not. In order to survive sometimes we need to make a decision with the information. Still the rational justification that such a decision is correct and moral is unnecessary.
Through mental gymnastics some people manage to convince themselves that it is morally acceptable to morally dismiss another human being.

But what if you fell like you want to grab a shovel and whack someone to death with it? Is that OK?

I always thought it was about growing up, making peace with society and its structures, while showing why that is so fundamentally important through the eyes of Holden.

I do not believe every action made is based off of morality. I don't think every judgment is based off of morality. It is amoral to dismiss someone occasionally. Sometimes it is just efficient. Efficiency over morality especially when morality as a method of determination shows us its grey spots. We must make these judgments. We cannot continually consider an individual if all they do is spew nonsense and untruths.

Sorry, I don't understand. The answer to your question is no, but I think you are going for something else. If everyone doesn't "whack someone to death with it" then no one dies. Very true. But this is so superficial of an application, that I am having a hard time

>Educating people to accepting that it's perfectly normal to not be happy sometimes and that you are not a bad person for that and that it's not the end of the world.
>The acceptance of a full range of emotions. Sure, nobody wants to see others suffer, but our culture should not show aversion to it. We should embrace our suffering. I know for a fact that people will propagate this false image of happiness to show that they're living life "correctly". Don't feign any emotion. Feel how you feel. No phoniness.

not exactly what the question meant, but whatever bruhs

I loved that book and another book that I loved where the individual struggles and the society are at odds in some way is pic related.
It's a bit more complex and symbolic, but still very accessible. Underrated (although Scorsese made a movie after it, so maybe not).

It is such a defeatist view. Perhaps you are not considering it a text? Is this the interpretation you want? Do you agree with the acceptance of society's structures? If you don't accept them, then why did you interpret it in this way?

You are my buddy

I think you're right, maybe I am projecting. I accept the structure of order and social institutions within society, but I consider my best friend to be severely stunted in that aspect, and Holden always reminds me of him.

He considers marriage and monogamy evil, culture, especially high culture, is nothing but an invention of the rich to remain rich, politics is evil, presidents are evil, the police are evil, etc.

>I do not believe every action made is based off of morality
Neither do I. I think I made this clear.
I didn't say "dismiss" but "morally dismiss".
Feeling that someone is stupid and deciding "not to waste your time with them" is one thing. It still allows for the rational supposition that you could be wrong but it's not worth it to invest your time and resources in finding out considering the situation at hand. You are not making a judgement because you recognize the way you feel is subjective.
"Judging" that someone is stupid means deciding "that they are stupid" that they are morally wrong for choosing to be stupid and because of that from here on they are not worth of your or anybody's attention.

Even though it is subjective you must take control of your environment. If someone is stupid don't question why. Just know not to pay attention to them for information validity. If you question why then you'll mostly end up with the conclusion of circumstance rather than a conscious effort to be stupid. Either is dismissible. One is unfortunate, but if you were to give your attention to every human because you couldn't dismiss then you'd run out of time. Time is very important

Your friend seems to be very influenced by money. I don't blame him though. Money is important and I hate when people say otherwise. Your friend reminds me of myself just exaggerated. is he a commie?

It's not that I disagree with you but I'm saying that it's not so simple either.
"Sadness" is a harmless emotion so it's not so hard to ask other people to accept it but not all emotions are so pretty.
Never mind actually.

>If you question why then you'll mostly end up with the conclusion of circumstance rather than a conscious effort to be stupid.
Both conclusions are a matter of assumption and don't require significant time investment.
Still the assumption of unknown circumstances is humane and leaves the opportunity to easily correct your initial assessment in case you receive contradicting information.
The assumption of malicious agency is inhumane and maladaptively inflexible.

Judgemental isnt a flaw user
only butthurt libtarss say that

While i can see what is the book trying to say, concerned with negatives and the disappoining reality of postmodern world, talking about how it distances its youth, holden represents that youth and takes acts sort of like contemporary william blake,
but all of that still doesnt excuse him from being a massive faggot

I don't know about you but if a person spews bullshit for a year straight. I will not attentively pay attention to them. There are other people I can use my bandwidth on that haven't been spewing bullshit for the past year.

Who said you should attentively pay attention to them? I said "Don't make a moral judgement".

What do you mean by moral judgment?

It's about intent.
For example even the legal system admits that killing a person in self defense is not morally comparable to a premeditated murder.
When you are morally judging someone you are making the assumption that they have chosen to offend you out of their free will.
If you say "You are such a dumb cunt" the emotionally loaded language suggests that the person that is the target of such epithets has chosen to be stupid out their free will and thus has consciously offended you for which they don't deserve sympathy and can freely be regarded as less than human.

Being judgemental is useful but not always.

For one you always seem to have a stick up your ass and if you're not self aware enough, you're gonna be blind to your own inadequacy.