Economic man himself has given away to the psychological man of our times – the final product of bourgeois...

>Economic man himself has given away to the psychological man of our times – the final product of bourgeois individualism. The new narcissist is haunted not by guilt by anxiety. He seeks not to inflict his own certainties on others but find a meaning in life. Liberated from the superstitions of the past, he doubts even the reality of his own existence. Superficially relaxed and tolerant, he finds little use for dogmas of racial and ethnic purity but at the same time forfeits the security of group loyalties and regards everyone as a rival for the favors conferred by a paternalistic state. His sexual attitudes are permissive rather than puritanical, even though his emancipation from ancient taboos brings him no sexual peace. Fiercely competitive in his demand for approval and acclaim, he distrusts competition because he associates it unconsciously with an unbridled urge to destroy. Hence he repudiates the competitive ideologies that flourished at an earlier stage of capitalist development and distrusts even their limited expression in sports and games. He extols cooperation and teamwork while harboring deeply antisocial impulses. He praises respect for rules and regulations in the secret belief that they do not apply to himself. Acquisitive in the sense that his cravings have no limits, he does not accumulate goods and provisions against the future, in the manner of the acquisitive individualist of the nineteenth-century political economy, but demands immediate gratification and lives in a state of restless, perpetually unsatisfied desire.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Oe-dKUl8GeI
thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10/the_story_of_narcissus.html
youtube.com/watch?v=kakFDUeoJKM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Yep, it sure is a major book. Just look at the way people use social media. Have a look at our celebrity culture or the way people date.

p much

dude wrote like 400 pages about how undersexed he is lmao

nice citation - got me really interested

could you tell me more points that this book tries to make?

This book has me so pegged that reading it made me feel sick at times

Was he the American Debord?

>perpetually unsatisfied desire
>anxiety
>restlessness
>this is all new

This book is dated and not as edgy as the title implies

yes but better (late debord is best debord)

What absolute trash.

I've written better shit at 12 AM, which I have promptly tore up and threw out while rereading.

I just can't stand so much of philosophy. When I read something by Joyce, I understand how superior he is at writing to me; When I read the majority of philosophy (regardless of date), I immediately have sneeking suspicion that not only have I already thought all of this before, but I've understood it better.

It's such a cathartic reality.

bad post

You'd do well to write your own philosophy book to astonish us and bring all of that juicy clarity of mind into paper so that lesser beings like us can bask in the glory of your understanding.

Or you can play literary Gordon Ramsay on Veeky Forums all day long while jerking off into the next page of your copy of Ulysses. Your choice really.

Right on every count, but so what? Where's the solution?

"no"

The point being that anything I write will be seen through just as I see through this.

It's pointless.

well philosophers are primarily concerned with communicating ideas through reason. Writers' primary task is furthering the craft of writing, so of course they're good at writing

stupid

He wrote The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics over a decade later and it is both "edgier" and more relevant to today in the solutions proposed to the problems he identifies.

>He praises respect for rules and regulations in the secret belief that they do not apply to himself.
Fuck, he got me.

...meh, thats only like 7/10 for me
>t. clinically diagnosed antisocial disorder from court ordered psych

Exactly. People have said this for thousands of years in different ways. Simply because the portal of life is different in modern times doesn't mean the narcissist has changed emotionally. Only expressively. And if you think the narcissist is the anxious antisocial and not the Donald Trump's then you simply believe yourself to be a narcissist with no real confirmation. What this man is describing is the modern ambitious pessimist. The person who wishes to make the best out of what is believed to be a doomed scenario.

Ecce homo novus!

I hope more people discover Christopher Lasch. Academics tend to dismiss his work. His True and Only Heaven is by the far the best thing he wrote.

He had a great debate with Castoriadis awhile back. It's only available in french though. Haven't found an english edition.

good tv interview of lasch

youtube.com/watch?v=Oe-dKUl8GeI

watch out for the sound...

The image, or, What happened to the American dream
by Daniel J. Boorstin

This is another good one, Debord and McLuhan both reference Boorstin in developing their theories.

narcissists dont really try to back up their self aggrandizement. That would take effort, self reflection for growth, and the pain of changing and growing, narcissists just lie and manipulate their way around personal growth and accomplishment. Their isnt really any parallel universe guy from Enron actually bothers to ever make the company function in any honest way

Richard Sennett is another good writer in this vein. The Fall of Public Man is great and is one of the sources for Culture of Narcissism.

>Simply because the portal of life is different in modern times doesn't mean the narcissist has changed emotionally.
It's relevant because there are more narcissists now, it is a much more common disorder in modern life. Your point about Trump suggests you really don't know what most narcissists are like. They lead lives of quiet dissatisfaction deluding themselves all the way.

I think he midly critiques Sennett, but that might have been another book I was reading at the same time.

David F. Noble is another good one.

uhh, you don't really get the narcissism he's talking about

hes critiquing the cult of self-fulfillment, of "just be/find yourself, bro" that comes in the face of baby boomers not having any real communal political solution

I bought this because of you

>reads The Last Psychiatrist once

I really miss that fucker. I can't believe you bastards doxed him and killed one of the best intellectual blogs out there.

He had so much style, I still go back and re-reading his explanation of the story of Echo & Narcissus.

would recommend it to anyone here desu
>thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10/the_story_of_narcissus.html

Is this Jordan Peterson's even more neurotic alter ego?

I hate newfags whose only frame of reference for psychiatry is Peterson and feel the need to inject him into every conversation.

I didn't want to make the comparison, but it fit my first impression. I hadn't seen this blog before but I think it explains the fixation with narcissism this guy on letterboxd I knew had. All of his film reviews focused on the pathological narcissism endemic in either the characters or the film's intended audience. He posted a link to some "manosphere" wordpress once, so I'm guessing he read blogs a lot. I've never really liked the scene, since it always seemed full of cultish personalities projecting their lop-sided, insecure world views onto desperate, confused people. LessWrong and Freedomanradio also come to mind.

Like I always have to say on here, the only reason these thoughts are commonplace ("common sense") today is because of these thinkers and their great works have proved influential, fusing themselves into our collective (un)conscious and permeating through every facet of our thought, behavior, and culture.

The only thing as bad as those who believe there is no persisting human nature are those who believe it's immutable and requires no updated analysis as Man's environment and culture changes. Furthermore, I'd say the resulting changes in expression substantially affects the phenomenological emotional experience for the modern narcissist, or whatever type/label, that in turn creates new modes of being or avenues of manifestation. Narcissists in the kind discussed in the OP didn't exist when the myth of Narcissus was created, or even centuries ago.

Nah, TLP is actually quality, nothing like the misguided banalities of Peterson or the closed-minded cult that is LW.

I do. I literally said its not narcissism. I disagree. Our economy is evolving too fast. It's not become a necessity to live but an accessory to what is more accurately a narcissistic economy. Because whether you like it or not, living in a world where jobs such as dildo mold maker are a thing, and the person who created that job market is heralded as an entrepreneur, while the worker who makes them is considered scummy because they disagreed with living in a world where a job market contains such a job, isn't right. Regardless or moral grey areas. Society is too focused on itself to realize it's run itself over a cliff and is only afloat because it fails to realize it has no foundation anymore.
Have you ever seen the demotivational image "evolution is suicide"? Not even nihilism nor pessimism, it is an honest truth. To fully evolve is to realize life is a beautiful pointlessness that has no requirements to fulfill other than to not ruin it forever ourselves by destroying what is the only known place to harbor this thing. Would it better to watch the sunset one last time or watch the fallout of nuclear apocalypse? Yet I'm a narcissist for disagreeing with this current societal state? Fucking please. I'm a realist and those too wrapped in themselves to remember their humanity are the narcissists. Because it's not the bread makers ushering the economic and political front lines, it's those willing to exploit those who just don't know what to do in a world nearly fulfilled before they were even born.

Dude. The essence of life will never change. A few thousand years of intelligent thought does not undo hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution. This state of awareness you experience is tool. Your will is as real as your soul.
Yes, modern times requires an adaptive philosophy of mental states. But those who believe their being is greater or over another is and will always be the only true narcissist. What this man is describing is an ambitious pessimist, and I disagree. If you believe that makes me a pseud, then don't even waste your time with a rebuttal so I won't waste my time reading it.

>Narcissists in the kind discussed in the OP didn't exist when the myth of Narcissus was created, or even centuries ago.
Holy shit, were you there? Can you tell me more?

I was a little more hostile in my post than I should've been, my bad. You're free to disagree with the excerpt in that it characterizes narcissism at all, I only take exception with the idea that "there is nothing new under the sun." The world is always changing, and, even though I agree there are some eternal truths or concepts with regards to human nature, this requires new analysis for the new times.

lol, not even a poor counterpoint to be honest, but in this case a lot of the traits outlined in OP's excerpt are directly produced as a reaction or result of a specific preceding event---forms of immediate gratification, the paternalistic state, the repudiation of an early capitalist ethos, etc. So even if narcissism hasn't changed in its core, these new ways of expression or ideological contradictions are brand new to the unique context the book was written in.

Not sure what you're ranting about but your implicit new-age Buddhism is 100% narcissistic in the Laschian sense.

Apparently Christopher Lasch wrote this speech for Jimmy Carter.

youtube.com/watch?v=kakFDUeoJKM

>Yet I'm a narcissist for disagreeing with this current societal state?

Damn, you don't have a clue what Lasch is going on about.

> Because it's not the bread makers ushering the economic and political front lines, it's those willing to exploit those who just don't know what to do in a world nearly fulfilled before they were even born.

Right there you're starting to agree with Lasch. He's critiquing the people who condone this exploitation and internalize it and then seek out faux-spiritual renewal while still closing their eyes to the exact thing you said. Plus he throws a lot of blame onto intellectuals for guiding this culture. Like others said, it might not be his best because it consists mainly of a thorough BTFO of all the arguments/lifestyles presented in 60s and 70s pop culture.

Read some Rieff and Castoriadis and come back to Lasch.

Tell me how to derail the modern power structure besides allahuakbar'ing government buildings? The closest thing I could think of becoming would be Sander's-esque, but we all saw how well that worked (yes I'm American).
Again, I'm writing because I ticked at half of his observations towards to modern narcissist. And while I generally understood narcissism, I will admit I thought it stemmed more into egomaniac than it does entirely.
My point still was and is that I understood his observations, and I was critiquing as someone under his spotlight. I morally can't condone becoming the dildo mold designing entrepreneur to rise in wealth and power and 'fulfill' my desires. It's an analogy. I'm saying what I'd have to do to have even a remote chance to put a dent in this world would be to devote myself to whatever twisted world of politics is going on. I honestly used to be skeptical of a corrupt government, but this last election nailed that coffin shut. I don't condone this exploitation. I'm a realist and I understand I was born with no leverage nor mindset to gain me leverage.
Where I stop falling under his spotlight is the fact that I still don't believe someone should entirely fall for "be yourself man" mindset. That's where you get the burnouts and basement dwellers that are even less 'useful' to society as they are essentially mindless prey. I care deeply about my family, my friends, and the people I meet. But to assume my narcissism because I think our societal economy is building itself up over literally nothing, and hence my 'narcissistic tendencies', according Lasch, is just wrong in my eyes. While it is similar to the inherent narcissist, I'm more of an ambitious pessimist, as I am trying to make a career for myself (education,english major, self teaching c++,html,Java,python,German,Italian,Russian,Spanish). I do want to take care of my family and community. But at the same time I'm aware I'm living a life that has already been lived before. It feels new to me, but when you look at the world, people have become economic cattle. Hence my belief that ambitious pessimism is more of a accurate term. Who knows how many of these people under Lasch's spotlight would be different if they were alive at a time when the person isn't a media clone. This is where I'd be "condoning" those people causing this. And again, brings me round to my first statements of this post.

Is Neil Postman good, or is his analysis overly superficial? Seems like it is in the same vein as this. Not sure if I should spend the time reading Amusing Ourselves to Death.

one of the most interesting threads i've read in a while, bumping and saluting wise and thoughtful anons

random thoughts follow

the left genuflects at the altar of social progress, the right at the altar of economic progress. both of these are mirror images of the other, both have visions of a more aesthetically appealing (that is to say, a society that outwardly reflects or mirrors their own self-concept, since the old christian unifying vision has fallen away).

the left says, if people were more conscientious about others, they wouldn't be so obsessed with capital; the right says, if people were more conscientious about capital, they wouldn't be obsessed with others; and democracy, which gives everyone the right to free speech, ends in passive-aggressive civil wars that boil over, things that can't be suppressed

but it's all just narcissism

jesus fuck TLP was brilliant

>What have you learned so far? Do you think you've understood? You heard the story, you heard the words, but your mind unheard it and replaced it with something else. Even after I tell you this, you'll have trouble remembering it.

>You think Narcissus was so in love with himself that he couldn't love anyone else. But that's not what happened, the story clearly tells it in the reverse: he never loved anyone and then he fell in love with himself. Do you see? Because he never loved anyone, he fell in love with himself. That was Narcissus's punishment.

>You thought Narcissus rejected all those people because he was in love with himself, but he rejected them all before he loved himself. Loved himself? Do you think Narcissus rejected them because he thought he was better than them? Or better looking? How would he have known he was so beautiful? He didn't even recognize his own reflection! He rejected all those people because they loved him.

this thread is gold, unironic thx lads for introducing me to lash & tlp

He's not bad but it's been done before and better. I wouldn't ever say don't read him.

Get off the drugs, what are you even talking about. It's obvious you haven't even read OP's post, let alone any Lasch.

Stop ranting about yourself.

Very intereseting article, but is it just me or does he write in a very fanfiction style? I can almost imagine replacing "Narcissus" with "Uzumaki Naruto." I suppose he is writing an ancient Greek fanfiction anyway, and I have always enjoyed the style and fanfiction but it's still interesting to note

I guess. If that piece on Echo & Narcissus is fan fiction tho then you can sign me right the fuck up for more fan fiction

If you're that interesting/self-perceptive, my feeling is, write however the fuck you want

It's just the style. I think that style is very popular in fanfiction communities, and can really only belong to fanfiction-type writing (this works because it already has the characters and story told, anyway). I would be wiling to bet this author began his writing on fanfiction.

That's fair, I still liked it. It actually just made me really nostalgic so I wanted to point it out. Probably going to go read some fanfiction, even though I managed to avoid that for a solid 10 years.

Lasch and Sennett certainly have their differences. Lasch is more conservative IMO. His heroes tend to be Middle American populists. Sennett, on the other hand, looks back to the urban cafes and salons of the 18th century. But their critiques of modern Western culture are pretty much the same.

TLP is the gateway drug that leads to Unqualified Reservations.

Wow. I'll go slowly for you.

OPs post contains a series of statements which Lasch believes to embody the modern narcissist. Do you follow?

Do you know what I mean by 'ticks'? Most of his statements applied to me. Do you understand? Being as I am under his fold, I'm open to critique these views. Or do you believe what is read must be true?

Regardless, looking at his views with an open mind, I disagree. I know disagree to you probably means 'pseud' but alas, it just means I'm a person.

As I am encompassed within his observations, I am allowed to evaluate my life in a series of observations, then compare to his statements, and then compare to the original idea of the narcissist. Do you follow?

Through my observations in life, I understand I am not a narcissist neither in the original context nor the new, even though the newer has more ticks (there's that word again) against my personality.

Alright, now I know thinking for yourself is a little bit of a foreign concept to you, but applying all the observation I've noted above, I came to the understanding that he is, in general, wrong. This man was not alive during the time of Narcissus. Though we understand the mythos, nobody alive today was alive then. Nobody knows what it felt like to live in a world desperately in need of fulfillment, only what it feels like to live in a modern world oversaturated to the point that pseudo-fulfillments have been established as the economy tries and spur a dying progression.

That was a pretty big chunk, I know it may difficult to grasp for you. And perhaps he is right, in that some people who fall under his observations are in fact narcissists. But he is too broad, and those within his listed traits are not guaranteed narcissists. Do you understand 'deductive reasoning'?

A lot of free thinking practices may be over your head. But that's okay. You'll purchase books sold by men like Lasch, which you'll believe since they bare similarities to yourself or people you know, and you'll fuel the bullshit system trying to keep an old, dying body afloat. While the 'narcissists' try dying in peace.

interesting

You're giving me your life story and trying to claim that it somehow makes you not a narcissist.

Really fires the neurons.

That's the sad part. People like you think just talking about yourself, even in comparative analogy, is narcissism.

ewwww

I don't care about your diary desu or your cognitive dissonance. Read Lasch and stop getting triggered.

I don't think you understand what cognitive dissonance means brotha.

>oh shit, all these things sound kinda like me
>am I a narcissist?
>shit, let me think...
>well, I love my friends and family
>I love myself, but only in a way where it comes off as love for others
>I'm anxious, antisocial at times
>fuck I'm not certain of my existence and rarely ever press my certainties against others unless I'm sure it will help them
>and dogmas are moral standpoint than anything, and I rarely find myself seeking comfort in them
>I do believe competitiveness is overdone, especially in sports
>but I do enjoy playing sports and welcome competition

>shit all these ideas ate becoming conflicting
>how can I have a few traits of modern narcissism but then not some?
>either he's too broad or I'm lying to myself
>and I know I'm not lying to myself, I have no reason to, I'm not trying to not be a narcissist...
>fuck maybe this guy was a little too general with his observations and is perhaps harming the mentality of those who are more susceptible to other's convictions than myself
>maybe I'll point this out to people using myself as an example so they won't feel bad or misdiagnose themselves.

Fuck you you're wrong, read Lasch and realize your a narcissist.

>uh-huh

Because that's not at all what he's talking about. He even has a section on sports in The Culture of Narcissism saying the exact thing you just said.

Fucking blind retard.

Well then tell me that. If it was obvious I didn't read it, give me a specific example out of the book you obviously read so it would've saved us both some time. That's just bad rhetoric.

I pointed out how your critique of Lasch isn't what he was really going on about in my first post to you. Then you ranted about your life as if to justify the fact that you misinterpreted Lasch based on one quote with no context.

Basically you're yelling at clouds.

I agree, why even contribute discourse you know is vapid? better to make meta-commentary on the inability of anybody to contribute. I'll spew inane comment on yours. we can all have a great time jerking it.

Yeah, I'm not saying I didn't do that. That's a Whoopsie Daisy. I'm just saying it would've saved us both some effort if you had just given me a specific example as you just did instead of telling me I was wrong.

It's Veeky Forums, brotha. Gotta make strong points or else everyone is lying.

Let me be fucking clear. Your self-awareness, your understand of economic exploitation basically exempts you from Lasch's critique.

He's not critiquing you but the fact that you got so triggered and told me your life story means that maybe you actually are retarded.

No, just a fairly lonely person who doesn't have a lot of people to talk to. So sometimes I have to reaffirm or discredit some observations/convictions over the internet. I needed a specific example and not just 'trust me, you're good'. Not because I'm worried about myself, but just that a lot of younger, lonely people visit here, and who knows what deductions they may take from an excerpt such as in the OP.

this. we're fucked and there is no solution.

I'm not that guy, but I'm certain he's very hurt at being called a narcissist by Christopher Lasch.

>trying to coopt TLP for your shitty alt-right faggotry
don't

Fuck TLP for giving up on that porn book.

So the world is ruled by opposites and contradictions. In order to understand these
complex interrelationships the mindself have to be educated in
social structures and the comparison with the philosophical-thinking.chain. But it seems that the relation with reality, interpretation-ability and many different opinions are always the biggest problem. And what is the meaning behind that anyways? I mean, why the need for a debate in first place? I think, because you've failed to apply the knowledge to your ego. You don't really know what to begin with the outcome, cause you just can't fully get it. The truth sure is hidden somewhere and you have to be crazy to search for it. Sure you can study it, but life sucks. I life doesn't suck, you don't get it or simply fucking lying to yourself. Nowdays with our knowledge, the biggest suitable thing is to pleasure your fucking guts, because we have to realise, doomsday is behind the door. After that there will be a big NOTHING, a fucking hole. Or do you think, after 3th war, drunk dudes start to write some deep sad shit again, on how bad humans are? No, never this bullshit again. All these fucking arguments by yours..It only leads to fucking headache, a system crash. I can feel it, it's not your prime appointment to learn something. Everyone thinks, they have already learned something, but it's just experiences and endless calculations of something you will never fully understand, a stressed out spark in your brain. But there is a way I think...It's like an ignorant shortcut. It must be a perfect set up for your mindset. The perfect selfmanipulation isolated from disorientational influences, from every motherfucker who knows better and never stop talking. So you start from 0 again. Forget everything. Delete the subconscious impacts. I'm 24 now. It have to be something like 20 books. To fully understand everything without an overload seems and it seems impossible..But maybe there is a way. Maybe I can find a way. I want to be the biggest, selfish, narcissistic motherfucker on this planet, if it gets me what I want, whatever it is. But I'm just a fucking human.. Finally another thing, my dick is fine, not very big but it's good. And I also look good. I could fuck so many women, but I can't hurt womens feelings. I can't just fuck around. To be honest, most women are dumb and boring. And most men are selfish and smartass. It's really not my world. I'm an incomplete prototype of something, that shouldn't exist. The weak version of god itself.

People ask me, why you so fucked up? (because I seem like a normal dude)
But I know, there is no answer for that, it's life itself. Maybe the dilemma of complexity of
limited intelligence of our species. The insufficient exploration, obviously adulterated, suggestive portrayal of life, Veeky Forums. The tiny room I can move in my own narrowness.

paragraphs motherfucker, use them

It's another
>I got more sex than this author
episode

Yes, I'm gonna improve.

This is better.

And easy to read.


Assorted Thinking, 2025.

Sex is overrated. Ok, it's cool and everything.
Fuck her and it's cool. Same with money. I don't have both, but I can get funny. I'm not that fucking porn guy but man, I'm like a dumb animal, when I fuck. It's a complete other section of life. But for me it's just like Burger King.

Damn...
really makes me think.

I agree, but I also love The Agony of the American Left. It's an eyeopening history of why the US only has a right-wing and a more right-wing for its political parties.

>I can't believe you bastards doxed him

He just didn't believe in conflating words with identity/avatar, he was never trying to hide

This was the byline to an article he wrote for a real journal
>Chris Ballas, a practicing psychiatrist for the University of Pennsylvania Health System, works with medical students and residents on the wards, and also blogs as “The Last Psychiatrist

Any more blogs like this? Really enjoyed it desu.

>Echo & Narcissus
This was so brilliant. It needs a lot a re-reading to grasp the meaning.

christopher lasch is my nigga

are there any writers with similar views of similar quality? small c social conservatism i guess you would call it?

Beautiful. thanks user

Macintyre, Michea (not translated into english though)

"We are called on to recognize that all minorities are entitled to respect not by virtue of their achievements but by virtue of their sufferings in the past. Compassionate attention, we are told, will somehow raise their opinion of themselves; banning racial epithets and other forms of hateful speech will do wonders for their morale. In our preoccuption with words, we have lost sight of the tough realities that cannot be softened simply by flattering people’s self-image. What does it profit the residents of the South Bronx to enforce speech codes at elite universities?"

Charles Murray. Ignore The Bell Curve (not that it's bad, but it's atypical of most of his work and is highly polarizing because of the race chapter), a lot of his books are about the breakdown of community since the 1960s.

>>/r/iamverysmart/

Reads like a paper one of my freshman students might write.

this is

oh, nice, he has been translated. good.

have you read any philippe muray? is he any good?

i read that a few years ago and it seemed to me like he said everything he wanted to say in the foreword. the famous bit where he compares 1984 and brave new world is literally the first few paragraphs of the book and the rest is kind of unnecessary or dubious or outdated. (eg. his whole bit about television being unsuitable as a platform for education depends on the idea that education requires continuity, and continuity is impossible in television because every episode of a show must be standalone and immediately gratifying for the show to be successful. except since he wrote that we saw the rise of hit tv shows that depend on extremely elaborate plot continuity and background lore.)

it's mostly a bunch of not particularly insightful observations about how american tv worked back when he wrote it (mid-80s) that he dubiously assumes to be the inherent features of all television forever and therefore the forces that shape the modern mind. i don't think he was even right about television, let alone relevant in the internet age.

>it's a "Veeky Forums eats up marxism as long as it has a socially conservative veneer" episode
>this week: race is a mask for class conflict

That's not Marxism and Lasch is anti cult of progress (Marxism is a religion of progress). Sorry if you think anything vaguely critical of capitalism as it exists today is "Marxist."

Maybe you should check out /r/t_d