"The global ridicule in which the works of Foucault, Lacan, Derrida and Deleuze had suddenly foundered, after decades of inane reverence, far from leaving the field clear for new ideas, simply heaped contempt on all those intellectuals active in the “human sciences.” The rise to dominance of scientists in all fields of thought became inevitable. Even the occasional, sporadic and contradictory interest which New Age devotees pretended to take in this or that belief or “ancient spiritual tradition” was nothing more than further evidence of a poignant, almost schizophrenic despair. Like others in society, and perhaps more so, they truly believed only in science; science was to them the arbiter of unique, irrefutable truth. Like others in society, they believed in their hearts that the solution to every problem—whether psychological, sociological or more broadly human—could only be a technical solution." - Michel Houellebec, The Elementary Particles
"The global ridicule in which the works of Foucault, Lacan, Derrida and Deleuze had suddenly foundered...
Other urls found in this thread:
i don't get it, how is this about particles?
read the novel and find out
There is no real referent to correspond to the concept "elementary particle". Essentially the project of solving social problems with technology, and the technocrats themselves, are destined to only create further social problems.
this is on my list, thank you for posting this
His two first novels are great.
People criticize him for having a no writing style/not being great but imo I think he's fully conscious of this and understands that in the era of the last man, we will have no great writers to elevate us out of degenerate paralysis.
tl;dr The style fits the content. Some people can't handle this.
I would like to keep this topic going. Does he mean to defend the works of Foucault et al.?
What kind new ideas is he looking for?
he's mediocre, le edgy pulp fiction
nothing more. Doesn't mean he's bad....but you guys are easily entertained
>hehe what happen if u have no sex? ..... Or even .. To much sex?......
Please give me the sauce on that image
That looks a lot like the apartment building I live in before it was refurbished a bit. There are plenty more in this city just like it (Bucharest).
He's not defending them. See
> decades of inane reverence
The book is pretty much a defense of traditionalist Catholicism, even though the author is perfectly aware that he can't bring himself to be Catholic again.
Well, I think his two first novels are quite good. I didn't like Map and the Territory but Soumission was not bad.
Nice, will check out later.
in brutalism everything looks like everything else
Ok thanks
Will check out the book if the library has it
>The book is pretty much a defense of traditionalist Catholicism, even though the author is perfectly aware that he can't bring himself to be Catholic again
So could it be said that Houellebecq is speaking in defense or apology of ideological orthodoxy, rather than any one specific religion? Though obviously his experiences with Catholocism will bleed over.
>shitting on Brutalism
>not appreciating aesthetics that arise from pure material pragmatism
Lmao
>bare concrete
>minimal windows because your structure would otherwise collapse under its own weight
a fitting metaphor for the stalinist societies that constructed them
Brutalism was pioneered by western architects with works that openly defy those supposed limitations you mong. Don't transfer your criticism of a subgroup of the larger style so blatantly
it was embraced wholeheartedly by eastern europe though that they became synonymous with the style. look, i can agree that some brutalist buildings (esp govt offices or schools or libraries) look "cool" like they're from some dystopian movie but i got sick of living around them.
and that's what architecture is supposed to be. they're ecosystems in which one has a "lived" experience, not some "cool" thing that you look at once.
I found The Elementary Particles to be rather overtly pro-Catholic.
You could be right that it's just the context of France so it will be about Catholicism. Watch/read his interviews, he's always going on about Catholicism and whether it's dying or reviving. In his film "Kidnapping of Houellebecq" he goes to mass.
I know a lot of people read Soumission to be "any religion is better than liberalism" but in a way I still saw it as Houellebecq actually prefers Catholicism. I think Houellebecq reprimands himself a lot for not being able to believe in Catholicism enough to practice it again, so the ease with which liberals become Muslim is kind of only a 2nd best religion, because we're not good enough for Catholicism.
Mind you, a lot of this is colored by my knowledge of Houllebecq loving Schopenhauer over Nietzsche and Houellebecq's statements that "atheism is too painful." I think there's a way Houellebecq's Schopenhauer pushes him more towards Christianity than Nietzsche's pro-Islam attitude and his obvious critiques of Christianity.
That was just my interpretation on my only read of the novel. He wrote it so it can be read 3 ways (Islam is bad, Islam is better than liberalism, Islam is easy for weak liberals).
>lived experience
*vomits*
pomo 101. no absolute truth in science, in god, in pure ideas
You guys can be fucking stupid sometimes; Houllebecq's point is that when humanists abdicate their responsibility to interpret the social world and explain why it is valuable, people will take their morals from what apparently works: science. The problem with that is that science cannot explain or create morals, so we're led into a society which is increasingly powerful, increasingly cheerful, and increasingly miserable just below the shiny surface. This is why Houllebecq's characters return again and again to Comte's positivism; Comte is both at the root of the problem (a belief that scientific rationality can solve everything) and also an antidote to it, in that he thinks that reason can tell us true things about the world (which Deleuze, Lacan, etc. do not). He wants to get back before the fact/value distinction, because, after it, facts are value-less, and values have no reason.
>The problem with that is that science cannot explain or create morals
Why not? You can create plenty of moral systems that from an initial premise are then scientifically justified.
Go away, Mr. Harris.
Who is Mr. Harris. Please indulge me, user.
...
Veeky Forums tends to hate this kind of stuff but I agree with you and I used to think differently
Science can certainly inform our morals
>Something that has largely become a politicized quest for funding can inform our morals
Le "ought" man strikes again.
Seriously, Hume had the eternal counter.
Hume is based god
Die then
t. yank
Reading his interviews at the time of release I half expected him to become religious desu.
no, he's probably french and thinks he's patrician for saying houellebecq is bad just because he's not challenging enough or 800 pages long
Morals depend on what general goal or direction you desire for humanity. A scientific approach can help you produce a nuanced and accurate moral system for this. Instead of something overly rife with weak-points of degradation, lies, vagueness and contradiction.
The part about the old roasties having crying fits after their New Age yoga sessions was too fucking real.
The whole book was too fucking real.
Fordism.
...
>new ideas
Reactionary Conservatism? One that extenuates what will inevitably fail. Religious people see this failure as God's will, and the rest as something akin to an infestation. Modern materialists like him are always teetering between pessimism and romanticism, or absurdity and faith. Remember, his works are not polemics, even when they're trying to be, because he himself can't find anything more to offer than an in joke. One he hopes you understand well enough to laugh at, and to not take too seriously. Sort of the active nihilist writing for all the passive nihilists out there who would never call themselves such.
>You can create plenty of moral systems that from an initial premise are then scientifically justified.
Give an example of that fagtron.
>The part about the old roasties having crying fits after their New Age yoga sessions was too fucking real.
what did they cry about?
>unironically defending topical trash because "it's the tiiiimes bruh" and because you happen to agree with its message
this is why philposters needs to redirected to Veeky Forums subreddit
You should've stuck it out just like you should've stuck out socialism, cuck
Vladimir "This book doesn't remind of my childhood therefore it's shit and literature of ideas" Nabokov.
Mediocre novelist, even worse literary critic.