[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/lit/ - Literature - Bloom on Harry Potter

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

Bloom on Harry Potter Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)19:55 UTC+1 No.4979843 Report

>[Rowling's] prose style, heavy on cliche, makes no demands upon her readers....How to read Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone? Why, very quickly, to begin with, perhaps also to make an end. Why read it? Presumably, if you cannot be persuaded to read anything better, Rowling will have to do. Is there any redeeming education use to Rowling?

Is based Bloom telling it like it is or do you disagree?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)19:57 UTC+1 No.4979850 Report

>Can 35 Million Book Buyers Be Wrong? Yes.

top keke
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)19:59 UTC+1 No.4979857 Report

Yeah he's right
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:01 UTC+1 No.4979861 Report

>>4979843
They're certainly a better gateway into literature for your average person than are the classics he'd suggest. But for the most part he's right.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:02 UTC+1 No.4979863 Report

"Psst, hey, kid. Wanna buy some western canon...?"
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:03 UTC+1 No.4979868 Report

>>4979863
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:05 UTC+1 No.4979873 Report

>>4979861
Harry Potter is only a gateway to more Harry Potter
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:23 UTC+1 No.4979936 Report

>>4979863
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:41 UTC+1 No.4980003 Report

>>4979861
>IL: Yet the defenders of Harry Potter claim that these books get their children to read.

>HB: But they don't! Their eyes simply scan the page. Then they turn to the next page. Their minds are deadened by cliches. Nothing is required of them, absolutely nothing. Nothing happens to them. They are invited to avoid reality, to avoid the world and they are not invited to look inward, into themselves. But of course it is an exercise in futility to try to oppose Harry Potter.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:46 UTC+1 No.4980023 Report

>>4979843

Bloom is an insufferable faggot who's wrong on a lot of shit. This is one of the only instances in which he is right.

Still, HP is good fun for kids and, while there's plenty of better kid's lit out there, HP isn't the worst place a kid could start reading.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:48 UTC+1 No.4980032 Report

Everyone knows Harry Potter is junk literature, and of course, everyone likes defending their egos, no matter how true the criticisms of the person are.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:49 UTC+1 No.4980034 Report

I see no problem with Harry Potter as a children's book, but I am a bit concerned that the readerbase seems to be predominantly adults.

As for Bloom, he really shouldn't be read by anyone.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)21:18 UTC+1 No.4980138 Report

>>4980003
>They are invited to avoid reality, to avoid the world and they are not invited to look inward, into themselves.
Well that's clearly wrong. No shit Bloom wouldn't learn anything from Harry Potter, he's read a shit-ton of books. But how does he speak for all the kids who haven't read much else? How does he know what they think about when they read it?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)21:20 UTC+1 No.4980144 Report

He's an idiot, basically.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)21:25 UTC+1 No.4980150 Report

Of course it doesn't make demands on its readers, it's aimed at eight year olds that don't give a fuck about books.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)21:26 UTC+1 No.4980155 Report

I think Rowling crafted a masterpiece with the Harry Potter books, and everything she wanted them to be, they became, too, and that spells genius, to be perfectly frank, and you can deny it all you want, but who are you in comparison to Rowling? She is a woman of profound, profound awareness, massively ambitious and successful. She's literally cult leader status, which was indeed the intention (She's Hermione in the second book, Hermione being the one to write it all out for the boys, the plan to save the world).
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)21:26 UTC+1 No.4980156 Report

There are a lot of girls I went to high school with, now in their mid 20s, who believe that Harry Potter is just the pinnacle of fiction. They'll always try to weave scenarios or examples from Harry Potter into conversation (Person 1: Oh I've been feeling so drained today. Person 2: Why? Did a dementor get you? Ha!) when years ago maybe that would have been more appropriate.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)21:27 UTC+1 No.4980161 Report

>>4980155
Oh, and all the sex jokes were a beautiful touch, too -- they leave the book something to grow old with, and there's depth to their being there besides, too. Clever lady, our Rowling.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)21:29 UTC+1 No.4980169 Report

>>4980032
>hating on butterfly
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)21:31 UTC+1 No.4980177 Report

>>4980138

Certainly Americans would learn a lot about Britain. Even with the censorship the books get there.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)21:34 UTC+1 No.4980188 Report

Oh, and Bloom is an absolute retard for that criticism about avoiding reality, because what Rowling actually did with the Harry Potter books was meet kids where they retreat to, fantasy, and explain reality to them through a phase shift that they were comfortable with. I mean she's very clearly hugely politically motivated. Is he fucking stupid?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)21:36 UTC+1 No.4980192 Report

>>4980188
>projecting
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)21:40 UTC+1 No.4980206 Report

This is the first picture of him smiling I've ever seen.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)21:41 UTC+1 No.4980211 Report

>>4980192
No, that's you.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)22:21 UTC+1 No.4980344 Report

>>4979843
HP is quite good entry-level literature, there are worse options imho. The problem are people who get stuck in it, see >>4979873
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)22:25 UTC+1 No.4980363 Report

>>4980188
Have you seen how fucking rabid and of terrible personality potter fans are? They wouldn't let the poor lady write something that is not potter.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)22:38 UTC+1 No.4980414 Report

It was written as a children's book. The fact that adults also read it is hardly the fault of the author.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)22:42 UTC+1 No.4980426 Report

>>4979843
has he ever written on yiddish?
has he ever written /in/ yiddish?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)00:47 UTC+1 No.4980871 Report

I'd have been inspired by the first book if I read it at the right time.
The later books suck.
Also who actually would listen to Bloom's opinion on this? Just listening to him talk would convince nearly anyone that the opinions of literary critics are less than worthless.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)00:59 UTC+1 No.4980893 Report

Why does it have to be explained that a children's book is a children's book? It's below dignity of criticism. What is actually going on here?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)01:15 UTC+1 No.4980921 Report

>>4980188
>>4980344
>>4980034
>>4980150


The avoiding reality srgument is shit, but the following is true:

>his demolition of the well-rehearsed argument which says that at least children are reading something, and that Harry Potter will lead them on to a life of reading - and, by inference, erudition. Now the first part of this argument does have something going for it: no doubt some children who would otherwise have spent their lives playing Grand Theft Auto: Vice City on their games console have been rescued from zombiedom by the gripping tales of Voldemort and Hogwarts.
>But the second part doesn't hold water. Harry Potter will not lead children on to Swallows and Amazons, the Just So Stories, Wind in the Willows or Alice through The Looking Glass. What it will do, as Professor Bloom declared, is train them to read Stephen King. (Not, one gathers, a writer he admires greatly.) Certainly, in my own experience, the craze for Harry Potter books was a peer group thing for children, not unrelated to wearing the right brand of trainers. They were bought as status symbols and then languished, a quarter read, for years under the bed. How many of those 325 million copies failed to change the trajectory of the modern TV-raised child who, tragically, does not read for pleasure and probably never will? More than a few, I suspect.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)01:16 UTC+1 No.4980924 Report

He's just mad because he would be a slytherin
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)01:31 UTC+1 No.4980953 Report

>>4980921
I started with Harry Potter and just finished Pynchon.

This guy's full of shit.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)01:32 UTC+1 No.4980956 Report

>>4980953

exception to the rule
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)01:35 UTC+1 No.4980966 Report

>>4980953

Some of my friends that began reading with harry potter are now reading john green and GRRM. Most who did don't even read outside of college textbooks for class.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)01:44 UTC+1 No.4980989 Report

>>4979843
It's a story for kids under 13
If this guy honestly is commenting and complaining on children stories he sounds more like an idiot than an accomplished author
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)01:48 UTC+1 No.4981001 Report

>>4980206
Thank you for addressing that, I almost didn't recognize him.
>>
Feminister 06/07/14(Sat)02:01 UTC+1 No.4981026 Report

I would argue that Rowling's books, though intended for children, has more constructive intellectual content than Bloom's works do.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:15 UTC+1 No.4981072 Report

>>4981026
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:18 UTC+1 No.4981082 Report

>>4980989
>If this guy honestly is commenting and complaining on children stories he sounds more like an idiot than an accomplished author

Don't you know a literary critic has to eat to?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:25 UTC+1 No.4981100 Report

>>4980989

He was motivated to complain because of its sacred cow status among adult fans.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:26 UTC+1 No.4981105 Report

Is Bloom the most patrician man alive?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:27 UTC+1 No.4981110 Report

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/

STEPHEN KING GETTIN BTFO
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:29 UTC+1 No.4981119 Report

>>4980003

What a bitter shithead. What a pretentious asshole. I'm not even mad, just amazed that he's a respected "intellectual".

>reading something you enjoy doesn't encourage you to read more

Yeah okay. I'm a little sorry for him, does he even get enjoyment out of reading or is feeling smart and superior the only fun part?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:40 UTC+1 No.4981151 Report

>>4981119
I don't think I've ever seen Bloom look genuinely happy. OP's picture of him looks staged. He's always slouched, moping and poorly dressed.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:43 UTC+1 No.4981157 Report

>>4980966
I read textbooks outside of those for classes too.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:48 UTC+1 No.4981170 Report

>>4981151
lol it kind of looks like he's in terrible pain in OP's pic
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:49 UTC+1 No.4981172 Report

>>4981119
what you consider "reading" is actually just plot-tracing, you idiotic pleb piece of shit.

this anti-intellectualism has got to stop.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:50 UTC+1 No.4981179 Report

>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:52 UTC+1 No.4981186 Report

>>4981172
And what you consider reading is subversion of the self. "Oh this author says things that I now agree with!" What a farce.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:53 UTC+1 No.4981198 Report

he's read blood meridian 30 times
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)02:53 UTC+1 No.4981200 Report

>>4981119
>does he even get enjoyment out of reading or is feeling smart and superior the only fun part
Every picture of him looks like he's about to cry
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:01 UTC+1 No.4981228 Report

Shouldn't stories attempt to be universal and ageless?
Wouldn't Harry Potter's value be diminished for being for kids mostly?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:16 UTC+1 No.4981286 Report

Trust this fat k*ke!
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:18 UTC+1 No.4981293 Report

>>4981286
Be ed*y on the internet!
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:23 UTC+1 No.4981306 Report

>>4981172
Nah man I consider reading understanding written language with my eyes. Thanks for asking my own opinion about literature instead of trying to magically gleam it from a post where I didn't give one.

I think praising kids for reading anything at all is silly. It bothers me when I see some baby boomers legitimately impressed that their eleven year old grandson is reading some shitty fantasy. Especially if that kid takes all his ignorant elders praise to heart. But of course I'm not mad that the kid is enjoying a shitty book, only a bitter old asshole who overvalues his own interests would do that.

Reading is a different medium than film, vidyas or music, and there are aspects of fiction someone can enjoy that exist outside of literature's artistic value. I see nothing wrong with this. If some kid's are reading novels purely for entertainment, cool, maybe their enjoyment of reading those books will inspire them to give the books in school a chance, and maybe they'll start to find enjoyment in the more artful elements of literature and follow that path. That's what happened to me, and it happens to a lot of people.

If someone started saying that my mind was deadened by listening to Jimi Hendrix and I am a fool trying to avoid actual thoughtful music, I'd think that person was a pretentious faggot. I'm listening to some music I enjoy, despite the fact that I don't want to compose symphonies.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:24 UTC+1 No.4981309 Report

>>4981306
>gleam it

I think you mean glean.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:25 UTC+1 No.4981310 Report

>>4981306
>>4981309

shit. yeah that's what I meant.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:29 UTC+1 No.4981323 Report

>>4979843
>[Rowling's] prose style, heavy on cliche, makes no demands upon her readers

pretty much hit the nail on the head.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:43 UTC+1 No.4981372 Report

>>4981306
> I don't know much about art, but i know what i like
Confirmed peasant
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)03:52 UTC+1 No.4981400 Report

>>4981306

This is morally wrong. You are allowing deliberare ignorance. Ignorance is the cause of half the misfortune in this world. Ignorance is what allows the exploitation of third world countries. Ignorance is what allows animals to suffer in factories. Ignorance is what allows Sarah Palin and the Terminator to be governor. Deliberate ignorance is one of the worst evil there is and apathy to it is as bad.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:02 UTC+1 No.4981445 Report

His argument is completely stupid and wrong. I started reading the books when I was 6 years old and I loved them. I didn't fucking know what cliches were. How was my mind deadened by them? It doesn't become a cliche until you've seen it over and over again and this comes with experience.
Also, it did encourage me to read because I discovered how much I enjoyed it and moved onto different books.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:16 UTC+1 No.4981494 Report

>>4981445

>I didn't fucking know what cliches were
>It doesn't become a cliche until you've seen it over and over again

Thats perceptual bias. A cliche is a cliche whether you, personally, know it or not. Thats why you're suppose to read a lot; to know whats a cliche and whats creative. It deadend your mind by making you believe that spouting this cliches, whether you are aware of their status as such, is acceptable. However, any harm reading HP can do is corrigible.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:25 UTC+1 No.4981541 Report

>>4981372
Good, fuck you noble assholes, the peasantry are throwing a party at the tavern tonight while you're being married to your thirteen year old sister for political reasons.

How do you know I don't know much about art? It's true I don't know too much, but I study literature and know a bit about that. It's not like my relative ignorance to art in general is worse than the many people who come on /lit/ to dress up in Wikipedia articles and play intellectual for a while.

>>4981400
So me not having a problem with people enjoying Harry Potter is apathy to one of the worst evils there is?

I don't entirely disagree with what you've said. Deliberate ignorance is probably the biggest reason people don't try to educate themselves or do things beyond what's required and expected of them, and by extension the biggest obstacle in the way of humanity achieving our ideals.

But realistically I don't think ignorance is going away anytime soon. And I'm sorry but I only have a handful of decades to enjoy life, so I'll try to teach people what I know when they're willing to learn, but I'm not dedicating my life to scolding people for having simple pleasures.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:29 UTC+1 No.4981554 Report

>>4981494
>It deadend your mind by making you believe that spouting this cliches, whether you are aware of their status as such, is acceptable.

That's cliche.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:29 UTC+1 No.4981556 Report

>>4981541
>But realistically I don't think ignorance is going away anytime soon. And I'm sorry but I only have a handful of decades to enjoy life, so I'll try to teach people what I know when they're willing to learn, but I'm not dedicating my life to scolding people for having simple pleasures.

You dont have to. However, at least dont advocate or defend it.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:31 UTC+1 No.4981566 Report

>Harry Potter has the biggest fan fiction community out of all media
>somehow they don't inspire kids to write or enjoy literature

Sounds like a bitter old man.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:33 UTC+1 No.4981575 Report

>>4981400
I'd rather him be ignorant than learn anything from you.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:38 UTC+1 No.4981593 Report

>>4981575
Why? Cause I care about the world and the people living in it far too much to take wrong doing and injustice passively?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:40 UTC+1 No.4981598 Report

>>4981400
>Ignorance is the cause of half the misfortune in this world.
No doubt, yeah.

>Ignorance is what allows the exploitation of third world countries.
There are several factors to it but it's mainly ignorance.

>Ignorance is what allows animals to suffer in factories.
Go cut off your legs and shove them up your anus, you fucking frivolous, decadent piece of shit.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:43 UTC+1 No.4981605 Report

>>4981598

If people had first hand experience in that field, they wouldnt eat meat made by large companies. I have no problem with the abstract concept of eating meat. For me, the problem is merely on how they are treated. It needlessly cruel and repulsive.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:46 UTC+1 No.4981612 Report

>>4981605
>needlessly cruel
assuming it is possible to be cruel against animals at all
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:49 UTC+1 No.4981621 Report

>>4981612

Yes, you can. Animals have feelings (some more complicated than others). Hence, one can be cruel to an animal by causing tremendous amount of needless pain to it.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:51 UTC+1 No.4981628 Report

>>4981593
>Cause I care about the world and the people living in it far too much to take wrong doing and injustice passively?

Yes actually, exactly that. You will inevitably cause more harm than good, but unlike the other anon who can pass it off in ignorance, you will pass it off as success.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:51 UTC+1 No.4981631 Report

>>4981621
Having "feelings" isn't enough to qualify as a moral object.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:54 UTC+1 No.4981650 Report

>>4981628

What great justification for apathy. Please, explain how I will cause harm by merely recomending more challeging and thought provoking books to my friends that love harry potter, and trying to demostrate to them what they have been missing by wasting time with YA. How will I cause the world to stop spining by not eating food with meat at restaurants? Tell me, how will the masses suffer by participating at shelters and poverty relieve?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:58 UTC+1 No.4981666 Report

>>4981631

Of course not, if you lack empathy. Do you lack empathy, anon? It is only natural to feel sorry for those who suffer. And its only self-serving, after all. We pity others not because of the abstract idea that THEY are suffering, but because we put ourselves into their circumstance and think: what if it were ME? What if it were you, anon? If you were the one cramed in a small facility with thousands of other paranoid, brain damaged and insane people running around in your own feces and pest? Wouldn't you want someone to fight for your right to live?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)05:01 UTC+1 No.4981682 Report

>>4981666
Animals aren't moral objects since they lack selfhood.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)05:02 UTC+1 No.4981685 Report

We should post this on some Harry Potter facebook pages and fluster some foxes.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)05:05 UTC+1 No.4981698 Report

>>4981682

But we don't. An animal might not see itself in others for it lacks a self indentity. But we can see ourselves in them. We feel pain when they do. Most who see their pain, feel pain too. To avoid this pain, we must free them from theirs.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)05:08 UTC+1 No.4981705 Report

>>4981698
It is irrelevant. Animal suffering is of different order than human suffering and those who empathise with it are deluded.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)05:13 UTC+1 No.4981722 Report

>>4981705

My suffering is from a different order from yours. Does that mean empathising with you is deluded? Empathy is adapting others pain and suffering to you; not transfering it. You can easily adapt an animals pain to your own understading.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)05:16 UTC+1 No.4981729 Report

>>4981722
>My suffering is from a different order from yours
No, it's not, it's the same.
>You can easily adapt an animals pain to your own understading.
It is completely, fundamentally impossible for me to understand it since animals have no self and I do. There is no way self can conceive of itself not existing.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)05:21 UTC+1 No.4981750 Report

>>4981729
>No, it's not, it's the same.
How would it be? Describe my pain to me. You can't. All we can do is interpret others pain through our own experiences. You will never know my pain and I yours. Even if you were inside my mind, you would feel pain through your filter. Our feelings are unknowable to each other as they are to us.

>It is completely, fundamentally impossible for me to understand it since animals have no self and I do

You perceive their pain as if they did.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)05:32 UTC+1 No.4981783 Report

>>4981729

Well, I've been putting off sleep on account of this conversation. Thank you for it. But I have to go sleep now.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)08:46 UTC+1 No.4982294 Report

>>4981494

>A cliche is a cliche whether you, personally, know it or not.

Then why does Bloom list the Bible in his canon? Surely that's as cliche as it comes. Just because most people read about Moses before they read about Gilgamesh doesn't make it acceptable.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)09:07 UTC+1 No.4982325 Report

>>4980966
I was this way. Eventually, it was sci-fi that pulled me out of this.

The foundation trilogy and the Hyperion Cantos saved me from that.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)09:32 UTC+1 No.4982368 Report

>>4982294
You realize that when he says cliche he's specifically talking about overused expressions right?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)09:43 UTC+1 No.4982393 Report

>>4982294

The Bible might be unoriginal or derivative in some parts, buts its sure as hell mantains a huge influence in literary history. Its part of the canon. Whether its good or bad is another discussion. Plus, I dont think you know what a cliche is. A whole book cant be cliche. The plot might be, or the phrasing or the characters, but not a whole book.
Especially one made out of several books.
>>
Whelp ... 06/07/14(Sat)10:00 UTC+1 No.4982425 Report

Rowling: "Imma write me a big book of clichés."

Bloom: "This be a big book clichés."
>>
Harold Bloom 06/07/14(Sat)10:07 UTC+1 No.4982436 Report

>>4982425

Thus proving those who read Rowling are condemned to fail at writing dialogue forever more.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:04 UTC+1 No.4982529 Report

>>4981666
I hope you're trolling.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)11:08 UTC+1 No.4982538 Report

>>4982529

Why?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)14:05 UTC+1 No.4983032 Report

>>4982538
Don't mind the some kid from /b/ and this whatever that answered. You are right in what you wrote, but you shouldn't eat seafood similarly kept or any other food, they are part of nature that is living and differs only ways of reaction and survival. You feel suffering to entertain the some idea, being not conscious about it you either put some animal above others or you are ignorant of those others, what is highly unlikely.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)14:08 UTC+1 No.4983042 Report

>>4983032
I see I didn't check what I was writing.

You put value of the same life above other only to entertain Your thought.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)14:08 UTC+1 No.4983043 Report

he knows what's up with blood meridian so there's that, but HP is pretty fucking good for what it is.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)15:36 UTC+1 No.4983277 Report

>>4981682
I'm not being sarcastic, but if you could, please try to define or describe what selfhood is as rigorously as you can.

And a couple of questions:
How do you know animals don't have it?
Why exactly this is it the criteria for deciding whether it is or isn't morally acceptable to cause suffering to an animal?
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)15:49 UTC+1 No.4983307 Report

>>4980363
this is the sad part. HP had so much potential, but the damn HP fans ruined it for everyone.

Like, i read it in 3rd grade... but i fucking moved on from it into other books. I didn't re-read the same damn series over and over again, trying to memorize the most boring details of the story.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)15:50 UTC+1 No.4983308 Report

So /lit/ is full of bitter, wannabe intellectuals, huh?

God forbid reading anything that will not broaden one's knowledge of the vast intricacies of the world's workings, theoretical or otherwise. Why would I bother wasting my energy enjoying myself when I could be developing a sense of critical analysis over the plebeian mechanisms of humankind, or the rich philosophy of what it truly is to be.

Feel free to discuss my insightful post, and engage one another in rhetoric over the subtle undertones I have used, which no doubt you can see with practiced clarity.
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.