Email me at jmayhew at ku dot edu
"The very existence of poetry should make us laugh. What is it all about? What is it for?"
“El subtítulo ‘Modelo para armar’ podría llevar a creer que las
diferentes partes del relato, separadas por blancos, se proponen como piezas permutables.”
The misanthrope only hates himself. The rest is pronoun confusion.
You (Jonathan -- not Jordan, whose answer is sheer psychologism and excludes the possibility of social thought, thus limiting its use if not its truth-content) are betting a lot on that Or, no?
Or not. Those were the possibilities that occured to me, but there are others. The misanthrope, for example, might hate others because they are not him (zero tolerance of difference), not because they are human per se. Imagine a dog intolerant of the smell of any other dog.
Speak of the devil.
More than 10 years ago I wrote a song about the self-hating narcissist who sees his own face everywhere he looks. The name of the song is "Anger." The anger was inspired by a boss who lied to me. The song did not reflect that bit of specific social content, though it did include a dialogical element.
I guess the suggestion I had been trying to make (thanks, Jordan ? honored!) is that "the misanthrope" (Nietzsche, one fears, would have a good laugh over this discussion ? but we feel superior to such minor thinkers, I gather) may well hate both all others and himself, and that these may in fact not be the same feeling with the same etiology. The reduction of this phenomenon to some unitary pathology which explains all positions would seem to risk not merely psychologism but a caricatural version of it.
I fear the run-of-the-mill misanthrope might lack that Nietzschean scope. (Hi Jordan, what's up?) I would never feel superior to a Nietzche. On the other hand I wouldn't confine him to the "misanthrope" label either. It would seem a little narrow to call Nietzche, Kafka or Baudelaire by the name. Not that it doesn't have relevance, but those figures are so much more than that.
J: agreed (and nice rhyme!) I hadn't meant to name him as such, but to invoke his thoughts on the topic. After all, he's the one who thinks that Philanthropes are way more awful, that charity is aggression, etc. I wonder what he would make of "poetry nice"? I can't imagine he would be sparing, or soften his scorn.
Psychological analyses often exclude the social in practice, but not always; and, please note that lack of psychological acuity has repeatedly proven debilitating to social praxis. Nietzsche did not disdain the psychological -- far from it; very odd to invoke him in an argument *against* the psychological.
Jane -- forgive me, I got distracted and missed your last comment before posting mine. "The aggression of charity" is precisely a psychological insight, one much elaborated on by the Freudians.
"The aggression of charity" is precisely a psychological insight, one much elaborated on by the Freudians.To say nothing of Charles Dickens, who prefigures Freud in so many ways. Just recall the "charity" in Bleak House, for example.Me, I think the misanthrope hates both himself & others, but in different ways.
jordan go away with your continued fake logics of the self. misanthropy is a real problem which predicates your notions. misanthropics hate, period. yes yes, sure for the record, it's rooted in social inequality-ty-ty.
Publicar un comentario en la entrada