I want to write a book on language. Just like a 120 page book. I think I could do it.
I don't have a doctorate in philosophy though. Which means no one will take me seriously.
But I don't know, but I don't think I care if professors take me seriously. To be honest, I would like one or two to take me seriously. At least four, that's a good number of professors, and I would feel satisfied.
Many professors of English have taken me serious. The Human War has been taught in class and I've a given a speech to a class, professors have emailed, and when I did those whole free book things, I sent books to colleges.
Philosophy is different than literature trough.
Philosophy nowadays is pure criticism. Like Levy who writes books on current events but uses his philosophical background to write a more intelligent book than the person Random House hired with a Professional Writing degree from Columbia to go and write a book that is nice and heartwarming and at the same time makes you feel guilty, and very formatted.
The book I want to write wouldn't be proscriptive either. It would be descriptive. I look at books on language online and see what they are about, and they always make suggestions, they have a thing they want to change and prove. I assume this is because it was done by a professor who got a grant to write the book.
A lot of people do not know, but when a professor goes and asks for a grant they have to state what they are trying to prove. And if they don't prove it, they don't get grant money next time. And to get grant money they have to state why this would help society etc.
Which I think has greatly hindered research in a lot of ways.
It is my belief currently, who knows it could change, that the way humans live, depends upon nature. That the changes in history, how we live, how we think, depends upon comfort level.
America has a good standard living, is kind of nihilistic, material and celebrity worshipping because we have an abundance of goods, which are provided by the amount of farm land America has in Central California, the midwest, and the south. And because of this amount of good farmland we have a surplus of money and time to purchase and use natural gas and oil.
If there was no natural gas, oil, and good farmland our value systems, political systems, economic systems, how we write literature, what we about, how we view friendship, our religion, would change quickly to suit the conditions.
Which means I don't believe a book can change the world on a large scale.
The only thing I believe concerning books and changing of the world, is that sometimes a book can make people not feel so alone, can help those who like to read get through another shitty day. And at most, sometimes a person who leads sometimes is reads something and applies it to what they are doing. Say Martin Luther King reading Civil Disobedience.
But it could go in different ways, Allen Greenspan reading Ayn Rand, Bush reading the bible, a general reading Art of War etc.
I've read so many author interviews and things online and in magazines, authors have such grandiose views of what literature and informative articles can do.
I don't think we should view literature or our articles like that.
We are never going to have a president that likes to read Richard Yates and Iceberg Slim and Chekhov.
Barack Obama doesn't sit and read Bear Parade after his speeches.
But I want to say, I don't think it is possible to NOT HAVE A VIEW. Yates in Revolutionary Road never said straight out, but he described that living in the suburbs was suffocating, boring, it didn't make him happy.
He didn't try to start a political party that would destroy the suburbs, he knew that this book would be read by people from the suburbs and those people form the suburbs that finished it and took he time to understand it wouldn't feel so alone about it. That their suffocation, boringness, and unhappiness was natural from the circumstances they were from.
Yates knew that the suburbs would be continued to be built, he couldn't stop that.
People have assumed that The Human War has some political opinion that all war is wrong. I don't think the human war says that, I understand someone could assume that by the fact it was written by a young person that sounds liberal, and a lot of the words used in the book. But at the end of the book Mark doesn't decide to protest or start petitioning against the war, he sits alone drunk cursing humanity and its symbols.
The point of The Human War was that a lot of the youth and people in America realized that night they had no power over their government anymore. That it was no longer "we the people". People had lost confidence that night, which is shown now by Barack's "Something to believe in campaign." The point was that people had lost confidence in their symbols, and when a culture loses confidence in their symbols, they become apathetic, empty, self-loathing, bitter, impotent and decedent.
Another example would be Britney Spears and her current fame for being a drug addicted bad mother. Her behavior symbolizes that she no longer cares for motherhood, god, ambition, hope, and a good life. People relate to that. Britney Spears is the most accurate symbol of America is today, a nihilistic stimulate addicted bad parenting skills greedy absurd self-indulgent deranged version of a human.
I was trying to relate this to Rome, in the book I call Bush Caligula for a reason. Historians believe that under Caligula and Nero's leadership, the Roman people lost confidence and became decadent, and the fall began then. Machiavelli said that the fall was the cause of Christianity, but I say that the only reason the Romans left their previous symbols for Christianity, is because they lost confidence in their previous symbols and went to Christianity. Not because it was a better symbol, but because it was a new one.
Abundance of goods is what keeps a culture and civilization alive, but what keeps them together working as a unit is symbols.
Mankind needs symbols.
At the end of The Human War the symbols have died for Mark and he has resorted to alcohol, which is not as strong as a symbol, but can keep a human going.
When Nietzsche says, "God is dead." He isn't talking about a man in the sky. He is talking about a symbol no longer motivating people.
When Dostoevsky kills Christ in The Grand Inquisitor, he is not killing Christ, but the symbol of Christ. He is saying, "Christ no longer motivates you."
My Life by Chekhov is about this also: Misail's father constantly says that Misail should do these certain things, be ambitious because of what their ancestors did and who they were, their titles. And that he should be ambitious because of his noble title. When Misail rejects his father's words, and does what he likes. Misail is rejecting and showing that he isn't motivated by those symbols. Those symbols of nobility are dead for him.
The bad leadership of the Czars had lead to them losing confidence. Which is also why the Soviets had such a problem with the Cossacks, because the Cossacks weren't ruled by the Czars, but ruled themselves through their Atamans. The Cossacks had not lost confidence in their symbols, unlike the Russian population.
In The Condemned:
In The Warrior I show Kathy which is obviously not the symbol of mother we portray on television. But from my experience there are many Kathy like mothers in America. I was attacking the symbol of motherhood. How we have turned it into a religion in America, but what we say it is in the media doesn't actually exist in America.
Gratuitous Kink: I wanted to show the symbols we have of sex. How we portray it as one big wonderful thing, with romance and shit. My experience with sex is that it is pumping, sometimes you stub your penis, sometimes she farts while you are giving her head, sometimes you have to stop to blow your nose etc.
Talking about the death of symbols isn't Committed literature. but I do think if someone knew that those symbols were dead, that what they were feeling and doing was because of this: then they would make different decisions. Maybe smile or something. I'm not really going this far, but maybe someone could read the human war and they decided not to go to the military or enter a church or vote republican or care so much about stupid shit. I don't know. I don't sit plotting my books eventual change of humanity into an alien species that starts a Utopia on mars.
I really got off track.
I want to ask this:
You people like me:
I don't know:
But people come to my blog everyday.
I love you.
Back to the point:
Should I write a book of philosophy or just select things I've written on the blog and in interviews and stick them into a book.
I don't know.