It sounds like a re-telling of the Girardian mimetic theory through the frame of porn instead of Christianity? If so, and based on what you have summarized so far, it seems to be a narrower re-telling, since by nature of pornography it has a tendency to focus on only people's sexual desires rather than desires in general (of which, admittedly, sexual ones make up a large amount).
So, if you've the energy after reading this, you should go back and pick a couple posts from his blog to see how 2022 RC would review them, and try to figure out if he changed, or you did, or the format/topic makes a difference, etc.
There seems to be a genre of books that are ostensibly "about" something but seem more like excuses for rhetorical performance. Carlyle's "Sartor Resartus" and Kierkegaard's "Either / Or", and David Foster Wallace's review of a dictionary come to mind.
The Last Psychiatrist was kind of before my time, my exposure to it is almost entirely second-hand.
I guess the first point about the appeal of pornography being the unwillingness to fantasise makes some sort of sense, although I suppose you could say the same about any form of entertainment so I'm not sure if its as profound as it initially sounds (which I think is the problem with a lot of TLP's writing).
The third point just seems weird, although I suppose I see sexual desire as more akin to hunger than to anything else (more biological than intellectual), and the idea that I enjoy eating junk food in order to deprive other people of it is absurd - there is far too much of it! (I think the analogy between pornography and junk food works on multiple levels.) This may make more sense in context though, so I guess I'll have to wait for part 2.
With regard to claim #1: I don't think this makes sense because people have to take responsibility for what they have chosen to watch. A person who fantasizes about something extremely taboo may feel shame but that person who searches for that extremely taboo thing is also going to feel shame.
With regard to claim #3: I think people who are wanted by others are more wanted for sure but that might be more common among women. The whole 'He is more attractive if he has a wedding ring' type of thing. I don't think it is the 'only' pleasure you get by any stretch. That's kind of absurd.
I know nothing about this author or this book, but your review has convinced me that I definitely don't want to read it. It sounds exhausting.
Out of curiosity, does the author talk about single people at all? That seems like the most obvious case where his "you only want [romance/sex] to deprive others" claim breaks down. Sure, some single people want relationships and could probably be included in this claim, but not all of them. Some people are perfectly happy being single for years or even a lifetime.
The first three paragraphs… I don’t really get. Is feeling smart the main value you yourself get from reading TLP? Or do you think that’s the main reason _others_ like it is for phony feel-smart reasons, but you yourself see the deeper meaning, unlike the phonies?
(Honestly I’m just miffed, because when I discovered TLP last year, I really did think some of it was profound, and it helped me improve my life and how I treat people. I’m guessing the intent of the first few paragraphs of your post is to be self-deprecating, but… I think they’re mean)
It’s OK to just straightforwardly really like TLP!
It sounds like a re-telling of the Girardian mimetic theory through the frame of porn instead of Christianity? If so, and based on what you have summarized so far, it seems to be a narrower re-telling, since by nature of pornography it has a tendency to focus on only people's sexual desires rather than desires in general (of which, admittedly, sexual ones make up a large amount).
So, if you've the energy after reading this, you should go back and pick a couple posts from his blog to see how 2022 RC would review them, and try to figure out if he changed, or you did, or the format/topic makes a difference, etc.
There seems to be a genre of books that are ostensibly "about" something but seem more like excuses for rhetorical performance. Carlyle's "Sartor Resartus" and Kierkegaard's "Either / Or", and David Foster Wallace's review of a dictionary come to mind.
The Last Psychiatrist was kind of before my time, my exposure to it is almost entirely second-hand.
I guess the first point about the appeal of pornography being the unwillingness to fantasise makes some sort of sense, although I suppose you could say the same about any form of entertainment so I'm not sure if its as profound as it initially sounds (which I think is the problem with a lot of TLP's writing).
The third point just seems weird, although I suppose I see sexual desire as more akin to hunger than to anything else (more biological than intellectual), and the idea that I enjoy eating junk food in order to deprive other people of it is absurd - there is far too much of it! (I think the analogy between pornography and junk food works on multiple levels.) This may make more sense in context though, so I guess I'll have to wait for part 2.
With regard to claim #1: I don't think this makes sense because people have to take responsibility for what they have chosen to watch. A person who fantasizes about something extremely taboo may feel shame but that person who searches for that extremely taboo thing is also going to feel shame.
With regard to claim #3: I think people who are wanted by others are more wanted for sure but that might be more common among women. The whole 'He is more attractive if he has a wedding ring' type of thing. I don't think it is the 'only' pleasure you get by any stretch. That's kind of absurd.
I know nothing about this author or this book, but your review has convinced me that I definitely don't want to read it. It sounds exhausting.
Out of curiosity, does the author talk about single people at all? That seems like the most obvious case where his "you only want [romance/sex] to deprive others" claim breaks down. Sure, some single people want relationships and could probably be included in this claim, but not all of them. Some people are perfectly happy being single for years or even a lifetime.
The first three paragraphs… I don’t really get. Is feeling smart the main value you yourself get from reading TLP? Or do you think that’s the main reason _others_ like it is for phony feel-smart reasons, but you yourself see the deeper meaning, unlike the phonies?
(Honestly I’m just miffed, because when I discovered TLP last year, I really did think some of it was profound, and it helped me improve my life and how I treat people. I’m guessing the intent of the first few paragraphs of your post is to be self-deprecating, but… I think they’re mean)
It’s OK to just straightforwardly really like TLP!