No one would ever say that I need this, would they?
The theory/Austen crossover you’ve all been waiting for.
Teach me how to live in a society, Jane!
Where shall wisdom be found?
She has a fandom rather than a following, readers whose devotion goes well beyond literary appreciation to infuse many aspects of their lives… Many, like myself, find guidance about how to live their lives in Austen’s work… Austen is our beloved wise cousin, our ally in the quest for the good life.
This is me trying to shake up the canon in an extreme way. While I know you probably won’t believe me when I say it, I always thought there was something biased about only half the population constituting almost the entirety of western philosophy. And if anyone is a candidate with something substantial to add, it is her.
I said before that her genre makes me uneasy. I hate this
So many of us love and trust Austen because she possessed extraordinary powers of empathy.
I’m not sure it would be right to describe any of my favorite thinkers that way.
How different does the following sound if you read it in a book about Kant rather than one on Austen?
Theory of mind also includes the ability to recognize feelings
Kant doesn’t know what that is, I don’t know what that is. It’s half of humanity- there’s a bias.
For Austen to have created such a variety of convincing imaginary people, she must have been a profoundly astute mindreader of real people.
She’s sort of the “woman-in-itself” of history in a way. This is not a feminist post, this is an elitological one.
Even “orbiting” Austen I feel a change in myself. I just saw a picture of an African-American and felt bad. Empathy… “Orbit ME instead!” Be more like her and maybe I would.
Reminds me of some of you clowns
thwarted love in her own life
Am I wrong that it just seems nonexistent? Think of how that affects people’s political beliefs. Sad, bitter people with empty lives. Yeah we really want you weighing in. Not like my life is great either. “So don’t judge us!” Just trying to point out the delusion that things are alright in the world.
Don’t worry, I’m just trying to hypnotize someone into this
Emma’s sudden realization that no one must marry Mr. Knightley but herself
“Virgin Kant” isn’t going to tell you about this.
This is true, that’s why it makes me “uneasy”
To put this in the apt phrase of psychiatrist Daniel Siegel, when we read Austen, we have the feeling of “feeling felt,” of having our innermost feelings understood and resonated with.
She and Emerson were alive about the same time, and reading the latter one emerges as if he “has it ALL figured out” while not realizing perspectives like Austen’s are nowhere to be found. This ties in with the idea of woman’s world revolving around man, and how the opposite isn’t as true. Emerson is writing about other stuff, Austen is writing about men. That’s not to downplay her importance. I know on a personal level, sadly, how important her way of looking at the world is (given my despair). So this is another odd case, similar to that of Dante, of a writer not being philosophically canonical. “Go to the English department for that!” That’s what I mean, there’s something unnatural about the division of the disciplines. Grug HUNT and SCREW! Now we have 25 disciplines, when before that it was just humans interacting.
This is a veritable hermeneutic of suspicion
In Austen, the heart of the matter, which is indeed the matter of the heart, is right there
That doesn’t exist, it’s all lust. Sad empty world. Might as well take a “vacation” for a while if that’s all there is, see ya later
Seriously though, this is an unexpected interdisciplinarity
Grounding the old ways of Austen in neuroscience. “I’ll ground Tinder in neuroscience!” Enjoy your antidepressants. You decide for men to look at you like a piece of meat. What’s the self esteem of something like that? Or excuse me, someone. Is Jane Austen impossible in the age of tinder? Seems like a legitimate question. Speaking of integrating selves of older times.