What do you think?
Rate this book
To deny our nothingness: Contemporary images of man
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Read
December 6, 2024A sort of goldilocks and the three bears of an adequate ideal for the modern "man". Socialist realism too outward looking, mysticism not outward enough, vitalism too indefinite, gnosticism too explicit. We are guided through various philosophies and literary outlooks ever closer towards "dialogue existentialism" Not too solipsistic, not too focused purely on action, an attitude that moves us closer to our authentic self by trying to recognize and connect with the authentic self of others.
A lot of his criticisms seen unfair, because he is of course trying to lead us to his own ideal view. This then I think fails as both a literary survey of modernist portrayals of the precariousness of the individual, and as an analysis of the philosophical ideals explored by the various authors.
Conversely, he gives a far clearer and concrete portrayal and analysis of these views he ultimately rejects than he does of the dialogue existentialism he prefers. But maybe we'd get a clearer idea of it by reading his other works which he constantly references. But Mr Friedman I will not be reading "Problematic Rebel".
There's also the constant reference to "man" as the universal subject. This is of course fairly standard for something written in the 50s. But this book was adapted from a course he taught at Sarah Lawrence college, an all women school. Was the irony never pointed out to him?
A lot of his criticisms seen unfair, because he is of course trying to lead us to his own ideal view. This then I think fails as both a literary survey of modernist portrayals of the precariousness of the individual, and as an analysis of the philosophical ideals explored by the various authors.
Conversely, he gives a far clearer and concrete portrayal and analysis of these views he ultimately rejects than he does of the dialogue existentialism he prefers. But maybe we'd get a clearer idea of it by reading his other works which he constantly references. But Mr Friedman I will not be reading "Problematic Rebel".
There's also the constant reference to "man" as the universal subject. This is of course fairly standard for something written in the 50s. But this book was adapted from a course he taught at Sarah Lawrence college, an all women school. Was the irony never pointed out to him?
Displaying 1 of 1 review