>Author starts a diary or writes private letters
>These items are obviously never meant to be shared with the public
>Items are disrespectfully, post-humously published
>Posterity uses the writings to pass judgement and label the author
>People don't want to read a piece of fiction because an early 20th century author used no-no words in private
stupid frogposter
Yeah, academia etc seem to think that famous writers' private letters etc are fair game for their grubby scrutiny. No idea why.
Would be cool to discover e.g. Shakespeare's private diary and burn it unread because IT'S NONE OF OUR DAMNED BUSINESS. Think how all the professors of literature would screech.
>Shakespeare's private diary
It always kills the mystery too. You would think Lit professors would be happy if Shakespeare's diary never saw the light of day because it would put them out of a job.
Shakespeare never existed. People think they’ve read Lear and Hamlet but they really haven’t. It’s a crazy madella effect
Shakespeare verifiably existed, dumbass. The only doubt is over what he did or didn't write.
>IQfy thread about Barthes and "Death of the Author"
>noooo the artist's intent and viewpoint are super important!
>dumb academics just want an excuse to make up their interpretations!
>IQfy thread about authors getting "cancelled" because of their viewpoints and their ideas that they declared intentionally
>noooo the artist's viewpoint and intent actually don't matter!
>dumb academics just want an excuse to cancel authors!
As opposed to all those writers whose letters and diaries we have access to (Tolstoy, Joyce, Kafka...) so literature professors don't have anything new to say about them.
It would certainly mitigate the anglo fanaticism and pseudo inquiries into who wrote the work. God knows how badly poor Shakespeare needs to be rehabilitated for the masses who are indoctrinated into believing that he's either a pure blood genius or a shameless plagiarist. A moderate opinion is a non-entity when it comes to that man.
If you think it's bad now, in the future every single email, text and more of a writer will be considered as being of public interest and would not be subject to privacy restrictions.
If you're a writer just assume that Google will release all your shitty emails one day when you're dead.
Hell, even before you're dead, your best friends and ex-lovers will release everything you've ever sent them.
There's a whole book about exactly this kind of moronation by someone who knew he would be on the receiving end the moment he died
Trigger warning: israelites
>People don't want to read a piece of fiction because an early 20th century author used no-no words in private
tbh people who think like this only read current slop and wouldn't read any old good author anyway
>2073
>Famous author Anon A. Anonson : anonymously posted greentexts
yeah, that's exactly why I will be never read that perverted fecalpheliac Joyce after coming across his fithly fart sniffing letters.
I remember one of Jane Austens relatives burned her letters because they didn't want the world knowing what a colossal b***h she was
More likely due to a sexual indiscretion that was absolutely haram at the time.
>This dead guy would be VERY angry if you published those texts!
Who fricking cares. Historians have to look into it.
I can understand requiring some time to have passed but it's not an absolute rule and never will be one because it can't enforced and I'll personally read your diary if I can.
>Historians have to look into it.
No they don't.
Yes, they do. Nobody gives a shit about the privacy of a dead person of significance, rightfully so.
>Yes, they do.
Why?
Don't worry, while you will die some day, you won't be of any significance and your secrets are safe.
Why are you so angry?
I'm not angry, I'm simply saying the living are entitled to truth dead people can't hide from them anyway, because you know, they're dead.
Why exactly are you entitled to know the details of someone's personal life just because they are dead?
Because they are relevant to historical knowledge from being from a significant figure. Why are you asking questions that are already answered in this very thread? Is this some kind of game of stamina?
there are no relevant writers in history though
>Because they are relevant to historical knowledge from being from a significant figure.
So? Why exactly would someone lose their right to privacy just because their life was historically relevant?
Because they can't keep me from prying from beyond the grave. Simple as.
So, is it then okay to rob someone's grave or to violate their last will and testament just because they can't stop you?
No because there are such things as laws forbidding such things. If a law cannot be enforced, it simply doesn't exist. Robbing a grave is a crime but archaeology isn't. Even if it breaks the religious conceptions of the dead people, because again, dead people cannot fight back. Doesn't seem to disturb you much when we unearth mummies but when it's non-brown people you get mad. Again, nobody cares about your feelings and life marches on, whether you like it or not.
Whether something is legal has nothing to do with whether it's moral.
>Doesn't seem to disturb you much when we unearth mummies but when it's non-brown people you get mad
Actually, the colonial and disrespectful nature of much of Egyptian archaeology is something that's been criticized a lot.
Nobody brought up morality whatsoever. It's not a real thing, what matters is what happens.
>It's not a real thing
You've been making normative claims throughout the entire conversation. If you don't believe that anything is actually good or bad I don't know why you're even engaging this kind of discussion.
Absolutely not, I precisely was saying the dead have no power to stop the living from investigating their past. Because, they, are, dead.
I do believe certain things are desireable and others undesireable, however, dead people cannot be harmed by anything because they are dead. Their feelings won't be hurt. I even conceded some kind of grace period for their relatives and such because such findings might hurt them, but it's not grounded in any sort of vertical objective superior moral ground, it's simply realpolitik. The dead can't and therefore won't fight back. That's why grave robbing is something you can't do, the very much living police will prosecute you for it. If there wasnt a coercitive organisation around that notion, then grave robbing would not be punished, obviously.
>however, dead people cannot be harmed by anything because they are dead. Their feelings won't be hurt.
I just don't see why that's relevant. If you spy on a living person, and they never find out, that doesn't harm them, but it's still wrong; you've still violated their right to privacy. Just because something doesn't harm someone, doesn't mean it's okay.
It's wrong because it might hurt them, you cannot know for certain they won't ever find out and likewise if that may or may not backfire on you.
I'm no kantian and I don't think along those lines.
>Just because something doesn't harm someone, doesn't mean it's okay.
Do you have another example? Ideally not some trolley problem abstract experiment where you're somehow absolutely shielded from the consequences of your actions because there's no such thing.
>It's wrong because it might hurt them, you cannot know for certain they won't ever find out and likewise if that may or may not backfire on you.
That's usually what people like you say when I bring up that example. Of course, the problem with this is that saying something is wrong when it might harm someone, is obviously way too strong of a principle. There are tons of morally neutral actions that might harm someone whenever they're done. I can never know for certain that the next time I go driving, I will not get into a car crash and kill someone, but that doesn't mean it's always wrong to go driving.
You might then want to say that something is wrong when there's a significant chance of harm, or when it's more probable than not that it will be harmful. But that, on the other hand, seems too weak of a principle. Suppose a corrupt government decides to spy on someone without just cause. In that case, there's a pretty low chance that the person will find out and be harmed, given the capabilities and resources that a government has. Yet that still seems wrong, even though it's unlikely they will be harmed.
In order to explain all of these things, I don't think a harm principle is enough. You need some notion of rights, however weak. I'm not a Kantian, but you don't need to be a Kantian to think that people have rights. And if people have rights, it's plausible that dead people have certain rights, i.e., the right to have their legally attested will be carried out, the right to have their corpse not be used as a sex doll by a necrophiliac, etc. What I would really like to see is some principled justification for why dead people have these kinds of rights but not the right to privacy. I would really like there to be a way out of this conundrum.
>the colonial and disrespectful nature of much of Egyptian archaeology
Modern Egypt revels in its archaeology, and the tourist industry driven by it. And they learned it all from their colonists.
Yes.
Noooo don't do that! Tutankhamun would be REALLY upset if he knew what you did!!! Aren't you aware there's a curse?????
Must be why Whitehead burned all his letters and private shit. I kind of resent him for it though because now I will never really know anything about him. That’s why if I ever become famous my whole nachlass will be published even the cringe shit I wrote at 15
Is necrophilia okay? They are already dead and can’t be harmed further
You might catch diseases and people will be disgusted by your acts and act accordingly, so yes, it is bad for you.
>Read dead authors private letters
>Gain more insight into their thoughts and who they were.
>Lose mystery.
The desire for truth is consuming pls help me Plato bros