I appreciate your commentary here, but I think it somewhat takes the issue and just creates its opposite. My view - and this aligns with many of my takes on several philosophies - is that there is often an attempt at arriving at binary conclusions, when such is usually inaccurate, and more, even unnecessary.
The example you use - the return to simplicity. In one view, it is a regressive concept. In another view, it is not. The same goes, generally, with the appetite/motivation to tear things down. Tearing things down and destroying can be good, and necessary. On the other hand, tearing things down and destroying, can also be bad, and unnecessary.
Additionally, I think Kurtz and Durden certainly have parellels, but I disagree with your analysis. For instance, I think Kurtz does not necessarily champion war, rather, he speaks to life in the context of war - this is easier to ascertain in Apocalypse Now, precisely because the setting is so strong - they are in war. Durden may have a similar dichotomy (nonwar vs war setting), but Durden exists in the whole context of the modern reality, not simply one aspect of it.
So, where I think the parallel exists, is in their destruction of a value system within their worlds. Kurtz argues for a destruction of values when in war. Durden argues for a destruction of values in the context of the modern world.
Kurtz has an easier argument to mount, as the premise is narrower and easier to defend its goals - wining/victory and survival are all that matter.
Durden's argument is more tenious, precisely because the defense of its goals are so amorphous - destroying the values of the modern world requires a solution that is better than the current one/the modern world values.
In the end, the problem I have with your comment, is that it diminishes the real thrust of Fight Club. You point out the extremes and short-sightedness of the fight club philosophy, but ignore the defensible elements of it, namely, that (at least some, many, etc.) modern world values need to be destroyed and there is an inate feeling many (especially men) have toward that end.
Indeed, at its most macro, Fight Club (and Apocalypse Now) are rebellions against values - very Nietzche-esque.
Excellent critique and I admit the Kurtz and Durden parallels are tenuous at best. That was mostly a film oriented parallel. I just never noticed how similar the scenes were, the relationship between the two main protagonists. They are just as different as they are similar as you rightly point out.
I completely agree with your point:
(at least some, many, etc.) modern world values need to be destroyed and there is an inate feeling many (especially men) have toward that end.
That's exactly what I felt when it came out, and still feel today. What I reject these days is the "blow it up and start over," mentality. My B.A.'s in history, and I've come to the point where I think revolution should be a last resort. The history of revolutions is incredibly bloody, with mixed results at best. I might be too much of an optimist, but I feel like most of our problems can be fixed with a change in culture and government.
Take the U.S. as a brief example. We can identify the major problems fairly easily. It's essentially greed writ large. You could theoretically legislate your way out of it. We could do each and every step with the system we have: ensure healthcare as a right, remove money in politics and punish transgressions severely, ensure proper compensation for work, create a framework such that housing is cheap and affordable, etc. We could do all of it.
Now if the argument is that the darkness in men's hearts won't allow it, I'm listening. I worry about that. I also see good on a daily basis. Where I work, the vast majority of the employees spend all day trying to build up their fellow humans, even at their own expense. I think there's a lot of fields with people working tirelessly to "make things better." It feels like we could continue to increase that sentiment with the right cultural orientation.
I could of course be totally wrong and high on 'hopium'.
3
u/GovtLegitimacy 23d ago
I appreciate your commentary here, but I think it somewhat takes the issue and just creates its opposite. My view - and this aligns with many of my takes on several philosophies - is that there is often an attempt at arriving at binary conclusions, when such is usually inaccurate, and more, even unnecessary.
The example you use - the return to simplicity. In one view, it is a regressive concept. In another view, it is not. The same goes, generally, with the appetite/motivation to tear things down. Tearing things down and destroying can be good, and necessary. On the other hand, tearing things down and destroying, can also be bad, and unnecessary.
Additionally, I think Kurtz and Durden certainly have parellels, but I disagree with your analysis. For instance, I think Kurtz does not necessarily champion war, rather, he speaks to life in the context of war - this is easier to ascertain in Apocalypse Now, precisely because the setting is so strong - they are in war. Durden may have a similar dichotomy (nonwar vs war setting), but Durden exists in the whole context of the modern reality, not simply one aspect of it.
So, where I think the parallel exists, is in their destruction of a value system within their worlds. Kurtz argues for a destruction of values when in war. Durden argues for a destruction of values in the context of the modern world.
Kurtz has an easier argument to mount, as the premise is narrower and easier to defend its goals - wining/victory and survival are all that matter.
Durden's argument is more tenious, precisely because the defense of its goals are so amorphous - destroying the values of the modern world requires a solution that is better than the current one/the modern world values.
In the end, the problem I have with your comment, is that it diminishes the real thrust of Fight Club. You point out the extremes and short-sightedness of the fight club philosophy, but ignore the defensible elements of it, namely, that (at least some, many, etc.) modern world values need to be destroyed and there is an inate feeling many (especially men) have toward that end.
Indeed, at its most macro, Fight Club (and Apocalypse Now) are rebellions against values - very Nietzche-esque.