Korean Literature discussion

A few of us are reading The Agony of Eros by Byung-Chul Han this month independent of the group read. It's a short essay around 60-70 pages.

In The Agony of Eros, a bestseller in Germany, Han considers the threat to love and desire in today's society. For Han, love requires the courage to accept self-negation for the sake of discovering the Other. In a world of fetishized individualism and technologically mediated social interaction, it is the Other that is eradicated, not the self. In today's increasingly narcissistic society, we have come to look for love and desire within the “inferno of the same.”

If this topic interests you please feel free to join in on the discussion!

I have read the burnout society by the same author last and I like the ideas he discussed , I might read this book as well and I' comeback here to chek your discussion about the book .
have a good read

I might join in, found an audiobook version and it is quite short

Read it today, it is a slight book but full of ideas and I enjoyed it, very thought provoking! Review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I started on the Agony of Eros, about halfway through a first read. The author’s thesis is very interesting and, at a high level, hard to argue against. However, this is really deep and I have had to look up a lot of references and concepts. In all, a deep dive is hard but worth the effort so far.
I will add additional comments after I finish the first read.

First, the author differentiates Eros, the ideal of or godly personification of eros, from the concept of eros. For example, the wings of Eros, refers to the personification and the god’s effect on the individual.
Second, “eros” has different meanings that are relative to the theory of human behavior that the theorist is trying to explain or to justify. The ancient Greeks, probably pre-Plato, describe eros as a madness of the gods. eros, that is love and desire, is a concept in ancient Greek philosophy referring to sensual or passionate love, from which the term erotic is derived. eros is also used in philosophy and psychology in a conceptual form as “life energy”. Psychoanalysis, esp Freud, uses the term eros to describe the universal desire that drives all innate needs. Plato developed an idealistic concept of eros, “Platonic love", which can be attained by the intellectual purification of eros from carnal into his concept of an ideal form. In Symposium, eros is described as a universal force that moves all things towards peace, perfection and divinity. (Credit M. B. Mineo)

I think the author mostly is focused on the Platonic ideal and the destruction of ideal eros is the result of the current self absorbed society. This, to me, deprecates the madness of love, theia mania, that depends of the mystery of the Other and can border on obsession/mania.
The author uses a brilliant film analogy in chapter one where he describes the film genius of Melencholia to introduce his thesis. Continuing which that use of analogy, the film “In the Realm of the Senses” (French: L'Empire des sens, Japanese: 愛のコリーダ, Ai no Korīda, "Bullfight of Love”), a 1976 erotic art film written and directed by Nagisa Ōshima, seems closest to my initial understanding of the chapter “bare life” and, I think, the author’s comparison of eros, the mania, with eros, the Platonic ideal. In the film, the two main characters are obsessed with the Other. In their obsession, eros and death are intertwined. In their eros love (mania), their obsession pales the world and its conventionally defined lives.

The author argues that porn is a symptom of our narcissistic society and contributed to the destruction of eros (ideal). “Porn” is the title of the next chapter. “Porn” is not new and I find it difficult to use it as a unique symptom of modern society. The validity of the film analogy above would be dependent on how one sees eros and views the film, either art pink film or a film about how eros can tie to or spiral into obsession.

I believe “porn” is more about lust and the object of lust becomes a thing, not eros’ mysterious Other.

My impression is arguable and I easily grant that my understanding of the chapter assertions need much more work.

The chapter “fantasy” probably is the peak of his argument. “The contemporary crisis in literature and the arts stems from a crisis of fantasy: the disappearance of the Other. This is the agony of eros.”

Finished a first read and then rewarded myself with reading Henk’s review.

Another thought:
I want to argue with some assertions of Byung-Chul Han wrt romantic love vs eros and, I think, his cultural siloing of masculinity and femininity. I need more brain cells... eros does not have a single definition since it has been a philosophical discussion for most of _western_ history. I am not sure but it seems that the author is somewhat gendering eros (and logos) a la Jungian theory. I prefer thinking about eros as a madness of the gods, like the ancient Greeks, and as something that defines us as human. It is not libido or the sanitized idealized Platonic concept. eros exists, not because we objectify the target of desire, but that there is a mystery in the Other that can not be rationally determined.

I'm still gathering my thoughts on this one, but I will say that it wasn't the most approachable read for me, and I was unable to connect with a lot of the media he references. I imagine if you haven't dabbled in even a little bit of philosophy this might be a difficult one to pick up.

Initial reaction though is that I liked it and agreed with much of what he was saying.

I also liked this essay and generally agree with the primary points.

I had to time out frequently to look into his references. It was a lot of exercise.

Jack wrote: "I also liked this essay and generally agree with the primary points.

I had to time out frequently to look into his references. It was a lot of exercise."

I'm going to do this on my next pass through. It's definitely an essay that needs to be digested slowly (at least for me.)

I'm still reading it. I think there are many of interesting points and thesis turn in a way that it takes time to unpack it.
I found the part about "domesticated" love vs wild Eros, in crisis nowdays particularly appealing.