/lit/ - Literature

How do you approach this guy? Where to start, where to finish?

Into the bosom of the earth,
Out of the Light's dominion,
Death's pains are but a bursting forth,
Sign of glad departure.
Swift in the narrow little boat,
Swift to the heavenly shore we float.

Blessed be the everlasting Night,
And blessed the endless slumber.
We are heated by the day too bright,
And withered up with care.
We're weary of a life abroad,
And we now want our Father's home.

What in this world should we all
Do with love and with faith?
That which is old is set aside,
And the new may perish also.
Alone he stands and sore downcast
Who loves with pious warmth the Past.

The Past where the light of the senses
In lofty flames did rise;
Where the Father's face and hand
All men did recognize;
And, with high sense, in simplicity
Many still fit the original pattern.

The Past wherein, still rich in bloom,
Man's strain did burgeon glorious,
And children, for the world to come,
Sought pain and death victorious,
And, through both life and pleasure spake,
Yet many a heart for love did break.

The Past, where to the flow of youth
God still showed himself,
And truly to an early death
Did commit his sweet life.
Fear and torture patiently he bore
So that he would be loved forever.

With anxious yearning now we see
That Past in darkness drenched,
With this world's water never we
Shall find our hot thirst quenched.
To our old home we have to go
That blessed time again to know.

What yet doth hinder our return
To loved ones long reposed?
Their grave limits our lives.
We are all sad and afraid.
We can search for nothing more --
The heart is full, the world is void.

Infinite and mysterious,
Thrills through us a sweet trembling --
As if from far there echoed thus
A sigh, our grief resembling.
Our loved ones yearn as well as we,
And sent to us this longing breeze.

Down to the sweet bride, and away
To the beloved Jesus.
Have courage, evening shades grow gray
To those who love and grieve.
A dream will dash our chains apart,
And lay us in the Father's lap.

Please leave and never return if you agree with any of the following;

>you read any form of genre fiction
>you think fantasy, science fiction, detective fiction, young adult fiction or horror are literature
>you barely know your classics
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
>you speak a single language
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
>you read for the plot
>you read for entertainment
>you rarely read nonfiction
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>you do not at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon (muh african authors)
>you mostly read contemporary literature
>you believe 'the author is dead'
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
>your rarely read poetry
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight

>>14744688
To quote the great Novalis, "the borders of philosophy are the borders of feeling." All brain, no soul.

>>14452055
Yes.

My face when

>>13312685
>>13312698
>>13312709
>>13312731
Let me break down why you are both equally retarded and should leave forever.

>Prove there's no purpose to life and nothing after death right now.
OP has put forward a thesis, and you are doing a good job attacking his premises. But the fact that he's unable to provide proof for the premise (life has no purpose), does not mean that the premise is wrong. In general, if you can't proof x, that's not a statement about the truth or falsity of x. For instance, we were unable to proof scientifically for quite a long time that the earth revolves around the sun, but this didn't change the truth value of the statement 'the earth revolves around the sun' by any means.
You should rather provide your own thesis about why life has a purpose, which would both disprove OP and me showing you are retarded.

>Does a crow have a purpose? Does a worm? Does a cell? Why not? What makes you think humans are special?
OP, by asking rhetorical questions, you are doing the same mistake as him, namely, assuming that since he can't provide proof for his thesis (life has a purpose) then will not be right. But again, he might be unable to proof that life has a purpose, and still be right: you don't win anything if he can't provide proof. That doesn't make he - or you - any more right or wrong. Moreover, you add to the discussion the unpleasant flavor of edgy anime talk, which notoriously never achieves anything and for which you should be beheaded in the public square.

>You didn't address what I said. Prove there's no purpose to life and nothing after death right now.
He did not but you didn't either. You're both just asking each other to prove stuff that you assume cannot be proven as if your opponent inability of providing proof made his thesis in any way wrong or less believable.

>Prove there is retard
It's true that he didn't, but if he's a retard, you also are for using exactly the same flawed argumentative strategy as his.

I hope I have helped you to see how you mirror each other's excess of chromosomes, and that this will shame you enough to disappear forever from here. You are both useless brainlets and should go read books instead of posting anime girls and debating about topics you don't understand while also lacking basic knowledge on how to structure a debate.

Swipe left and never return if any one of these apply to you:

>you read any form of genre fiction
>you barely know your classics
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
>you speak a single language
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
>you read for the plot
>you read for entertainment
>you rarely read nonfiction
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon
>you mostly read contemporary literature
>you believe 'the author is dead'
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
>your rarely read poetry
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight

>>11638551
It's basically a rewrite of Gilgamesh.
>>11637085
>>11637347
>>11637454
>>11637576
>>11638530
>>11638556
Awful, awful posts. The amount of plebs coming in and shitting up my board is disgraceful. Leave this board and never return if any one of these apply to you:

>you read any form of genre fiction
>you barely know your classics
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
>you speak a single language
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
>you read for the plot
>you read for entertainment
>you rarely read nonfiction
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon
>you mostly read contemporary literature
>you believe 'the author is dead'
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
>your rarely read poetry
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight

>>11548558

Swipe this left and never return if any one of these apply to you:

>you read any form of genre fiction
>you barely know your classics
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
>you speak a single language
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
>you read for the plot
>you read for entertainment
>you rarely read nonfiction
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon
>you mostly read contemporary literature
>you believe 'the author is dead'
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
>your rarely read poetry
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight

>>Hopeless premonitions
>Tomorrow didn't come
>Some say it's hiding
>But they're the ones who've hidden
>Euphoria followed by visions
>Of peasants eating pigeons

>Hopeless premonitions
>Tomorrow didn't come
>Some say it's hiding but they're the ones who've hidden
>Euphoria followed by visions
>Of peasants eating pigeons

>>11321356

>does science debunk philosophical/religious beliefs?

Leave.

>>11315401
LEAVE

>>11282425

>chemical imbalances
>Lacan
>Freud
>"death drive"

Leave and never return.

From now on the canon centres around Novalis

>>11182332

OP is a man of culture

If you can't explain CHIM and AMARANTH in the next 5 seconds LEAVE!

Just look at this adorable tragedy.