/lit/ - Literature

>>12096028
Otto has the answers.

>>12071906
Otto tells all

>>12055989
also pic related

now that 99.99% of /lit/ is covered, i'm calling it

/thread

>>11522706
The current opinion that woman is religious is equally erroneous. Female
mysticism, when it is anything more than mere superstition, is either thinly veiled
sexuality (the identification of the Deity and the lover has been frequently discussed,
as, for instance, in Maupassant's “Bel-Ami,” or Hauptmann's “Hannele's
Himmelfahrt”) as in numberless spiritualists and theosophists, or it is a mere passive
and unconscious acceptance of man's religious views which are clung to the more
firmly because of woman's natural disinclination for them. The lover is readily
transformed into a Saviour; very readily (as is well known to be the case with many
nuns) the Saviour becomes the lover. All the great women visionaries known to
history were hysterical; the most famous, Santa Teresa, was not misnamed “the
patron saint of hysteria.” At any rate, if woman's religiousness were genuine, and if it
proceeded from her own nature, she would have done something great in the religious
world; but she never has done anything of any importance. I should like to put shortly
what I take to be the difference between the masculine and feminine creeds; man's
religion consists in a supreme belief in himself, woman's in a supreme belief in other
people.

>>11254946
this

>>11163845
>Nay, so great is the "amplitude" of the periods in the outstanding person, in which the various sides of his being, the many people who live intensively in him succeed one after another, that this periodicity also manifests itself markedly physiognomically.
>Accordingly I would like to explain a striking phenomenon, that the impression of the countenance in more gifted people changes much more often than in the ungifted, nay, that they can often have incredibly differing faces at various times; one might only compare the preserved pictures of Goethe, of Beethoven, of Kant, of Schopenhauer from the various epochs of their lives.
>One can regard the number of faces which a person has almost as a physiognomical criterion of his giftedness
>People who constantly display, completely unchanged, one and the same face also stand very low intellectually.
>On the other hand, it will not surprise the physiognomists that more gifted people, who also always display a new side of their being in dealings and conversation, concerning whom, therefore, reflection does not so quickly yield a ready judgment, also verify this trait through their appearance.

This ladykiller