/lit/ - Literature

>>16097174
I wrote something that is far too long so let me try again.

"Concerning poor style: This becomes most apparent in moral contexts, such as when a bad writer tries to justify the shooting of hostages. That is far worse—far more flagrant—than any mere aesthetic offense.
Style is essentially based on justice. Only the just man can know how he must weigh each word, each sentence. For this reason, we never see the best writers serving a bad cause."
- Junger

I think your remarks on style are more important than people realise. Nietzsche's own analysis of Wagner arises almost entirely from a point of emotional reaction. And while it may be extreme to make such a comparison - the standard reading certainly does not support this and I would need a lot more space to argue it fully - there is an element in Nietzsche's aesthetics that are equivalent to Malevich's pure feeling. The total horizon of art which in Bataille becomes nothing more than the sacrificial act, the will towards the impossible. This is useful in situating Nietzsche within the history of aesthetics, and amidst the death of romanticism. Here he appears closer to the moderns, and even Kant, than to the Greeks.

Nietzsche had a poor sense of justice, one may even say that he stood completely in opposition to it. Comparisons to Callicles and Thrasymachus are good enough for a basic understanding, but it is worth noting his dismissal of the masses, the will to have them carried off by the devil or statistics. A man equal to the processes of democratisation and centralisation which mark every moment of the modern era. And in this same writing on History his introductory remarks ruthlessly attack the historicised man incapable of action, and then in the very next paragraph he descends into individualist phantasiespiel and a repressive defense. This suggests not only a lack of a sense of justice, but also an inability to control himself, much like his weakness before drink.

Only a Cyclops may release technology from the dead.
https://youtu.be/E3vkwDzSl7A

It's an interesting question, and perhaps similar to what I have been trying to figure out.
Where to begin... There is a mechanistic aspect to the way this is presented, which is not necessarily a bad thing, however, we can think of this in a similar manner to Junger's criticism of Spengler. For Junger, morphology is determined by the ideas rather than the form itself, which means that there is a reactive element within such thinking. Spengler's view was severely limited in time, a product of the age that had already passed, and in later years, beyond his death, Spengler would only be more wrong. Perhaps we could expand this, and say that the rationalist and material historicist approach would follow the same path. Heidegger's "Only a God can save us" becomes a final metaphysical statement.

It is necessary to view being as a telluric quality, as stemming from the form of the age. We cannot read backwards, otherwise the form is determined through its appearance. This is essential to understanding the figure and the type: the worker appears as its instinctual being, but he could also be at war with his own perfection. Both the marxist and liberal reactions clarify this modern refusal of form, the moment of perfection will be worn away if war cannot defeat it.

The peasantry must always be sacrificed by the state, yet its element remains, is even empowered in the process. The type is a husk of the form, hence the violent nature of class as modernity approaches its conclusion. Cronus appears here, the modern law of time. What other class remains with autochtonous qualities in the modern era? If any god remains they are its proof, the unknown soldier by extraction - the greatest victors of the World Wars yet completely unrecognised by history. The farmer-warrior returns to battle with neither crime nor shame; the Hesiodic figure is always victorious, even if his being is unknown to us.