/lit/ - Literature

Does anyone here have a good paganism reading list? I'm interested in the old scraps that have survived like "on the Gods and the World" by Sallust and any works that may have preserved pre Christian views on theology in an altered form.

Are there any good books that provide a theological defense of polytheism? I'm having trouble finding anything on this subject. Was Iambilchus a polytheist? Would his works be a good place to start?

I need works that centre around voices, please. Human voices as they relate to the body, to language, to time and place, to identities, to expression and that which is expressed and how it is expressed etc.
Also, any works which speak of the auditory in relation to the visual, the ear as opposed to the eye.

Philosophical, poetical, theological, political, psychological, whatever you have.

Currently reading Adriana Cavarero's book For More Than One Voice and I'm finding it interesting.

Any good books that defend a spiritual worldview over a materialistic one?

The highest art may appear in the impoverished era, but it is proscribed by the law of being, hence the retreat of great men into decadence and fantastical politics, until the final spirits are diminished. The being of wealth serves as a cruelty upon memory, a curse, and begs of return to criminality. One begins to tear away at the shell to reveal something uglier. By contrast, a wealth of being may allow for the crude, the brutal, of theft and even the lowest violence so long as it does not threaten the source from which it springs. "O tua mentula mentula mentula mentula mentula mentula mentula mentula!" Even the graffiti of Rome takes on a noble appearance compared to much of the aristocratic art of decline - where the law illuminates the shadows wealth pours out in justice and vengeance from the underworld. "Two friends were here. While they were, they had bad service in every way from a guy named Epaphroditus. They threw him out and spent 105 and half sestertii most agreeably on whores."
The tedious appearance of the aristocracy without law is that of magpies pecking one another in place of a cow. This is something lower than class concerns, and is grasped where one begins to see the modern art form as beyond Aristotle's poles of beast and god. Reason and the poetic are of a similar distance, and only come to prominence where not only law is diminished but art itself. Their hardening is of a desperation to preserve historicity against the laws of time.

>there is no philosophy of trade
Wrong.
>>16154918
>>16158563
Wealth is our great transition towards death.

>>16127607
>>16127607
Blind wealth in this sense refers to the god Plutus. In the myth he is blind, and related to gods of fortune, and wealth is thus distributed according to the laws of blind fate. The other gods return his sight and he acts, much like Hermes, as a messenger. Wealth is then redistributed according to laws of justice.
This would suggest, much like Plato is saying, that blind wealth is fine and good so long as it is in accordance with justice - it is not something we consider as a great law as it proceeds naturally from the others. My basic argument following this is that other side of the myth, that loss of justice will result in a moment of vengeance and a great redistribution of wealth in accordance with justice.

In other words, blind wealth comes to reign when man assumes his triumph over greater laws, or at least this appears to be the case. Economics would then be the technical distribution of this blind wealth, of the lowest of laws. The proof of this is that such wealth is distributed entirely based on technical thinking, without recourse to any of the higher values. From the perspective of this law all difference between the modern political ideologies disappears. Any distinguishing characteristics are minor and stem from geography, culture, current level of industrial development, political opposition, history of war, etc. In other words, the economic ideas are formed by other laws, not the other way around.

This contradicts the thinking of both the economist and the average person, for whom the economy represents the greatest value, as if it were a natural law. Any opposition within these theories never gets to the essential, anything that would return to us to higher values. For instance, in marxism the redistribution of wealth is merely that of blind wealth, its revolutionary economics never gets to the essential quality - and this is what accounts for its impoverished sense of being as well as the reaction in the west which senses this impoverishment. And this is why it appears unjust even to those who are opposed to critical levels of wealth inequality, there is no great force, no shift towards what would seem to be of higher laws - what is redistributed is only what is insignificant. It seems like a return to nihilism.