/lit/ - Literature

>>22173218
>an unemployed autist who has never seen a vagina
A woman went through nine months of pregnancy for this lol

>responsible for tradCaths being economically illiterate.

What is /lit/'s thoughts on G.K Chesterton

As don't him much on /li/l. What is /lit/'s opinion on G.K Chesterton?

What does \lit\ think of G.K. Chesterton?

>>19721215
Mental retard take, and quite honestly the very description of midwit, that being only marginally above average in intelligence, not intelligent enough to get a decent grasp of reality and not fall prey to some schizo philosophies created by neurotic paranoiacs and manic depressives. Anyone with an objective, Aristotelian metaphysical perception of reality understands that the facts of life just are, some positive and some negative in relation to your emotional responses, but neither category greatly out-numbering the other if not for easily identifiable underlying issues. Any perception of reality as being "muh suffering" and intelligence as being "muh curse" are just midwit takes on the perception of the world, clouded by emotionality and incapable of a simple objective view of things.

Picrel, Pynchon, Vonnegut, Mark Twain, CS Lewis, Tolkien, William Blake, Yeats, John Milton, Shakespeare, Walt Whitman, Ezra Pound, Robert Frost, Joseph Heller, Oscar Wilde, James Joyce all had a lust for life and true joie de vivre to spare, and despite your own particular tastes and disagreements, are all considered legendary masters of literature.

>>19395060
“There again," said Syme irritably, "what is there poetical about being in revolt? You might as well say that it is poetical to be sea-sick. Being sick is a revolt. Both being sick and being rebellious may be the wholesome thing on certain desperate occasions; but I'm hanged if I can see why they are poetical. Revolt in the abstract is – revolting. It's mere vomiting.”

― G.K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday

"The person who is really in revolt is the optimist, who generally lives and dies in a desperate and suicidal effort to persuade all the other people how good they are.“ — G. K. Chesterton, The Defendant

chester

>>18386624
observe

>>17499786
>Nietzsche, as every one knows, preached a doctrine which he and his followers regard apparently as very revolutionary; he held that ordinary altruistic morality had been the invention of a slave class to prevent the emergence of superior types to fight and rule them. Now, modern people, whether they agree with this or not, always talk of it as a new and unheard-of idea. It is calmly and persistently supposed that the great writers of the past, say Shakespeare for instance, did not hold this view, because they had never imagined it; because it had never come into their heads. Turn up the last act of Shakespeare’s Richard III and you will find not only all that Nietzsche had to say put into two lines, but you will find it put in the very words of Nietzsche. Richard Crookback says to his nobles:

Conscience is but a word that cowards use,
Devised at first to keep the strong in awe.

>As I have said, the fact is plain. Shakespeare had thought of Nietzsche and the Master Morality; but he weighed it at its proper value and put it in its proper place. Its proper place is the mouth of a half-insane hunchback on the eve of defeat. This rage against the weak is only possible in a man morbidly brave but fundamentally sick; a man like Richard, a man like Nietzsche. This case alone ought to destroy the absurd fancy that these modern philosophies are modern in the sense that the great men of the past did not think of them. They thought of them; only they did not think much of them. It was not that Shakespeare did not see the Nietzsche idea; he saw it, and he saw through it.

>Nietzsche, as every one knows, preached a doctrine which he and his followers regard apparently as very revolutionary; he held that ordinary altruistic morality had been the invention of a slave class to prevent the emergence of superior types to fight and rule them. Now, modern people, whether they agree with this or not, always talk of it as a new and unheard-of idea. It is calmly and persistently supposed that the great writers of the past, say Shakespeare for instance, did not hold this view, because they had never imagined it; because it had never come into their heads. Turn up the last act of Shakespeare’s Richard III and you will find not only all that Nietzsche had to say put into two lines, but you will find it put in the very words of Nietzsche. Richard Crookback says to his nobles:

Conscience is but a word that cowards use,
Devised at first to keep the strong in awe.

>As I have said, the fact is plain. Shakespeare had thought of Nietzsche and the Master Morality; but he weighed it at its proper value and put it in its proper place. Its proper place is the mouth of a half-insane hunchback on the eve of defeat. This rage against the weak is only possible in a man morbidly brave but fundamentally sick; a man like Richard, a man like Nietzsche. This case alone ought to destroy the absurd fancy that these modern philosophies are modern in the sense that the great men of the past did not think of them. They thought of them; only they did not think much of them. It was not that Shakespeare did not see the Nietzsche idea; he saw it, and he saw through it.

Why are anglos so obsessed with writing quirky sarcastic soulless shit?

>obliterates nietzche tranny and locks his withered syphilitic dick in the cage

>nothing personnal kid
the starting verses of the Ballad are still some of the best opening lines of an epic poem ever
>hurr it does not call upon the muses
he is a catholic why should he

“Feminism is a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands.“

Was he right?

>>15231520
>>15232259
>>15234214
Imagine the smell.

>>14987145
This smug fucker taught me to love essays.

This jolly chubster.

>>14769316
Every writer and thinker of all time was massively coping, except for pic related. Take the Chestertonpill.

>"Is there anybody here who doesn't believe in God?"
>nervous silence from the audience
>"I ask again, otherwise I think my job here will be even easier than I assumed it would be."
>the audience laughs nervously
>"Is there anyone here who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the word of his biblical teachings?"
>guy raises hands
>the audience, shocked, stares at him, with a look on their faces similar to one you'd give a man about to be executed
>"How dare you. I repeat, how DARE you enslave your soul to this cynical worship of logic, this tragic maxim of Darwinism! I assume you'd kill your children if it would bring you wordly gain?"
>the audience cheers, claps and yells in unison, a festival of mockery ensues. A loud laughter can be heard from those who are already familiar with the Ches and knew what to expect. The guy is not given a chance to reply or elaborate on his specific philosophical views because who cares he's probably stupid anyway. Atheism is deemed too stupid for discussion, that particular segment of the entire event is published separately in a collection of essays under the title "The Crime of Spiritual Suicide by a Maniac" and distributed to every seminary in the country. Chesterton is hailed as one of the greatest orators since Cicero. Christianity prevails, atheism fails, sorry, deal with it, bye bye.

>"Is there anybody here who doesn't believe in God?"
>nervous silence from the audience
>"I ask again, otherwise I think my job here will be even easier than I assumed it would be."
>the audience laughs nervously
>"Is there anyone here who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the word of his biblical teachings?"
>guy raises hands
>the audience, shocked, stares at him, with a look on their faces similar to one you'd give a man about to be executed
>"How dare you. I repeat, how DARE you enslave your soul to this cynical worship of logic, this tragic maxim of Darwinism! I assume you'd kill your children if it would bring you wordly gain?"
>the audience cheers, claps and yells in unison, a festival of mockery ensues. A loud laughter can be heard from those who are already familiar with the Ches and knew what to expect. The guy is not given a chance to reply or elaborate on his specific philosophical views because who cares he's probably stupid anyway. Atheism is deemed too stupid for discussion, that particular segment of the entire event is published separately in a collection of essays under the title "The Crime of Spiritual Suicide by a Maniac" and distributed to every seminary in the country. Chesterton is hailed as one of the greatest orators since Cicero. Christianity prevails, atheism fails, sorry, deal with it, bye bye.

>"Is there anybody here who doesn't believe in God?"
>nervous silence from the audience
>"I ask again, otherwise I think my job here will be even easier than I assumed it would be."
>the audience laughs nervously
>"Is there anyone here who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the word of his biblical teachings?"
>guy raises hands
>the audience, shocked, stares at him, with a look on their faces similar to one you'd give a man about to be executed
>"How dare you. I repeat, how DARE you enslave your soul to this cynical worship of logic, this tragic maxim of Darwinism! I assume you'd kill your children if it would bring you wordly gain?"
>the audience cheers, claps and yells in unison, a festival of mockery ensues. A loud laughter can be heard from those who are already familiar with the Ches and knew what to expect. The guy is not given a chance to reply or elaborate on his specific philosophical views because who cares he's probably stupid anyway. Atheism is deemed too stupid for discussion, that particular segment of the entire event is published separately in a collection of essays under the title "The Crime of Spiritual Suicide by a Maniac" and distributed to every seminary in the country. Chesterton is hailed as one of the greatest orators since Cicero. Christianity prevails, atheism fails, sorry, deal with it, bye bye.

I know a lot of people resent him for making "baseless" statements, but he himself admits almost every chapter of Heretics, Orthodoxy, and similar writings that he's just rambling about his own opinions and that he's not trying to posit some rigorous proof of his philosophy. The goal of his more explicitly Christian writings is to give a rough outline of the Christian worldview so that, if someone reads it and finds it compelling, he can go on to explore it further himself. I don't see anything wrong with that.