/lit/ - Literature

>>7352123
Fuck you.

>>7352124
Fuck you.

>>7352127
Fuck you.

>>7190096
filtered

>>7190097
filtered

This is an injustice.

I HATE all of you.

>>6996567
>>6996567
>>6996567
>>6996567

>>6903434
If you check the archive, you will find that I suffocated that malicious old curmudgeon.

>>6842544
I was hoping you would read what I wrote in all-caps. As a reward for enlightening me on the definition of iconoclasm, here is the definition of "splitting hairs": Using the inherent ambiguity of language to distract from the actual ideas or issues, or deliberately rephrasing the opposing argument incorrectly, and then addressing that rephrasing.

More from the section you quoted from:

>To call the taming of an animal its "improvement" sounds almost like a joke to our ears. Whoever knows what goes on in kennels doubts that dogs are "improved" there. They are weakened, they are made less harmful, and through the depressive effect of fear, through pain, through wounds, and through hunger, they become sickly beasts. It is no different with the tamed man whom the priest has "improved." In the early Middle Ages, when the church was indeed, above all, a kennel, the most perfect specimens of the "blond beast" were hunted down everywhere; and the noble Teutons, for example, were "improved." But how did such an "improved" Teuton look after he had been drawn into a monastery? Like a caricature of man, a miscarriage: he had become a "sinner," he was stuck in a cage, tormented with all sorts of painful concepts. And there he lay, sick, miserable, hateful to himself, full of evil feelings against the impulses of his own life, full of suspicion against all that was still strong and happy. In short, a "Christian."
>Physiologically speaking: in the struggle with beasts, making them sick may be the only way to make them weak. The church understood this: it sickened and weakened man — and by so doing "improved" him.

To put it pithier and more eloquently, MORALITY IS A SIGN OF DECADENCE AND IT IMPEDES ON LIFE UNLEASHING ITSELF 100%
IMAGINE HOW GREAT THINGS WOULD BE IF THERE WERE NO MORALS HOLDING BACK SUPERIOR INTELLECTS
OH THE POSSIBILITIES CUT THE CHAINS

At the end of the section he writes:
>Expressed in a formula, one might say: all the means by which one has so far attempted to make mankind moral were through and through immoral.

Morality as it has been traditionally understood for thousands of years has damaged certain men within certain cultures. This type of morality of taming certain men, domesticating them, "improving" them, is not good. "What is the value of morality?" Do away with it, at least for certain men. If it is not moral (b: I like this) to be moral (a: morality as traditionally conceived) then the former morality (b) is a different type of morality than the latter type of morality (a) but since the latter morality (a) is what is meant by morality then the former morality (b) is not morality, it is preference.

>Are we immoralists harming virtue? No more than anarchists harm princes. Only because the latter are shot at do they once more sit securely on their thrones. Moral: morality must be shot at.
What does he mean by virtue? His preference of how things should be? Anti-egalitarianism. Aristocratic radicalism.

bye

He is good to read when you are in high school because he is realistic and unsentimental and at that age most kids are pretty dumb. For example, it would be difficult to read his works in 9th grade and still dress as a goth.

But he takes it a little too far. His advocacy of common sense becomes an advocacy of what is common (in the bad sense of the word). Instead of reading a good book, he would rather watch a shitty movie and complain about it. Not a fan of his geek humor either.

>guy on /lit/ says they're really into novels
>"oh cool, what kind?"
>"Oh you know, Infinite Jest, Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow, stuff like that"
>mfw

>>6516408
>>6516408
In my experience, bogging yourself down in theory opens up new worlds later. There is a more cerebral version of what poets feel emotionally.
It is difficult to describe but I like to use theory as a tool in order to open up new lights in which I experience everyday reality. Theory in itself and for itself is dead and grey. Unfortunately, it is unavoidable unless you were able to keep yourself completely isolated from birth.
On the other hand, there is something off-putting about always resorting to escapism, when you leach yourself to the distorted visions put down on paper by others.
The best in Thoreau and Emerson is not in their writings.

>>6379242
If you are going to accuse someone of getting their information from Wikipedia, try being more specific with the source of your claims, retard. Since it's such a major part of his philosophy, it should be easy for you to find. I would love for someone to show me where Schopenhauer explains (explains, not explains away) how the intellect appeared in timelessness and spacelessness. If there was will before the intellect then how did the intellect separate from the thing-in-itself? The intellect presupposes a world with causality. Schopenhauer claims that the intellect is responsible for causality. Schopenhauer was so full of shit he thought the animal species were eternally fixed.