/lit/ - Literature

>Though we have not been attempting an account of Art's historical development from the religious idea, but simply an outline of their mutual affinities, yet that historic career must be touched upon in dealing with the circumstance that it was almost solely plastic art, and that of Painting in particular, which could present the religious dogmas—originally themselves symbolical—in an ideally figurative form. Poetry, on the contrary, was constrained by their very symbolism to adhere to the form laid down by canon as a matter of realistic truth and implicit credence.

>Now, in respect of plastic art it is palpable that its ideally creative force diminished in exact proportion as it withdrew from contact with religion. Betwixt those sublimest revelations of religious art, in the godlike birth of the Redeemer and the last fulfilment of the work of the Judge of the world, the saddest of all pictures, that of the Saviour suffering on the cross, had likewise attained to its height of perfection; and this remained the archetype of the countless representations of martyred saints, their agonies illumined by the bliss of transport. Here the portrayal of bodily pain, with the instruments of torture and their wielders, already led the artists down to the common actual world, whose types of human wickedness and cruelty surrounded them beyond escape. And then came "Characteristique," with its multiple attraction for the artist; the consummate "portrait" of even the vulgarest criminal, such as might be found among the temporal and spiritual princes of that remarkable time, became the painter's most rewarding task; as on the other hand, he early enough had taken his motives for the Beautiful from the physical charms of the women in his voluptuous surroundings.
>The last sunset flush of artistic idealising of the Christian dogma had been kissed by the morning glow of the reviving Grecian art-ideal: but what could now be borrowed from the ancient world, was no longer that unity of Greek art with Antique religion whereby alone had the former blossomed and attained fruition. We have only to compare an antique statue of the goddess Venus with an Italian painting of the women chosen to impersonate this Venus, to perceive the difference between religious ideal and worldly reality. Greek art could only teach its sense of form, not lend its ideal content; whilst the Christian ideal had passed out of range of this sense-of-form, to which the actual world alone seemed henceforth visible. What shape this actual world at last took on, and what types alone it offered to the plastic arts, we will still exclude from our inquiry; suffice it to say that that art which was destined to reach its apogee in its affinity with religion, completely severing itself from this communion—as no one can deny—has fallen into utter ruin.

>>21610170
>What we understand in general by the artistic province, we might define as Evaluation of the Pictorial (Ausbildung des Bildlichen); that is to say, Art grasps the Figurative of an idea, that outer form in which it shews itself to the imagination, and by developing the likeness—before employed but allegorically—into a picture embracing in itself the whole idea, she lifts the latter high above itself into the realm of revelation. Speaking of the ideal shape of the Greek statue, our great philosopher finely says: It is as if the artist were shewing Nature what she would, but never completely could; wherefore the artistic Ideal surpasses Nature. Of Greek theogony it may be said that, in touch with the artistic instinct of the nation, it always clung to anthropomorphism. Their gods were figures with distinctive names and plainest individuality; their names were used to mark specific groups of things (Gattungsbegriffe), just as the names of various coloured objects were used to denote the colours themselves, for which the Greeks employed no abstract terms like ours: "gods" were they called, to mark their nature as divine; but the Divine itself the Greeks called God, "ό θεός." Never did it occur to them to think of "God" as a Person, or give to him artistic shape as to their named gods; he remained an idea, to be defined by their philosophers, though the Hellenic spirit strove in vain to clearly fix it—till the wondrous inspiration of poor people spread abroad the incredible tidings that the "Son of God" had offered himself on the cross to redeem the world from deceit and sin.

>We have nothing here to do with the astoundingly varied attempts of speculative human reason to explain the nature of this Son of the God, who walked on earth and suffered shame: where the greater miracle had been revealed in train of that manifestation, the reversal of the will-to-live which all believers experienced in themselves, it already embraced that other marvel, the divinity of the herald of salvation. The very shape of the Divine had presented itself in anthropomorphic guise; it was the body of the quintessence of all pitying Love, stretched out upon the cross of pain and suffering. A—symbol?—beckoning to the highest pity, to worship of suffering, to imitation of this breaking of all self-seeking Will: nay, a picture, a very effigy! In this, and its effect upon the human heart, lies all the spell whereby the Church soon made the Græco-Roman world her own.

>>18859460
Just as Eastern religion relied on ingenious abstraction to explain the core of their religions, so Christianity (as Judaism and Greek paganism before it) relied on art.

You cannot separate the mythology of Christ from a philosophy, even if you don't believe in it, that wondrous image is essential for its understanding.

>>16388591
He wasn't an incel, he had many love affairs and longer relationships. He in fact did have a child, but it died very young.

Go spout your disingenuity someplace else, Satan. If you insist on having no compassion or love for the world.

>>16308287
-First: Thales
-Middle: Jesus Christ
-Last: Heidegger

For the West at least.

>>16251521
Based.

>"Property" has acquired an almost greater sacredness in our social conscience than religion: for offence against the latter there is lenience, for damage to the former no forgiveness. Since Property is deemed the base of all stability, the more's the pity that not all are owners, that in fact the greater proportion of Society comes disinherited into the world. Society is manifestly thus reduced by its own principle to such a perilous inquietude, that it is compelled to reckon all its laws for an impossible adjustment of this conflict; and protection of property—for which in its widest international sense the weaponed host is specially maintained—can truly mean no else than a defence of the possessors against the non-possessors. Many as are the earnest and sagacious brains that have applied themselves to this problem, its solution, such as that at last suggested of an equal division of all possessions, has not as yet been found amenable; and it seems as if the State's disposal of the apparently so simple idea [268] of Property had driven a beam into the body of mankind that dooms it to a lingering death of agony.
>Clever though be the many thoughts expressed by mouth or pen about the invention of money and its enormous value as a civiliser, against such praises should be set the curse to which it has always been doomed in song and legend. If gold here figures as the demon strangling manhood's innocence, our greatest poet shews at last the goblin's game of paper money. The Nibelung's fateful ring become a pocket-book, might well complete the eerie picture of the spectral world-controller. By the advocates of our Progressive Civilisation this rulership is indeed regarded as a spiritual, nay, a moral power; for vanished Faith is now replaced by "Credit," that fiction of our mutual honesty kept upright by the most elaborate safeguards against loss and trickery. What comes to pass beneath the benedictions of this Credit we now are witnessing, and seem inclined to lay all blame upon the Jews.

>>16107109
Unironically the Bible, but it will also lead him to appreciate Fascism as an organic effort. Irrelevant of theories.

>inb4 read muh theory

>>15779375
Christianity is an active Buddhism.

Yes I am aware I have solved all moral philosophy, but little are there who would follow this from its propositions to obvious thoughts where the statement first seems antithetical.

>>15771500
This lukewarm neoliberal society managed to drill out the earnestness of pubescence once again it seems, though of course that has its negative, the imperative of all young men to bear arms for example, but without it a man is no man at all. Because he still fears, but as Carlyle says, fear is the first thing for a man to get under his belt.

And furthermore stood for everything more Apollonian than Apollo?

Dionysus, I would say Christ is a greater in shear ecstatic motion, because no drink or sex; any pleasurable revelry, can match that of suffering, all the suffering of the world; rather Dionysus prefers his drink to suffering. And that is life affirming in Nietzsche's view, the wisdom of Silenius and all that; but not even the greatest intelligence could deny that suffering is more Dionysian that Dionysus in his ecstacy! And this traditional Greek God in his preferences still exists as a unique religious idea, but again, for the defining characters of which Nietzsche praises, are they not in Christ all the more? I can understand Nietzsche making an ought out of this, that Christ does not "affirm life" but rather is a symbol of the overturning of it, in a Wagnerian sense of putting redemption above life, but the essence of the praises remains. How can he say, for example, that the Christian religion is weak when this suffering for has only been the martyrs wish? Because they do it out of a belief in God as Jesus did also? Is this jealousy in Nietzsche?

>>15467115
Man is a social anon;

but yes, though he is not supposed to he can, through the suffering of the world.

>>15294112
>What we understand in general by the artistic province, we might define as Evaluation of the Pictorial (Ausbildung des Bildlichen); that is to say, Art grasps the Figurative of an idea, that outer form in which it shews itself to the imagination, and by developing the likeness—before employed but allegorically—into a picture embracing in itself the whole idea, she lifts the latter high above itself into the realm of revelation. Speaking of the ideal shape of the Greek statue, our great philosopher finely says: It is as if the artist were shewing Nature what she would, but never completely could; wherefore the artistic Ideal surpasses Nature. (2) Of Greek theogony it may be said that, in touch with the artistic instinct of the nation, it always clung to anthropomorphism. Their gods were figures with distinctive names and plainest individuality; their names were used to mark specific groups of things (Gattungsbegriffe), just as the names of various coloured objects were used to denote the colours themselves, for which the Greeks employed no abstract terms like ours: "gods" were they called, to mark their nature as divine; but the Divine itself the Greeks called God, "ο θεος." Never did it occur to them to think of " God " as a Person, or give to him artistic shape as to their named gods; he remained [217] an idea, to be defined by their philosophers, though the Hellenic spirit strove in vain to clearly fix it—till the wondrous inspiration of poor people spread abroad the incredible tidings that the "Son of God" had offered himself on the cross to redeem the world from deceit and sin.
>We have nothing here to do with the astoundingly varied attempts of speculative human reason to explain the nature of this Son of the God, who walked on earth and suffered shame: where the greater miracle had been revealed in train of that manifestation, the reversal of the will-to-live which all believers experienced in themselves, it already embraced that other marvel, the divinity of the herald of salvation. The very shape of the Divine had presented itself in anthropomorphic guise; it was the body of the quintessence of all pitying Love, stretched out upon the cross of pain and suffering. A—symbol?—beckoning to the highest pity, to worship of suffering, to imitation of this breaking of all self-seeking Will: nay, a picture, a very effigy! In this, and its effect upon the human heart, lies all the spell whereby the Church soon made the Græco-Roman world her own.
>the Saviour's birth by a Mother who, [218] not herself a goddess, became divine through her virginal conception of a son without human contact, against the laws of Nature. A thought of infinite depth, expressed in form of miracle.

>>15050635
He's not entirely wrong, but please tell me the moral system he or yea follow which does not stem from the pure root-essence of a religion, or how a morality can be followed practically for man if not understood in the state of religious reverence and valuing. Liking that of Wagner to Schopenhauer's ethics, he wished to make that the conscious(or intellectual) extrapolation of all future Christian morality, which would require that philosophical drive and reasoning to be put into a religious state, of course literally on par with the already prior religion here, but it stands to the same example whether there exists a prior religion of the same morality or not. One thing is to remember, in modern philosophy and philosophy in general, it is sometimes necessary to speak of things as if relative, comparing moralities and not morality, it is necessary but one must always find himself down to the root-essence of his own speaking if he is to be of any use. Otherwise he is just useless.

And so I have said everything in this post with the moral intention of Jesus Christ.

My second point, these deeper religious yearnings are absolutely necessary for a people, and for man, for he has a religious core- and he is measuring himself up against his own death. The purpose of life is death, and this can only be determined by the profundity of a religion, of a religious determination. What is right is action, what is true is the doing of this. Even if we were to ignore this, the truth of a mystical experience cannot be denied, a sense of thinker which is not conceptual, but comes from a purely natural point. That is unconscious you may say, or supraconscious-- but it is religious, and a truth in action, and I would like to return to my previous point which is of a purely conscious relation: that the nature of life is religious, and man is the only animal which is aware of this, but he is no less prefigured by it. To be without it would be to ask what stands without being, it is for this conversation and answer entirely useless.

>>15032837
Quite obviously not, while Christianity recognises the root essence of a moral meaning to the world, Platonism does not.

This is only the smallest an example of a difference as well, fundamentally they are different system; even if they differences do not produce dislike of the other. All one has to do is use their brain, look at the enormous centrality to the crucifixion, even ignoring the fact of having such a central image is a world shaping difference, it's entire character is not to be found in Platonism. As Schiller wrote to Goethe:

>"If one would lay hand on the characteristic mark of Christianity, distinguishing it from all mono-theistic religions, it lies in nothing less than the upheaval of Law, of Kant's 'Imperative,' in whose place it sets free Inclination. In its own pure form it therefore is the presentation of a beautiful morality, or of the humanising of the Holy; and in this sense it is the only æsthetic religion."—

>>15032965
>>15032867
The mistake was considerable, and necessary to be pointed out if one wishes to lay any hands on innermost character of the Christian religion.

Before you proceed with looking into such a character, you must actually read Christian writers, with the awareness of the Christian influence, and so whomever has written with such themes incidentally or not. It could be a novel, or it could be Elliot.

>>14885914
Did you come from a certain background that pushed you in that direction or just coincidence?
Both, but whatever you do START WITH JUNG! He will help you innumerably. Even if you just read up on him online, he will give you the necessary psychological valuing system even if you do not believe in God or such you can find and experience the truth. It's difficult to understand at first, but you will in time. For sake of sending you on your journey, the structure of the king can and does influence the philosopher as the philosopher does the other when he is king, and that is, the eternal definition/ideal of the King as it is of the Philosopher- Read Plato. Tap into the implicit human framework, read Schopenhauer as well for this. Also the presocratics and Aristotle. Spend a year reading all of these figures.

As long as you understand the essential nature of hierarchy, eternally expressed in the tripartite soul and ordering/nature of man of Plato. Just remember that hierarchy always exists and that implicit value or rather objective essential always remains, but that that does not mean the particular superficial ordering is always the same for every context or situation, you must intuitively look deeper and find a conscious apprehension.

Look upwards to a finch in the sky, and find a deeper connection to the ground, the base of the world as Heidegger and many others have put it. Give yourself up to the fact that there is a higher, and through that you come to a deeper (connection to;) state of being, you do so because you *rationally* do so because you know that there is a higher and a deeper, and so you rationally choose to go into the irrational as a respective element of life. Height and Depth, which of course developed from our perception of the land and the sky and trees and such. Connect into that.

I would also recommend reading Carlyle for this. Result into a creative relation to your environment as greatly as possible, for that is the "great man" you are discovering. Religion is the centre of this, the occult is merely an extrapolation of a certain religious core and metaphysical truth of the age, or zeitgeist, and the occult or esoteric as a sort of secondary "founding" and unique extension of this, it as I repeat again, covering certain experiences and truths it feels must be espoused and most often this has a great value, just remember however the religious (image) core is the centre and the more important. So Christ Crucifixed. That sacred image. Truth renews itself through every age. You will need to cultivate all areas of your life, to succeed in the point of the occult in rounding together the areas of man but is not the centre or end purpose itself, in my experience.

Just don't bother with Kabbalah except to maybe fill in some details for Western mysticism like the value of nothing or such, primarily because Kabbalah has no religious centre, it is psychological fantasy with no sacred purpose. It is mundane and material.

>>14806466
As this anon said>>14807761 , but here anyway.

>>14722569
>>14722594
Perhaps to put it better, is those who do not believe in God, have no modesty and it has never been a rational thing. Irrational! Greatly so.

Christ.

>>14583415
>he hasn't heard of compassion
Compassion for the meek necessitates the-stronger.

And do you think pride for faggotry is also good? Do you think pride which drives a man to illusion himself as something he is not to also be good? Because it's "pride". Every now and then retarded teenagers with the most simple and weak developments and understanding of ideas appear, like you, and every time they get assblasted. You don't know what life is, you base this stinking pile of "philosophy" of yours on nothing other than your own pubescent egocentric emotions. When you grow up, your understanding and focus will shift further onto the objective in order to create equilibrium between it and you, the subject. A more developed subjectivity.

Kys

>>14554130
>1. If God is omnipotent, why did he create a Trinity and not a Duinity or a Fourinity?
You are retarded, Augustine answered this. There is also a definite element of the symbolic.

>2. If the Father is God and Christ is God, why does Christ not know the Day of Judgement when this knowledge pertains to his divine nature?
Because he became mortal.

>3. Why is there no Female Person inside the Trinity when to conceive a Son, a female of the same Essence is necessary?
I don't know where you got this from but to answer, the Holy Ghost has always had and been the feminine character. Which is why to man, it has always had a creative relation.

>4. How do we know that 3. was not caused by the ancient and repugnant sexist views of the Church not wanting to include the female Mary into the Godhead?
"Sexist" lol, making Mary God defeat the entire purpose of that sublime image, the Virgin birth.

>5. What if there is actually a Fourinity or a Fivenity, but God has not revealed it yet and will reveal it later?
And? A meaningless statement.

>6. Why are we not seeing any miracles today to strengthen the faith of all people and convert atheists?
You can't know God, spiritual revelations still occur, and there is much that is metaphorical. Divine intervention also has a relation to the Zeitgeist.

>7. Why are so many people from other religions claiming to find God, but they reject and spit on Christ, who is apparently the only way to God?
They're wrong? Spiritual truth is found in all beings, and hence is realised in religion by greater self consciousness. It doesn't mean one isn't more true than another or cannot posses a unique aesthetic/truth/value.

>8. Why did Christ cry when he is God? And if he is the proper role model to be emulated for humans (males included), why would the traditional males of that time allow this?
Christ wept for the world, alone, and nothing for himself, The complete self negating spirit. This, and the divinity of Christ we follow and emulate as best men may. It also must be remembered that many of Christs actions and sayings are contextual, and should not all be taken as absolute course, open to moral intuition as Christ was. His Crucifixion is the most divine and true of all actions. Telling Peter to cease his fighting, only hurting the innocent whose blame is to their superiors, is not however.

>9. Why did Jesus say that women will not enter Heaven,
Blatantly wrong.

>10. Why was the New Testament not preserved from error?
You're assuming it has much, and secondly because man is erroneous.

>11. Why did God decide to write it in Greek and not inspire the writers to use the language of Creation itself, Hebrew?
Because no language is perfect since Babel, and no language can ever describe divine truth perfectly. Because it is limited.