/lit/ - Literature

>>20346440
Film is a lazy modern medium, all it has is a cinematography that tricks the instantly gratified into a true, purely human emotion. It's primarily entertainment, and at very best a lower artform. For whatever it is in those moments of its artistic uniqueness, juxtaposed to the older, far nobler arts which we call the "traditional". And whereby a modern European Christian definition of art is given, the fine art of that definition which the Greeks had sort to thunk all of mans creations, in which there was no specific word for the fine of the arts, but it was known as it were intuitively, that a poet could not exist without divine inspiration. Above all film is extremely overrated by midwits who liked to hail it as the "artwork of the future", and it is only a sign of our modern cultural and artistic decline that it is called the medium of the 20th century. It includes so little worth of itself contrasted to the true arts, but it mercilessly steals what it can to bring to the alter. And on this very stone is sacrificed just as mercilessly any work of art before it that it deems possible to use for its lazy mission, as it corrupts it down to its level. The piece is useful for the specificity of the film, and that is that. From the limited potential of film, to its utterly disastrous manifestation as an art-form, developed under jews and lukewarm liberals, paedophiles and sodomites.

Don't mistake me, I enjoy good films, but there is always a problem when one assumes it to to be what it is not.

>>17797230
>Creation implies limitation
Define creation.

>>17679083
>>17679184
>>17679197
>>17679251
>>17679376
OP here. No, I did not look up 'subsist' in a thesaurus. It came to me because the phrase 'self-subsistent' came to my mind first , which to me was synonymous with 'self-existing'. It also sounds nice because of alliteration. The OED has multiple entries which mean more or less 'to continually exist.' I'll give a few examples.
1. "The murders of the inquisition subsisted for centuries'
2. 'The custom of eating their prisoners of war still subsists in the central parts of the island of Celebes.'
3. 'The term for which copyright shall lsubsist shall... be the life of the author and a period of fifty years after his death.'
4. "The best possibme understandj g seems to have subsisted between them."
5. "Matter abstractly considered cannot have subsisted eternally."
6. "So long as braine and heart have facultie by nature to subsist."
7. "The souls of men are capable of subsisting after death."
8. "His regard for her... has subsisted through all the knowledge of fear Marianne's unhappy prepossession for that worthless young man!"
9. "Which charter subsists to this day and is called Magna Charta."
10. "The central arch.. yet subsists"

So, there are generally three meanings of the word "subsist": to maintain or provide sustenance for someone, to consist or lie in some specified thing, circumstance or fact, and... wait for it... to continually exist. The last meaning is used by authors such as Shakespeare, Shelley, Stillingfleet, Lord Chesterfield, Austen, and Gladstone.

>but what about the 'sub' prefix?
It's already present in the Latin verb from which it is derived, subsistēre, which means to stand still or firm. Frankly, that does not seem far off from the meaning "to continually exist." Have a good one.

>>17536359
Aesop - Fables

>>17042200
>cinema above theatre
... why? I will also say, that at least as the culture of the two mediums stand, and their products, the drop between theatre and cinema is a big one. I also do happen to value something intrinsic in theatre which cannot be encapsulated by cinema, but again, ignoring that theatre is still leagues above cinema.

The uniqueness of cinema as an artform as it stands alone is really quite little. You must really do, least for the time being however more, put cinema so much further down below theatre, so it is recognised as a lesser art to the traditional. And my instinctual feelings being, that it will never "supersede" theatre or become its equal, nor should ever be considered such.

>>16865446
Film is a lazy modern medium, all it has is a cinematography that tricks the instantly gratified into a true, purely human emotion. It's primarily entertainment, and at very best a lower artform. For whatever it is in those moments of its artistic uniqueness, juxtaposed to the older, far nobler arts which we call the "traditional". And whereby a modern European Christian definition of art is given, the fine art of that definition which the Greeks had sort to thunk all of mans creations, in which there was no specific word for the fine of the arts, but it was known as it were intuitively, that a poet could not exist without divine inspiration. Above all film is extremely overrated by midwits who liked to hail it as the "artwork of the future", and it is only a sign of our modern cultural and artistic decline that it is called the medium of the 20th century. It includes so little worth of itself contrasted to the true arts, but it mercilessly steals what it can to bring to the alter. And on this very stone is sacrificed just as mercilessly any work of art before it that it deems possible to use for its lazy mission, as it corrupts it down to its level. The piece is useful for the specificity of the film, and that is that. From the limited potential of film, to its utterly disastrous manifestation as an art-form, developed under jews and lukewarm liberals, paedophiles and sodomites.

Don't get me wrong however, I enjoy good films, but there is always a problem when one assumes it to to be what it is not. My brief word, on an endlessly fraught topic.

>>16800524
>tfw even more certain that I am the Animus Hero, or more so, the true hero.

>>16754178
Based quote by Dionysius Longinus on nit-picking mean and small minds:

>I know, then, that the largest intellects are far from being the most exact. A mind always intent on correctness is apt to be dissipated in trifles; but in great affluence of thought, as in vast material wealth, there must needs be an occasional neglect of detail. And is it not inevitably so? Is it not by risking nothing, by never aiming high, that a writer of low or middling powers keeps generally clear of faults and secure of blame? whereas the loftier walks of literature are by their very loftiness perilous? I am well aware, again, that there is a law by which in all human productions the weak points catch the eye first, by which their faults remain indelibly stamped on the memory, while their beauties quickly fade away. Yet, though I have myself noted not a few faulty passages in Homer and in other authors of the highest rank, and though I am far from being partial to their failings, nevertheless I would call them not so much wilful blunders as oversights which were allowed to pass unregarded through that contempt of little things, that “brave disorder,” which is natural to an exalted genius; and I still think that the greater excellences, though not everywhere equally sustained, ought always to be voted to the first place in literature, if for no other reason, for the mere grandeur of soul they evince.

>>16572017
Film is a lazy modern medium, all it has is a cinematography that tricks the instantly gratified into a true, purely human emotion. It's primarily entertainment, and at very best a lower artform. For whatever it is in those moments of its artistic uniqueness, juxtaposed to the older, far nobler arts which we call the "traditional". And whereby a modern European Christian definition of art is given, the fine art of that definition which the Greeks had sort to thunk all of mans creations, in which there was no specific word for the fine of the arts, but it was known as it were intuitively, that a poet could not exist without divine inspiration. Above all film is extremely overrated by midwits who liked to hail it as the "artwork of the future", and it is only a sign of our modern cultural and artistic decline that it is called the medium of the 20th century. It includes so little worth of itself contrasted to the true arts, but it mercilessly steals what it can to bring to the alter. And on this very stone is sacrificed just as mercilessly any work of art before it that it deems possible to use for its lazy mission, as it corrupts it down to its level. The piece is useful for the specificity of the film, and that is that. From the limited potential of film, to its utterly disastrous manifestation as an art-form, developed under jews and lukewarm liberals, paedophiles and sodomites.

Don't get me wrong however, I enjoy good films, but there is always a problem when one assumes it to to be what it is not.

>>16548783
>if it is inspired by the God's

>>16548797
Pig philosophy.

>>16481578
Film is a lazy modern medium, all it has is a cinematography that tricks the instantly gratified into a true, purely human emotion. It's primarily entertainment, and at very best a lower artform. For whatever it is in those moments of its artistic uniqueness, juxtaposed to the older, far nobler arts which we call the "traditional". And whereby a modern European Christian definition of art is given, the fine art of that definition which the Greeks had sort to thunk all of mans creations, in which there was no specific word for the fine of the arts, but it was known as it were intuitively, that a poet could not exist without divine inspiration. Above all film is extremely overrated by midwits who liked to hail it as the "artwork of the future", and it is only a sign of our modern cultural and artistic decline that it is called the medium of the 20th century. It includes so little worth of itself contrasted to the true arts, but it mercilessly steals what it can to bring to the alter. And on this very stone is sacrificed just as mercilessly any work of art before it that it deems possible to use for its lazy mission, as it corrupts it down to its level. The piece is useful for the specificity of the film, and that is that. From the limited potential of film, to its utterly disastrous manifestation as an art-form, developed under jews and lukewarm liberals, paedophiles and sodomites.

Don't get me wrong however, I enjoy good films, but there is always a problem when one assumes it to to be what it is not.

>>16474387
LUDWIG FERDINAND CLAUẞ > Hans F. K. Günther

>>16470477
Film is a lazy modern medium, all it has is a cinematography that tricks the instantly gratified into a true, purely human emotion. It's primarily entertainment, and at very best a lower artform. For whatever it is in those moments of its artistic uniqueness, juxtaposed to the older, far nobler arts which we call the "traditional". And whereby a modern European Christian definition of art is given, the fine art of that definition which the Greeks had sort to thunk all of mans creations, in which there was no specific word for the fine of the arts, but it was known as it were intuitively, that a poet could not exist without divine inspiration. Above all film is extremely overrated by midwits who liked to hail it as the "artwork of the future", and it is only a sign of our modern cultural and artistic decline that it is called the medium of the 20th century. It includes so little worth of itself contrasted to the true arts, but it mercilessly steals what it can to bring to the alter. And on this very stone is sacrificed just as mercilessly any work of art before it that it deems possible to use for its lazy mission, as it corrupts it down to its level. The piece is useful for the specificity of the film, and that is that. From the limited potential of film, to its utterly disastrous manifestation as an art-form, developed under jews and lukewarm liberals, paedophiles and sodomites.

Don't get me wrong however, I enjoy good films, but there is always a problem when one assumes it to to be what it is not.

>>16443633
>I bought the three treaties of Hume, and the three critiques of Kant.
>Was that a good idea ? I absolutely do not know shit about philosophy.
Poor anon, that was a good idea for future investment. For now buy these:

>Homer: Iliad and Odyssey
>Hesiod: Works and Days and Theogony
>Aeschylus: Complete Works
>Sophocles: Complete Works
>Euripides: Complete Works
>The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy: The Complete Fragments and Selected Testimonies of the Major Presocratics
>Plato Complete Works
>Aristotle Complete Works
>Aristophanes, whatever
>KJV Bible
That should do.

>>16416034
>Vixen Finally Has a Hentai Game!
>Celebrities’ Remarkable Weight Loss Journeys
>Quiz: Can You Name All These Classic ’90s Movies?
>You Won't Last 5 Minutes Playing This Game!
But is it moral?

>>16411725
He's probably just a based Entp like myself; now imagine how much a white man would eclipse you-- That's me.

>>16410902
Both Obama and Dawkins are overt homosexuals, but I'm glad can be so honoured to be in the same group as Socrates.

>According to a recent study conducted by the National Institute of Modern Music, it was determined that jazz is simply a bunch of random notes played quickly. A popular genre since it emerged in the late 19th century, new groundbreaking analytics have determined that, despite some prior belief to the contrary, jazz is really just a series of varying notes playing in rapid succession.
>“We spent hours feeding Jazz records into pattern-detecting supercomputers,” said Dr. Ramona Kasky, a noted musicologist. “The results were unanimous: scientifically, jazz is actually just a meaningless arrangement of notes played at high speed.”
>During the study, the National Institute of Modern Music also consulted numerous other musicologists, all of whom ultimately concluded that the genre, and all music encompassed within it, was really nothing more than cacophonies of notes played quickly.
>“My coworkers and I listened to those standards for days, hoping to find a meaning, a pattern – anything,” added Jasper Hainsworth, professor of musicology at Berklee College of Music. “Instead, we found nothing. It was quite disappointing to say the least.”
>This study is projected to have a major impact on the careers of many aspiring musicians. Several universities have already announced plans to shut down their programs relating to the study of jazz.
>“I spent years studying Coltrane, Armstrong, and Ellington and learning how to emulate their technique.” said Mary Styles, a senior studying Jazz Arts at Juilliard. “Now I know they were all just talentless fakes. Talk about a useless degree.”
>The results of the study are predicted to have an impact on the nation’s cafes.

Mfw laughing at all the pseuds who have been listening to purposely chaotic white noise this entire time have a mental breakdown.

>>16405388
We love Byronism.

>>16390973
Entp's rise up.

>>16382277
>>16382282
>>16382293
>>16382302
>tfw naturally a good arguer and orator and already intuitively practice these on a regular level

>>16366819
Faggot.

>>16366804
You are an Aryan; and man of the West! Hail your brothers and God above!

>>16355531
More intelligent than you! More intelligent than you! I like deep blue, shallow blue, or however; that anime which the bathtub scream scene, I enjoyed it though it sucked as an anime it presented that dry summer day very well similar to Neon Genesis Evangelion, similarly to Cowboy Bebop. You are lacking in that dryness, that dream--; your Nietzsche only squashes creativity. He is a resentful slave moralist, I cannot even write without a "take your meds".

>I suck my cock, and that's all that matters
T. Nietzsche listening to his OWN music and receiving sensual pleasure because that's his purpose to life but at least he can hear it right?

>Australian threads