/lit/ - Literature

I'm reading As You Like It. My edition has no footnotes or intros or any of that gay shit, it's just the story.

So he believes that some guy in Roman times rose from the dead and has the gall to attack others for their delusions.

>>19644852
>Reddit is too normie
>Reads YA

>>19452821
>you don't need a book for that. read freud

I said there was one book of Voltaire's to which the souls of honest people who love literature must constantly return. This, of course, is "Candide"; a work worthy to be bound up in royal vellum and stained in Tyrian dyes. If it were not for "Candide"—so stiff and stilted was the fashionable spirit of that age—there would be little in Voltaire's huge shelf of volumes, little except stray flashes of his irrepressible gaiety, to arrest and to hold us. But into the pages of "Candide" he poured the full bright torrent of his immortal wit, and with this book in our hands we can feel him and savour him as he was.

I would sooner go down to posterity as the author of "Candide" than of any volume in the world except Goethe's "Faust."... There is something extraordinarily reassuring about the book. It reconciles one to life even at the moment it is piling up life's extravagant miseries. Its buoyant and resilient energy, full of the unconquerable irreverence and glorious shamelessness of youth, takes life fairly by the throat and mocks it and defies it to its face. It indicates courageous gaiety as the only victory, and ironical submission to what even gaiety cannot alter as the only wisdom.

You'd never catch Kat obesely reading crap like Kafka.

君子成人之美,不成人之惡
t. Confucius

>>19110055
The English were BASED all along? I already knew that.

reading is entering alone a dense, dark forest with only the light of our own intellect to help guide us. we must find our own way and in the process learn who we are, this is the key to developing taste.

Why is no one talking about the book? You have read it, right?

Atman

I don't know why people waste time on crap like Homer or Sophocles when they could be reading Jane Austen or the Bronte sisters.

tldr

I'm re-reading Matthew, it's good, I like it.

I have a sneaking feeling that all this modern fuss about "art" and the "creative vision" and "the projection of visualized images," is the itching vice of quite a different class of people, from those who, in the old, sweet, epicurean way, loved to loiter through huge digressive books, with the ample unpremeditated enjoyment of leisurely travelers wayfaring along a wonderful road. How many luckless innocents have teased and fretted their minds into a forced appreciation of that artistic ogre Flaubert, and his laborious pursuit of his precious "exact word," when they might have been pleasantly sailing down Rabelais' rich stream of immortal nectar, or sweetly hugging themselves over the lovely mischievousness of Tristram Shandy!

Dostoievsky is the greatest and most racial of all Russian writers. He is the subtlest psychologist in fiction. As an artist he has a dark and sombre intensity and an imaginative vehemence only surpassed by Shakespeare. As a philosopher he anticipates Nietzsche in the direction of his insight, though in his conclusions he is diametrically opposite. He teaches that out of weakness, abnormality, perversity, foolishness, desperation, abandonment, and a morbid pleasure in humiliation, it is possible to arrive at high and unutterable levels of spiritual ecstasy. His ideal is sanctity—not morality—and his revelations of the impassioned and insane motives of human nature—its instinct towards self-destruction for instance—will never be surpassed for their terrible and convincing truth.

The strange Slavophil dream of the regeneration of the world by the power of the Russian soul and the magic of the "White Christ who comes out of Russia" could not be more arrestingly expressed than in these passionate and extraordinary works of art.

Those who delight in Allah['s compassion], care for Allah's creation.
Those who tremble before Allah's wrath, care for their [own] kingdom.

if a post is several paragraphs long, i don't even skim it, i just reply "cringe" and move on. life is too short.

>>18701061
I studied Chinese and didn't find anything easy or beautiful about it at all.

it was good, i liked it

i'm far too cheap but here's what i'd've bought from nyrb sale

The Journal 1837–1861, Henry David Thoreau
Memoirs of Hecate County, Edmund Wilson
The Root and the Flower, L.H. Myers
Pages from the Goncourt Journals, Edmond and Jules de Goncourt
Letters from Russia, Astolphe de Custine
Memoirs of Lorenzo Da Ponte, Lorenzo Da Ponte
Poets in a Landscape, Gilbert Highet
Memoirs from Beyond the Grave, François-René de Chateaubriand
The Child, Jules Vallès
The Life of Henry Brulard, Stendhal
Kolyma Stories, Varlam Shalamov

thanks for reading

>Tom Jones
>Vanity Fair
>Les Miserables
>Forsyte Saga

Just to expand on the point; he says that Syncretism (the mixing together of random cultures and religions) is the same as Perennialism (the philosophy that there's one single truth that permeates through the great world religious traditions).

I think what he's not getting is the importance of distinction and rootedness within traditions in Perennialism. Guénon would never shove religious systems and symbols together, he respects religious traditions and practices are distinct historical realities which cannot be merged. He just thinks they all have an inner truth that can ultimately comes back to The One. Is that true?

>>16088607
Thanks a lot I'll check out some of that stuff.

Aarvoll talks about a range of different stuff (mostly criticizing online dissident politics) but he covers his metaphysical worldview as well. He's generally an adherent of Advaita Vedanta, he also describes it as the Sophia Perennis. He says his biggest philosophical influences are Plato and Schopenhauer. He's also a fan of of the work of Leonard Susskind and Christopher Langan.

Here's the first of a series of videos he made on the metaphysics of his interpretation of the sophia perennis, v heady stuff but interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUH6wlVM3sM

This is a more straightforward and shorter video about ethics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dzZT_F4WWk