/lit/ - Literature

In the Theatre the whole man, with his lowest and his highest passions, is placed in terrifying nakedness before himself, and by himself is driven to quivering joy, to surging sorrow, to hell and heaven. What lies beyond all possibility of the ordinary man's experiencing in his own life, he lives it here; and lives it in himself, in his sympathy deep-harrowed by the wondrous duping. One may weaken this effect through the senseless abuse of a daily repetition (which draws after it a great perversion of the receptive powers), but never suppress the possibility of its fullest outburst; and finally, that outburst may be played on, according to the ruling interest of the day, for any manner of corruptive end. In awe and shuddering, have the greatest poets of all nations and all times approached this terrible abyss; 'twas they devised the aimful laws, the sacred conjurations, to bann the demon lurking there, by aid of the good genius; and Aeschylus with priestly rites led e'en the chained Erinnyes, as divine and reverend Eumenides, to the seat of their redemption from a baneful curse. 'Twas this abyss great Calderon arched over with the heavenly rainbow, conducting to the country of the saints; from out its depths stupendous Shakespeare conjured up the demon's self, to set it plainly, fettered by his giant force, before the astonished world as its own essence, alike to be subdued; upon its wisely measured, calmly trodden verge, did Goethe build the temple of his Iphigenia, did Schiller plant God's miracle tree of his Jungfrau von Orleans. To this abyss have fared the wizards of the art of Tone, and shed the balm of heaven's melody into the gaping wounds of man; here Mozart shaped his masterworks, and hither yearned Beethoven's dreams of proving finally his utmost strength. But, once the great, the hallowed sorcerers yield place, the Furies of vulgarity, of lowest ribaldry, of vilest passions, the sottish Gnomes of most dishonouring delights, lead high their revels round its brink. Banish hence the kindly spirits—(and little trouble will it cost you: ye merely need to not invoke them trustfully!)—and ye leave the field, where Gods had wandered, to the filthiest spawn of Hell; and these will come uncalled, for there have they ever had a home whence naught could scare them but the advent of the Gods.

>>20965759
I kinda liked it

>The representation of Achilles as a black man may be seen as an authentically Homeric extension of this set of similarities that already existed in the ancient tradition between Achilles and Memnon, who, even if he was not so-regarded in the most ancient versions of his story, came to be represented as a black man.

>reading Kant
>come across the following passage
>the Jewish people, in their moral period [sic!],
Is this a joke?

I have never finished a book

>>20274959
Is that book cover supposed to make little girls list after grown men?

>>19722001
>prepare for literally pic related
How did he...

What is Oedipus' first name?

>trying hard to personify rain for no reason
>forced alliterations
>hyperbatons
>paroemions

>author fills half the book with quotes in fr*nch
>doesn't bother translating them

Is it antisemitic to laugh at Wagner's villains? He always makes them so comical, but I'm not sure if that's just because they're Jewish stereotypes.

>>19582483

The biggest irony in philosophy is that Heidegger was only trying to defend common sense and no one realised it.

>watching Hamlet
>he's ugly

>Fragments from other of Aeschylus' plays have survived in quotations, and more continue to be discovered on Egyptian papyrus. These fragments often give further insights into Aeschylus' work.

How long ago was a new fragment from his work discovered?

Why are Wotan's parts the only good parts of the Ring cycle?

Joyce was just doing a Gesamtkunstwerk with literature.

>>17949018
You like Pindar?

Why are Germans so mean to Euripides?

Parsifal is better than everything by Shakespeare.

Nietzsche's Zarathustra was literally based on Wagner.

>>16795580
>>Well I guess that shows iq doesn't correlate with intelligent,
>>*wink*
>>Just playing with you anon. Now if you excuse me, it's still mornin', and I need to get into the real world before I get sucked into this site, and make me some breaking of the fast.

>>16712987
>Is it worth reading even if you don't know anything about the German philosophers he's supposed to be making fun of?
Wha- what??? I took everything in Sartor Resartus literally!!

>>16355471
>>16355471
No doubt Nietzsche has a fair man great points, genius resurrection. But almost every single one of them is able to be directly traced back to another figure of the 19th century, what he has is a movement in what he believes collected from them all(and no less original). Just take Heidegger, who you would easily take as filling that "modern Nietzscheanism", thought Holderlin understand the Dionysian better than Nietzsche. And Ezra Pound you would call Nietzschean because of his modernism yet he completely detested Nietzsche and said about the will to power that "[n]othing more vulgar, in the worst sense of the word, has ever been sprung on a dallying intelligentsia”. Obviously it is not just "Nietzsche", for modernity, he is a much smaller thinker than you take him as though he is dealing with this big issues. Ezra Pound takes after an entire seen array of things in the flight of a bird, his usual manner, and not Nietzsche one of them, but many 20th and 19th century thinkers. And just take late Plato, who practically refutes every important critique of Nietzsche's against Plato, where he roots the Forms in the "Instance", temporality, i.e. being, where Heidegger says:
>"The third passage of the Parmenides is the most profound point to which Occidental metaphysics has ever advanced. It is the most radical advance into the problem of Being and time—an advance which afterwards was not caught up with [aufgefangen] but instead intercepted [abgefangen] (by Aristotle)
Though he is by far exaggerating here, the point remains. And here by Karl Jaspers in a letter to Heidegger:
> If the second half of his [Plato’s] Parmenides would be performed anew with today’s methods (and not Neoplatonically), then all bad metaphysics would be overcome, and the space would be open for a pure hearing of the language of Being.


You're no better than Gramsci or a dumb communist who thinks the past can just be rejected as the dead material force that it is(for a communist), instead of being original for how it is original, great which makes it great! But no you fags just want to see how cool the social future is; such a conception of future is innately social and meaninglessly collectivist like the Futurists-- Nietzsche would be appalled!