/lit/ - Literature

>>15639483
because he's fucking garbage

>>15639483
Because Wagner was a lap dog of bourgeois.

>>15639483
because Wagner was a cuckold and a closet kike.

Wagner was a christian and advocated peace and love shit.
Niet was a proto-satanist and promoted based aristocratic values.

>>15639506
But he was a revolutionary.

>>15639483
jealousy

>>15639483
Because Wagner was an antisemit.

>>15639483
because Wagner was the ultimate chad, and Nietzsche was a fag

>>15639483
I'm not sure he really did.

>>15639514
You mean "An antisemitic national anarchist" type of revolutionary?

>>15639550
Back in those days all anarchists were “antisemitic national anarchists.”

>>15639483
nietzsche was a wannabe musician and wagner once laughed at one of his piano pieces because it was so awful. in comparison wagner was writing operas so powerful that people fainted during them. it was just pure jealousy

>>15639555
But were they all racialists?

>>15639483
As much as I appreciate Nietzsche, this Wagner vs. Nietzsche situation is precisely a chad vs virgin meme. In fact, someone should make the meme already.

>>15639508
Nietzsche was, himself, a cuckold.

>>15639506
Bourgeois what? Women? Men? Germans? Norwegians?

>>15639506
Wagner was literally a socialist revolutionary lmao

>>15639597
Chad Wagner vs cuck Nietzsche

>>15639555
>>15639629
The music he made wasn't "revolutionary" at all.
Walter Benjamin was right when called Wagner's music “bourgeois false consciousness”

>>15639645
Smiling wagner looks like someone recognizable but I cant put my finger on it.

>>15639649
>Walter (((Benjamin)))

>>15639664
Wow look an antisemitic """anarcho-communist"""
That's new even for 4chan

>>15639645

>>15639656
Wagner looks like Hegel but the top of his head is bigger than the bottom.

>>15639645
>>15639656
>>15639702
Piero Scaruffi. Got it.

>>15639483
>>15639502
>>15639506
>>15639508
>>15639509
>*Ahem*
>The famous episode of Wagner contacting Nietzsche’s physician appears as well: Wagner sent word to the doctor to inform him that excessive masturbation was responsible for Nietzsche’s health problems. Köhler interprets Wagner as lamenting about Nietzsche’s lack of intercourse with women.

The caring Wagner contacted Nietzsche's doctor --an avid admirer of Wagner-- who revealed to him Nietzsche's sickness, one character of it being a suffering eyesight, which in earnest worry for Nietzsche's future did Wagner conclude to be the result of masturbation. He wrote to Dr. Eiser "I have been thinking for some time, in connection with N.s malady, of similar cases I have observed among talented young intellectuals. I watched these young men go to rack and ruin and realised only too painfully that such symptoms were the result of masturbation." Somehow this correspondence became widely known in the Bayreuth gossip.


Literally chad womaniser and caring Wagner, vs bitter maladied masturbatory virgin Nietzsche.

>>15639649
Walter Benjamin was a kind who would cum if he saw how politicized and ugly art ended up becoming.

>>15639483
Wagner had a magnetic, domineering and extravert personality, Nietzsche was a pussy bitch.
Read pic related, specially the chapter on Nietzsche.

>>15639645
Should've shopped Cosima too.

Based Burton poster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN1WLF8T_Oc

>>15639737
>>15639757
Fuck off and fuck this gayboy of Schopenhauer
Nietzsche refuted both these life hating hating fags.

>>15639649
You're really going to pretend Tristan and Isolde wasn't among the most revolutionary works of all western music? Figures like Mahler, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, etc have all cited it as a paradigm shift in western tonality.

>>15639737
Lmao

>>15639737
>Somehow this correspondence became widely known in the Bayreuth gossip
kek

>>15639782
A man addicted to his baser instincts, feeling the need to convict himself to masturbation and squabbles of other processions of jewish character, a subconscious malnutrition, to base his life-claim on such a thing stems not from love-of-life, but the fear of death. Wagner accepted the basic precedents of Schopenhauer, but went far beyond. Any ideas of a regeneration of a race, or a superhuman effort were obviously not to be found in Schopenhauer.

>AFTER recognising the necessity of a regeneration of the human race, if we follow up the possibilities of its ennoblement we light on little else than obstacles.
>We cannot withhold our acknowledgment that the human family consists of irremediably disparate races, (3) whereof the noblest well might rule the more ignoble, yet never raise them to their level by commixture, but simply sink [276] to theirs. Indeed this one relation might suffice to explain our fall; even its cheerlessness should not blind us to it: if it is reasonable to assume that the dissolution of our earthly globe is purely a question of time, we probably shall have to accustom ourselves to the idea of the human species dying out. On the other hand there is such a matter as life beyond all time and space, and the question whether the world has a moral meaning we here will try to answer by asking ourselves if we mean to go to ground as beasts or gods.

Many seem to devalue the influence Wagner had on Nietzsche, but then again these are the same men who seem to think Nietzsche the most original of all thinkers. He is original, but by far not as original having read Goethe, Holderlin, Schopenhauer, Carlyle, Wagner, Spinoza and the likes.

Wagner basically called him an incel. N had a masturbation addiction problem and W knew this well

>>15639483
1/3

>>15639483
2/3

>>15639483

>>15639854
If you're the same Wagner-anon I spoke with a few days ago, glad to see you again. I just finished reading Art and Religion and the rest of regenerative writings yesterday. I am very much impressed, but there are some things about it that I'd discuss with you if you're willing.

>>15639879
>>15639887
>>15639894
holy shit LMAO. no wonder nietzsche hated him so much

This thread is completely changing my impressions of 19th century German intellectuals

>>15639649
>Walter Benjamin was right
Not even once.

>>15639483
Wagner was based and devoutly Christian while Nietschze hated going to church and wanted it to be ok to masterbate

>>15639928
>gonorrhoea
Poor Nietzsche.

>>15639925
I might be, were you the one looking for a German copy?

>>15639869
>W knew this well
w-why?

>>15639925
And yes, of course, I'd be willing to discuss it with you.

>>15640002
No one knows, I think it's just safer to leave it as a matter of intelligence, I mean, you think a brain that big couldn't figure it out?

>>15639879
>>15639887
>>15639894
Lmao Nietschze like al atheists was just trying to justify his masterbation habit

>>15639656
Looks like the actor Richard Harris circa Unforgiven.

>>15639597
Every thread about these two this is said, for quite a few years now, but no one has ever actually made one. They can never get the facial structure right.

>>15640000
Yes that was me. I always felt Schopenhauer's system lacked a political side, while being rich in all other aspects, and Wagner's regeneration could very well fill that gap. But I have a misgiving that it might not be compatible with the rest of the system. I made a thread yesterday (>>15635666). Basically I fear that striving after regeneration might lead us astray from negating the will, making us farther from our goal. Because after all, regeneration concerns this world and this world is an illusion. Spending so much effort on this goal, as noble as it is, isn't still giving in and following the will? (nice quads by the way)

>>15640072
>Wagner's regeneration could very well fill that gap
Philip Mäinlander actually filled this gap.

>>15640100
And along the way destroyed what makes Schopenhauer's metaphysics so great. So no thank you.

>>15640118
More like took it to it's logical conclusion. But whatever both Wagner and Mäinlander both were disciples of Schopenhauer, it's your choice which one you like.

>>15640072
>Basically I fear that striving after regeneration might lead us astray from negating the will, making us farther from our goal.
Hmm, I was rather under the impression that in this colossal regeneration, and this also flows from his ideas on redemption, it is no less necessary for the negation of the will. I think it should be said that Wagner is not a pure Schopenhauerian, he read Hegel and Kant and the likes before he read Schopenhauer, and he maintained an influence in figures such as Meister Aquinas. The best example of this that can be given would be Schopenhauer's preference for the East, for Buddhism and Hindusim, and Wagner's preference for the West though I don't believe denying the superiority of the intellectual formulation of the East. To further explain I will tell you something I have been considering of late, that Christianity is something of an active Buddhism, that one may will as must as he wants as long as it is not departed from that fundamental state of awareness of death and suffering, and of moral duty. That he is always willing to make the ultimate testament to this belief, to die for another, pictured in its own ideal of the crucifixion. Now I am not supposing this to be a single or predominant understanding of Christianity at all, or that even Wagner agreed with this extreme I have presented, but it is fundamentally getting at the difference between him and Schopenhauer. "To go to ground as beasts or Gods", yet also Wagner says in the end of his "What Boots this Knowledge" he says "But not even the highest art can gain the force for such a revelation while it lacks the support of a religious symbol of the most perfect moral ordering of the world, through which alone can it be truly understanded of the people: [262] only by borrowing from life's exercise itself the likeness of the Divine, can the artwork hold this up to life, and holding, lead us out beyond this life to pure contentment and redemption" obviously still associating contentment with redemption, a self-quenching of desire, and that is why I said that my extreme example does not fit Wagner exactly, as you have shown he obviously still follows strongly a Schopenhauerian ethic, but that there is a spiritual difference.

>>15640072
>>15640285
This can also be probably seen quite well when he says in Religion and Art that for the sake of hope, for it to even exist after the school of pessimism, we can place such hope as entirely possible, that the world is not always deceit and sin, entirely possible by the belief that this school of pessimism focuses on what is known as historic man. And here he theorises his own ideal from direct logical response to the current state of man, rather like Plato's Republic, it does not matter if the physical is real for what the spiritual connotates(as this idea of the historic decline of man by racial and cannibalistic degeneration is often not taken wantingly by Wagner scholars, though for its time it was not so unusual a natural theory), and it is likely Wagner did not entirely believe this himself, after all claiming the impossibility to ever truly stem the tides of the mighty will to life, we will die one day, and other life will remain or come about just as blind. And so, we remain with this heroic sense of a necessary regeneration(moral by choice and nature, that is a diet, and our race, but this bracketed sentence is merely a fancy wording, so please do not take too much note of it).

I'm not entirely sure I answered the question correctly, but I think this has generated enough in the right direction.

>>15640285
>Meister Aquinas.
Meister *Eckhart* as well as figures like Thomas Carlyle, whom in their mysticism and heroism, show a world-view in Wagner which believes in possible difference, as Schopenhauer also did, to a far larger degree.

>>15640285
>>15640291
>>15640318
I think I sense a slightly different view of redemption both in Wagner and Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy, that so long as one lives a tragic or heroic life, despite being certain that this will lead to his destruction, this life also leads to redemption. They never explicitly state it, and I think that's why the situation is vague, but perhaps you could add to that.

You also mentioned his hypothesis of the original state of man, and I think this is a central part of his theory without which everything falls apart. The reason that he thinks abstinence from eating animals and living a life of full compassion will lead to regeneration, so far as I could understand, is that he believed the original state of man (or at least the indo-europeans) was alike to this. I somewhat am inclined to this theory, since there is a myth of a past golden age in almost all significant indo-european traditions. But if we were to find out that there was never such a time and indeed the proto-indo-european life was as full of suffering and strife as our own, then is there a reason to believe in regeneration?

bump

>>15639645

>>15639737

Wagner lived the life Nietzsche wanted to but was too much of an incel loser to, it was pure resentment.

>>15641499
This, Nietzsche was just projecting.

>>15639483
Why don't you try reading the book that Nietzsche wrote on the topic?

In short, Nietzsche broke with Wagner because of his anti-semitism which disgusted him as base resentment. Throughout his career, he criticized the "romantic", "dramatic" style as a the opposite of a style, as the very lack of style. A cohesive whole with this musical style was never formed, since it was "dramatic" (that is, it merely accentuated the emotion it wanted to express the an extreme degree). This is whhy Nietzsche says Wagner is a "master of small moments" (since all the moments, taken together, do not form a cohesive whole, but those moments alone, not ruining eachother with their anti-style, are exceptional). Nietzsche saw the influence of Wagner's anti-style, and started to get worried, so wrote a polemic against it. He criticized how Wagners music was simply "music for the masses", that it accentuated everything for bored slaves who have weakened and broken nerves. His music tried to be as big as possible, as monstrous as possible, since it is easy to excite the masses with large spectacles. But Nietzsche reminded Wagner: "it is easier to be gigantic than be beautiful". Nietzsche also criticized Wagner for hiding his shitty music behind "the idea" to make it more attractive to the retarded german masses. We can contrast this nowadays with shitty modern art that tries to hide behind pseudointellectual ideas to be profound ("it isn't just a urinal! It's a symbol for death!"). Nietzsche claims Wagner used Schopenhauer to this end (fun fact: Schopenhauer hated Wagner, what a surprise!)

And of course Nietzsche was completely right, because at the beginning of the 20th century, music (and European forms of art as a whole) decayed even more, until static noise and people playing atonal violin compositions in helicopters was seen as "high art".

>>15641627
>fun fact: Schopenhauer hated Wagner, what a surprise
Kek, then why do schoppy fags shill Wagner in most threads related to Schopenhauer's pessimism?

>>15641627
This is not really what happened. Nietzsche was friends with Wagner and praised him until the two had a falling out for various reasons including Wagner spreading embarrassing rumors about him. Everything he wrote about Wagner after that is kind of suspect because he's clearly just mad at him.

Also you don't have to love Wagner but to claim he wasn't an important musician and even something of a genius is biased.

>>15639483
It will take you less than a weekend to read both The Case of Wagner and Nietzsche contra Wagner.

>>15642431
>Everything he wrote about Wagner after that is kind of suspect because he's clearly just mad at him.
No it’s not. There’s a very reasoned case against him. And you don’t have to be a fucking scholar to guess as to why N would rave against a Romanticist masquerading as a revolutionary.

>>15639508
>a closet kike
You wish Moshe

>>15641627
How about forming your own opinions instead of regurgitating what massively butthurt Nietzsche would have you believe?

A more important question is:

Why aren't you listening to Bellini?
https://youtu.be/pvTYiyd3BbY

>>15641627
Why do you type like a woman.

>>15642666
Read the title of the thread.

>>15642697
Read my post.

>>15641627
>Why don't you try reading the book that Nietzsche wrote on the topic?
because it's concentrated incel cope

>>15642687
Because I made you mad. Women also usually make you extremely frusturated because they think your a fag, so you connected the two through memory.

>>15642702
How do you know this if you haven't read the book?

>>15642701
I didn't give my opinion, aside from the ending when I commented on Nietzsche being right about predicting the decadence of art being imminent in the 20th century.

>Because I made you mad. Women also usually make you extremely frusturated because they think your a fag, so you connected the two through memory.

>>15642717
the sheer butthurt radiating off of neetchfags every time the subject is brought up

>>15642719
The only possible consequence of music peaking with Wagner. Where do you go after you've hit the absolute pinnacle? There's only down, way down

>>15642726
Thanks for confirming that you're a pseud

>>15642431
>Nietzsche was friends with Wagner and praised him until the two had a falling out for various reasons including Wagner spreading embarrassing rumors about him.
Wrong. That happened after he broke with Wagner. Nietzsche joined a community with Paul Ree and stopped over at the Wagners, where Wagner expressed his anti-semetic feelings towards Ree. That was the last time Nietzsche ever saw Wagner.
>Everything he wrote about Wagner after that is kind of suspect because he's clearly just mad at him.
No he "clearly" isn't, since he wrote a whole book about why he hated his music, and then after released another book for people like you claiming he was just resentful showing that he has remained consistent on his opinion on Wagner, going as far back as early 1878 (he broke with Wagner in '76), in his journal and the release of HATH (the rumors got spreaded by Wagner after it was already published). I guess you could argue that Nietzsche was merely angry that Wagner was an anti-semite, and therefore responded to his music differently, and I would agree with this if The Case of Wagner was never published where he clearly outlines what makes his art attractive to youthful dumbasses (Nietzsche admits he was one himself) and what the problems with Wagner's style is.
>Also you don't have to love Wagner but to claim he wasn't an important musician and even something of a genius is biased.
Yes, it is music criticism. It is supposed to be biased.

>>15642731
What is the best Wagner piece?

>>15642725
Anon, why did you include a picture of yourself posting that?

>>15642779
why did Nietzsche play le jew defener so hard, who care about jews

>>15642797
Tristan & Isolde and the Ring Cycle are are definitely his two masterworks

>>15640528
I apologise for taking so long.

>But if we were to find out that there was never such a time and indeed the proto-indo-european life was as full of suffering and strife as our own, then is there a reason to believe in regeneration?
I believe so, yes. It may take on a more typically less-Schopenhauerian sense about it but nonetheless it still falls within his ethics. After all, regeneration is still a very real thing, and we have seen past societies just like the Hindus succeed partially in what Wagner had aimed for, or under Christendom with its good Fridays and the likes. And we shouldn't forget that Wagner considered Christianity to be a morally regenerating factor, that the sacrifice of Christ redeemed the people in an almost literal sense. Even within history, the ideal was not impossible, except for maybe the rest of animal life which it is unlikely they were ever vegetarian.

>I think I sense a slightly different view of redemption both in Wagner and Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy
I remember partially reading the Birth of Tragedy when I was 14, I can barely remember anything beyond some things about Greek tragedy and his artistic split of Apollo and Dionysus. I don't remember anything about Redemption in it, and though it is early Nietzsche I still wouldn't have expected him to be talking of redemption in any case. Wagner always relates life back to redemption, but at the same time also mans suffering; Nietzsche on the other hand doesn't seem(in his later philosophy) to care about Redemption at all insofar as it doesn't express the personally subjective achievement of one, and doesn't care about suffering. Wagner believes in morality, Nietzsche does not. But could you please extrapolate what you mean by Nietzsche's idea of redemption in the Birth of Tragedy, I know you said he never explicitly states it but I'm struggling to understand how it falls into his philosophy.

Wagner doesn't want to affirm life, but as he said the negation of a negative is by all rules of logic and affirmation. And so Nietzsche's conception of a man between beasts and gods, seems very different to me from Wagner's.

>>15642797
Meistersinger von Nürnberg

>>15641627
All lies of a pseudointellectual coping Nietzsche incel.

Also Schopenhauer didn't hate Wagner retard, he just wrote down at the end of Die Walkure that it could have been shorter.

>>15642628
>imagine actually thinking Nietzsche's resentment wasn't personal
Sure there may have been some philosophical differences, but for the most part it was personal. Nietzsche maintained plenty of friends opposite to his philosophy in life.

>>15642779
>*writes a book against Wagner when it's obvious to everyone he's just angry at the man*
>noo no no no! Look, I've written another book, see I'm consistent I really do just hate him philosophically and it's NOTHING personal
Yeah alright Neetsch.

>>15642797
All of them. Start with Meistersinger, Tannhauser or Rienzi.

>>15641627
>>15641627
Based Nietzsche was right. Wagner is overrated. Never felt anything with his dramatic puffed up music.

The chad womaniser who slept with hundreds of women: Sexual indulgence and temptation is wrong, one is redeemed by the act and knowledge of compassion learnt from the sufferings of such yearnings.

The incel can't get any women: Asceticism is sick, it is a denial of the will-to-life, and one must affirm life and all its pleasure and suffering.

Hmm, I wonder what led these two men to so difference ideas.

>>15643174
>dramatic puffed up music.
The surest sign of a pseud. People who don't like Wagner's music seemingly must always assert it under a bitter and resentful tone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQizi3-pINo

>>15643211
based
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_9ewyER6Jo

>>15642979
I agree with your point regarding regeneration. The very existence of those perfect or near-perfect societies is proof enough that they are very much possible.

Regarding the Birth of Tragedy, I'd just finished it before reading Religion and Art, and I found the two projects to be extremely complementary, and both very good follow-ups to Schopenhauer. I made a thread about it a few days ago with a very brief summary (>>15619635); it is fundamentally about Schopenhauer's aesthetics and the decline and revival of arts. Aside from their common points, Nietzsche resumes where Wagner leaves off and vice versa. Wagner, for example, identifies the decline of art to be due to people stopping to believe in myths; Nietzsche, agreeing on this point, takes this phenomenon, relates it as far back as Socrates, and gives it a thorough psychological evaluation as well as a forecast of its consequences. Or Nietzsche identifies the revival of a certain aspect of art and culture to be the effect of the sudden appearance of classical music, while Wagner, saying the same thing, reminds us it wasn't so sudden at all and it has a Christian origin. Other than these complementary aspects, they both seem to agree on the nature of redemption (as I mentioned) and I think you can best see it in this quote:
>We are to recognize that all that comes into being must be ready for a sorrowful end; we are forced to look into the terrors of the individual existence—yet we are not to become rigid with fear: a metaphysical comfort tears us momentarily from the bustle of the changing figures. We are really for a brief moment primordial being itself, feeling its raging desire for existence and joy in existence; the struggle, the pain, the destruction of phenomena, now appear necessary to us, in view of the excess of countless forms of existence which force and push one another into life, in view of the exuberant fertility of the universal will. We are pierced by the maddening sting of these pains just when we have become, as it were, one with the infinite primordial joy in existence, and when we anticipate, in Dionysian ecstasy, the indestructibility and eternity of this joy. In spite of fear and pity, we are the happy living beings, not as individuals, but as the one living being, with whose creative joy we are united.
Or here:
>On the other hand, by means of the same tragic myth, in the person of the tragic hero; it knows how to redeem us from the greedy thirst for this existence, and with an admonishing gesture it reminds us of another existence and a higher pleasure for which the struggling hero prepares himself by means of his destruction, not by means of his triumphs.
I can see the same view that destruction brings salvation also in Wagner (both in his art and essays). But I am not sure how to make sense of it.

>>15642979
>>15643346
Though that is not to say they are completely in agreement. Even this early Nietzsche insists, contrary to Wagner, that art is purely aesthetic and has nothing to do with morality. But this disagreement seems to play only a slight role in the whole of the project. As I said, they are surprisingly complementary.

>>15639649
>Walter
>Benjamin

Has anyone here that admires the guy even read any of his books?

>Walter
>Benjamin

Lol

>>15643185
More ironic is that Wagner was known to be an asshole but Nietzsche was very kind and sensitive irl. Were they both compensating?

>>15641627

Nietzsche's break wasn't just that, he got all the more butthurt that he couldn't reform Wagner and bring him totally to his own side. But Wagner instead of doing that stayed with Romanticism and wrote Parsifal , which extols Christian pity and relinquishment of passion , a morality of surrender from the will Schopenhauer advocated. Nietzsche loved everything up until that point aesthetically and musically in Wagner , but he just couldn't stand how the "romantic" Wagner ended up in the play pen of Christian morality all the same. You can just tell that venom against Christianity becomes even stronger after the break with Wagner. So it was a break on two levels , on the one hand Wagner as a "father figure", and on the other on the whole of philosophy of Schopenhauer and Romantic aesthetics which he later decried as "decadent".

>>15643384
I have at least, very comfy.

>>15639649
>“bourgeois false consciousness”
What the hell does this even mean?
What exactly makes music into a "bourgeois false consciousness"?

>>15643403
I guess I agree with your general point, but how in the world is the philosophy of Wagner and Schopenhauer "Romantic"? If anything the term applies more to Nietzsche.

>>15643185
>>15643389

Well isn't it obvious? Have you read any of Nietzsche's writings? The man is the harshest critic and judge of HIMSELF first , and then goes on to others, "fear poisons everything, while it kills nothing". Wagner was just your run of the mill hypocrite.

>>15643211
Seems like you are the pseud, shit sounds over the top in general.

Anyone else here like both Nietzsche and Wagner?

>>15643415

I think Nietzsche saw it that at some level that Romanticism degenerates into decadence. It starts as great opening up into the "amor fati" tragic world view with Goethe and the Olympian world of light of Holderlin, but slowly degenerates into a surrender and exaltation of the declining will. So rather than move from will to will to will to power (Nietzsche's interpretation on how culture actually works), it extols its own decadence. So for the romantic world view of Wagner the solution for struggling against fate is pity, mercy, christian celibate love the same "ascetic-Buddhist" Schopenhauer advocated as a way to make due with the human experience being temporal suffering.

>>15643437
I know all of this, yet I still fail to see how this "supposed" decadence is Romantic. If anything I can see clear traces of Nietzsche in Goethe and Byron-- the very spearheads of Romanticism.

>>15639656
Chandler from Friends.

>>15643389
>More ironic is that Wagner was known to be an asshole
He wasn't an asshole anon, just a man who exerted a great presence among people and the world. Sometimes people can't stand this immanence of presence, as Nietzsche said something along the lines of "when Wagner walks into the room, it is like being in the house with the echoes of the Gods" or something close to that.

>>15643412
It is decadent, thinking he can make music not what it is.

>>15643412
I meant Walter Benjamin is decadent.

>>15643437
>So for the romantic world view of Wagner the solution for struggling against fate is pity, mercy, christian celibate love the same "ascetic-Buddhist" Schopenhauer advocated as a way to make due with the human experience being temporal suffering.
This is just factually wrong anon, you haven't read Wagner have you? See this quote here>>15639854

>>15641627
Nietzsche masturbates you know. He should have spent less time writing and more time eating vegetables and taking cold water plunges.

>>15643275
Nice, do you think George London is the best Wagner?

>>15639483
Because Wagner was a genius and Nietzsche was not.

>>15639879
>>15639887
>>15639894

>>15641627
>In short, Nietzsche broke with Wagner because of his anti-semitism which disgusted him as base resentment
and Nietzsche's resentment was from everyone finding out that he couldn't stop fiddling with his dick so he fucked a dying horse in public

>>15643346
>(>>15619635 )
Yes you're quite right it does seem like they complement each other very well, since as you said he's still a Schopenhauerian here. I'll have to read it in the next couple of weeks.

>identifies the decline of art due to people stopping to believe in myths
I'm curious as to your use of the word myth, don't you think that when Wagner speaks of the degeneration of art when severed from religion don't you think, though including myth, it is something broader? There is the myth in touch and birthed from the national spirit(going by a Herderian assumption), in whole the volk, but on the varying degrees of importance of national-myth, wouldn't it be wiser to call it religion? Or is this a difference between Nietzsche and Wagner? Or am I just being picky? Myth is a much more readily subjective thing, and aware of its own subjectivity by the presence of the people, but to the religion it develops out of it is obviously of a far more temporal character. Is the difference that whereas Wagner considers religion to be true(in his own way of it holding a root-essence of the world in it) and Nietzsche puts it subservient to the life-experience, or has this been entirely useless to what in reality was only your word choice? That Nietzsche affirms his life even by its most horrible as you showed with the quote, and his early use of the word "redeem" seems to differ only from his later "affirm" by way of acknowledging the suffering of life as not something "good", whereas as you also said, Wagner believes in redemption as a moral function, Nietzsche does not, and this also results in Nietzsche's individualism and then Wagner's even greater appreciation of the Christian religion in focusing on the well-being of the masses.

>play only a slight role in the whole of the project.
I agree, but this similarity ceases in two ways; When the art comes into contact with a sense of ethical duty as Wagner considered it, in that the art is "redeeming" as young Nietzsche put it for whatever individual is experiencing it; And secondly Wagner's belief in Sin, though never exactly clear on it, he nonetheless with the enormous will power and (self-)resting presence, he ruminating gave a direct content for that moral meaning of the world of Schopenhauer's(and that is of course an extraordinarily difficult thing to do), where Nietzsche ignored it. I know I've already posted it but "On the other hand there is such a matter as life beyond all time and space, and the question whether the world has a moral meaning we here will try to answer by asking ourselves if we mean to go to ground as beasts or gods." These differences between Nietzsche and Wagner, I do think have a presence in their art, and not just their individual philosophies around art. That art teaches one "noblest ideals" for example as Wagner put it, I don't think is found in anyway the same in Nietzsche, because fundamentally those Christian ideals of Wagner always differed from Nietzsche.

>>15639483
>Why did Nietzsche hate Wagner?
He was just jealous that Wagner had a bigger skull.

>>15639879
>>15639887
>>15639894

(1/2)
>>15643777
I should clarify that Nietzsche's discussion isn't as individualistic as it appears in my descriptions. A great part of the book concerns how a group of people (the audience as well as the performers of the tragedy) get to have this Dionysian experience of oneness, and therefore we have a "tragic" culture that through this art approaches the destructiveness of life with delight, taking comfort in its true indestructibility, and hence my claim that these conceptions are very similar.

Regarding myths, religion, and the question of morality of arts, I think we should first clarify our terms and then the answer would present itself to us. Wagner says: "Now, the deepest basis of every true religion we find in recognition of the frailty of this world, and the consequent charge to free ourselves therefrom. It is manifest that at all times it needed a superhuman effort to disclose this knowledge to men in a raw state of nature, the Folk in fact, and accordingly the most successful work of the religious Founder consisted in the invention of mythic allegories..." To simplify, a prophet has in some sense (presumably mystical) experienced the true nature of the world and now uses art to disclose it to those who haven't. Here Nietzsche's classification of art comes in handy: We have first the art that seeks to express the platonic truths of the world, as it is the case in plastic arts, visual arts, and a great part of literature; this Nietzsche calls Apollonian. Then we have music, which presents the Will directly to us, and so by its nature it is divine; this he calls Dionysian. Now we must define our *Myths*, which I find to be defined very similarly by both Wagner and Nietzsche. According to the latter, myth is born when an Apollonian piece of literature is devised while *being directly influenced by a piece of music*; therefore if the music is an expression of general truth, the myth is an instance of that truth (and we see this art mostly in tragedies). Wagner defines myth as the expression of divine knowledge through parables. I hope it is evident how they are similar: the latter expresses the divine truth discovered by direct mystical experience, the former expresses it by discovering it through music. So myth, no matter devised by the religious founder or the artist, is attempting to express the divine Dionysian truth using Apollonian form, and both Wagner and Nietzsche seem to agree on this.

(2/2)
>>15643777
Next is the question of the moral worth of art. I believe the explanation that I provided above solves it quite easily. Art, so far as it is purely Apollonian, it is also purely aesthetic; it is akin to a scientific work, expressing only platonic truths. The purely Dionysian art, music, is also merely expressing truths, or rather *the truth*: which is the singular unified will. Now, if we consider myths (and tragedies, as they are devised similarly), we see that the Dionysian truth of oneness is expressed in Apollonian form of plurality. What could this art express, apart from teaching us that in this world of seeming division we are in fact one and the same, and accordingly ought to treat each other with utmost compassion? So we see that unlike the pure Apollonian arts and the pure Dionysian music, myths and tragedies are moral and must be moral, or else they are not proper myths.

I realize that I have just reconciled Wagner and Nietzsche and Schopenhauer all together, and this done merely by carefully considering the definitions.

>>15644111
>I hope it is evident how they are similar
Ahh yes, and it clear what you mean now. Check the trips also, I didn't even notice my quads before that you pointed out. But still I wonder to what degree Wagner considers the religious image parables, and a supreme end in itself which cannot be broken down into any other whole essence of knowledge that it has completely in itself. For example in Religion and Art when he speaks of the demand on "natural man". And though I am by no means asserting that Wagner literally believed in something like a resurrection, after all he says that it is allegorical directly before this, but it does show to me that he held something of a difference between religion and myth, in content and not alone method, furthermore that Nietzsche still subsumes both into aesthetic, whereas Wagner does not, relating again to the ethical, I think is also important to this distinction. But I think that distinction is still essentially irrelevant to what you're saying in this conversation so back to the question of the moral.

>So we see that unlike the pure Apollonian arts and the pure Dionysian music, myths and tragedies are moral and must be moral, or else they are not proper myths.
>I realize that I have just reconciled Wagner and Nietzsche and Schopenhauer all together, and this done merely by carefully considering the definitions.
Yes, but isn't this unification which has come out of the natural conclusions of their beliefs also necessarily separating off some aspects, specifically of Nietzsche's in such a way which it would not have to be a natural conclusion of his system? Did he subscribe to Schopenhauer's metaphysics in the birth of tragedy? Of actually following those conclusions myself, what do you define as the aesthetic? And, furthermore, I am not sure I agree with your conclusion on Opera. It is in a unified scheme, yes, and they necessarily relate together in a motific and archetypal fashion, but I don't see their , and in this you also separate some of what is essential Wagner: the idea, in this case, of which Wagner's Operas are based around. The underlying motific "belonging" of all the characters in Parsfial is undoubtedly true, as it is in any form true for any story, but I cannot see this as the most important and defining character of Opera, either in this synthesis of these three men, or any individual system. You seem to be looking at it from an entirely emotional level(I want to be clear I'm not insulting you or saying this is how you got to your idea), that what is self evident, or true in the art of Opera is this emotional expression; whereas if it were to truly harbour in it the Apollonian as well as Dionysian it must also draw its value and even identity from the symbolic ideas within it, and which it is based around; that Wagner did not look at art in terms of Dionysian and Apollonian I think this makes clear. But nonetheless you have synthesised them.

cont

>>15644521
Look at this diagram, if you can make it out. It was drawn by Wagner in the early 1850's I think before coming across Schopenhauer, as an early conception on the arts and its historic origins and ends. The three major works on art he wrote during the turn of the century include some of these ideas, such as on the ancient greek chorus. I will now post an extensive quote from Thomas Carlyle which I think would say much about this topic, someone whom Wagner read and admired, relating to the pic but also to the question of the origin of things in music or even perhaps why Wagner never seriously took on the Dionysian/Apollonian split.

cont

>>15644555
>Nevertheless, you will say, there must be a difference between true Poetry and true Speech not poetical: what is the difference? On this point many things have been written, especially by late German Critics, some of which are not very intelligible at first. They say, for example, that the Poet has an infinitude in him; communicates an Unendlichkeit, a certain character of "infinitude," to whatsoever he delineates. This, though not very precise, yet on so vague a matter is worth remembering: if well meditated, some meaning will gradually be found in it. For my own part, I find considerable meaning in the old vulgar distinction of Poetry being metrical, having music in it, being a Song. Truly, if pressed to give a definition, one might say this as soon as anything else: If your delineation be authentically musical, musical not in word only, but in heart and substance, in all the thoughts and utterances of it, in the whole conception of it, then it will be poetical; if not, not.—Musical: how much lies in that! A musical thought is one spoken by a mind that has penetrated into the inmost heart of the thing; detected the inmost mystery of it, namely the melody that lies hidden in it; the inward harmony of coherence which is its soul, whereby it exists, and has a right to be, here in this world. All inmost things, we may say, are melodious; naturally utter themselves in Song. The meaning of Song goes deep. Who is there that, in logical words, can express the effect music has on us? A kind of inarticulate unfathomable speech, which leads us to the edge of the Infinite, and lets us for moments gaze into that!
>Nay all speech, even the commonest speech, has something of song in it: not a parish in the world but has its parish-accent;—the rhythm or tune to which the people there sing what they have to say! Accent is a kind of chanting; all men have accent of their own,—though they only notice that of others. Observe too how all passionate language does of itself become musical,—with a finer music than the mere accent; the speech of a man even in zealous anger becomes a chant, a song. All deep things are Song. It seems somehow the very central essence of us, Song; as if all the rest were but wrappages and hulls! The primal element of us; of us, and of all things. The Greeks fabled of Sphere-Harmonies: it was the feeling they had of the inner structure of Nature; that the soul of all her voices and utterances was perfect music. Poetry, therefore, we will call musical Thought. The Poet is he who thinks in that manner. At bottom, it turns still on power of intellect; it is a man's sincerity and depth of vision that makes him a Poet. See deep enough, and you see musically; the heart of Nature being everywhere music, if you can only reach it.

It is a good anecdote to say, when many have tried to make a systematic philosophy out of Carlyle, that his systematic philosophy was music. It very much captures his mystical spirit.

>>15640002
Frequent excuses to the men's room.

Sullenness especially around sexually unobtainable women and the men they choose.

Seeing women as a lower form of being, incapable of male intellectual height, ie femoids.

It's an incel DSM, and Neetzy got an awful lot of boxes ticked.

>>15642705
OOF

>>15642779
Humans are fully capable of coming up with reasons rationalizing their emotional responses.

Most of /pol/ is this.

Neet had a big brain to rationalize with, so his butthurt is harder to detect.

And the butthurt would have been massive: W just told all N's FB friends he chokes his ubermench on the regular. Can you imagine being a philosopher, getting outed for sexual incontinence, and then having the rest of your philosophic career (as far as you know) colored by the fact?

I can't imagine how N wouldnt be seething.

>>15642811
This is from N's Beyond Good and Evil

>during a brief daring sojourn in very infected territory I, too, did not altogether escape this disease [anti-Semitism] and began like everyone else to develop notions about matters that are none of my business: the first sign of the political infection. For example, about the Jews: only listen! I have not met a German yet who is well disposed toward Jews: and however unconditionally all the cautious and politically-minded repudiated real anti-Semitism [antisemiterei “anti-Semitizing around”], even this caution and policy are not directed against the species of this feeling itself but only against its dangerous immoderation, especially against the insipid and shameful expression of this immoderate feeling – about this one should not deceive oneself…The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions (even better than under favourable conditions), by means of virtues that today one would like to mark as vices – thanks above all to a resolute faith that need not be ashamed before “modern ideas”

>>15639879
>>15639887
>>15639894
What is ignored here, is that Nietzsche thrashed Wagners music and stopped contact with him before this incident.

>>15644806
This, Wagner was one of the most famous men in Europe at the time, tabloids and articles are always were always written about the famous poets and artists of the day, especially in the 19th century, Nietzsche on the other hand held almost entirely his only fame to Wagner. Undoubtedly his first work would not exist without Wagner, and it is unlikely it would have achieved as much popularity without Wagner being a focus in it; and furthermore that Nietzsche was known as a friend of Wagner's. Of course he thought this shameful rumour would spread around and have more effect than Nietzsche could himself, and as a result be harmed by its effect if not alone the embarrassment which he felt straightaway, but also on the career of his writing.

>>15644923
How exactly did the split occur? I mean how was it translated into any official knowledge of the public? How did we know Nietzsche's thoughts on Wagner, since I don't think he published anything about him until after his death.

>>15644934
Nietzsche wasn't famous. He was known to Wagners circle, and approved by Wagner and as such a figure that parts of the intellectual circles were aware of.

He was known mostly for his excellent knowledge of antiquity and obtaining his post as a professor at an unusually young age. The Birth of Tragedy, was greatly approved by Wagner, but it was more infamous than famous, for being rejected and thrashed by the established academia, thus ruining his academic career. It did not make waves beyond that, and never entered any sort of intellectual mainstream.

Nietzsche and Wagners close relationship ended due to Menschliches, Allzumenschliches, which postulated an attack on Wagners music. It was in the momentum of their discord, that Wagner, who supposedly was terribly hurt and felt betrayed by his prodigee child turning against him, that the rumors were spread.

Nietzsche's fame and status in the world, grew despite of Wagner, and came at a much later time.

Nietzsche refused being Wagner's lapdog and realized himself fully in his philosophical works. The naive, petit-bourgeoise reading of Nietzsche as a bitter "incel" or whatever, must come from people who have barely read Nietzsche, and if they did more than that, apparently did not pay any attention. As with Schopenhauer, Nietzsche emancipated himself from Wagners pessimism, towards an affirmative stance regarding life. Now if you also engage with Wagner's writing you will see that he was not a man of great intelligence in terms of philosophical conclusion. Rather he seems simple-minded and keen on simplistic assessments. This does of course not mean that Wagners work wasn't monumental, but certainly, in terms of philosophical capacity, Nietzsche outshone Wagner a thousand times.

But then again, the fact that Nietzsche was a brillant stylist, leads people to read his works who have not engaged with plato, kant or schopenhauer, they consider him an easy read, and in their ignorance discover only their own stupidity in his works. It is to be expected that a thread on Nietzsche will be filled with misinformed meme-judgements.

>>15644943
Wagner was shocked by Menschliches, Allzumenschliches. Nietzsche, in the process of writing it, already distanced himself from Wagner. It was, while a worthy and deep philosophical examination, also a signification of his break with Wagners and Schopenhauers philosophy. Nietzsche was aware of this, as Wagner was so close to him and his previous thought, that this sudden turn in philosophical perspective, without any discussion between them two, can be seen as a genuine betrayal itself. Wagner was more than a father to Nietzsche, and Nietzsche more than a son to Wagner, and it all hinged on their shared vision of the world, beauty, and art. Wagner, a narcissist and megalomaniac could not endure the pain of being left by his greatest hope.

Beyond the masturbation story, Wagner continued to talk quite badly and hurtfully about Nietzsche in his circles, something which is documented in Salome's book about Nietzsche. His heart was so bitter, that he kept the gossip machine running, contributing himself towards Nietzsche miserable status in the world of literature.

Personally i think Nietzsche handled the situation much better. His few remarks on Wagner sting, without showing any bitterness or malicious intent, just as with David Friedrich Strauß, Nietzsche had a very perceptive eye of other people's weaknesses (for his own, even more so, of course).

>>15644992
>>15645022
>Though his friendship with Richard Wagner was nearly over, Wagner actually received a signed copy, though he never read it, saying Nietzsche would thank him for this one day.

>>15644992
>>15645022
Lmao these posts a drenched in bitterness and autism.

Bitterness because of the hate for Wagner and the lies which you have constructed to aid Nietzsche's case. And autism for the sheer inability to understand humour; the ones calling Nietzsche a seething incel ARE Nietzscheans and at the very least have read him. One wouldn't understand the comedy if one hadn't read Nietzsche and didn't understand who he was. You're as bad as some raving Wagnerian apologist who espouses him to be an image of virtue throughout his life. Nietzsche made many mistakes, was not always a moral person, and was not always in the right. The split, however, between Wagner and Nietzsche was entirely on Nietzsche, though they both made mistakes Nietzsche is the one who made actually into a split, where it could have easily been a temporary annoyance.

Furthermore, for one who claims that the anons in this thread have either not read Nietzsche or didn't understand him, you make the perfect mistake against Wagner. For to call Wagner "simple-minded" in any respect is plain dumb, again as you like to say, you haven't read Wagner or you didn't understand him by the much subtext present in the only translation ever done of Wagner's prose works, which is universally acknowledged to be a goofy translation; or such expectation of the readers knowledge in the subtext is perhaps already there in the original German. Either way, you obviously put little time into understanding the horrible translation, nor it seems wanted to in your love for Nietzsche and hatred against Christianity.

I think we can all agree, though, that Hanslick was a loser.

>>15645325
Richard Pohl regularly btfo'd him, as well as Wagner.
>In 1869, in a revised edition of his essay Jewishness in Music, Wagner attacked Hanslick as 'of gracefully concealed Jewish origin', and asserted that his supposedly Jewish style of criticism was anti-German.[3] It is sometimes claimed that Wagner caricatured Hanslick in his opera Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg as the carping critic Beckmesser (whose name was originally to be Veit Hanslich).

>>15644992
>The naive, petit-bourgeoise reading of Nietzsche
Nietzsche IS petit-bourgeoise to the core

>>15645131
Read literature on the topic.

>>15645224
>One wouldn't understand the comedy if one hadn't read Nietzsche and didn't understand who he was.

Yes, indeed true nietzschean comedy.
>Nietzsche made many mistakes, was not always a moral person, and was not always in the right.
It feels quite awkward to read this. How does this relate to anything? I don't think he's a saint. It is unrelated to the question of Nietzsche - Wagner. I love Wagner, i love his music, but it seems evident from having delved into both lifes that Wagner handled Nietzsche's separation quite bitterly.

You fixate on the translation of Wagner. But i am a german, and have read the originals. Of course opinions can divert, but Wagner's writing is mediocre to me. He is one of the greatest artists of all time, but as a thinker he was weak. His affinity towards nationalism and anti-semitism shows that parts of him were mediocre indeed.

And towards the last bit: I do love Nietzsche, and won't hide it, but i have no hatred against christianity, and while understanding Nietzsche's criticism of Wagner, i do not share it.
>>15645493
Will you let us know why you think that?

>>15639737
except vagner also spread rumors about N being a philandering degenerate. the man was a clout obsessed gossip queen, he was a faggot and furthermore made shitty disney music. nietzsche was 100% right about him. adorno was 110% right about him.

>>15644521
>But still I wonder to what degree Wagner considers the religious image parables
Perhaps we could say the religious myth is of superior value to the artistic insofar as it is born out of immediate contact with the divine, while the artist has to content himself with being inspired by a representation of it, i.e. music.

>Did he subscribe to Schopenhauer's metaphysics in the birth of tragedy?
Yes, this early Nietzsche subscribes to Schopenhauer's system with such rigor and seriousness that it is almost flattering to me as another devoted follower. The work seems to have little to do with his later project.

>Of actually following those conclusions myself, what do you define as the aesthetic?
I take a purely Schopenhauerian stance on it:
>We do not let abstract thought, the concepts of reason, take possession of our consciousness, but, instead of all this, devote the whole power of our mind to perception, sink ourselves completely therein, and let our whole consciousness be filled by the calm contemplation of the natural object... We *lose* ourselves entirely in this object, to use a pregnant expression; in other words, we forget our individuality, our will, and continue to exist only as pure subject, as a clear mirror of the object, so that it is as though the object alone existed without anyone to perceive it, and thus we are no longer able to separate the perceiver from the perception, but the two have become one, since the entire consciousness is filled and occupied by a single image of perception.
>It is *art*, the work of genius. It repeats the eternal Ideas apprehended through pure contemplation, the essential and abiding element in all the phenomena of the world. According to the material in which it does this, it is sculpture, painting, poetry, or music. Its only source is knowledge of the Ideas; its sole aim is communication of this knowledge.

>I am not sure I agree with your conclusion on Opera.
That one is one of the main thesis of Nietzsche in that work. I realize that I presented it without any explanations, forgetting that you haven't read the book yet. Through Nietzsche's analysis I am convinced of its truth. I am curious to know what your conclusions will be after reading the work.

That beautifully written passage by Carlyle obviously shows an insightful take on the matter. I am inclined to say it agrees with our Schopenhauerian definitions on an essential level when it speaks of music and poetry in such words as "the infinite," "the soul," and " the inmost heart of the thing". I am curious whether he read Schopenhauer or came to these conclusions independently.

Because Wagner is just well packaged kitch.

>>15644887
Kind of retarded imo. Basically he undermines the argument by again the Jews are good because they are a great race at surviving but ignores the argument of people like Wagner that they are a race that has a parasitic relationship with a host to survive.

Kind of like saying, the COVID is great at being a virus so being anti-covid is dumb and political.

I kind of think his argument is incoherent and clearly, and ironically, political.

>>15639483
Wagner was a huge antisemite and nationalist, Nietzsche hated both of these qualities. Wagner also publicly made fun of Nietzsche's compositions while they were still friends which was a real dick move considering Nietzsche was by no means a musical person and was just trying to get out of his comfort zone.

>>15645980
You have no idea how much I fucking hate you.

Women can never understand anything of value, and especially not a woman who reads "Adorno". Women who academically delve into degenerate things will be a tainted soul, women are only meant to like what they like, they aren't meant to be systematic and object-oriented, and with a thinker as corrupting as Adorno for so many the effects will be even worse.

Adorno was literally a faggot and literally a pussy who cried about muh jews and fascism like a little girl, pretending to be a champion of nigger rights while hating nigger culture in its entirety.

Tell me, what part of nigger culture do you like? You have your token nigger writers from some time in your life that you decided it was necessary you have read a nigger to be made token?

>>15646187
>That beautifully written passage by Carlyle obviously shows an insightful take on the matter. I am inclined to say it agrees with our Schopenhauerian definitions on an essential level when it speaks of music and poetry in such words as "the infinite," "the soul," and " the inmost heart of the thing". I am curious whether he read Schopenhauer or came to these conclusions independently.
I also wondered this, but I doubt it. No doubt he would have become aware of Schopenhauer through Wagner(Religion and Art was apparently the least thing Carlyle read) but that early everything on Carlyle only seems to show his typical German influences like Fichte or Hegel, and even in Germany at the time of the early 1840's I don't believe Schopenhauer was particularly well known. I also think that there is that same character in Carlyle as in Hegel, the animator of the world-spirit, as it was later resurrected by Heidegger(and one can probably see why Heidegger didn't like Schopenhauer) as well. Though you're right that it is essentially saying the same thing, the mystical world-praising and unfaltering protestant belief in God make enough difference that it is possible Carlyle might not have even liked Schopenhauer himself, he says himself when speaking of the suffering of the world something along the lines of "but there are rolling hills too, the firmament of stars" etc etc "all this too, is in the world" and speaks what I would think would be quite against a pessimist system, especially with his sense of earnestness in life. No German is he, a practical Scot/Anglo, who looks at things as if they are for man, rather than ever asserting a definite or large systematic theory; and this is itself is obviously also admirable.

Nonetheless, it has been good to talk to you my friend, I will likely read Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy within the next two weeks and hopefully we will be able to continue the conversation. (:

>>15639508
but neetch loved the jews...

>>15646803
did you know that using the N word shows that you care more about the culture war than cooperation, thus showing those around you that you are not worth engaging with right? I ask cause im curious why you feel the need to be a part of the culture war? im curious.

>>15645948
>But i am a german, and have read the originals. Of course opinions can divert, but Wagner's writing is mediocre to me. He is one of the greatest artists of all time, but as a thinker he was weak.
Alright, I wont be so memey in my reply. But how do you think people have been able to discuss his philosophy and ideas for so long? How do you think we in this thread have been able to have an extended conversation about it(to the extent a 4chan conversation can be extended), how do you think a Roger Scruton are able to talk about it? And that is only his prose works alone, whereas to understand his prose one must understand his poetry-- How is it you think one man could make such genius of an unquestioned depth but completely fail in writing it down in prose? Naturally he has strengths, as Nietzsche did also, and we could even put it so strictly and cruedly to say their strengths a in art, and the other philosophy; in their practical workings, but it would be silly to say that Wagner was not a genius thinker at all, but as I said I can understand one having a different opinion of Wagner not being the greatest philosophical writer, but again, to say he is not a good thinker is in poor-spirit(not that I say you said that). Just as Nietzsche may not have been a genius artist, and his art may have been simple though still good, I would not say that he does not poetizise as a genius does, wherein prior conviction in his own practicality is in writing philosophy. Naturally as everyone knows, the poetizising's of Nietzsche are in his work strongly; and what I think cannot be denied also in Wagner. Wagner's prose works are to me things mainly only to be understand in the context of Wagner, whereas Nietzsche's books can be picked up quite easily. And to make another parallel, just as Wagner's art can be taken up without the man, but the art of Nietzsche it would seem almost by dumb-luck stupidity to come across one of his artworks without the man.

>>15646936
Who knows, maybe I'm just a nihilist, maybe I just like it because it's funny, or maybe because it's an accurate use of a word? Or maybe because your gay use of "culture war" doesn't fit my use of the nigger word to explain something evident and at the centre of the person, or thing related to the person, that I am replying to; and yes though the use is dependent on a knowledge of the persons and their beliefs, it does not mean i'm "taking part in the culture war" because I am not trying to make a difference, but neither am I some dumb hippy that is going to parrot as you just did on and on about "like, how we're all just humans man"; so I said what I said for reason, while you did not. So tell, why did you think it was necessary to write this post? To be a faggot?

>>15646936
And besides, who said culture war is against cooperation?

>>15642687
Because the post was typed by woman hands. It's well known that women dislike noise music and other avantgarde expressions of futurism.

>>15639879
>>15639887
>>15639894
jesus fucking christ. poor nietzsche.

>>15641627
>until static noise and people playing atonal violin compositions in helicopters was seen as "high art"
anon confirmed as pleb

>>15642385
Because those threads are full of teenagers who have never read Schopenhauer.

>>15647096
Other way around, it's full of teenagers who have never read Wagner.

>>15639483
Nietzsche criticized him for pandering to Christians and women in Parsifal and blamed him for radicalizing the German youth with his populism and antisemitism. Also, he made fun of Nietzsche's music.

>>15646922
Yes, it was a very fruitful discussion. I will be glad to resume it once you're finished with that book.

People seems to flock to Bayreuth ever year to listen to Wagners "Ring". Why so?
They probably dont get the stupid story, so it's just a cultural thingie in their minds.

>>15648572
It's a totally unique experience
The opera house was literally designed by Wagner himself and was basically the first proto movie theater
The productions are also top notch.
Iv'e heard it can take decades on a wait list to even get tickets unless you are someone special.
It's a dream of mine.

>>15639483
>>513233860
Just finished gotterdammerung,

bruh.....

>>15639550
Only when he had gotten old, rich and senile

>>15639649
Watch Das Rhinegold

>>15639645
>>15639656

>>15648572
>stupid story
That ‘stupid story’ is taken from highly respected works, mythology and traditions from middle ages

>>15649307
Imagine being at the premiere for Das Rheingold and hearing the opening.......
https://youtu.be/cjkjF9OfMe0

>>15645980
Please do not dare compare Wagner to Disney every again

He was everything that he wanted to be.

>>15649421
Do I call?

>>15639517
This.
/Thread

>>15644887
>France based because they conquered Europe
>Germany does the same
>Germany bad German patriotism bad me not like
>jews make Germans mad
>hehehe jews based, antisemites bad

He was a contrarian who hated Germany nothing else