/lit/ - Literature

Romanticism for sure
Aesthetics are superior to reason

>>16364471
>Aesthetics are superior to reason

explain yourself why do you think that?

>>16364484
He doesn't need to explain, his post was beautiful

>>16364490
basted

Rationalism was a mistake.

>>16364431
For me, it's Enlightenment.

>>16364490
i want to hear his thoughts nonetheless

Rose tinted glasses are for dull faggots

>>16364525
and which movement do you prefer sir?

>>16364525
Doesn't that apply to both?

>would you rather be a based retard or a cringe genius?

>>16364431
Romanticism has produced some of the most beautiful and inspiring poetry, artwork, and stories of all time.

The Enlightenment ruined the wonder of life, gave power to faggots in lab coats and turned women into believers in astrology.

>>16364587
Well said old sport

Romanticism
>Beauty
>Wonder
>Truth
>Meaning

Enlightenment
>Autism
>Misery
>Pain
>Suffering

However, one of the things the Romantic yearns for is to escape from himself. This yearning, together with the great misfortune of having been born in that particular period in history, caused Nietzsche to serve as a herald for the most banal form of realism in his second book, Human, All-Too-Human. These were the years when Western Rationalism, after abandoning its glorious beginnings with Rousseau, Voltaire, and Lessing, ended as a farce. Darwin’s theories, together with the new faith in matter and energy, became the religion of the big cities; the soul was regarded as a chemical process involving proteins, and the meaning of the universe boiled down to the social ethics of enlightened philistines. Not a single fiber of Nietzsche’s being was party to these developments. He had already given vent to his disgust in the first of his "Untimely Meditations," but the scholar in him envied Chamfort and Vauvenargues and their lighthearted and somewhat cynical manner of treating serious topics in the style of the grand monde. The artist and enthusiast in him was perplexed by the massive sobriety of an Eugen Dühring, which he mistook for true greatness. Priestly character that he was, he proceeded to unmask religion as prejudice. Now the goal of life was knowledge, and the goal of history became for him the development of intelligence. He said this in a tone of ridicule that served to heighten his own passion, precisely because it hurt to do so, and because he suffered from the unrealizable longing to create in the midst of his own time a seductive picture of the future that would contrast with everything he was born into.

cry harder, romanticism fags. it's all you're good at anyway.

>>16364490
Based

>>16364595
So, you prefer the enlightenment

I love the Romantics, but it seems dishonest not to say the Enlightenment, considering how it formed the core of so many advances that are foundational to our quality of life.

Both were a mistake

>>16364692
We aren't happier today than humans 500 years ago because our "quality of life" is better.

>>16364587
The Enlightenment is the reason many women believe in astrology? That's just not honest. Do you really think levels of superstition were lower beforehand?

>>16364716
Evidence? Do you really think you would be happier if you spent 10 hours a day farming?

Neither. Embrace the civilizational stream.

>>16364739
interesting rec, i will try to read it when the time comes

>>16364431
Romanticism = /pol/
Enlightenment = reddit

That's all you need to know

>>16364692
>le quality of life meme

Rousseau was a fucking faggot, literally the most retarded "intellectual" of all time

FUCK THE ROMANTICS

>>16364520
Personally I feel inherently more joy and peace and satisfaction from arts and nature than I do any reason or ration. On a level of justifying to others, I guess I'd just say look at the gestalt results ignoring any arguments, reason and mechanism has worse outcomes for people and society than aesthetic fulfillment.

>>16364787

I want the free speech and layout of /pol/ with the need to filter bots, shills, and jews. Possible?

>>16364727
Yes, especially if it's combined with a sense of family and community, spiritual certainty, and a more correct set of societal values

>>16364727
Unequivocally yes

>>16364829
only on a smaller chan. The constant shilling is part of the price to be paid for free speech, they are free to shill whatever they want.

>>16364490
Based

>>16364815
yeah, i can see where you´re coming from, i have a thirst for knowledge but at the same time i can take some time aside to enjoy a particular work of art which stimulates my mind and soul, that´s why i don´t take the whole fiction vs non fiction debate too serious, both are benefitial to the spirit although i prefer fiction personally because i want to become an artist

>>16364810
Rousseau is about as based as it gets. It's a shame his name got associated with the French Revolution because that was absolutely not his fault.

>>16364431
Romanticism is literally just the failure of the Enlightenment, Romanticism as a comparison with anything else would make sense but this comparison is nonsense. It's like saying "Newton or Einstein?"

>>16364431
Romanticism for more aesthetic arts like poetry and painting, enlightenment for plays, novels and philosophy.

>>16364490
Based.

>>16364640
yes but I'm very good at it

>>16364431
Up until a few years ago, my answer would have been:

- Enlightenment: correct, but evil.
- Romanticism: wrong, but good.

Now my answer is:

- Enlightenment: not only correct, but also better in every other way. Have you actually read Laurence Sterne, Diderot, Voltaire, and Jonathan Swift? They are miles superior to any Romantic writer, there's no real comparison. Maybe Gerard de Nerval and Blake, if they can be considered romantics rather than early symbolists, were at the same level, but otherwise 18th century writers are vastly more interesting, having explored form and content with almost unprecedented originality in a way that the Romantics, with their eternal penchant for easy-going literature, never managed to do.
Tristram Shandy (reason writing satire against itself in other to please reason), Candide, Le Neveu de Rameau, and Gulliver's Travels are books that are still extremely alive, while Wordsworth, Shelley, and Bronte, laudable as they are, look older in comparison.

The exception is music, unless you consider the Baroque of Bach, Handel and Vivaldi as being a part of the Enlightenment, which I don't think I do. Anyway, neoclassicism is definitely inferior to the period which started with Beethoven and gave us Schubert, Schumann, Berlioz etc. and culminated in Wagner.
Romanticism is better adapted to music - which speaks more directly to the emotions - than to literature.

>>16364471
>>Aesthetics are superior to reason
they are both ways for hedonists to coom

>>16367130
Based, but also depressing. I too have changed my opinion in a similar way. If the work of an artist is to study nature, and present the ideas honestly, but from a unique and insightful perspective, then it must be said that the romantics are failures. Their deliberate distortion of reality leads to more ignorance than truth. I think this is what cripples even the greatest romantic writers, for the modern audience just cannot bring itself to believe what is known to be false. I still enjoy Wordsworth and Shelly, but I can't help thinking about this when I read them.

Contrarily, even though Tristram Shandy is a joy to read, I find it depressing. For all it's free spirited styling and precise clarity of intellect it still reads to me like a tombstone for the idea of a novel. This is as far as a novel can go (excluding perhaps Joyce) and no further is there any point. I believe that the weight of this release was in many ways a millstone around the neck of future writers. They could not take themselves with the same seriousness needed to write their stories.

I have always looked at the enlightenment movement as a rebellion against the increasing technical nature of art, but it looks like the idea of this rebellion is impossible. It is not possible to restore the innocence that has been lost to experience. It is a shame to think that the more innocent writings of the ancients can never be written again.

>>16364595

Romanticism is basically the authors discounting outright poor people. That's how it makes things so clean, neat and beautiful.
Poor people integration to enlightenment is what makes it miserable.

>>16364716
You're a faggot who has a Disney fantasy vision of the past

>>16364830
People still have all of those things

>>16367286
No they don't

>>16364490
Ok this made me chuckle.

>>16367367
>family
yes
>community
yes
>spiritual certainty
only enlightened people have certainty
>a more correct set of societal values
Modern values are objectively better and more humane than past values

>>16364431
The Enlightenment was a Jewish movement that ultimately destroyed the foundations of morality and social order. Fuck that.

>>16364431

I prefer romanticism, but accept reason's primacy. My condition never improved until that point in my life.

>>16364471
reason is aesthetic

Romanticism = traditionalists
Enlightenment = progressives

>>16364431
Neither. Instead we should follow what Herder was saying and incorporate both the scientific method and rational discourse with poetic language and tools (metaphor, allegory, etc) in order to create systems of knowledge that let us see humans as the full beings they are

That is, rejecting a dichotomy that would claim we are either autistic mathematicians or opium smoking poets. Think about what it would mean to be a physicist with an eye for poetry? Or a painter with the razor sharp logic of an expert in algorithms?

>>16364490
Based

>>16367748
>He thinks poetry is metaphor and allegory and not the divine, perfect inspiration of the muses

The Absolute state of /lit/

according to >>16364595 you fucks don't have a choice in this matter

>>16364431
Neither.
Fuck Bronte and fuck states of nature. Real men love the bronze age.

>>16367812
Hey, it's my university!