/lit/ - Literature

>>16932840
to where?

>>16932840
go to Rome by plane and surely receive absolution from the Pope that milits gay civil unions

>>16932844
>"Held as a willing captive in the Venusberg, Tannhauser sings a song praising Venus who has showered him with love for over a year. He finishes his song by asking for his freedom - he longs for a more simple, earthly life, and springtime filled with the sounds of church bells. Venus, disappointed, tries to persuade Tannhauser with frivolity. Her attempts to change his heart were unsuccessful, and Tannhauser prays to the Virgin Mary. In an instant, the goddess's spell is broken and she disappears."

>>16932958
How did Nietzsche think he was life-denying? Seems Wagner was staunchly against the emotionally indulgentism, and nihilistic pettiness in which he accuses him of.

>>16932971
Emotionally indulgent nihilism /= life-denying. Life denial is rather the emotionally calm monk. It's pretty funny how the "life-affirming" people act like what they supposedly oppose without knowing what it is that they oppose. Compensation.

>>16932990
Schopenhauerian?

>>16933002
Yes.

>>16933010
But why not call the emotionally calm monk life-affirming? He's still living life isn't he? His will may be acting differently, but why look at life only in terms of will?

>>16933030
He is actively opposing the will that is to life. It is not hard to give in unthinkingly to your baser instincts and seek worldly success and harm yourself and others as the result without knowing why or how. After all many people do it, or wish that they could do it. The system is arranged in such a way that you do it. This is the life that the monk leaves behind. Life in this world was a mistake, we must seek somewhere else.

>>16933083
But is the monk not alive? I did not think Christianity professed the end to willing. And again, to look at life only in terms of will, to will a particular kind of way which is different to that egoistic addict.

>>16932971
he overestimated wagner's totalitarianism

Furtwängler:
>As is well known, the ultimate reason for Nietzsche's and Wagner's personal division - we know this through Nietzsche - was Wagner's "footfall in front of the cross", as Nietzsche called it. i.e. the Christian in "Parsifal". Did Nietzsche forget the youth works "Tannhauser" and "Lohengrin"? Did he think that Wagner could only be identified with his Siegfried? How much has the rationalist, the thinker, misunderstood the artist here! Isn't there, as it were, a different worldview in every Wagnerian work? The worldliness of Siegfried, the Christianity of Parsifal, the consecration of the night in Tristan, the day world of the Mastersingers, the dualism of Tannhauser, the monism of Lohengrin - where is the real Wagner? What are the true beliefs of the creator of all these works? He must have had some. - They are pictures. Each of these works is a parable. They are real and yet not real. Here the artist is deeper than the thinker.

>Today, the artwork is confused with the moods and human feelings that it triggers in us. This widespread error is also Nietzsche's error. That is why he does not understand the artist's ability and will to identify with his work and yet remain himself. But this is the only way to explain how the artist has the power to create completely different images, completely different worlds. Wagner believes in the particular picture he creates, to the point of complete self-renunciation, and yet he knows: it is only a picture, it is only part of the world, it is only seen from one side. He knows that the world cannot be unraveled, cannot be reduced to a common denominator, as the thinker, for example, as Nietzsche wants to believe and defends.

>The young Nietzsche once expressed his boundless admiration and amazement that one and the same artist could create two completely different works like "Tristan und Isolde" and the "Meistersinger von Nürnberg" one after the other. That the same man was first able to plunge into the dark depths of the most terrible tragedy to the limits of human ability and immediately afterwards was able to reveal the most cheerful, most diverse and most life-affirming world within himself. Wagner had the strength to do this in the same way as Werther's Goethe: by completing the work, letting it become form, he freed himself from the pressure of the material. He who produces these mighty effects is not subject to them. Wagner is not a Wagnerian. He has the distance to his work that enables him to see it as a whole. And that's - and this is the crucial factor - because he's an artist. For him the work becomes a picture, a parable. In this way we can see in the artist what his work is meant to be, how one must meet him. The one who created it shows us the manner in which it can become what it should be for us.

>>16933144
>But is the monk not alive?
The monk is alive, but he may as well not have been. It would make no difference to him. What Christianity professes, or better yet, what Christ himself professed, is hard to ascertain given that the religion was savagely misused as a vehicle of power for millennia. The specific doctrine of Gnosticism, though savagely oppressed, might have been the closest and the purest as its similarity to other pure religions suggests. The Gnostics shared this opposition to life.
>to look at life only in terms of will
The world at large *is* the Will. All else are different manifestations of it. It is not Schopenhauer alone who teaches this. Many other doctrines (especially so the purer ones) would agree.

>>16933190
Who is this balding midwit? Stop posting him.

>>16933190
sorry but furtwängler is obvlivious to the complex circumstances of Wagners and Nietzsches division. I am too tired to write it all down, but a brief summary: Wagners relation to the national state and to bayreuth, which, despite of it's petit-bourgeoise reality he gladly accepted as the realization of his dreams. There are a lot of things coming together for their separation, and Wagners turn towards christianity, which was not just based on Parsifal but also expressed his new nationalism in relation to the reich, was just one aspect.

>>16933190
Actually based.

>>16933210
>The monk is alive, but he may as well not have been.
The moral act is not a good act of life? I like Schopenhauer, but I find it hard for the selfless act to have any value if it is a good act of non-life (of oneself) and not a good act of life.

>The world at large *is* the Will.
But what is the reason to believe this? It makes for a fine poetic statement, but to call the highest metaphysical reality "will", seems like a little bit of a jumping the gun.

>>16933231
he adressed those other factors too, i just picked the part about convictions and parsifal, since it's the most common line of attack in the will-denial part of nietzschean accusations.

>>16933231
Not the anon you're replying to, but it seems to me the major role in their break was predominantly personal, and only secondly philosophical. And was of course led by Nietzsche, with Wagner saying "if he landed on really hard times, I could help him."

>>16933010
Is that you Wagner anon?

>>16933314
>The moral act is not a good act of life?
Not everyone is the same. Some are brought to life so as to go above it. Others must act, so they better act according to moral sentiments. Not everyone is supposed to be the monk. So yes, the moral life is a good life for many people.
>But what is the reason to believe this?
There are complicated philosophical arguments, well out of scope of our little thread. If you are intrigued, I suggest reading his work.

>>16933358
If you are the anon who discussed Wagner and Schopenhauer with me, yeah that's me.

>>16933368
The monk isn't acting according to moral sentiments?

>If you are intrigued, I suggest reading his work.
I will, but Schopenhauer's claim that the noumenon is will (unless I'm horribly mistaken which I could be) always looked like an unsubstantiated leap.

>>16932958
>not trying instead to marry Venus and make her your happy hausfrau raising lots of children
Do plebs really..?

>>16933387
>The monk isn't acting according to moral sentiments?
I suppose that would get into the semantics of morality. Maybe we could say they act according to different moralities?
>I will, but Schopenhauer's claim that the noumenon is will (unless I'm horribly mistaken which I could be) always looked like an unsubstantiated leap.
No doubt any attempt at solving the Mystery of the world would have to involve some indirect reasoning. As far as it is solvable Schopenhauer tries to solve it, but not more than that. I assure you it is substantiated as far as it could be substantiated.

>>16932840
>>16932958
>>16933397
By seeking pilgrimage to the city of clemency and grace.


https://youtu.be/9x1gR0RBsno?t=3715

When the singing starts, the libretto continues from here:

LANDGRAVE
A fearful wrong has been committed.
With dissembling mask, the accursed
son of sin came crawling to us.
We cast you out from among us: with us
you may not tarry; our hearth is stained with shame
through you, and heaven itself looks threateningly
upon this roof, which has sheltered you too long already.
However, a way to deliverance from eternal damnation
stands open before you: rejecting you,
I point it out to you. Make use of it for your salvation!
Gathered together on my lands
is a great concourse of pilgrim penitents.
The older ones have gone on before already,
the younger are still resting in the valley.
Trifling though their transgressions be,
their hearts will give them no rest;
to still the devout distress of repentance
they are marching towards Rome for the feast of grace.

LANDGRAVE. SINGERS. KNIGHTS
You must go along with them on pilgrimage
to the city of clemency and grace,
in the dust there to fall prostrate
and atone for your sin!
Before him who pronounces the sentence
of God, cast yourself down;
but nevermore return,
if you do not receive his blessing! Though our anger has been forced to soften,
because an angel checked it,
this sword will despatch you,
if you linger in sin and disgrace!

ELISABETH
Let him journey to thee,
Thou God of clemency and grace!
Forgive him, who has fallen so low,

the guilt of his sin!
For him only will I pray,
may my life be prayer;
grant that he may see Thy light,
before he is lost in night!
In joyful trepidation,
let a sacrifice be dedicated to Thee!
Take, oh, take my life:
I no longer call it mine!

... And so on.

If you want to check it with the German, or read on, here's the libretto with English and German:

http://www.murashev.com/opera/Tannh%C3%A4user_libretto_English_German

>>16933472
>spend much time pilgrimaging to the Pope to seek atonement
>he literally tells me only when pigs fly will I be redeemed
Th- thanks Catholicism.

>>16933397
inferior artists make villains more interesting, the most conventional outcome.

wagner made the tradgirl elisabeth more desirable.

>>16933501
Make Venus an e-girl destroy everything Wagner ever loved Bayreuth production when?

>>16933509
>it's a gritty black elisabeth version
>directed by david fincher

>>16933520
I'm thinking sin city style. Or maybe a 4chan production? Make Venus a tranny.. oh wait, that's already been done... AT BAYREUTH!

>>16933378
I've discussed them with a few anons, but I'm pretty sure that's you.

How have you been? Read any of Wagner's other prose works?

>>16932971
You are joking, right? Which part here exactly do you see as "not emotionally indulgent"?

>>16933817
>because it's beautiful it's emotionally indulgent
The fact that Wagner idealises "earthly life" away from sickly indulgence.

You also have to realise that if you fail to see into the intentions of Wagner's storys, entirely literal and brief renditions will make them sound silly. They are laws beyond common sense, that go to the very heart of the issue.

>>16933871
>The fact that Wagner idealises "earthly life" away from sickly indulgence.
Being (purportedly) anti-decadent doesn't make something non-senimentalist. The rejection of divine love for a "simple, earthly life" is almost hysterically sentimentalist. When presented in these terms, even if we concede that Wagner was pushing an anti-decadent theme, the work will inevitably stir and excite the emotions first and foremost.

>>16932971
Nietzsche was just butthurt Wagner outed him as a coomer and generally allowed himself to succumb to ressentiment as Wagner was 10,000x more Chad than he was.

Taking a Nietzschean analysis to Nietzsche Contra Wagner paired with Nietzsche's biography is a massive redpill.

>>16933928
No it isn't, you're just very retarded.

>>16933815
Good to see you again anon. I've got the sense that we ran into each other a few times since then. I haven't had the chance to read more from Wagner (though I'd like to), but I've been reading more and more analytic philosophy lately. It turned out to be a bit of a rabbit hole, but some philosophers I found genuinely insightful. How about you anon? How have you been?

>>16933939
“In assessing Nietzsche’s condition I have long been reminded of identical or very similar experiences with young men of great intellectual ability. Seeing them laid low by similar symptoms, I discovered all too certainly that these were the effects of masturbation [by hiding under their bed, perhaps]. Ever since I observed Nietzsche closely, guided by such experiences, all his traits of temperament and characteristic habits have transformed my fear into a conviction.”
Wagner's diagnosis of Nietzsche being a coomer.
Also of note is Wagner warning Nietzsche that Salome was bad news. Had he just taken based Wagner's advice to go nofap and simp for no Jewess he might have gone higher.