/lit/ - Literature

>>16984883
But didn't Nietzsche say that aesthetics supersede ethics in The Birth of Tragedy?

>>16984937
>yet hold both to be objective

>>16984883
Nope, go formalize your philosophy

>>16984989
That would be very arrogant for me to do

Benjamin, OP. Only happens through a materialist route and an against the current past's redemption of the present. (I would say the preface to the Trauerspiel for a start, navigate your way through arcade's project summary, and read Burck-Moss comments of Benjamin)

>>16985210
How does Benjamin privilege the beautiful over the good, yet holds both to be objective? Please tell me a bit more, if I were to take up any recommendation given to me by Anon, I would never get to read anything at all.

You have two threads up and didn't even respond in the other one

>>16985234
>materialism

Taking the cue from the way you write it's out of your court, Anon, but a good read nonetheless. If you want a short reading pick an aphorism from One-Way Street.

>>16985210
>Benjamin
Refuted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus_Novus

>>16984961
I want to stick my benis inside those boobies if you know what I mean

>>16984883
Beautiful is good, good is beautiful. They cannot be separated

>>16985033
Do it coward if some guy can write "subtle art of not giving a fuck" and spells fuck like f*ck for the most extreme cool nihilist guy larp ever and makes tons of money your honest interest in philosophy deserves its own book even if it's shit.

>>16984883
Read “Aesthetic Terrorist” on Mishima by Rankin

>>16984883
Yes. Read Belcea.

>>16985423
OP here, I actually already read it. What would this have to do with anything? Mishima is not a moralist nor does he believe in the objectivity of morals. I am looking for someone who does believe in said objectivity, but that morality orients itself towards the beautiful.

>>16984883
Either/Or is about this
Idk about objectivity

>>16984883
They say there are no bad questions, but this one is so boring that it surely must qualify.

>>16985681
>morality orients itself towards the beautiful.
so the beautiful is the good

>>16985720
mb I misread the op, either or is not exactly what you want.

>>16985399
This unironically inspired me

>>16985735
>Miss me with Platonists and Nietzsche please, both do not apply.
I am specifically not looking for someone who claims that the beautiful and the good are ontologically one. What I am looking for is a philosopher who holds that it is morality which orientates itself after beauty, i.e. that there is yet another aesthetic purpose to moral conduct. Maybe it helps to describe it as an inversion of Kantianism, wherein morality is an end-in-itself and we experience beauty in respect of the good.

>>16985855
Sounds like Nietzsche

>>16984883
GE Moore? He thinks that they are effectively the same and that both are objective. Read Principia Ethica.

Nietzsche

>>16986411
>>16985879
>Miss me with Platonists and Nietzsche please, both do not apply.

>>16985890
>I am specifically not looking for someone who claims that the beautiful and the good are ontologically one.

>>16984883
Jesus of the nazguls

>>16987245
I'm sorry; I didn't read the full thread before posting. You don't have to be so curt about it.

>>16987245
Peterson, then

>>16987245
>>Miss me with Platonists and Nietzsche please, both do not apply.
this is so dumb, the closest you will get to what you want is obviously Nietzsche and writers influenced by Nietzsche (Rilke, Heidegger).

>>16984883
>Are there philosophers who privilege the beautiful over the good, yet hold both to be objective? Meaning that morality orients us towards the beautiful and not the other way around?
No; only sophists would do that, because beauty itself is originally a quality of, and an expression of, Nobility/the Good, meaning that, contrarily, it is beauty that primarily serves as the defining conduit to noble/good ethicomorality, whereas, conversely, the latter already implies the former; the physical body by itself, due to its denser mutability, is capable of temporarily sustainining the inherited splendour of Nobility even after potential dissipation of the agent's internal spiritual abundance, hence its concomitant potential for deceptive agency.

>>16985033
All philosophers are arrogant.

>>16985855
It would help if you attempted to flesh this out a bit. What is morality and beauty? And to be clear, which is the center of orientation? It seems that you suggest each in different cases, or is it that they are equal, each a dominion of their own?