/lit/ - Literature

>>19561594
What a soulless bitch.

>>19561594
Based. Women want Nietzschean chads to dominate them in bed.

>>19561594
>Virginia Woolf
>"Woolf stated in her private letters that she thought of herself as an atheist.[355]"
Eliot was and is simply too based for his godless contemporaries.

>>19561594
>He has become an Anglo-Catholic believer in God and immortality, and goes to church. I was shocked
Once again the believer BTFO the faithless ghoul

>>19561594
Based Woolf rightly diagnosing the christcuck.

>>19561594
Virginia Woolf killed herself by filling her coat pockets with rocks and walking into a body of water

>>19561614
Nietzschean chads are gentle and naïve though, like Dostoevsky’s Myshkin

>>19561729
>A MAN IN A CHURCH? NOOOO I'M GOING INSANE
Heh, maybe that's why she killed herself.

>>19561751
Yes.

>>19561765
>Suicide is le bad......Because it is OKAY?
"For two thousand years, Jesus has revenged himself on us for not having died on a sofa."

Cioran, All Gall is Divided

>>19561594
Why do modernists hate Jesus so much?

>>19561798
Even Camus thought suicide was for the weak and he rejected the idea of finding peace in Christianity.
>Camus: We must despair of ever reconstructing the familiar, calm surface which would give us peace of heart.
But that's besides the point, the point here is how easy Woolf lost her mind by watching a man in a church believing in God.

>>19561823
>Even Camus thought suicide was for the weak
Crypto christcuck

"The same man who says, “I don’t have the courage to kill myself,” will the next moment call cowardly an exploit before which the bravest would cringe. You kill yourself, we are forever being told, out of weakness, in order not to have to face suffering or shame. Only no one sees that it is precisely the weak who, far from trying to escape suffering or shame, accommodate themselves to such feelings—and that it requires vigor in order to win free of them decisively. In truth, it is easier to kill yourself than to vanquish a prejudice as old as man, or at least as his religions, so sadly impermeable to the supreme gesture. So long as the Church was rampant, only the madman enjoyed the favors of the regime, he alone had the right to put an end to his days: His corpse was neither profaned nor hanged. Between ancient stoicism and modern “free thought,” between, say, Seneca and Hume, suicide suffered—aside from the Catharist interlude—a long eclipse, a dark age in fact, for all those who, wanting to die, dared not infringe the ban on putting oneself to death."

Cioran, The New Gods

>>19561837
>You kill yourself, we are forever being told, out of weakness, in order not to have to face suffering or shame
Yes

>>19561837
>Crypto christian
>if he does not agree with me he is a pseudo/crypto christian
Nietzsche: That which does not kill us makes us stronger.
Suicide is always the choice of the weak. The martyr suffer and endure, for he is strong and his faith is strong.

>The dinner conversation was philosophical. Aristotle was dismissed in favor of Plato, a preference I again ascribed to the very improbability of Plato’s thought. It seemed that the more bizarre a belief, the more poetic it must be, and hence the more noble it was to embrace it. I couldn’t help sensing that the Scotts were, underneath everything, as American as I, just as skeptical of ideas, and that like me they were convinced by the sincerity of an impulse rather than the rigor of a system. Very well. By a snobbish reverse, the preposterous claims of Platonism and a Platonic Christianity were what most excited them, as though anything that so taxed one’s credulity must be—well, not true, but aristocratic, superior. When they’d talk about Original Sin or the Creation or the Devil they’d become agitated, their cheeks would flush and their eyes would sparkle, as though they were hypnotizing themselves into espousing this obvious nonsense. And the more vague and absurd the things they discussed (angels, the resurrection of the body), the more they used such words as ‘precisely’, ‘undoubtedly’, ‘clearly’ and ‘naturally’, and each time they uttered such a word their eyes would dilate with glee—lying made them gleeful, just as children shriek with pleasure as they egg each other on to think up more and more gruesome details in a ghost story.

>>19561594
That makes me like Woolf more. Thanks for posting it.

>>19561837
Whether or not it takes courage to kill yourself is relative to the individual. A person who believes in a peaceful nonexistence after death is a coward. A person who believes in eternal damnation is a true warrior.

>>19561865
In the other hand, that made me a great fan of Eliot. I'm going to start reading his works.

>>19561837
>Cioran
You’re still in high school

>>19561862
The novel really was invented just for authors to seethe wasn't it?

>>19561837
Please try to explain that quote in one or two sentences

>>19561858
Yeah all of those Roman and Greek stoic warriors were weak but a fantasy writing shut in chronic coomer is heckin stronk

>>19561867
He is a warrior because fulfill your unhinged fantasies of infinite punishment for finite crimes? Heckin true and valid bro

>>19561862
>seething at the mere mention of angels and the resurrection of the body
Besides what OP mentioned with Woolf, I always find fascinating that raw hatred that appears from those that not only they don't believe but they hate other believe, they try to disguise it with arrogance and a sense of superiority, but they can't never escape the fact they are angry.

>>19561905
I wonder if Mormons also think people who call their beliefs ridiculous are just "seething"

>>19561903
>Roman and Greek stoic warriors were weak
If suicide was their final decision, indeed they were.
>but a fantasy writing shut in chronic coomer is heckin stronk
Nietzsche was a scholar and he also considered suicide for the weak, even thought he opposed the christian values of his friend Wagner.

>>Even Camus thought suicide was for the weak
>Crypto christcuck

>"The same man who says, “I don’t have the courage to kill myself,” will the next moment call cowardly an exploit before which the bravest would cringe. You kill yourself, we are forever being told, out of weakness, in order not to have to face suffering or shame. Only no one sees that it is precisely the weak who, far from trying to escape suffering or shame, accommodate themselves to such feelings—and that it requires vigor in order to win free of them decisively. In truth, it is easier to kill yourself than to vanquish a prejudice as old as man, or at least as his religions, so sadly impermeable to the supreme gesture. So long as the Church was rampant, only the madman enjoyed the favors of the regime, he alone had the right to put an end to his days: His corpse was neither profaned nor hanged. Between ancient stoicism and modern “free thought,” between, say, Seneca and Hume, suicide suffered—aside from the Catharist interlude—a long eclipse, a dark age in fact, for all those who, wanting to die, dared not infringe the ban on putting oneself to death."

>Cioran, The New Gods

>>19561909
False analogy, but it also reveals what I previously mentioned, the cheap attempt to hide behind a sense of superiority and arrogance, or in this case sarcasm and irony.

>>19561858
>>19561903
>>19561911
>The man who does away with himself, performs the most estimable of deeds: he almost deserves to live for having done so.
—Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
>VOLUNTARY DEATH
>Many die too late, and some die too early. Yet strange soundeth the precept: “Die at the right time!
>Die at the right time: so teacheth Zarathustra.
—Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

>>19561920
How is the analogy false? Unless you presuppose that one religion is, in fact, true, and the other false (but otherwise there is no means of distinguishing between them)

>>19561911
>Nietzsche was a scholar and he also considered suicide for the weak
He also said that rape, murder, looting and barbarian traits are strong.

>>19561927
Nietzsche had an aneurysm and lived seven years of his life as retarded person under his sister’s care before finally dying.

>>19561930
See the answer of this man >>19561927
Nietzsche also discussed suicide, but the strong man did not needed suicide and through his struggle and fight, he got stronger and was what we could call a strong man.

>>19561936
So raping, murdering, looting and barbarianism also makes one stronger because saint Nietzsche has said so?

>>19561929
>one religion is, in fact, true
Christianity is indeed true
>How is the analogy false
Because is not the same. People getting upset at the mention of christianity and christian aspects (in the case of Woolf is quite obvious, in White while less obvious also reveals that discomfort) and their answer in both cases is an arrogant attempt of superiority. is different from the scenario you created for your reply.

>>19561949
>saint Nietzsche has said so?
And now you are mixing things. Because one thing is different from another, if you can't understand that and your answer is another attempt of sarcasm and irony, this discussion will reach a moot point.

>>19561954
Presumably you become irritated when atheists are speaking completely mendaciously (for instance, using nonsense or false arguments against Christianity). A lot of people on 4chan are Christian for purely aesthetic reasons and seem to take no interest in the rationality or justifiability of their religion -- and yet make a game of advertising their obvious contempt for anyone who doesn't share their belief system. They don't seek to convert anyone but just to hold their religiosity over other people.

>>19561966
>Presumably you become irritated
According to you, but let me share my answer by saying no.

>>19561949
Being offended by this won't make it false.

You seem like the type to define feeding stray animals as an act of supreme force, power, and strength, because god knows strength needs to be defined as anything other than what it is. Breast feeding is very strong. Boxing is for weak men. Silk can be very tough. Milk is one of the stiffest drinks.

>>19561976
Nevertheless, it wouldn't be an uncommon or unreasonable reaction.

>>19561983
>it wouldn't be an uncommon or unreasonable reaction.
Indeed, but unfortunately for you in this case the answer is no.

>>19561958
>And now you are mixing things
No I am not, you're cherry picking the deranged fantasies of a pathetic man and using it for your advantage for a "gotcha".

This "discussion" is already moot because we're already too keen on our dogmas.

>is an atheist
>goes crazy and commits suicide
many such cases

>>19561986
So? The point is just that I don't think becoming irritated by mendacious talk is a sign of metaphysical significance (what is often called a 'sign of contradiction').

>>19561990
Anon, you are mixing things (once again). Your last line of defense is an attempt to call Nietzsche by names. There's no "gotcha" moments.

>>19561594
This says more about Woolf than about Eliot kek

>>19561993
>is a christcuck
>still clings to worldly distractions to fill the void
>doesn't move to a desert
many such cases

>>19561998
>So?
There's no so. I'm answering the assumption that I could be irritated, which is no. Let's not even get into the huge assumption you made about people being christian in 4chan and your assumptions about them too, because that is also further from me saying your analogy was false (which it was and still is).

>>19561594
no wonder she necked

>>19562010
But when I was a Christian, I would be irritated by such things, and so would many others. Ergo being irritated is not a unique property of atheists.

>>19561999
Checked

Nietzsche himself called names to other philosopher because he was a pathetic cunt. If you're agreeing with Nietzsche about what makes someone strong then you should agree with him that rape, looting and murder are the traits of noble and strong civilizations

>>19562020
Sure but that's speaking for yourself. If what you are trying to prove here is that people get upset, indeed, people get upset, but that's so broad and general as to assume most people breath.

>>19562028
>If you're agreeing with Nietzsche about what makes someone strong then you should agree with him that rape, looting and murder are the traits of noble and strong civilizations
That's a false conclusion and also quite obtuse.
But more important, it's you trying to create the rules of the game, which is impossible for they are no rules unless both players agree.

>>19562020
>>19562028
Anyways, I have to go. I leave this last reply as a message that my silence does not mean I agree with any of you, I said that I had to say and now I'm gone from this thread.

>>19562040
>That's a false conclusion and also quite obtuse.
No it's not. If you're using Nietzschean notion of strong then you should stick to it.

>>19562054
Kek I have this insecurity too of leaving the thread at a (You) while arguing. Our dogmas are already too strong. There is no point in further argumentation.

Honestly can't believe that nigger used "mendaciously" twice.

>>19562032
>>19562054
Well it seems a bit rich to say I can’t psychologise about Christians when you began by psychologising about atheists

One believed in God, the other became a schizo and drowned herself in a river lmao

>>19561594
>distressing
Kek she would find a lot of problematic things nowadays while posting about BLM on Twitter. Burn in hell suicidal bitch.

>>19561751
Prince Myshkin was an opposite of a Nietzschean chad though - that would be Rogozhin.

>>19561614
No, the ones who aren't closeted dykes like Woolf want Catholics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7pioagkX5k
Christ is king

Why was she such a hateful, bitter little woman?

>>19561751
myshkin was anything but an uebermensch wtf

Eliot was also a much better writer. Nothing Woolf wrote can match Murder in the cathedral or The confidential clerk.

>>19561594
>Anglo-Catholic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Catholicism

>>19561594
Her Husband has got his back!

>>19561738
Meanwhile, Eliot died peacefully at home with his loving wife (40 years his junior) by his side, with full belief in the immortality of his soul in heaven. Really makes you think.

https://traditionalbritain.org/blog/politics-ts-eliot/

>>19564460
TS Eliot was from St. Louis, Missouri, United States. This is the reason behind his insecurities.

He wrote four quartets which is better than anything she wrote no cap fr fr

>>19561594
Virginia was an atheist feminist who abused all the men in her life. I sometimes think she made up her own sexual abuse at the hands of her cousin to justify her dislike of men who are all portrayed as awful in her works

>an Anglo-Catholic believer
Verily the vilest of all scum

>>19561594
Eliot is based

>>19564631
Yeah, even the Jews I know like Eliot which is not common for a writer who is openly anti-Semitic

Oh noes internetz she didn't like my epic christerino how can I abstain from raping masturbating to futa and looting without JESUS

>>19564687
lmao

>>19564396
SHE WAS MARRIED WITH A JEW LMFAO

He was one ugly son of a bitch, I have to say.

>>19564851
She was an ugly bitch

works, career, looks, influence and views of both get absolutely annihilated by the poundchad

>>19564907
>works
Eliot is a better poet.
>career
Eliot won the Nobel Prize

>>19564919
>Eliot is a better poet
Eliot himself acknowledged Pound was superior
>Eliot won the Nobel Prize
Pound was supposed to too but he got his ass spanked by the committee for siding with the fascists

>>19564954
>Eliot himself acknowledged Pound was superior
Doesn't mean shit. Pound himself acknowledged that his Cantos were a massive failure. So now what? Eliot achieves in The Waste Land a much better and focused version of what Pound tried to do with the Cantos.
>Pound was supposed to too but he got his ass spanked by the committee for siding with the fascists
Eliot was antisemitic yet he got it. Also, Pound later regretted these views, being visited by the Jewish pedophile Allen Ginsberg.

>>19564919
>kikes didn't want to give him a prize because he hated kikes therefore he's bad
Hi R*ddit

>>19565000
>Eliot achieves in The Waste Land a much better and focused version of what Pound tried to do with the Cantos.
No? The Waste Land is extremely fucking overrated, allusions for the sake of allusions paired up with unexpressive imagery and vague devices could NEVER reach the same depth of immersion Pound reaches in Cantos.
>Eliot was antisemitic yet he got it.
He was helping the Jews during Holocaust and constantly publicly denounced all accusations of anti-Semitism, whereas Pound literally got sent to a psychward for it

>>19565000
>Eliot was antisemitic
Yes and Pound was doing radio broadcasts from Italy against the United States. Eliot was a traditionalist conservative and Pound was a fascist. There's a difference.

>>19565000
>The Waste Land is extremely fucking overrated
Overrated is a reddit word. Means nothing other than "I don't like it."
>allusions for the sake of allusions
The Cantos use obscure historical references for the sake of making obscure historical references. Victor Hugo's La Légende des siècles is a more soulful and impressive project when it comes to history-wide poems.
>depth of immersion
Huh? It's poetry, not novel-writing. As if Pound could reach the concise yet imposing nature of Eliot's poetry. Pound was meandering in the Cantos, they're a totally unfocused and misguided effort and Pound acknowledged this himself.
>>19565066
And Pound said he regretted being a fascist as he was sucking Jewish pedophile Allen Ginsberg's cock during a visit.

>>19565112
>And Pound said he regretted
It doesn't matter. Ezra Pound is now and ever shall be known as a fascist.

>>19565112
>Overrated is a reddit word. Means nothing other than "I don't like it."
That's what the whole debate comes down to unless you're willing to engage in direct analysis and interpretation. I sure ain't.
>The Cantos use obscure historical references for the sake of making obscure historical references
Not at all, they're used to recreate a certain entourage without going noticed by the reader. They aren't integrated into any sort of subtext that could be in any meaningful way separated from more literal layers or textual reality, because these subtexts don't exist in the first place and what could be their resemblance is but a series of heads-ups towards expressing the inexpressible via ideogrammatic method.
>It's poetry, not novel-writing
And? It is good precisely because it's poetry. It manages to reach the same effect as a novel without resorting to hundreds and hundreds of pages of tedious setting-up.
>Pound was meandering in the Cantos, they're a totally unfocused and misguided effort
Some are, some aren't.

>>19561594
>tips cloche
>milord