/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11190837]

>Nietzsche had some natural talent for sarcasm: he could sneer, though he could not laugh; but there is always something bodiless and without weight in his satire, simply because it has not any mass of common morality behind it. He is himself more preposterous than anything he denounces. But, indeed, Nietzsche will stand very well as the type of the whole of this failure of abstract violence. The softening of the brain which ultimately overtook him was not a physical accident. If Nietzsche had not ended in imbecility, Nietzscheism would end in imbecility. Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot. Every man who will not have softening of the heart must at last have softening of the brain.

How will Nietzscheans ever recover?

[Anonymous No.11190856]

>>11190837
>Dude, like make your own meaning LMAO

Nietzsche was a fucking joke

[Anonymous No.11190866]

>>11190837
>he could sneer, though he could not laugh
This fat fuck was a great eater, not a great reader. Embarrassing interpretation of N.

[Anonymous No.11190877]

>Other vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors; in fact, this is the chief mark of vague modern people. Not daring to define their doctrine of what is good, they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and , what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality. Thus they think it intellectual to talk about things being 'high.' It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. 'Tommy was a good boy' is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. 'Tommy lived the higher life' is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule.

>This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor port. He said, 'beyond good and evil,' because he had not the courage to say, 'more good than good and evil,' or, 'more evil than good and evil.' Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, 'the purer man,' or 'the happier man,' or 'the sadder man,' for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says 'the upper man.' or 'over man,' a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce

[Anonymous No.11190897]

>>11190837
any commentary on nietzsche is ultimately borne of envy

[Anonymous No.11190944]

>>11190837
>but there is always something bodiless and without weight in his satire, simply because it has not any mass of common morality behind it
This sentence nauseates me every time.
>>11190877
>'Tommy was a good boy' is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. 'Tommy lived the higher life' is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule.
This is perhaps one of the most inexplicable passages. Christianity - to say nothing of Plato - is absolutely filled to the brim with such metaphors; it overflows with references to height and verticality. The Gospels are maybe the most significant progenitors of this sort of phrase in the Western world.

Chesterton commits a sin here that I think we're all guilty of. We write what sounds good, first and foremost, and, being too enamoured with our own wit and neat aestheticism, neglect to correct ourselves in revision when our neat little passage comes into conflict with nuance and better knowledge. We'd rather be stubborn and embarrass ourselves than sacrifice a pretty-sounding aphorism.

[Anonymous No.11190945]

>>11190897
>heh your just jealous my daddy is so smart and cool

[Anonymous No.11190993]

>>11190897
That's certainly something a soft-brained Nietzschean would say

[Anonymous No.11191004]

>>11190944
>Catholicism
>false religion

I'll pray for you, anon

[Anonymous No.11191064]

>>11190944
>This sentence nauseates me every time.
He's right though.

>Christianity - to say nothing of Plato - is absolutely filled to the brim with such metaphors
Christian morality makes its modus very clear. There is no obfuscation of the sort you find in Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.11191079]

>>11191064
>Christian morality makes its modus very clear.
To whom? Jesus spoke in parables. Revelation is as "obfuscated" as Nietzsche, it is the interpreters (of which there are thousands, all differing and squabbling) who make its modus "very clear".

[Anonymous No.11191110]

>>11190837
*cough*

[Anonymous No.11191135]

I have found that most people who do not like Chesterton ultimately feel that way because at some point or another they came across him BTFOing some argument they had about some issue or another.

This is pretty much Christopher Hitchens' problem with him, I think.

[Anonymous No.11191143]

>>11190866
The great thing about Nietzscheans is that they like the ideas of individualism, relativism and perspectivism until they meet an interpretation contrary to their own.

[Anonymous No.11191150]

>>11191079
The Sermon on the Mount is as clear as day.

[Anonymous No.11191166]

>>11191143
Saying that N could sneer but not laugh, and all the connotations, is to understand little about N's work or life.
Also, even if your post made sense, conflict is not un-Nietzschean.

[Anonymous No.11191200]

>>11191166
So, then as the Apollonian and the Dionysian find their expression, and their strength, in their endless conflict; and this struggle, falling, as Nietzsche claims for the ancient Greeks, into four major artistic periods; then the expression of the drives must be based in a tradition. For, if the drives are not based in a tradition, then this conflicts with Nietzsche’s claim of their cross-generational expression, and the strengthening of both drives.
So, if these drives are based in a tradition, then the judgment of reality expressed in an artwork must not be particular to the individual artist, but the result of their upbringing within a particular society, its traditions, and so, its interpretation of the Apollonian and the Dionysian drives.
Therefore, the interpretation of the Apollonian and the Dionysian drives is, not through themselves, but contextualised by the society in which the artist has been raised, and so, exposed to their interpretation of these Apollonian and Dionysian drives and the resulting judgments of reality.
That is, the understanding and knowledge that an artist derives from their dreams is contextualised by their society – it is the method by which the dream, that basic element of the drives, is made intelligible.
Therefore, the interpretation of the Apollonian dream has neither individual particularity or subjective relativity, but is absolutely situated with regard to the artist’s society, and its judgments of reality.

[Anonymous No.11191499]

>Hygiene and severity were two of Chesterton’s pet peeves. He had received an undisciplined, indulgent upbringing from his parents, who did not insist on even basics of cleanliness and self-care. Good friend Christopher Hollis said Chesterton was unable to perform “the normal achievements of daily life—such as dressing or shaving himself—others had to do these things for him.”
>A heavy diet, excessive smoking, an incredible obesity, a complete lack of physical exertion, beer with visitors, wine with meals, drinking to stimulate his writing. At the end of 1914, Chesterton had a total physical collapse, which his doctor attributed to his heart. He was found in a contorted position on a bed that had given way beneath him. He slipped in and out of comas and fought for life for almost half a year.
LOL

[Anonymous No.11191565]

>>11191200

Your reasoning leads, almost, to hard determinism.

Art is the purest product an individual can produce. Art is the purest act an individual can perform. If art is entirely determined by social / historical context it would appear then the individual, in your argt, is trapped through and through in/by society.

I’d say they’re inextricably connected, but in regards to artistic production the individual is entirely present in the result.

Your post is implying society is the individual. And yes society is of individuals, and the individual in society. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say the individual is /of/ the society.

>I’m not saying art is a result or product, it’s an act or a particular state of action.

[Anonymous No.11191576]

>>11190856
nice bait

[Anonymous No.11191581]

>>11191565
I'm not a hard determinist, but I'm not a compatibilist either. I simply deny the intellectual sovereignty, or transcendence above the ethical and political framework, of the empiricists and rationalists when they induce or deduce some universal or particular law over everyone.

[Anonymous No.11191643]

>>11191581
>>11191581

Yes but in your post you are dealing particularly with art. Not the imposition of a universal or law over everyone. You might be somewhere with artistic form and it’s popularity with artists during a particular moment in history.

>denying int sovt abv ethical/polit

So you are saying individuals are productions of society and their composition so to say is determined by society.

This has some severe implications anon.

Thus Alexei isn’t a parricide it’s Russia’s fault for being an environment which disposed children to certain sets of conditions that led them unalternatively to becoming such that they did.

Picasso inevitably produced what he did thanks to Paris in the 20th. And Bach couldn’t have done anything but what’s he did given his history. So on and sf.

And what those Phil’s are doing, while maybe overstepping by making the grand sweeping ststmenet that their discoveries are of Truth and all must subscribe to their dogma, are ultimately investigating themselves and are making discoveries of human. Which we all are.

But maybe I’m misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.11191704]

>>11190866
pull one genuinely funny line from any of Nietszche's works that doesn't have some sarcastic overtone

[Anonymous No.11191714]

>>11190856
he was the richard dawkins of his time. his contribution to philosophy was not to advance the field in any way but to make certain concepts already explored by predecessors accessible to the layman, though imperfect.

[Anonymous No.11191715]

>>11190944
>Chesterton commits a sin here that I think we're all guilty of. We write what sounds good, first and foremost, and, being too enamoured with our own wit and neat aestheticism, neglect to correct ourselves in revision when our neat little passage comes into conflict with nuance and better knowledge. We'd rather be stubborn and embarrass ourselves than sacrifice a pretty-sounding aphorism.
Just replace the very first word and you have a restatement of Chesterton's point.

[Anonymous No.11191719]

>>11190866
>responds with a sneering, humorless retort
nice dubs tho

[Anonymous No.11191751]

>>11191643
Clarifying:

The views of a society are the framework from which individuals interpret their particular experiences.
That is, the artist is giving a particular expression of the reality of their society; and, the society judges its artists from its reality. This particular expression can then influence this societal reality. Hence, art is neither wholly relativistic or deterministic, but the result of individuals using the views of reality in which they were raised to understand, and express, their own lives, and it is this shared view of reality that allows a society to understand their artists.

[Anonymous No.11191799]

>>11191751

Thanks. Yes. I agree largely but you seem to then be rejecting, by omission, something higher than society. I don’t mean to droll but I think art has spiritual overtones that really drag in a lot more than talking about something like politics would.

religion has been well argued as the initial impetus allowing society to germinate. The primary motive to enable people to operate collectively. Which I suppose might be brought in to a conversation by virtue of politics’s presence. Plato’s noble lie and so on.

But in regards to art we have something a bit more disconcerting than a motivation. We find a source for art that appears to the artist and often the audience as outside of himself. Or separate or higher or deeper or archetypal. I’d say art allows for a mutual understanding of some essence.

While I think social upbringing does determine a particular part, to bring in some mild Kant, of our faculty of understanding, and thus, fundamentally, our relationship to that Other I’m defining as the ultimate source of all true artistic productions. The muses for example.

We are channels through which divine inspiration flows and out pops the art. And while historical context plays a role, I think its a rather reductive injustice to the essence of art to place it entirely within a social context.

Something spiritual or other drives art. We don’t will to art because of power. Many do. But they aren’t artists. Artists do what they do not for social commentary either. Many people do and others say that this is art. They’re not artists. Their goblins masquerading as elves.

Artists bring metaphysical patterns to the physical world. They make the unempirical empirical. They actualize pure thought.

We’re almost like priests. Only we actually get the fuck the young and nubile because our god is real right there hitting you with an undeniable, unavoidable, downright transcendtal tour de force of the spirit for the senses.

[Anonymous No.11191818]

>>11191799
screencap this post, print it out, store it away somewhere, and read it five years from now.
do that with all of your posts, actually. make a little time-capsule scrapbook.

[Anonymous No.11191822]

>>11191715
I tend to find that Nietzsche's aphorisms stick with me and rattle around in my skull for a long time. I find myself increased. Chesterton's flows like water - pretty, and rejuvenating sometimes, perhaps - but comes in one end and exits the other just as soon. Water weight. Nietzsche strikes like lightning, and leaves visible scars.

[Anonymous No.11191830]

>>11191822
increased by the rattling in your skull
hip-shifting to the rhythm of your own maraca
shacca-shacca shac shac shac

[Anonymous No.11191842]

>>11190837
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atDXtvo6hIg

[Anonymous No.11191847]

>>11190837
Why do christfags always sound so arrogant as if they are looking down their nose at those poor benighted unbelievers whenever they comment on this kind of thing? As if christianity was so obvious that the only reason you reject is it brain damage?

[Anonymous No.11191851]

>>11191847
there is nothing specifically christian about 'common morality'
it being common and all

[Anonymous No.11191853]

>>11191847
The Abrahamic mind virus will do that to you.

[Anonymous No.11191855]

>>11191842

[Anonymous No.11191858]

>>11191847
*The only reason you reject it is brain damage

[Anonymous No.11191866]

>>11191847
18th-20th Anglo-Catholic converts are especially rotten in this regard. I don't think it's necessarily universal.

[Anonymous No.11191881]

>>11191847
Only the Church possesses the charisma of Truth.

[Anonymous No.11191888]

>>11191881
You don't know that. You only have faith that it the case.

[Anonymous No.11191905]

>>11191888
even dogs can recognize charisma
even insects

[Anonymous No.11191907]

Very carefully.

[Anonymous No.11191909]

>>11191881
>>11191905
Why does the Church with its army of limp castrated priests, demented reformers, sad dejected conservatives, faux-moralist bureaucrats and idiot RCIA drones seem so uncharismatic, then?

[Anonymous No.11191916]

>>11191909
when was the last time you attended mass, and where?

[Anonymous No.11191936]

>>11191916
2016, Australia

[Anonymous No.11191949]

>>11191004
Not that anon but how do you personally pray for a person who is unknown to you?

[Anonymous No.11191962]

>>11191847
For the same reason you look down on someone who calls himself a wizard or a national socialist or MGTOW.

Atheism isn't merely a belief, it's a rejection of society itself. There's NECESSARILY an angsty or selfish childishness behind it. Either in the form of "dont tell me what to do" or "you are all insects who believe in fairy tales".

It's difficult to understand why atheism is retarded if you don't understand the role religion plays in society. Most normal people sense this intuitively though, which is why only fedora nerds are outspoken atheists.

[Anonymous No.11192054]

*unsheathes sword stick*
heh, nothing personal nietzschien

[Anonymous No.11192070]

>>11190837
>Common morality
So you willingly submit to the ideology of the masses like a good slave.
Disgusting.
Subhuman.

[Anonymous No.11192201]

>>11191499
the similarities are immense

[Anonymous No.11192230]

>>11191949
James 5:16

[Anonymous No.11192262]

>>11191962
Your functionalist utilitarian perspective of religion is secular decadence. Also determining truth by utility is completely antithetical to any sort of transcendent spirit. Bugman.

[Anonymous No.11192294]

>>11190837
>simply because he has not any mass of common morality behind it
What is it about the English that Nietzsche said again?

[Anonymous No.11192299]

>>11190837
I don't anyone cares about the opinion of a butthurt anglo fatass to be completely honest

[Anonymous No.11192301]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/destruction-reason/ch03.htm

Nietzschean brainlets should read this

[Anonymous No.11192304]

>>11190837
Why does Nietzsche make anglos so butthurt? Him, Bertrand Russel, the list goes on.

[Anonymous No.11192309]

I have found that most people who do not like Nietzsche ultimately feel that way because at some point or another they came across him BTFOing some argument they had about some issue or another.

This is pretty much Steven Pinker's problem with him, I think.

[Anonymous No.11192317]

>>11190837
>fat
>ugly
>anglo
Literally could not find a more worthless opinion

[Anonymous No.11192328]

>>11192301
Anti-Nietzscheans in the Marxian tradition: Boring 19th century LARPING moralists whose works function mainly as apologetics to authoritarian government and drab and dull aesthetics
Nietzscheans: Beast mode hypertranscendent schizoid critics of capital

[Anonymous No.11192921]

I like Chesterton when he's writing about his backyard, but he is completely and unreasonably racist against all Germans, so I wouldn't take this too seriously.

[Anonymous No.11193000]

>>11192317
/thread

[Anonymous No.11193038]

>>11192328
>whose works function mainly as apologetics to authoritarian government

Lukacs work was banned in the USSR you fucking brainlet

[Anonymous No.11193045]

>>11192328
>critics of capital

Nietzsche created for the whole imperialist period a methodological ‘model’ of the indirect apologetics of capitalism, showing just how a fascinating and colourful symbol-realm of imperialist myth could be evolved from an extremely agnosticist epistemology, a theory of the most extreme nihilism.

[Anonymous No.11193057]

>>11191135
>have found that most people who do not like Chesterton ultimately feel that way because at some point or another they came across him BTFOing some argument they had about some issue or another.
I've been completely unable to take him seriously after I read his thoughts on suicide. He's just a regurgitating imbecile..

[Anonymous No.11193161]

>>11193057
>Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings: it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot be bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross-roads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer’s suicidal automatic machines. There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart. The man’s crime is different from other crimes—for it makes even crimes impossible.
Holy shit you weren't kidding, talk about sentimentalist drivel.

[Anonymous No.11193302]

>>11193038
So?

[Anonymous No.11193419]

>>11193161
But true. Refute it you batty wastecrease

[Anonymous No.11193449]

>>11190837
I don't want to suggest Nietzsche had a soft heart but reading Zarathustra you can't deny the quality of its utterly human tenderness. I think this is something Nietzsche wrestled with.

[Anonymous No.11193478]

>>11193161
>>11193419
Just stumbled in here. I don't even want to bore anyone with disagreement over this, but this is a beautiful view on life and suicide. I sometimes contemplate suicide and while I do disagree (sorry!) with his conclusion, I share his views. If I did decide to leave this world behind I would do so in an act of pure selfishness, an act of pure destruction. I would not kill myself, I would destroy the whole world.
What he says about the suicide denying the world holds true for death itself - every death is a world extinguished.

[Anonymous No.11193491]

>>11193419
What's there to refute? It's all empty (and fairly weak) rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.11193494]

>>11193419
>everyone is beholden to the world but the world is beholden to no-one
it refutes itself

[Anonymous No.11193503]

>>11193161
>>11193419
>But true. Refute it you batty wastecrease

[Anonymous No.11193505]

>>11190837
fuck this cape wearing doofus desu
and i dont even like the neech

[Anonymous No.11193507]

>>11192070

[Anonymous No.11193521]

>>11191962
>Atheism isn't merely a belief, it's a rejection of society itself
lol imagine being THIS spooked

[Anonymous No.11193524]

>>11192921
>nietzsche
>german
you take that back

[Anonymous No.11193529]

>>11192262
BTFO
>>11191962
Maybe society should be rejected? You presuppose what you call angst and childishness as something undesirable. Why?

[Anonymous No.11193544]

A lot of tiaras and fedora have been tipped in this thread.

[Anonymous No.11193547]

>>11191847
>>11191962

[Anonymous No.11193590]

>>11193478
And what if pure destruction is what you want. The problem with his writings is you know before hand that the world will continue on without you. That your act does not acomplish destorying everything. Merely you.

[Anonymous No.11193619]

>>11191200
>something had periods
>so it must be based in society
nope both premises are false, Greek art could have existed in a thousand distinct periods and it could still be the result of individuals emanating outwards into fields of human activity, there is no reason at all why society would need to produce or maintain the art, it doesn’t exist, only processes, and society is a quiddity not a process, no one will cop to society as a process because doing so sacrifices all of its traditional privileges and it becomes mercurial, malleable.
>if this is not in tradition
its in the blood and requires coming to a boil before there is an eruption within an individual. Heraclitus leads to Aristophanes yes, but only by tangential transmission through blood and preservation of blood, culture. Tradition is a phantasm that immures the blood against defilement. It doesn’t inform an individual of his purpose (which is biologically programmed) nor does it make him a genius (he is born thus).

cheap stupidity, paid for with a maleficent abuse of logic

[Anonymous No.11193651]

>>11191704
I didn't know Nietszche was expected to be a comedian.
>>11192304
Europeans were parasitized by Jewish morality through Catholicism and Christianity when Rome fell, among other events in history.

[Anonymous No.11194267]

>>11193491
>he can't refute it guys.

>>11193494
This makes no sense, either as a summation of Chesterton's argument or as a fucking sentence. Try harder with your refutation please.

>>11193503
>retarded gay nip with delusions of grandeur shanks himself after being utterly embarrassed on a national stage .
>suicide is good.

Quite simply, not an argument.

[Anonymous No.11194272]

>>11190897
Any commentary on Christianity is ultimately borne of envy

[Anonymous No.11194336]

>>11193651
>I didn't know Nietszche was expected to be a comedian.
maybe follow the course of the conversation before presuming to interject

[Anonymous No.11194359]

>>11194336
I did, criticizing a philosopher because they aren't a comedian is nitpicky and not relevant to the field.

[Anonymous No.11194427]

>>11194359
i'm going to leave aside your total failure to grasp 'the point'--
just set it off to the side here--
and pose a question, based on the absurd premise you've assumed here, that there is a 'field' of 'relevance' for which 'criticism' must don the appropriate gear to enter: what is the relevant critical comment to be made here?

[Anonymous No.11194469]

>>11191704
The entire sequence with Zarathustra’s ape, and whenever Zarathustra acts bemused, calling Kant the Chinaman of Koenigsberg, his sense of humor is satirical/sardonic as are most people’s and most comedians’. I would assume some of the funniest things he said would only be funny to him as they would be realizations not jokes, the idea of perspectivism made me laugh just in awe of the notion, his characterization of journalists and teachers in Lecture 2-3 of Anti-Education is funny to me. Forget where but i think in Genealogy he calls Idealists corner whisperers or something like that which made me reflect on my own tendency to assert beyond my own means of demonstration and holding onto those occulted “wisdoms” as if they gave me special purposes, Meletus (i think) said this about Socrates, and Socrates said this to his friend Crito about his possible fleeing to another polis.

[Anonymous No.11194494]

>>11190837

>bodiless and without weight

Oh you.

[Anonymous No.11194739]

>>11193619
>Biological programming
>Born a genius

>A genius of music is programmed to be a genius of music regardless of their musical education or personal history.

Also, the number of periods is a non-issue. Rather, it is the individuals responding to other individuals of their society, even cross-generationally.

As I said before:
>For, if the drives are not based in a tradition, then this conflicts with Nietzsche’s claim of their cross-generational expression, and the strengthening of both drives.

[Anonymous No.11194772]

>>11190837
>C.K. Cuckerton
>supported Franco
>tfw you will never have a gay foursome with Nietzsche, Kafka and Lovecraft while C.K. Cuckerton stands beside the bed and is holding your clothes

[Anonymous No.11194809]

>>11190837

>"common morality"

So I guess common morality, the most self evident morality has to be Christian morality huh? How fucking self-evident. I like the guy, but Chester lard here is fucking obtuse on purpose.

Nietzsche's poisonous sarcasm must have been directed at people like that who make these kind of jabs from a pedestal, the "know it alls" of common sense coming from common men. He truly said it all when Nietzsche claimed morality is not even a problem yet for the English.

[Anonymous No.11194824]

>>11193161
What... The... Fuck... ?

There's been two suicides in my extended social circle, so to speak, in less than a year. I'm going to train karate, make my hands instruments of death and destruction, harden them with jars of little steel balls. Then strike the pages of any book by C.K. Cuckerton so hard that the force travels back in time and kills him in the face.

>>11193478
>this is a beautiful view on life
NO IT ISN'T! IT IS VIRTUE SIGNALLING FOR """MEN"""!

>b-b-but he had such a huge output
YEAH, BECAUSE IT WASN'T CHECKED FOR QUALITY, NOT THAT HE CARED ABOUT THAT!

>>11193419
Most suicides are tragedies that can be avoided.

/thread

[Anonymous No.11194842]

>>11194494
Jesus, Chesterton. And you call yourself a christian? You glutonous fuck.

[Anonymous No.11194844]

>>11194824
>Most suicides are tragedies that can be avoided.
How is this a refutation?

It's not Chesterton's fault your acquaintances were so evil and weak.

[Anonymous No.11194893]

>>11193161
>>Not only is masturbation a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in roasties; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who rapes a man, rapes a man. The man who has fun for himself, rapes all men; as far as he is concerned he rapes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings: it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the onanist not: that is his crime. He cannot be bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The rapist compliments the women he rapes, if not the owner of them. But the onanist insults everything on earth by not raping it. He defiles every flower by refusing to rape for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his masturbation is not a sneer. When a man leans on a tree masturbating, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the man-shaming at Huffington Post and the cheap jokes on tv, than in Mr. Symbians’s automatic masturbation machines. There is a meaning in shamng the onanist apart. The man’s crime is different from other crimes—for it makes even roasties impossible.
Fixed it for ya!

[Anonymous No.11194898]

>>11193590
Sigh. What is the world without my gaze to savor it?

[Anonymous No.11194902]

>>11194893
True and fair.

[Anonymous No.11194913]

>>11194844
>How is this a refutation?
>It's not Chesterton's fault your acquaintances were so evil and weak.

[Anonymous No.11194941]

>>11194739
you are born a genius and the geniuses born outside of the healthiest demes are lesser geniuses. the best cultures are products of the best breeding they’re just radiations of a vigor within a people.
>the interrelated people
they are just stock for nurturing genius either military or artistic, their culture is a celebration of their genius. the bugs and priests and merchants don’t contribute to culture they just imitate the products of genius and provide a substrate for growing strong trees. they’re basically fertilizer and bulwarcks against other tribes and their geniuses. Chesterton wants a milieu he can be subsumed into which is Genius so he doesn’t have to take responsibility for being lesser than or inferior to geniuses. Its that simple. This whole obsession with “your culture creates you” is weak herd animals, midwits and priests (all without genius) trying to claim they are the perfect specimens rather than they benefit further from or are educated by genius or just in awe of genius.
>>11194893
imagine the KYNICAL DOMINANCE of this type!

[Anonymous No.11194979]

>>11194941
So your claim is that one is a born a genius, and that there is an absolute scale of genius?

You are placing the existence of knowledge as prior to ethics or politics, when it is the ethical and political positions in which one is raised that gives intelligibility to the world.

[Anonymous No.11194985]

>>11190837
>claims to be a Catholic
>falls to the sin of gluttony
Explain why I should take this man's opining on anything seriously, much less his supposed religious conviction, if he gave himself over to his appetites.

[Anonymous No.11195001]

>>11194941
You do know that the vatican even is against masturbation because it's solitary.

No wonder that the greatest literacy-retardant in Europe was catholicism. Because literacy...books...people sitting alone and...reading?

[Anonymous No.11195008]

>>11193419

Having a hard time in life? Dude, just live for the sake of flowers, LMAO!

[Anonymous No.11195012]

>>11194979
>knowlesge
genius is measured in ability not knowledge
>politics and ethics
are after-the-fact to biology

[Anonymous No.11195014]

Guys what the fuck does German nhilist philosophy have to do with Japanese card game anime?

[Anonymous No.11195022]

>>11195014

Edgeru

[Anonymous No.11195042]

>>11195012
What is the measure of ability? What is the scale? Is that scale objective?

Biological knowledge is interpretation of observations, and is necessarily associated with a set of specific metaphysical beliefs.

[Anonymous No.11195049]

>>11195014
Holy shit no way

[Anonymous No.11195054]

>Of course, this shrinking from the brutal vivacity and brutal variety of common men is a perfectly reasonable and excusable thing as long as it does not pretend to any point of superiority. It is when it calls itself aristocracy or aestheticism or a superiority to the bourgeoisie that its inherent weakness has in justice to be pointed out. Fastidiousness is the most pardonable of vices; but it is the most unpardonable of virtues. Nietzsche, who represents most prominently this pretentious claim of the fastidious, has a description somewhere--a very powerful description in the purely literary sense--of the disgust and disdain which consume him at the sight of the common people with their common faces, their common voices, and their common minds. As I have said, this attitude is almost beautiful if we may regard it as pathetic. Nietzsche's aristocracy has about it all the sacredness that belongs to the weak. When he makes us feel that he cannot endure the innumerable faces, the incessant voices, the overpowering omnipresence which belongs to the mob, he will have the sympathy of anybody who has ever been sick on a steamer or tired in a crowded omnibus. Every man has hated mankind when he was less than a man. Every man has had humanity in his eyes like a blinding fog, humanity in his nostrils like a suffocating smell. But when Nietzsche has the incredible lack of humour and lack of imagination to ask us to believe that his aristocracy is an aristocracy of strong muscles or an aristocracy of strong wills, it is necessary to point out the truth. It is an aristocracy of weak nerves.

>We make our friends; we make our enemies; but God makes our next-door neighbour. Hence he comes to us clad in all the careless terrors of nature; he is as strange as the stars, as reckless and indifferent as the rain. He is Man, the most terrible of the beasts. That is why the old religions and the old scriptural language showed so sharp a wisdom when they spoke, not of one's duty towards humanity, but one's duty towards one's neighbour. The duty towards humanity may often take the form of some choice which is personal or even pleasurable. That duty may be a hobby; it may even be a dissipation. We may work in the East End because we are peculiarly fitted to work in the East End, or because we think we are; we may fight for the cause of international peace because we are very fond of fighting. The most monstrous martyrdom, the most repulsive experience, may be the result of choice or a kind of taste. We may be so made as to be particularly fond of lunatics or specially interested in leprosy. We may love negroes because they are black or German Socialists because they are pedantic. But we have to love our neighbour because he is there-- a much more alarming reason for a much more serious operation. He is the sample of humanity which is actually given us. Precisely because he may be anybody he is everybody. He is a symbol because he is an accident.

[Anonymous No.11195066]

>>11195054
>If we were to-morrow morning snowed up in the street in which we live, we should step suddenly into a much larger and much wilder world than we have ever known. And it is the whole effort of the typically modern person to escape from the street in which he lives.He goes to the fantastic borders of the earth. He pretends to shoot tigers. He almost rides on a camel. And in all this he is still essentially fleeing from the street in which he was born; and of this flight he is always ready with his own explanation. He says he is fleeing from his street because it is dull; he is lying. He is really fleeing from his street because it is a great deal too exciting. It is exciting because it is exacting; it is exacting because it is alive. He can visit Venice because to him the Venetians are only Venetians; the people in his own street are men. He can stare at the Chinese because for him the Chinese are a passive thing to be stared at; if he stares at the old lady in the next garden, she becomes active. He is forced to flee, in short, from the too stimulating society of his equals--of free men, perverse, personal, deliberately different from himself. The street in Brixton is too glowing and overpowering. He has to soothe and quiet himself among tigers and vultures, camels and crocodiles. These creatures are indeed very different from himself. But they do not put their shape or colour or custom into a decisive intellectual competition with his own. They do not seek to destroy his principles and assert their own; the stranger monsters of the suburban street do seek to do this. The camel does not contort his features into a fine sneer because Mr. Robinson has not got a hump; the cultured gentleman at No. 5 does exhibit a sneer because Robinson has not got a dado. The vulture will not roar with laughter because a man does not fly; but the major at No. 9 will roar with laughter because a man does not smoke.

>The complaint we commonly have to make of our neighbours is that they will not, as we express it, mind their own business. We do not really mean that they will not mind their own business. If our neighbours did not mind their own business they would be asked abruptly for their rent, and would rapidly cease to be our neighbours. What we really mean when we say that they cannot mind their own business is something much deeper. We do not dislike them because they have so little force and fire that they cannot be interested in themselves. We dislike them because they have so much force and fire that they can be interested in us as well. What we dread about our neighbours, in short, is not the narrowness of their horizon, but their superb tendency to broaden it. And all aversions to ordinary humanity have this general character. They are not aversions to its feebleness (as is pretended), but to its energy. The misanthropes pretend that they despise humanity for its weakness. As a matter of fact, they hate it for its strength.

[Anonymous No.11195082]

>>11195042
>what is the measure of ability
mathematical complexity, style and affect. sublime style, higher levels of complexity and self-reference, and affecting one’s culture and others’ minds. So, a low complexity unstylish affective work is not genius.
>is that scale objective
for the highest types yes, for bugs and herd animals no, they aren’t even sapient
>metaphysics
irrelevant it doesn’t do anything, it has no deeds beyond books for mind controlling people. biology is primary to culture and ethics.

[Anonymous No.11195088]

>>11195054
>>11195066
Misanthropes, hipsters, elitists, and neckbeards on suicide watch!

These days people don't even want to experience differing viewpoints on Twitter. They go on Leddit, their carefully curated website for circlejerks where differing viewpoints get downvoted for being "toxic," and complain about having to view their family and coworker's Facebook pages. SAD!

To make a boxing analogy, a true champion takes on all comers.

[Anonymous No.11195108]

>>11195054
>>11195066

Nietzsche and all his pathetic descendants absolutely BTFO'd.

Chesterton is our new king, lads.

[Anonymous No.11195138]

>>11195088
>To make a boxing analogy, a true champion takes on all comers.
where do you live? im gonna heem you

[Anonymous No.11195145]

>>11195138
I'm not a good striker but I am a brown belt in BJJ.

[Anonymous No.11195175]

>>11195145
so youre one of those unathletic bjj dorks who brings a moleskine to the gym to take notes. im gonna break your face. now where do you live

[Anonymous No.11195180]

>>11195175
Toronto. Why?

I doubt a neckbeard from /lit/ could even hit me once. What are you trained in?

[Anonymous No.11195229]

>>11195145
>bjj
>not judo
Get fucked nigga

[Anonymous No.11195246]

>>11195229
BJJ is superior to judo.

Judo is sportified and nerfed, and all those throws don't work in the real world. I have some judo books from the 1950s and they have some decent info in them. But you're better off with the most basic chokes and holds.

[Anonymous No.11195327]

>>11195054
>>11195066
What book are these quoted from?

[Anonymous No.11195334]

>>11195327
iirc the second one was from Heretics

[Anonymous No.11195336]

>>11194494
>that filename

[Anonymous No.11195355]

>>11195246
>and all those throws don't work in the real world
Enjoy getting your head smashed while you try to do your nerd shit faggot
Box + Wrestling + Judo = perfection

[Anonymous No.11195366]

>>11195355
Nah, the best combination is boxing, wrestling, and BJJ with some muay thai and judo.

[Anonymous No.11195373]

>>11195366
>muay thai
You mean kick boxing? you're right desu except for jewjitsu

[Anonymous No.11195382]

>>11195373
the knees, forearms, and clinch training is useful.

[Anonymous No.11195383]

>>11195014
https://youtube.com/watch?v=xOJr1dTPSis

Kaiba is Ubermensch

[Anonymous No.11195390]

>>11190837
>Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot.
I don't know something about this feels ill-researched. Hitler might not have ultimately succeeded, but you wouldn't exactly say he was a failure.

[Anonymous No.11195400]

>>11194824
hopefully there will be three suicides in your social circle. And don't /thread your own post

[Anonymous No.11195416]

>>11195400
>>11195088
What is it with you cuckholics and your obsession with suicide?

[Anonymous No.11195562]

there is something deeply wrong about people happily accepting purple rhetoric and grandiloquent phrasing as being on the same level of rigor and consideration that real philosophy has.

this is what plato meant when he said the poets trade on falsehood to make emotional impressions

[Anonymous No.11195580]

>>11195390
Hitler's success or failure is irrelevant.
More people starved during and because of the Collectivisation in Russia, but Communism was always an experiment that humanity was going to perform. The idea that everybody could be equal and share in the wealth of the larger group is hard to squash and worth the risk. It was discredited by the waste and horrors it resulted in.
Nazism was always a kitschy joke born from the mind of a loser in a boarding house, it could have stayed their and left the world no poorer.
>>11193161
There is one crime: stupidity. The judge is the environment, the sentence is death, there is no appeal.
There is one sin: harming others.
Harming yourself isn't a sin, just stupid.

[Anonymous No.11195647]

>>11195580
>Harming others is a sin
>Harming yourself isn't a sin
You can consider yourself as something that is connected to others, since you probably are. You're probably causing many people emotional grief by killing yourself and you're removing a productive member of society as well. I still agree with you though.

[Anonymous No.11195665]

>>11193161
Don't forget catholics believe suffering is good, so the natural conclusion is to continue to live even if you are in the worst pain imaginable.

Being weak and pathetic and in pain is a virtue for most christfags throughout history.

[Anonymous No.11195701]

>>11195562
Funny thing is it seems unlikely that Chesterton read Nietzsche or many if the non-english writers shit talks in Orthodoxy. Honestly Chesterton wad a huge retard. Good short story writer tho.

[Anonymous No.11195771]

>>11195665
That outlook was cohesive back when half of all babies died of whatever before 5 yrs of age and average lifespan for the rest was late 40s.
Now the 'suffering is good' meme doesn't play, since the poor of the world see how much suffering can be avoided while the rich have bumped up against the amount of extra suffering that persisting while horrifyingly ill brings.
Also pic related.

[Anonymous No.11195779]

>>11195390
It begs the question, does thinking meekly surrounded by others end in being not an idiot?

[Anonymous No.11195795]

>>11195665
False. Read Augustine, you turbopleb.

[Anonymous No.11195796]

>>11191499
So this is what he meant by
>soften his heart

[Anonymous No.11195810]

>all these whiny nietzscheans itt presenting absolutely zero arguments

[Anonymous No.11195852]

>>11195779
If by 'thinking meekly' you mean 'being balanced and making use of honest memory, intuition, reason, common sense and ethics' instead of being an histrionic, false, self-destructive, half-educated larper installed by cynical players who had no idea what a hideous fungal cancer you were, then yes, yes it does mean that.

[Anonymous No.11195856]

>>11195054
>>11195066
Based. I can really see why Zizek likes Chesterton so much.

[Anonymous No.11195942]

>>11195852
First, whose common sense and whose ethics? Also, "histrionic, false, self-destructive, half-educated larper" is the type of person attributed to the vain rather than the proud person according to N.

[Anonymous No.11196045]

>>11190856
>dude [reductionist misrepresentation] LMAO
I'm so tired of this meme. If you have a problem with an author or philosopher can't you write a real argument on why like an adult?

Pretending to refute someone's life's work with two words isn't clever and it doesn't convince anyone either. You're the joke for not even having the fortitude to make your position clear on something you seem to hate so intensely.

[Anonymous No.11196087]

>>11195771
yeah, nah
read some flannery o'connor for faith in the face of human grotesquerie
given your image, start with 'The River'
http://www.pothe.org/documents/2017/1/The-Complete-Stories-Flannery-OConnor.pdf

[Anonymous No.11196525]

>>11194267
>This makes no sense
No, you just fail to understand -- they are not the same thing.

[Anonymous No.11197756]

>>11192304
he recognized the anglodyte as the final degenerative state for man

[Anonymous No.11197769]

>>11196525
>spouts gibberish
>gets called out on it
>"y-y-you just don't understand what I'm trying to say!"

[Anonymous No.11198100]

>>11197769
>be a fool incapable of appreciating the niceties of something
>volunteer your foolishness
>t-t-that's just g-g-gibberish!

[Anonymous No.11198360]

>>11198100
> He's not making sense again /lit/

"niceties of something" is an awfully formulated phrase, do you even read? English isn't your first language is it?

[Anonymous No.11198386]

>>11193161
i actually agree with everything he said except
> Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act
i think he doesn't know what he's talking about.
some people are just driven to suicide because of mental pain/ illness

[Anonymous No.11198483]

>>11198360
>"niceties of something" is an awfully formulated phrase
talk about meaningless refutations, it's a perfectly acceptable phrase

[Anonymous No.11198575]

>>11193419
1.Its simply heretical and places the focus on the world and passions instead of God. Likewise it shows a manifest lack of love and even support for pagan traditions over Christian ones.
2.It demonstrates a lack of empathy and understanding of the suicidal mindset and its relationship to despair - reducing it to "pathetic emotional excuses" is on the level of someone of thinking the passion and death of Christ were a walk in the park for him because he was God. Likewise the great success made with counseling, therapy and suicide prevention - which were known even before his time had shown that far from having no price - these people had an embarrassingly cheap one worth far less than any diamond. I could go on but you see already this fundamental ignorance (or deception for the sake of an aphorism) falls apart unless you are willing to work on his broken understanding.

Overall this is probably something he wrote very very early on in his career as it bleeds through with that half baked moralistic attitude that only the ignorance of youth or autism can sustain.

[Anonymous No.11198593]

>>11193419
>>11193478
>>11194844
>>11194898
There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;

And frogs in the pools singing at night,
And wild plum trees in tremulous white,
Robins will wear their feathery fire
Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;

And not one will know of the war, not one
Will care at last when it is done.

Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree
If mankind perished utterly;

And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn,
Would scarcely know that we were gone.

[Anonymous No.11198605]

>>11190837
>Englishman
>attempting to parse Nietzsche
A recipe for disaster.

[Anonymous No.11198615]

>>11193419
>sin
That's the refutation. Sin is a deep delusion of the mind.

[Anonymous No.11198622]

nietzsche sucks

[Anonymous No.11198879]

>>11198483
Read more Chesterton and learn how to write acceptable prose.

[Anonymous No.11198985]

>>11198879
>Chesteron
>acceptable prose
Is that another way of saying melodramatic trash? It must be since you see fit to compare it to the likes of a fucking Mongolian basket weaving forum post. What made you think any of this measured up as an "answer"? The derision is entirely yours... I'd tell you to learn instead but frankly I don't think that's possible.

[Anonymous No.11200494]

>>11195771
>That outlook was cohesive back when half of all babies died of whatever before 5 yrs of age and average lifespan for the rest was late 40s.
>Now the 'suffering is good' meme doesn't play, since the poor of the world see how much suffering can be avoided while the rich have bumped up against the amount of extra suffering that persisting while horrifyingly ill brings.
>Also pic related.
Nice pic.

And has anyone heard about Therese of Lieux? She was the idol of a certain albanian con artist, operating under the artist name of Mother Theresa. ToL is the poster child of those who worship suffering.

And from a theological standpoint, celebrating suffering is the most anti-Jesus thing there is. 1) He cured the sick. If he was alive today, he would go into biotech. 2) He suffered so that we didn't have to.

>>11198879
>Read more Chesterton and learn how to write acceptable prose.
Yeah, negative examples are good.

[Anonymous No.11200511]

>>11198985
>Mongolian basket weaving forum post

You're lack of creativity is depressing.

[Anonymous No.11200527]

>>11200511
>You are lack of creativity is depressing.

Fucking lol

[Anonymous No.11200626]

>>11191719
nah, it was pretty funny. Regardless, even if you're right, it has nothing to do with the fact that Chesterton is wrong.

[Anonymous No.11200837]

Anyone ITT trashing Chesterton's suicide argument is a real brainlet. You're taking his writing out of context. The context of that selection about suicide is an argument about patriotism and jingoism in citizens. It's not actually about suicide.

Read the fucking book, you maroons.

[Anonymous No.11200848]

>>11200837
What's the book anon?

[Anonymous No.11200882]

>>11200848
Orthodoxy. The chapter is "the flag of the world."