/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16218292]

No words. Just based.

[Anonymous No.16218301]

Better watch out in saying such a thing. You might attract a....Nietzschean...

[Anonymous No.16218306]

>>16218292
That's four words

[Anonymous No.16218324]

>>16218301
Nietzscheans will write their autistic screeds while we, the based Wagnerians, will listen to the Ring while singing along with Wotan and Siegfried.

[Anonymous No.16218331]

>>16218306
And that, my friend, is autism right there.

[Anonymous No.16218384]

I sense an untermensch is present.

[Anonymous No.16218479]

>>16218292
His music is based, but Wagner as a person was the most insufferable cunt. If there's a Hell, he's in it

[Anonymous No.16218528]

>>16218479
In that case, I'm sure his art redeems him.

[Anonymous No.16218536]

>>16218292
Been enjoying his operas on the Met Opera site.

[Anonymous No.16218539]

based thread

[Anonymous No.16218649]

>>16218292
>The redemption of woman into participation in the nature of man is the outcome of christian-Germanic evolution. The Greek remained in ignorance of the psychic process of the ennobling of woman to the rank of man, To him everything appeared under its direct, unmediated aspect,—woman to him was woman, and man was man; and thus at the point where his love to woman was satisfied in accordance with nature, arose the spiritual demand for man.
>Whereas the fall of human races lies before us plain as day, we see the other animal species preserved in greatest purity, except where man has meddled in their crossing: manifestly, because they know no 'marriage of convenience' with a view to goods and property. In fact they know no marriage at all; and if it is Marriage that raises man so far above the animal world, to highest evolution of his moral faculties, it is the abuse of marriage, for quite other ends, that is the ground of our decline below the beasts.
>It is here that the Woman herself is raised above the natural law of sex (das natürliche Gattungsgesetz), to which, in the belief of even the wisest lawgivers, she remained so bound that the Buddha himself thought needful to exclude her from the possibility of saint-hood. It is a beautiful feature in the legend, that shews the Perfect Overcomer prompted to admit the Woman.

- Wagner

[Anonymous No.16218725]

>>16218649
Based quote, but it's a bit unclear how this process goes and what the outcome is. Does he mean marriage will raise women to the point that they will be able to participate in the affairs of men, or am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.16218736]

>>16218292
the prelude to tristan und isolde is the most beautiful thing i've ever heard.

[Anonymous No.16218755]

>>16218292

[Anonymous No.16218759]

>>16218725
The top quote is from a work during the turn of the century and the two latter quotes from one of his last works. They're broadly related, but I feel like one gets more when read together. He is saying that things of man can be participated in by woman, if she is raised to it or beyond its level as Schopenhauer supposed the best of woman were, but he is also saying in everyday life that woman is bettered by marriage(as well as man) in the fidelity of monogamy.

[Anonymous No.16218773]

>>16218736
You have to two choices, do you want something more up-beat and inspiring, or ascetically transforming?

[Anonymous No.16218826]

>Herzeleide died of sorrow

[Anonymous No.16218876]

>>16218736
This but with the Lohengrin Act I Prelude

No wonder Ludwig II would have given his life for Wagner after hearing it

[Anonymous No.16218980]

>>16218759
Very interesting. Yes, I've read the essay as recommended by probably yourself (we might have discussed his essays a few weeks ago if you remember). Jung has a very similar idea too (animus integration), which probably was influenced by both Schopenhauer and Wagner.

[Anonymous No.16218984]

>>16218759
Very interesting. Yes, I've read the essay as recommended by probably yourself (we might have discussed his essays a few weeks ago if you remember). Though this last essay was very vague compared to the others, probably because he didn't finish it. Jung has a very similar idea too (animus integration), which probably was influenced by both Schopenhauer and Wagner.

[Anonymous No.16219113]

>>16218984
I'm pretty sure I was that anon, because I can remember talking about it a little while ago.

And yes, Jung was quite a Wagnerian, some of Wagner's own ideas on dreams and psychology become apparent in both Jung and Freud. Though Freud took more plainly the incestuous character of it, I have heard somewhere but can't say how accurate, that Wagner said that incestuous fantasy's were normal but did not equate to a literal desire. As for the anima in it, I cannot tell if he was going to continue on what the feminine has and the male does not, in that footnote "male ideality, feminine naturality", it's arguable that he just meant merely man is ennobled by the fidelity of monogamy and love for the other, and woman raised to an ideal level, and even though he holds this raising of the man only by the woman in a fidelity, I can't see what he would have held intrinsic in the feminine nature, other than that shared fidelity only found so between man and woman, which would raise man. Whereas of course Jung is almost completely dualistic and supposes an intrinsic necessary sense of the other gender in its opposite. Any thoughts?

[Anonymous No.16219137]

Why does Wagner use the word "redemption" for practically anything, and why is it that he was using the word before having read Schopenhauer and effectively retained the same meaning in its usage after it taking on a more Schopenhaurian conscious?

[Anonymous No.16219241]

>>16219113
Since his ideas are so alike to Jung's, maybe looking at Jung's conception of gender could give us a clue. He believed that Logos was intrinsic to man, and Eros to woman, and it remained their task to respectively integrate their anima and animus to be able to properly use the other gender's essence. "Male ideality and feminine naturality" could very well have meant this. Jung also believed that marriage is a key factor in psychological growth or "ennoblement", where both parties help their partner's integration of anima or animus figure. So the marriage part could have referred to this.

Aside from dreams, I found that Jung was also very much influenced by Wagner's conception of religion. As we last discussed, Wagner believed religion is akin to a sort of higher art where the prophet expresses the inner essence of the world and the moral truth that follows from it in an allegorical form. For Jung too, religion is allegorical or symbolic expression of the contents of the collective unconscious, and the latter is Jung's term for the psychological aspect of Schopenhauer's collective Will. Considering the great insight and influence of these essays, it is a shame they aren't read more widely.

Also it's good to talk to you again anon. I often try to start discussions in the depth and scale as we had on that occasion, but other anons rarely oblige. A good interlocutor is indeed rare.

[Anonymous No.16219267]

>>16219137
An interesting thing I noticed was that you can see expressly Schopenhauerian themes in those works of Wagner that he wrote before reading Schopenhauer. This could only mean that the reason Wagner was so blown away by Schopenhauer is that in Schopenhauer he found confirmation and elaborations of the conclusions he had arrived at independently. This only makes his relationship to Schopenhauer more interesting.

[Anonymous No.16219442]

>>16219267
Yeah it seems that way, but I can't help but feel that the metaphysics of the will in contrast to the zeitgeist or "spirit" of a Goethe and Hegel which Wagner had the belief in during his youth, was too pessimistic. But I guess Wagner's philosophy was never entirely Schopenhauer as much as he respected him and greatly admired his ideas, Wagner doesn't seem to think of the will as always as bad a thing as Schopenhauer does.

[Anonymous No.16219480]

>>16219442
For Schopenhauer there are a few different senses of "the will", so I guess we should specify what "will" we refer to. There is the personal volition, which almost always ends with dissatisfaction. Goethe also agrees with this. Faust talks a lot about this personal volition, and it's primarily the reason he accepts the wager with Mephisto. Then there is the universal Will, the noumenon, which Schopenhauer named so because the argument for it is derived from the personal will, though it more refers to the way the noumenon is represented in the phenomena as constant movement and striving. This noumenal Will is not at all a bad thing. Correctly speaking, it has no moral value; it is what is. In retrospect, it probably wasn't the best choice to name the noumenon as "Will", since it has resulted in so many misunderstandings, but I can see why he named it this way. Considering this, I don't think there is much difference between Wagner's conception and Schopenahauer's.

[Anonymous No.16219527]

>>16219480
I've heard Wagner wasn't as pessimistic as Schopenhauer, is this true?

[Anonymous No.16219569]

>>16219527
The word pessimism itself in this context is a misnomer, since to Schopenhauer and people in 19th century meant a very different thing that it does to us. Schopenhauer regarded himself as a philosophical pessimist, in the sense that according to his system the constant striving of the will makes happiness impossible to achieve. But the only alternative wouldn't be unhappiness; the ideal case would be rising above both happiness and unhappiness, putting an end to the striving of the will, or so to speak, redemption. This pessimism is not synonymous with what mean as seeing the worst in everything; it rather has a strictly defined meaning. With this meaning in mind, Wagner is just as pessimistic as Schopenhauer. I even recall a quote in which he said to the young Nietzsche that "our existence itself is a compromise".

[Anonymous No.16219599]

>>16219569
I'm confused when you say "putting aside both happiness and unhappiness", and this idea of redemption as that resigning or abrogation, don't you think this is a bit reductive of the previous geist?

[Anonymous No.16219630]

>>16219599
You are right to be confused, the topic is indeed confusing. Redemption does not strictly mean resignation, since it is possible to resign but still possess an active will. This redemption refers to a state of "unwilling", or better yet "non-willing". Consider what we mean by happy: it's the state in which our will has obtained its object of desire; and by unhappy we mean the state in which the will was denied its object of desire. This redemption occurs when our will has become too weak (or even non-existent) to desire anything, so happiness and unhappiness would both be impossible.

[Anonymous No.16219645]

Parsifal is a gift from God

[Anonymous No.16219674]

>>16219630
>Redemption does not strictly mean resignation, since it is possible to resign but still possess an active will. This redemption refers to a state of "unwilling", or better yet "non-willing".
But is this not also just a higher manifestation of "the will" as it were? I can't help but feel that looking through life purely in a sense of desire and non-desire is mistaken somehow, where Goethe or Hegel's conception of spirit seems to have a much more expansive sense of desire in life. I'm sorry if I misunderstand, but why is happiness the single goal of the will, and a higher morality not a part of this will?

[Anonymous No.16219798]

>>16218876
for me, it's elsa's procession
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu3x_F06JlQ

[Anonymous No.16219805]

>>16219674
I apologize since I think I was somewhat vague. I should also say that this is only my interpretation, if anyone disagrees please let me know.
We should first specify what will we have in mind; the personal will or the noumenal Will? Happiness isn't the goal of the either senses of the will. I was trying to explain what redemption means, non-willing; and non-willing in the personal, subjective sense, comes with the consequence of no happiness and no unhappiness.

The will in both senses is defined as constant striving; in the personal sense the will always has an object (e.g., I desire food, sleep etc.), but the Will in the noumenal sense is defined as constant striving without an object. In the nature, the objective world, it is manifested as constant movement (think of the wind, the growth of plants, the movement of planets, even in the smallest scope atoms and electrons; nothing in phenomena is truly fixed, everything is moving and striving).

Accordingly, we don't look at life purely as desiring; we look at life and everything in the world as constant movement, or striving; only in the subjective state of conscious beings, this striving is manifested as volition. This is the volition in the primal, instinctual part of the brain that compels us to eat and have sex and avoid danger and et cetera. A property of this personal willing is that it separates us from others. "I" want food, "I" feel pain, etc. When it is not satisfied, it causes suffering; when it is satisfied, the satisfaction lasts only for a few moments, until it wants more.

When this redemption takes place, it is not just that there is no longer any satisfaction and dissatisfaction, but also there is no "I" that wills. The ego, in a manner of speech, is dead, and we are truly one with the world. I'm sure you see the parallels in religions and mystical systems so there is no need for me to explain, but note that in this state "higher morality" comes naturally, since in this state one does not favor his advantage above another. Morality is then second nature.

[Anonymous No.16219844]

>Dein Engel fleht für dich an Gottes Thron, er wirt erhört
>Heinrich, du bist erlöst

[Anonymous No.16219860]

>>16219798
So damn comfey.

[Anonymous No.16219864]

>>16218292
>No words.
Exactly, he's a composer.

[Anonymous No.16219871]

>>16219864
Lots of words, actually, as he also wrote his own libretti.

[Anonymous No.16219885]

>>16219805
I don't mean to continue to ask questions, but I feel that I nearly understand, but doesn't Schopenhauer condemn this larger life-will, since what it has produced in our individual existence is so "pointless"? Where I guess the major difference here between "geist" and the world-will is that in the prior it is thankeable for the good, as I suppose it would still stand in someway of the own individuals abrogation, i.e. redemption? Again, I apologise if I've misunderstood what makes him pessimistic.

[Anonymous No.16219889]

>>16219864
There's no Gesumtkunstwerk without poetry.

[Anonymous No.16219892]

Wrong board, faggot.
I swear new/lit/ is getting dumber every day.

>>>/mu/

[Anonymous No.16219893]

>>16219805
>>16219885
*it would stills stand in someway as the individuals abrogation

[Anonymous No.16219895]

>>16219892
cry harder faggot

[Anonymous No.16219900]

>>16219892
See>>16219889

[Anonymous No.16219901]

>>16218649
Based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.16219932]

>>16219885
I don't mind questions at all, I actually enjoy explaining these stuff. What he condemns is what he calls "principium individuationis", the principle that we individuated from the noumenal Will. We cannot say it is a "cause" since it lies out of time and space, and according to the Kantian principle, we cannot extend causality to it. It is also further inexplicable precisely for this reason, explaining it would be ungrounded metaphysical speculation. The only thing we know is that this individuation is the reason behind all pain and suffering. It is the individuated will that stands in way of redemption. If we were one, or became one, then there would have been no suffering. In other words, it would have been better for us if we didn't exist individuated phenomenally, (but only as one noumenally). This is where the term pessimism comes from, and hence Wagner's statement "our existence itself is a compromise."

[Anonymous No.16219997]

>>16219241
>"Male ideality and feminine naturality" could very well have meant this.
I considered exactly this, but going by what he had developed prior in the work and what we know in Schopenhauer as "natural" it seems more so as a functioning "base level" of survival but I would doubt Wagner would make a claim that women can survive better than men as the most central thing to them. I suppose I could see that the reason man is enriched only by woman to this level is in his original state which depends on man to be risen, as you used Eros for the anima, undefined and not object-oriented. And it is funny throughout all of Wagner's prose works I always thought back to my reading of Jung in their similarity's, specifically On Poetry and Composition which if I remember correctly approximated a sort of belief in the archetypal. But in any case, Wagner did not get up to speaking how the Naturality of the Woman ennobled the man, other than the fidelity of the man to the woman which could only be for the woman. I agree the continuing of that that is left up to Jung.

>For Jung too, religion is allegorical or symbolic expression of the contents of the collective unconscious, and the latter is Jung's term for the psychological aspect of Schopenhauer's collective Will.
I agree, but at the same time, at least in Jung's later public works, he definitely had a reverence for these "Gods" or archetypes as living things often rather than just an artistic representation of as in our collective life. Of course they were Unconscious things, and not the ego, and as a result was treated by Jung in his personal life as Gods. Where that living of unconscious beings seems quite a development.

>Considering the great insight and influence of these essays, it is a shame they aren't read more widely.
That's something I've wondered about. I've heard as you say that they were widely known, the last work Carlyle read was Wagner's Religion and Art, and then Thomas Mann considered them not particularly worthwhile, but I guess they fell out of favour after WW2.

>A good interlocutor is indeed rare.
Hah, it is good that you have reciprocating feelings, and I am very happy that we have been able to continue this discussion over multiple threads and weeks. Who knows, perhaps even years? Ey.

[Anonymous No.16220127]

>>16218292
I'm wondering what you anons think of Wagner's economics ideas, here are a selection from his essay "Know Thyself", it is certainly one of his greatest works though as for the content of that "Knowing of Thyself" it shall have to be left instead for a shortened of the purely economic, and I'm sure you can find parallel to his Ring in that:


>"Property" has acquired an almost greater sacredness in our social conscience than religion: for offence against the latter there is lenience, for damage to the former no forgiveness. Since Property is deemed the base of all stability, the more's the pity that not all are owners, that in fact the greater proportion of Society comes disinherited into the world. Society is manifestly thus reduced by its own principle to such a perilous inquietude, that it is compelled to reckon all its laws for an impossible adjustment of this conflict; and protection of property—for which in its widest international sense the weaponed host is specially maintained—can truly mean no else than a defence of the possessors against the non-possessors. Many as are the earnest and sagacious brains that have applied themselves to this problem, its solution, such as that at last suggested of an equal division of all possessions, has not as yet been found amenable; and it seems as if the State's disposal of the apparently so simple idea [268] of Property had driven a beam into the body of mankind that dooms it to a lingering death of agony.
>Clever though be the many thoughts expressed by mouth or pen about the invention of money and its enormous value as a civiliser, against such praises should be set the curse to which it has always been doomed in song and legend. If gold here figures as the demon strangling manhood's innocence, our greatest poet shews at last the goblin's game of paper money. The Nibelung's fateful ring become a pocket-book, might well complete the eerie picture of the spectral world-controller. By the advocates of our Progressive Civilisation this rulership is indeed regarded as a spiritual, nay, a moral power; for vanished Faith is now replaced by "Credit," that fiction of our mutual honesty kept upright by the most elaborate safeguards against loss and trickery. What comes to pass beneath the benedictions of this Credit we now are witnessing, and seem inclined to lay all blame upon the Jews.

[Anonymous No.16220172]

>>16218292 (OP)
I'm wondering what you anons think of Wagner's economics ideas, here are a selection from his essay "Know Thyself", it is certainly one of his greatest works though as for the content of that "Knowing of Thyself" it shall have to be left instead for a shortened of the purely economic, and I'm sure you can find parallel to his Ring in that: [And I should say, one note of that says more than a thousand words of Marx]


>"Property" has acquired an almost greater sacredness in our social conscience than religion: for offence against the latter there is lenience, for damage to the former no forgiveness. Since Property is deemed the base of all stability, the more's the pity that not all are owners, that in fact the greater proportion of Society comes disinherited into the world. Society is manifestly thus reduced by its own principle to such a perilous inquietude, that it is compelled to reckon all its laws for an impossible adjustment of this conflict; and protection of property—for which in its widest international sense the weaponed host is specially maintained—can truly mean no else than a defence of the possessors against the non-possessors. Many as are the earnest and sagacious brains that have applied themselves to this problem, its solution, such as that at last suggested of an equal division of all possessions, has not as yet been found amenable; and it seems as if the State's disposal of the apparently so simple idea [268] of Property had driven a beam into the body of mankind that dooms it to a lingering death of agony.
>Clever though be the many thoughts expressed by mouth or pen about the invention of money and its enormous value as a civiliser, against such praises should be set the curse to which it has always been doomed in song and legend. If gold here figures as the demon strangling manhood's innocence, our greatest poet shews at last the goblin's game of paper money. The Nibelung's fateful ring become a pocket-book, might well complete the eerie picture of the spectral world-controller. By the advocates of our Progressive Civilisation this rulership is indeed regarded as a spiritual, nay, a moral power; for vanished Faith is now replaced by "Credit," that fiction of our mutual honesty kept upright by the most elaborate safeguards against loss and trickery. What comes to pass beneath the benedictions of this Credit we now are witnessing, and seem inclined to lay all blame upon the Jews.

[Anonymous No.16220426]

Bumpin.

[Anonymous No.16220501]

>>16219844
>The people of the Duchy of Brabant are divided by quarrels and political infighting; also, a devious hostile power left over from the region's pagan past is seeking to subvert the prevailing monotheistic government and to return the Duchy to pagan rule. A mysterious knight, sent by God and possessing superhuman charisma and fighting ability, arrives to unite and strengthen the people, and to defend the innocent noble woman Elsa from a false accusation of murder, but he imposes a condition: the people must follow him without knowing his identity. Elsa in particular must never ask his name, or his heritage, or his origin. The conspirators attempt to undermine her faith in her rescuer, to create doubt among the people, and to force him to leave.

Lohengrin would make the best anime.

[Anonymous No.16220580]

>seek help, kneechee.

[Anonymous No.16222061]

>>16219997
>and what we know in Schopenhauer as "natural" it seems more so as a functioning "base level" of survival
I'm thinking what Schopenhauer calls natural would make perfect sense in this context, given that the natural element in humans would be their faculty of willing and desiring, or in other words Eros, as opposed to intellect or Logos, which Schopenhauer deems an unnatural product of evolution. Wouldn't that make sense as feminine naturality?

>I agree, but at the same time, at least in Jung's later public works, he definitely had a reverence for these "Gods" or archetypes as living things often rather than just an artistic representation of as in our collective life. Of course they were Unconscious things, and not the ego, and as a result was treated by Jung in his personal life as Gods. Where that living of unconscious beings seems quite a development.
You are right that there is something real about the archetypes themselves (though not the allegorical stories), as living psychic forces of the unconscious. And if we look at it from a Schopenhauerian perspective, they are real as metaphysical platonic ideas which serve as a link between the noumenon and phenomena; and Jung's psychologically defined version of archetypes would be the manifestation of these platonic ideas in the subjective mind. I like how Jungian psychology is perfectly coherent with Schopenhauer's metaphysics.

This discussion reminds me of something about the archetype of Wotan. I just recently read Jung's essay on Wotan, and found it very illuminating as how he traces it in different places and even in Nietzsche's Zarathustra. I haven't watched/read Wagner's Ring yet so I'm not very familiar with the archetype (though it's the next book in my list), but I'm reading Goethe's Faust currently and wondering if the archetype is present here too, either in Mephisto or Faust himself. Any thoughts?

>but I guess they fell out of favour after WW2.
Ah yeah. I can see how they've become unfashionable due to his remarks about a certain people. I can't say I disagree with him though. Quite the opposite, I agree emphatically. We can only hope that the times would change.

>perhaps even years?
Sure, my friend. If the proverb proves true and "we are here forever", it would very well might be the case.

[Anonymous No.16222276]

Wagner was on the verge of being an Ubermensch and Nietzsche hated him for it. Change my mind.

[Anonymous No.16222616]

bump

[Anonymous No.16223262]

What's the best Wagner opera to watch for beginners? Should I find one with subtitles to understand the story or are they not necessary?

[Anonymous No.16223712]

>>16223262
probably tannhauser or lohengrin
Yes, you should find one with subtitles or find the libretto somewhere online

[Anonymous No.16224457]

bump

[Anonymous No.16224459]

>>16222061
>I like how Jungian psychology is perfectly coherent with Schopenhauer's metaphysics.
Yeah, it's funny that his framework is so similar to Schopenhauer's, but he uses it to an entirely different perspective. Another thing I've always wondered, how much do you think Jung was influenced by Hegel? He read him when he was younger and was apparently put off by his difficulty, but I've heard other people go so far as to claim that Jung considered his psychology/philosophy a "son of Hegel". And of course, there are great similarity's between the two, as far as I know Hegel didn't put an emphasis on within, or the inner subjective life of the individual only to that individual.

>This discussion reminds me of something about the archetype of Wotan. I just recently read Jung's essay on Wotan, and found it very illuminating as how he traces it in different places and even in Nietzsche's Zarathustra. I haven't watched/read Wagner's Ring yet so I'm not very familiar with the archetype (though it's the next book in my list), but I'm reading Goethe's Faust currently and wondering if the archetype is present here too, either in Mephisto or Faust himself. Any thoughts?
I'll actually paraphrase Jung here, something along the lines of "Wagner presented his own art in the guise of the Norse myths, but it really was not about it", and even though Jung really admired Wagner, I don't think the Wotan in the Ring is really the Wotan in the Norse myths or at all the Wotan in his essay on the topic. In the Ring he is no doubt a figure beyond good and evil, but he is has sentimentality and doubts and faults which one could even say prove to his ruin, but it is wrong to say that figure which is beyond the human has "faults". He is beyond good and evil, and no doubt in that way and being the God of warriors we see a similarity to the Wotan myth, but at the same time the character is still different from Jung's. So I'll leave it to that. As for Faust, I think it would be more of a theme perhaps than a character.

>Ah yeah. I can see how they've become unfashionable due to his remarks about a certain people. I can't say I disagree with him though. Quite the opposite, I agree emphatically. We can only hope that the times would change.
Agreed. Considering the way both Wagner productions and Opera productions in general are going, as well as even the performance of any classical work, in that case they have no originality and perform the score like a mathematical equation in contrast to older recordings where there is much more originality and it sounds unbelievably better... I don't think we'll get a good production or even a popularising of his prose works in a long time. This is a pretty good video as far as Opera goes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8SThz82zWI

>If the proverb proves true and "we are here forever", it would very well might be the case
Perhaps eerily. Been good talking to you anon.

[Anonymous No.16224465]

>>16223262
What this anon said>>16223712

But Die Meistersinger is also a very good Opera of his to watch early.

[Anonymous No.16224783]

>>16224459
>how much do you think Jung was influenced by Hegel?
I might not be the best person to entertain the notion, but in my view Hegel's work is primarily an enormous house of cards— all talk and barely any insight. All of its features including its subjectivity, absolute ideality and denial of reality, its speculative nature; all are in odds with Jung's work. I wager if you had asked those people how could Jung be considered "a son of Hegel", instead of an argument they would have given you a substance-less and hollow imitation of their devilish Herr Doktor Professor. I admit due to my philosophical commitments I might be biased, but at least I offer arguments in support of my beliefs. On the other hand though, I'd argue that due to the all too many similarities of Jung with Schopenhauer, and the fact that he studied the philosopher enthusiastically as a student, we have enough reason to regard him mainly influenced by Schopenhauer, if not fully a Schopenhauerian psychologist.

>He is beyond good and evil, and no doubt in that way and being the God of warriors we see a similarity to the Wotan myth, but at the same time the character is still different from Jung's. So I'll leave it to that. As for Faust, I think it would be more of a theme perhaps than a character.
I'll have to read the Ring and the ancient poem before discussing this myself, but isn't there at least similarities between the characters of Wotan and Faust, to the point that we could regard Faust as an allegorical representation of the psychic force of Wotan? I mean, even Zarathustra is regarded by Jung to be such a representation.

>Agreed. Considering the way both Wagner productions and Opera productions in general are going, as well as even the performance of any classical work, in that case they have no originality and perform the score like a mathematical equation in contrast to older recordings where there is much more originality and it sounds unbelievably better... I don't think we'll get a good production or even a popularising of his prose works in a long time. This is a pretty good video as far as Opera goes
Hah! These people somehow always creep their ways into the exact positions they should have been kept away from. I'm thinking about doing a new translation of Religion und Kunst, since the translated prose is vague and almost unbearable. I think that would help with other people reading him and even my own understanding.

>Perhaps eerily. Been good talking to you anon.
Likewise, friend. It's been a delight.

[Anonymous No.16224975]

>>16218755
Looks like Mendelssohn's wife

[Anonymous No.16225047]

>>16224783
>I'll have to read the Ring and the ancient poem before discussing this myself,
I'd have to agree with Jung that they're not of the same stock. As Zarathustra is to Wotan, and for Faust I could see it being that same psychic force, but I don't see it as the same character. Wotan is a very specific epitomised image, and even then I think Jung was perhaps a bit too deterministic about what was a manifestation of it, or its character.

>I'm thinking about doing a new translation of Religion und Kunst, since the translated prose is vague and almost unbearable.
By all means, this would be very helpful. But do you think you're capable of translating it? It would no doubt garner some attention here for being translated by a /lit/izen and would popularise it here. Though something I have been curious about, is how hard do you think Hero-dom would be to translate?

[Anonymous No.16225097]

>>16218292

[Anonymous No.16225149]

>>16225047
Admittedly I don't have the time or the expertise to do a full-fledged critical translation, but I think even an unofficial translation done by a random anon would be much better than the old one. I don't think Hero-dom would be more difficult than Religion und Kunst, it would probably be easier considering its shorter length. Though I was thinking it might be a better idea to start with R&K, seeing as most of the central ideas were first introduced there.

[Anonymous No.16225171]

>>16225149
>I don't think Hero-dom would be more difficult than Religion und Kunst, it would probably be easier considering its shorter length.
I say this because I've heard it was one of the most difficult to translate into English, though it may just be the poor translator here of the late 19th century, he says for the 8 footnote:

>"Während wir somit das Blut edelster Racen durch Vermischung sich verderben sehen, dürfte den niedrigsten Racen der Genuss des Blutes Jesu, wie er in dem einzigen ächten Sakramente der christlichen Religion symbolisch vor sich geht, zu göttlichster Reinigung gedeihen. Dieses Antidot wäre demnach dem Verfalle der Racen durch ihre Vermischung entgegen gestellt, und vielleicht brachte dieser Erdball athmendes Leben nur hervor, um jener Heilsordnung zu dienen." I have thought it best to quote the German of these last two sentences, as their construction presents peculiar difficulties to the translator; a remark that applies, in fact, to almost all the remainder of this article.—Tr.

[Anonymous No.16225217]

>>16218292
>literal neckbeard
germans were a fucking mistake

[Anonymous No.16225280]

>>16225217
What was that?

[Anonymous No.16225297]

>>16225171
The sentence is somewhat peculiar as it uses some vague phrases, but it's not that difficult to translate. Here is my hasty attempt:
>While we consequently see that the blood of the noblest races through this race-mixing becomes corrupted, the lower races on the other hand are allowed to indulge in the blood of Jesus in order to progress towards the most divine purification, as it is done in symbolically in the only sacrament of the Christian religion. This antidote would accordingly serve to counter the decadence that is brought upon by race-mixing; and perhaps even this earth globe of ours brought forth a breathing life just so to serve those races as the order of salvation.
Order of salvation seems to be a theological concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_salutis
Though I don't know what he exactly means by that last sentence, even though it should be translated as I did.

[Anonymous No.16225413]

>>16225297
>Though I don't know what he exactly means by that last sentence, even though it should be translated as I did.
Ellis translated salvation as "healing", perhaps that offers some understanding of it that he had? Or perhaps it was merely just another example of a goofy translation.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_salutis
Well Wagner was an extraordinary endorser of Protestantism so perhaps it relates to this, and the Schopenhauerian sense of contentedness.

[Anonymous No.16225471]

>>16225413
>Ellis translated salvation as "healing", perhaps that offers some understanding of it that he had?
The "Heils" part of the "Heilsordnung" could I suppose be also translated as healing, but in this context salvation makes more sense. Plus, I checked in the dictionary and this is the official translation for the concept.
https://www.dict.cc/?s=Heilsordnung
It does obviously relate to Protestantism, which I have no knowledge in. But the word aside, what do you think about the difference in readability? I think Wagner's own writing is somewhat difficult to understand as it is, a Victorian era translation could only make it worse.

[Anonymous No.16225481]

He was a unique and fascinating artist

[Anonymous No.16225569]

>>16225471
>But the word aside, what do you think about the difference in readability?
Every translation I have ever read apart from the Ellis translation seems very lucid(including your own), though no doubt in the context of his work he has the trademark of mushing so many ideas into a single paragraph, this makes it difficult if you aren't familiar with Wagner or his influences and what he is referring to, but I don't think his writing itself is difficult.

I'm still so perplexed that there quite literally has been not a single translation of a whole essay or prose work of his since Ellis. I guess most people appreciate them, but don't consider them important enough for translation?

Wagner became increasingly influenced by St. Paul, Augustine and Luther's writing in his old age, and they seem to have come to head in these "regeneration writings" and Parsifal.

[Anonymous No.16225572]

>>16225481
*HONK* *HONK* Firetruck is here!!!

[Anonymous No.16225576]

>>16219892
You do know Wagner wrote stuff as well?

[Anonymous No.16225580]

>>16225572
what does this mean

[Anonymous No.16225592]

>>16225569
>Every translation I have ever read apart from the Ellis translation seems very lucid
Are there other translations?
>I guess most people appreciate them, but don't consider them important enough for translation?
I think the issue is the racial discussion and the antisemitism. No translator wants to be officially associated with these topics. That's why I'm thinking an anonymous translation might be the answer, even though I may not be able to do it as well as a professional translator.

[Anonymous No.16225597]

>>16225580
this https://youtu.be/U3ul4LA3l5I?t=2314

[Anonymous No.16225616]

Excellent thread desukuns

>>16222276
Probably
NEETsche got mogged too hard and lost it

[Anonymous No.16225628]

>>16225592
>Are there other translations?
No, but over the years you read short bits which have been translated individually for a book or some other work.

>No translator wants to be officially associated with these topics.
People have translated Mein Kampf with less worries, and all of Wagner's librettos stand translated. But I understand anon, bless your translation if decided to endeavour upon it!

[Anonymous No.16225646]

>>16225628
In terms of value, I'm sure they are significant at the very least to the followers of Schopenhauer, which aren't few but mostly aren't academics. This might explain the lack of translations. Keep in mind even Schopenhauer himself until recently was translated only by a non-academic.

Thank you, next time we meet I will share with you if I had got anything done.

[Anonymous No.16225685]

>>16225646
I greatly appreciate that anon, and if you're looking for a video to watch, here's a Schopenhauerian neoclassicist interpreting modern art:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FPdrLlshRA

[Anonymous No.16225825]

>>16225597
lmao
thanks

[Anonymous No.16225921]

based thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMw0EjLFPXw

[Anonymous No.16225924]

>>16225685
Oh wow, thank you very much anon I wasn't expecting something like this to exist. I was thinking recently that the only way to revive art and culture would be ruthless promotion of classicism, but I wasn't aware it's linked to pessimism, which makes it all the more better. The guy is also pretty cool, a kindred spirit. I'll be following his works.