[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 389 KB, 1258x1600, eternal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17287265 No.17287265 [Reply] [Original]

Why are anglos so obsessed with writing quirky sarcastic soulless shit?

>> No.17287273

>>17287265

He has a good style of writing. hardly soulless. Just because he skewers the shit you value?

>> No.17287287

>>17287265
>Chesterton
>soulless
He is the most charming motherfucker ever. Even his enemies, such as Bernard Shaw, loved the man.

>> No.17287292

>>17287265
why are you so obsessed with anglos?

>> No.17287296

>>17287265
KEK anglos are unironically among the funniest people on earth.

>> No.17287298

>>17287292

Don't get me wrong, most Anglos are horrible writers (non-fiction), but Chesterton isn't one of them.

>> No.17287302

Anglos once again living rent free in another cuck’s head

>> No.17287307

>>17287265
It's in their blood. Worst country.

>> No.17287315

>>17287287
Shaw was actually good friends with Chesterton, though they obviously disagreed on a lot of subjects.

>> No.17287373

>>17287315
Yes, meant “enemies” as in ideological enemies.
In Heretics and Orthodoxy Chesterton never writes disrespectfully about the people he contradicts. The way he btfo’s others just comes off as funny and lovable. He’s absolutely based.

>> No.17287386

>>17287265
qrd? need a new author to read

>> No.17287901

I'm reading 'What I Saw in America' and its surprising how quirky and stupid it is... there are some fine segments however. He also has some brilliant historical essays particularly the one on Carthage

>> No.17287993

>>17287265
Chesterton's one of the most soulful writers of all time. I hardly agree with him on anything but I can't stop reading everything he wrote.

>> No.17288019

Is this biography of William Blake he wrote good?

>> No.17288025

>>17287265
rent free

>> No.17288052

>>17287296
The whole norf souf thing is probably one of the things that made me laugh the most on this site and idk shit about england

>> No.17288074

>>17287993
>I hardly agree with him on anything but I can't stop reading everything he wrote.
This. Reading Chesterton teaches you how to think, even if you disagree with his beliefs. He had a beautifully sensible, logical, and clear mind. Not to mention funny.

>> No.17288156

>>17287265
On another occasion he remarked to his friend George Bernard Shaw, "To look at you, anyone would think a famine had struck England." Shaw retorted, "To look at you, anyone would think you had caused it."

based anglos

>> No.17288237

>>17288156
kek

>> No.17288255

>>17288074
He literally couldn't understand Nietzsche, anon.

>> No.17288278

>>17288255
That's excusable in the 1920s.

>> No.17288294

>>17288255
what did he say about neitz and how was he wrong?

>> No.17288309

>>17288255
That's a sign of a healthy mind.

>> No.17288321

>>17288294
https://youtu.be/1mtERIWYxk0

>> No.17288375

>>17288278
Not if you are intent on criticising him.
>>17288294
Pretty much everything. A particularly egregious example I remember was an inapplicable comparison he made between Nietzsche and Joan of Arc - iirc he was interpreting "will to power" in the most literal possible way in terms of physical power and activity. From that he drew the conclusion that Joan of Arc was "living the will to power" because she was fighting for the Lord on the battlefield and that Nietzsche wasn't living the will to power at all, since he was a "bombastic scholar stuck in his villa" or something like that, basically called him the 19th century equivalent of basement dweller. All of this, of course, makes no sense, since the will to power is a will to self-overcoming, not a will to strength or dominance. Joan of Arc is one of my top 5 favourite people ever but this type of low grade insults and lack of comprehension really repulse me. I had almost finished Orthodoxy but ended up dropping it ten pages before the end because I saw no point in reading any more. Chesterton certainly had a unique and interesting perspective on faith and Christianity, but that's all he's got.
>>17288309
>poor reading comprehension is a good thing
ok homo

>> No.17288383

>>17287265
>quirky sarcastic soulless shit
>posts image of Chesterton
I ought to kill you right now.

>> No.17288388
File: 97 KB, 720x576, 1598311422020.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17288388

>When Ibsen spoke of the new generation knocking at the door, he certainly never expected that it would be the church-door.

>> No.17288582

>>17288375
>From that he drew the conclusion that Joan of Arc was "living the will to power" because she was fighting for the Lord on the battlefield and that Nietzsche wasn't living the will to power at all, since he was a "bombastic scholar stuck in his villa" or something like that, basically called him the 19th century equivalent of basement dweller. All of this, of course, makes no sense, since the will to power is a will to self-overcoming, not a will to strength or dominance.
He gave that example to stress the point that Nietzsche's belief system does not turn a person into a great hero, but that Christianity does.
The fact that these modern belief systems that claim to liberate and build up man only break him in practice is one of his main theses in Heretics and Orthodoxy, and I'm surprised you missed that considering you read most of the latter.
In Orthodoxy in particular he extrapolates that idea with Christianity. Christianity seems to be pessimistic, oppressive, and limiting at first glance because it tells man he is the "chief of sinners" and that he should deny himself, be humble, and submissive, but in practice this creates heroic virtue in the human spirit, as was the case with Joan of Arc.
>In one way Man was to be haughtier than he had ever been before; in another way he was to be humbler than he had ever been before. In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners.
>Christianity thus held a thought of the dignity of man that could only be expressed in crowns rayed like the sun and fans of peacock plumage. Yet at the same time it could hold a thought about the abject smallness of man that could only be expressed in fasting and fantastic submission, in the gray ashes of St. Dominic and the white snows of St. Bernard.
Nietzsche's philosophy sounds glorious when you think of it abstractly, but in practice, when installed into a human heart as "software", it leads him to a bad place mentally.
As Wagner said about Human, All Too Human:
>It seems to me to contain much inner rage and sullenness

>> No.17288589

>>17288388
I love Chesterton so much bros...

>> No.17288635

>>17287265
>Then a pale young poet with serpentine hair will come and say to me (as one did only the other day): “Moods and impressions are the only realities, and these are constantly and wholly changing. I could hardly therefore define my religion. . . .”
>“I can,” I should say, somewhat sternly. “Your religion is to live a long time; and if you stop here a moment longer you won't fulfil it.”

>> No.17288703

>>17288582
>He gave that example to stress the point that Nietzsche's belief system does not turn a person into a great hero, but that Christianity does.
That's completely ridiculous, though? A great hero is a great hero full stop, that heroism wouldn't be diminished by philosophical Nietzscheanism or increased by a religious Christianity. Even if we look at this in quantitative terms, the idea that Christianity makes someone "heroic" is totally ludicrous. There are billions of Christians around the globe, how many of them are heroic?
>The fact that these modern belief systems that claim to liberate and build up man only break him in practice is one of his main theses in Heretics and Orthodoxy, and I'm surprised you missed that considering you read most of the latter.
The "in practice" part is completely unjustified. As to Christianity "developing heroic virtue", this is only true insofar as asceticism develops heroic virtue. There is nothing heroic about Christianity, which spurns heroism again and again at every given opportunity. It heavily exploits the plebeian salvation complex, there is very little room for an aristocratic and heroic disposition to grow and flourish within the framework of Christianity.
>Nietzsche's philosophy sounds glorious when you think of it abstractly, but in practice, when installed into a human heart as "software", it leads him to a bad place mentally.
No?

>> No.17288837

>>17288703
>when Christianity makes heroes out of men it's just accidental and has nothing to do with the heroic message of self-sacrifice against evil in the Passion of Christ!
>but this philosophy concocted by this man who went mad at the end of his life will!
You misunderstood Orthodoxy. It and Heretics were written specifically with people that think like you in mind. If you got nothing out of them you will get nothing out of this discussion either. Your mind is already set. You simply have a bias against Christianity.
>There is nothing heroic about Christianity, which spurns heroism again and again at every given opportunity.
This statement is simply not true. Christianity does not spurn heroism. It encourages it.
>"Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go.”

>> No.17288863

Chesterton was based fuck you
Eugenics and other evils is still the best track against wanna be Laplace's imps

>> No.17288917

never read chesterton but this thread makes him sound interesting. what books to read?

>> No.17288942

>>17288837
>You misunderstood Orthodoxy. It and Heretics were written specifically with people that think like you in mind. If you got nothing out of them you will get nothing out of this discussion either. Your mind is already set. You simply have a bias against Christianity.
I didn't misunderstand anything, the train of thought you yourself just outlined is incoherent. Anecdotes do not prove the rule and exceptions certainly do not prove the rule. Lenin, Stalin, Tukhachevsky etc. were all very brave, daring and sacrificially minded - does it follow from that that Bolshevism is a doctrine of heroism that makes its every adherent a hero? Obviously not. If you are a Christian, then you must have met many Christians in your life and should already know that if anything, they are on average less likely to be heroic than the opposite. I do not have a bias against Christianity, but I do have a bias against the type of shoddy thinking that Chesterton peddles.
>This statement is simply not true. Christianity does not spurn heroism. It encourages it.
Your quote below is a textbook example of how the messianic doctrine overrides every occasion for genuine heroism, though. There can be no real heroes in a doctrine where you desperately crave for salvation or perhaps rather we should say that the only true Christian heroes are those who make for poor believers.

>> No.17289050

>>17288917
Start with The Man Who Was Thursday, a novel, funny, extremely insightful, clever as fuck. Don't read anything about it, just go in cold. Then you can move on to his essays, then the poem Lepanto, then maybe Orthodoxy, Manalive, the Everlasting Man, his autobiography, or whatever else you might like.

>> No.17289224

>>17288703
>There is nothing heroic about Christianity
>there is very little room for an aristocratic and heroic disposition
What are the Crusades?

>> No.17289259

>>17288703
>there is very little room for an aristocratic and heroic disposition to grow and flourish within the framework of Christianity
Literally the only true aristocracy to ever exist in the world flourished during the height of Christianity, you rube. Feudalism coincides with the apex of Church power.

>> No.17289372

>>17287265
You picked a bad example but I agree with the general sentiment

>> No.17289377

>>17287265
Anglos live and breathe irony. Has always been that way.

>> No.17289380

>>17288375
cope

>> No.17289498

>>17289050
Not that anon, but thanks. I've read the Dumb Ox and immensely enjoyed it.

Are there any websites that post good primers for authors?

>> No.17289653

>>17289377
You’re right, but OP fucked up because Chesterton happenend to be one of the most sincere and earnest Anglos that ever lived.

>> No.17290335

>>17288942
>There can be no real heroes in a doctrine where you desperately crave for salvation or perhaps rather we should say that the only true Christian heroes are those who make for poor believers.
>it's not heroic if you have hope!
This makes absolutely no sense.

>> No.17291129

>/lit/ rushes to the Anglo's defence because he was a Catholic
>in Shakespeare threads every one piles on
Today I realised that Chesterton is more popular here than Shakespeare. How disappointing

>> No.17291215

>>17288635
Based

>> No.17291338

>>17287265
Anglos are just redditors. Always been.

>> No.17292755

>>17289224
>What are the Crusades?
Not very Christian.
>>17289259
Meme response. Aristocracy has been existing all around the globe for far longer than Christianity has. Christianity certainly wasn't the religion of choice of Roman patricians etc.
>>17289380
Dilate.
>>17290335
>This makes absolutely no sense.
Heroism has no need for hope, but if it has hope, then it is not in external salvation. External salvation negates the very purpose of heroism.
>>17291338
Sad but true.

>> No.17292768

>>17287287
should i read father brown stories

>> No.17292795

>>17292755
>External salvation negates the very purpose of heroism.
How so?

>> No.17292830

>>17292795
>How so?
Why should you have to do anything heroic if you are going to be saved? Why do you want to be saved if you are a hero? Isn't it precisely the hero, if anyone, that saves people?
Heroism is a spiritual value and belongs to a spiritual plane. The hero looks down on death, disaster and materiality, because his true center is himself and his dignity and higher values. He can not and does not need to be saved, because there is nothing for him to be saved from - he fears nothing because he doesn't identify himself with anything that is vulnerable to damage and attack.
Read Evola's Metaphysics of War and a bunch of his other books - he explains this much better than I. I always find his texts to be fascinating reads, though I am sure many in this thread would refuse to acknowledge any value for them.

>> No.17293062

>>17292755
Roman patricians weren't aristocrats, they were closer to modern business tycoons and politicians.

>> No.17293082

>>17293062
cope

>> No.17293184

>>17292830
Lots of assumptions there, born out of Evola’s own flavor of mysticisim, that are simply not part of the traditional definition of heroic virtue.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_virtue

>> No.17293818

>>17293184
You mean the Christian definition of heroic virtue, perhaps.