/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19458954]

How can you be man of great literature and the Western Canon and not be a reactionary? The art of the past was without a doubt better and you would know this obviously being a man of great art and literature yet you support the liberalization or worse the Communization (destruction of all culture)? It's oxymoronic to be anything but a Reactionary or Traditionalist and still be supporter of great literature.

[Anonymous No.19458972]

Go back to /qa/

[Anonymous No.19458974]

>>19458972
What the fuck is that

[Anonymous No.19458987]

>>19458954
Don’t care about your yt metanarratives. Consumerism go brrrrrrr

[Anonymous No.19458992]

>>19458954
You can't just pick your favorite point in time and pin society at it. Any successful "right-wing" ideology will have to supersede the values of the past and present. That doesn't mean inspiration can't be drawn from literature

[Anonymous No.19458996]

>>19458987
Don't post in this thread unless you're a man of great art/literature and of the Western Canon please.

[Anonymous No.19459001]

>>19458992
That doesn't mean nothing can be done politically. Political systems have a big effect on the culture. To say there will be no difference is just factually wrong.

[Anonymous No.19459020]

>>19458954
Read Gadamer. The past is perceived as better because it has a richer Wirkungsgeschichtliches Bewusstsein and you're too much of a retard to form an opinion on contemporary art that can get that ball rolling. As am I, and everyone else here. For a small exercise, look up bestsellers in literature from the 1920's, and see if you recognize anything - you likely will not. Mass culture has never been high culture, and history sorts them from each other, and always has. It is only through decades and centuries that the nuggets of gold is separated from the vast manure of human cultural production.

Your historical argument is facile as well. The painting of the renaissance is superior to that of the early medieval. The literature of the fin-de-siecle and high modernism is largely speaking superior to that of the 18th century. Reactionary thought as you present it presupposes a linear degradation of quality throughout history that simply does not obtain.

[Anonymous No.19459023]

>>19458954
>this moves in a spiral pattern
>dialectical of two dialecticals of a dialectical and of another dialectical
The world would fundamentally be a bunch of hairy twizzlers

[Anonymous No.19459035]

>>19459020
99.9% of the best artists, writers, composers were world famous. Wagner literally had a castle made for him so you're just flat out wrong. Go back to shitting in jars this thread isn't for you.

[Anonymous No.19459041]

>>19458954
What is the past? Pre-1900s? Pre-1800s? Pre-1700s?
It sounds like you're literally just talking about "white males" instead of political leanings. In which case you can include the writings of East Asia, South Asia, Arabic/Persian, and then throw in Popol Vuh, The Epic of Sundiata, and Kebra Nagast for good measure.
Politics? John Locke and Karl Marx do not strike me as reactionaries or traditionalists. Plato is so far removed from modern day politics that you could appreciate his work and go either way politically.

[Anonymous No.19459044]

>>19458954
I don't think this era is best for much but the past is hardly perfect.

[Anonymous No.19459062]

>>19459041
There are different ways to explain it but I'm not here to spoonfeed leftist retards but we can set an ideal for the society to strive for. It's a retarded strawman to think we want people wearing dresses from the 1700s or shitting in buckets.

[Anonymous No.19459071]

>>19459044
In the 19th century we had Dostoevsky, Balzac, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Turgenev, Maupassant, Chekov, Zola, Dickens, Dumas, Goethe, Hugo, Lermontov, Melville, Keats, Proust, Stendhal. In music there was Beethoven, Wagner, Haydn, Mahler, Bizet, Brahms, Chopin, Schubert, Lizst, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Bellini, Prokofiev, Puccini, Bruckner, Rossini. In the 21st century we have basically nothing. You would be retarded to suggest our period is even remotely similar to any one of the previous ones. Again though this thread is not for your kind it's for people who like grea

[Anonymous No.19459073]

>>19459035
You're extremely poor at reasoning.

Yes, many artists were recognized during their lifetimes. Nothing of what I write is in conflict with that statement, showing you are functionally illiterate. The point is rather that many more than the truly great are lauded, both then and now - again, try the exercise: look up the bestseller list. Visit a castle (if you are from a country with a cultural history (if you're american, just stop posting), and find out what artists decorated it with painting and sculpture - the highest honor of their day, but usually, they are forgotten by everyone but historians today.

Much in the same manner, much that is shit is lauded today, while the discerning eye can make good bets as to who are truly great and possess a quality that will be cherished through history (Handke, for instance).

But you are correct. In your single line of non-reasoning and functional illiteracy, you have illustrated this thread is not for me. The argument I delivered concerning your facile linear view of history settles the entire matter, and there is nothing more to explore here. Enjoy the last word, but know that I will not be reading your spastic convulsion, as my time is much too valuable.

[Anonymous No.19459087]

>>19459073
The argument you made was that I would have to dig through nuggets to find great art but these guys would were world famous. They were proclaimed to be the greatest artists in their own time and everyone knew them. Where do we have that now? Please show me.

>The argument I delivered concerning your facile linear view of history
Where is my linear view of history. Yet another strawman because you don't even know my position!

>Enjoy the last word, but know that I will not be reading your spastic convulsion, as my time is much too valuable.
Leaving and conceding because you know I'm not some retarded right winger but can actually deal with your points. I knew you were going to do this.

[Anonymous No.19459238]

>>19459071
the problem is more that everything operates in smaller disconnected niches now i would say. to be world famous you need to compete in the attention economy with pop stars and hollywood actors and so on. but plenty of significant artists are famous within a particular subculture

[Anonymous No.19459252]

>>19459071
Of my kind? Quit larping. The "not of my kind" was dying by the 19th century when victoria gave congress more powers and let liberalism run rampant.
Anyways that's not what I said, I said today may not be the best era (it obviously is better than the bronze age collapse) but the past isn't necessarily perfect either.
You can cope all you want but that's almost definitionally true so long as you don't assume linear time.

[Anonymous No.19459266]

>>19459238
Name 5 musicians on the level of Bach in the 21st century. Every time I ask this I get the most retarded responses possible. Usually from EDM bros lol

[Anonymous No.19459268]

>>19458992
>You can't just pick your favorite point in time and pin society at it
Well you probably can if you shoot dissenters hard enough.

[Anonymous No.19459269]

>>19459266
Dude you're like 20 years old and you speak exactly like it. Stfu you don't sound elite or special. You just come off like a narcissist. You actually sound like you may be middle class or something

[Anonymous No.19459272]

>>19459268
>hee hee hee hee

[Anonymous No.19459289]

>>19459269
Thanks for conceding pussy. Another W to add to the board.

[Anonymous No.19459294]

>>19458954
>As the result of a stroll though the many more sophisticated and cruder moral systems which up to this point have ruled or still rule on earth, I found certain characteristics routinely return with each other, bound up together, until finally two basic types revealed themselves to me and a fundamental difference sprang up. There is master morality and slave morality - to this I immediately add that in all higher and mixed cultures attempts at a mediation between both moralities make an appearance as well, even more often, a confusion and mutual misunderstanding between the two, in fact, sometimes their harsh juxtaposition - even in the same man, within a single soul. Distinctions in moral value have arisen either among a ruling group, which was happily conscious of its difference with respect to the ruled - or among the ruled, the slaves and dependent people of every degree. In the first case, when it's the masters who establish the idea of the good, the elevated and proud conditions of the soul emotionally register as the distinguishing and defining order of rank. The noble man separates his own nature from that of people in whom the opposite of such exalted and proud states expresses itself. He despises them.

[Anonymous No.19459295]

Great literature is great because it speaks greatly of it's own age and culture. In 100 years literature written now will be viewed the same way anon.

[Anonymous No.19459296]

>>19459289
Ig I was right. Enjoy your "W". Ig you got several "W"'s here and managed to not get a response you liked. You come off like an atheist. Not sure how trad that is for you.

[Anonymous No.19459300]

>>19459294
>We should notice at once that in this first kind of morality the opposites "good" and "bad" mean no more than "noble" and "despicable" - the opposition between "good" and "evil" has another origin. The despised one is the coward, the anxious, the small, the man who thinks about narrow utility, also the suspicious man with his inhibited look, the self-abasing man, the species of human dogs who allow themselves to be mistreated, the begging flatterer, above all, the liar: - it is a basic belief of all aristocrats that the common folk are liars. "We tellers of the truth" - that's what the nobility called themselves in ancient Greece. It's evident that distinctions of moral worth everywhere were first applied to men and later were established for actions; hence, it is a serious mistake when historians of morality take as a starting point questions like "Why was the compassionate action praised?" The noble kind of man experiences himself as a person who determines value and does not need to have other people's approval. He makes the judgment "What is harmful to me is harmful in itself." He understands himself as something which in general first confers honour on things, as someone who creates values. Whatever he recognizes in himself he honours. Such a morality is self-glorification. In the foreground stands the feeling of fullness, the power which wants to overflow, the happiness of high tension, the consciousness of riches which wants to give and deliver: - the noble man also helps the unfortunate, however not, or hardly ever, from pity, but more in response to an impulse which the excess of power produces. The noble man honours the powerful man in himself and also the man who has power over himself, who understands how to speak and how to keep silent, who takes delight in dealing with himself severely and toughly and respects, above all, severity and toughness.

[Anonymous No.19459302]

>>19459300
"Wotan set a hard heart in my breast," it says in an old Scandinavian saga: that's how poetry emerged, with justice, from the soul of a proud Viking. A man of this sort is simply proud of the fact that he has not been made for pity. That's why the hero of the saga adds a warning, "In a man whose heart is not hard when he is still young the heart will never become hard." Noble and brave men who think this way are furthest removed from that morality which sees the badge of morality in pity or actions for others or désintéressement [disinterestedness]. The belief in oneself, pride in oneself, a fundamental hostility and irony against "selflessness" belong to noble morality, just as much as an easy contempt and caution before feelings of pity and the "warm heart." Powerful men are the ones who understand how to honour; that is their art, their realm of invention. The profound reverence for age and for ancestral tradition - all justice stands on this double reverence - the belief and the prejudice favouring forefathers and working against newcomers are typical in the morality of the powerful, and when, by contrast, the men of "modern ideas" believe almost instinctively in "progress" and the "future" and increasingly lack any respect for age, then in that attitude the ignoble origin of these "ideas" already reveals itself well enough. However, a morality of the rulers is most alien and embarrassing to present taste because of the severity of its basic principle that man has duties only with respect to those like him, that man should act towards those beings of lower rank, towards everything strange, at his own discretion, or "as his heart dictates," and, in any case, "beyond good and evil."

[Anonymous No.19459304]

>>19459302
Here pity and things like that may belong. The capacity for and obligation to a long gratitude and to a long revenge - both only within the circle of one's peers - the sophistication in paying back again, the refined idea in friendship, a certain necessity to have enemies (as, so to speak, drainage ditches for the feelings of envy, quarrelsomeness, and high spirits - basically in order to be capable of being a good friend): all those are typical characteristics of a noble morality, which, as indicated, is not the morality of "modern ideas" and which is thus nowadays difficult to sympathize with, as well as difficult to dig up and expose. Things are different with the second type of moral system, slave morality. Suppose the oppressed, depressed, suffering, and unfree people, those ignorant of themselves and tired out, suppose they moralize: what will be the common feature of their moral estimates of value? Probably a pessimistic suspicion directed at the entire human situation will express itself, perhaps a condemnation of man, along with his situation. The gaze of a slave is not well disposed towards the virtues of the powerful; he possesses scepticism and mistrust; he has a subtlety of mistrust against everything "good" which is honoured in it - he would like to persuade himself that even happiness is not genuine there. By contrast, those characteristics will be pulled forward and flooded with light which serve to mitigate existence for those who suffer: here respect is given to pity, to the obliging hand ready to help, to the warm heart, to patience, diligence, humility, and friendliness - for these are here the most useful characteristics and almost the only means to endure the pressure of existence. Slave morality is essentially a morality of utility. Here is the focus for the origin of that famous opposition of "good" and "evil": - people sense power and danger within evil, a certain terror, subtlety, and strength, which does not permit contempt to spring up. According to slave morality, the "evil" man thus inspires fear; according to master morality, it is precisely the "good" man who inspires and desires to inspire fear, while the "bad" man will be felt as despicable. This opposition reaches its peak when, in accordance with the consequences of slave morality, finally a trace of disregard is also attached to the "good" of this morality - it may be light and benevolent - because within the way of thinking of the slave the good man must definitely be the harmless man: he is good natured, easy to deceive, perhaps a bit stupid, a bonhomme [good fellow]. Wherever slave morality gains predominance the language reveals a tendency to bring the words "good" and "stupid" into closer proximity.

[Anonymous No.19459305]

>>19458954
I like spirals and they're still real to me dammit

https://youtu.be/bVPRJeRruVs

[Anonymous No.19459309]

>>19459305
Oh shit it's you again old friend. I need to start posting this shit on leftypol again. I get week long bans now though after instant deletion :(

[Anonymous No.19459314]

>>19459304
A final basic difference: the longing for freedom, the instinct for happiness, and the refinements of the feeling for freedom belong just as necessarily to slave morality and morals as art and enthusiasm in reverence and in devotion are the regular symptoms of an aristocratic way of thinking and valuing. From this we can without further ado understand why love as passion - which is our European specialty - must clearly have a noble origin: as is well known, its invention belongs to the Provencal knightly poets, those splendidly inventive men of the "gay saber" [gay science] to whom Europe owes so much - almost its very self.

[Anonymous No.19459356]

>>19459309
I don't forget my old friends either.

[Anonymous No.19459852]

>>19459294
>>19459300
>>19459302
>>19459304
>>19459314
What's the best order in which to read Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.19459859]

>>19458954
I am a traditionalist anon. Are you?

[Anonymous No.19459865]

>>19459859
>He doesn't know

[Anonymous No.19459868]

>>19458954
>that graphic