/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20017353]

>Art is the highest expression of activity of a race that has developed its physical beauty in unison with itself and Nature

[Anonymous No.20017359]

[Anonymous No.20017487]

nigga got beard growin behind his ear lmao

[Anonymous No.20017499]

>>20017353
>physical beauty
>is an ugly faggot

[Anonymous No.20017512]

>>20017499
>His physical appearance in 1839 was described by the painter Friedrich Pecht: strikingly elegant, indeed aristocratic in his appearance, despite his somewhat short legs, and with such a strikingly beautiful woman on his arm (his wife Minna] that she alone would have sufficed to make the couple interesting, if Wagner himself had not had such an arresting head that one’s attention was involuntarily fixed upon him.

>Meeting him a few years later (1843), the author Eliza Wille described him thus: It had remained a fleeting encounter […]. But Wagner’s features had impressed themselves on my mind: his elegant, supple figure, the head with the mighty brow, the acute eye and the energetic lines around his small and tightly closed mouth. A painter who was sitting next to me drew my attention to his straight, protruding chin, which seemed to be carved out of stone, giving the face a special character.

>Gautier remembered being fixed for a full, silent minute by the soul-scoping intensity of his gaze. In letters home, Villiers described the “fabulous being” in terms suitable for the cruel angels and crazed scientists of his stories: Something like immortality made visible, the other world rendered transparent, creative power pushed to a fantastic point, and, with that, the sweat and the shining of genius, the impression of the infinite around his head and in the naïve profundity of his eyes. He is terrifying.

[Anonymous No.20017700]

>>20017353
Well at least it’s not gay sex

[Anonymous No.20017706]

>>20017512
Germans thought Hitler was trustworthy their opinions dont matter

[Anonymous No.20017712]

>>20017706
Delete your account.

[Anonymous No.20017715]

>>20017712
No, German is a shit tier culture

[Anonymous No.20017746]

>>20017353
>Race
>Developed its physical beauty
>In unison with itself
>And nature
Retarded schizo sucking off his own made spooks lmao

[Anonymous No.20017755]

>>20017746
'spooks' is just another spook

[Anonymous No.20017767]

>>20017353
> Art is the highest expression of activity of a race that has developed its physical beauty in unison with itself
But humans are all disgusting smelly creatura though.

[Anonymous No.20018340]

>>20017353
Read Hegel and you would understand how fuckn retarded this statement is, especially considering how Wagner initially considered himself a socialist. Even Nietzsche, who believed in an even more cynical notion of racial superiority, acknowledged that Wagner was a pseud who happened to have some good ideas with regards to music.

[Anonymous No.20018433]

>>20018340
my apologies for use of r-slur

[Anonymous No.20018448]

>>20018340
>[Nietzsche] acknowledged that Wagner was a pseud who happened to have some good ideas with regards to music.
You can always tell how much Nietzsche someone has read by their opinion of Wagner. This anon has clearly read very little.

Wagner is the alpha and omega of Nietzsche's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20018477]

>>20018448
I've read most works by Nietzsche, I've read books about him by Heidegger, Sloterdijk, Lukacs, and Losurdo. Please explain, specifically, how Wagner is the "alpha and omega of Nietzsche's philosophy". I doubt you can even parse what Nietzsche's philosophy even was!!!

[Anonymous No.20018509]

>>20017499
self hatred is a strong motivator

[Anonymous No.20018515]

>>20018509
Correct. Look at Hitler.

[Anonymous No.20018773]

>>20018477
Nietzsche while writing Zarathustra:
>With this book I have stepped into a new Ring
>Finally, if I am not completely mistaken about my future, it is through me that the best part of the Wagnerian enterprise will live on—and that’s what is almost droll about the affair.
>I am better now and I even believe that Wagner's death was the most substantial relief that could have been given me just now. It was hard for six years to have to be the opponent of the man one had most reverenced on earth, and my constitution is not sufficiently coarse for such a position. After all it was Wagner grown senile whom I was forced to resist; as to the genuine Wagner, I shall yet attempt to become in a great measure his heir (as I have often assured Fräulein Malvida, though she would not believe it).
>It's already beginning, what I prophesied for a long time, that in many pieces I will be R.W.'s heir.—

If you were familiar with the Ring you would already know the enormous influence it had on Zarathustra both stylistically and thematically. The very famous § 4 of Zarathustra's Vorrede, of man being a bridge, is a free adaptation of the first two scenes of act three of Siegfried, and, to a larger extent, Wotan's relationship to his progeny.

And in Ecce Homo:
>I suppose I know better than any one the prodigious feats of which Wagner was capable, the fifty worlds of strange ecstasies to which no one else had wings to soar; and as I am alive to-day and strong enough to turn even the most suspicious and most dangerous things to my own advantage, and thus to grow stronger, I declare Wagner to have been the greatest benefactor of my life. The bond which unites us is the fact that we have suffered greater agony, even at each other's hands, than most men are able to bear nowadays, and this will always keep our names associated in the minds of men. For, just as Wagner is merely a misunderstanding among Germans, so, in truth, am I, and ever will be. Ye lack two centuries of psychological and artistic discipline, my dear countrymen!... But ye can never recover the time lost.
Clearly more than just some good ideas about music. Did you also forget what Nietzsche says about Wagner in The Birth of Tragedy, Untimely Meditations and Beyond Good and Evil? Or more likely did not read at all.

[Anonymous No.20018904]

>>20018773
And the absolute seethe from Parsifal.

[Anonymous No.20018946]

>>20018340
>Read Hegel
Kill. Yourself.

[Anonymous No.20019103]

>>20018773
Again, please specify what aspects of Nietzsche's philosophical system would warrant the claim that Wagner is the "alpha and omega" to Nietzschean thought. Unlike you, I was explicitly critiquing Wagner's statement in OP, and, again specifically, was pointing out that Nietzsche (who I never argued wasn't influenced by Wagner you fucking dipshit) EXPLICITLY spoke of Wagner's justification for racial hierarchy as weak. In fact, if you read letters between Wagner and Nietzsche you would see that the motivating force for this gulf between them was actually introduced BY WAGNER TO NIETZSCHE in his suggestion to be less explicit with in his antisemitism.

[Anonymous No.20019140]

>>20019103
I will elaborate: Nietzsche did not think that art develops physical beauty in unison with itself and nature, in fact he explicitly subverts Hegel's Master Slave dialectic by asserting that Art is the highest expression of activity of a race which has ALIENATED itself from nature through dominance of a slave class, who are the ones who shape Nature, but lack an artistic identity

[Anonymous No.20019177]

>>20019103
Cope you're backtracking.
>[Nietzsche] acknowledged that Wagner was a pseud who happened to have some good ideas with regards to music.

>please specify what aspects of Nietzsche's philosophical system would warrant the claim that Wagner is the "alpha and omega" to Nietzschean thought.
Maybe if you were familiar with the Ring you would already realise I have given an example, and you just ignore the quotes I have provided, which show far more than just influence.

The Op is also probably talking about the Hellenic race and not biological race.

[Anonymous No.20019202]

>>20019177
merely pointing out that he said he was influenced by him doesn't actually speak to the content of the similarity between their philosophies. All I have done is point out on clear terms how even someone like Nietzsche, who everyone agrees was influenced by Wagner, thought Wagner was a pseud who also happened to be a genius when it comes to composing music. I have explicitly stated how Nietzsche's thought differs with regard to OP. It's you who is backtracking in the face of calls for specificity.

[Anonymous No.20019260]

>>20019177
>>20019202
>>20018773
also I find it ironic you imply I haven't read Nietzsche. I can tell you off the top of my head, again SPECIFICALLY, that the famous preface to the second edition of BoT explicitly repeats my point of Nietzsche's view of art as fundamentally alienating

[Anonymous No.20019269]

>>20017359
This is true. I remember seeing an atheist artist writing in despair over art being ultimately useless. Atheists who think invent concepts like "imagine Sisyphus happy" or New Age in order to cope. Meaning can only exist if there's something transcendental, otherwise what are you doing; are you just being an animal living by base instinct?

[Anonymous No.20019294]

>>20019202
>I have explicitly stated how Nietzsche's thought differs with regard to OP.
That's not what this conversation is about. It's about your misunderstanding of Nietzsche and repetition of said misunderstanding with nothing new added in the face of contrary evidence.

For example, you could at least reply to what I said in that post. You may disagree with me stating that those quotes show more than just an influence, as one may speak of Burckhardt being an influence on him, but you should recognise where the argument has progressed and acknowledge your disagreement. Instead you only refer back to your original statement, "I never denied Nietzsche was influenced by Wagner". This makes for no argument at all. Another example is the following:

>thought Wagner was a pseud who also happened to be a genius when it comes to composing music.
It is undeniable that Wagner influenced Nietzsche through more than his music. But on a more basic level, I don't even understand how you can think Nietzsche calling him the greatest benefactor of his life is just because he liked his music and unrelated to any philosophical connotations. Or how a philosopher may become the heir of a musician, I suppose in your mind simply because he enjoyed his music? You're proceeding as if nothing new has been added but then you accuse me of adding nothing new.

[Anonymous No.20019352]

>>20019294
No I won't respond to your criticism, it is contrived purely to avoid the initial point of contention. Which was YOUR disagreement with my response to OP, which you criticized as demonstrating that I had "read very little" Nietzsche. Answer me. Am I wrong in my analysis that Nietzsche's philosophy with regard to the role of suffering in art puts him at complete disagreement with OP? I mentioned this earlier, but in "An Attempt at Self-Criticism" Nietzsche quite clearly makes this point, and big surprise, does so quite explicitly with Wagner in mind.

[Anonymous No.20019478]

>>20019352
You had showed you had read very little of Nietzsche by what you said about Wagner, and which I quoted, not your specific reply to Wagner's statement in the Op (which I did make a remark on that you did not respond to either).

If you cannot understand this then reading Nietzsche will make no difference because you'll always be too dumb to understand him.

[Anonymous No.20019500]

I thought this was a Wagner thread but I was wrong, for apparently it is
>another thread for people who haven't read N to debate people who didn't understand him about whether it is based and redpilled to agree with him or not

[Anonymous No.20019572]

>>20019500
In what ways have I demonstrated that I haven't read Nietzsche? I've accurately presented his philosophy developed throughout his career, citing not just his primary works, but also his correspondence to Wagner and even a preface added to the second edition of one of his early works. Do you think my comparative analysis situating Nietzsche's response to OP was incorrect in any way? Or were you just adding a pointless comment because you want to be heard?

[Anonymous No.20019574]

>>20017353
Talk about hyping your career up

[Anonymous No.20019588]

>>20019572
>I've accurately presented his philosophy developed throughout his career
Except for almost entirely misunderstanding his relationship with Wagner...

[Anonymous No.20019594]

>>20019572
It's funny how it's 19th century pseud philosophers like Nietzsche, Marx and Stirner have droves of apologists whose only argument is "You didn't read it. You don't understand what he really meant."

[Anonymous No.20019599]

>20019588
QED

[Anonymous No.20019602]

>>20019478
You are ignoring the substantial part of my statement, where I ACCURATELY compared the philosophical principles of the two, in order to attack me for understating Wagner's influence on Nietzsche, which I never did. Is it impossible for you to understand that Nietzsche could
a. draw inspiration from Wagner's works and
b. criticize Wagner's philosophical system and even explicitly refer to it as juvenile

Your entire argument is that you're mad that I said something mean about Wagner. You yourself haven't even ONCE posed any description at all of the actual content of either's thoughts, and can only parrot the same two artificial points: that I haven't read Nietzsche and that I am oblivious to Wagner's true influence on Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.20019606]

It was demonstrated and your only argument was a retreat into "this is just distracting from the real argument".

Cope.

[Anonymous No.20019646]

>>20019606
This is odd because you also accused me of backtracking away from the argument. The difference is that I was referring to the argument that you LITERALLY FUCKING MADE, whereas the argument you accuse me of distancing myself from is one that exists purely in your fairy bubble

[Anonymous No.20019649]

hes so fucking ugly lmao

[Anonymous No.20019764]

>>20019602
>in order to attack me for understating Wagner's influence on Nietzsche
Tell me, what does "[Nietzsche] acknowledged that Wagner was a pseud who happened to have some good ideas with regards to music" mean? It's making an assumption which you have continuously gone back and forth on, from stating that you don't mean what it obviously says to then repeating it verbatim anyway. It is the classic mistake of a shallow reader of Nietzsche to downplay Wagner's influence and take for a given Nietzsche's criticism.

I also ask you to show where I ever denied that Nietzsche both drew inspiration from and criticised Wagner. This is a blatant strawman of my very specific criticisms. Yet it's only expected because you are doing everything you can to actually avoid the content in this post >>20018773 .

Wagner was a movement, and for Nietzsche it was sometimes in spite of what Wagner thought himself-- but not unrelated to it. The closeness of their aims and the range of influence cannot be limited to 'philosophical systems', especially not for Wagner whose apparent 'system' you say Nietzsche thought was immature yet provide no evidence. Yet again you fail to realise the very obvious: a philosopher does not become the heir of someone whose music they happen to like.

>>20019646
>This is odd because you also accused me of backtracking away from the argument.
Yes, the main argument you have denied is the main argument because you were shown to be wrong in it, and the unrelated argument (about the Op), when I did once respond to it you never replied back!

[Anonymous No.20019806]

>>20019764

>>20018773
Literally states absolutely nothing about either one's beliefs you fucking moron, its just repeating . The reason I know you are LARPING as some Wagner or Nietzsche scholar is because you STILL can't present either one's thoughts or beliefs. It is hilarious that when I point this out you accuse ME of strawmanning. If you had actually understood Nietzsche and disagreed with me you would at least be able to, I don't know, TALK ABOUT WHAT HE ACTUALLY THOUGHT AND WROTE. Quoting Nietzsche is not the same as understanding him

[Anonymous No.20019821]

>>20019806
I would be willing to talk about Nietzsche if you had actually responded to any of the things I stated or quoted in that post! Because, simply, they already show to be wrong much of what you were saying, and for some reason still said after it. That is where the argument is and has been all this time, so go back to it.

[Anonymous No.20019844]

>>20019806
>It is hilarious that when I point this out you accuse ME of strawmanning.
You didn't point out me not presenting their thoughts myself there, you accused me of being unable to accept both W's influence on N as well as N's criticism of W.

That is what I called a strawman because none of my arguments ever revolved around that.