[ 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: 78 KB, 672x800, 000000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20158126 No.20158126 [Reply] [Original]

Edmund Burke is overrated.

>> No.20158129
File: 253 KB, 1200x1472, 1200px-Samuel_Johnson_by_Joshua_Reynolds.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20158129

Completely agreed.

His friend Samuel Johnson is a much better writer. A much better thinker, as well.

>> No.20158148

Hazlitt
>A really great and original writer is like nobody but himself. In one sense Sterne was not a wit, nor Shakespear a poet. It is easy to describe second-rate talents, because they fall into a class and enlist under a standard; but first-rate powers defy calculation or comparison, and can be defined only by themselves. They are sui generis, and make the class to which they belong. I have tried half a dozen times to describe Burke's style without ever succeeding,—its severe extravagance; its literal boldness; its matter-of-fact hyperboles; its running away with a subject, and from it at the same time,—but there is no making it out, for there is no example of the same thing anywhere else. We have no common measure to refer to; and his qualities contradict even themselves.

>> No.20158186 [DELETED] 

Coleridge
>Burke was, indeed, a great man. No one ever read history so philosophically as he seems to have done. Yet, until he could associate his general principles with some sordid interest, panic of property, Jacobinism, &c. he was a mere dinner bell. Hence you will find so many half truths in his speeches and writings. Nevertheless, let us heartily acknowledge his transcendent greatness. He would have been more influential if he had less surpassed his contemporaries, as Fox and Pitt, men of much inferior minds in all respects.
>Burke's book is a most admirable medicine against the French disease, which has made too much progress even in this happy country. I admire his eloquence, I approve his politics, I adore his chivalry, and I can forgive even his superstition.
more Hazlitt
>He is, with the exception of Jeremy Taylor, the most poetical of prose writers, and at the same time his prose never degenerates into the mere glitter or tinkling of poetry; for he always aims at overpowering rather than at pleasing; and consequently sacrifices beauty and grandeur to force and vividness. He has invariably a task to perform, a positive purpose to execute, an effect to produce. His only object is therefore to strike hard, and in the right place; if he misses his mark, he repeats his blow; and does not care how ungraceful the action, or how clumsy the instrument, provided it brings clown his antagonist.

>> No.20158190

>>20158126
I'd say he's actually underrated, pozzed academia has no interest in talking about him

>> No.20158195

fixed greentext
Coleridge
>Burke was, indeed, a great man. No one ever read history so philosophically as he seems to have done. Yet, until he could associate his general principles with some sordid interest, panic of property, Jacobinism, &c. he was a mere dinner bell. Hence you will find so many half truths in his speeches and writings. Nevertheless, let us heartily acknowledge his transcendent greatness. He would have been more influential if he had less surpassed his contemporaries, as Fox and Pitt, men of much inferior minds in all respects.
Gibbon
>Burke's book is a most admirable medicine against the French disease, which has made too much progress even in this happy country. I admire his eloquence, I approve his politics, I adore his chivalry, and I can forgive even his superstition.
more Hazlitt
>He is, with the exception of Jeremy Taylor, the most poetical of prose writers, and at the same time his prose never degenerates into the mere glitter or tinkling of poetry; for he always aims at overpowering rather than at pleasing; and consequently sacrifices beauty and grandeur to force and vividness. He has invariably a task to perform, a positive purpose to execute, an effect to produce. His only object is therefore to strike hard, and in the right place; if he misses his mark, he repeats his blow; and does not care how ungraceful the action, or how clumsy the instrument, provided it brings clown his antagonist.

>> No.20158269

>>20158148
I never understood the idea that Burke was somehow contradictory like so many people have stated during his time and since. Burke was only "liberal" in that he believed power should be held under British style parliament, supported catholics, and was an Adam Smith style economic. In everything else, you can not literally tell him apart from your average ultra-tory. His criticism of the French Revolution is terribly argued and it honestly baffles me how many people take it seriously. His whole argument essentially dictates that the french people should have just done nothing and that maybe through some good grace of god the aristocrats would decide to reform.

>> No.20158286

>>20158126
his essay on the french revolution completely falls apart if you take issue with his concept of nature and the natural, so yes

>> No.20158327

>>20158269
well from what I gather the class that revolted were basically just what the middle class is today. not much progress was actually accomplished.

>> No.20158353

>>20158327
>not much progress was actually accomplished.
The French Revolution was, and is, the biggest upheaval of any society in history. It changed everything. Whether you think that's good or bad it up to debate. But there is no doubt that much was accomplished during that period

>> No.20158359

>>20158353
I dunno I don't see how what essentially was the upper middle having first world problems did anything impactful. I'd argue the Paris Commune did more damage

>> No.20158366

>>20158359
>I dunno I don't see how what essentially was the upper middle having first world problems did anything impactful.
I'm getting baited aren't I? I refuse to believe that anybody can be this ignorant. Have you actually done any considerable research on the French Revolution or do you just listen to what contrarians on /lit/ and /his/ are telling you?
>I'd argue the Paris Commune did more damage
Yep I'm definitely getting baited

>> No.20158384

>>20158148
>lefty doesn't like conservachad
shocking

>> No.20158389

>>20158366
He's right, the French Revolution did nothing. You're just hysterical.

>> No.20158392

>>20158286
>his essay falls apart if you take away logic
Great insight but no one is interested

>> No.20158396

>>20158269
You're a communist so your opinion is not important

>> No.20158434

>>20158126
>created conservatism
>prediced the outcome of the french revolution when everyone told him he was crazy
>influenced kant on aesthetics
>barely ever talked about
>overrated
What compells people to write such unsubstantiated posts? I thought trolling was not allowed outside of /b/ <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="27" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/ec538b5c_Thonk.png">

>> No.20158442

>>20158384
You can't read.
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/90786369_pepePoint.png">

>> No.20158449

I genuinely think people just scan passages for words to react to without comprehending the totality of what they've read.

>> No.20158450

>>20158449
Keep your mouth shut pseud

>> No.20158462

>>20158450
<span class="xae" data-xae="crazy">🤪[/spoiler] <span class="xae" data-xae="lmao">😂[/spoiler] <span class="xae" data-xae="baw">😭[/spoiler]

>> No.20158463

>society is a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born
<img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="28" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/fad6951c_Pog.png"><img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/6f0d4e37_POGGERS.png"><img class="xae" data-xae width="27" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/1d3f2a13_happycat.png">

>> No.20158479

>>20158462
>>20158463
Emojis made dumb posters even dumber

>> No.20158493

>>20158126
His aesthetic writing is good, and I think he could have had the potential to be one of Britain’s few great philosophers like Hume, but he essentially gave that up for a life in politics which I can never respect. He may have pioneered conservatism, but being born nearer the 17th century than the 19th, his political views are most unpalatable for anyone who doesn’t want to live under the heel of some aristocrat who “take the trouble of being born” for the rest of their lives. I feel very strongly the same lack of approachability for 18th century authors has affected him to a lesser extent that someone like Pope or Scott, but I would rather read a Carlyle or a Hazlitt or a Schiller to him any day. So that’s a long way of saying yeah I agree he is a bit overrated, even coming from someone who leans conservative on most topics, but conservative to at most the last quarter of the 19th century and not before

>> No.20158529

>>20158493
You like Hume, so who cares about your respect? Your arguments in your post are nonexistent, just incel lefty rage.
>i'm a conservative btw
You're not, get lost.

>> No.20158548

>>20158392
he never defines the term, uses it nebulously and emotionally, and appeals to it without clarifying it. yes, i take issue with it. i think the essay is masterfully written, and very convincing, but its logic is weak.

>> No.20158552

>>20158548
If the concept of nature doesn't come naturally to you it's because you're a NPC, so no one cares buddy.

>> No.20158557

>>20158552
burke essentially defends being an npc in that essay, free thought and self-determination are disparaged and tradition is extolled as in harmony with nature, i.e., follow the path laid out for you and dont question, leave thought to the nobles and dont you dare burn our heckin precious institutions of power

>> No.20158564

>>20158557
Bro just stop posting you're boring and everyone heard this low IQ commie crap a million times already

>> No.20158572

>>20158564
if you dont want to have a discussion, either dont reply to me or choose a different board to shit up with your antiintellectualism

>> No.20158578

>>20158572
Why would anyone want to have a discussion with someone as uninteresting as you lol I'm just here to laugh at you

>> No.20158584

>>20158578
im sure youre riveting to talk to yourself, im sorry for disgracing your masturbatory thread with an actual concrete thought on something about burke

>> No.20158589

>>20158584
Didn't even read

>> No.20158597

>>20158589
bet

>> No.20160346

I've actually read some of Burke's letters and speeches and I find him somewhat... lacking, as a thinker. He doesn't seem to follow his ideas to their logical conclusions.