[ 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: 10 KB, 240x323, rimbaud.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4914330 No.4914330[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

How is it that Rimbaud basically spends a lot of his time saying "Fuck the world, I'm going to rebel" without sounding like an edgy teenager? To those of you that think he still sounds like an edgy teenager, humour me.

>> No.4914346

>Edgy teenager
Is reserved for the ugly, not for qt rebellious boipuss

>> No.4914347

Cause he's just deeper about it.

>> No.4914355

>>4914346
>yfw you stopped masturbating to porn and started masturbating to Mishima and Rimbaud whilst reading their works
Fuck

>> No.4914362

>>4914347
Yeah, I'll agree with that, but how?

>> No.4914365

>>4914330
>"Fuck the world, I'm going to rebel"

lmao if that's the lesson you get fromreading rimbaud

>> No.4914375

>>4914330
http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2008/feb/11/rimbaudwasnogenius

>> No.4914378

>>4914375
>"But he remains an incomplete poet, one who gave up his art before gaining the experience and accompanying depth that would have placed him among the true masters."
wow this journalist is a faggot

>> No.4914390

>>4914362
idk, intelligence?

>> No.4914398

>>4914378

That seems to be missing the whole point of Rimbaud

>> No.4914404

>>4914398
Definitely. The journalist is just some resentful hack.

>> No.4914419

>>4914375
>The vagabond prodigy promised greatness, but never delivered

i immediately closed the tab

>> No.4914434

>>4914355
now THATS what I call the literally lifestyle

>> No.4914437

>>4914404
>The journalist is just some resentful hack.
that's a redundant statement.

>> No.4914447

>>4914437
>hat's a redundant statement.
how? is being a hack an enthymeme of resentfulness?

>> No.4914453

>>4914447
No. What I'm saying is all journalists are resentful hacks.

>> No.4914456

>>4914453
oh, sorry for misunderstanding you. I agree.

>> No.4914819

He was an edgy teenager though, main difference is he's a qt and you'd put up with his lame psudo-intelectual rants for a chance to pound his ass.

>> No.4914824

>>4914819
>psudo-intelectual rants
No.

>> No.4914883

>>4914824
>hurr gonna destroy my senses I cant describe why but it'll make me a greater poet, qu'est-ce que ça peut faire à la putain Paris, ect

>> No.4914889
File: 150 KB, 1264x1264, wreck the ogre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4914889

something about his face makes me want to fuck it

>> No.4914893

>>4914889
Shrek?

>> No.4914923

>>4914889
Control your urges, shrek?

>> No.4914935

>>4914355
Rec me some Mishima, please, Mr. Masturbator

>> No.4915268

>>4914375
He drew so much from so little, if he had experienced more that probably would have made him worse.

>> No.4915297

>>4914889
BACK THE FUCK OFF?!

>> No.4915356

>>4914330
because he copied Baudelaire

>> No.4915358

>>4915356
>because he copied Baudelaire
Nope. Doesn't work that way.

>> No.4915375

>>4915297
le disturbed bear face
...

>> No.4915377

>>4914330
Probably because he acted rather then went upstairs and playing linkin park

>> No.4915555
File: 301 KB, 430x552, rimbaud.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4915555

Rimbaud has a mixture of exquisite poetic sensibility and metrical skill, of impulse toward the pure and transcendent merged with a sense of the basest, lowest, and most disgusting urges in humanity.

des taches de vins bleus et vomissures...

des lichens de soleil et des morves d'azur...

He experimented with form, releasing French poetry from the tyranny of the alexandrine. His ear was perfect:

Où, teignant tout à coup les bleuités, délires
Et rythmes lents sous les rutilements du jour,
Plus fortes que l'alcool, plus vastes que nos lyres,
Fermentent les rousseurs amères de l'amour!

After Baudelaire, he was France's greatest prose poet. He was thoroughly modern, abandoning sense when sense didn't take him where he needed to go. He was a pure artist, and when poetry failed to provide the release he wanted, he gave it up, tossing away, without looking back, one of the most powerful poetic gifts since Blake. Plus, he did all this before he was 21 years old.

He is not a "message" poet. Most poets aren't. But his sensibility and his absolute commitment to his art is the act of a pure revolutionary, a seer, a "vates." Three dozen of his poems lift one high and drop one low, like a roller coaster of feelings, giving one a glimpse of paradise and then of hell and putting sounds together like Beethoven. He out romanticked the romantics.

>> No.4915562

>>4914330
he is an edgy teenager

but he was also a prodigal genius

thats the difference between him and the average 16 year old high school angsty kid

>> No.4915584

he looks like Wittgenstein

>> No.4915594

>>4914378
this is partly true - giving up his art - who could have known what he could have written if he kept at it
but he is placed among the true masters IMO he is rivalled only to Baudelaire in terms of both skill and mastery of poetical techniques

that said, maybe he had nothing left to say - and that is why he gave it up

>> No.4915607

How old was he when he composed his greatest pieces?

>> No.4915613

>>4915607
rimbaud was born in 1854

A Season in Hell was written and published in 1873
Illuminations was estimated to be written (by Verlaine) between 1873-1875, first partially published in 1886
Le Bateau ivre or The Drunken Boat was written in 1871

The Drunken Boat was his 'break' into the literary world
A Season in Hell is probably his most revered work
Illuminations was uncompleted

>> No.4915994

>>4914375
>hacks criticizing geniuses to get recognition

autism

>> No.4916034

>>4914330
He didn't say "fuck the world, I'm going to rebel"
He said "fuck the world" and went and DID rebel, through his actions and works.
Edgy teenagers just say stuff(mostly online) but don't back it up with actions.
So there's that.

>> No.4916410

>>4916034
he never said fuck the world or anything along those lines

>> No.4916424

>>4915607
18

>> No.4916444

>>4916410
>fuck this gay earth - Archy Rimbow

>> No.4916453

>>4916410
>odd future kill them all - ahtoo hamboh

>> No.4916621

>>4916444
>>4916453
ebik

>> No.4916641

>>4916444
Just look at his picture. You can almost hear him saying it.

>> No.4916645

>>4916641
Just look at your post. You can almost feel the autism.

>> No.4916703

>>4914355
patrician as fuck

>> No.4916713

There is no Rimbaud on #bookz.

Has anyone got a link to a mobi of his complete works or something? I really want to read more of his stuff.

>> No.4916720

>>4916713
here is a pdf of A season in hell

http://thesorcerersapprenticeonline.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/no-25-a-season-in-hell4.pdf

>> No.4916730

>>4916720
>Long ago, if I remember well, my life was a feast where all hearts were open, where all wines flowed. One evening, I sat beauty on my knees. − She tasted bitter. − And I spat her out. I took up arms against justice. I took to my heels. O witches, O poverty, O hate, I have entrusted my treasure to you! I purged all human hope from my mind. On every joy I pounced silently, like a wild beast, and strangled it. I called on my executioners, as I lay dying, to let me bite the butts of their rifles. I called on plagues to smother me with sand and blood. Unhappiness was my god. I stretched myself out in the mud. I dried myself in the air of crime. And I played sly tricks on madness.

holy fuck

ive never read Rimbaud before but that first segment already has me completely in love

thank you based /lit/

>> No.4916736

>>4914362
satanism

trust me, that's what it is

the romantic poets were influenced by the occult

hell, guys like Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin were too; all of the rebellious people of that age were. Check these verses from the young Karl Marx:

>The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain,
>Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed.
>See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me. -
>For me beats the time and gives the signs.
>Ever more boldly I play the dance of death.

and

>With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the face of the world,
>And see the collapse of this pygmy giant whose fall will not stifle my ardor.
>Then will I wander godlike and victorious through the ruins of the world
>And, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator.

sounds a lot like this from the Bible:

>How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

>And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north.

>I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High.

he also wrote

>Words I teach all mixed up into a devilish muddle.
>Thus, anyone may think just what he chooses to think.

and people still think this guy was trying to benefit humanity, lol. Marx was a Christian growing up, but he had a dramatic change of heart. When Engels first met him he said he was possessed with thousands of devils.

The English poet Southey, I think it was, said Byron and Shelley belonged to the "Satanic school". Byron wrote a satire mocking Southey in response.

>> No.4916738

>>4916736
and what does this have to do with rimbaud

>> No.4916742
File: 113 KB, 496x458, rimbaudoccult.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4916742

>>4916736
in conclusion,

Art always has a spiritual philosophy underlying it. 19th century art was influenced by occultism and "spiritism". William Butler Yeats is another heavily influenced by occult/magic.

People like to talk of "Romanticism" as being a preference for EMOTION over the stiff, rationalism of the Enlightenment. But it was really a preference for occultism/mysticism/magic over the stiff rationalism of the Enlightenment. Investigate it yourself.

>> No.4916744

>>4916742
The Romantics were heavily influenced by the Freemasons/Illuminists that overthrow the Catholic monarchy in France in favour of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", the start of the modern age. The Freemasons/Illuminists were secret societies that used occult symbols. The Romantic poets were basically propagandists for these Freemasons/Illuminists that wanted to undermine authority, morality, religion, etc. The Freemasons are largely responsible for the godlessness/materialism of the modern age. They preach godlessness/materialism to "the profane" (people not part of their sekrut klub) and to their own they preach an occult philosophy of symbols.

>> No.4916751
File: 143 KB, 800x633, liberty.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4916751

Shelley's Prometheus is more or less a glorification of Satan/Lucifer. Satan/Lucifer is the revolutionary that wants to bring knowledge, fire, to mankind; but big bad authoritarian Jupiter, i.e. God, punishes Prometheus, i.e. Satan/Lucifer. But Satan would rather glory in his punishment and say "better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven", rather than admit he was wrong to rebel.

The Statue of Liberty is a Promethean/Luciferian figure. That torch she holds in her hand symbolizes knowledge. She brings the divine gift of knowledge to mankind and frees him from superstitious belief in God. "Liberty" or "Columbia" is just a satanic figure to begin with; "liberty" first and foremost means liberty from God, the same liberty that Lucifer wanted; the Freemasons who gave us the LIBERTY! slogan knew this perfectly well. I think they say she's supposed to represent the Egyptian goddess Isis, as well.

Look at this image of "Liberty leading the people". See how she has her breasts exposed? That's because Liberty is a whore. All that murder so that we could fall down a worship the whore Liberty. You know that in the French Revolution they dressed up a woman as "the goddess of Reason" and worshipped her? Ever since the French Revolution society has been taken over by these cultists.

>> No.4916758
File: 58 KB, 900x300, eyes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4916758

>>4916751
>Ever since the French Revolution society has been taken over by these cultists.

Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut.

It's also why the higher-ups are involved in paedophilia. They do it in a ritualistic manner. Rape/kill kids because they think it gives them power.

The witches from Macbeth
>Fair is foul, and foul is fair:
>Hover through the fog and filthy air.

That is basically who runs society today: witches, occultists; they call foul fair, and fair foul. Murder and rape is beautiful to them. We profane get a lower version of this satanism in our film/television which glorifies violence and promiscuity: fair is foul, foul is fair.
Interestingly, Elizabethan England was heavily influenced by the occult. Shakespeare's own plays have a lot of occultism in them. Elizabethan England is where it all began, imo. Francis Bacon wrote a work called "New Atlantis" which is more or less a blueprint for the modern world. You can read it online. The Queen was associated with a man called John Dee who was a top occultist at the time. You can see what Queen Elizabeth was like in Lewis Carrol's Alice in Wonderland: she is the Queen of Hearts. Alice in the book represents just a normal girl who is trying to cope with living in this surreal moral society where everything is topsy turvy; fair is foul and foul is fair. I watched the latest Alice in Wonderland film recently and it was interesting; I think Alice represented the Virgin Mary in that film.

>> No.4916759
File: 48 KB, 445x349, mary-poppins-one.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4916759

>>4916758
>surreal moral society

surreal modern society*

surrealism is another school of art influenced by occultism
here's the surreal Mary Poppins who is like a satanic inversion of the Virgin Mary.

>> No.4916764

>>4914419
Exactly. Rimbaud didn't promise shit, he ran with poetry as long as he felt like it.

>> No.4916776

>>4916720
Thanks bro, you'd think such a famous poet's work would be easy to find..

>> No.4916777

Notice how the old poets always used to invoke the muse at the start of their work? Art is built on spirituality/mysticism. The whole "inspiration" phenomenon is spiritual. A lot of famous scientists and mathematicians gained their insights through epiphanies that were spiritual in nature too; sudden awakenings of their intellect. The use of drugs has become popular with artists over the last couple of centuries too; and drugs were related to witchcraft.
Genius is not about having a fast intellect, a quick brain; think of all the high IQ imbeciles that do nothing but become expert pedants. Genius is more like a susceptibility to inspiration; tbh "Genius" is a romantic concept. Genius became popular during the Enlightenment/Romantic periods with this myth of the "great intellects" of mankind, who are its representatives. In this cult a man like Leonardo Da Vinci becomes a saint.

To be honest though genius in and of itself is dangerous; because you don't always know what spirit is leading you. This is why we have the concept of "evil genius" or "mad scientist"; and most geniuses are like this; just people that want knowledge for the sake of their own glorification. So some spirit reveals to them a mathematical equation and they become famous as a great intellect, lol; meanwhile these mathematical equations are used to build technologies that oppress and kill people; I wonder what kind of spirit revealed this knowledge? Again, this goes back to Lucifer who wants to "enlighten" man and make man as gods, "eat of the tree of knowledge, and ye shall be as gods"; this is the entire idea behind modern civilization, viz. through obtaining scientific knowledge we can conquer nature and ascend to godhood. This is very different to Christianity which says that man is to be humble and that knowledge that doesn't lead to virtue / love of God is vanity.

>> No.4916781

>>4916758
>>4916759
good try, evolakid

>> No.4916782

>>4916776
its easy to find in french, not so much in english

>> No.4916784

>>4916777
Einstein said something like "all scientists are domesticated metaphysicians"
nice trips btw

>> No.4916785

>>4916777
>this is the entire idea behind modern civilization, viz. through obtaining scientific knowledge we can conquer nature and ascend to godhood.

This is laid out in Francis Bacon's "New Atlantis", which as I said is a blueprint for the modern world.

You can see the influence I'm talking about in how we deal with problems: the old way of dealing with problems was to discipline ourselves and become more virtuous, so that we deal with hardships better (this is because the old view assumed that evil was a product of the human will); the new way of dealing with problems is to change the outside world with technology and other things (because the new view is that evil is external to man). For example, Marxists think that the evil in the world is due to this external thing called "Capitalism", so in order to bring about the perfect society we don't begin by reforming our own souls ("the kingdom of heaven is within you"), we begin with reforming, or revolutionizing, society. The old way of dealing with boredom was to learn the virtue of temperance; the new way of dealing with boredom is just to create must entertainment. The old way of dealing with sexual desire was to learn the virtue of chastity; the new way of dealing with sexual desire is more pornography, masturbation, promiscuity, etc. Look at the transhumanists.

>> No.4916786

>>4916777
to me a genius is someone who shapes the world around them

its a term that is thrown around far too often

not some nerd who can do quick complicated maths sums in their head or

>> No.4916787

>>4916781
Never read him.

>> No.4916793

what i find really cool is Rimbaud is taught to French students from the age of about 12-13 all the way up to the highest levels of education

this libertine kid who stopped writing at 21 is one of the main educators of modern france

>> No.4916797

>>4916782
That sucks.

Especially since reading pdfs on a kindle is a fucking bitch.

>> No.4916798

>>4914330
i truly believe Rimbaud's renunciation of writing is his real masterpiece

think about it, a child prodigy who was a master of the language and of verse, creates poems and prose that forever changed the entire literary world, by 21. he had a whole life to create further brilliant works, but stopped, suddenly - not even completely his final prose work

The silence is the true work of art

>> No.4916800

>>4916786
>to me a genius is someone who shapes the world around them

That's closer to the truth than "high IQ = genius". This is my problem though, "changing the world" is neutral, it's neither good nor evil. So you could have the greatest "genius" the world has ever known, and yet he does nothing but evil with his extraordinary gifts. The original genius is Lucifer; who was the most knowledgeable and perfect of the angels, but fell through pride.

Think of Nikola Tesla, who was a real genius scientist. So he spends his life inventing marvellous things. So what? How did he know that his inventions would benefit mankind and not harm mankind? He had no idea what he was doing really. He just invented things for the sake of inventing them; he was a vain man. This is why I like Socrates, who always challenged assumptions. Let's imagine a conversation between Socrates and Tesla:

Socrates: "what are you doing?"

Tesla: "I am making a new machine that will provide cheaper energy to mankind?"

Socrates: "And why do you want to provide cheaper energy to mankind?"

Tesla: "why, so that they can live more comfortably and not suffer the humiliations of poverty."

Socrates: "and are you sure that this comfort is a good, and that the luxury your machine will provide is not an evil? You say that you benefit mankind; I presume then you already have an idea of what man is and what is the good life, or else you would not know how to benefit man by leading him to the good life. So, Mr. Tesla, what is the good life."

Tesla: "muh electricity".

But of course, Socrates would go down in mankind as the buffoon who tried to obstruct the great genius Tesla from making wonderful discoveries beneficial to mankind . . . and yet nobody has stopped to think what man is or how he is truly benefited.

You hear 16 year old kids today saying that they "want to make the world a better place". What vanity. They barely know the world and they think that they know how to make it better. There is some Luciferian pride hidden in this: the idea that God made the world imperfectly and that it's our job to fix it with our superior intellect; rather than that God made the world perfect and we ruined it by being arrogant little shits, and that we need to learn some humility and leave the "making the world a better place" to God.

>> No.4916802

This is what Kierkegaard wrote about genius, in reference to Napoleon:

>The genius continually discovers fate, and the more profound the genius, the more profound the discovery of fate. To spiritlessness, this is naturally foolishness, but in actuality it is greatness, because no man is born with the idea of providence, and those who think that one acquires it gradually though education are greatly mistaken, although I do not thereby deny the significance of education. Not until sin is reached is providence posited. Therefore the genius has an enormous struggle to reach providence. If he does not reach it, truly he becomes a subject for the study of fate. The genius is an omnipotent Ansich [in itself] which as such would rock the whole world. For the sake of order, another figure appears along with him, namely fate. Fate is nothing. It is the genius himself who discovers it, and the more profound the genius, the more profoundly he discovers fate, because that figure is merely the anticipation of providence. If he continues to be merely a genius and turns outward, he will accomplish astonishing things; nevertheless, he will always succumb to fate, if not outwardly, so that it is tangible and visible to all, then inwardly. Therefore, a genius-existence is always like a fairy tale if in the deepest sense the genius does not turn inward into himself. The genius is able to do all things, and yet he is dependent upon an insignificance that no one comprehends, an insignificance upon which the genius himself by his omnipotence bestows omnipotent significance. Therefore, a second lieutenant, if he is a genius, is able to become an emperor and change the world, so that there becomes one empire and one emperor. But therefore, too, the army may be drawn up for battle, the conditions for the battle absolutely favorable, and yet in the next moment wasted; a kingdom of heroes may plead that the order for battle be given-but he cannot; he must wait for the fourteenth of June. And why? Because that was the date of the battle of Marengo. So all things may be in readiness, he himself stands before the legions, waiting only for the sun to rise in order to announce the time for the oration that will electrify the soldiers, and the sun may rise more glorious than ever, an inspiring and inflaming sight for all, only not for him, because the sun did not rise as glorious as this at Austerlitz, and only the sun of Austerlitz gives victory and inspiration. Thus, the inexplicable passion with which such a one may often rage against an entirely insignificant man, when otherwise he may show humanity and kindness even toward his enemies. Yes, woe unto the man, woe unto the woman, woe unto the innocent child, woe unto the beast of the field, woe unto the bird whose flight, woe unto the tree whose branch comes in his way at the moment he is to interpret his omen.

It's a romantic ideal.

>> No.4916804

>>4916800
>Socrates: "and are you sure that this comfort is a good, and that the luxury your machine will provide is not an evil? You say that you benefit mankind; I presume then you already have an idea of what man is and what is the good life, or else you would not know how to benefit man by leading him to the good life. So, Mr. Tesla, what is the good life."
>Tesla: "muh electricity".

the fact you think this is a credible argument makes me laugh

>> No.4916807

>>4914883
Just write that in magnificent poetry and it'll start to look like Rimbaud. That's the problem here, you write pseudo-intellectual rants, Rimbaud wrote magnificent poetry. Form matters.

>>4914330

If you actually read Rimbaud, it's not exactly that. First it's much more "I'm going to rebel" than "fuck the world", and much more "I'm actually rebelling" that "I'm going to rebel". Second, not only his versification, but his ideas, are extremely unsettling (at least that's how they feel to me).

As a reader of Baudelaire (and even if you can feel a lot of Baudelaire and Hugo in Rimbaud), I find the kid to be extremely puzzling. Maupassant once wrote that the French language is a pure stream. Rimbaud reads like he's trying to swim upstream, to go against the natural flow of the alexandrine. It's so strange it's almost offensive, but done in so compelling a way that you keep reading anyway.

In his homework as a midschooler and then highschooler, RImbaud displays an almost supernatural ability to mimic the vocabulary and more importantly the rythm of any era and any style. The feeling I have is that of a kid so gifted he grew angry with his own language, like a child trying to dismantle, methodically, a toy he's tired of playing with.

That's why he doesn't sound edgy: edginess is a posture. It borrows the language of others (it's just a form of self-enforced stereotype really). Rimbaud was actually doing the shit, with the confidence of someone with a great ear for his language and a longer practice than one would expect of a man so young (he spent most of his childhood doing work for school, which included a lot of versification).

>>4914375
That article isn't so unreasonable as it sounds firsthand. I think the journalist kind of miss the point, although not out of envy like some have suggested. At least he's sparking a conversation about RImbaud that's not reduced to pure worship, so props for that. The comments are also rather interesting.

>> No.4916810

>>4916798
thats hella interesting

>> No.4916813

>>4916802
are you the same guy who thinks that all art that is not a tribute to god is bad or evil?

>> No.4916815

>>4915594
He foreseen that development. IN the Letter of the Seer, which he sent to one of his friends, and sums up his aesthetical reflexions at this point of his life, he says that the poet has to try all poisons on himself, before he gets exhausted and let another replace him.

People should read more the Letter of the Seer. It would show that Rimbaud isn't just pure concentrated poetical intuition, but that he had practiced and thought, for long, about the history of poetry and its destiny.

>> No.4916817

>>4916804
What?

Tesla says that he wants to benefit mankind, but he has no clear idea of what "benefiting mankind" consists of. He just has a vague notion that "cheap energy", or whatever, is good, and rushes off inventing things in his vanity. For all Tesla knows the existence of mankind is evil and he ought to be developing a doomsday device; he does not know what man is or what man's purpose is, and yet he seeks to benefit man. Imagine a man whose purpose is to get to Paris, and a man gives him a book of French verse and goes away smiling to himself that he's benefited the man.

If you don't know what man is, what his ultimate purpose is, what his fate is, what is highest good is, i.e. unless you know God, you don't have any idea how to "benefit mankind" (you don't even know how to benefit yourself or your brother), and all your attempts to "benefit mankind" are pure vanity because you acting according to a false vision of what mankind is. For all you know the problem with mankind is its blindness, and so it would be vain to try and benefit mankind by training his hearing.

>> No.4916818

>>4916813
Anything that is not a tribute to God is bad or evil, because God is the source of all Good and so if something is not ordered to his will, how can it be good? Plato could have shown you this much.

>> No.4916826

>>4916818
i dont believe in god

what now

>> No.4916828

>>4916826
You cannot be good. Your life is vanity. If you continue in your unbelief it would probably have been better if you had never existed.

>> No.4916829

>>4916828
maybe your life is vanity to god

maybe god is pure vanity - asking all humans to give tributes to him, and casting down those who dont

>> No.4916834

>>4916829
>maybe your life is vanity to god

I'm pretty sure that it is.

>maybe god is pure vanity - asking all humans to give tributes to him, and casting down those who dont

God can't be vanity for logical reasons. Vanity is a lack of wisdom, but God can't be lacking in wisdom (by definition). If God is vanity then everything is vanity, and then nothing is vanity. God KNOWS - if God does not know then there is no such thing as knowledge or knowing. Seeing as God knows, he cannot be vain. If God asks us to give tribute to him, it's because he rightly deserves it, because it's what's best for us.

>> No.4916835

>>4916742
>>4916744
You're full of shit. A good deal of the romantics (Chateaubriand chief among them) were part of a rekindling of christianism, which was a reaction against the secular impulses of the enlightenment. The fascination of the romantics for occultism cannot be denied, but this trend is not exclusively romantic (Newton himself, and before him Pythagore, were deeply interested in some form of occultism or ptoro-occultism). Many a romantic (Baudelaire not the least among them) was happy to rail against the equalitarian obsession of democratic soceties. Sentence like this
>The Romantic poets were basically propagandists for these Freemasons/Illuminists

betray you as either a troll or a nutjob, please reconsider your evidence.

>> No.4916836

>>4916834
>If God asks us to give tribute to him, it's because he rightly deserves it, because it's what's best for us.

God wouldn't ask us to do something that is not good for us, because God only desires what is good. If God, as an omnipotent being, desired the evil, then everything would be in chaos. God cannot desire both good and evil, because to desire evil even just a bit, means necessarily that you do not desire what is good (because good admits of no imperfections).

>> No.4916838

>>4916834
how can you prove that God knows?

>> No.4916844

>>4916835
Victor Hugo, an arch-romantic, said:

>Romanticism is Liberalism in literature.

And if you look up the history of Liberalism (I call it the worship of Liberty) you'll discover ties to Freemasonry/Illuminism.

Yeah, there may have been Christians using the Romantic aesthetic, but they must have done it unknowingly because the Romantic aesthetic it is rebellious and antichrist; they used powers that they did not understand.

Baudelaire railing against democratic society means nothing. The point of Romantics is to undermine society in general, pre-modern or modern, it doesn't matter; the point for them was just to be subversive.
Romanticism only approaches the Good through a clawing sentimentalism. The Evil, however, Romanticism almost fully grasps in unholy exaltation. Romanticism is at its peak when it is glorifying rebellion and satanic pride; when it claws towards the good and the beautiful it is sentimental, weak, pathetic.

>> No.4916846

>>4916838
God has to know; if God does not know there is no such thing as knowledge. Think about it, if God created the Universe without knowledge, then how can any of the creatures that God created have knowledge? It would be nonsensical for an unintelligent being to create intelligent beings. God created everything that there is: that must include all knowledge and all intelligence. God cannot create anything more knowledgeable than himself; so if whatever knowledge we have God must also have (in a more perfect form as well).

>> No.4916849
File: 191 KB, 800x739, 1372735656320.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4916849

>>4916844
> Romanticism is at its peak when it is glorifying rebellion and satanic pride

No shit sherlock, theres nothing wrong with that, unless you have God shoved so far up your ass you can't make subjective value judgements for yourself. .

>> No.4916851
File: 184 KB, 960x972, DickDawk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4916851

>>4916802
If you have the delusion that you are Napoleon, it must be a fairly lonely feeling, because nobody else agrees with you. Your faith that you’re Napoleon needs a lot of shoring up. But these people here (Catholic pilgrims in Lourdes), thousands of people, all have exactly the same delusion. That must give wonderful reinforcement to their faith.

Dawkins agrees on the romanticism.

>> No.4916858

>>4916849
See that quote in your pic is satanic, and like everything satanic it is irrational and confused.

He extolls that urge to liberty, i.e. that urge to POWER, and derides those that obey their masters. OK, if that's true then there can be no State or no Family, because both the State and the Family require obedience to function, and if the petty civilian demands liberty at all costs and deems himself above the State then the State will collapse, and if the child demands liberty at all costs and spurns the protection and guidance of his parents then the Family will collapse. So this principle of "liberty" is nothing more than a satanic lust for chaos and violence, the proof is in the French Revolution.

>> No.4916863

>>4916851
Dawkins just mad because the miracles at Lourdes challenge his faith in materialism.

>> No.4916868

>>4916844
>Victor Hugo
Way to name the one romantic that became a liberal darling (but not before he had changed his political ideology half a dozen times). Hugo being a very proeminent romantic writer doesn't make him the speaker for all romantic writers. Poe, Chateaubriand, Baudelaire, perhaps to some extent Lamartine would have disagreed with him. Romantism is a complex movement. There's as much nostalgy for old christianism as progressist and pro-democratic enthusiasm in it.

>they used powers that they did not understand.
With that kind of argument you can accuse anyone of being anything. I could just as well say that romanticism is crypto-christianism secretly fighting the rise of secularism, the liberals using romantic aesthetic have done it unknowingly, because they didn't realise that the romantic liberalism is a continuation of christian ideals (humility-as no one can pretend to be above is fellow man, charity-as you have to care for the disenfranchised, see The Miserables, hope-as you're hoping for a future salvation in a form of a perfect society, which is simply another form of the paradise, faith-as you believe thode values deserve to die for...). Romanticism and the part of it that disguises as liberal actually embodies, in a modernized form (so as to better fight against rationalism) all the core values of crhistianism.

See how easy it is ?

>Baudelaire railing against democratic society means nothing.
But apparently Hugo saying "romanticism is liberalism" means a lot.

>The point of Romantics is to undermine society in general

Many romantics were reactionaries, denouncing what they saw as a dismantling of the old order, they were fighting the undermining of the traditional society.

>Romanticism only approaches the Good through a clawing sentimentalism.

Just like Christianism. It is all about love, begging for forgiveness, childish fear of damnation and guilt complex. All of that you find in romanticism. I agree that romanticism is a movement brought out by the devil, but only to the extent that christianity created the devil and made him fascinating.

>The Evil, however, Romanticism almost fully grasps in unholy exaltation.

Just like christianism. No flower of evil without christianism, no fascination of evil without the invention of sin.

Your argumentation is wholly unconvincing and, as you see, easy to turn on its head.

Now enough with derailing this thread.

>> No.4916880

>>4916858
>the proof is in the French Revolution.

Oh, I see you're one of those lunatics who thinks western civilisation went off the rails in 1789

>> No.4917809

when is /lit/ going to admit they only read him because they got a gay crush on him?

>> No.4918362

He is clever, that's all. It isn't difficult to be clever.

>> No.4918364

>>4918362
>He is clever, that's all. It isn't difficult to be clever.
kill yourself.

>> No.4918366

>>4918364
Any one can be clever, but not all can be bright and imaginative. They are two fruits, but they do not grow from the same branch.

>> No.4918369

>>4918366
lo and behold, a dullard attempting to posit that Rimbaud is neither bright nor imaginative. Thanks, /li/, never change.

>> No.4918447

>>4916742
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

I'm not going to deny that according to Christian standards, you could call a lot of art blasphemous and overly proud. But I do deny that reading them will immediately corrupt your soul.

>> No.4918476

>>4916785

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

>> No.4918499

>>4916800
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

>> No.4918519

>>4916858
I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

>> No.4918550

>>4916785
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

>> No.4918762

can people fuck off with this religious shit? it has 0 relevance to the thread

>> No.4919855

>>4916868
rekt