[ 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: 496 KB, 1200x1711, Ilya_Efimovich_Repin_(1844-1930)_-_Portrait_of_Leo_Tolstoy_(1887).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6558434 No.6558434 [Reply] [Original]

What does /lit/ think of Tolstoy?

>> No.6558450

I'm about 15% in war&peace and i don't even understand why it is considered a difficult read; yeah, i get it, it's quite long but literally everything up to this point has been actions or dialogue: no long descriptions, no philosophy, hell not even personal thoughts beyond what that character felt in that moment.
I'm really enjoying it but i don't understand its aura

>> No.6558463

>>6558450
I guess my mother was right when she said that after you read la recherché every other book seems a light read

>> No.6558479

>>6558463
your mom sounds like a pleb

jk

>> No.6558553

Here's Tolstoy blowing Nietzsche the fuck out:

pt 1.

This divergence and perversion of the essential question is most striking in what goes today by the name of philosophy. There would seem to be only one question for philosophy to resolve: what must I do? Despite being combined with an enormous amount of unnecessary confusion, answers to the question have at any rate been given within the philosophical tradition of the Christian nations. For example, in Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, or in Spinoza, Schopenhauer and especially Rousseau.
But in more recent times, since Hegel's assertion that all that exists is reasonable, the question of what one must do has been pushed to the background and philosophy has directed its whole attention to the investigation of things as they are, and to fitting them into a prearranged theory. This was the first step backwards. The second step, degrading human thought yet further, was the acceptance of the struggle for existence as a basic law, simply because that struggle can be observed among animals and plants. According to this theory the destruction of the weakest is a law which should not be opposed.

>> No.6558560

pt 2.

And finally, the third step was taken when the childish originality of Nietzche's half-crazed thought, presenting nothing complete or coherent, but only various drafts of immoral and completely unsubstantiated ideas, was accepted by the leading figures as the final word in philosophical science. In reply to the question: what must we do? the answer is now put straightforwardly as: live as you like, without paying attention to the lives of others.

If anyone doubted that the Christian world of today has reached a frightful state of torpor and brutalization (not forgetting the recent crimes committed in the Boers and in China, which were defended by the clergy and acclaimed as heroic feats by all the world powers), the extraordinary success of Nietzche's works is enough to provide irrefutable proof of this. Some disjointed writings, striving after effect in a most sordid manner, appear, written by a daring, but limited and abnormal German, suffering from power mania. Neither in talent nor in their basic argument do these writings justify public attention. In the days of Kant, Leibniz or Hume, or even fifty years ago, such writings would not only have received no attention, but they would not even have appeared. But today all the so-called educated people are praising the ravings of Mr N, arguing about him, elucidating him, and countless copies of his works are printed in all languages.

>> No.6558564

Turgenev made the witty remark that there are inverse platitudes, which are frequently employed by people lacking in talent who wish to attract attention to themselves. Everyone knows, for instance, that water is wet, and someone suddenly says, very seriously, that water is dry, not that ice is, but that water is dry, and the conviction with which this is stated attracts attention.

Similarly, the whole world knows that virtue consists in the subjugation of one's passions, or in self-renunciation. It is not just the Christian world, against whom Nietzsche howls, that knows this, but it is an eternal supreme law towards which all humanity has developed, including Brahmanism, Buddhism, Confucianism and the ancient Persian religion. And suddenly a man appears who declares that he is convinced that self-renunciation, meekness, submissiveness and love are all vices that destroy humanity (he has in mind Christianity, ignoring all the other religions).

One can understand why such a declaration baffled people at first. But after giving it a little thought and failing to find any proof of the strange propositions, any rational person ought to throw the books aside and wonder if there is any kind of rubbish that would not find a publisher today. But this has not happened with Nietzsche's books.

The majority of pseudo-enlightened people seriously look into the theory of the superman, and acknowledge its author to be a great philosopher, a descendant of Descartes, Leibniz and Kant. And all this has come about because the majority of the pseudo-enlightened men of today object to any reminder of virtue, or to its chief premise: self-renunciation and love - virtues that restrain and condemn the animal side of their life. They gladly welcome a doctrine, however incoherently and disjointedly expressed, of egotism and cruelty, sanctioning the ideas of personal happiness and superiority over the lives of others, by which they live.

>> No.6558572

>>6558560
>>6558553
empty and embarassing

>> No.6558590

>A daring, but limited and abnormal German, suffering from power mania

Best part of the whole thing

>> No.6558598

>>6558553
>the question of what one must do has been pushed to the background and philosophy has directed its whole attention to the investigation of things as they are, and to fitting them into a prearranged theory.
Freud, Lacan, Zizek, Jung, Heidegger

>inverse platitudes, which are frequently employed by people lacking in talent who wish to attract attention to themselves
Thoreau, Nietzsche

>> No.6558607

>>6558434
He and Dostoyevsky are my favorite writers.

>> No.6558662

I know Nietzsche directly brings up Tolstoy. Anyone know where?

>> No.6558671

>>6558463

eh, la recherche is still an easier read than say, late Joyce, many of the high Postmodernists, most philosophy, etc.

That being said, it's probably the most densely packed beautiful prose humanly possible to write.

>> No.6558674

>>6558662
Christianity is called the religion of pity. Pity stands opposed to the tonic emotions which heighten our vitality: it has a depressing effect. We are deprived of strength where we feel pity. That loss of strength which suffering as such inflicts on life is still further increased and multiplied by pity. Pity makes suffering contagious. Under certain circumstances, it may engender a total loss of life and vitality out of all proportion to the magnitude of the cause (as in the case of the death of the Nazarene). That is the first consideration, but there is a more important one.

Suppose we measure pity by the value of the reactions it usually produces; then its perilous nature appears in an even brighter light. Quite in general, pity crosses the law of development, which is the law of selection. It preserves what is ripe for destruction; it defends those who have been disinherited and condemned by life; and by the abundance of the failures of all kinds which it keeps alive, it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect.

Some have dared to call pity a virtue (in every noble ethic it is considered a weakness); and as if this were not enough, it has been made the virtue, the basis and source of all virtues. To be sure—and one should always keep this in mind—this was done by a philosophy that was nihilistic and had inscribed the negation of life upon its shield. Schopenhauer was consistent enough: pity negates life and renders it more deserving of negation.

>> No.6558680

>>6558662
Pity is the practice of nihilism. To repeat: this depressive and contagious instinct crosses those instincts which aim at the preservation of life and at the enhancement of its value. Pity multiplies misery and conserves all that is miserable, and is thus a prime instrument of the advancement of decadence: pity persuades men to nothingness! Of course, one does not say "nothingness" but "beyond," or "God," or "true life," or Nirvana, salvation, blessedness.

This innocent rhetoric from the realm of the religious-moral idiosyncrasy appears much less innocent as soon as we realize which tendency it is that here shrouds itself in sublime words: hostility to life. Schopenhauer was hostile to life; therefore pity became a virtue for him.

Aristotle, as is well known, considered pity a pathological and dangerous condition, which one would be well advised to attack now and then with a purge: he understood tragedy as a purge. From the standpoint of the instinct of life, a remedy certainly seems necessary for such a pathological and dangerous accumulation of pity as is represented by the case of Schopenhauer (and unfortunately by our entire literary and artistic decadence from St. Petersburg to Paris, from Tolstoi to Wagner)—to puncture it and make it burst.

In our whole unhealthy modernity there is nothing more unhealthy than Christian pity. To be physicians here, to be inexorable here, to wield the scalpel here—that is our part, that is our love of man, that is how we are philosophers, we Hyperboreans.

>> No.6558688

>>6558674
>Quite in general, pity crosses the law of development, which is the law of selection. It preserves what is ripe for destruction; it defends those who have been disinherited and condemned by life; and by the abundance of the failures of all kinds which it keeps alive, it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect.
edgy

>> No.6558690

>>6558434
I don't.

>> No.6558691

>>6558434
Probably the best prose writer of all time.

Greatest novels: War and Peace, Anna Karenina
Greatest novellas: Death of Ivan Ilych, Hadji Murad
Greatest short story: How Much Land Does a Man Need? (Joyce thought this was the greatest story of all time)

>> No.6558727

>>6558680
>Pity multiplies misery and conserves all that is miserable, and is thus a prime instrument of the advancement of decadence: pity persuades men to nothingness! Of course, one does not say "nothingness" but "beyond," or "God," or "true life," or Nirvana, salvation, blessedness.
Is this even true? Pity can persuade you to go out and help people, invent things, find cures for diseases, and thus preserve and enhance life's value. Judging by the amount of fat losers who are into Nietzsche, being amoral and selfish can just as well lead to nothingness. Of course, one does not say "nothingness" but "shit posting," or "vidya," or "sleeping till noon." It sounds like Nietzsche was an abnormally sensitive pussy.

>> No.6558748

Are there any writers who combine Nietzsche's ideal life affirmation and vitality with Tolstoy's subjugation of passions, self-renunciation, and love of neighbor or are the two ideals irreconcilable?

>> No.6558756

>>6558748
Jesus Christ

>> No.6558766

>>6558727
yikes

Nietzsche's pity = suffering with, or lowering yourself to the miserable

He instead advocates for the kind of 'compassion' or love of mankind that would relieve people of their suffering and raise them to excellence.

So don't lower yourself, but bring them up.

>> No.6558767

>>6558756
This.

>> No.6558776

>>6558766
>He instead advocates for the kind of 'compassion' or love of mankind that would relieve people of their suffering and raise them to excellence.
Isn't he the guy who says the majority of mankind are "mindless blanks" who should be enslaved and treated like livestock for the superior ones?

>> No.6558792

>>6558434

He didn't like Shakespeare, which means I have better taste than him.

>> No.6558828

>>6558463
i'm glad I got my dumb failing english 16 year old self to read Foucault. seriously, it was some sort of miracle work, if there ever was one.


i've never told this story to 4chan so I'll briefly say it
i was failing english in high school a few years ago literally doing the "maybe the curtains are just blue" shit until i read an excerpt from Discipline and Punish from the internet when I was doing a paper. I ended up reading all of D&P and got acclimated to difficult prose and then my teachers were really fuckin confused when I went from not understanding The Great Gatsby to siting Lacan to analyze Huck Finn, lol


so yeah, my first adult book I read was Foucault so everything after seemed easy

>> No.6558848

>>6558776
Exploited, yeah, but not enslaved. Exploited in the sense of having a working class (herd) to support the free-to-forward-humanity aristocratic class.

Surely wanting to produce and support as many Beethovens as possible is a greater love for humanity than allowing equal support for the mediocre, no?

>> No.6558853
File: 23 KB, 516x187, Hartwide_WK.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6558853

>>6558828
4/10

>> No.6558870

>>6558671
What is high postmodernism?

>> No.6558877

>>6558870

Gaddis, certain Pynchon, Vollmann, Gass, Marguerite Young, for some examples

Low postmodernism: Heller, Vonnegut, Calvino, etc. who don't take nearly the same responsibilities as the aforementioned authors in addressing their subjects or take nearly as many risks or act as rigorous in their writing.

>> No.6558907

>>6558848
If there were no inequality there would be no strife. If people worked together rather than separately, and one group was not fated to a life of drudgery in order to support an "aristocratic class" which is actually based on MONEY, there would be more Beethovens and more importantly, peace on earth. It is more profitable for us all to work together.

I want you to take your right hand off your keyboard and press it up against your computer monitor and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. It is never too late to change your life around. Read Marx.

>> No.6558931

>>6558434
nice painting is it a picasso? who is the ol dude lol

>> No.6558940
File: 54 KB, 386x490, pic-T-O-Tolstoy Leo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6558940

>>6558931
santa claus on meth

>> No.6558952

>>6558848
You are American, yes?

>> No.6558960

>>6558952
yeah why

>> No.6559171

tolstoy should not be read before the age of 25; definitely not by highschoolers. w&p isn t difficult due to its vocabulary, it s difficult because the concepts and philosophy completely fly over the heads of those with no life experience - and even that doesn t guarantee that you d fully grasp the subtle lessons abound in it.

>> No.6559376

>>6558434
The great Western novelist after Proust and maybe Dickens and (probably not) Richardson.

>> No.6559381

>>6559376

eh, I'm not sure about Dickens. I mean, I enjoy him, but that's a really high pedestal that I'm not sure he meets.

>> No.6559388
File: 11 KB, 225x225, 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6559388

>>6558960

>> No.6559734

>>6558450
People think that it's hard because a) it's long, b) it's about things they may either not care about or not have the reference to understand properly, and c) there are a lot of characters and people with bad working memories can't keep them all straight.

>> No.6559886

>>6558907
Have you read Nietzsche at all? People are naturally unequal and his aristocratic class isn't based on money but ability. And I don't think you understood what I meant by 'support.'

>>6558952
Yep.

>> No.6559900

>>6558877
>high
>Pinecone

He certainly is.

>> No.6560109

>>6558450
It's dense and constitutes an epic.

>> No.6560334

>>6558748
>>6558756
>>6558767

G.K. Chesterton on Nietzsche and Tolstoy:

>Joan of Arc was not stuck at the cross-roads, either by rejecting all the paths like Tolstoy, or by accepting them all like Nietzsche. She chose a path, and went down it like a thunderbolt. Yet Joan, when I came to think of her, had in her all that was true either in Tolstoy or Nietzsche, all that was even tolerable in either of them. I thought of all that is noble in Tolstoy, the pleasure in plain things, especially in plain pity, the actualities of the earth, the reverence for the poor, the dignity of the bowed back. Joan of Arc had all that and with this great addition, that she endured poverty as well as admiring it; whereas Tolstoy is only a typical aristocrat trying to find out its secret. And then I thought of all that was brave and proud and pathetic in poor Nietzsche, and his mutiny against the emptiness and timidity of our time. I thought of his cry for the ecstatic equilibrium of danger, his hunger for the rush of great horses, his cry to arms. Well, Joan of Arc had all that, and again with this difference, that she did not praise fighting, but fought. We know that she was not afraid of an army, while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow. Tolstoy only praised the peasant; she was the peasant. Nietzsche only praised the warrior; she was the warrior. She beat them both at their own antagonistic ideals; she was more gentle than the one, more violent than the other. Yet she was a perfectly practical person who did something, while they are wild speculators who do nothing. It was impossible that the thought should not cross my mind that she and her faith had perhaps some secret of moral unity and utility that has been lost. And with that thought came a larger one, and the colossal figure of her Master had also crossed the theatre of my thoughts.

>> No.6560359

>>6559376
>who is Manzoni
>who is Musil
>who is Mann
>who is hugo
Anon pls... stop

>> No.6560365

>>6560334
But this overlooks all the completely negative things about Joan of Arc as well
Oh fuck it, whatever

>> No.6560386

>>6560334

Unrelated to that quote, but did Chesterton take himself seriously, or he was just pissing in ears? Did he really think his paradoxes were justification for believing in Christianity? Was he just a sophisticated ruseman?

>> No.6560459

>>6558450
The philosophy comes later. Tolstoy devotes entire chapters to ranting about the great man theory and all that, which gets a little tiring but is by no means difficult to understand. If anything it's just a daunting read because of its length and scope. Aside from that even the underlying philosophy of the plot is explained by Tolstoy himself at numerous points throughout the book. And them there's the epilogue which he wrote decades later which further clarifies his philosophy, which is arguably not worth reading. Just keep at it. Great book.

>> No.6561141

My War and Peace copy was delivered today. It's big.

>> No.6561155

>>6558564
>all this appeal to popularity and authority

>> No.6561158

>>6558560
>>6558553
Tolstoy is the embodiment of a decadent in Nietzsche's view: once a great aristocrat that, through an effeminacy and a slothful life and values, degenerated into Christianity and let his mind be completely taken over by slave morality. He then released his serfs, created shitty, moralistic art, and became an anarchist (the lowliest form of Chandala) left with nothing but rags. If you read Nietzsche's works there is no escaping the fact that the passage you just posted sound like rubber compared to N's titanium dismissal

>> No.6561173

>>6558564
>love [is a] vice that destroys humanity (he has in mind Christianity, ignoring all the other religions).

Entirely false, he hadn't read any of Nietzsche's philosophy, at least not closely. He should try reading the section on Egoism in Twilight of the Idols from the ninth chapter

>> No.6561178

>>6560334
>while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow.
Nietzsche rode in the calvary, what did this fat fuck ever do?

>> No.6562764

bump

>> No.6563046

the death of ivan ilyich is GOAT.