/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8549788]

>Ich hab' mein Sach auf Nichts gestellt
>(I've based my cause on nothing)
But what if I don't have a Sache? A cause?
Or this passsage from Ibsen's Peer Gynt:
>Under the skies men have a common saying:
>"Man, to thyself be true!" But here, 'mongst Trolls,
>"Troll, to thyself be -- enough!" it runs.
I've always thought of this in a negative sense. Like in Goethe's poem, that one's cause doesn't depend upon anything else, thus "negative" in the sense of recognizing what you DON'T need. But it also means that you DO need something in yourself.
"Overcoming nihilism" always is so heart-moving when I read it, but in the end I always have to conclude that, though it surely can be done, it's not for me.

[Anonymous No.8549806]

>>8549788
Your "cause" is your personal interest.

Except if you're Buddha or some shit, you do have one. Read more.

[Anonymous No.8549821]

>>8549806
Cause is a bit of a poor translation of "sache". I know what it means, and I didn't literally mean I don't have a "sache". What I meant is that it doesn't really matter to me.
>Ich hab' mein Sach auf Nichts gestellt
is a very strong statement, not only in what you say that you don't need, but also because it says that you do "have" SOMETHING. I used to focus on the former, but eventually came to realize that my problem is really the latter.