post good internet comments

[𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮]

The first part rings true, but if Romanticism is one of the highest expressions of our thought, our thinking is not so impressive. It's both ideologically and artistically unsophisticated. I don't understand its draw.

ok bugman

 

[resu]

ok bugman

How so?

 

[𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮]

How so?

do you dislike Beethoven?

 

[𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮]

"It's both ideologically and artistically unsophisticated. I don't understand its draw."

The opinions of philosophers are readings of nature, and the precepts of the theologians are readings of Scripture. The author is the best interpreter of his own words. He may speak through created things—through events—or through blood and fire and vapor of smoke, for these constitute the language of holiness.

 

[resu]

do you dislike Beethoven?

No, but insofar as he succeeds, he does so in spite of Romanticism not because of it. If we judge movements only by the brilliance alone of their foremost exponents, we'll never get anywhere. Since I don't know music as well, I'll use a literary example. Take Milton. He's our best poet, but all his works are tainted, more or less, by his regicidal politics, heretical pseudo-Christianity, and incongruous aesthetic preferences. Yet owing to his genius, he nevertheless wrote beautiful poetry. That in itself, though, doesn't justify his beliefs. I still think very little of Milton's worldview. And I think similarly toward Romanticism (though none of the Romantics can compare to Milton). Although it's too disparate a movement to characterize with specificity, it's inextricably bound up with the French revolution, and it's variously marked by loopy philosophies, unbridled emotionality and individual subjectivity, newfangled artistic forms: I think Romanticism signifies a distinct break from the old order of things. I don't see why it should be considered one of the highest expressions of our thought.

 

[𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮]

Romanticism is broadly "counter-Enlightenment" and constituted a return to beauty, poetry, and religion from materialist rationalism. because the Romanticists were actually aware of atheistic/materialist/rationalist arguments and worldviews, i find them very relatable and relevant to our current predicament. although i don't think i'd call it our peak (Bach > Beethoven), to me it sounds flippant and petulant to call Romanticism "unsophisticated" or to deny its appeal entirely. have you read Hamann?

 

[𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮]

also considering that the peak of Beethoven's 9th is directly based on poetry by Schiller, it's kind of ridiculous to claim he succeeded "in spite of" his Romantic influences

 

[resu]

Romanticism is broadly "counter-Enlightenment" and constituted a return to beauty, poetry, and religion from materialist rationalism. because the Romanticists were actually aware of atheistic/materialist/rationalist arguments and worldviews

Saying that it constituted a return to beauty means nothing. The whole point is that the conception of beauty had changed. And a return to poetry? Who departed from it? In the preceding age, poets reached a higher stature than ever before. Alexander Pope had made a modest fortune through, for the first time, literary subscriptions rather than noble patronage. The return to religion is only partly true. There may have been a Chateaubriand, but there was also a Shelley. And though I agree that Romanticism was broadly a reaction against certain Enlightenment ideas, it wasn't a wholesale rejection. Their movement was something distinct, but there was also some overlap and syncretism, hence the Romantics' initial support for the French revolution. It's all somewhat besides the point, though. I'm not criticizing Romanticism because it returned to beauty, poetry, or religion. What irks me is, as I said, its unbridled emotionality and individual subjectivity, its aesthetic primacy, which is its most universal characteristic and which makes it all so incomprehensible to me.

also considering that the peak of Beethoven's 9th is directly based on poetry by Schiller, it's kind of ridiculous to claim he succeeded "in spite of" his Romantic influences

I didn't say Romantic influences but specifically Romanticism: I'm talking about ideology. I think all good artists that possess flawed principles succeed in spite of them.

 

[𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮]

Saying that it constituted a return to beauty means nothing. The whole point is that the conception of beauty had changed.

i don't read rationalists, but i'm sure they weren't saying they were anti-beauty. however, Romanticism is rooted in critiques of Enlightenment philosophers by writers like Chateaubriand who were chiefly concerned with beauty, much more so than were the philosophes. particularly important was an understanding of faith and mystery as central to the concept of beauty, with these things being neglected by rationalists and empiricists alike.

And a return to poetry? Who departed from it?

the philosophes understood themselves as tasked with discovering truth about the world, whereas poets were not (or at least not as directly). Romantics contended that poets were even more fundamental to discovering truth than were philosophers and scientists. this is a major part of why we understand both militant atheists like Shelley and fanatical Christians like Hamann to be Romantics.

In the preceding age, poets reached a higher stature than ever before. Alexander Pope had made a modest fortune through, for the first time, literary subscriptions rather than noble patronage.

i wasn't talking about how much money poets were making... but the importance of poets and poetry within these ideologies.

The return to religion is only partly true. There may have been a Chateaubriand, but there was also a Shelley.

i swear i did not read this before writing what i wrote above. spooky
now i'm confused as to how you're aware of Shelley but seemed unaware as to why i brought up poetry as a pillar of Romanticism. nigger literally called it "A Defence of Poetry"

And though I agree that Romanticism was broadly a reaction against certain Enlightenment ideas, it wasn't a wholesale rejection. Their movement was something distinct, but there was also some overlap and syncretism, hence the Romantics' initial support for the French revolution. It's all somewhat besides the point, though.

obviously it's a very broad category... but the ideas that define Romanticism are fundamentally good ideas, and it's why Romanticism has brought us some of the peaks of European civilization. two of the most well-known pieces of art to come from Romanticism are Wanderer above the Sea of Fog and Symphony No. 9 (not Mahler's). these could easily be selected as the 2 pieces of art that best represent the Faustian spirit.

all of this should be very obvious and intuitive, and quite frankly it's absurd that you took umbrage with the original tweet i posted (unless you simply hate the White race and the idea of conquering the ever more distant stars does not stir you).

I'm not criticizing Romanticism because it returned to beauty, poetry, or religion. What irks me is, as I said, its unbridled emotionality and individual subjectivity, its aesthetic primacy, which is its most universal characteristic and which makes it all so incomprehensible to me.

I didn't say Romantic influences but specifically Romanticism: I'm talking about ideology. I think all good artists that possess flawed principles succeed in spite of them.

why does passion and emotion "irk" you? that's why i called you a bugman. are you Chinese or something?

 

[𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮]

bro really outed himself as asian...