post good internet comments

𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓮

Concert Maillol!
11111
Staff member
Elite rep power
Joined
Nov 30, 2023
Posts
7,937
Rep Power
6,155
i am the most anti-rationalist person on the planet. only total skepticism and denial of my own conscious experience shook me from my atheism and brought me to God. my politics is of aesthetic supremacy and violent passion.
mystery and beauty are one.
"Are we supposed to be or not to be?" said the angel to the Queen.
I lift my skirt when Voltaire turns. As he speaks, his mouth full of garlic.
White.
Yes, white.

Misfortune of us two.
He told you to be free, and you obeyed.

We have to decide what is important:
A war we never see.
Or a street so black that babies die?
A system and a theory,
Or our wish to be free?

To organize,
And analyze,
And at the end,
Realize

That nobody knows
If it really happened.
 

MagicHour

22222
High rep power
Joined
Jul 27, 2024
Posts
659
Rep Power
385
I like the romantics, like Kleist, Tieck, or Hoffmann, but I wouldn't include Beethoven, Schiller, or Goethe among them. In a broad sense, they are romantics, but I think it is more helpful to distinguish them from proper romanticism. While in Germany it was certainly a reaction against rationalism and materialism in particular, I don't think it could've existed before the Enlightenment, or a "return" to anything innate or eternal, despite what some romantics say. I consider Schiller (and his colleague Goethe, both of whom were attacked by the romantics), to be more related to classicism, which the romantics were against, although there are works that contain classic and romantic elements. In general, romanticism (of which Novalis is a good example) is defined by boundless subjectivity, unconditional striving, and depreciation of the present in favor of the past (and the Middle Ages in particular), and classicism has to do with classical culture, which is about proportion, wholeness, and an appreciation of the present. As for Beethoven, I don't believe he exhibited any of the romantic qualities I listed above, and I am at least aware that romanticism in music began in the 1830s. or after his death.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/From_Shakespeare_to_Existentialism/fLj1cQDlVWcC?hl=en&gbpv=1 (mainly the chapter from page 77 onwards)

https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/v...dir=1&article=1006&context=contemporary_sec12
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-08-23 153025.png
    Screenshot 2024-08-23 153025.png
    530.7 KB · Views: 63
  • Screenshot 2024-08-23 141127.png
    Screenshot 2024-08-23 141127.png
    96.3 KB · Views: 67
  • Screenshot 2024-08-23 141428.png
    Screenshot 2024-08-23 141428.png
    115.9 KB · Views: 60
  • Screenshot 2024-08-23 141524.png
    Screenshot 2024-08-23 141524.png
    121 KB · Views: 58
  • Screenshot 2024-08-23 141853.png
    Screenshot 2024-08-23 141853.png
    14.6 KB · Views: 56
  • Screenshot 2024-08-23 141951.png
    Screenshot 2024-08-23 141951.png
    64.9 KB · Views: 62
  • Screenshot 2024-08-23 142023.png
    Screenshot 2024-08-23 142023.png
    49.4 KB · Views: 59
  • Screenshot 2024-08-23 142333.png
    Screenshot 2024-08-23 142333.png
    80.9 KB · Views: 59
  • Screenshot 2024-08-23 150428.png
    Screenshot 2024-08-23 150428.png
    18.6 KB · Views: 63
  • Screenshot 2024-08-23 150529.png
    Screenshot 2024-08-23 150529.png
    87 KB · Views: 58

resu

22222
High rep power
Joined
Mar 20, 2024
Posts
183
Rep Power
307
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. 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.
Your characterization of Romanticism only means something to someone already convinced of it. If I disagreed with that conception of beauty, then I wouldn't agree that Romanticism constituted a return to beauty. Another problem is that this return takes for granted a sort of anachronistic reinterpretation. I'd been rereading Shelley's essay before writing this post, and I found this same tendency. (I'm sorry to rely on examples, but it's hard to explain myself otherwise.) He describes, as you say, that poetic, and, by extension, aesthetic, supremacy, and he even assigns a moral purpose to poetry, not in the traditional didactic sense, but rather, he thinks that the "great instrument of moral good is the imagination," which poetry expresses, and, in fact, has little to do with right and wrong. Yet how does he resolve apparent contradictions against his own ideology? Take what he has to say about Milton. Although Milton declared his work to justify the ways of God to man, Shelley reasons instead that Milton's genius allowed him to give "no superiority of moral virtue to his God over his Devil." What made Milton's Paradise Lost brilliant was that it actually refutes what it ostensibly supports. I don't think it's absurd of me to find this incomprehensible. Romanticism's characteristic aesthetic supremacy, which we seem to agree on as distinctive of it, makes it such to me: it subsumes every other ideal and forces an all-encompassing subjectivism. Even when I believe their conclusions, I'm not convinced of their method. And conversely, though I reject much of, say, Pope's Essay on Man, I can at least, in a way, acknowledge the method. Before any ideological criticisms, my taste was formed simply through reading their poetry, and even now, I find an ode of Dryden's much more artistically coherent than one of Wordsworth's or Keats', for example.
i wasn't talking about how much money poets were making... but the importance of poets and poetry within these ideologies. 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.
You didn't bring up poetry as a pillar of Romanticism, which I wouldn't have disputed, but characterized Romanticism as constituting a return to poetry, as if the Romantic conception of poetry was somehow a norm anytime before. I brought up Pope to support this point. Although not expressed in the same way, poets had rarely had as much importance. It's not about the money, anyway, but how he made it.
 

$lave

11112
Staff member
High rep power
Joined
Apr 16, 2023
Posts
5,406
Rep Power
3,088
Get a job. you won't be covered in shit crawling across the floor at McDonald's
 
Top