/lit/ - Literature

>>21992212
He was literally just larping as Weininger. All the Dostoyevsky stuff and his early religious sentiments and ironically his anti-political or politician stances. There is so much of Weininger in Goebbels that it requires a total reevaluation of his overall character. Nobody could understand Goebbels without Weininger. But Hitler was no Wagner, and it's uncertain if Goebbels really accomplished anything captivating and world changing. He helped build a criminal state, which would be excusable if he truly innovated something new for the future
>The angel in man is the immortal in him; the devil in him is only that which perishes. That a person becomes insane is only possible through his own fault.
>A person can inwardly perish through nothing other than a lack of religion. The genius shows this most horribly, for the man of genius is the most devoted man, and when devotion leaves him, his genius has left him.
>The criminal and the insane live discontinuously

I prefer 20th century writers when it comes to the 'religion question'
>The founder of a religion is the man for whom no problem has been solved from his birth. He is the man with the least possible sureness of conviction, for whom everything is doubtful and uncertain, and who has to conquer everything for himself in this life. One has to struggle against illness and physical weakness, another trembles on the brink of the crimes which are possible for him, yet another has been in the bonds of sin from his birth. It is only a formal statement to say that original sin is the same in all persons ; it differs materially for each person. Here one, there another, each as he was born, has chosen what is senseless and worthless, has preferred instinct to his will, or pleasure to love; only the founder of a religion has had original sin in its absolute form; in him everything is doubtful, everything is in question. He has to meet every problem and free himself from all guilt. He has to reach firm ground from the deepest abyss ; he has to surmount the nothingness in him and bind himself to the utmost reality. And so it may be said of him that he frees himself of original sin, that in him God becomes man, but also that the man becomes God ; in him was all error and all guilt; in him there comes to be all expiation and redemption

>Thus the founder of a religion is the greatest of the geniuses, for he has vanquished the most. He is the man who has accomplished victoriously what the deepest thinkers of mankind have thought of only timorously as a possibility, the complete regeneration of a man, the reversal of his will.

>There were two possibilities in Judaism. Before the birth of Christ, these two, negation and affirmation, were together awaiting choice. Christ was the man who conquered in Himself Judaism, the greatest negation, and created Christianity, the strongest affirmation and the most direct opposite of Judaism. Now the choice has been made ; the old Israel has divided into Jews and Christians, and Judaism has lost the possibility of producing greatness. The new Judaism has been unable to produce men like Samson and Joshua, the least Jewish of the old Jews. In the history of the world, Christendom and Jewry represent negation and affirmation. In old Israel there was the highest possibility of mankind, the possibility of Christ. The other possibility is the Jew

>"The inability of a woman in being attracted to a man who isn't enough "strong" or "tall" reflects the inability of detaching from the patriarchal order where the man is the leader and the woman a subordinate property."

Wtf is this true?