/lit/ - Literature

>>16089556
Excuse me sir

I've come up with a better version than the previous autistic anon: Leave this board and never return if the following applies to you:
>you post "books to explain [off-topic subject]" threads
>you jezebelpost
>you post twitter screenshots
>you have literally only read The Iliad, the meme trilogy, Don Quixote, Moby-Dick, The Catcher in the Rye, Lolita, No Longer Human, 2666, Stoner, and Book of the New Sun and refuse to post about any other books than that which is officially accepted by the /lit/ hivemind
>you have not read any of the aforementioned books
>you would rather bitch and moan about Rupi Kaur than post about real poetry
>you post a picture of a philosopher and broadly reference their most well-known idea without discussing any of their actual written texts
>you would rather discuss the best translation of something than the book itself
>you post threads about how you struggle to read more than 10 pages a day or read any book over 400 pages
>you think refusing to read genre fiction makes you intellectually superior
>you think reading literary classics is pretentious
>you refuse to read an author based on their gender or ethnicity
>you frequently visit /r9k/ or /pol/
>you post a generic philosophical question that is not tied to the written works of any particular philosopher
>you ask for books to help you stop cooming
>you have not read any books published in the 21st century
>you have not read any books written before 1800

>Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship may be called throughout prosaic and modern. The Romantic sinks to ruin, the Poesy of Nature, the Wonderful. The Book treats merely of common worldly things: Nature and Mysticism are altogether forgotten. It is a poetised civic and household History; the Marvellous is expressly treated therein as imagination and enthusiasm. Artistic Atheism is the spirit of the Book. … It is properly a Candide, directed against Poetry: the Book is highly unpoetical in respect of spirit, poetical as the dress and body of it are.

>>14771258
Hölderlin, Novalis, Kierkegaard

Please leave this board and never return if you agree with any of the following sentences:

>you read any form of genre fiction
>you barely know your classics
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
>you speak a single language
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
>you read for the plot
>you read for entertainment
>you rarely read nonfiction
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>you do not at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon (muh african authors)
>you mostly read contemporary literature
>you believe 'the author is dead'
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
>your rarely read poetry
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight

>>14618734
Novalis
Böhme

>>14609892
Plato, Goethe and Steiner don't deserve this debasement at all. At least you've heard of Steiner so I'll give you that, but you didn't even bother to check what Truth and Knowledge was saying.

Leave this board if one of these apply to you:

>you read fiction
>you barely know your classics
>you only speak a single language
>you read for the plot
>you read solely for entertainment
>you rarely read nonfiction
>you mostly read contemporary literature
>your literary analysis proceeds from ideology
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight

>>14019765
>lowest iq philosophy
Spinozism
>highest iq philosophy
Magical idealism

Please leave this board and never return if you agree with any of the following sentences:

>you read any form of genre fiction
>you barely know your classics
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
>you speak a single language
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
>you read for the plot
>you read for entertainment
>you rarely read nonfiction
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>you do not at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon (muh african authors)
>you mostly read contemporary literature
>you believe 'the author is dead'
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
>your rarely read poetry
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight

>>13955574
>metaphysics
Novalis
>epistemology
Novalis
>ethics
Novalis
>aesthetics
Novalis
>political philosophy
Novalis

>>13914834
"We seek everywhere the Unconditioned, and find always only things."

He finished philosophy in two pages
https://www.academia.edu/37072870/Translation_of_Hölderlin_Judgment_and_Being.pdf

>>13803120
>not knowing friedrich schlegel
oof

>>13801225
>the mystical and mundane become one
Unknowingly redpilled

>>13787826
Novalis.

Novalis

>>13646971
Truer than you think

>>13580197
>

Nietzsche is at root completely public, and his declarations to the opposite are only part of the appeal that captivates such "rebels" as OP here.

Pic related is what an actual (not figurative) prophet looks like.

>>13531246
The blond Eckbert by Ludwig Tieck

>>13502350
>

back in the day, some of the people on this board were smart and read a lot. some even had specific interests and were able to help/guide other anons by making charts of what they should read, etc. those days are long gone, and most people here wouldn't pass 25% of the novalis test—most probably don't even know what it is. but just in case there are some people left out there who know what they're talking about, this'll be a thread for requesting charts of specific topics. if you see a topic you think you could actually make a chart for, please do!

>psychoanalysis
>psychology/history of psychology
>law/history of law
>etc., etc.

Please leave this board and never return if you agree with any of the following sentences:

>you read any form of genre fiction
>you barely know your classics
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
>you speak a single language
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
>you read for the plot
>you read for entertainment
>you rarely read nonfiction
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>you do not at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon (muh african authors)
>you mostly read contemporary literature
>you believe 'the author is dead'
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
>your rarely read poetry
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight