/lit/ - Literature

Anyone? I thought the Illiad was pretty good.

>>17547118
*Illliad

>>17547125

>>17546695
>Nietzsche said Homer was a bad artist, rationalist, and slave moralist?
source?

>>17547515
Nietzsche.

>>17547637
Yeah, where does he say this?

>>17546695
It feels like Nietzsche was practically saying this sometimes.

>>17546695
Nietzsche loved Homer, you misunderstood his critique. Read the birth of tragedy

>>17548512
Yes Nietzsche loved everyone. When he said that Socrates or Homer destroyed the Greeks it was out of love. Because Nietzsche was a Christian who loved everyone.

>>17548619
Homer is not Socrates. Are you okay?

>>17548619
Take your meds.

>>17548638
>or
>is
>learn to read
Look at this fucking dumbass.

>>17547896
Because he was saying this.

>>17548619
Ressentiment
>>17547896
Slave morality
>>17547515
Pleb read nietzsche he never said that

>>17548655
You lump them together as if they're similar in the way Nietzsche treats them, you don't know what you're talking about, and you're arrogant too. You disgust me.

>>17548512
>misunderstood his critique
What's his critique then?

>>17548681
lmao what a faggot.

>>17547515
there isn't any

>>17548512
>you misunderstood his critique
Let's hear it.

>>17549062
There is. He said that Homer made art shallow and started the Greek decay.

>>17549195
post it

>>17549206
It was in another thread

>>17548512
>you misunderstood his critique.
Come on.

>>17547118
It's bad.

>>17547515
>>17547881
>>17549062
>>17549206
>“Why does Homer give us descriptions so much more vivid than all the poets. Because he sees so much more around him. We speak about poetry so abstractly because we all tend to be poor poets. The aesthetic phenomenon is fundamentally simple: if someone
simply possesses the capacity to see a living game going on continually and to live all the time
surrounded by hordes of ghosts, then the man is a poet; if someone simply feels the urge to change himself and to speak out from other bodies and souls, then that person is a dramatist.”
There. Now fuck off.

>>17551490
Why would you post this cope? This is the quote
>The greatest fact in the cultivation of the Greeks is still that Homer became pan-Hellenic at such an early point. This was actually the fatal destiny of Greek cultivation, for Homer made Greek culture more shallow by centralizing it and dissolved the more serious instincts of independence.

>>17551575
This is so significantly different from what OP implied that basically anyone posting that fedora tipping edit has lost all credibility forever in my eyes

>>17552476
Look at the cope. How is it different?

>>17552565
He's not saying he was a bad artist, rationalist, or a slave moralist there

>>17549718
Op please.....

he realised western thought naturally led toward christianity and it mindbroke him

>>17552595
>made art shallow and weakened it
>not criticizing Homer
Why lie?

>>17552802
I didn't say he didn't criticize Homer you stupid prick, just that he didn't call Homer any of those things there. Can you even read English?

>>17552809
You're clearly a seething retard and a faggot liar.
Nice aristocratic values.

>>17552826
Work on your reading comprehension, dumb ESL. Until then you'll just sound like an incoherent moron.

>>17552476
Autism.

>>17552845
Everything must seem like autism when your IQ is <90.

>>17552841
So in your mind a good reading would be that terrible artist means good artist.
Is this the power of perspectivism?

>>17552802
Holy shit dude, go look up how Nietzsche uses the term shallow, more than half the time it's a compliment

>>17548693
Read it for yourself >>17551490

>>17553168
Just like weakness is a compliment. How can you stand the cope morality?

>>17553770
Hmm, anon do you think Nietzsche believes weakness is evil?

>>17553811
How stupid do you think people are to fall foe this shit?

>>17553822
>Nietzsche said Homer was a bad artist, rationalist, and slave moralist
I'm asking why you think this is even a problem, I'm not the anon quibbling about the definition of shallow
>>This was actually the fatal destiny of Greek cultivation, for Homer made Greek culture more shallow by centralizing it
Are you taking fatal = bad?

>>17553888
Because it's an obviously stupid comment to make. Perhaps one of the worst comments a philosopher has ever made.
How can you even entertain the idea that Homer was bad for culture?

>>17553888
He didn't even say that Homer was those things. The quote in question says something very different. Basically, he thought that Homer (a "fatal destiny," as in an inevitable consequence of Greek culture) homogenized the Greeks, which in turn weakened them (because homogenization reduces the need for war; "one must need to be strong in order to become strong"). What he is really critiquing there isn't Homer so much as the process of global homogenization.

>>17546695
That's another way of saying shabbos goy, and Nietzsche was right

>>17551490
>>17551575
Dam, both these quotes are very rich and deep and it actually takes you a few minutes to understand what he is trying to say.

I understand why OP didnt get it.

>>17552802
>>made art shallow and weakened it
He didnt say that, you cant read, you take things out of context.

>>17553912
>How can you even entertain the idea that Homer was bad for culture?
He didnt say that.

>>17551490
>>17551575
None of this implies Homer was a bad poet or a slave moralist. The first quote implies he is MORE of a poet than a dramatist and says nothing of his quality, though it is implied he was first-rate. The second quote talks about Homer's effectiveness in homogenizing Hellenic culture to its unfortunate detriment. It is the same category of critique I see all the time on 4chins, where Disney has homogenized all of cinematic media for example due to its unreasonable success.

>>17551575
The man problem with OP reading this quote, is that he doesnt read it in its proper context, he also thinks that words like shallow have the same meaning they have in vernacular English.

OP is also someone who follows slave morality, so something in his mind can only be good or bad, he doesnt see that Nietzsche touches on two sides.

pan-Hellenic, Cultivation, Shallow, etc these are not words with common, mainstream values like good and bad, they are neutral terms.

The OP, no doubt with a background in christian buttfucking, gives them a moral dimension.

>>17554230
So what's he trying to say?

>>17553912
He didn't say that, he said Homer's pan-Hellenic tendencies combined with his universal success had an unfortunate stifling effect on Greek culture and its independent spirit. It's an interesting critique and one that is constantly made today vis a vis "popular movie/band/book/etc"

>>17547118
>>17551455

>>17554241
No he said that he made the culture shallow. Which is worse than saying just art.

>>17554271
already explained >>17554004

>>17554280
Imagine comparing Homer to pop culture. What a fucking retard you must be.

>>17554271
>So what's he trying to say?
I dont really feel like breaking down the quotes into tiny essays, so pseuds can understand him.

>>17554299
>No he said that he made the culture shallow. Which is worse than saying just art.
No he didnt, you taking things out of context.

Using the word shallow out of context, gives an entire different meaning to the word, but you no doubt think there is just one meaning and one flavour to a word that always stays the same. sigh

>>17554315
Now I know you're a troll. Fuck off back to >>>/tv/ or wherever the fuck you came from.

>>17554307
>>17554004
He's not saying Homer is a fatal destiny you idiot.
And here you are complaining that someone else can't read.

>>17554329
>Homer made Greek culture more shallow
>out of context

>>17554332
>He's not saying Homer is a fatal destiny
Yes he is. Homer, as in the cultural phenomenon and process of global homogenization that was Homer, was a fatal destiny for Greek culture.

>>17554351
sigh, he never said this, you take a sentence, full of meaning, you take out one single word "shallow", ignore all the rest and then use the common vernacular definition of the word shallow, which mean dumb.

Which lake is more dangerous, a deep lake or a shallow lake?

Which lake is better for the growth of plants and fish, a deep and dark lake or a shallow and light lake?

Again, you are a christian idiots, who cant help but giving words a certain moral context and ignore all other interpretations, you are also stupid because you ignore all the words you dont understand, like cultivation.

Is that a good or a bad word to you? You dont understand it, so you just ignore it.

>>17551575
>This was actually the fatal destiny of Greek cultivation,
>>17554355
Learn to read you subhuman. He's talking about the fatal destiny of Greek culture.

>>17554396
>He's talking about the fatal destiny of Greek culture.
Which was Homer.

>>17554375
The German is verflachte. Which means flatten or degenerate.
Fucking pseud.

>>17554375
>ignore all the words you dont understand, like cultivation
Why do you think this word is important?

>>17554432
Again, not the same as shallow, not that strong in German, looked up the definition in both Dutch and English translations and the word in that context, could just as well imply the flattening of a culture, into a tool for us.

This again, is not negative, you people need to stop placing words into categories of good and evil, if I say the Great Books have made European culture more shallow by centralising it, I am not saying the same thing when I say Rap music is shallow, context is everything.

>>17554444
>Why do you think this word is important?
Never mind, I could just be talking to a brick wall, same response.

>>17554466
HOLY COPE

>>17554355
>>17554375
lmao neetchtards can't into basic grammar.

>>17554563
still waiting for a reply to >>17554418

Seems you don't have one.

Why do neetchtards treat NEETch like the Christian God? You adapt all of your thinking and even understanding of words based on faith in him.

>>17554599
cope

>>17554604
The Ubercope
The Will to Cope
Eternal Coping
Amor Copi
Copism

>>17554636
last man cope

>>17554645
>The Last Coper

>>17554478
Yeah because you're a retard. That word is not important, at least not for what is being discussed here.

>>17554432
What Nietzsche said about Homer in a nutshell:
>His pan-Hellenic works were so universally embraced, it flattened Greek culture

What retard OP says Nietzsche said:
>HE SAYS HOMER WAS SHALLOW

>>17554696
The OP is obviously joking you fucking idiot. Although the joke is essentially true.
You can't fucking read.

>>17554711
The OP posts this shit almost every day, and also gets mad in his own threads. It's easier to conceive of him as an autist instead of a troll. Plus, who the fuck cares either way? It's still a load of horseshit and OP deserves to get shit on every time so that newcomers to the board can see that the board isn't full of retards like him.

And no, it's not true, no matter how many times you say it is. Plenty of posts in this thread show how it isn't true, and all you and the other dipshits can say is "retard" or "cope" over and over in response.

In that passage, he clearly referred to Homer as a vessel for Pan-Hellenism, which flattened (read: made shallow, weakened, destroyed (as implied with the term "fatal")) Greek culture. As said before, it's not a critique of Homer so much as the process of homogenization. Homer wouldn't have had this effect if he was a bad artist and rationalism or slave morality isn't mentioned or implied anywhere.

>>17554696
>>His pan-Hellenic works were so universally embraced, it flattened Greek culture
You must be 18 and actually have read a book to post here.

>>17554828
dat reading comprehension tho

>>17554828
Makes sense if you consider Spenglers criticism of greece, that it was “statuesque” by its nature, therefore stagnant. To the Greek, it’s all already figured out. There are the perfect ideal forms and you adhere yourselves to them. For the baroque, on the other hand, the aim is to strive towards infinite 3 dimensional space. Thats, the Greek statue vs contrapuntal music

>>17554758
>The OP posts this shit almost every day
I've never seen it before and the neetchfags didn't even know what he was talking about.

>>17554984
Sounds retarded.

>>17555183
>I've never seen it before
that's because you're a newfag

>>17555209
You didn't know it either faggot.

>>17555236
>implying the source wasn't asked for precisely to btfo OP
you'd think OP would learn by now, but no, he remains retarded

>>17555252
What level of cope are we on now?

>>17555699
you tell me

>>17554864
Yeah thread is proof neetchfags don't read at all. Not even neetch.

>>17555998
You're like a woman, always getting the last word in despite being completely wrong.

For a troll thread this a good thread on nietzsche and his relationship to homer

Reading Sophocles, ngl it feels like Nietzsche would consider it slave morality.

>>17556046
Says the fag desperately trying to get in the last word rather than discussing things.
Clearly you don't understand Nietzsche or women.

>>17556072
Yeah if not for op we would never have known that nietzscheans don't even read nietzdche.

>>17556096
>rather than discussing things.
Already discussed it, didn't get a response >>17554575

>>17555252
How did you btfo op? Your comments are dumb as shit.

>>17556347
If they're "dumb as shit" why hasn't anyone argued them?

>>17556072
Based op outing the neetchfags larpers.
Go back to re$dit.

>>17556199
Was already answered.

>>17554864
Where?

I'm the one who brought this quote up originally, it was a few weeks ago. It's probably more significant than anyone wants to admit.
What is interesting here is that the Nietzscheans want to talk about context while ignoring half of it. The other aspect, and one which places Nietzsche's individual attacks within his epistemology of polemics, is that attacked everyone, ruthlessly and blindly, often out of resentment. This speaks to his character, his sense of values, because his attacks rarely even hold the slightest relation to reality, as in the case of Goethe, Socrates, and especially Homer. There's no denying the stupidity of his comments in these cases, doing so only reveals how something in his thought tends to drive his followers into dogmatism. It is plebeian, or lumpenproletarian, or virgin, even in the context of ideology, and if the world is all instinct and will to power then there must be something like a fatal destiny which has brought these forces together.

The first problem with Nietzsche's attack on Homer should be an obvious one, but clearly everyone misses it. Homer is not responsible for Greek state structure, independence, nor even its culture, as even the greatest men are limited in their power and reach. It is in this ignorance of metaphysical laws - which one sees as strong in the Greek humility, polemics were never a part of Greek culture even in the period of decline - that one may see Nietzsche's major biases: his misunderstanding of how power really works, the relation of nature and life, as well as a secular, even liberal, view of man in his power over history and world forces. It is not law that is central to Nietzsche, but man himself; or more accurately, a spectre of man.

But the reality is that man is not powerful, at least not naturally, or of himself - and so he must first recognise this before ever attempting to exert his power in the world, otherwise he will be crushed. This might be the first thing that anyone should learn from reading the Greeks, as there are ideas of this sort in countless introductions of Greek texts, suggesting the fundamental naturenof the idea. At the very creation man is given the gift of fire and insight from a god, simply that he may not be crushed eternally by other gods

>>17557613
In Homer's case, he was blind. A humility towards the material world was given to him by fate. His fire is not of this world but what alights the hidden realms, the passageways between the earth, the underworld, and the heavens. Only with such limited sight may one see their coming together.

This is one aspect of what allowed Homer to see so much: into the war, the festival character of state law, and even the simplest experiences of life which exist, nonetheless, as shadows of the most beautiful. His myth of the Trojan War was a vision of its law, and the heroic return from it, not its cause or consequence. Nietzsche would have learned a great deal if he had read Homer with care, but there is a general sense in reading him that he didn't learn a thing from his study of the Greeks, and certainly not humility. Or perhaps worse, as an Alcibiades figure he wasted all of his talent because of poor instincts, and a slavery to them (and also against their regulation, hence why he moralises three times as much as an amoralist). Hölderlin's few scrapped notes on Homer offer a greater wealth than anything Nietzsche ever said about the Greeks. Nietzsche was effectively counting up Odyssean coins, but with the natural depreciation which comes with currency over time.

While Nietzsche's comment, in part, intends to show us that pre-Homeric Greece was a greater era of statehood and human flourishing, it is entirely clouded by his preconceptions of truth, how nature and reality work; something he so relentlessly cursed in other philosophers, and was the foundation of his anti-philosophy. In this era there was a free type of man, but also a brutal man, one still freed to the violence of an infinite becoming. This is the most that can be said of the quote, but even then it is stupid (apart from its being unconsciously and ironically wrong). Why? Because this is what Homer himself said, or rather, it was a minor fragment and impoverished version of what he said. Homer's myth is of the decline of the heroes and their age, the most beautiful order of war and that which threatens Hellenism and the very gods who gave birth to it. But it is also a story of infinite return, of the ineluctable power of the ages, how they reconcile with the fortune of ruinous beauty and raise it to another level. Nietzsche's fatal destiny was entirely within his half-blindness, his greed for gain a petrified image of Homer's only mistake: a blind heart leading Ajax to the boundary of an undignified death. Or the subtlety in this may have been Homer's greatest image, a world which none who deny Hades may ever see.

>>17557624
In terms of context, it is necessary to consider how rabidly Nietzsche opposed the decline of Greece, entirely based on his feelings and the resentment he felt towards his own age, while also supporting the worst aspects of the Greek decline because they were opposed to the Socratic devil. In his criticism of Homer, even if it is not stated explicitly, he is placing him alongside his own imagined condemnation of the degeneration of Greece - ironically with Socrates and Euripides who he felt deserved a Christian Hell, an eternal punishment which only he could give. His criticism, even if there is a grain of truth to be found, is entirely careless and a fragment of his destructive methods, which sought only to reveal through desecration of all things, no matter how sacred. One could liken this to the Christian desecration of pagan monuments, cutting off the noses and carving crosses into the forehead. Nietzsche's subjectified occasionalism was so powerful that he felt that all of the great men should only be remembred as a desecrated monument prostrate before his power. The profanations of one in a world where heroic suicide demands the deaths of those already dead. This is much like Dante who attempted to drag all who slighted him into the depths of Hell. Where one seeks to become master of the mortal sin his end will be worse than the most brutal slavery. There are worse things than eternity, just as there are worse things than death or dishonourable suicide. If there is a God then Nietzsche was reborn as one of Dante's crucified Christians, lost in the circles of an aesthetic hell.

There are no Orphic lessons to be learned from Nietzsche's attacks, at least not directly from what he taught, and even though he was of Orphism's proto-Christian, dionysian spirit. Nietzsche approached life as a Eurydice hugging Cerberus, and in his imagination he set himself upon the Greeks as their slavemaster, as a Gorgon seeking revenge. This was perhaps, in theory, against something greater than even the Greek culture - but in the attempt there could only ever be an infinite destruction. What Nietzsche did not understand about the Greeks was that the labyrinth is only a lair, that even a Cerberus can be made timid, and in his final years he was given a taste of this eternal lesson. One who dies to something lower than timidity has found that which is beneath Hell. Not even Cerberus feeds upon a descendent of Tantalus, the infinite-willed - the worst of men will punish themselves worse than any god's greed ever could.

Wise men know well the wind to come
on the third day and are not harmed by greed for gain,
for rich and poor travel together to the boundary
of death."

https://youtu.be/BYXyhl4gAy8

Effortpost and everyone runs away.

>>17558315
It's a lot of fluff that doesn't really say much and kind of misses Nietzsche's point too, I mean obviously he wasn't saying that Homer literally changed the entire structure of Greek society, that would be retarded.

>>17558472
>It's a lot of fluff
Whatever you say. (Cope.)
How is it obvious that Nietzsche wasn't saying that Homer didn't change Greek society when that is precisely what he said? I think the critical methods of academia have warped your mind into a blob of abstraction, so many readings are possible but none which amount to any real consideration, discussion, or action.
Clearly that one argument I made is a naive one, but I think it is necessary to keep some sense of reality in perspective. Simplicity allows for a return to life, a freedom of letting go of the theoretical. Nietzsche was clearly enamored with knowledge, even a slave to it. So in your reaction to the surface of what I said you missed the essence of it, that Nietzsche had succumbed to secular methods and reasoning even while critiquing it. (Do I need to point out what critique is and its relation to historical periods? The Greeks certainly were not critics.)

In your lazy and dismissive reply you also ignore the entire point about context. Nietzsche's philosophy is almost entirely based on the power of man over life and earth, even if only as an aesthetic consideration. This means that he almost certainly was saying that Homer changed the entire course of Greek society, otherwise it would be a contradiction to his philosophy of great men and the aestheticization of world power.
Your smugness causes you to presume Nietzsche is saying everything in the smallest of ideas, that he could never be wrong and 'obviously he was saying so much more than the words imply', but in what I have said you assume that there is nothing else, that the words had no intention of revealing anything behind them.

>>17558472
>kind of misses Nietzsche's point too
And if you had any sincere interest in discussion you would explain what you think his point was and where I was wrong. Otherwise it's just an obvious cope.

>>17558557
>How is it obvious that Nietzsche wasn't saying that Homer didn't change Greek society when that is precisely what he said?
Because if you read even one of his books in full you'll realize that he always treats historical figures as symbols for and representatives of complex underlying processes in the world / history and it is no different here (Homer being a symbol for Pan-Hellenism).

When it comes down to it he doesn't think great individuals themselves make that much of a difference in history and instead they only serve as reference points for these complex underlying processes for him. His attacks are rarely ever personal and are instead aimed at these processes. iirc he even explains this somewhere but I forget where.

Also, I didn't mean to come off as smug, my bad.

>>17558616
You assume too much. Disagreement doesn't imply never having read.
You're also dismissing context again. Nietzsche said something to the effect of the ideal society being entirely of lions attacking one another, and that he only ever attacked positions that left him standing alone. Logically this suggests that the attacks were indeed 'personal'. Again, it's just a cope to say that there was some deep meaning to calling Socrates an ugly pleb, Goethe a nihilist, and Homer a bad artist.
There's nothing to it, even if he was attempting to get to deep truths about the forces of the world, as you are saying, it doesn't matter becae he didn't actually reveal anything. I even said this in the long post, how his method, taken at the highest, destroys more than it creates.

And I also pointed out how Homer already revealed these great truths, in a far more intelligent and artistic way. Attacking him thus reveals nothing other than bad judgement, or poor reading, on Nietzsche's part.

>>17557613
>Homer is not responsible for Greek state structure, independence, nor even its culture, as even the greatest men are limited in their power and reach.

The Homeric epics were the greatest influence on ancient Greek culture and education; to Plato, Homer was simply the one who "has taught Greece"

>>17559498
Not what is meant by culture here.

>>17558690
>Disagreement doesn't imply never having read.
So you just ignoring everything you read or something? That's the only conclusion I'm drawing from your claim here.

>Again, it's just a cope to say that there was some deep meaning to calling Socrates an ugly pleb, Goethe a nihilist, and Homer a bad artist.
For one, he didn't call Homer a bad artist, as evidenced by the thread. Two, there was certainly a deeper meaning to calling Socrates ugly (don't know the source on the Goethe comment). Just read the full passage:

>In origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebs. We know, we can still see for ourselves, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. [“monster in face, monster in soul”] But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would not be contradicted by the famous judgment of the physiognomist which sounded so offensive to the friends of Socrates. A foreigner who knew about faces once passed through Athens and told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum -- that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!"

If this sounds no more than a superficial slight you would read on an imageboard, then you are too low IQ to be posting about philosophy, or you're being very disingenuous.

>There's nothing to it, even if he was attempting to get to deep truths about the forces of the world, as you are saying, it doesn't matter becae he didn't actually reveal anything. I even said this in the long post, how his method, taken at the highest, destroys more than it creates.
Or you just didn't pick up on what it was he revealed, which seems more likely to be the case. Also, destruction and creation are intertwined processes.

>>17560463
You're a complete faggot.
What have you read beside Nietzsche? You seem to have no understanding of logic, unless you're just trying to defnd your master with house slave tactics. Revealing in either case.
There's no reason I have to accept what Nietzsche said, he's not a god.

Yes, he actually said that Homer destroyed Greek culture, which is far worse than just calling him a bad artist.

What's the deep.meaning in calling Socrates an ugly pleb? This only shows how dumb you are. Even if there was an intended deep meaning it is shit because there is no connection to reality. The Greeks literally saw Socrates as a hero, a demigod, so Nietzsche's seething is just ressentiment.

Creation and destruction are intertwined, yeah you repeated what I said and are acting like it's some kind of revelation. Literal npc behaviour.

"Muh low IQ.
You didn't read."
shitty arguments from a disingenuous faggot. No wonder all your threads are complete trash. People come with serious discussion and you just treat it like a smug redditor reporting threads.
But keep acting this way and refising to answer the simplest questions, it really shows Nietzsche's aristocratic power...

>>17560463
>perception
>reality
>I will also tell, if you please—and indeed I am bound to tell—of his courage in battle; for who but he saved my life? Now this was the engagement in which I received the prize of valour: for I was wounded and he would not leave me, but he rescued me and my arms; and he ought to have received the prize of valour which the generals wanted to confer on me partly on account of my rank, and I told them so, (this, again, Socrates will not impeach or deny), but he was more eager than the generals that I and not he should have the prize.

>>17560873
>What's the deep.meaning in calling Socrates an ugly pleb?
The full passage was given to you, figure it out for yourself if you are so intelligent (protip: you aren't).

>>17557613
>But the reality is that man is not powerful, at least not naturally, or of himself - and so he must first recognise this before ever attempting to exert his power in the world, otherwise he will be crushed. This might be the first thing that anyone should learn from reading the Greeks, as there are ideas of this sort in countless introductions of Greek texts, suggesting the fundamental naturenof the idea.
Based posts.

>>17561067
Thanks for confirming that Nietzsche is bait for subhumans.

>>17561067
You are such a fag.

Bump

Homer is defective in order and connection; and Pindar more remarkably. Regularity, order, and connection, are painful restraints on a bold and fertile imagination; and are not patiently submitted to, but after much culture and discipline. The fifth book is the longest account of a battle that is in the Iliad; and yet contains nothing but a long catalogue of chiefs killing chiefs, not in single combat neither, but at a distance with an arrow or a javelin; and these chiefs named for the first time and the last. The same scene is continued through a great part of the sixth book. There is at the same time a minute description of every wound, which for accuracy may do honour to an anatomist, but in an epic poem is tiresome and fatiguing. it has been justly objected against Homer, that the lion is too often introduced into his similes; all the variety he is able to throw into them, not being sufficient to keep alive the reader’s surprise. Congruity regulates not only the quantity of ornament, but also the kind. The decorations of a dancing-room ought all of them to be gay. No picture is proper for a church, but what has religion for its subject. Every ornament upon a shield should relate to war; and Virgil, with great judgement, confines the carvings upon the shield of Aeneas, to the military history of the Romans: that beauty is overlooked by Homer; for the bulk of the sculpture upon the shield of Achilles, is of the arts of peace in general, and of joy and festivity in particular

>>17564314
Source?

>>17561067
The deeper meaning is to call Socrates a degenerate. That is it. His argument is:
>Socrates ugly implies Socrates degenerate implies Socrates philosophy bad
What depth! What lucidity! The psychologist speaks!

>>17564455
You haven't read Nietzsche.

>>17564528
Yes I have. I've probably read twilight of the idols more times than you have. What I said was his argument in that section. You will bitch, moan, cry like a hegelian or a marxist about "No, he never said that! You don't understand what he is talking about! You've never read [insert philosopher name here]!" and instead attempt to stay in a murky, obscurantist area where anything can be accepted and nothing can be argued because nothing can definitively be said to have been stated. That's not going to fly with me. You accept depth on status. You are the typical Nietzschean pseudointellectual who has been caught up in his prose and aesthetic and so will do anything to defend him and will accept anything he says just because he said it. Pathetic.

>>17557650
>Where one seeks to become master of the mortal sin his end will be worse than the most brutal slavery. There are worse things than eternity, just as there are worse things than death or dishonourable suicide
This is great. What have you read on this?

>>17564598
You wasted your time. You didn't understand what he was trying to say because Nietzsche isn't for plebs like you.

>>17564636
Mostly the myths, and my understanding of Plato. There are some criticisms similar to mine scattered throughout Junger's work as well, so it's funny how Nietzscheans respond so arrogantly.

>>17546695
>why Nietzsche said Homer was a bad artist, rationalist, and slave moralist
he copypasted that from Heraclitus

>>17566228
Someone finally said it.

>>17554599
Anyone who does that is just ignorant. Nietzsche has very little to do with faith. All of his blows at Christianity are really aimed at other philosophers who have been folded into the biblical zeitgeist of that time. Specifically Plato, Kant, Fichte, Kierkegaard and Hegel. He seems to target them most frequently in his works. I think you should read more philosophy or fuck off.

>>17551575
THIS is the quote /lit/'s getting filtered by?

>>17554315
You are a low IQ nigger.

>>17566467
He supposedly never read Kierkegaard.

>>17566467
>Kierkegaard
Where?

>>17566506
Kierkegaard literally was the first to use the term "ressentiment" in the same way that Nietzsche did. In all honesty, I'm pretty certain Nietzsche plagiarized a lot.

>>17566484
This is the quote that proved that neetchfags don't read.

>>17554315
Based.
>>17566492
Cringe. Nietzsche hated racism.

>>17566533
>>17566506
Twilight of the Idols

>>17566506
Nietzsche planned to read Kierkegaard, but he apparently went insane before he got around to doing that.

>"Ich habe mir für meine nächste Reise nach Deutschland vorgesetzt, mich mit dem psychologischen Problem Kierkegaard zu beschäftigen, insgleichen die Bekanntschaft mit Ihrer älteren Litteratur zu erneuern. Dies wird für mich, im besten Sinn des Worts, von Nutzen sein, — und wird dazu dienen, mir meine eigne Härte und Anmaaßung im Urtheil „zu Gemüthe zu führen“. — Gestern telegraphirte mir mein Verleger, daß die Bücher an Sie abgegangen sind. "

>"For my next trip to Germany, I have planned to occupy myself with the psychological problem of Kierkegaard, and at the same time to renew my acquaintance with your older literature. This will be useful for me, in the best sense of the word, - and will serve to "bring to mind" my own hardness and presumption in judgment. - Yesterday, my publisher telegraphed me that the books have been sent to you. "
-1888 Letter to Georg Brandes

>>17566555
Anyone got the quote?

>>17566621
It's arguable, I don't think a quote would do it. It's more in the meta-analysis of the work. Think about who the idols are and how that impacts Kierkegaards works.

>>17564455
His argument is that the Greeks themselves considered him a degenerate, therefore Socrates and his legacy could only represent a degenerate aspect of their culture.