/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15881355]

Who was correct?

[Anonymous No.15881365]

>>15881355
Wagner has better physiognomy apart from his jaw.

[Anonymous No.15881385]

>>15881355
Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.15881386]

Wagner is Schopenhauer applied artistically, and because Schop was ultimately correct, Wagner is correct.

On a side note, what art did Nietzsche influence?

[Anonymous No.15881417]

>>15881386
>what art did Nietzsche influence?
vidya

[Anonymous No.15881437]

>>15881365
>apart
nigga's got bruce cambell's jaw.

[Anonymous No.15881459]

>>15881417
No Patrick, an obscure JRPG series from the 2000’s does not count as art.

[Anonymous No.15881464]

>>15881459
No but Sid Meier's Civilization and Alpha Centauri do

[Anonymous No.15881470]

>>15881464
I like civ but come on now.

[Anonymous No.15881493]

>>15881470
Sid must have read / known about Nietzsche, since there is a quote from Zarathustra in Alpha Centauri. And anyway, I can't find a better expression of the will to power in art than in vidya and in strategy games especially.

[Anonymous No.15881503]

>>15881386
Mishima

[Anonymous No.15881511]

>>15881386
Frederick Delius
Richard Strauss

[Anonymous No.15881756]

>Wagner posting has risen 10 fold this year alone
based
Suck it Mark Twain

[Anonymous No.15881774]

>>15881365
Go away woman.

[Anonymous No.15881783]

>>15881493
ok horia

[Anonymous No.15881794]

>>15881355
Why does Nietzsche look like a boar?

[Anonymous No.15881801]

>>15881756
Man Wagner was chad, now I understand how

[Anonymous No.15881892]

>>15881355
>Wagner is Schopenhauer applied artistically
Well that's just false anon, and a common misconception. Wagner greatly appreciated Schopenhauer, but his philosophy nonetheless remained seperate.

Wagner only believed the Schopenhauerian pessimism was a reaction to the historic decline of man, and if realistically looked at exaggerated in many ways.

I don't think a Schopenhauerian would have believed in a superhuman regeneration of the human race by religion and eugenics. That is, a positive state of existence. Religion can only awake in us a knowledge of the state of the world, and the charge to free ourselves thereof in Schopenhauer's eyes. And we shouldn't forget Wagner was a Hegelian in his youth. He extracted much out of Schopenhauer such as his clear cut morality and asceticism, or the suffering of the world, but took it to a more literally Christian framework in a positive redemption in contrast to Schopenhauer's understanding of Buddhism as a complete self-resignation.

[Anonymous No.15881962]

>>15881892
There is nothing un-Schopenhauerian with Wagner's regeneration, anon. It is a sketch of a plan ultimately based on Schopenhauerian doctrine of unity and compassion. Similarly, while Wagner seemed to prefer his own sense of Christianity to Indian religions, there is little difference between that conception of redemption and the Buddhist nirvana. Thankfully he also seems to have cleansed himself from Hegelian influence. His view on religion is admittedly an original idea, which Schopenhauer for some reason overlooked, but again it is entirely based on the Schopenhauerian framework.

[Anonymous No.15882129]

>During the 1848 Revolution in Dresden, when Wagner was appointed by the revolutionary faction to keep watch from a tower, he was discovered at his post deeply immersed in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.
>Röckel was captured along with Bakunin and sentenced to death, while Wagner escaped to Zurich.
Thanks Wagner.

[Anonymous No.15882140]

>>15881355
The tips of Nietzche's walrus mustache alone could pummel Wagner into submission.

[Anonymous No.15882160]

>>15881386
>Wagner is Schopenhauer applied artistically
Well that's just false anon, and a common misconception. Wagner greatly appreciated Schopenhauer, but his philosophy nonetheless remained separate.

Wagner only believed the Schopenhauerian pessimism was a reaction to the historic decline of man, and if realistically looked at exaggerated still. And we shouldn't forget Wagner was a Hegelian in his youth. He extracted much out of Schopenhauer such as his clear cut morality or the suffering of the world, but took it to a more literally Christian framework in a positive redemption in contrast to Schopenhauer's understanding of Buddhism as a complete self-resignation.

[Anonymous No.15882185]

Me :3

[Anonymous No.15882186]

>>15882140
Wagner's neckbeard would deflate that little thing any day.

[Anonymous No.15882201]

>>15882185
Let's see your stance.

[Anonymous No.15882247]

>>15881386
WB Yeats was super into Nietzsche. Don't know how into him he was, but Joyce referenced him. William James had some heavy criticisms but mostly liked Neech. And there's always Triumph of the Will I suppose.

[Anonymous No.15882256]

>>15882201
My stance is God exists. :3

[Anonymous No.15882269]

>>15882256
But Wagner also believed in God, do you mean you're on Wagner's side?

[Anonymous No.15882288]

>>15881355
Maximum brow slider vs maximum jaw slider

[Anonymous No.15882294]

>>15882186
Wagner's neckbeard would struggle to keep up. Just look at the well defined biceps of Nietzche's legendary mustache. I'm convinced that the man ate using it as mandibles rather than his hands.

[Anonymous No.15882317]

>>15882288
>implying

[Anonymous No.15882342]

>>15882317
There were so many fucking weird customs back then. The neckbeard is just weird no matter how you look at it. It was probably itchy as fuck too.

[Anonymous No.15882368]

>>15882294
No, it is truly the insecure mans facial hair. It must cover up his face, because he does not like to be seen. He feels more comfortable with it. In contrast to the happily expressive hair of Wagner not getting in the way of direct facial contact and honesty with another human being.

[Anonymous No.15882519]

Wagner.

[Anonymous No.15883563]

>>15882317
Look at the size of that man’s brain.

[Anonymous No.15883574]

>>15882317
Wagner's skull was a fucking phenomenon unto itself, just look at that shit

[Anonymous No.15883604]

>>15882317
Is there literally a bigger skull in history?

[Anonymous No.15883937]

>>15881386
Richard Strauss, Camus, and some anime.

[Anonymous No.15884779]

>>15881386
Rilke

[Anonymous No.15884791]

>>15882368
this, nietzsche couldn't cope with his incel face

[Anonymous No.15884872]

>>15881794
You could say he was a real Üboarmensch haha

[Anonymous No.15885058]

>>15884791
Le german peasant face

[Anonymous No.15885736]

>>15881355
>Pagan LARP sycophants in Bayreuth laying the groundwork for current year Broadway like HaAMlilton
They shared a church official ancestor going back ~300 years

[Anonymous No.15886386]

>>15885736
expected, they were born ~30 miles apart

[Anonymous No.15886464]

>>15881355
Whose the Faggit on the right, and why is he looking at Fredrich like that.

[Anonymous No.15886518]

>>15881386
Strauss, Rilke, Mahler, Yeats and a lot of the modernist writers

[Anonymous No.15886567]

>>15885058
That's Polish nobility you pleb fuck, have some respect

[Anonymous No.15886633]

>>15881355
Today I will remind them.
https://youtu.be/y4x6OiHe3AU?t=144
>Nietzsche masturbates you know,

[Anonymous No.15886640]

>>15886633

[Anonymous No.15886646]

>>15886640

[Anonymous No.15886692]

>>15886633
>>15886640
>>15886646
>the best rebuttal he could come up with was that he must have jerked off a lot
Classic Christcuck take. I can see why Nietzsche wanted to distance from him.

[Anonymous No.15886716]

>>15886692
>Classic Christcuck take. I can see why Nietzsche wanted to distance from him.

[Anonymous No.15886730]

>>15886716
Okay church boy.

[Anonymous No.15886757]

>>15886692
>>15886730
Nietzsche hadn't even properly formed a rebuttal of Wagner and his music like his major later tracts on the subject. Just some smaller ideas or developing feelings of difference between them. Human, All too Human wasn't even published.

It was a close friendship breaking, not some "le refutation" you autist.

[Anonymous No.15886765]

>>15886633
>>15886640
>>15886646
It all makes sense now.

[Anonymous No.15886803]

>>15886757
>Nietzsche hadn't even properly formed a rebuttal of Wagner and his music
He wrote an essay on it.

>Human, All too Human wasn't even published.
What are you talking about?

>It was a close friendship breaking, not some "le refutation"
Except they actually were feuding with one another for quite a while.

[Anonymous No.15886831]

>>15883574
Daily reminder that a bigger brain means higher IQ. He was indeed an Übermensch.

“Big brained people are smarter”
>The relationship between brain volume and intelligence has been a topic of a scientific debate since at least the 1830s. To address the debate, a meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence was conducted. Based on 37 samples across 1530 people, the population correlation was estimated at 0.33. The correlation is higher for females than males. It is also higher for adults than children. For all age and sex groups, it is clear that brain volume is positively correlated with intelligence.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289604001357

[Anonymous No.15886846]

>>15886803
>He wrote an essay on it.
And?

>What are you talking about?
Never heard of Human, All too Human?

>Except they actually were feuding with one another for quite a while.
Your point?

[Anonymous No.15886921]

>>15886640
had intercourse on medical advice
>have sex

[Anonymous No.15886924]

>>15886846
You're wrong on literally all those points.

[Anonymous No.15886932]

you know nietzsche wrote music too, its kinda shit, and extremely shit compared to wagners, so you could probably write off all his angst as that, he was a failure at art, although he succeeded in other realms, he was a man great enough to recognize art and its processes, yet not great enough to partake in them, and this tore him apart

[Anonymous No.15887014]

>>15886924

[Anonymous No.15887026]

>>15881355
Nietzsche never really got over the fact that he wasn't Wagner and that's what drove him mad in the end. All the philosophy is just a giant cope for that.

[Anonymous No.15887049]

>>15887014
Molyneux is a pseud and so are you.

[Anonymous No.15887063]

>>15886932
He was one of us, an intelligent one, trying to write music.

It goes at the emotions first, it has no time or care for modality or intellect in this work. And because of this it impacts us somewhat strangely, but very quickly if we ever suppose to put our noses into it all the emotion is shown to be a farce and small in its character. No greater depth to it, no dynamism, just that initial impat.

And now to a trained musician this could only seem to be a very funny thing, as many commented, see:

>The story goes that in 1871, Nietzsche sent a birthday gift of a piano composition to Wagner’s wife, Cosima. When Cosima played the piece in public, Wagner left before the end, and one of the guests found him rolling around on the floor, laughing, shortly after.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HA5h9RL1WM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2afrV4f-9EI

[Anonymous No.15887075]

>>15881355

One is as bad at thinking as the other is at music. Curiously, NEETzsche and Wagner also tried composing and writing, respectively, with equally bad results.

[Anonymous No.15887077]

>>15887049
>calling the greatest living philosopher a pseud

[Anonymous No.15887088]

>>15887075
What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.15887122]

>>15887063
He had a misconception of music. He underestimated it. It does not require talent, only your lifetime.

[Anonymous No.15887148]

>>15887122
>It does not require talent, only your lifetime.
List's and Mozart's childhood genetics would disagree.

[Anonymous No.15887617]

>>15881355
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HyHkQ578rI

Who won the argument?

[Anonymous No.15887787]

>the first thought that pops into my head when seeing or hearing about Kneechee is that he was a coomer
Yeah, I think Wagner won.

[Anonymous No.15887924]

>>15887787
Do you think he really looked the type?

[Anonymous No.15888027]

>>15887924
Not him, but going by his philosophy, it would make sense for him to have a strong sex drive. And it would make sense for Wagner to have a relatively weaker one in comparison, and to hold that over Nietzsche as though he had won an argument simply by pointing it out. It's the typical Christian pessimistic attitude towards life and sex coming out of Wagner in that assessment. Nietzsche, in comparison, was "barbaric" — not as Christianized as Wagner, not as repressed as him — and so his "pagan" life-centric instincts were stronger.

[Anonymous No.15888222]

Wagner's music, as all romantic music, is extremely mediocre

[Anonymous No.15888235]

>>15881386
The world wars

[Anonymous No.15888369]

>>15887148
Talent is a conception of the untalented. Oh and the entirety of mozarts early life was dedicated to music? Is that not his lifetime? I cant believe how pathetic some people are.

[Anonymous No.15888378]

>>15881355
>Nietzsche, the man who dedicated his life to fighting nihilism, becomes, for Heidegger, the biggest nihilist of them all, because he thinks of the Will not only psychologically but also metaphysically. Heidegger turns against Nietzsche's metaphysics of the will-to-power, and, against his own phenomenology of the Will.

Considering both Wagner and Nietzsche were heavily influenced by Schopenhauer, who would be the more nihilistic?

[Anonymous No.15888400]

>>15888027
Anon, Wagner was notorious for being a womaniser. He was described as extremely charismatic and courted at the very least over a hundred women. Nietzsche was an extreme introvert and only had sex with women on medical advice.

You're neither Nietzsche tier or Wagner tier you're just a coomer.

[Anonymous No.15888406]

>>15888027
Wagner used his sex drive to create beautiful music which will last for eternity. Hylics still don't get the WHY people moderate their sex drives, it seems.

[Anonymous No.15888410]

>>15888369
Oh yes you could have been Mozart anon don't worry about it, if only your parents had taught you music you could have been just as good! You definitely could have set to music twinkle twinkle little start at the age of five.

C O P E

[Anonymous No.15888472]

>>15887924
no it is mere association to the wagner letter

[Anonymous No.15888607]

>>15888400
Where are you getting any of this from? There's no evidence Nietzsche actually did anything different in response to Wagner's comment.

>>15888406
He used the repression of his sex drive to create, making it weaker and forcing his creative energy to manifest in another way, which is fine for art, but it doesn't change what I said. Wagner was jealous of Nietzsche's intellect which is why he made that stab against Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.15888658]

>>15888607
>There's no evidence Nietzsche actually did anything different in response to Wagner's comment.
Can you not read? The doctor had advised Nietzsche to have sex prior to Wagner even writing to him.

>Wagner
>repressed his sex drive
Lmao stop LARPing, you've literally just heard "Wagner was a Christian" and are fantasising everything else. Wagner didn't see sex as bad, because he didn't view it always as a base drive, but in his lifetime part of the subjective force of love. He was an ascetic only in the sense of a purity which is corrupted not by youthful love, but sexual indulgence and overseness. Which is why he was happily married to Cosima. Wagner used his sex drive at varying stages in his life to create his art or for women, but he never "repressed" it. Same thing with Liszt, who was even more Christian than Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.15888672]

>>15888658
>The doctor had advised Nietzsche to have sex prior to Wagner even writing to him.
Okay, so where's the evidence that Nietzsche followed the doctor's advice?

>Wagner didn't see sex as bad
Obviously he saw it as bad if the drive was not guided towards procreation or moderation. Only under Christian moral scrutiny could it be redeemed in his eyes.

[Anonymous No.15888741]

>>15888607
>Wagner was jealous of Nietzsche's intellect which is why he made that stab against Nietzsche.
Where do you even get this shit from? Wagner was sincerely worrying about Nietzsche, and wrote to his doctor to see if he could help. Literally Nietzsche's doctor agreed with Wagner it isn't ridiculous at all for Wagner to have believed Nietzsche was seriously unhealthy at least in part from his masturbation. Besides, Nietzsche was not famous at all or and barely intellectually into his mature philosophy at that point. Human, All too Human which wasn't even published at that time signified a break with Wagner more than it did even state the content of such a thing. And thinking Nietzsche was more intelligent than Wagner is peak pseud.

>>15888672
>Okay, so where's the evidence that Nietzsche followed the doctor's advice?
Maybe read the pages? It literally says in page two that Nietzsche had intercourse multiple times in Italy on the doctors advice.

>Obviously he saw it as bad if the drive was not guided towards procreation or moderation.
Literally yes you retard, Nietzsche would say the same thing. You think he wouldn't be equally disgusted at the sight of Sodom and Gomorrah? Of absolute carnal weakness, of course they have different reasons but Nietzsche wasn't just saying go out and rape and being a dick sucking faggot you faggot. Wagner was always caring about Nietzsche, Freddie was the one that went spastic and broke away from the paternal figure.

>Only under Christian moral scrutiny could it be redeemed in his eyes.
Nope, he didn't specifically see anything wrong with sex in non-Christian cultures. They're still committing the same act of sex, but yes he did think that Christianity was a moral revelation in the world. Obviously.

[Anonymous No.15888761]

>>15888741
I don't think Wagner saw himself as a grand bastion of morality. The guy Fucked with a capital F, and sometimes other men's wives.

[Anonymous No.15888793]

>>15888400
Womanisers tend to have low sex drives.

[Anonymous No.15888796]

>>15888761
>Grand bastion of morality
>The guy Fucked with a capital F, and sometimes other men's wives.
To Wagner, this isn't contradictory.

Also I don't think he actually consummated his love with Wesendonck.

[Anonymous No.15888798]

>>15886646
What the heck Wagner was a real dickhead.

[Anonymous No.15888812]

>>15886646
what a cunt

[Anonymous No.15888818]

>>15888796
>To Wagner, this isn't contradictory.
Reckon so? I'm not the anon you were responding to at first there, by the way. I'm just butting in.
>Also I don't think he actually consummated his love with Wesendonck.
He must have surely made von Bülow into a cuckold?

[Anonymous No.15888848]

>>15888741
Wagner may have been worried, but it was ultimately for himself if so, not for Nietzsche. Wagner was unhappy that Nietzsche was taking his thought in a direction that didn't coincide with his. There was no good reason to worry for Nietzsche unless he seriously thought that Nietzsche would somehow put himself in danger in the current political climate. It's not like Nietzsche's health was a new issue either, it was something he dealt with for most of his life (and which turned out to be something completely unrelated to masturbation anyway). So I don't believe Wagner was seriously worried about him.

>And thinking Nietzsche was more intelligent than Wagner is peak pseud.
Wagner was an artistic genius, but Nietzsche was the intellectual genius. There's no argument on this.

>Maybe read the pages? It literally says in page two that Nietzsche had intercourse multiple times in Italy on the doctors advice.
And what's the source for that? Is there a letter by Nietzsche confirming it?

>Nietzsche wasn't just saying go out and rape and being a dick sucking faggot
This isn't what I was saying at all and you don't really know what Nietzsche thought on the matter of sex, obviously. The creative energy of the master race didn't require the repression of sex in order to manifest it and act on it. It was the slave races, who turned over the master race, who needed to repress themselves so that they may direct their creativity towards something beyond themselves.

>he didn't specifically see anything wrong with sex in non-Christian cultures.
He didn't see anything wrong with it because he had no idea what sex in non-Christian cultures was even like.

[Anonymous No.15888894]

>>15888818
>Reckon so? I'm not the anon you were responding to at first there, by the way. I'm just butting in.
All good, but yeah that was Wagner's character.

>He must have surely made von Bülow into a cuckold?
Well yeah, they were together for quite a while while she was till married to Bülow I'm pretty sure.

[Anonymous No.15889007]

>>15888848
Wagner didn't know about Nietzsche's sickness anon.

>Wagner was an artistic genius, but Nietzsche was the intellectual genius. There's no argument on this.
If Wagner was not also an artistic genius he would not have been able to create such works which appeal to the intellect as well as they do the senses, much in contrast to Mozart who is by far the most sensuous of the composers, but no less a genius.

>lmao there's nothing to suggest nietzsche followed the doctors advice
>actually there is if you read the original pages, the doctor himself says it
>w- well that's not proof enough!
Lol okay you might as well ask where's the proof Wagner wrote to the doctor either.

>The creative energy of the master race didn't require the repression of sex in order to manifest it and act on it. It was the slave races, who turned over the master race, who needed to repress themselves so that they may direct their creativity towards something beyond themselves.
What the fuck are you talking about you utter imbecile, this isn't even Nietzsche. And what you're presupposing the distinctive psychological difficulties of the "master race" of balancing sexual beauty with sexual indulgence while still all being creative intellects making great things? And they all do this perfectly? Or are you saying there's a specific difference in the "master race" physiologically from "the other races" that is physiological, but only in that sense because they're not actually different races? Where have you even sprung this definition of "master race", or do you merely mean human hierarchy?

>He didn't see anything wrong with it because he had no idea what sex in non-Christian cultures was even like.
I'm sure it's so radically different anon, his mind just would have been blown, incomprehensible to Wagner wouldn't it be! Do you think he didn't know pretty much everything he could know about ancient Greece? You think he wasn't acutely aware that sex didn't have the same immoral status in Hindu cultures but rather only viewed negatively in the sense of an indulgence into the passions? You think Wagner the racialist didn't understand how niggers act in tribes in Africa? What cultures do you speak of?

[Anonymous No.15889052]

>>15889007
*intellectual genius*

[Anonymous No.15889129]

>>15889007
>works which appeal to the intellect
They appealed to moral sentiments, not the intellect.

>Lol okay you might as well ask where's the proof Wagner wrote to the doctor either.
I'm not so concerned about that proof, but sure, now that you mention it, you may as well share that as well. Right now I'm not seeing any proof. On top of this, even if Nietzsche did visit brothels according to the doctor's advice, obviously it didn't make a difference, as he continued his philosophical thought in his own direction and eventually succumbed to what appears to have been a lesion in the brain.

>What the fuck are you talking about you utter imbecile, this isn't even Nietzsche.
The old nobility was overthrown by the slave races after they had degenerated and the emerging slave religion, Christianity (in Nietzsche's words) "threw filth" on everything the old masters regarded as sacred. Those impulses, meanwhile, were driven underground, "spiritualized" (i.e., Christians are just as cruel as the old masters, if not more cruel, because they mask their cruelty under their morality of goodness). He covers this in various books and essays / lectures, including (but not limited to) Gay Science, Genealogy, Twilight, and Antichrist.

What I'm saying is, is that even rape can be noble; sex is not just noble when it's in a moderated form for the purpose of procreation or courtly love. It was considered as such by the old nobility, which is why they told stories of their gods raping all the time. Nietzsche didn't promote rape, but he promoted the development of a culture that could once again feel free enough to promote rape when it felt artistically inclined to do so. This is something Wagner didn't understand, or perhaps didn't want to understand.

[Anonymous No.15889198]

>>15888222
t. stravinsky except grosse fuge

[Anonymous No.15889210]

>>15888410
I mean i guess your right. Mozart was a normal kid whose parents loved him and taight him music. Youre just pathetic lazy piece of shit whose name no one cares about

[Anonymous No.15889296]

>>15889129
>They appealed to moral sentiments, not the intellect.
Try reading a book anon, if you think this you know literally nothing about Wagner. Just start off small and read this introduction to some of the thought behind Wagner: https://www.roger-scruton.com/articles/275-wagner-and-german-idealism

It's very basic and suited to your level, and you'll probably find Wagner is more akin to you than you think, with someone like Feuerbach and all.

>can i get a sauce for everything you said?
pic related.

>On top of this, even if Nietzsche did visit brothels according to the doctor's advice, obviously it didn't make a difference, as he continued his philosophical thought in his own direction and eventually succumbed to what appears to have been a lesion in the brain.
Yeah I'm arguing with that imbecile, no one's saying Nietzsche actually wanked.

>Nietzsche's genealogy of morality = slave "races"(dumb term in this context and incorrect to use synonymously with Nietzsche's aristocrats and "Ubermensch") need to repress sexuality for creativity because they aren't strong enough to both have sex and be creative
No where does Nietzsche say this and it's only reductive of his system.

>implying Wagner's protagonists are often deeply flawed
Even if we ignore all this, Wagner is not going to bother with his extremely precious time making a rapist the protagonist of one of his artworks, or have the same lightness of emotion as a Shakespeare is able to create with his far greater time as a poet not alone and not both a musician AND a poet. And having to figure out how these are going to relate together instead of just the typical Opera which exists only for the nice sounds, like Italian Opera. As nice as those sounds might be.

Rape can be noble, but not in as simplistic a sense in which you hold it as if it can either be "le good rape, or le bad rape" because rape will always entail its own nature, and a lack of compassion. And almost always, moral nobility. Your "critiques" of Wagner go equally to a Dante or Shakespeare, and for this reason are not specifically critiques of Wagner, just empty complains of one not familiar with Wagner's art.

[Anonymous No.15889315]

>>15889210
>I'm the pathetic lazy piece of shit whose name no one cares about
Oh anon, I think you're missing something here.

Again, I'm sure you'd be able to create Music just as good as he if you worked just as hard!

[Anonymous No.15889323]

>>15889129
>>15889296
*not arguing with that*

[Anonymous No.15889329]

Orff

[Anonymous No.15889332]

Why are Wagner threads so good? Bless Op.

[Anonymous No.15889341]

>>15889329
As in Carl Orff?

[Anonymous No.15889696]

>>15888222
It was mediocre on its own compared to true classical on its own, but it was also not intended to be listened to alone, so it's an unfair comparison.

[Anonymous No.15889726]

>>15887063
Wagner's a dick what else is new?

[Old Man No.15889739]

>>15887075
>tumblr
Go figure

[Anonymous No.15889775]

>>15881355
Hitler was right

[Anonymous No.15889902]

FUCK THE MACHINE

[Anonymous No.15889905]

>>15889296
>if you think this you know literally nothing about Wagner.
Nietzsche thought it about him and his Parsifal. Are you saying Nietzsche knew nothing about Wagner, or that Roger Scruton knew better about Wagner than Nietzsche? If Wagner wasn't doing this, why didn't Wagner advocate for slavery and rape in his art, and why did Nietzsche and Wagner break off from one another almost entirely on the topic of slavery?

>pic related.
So asking you to support your stance is a meme to you?

>no one's saying Nietzsche actually wanked.
So you don't think he did, then? Because it sounds like you think he did and that Wagner had a point with that statement besides to mask his jealousy of Nietzsche's intellect.

>No where does Nietzsche say this and it's only reductive of his system.
I'll correct myself: he considered art altogether (and also philosophy) as a type of decadence. It came from strength, but strength that was lacking an outlet. Christians can't be artists as far as Nietzsche was concerned, because they were not sufficiently strong enough to begin with, and he thought Wagner was, while very strong, starting to appeal to the growing Christian moral sentiments of his time, i.e., was sponsoring / becoming Christian (in other words, Parsifal was not a fully artistic work and not representative of Wagner's strength).

Also, when I said slave "races", I meant types. He considered Epictetus a type of slave distinct from the Christian, for example. That's just me using the word "race" in another sense, which I didn't come up with, mind you.

I could be wrong in saying that Wagner was jealous, but if he wasn't jealous, then he simply didn't understand where Nietzsche was coming from because he lacked Nietzsche's knowledge and/or intellect. He certainly didn't understand Greek nobility as well as Nietzsche did, that much we know, so perhaps that's more likely the case.

>Rape can be noble, but not in as simplistic a sense in which you hold it
In what sense is it noble, then?

[Anonymous No.15889913]

>>15881386
Conan the Barbarian

[Anonymous No.15889959]

>>15889905
>Also, when I said slave "races", I meant types. He considered Epictetus a type of slave distinct from the Christian, for example. That's just me using the word "race" in another sense, which I didn't come up with, mind you.
By the way, I by no means mean to imply with this that somehow race is not genetic to Nietzsche. It is. The slave races were genetic races. The history of civilization is quite literally sets of genes eliminating or repressing other sets of genes. The master race and the slave race are master and slave respectively by blood, and this blood has been mixed and its origins confused with one another.

[Anonymous No.15890899]

>>15881386
Also sprach Zarathustra, Op. 30 by Richard Strauss is obviously directly inspired.

[Anonymous No.15890917]

>>15881459
Baldur's Gate is not obscure by any means.

[Anonymous No.15890947]

>>15889905
>because morality exists art is reducible to moral sentiments
Nietzsche also didn't believe this about his Operas.

>So asking you to support your stance is a meme to you?
No, you're just a redditor.

>Because it sounds like you think he did and that Wagner had a point with that statement besides to mask his jealousy of Nietzsche's intellect.
It being wrong doesn't mean Wagner didn't have a point you fucking brainlet, are you unable to understand that Wagner was worried about Nietzsche after only just finding out about his "sickness", that this was all medically well accepted in his age, and that Nietzsche's doctor himself agreed with Wagner? It's not just a "vicious lie", and furthermore not even the most diehard Nietzscheans would say he is more intelligent than Wagner. It was always Nietzsche that could never escape Wagner, his massive presence; and this presence was primarily above all other things Wagner's intelligence in contrast to no other figure in Nietzsche's life. I cannot think of a single circumstance that Nietzsche ever "btfo'd" Wagner, or even could have with merely his "intellect".

>I'll correct myself: he considered art altogether (and also philosophy) as a type of decadence.
Could you explain what you mean by this whole paragraph more? Do you mean to say that Strength should be realised in more active ways, and art and thought and substitutes for this, because I'm not familiar with Nietzsche saying that-- But then you say that Parsifal was "not" a fully artistic work and "not" equal to Wagner's strength, so I'm confused where you even place art in your system. And to reply to Pasifal not being a "fully artistic work" because it has morality in it, that's just plain stupid and unclarified. So please clarify how this is so.

>he lacked Nietzsche's knowledge and/or intellect.
Don't be so one-sided anon, it's never healthy to fall so completely under the idiosyncrasy's of another man you idolise, and the best Nietzscheans have never done so, take Bowden for example, he doesn't even hate Christianity because he understands that such a belief of Nietzsche's was not necessary to the core of which he is extracting out of his philosophy. You have made Nietzsche a religion wherein you do not differ on even a single topic. You've reduced philosophical truth to a cliche of the platonic conception of truth which Nietzsche detested so much, that there is a clear object-truth which is known by intellect and everyone would act a certain way if they were educated on it and such. And by this it is ignoring everything psychological in Nietzsche, that the psychological is its own purpose to him. I'm not saying I agree with him but the intelligent on all sides can see plainly that it's not that Wagner "didn't understand" Nietzsche's mighty intellect(lmao) or "didn't understand" the Grecian ideal, it's that they had different viewpoints on it. And eventually for Nietzsche, different values.

[Anonymous No.15891031]

>>15889905
Furthermore, not considering Wagner obviously a genius, is dumb.

[Anonymous No.15891053]

>>15889959
Shouldn't we differentiate between race and potential differentiation within race, and then furthermore groups within that race, i.e. literal aristocratic heritage and in this sense more literal hierarchies.

[Anonymous No.15891062]

>>15890917
But it's anime so = bad

[Anonymous No.15891493]

>>15881355
What revolution did Nietzsche go in?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkQfTIa0MZo

[Anonymous No.15892225]

One thing I've noticed is that Nietzchefags tend to sperg out in the middle of arguments and resort to insulting instead, no matter their opponent is Wagner or Schopenhauer or anyone else. Why are they like this? Do they think they are manifesting their will to power or are they just 16 years old?

[Anonymous No.15892302]

>>15881355
>Nietzsche or Wagner?
Guénon

[Anonymous No.15892310]

>>15881386
Kanye West

[Anonymous No.15892316]

>>15892302
>Guénon
retroactively btfoed by the Buddha (PBUH)

[Anonymous No.15892485]

>>15881756
What did Mark Twain do?
>>15881355
And what was they’re Relationship like?

[Anonymous No.15892506]

>>15892316
Did the Buddha get a monkey species named after him? I think not.

[Anonymous No.15892572]

>>15892225
Are you referring to someone in this thread or just talking in general? Most of /lit/ is probably underage at this point.

[Anonymous No.15892637]

>>15881355
the one who actually fucked Cosima

[Anonymous No.15892776]

>>15888410
Mozart was taught music from since when he was 3 iirc. He was born with a pen in his hand and somebody to teach him music. He didn't start writing anything exceptional until his 20's and didn't write his best music until he reached 30.
>inb4 some random pieces he wrote when he was younger
They're nice, but they're not that different from the stuff composers wrote en masse for the public back then. In conclusion, Mozart did dedicate his entirely life to music. If you look up his schedule he spent larger part of his day writing music to meet the demand. It was basically his day job. I'm sure you enjoy thinking that if you just had talent you could summon masterpieces out of thin air while sleeping on your ass for eternity without doing anything. Also, had he died young, as in 20, or stopped writing as much music when he became an adult, he wouldn't be remembered. In that era there were many wunderkinder who got famous for having exceptional talent in music, maths, etc. only to be forgotten and not to do anything with it later. Mozart was the exception to the rule generally speaking.

[Anonymous No.15892832]

>>15892776
>claims musical genius is all nurture
>"I could have done it too!"
>call it a cope
>has the audacity to turn it around and project his own inferiority complex onto me, when he's the one saying he would have been the equal to Mozart if he's parents had trained him and he "le worked hard!"
>and somehow he thinks modestly accepting that I could never make what Beethoven made, or a Shakespeare, is "the real inferiority cope" when it is a recognition of that obvious inferiority
>proceeds to put words in my mouth as if I said Mozart didn't work hard as with all great artistic geniuses such as a Da Vinci, at their craft
>further proceeds to make a shocking revelation that the musical genius is an exception to most people
Pure C O P E.

[Anonymous No.15893272]

>>15883604
It was the only brain large enough to store those complete works of art (TM)

[Anonymous No.15893809]

>>15892832
You must be dense, but I'm first time poster itt.
I didn't even read your shit post past the first line.

[Anonymous No.15893821]

>>15893272
He could apparently remember the entire major corpus of Beethoven of by heart, and as a result never needed sheet music for it.

[Anonymous No.15893825]

>>15893809
>but I'm first time poster itt.
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.15893833]

>>15893825
I never claimed anything about being able to write classical music, you dumb retard. R9k or b might be more to your speed.

[Anonymous No.15893859]

>>15881365
It’s the exact opposite tbqhwy

[Anonymous No.15893880]

>>15893833
But you did, you claimed that you would be just as good as Mozart if you were raised with music just as young and just as well and if you studied it as thoroughly as he.

[Anonymous No.15894375]

How many Women do you think coomed at the premier of Tristan und Isolde?

[Anonymous No.15894983]

Wagner is an uglier man. He looks like my best friend's mom, and she's a drug addict. I rest my case.

[Anonymous No.15895085]

>>15886633
Which book is it?

[Anonymous No.15895110]

>>15881355
Guys, you're making me feel pity for Nietzsche ITT. This was not supossed to happen.

[Anonymous No.15895210]

>>15895110
I mean I really like Nietzsche personally. But in his quarrel with Wagner it was for the most part Nietzsche's fault.

[Anonymous No.15895243]

>>15892225
>Do they think they are manifesting their will to power or are they just 16 years old?
Is there a difference?

[Anonymous No.15896108]

>>15893880
Nope. Dumb cunt.

[Anonymous No.15896114]

>>15894375
Some went insane.

[Anonymous No.15896119]

>>15896108
Literally yes.

[Anonymous No.15896120]

>>15896114
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY9Dg-OlA3E
like this?

[Anonymous No.15896457]

>>15896119
Literally no you autistic virgin. Have sex.