If you're referring to self-reliance he's just telling you not to be a hivemind sheep. But seeing as you're a hivemind sheep confronted with a mirror, you're unable to confront the truth and must misconstrue what is written to 'narcissistically' validate your stance. I'm profiling you as a liberty hating European.
When your Culture matures in splendid isolation, in a comparatively safe space without constant risk of external enemies destroying all you have built, you will develop a world-view that places all emphasis on the individual and nothing on the group. Since you have not had to rely on the group of anything, not plough nor sword, you are unable to conceptualize the risk that is always present to those who have had to constantly have one eye on the soil and one eye on the horizon. Now, as the result of your worldview has fully matured and can go no further, it is slowly dawning on you that you have no protection for what the future brings. You welcomed in those who likewise can not conceptualize your view of liberty and the individual existing outside of the group. You have no defense against that which grows stronger and more determined within the very heart of your cities and towns, all you can do is whimper impotently about your liberty and rights in the same relative safety of your homogeneous countryside until such a time they come for you.
I have been reading the life of Thomas Carlyle, this unconscious and involuntary farce, this heroic-moralistic interpretation of dyspeptic states. Carlyle: a man of strong words and attitudes, a rhetor from need, constantly lured by the craving for a strong faith and the feeling of his incapacity for it (in this respect, a typical romantic!). The craving for a strong faith is no proof of a strong faith, but quite the contrary. If one has such a faith, then one can afford the beautiful luxury of skepticism: one is sure enough, firm enough, has ties enough for that. Carlyle drugs something in himself with the fortissimo of his veneration of men of strong faith and with his rage against the less simple-minded: he requires noise. A constant passionate dishonesty against himself—that is his proprium; in this respect he is and remains interesting. Of course, in England he is admired precisely for his honesty. Well, that is English; and in view of the fact that the English are the people of consummate cant, it is even as it should be, and not only comprehensible. At bottom, Carlyle is an English atheist who makes it a point of honor not to be one.
same could be said of nietzsche's militant atheism.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Nietzsche on Emerson.—Much more enlightened, more roving, more manifold, subtler than Carlyle; above all, happier. One who instinctively nourishes himself only on ambrosia, leaving behind what is indigestible in things. Compared with Carlyle, a man of taste.
Poe had the reverse view of things, although he liked Emerson a good deal more than the average transcendentalist.
>Poe opposed the Transcendentalists’ brand of abolitionism and their individualism; he thought they were derivative, harboring plagiarists (Poe saw plagiarism everywhere) and thought Emerson himself a pale imitation of Thomas Carlyle
Nietzsche read Emerson when he was young and really loved him. The friendship between Carlyle and Emerson is meaningful considering the way that their critics tend to divide into appreciating one but strongly disliking the other. Poe was not a materialist but his endorsement of Carlyle over Emerson does lend credence to Nietzsche's distinction.
1 month ago
Anonymous
man, the victorians had all these colorful personalities engaging with each other. How come we don't get that today?
Every Nietzsche quote I ever read has this feminine, hysteric tone to it, like he is completely incapable and unwilling to contain his emotions or express them in a more controlled fashion. Not to mention the constant passive-aggressive tone. If I didn't know he was a man I never would have guessed that he wasn't a woman.
1 month ago
Anonymous
It's because he values his own emotional outlook on things over reason and rationality. You see it in his Good vs Evil schtick, good things are evil because he feels like they are and vice versa. Worships strength and disdains weakness though he himself was weak, etc. Very woman brained.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>his Good vs Evil schtick, good things are evil
what >Worships strength and disdains weakness though he himself was weak
another moronation repeated by morons ad nauseam, Nietzsche never refers to will to power as physical strength having its own merit and justification you fricking moron
How so? I am a fan of Emerson and I also enjoyed Bartleby the scrivener. I'd want to hear your perspective on how Bartleby is somehow a counterargument on transcendentalism. >Inb4 "I'd prefer not to"
Lol
I remember I read Emerson’s essays Self-Reliance and Transcendentalism right after reading Bartleby and this impression seemed obvious to me, Bartleby’s adamant rejection of heteronomy and then the role Fate play in the story and its relation to Bartleby’s disposition are nutritious food for thought concerning Melville and the movement.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Maybe I'm autistic and so far disconnected over whatever Melville was worrying about but I really admired Bartleby as a character. I don't see how it's a bad thing how Bartleby's life turned out, as long as it is what Bartleby wanted. I imagine Melville was trying to paint Bartleby as boring, uninspiring, stagnant, useless, and as a minor nuisance to others but I found Bartleby to be interesting and inspiring.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>I don't see how it's a bad thing how Bartleby's life turned out, as long as it is what Bartleby wanted
I think we get on a deeper inquiry here if we ponder if it was really what he wanted or if it was only everything he could do in the face of events out of his control, after all he ended up being forcefully removed from the building to the jail. I do share the sentiment that Bartleby is interesting, though, and perhaps Melville wanted to convey such an image of the figure, as it is really an eccentric behavior that inspires curiosity, but that in the end it says nothing, being contained in an isolated self-enclosed world (I think that the image of the prison also could serve as a metaphor for his own ideal, intellectual world).
Narcissism (while medically describing a real phenomenon) is commonly used as a shame word by the self-haters against people who like or even tolerate themselves.
The biggest societal taboos are all predicated on self hatred. People irrationally seethe if you say you have a high IQ, are wealthy, are successful with women, read a lot, or anything else that they regard as positive. Bragging is a sin.
NTA but it when equity and equality became central. As much as the mass man hates those below him, he utterly despises those above him. Our society, since the Enlightenment, has been gradually trending towards the elimination of Great Men and Great Thinkers. The idea that greatness is inborn and not awarded is an anathema in our society.
I think this is what so much of the identity nonsense we have today is about. People need something to feel good about, because just being a person has basically become shameful as a thing.
Maybe I'm polluting the planet, and using consumer goods made in sweatshops, and maybe I live on stolen land that was settled by bigoted slavers, but you can't call me out for being demi-sexual.
If you're referring to self-reliance he's just telling you not to be a hivemind sheep. But seeing as you're a hivemind sheep confronted with a mirror, you're unable to confront the truth and must misconstrue what is written to 'narcissistically' validate your stance. I'm profiling you as a liberty hating European.
When your Culture matures in splendid isolation, in a comparatively safe space without constant risk of external enemies destroying all you have built, you will develop a world-view that places all emphasis on the individual and nothing on the group. Since you have not had to rely on the group of anything, not plough nor sword, you are unable to conceptualize the risk that is always present to those who have had to constantly have one eye on the soil and one eye on the horizon. Now, as the result of your worldview has fully matured and can go no further, it is slowly dawning on you that you have no protection for what the future brings. You welcomed in those who likewise can not conceptualize your view of liberty and the individual existing outside of the group. You have no defense against that which grows stronger and more determined within the very heart of your cities and towns, all you can do is whimper impotently about your liberty and rights in the same relative safety of your homogeneous countryside until such a time they come for you.
No, actually. I can leave.
Not for long, Israel has only a short life left.
I have been reading the life of Thomas Carlyle, this unconscious and involuntary farce, this heroic-moralistic interpretation of dyspeptic states. Carlyle: a man of strong words and attitudes, a rhetor from need, constantly lured by the craving for a strong faith and the feeling of his incapacity for it (in this respect, a typical romantic!). The craving for a strong faith is no proof of a strong faith, but quite the contrary. If one has such a faith, then one can afford the beautiful luxury of skepticism: one is sure enough, firm enough, has ties enough for that. Carlyle drugs something in himself with the fortissimo of his veneration of men of strong faith and with his rage against the less simple-minded: he requires noise. A constant passionate dishonesty against himself—that is his proprium; in this respect he is and remains interesting. Of course, in England he is admired precisely for his honesty. Well, that is English; and in view of the fact that the English are the people of consummate cant, it is even as it should be, and not only comprehensible. At bottom, Carlyle is an English atheist who makes it a point of honor not to be one.
Nietzsche right
>I have been reading the life of Thomas Carlyle
>Carlyle is an English atheist
No, you haven't kek.
>pic related is me
same could be said of nietzsche's militant atheism.
>Nietzsche on Emerson.—Much more enlightened, more roving, more manifold, subtler than Carlyle; above all, happier. One who instinctively nourishes himself only on ambrosia, leaving behind what is indigestible in things. Compared with Carlyle, a man of taste.
Poe had the reverse view of things, although he liked Emerson a good deal more than the average transcendentalist.
>Poe opposed the Transcendentalists’ brand of abolitionism and their individualism; he thought they were derivative, harboring plagiarists (Poe saw plagiarism everywhere) and thought Emerson himself a pale imitation of Thomas Carlyle
Nietzsche read Emerson when he was young and really loved him. The friendship between Carlyle and Emerson is meaningful considering the way that their critics tend to divide into appreciating one but strongly disliking the other. Poe was not a materialist but his endorsement of Carlyle over Emerson does lend credence to Nietzsche's distinction.
man, the victorians had all these colorful personalities engaging with each other. How come we don't get that today?
Every Nietzsche quote I ever read has this feminine, hysteric tone to it, like he is completely incapable and unwilling to contain his emotions or express them in a more controlled fashion. Not to mention the constant passive-aggressive tone. If I didn't know he was a man I never would have guessed that he wasn't a woman.
It's because he values his own emotional outlook on things over reason and rationality. You see it in his Good vs Evil schtick, good things are evil because he feels like they are and vice versa. Worships strength and disdains weakness though he himself was weak, etc. Very woman brained.
>his Good vs Evil schtick, good things are evil
what
>Worships strength and disdains weakness though he himself was weak
another moronation repeated by morons ad nauseam, Nietzsche never refers to will to power as physical strength having its own merit and justification you fricking moron
Nietzsche was just resenting the fact that Carlyle got where he was half a century before him, and while still retaining his Christianity.
Nietzsche rejected his hero-worship and said it didn't influence his superman idea
carlyle was scottish and a christian
and atheist no?
Literally destroyed by Melville in his Bartleby.
How so? I am a fan of Emerson and I also enjoyed Bartleby the scrivener. I'd want to hear your perspective on how Bartleby is somehow a counterargument on transcendentalism.
>Inb4 "I'd prefer not to"
Lol
I remember I read Emerson’s essays Self-Reliance and Transcendentalism right after reading Bartleby and this impression seemed obvious to me, Bartleby’s adamant rejection of heteronomy and then the role Fate play in the story and its relation to Bartleby’s disposition are nutritious food for thought concerning Melville and the movement.
Maybe I'm autistic and so far disconnected over whatever Melville was worrying about but I really admired Bartleby as a character. I don't see how it's a bad thing how Bartleby's life turned out, as long as it is what Bartleby wanted. I imagine Melville was trying to paint Bartleby as boring, uninspiring, stagnant, useless, and as a minor nuisance to others but I found Bartleby to be interesting and inspiring.
>I don't see how it's a bad thing how Bartleby's life turned out, as long as it is what Bartleby wanted
I think we get on a deeper inquiry here if we ponder if it was really what he wanted or if it was only everything he could do in the face of events out of his control, after all he ended up being forcefully removed from the building to the jail. I do share the sentiment that Bartleby is interesting, though, and perhaps Melville wanted to convey such an image of the figure, as it is really an eccentric behavior that inspires curiosity, but that in the end it says nothing, being contained in an isolated self-enclosed world (I think that the image of the prison also could serve as a metaphor for his own ideal, intellectual world).
>but mom, I'm not a hivemind sheep, I'm a platonist!
Yes, unironically. Most people are scumbags.
Narcissism can be very healthy in a smaller dose.
The most radical thing you could do in todays society is to like yourself. Everyone will literally seethe at you (this is not a joke).
Narcissism (while medically describing a real phenomenon) is commonly used as a shame word by the self-haters against people who like or even tolerate themselves.
The biggest societal taboos are all predicated on self hatred. People irrationally seethe if you say you have a high IQ, are wealthy, are successful with women, read a lot, or anything else that they regard as positive. Bragging is a sin.
When did society become like this?
NTA but it when equity and equality became central. As much as the mass man hates those below him, he utterly despises those above him. Our society, since the Enlightenment, has been gradually trending towards the elimination of Great Men and Great Thinkers. The idea that greatness is inborn and not awarded is an anathema in our society.
I think this is what so much of the identity nonsense we have today is about. People need something to feel good about, because just being a person has basically become shameful as a thing.
Maybe I'm polluting the planet, and using consumer goods made in sweatshops, and maybe I live on stolen land that was settled by bigoted slavers, but you can't call me out for being demi-sexual.
There's a difference getting diagnosed narcissistic and being somewhat self-absorbed.
I AM G O D.
I AM O N E.
I AM E N L I G H T E N E D WITH T H E R A P I S T APPROVED L S D.
where do I get rapist approved LSD?
only if you plan on never having children, because they become the rightful narcissists in your life. snip that shit and have fun.
The person emerson describes is fun to be around. Society isn't supposed to be a sacrifice but people are lazy and scared now. Just b urself
Emerson is just a cheesy pantheist.
All artists are narcissists. It’s better for them to use that energy for art instead of unleashing them into the real world.
girls when they're narcissists are okay. when a boy is a narcissist you lose your mind.
i feel it is a natural conclusion, most people are narcissists with very rare exceptions