He wasn’t an atheist. He was just “decidedly non-Christian”. In other words, he was an atheist. When it came to matters of religion and politics, his views were basically generic. I’ve started to wonder if even Faust was overrated, particularly because it was already done and arguably done better by Marlowe. Without Faust, he would be a non-entity in the English-speaking world and probably the whole world outside of Germany. Even his philosophies have been popularized for the present age not by himself but first and foremost by Oswald Spengler. So besides Faust, I fail to see what was so impressive and unique about him.
Stfu, you moronic Christcuck pseud c**t. I've read enough of his writings to know his views were anything but generic. For example, he tended to have certain refined panpsychist views.
Kys asap.
8 months ago
Anonymous
If I was wrong, you wouldn’t have been so triggered nor would you have immediately resorted to name-calling.
8 months ago
Anonymous
If atheist trannies are wrong then why are christcucks triggered so badly by them?
8 months ago
Anonymous
From where I’m sitting, you seem to be the one that’s triggered.
Besides the Divine Comedy, I fail to see what was so impressive and unique about Dante.
8 months ago
Anonymous
That’s strange. The Divine Comedy itself was obviously quite unique considering that story had objectively never been put to paper before, as far as we know anyway. Faust, on the other hand, was simply a retelling of a story that had already been told for centuries and had already reached its fullest expression with Christopher Marlowe.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>that story had objectively never been put to paper before
i really wish you would keep your moronic pseud opinions to yourself, because youre much dumber and obviously so than you think
8 months ago
Anonymous
You could just prove you’re not a pseud and identify the original. And don’t say “it’s an allegory for a Christian idea” like an idiot, okay?
>He wasn’t an atheist. He was just “decidedly non-Christian”. In other words, he was an atheist.
he wasnt an atheist because he believed in a god concept, which isnt what atheists believe, you idiot.
8 months ago
Anonymous
He didn’t though. Goethe’s “god” was not properly a god. The same is true for Spinoza, another generic enlightenmentish thinker.
8 months ago
Anonymous
neither were atheists. cite where you think spinoza rejected the metaphysical. hint: he never said such in english or latin.
You could just prove you’re not a pseud and identify the original. And don’t say “it’s an allegory for a Christian idea” like an idiot, okay?
no. do the homework instead of spouting stupid opinions.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Someone who doesn't capitalize letters on the internet is either underage, degenerate or a vapid woman.
I just can't take you seriously.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I didn’t say Spinoza “rejected the metaphysical”, whatever that means. Even staunch self-professed atheists accept certain metaphysical presuppositions. Everyone knows this. What I said was that Spinoza’s god is not really properly a god.
As for your thing about The Divine Comedy, it’s okay because everyone knew you were full of shit right away and we never expected you to have a real reply. So don't worry about it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
and i point out spinozas god meets the criteria for a concept of god, which is why it made sense for him to call it a god. even a staunch self professed reasonable man can see that. let's see you try to even define god.
no, youre full of shit about dante. im not doing your homework for you.
It might, were Africa and Europe stories and not places.
he has a point. all your qualifiers apply to both narrative and geography, you dunce.
8 months ago
Anonymous
You didn’t do that though, narrative is objectively not geography.
8 months ago
Anonymous
things midwits say. what makes qualifiers applied to one field exclusive from the other?
8 months ago
Anonymous
note how a phrase like "tragedy of the commons" is standard in academia, yet you stupidly claim that tragedy as a concept cant be applied to continents
8 months ago
Anonymous
note how a phrase like "tragedy of the commons" is standard in academia, yet you stupidly claim that tragedy as a concept cant be applied to continents
The point that was made was not that tragic can’t be used to describe continents, or anything else, but that something else was necessarily better because it could be used to describe it. You know fully well that a tragic play could be a better play than a not-tragic play precisely because it’s tragic. If Africa is more tragic than Europe that doesn’t mean Africa isn’t better on the basis that it’s more tragic because Africa and Europe are places and not plays. Everyone is in agreement that Africa could indeed be tragic, more tragic than Europe. It just means nothing.
8 months ago
Anonymous
> I’m not doing your homework for you
That’s because you can’t.
More simplistic and yet more dramatic. More of the explicitly supernatural. A better, more tragic ending. This is basically all just opinion though.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>More simplistic and yet more dramatic. More of the explicitly supernatural. A better, more tragic ending.
All this applies to Africa's fate compared to Europe's. Does that make Africa better than Europe?
8 months ago
Anonymous
It might, were Africa and Europe stories and not places.
8 months ago
Anonymous
and i point out spinozas god meets the criteria for a concept of god, which is why it made sense for him to call it a god. even a staunch self professed reasonable man can see that. let's see you try to even define god.
no, youre full of shit about dante. im not doing your homework for you.
[...]
he has a point. all your qualifiers apply to both narrative and geography, you dunce.
things midwits say. what makes qualifiers applied to one field exclusive from the other?
Genuinely one of the more absurd takes I’ve seen on lit. Are you all complete logiclets? You just made a sophist tier argument about Africa being vaguely “better” (completely undefined term) by consequence of its more tragic narrative. Clearly the comparison doesn’t hold because “better (narrative)” which was implicit in your comparison does not also suddenly denote “better (sophisticated, virtuous, cultured, or whatever you are implying). This is a very confused argumentative strategy in my opinion.
8 months ago
Anonymous
i am not the one who did any sophistry, you did. all that did was point out the stupidity of your opinions.
8 months ago
Anonymous
all your focusing on those posts slipshod logic (which only parodies marlowe anons) while ignoring marlowe anons swiss cheese opinions indicates that youre just marlowe anon samegayging.
>not beliving in christianity makes you an atheist >this is not a bait
lol'd, screend, currently weeding
8 months ago
Anonymous
to be fair to him, not that the homosexual deserves the kindness, in roman times disbelief in the main religion was defined as atheism. but that definition has a lot of holes in it and causes more problems, which is why the modern definition of atheism, as opposed to irreligious or agnostic, is a better one for the sake of logic.
I said he larped as a muslim. As for his religious beliefs he was a deist
8 months ago
Anonymous
then i guess we understand larp differently
Someone who doesn't capitalize letters on the internet is either underage, degenerate or a vapid woman.
I just can't take you seriously.
lmao what a flimsy attempt at superciliousness
cry more about it pussy, youre still obviously underread in your studies and wrong about goethe and dante to anyone who has a clue.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>then i guess we understand larp differently
Live action role playing. Goethe really did go further than most of the OG orientalists in his larp
8 months ago
Anonymous
Just name the original telling of the Divine Comedy already, my man. We’re waiting with bated breath here.
>“So far,” R. says, “we have been great in defence, dispelling alien elements which we could not assimilate; the Teutoburger Wald was a rejection of the Roman influence, the Reformation also a rejection, our great literature a rejection of the influence of the French; the only positive thing so far has been our music—-Beethoven.” “And Faust" I ask. “It is really just a sort of sketch,” R. says, “which Goethe himself looked upon in puzzlement, as a curiosity—he himself did not consider it a finished work of art.”
>He says Faust is the finest book ever written in the German language.
>Talking about Goethe and whether he can be regarded as the sum total of the German spirit, R. says, “I think he can, if one considers how he absorbed all the revivals and discoveries of the 18th century in this free manner; and in the ultimate things he was always full of prescience.”
It’s funny because only Germans seemed to have been really impressed by German poets. Nobody else really prizes German literature and Germany no doubt comprises the smallest portion of entries in the Western canon of great literature among all the Western countries. Even Russia produced more greats. These Germans talked about their own writers the way Japanese talk about mangaka, except the mangaka are at least really popular abroad.
this is the problem with stupid fricking pseuds. they try to claim this or that figure for themselves, or as social currency, as a form of social clout, but they dont have a clue about anything about them that isnt reddit tier knowledge.
dont get me started on how obviously moronic the anon talking about dante is, to anyone decently read in dante secondary. i doubt this homosexual even read the divine comedy.
why do you people weirdly even consider a more tragic ending to be a superior one? too much ancient greek or western tradition brainwashing? how would you even define a tragic ending? what makes it better instead of just being a culturally preferred western method?
It was immediately conceded that it was mere opinion. That it’s better on the basis that it’s more tragic and even that it is more tragic at all is basically opinion. You just glossed over that, in part because you’re a pseud who doesn’t read.
its a mere opinion and a stupid one, so whyd you feel the need to spout it and say goethes is worse, based on your stupid views? critics whove thought about this have critically examined both and correctly concluded that goethes is better. but you just glossed over it because youre the pseud who doesnt read.
> le critics agree that it’s better > therefore it’s better
Lol okay anon
8 months ago
Anonymous
i said they >critically examined both
a perfectly fine thing to say. read kaufmann, even that dead beached whale bloom. their positions were among the best developed.
you should really try better than to lean on >no u tier dogshit if you insist on calling other anons stupid
we both know my positions are more than that. if youre going to be dishonest just dont talk
8 months ago
Anonymous
Damn, you’re dumb. That their positions were the best is literally just your opinion, same as the opinion about the superiority of Marlowe’s Faust. As for the consensus of the critics, consensus first of all doesn’t necessarily reveal the truth. Just because some people agree that some thing is the case doesn’t mean it really is the case. It’s also an appeal to authority fallacy. They’re not right just because they’re critics. Yeah, you can say whatever you want but you diverge into moronation when you try to assert it as objective truth. What you have here is an opinion, same as the one you took issue with in the first place.
8 months ago
Anonymous
no it isnt you dirty relativist pseud. theyre strong positions because they reflect reality accurately and deeply and overcame the opposition from pseuds like you. their critical consensus became orthodoxy because theyre right. and theyre right because they made the best cases based on truth.
the ending of goethes version already meets the two main elements of tragedy, using the definition from which tragedy as a concept derived. in that sense, goethes ending is more intensely tragic, but that itself wouldnt make its ending better.
>Hurrdurr, more simplistic and yet more dramatic.
its not really more dramatic since goethes characters are more rounded
>More of the explicitly supernatural.
then horror is a better genre than the classics of the western canon. but its not even that. faust part 2 has hundreds of more supernatural elements, which isnt surprising, since its twice as long.
A better, more tragic ending.
goethes version is more tragic based on the ancient definition of tragedy i referenced, the one from which the western tradition is rooted on and constantly referenced back to
>This is basically all just opinion though.
it certainly is, which is why marlowe homosexuals shit opinions wont spread very far
When I asked what makes Marlowe's better it's because I'm an overburdened student who doesn't have the time to learn this stuff yet. I don't know what makes Goethe or Marlowe better because I haven't read them, I've only heard of theme through lit. Why are you guys so fussy about this? It's just literature.
its not just about literature. these idiots try to force their opinions on other people and end up lowering standards if theyre not kept in check. theyre incompetents who end up destroying civilization because theyre too stupid to understand how mediocre they are.
Goethe worked on his Faust all his life. Goethe was also more intelligent and better rounded. Marlowe wrote Faustus when he was in his 20s and didn't have as developed a worldview. Is it surprising that Goethe's is better, more critically acclaimed, and the consensus better Faust in the Western canon?
yes,he was one of a kind. No wonder he's so damn praised in Germany
He was a pretty run-of-the-mill liberal and atheist.
he was neither generic or an atheist
even in the fields he wished to be remembered for, shakespeare and darwin were better than him
he certainly had some dumb views and it held him back
He wasn’t an atheist. He was just “decidedly non-Christian”. In other words, he was an atheist. When it came to matters of religion and politics, his views were basically generic. I’ve started to wonder if even Faust was overrated, particularly because it was already done and arguably done better by Marlowe. Without Faust, he would be a non-entity in the English-speaking world and probably the whole world outside of Germany. Even his philosophies have been popularized for the present age not by himself but first and foremost by Oswald Spengler. So besides Faust, I fail to see what was so impressive and unique about him.
Stfu, you moronic Christcuck pseud c**t. I've read enough of his writings to know his views were anything but generic. For example, he tended to have certain refined panpsychist views.
Kys asap.
If I was wrong, you wouldn’t have been so triggered nor would you have immediately resorted to name-calling.
If atheist trannies are wrong then why are christcucks triggered so badly by them?
From where I’m sitting, you seem to be the one that’s triggered.
They worry for their eternal souls dipshit
Besides the Divine Comedy, I fail to see what was so impressive and unique about Dante.
That’s strange. The Divine Comedy itself was obviously quite unique considering that story had objectively never been put to paper before, as far as we know anyway. Faust, on the other hand, was simply a retelling of a story that had already been told for centuries and had already reached its fullest expression with Christopher Marlowe.
>that story had objectively never been put to paper before
i really wish you would keep your moronic pseud opinions to yourself, because youre much dumber and obviously so than you think
You could just prove you’re not a pseud and identify the original. And don’t say “it’s an allegory for a Christian idea” like an idiot, okay?
>He wasn’t an atheist. He was just “decidedly non-Christian”. In other words, he was an atheist.
he wasnt an atheist because he believed in a god concept, which isnt what atheists believe, you idiot.
He didn’t though. Goethe’s “god” was not properly a god. The same is true for Spinoza, another generic enlightenmentish thinker.
neither were atheists. cite where you think spinoza rejected the metaphysical. hint: he never said such in english or latin.
no. do the homework instead of spouting stupid opinions.
Someone who doesn't capitalize letters on the internet is either underage, degenerate or a vapid woman.
I just can't take you seriously.
I didn’t say Spinoza “rejected the metaphysical”, whatever that means. Even staunch self-professed atheists accept certain metaphysical presuppositions. Everyone knows this. What I said was that Spinoza’s god is not really properly a god.
As for your thing about The Divine Comedy, it’s okay because everyone knew you were full of shit right away and we never expected you to have a real reply. So don't worry about it.
and i point out spinozas god meets the criteria for a concept of god, which is why it made sense for him to call it a god. even a staunch self professed reasonable man can see that. let's see you try to even define god.
no, youre full of shit about dante. im not doing your homework for you.
he has a point. all your qualifiers apply to both narrative and geography, you dunce.
You didn’t do that though, narrative is objectively not geography.
things midwits say. what makes qualifiers applied to one field exclusive from the other?
note how a phrase like "tragedy of the commons" is standard in academia, yet you stupidly claim that tragedy as a concept cant be applied to continents
The point that was made was not that tragic can’t be used to describe continents, or anything else, but that something else was necessarily better because it could be used to describe it. You know fully well that a tragic play could be a better play than a not-tragic play precisely because it’s tragic. If Africa is more tragic than Europe that doesn’t mean Africa isn’t better on the basis that it’s more tragic because Africa and Europe are places and not plays. Everyone is in agreement that Africa could indeed be tragic, more tragic than Europe. It just means nothing.
> I’m not doing your homework for you
That’s because you can’t.
What makes Marlowe's Faust better?
More simplistic and yet more dramatic. More of the explicitly supernatural. A better, more tragic ending. This is basically all just opinion though.
>More simplistic and yet more dramatic. More of the explicitly supernatural. A better, more tragic ending.
All this applies to Africa's fate compared to Europe's. Does that make Africa better than Europe?
It might, were Africa and Europe stories and not places.
Genuinely one of the more absurd takes I’ve seen on lit. Are you all complete logiclets? You just made a sophist tier argument about Africa being vaguely “better” (completely undefined term) by consequence of its more tragic narrative. Clearly the comparison doesn’t hold because “better (narrative)” which was implicit in your comparison does not also suddenly denote “better (sophisticated, virtuous, cultured, or whatever you are implying). This is a very confused argumentative strategy in my opinion.
i am not the one who did any sophistry, you did. all that did was point out the stupidity of your opinions.
all your focusing on those posts slipshod logic (which only parodies marlowe anons) while ignoring marlowe anons swiss cheese opinions indicates that youre just marlowe anon samegayging.
>not beliving in christianity makes you an atheist
>this is not a bait
lol'd, screend, currently weeding
to be fair to him, not that the homosexual deserves the kindness, in roman times disbelief in the main religion was defined as atheism. but that definition has a lot of holes in it and causes more problems, which is why the modern definition of atheism, as opposed to irreligious or agnostic, is a better one for the sake of logic.
>So besides Faust, I fail to see what was so impressive and unique about him.
Poetry.
>liberal and atheist
homie larped as a muslim. A fricking shia muslim too when at that time no one knew about them
no he didnt moron. when did goethe ever openly embrace islam as a religious belief?
I said he larped as a muslim. As for his religious beliefs he was a deist
then i guess we understand larp differently
lmao what a flimsy attempt at superciliousness
cry more about it pussy, youre still obviously underread in your studies and wrong about goethe and dante to anyone who has a clue.
>then i guess we understand larp differently
Live action role playing. Goethe really did go further than most of the OG orientalists in his larp
Just name the original telling of the Divine Comedy already, my man. We’re waiting with bated breath here.
>that time when Goethe chimped out against voltaire for mocking muhammad
>atheist
he was a deist
Ur israeli
>“So far,” R. says, “we have been great in defence, dispelling alien elements which we could not assimilate; the Teutoburger Wald was a rejection of the Roman influence, the Reformation also a rejection, our great literature a rejection of the influence of the French; the only positive thing so far has been our music—-Beethoven.” “And Faust" I ask. “It is really just a sort of sketch,” R. says, “which Goethe himself looked upon in puzzlement, as a curiosity—he himself did not consider it a finished work of art.”
>He says Faust is the finest book ever written in the German language.
>Talking about Goethe and whether he can be regarded as the sum total of the German spirit, R. says, “I think he can, if one considers how he absorbed all the revivals and discoveries of the 18th century in this free manner; and in the ultimate things he was always full of prescience.”
It’s funny because only Germans seemed to have been really impressed by German poets. Nobody else really prizes German literature and Germany no doubt comprises the smallest portion of entries in the Western canon of great literature among all the Western countries. Even Russia produced more greats. These Germans talked about their own writers the way Japanese talk about mangaka, except the mangaka are at least really popular abroad.
Is picrel worth reading?
to think a STEM lord is the best poet Germany ever produced. i kneel.
this is the problem with stupid fricking pseuds. they try to claim this or that figure for themselves, or as social currency, as a form of social clout, but they dont have a clue about anything about them that isnt reddit tier knowledge.
dont get me started on how obviously moronic the anon talking about dante is, to anyone decently read in dante secondary. i doubt this homosexual even read the divine comedy.
why do you people weirdly even consider a more tragic ending to be a superior one? too much ancient greek or western tradition brainwashing? how would you even define a tragic ending? what makes it better instead of just being a culturally preferred western method?
It was immediately conceded that it was mere opinion. That it’s better on the basis that it’s more tragic and even that it is more tragic at all is basically opinion. You just glossed over that, in part because you’re a pseud who doesn’t read.
its a mere opinion and a stupid one, so whyd you feel the need to spout it and say goethes is worse, based on your stupid views? critics whove thought about this have critically examined both and correctly concluded that goethes is better. but you just glossed over it because youre the pseud who doesnt read.
Because someone asked you gigantic moron
> le critics agree that it’s better
> therefore it’s better
Lol okay anon
i said they
>critically examined both
a perfectly fine thing to say. read kaufmann, even that dead beached whale bloom. their positions were among the best developed.
we both know my positions are more than that. if youre going to be dishonest just dont talk
Damn, you’re dumb. That their positions were the best is literally just your opinion, same as the opinion about the superiority of Marlowe’s Faust. As for the consensus of the critics, consensus first of all doesn’t necessarily reveal the truth. Just because some people agree that some thing is the case doesn’t mean it really is the case. It’s also an appeal to authority fallacy. They’re not right just because they’re critics. Yeah, you can say whatever you want but you diverge into moronation when you try to assert it as objective truth. What you have here is an opinion, same as the one you took issue with in the first place.
no it isnt you dirty relativist pseud. theyre strong positions because they reflect reality accurately and deeply and overcame the opposition from pseuds like you. their critical consensus became orthodoxy because theyre right. and theyre right because they made the best cases based on truth.
Read more. Lurk more.
you should really try better than to lean on >no u tier dogshit if you insist on calling other anons stupid
stupid, stupid people. the problem with you people is you spout dumb opinions and dont actually think about things.
the ending of goethes version already meets the two main elements of tragedy, using the definition from which tragedy as a concept derived. in that sense, goethes ending is more intensely tragic, but that itself wouldnt make its ending better.
so, i thought you said you werent going to take people seriously. so why cant you come up with responses to fix your idiotic incoherently views?
now when a moron says moronic things like
>Hurrdurr, more simplistic and yet more dramatic.
its not really more dramatic since goethes characters are more rounded
>More of the explicitly supernatural.
then horror is a better genre than the classics of the western canon. but its not even that. faust part 2 has hundreds of more supernatural elements, which isnt surprising, since its twice as long.
A better, more tragic ending.
goethes version is more tragic based on the ancient definition of tragedy i referenced, the one from which the western tradition is rooted on and constantly referenced back to
>This is basically all just opinion though.
it certainly is, which is why marlowe homosexuals shit opinions wont spread very far
When I asked what makes Marlowe's better it's because I'm an overburdened student who doesn't have the time to learn this stuff yet. I don't know what makes Goethe or Marlowe better because I haven't read them, I've only heard of theme through lit. Why are you guys so fussy about this? It's just literature.
its not just about literature. these idiots try to force their opinions on other people and end up lowering standards if theyre not kept in check. theyre incompetents who end up destroying civilization because theyre too stupid to understand how mediocre they are.
Goethe worked on his Faust all his life. Goethe was also more intelligent and better rounded. Marlowe wrote Faustus when he was in his 20s and didn't have as developed a worldview. Is it surprising that Goethe's is better, more critically acclaimed, and the consensus better Faust in the Western canon?
you are giving too much credit to shitposters on IQfy
im giving them as much credit as they deserve.
Imagine writing Faust in your 20's
a task too difficult for even goethe, certainly not marlowe