>Thomas Carlyle is my favorite author and the one whom I read most often.
What kind of person do you imagine?
>Thomas Carlyle is my favorite author and the one whom I read most often.
>Thomas Carlyle is my favorite author and the one whom I read most often.
What kind of person do you imagine?
I fat stinky chud with bad breath.
I imagine a*
nah, I prefer the first version
Curtis Yarvin, because Thomas Carlyle is Curtis Yarvin's favorite author
This. He's chudcore sorry.
Carlyle and Yarvin are both about 500 times smarter than anybody on here so your use of buzzwords doesn't mean anything
Hi Moldie
Stop associating Carlyle with this fat dork. Carlyle has been one of the most well read authors in English since his own time, he doesn't need homosexual e-celebs to popularise him. Also Yarvin just lies about being a Carlylean. He says he's a Carlylean in the same way as a Marxist is a Marxist, yet his political philosophy blatantly contradicts Carlyle's. He also claims he has read the every single work of Thomas Carlyle, which is another lie, though he's vain enough to believe he's one of the few people on earth do so.
have a nice day.
a decade and a half passed and this guy still makes everyone seethe, fantastic.
Yarvin's back. Haven't you heard?
yeah i know, but the shit he wrote still makes people seethe
A chuad
damn, he was one ugly c**t.
You’re a conservative and probably pretty smart, but somehow, you still don’t quite get it entirely or you want something which is not really conservative or practical.
are you just saying that carlyle is a false stand-in for catholicism? if so, i would say that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that there isn't a catholic writer as good as carlyle.
I am not, no.
i shouldn't have assumed. what did you mean by
>there isn't a catholic writer as good as carlyle.
Dante, Alexander Pope, Joseph de Maistre, Léon Bloy, Charles Baudelaire, François-René de Chateaubriand, Miguel de Cervantes, Ludovico Ariosto, Sigrid Undset, Giambattista Vico.
You’re clearly just throwing a bunch of famous names out instead of actually naming anybody good. Have you actually read Vico? He’s a mess and very small-minded.
>You’re clearly just throwing a bunch of famous names out instead of actually naming anybody good.
All as good as Carlyle, if not better in some cases.
>very small-minded.
Carlyle wasn't particularly big-minded.
>All as good as Carlyle
NTA, but no. Dante and Cervantes are divine geniuses that have nothing to do with this discussion. The other poets shouldn't even be compared with Carlyle as a writer, because they're above all artists and not writers. But Maistre, Bloy, Chateaubriand are not on Carlyle's level. I find it ridiculous to even call Baudelaire a Catholic, even if he belonged to that culture. I would accept Vico, even if he belongs to a completely different era. I don't know a thing about Undset, but it seems like she's just a novelist that happens to be a Catholic.
>they're above all artists and not writers
What is this meaningless dichotomy? A writer IS an artist. I think you meant they're artists and not thinkers.
Chateaubriand is definitely on Carlyle's level. Dante and Cervantes are above him. Also, poets are writers. IQfy overrating this writer just because he's lesser known is funny.
That anon surely didn't mean Carlyle was the greatest writer, in the most literal sense, of all Protestants, it's clear he meant Catholics do not have someone of equal worth who shares a similar function and style to Carlyle. Because Carlyle is a uniquely great figure in literature. As far as poets are concerned, they have nothing to do with the question, they are not, primarily at least, political commentators or social critics. They are not forceful thinkers reacting to the nature of modern times. Yes, Dante and Cervantes are above him, as I already said, but so are Shakespeare, Milton and Schiller. Carlyle is not lesser known, his greatness is universally known to any literati, whose prose and criticism is second to none. And it's not surprising, Protestants have always had the greatest rhetoricians.
He said there wasn’t any Catholic as good as Carlyle, then he doubled down. I don’t know why you try to sugarcoat it. Political commentators or social critics? Great prose? Chateaubriand is that Catholic writer.
Chateaubriand was French so of course he misunderstood everything. He was more caught in his times than prophetic of them. Not at all comparable to Carlyle's transcendence of political factionalism, and while I don't know Chateaubriand's French, I doubt it with everything I know of French prose that he could be Carlyle's equal. Very witty and impassioned and linguistically marvelous, I'm sure, but that's not what sets Carlyle apart, even if they are comparable for what they did with prose in their respective countries in the same century.
> Chateaubriand was French so of course he misunderstood everything
Opinion discarded. Have a nice day/night. Carlyle is inferior to C btw.
Sorry, but French people are just silly and can't be trusted to think clearly. He re-converted to Catholicism. Wow, great revelation there! What Frenchmen do in the confines of their insulated culture, like return to their old Catholicism, has no significance for the rest of the world.
If the French had no significance to the rest of the world now imagine a dwarf-faced self-hating Scot from the 1800s whose living fanboys mostly exist in the night shift of a Chinese basket weaving forum.
How’s Vico small minded?
Either:
>Intellectual and endowed with the power of wit. A more traditional man, but possibly not so monopolistic. It's uncertain, though the connotations are clear. Above all, he is a real, actual lover of literature. He may even write himself. Their quasi-religion is the greatest of men. A sense of contempt for capitalism and mass culture in general is hidden just below the surface. Extremely well-read.
>The dark enlightenment. Moldburg. Bold and brash, but ultimately shallow. He is more aesthetically-minded for his choice of writers, as in, they aren't vocal for their love but for its connotations. Deeply contrived. He loves to kick up a storm.
>Spiteful. Shallow. Immature.
>A chud.
There is no in between.
Either:
>Intellectual and endowed with the power of wit. A more traditional man, but possibly not so monopolistic. It's uncertain, though the connotations are clear. Above all, he is a real, actual lover of literature. He may even write himself. Their quasi-religion is the greatest of men. A sense of contempt for capitalism and mass culture in general is hidden just below the surface. Extremely well-read.
>The dark enlightenment. Moldburg. Bold and brash, but ultimately shallow. He is more aesthetically-minded for his choice of writers, as in, they aren't vocal for their love but for its connotations. Deeply contrived. He loves to kick up a storm. Spiteful. Shallow. Immature. A chud.
There is no in between.
(Better formatting)
It's weird how popular Carlyle was among more lefty leaning writers of his time. People like Emerson and Thoreau for example couldn't stop praising him.
leftists are notoriously stupid
The chud-lefty spectrum isn't exactly applicable to countries undergoing their cultural genesis like the US in the transcendentalist era, neither does opposing slavery make you a lefty necessarily when not a single chud advocates for unironic slavery nowadays. Really the US slavery vs. antislavery debate feels like a debate between people who would have preferred to phase it out organically vs. those who wanted to abolish it instantly either for moral or economic reasons.
>when not a single chud advocates for unironic slavery nowadays.
~~*Yarvin*~~ does but he's a israelite so that's expected.
Jews can't be chuds, the only thing they can be is a israelite.
Everyone praised him and paid attention to him at the time. Engels wrote a raving review of Past and Present. The reason he’s often forgotten today is because he’s too anti-liberal for modern standards. Really hated those blacks and israelites.
Maybe he shouldn't have been too hateful. Céline was anti-israeli as well but he's more popular than ever. The issue with Carlyle is that he wrote things that basically no one cares about.
He was literally a national socialist before it existed
And Céline wasn't an extremist or what? Carlyle simply didn't write something that resonates with today's reader.
>Carlyle simply didn't write something that resonates with today's reader.
any other writers like this?
his fellow students ruskin and emerson are not too well-known today either
emerson is pretty well-known
Yarvin should 'reread' Sartor Resartus and learn to dress properly.
You can only criticize the attire of a noble if you are yourself one. And "Sartor Resartus" is of no use to him because he admitted that he is not educated in German Idealism. So why should he read it in the first place?
Doesn't agree with my 21st century corporate approved politics so chud. Sentences that have more than 5 words are racist.
nice boogeyman