living in the woods is based and the transcendentalists were the last men who can truly been said to have been writing in the American tradition — all else afterward are compromised
>transcendentalists
I want to read these guys as, I have Thoreau & Emerson on my self, but something is stopping me. They seem kind of gay, or too life affirming. I feel obligated to read them as a literary American, but I can't take worldviews devoid of pessimism seriously.
same but these are 19th century americans. you probably don't have to dig very far to find some kind of insane sadism under the surface. bout to read walden tbh
First — being too life-denying is strongly overrated. People think it wraps them in a clever little protective cloak of irony, pessimism, cynicism, and gloom, but real joy doesn’t come that way
Second: they definitely could be said to be “pessimistic” in some ways, in terms of how much they expected the masses to understand or go along with them — you can find “pessimistic” or somewhat “misanthropic” statements among them about how oversocialization and civilization has made some or many of us a little too weak, pampered, and prissy. However, you are right, that they are unabashed about the joys of silent contemplation and solitude in nature, reading great literature, writing, and even certain forms of contemplative mysticism they read and strongly respected (like “the Upanishads of the Hindoo mystics”, as they might archaically put it). I think they’re amazing figures and great stylists to boot, you can’t miss reading them. Even Nietzsche loved Emerson, and he didn’t have much respect for many of his contemporaries. Brainrotted losers addicted to the Internet can of course disregard this, because they seem like “le leftist so*boys” or whatever.
alright, I'll give emerson a chance. i was being a little proactive to get a response like this to convince me tbh.
2 months ago
Anonymous
[...]
also, don't agree with your first point at all. pessimism is just reality. Im not looking for joy or protection from anything.
awesome, I’m happy to hear that. And, to qualify my post more, I understand that point about “pessimism” (I put this word in scare-quotes because there are, honestly, many words we use — usually those having to do with concepts, or emotional/cognitive complexes, forms of feeling/thinking, worldviews/outlooks, etc., which actually are surprisingly vague and can have many different speakers’ own different mindsets projected onto it, so people are actually speaking at cross-purposes, because they don’t fully know exactly what others mean when they use a word like “pessimism”, for instance). To further qualify these statements I made, I indeed think there’s a HUGE value in DISILLUSIONMENT — massive disillusionment with the various illusions foisted on us — by society, acculturation, socialization, civilization, our upbringing, parents and teachers, media and education, the politicians and celebrities, et cetera. Cut away those illusions, and don’t ever be hankering for “something better”, some ideal better or even perfect future state, the greener grass on the other side, or the lures and enticements of society — whether it’s the ideal of deep romantic love, or even at least being some type of Dionysian sex-and-partying-god, “honor, patriotism, and duty” (as applied especially to a specific nation-state), the lures of making big money and getting that nice career to keep up with the Joneses, the enticements of fame & celebrity, etc. — by all means, I can agree with becoming disillusioned (and hence pessimistic, cynical) about that. And Emerson and Thoreau also agree with this, I’m sure. Become disillusioned with what society can offer you, with what faceless anonymity in the amorphous public mass of “the They” (Heidegger’s phrase/concept, but having roots in Kierkegaard’s conception of the public, as well as Nietzsche’s conception of “the herd” or the herd-mind, and also certainly paralleled in Emerson and Thoreau’s thought) can apparently offer you, or the comforts and enticements it (conformity with some popular public romantic ideal) claims it can offer you. By all means, I can stand by this conception of “pessimism” as disillusionment, the same as Buddhism and Vedanta do (forms of thought which Transcendentalism definitely overlaps with), or even as Christianity and its mysticism does.
But to take this pessimism, cynicism, and disillusionment and let it bring oneself to the sad state that one can’t imagine any significant personal joy, fulfillment, or meaningful self-development for oneself — I think that’s a trap.
If you were to take another conception/definition of “pessimism” to its uttermost limit (viz., thinking that EVERYTHING will inevitably turn out for the worst), this would essentially be a suicide mindset. You would have a nice day, basically, if you were completely honest with yourself and actually a “complete pessimist”.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>You would have a nice day, basically, if you were completely honest with yourself and actually a “complete pessimist”.
Not necessarily, it could always be worse (to be or not to be). Ligotti wrote an argument against this too, but I forget it. Also Schopenhauer's On Suicide talks about it. Suicide isn't an escape, at best it's an experiment, you can't say it will end suffering. >significant personal joy, fulfillment, or meaningful self-development for oneself
I hate arguing semantics but that word 'significant' is where you lose me. The pessimism I refer to is Schopenhauer's specifically. Disillusioned is the right word. I am thoroughly disillusioned. I think I was hesitant to read Emerson/Thoreau because I assumed they were proposing a type of optimistic world-view that seems naive. I'll read and see for myself, I've got plenty of time to kill 😉
>Brainrotted losers addicted to the Internet can of course disregard this, because they seem like “le leftist so*boys” or whatever.
That's not fair. They also seem like their women would be substitute teachers with arm fat but I was hoping that would provoke a correction.
On a serious note: if they're responsible for the Unitarians then you can't deny there's a lineage to that thinking if only a tiny one. Looking up criticisms/stuff in The Blithedale Romance it's clear there's a certain type prevalent among transcendentalists/utopian communities.
>living in the woods is based and the transcendentalists were the last men who can truly been said to have been writing in the American tradition — all else afterward are compromised
can you please expand upon this, I don't get what you quite mean?
Not that anon but he probably means that american literature after transcendentalism tended to congregate around the coastal metropolises and be written by urbanite coastal types rather than leaning into the previously agrarian character of american culture. Like think of the difference between Melville and Henry James.
fair enough. although if transcendentalism really is just the proto-version of s*yfacing over the value of all human life to the point of xenophilia then it's pretty lame. looking on wikipedia it appears that thoreau was another cringe india-boo. plus
Created unitarian univeralism, therefore cringe.
. not to be a chud but seems like he'd be spamming george floyd shit online today so idk about this guy
The only transcendentalists worth reading are Ralph Waldo Emerson and that is because Nietzsche liked him, and Walt Whitman because he was a good poet.
Ralph Waldo Emerson >>>>>>> Henry David Thoreau.
why
living in the woods is based and the transcendentalists were the last men who can truly been said to have been writing in the American tradition — all else afterward are compromised
>transcendentalists
I want to read these guys as, I have Thoreau & Emerson on my self, but something is stopping me. They seem kind of gay, or too life affirming. I feel obligated to read them as a literary American, but I can't take worldviews devoid of pessimism seriously.
So you like to wallow in your gloom?
I just don't want to read a bunch of shit about how pretty trees are that ignores the animals eating each other alive under their shade.
same but these are 19th century americans. you probably don't have to dig very far to find some kind of insane sadism under the surface. bout to read walden tbh
>they seem kind of gay
>I can’t take worldviews devoid of pessimism seriously
if only you understood the irony of these statements
First — being too life-denying is strongly overrated. People think it wraps them in a clever little protective cloak of irony, pessimism, cynicism, and gloom, but real joy doesn’t come that way
Second: they definitely could be said to be “pessimistic” in some ways, in terms of how much they expected the masses to understand or go along with them — you can find “pessimistic” or somewhat “misanthropic” statements among them about how oversocialization and civilization has made some or many of us a little too weak, pampered, and prissy. However, you are right, that they are unabashed about the joys of silent contemplation and solitude in nature, reading great literature, writing, and even certain forms of contemplative mysticism they read and strongly respected (like “the Upanishads of the Hindoo mystics”, as they might archaically put it). I think they’re amazing figures and great stylists to boot, you can’t miss reading them. Even Nietzsche loved Emerson, and he didn’t have much respect for many of his contemporaries. Brainrotted losers addicted to the Internet can of course disregard this, because they seem like “le leftist so*boys” or whatever.
alright, I'll give emerson a chance. i was being a little proactive to get a response like this to convince me tbh.
awesome, I’m happy to hear that. And, to qualify my post more, I understand that point about “pessimism” (I put this word in scare-quotes because there are, honestly, many words we use — usually those having to do with concepts, or emotional/cognitive complexes, forms of feeling/thinking, worldviews/outlooks, etc., which actually are surprisingly vague and can have many different speakers’ own different mindsets projected onto it, so people are actually speaking at cross-purposes, because they don’t fully know exactly what others mean when they use a word like “pessimism”, for instance). To further qualify these statements I made, I indeed think there’s a HUGE value in DISILLUSIONMENT — massive disillusionment with the various illusions foisted on us — by society, acculturation, socialization, civilization, our upbringing, parents and teachers, media and education, the politicians and celebrities, et cetera. Cut away those illusions, and don’t ever be hankering for “something better”, some ideal better or even perfect future state, the greener grass on the other side, or the lures and enticements of society — whether it’s the ideal of deep romantic love, or even at least being some type of Dionysian sex-and-partying-god, “honor, patriotism, and duty” (as applied especially to a specific nation-state), the lures of making big money and getting that nice career to keep up with the Joneses, the enticements of fame & celebrity, etc. — by all means, I can agree with becoming disillusioned (and hence pessimistic, cynical) about that. And Emerson and Thoreau also agree with this, I’m sure. Become disillusioned with what society can offer you, with what faceless anonymity in the amorphous public mass of “the They” (Heidegger’s phrase/concept, but having roots in Kierkegaard’s conception of the public, as well as Nietzsche’s conception of “the herd” or the herd-mind, and also certainly paralleled in Emerson and Thoreau’s thought) can apparently offer you, or the comforts and enticements it (conformity with some popular public romantic ideal) claims it can offer you. By all means, I can stand by this conception of “pessimism” as disillusionment, the same as Buddhism and Vedanta do (forms of thought which Transcendentalism definitely overlaps with), or even as Christianity and its mysticism does.
But to take this pessimism, cynicism, and disillusionment and let it bring oneself to the sad state that one can’t imagine any significant personal joy, fulfillment, or meaningful self-development for oneself — I think that’s a trap.
If you were to take another conception/definition of “pessimism” to its uttermost limit (viz., thinking that EVERYTHING will inevitably turn out for the worst), this would essentially be a suicide mindset. You would have a nice day, basically, if you were completely honest with yourself and actually a “complete pessimist”.
>You would have a nice day, basically, if you were completely honest with yourself and actually a “complete pessimist”.
Not necessarily, it could always be worse (to be or not to be). Ligotti wrote an argument against this too, but I forget it. Also Schopenhauer's On Suicide talks about it. Suicide isn't an escape, at best it's an experiment, you can't say it will end suffering.
>significant personal joy, fulfillment, or meaningful self-development for oneself
I hate arguing semantics but that word 'significant' is where you lose me. The pessimism I refer to is Schopenhauer's specifically. Disillusioned is the right word. I am thoroughly disillusioned. I think I was hesitant to read Emerson/Thoreau because I assumed they were proposing a type of optimistic world-view that seems naive. I'll read and see for myself, I've got plenty of time to kill 😉
>Brainrotted losers addicted to the Internet can of course disregard this, because they seem like “le leftist so*boys” or whatever.
That's not fair. They also seem like their women would be substitute teachers with arm fat but I was hoping that would provoke a correction.
On a serious note: if they're responsible for the Unitarians then you can't deny there's a lineage to that thinking if only a tiny one. Looking up criticisms/stuff in The Blithedale Romance it's clear there's a certain type prevalent among transcendentalists/utopian communities.
also, don't agree with your first point at all. pessimism is just reality. Im not looking for joy or protection from anything.
>living in the woods is based and the transcendentalists were the last men who can truly been said to have been writing in the American tradition — all else afterward are compromised
can you please expand upon this, I don't get what you quite mean?
Not that anon but he probably means that american literature after transcendentalism tended to congregate around the coastal metropolises and be written by urbanite coastal types rather than leaning into the previously agrarian character of american culture. Like think of the difference between Melville and Henry James.
fair enough. although if transcendentalism really is just the proto-version of s*yfacing over the value of all human life to the point of xenophilia then it's pretty lame. looking on wikipedia it appears that thoreau was another cringe india-boo. plus
. not to be a chud but seems like he'd be spamming george floyd shit online today so idk about this guy
Created unitarian univeralism, therefore cringe.
Yeah I'm reading more about it shit's gay nevermind lmao
The only transcendentalists worth reading are Ralph Waldo Emerson and that is because Nietzsche liked him, and Walt Whitman because he was a good poet.
Carlyle birthed them btw.