What kind of insanity would drive someone who wishes to read Middle Eastern poetry to learn Pashto and not Farsi? Or Arabic? Hell there's more poetry in Urdu, plus you can learn Hindi easily if you learn Urdu.
All terrible choices for contemporary verse, basically all of these are westernized in their poetry, if you wanted to see non-westernized poetry that’s still booming as fine as ever you should look to India, their mahakavya tradition is alive and well with ridiculously complex forms of verse and monstrously large prose pieces.
It was the only thing he was right about. Not that writing poetry was now cruel but that it was now foreign. Poetry can still be written and still be good but no one relates to it. You could write a great poem after WW2 but it would not be an 'epic' in the sense that The Iliad, or any other epic, conveyed the culture and later became it: "Barbarism is simply that which culture is not."
Have you read the entire thing rather than just a quote that gets passed around? Literally, in the sentence before the "To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric" he writes: "Cultural criticism finds itself today faced with the final state of the dialectic of culture and barbarism." When he says 'barbaric" he means what is opposed to the culture. And he was right: after WWII poetry no longer worked as a medium to frame culture as it did for centuries before. You could certainly dispute that WWII or Auschwitz was an actual catalyst and it was, instead, a gradual decline, for that but he is still right.
the modern age started with columbus discovering america and ended with the french revolution
we live now in the contemporary age
why do anglo-american historiography is so shitty bros??????? they think the world started after ww2
2 years ago
Anonymous
Columbus is late Rennesance/Early modern, the modern period proper begins with the American Revolution/French Revolution/Napoleon, the Rennesance nobility ideals died in the flames of those revolutions in favor of the Liberal and Materialist revolutionary goals, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Late Modern is the age of empire witch ended around the world wars, then we came into the Contemporary Period, either in 1943, '45 or '48 depending on who you ask, and now we're in the early decades of the Global Digital period.
2 years ago
Anonymous
man, anglo-american historiography is so bad, not even themselves can agree when the modern age starts, take a look at this picture, bucko!
2 years ago
Anonymous
This would make Marxism and Fascism post-modern, which is idiotic. Modernism's end date is somewhere between WW2 and the fall of the USSR. Post-modern thought started during the Cold War, and liberalism triumphed over competing modernists ideologies.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>This would make Marxism and Fascism post-modern
why are anglo so stupid?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>no response just reeeing about an imaginary enemy
jajajajaja
2 years ago
Anonymous
i don´t see how an ideology should be labelled as "modern/postmodern/whatever the frick"
get off your high horse midwit
2 years ago
Anonymous
The enlightenment is really going to troll you, and Popper might cause you to get the poker out
>The belief in the continued persistence of liberalism leads to all sorts of asinine detours. It leads to people play-acting as union bosses organizing the coal miners of Colorado into a revolutionary struggle to break the system of wage slavery upheld by the robber barons, who of course represent “liberalism,” and whose grasp is stronger than ever with the gig economy. It leads to the same sterile polemics against caricatures of Hobbes, Locke, Mill and Rousseau as if these thinkers are relevant to our period, much as if though one tried to understand the 18th century by studying Petrus Ramus and Jan Comenius, to go on and discover ‘influences’ and ‘traces’ wherever one happens to see them. It leads to people thinking that if only we come up with the right “industrial policy” to finally overthrow the tyranny of the “neoliberal Washington consensus,” we can finally deprogram the multiracial working class from the false consciousness that the porkies deliberately instilled into them (so as to avoid the “threat” of another Occupy Wall Street), and unite the country around the one issue that deep down everyone cares about: health insurance. It leads to people endorsing vaccine passports so as to not come across as some square who believes in “inborn rights” and “the right of resistance,” a dreadful and ostensibly Lockean notion. Worst of all, it permits a thriving scene of post-liberal grifters who combine their mid-1950s Labor Party platform with functionalistic appeals to ‘transcendent values,’ ‘community,’ and ‘faith,’ and who present this as the apex of dissidence, as a fundamental repudiation of the Enlightenment, and not of course as the old New Republic editorial line that it really is. The latter is particularly pernicious because it utterly distorts the historical development of liberalism, by resuscitating the eternal spectre of ‘Manchesterism,’ ‘laissez-faire’ and ‘acquisitive individualism’ so as to pretend that we are still being ruled by the cigar-smoking Monopoly Man, except all the more deviously well hidden with his new marijuana cigar and a Hawaiian shirt to replace his suit. It thus allows social liberalism to disguise itself as an “anti-liberal” or “post-liberal” front fighting the “neoliberals,” meaning the eternal plot by Margaret Thatcher (and now her ghost) to privatize the NHS.
2 years ago
Anonymous
[...] >The purpose of this essay is to vindicate the thesis that liberalism doesn’t exist. It is dead. Almost as dead as animal magnetism. Moreover, its death is by no means recent. I can’t prove a negative? Just watch me. I’m not suggesting anything new or groundbreaking — Paul Gottfried, Theodore J. Lowi, Walter Lippmann, James T. Kloppenberg, Panagiotis Kondylis and a host of others have made similar arguments, or in any case have revised liberalism into something unrecognizable from its origins. On a superficial level a lot of people will agree. Of course we don’t live in the bourgeois-liberal epoch. And just as they say this they will forget all about it momentarily after and proceed to bang on about “the free market,” “negative rights,” how the idea of civic equality inevitably led to trans rights, the “commodification” wrought by “neoliberal woke capital,” so on and so forth. Copious references to Alasdair MacIntyre, John Gray, Christopher Lasch and others will inevitably follow. Fat and greasy “Red Tory” military history buffs will start defending lockdowns in the name of the common good. They say it, but they don’t believe it. The people who are “left on economics, right on culture” and who lecture others on “materialist class analysis” are utterly divorced from present material conditions, and can’t help but see the Gilded Age everywhere they go. Remind them that the proletariat’s pensions and health benefits come from the asset portfolios of pension funds investing in public and private equity, and that therefore the proletariat’s class interests are just as tethered to capital markets as any fatcat, and there’s not much they can say. The utter erosion of the rule of law is widely acknowledged, yet people can’t put two and two together that this implies a demise of the liberal epoch. The facile attempt at pretending it is still with us by pointing to the widespread belief in equality is not unlike someone trying to argue that 18th-century Geneva was still Roman Catholic because people continued to pray to God.
>here's my retcon of the words I didn't understand
Burke must make you apoplectic
2 years ago
Anonymous
>illiterate doesn´t like to read >believes all the problems started with the enlightenment
2 years ago
Anonymous
>anon is upset he couldn't shoehorn in a straw man
Good
2 years ago
Anonymous
we live in the contemporary age, the modern age was over when the french revolution began
2 years ago
Anonymous
I see the stroke has set in
2 years ago
Anonymous
[...] >The purpose of this essay is to vindicate the thesis that liberalism doesn’t exist. It is dead. Almost as dead as animal magnetism. Moreover, its death is by no means recent. I can’t prove a negative? Just watch me. I’m not suggesting anything new or groundbreaking — Paul Gottfried, Theodore J. Lowi, Walter Lippmann, James T. Kloppenberg, Panagiotis Kondylis and a host of others have made similar arguments, or in any case have revised liberalism into something unrecognizable from its origins. On a superficial level a lot of people will agree. Of course we don’t live in the bourgeois-liberal epoch. And just as they say this they will forget all about it momentarily after and proceed to bang on about “the free market,” “negative rights,” how the idea of civic equality inevitably led to trans rights, the “commodification” wrought by “neoliberal woke capital,” so on and so forth. Copious references to Alasdair MacIntyre, John Gray, Christopher Lasch and others will inevitably follow. Fat and greasy “Red Tory” military history buffs will start defending lockdowns in the name of the common good. They say it, but they don’t believe it. The people who are “left on economics, right on culture” and who lecture others on “materialist class analysis” are utterly divorced from present material conditions, and can’t help but see the Gilded Age everywhere they go. Remind them that the proletariat’s pensions and health benefits come from the asset portfolios of pension funds investing in public and private equity, and that therefore the proletariat’s class interests are just as tethered to capital markets as any fatcat, and there’s not much they can say. The utter erosion of the rule of law is widely acknowledged, yet people can’t put two and two together that this implies a demise of the liberal epoch. The facile attempt at pretending it is still with us by pointing to the widespread belief in equality is not unlike someone trying to argue that 18th-century Geneva was still Roman Catholic because people continued to pray to God.
WHO? Is this just another dollar store e-reactionary?
2 years ago
Anonymous
worst, he´s a legitimist
https://twitter.com/pompilivs
2 years ago
Anonymous
Lmao. I hate e-“intellectuals” so much it’s unreal
2 years ago
Anonymous
try an e-cigarrette bucko!
2 years ago
Anonymous
Real cigars only
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The belief in the continued persistence of liberalism leads to all sorts of asinine detours. It leads to people play-acting as union bosses organizing the coal miners of Colorado into a revolutionary struggle to break the system of wage slavery upheld by the robber barons, who of course represent “liberalism,” and whose grasp is stronger than ever with the gig economy. It leads to the same sterile polemics against caricatures of Hobbes, Locke, Mill and Rousseau as if these thinkers are relevant to our period, much as if though one tried to understand the 18th century by studying Petrus Ramus and Jan Comenius, to go on and discover ‘influences’ and ‘traces’ wherever one happens to see them. It leads to people thinking that if only we come up with the right “industrial policy” to finally overthrow the tyranny of the “neoliberal Washington consensus,” we can finally deprogram the multiracial working class from the false consciousness that the porkies deliberately instilled into them (so as to avoid the “threat” of another Occupy Wall Street), and unite the country around the one issue that deep down everyone cares about: health insurance. It leads to people endorsing vaccine passports so as to not come across as some square who believes in “inborn rights” and “the right of resistance,” a dreadful and ostensibly Lockean notion. Worst of all, it permits a thriving scene of post-liberal grifters who combine their mid-1950s Labor Party platform with functionalistic appeals to ‘transcendent values,’ ‘community,’ and ‘faith,’ and who present this as the apex of dissidence, as a fundamental repudiation of the Enlightenment, and not of course as the old New Republic editorial line that it really is. The latter is particularly pernicious because it utterly distorts the historical development of liberalism, by resuscitating the eternal spectre of ‘Manchesterism,’ ‘laissez-faire’ and ‘acquisitive individualism’ so as to pretend that we are still being ruled by the cigar-smoking Monopoly Man, except all the more deviously well hidden with his new marijuana cigar and a Hawaiian shirt to replace his suit. It thus allows social liberalism to disguise itself as an “anti-liberal” or “post-liberal” front fighting the “neoliberals,” meaning the eternal plot by Margaret Thatcher (and now her ghost) to privatize the NHS.
>The purpose of this essay is to vindicate the thesis that liberalism doesn’t exist. It is dead. Almost as dead as animal magnetism. Moreover, its death is by no means recent. I can’t prove a negative? Just watch me. I’m not suggesting anything new or groundbreaking — Paul Gottfried, Theodore J. Lowi, Walter Lippmann, James T. Kloppenberg, Panagiotis Kondylis and a host of others have made similar arguments, or in any case have revised liberalism into something unrecognizable from its origins. On a superficial level a lot of people will agree. Of course we don’t live in the bourgeois-liberal epoch. And just as they say this they will forget all about it momentarily after and proceed to bang on about “the free market,” “negative rights,” how the idea of civic equality inevitably led to trans rights, the “commodification” wrought by “neoliberal woke capital,” so on and so forth. Copious references to Alasdair MacIntyre, John Gray, Christopher Lasch and others will inevitably follow. Fat and greasy “Red Tory” military history buffs will start defending lockdowns in the name of the common good. They say it, but they don’t believe it. The people who are “left on economics, right on culture” and who lecture others on “materialist class analysis” are utterly divorced from present material conditions, and can’t help but see the Gilded Age everywhere they go. Remind them that the proletariat’s pensions and health benefits come from the asset portfolios of pension funds investing in public and private equity, and that therefore the proletariat’s class interests are just as tethered to capital markets as any fatcat, and there’s not much they can say. The utter erosion of the rule of law is widely acknowledged, yet people can’t put two and two together that this implies a demise of the liberal epoch. The facile attempt at pretending it is still with us by pointing to the widespread belief in equality is not unlike someone trying to argue that 18th-century Geneva was still Roman Catholic because people continued to pray to God.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So...this guy just pretends he lives in the 19th century? Even worse than the Catholics who pretend they’re Crusaders since at least being a Crusader is cool. Being a political theorist is not.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Latinx historiography doesn’t have the concept of “early modern” yet
2 years ago
Anonymous
we don´t have early whatever the frick, we have the modern age, period, and it ended in 1789
anglos be like early modern- middle modern- late modern, what a bunch of cucks lmao
2 years ago
Anonymous
Your image has late antiquity, high medieval etc
Stop whining about Anglochads, ese.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Your image has late antiquity, high medieval etc
use google translate moron
Edad Antigua= Ancient Age/Era
Edad Media= Middle Ages
we don´t have high or low or whatever bullshit you came up with
Surreal:
Paul Eluard
Benjamin peret
Andre Breton
Will Alexander
Robert Desnos
Valentine Penrose
Surreal/modern but usually not categorised as such:
Federico Garcia Lorca
Antonin Artaud
Cesare Pavese
Cesar Vallejo
Antonio Machado
Rafael Alberti
FT Marinetti
Modernist:
Pound
Barbara Guest
TS Eliot
William Carlos William
Gertrude Stein
Here’s a small list of poets worth reading and most are early xx century
do people do this on other boards, with the same frequency and boneheaded conviction? going on IQfy and saying that anime is dead and it was last good in the 60s, or IQfy and saying that recorded music died after blues 78s were discontinued?
Yes, and all of them are right. When a medium opens up to mass production and international finance it goes to shit. The reason why so many things seem to be "dying" these days is because things really are dying off. Whenever there is a new medium it takes a while for international finance to catch up. Eventually it does and the medium "dies."
What you understand as the >DIGGITY
is really a component of the framework surrounding the entire idea of the SCREEEEECH. True to Hegelian dialectic and with no small part of Platonic philosophy hearkening back to the golden age of Marxist thought, the DIGGITY really exists as part of the discursive framework of the SCREEEEECH. This is represented by the simultaneous and contraposed duality of the SCREEEEECH/DIGGITY System, this dichotomy known as the SCRIGGITY or DEEEEECH for you laymen out there.
It's this failure to understand the SCRIGGITY (hereon referred to as the DEEEEECH) that perpetuates the system of inequality that is the capitalist system.
Farewell, my good friend, farewell.
In my heart, forever, you’ll stay.
May the fated parting foretell
That again we’ll meet up someday.
Let no words, no handshakes ensue,
No saddened brows in remorse, –
To die, in this life, is not new,
And living’s no newer, of course.
We live in a golden age of poetry. There has been more great poetry written in the last 20 years than in any 20 year period in the history of literature
Poetry is the best its ever been in the last 40 years. You're just attempting to be spoonfed so you can skip all of the shitty contemporary poetry (of which there is a lot, but the ratio of bad vs good poetry has always stayed more or less consistent no matter the era). Anyways, frick you. Do your own research. Go wade through the shit for diamonds yourself. If you can't read ten bad books to find an eleventh thats good, then you don't deserve to appreciate poetry.
The mediocre stuff is in journals. By the time anyone is getting a collection published, they are bredy gud, let alone anything that got reviewed or prize nominated.
Not necessarily. A lot of bullshit gets published just for being woke/sympathy points for the publisher.
Heres a few absolute dogshit books i've read the last few years
>Dropbear by who cares >The Agonist Shastra Deo >Vociferante by who cares (Wahhh wahh im asian and discriminated against) >Title I don't remember by Eunice Andrada
Worst kind of poetry (after war poetry) is "Im so sad, my sadness is unique, wahh wahhh, people were racist/misogynist/Homophobic/istophobic towards me"
Most of them are doggerilic hacks laundering drug money when they're not busy committing violent felonies, but the best rappers from pretty much Rakim on are absolutely worthy of being put in the company of the likes of Shakespeare. Hell, nowadays, we've literally seen our best rappers write fricking historical epics entirely in verse and perform them before sellout houses on the reg.
>Contemporary poetry isn't bad at all, here is my favourite hip-hop artist.
IQfy really doesn't read at all.
I mean T.S. Eliot over William Carlos Williams?
You guys really are a bunch of pseuds.
No mention of the Black Mountain Poets or even The New York Poets.
You guys are a fricking joke.
Maybe in order to appreciate poetry you could start by, you know, reading it.
I didn't mention my favorite rap artist. Two of the guys I brought up were solely for the purposes of mockery.
But bringing up modern poetry without mentioning rap is like bringing up guitar in the second-half of the 20th Century without mentioning rock and roll. Regardless of how little you like it, that's what's the most influential thing going, by far the most financially lucrative form of the art today, and what people 100 years from now are gonna talk about when they talk about our era.
I don't agree. It's been plenty of time since the 80s, but when we discuss the major poets of that time, we'd go for Heaney, Walcott or Hughes rather than LL Cool J or Kurtis Blow.
Outside of performance slam, rap has had very little influence on poetry. Few major poets draw on it for inspiration, anymore than they would heavy metal
>he doesn't know too short rapping on Nancy Reagan or john cooper clarke speaking on Thatcher's britain
You've got middle class taste, rap and poetry is always going to be milquetoast for you
2 years ago
Anonymous
I've know Cooper Clarke, but does anyone seriously think he's on the level of the poets I mentioned? Do you? He's fun, but no more. Same with old school hip hop, it hasn't lasted. Who listens to Ice T now?
Only time will tell of course, but there has been plenty of time for rap lyrics get enshrined. Indeed, it's illuminating that the rappers mentioned as poets tend to be the more modern one rather than eg Slick Rick who nobody really listens to anymore.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Listening to Ice T in the first place
I rest my case
Read em, differences in form and in conception, I don’t agree with the sentiment that Elliot is so musical either. Favorite contemporary writers are probably DM black and Donald Sidney fryer.
the creative crisis has been occurring in the west since like, 1890/1900, a good deal of the lit after this period is about as creatively bankrupt as the contemporary scene with the density just building up. The reason being more or less a combination of literature becoming less and less important, authors having less interaction with their own literary canon, and the loss of religious conception resulting in an overly emotional literature without any concern for formal significance, now add to this the literary canon that is held and you’ll find the stream of influence results in the current form we have.
romanticism with its focus on the sublime and on the individual focusing on the self paved way for the whole of confessional and emotional centric writing as a prime focus, de Quincey being of prime influence because of how good his prose is and how individuality focused it is. This tendency then fuses with the likes of Walt Whitman who, being intensely studied in poetics, gaining his knowledge from Bible study, is able to make his work musical without normative metrical regularity because again, he’s so intensely studied. We see then various similar ideas arise through a metrically studied but not always obeyed poetry whether that’s the accentual sprung-verse of Hopkins or the free verses of Elliot and pound, the latter producing a political aspect and mundane-worshipping aspect which was not common to our poetics, and any success in this was on account of all of these men being highly educated. But from these men writing either highly emotional or highly political lines in free verse we see arise a host of imitators most of which not 1/100th as studied as them in poetics, so they write without sound considerations (both metrical and non-metrical) concerning the most mundane material, all selfish, all emotional, all sickly sentimental and often political.
Now compound this with the influence of the beats, the cynicism of these generations, the attacks on white masculinity, attacks on meaning as a whole, add the diversity hires and diversity worship in the literary scene, like all of this compounds resulting in the vast majority of western lit being absolutely garbage.
There’s still formalists, but all of these art movements and major poets fixating on the new and the replacing of poetry by other mediums+The “death of meaning” has cucked them very much, all except one thing. Rap, most of the formalists poets including Geoffrey hill Will shill rap as the only popular metrical/formal form of poetry, since they are actually constantly experimenting with form and focusing on musicality, but their problem is an absolute stasis on the lowest levels of content, though i will argue that there is more value in a well executed rap about the struggles of poverty and violence and wealth (lack and excess) over another free verse poem about politics or gender or the like.
Simple lamguage and straight forward story-telling has been in poetry the whole time. Homer's epics are written in a simple style of Greek and are straighforward storytelling. The more obscure stuff is what is new, reletively.
that is fair but how simple is "simple greek" compared to simple english? everytime I hear someone talk about the dificulties of translating the greek epics its because the words are multifacited without very good counterparts in english that capture the entire meaning. I would also consider using symbolic imagery like gods as a method of convaying ethic and reason a not so straight forward method of storytelling. and as far as im aware symbolic imagery to convay multiple meanings has been a staple of (at least english) poetry since its conception.
>There's like nothing after 1900 worth reading.
That's so fricking moronic you ought to never post on the internet again for at least a couple of months for saying it.
the romantics
the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism
monoglot detected
What langauge should I be reading? Because all the french stuff is gay whining?
Occitan and Lombard
Chinese, Japanese, English, German, Russian, Pashto
Meant for
What kind of insanity would drive someone who wishes to read Middle Eastern poetry to learn Pashto and not Farsi? Or Arabic? Hell there's more poetry in Urdu, plus you can learn Hindi easily if you learn Urdu.
>Chinese, Japanese, English, German, Russian, Pashto
All terrible choices for contemporary verse, basically all of these are westernized in their poetry, if you wanted to see non-westernized poetry that’s still booming as fine as ever you should look to India, their mahakavya tradition is alive and well with ridiculously complex forms of verse and monstrously large prose pieces.
Good. Hopefully religion will follow.
>Good. Hopefully religion will follow.
keked
The Great War
I love him so much it's unreal
I don't know how he didn't neck himself out of embarrassment considering what was released shortly after he first made that statement.
It was the only thing he was right about. Not that writing poetry was now cruel but that it was now foreign. Poetry can still be written and still be good but no one relates to it. You could write a great poem after WW2 but it would not be an 'epic' in the sense that The Iliad, or any other epic, conveyed the culture and later became it: "Barbarism is simply that which culture is not."
That really isn't what he meant and you know it.
Have you read the entire thing rather than just a quote that gets passed around? Literally, in the sentence before the "To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric" he writes: "Cultural criticism finds itself today faced with the final state of the dialectic of culture and barbarism." When he says 'barbaric" he means what is opposed to the culture. And he was right: after WWII poetry no longer worked as a medium to frame culture as it did for centuries before. You could certainly dispute that WWII or Auschwitz was an actual catalyst and it was, instead, a gradual decline, for that but he is still right.
>It was the only thing he was right about
Friend, he was right about more than just that.
ee cummings mogs the entire 19th c
>cuumings
Gay name, gayer poems. gay couldn't even capitalize.
>implying:
>Implying;
>implying (You) is not the sweetest word
Marxism.
Popular music and modern capitalism
Mathew Harris begs to differ
Two world wars* and liberalism
*(Liberalism vs Autarky and then a liberalism 3 way civil war)
Modernism and liberalism are not synonymous
Modernism is built on liberalism though; property rights, individualism, neolib capitalism, welfareism, etc
the modern age started with columbus discovering america and ended with the french revolution
we live now in the contemporary age
why do anglo-american historiography is so shitty bros??????? they think the world started after ww2
Columbus is late Rennesance/Early modern, the modern period proper begins with the American Revolution/French Revolution/Napoleon, the Rennesance nobility ideals died in the flames of those revolutions in favor of the Liberal and Materialist revolutionary goals, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Late Modern is the age of empire witch ended around the world wars, then we came into the Contemporary Period, either in 1943, '45 or '48 depending on who you ask, and now we're in the early decades of the Global Digital period.
man, anglo-american historiography is so bad, not even themselves can agree when the modern age starts, take a look at this picture, bucko!
This would make Marxism and Fascism post-modern, which is idiotic. Modernism's end date is somewhere between WW2 and the fall of the USSR. Post-modern thought started during the Cold War, and liberalism triumphed over competing modernists ideologies.
>This would make Marxism and Fascism post-modern
why are anglo so stupid?
>no response just reeeing about an imaginary enemy
jajajajaja
i don´t see how an ideology should be labelled as "modern/postmodern/whatever the frick"
get off your high horse midwit
The enlightenment is really going to troll you, and Popper might cause you to get the poker out
no such thing
https://carlsbad1819.wordpress.com/2021/10/03/why-post-liberalism-failed/
>I don't know what the words you used mean
K
>The belief in the continued persistence of liberalism leads to all sorts of asinine detours. It leads to people play-acting as union bosses organizing the coal miners of Colorado into a revolutionary struggle to break the system of wage slavery upheld by the robber barons, who of course represent “liberalism,” and whose grasp is stronger than ever with the gig economy. It leads to the same sterile polemics against caricatures of Hobbes, Locke, Mill and Rousseau as if these thinkers are relevant to our period, much as if though one tried to understand the 18th century by studying Petrus Ramus and Jan Comenius, to go on and discover ‘influences’ and ‘traces’ wherever one happens to see them. It leads to people thinking that if only we come up with the right “industrial policy” to finally overthrow the tyranny of the “neoliberal Washington consensus,” we can finally deprogram the multiracial working class from the false consciousness that the porkies deliberately instilled into them (so as to avoid the “threat” of another Occupy Wall Street), and unite the country around the one issue that deep down everyone cares about: health insurance. It leads to people endorsing vaccine passports so as to not come across as some square who believes in “inborn rights” and “the right of resistance,” a dreadful and ostensibly Lockean notion. Worst of all, it permits a thriving scene of post-liberal grifters who combine their mid-1950s Labor Party platform with functionalistic appeals to ‘transcendent values,’ ‘community,’ and ‘faith,’ and who present this as the apex of dissidence, as a fundamental repudiation of the Enlightenment, and not of course as the old New Republic editorial line that it really is. The latter is particularly pernicious because it utterly distorts the historical development of liberalism, by resuscitating the eternal spectre of ‘Manchesterism,’ ‘laissez-faire’ and ‘acquisitive individualism’ so as to pretend that we are still being ruled by the cigar-smoking Monopoly Man, except all the more deviously well hidden with his new marijuana cigar and a Hawaiian shirt to replace his suit. It thus allows social liberalism to disguise itself as an “anti-liberal” or “post-liberal” front fighting the “neoliberals,” meaning the eternal plot by Margaret Thatcher (and now her ghost) to privatize the NHS.
>here's my retcon of the words I didn't understand
Burke must make you apoplectic
>illiterate doesn´t like to read
>believes all the problems started with the enlightenment
>anon is upset he couldn't shoehorn in a straw man
Good
we live in the contemporary age, the modern age was over when the french revolution began
I see the stroke has set in
WHO? Is this just another dollar store e-reactionary?
worst, he´s a legitimist
https://twitter.com/pompilivs
Lmao. I hate e-“intellectuals” so much it’s unreal
try an e-cigarrette bucko!
Real cigars only
>The purpose of this essay is to vindicate the thesis that liberalism doesn’t exist. It is dead. Almost as dead as animal magnetism. Moreover, its death is by no means recent. I can’t prove a negative? Just watch me. I’m not suggesting anything new or groundbreaking — Paul Gottfried, Theodore J. Lowi, Walter Lippmann, James T. Kloppenberg, Panagiotis Kondylis and a host of others have made similar arguments, or in any case have revised liberalism into something unrecognizable from its origins. On a superficial level a lot of people will agree. Of course we don’t live in the bourgeois-liberal epoch. And just as they say this they will forget all about it momentarily after and proceed to bang on about “the free market,” “negative rights,” how the idea of civic equality inevitably led to trans rights, the “commodification” wrought by “neoliberal woke capital,” so on and so forth. Copious references to Alasdair MacIntyre, John Gray, Christopher Lasch and others will inevitably follow. Fat and greasy “Red Tory” military history buffs will start defending lockdowns in the name of the common good. They say it, but they don’t believe it. The people who are “left on economics, right on culture” and who lecture others on “materialist class analysis” are utterly divorced from present material conditions, and can’t help but see the Gilded Age everywhere they go. Remind them that the proletariat’s pensions and health benefits come from the asset portfolios of pension funds investing in public and private equity, and that therefore the proletariat’s class interests are just as tethered to capital markets as any fatcat, and there’s not much they can say. The utter erosion of the rule of law is widely acknowledged, yet people can’t put two and two together that this implies a demise of the liberal epoch. The facile attempt at pretending it is still with us by pointing to the widespread belief in equality is not unlike someone trying to argue that 18th-century Geneva was still Roman Catholic because people continued to pray to God.
So...this guy just pretends he lives in the 19th century? Even worse than the Catholics who pretend they’re Crusaders since at least being a Crusader is cool. Being a political theorist is not.
>Latinx historiography doesn’t have the concept of “early modern” yet
we don´t have early whatever the frick, we have the modern age, period, and it ended in 1789
anglos be like early modern- middle modern- late modern, what a bunch of cucks lmao
Your image has late antiquity, high medieval etc
Stop whining about Anglochads, ese.
>Your image has late antiquity, high medieval etc
use google translate moron
Edad Antigua= Ancient Age/Era
Edad Media= Middle Ages
we don´t have high or low or whatever bullshit you came up with
Did you miss
>Plena edad media
?
Read Zukofsky.
>Jew
No.
You probably don't care about poetry at all if that's a problem.
Of course I do, that's how I know israelites ruined it.
Tell me you don’t read without telling me you don’t read
>There's like nothing after 1900 worth reading
I've heard professors in literature who say nothing after the 1960s is worth reading. But they did seem like pseuds.
Name a good poet, then. gay.
Surreal:
Paul Eluard
Benjamin peret
Andre Breton
Will Alexander
Robert Desnos
Valentine Penrose
Surreal/modern but usually not categorised as such:
Federico Garcia Lorca
Antonin Artaud
Cesare Pavese
Cesar Vallejo
Antonio Machado
Rafael Alberti
FT Marinetti
Modernist:
Pound
Barbara Guest
TS Eliot
William Carlos William
Gertrude Stein
Here’s a small list of poets worth reading and most are early xx century
Je fis un feu, l'azur m'ayant abandonné
Un feu pour être son ami
Un feu pour m'introduire dans la nuit d'hiver
Un feu pour vivre mieux
Eh oui, je prefer parfait
Un miracle de sable fin
Transperce les feuilles les fleurs
Éclôt dans les fruits
Et comble les ombres
Tout est enfin divisé
Tout se déforme et se perd
Tout se brise et disparaît
La mort sans conséquences
Enfin
La lumière n'a plus la nature
Ventilateur gourmand étoile de chaleur
Elle abandonne les couleurs
Elle abandonne son visage
Aveugle silencieuse
Elle est partout semblable et vide.
I just made a small list, anon you are just lazy
>TS Eliot
There'sthe one good poet on your list. Maybe Marinetti if I'm feeling generous.
Ok not only are you lazy, you are also stupid.
Good luck anon.
You only speak English, don't you?
i made you toast
but you wanted a roast
do people do this on other boards, with the same frequency and boneheaded conviction? going on IQfy and saying that anime is dead and it was last good in the 60s, or IQfy and saying that recorded music died after blues 78s were discontinued?
Yes, but they’re all right.
Yes, and all of them are right. When a medium opens up to mass production and international finance it goes to shit. The reason why so many things seem to be "dying" these days is because things really are dying off. Whenever there is a new medium it takes a while for international finance to catch up. Eventually it does and the medium "dies."
Well, the issue is that anime was never good.
technology and mass media entertainment
someone should correct me but i see poetry as a way of expressing your thoughts about the world in an artistic manner
>What killed poetry?
Poets became lyricists instead.
the romantics
>The romantics killed poetry!
>Anyway here's my poem, titled Karl Marx was Right
>SCREEEEECH
>SCREECH DIGGITY
>SCREEEEEEEECH DIGGITY DIGGITY
>KARL DIGGITY SCREEEEECH
Clearly you’ve never read Marx.
Marx was explicitly against the
>DIGGITY
On the other hand he did mentioned and even advocated the
>SCREEEEECH
What you understand as the
>DIGGITY
is really a component of the framework surrounding the entire idea of the SCREEEEECH. True to Hegelian dialectic and with no small part of Platonic philosophy hearkening back to the golden age of Marxist thought, the DIGGITY really exists as part of the discursive framework of the SCREEEEECH. This is represented by the simultaneous and contraposed duality of the SCREEEEECH/DIGGITY System, this dichotomy known as the SCRIGGITY or DEEEEECH for you laymen out there.
It's this failure to understand the SCRIGGITY (hereon referred to as the DEEEEECH) that perpetuates the system of inequality that is the capitalist system.
Poetry is gay.
Trakl is my obsession.
Have you listened to Black Sabbath? I'd say poetry is alive and well, it's just in the form of non-verbal, badass guitar riffs now. ROCK ON!!
John Dolan
Underrated.
Farewell, my good friend, farewell.
In my heart, forever, you’ll stay.
May the fated parting foretell
That again we’ll meet up someday.
Let no words, no handshakes ensue,
No saddened brows in remorse, –
To die, in this life, is not new,
And living’s no newer, of course.
-Yesenin
Industrial society and its consequences
Football
We live in a golden age of poetry. There has been more great poetry written in the last 20 years than in any 20 year period in the history of literature
We cant forget the great warrior poet Ice Cube.
Truth
If you're talking about rappers Aesop rock is the best poet
Poetry is the best its ever been in the last 40 years. You're just attempting to be spoonfed so you can skip all of the shitty contemporary poetry (of which there is a lot, but the ratio of bad vs good poetry has always stayed more or less consistent no matter the era). Anyways, frick you. Do your own research. Go wade through the shit for diamonds yourself. If you can't read ten bad books to find an eleventh thats good, then you don't deserve to appreciate poetry.
The mediocre stuff is in journals. By the time anyone is getting a collection published, they are bredy gud, let alone anything that got reviewed or prize nominated.
Not necessarily. A lot of bullshit gets published just for being woke/sympathy points for the publisher.
Heres a few absolute dogshit books i've read the last few years
>Dropbear by who cares
>The Agonist Shastra Deo
>Vociferante by who cares (Wahhh wahh im asian and discriminated against)
>Title I don't remember by Eunice Andrada
Worst kind of poetry (after war poetry) is "Im so sad, my sadness is unique, wahh wahhh, people were racist/misogynist/Homophobic/istophobic towards me"
There's just a level of sincerity required for poetry that's unfortunately out of reach for most of us now.
Why are soldiers so often great poets?
For example Gajcy is widely regarded as best polish poet of 20th century and he died at war when he was 24
>what is rupi kaur
whitman all though I like him. the last thing poetry needed was less restrictions.
Most of them are doggerilic hacks laundering drug money when they're not busy committing violent felonies, but the best rappers from pretty much Rakim on are absolutely worthy of being put in the company of the likes of Shakespeare. Hell, nowadays, we've literally seen our best rappers write fricking historical epics entirely in verse and perform them before sellout houses on the reg.
There is something darkly hilarious about all these fricking kiddie rappers being homocidal psychopaths in real life.
This fricking dork was literally arrested for murder last year:
?t=15
>Contemporary poetry isn't bad at all, here is my favourite hip-hop artist.
IQfy really doesn't read at all.
I mean T.S. Eliot over William Carlos Williams?
You guys really are a bunch of pseuds.
No mention of the Black Mountain Poets or even The New York Poets.
You guys are a fricking joke.
Maybe in order to appreciate poetry you could start by, you know, reading it.
I didn't mention my favorite rap artist. Two of the guys I brought up were solely for the purposes of mockery.
But bringing up modern poetry without mentioning rap is like bringing up guitar in the second-half of the 20th Century without mentioning rock and roll. Regardless of how little you like it, that's what's the most influential thing going, by far the most financially lucrative form of the art today, and what people 100 years from now are gonna talk about when they talk about our era.
I don't agree. It's been plenty of time since the 80s, but when we discuss the major poets of that time, we'd go for Heaney, Walcott or Hughes rather than LL Cool J or Kurtis Blow.
Outside of performance slam, rap has had very little influence on poetry. Few major poets draw on it for inspiration, anymore than they would heavy metal
>he doesn't know too short rapping on Nancy Reagan or john cooper clarke speaking on Thatcher's britain
You've got middle class taste, rap and poetry is always going to be milquetoast for you
I've know Cooper Clarke, but does anyone seriously think he's on the level of the poets I mentioned? Do you? He's fun, but no more. Same with old school hip hop, it hasn't lasted. Who listens to Ice T now?
Only time will tell of course, but there has been plenty of time for rap lyrics get enshrined. Indeed, it's illuminating that the rappers mentioned as poets tend to be the more modern one rather than eg Slick Rick who nobody really listens to anymore.
>Listening to Ice T in the first place
I rest my case
Read em, differences in form and in conception, I don’t agree with the sentiment that Elliot is so musical either. Favorite contemporary writers are probably DM black and Donald Sidney fryer.
the creative crisis has been occurring in the west since like, 1890/1900, a good deal of the lit after this period is about as creatively bankrupt as the contemporary scene with the density just building up. The reason being more or less a combination of literature becoming less and less important, authors having less interaction with their own literary canon, and the loss of religious conception resulting in an overly emotional literature without any concern for formal significance, now add to this the literary canon that is held and you’ll find the stream of influence results in the current form we have.
romanticism with its focus on the sublime and on the individual focusing on the self paved way for the whole of confessional and emotional centric writing as a prime focus, de Quincey being of prime influence because of how good his prose is and how individuality focused it is. This tendency then fuses with the likes of Walt Whitman who, being intensely studied in poetics, gaining his knowledge from Bible study, is able to make his work musical without normative metrical regularity because again, he’s so intensely studied. We see then various similar ideas arise through a metrically studied but not always obeyed poetry whether that’s the accentual sprung-verse of Hopkins or the free verses of Elliot and pound, the latter producing a political aspect and mundane-worshipping aspect which was not common to our poetics, and any success in this was on account of all of these men being highly educated. But from these men writing either highly emotional or highly political lines in free verse we see arise a host of imitators most of which not 1/100th as studied as them in poetics, so they write without sound considerations (both metrical and non-metrical) concerning the most mundane material, all selfish, all emotional, all sickly sentimental and often political.
Now compound this with the influence of the beats, the cynicism of these generations, the attacks on white masculinity, attacks on meaning as a whole, add the diversity hires and diversity worship in the literary scene, like all of this compounds resulting in the vast majority of western lit being absolutely garbage.
There’s still formalists, but all of these art movements and major poets fixating on the new and the replacing of poetry by other mediums+The “death of meaning” has cucked them very much, all except one thing. Rap, most of the formalists poets including Geoffrey hill Will shill rap as the only popular metrical/formal form of poetry, since they are actually constantly experimenting with form and focusing on musicality, but their problem is an absolute stasis on the lowest levels of content, though i will argue that there is more value in a well executed rap about the struggles of poverty and violence and wealth (lack and excess) over another free verse poem about politics or gender or the like.
Tannhauser is Wagner's most underrated drama. Much more subtle than its status as a supposedly simple early romantic opera.
Read Cesar Vallejo
dumb motherfricker
Ernest Hemingway popularizing simple language and strait forward story telling was definitely a few nails in the coffin.
Simple lamguage and straight forward story-telling has been in poetry the whole time. Homer's epics are written in a simple style of Greek and are straighforward storytelling. The more obscure stuff is what is new, reletively.
that is fair but how simple is "simple greek" compared to simple english? everytime I hear someone talk about the dificulties of translating the greek epics its because the words are multifacited without very good counterparts in english that capture the entire meaning. I would also consider using symbolic imagery like gods as a method of convaying ethic and reason a not so straight forward method of storytelling. and as far as im aware symbolic imagery to convay multiple meanings has been a staple of (at least english) poetry since its conception.
Paul Claudel is the poet of the 20th century.
>There's like nothing after 1900 worth reading.
That's so fricking moronic you ought to never post on the internet again for at least a couple of months for saying it.