Do You Know About Thomas Carlyle?

[Ilikewaterkusa]

Thomas Carlyle is easily superior to Shakespeare, but unfortunately he’s overshadowed by the overrated trash.

 

[CupcakeNinja]

Thomas Carlyle is easily superior to Shakespeare, but unfortunately he’s overshadowed by the overrated trash.

I dunno what you're doing calling Shakespeare trash when even Carlyle himself idolized the man.

 

[Poleg]

Thomas Carlyle is easily superior to Shakespeare, but unfortunately he’s overshadowed by the overrated trash.

Could you Like explain?

 

[T.K._Paradox]

Thomas Carlyle is easily superior to Shakespeare, but unfortunately he’s overshadowed by the overrated trash.

Never heard of him, but have you heard of Robert Frost?

 

[Generic.Archdemon]

Robert Frost?

Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.

 

[Ritz]

 

[Ilikewaterkusa]

I dunno what you're doing calling Shakespeare trash when even Carlyle himself idolized the man.

Shakespeare doesn't have the revolutionary flair of Carlyle, or the cultural analysis skills of Carlyle, his topics and themes are just sands deep

 

[K5Rakitan]

But have you heard of Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, and Robert Heinlein?

 

[Kilolo]

I'm a weeb, so I only know names like Natsume Soseki, Izumi Kyoka, Miyazawa Kenji, Kyougoku Natsuhiko, Haruki Muraka- wait, no. not the last one.

 

[CupcakeNinja]

Shakespeare doesn't have the revolutionary flair of Carlyle, or the cultural analysis skills of Carlyle, his topics and themes are just sands deep

Probably because Shakespeare was too busy creating the culture and paving the way for the revolutions to study them. But yeah buddy, Carlyle was pretty good too

I'm a weeb, so I only know names like Natsume Soseki, Izumi Kyoka, Miyazawa Kenji, Kyougoku Natsuhiko, Haruki Muraka- wait, no. not the last one.

No love for Murasaki Shikibu?

 

[Ilikewaterkusa]

Probably because Shakespeare was too busy creating the culture and paving the way for the revolutions to study them. But yeah buddy, Carlyle was pretty good too

No love for Murasaki Shikibu?

Shakespeare is just overrated and did nothing for western civilization in hindsight

 

[Kilolo]

No love for Murasaki Shikibu?

I do, but in my country if someone mentioning that they're read a book about communism or child sexual grooming (to which I totally know it's not about that) it's enough warrant to get someone arrested.

so I try to not making it a habit.


books about black magic or relics are legal though.

 

[CupcakeNinja]

Shakespeare is just overrated and did nothing for western civilization in hindsight

...bro, i dunno if you know this...But Shakespeare is a fucking ENTERTAINER.

I dunno if you know this either...but Carlyle is a fucking HISTORIAN

How the fuck you gonna whine about Shakespear "doing nothing" for western civilization? It's like being mad at Belle Delphine for not creating flying cars or some shit. 'Side, Carlyle was just an essayist. He wrote about great men because he wasn't one. You know what they say about those who can't do...

 

[Discount_Blade]

You know what they say about those who can't do...

....they teach.

Love that line.

Never heard of him, but have you heard of Robert Frost?

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep

It's an excerpt from "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" by Robert Frost. It's literally the most known poem by the man....but its still my favorite, just for that last block alone.

 

[Ilikewaterkusa]

Probably because Shakespeare was too busy creating the culture and paving the way for the revolutions to study them. But yeah buddy, Carlyle was pretty good too

No love for Murasaki Shikibu?

"THE TOTAL DIFFERENCE between the methods of human thinking represented by the central-ideas of Destiny on the one hand, and Causality on the other, was sharply accented for the reason that only one of them is adapted to the understanding of History. History is the record of fulfilled destinies— of Cultures, nations, religions, philosophies, sciences, mathematics, art-forms, great men. Only the feeling of empathy can understand these once-living souls from the bare records left. Causality is helpless here, for at every second a new fact is cast into the pool of Life, and from its point of impact, ever-widening circles of changes spread out. The subterranean facts are never written down, but every fact changes the course of the history of facts. The true understanding of any organism, whether a High Culture, a nation, or a man, is to see behind and underneath the facts of that existence the soul which is expressing itself by means of, and often in opposition to, the external happenings. Only so can one separate what is significant from what is unimportant. Significant thus is seen to mean: having a Destiny-quality. Incidental means: without relationship to Destiny. It was Destiny for Napoleon that Carnot was Minister of War, for another man would probably not have seen Napoleon’s project for an invasion of Italy through the Ligurian Hills, buried as it was in the files of the Ministry. It was a Destiny for France that the author of the plan was a man of action as well as a theoretician. It is thus obvious that the feeling for what is Destiny and what is Incident have a high subjective content, and that a deeper insight can make out Destiny where the more superficial sees only Incident. Men are thus differentiated also with regard to their capacity for understanding History. There is an historical sense, which can see behind the surface of history to the soul that is the determinant of this history. History, seen through the historical sense of a human being, has thus a subjective aspect. This is the first aspect of History. The other, the objective, aspect of History, is equally incapable of rigid establishment, even though at first glance it might seem to be. The writing of purely objective history is the aim of the so-called reference, or narrative, method of presenting history. Nevertheless, it inevitably selects and orders the facts, and in this process the poetic intuition, historical sense, and flair of the author come into play. If these are totally excluded, the product is not history-writing, but a book of dates, and this, again, cannot be free from selection. Nor is it history. The genetic method of writing history attempts to set forth the developments with complete impartiality. It is the narrative method with some type of causal, evolutionary, or organic philosophy superimposed to trace the growth of the subsequent out of the precedent. This fails to attain objectivity because the facts that survive may be either too few or too numerous, and in either case artistry must be employed in filling gaps or selecting. Nor is impartiality possible. It is the historical sense which decides importance of past developments, past ideas, past great men. For centuries, Brutus and Pompey were held to be greater than Caesar. Around 1800, Vulpius was considered a greater poet than Goethe. Mengs, whom we have forgotten, was ranked in his day as one of the great painters of the world. Shakespeare, until more than a century after his death, was considered inferior as a playwright to more than one of his contemporaries. El Greco was unnoticed 75 years ago. Cicero and Cato were both held, until after the First World War, to be great men, rather than Culture-retarding weaklings. Joan of Arc was not included in Chastellain’s list, drawn up on the death of Charles VII, of all the army commanders who fought against England. Lastly, for the benefit of readers of 2050, I may say that the Hero and the Philosopher of the period 1900-1950 were both invisible to their contemporaries in the historical dimensions in which you see them. The Classical Culture looked one way to Wincklemann’s time, another way to Nietzsche’s time, yet another way to the 20th and 21st centuries. Similarly, Elizabethan England was satisfied with Page 9 Shakespeare’s dramatization of Plutarch’s Caesar, whereas fin-de-siécle England required Shaw to dramatize Mommsen’s Caesar. Wilhelm Tell, Maria Stuart, Götz von Berlichingen, Florian Geyer, all would have to be written differently today, for we see these historical periods from a different angle. What then, is History? History is the relationship between the Past and the Present. Because the Present is constantly changing, so is History. Each Age has its own History, which the Spirit of the Age creates to fit its own soul. With the passing of that Age, never to return, that particular History picture has passed. Seen from this standpoint, any attempt to write History “as it really happened” is historical immaturity, and the belief in objective standards of history-presentation is self-deception, for what will come forth will be the Spirit of the Age. The general agreement of contemporaries with a certain outlook on History does not make that outlook objective, but only gives it rank— the highest possible rank it can have as an accurate expression of the Spirit of the Age, true for this time and this soul. A higher degree of truth cannot be attained, this side of divinity. Anyone who prates of being “modern” must remember that he would have felt just as modern in the Europe of Charles V, and that he is doomed to become just as “old-fashioned” to the men of 2050 as are the men of 1850 to him. A journalistic view of History stamps its possessor as lacking in the historical sense. He should therefore refrain from talking of historical matters, whether past or in the process of becoming.

...bro, i dunno if you know this...But Shakespeare is a fucking ENTERTAINER.

I dunno if you know this either...but Carlyle is a fucking HISTORIAN

How the fuck you gonna whine about Shakespear "doing nothing" for western civilization? It's like being mad at Belle Delphine for not creating flying cars or some shit. 'Side, Carlyle was just an essayist. He wrote about great men because he wasn't one. You know what they say about those who can't do...

yes.

 

[Zirrboy]

Don't care about either

But if that's what grinds your gears

 

[BearlyAlive]

"To pee or not to pee? That question cometh too late!"

I rather read a shaking spear than a lying carl

 

[SakeVision]

Do you know about Goethe? Do you know about Franz Kafka? Do you know about Dostoyevsky? Have you actually read Nietzsche and Carl Jung? Do you know Kantian ethics? Have you read anything by Marquis the Sade after whom sadism is named?

You do? You do know about them?
Congratulations, you are already better than 99% of the people raised in the anglosphere.

 

[Ilikewaterkusa]

Do you know about Goethe? Do you know about Franz Kafka? Do you know about Dostoyevsky? Have you actually read Nietzsche and Carl Jung? Do you know Kantian ethics? Have you read anything by Marquis the Sade after whom sadism is named?

You do? You do know about them?
Congratulations, you are already better than 99% of the people raised in the anglosphere.

Lol