Author Topic: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read  (Read 5785 times)

Offline Heinrich

  • Steig mal auf den Berg hinauf
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8863
  • Thanked: 3803 times
  • Gott, wende Dich zu uns und gib uns neues Leben
  • Religion: römisch-katholisch
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #60 on: September 05, 2020, 10:32:58 AM »
How about the ancient sagas?  The Song of El CidThe Song of RolandThe Tale of SiegfriedLe Morte de' ArthurThe Decameron is a medieval Italian work I've always been interested in.  Don't forget Don Quixote

And Beowulf.

I feel like Pon de Replay really likes Beowulf.

Dellery is Beowulf.
Schaff Recht mir Gott und führe meine Sache gegen ein unheiliges Volk . . .   .                          
Lex Orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
"Die Welt sucht nach Ehre, Ansehen, Reichtum, Vergnügen; die Heiligen aber suchen Demütigung, Verachtung, Armut, Abtötung und Buße." --Ausschnitt von der Geschichte des Lebens St. Bennos.
 

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3991
  • Thanked: 2063 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2020, 09:34:31 AM »
I feel like Pon de Replay really likes Beowulf.

Thank you for the mention.  I do like Beowulf, though I prefer the Book of Taliesin, which vacillates between poetry and prose; it would probably not qualify as a "non-theological," though.
    I shall be until the day of doom on the face of the earth;
    And it is not known whether my body is flesh or fish.
I appreciate that you thought of me.  You have long been one of my favorite posters on this forum, although I confess you seem to be growing away from some of your anti-sex and anti-anti-Semite views.  Your tenor is becoming slightly more "manosphere" and less Desert Fathers, but all of us are on a sojourn in this life, and peace be with you in yours.
"Moses was but a juggler."
attr. Christopher Marlowe (1564 – 1593)
 
The following users thanked this post: Lydia Purpuraria

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Ecce Homo
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1319
  • Thanked: 507 times
  • Abducted by aliens from Styx's "Come Sail Away"
  • Religion: Doubting Roman Catholic
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #62 on: September 08, 2020, 05:58:36 PM »
I feel like Pon de Replay really likes Beowulf.

Thank you for the mention.  I do like Beowulf, though I prefer the Book of Taliesin, which vacillates between poetry and prose; it would probably not qualify as a "non-theological," though.
    I shall be until the day of doom on the face of the earth;
    And it is not known whether my body is flesh or fish.
I appreciate that you thought of me.  You have long been one of my favorite posters on this forum, although I confess you seem to be growing away from some of your anti-sex and anti-anti-Semite views.  Your tenor is becoming slightly more "manosphere" and less Desert Fathers, but all of us are on a sojourn in this life, and peace be with you in yours.

Well here's the thing - again, I'm no expert on Nietzsche -  but as I've progressed in age, I more and more see that Nietzsche was kind of correct in his book "On the Genealogy of Morals." For most of my life I've been fond of "slave morality," as I believed that "warrior morality" was vanity. What value was there to be gained in excessive dominance, wealth, sex, bullying, food, vigor, and health? Nobody could ever, EVER be fully dominant in anything - even if you are the strongest person in the world, you cannot become the richest person nor can you become the most romantic nor could you be the most poetic. Bill Gates is "tsk-tsking" at all the Navy Seals for how stupid and poor they are, and the Navy Seals see a Software Engineer and "tsk tsk" at them for being weak. So what does it matter? Pursuing something that had a hard ceiling cap which would always yell at you as "inadequate" was stupid.

So I embraced slave morality fully, because I thought that no matter where somebody was at in life, you could always strive to be a "better person," poorer in spirit, not controlled by carnal desires or greed, etc. And life is short anyways, it's not worth destroying your friends and family in the pursuit of dominance; everyone is here to suffer, might as well try to be a bearer of suffering that makes people's lives better.


However, it's becoming readily apparent to me that an extreme of slave morality is just as vain as an extreme in dominance. You cannot be a slave in life - you need some level of dominance, some level of lust, some level of greed, some level of gluttony - otherwise, what does it mean to be human? Can one be human without love, without a desire to increase your financial standing, to want to eat, sleep, drink, to be competitive?


For me, my ideal is neither a warrior nor a priest - it's a Crusader, a Crusader who is able to be dominant, to set goals for themselves and achieve those goals, to direct your eros to something you personally value - your loved one, your children, your job, your passion, your community etc. To be the guy that people look up to, but to be humble when necessary, to be a listener when necessary, to be loving and poor in spirit when necessary. To work for material security, but to be detached. To seek romance, but not lust. To seek healthy and good foods, but not be a glutton. To be able to defend myself from those who threaten me, but to stand up for the innocent. That's who I want to be.

I've become more manosphere insofar as I see that I have fallen short of being a Crusader and acted too much like a monk in my life. I need to compromise a little bit to the point that I am more fit in society than where I currently stand. My views towards sex have changed as a result as well; I do not believe in hook up culture, nor do I believe in polyamoraty - I believe those things are cancer, performed by adults with adolescent minds, or weak partners who let their S.O.'s take advantage of them. At the same time, I think we need to be more realistic about current day relationships and the expectations of dating nowadays.

And I've become more Anti-Semitic not in the sense of ethnicity - my grandfather's best friend and close family friend is Jewish and I love him and his family. I am anti-Semitic in the sense of repulsion to the extremes of slave morality that I see incessantly promoted by society today - and I view as my enemies those who are knowingly promoting ideologies nowadays which take warrior morality and slave morality to extremes. I don't blame the Jews per se on this though.

And I view contemporary social engineering and leftist extremism as taking slave morality to an extreme that would make Marx and Christ blush.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2020, 06:01:36 PM by TheReturnofLive »
 
The following users thanked this post: Pon de Replay

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3991
  • Thanked: 2063 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2020, 02:09:29 PM »
That all sounds good, Return.  I'm still not sure if your use of the triple parentheses is in earnest or sarcastic, though.  Not that the usage would necessarily indicate that you hate your grandfather's Jewish best friend, nor that it would make you believe in the congenital wickedness of all Jews, or that they ritually drink the blood of children and desecrate the Eucharist on their high holy days.  But it's possibly a step on the way there.  You have read On the Genealogy of Morals; I wonder if you have read The Antichrist.  If not, then that would be a "specifically non-theological classic" which I recommend you read—for its meditations on Christianity vis-à-vis Judaism, if for nothing else.  By a loophole, you are permitted it.  Somehow the Catholic Church managed to overlook Nietzsche, and none of his works ever made it onto the Index.
"Moses was but a juggler."
attr. Christopher Marlowe (1564 – 1593)
 

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 13814
  • Thanked: 8362 times
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #64 on: September 09, 2020, 03:23:54 PM »
I adopt the "Leech morality".  Pretend to work hard so that the rich warrior class like you and adopt you into their social group.

However, spend as much time as possible back-pedalling, enjoying life and your family and hoovering up freebies that fall from the warrior class' tables.  Plenty falls.

The warrior class have a major disadvantage that they are so very busy all the time that they never look at the details of ANYTHING, and they are so confidant in their decisions that once they have decided you are great, no amount of reality can stop them from believing it and saying they were wrong.  This make them easy to milk.

Nietzsche was German.  That means he neither read Dickens's novel Great Expectations nor saw the movie °How to Succeed in Business without really trying".

« Last Edit: September 09, 2020, 03:40:41 PM by Greg »
 
The following users thanked this post: TheReturnofLive

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3991
  • Thanked: 2063 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #65 on: September 09, 2020, 04:00:41 PM »
Nietzsche was German.  That means he neither read Dickens's novel Great Expectations nor saw the movie °How to Succeed in Business without really trying".

No, he was not fond of the English (nor his fellow Germans, for that matter).  He did like Shakespeare and Heine, though.   He was not that broad of a reader.  He claimed to keep a small library of books, those that could be re-visited again and again.  "It is not my nature to read much and widely; it is also not my nature to love much and widely."  He did admire Dostoevsky, but mainly he preferred French writers, including Molière, Maupassant, and Stendahl.  He felt a kinship with the French.  "I have something of Montaigne's mischief in my spirit."

I do not think Nietzsche would have cottoned to the "leech morality," even if it has practical value.  He likely would have seen it as shameful and debasing.  His contempt for man was so great that he saw man as something to be overcome.
"Moses was but a juggler."
attr. Christopher Marlowe (1564 – 1593)
 

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 13814
  • Thanked: 8362 times
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #66 on: September 09, 2020, 04:19:05 PM »
Then he was a fool.

The English had the greatest empire in the history of the world.

Mostly acquired through cunning, guile and convincing the natives to do the heavy lifting for them while getting an education and their civil service brought up to standard.   Genius.

The French and Germans were utter failures by comparison.

Never be jealous of rich people.  Learn how to make them like you.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2020, 04:21:31 PM by Greg »
 

Offline Sempronius

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 882
  • Thanked: 502 times
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #67 on: September 09, 2020, 04:29:23 PM »
Then he was a fool.

The English had the greatest empire in the history of the world.

Mostly acquired through cunning, guile and convincing the natives to do the heavy lifting for them while getting an education and their civil service brought up to standard.   Genius.

The French and Germans were utter failures by comparison.

Never be jealous of rich people.  Learn how to make them like you.

French were utter failures?

I was an anglophile in my youth but when looking back I realised that all of my favourite authors were french. They had the most influential culture during the middle ages (together with Italians). There aren’t any masterful brittish painters. Joshua Reynolds was okay but not compared to the italians and french.
 
The following users thanked this post: Fleur-de-Lys

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3991
  • Thanked: 2063 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #68 on: September 09, 2020, 04:36:14 PM »
Then he was a fool.

The English had the greatest empire in the history of the world.

That's just it, though.  He viewed that kind of thing as vapid alpha-dog chest-thumping.  His contempt for the English and the Germans was, in part, for their imperial spirit.  I don't know if that makes him a fool.  De gustibus.

The argument can be made that a lust for empire typically spoils a good thing.  You spread yourself too thin, things get watered down, too many undesirables get subsumed, and the whole project collapses.  Don't get me wrong.  I like Rome, Spain, England, and Japan.  But they would all have benefited from prudence.  Not that Nietzsche taught prudence.  I don't read him as being about any of this so much.
"Moses was but a juggler."
attr. Christopher Marlowe (1564 – 1593)
 
The following users thanked this post: Lydia Purpuraria

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 13814
  • Thanked: 8362 times
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #69 on: September 09, 2020, 05:30:30 PM »
French were utter failures?

Yes, because they tried to have empires and failed.

The English were spectacularly successful.
 

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3711
  • Thanked: 4142 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #70 on: September 10, 2020, 01:10:13 PM »
French were utter failures?

Yes, because they tried to have empires and failed.

The English were spectacularly successful.

The French had an empire.

Napoleon aside, their colonial empire had a lasting influence in the world.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Fleur-de-Lys, Blue Violet

Offline The Theosist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 219 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #71 on: September 11, 2020, 06:49:47 AM »
.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2020, 06:54:00 AM by The Theosist »
 

Offline John Lamb

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2069
  • Thanked: 2421 times
    • Psalms
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #72 on: September 11, 2020, 06:00:59 PM »
You cannot be a slave in life - you need some level of dominance, some level of lust, some level of greed, some level of gluttony - otherwise, what does it mean to be human? Can one be human without love, without a desire to increase your financial standing, to want to eat, sleep, drink, to be competitive?

You say you can't be a slave in life, then you list the things that make men slavish and slaves.

Quote from: Linji
Linji taught the assembly saying: “The Buddha Dharma is effortless: just be without concerns in your ordinary life, as you shit and piss and wear clothes and eat food. When tired, then lie down. Fools will laugh at you, but the wise will know. An ancient said: ‘Those who make external efforts are all stupid and obstinate. Just act the master wherever you are, and where you stand is real.’ When objects appear they cannot turn you around. Though the uninterrupted hellish karma of the habit energy of your past is still there, it spontaneously becomes the great ocean of liberation.

“These days students in general do not know the Dharma. They are like goats: whatever they encounter, they put in their mouths. They do not distinguish between the slaves and the free, the guests and the host. This type ‘enter the Path’ with twisted minds. Even though they cannot enter places where it’s noisy, they call themselves true leavers of home [monks]. Actually they are true conventional worldlings.

“As for leavers of home [monks], they must be able to perceive with true understanding in ordinary life. They distinguish enlightenment and delusion, true and false, ordinary and holy. If you can make these distinctions, you are called a true leaver of home. If you cannot tell deluding from enlightening influences, then you have left one home [ordinary life] only to enter another home [cultish ‘religious’ allegiances]. Then you are called a sentient being creating karma, not a true leaver of home.

“Right now there’s something where enlightenment and delusion share the same substance undivided. It’s like water and milk mixed together: the king goose drinks only the milk. People of the Path with clear eyes will reject both delusion and enlightenment. If you love holy things and hate ordinary things, you float and sink in the sea of birth and death.”
« Last Edit: September 11, 2020, 06:05:50 PM by John Lamb »
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – Paul

The Question of Catholicism.

An ominous dream.
 
The following users thanked this post: Pon de Replay, Lydia Purpuraria, The Theosist

Offline paul14

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Thanked: 215 times
  • When life gets you down, tell it to **** off!
  • Religion: Yes Dear
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #73 on: October 01, 2020, 12:55:39 PM »
I just started reading the dead-tree version of this.  It looks good.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Politically-Incorrect-English-American-Literature/dp/1596980117

 

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 13814
  • Thanked: 8362 times
Re: Specifically non-theological classics you recommend people to read
« Reply #74 on: October 01, 2020, 02:11:12 PM »
Is that the lady I know who lives in Maryland?