I have a theory which places Pessoa on one extreme of a spectrum on which Hitler occupied the opposite extreme. They serve as the dichotomy of the other.
Evola writes in Ride The Tiger about how damaging it is for French existentialists to denounce the "essence" of a person and suggest he is more than just himself, and even jokes that some people may begin to claim there are a multitude of selves. Pessoa takes this to an extreme and simply does away with Fernando Pessoa (TM) and creates instead his own universe of fictional characters (as many writers of course do) but then kills the author of that universe leaving only the imagined characters to exist. Pessoa is all about subjectivity, resignation, anonymity, the undermining of ideologies or enforced meaning, a sort of amorphous mental observational entity which refuses to engage with the external, real world in any meaningful sense. His work is an ode to defeat, failure and daydreaming. . It represents a complete retreat from life and the external world. Pessoa is as "low energy" as a person can be without actually being dead.
Adolf Hitler on the other hand, despite (I imagine) being the kind of sensitive soil (initially at least) who may have in more peaceful times enjoyed the works of Pessoa, turned both himself and Germany into an entirely external, objective, theatrical stage saturated with meaning, ideology, imposed values and so on. Adolf has been described by many people as being entirely conscious of the image he projected (Mein Kampf being a good example of this self-mythology) and demanding that external reality, the portion of it he governed at least reflect his preferences and ideals. Whereas Pessoa abandoned his external world (even his photographs make it looks like he's wearing a set of joke glasses and nose) and instead expanded his internal empire, Adolf (via Lebensraum and the yearning for more power and control) can be said to have abandoned his internal empire and instead developed it externally. Pessoa developed his sensitivity until the smallest thing could bring him to tears, while Adolf can be said (whether you think he was aware of the genocide of Jews or not) to have developed his callousness until nothing could bring him to (sincere) tears. Adolf Hitler played a central role in choosing the swastika, choosing the "Roman salute", designing the "roman eagle" standard bearaers, and then to defining what made a German, what constituted a German "tradition", what clothes its citizens wore. He represents total immersion in the external world. His demand for "total victory" and to never retreat even in the face of overwhelming odds represents his essential disposition towards life. He is (or presents himself as being) as "high energy" as an individual can be without transcending to a super-human state.
While Pessoa may claims that an artist has a duty not to know who the leader of his country is, Hitler instead demanded that everyone should know. Adolf Hitler may be thought of as an author would could not bear to immerse himself in dictating the lives of fictional individuals when the world around him was being dictated in such a reckless, ugly and unjust manner. To contrast Pessoa's approach to art, we can look at the majority of writers who are keen to establish their Self (TM) and either develop a brand (some writers always wear a scarf, or the same hat, or weather edgy leather jackets in their photoshoots) both IRL and via various social media platforms, and their writing is often highly ideological if only in the "life's really hard but actually kind of beautiful / worthwhile / hilarious too" manner. In other words they rely on fairly mundane, bourgeois axioms to construct their fictional narratives (narrative itself being a consequence of such axioms). Pessoa, at the risk of repeating myself, refuses narrative, refuses identity, refuses dialogue too for the most part. He, or rather the protagonist through which his voice is aired, exists in an internal world of private ideals and detached, highly subjective experiences.
Hitler, I believe, on the other hand, provided a very appealing offer to the German people, if a quixotic one (another thing Adolf was very often accused of being); the opportunity to become a Character in a political-cultural stageshow he himself would direct with the intention of allowing everyone to play an important role and to be dressed in the finest costumes. Pessoa's character could barely manage to leave an impression on a colleague he had worked alongside for several years, while Adolf imposed himself on every single man, woman and child not only in Germany but across the world. Hitler demanded immortality, Pessoa barely acquiesced to the imposition of his morality.
Both are highly interesting due to their respective approaches to life, which are, I conclude, opposing extremes of the existential spectrum.
Nathan Ramirez
>kills the author of that universe
Wtf does that even mean?
Tyler Johnson
Nice longpost user. It struck me in The Birth of Tragedy when Nietzsche wrote that identity is the root of all pain. Nietzsche too has a derealized/depersonalized kind of thing going on. Kierkegaard also.
Nicholas Lopez
His writings are detached from himself because he's using a (several) persona(s)?
Evan Wilson
Kierkegaard expressly uses it (his pseudonymous authorship) to criticize modernity and its fragmentary nature in form as well as in content. He did extensive writings under his own name as well, all of which were edifying speeches without as much as a hint of irony or anonymity. The story goes that when Heidegger and Gadamer were drunk and wanted a good laugh, they'd read his edifying speeches aloud because they found them super gay. Which is honestly somewhat understandable. Kierkegaard's critical project is some of the most impressive intellectual work of the last 200 years. His edifying project is basic Christianity flavored with stoicism.
This is a somewhat oft overlooked aspect of Kierkegaards thought and oeuvre. It's also the aspect that makes it clear that David Foster Wallace is mostly watered down Kierkegaard presented through the prism of vulgar american self-help.
Daniel Sanders
>identity is the root of all pain.
True. It's why the most common response to suicidal instincts is ontological self-destruction, leaving nothing sincere left to kill.
Christopher Perez
>It's also the aspect that makes it clear that David Foster Wallace is mostly watered down Kierkegaard presented through the prism of vulgar american self-help
Nice post. I agree 100% about DFW's self-help cringe. I read a couple of the self-help books my mom read when she was suicidal and there are a ton of situational exercises in there which are pretty much copied in Wallace's work, e.g. in his This is Water speech about not hating the Humvee driver, which is also presented as an empathy exercise in Don't Sweat The Small Stuff (self-help book).
i think many people come to Veeky Forums because they find life too painful to bear and criticism too harsh to take (since they already hate themselves and will allow said criticism to loop in their thoughts were it made against Them (TM)).
Gavin Nguyen
Very interesting post user, thanks for sharing your thoughts. An author that came to mind that is very close to Hitler on the spectrum is D'Annunzio. His maximal spectacularization of life and his cult of personality, not by chance admired by Mussolini.
Wyatt Stewart
It's these kind of threads that keep me coming to Veeky Forums.
Luke Parker
>but then kills the author of that universe
I thought you were talking about Caeiro. Anyway, I assume you have only read Bernado Soares and Alvaro dd Campos, right? There other heteronyms that are unlike these two. I don't think Pessoa was worried about politics; he did criticize Salazar, but didn't engage in any sort of activism. In the book of disquiet, Soares compares himself with Dante, he didn't want be anything other than a poet.
>Pessoa's character could barely manage to leave an impression on a colleague he had worked alongside for several years, while Adolf imposed himself on every single man,
If you compare any reclusive writer with a political leader, you would get the same results. Don't you think?
Jack Adams
>like Dante, he didn't want be anything other than a poet. But Dante was highly involved in politics
Austin Cook
Yes, but he put that aside and dedicated himself solely to his work.
Also, the same thing said about Hitler could have been said about any other revolutionary leader.
Ryan Howard
He didn't put it aside, he was literally exiled.
Daniel Sanchez
Not him, but he's right. Of course Dante got exiled, but he could have written more political essays like he did before, instead he chose to write the Divine Comedy.
Nolan Perez
I was rereading this comparison in order to make sure that I wasn't saying anything foolish. The comparisons are found in the Book of Disquiet by Soares, the opinions of Soares are, of course, not always the same of Pessoa. However, we know that Soares was, in comparison with the other heteronyms, the one who most resembled Pessoa in his life and thought. He compares himself with other masters a few times throughout his factless biography. In one of which, he distinguishes the rules(Napoleon, Cesar, Lenin) with "amorphous": Shakespeare, John Milton, Dante, himself and all the invisible people who have little power in the society they are a part of. In that part, his distinction is different from the one I was alluding to. In the poem "gazetilha" by Alvaro de campos, he makes a distinction between the leaders(Trosykys of any colony in greece or in rome) and the poets. In the poem, the acts and lives of the political leaders are seen as meaningless and finite, while the poets and philosophers ( madmen of today) are sure to inherit the morrow.
James Adams
Again, examining the life of Pessoa, he wrote very little about any politician. He described communism in a very accurate way (you should check), and he also criticized Salazar , in a poem, for being a fascist. However, he never cared much about it, he even submitted a work(mensagem) to a nationalist contest promoted by Salazar's administration. His interests were limited to literature, metaphysics and astrology.
Ryder Bailey
its a Memoirfag copypasta thread newfag
Logan Martinez
Pessoa was interested in Futurism.
Aiden Collins
Futurists, in turn, adored fascism. Guess it’s not so easy with the Hitler vs Pessoa dichtonomy.
Wyatt Wilson
>criticize Salazar
Many artists in fact are discovered to have admired "fascist", or at least highly ideological and dictatorial regimes. Even Pessoa was a fan of Salazar until 1935, at which point he rather lamely condemned him (like the later Lovecraft falling out of love with Hitler) in a letter to a friend. Knut Hamsun and many other European writers (American ones too) were found of Adolf and other dictators. It is I believe in part due to their fascination with the power of an individual who does not use his power to physically penetrate women or simply purchases masses of gaudy personal treasures, but instead forces his vision of aesthetic beauty and purity onto the external world in a manner that is completely controlling, the same way artists do very pedantically and obsessively in their own imagined realms. The Dictator, I assert, is the Artist externalized. The Artist, I submit (or the best ones at least), is the repressed Dictator.
Nathan Brown
Yes, he was interested in art in general. He expressed interest in philosophy, but I don't think he was searching for any truth in his studies, on the contrary, he would perceive philosophy as a form of lie/poetry. In the book of disquiet, he claims to be capable of imitating a philosopher.
Nathan Richardson
>the same thing said about Hitler could have been said about any other revolutionary leader.
Not true at all. Hitler was a unique dictator. Mussolini was a dictator despised by large numbers of his population. Kim Jong Il (despite being an artist type) was a misanthropic dictator who cared more about image than the actual lived experience of his actor-citizens. Hitler however was a deeply empathetic individual, despite his cruelty, and his grasp of aesthetics wasn't simply the decadent hobby of a bored man (as with Kim Jong Il's Blazing Saddles-esque stageshow cities) but the impassioned art project of an artist who no longer cared about developing things in private. Hitler's rejection from the art school in Vienna, interpreted given the above context, is very symbolic of the Nazi era as a whole. That is to say, rejected from developing and thus having complete control of his inner creative world, Adolf instead used German society, and then Europe, as his canvas.
Jeremiah Nguyen
I was thinking about Stalin, Lenin, Napoleon and Mao, who were charismatic imposing leaders who submitted the country to their ideas.
Noah Turner
The Communists weren’t truly artistic in their perception of the world. Communism, aka Progressive Materialism, is an enlightenment philosophy which places the moral above the aesthetic. That’s why Soviet Realism was horrible art.
Michael Baker
This discussion is starting to make me sad.
David Jackson
You've missed the point entirely, though I don't blame you as it is admittedly a deeply profound theory which perhaps reveals something about the very essence of the La condition humaine. It isn't about ideology, as I mention here: Judging Pessoa by his actions is what is crucial here. I need to go for a short while but again I'll summarize:
The Dictator is the artist externalized. The Artist is the Dictator repressed.
As I have stated elsewhere, you could also summarize my thesis as:
The Virgin Dreamer VS The Chad Dictator.
Adam Harris
>Futurism is political You got it wrong, dude
Parker Cooper
Again, this is super interesting user, thanks for explaining your vision
Christopher Harris
>The Communists weren’t truly artistic
I despise both nazis and communists, but what do you mean by "truly artistic"? Nazis and communists used culture as a tool to perpertuate their power, "aryanism" was just way to engage the masses, he didn't really believe in that. Hitler's thoughts on religion were plain utilitarism as wrll.
Blake Miller
>Even Pessoa was a fan of Salazar until 1935
He was never a fan of Salazar, he just welcomed the coup, as Portugal was then living under a dictatorship.
Nathaniel Nelson
bump
Daniel Howard
>"In relation to Salazar, in an initial phase, according to the historian, "Pessoa's confidence was based primarily on the personal qualities of clarity of intelligence and firmness of the will of the dictator and, secondarily, the work accomplished (roads, naval squadron) , in the increase of the prestige of Portugal abroad, and also in the attempt to give a "national ideal" to Portugal, a country that notoriously lacked it."
