Do you not yet realize that literature makes you weak and that the problems you have all come from you constantly...

proving my point

you don't understand what art is do you?

you seem to have only read literature that 'wallows'. for what purpose i do not know why. you also seem to have a pre deposition towards labeling that which you do not agree with as an effeminate trait. using pop psy i can only judge that you must be sexually starved but who knows- i could be wrong. anyways you made a statement without proof. i guess your shitposting, this is Veeky Forums afterall,

literature was never meant to compensate for life. maybe stuff like game of thrones, yeah. but that's not really lit man, also...

>strength of ulysses

jesus, how hard did i fall for this shitpost?

Do you masturbate to the thought of your own superiority? Right now?

not an argument

Why don't you explain to me what art is, then, and why art allows for a a greater life than that of the strongest men in history?

>Do you honestly think that Napoleon's life was less profound to him then say, Proust? or Joyce?
First of all Napoleon read extensively including much literature.

Second, I would suggest that you probably don't know much about his life.

-He was tortured, lonely and manically depressed as a young man due to his status as an outcast.

-Did you know he was a cuckold? Josephine cheated on the emperor with everything that moved.

-His last movement at full strength was a humiliating defeat in which he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men.

-He ended up dying alone imprisoned by the British on an island in the middle of the Atlantic.

Honestly, yes I would rather have the life of James Joyce than Napoleon, he's almost the perfect tragic pathetic character.

>"absolutely retarded opinion"
>"spend time educating me!"

I think it was Bloom who said all great writers live an unfulfilled life/have regret for a life unlived

Explain Pynchon.

art is a sublime expression of intimacy. why would that at all lead you to believe that art's purpose is somehow tied to 'allowing' for anything? you have your mechanisms mixed up. whoever you are fighting, it is not art my man, but something much more personal.

As expected, nothing but passive-aggressive name calling from deluded, weak losers.

Projecting onto someone that you don't know whatsoever and trying to "psychoanalyze" me really just shows how stupid you are. Argue against the point, not the person.

He was right.

The ability to create and understand beauty is the only thing that separates us from animals and is a reflection of god's nature as the creator of life. Have fun conquering OP. Every congress of apes needs a leader

i never said anything about your psychological well being my man. i simply stated that your mechanisms are mixed up. whoever taught you the purpose of art mistaked it for something personal. there have been decades of arguments for and against this. the middle ground is that art is an expression much more than a consumption. tell me why do you state as if you fear art? why the callousness?

hmm... maybe naopleon wasn't the best choice.

What about hitler?

>cherry picking the worst parts of Napoleon's life
Napoleon's greatness comes in his rise and fall. Do you think that profundity in life == settled and complacent happiness? The reason you would rather be Joyce is that you are too weak to do otherwise. I do not expect all people to be strong, but you should at least know your place.

>profundity
You need to stop using this word as you clearly have no idea what it means.

It's from this Charlie Rose interview (last quarter of the interview) if anyone is interested.

youtube.com/watch?v=EVWiwd0P0c0

He talks about the 'unlived life' being one of the 4 or 5 major reasons for great literature, and talks about it's relation to poetry in particular, although he mentions Cervantes too.

I don't believe there is a single poster ITT who has browsed Veeky Forums for longer than 6 months

no one reads literature in hopes of living vicariously. that is stuff of football. learn to be critical please

Wrong. You earlier insinuated that I was "sexually starved" and then backed off because you were too afraid to back up this claim. You then said that I was fighting "something personal." You don't know me, so why pretend to? Because you don't know how to argue against the point and so resort to ad hominem? Also, why do you keep backing off from your passive aggressive insinuations? Again, stop asking about me, and argue against the point. I should have expected this, of course. What is it that you think that I believe the purpose of art is? I never spoke about the purpose of art, only the results of it and the underlying will to it. You have very terrible reading comprehension for someone who loves reading so much.

pseudo-intellectual, bullshitty ideas and phrases that barely mean anything cannot save you here.

>What about hitler?

Hitler was even worse.
>tortured from a young age
>manic depressive
>failed to make anything of himself in the arts
>deformed penis
>terrible strategic military ability paired with an inability to admit his deficiencies
>Openly hated by most of the OKH
>Unable to deal with the human losses of war which lead to him getting a reputation as "soft"
>seen from the outside as cold and uncaring about human losses due to his fear.
>actively destroys the german state after it is clear the war is lost
>comitted suicide like a punk bitch instead of facing trial
>body burned with gas in a bomb crater outside the central bunker.

Why would you want that life. If I were going to be any Nazi, it would be Erich von Manstein. Dude was a baller.

>not just calling everyone newfags

Need to work on your own shitposting kid

lmao, dude. Calm down.

I don't usually say this but a lot of your post seriously seems to be psychological projection.

I'm just pointing out that napoleon probably didn't have the best life.

>no one reads literature in hopes of living vicariously

A bit of a bold statement

Hitler read an incredible amount. He even had Will as Representation and Idea in his knapsack in WW1.

>trying to connect with your pathetic and insignificant emotions when you could construct your own empire instead?

this is why have an age restriction

my friend but i added a who knows to my claim of you being sexually starved! it was an aside i believe is how it is called in english. this is Veeky Forums though why take so much shitposts to the heart? i believe that i have still stated responses, but you seem to believe they do not match your argument. a las let us go. hopefully we will reach a conclusion.

how can you separate the underlying will of art from its purpose? how can you generalize the results of literature? from what? statistics? you have provided none so i am lead to believe you arrived to this from your own personal anecdotes- which i hope you do not strike off as an attack on your id.

now onto the 'will' of art... well to make this more simpler let's say the 'will' of literature... (again these are your terms my friend) but could you explain how you gauged this without simple conjecture based off anecdotes? as for myself i stick by my belief that art lacks motives and is at its heart an expression of intimacy, not competition.

What I think is truly funny about this is that the obvious level of autism OP is displaying means that he likely has no prospect of ever leading anyone in anything.

did you miss the 'that is stuff of football' ?

surely hooligans read books like game of thrones, but who of them pursues it as a study ?

Tell us about your great life user following this edict, then in kind you can set an example.

Surely your sermonizing isn't empty overly-judgemental platitudes designed for the express purpose of shitposting, is it?

He knows what he is talking about. I do not disdain the literary people and I think Bloom is a great man. Instead, I disdain the arrogance of this board in their assumption that the pure literary life is the greatest one available, refusing to accept its flaws and weaknesses, refusing to believe that greater profundity can be found elsewhere.

>my friend but i added a who knows to my claim of you being sexually starved!
Don't call me "friend." I'm not your friend. Your "ironic friendliness" makes you look like an idiot. As for the "who knows" that you added, I explained earlier that you insinuated that I had sexual frustration and then backed off. Do you seriously think that slandering someone and then saying "oh but who knows" is a justifiable thing to do? Nope, it's just an expression of your cowardice, of course.

>how can you generalize the results of literature?
Simply from observing the lives of the greatest writers.

>is at its heart an expression of intimacy, not competition.
I don't disagree with this. But it is this constant attempt to find the intimate in life that weakens us and prevents us from reaching to greater places. When did I say that literature is about competition? How are you so stupid?

b-but a writer lives a thousand lives and for thousands years!

>attempt to find the intimate in life that weakens us and prevents us from reaching to greater places
How? There's time and place in life for everything.

I will ignore your obvious projection and simply remind you that attacking the person does not attack his argument.

but at the same time there are many writers who travel the world and get into all sorts of shenanigans to get stories and meet all sorts of people etc. This is all the rare exception of course, the Hemmingways and Henry miller

>You might say that it allows you to experience more emotions and makes you a deeper person, but all this does it make you more susceptible to outside influence and unable to strengthen and advance yourself.
>getting better at understanding yourself and people around you is not an advantage

wild kopipe captured

>a fucking leaf
>construct your own empire
>cuckoldry
>weak weak weak weak
You need to spend less time on /pol/ - your autism is showing even when you're trying really hard.

Hahaha, holy shit man.

Look at your own posts.

This thread is definitely just bait. No way this moron is for real.

Sorry, that is not a valid exemption from my genuine question to ascertain the value of your beliefs.

I have a relatively good life, so I'm certainly not projecting.

I doubt OP understands the nature of power. He is a pretender.

Why do you make the assumption that I read in an attempt to vicariously experience emotions? That's nothing more than vain escapism and it genuinely sounds like you're projecting.

>do you think Napoleon's like was less profound that Proust's?
Who thinks that though? Why do you assume that authors experience more profound lives? The reason people read authors' writing is because they eloquently articulate their experiences on paper; not everyone is capable of that. It does not mean they are worse. Most people experience some level of personal profoundness during at least some point of their life. But even the word "profound" is of a juvenile nature.

You're just another fucking angsty edgelord OP.

You can't have a counterargument to a non-argument. You never presented an argument, this is just your subjective rambling with nothing to back it up.

>implying I want to construct my own empire

>I just read about will to power

Writers who live great lives dream of greater lives still.

>we should only strive towards personal, not collective, fulfilment.

>a fucking LEAF

It swirled around in the air, perfectly contained in its leafy leafness, while a part of my psyche deep down knew that it too was just leafin around on its inevitable leaf to the leaf.

Then what does that say for critics?

I'm pretty sure one of Napoleon's favorite books was Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther too

Mein Kampf

How does art collectively fulfill people?

If you want to collectively fulfill people join the military or stem

The point is that for collective projects to be met then people need to play different roles in that system. You can't have everyone in the army be a general.

Art has a place in society and, as has been pointed out already, those leaders of men also enjoyed art. The artists played a role in their achievements.

We don't operate in isolation.

who let /b/ in here?

There's a difference between using art to hide from your mean life problems and using art for the sake of being imaginative. It's not unmasculine at all as long as you're in touch with reality and have a full hold in your life

I find three things to be particularly funny in what you try to insults us with:

First, the great men you so admire have been build up by literature. What do *you* know of Napoleon or Ulysses? You've never met the guys. All you have is a fantasy of them, brought to you by depictions; whether they are accurate is another thing, note. Yet here you are, being an ingrate towards literature.

Second, the architecture of your achievements is based on being a weakling. Be it against the big bad artsy fartsy board, or against the big world, you aim to conquer against great odds. Then you can trample upon the weak as you have been trampled all your life.

Third, all you want is fame. No one gives a fuck about what you admire, dear. Who do you think is more influenced by "outside influence", the masturbator or the pussy chaser? Now you might say it's all a matter of your preference of onahole, but then that only makes it a non-issue. A man-of-integrity is surely not to be affected by some post on a Burman sockpuppet forum anyway.

beta blown the fuck out

>I don't believe there is a single poster ITT who has browsed Veeky Forums for longer than 6 months

this.

why would you respond at all seriously to a bait this bad? ...why?

OP here, I even put attached a fucking DFW photo lmao

A fish sure of its size has no care for hooks.

Can I just say that I love this man