>literally every single great genius in literature and in

Artists have good imaginations.

>>9420780
>literally every single great genius in literature and in music was shit, without fail
ftfy

>>9420801
i don't get it

>>9420780
I hope you don't unironically believe this.

>>9420807
name the non religious literary geniuses

File: nietzsche.jpg (26KB, 274x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 274x300px

>>9420810
le mustache man
>inb4 doesn't count because muh opinion

>>9420827
>literature and music

>>9420810
Brecht, Calvino, Camus, Chekhov, Conrad, de Beauvoir, de Sade, Eliot, Kafka, Leopardi, Murdoch, Neruda, Proust, Sartre, Shaw, Woolf

>>9420846
>women
>jews
>degenerates
he said good

>>9420846
>vs. Joyce, Tolstoy, Dante, Cervantes, Dostoesvky, Melville, Milton, Spencer, Chaucer
case in point

>>9420802
It's a Post-Modernist.
>fuck culture, let's just smoke weed, muh dudes

>>9420860
Fuck off to your containment board.
>>9420867
>muh doorstoppers are more e1337
Okay, child.

>>9420867
Are you going to post any good authors anytime soon?

>>9420780
name a single religious book that anyone would want to read OP and we can talk.

File: 1349762734397.jpg (18KB, 250x252px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 250x252px

>>9420846

>Mr and Mrs Satre
>good at anything other than molesting children and fomenting communist revolts

Have you even read any of their books? It's the most dry, lifeless, prose imaginable. It's worth comparing them to Camus, who was not only a better writer but a more principled thinker. Speaking of which Shaw's atheism took a nasty turn for the worse when he became a literal nazi.

>>9420867
>joyce
>tolstoy
>dostoesvky
>good
hahahahahahahah

>>9420780
wow this thread is terrible

quality post op

File: americanbrainlets.png (437KB, 1200x1000px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1200x1000px

How can Americans even compete?

File: American %22%22%22%22Literature%22%22%22%22.png (633KB, 1300x1300px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 1300x1300px

>>9421054

>>9420964
t. Reddit

>>9421059
>Beckett

Cheeky

>>9420964
Some of you people try really hard.

>>9420867
What case. The thesis was that all good authors were religious, not that there are good authors that are religious.
How is listing good authors that are religious a sufficient proof that all good authors that are religious?

>>9420846
>Eliot
Did you just stop at The Waste Land or something

File: smugfrug.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>9420810
The writers of the Bible

>>9420780
That's a lot of religions with different and competing beliefs. Does that mean God is fine with all religions, that he'd anoint genius in many different ones?

>>9420780

Every single great genius in literature lived in a time when non-christains were chastised and weren't aware of alternative sources of information due to religious bias and censorship in the education system. Not to mention even if you were an atheist if you ever admitted it you were thrown out of normal society unless you were budding up with some certain groups.

Only in today's time does a individual ever have the social and intellectual freedom to use rationality and knowledge to have an opinion on the existence of a philosophical concept that has been used as a tool for fear to keep people in line and set human progress back a couple thousand years.

>>9421241
Yet the decline of religion has coincided eerily with the decline of literature, and culture as a whole. Maybe religion wasn't so bad for human progress after all

>>9421245
>decline of religion
What are you talking about? Islam is stronger than it ever has been.

Would God get mad at me if I convert because I want to become a literary genius?

>>9421246
>compares islam with christianity
So.... this .... is .... the.... power .... of .... postmodernism?

>>9421556
No one wrote anything about Christianity until your post.

>>9421567
>he doesn't understand context and on which religion the civilization was build on
damn... really makes the neurons power up

File: 1490416195864s.jpg (8KB, 192x187px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 192x187px

>>9421572
>backpedaling this hard

>>9421579
but youre the one who play retarded, or maybe that your brain on postmodernism, a 10yo will smoke you out

>>9421585
10 year olds don't have enough weed to smoke ME out,

File: crp.jpg (35KB, 499x325px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 499x325px

>>9421585
>misused words and can't admit it

>>9421595
considering your brain disability you will die from a cigar

>>9421245
>Yet the decline of religion has coincided eerily with the decline of literature, and culture as a whole. Maybe religion wasn't so bad for human progress after all

Going by your logic then literature and culture should have peaked during the middle ages and declined from then onwards. Yet instead we see the opposite - take Russia for example its literature taking off only happened around the 18th Century well after the rise of enlightenment values and the decline and attacks on the church by secular forces.


How do you explain this?

>>9421599
>misused words
Yeah I'm sorry I should knew you have hard time reading.

File: SmugFrenchGirl.png (238KB, 322x546px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 322x546px

>>9421606

File: lascaux-painting-1.jpg (34KB, 346x260px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 346x260px

>>9421612
Maybe pictures are more your thing?

>>9420877
antisemitism is a valid literary critique

>>9420846
I'll give you Proust, Kafka, Camus and Conrad.

>>9421603
oh, i genuinely feel bad now. I didn't realize this guy was literally mentally handicapped.

>>9421185
devilish anon

>>9421641
>here are the lit-memes I heard about
Okay, child.

>>9420922
The bible

>>9421665
I think you may have a reading comprehension problem, I said those are the good authors among the ones you've listed.

>Hitler = Athetist
>Shakespearse = Christian

Wewe

>>9420867
>James Joyce
HAHAHAHAH

>>9420846
>alphabetical order

did you literally google atheist authors?

>>9421679
Yes. And your pick tells me you're one of those patrishun teenagers that doesn't read outside /lit/ charts and high-school classic tier literature. "those are the good authors" only confirm you being underage. Maybe try /mu/ - it's more your level.

>>9421696
No, after 2 decades of studying I was finally able to master the English alphabet.

Honoré de Balzac

>>9421699
Okay bro

>>9421704
i didn't know The Zac was atheist

You guys are all so fucking annoying, just shut the fuck up

>>9421727
Okay you heard the man, move along everyone

>>9421727
no,YOU SHUT UP.
FUCK YOU. and you cunt mother.

>>9421735
NO YOU SHUT UP FUCK YOU BITCH

>>9421735
>>9421737
back THE fuck off!?

>>9421744
FUCKING KILL YOURSELF AND YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY YOU STUPID PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT FUCK YOU ALL /LIT/ YOU ARE ALL FUCKING DUMBFUCKS

>>9421679
Not to pile on you, but their point was that you sort of look like a pseud for picking the names most commonly talked about here. A "real patrish" would pick Chekhov and Shaw before the likes of Kafka, Conrad, and especially Camus.

>>9421245
It has also coincided with the rise and growth of other popular mediums of art, film being the biggest one. Literature was such a popular form of art because it was probably the most accessible (although art in general wasn't very accessible as a whole). Being able to buy records wasn't even much of a thing until the 20th century, which is also when film started growing. Literature on the other hand has been around for centuries and I'd argue that some of the greatest writers of our time was during the period where literature was very accessible (because more and more people had access to education, thus ridding the many of the poor of the wall of illiteracy) and other mediums were not really available. Perhaps the decline of culture, in fact coincided with the rise of industrialism and technology. It's no secret that the internet is slowing degrading one's ability to proliferate their thoughts and beliefs when surrounded by endless streams of opposing voices, rhetoric, and evidence. Literature has gone from the most accessible art form, to the least accessible art form. Culture is now filled with short but satisfying pop music, multi-million dollar video game franchises built around 15 minutes of fun, a bottomless supply of hollywood films and television to help distract us from everyday life, all making the individual's ability to dedicate time and attention to literature that much more difficult. Don't try and simply the issue by implying that everything can explained by religion or a lack thereof.

>>9421635
No it isn't. Discarding a work because of the origin of the one who wrote it and not the quality of the work/the writer's body of work is not valid criticism and is akin to saying something is bad simply because the person who wrote it is someone you dislike as a person. It is irrelevant.

File: 1904.jpg (51KB, 489x291px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 489x291px

>>9421185
Just because they practiced magic...

>>9420964
Either bait or legitimately delusional

File: thinking.jpg (6KB, 210x230px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 210x230px

>9420780

>literally every single great genius in literature and in music was religious, without fail

Maybe because most people in general were religious

>>9420846
And Borges :P

>>9420780
Most people are religious in some way, so that doesn't mean anything. Anyway, Lucretius, Conrad, George Elliot, Pirandello, Proust (who was more mystical than religious), Forster, Chekhov, Simon, and Calvino were atheist.

>>9421059
>>9421054
I'm an American. Why can't we love everyone? You guys don't get down on Twain, Thoreau, Melville, Steinbeck, Hemingway, Salinger, Ovid, Pynchon, or McCarthy? My favorites are Joyce and Shakespeare but those guys have their merit.

>>9422084
It's just memes, anon. Nobody takes country-shitslinging seriously except for edgy teenagers, who barely read anyways.

File: eternallybtfo.png (289KB, 1164x381px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1164x381px

GOTT IM HIMMEL, REINE IDEOLOGIE

>>9421635
Kek

>>9420846
bait post
neither kafka nor proust nor eliot were "non religious" in any sense

>>9422268
Both Kafka and Proust had great interest in mythological and cultural aspects of Judaism and Christianity, but neither were religious themselves.

>>9421556
They worship the same god, dipshit

Well, you are forgetting some important aspects with your assumption:

1- Many ideas of God that the artists and musicians of the past had were not exactly the ideas of the mainstream public and the Church organization. One example of that is the idea of God that Beethoven had. He was raised as a catholic, and yet the faith he developed for himself was some form of pantheism. Shakespeare is another figure we don’t know very well, and some of the dark worlds and philosophies of his tragedies show an intelligence quite unease with the role of salvation and the eye of the gods taking care of our destinies.

2-Most of the great artists of the past (the ones that are the most famous now) were born before the knowledge of natural selection*; of the relation of all living things (that is written even in the genetic record); of the evolution of humans as just another species; of the immensity of the Universe and its origins, etc. What I want to make clear for you is that it made much more sense to be religious in the past, when most of the views of the central place of Earth in Humanity and the creation were still valid. Today we know that the “central” place of our race and planet in the cosmos is just an illusion, we know that all religious texts of the past have been proved wrong, so one wonders if the great brains of the past would eat up the religious views they once held so easily.

*Tolstoy, in his later years, was exposed to the ideas of Darwin and found them very offensive. It made him quite uncomfortable to see that many young men were actually adopting the vision of Darwin. In his time this was only some new “philosophical view”, a new idea, so he still could doubt it and feel that is was just some nonsense of a confuse mind. Today the affirmations of Darwin are proved facts, and Tolstoy’s faith would surely suffer a lot with it, with the need to face the fact that our species was not modeled alredy in its present form by a God. He was always uneasy with the role of religion and the figure of God. As the supreme egotist that he was he could not easily assume any role of plain submission, even to divinity. He was extremely intelligent, and one can really see that, once he knew natural selection and our slow evolution to be facts, he would question his own believes deeply.

>>9420846

Put Akira Kurosawa on the list.

>>9420827
>non religious because he though god was dead lol

>>9420810
Joyce and Shelley come to mind.

>>9421781


Best reply.

Do you think that humanity would be better without internet?

ITT: Losers who went from militant atheism to militant religiousity
don't pretend you autistic faggots don't have the same edgy intentions as every atheist did 10 years ago, try getting some fucking friends

>>9422515
In all honesty, I can't be sure. I can say that it most definitely is one of the biggest causes of modern society's problems and am more and more finding myself becoming wary and in opposition to the internet and the place it has in our culture. For all the positives it brings to us, it brings with them another 3 or 4 negatives. It just doesn't seem worth it in my eyes.

File: john-lennon.jpg (96KB, 1015x1014px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1015x1014px

No.

>>9422919
>he says on a fucking internet forum

>>9420964
bad b8 m8

>>9420780
>begging the question

Its almost as if people became more secular in the 20th century

>>9420964
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting

>>9420952
>sartre
>dry, lifeless prose
THIS
H
I
S

"nausea" was the only book, in my decades of reading, that i ever dropped halfway through. what a horrible, horrible book.

the short story about waiting for execution wasn't that bad, desu

>>9420860
"Jews" is not a logical objection in this thread.

>>9420846
>de Beauvoir
>genius
Seriously? Why? (Sincere question.)

>>9425381
Or any thread, actually.

>>9422491
Darwinism is not a proven fact, far from it. Have you even read Darwin? It's a muddled mess. The modern belief in evolution is just as much a matter of faith as creationism is, there's far from enough evidence to consider evolution a fact.

>>9425631
When will we finally nuke America?

>>9425631
>not sure if absolutely retarded or just masterfully pretending

>>9425631
Go to bed Leo

>>9425636
>>9425654
>>9425656
Darwinism and science is it's own religion, and a profane one at that, with it's own priests, metaphysics, logic, etc for it's believers. If you don't understand this then you understand very little about science, not trying to be rude but it's true. Have you even read On the Origins of Species?

>>9425673
>he keeps trying this hard
What happened in your life that made (You)'s become such an important aspect of it?

>>9425677
I'm not trolling, I don't know why you think I am. I expected for people to be more open-minded on a literature board of all places but science, like most religions, damns those who don't believe it. If you're curious to learn more read "Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics". Darwinism is foreign to Western civilization.

>>9425673
How do you define if a religion is profane or not?

>>9425718
"Every science is a profane restatement of the preceding dogmas of the religious period."

>>9425734
That quote would suggest that science is qualitatively different than religion e.g. by being profane.

>>9425741
Yes. Western science is western religion represented as profane.

>>9425745
Then science is not religion?

>>9425690
>science, like most religions
>I'm not trolling, I don't know why you think I am
Well, if you aren't, that would mean that you are a rather daft person who mistakes their own rather primitive and yet highly twisted understanding of science for what it actually is. Not only that but you keep using the term Darwinism and talking about On the Origin of Species, which tells us you're a basic run-of-the-mill creationist and absolutely nobody should bother to listen or take seriously whatever drivel you manage to spurt out at all.
>*tips fedora*
Do yourself a favor and sit some actual science classes in your local community college.

>>9425750
Science is a religion, and the main one of the 18th and 19th centuies. Not anymore however, the materialism of these centuries developed into the spirituality of the 20th century as the physical foundations of science dissolved.

>>9421241
This

>>9421241
>Every single great genius in literature lived in a time when non-christains were chastised
Perhaps we have found the solution to bad literature.

>>9425764
Do you have some very specific definition of "science"?
Or of "religion" for that matter?

>>9425764
Science is a method of inquiry. "Scientism" is a set of assumptions based on things that science has never disproved, making it dogmatic in nature and if it makes you feel good to call it a religion, you may. However, don't pretend that validates your religious assumptions as being in the same league. Science is falsifiable and makes predictions. Scientists aren't terrified of being wrong.

>>9425758
the original comment was about evolution, and darwins work is the foundation of evolution. I was simply asking if people had read darwins work. I have, and I find his theories to be repulsive and innacurate and rooted in the materialistic religious dogma of Science in the 19th century . Of course faith is stronger than fact, so I'm not surprised people are angry when I criticize their faith, not that it's really important anyway, darwinism isn't relevant anymore.

>>9425788
On what basis do you judge accuracy?

>>9425794
This is a good question. The invention of Television is based on our understanding on electrons. However, everybody involved had the wrong idea altogether, even though they managed to create a functional screen.

>>9425783
There is no science without a preceding religion. Science merely takes the causality of religion and makes it mechanical, profane. I would describe science as the seeking of the exact nature of phenomenona. Religion is a necessity for man, and if the spirit of the age excludes true religion then man will build one from nature, biology, etc.

>>9425794
Darwinian theory of evolution is incorrect and only representative of the materialistic soul of the age, the endeavor to animalize man through biology. I don't feel like getting into the details of how it's wrong now, I'm tired. Goodnight.

>>9425817
Running away, huh?

>>9425788
>darwins work is the foundation of evolution
It's one of the many building blocks in modern theory of evolution.
>I find his theories to be repulsive and innacurate and
Either present a clear logical criticisms or fuck off. I'm 90% sure you haven't read or even held the book, considering most of it is husbandry and breeding methods and you seem to have the idea it's some sort of religious scripture.
>I'm not surprised people are angry when I criticize their faith
People are angry because you're a retard who has the audacity to frame your ignorance as insight and try to actively spread it.
>>9425817
>I don't feel like getting into the details of how it's wrong now
How unexpected.

>>9425828
I don't know why yall are so angry. Darwinism isn't relevant anymore as I said before. You guys will see in time however I guess,you're still stuck in the past. humanity is moving into new age of spirituality, a tribalized pre-Homeric dreamtime. These few centuries of materialism will be just like a small dot in human history lol. I do have 'logical' argument against evolution as well but it's literally 3:00 am where I live and I don't care to justify myself to people.

>>9425845
>I don't care to justify myself to people.
Then feel free to fuck off. Nobody wants to listen to a mad hobo shouting nonsense on the street.

>>9425853
'Unscientific' is the term of damnation for those who don't follow the religion of Science. Science is only concerned with phenomena, and not ultimate realities. By observing the conditions of their appearance, it feels like it has explained them. Enjoy your world of matter and appearances, animal.

>>9425880
Science doesn't aim at "ultimate realities". The one and only one goal of science is to build models describing the material world as precisely as possible. No real scientist or indeed anyone who has a degree in natural sciences will ever claim for science to have or to even be able to obtain some transcendental truths or "ultimate realities". Fucking kill yourself, illiterate piece of redneck shit.

>>9425880
Science is not materialistic. It is agnostic by necessity because it hasn't yet found any way to determine if God exist or not or if the soul exists or not.
You are free to believe anything you want but what makes you think you have the moral right to impose those beliefs on other people.

>>9425880
Damnation in the Christian sense means I burn in a fiery hell forever and ever.
Damnation in a science sense means I get called unscientific.

Science seems like a much kinder religion.

>>9425890
Yes, science has completely dissolved as a mental discipline since the 20th century as I already said. The science of any given culture has as its real object of description the world of that culture. A world which is only a projection of the soul of the culture. Scientists realized that matter can not be explained materialistically, matter is only the envelope of the soul. I think you misunderstand, materialism has not died because it is false, but because it has died of old age.

>>9425935
Again, do not equate science with materialism. Science cannot make any positive or negative metaphysical claims. Also I can assure you that it is quite alive and kicking.

>>9425935
>science is materialism
You shouldn't reproduce.

>>9425992
Science is only the tool of techne now. You don't understand what I'm saying. Science in the 17th-19th centuries had everything to do with materialism.

>>9425976
Science has already accomplished it's mission. The attitude toward science and technics in 20th century is not of a religion of materialism as in previous centuries but as a tool for unlimited will-of-power.

>>9426007
Materialosm is materialism. Science is science. They are different things. If you mean materialism don't say science. Why is it hard for you to understand.

>>9426049
pre-20th century they were not separate thints at all.

>>9426068
They were. Darwin himself was agnostic. It's like equating Christianity with Catholicism because at one point the Catholic church dominated the West.

>people keep reasoning with a literal retard
Just stop.

File: 1491526468681.jpg (126KB, 1392x780px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1392x780px

>>9420827

>>9422492
>I haven't read him

>>9420867
>Joyce
>Melville

Heh. You've got some learnin' to do, bud.

>>9421054
Vlad was Russian though

>>9421241
>Every single great genius in literature lived in a time when non-christains were chastised

Non Christians were chastised in Turkey? In China? In Japan? In Arabia? In Italy? (Catholicism is a pagan, idolatrous cult that isn't a true believer in Christ the biblical figure, but Jesus one of the three Gods)

>>9420780
Even if this were true, it would just be an ideological tautology. If you define literary genius as adhering to the western cannon, the bible would be an influence. God damn you people love your hugboxes.