Redpill me on Novalis...Where do I start with him?
>>24810744Real N-words remember all the Novalisposting from a decade ago.
>>24810744I checked a collection of his writings at the library. Went straight to the index, "Fichte". Read about a dozen of the references and concluded that he wasn't a serious thinker. He got filtered by the nature of the infinite progress, thinking it means we never 'reach the goal', when it really means the goal is immanent in us and in reality and is our first, teleological mover. He frankly got filtered by a lot else too. A very low-IQ individual. People tell me he was a radical left lunatic. Many such cases!
>>24810744Hymns to the Night, obviously.
he's one of those guys out there, prowling around all night, dedicated. With this guy, this much heat, you should pass.
>>24810765What an odd presumption
>Novalis radical leftmaybe in early phase, but later very critical of french revolution. Overall he "belongs" to antiliberal reaction and romantic german nationalism, not the liberal kind.>A criminal cannot complain about injustice, when the response is harsh and inhumane. With his crime he entered into the realm of violence, of tyranny. Measure and proportion don't exist in this world, so the disproportionality of the counteraction should not cause disconcertment.t. novalis
>>24810964>>24810940I was trying to be le funny man by mimicking Trump at the end. It stands to your credit that you didn’t recognize this. I’m sure Novalis was a smart guy with a big brain. But he also got filtered by Fichte. This retarded misreading of Fichte followed by rejection is pretty much the heart of German romanticism, philosophically speaking. The reaction against Fichte becomes a reaction against rational thought in general and imo that’s bad. To reject systematicity is to reject reason as such.
His poetry and fiction is beautifulNot super familiar w his philosophyBut I find this whole "misreading" nonsense a bit silly. It is a difference of opinion w Fichte not a mere misunderstanding. One cannot reduce philosophy to misunderstanding without doing injustice.
>>24811240How is reason enough to live life? I'm all about systematization, but I recognize not only a biological reality, but a psychological too. Romantics emphasized that and I sympathize a lot with them, because it doesn't matter how enthusiastic I become when I read Aristotle, Kant, Leibniz (eager to read Maimon, Fichte, Hegel), if I cannot find fulfillment in real life, in petty matters, love affairs, children upbringing, family, I cannot ignore this aspect of my own reality, it's the very reality of my monad, in idealistic terminology.
>>24811456Na it really is a misunderstanding. Hegel himself, no friend of Fichte, said that none of the romantics understood him. You do an injustice to philosophers by saying it doesn’t matter whether you understand them or not. The romantics, rejecting what they see as arrogant “system building” in Fichte, create a childish, emotional, stupid and arrogant anti-philosophy. But they rejected him, and by extension Reason, for retarded reasons. With them it’s all about Anschauung. These men were not metaphysicians.
>>24811498You think Reason=ratiocination, but this is incorrect. Reason is roughly/generally speaking the “telos” of thought and action for the post-Kantians. It’s contrasted with the understanding, which grasps divisions. Reason sees everything as part of a totality. As far as individual life, philosophy is universal, of course it doesn’t help us in our particular lives. At best it can help you step back from that life but it won’t solve any personal problem. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not a philosopher.
>>24811503Hegel didn't understand those who came before him either. Philosophy is full of such misunderstandings. Sometimes they are creatively fecund. Sometimes it results in abortive anti-philosophy.Irregardless, his poetry and fiction is beautiful. If I want metaphysicians, I read real metaphysicians. And I do not pretend that no one can understand another without agreement. Disagreement is important and does not imply a lack of understanding. Though it is not an exclusive disjunct ofc.
>>24811527The insomnia of reason as of our age breeds monsters. Recognition not of romanticism as irrational but as the dark side of reason led to the discovery of the unconscious and psychoanalysis.
>>24811527Thoughts are interpretants of signs. That's all. And that's weird for ignoring Kant's synthesis of the First and Second Critique, or the whole dutiful act with his epistemology. He wasn't the only one to derive how one should behave if at least engaged in philosophy.
>>24811547Hegel’s the greatest historian of philosophy ever, actually. I can’t engage with you, you just haven’t read enough.
>>24811908>thoughts are interpretants of signsWow it’s fucking nothing.jpg Yes, thought is mediated by language. None of the idealists would disagree. Good luck kid, read more and talk less.
>>24811923Lmao. Hegel makes extreme and elementary errors most especially in his history. You're prolly the tard spamming mystic hegelese dicksuck nonsense in all the idealism threads.But I understand that you suffer from sunk cost fallacy and battered wife syndrome and stockholm syndrome and whatnot
>>24811936Lol, the fact that language shares in the symbolic has nothing to do with what I wanted to convey with that. You talked about ''telos'' of thought. It doesn't make sense. Anyway, you just ignored the main point of my posts twice.
>>24810744The 1829 essay on Novalis. Carlyle's major biographical and critical essay on Novalis, published in 1829, was a key text in the transmission of German thought to the English-speaking world. The essay was a comprehensive introduction to Novalis's work for an audience largely unfamiliar with the German writer. It included biographical details, translations of Novalis's fragments ("Pollen"), and critical commentary. The work presented Novalis not just as a poet but as a philosopher, artist, and mystic. Carlyle's portrayal of Novalis as a "Germanic Pascal" highlighted the writer's profound religiosity and artistic sensitivity.
>>24811557Wow you can paraphrase a Goya caption
>>24812016>posting about Hegel in an idealism threadOn vey! Look, you want to argue and have an opinion of your own but you haven’t read enough of these guys. You look like a complete retard trying to overthrow thought by saying it’s mediated by signs. Signs are accidental, arbitrary, not first. A sign is not the CONTENT of a thought. But rather than put in any work you want to overturn great thinkers with cheap Wikipedia one liners. I don’t even know what the fuck you think you’re trying to say about Kant. You can study and learn, or remain a pseud.
>>24812931Ahem, thoughts are sings too, bucko.
>>24812644We make ourselves ever smallerSo that the creature can grow taller
>>24810744Novalis actual body of work is relatively small, the novels and poems are easy to get through and desu his essays and philosophy are rather average. He was a royalist and idealized aristocrats beyond a rational measure.
>>24810744Why is Novalis so underrated?
>>24813828His slimmed down Angloized Iliad insults
