Is art illusion that saves or is it not illusion at all and saves anyway?
This is what was said of Ovid’s corpus centuries ago. When the despair gets exceptionally acute he is one of the ones I think of, and I don’t think it is illusion I find there. Some of us like to smell a flower- Ovid is more than a flower, and has a similar effect.
He was born in 43 BC. It was only in the 19th century–when the Age of the Masses began to set in–that people started to forget he is an “Art Bible”.
Just to zoom out for a second, I think classical art rivals even philosophy. At least in terms of how much it can help you see the world in a new way. And I emphasize I don’t see it that way about “art itself”–it’s specifically classical art, more specifically classical poetry.
You can’t just look at a statue or the colosseum and think you know what the classical world was about. It’s as groundbreaking as any canonical philosopher. It’s painful to me to try to rangordnung my favorite classical poems so I will not. It’s just about who you are personally- I feel more emotion for these poems than I do for the Bible. “You just don’t get it!” Or… the Bible is just relatively mediocre poetry, who knows? I’ve died on a cross before, that’s not the way to go.
Let’s go with Plato’s Apology here to explain what we’re dealing with
Not by virtue of philosophy do poets create what they create, but by virtue of their specific gift and inspiration, like diviners and soothsayers, who also say many fine things but do not understand their meaning.
Ovid IS kind of like Moses. It’s not a person there, it’s a God speaking through a person. Homer didn’t write his epics, Zeus wrote his epics.
“So what was Socrates then?” I’d have to call him a self-aware God.
I don’t know if you’ve gotten confused by my frequent pitting of philosophy and poetry against each other. It’s more accurate to think of them as cross-fertilizing or dialectical.
The Socrates-god needed the Homer-god to acquire self-awareness; the Nietzsche-god needed the Socrates-god to acquire self-awareness.
My main project for years has been to ask “What’s next?”
The left dominates our culture. The left also is absolutely incapable of grasping Homer, Socrates, or Nietzsche, to put it bluntly. So that’s up to us to figure out what’s next.
Sorry to break it to you that the History of Ideas cannot be reduced to your brainless corporate meme-of-the-day, you destroyer of all things good.
What must my neighbors think if they hear me yell when I’m typing? “Why is he condemning things in a voice like he believes there are demons in the world or something?”
Anyway, reflecting on the Classics and Christianity now, I think my Christian frenemies will be pleased to hear that I can ALMOST see why you would prefer the New Testament over all the rest. I can catch shining glimpses of the superiority of the Gospels. My speculation is that the ones who put together the NT wanted to roll all the best of antiquity into one. On the surface, Jesus is closer to Socrates than to Achilles or Hercules for instance. And the NT isn’t as impossible as Plato’s dialogues for the normal person to read.
I don’t think things have changed very much across the centuries. You could ask, Why couldn’t the Bible just have been Plato’s dialogues? And the answer is- look around you. I’ve shown you countless Socrates-types that are either living or recently living and our culture can’t handle them. Why couldn’t people in ANTIQUITY do it? They can’t even do it now!
This is amusing
Being someone who is a snob I do believe poetry is a type of criminality.
They can’t say it directly to people, so they “make up” all kinds of indirect ways of saying it.
That doesn’t mean that Ovid isn’t like smelling a supernatural flower. It’s just that hyper-strict Kantians would see it as a form of lying.
By the way, if we reactionaries were to have our own Reset I think Kant over Nietzsche would be the better groundwork. It’s similar to the Confucius-Laozi dynamic. Or if I have some Bataille-heads reading, “Laozis” are good for times of “expenditure”. Just to get the basics right you need a Kant or Confucius. Only with such a foundation as that can we hope for a New Renaissance. We have neither foundation or renaissance today. It’s the opposite, it’s a mock-renaissance that future civilizations will study to learn “what not to do”.
“I WAS wondering why you had acute despair.” I try to explain to you every day. We’re living in the middle of something that is the blueprint for what to avoid.
“I love all the different types of people you talk about so negatively though.” Yeah, that’s because you’re one of them.
Kind of eerie to think that someone talking about poetry like this is being monitored by feds and systematically scapegoated without naming. Is someone like Ovid who was born in BC times that much of a problem to our culture?
No, of course the problem is Socrates.
There IS a marked beauty (literally approaching the supernatural) in Ovid though, and you’d be my instant friend if you wrote a dialogue between these two types. I’m not a poet so I can only write it in philosophenese.
Note though that I am a sort of Ovid myself. I omit certain things because it could endanger others. The most piquant insight I had today you will not be hearing about for instance. And sadly I doubt you can understand contemporary American society without knowing what that insight is. For the “too bad” folder I guess.
Okay, I’ll tell you. No, I won’t. Most prefer to be Ovids rather than Socrateses and I can respect that. I also don’t respect it, and that’s why I write what I do above.
Mythologers are deceivers. I can’t help it, I hold it against you.
“They would die…” Let them die.
The only one in this equation who dies is the one who isn’t a mythologer-deceiver.
I’ve been laughing about the magician of mystery babylon today
This is the picture he often uses in his recordings, and in the one from yesterday you can hear him lighting his cigars during it. That is peak comedy.