Is toilets right?

Even as a Christian, I don't see what would qualify him to make that assertion. He just says it and then expects people to take his word for it because he's TS Eliot. Why would I do that? What's your reasoning behind that statement, and if it's sound then perhaps I'll agree or disagree. As it is now, I'd have to have a bias either way to agree or disagree considering he hasn't even presented an argument.

TS Eliot was right about everything. This is a man who completely disassembled Hamlet in a handful of sentences.

What did that hack say about Hamlet?

He also was a fervent multiculturalist who believed that artists should absorb enough of diverse influences that their work becomes a unique blend rather than being reducible to an aping of practices from within a particular cultural tradition. The cognitive dissonance is strong with him.

>The artistic “inevitability” lies in this complete adequacy of the external to the emotion; and this is precisely what is deficient in Hamlet. Hamlet (the man) is dominated by an emotion which is inexpressible, because it is in excess of the facts as they appear. And the supposed identity of Hamlet with his author is genuine to this point: that Hamlet’s bafflement at the absence of objective equivalent to his feelings is a prolongation of the bafflement of his creator in the face of his artistic problem.
>In the character Hamlet it is the buffoonery of an emotion which can find no outlet in action; in the dramatist it is the buffoonery of an emotion which he cannot express in art. The intense feeling, ecstatic or terrible, without an object or exceeding its object, is something which every person of sensibility has known; it is doubtless a subject of study for pathologists.
>We must simply admit that here Shakespeare tackled a problem which proved too much for him. Why he attempted it at all is an insoluble puzzle; under compulsion of what experience he attempted to express the inexpressibly horrible, we cannot ever know.
Fatty Bloom is still spinning over this one

(Not true by the way)

He just couldn't know what the future would look like.

Anything of value in christianity is pagan in origin. Paganism is the true european spirit.

No. No we don't.

Lets see...I think the point here is that atheists may say and think they are atheists but that don’t truly act, across all domains, as if a god does not exist. If they were to truly act in every instant as if god does not exist their life and actions would devolve into total nihilism. Nihilism brought to its final end ends in the destruction of the “host” and likely the destruction of as many as they can bring with them.

>If they were to truly act in every instant as if god does not exist their life and actions would devolve into total nihilism
Again, another premise I'd have to have a bias to buy into either way. Who's to say a man acting unaccording to God will result in complete nihilism? A Christian, sure. But I doubt an atheist would posit atheism results in total nihilism. A nihilist might, but an atheist is not necessarily nihilistic and to convince me that all godless men tend toward the nihilistic you'd have to give me evidence that supports this assertion. As it is now, I think it'd be pompous to assert to me that Godless men act in any sort of specific way just because they don't believe in God.
Regardless of this, I think it's pretty blatantly obvious the influence Christianity has had over western civilization. Nobody is a revelatory genius for pointing out that the Bible can be found in every aspect of daily life in the Anglosphere, even today. What I don't agree with is that without Christianity there'd be nothing else. We wouldn't have Western Civilization as we know it, I agree with that, but we certainly would have something and it's pompous to assert what we do have is superior or worse than what we would have otherwise. But who's ever known TS Eliot to be pompous, huh?

t. Someone who knows nothing about religious ideas, but rejects them because they think human evolution filters them out, given recent trends.

Sounds like someone didn't start with the Greeks

He studied philosophy

honestly he's right, but is the disappearance of this cancerous """culture""" really such a bad thing?

He is unironically right, but that doesn't mean we should be all superstitious god fearing hardcore Christians though, Europe has for better or for worse moved away from that and has built values like human rights, the rule of law and freedom of speech that enhance the christian world view. Christianity is part of Europe's history , but it doesn't need to be an all encompassing center.

>An individual European
stopped reading there, he's not even european what a larper

The culture of Rome didn't die with the pagans. Christianity needs to go.

Christian culture sprung out of stuff that sprung out of stuff that sprung out of stuff that sprung out of stuff...all the way back to the beginning of time, if there was one.

>values like human rights, the rule of law and freedom of speech that enhance the christian world view.

nominal, just like the average xtian's devotion to christ

A Chirstian European may not believe that the Pagan Faith is true, and yet what he says, and makes, and does, will all spring out of his heritage of Pagan culture and depend upon that culture for its meaning. Only a Pagan could have reproduced a Dante or a Machiavelli. I do not believe that the culture of Europe could survive the complete disappearance of the Pagan Faith. If Paganism goes, the whole of our culture goes.

The edited part:
>And I am convinced of that, not merely because I am a Christian myself, but as a student of social biology.
Whoops.

Wait, do people actual pretend to be pagan?

wut

> only a Christian could reproduce Voltaire or Nietzsche
one of the better arguments against Christianity I’ve ever heard

kek'd like a hyena
thanks, user

seems to be equivocating on "goes". if christianity is no longer the force it once was that does not erase the past or destroy a culture. only going in the sense of being erased somehow would make this kind of argument convincing. is also right. and fuck that englishman-roleplayer.

Well shite, according to Eliot, I don't even need to learn about the religious ideals, since they've been culturally ingrained in my DNA or something.

I want to get the name "Teliot" to catch on so some unfortunate son will be named toilet spelled backwards.

Christcuckery aside, Eliot is one of the more important lit heavyweights of the last century, and his criticism is way more important than his poetry. And as a bonus he was wise to the ikes-kay like most modernists.

Most low IQ Yea Forums post in a while.
What exactly has replaced religion as a means of social glue? People are more isolated and nihilistic than ever and frankly don't believe in anything that gives meaning to their lives.
Also lmao
>a crowd control tool which helped to unite uneducated, illiterate masses
Yeah right there's definitely nothing now which controls 99 percent of peoples' opinions.
There's definitely not a neoliberal cult propagated by mass media, oligarchic corporations and liberal democracies that mold the minds of everyone living in the West. Thank God we have mass literacy and worldwide connectibility which makes us immune from being brainwashed somehow!

I hate this guy and see no merit in anything he's ever said, written or thought of. The biggest hack in America. His main ability is to show you can just wing it and be hailed in the literary world.

It's still one jewish ideological system replacing another. The perpetual metaphysical struggle for whites is to free ourselves from these semitic ideological systems. We got close after the enlightenment but as soon as we broke free Marx swooped in with another slave religion and now jews have made it the law of our land and him the modern Jesus. But that doesn't mean the original was any better.