Lovecraft:

There are contemporary academic philosophers that take him seriously, Harman for example

I wouldn't call his work "deeply" philosophical but it still is on some level. He does a fairly solid exploration of a specific type of fear. "Alien things are scary" is reductive because it undermines just how different a fear of something familiar (like bears) is from the fear of a creature like the Hound of Tindalos.

In his appeal to a more imaginative and less understood fear, his work finds some amount of philosophical depth because it asks and somewhat answers what makes us afraid aside from the superficial instincts to avoid bodily harm?

And people like you trick themselves into thinking that he wasn't profound because of where his work was published.

It gets deeper, if you broaden your perspective and don't only concentrate on the horror elements.

You know he wrote philosophy essays, right retard?

>if you fail at recognizing allegories
lovecraft is not allegorical, how can the monstrous Exteriority of his works be interpretable in terms of hidden meaning? The void does not signify. You're the one overdetermining it with significance. Ironically you yourself fear and reject the unknown, using the reference point of an allegory to anchor yourself to something recognisable when confronting the abyss

>lovecraft is not allegorical,
I disagree. I think many of his works are.

yes, and he also wrote articles in astronomy; does that make him an important figure in physics too? does that confer scientific value to his monster stories?

i was being reductive, but only to keep with the theme of the thread. this actually reflects how i feel pretty well; his stories do have some heady themes that were informed by an interest in philosophy, but as i see it, the works themselves are not primarily concerned in developing these ideas.

>Wrote deeply philosophical literature about fate, religion, fall of civilizations and more

Yea Forums gets worse with each passing day. God willing it'll get bad to the point I can finally leave for good.

Yeah, can't wait for snobs to leave.

>lovecraft stories are pulp all the way through. good pulp, but still pulp. people trick themselves into thinking his work is high literature because of his inventive themes and his reliance on big words and archaic forms. calling his work philosophical is embarrassing.
Read his non-fiction and you'll realize his intentions.

Keep posting, user; make both of our wishes come true.

I don't think there are enough retards on Yea Forums to bring lit down to a level below you

What's wrong with it? You complain and whine but what's literally wrong about it?

He's only "pulp" because he published in pulp magazines. If Lovecraft is pulp then also Borges, Poe and Tolkien are.

Perhaps, but I do appreciate you trying.

Absolutely nothing, I've seen the error of my ways. Truly the astounding philosophical depth of Lovecraft's work will mesmerize me for years to come.

Passive aggressive snark is absolutely disgusting

>MFW my friends and I get together to play the PnP Cthulhu rpg
>Role a New York Blueblood character obsessed with racial eugenics
>Get kicked out for being problematic
>MFW

Attached: 1549671993020.png (680x798, 143K)

>u said it was indescribably monsters y u describe...
not sure why but this made me burst out laughing with tears