Emily ☕ > Recent Status Updates

Hmm but you could say "beauty is terror" if you're talking beauty in a Rudolf Otto sense, as even calming beauty can be 'an awe-inspiring, fascinating mystery'. Okay, I agree with the beauty comment. "Whatever we call beautiful, we quiver before it".

Additionally, I would say that *alluring* "beauty is terror" - beauty that draws the Self in - but, when the Self is somewhat put aside, that is when there are moments of "genuine beauty" - these are not "terror".
Multiple parts of this moment are just slightly off - for example, it is said that love lets us lose the self, same as fighting in war - but this is false, because the zeal in both is born from the ego.

"We think we have many desires, but in fact we have only one. What is it?"
This moment is interesting because it focuses on the self.
The book says "To live forever" but I think it is more "To benefit". Can someone convince me that the former is more correct? Why would it be, when - if we are speaking of the self - those who reflect want some parts of it to die?

His contemplations have the bias of his suffering; his loneliness. This kind of philosophy is most beautiful when it is impersonal. There is an irony in how the author's proclamations of impersonality feel somewhat false. Contrasting his writing with Buddhist scripture exemplifies this need to detach from the self when writing about a detached self.

Okay I AM getting there. I kind of have to force myself to read on sometimes because I don't really like the style of the book....

I appreciate the lack of dialogue as its impersonality reinforces the isolation of the characters 🤔

Mrs Dalloway in Bond Street - 4⭐

The New Dress - 5⭐

The Man Who Loved His Kind - 4⭐

A Summing Up - 5 ⭐

The Legacy - 4 ⭐