Bill Lear wrote: > > On Sunday, January 2, 2005 at 17:54:01 (-0600) Carrol Cox writes: > >"Perelman, Michael" wrote: > >> > >> the romantic movement, which in turn helped to inspire the > >> Nazis. > > > >O come now. This could be true only in so far as ... > > You are confusing "causing" with "inspiring". The Nazis were deeply > rooted in the romantic. The Germanic hero, flawless and free of any > weakness toward enemies was deeply romantic. >
But my point was that so is everything else of the last two centuries. Although, since "romantic" is such a slippery (and infinitely expansive) concept, it is equally true to say that it is neither the inspiration nor the cause of anything, but just the name of everything. It is at least arguable that marxism, modernism (Rilke, Pound, Proust), post-modernism, bauhaus architecture, revolt against bauhaus architecture, naturalism, are all just slightly different variations on "romanticism." What does it mean, anyhow, to say that the Nazis were "deeply rooted in the romantic." "Romanticism" can be made to explain so much that it explains nothing at all in particular. Carrol
