Why is he a meme?

because nobody actually reads him, they just watch "Little Miss Sunshine"

Adolescence is thinking morality is a spook promoted by authority figures to keep you from enjoying yourself.

Adulthood is realizing that hedonism is a spook promoted by economic elites to keep the lower and middle classes from becoming competitive with them.

he's the hardest philosopher to understand.
few know this.

>hedonism is a spook promoted by economic elites to keep the lower and middle classes from becoming competitive with them.
It's just about getting money
Economic elites, aka company ownerw, have the simplest agenda

mostly people who are upset about his assault on idealism

Because everyone here likes he destroyed morality and helped defend self-centeredness.

Yeah, it always amazes me when adults still cling to the childhood notion that the government uses churches to control people and that hedonism / atheism means being free from government control

Your post is 18-24yo at best

He's the philosopher every user imagines they are

>hedonism is a spook

Attached: endorphin_structure.png (290x174, 7K)

His philosophy appeals to both atheists, and right wingers, usually it's one or the other.

This. Nice digits, btw

Also this. Nietzsche: "The worst readers are those who behave like plundering troops: they take away a few things they can use, dirty and confound the remainder, and revile the whole."

He didn't destroy morality, he outlined a path to rebuilding after its inevitable collapse.

He didn't do either of those things, but people here think he did, which is why they like him. His "fans" on here are usually just social rejects with an impulse to rebel.

dude's basically "just be true to yourself" and WARNED us about nihilism.

What did he say?

eat fruit and avoid wagner

Jews are both based and the most devastating thing to happen to mankind

because all of his ideas are accessible to your average 115 IQ edgy teen but his above-average prose provides a veneer of intellectual respectability

>none and all of his ideas are accessible to your average 115 IQ edgy teen
ftfy

>none
>and all

Sorry,
all and none*

Attached: Zarathustra.jpg (400x605, 58K)

Nietzsche is like a neurologist in that he is brilliant, well-read, and conjures a (correct) diagnosis while relying on nothing more than a reflex hammer and a pen. Where he is most like a neurologist is when he leaves the diagnosed patient with no solution to his disease.

Because men are uncreative.

that's a good way to go through life
"I like Nietzsche"
>He must be an atheist or a right-winger
"Right on, dude, I guess that means we can't be friends."

this is unusually high-quality

Hey guys. Walter Kaufmann's edition of Will To Power is not widely available. What should I get instead? Or should I just wait until someone's selling it for an affordable price?

You shouldn't get Will to Power.

I really love Nietzsche though his predictions on the Last Man and critiques of reason and the spiritual failures of democracy are all too real for us burgers.

Literally because this thread. Because he can get 20 different reasonably intelligent people to say "Nietzsche is great because he..." and have each of them contradict each other, yet each of them hit on something true about him. He's just a refreshing combination of obscurity, difficulty, insightfulness, and poeticism. You really forget how stale philosophy tends to be until you come back to Nietzsche and he reminds you how vibrant and lively it can be

Damn, I just meant insight, huh. That's embarrassing.

You're right about his style. Take a look at the chapter titles for his autobiography "Ecce Home" - even the book's title is a troll - "Why I write such good books," "Why I Am So Clever." What other philosopher writes like this?

Which edition though, idiot? There are various translations

Kaufmann's edition is my favorite, so I would suggest wait. Whatever you do, just avoid Ludovici, he sucks.

Nietzsche is too right wing for most right winger.

This. He tried to overcome nihilism and failed.

You can't really overcome nihilism. The best you can do is create subjective values within the uncaring universe, and that's what he did even though he tried to go further

He destroyed the christian slave morality is what I meant.

Haha, well... Yes.

Is the backlash against Nietzsche largely because of his popularity with Redditors/basic white girls/The School of Life/etc? I would assume much of his work is still worth reading regardless, right?

And that's a good thing.
Imagine if plebs knew about ethnic connections, low time preference, saving/investing, stable high trust associations, etc.

t. 14yo

hahahaha1 epik pwn!

>You can't really overcome nihilism
the absolute state of neetchcucks

the only thing he was wrong was about Wagner

Attached: Nietzsche425.gif (748x600, 615K)

Pure example of ressentiment. He was slave himself after all

lol what a basic comment, you don't even understand what ressentiment is

There are many people who have only read him and nothing else of philosophy.

Interestingly almost never at the same time.

t. didn't read enough Nietzsche

Attached: 1509852844174.jpg (980x834, 68K)

So he wasn't nihilist or overcome it? stupid pic

He wasn't a nihilist and he overcame nihilism. Any other conclusion shows a lack of familiarity.

Holy shit.

Why does Western society find themselves in such a battle with nihilism? Why is it so difficult to uplift yourselves from your mire, and spiritually transcend like Easterners do? Specifically Hindus and Buddhists. As an Easterner, I genuinely don't understand why nihilism has been your story for so many centuries now, when you alone have placed yourselves in such a marsh, and can pull yourselves out from it just as easily.

>Why so concerned with nihilism, westerners?
>Buddhist
How's the glass house, friend?

A lot of people see Nietzsche merely as a symbol of their rejection of their's parents Christianity, but they don't really take his ideas to heart. See all leftists who love Nietzsche's rejection and criticism of Christianity while at the same time writing moralist platitudes about caring for the poor and the weak.

Before reading Nietzsche, I followed nofap, ate healthily and didn't drink.
After reading I learned how to he life affirming.

Yeah, "buddhism is nihilism" is literally entirely a Western misconception (standing alongside the "buddhism is just about, like, calming the mind bro) resulting from Westerners filtering in other philosophies through their own cultural lens, instead of seeing them "in themself". Buddhism has absolutely no relation to nihilism, not now and not ever. You've only further reminded me of just how mired Western culture is in nihilism, that it is incapable of not projecting such an outlook onto those of other cultures it contacts.

It seems difficult to reject all worldly values and not end up in nihilistic territory. Is your claim that Buddhism has a response to nihilism or that it does not concern itself with nihilism?

Rejecting worldy values doesn't make you a nihilist

Enlighten me, what were his thoughts on the poor and weak?
I really don't know, it's a genuine question

What were his thoughts on the afterlife? (if he ever commented on that)

Yes I'm a high school dropout.

To sum it up in 1 sentence: the weak should fear the strong. Sympathizing with the weak by virtue of the fact that they're weak is a cancerous feedback loop that's hijacked society. For Nietzsche society was at its peak when the masters took pride in lording over their slaves, because it gave the masters freedom to do so much more. The weak should strive to be strong themselves rather than trying to abolish strength altogether, as were doing now.

The afterlife is unknowable and should not concern us. It was a useful concept while it motivated people to be better people but now that society in general has lost its true belief in an afterlife we should move past it and wrestle with reality as it presents itself. Nietzsche idealized the idea of Eternal Return: you will relive your life ad infinitum making the exact same choices over and over again. This forces you to make the right choices, the choices youd want to make for eternity.

Thank you very much kind user.

Rejecting a finite set of worldly values does not make you a nihilist. Rejecting the very possibility of worldly values, throwing them out wholesale, these are the kinds of things that land you in nihilist territory.

I'm still curious (assuming you're the same person) whether you think Buddhism addresses nihilism or simply doesn't concern itself with it. And if it's the latter, how does a sweeping rejection of worldly values not constitute a concern with nihilism?

it fucks you over long-term. which I guess won't matter to you since you're probably planning to huff happy gas when you're 30

Wasn't him, but I don't see why you're equating the rejection of worldliness with an outlook like nihilism? The entire premise on which Buddhism is built is the achievement of enlightenment - to this end, it outlines a complete and rigid set of statutes to follow, which encompass virtually every aspect of one's person and lifestyle (ethics, speech, occupations, clothing, etc). Buddhists live in the world, solely for the goal of transcending it, and to do so they adhere to a rigid set of guidelines that they must not only believe in mentally but are expected to embody as well. There really isn't anything here which even somewhat matches nihilism, which, if I have not mistaken your variety of it, involves the complete denial of any metaphysical realities like meaning, morality, purpose or otherwise.

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, and what you meant by "worldly values". But from what I know, Buddhism is literally "transcendence-as-philosophy". The entire philosophy, and the lifestyle accompanying it, devotes itself to spiritual purification leading up until the final end known as Nirvana. It doesn't promote materialism, romantic love, or other worldly realities, but it most certainly has no connections to nihilism of the kind today's Western world lives under (I say that with no insult to you or Westerners, I am saddened by your loss of transcendence and want you to lift yourselves out from this horrible condition that has ensnared your societies).

Alright, I think this is getting to the root of something about Buddhism I've always been unsure about, so maybe this is productive. I concede that Buddhists certainly have a goal, which is pretty antithetical to nihilism. But unless I'm mistaken, they also endorse the renunciation of all valuation, which seems to remove their grounding for goal-formation. So they must either 1. endorse the pursuit of a goal which they are unable to justify or 2. claim to renounce all valuation while sneaking values in to justify their goal.

If they pick 1, I don't see why we should buy into the pursuit of enlightenment. It seems completely arbitrary whether we choose to pursue it or not in the absence of values. If they choose 2, they need a defense of why we ought to renounce all values except for the very specific set that they need in order to justify the pursuit of enlightenment.

So is it 1, 2, or am I getting something here wrong?

The reasoning behind renouncing valuation is for the very sake of their goal, Nirvana, which can only be reached by such a process. Renouncing valuation does not entail them as not believing in that which they are withdrawing judgement of, be it morality, materialism or otherwise - it's merely that, in their metaphysics of the spirit, one NEEDS to abandon the part of oneself that makes such judgements in order to reach the parts of oneself that lie beyond it, of which the final place is Extinguishment or Nirvana, which involves absolutely nothing of any kind, be it valuation or otherwise. So Buddhists aim to be very moral, for example, and that is part of the Eightfold Path - however, it is seen in the ultimate sense as a stepping stone, towards a land beyond such concepts. Therefore, a Buddhist must believe in morality and be moral, and no Buddhist could claim to be of such a sect while being immoral. That said, they are ultimately aiming for a place that is beyond the concept of "righteousness" itself, which is real but not as real as the Final Void, which is naturally without such concepts.

I hope that makes more sense. Buddhists in the world have the task of both valuing certain realities and holding to them, while simultaneously recognizing this to be a temporary and provisional condition, which they are to ultimately and eventually overcome. Like the raft parable, wherein the raft itself is only a means to a destination, which, reached, requires one to leave behind the vehicle arrived there by.