Does it burn anyone else's ass when people talk about or quote people who they wouldn't give the time of day to if they were still alive? Nietzsche, Van Gogh, Tesla, fucking Kaczynski...people who weren't the most socially inclined and some of whom suffered for it.
A couple of colleagues of mine were talking about Ted Kaczynski. "It's true you know with the internet and shit" as they browsed instagram with the latest model smartphones.
Other urls found in this thread:
>A couple of colleagues of mine were talking about Ted Kaczynski. "It's true you know with the internet and shit" as they browsed instagram with the latest model smartphones
You know you posted this on the internet with a computer too, right?
they were all considered incel losers in their times
I didn't say I agree with Ted.
Ted is still alive, OP
Good point
He's effectively dead to the lumpenproletaiat.
Tesla was famous and wealthy from patent and venture capital money. He died poor after blowing his fortune in ridiculous ways, but he had been going insane for a long time and nobody helped him.
Nietzsche already had fans in his lifetime, though he also had gone insane by the time. Even before then, as a tenured professor, his books were commented on and he circulated within Wagner's clique. He still commented he felt lonely but he made friends then that lasted to the end of his life. It was with Zarathustra that he had become an unmarketable author (until he had become a mental invalid, at which point his sister took the reins).
fuck Nietzsche for saying that there is not truth, no right and wonrg and fuck the liebrals who try to apply his shit philsoophy
Fuck off, tulpa
>but he had been going insane for a long time and nobody helped him.
IIRC Tesla died alone in shitty hotel room without a penny to his name and had fallen into obscurity.
What do you think went through his mind during his last moments?
Probably some hot pigeon ass is what he was thinking about
>What do you think went through his mind during his last moments?
"My heart hurts, ouch!"
Or, a more romantic hypothesis:
"Who will feed my pidgeons, now?"
>shitty hotel room without a penny to his name and had fallen into obscurity
It was a famous hotel actually. The New Yorker Hotel.
Still in the last decade of his life, his birthday parties were huge press events. In the last ones, he was already loosing his marbles, and talked about stuff like how he was creating a superweapon that he tried to sell to the world's superpowers and how he was going to find a way to record people's thoughts through their eyeballs. Thousands of people showed up for his funeral.
It's much more romantic to think of him as a foil to Edison, so it's a popular image him dying starving, forgotten, in a dirty motel. But his compensation adjusted for inflation would've made him equivalent to a millionaire today, though he was pretty much broke by the time he died. He sunk his savings into not-so-good ideas; possibly because of his growing madness, possibly because he was a gambler at heart.
>Still in the last decade of his life, his birthday parties were huge press events.
So he wasn't somewhat socially inept?
there are plenty of famous people who are socially inept, people still want to associate with them
Genius is frequently only recognized in hindsight
He was, in some ways. He never managed to "close" with a woman, and not because there were no takers. Shy man.
He was still able to have friends, mingle and publicize himself.
>Does it burn anyone else's ass when people talk about or quote people who they wouldn't give the time of day
No. It's a higher intellectual pursuit than talking about shitty pop celebrities who wouldn't give their fans the time of day.
Is a literary work only valid if the author would also be great friends with me?
OP is a faggot.
>Is a literary work only valid if the author would also be great friends with me?
Or let me rephrase:
Is my analysis or enjoyment or promotion of a literary work only valid if the author would also be great friends with me?
Calm tf down terry
This kek
Hey voice fag. Are you gonna start a podcast?
Why does Nietzsche out of all the people attract all those retards? is it the mustache?
His work is easy to read. Essentially a series of 1880's twitter posts. Nearly everything quotable.
>Is my analysis or enjoyment or promotion of a literary work only valid if the author would also be great friends with me?
>Is my analysis or enjoyment or promotion of a literary work...
The people I talk about, I don't think they analyse or enjoy it at any great level of depth. It's just quotable surface level shit like that Madonna video that ends with a Nietzsche quote (or one of The Rock's films where he literally quotes Nietzsche for some inane reason). The colleagues I was talking about, they were only talking about Kaczynski because there was some netflix documentary that was trending (and I'm sure Yea Forums and reddit is making him trend in general).
>...only valid if the author would also be great friends with me?
It's not "would they be great friends with me?", it's "would I piss on them if they were on fire?". I mean, Kaczynski for example, the Unabomber, an alienated and socially isolated person in his early years, whose experiences informed his views on the world and then eventually sending people explosives. Do you think the people, who only recently started quoting him, would give him the time of day before he became the unabomber?
Just burns my ass.
That pretty much only holds true for the 4th chapter(i believe). Otherwise he's not very quotable in most instances.
Kaczynski is alive and published a book three years ago. I don't even understand your post. Try and make some sense, imbecile
iirc his essays in beyond good and evil rarely go beyond a few pages tho
he was a genius and there is nothing you can say otherwise
I am reading through beyond good and evil right now
How do liberal normies claim to like this guy? He shits all over them constantly. Shits all over progressives and socialists as well. I always see liberals acting like Nietzche is their guy because he bashed Christianity a bit.
Really shows that normie liberals don’t actually read
There's more than one valence that people can appreciate things by. Attempting to graft on political positions from 1885 Prussia onto 2019 America has to be done carefully. Either way, he would have been nobody's "guy". Not Adolf Hitler's nor Guy Debord's. His critiques of socialism are not as in-depth as his general deconstructive technique or his critiques of Christianity.
wow so true brb tweeting this
liberals apply nietszchean philosophy? something tells me you dont know what you're talking about
>wouldn't give the time of day to people
>Kaczynski
But Kaczynski responds to letters.
You got the post the wrong way round.
I did indeed. Thanks user, and sorry.
you can agree with ted without abandoning technology and living in a cave you gormless retard, technology is required to thrive in modern society
see
for now :_:
>Nietzsche, Van Gogh, Tesla, fucking Kaczynski
They were mentally ill is why they wouldn't be given the time of day. Geniuses without fucking asperger's were always socially successful- Hamilton, Johnson, Shakespeare, Mozart, Emerson, Welles, James, Nabokov, etc
Exactly, and I've mentioned this a lot before.
In fact, 90 % of humanitard behaviour today consists of worshipping past figures as gods in order to follow the herd.
What? He literally advocates an “absolute ruler” who is philosophically driven for Europe. He basically lays the groundwork for Mussolini and Hitler, which is why they both claim they were highly influenced by them. Also states Napoleon was the best thing to happen to Europe recently.
There is no way to explain how you are a socialist who advocates for “rights” and “freedom” and day you are inspired by Nietzche.
Also, he ties Christianity TO the socialist progressive mindset. He claims socialism is the final phase of Christianity.
so like cioran huh?
He was a genius, but he was also crazy.
He advocates for freedom but not for rights. And he is doesn't call for a man that is philosophically driven to rule others, because 1) supermen are self-driven and love life as it unfolds before them, therefore having no need to commit to a higher purpose or rationalizing away their suffering and 2) because his sympathies clearly lie more with aristocratic ideals (in the Aristotelian sense), going so far as to imagine himself a polish noble with the blood calling to personal sovereignity that characterized the institution of Liberum Veto.
He doesn't call for one ruler, he calls for the few people who don't need to follow others or fixed ideas to "give themselves laws". He says that is the same liberating, iconoclastic trend that is creating democrats throughout Europe that will also create the great tyrants of future. Because the few strong spirits that accept, adapt to and thrive with the destruction of socially held values will realize their potential as value-creators. It's a call to greater autonomy to the individuals that can take it.
Agree on the point of socialism, but I had to comment on the "freedom" point.
Bump
That's literally all I'm capable of doing. He wants me to show up with a fuckin excavator and haul the whole thing off piece by piece?
When it comes to quoting shit and what not, I mostly mind it in cases in which it's quite apparent that the person either doesn't know its meaning and usually uses it for their own ends, like say Nietzsche's "God is dead", but they never quote the full quote that goes "... and we have killed Him" because fedora tipping atheists are just as retarded as the fundamentals. Or in cases in which you know the person hasn't read the given author he or she is quoting and is using it to appear cool, deep or what not. Fuck that, man.