Can we have an actual Nietszche thread? What of his work have you read, and what do you make of it or get out of it?

I'm on the road right now so I'm restricted to Wikipedia. But I remember well that my grandfather made it very important to look at the circumstances that were writing the content itself in order to understand the content itself. That being said now I have to read up on and listen to Wagner, I have to read Nietzche and Schopenhauer, I have found myself tripping off a cliff into a maze I must now navigate.

Yes, resident nietzsche autist here reporting in.

Nietzsche is my life.

Attached: giphy.gif (434x289, 868K)

Your granfather sounds like a wise and honest man. You said you inherited your book. Assuming it was your grandfather’s, it must’ve been a pleasure having a figure like that in your life. If it wasn’t your grandfather’s disregard my last. In any case, you don’t need to fall down rabbit holes. It’s a marathon, not a sprint. Take notes on Nietzsche’s main points. Do the same with other philosophers and organize them together. You start to develop a better feel for the web of ideas this way. Discern the fine points as you learn and develop your knowledge. This is my advice to you; it worked wonders for me.

Can you make it clear to me why Nietzsche was so opposed to Kant? I plainly see the difference in their ethical standpoints. Can their general positions (general with regard to Nietzsche) be reconciled?

What do you guys think he would have to say were Nietzsche alive today?

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 9K)

take me back

What's more or less said on orgyofthewill.net

Doing a uni subject on Nietzsche AMA

Attached: 1565646723762.jpg (720x720, 30K)

“Fuck Nazis!! —where’s the loo?”

m.youtube.com/watch?v=hNu6FmaUIB0

Orgy is what happens when you just take a guy with NPD and get him into philosophy. I wouldn't take him too seriously even if he occasionally makes good points.

It's pretty easy to read Nietzsche's entire body of work as a reaction against Kant. If Kant believes something then Nietzsche does not.

Kant's entire philosophical project was to try to look at experience, knowledge, morality and using logical reasoning put them into tiny boxes and categories in which they can be understood and tease out some truth about them.

Nietzsche doesn't even begin to entertain this idea. Not only does he not think we cannot understand reality he doesn't even really believe in the concepts of truth or logic. One of his most profound quotes is that the truth is "a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins."

This is why Nietzsche doesn't use logic. He uses metaphor, aphorism, stories, and myth to demonstrate his point of view. So where does that leave all these other "philosophers" who believe they have some real peak at a definitive morality?
He thinks the Kants and Platos of the world pretend to be object thinkers offering cool headed rationality but really they twist everything to support their presuppositions usually to benefit themselves. Nietzsche thought Kant was just a Christian masquerading as an atheist to use logical proofs to reinstate a secular conception of Christianity.

That being said I read Nietzsche before Kant and trying to read Kant now after Nietzsche causes me to wretch so I may not have a solid grasp of Kant's ideas. I would suspect that Nick Land probably attempts to pick and choose between the two but I have to admit once again I haven't read either thoroughly. Any Kant autists to offer a critique?

Nietzsche said future philosophers would be harsher than humane people would like, however.

His harshness doesn't subtract from the apparent observation of his pathology. I too was infatuated with Icy because when I first encountered him, I had no philosophical background whatsoever. But now I see him for what he is.

How do you reconcile Nietzsche's rejection of the concept of truth with his praise of master morality's honesty? Surely if truth doesn't exist then telling the truth and telling a lie is the same thing?

Similarly in On Truth and Lies in an Extra-moral sense he disdains the "will to truth" but then in later works he says the only measure of a man is how far is willing to peel back the curtains of reality and look at the stark and horrible truths of the world. What did he mean by this? Does this mark a change in his epistemology or just a different way of looking at it?

user this was an incredibly good post, thank you.

You wouldn't ask that question if you had actually read everything. You most likely read his most famous works in order of publication while also exuding Birth of Tragedy.

BGE and Geneology are his most profound books and if you aren't absolutely gripped by that point then don't bother continuing

i'm a layman but if what you said is true it was very well said. thanks user

>But now I see him for what he is.
Well, it's not hard to see him as the devil. He himself calls himself as such. Nietzsche paved the way for the devil though.

People can tell your pathological when you think everyone is on your side.

You want that pink cat thread, user.

Not the devil. I don't see him as some higher, powerful being. Just a man with a worldview shockingly similar to - and curiously different (for indeed he further sparked my interest in philosophy)

(Simillar to) Mine*

not that user but
>please respond

Attached: 1566285880261.jpg (650x1197, 64K)

He’d beg for forgiveness upon realizing he’s alive in the time of the last persecution.

Attached: 97177DE6-76A7-407B-8A99-09827A0D6B19.jpg (240x250, 9K)

Haven't even reached the Genealogy of Morals yet but I'll try and answer with what I've got.

In Beyond Good and Evil - particularly section 34 - he talks about how although the world of appearances (ie our perceptible world) is full of "errors" - however, if you abolished and dismissed the "apparent" world, then there would be nothing left of truth. There are *values* of true and false. I don't think he dismisses truth outright, he thinks that relying on our conscious alone to discern truth is riddled with problems.

I think that you're second question can be answered with the response above. It's probably consistent with his idea of moving "beyond" ideas and morality.

Great post user.

I’m not necessarily a Kant autist because I’m still fighting thorugh his ideas. Kant was before Nietzsche’s time. Nietzsche and his contemporaries suffered through a societal metamorphosis in a religious sense in that their conception of “God” ans the meaning it held were not as pronounced or as varied (vibrant) as in Kant’s time. Kant focused on the logical and methodological aspects of religion that contributed to people’s wellbeing. He systematically looked at the best aspects of religion and stripped them down to the principle essentials. In short, he saw something good; something that contained great promise in promoting social welfare and other righteous ends, and incorporated this goodness into a standalone philosophical framework. Granted, his metaphysical analysis can get hefty very fast (as he is very articulate) it exists only as his long-list of reasons for doing what he did.

This is my opinion, but I feel like Nietzsche in some sense may have admired Kant and is, in some ways, a spiritual successor.

His aforisms are a blow right in the jaw.

Attached: Screenshot from 2019-07-31 11-14-53.png (729x647, 349K)

This is a very good answer

He is the greatest German writer bar none. No historian, philosopher, novelist, poet, or critic even compares, I mean this with absolute sincerity

I can't even imagine how he was received in his time, he must've been looked at like an alien.

Attached: nietzsche.png (2129x530, 183K)

>aforisms
aphorisms
jeez

He would absolutely despise leftism.

Basic Writings of Nietzsche
Skip introduction.

God damn, all these godless modern idiots. NIetzsche himself would have been disgusted, not that one should really stick up for him but still.

What kind of person is the übermensch? Did Nietzsche ever walk up to someone and whisper in his ear: "You are it"?

The Übermensch presently does not exist and will not for sometime. He might not even be homo sapiens.

I don't like Nietzsche. He never truly overcame nihilism. He can amor fati and affirm all he wants, but he still never truly overcame nihilism.

>Skip introduction
y?

What did he miss?

The ubermensche does not exist and never will. It's an impossible goal used to compare our current selves to what we can imagine st the peak of human limitation. It's meant to spur us to action by imposing a mythological hierarchy into your mind.

However if anyone is an ubermensche it is hannibal from the show hannibal(not the books)

Attached: mads-mikkelsen-1320-24-03-2017-12-31-47.jpg (204x204, 6K)

Transvaluation of ideals pretty much implies a kind of antinomianism. It doesn't take a genius to see this. With antiomianism, you risk people constructing values that are fundamentally destructive, sadistic, or so forth, but that would all be considered as valid in Nietzsche's system, even with the Apollonian/Dionsyian split. There is no impetus to be compassionate in Nietzsche's system, which he would perhaps claim the push for constitutes slave morality. Nietzsche was just an edgelord.

>glorifying a literal serial killer
So much depravity here.

He overcame it in Zarathustra.

>Everything fades, so nothing matters, ergo Nihilism
>Everything *returns* so *everything* matters, ergo The Eternal Recurrence

Yes, and?
Yes, and?

I suspect that you have not actually read Nietzsche. There is no room for compassion there is only power. Everything is either striving towards life or death. What is life? Life is conquest, destruction, acquisition, accumulation, appropriation at the expense of others. This is true for every living organism. We all are constantly doing this in one way or another. When we stop and make way for compassion we are checking the grow of our own power and taken to it's logical conclusion results in self-annihilation. That's not to say there is no room for love or what one might call kindness in Nietzsche, the only difference is that it must come from a place of a feeling of power and not pity.

If you really want to see the logical endpoint of this read Bataille. He makes nietzsche look like a priest. But really I reccomend you actually read nietzsche and not the "school of life" 10 minute video on youtube.

Attached: ebqh2m6xfgcycacpvgmr.jpg (833x452, 32K)

Please save zarathustra for the last after you have read everything else by him. You will literally not understand jack shit unless you understand the theoretical framework that his allegories explore.

>That's not to say there is no room for love or what one might call kindness in Nietzsche

>That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil. (Beyond Good and Evil XVIII)
You sure about that?

Did you missread?
>That's not to say there is no room for love
The double negative implies there is room for love. And yes love is always an instinctive and instantaneous reaction. It values one thing above another simply because of our instinctual pull towards it. It must therefore be beyond anything moral or immoral.

A lot of Nietzsche in practice can be seen in the dramatic relationships in Romantic literature. Especially Goethe whom nietzsche greatly admired.

Attached: hannibal.jpg (680x478, 42K)

If life is about power, and the many are stronger than the few, compassion is the way to power, is it not? The tyrannic king is quickly killed by his slave, whereas a friend will give his life for you. You could also say: the power of the individual is only a means to an end, the end being the power of life itself, the whole of living things and their well-being and might. Nietzsche is funny, I dont get it.

I think he's thinking of that introduction where Peter Gay bashes Nietzsche for not being a 21st century woke liberal. Moustache man bad, basically.

So I wanna get into Nietzsche, but I don't want to go through his whole oeuvre just yet. Can I pull a Geneaology - Beyond - Zarathustra - Twilight - Antichrist?

Nietzsche covers this exact instinct. The weak man instinctually fears others around him so he attempts to please and serve them to abate their power. The weak man will also create moral doctrine like "do unto others as they do unto you" because he knows he is too weak to do anything to anyone so he attempts to bring everyone around him down to the same level of powerlessness.

In practice this also doesnt work out. Would hawks benefit from show pity to the rodents they kill? No. How about to other Hawks? Possibly, but then it would be more like mutual respect rather than pity. Similarly in history many small minorities of strong men took over and enslaved populations many times their size simply because they were stronger and they benefited from it far more than they would have if they treated everyone equally. The weak should unironically fear the strong.

Attached: hannibal-nbc.jpg (1912x1072, 122K)

I'd skip zarathustra honestly or leave it to the very end. Also twilight is short but not all that important imho. He goes over his basic concepts and talks about current politics. If you want to read it then read it first as a primer so you get a bigger picture. Antichrist is just fun but I'd replace it with Birth of Tragedy if you want a more well rounded view of his ideas.

Attached: 961988-mads-mikkelsen-hannibal-wallpaper-1920x1080-for-windows-7.jpg (1920x1080, 192K)

Suppose it is true that a lets-work-as-a-team attitude is a way for weak man to cope with their inferiority; and that the weak should fear the strong - - is it not true, regardless, that a lets-work-as-a-team attitude is far superior to a lone-wolf attitude in terms of the work that gets done at the end of the day, be it for your own sake or the sake of your community? And is it not proven that we are genitically programmed to work together for the sake of our biological data being transmitted to new host-bodies.

Nietzsche stuff sounds so edgy, I probably missunderstand most it, if not all. In his letters he is such a shy and needy guy, yearning for affection - than again, people who talk about him and his ideas use hawks and tigers as examples - - we are neither hawks nor tigers, we are like a mixture of many animals, partly compassionate, partly autonomous, partly power-hungry, partly drone-like. To deny everything but power-hungry is unnatural, in my opinion, and a possibly dangerous dream.

What you call the tactical supremacy of the "let's work together" morality he calls the revolt of the masses and it destroys everything good and beautiful that the higher man could obtain by leveling everything out. Nietzsche calls the end result of this process the last man and nihilism and suicide are not far away (and look at the west's ballooning suicide rate).
And if you think we are characterized by this mentality of peace I think you need to look more at history. The world is characterized more by allegiance to small groups and the ability to commit atrocities upon all others.

Edginess is just what you call a lack of christian morality. The heros in the iliad and odyssey were edgy as fuck. I suggest you try to find the roots of your moral preoccupations and non-desire of power by reading a geneology of morality.

Attached: 54465d8decad04571113ceef-750-563.jpg (750x563, 53K)

cont.

I'm a big midwit, so maybe you shouldn't even bother answering me. It's just that, if I think about the Übermensch as a role model, and put beside him a hero out of Homer, or, to make it more extreme, a stoic statesman: the latter immediately make sense as role models, while the Übermensch seems to be an unworkable mess, a kind of suicide attempt through non-compassion: get as strong as fast as possible and let yourself be killed as a king. The stoic act in accordance to nature (or atleast: somewhat in accordance), since he acts in a way that benefits the group, and the group is the fundamental unit of human beings, not the individual: we are not meant to survive alone, but build around communal life. That which goes against communal life, goes against human nature - that is not to say that it is impossible for humanity to evolve into something else, something that survives alone (though I dont think this will happen, ever, and that we will remain helpless children in our mothers laps - and that this is something we should not worry about, because we cannot change this basic fact of life, and that which we cannot change, should not concern us.)

And just to add a small group of loan wolf/ hawk morality dudes often enslaved giant population of weakling sheep people to their immense benefit. It will happen again too eventually. The weak have the upper hand (due mostly to the mental poisoning of the strong by christianity) now but it wont always be so.

Attached: Mads_mikkelsen_(2).jpg (230x230, 23K)

>it destroys everything good and beautiful that the higher man could obtain
But aren't most good and beautiful things built by the masses? Like houses and roads and paintings (which are painted by an individual, but the individual can only work the way he does because of his community?).
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I won't bother you further with dumb questions.

Who built Thebes of the 7 gates?
In the books you will read the names of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock?

And Babylon, many times demolished,
Who raised it up so many times?

In what houses of gold glittering Lima did its builders live?
Where, the evening that the Great Wall of China was finished, did the masons go?

Great Rome is full of triumphal arches.
Who erected them?

Over whom did the Caesars triumph?
Had Byzantium, much praised in song, only palaces for its inhabitants?

Even in fabled Atlantis, the night that the ocean engulfed it,
The drowning still cried out for their slaves.

The young Alexander conquered India.
Was he alone?

Caesar defeated the Gauls.
Did he not even have a cook with him?

Philip of Spain wept when his armada went down.
Was he the only one to weep?

Frederick the 2nd won the 7 Years War.
Who else won it?

Every page a victory.
Who cooked the feast for the victors?

Every 10 years a great man.
Who paid the bill?

So many reports.

So many questions.

(I'm not sure if this poem is for or against your position - maybe both, depending on which side you stand)

This.

Tell me do you think Ghengis Khan showed compassion? No he raped and murdered everything in his path and had absolute power until his death. But the ubermensche doesn't mean you just have to go out rape murdering everyone you see. It doesn't mean just go off willy nillly and do it.

Also if you think Odysseys was anything but an asshole who only cared about himself then you need a reread. All of those main characters in the iliad too do horribly selfish and terrible things that fuck over the rest of the group.

If you really have these questions then I recommend that you actually read nietzsche because I am tired and my thoughts are getting incredibly disorganized but I'm too autistic to not reply. Start with Twilight or Geneology.

Let me ask you this, because I really would like to know: for you, personally, what does it mean to follow Nietzsches teaching (which I assume you are doing, since you are an autist). What do you do differently now?

The answer to all those questions are the slaves who did the bidding of men greater than themselves. Great men of power use people and entire societies like a brush to create works of beauty. But to ascribe the authorship to the pen is fucking absurd.

And in the modern age what are our great works of art that have been created by the great unchaining of the masses for themselves? Marvel movies, mcmansions, obesity, walmarts, pop fiction, every sort of ugliness that you could think of. There is no one steering the ship and we crashed a long time ago. I think any thinking person living in modern society feels as if they are downing when they look around.

Attached: 0_UOiHGCf2XxxNt-K2.jpg (1280x720, 62K)

Thank you for saying so. I think the biggest change was everything. I was the exact opposite of nietzsche before I read him. I though I had value because I was smart, denied myself pleasures, was always compassionate and kind. I had a great sense of martyrdom and self-pity. But really it was all a cope. When I read Nietzsche he totally saw through my lies. It was like he had laid out my entire being on the pages and said "look at this pathetic piece of shit". Literally every invective he threw out sounded like it was against me specifically. I realized all of my self-decite and that really in the end none of it made me happy or better as a person. I threw that whole part of me away and started building myself up from the bottom up to he constantly self-overcomming and greater than I was before.

Attached: bdc4d2e28427c28bb614be0c059f988c.jpg (907x1363, 116K)

Are you not compassionate anymore, or kind? Do you have many friends? And if so, what kind of friendship do you have? Is there a fictional character that resembles you somewhat (is it Hannibal?)? I'm intrigued.

As I understood, which might be wrong, his goal wasn't necessarily to overcome nihilism, but to overcome the passivity of nihilism. The death of God brings people from the passivity of Christianity (putting the meaning of life outside of life) to the passivity of nihilism (no meaning in life). Amor fati is an active way of viewing the world, eternal reoccurence is just a thought experiment to see if you are on the right track. Authenticity/being-towards-death in Heidegger has the same function.

Cringe

Nietzsche once remarked that the ubermensche was like the Roman caesar with the souls of Christ. Weirdly I think the way I came to Nietzsche has gotten me pretty close to that. There's no sadism in me and more often than not I will go out of my way to help people simply because it is my whim to do so. But I also know that I am capable of being equally cruel and selfish if the time called for it.

I think I noticed the difference when taking to my mother about my father. My father is very much a sadistic narcissist but hes also an incredible genius who has achieved amazing things. My mother assumed that I respected the mediocre but extremely compassionate and moral friend of the family more than my father. Of course that's not the case. My father has done terrible things but it really doesnt matter at all to me and I know while I dont have any inclination towards it I would be capable of similar actions.

And I only have one friend who is my partner. I have never met anyone else who had held my interest.

In terms of characters like me I'm not sure. Hannibal is the absolute ideal above all. An unachievable perfection. There isn't a single part of him that is not written (in the show) as a perfect living example of nietzschean philosophy.

Pretty much this. Nihilism means something very distinct to Nietzsche. It is directly "there is no meaning" -> "life has no meaning" -> self-anHihiliation. The reason for this is as you said the death of the universal framework which viewed everything from perspective the TRUTH of God.
Nietzsche says there are no objective, intrinsic meaning or value to life but that does not mean that it cannot have meaning. The meaning is up for us to discover by naturally feeling and seeing what we instinctually value and following those insticings thereby affirming life and value and meainign

Attached: hannibal-600-1393526608.jpg (600x400, 120K)

I dont disagree friend

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 66K)

Because it's not Nietszche?
Point is that Birth of Tragedy (revised with preface) is the top 3 of his works but also best place to start.
Alternatively
>Start with Nietszche by starting with Schopenhauer, and start with him by starting with Schelling, and start with him by starting Kant; Hume; Spinoza; Descartes . . .
Start with Plotinus.

>starting with a plato rehash and not the presocratics
Why?

Attached: 121764c0a717077f5d162439770e899b.jpg (400x400, 42K)

the ubermensch was the faustian man, read spengler as he elaborates much better than i can

It's not survival of the fittest, it's the survival of the fit enough
This individual-minded conception of superiority is just a mental model that individual-minded people like because it makes them feel better. It's like rolling a bunch of dice and proclaiming that the one that turns up six is the superior dice. A better question is: why do you like dice so much? What game are you playing with these dice?

I don't mind will to power but ultimately it's a fear of death. It's a mental construct designed to put as many layers as possible between you and death with the least amount of power = death. Death is certain and will is futile. Desire is the only thing that's real

I’ve only read antichrist, beyond good and evil, and twilight of the idols, but I 100% agree with every part of your post. Synthesizing all his ideas seem impossible. The übermensch seems to be the “ideal” man but he rails against such idealism as it denies reality? He claims to be against morality in all forms but sets up a dichotomy of “noble” and “ignoble”? And I too felt depressively sick after reading his beautiful prose.
He’s the most interesting author I’ve ever read, in every respect.

Attached: 3C69CE6F-4383-4B18-B7F9-302B0EB2889D.jpg (640x604, 201K)

I read 70% of his works chronologically then I turned manic and I haven't read anything since. Don't read Nietzsche and Foucault guys you will end like me. Absolutely seething, manic, angry all the time.

>Best writer
>Goethe exists

I dislike his philosophy. Prefer the Greeks.

To be fair to him, he was accurate on what would happen in the future after religion lost its influence on most people.

You cannot understand the greek philosophy because the ego of the Ancient greek is beyond your comprehension to possess. You are larping. One can only understand the philosophy of one's culture as philosophy is lived experience.

Hm, you sure about that? It all seems pretty straight forward and understandable. Whats so crazy about the ancient greek mindset?

You need to fuck young boys to really get the Greeks.

Attached: 8036E610-1E15-4F96-8CA6-26D2133D4D02.jpg (750x889, 147K)

Kant was a jewish subverter who wanted to destroy empiricism with subjectivity.

You're overvaluing instincts. Yes Nietzsche wasn't a fan of the whole culture of over intellectualism , but he still valued the intellect. It's not really about just following and discovering meaning but specifically creating meaning. There has to be some kind of learning process, some becoming hence the whole camel -> lion -> child.

Read any philosophy post 1600 and realise the West is a completely different philosophical mind to the Greek of yore. This phenomena is well known, viz. Spengler (Greek spatial and present emphasis over destiny and infinite)

lol why would anyone read his incel screeds

Get money and bitches loser
fuck the poor

>“As an object of worship, this fractious species has some disadvantages. Old-fashioned monotheism had the merit of admitting that very little can be known of God. As far back as the prophet Isaiah, the faithful have allowed that the Deity may have withdrawn from the world. Awaiting some sign of a divine presence, they have encountered only deus absconditus – an absent God. The end-result of trying to abolish monotheism is much the same. Generations of atheists have lived in expectation of the arrival of a truly human species: the communal workers of Marx, Mill’s autonomous individuals and Nietzsche’s absurd Übermensch, among many others.”

Because Plotinus is the beginning of German Idealism.

Nietzsche it the most misunderstood philosopher. College aged retards and manchildren sum up his philosophy to this and have immense trouble understanding the finer points of what Nietzsche do gracefully laid out for us.

Yeah I forgot to add repent at deathbed

There is no doubt that there also needs to be intellect. There needs to be a balance of diyonisian and apollonian after all. But it's from our base drives that we know what we prefer and which direction to go. The rest is of course the domain of intellect.

>here is no room for compassion there is only power.
Which is precisely my issue with him, hence why I prefer Schopenhauer. Humorously enough, Schopenhauer was not a nihilist as is falsely assumed by many.
> Everything is either striving towards life or death. What is life? Life is conquest, destruction, acquisition, accumulation, appropriation at the expense of others.
You ignore how cooperation, mutualism, harmony/stability, empathy, and etc. also have evolutionary roles. It's not just about taking advantage of others. That is too one-sided. Life is also about working together for the common good or certain goals.
>When we stop and make way for compassion we are checking the grow of our own power and taken to it's logical conclusion results in self-annihilation.
No, it leads to antinatalism but not self-annihilation. It leads to self-denial, which is not equivalent to killing oneself.
>That's not to say there is no room for love or what one might call kindness in Nietzsche, the only difference is that it must come from a place of a feeling of power and not pity.
It should come from empathy and not pity or power. Empathy involves vicariously experiencing the mental states of others and wanting to minimize suffering. It comes from seeing a certain kind of commonality.
>If you really want to see the logical endpoint of this read Bataille
I've read his poetry and a few of his essays. I think he is an overrated and decadent Frenchman, much like Marquis de Sade. I can appreciate certain literary aspects in his works, but I find his vision and weird fixation on sexual organs all very stupid.
>But really I reccomend you actually read nietzsche and not the "school of life" 10 minute video on youtube.
I read half of Beyond Good and Evil and stopped after reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on him. I understood what he's about. Nothing you told me involved stuff I didn't know. It's hard to continuously read a philosopher after you have decided you strongly disagree with them, especially an edgelord one.
Also, before you say encyclopedias are not equivalent to reading whole works, I have rarely met someone who understood Deleuze whereas I grasp his differential ontology better after reading Encyclopedias. Most philosophy writing, outside of a few exceptions, are trash and one can get to the meat of it faster by reading impartial accounts from academic encyclopedias.

if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you

Attached: 1549457337246.jpg (577x1024, 50K)

"The Übermensch seems to be the 'ideal' man, but he rails against such idealism as it denies reality?" - This is the sort of error that people uneducated in philosophy would make since they don't know what idealism is really referring to. Idealism is the term associated with the philosophies of people like Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer, and the German Idealists (Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel). When Nietzsche is arguing against idealism, he is arguing against the metaphysics of Plato, Christianity, and the people listed above. See plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/ for more on what idealism means in the philosophical sense.

Nietzsche gives a condensed form of the progression of metaphysics in his "Twilight of the Idols" in the section labelled "How the 'True World' Finally Became a Fable".

Attached: Screenshot (36).png (504x785, 206K)

Attached: Screenshot (37).png (487x190, 54K)

Animals that cooperate essentially become a single organism. That does not mean that they don't also still always need to survive via the same will to power which requires the destruction of others. The closest you can get to not following the will to power in the natural world is plants who simply soak up light but even then they via against one another, rapidly colonize new territory, and are always attempting to propagate themselves. Anything that affirms life will disregard moral concerns and act in a way which maximizes their personal power (sometimes that does involve cooperation while at other times it does not).
Nietzsche never really gives a good reason as to why you shouldn't follow the slave morality he simply posits that there are two paths. One leading to morality and a hatred of life, pessimism, asceticism, towards death or the path towards life filled with hardship and conquest. He let's you choose.

However I will say you have a solid grasp of his conclusion but the most important part of nietzsche is the way that he goes about explaining and approaching ideas. Nietzsche posits that the path towards life is the natural instinct of happy people while morality is a reaction against those people who have happiness as a way of valourizing their own state of weakness. I do understand that it fucking sucks reading philosophers that you're opposed to but I really think you should try reading the first and then third treatise in geneology of morality. His methodology and reasoning is a lot more concrete and easier to follow in geneology.

Attached: ad9dfaa115900cf98e2c8a7167307c5d.jpg (500x700, 54K)

>Animals that cooperate essentially become a single organism.
Just because animals cooperate does not make them a superorganism. Not all cooperating animals have swarm intelligence akin to ant colonies.
> Anything that affirms life will disregard moral concerns and act in a way which maximizes their personal power (sometimes that does involve cooperation while at other times it does not).
The point I am making is you choose to focus on one aspect of life irrespective to others: competition. Yes, competition is an aspect of the apparent world, but why do you focus on it to the exclusion of others? I think all of this assumes materialism/physicalism to some extent.
>One leading to morality and a hatred of life, pessimism, asceticism, towards death or the path towards life filled with hardship and conquest.
Only compassion leads to love of life, not being an edgelord who obsesses with conquest.

I think you need to read schopenhauer again. He makes it pretty clear why you cannot and should not mix the will to power with compassion. They are ultimately two distinct drives and you need to settle for one. The will to power will always cause more suffering in the world and therefore cannot be undertaken at all if you are truly compassionate. And both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer agree that the entire world is the will to power and nothing besides This is why Schopenhauer throws himself away from the world which he sees as evil and towards a life of living as little as possible. It leads to a total rejection of new life and anti-natalism as well since the world is filled with suffering and by bringing a child into the world you are most likely exposing it to serious harm.

The choice remains: life or death. The only way to achieve your wishy-washy combination of the two is to either not be serious of either one or just not consider the implications.

>both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer agree that the entire world is the will to power and nothing besides
No, Schopenhauer argues for a "Will to Life", not a "Will to Power". The Will to Life is more like a blind, insatiable striving for more. The Will to Life is not reducible to power the way the Nietzschean Will to Power is.

and he rejects the will to life. What is your point? The Nietzschean will to power is a refinement of the will to life. Schopenhauer believed that the will to life could be characterized by constant struggle and conflict where every living thing is striving against every other. The will to power is essentially the same but it can extend beyond your own personal lifespan.

You're nitpicking here and not addressing any of the real conclusions.

I am well aware of how Schopenhauer argues compassion arises from the denial of servitude to the Will to Life. I was just making the point there are a couple of differences from Will to Life and Power.
Regardless, I don't believe in either the Will to Life or Power, but I just respect Schopenhauer, as a thinker more.

I'm reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra right now and while I wasn't overwhelmed by the stuff he wrote at the start, the more I progress with it the less I'm able to penetrate what he's talking about.

I guess I'll leave it to another time.

You 100% cannot read zarathustra without reading all of his other works first. Start with Twilight and then BGE/genealogy.

Well you either accept that all the world is will your you dont.

I think there are more complex and nuanced metaphysical relations than just a simple voluntarism.

I dont doubt it and I also dont care. All other systems I have objections too. A world characterized by will is what makes sense.

>I also dont care
How old are you? Saying you don't care comes off like an annoying teenager, especially while we are having a well-mannered discussion. If you don't care, then don't waste my fucking time.
>A world characterized by will is what makes sense.
Voluntarism may have certain benefits, but I think it is an oversimplification when dealing with more complex metaphysical relations. Doesn't Schopenhauer start treading on more Platonic grounds when analyzing the nature of 'character' in the second volume of TWAWAR? This part of Schopenhauer's philosophy is not talked about as much, but it's interesting in the sense it can entail palingenesis.

Philosophy is cringe, I just realized.

I say I dont care because being nuanced or more complex is not a reason in and of itself to value other metaphysics. You really haven't presented anything to me that would cause me to not see the world as will. Every living being strives for power either by cooperating or by conflicting but at the very end of it all is a will to power.

It also just speaks to me personally because I denied it for so long but ultimately had to accept its truth. Really we are at the heart of the issue though. You initially began this whole thing with the incredibly trite observation about the nature of nietzsche conclusions but my whole point is that they didnt just pop out of thin air. If you want to argue against Nietzsche's conclusions then you have to argue against how he got there mainly by his genealogical study of morality. Arguing against the concept of WtP is fine but you're not really arguing, you're sweeping generalities in front of me and I choose to sweep them away.

You should also check out Julius Bahnsen if metaphysicians of will intrigue you. Bahnsen was also heavily influenced by Schopenhauer, much like Nietzsche.
>Every living being strives for power either by cooperating or by conflicting but at the very end of it all is a will to power.
Not necessarily. You made a universal claim that *all* life strives for power, and all it takes to prove such a general claim wrong is finding a single exception. At most you can say all life "strives" [to sustain itself], but it is false to claim all striving is necessarily for power, which is my point. There can be a lot of variance based on the values among many people.
>If you want to argue against Nietzsche's conclusions then you have to argue against how he got there mainly by his genealogical study of morality.
All robust meta- and normative morality assumes some kind of soteriology and not an eternal oblivion after the cessation of bodily functions. Personally, I think the best way to give foundation to morality is by questioning implicit materialist biases such as how mind is reducible to brain activity. By questioning more deeply into the nature of how mind relates to matter, one can be more open to certain soteriological possibilities though not exactly sure. I agree with Nietzsche and most modern Continental philosophers that you cannot reconcile normativity with naturalism though.
I think Schopenhauer may have been agnostic about palingenesis for example.

Thing is every mentally sane grown up knows it's bullshit.

>by questioning implicit materialist biases such as how mind is reducible to brain activity
But why even do that? This issue is entirely about meta-ethical vs normative moral relativism. Meta-ethics insinuates culture and ecological niche, not brain chemistry.

Because it can open up to certain soteriological possibilities when you begin questioning materialist/physicalist biases and its relationship to death. Honestly, to keep it simple, all ethics is undermined if eternal oblivion meets all, regardless of their conduct, but if there is reasonable doubt of *some kind* of reward/punishment system, then one can base a meta- and normative ethics. Note, I do not just mean the tradition Christian image of hell vs. heaven, but I also refer to various other explanations like Karma, early Druids, or whatever.

Can someone explain to me how The Genealogy of Morals isn't anti-Semitic

Like calling someone who can tell the differences between races a racist. Nietzsche is thoroughly against the spiritual Semite and its offspring (i.e. Christianity) but he isn't antisemitic.

>ethics is undermined if eternal oblivion meets all
Nah, that's a shortcut to nihilistic solipsism. Just because you personally are damned, doesn't mean everyone else should perish too this instant after you just justified your shitty ethics with it. Nihilism has its time and place (fe if you want to justify KYS), but it's not a good plot device for ethics in objective sense.

I'm not so fond of the karmic/theological inclination too, insofar as providing formal reason for ethics in and itself. But why do you even need a *reason* to exist? Why not simply decide whether you personally want to exist or not? If not, just KYS. If yes, adopt ethical systems allowing others to exist, so that they adopt ethics in turn allowing you to exist. This may be relativistic, but most of the time, the ethic systems converge to keep things simple and devoid of difficult to resolve relativism. No need for karma for the dead, just golden rule of the living.

>KYS
>KYS
You sound like a retarded teenager with little to no emotional intelligence. Why are you getting so triggered, faggot? The discussion was proceeding along courteous lines until you became an insulting faggot.
>this may be relativistic
The point is, if eternal oblivion awaits all, one can easily dismiss all meta- and normative ethics by relativizing or outright dismissing it in the sense that it ultimately doesn't matter in the overall scheme. It becomes more of a matter of one's passions or convenience rather than anything deeper. This causes actions to be viewed neutral in and of themselves, lacking a negative or positive character.
>No need for karma for the dead, just golden rule of the living.
Without some kind of overall soteriology or doubt in regards to the nature of death, the golden of the living merely becomes a preference, not a real defensible ethical position.
>nihilistic solipsism
Also, representational theory of mind does imply epistemological solipsism but not necessarily metaphysical solipsism. Enactivism is not a valid counterargument either.

Please note you have been responding to multiple different people throught the course of discussion

Would Nietzche still hate Christianity after seeing a society without it?

I'm not sure that he would

in the running for the most brainlet post itt

His original claim was that Christianity was tied to this budding secular humanism (progressivism)

Seeing it evolve this far down the line makes it clear what happens in society when Transcendent values aren't enforced. This is what made Nietzche's original philosophy lacking

Don't ever suggest what to read by Nietzsche if you try to cut corners.

Attached: 1531632718002.png (305x385, 206K)

You need to be 18 to post on Yea Forums.

How did this meme that Nietzsche was nihilist get so popular? I've only read Thus Spake Zarathustra but it seems to be at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from nihilism; it's downright proto-transhumanist.

Can someone tell me if the great man theory was ever acknowledged by marx

>How did this meme that Nietzsche was nihilist get so popular? I've only read Thus Spake Zarathustra but it seems to be at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from nihilism; it's downright proto-transhumanist.

I just finished Beyond Good and Evil, and nothing I had ever heard about Nietzche was in that book.

Liberals and atheists champion Nietzche as their guy and an authority to be referred to. Nobody has ever told me that Nietzche despised liberalism and socialists/progressives. He spent more time bashing progressive humanists than he did Christians.

It just really confirms to me that liberals do not actually read books. I had suspected that for a long time but this was the proof

I have presented a paper of mine on Nietzsche at a conference in Oxford. I've read everything by him.

Explain to me the great man theory. He came up with it right?

You must be new here, don't trust anyone saying they have anything to do with Oxbridge. It's just LARPers.

What do you mean? Great Man theory basically states that the process of history is put in motion by certain individuals rather than broad social causes or circumstances. Nietzsche had a boner for Napoleon but so did Hegel. I'd argue that basically everyone up to World War II subscribed to Great Man theory, even if they didn't have a name for it back then, it was just assumed as matter of fact that history was moved by great men and not some nebulous kind of "social change".

Attached: napoleon.jpg (1900x1519, 606K)

You know, some people on Yea Forums actually study philosophy instead of being "autodidacts" jacking themselves off and pretending they're better than everyone BECAUSE they're a NEET. Talk about sour grapes. Look up what ol' Nietzsche has to say on ressentiment.

But Nietzsche also created the ubermench and untermench theory. Didn't he?
Did he truly believe that society just had to produce the 1% who run everything good in society while the 99% are to be dominated.

No one knows what exactly he meant by "Übermensch" and whether it's a goal for humanity that is fundamentally unreachable but worth striving towards, or if it's a thing some rare individuals (such as Napoleon or Goethe and early-Wagner) can and have attained. Untermensch is a Nazi-invention and not mentioned at all in Nietzsche's work, except arguably for a tiny little passage in Zarathustra on the "last man" -- but no one knows what to make of that either.
Concerning your second point, Nietzsche is fairly apolitical and doesn't really concern himself with "society". He did argue that "strong = good" however, so make of that what you will. Look at the Roman Empire for example. His main problem is Christianity and you should keep that in mind as background-context for whatever he says. When he rails against weakness he is actually railing against the Christian conception that weakness is good. The Roman Empire, as the pagan institution pur sang, is probably what Nietzsche had in mind for a society run by will to power. But I would be very careful to mix Nietzsche and politics.

What's the practical difference between following the teaching of Nietzsche and the teachings of Ayn Rand?

Attached: 1565420418189.jpg (229x221, 11K)

What's the practical difference between following the teachings of Christ and the teachings of the Buddha?

None.
Now you:

>What's the practical difference between following the teachings of Christ and the teachings of the Buddha?
Christ tells you to fuck shit up when people act like shit around you, Buddha just tells you to wait for the next life.

>loses his temper once
>this discounts the countless moral teachings about tolerance, loving your enemy, turning the other cheek, "if they take your shirt, give them your coat as well" on neo-reactionary obscure parts of the internet where Europeans intrinsically feel there's something wrong with these teaching but can't get rid of societal Christian upbringing/programming

rekt

None. But now you can't drag Nietzsche through the mud through association with Rand since you just agreed people with wildly opposing views can espouse the same behaviors regardless.

>No one knows
>Countless associations and Philosophy departments dedicated to Nietzsche exist

Choose one

Attached: 1531873187141.jpg (124x116, 3K)

Uh yeah and they're all in disagreement with each other.

>>loses his temper
He specifically took the time to fashion a whip out of cords, if that's the incident you're talking about, it's hardly losing one's temper, it was a premeditated act.

Why didn't he turn the other cheek like he taught his disciples?

Turn the other cheek to what? There's a difference between unreasonably chimping out when someone slights you and contributing to a neverending string of personal blood vendettas, and performing an actual tactical revolutionary act in defense of the societal structure you want to uphold (and against the one that you don't).

kant and nietzsche aren't that far apart in the end. the most important epistemic idea kant brought forward was the concept of a priori. principles so imbedded with humans, that the cannot ever think outside these principles. the very experience is constructed by these principles a priori. eg questions in this regard ask if you need to know the concept of a tomato to even see one, though kant obviosly had principles of higher grade in mind, like the very working of the human mind. he, as well as nietzsche, argues that the thing itself cannot be known or seen. all we experience is but appearance, already formed by principles a priori.
this, after all, is not so much different then what nietzsche says. nietzsche does not say anywhere ever that truth does not exist, but that it is unaccessable by human speech and cannot be formulated, as, you said, language is but metaphors. it's an important distinction many beginners make to mistake nietzsche as saying there is no truth, when really, he says it's not accessible the humans, since all we do is project our mind onto the world. this, again is basically the same as kants principles a priori, by which we experience the world. kant wants to learn about the principles, as it is the only thing that trly can be studied by human. the inner working of the mind. this, btw, is the critique of pure reason. nietzsche on the other hand is not so much interested in studying eg language. he accepts language and the "truths" philosophy thinks to find as a useful tool to avoid pain, as only this makes humans learn from mistakes. for him, art takes these hardened truths and rearrange them in a pleasurable way to make humans laugh.

Does any Yea Forumsfag remember the site link with an ai program that generates a paragraph of text after only typing in a sentence?

Seen the link posted in threads, many laffs were had

Don't care for childish ideas. I read for the prose, u zoom zoom

can relate it's annoying to read Kant after being schooled by the opposite viewpoint. Especially in German reading pages after pages of blown up though in reality simple concepts is just unbearable. The only thing I can think of is get to the damn point. Somehow everyone before and after German idealism managed to do that though neither Kant nor Hegel really did. Might just be a linguistic component I don't find aesthetic. Doesn't really make his theories less true but I've found that many more traditional peeps use Kant.

I suppose you have not either my dude. Nietzsche saw that there were steps to accomplishing Übermensch, Enlightenment, Absolute Conquest and such. First you desire enlightenment, then you desire power, then rule and lastly good through nihilistic reoccurrence, i.e. seeing the cycle trying to escape it failing though still trying. We cannot defeat fate and decay but we can realize ourselves within it and define ourselves as Humans and such through conflict. We live in the scope of humanity and as long as we have will and live for conflict through conflict i.e. progress we succeed. Nietzsche was no Übermensch. There might be someone to be called such at some point but there was none during his time and there might well be none during ours either.

He was a genius and tried his best to be happy and have meaning without God or morality but ultimately it's like squaring the circle. Trying to be the the ubermensch is a terrible goal for 99% of people as he knew, and he himself was one of those people. You are bound to be perpetually disappointed in yourself if you aren't delusional and isolated from society, two things that are too much for most people to bear. He didn't seem to be able to accept what his masters Montaigne and Spinoza knew - that love for a thing infinite and eternal, even if indefinite cannot be replaced by love for any finite, imperfect thing, like oneself. No "new value" anyone could come up with could possibly have the force of God.
Life is too short to take Nietzsche too seriously. I read him avidly in high school and it would make my depression better for a week or two and then it didn't stick.
If you read his philosophy it's no wonder he went crazy. It's too Schopenhauerian, but his fragmentary style without sustained logical argument ultimately isn't a convincing or stable refutation of the pessimistic interpretation of Schopenhauer's metaphysics, while Spinoza's is before Schopenhauer.
All that being said he's one of the most interesting philosophers and greatest writers. It might sound very dudebro to say but reading Nietzsche is like taking acid: beautiful, interesting, but overwhelming and leaves no resolution. Further, if I am very bored sometimes the mood will spring up to take Nietzsche again.
To give Nietzsche credit he got me so interested and concerned with philosophy I had to read enough of the philosophers I now consider better to replace his influence on me, so it was in a way life changing and I think for the good.

Kant is great for multiple things. If you want to get to the very core, the very heart of what rationality is and how it works, Kant does this in the transcendental deduction in Critique of Pure Reason and I cringe when I hear someone talk about rationality who hasn't read that: they know that it is, but they don't know what it is. They know some of its attributes but not its essence.
Same to a lesser extent with morality. Only the ancients and some relatively obscure contemporary philosophers are as good as Kant on a persuasive, coherent account of morality. He is way better on ethics than the rest of the enlightenment at least. Nietzsche's critiques of morality are psychological - the ground for interesting and consequential speculation, but Kant's account of morality is metaphysical (not uncritically metaphysical, so not mere speculation), so it feels more firmly rooted.
It's systematic so just power through. Unlike with Nietzsche it builds on itself. Not nearly as hard or open to interpretation or as sprawling and extensive as Hegel.

And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves
- Mark 11:15

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves
Matthew 21:12

And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought
- Luke 19:45

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables
- John 2:15

Only John mentions a whip. He does not specify how the whip was used. We can infer though that Jesus was generally, if not always (?), non-violent in his behaviour. Knowing this, it seems reasonable to argue that, if the whip was used at all, it was used on the sheep and oxen. This interpretation makes much more sense considering all the evidence. And I'm not even a christboo.

Based Christ putting (((them))) in their place.

>Unlike with Nietzsche it builds on itself

this sort of sentiment gets thrown around here a lot - that Nietzsche isn't coherent in a geometric sense, but I have a really hard time accepting this. Just to be clear I'm not trying to make this a boring nietzsche's better than kant argument. I'm trying to keep in the spirit of OP's request, and this is all in good faith. I think Kant is incredible. However, the problem I have, and the argument I want to make is largely a formal one, or more pointedly and aesthetic one. I think on this board a lot of people take Nietzsche to mean what he says fairly plainly, but this is an entirely wrong headed approach to take with him. He's a philologist, and he's interested in the history of concepts and the words they're bound in. Another part of his project is responding to an older argument found in plato and his attitude toward the poets. so to take Nietzsche substantially, in that he means what he says plainly, misses the rhetoric tricks he makes with his play with form. for instance GM is both polemical but equally parodic - what he asks from the reader is a critical engagement that is radically autonomous for the reader, because they must untangle the maze of language Nietzsche has set up. What Nietzsche is trying to say is less important than what he does. And just to anticipate an argument that usually follows that he just rants and that none of it is coherent - this isn't the case. For instance we have WP, and also the notebooks that were published posthumously, they had been heavily edited and rearranged to suit the ideological sympathies that were not Nietzsche's own. In so doing one may encounter a completely different writer that can conform to anyone's will (for instance Heidegger turning the eternal return into a cosmological argument to refute in order to bolster up his own project - an argument he constructed out of N's notebooks). Any intention that Nietzsche may have had for anything written is completely lost as a result of decontextualisation - and context is a very important component to his work, as a philologist. I think that we must never take Nietzsche as his word, and must alway critique him (in good faith). I'm sure this isn't news to most, but there is a lot of chat idolising Nietzsche as some mystic prophet, and that just shouldn't happen.

Didn't Nietzsche think that slave morality was an expression of the will to power? I remember from I think genealogy that he said the greatest victory of the weak over the strong is for the strong to apologize for their strength. From the perspective of a weak or feeble person it doesn't make sense to attempt to "be like" your oppressors and use THEIR means, because you can never do it better than them. This leads the weak to all of the "bad air" moral-religious reasoning that is, contrary to their claims of universality, an expression of their particular group interest, that is, to enfeeble or level their superiors. This leveling leads to "equality", which is really just a mask for the victory of the weak over the strong.
This was my understanding of the relationship between slave morality and the will to power. It sound right?

There's absolutely nothing new in Nietzsche. Worship of Nietzsche comes from an ignorance of 18th and 19th century literature. He gives the impression of being original because you think most of what he's writing originates with him.

Once you've read Butler, Ockham, de Gobineau, Emerson, Carlyle, de la Rochefoucauld, Schopenhauer, Winckelmann, there's literally nothing left.

Why would you waste time reading eight different people when you can read just one who combines the best of them all in extremely satisfying prose and covers all topics in philosophy at once?

>all in extremely satisfying prose
lmao

>pleb pretending to be patrician

Yes this is all correct though nietzsche largely acknowledges that this process is subconscious.

babby's first prose
there isn't a single phrase in all of nietzsche comparable to Shakespeare, Milton, etc

>prose must be comparable to Shakespeare to be satisfying
what is this i don't even

>prose must be comparable to Shakespeare
surely he can produce a single line that is

The consensus is pretty clear, and has been for over 100 years, that Nietzsche is one of the greatest (german) prose stylists to ever live. Than again, I only read him in german. I cant say anything for or against the translations. Oh, I know, I know: german prose is shit tier.

>the consensus
Worthless since there aren’t more than a few dozen people at any given time capable of appreciating prose. There was a consensus for over a century that read was a great thinker. Who reads him now?

New to philosophy, but thoroughly enjoyed Beyond Good and Evil. I was not prepared for his sense of humor, it made this book an entertaining as well as enlightening read.

>Worthless
Nah. Entweder du trollst, oder du sprichst kein Deutsch. In beiden Fällen verdienst du ne Watsche. Manche Dinge stehen in Stein geschrieben: u.a. Nietzsches göttliche Prosa. Du kannst sagen, du magst seinen Stil nicht, erkennst aber seine bachklare Waldeinsamkeit an. Alles darüber ist ein Übel und muss dir ausgetrieben werden mit der Schärfe des Schwerts.

t. isidor

Attached: 1QbkVeh.jpg (640x640, 68K)

His prose is trash desu

Whats good german prose, desu?
Or good prose, desu desu?

Emerson, de Quincey, Lincoln, Shakespeare, Milton, Addison, Macaulay, Mencken, James, etc

Sorry, but except for de Quincey and Addison, they're all utter trash.

Post a line of Nietzsche that even remotely approaches the best of Lincoln or Shakespeare then

Hat man sein warum? des Lebens, so verträgt man sich fast mit jedem wie? - Der Mensch strebt nicht nach Glück; nur der Engländer tut das.

Copeboi

You can't tell me that this is not the greatest sentence written in german, nay in any language.

It wouldn’t be saying much

I LOVE NIETZSCHE.

THE ONLY THINKER WHO FUCKING RAPED IDIOTS LIKE DOSTOEVSKY. FUCK OFF WITH YOUR GRAND INQUISITION AND MORALISING.

God is dead.

Nietzsche ripped off Dostoevsky. Even the horse bit.

Imagine stroking your ego based on men whose works were written many years ago. Many of their ideas come to you intuitively if you are a wise and thoughtful person. Literally. They just made a big number out of rhetorizing their ideas to make them more noble, but really, no idea in human history is original. Its futile to read philosophy. Its one big spoiler of life. Go live life, dont read books.

Abd Dostoevsky ripped of his ideas from someone else like argues

>Go live life, dont read books.
said the man on a literature board
FUCK OFF THEN

If you had any intuition yourself you'd realise that reading works of other people helps because you don't have to waste even more time coming to those conclusions yourself.

>when you are too retarded to come up with a comeback that you have to use other people's words

YEAH AND YOUR MOM'S ASSHOLE TOO

You need to be 18 to post on Yea Forums

AND YOU NEED TO EAT SHIT

is there a comprehensive guide to this mad lad, an infographic maybe? I understand most of his concepts and find him fascinating but thus spoke zarathustra is making for difficult reading

I thought Dostoevyks ewas born after Nietzsdchw am I wrong?

do you have internet, lad?

No

based

this thread is officially dilate

explying

Nietzsche autist reporting in. have read zarathustra, bg&e, geneaology, ecce homo and birth of tragedy. i spend a lot of time thinking about his work. wrote an essay linking nietzsches thought with the life and work of yukio mishima recently. currently im beggining to write an essay arguing for posting on anonymous message boards as a new dionysian art form. its only semi ironic.

Attached: a10fe652-6484-43a3-bdf1-d4f2c03f49f6-1.jpg (792x1196, 247K)

Classicist here. How many Nietszcheans read Greek tragedy? What are your favorite works?

Your life.

That is actually a good point.
I mean the mishima stuff is just so obvious I dont know how you could even write an essay about it. But Yea Forums definitely fits the dionysian spirt to a T. Would trip fags then be the apollonian equivalent to the individual actor as the board itself is the chorus?

Attached: Mads-Mikkelsen-in-Hannibal-665626.jpg (590x350, 19K)

as I see it the Dionysian spirit is embodied in Anonymous. The user poster is at once himself and the voice of every single soul who has been driven through strange and terrible circumstance to feel the need to post on an anonymous message board. the poster himself is dissolved from the narcissistic identities he fights to uphold endlessly in regular life, as are all who read his posts. instead of being an individual the poster and those who read his threads are brought together in a unity of belonging - through understanding of memes and board culture but even more so through the expression of the primal truths of suffering and joy. each user becomes one of the satyr chorus, a group of half men, half beasts, at once a clown and a being filled with suffering. through shitposting they might express dionysian truth against the terrifying appolonian dream play of the world. the world stage is not something the poster might change. instead, the chorus of satyrs comments upon, at times joking, at times in tears, a dream world in which they can play no part. through this they reach a catharthis. the posts themselves, in their form, are lyrical and short but filled with special reference and meaning - the shitpost as dithyramb

realistically im probably just retarded, but its my theory and im runnign with it. attached: dionysian post

Attached: image0-116.jpg (720x315, 50K)

based Presocratic gang

Attached: 220px-Parmenides.jpg (220x288, 20K)

this is accurate except the chorus is supposed to be singing in unison while the boards are filled with thousands of distinct voices with the same name.
But I think you should realize that in order for their to be tragedy there has to be an Apollonian thespian component within the play to break from the Dionysian chorus.
Without any aspect of individualization there is only song. It's in the synthesis of the two forces that tragedy can take place.

Also have you ever considered the Nietzschean reading of Neon Genesis Evangelion?

hmm, perhaps anonymous posting is less tragic and more like a greek lyrical poet - an individual taken over by dionysian energy such that his "I" relates not precisely to himself but to the primordial unity. or whatever it was nietzsche said in those earlier parts of tbot.

i havent actually seen evangelion (plan to watch it) but id love to hear the nietzschean interpretation

You'll have to watch it. I reccomend not watching the netflix or english dubbed version. They change explicitly homosexual scenes and complex language to make it more palatable for Americans.

Basically the main character starts out very schopenhauer and hating life but eventually changes his outlook. His father is obsessed with returning the world into a primal goo of oneness with no differentiation between anyone as a way to mitigate pain and tragedy. The kid rejects this saying that life is full of torment but is better than nihilistic retreat from the world despite the pain. This sends the world into a cycle of the world playing itself back to that very moment in an eternal reoccurrence.

>Truthful—thus I call the one who goes into Godless deserts and has broken his reverential heart. In the yellow sands and burned by the sun he will squint thirstily at the islands rich in springs, where living beings repose beneath dark trees. But his thirst does not persuade him to become like those comfortable creatures: for where there are oases, there are also images of idols. Ravenous, violent, solitary, Godless: thus does the lion-will want itself. Free from the happiness of vassals, redeemed from Gods and adorations, fearless and fearsome, great and solitary: such is the will of him who is truthful. It is always in deserts that the truthful have dwelt, the free spirits, as the desert's masters; but it is in cities that the well-nourished, famous wise men dwell—the draught animals. For they always draw, as asses—the people's cart!

There are countless passages like this in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, if you read Graham Parkes's translation. There are a lot of great passages in Nietzsche that read like an exceptional S&S paperback, which is FANTASTIC given that the material is philosophical rather than fictional.

Someone actually posted this thinking it even remotely approaches Shakespeare or de Quincey lol

There is no complex language in it you dumb fucking simpleton lmao
Evangelion as something deep, this fucking board

You entirely missed my point. Look at detailed sub vs dub comparisons of Eva. The original dubs was done by a team that was extemely new at dubbing and it very much shows. There are frequent mistranslations, slight errors, and yes the downgrading of some of the long monologues into something that flows better but loses the actual original intent of the script. I really dont honestly think eva is all that complex and a lot of it is pretentious in the original sense of the word. I never said eva in general was complex this was in a discussion about comparing Nietzschean ideas to memes.

But you ignored this context and instead blew up one word in an attempt to shame someone to give yourself a sense of superiority by parroting the hot take that Yea Forums and everyone else has had for a decade. You're a meme and a pseud and you should stop posting.

Your cartoon’s not deep

>He is exceptionally entertaining as a writer, but I feel kind of ill after reading his stuff, there is this weird hostility and despair lurking behind the comedy and the beautiful bits of prose
>He is exceptionally entertaining as a writer, but I feel kind of ill after reading his stuff, there is this weird hostility and despair lurking behind the comedy and the beautiful bits of prose

Certainly.

I feel that where most of the people on Yea Forums get Nietzsche wrong is to view him as a philosopher to "agree" or "disagree" with. They don't see the important of perspectivism, relativism, and the psychological viewpoints in Nietzsche's work (viewpoints which preclude Nietzsche taking even HIMSELF seriously).

I view Nietzsche at times more as a "philosophical artist" or even "philosophical terrorist" (cf. Robert Anton Wilson's "guerrilla ontology" and Hakim Bey's "poetic terrorism") than strictly as a philosopher to agree and disagree with. His works are as much sensationalized autobiography, journal, and prose-poetry as they are strict academic "philosophy".

This sense of tremendous hidden despair lurking in his works is definitely one I also see. He's, again, as much an autobiographer, an artist, as he is a philosopher, in my view. Self-psychoanalysis is a huge part of his works -- this sounds as if his works are dull (who wants to here a person talking about their boring own self repeatedly?) but Nietzsche is such a fascinating person that his self-psychoanalysis is subsequently fascinating (even if egoistic, histrionic, and somewhat deranged at times). You can't help, while reading his works, but notice that he constantly draws attention to how unique he is in the history of human philosophy, and how he KNOWS how unique he is, and how simultaneously debilitating (and ecstatic) is it is to be so unique, so misjudged, so lonely.

In the end, I'd even go beyond calling Nietzsche a mere "psychological artist". He was an artist of his own life, throwing his body on the sacrificial fire of literature, art, and philosophy. He was a kind of tantric mystic, a religious man who hated all religions and glorified evil, finding ecstasy even in suffering and misery. Fascinating, miserable, tempting, chaotic, poetic...

>U DON'T UNDERSTAND MOM NIEZSTSCSHE WAS A MASTER TROLLER JUST LIKE ME XD

I wouldn't figure mads' hannibal for an overman, granted my understanding is hardly professional but I always figured the overman for a sort of revolutionary figure, not someone like hannibal who lurks in the shadows and matter little in the great scheme of things

buddhists can be fucking savage bro, today they're probably more martial than the catholic church

Heidegger and Schopenhauer are better than Nietzsche

I'm sure you went to oxford

>"if they take your shirt, give them your coat as well

Why do you read this literally? Are you retarded?

Your backpedaling mental gymnastics only exist to make yourself not responsible for the full radical message of jesus

In the show hes not lurking in the shadows at all he is out in the open. Hes also creating works of art by killing people. It's the idea of Nietzsche's higher culture through cruelty. He also has a system of values but it's just not the common ones we know. The only real difference is as you say he only feels the need to create art and live his life without any grand goal in mind.

What do you think his message is?

just doesn't feel like he'll be remembered outside of fbi case files and among the few people he's left alive

>It's the idea of Nietzsche's higher culture through cruelty.
You must have heard of this second hand somehow. Morality in the pejorative sense is about becoming greater through overcoming suffering, not inflicting suffering, and it's really really clear on this point.

I wasn't thinking that at all.

shakespeare is not deep at all fuck off

It is absolutely both. You must experience suffering and conflict in order to grow but Nietzsche also claims that everything good in society ie higher culture is and is nothing besides a refined cruelty inflicted on others. Hence why to him Athens was the pinnacle of culture due to their slave system. This is why nietzsche was a proponent of slavery, all higher culture is simply what a ruling class will normally do when they have the free time and material to enjoy the products of the enslaved.

I can see someone liking Schopenhauer more if they are just too pessimistic for Nietzsche, but why Heidegger? I can't stand reading him, or anything written by people who read him extensively. He's not like either of them in tone or substance.

>Nietzsche also claims that everything good in society ie higher culture is and is nothing besides a refined cruelty inflicted on others.
Way too simplistic, no.

Yes he claims that higher culture is based on cruelty to oneself and others. Though in the passage he talks about it he says that it can also take the form of cruelty to ourselves in feeling persecuted and put upon it's clear in other passages that he really doesnt sanction that kind of moralistic thinking. We should delight in the suffering we feel as it makes us stronger and be ready and willing to inflict it upon orhers.

You might think its simplistic but its literally what nietzsche thought

But Nietzsche's future philosophers are also lawgivers and value-creators, not edgy videogamers resentful over their not fitting in with most crowds.

being based on cruelty doesn't mean the highest culture is becoming a torturer

projecting

Creating values is not the same as giving laws. In fact Nietzsche says that if you have a true virtue you should keep it to yourself.

Yes it does in one way or the other. Nietzsche even directly mentions bullfighting by name which is just prolonged animal cruelty turned into art. Hannibal turns his victims into beautifully prepared food. I see very little difference.

Read his first meditations, he touches on what makes us humans different from other animals. Intelligence is not something human because a lot of animals are intelligent, even if it's less than us.

His answer was that philosophy, spiritualism and art are the distinct human traits.

>Those philosophical laborers after the noble model of Kant and Hegel have to determine and press into formulas, whether in the realm of logic or political (moral) thought or art, some great data of valuations-that is, former positings of values, creations of value which have become dominant and are for a time called "truths." It is for these investigators to make everything that has happened and been esteemed so far easy to look over, easy to think overt intelligible and manageable, to abbreviate everything long, even "time," and to overcome the entire past-an enormous and wonderful task in whose service every subtle pride, every tough will can certainly find satisfaction. **Genuine philosophers, however, are commanders and legislators: they say, "thus it shall be!"** They first determine the Whither and For What of man, and in so doing have at their disposal the preliminary labor of all philosophical laborers, all who have overcome the past With a creative hand they reach for the future, and all that is and has been becomes a means for them, an instrument, a hammer. Their "knowing" is creating, their creating is a legislation, their will to truth is--will to power.
>Beyond Good and Evil, paragraph 211

They're the same inasmuch as the setting forth of laws determines the horizon of values a people operate within.

resenting

That has to be qualified, though, right? In BGE, he distinguishes between kinds of cruelty, such as religious and artistic cruelty, but also that based on the suffering of others and that based on the suffering of oneself. He doesn't casually dismiss the former, but it's not his big point, which is partly a re-evaluation of what cruelty is. See 229 and surrounding context.

Wow, I’m extremely disappointed at this low level of response to my extremely well-written, in-depth, and insightful post. My interpretation isn’t particularly unique to myself, it’s pretty much the basis of postmodernism (which Nietzsche heavily influenced), is also an interpretation that Robert Anton Wilson and Hakim Bey made of Nietzsche’s works, and is even pointed out by Nietzsche himself through his famous “perspectivism,” holding that there are only different perspectives on reality, not one ultimate grand meta-narrative or objective viewpoint.

In fact, he even said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” This is why I even find parallels between him and Buddhism (as Robert Anton Wilson did). And please don’t say something shallow and stupid like, “But Buddhism praises compassion and Nietzsche praised le edginess!!!” I know, but I’m talking about similarities for the time being, not differences. You can also see Hakim Bey on links between Nietzsche, tantra, and even Sufism... he has a great section/essay in his book TAZ called “Chaos, Nietzsche & the dervishes” or something to that effect.

based uncultured user

Nietzsche tends to sometimes downplay or exaggerate certain elements in his books; it's like when a reader first encounters "will to power" and imagines some Randian aristocrat-artist or Carl Panzram brutalizing whoever he wants, but then you read a bit more of Beyond Good & Evil's first chapter, and he finally spits out that "will to power" is how everything operates (or just about everything), including boring, vulgar, and mediocre activities.

Similarly, he intentionally plays up the "conquering statesman" image by invoking Alcibiades or Caesar, but then you read a bit more of the first chapter and it turns out he's talking about philosophers, almost exclusively, such as Plato or Descartes or anyone who introduces a new way of thinking about/understanding things.

This is actually such a passage I have in mind.

Bullshit. Zarathustra first is actually the best way. If you don't get it, you should refrain from reading Nietzsche altogether.

i appreciated your post

Niezsche is almost directly opposed to that region. His idea of life was just being strong enough to indulge the appetites, the will, the artistic sense, etc

is there a nietzsche guide lads

Why not the free spirit trilogy first? Or Twilight of the Idols, which was meant as a kind of summary of his work?

Twilight, geneology/bg&e, tragedy, antichrist/gay/homo/human, zarathustra.

Anything in slashes can be read in any order commas need to be read in order. I'll make a more detailed chart if there isn't one already.

Is this nietzschean thinking? Havent read him, only this thread:
Life is like a game. The world is a playing field. You are here to play. You have been given a quest at the start of the game. But this quest has become brittle. You perceive yourself, your weaknesses and strengths, your emotions and notions - and you embark on a new quest, a quest you have chosen yourself. You have built your own belief, your own good and bad, your own gods to steer your actions. You know that you are playing an aimless sandbox game, that you are creating castles in the sky, but you accept this as part of the game.

Trannies freed from resentment who lived before the age of lgbt rights are unironically the closest. Quentin Crisp for instance, pure will to Forge their own ontology

good post. even Carl Jung said that there was no difference between a life of a saint and Nietzsche’s life

yeah but the only rule is that you have to shit on others to win or you're a beta incel loser

is she ubermensch?

Attached: 1566416923709.jpg (480x432, 13K)

no
who sucks dick is untermentsch
who's dick sucked is ubermentsch

>my posts are the best posts desu im so good at writing desu

Delusional to say the least.

Attached: 1532243857389.jpg (288x252, 27K)

>everything I don't like from the Bible is totally not meant literally

I'm sure you're a loser

this post reads like it would be narrated over a Nietzsche BBC documentary. the kind that would give you that great feeling for having consumed high-culture, for being an high-class intellectual engaging with deep thinkers!!!, and finally you have something to talk about at the next party your weird nerdy friend drags you to

Attached: phpThumb_generated_thumbnail.jpg (500x600, 36K)