If the will’s ultimate goal is to strive for more power, then how come there are wills that depress and self-destruct...

You have a very narrow definition of power. Power is simply being able to do what you want and have what you desire. That is the operating system that literally all life is built on.

Men are less likely to get help, but it doesn't mean that the behavior isn't on an instinctual level serving the same purpose.

Survival of the species comes before survival of the individual, since by saving the species you will save parts of the individual.

So power is unlasting, ephemeral, thus contradicting Nietzsche's other core idea.
Perhaps it is you who have the narrow understanding of power, or it is simply dull and so will not pierce.
Power is not desire, otherwise desire would be nothing.

the caged animal gets depressed. a will sometimes chooses death over enslavement or captivity

Are you saying that the will to power is irrational? Who is to say this is the greatest path to fulfillment, compared to say Buddhism?

Rather than the answers posted so far, true depression is actually very similar to how Nietzsche discusses the ascetic. The Will decides to oppose Itself in order to test Itself, and so in some individuals we see this intense desire for self-sabotage and self-destruction. Deep down they want to see if they can rise above their own attempts to ruin their life. Meanwhile suicide is another outcome in which the Will rises victorious over Itself, which is why some call it the ultimate expression of the Will.

destructiveness is just another outlet of power. its the other end of the spectrum.

read pic related

Attached: TheFoundationforExploration.jpg (328x499, 13K)

go away

not an argument

>What kind of explanation is there for this?
They're weak.

Holy shit goonan btfo'd!

The Nietzschean scurries in the face of power.
Why do they always resent?

This sooooo much. I was depressed and I can admit that very deep down it's because you need more attention from those whom you love. It's fundamentaly being selfish and trying to drag others down to your level. Luckily I'm over it now.

But I suffer in silence.

sickness

Haha nice argument

underrated post

Where'd you go?

People who feel the need to self-destruct get a sense of power from doing it.

>there are wills that depress and self-destruct?
The self-destruction of the depressed person is fruit of an aggressivity towards a lost object which was internalized - to cope with the loss. The self later identifies with this lost object, and the aggression towards it turns against the Self itself.

Nietzsche mostly says that when Will to power goes down and weak so does the person's will to live and strive.

No, animals also die of grief, depression, boredom and become decadent.

>So power is unlasting, ephemeral, thus contradicting Nietzsche's other core idea.
The user didnt say anything of those lines. The world is made of a multitude of wills each one fighting or teaming up to expand themselves; this is what creates the idea that the world is always changing and so do people in what they value, what inspired Deleuze in his "Being as Becoming". There are various forms of power and even interpretations of it when looking at Nietzsche both in the psychological and philosophical sense. Its not Power as a desire (eventhough Nietzsche also likes to praise that idea as something healthy) but the power of the desire has to accomplish itself.

this.

>Most people don't give a fuck about power
They do in various senses, its just not always as in the dictatorship sense.
But he doesnt deny that some have a higher will to power than others do. In fact his philosophy is more about the fact that most people are made and raised to always think in terms of servitude, even when trying to justify themselve aka "i did this in the name of justice/morality/religion/common good/nation". He devaules such people because in the absence of a higher god with "objective values" they get depressed and fall into nihilism. Will to servitute is always a depressive way of looking at life that sees it as suffering.

Of course he did, he said this
>Power is simply being able to do what you want and have what you desire.
Which implies an ephemeral or even destructive nature, which is opposed to what Nietzsche says of the eternal.

I get some of depression is this, but you should not apply this to all depression. Unless there is solid evidence, it may become a very contemptible slander.
Perhaps I could say, "Show me a psychological paper," but if this is too difficult - or you are going to say it's a narrow view such as "scientism", I can bring Durkeim's la suicide and bring concepts like Anomic suicide or the Fatalistic suicide and say these don't seem to be the case.

>Which implies an ephemeral or even destructive nature, which is opposed to what Nietzsche says of the eternal.
It doesnt, Nietzsche implies that the universe is eternal in the sense that its always changing, thats the only never changing law that he admits to the universe "Being as becoming", neither do we as individuals stagnate in time, we change values and desires as we grow. He is not regarding it to the capability of harming others or other wills or morality. Any Will will fight and destroy counter wills that are weaker in and oposing its ways or team up.

>The weak harm themselves.
Will to Power, §45

The strong also self-destruct, but in a different way. They perish through their own overflow and striving, and look forward to dying in great battles.

Attached: 1155038128464.jpg (1357x729, 252K)

Stop the fight. It's all Nietzsche's fault.
We should have known this would happen before he say things like "The weak and ill-constituted shall perish" and expecting people to be able to interpret it properly with absolute lack of data

>Believing in concepts such as being right or wrong, good or bad, good and evil...

Attached: 1565775721513.jpg (419x480, 81K)

You insisting someone else needs to understand something is irony in it's purest form.

It’s not like you can call him wrong

>confusing passion for will

Attached: 1529550874709.jpg (1116x1011, 116K)

>confusing the aimless wandering of will for meaning

It does. How the fuck can you claim otherwise? If you just do whatever you want then there are no eternal laws.
And you are wrong on this other part as well, Nietzsche discussed hammering away or laying bombs to destroy that which is not eternal.
In any case, power, just like any other force or value must have some set of unchanging laws, an eternal form. Otherwise it is simply relativism, nihilism in the metaphysical domain.

>he doesn't realise that Nietzsche just creates a semantics trick

Attached: Socrates Contra Nietzsche.jpg (749x692, 206K)

funny he says this despite his multiple proposals all being rejected

>They do in various senses
So they seek power in that which is not power. Meaning they seek something other than power, or you redefine power as needed as a cope.
Sounds a bit like that unnameable religion.
>depressed
like Nietzsche. Did he finally realise that human worship was just a hollow form of these others, leading to an even greater crash?
>ressentiment
Yeah sure, Nietzsche didn't resent anything...

Attached: Grimm.jpg (1912x1080, 433K)

Nietzsche is not just semantics; he was analyzing a universe that quantum scientists are just starting to unravel. This is the biggest misunderstanding that people have of Nietzsche, as if his philosophy is a language game, and not pertaining to a deeper truth about reality than any other philosopher that came before him.

I'm your side, but I don't think this is a good counter.
because he can be right when he really take being as becoming and he said he's gonna look at the world like Heraclitus, then his assumption can be applied quite greatly.
And yeah actually he say the concept being as becoming in his posthumous fragments.
But I think there is an answer to this. Just like Heidegger's Nietzsche, Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche criticized for an over-interpretation of his will to power and eternal return, this can be criticized for over-interpretation of posthumous fragments by majorly Deleuze. So I would say this is Deleuze's Nietzsche, Deleuze's own theory of becoming instumentally subjected to Nietzsche's works, and broadly say Deleuze's misinterpretation.
This could rekindle a very old controversy over Nietzsche's work. - Should his posthomours fragments be treated higher than his writings at his lifetime? Or should that be treated as incomplete and excessive? Heidegger and Deleuze with other french postmodernist in 1970s usually took the first one. Orthodoxy Nietzsche scholar took the second one.

If he switches the meaning of things like power, and good and evil, then yes, those are semantic tricks.

why are Nietzschefags like this

based

The meanings of these concepts were switched to begin with. Nietzsche pulled them away from the clutches of the weak, who subverted these concepts a long, long time ago, and restored them to the original, pagan sense.

Because we understand him. And why are you anti-Nietzschefags like this? Because you don't understand him.

Attached: 1137162425226.jpg (1360x731, 203K)

Everybody know who are you
Just post that actor

Resentment. Spinoza might be a good complementary read on this subject.

Clearly he didn't.
But show me his definitions, and how a Dionysian who didn't drink understood paganism.

>Resentment
>you jelly
This is the worst foundational argument in the history of philosophy.
Prove me wrong.

People like that usually treat it as some secret torment that no one else knows or has and get off on thag

I'm not the Mads Mikkelsen poster if that's who you're referring to.

I'm not going to spoonfeed you, because you'll learn nothing that way. You have to read if you want to know, and there is a lot to read, considering most of his books are written aphoristically, making each one not full of just a few core ideas, but hundreds of ideas. Stop choosing ignorance and read.

Can some please tell me the difference between the Will to Life and the Will to Power, because to me it seems as if the Will to Power is a sub category of the Will to Life, or are they vastly different?

i agree except at least for me i dont think depression is about "trying to drag others down" to my level, theres no way i would want the people i care about feeling the way i feel when im most depressed
other than that i guess i agree

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, can you provide quotes for any of this? How does this conception of being relate to power and a forming of values through will? If the world and humanity is simply becoming does this not subordinate power to it? This would just prove my original point.
As for a debate of prioritizing an author's works, neither is correct, both end up corrupting the interpretation through their own time preference. Essentially trapping it within the period they prefer. If we are looking at an overall system then the entire image must be considered as if a number of figures pull together a sense of its movement and being, the foreground and the horizon coming together.
In other words, a minor piece may be more significant if it is capable of bringing the others together, sharpen them, allow them to cut deeper into being, revealing themselves.

This is a matter of logic and normal discussion. You insist that his meanings are correct, yet you refuse to show me how my interpretation is wrong.
You insist that these were pagan understandings, which I have not seen at all, and as I pointed out his Dionysus is entirely incorrect. It's even hubris, so your claim that he understood paganism is bullshit unless you can prove me wrong.
But the Nietzschean always recoils into the powerful moralising of 'you just didn't read the doctrine enough.'

>muh depression is a meme meme

>You insist that his meanings are correct, yet you refuse to show me how my interpretation is wrong.
His meanings are correct for him, and your meanings are correct for you. I'm insisting nothing besides this. But the pagan sense, his sense, is older.

>You insist that these were pagan understandings, which I have not seen at all, and as I pointed out his Dionysus is entirely incorrect.
You didn't point anything out... do you realize he wrote entire books on the Dionysian? Do you really think a couple of sentences is going to cut it? You haven't displayed any kind of understanding of the Dionysian at all. Nietzsche provides a very robust interpretation of the concept throughout multiple books. You also haven't seen it at all because you haven't read anything by him; again, stop choosing ignorance and read.

>But the Nietzschean always recoils into the powerful moralising of 'you just didn't read the doctrine enough.'
I just call it as I see it. People constantly assert that he meant the exact opposite of what he wrote, all the time. There's only one of two conclusions to draw from that: either you haven't read it, or you're a moron. Which one would you rather I tell you is the case?

Because there is no 'subject' and in that no free will. There is, however, a plurality of forces taking on what is called a 'body only for convenience for the sake of 'explaining' ultimately inexplicable phenomena. 'Self destruction' is only an interpretation with both destruction and the interpretation as such being necessary for creating anew.

>Because there is no 'subject' and in that no free will. There is, however, a plurality of forces taking on what is called a 'body' only for convenience for the sake of 'explaining' ultimately inexplicable phenomena. 'Self destruction' is only an interpretation with both destruction and the interpretation as such being necessary for creating anew.

pretty much this
Life always works on its own interest, he even points this out when wondering why there existed those who channeled the resentment of the masses into judeo-christian religion and morals (GoM)

I understand Greek paganism very well, it is essentially my ground of interpretation.
My point was a joke, but it's useful. Someone who claims to be a Dionysian but doesn't drink is a fool.
But this is likely not good enough for you since pointing out Nietzsche's ressentiment will only harden your position. I will say this much, Dionysus is most closely associated with Zeus, Hermes, Persephone and rending at the hands of Hera and the Titans. He has no connection, or at least very little connection, to Apollo in the myths.
I could give you my own interpretation of Dionysus but I'd need to see something more substantial from you, and drop the pretentious bullshit and trying to passive-aggressively call me stupid. I am clearly not, and it drains your power to stoop to such tricks.

Attached: lahey rises again.jpg (913x600, 102K)

This guy’s whole philosophy disappears when you realize no amount of ebic power compares to taking a huge shit

These threads always start by saying everyone goes after x and end by expanding the definition of x so far that it becomes tautology

Reducing the Dionysian to alcohol is as bad as reducing Zeus to lightning or reducing Thales's statement to mean that everything in life is H2O. You don't have a vivid understanding of how the Greeks thought if you thought this is all they had in mind. Not liking the physical substance of alcohol entering your body doesn't forbid you from having a Dionysian character. Get a little more spiritual.

Yes, I am not really opposed to Nietzsche, but this contradiction is something of a void in his philosophy.

The will to power takes on modes of either affirmation or negation. The negative will to power takes on the form of negative nihilism when "higher values" shadow life "as such", followed by "reactive nihilism" when higher values are denied "as such", which then leads to a passive nihilism where one wants to pass away slowly - 'It is better fade away passively!'
Thus cry Christians, Buddhists, Schopenhauerians and most all other philosophies still festering with ascetic ideals, ressentiment and bad conscience. This is not to consider Buddha or Christ as festering with ressentiment nor bad conscience, however they still would not be considered by Nietzsche as affirming the will to live. Only a Dionysian possesses such a will, is innocent enough to play with such 'responsibility' and be just in such destruction. Shiva is honestly a good metaphor as far as I can tell as well.

Where did I reduce Dionysus to alcohol? Are you eve trying here?
Seriously, stop being a faggot. If you don't understand how important drinking and libations were then you are the one who doesn't understand the Greeks.
Fucking pseud. Learn to read before talking shit.

>Someone who claims to be a Dionysian but doesn't drink is a fool.
You reduced it to something retarded and besides the point right here.

Not him but you're coming off as an absolute retard.

Retard.
You're talking about the Greek sense, and in terms of Dionysus this would mean an authority, an oracle, or established member of a cult. They would laugh in Nietzsche's face.

Why? Because I don't agree with you?
meme bullshit doesn't have an effect on someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Make an argument or shut the fuck up.

Also, you neglected my greater argument regarding Dionysus and Nietzsche's interpretation. So again, either you can't read or you're just a passive-aggressive cunt.
Go read something on power.

What's this have to do with your fake fan bullshit over the drinking? Besides, clearly Nietzsche didn't need to drink alcohol as he was quite drunk off the elixir of life itself (and Wagner's music), every single day.

Weakness

Kek cringe

Learn to read before pretending to be a philosopher.

Mads poster here

>Someone who claims to be a Dionysian but doesn't drink is a fool.
Nietzsche fully recognizes that alcohol is the essence of Dionysus and talks about that at length. However, is not a pagan larper so when he says he refers to the Dionysian he is referring to a bundle of related concepts that are represented by the deity. Just because he doesn't worship Dionysus by getting drunk and tearing apart animals with his bare hands doesn't mean he doesn't understand the mythology. I'll remind you that he was a Classicist professor.

> He has no connection, or at least very little connection, to Apollo in the myths
Yes, that's the entire point of the book. Thank you for once again pointing out that you have not read him. You keep asking the other poster to summarize Nietzsche's ideas for you but that's really not our responsibility. If you want to critique something you have to do your due diligence and read more than just little snippets of him first.

He was literally a neet hypermoralist who got drunk off of half a cup of milk.
He lived with his family who harassed him into insanity. I don't think he was dancing around as a satyr too often.

Do not trust your will? Because it embodies contradictory impulses belonging to the spirit and the individual...

What book are you talking about? Why can't you provide a single quote or anything? What is this bullshit approach?
Just because I am uncertain of your interpretation does not mean I have not read him. What I have read suggests a complete misunderstanding on his part, just like he misunderstands Plato, etc.
So instead of claiming that he is right and all powerful maybe you could make an actual argument instead of the vague bullshit.
More clearly, if he is going against the Apollonian-Dionysian in another you should point out how, and where this is done. And if it is in some lesser known text then you should say that instead of trying to build up pseud points.
Stop being a faggot.

He did t drink because he couldn’t handle hangovers.

Dionysus and Apollo not appearing together in myth often is irrelevant. It doesn't make a case against Nietzsche's juxtaposition of the two as a duality, and it doesn't forbid Nietzsche from exploring these established concepts and extrapolating on them further, like the Greeks were doing for quite a while before their culture collapsed. Obviously, Nietzsche was introducing a new interpretation of how these concepts work, but at least he was addressing the concepts in their original forms and not in a watered down, Platonic form.

Nietzsche defines the Dionysian as orgiastic and understands that in the picture of the orgy the secret of Dionysus is revealed. That is the real secret to Dionysus, and him not personally favoring alcohol in his diet doesn't change that or hurt his ability to understand and interpret the concept, especially since there are other ways to get drunk.

>Dionysus and Apollo not appearing together in myth often is irrelevant.
Yikes. Learn to read.

Because NEET-CHEESE was a retard. Stirner was right, the only goal is the goal you have.

>watered down, Platonic form
lmao. They aren't concepts you pseud.
And please point out a Neetch text on religion that is even 1% as valuable as Plato's shortest work.

>orgy
Not what Dionysus is. Missed the forest for the trees.

cringe

We're talking about the Birth of Tragedy where Nietzsche provides the concept of the Apollonian and Dionysian. Like the other poster said we're not going to spoonfeed you quotes for something he literally wrote an entire book about. Grab a copy and take a look. You should be able to read like 10-20 pages in to start to get a grasp of the concept. Once you've done that and you still think his interpretation is bad then you can come back and we can talk about it.

>maybe you could make an actual argument instead of the vague bullshit.
What exactly is there to argue about? The points you have provided I have countered in the top part of my post. You can't attack something if you don't understand it so I have nothing to defend.

>you're wrong, here's why
Oh wait, there's no why in your posts. You have nothing to provide this discussion.

And yes, the orgy is a great representation of the Dionysian, particularly his earlier form as Zagreus.

Yeah, I read that long ago. There are very few references to alcohol in it, so again, you're bullshitting to make yourself feel superior. His discussions of intoxication, as a Romantic concept, are applying his own understanding over the Greeks.

My other argument was that the Apollonian-Dionysian is also his own enframing over the Greeks, not at all how Greek myth was shared, nor even how the Greeks lived and celebrated. You claimed he discusses this, but not at all, it's all about the Apollonian-Dionysian. He hardly discusses the other gods at all, and where he does he submits the myth to his own misconceptions of the Dionysian (submission of the gods to music through art, for instance).
You're very clearly not interested in talking about this shit, so drop the act. You're a disingenuous cunt trying to use sophistry to defend your pseud master.

I asked you to provide something of substance and you did not. So don't turn this around and claim that I need to spoonfeed you.
Why was it not clear to you when i said he missed the forest for the trees? This means he is confusing the minor act or event with the essence.

Calling Plato a watered-down version of the Greeks is so fucking retarded, especially compared to Nietzsche, that my comment needs no explanation. Perhaps for you it does, but that comment wasn't primarily for you.

To be more clear, Dionysus is not intoxication, orgies, or even sparagmos, these are acts he performs, a giving not his being.
But I'm not going to reveal more than that to people acting like such cunts.

*a giving, not his being

Nietzscheans argue a lot like Christians do, why is this?

nietzsche did not believe in 'the will' u gay nigger.

--Heidegger defines the “Will to Power” as “the essence of power itself. It consists in power’s overpowering, that is, its self-enhancement to the highest possible degree”--

if you are fluent in metaphysical bullshit then feel free to make sense of that.

Attached: wyhfh.jpg (944x719, 285K)

Yeah, this was another problem I had, there seems to be a generalisation of the will in the thinking multiple posters here (and samefags). But Nietzsche's idea wasn't the power of the will, this is a cope and/or misunderstanding.

No, because your take is incredibly superficial and also because you're throwing a temper tantrum.

Yeah bro, a greater take is lesser, and telling someone to fuck off when they're throwing a temper tantrum is the real temper tantrum.
Nice ressentiment, samefag.

The whole first part of the book he dedicates to relating the Dionysian to the concept of intoxication and the Apollonian to the dream. So you're simply incorrect there.

>the Apollonian-Dionysian is also his own enframing over the Greeks, not at all how Greek myth was shared, nor even how the Greeks lived and celebrated.
Nietzsche takes the rites and myths around the deity and then turns the God into something more like a thought-form or concept (much like Plato does with love). He does the same with Apollo. He views the Gods as modes of seeing and understanding the universe around us. Nietzsche thinks these concepts are living and useful tools.

Nietzsche's whole point is that the theater started as a Dionysian ritual which was just a single chorus chanting. There was no differentiation or individuals or anything besides the all encompassing one. Then you started to have singular actors speak out against the chorus and became individuated. Nietzsche identifies this not as an injection of traits associated with Apollo. Nietzsche thinks that when Greek tragedy was at it's peak these elements with which he associates with the terms "Dionysian" and "Apollonian" were in equal parts and were in tension with each other. That is his thesis. It absolutely does not matter to him what the Greeks actually thought. He uses the existing mythology to discuss ideas he is not making claims about whether or not the Greeks even understood the distinction.

And for anyone else with poor perception, here's where the sperging out starts, with namecalling and the 'you just don't understand' bullshit Nietzschefags always pull.
He's not very complex at all, at least for the most part. So stop trying to flatter yourselves on an anonymous Cucks Pursuing Feminine Truth board.

Autism.
Intoxication in a metaphysical or artistic theory sense is not the same as an in-depth discussion of alcohol as it relates to Dionysus, which is what you had claimed he did, making it appear as an altogether other book.
> thought-form or concept
Yes, which is precisely the problem.
>It absolutely does not matter to him what the Greeks actually thought.
Exactly, so why did you claim that he understood them so well and this book is such a great representation of that?
>whether or not the Greeks even understood the distinction.
Thanks for your basic bitch summary, but you see the problem here, right? If it is not how the Greeks thought then it cannot actually be a description of the birth of tragedy, unless he is implying that the birth of tragedy begins in his own head (which is not too out there for some Romantics).

Lol cope harder retard

>SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman--what then? Is there not ground for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been dogmatists, have failed to understand women--that the terrible seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually paid their addresses to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly methods for winning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with sad and discouraged mien--IF, indeed, it stands at all!

Attached: neetch fedora.jpg (474x528, 21K)

Imagine basing your whole philosophy around a cope for getting cucked.

Imagine spamming Pascal's Pensees all day

What the greeks thought about the process has no bearing on the reality of the process or really any event. Nietzsche presents a new framework for understanding a real and tangible shift in the nature and goals of greek drama. The framework is useful for both understanding the history of Greek tragedy and presents a new way of looking at the world in general. Why do you feel such an autistic need to only think about things the way the greeks thought about him?

You realize that hes calling other philosophers incels right?

>If you just do whatever you want then there are no eternal laws.
>Nietzsche discussed hammering away or laying bombs to destroy that which is not eternal
No he doesnt, and you have to point me out where can you see him implying to "destroy that which is not eternal". You are making a confusion between the eternal return and the rest of his politics.
He wants you to look at life like an eternal because the feelings of pleasure are feelings that want themselves eternally, thus making your life something that is a joy itself.
>Otherwise it is simply relativism, nihilism in the metaphysical domain.
If there is one thing Nietzsche liked to attack the most was the religious and political belief that values and laws were unchanging and forever, crap not even scientific laws (which also changed according to time). He doesnt simply tell you to do whatever you want, but to follow your values and cultivate "will to power" etc etc. So he does indeed value relativism.
Why do you think the historical figures he looks up the most are Napoleon, Ceaser and Goethe? Because they rightly did follow the "whatever you want" and affirm that they things they did were for themselves and their will, they achived greatness and dont even try to justify it on something that is higher than themselves like religion or nation.

They may have diferent interpretations of his work, but i can assure you that from reading his works are various parts linked to postmodern theories. Its no lie that Nietzsche was considered the opening gate to postmodernism.

Agreed.

This explains tactical meekness, but not actual self destructive, depressive tendencies.

Is he Ubermensch?

Dude are you sure you've read his works?
He tells you to get over with any "higher calls" so you dont fall into nihilism once you uncover that all higher calls are indeed fake.
He is anti worship and obedience to any higher calls than your will, no matter if your will is to crush 100 babies with your shoe.

>Believing in concept such as will an power

Attached: 1511017361110.png (608x485, 61K)

>If the world and humanity is simply becoming does this not subordinate power to it?
No, he tells you to create new values and the key for it is evaluation, so this leaves a pretty relativistic and prespectivist solution, which is what he wants. Values are already subjective in themselves so he tells you to not expect the values you cultivate to be eternal, rather, when a value no longer fits you to get rid of it and create a new one.

If you havent catched any of this in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil, then idk what that left you room for.

>altering the interpretations of things that are already of open to other interpretations to begin with is a semantic trick.

>What the greeks thought about the process has no bearing on the reality of Greek drama
Nice bait.

Follow the thread, please. That bit of the discussion is in regards to the other person's interpretation of Nietzsche's power. i.e,
>relation to power in various senses

>No he doesnt
Yes he does.
>You are making a confusion
No, you are, because you just denied my claim and decided to apply it to something else.
Autism. Are you really going to samefag this hard?

How does anything you said relate in any way to my question? It's a logical question with another purpose, not intended as a direct commentary of what Nietzsche was saying, nor asking for your interpretation of his dogma.
Are you all undergrads?
>If you havent catched
Yikes, and that would be a yes.

Fucking goldfish.

>the will’s ultimate goal is to strive for more power
How the fuck do you read Nietzsche and come to this fucking interpretation. What the fuck. I am in fucking shock

Do not argue with Nietzsche fags.
It is the downvote in words, nothing more.

>muh 1d checkers logic
You need to go back,

>Actually, what Nietzsche really meant was—!
>YOU DIDN'T READ IT!
Great thread guys

>be me
>be philo undergrad without any knowledge except my lectures
>visit lit for the first time
>be impressed with the balance of shiposting and intelligent comments
>lurking every other day
>read about the shit that gets recommended

Two months later
>realizer that there is no balance of shitpost and intelligent shit
>theresjustshitpost
>fine with that keep lurking

week later
>see this fucking post
>Nietzsche about the only shit i ever understood halfway
>realize its not shitposting
>realize its just plain stupidity

If this board has 10.000 users about 10 of them are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The rest is just a horde of fucking baboons.
This board should stick to fiction because you are clearly 60 IQ idiots not being able to read a fucking sentence of nietzsche without misunderstanding him.

Who do you think has misunderstood him friend?

>you can only interpret art within the theoretical framework of the artist
Nice response

>If this board has 10.000 users about 10 of them are Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Bro what kind of math this is

God damn, you're a dumb fuck. I go from telling you to stop reducing Dionysus to the physical substance of wine and what do you do? You turn around and tell me to stop reducing him to the physical act of an orgy. What the fuck made you think that's what I was doing when I already criticized you for doing that? Your fucking IQ must be pocket change, dude. The orgy is representational—"the orgiastic" is an idea that is demonstrated artistically in the picture of the orgy, but it is not just the orgy itself (although it is certainly within the orgy itself as well, which is why it works for artistically expressing the idea). The Dionysian is about self-perishing through the act of will; it is about flame and burning out, becoming intoxicated on the fire of life.

What is hipster about this?

>this thread

Nietzsche would cringe on you fucking "philosophers". Yes, I'm talking about everyone who posted here. Fuck you all.

Attached: 1568469815993.png (852x944, 70K)

No

lack of power

>I'm not reducing because the orgiastic is everything
lmao and KYS

Who gives a fuck what Nietzsche thought? IT'S OUR INTERPRETATION THAT MATTERS!

HEY LET'S GET ANOTHER UNDERGRAD IN ON THIS!!!
If you fucks had any sense of power you would stop reading.

Pathetic.

Because they're so resentful.

What other philosophers have you read? Be honest here because it doesn't seem like you've read any.
Also, are you old enough to be posting here legally?

Why would the Greek understanding of the Greeks matter?
You really can't be this stupid.

Checked and Neetcheans btfo

>Bruh me asked stupid questions that were not meant to be answered but just to pretend i've understood anything at all of what've read about Nietzsche.

No you dingus, I denied your claim about there being "eternal laws" in terms of morality, values etc. Which was what you were implying, and sayed that according to him, the only property you can know about the universe that is eternal is that its always changing.

Enough of this, next time you go read his books try to have some shit like sparknotes to help you.

What have you read beside Neetch.

I think Spinoza has an answer for this. The will thinks its getting power by its acts but it depends on how it is constituted

Kinda hard to keep track on it all, there are some that i've read into more depth than others.
From what i remember:
The gay greeks: Socrates, Plato, Aristotles....
Descartes, Hume ,Kant (although not much aside from what you already learn from highschool), Marx, Schopenhauer, Hegel(almost nothing, i dont have the time and patience to dive into him), Stirner and Nietzsche. Rest are the postmodern fags.

>the samefag also gazes into (You)

Damn, you have the Socrates limited releases?

Honestly dont know what you are talking about.

Yeah, my dumb mistake. I had woken up and replied to the same shit twice, then i kinda went along with it.

What, if some day or night an user were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This thread as you now post it and have posted it, you will have to post once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every typo and every thought and every shitpost and bait and everything unutterably small or great in your thread will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the user who spoke thus? Or have you once posted a tremendous thread when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine!'

Socrates doesn't have any books, retard.
What specifically did you read by Plato? And how long have you been studying philosophy?

>What specifically did you read by Plato? And how long have you been studying philosophy?
Symposium, The Republic, Texts on Socrates(Apology) and some bits of Gorgias shit, also some articles. Most works i have are in my mother language tho.
It was kinda a long time ago, but i dont study pilosophy in a academic way, im taking my own stem degree at university and keep reading as a hobby.

Why are you doing this to me?
No, i dont think i've ever made a tremendous thread, part of the way i like this place is because we can be casual and chill about things and not get into very deep time consuming discussions about these topics.

>stem
Now we're getting somewhere.

Attached: ASS.png (513x431, 93K)

Because we can never satisfy the insatiable will that will always want more, nothing is ever good enough, so we become apathetic no matter how much power we attain

lmao
always assume that a person who cannot follow a basic train of logic is in STEM
The Genealogy of Morals

If you followed a basic train of logic you'd know that getting into stems for big moneys and keeping literature as a hobby is better than anything in the arts and humanities have in the long term.

reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/4xzkr8/why_does_everyone_on_Yea Forums_post_anonymously_when/

Thanks for the reddit post.

Do you think money in a STEM career will just fall into your lap? No, you will have to work long and hard for it. I have a math degree and left a possible career of finance to study philosophy and opt for a shitty career with much free time to pursue what I love doing, rather than work 60 hours week at some insurance firm.

Im already taking my master's degree and know how hard it is. But most people in my field do make good stacks of money without even working that hard in their jobs. Depends largely where you take your master's.
If you are loving what you are doing so be it, i also take pleasure in the stem thing even though i can sometimes prefer the literature. I like to keep it as a hobby, im afraid if i did a career on it i would grow to despise it more.

No, thank you.

Thank you for what, my boy?

youtu.be/NOAgplgTxfc

The will is a spook, get dabbed upon N Dawg

Attached: 2spooky.jpg (480x400, 33K)

I don't think you understand what "orgiastic" really means in this context, or what it meant to the Greeks.

Not an argument. I'm also probably older than you.

Attached: N-Twilight-Kaufmann.png (1300x717, 283K)

Suppressed by the base instinct to avoid pain.

>If the will’s ultimate goal is to strive for more power, then how come there are wills that depress and self-destruct? What kind of explanation is there for this?

1) The object of power is perspectival and has many forms
2) The will adapts its means to the external world in self preservation of its power, acquisition is complexly limited and therefore has many forms
3) The will is fallible, the will and body both regularly fall short of acquisition
4) The will is corruptible, ressentiment and other forms of nihilistic willing desire only the limiting of powers greater than its own or the extinguishing of life altogether

I would reason depression is a lack and not a positive willing, but also that many forms of self-destruction could constitute distorted forms of power acquisition if they are not outright ressentiment driven or nihilistic.

Attached: vlcsnap-2019-08-25-02h05m03s87.png (1280x534, 538K)

I wish i had read Schopenhauer before Nietzsche. Because Nietzsche's will to power concept is a direct confrontation with Schopenhauers conception of life as will.

I need to reread Neetszches copes again.

Anxiety is the will expressing itself in an environment where there are certain powers at play greater than the will itself.
Depression is the attenuation of the will due to prolonged states of anxiety, self-preservation essentially. That's how I see it.

Power from pity

your idea of power is different from someone who's ultimate goal is self deprication; to them it's power, to you the opposite

theoretically because they weren't conscious of the nature of striving to power and avoided life-affirming behaviors? IDK

Goonan is the foremost thinker on power. Superior to Nietzsche.

Goethe definitely understood the Greeks more than Nietzsche. None of this has anything to with the Dionysus, it's just bullshit based on Nietzsche's feelings. And it contradicts everything you said in this thread (specifically the Greeks not even mattering to his argument).
I remember this passage and it's a big reason why I think he's a retard. And you cunts are even bigger retards.
SAD!

>And it contradicts everything you said in this thread (specifically the Greeks not even mattering to his argument).
Different poster. Anyway, thanks for once again saying nothing at all. Maybe if you provided an alternative analysis of Dionysus instead of just whining, I could take you seriously.

Is Trump a Nietzschean Ubermensch?

Attached: con1.jpg (1684x2120, 365K)

Goonan is the foremost thinker on everything.

Already explained that. Pearls before swine and such.

Well, he is the King of Israel.