/lit/ - Literature

Memes aside, how influential was he to you?

>>22615851
> Genealogy of morals
> Beyond good and evil
> Thus spoke Zarathustra
in that order

>>20369060
No

>>19239589
FLUTE

>>18959417
Don't drink.

Is there such a thing as a roadmap of western philosophy that you can follow? I'm reading Plato currently, but I'd like a general guideline of which philosophers to read later on and in which order.

>>18888795
On the contrary, find me an atheist who isn't dragging around the corpse of god while denouncing him at the same time.

>>18790383
>>18790313
Read Decline of the Greeks instead. It's just a big picture of an ugly degenerate who killed Dionysus and invented slave morality.

>>18215766
To live is to discriminate, to differentiate. Universal love is universal sameness, and so hatred finds its place.

>>18160331
But what about flutes, Arthur? Explain the flute.

After learning about Nietzsche's criticism of the stoics I was surprised to learn about his radical views about Amor Fati: the love of fate.
>I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful.Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse.Looking awayshall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.
His philosophy, if applied perfectly, would mean that if given the choice to go back and alter mistakes/misfortunes you wouldn't want to change anything. Ofcourse cultivating this virtue is desirable but what is the reasoning behind it? How can you "love the bad"?

>>18123099
Literally just read Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morality" you fucking uneducated swine. You're not the first to come with this idea, in fact, this idea is so common that it has been completely absorbed into modern philosophy and is being taken for granted.
Only retards, christcucks, and commies (redundant) believe in evil nowadays.

The sick are man’s greatest danger; not the evil, not the “beasts of prey.” Those who are failures from the start, downtrodden, crushed—it is they, the weakest, who must undermine life among men, who call into question and poison most dangerously our trust in life, in man, and in ourselves. Where does one not encounter that veiled glance which burdens one with a profound sadness, that inward-turned glance of the born failure which betrays how such a man speaks to himself—that glance which is a sigh! “If only I were someone else,” sighs this glance: “but there is no hope of that. I am who I am: how could I ever get free of myself? And yet—I am sick of myself!”

The sick are man’s greatest danger; not the evil, not the “beasts of prey.” Those who are failures from the start, downtrodden, crushed—it is they, the weakest, who must undermine life among men, who call into question and poison most dangerously our trust in life, in man, and in ourselves. Where does one not encounter that veiled glance which burdens one with a profound sadness, that inward-turned glance of the born failure which betrays how such a man speaks to himself—that glance which is a sigh! “If only I were someone else,” sighs this glance: “but there is no hope of that. I am who I am: how could I ever get free of myself? And yet—I am sick of myself!”

What if everyone in the world read Nietzsche and applied to their life his teachings?
What would happen?

bump

>the best and worst isn't lost in transtlation

We are discussing about Philosophy in this discord server: https://discord.com/invite/rTdM4Mg

Join if you know a lot about Nietzsche, Hegel, etc.

Fascists are allowed as well, there are many liberals in here so make sure to join.

Also, if you're a race realist, make sure to join as well!

Anon, does it make sense to say ”We are not mortal, we are immortal atoms.”? It has been reasoned that mortality makes life feel more precious, that if we were immortal people would be more inclined to be less proactive about our goals.

I find that sort of rationalization of our mortality highly questionable. It sounds like saying: I'd be stupid in this or that way if I were immortal. If mortality is viewed as the ability to biologically be dead/not living, then no, we are mortal because atoms do not live. Only we as the organism consisting of these atoms lives.

I don't think we read Nietzsche for his 'opinions' which are often very problematic, e.g. on gender, but as a spur to think for ourselves. Even the fact that there are Nietzsche scholars is to a degree ironic given his comments about scholars are very critical. Reading Nietzsche as a thinker with systematic and consistent views is not to read him well - he seems to detest that kind of system building, as well as 'scholarly' philosophy. I find reading Nietzsche has a lot of highs and lows - some wonderful moments of poetry and profundity, and then some very disappointing and downright offensive arguments as well. I think the angle he takes on the French Revolution is the worst kind of 'philosophy' - reacting to a perceived 'spirit' that is transmitted somehow from a metaphysical 'Judaism' - an interpretation which allows him to dismiss in a sentence all of the actual history/socio-cultural factors and human suffering for the sake of such a reductive theory. All that I would take away from that argument is a) don't philosophize like that b) reflect critically on our ideals and look at where they are coming from - that is to say, for example, that we don't give up on our ideals of justice or equality, but try to cultivate ourselves, so these come from a healthy place, e.g. not from wanting revenge. That way, our struggle for a better world won't be tainted by what we would today call our 'baggage' or something 'toxic'.

I think the term ressentiment, which Nietzsche uses, is quite useful when you observe human behaviour, but it's just that examples of ressentiment that he provides are questionable to me. I noticed a couple of examples of ressentiment myself, for example when one of my peers downplayed the other person's erudition on philosophers, claiming something like: "He reads secondary literature instead of actual works of philosophers, and thus his knowledge of philosophers' ideas is twisted and incorrect." The ridiculous implication of it being - He who goes out and reads a lot actually knows less than me who doesn't have such eagerness to read and gain knowledge. Not that secondary literature cannot create this problem, but his reason for saying it was envy, he didn't know whether the person in question reads the important philosophical works on their own.

Or when one woman justified and rationalized her laziness to herself when listening about other person's hard work and vegetable produce by saying: "Bah, it's all GMO anyway."

https://discord.gg/bgNecx4

Join this discord server if you want to discuss this further.