/lit/ - Literature

>>23183971
“To this day, no other poet has given me the same artistic delight that a Horatian ode gave me from the first. In certain languages that which Horace has achieved could not even be attempted. This mosaic of words, in which every word — as sound, as place, as concept — pours out its strength right and left and over the whole, this minimum in the extent and number of the signs, and the maximum thereby attained in the energy of the signs — all that is Roman and, if you will believe me, noble par excellence. All the rest of poetry becomes, in contrast, something too popular — mere sentimental blather.

From the Greeks I have not at all felt similarly strong impressions, and to be blunt, they cannot mean as much to me us the Romans. We do not learn from the Greeks — their manner is too foreign and too fluid to create a commanding, “classical” effect. Who could ever have learned to write from a Greek? Who could ever have learned to write without the Romans?”

Why should anyone read a shitty interpretive translation of nietzsche by the loltard kaufmann when there are much better more interesting literal translations out there like the one by common

“To this day, no other poet has given me the same artistic delight that a Horatian ode gave me from the first. In certain languages that which Horace has achieved could not even be attempted. This mosaic of words, in which every word — as sound, as place, as concept — pours out its strength right and left and over the whole, this minimum in the extent and number of the signs, and the maximum thereby attained in the energy of the signs — all that is Roman and, if you will believe me, noble par excellence. All the rest of poetry becomes, in contrast, something too popular — mere sentimental blather.

From the Greeks I have not at all felt similarly strong impressions, and to be blunt, they cannot mean as much to me us the Romans. We do not learn from the Greeks — their manner is too foreign and too fluid to create a commanding, “classical” effect. Who could ever have learned to write from a Greek? Who could ever have learned to write without the Romans?”

>>22445297
Splendid! Be always faithful to the earth anon

So what exactly is Nietzschean morality? More importantly, who ever practiced it after reading his works? It seems to me that Nietzsche isn't talking about morality as such, but some higher ethical statements drawn from Platonist/Christian philosophy.
He thinks of Biblical moral as degenerate but when he sees the same values in another place, he praises them as "a hundred times more realistic". There have been many civilizations beyond Christianity which advocated for temperance, fidelity, modesty and much more were considered virtues before Christianity. I'm pretty sure things such as sin and solidarity existed in other places as well. The only thing I consider he said right is how it might be foreign to Western sentiments and that there hasn't been a society more proud while wearing a dead Jewish guy on their neck who claimed that "The meek shall inherit the Earth".

In any case, as of today, there's literally nobody who's proud, virile, chauvinist, brutal, elitist and disregarding of other people that read Nietzsche. Usually Nietzscheans are either very friendly, accepting, even charitable people or bookworms that couldn't become the Nietzschean Conans they have wet dreams about being.

Of course, you might have someone like Andrew Tate but he's just an imbecile that acts upon his impulses and is actively an anti-intellectual.

is that a horse being whipped? oh no i'm going insane, help me christian man!

>christianity is bad and stupid
>don't follow rules and be a chad
>philosophy is just opinion

OK. Cool I guess? Is this it to Nietzsche? This is shit I figured out on my own when I was 14. Do people really need to read entire books to tell them stuff like this? Serious question.

>Does the person make the name, or does the name make the person? But the name comes from the parent, whose self-perception determines the naming of the child, who shares the qualities of the parent. For this reason ugly girls have ugly names, and cowardly men have cowardly names.
based

>Masculinity... is NOT le hegemony and controlling others!
>We should practice forms of dominance that are the least tethered to biological ranking
No thanks, I'd rather be a gay top who's tall and big and pounds a bunch of twinks.

>>21886053
>Most of homosexual artists are tops
No, you fucking idiot. They're versatiles. Tops don't care about that shit and just want to aggressively beast fuck men and nip their hair.

If what makes a male artist "in touch with his feminine side" so great that he's above average in testosterone (i.e. a gay top) then that's missing the goddamn point. The whole point of being in touch with your feminine side is that you DON'T NEED to be biologically above average in order to be spiritually above average.

Philosophers like Nietzsche would like Gayreek homosexuality at best because it represents a freedom from biological domination, and therefore the most homosexual in the sense that is both nurturing, youthful, and feminine at the core while preserving the masculinity of the recipient. Therefore each side can still be manly.

Nietzsche is literally the most misunderstood author of all time.

"God is dead" has frequently been misconstrued as a declaration of atheism or an outright rejection of religious beliefs, when it was actually a critique of the diminishing role of traditional religious values in society, and an invitation to explore new perspectives on morality and human potential. The Übermensch is often mistakenly perceived as a promotion of a superior race or an endorsement of a master-slave mentality, when in reality, the Übermensch represents the aspiration to transcend the limitations of human nature and the constraints of conventional morality, paving the way for self-actualization and the realization of one's fullest potential. The Will to Power is frequently interpreted as a thirst for domination and control, even though Nietzsche's true intention was to emphasize the inherent drive within individuals to manifest their unique potential and become the best versions of themselves. It is not about exercising power over others, but rather about harnessing the power within oneself to overcome obstacles and achieve personal growth. Many mistakenly associate Nietzsche with nihilism, which he never championed and simply pointed out the great crisis of meaning caused by the decline of religious values. Instead, like I've already explained, he proposed that individuals could create their own values and meaning, overcoming the void left by the erosion of traditional beliefs. Nietzsche's concept of eternal recurrence is often misconstrued as a metaphysical claim, when it was simply a thought experiment meant to inspire individuals to lead lives of passion and authenticity, as if they were to live the same life over and over again.

How can so many people misunderstand this great man to such a comical extent?

I listened to Wagner's "Rienzi", and I wondered whether Nietzsche had ever commented on this work. So I asked Bing Chat about it. It told me, citing sources, that Nietzsche saw it when he was 14 and was influenced by it, feeling as though he had been revived after watching it, and wrote a letter about it to his sister. I then asked it about the letter and it gave me a cut-up excerpt, and then the full text of the letter:

>Sure. Here is the full letter in English:
>"My dear Lisl,—
>I have just returned from Rienzi; I am still quite beside myself; I do not know what has happened to me! It seems as if I had been born again; as if a new world had opened before me! Oh! how I longed to be able to express my feelings! How I longed for a friend who could understand me! But where could I find one? Who could sympathize with such strange emotions? Who could enter into such lofty thoughts? No one—no one!
>What is life? What is death? What am I? What is God? These questions arose within me with such force that they almost overwhelmed me. They demanded an answer—a solution. But where could I find it? In books? In the teachings of men? In nature? In myself? Alas! all these sources seemed to mock me; they seemed to say: ‘Seek not to know what is too high for thee!’ And then came Rienzi! Oh! how beautiful it was! How grand! How sublime!
>The music—the words—the scenery—the action—all combined to produce an impression which no words can describe. It was like a revelation from another world; it was like a glimpse into the secrets of the universe. It was like a voice from heaven saying: ‘Behold, this is the truth!’
>And then Cola di Rienzo himself! The hero of my dreams! The liberator of Rome! The friend of Petrarch! The last of the tribunes! Oh, how I loved him, how I admired him, how I wept for him!
>He was so noble, so generous, so brave, so eloquent, so wise, so good! He had such a lofty aim, such a noble ideal, such a glorious mission! He wanted to restore the ancient glory of Rome; he wanted to unite Italy under one banner; he wanted to establish peace and justice among men; he wanted to revive art and science and literature; he wanted to make mankind happy and free!
>And he succeeded—he succeeded for a time. He aroused the enthusiasm of the people; he overthrew the tyranny of the nobles; he reformed the laws; he encouraged learning; he fostered commerce; he made Rome once more the mistress of the world!
1/2

Post-modern philosophy is just Western civilization coming to terms with its origin lying not in Christianity but pagans, but not Northern pagans either, just the Mediterranean, universally Human pagans (Ancient Greeks and Greek philosophers)

The ultimate redpill lies in realizing that Christianity is just reactionism, although the most virtuous and most constructive reactionism of all. Christianity is a reaction to Rome conquering Hellenistic Judea and instilling a dead-eyed martial order, with moderate material opportunity for the conquered but not much in the way of spiritual meaning, and Roman mysteries were trash.

Jesus is revered only because he (if he existed at all) was a classical philosopher in the vein of Plato long after classical philosophy had died and things like Truth and Virtue and living by what you preach stopped mattering all that much, and never in the history of humanity ever really did except for the Classical period of Ancient Greece

Essentially, the ultimate redpill lies in realizing that Jesus was nothing special not because he was just one of many preacher-gurus of first century Judea, but because if he had been born in Ancient Athens alongside Plato he would never have become revered just as Plato mostly did not become revered. Jesus is basically Plato with a God complex. A toxic philosopher and a grifter. While Jesus became a guru and cult leader, Plato simply started the Academy. Plato and Socrates had fundamental intellectual humility, Jesus did not. Jesus was not sinless. Jesus committed the sin of Pride. He could never represent Humanity and be a role model because of his intellectual hubris that ultimately leads to fascism, whether brown or red.

I don't get it

so far ive read on the gen. of morals, beyond good and evil and half of twilight of the idols, and i find him relatively easy to understand, why do people always say how hard he is and shit like that? are they stupid or am i really smart? what are your experiences with him?

>"Finally, under very peaceful circumstances, there is always less opportunity and necessity for training the feelings to severity and rigour, and now every form of severity, even in justice, begins to disturb the conscience, a lofty and rigorous nobleness and self-responsibility almost offends, and awakens distrust, "the lamb," and still more "the sheep," wins respect. There is a point of diseased mellowness and effeminacy in the history of society, at which society itself takes the part of him who injures it, the part of the CRIMINAL, and does so, in fact, seriously and honestly. To punish, appears to it to be somehow unfair—it is certain that the idea of "punishment" and "the obligation to punish" are then painful and alarming to people. "Is it not sufficient if the criminal be rendered HARMLESS? Why should we still punish? Punishment itself is terrible!"—with these questions gregarious morality, the morality of fear, draws its ultimate conclusion. If one could at all do away with danger, the cause of fear, one would have done away with this morality at the same time, it would no longer be necessary, it WOULD NOT CONSIDER ITSELF any longer necessary!—Whoever examines the conscience of the present-day European, will always elicit the same imperative from its thousand moral folds and hidden recesses, the imperative of the timidity of the herd "we wish that some time or other there may be NOTHING MORE TO FEAR!" Some time or other—the will and the way THERETO is nowadays called "progress" all over Europe." -Beyond Good & Evil, 201
How did he know?

>>19030984
He always wore very simple, but very nice looking clothes.

>morality is... LE BAD

Has anyone ever got even close to BTFOing Nietzsche?

Never read anything from this guy, I have Thus Spoke Zarathustra sitting on my shelf. Is he worth looking into?

Okay lets get serious here, say one nice things about Nietzsche's philosophy and one thing you dislike

>hard mode: no ad hominems and no low iq seething

I read nietzsche and one of many things i tought was that i found it kinda cringe

>no you can`t enjoy things i don`t like
>no you can`t just be happy
>no you must be depressed
>altought i am depressed and you are happy, you are doing it wrong you know
>you are all wrong and i prove to you by having a life more shitty than yours
>oh man i really hate x, how can they be like this fuck you x
this last one is actually quite funny, but he is talking about people that don`t even think about him at all

I really sometimes had the feeling he is a little child that is screaming and kicking around because he doesn`t get what he wants.
Like dude grow up world isn`t perfect, deal with it? I met people like him in real life, people who make themself this ideal picture of the world and then get disappointed over and over again when reality isn`t as ideal as they wish it to be. It`s a very sad lifestyle.

This is not a nietzsche btfo post because someone will comment like "oh you think you are smarter than nietzsche" or something.
This is just my unfiltered feeling i had when reading his works
Anyone else felt like this?

>Is that... a tentacle? AHHH I'M GOING CRAZY, HELP ME NIGGERMAN!