/lit/ - Literature

>>16132068
>>16135719
>>16135881
While a meme, this is actually correct. Nietzsche's understanding of nature is no closer to reality than the utopian ideas of Fourier, that the oceans could be turned into lemonade and have whales singing as they are enslaved to ships. There is simply nothing essential in either picture of nature, each is simply an effect of a mindset which sees nature as nothing more than a means to deepen the sense of a new human figure.

Of course Nietzsche wasn't stupid, but there is something going on here that causes this great divergence in understanding which no one seems capable of resolving. A question remains if this was abuse of concepts was intentional, however, given his philosophy it seems almost entirely accidental. A confused philosophy that has no relation at all to the tragic, so one has to wonder why he did not take up the artistic method that was the ideal, the solution to all things. Was he not capable of holding to values completely opposed to the stoics? To Socrates? Or even the bad tragedians? Was it all just a cover for his inability to best the tyranny of moralism and rational thought? Perhaps it was nothing more than resentment, and in character and writings we see that such an accusation is more applicable to Nietzsche than to any of his enemies, even Socrates, Christ, or the stoics. A plebeian question, was his theory of nature nothing more than the non-being of his own?

What Kant did for idealism Nietzsche did for romanticism. His concern was the pure feeling of power, not power in itself. Yes, the nietzscheans will cry about this being a misreading because 'He critiqued Kant!', but what isn't a misreading to them? This confusion set within endless contradictions is the natural law of those without any nature. It is not a solution to Aristotelianism it is the ultimate conclusion. The void of nature is not the end of the world, it is the labyrinth, within which Nietzsche voluntarily sacrificed himself.