/lit/ - Literature

I am part of an amateur philosophy group and they have asked me to take a class and do a 2 hour presentation on Nietzsche.

I have not put together a presentation in 15 years so I am a little shaky. What do you guys think I should include in an effort like this? How should it be formatted?

This board went from traditional right wing philosophy to nietzscheanism real quick

>>22317913
>What is Mill's higher and lower pleasures?
Atheism isn't a religion, anon. And it's possible to be an atheist without being a hedonist.

I'm sorry you can't cope with life without the lie that some ephemeral disembodied force wuvs you. If you need that as a crutch, I don't think you can really say you love yourself.

Is it possible to “love” suffering? And should it be our goal? Or should we maintain a sort of paradoxical attitude of hating suffering while loving that we hate it? Because if we loved suffering as an end, then why should we suffer FOR anything? Why not just suffer for the sake of suffering until we die? I can’t seem to wrap my mind around how Nietzsche thinks we should view suffering. My default belief is that suffering simply cannot be separated from the things that make us stronger, and so we have to accept it. And yet we still must explain ALL suffering, and you could argue that all suffering comes from experiences which make us stronger in some way. But it seems ridiculous to purposely pursue those experiences all the time. Or maybe it isn’t, I haven’t tried it.

>>21619503
Nietzsche
Orgy of the Will

> be me
> walking back to my car from picking up food
> unter to myself in natural west Texan accent “saying bossman is a symptom of slave morality“
> look behind me and see a group of women who look very confused asking me “what the fuck that means redneck”
> proceed to not answer them and walk faster to my car
> after I get in my car I proceed to cut them off in the parking lot
The wine aunt hates the Nietzschetard

I was recently exploring the graveyard of New Atheism on YouTube and it seems like everyone either became "alt-right" or converted to "secular humanism".
Is secular humanism the secret to what progressives actually believe?
I stopped being conservative years ago because I couldn't settle on a religion and eventually just gave up, so you don't need to argue me out of that.
Simpy explain, rationally, why I should adhere to secular humanism rather than agnostic egoism. It seems like secular humanists have given up on the search for knowledge and simply refuse to think anymore because actually using your brain is what Hitler did and Anne Frank died or whatever.
How the fuck do you get from God doesn't exist to BLM and trans rights? Whenever I ask these questions I feel like I'm being gaslit.

>Icky homo!
What did he mean by this?

>>19984103
>Good luck convincing anyone raised on the internet to stop believing in human rights, equality, democracy, liberation, etc.
bro, you're on /lit/ you shouldn't embarrass yourself like this. The average person has ALWAYS believed in those humanitarian ideals. You don't think Roman slaves wanted equality when Spartacus went madman?

It's not about what the average sheeple masses believe, it's about what the Elites believe. We need a top down change, not a bottom up

>Of all that is written, I love only what a person hath written with blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit.
>It is no easy task to understand unfamiliar blood; I hate the reading idlers.
>He who knoweth the reader, doth nothing more for the reader. Another century of readers...and Spirit itself will sink.
>Everyone being allowed to learn to read ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.

Was he right? Does this explain the absolute state of contemporary /lit/?

>Ye preachers of equality, the tyrant-frenzy of impotence crieth thus in you for 'equality': your most secret tyrant-longings disguise themselves in virtue-words
>Fretted conceit and suppressed envy, perhaps your fathers' conceit and envy, in you break forth as flame and frenzy of vengeance.
>What the father hath hid cometh out in the son; and oft have I found the father's revealed secret
>With these preachers of equality will I not be mixed up and confounded. For thus speaketh justice unto me: 'Men are not equal'
>That there is struggle and inequality even in beauty, and war for power, and intelligence: that doth he teach us in the plainest parable.

>>18701883
>>18702111
I don't even know why he's talking about Nietzsche this much. Wouldn't our boy Neatch just facepalm over the deeply religious stuff he's talking about?

My intuitive position on linguistics is that words hold no inherent meaning and are only used to convey and express emotional states or pragmatic intent.

The word "Bigot" (which has been on my mind lately) means nothing and has no set definition to it. It's only a substitute for the word "Bad" and the word "Bad" is an ultimately an expression of your negative emotional state against someone or something. Almost all language can then be boiled down to "I like" or "I don't like". I can use the word "Good" to mean "Bad" and it would be just as valid but the only reason I don't is out of pragmatic reasoning.

Because of this I am vehemently against the authority of dictionaries as a final say in establishing the "meaning" behind a word. Dictionaries are tyrannical. There is no inherent meaning behind any word. Meaning change all the time, our values reflect the meaning we put behind words.

Which linguist or philosopher should I read who holds a smilier view on linguistics?

>Art for art’s sa—

>am content to merely survive
why is it like this and how do i change this?

>>18160636
>castrated, bloodless, undifferentiated love of everything is morality
Then morality must die for the world to live.

>>18149735
Wrong. The emasculation of men started on the 1960's and we didn't see the effects at a massive scale until the early 2010's. The same could be said about people losing their traditional values.

>>18019854

>>17860092
>they would have written love philosophy and how life is so great
Literally all of Nietzsche's writing.

What did Nietzsche think of buddhism?

What exactly is the overman? And why is it a good thing?

What was Nietzsche's opinion about the Japanese or asians in general?

If you presuppose atheism:
>there's literally nothing wrong with racism
>women have no rights
>the weak should fear the strong
>your sense of "right and wrong" is deeply rooted in Abrahamic morality
>your whole worldview is wrong, incoherent and bipolar
>fascism is the only coherent political system that exists
You are now permissioned to cope, seethe and dilate.

>EVERYTHING IS WILL TO POWER, LMAO EVERYTHING I WROTE IS WORTHLESS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO FACTS, ONLY INTERPRETATIONS. SO TRAGIC, SO ETERNALLY RECURRING
>just affirm the will bro
Has he a hack?