/lit/ - Literature

>>13961119
joe rogan

>>13961119
De Maiste
Burke
Carlyle
Nietzsche
Heidegger
Spengler
Guenon
Evola
Schmitt
Scruton
Moldbug
Land
Rothbard

>>13961119
Hans Gadamer, Plato, Aristotle

>>13961124

>>13961227
Is Gadamer worth reading? I’m interested in him because he was a contemporary of Heidegger; anyone know where to start?

>>13961219
The pic says "part 2".
Where is part 1?

>>13961411
Start with the Joe Rogan Experience my friend

>>13961219
>Umberto Eco
Either witty troll or someone seriously misunderstood focaults pendulum

>>13961456
If you read the note, it looks like its suppose to turn people away from reaction.

>>13961119
Just popping in to rec this. Reading it now. Very enjoyable and information-dense. I like it so far.

>>13961119
Deleuze

Siddhartha Gautama
Confucius
Marcus Aurelius
Jesus Christ
Locke
Adam Smith
Henry David Thoreau

Some less thought of thinkers when left/right politics come up.

>>13961597
based

>>13961219
Retarded boomer

Hegel

>>13961219
Bumb because I really want to know where part one of that picture is.

>>13961119
>right-wing
Whatever you want to define it as

Who is this semen demon?

>>13961219
i love you

>>13961219
Nietzsche hated reactionaries and cuckservatives. You can have the rest of those garbage thinkers.

>>13961425

>>13962956

>>13961119

>>13961219
Another good one.

>>13961119
Marx
Deleuze
Adorno
Foucault
Whitehead
Benjamin
Debord
Lefebvre
Baudrillard

>>13962979
>reactionaries and cuckservatives
Meaningless words when you haven't read anyone on that list.

>>13962994
*Better one

>>13962164
No

Zizek

>>13962979
tell me who he likes. and tell me what he hates about reactionaries

>>13961119
Robert Lewis Dabney of the Old South/Confederate States of America. He is also considered one of the best of the Oldschool Presbyterian theologians. Sprinkle Publications has most of his work in print, the rest can be read at the Internet Archive.

>>13962979
I knew people wouldnt like neitzsche on that list. Is he right wing? Hes at least hierarchical, which is a broadly used characteristic of most right wing thought. Then theres his focus on will and power, which is common to some right wing thought.

In a more specific sense, he is considered massively influential on the conservative revolutionary movement, influencing Heidegger, Spengler, Schmitt, and Evola among others.

So if you're getting into right wing thought, especially more contemporary, you need to read Nietzsche.

>>13961219
Land and Moldbug aren't right wing

>>13963571
Nietzsches take on hierarchies isn't what some people like Jordan Peterson have presented it as. The idea of will to power also has nothing to do with classically conservative politics. Nietzsche was massively anti-political.

I think you're conflating the sociopathic tendecies of his philosophy with the intuition of conservatives beeing more sociopathic.

>>13963581
I dont think you're correct. Even if you are, he influenced just about every right winger after him. So his being right wing or having the character of prior conservatives is not really the point.

>>13963574
Both wrote some interesting pieces on reaction and right wing thought either way.

>>13963600
I'd like to know how I'm incorrect. Jordan Peterson's arguments in favor of necessary hierarchies isn't what Nietzsche talks about at all. Beyond that, I was just making the case that Nietzsche isn't right-wing, a position you weren't expressing anyway. Its just obvious to me you have a poor reading of Nietzsche and intuitively assume the ideas of hierarchy, "will and power" have something to do with conservative politics.

>>13963581
Nietzsche believed some people are superior to others. A lot of Nietzsche's ideas influenced right wingers and dictators. The only reason some liberals think Nietzsche was left wing was because he said Gods dead

How is Joe Rogaine rightwing?

You guys have funny ideas about what constitutes rightwing. You’re drifting leftwards. Go with it.

>>13963626
In what sense superior, would you say? And why are you making the claim non-right-wingers deny that some people are better than others? I'm sure most liberals would agree Hitler is worse than Gandhi.

You really sound retarded. We weren't even discussing whether or not Nietzsche is a liberal, and people are not making that claim because he was an anti-theist. To me it seems as if your worldview is centered around the division of left- and right-wing.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/#2

Just read some Nietzsche instead of trying to pick up knowledge through osmosis by browsing the internet, brainlet.

>>13963571
>influencing Heidegger, Spengler, Schmitt, and Evola
lmao he would have hated all of them

>>13963634
it's a meme you stupid fucking tranny

>>13963571
Nietzsche is only right wing in the aspect that he praises for a sort of anti-egalitarian aristocratic movement plus his anti morality/religion thought and anti-state.
Most of his philosophy is even directed at those with power or growing to be powerful.

I think he is right wing but not in the cliché conservative moralistic sense that want his "family values" and religion etc etc.

>>13963626
>A lot of Nietzsche's ideas influenced right wingers and dictators.
Nope. Liberals don’t want empowered proles so they treat him like a crazy man and let your christcucks ridicule him.
He was critical of the socialist movement of his day for their religious zeal. He of course preferred the more individualistic aspect of anarchism/libertarian-socialism. He is quite firmly leftwing.
Again, you drift leftward. Go with it.

>>13963635
>In what sense superior?
Just read his ideas on Ubermensch. Nietzsche was a huge influence on Adolf Hitler. Also you took my words out of context. Obviously Ghandi is better than Hitler behavior wise. But Nietzsche believed superiority in race and ethnic groups. Also, your name The Based God is fucking stupid, I think you should reexamine your ego.

>>13963638
Stop calling me that, furryfag

>>13963620
First, I have no idea why you're bringing up Peterson.
Second, it's not that Nietzsche's belief in hierarchies and will to power have anything to do neccesarily with right wing politics, it's that right wingers make use of them.
Third, a belief that hierarchies have value at all definitely puts you closer to the right than left.
Fourth, your conflation of neitzsches ideas having somthing to do with conservative politics rather than as lenses through which to analyze right wing thought itself shows that you are an uncreative thinker. It's not that difficult.

>>13963647
Man I have, I am very sure that you haven't. What book are you basing your reading of the Übermensch on? You know he only really talks about that concept in his earlier writings and drops it almost entirely post-Human, All-too Human?
Nietzsche was not a "huge influence" on Hitler, we have no proof of this. He surely came into contact with him but that he personally took a great interest in his ideas, other than instrumentalizing his ideas for his own political goals, is not proven at all. The Nazis did use the Zarathustra as propaganda, but that Hitler himself actively read Nietzsche is just non-sense. Beyond that, how is that at all relevant to your argument? There is something called "Nietzschean Socialism", does that prove Nietzsche expressed left-wing ideas?

"But Nietzsche believed superiority in race and ethnic groups."
What? Where? He didn't have a strong concept on what you're referring to as race. He does make claims about certain ethnic groups, as does Immanuel Kant extensively, this again neither proves that a) he held racist attidues or b) this forms a basis for an underlying conservative political ideaology. This is the 19th century we're talking about here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Nietzsche's_criticism_of_anti-Semitism_and_nationalism

>>13963636
Not really the point.

>>13963639
Yeah, if you think the later, your view of what constitutes right wing is limited.

>>13963650
I'd like to hear what you think Nietzsche means by hierarchies. I'm expecting you reiterate something that Jordan Peterson would say, which is blatantly wrong, that's why I'm involving him here.
I'd also like to hear what you think the will to power is and in what sense, say, Heidegger or Evola have dealt with this concept.

I'd also like to know why you believe Nietzsche thought hierarchies are valuable, that this is Nietzsche's implicit normative theory.

To your last point, no one is arguing that Nietzsche didn't have impact on Nazis and other right-wing individuals. The point I'm trying to make is, that you don't at all seem to understand Nietzsche and beyond the surface-level analysis of "Heidegger quotes Nietzsche" you have no idea what the phrase "Nietzsche influenced right-wingers" means. This became apparent to me very quickly and I'm trying to make you realize why you have no grounds at all to make the more theory-based claims you're making.

You could prove me wrong by responding to my questions.

>right wing
You've already lost the plot my man, stop letting the lense you see the world through be dictated by a simple left-right paradigm. Putting your thoughts into boxes constructed, by design, to simplify the way you see the world is not going to work to reach anything meaningfu. A wise man and a fool can look at the same thing and see it completely differently. The difference is one bends his worldview to the world around him, and the one bends the world around him to his worldview. Easier said than done of course but recognizing something is the first step to overcoming it.

>>13963664
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and_reception_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche

Oh look I found an article just like you. Nietzsche was a big influence on fascism and Hitler.

Look man again, lose the stupid name. You shouldn't even be getting worked up over such a overrated philosopher with dumb ideas. You probably only found a liking in Nietzsche because youre a undergraduate student who just found interest in philosophy.

>>13961219
also:

Hume
Hegel
Kant
Plato

>>13963704
>Using the word übermensch
>influence
Capitalism is full of marketing agents, you know?
Virtually nothing of his ideals mesh with dictatorship. Try reading him sometime.

>>13963705
Can we really call Hegel right-wing when he spawned Marx, Stirner and Feuerbach?

>>13963680
Okay, Nietzsche's overman, will to power, and master morality all have a general characteristic of self overcoming which is found in most hard right thought.

His overman and master morality goes along with his aristocratic values system and disdain for democracy. Aristocracy and anti-democracy is once again right wing.

His master morality is echoed in several right wing sources. Even Pat Bichanan makes the claim, someone's values are going to be implemented, so they might as well be ours. You find similar ideas in schmitt.

Evola used Nietzsches self overcoming and dancing through life in his traditionalist philosophy of rising up the hierarchy (not hierarchy) and ride the tiger ideas.

You are a very inflexible thinker.

>>13963708
His ideals don't conflict with dictatorship either, especially since he explicitly shits on like 95% of people, he really wouldn't care about them being under some tyrant

>>13963714
Yes, we can call a monarchist right wing lol

>>13961119
Candace Owens

>>13963719
Again, read him.

Holy shit. I ask and ask for details about fucking Flashman and you ridicule me for not reading the trash. Stop posting about a philosopher who you know absolute squat about, as if you did. Ask us. “Could he be considered rightwing? I’ve heard somewhere he could”. No, is the answer. Okay?

>>13963708
>try reading him sometime
I literally wrote a 6 page essay on why he was so great when i was in middle school. I grew up and realized hes a quack.

>>13963745
butterly literally nobody likes you, and this sad attempt at a post is somehow even more devoid of content than usual. You didn't even attempt to reply to the point, which was just a basic recognition that Nietzsche doesn't give a shit about 'the people' or their suffering under superiors.

>>13963745
Well he definitely wasnt liberal or left wing, so.....
>inb4 muh stuck in left right dichotomy

>>13963746
Oh. And somehow forgot he’s not rightwing. Okay. Did you have some kind of head trauma or did you just buckle to peer pressure?

>>13963763
Literal assholes don’t like me. I welcome their spite!
>This post and it’s point is not a post. It is devoid of...
See how pathetic?
>>13963767
Liberals are not leftwing. They have a left wing, but they are pro-capitalism to a fault, therefore very rightwing of the actual LEFTWING. Which in the end is just a shorthand for anti-capitalist, anti-statist, *pro-freedom* camp.
Write it down.

>>13961119
Mike Ma

Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Rober Nozick, Roger Scruton, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Thomas Paine, Nietszche, Carl Schmitt, Hegel, Schelling, Schiller, Fichte and so on.

>>13963807
>Liberals are not leftwing. They have a left wing, but they are pro-capitalism to a fault, therefore very rightwing of the actual LEFTWING. Which in the end is just a shorthand for anti-capitalist, anti-statist, *pro-freedom* camp. Write it down.

Everyone knows this, dumbass. That's why I said hes not left wing or liberal.

You really are disappointing.

>>13963807
>Oh. And somehow forgot he’s not rightwing
I have been saying he was right winged the whole time in this thread

>>13963823
>Thomas Paine
How insulting. You buffoons don’t even know what your ideology stands for.

>>13963824
You’re wrong. I guess what you’re trying to say is he’s neither and above it all. You should say that next time.
But you’re wrong. He is leftists

>>13963825
Maybe you wanna delete this

>>13963857
>Nietzsche is Leftist
You have seriously outdone yourself in idiocy

I love butterfly so much frens plz don't bully her

>>13963862
Read a book

>>13963857
>I guess what you’re trying to say is he’s neither and above it all.

Man, you are dumb. I'm saying if hes not liberal or leftists, then hes some variant of right wing.

>He is leftists
Not even kind of.

>>13963857
>>13963680

Julian Young argues in his 2010 biography of Nietzsche that his politics essentially was that described in his 1871 essay, The Greek State (there's probably a better version somewhere).
>In fact, the right order of the state is precisely that outlined by Plato save for the substitution of the 'genius in the most general sense' for Plato's 'genius of wisdom and knowledge', the 'philosopher-king. What we need, in other words, is a state ruled by Sophocles rather than Socrates.

Intellectually he's situated in a very right wing position in general, his main philosophical influence is Schopenhauer, who was a reactionary by and large. He also had a very famous and important friendship with Wagner. While he broke from both of them in his later work he still has strong influences from them making right wing entry to his works fairly easy.

In his writings themselves there's a lot that appeals to the far right. He has many of the same enemies for a start, most obviously English style liberalism which Nietzsche is overtly contemptuous of and frequently attacks. Nietzsche is also very concerned with the nihilism he sees emerging with modernity and his hopes of restoring vitality to European culture is also a big concern for many far right thinkers. There's also an overt elitism that comes across in much of his work, the first essay in the Genealogy of Morality being a fairly obvious example where it's easy to read the descriptions of "blonde beasts" and "slave morality" as endorsing a sort of realpolitik view where the bulk of humans are just cattle to be ruled over by the strong, not necessarily the right reading of the essay but it's certainly an easy one.

Nietzsche rather hoped that society would be itself an expression of great individuality, or of great individuals' will to power – remember, the will to power is the sole metaphysical principle in Nietzsche's philosophy. A "great" individual who exercises their will to power necessarily exercises it over others, Nietzsche wasn't a believer in universal freedom (which would preclude will to power) and was fine with the masses being controlled and/or oppressed, what Nietzsche was against was when the masses were actually in charge.

this seems on the face of it consonant with fascism (especially Nazism, as Nietzsche's analysis of history was largely one of racial conquest), it's certainly completely opposed to leftism which would of course be attractive to the far-right.

>>13963715
I don't think that's the problem, me being inflexible. The issue at hand, is again, Nietzsche's actual views. This has nothing to do with the limits of fantasy. I again want you to tell me what Nietzsche's ideas on the Übermensch and the Will to Power are, because again, everything you say makes it obvious to me you have a very surface-level reading of Nietzsche. At best, I suppose, you might have read passages of Beyong Good and Evil.

So you can't just swindle yourself out of the discussion by saying I am not seeing the big picture here. In what way do the concepts of the Übermensch, the will to power and master-morality have anything to do with self-overcoming, and how the fuck is this a right-wing thought?
Just a hint: Nietzsche violently denies the possibility of "self-overcoming" in many many instances throughout his writing. I can point you to the passages if you're interested truly, I just want you to admit you haven't read the guy.

"Self-overcoming" is such a broad vague idea, are you going to say any existentialist inspired Evola? There's also an issue with your idea that Nietzsche actually supported master-morality in his analysis of it.

>>13963704
No one is making the claim he didn't influence those people. Did you read my post? Did you read where I accepted this? Can you even read? Might wanna read Nietzsche once you figure it out.

Right wing is a very vague catch-all. You should probably broadly divide it into "libertarians" (who aren't right but are often treated as right), moderate conservatives who emphasizes organic continuity or the preservation of perennial principles, reactionary conservatives who advocate doing this by force or by outright resort to monarchy and aristocracy, and "conservative revolutionaries" (which include Strasserites and National Bolshevists, as well as mystagogues like Stefan George. You could also possibly include Straussians but the only Straussian worth reading is Strauss and he wasn't Straussian.

The best book on the conservative revolution is Mohler's. The only English translation is from Arktos. Roger Woods is also good.

>>13961119
Do you mean the right-wing of Capitalism, as opposed to the left-wing of Capitalism?

>>13964004
He violently broke off with Schopenhauer and Wagner for meta-political, let's say normative, reasons. If Schopenhauer's and Wagner's influence on Nietzsche would be indicative of his political world-view, then so must be his attacks on these people.

His anti-democratic views don't situate him in a right-wing position, since when is this the political spectrum? Beyond that, Nietzsche wasn't "afraid" of nihilism, infact, he actively pushed for its full realization, which result in the collapse of all life-denying principles which stem from it. For that reason he calls himself a nihilist in Ecce Homo, a nihilist who for the longest time didn't realize that he was a nihilist, because he believed his intense drive was proof for his anti-nihilism.

The analysis of "blonde beasts" is in the second chapter of the Genealogy of Morals. In it Nietzsche is looking at the genealogy of punishment. His general idea is that blonde babarians began imposing their laws on weaker groups by punishing them violently for the smallest misdemeanors. From this "pre-historic" time on, punishment became the get-go means of transferring emotional debt. This passage has NOTHING to do with his analysis of slave- and master-morality. Nietzsche pin-points the rise of slave-morality to the time of the Jews. In the second chapter of Genealogy Nietzsche is talking about pre-Christian Europe, IE a Europe that had no contact with Jews or the Roman empire.

In any of these chapters Nietzsche never makes positive normative claims, all he intends to do is to explicate his method of genealogy, meaning, he is making is-statements not ought-statements.

Will to power is not a metaphysical principle. See: any of his epistemological criticisms, which you will find at least ten in every book he ever wrote.

You still haven't delivered a coherent argument as to why Nietzsche is a right-wing philosopher, that he, on poor reading, attracts right-winger, is empirically true and any 4chan/pol/ archive search will tell you that.

These people often forget he was anti-Christian, anti-anti-semitic, anti-nationalist, anti-German, despite being German and anti-tradition.

>>13963874
So you are brain dead. Okay.
Adopt a name, braindead.

>>13964004
>Schopenhauer, who is a reactionary
>Wagner, [who was a socialist, but the author leaves this off because it puts his idea off]

>He has the same enemies as the monarchists
>Liberals are totally leftwing bro.
>Only rightwing thinkers were concerned with nihilism
If you say so.

Nietzsche said somewhere that what he was aiming for with this übermensch was a cross between an aristocratic and an anarchist.

That, incidentally is what anarchists are aiming for as well.
Read
https://www.confero.ep.liu.se/issues/2016/v4/i1/160111/confero16v4i1_160111.pdf