/lit/ - Literature

Why would you assume that a Jewish mystic in disguise (W.) and a loner who only had a relative grasp of philosophy (N.) are enough?

>>18410516
not an argument

>>18410516
>who only had a relative grasp of philosophy (N.) are enough?
>relative grasp of philosophy
Bait.

>>18410492
QRD on Wittgenstein?

>>18410492
Every decent philosopher makes people feel that. It basically just means that they have some foundational premises that are plausible sounding and important, and are self-consistent after that. Many philosophers have cleared that bar.

>>18410546
thats bollocks because most philosophers I read are too caught up in their own semantics that it comes off either totally unreadable or else some appalling overuse of flowery language to purposefully convoluted what they're trying to say because in reality, they have no clue.

>>18410548
That sounds like the problem of a midwit. I'm afraid I can't help you there.

>>18410554
No thanks, I prefer authors that can actually write. Nietzsche is able to clearly explain his position which means he fundamentally understands it himself. Those who can't argue in a clear way give away their own lack of confidence in the answer they are providing.

>>18410554

The Gay Science Aphorism 173

To be Profound and to Appear Profound.

He who knows that he is profound strives for clearness; he who would like to appear profound to the multitude strives for obscurity. The multitude thinks everything profound of which it cannot see the bottom; it is so timid and goes so unwillingly into the water.

>>18410534
See the last Plato v Neet thread. Neet fails at basic logic.

>>18410582
>One not only wants to be understood when one writes, but also quite as certainly not to be understood. It is by no means an objection to a book when someone finds it unintelligible: perhaps this might just have been the intention of its author, perhaps he did not want to be understood by "anyone”. A distinguished intellect and taste, when it wants to communicate its thoughts, always selects its hearers; by selecting them, it at the same time closes its barriers against "the others". It is there that all the more refined laws of style have their origin: they at the same time keep off, they create distance, they prevent "access" (intelligibility, as we have said,) while they open the ears of those who are acoustically related to them.

The Gay Science, 381

>>18410638
>basic logic
could you be more vague?

>>18410582
He forgot to write: And he who IS profund strives for clearness, yet still arrives in alleged "obscurity" according to the unwashed and unintelligent masses who cannot penetrate a higher intellect.

>>18410541
Truth tables

>>18410860
A=A
Nietzsche can't understand this.

>>18410525

N. knew some Greek classics and a little bit of Spinoza, Kant and Schopenhauer. The rest is foggy.

As for W. he literally knew nothing about philosophy and he was rather proud of it. What's more problematic with him is the stuff he hid, ie. the Jewish mysticism foundation. A few hints: the color red, (Jacob's) ladder, the ban on images.

>>18410492
>Can you take philosophy serious anymore after these two?
They are like popular filters for philosophy. Midwits stop with one of them believing they've got all they need. If you had good understanding of Philosophy you'd go on to become a Platonist or Aristotelian.

>>18410492
>clear worldview
>Nietzsche
Are you sure you've read him rather than watch a bunch of youtube videos about him?

>>18410492
Your feeling is wrong.

>>18410582

NEETzsche requires more, not less, apology, secondary sources, "semantics" than all Rationals put together.

>>18410492
Wittgenstein, much like Krishnamurti, is an antidote to a worldview, the western one, and he offers you only that you can say "it's all horseshit semantics and language play" and go on with your life, but that's about it.

>>18410492
You're so cringe and stupid. If you had only read five (5) books from the Medieval and Renaissance period you wouldn't even be on here making dumb threads like this.

>>18410941
He was a philologist. You are a retarded pseud on /lit/.

>>18410891
Do you have a passage from Nietzsche demonstrating that or are you, like the rest of /lit/, a retarded pseud who talks out of his ass all the time?

I’d say maybe try and give Heidegger a go as a conclusion to neetch, assuming you aren’t a midwit

>>18410492
No, no --- you've completed philosophy after you've read Plato and Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Wittgenstein; Foucault and Deleuze if you will, also.
Analytics are for shills who's entire philosophy is built on a misunderstanding of the significance of metaphysics and the transcendent/al. Maths is still important, but analytic fags don't even use maths anymore.

take the heidegger pill now

>>18411651
>>18411693
William Plank's book on Will to Power is better than Heidegger's, but Plank is an unknown in academia with only a few scholarly books to his name so he never gets recommended. Either way, these authors don't say anything that Nietzsche doesn't already say.

>>18410492
i feel the same way anon

Nietzsche was a naive idiot and exposed as one by anyone with understanding of metaphysics and as filled by resentment by Girard. The only moment in his life he was right and admirable was at his mental breakdown and his embracing the whipped horse. This event is more profound than anything Nietzsche ever wrote.

>>18411949
>The only moment in his life he was right and admirable was at his mental breakdown and his embracing the whipped horse.
But the event with the horse (true or not) summarizes his philosophy (the Platonist brutalizing nature), so if that moment is "right and admirable" then so is his philosophy.

>>18411974
What a superficial and blatantly erroneous interpretation of the symbolism (and message) of that event. Nietzsche has always preached the force of will, the cyclical force of violence that is nature. That moment of resignation is nothing but pure metanoia the absolute transcendence from, so to speak, sublation of, nature.

>>18411909
wrong, Heidegger is very different from Nietzsche

>>18410891
You dont understand his ontology. A = A isnt an accurate representation of anything

>>18410492
If you didnt read N after Kant (and recognize that he is toiling within his epistemic paradigm) then you fucked up.

>>18411144
i cant into philosophy before the xix century

>>18410548
Sounds like a you problem

>>18410891
>The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposition that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’. This postulate is accepted as an axiom for a multitude of practical human actions and elementary generalisations. But in reality ‘A’ is not equal to ‘A’. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens—they are quite different from each other. But, one can object, the question is not of the size or the form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar—a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true—all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment”.

>Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this “axiom”, it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word “moment”? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that “moment” to inevitable changes. Or is the “moment” a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.

>>18410582
>>18410737
midwits (im not talking about the anons I quoted) will think these aphorism are contradictory
this is the root of people who get filtered by Nietzsche, they think in black and white

>>18412019
>Nietzsche has always preached the force of will, the cyclical force of violence that is nature.
There's a difference between Nietzsche's force of will and the Platonist's brutalization of nature, the latter which he routinely rejects and criticizes. You'd know this if you weren't a fucking retard.

>>18412072
Nietzsche doesn't have an ontology, that's the joke.

>>18412120
kek what a brainlet

>>18412096
This is the most braindead thing I witnessed today. He is confounding particular with universal, genera with individuals. Of course a grain of salt will not be the same as another grain of salt, a particular is not not its own genus but not another particular. Really really dumb needing to appeal to “muh but everything is in time and uhh time changes so everything changes”.

>>18412096
A rare glimpse into the mind of someone with down syndrome, thanks anon.

>>18412119
I’m not even pointing to a metaphysical critique of Nietzsche, dum dum. All I’m saying is that Nietzsche did not see things clearly his entire life, he was always on the side of the crowd, of that irrational and blind force which subjugates everything and everyone, being the true slave.

>>18412144
>All I’m saying is that Nietzsche did not see things clearly his entire life, he was always on the side of the crowd,
Ok, but you haven't provided any rationale for this assertion whatsoever.

>>18412144
>All I’m saying is
All you're saying is that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

>>18412134
care to elaborate without the ad hominems?
>>18412142
not an argument

>>18412144
is so easy so spot retards who havent read him and base his opinion about him around a few quotes mixed with the interpretation of retarded right wingers

>>18412134
he is saying the universal isnt a real thing and has no informative (theoretical) value, just practical

>>18412157
I literally told you the reason why that post is retarded.

>>18412142
Lmao

>>18412157
You want an argument? Alright sure. Buckle up.
>But everything exists in time
[unfounded axiom]
>and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation
[unfounded axiom]
>ime is consequently a fundamental element of existence
[unfounded axiom]
Hmm, really looks like neet is the sophist here.
>Thus the axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.
If some THING does not change, that means it must necessarily exist, because it is a thing and it isn't changing. If some "thing" changes, that "thing" does not exist, because it is in a process of change, as neet already described himself. Neet can't even into the most basic distinction between being and becoming.

>>18412182
A non-existent thing is pragmatic? He is actually devaluating the practical in detriment to a sterile theoretical one. And it is easy to deny universals, but even him in his claim that one grain of salt is different from another, can’t escape it.

>>18412185
I dont see how is he confusing the particular to the universal

>>18412147
>>18412155
>>18412167
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/rene-girard-the-last-nietzschean/

I don’t need to type anything else.

>>18412228
>I don’t need to type anything else.
Convenient, considering you can't.

If you get your idiotic view of Nietzsche from Girard then clearly Girard is an idiot regarding Nietzsche as well.

>>18412202
the things existing in time thing is from Kant
they are talking about spacetime events
something that isnt in time (i.e. something that doesnt change) cant be a source of synthetic knowledge

>>18412211
Grains of salt exist individually and each are not every one which it isn’t, that is, one is not all the others, but none of them is not a grain of salt because they are not what grains of salt aren’t (they are not grain of rice, grain of sand, a television).

>>18412236
Try reading the article and understanding my posts before trying to shut me so desperately.

>>18412251
Why should I read the article? Can you not make the argument yourself? You already posted your utterly trite and retarded view of Nietzsche in the thread, so I have no reason to think that article won't be any less full of shit.

>>18412240
>they are talking about spacetime events
Ok? That has no relation to A = A.
>something that isnt in time (i.e. something that doesnt change) cant be a source of synthetic knowledge
Yes, it can. Mathematics and logic is ample proof.

>>18410891
Langan builds solar systems on this

>>18412257
It is detailed and analyses Nietzsche directly. Surely you cant keep your interpretation about how Nietzsche went out of himself to protect nature against a coachman representing platonism. But I know what it is truly behind it: fear. You are afraid.

Can you counter his arguments about Foucault, Deleuze, Kaufman and Heidegger misinterpreting Nietzsche?

>>18411144
That's what they said to Nietzche who prophecied the Modern world's calamities from the vantage point of being the most erudite of Renaissance legacy since Schopenhauer

>>18412311
>It is detailed and analyses Nietzsche directly.
And yet it reaches a completely moronic and useless conclusion of him as evidenced by your posts. Thanks, but I'll pass.

>Surely you cant keep your interpretation about how Nietzsche went out of himself to protect nature against a coachman representing platonism.
I easily can. The coachman, who is drunk on his own consciousness, lashes out at the beast, a classic case of idealist barbarity subjecting the unconscious to demands it is not designed for. This is the tradition of Platonism, which constricts the knowledge of life to the values of human consciousness, and as such possesses a history of brutalizing nature in this way.

>>18412311
Uhh, anon, you know that event never actually happened right? You're arguing about hypotheticals.

>>18410541
Jew.

>>18412322
Nietzsche specifically condones misinterpretation in Genealogy, in the section on truth. There's not really much to be gained in pointing out how people misinterpreted him.

>>18412335
You pass something you don’t read and know nothing about. I see.
Why are you bringing platonism again to the discussion? Your reading doesn’t even make sense. Platonism reinforces nature giving it its full expression, it is the anti idealist who divests nature of its true contents which culminate, as Platonism posits, in beauty. But of course you nietzscheans hate beauty and life. Anyhow the most pertinent critique of Nietzsche and final authority lies not in metaphysical critique, as I already said, but in the immanent, anthropological and existential.

>>18412356
His breakdown isn’t, is it? The event in any case tells a lot and is the perfect symbolic of his own tragedy.

>>18412395
>But of course you nietzscheans hate beauty and life.
You're so fucking thickheaded it's incredible. And of course, you didn't really address anything I wrote. Absolutely pathetic.

>>18412414
I knew you would react in this exact manner. Not that it doesn’t speak the truth. You claim that I did not address anything you wrote when I was the one referring to the existential and anthropological conditions and critiques of Nietzsche and you keep bringing platonism into the discussion, you claim I didn’t address anything you wrote about platonism/idealism when I was the one contesting your distorted and caricatural presentation of it.
Why do you do this to yourself?

>>18412446
>I knew you would react in this exact manner.
>*teleports behind u*
>heh, I knew your every move, kid
The unwarranted conceit is palatable.

It's obvious you don't understand the terms being discussed here. You don't even understand what will means to Nietzsche yet think you can talk about how his "force of will" and his philosophy is in jeopardy due to the horse myth (it isn't, not even remotely), and because of this you don't understand his opposition to Platonism or what I'm telling you regarding it. Enjoy being lost in your own sauce like the dogmatic retard you clearly are.

>>18412457
>>18412446
get a room you two

>>18410492
Both authors suck and are considered memes. Nietzsche was a self-deluded artist, and when he tried to write actual philosophy he ended up being wrong about everything. Wittgenstein is useless once you realize he had that particular form of autism that makes you say the obvious with rollercoaster-tier circumlocutions.

But I understand, when you are still very young you are attracted to easy things, the same way you are attracted to Hollywood superhero movies.

>>18412457
>your dogmatic!
>what? No! I’m not reading a critique of Nietzsche because you are dogmatic and retard and you just dont get Nietzsche
Yeah the end of his life is interesting and says a lot but I will never forgive him for creating the most empty, nihilistic and dumb lemmings that are his followers.

>>18412490
I'm not reading the article because you're the one defending it and you're a retard who refuses to discuss Nietzsche on his own terms. That's not dogmatic, that's practical.

>>18412502
Well you are the one ignoring everything I said and retorting with “shut up retard you dont get Nietzsche” over and over again without any substantial contestation.

>>18412512
Nothing was ignored, you're just fucking wrong, you imbecile. Try explaining Nietzsche's understanding of will to me. You'll get something wrong.

>>18410548
Heideggerbros...

>>18412527
>nothing was ignored
Yeah only the very point I made which is fundamental not only to understanding the late stage Nietzsche but his entire life and philosophy, refusing to read a supplementary article.
You are dumb and mentally handicapped stop talking to me.

>>18412588
>Yeah only the very point I made
I dismantled it, retard. Learn to read.

>stop talking to me.
Nah, I'll keep shitting on you until you fuck off from the thread. Too many non-reader faggots like you on this board these days.

>>18412610

>>18412588
You're both gay for arguing over the validity of his philosophical points. Nietzsche's writings had a huge influence on literature and culture almost the same as Jung and Freud influenced psychology and Marx influenced politics and economics. While each had their share of harebrained ideas the framework for discussion on these authors should be on their significant influence over time on other writers. Faggots

>>18412610
You dismantled nothing, lol. You couldn’t even get the metaphysical point right. You have no idea what platonism and idealism is.

>non-reader
I literally told you that article analyses Nietzsche directly, there are citations by and engages with him directly.

>>18412696
"Platonism" refers to the Socratic Judeo-Christian metaphysics underscoring philosophy for the last ~2000 years. This is the same metaphysics that has, as stated before, constricted the knowledge of life to the values of human consciousness. This is what Nietzsche opposed and this is how the horse myth doesn't at all undermine his philosophy except for retards like you who don't address him on his terms and instead rely on semantic disputes.

>I literally told you that article analyses Nietzsche directly, there are citations by and engages with him directly.
Even if it does this, it clearly derives an erroneous conclusion from his work and probably doesn't address Nietzsche on his terms the same way you don't and I am using you as my reason for suspecting this. There's no point in discussing Nietzsche if you aren't going to discuss him on his terms.

>>18412687
I'm not arguing over validity, I'm arguing over clarity.

>>18410492
Read Kant and Hegel you fucking idiot, what are you doing. German idealism is one of the most important movements in philosophy, I don’t even understand how you can say what you just said wtf

>>18412837
You are so dumb and clueless you don't know how the metaphysical reduction is just a development of a phenomenological reductive experience from a primordial violence which is the basis of culture itself.

>This is what Nietzsche opposed
It is not all of his philosophy and what is most important in his philosophy has to do exactly with what I just said above: he does not engage with metaphysics metaphysically.

>I will not read anything you post because it is clearly wrong since you don't agree with me that plato was evil because uhh life is what I want it to be, so yeah I know that article derives erroneous conclusions even though I didn't even open it.

Anyway, you are a waste of time, bye bullhead.

>>18412837
> Socratic Judeo-Christian metaphysics
Christian metaphysics is radically different than ancient Greek metaphysics, of which there are a few variations. Only with Aquinas do we get a proper systematic metaphysics that conforms to Christianity, Augustine for example is just smushing the Greeks and Christianity together incoherently. Post-Descartes western philosophy reverts back to a somewhat Greek mode with some unexamined Scholastic precepts lingering, until Hume and Kant just destroy the whole thing. Nietzsche is an advanced stage of delirium in which there are not even the stirrings of coherent metaphysics, something he did intentionally obviously.

>>18412904
>spends over two hours arguing with anon and calling him a retard
>anyway, you are a waste of time, bye bullhead

>>18412904
>the metaphysical reduction is just a development of a phenomenological reductive experience from a primordial violence which is the basis of culture itself.
Who is disputing this? Yes, human consciousness (metaphysics and logic) has developed out of innate biological drives and our civilization is founded on it, not to mention relies on it in order to function. Nietzsche doesn't argue that this consciousness is useless or should be abandoned. Instead, he re-emphasizes the importance of the unconscious and points out, with examples, how the glorification of consciousness in philosophy, since the time of Socrates and since the course was set for philosophy to become dominated by the affairs of truth and the good, has hindered our capacity for wisdom and greatness.

>he does not engage with metaphysics metaphysically.
He's not interested in doing so, so why should he? He's not arguing against its validity, he's arguing against the totalitarian death grip it has had over philosophy.

>>18412982
i disagree. nietzsche's metaphysical philosophies are coherent if you consider that the secular metaphysics follows logically from the judeo christian metaphysics

>>18412998
>has developed out of innate biological drives
Wrong again. Try rereading the post, phenomenological reduction has nothing to do with biological impulses, retard, holy shit.

>he re-emphasizes the importance of the unconscious
Yes and what I am telling you, what Girard says and that article demonstrates is exactly this and how this affected his philosophy and life in the end. You can read Nietzsche all you want, you will never understand him because you are a stubborn dumbfuck.

>>18413048
>phenomenological reduction has nothing to do with biological impulses
Our ideas, words, symbols and meanings stem from our biology, which is evolving. Whatever you think you know that has no tie to the biological, you are wrong about its nature.

>and how this affected his philosophy and life in the end.
I've read Spengler's essay on this and found it extremely agreeable. So far from what you told me, I wouldn't find a single interesting thing about Girard's assessment.

>You can read Nietzsche all you want, you will never understand him
But I do understand him.

>Were the existence of [the metaphysical] world ever so well proved, the fact would nevertheless remain that it would be precisely the most irrelevant of all forms of knowledge: more irrelevant than the knowledge of the chemical analysis of water to the sailor in danger in a storm.
Human, All Too Human

>Consciousness is the last and latest development of the organic and hence also what is most unfinished and unstrong. Consciousness gives rise to countless errors that lead an animal or man to perish sooner than necessary, "exceeding destiny," as Homer puts it. If the conserving association of the instincts were not so very much more powerful, and if it did not serve on the whole as a regulator, humanity would have to perish of its misjudgments and its fantasies with open eyes, of its lack of thoroughness and its credulity—in short, of its consciousness; rather, without the former, humanity would long have disappeared. Before a function is fully developed and mature it constitutes a danger for the organism, and it is good if during the interval it is subjected to some tyranny. Thus consciousness is tyrannized—not least by our pride in it. One thinks that it constitutes the kernel of man; what is abiding, eternal, ultimate, and most original in him. One takes consciousness for a determinate magnitude. One denies its growth and its intermittences. One takes it for the "unity of the organism." This ridiculous overestimation and misunderstanding of consciousness has the very useful consequence that it prevents an all too fast development of consciousness. Believing that they possess consciousness, men have not exerted themselves very much to acquire it; and things haven't changed much in this respect. To this day the task of incorporating knowledge and making it instinctive is only beginning to dawn on the human eye and is not yet clearly discernible; it is a task that is seen only by those who have comprehended that so far we have incorporated only our errors and that all our consciousness relates to errors.
The Gay Science

Those quotes support what I said here >>18412998 regarding his priorities towards consciousness and metaphysics.

>>18412322
Everyone "misinterprets" Nietzsche. It's inevitable because the man never made a truly coherent system of philosophy. No matter what anyone says about what he believed, someone else can point to this or that part of his work and say., "no, he totally didn't believe that because here he is saying something completely different."

>>18413100
>It's inevitable because the man never made a truly coherent system of philosophy.
*refutes you*

>>18413099
Metaphysics and phenomenology prove you wrong laughingly. Whatever you take in the material world predicates the beyond-particulars.

>So far from what you told me
What did I tell you?

>>18413099
Ah, also, argument from reason makes you come out as the utter retard you are.

>>18413120
Metaphysics and phenomenology can suck my biological dick.

>What did I tell you?
A lot of horseshit, for example, that his understanding of metaphysics was loaded with resentment, which is baseless as well as a useless assertion for understanding Nietzsche's position.

>>18413134
>understanding of metaphysics
No, lol. How many times do I need to repeat I didn't come with metaphysical arguments once regarding Nietzsche? You don't even understand what I'm saying.

>>18413139
>No, lol
You're right, I did a quick re-read of your original post just now and misread, it wasn't about his understanding of metaphysics. The assertion was just that he was loaded with resentment, which is just as baseless and useless.

>>18413151
You are a really pathetic being. You misinterpret and distort what I say, don't even try to understand it, refuse to read a detailed description of what I'm saying, starts bringing up what has nothing to do with the discussion (metaphysics), I show how you don't understand what it and platonism are but you keep with the same caricatural convictions, accuses me of saying something I didn't say, retract yourself accusing me of doing another I did (showing why I pointed his resentment out, giving a fucking article about it).
You are miserable.

>>18413175
>You misinterpret and distort what I say
I just admitted that I did a quick re-read and misread. But go ahead, spare yourself from addressing me because of this minor error.

>starts bringing up what has nothing to do with the discussion (metaphysics)
Where?

>I show how you don't understand what it and platonism are
I don't care what your precious little snowflake understanding of Platonism is (it's dogmatic drivel), you don't have a clue what Nietzsche's philosophy entails yet you act smug about having (in your mind) disputed it with a stupid myth AND you reply arrogantly to every single person who tells you where you're mistaken.

>I pointed his resentment out
There is none, and I read and studied Nietzsche to figure that out, not a random article on the internet.

>>18412134
>>18412142
absolutely filtered, no wonder this board trips over itself when metaphysics is discussed

>>18410492
>Can you take philosophy serious anymore after these two?
I couldn't. I don't believe the truth can be understood through words anymore, or rather, I don't believe in a truth presented through words. It's all just models - some accurate, some not - given through language. The human mind is not able to grasp the universe, all we do is observe causality and make rules, and we do that by dividing the whole into man-made identities before we make connections between these imaginary identities.
Reading philosophy is very rewarding though, I liked it a lot before I stopped believing. Once I saw it as a game of dead guys trying to one-up an even older and deader guy I couldn't take it seriously anymore.

I'm not happier now though, so if you believe this wild goose chase will lead you to the truth then the more power to you, stick to it.

>>18413309
Nietzsche will always be met with strawmen on this board because /lit/ isn't alpha enough.

>>18410941
Neech was the youngest tenured professor in German philosophy at that point. He knew more than you.

>>18410492
But how do you reconcile the two? Take for instance, Nietzsche focus on internal feelings and forces VS. Wittgensteins decentering of them with the private language argument.

>>18413314
This. "Worüber man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen." The whole of Western philosophy from Kant on is based on a fundamental misapprehension. Eastern philosophy has been closer to the truth 5000 years before.

>>18413580
Wittgenstein : Noooo you have to pass over in silence!!!
Derrida : No thank you

>>18413309
>>18412244

>>18413454
based

>>18412096
>russian intellectuals

>>18412096
this reads like something Neil Degrasse Tyson would write

>>18412228
>Girard insists, as he does later, that Nietzsche’s insanity stemmed not from syphilis or some other physiological origin, but rather from his inability to temper his obsessions. Girard asserts, “The insanity of a Nietzsche and of many others is rooted in an experience with which none of us can be really unfamiliar.” [...] Nietzsche’s pathologies, thus, represent only exaggerated normal human tendencies.
People take this seriously? It literally opens with a straw man.

>>18414801
Keep reading and you can see why the insanity is familiar to all of us in a way or another. There is no strawman there and you probably don't know what strawman fallacy means.

>>18412096
He's right, take the becoming > being pill

>>18414832
Nietzsche had friends and family visit and living with him those years. He didn't just cease his writing mid-sentence and become an invalid because of an "inability to temper his obsessions." It was obviously physiological; his father suffered a similar case.

http://www.leonardsax.com/Nietzsche.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140521184723/http://www.brainlife.org/reprint/2007/owen_070900.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20110706132408/http://www.actaneurologica.be/acta/download/2008-1/02-Hemelsoet%20et%20al.pdf

>>18414873
It has nothing to do with something like ''Nietzsche got crazy? That means his philosophy has these implications,,,''. No. There is a detailed examination of his writings and last publications, and the speculated event plus his mental breakdown represent perfectly his entire philosophy culminating in the Will to Power and the Dionysus versus the Crucified.

>>18410541
we speak in a language

>>18412096
He's right and people who waste their time with "standard" philosophy hate him for it. Metaphysics and ontology have just been one long joke based on pattern recognition being taken too seriously.

>>18411128

That's pretty much what I got out of it

>>18415956
i know right imagine taking reason and logic seriously

>>18415668
Girard doesn't understand the full implications of Nietzsche's Dionysian, which is the will to power, and this part demonstrates it:

>[Nietzsche] thinks he is against the crowd, but he doesn’t realize that the dionysian unanimity is the voice of the crowd . . . What Nietzsche doesn’t see is the mimetic nature of unanimity. He doesn’t seize the meaning of the Christian reflection of the mob phenomenon. He does not see that the dionysiac is the spirit of the crowd, of the mob, and the Christian is the heroic exception.

>>18416083
Interesting, but you need to substantiate. What are the full implications of Nietzsche's Dionysius and how does that quote miss it?

>>18416050
taking them seriously brought us the industrial revolution and its consequences, so yeah

>>18416120
Nietzsche didn't reserve the will to power all for himself, or for his hyperboreans, or even for master moralists. It is very much a force that is prevalent everywhere, even in the herd and in slave moralists, and Nietzsche knew this. Girard is mistaken there as to how Nietzsche positioned himself against the herd and how he evaluated the herd and its desires, and he limited the scope of Nietzsche's will to power when he said it is the "spirit of the crowd" as if this was an oversight on Nietzsche's part.

>>18416083
>He does not see that the dionysiac is the spirit of the crowd, of the mob, and the Christian is the heroic exception.
Imagine getting filtered this hard by ancient Greek myths lmao

>>18413309
There is no argument in that post. It's retardation at its finest.

>>18412096
Retroactively refuted by Guenon.

>“It should be made clear just what is meant by the word ‘metaphysics’, and all the more so since I have frequently had an opportunity to note that not everyone understands it in quite the same way. I think the best course to take in dealing with words that might give rise to ambiguity is to restore to them as much as possible their primal and etymological meaning. Now, according to its composition, the word ‘metaphysics’ means literally ‘beyond physics’, taking the word ‘physics’ in the accepted sense it was always used by the ancients, that is to say as ‘knowledge of nature’ in the widest sense. Physics is the study of all that pertains to the domain of nature;
metaphysics, on the other hand, is the study of that which lies beyond nature” (Guénon 2001a: 88), and thus is supernatural.

René Guénon states that it is not possible to define metaphysics, “because to define is always to limit, and what is under consideration, in and of itself, is truly and absolutely limitless and thus cannot be confined to any formula or any system whatsoever” (Guénon 2004: 89 f). Metaphysics can only be partially characterized, for example, that it “is essentially the knowledge of the Universal, or the knowledge of principles belonging to the universal order, which moreover alone can validly lay claim to the name of principles” (ibid.: 71). Thus the metaphysical knowledge differs radically from the other modes of human knowledge. This raises the question of which approach to metaphysics can be found. Before Guénon answers, he states: “Metaphysics can only be studied metaphysically” (ibid.: 74).

Basically, it is considered that metaphysical conceptions “can never be completely expressed, nor even imagined, since their essence is attainable by the pure and ‘formless’ intelligence alone; they vastly exceed all possible forms, especially the formulas in which language tries to enclose them, which are always inadequate and tend to restrict their scope and therefore distort them. These formulas, like all symbols, can only serve as a starting-point, a ‘support’ so to speak, which acts as an aid towards understanding that which in itself remains inexpressible; it is up to each man to try to conceive it according to the extent of their own intellectual powers, making good, in proportion to their success, the unavoidable deficiencies of formal and limited expression” (ibid.: 74 f).

>>18416228
Retroactively refuted by Cratylus.

>>18416233
Post it

>>18416238
Seven haven't no gym froth only.

>>18410541
http://mileswmathis.com/russ.pdf

>>18410541
Jewish mystic in disguise

Nietzsche was just bullshitting his way to whatever he felt like at the time, and made numerous critiques that would most strongly and pertinently be applied to him. The effete moral center tricking the strong man to be under his power is Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a physically and politically powerless person whose writing influenced actual political strongmen like Hitler. His life story is a series of boundless potentials destroyed by his own failures.
This has led to his disciples to believe in him as something of a mystic, with themselves being the enlightened with the appropriate intellect to "understand Nietzsche." They're toolbags.
His last act of vigor in collapsing at the sight of the whipped horse? It was far deeper than any tome he ever wrote.

>>18416442
>vigor
>collapsing at the sight of the whipped horse
Explain. Do you mean strong emotion instead?

>>18410534
Nietzsche was trained in philology, not philosophy. That is why his philosophy is so dependent on the Greeks (rather than contemporary philosophy) because these were the things he studied in philology.
I remember reading a biography or something which was saying that Nietzsche likely never even read Kant or Hegel and just riffed of other peoples' critiques (either Goethe or Wagner).
You can see this clearly as he never really engages with contemporary (for his time) philosophers but just has off the cuff remarks about "good old Kant just trying to systematise everything lol what a retard"

>>18410557
>Those who can't argue in a clear way give away their own lack of confidence in the answer they are providing.
Such as?

>>18410492
I’ll break down every writer you’ll ever need. Take heed, I’m fully serious here and I know of what I speak:

Homer
Parmenides
Heraclitus
Empedocles
Iamblichus
Anacreon
Archilochus
Pindar
Sappho
Plato
Plotinus
Ovid
Lucretius
Horace
Vergil
Boethius
Petrarch
Dante
Boccaccio
Chaucer
Marlowe
Shakespeare
Cervantes
Goethe
Schiller
Schlegel
Novalis
Holderlin
Byron
Wordsworth
Keats
Shelley
Dickens
Hawthorne
Melville
Dickinson
Emerson
Whitman
Thoreau
Poe
Stevens
Crane
Pound
Eliot
Joyce
Pessoa
Peter Kingsley
Freud
Jung
Ashbery

Read these and re-read them often. You don’t need anyone else.

>>18410541
Early Wittgenstein:
Every philosophical problem can be reduced to being a semantical problem. Semantical problems could be avoided if langauge was precise enough, so maybe we should work on creating a perfect langauge.
(Early analytic philosophy went hard on this.)

Late Wittgenstein:
Language cannot be precise. As we speak, we enter into (what he calls) language games, where meaning is transfered not only by the language itself, but also by the context of the language, the speaker, personal experience of the person speaking, intentionality, education, culture, individual viewpoints, etc.
Look up the "beatle in a box" thought experiment.

>>18416146
But its being diffused in the crowd is exactly its being prevalent everywhere. In case you don’t know Girard always refers to violence and its dominating force, which is what the Dionysius myth is, the lynching of a crowd.

>>18416170
What do you think the myth of Dionysius is?

>>18416627
What am I supposed to get out of Empedocles?

>>18410492
you should read Kant (he influenced Wittgenstein by the way) for his theory of knowledge
and nietzsche even if he wrote very well missed many things

>>18416627
>No Augustine
>No Boethius
>No Hildegard

Well at least you had Dante and Plotinus

>>18416627

No Aristotle ?

>>18416606
>That is why his philosophy is so dependent on the Greeks (rather than contemporary philosophy)
Not really true. His later books are far more dependent on contemporary philosophy and science than the Greeks.

>I remember reading a biography or something which was saying that Nietzsche likely never even read Kant or Hegel and just riffed of other peoples' critiques (either Goethe or Wagner).
Likely Schopenhauer for both. Nietzsche read Schopenhauer in full.

>>18417218
>But its being diffused in the crowd is exactly its being prevalent everywhere.
Not just there. It is also prevalent in the individual, in the ubermensch, and in Girard's heroic exception. Will to power is not just the pursuit for power from a position of lack, or the struggle to preserve one's power, but also the release of power from a position of plenitude. As Nietzsche explains here in BGE 13:

>Physiologists should think twice before deciding that an organic being's primary instinct is the instinct for self-preservation. A living being wants above all else to release its strength; life itself is the will to power, and self-preservation is only one of its indirect and most frequent consequences. Here as everywhere, in short, we must beware of superfluous teleological principles! And this is what the instinct for self-preservation is (which we owe to the inconsistency of Spinoza). Such are the dictates of our method, which in essence demands that we be frugal with our principles.

>>18417825
Well, a crowd is composed of individuals, so I thought this would be implicit. Anyhow, I have no idea what is your point. Girard seems to be examining something different from this external theoretic presentation. Your quote is exactly what is implicit in Nietzsche and which Girard agrees with and that is why he refers to the unanimity of the mimetic desire and thus to the crowd and their dionysiac and nietzschean relation.

>>18417843
>Well, a crowd is composed of individuals
Not for me, for Nietzsche, or for contemporary thinkers. Nietzsche:

>When a hundred men stand together, each of them loses his mind and gets another one.

A crowd is not composed of individuals in the modern sense of what we perceive an individual to be. A crowd is a collection of beings that has become as uniform as possible, or as less individualistic as possible.

>Anyhow, I have no idea what is your point. Girard seems to be examining something different from this external theoretic presentation.
My point is that Girard doesn't understand the full implications of Nietzsche's Dionysian (which is his will to power) as I stated before. He thinks his Christian hero is an exception to it, but it isn't, and he thinks the will to power solely makes one crowd-like, but it doesn't solely do that.

>>18417865
A crowd being composed of individuals and a crowd being its own force are not mutually exclusive. A crowd is a whole and individuals its parts. Period. But it is precisely this “mind of a crowd” or force of a crowd, as different from that of the individual (in intensity especially) which is the whole point.
>Nietzsche’s dionysian
Yeah you said that but you didn’t explain properly.

>will to power crowd-like
All relations are relations of power, or better yet, power will always be relational. This is the nature of mimetic desire, this is its force. There is nothing more obvious than its expression in the mob, as you said, it is seen in the mob’s unanimity, homogeneity.

Heidegger is the new nexus of philosophy.

>>18417898

The point is that people sacrifice their individuality to be integrated into the crowd. "The individual" is probably not even a good ontological ground for being human, or a person, agent, etc

>>18417898
>But it is precisely this “mind of a crowd” or force of a crowd, as different from that of the individual (in intensity especially) which is the whole point.
Yes, "herd" and "individual" refer to differences in intensity, and both are part of the will to power.

>Yeah you said that but you didn’t explain properly.
Well, what still seems hazy about the will to power to you? We can start there, and I can try to address your questions or concerns.

>All relations are relations of power, or better yet, power will always be relational. This is the nature of mimetic desire, this is its force. There is nothing more obvious than its expression in the mob, as you said, it is seen in the mob’s unanimity, homogeneity.
Yes, but my point was that Girard was only addressing a "superfluous teleological principle" about the will to power and denigrating it to the expression of the herd, whereas Nietzsche never distances himself from the herd in any sense other than in the intensity mentioned above. That's why he was mistaken in thinking he could refute Nietzsche's opposition to the herd or that the Christian is a heroic exception to the will to power.

>>18413215
René Girard is right about Nietzsche. And Eric Voegelin's and Carl Jung's assessment about him is adequate, too.

>>18418003
>René Girard is right about Nietzsche.
He's wrong about the will to power. See
>>18416083
>>18416146
>>18417825
>>18417865
>>18417973

>>18417934
They don’t sacrifice their individuality, not consciously, insofar as it is the will which integrates, it is willingly and the expression of the will begins individually. Like what was said: there is difference in the intensity.

>>18417973
>herd and individual refer to differences in intensity, and both are part of the will to power.
Perfect.

>Girard was addressing a superfluous teleological principle
What do you mean? Girard posits no teleology in the impulse, in the will, only in the means employed to manifest and “fulfill” (a particular - for the will in general is never satiated) will.

>denigrating it to the expression of the herd
It is not a denigration. There is a facticity in the crowd concerning the will and the will of the individual. All become a single will, a single impulse, a single force.

There is no refutation from Girard, he thinks Nietzsche saw things right but could not see just one thing:
>Nietzsche thinks he is against the crowd, but he doesn’t realize that the dionysian unanimity is the voice of the crowd . . . What Nietzsche doesn’t see is the mimetic nature of unanimity. He doesn’t seize the meaning of the Christian reflection of the mob phenomenon. He does not see that the dionysiac is the spirit of the crowd, of the mob, and the Christian is the heroic exception.

It is just this little thing that makes so great a difference not only to what it is opposed, but what it itself (represented in the dionysiac impulse) is.

>>18418012
None of that is a refutation to what Girard showed. Most of those posts didn’t even get to the point Girard made.

>>18418042
>Girard posits no teleology in the impulse, in the will, only in the means employed to manifest and “fulfill” (a particular - for the will in general is never satiated) will.
Then on what grounds did he say that Nietzsche didn't realize that the will to power is the "voice of the crowd" or that the Christian is a heroic exception to it?

>>18418050
>Most of those posts didn’t even get to the point Girard made.
Please explain in your own words what Girard's point is then.

>>18418113
On the dionysiac spirit and Nietzsche himself. Also that quote on the crowd’s unanimity and the mimetic force spread among the individuals of the crowd says a lot. Paganism is the religion of the world, of the crowd and the people - myth points to the primordial events of the formation of the community (unanimity expressed exactly by the common will against the victim, scapegoat mechanism) and hence cultural formation.

>The Christian passion is not anti-Jewish, as the vulgar antisemites believe; it is anti-pagan; it reinterprets religious violence in such a negative fashion as to make its perpetrators feel guilty for committing it, even for silently accepting it.

Reading some of the works by Girard would make everything much clearer and obvious.

>>18418275
>Also that quote on the crowd’s unanimity and the mimetic force spread among the individuals of the crowd says a lot.
My issue, ultimately, is that it ignores how the will to power manifests itself in the Christian "exception" (in that quote at least). If he is suggesting that there is any exception to the will to power possible, then he doesn't fully understand it, or he isn't being very honest about this Christian "exception" of his or his address to Nietzsche (see pic related for example).

>>18418275
>Paganism is the religion of the world
That is one incredibly dumb statement - and not for the obvious reason you'll probably think of.

>>18418551
>My issue, ultimately, is that it ignores how the will to power manifests itself in the Christian "exception" (in that quote at least). If he is suggesting that there is any exception to the will to power possible, then he doesn't fully understand it
He is not so much worried with the theoretical implications of the will to power, but its facticity, its intimate relation to human nature, or rather, its facticity as human nature itself.Therefore it all hinges on anthropological, existential field. Anything concerning an exception and the very ontology of will is metaphysics (again: not what Girard concerns himself with).

>>18418570
I said very briefly why it is a worldly religion.

>>18418570
Ah and also you ignored conveniently the picture attached.

>>18418947
>Anything concerning an exception and the very ontology of will is metaphysics (again: not what Girard concerns himself with).
What error is he accusing Nietzsche of then? Girard is the one who mentioned the exception, not me, and his exception is not an exception, but a continuation of the will to power.

>>18419019
I thought Nietzsche likewise saw the exception and in the same thing: Christianity?

>his exception is not an exception
which is?

>but a continuation of the will to power.
how?

Another thread where pseuds can't undersand Nietzsche and other pseuds come and talk about Plato as their favorite philosopher because they heard about it and thought it's cool.

>>18419043
>I thought Nietzsche likewise saw the exception and in the same thing: Christianity?
No. Christianity and slave morality are not exceptions to the will to power. They are what we would call "negative" expressions of it (in the same way as one describes "positive" and "negative" electrical charges).

>how?
See the pic here >>18418551 and the third essay of Genealogy of Morals, "What Is the Meaning of Ascetic Ideals?"

If there is a meaning to a word it can only be viewed in relation to a system of social activity and a general system of words organized in some way. The same can be said of Philosophy. Philosophy can only be given a meaning, its identity and essence as an activity recognized when it is viewed from the outside and its relations to its others laid bare. Nietzsche and Wittgenstein are the masters of this movement. Nietzsche robs philosophy of its privileged position when he subjects it to a non-philosophical, genealogical and psychological analysis. Nietzsche does not ask the Philosophers question “Is this true?” but rather his own question, “What kind of Will believes this to be true?”. Wittgenstein is the same. His analysis of Philosophy in the Investigations is a linguistic and sociological one. He analyzes the use of language and how philosophy uses language, not to judge (other ordinary language philosophers tend to do this, but not Wittgenstein) certain uses of language as nonsense or invalid but to reveal Philosophy as an activity within the natural history of man. Wittgenstein and Nietzsche share a common thread. They return the capacities and activities that Philosophy alienated from the Human beings who possess, invent and practice them (Reason, Philosophy, Logic, Mathematics) back to the realm of Humans, their activities and their Will. Nearly every Philosophy makes an attempt to situate itself within the World of their own theory, in a meta-philosophical move. Hegel and Badio both attempt this. What differentiates Nietzsche and Wittgenstein’s method from meta-philosophy is that the analysis they use to situate Philosophy in a context and world is not itself Philosophical. It is an empirical, historical or linguistic study of the Philosophical, not a Philosophy of the empirical, historical or linguistic. Of course, neither of them are entirely free from Philosophical speculation, especially the later Nietzsche and the earlier Wittgenstein, but both display a new trend in thought.

Read Hegel to see how the problem of universals is dealt with ('language games').
Nietzsche didn't provide anything, really. He asked a lot of questions, attacked a lot of things, pointed out problems, but never actual answers. Read someone who truly understood him and took his philosophy much further (Bataille, for example).
Neither 'completed' philosophy. You just feel at safe because there isn't a grandiose system of philosophy, there isn't a lot of thinking, just pointing things out.

>>18419119
Negative will to power? Explain please. I think it is easier to go with Nietzsche and Girard and resume the difference to dionysius and Christ.

And they are not contradictories in an aristotelian sense. Christ is the revelation and the consumation of the dionysiac spirit. As I said already I guess, neither Girard nor Christianity deny the will (here I question why call will to something, implicating telelology, a maintenance of its own will, etc. will is power, will always wills itself), the will is actually essential not only to christian cosmogony, anthropogony and anthropology, but specially theologically/metaphysically.

>>18419080
Wow another retard in the thread, color me shocked

>>18419297
Being driven to destroy or negate is still being driven to act. Nietzsche at some points calls it a "Will-To-Nothingness" but he makes it clear that it is still a Will nevertheless. This is in contrast with the Last Man who is so passive he cannot even negate and deny life, does not even have enough drive or Will to end it. He represents the Nothingness of the Will while the active desire to destroy, negate, deny and degrade life in Christianity or the older form of Nihilism is a Will-to-Nothingness that is still very much a Will.

>>18419297
What is a negative electrical charge? The answer to that question should help illuminate what a negative expression of the will to power or life-force might look like. Nietzsche provides examples of this in the world, particularly in the form of the ascetic ideal, in the essay I mentioned. Another way to think about it is to go back to our earlier conversation about the difference in "intensity" between the individual and the herd, and how both polarities are representative of the will to power. Master and slave moralities are polarities.

>>18419342
Read this >>18418275. Read Girard, Freud, Sade and Klossowski. The will to pleasure, an apparent affirmation, does not contradict the death drive. All the qualified wills you categorize are nothing but will. Qualification or rationalization of will can only be a thing after its own mitigation. This is the reduction. This is the opposite of the natural attitude as Husserl would say. The supposed will-to-nothingness is a mitigation of the very natural attitude expressed in Dionysius and the irrational, that means ultimately of the irrational force/will/power/exasperation inherent in humanity and creation. This mitigation is nothing but the Sacred, the Consciousness, Metanoia out of pure will, pure violence. I will again just tell you to read Girard.

>>18419395
Nietzsche is undoubtedly right on the facticity of the will and its driving force. But there is no categorization in unqualified will, will per se. I think reading above might help with what I mean.

>>18419470
You have to let go of the myth of Dionysus if you want to better understand Nietzsche's will to power, because while his Dionysian in The Birth of Tragedy was an earlier version of the idea, he eventually distanced himself from that book and fleshed out the idea in meaningful new ways (hence the need to later re-coin it as the will to power). I think this is the main reason why you and why Girard argue what is essentially a straw man of the will to power. For example, it makes no sense to refer to the will to power as "the will and its driving force"; will IS force for Nietzsche, it is force all throughout rather than a thing that has a force behind it, so when Nietzsche talks about strength and weakness, or health and sickness, he is referring to these as polarities, merely differences in intensity of the same force.

>>18419556
Oh boy you are so mistaken here, like I don’t even know where to begin. Dionysius, ironically enough, is the beginning and end of his philosophy and life. Seriously, the more you scrutinize Nietzsche’s writings and life, the more you realize that what happened to him was divine providence. That he might have diverted from focusing on Dionysius during his middle period is true, you cannot understand Nietzsche without Dionysius. Will you keep ignoring Dionysus vs The Crucified?

>straw man of will to power (...) refer to will to power as will and driving force
That is not a straw man. That could be a tautology, but a figurative one indicating semantic emphasis. I was the one after all saying all the time how will, force, impulse, exasperation coincided and were in reality one. I even said Will to Power is likewise redundant.

Anyway, you ignore everything I say to literally do what you accuse me of: appeal to straw man. You are not honest. But after all this is what you affirm, your own will right? Even if it ends up distorting and misinterpreting what is implicated in Nietzsche.

>>18419650
>Dionysius, ironically enough, is the beginning and end of his philosophy and life.
Yes, but his Dionysus is not merely the Dionysus from Greek myth. I'm saying that you can't fully understand his will to power if all you do is relate it to the myth of Dionysus, so you have to let it go to better understand the idea. Nietzsche refines what he means by the Dionysian force later on and calls this refinement the will to power.

>That is not a straw man. That could be a tautology, but a figurative one indicating semantic emphasis. I was the one after all saying all the time how will, force, impulse, exasperation coincided and were in reality one. I even said Will to Power is likewise redundant.
Even if you said this, you don't fully grasp what it implies, as indicated here >>18419043

>>18419650
>>18419863
Also, I didn't ignore Dionysus vs the Crucified. This phrasing is symbolic of his will to power versus the Christian negation of the will to power (a negation which does NOT make it separate from the will to power, but a negative expression of it).

>>18419863
>>18419901
What is in my post that betrays my “not understanding” it? My asking you to explain things? My saying Christianity is an exception or opposition to the dionysiac?

Anyhow you know the Dionysus of myth refers to something, right? The dionysiac spirit is not a superficial metaphor as you think it is. It is will itself, it represents the very nature of will, this ouroboric cycle, as nietzsche himself will say, life and death. Yes, it clearly affirms life but it also affirms death. The nietzschean rationalized categories of will are nothing but what will is, nothing but Dionysus, he slaughters and he is slaughtered. Christian metanoia is the elusion of this anthropological ouroboros.

>>18419863
>>18419901
I'll also point out that, in the end, the Dionysian consumed the Apollonian for Nietzsche. Nietzsche described the Dionysian and the Apollonian as a difference in tempo, with the Apollonian, which is the classical or the grand style, being a slower, higher, more refined feeling of the will to power, or in other words the Dionysian. The Christian, like any nihilist, likewise, became part of the Dionysian worldview for him. In the end, Nietzsche still championed Dionysus, but had a far deeper understanding of his god than he did when he first started writing.

>>18419972
>What is in my post that betrays my “not understanding” it?
The post itself did. That you weren't even sure what a negative expression of the will to power could be, or that Nietzsche thought that the Christian was an exception to it. This tells me you don't fully understand it. Dionysus reigned supreme in the end, which means the will to power became everything in the end, and the terms Nietzsche employed, like strength and weakness or health and sickness or life-affirming and life-denying, became descriptions of different tempos of the Dionysian / will to power. This is why so many analyze Nietzsche in a musical sense, because his philosophy really is very musical.

>>18419972
>>18420014
By the way,

>Christian metanoia is the elusion of this anthropological ouroboros.
It isn't an elusion of Nietzsche's will to power, though the Christian would like to think it is, just like how the Buddhist would like to step off the wheel, but again, Nietzsche's will to power does not permit this. Because of Nietzsche's understanding of the Dioynsian / will to power, there is no separating from it, except by magical means, which is to say by being ignorant, which means there is no way to separate from it.

>>18420014
>had a far deeper understanding of his god than he did when he first started writing.
This is all I'm telling you for two fucking days.
Are you unaware of what you are doing? You reject everything I say to pick up minor details of my posts and keep repeating will to power is this specific thing you don't explain at all when afterwards you just come to say that will to power is just will agreeing with me but of course without declaring it.
>negative expression of the will to power
My saying that christianity is the negative expression and that the dionysiac will is ouroboric, cyclical, makes it literally the elusion of it. It is will but beyond this cyclical affirmative-negative will implied in the dionysiac.

>Dionysus reigned supreme in the end, which means the will to power became everything in the end.
Yes and this is, AGAIN (seriously I think I repeated myself like 20 times in this conversation with you, I doubt at this point you read anything I post), what I am telling you, pointing to Girard.
But it is funny to know that the expression of the full manifestation of will to power was the last words Nietzsche uttered: MUTTER ICH BIN DUMM.

Nietzsche believes he opposes the crowd mentality, but he doesn't recognize his Dionysian stance as the supreme expression of the mob in its most brutal and most stupid tendencies (hence the insanity, hence his last words, hence fricking Dionysus).
>Christianity does not yield to ulterior motives of resentment in its concern to rehabilitate victims. It is not seduced by a contaminated charity of resentment. What it does is to rectify the illusion of myths; it exposes the lie of the ''satanic accusation''.
>Since Nietzsche is blind to mimetic rivalry and its contagion, he doesn't see that the Gospel stance toward victims does not come from prejudice inf avor of the weak agaisnt the strong but is heroic resistance to violent contagion.
>Nietzsche had to trick himself to avoid clearly seeing this. To escape the consequences of his own discovery and persist in a desperate negation of the biblical truth of the victim, Nietzsche resorts to an evasion so gross, so unworthy of his best thinking, that his mind could not hold out against it. For it is not by accident that the explicit discovery of what Dionysus and the Crucified have in common and what separates them occurs so shortly before his final breakdown. Nietzsche's devotees try to empty his insanity of all meaning. We can understand perfectly why. The nonsense of madness plays a protective role in their thought just as madness itself functions for Nietzsche. Nietzsche the philosopher was unable to sit back comfortably in the monstrosities into which th need to minimize his discovery was driving him. And so he took refuge in madness.

(1/2)

>>18420241
>>18420014
>To elude his own discovery and to defend mythological violence, Nietzsche is obliged to justify human sacrifice, and he doesn't hesitate to do so, resorting to horrifying arguments. He raises the stakes even on the worst social Darwinism. He suggests that to avoid degenerating, societies must get rid of humans who are waste, who hinder and weigh them down.

The cope of the nietzscheans is rampant.

(2/2)

Can't believe you two retards are still arguing about this a day and a half later

>>18420376
lmao hi friend, yeah this is what happens when you try to open the eyes of nietzscheans, they are obnoxious bullheads, i'm just trying to help them not to end up like their master

>>18410492
>I've got the feeling that I completed philosophy

OP is basically correct but you have to add Kant and Hegel if you want to really rustle the jimmies around here.

>>18420241
>My saying that christianity is the negative expression and that the dionysiac will is ouroboric, cyclical, makes it literally the elusion of it.
And as I said, this elusion is magical, as in it isn't really elusion at all, just the expression of a will deceiving itself through ignorance. Dionysian will to power is not only anthropological; it compresses everything, annihilating distinctions such as material and immaterial, and this is what happens when you do away with substance and maintain consistency on this point, as Nietzsche did.

>But it is funny to know that the expression of the full manifestation of will to power was the last words Nietzsche uttered: MUTTER ICH BIN DUMM.
This is just another straw man. There's no more validity to it than the story about the horse, and it can be reinterpreted in multiple ways.

>Nietzsche believes he opposes the crowd mentality, but he doesn't recognize his Dionysian stance as the supreme expression of the mob in its most brutal and most stupid tendencies (hence the insanity, hence his last words, hence fricking Dionysus).
Except he does recognize this. How else could he conceive of the world as the will to power? How else could he write this:

>The word "Dionysian" means: an urge to unity, a reaching out beyond personality, the everyday, society, reality, across the abyss of transitoriness: a passionate-painful overflowing into darker, fuller, more floating states; an ecstatic affirmation of the total character of life as that which remains the same, just as powerful, just as blissful, through all change; the great pantheistic sharing of joy and sorrow that sanctifies and calls good even the most terrible and questionable qualities of life; the eternal will to procreation, to fruitfulness, to recurrence; the feeling of the necessary unity of creation and destruction. The word "Apollinian" means: the urge to perfect self-sufficiency, to the typical "individual," to all that simplifies, distinguishes, makes strong, clear, unambiguous, typical: freedom under the law. [...] This antithesis of the Dionysian and the Apollinian within the Greek soul is one of the great riddles to which I felt myself drawn when considering the nature of the Greeks. Fundamentally I was concerned with nothing except to guess why precisely Greek Apollinianism had to grow out of a Dionysian subsoil; why the Dionysian Greek needed to become Apollinian; that is, to break his will to the terrible, multifarious, uncertain, frightful, upon a will to measure, to simplicity, to submission to rule and concept. The immoderate, disorderly Asiatic lies at his roots: the bravery of the Greek consists in his struggle with his Asiaticism; beauty is not given to him, as little as is logic or the naturalness of customs—it is conquered, willed, won by struggle—it is his victory.

>>18420245
>>18420532
Also, let me remind you that Girard is a Roman Catholic explaining Christianity in the modern age. This Christianity is not the same as the Christianity among the first century Jews, which is the version Nietzsche called slave morality. Nietzsche was well aware and wrote at length about how that ancient Christianity has long since mingled with nobler natures and as a result its origins have been obfuscated. He condemned the whole religion because he saw the project as doomed at this point, but this doesn't mean he condemned everything that the religion has since been associated with.

>For it is not by accident that the explicit discovery of what Dionysus and the Crucified have in common and what separates them occurs so shortly before his final breakdown.
All I see here is mere coincidence, but Girard found a connection because he sought a means to shut down Nietzsche's final condemnation of his religion.

>To elude his own discovery and to defend mythological violence, Nietzsche is obliged to justify human sacrifice, and he doesn't hesitate to do so, resorting to horrifying arguments. He raises the stakes even on the worst social Darwinism. He suggests that to avoid degenerating, societies must get rid of humans who are waste, who hinder and weigh them down.
What's the underlying argument here? "This guy is evil, therefore he is wrong." It's silly.

>>18420376
I like to argue, obviously. And maybe someone enjoys reading it.

>>18420580
>Nietzsche was well aware and wrote at length about how that ancient Christianity has long since mingled with nobler natures (indeed, he wrote that this early Christianity even started this way, mixing nobler feelings with the feelings of the sick and the weak, sickness and weakness in the Nietzschean sense discussed above) and as a result its origins have been obfuscated.

Just to clarify...

>>18420532
>it's just ignorance
Brilliant way of disregarding everything implied there. Showing again how dishonest you are.

>it compresses everything, annihilating distinctions such as material and immaterial
You have no idea how everything you say thinking nietzschean, dionysiac will eludes the points made by me are exactly what Girard says about will/violence, mimetic behavior, and phenomenologically pre-reductive reason, that is, irrationality.

>This is just another straw man.
Dude this is the fifth time you employ straw man fallacy as a fallacy. Do you even know what a straw man is? Or are you so empty of arguments that, repeating yourself making the same empty and superficial assertions, you think it convenient to disregard the significance and the symbolic force of the events in Nietzsche's life?

>There's no more validity to it than the story about the horse, and it can be reinterpreted in multiple ways.
You nietzscheans don't care about the account on his coprophagic compulsion, but are the first to contest different accounts of well known

>and it can be reinterpreted in multiple ways.
Well, of course it can. Anything can. But since I know you don't read what I post I'll post it again:
>For it is not by accident that the explicit discovery of what Dionysus and the Crucified have in common and what separates them occurs so shortly before his final breakdown. Nietzsche's devotees try to empty his insanity of all meaning. We can understand perfectly why. The nonsense of madness plays a protective role in their thought just as madness itself functions for Nietzsche. Nietzsche the philosopher was unable to sit back comfortably in the monstrosities into which th need to minimize his discovery was driving him. And so he took refuge in madness.

>He does recognize this... How else could he write this
He does not recognize it as what it is in its whole, only in its affirmative part which is posterior to the negative, chaotic, destructive part. That is why I'm saying that the negative ''will to power'' is as much as the affirmative as the affirmative is the negative, that is why I wrote multiple times and showed how this is all implicit in Dionysus, the twofold nature, Eros and death drive. This is expressed in greek mythology with the Primordial Chaos. The reference is to the pre-unitive force which will constitute unity in violence and the community leading to peace. It is convenient to reject the mob, the majority, lemmings when they reveal their true force and unanimity.

You throw everything at me and I return all their implications and hidden references. You can only make me speechless by wearing me out with your repetitions.

>>18420580
>>18420580
>Let me remind you that Girard is a Roman Catholic explaining Christianity in the modern age.
His first publications were at a time he hasn't converted (I think he was an atheist). His Violence and the Sacred was one of his first works, which he doesn't cite Christianity anywhere, not even once, in the work. And I am deriving basically everything anthropologically from there.

>This Christianity is not the same as the Christianity among the first century Jews, which is the version Nietzsche called slave morality.
Dude stop making a fool of yourself. He has a book literally commenting on both Old and New Testament. He comments on Nietzsche's views about Christianity and its early manifestations which were not sympathetic as you say. But if you have anything from him commending it, post it please, I'm curious.

>All I see here is mere coincidence
Yes, another convenience. I can reject everything you say the way you do to me, but I don't need to.

>Girard found a connection because he sought a means to shut down Nietzsche's final condemnation of his religion.
A connection? There is a single one that is enough: Dionysus. The force with which this expresses the particular events in Nietzsche's life is more than a single occasional connection as I said. Knowing what Dionysus is and that Nietzsche prostrated himself before it is enough, one doesn't even need to take the point of Dionysus in the beginning and the end of his literary productions, the events in his life and his tragic end.

>What's the underlying argument here? "This guy is evil, therefore he is wrong." It's silly.
It clearly is not this simplistic reduction. See everything I wrote, read Girard's Violence and the Sacred (you don't even need to read the rest of his works) and stop being dishonest. This is all I ask of you.

>>18420879
>Brilliant way of disregarding everything implied there.
That's because everything implied there is wrong, and the essay in GM I mentioned earlier explains how it's wrong and how the Christian ascetic doesn't liberate himself from the will to power at all.

>Dude this is the fifth time you employ straw man fallacy as a fallacy.
Ever consider the possibility that it's not a fallacy and that you're actually attacking a straw man?

>You nietzscheans don't care about the account on his coprophagic compulsion
Coprophagia can be associated with neurological disorders, which he had. He also had multiple strokes over the years after his collapse. Keep grasping at straws, though.

>Well, of course it can. Anything can.
So don't mention it then, because it doesn't assist your argument in any way.

>He does not recognize it as what it is in its whole, only in its affirmative part which is posterior to the negative, chaotic, destructive part.
Wrong, and I've given plenty of evidence demonstrating how.

>That is why I'm saying that the negative ''will to power'' is as much as the affirmative as the affirmative is the negative
In reference to itself, Nietzsche's negative is positive, and it views the positive as negative. Nietzsche understood this, and he also understood that when he described things as positive or negative, he did so from the seat of his own perspective. This is no special insight; you're not figuring anything out that wasn't already figured out. For example, Christians already had a name for Nietzsche's ubermensch, the devil, and this is already understood.

>His first publications were at a time he hasn't converted (I think he was an atheist).
But he did convert, because it made sense for him to. He was a Roman Catholic in nature and his knowledge of Christianity was colored by that perspective.

>Dude stop making a fool of yourself.
Have you even read GM or Antichrist? God damn.

>It clearly is not this simplistic reduction.
You're right, it's even dumber than that. He thinks that Nietzsche advocated for violence and slavery as a means to avoid self-discovery, when it was the exact opposite for Nietzsche: he came to advocate for those things BECAUSE he discovered himself. When he saw himself in Dionysus while reading the Greeks, and then contemplated the will to power for many years later, and realized himself in the will to power, and realized the whole charade that is the Christian ideal and Plato's good, he came to the only conclusion that made sense, regardless of how painful it was to bear it.

Also, I've never been dishonest, fool. You just don't get me, because you don't want to get me.

>>18421064
> the Christian doesn't liberate himself from the will to power at all.
Reduction of will as subjective reduction, that is, phenomenological transcendence. I already explained this. But since you don't listen to me listen to Hegel, Girard, Husserl. Oh no you don't listen to anyone but yourself and Nietzsche when it is convenient for you seeing your own distortions and misinterpretations of his philosophy and life.

> that you're actually attacking a straw man?
Let's see when you said i was straw-manning:
1) Nietzscheans don't care about his coprophagia but care about that
This is not a straw man.
2) will to power as will and force - my emphasis with tautology
This is not a straw man, and when I replied you conceded.
3) manifestation of will to power - as exasperation, dionysiac impulse, etc etc - reflected in insanity - as literally what Dionysus carries
This is not a straw man. His insanity is the point here and his well known words reflect explicitly this, the words are just a concrete materialization of it.
4) Girard's take exactly as what I just said above
This is not a straw man either as I showed above.

In sum: you either have no idea what it is or you employ it as a fallacy. Both cases show you are not honest in discussions. This is the fourth time I prove how you need to resort to dishonesty to keep replying to me.

>So don't mention it then, because it doesn't assist your argument in any way.
Are you retarded? You can't simply say whatever you want as you think you can. This is what I'm showing you. And if you think you can you end up like your master.

>Wrong, and I've given plenty of evidence demonstrating how.
Lmao, you haven't, you just post nietzsche's words and let them to me to be examined and see their implications.

>Nietzsche understood this, and he also understood that when he described things as positive or negative... he did so from his own perspective.
So his perspective changed to posit the negative as affirmative and vice versa? Then why would he condemn anything that will be positive and why would he laud anything that will be negative? Is this your own cope?

>But he did convert, because it made sense for him to. He was a Roman Catholic in nature and his knowledge of Christianity was colored by that perspective.
An atheist was already a roman catholic doing purely anthropological studies. This is your insanity. Read his first books and you will see how he lauds people like Freud, extends on Levi-Strauss, Bataille. There is not a single christian or religious influence at all. You are absolutely retarded.

>as a means to avoid self-discovery
Where is this implied? The consciousness of one's own violence is a self-discovery, it is a deep discovery of oneself.

>he came to advocate for those things BECAUSE he discovered himself
Everyone is Dionysus, retard. You are not even what I'm posting. I wrote five or six posts about this.

>>18421064
>You don't get me
You don't do anything. You just toss Nietzsche's passages for me to show to you what they mean. Negate everything with: ''STRAW MAN'', ''WRONG'', ''NO U'', simplistic reductions, ignore everything I say with phenomenological, anthropological, symbolical/mythological interpretations.

>>18421064
>>18421218
The reality is that you affirm that which culminate and justifie your own torture and murder. A blind, dumb, irrational, insane will. This is all. I could spare my time and bash your skull to pieces, flay yourself alive, torture you employing the most monstruous mechanisms available, for all of this is justified by you, the problem is that you don't admit it.

>>18421212
>Reduction of will as subjective reduction, that is, phenomenological transcendence.
>transcendence
In other words, nonsense, or magic as I called it before.

>His insanity is the point here and his well known words reflect explicitly this
His insanity was caused by a neurological disorder that came AFTER his writing (and during his "madness letters" which was a very brief period). While writing, he was perfectly coherent and sane. But with your straw man, Nietzsche was insane prior to falling physically ill from his growing brain tumor, and you and Girard use this disinformation to justify your argument.

>You can't simply say whatever you want as you think you can.
That's not my point. My point is that you're using a myth and a vague message uttered to his mother after his mental collapse to make your (obviously flimsy) points.

>Lmao, you haven't, you just post nietzsche's words
What else would you need as evidence? Someone ELSE'S words to prove to you what Nietzsche said?

>So his perspective changed to posit the negative as affirmative and vice versa?
It didn't change. He just grasped his own perspective so well that he understood how all positives and negatives are relative.

>Then why would he condemn anything that will be positive and why would he laud anything that will be negative?
What? He didn't condemn anything that was positive for him. You're not making any sense here. Maybe read those lines again.

>An atheist was already a roman catholic doing purely anthropological studies.
Psychologically he might as well have already been, considering his daft interpretation of Nietzsche and Christianity.

>Where is this implied?
"To elude his own discovery" — it literally starts with this.

>Everyone is Dionysus, retard.
But they don't know it, or they're too weak to embrace it, unlike Nietzsche who was not afraid to advocate for what made sense in the moment, even if that occasionally meant advocating for violence and slavery on a mass scale.

>>18421218
>>18421233
Bleating retard. Go read Pinker, he seems more your speed.

>>18420879
You need to read Nietzsche and Philosophy. Specifically page 180 to 194.

>>18421212
>why would he laud anything that will be negative?
The Ass says yes to everything because it cannot say no, and Zarathustra condemns it. Nietzsche model is not someone who bears reality, who accepts and affirms what is there, but CREATES what can he can AFFIRM. No is put at the service of Yes, Affirmation must say No to Nihilism in order to affirm itself.

>>18421344
>phenomenological transcende
>HE SAID TRANSCENDENCE THAT IS MAGICAL AND METAPHYSICAL
That is literally skepticism you fucking braindead uncouth retard

>His insanity was caused by a neurological disorder that came AFTER his writing
Nobody is saying otherwise. But disorders have cause.

>While writing, he was perfectly coherent and sane.
That is why he left unfinished manuscripts, right?

> But with your straw man, Nietzsche was insane prior to falling physically ill
I never affirmed that. I even pointed how the beginning of his life was and should be sane. You are now inventing things. How low.

> disinformation to justify your argument
Disinformation that he got insane? Hahahahaha and you were the one telling me to read Pinker.

>myth and a vague message uttered to his mother.
I told how the message is accessory to everything, how it is just the cherry on the top of the cake.

>literally an examination of everything implied in the Dionysus myth, going from the greek bipolar structural epistemology to everything in Nietzsche concerning Dionysus
>flimsy

>What else would you need as evidence?
I am the one giving evidence from the material you post.

>how all positives and negatives are relative.
That's what I'm saying, why would he posit any objective morality or weakness or strength or anything? In the end with this interpretation you make all of his words empty, signfying nothing.

>He didn't condemn anything that was positive for him. You're not making any sense here.
The above case here. What is relative is good and bad, positive and negative, etc.

>He was a christian because what he wrote before engaging with nietzsche and before giving christianity a fuck actually leads to the revelation of nietzsche's philosophy and the reason of his insanity
the latter is already declared in his own writings, especially when he say that the invalid and weak should be murdered

>elude his own discovery
that is not a self-discovery you idiot, holy shit
are you esl?

>But they don't know it, or they're too weak to embrace it
They don't need to know, no one knew until the revelation of the scapegoat mechanism underlying all cultures. Nobody knew until Christianity and that is why Nietzsche needs it more than anyone, just like a christian. And you have the gall to ignore the causes of his insanity.

>unlike Nietzsche who was not afraid to advocate for what made sense in the moment
what stopped making sense led him to insanity? wow it really makes sense

>>18421383
>spinozist reading of nietzsche
YIKES

>>18421393
this makes no sense at all when you affirm relativity, nihilism ending up being no nihilism, life affirmation life negation and vice versa

>>18421432
What?

>>18421423
>That is literally skepticism
Oh, so the Christian will becomes exempt from the cosmic will to power by means of skepticism? No, it doesn't, and if you read Nietzsche, you would (assuming you're smart or willing) see how.

>Nobody is saying otherwise. But disorders have cause.
The cause being a growing tumor. There was no philosophical cause. If you want to keep arguing otherwise I suggest going to /x/ where you'll fit in better.

>That is why he left unfinished manuscripts, right?
Which ones are you referring to? The ones he left unfinished because of his mental collapse (no fault of his), or stuff like Philosophy in the Tragic Age which he left unfinished because of obligations to Wagner or whatever? Either way, this was an incredibly retarded point you just made.

>I never affirmed that.
Girard wrote: "Nietzsche's devotees try to empty his insanity of all meaning." What else does insanity refer to here? Divine madness? Nietzsche was coherent and sane all the way up to his "madness letters" and his insanity was caused by a tumor, which came upon him at a specific moment in time rather than as a gradual development. Every other image of Nietzsche is a worthless straw man and a desperate attempt to avoid addressing him on his own terms, as usual with Nietzsche's detractors.

>I am the one giving evidence from the material you post.
An answer that isn't one, nice.

>why would he posit any objective morality or weakness or strength or anything?
What objective morality do you think he posited? Will to power is not morality, it doesn't command anyone to believe in any Yes and No that doesn't come from within themselves. All it does is explain where that Yes and No comes from, why they're there, and how they're there. If you're talking about Nietzsche's own Yes and No, he didn't posit them for anyone other than his hyperboreans, because they possess a kinship with him, so his personal Yes and No is also their personal Yes and No.

>that is not a self-discovery you idiot
Then what discovery is he eluding?

>They don't need to know
I agree, but that's besides my point.

>Nobody knew until Christianity
Christianity wasn't that original, and with Christianity it was only known as a force of evil.

>And you have the gall to ignore the causes of his insanity.
>>>/x/

>>18421567
>the Christian will becomes exempt from the cosmic will to power by means of skepticism?
You are completely lost. Phenomenology has nothing to do with christian will.

>The cause being a growing tumor.
"Nietzsche's Breakdown in Turin." Pp. 105–12 in Nietzsche in Italy.
The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche
Bataille likewise went with the well known account of the incident in Turin.
Superman in the Underground: Strategies of Madness—Nietzsche, Wagner, and Dostoevsky. Ignore the rivalry with Wagner too.

>There was no philosophical cause
yeahhh broo trust me nietzsche's clinging to Dionysus and bacchic madness, irrationality and chaos from his early to the latest period is just coincidence, bro actually he chose to be mad like he chose to get a brain tumor.

>Which ones
Will to power.

>Nietzsche was coherent and sane all the way up to his "madness letters"
>the ones he left unfinished because of his mental collapse?
Take will to power into account too.

>An answer that isn't one, nice.
I will ignore all what you say and just repeat the same thing about your being wrong, therefore you won't answer anything to me

>what morality
the objective moral dichotomy master-slave, the difference and bipolarity between negative and positive will, etc

>his hyperboreans
oh fuck I am talking to a literal /pol/tard, now everything makes sense. You don't read (not only my posts, but books as well).

>Then what discovery is he eluding?
It is literally said in those quotes, in all my posts, in the article, in the implications of Nietzsche's writings.

>Christianity wasn't that original, and with Christianity it was only known as a force of evil.
Scapegoat mechanism revelation. Not even in Judaism was it completely revealed, in spite of suggestions on it, like the suggestions on Christ.

>>18421428
neechy was just an edgy spinozist

>>18421678
>Phenomenology has nothing to do with christian will.
Doesn't change my point, but I think you're being disingenuous here anyway since we were just talking about Christians a few posts back. The Christian will, or ANY will, becoming an exception from the will to power by means of skepticism, is magical thinking. No one can escape the will to power, NO ONE, not any more than one can escape the process of evolution.

>"Nietzsche's Breakdown in Turin." Pp. 105–12 in Nietzsche in Italy.
>The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche
>Bataille
>Superman in the Underground
See pic related and see the links here >>18414873, now fuck off.

>Will to power.
What about it? It's a compilation of notes published without his approval. Some of those notes are passages that he revised and included in published works, others were left unfinished for who knows why (maybe he was still working on fleshing them out, or maybe he lost interest in finishing them), while some were probably left unfinished because HE HAD A LITERAL TUMOR GROWING IN HIS FUCKING SKULL AND EVENTUALLY COLLAPSED FROM IT, LOSING HIS COGNITIVE ABILITIES.

>the objective moral dichotomy master-slave, the difference and bipolarity between negative and positive will, etc
Neither are related to morality. The master and slave dichotomy has a historical basis and these descriptors do not hold any moral implications in themselves; they are intended to illustrate the historical origins of the two moralities. As for Nietzsche's positive and negative expressions of the will to power, they are like positive and negative electrical charges, again just descriptors that do not hold any moral implications in themselves but are intended to illustrate the historical origins of the two.

>oh fuck I am talking to a literal /pol/tard, now everything makes sense. You don't read (not only my posts, but books as well).
Way to out yourself as not having read Nietzsche. Do you not have any clue what philosopher you're talking about right now? Did you honestly think he was writing for everyone, wanted to be read by everyone, and thought that everyone could understand him? Did you really think he wanted to be understood by everyone? Did you think that his perspectivism was developed for any purpose other than as a method by which he could bring out the ubermensch into consciousness among his intended readers?

>It is literally said in those quotes, in all my posts, in the article, in the implications of Nietzsche's writings.
Yeah, I can see that I won't get an answer out of you if I push on this further.

Not sure I should reply further, because it's more than clear at this point you haven't read Nietzsche and you're not interested in doing so, and not interested in understanding how you're wrong. I don't think you're even capable of understanding. Are you the Tocquevillefag, by the way? You have the same autistic style as he does, so I wouldn't be surprised.

>>18422002
>doesn't change my point
It does because your point misses everything, lol. You have no idea what phenomenology is that is why you need to scream like the desperate you are about incoherent and things that have no connection to what I'm saying, like you are doing now about skpeticism being an exception.

>pic related
are you going insane already like your master?

>links
The first one concludes thus:
>Conclusion
When examined closely, every aspect of the
syphilis hypothesis fails. In my view, there is no
convincing evidence that Nietzsche ever had any form of syphilis. The time course of Nietzsche’s illness is incompatible with even the most extraordinary presentation of syphilis. The details of Nietzsche’s clinical presentation are inconsistent with syphilis. Other diagnoses are more plausible.
You should read what you post here first. Thank you for helping me nevertheless.
Now see my sources for his insanity.

>do not hold any moral implications in themselves
Morals concern action, action will. Period.

>Did you honestly think he was writing for everyone, wanted to be read by everyone, and thought that everyone could understand him?
Now Nietzsche is not the philosopher of the masses, of the crowd. You are miserably pathetic.

>you haven't read Nietzsche
I have but not everything. However I accept his philosophy as it is the same way I accept his life and fate. You reject both.

>>18410541
Came from the 2nd richest family in Europe and really liked dick.

>>18410492
I can only think of them as watered down versions of Hume and Kierkegaard. Even Wittgesntein's Lecture on Ethics is very reminescent of Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and the therapeutic element of his own philosophy is less fragmentary in the works of Schopenhauer.
Besides that, i really doubt that Nietzsche really had a "worldview", whatever that means.

>>18422063
>It does because your point misses everything, lol.
Keep thinking that. Or better yet, start talking about something else now so you can avoid addressing my point again. You love doing that.

>are you going insane already like your master?
Must have lost the attachment when I refreshed the page. Here, cunt. Read it and weep.

>The first one concludes thus
Read the others and read more than just the abstracts. Then go back to /x/ where you belong.

>Morals concern action, action will. Period.
What?

>Now Nietzsche is not the philosopher of the masses, of the crowd.
What?

>I have but almost nothing.
Fixed that for you.

>However I accept his philosophy as it is the same way I accept his life and fate.
You don't know what his life was about, just like you don't know what his philosophy was about.

I will never, ever get tired of telling you to fuck off, by the way.

I've read everything Hume wrote because I wrote a (searing) postgraduate thesis on him. Hume is nothing like a concentrated Wittgenstein. To be honest, Hume is maybe the world's worst philosopher.

>>18422118
Damn, I did it again.

>>18422113
>I've read everything Hume wrote because I wrote a (searing) postgraduate thesis on him. Hume is nothing like a concentrated Wittgenstein. To be honest, Hume is maybe the world's worst philosopher
You know what 'worldview' means, don't be a pretentious fag.

>>18422138
>>18422118
Dude everything you post corroborates my points and you can't see how obvious it is. What you cannot respond you play dumb, ''What???'', invent and distort things, ignore what I post, etc etc...

>I will never ever get tired of telling you to fuck off
Yeah, that's the only thing you can do, that's fitting for the nihilist you are, this is a death drive. I'm worried about you anon, I hope you don't collapse like Nietzsche so it is better to just understand him and his philosophy, it can save your life. Try rereading this thread.

>>18422167
>Bro every time you tell me I'm wrong and explain how you're actually proving me right!
>What do you mean it's X? I was saying X all along! Even though I said Not-X just before!
(You) are a massive retard.

>What you cannot respond
"What?" is a response, a response to your meaningless gibberish.