/lit/ - Literature

>>5137322
Seems more like something Heidegger would be into.

why was stirner's thread deleted?

>>5137356
Because someone doxed a tripfag.

>>5137322

What do you guys think of Nietzsche's argument against determinism?
>If any one should find out in this manner the crass stupidity of the celebrated conception of "free will" and put it out of his head altogether, I beg of him to carry his "enlightenment" a step further, and also put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of "free will": I mean "non-free will," which is tantamount to a misuse of cause and effect. One should not wrongly MATERIALISE "cause" and "effect," as the natural philosophers do (and whoever like them naturalize in thinking at present), according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure CONCEPTIONS, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and mutual understanding,--NOT for explanation. In "being-in-itself" there is nothing of "casual- connection," of "necessity," or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does NOT follow the cause, there "law" does not obtain. It is WE alone who have devised cause, sequence, reciprocity, relativity, constraint, number, law, freedom, motive, and purpose; and when we interpret and intermix this symbol-world, as "being-in-itself," with things, we act once more as we have always acted--MYTHOLOGICALLY. The "non-free will" is mythology; in real life it is only a question of STRONG and WEAK wills.--It is almost always a symptom of what is lacking in himself, when a thinker, in every "causal-connection" and "psychological necessity," manifests something of compulsion, indigence, obsequiousness, oppression, and non-freedom; it is suspicious to have such feelings--the person betrays himself. And in general, if I have observed correctly, the "non-freedom of the will" is regarded as a problem from two entirely opposite standpoints, but always in a profoundly PERSONAL manner: some will not give up their "responsibility," their belief in THEMSELVES, the personal right to THEIR merits, at any price (the vain races belong to this class); others on the contrary, do not wish to be answerable for anything, or blamed for anything, and owing to an inward self-contempt, seek to GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS, no matter how. The latter, when they write books, are in the habit at present of taking the side of criminals; a sort of socialistic sympathy is their favourite disguise. And as a matter of fact, the fatalism of the weak-willed embellishes itself surprisingly when it can pose as "la religion de la souffrance humaine"; that is ITS "good taste."

I don't think it makes any sense. It seems to almost beg the question, assuming the premise of dualism, the existence of a "mental" domain. Am I wrong here? Am I misunderstanding this argument? Was Nietzsche right?What do you guys think?

Yeah, I don't want a Nietzsche thread turn into fedora-tipping memeshit. Let's discuss the influential ideas of an influential philosopher seriously for once?

>>5137322
Those of you who say that Nietzsche was not an athesit, what do you base that on?

>>5137492

Nietzsche's ideas were a lot more subtle than a lot of people understand. In fact, he was so opposed to absolutes (especially in terms of ethics & epistemology), that he often contradicted himself by asserting that things were neither true nor false (or both). This is characteristic of his views on God, as well.

Here's my opinion. I think that if you asked him whether God exists, he would say there is no reason to believe that he exists, especially in the way that organized religion describes him (see: the Anti-Christ). He would also believe that it would be equally dumb to assume that God absolutely does not exist. I firmly believe that Nietzsche was an unbeliever. But his ideals about epistemology would logically lead to an agnostic viewpoint, not an atheist one.

It's also important to realize that when Nietzsche says "God is dead", he is talking about God in sociological terms. He wasn't making a theological statement. He was making a statement about our culture and intellectual history. I don't think it's that much of a leap to jump from one to the other. But I think in this case, it would be a mistake.

>>5137523

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your views. I agree with your emphasis on the sociological aspects. It's clear that Nietzsche finds the idea of God and its affects important in that respect. However, I'd say Nietzsche is pretty clearly an atheist in the normal sense of the term. Consider "How the 'True World' Finally Became a Fable" (Here's a link, it's on page 10: http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/twilight-of-the-idols-friedrich-neitzsche.pdf).). In it, he recounts the history of the idea of the kind of dualism necessary to a belief in God (in the sense that the typical Christian thinks of God). He outright rejects the idea of a noumenal or "real" which exists as a separate realm and in some mysterious way interacts with ours. In doing so, it no longer even makes sense to talk in terms of appearance/reality or similar dualisms. The only sense in which "God" makes sense, at that point, is the sociological sense. By most standards of what counts as atheism, I'd say this makes Nietzsche an atheist.

>>5137322
>implying it won't just be a circlejerk with the same posts and arguments recurring eterally

>>5137381
It's not bad. I agree on the essentials, but maybe don't like the specific argument. While the world may be determined, we can't access it all, so we need metaphysics to answer the world's problems

The real question is, was he at all influenced by Stirner? There's at least a very clear influence of Hegel in Nietzsche so he probably knew of others in the Hegelian school of thought

okay, /lit/, you have read this guy's works, how do i get near a piano in this day and age to play it naked so i can be wise like him?

>>5137492
His antimaterialist views. I don't think Nietzsche would have called himself atheist but he was not religious in any sense

>>5137679

You buy one, you fucking idiot.

You buy one or find one remote enough in place or time so that you won't be bothered.

Unless you're into that.

>>5137685
>Unless you're into that.
i am into that, i was hoping for suggestions, maybe a photographer

>>5137523
Yes, Nietzsche's pride specifically covers up his real point; Nietzsche despised the arrogant confidence of other philosophers like Leibniz who seek "absolutes", to which obviously the absolute of not accepting absolutes must be questioned; Nietzsche resolves to saying "it's all wrong and irrational", so living purely human and accepting the irrationality is the way to go

He's really powerfully humble in admitting that he doesn't really know

>>5137678
Probably some.

back to /sp/ with your "eternal" thread

>>5137679

Be Percy Grainger.

Also, Nietzsche was basically a naturalist. He believed in the truth and there's nothing in nature which reveals the existence of a God. That said, He recognized that the truth wasn't always what mattered. It was important, at a particular time and place, to have a belief in God but this is why God only interests Nietzsche in a sociological sense.

As for free will/determinism, I read him as a compatibilist. It's clear that he believes in fate but also believes that people can be held responsible in various ways and that nascent geniuses, fated to be great men, can be undermined.

>>5137694

"Why I am so great" is probably the most humble of titles in the history of literature. In all seriousness though, I don't think Nietzsche is humble or intends to be. He also doesn't think everything is "wrong and irrational." He clearly believes some things to be true/false, better/worse and is one of the most forceful writers ever in presenting his views. This in order to shock nascent geniuses out of taking slave morality seriously.

>>5137712
You don't think Nietzsche intends humility? Maybe you haven't read him cleverly enough

You're being kind of dense if you think his ideas are meant to be literal; "eternal recurrence", really?

>>5137661

First of all, I'll never get over how beautiful Nietzsche's prose is. Gat damn.

I think Nietzsche himself didn't believe in a God. I think your passage shows that. But again, Nietzsche didn't believe in epistemological truths (think of his theory of binary opposites as "gradations"). He would have believed that God doesn't exist, while admitting that the truth eludes us, and can never be known.

"In so far as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—"Perspectivism."

I firmly believe that Nietzsche was a metaphysical anti-realist. I don't see how it's possible that he could have accepted any metaphysical objective truths.

By the way, big fan here. It's nice to see an educated, thoughtful person here on /lit/.

>>5137724

>You don't think Nietzsche intends humility? Maybe you haven't read him cleverly enough

I'm not sure what you could possibly mean by this other than that a clever reading equates to one with which you agree, specifically on the issue of whether or not Nietzsche is humble. Maybe tell me about what you mean by clever if, in fact, you mean something other than a way of reading that amounts to being the same as yours. I don't know what could count as evidence for your view and you haven't presented any. I also don't really see the significance one way or the other.

>You're being kind of dense if you think his ideas are meant to be literal; "eternal recurrence", really?

Not sure why we can't just deal with the ideas instead of shielding our ideas by name calling. Eternal recurrence has been read to mean a lot of different things by a lot of people. The view which seems most plausible given what he actually published about it and given the context in which we find it is that he means something roughly like, "the greatest life is one which you would will to live over and over for eternity." You could certainly disagree over whether or not that's really the greatest life but it seems like something a sane person with which a sane person could understand and agree.

>>5137758

I'll just be upfront and say that I pretty much agree with Brian Leiter's reading of Nietzsche which you read in his "Nietzsche on Morality." I view Nietzsche as a naturalist and I think that there's more textual evidence to support that view than many of the other readings of Nietzsche which I think rely on a lot of speculation (whether those speculations produce interesting philosophy in their own right is another issue). I think we need a naturalistic account in order to more clearly distinguish N's perspectivism from high-school-relativism. There is necessarily always a perspective but this doesn't mean we're learning something that isn't true. The same passage from Twilight of the Idols illustrates this. Assuming there's a mysterious substrate with which we can never be acquainted and only "interpret" is a hangover of religious ideology. Perspectivism means that we can gain actual knowledge about the world but that that knowledge may always be partial and subject to revision (as it may be an illusion which necessitates illumination via other perspectives).

I don't like Nietzsche. He got it all right but he fagged out

>>5137758

Also, I should specify in regard to your "Nietzsche was a metaphysical anti-realist." I agree that he dislikes realism but, I'll cite the Twilight passage one more time, I think the anti-realist view would also be rejected since it's defined in relation to idea which N thinks make no sense to begin with.

Also, glad to have an intelligent discussion on here as well.

>>5137794

Again, I think that, yes, Nietzsche was a naturalist -- insofar as he thought knowledge truly existed. In other words, if it was possible to find knowledge, it would be true that naturalism is our best bet.

But Nietzsche doesn't think truth is achievable, except in the sense of the imposing order created by the will to power (which loosely corresponds to positivism, or really pragmatism). The will to power creates truth, according to Nietzsche. The will to power creates the only truth that matters, the truth that corresponds

So, I guess I agree with you, but I disagree with you. But I also think that the truth didn't really matter to him, only what was relevant in terms of the will to power, and I think you agree with that.

In summary, God only really mattered to Nietzsche in a sociological sense, anyway. And I think that in light of Nietzsche's perspectivism, naturalism is a de facto truth and God does not exist. Which means that in his philosophy, which derides skepticism on account of its sickliness, he was in practice one of the great atheist thinkers. Again, all this is the stuff that matters.

But the hard, direct question of whether or not the noumenal realm (or what have you) does or does not exist? I don't think it would be a hard no for Nietzsche, only a no because of the will to power.

>>5137834

Okay, we agree, in substance on everything then except the noumenal issue. Life may conflict with what is independently true but in those cases I'd say it's more along the lines of a "terrible truth" or a truth better left unknown, as opposed to a truth which we, by definition, cannot know.

>>5137761
>I don't know what could count as evidence for your view and you haven't presented any.
Often times his statements are a type of "clickbait", he's not saying in Ecce that he's literally so wise, he's boldly stating it so you will want to prove him wrong.

>>5137847

You know what, actually that makes a lot of sense now that you put it that way. I'd be willing to accept that now.

Maybe I've just been poisoned by the sickness of Schopenhauerian nihilism, as Nietzsche would say.

Good talk, Feminister.

Can someone explain the main idea present in the book "The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music" to me please?

>>5137834
in one sentece how would you describe "will to power"?

Why people claim that Freud and Nietzsche had similar Ideas? I dont see it.

>>5137848

I disagree. One of his main points, if not the central point to the entirety of his work, is the importance of freeing nascent geniuses from the undermining potential of taking slave morality seriously. He sees himself as shocking them out of it and often uses imagery in reference to himself, and to everyone else actually, of trees growing and bearing fruit. A seed is "fated" to grow and bear fruit just as we're fated to grow and "bear fruit." There are certain things that can undermine this though. Nietzsche recognized and cursed his own mental and physical ailments and in Ecce Homo, he calls himself great and all that because he truly believes it. He's bearing his fruit so to speak. The extent to which he's humble is that he doesn't really give himself credit for being so great, it was a matter of fate. I feel like most people wouldn't recognize that as humility though.

>>5137862

Awesome, good discussion. Also, I'm definitely not Feminister. It was a play on her name and her butterfly sidekick. I feel like she's well-intentioned but, in my experience, doesn't stay on topic or engage with people's points in a fair manner.

>>5137874

The will to power is the human need to survive and impose control on his surroundings (it's a lot more nuanced than that, read more pls).
Some say Nietzsche thinks that the that all there is is the will to power, like in terms of metaphysics. I think this is dangerously idealist, and I don't think it's correct.

And Freud, Nietzsche, and Marx are often grouped together because they were considered to be of the same moment, a moment of doubt. Marx doubted our social structures and encouraged self-examination. Freud doubted our conscious (instead, the unsconscious was important to him), and encouraged self-examination. Nietzsche doubted morality, and encouraged self-examination. All of these thinkers doubted a whole lot of other things, but it was driven primarily by skepticism, doubt.

Doubt isn't just "how do we know? Why?" All these thinkers did propose new ways of thinking, too. They answered questions, as well as asking them.

Nietzsche was more all about evaluation than skepticism; he thought it was imperative that we make decisions. Marx was kind of the same way, suggesting communist revolt was inevitable because capitalism would fail (creating a teleological understanding of history, just like his spiritual predecessor Hegel).

>>5137523
>there are no absolutes

Can someone explain how tainted his works are and whether or not the originals are generally available? Like, if I read a book by him has it already been fucked with and the original hasn't survived?

>>5137902
Good post. I'd add that there is some mesure of teleology in Nietzsche's idea of history, as he expresses in Genealogy of Morals. He goes back to the changing of morals that we underwent when Christianity prevailed, and concludes that we should be able to create yet again new morals (but this time he advises for self-determination in that respect). In a way it's similar to how Marx analyzes how capitalism introduced a change in systems of production and concluded that we should be able to strive towards a new system.

Now we just need an eternal NEET philosophy thread and an eternal which e-reader should i buy thread.

>>5137903
There are absolutes, sure, but none of them are really informative except to our own ignorance.

>>5138022
I was just pointing out the contradiction in stating there are no absolutes.

>>5138092
Uh-huh, and thinking you're clever in noting that is naive

>>5138099
Please speak English, tripfag. You're on a literature board, for God's sake.

>>5138132
Sorry, I know my grammar is unusual. There's nothing special about noting the contradiction in epistemological razors

>>5138191
When did I claim it was special, it's just a fact.

>>5137322
thanks you based OP

>>5137381
Nietzsche was meta as fuck is all.

never thought i'd see a good Nietzsche thread on /lit/

Why is he so perfect?

>>5137381
he's once more completely correct. non-freedom is completely a personal issue.

>muh issues
>muh cathaxis
>muh needs
>i can't b-cuz reasons

this doesn't mean that you can achieve everything you set out to do, but it certainly means that the problem is yours if you're not trying to see what's is possible and what is not.

>>5137523
You're right that he was against anything absolute, but he still subscribed to a certain worldview, the worldview he deemed as the MOST right. Not absolutely right, but the most right according to him. And that worldview was very much against the church's view of god as a conscious entity in control. Don't forget that Nietzsche favored Dionysus over Apollo in the end.

>>5137381
Nietzsche didn't write arguments. He wrote polemics. It isn't an argument; it's a commentary.

>>5137381
I love how Nietzsche thinks the strong willed aren't the most delusional. I mean just look at them. At least the fatalists understand the indifference of reality.

I think I'm losing my mind. Some time ago I was posting in Heidegger thread with exact same name and now it's gone from the catalog. Even the very first reply was the same, but the names were switched. the fuck

Let's talk madness letters.
>God is on the earth. Don't you see how all the heavens are rejoicing? I have just seized possession of my kingdom, I've thrown the pope in prison, and I'm Wilhelm, Bismarck, and Adolf Stocker shot
>It is a mere prejudice that I am a human being. Yet I have often enough dwelled among human beings and I know the things human beings experience, from the lowest to the highest. Among the Hindus I was Buddha, in Greece Dionysus–Alexander and Caesar were incarnations of me, as well as the poet of Shakespeare, Lord Bacon. Most recently I was Voltaire and Napoleon, perhaps also Richard Wagner … However, I now come as Dionysus victorious, who will prepare a great festival on Earth … Not as though I had much time … The heavens rejoice to see me here … I also hung on the cross …
Seriously what the fuck

>>5138713
I like to think that, if Nietzsche's own genius and mode of thinking didn't strictly CAUSE his madness, it certainly sped it along.

>>5137366
HAHA
>Implying

Nietzche is a horrible philosopher who contributed near nothing of value to the discipline, compared to someone like Immaneul Kant who's transcendental positropic idealism was fantastic

>>5139039
>Jelly
>Stuck in the 1700s

>>5137953
Only Will to Power is tainted and honestly it doesn't mean much. You should be old enough to see through these things.

>>5138713
It makes sense though. His madness letters are awesome to read.

>>5138713
That's pretty inspiring, actually. I don't think it's meant literally. He is saying that he is an incarnation of true glory and power, of someone who will change the world radically. I hope he was right.

blimpo

“There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.”