/lit/ - Literature

>>5930526
>I feel if I don't accept the things he advocates, I'm a coward and denying the truth
you realize that historically and biographically he was almost the exact opposite of everything he proposed right, extremely moralistic, ascetic in his tendencies, polite, shy around women (he was even raised in an all female household), and that most of his work is just stylistic exercise that he largely redacted

>>5930537
That's strange. Do you think he acted on his philosophy/wanted readers to act on his philosophy at all?

>>5930526
I'm in a similar position to you OP. I'm going to read Kierkegaard's works and Heidegger's criticisms of Nietzsche as well, just to see what comes about. Just a word of warning, a lot of criticisms of Nietzsche are emotional nonsense (Bertrand Russel for example and Satanaya).

Although, I'm not exactly scared of him...what do you find so troubling?

>>5930543
he couldn't act on his philosophy mostly because he was sick

>>5930526
>>5930526
are you a real person? if so my condolences to those forced into contact with you.

>>5930544
Oh my God Russel's treatment of Nietzsche in his History is the most moralistic crybaby trash I've ever read. He actually role played as the Buddha.

>>5930544
>Although, I'm not exactly scared of him...what do you find so troubling?
The whole concept of eternal recurrence bothers me. I feel as though I don't have the heart to live a super 'exciting' life. I'd rather take a walk in nature, read, or have a decent conversation than do something that would be worth reliving.

>>5930526
anyway, just do whatever the fuck you want to do..... do you really care this much about what some guy who has been dead for 200 years would think about you?

>>5930561

Why can't those things be worth reliving? As long as you don't regret not doing other things, it's all fine.

The question is- would he want you to live your life like he told you to, or to live your life as you wish?

>>5930543
He wasn't a philosopher and you shouldn't understand him as one. He's best understood as a cultural critic in the vein of french moralists such as Diderot or Voltaire. "the will to power" is his only explicitly philosophical text and it was an invention of his sister (who fucked his entire oeuvre, search Elizabeth Forster, she's infamous). Karl Jaspers for example states that the only positive facts that can be derived from Nietzsche stem from his contradictions (all of Nietzsche's works contradict themselves, be it intratextually or intertextually).

>>5930544
Reading Heidegger to understand Nietzsche is worthless. Scholars hate Heidegger's study of him principally because it doesn't illuminate Nietzsche whatsoever, its only useful in that it illustrates Heidegger's OWN work and his rejection of Husserl's project

>>5930526
fuckin casul

Just kidding. He's pretty great. Accept inevitable dissipation. Fart fuck somebody like Joyce once did. It is the /lit/ way.

>>5930578
underrated post

>>5930544
you'll turn into an existentialist christian nazi, good luck

>>5930586
I wish all posters said just kidding when they're kidding/trolling. To be totally honest, I let these boards influence my thinking way too much when they're 'discussing' subjects I feel that I know little about. I'm probably going to try to leave internet communities in general to avoid the possibility of them influencing my head too much.

Today I had a pretty profound moment when I became aware that the universe really didn't owe me any meaning or anything at all and I should just accept that I'll die and in the meantime just do some shit.

>>5930582
Are you referring specifically to Heidegger's book about Nietzsche?

>>5930598
>babby's first moment of self-awareness

>>5930598
>Today I had a pretty profound moment when I became aware that the universe really didn't owe me any meaning or anything at all and I should just accept that I'll die and in the meantime just do some shit.
Sounds like you're ready for the Maximator.

>>5930611
I've felt self aware in the past, but this is one of the only times that I've pretty clearly felt satisfied with it. I'm sure you'll agree that it's a pretty liberating feeling.

>>5930598
Aw shucks thanks. I'll go to sleep well knowing I did the world a favor that will not affect the outcome at all.

He's ready for Camel.

>>5930618
>>5930630
Really though, if I haven't read any philosophy should I start with existential shit or should I begin with the Greeks? Obviously the former is more relevant right now, but I recently read The Odyssey and I find the latter interesting as fuck.

>>5930582

WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS.

1) Nietzsche *is* a philosopher, Jaspers' comments only show that Jaspers never was able to make sense of Nietzche.

2) Heidegger's studies, while very definitely wrong at certain points, are *incredibly* useful for studying Nietzsche. The range of texts he looks at are too narrow, and everything is in light of Heidegger's own question, which yes Heidegger, Nietzsche never answer, and further, he uses that damned annoying hermeneutic of "understanding the author better than they understood themselves" which never gets you to the point of understanding the author. BUT, he actually takes Nietzsche's writings seriously, and does a lot of careful work with them. I'd say contrarily that most of the postmoderns and pragmatists writing on Nietzsche have been far more unhelpful; you're more likely to end up with problems such as the inability to explain why Nietzsche lived as he did and wrote what he did, and see the two as a "tension" or contradiction, when really, it just indicates something that's been missed.

For the hell of it, OP, here's some studies that might be interesting if you ever get the time, since these are probably the best efforts I've encountered to flesh out the whole of Nietzsche's teaching:

Heidegger - Nietzsche, Vol 1 &2 [DJVU]
https://mega.co.nz/#!iZp3nAbT!EgD2TZtngEvBoP-NDmRfsqOXd0vz9UQERwr58XwoBhs

Heidegger - Nietzsche, Vol 3 & 4 [DJVU]
https://mega.co.nz/#!CURFSIJY!kosDrfLLc2dZNXMXx-zAkMwmF4ydnNOmkRhnd5d4Izs

Leo Strauss - Nietzsche Vol. 1, Seminar on Historicism
https://mega.co.nz/#!Wd5ihapY!KwbTbya5Mz02vM9wbQLSvu7yuxfLWSyxP3FxbOA37TA

Leo Strauss - Nietzsche Vol. 2, Seminar on Thus Spoke Zarathustra [DJVU]
https://mega.co.nz/#!HcRmzTDQ!we0Yc3WYl2Tw2QzN8hS0x9L2pToZgS8kraGRwM2pmLQ

Leo Strauss - Nietzsche Vol. 3, Seminar on Nietzsche, Zarathustra, Genealogy of Morals, Beyond Good and Evil
https://mega.co.nz/#!rYRxUBqZ!79oDCxuZU7zvzF4pwz9v7WvZzZaEHQop2YqNf4B1bkc

Leo Strauss - Nietzsche Vol. 4, Seminar on Beyond Good & Evil
https://mega.co.nz/#!nIgjBBKJ!tLxRJfR8kPBnmVLD-uqrxo5FEt4hiiwDgj9t2budpjM

Leo Strauss - A Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil [DJVU]
https://mega.co.nz/#!DURgCA7B!D7xnyQF3omOc2IYlICigDKPpoyaHTTNX4G-TjSSrrus

Laurence Lampert - Nietzsche and Plato
https://mega.co.nz/#!qRphRJwB!LPcagM2fCMYZNAF8y5jr9t3h199U8IoyBttv1wm6RV0

Laurence Lampert - Nietzsche's Teaching, an Interpretation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra
https://mega.co.nz/#!bNAU0SyQ!m1g6q1iQZerYAQzEYyQjP9_SkSQ-sHaWBzvxEpoQG0I

Laurence Lampert - Nietzsche's Task, an Interpretation of Beyond Good and Evil
https://mega.co.nz/#!rcJXADTb!KomdB5HttD04kdIfqcE6cuoCmJJUhqqxo6-7MSA7m1I

>>5930526
If anything, Nietzsche advocated living life the way you want to, free from the shackles of any societal norms and moralist dogma. Not necessarily opposed to it, just critical. He would have wanted you to evaluate your own beliefs, actions, and thoughts, and see which you agree with. Why do you believe what you believe? Why do you live how you live? Is it because society told you it was the right way? Is it because you're afraid of doing what you want? Examine these and reach your own conclusions. Find values you agree with personally and live by them to the best of your abilities.

>>5930646
I'd say a start anywhere is a great idea!
But not until the four fundamental founders of modern day existentialism was anything notable written to my knowledge.

Start with Kierkegaard if you're used to religious overtones, Dostrovsky if you're neurotic, or Sartre if you're theatrical.

>>5930668
And I mean good religious overtones.

"A poet has indeed said that a sigh without words ascending Godward, is the best prayer, and so one might also believe that the rarest of visits to the sacred place, when one comes from afar, is the best worship, because both help to create an illusion."

>>5930582
>all of Nietzsche's works contradict themselves, be it intratextually or intertextually
Source? Even a good example would do

Does anyone here ever want to chat about Nietzsche and philosophy in general live with other people on /lit/? I feel like this should be a thing. I strike up conversations about philosophy occasionally with friends of mine but none of them are genuinely passionate enough for the discussion to ever go anywhere interesting.

Text only, of course. Written communication is far superior for serious discussions. How would we though? Any common platform we can use?

>>5930859
Just make an omegle thread.

>>5930859

I'd be down; any free chatrooms you know of that might work?

>>5930551

>he couldn't act on his philosophy

>Created books and philosophy that changed the world

Yea, try harder.

>>5930537
>that he largely redacted

[citation needed]

>>5930575
lol letzten menschen are funny

>>5930582
>Scholars hate

This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. "Scholars" aren't one monolithic group of people. I've definitely seen people refer to Heidegger's lectures on Nietzsche as unorthodox, but I've never seen any outright dismiss them or express hatred for them.

>>5930526
Nietzsche would beat you like a sympathetic horse in the street, cucko

the fuck off the board with your sentimental micromind

>>5930537
>historically and biographically
>/lit/

I've seen retreats to context before but bro, you were the first to post!

How is this acceptable?

>>5931808
Look at this plen

It makes me cringe so hard when someone brings up the personal life of a writer in an attempt to discredit their ideas.

>>5931835
It's still interesting to consider that a philosopher focused on action didn't act in accordance to his own philosophy. There's something to grasp here, or perhaps as >>5930649 said something to miss. Anyway putting Nietzsche's life out of the picture is probably a bad idea, particularly with a philosopher so invested in the personal and the particular.

>>5931835
Ad hominem isn't really an ad hominem if said person's character does affect his statements. If he had been a physicist you'd be right.

>>5931843
>putting Nietzsche's life out of the picture is probably a good idea

all ready to post!

>>5930526
>I feel as though if I don't accept the things he advocates, I'm a coward and denying the truth
Learn to chew and digest

Counter-Nietzsche = Dostoevsky

>>5931854
Seriously.

This thread and the fucking 'how many books r u gonna read' thread just goes to show you how shitty /lit/ has gotten.

>>5931843
>putting Nietzsche's life out of the picture is probably a bad idea

There's nothing wrong with learning about a writer, but that's not what I was talking about in particular. I'm talking about what strikes me as either a childish expectation or a desperate defense mechanism which posits that the validity of an idea is dependent upon how the author of the idea lived.

>>5931846
The reader can go all his or her life without knowing a single biographical detail of the writer and still get tons of use/inspiration/etc. from the work. Learning the details of the writer's life would only affect this if the reader had the childish mentality that an idea is only valid if its author lives by it.

>>5931870
Not OP, but how is this a shitty thread when most threads are 'what's your favorite _________?'

I found OP's text offensively self-pitying and hetero-notnormative.

If I am inspired to post in it, as you were obviously as well, it's a not-shitty thread.

Agreed?

>>5930649
>Nietzsche's teaching

Oh dear god. Oh welp. Can't choose your acolytes.

>>5930598
>I wish all posters said just kidding when they're kidding/trolling.
If they did that it wouldn't be called trolling you fucking idiot

>>5931854
>>5931870
>>5931892
Is it me or nobody got the almost literal Nietzsche's allusion here ?

>>5931846
>Ad hominem isn't really an ad hominem if said person's character does affect his statements.
While very true, Nietzsche is a rare exception. His level of insight and intelligence was so unbelievably high and precise that his own characteristics and faults had little to no bearing on his observations. Furthermore, it's fairly obvious based on his writings that he wasn't merely a physically sick, shy, moralistic scholar—he was extremely hard on himself in every way, and hard on others as a result, passionate, demanding, highly articulate and extremely well learned, honorable, respectful, with a tendency to be drawn towards his personal gods rather than be repelled by the concept of a god altogether, had a desire to join and a love for the military, ultimately he had a love of strife—possibly inspired by his daily physical condition, but then ask yourself, how many people on this planet have had a daily condition such as his, if not worse, and turned out to be the greatest philosopher ever known to humanity?

There is so much MORE to this glorious man than such a petty theory as him just being a pale, weak little man subconsciously masking his weaknesses through an ideology based on power. I personally think it says more about those who theorize in such a way about him; maybe you are the one trying to mask your weaknesses by attempting to debase his particularly harsh yet truthful words via ad hominem?

>>5932264
>While very true

No, it's not true at all. A person's character should not ever alter the perception of the ideas. Ever. No matter how much your infantile, broken brains try to justify it.

The person dies, the idea can always live on.

>>5931970
What is it?

To the people calling me weak, and telling me that I'll eventually follow his philosophy- isn't that the kind of following and conformity that Nietzsche wouldn't want?

>>5932272
But a person's character does tie into their ideas more often than not. Even Nietzsche knew this. He regularly criticized others' ideas and afterwards attacked their personal character, tying in the flaws of the ideas with the flaws of their characters.

>>5932282
This. How often does Nietzsche use ad hominem arguments against other thinkers and writers? Turnabout is fair play.

>>5932276
"You need to chew and digest"

In the end of the preface to Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche writes that the most important quality needed to get the most from his book is something that cows have but modern men mostly haven't. He calls it "rumination" (in the English translation of course, but the comparison with cows stands).

To "chew and digest" is what Nietzsche explicitly advised his readers to do (perhaps as a warning against getting caught in his pithy rhetoric on focusingonly on the soundbite).

>>5932282
>But a person's character does tie into their ideas more often than not.

But that has nothing to do with you, the receptacle of the idea. All you get is the text, that's literally all you have. Any attempt to think you've grasped someone's character in the creation of that text is your projection and fantasy.

All of Nietzsche's personal attacks were asides to legitimate criticisms of the ideas.

>>5932287
>Turnabout is fair play.

Haha, this is what "fair play" looks like in the hands of children. "He did it so I can do it too!"

More likely you read too much into sidebar jabs because it's the only part of the text you can relate to (being that the easiest pathway into a conversation is ad hominem).

I actually feel a lot like I'm getting it now. For some reason. I just kind of sat down and thought about it for a while.

>>5932291
>All of Nietzsche's personal attacks were asides to legitimate criticisms of the ideas.

wrong. his psychological deconstruction of Kant for instance plays an integral part in his critique of philosophy as the pursuit of truth

why are you trying to deny N the idiosyncratic mode that makes him such a thrill to read

>>5932264
You could have driven your point home without sucking Nietzsche's dick that hard.

I mean "the greatest philosopher ever known to humanity" ? "Glorious man" ? We're almost entering gay porn territory.

Also
>Nietzsche is a rare exception

He's absolutely not an exception, he might even be more affected by it than other proeminent German philosopher. Just look how he talks about Wagnerian music before and after ending his friendship with Wagner. Or just read almost anything he wrote, it's littered with very personal opinions, and sometimes admittedly so.

And that doesn't make him any less of a philosopher, but you have to realize how ridiculous it is to claim that "his own characteristics and faults had little to no bearing on his observations" when the guy himself emphasized the importance of personal and subjective opinion.

When you think about it, Pokémon is the Nietzschean Utopia.

>>5932291
Character does come second. You should really criticize the ideas first before criticizing someone's character.

But it's still good to know that an idea is flawed by whatever major flaws are in the creator's psychology. This ties in with Nietzsche's concept of perspective and harsh tendency to overturn centuries of philosophical thought by finding the very root of the problem (which ends up being psychological in nature) and exposing/disposing of it, like he did with Christianity.

>>5930526
>Nietzsche's philosophy is kind of freaking me out.

the vitalism is a bit ridiculous, and in any case, remains inaccessible to most of people

>>5932314
Nietzsche is an exception because his ideas have no flaws, or at least, nothing I've so far read and no one I've so far spoken to have managed to point out any significant ones. What does it mean then if the ideas are near flawless? Well it means one of two things, I think: either he himself had no character flaws, or whatever character flaws he did have had no bearing on his ideas. Either way, this makes him an exception.

>>5931843
>It's still interesting to consider that a philosopher focused on action didn't act in accordance to his own philosophy.

So what? Schopenhauer advocated complete asceticism as well, and yet Russell criticized him for eating, drinking and fucking like a hedonist when he lived(assuming that's even true).

>>5930560
That was the point where I realized the his History probably wasn't all it was hyped up to be. Fucking Sophie's World did a better job, and that was written by a middle school teacher.

>>5932313
>his psychological deconstruction of Kant for instance plays an integral part in his critique of philosophy as the pursuit of truth

"Psychological deconstruction"? He makes a few jabs, he doesn't really deconstruct anything about Kant's psychology. The majority of what he writes is in regard to Kant's ideas and any of the jabs could be removed and those criticisms would be just as "integral."

>>5932328
This is terribly embarrassing to read.

>>5932345
>not understanding assumptions

One's ideas are the product of one's psychology. His psychological deconstruction of Kant is the springboard of his critique

>>5930526
Don't feel too bad. Nietzsche isn't necessarily trying to tell you how to live your life all the way through. Instead, I generally read him as a cultural critic, calling ideas and ideologies into question not to necessarily replace them with his own, but to force us to really start thinking again, something he felt we'd stopped doing a while ago. Let him raise questions for you, and don't feel like he had some sort of coherent system you ought to conform to. He really didn't try and make a system until his Will to Power, and even that wasn't completed.
>Is there anyone who is a counterbalance to him?
There are plenty, but it really depends on what you want. Kierkegaard has a lot of similar ideas about being an individual and pursuing your own life away from the crowd, albeit he demanded a radical 'leap of faith' into religion. Although he can also be existentially difficult to wrestle with since he really tries to eliminate your typical psychological barriers, I find him a bit more positive since he's not simply deconstructing things, and leaves some ideologies standing.
You might also enjoy Karl Jaspers, who wrestled with similar questions as Nietzsche, although he was a bit more clear. He's also a bit 'nicer' than Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were, making him a bit more comfortable to read and work with. He reminds me of Heidegger, although his writing style isn't as obtuse and difficult. I'd recommend his essay 'On My Philosophy.;

>>5930598
I hope that you are twelve

>>5932364
>One's ideas are the product of one's psychology.

A "psychology" you have no access to. There was no "psychological deconstruction", there were a few comments and as I said they could be removed and the critique of the ideas would remain in tact, confirming my point about the independence ideas have from their creators.

>>5932328
>Nietzsche is an exception because his ideas have no flaws, or at least, nothing I've so far read and no one I've so far spoken to have managed to point out any significant ones.

You should think a bit more about what you read then.

For instance, his take on morality in Genealogy of Morals, while very interesting and even groundbreaking, is actually dealing with archetypes. He pits the Christian slave morality against the Greco-roman master morality, despite the fact that the Christianity that emerged when the Church was formed was already a product of centuries of dialogue between Greek, Roman, Jewish and Christian commentators (in that sense Christian morality is as much Greek as it is "Jewish" or "oriental", if not more so). His idea of Judaism also seems to be almost identical to his idea of Christianism.

That's not to mention he's keen on contradicting himself. It's not exactly a flaw, because it is part of his way of writing, but it undermines the idea that his philosophy is a coherent whole, or even an accumulation of ideas: his philosophy is almost as much about his writing stance as it is about his actual ideas. So it'd be wrong to say his ideas are flawless, but just as wrong to say his ideas have flaws, because with a little twist almost anything could be taken as a Nietzsche idea, or as a Nietzsche-like idea. That makes for a stimulating philosophy, but not a very consistent one.


Now as for your argument that his characters flaws could be expected to translate into philosophical flaws, I don't even know how we came to phrase the problem in those terms. It's not about the philosophical insight being somehow corrupted by the personality of the philosopher, it's about the philosophy being a product of that personality (including its most rational part, but not only, with Nietzsche in particular aesthetic preferences play a key role). There's no such thing as a "personal characteristics having no bearing on observations", Nietzsche himself argued against that kind of assumptions.

>>5930537
>extremely moralistic

>implying that is contradictory to his philosophy

Morals apart from the herd are a good thing m80

>>5932415
>For instance, his take on morality in Genealogy of Morals, while very interesting and even groundbreaking, is actually dealing with archetypes
And that's a flaw how? Archetypes are merely prime examples of a certain thing. They are the BEST thing to deal with when theorizing.

>That's not to mention he's keen on contradicting himself. It's not exactly a flaw, because it is part of his way of writing, but it undermines the idea that his philosophy is a coherent whole, or even an accumulation of ideas
You don't actually understand Nietzsche if you think he contradicted himself on any more than a superficial level. The chaos in his writings is an integral part of his philosophy, not a contradiction to any of it. It is perfectly consistent all the way through.

>>5932341
>So what?

I don't know, how about the fact the argument put forth by a philosopher weren't enough to convince himself to follow his own advice ? Doesn't that put into question the very reason one writes philosophy, and the very reason one decides to follow a philosophy (or not) based on what one reads ? Doesn't that make you consider, furthermore, wether the author and intended audience belong to different categories ?

And aren't those philosophical questions ?

Pretending we shouldn't care about the life of philosophers is the second stupidest thing eight after pretending we should judge the quality of a philosophy on the life of the philosopher. It can be defended, to some extent, for epistemology and metaphysics, but once you start talking about ethics and morality it cannot hold.

So yes, Schopenhauer advocating asceticism while alledgedly practicing hedonism is pretty damn fucking important to me, at least to the extent that I care about Schopenhauer.

>>5932485
>And that's a flaw how?

That's a flaw because he's pretending to describe a transformation of morality over a thousand years, so yes dealing only with archetype is going to be pretty limited as an approach.

Now since we're talking contradictions, look at yourself for a minute:

>You don't actually understand Nietzsche if you think he contradicted himself on any more than a superficial level.

and

>The chaos in his writings is an integral part of his philosophy

so Nietzsche's contradictions are superficial precisely because they are an integral part of his philosophy ? You're not adding anything to what I had already said, by the way, you're merely adding the "you don't understand Nietzsche" label and putting the whole thing in a confused formulation.

And we go on:

>The chaos in his writings is an integral part of his philosophy

and

> It is perfectly consistent all the way through.

So his writing is chaotic therefore it is consistent all the way through ? Interesting. Again, it's nothing more than what I was saying , but put in a retarded way. Is Nietzsche consistent or deliberately inconsistent ? Or, if you like it more, is Nietzsche consistent in his writings or inconsistent in his writings but consistent in his general purpose of writing against traditional consistence ? If you're not careful here you'll only make a fool of yourself once again.


As I said in my previous post, with enough imagination almost anything can be taken from Nietzsche, including a childish and very non-nietzschean admiration like the one you displayed earlier in the thread. I guess I can't say you're definitely wrong, because I can't pretend to be able to make definite statements on Nietzsche. I just wonder how much potential you're missing out by looking at Nietzsche as kind of some superphilosophical software that runs superbly ignorant of its human hardware.

>>5930569
top pleb

>>5932522
>so Nietzsche's contradictions are superficial precisely because they are an integral part of his philosophy ?
I'm not sure how you pieced that one together. They are superficial because they only exist to shallow readers; if you're not capable of the depth of philosophical thought Nietzsche was making observations on, you'll see contradictions in his writing, but if you are, you won't see any contradictions anywhere. Also, consider this quote:

"I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity."

>with enough imagination almost anything can be taken from Nietzsche
With enough mistaken interpretation of his writings you mean, which doesn't just go for Nietzsche but for anyone.

>>5930526
>What are your own criticisms of him?
He was an intelligent man who gazed into the abyss and got scared, thus leading him to adopt (cowardly) optimism into his works.

Schopenhauer came to the more honest conclusions.

>>5932663
>cowardly optimism
Did you even read Nietzsche at all?

>>5932671
>Did you even read Nietzsche at all?
I haven't read all of his works, but a simple glance will show you that he used our seemingly meaningless existence as an excuse to create his own "religion" of sorts, namely the "Overman" concept.

He did not embrace the abyss, he simply created a more well-worded and poetic "God" than his predecessors (namely Jesus Christ and his followers) did which he thought that man should ascend to become.

There is no meaning in rejecting the "need for meaning" and there is no virtue in "creating your own meaning" (which is a big part of his "Overman"-philosophy). Why should one care about the ramblings of this man, when thousands before and after him have created delusions of equal, if not greater grandeur?

He basically showed what garbage Christianity was and then replaced it with his own secular version of it, only this time the individual was crowned God.

>>5932703
That isn't a fair appraisal of Nietzsche, he didn't create something to fill an absence, he thought he was uncovering something hidden behind metaphysics.

>>5932703
What he created, out of respect for life itself, was a superior goal to reach for, one you can't look away from once you've realized it: an ungodly god, a god of the earth, a sentient lifeform that is greater than every other lifeform, known as the Overman. So what if 99% of humanity can only follow and seek the arrival of him but not hope to ever become him? The Overman is far greater, purer, and healthier a goal than any other goal prior. That's not cowardly optimism, that's seizing the reigns of power directly and brutally pushing forward out of an intense artistic passion.

>>5932738
>he didn't create something to fill an absence
I beg to differ, all of his philosophy boils down to trying to find human nature to be compatible with his views of the need for an ideal greater than man himself.

>he thought he was uncovering something hidden behind metaphysics.
He never claimed to reach any definite conclusion about anything and warned about trusting dogmatists.

>>5932488
>And aren't those philosophical questions ?

Lol, god no.

But nobody is saying you "shouldn't" care about the life of a philosopher, only that it shouldn't affect the interpretation of his ideas one iota (again, unless you are a child).

>Schopenhauer advocating asceticism while alledgedly practicing hedonism is pretty damn fucking important to me

Holy fucking lel.

>>5932747
>That's not cowardly optimism, that's seizing the reigns of power directly and brutally pushing forward out of an intense artistic passion.
See, that's the problem; there is no point in pushing forward with an intense passion, all of his deeds and thoughts ultimately amounted to no illumination regarding anything as he simply rehashed a life-affirming viewpoint which in and itself is an act of cowardice: if you stare into the abyss, the ultimate truth is found in suicide and rejecting the blind, vain and meaningless cosmic rollercoaster driven by (for organic lifeforms) a will to live.

We are all just chesspieces on a chesstable of neverending size, all waiting to inevitable being toppled by other pieces with all of them equally directionless as us. Why should one embrace anything in such a world?

I get a good chuckle when I remind myself of the person that cited this world as "the best conceivable one" (sic), human delusion truly knows no bounds.

>>5932774
congratulations, you've won "biggest fedora 2014"

>>5930526
Deconstruct the ideal of (mental) virility you seem to be basing your opinion of yourself around

>>5932774
>there is no point in pushing forward with an intense passion
There is when you have intense passion, and only isn't when you don't. So guess what all this says about you? It says that Nietzsche wasn't a coward, you are just a lackluster and probably fairly lazy being. You are also very confused if you somehow think advocating suicide is healthy in any way; probably a symptom of your laziness/weakness/overall failure to innovate and be creative in your own life.

>>5930859
Sure why not, any easily accessible chat mechanism would be fine.

>>5931843
In what ways do you think he didn't act in accordance with his own philosophy?

>>5932663
This. Man the fuck up and despise life OP.

>hurr it's okay to be miserable if ur goin after le will to power
Yeah nah go fuck that horse you made out with neechee

>>5932806
>There is when you have intense passion, and only isn't when you don't.
I meant transcendental meaning when I said "point".

>So guess what all this says about you? It says that Nietzsche wasn't a coward, you are just a lackluster and probably fairly lazy being.
Why should one NOT be lazy and lackluster when the reaper awaits all and will arrive at a moments notice?

> You are also very confused if you somehow think advocating suicide is healthy in any way;
Living is unhealthy; it ends in death.

>probably a symptom of your laziness/weakness/overall failure to innovate and be creative in your own life.
Being diligent/strong/a success/innovative will not change a thing in the long run.

>>5932774
You best be trolling.

>>5932823
Go kill yourself then and stop wasting our time instead of whining here.

>>5932823
>muh pointless existence made trivial by death
This shit is the real cowardice. The strong feel invigorated and inspired by death, the weak see it as an excuse to be lazy.

>>5932747
This is one of the most absolutely pathetic things I've read. At least ascetisism has fairly observable benefits. The ubermensch is literally some conjured up phantom in the distance made up by a man whi was foolish enough to let the abyss look into himself.

His works reek of desperation. Did he honestly think I would find his pseudonihilism to be optimistic if he just threw a few exclamation points in ?

>>5932840
>Go kill yourself then
As long as I'm reasonably healthy in mind and body, that is pointless.

Being a white european from a middle-class background affords certain comfort in life, I'm not going to throw that away just yet even though I'm aware of the futility of every step.

>>5932846
>The strong feel invigorated and inspired by death
>feel
That's the key word here; feeling something does not make it something. I can't "feel" gravity to disappear, just as I can't "feel" the vanity of existence away.

> the weak see it as an excuse to be lazy.
We are all bones, meat, blood and nerves. To claim that the actions of such a being matter in the slightest is the height of arrogance.

Eh, your sort of on the right path but you seem to have too blunt of an interpretation of the whole transvaluation/antichrist aspect of Nietzsche. Play is the key to Nietzsche. The child stage, a becoming innocent.

Read this to see how deep this whole Nietzsche hole goes.

http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/sign-play.html

>>5932854
The ubermensch is the horizon of man, something to be striven towards, but something that can maybe not be reached. Nor should reaching that state of Being be a concern, but rather the dynamic process of Becoming-overman is what matters.

Read Book 3 of Spinoza's ethics to get something similar to Nietzsche without the baggage you obviously have towards N himself.

>>5932264
- One might guess that I do not want to take my leave ungratefully from
that time of severe illness whose profits I have not yet exhausted even
today: I am well aware of the advantages that my erratic health gives me
over all burly minds. A philosopher who has passed through many kinds
of health, and keeps passing through them again and again, has passed
through an equal number of philosophies; he simply cannot but translate
his state every time into the most spiritual form and distance - this art
of transfiguration j ust is philosophy. We philosophers are not free to
separate soul from body as the common people do; we are even less free
to separate soul from spirit. We are no thinking frogs, no objectifying
and registering devices with frozen innards - we must constantly give
birth to our thoughts out of our pain and maternally endow them with
all that we have of blood, heart, fire, pleasure, passion, agony, conscience,
fate, and disaster. Life - to us, that means constantly transforming
all that we are into light and flame, and also all that wounds us;
we simply can do no other. And as for illness: are we not almost tempted
to ask whether we can do without it at all? Only great pain is the
liberator of the spirit...

>>5932415
>For instance, his take on morality in Genealogy of Morals, while very interesting and even groundbreaking, is actually dealing with archetypes. He pits the Christian slave morality against the Greco-roman master morality, despite the fact that the Christianity that emerged when the Church was formed was already a product of centuries of dialogue between Greek, Roman, Jewish and Christian commentators (in that sense Christian morality is as much Greek as it is "Jewish" or "oriental", if not more so). His idea of Judaism also seems to be almost identical to his idea of Christianism.

>check the time frame he's working with, and shut the fuck up.

During the longest part of human history-so-called prehistorical
times-the value or disvalue of an action was derived from
its consequences. The action itself was considered as little as its origin.
It was rather the way a distinction or disgrace still reaches back
today from a child to its parents, in China: it was the retroactive
force of success or failure that led men to think well or ill of an action.
Let us call this period the pre-moral period of mankind: the
imperative "know thyself!" was as yet unknown.

>In the last ten thousand years,
however, one has reached the
point, step by step, in a few large regions on the earth, where it is no
longer the consequences but the origin of an action that one allows
to decide its value. On the whole this is a great event which involves
a considerable refinement of vision and standards; it is the
'unconscious aftereffect of the rule of aristocratic values and the
faith in "descent"-the sign of a period that one may call moral in
the narrower sense. It involves the first attempt at self-knowledge.
Instead of the consequences, the origin: indeed a reversal of perspective!
Surely, a reversal achieved only after long struggles and
vacillations. To be sure, a calamitous new superstition, an odd
narrowness of interpretation, thus become dominant: the origin of
an action was interpreted in the most definite sense as origin in an
intention; one came to agree that the value of an action lay in the
value of the intention. The intention as the whole origin and prehistory
of an action-almost to the present day this prejudice dominated
moral praise, blame, judgment, and philosophy on earth.

>>5932941
Thank you for the ctrl v I guess?

>>5932948
I trust you can read yourself.

>>5932951
Apparenly not

>>5932959
The masters slave he's talking about go back 10k years at the inception of morality when the cruelty of the slave who couldn't exert it outward exerted it inwards...thus developing a rich inner life, becoming "clever"...expanding what was at that point only a "thin membrane" of consciousness and conscience.

You're reading GM all wrong.

>>5930526
by promoting egoism and selfcententeredness you are are actually acting altruistic

>>5932974
The masters were stupid, but strong.
The slaves were clever, but weak.

After the slave revolt, which harkens back thousands of years, there were no slaves left. Everyone was infected with a richer inner life, with conscience. The Romans are of course healthy ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, but they're mixed types.

>>5932980
>*no masters left.

>>5932976
oh no...

>>5932976
Most intelligent men are very masculine, and therefore more egoistic. That's why they struggle with this so much. "I am naturally egoistic, but society tells me I should be altruistic instead WHAAAT"

>>5932703

YOU'RE SO CLOSE AND YOU STILL DON'T GET IT

He's an esotericist. The overman is a means of distracting the "exceptions", those who like to think of themselves as society'sbest and brightest (Randians, essentially), but who in pursuing this conception of the overman will only end up (in large part) distracting themselves from partaking of politics in any serious way.

Mostly, this doesn't quite work, cause Nazis; the point was to distract the exceptions so that they focus on individually oriented tasks and goals, and so become a new private class that can't really fuck with everyone else, since they're the most likely to bring about the creeping nihilism that Nietzsche understood as a threat to society.

Zarathustra is a myth akin to Plato's Timaeus and Aristotle's Prime Mover; edifying stories that some people just need to buy into in order to get out of bed. Not philosophical truth in its essence, however. That's why he keeps railing on the uselessness of truth, since it looks like it ultimately coincides with nihilism or with the kind of zeteticism present in Plato with respect to political or even philosophical solutions.

Satre was critical of the psychologists so I imagine he was personally critical of Nietzsche even if he doesn't explicate in his books . So read Satre

nietzsche is probably the most feminine male philosopher i've ever read. this leads me to believe that the people who read nietzsche and get all weird and depressed may be people with whatever brain disease causes r9kers to freak out about human sexual behavior. thoughts?

>>5933026
>most intelligent men are very masculine

I've found the opposite to be true.

>>5932859
you were at least semicredible till here

>>5934283
I've found an arbitrary quality like masculinity has no effect whatsoever on the intelligence of an individual.

So you're both wrong.

>>5934283
(guy with prole conception of masculinity)

>>5934265

Sartre never wrote a single page worth reading

>>5934283

You don't know anyone intelligent.

>>5934304
does this pass for clever in your daily life

>>5930543
>>5930537

Lol. Nietzsche himself never had any political power, but Hitler and Stalin both read him.

IF NIETZSCHE HAD DEDICATED HIS LIFE TO POLITICS, OR GETTING BIG MUSCLES AND FUCKING WOMEN OR SOMETHING, HE NEVER WOULD HAVE HAD ANY TIME OR ENERGY TO WRITE HIS BOOKS (the highest philosophy ever written), MORONS.

>>5930582

>Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher

And you're not a human, just a little worm who never should have been taught how to read or write.

>>5934316
yeah fuck faggots who try to express opinions in a halfway normal way on this message board of shit. whenever i'm out with my friends talking about shit i always state my thoughts in weird oblique ways that 2/3rds of the group fails to comprehend but makes everyone feel bad. this is 2015 beeeitch

>>5931862

Dostoevsky was a moralizing little worm.

>>5934334
honestly this is an improvement

>>5934304
You don't know what arbitrary means.

>>5934306
I might, though I'd be surprised if that were the case, as I don't engage much with proles.

>>5934311
I don't know any intelligent men personally. The issue is that they're all masculine.

the best way to be masculine is to do deadlifts in your garage while you listen to metal

Nietzschuh sucks anyway. His prose is better than his philosophy.

>>5934492
prose is the only thing that matterS

only prose is real

>>5934500
>>5934510
>Believing this
>2014
Trash detected

>>5934526
>posting from the past
didn't read lol

>>5934558
>not living in Seattle

>>5934569
sorry frasie

>>5930526
You want a counterbalance which isn't lying ? Zapffe.
Or simply read what Ligotti writes in picrelated. he's pretty much Zapffe's homeboy.
Srsly, there are only these ways open. Nietszche tries to steer the boat of humanity
away from the philosophical black hole, Zapffe just wants to make the end as painless
as possible.

>>5930526
>I feel as though if I don't accept the things he advocates, I'm a coward and denying the truth

I didn't get that feeling with Nietzsche, but I certainly did with Schopenhauer.

>>5934329
He meant Nietzsche was not a Philologist. He never studied Philosophy.
He specialized on ancient Greece, that's the reason Zarathustra has such godlike prose.

>>5930569
> dead for 200 years

oh god just burn yourself at stake nigger

>>5936013
Sorry, meant WAS a Philologist.

>>5934329
How's Tenerife this time of the year?

>>5930569
>do you really care this much about what some guy who has been dead for 200 ...
It's less than 115 years, your're either borderline retarded, a troll or a child,
and that interest is what keeps the culture alive in which you spent your sensless life.

>>5930537
We're talking about Nietzsche''s philosophy, not Nietzsche's life. Who he was as a person is irrelevant when it comes to judging the validity of his philosophy.

honestly for living good the best i have ever read is schopenhauer the art of living.

it's simple, to the point, and not nihilistic. it even has some greek vibe to it

it's not slave morality because it still takes points about reality and society, it isn't the stereotype of schopenhauer closing his eyes to the world and shit.

>>5936065
Well, if he contradicts his philosophy with his life there might be something that one is missing when going over his philosophy.

>>5936080

also, civilization and it's discontents from freud is easy-going summary of life in a modern sense, it's useful as well.

i always have seen philosophy as a field in where you shouldn't get too much involved personally, or else you will end in madness. discuss the ideas but be very sure of what you really are and what you are not.

It remembers me of those demonologists that start seeing more shit and go demental after studying their field for some time.

>>5936080
>honestly for living good the best i have ever read is schopenhauer the art of living.

sorry but I cannot find a philosopher appealing if he did the exact opposite to what he prescribed on the subject on death. schopenhauer was a coward on this one.

>>5934283
I think you're confusing not being masculine with having a fondness for feminine qualities. Masculine men are often very fond of the feminine, in fact their masculinity increases their fondness of it. They themselves are not feminine however and don't wish to be.

Our resident Raskolnikovs aren't much better.

>>5930526
Bertrand Russell is a good balance of him.

>>5930537
Holy shit, is it 1850 again? Nice method of analysis, Sainte-Beuve...!

>>5936146

you mistaken what schopenhauer proposed, the book is more dense than just "be ascetic and you are done"

in fact, you can learn from it even if you don't like what it says, it's not that you have to take literally all about it. you don't lose anything by reading one of the most influential german philosophers

>>5932758
>>5932624
>I'm not sure how you pieced that one together.
But putting a paraphrasis of two of your sentences in a single sentence. Really quite simple, reread the sentences I quoted.

> if you're not capable of the depth of philosophical thought Nietzsche was making observations on, you'll see contradictions in his writing, but if you are, you won't see any contradictions anywhere.

I get that, but after you say that chaos is an integral part of his writing. So is Nietzsche fundamentally consistent or is he fundamentally chaotic ? Make up your mind.

>With enough mistaken interpretation

But that's the kick, what is misinterpretation and what is right interpretation ? Keep in mind we are talking about Nietzsche here, so the line might be more blurry than with others philosophers. In short, you're ignoring what I was saying.

>Lol, god no.

We must have different ideas of philosophy then.

> only that it shouldn't affect the interpretation of his ideas one iota

Why not ? Do you think philologists don't sometimes rely on biographical data to acribe authorship or make sense of a particular word use ? And although you don't need to be a philologist to read philosophy, if you're interested in interpreting philosophical texts you'll end up considering their conditions of production, so those kind of arguments can come in handy.

Of course you can always interpret a text without considering the life of its author, you could always say that it's a necessity for a philosophical text (if you can't do it, the text you're reading might very well not be philosophy). But there's no reason it should be the only way to interpret a text. Closing that way because "muh child" or "muh objectivity" is itself childish. It amounts to considering that philosophical ideas exist in a vacuum, which is a nice assumption, but not fit for all purposes.


>Holy fucking lel.

I'm glad you're having such a good time that you can't be bothered to read sentences in full. I said "to the extent that I care about Schopenhauer", which currently is not much. But if I cared about Schopenhauer then yes, that would be important to me. Now if you don't care about philosophy, fair game, but I wonder what you're doing itt.

>>5932815
I was talking about the relationship between a philosopher's life and his ideas in general.

As for Nietzsche, it seems he tried to live in accordance to his philosophy, but that's a bit tricky because:

1. His philosophy changed over time
2.His philosophy can also be understood as a reaction to his own life, so his life didn't always match his philosophy because he was trying to think of a way to live differently

>>5932974
I'm the one you originally answered to. You got my reading of GM all wrong. The master and slave morality are way older than Christianity, but Christianity represent a step in the taking over of slave morality. Note also what I said about Nietzsche making little difference between judaic morality and christian morality (in GM at least). He explicitly said that the course of morality was altered by the slave revolt that led to the liberation of the Hebrews. So indeed it makes sense to focus on a time span of roughly 3000 years. And none of that goes against my remark (namely that the so-called take over of Christian morality was as much inspired by the Greek and Roman masters as anything else, or conversely that one of the main source of slave morality is already there among the Greek master class via Plato).

>>5930537
If I was together with you in a room in real life, I would punch you in the fucking face. People like you are lazy anti-intellectual fucks who are cancer to ever discipline you inhabit.

His name's pronounced "knee-chuh", right?

>>5936561
>is Nietzsche fundamentally consistent or is he fundamentally chaotic?
He's consistent, of course. Chaos being an integral part of his writing doesn't make him inconsistent. Integral means existing as an essential constituent; Nietzsche made even chaos appear necessary, essential. As he said himself,

>I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful.

Would it be fair to say that Nietzsche doesn't necessarily (even implicitly) call for a restoration of master morality?

From my interpretation of N, I'd figure that N was trying to overturn morality in favor of ethics.

>>5933042
So the concept of an overman has no significance and is a red herring?

I'm so confused

>>5938786
Without agreeing or disagreeing with that anon - if someone talks about esoteric writing, that's exactly the kind of thing they would mean, yeah. The whole point of talking about esotericism is that what the text seems to say is a red herring for what the author really means.

>>5938786
Well, the concept of the overman does seem like a distraction from existential despair. It's this impossible goal- somebody totally unaffected by morality and society- for people to try to live up to throughout their lives. I find the idea of the overman to be even worse than being an individual Christian

>>5938786
That's what that guy is saying, yes. That's not what Nietzsche meant though.

>>5936065
>We're talking about Nietzsche''s philosophy, not Nietzsche's life. Who he was as a person is irrelevant when it comes to judging the validity of his philosophy.

have you read a fucking paragraph of nietzsche like in your life
wtf

>>5938811
>It's this impossible goal
I'm sure prior to Alexander the Great's existence people thought the same of a grand conqueror such as him, i.e. it's not impossible and it in fact has already happened in the past.

whenever i read about nietzsche on /lit/ it's like i'm hearing virgins talk about sex. or black people talking about swimming.

>>5930560

It was thouroughly cringeworthy

>>5939249
Yes. I also think this

>>5939249

That added so much. Upboated :::::DDDDDDDDD

>>5939196
This seems to be a common confusion. Just because Nietzsche's philosophy is about living your life a certain way, it doesn't follow that the validity of his philosophy is dependent on the way Nietzsche lived his life.

Some of you must have had a very difficult time with logic.

>>5939291
i should clarify, it's closer to black people reading a swimming manual and then critiquing the author's approach to something that they have no experience with

>>5939298
>, it doesn't follow that the validity of his philosophy is dependent on the way Nietzsche lived his life.
Nietzsche would disagree with you. He said Schopenhauer wasn't a real pessimist because he played the flute.

>>5940610
This.

The real confusion here is how Nietzsche lived his life. He DID, in fact, live it according to his own philosophy, to the best of his ability. Had he been able to, he would have joined the military, and despite his terrible daily health, he still managed to study pretty much the entire history of western literature and even some pieces of eastern literature, managed to come in contact and become friends with Wagner for a long period of time, managed to learn enough about music to write and play some of his own, and managed to write several large and extremely juicy books containing a philosophy which to this day is still unrivaled in philosophical depth and clarity of thought.

So if you don't think he lived his life in a similar vein as his own philosophy of the Overman, the dancing god that is Zarathustra, amor fati, and the will to power, you are horribly mistaken.

>>5940833
>and managed to write several large and extremely juicy books containing a philosophy which to this day is still unrivaled in philosophical depth and clarity of thought.
You had me until you got to this.

What was Nietzsche's views on homosexuality? A source said that he disliked gays, but the only thing I could find with google was the usual "WAS NIETZSCHE GAY?????"

>>5940867
he said it's gross because they eat the poo poo

>>5940856
My phrasing was a little dumb but what's wrong with it? It IS one hell of a feat to be able to do all that, while being ill, and on top of it write a dozen or so books that are considered revolutionary. And his books really are unrivaled.

>>5940892
They do?

>>5940867
I don't think he ever explicitly said, but my guess would be he was tolerant of gays yet still probably viewed homosexuality as decadent and symptomatic of a psychological problem.

>>5941001

He loved the greeks too much to have such a limited view.

>>5941017
That's true. If anything else he could see it as a symptom of loving power too much, I guess? But he certainly didn't seem to encourage it for the world.

>>5940986
I seriously hope that you're not behind these posts as well.

>>5932264
>>5932328

a+ cringe material

>>5936629
He's not doing history.

Check out BGE 211 and what he says of philosophical laborers and their task.

>>5930526
If you get frightened by the old times, you should always remember that they are old and gone. Every single philosopher that came after him and read his books has a edge on him. He was a good critic of the status quo, a intelligent person and had a very distinct opinion about the morals and values of his time. But if you want to praise him, i think in his own understanding you should praise him by granting him the place in history that he deserves, and turn towards more modern ideas. There is still enough to criticize, still enough reason for fiery optimism on this current day.

>>5941032
>expressing candid love and appreciation for someone
>cringeworthy
I am all those posts, yes. And I don't trust people who attack the writer before even addressing what was written, especially when it comes to Nietzsche, because I know lots of people are at total odds with what he thought and fought for. I realize a person's health and past are bound to what they think but if you think Nietzsche was just projecting a philosophy of power due to his own weaknesses, you're mistaken.

I think there's some confusion about how Nietzsche imagined his Overman. People think he meant you had to be Conan, muscular, with long curly hair, gloriously clutching a sword while nubile maidens hang off your thighs.

But that's not actually what Nietzche means when he talks about a life worth living. One of his favorite people of all time was Goethe.

And that guy was NOT some sort of Aryan Supersoldier.

>>5941073
!!!

>>5941073
actually that is what you have to do to have a life worth living. what nietzsche said is irrelevant.

may your sword stay wet, like a young girl in her prime

>>5941081
The gods made heavy metal, and they saw that it was good.

My point was that Nietzsche's idea of a life worth living, and even of power, wasn't limited to physical power, or power over people.

>We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once.

>>5936065
If he can't even live by his own philosophical outlook, its probably not a good philosophy.

>>5941073
>nubile maidens hang off your thighs.

this is not worth having?

GAYYYYY

>>5941104
But he did live by his own philosophical outlook. I mean, do you seriously imagine Nietzsche didn't get a huge kick out of being Nietzsche? The man was having the time of his life, all is life.

>>5941104
No that's a weird thing to say, except if your philosophy is opportunism. 10% of today's population are suffering from one or the other form of mental disorder, he wasn't talking about women that much but you could see them all around him.

>>5941099
power that is more than incidental comes from power over oneself which requires submission to the will of god

>>5941114
Oh, you can have as many nubile maidens desperately clutching your thighs as you want, they're just not MANDATORY.

Although Nietzsche would probably say that nubile maidens are a waste of your time, because a proper woman should be at least a bit dangerous.

>>5941131
>proper woman should be at least a bit dangerous.

hwy?

>>5941123
Ah, but it is impossible to believe in a God that wants to be praised by such beings as us. A true God would find better things to occupy Him than to eternally listen to the mewling cries of mortals.

A true God would, instead, dance.

>>5941104
He did though.

>>5941131
>>5941134
...or unconventional. Which can be called "dangerous" because it questions a lot of things without any guarantee of luck, wealth or success. No guarantee, but lots of possibilities.

>>5941134
>>5941134
Because what a true man wants most is play and danger, and a woman ought therefore be the most dangerous plaything.

>>5930526
If it makes you feel bad, at least it means you can think about what Nietzsche said
You'll find out that actually Nietzsche was an anti pessimistic man, he was actually somehow optimistic!

He thought that our morals and costumes were too old and that they had to evolve or, I should said, been recreated anew.

The concept of eternal return exemplifies the effort we must take in order to achieve a higher moral status.
The idea of the infinite repetition of our lives is a metaphor through which Nietzsche idealizes the "highest suffering immaginable", but once you manage to accept the reality of life as it is and love life itself, you can finally become a higher man, a superior man.

Also, despite what some fuckers say, it's not true that Nietzsche's philosophy was anti moralistic while Nietzsche himself was moralistic as fuck.
On the contrary, Nietzsche never says we must live WITHOUT a moral code but that we must create A NEW one (from the various exemples you can take one of the first chapters of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra") and only in a superior and new society the Ubermensch may born.
Now, personally I never liked the idea of the Ubermensch but now it's not time to discuss about that.

It's not wrong to feel somehow bad after reading Nietzsche, he's supposed to crush basically every concept at the base of our moral code.
You just have to accept (or deny if you don't think it's good) the idea of creating a new world

>>5934526
>Posting in 2014
>2015

top lel

Nietsche speaks twice of mathematics and once of physics in his entire work. By these three sentences, you understand that he did not understood science for he confused the research activity with the technology. To his defence, all philosophers and even more so-called artistic persons remain incapable to perceive the distinctions as they prefer to remain plebian by talking about it without even the will to understand it.

>>5943283
it is all the more unforgivable that he only cites science just to negatively criticize it

>>5930537
>extremely moralistic, ascetic in his tendencies, polite, shy around women
Are you implying that someone who takes control of his own fate can't be those things.

Sounds like good attributes to me, he was even aware of succubi

Has anyone here actually read Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum.

>>5941037
Perhaps that's where lies my criticism, then. What he does is not history, yet is close enough to it to be mistaken as history. What it is, then ? My guess would be drama. A lot of Nietzsche is more or less open drama, that's perhaps why I find his relying on archetypes wearisome on the long term. But maybe that's just a matter of taste.

>>5941058

Anon called you cringeworthy because of your naive uncritical admiration of someone who wanted to write lucidly about idols. Note also that

> I realize a person's health and past are bound to what they think

is at odds with what you've been arguing the whole thread, namely that Nietzsche's life had little to no bearing on his writings.
>>5941118
>The man was having the time of his life, all is life.

He was pretty regularly depressed, though. There are various philosophers who rank higher than him on the "TOTAL FUN MAN" scale.

Shit philosophy
Shit sense of style
Shit thread

>>5943283
it is all the more unforgivable that he only cites science just to negatively criticize it>>5932758
>>>Schopenhauer advocating asceticism while alledgedly practicing hedonism is pretty damn fucking important to me
>
>Holy fucking lel.


you understand that if you knew what Schopenhauer was about, you would not have answered like this. Try to troll better.

>>5932793
>Feminarkist
>Deconstruct the ideal of (mental) virility

just stop, it becomes embarrassing

>>5930526
>Nietzsche's philosophy is kind of freaking me out. I feel as though if I don't accept the things he advocates, I'm a coward and denying the truth. It's honestly depressing me.

Literally me and Objectivism, all my friends feel the same way about it too if they read into it

>>5943345
>is at odds with what you've been arguing the whole thread, namely that Nietzsche's life had little to no bearing on his writings
I argued that in two posts a few days ago, not the whole thread. I'm allowed to change positions according to who I'm talking to, because different people need to hear different things. People who imply his philosophy is a bunch of macho pretense need their ass kicked for their lack of respect and recognition of his brilliance.

>>5943825
>Nietzsche
>brilliance
MY FUCKING SIDES
>lack of respect for a dead german cultural critic
THEY'RE IN ORBIT

>>5943829

>respect
>cultural critic

kek

>>5943829
you're a fucking asshole. I'm only 17 and I can recognize the sheer brilliance of his writings. It isn't macho hunky dorey nonsense, its the truth. He's recognized whats truly wrong with our morality and near sacrificed himself to explore it.

>>5943836
faggot

>>5943829
Get the fuck off /lit/, you don't belong here.

>>5943836
Is this a joke?

>>5943889
Yes, obviously. He's still gonna get banned for it though.

>>5943889
He doesn't know how to use punctuation, so he could well be 17.