/lit/ - Literature

Nietzsche's doctrine starting point is basically nihilism, as he turns down most of society's views and values as arbitrary, or utilitarian at most. In his famous text "Beyond Good and Evil" he demonstrates different moral systems (which he attributes to different social classes: slaves and masters) and explains the true motifs behind their existence.

With most of society's beliefs being human creations, Nietzsche concluded the force behind all human action, and creation, to be "the will to power". We are controlled by our will to stay alive, he said, but certain situations can being a human to act against this will - in the name of his will to power. For Nietzsche, the entire world was basically wills to power competing, humans included. This connects to his nihilism, as he saw all human-created views, morals, and etc. as results of the human will to power - to carve and control his life, and other's as well.

His nihilistic standpoint brought him to make his famous dictation: "God is dead".
He claimed all absolute morals and views (which he compares in nature to gods) to have lost their relevancy, as humans start to realize the truth. For Nietzsche, this "death of god" was not to be taken lightly. Like many of us may have realized - life, from a nihilistic point of view, are meaningless. If you truely understand how meaningless life are, once you see the truth, you will find it terrifying, he said.

This lead him to his later thought, based upon the will to power, his existentialism.
Nietzsche couldn't settle for strict nihilism, which brought him to somthing that could be described as post-nihilism, perhaps. existentialism. As already said, for Nietzsche, the most powerful thing in a human is his will to power - therefore we should embrace it. Insted of living according to another's creations (society's beliefs), create your own path in life, follow your will to power.

Needless to say, as a nihilist in his core, Nietzsche rejected dualism - so for him, life weren't about any end goal. Life are about chasing power, life are a process. The meaning of creating your own beliefs, views, morals, ideas, and other things you use to carve your existence and control the life you were given - are the point of themselves. You as a living being, are meant to be born, chase power, and die. The act of being alive itself, is the point of life. Actually getting the power, or reaching some kind of a goal, should just be a point you keep growing from, as your life should be about growth - not reaching a certain size. You should always re-invent your views, and yourself, to become more and more advanced.

So, for Nietzsche, life were all there is. He claimed you should stop living for some made-up higher reason, and love life for what they are: a process. You end up vanishing into nothing, but you should still live bravely, as the will to power you are - and live a life you create and shape by yourself, attach your own meaning to existence.

>>6815209
I feel like I haven't been sharp enough, but this is my attempt at one of /lit/'s most discussed.

>>6815209
What you meant to say was
>*tips fedora*

>>6815209
Very good tl;dr

>>6814924
Schopenhauer's philosophy was "everybody is a gigantic pleb except me"

>>6815252
obviously

>>6815253
thanks!

All. You Need. Is Love.

>>6815209
>Nietzsche's *doctrinal starting point is basically nihilism
It's certainly the character of his early works, BoT and OTL both strongly carry over a nihilistic strand from Schopenhauer. The early-mid works like HAH and Dawn are cases of critical nihilism, where N. attacks the metaphysical foundations of preceding western philosophy, without really positing anything in their place besides naturalism and a resurging faith in the sciences. You could say that around this period your claim that
>he turns down most of society's views and values as arbitrary, or utilitarian at most
is most accurate. But he doesn't use that framework in his later works, and certainly not by BGE. By BGE his philosophy is thoroughly non-nihilistic, having essentially critiqued the conditions under which nihilism as anything other than a life-negating disposition (by positing will to power and perspectivism) can be thought.

In any case, On the Genealogy of Morals is the primary text that people go to when talking about Nietzsche and morality, and all of this
>different moral systems (which he attributes to different social classes: slaves and masters) and explains the true motifs behind their existence.
is more prominently dealt with there rather than BGE, although BGE precedes OGM and already has those ideas in aphoristic form. OGM is sort of the 'idiot's guide' to aspects of BGE. Probably why Analytics have flocked to that text in particular. (BGE is the idiot's guide to TSZ).

>We are controlled by our will to stay alive
"The Will was a mistake" - Nietzsche
And not just to stay alive, which is the minimal aspect of the "will" for Nietzsche, but to tend towards superabundance, growth, overcoming, and any other number of similarly edgy badass-sounding nouns.

>but certain situations can being a human to act against this will
I don't think so, because all there ever is constitutes will to power (if one takes the ontological reading): hence why he thinks that nihilists would rather will nothing than to not will at all.

>This lead him to his later thought, based upon the will to power, his existentialism
This meme needs to die, Nietzsche is not an existentialist. Existentialists call for the creation of meaning, whereas for Nietzsche meaning is inherent in the will power; everyone is expressing their will to power, and therefore everyone is already expressing meaning.

etc

>>6815209
Suprisingly good tbh

>>6815209

Or tl;dr: he's what you'd get if Seneca fell into a coma and woke up in the 1800's

>>6815209
How does this differ from Stirner (apart from Stirner talking more about what not to do, and not pushing the reader to do something specific - such as suggesting you should work on getting more power)

>>6815545
please read the one fucking book of stirner before discussing or asking questions about egoism

jesus

>>6814924
Ayn Rand: get yours, dont fuck with mine bruh
PS I think Im brilliant for saying this, pay attention to me, Im a woman

>But he doesn't use that framework in his later works, and certainly not by BGE. By BGE his philosophy is thoroughly non-nihilistic, having essentially critiqued the conditions under which nihilism as anything other than a life-negating disposition (by positing will to power and perspectivism) can be thought.

It is often argued whether or not Nietzsche's late thought should be considered nihilistic.
Nietzsche goes "beyond" nihilism and into the meaning that is inherent in creating meanings, chashing power. The nature of his thought remains nihilism at it's core, but I agree it's hard to consider it nihilism and not "post-nihilism" of some sort.

I don't think so, because all there ever is constitutes will to power (if one takes the ontological reading): hence why he thinks that nihilists would rather will nothing than to not will at all.

I dont think you quite got me, I meant to demonstrate why Nietzsche assumed the will to power is stronger than the will to stay alive.

>This meme needs to die, Nietzsche is not an existentialist. Existentialists call for the creation of meaning, whereas for Nietzsche meaning is inherent in the will power; everyone is expressing their will to power, and therefore everyone is already expressing meaning.

I think it's widely accepted that Nietzsche was an example of early existentialism. I mean, I do agree with you, but part of expressing the will to power is creating meaning for your own life, constantly. The meaning is creating meaning, basically, what might still include a "given" aspect to one's meaning of life, but still counts as existentialism since the creation of meaning is integral to it.


Just doing some explaining of what I wrote, as I said, I do know it's not perfect. Good criticism, you did bring up valid points.

>>6815481
>>6815581

forgot to >>

>>6815416
Fuckin' hippie.

>Shit happens

>>6815635
I prefer "Deal with it."

> cogito ergo sum

Shit, this is easy

>Kill yourself.

>Deal with it.

Stoicism in general.

>>6815678
Mate >>6815652

>>6815682
Ye just noticed..

>>6815662

Descartes actually looks bad ass

>>6815635
>>6815652
>>6815678
Always look on the bright side of life

>>6815581
>I think it's widely accepted that Nietzsche was an example of early existentialism. I mean, I do agree with you, but part of expressing the will to power is creating meaning for your own life, constantly. The meaning is creating meaning, basically, what might still include a "given" aspect to one's meaning of life, but still counts as existentialism since the creation of meaning is integral to it.
I'm still not entirely convinced. Here's what I take to be a family-resemblance understanding of existentialism in general: 1) there is a recognition of some sort of nihilism or absurdism as the fundamental starting point, 2) the basis out which meaning must be created on the part of human beings.

But neither are really applicable to Nietzsche's philosophy, or at least his later work, because
1) Will to Power precludes any form of nihilism apart from a negative disposition towards the world
2) The creation of meaning on the part of the human subject or anything else is a fundamentally superfluous act when human beings, and everything else in the world, are constantly doing so by their very nature as expression of will to power. I think that for Nietzsche, given all of his denigration of consciousness and the weakness of affect he associates with it, then the contrived, self-conscious and intentional act of creating meaning is a low-point or an act of deficiency or weakness. If you are actively engaging and progressing in the process of growth and self-overcoming, then there is never a need to ask this question in the first place. Hence, to offer a rough summary: on a societal level, it was only when the metaphysical systems of western thought finally degenerated to the point that they did that it became an issue of nihilism and the "task" of creating meaning emerged.

I would guess that if there is any significant reading of existentialism in Nietzsche it would be with his philosophy of the future and the aim of producing a state of affairs from which the overman is possible. But I don't think this can really be framed as existentialism either, but I won't go into it any further for now.

>Fuck your shit

>>6814924
HEGEL gave his own TL;DR once, "identity of identity and non-identity"

>>6815725
What about "What is actual is rational and what is rational is actual"?

>kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. the lesson is: never try

>>6815753
Why is he wearing a lipstick?

>>6815702
>Diogenes made a virtue of poverty. He begged for a living and often slept in a large ceramic jar[4] in the marketplace.
>He became notorious for his philosophical stunts such as carrying a lamp in the daytime, claiming to be looking for an honest man.
>He criticized and embarrassed Plato, disputed his interpretation of Socrates and sabotaged his lectures, sometimes distracting attendees by bringing food and eating during the discussions.
What a fucking troll. Gotta respect that.

Nietzsche: Stop being such a fucking baby: you only have this one life, so write the rules. If you're weak you're a B-I-T-C-H.

Schopenhauer: You all secretly know that it's all for nothing and I hate all of you for making any noise that's not music.

Descartes: One philosopher wrecks the history of western philosophy with this one concept.

Diogenes: You're all shit. (Spoken from a sewage pipe he's laying in).

>>6815780
He also apparently shit in a crowded theater, told Alexander the Great to fuck off and plucked a chicken to mock Aristotle's definition of man as a featherless biped.

>>6815780
>I saw a woman praying in front of an alter with her ass in the air and said to her: 'Look out; Zeus is behind you, too.'

If you're somewhat intelligent and complain enough you can get free food and sex despite living in a bathtub and masturbating in public. You will also be immortalized in literature.

>>6815735
Yeah. Even better. Hat's off to you m'sir.

>>6815806
>>6815857
He destroyed the single wooden bowl he possessed on seeing a peasant boy drink from the hollow of his hands. He then exclaimed "Fool that I am, to have been carrying superfluous baggage all this time!"

>>6814924
>bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks
>life sucks, you should contemplate suicide
>fuck a friend be about your business

Pythagoras: First rule of mathematics is.. No farting in the compound.
Heraclitus: Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes.
Socrates: Am I beautiful?
Democritus: cut my life into pieces, this is the last resort.

>>6815701
I understand what you're saying. I went and read similar opinions by Kaufmann, which apparently supports you. (or, well. the other way around).
Perhaps I didn't fully get how absolute is the importence of the will to power in Nietzsche's late work.

So basically, Nietzsche is considered to be the one who established the roots of existentialist thought, in his earlier works - where he suggested humans must create a meaning for themselves, but then grew apart from existentialism as he developed the idea of will to power enough to declare the pursuit of power as the ultimate meaning of all life. Did I get it right?

Also, maybe I should read some of his later works again, which is more relevant - TOI, or TWTP?

>Donnez-lui la bite

>>6816843
Why is the D feminine?

>>6816807
There are varying interpretations of will to power in Nietzsche scholarship that range from limited readings that posit will to power as a psychological principle, to holistic readings that consider will to power to be an ontological principle, what the world consists of. Kaufmann's reading is in the limited tradition, and as far as I remember, it's conducive to an existentialist reading insofar as it talks about individuals who pursue 'their' individual wills to power. You should bear in mind that Kaufmann is not particularly relevant to contemporary debates, however: that torch was carried on by Maudemarie Clark, most prominently, among others.

I'm more sympathetic to the ontological reading.

>Nietzsche is considered to be the one who established the roots of existentialist thought, in his earlier works - where he suggested humans must create a meaning for themselves
I never got the impression, from what I read, that Nietzsche ever framed the problem (if there is one) of existential meaning like this. I think the closest he comes to a position like that is in BoT, where the terror of the primordial world-will has to be effaced with art. But again, I don't think that's existentialism, I think it's a Schopenhauerian pessimism that develops into what other commentators call Nietzsche's own 'Dionysian Pessimism'.

So honestly, I just don't really see existentialism in his philosophy at any point, coming from my position.

>which is more relevant - TOI, or TWTP?
It depends on what you're hoping to understand better. TOI's 'How the "True World" Finally Became Fiction' is a key passage, along with the various bits and pieces on perspectivism, that poses as one of the most important factors of Nietzsche's late philosophy.

WTP is a little trickier by its very nature. I would say that you use the different bits and pieces in it to supplement your understanding of the published works, especially paying attention to the dates of various notes in WTP. I think a fairly reasonable starting point with WTP is to take an insight you find in a published text and see if there are notes in the WTP that develop that insight.

>>6816931
Well, you do make sense, but I'm just wondering why is Nietzsche widely considered to be the "first" or at least the first importent existentialist. I'm not informed on contemporary debate, but it does say so in pretty much every text that summarizes Nietzsche or serves as an interduction to him. Is it a very (very) popular mistake? Or is it simply based upon the limited reading of Nietzsche?

Also, thanks for the tips for the second reads. Should I read some Clark on the topic as well, or start with someone else?

You seem to be very informed, I really respect that. It's usually my role in /lit/'s Nietzsche discussions, but you're obviously much more.

>>6815209

Oh, so it was just spooks all along? Why the fuck do people care?

>>6815933
>life sucks, you should contemplate suicide
Schopenhauer doesn't advocate suicide FYI

>>6818908
but could he really speak against it?

>>6815758
Perhaps is he a massive faggot?

>>6816859
Because feminine dicks are the best.
Are you some kind of faggot for preferring "manly" ones?
As for women, it allows them to transfer all their lesbian lust energies on a D. Same for the man that gets to check his sissyboy instincts while fucking bitches.

Win-win situation.

>Year of our Lord Jesus Christ 2015
>350 years after Descartes
>Clinging to the "real man" bullshit

>>6814924

you are cancer and need to leave right now

>You're wrong.

>>6815800

fuck off

>>6819457
Later on:
>I was wrong too!

>>6819506

>>6815753
Not at all lol

God's a pretty cool guy.

Karl Marx:
Rich people. Poor people. robin hood.

>>6815758

Why are you not wearing lipstick?

>>6819406
he justifies it

Heidegger: start with the Greeks

so much reddit in one thread

>>6816859
Because it is.

>>6820097
You forgot to mention that Being is always the Being of beings within Being.

>>6815940

super keks mate.

>>6820097
>>6820374

TL;DR

Greeks missed "being" but turns out its really fucked up topic and almost impossible to speak about with language.
Poetry is our best shot, and its not a good one.

>>6820262
Post more hosiery