/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13341332]

Who was in the wrong here

[Anonymous No.13341335]

Anyone sympathetic to humanism.

[Anonymous No.13341338]

>>13341332
Wait, the guy who liked Master morality also liked slavery? Really?

[Anonymous No.13341346]

>>13341332
ASS

[Anonymous No.13341367]

is this his first day in learning about philosophers?

[Anonymous No.13341371]

>>13341367
It's Steven Pinker, so probably.

[Anonymous No.13341387]

>muh human rights
will be the end of humanity.

[Anonymous No.13341388]

>>13341332
Ass

[Anonymous No.13341456]

>>13341332
Well at least someone on the left realizes that N isn't for the left.

[Anonymous No.13341508]

>>13341332
uh oh, someone tell butterfly!

[Anonymous No.13341511]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.13341535]

>>13341508
Nietzsche is a dead man. We can pick over his remains, discarding what doesn't fit, as we please.

Pinker promotes the slavery of today.

[Anonymous No.13341537]

>>13341367
Are these all real?

[Anonymous No.13341550]

>>13341535
>We can ignore what offends our dainty little asses and pretend we understood him — exactly which he criticized several of his peers at the time of doing.
Fixed that for you.

[Anonymous No.13341558]

>>13341332
pinker for using homophobic language

[Anonymous No.13341561]

>>13341367
>Implying literally anyone here is wrong

[Anonymous No.13341572]

>>13341511
this hurts

[Anonymous No.13341595]

>>13341511
He is right in that brain adaptations aren't necessarily damage. He can shove his "Green future" up his ass though.

[Anonymous No.13341639]

>>13341367
Not even a shooppy quote on there? That image could be so much longer. Sad.

[Anonymous No.13341654]

>>13341639
A good Aristotle one that was left off is "Silence is a woman's glory."

[Anonymous No.13341656]

>>13341572
>>13341595
It's fake, anons.

[Anonymous No.13341665]

>>13341656
It's a pretty good fake.

[Anonymous No.13341674]

>>13341639
A kant qoute would also be fiting lol

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.13341746]

>>13341550
Ignore, refute, adapt one when they are wrong. I am not tied to the dead like so many of you here are.

[Anonymous No.13341763]

>>13341332
>antihumanist

lmao imagine still being a humanist in 2019

[Anonymous No.13341773]

>>13341746
Sour grapes

[Anonymous No.13341774]

>>13341338
One is necessary for the other to exist, this is quite explicitly laid out in his work.

[Anonymous No.13341782]

>>13341746
>Ignore, refute, adapt one when they are wrong.
Sure. He just wasn't wrong on anything in regards to slavery, women, and how aristocracies form and maintain themselves.

[Anonymous No.13341783]

>>13341535
What a vapid meaningless bundle of shit
Kys

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.13341834]

>>13341782
>how aristocracies form and maintain themselves.
How is that relevant to a dawning new age of naturally occurring aristocratic-anarchists?
I don’t think he endorsed slavery. I think there’s a misunderstanding, or purpose or not, I don’t care. I remember Nietzsche didn’t believe we would a rise up together, he was sure some would still hold onto the past slave morality, and that seems obvious for his time and ours, but I doubt these sorts will survive or be left out. Nietzsche was a product of his times, but an extraordinary one. Not a prophet whose every word should be taken as gospel

>>13341783
Twit

[Anonymous No.13341952]

>>13341367
>two-fingered wisdom
What does this mean?

[Anonymous No.13341985]

>>13341332
>A-ANTI HUMANIST!!
You think Nietzsche was trying to be a humanist? What kind of criticism is that supposed to be? Just empty, meaningless moralization. Very retarded, Pinker

[Anonymous No.13342021]

>>13341763
The vast majority of so called antihumanists are just humanists in disguise. Few truly want to see the concept of humanity destroyed.

[Anonymous No.13342071]

>>13341834
>How is that relevant to a dawning new age of naturally occurring aristocratic-anarchists?
You mean the same new age that N dismantled, time and again, as being an increasingly weak, anxious, fearful, effeminate age? He criticized modernity in Twilight of the Idols, §39, as just this:

>Our institutions are no good any more: on that there is universal agreement. However, it is not their fault but ours. Once we have lost all the instincts out of which institutions grow, we lose institutions altogether because we are no longer good for them. Democracy has ever been the form of decline in organizing power: in Human, All-Too-Human (I, 472) I already characterized modern democracy, together with its hybrids such as the "German Reich," as the form of decline of the state. In order that there may be institutions, there must be a kind of will, instinct, or imperative, which is anti-liberal to the point of malice: the will to tradition, to authority, to responsibility for centuries to come, to the solidarity of chains of generations, forward and backward ad infinitum. When this will is present, something like the imperium Romanum is founded; or like Russia, the only power today which has endurance, which can wait, which can still promise something — Russia, the concept that suggests the opposite of the wretched European nervousness and system of small states, which has entered a critical phase with the founding of the German Reich. The whole of the West no longer possesses the instincts out of which institutions grow, out of which a future grows: perhaps nothing antagonizes its "modern spirit" so much.

The wills of the old world and their institutions weren't refuted. They're just missing today. We haven't overcome anything; rendering them meaningless because we no longer understand what gave them life is not an overcoming at all.

How on earth can an aristocracy even be fathomed without its opposite? "aristocratic-anarchists" is an oxymoron; if everyone can be an aristocrat, no one can be one. He endorsed slavery because he endorsed aristocracies; thinking you can endorse one or the other is a double falsehood, one big scam of the principle.

Also, Zarathustra condemns those who dwarf others in order to become master over them. He has no respect for the master of dwarfs. The meaning of this lack of respect is in N's acknowledgement that what makes institutions, like the master and slave system, not mere Romantic feelings of egoism and power, but natural order. N asserted that no good marriage could ever be founded on love, and that marriage became meaningless when we indulged in marriage formed by love instead of by institutional arrangement, for this reason.

[Anonymous No.13342106]

>>13341332
Pinkers argument against Nietzsche in his book goes something like: well u think things aren't morally wrong what if I do it to you hurrrrr

[Anonymous No.13342116]

Nietzsche was an anti-humanist, what an asshole. - Peven Stinker

Also Peven Stinker: Capitalism is great, even though Abdul inhales asbestos and gets 50 cents an hour when I buy my 6th Tesla.

[Anonymous No.13342126]

>>13341367
Not an incel worth reading.

[Anonymous No.13342137]

The fact of the matter is Nitch contains multitudes. Whatever perspective one adopts you see what you want to see in his ideas, villain or hero, quack or visionary. This is all entirely fitting perspectivism endorsed by him.

Nietzsche would especially have words for Pinker, a psychologist. Perhaps no one is more intellectually arrogant than someone who claims authority on the infinite subjectivity of experience by cloaking it in the appearances of science.

Pinker is attempting to discredit someone's ideas based on a moral infraction on their part, or in one of the least relevant, least attended aspects of their beliefs.

[Anonymous No.13342142]

>>13341367
>Any woman who does not give birth to as many children as she is capable is guilty of murder

[Anonymous No.13342169]

the fuck is pietzsche

[Anonymous No.13342185]

>>13341746
t. triptranny

[Anonymous No.13342258]

>>13342169
Pietzsche>Peechee>Peachy Pinker pronounces Nietzsche as Neechee like a pseud.

[Anonymous No.13342261]

Yet another very intellectually dishonest piece from that shyster

[Anonymous No.13342384]

>>13341535
“The worst readers are those who behave like plundering troops: they take away a few things they can use, dirty and confound the remainder, and revile the whole.”

[Anonymous No.13342412]

Why hasn't some noble soul assassinated this fool?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.13342415]

>>13342384
Again, read it all, if it is wrong, discard. It is not a religion. If it is you who discards that turns out to be wrong, you have only to readapt.
Grow up.

[Anonymous No.13342420]

>>13342415
have children

[Anonymous No.13342422]

>>13341511
This is fake. But I can see why someone would think it's true, even I fell for a couple of weeks ago

[Anonymous No.13342427]

>>13341746
A lesbian that appreciates the female form to the same extent as a straight man is quite rare indeed.

[Anonymous No.13342443]

>>13342422
It is the lie that tells the truth

[Anonymous No.13342454]

>>13342384
but those are the best readers anon

[Anonymous No.13342471]

ok, maybe i will start reading nietzsche, the massive muh ubermensch and muh slave morality idiots i have encountered were always repelling me but pinker makes him interesting.
the irony.

[Anonymous No.13342500]

>>13342415
You're essentially discarding the whole work and latching on to a mere few choice quotes when you claim he didn't endorse slavery.

[Anonymous No.13342512]

>WAAAA a 18th century man doesn't appeal to my liberal 21st century views WAAAA
Get a proper haircut, you mandrill-looking rat-fuck.

[Anonymous No.13342518]

>>13341332
Humanism is strictly for the birds.

[Anonymous No.13342526]

>insinuate he is wrong without actually explaining why he's wrong
Ah the classic liberal fallacy of begging the question.

[Anonymous No.13342529]

>>13342471
A lot of his fanbase are toxic idiots who believe themselves to be the Übermensch. But that doesn't make Nietzsche a bad author. I really think he should be read even by Christians. I have had conversations about him with my Religion teacher and to sum up what he thought about Nietzsche, he said "Nietzsche critiqued the bad religion."

[Anonymous No.13342532]

>>13342512
On top of this, Pinky is committing an act of doublethink with that post, as if he does not subtly endorse the ideology of his so-called ideological opponents.

[Anonymous No.13342539]

no one gives a shit about his ideas about how society should be structured or his ubermensch or whatever.

he's venerated for his ideas about knowledge and power. nietzsche undermined the basis of pinker's enlightenment heros and now pinker's ressentiment is flaring as he tries to undermine nietzsche with irrelevant criticisms.

why do people pay attention to such a worthless hack like him?

[Anonymous No.13342540]

>>13341367
where in the palikanon is that buddhquote taken from. I call bullshit.

[Anonymous No.13342544]

>Pinker was born in Montreal, Quebec, in 1954, to a middle-class Jewish family. His parents were Roslyn (Wiesenfeld) and Harry Pinker.His grandparents emigrated to Canada from Poland and Romania in 1926, and owned a small necktie factory in Montreal.

[Anonymous No.13342546]

>>13342021
i don't think antihumanism implies that humanity should be destroyed. most strains of it at best think humanity should be transcended (nietzschean perspective, perhaps the buddhist/hindu perspective) or subjected to something greater than it (the religious perspective). the only people i've seen that want it destroyed are AI fags who will submit to being extinguished by robot overlords

[Anonymous No.13342551]

>>13342412
the world isn't that good, it seems.

[Anonymous No.13342557]

>>13342071
>Twilight of the Idols, §39
can you tell me where exactly that is?
I have a copy of that book translated into my mother language can you tell me in which chapter that is located in?

[Anonymous No.13342559]

>>13342529
>I really think he should be read even by Christians.
He should especially be read by them. His anti-Christian stance is a very advanced and difficult to reach analysis that your standard r/atheism mongrel momma's boy has nothing to do with. His condemnation of Christianity comes directly out of his intense adoration for it, and he points out its flaws and failings because he is disappointed in its fruits. A good Christian will understand him much better after thoroughly reading him than fedoras will.

[Anonymous No.13342567]

>a jew hating a german
wow tell me more

[Anonymous No.13342571]

>>13342557
Skirmishes of an Untimely Man

[Anonymous No.13342608]

>>13341332
Goethe > Herder > Wieland = Schiller

[Anonymous No.13342648]

>>13342529
>toxic
kys

[Anonymous No.13342664]

>>13342539
>Nietzsche is wrong because I dislike his conclusions
>His reasoning also invalidates my entire value system
>That will not stop me from using that same value system to declare his conclusions invalid
>And because his conclusions are invalid I don't have to defend my value system against his critiques
>haha thought you could outsmart me

[Anonymous No.13342679]

>>13342664
>well he said there are no facts so that means I can refute him with feelings lol ;)

[Anonymous No.13342796]

>>13342571
thanks i found it.
So, in other words the thinking that marriage and its institution is done out of love and, not with the objetive of asserting power over another, satisfing the sexual needs and getting heirs that also help you in maintaining the power, what kills its institution and makes it useless.
And so the democracies or libertarians that support these institutions also contribute to their death at the same time, because the institutions were sprung from a mainly anti democratic and anti liberty ground and instinct of expressing a form of domination/possession of something.
Did i get this right?

[Anonymous No.13342847]

>>13342796
yes, you get the gist

[Anonymous No.13342872]

>>13342847
So, were does the overcoming fits in all this?
I wouldnt either praise the marriage institution as divine and neither would i throw it on the garbage can. I would simply "own up" the institution, recognize my feelings of wanting romance, egoism, possession and "power" and use them according to my will and when i want. But i have a feeling this wouldnt difer very much from the modern way of thinking in marriage desu.
What would N's responce be then?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.13342917]

>>13342427
Not really. I like a lot of female forms. Certainly not “bimbo”, which is just as bad as obese or skeletal

>>13342500
Not really. I like most of Nietzsche, discard or adapt little, but this pompous quote you’ve latched onto is odd. Aren’t you taking it out of some context? Because this is not only what everyone does as a matter of course, but what Nietzsche himself does.
I think he’s just weary of dilettantes. But to take it in the other extreme you have mindless orthodoxy.
Clearly I’m no Nietzsche scholar, but I’m not even concerned with what the quote means or if he defends slavery or not (it was my impression he meant for future man to be self sufficient, and barely mentions what the slave minded would do) it all makes no difference to me. I am not *Nietzschean* I am me. Adherent to none

[Anonymous No.13342989]

>pinker

[Anonymous No.13343009]

>>13342796
>>13342872
>So, in other words the thinking that marriage and its institution is done out of love and, not with the objetive of asserting power over another, satisfing the sexual needs and getting heirs that also help you in maintaining the power, what kills its institution and makes it useless.
Yes. More precisely, it's in thinking that loving is all that is needed to maintain institutions which eventually kills institutions. Institutions maintain order. An institutional will, the one that "is anti-liberal to the point of malice" according to N, is needed to maintain institutions. Marriage became meaningless once we did away with arranged marriages, which is also when we obscured the truth behind marriage from ourselves; the truth of it was that it didn't help people "find love," it maintained order. Confusing marriage with that Romantic feeling of love is pure foolishness, because that love is momentary and quite ignorant.

>And so the democracies or libertarians that support these institutions also contribute to their death at the same time, because the institutions were sprung from a mainly anti democratic and anti liberty ground and instinct of expressing a form of domination/possession of something.
Correct. Democracy is liberal, it lets the masses escape the clutches of the institutional will, who do not understand said will at all and, over time, undo the very foundation of the institutions out of their ignorance, causing civilization to unravel into chaos and failure.

>So, were does the overcoming fits in all this?
The masses don't overcome anything through democracy; all democracy does is help obscure the truth behind the institutions, and behind civilization itself. Ignorance is as much grappling with the beast as is pulling out your eyes in the middle of combat so you no longer have to behold the fear-inspiring size of the beast.

I'm not sure what N's answer to the 21st century state of affairs would be. I still need to read and think more. In Human, All-Too-Human, he states that trying to force old traditions onto new worlds is foolish. I agree with him; you can't expect the same key to work with every lock.

[Anonymous No.13343021]

I saw a guy on a bus in Bermuda who looked like Steven Pinker. I asked him if he was Steven Pinker and he said he wasn't and that it was a silly question.

[Anonymous No.13343052]

>>13342917
N defends slavery like he defends bad weather in other passages:

>Examine the lives of the best and more fruitful men and peoples, and ask yourselves whether a tree, if it is to grow proudly into the sky, can do without bad weather and storms: whether unkindness and opposition from without, whether some sort of hatred, envy, obstinacy, mistrust, severity, greed and violence do not belong to the favouring circumstances without which a great increase even in virtue is hardly possible. The poison which destroys the weaker nature strengthens the stronger—and he does not call it poison, either.

He doesn't defend slavery like a slave owner or one who wants to have slaves might. He's a philosopher. He defends it because it's part of the formula that gives rise to aristocracies. It's like taking out the "m" in E=mc2 and thinking you still get E.

[Anonymous No.13343686]

>>13341332
What I love Nietzsche now

[Anonymous No.13343706]

>>13341952
Masturbation

[Anonymous No.13343715]

>>13342384

[Anonymous No.13343732]

>>13341367
Women agree with this

[Anonymous No.13343751]

>>13341332
Why does this guy hate Nietzsche so much?

[Anonymous No.13343817]

>>13341952
Possibly a reference to the Jnana mudra gesture.

[Anonymous No.13343928]

>>13341332
>((()))
every damn time

[Anonymous No.13343941]

>>13341746
>trans
>not dead
lmao

[Anonymous No.13343959]

>>13341511
I'm all for population reduction. Wish we could genocide most of the earth.

[Anonymous No.13344332]

>>13342544
>Canadian
EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

[Anonymous No.13344589]

>>13341367
By far the most based image I've seen today