Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17352914]

Why does this man get so much hate? I genuinely do not understand it. Isn't the idea that you should and can determine your own moral principles a good thing? Isn't that what stops you from being an ideologue or an "NPC"?

[Anonymous No.17352931]

>>17352914
>wha'eva
>i due wha' i won'

[Anonymous No.17352950]

>>17352914
>Isn't that what stops you from being an ideologue or an "NPC"?

Imagine thinking NPC´s (ergo the majority of people on this board) want that

[Anonymous No.17352981]

>>17352914
>Why does this man get so much hate?
he doesn't.
>Isn't the idea that you should and can determine your own moral principles a good thing?
no
>Isn't that what stops you from being an ideologue or an "NPC"?
There's a difference between an ideologue and an NPC although they can overlap. NPCs are people who don't spend much time verbal thinking, who don't tend to critically reflect on things or do much contemplation. Ideologues are just people who have elevated ideology to a dogmatic order which should be followed. I'd say a more 'npc" approach is "whatever I feel is right, is right" over basing your opinions on principals which are half-way objective.

[Anonymous No.17352992]

>>17352931
Individualism is an ideology of morals as well. I've read a bit of Nietzsche and didn't get the idea that you should do whatever you please. What I took from it was that you should live to your own beliefs while still being virtuous and kind.

[Anonymous No.17353018]

>>17352981
Could you please elaborate on why you don't think living by your own values is a good thing? There's nothing to stop you from picking bits and pieces from different ideas and applying them to your own life and affecting how you live.

[Anonymous No.17353026]

>>17352914
He's a very complex figure, don't take anything said about or by him for granted-- especially by him! You can never have firm footing where he speaks.

[Anonymous No.17353055]

>>17352914
https://youtu.be/jJBCgcM3XNM

[Anonymous No.17353090]

>>17353018
>There's nothing to stop you from picking bits and pieces from different ideas and applying them to your own life and affecting how you live.
Everyone does that to some extent. You should still have a sort of root, or lines you won't cross.

[Anonymous No.17353348]

>>17353090
I mean yeah of course I guess I'm just too rooted in Western morality. Like I'd obviously not go Vaush mode and declare pedophilia and child porn moral, you'd think that'd be obvious, but I guess it's not anymore lol

[Anonymous No.17353725]

>>17352992
Nietzsche wasn't kind though.

[Anonymous No.17353769]

>>17353725
People who knew him said he was.

[Anonymous No.17353794]

>>17352914
plebs associating him with the natzees or thinking he was just a cliche "dude nothing matters bro" because they're idiots who heard that on fucking family guy or something

[Anonymous No.17353806]

>>17353725
He found it terribly difficult not to be considerate in his dealings, even to his own annoyance - and he didn't mean that in a, for instance, "Christian way" of writing about being unable to not give money or food to a beggar that one crosses on the street out of conviction.
Maybe not "nice" or "personable", but he was considerate, which annoyed his sensibilities to not so readily surrender one's self to others.

[Anonymous No.17353807]

>>17353769
Nice cope. There are a hundred quotes that are the opposite. He was a schizo who changed his mind every day.

[Anonymous No.17353817]

>>17353806
A tyrant in writing but a cuck in reality.

[Anonymous No.17353816]

>>17353807
>There are a hundred quotes that are the opposite.
With Nietzsche, each aphorism is like a new day. It's how he approached life in general. He refuted causality, after all.

[Anonymous No.17353830]

>>17353816
>He refuted causality
How?

[Anonymous No.17353851]

>>17353830
By refuting Kant / the subject.

[Anonymous No.17353914]

>>17353851
Kant can't be refuted. Try though.

[Anonymous No.17353941]

>>17352914
>most overrated philosopher of all time
>why would a contrarian board hate him?

[Anonymous No.17353994]

>>17353914
>Kant can't be refuted
Why not?

[Anonymous No.17354035]

>>17353994
>>17353851
Post refutation.

[Anonymous No.17354061]

>>17354035
It's in Will to Power, can't dig it up right now. From what I recall, it boils down to this: Kant dogmatically insisted that he discovered something that was beyond subjectivity, but when Nietzsche broke it down, he really just fabricated something else to cover the realization that knowledge is impossible, math is subjective, and even subjectivity is subjective, meaning that none of us know or ever can know anything about "reality" and that the distinction between the real and the unreal does not exist except as a sensation. His breakdown makes a lot of sense when you read it. I'll look for it later for posting if I get some time to.

[Anonymous No.17354102]

>>17352914
>>17352992
>>17353348
not to be a semanticfag but he's explicitly amoral, which is not anti-moral or "found your own morals".

His values project is to try and account for

1. How is it that there are so many different values?
2. How come people do or don't live up to the values that do exist?

Question 1 has the modern answer of "bro we have different perspectives". Sure, this is true, but clearly some values are more stable or popular. So he accounts for how values arose over time, as opposed to being fixed and eternal laws of nature.

To answer question 2, he points out how values appear to people. A value is true or correct to a person based on how they interact with the value.
For example: Working out might be a virtue to you if you're disciplined and healthy, but it will appear as a curse and a burden to you if you are impulsive and unhealthy.

Taking those answers as a given, He then points out how Truth itself is a value that is subject to these transformations.
Truth is something that is measured by a degree of psychological strength - or perhaps, how much truth you can or cannot handle. That is, it's not that we are "inherently biased" and can't get to the truth, it's that we literally hide behind our biases because it would be too earth shattering to deal with some truths.

So, extrapolated from these claims the reason people hate him is because they cannot psychologically deal with his claims. But, he also adds that this is outright preferable to hating him secretly and then writing 1000 page manifestos about how "if we analyze nietzsche's texts, he is incorrect and morally bankrupt."

tldr: according to nietzsche, he is hated because his claims are too much of a burden to bear

[Anonymous No.17354252]

>>17354061
So he's saying that the noumena is not enough, we also need to deny phenomena?

[Anonymous No.17354259]

>>17354102
>>17354102


these three quotes from BGE are where he talks about the relation between truth and psychological strength

>A thing could be TRUE, although it were in
the highest degree injurious and dangerous; indeed, the fundamental constitution of existence might be such that one succumbed by a full knowledge of it—so that the strength of a mind might be measured by the amount of
‘truth’ it could endure—or to speak more plainly, by the extent to which it REQUIRED truth attenuated, veiled, sweetened, damped, and falsified. But there is no doubt
that for the discovery of certain PORTIONS of truth the wicked and unfortunate are more favourably situated and have a greater likelihood of success; not to speak of the
wicked who are happy—a species about whom moralists are silent. Perhaps severity and craft are more favourable conditions for the development of strong, independent
spirits and philosophers than the gentle, refined, yielding good-nature, and habit of taking things easily, which are prized, and rightly prized in a learned man. Presupposing
always, to begin with, that the term ‘philosopher’ be not confined to the philosopher who writes books, or even
introduces HIS philosophy into books.


>29. It is the business of the very few to be independent; it is a privilege of the strong. And whoever attempts it, even with the best right, but without being OBLIGED to do so, proves that he is probably not only strong, but also
daring beyond measure. He enters into a labyrinth, he multiplies a thousandfold the dangers which life in itself already brings with it; not the least of which is that no one
can see how and where he loses his way, becomes isolated, and is torn piecemeal by some minotaur of conscience. Supposing such a one comes to grief, it is so far from the comprehension of men that they neither feel it, nor sympathize with it. And he cannot any longer go back! He cannot even go back again to the sympathy of men!

>30. Our deepest insights must—and should—appear as follies, and under certain circumstances as crimes, when they come unauthorizedly to the ears of those who are not
disposed and predestined for them.

[Anonymous No.17354268]

>>17354102


these three quotes from BGE are where he talks about the relation between truth and psychological strength

"A thing could be TRUE, although it were in
the highest degree injurious and dangerous; indeed, the fundamental constitution of existence might be such that one succumbed by a full knowledge of it—so that the strength of a mind might be measured by the amount of
‘truth’ it could endure—or to speak more plainly, by the extent to which it REQUIRED truth attenuated, veiled, sweetened, damped, and falsified. But there is no doubt
that for the discovery of certain PORTIONS of truth the wicked and unfortunate are more favourably situated and have a greater likelihood of success; not to speak of the
wicked who are happy—a species about whom moralists are silent. Perhaps severity and craft are more favourable conditions for the development of strong, independent
spirits and philosophers than the gentle, refined, yielding good-nature, and habit of taking things easily, which are prized, and rightly prized in a learned man. Presupposing
always, to begin with, that the term ‘philosopher’ be not confined to the philosopher who writes books, or even
introduces HIS philosophy into books."


"29. It is the business of the very few to be independent; it is a privilege of the strong. And whoever attempts it, even with the best right, but without being OBLIGED to do so, proves that he is probably not only strong, but also
daring beyond measure. He enters into a labyrinth, he multiplies a thousandfold the dangers which life in itself already brings with it; not the least of which is that no one
can see how and where he loses his way, becomes isolated, and is torn piecemeal by some minotaur of conscience. Supposing such a one comes to grief, it is so far from the comprehension of men that they neither feel it, nor sympathize with it. And he cannot any longer go back! He cannot even go back again to the sympathy of men!"

"30. Our deepest insights must—and should—appear as follies, and under certain circumstances as crimes, when they come unauthorizedly to the ears of those who are not
disposed and predestined for them"

[Anonymous No.17354277]

>>17354102
Why didn't he just read Plato?

[Anonymous No.17354333]

>>17354102
>the truth is not the truth
WOAH deep MANN!

[Anonymous No.17354379]

>>17354277
he did, and Philippa Foot accuses him of not reading Plato well enough and just being Glaucon 2.0

He roughly thinks Plato basically just retreated into his own fanfiction because he couldn't cope with the state of affairs as it was. And as for being glaucon 2, i think maybe its arguable that glaucon's understanding of what "power" or "might" actually was is very different from neesha

>>17354333
nice trips, but also, it's more like asking "how did the truth get here, if not from God?"

[Anonymous No.17354390]

>>17352914
>Isn't the idea that you should and can determine your own moral principles a good thing? Isn't that what stops you from being an ideologue or an "NPC"
Never said that. He said that everyone should just live their lives. Thats it. There was no prescription in any of his books.

[Anonymous No.17354391]

>>17354379
So if God dies there was never a God?

[Anonymous No.17354421]

>>17352914
>Why does this man get so much hate?
He is academia's darling

[Anonymous No.17354474]

>>17354391
>>17354391
>>17354391
sort of the opposite. We used to think God brought us truth. Turns out, erasing god from the picture (ie, killing him) means he couldn't have been bringing us truth this whole time. However, we still seem to have truth, even though there isnt a god. So how did truth get here?

[Anonymous No.17354503]

>>17352914
A syphilitic who grew up in a house full of women without a father is no philosopher you want to go through life with son.

[Anonymous No.17354521]

>>17354474
>we have truth
>which is just whatever

[Anonymous No.17354560]

>>17354252
In a way. We can't distinguish between the two, and to suggest that we can is inconsistent with the idea that time and space are relative.

[Anonymous No.17354564]

>>17354521
>which is just whatever
>which is just an interconnected series of incredibly complicated mental systems that the greatest human minds have constructed in a collaborative effort lasting many thousands of years

[Anonymous No.17354623]

>>17354564
Literally Kant.

[Anonymous No.17354628]

Nietzsche: inferior in his psychology and knowledge of human nature; way off when it comes to great historical values; a moral fanatic a la Voltaire; a subterranean Christianity in his values; a dogmatist through and through, but ponderously sick of this inclination, to such an extent that he wished to tyrannize it, but also weary right away of idealism; not yet touched by the slightest breath of European taste and the beauty of antiquity - a delayer and mediator, nothing original

[Anonymous No.17354686]

>>17354623
ah, let me just whip out my table of categories and judgments here, ah let me see, yes, judging by your post, it appears to be a universal aposteriori reality that kantposters are big niggers

[Anonymous No.17354702]

>>17354102
Nietzsche reads a philosophy book. Nietzsche now thinks Nietzsche has some profound intellectual insight.

Nietzsche publish his notes. Nietzsche spews a bunch of dogshit thinking they have it all figured out.

Based anonymous academic is scrolling through the new books in the library and reads two sentences of their poorly formulated thoughts. Based anonymous academic also sees how their thoughts are not based in reality, but in psychological needs they have. Based anonymous chad points to a single Plato passage which devastates their ill philosophy.

Nietzsche is massively upset at this offense. Striking at their poorly formed idea doesn't just strike at the idea.. it reveals the illnesses in their own thought. Nietzsche mad. Nietzsche now realizes Plato is the big bad enemy who must be erased from history.

Nietzsche doesn't read philosophy (he only reads ports and french moralists), so Nietzsche doesn't actually delve into understanding Plato. Instead Nietzsche fails for any argument they can find to destroy Plato.

"B-but he hated life, he was decadent!" Nietzsche writes out, regaining confidence. "Therefore, we can ignore this hack! My world view isn't sick and disgusting, it's still good!"

Nietzsche publish another book, Twilight of the Idols, assured that Based anonymous academic will repent for his sins against Nietzsche's shitty philosophy. Goes mad before anyone has the chance to respond.

[Anonymous No.17354823]

Nietzscheans
>Freud
>Adorno
>Deleuze
>Foucault
>various other queer theorists
>The Amazing Atheist
>Reddit
>OOTW
>Tranny Jannies
Gee I wonder why people hate him.

[Anonymous No.17354885]

>>17354702


>plato is the big bad enemy who must be erased
"How much reverence has a noble man for his enemies!—and such reverence is a bridge to love.—For he desires his enemy for himself, as his mark of distinction; he can endure no other enemy than one in whom there is nothing to despise and very much to honor! In contrast to this, picture 'the enemy' as the man of ressentiment conceives him—and here precisely is his deed, his creation: he has conceived 'the evil enemy,' "

[Anonymous No.17354896]

>>17354885
>neetch said thing
Cringe

[Anonymous No.17354909]

>>17354823
>>Freud
>>Adorno
>>Deleuze
>>Foucault
>>various other queer theorists
Those are based though

[Anonymous No.17354930]

>>17354896
>neetch said thing which the previous post uwittingly uses to attack neetch

[Anonymous No.17354960]

>>17354702
Anon reads an anonymous post. Anon now thinks Anon has some profound intellectual insight.

Anon makes a post. Anon spews a bunch of dogshit thinking they have it all figured out.

Based anonymous NEET is scrolling through the new posts in the thread and reads two sentences of their poorly formulated thoughts. Based anonymous NEET also sees how their thoughts are not based in reality, but in psychological needs they have. Based anonymous atheist points to a single Nietzsche passage which devastates their ill philosophy.

Anon is massively upset at this offense. Striking at their poorly formed idea doesn't just strike at the idea.. it reveals the illnesses in their own thought. Anon mad. Anon now realizes Nietzsche is the big bad enemy who must be erased from history.

Anon doesn't read philosophy (he only reads Wikipedia and Jordan Peterson self-help books), so Anon doesn't actually delve into understanding Nietzsche. Instead Anon fails for any argument they can find to destroy Nietzsche.

"B-but he said life is will to power, he was a hedonist!" Anon writes out, regaining confidence. "Therefore, we can ignore this hack! My world view isn't sick and disgusting, it's still good!"

Anon make another post, >>17354896, assured that Based anonymous NEET will repent for his sins against Anon's shitty philosophy. Turns tranny before anyone has the chance to respond.

[Anonymous No.17355105]

>>17354960
Cringe

[Anonymous No.17355152]

>>17354960
dangerously based

[Anonymous No.17355326]

>>17354960
>retard doesn't know

[Anonymous No.17355356]

>>17354960
Nice job newfaggot
>>/lit/thread/S16146072#p16146394

[Anonymous No.17355523]

>>17355356
>Newfag
>links a post from 2020
Now this is some good trolling

[Anonymous No.17355785]

Overrated. Loved by effete and weaker men.

[Anonymous No.17355843]

>>17353817
Yeah.
Something along the lines of "the moment I talk to anyone, my moral principles fall apart. I hate this so much."

[Anonymous No.17355899]

>>17354421
Which is hilarious considering he shit all over academics and liberals. Modern academia and liberal society makes a mockery of his work.