Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 362 KB, 1274x1700, Nietzsche1882.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17508182 No.17508182 [Reply] [Original]

Okay lets get serious here, say one nice things about Nietzsche's philosophy and one thing you dislike

>hard mode: no ad hominems and no low iq seething

>> No.17508225

Nietzsche, as every one knows, preached a doctrine which he and his followers regard apparently as very revolutionary; he held that ordinary altruistic morality had been the invention of a slave class to prevent the emergence of superior types to fight and rule them. Now, modern people, whether they agree with this or not, always talk of it as a new and unheard-of idea. It is calmly and persistently supposed that the great writers of the past, say Shakespeare for instance, did not hold this view, because they had never imagined it; because it had never come into their heads. Turn up the last act of Shakespeare’s Richard III and you will find not only all that Nietzsche had to say put into two lines, but you will find it put in the very words of Nietzsche. Richard Crookback says to his nobles:

Conscience is but a word that cowards use,
Devised at first to keep the strong in awe.

>As I have said, the fact is plain. Shakespeare had thought of Nietzsche and the Master Morality; but he weighed it at its proper value and put it in its proper place. Its proper place is the mouth of a half-insane hunchback on the eve of defeat. This rage against the weak is only possible in a man morbidly brave but fundamentally sick; a man like Richard, a man like Nietzsche. This case alone ought to destroy the absurd fancy that these modern philosophies are modern in the sense that the great men of the past did not think of them. They thought of them; only they did not think much of them. It was not that Shakespeare did not see the Nietzsche idea; he saw it, and he saw through it.

>> No.17508229

>>17508182
god just stop with the Nietzsche threads already

>> No.17508299

What I like about Nietzsche:
God is dead bros my self preservation switch is off dwag, everything goes and I don't scurry back to religion because of it I embrace it I'm a maniac, I'm an uberman muahahaha
What I don't like:he's still probably wrong tho

>> No.17508307

Nietzsche's problem is that he rejects Christian metaphysics and then spends most of the time harping about what Christianity is while implicity expecting us to take it as given that his rejection of metaphysics is correct. His solution to this predicament is to simply say "ah, but that's exactly what I knew you would say, that by itself is evidence of what I'm saying". And so you spin in circles where every objection you could ever want to make against Nietzsche is always already pre-determined as a case in his favor in his system of thought. For some reason this general movement of argument became very popular at that time, for example Marxists suffer from a very similar thing with false consciousness or by blaming capital as sort of a all-powerful Other where even completely disjointed things are somehow traced back to the root of capital. I'm not sure what happened around that time, but this kind of irrational ideological thing started becoming very prevalent at that time. Even in things supposedly very anti-Nietzschean such as decolonisation or white privilege or whatever one discovers this kernel of Nietzsche in that they will not even establish a framework for rational discussion of things, because like for Nietzsche the intellect itself is already pre-contaminated by some kind of will to power. Nietzscheans would like to absolve Nietzsche from this because he would be very much against your contemporary SJW but in reality they both operate on the same irrational anti-metaphysical basis.

>> No.17508310

>>17508225
please formulate your own position

>> No.17508358

>>17508307
There happened a revolution in thought somewhere around french revolution. People dismissed metaphysical thinking in favor of a more down to earth, based on material principles. This trend went trough early hegelians to XX century. Psychoanalysis, marxism and Nietzsche's philosophy share the same sentiment: explain ideas and actions as an expression of a more primordial workings. Everything is just an expression of underlying forces. This kind of thinking of course can be misused, but I think on a more rigorous conceptual level its important to keep in mind that what we think or do have sometimes unconscious origins.

>> No.17508403

>>17508358
Nietzsche, psychoanalysis and marxism is hardly down to earth though. It's irrational more than anything.

>> No.17508426

>>17508403
just because they take irrationality as their object, doesnt mean its irrational

>> No.17508468

>>17508426
historical materialism
will to power
almost everything psychonalytical

are entirely irrational things on which these are conceptually built

>> No.17508481

>>17508468
do you mean the things those theories describe are irrational or those theories in themselves are irrational? what is even your idea of irrationality?

>> No.17508508

>>17508182
I have neither anything nice to say about it nor do I dislike anything about it. Cheap appraisals and whining are for girls.

>> No.17508538

>>17508481
those things don't describe anything, they are concepts about how the world is supposed to be. will to power eliminates rationality by making it second place at best to will, historical materialism is reductively irrational, psychoanalysis is just theoretical irrational nonsense about the human psyche. there is nothing "down to earth" to any of these.

>> No.17508583

>>17508538
>they are concepts about how the world is supposed to be
just like every theory, no? what theory has achieved the complete adequation between rei and intellectus in your opinion?

>> No.17508605

>>17508583
No not every theory is irrational, reductive or super-skeptical. You don't need to be a naive realist about the world either, but this skepticism and irrationality about metaphysics is an entirely modern development.

>> No.17508628

>>17508605
so can you give an example of "well balanced" and non-reductionist theory? because every theory has concepts that explain things, so every theory is reductive in a sense, how are those three more reductive than others? and whats wrong with being skeptical?

>> No.17508639

>>17508628
>so can you give an example of "well balanced" and non-reductionist theory?

literally 90% of things before 19th century, the further back you go, the higher the percentage

>> No.17508650

>>17508229
Shut the fuck up

>> No.17508671

>>17508639
So plato’s forms are more rational than historical materialism?

>> No.17508688

>>17508182
He was a humanist who believed in humans.

>> No.17508703

>>17508403
>irrational
Nietzsche transcends that dichotomy.

>> No.17508712

>>17508671
Absolutely. Plato's forms could exist at least in theory, historical materialism is patently false even from a cursory look at everyday experience.

>> No.17508721

>>17508639
but thinking everything is just an expression of abstract entities or nous is reduction too, just with different kind of principles

>> No.17508728

>>17508703
Nietzsche is pure transcendence, he says everything and nothing at once so that whenever something is said against him it is only proof of what he says but also he totally transcends it.

>> No.17508755

>>17508721
Thinking that would be idealism or pantheism.

>> No.17508780

>>17508755
well yes, most of presocratics presupposed one ruling principle and reduced everything to it, so they were even more reductive than psychoanalysis, marxism or Nietzsche's philosophy, so your argument is kind of retarded desu famalam

>> No.17508788

>>17508712
I am no marxist but how is historical materials ‘patently false’?

>> No.17508790

>>17508712
>Plato's forms could exist at least in theory
But will to power can't? What about evolution? Entropy? Quantum physics?

>> No.17508815

>>17508728
Nah, he has concrete ideas. They just can't be measured by the tools and methods that Platonic metaphysics provide.

>> No.17508821

>>17508780
I said 90% not every single one. You will not find anything as reductive as will to power or historical materialism in most major philosophers before 19th century but even more importantly, even if they do come to a principle they do not say that this principle itself informs everything we can even think. Usually they think our thought and the link between thought and reality as such is pretty solid, not some irrational thing completely at the mercy of materially dictated historical consciousness or of a primordial force of will to power or of a desire to fuck your own mother.

>> No.17508825

So /lit/ can not provide any decent critique of Nietzsche that is not just retarded "everything was better before modernity" tradlarping?

>> No.17508835

>>17508815
Exactly. He says something but as soon as that is tackled...he totally transcends it and you tackling it is just proof that he was right.

>> No.17508847

>>17508821
>You will not find anything as reductive as will to power or historical materialism in most major philosophers before 19th century but even more importantly, even if they do come to a principle they do not say that this principle itself informs everything we can even think.
how is theory of forms, aristotles/kants categories not reductive in the same vein? have you even read philosophy pre 19 century or do you just imagine things?

>> No.17508867

>>17508835
>He says something but as soon as that is tackled...he totally transcends it and you tackling it is just proof that he was right.
That doesn't follow from what I just said though. That's also not the case, unless you repeatedly apply the same faulty tools and methods to try and grasp him.

>> No.17508889

>>17508788
It's a gross oversimplification to claim that history is the result of material conditions.

>>17508790
There is no evidence of will to power as being primordial just like there is no evidence of Plato's forms but in the latter that is at least implicitly obvious since it presupposes that the forms are more real than the world. So it is at least possible in theory somewhat realistically. Nietzsche certainly did not think Will to Power exists in a platonic realm. But there is no any evidence of Will to Power in the world, unless one squints very hard to interpret everything as the case of Will to Power. But then one might as well posit the Will to anything or even the Christian God which puts the Nietzschean into an odd position, since his own concept has no more credibility than the thing he usually attacks.

>> No.17508904

>>17508182
>War is cool guys! It's the source of all virtue! Never mind getting shot in the head by a sniper or blown up by an artillery shell while you're taking a piss. That's virtue!

>> No.17508910

>>17508847
Are you even reading? Those philosophers start with a consideration of what can be thought or what is the case in the world and then arrive at some sort of principle or limits. They don't posit some irrational force behind even thought itself that makes thinking itself incapable as an action without being impacted by this primordial force.

>> No.17508912

>>17508889
>the latter that is at least implicitly obvious since it presupposes that the forms are more real than the world. So it is at least possible in theory somewhat realistically.
So because it's easier for you to wrap your mind around, it's more plausible? That's all I'm getting from this. I also assume you don't think evolution is plausible for the same reasons.

>> No.17508932

>>17508912
It's not about the ease of having your mind wrapped around something but about the coherence of the concept itself, what said concept explicitly or implicitly states and its corespondence to reality. Platonic forms are far more coherent as a theory than WIll to Power which is an obvious mess conceptually speaking.

>> No.17508973

>>17508932
how is Will to Power less coherent than theory of forms? both presuppose certain ontological axioms, but do it in a different way. One says everything stems from transcendent ideas and the other that everything stems from immanent forces, whats so contradictory about the latter? It sounds like you just have an allergy to any theory that refuses subject object dichotomy, you cant think in different terms so those theories appear incoherent to you

>> No.17508978

>>17508973
>how is Will to Power less coherent than theory of forms?

I explained it here:
>>17508889

>> No.17508981

>>17508182
Nietzcheanism is kinda gay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY4mxB7taJs

>> No.17508993

>>17508932
Nietzsche's ideas are more coherent to me than Plato's forms. So, it does have to do with how easy it is for you to grasp.

>> No.17509005

>>17508993
It's not about what is the case for you but what is actually the case and what is actually the case is that Nietzsche is less coherent than Plato.

>> No.17509007

>>17508978
but there is no argument? what do you mean there is no evidence? take two eggs and crack them at each other, one will affect the other, the other will be reactive, there you go, will to power. whats so hard to understand? what do you think will to power is?

>> No.17509025

>>17509005
You lack self-reflection. "What is actually the case" is not something you're privy to. Further, I'm almost certain at this point that you deny the plausibility of evolution, which means you're not really worth discussing anything with.

>> No.17509059

>>17509025
I think he is just mixing up "incoherent" with "complex"

>> No.17509083

>>17509007
you just proved what I said

>>17509025
proving: >>17508889
again


I'd say I'm surprised, but I learned a long time ago that reasoning has never been a strong point for Nietzscheans.

>> No.17509094

>>17509083
So, do you think evolution isn't plausible? Be honest. I'm curious now. Will to power, evolution, thermodynamics, and quantum physics are interrelated, so to question the plausibility of one is like questioning the plausibility of any other.

>> No.17509096

>>17509007
I'll spoonfeed you:

>take two eggs and crack them at each other, one will affect the other, the other will be reactive, there you go, will to power.

>>17509025
>evolution

>>17508889
>unless one squints very hard to interpret everything as the case of Will to Power. But then one might as well posit the Will to anything or even the Christian God which puts the Nietzschean into an odd position, since his own concept has no more credibility than the thing he usually attacks.

>> No.17509107

>>17509094
>Will to power, evolution, thermodynamics, and quantum physics are interrelated, so to question the plausibility of one is like questioning the plausibility of any other.

Jesus Christ

>> No.17509124
File: 20 KB, 333x499, QN.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17509124

>>17509096
>>17509107
Here's a book for you. Consider reading it to get a better understanding of the ideas you're attempting to discuss.

>> No.17509158

>>17509124
You do realize there are dozens of book out there that tie quantum mechanics, evolution, thermodaynamics to God, to Aristotle, to Buddha, to Islam, to Kant, to Hegel etc.?

>> No.17509183

>>17509158
And if they're worth anything, they'll say very similar things that are in that book. Things that you currently aren't saying.

>> No.17509207

>>17509096
>unless one squints very hard to interpret everything as the case of Will to Power. But then one might as well posit the Will to anything or even the Christian God which puts the Nietzschean into an odd position, since his own concept has no more credibility than the thing he usually attacks.
well Nietzsche did say everything was just an interpretation of the world. That includes his own philosophy. He just presents an interpretation that explains other interpretations, which is coherently set out, because Nietzsche is aware of that very fact.

>> No.17509213

>>17509183
The point is tying Nietzsche to those concepts solves nothing. Anybody can tie anyone to a bunch of concepts and interpret them through that vein. You're basically still proving me right here: >>17508889

But don't worry, there is no way out of that predicament, so you can save yourself the trouble of trying.

>> No.17509233

>>17509213
>Anybody can tie anyone to a bunch of concepts and interpret them through that vein.
It takes an understanding of the concepts to do so coherently, however.

>> No.17509246

>>17509207
>everything was just an interpretation of the world

it's almost like you have to actually prove this...and then prove that all interpretations fail to be truthful or correspond more accurately to reality...almost...

>> No.17509254

>>17509233
Yes and this is hardly unique to Nietzsche, which you will probably find out if you ever progress past reading a single philosopher or his followers.

>> No.17509265

>>17509246
That is not even enough since if everything is just an interpretation, then there is no reason to give any merit to the Nietzschean interpretation of interpretations making it self-refuting.

>> No.17509276

>>17509254
>Yes
Which means your point was moot. Don't keep going when you're wrong, it makes you look childish.

>> No.17509293

while i acknowledge the benefits of intentionally ignoring coherency for the sake of aphorisitic clarity, i often cant help but shake my head at the neetzsch's pendant for contradicting himself every other page

>> No.17509298

>>17509246
no, you clearly havent read nietzsche, or if you did, you didnt understand the basic presuppositions of his philosophy. People like you are still caught up in the intellectus et rei paradigm that always have to presuppose duality of theory and world. Nietzsche works with different axioms.
>it's almost like you have to actually prove this..
I dont, neither Nietzsche did try to prove it.
>and then prove that all interpretations fail to be truthful or correspond more accurately to reality
no really, Nietzsche criticized christianity for example (and any other theory/interpretation) not because its untrue, but because the given narrative is literally bad for your health. People like you still think in the service of Truth, while Nietzsche thought in the service of Life. In other words, go read our lord and saviour Nietzsche.

>> No.17509313

>>17508182
I don't even consider him a philosopher, he is more like an armchair psychologist who produces hot takes

>> No.17509325

>>17509276
No my point was not moot. With every post you make, you confirm it further:

>>17508889
>there is no any evidence of Will to Power in the world, unless one squints very hard to interpret everything as the case of Will to Power. But then one might as well posit the Will to anything or even the Christian God which puts the Nietzschean into an odd position, since his own concept has no more credibility than the thing he usually attacks.

I will add not only that it does not have more credibility than the thing he usually attacks, it has less credibility it being focused on immanence in contrast to competing theories.

>> No.17509336

>>17509298
see: >>17508728

Thanks for proving it again. Arguing with Nietzscheans is like dunking on midgets.

>> No.17509347

>>17508307
Christianity is irrelevant, it's only a vehicle for some of his points.

>> No.17509353

>>17509298
Life without Truth is an empty concept. A bit like a sea without water.

>> No.17509364

>>17509325
Evidence doesn't exist for any of the ideas we're talking about. There's no evidence for Plato's forms either.

>> No.17509368

>>17509347
His points are all self-refuting, Christianity is just a vehicle to prove this.

>> No.17509372

>>17509336
the only thing he transcends is your capability to understand that not all theories have to adhere to your kind of principles

>> No.17509375

>>17508182
I liked the birth of tragedy
I don't like autism about slave morality

>> No.17509378

>>17509364
Failing to grasp the point again, re-read:
>>17508889
>>>17508889
>There is no evidence of will to power as being primordial just like there is no evidence of Plato's forms but in the latter that is at least implicitly obvious since it presupposes that the forms are more real than the world.

>> No.17509387

>>17509372
Not all theories have to adhere to my kind of principles but some theories are self-refuting. Nietzscheans refute themselves at pretty much every turn.

>> No.17509397

>>17509387
"self-refuting" can only be viewed negatively trough the anglo worldview that literally can not think contradictions because they are so far removed from life itself (which is of course full of contradictions)

>> No.17509417

>>17509397
see :>>17508728

*dunks*

>> No.17509429

>>17509378
What point am I missing, exactly? I don't hold will to power as something that objectively exists. It's an interpretation, just like Plato's forms. There's no evidence for either. I argue in favor of the will to power only because, to me, it's a more coherent interpretation than the forms.

You originally posited that Plato's forms "could exist in theory" while will to power couldn't, but that can't be demonstrated and you're salty about it.

>> No.17509431

>>17509397
if Nietzsche is a self-contradiction then there is no reason to think that anything he has said is true. therefore his philosophy is just rhetorical bunk, an aesthetic psychology.

>> No.17509435

I like his earnest anti-nihilism, his quest for meaning. I like the dialectical, contradictory nature of his pscyhology, his scorned romanticism. I like the many profound concepts he came up with, such as eternal recurrence, the last man, the overman, will to power, the death of god, ride the tiger, and so forth. I like his writing, it is extremely potent, brimming with the tension of often conflicting meanings. I like his aphorisms, distilling ideas that people write entire books expounding on, to a few sentences that captures the essence.

I dislike the encroaching illness and megalomania of his latter years, evident especially in Ecce Homo. I dislike the fact that christcucks seethe over him, so they come to this board trying to 'refute' the GOAT, shitting up every thread, instead of learning from him and his genius.

>> No.17509437

>>17509368
came to reply this

>> No.17509441

Read Kant basically just so I could read Schopenhauer but I find Schopenhauer incredibly dull. Can I move on to Nietzsche without having read Schopenhauer? I already know the tl;dr of Schopenhauer. Either I move on to Nietzsche or I read /comfy/ Kant one more time.

>> No.17509447

>>17509429
>to me, it's a more coherent interpretation than the forms.

see: >>17509005

>>17509429
>You originally posited that Plato's forms "could exist in theory" while will to power couldn't, but that can't be demonstrated

see: >>17509325

>> No.17509451

>>17509368
>>17509387
An admission of fallibility (read: perspectivism) is not the same as being self-refuting you utter brainlet.

>> No.17509455

>>17509431
>therefore his philosophy is just rhetorical bunk, an aesthetic psychology
well that is exactly how he viewed himself. Your presupposition is Truth and adherence to reality, his presuppositions were art, untruth, power etc. I dont think its that kind of a hard to understand idea, but the poster who has spent whole hour criticizing nietzsche seems not to understand it

>> No.17509461

>>17509447
Already disputed both of those posts. Got anything else?

>> No.17509468

>>17509461
he is clearly trolling at this point, just leave him alone

>> No.17509473

>>17509451
Perspectivism is self-refuting.

>> No.17509478

>>17509461
Maybe when you actually manage to bring a strong objection to them (any objection actually).

>> No.17509479

>>17509473
only if youre not throughout

>> No.17509499

>>17509468
Good advice, I have shit to get done anyway. Pretty sure this is the same guy that has been posting non-stop in Nietzsche threads lately too, so he's obviously set in his ways.

>> No.17509503

By the way there is no bigger cult of death than perspectivism. It's a complete rejection of Life. But Nietzsche was never particularly coherent to begin with.

>> No.17509512

>>17509499
whats the quantum Nietzsche book about? I've been reading about evolution lately, does it show a relation between those two theories?

>> No.17509560

>>17509368
> His points are all self-refuting

Clearly you have not read him. The question is why you think your opinion of something you haven't read is interesting or relevant.

>> No.17509592

>>17509368
Nonsensical cope. Why does Nietzsche make you seethe so much that you find it necessary to shit up every single thread about him?

>> No.17509673

>>17509560
see:>>17508728

Look, I get it. Nietzsche is a rhetorically powerful guy. He doesn't say anything too concretely, he loves the paradoxical turnarounds, strong rhetorical declarations and so forth. Yes I get it, it's an attractive idea. But all in all Nietzsche+s thought boils down to simply being a chaotic death cult for midwits. Somebody needs to say this amid all the fanfare and rhetorics.

>> No.17509691

>>17509673
I mean to say, at least move on to something more interesting. If you go through Nietzsche as a stage that is understandable, but staying there is kind of embarrassing if you're older than 25.

>> No.17509713
File: 453 KB, 1796x1200, toc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17509713

>>17509512
It ties Nietzsche to a wide range of subjects, including evolution. It doesn't get too heavy into the science and is more of a document of references really, but he usually draws ample passages from Nietzsche and certain scientists to make his points. Here's the table of contents in case you're interested.

>> No.17509832

Cringe reddit thread.

>> No.17510005

>>17509673
>>17509691
> I mean to say, at least move on to something more interesting. If you go through Nietzsche as a stage that is understandable, but staying there is kind of embarrassing if you're older than 25.

The juvenile readings of Nietzsche are only an aspect of his philosphy, and do not truly grasp him. It is like those who thought the point of Fight Club was to fight and destroy shit. Nietzsche had inspired some of the greatest thinkers and artists of the 20th century. These people were not stupid nor juvenile.
The juvenile readings are often not wrong, but just limited. His writings often have multiple meanings, so even if you have a reading that is not wrong per se, it doesn't mean it's the whole truth. I've seen it before also with a christcuck on this board who had a valid perspective on will to power, but absolutely seethed at the idea that there was more to it than his interpretation, because all he wanted to do was to "refute", as if refutation of a philosophy of the kind that Nietzsche writes is even possible.

An example of what I'm thinking of is the concept of the Overman from TSZ. The juvenile reading of the Overman is individualistic, might is right, egoist. This is not necessarily a wrong interpretation, but it is the least interesting, in my opinion. The Overman is also a social idea, the idea that the meaning of humanity can be achieved by emergence, that humanity can justify itself by achieving something beyond itself. The Overman is the antithesis to the Last Man. It is an imperative, a call to action that is both social and personal, to strive to create meaning, purpose, life, both for ourselves as persons and as a society. It is fundamentally a call to struggle agaisnt the forces of nihilism and despair. If you only focus on the juvenile interpration, you lose this understanding of Overman.

The thing is, there is a fundametal tension in most of what Nietzsche writes between romanticism and cynicism, nihilism and anti-nihilism, etc. I think this is well encapsulated in his short essay 'On the Pathos of Truth', where he displays his ability to earnestly produce two well-argumented positions in direct opposition to each other. This is also why much of his writing is so fascinating. And finally, this is why it is very possible to read and learn from Nietzsche, even as a Christian. He has much to teach, and much to inspire Christians with. I'm sure many Christians have done so. But to do that, you'd have to approach him in good faith. Most christcucks immediatly think the equivalent of ORANGE BAD MAN when his name is brought up, probably because they've always been Christians and someone once told them that Nietzsche was the great atheist philosopher or something, and thus they decided to hate him, without knowing him.

>> No.17510026

>>17510005
>not juvenile
>fight club
Theres no discussion because neetchfags dont fucking read.

>> No.17510031

>>17509713
Ill check it, thanks

>> No.17510037

>>17510026
Fight Club is a book

>> No.17510048

>>17510005
>APPROACH IN GOOD FAITH ALL YE CHRISTKEKS WHO ENTER
The problem is that you're a fucking retard.

>> No.17510049

>>17510037
Stop, youll make him bald, he is altready malding lmao

>> No.17510051

>>17510005
No I mean what you consider the "grown up" interpretation of Nietzsche is still juvenile. I'm very well aware that there exists a yet even more juvenile edgy phase to Nietzsche's fanbase, but I mean that the "mature" outlook is still juvenile.

>> No.17510094

>>17510051
Neetchfags can't read, and have no interest anyway so don't waste your time.

>> No.17510111

>>17509503
>By the way there is no bigger cult of death than perspectivism. It's a complete rejection of Life.
How so?

>> No.17510114

>>17510005
>The Overman is also a social idea, the idea that the meaning of humanity can be achieved by emergence, that humanity can justify itself by achieving something beyond itself. The Overman is the antithesis to the Last Man. It is an imperative, a call to action that is both social and personal, to strive to create meaning, purpose, life, both for ourselves as persons and as a society. It is fundamentally a call to struggle agaisnt the forces of nihilism and despair. If you only focus on the juvenile interpration, you lose this understanding of Overman.
Incredibly simple and obvious. There was no need to write 15 books to understand that.
Just proves how juvenile he was.

>> No.17510122

>>17510051
It's not thought. He's inspired thinkers and artists of the 20th and 21st century. Was Foucault juvenile? Deleuze? Guattari? Baudrillard? Nick Land? Yeats? Heidegger? Evola? Ernst Jünger? Max Weber? Carl Schmitt?
The breadth of his intellectual impact is immense, probably unparalleled. It simply does not make sense to claim that it's all juvenile.

>> No.17510152

>>17510114
It's only one concept out of many. And it's quite profound. It's a hallmark of genius that he can speak on so many levels at once.

>> No.17510173

>>17508182
like
>he was racist
dislike
>he believed in feels over reals

>> No.17510178

>>17510122
>Was Foucault juvenile? Deleuze? Guattari? Baudrillard? Nick Land? Yeats? Heidegger? Evola? Ernst Jünger? Max Weber? Carl Schmitt?

Yes other than Schmitt and Heidegger.

>> No.17510188

is the the gay science a book of self quotes and narcissisms?

>> No.17510215

>>17510178
Good thing that a non-reading christcuck pseud is the final authority on what should be considered 'juvenile'. In any case, the point was made.

>> No.17510223

he exposes the midwits (the extreme dick riders and his haters)
too melodramatic sometimes

>> No.17510246

>>17510215
Compare to much more interesting thinkers from the period such as Frege, Brentano and James. Are you seriously claiming that strand of French philosophy, Land, Evola, Junger are praise-worthy?

>> No.17510339

>>17510246
I don't enjoy Evola or Foucault, so no to then. But definitely yes to the others. Even if people like Baudrillard and Land can be nonsensical, they also have novel and interesting perspectives. Jünger is a good writer, I love Storm of Steel. Weber has similarities to Schmitt, I actually think he's better. He sees the essential aspects and explicates them. This is much of his inheritance from Nietzsche, along with his understanding of power. His explication of the idealtypical method for example, or his famous definition of the state. He also has a somewhat coherent system of thought, which is kind of rare, especially give the breadth of his writing.

>> No.17510578
File: 9 KB, 170x227, neech2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17510578

>>17508225
>>17508307
>>17508403
>>17508468
>>17508712
>>17508904
>>17508981
>>17509293
>>17509313
>>17509336
>>17509375
>>17509435
>>17509503
>>17509673
>>17510173
>>17510188
>>17510223
Seriously, the bullying against Nietzschean members of this community is getting way out of hand, especially since Nietzscheans are some of the biggest contributors, have the greatest will to power, and are the most involved in this board. Its not just "memes" or "banter", its vicious attacking, and regardless of intentions it does demean people and hurt feelings. I can't say I'm the only Nietzschean who finds it hard to take pride in his own Ubermensch after having years of constant and needless attacks defaming my power from insecure losers here. Why not bully Christians or Platonists? Do they not have much more to be ashamed of than our philosophy zur Macht? Kantians and analytics get bullied less than us and yet we are the most powerful philosophers in the world.

Like when its not just banter, when a meme is repeated over and over again, repeated systematically, it eventually becomes a truth irregardless of the intentions in repeating it. And that isn't just jokes any more then, then its harmful!

Would you call a Nietzschean a "postmodernist" (not true at all) to his face? Would you say to a kind, peaceful and dionysian gay scientist that they are "weaker" than German men? Would you say those words to your fellow nihilist brethren? Are you starting to feel ashamed now? You fucking LAST MEN?

Your destroying philosophy, your dividing power against itself, your doing the opposite of what you claim to support when you engage in this incredibly abhorrent behaviour. So I encourage you to stop now.

>> No.17510591
File: 65 KB, 620x364, 1_c-2QTuj7CHRA4as_6Uwz2A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17510591

>one nice thing
His life proved that Schopenhauer was right all along.

>> No.17510603

>>17510591
I wish I could grow a moustache like that

>> No.17510607

>>17509503
>>17510111

1005. Journey of an Idea, from the heights of Genius to the Gutter.

1. Friedrich Wilhelm NIETZSCHE: There are no facts, only interpretations.

2. Jean BAUDRILLARD: You mean that all viewpoints are equal? That the simulacrum is never what hides the truth, that it is truth that hides the fact that there is none? That the simulacrum is true? That there's no reality??? Damn, how depressing!

3. Laurence and Andrew WACHOWSKI: You mean that there is a clear distinction between reality and illusion? Awesome idea bro, we wrote a movie about it, wanna help film it?

4. Jean BAUDRILLARD: I said NOTHING OF THE KIND! I in fact said THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you're saying! You are complete and utter morons and I want nothing to do with your stupid movie!

5. Laurence and Andrew WACHOWSKI: Ummmm, whatever bro, the movie's already out and your book is in the first scene, sorry. We're already working on the sequels!

6. Mencius MOLDBUG: Hmmmm, The Matrix is such an insightful movie! I especially liked the metaphor of the red and blue pill! Who'da thunk that the distinction between truth and lies is clear-cut and all you need to see it is swallow down a pill! Those Wachowskis are such geniuses! Let me now take this earth-shattering insight and apply it to all our contemporary issues!

7. Alex "ICYCALM" Kierkegaard: Uhhh, guys, Baudrillard simply misunderstood Nietzsche's perspectivism. Nietzsche wasn't saying that all interpretations are equal, he was merely saying that nothing exists besides interpretations and that it was the Overman's job to impose his own intepretation on his environment just as mankind has been doing since the beginning, and the animals before that all the way back to the Big Bang. [This user has been banned for this post.]

8. MANOSPHERE: Moldbug is such a genius! It all makes sense now! It's all THE JEWS' fault! (((THEY))) warped reality with all their evil blue pills! They... write books and stuff and they... make movies! DEATH TO THE JEWWWWWWWWWWWS!!!!!!!

>> No.17510609

>>17510339
His influence on German Sociology is enormeous. Weber wrote Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism because of his reading of Geneaology of Morals. Not to mention Tönnies, Simmel, and Spengler.

>> No.17510625

>>17510578
Someone post a soijack for this guy

>> No.17510682

>>17509059
I think he's a retard.

>> No.17510764

>>17510625
That's EXACTLY the type of attitude I'm talking about. The hostility against Nietzscheans on this board crossed the line from jokes into bullying / target harassment a long time ago. It needs to stop and it needs to stop now.

>> No.17510801
File: 83 KB, 1366x768, 1611345274190.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17510801

>>17510122
>Foucault juvenile? Deleuze? Guattari? Baudrillard? Nick Land? Yeats? Heidegger? Evola? Ernst Jünger? Max Weber? Carl Schmitt?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

>> No.17510966
File: 129 KB, 499x750, R2fb337ca32f77db7b8f9757d06de397e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17510966

>>17510122
>tfw accfag is neetchfag

>> No.17511009
File: 107 KB, 1280x720, rededit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17511009

>>17510578
Signed and upboated.

>> No.17512030

>>17508182
Where do I start with Nietzsche? Posting here because I don’t want to make another Nietzsche thread.

>> No.17512292

>>17512030
My personal recommendation is to read Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morals, Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist and Thus Spoke Zarathustra in that order. Those are his strongest books and will give you the rundown. You can explore any other work of his after that point if you want to.

>> No.17512352

>>17512030
Don't. If that's not obvious you're a retard.

>> No.17512412

>>17512352
>Don't.
Sounds like you've been taking your own advice.

>> No.17514486
File: 51 KB, 512x512, texas13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17514486

>>17512030
Beyond Good and Evil. Less systematic and more accessible than Genealogy of Morals, more straightforward as philosophy than Zarathustra, less frantic and insane than his later works and flat-out better than his early works. If you want to read more after that try out Kaufmann's translation of The Will to Power.
>>17512352
I'm not even a Nietzschean but you gotta recognize that he's been extremely influential and that he's a fantastic stylist, there's no reason to not read him

>> No.17514650
File: 462 KB, 900x730, 1610062647468.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17514650

>>17510215
>non-reading christcuck pseud

>> No.17515216

>>17508182
>say one nice things about Nietzsche's philosophy
well...
>and one thing you dislike
it's an obscurantist incoherent irrationalism

>> No.17515382

Pro: Nietzche pierced through the third density veil, achieving what he espoused to be of the highest importance for mankind -- that being the overman. Upon embracing the Turin horse, it was this very moment he understood the highest all-binding principle of mankind, which is empathy. He ultimately understood suffering is tragically universal, and the break from the eternal recurrence is to transcend the blind cycle and addiction to suffering. Our volition and will to ultimate power is entirely tethered to our unconscious need and cultivation of this binding principle. True power is the total embodiment of selflessness.

Con: Nietzche did not, and could not either, understand the consequences of 4th density consciousness. Although he succumbed to mental illness, he did revealed how his newfound mental clarity brought even greater egotism than ever fathomed. But he was in a state of ineffable bliss shortly after the Turin incident, yet ironically he could not communicate what he had realized without sounding mad, which was worsened by his mental decay thereafter.

>> No.17515609
File: 62 KB, 200x360, bd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17515609

>>17515382
based

>> No.17515619 [DELETED] 
File: 65 KB, 700x394, http___com.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17515619

>>17508225
BASED

>> No.17515632
File: 65 KB, 700x394, David Bowie at the Berlin Wall.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17515632

>>17508225
BASED AS FUCK.

>> No.17515687

>>17508182
I mostly enjoy his aphorisms and his different view in things. Nietzsche didn't think like a regular human and had insights beyond humanity.

What I don't like about him is his devotion to mysticism. He thinks reason and cause & effect are overrated.

>> No.17515710

>>17515687
>Nietzsche didn't think like a regular human and had insights beyond humanity.
what makes you say that?

>> No.17515778

>>17515687
rationalism is indeed overrated, unless you were indoctrinated by atheists and hence have no critical thinking about them.

As for Nietzsche, he was of course the most plain philosopher who couldn't systematize his thought, hence seen as the free thinker that any bugman atheist idolizes. Nietzsche creating postmodernism is of course the cherry on the cake for those ''people''.

>> No.17515868

>>17510005
At this point you might as well just call him a poet

>> No.17515926

>>17508225
>he held that ordinary altruistic morality had been the invention of a slave class to prevent the emergence of superior types to fight and rule them.
Altruism was an incoherent idiocy that came long after the ancient slave class already subverted and mingled with the master class. Slaves didn't invent altruism, masters who were led astray by slaves did.

Also, genuine readers of Nietzsche don't contend that Nietzsche is completely original. On nearly every page he's making reference to someone else from the past. But he organizes both ancient and modern ideas into a cohesive, coherent whole, fashioned like a weapon and with good humor and prose to boot, unlike any other, which is where true genius lies. Besides, it's Hamlet who says:

>There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

and

>This above all: to thine own self be true,

and

>There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

and of course

>To be or not to be: that is the question.

All of which do show that many of Nietzsche's ideas were already incubating in Shakespeare (who of course wasn't completely original himself either), but instead it appears that Shakespeare was in agreement with Nietzsche deep down, and it doesn't discredit Nietzsche for Shakespeare to have thought of them as well. "Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change."

>> No.17516106 [DELETED] 

>>17515926
>Slaves didn't invent altruism, masters who were led astray by slaves did.

Jews have always been a persistently tiny society that resided in the shadows of vast empires. Because of this, their moral system is determined geographically and in order to survive they had to subvert the strength from sentiment to resentment. Master morality towards slave morality. It's not a pagan invention

>> No.17516135

>>17515926
>Slaves didn't invent altruism, masters who were led astray by slaves did.

Jews have always been a persistently tiny society that resided in the shadows of vast empires. Because of this, their moral system is determined geographically and in order to survive they had to subvert the strength from sentiment to resentment. Master morality towards slave morality

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action