/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17941061]

Why did Nietzsche hate Socrates?

[Anonymous No.17941067]

>>17941061
OP here I'm trans btw

[Anonymous No.17941068]

Because Socrates and Plato ruined philosophy

[Anonymous No.17941105]

>>17941061
because socrates was the average 4channer (what is to say: a person who thinks he is not like normies, but is equaly retarded and decadent).

[Anonymous No.17941113]

Because Socrates was ugly

[Anonymous No.17941122]

>>17941113
/thread

[Anonymous No.17941126]

>>17941061
Prolly cuz that nigga Plato and literally all of Athens hated that bitch boi too

[Anonymous No.17941129]

>>17941061
He was a retarded psychopath. What else you can expect from the scum of humanity of who says shit like:

>They return to the innocent conscience of the wild beast, as exultant monsters, who perhaps go away having committed a hideous succession of murder, arson, rape and torture, in a mood of bravado and spiritual equilibrium as though they had simply played a student’s prank, [...] At the centre of all these noble races [...] the beast must out again, must return to the wild. It was the noble races which left the concept of ‘barbarian’ in their traces wherever they went; even their highest culture betrays the fact that they were conscious of this and indeed proud of it

[Anonymous No.17941142]

>>17941129
what?
why is this bad?

[Anonymous No.17941160]

>>17941129
t. slave moralist

[Anonymous No.17941161]

>>17941142
You have to be 18 years old to post here.

[Anonymous No.17941173]

>>17941160
Nietzsche is real slave moralist who is so resentful that he would rape and murder to satisfy his resentment.

[Anonymous No.17941207]

Because Nick Land refuted Socrates.

[Anonymous No.17941212]

>>17941173
You know nothing about Nietzsche. For him, raping and murdering is better than to be raped and murdered, for the former is a greater expression of power. All the same, both slave and master morality were imperfect, for oppression and tyranny over others was, according to Nietzsche, indicative of weakness and instability, representing only the unsubliminated will to power. The Ubermensch in his Zarathustra, after all, sought not a herd but fellow creators; he was not a crutch, yet he lent a helping hand. Maybe you should read his works instead of dismissing him entirely based on a single quote.

[Anonymous No.17941223]

>>17941212
Nah I don't want to read a fucking madman who says that noble races rape and murder. Fuck him and fuck apologists of this scum like you.

[Anonymous No.17941232]

>>17941161
I am anon I just don’t get it.
He seems to be mocking the “noble races” in pointing out that they not only participate in, but take pride in barbaric acts like arson, rape, murder, and torture?
I’m not sure what this is supposed to say about Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.17941235]

>>17941160
Doesn’t Nazi Germany’s capitulation and devastation sort of disprove this? Nietszche’s body of work was certainly an inspiration for the National Socialists

>conduct warfare in the most niggerish ways possible, commit atrocities everywhere you go
>exalt martial status and war as the highest pinnacle existence
>rope the world’s two greatest powers into kicking your head around like a soccer ball
>Hitler offs himself because he knows the allies are going to torture him to death for all the unimaginable cruelty and savagery he’s inflicted on the world

Uh... based? I guess you maimed, raped, butchered and otherwise traumatised a lot of people in a 5 year span but that doesn’t really sound sustainable.

[Anonymous No.17941255]

>>17941235
Refer to >>17941212

[Anonymous No.17941269]

>>17941223
Let's ignore Nietzsche for the moment and focus on you - you certainly present yourself as the paragon of virtue. Tell me who is better of the two: the murderer or the murdered.

[Anonymous No.17941270]

>>17941255
The Nazis were simply committed to praxis. They were loved Nietszche.

[Anonymous No.17941298]

>>17941270
And I suppose when you 'love' something, it is automatically the case that you understand absolutely everything about that thing and follow all the best intentions of that thing? This has simply never been the case

[Anonymous No.17941324]

>>17941232
>>17941269
Retards, he is not talking about your fantasy individualism or mocking the noble races. Just read the whole quote for context:


>"Exactly the opposite is true of the noble one who conceives the basic idea ‘good’ by himself, in advance and spontaneously, and only then creates a notion of ‘bad’! This ‘bad’ of noble origin and that ‘evil’ from the cauldron of unassuaged hatred – the first is an afterthought, an aside, a complementary colour, whilst the other is the original, the beginning, the actual deed in the conception of slave morality – how different are the two words ‘bad’ and ‘evil’, although both seem to be the opposite for the same concept, ‘good’! But it is not the same concept ‘good’; on the contrary, one should ask who is actually evil in the sense of the morality of ressentiment. The stern reply is: precisely the ‘good’ person of the other morality, the noble, powerful, dominating one, but re-touched, re-interpreted and reviewed through the poisonous eye of ressentiment. Here there is one point we would be the last to deny: anyone who came to know these ‘good ones’ as enemies came to know nothing but ‘evil enemies’, and the same people who are so strongly held in check by custom, respect, habit, gratitude and even more through spying on one another and through peer-group jealousy, who, on the other hand, behave towards one another by showing such resourcefulness in consideration, self-control, delicacy, loyalty, pride and friendship, – they are not much better than uncaged beasts of prey in the world outside where the strange, the foreign, begin. There they enjoy freedom from every social constraint, in the wilderness they compensate for the tension which is caused by being closed in and fenced in by the peace of the community for so long, they return to the innocent conscience of the wild beast, as exultant monsters, who perhaps go away having committed a hideous succession of murder, arson, rape and torture, in a mood of bravado and spiritual equilibrium as though they had simply played a student’s prank, convinced that poets will now have something to sing about and celebrate for quite some time. At the centre of all these noble races we cannot fail to see the beast of prey, the magnificent blond beast avidly prowling round for spoil and victory; this hidden centre needs release from time to time, the beast must out again, must return to the wild: – Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, Homeric heroes, Scandinavian Vikings – in this requirement they are all alike. It was the noble races which left the concept of ‘barbarian’ in their traces wherever they went; even their highest culture betrays the fact that they were conscious of this and indeed proud of it" (from "Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morality and Other Writings: 'On the Genealogy of Morality' and Other Writing

[Anonymous No.17941354]

>>17941324
Ok, and what?

[Anonymous No.17941385]

>>17941324
tl;dr

But thanks for playing anyway Chud

[Anonymous No.17941541]

>>17941061
The Chad Philosopher vs the Virgin onanist nihilist

[Anonymous No.17941548]

>>17941541
based. Nietszche is an incel chud

[Anonymous No.17941556]

>>17941354
That Nietzsche really meant it on a collective level.

>>17941385
I am not white and nor do I live muttland you disgusting faggot.

[Anonymous No.17941561]

>>17941324
What you are effectively doing is looking into a keyhole trying to judging how the room looks like based on that single perspective. Stop being a pseud and actually read his works.

[Anonymous No.17941566]

>>17941556
>Nietzsche
>Collectivist

[Anonymous No.17941579]

>>17941561
>Ah, no true Scotsman
Go fuck yourself retard. I have read him and Nietzsche is all over the map but this doesn't mean that he never defended rape and murder on a collective scale.
He was a scummy loser.

>>17941566
Yes, he is giving the examples of civilizations to show what type of civilization he preferred.

[Anonymous No.17941587]

I think Nietzsche would have loved Mussolini but hated Hitler, all that talk about Germaness, Aryan races, and anti-polishness/anti-semitism would have made him puke.

In fact lots of western intellectuals loved Mussolini before WW2 like Pound and Rilke.

[Anonymous No.17941609]

>>17941587
>all that talk about Germaness, Aryan races,
Kek

>"In Latin malus ... could indicate the vulgar man as the dark one, especially as the black-haired one, as the pre-Aryan dweller of the Italian soil which distinguished itself most clearly through his colour from the blonds who became their masters, namely the Aryan conquering race."
Yeah, definitely nothing racist about that.

[Anonymous No.17941631]

>>17941579
In the interest of a productive discussion - because otherwise we would call each other names all day - you should explain why rape and murder are inherently reprehensible actions. This should be exceedingly easy for a individual such as yourself.

[Anonymous No.17941701]

>>17941609
Why does literally every single Kraut have this victim complex and the need to
>WE
so much? They're literally EuroKikes.

[Anonymous No.17941760]

>>17941061
So he could be more of a polemic.

[Anonymous No.17941763]

>>17941701
Anglos and East Europeans does the same thing too and larp as le Aryanz. One of the biggest We wuzzer(Survive the Jive) on the YouTube is an anglo.

[Anonymous No.17941796]

>>17941763
Anglos ARE Krauts though. Anglo-Saxons and all. King Arthur just didn't do his job well... Slavs are just... Slavs. Still, you don't see Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, French, whatever going
>WE WUZ PAHARAOHZ
>AND WE WUZ ASSYRIANZ
>AND WE WUZ PERSIANZ
and so on. Krauts claim literally everything, yet have an eternal victim complex, much like niggers and kikes. What is it with that? Evey single time it's
>twas actually us who were the originals
>but somehow we lost all knowledge of that
>btw we wuz havin spaceships n sheeeiiii in muh Hyperboria
Half of /gif/ is niggerdick threads, 1/3rd is random porn, and the rest is
>muh Hyperboria WE WUZ ALIUMZ GODZ
What makes Krauts so autistic?

[Anonymous No.17941822]

>>17941796
Kek

[Anonymous No.17941835]

Twilight of the Idols:

3

In origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebs. We know, we can still see for ourselves, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. [“monster in face, monster in soul”] But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would not be contradicted by the famous judgment of the physiognomist which sounded so offensive to the friends of Socrates. A foreigner who knew about faces once passed through Athens and told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum -- that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!"

4

Socrates' decadence is suggested not only by the admitted wantonness and anarchy of his instincts, but also by the hypertrophy of the logical faculty and that barbed malice which distinguishes him. Nor should we forget those auditory hallucinations which, as "the daimonion of Socrates," have been interpreted religiously. Everything in him is exaggerated, buffo, a caricature; everything is at the same time concealed, ulterior, subterranean. I seek to comprehend what idiosyncrasy begot that Socratic equation of reason, virtue, and happiness: that most bizarre of all equations which, moreover, is opposed to all the instincts of the earlier Greeks.

5

With Socrates, Greek taste changes in favor of dialectics. What really happened there? Above all, a noble taste is thus vanquished; with dialectics the plebs come to the top. Before Socrates, dialectic manners were repudiated in good society: they were considered bad manners, they were compromising. The young were warned against them. Furthermore, all such presentations of one's reasons were distrusted. Honest things, like honest men, do not carry their reasons in their hands like that. It is indecent to show all five fingers. What must first be proved is worth little. Wherever authority still forms part of good bearing, where one does not give reasons but commands, the dialectician is a kind of buffoon: one laughs at him, one does not take him seriously. Socrates was the buffoon who got himself taken seriously: what really happened there?

[Anonymous No.17941847]

>>17941835
>In origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebs. We know, we can still see for ourselves, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. [“monster in face, monster in soul”] But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would not be contradicted by the famous judgment of the physiognomist which sounded so offensive to the friends of Socrates. A foreigner who knew about faces once passed through Athens and told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum -- that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!"

[Anonymous No.17941885]

>>17941061
He consider Socrates to be a key figure in the conception of man as a rational figure, this leading to demonize the biological human. The influence this had in culture until the end of enlightenment can be easily seen.

And he rants on Socrates because he's the well-known figure and loved by academics, but doesn't really place the guilt on him.

[Anonymous No.17943266]

bump

[Anonymous No.17943289]

Is it just me or Nietzsche relies too much on ad hominem?

[Anonymous No.17943317]

>>17943289
Not just ad hominem but his "argumentation" is drenched in resentment.

[Anonymous No.17943326]

>>17941061
Nietzsche didn't hate him, but he attributed the downfall of Western civilization to him.

[Anonymous No.17943335]

>>17943317
>resentment
You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.17943348]

>>17941579
>He was a scummy loser.
Words of a slave moralist

[Anonymous No.17943356]

>>17943335
Read this >>17941847 chimping passage. This is because Socrates BTFO'd dogmatists like him thousands of years ago. And cuckold is still seething about him.

[Anonymous No.17943374]

>>17943356
How does any of that passage imply resentment?

[Anonymous No.17943395]

>>17943374
He felt oppressed by the mere presence of philosophers Socrates that is why he chimped out so hard.

[Anonymous No.17943424]

>>17943395
Can you point to something in the passage that implies any of this?

[Anonymous No.17943443]

>>17941061
Stirner thought Socrates was an idiot because he was so spooked he let him self be killed out of the sake of abstract principles. Nietzsche disliked Socrates because Socrates was a dialectician - he hated dialeticians because saw their arguments as sophistry.

[Anonymous No.17943489]

>>17943424
Attacking the appearing and body of philosopher rather than his philosophy is a very strong sign of the most lowest form of resentment.

[Anonymous No.17943498]

>>17941847
How can anyone take this clown seriously?

[Anonymous No.17943521]

>>17943489
>Attacking the appearing and body of philosopher rather than his philosophy
In this case, there is no distinction between Socrates' appearance and his philosophy. In Ancient Greece, beauty was almost a refutation among nobles; the noble class was full of beautiful people. Because of Socrates' notoriously ugly visage and his vocal rejection of the Dionysian tragic theater it makes sense to assume that he was not part of the noble class and did not feel as they did; his social status colored his view of Greek society.

[Anonymous No.17943530]

>>17943521
>In Ancient Greece, beauty was almost a refutation among nobles; the noble class was full of beautiful people
Source

[Anonymous No.17943538]

>>17943530
Here >>17941847

You are making the claim that Nietzsche's criticism is merely ad hominem, but he explains his reasoning right there.

[Anonymous No.17943550]

>>17943538
That's no reasoning. This is just a dumb ad hominem.
I don't even know how anyone can take this shit seriously.

[Anonymous No.17943573]

>>17943521
But Nietzsche wasn't Dionysus nor he was Greek so his opinion is worthless.
Even Nietzsche himself wasn't an aristocrat, he was a fucking pleb but this fag still had the audacity to call names to Philip Mainländer, who was an aristocrat and a philosopher of highest degree who lived and died by his philosophy. He never engaged with the ideas of Mainländer and even even stole idea of The Death of God from Mainländer's book The Philosophy of Redemption.
What a disgusting man this coomer was.

[Anonymous No.17943575]

>>17943550
How is that not reasoning? He doesn't say "Socrates was wrong because he was ugly," which would be ad hominem. Instead, he explains how Greek nobility viewed things, and how that placed Socrates outside the noble class, which would have colored his view of the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.17943600]

>>17943575
What is the source of
>>In Ancient Greece, beauty was almost a refutation among nobles; the noble class was full of beautiful people

or of Socrates being outside the noble class. Of course he was not a wealthy man. But he was surrounded by wealthy man, such as Plato, Alcibiades and the others. The reason he was executed was due to his connection to the leading aristocrats of Athens.
And even if Socrates was outside the noble class. None of that means he is wrong.

[Anonymous No.17943615]

>>17941061
He was a terrible historian with poor understanding of Greek culture or any culture in general, including his own. He read books badly because he suffered from major headaches for most of his life, and could not write more than one or two pages before feeling ill. His thoughts came in bursts, which made for very interesting philosophical aphorisms, but every attempt to think systematically - both in terms of philosophy, historical interpretation and cultural interpretation - should be immediately dismissed when taking into account a man who was physically unable to engange in continuous thinking.

[Anonymous No.17943627]

>>17943573
Nietzsche was not an aristocrat, but he had reason to believe that he had family who was only a few generations or so prior (his great grandmother was part of Goethe's inner circle or something like that and his grandmother believed there was Polish royalty in the lineage), and he still came from a pastor's family and achieved a reasonably high status in academic Europe during his life.

This is all besides the point of his criticism of Socrates, though. What he's saying is that Socrates' separation of reason from rhetoric was not something the Greek nobles believed in.

>>17943600
I don't know what the source is, but that's what Nietzsche thought the Greek nobles thought. He's not just saying that Socrates was ugly therefore wrong.

>And even if Socrates was outside the noble class. None of that means he is wrong.
Socrates isn't wrong as far as Socrates is concerned, but as far as the Greek nobles were concerned he was. This is called perspectivism. There is no universal right or wrong.

[Anonymous No.17943656]

>>17943627
"Believing" doesn't mean shite. The pleb was full of resented aristocratic philosophers like Mainländer because was a jealous pleb who never lived up to his own philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17943663]

>>17943627
>I don't know what the source is, but that's what Nietzsche thought the Greek nobles thought. He's not just saying that Socrates was ugly therefore wrong.
He would need a source for this.

>Socrates isn't wrong as far as Socrates is concerned, but as far as the Greek nobles were concerned he was. This is called perspectivism.
Socrates was intimately tied to the Athenian Aristocracy. That's why he died.

>There is no universal right or wrong.
Ah, please. Then, what is the point of that trash text?

[Anonymous No.17943669]

>>17943656
>"Believing" doesn't mean shite.
Then your belief that he was just dishing out ad hominem doesn't mean shite either.

[Anonymous No.17943702]

>>17941796
Kraut here, and I can confirm this from the inside. We do this for literally everything that has something to do with the country as a whole or something representing our country (football team for example or any kind of state action that we agree with. It’s always „We beat x team“ or „We are doing so well fighting coronavirus“. I would assume it’s some deep seated patriotism that snuck into our speech patterns via association (for me at least), but it’s likely that some, or even most Germans actually believe that. It’s rare to see it done in context of Nazi stuff though, we are very careful with that

[Anonymous No.17943711]

>>17941061
It’s because Socrates was the first to introduce slave morality, e.g. he was the first Christian and set the stage for nihilism
Holy based rapture (pbuh) does a pretty good job breaking it down here:
https://youtu.be/kH9rKcoGWJU

[Anonymous No.17943727]

>>17943663
>He would need a source for this.
Why? It wouldn't change his reasoning for his criticism of Socrates by doing so.

>Socrates was intimately tied to the Athenian Aristocracy. That's why he died.
And? Nietzsche viewed Socrates as having an anti-aristocratic philosophy among Ancient Greeks.

>Then, what is the point of that trash text?
Why is the text now pointless to you?

[Anonymous No.17943758]

>>17941701
there's no "WE" in his statement, the belonging of priscan Italic/Latins to the great family of late indo-europeans derived from Corded ware culture is not disputed by anyone serious, these peoples penetrated Italy from Danubian Europe only few centuries before the foundation of the city, bringing their speech, culture and domination
the only people resentful of this are petty modern nationalists either from India or south Europe(same energy) who feel offended about it, because these peoples happened to expand from central Europe and were certainly related to later Germanics

though I freely and absolutely admit that some take it too far with their identification of Aryan with Germanic, which is wrong, but I don't exactly see Nietzsche doing that

[Anonymous No.17943793]

>>17943711
iirc Nietzsche never refers to Socrates as a slave moralist. Slave morality for him was something that emerged out of the Jewish slave revolts in Rome. Rather, he blames Socrates for contributing to that development and providing the slaves with an arsenal to fight the Roman nobility with.

[Anonymous No.17943805]

>>17943669
No, he wrote resentful shite towards noble philosophers. But his grandmother "believing" that they belonged to an aristocracy is fucking horseshite.

[Anonymous No.17943817]

If Nietzsche wrote today we would consider him apex cringe, he would be a meme on par with Chris-Chan.

[Anonymous No.17943865]

>>17943727
>Why? It wouldn't change his reasoning for his criticism of Socrates by doing so.
"I think the samurai believed that the Japanese Imperial House came from Finland and Oda Nobunaga thought otherwise. That's why he was a strange among the samurai"
"Uh, the samurai didn't even know Finland existe"
"Well, who cares, that makes no difference in my point"

>And? Nietzsche viewed Socrates as having an anti-aristocratic philosophy among Ancient Greeks.
Source, his ass?

>Why is the text now pointless to you?
Why would he be so angry with someone who is not wrong? Why throw ad hominems left and right?

[Anonymous No.17943945]

>>17943805
The only individual I could see him harboring some resentment towards is Wagner, but that's also natural given how close he was to Wagner and I also don't see it as having a significant impact on his other views.

>>17943865
>"Uh, the samurai didn't even know Finland existe"
False equivalence.

>Source, his ass?
Source, irrelevant.

>Why would he be so angry with someone who is not wrong?
Where do you get that he's angry? It sounds like you aren't very familiar with his style if you think he sounds angry there. And there's no ad hominems anywhere.

[Anonymous No.17943967]

Shit thread. Shit posts. Your penance is to log off for 2 weeks and read books.

[Anonymous No.17943968]

>>17943945
>False equivalence.
If his claims about Greek nobles are wrong...

>Source, irrelevant.
Of course it is relevant.

>Where do you get that he's angry? It sounds like you aren't very familiar with his style if you think he sounds angry there. And there's no ad hominems anywhere.
>Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebs. We know, we can still see for ourselves, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing. Or it appears as declining development.

[Anonymous No.17943981]

>>17943945
No, he clearly resentful towards Mainländer without even engaging with his idea. He even stole Mainländer's main concept and never acknowledged his debt. By this gesture he finally showed his inner pleb.

[Anonymous No.17944033]

>>17943968
>If his claims about Greek nobles are wrong...
It wouldn't magically make his criticism nothing more than ad hominem, since at the time of his writing that criticism it's what he thought the Greek nobles thought, which is the real point of this conversation we're having.

>Of course it is relevant.
See above as to how it isn't.

Also, I see nothing angry about that quote. You seem to be projecting.

[Anonymous No.17944061]

>>17944033
"All successful hot guys think like X" (no evidence of this)
"That ugly poor bastard think like Y"
"Coincidentally, I think X"

Marvelous, Greatest Philosopher of the 19th Century.

>Also, I see nothing angry about that quote.
lol

[Anonymous No.17944068]

>>17944033
>projecting

Not the other anon but holy shit you don't even deserve the time of a decent discussion, your argument is weaker than Nietzsche's masculinity

[Anonymous No.17944087]

>>17943981
>he didn't engage with Mainlander
>lol but he was clearly resentful towards him

>>17944061
>no argument

>>17944068
>no argument

[Anonymous No.17944101]

>>17941061
he created the idea of the indiviguation in society and founded a particular branch of idealism that continued in the west in various forms and altered in such things as christianity and various phil currents he wasnt a fan of.

[Anonymous No.17944115]

>>17941129
He should love Hippias Minor then.

[Anonymous No.17944160]

Behold! I' ve brought an übermensch!

[Anonymous No.17944183]

>>17944087
>>he didn't engage with Mainlander
>>lol but he was clearly resentful towards him
Now reread that sentence you retard. He engaged with Mainländer but not with ideas.

[Anonymous No.17944188]

>>17944160

[Anonymous No.17944203]

>>17944183
He appears like once in his entire corpus. That's not engaging with him. Nietzsche actually engages with dozens of other authors and thinkers throughout his works.

[Anonymous No.17944239]

>>17944203
He CURSED him very cheaply. And STOLE his idea of The Death of God. He stole it because he never acknowledged his debt. He insulted Socrates for being a pleb but Mainländer was an aristocrat and Fagtzsche was a fucking pleb. This is peak resentment of a fucking pleb towards pessimists because both Schopenhauer and Mainländer were aristocrats.

[Anonymous No.17944266]

>>17944239
If he only dedicated one line to him, then he just didn't think much of him, since there are many others that he dedicates paragraphs to across several books. But keep grasping at straws if you like.

[Anonymous No.17944302]

>>17944266
He did thought of him a lot because he read The Philosophy of Redemption immediately after it got published and made his final departure from Schopenhauerian Pessimism. And after 8 years when he presented "his" idea of Death of God he also mentioned Mainländer in the same book but he never acknowledged his debt.

[Anonymous No.17944311]

>>17941763
STJ isn't a we wuzzer. He says he is English and he is. He says Brits are about half Yamnaya and they are. He says the Aryans were of North East European descent and they were. 'we wuz' is when you claim your ancestors were someone they weren't. Jive never does that. he just upsets cucks and brown people by spitting facts

[Anonymous No.17944314]

>>17944302
Reading his book =/= thinking much of him.

>when he presented "his" idea of Death of God he also mentioned Mainländer in the same book but he never acknowledged his debt.
What debt? Nietzsche's death of God is a different thing, with a different value system attached to it.

[Anonymous No.17944401]

>>17944314
Read >>17944239
And of course he modified it so would not look like a pathetic faggot. But Mainländer's idea that death of God was the life of this universe very much impacted him and only a stupid faggot would deny that.

[Anonymous No.17944411]

>>17944311
>Nah man thousands of years have literally changed nuffin SO WE WUZ ARYANZ and WE WUZ BRAHMINZ AND SHEIT

[Anonymous No.17944421]

>>17944401
>he modified it
They were both readers of Schopenhauer. Every idea in philosophy is a "modification" just like how nothing in art is completely original either. But Mainlander didn't have the force, breadth and style to manifest change like Nietzsche did, and Nietzsche knew it.

[Anonymous No.17944448]

>>17944421
>Every idea in philosophy is a "modification"
No, no one has ever presented the idea that God committed suicide and his death was the life of this universe. Even if philosophers do modify concepts all of the noble philosophers acknowledge their foundation of their debt unlike neet. But Nietzsche was a fucking pleb who resented aristocrats.

[Anonymous No.17944474]

>>17944448
>no one has ever presented the idea that God committed suicide and his death was the life of this universe.
The idea was implicit in Schopenhauer.

>Even if philosophers do modify concepts all of the noble philosophers acknowledge their foundation of their debt unlike neet.
There was no debt to pay to Mainlander, but even if there was, again, Mainlander lacked the force, breadth, and style to manifest change, so it is practically the duty of the stronger to lift ideas from such individuals so as to redeem those ideas.

[Anonymous No.17944501]

>>17944474
>The idea was implicit in Schopenhauer.
Where?

>>17944474
>There was no debt to pay to Mainlander,
Yes there was. Mainländer had all of those things but his solution was his non existence which he himself lived onto unlike neet who never practiced what he preached and resented other aristocratic philosophers because he was a jealous and a coward pleb. People are resentful towards pessimists on general and they need a fucking messiah who provided them with hope.

[Anonymous No.17944572]

>>17941235
desu the Germans were the biggest moralfags out of all the great powers during the war

[Anonymous No.17944631]

Nietzsche denied that there are any antecedent moral facts which a study of human nature would reveal. He considered Socrates' views as dogmatic since Socrates considered his views of morality as standards of behavior for all human beings. Socrates refused to admit that his views of morality were merely "views" as if to say that there are as many different vies as there are individuals to formulate them. Socrates insisted that behind all attempts to discover the fundamental basis of morality there is a substratum of facts which reveals a description of the real world and the realm of real values and morals.
Nietzsche, by contrast, denies that there is any reality behind the appearances of the world. He argues that the world is characterized by all our sciences and disciplines, even at their best, is falsified by their descriptions. The world, he says, has no features that in principle are prior to and independent of interpretations. When it comes to describing morality we do not search for facts behind appearances if we can find something that is 'good' in itself, independent of all contexts or perspectives. Hence, If there are no moral facts, then, nothing in any way is good or evil.
Think about how this applies to his idea of the will to power and the slave morality. If the slave morality originated in resentment and revenge, there must again occur a 'revaluation' of all values. By 'revaluation' Nietzsche did not intend the creation of a new table of moral values. He meant rather to declare war upon the presently accepted values, as Socrates, "applying the knife vivisectionally to the very virtues of the time." Since traditional morality is a perversion of original natural morality, 'revaluation' must consist in rejecting traditional morality in the name of honesty and accuracy. Revaluation implies that all the "stronger motives are still extant, but that now they appear under false names and false valuations, and have not yet become conscious of themselves."

[Anonymous No.17944667]

don’t you guys ever get tired of this thread? I almost miss the edgy meme of the month philosopher threads

[Anonymous No.17944691]

>>17944501
>Where?
In his pessimism towards the will.

>Mainländer had all of those things but his solution was his non existence which he himself lived onto unlike neet who never practiced what he preached and resented other aristocratic philosophers because he was a jealous and a coward pleb.
Complete gibberish that was already disputed.

[Anonymous No.17944852]

>>17944448
Mainländer was a weak minded depressed faggot who committed suicide. His philosophy is just a projection of his own mind. In his nihilistic thinking he never overcame Christianity, he just subverted it. He was Nietzsches last man.

[Anonymous No.17944921]

Why does this board suck off nietzsche so much? He stated obvious things, was wrong about a lot and died of syphilis

[Anonymous No.17944933]

>>17941142
Because killing bad m’kay?

[Anonymous No.17944935]

>>17944921
>this board
Look at the post count of the thread.

[Anonymous No.17945015]

>>17944921
He not died of syphilis, it was brain cancer

[Anonymous No.17945052]

>>17944921
They are obvious for you because Nietzsche pointed them out, today's world is heavily influenced by his ideas.

[Anonymous No.17945060]

>>17945015
Post proof

[Anonymous No.17945093]

>>17941061
Because he ain't Socrates

[Anonymous No.17945119]

>>17945052
They’re obvious for me because I read the Greeks objectively.

[Anonymous No.17945131]

>>17944852
Philip looks like a Chad unlike neechee

[Anonymous No.17945154]

>>17944691
>In his pessimism towards the will.
What? Where does he mentions God and his suicide?

>Complete gibberish that was already disputed.
Yes what fagzsche said about Mainländer and Socrates is total jealously and resentment.>>17944691

[Anonymous No.17945193]

>>17945060
http://www.thenietzschechannel.com/correspondence/eng/nlett-1889.htm

Scroll to the bottom

[Anonymous No.17945265]

>>17944852
Nietzsche was a weak minded depressed faggot who fucked off to some rural shithole, never practiced what he preached, fucked filthy whores, resented aristocratic philosophers because he was a pleb, never procreated despite being le Yes sayer, went mad and died a lonely death while trying to refute pessimists. His philosophy is just a projection of his own mind. In his teleological thinking he never overcame Christianity, he just subverted it. He was Schopenhauer's example of a brute.

[Anonymous No.17945268]

>>17945154
>Where does he mentions God and his suicide?
Do you not know what the word "implicit" means? Fuck's sake.

[Anonymous No.17945297]

>>17944921
>He stated obvious things
Give 3

[Anonymous No.17945357]

>>17945060
https://www.baka.com.au/world/nietzsche-died-of-brain-cancer-20030506-gdgprc.html

[Anonymous No.17945385]

>>17945060
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3313279/Madness-of-Nietzsche-was-cancer-not-syphilis.html

[Anonymous No.17945391]

>>17945268
Sorry, English is my 3rd language. But if you got the meaning of the sentence then isn't it enough?

[Anonymous No.17945421]

>>17945265
And still he has more impact of this world than you.
Btw I belive he was a lifelong Virgin.

[Anonymous No.17945455]

>>17941061
>OHHH NO NOT THE SYPHILIS IM GOING INSANE AHHHH HELP ME UBERMENSCH

[Anonymous No.17945503]

>>17945455
Despite all his shortcomings, Nietzsche never cried for help and weathered the storm like a lion.

[Anonymous No.17945573]

>>17945503
so he was autistic

[Anonymous No.17945618]

>>17945503
Niggerchi would never have drunk the hemlock

[Anonymous No.17945698]

>>17945421
Nietzsche fucked his sister and was raped by Wagner.

[Anonymous No.17945717]

>>17945618
He didn’t use it to drown his sorrows like many other artists and authors would’ve, but his physical suffering. Is there anything wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.17945777]

>>17941067
Based

[Anonymous No.17945797]

>>17945455
>>17945573
>>17945618
>>17945698
t. slave moralists

[Anonymous No.17946172]

>>17944087
You being a retard is the argument you absolute dumbass, and so far you have proved me correct

[Anonymous No.17946194]

>>17941796
No they aren’t lol

[Anonymous No.17946234]

>>17946172
Has no argument: check
Retarded: check
Cucked: check
Will post a seething reply: ...

[Anonymous No.17946259]

>>17943793
The point of that passage is that Socrates had the instincts of a low born man and therefore reason=the good=the highest truth (which is back of Christianity) was hatched up in the head of a lowborn man of bad blood

Of course its kind of retarded considering Socrates didn’t invent the idea.

[Anonymous No.17946270]

>>17946259
in other words, slave morality begins with Socrates who is kind of slave+ genius.

[Anonymous No.17946690]

>>17941061
Nietzsche was a romantic writer before he was a philosopher, and Socrates is the antithesis of that. Yet, at the same time, Socrates was a successful soldier, while Nietzsche was a sickly manlet who romanticized power he never had a chance of obtaining. It's usually those impotent types who dream of casting off the shackles of morality, the "theoretical thug".

[Anonymous No.17946694]

>>17941067
based

[Anonymous No.17946787]

Can somebody post that one Plato reading order that has two columns of his works with The Republic in the middle?

[Anonymous No.17946887]

socrates was a subversive menace that was guilty as charged and justly executed

[Anonymous No.17948766]

>>17941067
Woah based

[Anonymous No.17948811]

>>17941061
Virgin Neetzuh vs chad Camus

[Anonymous No.17948925]

>>17941223
dumb uneducated subsaharan

[Anonymous No.17948990]

>>17941061
While leading an otherwise Chad life (soldiering, even), he was a doormat simp to Xanthippe, a nonce, and ultimately corrupted by the city he ‘died to save’ from itself, out of ennui and a desire for infamy — they would’ve been fine, had he taken a hint and left the city.

[Anonymous No.17949062]

OP here. Not going to read 100 posts. QRD?

[Anonymous No.17949334]

>>17941223
Based and principled.

[Anonymous No.17949703]

>>17946259
>die a sclerotic cretin making doody in your sister's cupped hands because you were too much o a bitch

So THIS is the power of the good blood?

[Anonymous No.17949910]

>>17941223
imagine having a brain this smooth,
you should stick to reading US political pamphlets son

[Anonymous No.17951506]

Best ever Nietzsche thread was moved to /his/ because neet janny was butthurt.
Reminder

[Anonymous No.17951532]

>>17941269
one sins the other does not, simple as

[Anonymous No.17951605]

>>17943521
>there is no distinction between Socrates' appearance and his philosophy
Offensively stupid. I hate lit so much because people who have the capacity to be intelligent are toxic and stupid because of their rotten hearts. The whole point of that story was that Socrates pulled himself out of bad natural dispositions through philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17951635]

>>17951605
Cringe

[Anonymous No.17951710]

>>17951635

[Anonymous No.17951777]

>>17951605
>Socrates pulled himself out of bad natural dispositions through philosophy
Yes, that's one view. Nietzsche's view was that he didn't do this, instead seeing Socrates as having corrupted philosophy by divorcing reason from rhetoric with a new rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.17951808]

>>17951777
What, so Platon's Socratic dialogues weren't purple enough for him?

[Anonymous No.17951827]

>>17951808
Neither purple nor honest enough (Nietzsche also viewed the original noble race as being synonymous with the honest / fair race). He sees Socrates' external ugliness as also an internal ugliness that is dishonest towards itself.

[Anonymous No.17951837]

>>17941061
What did he say about Socrates? I thought he would have loved him.

[Anonymous No.17951839]

>>17951777
Sounds like he wrote pages and pages of cope to perform convoluted mental gymnastics to avoid a very intuitive and simple conclusion.

[Anonymous No.17951858]

>>17951839
So did Plato from the opposite perspective.

>a very intuitive and simple conclusion
"Reason and rhetoric are different things" is less simple than "reason is a form of rhetoric."

[Anonymous No.17951880]

>>17941566
This, Nietzsche thought everyone in a nation could be killed for just ONE great man.

[Anonymous No.17951883]

>>17941061
>Why did Nietzsche hate Socrates?
I heard it was about some kind of critique of Greek culture being focused on buy and looks etc and contrasting it with socrates and how certain forces bibles socrates to the top regardless or something

[Anonymous No.17951889]

>>17941587
If you have a deep understand of Nietzsche he would have loved Hitler in this almost gnarly way.

[Anonymous No.17951906]

>>17944188
Not him.

[Anonymous No.17951914]

>>17945421
It's full confirmed he had sex with at least prosties

[Anonymous No.17951916]

>>17941061
>Y-yes Socrates
>R-right you are again, Socrates
>Don't know what regurgitated idealist garbage Plato is shilling now? Don't worry, we will lick up the most absurd filth when only it's from the lips of dear old Socrates
You haven't read Plato, or it would be obvious.
The constant rhetorical sucking of Soc's cock and licking of his asshole is enough to make any thinking person throw up.

[Anonymous No.17951938]

>>17951858
>So did Plato from the opposite perspective.
Plato is reasonable, intuitive, and simple. Philosophize to objective morality and align with it.

>reason is a form of rhetoric
Rhetoric is a tool to convince, reason is a tool to find truth. Two different tools. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.17951955]

>>17941067
Wtf? No you're not OP this is my thread and I'm not trans. Stop fucking around

[Anonymous No.17951956]

>>17951938
Reason is a tool to convince as well.

[Anonymous No.17951971]

Because he said no to life
Nietzsche loved Plato though, as evidenced by his literary type of philosophizing, Nietzsche owes him more due than anyone, save the Biblical writers.

[Anonymous No.17951977]

>>17951955
I'm gay, not trans, BTW, do not if it matters

[Anonymous No.17951984]

>>17951956
It can be used to convince in the same way a mathematical demonstration can convince someone. That is not the same as rhetoric, which is taking whatever stance and making it seem better, even if it actually isn't, using a variety of methods that are not strictly bound to some appeal to truth.

[Anonymous No.17952024]

>>17951984
It's a form of rhetoric in the sense that it persuades us to believe in an all-binding universally constant truth and morality when such things only exist as beliefs.

[Anonymous No.17952054]

>>17952024
>It's a form of rhetoric in the sense that it persuades us to
Okay, that is not the primary sense. The primary use of reason is an attempt to grasp truth, not to persuade. The primary use of rhetoric is persuasion alone.

>when such things only exist as beliefs
If order does not exist and nothing means anything then why are you wasting your time responding to me? There is no need to speak, and in fact knowledge itself is illusory at best.

[Anonymous No.17952088]

>>17952054
Let me explain another way. Socrates was ugly inside and out, which made aesthetics in general offensive to him on principle; as a result, he was unable to experience his own aesthetic view of life as such, instead experiencing it as a form of "reason" or an anti-aesthetic view. The dialectic method, then, is a method of rhetoric (particularly useful to the ugly, which is why Socrates mastered it) and nothing else, only experienced as something distinct from rhetoric due to a dishonest disposition towards the self emerging from ugliness.

>If order does not exist and nothing means anything then why are you wasting your time responding to me?
Order does exist, but it does not exist separate from will. Order exists when one of strong will successfully imposes it on others, like Socrates did but in a sneaky way, and like the nobles before him did in a much more direct way.

[Anonymous No.17952141]

>>17952088
>Socrates was ugly inside and out
Wrong.
>which made aesthetics in general offensive to him on principle
Where are you getting the idea that beauty is offensive to Socrates?
>he was unable to experience his own aesthetic view of life as such
What is an "aesthetic view of life"?
>"reason" or an anti-aesthetic view
How is reason anti aesthetic
>The dialectic method, then, is a method of rhetoric
Like I said, the primary purpose is to grasp truth, not to persuade.
> due to a dishonest disposition towards the self emerging from ugliness
What does that even mean?

>Order exists when one of strong will successfully imposes it on others
So it doesn't exist because:
1. It is contingent on humans
2. It has infinite possible realities and thus no meaning

[Anonymous No.17952155]

>>17951916
>only the people who hate the same things as I can be capable of higher thought
Lowwit logic.

[Anonymous No.17952165]

>>17952141
>Order exists
>So it doesn't exist
lol I almost replied to you seriously. You need to re-think your post.

[Anonymous No.17952186]

>>17943967
No! Not books!

[Anonymous No.17952213]

>>17952165
>order exists when *insert stipulations that abolish the real existence of order*
What an unbearably low tier response. Anyone is capable of uttering a statement that is inconsistent and self contradictory, which is what I was saying you did. Go ahead and answer my questions now, you cant just make statements about what is, without a proper account of each thing.

[Anonymous No.17952221]

>>17941223
Let me guess, you are Christian?

[Anonymous No.17952245]

>>17952221
Are you a based and redpilled neopagan?

[Anonymous No.17952642]

>>17951914
Proof please?

[Anonymous No.17952825]

>>17951532
letting yourself be murdered is a sin against gods most important creation

[Anonymous No.17953001]

>>17952213
>real existence of order
Which is what exactly? Order does exist, but as an effect produced by will onto its environment; feel free to explain how this is "inconsistent and self contradictory."

[Anonymous No.17953701]

>>17941061

[Anonymous No.17953752]

>>17941129
>who perhaps go away having committed a hideous succession of murder, arson, rape and torture, in a mood of bravado and spiritual equilibrium as though they had simply played a student’s prank
Do you think that inspired Stavrogin from Dosto's Demons or vice versa?

[Anonymous No.17953868]

>>17941235
i hope shlomo sees this bro

[Anonymous No.17953946]

>>17953001
I am saying order is something external to us that governs all things at all times. As a result of things being some way (and not of all things being no way or all ways), we are able to move forward from axioms such as the law of non contradiction into real knowledge, and real conclusions, as opposed to illusory knowledge and conclusions confined to one particular persons mind, and thus, not universal. This is very basic, saying order, good, meaning, etc, exist outside of us and are not subject to us, but us subject to them. If order was not external and real, words would not actually mean anything aside from your subjective and imaginary opinion, and knowledge would not exist aside from in the way just mentioned, along with morality, and everything else that is some particular way.

You are now saying order only exists "as an effect produced by will onto its environment". Okay, so what does that even mean? As I explained above, order is not something subjective whatsoever, and the very fact that it is real in its own right and not some abstraction created by our minds, is what constitutes its own existence.

If humans didn't exist would the laws of physics cease to exist too? If suddenly I become the dictator of the world and I decide that torture of innocent men is good, does that make it good? It seems to me you are making the mistake of subjecting order itself (which is necessary even for the human mind to exist in the first place) to the human mind, and as a result of its lack of true substantial meaning and existence, you abolish it. All that results thereafter is a slew of absurdities.

[Anonymous No.17954320]

I understand Nietzsche. I dismiss him and walk my own path, not concerned with what Nietzsche would've liked me to do. Thereby i have fulfilled him.

[Anonymous No.17954500]

>>17953946
There is an "order" external to us, but the order of things you would like me to agree with you on (that Socrates was not ugly and did not divorce reason from rhetoric as a subconscious rejection of Greek nobility, for example) is not external. The order that is external to us has nothing to do with aesthetics, morality, reason, logic, etc.

[Anonymous No.17955731]

bumping for no reason at all

[Anonymous No.17955879]

>>17954500
Ok great I'm glad I was able to answer your question. Now if you would please:

>which made aesthetics in general offensive to him on principle
Where are you getting the idea that beauty is offensive to Socrates?
>he was unable to experience his own aesthetic view of life as such
What is an "aesthetic view of life"?
>"reason" or an anti-aesthetic view
How is reason anti aesthetic
>The dialectic method, then, is a method of rhetoric
Like I said, the primary purpose is to grasp truth, not to persuade.
> due to a dishonest disposition towards the self emerging from ugliness
What does that even mean?
>The order that is external to us has nothing to do with aesthetics, morality, reason, logic, etc
So what is the order you speak of, and where do the other things you listed come from?

[Anonymous No.17957040]

>>17941068
they created it. the pre socratics were only scientists and scribes