wtf Nietzschebros

[Anonymous No.18088194]

you never told me that he was viewed as a pseud of his day and the establishment hated him for being "unscientific"

I don't know if I should love him or dislike like him for this

>The Birth of Tragedy was angrily criticized by many respected professional scholars of Greek literature. Particularly vehement was philologist Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, who denounced Nietzsche's work as slipshod and misleading.

Also what was Wilamowitz problem? He seemed to have taken issue with Nietzsche all the way to the grave, he particularly took issue with Nietzsches view of the Greeks and their gods. There are many papers on the dispute between the two on JStor

[Anonymous No.18088346]

>>18088194
I don't think any serious Scholar of antiquity really likes Nietzsche or can even like anything Nietzsche has to say on anything, because as is the case with everything this man touched, he was extremely reductionist about the Greeks and caricatures everything they do. This is not to detract from his stark diagnoses of Western civilisation (on my view, they aren't nearly as original or even impactful as they are made out to be because most intelligent people living in Europe at the time had already implicitly come to the conclusions, which he merely vocalised). The way he thinks of the Dionysian completely undermines the complexity of the Dionysian mysteries and reduces them to a cult of mere irrationality which is strictly juxtaposed by an 'Apollonian' ideal, which is sterile and dictated by reason and what have you. The actual image is far more complex and nuanced than anything Nietzsche presents. It is not for nothing that Dionysus and Apollo had an almost fraternal dynamic going on between them, or that they were both, at once, the Gods of Parnassus and of Divine Revelation and Mystery or that they were both accompanied by a procession of enthusiastic females (note enthusiastic, literally to be en+ theos, i.e., filled with divinity). Nietzsche's caricature is the result of an overly reactionary response to Winckelman's sloppy dichotomy of the Dionysian and the Apollonian and generally sloppy scholarship concerning ancient Greece, even though he should be credited for pioneering it in Germany.

Nietzsche generally was, by most standards, a sloppy scholar, even though he was acknowledged for his prodigious intellect. It might horrify you to know that he didn't actually read a lot of philosophy and actually resembled a /lit/izen more than most people would like. For his knowledge on most things philosophy, he relied on Kuno Fischer's history of western philosophy. He only ever read abstracts of Kant's works and heavily relied on Lange and Liebmann for anything pertaining critical idealism. He claims affinity for Spinoza but never reads him. He attacks the stoics but grossly misrepresents the technical concept of
to homologoumenous tei phusein zen (in popular consciousness 'living according to nature'), which you can forgive laymen for doing but not a professional scholar of the Classics. It remains unclear whether he does it intentionally, is being facetious or simply doesn't know. Either way, it is, quite frankly, retarded. These flaws often get overlooked and defended as, 'oh no he's an INTJ', or 'he's looking at the big picture'. On my view, these defects should simply be acknowledged and should rightly mitigate how much or how seriously we take anything he has to say about anything

[Anonymous No.18088400]

>>18088346
There was a English translator of Homer who when asked what he thought of Nietzsche said he didn't.

[Anonymous No.18088422]

>>18088346
You really think criticizing Nietzsche for being a bad scholar does a disservice to him? His whole point was to lie, fabricate, manipulate if needed and subordinate all knowledge to the imperative of life, to the increasing the creativity and power of a man. What you want is a library rat who knows everything in detail, but loses himself in the process.

[Anonymous No.18088432]

>>18088346
>It might horrify you to know that he didn't actually read a lot of philosophy and actually resembled a /lit/izen more than most people would like. For his knowledge on most things philosophy, he relied on Kuno Fischer's history of western philosophy. He only ever read abstracts of Kant's works and heavily relied on Lange and Liebmann for anything pertaining critical idealism. He claims affinity for Spinoza but never reads him.
Do you have a source for this? From what I know he had a huge library and the claim that he did not read much philosophy came from his detractors.

[Anonymous No.18088461]

>>18088422
This is pure spook and cope. All he does is sow confusion and I doubt it is a matter of intentionality and ironically, simply the result of a complacent and warped mind with an equally warped conception of self and of life and its 'imperative'

[Anonymous No.18088467]

>>18088194
Academia has always been full of virtue-signalling progressives. Nothing has changed. Nietzsche went against the status quo because he was true to his profession as a philosopher and people didn't like him for it.

>>18088346
It can certainly be said that he wasn't a good scholar, but scholars aren't philosophers. To be a good philosopher, you have to close the door on the scholars at some point.

[Anonymous No.18088471]

>>18088461
he constantly repeats that the truth has no inherent value for him and that he prefers lie, falsehood etc. because it has more affinity with life. The only confusion I see here is the confusion of an anglo scholar, whose only solace in life is the grey objectivity and truth that makes him appear superior to others, but separates him from everything that is actually good in life.

[Anonymous No.18088490]

>>18088194
>you never told me that he was viewed as a pseud of his day and the establishment hated him for being "unscientific"

In his time, science said that digging holes caused rain. What's your point? History proves if people are right or wrong, not peoples opinions of people.

[Anonymous No.18088509]

>>18088461
>All he does is sow confusion
Same can be said of Plato, but scholars are too sheepish to admit it.

[Anonymous No.18088527]

>>18088471
If you're looking for a 'scholar whose only solace in life is the grey objectivity of truth (any claim to an 'imperative' of life) that makes him appear superior to others' look no further than Nietzsche, who did think he was superior to others and who does affirm the virtue in this
>>18088467
both scholars and philosophers are slow to assent to anything and otherwise simply live their lives instead of throwing tantrums and trying to revolt against it only to say in the same breath that you can do nothing but live in accordance to nature
>>18088432
https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/nietzsches-engagements-with-kant-and-the-kantian-legacy-volume-i-nietzsche-kant-and-the-problem-of-metaphysics/introduction?from=search

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3653965?seq=1

[Anonymous No.18088558]

>>18088527
>both scholars and philosophers are slow to assent to anything and otherwise simply live their lives
This doesn't make them the same. A good philosopher is going to be radical in comparison in some way, because philosophy (wisdom) also involves discovering and having good taste in all affairs, small or large. That you call this process "throwing tantrums" suggests to me that you are more scholarly than philosophical yourself.

[Anonymous No.18088563]

>>18088509
I do not know what you're talking about if you think 'scholars', being 'sheepish' as the are don't think Plato sows a lot of confusion. We still take his works seriously because he can and does provide us with real conundrums in his otherwise tendentiously written dialogues. We don't only read them for what the Socratic interlocutor has to say. Very often, it is the other participants who raise the real problems, as is exemplified in the Parmenides

[Anonymous No.18088574]

>>18088346
Good post. Nietzsche has some of the worst ideas in philosophy and the absolute worst followers.

[Anonymous No.18088576]

>>18088527
>https://www.jstor.org/stable/3653965?seq=1
This article is what I remember and it claims the exact opposite of the OP.
In my opinion, criticism of his interpretation are not indicative of his poor scholarly conduct. Quite the opposite actually.

[Anonymous No.18088587]

>>18088558
My initial motion is that he's not being radical in the things he does present (because they are already being discussed and presented by earlier systematic thinkers) and his discussion of what 'life' is is largely incoherent. You define philosophy as 'wisdom' but we should remain conscious of what being 'wise' even means and what that entails. For the Greeks, there is a real relation between wisdom and clarity where a wise man is simply someone who has a clear mind and can see clearly (the relation between saphes and sophos). In modern philosophy, philosophy takes the goal of a systematic body of knowledge. In both cases, I fail to see how any honest appraisal of Nietzsche can call him a philosopher in any sense

[Anonymous No.18088596]

>>18088422
Great post, I now love Nietzsche even more for this. Nietzsche is right when he said that all philosophers have held Truth as axiomatic, but the value of truth has never been questioned.

Truth leads one to conclude life as Schopenhauer. If it was for truth we wouldn't leave the cage of the stone age.

[Anonymous No.18088599]

>>18088587
can you formulate where exactly Nietzsche falls short as a philosopher? Nitpicking how he did poor scholarly wise here and there isnt solid criticism.

[Anonymous No.18088600]

>>18088346
He also stole "his" idea from Stirner, Julius Bahnsen, Mainländer without ever mentioning his baggage but no one seems to care about that.

[Anonymous No.18088611]

>>18088600
Nietzsche systematizes all of his concepts and gave answers to the questions unanswered by his contemporaries and people who came before him.

[Anonymous No.18088633]

If you value truth as an axiom, but don't conclude like Schopenhauer, you are nothing but a scoundrel, a coward!

[Anonymous No.18088641]

>>18088611
>Nietzsche systematizes
I thought this was precisely what he refused to ever do

[Anonymous No.18088642]

>>18088587
>he's not being radical in the things he does present (because they are already being discussed and presented by earlier systematic thinkers)
Examples?

>his discussion of what 'life' is is largely incoherent
Any passage in particular you're referring to that made you come to this conclusion?

>For the Greeks, there is a real relation between wisdom and clarity where a wise man is simply someone who has a clear mind and can see clearly (the relation between saphes and sophos).
What does it mean to see clearly? It doesn't necessarily mean to see rationally. The Latin sapiō means "I am wise" and also means "I taste." Wisdom is more than just what is rational; to be wise also means to be experienced.

[Anonymous No.18088649]

>>18088599
You say 'here' and 'there' as if it doesn't pervade his entire oeuvre. Nietzsche doesn't so much respond to previous positions as he merely invents them for himself and then calls out their 'absurdity'. This is neither 'wise', as per the anon's definition of philosophy, nor 'systematic' as another anon's definition of what Nietzsche is doing. It is simply sloppy, and we say this about anyone, but it seems that in the wake of the realisation of the death of God, the man we have chosen as an apt candidate for the process of theosis is Nietzsche himself

[Anonymous No.18088656]

>>18088641
It might be a language barrier (English is my third language) but what I meant by "systematize" was that all of his philosophical concepts were interrelated, Deleuze even mentions this, and this is what made him a great thinker.

The Death of God, Overman, Eternal Recurrence, Will to Power, Life as a tragedy and so on... were all coherently interconnected, something only a few philosophers have managed to to. This is why I consider him one of the only true philosophers

[Anonymous No.18088663]

>>18088611
His whole meme of amor fati and le heroic pessimism was already present in the system of Julius Bahnsen. And Mainländer based his thesis on the concept that G-d committed suicide and his suicide was the beginning of this universe. His whole will to power shtick was already present the thesis of Stirner. My point is he NEVER acknowledged the pre-existence of these ideas in his work. Instead he called names to Mainländer who lived and died by his philosophy and was "real" aristocrat. And he still had to audacity to say that weak people are resentful. This is fucking disgusting.

Now what the fuck do you mean by "unanswered"?

[Anonymous No.18088684]

>>18088649
again, if you dont provide a concrete critique of a concrete idea Nietzsche held, then you are just doing unproductive hand waving. So what he straw manned others? I mean, if youre scholar its kind of a bummer, but philosophically you dont even touch him.

[Anonymous No.18088686]

>>18088656
(not true, by the way)

[Anonymous No.18088689]

>>18088663
Now what the fuck do you mean by "unanswered"?

this is what I mean: >>18088656

All you're saying is that Nietzsche had the brains of three philosophers, what three philosophers could do together, Nietzsche did by himself.

If Stirner didn't realize the necessity of taking the concepts further, then he's not a philosopher of the same cloth as Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.18088690]

>>18088649
>Nietzsche doesn't so much respond to previous positions as he merely invents them for himself and then calls out their 'absurdity'.
How do you know that? He paints caricatures but those are often well-reasoned.

[Anonymous No.18088694]

>>18088663
>His whole meme of amor fati and le heroic pessimism was already present in the system of Julius Bahnsen.
Then why does he shit on Bahnsen? Does Bahnsen have any writings comparable to Nietzsche's on amor fati that you can share with us?

[Anonymous No.18088701]

>>18088663
>he STOLE! imagine, a philosopher who constantly shat on christian morality STOLE! how can we live with ourselves?
come on, man

[Anonymous No.18088725]

The first good thread on /lit/ in a while. Please keep arguing, so I can learn more from you.

[Anonymous No.18088733]

>>18088642
>any passage in particular
I am responding to direct claims that are being dropped from the air by anons in this thread
>examples
Death of God is discussed by Holderlin, the worry of nihilism (both epistemic and moral) is actualised in Jacobi and is one of the chief concerns of German Idealism, his position on life affirmation and living in accordance to life is far more in accordance with Epicurus and the Stoics than he makes it out to be and which would be clear if he didn't first reduce and then obfuscate this similarity, as >>18088600 says, and Nietzsche would acknowledge this, Mainlaender is a massive source and the relation with Stirner, which he conveniently never mentions, is plain for all to see
>wisdom
here, to not be confused and not be disturbed. No one is denying the sagacity in experience

I am not going to fester in this thread. I merely came to answer OP and give them some clarification as to why some people question Nietzsche and his philological claims and works. Ultimately, I don't care what Nietzscheans feel about Nietzsche's detractors and I doubt the Nietzscheans themselves actually care either

[Anonymous No.18088743]

>>18088725
Argumentation is a gentlemans sport. Take a seat and learn kid.

[Anonymous No.18088787]

>>18088689
>All you're saying is that Nietzsche had the brains
Huh? Weird way to say that he had no brain this is why he stole shit. And you should read Stirner he pushed that idea to the absolute extreme.

>>18088694
His books aren't yet translated. And I have gathered information from few articles. He said the despite the absolute vanity of everything we should keep moving ahead without any hope and we should accept the consequences. He said that life will keep popping up from the forces out of control and we can't stop it. I would say that this is the most radical form of pessimism.

>>18088701
You ignored his resentment towards noble philosophers who lived and died by their philosophies. He was a petty subhuman without dignity or originality who stole from other thinkers.

[Anonymous No.18088799]

>>18088787
>You ignored his resentment towards noble philosophers
where exactly? you vapid claims are just unproductive. Cite the man and lay out your critique or gtfo

[Anonymous No.18088803]

>>18088194
The BOT was criticized because it went against the accepted narrative of the day that the greeks were "overly optimistic" and mostly a happy people, where as people had fallen from grace since then, blah blah blah. If you're so easily influneced by critics of someones work, why even read anything outside of what is currently accepted at any given time, all the time? You're so weak minded you let alternate opinions of someone's work affect you? I know this is b8 but on the off chance you're serious, you are a major retard

[Anonymous No.18088807]

>>18088596
Holy cringe

[Anonymous No.18088817]

>>18088733
>I am responding to direct claims that are being dropped from the air by anons in this thread
In that instance I don't think that you were.

>Death of God is discussed by Holderlin, [...] plain for all to see
Well, at least you provided examples. But I don't see how this makes Nietzsche look like he wasn't being "radical" enough. The way Nietzsche contextualizes these ideas together is unique, and he has more ideas than just ones he took from others, which is not only a difficult thing to do, but he does it for the purpose of filtering out all the nonsense and peasantry from others' works, i.e., he distills the bits in them that are actually related to philosophy in order to create a purer and more comprehensive one.

>here, to not be confused and not be disturbed. No one is denying the sagacity in experience
I'm not sure what you're saying here.

[Anonymous No.18088822]

>>18088807
Have you denied your will to life yet? Scoundrel, pleb!

[Anonymous No.18088823]

>>18088346
What the fuck are you talking about
Greeks made no deep connection between Dionysus and Apollo, this is one of the big gripes scholars actually have with Nietzsche's view
You are putting way too much in these rituals that simply isn't there

[Anonymous No.18088834]

>>18088803
The title of the OP was bait, obviously... I just wanted to get a discussion going on Nietzsche vs his critics

[Anonymous No.18088843]

>>18088834
Fair enough. Seems you got it

[Anonymous No.18088882]

>>18088346
Also, at least classical Athenians very much viewed Dionysian rights as a ritual of insanity
The story of Dionysus taking a piss on Pentheus and everyone vaguely related to him because he denied access to his ravetrain was a commonly taken up though we only have the version of Euripides and much later Ovid (though he probably picked up from Nicander)

[Anonymous No.18088888]

>>18088799
>Nietzsche immediately read Die Philosophie der Erlösung in the year it was published, before any review had appeared. The work contributed to his final separation from Schopenhauer's philosophy.[22] In his own works, Nietzsche gave no attention to Mainländer until a decade later, that is, in the second, expanded edition of The Gay Science, the same book in which he had introduced the phrase "God is dead" in the first edition five years prior: "Could one count such dilettantes and old maids as the sickeningly sentimental apostle of virginity, Mainländer, as a genuine German? After all he was probably a Jew – (all Jews become sentimental when they moralize)."[23] It has been suggested that Mainländer was more than a mere influence, and was instead plagiarized.[24][25]
Mainländer was from a German aristocratic family(unlike plebian neet who larped his whole life as le cultured aristocrat). And committed suicide because he preferred existence over non-existence. He died by his philosophy unlike that chronic coomer who fucked off to some remote shithole and fucked filthy whores and never lived or died by his philosophy. It is so disgusting that Nietzsche said that Schoepnhauer took things lightly because he played flute everyday after dinner. He called names to Mainländer for committing suicide and insulted Schopenhauer for taking things lightly, what a pathetic cunt. His beef with Socrates is also well known. Calling names due to resentment rather than seriously engaging with ideas is peak plebian morality.

[Anonymous No.18088926]

>>18088888
Holy quints

[Anonymous No.18088939]

>>18088346
I really like Nietzsche and have read almost everything he published and Kauffman's book on him, but you're righy on some things, although he did read a fair amount, just not systematically.

I appreciate actual critique though. I think it's a testament to Nietzsche that he was able to write an engaging philosophy despite these faults.

>>18088194
Christianity was still big in Europe back then and people really took umbrage with him. Jung relates everyone shit talking him when he was a student at the same university years later.

[Anonymous No.18088958]

>>18088939
I remember reading that. Was that in Memories, Dreams, and reflections when Jung writes about that?

[Reminder No.18088966]

This kills the nietzschean

[Anonymous No.18088973]

>>18088822
The eternal return doesn't mean you should spam reddit shit

[Anonymous No.18088980]

>>18088888
Holy hell learn to write coherently... fuck...

[Anonymous No.18088999]

>>18088966
And fag called Socrates ugly.

[Anonymous No.18089013]

>>18088999
Socratic was a mutt, a proto turk

nietzsche was a late bloomer, he looked good in later years

[Anonymous No.18089029]

>>18089013
Socrates was known as the most fearless solider. Now compare Socrates with this larper.

[Anonymous No.18089037]

>>18088733
Who cares where he got his ideas from? He articulated every issue in the most artistic, accessible and cohesive way possible as to illuminate the problems of the modern world. He did it better than anyone and without the baggage of philosophical jargon, why do you think he became so famous and influential, the fact that he didn’t share much continuity with other dry philosophers is what makes him good

[Anonymous No.18089044]

>>18089037
>Who cares where he got his ideas from?
Self-aware dignity and honesty of a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.18089071]

>>18089037
If by accessible and cohesive (I think you mean coherent) you mean reductive and clumsy then sure, that seems to be his MO.

Honestly the hope of trying to have any kind of real treatment or vision of history seems to be a classic trap for the arrogant and uninformed 19th century mind. I mean look at Hegel, Marx, or even Giambattista Vico. Everyone giving an embarrassing try at modeling something beyond any use or feasibility for modeling and naturally they do more harm than good.

[Anonymous No.18089084]

>>18088888
I mean, was Nietzsche wrong though? Mainländer killed himself. A philosophy that has to be lived through suicide is obviously a melodramatic one, and barely worth defending beyond that. He deserves to be intellectually gutted and humiliated.

>unlike that chronic coomer who fucked off to some remote shithole and fucked filthy whores and never lived or died by his philosophy
Do you realize half of this is hyperbolic nonsense pushed by Christians and the other half is outright false? If Nietzsche was a "chronic coomer" then he wouldn't have accomplished even 10% of what he did. There's also no evidence that he had sex with prostitutes. There's also nothing about his philosophy that he didn't live by (his philosophy isn't some peasant "might is right fuck da police" bullshit, if that's what you're implying).

>It is so disgusting that Nietzsche said that Schoepnhauer took things lightly because he played flute everyday after dinner.
Learn to have a sense of humor, because Nietzsche certainly did. Saying that Schopenhauer was a hypocrite as a pessimist because he played the flute is partly a tongue-in-cheek statement, bringing to mind a very silly caricature of a disgruntled old man merrily playing the flute after dinner every night, but one which also points out that the notion that Schopenhauer was a particularly disgruntled man is also ridiculous in itself.

>His beef with Socrates is also well known.
Also well justified.

[Anonymous No.18089187]

>>18089084
lmao that image
This thread is retarded btw and Nietzsche was too low IQ to count as a philosopher

[Anonymous No.18089225]

>>18089084
>I mean, was Nietzsche wrong though? Mainländer killed himself. A philosophy that has to be lived through suicide is obviously a melodramatic one, and barely worth defending beyond that. He deserves to be intellectually gutted and humiliated.
He stole his ideas and then called names to a dead person. How this is not the resentment which he despised so much? Mainländer also served in war two times. It's funny how he favored the aristocrats over pleabians and then shitted(as a pleb) on Mainländer. He humiliated himself by proving how much of an insecure pleb he was with those statements. Maybe his inner christcuck was showing this is why he was so resentful towards suicide.

>Do you realize half of this is hyperbolic nonsense pushed by Christians and the other half is outright false?
Bullshite, Wagner wrote about his chronic masturbation. And I wrote this post in response to him saying that Mainländer was a virgin and a dilettante. If he didn't fucked whores then his insults were even more ironic because he was actually who was virgin. And living life in a sense that he said that noble races raped, looted and murdered without any guilt. He never did what he said. And he is the same man who lost his shit when he saw the wounded horse. What a fucking scummy failed barbarian.

>Learn to have a sense of humor
OHHH so it was le irony. I was trying to show his hypocrisy and dishonesty that when a pessimist commits suicide he called him a virgin and a pessimist did not commit suicide he called it taking thing lightly.

>Also well justified.
Throwing resentful insults towards a man who influenced who western philosophy. Yeah it was well justified for a failure like him.

[Anonymous No.18089364]

>>18089225
>He stole his ideas and then called names to a dead person. How this is not the resentment which he despised so much?
He stole from a dumb faggot and called the faggot a faggot. What's this got to do with feeling resentful towards a perceived master?

>Wagner wrote about his chronic masturbation.
How would Wagner know? Did Wagner catch Nietzsche masturbating? Did Nietzsche pull a Robbins, traumatizing Wagner and forcing him to slander Nietzsche's good name in retaliation? Jokes aside, you are a gullible fool for believing Wagner on this when, again, Nietzsche wouldn't have accomplished 10% of what he did had it been true.

>If he didn't fucked whores then his insults were even more ironic because he was actually who was virgin.
We don't know Nietzsche's sex life. But even if he was a virgin, Nietzsche's not the one who thought like one, which was his point.

>And living life in a sense that he said that noble races raped, looted and murdered without any guilt.
You're addressing a straw man here. The noble races also loved, invented and made the arts, and engaged in heated but fair competitive sports and debates, without any guilt, according to Nietzsche. Nietzsche's main point of reference for the Greek nobility was a poet who looked down on the poor for being thieves and inartistic barbarians. Master morality is capable of committing evil, but it doesn't view such acts as evil, and it's not neurotically compelled to commit constant acts of it out of sadism.

>OHHH so it was le irony.
It was both light-hearted and serious. Like dancing. Hardly something that should make one feel disgusted. It's not like his comment about Schopenhauer's flute-playing somehow overrode his essay Schopenhauer as Educator and his intense feelings of admiration for the man.

>Throwing resentful insults towards a man who influenced who western philosophy.
They weren't resentful or insults. Did you even read Twilight of the Idols?

[Anonymous No.18089589]

>>18088400
Yet Nietzsche will remain one of the greatest and most influential philosophers of all time, and that guy will be known as one of the hundreds of translators of Homer, so much that you don’t even post his name as if he isn’t relevant.

[Anonymous No.18089604]

>>18088527
Nietzsche was superior to others, and part of his philosophy is realizing you are also superior to others. If you disagree with this, Nietzsche is superior than you.

[Anonymous No.18089607]

>>18089589
Woah an influencer of shit.
We really need more of those.

[Anonymous No.18089609]

>>18088527
You haven’t actually read Nietzsche have you?

[Anonymous No.18089610]

>>18089604
Kek

[Anonymous No.18089612]

>>18088467
>To be a good philosopher, you have to close the door on the scholars at some point.
this

[Anonymous No.18089632]

>>18089604>>18089589

spoken like true sheep

[Anonymous No.18089648]

>>18089612
>>18088467
Not the point retards

[Anonymous No.18089653]

>>18088966
Based thread.

[Anonymous No.18089664]

>>18088966
What do you mean?
Is looking like a tranny good now?

[Anonymous No.18089674]

>>18089589
>>18089604
>>18089609
>nooooo the masses are bad, muh mob
>reeee look how great I am! The mob says soooooo

Your mind on Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.18090044]

>>18089648
You missed Nietzsche's point about scholars

[Anonymous No.18090083]

>What was Wilamowitz problem?
Copium overdose

[Anonymous No.18090458]

>>18088663
>Stirner and Nietzche
I would say there is a misunderstanding here. Nietzsche's "Ubermensch" has a complex relationship with "Der Einziger." I would say Stirner, Nietzsche have a very similar critique of socialism being a secularization of Christianity where as Stirner was vehemently opposed to Marxist socialism, sacred socialism - but not voluntary co-operative in spirit of socialism. Both were critical of Anarchism - Stirner attacking the humanist strand of Anarchism seen in Proudhon and Bakunin, and Nietzsche agreeing with those assertions. Both were extremely critical of the democracy and the state for the same reasons. Both of them hated the workerist fetishization of socialist movements (Stirner admonishes Hess for this view in "Stirner's Critics" and Nietzsche makes a similar critique from an artistic perspective in "The Greek State.") I would say they different significantly because Stirner has a vagabond ontology, where as Nietzsche has an aristocratic one. Stirner's "Der Einziger" is a nihilistic destroyer of human values, Nietzsche's superman is an artistic one.
Nietzsche's concept of "will power" is present in Stirner, but Stirner calls it "courage" or "conscious egoism" however.

[Anonymous No.18090500]

I also don't know how people can say Nietzche wasn't influenced by Stirner. We know for a fact Nietzsche read two books that mention Nietzsche specifically by name, and we know for a fact that Nietzsche was friends with people who personally knew Stirner. There's also the fact Nietzsche was alive when people argued he plagiarized Stirner. I find it VERY difficult to believe he did know. especially when they both lived in East Germany. How could he not know Stirner?

[Anonymous No.18090544]

Also, the argument he "STOLE FOR STIRNER" is a bit of a meme. Stirner himself says he didn't give a shit what people used his ideas for - he would have found it funny he lived to see Nietzsche use his work. People get the wrong idea about Stirner - he wasn't some stuck up bitch. Most people who knew him said he was playfully indifferent, a good person to be around.

[Anonymous No.18090605]

>>18090544
no one really gives a shit if Nietzsche stole from Stirner and all the others mentioned. The point is to curtail any sacrosanct enthusiasm for his alleged 'originality' or 'radicality' which is simply overblown. Paired with his sloppiness, there isn't much that remains of anything admirable in Nietzsche, which satisfies OP's question of why some people think Nietzsche is a pseud. Nietzschean arguments from popularity are equally inane bc they make the most un-Nietzschean move in deriving value from the mob that Nietzsche so despised. Not only that, but they also ignore the fact that Stirner's works are systematically suppressed in the English speaking world (nearly all editions in Camus' Rebels remove the discussion of Stirner) and Mainlaender hasn't even been translated yet (received official publishing)

[Anonymous No.18090620]

>>18090605
I don't think Nietzsche is overblown when he influenced some really interesting the more intellectual stands of fascism such as Gabriele D'Annunzio and Evola. He's only thing salvageable for any neo-reactionary thought opposed to what's there

[Anonymous No.18090664]

>>18090620
I would wager to say, and I mean this in all earnest, that if this is what interests you in Nietzsche, you're better off reading Stirner. He gives you clear, lucid, systematic arguments for his position and is uncompromising in his undermining of ideology as such. He has all the wit of Nietzsche and all the consistent rigour of Hegel and his influence on political philosophy is much larger than you'd think. I say this because I genuinely think Nietzsche is a kind of disease and the quality of many responses in this thread have only further confirmed it

[Anonymous No.18090666]

>>18089084
>>18089225
>>18089364
Can you pseuds get a fucking room? The absolute state of /lit/ is appalling. Stop writing walls about Nietzsche's purported sexual proclivities, or in argument, lack thereof.

[Anonymous No.18090676]

>>18090605
Why do you even care about this shit?

[Anonymous No.18090682]

>>18090676
I literally spell it out

[Anonymous No.18090688]

>>18090682
No you didn't. Who cares if Nietzsche is overblown?

[Anonymous No.18090695]

>>18090688
are you actually blind? This entire thread is a response to OP's question as to why people think Nietzsche is a pseud, what is problematic about his opinions on Greece, and how the same things that make his opinions on Greece are what make him a bad version of all the people he plagiarised. Do you need every thought to be prechewed for you before you make an effort to understand?

[Anonymous No.18090697]

>>18090695
The entire thread is inane and if you give a shit about any of this you need to get a hobby. Just read what you like.

[Anonymous No.18090702]

>>18090697
if you didn't have anything thing to say, you shouldn't have even bothered replying to this thread in the first place

[Anonymous No.18090715]

>>18090702
What I'm saying is, is that you should move on. You're not going to stop people from reading someone as big as Nietzsche anyway.

[Anonymous No.18090731]

>>18090715
I can't tell if you're trolling or not. This thread is airing a discussion between Nietzsche and his detractors, it is intellectual sparring. You have completely missed the point. It has already been said multiple times that at the end of the day, no one gives a shit about what anyone thinks about Nietzsche. If you don't have anything to say you don't have to participate. This is the last time I am replying to your (you). I hope you're just pretending to be thick

[Anonymous No.18090739]

>>18088194
He was a pseud with a horrible philosophy. Unfortunately, because no child of god should experience this, he is rotting in hell right now.

[Anonymous No.18090782]

>>18090739
>hell
Thanks for the laugh

[Anonymous No.18090895]

>>18090739
Nietzsche helps you get closer to God once you reject his atheism and accept his views of affirmation

[Anonymous No.18090920]

>>18090782
Teetering dangerously close to the unforgivable sin against the holy ghost

[Anonymous No.18091146]

Nietzsche would be mostly forgotten if his sister hadn't turned him into a quasi proto Nazi in the public imagination, that's solely how he survives, with Hitler's shadow always looming. Else he would be mostly forgotten.

[Anonymous No.18091237]

>>18088346
>Doesn't read a lot of philsophy
>Becomes one of the most influential of all time

How can one man be so based?

[Anonymous No.18091243]

>>18088490
Lmao is this true? Source?

[Anonymous No.18091376]

>>18091146
>Else he would be mostly forgotten.
He would still probably have a place in 19th century philosophy and history. He was already gaining popularity before his mental collapse due to Georges Brandes giving lectures on him.

[Anonymous No.18091389]

>>18090664
I mean, I've read them both - I prefer Stirner because Stirner is actually practical due to his Taoist-Zen like nature whereas the Zarathustrian Ubermensch is something that seems to be something people destined for greatness. Although, I believe Nietzsche's critique of socialism is much stronger, and certainly something that needs to be used this day, and age, when its being pushed so many idiots kicking a dead horse. Nietzsche also has some interesting takes on crime that are much more fleshed out than Stirner. Where's Nietzsche rejects free will; whereas Stirner, not so much, but Nietzsche's rejection of free will creates much more interesting arguments for morality and choice

[Anonymous No.18091473]

>>18088346
>>Nietzsche generally was, by most standards, a sloppy scholar, even though he was acknowledged for his prodigious intellect. It might horrify you to know that he didn't actually read a lot of philosophy and actually resembled a /lit/izen more than most people would like.
ho yes, Nietzsche is:
-an atheist [there is no god]
-an anti-christian [like any marxist, FUCK THE PRIESTS AMIRITE]
-a nihilist [there is no truth]
-an hedonist [Only this life matters!!1 live in the present moment to coom like my dancing vitalist idol, the great dyonisus!! teehee]
-a postmodernist [values don't exist but reality doesn't matter bro!!! Just become le heckin uberman, sink further into delusion, create your own values and fight for them until you die!!]

You believe you're a woman? You go giiiiiirl, nobody can tell you otherwise, period!!!

yeah no wonder that lefty/pol/ trannies shill his diarrhea all the fucking time.

[Anonymous No.18091517]

>>18091473
>look mom, I posted it again!

[Anonymous No.18091538]

>>18088663
>My point is he NEVER acknowledged the pre-existence of these ideas in his work. Instead he called names to Mainländer who lived and died by his philosophy and was "real" aristocrat. And he still had to audacity to say that weak people are resentful. This is fucking disgusting.
Yeah Nietzsche is the Einstein of popphilsophy. Just like Einstein stole everything and has moronic followers infatuated with popscisnece, yet who never studied and even less did science, Nietzsche 's followers are all morons infatuated with pophil, never studied philosophy and they will never do philosophy. Like all the braindead atheists here >>18088422
>>18088471
>>18088596
>>18088701
>>18089037
>>18089612

Tbf, it's normal for reddit to love a reddit intellectual.

[Anonymous No.18091579]

amazing that he is still making people seethe well over a century later, he is based if only for that

[Anonymous No.18091708]

>It might horrify you to know that he didn't actually read a lot of philosophy and actually resembled a /lit/izen more than most people would like.

HOLY. FUCKING. BASED.

we're all gonna make it bros, see you all at the Philosopher of the century conference in a few years

[Anonymous No.18091837]

>>18088684
I am another person replying.
Because the value in philosophy comes in its grounding to actual reality.
This is why extreme metaphysicists come off as more deluded than actually interesting due to the lack of connection to reality. Where they focus on the abstract of the abstract.
Founding your ideals off of non-existent strawmen of other ideologies as a way to 'kill them' and make a new paradigm is without value when you aren't attacking something that people are actually professing.

What value does the ubermensch have in casting off the trappings of the past, if the trappings laid out don't exist?

[Anonymous No.18092000]

>>18089364
>Nah man I don't want to accept that he was resentful coward and failure of a man
Then there is no point in arguing so have a (You) retard.

>>18090666
Read that conversation in the context. He attacked the sexuality of another dead philosopher and stole his ideas. So fuck you, if that cunt said much shite about other philosophers then by following that line of thought I will question and shit on his sexual life.

[Anonymous No.18092019]

Nietzsche should have stayed a Schopenhauerian poet instead of ruining philosophy for everyone.

[Anonymous No.18092111]

>>18088346
Wtf, I love Nietzsche even more now

[Anonymous No.18092129]

>>18092111
You already posted this. Several times.

[Anonymous No.18092158]

>>18088346
That's alright, he is at his best as a prophet babbling about the eternal return and its requirement for life affirmation.

[Anonymous No.18092231]

>>18088346
Where can one read about the technical concept of living according to nature? I know greek and german if that helps

[Anonymous No.18092325]

>>18088346
As Kauffman states, one of the most unfortunate things was that Nietzsche had no one to challenge him, despite really wanting to, he had no brother in arms, he had no friend who was his enemy and was willing to push him to the limit so that he could go even further, he was a man plagued by many horrible diseases and afflictions, that he even worsened by writing 10 hours a day in extremely poor conditions, and as Kauffman laments, just think what would have been if a person of Dostoevsky's intellectual stature was right next door. Nietzsche was severely depressed when all people at the time told him about his works was that it was nicely written, and that was about it. But on your point of his scholar research being faulty and sloppy is surely mistaken since Nietzsche was lauded for his exceptional knowledge of the Greeks and was generally perceived to be a brilliant scholar. I mean, wasn't he one of the youngest professors at the head of the philology department at the time?

But, as you've mentioned, sometimes he didn't read certain authors and philosophers, like Kierkegaard for an example, whom he would be fond of if only he had come across him sooner, and not when he was already at the brink of insanity. And as others mentioned, Nietzsche often lied, said things he didn't agree with, etc., all with the purpose to make the reader wrestle with him, so to speak. Not to mention that there's quite a bit of bullshit regarding most of his contemporaries that hated him, that he himself critiqued TBoT, even though a lot of people liked it and still think it's brilliant nowadays, and that he was so far ahead of its time that it took almost a full century in order for him to start being appreciated it as he ought to have been, and that's mostly because of certain German scholars, one of them being Heidegger, and the French intellectuals and philosophers that cleared up Nietzsche's image somewhat after the Second World War and heralded him as one of the most important thinkers in general, but particularly for their time.

[Anonymous No.18092331]

>>18092325
Wagner.
Stop masturbating.

[Anonymous No.18092336]

>>18092325
>he had no friend who was his enemy and was willing to push him to the limit
Who is Wagner? But this fag's narcissism was way too much.

[Anonymous No.18092351]

>>18092331
>>18092336
Don't act like he didn't cut ties with Wagner and completely disowned him after their paths diverged drastically.

[Anonymous No.18092362]

>>18092351
He couldn't take Wagner's banters because he a larping pussy. And then went on to hide in some remote shithole.

[Anonymous No.18092367]

>>18092362
Sure thing.

[Anonymous No.18092370]

>>18092351
Holy cope

[Anonymous No.18092602]

>>18092129
Take your meds christcuck

[Anonymous No.18093445]

>>18091837
So what concrete idea of Nietzsche's are you taking issue with? The overman? The overman isn't "extreme metaphysics" if that's what you're suggesting.

[Anonymous No.18093485]

>>18088684
there's nothing to critique, if you've read Nietzsche you would know that he doesn't 'hold' ideas and his final acclamation of 'amor fati' is nothing more than the stoic imperative

[Anonymous No.18093506]

>>18093445
No, the extreme metaphysicists were just a common example of a group that is looked down upon for their lack of adherence to material reality.
Outside of their area people rarely are in love with their work.
Buts that just tangential bellyaching on my part. An example.

My issue with the overman are several, but I will stick with the criticism I laid out in the last post for now.
What value does the overman have in getting rid of the past and striking his own path, if the pasts that he's killing aren't there?
The idea from Nietzsche is that in general all the old ideals of the previous thousands of years of philosophers are either outdated, built around slave morality to an extreme degree - which in his system is a negative, or just useless.
The overman ignores these and strikes his own self-driven and aristocratic path.
Now, if these previous philosophies are not laid out in an accurate or reasonable manner, then what value is to be found in using them to justify the creation of the Nietzschean overman?

[Anonymous No.18093587]

>>18093506
>What value does the overman have in getting rid of the past and striking his own path, if the pasts that he's killing aren't there?
I don't see the overman as "getting rid of the past." The overman stands in opposition to the rest of humanity on account of having matured farther than it. It's a natural product within the species' evolutionary chain, doesn't threaten the species, and may not even alter it, because the rest of the species necessarily misunderstands it.

>The overman ignores these and strikes his own self-driven and aristocratic path.
The overman overcomes them rather than ignores them. Because the overman is the most complex human being, while also being the most mature, he has within himself the most complex set of instincts, including those that gave rise to philosophies of the past. The overman understands the most about humanity while being the most mature example of it.

>Now, if these previous philosophies are not laid out in an accurate or reasonable manner, then what value is to be found in using them to justify the creation of the Nietzschean overman?
We have enough material to understand what he was talking about. Unfortunately, he lost his mind before he was finished fleshing out all of his ideas, so that process is more complicated on account of that.

[Anonymous No.18094679]

>>18088194
Damn this makes me hate Neetch even more.

[Anonymous No.18095408]

>>18088346
The overarching point to his works was that of a lack of objective morality, and that is why he wouldn't take works of scholars who claimed to solve these problems seriously. His critique of organised religion are as valid as they ever have been, and his aphorisms were as poignant as Kirkegaard's.

[Anonymous No.18095431]

>>18088194
virgin greek scholars are butthurt that Nietzsche eternally refuted the decadent known as Socrates

[Anonymous No.18095445]

>>18095431
Cringe

[Anonymous No.18095476]

>>18095445
>Cringe

[Anonymous No.18095838]

>>18095476
Post face

[Anonymous No.18095847]

>>18092129
Anyone have the other neetch soijak?

[Anonymous No.18095868]

>>18095838

[Anonymous No.18096499]

>>18088346
He literally quotes different works of Spinoza, so maybe you should take you own advice

[Anonymous No.18096569]

>>18096499
This, and his works are full of subtle references to many other writers.

The meme that Kaufmann is a poor choice for reading Nietzsche seems to be coming at the price of more people having this strangely naive understanding of Nietzsche as someone who never read books or who just rambled in an echo chamber of his own making, when in fact the majority of his aphorisms should be read as a dialogue and unless you are extremely educated you NEED the assistance of a scholar like Kaufmann to point out the constant barrage of references he makes.

I mean really...

>he didn't actually read a lot of philosophy and actually resembled a /lit/izen more than most people would like

This stupid shit would have been laughed off the board like 5-6 years ago or just straight up ignored. The board is obviously getting worse over time.

[Anonymous No.18096612]

>>18096499
>>18096569
reading summary works or extracts in compilations does not make you well-read

[Anonymous No.18096624]

>>18096612
I've read his full works and some of them in multiple editions.

[Anonymous No.18096634]

>>18096624
that makes you better than Nietzsche, to whom this accusation is raised

[Anonymous No.18096652]

>>18096634
No, it does not. If you read Kaufmann's editions which are among some of the best available in English you'll see that he is constantly referencing specific passages from others' works. Reading Kaufmann's own book on Nietzsche will also provide much more on this. Nietzsche also owned his own library.

[Anonymous No.18096678]

>>18096652
the claim is not that he didn't read. It is that he is not nearly as well-read or as carefully read in philosophy as he's made out to be but feels like he's in a position to talk smack
Why do you so boldly proclaim your inferiority vis-à-vis Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.18096688]

>>18096652
Referencing things doesn't mean shit.

[Anonymous No.18096691]

>>18096678
He was more well-read than anyone on this board and 100% was in a position to "talk smack" on the issues he wrote about.

[Anonymous No.18096706]

>>18096691
manifestly false, don't even bother (you)ing me again

[Anonymous No.18096715]

>>18096706
>manifestly false
Says the nobody retard, gtfo you arrogant zoomer cunt. It's posters like you who bring the board further down.

[Anonymous No.18096724]

>>18096715
kek, is this not the level of discourse you expect from a Nietzschean? The fulness of confidence, the affirmation of life, speaking in contradiction, wilful lying and subversion! The first post is the most Nietzschean post in this entire thread

[Anonymous No.18096754]

>>18096724
The first post was moronic bullshit and you obviously have an agenda for defending it and even being here. The question is which agenda that happens to be right now.

[Anonymous No.18096779]

>>18096754
What's the problem? Are misrepresentations annoying? Don't be such a quibbler for detail. Embrace the big picture, love life, who says we can't contradict ourselves? Who says I can't have an anti-Nietzsche agenda? Amor fati!

[Anonymous No.18096882]

>>18096688
On /lit/ sure, not when you're referencing direct quotes and metaphors from other books or details about other authors' personal lives.

[Anonymous No.18096928]

>>18088346
The ubermensch won't need bookish knowledge, all he'll need to learn is how to avoid the traps set by the cunning scholastic mind.

[Anonymous No.18097111]

>>18088194
>The Birth of Tragedy was angrily criticized by many respected professional scholars
Including Nietzche like 5 years after he wrote it.
It's in the fucking introduction that he wrote himself

[Anonymous No.18097268]

>>18088194
>public sentiment on x affects my enjoyment of and edification by x
Absolutely lastmanpilled. If you're looking for ironclad dogma and not inspiration for your own world-concept formulation, you're looking in the wrong place. Perhaps Peterson is more your speed

[Anonymous No.18098963]

>>18088194
Neetchfags btfo