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

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

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 362 KB, 1274x1700, Nietzsche1882.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18420635 No.18420635 [Reply] [Original]

Has anyone ever got even close to BTFOing Nietzsche?

>> No.18420646
File: 214 KB, 800x1067, 800px-Friedrich_Nietzsche_drawn_by_Hans_Olde[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18420646

I would argue he did it himself

>> No.18420667

Heidegger and Foucault

>> No.18420674

>>18420635
BTFO'd by his master

>Any foolish boy can stamp on a beetle, but all the professors in the world cannot make a beetle.
Arthur Schopenhauer

>> No.18420694

>>18420635
Before his death, Wagner responded to his criticism in many of his own essays, which had a larger reading than Nietzsche. One example:

>To what is the preacher bound fast in the pulpit, but to compromises between the utmost contradictions, whose subtleties must necessarily confound our very faith itself and make us ask : Who now knows Jesus?—Historical criticism, perchance? It casts in its lot with Judaism, and, just like every Jew, it wonders that the bells on Sunday morn should still be ringing for a Jew once crucified two thousand years ago.

Obviously a reply to the 113th aphorism of "Human, All too Human" with these very words:— "On a Sunday morning, when we hear the old bells booming, we ask ourselves : Is it possible that this should be for a Jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was the son of God? The proof of such an assertion is wanting."

>> No.18420712

Yup. Thomas Ligotti and John Gray.

>> No.18420718

>>18420635
Nietzsche was retroactively refuted by Plato.

>> No.18420744

>>18420635
Plato, Aristotle, Christianity, Hegel, Freud, Girard, Macintyre.

>> No.18420759

>>18420718
Plato was refuted by the Sophists

>> No.18420772

>>18420759
WRONG

>> No.18420776

>>18420635
no engrish

>> No.18420779

>>18420635
Christianity. Since he doesn’t understand it.

>> No.18420794

>>18420772
Cope

>> No.18420797

>>18420779
Death of god-theology is peak Christianity

>> No.18420922

>>18420635
Plato retroactively BTFO him

>> No.18421004
File: 47 KB, 742x481, Alexis-de-Tocqueville-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18421004

>> No.18421024

>>18420712
What did John Gray have to say about Nietzsche?

>> No.18421031

>>18420635
Nee-chee is babbys first philosopher you fucking bitch

>> No.18421068
File: 23 KB, 474x395, bert.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18421068

>> No.18421196

He ws BTFO by plato even before he was born, and then proceeded to BTFO himself after trying to BTFO his boss Schoppy.

>> No.18421207

>>18421004
This (pbuh)

>> No.18421226

>>18420667
French fag, sure bud

>> No.18421252

>>18420646
This
>The sick man is a parasite of society. In certain cases it is indecent to go on living. To continue to vegetate in a state of cowardly dependence upon doctors and special treatments, once the meaning of life, the right to life, has been lost, ought to be regarded with the greatest contempt by society. The doctors, for their part, should be the agents for imparting this contempt, -- they should no longer prepare prescriptions, but should every day administer a fresh dose of disgust to their patients. A new responsibility should be created, that of the doctor -- the responsibility of ruthlessly suppressing and eliminating degenerate life, of ascending life, demand such a course -- for instance in favour of the right of procreation, in favour of the right of being born, in favour of the right to live.

>> No.18421277

Safe for the laughable Stalinist lingo Lukacs' chapter on N in his "Destruction of Reason" is excellent.

>> No.18421291

>>18420635
that guy beating the horse

>> No.18421297

https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S16789880

>> No.18421312

This guy does a pretty good job
>>18410492

>> No.18421328
File: 87 KB, 611x940, 1622952541379.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18421328

He was completed by Bataille, who also refutes Guenon.

>> No.18421349

>>18421328

Bataille brought N to his logical conclusion, ie Satanism. Then Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze etc came along, hid the Satanic part and engaged in systematic destruction of reason.

>> No.18421360

>>18421328
Take ur meds.

>> No.18421390
File: 9 KB, 170x227, 1613000309620.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18421390

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

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

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

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

>> No.18421480
File: 354 KB, 500x498, behold.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18421480

>>18420759
Plato was refuted by Diogenes

>> No.18421604

>>18421390
Haven't seen this pasta in a long time.

>> No.18421646

>>18421390

Criticism =/= bullying.

Stop with the victim - omg stop oppressing me - mentality. No wonder N is a pillar of Leftism (Bataille, Adorno, Freud, Foucault, Derrida etc etc).

>> No.18421689

>>18421252
Damn. I really need to read Nietzsche

>> No.18421700

>>18421689
if you do you will start to like men, unless you already do. in that case you will just kill yourself

>> No.18422868

>>18421480
Doubt

>> No.18422900

>>18420635
Yeah, Wagner

>> No.18423006

>>18420694
Wasn't Wagner Christian?

>> No.18423212

>>18420635
>Nietzsche
WHo?

>> No.18423214

>>18420635
His own letters

>> No.18423285

>>18420744
>MacIntyre
Not really. He doesn’t BTFO Nietzsche. If anything it’s the opposite. Nietzsche says he identified the problem but couldn’t find a viable solution, which is a fair but viable take. And MacIntyre is an egalitarian and collectivist so he naturally found Nietzsche’s beliefs about the “ubermensch” to be counter productive to Aristotelian ethics even as he himself couldn’t find any way to implement those ethics on a broadly social level in his conclusion. So how does this show Nietzsche’s approach was misguided? What else does he have to offer to suggest otherwise?

He just hated post-Enlightenment individualism, hence his hate for Rawls, which is fine. But that’s why he seethed at the notion Nietzsche showed the only way to fight it was with an individual approach instead, which makes MacIntyre’s contrarian approach end up going nowhere.

After Virtue is good but the ending left more questions than answers.

>> No.18423294

>>18423285
Meant “McIntyre says Nietzsche* not “Nietzsche says he” in the first paragraph.

>> No.18423567

>>18420635
his sister

>> No.18423645

>>18423006
Yes, and he disliked the historical criticism which Nietzsche used.

>> No.18423657

>>18420744
more like a set of niggers whomst neesh btfo'd, an anthropologist who cannot read, and another guy who thinks nietzsche is an enlightenment-tier thinker

>> No.18423662

The Greeks.
But this is just a slide thread. You will never convince reddit teenagers they are wrong.

>> No.18423687

>>18421004
>The will to power is only a means of the will to equality.
This kills the nietzschean.

>> No.18423760

>Fate is the simplest argument against Nietzsche. Where fate intervenes one can be certain that something greater than power has taken hold - as in the strong character up against forces greater than this world. Will always falls short in these situations.
>Germany is the obvious political example, both stronger and morally right, yet it lost. The alpha wolf can be overcome by a larger group, and the deformed deer may be the only survivor of a forest fire. Darwinist nature is merely a myth of technicians.

>> No.18423881

>>18422868
its true, all of it

>> No.18423968
File: 648 KB, 1500x1600, AmericanPredicament.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18423968

>>18420635
>Has anyone ever got even close to BTFOing Nietzsche?

The CDC. Pic related. People are retarded.

>Man makes guitar
>Nobody has hands
>The end

>> No.18424749

>>18423687
That doesn't make any sense though.

>> No.18424784

>>18420779
No one who disagrees with Christianity understand it. Funny how that works

>> No.18424809

>>18423760
>Germany is the obvious political example, both stronger and morally right, yet it lost.
wherever this quote comes from obviously it's from some retard who thinks N wrote might is right

>> No.18424816

>>18420635
Unironically Plato

>> No.18424820

>>18423968
Nietzsche isn't about helping the masses. His stuff is squarely addressed at individuals.

>> No.18424835

>>18421068
midwit take

>> No.18424839

>>18424749
Only if you've never read Tocqueville.

>> No.18424875

>>18424839
If that's Tocqueville's take then he's not worth reading lol

>> No.18424930

>>18424875
Tocqueville understood power better than anyone in the modern era. And he was an aristocrat.
Nietzsche didn't even register. And he was a slave.
Obvious who was right, even according to neet's philosophy.

>> No.18424957

>>18424930
>French aristocrat didn't acknowledge relatively unknown German professor
big whoop, the conclusion is still retarded.

>> No.18424977

>>18424816
This. Book One of The Republic utterly BTFOs Neetch. He even tried to defend Thrasymachus but utterly failed to comprehend Plato's argument, just like Thrasymachus did in the dialogue.

>> No.18425008

>>18423687
No it doesn't. The will to equality is a certain type of will to power. Try actually reading him.

>> No.18425014

>>18420674
And that IS the beauty of it

>> No.18425028

>>18425008
>word includes all possibilities and their negation
Cringe

>> No.18425042

>>18424957
Thanks for proving that nietzscheans are the herd now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtiJQZTqu9M

"When I think of the petty passions of men today, of the softness of their mores, the extent of their enlightenment, the purity of their religion, and the mildness of their morality, of their laborious and orderly habits, and of the restraint that nearly all of them maintain in vice as well as in virtue, what I fear is not that they will find tyrants among their leaders but rather that they will find protectors.

I therefore believe that the kind of oppression that threatens democratic peoples is unlike any the world has seen before. Our contemporaries will find no image of it in their memories. I search in vain for an expression that exactly reproduces my idea of it and captures it fully. The old words “despotism” and “tyranny” will not do. The thing is new, hence I must try to define it, since I cannot give it a name.

I am trying to imagine what new features despotism might have in today’s world: I see an innumerable host of men, all alike and equal, endlessly hastening after petty and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, withdrawn into himself, is virtually a stranger to the fate of all the others. For him, his children and personal friends comprise the entire human race. As for the remainder of his fellow citizens, he lives alongside them but does not see them. He touches them but does not feel them. He exists only in himself and for himself, and if he still has a family, he no longer has a country.

>> No.18425045

>>18425028
The will to equality is not a negation of the will to power. Again, read the fucking book niggerworm.

>> No.18425050

>>18421480
Unironically go back to r*ddit with your r*ddit philosopher.

Impressed by surfacelevel gottems.

>> No.18425052

>>18425042
"Over these men stands an immense tutelary power, which assumes sole responsibility for securing their pleasure and watching over their fate. It is absolute, meticulous, regular, provident, and mild. It would resemble paternal authority if only its purpose were the same, namely, to prepare men for manhood. But on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them in childhood irrevocably. It likes citizens to rejoice, provided they think only of rejoicing. It works willingly for their happiness but wants to be the sole agent and only arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and takes care of their needs, facilitates their pleasures, manages their most important affairs, directs their industry, regulates their successions, and divides their inheritances. Why not relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and the difficulty of living?

Every day it thus makes man’s use of his free will rarer and more futile. It circumscribes the action of the will more narrowly, and little by little robs each citizen of the use of his own faculties. Equality paved the way for all these things by preparing men to put up with them and even to look upon them as a boon.

The sovereign, after taking individuals one by one in his powerful hands and kneading them to his liking, reaches out to embrace society as a whole. Over it he spreads a fine mesh of uniform, minute, and complex rules, through which not even the most original minds and most vigorous souls can poke their heads above the crowd. He does not break men’s wills but softens, bends, and guides them. He seldom forces anyone to act but consistently opposes action. He does not destroy things but prevents them from coming into being. Rather than tyrannize, he inhibits, represses, saps, stifles, and stultifies, and in the end he reduces each nation to nothing but a flock of timid and industrious animals, with the government as its shepherd."

>> No.18425061

>>18425052
Democracy wills the Ubermensch.
Nietzsche BTFO

>> No.18425075

>>18425045
Read something besides your reddit teenage shitposting

>> No.18425095

>>18425075
Present an argument, or kindly fuck off instead of spouting undergrad level braindead mush.

>> No.18425109

>>18423657
See the thread in this post >>18421312

>> No.18425120

>>18423285
To reduce everything to “wrong because he thought it counterproductive” is disingenuous and I don’t think I need to engage with the rest of your post after that.

>> No.18425128
File: 34 KB, 474x628, Schmitt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18425128

>>18425045
Clearly it is.
If power is also weakness and equality then it may as well be nothing. That is the problem with being anti-essentialist, where there's no distinction there can be no form of even the lowest qualities or values, let alone something complex like power.
As the Greeks, and any state theorists in our time, understood power can only begin from humility and a recognition of weakness. Nietzsche was consumed by power because he had none, and sensed that it was against his fate. That is why his philosophy of power is only from the negative, a destructive force in keeping with democracy.

Now forget your herd "you didn't read" sophistry. I read and understand things better than you ever will.

>> No.18425129

>>18425045
>>18425095
>will to equality is will to power but not the right will to power!!!

>> No.18425140

>>18423760
Based.

>> No.18425150

>>18425042
>>18425052
>>18425129
>all this cope just so you can justify your misreading or lack of reading

>> No.18425159

>>18425150
Nietzsche was against reading and dogmatic thought. He would see you as a Christian slave moralist for treating him like a Saint.

>> No.18425164

>>18425159
>Nietzsche was against reading
just for the masses

>> No.18425184

>>18425150
That's not how you greentext retard

>> No.18425191

>>18425164
So why did he write for the masses?

>> No.18425201

>>18421252
Damn, I see why some people think he was a Nazi.

>> No.18425211

>>18425191
liberals and democrats poorly regurgitating his philosophy so that it is palatable to the masses =/= N writing for the masses

N himself predicted that he may have such readers eventually and despised them

>> No.18425222

>>18420667
lol

>> No.18425232

>>18425128
Further, in one of the most important works on power (not referencing since Nietzscheans have obviously read it) the introduction makes it clear how even aristocrats and nobles have a true understanding, or instinct, for power.
And Goethe reminds us that the absolute lust for power will find a king ruining his empire over the smallest flies. This goes against the old idiom that an eagle does not hunt flies.

Nation and state rest on much higher values than power. Power is only a means. Nietzsche's inversion of this proves his inability to break from Kant.

>> No.18425239

>>18425232
>rarely have a true understanding

>> No.18425253

>>18425128
>If power is also weakness and equality then it may as well be nothing.
So since the universe is a thermodynamic system that will eventually reach thermodynamic equilibrium after an inconceivable number of thermodynamic oscillations, it is also nothing? This is nihilistic when you get right down to it. Power circulates, creating emptiness here and there while simultaneously causing overflow elsewhere. This is not nothing.

>> No.18425285
File: 277 KB, 795x600, 1605847607307.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18425285

>>18425232
>in one of the most important
>the introduction makes it clear
>true understanding
>And Goethe reminds us
>This goes against the old idiom
>much higher values

>> No.18425286

>>18425253
>HECKIN SCIENCE

>> No.18425309
File: 650 KB, 1462x1914, R5ce53ca27412ebe1565143f51bc89759.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18425309

>>18425285
>no
>facts
>interpretations
>i-
So THIS is the power of perspectivism.

>> No.18425324
File: 195 KB, 732x558, 1605512112729.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18425324

>>18425309
Seek help.

>> No.18425342

>>18425324
memes are herd morality.

>> No.18425543

>>18424957
At least read the wiki sweaty.

>> No.18425615

>>18425286
not an argument

>> No.18425709

>>18423687
>>18425128
More like the Will to Based

>> No.18425826
File: 356 KB, 1950x2560, 815UBYwzIHL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18425826

>>18421328
I bought two books by him the other day (Story of the Eye and Erotism) and the bookstore girl that always looks up stuff for me gave me a weird look.
Also, we got these recent translations of his books here in Brazil and their covers are all really good.

>> No.18425836

Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman
hath one solution —it is called pregnancy.
Man is for woman a means: the purpose is always the
child.
Based

>> No.18425845

>>18425826
I hope for your sake that Erotism is better than Story of the Eye

>> No.18425879

>>18425150
explain to me then the epistemological and consequently moral ground he bases his dichotomy of positive and negative, wrong and right, good and bad, nihilistic and non nihilistic will, that is, the differences between will to power. he imposes an arbitrary difference on will to power. if you can't explain this you can't explain will to power.

>> No.18425885

>>18425836
Incel

>> No.18426238
File: 53 KB, 647x659, 1588978401245.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18426238

>>18425879
>explain

>> No.18426295

>>18425042
Actually pretty based.

>> No.18426559

>>18425061
>Democracy wills the Ubermensch.
The Ubermensch wills the end of democracy.

>> No.18426680

>>18421068
such a fucking dumb response

>> No.18427065

>>18424784
>if you disagree with my cult, you just don’t understand it

Ok emo faggot

>> No.18427250

>>18426559
retard

>> No.18427287

>>18420635
Hitler did

>> No.18427297

>>18423567
This

>> No.18427406

Why is it so hard for people to read Nietzsche and not lump him into a political party?

>> No.18427427

>>18426680
He was right and he btfo neetch.

>> No.18427435

>>18427250
>Our institutions are no good any more: on that there is universal agreement. However, it is not their fault but ours. Once we have lost all the instincts out of which institutions grow, we lose institutions altogether because we are no longer good for them. Democracy has ever been the form of decline in organizing power: in Human, All-Too-Human (I, 472) I already characterized modern democracy, together with its hybrids such as the "German Reich," as the form of decline of the state. In order that there may be institutions, there must be a kind of will, instinct, or imperative, which is anti-liberal to the point of malice: the will to tradition, to authority, to responsibility for centuries to come, to the solidarity of chains of generations, forward and backward ad infinitum. When this will is present, something like the imperium Romanum is founded; or like Russia, the only power today which has endurance, which can wait, which can still promise something — Russia, the concept that suggests the opposite of the wretched European nervousness and system of small states, which has entered a critical phase with the founding of the German Reich.

>> No.18427442

>>18427406
Because everyone else is a bioleninist enemy party

Such is life, struggler. Higher vs lower

>> No.18428304

>>18427435
What was the point of posting this?

>> No.18428428
File: 48 KB, 645x729, 1612807951192.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18428428

>What was the point of posting this?

>> No.18429085

>>18427435
>>18428428
There's no connection to what was said.

>> No.18429124

Unwittingly BTFO'd by Kierkegaard. Sorry, Nietzsche, unconditional commitment is the way out of despair. Freddy remains stuck in the ethical sphere, which will always invite despair.

>> No.18429141

>>18429085
You really can't put two and two together? Who do you think has that "anti-liberal to the point of malice" will?

>> No.18429284

>>18429141
You're a retard. It doesn't address the quote. And liberalism and democracy aren't the same thing.
Today we have liberals who are anti-liberal to the point of malice (against old liberals or just from 5 years ago). It doesn't mean anything, it's a superficial argument.

>> No.18429336

>>18429284
Democracy is a "decline in organizing power" as Nietzsche put it in the quote. The Ubermensch is against that and has the instinct for organizing power and re-creating the imperium Romanum.

>> No.18429341

>>18425885
you're just drunk in sexuality.

>> No.18429631

Yeah syphilis did lol

>> No.18429764 [DELETED] 

>>18429124
Kierkegaard wasn't a real Christian, just like Pascal. Nietzsche's basic criticism of Pascal can be applied to Kierkegaard.

>> No.18429773

>>18429124
Kierkegaard wasn't a real Christian, just like Pascal. Nietzsche's basic criticism of Pascal can be applied to Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche share a stronger kinship than Christians would like to admit and the atheist Georges Brandes knew that, hence why he recommended him to Nietzsche.

>> No.18429808
File: 59 KB, 999x576, 1232574856854856866545.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18429808

reminder that Nietzsche is just Schopenhauer after drinking a bottle of vodka

>> No.18430429

>>18429336
But that's completely wrong. Democracy rises due to an excess of power, and the very destructive type that Nietzsche admires.
Just because someone makes a claim does not necessarily mean the claim touches on the essential. Again, Tocqueville's analysis of the worst type of democracy is precisely the Ubermensch.

>> No.18430448

>>18420718
>>18420744
>>18420922
>>18421196
>>18424816

Plato fans are the biggest and most vocal pseuds on this board, unironically.

>> No.18430458

>>18430429
>>18427435
Tocqueville's analysis of Russia is also far superior, even though it appeared fifty years earlier than Nietzsche's. He gives the opposite impression of the two nations, of the greater equalizing and socializing force of the Russians, and correctly predicted that Russia and America would be the external powers of the 20th century conflicts.

State's also do not rise from the will, the instincts, nor an imperative. That is secular and enlightenment thinking. Rome was formed as a divine law, following the survival of men out of the ruins of Troy. It was also created out of the Golden Age laws, the idyllic which Nietzsche so despised.

"There are today two great peoples on earth, who, though they started from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans.

Both grew in obscurity, and while humanity’s gaze was focused elsewhere, they abruptly vaulted to the first rank among nations: the world learned almost simultaneously of their birth and of their grandeur.

All other peoples seem close to achieving the limits traced for them by nature and henceforth need only to preserve what they already have; but these two are still growing.101 All the others have stopped, or move forward only with the greatest of effort. Only these two march with an easy and rapid stride down a road whose end no eye can yet perceive.

The American does battle with the obstacles that nature has placed before him; the Russian grapples with men. One combats wilderness and barbarity; the other, civilization with all its arms. The American makes his conquests with the farmer’s plowshare, the Russian with the soldier’s sword.

To achieve his goal, the American relies on personal interest and allows individuals to exercise their strength and reason without guidance.

The Russian in a sense concentrates all the power of society in one man.

The American’s principal means of action is liberty; the Russian’s, servitude.

Their points of departure are different, their ways diverse. Yet each seems called by a secret design of Providence some day to sway the destinies of half the globe."

>> No.18430486

>>18430448
>Playdoh dumb
>My notion would be, that anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence; and I hold that the definition of being is simply power.

>> No.18430494

>>18430486

Nietzsche doesn't try to prove that things exist. Stop speaking cause you prove me right, Plato pseud.

>> No.18430650

>>18430494
Retard.

>> No.18430671

>>18430650

So you got nothing to say besides insulting, guess I win this one, heh.

>> No.18430685

>>18430448
true
https://youtu.be/RqmutSojKyw

>> No.18430686
File: 23 KB, 333x499, 1622894092597.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18430686

>>18420635
Fr Seraphim Rose

>> No.18431125

>>18430429
>Democracy rises due to an excess of power
This is just another way to say the same thing Nietzsche said.

>and the very destructive type that Nietzsche admires.
The quote contradicts you. Nietzsche admires Rome more than democracy.

>Just because someone makes a claim does not necessarily mean the claim touches on the essential.
I have seen it said that while Tocqueville provides an "internal" critique of democracy, Nietzsche provides an "external" one. That would make them both essential, but in their own way.

>Tocqueville's analysis of the worst type of democracy is precisely the Ubermensch.
But the Ubermensch wills the end of democracy, so that can't be right.

>> No.18431204

>>18430685

Dude I'm in tears, thank you. I knew the video and always found it funny, but when the guy said he's a marxist I lost it

>> No.18431497

>>18431125
>bietzsche admires rome not democracy
Homosexuals admire masculinity, it doesnt mean they dont admire and seek sexual pleasure with them

>ubermensch wills the end of democracy
The end of democracy is its own beginning

>> No.18431621
File: 393 KB, 1200x1200, a3706953430_10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18431621

>>18430458
>State's also do not rise from the will, the instincts, nor an imperative. That is secular and enlightenment thinking. Rome was formed as a divine law, following the survival of men out of the ruins of Troy.
Who did the forming and out of what will? This is what Nietzsche was referring to and concerned with, and this will for him, as far as the future is concerned, was the will of the Ubermensch, a Caesarean-Napoleonic will that does not favor democracy. This does not necessarily mean that what you said is false or irrelevant, just that Nietzsche is addressing the same issue, but from a different angle.

You have to remember that democracy is not the endgame for Nietzsche. He had no stake in preserving it. His only use for modern democracy was its potential for clearing the way for the Ubermensch so that another aristocracy could be born; beyond that point, it, along with the type "democrat" and the democratic mob, were despicable to him.

>When I came to human beings for the first time, I committed the solitary's folly, the great folly: I set up in the market.
>And in speaking to everyone, I spoke to no one. But in the evening rope-dancers were my companions, and corpses too; and I myself almost a corpse.
>But with the new morning there came to me a truth: then I learned to say, 'What does the market matter to me, and the mob and mob-noise and long mob-ears!'
>You superior humans, learn from me this: In the market no one believes in superior humans. And if you want to speak there, very well! But the mob blinks: 'We are all equal.'
>'You superior humans'—so the mob blinks—'There are no superior humans, we are equal, the human is human; before God—are we all equal!'
>Before God!—But now this God has died. But before the mob we would not be equal. You superior humans, go away from the market!

Democracy rising due to an excess of power is precisely what "decline in organizing power" implies for Nietzsche. The governing powers gradually lose their ability to organize when those they govern gradually gain more power for themselves, and once those they govern gain too much power, the governing powers learn to negotiate instead, from which begins democracy. In this state of affairs, the governing powers, having been deprived of their ability to organize power themselves, rely on a certain degree of self-organization among those they govern, which they negotiate for. The state, which is made up of wills, thus unlearns how to organize power, and learns how to negotiate for it. Nietzsche considered this to be a state of destitution rather than something desirable, calling Europe's "system of small states" a "wretched European nervousness" while simultaneously praising Russia's (at the time) position over Europe's, for precisely the reason Tocqueville gave in that quote you posted (because it had the capacity to concentrate all the power of society into one man).

>> No.18431814

>>18431621
Nietzsche’s philosophy is the philosophy of the mob, remember this.

>> No.18431853

>>18431814
The mob's philosophy is its own thing and constantly disguises itself as another thing, remember THIS. As another anon pointed out in another thread here >>18420742, the mob will either cancel something if it is small enough, or try to absorb it if it is too large. This has happened not only with Nietzsche, but with everything that Zarathustra's "superior humans" have bestowed to the species. God too became this in the hands of the mob when the mob declared that God made all humans, the superior ones included, equal.

>> No.18431865

>>18430448
You misspelt Nietzsche, unironically.

>> No.18431921

>>18431853
This is the will of the mob. This is the reality of the equality of humans declared not by the believers, but by God himself: Dionysus.

>> No.18432005

>>18431125
First year?

>> No.18432014

>>18431921
In Greek religion, Dionysus was an Olympian, and the god played an important role in creating ritual traditions for the Greeks. Pliny also understood Dionysus's return from Asia to be an archetype of the Roman triumph. Put shortly, Dionysus's ecstasy touches both king and mob alike, but does not make mob-like, and is not the mob; he is still an Olympian god among the Greeks. The mob claims otherwise and wishes for Dionysus to be a god representing itself alone, as is the usual case with the mob.

>> No.18432057

>>18431865

Neah, I'm pretty sure I have written Plato correctly.

>> No.18432068

>>18430448
The difference is that you have to be against Plato to be a pseud, whereas with Nietzsche his philosophy invites pseudery, even demands it.

>> No.18432085

God did

>> No.18432131

>>18432014
Cease this naive literalistic mythical phantasy which was understood in this way precisely by the commoners contrary to what the scholars, priests, poets, intellectual aristocrats (like Orphism and all mystery hierophants, Plato, Plutarch, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Euripides, to cite a few) knew about the meaning and symbols of the myths.
Check these posts here:
>>18418275
>>18420241

>> No.18432174

>>18431621
You are missing the point.
The problem here is not what either thinker says as dogma, but the essence of what is said. To represent is not necessarily to find the essence of a thing, rather, one may only be employing the technical aspects, and devaluing it.
Rousseau said that the people cannot be represented, which would be a contradiction in Nietzsche's philosophy, thus showing his decline by comparison and a character trait of democracy.

What is damning here is that Tocqueville is the best historian and theorist of democracy, and what he characterizes as its most developed form is very much like the type described by Nietzsche. And no after how antipolitical one makes him out to be these similarities remain. His concerns are of the private man, which is a bourgeois sentiment.

A noble man would not fear that other men had achieved status, instead he would see an element of the divine in their lives. That they had achieved something beyond becoming is an incredible lesson and test for us.
Of course, you will say, 'But the Agon!' Which is partly correct, but the question remains if Nietzsche was primarily driven by agon if he mostly pleased with its technical representation. That he was constantly driven from a point of resentment and constantly attacked someone like Goethe in a petty manner, or even charged the greatest men with the fall of Greek power says that there is something more powerful in his will and character. Bad signs which herald the worst in a man. Charging Homer being a bad artist and the reason for the decline of Greece is much like Thersites' outburst.
Nietzsche had the positive elements of an outcast individual, but also the worst elements. One can really sum up his philosophy with "to live alone one must be an animal or a god" but he must leave out the possibility of god. This is not just a historical question but one of character and spirit. People before him dealt with the death of god in a much better and truthful way.
It is also worth noting how Socrates only mentions the 'will to power' in passing, as a minor thing in the background of life. That it becomes the whole of life, state, and universe for Nietzsche indicates little more than his own private concerns, his rewriting of the world order as his consciousness. It is an illusory type of power and at one with the secular form.

>> No.18432261
File: 61 KB, 850x400, quote-we-often-refuse-to-accept-an-idea-merely-because-the-tone-of-voice-in-which-it-has-been-friedrich-nietzsche-21-45-21.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18432261

>>18432131
>>18432174
You'll never get over your prejudice against Nietzsche it seems. Oh well, it is what it is.

>> No.18432282

>>18432174
All of the great statesmen were capable of rising beyond the political type. To reduce themselves to historical or technical concerns would be to miss the essential, the great judgement which is the test of all regimes. If one is to act in accordance with the highest laws and values then they must recognise that the governmental type may itself be a test, a 'providential' shift which occurs within the essence of man, but also beyond him, in the divine and elemental laws. To see this is to see the importance of fate, something which Nietzsche should have recognised but did not. His questions of fate were, again, private questions, and limited their potential power and significance beyond a specific type of man. Any other answer to fate remains better, even the Christian.

Rome cannot be reduced to its organisational power, its instincts and the conflict of physical forces. This is entirely a secular view, reducing the martial state to its technical concerns alone. It is significant that no modern states feel threatened by Nietzsche's philosophy but instead employ many of its elements. Whereas someone like Schmitt, who followed Tocqueville rather than Nietzsche, threatens the very core of the democratic state - not just liberal - through his calm presence before the law, his mastery which was capable of acting from within.

This again shows the power, or strength, of acting from the essential, rather than a technical, and thus superficial, opposition. That Nietzsche entirely neglected the strong for the powerful is telling. Perhaps even more than this that he took a Christian philosophy, that of legitimate usurpation, and attempted to make it the image of the whole universe and time shows his proximity to the technical mind, and that the line between the physical and essential is not always so clear. It can deceive.
With this Nietzsche either wilfully participated in the great acts of profanation, or did so unconsciously and ironically.

>> No.18432404

>>18420635
A lot of pseudos on youtube and lot of anons here actually and unironically think they have beaten Nietzsche. They never fail to make laugh

>> No.18432443

>>18432404
Neetch beat himself.

>> No.18432723

>>18432261
There is no prejudice at all. It is an affirmation of Nietzsche himself. Look at that quote how ridiculous and ironic it is when it suits you perfectly. I am not the one refusing to accept what is implied in Nietzsche, you are.

>> No.18432736
File: 73 KB, 620x620, lcd4k.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18432736

>>18432261
>RACIST AGAINST NEETCHUH
>STOP NOW CHUDS

>> No.18432749

>>18432723
>>18432736
t. has not read Nietzsche

>> No.18432762

>>18432261
Pleb and feminine argument.

>> No.18432847

>>18432762
That guy is an autist who has been posting his shit for months straight. What's the point in arguing further? And how is it feminine to point out that he ignores everything said to him because he doesn't like the tone in which it is said, which is what women do?

>> No.18432886

>>18432749
t. read Nietzsche and understood nothing

>> No.18432896

>>18420646
>>18421252
>dude you have some beliefs but your life contradicted those beliefs

not an argument

>> No.18432930

>>18432886
How would you know that if you didn't read him, brainlet?

>> No.18432932

>>18423006
No

>> No.18433009

>>18432847
You're retarded.

>> No.18433038

>>18420635
how could anyone have refuted him if he was the last philosopher?

>> No.18433059

>>18420635
>>18433038

the real question is has anyone ever come close to understanding nietzsche (not only through reason / the intellect)

>> No.18433414
File: 59 KB, 671x670, orgy-of-the-will.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18433414

>>18433038
>>18433059
>the last philosopher
>anyone who fully understood Nietzsche

>> No.18433418

>>18432930
Because I have.

>> No.18433432

>>18433418
post bookshelf

>> No.18433449

>>18420674
>(...)and the philosopher of love eventually settled for going solo, living for 27 years with a succession of pet poodles, whom he adored.
Deep down you know he was fucking his poodles.

>> No.18433459

>>18432847
>sits on lit 24/7
>seethes the moment there's on-topic post
Yeah, I'm the autist.

>> No.18433532
File: 32 KB, 600x309, 1623408622419.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18433532

>> No.18433533

>>18433432
I think it is easier to ask you an actual argument as for what is wrong in what I said about him.

>> No.18433638

>>18423687
How is that true when this exists >>18433414

>> No.18434803

>>18430458
>>18432174
Underrated posts. /lit/ needs more like this.

>> No.18434871

>>18432174
>Socrates only mentions the 'will to power' in passing, as a minor thing in the background of life. That it becomes the whole of life, state, and universe for Nietzsche indicates little more than his own private concerns, his rewriting of the world order as his consciousness.
You are right about some things but here you are dead wrong. Nietzsche was absolutely right about the will, he was even right about Christianity, its consciousness and will, as that complete opposite of his philosophy. The error lies in his own denial of a possibility beyond the Will that drives the whole life, the denial of something beyond the eternal recurrence.

>> No.18434928

>>18425836
A woman's spoken want of love isn't disingenuous; they just define it differently than you

>> No.18434944

>>18420744
>Girard
Only correct answer
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2905504

>> No.18434952

>>18434944
>>Girard
Cringe

>> No.18435033
File: 776 KB, 1256x694, BfLy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18435033

>> No.18435080

>>18434952
I'm not even sure I agree with him but if you want an original critique of Nietzsche that doesn't just go the character assassination route Girard is as good as it gets

>> No.18435104

>>18420635
>His opinion of women, like every man's, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. "Forget not thy whip"-- but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks. [

>> No.18435189

>>18434952
You want to know what is cringe? The coping nietzschean here: >>18410492.

>> No.18435271

>>18435080
You are right about the critique being original because Girard critiques Nietzsche not in the common sense of the word, it does not try to refute and much less rebuke Nietzsche, it just points to the nature of his philosophy, to that which is hidden because it is the same thing hidden in every aspect of humanity, and his choice in favor of his own tragedy, much like that of humanity itself.

>> No.18435302

>>18432282
>It is significant that no modern states feel threatened by Nietzsche's philosophy but instead employ many of its elements.
Hitler went the furthest in employing Nietzsche's philosophy out of any politician in history so far and he threatened the entire Western world. The modern world is hardly Nietzschean.

>> No.18435320

>>18435302
>Hitler
Yikes.

>> No.18435357

>>18435302
All states and civilizations are fruit of the nature of Nietzsche's philosophy: the dionysiac spirit. The modern world is a post-christian state of pure crisis facing a crucial dilemma: the affirmation of the victim or nietzscehanism.

>> No.18435405

>>18435357
The fact that some democratic countries have employed some of Nietzsche's ideas (all erroneously, by the way) doesn't mean what I said with Hitler isn't the case.

The modern world's ills almost all existed during Nietzsche's time, and he critiqued every single one of them he saw. He isn't responsible for them, civilization is, which is much greater than any individual, and much older than any individual as well.

>> No.18435480

>>18435357
>the affirmation of the victim or nietzscehanism.

No, how would you even come to that conclusion? Nietzsche wasn't the first person to figure out how to affirm life (although he pretended to be) nor was he the first to describe how weak and miserly people have become in their support for the weak. Our crossroads is how to restore affirmation of life in general through enchanting the world again, and he provided no solutions outside of metaphorical worship of aristocratic and powerful men. That's why something like the Communist Manifesto is a million times more influential than anything he wrote. He didn't challenge the materialism of modern life, he was just another part of it, allowing it to still flourish after he died.

>> No.18435492

>>18435405
The democratic countries explore what is in Nietzsche and what has always been in politics, that is the will toward unity and its singularity, hence why the crowd is not alien to the nietzschean spirit (it is actually the very immanence of Dionysus). Hitler is no exception, rather the opposite.
Civilization is at the same time the cure, or mitigation, and the cause of these ills because it follows from the crowd, it follows from the individual will united and intensified in a chaotic, dionysiac par excellence, mob. (There can't be civilization without individuals).

>> No.18435509

>>18435480
He wasn't the first because he expounds what has been the case since the foundations of the first human community in history.
I diverge on his providing something metaphorical worship or whatever, he literally affirmed nature in its most profound intimacy, and this with man as well for this is the immanence of the sacred in the world.

>> No.18435551

>>18435492
There is no will to unity and its singularity in Nietzsche. There is no way to even consider the will to power in this light because the will for Nietzsche is a multiplicity rather than a singularity. Will to power is will to hierarchy, like Hitler's politics, and Nietzschean power can't function without hierarchy.

>> No.18435570
File: 42 KB, 332x443, unnamed (3).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18435570

>>18425836
I forgot how based Nietzsche was

>> No.18435580

>>18435570
oh shit is that the chick from garbage too bad the new album sucks

>> No.18435594

>>18435551
Singularity as harmony is one being multifarious, all the maenads sing and scream in the same ecstasy. Your nazi prejudice is clearly a distortion of Nietzsche himself. Read the Birth of Tragedy for example, it is everything so obvious there, the only hierarchy is this dionysiac spirit against any other thing to be consumed if not joined. From BGE:
>A living being wants above all else to release its strength; life itself is the will to power

As I said in that other thread, the individuals don’t sacrifice their individuality, not consciously, insofar as it is the will which integrates, it is willingly and the expression of the will begins individually. There is difference in the intensity. The mimetic behavior is the very affirmation of the individual.

>> No.18435660

>>18435594
Birth of Tragedy is Nietzsche's earliest and most flawed work. It has its good bits, but it's not what you should be basing your interpretation of his philosophy on.

Nietzschean power is hierarchic, I stand by this. There is no way to interpret the vast majority of his work with another definition of power in mind. Each individual for Nietzsche is a certain quantum of power which is defined by every other quantum of power in the universe at any given time. Releasing strength, or discharging power, is merely a way to describe the interaction between the quanta of power in the universe. What he is saying in that quote is that all life is, at any given moment, exploiting or striving to exploit all other life that surrounds it, in order that it may feel itself stronger than all other life.

>> No.18435729

>>18435660
I knew you would make such an empty retort saying it is too early or something (calling it is flawed is so stupid I couldn't even have expected). I will tell you the precise reason I mentioned it: Dionysus. There, like in his final period, Dionysus is the center, this is what you should base your interpretation of his philosophy on. Nietzschean power is not hierarchic, it is purely dionysiac. Hierarchy is Apollonian, Hierarchy is Order, Reason, Commensurability and fixed disposition of wills.
You are right about the individual as a quantum of power, but it is not its limitation in hierarchy, but its intensification with the crowd, the mob, the Power that is immanent and spread everywhere, like Nietzsche himself claims in that passage a quoted.

there is nothing more contrary to his philosophy than this. This is what happens when you are a nazist, you can't think for yourself (after all Nazism demands its sheep).

>> No.18435824

>>18435729
Nietzsche himself said it's flawed. It's also a relatively minor work within his oeuvre, especially when it comes to interpreting his late philosophy, which develops and becomes more nuanced compared with his earlier philosophy, and as such is the philosophy that everyone discusses and should discuss in reference to Nietzsche. For example, you're talking about Dionysus and Apollo as if they are opposites, when this is only something that makes sense within Nietzsche's earlier philosophy. In his late philosophy, the distinction becomes blurred for him, and he ended up discovering that his earlier distinction was an error in judgment. And with that, your argument that Dionysus means will to power is not hierarchical is false.

>> No.18435853

>>18425826
I once got L'érotisme and I asked the bookstore clerk if they also had La Part Maudite and she looked it up and said "yes, but how weird, these books are under philosophy".
I don't know the fuck she thought these books were.

>> No.18435902

>>18435824
You are right, he indeed criticizes the book, but I take everything in his productions as of great importance to understand Nietzsche and Dionysus is not different. In the Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche already shows how there is reconciliation between the apollonian and the dionysian. But what is here and what is in his final period is the primordial impulse of will that is essentially dionysiac. Dionysius is simply the Will to Power. Hierarchy as said, demands rationalization, order and measure which is much later to the essence that is Will (this both in nature as in man).

>> No.18435987

>>18435902
>Dionysius is simply the Will to Power. Hierarchy as said, demands rationalization, order and measure which is much later to the essence that is Will (this both in nature as in man).
This is true. In his late philosophy, though, he both acknowledges this, and manages to reconcile this rationalization which makes hierarchies within the will to power. Will to power subsumes everything in his late philosophy, but without creating any unity, and he is careful to avoid this.

>> No.18436102

>>18435987
I give Dionysus this importance because it is interesting how he begins and ends with it in his works, Birth of Tragedy and Will to Power and how in the early period of his life it is as if it was the benign bacchic cheerfulness that culminates in the experience of total madness.
I've heard that in his late philosophy this fulminating aspect is in the most intense presence, admitting no difference, no distinction, consumming every weakness possible.

>> No.18436647

>>18436102
His late philosophy is all about making distinctions. That everything became will to power for him doesn't mean will to power became a type of unity in itself for him. It's important to note that. His main priority was restoring will to power in the nobler natures which had been lost over time through countless subversive acts, which he called his revaluation of all values, "values" there being the values of modernity, or put differently, will to power of the herd.

>> No.18436706

>>18432896
read nietzsche

>> No.18436746

>>18436647
I should say that everything became considered in the service of will to power for him, not that everything became will to power. For example, will to survival is a consequence of will to power for him. Life in its rawest, earliest states is will to power, but the reason why he emphasized will to power over everything else was not to establish a new unity in thought but in order to bring to light precisely what nobler natures have forgotten how to employ, which he diagnosed as the disease killing them.

>> No.18437150

>>18420635
>Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?
No.

>> No.18437165

>>18420667
Foucault was a lying faggot whose career was motivated by revenge on society for not being allowed to fuck kids.

>> No.18437799

>>18434871
How can I be dead wrong if we say the same thing (that there are greater forces behind the will)? And how can Nietzsche be right about the will if he is in error?

>> No.18438119

>>18437799
There are no greater forces behind the will, his consideration of it was not a private matter and the error lies not in seeing the will as essential, primordial, ubiquitous, but in his arbitrary categorizations of will.

>> No.18438127

>>18436647
>>18436746
As far as I know the only distinction is weak vs strong.

>> No.18438175

>>18438119
>his consideration of it was not a private matter
Of course it was. He believed in absolute subjectivity and the private war where he would stand alone. Although you are misreading the point, it is not that he was entirely concermed with the private man, but that his position is very similar and only made possible by the world of the private man. A greater similarity is in Michelangelo's David, a type of Christianity which has turned to disdain and theological pessimism - hence his similarities to Maistre.
Our will is not that strong, so certainly there is something greater than it, and something which lies behind/beyond it. This is similar to your original comment so I don't see why you're turning against that now.

What do you mean by "arbitrary categorizations"? Clearly his philosophy is dependent on the arbitrary, so this cannot get to the essence of things. The question of the will is much more significant as it relates to his other important questions, and a fundamental distinction in modern man.
The will cannot be both essential and inessential (which is what it means if there is a greater force behind/beyond it). In this sense the will is only a walking stick or pace marker.

>> No.18438315

>>18438175
The position of the will as essential, as it is in his philosophy, was not a private matter, this is simply the primordial force, ontologically and naturally. Now I agree with you that he made private considerations and subjective ones like the error I pointed: his arbitrary dualistic axiology of will (positive and negative, good and bad). One could even say that the positive will is self-destructive for in order to affirm what is considered negative will, positive will confronts positive will.
I miss this reference to Michelangelo’s David and this type of Christianity, if you could tell me more please do because this is interesting.

>Our will is not strong
It certainly is and reflects that will of nature and that first will of God himself (Boehme).

>arbitrary categorizations
I wrote a bit on that above here, the categorizations are arbitrary because of the value Nietzsche determines for these different manifestations of will, or better speaking, because of his arbitrariness in affirming the primordial over the reflexive.

>> No.18438339

>>18432282
As we see with Spengler misreading Jünger through instincts and preconceptions it becomes clear that even at the level of the greats there can be misreadings. At times this cannot be escaped, as the strength of vision is buried deep within character.
"The conclusion from the possible to the actual is not valid," yet the reverse also remains true. One of the distinctions of the great man is his strength in the face of the impossible, even forming possibilities where a cruel end seems certain. The highest examples of this perhaps in taking the auspices - a reminder that there is something greater than statesmen. Here, Socrates and his statesmen only take the place of the augurs, and the oracles, where they had declined.

Nietzsche's thought holds its own distinction, that it is a copernican revolution not so much against Kant, but the very methods of augury, of seeing truth in the coin tossed to water. This can be nothing other than a great loss of power, a weakened vision, a sickness which has infected the eye beams - what made Socrates untouchable in war. Instead of seeing great truth in the smallest things one sees only the smallest thing in the great truths. The search then becomes endless, and even poetry is reduced to technical concerns. Against the tyranny of truth its profanation - pantheism of reason and the heart, monotheism of art and the imagination.

The greatest statesmen lived between decision and fate, and for them there was no higher counsel than the oracle. The might of decision cuts through the leadership of the Trojan War, as one must see the will of the gods in the smallest signs - an eagle at the highest point in the sky. Hector fails to see the signs, leaving behind ruins and the memory of a will which may never be satisfied. The will can never be enough, neither for us nor the gods, and especially not the will.

Where the eagle appears at the greatest height it must be assumed that we are even less than flies, that the war must be abandoned at all costs. Mastering one's strength against the will ensures the ability to turn away, to flee from the coarse lie. One sees that the river is to Croesus as the eagle is to Hector.

The great king must be able to raise his subjects with him, not only to see the law but implement it and write it into the character of the nation. He who seeks only to separate himself from his subjects, to bend truth to his will, ends his own reign as a destroyer of power. He ends without power, without dominion because he has brought all of his subjects to ruin, the blood of his nation. This is the eagle who hunts flies.

>> No.18438513

>>18438315
I cannot fully respond right now but here is a bit on David. It is also related to Hölderlin's philosophy and the importance of inaction.

Thread was on the shift away from the great man, so strongly related to the question of will
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S18266214#p18268930

"In the same way, the idea that man is the measure of all things may be closer to our own era than the ancient world. If man is the measure than either the death of god or an automatic theomorphosis must be presumed. And even beyond immortality man sees himself as having triumphed over the utmost violence - Fate or even Kaos. That the image retreats into the last man only adds to this: what is the great man if he cannot elevate the weakest to ever exist? He mist be one with them.

The look of disdain in the eye of Michelangelo's David is a sign of absolute triumph, but also the eternal end of the fight. Both the katechon and eschaton are localised into personal matters, feelings. Thus Nietzsche's Christian pessimism, which struggles so endlessly for a final triumph of the metaphysical idea over higher laws - renouncing his own efforts as they weigh him down. He can never find the image of David as his true father."

>> No.18438603

>>18420635
First we'd need a well defined doctrinal body of Nietzscheanism. Not two Nietzscheans can agree on that. Arguably Nietzsche himself couldn't.

>> No.18438674

>>18438175
>He believed in absolute subjectivity
The subject is not a given for him. It is something we invent. The subject-object dichotomy was only an invention to him.

>> No.18438695

>>18438674
Don’t try to give any phenomenological/metaphysical merit to Nietzsche, please. He is right about the primacy of will, but the will is always intentionality, it is always in reference from a Subject toward an Object.

>> No.18438701

>>18438603
I’ll do that, my thesis is that Nietzsche was actually a gnostic. What do you think?

>> No.18438712

>>18438695
Will is not just intention for him, just like it wasn't just that for Schopenhauer.

>Against positivism, which halts at phenomena—"There are only facts"—I would say: No, facts are precisely what there is not, only interpretations. We cannot establish any fact "in itself": perhaps it is folly to want to do such a thing. "Everything is subjective," you say; but even this is interpretation. The "subject" is not something given, it is something added and invented and projected behind what there is.—Finally, is it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation? Even this is invention, hypothesis. Insofar as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—"Perspectivism." It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.

>> No.18438743

>>18438712
The creation, addition of the subject is nothing more than its willed determination. Yes, will lies behind it but despite its being in reference to a formless subject, will does not and cannot exist in a vacuum.

>> No.18438792

>>18436746
>>18436647
There will always be unity. The distinction is not unity vs formlessness, hierarchy demanda unity to be exactly what it is: a wholeness. Our point of contention is not singularity vs multiplicity - these exist in a singular whole necessarily. The contention is whether Nietzsche advocated an ordered unity or a chaotic, dionysiac one. And I don’t think that they are that distinct, as we were saying about the apollonian-dionysian distinction, but they are correlated, the thing perhaps is that one leads to and needs the other, but the dionysian will always be the essential and primordial for being pure will.

>> No.18438823

>>18438743
>The creation, addition of the subject is nothing more than its willed determination
This determination is only part of the invention, making will not a subjective or private matter for him.

>> No.18438840

>>18432068

I'm not against Plato, he has his merits, I'm against pseuds like you that are like radicalists and take what Plato says to be the ultimate truth about life when no single philosophy gets everything right, especially about metaphysics.

Plato pseud.

>> No.18438935

>>18438743
>>18438823
Another quote on this:

>There are still some harmless self-scrutinizers who think that there are 'immediate certainties', as for example, 'I think', or, in Schopenhauer's superstition, 'I will'—as if perception could grasp its object purely and nakedly as the 'thing in itself' without any falsification on the part of the subject or of the object. But I shall repeat a hundred times over that the 'immediate certainty', like 'absolute knowledge' and the 'thing in itself', contains a contradictio in adjecto: it's time people freed themselves from the seduction of words! Let the common people think that perception means knowing-to-the-end, the philosopher must say to himself, 'If I analyse the process expressed by the proposition "I think", I get a serious of audacious assertions that would be difficult if not impossible to prove; for example, that I am the one who is thinking, that there has to be a something doing the thinking, that thinking is an activity and an effect on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that an "I" exists, and finally, that we by now understand clearly what is designated as thinking—that I know what thinking is. For if I had not already decided it for myself, how could I determine that what is going on is not "willing" or "feeling"? In short, saying "I think" assumes that I am comparing my present state with other states that I experience in myself, thereby establishing what it is: because of this reference back to another "knowledge", there is, for me at least, no immediate "certainty" here.' Thus, instead of that 'immediate certainty' that the common people may believe in, the philosopher gets handed a series of metaphysical questions: these are actually the intellect's questions of conscience, such as, 'Where does my concept of thinking come from? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to talk about an "I", and beyond that an "I as cause", and beyond that yet an "I as the cause of thoughts"?' Anyone who dares to answer such metaphysical questions promptly by referring to a kind of epistemological intuition (like someone who says, 'I think, and know that this at least is true, real, and certain') will be met with a smile and two question marks by the philosopher of today. 'My dear sir,' the philosopher may suggest, 'it is improbable that you are not in error, but then why must we insist on truth?'

>> No.18438938

>>18438823
I’m afraid we are splitting hairs at this point. See, the will is directed toward something, this is a determination inherent to will (and why the will is what conditions everything in the end), but it is not a rationalized determination, this determined direction toward something is not private, it is will itself and common to all.

>> No.18438949

>>18438935
Further:

>As regards the superstition of logicians, I never tire of underlining a quick little fact that these superstitious people are reluctant to admit: namely, that a thought comes when 'it' wants to, and not when 'I' want it to; so it is falsifying the facts to say that the subject 'I' is the condition of the predicate 'think'. There is thinking, but to assert that 'there' is the same thing as that famous old 'I' is, to put it mildly, only an assumption, an hypothesis, and certainly not an 'immediate certainty'. And in the end 'there is thinking' is also going too far: even this 'there' contains an interpretation of the process and is not part of the process itself. People are concluding here according to grammatical habit: 'Thinking is an activity; for each activity there is someone who acts; therefore—.' Following approximately the same pattern, ancient atomism looked for that particle of matter, the atom, to complement the effective 'energy' that works from out of it; more rigorous minds finally learned to do without this 'little bit of earth' and perhaps some day logicians will even get used to doing without that little 'there' (into which the honest old 'I' has evaporated).

>> No.18439043

>>18438840
Wrong. Plato was right about everything.

>> No.18439080

>>18438938
>the will is directed toward something, this is a determination inherent to will
This is another invention / assumption of will. Motion at all is not a given; we assume there is movement, that there is a mover, that there are origin and destination points, that there is something behind which causes movement, that there are causes and effects.

>> No.18439096

>>18439080
>that there is a mover
that there is something that moves*

>> No.18439212
File: 478 KB, 900x618, German soul.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18439212

The Platonist fears the German

>> No.18439261

>>18438935
>>18438949
>>18439080
I'll answer all that here. Bear in mind what is crucial to Nietzsche: rejection of truth and that willed error is higher than truth.
That there is metaphysical/phenomenological determination concerning the Will and the Subject and Object, does not implicate in its being original in and to man. The metaphysical is posterior to what Nietzsche defends as primordial and essential in man: will. He was not wrong, he knew what the ''metaphysicians'', ''logicians'', ''rationalists'', whatever you want to call them, didn't know, the origin of the object of their devotion.
There is a clear rupture between Will and Consciousness, Nietzsche sees this. But he does not see how the former will inevitably lead to the latter. He deprives of reality that to which his own wisdom leads.

What is clear in those quotes is the ubiquitous and univocal potency of Will, making everything in which it is inherent subjectless, the subject being the very Will itself. This is what is primordial, but to say that this will is without agency is to neglect the actualization of that power, of its manifestation. That is why I am telling you how this pre-definition, pre-creation of the Subject, there is a formless subject subsumed by the pure force of will, its role being merely actualize it.

That there can be will without agency, without an actualizer is to say that power can be powerful in no place at all.

>>18439080
>we assume there is movement, that there is a mover/something that moves
We don't assume because originally it is the will that moves the subejct, consider everything I said above and you can see how subject and will in the end are the same thing originally, I'd like to tell you also that even theologically this is true, that there is a WILL prior to a definition of subjectivity (there is of course that formless subjectivity, mixed and one with the will). Now to say that Will does not have a direction, or a point, is erroneous and impossible. Will at least wills itself, you are right, there is no destination points, because it can't never be satiated, it can only will and move, move itself and everything along.

>> No.18439479

>>18439212
Why? Plato said this much better about Greece, and much more powerful men.
No one fears becoming, except Nietzsche who hated Germans. I guess you missed the irony.

>> No.18439694

>>18439479
>muh Plato said it better
Nietzsche isn't saying anything bad about Germans there, by the way.

>> No.18439740

>>18439261
>He deprives of reality that to which his own wisdom leads.
I see an alternate outcome: he restores to consciousness in the nobility that which it has forgotten, and in forgetting has fallen into despair, for without any ennoblement of will to power in the consciousness of nobility, the enemies of the nobility are permitted to grow stronger without fear, and have done so dramatically. The enemies of the nobility teach that will to power is "evil," something to be scorned and suppressed, and their teaching has become widespread, and some nobles in history ended up believing it, and allowed their will, which manifests itself in the form of institutions, to be jeopardized by this.

>This is what is primordial, but to say that this will is without agency is to neglect the actualization of that power, of its manifestation.
This "agency" is not what is denied here; the modeling of that agency is, and only insofar as we take our modeling of it to be something absolutely certain. Such denial does not deprive it of its ability to actualize. We don't need to be absolutely certain of a thing in order to want it.

>We don't assume because originally it is the will that moves the subject
This can't be established with absolute certainty, which is what makes it an assumption.

>subject and will in the end are the same thing originally
After the series of questions that Nietzsche posed, it's not so simple as this.

>Now to say that Will does not have a direction, or a point, is erroneous and impossible.
There is something rather than nothing; but all the properties which we attribute to that something, to will, which includes any directions and points, are assumptions, and can't be established with absolute certainty.

>> No.18439780

>>18438701
I agree and considering Voegelin wrote the same it isn't novel or unknown but good luck getting half of Nietzscheans on board with this.

>> No.18439872

>>18439740
>he restoers to consciousness
he does not restore anything, that which is noble but also ignoble, will always be present in man, but yes, he remembers all the time that this lies within ourselves. But again, he does need the predicate of consciousness which is something posterior to that which needs to be remembered.

>in forgetting has fallen into despair
I don't know. Remembering and having consciousness of it is truly important and decisive, but the will is a kind of despair, a despair that will always look after something, and can only find in order to lose thereafter.

>the enemies of the nobility are permitted to grow stronger without fear
I reject this arbitrary axiological categorization. What truly exists is what is with it and what is against it, what is with the fury of the crowd and what is with the victim. That's all there is. (I need to remind that this is the fundamental dilemma of modern age, as I said here: >>18435357.
One either affirms the élan rampantly or affirms the miracle of God.

>The enemies of the nobility teach that will to power is "evil''
It is a figurative dualism for both are divine, but the nietzschean consciousness, so to speak, inverts things, just like there is an inversion of what is primordial and what is posterior to some. That what is primordial is what is good or positive or noble or whatever, besides being an arbitrary axiology, fails to apprehend the inevitable cyclical and contradictory power of it. This evil is divinity immanent, its affirmation: violence, is its own expulsion.

>something to be scorned and suppressed, and their teaching has become widespread, and some nobles in history ended up believing it, and allowed their will, which manifests itself in the form of institutions
It is not a group deceiving another. It is the crowd itself. The individual becomes blinded in the crowd and its will consummed by the univocal intensity of will in the crowd. This is the paroxysm of the violence which will lead to its own expulsion, its own cessation, its own contrary: order, peace, consciousness, metanoia. But all of this becomes hidden, there is knowledge at the same time there is ignorance of the mechanisms.

>This "agency" is not what is denied here; the modeling of that agency is
You can reject anything I say with honesty if you say: ''I reject it because it makes sense''. It would be fair enough, because what I affirm is consciousness and the comprehension of what lies in the most obscure abyss of it, which you choose to neglect.

>Such denial does not deprive it of its ability to actualize. We don't need to be absolutely certain of a thing in order to want it.
Not sure what you mean here. I mean, you are right, we are not conscious of what and why we will most of the times, if not all times, but this does not address anything I said. In the same way the denial of the consciousness of a metaphysical and apodictic demonstration does not deprive it of its reality.

>> No.18439883

>>18439872
>>18439740
>This can't be established with absolute certainty, which is what makes it an assumption.
But this is the very assumption Nietzsche makes. It is either this or the I, Self, moving what it wills.

>After the series of questions that Nietzsche posed, it's not so simple as this.
See above or try to actually explain anything.

> all the properties which we attribute to that something, to will, which includes any directions and points, are assumptions, and can't be established with absolute certainty.
I'm interested in Nietzsche here, from whom you are departing now with this bland skepticism, therefore I won't comment.

>> No.18440167

>>18439872
>he does not restore anything
What was the concept, the word, for "evil," before evil? Do you know? Can you tell me who today regards "evil" as a good, which is to say, does not call it evil?

>But again, he does need the predicate of consciousness which is something posterior to that which needs to be remembered.
Consciousness is not something that is a given either; will is posterior to consciousness:

>The problem of consciousness (more precisely, of becoming conscious of something) confronts us only when we begin to comprehend how we could dispense with it; and now physiology and the history of animals place us at the beginning of such comprehension (it took them two centuries to catch up with Leibniz's suspicion which soared ahead). For we could think, feel, will, and remember, and we could also "act" in every sense of that word, and yet none of all this would have to "enter our consciousness" (as one says metaphorically). The whole of life would be possible without, as it were, seeing itself in a mirror. Even now, for that matter, by far the greatest portion of our life actually takes place without this mirror effect; and this is true even of our thinking, feeling, and willing life, however offensive this may sound to older philosophers.

>One either affirms the élan rampantly or affirms the miracle of God.
What is the "miracle of God"?

>the nietzschean consciousness, so to speak, inverts things, just like there is an inversion of what is primordial and what is posterior to some.
Returning to what I asked you above about the word "evil," this inversion of an inversion was necessary for the ennoblement of will to power once more in the consciousness of nobility. "Evil" was the original inversion; Nietzsche inverted that inversion with "will to power," making "evil" sacred, rather than blasphemy, once more.

1/2

>> No.18440177

>>18440167
>It is not a group deceiving another. It is the crowd itself. The individual becomes blinded in the crowd and its will consummed by the univocal intensity of will in the crowd.
This is precisely the matter at hand. It's not against what I was saying, if that's what you meant by this. The "enemies of the nobility" are this crowd. You don't agree with Nietzsche's diagnosis which states that this crowd has, over time, become stronger than the individuals, because the individuals have lost their divine right to be "evil," as the crowd calls it.

>It would be fair enough, because what I affirm is consciousness and the comprehension of what lies in the most obscure abyss of it, which you choose to neglect.
The reason for making the distinction between will and any absolute certainty about it is in order to give individuals, nobility, a means to defend themselves against dialectic, which is now the main weapon of the crowd, which the crowd has used to create self-doubt in individuals, allowing them to gain the upper hand. With dialectic, the crowd says, roughly speaking, "it can't be known, therefore it can't be good," and with this stroke, the crowd prevents anything that it does not will itself to grow further. Like an overgrown root strangling all the other plants in the garden, dialectic, when employed by the crowd, seizes all actualization of individual wills, on the basis that, because they are "unknown" to the crowd, they are therefore "bad."

>Not sure what you mean here. I mean, you are right, we are not conscious of what and why we will most of the times, if not all times, but this does not address anything I said.
What you said is true, to suggest that will is without agency is to neglect the actualization of that power. I was just explaining that this is not what was being suggested.

>>18439883
>But this is the very assumption Nietzsche makes.
Yes. But, assumptions are not something bad for Nietzsche. Nietzsche realizes that he puts forth yet another assumption. The importance here is the realization that they are all assumptions, for the reason I explained above.

>I'm interested in Nietzsche here, from whom you are departing now with this bland skepticism, therefore I won't comment.
What departure? The quote here says the same thing, >>18438935, it is not a denial of will or its agency, only the acknowledgement that none of our modeling of these things is absolutely certain.

2/2

>> No.18440289

>>18440167
>What was the concept, the word, for "evil," before evil? Do you know?
There was no evil when there is no consciousness and mainly consciousness of violence. Yes, this is the dionysian diffusion, but the evil and good emerge as soon as the first community is established. Whatever is evil is what menaces the community and its unity (a knowledge but also a deeper ignorance of violence and formation of community/civilization/culture).

>Consciousness is not something that is a given either
Yes, the given is the object.

>will is posterior to consciousness:
It seems you are here to discuss for the sake of discussing, even if you need to contradict yourself, remember what you said:
>The subject is something we invent
Check the Nietzsche quotes about how the I is posterior to the will and all my posts about how will and formless subject are the same before stability and reduction (phenomenological term) of consciousness.

>throwing another paragraph at me
You want me to explain everything Nietzsche ever wrote? Well, I am actually organizing an essay on it but I'm afraid I won't be able to do it now in a 4chan post.

>What is the "miracle of God"?
The elusion from the eternal recurrence of the dionysian-apollonian will: Christ.

>"Evil" was the original inversion
I totally agree that it is the original inversion, but this is the original inversion from violence to order. You cannot affirm the primordial and essential power, will, élan, exasperation, truly that which nature is imbued with and imbues ourselves with, without affirming violence.

>making "evil" sacred, rather than blasphemy, once more.
Yes! Perfect! Violence IS the Sacred. Read Violence and the Sacred by Girard.

>> No.18440307

>>18440177
>the "enemies of the nobility" are this crowd. You don't agree with Nietzsche's diagnosis which states that this crowd has, over time, become stronger than the individuals
No, the crowd is the very nobility which will through violence expels this violence and affirming this violence as ''evil''. The only individual in the end is the victim, the expiatory victim which has this twofold facet: good and evil.

I need to go but I return soon.

>> No.18440314

>>18440177
>it is not a denial of will or its agency, only the acknowledgement that none of our modeling of these things is absolutely certain.
which is literally what skepticism is.

>> No.18440332

>>18420646
/thread

>> No.18440345

>>18440177
>But, assumptions are not something bad for Nietzsche. Nietzsche realizes that he puts forth yet another assumption. The importance here is the realization that they are all assumptions, for the reason I explained above.
But then there must be a measure to measure what is an assumption at first. To say that all things are needs to be not assumptions an assumption, otherwise it needs the measure it itself denies. This is just bland skepticism again. Likewise to put an assumption over the other needs a particular axiology. This axiology needs to be certain or it will be assumptive, uncertain and random, arbitrary. In the end it means nothing and destroys itself as it is the nature of skepticism.

>> No.18440416
File: 98 KB, 555x475, 1590118132684.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18440416

>>18440307
>the crowd is the very nobility which
Crowd is nobility?

>> No.18440448

>>18440416
Yes, it is what incorporates pure will specially through mimetic behavior. See this thread >>18410492 and Read Girard.

>> No.18440462

>>18440416
>>18440448
or in other words, the crowd is the unanimity of the will.

>> No.18440597

>>18440289
>There was no evil when there is no consciousness and mainly consciousness of violence.
You mean that there was no word for what the word "evil" was describing yet, correct?

>It seems you are here to discuss for the sake of discussing, even if you need to contradict yourself, remember what you said:
>>The subject is something we invent
It is not consciousness but will that invents the subject, so that is not a contradiction.

>Check the Nietzsche quotes about how the I is posterior to the will
It's the other way around.

>will and formless subject are the same before stability and reduction (phenomenological term) of consciousness.
Formless subject is will, but will is not formless subject. See set theory, or Monadology by Leibniz.

>You want me to explain everything Nietzsche ever wrote?
I want you to realize the uncertainty of individual thinking, feeling, willing, and ultimately consciousness, but not in order to deprive the individual of this.

>The elusion from the eternal recurrence of the dionysian-apollonian will: Christ.
So stasis, or death.

>I totally agree that it is the original inversion, but this is the original inversion from violence to order.
Violence is a type of order. The order that prevailed in this inversion was the order of the crowd, or the victims of said violence.

>Yes! Perfect! Violence IS the Sacred. Read Violence and the Sacred by Girard.
I'll read it sometime. This makes the antithesis between Nietzsche and Girard confusing, though. Is there no antithesis then, and Girard is only criticizing the strategic aspect of Nietzsche's project?

>But then there must be a measure to measure what is an assumption at first.
No, not necessarily. This is a problem of grammar fundamentally.

>This is just bland skepticism again.
It is not "bland," I've explained what the point of this skepticism is here >>18440177 when I talk about the dialectic.

>>18440462
>the crowd is the unanimity of the will
This goes back to set theory. Crowd is will, but will is not crowd.

>> No.18440608

>>18440597
>the will invents the subject
>it is the will that is posterior to the I
holy shit you are just trolling me, it took me a good while to realize it

>> No.18440612

>>18440597
>Crowd is will, but will is not crowd.
Yep, and what do you think Nietzsche is addressing here? Plants, rocks, insects? The Will is metaphysical, like it or not, the crowd is its utmost expression immanently.

>> No.18440619

>>18440597
>So stasis, or death.
Yes! Matthew 16:24. But of course you won't see the symbolical expression of this addressing to the inherent will (the same that leads to the mob) within ourselves.

>> No.18440627

>>18440597
>Formless subject is will, but will is not formless subject
Subject/Agency/Consciousness imply the very same thing. That is why you are contradicting yourself so much, you can't even discern what is being said here.

>> No.18440647

>>18440597
>This makes the antithesis between Nietzsche and Girard confusing, though. Is there no antithesis then, and Girard is only criticizing the strategic aspect of Nietzsche's project?
It is not an antithesis at all, in the same way Christianity is no antithesis to Nietzsche (the antithesis to Nietzsche is Nietzsche, it is Will itself that ends up in this cyclical, eternal recurrence, between chaos and order, violence and peace, etc.). Girard (and Christianity) affirms the reality of everything Nietzsche will defend later, but it also understands, like Nietzsche, how it is the foundation of all things and how this leads to its nature as expression of an ouroboros, eternally destroying, eternally emerging out of destruction.

If you are interested, this article expounds a lot: https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/rene-girard-the-last-nietzschean/

>> No.18440650

>>18440608
Where's the trolling? Perhaps I should have said, "from will there is a subject / I, though this process / connection can't be established with absolute certainty," to be more lucid here, but I'm responding to many smaller arguments and the posting format doesn't allow one to edit anything once the post is made.

>>18440612
>the crowd is its utmost expression immanently.
For the crowd, that is true.

>>18440619
>Yes!
And you want stasis, death?

>> No.18440666

>>18440597
>No, not necessarily. This is a problem of grammar fundamentally.
This is a problem of skepticism. It affirms without wanting to affirm, it posits swearing it posits anything but doubt. The measure of an assumption is beyond the assumption, or will you say that Nietzsche does not affirm an assumption of all things, but assumes it? This makes his claim lose its force and makes it truly neutral.

>> No.18440681

>>18440650
>"from will there is a subject / I, though this process / connection can't be established with absolute certainty
But you concurred with certainty with me about the agency and actualization of will. This is the same thing as the connection between subject/consciiousness and will, they are totally identified with each other.

>For the crowd, that is true.
And at last for humanity.

>And you want stasis, death?
That is true life.

>> No.18440733

>>18440627
>Subject/Agency/Consciousness imply the very same thing.
Not quite and there's no need to get this reductive about it. Subject implies object, agency implies motive, and consciousness implies something which can be conscious. All of these are models which can't be established with absolutely certainty.

>Christianity is no antithesis to Nietzsche
The perspective of the crowd, which is all Christianity means to Nietzsche, is antithetical to the perspective of the individual, which is all nobility means to Nietzsche.

>it is Will itself that ends up in this cyclical, eternal recurrence, between chaos and order, violence and peace, etc.
Even this modeling of will, of the eternal recurrence, is not an absolute certainty, but it is Nietzsche's perspective, and contrary to it is the perspective of the seeker of stasis and death. The latter perspective neither perceives the eternal recurrence, nor wants it.

>>18440666
>It affirms without wanting to affirm, it posits swearing it posits anything but doubt.
The point here is not to affirm anything, and I already explained why.

>This makes his claim lose its force and makes it truly neutral.
It is another assumption, and it does not lose its force on account of this, because you do not seem to understand what the purpose of this skepticism is in the first place. The purpose of this skepticism is to arm the individual will once more with the means to combat the dialectic of the crowd. For that purpose this skepticism works beautifully.

>>18440681
>But you concurred with certainty with me about the agency and actualization of will.
I concurred that there is will, and there is something rather than nothing. That's it.

>And at last for humanity.
Humanity, crowd, call it what you like.

>That is true life.
For the crowd, that is true.

>> No.18440809

Sextus Empiricus and the broader Pyrrhonist tradition sidestep him entirely. Nobody comes to mind who 'BTFO'd him with finality while arguing with him on his own terms.

>> No.18440899

>>18440733
Subject and Consciousness are literally the same thing even in your definition, object/the given to consciousness/its intentionality toward something. The agency is the very inherent motive of it: it is the intentionality toward the object (that is not an agent, but passive to the agent).

>models
They are one thing and they are not model, you yourself are admitting they are not models when you categorize (erroneously) them in this specific way (correlation, determination, etc).
Dude that is why I just said hours later, it is best to avoid any metaphysical merit to Nietzsche, he is just skeptic of it and skepticism is self-refuting.

>The perspective of the crowd?
What? Christianity is the perspective of the crowd? It is the opposite. Read what I told you about the crowd and the will.
Stop contradicting yourself all the time, you just affirmed the crowd to be the expression of the will as Nietzsche himself does. The individual can only be affirmed after the mob affirms itself. Again, reread what I said about it and this: https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/rene-girard-the-last-nietzschean/

>The latter perspective neither perceives the eternal recurrence, nor wants it.
I am literally showing you how it does, holy shit man stop being so dishonest.

>The point here is not to affirm anything, and I already explained why.
Woah finally admitting how you are going against Nietzsche. You are just affirming skepticism, as I said and as you make it clear all the time.

>The purpose of this skepticism is to arm the individual will once more with the means to combat the dialectic of the crowd. For that purpose this skepticism works beautifully.
Skepticism is suspension. It is neither affirmation nor negation. It does not arm the individual in any way, lmao, it desarms him of any certainty, of any passion, of any affirmation. This is absolutely anti-nietzschean. Be like Nietzsche and be honest, affirm deception, affirm illusion, affirm the world.

>I concurred that there is will and that there is something rather than nothing. That's it.
Nope. You said:
>What you said is true, to suggest that will is without agency is to neglect the actualization of that power.

After this I can't even keep talking to you. You are not honest and I have lost my time too much already with you. It is literally impossible to talk to you people, truly insane people.

>> No.18440916

Both of you retards completely fucking misunderstand Nietzsche, go read Nietzsche and Philosophy by Deleuze.

>> No.18440921

>>18421004
Based. That was a good thread

>> No.18440968
File: 27 KB, 384x480, 944152_130811160456534_1747306656_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18440968

>>18420635

>> No.18441069

>>18440899
>They are one thing and they are not model, you yourself are admitting they are not models
When I categorize them, I make them into a model. I'm not ignorant of this. My model here is also an assumption. Everything I or you ever say will always be assumption.

>he is just skeptic of it and skepticism is self-refuting.
It is self-refuting only in a dialectical sense, the very sense Nietzschean skepticism is designed to combat.

>Christianity is the perspective of the crowd? It is the opposite.
For the crowd, that is true. I wonder how many times I must say this before you realize that words have meaning insofar as a perspective attributes meaning to them (which is to say that words have countless meanings since there are countless perspectives — Nietzschean positivity of language). Or maybe you realized it already and are deliberately attacking me because you hate that realization. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

>The individual can only be affirmed after the mob affirms itself.
Affirmation in a dialectical sense, sure. No argument there and it's no slight against mine or Nietzsche's perspective. Individuals do not want crowds and their dialectics to perish. Only crowds want public executions of individuals. What crowds want and what individuals want will always be the opposite of each other.

>I am literally showing you how it does
Crowds sense and fear the perspective of the one who perceives it, but do not perceive it themselves. They call the perspective of the one who wants it "the Devil," and call the work of such a one "evil." Insofar as they discover this perspective in themselves, they repent.

>Woah finally admitting how you are going against Nietzsche.
I wasn't talking about anything other than his skepticism quoted in the thread, and what I said there doesn't go against this skepticism.

>Skepticism is suspension. It is neither affirmation nor negation.
This skepticism we are talking about, which is a skepticism towards all theorizing and knowing, hurts only dialectics, and it is not even a skepticism which demands commitment to the annihilation of dialectics. Will, or life, is not confined to dialectics. I affirm will just as Nietzsche does.

>Nope. You said:
>>What you said is true, to suggest that will is without agency is to neglect the actualization of that power.
It is true (for you and me). What is also true is that we can neither establish that with absolute certainty nor that will is with or without agency or that power is actualized or not.

>you're dishonest
You confuse being part human and as such not always acting preemptively enough with being dishonest.

>> No.18441144

>>18441069
For everything you are saying about will, crowd vs individual, christianity and nietzsche, since you ignore my posts, see this: https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/rene-girard-the-last-nietzschean/, and see how it is the contrary of your belief.
(The affirmation of Christianity is the individual, not the crowd, which is led by the unanimous will = Nietzsche!).

>Everything I or you ever say will always be assumption.
Not always because this is just your own assumption different from others.
So basically for this self-refuting skepticism (which should be clear enough to be dumb), see Plato, Aristotle, Bolzano, Husserl, Hegel. Your (false-) epistemology needs an axiomatic reference just as any other, after all there are things rather than nothing, but yeah just an assumption as always.

>> No.18441341

>>18441144
>and see how it is the contrary of your belief.
It makes no difference if it does. What kind of believer of perspectivism would I be if I thought there were no perspectives contrary to mine? It is you who does not believe in perspectivism, in other perspectives — not me.

>Not always because this is just your own assumption different from others.
No, not always — not where another perspective may be concerned.

>> No.18441470

>>18441341
But I of course I believe in perspectivism, protagoran relativism, for it proves that there is certain knowledge. All is up to me to decide whether there is or not true knowledge. This is according to you, you believe there is no certainty at the same time believing there can be certainty.

>> No.18441749

>>18441470
You are slave morality personified, my agonistic amigo. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

>> No.18442230

What's happening here?

>> No.18442301

>>18441749
Great axiological certainty you got there, sarkic. Enjoy living this eternal denial you call life.

>> No.18442414
File: 711 KB, 972x965, 1611373995115.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18442414

>people will never argue about the interpretation of your beliefs hundreds of years after your death

>> No.18442480

>>18421004
need to read me some of this guy, he seems pretty slick

>> No.18443257

>>18442230
What it is ain't exactly clear.

>> No.18444174

Bertrand

>> No.18444502

>>18439043

>Plato was right about everything
>Proceeds to not say how or why

You just prove me right pseud. 99% platonists are fucking pseuds that take platonism as certainty when humans are fucking bags of flesh and shit which hold less processing power than computers. Yet Plato knew everything about reality and he was right, good statement faggot. You're a fucking pseud.

>> No.18444510
File: 31 KB, 500x500, reddit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18444510

>>18444502

>> No.18444531

>>18444510

Reddit moment is being a plato pseud. What a faggot. I've already destroyed and refuted platonists in their main thread on /lit/ until they had nothing else to say.

The problem with platonists is that they're certain about how reality, yet you can't be certain about anything metaphysical since you're limited as a human. You can't argue with this, you litearlly can't prove Forms exist besides using inferences (logic), which remains at the level of theory because it can't be proven.

Yet platonists (same with radical religious cucks) believe that the way Plato sees the world is 100% how it is, the forms bruhh what do they sayyy the fomrsssss i saw the cave allegory and it made so much sense brooo uhhh le reddit moment.

Stop being a fucking retarded tranny faggot and kill yourself because I can decimate you both physicall and mentally you fucking sub human. Know your place.

>> No.18444575
File: 106 KB, 631x486, form.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18444575

>>18444531
Holy hell you're ass blasted, just pop a xanax or something, why not if we're all just heckin chemicalarinos anyway

>> No.18444623

>>18444575

Typical plato pseud. I already demolished all platonic arguments for certainty of knowledge on their main thread. Not going to waste my time again with fucking pseud retards like you. Go contemplate the form of dildo in ur anus.

>> No.18445412

>>18420667
An AIDS-ridden homosexual paedophile and a neurotic Jew.

>> No.18445435

>>18421252
Based Neech.

>> No.18445439

>>18423760
What’s this from?

>> No.18445441

>>18444531
>>18444623
I challenge you to go to this thread >>18443402 and engage with people there. You could do this but you are not secure of your delusions.

>> No.18446535

>>18445441
I did and everyone shit themselves in cope

>> No.18446669

>>18420635
francis galton,james D watson,charles darwin and his grandson galton darwin

>> No.18446748

>>18432174
>>18432282
Excellent posts. What is there to read on this?

>> No.18446784

>>18446535
Are you the retard being humiliated there? The guy who demanded proof of soul but ended up not even knowing what proof means and implies?

>> No.18447239

>>18420635
he was so boring and excessively prosaic

>> No.18447251

>>18420635
Syphilis

>> No.18447492

>>18420674
I really love that line.

>> No.18448231

>>18445439
An old post. On warosu.

>> No.18448295

>>18424784
Shut the fuck up

>> No.18449488
File: 161 KB, 864x864, 1556131100166.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18449488

>>18432174
You have a way with words, too bad that's not the case with meaning as well. Maybe you need to be more precise otherwise it just sounds like you just made up your mind about things like the "death of God" or "will to power" the second you heard the words, not even a cursory reading of the wikipedia articles at least.

>> No.18449825

I've been told Nihilism isn't what I think it is, that it's actually a positive outlook rather than a gay baby one. Is that true? I'd be interested in reading more into it if so.

>> No.18449846

>>18420635
>Has anyone ever got even close to BTFOing Nietzsche?
Kierkegaard.

>> No.18449910

>>18421252
He was such an elitist faggot.

>> No.18449926

>>18449910
An "elitist faggot" that the world stopped taking seriously after WWII and thanks to that, the world is rampant with bugmen and other abortions.

>> No.18451514

>>18449488
How is the meaning wrong?

>> No.18451676

>>18431814
Did you read the post you replied to?

>> No.18451701

>>18420635
Wagner annihilated him

>> No.18451708

>>18421328
>no, you don't understand what you are talking about
bravo, perfect refutal.

>> No.18451726

>>18421480
>>18423881
Plato's defined what the creatures were like naturally, for example if you cut off a leg of a person that doesn't mean that debunks the definition of man as bipedal. Diogenes was a retard. Plato was only retroactively refuted by Australia.

>> No.18451763

>>18451676
Did you read the justifications of the post you are replying to?

>> No.18451819

>>18451763
I'll take that as a no then. There's a huge disconnect between words and the interpretation of meaning coming from your posts.

>> No.18451846

>>18451819
Take as whatever you want, this is common. I am telling you however that there is a justification for that claim, which you haven’t read.

>> No.18451869

>>18451846
If the "justification" ends up with that level of disconnect then it's harmful to philosophy and thought in general. But maybe that's your intention?

>> No.18451892

>>18451869
What are you even saying lmao. Harmful to thought and philosophy? Are you even aware of what Nietzsche’s philosophy (in the common sense of the word) is? Anyhow there is no disconnection between what I said and Dionysus.

>> No.18451963

>>18451892
Seek help for your mental illness.

>> No.18451992

>>18449825
nihilism can never be "positive", since it's pure negation. nihilism also doesn't presuppose that the negation of everything is good, prescriptively correct, or "freeing". nihilists that are happy they negated everything are existentialists.

>> No.18451997

>>18451963
>take up a post of mine
>”did you read the post youre replying to??”
>I answer yes I have and I justify elsewhere my claim
>”ok so you havent read, you are mentally ill”
The gall of speaking of mental illness

>> No.18452027

>>18449825
In relation to Nietzsche, he defined nihilism as the rejection of one or more categories of meaning in life. He also made a distinction between active and passive nihilism, active nihilism being a destructive force that destroys in order to create, while passive nihilism is just negation because one personally lacks the impetus to embrace a thing.

>> No.18452046

>>18452027
Where does he most explicitly express this? I’ll start beyond good and evil soon.

>> No.18452064

>>18452046
Will to Power, book one of Kaufmann's edition I believe.

>> No.18452122

>>18451997
If you believe you're correct, can you show me where you defined "mob" and explained how it is the same as Nietzsche's usage in the quote you replied to?

>> No.18452145

>>18432174
Top quality effortposts anon.

>> No.18452218
File: 30 KB, 298x237, 1358900226379.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18452218

>>18432174
>Rousseau said that the people cannot be represented, which would be a contradiction in Nietzsche's philosophy
No it wouldn't. Nietzsche says this in his critique towards English utilitarianism in his work.

>What is damning here is that Tocqueville is the best historian and theorist of democracy
Empty self-promoting statement.

>A noble man would not fear that other men had achieved status, instead he would see an element of the divine in their lives. That they had achieved something beyond becoming is an incredible lesson and test for us.
What does this have to do with anything?

>That he was constantly driven from a point of resentment and constantly attacked someone like Goethe in a petty manner, or even charged the greatest men with the fall of Greek power says that there is something more powerful in his will and character.
Where do you get this notion that he was driven by resentment? Do you have anything substantial to back this up with, or do you just read pettiness into every criticism you come across by him? If you want to talk about character and how our approach to critique betrays that, maybe look in a mirror.

>Nietzsche had the positive elements of an outcast individual, but also the worst elements.
He's aware of this, it's not saying anything new or interesting.

>One can really sum up his philosophy with "to live alone one must be an animal or a god" but he must leave out the possibility of god.
History has proven you wrong on this, since Nietzsche achieved God status for about a whole century.

>People before him dealt with the death of god in a much better and truthful way.
Judging by your post, you don't really understand the weight and depth of his death of God.

>It is also worth noting how Socrates only mentions the 'will to power' in passing, as a minor thing in the background of life.
Socrates mentions the will to power? What the hell are you talking about?

>It is an illusory type of power and at one with the secular form.
>secular
...

>> No.18452307

>>18452218
Go back.

>> No.18452325

>>18449926
the world is great
you aren't

>> No.18452329

>>18452325
Who said it wasn't great? But it's far from perfect.

>> No.18452353

>>18452122
If you had accompanied the posts you’d be directed to another thread, which I linked in a few posts here, with more detailed explanations and you’d see the nietzschean concurring with my point.

>> No.18452366

>>18452353
>you’d see the nietzschean concurring with my point.
So you're going by what someone on /lit/ said and not what you've read of Nietzsche? Bad form.

>> No.18452374
File: 93 KB, 640x360, parsons.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18452374

>>18423687
more like Follow your True Will

>> No.18452398

>>18452218
Different anon here, I even replied to that anon who you are responding, disagreeing with some points he made. But,
>where do you get this notion he was driven by resentment
He is not the only one affirming Nietzsche to be driven by resentment, Girard says and shows why this is the case. I also made the point here and in another thread linked here concerning the mob and will and Dionysus.

>Nietzsche achieved God status
I agree but not for the simplistic view you have, which would not be enough to ige the status of god to someone. We should consider that the Will has always been sacred and has always driven humanity. This is still present today and Nietzsche reforces this in the mind of some, but this is what happens today.

>Socrates mentions the will of power
The will of power is just Nietzsche’s expression of the primacy of will. Read Plato’s Gorgias.

>> No.18452404

>>18452366
Another dishonest nietzschean coping and resorting to distorting other people’s posts. You people are really insufferable. My points are independent of what other’s think, but a nietzschean agreeing with me tells a lot. And he agreed with me about the crowd and nietzsche connection.

>> No.18452413

>>18452404
The only "Nietzschean" worth listening to is >>18433414 and to a much lesser extent, certain Continentals like Deleuze and Baudrillard.

>> No.18452421

>>18452413
I’m not saying you need to listen to any nietzschean. Actually it is the opposite, nietzscheans miss Nietzsche in the most retarded ways. Read Girard.
Also Deleuze makes a spinozist reading of him so not worth listening as well.

>> No.18452423

>>18452421
Did you intentionally miss my point here?

>> No.18452452
File: 374 KB, 1160x926, GettyImages-1152427249-1160x926.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18452452

>>18425232
ok this interesting, yeah for aristocrats/king, since they were born, they have power on their side, so they use it to legitimize their rule, in contrast, for a class below the nobility, it would mean to use power to acquire more power, so they see power as a God, not as their tool

nietzcsche had aristocratic sensibilities and even was a professor at a prestigious university but he wasn´t born royal so his attitude towards power was different (i have yet to read nietszche works tho)

>> No.18452461

>>18452423
You are the one in bad faith here. You accuse me of not reading a post I replied when you are the one who haven’t read the posts that justify my response.

>> No.18452473

>>18452461
>the justification argument again
See >>18451869 again and also stop using /lit/ as a source.

>> No.18452476

>>18427442
shit tier reactionary take

>> No.18452518
File: 32 KB, 1480x625, 1623075650253.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18452518

>>18430458
Russia as the Hegemon of the World (if they didn´t become communist) would´ve been far bettter for the West rather than the current Anglo-American establishment we have now

>> No.18452541

>>18452473
It is not an argument I’m pointing to the fact that you contested my reading because of a reply and I’m showing the other posts, which you haven’t read, that lead to that reply.
You are now saying that I am wrong because you don’t like my conclusion. Conclusions barely say anything, read everything that supports it. I can disqualify anything you say in the same manner: your conclusion is wrong because I say it is and that is it.

You are really mentally unstable seek help.

>> No.18452577

>>18452541
You replied to a post containing a quote from Zarathustra where Zarathustra tells his superior humans how the mob thinks and instructs them to avoid the mob with, more or less, that Zarathustra is actually teaching the doctrine of the mob. Your response and ultimate conclusion is based on a meaning of Nietzsche's text that isn't his own, and if the conclusion is this disconnected from the text, then the justification must be at some point as well.

Stop using /lit/ as a source and actually read Nietzsche. That means discovering the meaning of the text for yourself.

>> No.18452578

>>18432174
>It is also worth noting how Socrates only mentions the 'will to power' in passing

source? which dialogue?

>> No.18452625
File: 33 KB, 500x500, 1540181693369.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18452625

>>18432282
>Rome cannot be reduced to its organisational power, its instincts and the conflict of physical forces. This is entirely a secular view, reducing the martial state to its technical concerns alone. It is significant that no modern states feel threatened by Nietzsche's philosophy but instead employ many of its elements. Whereas someone like Schmitt, who followed Tocqueville rather than Nietzsche, threatens the very core of the democratic state - not just liberal - through his calm presence before the law, his mastery which was capable of acting from within.

damn

>> No.18452634

>>18452577
Here: >>18441144
Read the article if you don’t want to read my posts.

>> No.18452640

>replies but does not acknowledge anything said
Most ressentiment-fueled poster on /lit/ by far.

>> No.18452641

>>18452577
>>18452634
Also, there is no contradiction between the crowd incorporating the will to power and its being ignorant of it. This is literally the foundation of culture and civilizations. Read Girard.

>> No.18452674

>>18452641
Nietzsche's idea of power and the mob's idea of power are not the same. Nietzsche's philosophy goes beyond the mob. The contradiction lies in your claim that his philosophy is "the philosophy of the mob." It isn't.

>> No.18452687

>>18452674
They are retard. They are just pure will both of them. So much so that it is the power of the mob that creates everything human. Read books

>> No.18452697

>>18452687
No they aren't. Again, stop using /lit/ as your source.

>> No.18452733

>>18452687
This has nothing to do with /lit/. This is Nietzsche himself: Dionysus, pure force of creation and destruction (violence of the mob, creative against the primordial sacrificial victim and destructive in the diffusion of the violence in sacrificial crisis). Again: read books.

>> No.18452737

>>18452697
Read: >>18452733

>> No.18452782

>>18452737
Read >>18452674 again

"Violence of the mob," "philosophy of the mob," etc. are not the only thing Nietzsche's will to power covers.

>> No.18452823

>>18452782
My explanation is after that post of yours. Reread: >>18452733

>> No.18452843

>>18452823
Your explanation is wrong.

>> No.18452863

>>18452823
Why?

>> No.18452875

>>18452863
>>18452843
oh also, that is not my full explanation, read the posts above.

>> No.18452884

>>18452863
Because the mob does not believe in superior humans, yet Zarathustra does.

>> No.18452902

>>18452884
The mob is the superior human against the individual. It is the full intensity of will, pure will to power, as I told you. But you can see more detailed explanations here:
>>18441144
>>18410492

>> No.18452911

>>18452902
>The mob is the superior human against the individual. It is the full intensity of will, pure will to power, as I told you.
Translation: I do not believe in superior humans. Thus Spoke Mob.

>> No.18452918

>>18452911
If anything there is only superiority in the mob, that is, the mob is the affirmation of superiority of will. Read above why.

>> No.18452920

>>18452918
Thus Spoke Mob.

>> No.18452925

>>18452920
t. does not understand Nietzsche
fitting for a nietzschean

>> No.18452927

>>18452925
Thus Spoke Mob.

>> No.18453083

>>18439479
>Plato said this much better about Greece, and much more powerful men.
where? i want to read his quote

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