Has /lit/ actually read Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.19618101]

"On the Three Metamorphoses," from Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

>"What can the child do that even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child? The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a first movement, a sacred 'Yes.' For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred 'Yes' is needed."
>"To create new values--that even the lion cannot do."

/lit/ seems to critique Nietzsche on the basis that his physical condition as a weak invalid didn't match his emphasis on "the will to power," misunderstood as some human drive to dominate others. Yet he clearly suggests in the works published in his lifetime that the ideal state for humanity is one of innocence and artistic creativity, rather than simply egoistic warfare. Across The Gay Science as well he privileges "free spirits" and suggests that the proper way to live is to "give style to one's life."

If the ideal human for Nietzsche is a uniquely creative and aesthetically minded artist, then he seems to have completely lived up to his ideal, insofar as even those who dismiss his philosophy tend to agree that he was a brilliant and original prose stylist. Even the often misinterpreted "master morality" from Beyond Good and Evil seems to suggest simply that one should choose self improvement and the fulfillment of one's goals over benefitting others in need. the point seems to be to make humanity a species of higher artistic merit and to avoid leveling humanity down to the quality of its basest members.

has /lit/ fundamentally misinterpreted Nietzsche? or have most people on this board simply never read him?

[Anonymous No.19618110]

>>19618101
>has /lit/ fundamentally misinterpreted Nietzsche?

yes

>or have most people on this board simply never read him?

yes

[Anonymous No.19618143]

>>19618101
honestly the thing about nietzsche that many people don't realize is how categorically wrong they are about the things he spoke about

you can always spot a youtube nietzsche scholar when they overemphasize the will to power. i've read most of nietzsche, and the will to power comes up so few times it's barely a blip to me.

you want to know the most fundamental category to nietzsche? the fundamental 'good/bad' distinction he truly works by? it's health/sickness. and this is easily verified:

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7203/pg7203.txt

Search for:

Schlecht (bad): 35 results
Krank (sick): 31 results
Böse (evil): 13 results

Nietzsche uses the German for 'sick' almost as many time as the generic word for 'bad', and almost three times as much as 'evil'. this is the fundamental category he views the world by.

and Nietzsche was extremely apt in his analyses of psychological health. every bit of modern psychology agrees that people who resist emotions, for instance, are actually more susceptible to those emotions than people who embrace them. which sounds counter intuitive, but hey Nietzsche was dead on in his criticism of Socrates, and commentary on 'anarchies of instinct'. healthy people don't repress. healthy people embrace. this is so well-studied in psychology that it's basically a truism, yet Nietzsche understood this far before Freud and took that hatchet to all the glorified symbols of western civilization.

anyone who doesn't recognize how much deeper a strain mental/physical health is in nietzsche than whatever they learned in a five minute youtube video you can completely discount as a hack and a fraud who has nothing of value to contribute.

[Anonymous No.19618150]

I refuse to read this faggot because he’s got an ugly moustache and “gave style to his life” by infecting himself with syphilis and ending up in a mental hospital
>inb4 a bunch of sadboys cry about how this is such a beautiful struggle

[Anonymous No.19618157]

>>19618150
lol I love it when /lit/'s undergrads expose themselves. you're gonna die in your piss and shit like the rest of us, pal

[Anonymous No.19618166]

>>19618143
Das krank. Das war mir nicht bewusst.

[Anonymous No.19618170]

>>19618157
Undergrad? Imagine paying for a college education in the current year

[Anonymous No.19618180]

>>19618101
No, they haven't. What you've said in this post is how you tell apart people who have and haven't read him.

[Anonymous No.19618195]

what you describe is a harmless 19th century reclusive artist who was only appeared like a buffoon to nietzsche, someone who redefined his weakness into a form of strength and replicated the general forms of slave morality on individual level. you can construct "harmless nietzsche" but then you have to downplay the final megalomanic nietzsche of the most original last phase and which only existed as a literary persona.

from will to power:
>The degree of resistance that must be continually overcome in order to remain on top is the measure of freedom, whether for individuals or for societies - freedom understood, that is, as positive power, as will to power. According to this concept, the highest form of individual freedom, of sovereignty, would in all probability emerge not five steps from its opposite, where the danger of slavery hangs over existence like a hundred swords of Damocles. Look at history from this viewpoint: the ages in which the "individual" achieves such ripe perfection, i.e., freedom, and the classic type of the sovereign man is attained - oh no! they have never been humane ages!
>One must have no choice: either on top - or underneath, like a worm, mocked, annihilated, trodden upon. One must oppose tyrants to become a tyrant, i.e., free. It is no small advantage to live under a hundred swords of Damocles: that way one learns to dance, one attains "freedom of movement."

>THE WILL TO POWER AS ART... The work of art where it appears without an artist, e.g., as body, as organization (Prussian officer corps, Jesuit order). To what extent the artist is only a preliminary stage. The world as a work of art that gives birth to itseIf--

[Anonymous No.19618247]

>>19618195
ah yes, the classic 'i can quote three aphorisms, therefore this is how we interpret an entire corpus' move.

[Anonymous No.19618264]

I have not read Nietzsche and I have yet to be impressed by anyone who has read Nietzsche.
There’s a few artists who made interesting reference to his work, like Stanley Kubrick in 2001: A Space Odyssey or the fact of vague thematic allusions in Astro Boy
But for as impressive a movie as 2001: A Space Odyssey is, it is also a curse that led directly to the creation of Star Wars, and from that to the hell of blockbuster superhero movies at the expense of dignified culture.
Nietzsche’s impact seems entirely relegated to edgy young men seeking justification for acting agains the herd (a worthy pursuit, for which Nietzsche is entirely unnecessary) or as a direct influence on the most base pop culture media trends.
A sick, physically unhealthy man, with a nasty moustache, who wanted to be topped, and lusted after a phantasm of a “superior man”
I have not read him and have yet to be convinced of the appeal. Perhaps because I stumbled into reading more impressive things first.
Come at me Neechbros

[Anonymous No.19618274]

>>19618264
>I have yet to be impressed by anyone who has read Nietzsche.
>lists a bunch of random pop culture garbage
How about Thomas Mann, Robert Musil, Andre Gide, Yukio Mishima, William Butler Yeats, Wyndham Lewis...?

[Anonymous No.19618295]

>>19618264
Try watching Tarkovsky so you can get into good films, instead of that Kubrick trash.

>Perhaps because I stumbled into reading more impressive things first.
>Come at me Neechbros

i won't come at you because i don't know you and this post has nothing really to go off of. but i'm guessing you read the equivalent of kubrick and have never read the equivalent of tarkovsky, which says about all which needs to be said.

[Anonymous No.19618296]

>>19618274
Nietzsche’s Overman is a discussed to death theme of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
The opening piece of the film is Strauss’ “Thus Spake Zarathustra”.
The original Star Wars film was an attempt by George Lucas and John Williams to create a “Space Opera” in Wagnerian style, as a direct response to the “empty purposelessness” of 2001: A Space Odyssey, using the visual effects techniques Kubrick pioneered with his film to tell a more conventional story.
The original Star Wars film being a blockbuster success paved the way for superhero films from the 80’s to the present day Disney Marvel hellscape of modern pop culture.
This is not “random pop culture garbage” this is the direct line to hell from Nietzsche’s philosophy to funko pops.

[Anonymous No.19618302]

>>19618296
you are very smart for making this connection, but very not smart for making so much out of it

[Anonymous No.19618314]

>>19618195
as someone mentioned above, the will to power comes up almost never in Nietzsche's work, and the "The Will to Power" itself was not published in his lifetime. I'm trying to look at his corpus as a whole rather than focus exclusively on a few aphorisms. Regardless, the idea of the will to power itself seems to be descriptive rather than prescriptive for Nietzsche, as he sees it as an inescapable quality of human life rather than an ideal. As is clear from the quote you posted, embracing the will to power is necessary as a means to acheive the freedom required for artistic creation. the will to power for Nietzsche is just the way life is, rather than the goal that humans should strive for. see Thus Spoke Zarathustra: "man is something that shall be overcome."

[Anonymous No.19618331]

>>19618295
I’m not particularly impressed with Kubrick and I’m not particularly impressed with Tarkovsky either.
Why don’t you try watching A Star Is Born (1954) for something a little more human
https://youtu.be/nP6Px3wSKOc

[Anonymous No.19618336]

>>19618264
>I have not read him
Why should anyone care what you think, then? Honest question.

[Anonymous No.19618340]

>>19618302
>you are very smart for making this connection, but very not smart for making so much out of it
i dunno. there is a deep and painful emptiness in modern life, and rather than helping things, Nietzsche seems to have hurried things along to an embarrassing world
i feel completely justified in making as much out of all this as i want

[Anonymous No.19618346]

>>19618336
I’m trying to find out why I should care what Nietzsche thinks

[Anonymous No.19618353]

>>19618340
>Nietzsche seems to have hurried things along to an embarrassing world

yeah.. more like he was warning this was coming lol. tying funko pops to nietzsche though is retarded, i feel bad you're standing by yourself. second hand cringe

[Anonymous No.19618358]

>>19618346
it sounds like you want a level of security about what you'll 'get' out of reading him, is that right?

[Anonymous No.19618359]

>>19618346
You should probably read him in order to do that.

[Anonymous No.19618362]

Not only has election tourist /lit/ never read Nietzsche, they have never read any secondary literature or monographs on him and form their opinion wholly based on a few tardlarp talking points. Because they are stuck in a frozen conflict with "Reddit" and "fedoras"—yes, in 2009+12—they do correctly classify Nietzsche as an opponent of Christianity, but proceed to seethe without engaging at all with his opposition to the religion they only follow for political concerns. For them it is axiomatic that people they don't like are stinky and will be punished by their absentee master of the universe, so atheism and its products can be discarded. This complete lack of intellectual curiousity and fear of doubt makes them incapable of parsing Nietzsche, since the voices of therapeutic theology are screaming based based cringe cringe cope cope sneed feed at anything that suggests they are responsible for their own fate.

[Anonymous No.19618366]

>>19618362
very nice post

[Anonymous No.19618368]

honestly it seems like a certain personality 'type' is opposed to nietzsche. all who oppose him seem very neurotic. has anyone else noticed this?

[Anonymous No.19618372]

>>19618359
Well you see the problem is that I only ever encounter Nietzsche when talking to losers or in pop culture crap I describe here >>19618264 and here >>19618296

[Anonymous No.19618391]

>>19618362
I seem to be the poster you’re seething about, but I’m probably best described as an agnostic.
I applaud Nietzsche’s critiques of the abrahamic religions, but those are hardly unique to Nietzsche, and I still have yet to understand why people are so infatuated with him.

[Anonymous No.19618398]

I don't even like Nietzsche and I recognize he was right about everything with regard to ontological health, struggle, mastery, and abyss between two very distinct human types

[Anonymous No.19618406]

>>19618391
Nietzsche's genealogical method of critiquing Judeo-Christian morality is fairly unique to him, though perhaps only unoriginal insofar as an erudite Roman might have pointed out the same, had we any substantial anti-Christian literature from that period. Much of it was, of course, destroyed for being too... good.

[Anonymous No.19618409]

>>19618101
I haven’t read Nietzsche and I never will. Focuses too much on aesthetics of his own writing for me to have any interest.

[Anonymous No.19618426]

>>19618346
>>19618358
i assume the answer here is yes, so i'll continue that thread.

i can't promise you any level of security about what you will personally get from reading nietzsche. he's not an easy thinker, and i can imagine good reasons why a person just might not care.

for one, nietzsche depends heavily on ancient greek and latin sources. he was, in his day, a genius scholar of both languages and was more familiar with them than this entire board put together. he leans heavily on his knowledge when giving criticisms of culture, art, and society, which makes him already hard because there's a significant burden to get into him.

at the very least, you'd want familiarity with greek myths, comedians, tragedies (sophocles, aeschylus, euripedes), homeric epics, and philosophy, mostly plato. a big thing most shitheads miss when they read nietzsche is how much he references and plays with ancient sources. and any time nietzsche speaks about something from ancient greece, every time i've looked i've found what he said is 100% accurate and sourced from original material. he's obscure but his facts are always right.

second, nietzsche saw germany in his day as a culture in decline. he holds goethe as basically the only german worth a damn. when you compare that to how little regard he held for bismarck, the kaiser, frederick the great or anyone from the holy roman empire you'll understand alot about him.

nietzsche writes alot about the psyhological state of historical figures, primarily socrates (and he also criticizes himself alot, for those who think he's a megalomaniac and can't read between the lines). he sees socrates as mentally unwell, a man who sought to repress emotions and make reason a tyrant (cf: phaedo by plato, the problem of socrates by nietzsche). this is nietzsche's common criticism of 'scientific' minds and overly-intellectual people in general, he thinks that people who repress emotions make themselves sick and unhealthy, and that a person is best when all of their instincts work in harmony, instead of against one another.

one of the most common repressed instincts is simply that of aggression or domination. people, like all animals, want as much freedom of expression as possible. except for people, like all animals, expression comes at a cost of conflict with others. nietzsche writes alot about what happens when people get domesticated into society and how they deal with natural feelings of aggression. despite all the attention people give to this stuff, it's really not that different from what freud or many others have said, he just gives it more style and flair.

back to germany, nietzsche saw as a culture with lots of internal tensions, disharmony, literally dyspeptic. and he rightly saw the reich as a bad thing. and interesting for me personally, many of his criticisms of germany back then i think apply fairly well to western society today, it's a culture that's extremely sick and unwell.

[Anonymous No.19618434]

>>19618372
Sounds like an excuse to not read him.

[Anonymous No.19618435]

>>19618409
ah that's good for you man. i can tell you struggle with aesthetics in writing so it makes sense

[Anonymous No.19618442]

>>19618314
>I'm trying to look at his corpus as a whole rather than focus exclusively on a few aphorisms.
and i don't. doesnt mean that i haven't read everything. WtP is the culmination of his intellectual struggle. everything before that was lukewarm feuilletonism, criticism, searching, timid suggestions. at the same time i can see why he looks ridiculous, just like kierkegaard said: some philosophers build an impressive castle and then you find out they just live in a shed nearby.
without WtP there is not much left of the castle and nietzsche shrinks with 95% of his "corpus".

[Anonymous No.19618448]

isn't one of the most important ideas in nietzsche's corpus the eternal recurrance? how come there are 0 mentions of this ITT so far?
it's his response to what he calls nihilism, it's the ultimate way to judge what's good and what's bad because unlike happens with religions, where an external element is used to judge what's good and what's bad, with eternal recurrence you use life itself as a criteria for the good and the bad.
Isn't the eternal recurrance the basis for art? isn't art, for nietzsche, just the creative expression of a person that lives guided by the idea of eternal recurrance? isn't that what potentializes our will to power?
I'm in no way an expert, just trying to tip in lmao

[Anonymous No.19618458]

Has anyone here read this and if so, thoughts?

[Anonymous No.19618463]

>>19618448
>isn't one of the most important ideas in nietzsche's corpus the eternal recurrance? how come there are 0 mentions of this ITT so far?

because eternal recurrence is just one of his ideas.

nietzsche wrote an entire book on just greek tragedy but eternal recurrence is just one section of a book. his analysis of art in ancient greece as it pertains to social decline is a MUCH bigger part of his corpus than one single aphorism. i wrote above how often nietzsche writes the word 'sick' over 'evil', yet people always focus on nietzsche's talk about evil over his talk about sickness.

i find it very bizarre how people miss the forest for the trees when reading nietzsche desu

[Anonymous No.19618499]

>>19618463
>eternal recurrence
I haven't read the Gay Science yet, but does he have a different take from everyone else?

[Anonymous No.19618531]

>>19618448
I haven’t read Nietzsche but that’s another thing about him that fails to impress me.
“Eternal Recurrence” is very similar to various Eastern reincarnation paradigms and gnostic mythologies. Nietzsche’s idea seems to me to be one of hundreds of similar ideas, some seeming far better, far more healthy to the psyche, than his idea with its vaguely protestant “christian hellish” undertones of life being something one is damned to repeat by a demon.
As an example I’ve encountered a guru who claims life was designed by the gods to be enjoyed. It’s almost exactly like the idea of “Eternal Recurrence”, except that the “demon(s)” responsible for life are working to ensure that (You) have a good time, and that rather than being the same thing over and over again, one reincarnates into variations on a theme until mastery is achieved.
This just seems so much more relaxed to me, so much lighter, than Nietzsche’s melodramatic ideas, which are barely unique in the first place.

[Anonymous No.19618546]

>>19618531
Then don't read him. Why do you keep posting these complaints about someone you haven't read? I don't care if you read him or not.

[Anonymous No.19618557]

>>19618531
Consider the audiences that are being addressed by the different philosophers from Heraclitus to Nagarjuna to Nietzsche and things will make more sense

[Anonymous No.19618573]

>>19618406
which romans are you referring to here?

[Anonymous No.19618579]

>>19618546
>Why do you keep posting these complaints about someone you haven't read? I don't care if you read him or not.
Well, the OP asks whether one has read Nietzsche or not.
I have not, that is my answer, but I find his moustache humorous and irritating and it bring me some pleasure to annoy Nietzsche posters by actually posting with originality instead of contributing to the circle jerk.

[Anonymous No.19618581]

>>19618143
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Nietzsche. The wisdom is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the aphorisms will go over a typical readers head. There's also Nietzsche's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these aphorisms to realise that they're not just enlightening they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Noetzschr truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existential catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

And yes, by the way, i DO have a Rick & Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid

[Anonymous No.19618591]

>>19618101
The people attacking Nietzsche, for example the Christian apologists, these people are the lions he talks about, the Christians are literally vicious animals, trying to tear Nietzsche apart, of course they see his frail body as weakness, thats how predators think.

[Anonymous No.19618608]

>>19618101
I don't read

[Anonymous No.19618617]

>>19618150
lion

>>19618195
lion

>>19618264
lion

>>19618346
lion

[Anonymous No.19618624]

>>19618581
very clever - i appreciate this satire

[Anonymous No.19618627]

>>19618617
>prey morality

[Anonymous No.19618633]

>>19618627
Please explain.

[Anonymous No.19618634]

>>19618617
>slave moralist using master morality to undermine local /lit/ overmen
pretty based if you ask me

[Anonymous No.19618635]

this is now a stirner thread
>The child was realistic, taken up with the things of this world, till little by little he succeeded in getting at what was back of these very things; the youth was idealistic, inspired by thoughts, till he worked his way up to where he became the man, the egoistic man, who deals with things and thoughts according to his heart's pleasure, and sets his personal interest above everything."

[Anonymous No.19618641]

>>19618531
>It’s almost exactly like the idea of “Eternal Recurrence”, except that the “demon(s)” responsible for life are working to ensure that (You) have a good time, and that rather than being the same thing over and over again, one reincarnates into variations on a theme until mastery is achieved.
but isn't it his whole point behind the eternal recurrance for us to forget demons, gods and any other entitiy?
we should live focused on this life, not "live" like a slave in this life focused on the eternal life in heaven or whatever. And the way we live the best life is by doing things we sincerely wish we could re-live again thousands of times, rather than being slave of a ideology or religion.
>This just seems so much more relaxed to me, so much lighter, than Nietzsche’s melodramatic ideas, which are barely unique in the first place.
Well, of course, nietzsche recognizes life is suffering and still states one should go through the struggle of life with pride, it's not easy and his own life shows it. For sure it's not relaxed.
just my two cents from my limited interpretation.
this is a nice discussion.
just recently bought a 60% mech keyboard and I am still struggling with it, wrote a big ass reply but erase it all because the quotation mark is the same button as Esc and I forgot to press Fn lmao

[Anonymous No.19618655]

>>19618634
read the original quote, if a child we should be, then lions are not the overman.

[Anonymous No.19618668]

>>19618531
try reading phaedo by plato. socrates talks about reincarnation in that.

eastern religions do not have a monopoly on these concepts

[Anonymous No.19618688]

>>19618573
The kind who would wash his hands when a provincial mob demands he execute a member of their community over some weird desert pilpul they care about, because it's none of his business outside of governing.

[Anonymous No.19618728]

>>19618668
oh ffs.
I have read Phaedo. Basically the only unique facet of Greek philosophical discussion of reincarnation is that the participants take positions of skepticism, saying things “might” be this or that way, all while referencing the mystics who are sure things are this or that way. In other words Greek philosophy is almost as uninteresting as Nietzsche. Pythagorean mysticism on the other hand...
>>19618641
I guess I just find the idea that “lol life is struggle bro, it’s gonna be HARD” to be tiring. Like, gachimuchi is great, but life doesn’t have to be hard. You don’t have to be great. You can be wholly original and free without straining so hard you pop a blood vessel in your forehead.
>>19618655
Funny. It would be exactly to the advantage of predators for their prey to be manchildren.

[Anonymous No.19618736]

>>19618655
Too continue this, most of the antinietzsche crowd are literally braindeath predators.

>grawl nietzsche is physically weak.
>snarl i dont have to read him
>grrrr i will tear him apart

They are not like a king or a general because they prey on the weak, retreat when in real danger and make no effort to understand.

Just like all predators they need to be defeated a cold and logical White hunter shooting from a distance.

[Anonymous No.19618740]

>>19618143
thats the consequence of his relativism, which nobody denies. as he explained in GoM germans used the noble/common distinction (vornehm/schlecht) before they switched to the more intolerant good/bad distinction around 17th century(and schlecht gradually became synonymous with böse, the original meaning only being preserved in "schlechthin"). he wanted to avoid good/evil and used random sensual pairs like hot/cold, high/low, healthy/sick etc, which were suggestive of values but still betrayed their arbitrary perspective.

[Anonymous No.19618741]

>>19618728
>manchildren
Not what was quoted, nice try.

[Anonymous No.19618751]

>>19618728
Why does uniqueness in that regard matter? Seems like an arbitrary standard.

Honestly you're tiring. I'm not here to argue you into reading Nietzsche. If you want to, read him, if not, don't. Nothing of values gonna come from you pigheadedly arguing about shit you haven't read.

[Anonymous No.19618763]

>>19618736
Grug>>>>>>>>poet "warriors"
>throws rock at you

[Anonymous No.19618777]

>>19618763
lion. ;)

[Anonymous No.19618778]

>>19618170
Just admit your parents are poor

[Anonymous No.19618782]

>>19618736
> unironically invokes white saviourism
Maybe stop your women from breeding with lions in human skin and I will take you seriously. Unless you post proof of murdered coalburners you are refuted from this point forward. QED.

[Anonymous No.19618786]

>>19618763
You know sophocles, aeschylus, euripedes? All of the Greek greats?

Alot of people have wondered what made them so great. Many theories have swirled around over the years.

The true answer? It's simple. Dramatic plays were a competitive event in Athens. These authors were competing against each other to produce the best, to win the most votes. And it produced what are still some of the best works humanity has produced.

So your poet "warrior" should be read in this way, not just some faggot poet who cries in his room about how lonely he is, but fights other poets to make each other's work better. That's what that means. Agon.

Make sense now?

[Anonymous No.19618793]

>>19618786
>competitive poetry
Woah....

[Anonymous No.19618796]

>>19618741
>Not what was quoted, nice try.
But that is what’s played out in reality. I’ve yet to encounter a Nietzsche fanboy who was more than a manchild.
>>19618751
>Honestly you're tiring.
Now you know how I feel about Nietzsche.
https://youtu.be/jhzzQd5hdCM
>>19618736
Admonishing people to be like children seems awfully christian at root. Isn’t there some crap about needing to be like a little child to “enter the kingdom of child”?
Really what purpose is served in admonishing people to become like children beyond ruinous idealism or turning people into marks for a con?
I say this not as “a predator” but as a skeptic, who has been fooled before.

[Anonymous No.19618808]

>>19618793
Whoa, a smart-ass, whoa..

[Anonymous No.19618809]

>>19618782
Stop talking like a lion and start talking like a man.

[Anonymous No.19618814]

>>19618796
>Now you know how I feel about Nietzsche.
What compels you to stay here and keep posting then? I've shown you the door three times. Your opinions don't matter to me.

[Anonymous No.19618819]

>>19618796
More lion bullshit, people dont see children as prey, if you do, maybe you should be shot.

[Anonymous No.19618821]

>>19618793
Competitive artistry, which would still be a financial/social competition rather than some idealistic competition to reach some sort of artistic height, would still be to the victor: ie. the most wise and ruthless competitor.
Dunno what this guy is on about.

[Anonymous No.19618841]

>>19618819
If I had children, I’d like them to grow into capable adults, able to live in the world and defend themselves from those who would take advantage of them.
Insult me like a woman would, be a child all you like; you have yet to prove me the value in Nietzsche’s “becoming a child”.
You’ve made reference to needing to defeat predators from a distance with cold logic, but where is your wit?

[Anonymous No.19618842]

> slave morality bad bro!
> You gotta be a master!
> You gotta be like a child!
Holy shit so this is the power of Neech huh? Literally advocating for a society of brats. Guess we're already there. Embarassing

[Anonymous No.19618846]

>>19618314
>Suppose, finally, we succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life as the development and ramification of one basic form of the will - namely, of the will to power, as my proposition has it; suppose all organic functions could be traced back to this will to power and one could also find in it the solution of the problem of procreation and nourishment - it is one problem - then one would have gained the right to determine all efficient force univocally as - will to power. The world viewed from inside, the world defined and determined according to its "intelligible character" - it would be "will to power" and nothing else.

>On no point, however, is the ordinary consciousness of Europeans more unwilling to be corrected than on this matter; people now rave everywhere, even under the guise of science, about coming conditions of society in which "the exploiting character" is to be absent:-- that sounds to my ears as if they promised to invent a mode of life which should refrain from all organic functions. "Exploitation" does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function; it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will to Life.--Granting that as a theory this is a novelty--as a reality it is the fundamental fact of all history: let us be so far honest towards ourselves!

Will to power is the backbone of BGE and one of his most original contributions to philosophy. Health comes up so much in his earlier work because he was continuously in bad health. While his views on health are novel and enlightening (think preface of the Gay Science), you can't minimize his theory of the will to power by simply doing a word search in one of his books. That's like saying he mainly cared about tragedy because 'tragedy' appears way more than 'will to power' in The Birth of Tragedy.

[Anonymous No.19618848]

>>19618842
Master "morality" only exists from the pov of the slave in the first place. Has no one done the reading?

[Anonymous No.19618849]

>>19618101
>from Beyond Good and Evil seems to suggest simply that one should choose self improvement and the fulfillment of one's goals over benefitting others in need

literally me

[Anonymous No.19618853]

>>19618848
T. Child
*Eats you*

[Anonymous No.19618856]

>>19618841
Why would I want to convince you of anything, do you think I owe you pity or something?

[Anonymous No.19618861]

>>19618853
>vore
didn't realize we were on /d/

[Anonymous No.19618870]

>>19618110
wrap it up folks

[Anonymous No.19618873]

>>19618848
Why would I read Nietzsche, when it’s much more fun to extract this sort of thing out of you

[Anonymous No.19618881]

>>19618856
But I’m asking (You) why I should be convinced the ideas you’re holding to.

[Anonymous No.19618882]

>>19618873
If youre having fun with this then your life sucks

[Anonymous No.19618905]

>>19618426
>to how little regard he held for bismarck

why? is it because he changed his allegiance from prussia to the general idea of germany?

[Anonymous No.19618913]

>>19618882
More like you wish my life sucked.

[Anonymous No.19618938]

Nietzsche is basically incomprehensible or merely an edge lord if one reads him without having some background in Kant and German idealism.

[Anonymous No.19618956]

>>19618938
> if you really want to understand this kraut freak you need to read these other kraut freaks first
No thanks

[Anonymous No.19618962]

>>19618956
okay no one is making you read him

[Anonymous No.19618967]

>>19618938
how so?

[Anonymous No.19618994]

>>19618956
You know it's fine to hate Nietzsche. None of us will be offended.

It's interesting though that you spent half this thread being circumscribe, pretending to care about Nietzsche so that you can drag out people's interest before they get bored and ignore you.

Are you usually afraid of being ignored? Being manipulative to get attention is not mentally well behavior.

[Anonymous No.19619012]

>all criticism of Nietzsche itt is from one person
Nietzsche children are so easy to tease.
Anyway, meds now.

[Anonymous No.19619102]

>>19618314
T: havent red Will to power

[Anonymous No.19619111]

>>19619012
>Anyway, meds now.
Thanks for the heads up.

[Anonymous No.19619133]

>>19619111
take the full dose of your gay baby pills

[Anonymous No.19619161]

>>19618143
good post. Would’ve been better with a nice Pepe though

[Anonymous No.19619261]

>>19618101
You're broadly right about misreadings, but I would point out that in Beyond Good and Evil he makes what he's looking for more concrete in claiming all true philosophers are commanders and legislators, i.e., he's not looking to make most of humanity into creative artists and free spirits, but rather those very few who can shape and define values just as Socrates and Plato did.

[Anonymous No.19619276]

>>19618406
Actually we have pretty much all of it
Roman Criticism of gospel preservation was faithfully preserved in medieval manuscripts

[Anonymous No.19619285]

>>19618101
Dunno
He is completely boring to me
I read all of it besides WtP, Dawnbreak and those essays
And it has all fled my mind besides a few random quotes like aristocrats coming up with free will to control the plebs or about how the environment affects laws (okay it was more poetic)
Otherwise, it was just so forgettable
One worthless pilpul and unfounded speculation after another

[Anonymous No.19619308]

>>19619285
Oh yeah
And there was something about darwinism only being possible in England
That was a funny little passage
Still, resoundingly meh

[Anonymous No.19619318]

>>19619276
There is some of Celsus preserved in Origen but anyone else is even more fragmentary

[Anonymous No.19619575]

>>19618331
lol

[Anonymous No.19620083]

>>19618170
Imagine living in Burgerland in current year! Holy shit man I’m sorry, let’s hope you don’t fall ill or else you’re gonna have to sell a kidney

[Anonymous No.19620242]

>>19619285
if he was so boring why did you read so much? sounds contradictory

[Anonymous No.19620465]

you need a mind set for philosophy or Neech won't do anything for you except be a funny and stylish writer. Otherwise the undercurrent of phenomenalism and epistemology, which are absolutely fundamental, will be lost on you.
Also, if you're the kind of person he speaks to, please please please don't skip dawnbreak and tackle zarathustra and WtP last (if you're not just skip to geneaology or whatever).

[Anonymous No.19620477]

>>19620242
He "read all of it" as in he skimmed what's on Project Gutenberg one evening

[Anonymous No.19620529]

>>19618581
Realized this was satire after the first two sentences but kept reading and didn’t regret it one bit

[Anonymous No.19620546]

>>19620529
>not recognizing that pasta in the first 3 words

[Anonymous No.19621042]

>>19620546
>not spending all my days on 4chins

[Anonymous No.19621977]

>>19618101
Nietzsche is based b/c he makes Marxist seethe and he was right

[Anonymous No.19621996]

>>19618581
>Narodnaya Volya
Someone really had to dig deep to make this reference.

[Anonymous No.19622006]

>>19621042
>4chins
>twitter reaction image
>posted from my iphone
Get out tranny.