/lit/ - Literature

>>14497006
A footnote: Nietzsche does not believe you "ought to think about your own moral views" in any shape or form. Again Nietzsche denies the existence of any framework that would justify any ought in a reasonable way. He believes any ought will result from your physiological aswell as cultural background, things which are wholly determined and beyond the reach of any will or I conceptualized as a causa sui, he denies the existence of a free will not because he believes in an unfree will, but becaues he doesn't believe that any will is something that can choose or act under any form of causality, be it a naturalized type of causality or a practical causality of freedom in the vein of Kant. The only way you can start reflecting upon your morality and abandon it is if you're part of a group of elites, pre-determined by their strong wills and strong heritage to be free from the poison of morality, that is why Nietzsche repeatedly mentions that his philosophy is designed for the ears of very few. He fully accepts the subversive nature of his philosophizing, which is characterized by his appeal to naturally "strong" types that only suffer from a christian morality that isn't meant for their life-form, but the for the life-form of weaklings:

To require of strength that it should not express itself as strength, that it should not be a wish to overpower, a wish to overthrow, a wish to become master, a thirst for enemies and antagonisms and triumphs, is just as absurd as to require of weakness that it should express itself as strength. (GM, first chapter, 13.)

>>14497247
Shut the fuck up you fucking idiot and read

>>14497006
I'm not going to entertain a discussion about whether or not Nietzsche developed an ethical system.

In conclusion you probably haven't read Nietzsche. Reading the first two chapters of the Genealogy of Morality does not mean you have read the guy. The most annoying part of your post is how nonchalantly you used those terms when their existence is the cardinal offense to Nietzsche's whole philosophy. Not only did you claim Nietzsche was engaged in topics he was hell-bent on destroying, you even suggested he did this in a systematic way:

"I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity." TI, first chapter, 26.

>>14497006
Yes, to all of those questions you braindead poseur monkey. Nietzsche is a radical meta-metaphysical nihilist:

"It is true, there might be a metaphysical world; one can hardly dispute the absolute possibility of it. We see all things by means of our human head, and cannot chop it off, though it remains to wonder what would be left of the world if indeed it had been cut off. This is a purely scientific problem, and not very suited to cause men worry. But all that has produced metaphysical assumptions and made them valuable, horrible, pleasurable to men thus far is passion, error, and self-deception. The very worst methods of knowledge, not the very best, have taught us to believe in them. When one has disclosed these methods to be the foundation of all existing religions and metaphysical systems, one has refuted them. That other possibility still remains, but we cannot begin to do anything with it, let alone allow our happiness, salvation, and life to depend on the spider webs of such a possibility. For there is nothing at all we could state about the metaphysical world except its differentness, a differentness inaccessible and incomprehensible to us. It would be a thing with negative qualities.
No matter how well proven the existence of such a world might be, it would still hold true that the knowledge of it would be the most inconsequential of all knowledge, even more inconsequential than the knowledge of the chemical analysis of water must be to the boatman facing a storm." (BGE, first chapter, 9)

Nietzsche also doesn't believe in theoretical nor in practical teleology. His musings on the coming of the "over-man" (which is by the way, a very insignificant concept in his overall philosophy, nearly non-existent in his later works) are not necessary predictions but his personal demand for a visionary future:

"Es ist von kardinaler Wichtigkeit, daß man die wahre Welt abschafft. Sie ist die große Anzweiflerin und Wertverminderung der Welt, die wir sind: sie war bisher unser gefährlichstes Attentat auf das Leben.
Krieg gegen alle Voraussetzungen, auf welche hin man eine wahre Welt fingiert hat. Zu diesen Voraussetzungen gehört, daß die moralischen Werte die obersten seien.
Die moralische Wertung als oberste wäre widerlegt, wenn sie bewiesen werden könnte als die Folge einer unmoralischen Wertung: als ein Spezialfall der realen Unmoralität: sie reduzierte sich damit selbst auf einen Anschein, und als Anschein hätte sie, von sich aus, kein Recht mehr, den Schein zu verurteilen." (can't find the passage in an English translation, Nietzsche repeatedly warns of the great danger of humanity negating and destroying itself through morality. The reality of the over-man is never postulated, it is begged for. In Ecce Homo Nietzsche identifies himself, Goethe and
Beethoven as "higher-men", people of the old caste, noble men with singular imperatives. This is -not- the over-man)

>>14496895
What a fucking stupid post, shut the fuck up you pseudo-intellectual. Have you actually read Nietzsche? Alternative question: Do you even know what metaphysical, teleological and ethical means? I know that the answer to both of these questions is "no".

Read Kant's Critique of Judgement you stupid faggot, this type of ideology stems from not reading enough, your entire post reeks of "huh im smart enough to figure things out on my own" professional tip: you're not, you're probably really dumb (genetic ceiling)

>>14420773
didnt read Kant and its evident to everyone, pathetic

Philosophische Untersuchungen

I really can't wrap my head around his illusionism, mogged by his supreme intellect...

Anyone who reads can immediately tell that you're a pseud. Your LARP isn't successful.

>>14420001
>>14420024
Cigarettes and coffee did it for me, but I don't recommend it as it inhibits possible future plans of transitioning and your throat will always be sore.

Augustine really was a mentally ill coomer. I suggest reading the Confessions and then immediately reading the second chapter of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals.

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, narrator is very unreliable

You're confused about the grammar of this meme, it's not about sex, it's about pornography addiction. Stupid virgin.

I'm handsome, tall and got a deep bassy voice and I can talk super fast, I just overwhelm my opponents with lightning fast speech and focus my gaze slightly above their eyes, it will intimidate them and they will lose track of their own arguments.

>>14417678
Then the argument ought to be "people are not listening to scientific findings because of ideological reasons", which isn't anything new in history at all. The entire segment about the diachronic novelty of race anti-realism has turned entirely moot then, just pointing out that this isn't an argument.

>>14417226
With this type of low-IQ reasoning you could justify a whole lot of retardation, "No one in the whole of history believed the earth revolved around the sun, NO ONE."
"No one in the whole of hisory believed our objects are appearances and not things-in-themselves. NO ONE."

Read a book.

>>14417514
The lies keep piling up: >>14417347
You know who you are brainlet.

>>14417518
advanced blue in kickboxing lol, you live in a meme world, nice cope by the way

>>14417483
Yeah because you're still lying unnecessarily lol

>>14417483
20 undegrip pullups any time any day

>>14417465
I never made the case that theism is reactionary, I'm talking about a wholly different set of ideals. No Muslim, Hindu or Latin American catholic would make the claim their religion is /lit/ and the anti-dote to reddit and modernity. This semiotic is the expression of late-4chan reactionism, the post-gamer-gate hell of this anonymous animu & manga imageboard.

>>14417457
>>14417458
So you're still denying your beliefs don't stem from spending too much time on the internet and getting riled up over "degeneracy" and "leftism"? Why the fuck are you lying as an anonymous poster?

>>13964004
He violently broke off with Schopenhauer and Wagner for meta-political, let's say normative, reasons. If Schopenhauer's and Wagner's influence on Nietzsche would be indicative of his political world-view, then so must be his attacks on these people.

His anti-democratic views don't situate him in a right-wing position, since when is this the political spectrum? Beyond that, Nietzsche wasn't "afraid" of nihilism, infact, he actively pushed for its full realization, which result in the collapse of all life-denying principles which stem from it. For that reason he calls himself a nihilist in Ecce Homo, a nihilist who for the longest time didn't realize that he was a nihilist, because he believed his intense drive was proof for his anti-nihilism.

The analysis of "blonde beasts" is in the second chapter of the Genealogy of Morals. In it Nietzsche is looking at the genealogy of punishment. His general idea is that blonde babarians began imposing their laws on weaker groups by punishing them violently for the smallest misdemeanors. From this "pre-historic" time on, punishment became the get-go means of transferring emotional debt. This passage has NOTHING to do with his analysis of slave- and master-morality. Nietzsche pin-points the rise of slave-morality to the time of the Jews. In the second chapter of Genealogy Nietzsche is talking about pre-Christian Europe, IE a Europe that had no contact with Jews or the Roman empire.

In any of these chapters Nietzsche never makes positive normative claims, all he intends to do is to explicate his method of genealogy, meaning, he is making is-statements not ought-statements.

Will to power is not a metaphysical principle. See: any of his epistemological criticisms, which you will find at least ten in every book he ever wrote.

You still haven't delivered a coherent argument as to why Nietzsche is a right-wing philosopher, that he, on poor reading, attracts right-winger, is empirically true and any 4chan/pol/ archive search will tell you that.

These people often forget he was anti-Christian, anti-anti-semitic, anti-nationalist, anti-German, despite being German and anti-tradition.

>>13963704
No one is making the claim he didn't influence those people. Did you read my post? Did you read where I accepted this? Can you even read? Might wanna read Nietzsche once you figure it out.

>>13963715
I don't think that's the problem, me being inflexible. The issue at hand, is again, Nietzsche's actual views. This has nothing to do with the limits of fantasy. I again want you to tell me what Nietzsche's ideas on the Übermensch and the Will to Power are, because again, everything you say makes it obvious to me you have a very surface-level reading of Nietzsche. At best, I suppose, you might have read passages of Beyong Good and Evil.

So you can't just swindle yourself out of the discussion by saying I am not seeing the big picture here. In what way do the concepts of the Übermensch, the will to power and master-morality have anything to do with self-overcoming, and how the fuck is this a right-wing thought?
Just a hint: Nietzsche violently denies the possibility of "self-overcoming" in many many instances throughout his writing. I can point you to the passages if you're interested truly, I just want you to admit you haven't read the guy.

"Self-overcoming" is such a broad vague idea, are you going to say any existentialist inspired Evola? There's also an issue with your idea that Nietzsche actually supported master-morality in his analysis of it.

>>13963650
I'd like to hear what you think Nietzsche means by hierarchies. I'm expecting you reiterate something that Jordan Peterson would say, which is blatantly wrong, that's why I'm involving him here.
I'd also like to hear what you think the will to power is and in what sense, say, Heidegger or Evola have dealt with this concept.

I'd also like to know why you believe Nietzsche thought hierarchies are valuable, that this is Nietzsche's implicit normative theory.

To your last point, no one is arguing that Nietzsche didn't have impact on Nazis and other right-wing individuals. The point I'm trying to make is, that you don't at all seem to understand Nietzsche and beyond the surface-level analysis of "Heidegger quotes Nietzsche" you have no idea what the phrase "Nietzsche influenced right-wingers" means. This became apparent to me very quickly and I'm trying to make you realize why you have no grounds at all to make the more theory-based claims you're making.

You could prove me wrong by responding to my questions.