/lit/ - Literature

>>3219095
>>3219103
>>3219133

You know, all I'm really hearing is:

1. You've read Nietzsche, and then you read some more
2. You became romanced by what you read, and accepted it
3. You glossed over the indiscrepancies with his works
4. Declared yourself a personal protector of his name

No wonder you get all butt hurt. You're so engrossed by his work, you can't see the forest through the trees, you can't admit to yourself, Nietzsche wasn't a very good philosopher. (That would destroy your world some how.)

He was a loon, a shitty philosopher. There is reason why there are more books wrestling over what he meant, than there are books talking about what he said. His body of works are incoherent, obscure, and fallacious. He had one really good idea and that was it, end of story.

Now if you take what he said, and make something better out of it, that would be good—more power to you. You'd probably do more respect to his name that way, then getting all butt hurt when someone disses your favorite philosopher.

>>3219081

He's clinging to:

>If you write stuff that contradicts what you wrote earlier, either you were wrong before or your wrong now...

Yeah, that should be 'you're'. I'll give him that. But, that's all he has really.

>>3219061
>waaahh

LOL You think that's a coherent argument, let alone an effective one? No wonder you suck at philosophy.

>>3217071
>How do I into Philosophy?

Well, in order to get a really useful answer for that OP, you need to answer this question:

What do I expect to get out of Philosophy?

Really! Answer that question and you'll get all the help you need.

>>3218395

>spray it on muh face, Friedrich!

>>3218344

Wow! You love you some Nietzsche cock.

>>3218297

If you're going to write philosophy, keep the 'poetry' under-control. If you use it too much, nobody can wholly follow along with what you're getting at. This is some straight forward communication shit.

If you write stuff that contradicts what you wrote earlier, either you were wrong before or your wrong now. You can't have both if they cancel each other out. This is some straight forward logic shit.

Nietzsche is faulty. He over generalizes things and then cherry picks minuscule and weak evidence to support his claims. That's shitty philosophizing, if you didn't know already.

>>3218191

But it's true. He was a shitty philosopher. He obfuscated his reasoning with overt usage of prose, alliteration, and aphorisms. And his body of works are full of contradictions, and erroneous research. Deal with it.

I also think it's stupid for anyone to suggest Nietzsche as an 'introductory' philosopher. His train of thoughts are faulty and will only lead new readers to confusion, or set them off in doing philosophy stupidly.

Nietzsche is shit, and he certainly shouldn't be a newcomers first philosopher.

>>3218138

babby can't take the heat? babby can't stand it when someone shits all over his precious shit-tier philosopher?

waaahhh

>>3217997
>First of all, you haven't read Nietzsche. ...he was a historian first and foremost, subtly Hegelian, a psychologist second...

No. That's not exactly right. Nietzsche was a philologist primarily. He studied the history of written text, in the Germanic tradition mostly. He was appointed to the chair of Classical Philology at Basle in 1868~. Nietzsche was a philologist firstly, and a second rate research-linguist* secondly. But mostly a terrible philosopher over all.

* &b4 you say it, I am aware Linguistics did not develop until after Nietzsche.

>>3218001

nicht.

Nietzsche thought the Jews were a race of people that ruined everything good about the German aristocracy. Never mind the fact that his research was faulty and his conclusions about the Jews inverting values were fallacious. He thought and wrote they [Jews] were bad.

>>3217868

Yes he was a antisemite.

"When Jews step forward as innocence itself, then the danger is great."

from Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche

Nietzsche distinctly stated that it was the Jews that invert the aristocratic value-equation. He's saying historically anything that was considered aristocratically-good has been transformed by a Jewish inversion-of-values to equate bad.

>>3217889

>but ...but ...muh nihilism.

His laziness and stupidity with analytic skills is deplorable. The only thing he ever contributed was about looking at the historicity of values, that's it, nothing more.

>>3217857

> implying you know how to read philosophy

Yeah keep telling yer' self that.

>>3217854

I'm not saying that because his beliefs sound stupid we should disregard him.

No.

I'm saying Nietzsche really was a bad philosopher, he has shit-tier philosophizing because he sucks at it.

People are so romanced by what they hear when they read his work, they gloss over the indiscrepancies and think he's brilliant. No he ain't. He is a one hit wonder, that's it.

>>3217805

That's actually funny. Thanks.

>>3217792

If the chief goal of his work is dealing with the politics of morals and values, then yes we should look at his character.

Do you expect a serial-rapist to be suitable in giving meaningful counsel to a rape victim? Know when to shout "ad-hominem!" before you just parrot the term.

>>3217792

>muh ubermensch, muh Nietzsche

>>3217785

What, you don't like hearing the truth about your god? Most of Nietzsche propositions don't hold up, but they do titillate a bravado. Which is the real reason why 'edgy' people thinks he's so 'edgy'.

>>3217637
>>3217695
>>3217709
>>3217711

Nietzsche was a shit philosopher. His research and reasoning stank, except for one really good idea: his genealogy of morals. He wasn't much correct about the assertions he made with it, but he did hit upon something with the questioning of how a moralities came to be—its history really.

Nietzsche was a bigot, antisemitic, and a sexist. Most attempts to apologize for those things say his sister is to blame. She contributed to that reputation when she 're-wrote' Nietzsche work. That is just a copout excuse really.

Most people who are 'into' Nietzsche do so for the political fashion statement. They think he is controversial and by subscribing to his philosophy they think they too will be controversial as well.

Nietzsche sucks, stay away his from work UNTIL you've gotten a good head on your shoulders.

>>3217665

>muh commodities *ahem* I mean: muh books, muh /lit/

>>3217655

Can't deal with the reality of it can you?

>>3213683
>it's just for the pure sake of writing things correctly.

See that's the problem. It's not really a 'pure sake', it's a vested interest to subjugate others with the flaunt of prescriptive grammar over minuscule mistakes.

This is a touch-go image-board site, tiny mistakes like the incorrect possessive form of the word 'it,' are bound to happen. We all know what was meant. Yet, here we have some self imposed Grammar Nazi who couldn't let it slide, such a vile flub. You had to go out of your way to 'protect' us from some 'horrible language disaster.'

Really?

Doing things like what you're doing, and then announcing it like you're saving the language, or /lit/ for that matter, comes out of an ego-trip. There is nothing 'pure' about it. It's just another reason for you to retard the English language to a prescriptive position. And you do it so you can either call down on others, or peacock an air of superiority over others. It's snobbery, it's hidden-subjugation, it's just another game of power to play on others.

And learn to know when to sage.