/lit/ - Literature

>>8726879
>Which Nietzsche even said.
Yes, exactly. He wanted to thought of as a non-German but it's pretty clear he wasn't. Why?

>We all only deal in ideas that are "conveniently aligned" with our positions. We all make judgment values based on our own "baggage".
I'm not contesting that. It'd be inhuman for him not to. I don't even disagree with his points most of the time. It's the way he does them that's a problem to me.

He's constantly revelatory, always going "no, THIS is the real thing". But why do it like that if he knows he's going to change positions in five minutes?

Why say Dionysus or Apollo are the greatest? Why say this or that quality is the most important to life? It's obvious the fin is necessary for the fish, but to say it's the only thing necessary, the definitory factor for a fish is stupid. It perpetuates itself by letting itself be used by the rest of the organism.

So why decry the weak or the cowardly at all? He knows those things are inherent. He thinks life is like a game. Why does he take it so seriously?

Nietzsche seems half myopic to me. It's like every time he looks at something he does it with only one eye, then remembers to open the other, but closes the first one. He has both sides of the thing but they're disconnected, lacking in perspective, alienated. It's a resipe for disaster if you want to offer vital maxims, because the two poles are always opposed and can never work together respectfully.

>He still manages to create new values with what he writes, which is the point of philosophy
According to him.