/lit/ - Literature

>>19657799
They were honest inquirers, even if they had little to work with and mostly blundered. Philosophy became dishonest starting with Plato, a poet who lied about poetry for political gain.

Because there are so many confusions surrounding these moralities, which also lead to confusions surrounding his views on religion and politics, here are Beyond Good and Evil §260 and §261 where he first mentions and describes the two (italics is capitalized by me):

>While perusing the many subtler and cruder moral codes that have prevailed or still prevail on earth thus far, I found that certain traits regularly recurred in combination, linked to one another—until finally two basic types were revealed and a fundamental difference leapt out at me. There are MASTER MORALITIES and SLAVE MORALITIES. I would add at once that in all higher and more complex cultures, there are also apparent attempts to mediate between the two moralities, and even more often a confusion of the two and a mutual misunderstanding, indeed sometimes even their violent juxtaposition—even in the same person, within one single breast. Moral value distinctions have emerged either from among a masterful kind, pleasantly aware of how it differed from those whom it mastered, or else from among the mastered, those who were to varying degrees slaves or dependents. In the first case, when it is the masters who define the concept 'good', it is the proud, exalted states of soul that are thought to distinguish and define the hierarchy. The noble person keeps away from those beings who express the opposite of these elevated, proud inner states: he despises them. Let us note immediately that in this first kind of morality the opposition 'good' and 'bad' means about the same thing as 'noble' and 'despicable'—the opposition 'good' and 'EVIL' has a different origin. The person who is cowardly or anxious or petty or concerned with narrow utility is despised; likewise the distrustful person with his constrained gaze, the self-disparager, the craven kind of person who endures maltreatment, the importunate flatterer, and above all the liar: all aristocrats hold the fundamental conviction that the common people are liars. 'We truthful ones'—that is what the ancient Greek nobility called themselves. It is obvious that moral value distinctions everywhere are first attributed to PEOPLE and only later and in a derivative fashion applied to ACTIONS: for that reason moral historians commit a crass error by starting with questions such as: 'Why do we praise an empathetic action?' The noble type of person feels HIMSELF as determining value—he does not need approval, he judges that 'what is harmful to me is harmful per se', he knows that he is the one who causes things to be revered in the first place, he CREATES VALUES.

1/5

>>18134349
all of them at once

>>18008247
>hard, cold, terrible, without feelings and without conscience.
I'll never understand this interpretation of the overman... Nietzsche's intellectual elite stems from his early study on Theognis, a poet who saw the lower class as being lower specifically because it was violent, deceitful, and inartistic. His intellectual elite agrees with amor fati, a Spinozian feeling of love towards the whole universe, backwards and forwards in time. Nowhere does he depict the overman as some reptilian murder-rapist horror (not to say, of course, that the overman is incapable of committing a crime without guilt).

Would "5000 years worth of labor" be

a) 5000 years labor
b) 5000 years' labor

not native speaker, thank you for your help

>>11195662
>For the new year. — I still live, I still think: I still have to live, for I still have to think. Sum, ergo cogito: cogito, ergo sum. Today everybody permits himself the expression of his wish and his dearest thought; hence I, too, shall say what it is that I wish from myself today, and what was the first thought to run across my heart this year—what thought shall be for me the reason, warranty, and sweetness of my life henceforth. I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

>there are people who still study metaphysics and believe in metaphysical premises after Nietzsche

Why?

>>10200114
>>10200158
>>10200193
>Nihilism as psychological state has yet a third and last form. [...] As soon as man finds out how that world is fabricated solely from psychological needs, and how he has absolutely no right to it, the last form of nihilism comes into being: it includes disbelief in any metaphysical world and forbids itself any belief in a true world. Having reached this standpoint, one grants the reality of becoming as the only reality, forbids oneself every kind of clandestine access to afterworlds and false divinities—but cannot endure this world though one does not want to deny it. What has happened, at bottom? The feeling of valuelessness was reached with the realization that the overall character of existence may not be interpreted by means of the concept of "aim," the concept of "unity," or the concept of "truth." Existence has no goal or end; any comprehensive unity in the plurality of events is lacking: the character of existence is not "true," is false. One simply lacks any reason for convincing oneself that there is a true world. Briefly: the categories "aim," "unity," "being" which we used to project some value into the world—we pull out again; so the world looks valueless.

And then, Nietzsche's conclusion on the matter of nihilism, which I have already stated:

>Suppose we realize how the world may no longer be interpreted in terms of these three categories, and that the world begins to become valueless for us after this insight: then we have to ask about the sources of our faith in these three categories. Let us try if it is not possible to give up our faith in them. Once we have devaluated these three categories, the demonstration that they cannot be applied to the universe is no longer any reason for devaluating the universe. Conclusion: The faith in the categories of REASON is the cause of nihilism. We have measured the value of the world according to categories that refer to a purely fictitious world.

>Final conclusion: All the values by means of which we have tried so far to render the world estimable for ourselves and which then proved inapplicable and therefore devaluated the world—all these values are, psychologically considered, the results of certain perspectives of utility, designed to maintain and increase human constructs of domination—and they have been falsely projected into the essence of things. What we find here is still the hyperbolic naivete of man: positing himself as the meaning and measure of the value of things.

Nietzsche is the champion of the subject and overcoming of nihilism. He went way past the entire dilemma while ALSO being the first person to identify all of its nuanced behaviors and mechanisms at such a deeply philosophical level. He is the ONLY person you need to read and listen to on this. And he says a whole lot more about it in WP.

>>9705374
When he says "in the superlative metaphysical sense (which, unfortunately, still rules in the heads of the half-educated)", he is saying that, first of all, to understand things like "freedom of the will", "freedom", "will" etc. in a pure metaphysical sense, as in on a completely conceptual level, as in something abstract from the physical world and not intricately tied to it, not even tied to it — inseparable from it, the same thing — means you are "half-educated" on the subject. You don't have the full picture in your head yet. You're still dividing the world into these abstract layers which is an inaccurate judgment of the world.

Next, he says that this sense of "free will" is boorish (rough) and points out how that is the case here:

>all this means nothing less than being that very causa sui and, with a courage greater than Munchhausen’s, pulling yourself by ¨the hair from the swamp of nothingness up into existence.

You are will. You are will, talking about your own supposed "freedom" or lack thereof. The activity is a cosmic joke, like pulling yourself out of the sinking swamp tar by your own hair.

Next, he criticizes the so-called determinists who argue with the free-will believers because they too are looking at this in an erroneous metaphysical sense. They argue, we are not free, we are UNfree. Nope, that is just the other side of the same coin of inaccurate judgment. Freedom and lack thereof: this scale of measurement does not apply to will. Will is. That is all. Then he goes on to point out how cause and effect, like all things we talk about and see, are interpretations, not facts of the world. To understand that, you must be able to see your will clearly, in the moment of itself, and see the very process of the world being spun out of it — try meditation if you have no idea what I'm saying there.

I've written a book, currently editing the last chapters of it. It will change the course of philosophy forever.

Nobody on /lit/ will believe me.

>>8211105
Well, in my humble opinion, the Übermensch is the carefree and fire-hearted more-than-man. He is idealistic version of a true lover of life. But he is also the ideal wanderer, the ideal warrior, the ideal thinker. In essence, he fully embraces both what makes him a human/animal (emotions, love, etc.) but also what makes him more than an animal (intelligence, art, the search for a telos).
It´s a very complicated concept, too big for words.

audiobooks are for plebs

Don't feel bad m8. I'm going to be an absolute terror in philosophy, and my first book won't come out until I'm 25.

>>8146139
>an enemy of reason

"Three orders of thinking beings. The religious believers are totally irrational (i.e. it is impossible to discuss anything with them). The scientific believers will take rationality to their graves — and therefore fail to understand anything about the universe beyond some petty, narrow facts about each individual science. And finally, the philosophical believers, who operate wholly on the level of rationality, while recognizing the irrational foundations of all rationality. They can, in other words, rationally demonstrate their irrationality. They operate, therefore, on a higher, third-level rationality, a rationality which the scientific believers are not rational enough to understand (not to speak of the religious ones)."

Orgy of the Will, §516

>>7963935

I am Frederick Nietzsche's successor

I have about an hour to spare if you want to ask me questions

>>7885123
He wrote awesome stuff, BTFO people left and right and was a self-righteous, yet entertaining asshole. That makes him more interesting than 90% of all philosophers.

Found some minor but important discrepancies between the texts.

From 199:

Ludovici:
>in a word the Jews: an instinctively crafty people, able to create an advantage, a means of seduction out of every conceivable hypothesis of superstition, even out of ignorance itself.

Kaufmann:
>simply -- Jews: with an instinctive ability to create an advantage, a means of seduction out of every superstitious supposition, out of ignorance itself.

Kaufmann omitted the crafty part. In his rendition, the Jews seem strong, overthrowing rough conditions; in Ludovici's they seem to do the same only through subterranean means (which would fit Nietzsche's image of them as per usual, yet in Kaufmann's asterisk here we are redirected to a sale's pitch for his own book).

Also

184

Ludovici:
>The Jews made the attempt to prevail, after two of their castes the warrior and the agri cultural castes, had disappeared from their midst. In this sense they are the " castrated people": they have their priests and then their Chandala. . . . How easily a disturbance occurs among them an insurrection of their Chandala.

Kaufmann:
>The Jews tried to prevail after they had lost two of their castes, that of the warrior and that of the peasant; in this sense they are the "castrated": they have the priests -- and then immediately the chandala--
>As is only fair, a break develops among them, a revolt of the chandala: the origin of Christianity

Kaufmann replaces "How easily" with "as is only fair", completely swapping the meaning from an implication of the Jews' natural degeneracy into the chandala to something cyclical, as if all civilizations decline into the chandala, or, worse, "fair" meaning egalitarian, although I really don't want to believe Kaufmann would ever insert that much.

[gaya scienza intensifies]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgaIuA0kg-E

>>7382092
>What is lacking in England, and has always been lacking, that half-actor and rhetorician knew well enough, the absurd muddle-head, Carlyle, who sought to conceal under passionate grimaces what he knew about himself: namely, what was LACKING in Carlyle - real POWER of intellect, real DEPTH of intellectual perception, in short, philosophy.

When keeping in mind the chapter in ASZ, how disgusted do you think he would have been with being kept alive for over ten years after his insanity set in and made him pitiful and useless?

Mann's Dr Faustus has a mephisto-like "seducer" who keeps reappearing in different forms. he sounds like a remix of nietzschean quotes and drives the main (decadent) character into madness with his advices. but it's only a cartoony side figure which shows Mann's overall negative attitude towards nietzsche, especially after ww2. still worth a read.