/lit/ - Literature

>Whoever does not have two-thirds of his day for himself, is a slave, whatever he may be: a statesman, a businessman, an official, or a scholar.

>To this day, my whole philosophy totters after an hour’s sympathetic conversation with total strangers: it seems so foolish to me to wish to be right at the price of love, and not to be able to communicate what one considers most valuable lest one destroy the sympathy. Hinc meae lacrimae [hence my tears].

what did he mean by this??

>Men should strive towards having a feminine intelligence while not being effeminate at the same time

>God is dead
Umm, no? Lmao

i have a debate planned for friday what do i have to read to be able to refute nietsche (short books and articles please)

>>21333260

>"The virtuous man too helps the unfortunate, but not-- or almost not-- out of pity, but rather by an urge which is motivated by the excess of power."
Psychology has literally proved that it's impossible to train the human brain into thinking "I help others because I am superior, and I want to fulfill my ego!" unless they act narcissistic. You're literally taking advice from a narcissist, and a poor, homosexual one at that.

>narcissists are vain and crave supply, Nietzsche is neither
You know what I fucking meant

Why are all of his followers cringe? There's literally not a single cool Nietzschean.

Nietzschebros... I love Aristotle now?
>It is always the weaker who go in search of justice and equality; the strong reckon nothing of them.
Aristotle, Politics, book VI ch. iii, 1318b1

"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?

>"It is a disgrace for all socialist systematizers that they suppose there could be circumstances-social combinations-in which vice, disease, prostitution, distress would no longer grow.- But that means condemning life.- A society is not free to remain young. And even at the height of its strength it has to form refuse and waste materials. The more energetically and boldly it advances, the richer it will be in failures and deformities, the closer to decline.- Age is not abolished by means of institutions. Neither is disease. Nor vice."
BOOM. And just like that the sociopolitical system communists propose was btfo for all eternity.

>It is not the cause that hallows the war, but the war that hallows the cause
What did he mean by this?

r/atheism

>none of his critiques of Christianity apply to Orthodoxy
Was it intentional?

Why do right NEETzscheans h8 teleology and think aesthetics in and of themselves are able to constitute human purpose? Who hurt them?

Not one ounce of lowly G*rman blood

please don't ruin this thread by trying to funny.
and yes, Donald Trump is definitely /ourubermensch/

What's the best place to start with this guy? Beyond Good and Evil? The Gay Science? The Birth of Tragedy?

I'll start
>Here I barely touch upon the problem of the origin of Christianity. The first thing necessary to its solution is this: that Christianity is to be understood only by examining the soil from which it sprung—it is not a reaction against Jewish instincts; it is their inevitable product; it is simply one more step in the awe-inspiring logic of the Jews. In the words of the Saviour, “salvation is of the Jews.”—The second thing to remember is this: that the psychological type of the Galilean is still to be recognized, but it was only in its most degenerate form (which is at once maimed and overladen with foreign features) that it could serve in the manner in which it has been used: as a type of the Saviour of mankind

>>15600687
Nietzsche
>one is either a chandala or he is not
> Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman’s instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence—who make him envious and teach him revenge.... Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of “equal” rights.... What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge.—The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry....

>>15460280
SLAVE MORALITY

Is this the single greatest critique of the Christian religion? Has anybody ever read this book and continued to practice the Christian religion? Should it be mandatory reading in schools?

The most interesting part to me are the suppressed passages. He wrote a "Decree against Christianity" which consists of seven positions:
>Every type of anti-nature is depraved (e.g. original Sin).
>Participation in religion is an assassination attempt on public morality (e.g. Just war theory).
>Sacred (earthly) things which Christianity has deified should be eradicated (e.g. sacred sites and rituals).
>The Christian teaching on chastity is a public instigation to anti-nature (e.g. Christian modesty).
>The Christian priest is a chandala – he should be ostracized, starved for preferring discourse and declining food at a banquet (e.g. the sacrifice of fasting).
>This is the transvaluation of values in which the divine becomes criminal, etc.
>Christian religion (rather than Christian philosophy) is the ultimate evil

>>15156035

Zarathustra does not join other men.

Those who require *recruits* — let them stick to the valleys!

But if other men wish to join Zarathustra - ah, that is different!