/lit/ - Literature

How was he so clever? How was he so wise? How did he write such good books?

>constantly shits on ressentiment as a coping mechanism for the weak and petulant
>resents women

>>20230373
Its honestly shit like this which will always make me laugh when people claim Nietchez and Schopenahuer weren't liberals.
Their entire ideology is utterlly grounded in the conceptualization of man as an individual unmoored ego without any nature, duty or morality inherent to it beyond the prediposition of its whim.
Nietchez is at least a bit better as he sees certian influences on human thought/action as being hedgemonic (and somewhat "worthy" of perserving; purely for subjective reasons)
but he ultimately takes up a stirner teir view on ideology (and even broadly on truth) leaving his ideology a cesspool of mental masterbation
To answer OP's question though,
it isn't
>"based"
as it assumes a false understanding of man and a false understanding of what he is meant to do.
You can ignore what you are meant to do but it will no less be what you are meant to do
And not doing it will be no less "bad" "cringe" " evil" ect
The purpose of life remains the same regardless of your opinion on it.

>>15544587
If you start with the Greeks, actually read Nietzsche, and read the sticky on /fit/, you will have had a far more rewarding experience than you would reading this dumb book.

>>15505553
Don't. Nietzsche is an advanced philosopher who should only be read after you have read other philosophers, because otherwise you will not understand what he is talking about.

Why do you think so many terrible pseuds on this board sound so dumb? It's because they started with Nietzsche and quote him without having any context for the things he's saying.

Before you read Nietzsche, read at least selected readings from all of the following:

Plato
Aristotle
The Bible
Augustine
Martin Luther
Hume
Kant
Hegel
Schopenhauer

You don't need to slog through all of the things that every writer in this list has written. But you do need to be familiar with their ideas and their core concepts. Then, and ONLY then, can you read Nietzsche.

Whats the verdict on Nieztche ?

>>15432797
>>15432810
>>15433419
You failed Nietzsche's test. You're doing exactly what the OP accuses normalfags of doing. You assume that we can have morality independent of Christianity that still LOOKS like the mostly-Christian morality we have now. We can't, and Nietzsche knew it.

Reminder that if you have not read at least a certain amount of Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, Augustine, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Hegel, you should not read Nietzsche. Nietzsche is not an entry-level philosopher, you will not understand him if you do not understand the philosophers and thinkers to which he is responding.

Does Nietzsche's Philosophy hold up against skepticism? It seems that he placed value on certain things while denying meaning in it. For instance, why does Nietzsche value strength? He was vehemently anti-rationality, and valuing strength suggests that he valued strength by means of rationality. If he didn't use rationality, he believed in strength over weakness by faith, which is just as credible as my faith. What is stopping me from flipping his framework and valuing weakness and submission instead of strength and creation? He would suggest that strength is superior to weakness because strength affirms life, but how can you arrive at that conclusion without rationality?
"The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it."

Do you think Nietzsche would look at the modern world and feel like killing himself? His entire thesis, his main point, is that if we move beyond our devotion to God, if we embrace the radical freedom possible for man in a world where he is not slave to aristocracies, we can be supermen, men of pure will.

Well, religion and most aristocracies are totally lacking in power today, but we didn't get a world of supermen. Instead we got... this.

>Thinks that we must affirm life and is disgusted by Schopenhauer's life denial
>Is pro suicide
>Thinks that moralizing is bad
>Dedicates an entire book (Thus spoke) to moralizing
>Thinks that there is no free will
>Writes his philosophy to advocate what one should or not do as if there is free will
What gives? Was everything he wrote just autism? Is his entire philosophy a contradiction?

So, has anyone ever debunked him or is he just undisputedly right on everything?

Nietzsche: Life has no meaning , that is why we must become the Overman !
Me: Why strive to become the overman when there is no reason to? Doesn't life lack meaning? Isn't your philosophy self defeating? *With each question that dismantles his philosophy I lash him twice, once with my whip and once with the verbal sting that comes from getting btfo'd*
Nietzsche: Dude no uhhh uhhh we must become the overman because uh...
Me: Very cool Nietzsche.

Was he a nihilist?

>Dude define your own meaning!
Why do legions of morons worship this idiot? Even here on /lit/, all the 16 year olds suck his dick. He was a fucking pathetic faggot who wrote a bunch of feel good wank about discovering your own meaning in life and vague ramblings about superhumans. It's pathetic, it's pessimism for optimists afraid of admitting optimism is retarded.

It's kind of funny, most of the people who read exclusively non fiction turn out to be bigger retards than people who read both fiction/non fiction or just exclusively fiction.

>taking a philosophy intro course next semester, seems like a good time to look at some books worth reading

>what are some generally good non fiction books every person should read?

I don't read much non fiction, and haven't read anything above a 9th grade level

>Only the mediocre have the prospect of succeeding, of reproducing themselves - they are the people of the future, the only survivors, "Be like them! Become mediocre!" - from now on that's the only morality which still makes sense, which people still hear. - But it is difficult to preach, this morality of mediocrity! - it may never admit what it is and what it wants! It must speak about restraint and worth and duty and love of one's neighbour - it will have difficulty concealing its irony!

the absolute state of NEET

>>13383503
>>13383505
>>13384132
Yeah, I think this is the fairest interpretation. Nietzsche didn't WANT to be a nihilist, but he eventually felt that he had no choice to be one, since he couldn't definitively find a reason for people to move forward in life in the absence of God and objective truth. His entire life's work was trying to find that reason, but he ultimately failed.

Didn't Nietzsche himself not even believe in eternal recurrence? He didn't actually think it was real, did he? It was just a thought experiment.

>>13348382

Here we are once again on the cusp of our descent into Hades. No one listened. They mocked me. Assassinated my character. Debated me on a Filipino bean counting board. Too scared to truly interface with my ideas, or lack thereof. It is no matter. I will have the last laugh in the end. For the new dialectic is no longer beauty, but wealth. And, heh... what I lack in beauty I make up for in wealth of will.

Is Nietzsche just a bad writer? He has to be one of the most frustrating philosophers I've read. This tendency to create fragmentary, disjointed thoughts, pertaining to theories by authors he sometimes cites, and sometimes vaguely mentions so you can't even tell who it is he's talking about, as well as talk about the ideas of these philosophers without defining his terms, is stressful to read. I can barely process what is on the page by Nietzsche, because every sentence or so I am left with many questions over equivocal terms he's used. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that Nietzsche is a good prose stylist, but a bad writer.

The work I have been reading is The Genealogy of Morality, by the way.

This board is dumb as fuck for repeatedly encouraging people to read Nietzsche as a beginning to philosophy. Nietzsche is not entry level philosophy. If anything, he is exit level. He should be one of the last philosophers you read, not one of the first.

In order to properly appreciate Nietzsche, you need to, at bare minimum, have at least a little familiarity with:

-Plato
-The Bible
-Augustine
-Hegel
-Schopenhauer

And maybe a little familiarity with Wagner, though I'd consider that less necessary. Nonetheless, the entire reason teenagers and twentysomethings who read Nietzsche are insufferable is that they have no appreciate for the context in which Nietzsche writes. They have no idea of the other, earlier thinkers to whom he is responding, and therefore they cannot properly appreciate just what it is he is trying to say.

Nietzsche - how the fuck do I get into him? Was thinking of getting Cambridge version of Birth of Tragedy, but should I just go back even further to From My Life?