/lit/ - Literature

>Nietzsche talked about how one should manifest their will to power
>BUT Nietzsche actually meant psychological and spiritual power, not physical and social.
>Instead of changing your circumstances, endure slave-like conditions because that's self-overcoming.

>>22950437

Nietzsche did not like the Christian worldview, but he seems to hint at a sort of Eastern Orthodox "seeing the patterns of the universe" just without the idealism. This sort of "logos" and rather pantheistic view of the natural world seems to be a very underrated talking point in regards to Nietzsche. It's not really so much he denies these sort of metaphysical drives, but rather he just tries to root them within the natural world and the body rather than in some "otherworld" while seemingly dissociating the more idealistic "is ought to be this way" notions found in religions that see the patterns of the universe as well, with Nietzsche viewing the higher man as a sort of Heraclitus styled flame that either forges his own meaning, purpose and morality based off of this odd logos, or being interpreted through a religion that the herd cast their flames into that essentially does the same.

To simplify; Nietzsche seems to see a proper "way" of doing things that isn't inherently good or evil, but rather just good or bad. Unlike a lot of critics of Nietzsche who seem to think that he believed that somebody can just "will" whatever morality they wanted and make it so. Instead there seems to be "a way" or some sort of harmony to the universe, like as if this sort of "logos" is the mere tools and rules of the universe that allow true creators (us) to either see and use to create things or to ignore like dipshits and fuck up in a sort of fallen kingdom sort of way. I ramble because I'm too stupid to formulate these ideas in a more coherent way but I hope I conveyed what I'm trying to say. This seems like a huge aspect of Nietzsche that like nobody ever talks about.

Is it possible for a weak man to be a strong man? I'm a 5'6 ugly man that isn't even white, I have a lot of odds against me yet Nietzsche said I might have hope if I will myself into being strong? Is it possible? Can I succeed or no?

>>22555062
What a pile of shit lol; your post stinks of corpses OP

ITT: philosophers only deranged sociopaths can enjoy

Do the circumstances of his life refute his work?

>>21702632

Any books that make you better at establishing your will, being proactive, being creative, rather than being a passive spectator of life? Other than Nietzsche.

How can philosophy get any better than this?

>>21553893
>>21553200
>>21553158
hated by both sides = based nobility

I have been reading some philsophy books recently, a bit of "School of Life" educational videos, and some ted-Ed talks - and DAmn, this Neitzsche guy really has it all SUSSED out??????????? Like the Will to power??? Like we all have this like will inside us ----- and we have POwer!!!!! Ergo :: we have Will to power!!!!!!!!!! How heckin Epic is that!!!!!! Smash that like button and subcribe for more Epic Neitzsche content!!!!! Comment below why You think Neitzsche is the Best Philsopher!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

explain to a brainlet why Friedrich Nietzsche is so important
i don't get it, most of his ideas sound like an edgy teenager, yes i am retarded so i want people to help me understand his importance

>hurr durr will to life good, schopenhauer wrong
>never had kids
>mindbroken over a horse
>died an incel raging with impotent fury
Was Redditzsche the ultimate pseud?

>[ . . . ] history can be borne only by strong personalities, weak ones are utterly extinguished by it. The reason is that history confuses the feelings and sensibility when these are not strong enough to assess the past by themselves. He who no longer dares to trust himself but involuntarily asks of history “How ought I to feel about this?” finds that his timidity gradually turns him into an actor and that he is playing a role, usually indeed many roles and therefore playing them badly and superficially. Gradually all congruity between the man and his historical domain is lost; we behold pert little fellows associating with the Romans as though they were their equals: and they root and burrow in the remains of the Greek poets as though these too were corpora for their dissection and were as vilia as their own literary corpora may be. Suppose one of them is engaged with Democritus, I always feel like asking: why not Heraclitus? Or Philo? Or Bacon? Or Descartes? — or anyone else. And then: why does it have to be a philosopher? Why not a poet or an orator? And: why a Greek at all, why not an Englishman or a Turk? Is the past not big enough for you to be able to find nothing except things in comparison with which you cut so ludicrous a figure? But, as I have said, this is a race of eunuchs, and to a eunuch one woman is like another, simply a woman, woman in herself, the eternally unapproachable and it is thus a matter of indifference what they do so long as history itself is kept nice and “objective,” bearing in mind that those who want to keep it so are forever incapable of making history themselves. And since the eternally womanly will never draw you upward, you draw it down to you and, being neuters, take history too for a neuter. But so that it shall not be thought that I am seriously comparing history with the eternally womanly, I should like to make it clear that, on the contrary, I regard it rather as the eternally manly: though, to be sure, for those who are “historically educated” through and through it must be a matter of some indifference whether it is the one or the other: for they themselves are neither man nor woman, nor even hermaphrodite, but always and only neuters or, to speak more cultivatedly, the eternally objective. If the personality is emptied in the manner described and has become eternally subjectless or, as it is usually put, objective, nothing can affect it any longer; good and right things may be done, as deeds, poetry, music: the hollowed-out cultivated man at once looks beyond the work and asks about the history of its author.

I never see people adequately explain Nietzsche's concept of will to power and I've never seen anybody criticize it without getting filtered (see: Bertrand Russel).

Love is a connection. A cup "loves" to be filled with water, just as people "love" to be together. In order for people to be together, there needs to be a phenomenological world in which they coexist. That phenomenological world is power.

A cup has its identity from the fact that it facilitates the containment of liquid. That means its identity is its power. If it has any other identities/aspects it has to be perceived with respect to other powers. A power is the capacity to facilitate a goal, or in other words, a good, or on other words, love.

Human beings are motivated by will to power because love is the end and power is the means, so we desire the means to achieve our end, and in order to love we need power (or else we lack the power to love).

All human motivation is will to power, but all motivation that is free from resentment is motivated by love.

To understand your power (to know your identity, to know who you are) you must know yourself in the image of the highest power.

Power is that which overcomes resistance, which is why Christ allowed himself to be tortured to death despite his total innocence and still forgave and affirmed everything in existence.

To know your power and self you must love Christ.

I think the entirety of Nietzsche's philosophy is his coping mechanism for his loneliness, a way to vent out all the anger and frustration he had filled in him. Basically a punk making a punk song. His philosophy is clearly washed up as he straight away announces that religion and cults should be abandoned. Without religion, society will descend into chaos and degeneracy (like the one we see today). How can a man overcome himself when he is living in absolute chaos? Exactly, Nietzsche is the philosopher for young teenagers who are revelling through their edgy anarchist emo punk phase.

How feasible is this and how long would it realistically take? I'm interested in learning French and German so I can read original texts written in those languages rather than translations.

>"You go to women? Do not forget the whip!"
Literally WHAT did he mean by this?

It's about drive, it's about power
We stay hungry, we devour
Put in the work, put in the hours and take what's ours (ahoo)
Polish aristocracy in my veins
My culture bangin' with Strange
I change the game, so what's my motherfuckin' name (Nietzsche)
(What they gonna get though?)
Desecration, defamation, if you wanna bring it to the masses
Face to face, now we escalatin', when I have to put boots to asses
Mean on ya, like a dream when I'm rumblin', you're gonna scream mama
So bring drama to the King Brahma (Evola?)
Comin' at you with extreme mana

>>19935046
1. The true world — attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.
(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and persuasive. A circumlocution for the
sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")
2. The true world — unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for
the sinner who repents").
(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible — it becomes
female, it becomes Christian.)
3. The true world — unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it — a
consolation, an obligation, an imperative.
(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive,
pale, Nordic, Königsbergian.)
4. The true world — unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being unattained, also unknown.
Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?
(Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.)
5. The "true" world — an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating — an idea which
has become useless and superfluous — consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it!
(Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens and cheerfulness; Plato's embarrassed blush;
pandemonium of all free spirits.)
6. The true world — we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no!
With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.
(Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity;
INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.)

No need to refute anything, just take atheism to its intellectually honest conclusion