/lit/ - Literature

>>2629047
>not embracing nature's shitposting

Thus Spoke Zarathustra isn't hard to read, but there are plenty of interpretations possible. Sort of like the Bible.

It also the most profound and important work OP has mentioned. Some might say that the Illiad had more influence, which is true, especially in a literary sense, but Zarathustra is the book of the future.

>>2553980
Tell her about the origin of the phrase, findable on wikipedia. Bitches love free spirited knightly poets. Also, Nietzsche commented on his own works in Ecce Homo. Might find something interesting in the paragraph/chapter on The Gay Science.

>>2553952
>>2553960
Thanks guys. I think I can grasp what both of you are getting at. On the one hand it comes out of the Buddhist realisations, and on the other hand it is a form of imitation of realised persons in order to become like them.

It's just that such a conclusion doesn't come natural to me, but then again, neither does it to most Buddhists I presume. I tend to see Buddhist enlightenment not as a singular achievement unique in human life, but as one of many tried and true psychological transformations. So in that way I think it's acceptable to state that compassion comes natural in this state, without this state necessarily having to be a de facto truthful position for people in general.

Why do we hate Ayn Rand while Nietzsche gets a free pass? Wasn't Nietzsche, with his will to power and obsession with strength, just as selfish, egoist (and egotist), and anti-altruistic as any objectivist?

Existentialism is the only philosophy worthy of my time. Why should I bother with any other philosophy if it doesn't involve existentialism?
pic related. the best philosopher.

If I had a hammer, I would philosophize with it by whipping women into submission.

If a philosopher want to be comprehended it is to his detriment to write easily quotable prose.