/lit/ - Literature

>not accepting Nietzsche three stages of camel, lion and child

I own most of what Nietzsche wrote. 11 volumes of published work, and the whole nachlass in a 7 volume set of 4320 pages. I also own what is probably the most definitive biography of him by Curt Paul Janz, that is well over a 1000 pages.

Once I'm through with all this, I'm going to read some of his correspondance as well I guess. I keep getting sidetracked by other interests though, but Nietzsche is one of the subjects I'm seriously planning to become an expert on. Not as in "the academic that gets to spew his shit on talkshows" kind of expert, but "lumpenproletarian next to you in a dive bar who knows more about Nietzsche than 99,9999% of the world population just because it interests him" kind if expert.

>tfw continental philosophy has been embarrassing after Nietzsche
>tfw gay Frenchmen kidnap your shit and make it horrible and trivial

>>2776978
We can offer here the same arguments Nietzsche offered against Socrates in Twilight of the Idols:

In origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebs. We know, we can still see for ourselves, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. [“monster in face, monster in soul”] But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would not be contradicted by the famous judgment of the physiognomist which sounded so offensive to the friends of Socrates. A foreigner who knew about faces once passed through Athens and told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum -- that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!"

>Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened.

Can't put it better than Freddy. Not that it's a metaphor. But hey.

>>2740272
I believe the Eternal Recurrence to be a great though exercise and concept in the sense of the affirmation of the will to power, but don't consider it an actual reality and don't think Nietzsche meant it that way.

>>2712254
Yes, I think evolution is an ongoing process of change and we would do well to respond to this with a concious effort to create great individuals or even whole peoples. The Ubermensch however always remains an ideal. The Ubermensch would be someone constantly self-overcoming and forging himself. So the Ubermensch, paradoxically enough, would always be striving towards becoming an Ubermensch and never seeing himself as "arrived". There is only becoming, not being. Nietzscheanism is an Heraclitian worldview with an artistocratic transhumanist ethic. Or at least that's my particular perspective.

The Übermensch overcomes nihilism, the old master morality adherents never even arrived at it. It is a deliberate, philosophical position. It's the goal of the future. It is the life affirming acceptance of how things are without any worlds beyond or above. It is the person who has shed himself of the old believes and survived the emptiness that followed this. The person who bases his new values solely on himself, without the need for an appeal to a higher authority.

Master morality is more of a term for the vigorous but rather unsophisticated value system of the old conquerors. Slave morality merely that of those conquered. While master morality is in a lot of ways more honest and noble, we have a lot of our modern cunning to thank to the sly ways of the repressed. Nietzsche never proclaimed that we should revert to the master morality of old. It was basically "look at us we bad as fuck, people that aren't like us are little bitches". Fine for a bunch of Vikings, and certainly a lot healthier than a cult of begging for forgiveness and bleakness and doom and suffering, but no answer to the philosophical problems of modern life.

>>2550455
Because he made people aware of a dichotomy of values that classifies values as either vital and beneficial to life or entropic and decadent. He basically applies medical values to ethics. Vitality, health, strength and power are good, weakness, sickness and passivity are bad.

This leads to a system of values that is compatible with scientific findings, evolution theory, the well being of the world as an ecosystem, the general vitality of the human species, the glory of the individual and the advancement of technology and the arts.

It is perhaps the only value system than rings true on both an instinctive and rational level and is capable of replacing nihilism, since it's so embedded in living things in general. One anon or tripfag connected the concept of the will to power to the concept of negentropy recently, which I found very insightful.

In a way Nietzsche is part of the long line of philosophers that said one should live according to nature. The Cynics said this, the Stoics said this, the Taoists said this in a way. Nietzsche's values are most compatible of them all however with how we see nature nowadays. It connects almost seamlessly as a prescriptive philosophy with the descriptive findings of science.