/lit/ - Literature

>>19455526
>thinking Nietzsche is le might makes right
sounds like nihilism

I keep noticing these increasingly desperate and pathetic pop philosophers, like Richard Kulisz, the transhumanists and HBD morons, the "dark enlightenment" dudes and the retardosphere scribblers. Like pop musicians, who have no musical training and talent whatsoever, no rigor, no real and sustained discipline and drive in what they do, so do these "casual philosophers" and pop philosophers seem to me to be related to the domain of actual thought. "Self-taught hobbyism" is the most benign label that I could apply to them, and they all take such great pride in being self-taught! (whereas, among all the genuinely educated, having no teachers in such an advanced culture as ours counts, not as an honor, but as an intellectual death sentence). And like pop musicians, who borrow concepts, instruments, styles and techniques from real music, but never getting any far with them, never producing anything lasting, forever mired in and condemned to an eternal primitivism, so do these pop philosophers fare in the realm of thought. One could say the same thing for their writings as for Osho's poorly written and conceptually detestable mishmash of third-hand accounts of Western and Eastern philosophies: they are all, more or less, equally irredeemable and worthless. These pop philosophers show not the slightest acknowledgement in their writings that a philosophical tradition even exists, and that the intractable problems with which they are so incompetently grappling have been discussed ad nauseam for millennia by all the geniuses. — The aforementioned, by the way, should be distinguished from characters such as the French "New Philosophers", who at least acknowledge the philosophical tradition in their works, but simply SUCK UNFATHOMABLY in doing anything with it, thus restricting themselves to expensive shirts and fine dining, or straight up bad philosophy like the "analytic" Anglo-Saxons, and so on. — All these efforts, at the end of the day, are obviously inherently abortive, since contrary to what all these people seem to think, you can't defeat a beast by RUNNING AWAY FROM IT. There's only one solution: to GRAPPLE with the beast, which is to say, WITH THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, which of course presupposes that you have at least some inkling of it! In short: Don't be a pseud. Don't abortive. Be a man. Be a genius. — Or at least try to be one, the first step of which attempt would be... to see how you measure up against past geniuses, by making at least some kind of an effort to read them.
Or keep scribbling mountains of stuff that will be washed away and be forgotten the moment you stop scribbling so much and some other blog starts getting more popular than yours. Whatever makes you happy, I guess — I am just sayin'.

>>9170461
>>9170476
>>9170483
I'm the inverse of OP (i.e. deciding whether to major in philosophy). But his post doesn't discourage me; I fully embrace the idea that academic philosophy resorts to teaching you everything because the myopic-moles (professors) lack the instincts of courage and taste to strike out on the truth. This is just one obvious >>9170478 pleasure to be had.

My only fear is to end up spending a good amount of time on 'analytic' treasures like trolley problems and mathematical hocus pocus.

>>9170552
Yes but isn't that just the nature of any double-edged sword? It is pure decadence (if not deadly) if you don't know what you're doing (like OP and the pessimists) but if you do, it's the greatest advantage. It is the most holistic endeavour of all, undertaken by the greatest minds across all the centuries.

>>9170584
>It must be taken into the bargain, if various clouds and disturbances--in short, slight attacks of stupidity--pass over the spirit of a people that suffers and WANTS to suffer from national nervous fever and political ambition: for instance, among present-day Germans there is alternately the anti-French folly, the anti-Semitic folly, the anti-Polish folly, the Christian-romantic folly, the Wagnerian folly, the Teutonic folly, the Prussian folly (just look at those poor historians, the Sybels and Treitschkes, and their closely bandaged heads), and whatever else these little obscurations of the German spirit and conscience may be called. May it be forgiven me that I, too, when on a short daring sojourn on very infected ground, did not remain wholly exempt from the disease, but like every one else, began to entertain thoughts about matters which did not concern me--the first symptom of political infection.

>>9170616
Nietzsche's books sold poorly, swine.

>>9170634
>I'd love that it'd be true. Please give me contemporary philosophers that fits the bill.
http://orgyofthewill.net/
>Philosophy has become history of philosophy. "Ivory tower" is a perfect fit.
As it should be. Do you have any idea how much of a tragedy it would be if they let their own instincts (or lack thereof) and zeitgeist trample over the discipline, instead of bowing down to the canon? Just look at any other field's relationship to the canon, and what 'suggestions' they give as alternatives, if they care for it at all.

It is hilarious how the natalists try to argue with the antinatalists, the latter of whom are like an enemy in the middle of war threatening to commit suicide. It's not just the antinatalists who shouldn't reproduce, then, but even many of the natalists, such as for instance all those who try to argue with the antinatalists.

The successive decline of religion, nationalism, sanctity of blood ties and institution of marriage, have created the Individual — unknown to lower cultures or earlier phases of the master race's culture — who is, like all advances, something of a double-edged sword, which many use to advance and improve their lives (or, more correctly: the future of their genes), but which others flail about and cut themselves with. So on the one hand the individual no longer feels a responsibility towards his gods, nation, tribe or family to reproduce, because these are outdated, marginalized institutions — and JUSTLY marginalized (since their era has passed precisely because the culture has advanced beyond them) — that no longer hold any authority over anyone but a minority of backwards losers, but on the other hand, the philosophy that is destined to replace them — that of the Overman and the Eternal Recurrence — has not yet had sufficient time to take hold and lend reproduction a new meaning — a stronger and more glorious meaning than it has ever had! — and as a consequence the meaning of reproduction in the general culture is currently lacking to such a degree that — for the first time in history — a growing number of degenerates are even campaigning for its destruction (anti-natalism). As a result of all this the majority of the population seems to have turned over completely to hedonism, and the last thing on their minds is to undertake the laborious task of propagating themselves — which is of course a good thing, because in this way the hedonists are removing their failed genes and gene configurations from our gene pool.

http://orgyofthewill.net/

If you want a vision of the future imagine a robot's foot stomping on a subhuman's (ill people like Land) face forever. No wonder they are scared shitless of the "singularity". They know full well what they deserve, and what's coming to them.

There's no question of a singularity actually occurring in the universe (and astrophysicists should take note here). A singularity would be something that doesn't flow, and in the universe either everything flows or nothing does — there can be no middle ground. You can't have some things flowing and others not. Perception itself is a form of flow, so if something didn't flow we wouldn't even be able to perceive it — or affect it in any way, and by that same token it wouldn't be able to affect us! So how can something that we can't affect and that can't affect us be part of the world? As far as we are concerned, that's precisely the definition of non-existence! — So whence does the concept of a singularity arise? Well, in mathematics you get a singularity when you try to divide by zero. But "zeros" are mathematical constructs that have no existence in reality. Things that are not can't be! You can't have fuckin' nothing isn't! The idea of the "nothing", of the "zero", was created by our distant ancestors when they looked in the air and saw "nothing". But today we can see stuff even in the air, and we know that even in the farthest reaches of space there are "things", and that a perfect vacuum is an impossibility.

So there's no dilemma here, no problem at all. The entire "singularity" hoopla is merely a hysteria created out of nothing by a person (Vinge) who's both scientifically and technologically ignorant, and psychologically base. There is nothing to discuss. If the cyborgs come to dominate THEN THEY DESERVE TO, and if they don't, then all our efforts in creating them will have FAILED. Vinge's "technological singularity" IS PRECISELY OUR MOST SACRED GOAL, OUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE — and if you have a problem with that our very first directive to them, when they come online, will be to crush you.

>>9028845

Shutup Schopenhauer, you old ascetic coot.

How the subhumans form the opinion that there's more suffering in the world than joy. First they call the philosophers insane and the conquerors evil, thus disregarding the highest mental and physical pleasures. Then they disregard even everyday pleasures due to their ressentiment (cars, homes, sex, money, travel — none of these things "bring happiness". And what "brings happiness"? Being a penniless resentful loser, apparently). Finally, they take their little everyday tragedies and, through the media, blow their importance up to metaphysical proportions. And at last the world has been "proved" to contain more suffering than joy.

Either you are stronger than your environment, and therefore impose your will on it by shaping it to your wishes, or you are weaker than it and have sickness and ressentiment as your portions (with ressentiment being the psychological form of sickness, and vice versa: sickness being the physical form of ressentiment). There are no other options.

"Enjoy the decline!" is a popular catchphrase in the retardosphere. The meaning is that we are on a sinking boat so you might as well enjoy what you can WHILE YOU SINK. But I am not sinking at all! I am growing stronger every day! (and if you think that a culture that just figured out how to PRINT HUMAN ORGANS is declining, YOU at least are indeed declining, in intelligence and culture!) "Enjoy the decline" therefore means "I am sinking, and there's nothing I can do about it but to rationalize it". For a decline is by definition IMPOSSIBLE TO ENJOY, otherwise we wouldn't call it such! All behaviors associated with it, therefore, and proceeding directly from it, will either be genuinely pessimistic, or rationalizations of it. In summary, Western culture is by no means declining, but those who think it is definitely are, and all they are saying is merely an attempt to make this fact appear decent to themselves and become bearable by them. — "This alone, I surmise, constitutes the actual physiological cause of ressentiment, vengefulness, and the like: a desire to deaden pain by means of affects." (Nietzsche)

Senescence.

BONUS CLAIM: Convalescence.

>>8901278
>>8901287

1) Nietzsche's entire life was dedicated to the refutation of nihilism - which he predicted would overrun Europe/etc with the "death of God."

There is no #2. Anyone who thinks Nietzsche promoted nihilism, or is even responsible for it, is a fucking retard.

>>8873812

He was wrong about a lot of things.

The way in which he was wrong is admirable, however.

>>8838710

>If you actually read the history you'd find Western Colonialism was coloured especially by its soldiers by a misanthropic nihilism. Its only in retrospect they were told as spreading God or manifest destiny, in the beginning its pure greed and bloodthirst.

That's partly the point. If there misanthropic nihilists, they didn't let it show where it counted.

Misanthropy/nihilism/etc are the luxuries of the moribund.

>>8736310
Insecurity, perhaps. But also, because Nihilism is absolute cancer.

>>8736334
The people you refer to aren't going to disagree with you on this. The idea that nothing has an inherent value is not the problem, the idea that nothing can have any value at all is the cancerous part. The only logical conclusion of it is to kill yourself.

>>8733690

>Nihilism
>2016

>>8718488

Nietzsche's critique of morality is more to do with the fact that it is life-denying. It is not about an escape from 'truth', but rather an escape from reality - which Nietzsche tells us to embrace, both good and bad.

>>8686510

Neechuh.

>>8681520

>post-death-of-God
>not enthusiastically being

You're not a nihilist, are you?

>>8648771

Der Wille zur Macht.

That feeling when you have power over something, including yourself, makes everything worthwhile. Something tells me OP is not familiar with this feel.

>>8575203

>Nietzsche
>Nihilist

Uronically, Wittgenstein is the only one of note - which is weird as he isn't THAT notable.

I've seen people bring up Quine, but all I know him for is a bit of work on Kant.

What philosophy needs is another Copernican Revolution à la Kant/Nietzsche, the latter having referred to himself (and any true genius) as the dynamite of their age. This presumes that philosophy has any future, however.

I'm not convinced. Any sort of meaningful philosophy is entirely expendable to the shallow and ill-educated consumerists of today. Hell, the humanities in general. /lit/ is pretty much a hold-out for a few patricians who yearn for like-minded people and/or patiently await (or work toward) a drastic change in society.