/lit/ - Literature

How many people read or knew about Nietzche before WWII? I know Mencken referred to him a lot.

>>8877909
No you fucking idiot, you're looking at it through collective and societal lens rather than individualistic. If you have a good job, even if the market goes into a depression, then you would be fine, but if by relying on your parents or the government, your life and well being is in their hands and you might be entirely fucked.

You think that a depression would automatically put all jobs at risk which is fucking retarded. My point was that if there was an apocalyptic scenario and your parents lost their job, you couldn't maintain a NEET lifestyle. You bind yourself to them and hope that nothing will go wrong.

Let's change the problem. When your parents retire, what will you do if they decide to go in a retiring home and do not give you any of their hard earned money? Then what?
Again, you weaken yourself by leeching off them.

There is no strength of victory from leeching off others and you are hoping that you will be comfortable as long as possible until life fucks you out of nowhere.

>Schoppy
>the guy who lived off his parents fortune and then spent the rest of his life bitching that life was suffering because he had no goals in life

Did Nietzsche, like Socrates, even exist?

Think about it

He wrote all his works in some little hut in bumfucknowhere, Switzerland?

How convenient!

Then, when he started getting famous, got syphilis/dementia/whatever and died

Pull the other one

>the values of the herd should rule in the herd
what did he mean by this?

Is "The Will to Power" worth reading?

If so, what are the possible modification by his sister to look for? There are several fascist sounding quotes (A doctrine is needed powerful enough to work as a breeding agent: strengthening the strong, paralyzing and destructive for the world-weary.

The annihilation of the decaying races. Decay of Europe.-- The annihilation of slavish evaluations.-- Dominion over the earth as a means of producing a higher type.) mixed with really great and Nietzschean ones. I don't know whether they're really part of Nietzsche's philosophy or not.

If the book is not worth reading, what are alternatives, secondary literature about the Will to Power and what Nietzsche said about it.

And Jesus is the poor man's Socrates, yes, yes, we've been through that already.

just b urself dude :)

Is there a writer similar to Nietzsche minus his contempt for democracy and defense of social-Darwinism?

What is Nietzsche's view on revenge and punishment?

"What a fine way of compensating for your suffering it is to go on and *destroy your own judgment*! Your revenge rebounds upon you yourself when you defame something; it is your *own* eye you dim, not that of another: you accustom yourself to *seeing distortedly*!" (Daybreak, 214)

"Reflect! - He who is punished is never he who performed the deed. He is always the scapegoat." (Daybreak, 252)

"Then an adder came along and bit him in the neck, so that Zarathustra cried out in pain. [...] “Not so fast,” spoke Zarathustra. “You have not yet accepted my thanks! You waked me in time, my way is still long.” “Your way is still short,” said the adder sadly: “My poison kills.” Zarathustra smiled. “Since when did a dragon ever die of snake poison?” he said. “But take back your poison! You are not rich enough to give it to me.” Then the snake fell upon his neck once again and licked his wound. [...] “If you should have an enemy, then do not requite him evil with good, for that would shame him. Instead prove that he has does you some good. [...] A small revenge is more humane than no revenge at all. And if the punishment is not also a right and an honor for the transgressor, then I do not like your punishing either.” (Thus spoke Zarathustra, The Adder's Bite)

He of course seems to be against Ahab-like revenge, but I can't quite pinpoint what his advice is and connect it to the rest of his ideas.

where did he go wrong

post your fav nietzsche quotations

How do I completely avoid interacting with non-readers? If it cannot be avoided, what are some strategies of coping with the boredom and irritation generated by communicating with these subhuman philistines?

The more I read this man the more I'm coming to realise that he is a complete fraud and hypocrite.

The world-historical irony of Nietzsche is that he invents the concept of ressentiment to attack Christianity and socialism as the ethic of the powerless deflecting their hatred of the powerful into a metaphysic that will give them ultimate victory in the future, when this is essentially Nietzsche's own project as well. His whole philosophy is shot through with ressentiment.

Nietzsche was an outcast from society whose works were ignored during his lifetime and who couldn't hold down a proper teaching post and had to be supported financially by friends and relatives. He never knew any women other than his sister and probably died a virgin. He was also a political reactionary who witnessed the relentless advance of democracy and progress during his lifetime and could not bear it.

How did this come to the fore in his philosophy? Since Nietzsche resented the progressing emancipation of women, the extension of the democratic franchise, the egalitarian tendency of industrial society, he took this ressentiment and with it created an elaborate TELEOLOGICAL METAPHYSIC of the Last Man giving way to the coming Overman of whom Nietzsche claims to be his prophet. Thus, Nietzsche creates a philosophy based on the fear of those above him (e.g. women, considering his abnormal relationship with them). His entire ethical programme is to soothe him with the hope that those philistines who don't appreciate Heraclitus will receive their judgement day, and Nietzsche will be vindicated and rewarded by History as the man who helped bring this about. The whole function of his philosophy is to take revenge on a world which does not appreciate his genius.

How can anyone take this hypocrite seriously? No wonder he went mad.

Beyond Good and Evil, chapter 9, section 261

>As a matter of fact, in keeping with the slow approach of a democratic order of things (and its cause, the mixing of blood between masters and slaves), the originally rare and noble urge to ascribe to yourself a value that comes from yourself, and to “think well” of yourself is now increasingly widespread and encouraged.

>The vain take pleasure in *every* good opinion they hear about themselves (abstracted entirely from the point of view of utility, and just as much removed from truth or falsity), just as they suffer from every bad opinion.

The masters/nobles create their own opinion of themselves and imposes it on others, whether it is accurate or not. The slaves get their opinion of themselves from others. But how should the "philosophers of the future", the new nobles, think of themselves?

>219. Moral judgment and condemnation is the favorite revenge of the spiritually limited on those who are less so [...] If anyone were to tell them that “a high spirituality is beyond comparison with any sort of good behavior or worthiness of a merely moral man,” they would be livid: – I certainly would not do it. I would rather flatter them by claiming that a high spirituality is itself only the final, monstrous product of moral qualities; that it is a synthesis of all the states attributed to the “merely moral” men after they had been acquired individually, through long discipline and practice, perhaps through whole series of generations; that high spirituality is just the spiritualization of justice and a benevolent severity that knows how to charge itself with the preservation of the order of rank in the world among things themselves – and not just among people.

What is this "order of rank" that he refers to?

This men was right
>Slave morality is a "nay-saying" attitude or herd morality which holds to the standard of that which is useful or beneficial to the weak or powerless. The virtues are sympathy, kindness, and humility. Strong and independent individuals are evil.

How do we argue against nihilism again?

I like the meditations of Nietzsche, and I haven't read Max Stirner yet, but from what I have seen here, I get the feeling that they complement each other. Is it true?

>Hasnt read The Birth of Tragedy
>Hasnt read The Geneology of Morals
>Hasnt read The Gay Science
>Hasnt read Beyond Good and Evil
Thus Spake is what he builds up to mang, please get a better understanding.
Slave morality is traced back to Socratic thinking btw, he wasnt just mocking Christianity and he has huge points to show why its correct and why its led to the downfall of Western (specifically Germanic) culture.

To ignore Nietzsche is a worse sin than ignoring Hume or Hegel I'd dare say.

What are the philosophers that are the most often misrepresented, whether on purpose or not, or grossly oversimplified, besides pic related ?

Which philosopher are you most like? For me, it's pic related. Intelligent, nihilistic, and with a wicked sense of humor.

I've had a sort of on and off hate/love thing with Nietzsche for about a decade now. He's probably the one that influenced me the most, not necessarily in the sense that I adhere to a lot of Nietzschean ideas, but because he's the one that got the ball rolling for me and triggered me into thinking.

Reading his entire oeuvre and his biography gives you such a different idea of him than just reading a few books that you may as well be looking at a different philosopher. I went from interest to admiration to doubt to dismissal/resentment to pity and affection to a fondness mixed with all the former again and now he seems like an actual person to me rather than merely a philosopher, sort of like an old flawed friend who you love despite and because of everything he stands for.

1. If Suicide is criminal, it must be a transgression of one's duty either to God or the health of one's society as a whole.
God: Suicide is no more a rebellion against God than is saving the life of someone who would otherwise die. One's own despair is bound to lead to death by an external force either way.
Society: A man who retires from a life that has come to a stall, does no harm to society. He only ceases to do good; which, if it be an injury, is of the lowest kind.

Was Hume right, /lit/? Should suicide be legal?

Hi /lit/. I am an italian student,and i am at the 3rd year of philosophy. We just started Friedrich Nietzsche,and I am deeply attracted by him.
Where should I start reading?
It is better to go for chronological order or somehow else?
(Got a copy of Ecce Homo for a very low price but still not read it.)
P.s.:Probably made tons of silly grammatical errors. I am sorry for those :)