/lit/ - Literature

>>8414364

He did read Hegel, he just didn't think him worthy of that much attention. From his lectures on education:

>“Prussia, by subordinating all educational aspirations to state purposes, has succeeded in appropriating the one legacy of Hegelian philosophy that can be exploited in practice: its apotheosis of the state.”

>Wake up early
>Work until 11:00
>Shitloads of strong black tea & filtered water throughout the day
>Beefsteak & 7lbs of fruit for lunch
>Laugh at hotel manager as he wonders how/why I eat so much fruit
>2-4 hour afternoon walk
>Shitload of biscuits for dinner
>Work until 23:00
>Sleep
>Repeat

Who here living the /lit/erary lifestyle with a /lit/erary diet?

>>8331818

Was about to post this.

'Good' and 'Evil' is the wrong dichotomy.

Don't waste your time.

>"Nothing is true, everything is permitted."

Did he mean it?

Religious types always bring up that little line against Nietzsche. The context, however, involves it being spoken by Zarathustra's frantic shadow - which is undergoing some sort of existential panic/turmoil on account of having no cause, after which Zarathustra promptly tells it to calm down, go to his cave and rest.

Give me one reason slave-morality isn't the best thing for humanity.

Hack fraud related

What did he get right, and wrong?

>>8229547

This.

>>8229568

Why the fuck would a Christian quote Nietzsche in favour of his argument?

Has anyone refuted Nietzsche?

I'm currently reading 'Human, all too Human' and it's hard to fault anything he says. Aphorism 107 in particular (Irresponsibility and Innocence), where he seems to most clearly set out his argument against the ideas of 'Good' and 'Evil', has given me particular food for thought; all of it challenging, and leading to conclusions I am trying to resist.

Then again, he himself calls it man's "bitterest pill", so I don't think he was under any illusions either.

Still, it's hard to imagine a world that would be built upon his thinking. What would things look like, if the traditional morality of 'Good' and 'Evil' was superceded by the morality of Pleasure/Pain/Vanity/Egoism?

I do find myself with the lingering impression that he misunderstood Schopenhauer on one point, however. Namely, "Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

Is /lit/ still within the confines of good and evil, or have we moved onwards and upwards?

>Perhaps! But who wishes to concern himself with such dangerous ‘Perhapses’! For that investigation one must await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will have other tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto prevalent—philosophers of the dangerous ‘Perhaps’ in every sense of the term. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers beginning to appear.

Who was he referring to here?

Please don't tell me it was those PoMo hacks or slimy fucks like Žižek.

Or could it be that Nietzche's 'New Philosophers' have already been and gone? Or perhaps they have not appeared yet?