/lit/ - Literature

>By birth, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebeian. We are told, and can see in sculptures of him, 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 in some way. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropological criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo [monstrous in appearance, monstrous in spirit]. But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would be consistent with the famous judgment of the physiognomist that so offended the friends of Socrates. This foreigner told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum — that he harbored in himself all the worst vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!"

>>13204527
> close to nothing of value
Nietzsche's system of philosophy was mostly about organizing your values hierarchically and achieving them. He viewed other philosophers/people as beginning their pursuits of achieving value via appropriation. Philosophers, for example, often seek truth. Christians follow what is told to them to be moral. Half-nihilists like Schopenhauer and Kant submit to objective abstractions. And although animals follow their values in a pure way, they aren't sophisticated like humans are so to copy that is not a human thing to do, it's not about just doing whatever you want in the moment, it's about maximizing your own value in human terms, with longevity in size and scope. I think he crystalized the core of human values into a sort of pursuit of power for the sake of power. There is also some evidence that a lot of his philosophy seems to originate from an attitude about sex and power. His philosophy is powerful to a lot of people from all walks of life, I suspect it's because a lot of people have repressed their sexuality and feel trapped in a mind-prison of appropriated values and they think it's refreshing to read and helps them get themselves back into what they really want in life and how to get it, sometimes this leads people to misinterpret what he writes and become assholes though so it's dubious self-help advice. Philosophically, I think his writing is interesting because it calls attention to values and how we as individuals, and even as groups, should organize them. That topic had not been approached *in this specific way* prior. Most people were just setting up moral systems based on religious texts, categorical abstractions, animalistic attitudes, and nihilistic ideas, so it's kind of original. I think he was right in his criticisms but wrong in the system he was establishing , like most philosophers his ideas were ultimately themselves based on the abstractions he himself criticized, which is why his text sometimes seems to contradict itself and feel kind of wrong if you're listening and paying attention to what he is saying. But the study of values is really an interesting topic and I think he's worth reading. It's also refreshing after spending years reading transcendental idealism.

>I am no man, I am dynamite

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

What is the official Christian response against the accusations made by this man?

>“The reabsorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces toward the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, amoung the Brahmans).”
-Nietzsche’s NOTES (1880-1881)

>>11550657
Read N.

>bro
>if you have faith, ur fuckin dumb

Elves: nordics
Hobbits: Anglo-celt-hibernian
Southrons: Germans ? (See pic related)
Dwarves: ?
Orcs: ?

In 1900, the German egyptologist George Steindorff reported that, "the feast of marrying a boy was celebrated with great pomp, and the money paid for a boy sometimes amounted to fifteen pound, while the money paid for a woman was a little over one pound."[12] The archaeologist Count Byron de Prorok reported in 1937 that "an enthusiasm could not have been approached even in Sodom... Homosexuality was not merely rampant, it was raging...Every dancer had his boyfriend...[and] chiefs had harems of boys.[13]

Walter Cline noted that, "all normal Siwan men and boys practice sodomy...the natives are not ashamed of this; they talk about it as openly as they talk about love of women, and many if not most of their fights arise from homosexual competition....Prominent men lend their sons to each other. All Siwans know the matings which have taken place among their sheiks and their sheiks' sons....Most of the boys used in sodomy are between twelve and eighteen years of age."[14] In the late 1940s, a Siwan merchant told the visiting British novelist Robin Maugham that the Siwan men "will kill each other for boy. Never for a woman".[15]

Ancient Egypt... so how 'bout that Traditionalism then?

>>11110007
It is entirely possible that I am wrong. Still love me some Neetch

Was Nietzsche black?
>odd nose shape
>swarthy skintone
>rejected society because he felt rejected by it
>never accepted by academia

just not in the way Nietzsche conceived of the ubermensch

and tfw you realize Nietzsche died in a tragic way just as his fascination with Greek tragedy prefigured