/lit/ - Literature

I like Nietzsche's take on good and bad as a coping mechanism.

If you're rich and powerful, money and power are good because you have them, loyalty, honesty and tradition are good too, because those keep you in power.
Poverty and weakness are bad, because that means losing things you have. Treachery and insurrection are bad, because those could cause you to lose your status.

Conversely, if you are poor and powerless, you have an interest in believing money doesn't buy you happiness and power corrupts to preserve your confidence and self-esteem. If you lost those and spent all day moping in a depression you might lose your job, you might not tend your fields, accidentally or intentionally killing yourself by self-sabotage.

I suppose Neitzscheian analysis is as close to accounting for taste as you can get. People like things they have, or reasonably believe they can get, because otherwise they'd have to face their own inadequacies as reasons why they can't be on top of the world. Most people don't have the strength to look in the mirror, they either don't believe what they see or if they do, don't believe they can overcome themselves.

How does the Ubermensch live his life?

delet this thread

Getting really sick of the Rationalists. Sam Harris and the other arch-tippers. They're such a hilarious contradiction, being the last defenders of an ethic they claim to despise. In one hand they have a burning hate for the religious, specifically Christian. Though Dawkins and Harris have the intellectual honesty to attack the Muslims despite the Muslims' eagerness to attack back with bullets, most would rather be politically correct than logically consistent.

But in the other hand the hold all of the a priori assumptions that the Christians gave them, and just assume 'muh sianze' is enough to justify them after the fact. They're basically larping as purely rational, skeptical minds, when the very act of value judging is irrational. They make a leap of faith in assuming that violence is bad, life is better than death, pleasure is better than pain, it's better to tell the truth than a lie, etc. They seem to automatically assume that the Western/Christian ethic is both the default of humanity, and a conclusion of perfect logic. And when questioned on the fact they just squirm and tap dance, completely dumbfounded that the objective superiority of "well-being" and a "good life" also must be rationally deduced. It's like they fell asleep in 1870 and just woke up now.

Despite being extreme atheists, the only actual critique they have of Christians is a literalistic belief in bible stories, which only fundie retards actually browbeat into people. They're a brainlet intellectual movement responding to a brainlet religious movement.

>>8956831
get the fug out

>>8571465
>implying you can do anything with acne but wait it out
>implying black clothes are bad
>implying Niecher isn't cool

>>8414190
Holy fuck, Nietzsche was a savage.

Why didn't other philosophers come up with cool names for their books?

>>7075005
>tfw your entire existence is the culmination of power inscribed by institutions onto your body

>>7013064
/thread

>>7013066
The syphilis theory was debunked, it was most likely just dementia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3313279/Madness-of-Nietzsche-was-cancer-not-syphilis.html

>>7013111
>The problem of nihilism was not 'solved' by Nietzsche
Depends on what you mean by a solution. If you just want a cut and dry, mathematical solution to the problem, you're not gonna get one because life doesn't work like that outside of mathematics and logic, two fabrications of the human mind. Nietzsche did solve the issue of nihilism through his philosophy, a much more intangible solution of course but a solution nonetheless as far as life is concerned.

>>7013120
Did you even read Zarathustra? His "friends", whom he addresses throughout the book are the same as rivals to him, he encourages them to strive against him and in striving against him is how you come to inherit his philosophy and become his equal. Overall it is very warrior-like. Don't forget that Nietzsche said that turning the other cheek is disrespectful to the other person and that an eye for an eye is the honorable way to do things.

>>7013180
Why does it suck? When you reach the level of understanding he possesses, when you become a life-affirming Yes-sayer, life becomes no more about truth but about your values. You can break down the "stages" of human perception like this, stage 1 being the most primitive mind:

Stage 1: You're the ego's bitch. The "I".
Stage 2: The "I" is put behind, but now you're truth's bitch.
Stage 3: You have become the Self and ego and truth are YOUR bitch now.

Nietzsche put forth his own value system towards the end, which is the final stage in action. The last stage of the life-affirming Yes-sayer requires a big fat NO in order to express its YES — a new stone tablet of laws, your laws, must be established. Creation requires destruction, and giving birth is painful; consider the harshness and dictation in Nietzsche's later writing as the necessary pain in birthing his new value system, which is beyond truth, beyond the ego. and especially beyond good and evil.

>2015
>still writing atheist literature

Schoppy and Fritz already murdered this shit, go find another dead horse to whip

>>6822798
All right op, what you wanna do is go grab yourself of this German guy fredrich Nietzsche's book on the genealogy of morals. Then what you do is read Foucault's essay "Nietzsche, genealogy, history" which will explain how he continues the method. Then start reading either discipline and punish or history of sexuality volume 1.

>>6747020
Last man get out.

>>6727770
This man can help you.

>>6565246

INTENTIONS are analysed from COMPASSION viewpoints. WE SUFFER the INTENTIONS of the CRIMINAL as if we were doing it.

COMPASSION is for the WEAK minded, it fills the HEART neglecting the SPIRIT

we don't want the HEART to take our SPIRIT, we see the CONSEQUENCES and then punish them.

this is the FIRST PRINCIPLE of our JUSTICE

>>6298695

The fundamental contradiction in that morality which at present stands in high honour is here indicated : the motives to such a morality are in antithesis to its principle! That with which this morality wishes to prove itself, refutes it out of. its criterion of what is moral ! The maxim, " Thou Shalt renounce thyself and offer . thyself as a sacrifice," in order not to be inconsistent with its own morality, could only be decreed by a being who himself renounced his own advantage thereby, and who perhaps in the required self-sacrifice of individuals brought about his own dissolution. As soon, however, as the neighbour (or society) recommended altruism on account of its utility, the precisely antithetical proposition, " Thou shalt seek thy advantage even at the expense of everybody else," was brought into use: accordingly, "thou shalt," and " thou shalt not," are preached in one breath !

3/3

>>6016906

>>5087451
>Krautchan has a philosophy board and 4chan doesn't
For what reason