/lit/ - Literature

If Nietzsche would be born in our age (some 20-30 years ago), he'd probably be some form of transsexual, most likely a transbian.

I think most philosophers would be.

I've started to feel like Nietzsche's immense motivation and willpower are (probably) a side effect of his disease. We know that his brain was slowly collapsing for years, and this can have all number of effects on a person's chemistry. It just seems unlikely Nietzsche had to seriously struggle with this, because he always had intense motivation and energy for the last decade of his life despite the disease.

Is his philosophy really practicable then? I want so badly to pursue my dreams, but the energy and motivation and willpower just aren't there.

Do you find the works of most philosophers and authors to be shit? I don't mean run-of-the-mill writers but even famous ones. Schope and Nietzsche are 2 of the only writers who I've read where it feels like we are mentally on a similar page.

Oddly the other writers who I enjoy & relate to a lot were inspirations for those two, like Montaigne and Balthasar Gracian. But I just can't enjoy normal writers much

How do we re-start National-Socialism?

Would he have been a Trotskyite Socialist?

What exactly is his compatibility with the Right?

To me the closest 'philosophers' get to simply 'describing' how the Right functions are 'philosophers' like Plato, Augustine and Hobbes.

Did this nigga ever acknowledge that some aspects of “slave morality” were beneficial to the group and in consequential beneficial to the individual? Also how bad was his knowledge of the Greeks since judeochristian values come from Greek philosophy?

Who would he consider to be the 'new philosophers'?

Books on aristocratic anarchism?

Nietzsche reads like Gorgias, Protagoras and other sophists.

Why isn’t he discussed on this board?

>For what is freedom? That one has the will to assume responsibility for oneself. That one maintains the distance which separates us. That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself. That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one's cause, not excluding oneself. Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of "pleasure." The human being who has become free -- and how much more the spirit who has become free -- spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior.
If anything proves philosophers are full of shit it's that they don't embody their own work. If Nietzche claims that the ideal free man is a warrior, why was he a spindly cuck who had a mental breakdown to the point that he could no longer care for himself? Philosophy is self improvement garbage that is not meant to be taken seriously.

Is continuing to read Nietzsche going to turn me into an incel?

>Nietzsche felt that modern antisemitism was "despicable" and contrary to European ideals.[168] Its cause, in his opinion, was the growth in European nationalism and the endemic "jealousy and hatred" of Jewish success.[168] He wrote that Jews should be thanked for helping uphold a respect for the philosophies of ancient Greece,[168] and for giving rise to "the noblest human being (Christ), the purest philosopher (Baruch Spinoza), the mightiest book, and the most effective moral code in the world".[169]

Without a doubt Nietzsche would completely support Trans. If Nietzsche supported anything more than self-creation I do not know what that was. The strength it took for the first Trans people to come out would be supported hands down as cowardice was very frowned upon. And the very nugget of existentialism is that there is no essence and thus life CAN be what you MAKE IT. The only beef that Nietzsche would have with any LGBT community would be with demands for rights in the far left manor of placing oneself into a victim position. The true Nietzschian way would be to poetisize the movement and thus create a new normal. Which, indeed is exactly what has happened.

Cheers, Mate.

>People wished to make them contemptible by treating them contemptibly for nearly twenty centuries, and refusing them access to all honourable positions and dignities, and by pushing them further down into the meaner trades—and under this process indeed they have not become any cleaner. But contemptible? They have never ceased for a moment from believing themselves qualified for the very highest functions, nor have the virtues of the suffering ever ceased to adorn them. Their manner of honouring their parents and children, the rationality of their marriages and marriage customs, distinguishes them amongst all Europeans. Besides this, they have been able to create for themselves a sense of power and eternal vengeance from the very trades that were left to them. Even in palliation of their usury we cannot help saying that, without this occasional pleasant and useful torture inflicted on their scorners, they would have experienced difficulty in preserving their self-respect for so long. For our self-respect depends upon our ability to make reprisals in both good and evil things. Nevertheless, their revenge never urges them on too far, for they all have that liberty of mind, and even of soul, produced in men by frequent changes of place, climate, and customs of neighbours and oppressors, they possess by far the greatest experience in all human intercourse, and even in their passions they exercise the caution which this experience has developed in them. They are so certain of their intellectual versatility and shrewdness that they never, even when reduced to the direst straits, have to earn their bread by manual labour as common workmen, porters, or farm hands. In their manners we can still see that they have never been inspired by chivalric and noble feelings, or that their bodies have ever been girt with fine weapons: a certain obtrusiveness alternates with a submissiveness which is often tender and almost always painful.

>Now, however, that they unavoidably inter-marry more year after year with the noblest blood of Europe, they will soon have a considerable heritage of good intellectual and physical manners, so that in another hundred years they will have a sufficiently noble aspect not to render themselves, as masters, ridiculous to those whom they will have subdued. And this is important! and therefore a settlement of the question is still premature. They themselves know very well that the conquest of Europe or any act of violence is not to be thought of; but they also know that some day or other Europe may, like a ripe fruit, fall into their hands, if they do not clutch at it too eagerly. eagerly. In the meantime, it is necessary for them to distinguish themselves in all departments of European distinction and to stand in the front rank: until they shall have advanced so far as to determine themselves what distinction shall mean. Then they will be called the pioneers and guides of the Europeans whose modesty they will no longer offend.

>>21042319
>socrates?
>pussy ass little bitch
socratessisters... we got too cocky...

>>20868134
>no real response
You being to retarded to accept and answer does not make the answer go away anon

>>20868343
Older then The kids who had their minds fucking blown by it in the 1960s were dude
But that really is just a satire of a reality unto itself
The book is on its own an elevation of the juvenile feelings of alienation, narcissism and isolation that most introvert d people feel in their teen years then grow out of necessity as time passes
It’s defenders however are MORE then fucking happy to impotently attempt to label those who don’t judge the value of the work as they do as
>”juvenile”
For the sake of discreditment of their opposition.
It’s pathetic
Just like the books is pathetic
Just like the culture which popularized it was and is fucking pathetic
The delusions of the most privileged and decadent generation to EVER fucking exist
So removed from the struggle for survival they can barely be called “human” anymore (or for that matter alive)

>got lucky once had sex once in my life with a fat ugly slut from a nightclub
>will never get a girlfriend or have sex for the rest of my life
Am I ready to take up his philosophy now?

>>20657307
What if a quantify the strength of a belief based on how much I would lose betting on it, yet believe it anyway? I'd say that's a better measure of strength, because it presupposes a lack of attachment (passivity).

>>20523525
>which were self-sufficient
They weren't. You don't seem to understand what self-sufficiency actually is, as though simply growing food means one is "self-sufficient." Self-sufficiency relates to one's environment just as much as it does to food production, which is just one part of the environment. The point being for anything to be actually self-sufficient, not just relatively sufficient as a unit, structure and privilege are necessary "evils", if you're really intent on considering them to be evil to begin with. To be blunt self-sufficiency is not even a worthy goal to anything except a vegetable, it is only a prerequisite to increasing power and absorption and adaptation of smaller and weaker units.
>>20523545
>Capitalism is when one person owns property and employs other people to work on that property via wage/labor.
Capitalism is also when multiple people own the same property. The quantity of people who own property is not very relevant. Likewise, who exactly performs the labor does not seem relevant to me when there are still different functional groups performing qualitatively different labor and exchanging with each other in capitalist commerce. It's the same difference between stock brokers who technically work in the sense that they spend hours doing something for money, and farmers who do the same thing, it's labor but qualitatively different, even if you consider that quality to be "productivity", something hard to pin down in the first place.
>The same thing that decides that now.
The deciding factor today is market forces and intelligence/cunning. Whoever is mathematically gifted and able to predict trends, along with a degree of chance, is who moves up. There is no conscious authority, which is exactly what causes so much confusion and chaos, resentment even. How can you possibly respect people who appear to have simply "taken advantage of an impersonal force" (a force with no intrinsic moral value) in order to get above you? There doesn't appear to be any reason or authoritative decision, which is exactly where resentment stems from. So long as there is a figure of authority, with a sword in one hand and a scales in the other, there will generally be justice (ie so long as there is a "sufficient reason" palatable to the human mind). The way things are, there is simply an impersonal mechanism which does not have either a sword nor scales. Well, the only sense in which the scales are maintained is that even the rich don't tend to last long in this environment compared to the old world, but people tend to only notice their own deprivation compared to the successes of others.

Was he a misogynist?

>>20493201
>When did /lit/ become so cucked? It’s a fucking roastie fuck off man

>>20461100
>All men are suffering currently

if you're suffering, that's on u. do something about it, u little twat