/lit/ - Literature

Was he a libtard?

How to become an Übermensch?

Why did we kill God?

What were his views on race?

He's an amazing writer but zoomers worship him relentlessly as a philosopher. It's philosophy for kids who find logic and metaphysics too difficult.

Where the hell does he explain the will to power concept in full? I've read most of his work at this point and he always mentions it in passing as if the reader is already supposed to know what it means.

From The Gay Science:
>Whatever in nature and in history is of my own kind, speaks to me, spurs me on, and comforts me; the rest I do not hear or forget right away. We are always only in our own company.
What did he mean by this?

“I am too hot and scorched by my own thought: it is often about to take my breath away.”

F.N. - Thus Spoke Zarathustra

What did he know, bros? Into which great heights did he ascend?

I forgot to put him in the title. The quotes are from Genealogy of Morals and Nietzsche Contra Wagner.

>To have glued this New Testament, a kind of rococo of taste in every respect, to the Old Testament to form one book - the “Bible”, 'the' book - that is perhaps the greatest audacity and “sin against the spirit” which literary Europe had on its conscience.

>The happiness of man is: I will. The happiness of woman is: he wills.
Uh, g-guys?

>A philosopher may be recognized by the fact that he avoids three glittering and loud things: fame, princes, and women—which is not to say they do not come to him.
Well, /lit/? Are you a philosopher?

>A Homer would not have created an Achilles nor a Goethe a Faust if Homer had been an Achilles or Goethe a Faust. Whoever is completely and wholly an artist is to all eternity separated from the “real,” the actual; on the other hand, one can understand how he may sometimes weary to the point of desperation of the eternal “unreality” and falsity of his innermost existence—and that then he may well attempt what is most forbidden him, to lay hold of actuality, for once actually to be. With what success? That is easy to guess.

>The Romans were the strong and noble, and nobody stronger and nobler has yet existed, on earth or even been dreamed of: every remnant of them, every inscription gives delight, if only one divines what it was that was there at work. The Jews, on the contrary, were the priestly nation of ressentiment par excellence
>Which of them has won for the present, Rome or Judea? But there can be no doubt: consider to whom one bows down in Rome itself today, as if they were the epitome of all the highest values—and not only in Rome but over almost half the earth, everywhere that man has become tame or desires to become tame: three Jews, as is known, and one Jewess (Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the rug weaver Paul, and the mother of the aforementioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: Rome has been defeated beyond all doubt.

>What was the real etymological significance of the designations for “good” coined in the various languages? I found they all led back to the same conceptual transformation—that everywhere “noble,” “aristocratic” in the social sense, is the basic concept...
>The Latin malus (beside which I set melas) may designate the common man as the dark-colored, above all as the black-haired man (“hie niger est —”), as the pre-Aryan occupant of the soil of Italy who was distinguished most obviously from the blond, that is Aryan, conqueror race by his color; Gaelic, at any rate, offers us a precisely similar case—fin (for example in the name Fin-Gal), the distinguishing word for nobility, finally for the good, noble, pure, originally meant the blond-headed, in contradistinction to the dark, black-haired aboriginal inhabitants.
>The conqueror and master race - the Aryan
WHAT I was told that Nietzsche was NOT racist NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>The degree and kind of a person’s sexuality reach up into the ultimate pinnacle of his spirit.

>Thus I want man and woman: the one fit for war, the other fit to give birth, but both fit to dance with head and limbs. And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.

>NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST BE NIHILISTIC
What was his problem?

Where do I start with this Chad? Thus spoke Zarathustra?

>All this resentment over the fact that some people like to spank their meat

>>>>>>>>>>>nietzsche was a nihilist
How the FUCK did this shit interpretation even come about

was he cringe or based?

>Nietzsche is not a hedonist, arguing that any passion in excess can "drag their victim down with the weight of their folly." However, he maintains that it is possible for the passions to ultimately become "spiritualized." Christianity, he criticizes, instead deals with immoderate passions by attempting to remove the passion completely. In an analogy, Nietzsche claims that the Christian approach to morality is not much different than how an unskilled dentist might treat any tooth pain by removing the tooth entirely rather than pursue other less aggressive and equally effective treatments. Taking a psychological turn, Nietzsche writes that people who want to exterminate certain passions outright do so mainly because they are "too weak-willed, too degenerate to impose moderation" upon their own selves.

Is he right /lit/?

>“I marvel at the fine instinct in your friendship (I hope the expression doesn’t strike you as too animal-like), at your hitting upon these Indian maxims just when for the past two months I’ve been looking toward India with a growing thirst. . . . The conviction that life is worthless and that all goals are delusions comes over me so strongly, above all when I’m lying sick in bed, that I long to hear more about that country, hopefully something free of Judeo-Christian phraseology. . . . "
What did Nietzsche mean by "Judeo-Christian phraseology" I thought the idea of a Judeo-Christian cultural hegemony on Europe was a mere WW2 fabrication, but Nietzsche said this in 1875... so which is it? Are European writings influenced by Judaism and Christianity or Christianity alone?