/lit/ - Literature

Is there any reason at all to read Nietzsche if you've read Plato? Plato defined all of the major concepts that Nietzsche tried to understand, but in a superior form
>fate
>will
>power
>eternal return (myth of er)
>nihilism
>death of gods (conflict of ages)
>art
>greatest man
And he discussed ideas that are perhaps more important than these, while also figuring out how they all worked together (or against one another).
Is Nietzsche just one of the bad footnotes to Plato?

>>13393897
It is an authority which allows for our complete freedom outside of it, guides us to seek out its essence and realise its being. And when we fail this we are forced into other forms and values, and become further divided from the One to the point that the form and ideal return in unrecognizable shapes and patterns; lifeless. The material without form is ugliness, while the essence of art is material's forming as an eternal presence. This is why we say it is beautiful, as its power exists beyond the material realm, even captures us within a sense of eternal laws. Material reveals its deeper qualities, the still image moves; hence the natural opposition to realism in the greatest works.

The Forms perform in much the same way, they are not necessarily unworldly, but rather an unseen presence which guide us towards our own ideal. They only appear in opposition to us to the degree that we are distanced from their necessity. This invariably occurs in times of great wealth or bare survival, and in an era when these positions have achieved synthesis we might say that negation only proves the power of the Form.

>>13195514
If you can't recognise that this isn't art then you might have autism. Let me guess, you're also in threads about modern art decrying the loss of beauty...