/lit/ - Literature

What does he think about Aristotle?

that which can destroy truth, should.

*inverts you from behind*

Reject all subjective, religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

In the first essay of genealogy of morals he claimed to have a criticism of Herbert Spencer’s concept of goodness, which he equated to “that which proves useful to the individual repeatedly” (paraphrasing). He never went in depth about this criticism, but is it some more of that ding an sich shit?

Nestle is literally me.

He is intelligent, nihilistic and with a wicked sense of humor. Just like me!

Litterally feels over reals: the philosopher

I'm new to philosophy and I find nihilism quit interesting so my plan is tor read some of Nietzsche's works. I plan to read thus spoke Zarathustra first. Does he heavily reference any other philosophers a lot or any other theories that i need to know about before hand? No i will not start with the greeks; i dont have enough time. I wanna read Nietzsche now, is there any best sequence of reading the books?Also, whats the best translation. I will probably just use a breakdown of the book from some website.

>no wife, family, children
>not one single girlfriend in his life
>disaapointed by his favorite artist
>publicly dismissed by all his contemporaries
>chronic pain
>almost blind
What kept him going?

>Because of a quirk in my own nature, to which I confess reluctantly, for it concerns itself with morality, with everything which up to the present has been celebrated on earth as morality, a quirk which came into my life early, so uninvited, so irresistibly, in such contradiction to my surroundings, my age, the examples around me, and my origin, that I almost have the right to call it my “a priori”—because of this, my curiosity and my suspicions soon enough had to pause at the question about where our good and evil really originated.
What did he mean by this?

What the fuck is the problem with philosophers? Are they all crazy?

Best primers on Nietzsche n chong?

>879. Every lifeform in the universe contributes, to some extent or other, in the universe's being exactly the way it is. This means that, if even a single lifeform did not want the universe to be exactly how it is, it would have acted in some way at least slightly differently to how it has acted, and as a result the universe would be at least a little different to what it actually is.The universe's being exactly the way it is PROVES that every lifeform in the universe WANTS it to be exactly the way it is.

>"And what about all those lifeforms whining that plenty of things in their lives and the universe are not what they want them to be?" Lifeforms that whine are weak, and hence not very intelligent. And lack of intelligence causes lack of understanding, including, and above all, self-understanding. Therefore whining is proof of nothing besides weakness, and certainly shouldn't be taken literally. Maybe those whining like whining? Have you ever thought about that? Maybe they simply enjoy it too much to let it go and actually try to achieve the things they are merely saying they want to achieve?
Ponder that for a moment. I know you have questions on this, and I'll get to them eventually, but in the meantime let this idea seep into your mind and marinate there for a while. As a result, you'll be that much readier to grasp the detailed, and earth-shatteringly radical, explanations when the time comes for them.

What did he mean by this?

I've heard that you're not supposed to take Nietzsche at face value, that much like Plato his work is supposed to help you come to your own conclusions rather than just blindly accept whatever he writes. Is this true? I want to know how serious Nietzsche was about his philosophy. Did he REALLY think of Christianity as decadent, pity as a weakener, life as something to be affirmed, the Overman as a goal, ressentiment as the biggest plague of them all, comfort-seekers as a bunch of Letzer Mensch, Vikings as cool and Socrates as degenerate, etc etc etc etc etc? Or have I just been bamboozled?

h-he was wrong, r-r-right? Send me books to keep me sane, ones that show he's wrong

I just want to see if anyone will have the same critique as I do. So far, I haven't found any that are like it.

so, lay it on me. What are your criticisms? Know of others? My deals with Nietzsche's stuff on the nature of human instinct.

Why was so afraid of taking a political position? I don't buy all that "I'm too cool for politics" crap. There is no way he could be so retarded.

How will REASON and LOGIC and SCIENCE and FACTS ever recover?

How do I start with philosophy? I tried to read Philosophy in the Tragic age of the Greeks but I didn't get it

>>11258502
>To feel truely good is to live morally, which is the same as to be free.

>>11253815
>he thinks the two can be separated

>"The re-absorption 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, among the Brahmins)."

Reminder that Nietzsche established a new metaphysik and if you don't read him through that lense you have not read him.

>says it's inherently wrong to assume you are smarter/better than everyone else, to assume you are morally biased in either direction
>assumes he is smarter/better than everyone else, and is morally good for being so
i fackin hate this guy tbqh