/lit/ - Literature

FUCK YOU SOCRATES

Anyone else not impressed at all with Nietzsche's writings?

Hey /lit/

I've been reading Human, All Too Human and I happened upon an aphorism I don't quite understand.

184:
"It is neither the best nor the worst of a book that is untranslatable."

>>4276660
There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross

I see people shitposting about him all the time on /lit/ but never any legitimate argument. If you disagree with this man let me ask you. Who do you read? Who do you think is better?

Can someone explain Neitzsche's ethics/morals to me and his perspectivism?
I'm doing a presentation on Friday for my Honors Philosophy course and I want to make sure I'm understanding him correctly.

What makes people immoral?

Could this man be anymore pleb

"[For what constitutes the tremendous historical uniqueness of that Persian is just the opposite of this. Zarathustra was the first to consider the fight of good and evil the very wheel in the machinery of things: the transposition of morality into the metaphysical realm, as a force, cause, and end in itself, is his work. [...] Zarathustra created this most calamitous error, morality; consequently, he must also be the first to recognize it. [...] His doctrine, and his alone, posits truthfulness as the highest virtue; this means the opposite of the cowardice of the "idealist” who flees from reality [...]—Am I understood?—The self-overcoming of morality, out of truthfulness; the self-overcoming of the moralist, into his opposite—into me—that is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth."

I'm currently reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra and I'm afraid I don't understands his stance on morality, at some point he paradoxically seems to criticise moral crusaders for moral reasons. There was also a passage attacking "clinging" people for being malevolent towards outsiders. Not to mention dismissing revolution for it's vindictive spirit. Was it hypocrisy and cowardice that he was really criticising, not moral flaws? I'm under an impression that he doesn't wholly reject morality, but believes it should be suspended if there is a good reason. Why he argues against revenge remains a mystery to me thought.

>>3949990
>Wagner
>still listening to romantic-nationalists-metaphysics

I hate you.

No surprise.

It's such a good feeling to know you're alive.
It's such a happy feeling: You're growing inside.
And when you wake up ready to say,
"I think I'll make a snappy new day."
It's such a good feeling, a very good feeling,
The feeling you know that I'll be back.
When the day is new.
And I'll have more...
Ideas for you.

What are your thoughts on Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical writings?

Ignore all of the abuse, out of context quotations and general lack of understanding of his work. I want to hear what people that have actually studied his work think.

Where does one start with lits favourite philosopher?

How can Nietzsche distance himself from metaphysics if he believes in the Will to Power?

How do you think WW1 would have affected Nietzsche?

Getting an obvious one out of the way: this is the eternal image of Nietzsche.

Nietzsche: just for edgy teenagers, or is there actual worth to his writings?

Hi, /lit/. I have recently become interested in philosophy and have decided to take the plunge and start reading some philosophical works. Having no experience with any philosophy before (besides -some- political philosophy books), can you push me in the right direction and give me a starting point?

>Books for the general reader are always ill-smelling books, the odour of paltry people clings to them.

So you want to live 'according to nature?' Oh, you noble Stoics, what a fraud is in this phrase! Imagine something like nature, profligate without measure, indifferent without measure, without purpose and regard, without mercy and justice, fertile and barren and uncertain at the same time, think of indifference itself as power — how could you live according to this indifference? Living — isn't that wanting specifically to be something other than this nature? Isn't living assessing, preferring, being unfair, being limited, wanting to be different? And assuming your imperative to 'live according to nature' basically amounts to 'living according to life' — well how could you not? Why make a principle out of what you yourselves are and must be?

Looks like I've found my Nietzsche.

"Everything has been done before. There are no original ideas left." - The thought of an unoriginal hack writer