/lit/ - Literature

>The sick man is a parasite of society. In a certain state it is indecent to live longer. To go on vegetating in cowardly dependence on physicians and machinations, after the meaning of life, the right to life, has been lost, that ought to prompt a profound contempt in society. The physicians, in turn, would have to be the mediators of this contempt — not prescriptions, but every day a new dose of nausea with their patients. To create a new responsibility, that of the physician, for all cases in which the highest interest of life, of ascending life, demands the most inconsiderate pushing down and aside of degenerating life — for example, for the right of procreation, for the right to be born, for the right to live. To die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly. Death freely chosen, death at the right time, brightly and cheerfully accomplished amid children and witnesses: then a real farewell is still possible, as the one who is taking leave is still there; also a real estimate of what one has achieved and what one has wished, drawing the sum of one's life — all in opposition to the wretched and revolting comedy that Christianity has made of the hour of death.

I arbitrarily swap ideologies every few days, legitimately believing whatever I feel like, until I decide to believe something else.
Now I'm no expert on Nietzschean philosophy, but I'm pretty sure that makes me the Übermensch.
I need someone to confirm that is in fact what the Übermensch is, then tell me what they think I should do with this information.

>>10806053
i see what you tried to do there, but you only made yourself sound more stupid. even if we take this statement on good faith, youve just admitted to only ever being a recipient of quality, not a creator of it. a true underman if ive ever heard of one

>>10233046
You mean "Liberals".

It's impossible to reach any egalitarian conclusion with Nietzsche, so he is essentially not a liberal thinker at all let alone a leftist thinker.

The only thing that people still take seriously from Nietzsche is his critique of language, which saw a huge following through Heidegger and Derrida, but also Foucault.

>>10046700
"What destroys more quickly than to work, to think, to feel without inner necessity, without a deep personal choice, without pleasure? As an automaton of “duty”? It is straightaway the recipe to décadence, to
idiocy even... Kant became an idiot. — And this was the contemporary of Goethe! This fatal spider was considered the German
philosopher — still is! I take care in saying what I think about the Germans..."

Germany, eternal destroyer of europa

In a time in which people have access to more information than ever, we see a trend of complete communities online going through mutual stages in their lives. From the Atheists of the 2000's to the Christians of the 2010's. This has culminated into the rise of more and more public intellectuals, each decade attempting to produce a more intellectual and wide-reaching figure than before. This too comes along with the mass disdain we see on forums like these where typically young men who live in solitude express hatred for these figures as a result of not being 'perfect' or 'right' enough. A sort of "getting over" or "growing out of" occurs which each new public intellectual/figure we see as we become accustomed to their ideas or if they too do not 'progress' or 'rise' with us in our communal development.

Could this mean that as each decade passes and the populace becomes more and more informed about esoteric subjects and ideas, we will see a continual rise in these public figures, each more and more intelligent than before until *one* emerges that may challenge them all? The Ubermensch?

I want to be superman

"Every aristocratic morality is intolerant about the education of the young,
disposal over women, marriage customs, relations between old and young
and penal laws (which only concern deviants): – it considers intolerance
itself to be a virtue, under the rubric of “justice.”"

" and the moral philosophers emerging at this time – what will they have to
preach? These sharp observers and layabouts discover that everything is rapidly coming to an end, that everything around them is ruined and creates ruin, that nothing lasts as long as the day after tomorrow except one species of person, the hopelessly mediocre . Only the mediocre have prospects for continuing on, for propagating – they are the people of the future, the only survivors: “Be like them! Be mediocre!” is the only morality that still makes sense, that still finds ears. But this morality of mediocrity is difficult to preach! It can never admit what it is and what it wants! It has to talk about moderation and dignity and duty and loving your neighbors, – it will have a hard time hiding its irony!"

>>8768463
>illiterate

mein sides your kind are silly sometimes

>>8761556
>We get a little farther every day

We do indeed.

How can I indentify my genuine will of power?

(nietzsche changes to aubermensch) This is aubermensch . And this... (after becoming an ascended ubermensch) ...this is what is known as a ubermensch that has ascended past a ubermensch .Or, you could just call this a ubermensch two

>>8193760
Yes.

See
>>8193895
>>8193915

was not german either.

Post your feel when not germany

"Nowadays we can already hear women’s voices which—by holy Aristophanes!—are frightening. They utter threats with medical clarity about what woman wants from man, from start to finish. Is it not in the very worst taste for woman to prepare like this to become scientific? So far, enlightening has fortunately been a man’s business, a man’s talent—in the process we remained “among ourselves.” In dealing with everything which women write about concerning “woman,” we may finally retain a healthy mistrust whether woman really wants enlightenment about herself—or is capable of wanting it. . . . Unless a woman by doing this is seeking some new finery for herself—so I do think that dressing herself up belongs to the eternally feminine?—well, by doing this she does want to arouse fear of herself:—in that way perhaps she wants to dominate. But she does not want the truth. What does a woman have to do with truth? From the very beginning nothing is stranger, more unfavourable, or more hostile to women than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern appearance and beauty. We men should admit it—we honour and love precisely this art and this instinct in woman, we who have a hard time of it and are happy to get our relief by associating with beings under whose hands, looks, and tender foolishness our seriousness, our gravity and profundity, seem almost silly. Finally I put the question: Has a woman ever herself conceded that a woman’s head is profound, that a woman’s heart is just? And is it not true that, speaking generally, “woman” up to this point has been held in contempt mostly by woman herself—and not at all by us?"

"One can measure the effect of the ugly with a dynamometer."

>>6736958
>and he who would be a creator in good and evil, he must first be a destroyer and shatter values.

>I obey my Dionysian nature, which does not know how to separate the nodoing
from the yea-saying.

Nobody, Nietzsche ushered in the end of philosophy.

"“Emancipation of women” — this is the
instinctive hatred of the dysfunctional, that is, unfruitful woman,
toward one who is functional — the struggle against “man” is always
only a means, a pretext, a tactic. By elevating themselves as “woman per
se,” as “higher woman,” as woman “idealist,” they want to bring down
the general rank and level of women; there is no surer means for that
than higher education, trousers, and political voting-cattle rights.
Basically, the emancipated are the anarchists in the world of the
“eternal feminine,” those who have missed the boat and whose
deepest instinct is for revenge...A whole species of the most
malevolent “idealism” — which, by the way, also occurs in men, for
instance in Henrik Ibsen, that typical old maid — has as its goal the
poisoning of good conscience, of the natural love between the
sexes..."

>>6050139
" I shall
now give my notion of what is modern. According to the measure
of energy of every age, there is also a standard that determines
which virtues shall be allowed and which forbidden. The age
either has the virtues of ascending life, in which case it resists
the virtues of degeneration with all its deepest instincts. Or it
is in itself an age of degeneration, in which case it requires the
virtues of declining life,—in which case it hates everything that
justifies itself, solely as being the outcome of a plenitude, or a
superabundance of strength."

" Nowadays we can already hear women’s voices which—by holy Aristophanes!—are frightening. They utter threats with medical clarity about what woman wants from man, from start to finish. Is it not in the very worst taste for woman to prepare like this to become scientific? So far, enlightening has fortunately been a man’s business, a man’s talent—in the process we remained “among ourselves.” In dealing with everything which women write about concerning “woman,” we may finally retain a healthy mistrust whether woman really wants enlightenment about herself—or is capable of wanting it. . . . Unless a woman by doing this is seeking some new finery for herself—so I do think that dressing herself up belongs to the eternally feminine?—well, by doing this she does want to arouse fear of herself:—in that way perhaps she wants to dominate. But she does not want the truth. What does a woman have to do with truth? From the very beginning nothing is stranger, more unfavourable, or more hostile to women than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern appearance and beauty. We men should admit it—we honour and love precisely this art and this instinct in woman, we who have a hard time of it and are happy to get our relief by associating with beings under whose hands, looks, and tender foolishness our seriousness, our gravity and profundity, seem almost silly. Finally I put the question: Has a woman ever herself conceded that a woman’s head is profound, that a woman’s heart is just? And is it not true that, speaking generally, “woman” up to this point has been held in contempt mostly by woman herself—and not at all by us? "

>>5925863
>then who or what comes after reading Nietzsche?

The walk on the tightrope.