/lit/ - Literature

Nietzsche's point, which is typically overlooked, is that it is a triumph of the intellect to appreciate a Rossini over others, while it is a triumph of sensuality to appreciate a Wagner over others. Both are geniuses in their respective domains. However, the intellect is what makes us human, while sensuality is more animalistic; thus, a Rossini is far rarer in nature, and consequently more miraculous. Nietzsche was only able to come to this conclusion by putting aside his intense passion for Wagner's music for a moment and instead listening carefully to his intellect alone. This contemplative adherence to the intellect is ultimately what characterizes aristocracy and what Nietzsche wishes to cultivate among Europeans once more when he praises Bizet, Rossini or Offenbach over Wagner.

>>23329744
>Why has everything gone to shit, relatively speaking, once they've risen to the ruling position?
They haven't risen to "the ruling position"...

This is unironically closer to the truth >>23329981

Money rules the world, centralized banks rule the world. It's not just Jews who are behind this, and not all Jews are part of this racket. WASPs are just as prevalent, if not more than Jews.

Capitalism isn't Jewish, it's Scottish. Democracy isn't Jewish, it's Scottish. HOWEVER — America's modern policies are neither democratic nor capitalist anymore. They serve a different aim now. It wasn't Jews who made or influenced these policy changes. It was communist and socialist ideologues and their gullible minions who did.

I fully understand the need and desire to identify and unite against a common enemy. However, this enemy isn't a certain religious group, a certain race, a certain class of wealth, a certain level of education, a certain gender... it's a certain culture. Our enemy is a cultural one, and that cultural enemy is best known as "the communist" (opponents of capitalism) and "the socialist" (opponents of democracy). This enemy's defining trait is RESENTMENT.

This enemy ROUTINELY goads people into conflicts with other groups so they can push their Trojan horse further and further into civilization. That's why all the hate against Jews, against women, against blacks, against the rich / poor, or whatever, is misguided. You're missing the forest for the trees when you engage in such petty conflicts.

Listen to the mustache man. He had it figured out about this cultural enemy of ours.

>>23308906
>>23309680
>Against the teaching of the influence of environment and external causes; the power coming from inside is infinitely superior; much that appears like influence acting from without is merely the subjection of environment to this inner power. Precisely the same environment may be used and interpreted in opposite ways: there are no facts. A genius is not explained by such theories concerning origins.

>The "subject" is a piece of fiction: the ego of which every one speaks when he blames egoism, does not exist at all. Our "ego"—which is not one with the unitary controlling force of our beings!—is really only an imagined synthesis; therefore there can be no "egoistic" actions.

>That thinking must be a measure of reality,—that what cannot be the subject of thought, cannot exist,—is a coarse non plus ultra of a moral blind confidence (in the essential principle of truth at the root of all things); this in itself is a mad assumption which our experience contradicts every minute.

>What separates me most deeply from the metaphysicians is: I don't concede that the 'I' is what thinks. Instead, I take the 'I' itself to be a construction of thinking, of the same rank as 'matter', 'thing', 'substance', 'individual', 'purpose', 'number'; in other words to be only a regulative fiction with the help of which a kind of constancy and thus 'knowability' is inserted into, invented into, a world of becoming. Up to now belief in grammar, in the linguistic subject, object, in verbs has subjugated the metaphysicians: I teach the renunciation of this belief. It is only thinking that posits the 'I': but up to now philosophers have believed, like the 'common people', that in 'I think' there lay something or other of unmediated certainty and that this 'I' was the given cause of thinking, in analogy with which we 'understood' all other causal relations. However habituated and indispensable this fiction may now be, that in no way disproves its having been invented: something can be a condition of life and nevertheless be false.

So I’ve been reading Beyond Good and Evil and is soon finished with chapter 3. Honestly, is it just me or could most of chapter 2 and some of chapter 3 been excluded entirely or, at the very least, written so that you could understand them? Whilst I get the general message of each chapter with ease, some of it—if not large chunks—are simply unreadable. Am I supposed to understand literally everything, or should I simply not give a fuck?

How did he do it? In an age when philosophy started to take the form of obscure, science like field he came along and published a story, a fantasy novel. After a hundred years philosomeme went beyond anything Hegel could imagine in incorporating buzzwords and torturing the language to play games. But philosomemers still seem to not be able to supress Nietszche. He is still here, in the age of scientific paper publishing age he is still not out of fashion. How?

>dies at 55 of syphillus he caught from a prostitute after spending the last decade of his life as a crackpot
is this the endgoal of nihilism?

He is the closest thing we have to a prophet in modern times.

>God is Dead!
What the FUCK did he mean by this. I don't get it.

>I draw above all a sharp line between strong and weak men—those who are destined to rulership, and those who are destined to service, obedience, and devotion. That which turns my stomach in this age is the untold amount of weakness, unmanliness, impersonality, changeableness, and good-nature—in short weakness in the matter of "self"-seeking, which would fain masquerade as "virtue." That which has given me pleasure up to the present has been the sight of men with a long will—who can hold their peace for years and who do not simply on that account deck themselves out with pompous moral phraseology, and parade as "heroes" or "noblemen," but who are honest enough to believe in nothing but themselves and their will, in order to stamp it upon mankind for all time.

>Be told that Neet wasn't akshully anti-semitic or a proto-Nazi and his sister edited his writings to appeal to those people after he became indisposed
>Open Beyond Good and Evil
>Nietzsche launches into tirade about the care-free Aryans, contrasts with spiteful Jews
>Open Geneology of Morals
>Calls blonde-haired Aryans "master race" of Europe, contrast with black-haired slaves
>Says victory of Jewish revaluation coincided with "poisoning of the blood" as Aryans mixed with non-Aryans
>Identifies Jewish revaluation with ressentiment, identifies ressentiment with "evil"
>Thinks anti-semites are stupid because they accept the Jewish poison bait of Christianity
>Open Antichrist
>Christians say No to life, "Pagans are all those who say yes to life"

How does this square with the proto-hippie version of Neet preferred by academia?

one of the most unimpressive writers ever

Who are some quintessential reddit philosophers?

Nietzsche is cringe

How old were you when you first read Nietzsche?
What text did you read first?
What is now your favourite work of his?
How would you classify the uniqueness of Nietzsche in one sentence?
Was he, after all, based or cringe?

I'll start

>19yo
>Schopenhauer as Educator
>Zarathustra/Ecce homo
>The greatest stylist and linguistic genius in the german language, also one of the bravest and most serious men of all time.
>BeyondExtremelyBased/10

What would he have thought of Crowley?

I rejected Christianity two years ago and replaced it with Nietzsche. I have a weak Will and I just now realized that Christianity was holding me together and letting me live as a functioning member of society. Since cursing Christianity and acting purely on Will I have descended into self annihilation; I coom all the time, sleep on irregular times and have no structure to my life at all. I feel weak and lethargic, I have no will power to act upon my values. The moments I'm not indulging in hedonism I ponder the meaninglessness of life, even meditate on the thought of suicide and value of life itself

Weak willed people following Nietzsche is surely a safe road to self destruction. This is a dangerous path for the many, but a path to liberation for the few. It's more likely you're of the former type of person

My theology teacher at one point said Nietzsche mostly stole his ideas from someone else. But I forget the name. Do you guys have any idea who it might be?

Is there any other writer that rips at christianity in the same vein as Nietzsche?
The only one I can recall that kinda comes close is perhaps Yarvin, but he gives Catholicism a pass for some reason.