/lit/ - Literature

>>23110168
Sounds agreeable. There are two kinds of anarchist in my eyes, and Nietzsche certainly fits the definition of one of them. He doesn't jive with the communist kind, but he does jive with the capitalist kind, since the latter still believes in, and even relishes in, inequality and competition. But the inequality of the anarchist differs from the inequality of the fascist in that the former emphasizes the individual's desires while the latter emphasizes society's needs. Thus, the anarcho-capitalist is a hyper-individualist who sees everyone as unequal beings with varying strengths of will driven by a plethora of desires in conflict with one another, which is a picture of life closely resembling what Nietzsche provides us with his descriptions of the will to power.

>The significance of German philosophy (Hegel): to evolve a pantheism through which evil, error, and suffering are not felt as arguments against divinity. This grandiose project has been misused by the existing powers (state, etc.), as if it sanctioned the rationality of whoever happened to be ruling. Schopenhauer, on the other hand, appears as a stubborn morality-man who, in order to justify his moral valuation, finally becomes a world-denier. Finally a "mystic." I myself have attempted an aesthetic justification: how is the ugliness of the world possible?—I took the will to beauty, to persist in like forms, for a temporary means of preservation and recuperation: fundamentally, however, the eternally-creative appeared to me to be, as the eternal compulsion to destroy, associated with pain. The ugly is the form things assume when we view them with the will to implant a meaning, a new meaning, into what has become meaningless: the accumulated force which compels the creator to consider all that has been created hitherto as unacceptable, ill-constituted, worthy of being denied, ugly!—

>My first solution: Dionysian wisdom. Joy in the destruction of the most noble and at the sight of its progressive ruin: in reality joy in what is coming and lies in the future, which triumphs over existing things, however good. Dionysian: temporary identification with the principle of life (including the voluptuousness of the martyr). My innovations.—Further development of pessimism: intellectual pessimism; critique of morality, disintegration of the last consolation. Knowledge of the signs of decay: veils with illusion every firm action; culture isolates, is unjust and therefore strong. 1. My endeavor to oppose decay and increasing weakness of personality. I sought a new center. 2. Impossibility of this endeavor recognized. 3. Thereupon I advanced further down the road of disintegration—where I found new sources of strength for individuals. We have to be destroyers!—I perceived that the state of disintegration, in which individual natures can perfect themselves as never before—is an image and isolated example of existence in general. To the paralyzing sense of general disintegration and incompleteness I opposed the eternal recurrence.

>One seeks a picture of the world in that philosophy in which we feel freest; i.e., in which our most powerful drive feels free to function. This will also be the case with me!

Was Nietzsche the most "evil" philosopher in history?

Any good /lit/ or /phil/ discord groups?

Is there any integration of Aristocracy and Left wing politics? Where would the measure of power to be located? In competence?

achieve my true will in life that is creating Hight Art, no bullshit authority and parsominous account in my fucking life, no more, fuck normies, fuck the establishment and fuck ideologies and fuck you

seeing how much he shit on the society he lived in, it makes me wonder how he would´ve think of the present ethos of western society

>>10443488
I can't speak of my friend N, but for me God is seriously dead. That's because of my interest in, and co-evolution with, evolutionary biology and a few other fields. He is dead to me for other reasons too, because of personal (philosophical or ideological) issues with the Abrahamic religion. But even if I wanted to believe in God, I can't, it would be larping. That's why the whole neopagan, new age, neoshamanism etc. is also larping. Though some people are so high in schizotypy they don't have to larp. Now the belief in UFOs, that's some of that real ubermensch stuff. It is spontanous, whereas neopagan and all that shit is more like a forced meme.

But I feel as if many of our holy grails, whatever it comes from our high-priests (economic, technolocial or cultural) or from the folk (think folk biology, folk psychology, folk physics and so on) should be dead with the developments in science.

For example, rationalism should be dead. Human exceptionalism should be dead. Heck, with cognitive biases (the murderer of rationalism), biological political science and neurotheology, maybe Atheism should be dead too.

And all those advances in our understanding of the world could lead to kinds of nihilism too. Like biological nihilism. Or cognitive nihilism.