/lit/ - Literature

You guys only like this moron ironically, right?

You guys only like this moron ironically, right?

Nobody actually takes this moron seriously, right?

Is all art centered around the ideas that Nietzsche articulated?

I'm a pleb. What's the best entry-level Nietzsche.

im about to start reading Nietzsche and I was told to start with The Genealogy of Morals, but in the preface it states
"it is clear enough, on the hypothesis which I presuppose, namely, that the reader has first read my previous writings and has not grudged them a certain amount of trouble"

Should I continue reading it, or should I start on his first work (The Birth of Tragedy) and then go from there?

At what age did you grow out of Nietzsche?

Now that the dust has settled, can we agree that he is one of the worst philosophers of the past few centuries?
First year philosophy students need not post.

where do I start?

Hey /lit/. Can we have a thread about Nietzsche, the meaning behind his work, and how it was misappropriated in various ways? Also, I've been reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra - can we talk about it? I'd like to be able to appreciate it better.

Did you already move past Nietzsche /lit/? He neglects sexuality as a form of life force and rejects the apolline but still has pretensions towards some of it's fruits. Not to mention that he worships aggression for the sake of agression.

Recently I'm getting into Nietzsche and I have a few questions about his philosophy:

1. Is his philosophy attractive only for the hinges? Essentially do only the weakest and strongest people have an interest in his ideas. For the majority, the herd people, The Last Man is much more attractive than the Overman and for them the strongest and most dynamic deserve scorn for being "evil" while the weak have to be rehabilitated into society, no?
2. Am I right that for the aforementioned majority an aristotelian rule of golden middle can be attributed to strength, so it's wrong to be at any end of the spectrum?
3. Why did he decide that when it comes to life force aggresion is more important than sexuality? While he never condemned sex I'm pretty sure he did so for promiscuity. Being against female promiscuity seems to be natural, since it's detrimental to women but why would he be averse to male promiscuity. Did he just come to believe that aggression's effects and products are more valuable than that of sexual drives?

You could reasonably argue that there's no reason to read unless it changes your behavior, and many successful authors have argued exactly that.

ITT: WITHOUT naming the work or author that changed your behavior, describe specifically what you did differently. Other anons hypothesize what book produced the change. Fun had by all.

They should give it to Nietzsche because I like Nietzsche.

Can we talk about this edgemaster?

>pic related, friends

>>3950843
>selflesness
>alpha

Oh wow, it's like you are really knee-deep into christian bullshit.

"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal." --Leo Tolstoy

>>3917651
Ich bin nicht.

What is your ethical objection against trying to get every woman pregnant you happen to have sex with?

wasn't the clever subversion of the ressentiment a manifestation of the slave group's will to power?

they wanted power, and they got it. the plebs successfully subverted the nobles. i understand the problems nietzsche has with the weak and [at least superficially] self-suppressing nature of the ressentiment group, but can't he at least respect the fact that they, in a way, became the masters?

in the second essay, section 11, he defends revenge as not reactive but ultimately active; for it and feelings previously associated with the ressentiment like hatred, envy, resentment, and rancor "are of a much greater biological value than the reactive feelings and as a consequence rightly deserve to be evaluated and appreciated in a scientific manner: that is, the really ACTIVE feelings, such as the desire to dominate, to possess, and the like." here, nietzsche seems to punch a huge hole in his entire polemic on the ressentiment, for he suggests that feelings previously thought to be reactive which the ressentiment operated on can be construed as essentially active (and therefore noble, etc.)

i found his points well-argued up to this point, at which he seems to become a bit cryptic or contradictory, but perhaps i'm just misunderstanding him.

For my English class, I need to write on two works of literature with similar themes or ideas that need to be compared. I don't often browse /lit/, but I was wondering what you guys think would be a good pair?

Pic more or less unrelated.

Nietzsche was a misanthrope and reading him with ardor engenders misanthropy in your heart.

Nietzsche found sanction for his misanthropy in the classical misanthrope Heraclitus, who was much more misanthropic than Diogenes the Cynic, as the latter only hated the pretensions and hypocrisies in society that cause men to lose what nobility they might have had, whereas the former believed human beings to have an inherently inferior nature, without the corruptions of society, "a laughingstock, a painful embarrassment".

>>3701749
>>3701752
What's the matter, you guys don't lust after eternal recurrence? Do you not love your own life? Are you not men?