/lit/ - Literature

Everyone's a fraud. Every single thing you do is in your own self interest or to make your selfish morality/conscience feel good.
There is no objectively"good" or "bad" morality/character.

Prove me wrong

>>11329962
It's not independent of your choices, your choices are included in it

>The fatalism of the Turk has this fundamental defect, that it contrasts man and fate as two distinct things. Man, says this doctrine, may struggle against fate and try to baffle it, but in the end fate will always gain the victory. Hence the most rational course is to resign oneself or to live as one pleases. As a matter of fact, every man is himself a piece of fate. When he thinks that he is struggling against fate in this way, fate is accomplishing its ends even in that struggle. The combat is a fantasy, but so is the resignation in fate — all these fantasies are included in fate. The fear felt by most people of the doctrine that denies the freedom of the will is a fear of the fatalism of the Turk. They imagine that man will become weakly resigned and will stand before the future with folded hands, because he cannot alter anything of the future. Or that he will give a free rein to his caprices, because the predestined cannot be made worse by that course. The follies of men are as much a piece of fate as are his wise actions, and even that fear of belief in fate is a fatality. You yourself, you poor timid creature, are that indomitable Moira, which rules even the Gods; whatever may happen, you are a curse or a blessing, and in any case the fetters wherein the strongest lies bound: in you the whole future of the human world is predestined, and it is no use for you to be frightened of yourself.

It's Nietzsche. People are not yet ready for him, his influence will only grow larger as we collectively start losing our Christian, compassion-based morality.

Tolerance and apathy are the most celebrated virtues of the life-denying philosophies of Schopenhauerian pessimism and Christianity. They are indeed quite literally the last virtues of a DYING society; pure décadence. The Will to Power stands in direct opposition with tolerance (why would the powerful tolerate?) and apathy (denial of life).

>After all, judgments and valuations of life, whether for or against, cannot be true: their only value lies in the fact that they are symptoms; they can be considered only as symptoms,—per se such judgments are nonsense. You must therefore endeavour by all means to reach out and try to grasp this astonishingly subtle axiom, that the value of life cannot be estimated. A living man cannot do so, because he is a contending party, or rather the very object in the dispute, and not a judge; nor can a dead man estimate it—for other reasons.

Whenever I read philosophy, I feel like I am not really reading *anything* at all. Just a bunch of abstract, meaningless thoughts strung together. It mostly feels like a bunch of semantic arguing.

Sometimes I ask people: what will I actually learn from reading this philosophy? And the answer is always some variation of "You are so ignorant to ask the question, you must fully read it to understand". Never can they really tell me what kinds of fantastic insights I will gain.

What annoys me about philosophy is the lack of solid thought, or "action words". It is so abstract that it never seems to have any consequence in the real world at all.