/lit/ - Literature

"Moral: the priest does not lie--the question, "true" or "untrue," has nothing to do with such things as the priest discusses; it is impossible to
lie about these things. In order to lie here it would be necessary to know what is true. But this is more than man can know; therefore, the priest is simply the mouth-piece of God.-- Such a priestly syllogism is by no means merely Jewish and Christian; the right to lie and the shrewd dodge of "revelation" belong to the general priestly type--to the priest of the decadence as well as to the priest of pagan times (--Pagans are all those who say yes to life, and to whom "God" is a word signifying acquiescence in all things) --The "law," the "will of God," the "holy book," and "inspiration"--all these things are merely words for the conditions under which the priest comes to power and with which he maintains his power,--these concepts are to be found at the bottom of all priestly organizations, and of all priestly or priestly-philosophical schemes of governments. The "holy lie"--common alike to Confucius, to the Code of Manu, to Mohammed and to the Christian church--is not even wanting in Plato. "Truth is here": this means, no matter where it is heard, the priest lies."

The gaslighting of the truth in order to preserve fantastical hierarchies where the most incompetent fumble around pretending to know. That is society.

When Christians were a minority and persecuted in the Roman Empire they acted like Jews. It's only when they became a majority that they lost the neuroticism and ceased being killed.

The Jews however remain as the original Christians did, always in danger. That alone explains their behavior. It has nothing to do with race.

That's why Nietzsche loved them. They are elitists and aristocrats.

The patterns run in families and are passed down without fail. These behavioral patterns are all rooted in religion.

>"Body am I, and soul'' -thus speaks the child. And why should one not speak like children? But the awakened and knowing say: body am I entirely, and nothing else; and soul is only a word for something about the body.
How does one solve the mind/body problem? I'm inclined towards dualism because consciousness seems intuitively nonmaterial by virtue of it being private. Nietzsche obviously saw a problem with that intuition but what could it have been?

A lot of his descriptions of ressentiment and slave morality come from what he suffered from these women. The Chandala, herd mentality, and the hyper-moralizing also.

His father died and he was raised by his mother and two half aunts and had sister on top of that. His entire philosophy is a reaction against the psychological violence that women inflict on men.

>>21597542
Yeah. He was balding, and looked really disgusting. He'd be an incel in our current times.

"The Jews are the very opposite of décadents: they have simply been forced into appearing in that guise, and with a degree of skill approaching the non plus ultra of histrionic genius they have managed to put themselves at the head of all décadent movements (—for example, the Christianity of Paul—), and so make of them something stronger than any party frankly saying Yes to life. To the sort of men who reach out for power under Judaism and Christianity,—that is to say, to the priestly class—décadence is no more than a means to an end. Men of this sort have a vital interest in making mankind sick, and in confusing the values of “good” and “bad,” “true” and “false” in a manner that is not only dangerous to life, but also slanders it."

>god is dead and heres why thats bad for humanity but we can use it as a way of propulsion for humanity
>god is dead but remember, thats not a good thing for humanity to not have faith
>not a good thing
180 years later on /lit/
>"GoD iS DeAd and We HaVe KiLLeD hIm"
>UPVOTE
>"DiD you GUyS rEaD infinITe JEst? ITS SO LONG HAHA"
>as the circle jerking began to abate and /lit/ returned to the limerent worship of kafka and fight club, so did everything else worth real discussion
why are you like this?

The greatest trick leftists ever pulled was convincing people Nietzsche was a leftist

>>21423373
He judged himself, and thus was his supreme moment of overcoming.

>Star attraction, movie premieres, sports events, red carpets and gala openings: the eternal war between depth and appearances. But there is no war at all between them, since the purpose of depth is to create a stronger, and thus more beautiful, appearance; to transform itself into appearance. Those who scorn appearances and evangelize depth are precisely those who are incapable of much, if any, depth: the pseudo-intellectuals, which is why it is by no means an accident that all of them are ugly.

What do you do when the distance keeps getting larger as you keep self-overcoming?

so i've read read HATH and Ecco and i'm honestly at a loss as to how anybody ever thought he was a leftist? Did the Kaufman translations really mind fuck people that badly?

finally decided to read the neech man
im 40 pages in and its just you cant no nuffin stuff, hes only talked about race one time for an irrelevant reason
when do I get to the redpills? started on zarathustra btw

This has to be one of Neet's most astute observations. From The Will to Power
>Socialism is merely an agitatory measure of individualism: it recognises the fact that in order to attain to something, men must organise themselves into a general movement—into a "power." But what the Socialist requires is not society as the object of the individual, but society as a means of making many individuals possible: this is the instinct of Socialists, though they frequently deceive themselves on this point (apart from this, however, in order to make their kind prevail, they are compelled to deceive others to an enormous extent). Altruistic moral preaching thus enters into the service of individual egoism,—one of the most common frauds of the nineteenth century.

It's funny to see modern socialists use the word "liberal" as a derogatory slur when the ultimate goal of communism has always been the fullest liberation of man to the extent liberals couldn't have dreamed of. Old-fashioned communists understood this well, they saw themselves as the heirs to classical liberalism and the French Revolution and prided themselves on their ideological heritage. To their contemporary counterparts liberalism is a swear word yet that doesn't deter them from passionate critique and destruction of last remaining forms of collective life whether that be religion, nation, family etc. Any form of collective identity apart from class identity is an ignominy to them and must be abolished

How often, when you comment on a specific work, author or movement, have you actually deeply engaged (or even read) the material of matter? Almost none of the opinions espoused on this forum make any fucking sense to a functional human brain with non-wikipedia understanding of any given subject.

Pic: a good example of one such author

"All writing is useless that does not contain a stimulus to activity."

How would you respond to Nietzsche?