/lit/ - Literature

>>22592767
If you take his other line,
>One must need to be strong in order to become strong
then it makes perfect sense.

The idea is that growth needs adversity. This is obvious... no one here should need a "proof" for this. You can observe it everywhere.

All societies that become soft eventually die, and Europeans were becoming soft. That's why Nietzsche wrote these things.

>>15894766
Your so-called "facts" are just your feelings masked with dialectics to not seem as such. This is precisely why Nietzsche called Socrates a decadent. The whole enterprise of dialectics is a form of decadence. Healthy instincts are whole in themselves and don't need dialectics to defend themselves. Only decadent instincts rely on dialectics to feel any increase of power.

>>15746285
>>15746390
In regards to the matter on what makes one an aristocrat or a slave to Nietzsche, here is a passage that makes the physical an indispensable component of these moralities in his theory, and also addresses the whole matter of exploitation (slavery):

>Mutually refraining from injury, violence, and exploitation, placing your will on par with the other's: in a certain, crude sense, these practices can become good manners between individuals when the right conditions are present (namely, that the individuals have genuinely similar quantities of force and measures of value, and belong together within a single body). But as soon as this principle is taken any further, and maybe even held to be the fundamental principle of society, it immediately shows itself for what it is: the will to negate life, the principle of disintegration and decay. Here we must think things through thoroughly, and ward off any sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially a process of appropriating, injuring, overpowering the alien and the weaker, oppressing, being harsh, imposing your own form, incorporating, and at least, the very least, exploiting, — but what is the point of always using words that have been stamped with slanderous intentions from time immemorial? Even a body within which (as we presupposed earlier) particular individuals treat each other as equal (which happens in every healthy aristocracy): if this body is living and not dying, it will have to treat other bodies in just those ways that the individuals it contains refrain from treating each other. It will have to be the embodiment of will to power, it will want to grow, spread, grab, win dominance, — not out of any morality or immorality, but because it is alive, and because life is precisely will to power. But there is no issue on which the base European consciousness is less willing to be instructed than this; these days, people everywhere are lost in rapturous enthusiasms, even in scientific disguise, about a future state of society where "the exploitative character" will fall away: — to my ears, that sounds as if someone is promising to invent a life that dispenses with all organic functions. "Exploitation" does not belong to a corrupted or imperfect, primitive society: it belongs to the essence of being alive as a fundamental organic function; it is a result of genuine will to power, which is just the will of life. — Although this is an innovation at the level of theory, — at the level of reality, it is the primal fact of all history. Let us be honest with ourselves to this extent at least! —

>>15141181
I just see no reason to use good and evil in the way you are using it in this day and age. Swap these words out with "beingness" and "anti-beingness," since that is more accurate to the meanings you're using, and this is what you're saying:

1. Anti-beingness exists as an absence of beingness, rather than something in of itself.
2. Anti-beingness is therefore an absence rather than something that exists.
3. God is fully actual, with no absence.
4. Therefore, God is fully being, and no parts anti-being.

With that conceptualization, what we have is... that God is the universe itself. In which case, we can drop the term "God" too, as it is, just like "good" and "evil," more or less simply an equivalent for "universe" in the modern sense.

And now you understand how the modern atheist thinks. No more like this:

>God is goodness.

But rather:

>The universe is all that is the case.

>>14978806
>Are we all just the same being
>being
No, but we all have the same ancient DNA in us, and it has only one impetus: power.

>Belief in ourselves is the strongest fetter and the supreme whipping-on—and the strongest wing. Christianity should have made the innocence of man an article of faith—men would have become gods: belief was still possible in those days.

>The maintenance of the military state is the last means of all of acquiring or maintaining the great tradition with regard to the supreme type of man, the strong type. And all concepts that perpetuate enmity and difference in rank between states (e.g., nationalism, protective tariffs) may appear sanctioned in this light.

>My "future":—a rigorous polytechnic education. Military service; so that, on an average, every man of the higher classes would be an officer, whatever else he might be.

And people say Nietzsche didn't advocate the primacy of so-called "evil" in mankind. Why are people so ignorant about him?

How would affirmation of life through aesthetics be practically applied? Was he going over the top with his ‘aesthetic justification’ for existence? Isn’t living through love and compassion much less vain?

>>12879126
This. The fight is, once again, not between collectives, but between individuals who create collectives in order to fight other individuals.

>>12593950
The concept of gnosis was the masterstroke of ancient artists (read: liars). But keep on thinking you're an "authentic" intellectual...

>>12471855
>From the fact that something ensues regularly and ensues calculably, it does not follow that it ensues necessarily. That a quantum of force determines and conducts itself in every particular case in one way and manner does not make it into an "unfree will." "Mechanical necessity" is not a fact: it is we who first interpreted it into events. We have interpreted the formulatable character of events as the consequence of a necessity that rules over events. But from the fact that I do a certain thing, it by no means follows that I am compelled to do it. Compulsion in thigns certainly cannot be demonstrated: the rule proves only that one and the same event is not another event as well. Only because we have introduced subjects, "doers," into things does it appear that all events are the consequences of compulsion exerted upon subjects—exerted by whom? again by a "doer." [...] When one has grasped that the "subject" is not something that creates effects, but only a fiction, much follows. It is only after the model of the subject that we have invented the reality of things and projected them into the medley of sensations. If we no longer believe in the effective subject, then belief also disappears in effective things, in reciprocation, cause and effect between those phenomena that we call things. There also disappears, of course, the world of effective atoms: the assumption of which always depended on the supposition that one needed subjects. At last, the "thing-in-itself" also disappears, because this is fundamentally the conception of a "subject-in-itself." [...] If we give up the concept "subject" and "object," then also the concept "substance" — and as a consequence also the various modifications of it, e.g., "matter," "spirit," and other hypothetical entities, "the eternity and immutability of matter," etc. We have got rid of materiality. From the standpoint of morality, the world is false. But to the extent that morality itself is a part of this world, morality is false.

tl;dr — by destroying all Platonism, he destroyed Christianity.

Lovingly facing the “one is everything”
amor dei, happy from comprehension—
Take off your shoes! That three times holy land—
—Yet secretly beneath this love, devouring,
A fire of revenge was shimmering,
The Jewish God devoured by Jewish hatred . . .
Hermit! Have I recognized you?

I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza : that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by "instinct". Not only is his overtendency like mine — namely, to make all knowledge the most powerful affect — but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself ; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters : he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness. Strange!