/lit/ - Literature

Nietzsche definitely was a nihilist. He just tried to overcome it (and failed).

>>10228163
66% of the claims in this reply are wrong and dumb

I can't rule out that it could be true for a couple of people

>>10228152
It doesn't take much familiarity to realize Nietzsche wasn't a Nihilist. If you're reading him correctly that should be pretty obvious.

>>10228259
Given how many people don't know that, I'd say the chart is still accurate if the x axis is weighed against the average population

Who?

>>10228267
This reply gets funnier the more I look at it

>>10228152
I remember thinking Nihilism was named after Nietzsche

Like Nietzscheism -> Nihilism

heh

It doesn't matter what you label him as

he's still the most pseud-friendly "philosopher"

>>10228565
Spoken like a true sophon

>>10228565
He's not very psued friendly. I would say Camus is probably the most psued friendly philosopher.

>>10228152
>tfw you realise that Nietzsche was just an edgy and more insecure William James

>>10228575
camus isn't pseud friendly. camus WAS a pseud

>>10228596
is that the guy who wrote the stoner

>>10228575
This. Pseud here, Nietzsche is really hard to understand a lot of times, mainly because I barely know my greeks and because of shitty translations

>>10228259
He was a nihilist, you nerd. Nihilism doesn't mean whatever your dumbo poo-poo pee-pee head thinks it means.

>>10228619
"Whether man recovers from [nihilism], whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength!"
-Friedrich Nietzsche

>>10228631
nietzsche pretty much thought nihilism was correct and he wanted us to cover our ears about it and follow his shitty brand of crypto-pragmatism

>>10228640
Nihilism refers to the state of pessimism that arises from the realization that life is without inherent intended meaning. Nietzsche's entire point was that that pessimism only signifies an incomplete departure from notions of inherent meaning, and that complete departure is what will set us free

>>10228152
wasn't he a total freak outcast who was basically blind and spent most of his life hunched over in his bed writing?

>>10228657
yes

>>10228652
sounds like nihilism to me

small brain: nietzsche was a nihilist
medium brain: nietzsche was NOT a nihilist he hated nihilism
big brain: nietzsche actually was a nihilist

Nietszche was a nihilist though. Just not a passive nihilist.

>>10228597
>those things are mutually exclusive

>>10228657
Yeah.

>>10228683
In the very first few pages of The Will to Power he defines nihilism and then argues against it

>>10228672
nietzsche was all about life affirmation in the face of pessimism

>inherent meaning
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? I'm not joking

>conflating existentialism and nihilism this hard

Go home pseuds.
Nihilism isn't the sad memes you see on Facebook.

>>10228696
>Nihilism isn't the sad memes you see on Facebook.
In fact, nihilism isn't anything at all.

>>10228685
he defined it wrong

>>10228696
>Nihilism isn't the sad memes you see on Facebook.
nietzsche is the 19th century equivalent of that plus a dash of pragmatism and "just b urself lol"

>>10228701
What's the right definition?

>>10228706
Snarky quips like that are the reason that most people shouldn't learn how to read. Even speech is too good for you.

>>10228708
in this sense? there are no values whatsoever

basically nietzsche but he wants you to act like you have values for some reason

if nietzsche wasnt good at prose everyone would think he was a total dumbfuck

>>10228717
>in this sense?
In general.
>there are no values whatsoever
What is a value?
>basically nietzsche but he wants you to act like you have values for some reason
Hmmmm

>>10228726
>What is a value
X is good
Y is bad
and so on

>>10228172
So, more often than not ypur claim is false and thefore true?

>>10228786
How is that a definition of anything?

>>10228803
its not a definition

its an illustration

>>10228827
Oh, well, I must not have been clear enough--when I said "in general" I meant that I wanted a definition that could apply to anything that is called 'value'

>>10228259
active nihilism is still nihilism, m8

>>10228657
That sounds like literally me except I'm not a genius philosopher

>>10228698
Woah...

>>10228838
I dont think such a definition is possible without being circular

value is a fundamental notion

>>10228936
Why would it be impossible to define that word?
>fundamental notion
This is even more complicated than 'value' and we haven't even figured out what that means yet, you're moving too fast

>>10228789
I accept that I may be a brainlet but I can't for the life of me understand what the fuck this reply is supposed to mean

>>10228936
If objective values do not exist and there are no general subjective notions of value held in common by all individuals, then nihilism is true, right?

>>10228964
You're missing a premise there
Maybe multiple premises

>>10228964
nihilism is the denial of all objective AND subjective values in themselves

Was he not an existentialist, or am I thinking of existentialism wrong? Where the individual finds their own meaning in life, as there's no higher power, and works toward that goal.

>>10228993
(early) existentialism is less about that and more about "wow FUKKK hegel"

>>10228997
So Nietzsche and Marx and Kierkegaarde? They were all young hegelians, though...

>>10228984
OK, I'm starting to understand now. But, wouldn't this mean that Nietzsche is not a nihilist because of his assertion that we create our own values hence claiming that values may exist and thus contradicting our supposing that he is indeed a nihilist?

>>10228997
>"wow FUKKK hegel"
What's wrong with Hegel?
What about modern existentialism, is it how I described?

>>10229004
not marx obviously

if i had to describe existentialism it would be a focus on the individual and a general, systematic skepticism towards teleology

marx obviously doesnt fall under that

>>10229010
FASCISM

>>10229015
You should read some Marx other than the Communist Manifesto, tbqh

>>10228152
you drew that after that thread yesterday didnt you

>>10228596
piss off, pepe

>>10229009
the thing is, even "create your own values bro" implies that values have objective value in themselves and therefore isnt a nihilist philosophy

its not clear what nietzsche thought though, i think hes trying to tackle things starting from more of a psychological perspective than a philosophical one. I think he, kind of subtextually, believes that nihilism is true and wants us to kind of "shield ourselves" from it

>>10228685
yes. people like us, we know that to nietzsche, nihilism is how each new overman (turning wheel) encounters society. like a blank slate, a white page. the overman is "nihilistic" from his inferiors' point of view because he does not accept their status quo, he creates something new instead. the overman does not see himself as nihilistic, he is life-affirming and he creates something new.

"nietzsche was/wasn't a nihilist" is entirely beside the point. the main point is the revaluation of all values.

>>10229071
The overcoming of the herd instinct is the overcoming of the herd.

>>10228152
My quick version.

>>10228619
>>10228849
Nietzsche didn't think life was meaningless, so how was he a nihilist?

No, the most familiar of us recognize him as Christian.
>>10228596
No, not at all. James was a weak subjectivist. Go back to your petersonshit threads.

>>10229416
>Christian
As in Christ, not the institutionalized form of him. Yes, he is close to him. He is more mature than Christ though, and consequently very Antichrist.

>>10229387
He didn't believe in objective morality which is exactly what moral nihilism is. Whenever Nietzsche uses the term nihilist he means life denying otherwise his claim that Christianity is nihilistic makes no sense.

>>10228565
philistine

>>10228152
Nietzsche was an active nihilist though.
The claim that he wasn't stems from his hate of what he terms passive nihilism, which he associates with "western buddhism" or denial of will and ego.

>>10229360
Better desu.

No one in this thread has yet been precise enough with their language to approach OP's question in any meaningful manner.

>>10228152
Why do people obsess over Nietzsche so much? He was a complete hack who never even managed to build a coherent philosophical system. He was spouting aphorisms which never amounted to anything and Zarathustra is full of contradictions

>>10228920
>Nietzsche
>a genius philosopher

'no'

>>10229897
because he has good banter, memorable quotes, and dismantled the hegemony of Christian morality.
He's also popular because his bitch sister whored out his works to whatever edgy political system wanted them

>>10228601
no it's the guy who composed hedwig's theme

>>10229897
>implying aporia is invalidated as a method even though the foundation of life is aporia

>>10229899
He understood that most philosophy was going to be outdated logic systems in a few decades, so he transcended it.

>>10228152
Nietzsche was an excellent prosaist, but he was a terrible philosopher, since he couldn't pin down a solid ethos or the epistemology of how he got there.

His personal view on life can be described as pic related.

dunno lol readings for nerds

>>10228694
That reality has an objective purpose. The people who fret over it not existing essentially wish they were in a video game/movie.

>>10229849
Nihilism and moral nihilism sound significantly different. A person could be a moral nihilist and simultaneously not a nihilist if I'm understanding this correctly.

>>10229897
>Zarathustra is full of contradictions
Name some and I'll put each one down.

>>10228152
Dude, Nietzsche w𝔞s fuckin' wicked, but some of you we𝔞k bet𝔞 nihilist cucks need to get out. I me𝔞n, he w𝔞s just 𝔞bout destroying feminists with peer-reviewed YouTube videos.

>>10228152
Absolutely true. He destroyed Foucault before he was even born.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNkh4pEQDLw

>>10228163
>He just tried to overcome it (and failed).

This.

Extrapolate the chart, maximum familiarity = Nietzsche failed and thus ushered in more nihilism

>>10229998
You don't understand logic at all of you think it's possible to be a moral nihilist while not being a nihilist.
Anyone who claims Nietzsche endorsed a form of nihilism should come forward with a source. Any day now. We're all waiting.

>>10229859
Active nihilism is a stupid meme that I've yet to see explained properly. From what I gather, it's when you don't see inherent meaning yet act as if there is, which no one ever seems to point out how contradictory that is.

>>10230886
yes that's basically nietzsche's idea

>>10230895
That's some shitty Anglo-Saxon interpretation of his idea that is divorcing logic from reality once again like those fags always seem to do.

>>10229897
The entire point of neetchee was his non systematic method since he has very valid criticisms of reason itself. A thinker doesn't have to have a system to have valid insights and it would be ridiculous to assert so. If you want to seriously engage with him I'd first engage with 20th century philosophers who took him as inspiration.

>>10230906
Its like how you're actually a faggot even though you tell yourself you aren't. Perfectly valid in reality.

>>10230841
Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster

>>10230886
the other alternative would be to cloud your mind with some sort of false meaning, which would impede the fullest application of the will and which Nietzsche fucking hated. The whole concept of the overman is someone who still lives despite accepting nihilism, as he will essentially be directly applying his will unmitigated by an interruptive system of meaning.

>>10230927
This is exactly what Anglo-Saxons do though. They divorce logic from reality and think absurd shit like "Nietzsche didn't see inherent value in the world even though he did!!! We shall call this contradictory phenomenon only our dumbasses can see ACTIVE nihilism!"

If you actually read Nietzsche and Will to Power you might grasp how your line of thinking is baffling tier stupidity. Anyone who goes on about the "plurality of Nietzsche" or "paradox of Nietzsche's thought" is failing to grasp it at its core, and interpreting it in a shitty Anglo-Saxon weaved duality that stems from divorcing your analysis of the world from the world.

>>10228722
I can't decide whether this is correct or not.

>>10230964
I have yet to see anyone explain how he isn't a nihilist, or how he "overcame" nihilism other than retards saying it like its an axiom. He devised a non-self destructive nihilism as the solution to the perceived problem, how is that not still nihilism?

>>10230942
>false meaning
But see, VALUE (which is what nihilism is concerned with) HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUTH, therefore nihilism is not a function of truth AT ALL, and there is no "true vs. false meaning" or "true vs. false interpretation". There are just MANY INTERPRETATIONS, and some are no longer convincing once we have thought them through long enough, which makes some "truer" than others, but which is still a function of value and not truth!

READ MORE NIETZSCHE

>>10229028
If we create our own values, doesn't that imply that the previous values have no value? And doesn't that imply that our new values don't truly have value because future values will just replace them?

>>10230990
Then why do you see a self-assigned meaning contradictory, faggot?

>>10228575
Despite his work being relatively easy to understand he is also one of the most misread philosophers. I think absurdism/existentialism in general is misunderstood because everyone takes the first step of accepting that life is meaningless but never takes the second step of creating meaning. Then they go on and try to convince people there is no second step.

>>10228694
That you are born with a purpose. That we were all born with a purpose. Usually given to us by a higher power who put us on this earth to complete some task whether it be big or small.

>>10231004
I don't understand this question of meaning really. I've known pretty much since I was a kid that the meaning of life is the pursuit of truth. Questioning that meaning is purposeless and needlessly dangerous.

>>10230989
See >>10230990

The idea that there is no inherent value in the world IS AN INTERPRETATION, not a statement of truth. It is one of MANY. And it has many psychological causes which Nietzsche outlines in Will to Power. This shit is PSYCHOLOGY, dude; you want to get past nihilism? It's the same as getting past a psychological dilemma of any kind. Nietzsche was not a nihilist, and the idea that "oh, he's just choosing to deceive himself, since he acknowledges there's many interpretations" is flat out wrong and missing the point, because this has nothing to do with "truth" and deception — every interpretation is EQUALLY TRUE except within the value metric put forth by an interpretation. You have yet to look yourself in the eyes and realize your own interpretation, in its present evolving state, when you make the claim that acknowledging the infinity of interpretations means it is deceptive to adopt one — you have one right now. It is inevitable. The idea that there are many interpretations is itself an interpretation and NOT a truth statement.

>>10230998
Because it implies there is a mode of being (universal truth) outside the interpreting one. It's incorrect; you are always interpreting, endlessly. The idea that you are a being in yourself picking interpretations like coats in a closet is one divorced from reality.

>>10231013
Nice explanation. I think Wittgenstein is useful for understanding this kind of thing. There are really no objectively valid truths, just paradigms that are pushed harder than others. That's true internally and within society as a whole.

>>10231018
I don't think Wittgenstein said anything like that

>>10231024
eh, that's more or less what I got from this, especially the section on paradigms in science.

>>10231035
(((Secondary material)))

Read the Tractatus and the PI, you've no right to speak about Witt unless you understand him from the ground up

THERE IS NO MORAL FACTS, THERE IS ONLY ___________????

>>10231035
>its another "philosopher completely misrepresents wittgenstein to advance own dumb theory" episode

>>10231013
So, overcoming nihilism is choosing an interpretation, realizing all interpretations are equally true? So would each interpretation be equally false as well? I am failing to see how this is different from a lack of inherent meaning and shaping one for yourself.
>>10231015
not really, it implies a lack of universal truth, with the interpreting one instead being the governing mode. I see no contradiction there.

Since this is a Nietzsche thread, I'm about to dive into modern librarie's, Basic Writings of Nietzsche. Is there a specific order I should read the text?

>>10231043
Interpolations

>>10231050
Start with Zarathustra, then Birth of Tragedy

>>10231043
Glad I looked her up before I decided to fap. She's 16. Humberts like you should be shot on sight.

>>10231054
The editor of this book decided to exclude that text and I'm ashamed that it escaped my notice

>>10231048
>overcoming nihilism is choosing an interpretation
Not quite. It's realizing that nihilism is itself an interpretation, based on psychological and physiological causes. And it might be a convincing one for people who are not strong enough to form their own values (most of humanity), but that's it. It is the most convincing interpretation for people who are not strong enough to form their own values — as far as truth here is concerned, it's not.

The real solution to nihilism? Don't be a depressive weakling.

Active nihilism, the idea of a "self-assigned meaning," is contradictory in that it fails to realize that nihilism is an interpretation. It says: "Once you acknowledge that there are many interpretations, choosing one is deception," even though that acknowledgement IS ITSELF AN INTERPRETATION, MOTHERFUCKER. YOU FUCKED UP ALREADY. You aren't any more aligned with truth than some cave man from the prehistoric age.

>>10228962
He's applying chance to your post and thereby implying that it is a paradox, it's a stupid word-game proving that people who read books should get a rock to their head

>>10231076
Maybe it is because I am tired and intoxicated, but I again don't really see your point insisting on nihilism as an interpretation - amid potentially equally true interpretation - is somehow different from the lack of inherent meaning or truth. You said earlier that each interpretation is equally true depending on the interpreting value metric, now you imply that there is some objective truth (at least that what I gathered from "You aren't any more aligned with truth than some cave man") when earlier this truth is dependent upon value metrics.
In any case, Nietzsche treats nihilism as potentially disastrous for those who succumb to it, but sees it as necessary for destroying old moral frameworks and supplanting one's one beliefs and interpretations through one's own strength alone. The resulting driving framework is built upon a foundation of nihilism, the acknowledgement of the lack of inherent meaning. This is what is meant by active nihilism, saying it is not nihilism - to me at least - sounds like its implying that Nietzsche wanted to avoid the crisis in the first place, which he certainly does not.

>>10229960
The reality picture isn't representative, should be a guy jerking off to anime or traps

>>10231114
>now you imply that there is some objective truth (at least that what I gathered from "You aren't any more aligned with truth than some cave man")
No, that just means that none of this is a function of truth. Philosophy itself is not. Nietzsche explains this at the opening of Beyond Good and Evil, and briefly points out here:

>All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

>In any case, Nietzsche treats nihilism as potentially disastrous for those who succumb to it, but sees it as necessary for destroying old moral frameworks and supplanting one's one beliefs and interpretations through one's own strength alone.
I don't disagree, per se. What I disagree with is the claim that he is a nihilist, that he ever was one (for in his realization of "God is dead," in that passage, he already moves beyond the 20th century's realization of the incident and does not linger at all on its nihilistic effects), or that he does not show us how one moves beyond it (he does so exceedingly in Will to Power).

>>10230994
well its ultimately what those values tend to that has value

>>10231146
>What I disagree with is the claim that he is a nihilist, that he ever was one
I guess our disagreement is semantic then. Because I think in outlining nihilism and seeing it as necessary - at the very least as a first step - makes him a nihilist. w/e

>>10231219
That's like saying that Christian missionaries are pagans because they acknowledge that nobody is born with a belief in Christ's Resurrection

>>10231219
To be a nihilist requires psychological precepts which Nietzsche lacked as evidenced by his writing.

>>10231245
>To be a nihilist requires psychological precepts
such as?

>>10231244
No, its not. In your analogy it would be like saying a accepting Christ is the first step at becoming a Christian, or being baptized is the first step of joining the church. A practicing Christian is still a Christian and their belief in Christ acts as a foundation for their action, though there can be bad Christians who act incorrectly. So too, those who first accept nihilism can act poorly or act strongly, but to say that those who act strongly - with the acceptance of nihilism as the foundation of laying down their own beliefs - are not nihilist is incorrect imo.

>>10231268
From Will to Power.

>>10231281
But Nietzsche doesn't advocate the acceptance of nihilism. He advocates is overcoming. You misunderstood my analogy. The 'church' of Nietzsche is a body which overcomes or attempts to overcome nihilism. It is not a body of nihilists or worshippers of nihilism.

>>10231004
Exactly, its probably due to the fact most people on go into The Stranger, which can easily be misinterpreted, and thus they have a confused idea about Camus.

>>10231287
this only proves that nietzsche wasn't a nihilist by his own definition of nihilism but he was one by the definition of nihilism that pretty much everyone else uses.

>>10231459
>that pretty much everyone else uses
Who cares what dumb Anglos think.

>>10228596
>tfw when you realise that Nietzsche was just the same amount of edgy and more insecure Kierkegaard

>>10232216
Kierkegaard was about as insecure as a person can possibly get

>>10232289
the teleological suspension of the ethical is *literally* the most secure one can be in their actions. it also takes a great degree of self-knowing to parse your own thoughts and divide them unto pseudonymous personae. not to mention, the amount of security it must have taken to trash a well respected, societally advantageous engagement on the premise that he was a fiend (see: the seducer's diary as apology).

was he a depressed hunchback virgin? yes. but he knew that, accepted it, and tried to act in accordance with it (i.e. not hypocritcally). nietzsche was so insecure that he broke down all at once (and if you claim it was the syphillis, well, insecurity drove him to the clutch of prostitutes).

>>10229849
>Subjective morality = Nihilism

Wrong.

>>10230855
>You don't understand logic at all of you think it's possible to be a moral nihilist while not being a nihilist.
Stop being a pompous sperg and explain why they are incompatible. Nihilism states that meaning doesn't exist because there is no intrinsic meaning. Moral nihilism states that there is no intrinsic morality. Morality is not equivalent to meaning. Why couldn't reality have an amoral purpose?

>>10232553
>Why couldn't reality have an amoral purpose?
Amorality is still human.

>>10232555
That's a superfluous statement. Amorality is an indifference to morality.

>>10228717
It's almost like he was saying that there aren't any inherent values, but the ones we create ourselves, and they have meaning because of that.

>>10232567
My point is that it is still a projection onto reality, because you can do nothing else.

>>10228152
>have never read Nietzsche in my life
>haven't even read his wikipedia article
>pretend to be familiar with Nietzsche just so I can call people who like him pseuds

>>10232579
I don't see how it's a projection if it is not present.

>>10232618
"Lack of presence" is itself an attribution.

>>10232621
In that case so is everything else present or not. You could recursively map attributes forever if you feel like it but you won't gleam any insight out of it. I don't think this will be a beneficial line of thought.

>>10231076
This is a good post. Nietzsche did not attempt to create and put forth a system abundant with truth in an attempt to rid others of false ideas (in fact, he states: "I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them." Twilight of the Idols, Maxims and Arrows, #26). He attempted to understand how ideas and people become and continue to become through psychology, physiology, etc.

>>10229897
>muh coherence
Fuck off

He was a Nihilist but believed in the need for a Noble Lie.

>"By virtue of a faculty"—he had said, or at least meant. But is that an answer? An explanation? Or is it not rather merely a repetition of the question? How does opium induce sleep? "By virtue of a faculty," namely the virtus dormitiva, replies the doctor in Moliere,

>quia est in eo virtus dormitiva,
>cujus est natura sensus assoupire.

>But such replies belong in comedy, and it is high time to replace the Kantian question, "How are synthetic judgments a priori possible?" by another question, "Why is belief in such judgments necessary?"—and to comprehend that such judgments must be believed to be true, for the sake of the preservation of creatures like ourselves; though they might, of course, be false judgments for all that! Or to speak more clearly and coarsely: synthetic judgments a priori should not "be possible" at all: we have no right to them, in our mouths they are nothing but false judgments. Only, of course, the belief in their truth is necessary, as a foreground belief and visual evidence belonging to the perspective optics of life.

>>10233179
I don't see him propounding a "need" for the lie as in we must take it upon ourselves to adopt one, but rather than we have no choice in the matter, never did, and continue to not have any, and the mistake is in thinking that we did or that we could be in a position where we lack one and must adopt one.

>>10228640
wew man that's really a thoughtful analysis of nietzsche's philosophy. kudos, you've just convinced me that nietzsche was a nihilist.
protip: neck yourself piece of stinking crap

>>10228631
so? a smoker can tell you not to smoke because smoking's bad for you but that doesn't make them any less of a smoker.

>>10233335
You can say that a million times, but unless you post textual evidence of Nietzsche endorsing nihilism, there's no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

>>10233392
This but unironically.

>>10233392
how does everything he ever wrote count for textual evidence buddy?

>>10233440
Hmmmm

>>>/tv/89873620

>>10228152

Nietzsche was a christian that did not know himself.
The turin horse at the end of his life is one example.

>>10229849

>>10232539 figured out where you went wrong

The lack of objective values does not mean you can’t ascribe your own values to this world

What Nietzsche and Camus were all about is destroying moral nihilism. Thus Spoke Zaruthustra is literally a man proclaiming his own values in the world. Myth of Sisyphus is Camus’ argument for why it matters not to kill yourself. The Stranger closely examines why moral nihilism is so abhorrent, and Camus captured this nihilism all in one character- Mersault.

Only people who havent read Camus and Nietzsche think they were nihilists. They were the farthest thing from it, they were opposed to nihilism

>>10234325
nihilism is the absence of intrinsic meaning, moral nihilism the absence of intrinsic morals. That doesn't mean morals and meaning are rejected within them, just that these terms are constructed rather than objectively ordained. I don't see why this is so hard for people.

>>10229897
>reeeeee he's bad because he didn't build a coherent philosophical system even though he explicitly chooses not to do so because his entire starting point is the rejection of philosophy in the aritstotelian-platonic sense

>>10234335
>it's deliberate hackery, therefore it's acceptable!
Nietzsche was a weak philosopher.
Like some other anon ITT already said, his legacy is due to his literary value - great prose - and ability to craft stunning aphorisms.
This should come as no surprise if you face the fact that interest in his work by contempory academia is very scarce: only a few euro and south american continental philo departments still produce anything directly influenced by Nietzsche

>>10234365
>Everyone who doesn't do philosophy in ways that I approve of is a hack because i sed so
ah, the smell of circular reasoning in the morning!
Also your second statement about his influence is factually wrong (not that le influence is an argument anyway)

>>10234389
How acquainted are you with contemporary philosophy? There are almost no nietzschean philosophers. Please, do not embarass yourself by mentioning Deleuze or Foucault.

>>10234400
>How acquainted are you with contemporary philosophy?
More than you
>There are almost no nietzschean philosophers.
T. Amerilard
And I already told you that it doesn't matter, can you read?

>>10234414
You know nothing. Nietzsche will live on as a meme for wannabe intellectuals and teenagers. Whatever value was there to be extracted by engaging his diatribes in dialetics was already done by based H.

>>10234424
Okay

>>10228152
>does everyone who reads X have the same experience and go along the same trajectory of understanding?
No you fucking idiot.

>>10231116
Kek this. 4chan/reddit + nihilism = hedonism

>>10230855
In Nietzsche's terms, one actually must be a moral nihilist in order to refrain from becoming a nihilist. One must be immoral to affirm life to its highest degree.

>>10228698

>>10230711
Fuck you dude, those 𝔞's g𝔞ve me a mild epileptic episode, not kidding

>>10234547
Do you not know what the word 'contradiction' means?

>>10234335
It is coherent, just not systematically formatted.

>>10234365
You have no clue what the fuck you're talking about.

>>10234634
We're not going to go into logic and contradictions in something as simple as a Nietzsche thread. Let me teach you real quick: his categorical imperative is immorality. You cannot have a systematic behavior of being in the world and expect according appropriations.

>>10231076
>It's realizing that nihilism is itself an interpretation
We aren't talking about what Nietzsche considered himself but what he was. If you aren't a perspectivist or belong to one of the more pomo kinds of continental thought this explanation of interpretations doesn't work. Nietzsche was either a moral nihilist, a moral realist or an agnostic. This is a statement the vast majority of contemporary philosophers would agree with. Of the three I cannot see how he can be a moral realist.
There is also nothing inherent to a belief in moral nihilism which has anything to do with being weak. One doesn't have to be weak and a moral nihilist which is why when you say
>The real solution to nihilism? Don't be a depressive weakling
doesn't change anything. I don't like using Nietzsche radical perspectivism as a defense against moral nihilism because it throws a massive epistemological wrench into any sort of question about anything, and to merely assume it to be true (an idea which is quite niche in philosophy) only makes sense to me if we are trying to understand Nietzsche's philosophy from the inside which is not what we are trying to do. I think an argument needs to be put forward for his perspectivism before it can be used as a defense of him from the outside.

>>10232539
>Subjective morality =/= moral realism
Moral relativism can be considered both real and non-real. However I do not believe that it works to claim that were Nietzsche a moral relativist that was also a moral realist for then one is not free to create ones own values for moral relativism =/= ability to invent value,
the only reason why we are free to do that in the first place is that of moral nihilism.

>>10228163
This. Nietzsche definitely agreed with the premise of nihilism.

>>10235637
>We aren't talking about what Nietzsche considered himself but what he was.

Take a good look at his writing style. That is not the writing of a man who sees an absence of meaning in the world. An absence of meaning according to fictitious categories, yes —and that's an entirely different thing, hence why he criticizes Christianity and Buddhism as being nihilistic, and goes on to create his own values throughout his works, with sincerity, while making jokes often to boot. He is very much like the "dancing god" in Zarathustra when he writes.

>I think an argument needs to be put forward for his perspectivism before it can be used as a defense of him from the outside.

This is complex and outside the scope of the thread.

>>10235751
>This is complex and outside the scope of the thread
Then you shouldn't bring it up. The question wasn't does Nietzsche consider himself a moral nihilist, it's was Nietzsche a moral nihilist. The style and feeling of his writing is only important to the former and not the latter. His perspectivism can only be assumed in the former case, not the latter. If perspectivism is going to be brought up as a defense then it needs to be argued for because it is such a niche idea. At best you can say that according to his perspectivism he wouldn't consider himself a nihilist but that isn't how it was phrased, it was phrased that is isn't a nihilist because perspectivism is true. If perspectivism isn't going to be argued for it can't be assumed to be correct and so can't be used as the piece of evidence to defend Nietzsche from claims of moral nihilism.

>>10235766
>The question wasn't does Nietzsche consider himself a moral nihilist, it's was Nietzsche a moral nihilist.

I'm not saying Nietzsche "considered" himself to not be one. The problem of nihilism is psychological and I am saying that Nietzsche was psychologically not nihilistic. On the contrary, he is one of the most life-affirming writers in all of human history.

How the hell can anyone consider a man sick practically every day of his life, who was deemed unfit to join the military which was the dream of his youth, and who collapsed from brain cancer in the end, a nihilist, when despite that he writes almost every single day, his writing completely free of ressentiment, joyous to no end, tragically wise to no end, loving to no end? This is a man who faced every single one of his demons with laughter and appreciation for the fight. There is not a god damn nihilistic cell in his entire body.

Nietzsche is not a moral nihilist, you fucking morons.
In fact, whether he stands on the metaethical spectrum is a very disputed question. What we know for sure is he's a anti-realist. He could be described as either a non-cognitivist or a fictionalist.

>>10234334
Let me get this straight because everybody seems to have a rather different definition of nihilism but yours sounds accurate. Nietzsche is a nihilist in the sense that he acknowledges lack of intrinsic meaning (i.e. there is no objective morality), but not in a pessimistic way, as in "nothing matters, hence why not just kill myself".

So, because morality is not objective, the current perverted values can be deconstructed and subverted.

is that it?

>>10228152
Nietzsche was a nihilist, but a lot of people confuse what nihilism is.

>>10237146
>Nietzsche was a nihilist
Wrong, read the thread.

>>10228163
Kinda sounds like he wasn't a nihilist then

>>10234334
>>10236377
>nihilism is the absence of intrinsic meaning

Why does everyone follow Alan Pratt's definition of nihilism on Wikipedia? It's silly. Anyone who thinks for themselves is a nihilist by that definition; not a problem in philosophy worth talking about at all.

>>10237194
What definition do you follow?

>>10237599
Nietzsche's, because it is concerning of a real problem. Nihilism for him is the emptying of the world of value.

And the problem is:

>The faith in the categories of reason is the cause of nihilism. We have measured the value of the world according to categories that refer to a purely fictitious world.

>The concepts “beyond” and “real world” were invented in order to depreciate the only world that exists—in order that no goal, no aim or task might be left for our earthly reality.

>The concepts “soul”, “spirit” and last of all the concept “immortal soul” were invented in order to despise the body, in order to make it sick — “holy” — in order to cultivate an attitude of appalling disrespect for all things in life which deserve to be treated seriously.

>>10237599
>...there may even be puritanical fanatics of conscience, who prefer to put their last trust in a sure nothing, rather than in an uncertain something. But that is Nihilism, and the sign of a despairing, mortally wearied soul, notwithstanding the courageous bearing such a virtue may display.
-Beyond Good and Evil

>>10236377
yes

>>10235791
>On the contrary, he is one of the most life-affirming writers in all of human history.
We aren't talking about life affirming or life denying. Moral nihilism is in and of itself neither of those things. All of those things you mention of his thirst for life has absolutely nothing to do with the question that this whole thread is dedicated to. One can do everything you just mentioned and be a moral nihilist.

>>10237680
Nietzsche's definition of nihilism isn't moral nihilism though. If you are using Nietzsche's definition he isn't one but when people ask if he is one they don't mean by his idiosyncratic definition.

reminder that only liberals care about whether such or such doctrine is about moral nihilism or not

>>10238185
communists, anarchists, fascists, the apolitical, etc. can't hold opinions?

I don't think that's the case you dweeb

>tfw you realize nietzsche threads are shitty

>>10228956
>value
A property that differentiates between your potential responses to a stimulus, and which allows you to pick one over the other, all other things equal

>>10228596
wut, they are literally opposites.

william james advocates universal religious experiences as a way to find peace irregardless of their reality. nietzche is all about individuals creating your own systems for being.

>>10238596
I really do not understand how that is a definition of 'value'

>>10238596
>>10238694
only liberals use the word value as something else than a number which changes, typically over time. Liberals have replaces the ''moral principals'' with the word value due to their failure to go beyond their faith ''everything is relative but not being a liberal is bad'' and ''lol science is so right, is universe is just a bunch of numbers, but liberalism is more than just an opinion''. In fact the first liberals kept using ''moral principles'' since they were educated by theist Christians, but once those first were dead, the next generation of theists and atheist retards switched to the word value.

>>10231107
t. brainlet who didn't understand it either

>>10237994
>>10238004
The OP does not specify "moral nihilism" so you can't say that's what the thread was about. I've also been in the thread since the beginning and I never referred to "moral nihilism" but simply the problem of nihilism overall, which is a psychological phenomenon fundamentally. There is also no rule that I have to use Pratt's definition in this discussion, especially when I find it far less compelling and complete a definition. Like it was said before:

>Anyone who thinks for themselves is a nihilist by that definition; not a problem in philosophy worth talking about at all.

You want to keep pushing that stupid definition though, fine. The problem with that is, and I forget where he discusses this, but Nietzsche once argued AGAINST the notion of the thing-in-itself, not for it, particularly against the psychological precepts of such a notion. Basically, to say "things have no inherent value" is to once again make a fallacy of "things", the interpreted and the interpreter; it is a black and white lens being applied. "things" cannot be discussed on their own, the interpreter and the interpreted are linked for the end of time. "things have no inherent value" is still a statement of someone who has not moved passed this transition and still sees subject and object as separate.

>>10238694
It's rather a description desu ; but if it can only be described and not defined with more fundamental concepts, perhaps it really is a fundamental concept itself, as the other anon suggested.
This or we're all brainlets

>>10239007
Well you can say it's a description but I'm still going to expect a definition of this word before I take anything you say seriously. You're worse than the person who claimed that we don't need logic because I asked him if he knew what the word "contradiction" meant.

>>10228152
the lesson of will to power is that nihilism is a powerfully negative thought experiment, not a coherent weltanshaaung to which one can subscribe, this precisely because of its overwhelmingly negativity

>>10238903
I just noticed a mistake I made. Here:

>but Nietzsche once argued AGAINST the notion of the thing-in-itself,

I meant that he argued against the notion of the thing-in-itself being false. He argued against both notions of it being true and it being false.

The part that people seem to have trouble with is Nietzsche's notion of the world. They do not see how the categories "rational" and "irrational" emerge from a narrow human judgment of the world; a humanness is being projected onto the world simply by applying those categories at all. So it is wrong, a miscalculation of a sort, to say that he sees the world as fundamentally irrational. To see the world as he does, the categories need to be taken away entirely, and his view might seem as if it paints the world in the light of the irrational to you, but as long as it seems that way to you, you are still thinking within the realm of abstraction and not of reality and the kingdom of beasts and gods.

Once you do understand this, his concept of nihilism is so much clearer. Nihilism takes value away from reality and puts it in these fictitious categories. It is a psychological effect of varying causes, all stemming from the mistake, the original sin of placing value in the abstractions of reason.

>>10238903
>The OP does not specify "moral nihilism" so you can't say that's what the thread was about
This is what everyone almost always means when they call Nietzsche a nihilist and is what almost every thread is about, including and especially this thread. Because this is 4chan and I have no idea if I have been responding to the same person but this whole chain we are engaged with started off with people talking about the truth value of moral statements. Moral nihilism is exactly what has been the point of discussion that I have been responding to. You have jumped into a conversation about whether or not Nietzsche was a moral nihilist and tried argue he wasn't when you knowingly are using a different definition of the very word at the heart of the discussion. You want to answer/ask a completely different question from everyone in this chain.
So I'll say that if you use Nietzdche's definition of nihilism then no he is not. But now I want to get back to the other question is he a moral nihilist.

>but simply the problem of nihilism overall
There is no such thing s nihilism overall. Nihilism without qualifiers doesn't mean very much. It's a broad term that can mean a lot of very different things. You talking about some life denying attitude is not talking about nihilism overall, it is talking about a single aspect aspect of how some people use the term and asides from Nietzsche not how the term is generally used inside philosophy.

>"things" cannot be discussed on their own, the interpreter and the interpreted are linked for the end of time
This goes back to you trying to understand Nietzsche's position from the inside which isn't convincing if you don't accept his niche position on matters like this. I'm not a Nietzschean and I don't find such things convincing. This thread as I have said before isn't about trying to figure out that if according to his system he is an x but whether or not he is an x.

>>10239628
>But now I want to get back to the other question is he a moral nihilist.
I answered in that post you replied to and in >>10239434. "Trying to understand Nietzsche's position from the inside" is the same as trying to understand his philosophy and his philosophy is the answer to the question, is it not?

>>10239663
>his philosophy is the answer to the question, is it not?
It's only the right answer to the question if Nietzsche happens to be right. As I said before we aren't asking a scholarly question about what Nietzsche would have thought of something, it's weather or not Nietzsche was something. This is especially important to say because Nietzsche holds many niche philosophic position.

>I meant that he argued against the notion of the thing-in-itself being false. He argued against both notions of it being true and it being false.
Like for example when you say this. A hell of a lot of philosophers are not going to agree with this statement. You are going to need to make arguments.

>>10237176
No. Accepting life is meaningless and trying to figure out what to do with that is being a nihilist.

>>10239695
The thing is that you can't talk about Nietzsche's philosophy without... well, talking about his philosophy, which is tied deeply to his personal self and his psychological mode, and which he criticizes other philosophers as having done the same as well without realizing it.

He writes here in WP:

>Nihilism represents a pathological transitional stage (what is pathological is the tremendous generalization, the inference that there
is no meaning at all) : whether the productive forces are not yet strong enough, or whether decadence still hesitates and has not yet invented its remedies.

Treating it like a psychological effect, which I know doesn't "prove" anything to you...

>Presupposition of this hypothesis: that there is no truth, that there is no absolute nature of things nor a "thing-in-itself." This, too, IS
merely nihilism--even the most extreme nihilism. It places the value of things precisely in the lack of any reality corresponding to these
values and in their being merely a symptom of strength on the part of the value-positers, a simplification for the sake of life.

The important thing to note here is how he treats the subject. He treats it almost like a scientist. He refers to it as merely a presupposition. People saying he is a nihilist argue that he thought this himself, that there's no absolute nature of things — and at certain times he does. Nietzsche is a value-judgment thinker though, he adopts presuppositions like putting on sparring gear as is fitting for the fight ahead.

I'll continue in the next post.

>>10239775
Here is an interesting passage:

>To what extent Schopenhauer's nihilism still follows from the same ideal that created Christian theism. --One felt so certain about the highest desiderata, the highest values, the highest perfection that the philosophers assumed this as an absolute certainty, as if it were a priori: "God" at the apex as a given truth. "To become as God," "to be absorbed into God"--for thousands of years these were the most naive and convincing desiderata (but what convinces is not necessarily true--it is merely convincing: a note for asses). One has unlearned the habit of conceding to this posited ideal the reality of a person; one has become atheistic. But has the ideal itself been renounced? — At bottom, the last metaphysicians still seek in it true "reality," the "thing-in-itself " compared to which everything else is merely apparent. It is their dogma that our apparent world, being so plainly not the expression of this ideal, cannot be "true"--and that, at bottom, it does not even lead us back to that metaphysical world as its cause.

He conflates the precept of Christian theism with the precept of Schopenhauerian (classic) atheism. Basically, atheists claiming to be nihilists (as in they see no absolute value) are typically hypocrites; they act as if there still are absolutes. They have not psychologically evolved beyond their theist counterparts.

>It is a very remarkable moment: the Sophists verge upon the first critique of morality, the first insight into morality : --they juxtapose the multiplicity (the geographical relativity) of the moral value judgments ; --they let it be known that every morality can be dialectically justified; i. e., they divine that all attempts to give reasons for morality are necessarily sophistical--a proposition later proved on the grand scale by the ancient philosophers, from Plato onwards (down to Kant); --they postulate the first truth that a "morality-in-itself , " a "good-in-itself " do not exist, that it is a swindle to talk of "truth" in this field.

I find this obvious though it may be easy to miss: he is criticizing all formulations of the absolute. If the truth for Nietzsche is not absolute, what is it? What does “true” mean? Could he really suggest this, and then go on to assert that “there are no facts, only interpretations” is absolute? Nope, and that line was never intended to be an absolute declaration; he’d have zero self-awareness then. But isn’t he saying right there that he agrees with the Sophists who realized that there is no morality-in-itself, that what they said was THE TRUTH, making him a moral nihilist? Haven’t I just proven you and everyone calling him a nihilist right? Nope; “there are no facts, only interpretations” … there is no THE TRUTH … Nietzsche’s Dionysian ideal cannot be boxed into any absolute like that. If you attempt to do so you are diluting his philosophy.

>>10239780
>The intellect cannot criticize itself, simply because it cannot be compared with other species of intellect and because its capacity to know would be revealed only in the presence of "true reality," i. e., because in order to criticize the intellect we should have to be a higher being with "absolute knowledge." This presupposes that, distinct from every perspective kind of outlook or sensual-spiritual appropriation, something exists, an "in-itself."--But the psychological derivation of the belief in things forbids us to speak of "things-in-themselves."

It’s like one of those surrealist paintings where you can look down the point of horizon and see a repeating pattern until it’s out of sight. That’s what trying to force an absolute onto Nietzsche’s thought is like. That effect happens only when you make an error in judgment, and the error is based on the psychological precept you have not evolved from which theists possessed. In your subconscious you tend towards an absolute and you therefore project that onto Nietzsche when you say he was a moral-nihilist for a fact.

>Not "to know" but to schematize to impose upon chaos as much regularity
and form as our practical needs require. In the formation of reason, logic, the categories, it was need that was authoritative: the need, not to "know," but to subsume, to schematize, for the purpose of intelligibility and calculation-- (The development of reason is adjustment, invention, with the aim of making similar, equal-- the same process that every sense impression goes through!) No pre- existing "idea" was here at work, but the utilitarian fact that only when we see things coarsely and made egual do they become calculable and usable to us--Finality in reason is an effect, not a cause: life miscarries with any other kinds of reason, to which there is a continual impulse--it becomes difficult to survey—too unequal […] The subjective compulsion not to contradict here is a biological compulsion: the instinct for the utility of inferring as we do infer is part of us, we almost are this instinct--But what naivete to extract from this a proof that we are therewith in possession of a "truth in itself "! --Not being able to contradict is proof of an incapacity, not of "truth. "

“Not being able to contradict is proof of an incapacity, not of ‘truth.’” Precisely what I said above about the surreal picture, really…

More in the next post, should be the last.

>>10239815
>At last, the "thing-in-itself " also disappears, because this is fundamentally the conception of a "subject-in-itself." But we have grasped that the subject is a fiction. The antithesis "thing-in-itself" and "appearance" is untenable; with that, however, the concept "appearance" also disappears. If we give up the effective subject, we also give up the object upon which effects are produced. Duration, identity with itself, being are inherent neither in that which is called subject nor in that which is called object: they are complexes of events apparently durable in comparison with other complexes — e . g., through the difference in tempo of the event (rest — motion, firm--loose: opposites that do not exist in themselves and that actually express only variations in degree that from a certain perspective appear to be opposites. There are no opposites: only from those of logic do we derive the concept of opposites--and falsely transfer it to things). 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.

>One may not ask: "who then interprets?" for the interpretation itself is a form of the will to power, it exists (but not as a "being, ' but as a process, a becoming) as an affect. The origin of "things" is wholly the work of that which imagines, thinks, wills, feels. The concept "thing" itself just as much as all its qualities . --Even "the subject" is such a created entity, a "thing" like all others: a simplification with the object of defining the force which posits, invents, thinks, as distinct from all individual positing, inventing, thinking as such. Thus a capacity as distinct from all that is individual--fundamentally, action collectively considered with respect to all anticipated actions (action and the probability of similar actions) .

>Root of the idea of substance in language, not in beings outside us! The thing-in-itself is no problem at all!

>Our "knowing" limits itself to establishing quantities; but we cannot help feeling these differences in quantity as qualities. Quality is a perspective truth for us; not an "in-itself."

>Knowledge-in-itself in a world of becoming is impossible; so how is knowledge possible? As error concerning oneself, as will to power, as will to deception.

I think it is getting repetitive at this point. I’d like to see what others think now.

>ITT: retards prove they don't understand what nihilism is

>>10239081
Well keep expecting, but I told you all I can find is a description of it, not a definition, ie I can say what it does but not what it's made of. Perhaps I'm a brainlet, but if no-one else can provide you with a definition of it with more fundamental concepts — and neither can you —, well there might not be such more fundamental concepts.

>>10228152
What is admirable about "let's just let all the ideologues hash it out and whoever remains is obviously correct"?

>>10239730
Do you not see the contradiction in your sentence, sounds more like existentialism

>>10228152

The far right side of this chart is where you should be after simply reading an introduction to Nietzsche's work.

>>10240095
Have you even read Nietzsche? My god.

>>10240229
I just extrapolated. If his philosophy is not inherently nihilistic then we have to assume the objectively best ideology is the one which asserts the most power/influence.

>>10240253
Yes, but at the level of the individual, not society. That's the problem with people these days, they want to fucking politicise everything. So in a way you're right, and Neitszche was applying
>"let's just let all the ideologues hash it out and whoever remains is obviously correct"?
But IN HIS OWN HEAD. As it should be in yours, not in politics.

Fuck, I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Nietzsche was an existential and moral nihilist; that is, he didn't believe there was any absolute meaning to life (existential nihilist) or any truth to morals (moral nihilist). However, he was pragmatic in that he thought that, even if we believe this, it's a sign of weakness to see it as depressing, and a sign of strength to keep living in as happy and strong a way despite it.

tl;dr there's no correct emotional interpretation of the meaninglessness of life, you can be happy or sad despite it

>>10240598
The world is meaningful when you are strong and give it meaning. Is that nihilism?

>>10240598
But you're wrong.

Rate my meme

>>10240598
That's really not it at all.

>>10239902
I think you're just a brainlet, desu. Refusing to try to define a word is a sign of either cowardice or ignorance.

>Let us not forget when it is the milk churns to butter: when the arms are most tired! But aha, what would woman know of such creamery? The woman would prefer to leave her milk out, putrefying into cheese, because like cheese she is a putrid being.
What did he mean by this?

Where do I start with Nietzsche, /lit/?

>>10241039
accurate

That feeling when the best and brightest of /lit/ fail to realize Nietzsche was actually a poet.

And to call him pseud-friendly...
Is practically revealing yourself as a 3rd rate mind at best, suffering from at least one major adverse indoctrination.

Will reading his stuff help me get into Rick and Morty?

>>10241486
Start with the greeks

>>10241186
Pseudes love Nietzsche though, that's unavoidable. He was actually a philologist and obviously an incredibly talented author, but I don't think he was just a poet. He's too nuanced to put him in a single box like that.

>>10239775
>The thing is that you can't talk about Nietzsche's philosophy without... well, talking about his philosophy, which is tied deeply to his personal self and his psychological mode, and which he criticizes other philosophers as having done the same as well without realizing it.
I do appreciate the effort you put into the posts that follow this one and for you sophisticated understanding of Nietzsche but I am incredibly frustrated with the way you are avoiding the question and assuming Nietzsche was right. As I have said several times I am not a Nietzschean or a perspectivist with the latter being a niche thing in philosophy. You need to do something to argue for why using such a lens is warranted.

>The thing is that you can't talk about Nietzsche's philosophy without... well, talking about his philosophy
And you are only doing that from the inside refusing any attempt to even discuss the idea of talking of it from the outside.
Either Nietzsche is correct in his understanding of the world in which case he is insulated from claims of moral nihilism or Nietzsche was wrong and he has to be defended against such claims. You are just asserting that these claims can't be laid against him because of his philosophy when you haven't tried at all to prove that he is right and considering how radical Nietzsche is in these regards the burden of proof is on you.

Remember we aren't talking about what Nietzsche considers himself to be but what he is. Someone can claim to be an atheist who believes in The Resurrection and God etc. They might be correct in so far as their definition of atheist is concerned but using any normal definition the person is not an atheist. Their beliefs and intentions do not matter at all. You either need to argue for Nietzsche's position or concede that we can make claims on Nietzsche's status as a moral non-realist regardless of what he thought of his own philosophy