/lit/ - Literature

>>11496359
>lol I want people to never argue and the status quo to never change in order for my rich ass to feel non threatened by the plebs
Nice philosopher.

>>11496367
He implies that the status quo should be changed via other means, ie battle and looks and stuff, more "primitive" virtues.

>>11496382
Without arguements, the holder of power never has a reason to relinquish it. Nietzsche clearly wants the status quo to never change, but doesn't ahve the balls to outright admit it.

>>11496359
Nietzsche was just a polemicist stirring up the pot, and a person who was so contrarian and satirical that he believed, at times, in his own bullshit.

Nietzsche, as a person and as a philosopher, is an ant compared to Plato or Socrates.

>>11496388
>Without arguements, the holder of power never has a reason to relinquish it.
>relinquish it.
just take it lmao

>>11496359
Why does young Nietzsche always look like he got shit stuck under his nose?

>One chooses logical argument only when one has no other means. One knows that one arouses mistrust with it, that it is not very persuasive. Nothing is easier to nullify than a logical
argument: the tedium of long speeches proves this. It is a kind of self-defense for those who no longer have other weapons. Unless one has to insist on what is already
one's right, there is no use for it. The Jews were argumentative for that reason; Reynard the Fox also - and Socrates too?

DUDE JUST DEADLIFT

>>11496431
>Reynard the Fox
noice
you actually read

>>11496359
>with dialectics the plebs come to the top
t. pleb

>>11496479
Schools need to bring back Physiognomy, ugly plebians like him should have no place in society.

>Plato goes further. He says with an innocence possible only for a Greek, not a "Christian," that there would be no Platonic philosophy at all if there were not such beautiful youths in Athens: it is only their sight that transposes the philosopher's soul into an erotic trance, leaving it no peace until it lowers the seed of all exalted things into such beautiful soil.

BASED
A
S
E
D

>>11496359
He's right. With Söycrates, Western culture shits itself, and it's pretty much taken until the 20th century for all that shit to be shoveled out of our slacks so that we might proceed toward greater things.

>>11496359
>>11496367
>>11496382
>>11496388
>>11496403
>>11496410
>>11496420
>>11496431
>>11496469
>>11496479
>>11496530
>>11496621
>>11496637
But in all seriousness, no one actually buys this garbage, right?

>>11496637
Yup, exactly.
>Söycrates
Lol'd, he himself was pretty alpha though but the shit he espoused wasn't.

>>11496667
Why not, what do you have against it?

>>11496667
I agree unironically. Dialectics is cancer.

>>11496637
You, like NEETzsche, have it exactly backwards. Western culture died in the 20th century, and it is the inquisitive Socratic spirit that allowed it to prosper.

>>11496793
Shoo, shoo, back to the monastery, you've got some Plato to transcribe.

>>11496793
Western Culture died when Socrates/Plato killed it.
If I showed my nobility and strength by going to work in the summer with my naked upper body the Greeks would have cheered and gave me props, while in the modern world the HR department would fire me.

>western culture is unga
>no western culture is bunga

use a more specific term for your favourite flavours retards. referring to things as western is much too vague.

>>11496821
>>11496891
Keep worshiping a bunch of savages who lived in mud huts. NEETzsche is perhaps the biggest joke of the 19th century.

Does serious discussion ever enter a thread on this board, or is it endless shit flinging between different groups of autists?

>>11496960
I love savage mud huts!

>>11496793
The death of Western culture is the longterm result of Western Christianity--Platonism for the masses.

>>11496940
Christendom
>>11496960
>mud huts

>NEETzsche is perhaps the biggest joke of the 19th century
The biggest joke is Marx

>>11496359
>sickly invalid idolizes culture that would’ve literally left him to die of exposure in the woods
kek. neetch would fit right in on /pol/

>>11497031
he was pretty fit before his collapse. and the greeks would have kept good care of him because they would have heaps respected him.

>>11497031
He was strong enough to transcend his own ego.

>>11497031
Gee, it’s almost like he was willing to pursue the truth rather than what was convenient for him. Give me a break.

>>11496359
From which book is this, friend?

>>11497078
Twilight of the Idols

It's lightning in a bottle, I love it. Nietzsche wrote it as a quick and powerful introduction to his later work.

>>11497042
>they would have heaps respected him.

why? what sort of worthwhile input would nietzsche have in actual ancient greece?

>>11497031
It really says a lot about a person if he finds it completely absurd that someone would advocate a system because they think it's glorious and not because they would have the easiest possible life in it.

>>11496359
Nah the problem starts at Plato and his interpretation of Socrates.
The TRUE line of succession:
>Socrates
>Diogenes of Sinope

>>11497005
Ahistorical nonsense. Get the fuck out of here.

>>11497077
>>11497133
You know you could say the same thing about Socrates.

>>11497011
Marx is a tragedy, not a joke.

>posts classical Greek architecture, built in the post-Socratic era
Good job brainlet.

>>11497138
The problems start with the "philosophes" of the 18th century, and NEETzsche is very much a sophist from the same tradition.

>>11497149
>>posts classical Greek architecture, built in the post-Socratic era
>Good job brainlet.
Who's saying that nothing good happened after Socrates? Nietzsche loved the Rennaisance. Bad strawman.
>>11497150
Yeah. So?

>>11497167
>Who's saying that nothing good happened after Socrates?
>greatest advances in science, technology, anything come after and in part due to post-Socratic thinkers
>the evidence contradicts my theory?
>begin special pleading on steroids
Almost everything Nietzsche said was provably factually wrong. The guy was a complete joke.

Literally the Bertrand Russell of the 19th century. He should have stuck to shitty reviews of theatre and opera.

Max Scheler smacks Nietzsche with his work on Ressentiment

>>11497149
Who gives a fuck, the architectural style existed before Socrates.

The temple ofAphaea was finished before Socrates was born.

>>11497077
>it’s almost like he was willing to pursue the truth
daddy neetch would laugh at you for this

>>11497188
You wouldn't know, since, based on your assumptions that Nietzsche advocated some sort of Nordic pagan mud hut cult or thought that Europe after Socrates was some kind of cultural vacuum, you've never read him.

>>11497204
TARDzsche did. My reference to mud huts was a shorthand for Nietzsche's incoherent rage against civilisation and his worship of barbarism. He claimed to admire the fruits of civilisation while constantly attacking the foundation that made them possible.

>>11497226
You either read nothing by Nietzsche or are a very uncritical reader.

>>11497233
Resentment is the foundation of civilization?
>>11497239
This is getting more and more pathetic. Take a chance, read an aphorism or two of his, you might actually discover that you get something out of it.

>>11497233
He thinks there should be a balance and that since Socrates the instincts got too muffled. He liked architecture and engineering, not useless logical tinkering especially when it was used as a weapon to undermine a more traditional culture of strength and nobility (which is basically martial prowess)

>>11497099
I think I have it in one of those short collections from him. I was looking for something to read while I wait for another book to come in this week, so I think I'll read that now if I have it after all.

>>11497249
Logical tinkering is what made engineering and architecture possible for fuck's sake. You can't build anything complex without knowing math.

>He thinks there should be a balance
He made vague, uncommitted appeals to "balance" between the "Apollonian" and the "Dyonisian" in the same way a new age retard does nowadays. For one, the categories are entirely metafictional. It's nonsense (which is why the dichotomy is so popular in arts and literature departments).

>>11497248
>Resentment is the foundation of civilization?
This question is gibberish.

>>11497281
>This question is gibberish.
Thank God, all hope is not lost.

>>11496773
>>11496781
Please provide an argument for why dialectics should be abandoned

>>11497290
Now that would just be silly.

>>11497290
Sour grapes, just like Nietzsche. Analytical thinking is simply too hard for some people. Let him puff a smoke and spit out another "aphorism" instead.

>>11497290
Because It show a broken, bad character. Taking off your shirt and fighting it out > dialectics.

>>11497281
There's a difference between playful tinkering to create something tangible and autistically building axiomatic systems like Kant did.

>>11497298
Actually Dialecticians are the sour grape ones because they usually can't even BP their own Bodyweight for reps.

>>11497298
Don't confuse Nietzsche with his fans bruh

>>11497197
I wonder if Bertie could have broken a bone.

>>11497298
Analytic philosophers spit out mostly rootless nonsense and have made a mockery out of their own intellect. Try reading any analytic philosopher since the 70s if you want to know why philosophy is entirely irrelevant to the world nowadays. It is hard, as you say, but it's not valuable and that's why no one cares.

>>11497331
Try reading any analytic philosopher since the 70s if you want to know why philosophy is entirely irrelevant to the world nowadays
You're conflating philosophy of science with ideological philosophizing. Philosophy as a science, when treated as a science, is the basis of rational thought itself.

>>11497312
>Taking off your shirt and fighting it out > dialectics
Why?

>>11497350
"Why" is for dialecticians. Try it and find out for yourself.

>>11497331
>Try reading any analytic philosopher since the 70s if you want to know why philosophy is entirely irrelevant to the world nowadays

You're conflating philosophy of science with ideological philosophizing. Philosophy as a science, when treated as a science, is the basis of rational thought itself.

>>11497356
>Try it and find out for yourself
Why?

>>11496773
>>11496781

...Are you serious? The fact that all of this entails going back in time to a primitive warlike culture where life is objectively more hellish and difficult for everyone? Sacrificing every modern thing that makes life more bearable, like healthcare to keep us from dying slow painful deaths?

No one, including Nietzsche or anyone who believes this, would be happy in such a world. Also, it is impossible for the world to ever be like this very naively constructed scenario, since humans have evolved to cooperate to meet goals, and the use of such tools as logic is necessary for survival.

The idea that you can "leave aside logic" is literally unintelligible considering you're using those same tools to communicate and make this point, and to perform basic functions in your life like finding food to eat, figuring out what time it is, etc. Logic is simply part of the structure of the world and discourse (whether it exists abstractly or not), it's like saying "yeah dude, physics just holds us back, lets go jump off a building".

>>11497366
:^)

>>11497312
>Taking off your shirt and fighting it out > dialectics.
0% chance you’ve ever been in a fight 2bh

>>11497348
Philosophy of science is only one of many branches of philosophy that could be called "analytic." I was speaking of the whole, not one of its parts. And not to mention, it's perhaps the least important of all analytic philosophy.

>>11497367
>going back in time to a primitive warlike culture
> Sacrificing every modern thing that makes life more bearable, like healthcare to keep us from dying slow painful deaths?
You have a wild imagination, my friend. Also, what's wrong with logic and cooperation? Seems to me it would make basic problems like "I'm hungry" and "I'm sick" quite difficult to solve.

>>11496359

He didn't strive to be either of them, that's for sure.

>>11497375
If you're speaking of the "whole" and you're forced to admit that "on the whole" your presupposition was incorrect, or flawed, then you should re-assess whether your perspectives are shared with anyone of any serious authority on the matter. Because they aren't.

Philosophy, as a whole, is the substrate which sits below the whole of science. Whether individual niches of philosophical exploration and experimentation happen to be fruitful to a narrowly banded and defined set of parameters you're arbitrarily setting is of no concern to anyone but yourself.

>>11497367
>where life is objectively more hellish and difficult for everyone?
Only for the plebs, fight to be in the top or perish.

>>11497388
>You have a wild imagination, my friend.

Are we talking about the same thing? I'm taking about the idea that argumentation (and really, logic) isn't necessary for survival, or that we can go back to some mythical time where people just didn't argue and we all listened to our authorities (which never existed).

>Also, what's wrong with logic and cooperation? Seems to me it would make basic problems like "I'm hungry" and "I'm sick" quite difficult to solve.

Are you misunderstanding my post? I'm saying those problems are impossible to solve without even the most rudimentary kind of reason.

>>11497410
That fact that you're an internet nerd posting on anime meme board means you are overwhelmingly unlikely to be in that tiny minority.

The "Nietzsche" that's being criticized in this thread is alternately Ragnar Redbeard, Varg Vikernes, and Ayn Rand. I'm sure /lit/ can do better than this.

>>11497428
I'm saying that Nietzsche isn't advocating some return to the past, which he considers neither possible nor desirable, and that he's not saying logic and cooperation are bad things. Where are you getting that stuff from? This
>some mythical time where people just didn't argue and we all listened to our authorities
is especially bizarre.

>>11497312
>Taking off your shirt and fighting it out > dialectics.
Which of those do think really shows a "broken, bad character"? Go out into the world and ask someone.
Okay, they're all plebeian last men. It doesn't matter what they think and resorting to dialectics shows bad character because it doesn't put you above them. But they don't care.
Nietzsche's ethics is such that it only appeals to someone who already shares his values (or at least enough of them). There's no convincing anyone else they're broken for resorting to reason instead of chimping out, so his entire philosophy is just an ego masturbation manual.

>>11497449
>Above all, a noble taste is vanquished; with dialectics the plebs come to the top.

He clearly thinks argumentation is a bad thing if it gets "plebs" (really, any social class he dislikes) power over their authorities (anyone he likes, whose culture he approves of). Which is absolutely retarded considering it's a basic function of discourse. It also doesn't make sense how this "vanquishes" noble taste. How are the two in conflict with each other at all?

And even if he's just talking about aesthetics and literary taste, it's still retarded considering the development of such dialectics was necessary for modern advancements like science etc. That was the entire point of my last post.

>Honest things, like honest men, do not have to explain themselves so openly.

(absolutely baseless and extremely naive, btw)

>>11497449
>I'm sure /lit/ can do better than this.
I'm not. It's quite clear almost no one here has read him or cares to.

>>11497408
> doesn't say which presupposition he is referring to
> doesn't say why it's incorrect or flawed
> tells you to make sure you can appeal to authority in order to hold your belief
> says no one cares about whether I think philosophy is valuable meanwhile no one cares at all about philosophy anymore except a small group of autists

is this the power of the analytical manchild?

>>11497449
>The "Nietzsche" that's being criticized in this thread is alternately Ragnar Redbeard, Varg Vikernes, and Ayn Rand.

All of them are (somehow) smarter than him and would kick his ass.

>>11497449
Ragnar Redbeard was super influenced by Nietzsche, like come on

>>11497428
>Are we talking about the same thing? I'm taking about the idea that argumentation (and really, logic) isn't necessary for survival, or that we can go back to some mythical time where people just didn't argue and we all listened to our authorities (which never existed).

You can agree or disagree but not engage in logical dialectics and taking apart arguments by autistically picking up words and looking for faults instead of taking verbal games as a part of a bigger package.

>>11497535
>Ragnar Redbeard was super influenced by Nietzsche
The dude's a fucking clown compared to N.

>>11496960
looks like someone hasn't started with the greeks.

Every post in this thread is 100% wrong about Nietzsche

>>11497509
You're being very literal, and this class and authority scheme you keep going to isn't in Nietzsche, still not sure where you're getting that from. I don't think dialectics are essential for science, since they're not the same as reasoning and demonstration. They're quite useful though.
>>11497530
(you)
>>11497535
Yes, but still quite different and a lot more simplistic in many ways.

>>11497658
Every post in this thread is 100% right about Nietzsche.

>>11497658
>>11497664
No posts in this thread are either right or wrong about Nietzsche.

>>11497661
>Yes, but still quite different and a lot more simplistic in many ways.
A lot more simplistic without basic nuance, to the point that some people think that it's satire.

>>11496359
Does this guy ever cite his sources? I hate how he delivers information. I'm not just going to take his word for it.

>>11496359
>Socrates was the buffoon who got himself taken seriously
And Nietzsche was the crybaby who got himself taken seriously. They both suck. Philosophy is worthless.

>>11497777
Wouldn't surprise me, it's literally the crudest form of "strong rule weak lol".

>>11497797
Nietzsche never considered himself a "Philosopher", much of his work is lambasting "Philosophers".

>>11497011
>The biggest joke is Marx
This is correct. Bitzsche is a big joke too though.

>>11497312
This is bait right? I can't tell anymore.

>>11497062
>>11497077
This is right. The common criticism that gets hurled at Neech and other thinkers that they don't fit their own ideals stems from poor readers feeling like they are being insulted. Quit getting your feelings hurt and actually seek truth.

>>11497011
>the biggest joke is Marx

obviously. Millions died because of his incompetence.

>>11497658
>>11497664
Every post in this thread is 100% beyond right or wrong about Nietzsche

>>11497816
Yeah I know he was a superior-feeling little bitch. Doesn't matter how he saw himself. He was a worthless rhetorician like all the others.

>>11497449
>The "Nietzsche" that's being criticized in this thread is alternately Ragnar Redbeard, Varg Vikernes, and Ayn Rand.
Doesn't seem like it to me. When distilled to its essence, Nietzsche is writing apologia for barbarism. Oh, you're upset that the posts aren't putting it eloquently enough? But eloquence is just a game between philosophers, by which each interlocutor asserts their will to power and tries to dominate the other. Let us dispense with this pretence and measure our dicks directly instead.

>>11497864
>because of his incompetence.

>>11497658
No.

>>11497664
Also, no.

>>11497668
Likewise, no.

>>11497864
>let me attribute all of the deaths under nominally "communist" countries to one man's philosophy which said countries all wildly extrapolated from the core of!
>John Locke?; Adam Smith? Responsible for all the deaths under "free market" striving capitalist countries? Never!!!1!11!!

>>11496359
I was really surprised when I first read Nietzsche. Most great thinkers I read have no presence in the world. You don't encounter people who think like Wittgenstein usually. But with Nietzsche I felt like I had already encountered him hundreds of times in the form of whiny, rensentful, hysterical Marxists.

>>11497870
Fuck you.

>>11496359
>dudebroish
ah ok we done, bye 4chan. you were nice until you weren’t

>>11497911
Nietzsche is not a great thinker. He is the biggest factory of thought-terminating cliches to have ever graced this world. Reading Nietzsche is like injecting mercury into your brain.

>>11497233
>>11497876
Why even write arguments for barbarism? Just live that way. Crafting rhetoric feels so antithetical to that for me. If that's really what Nietzsche is talking about in his work he is as big a joke as people say.

ITT: Pasty modal logic majors who can't slay pussy and can't enjoy the Dionysian side of life attacking Nietzsche for smacking some truth into their sorry asses.

>>11497994
I'll kill you. I mean it.

>>11497911
What are you smoking, the closest thing to Twilight of the Idols is some locker room brolosophy of a power lifting gym.

>>11497998
Stop being a beta male

>>11497986
>If that's really what Nietzsche is talking about
Don't worry, it isn't.

>>11496359
>What must first be proved is worth little
This is the most retarded statement in existence.

>>11498000
No. He was a crybaby who needed his diaper changed and a Marxist

>>11498005
I'm not beta. I would genuinely end your life if I knew you.

This thread reads like one big fucking circlejerk between self-help reading faggots and false-flagging /pol/tards, none of which have any background in Nietzsche or any philosophy for that matter.

>nietzsche's philosophy applies to carbon-based lifeforms
pathetic

>>11498012
>Everyone I disagree with is a marxist
remind me again why are you different from the leftists you hate. Not even Marxist-Nietzscheans t hink Nietzsche was a Marxist.

>>11498036
Oh the word salad meth guy said it so that's settled.

>>11498036
that is what the silicon-jew wants you to believe

>>11498042
I don't accuse everyone I disagree with of being a Marxist and I'm not a right-winger. Nietzsche's thought is a lot like Marx though.

>>11498056
What in the fuck, it's the polar opposite.

>>11498056
I sincerely doubt you've read either of them if you think that.

>>11496359
Can anyone explain what leftists see in Nietzsche? I know of many kids in college who are your stereotypical leftists that for some reason still like Nietzsche? Is it just because he BTFO's Christianity every once and awhile? Do they not understand the rest?

>>11498075
>>11498088
They're both resentful of society for being failures and use pointless rhetoric to try and change it into something untenable. Who cares if their ideas aren't the same. They're basically the same pointless guy.

>>11496981
We kill both those birds with the same stone

Keep in mind that Nietzsche is essentially writing about our age. His diagnosis of the West is that the ready resort of the slave, overuse of logos, has arrived at ascendancy in public discourse.

This is a symptom of weak and ineffectual culture. It means that a people have lost their sense of respect of order and reverence of vitality and life; their instincts have been corrupted. Morality replaces honor, abstraction takes the place of concrete practical formulations. The lower orders of society come to dominate.

For the lower orders are still in tune with their instincts. They know subconsciously that a destruction of instinct among the higher orders is the one sure way of perpetuating themselves against the desires of superior estates.

A petty bourgeois is full of hatred for an aristocrat. He starts to promote abolition of class distinction. His logical arguments, like Tom Paine's, are pretty good:
>Why should there be born rulers? There are no born mathematicians or born architects.

A weak society accepts them, for they flatter its instincts and hatred of strength and life. A strong society throws the man in prison for a term to shut him up.

I think most of this is bullshit btw, that's just what Nietzsche really mean by it. Some of it is useful though.

>>11497986
He's not making pointed arguments in defence of barbarism. The thing with Nietzsche is that he was, vocationally, a literary critic. He's talking a lot about art, genius, stories, and histories of ideas (which is why a couple whiny fags in this thread deny his lust for barbarism; his style and subject matter gives them enough leeway). But again and again, the arguments he makes about whatever subject he is writing about betray a deep discomfort with either the civility of his time or civilisation itself. It doesn't help that he's a very emotional writer (emotions arise in the primitive part of the brain).

>>11498104
I'm a leftist and I like Nietzsche because he puts the individual will to power above ethics and society's mores, this isn't very difficult.
>>11498125
Jesus fucking Christ, do you only read books by people who agree with the status quo? Is Dale Carneige the only thing you read?

>>11498026
Stop samefagging, Nietzsche-tard.

>>11498153
>do you only read books by people who agree with the status quo
I like art. I try not to corrupt myself with empty rhetoric.

>>11498104
Nietzscheans are right wing social darwinist dudebros. Where do you get Leftists from.

>>11498163
Your posts are pure empty rhetoric.

>>11498150
>he's a very emotional writer
And there's the rub. Logic on the whole is just alien to him.

>>11498053
The Übermensch is just the x-Jew who succeeded in getting you to believe he's the Übermensch

>>11498177
They're art, you're just missing perspective.

>>11498104
>Can anyone explain what leftists see in Nietzsche?
It's pretty clear when you realise that the primary urge of leftists is destruction. The destruction of western civilisation in particular. They identify the same impetus in Nietzsche, except with him it's sublimated in a different way. They all revolt against society all the same.

All the talk about ressentiment was probably Nietzsche projecting himself unto the world.

>>11498185
>him
more like friederike am i right

>>11498195
Case in point:
>>11498153
>'m a leftist and I like Nietzsche because he puts the individual will to power above ethics and society's mores

>>11498020
Keep talkin tough guy

>>11498189
Shit art then, worse than anything Nietzsche wrote. Maybe you should read him to try to learn some shit.

>>11498137
>Keep in mind that Nietzsche is essentially writing about our age.
No, he was writing about his own time.

>>11498216
You can't have an opinion on my art because you aren't a part of my audience. You are my unknowing and inept collaborator.

>>11497367
>modern medicine keeps you from dying a slow painful death
you don't know many elderly people, do you

>>11498228
Not that guy, but empty rhetoric can be art, and vice versa
These two things aren't mutually exclusive

>>11498230
>we haven't cured ageing
>therefore medicine is ineffective against things that in the past would have been fatal
Is this the power of the Nietzsche-infested brain?

>>11498056
>uses "marxist" as an insult
>i'm not a right winger though

>>11498243
That doesn't apply here. Nietzsche is mere rhetoric.

>>11498036
if you're "identifying" as anything you're definitely not that thing

>>11498219
>No, he was writing about his own time.
We live in basically the same age- the democratic age. Our time is his time, and our problems are just advanced versions of his.

>>11498170
gilles deleuze attempted a marxist reconsideration of nietzsche

>>11498275
That's such an ignorant thing to say. The world has diverged a lot from the "problems" of his age. Most of the "problems" that Nietzsche was "identifying" aren't even problems to begin with. The guy was nuts.

>>11498256
just putting off your slow painful death. and what's the difference if it happens now or twenty years from now? is it better to die alone in a hospital barely lucid and stuffed full of tubes and wires than it is to die in your prime, say, in battle? either way the result is the same

>>11498297
Cringeworthy post.

>>11498294
it's naive to think that one century is radically different from the last, epochs aren't over in a few decades, that's just what marketers would like you to think. especially considering that the economic system is the same as it was in 1880 with some superficial changes. how can you argue we live in a different time when we haven't experienced any world-changing upheavels to match those of the industrial revolution?

>>11498302
i'd also argue that modern medicine's emphasis on duration of life with no corresponding consideration of quality or purpose is one of the major problems that could well end this phase of civilization. human life treated as a net good to be increased endlessly in quantity. 10 billion humans eking out meager slavish existences is better than 1 million living free responsible lives. the entire world converted into a factory farm just to squeeze as many souls into as possible

>>11498294
>That's such an ignorant thing to say
>The guy was nuts
Just lol

>>11498311
No one said that every century is radically different from the previous. The history of ancient Egypt can attest to that. Thing is, this isn't ancient Egypt.

>especially considering that the economic system is the same as it was in 1880 with some superficial changes.
Dumb, untrue claim.

>>11498332
Nietzsche was various degrees of insane in a very literal, medical sense for most of his life. The poor guy was probably born crooked.

>>11498338
the anon who argued that nietzsche was writing for his time and as such is no longer applicable did. and tell me what's the difference between a capitalist industrial economy and the same capitalist industrial economy 150 years later? sure it's more "developed" but it's the same thing at core

>>11498344
Great contribution to thread

>>11498346
>the stereotypical /lit/ pseud who knows nothing about economics and economic history decides to opine on the subject
yawn

>>11498357
Then be specific. How is our age less democratic than Nietzsche's? How does it show less of slave morality? Why shouldn't we believe that our stock is getting weaker, as he did, when we have studies and statistic to indicate it is?
>timez iz different and neechee was curaazzyy
all you've contributed so far

>>11497790
asking for sources is a sign of a weak and degenerate character

>>11498397
I lol'd irl

>>11498405
He's right though. You wouldn't need a source for the OP quote if you read the Greeks and shared Nietzsche's aesthetic sensibilities (i.e., his temperament of character).

>>11498325
>modern medicine's emphasis on duration of life with no corresponding consideration of quality or purpose
you know nothing about the field of medicine

>>11498386
There is no such thing as slave morality. It's a metafictional concept.
Most democracies today are a facsimile of what they purport to be, the real political power resting primarily with the bureaucrats. The exceptions (e.g. Switzerland) prove the rule.
Our stock is actually growing more barbarous, therefore stronger after Nietzsche's understanding.

>>11498438
fake* facsimile

>>11498438
>y. It's a metafictional concept.
There's no such thing as concepts. They're a metafictinal concept
>Most democracies today are a facsimile of what they purport to be,
Which was already the case in Nietzsche's day
>Our stock is actually growing more barbarous, therefore stronger after Nietzsche's understanding.
That is not Nietzsche's understanding. He considered the Jews to be the strongest and best stock in Europe. At least read him before spewing this nonsense

>>11498453
>Which was already the case in Nietzsche's day
False. Read Tocqueville.
>That is not Nietzsche's understanding.
It is, actually.
>He considered the Jews to be the strongest and best stock in Europe.
And jews now have more power than they have ever had in history.

>>11498453
>There's no such thing as concepts. They're a metafictinal concept

>>11498473
>False. Read Tocqueville.
Why don't you quote the appropriate passages and show that they're applicable to Europe in 1885.

The rest of your post is just " wahhh no no no no." How are Jews genetically "barbarous" you absolute imbecile. They're the furthest thing from the barbarous races.

>>11498485
>taking an ironic comment sincerely

Nietzche was the Jordan B. Peterson of his time.

>>11498503
Do you even know what "barbarian" means you imbecile?

>Why don't you quote the appropriate passages and show that they're applicable to Europe in 1885.
Most European states at that time were monarchies. The prime example of a democracy was the US.

How dumb are you really?

>>11498344
>Nietzsche was various degrees of insane in a very literal, medical sense for most of his life.
No he wasn't. It's currently understood that he probably suffered from brain cancer which is what caused his mental collapse. He was a sickly person, but he wasn't insane to any degree, clinical or otherwise, up until his collapse. Nothing in his work even remotely hints at insanity, either.

Jesus fucking christ, the amount of bullshit in this thread is astounding.

>>11498561
Oh please, the guy would have been a full blown tumblrina in today's society. His head wasn't screwed on right, and if you think it was, then maybe you're not right in the head yourself.

>>11498556
>Do you even know what "barbarian" means you imbecile?
A man in his rude, savage state; an uncivilized person.
Nietzsche's conception of a the best man was a highly civilized one. The Jews are among the most civilized peoples in the world. It's hilarious to me that you're comparing them to african tribals in order to win an online argument.
>Most European states at that time were monarchies. The prime example of a democracy was the US
Neither Germany, nor Britain, nor even France was a true monarchy. Monarchical power had been giving way to democracy since the french revolution. That was Nietzsche's point. You haven't even read him, so why are you getting so emotional about being wrong?

>>11498574
I don't know who you think finds your ironic shitposting funny, but I'll tell you upfront that it's no one on this board besides children and self-help retards.

>>11498583
Why are you projecting?

>>11498583
>jews
>civilised

>>11498583
>nomadic tribe that still clings to bronze age precepts
>civilised

>>11498583
>pigheaded race who's only achievement is piggybacking on western civilisation for a short while before pulling the trigger on it
>civilised

>>11498726
>>11498720
>>11498712
>>11498704
Low-stock resentment

>>11498532
>I was just pretending to be retarded

>>11498965
>autist’s first resort to not getting basic irony

>>11499003
>retard's last resort to save face

>>11499007
>take blatant irony at face value
>get exposed for having an extra chromosome
>”u were not le trolling xD”
Keep replying autist

>>11499024
>say something stupid
>cover your ass by saying you were just pretending

>>11499030
Prove it then. Seems like you're just a mentally slow autist who embarrassed himself by butting in and has to spew memes to cover it all up.

>>11499048
There's nothing to prove. You spouted shit, got called on it, and then pulled a kiddie-tier defense.

>>11499070
>There's no such thing as slave morality it's a concept
>There's no such thing as concepts, they're a concept
See how my post mirrors his? It's almost as if I'm mocking it with irony or something.
Take as much time with this post as your retard autist brain demands

>>11499107
You're not half as clever as you think you are. He was right, but you had no rebuttal so you tried to be cute.

>>11499118
>get proved mentally retarded and unable to detect basic irony
>start sucking anonymous cock as defense mechanism
you're a sad one

>>11499126
There's no such thing as slave morality.

>>11499134
There's no such thing as morality

>>11499145
>>11499134
wrong

>>11499145
This is true.

>>11499147
>>11499149
>>11499134
>>11499126
Based.

>>11499153
and redpilled

>>11499134
>>11499145
>>11499147
>>11499149
>>11499153
>>11499165
also im gay now ;)

LMAO at the mental breakdown of Nietzzplebes when daddy's assumptions are crushed

>>11497367
you are reducing it down to its purely material suffering. what you are intentionally failing to recognise is its glory and its greater opportunity for heroism.
also modern medicine is dysgenic

>>11498537
Pererson is at least succesful.

So /lit/ is literally incapable of any meaningful criticism of Nietzsche? I mean, it's really not that difficult, I'm sure somebody here can at least try. Give it a shot folks.

>>11499953
Peterson will be forgotten in 10 years.

>>11500362
Kevin Macdonald will be more well-known in ten years.

>>11497290
Underrated

>>11500364
i doubt it. People have been complaining about Jews for literal thousands of years and nobody ever seems to learn, the Jews are just that fucking good

Isn't funny that two of the philosophers most associated with the affirmation of life above ethics and morals got STDs and died as a result?

Gnon is implacable.

>>11496359
Imagine being a wandering bum like Socrates and btfo popular sophists of your time just by asking good questions. Then a bunch of kids think you're so clever and based that they hang around you and offer you food n shit. Sounds like the dream life to me, lad.

>>11500442
Either that or every generation has its dying breed who needs to blame someone else for its shortcomings. Might as well be the people who were involved in ancient conflicts, sounds good and all.

I think people should strive to not confuse intellectualism with analyticsal thinking. The analytical mind has its place, of that there is no doubt. That’s how we get Newtonian mechanics, inter alia. But we also have to be in the world and act on the world. And a noble romanticism or traditionalism can help supply human motivation. The analytical mind will not necessarily be the guarantor of the future. It is often too easy to use analysis to justify inaction or indolent acceptance of the status quo. Analysis leads to truth which can lead to formulating solitions to the problem, but beauty and nobility and other aristocratic virtues can motivate the best among us to act on the problems of the day to solve them.

>>11500452
Nietzsche didn't, not sure who else you're referring to.

>>11500509
Foucault.

>>11500532
I'd associate him less with life affirmation and more with everything being a prison and ass fisting.

>>11498219
He was writing a philosophy of the future.

>>11500506
Newton solved specific problems, he literally said "I don't make hypothesis" or something along those lines. It's different from the dialectics and logic Nietzsche critiques.