/lit/ - Literature

They were all incredibly important thinkers and contributed to science and the humanities in ways that are almost ineffably significant. Like all thinkers, they don't get better with age.

>>11835850
I wouldn't say freud was. Nearly everything he thought up has been debunked and the whole concept of the "subconscious" wasn't his creation.

>>11835830
They share in common that they are no longer used in their field but are still used in the humanities.

Right, so freud is basically unfalsifiable. Cool ideas, some still in use, but not really important to current study of the mind. Still used in literature analysis.

Marx is also not respected by most academic economic departments. They are basically Keynesian from what I've heard. Very influential on social science and history.

Neitzsche seems like a lot of unfalsifiable opinions (master/slave, overman, amor fati) and unlikely views (time as cyclical, eternal return). His view of morality and truth as dependent on power is interesting. Analytic philosophy now dominates.

All very influential, but they dont seem accurate anymore.

Who are their modern equivalents? Jordan Peterson, Zizek and Nick Land

>>11835880
Oh has it? Has it all been debunked? Can you show me when it happened--what concepts and when?

>>11837114
Postmodernists say a lot of unfalsifiable influential bullshit:

Lacan for Freud
? for Marx
Foucault for Nietzsche

But this was more in the 80s I think

>>11837125
Subconcious or unconscious is unfalsifiable basically. Cool idea, still in use in therapy.

However, cognitive psychologist now use active thinking vs automatic thinking as descriptors. I can go into why somewhat if you like.

>>11837127
t. Illiterate

>>11835830
>implying that western civilization is so fragile as to be ruined by two kikes and a kraut

>>11835830
no

no

>>11837127
there will not be another marx

>>11837136
Foucualt was literally historically inaccurate in places (his ship of fools). No one uses him as actual history. His power knowledge and bio knowledge are unfalsifiable though I like the ideas. His views on power in society is interesting but it is all conjecture that cant be tested.

Lacan and psychoanalysis are not used by actual psychologists, so...?

>>11837127
Frankfurt school, Althusser, Jameson for Marx.

Derrida for Freud + Heidegger. I also suspect Foucault was much more indebted to Heidegger than he lets on. He’s little more than an operator for heideggerian theory who just applied heideggers mode of analysis to history as such instead of the history of metaphysics, and made some new terms for concepts already implicit in Heidegger.

>>11837147
I was kind of thinking saying Deleuze cause he wrote about capitalism, was a leftist, lit meme, and is not an actual economist, but I dont know him enough to say.

>>11837147
Maybe Nick Land for Marx

>>11837151
t. Illiterate

>>11837156
Good call, see >>11837161

I had just heard Foucault was very indebted to heidegger, said so late in life. I'm just beginning to study heidegger and he is difficult.

However foucault was likely more influence by Nietzsche, as he said so, and his view of power determining knowledge is straight out of the neitzch

>>11837101
>t. Popper
>Marx is also not respected by most academic economic departments. They are basically Keynesian from what I've heard. Very influential on social science and history.

Wow capitalists don't like Marx, really makes you think.

>Neitzsche seems like a lot of unfalsifiable opinions (master/slave, overman, amor fati) and unlikely views (time as cyclical, eternal return).

Nietzsche wasn't a scientist.

> Analytic philosophy now dominates.

Analytic philosophy isn't philosophy, it's word games.

>>11835830
Given that these fellas are literally wrong.

How can we approach actual knowledge?

Pragmatism
Analytic philosophy
Formal logic
Empiricism and science (seeking good authority for us non-scientists)
Current psychological literature

So much of philosophy and religion is just opinions

Any ideas?

Does Nietzsche ever even define power? Or say anything relevant about it at all? It just seems like the feeling of power more than anything else.

>>11837181
Never really claimed neitzsche was a scientists, but I assume he was looking towards truth. Sure philosophy is love of wisdom, not truth, but still. What neitzsche said was not accurate, him being a scientist is immaterial.

Whether analytic philosophy is philosophy or not, it dominates philosophy departments.

A good deal of it is formal logic around words sure, language games (wittgenstein), but there is also an emphasis on empiricism and science.

What do you recommend as a better approach to truth and the actual?

>>11837189
Most professors I've heard define it was power over their own life. Will to power is often described as will to power over others, but this is not how I've heard professors use it. However he also claimed power was what defined truth (or that those in power got to decide what is truth) so he used it both ways. However it's been a long time since I read him directly.

>>11837196
>Never really claimed neitzsche was a scientists,

Popper's theory of Falsifiability is usually applied to natural and social sciences, to apply it to Nietzsche seems out of place.

>but there is also an emphasis on empiricism and science.

Like I said not philosophy. Analytic philosophers see themselves as the subordinate to science, just like medieval philosophers saw themselves as subordinate to theology.

>What do you recommend as a better approach to truth and the actual?

I don't know, im still trying to figure it out.

>>11837214
I probably wasn't using falsifiability in the correct sense, I'm just getting into analytic philosophy. What I meant was Nietzsche makes claims (master/slave morality, will to power, overman, eternal return) which may or may not be true, theres not really a way to prove it. It's just opinion.

Analytic philosophy as subordinate to science. That's interesting, I will remember that.

I'm disillusioned with continental philosophy at this point, due to its arbitrariness. It seems like a great deal of opinion without much proof. Which makes sense, wisdom is different than truth. A kind of, heres how to approach the facts, not here are a ways to obtain the facts.

Except pragmatism, it seems fruitful because it claims at the start to not be attempting actual knowing, but just a framework for predicition.

>>11837204
When you are born it is with a set of natural drives that will push you towards certain behaviours and emotional states, and pull you away from others. Being born into a certain culture, with certain values and presuppositions, as well as a certain language, creates a structure in which what is already limited by natural capacities is further limited by cultural constraints. The power of the ubermensch involves: a) the power of breaking free of these pre-ordained limitations, mastering your “nature” and recreating your own values from the round up, thus guiding yourself, as much as it is possible, instead of being guided by nature and culture; and b) imposing this radically new interpretation of existence on the rest of humanity. This is the artist (creative) tyrant (tyrannizing the self and the masses) that Nietzsche talks about.

Will to power is basically a way of reducing all activity and existence to a single metaphysical principle/metaphor. Everything is always moving towards greater power for itself, greater self assertion and imposition of itself, or it is degenerating, but even in pursuing what degenerates it, it is still exercising will to power, just in an ineffective way.

>>11837249
>due to its arbitrariness.
there's nothing more arbitrary than analytic philosophy, you'll realize that the more you study it.

>>11837252
Sounds right, thank you.

Freuds will to pleasure seems more accurate.
Even more accurate may be just a general HUNGER within all life.

>>11835830
>diagnosing a disease causes it

>>11837135
changing the name of something isn't exactly debunking

>>11837266
Doesnt its attachment to empiricism protect it somewhat?

What are your current areas of focus towards understanding truth and what is actual?

>>11837281
Freud was a Nietzsche plagiarist who systematized Nietzsche with stuffy medical jargon and replaced the Nietzschean will to power with the plantonic Eros. There is literally nothing substantive in Freud that wasn’t previously gestured towards, if not outright expanded upon, by Nietzsche.

>>11837293
It's a shift of focus and a redefining of nonconcious processes.

Freuds unconscious was (broadly) a kind of storage for early experiences that cause neuroses.

Cognitive automatic thinking is affected by experiences sure, but it has a emphasis on physical mechanics of the processes, and does away with the ego super ego unconscious framework of freud.

I'm having trouble articulating this well, because I don't know a great deal about it, but that could point you in the right direction for why experts draw a distinction.

>>11837308
Could be, I dont know.

Will to power seems wrong to me, because sometimes people do things that dont lead then towards power. Which means will to power becomes a broader designator which defeats its purpose. Will to pleasure seems closer but sometimes we do unpleasurable things by choice, supposedly towards a higher pleasure, which once again combines opposites into nothingness.

Will to desire, or just desire, a hunger seems like an accurate designator for the actions of all life.

>>11837337
What’s an example of someone doing something that isn’t an expression of their desire for power?

>>11835830
Yes and yes.

>>11837185
Kill yourself materialistic scum

>>11837352
Like, if you broaden the term power enough, it works. At that point, using the word power seems pointless. Maybe I scratch my ass to have power over the itch; if that's how you want to define it.

Will to power, just seems like will to what ever you will, which is just desire. Will to desire. Desire however sounds conciousness oriented, a plant doesnt desire, but a general hunger on the part of all life seems fitting. Life is a hunger.

Ultimately, it seems like a definitional issue.

>>11837380
I am indeed a materialist, as far as I understand the term. Naturalist as well.

What's your worldview?
Do you gain knowledge by religious experience?
How do you safeguard against delusion?

How would you recommend I approach truth?

>>11837387
Right, so the fundamental structure of relations stays more or less the same, it’s just one “master signifier” defines the the governing impetus to existence as a lack (desire, Eros, hunger) and the means by which that lack is attained as secondary, whereas the other puts that present energy itself as the master signifier (will to power) and the lacks it seeks to overcome or satiate as secondary. Either way, the larger structure more or less stays the same.

>>11837411
>Either way, the larger structure more or less stays the same.

Right, it would have to be. It's a physical material process of biology that is being described. The only difference is whether what is being described is being described accurately.

>the other puts that present energy itself as the master signifier (will to power) and the lacks it seeks to overcome or satiate as secondary

So the will to power is a will to be in the process of overcoming rather than to achieve the desired object?

>>11837448
A human being has a present material body, a present phenomenological experience, and a present store of energies bubbling up from its drives. It is also always missing something: it lacks, and therefore desires. Which one is a priori primary, and which secondary?

Trick question: neither is primary. Both emerge as two sides of the same coin.

I think you can do more with the model predicated on the “presence” side of the coin, though (will to power). But that might just incidentally be because the person who used that side of it (Nietzsche) explained way more phenomena with way more rigour than the theorist working from the other side (Freud).

>>11837308
this. if you just read Nietzsche and Dostoevsky there's no need to spend years wrestling with psychoanalysis (or 20th ct existentialism.)

>>11835830
No! Unironically they are based and redpilled.

>>11835830
Yes and yes.

>>11837468
For clarification, the presence of being is here contrasted to the “absence” of desire

>>11835830
>did they ruin western civilization?

was everything in "Western Civilization" fine up until 1848 or so?

>>11837252
Where does he talk about this mainly?

>>11837468
>>11837481
It's interesting, somewhat fragmented view of humanity (body, experience, drive).

So in the case of sex, you are focusing on the energy to go fuck rather than the desire to be fucking?

What do you gain conceptually viewing it this way? Is it a sort of focusing on proactive willing?

>>11837487
Sadly nietzsche isn’t a systematizing thinker who has one place where I can’t point to and say: “look here! This is where he lays his project out clearly!” There are a lot of reasons he doesn’t do this, many of which he obliquely gestures towards throughput his writing. But his whole project of providing a meta-psychologist’s genealogy of values (viz beyond good and evil, the genealogy of morality), which views moral and indeed all systems of interpretation as tacit extensions of basic existential modes of orienting oneself to reality, based on one’s position in an extant culture’s power hierarchy, shows morality and indeed truth as a reactionary construction, and the west’s version of morality and truth based on a reaction of resentment in the face of the healthy, successful and powerful (viz Christian slave morality). This is the side of negative critique. You couple this with the side of positive affirmation, which arises again in various places throughout his oeuvre (with especial poetical brilliance in Zarathustra), which argues that the next stage of human evolution will involves great individuals who overcome this tradition steeped in resentment and creatively construct a new, for life affirming ideology not based on resentment, and you get something like what I stated above.

>>11837519
Sorry for any errors in this or any of the above. I’m phoneposting

>>11835880
Not this shit again...

>>11837308
>>11837411
This doesn't really answer the question posed though. If everything is reducible to 'power' then everything just becomes a circular argument until someone finally points out, 'Hey, the circular argument is dead. What shall we do to become worthy of it?'
Then you get Freud, Deleuze, Land, etc. trying to create deeper circular arguments.
Which is, in the end, an argument for weakness since it relies wholly upon adherence to a law of abstraction rather than truth.

>>11837493
Like I said, I may just prefer this model because the person who operates it, Nietzsche, does more interesting things with it than Freud does with the other. Perhaps nietzsche could be rewritten using the desire model and still have just as interesting of things to say. Indeed it is really a definitional matter, because there are places where Nietzsche talks about “the desire for more power” etc.

I think from a point of view of consistency between the philosophy and it’s guiding metaphors, grounding your philosophy of life affirmation on a metaphor of presence makes more sense than on a figure representing absence.

>>11837127
>>11837147
Althusser for Marx

>>11837519
But this isn't really saying anything about power. Machiavelli said the same thing, as did Socrates. It's completely obvious to anyone with the slightest political knowledge that one must adapt according to the situation.
I wasn't really looking for a system, as I know that about Nietzsche. What I am looking for is a clarification of power, what it is in his mind, and any examples where he discusses power as prime mover and that end to which all is divided.

>>11837551
I mean, if I was that obsessed with a single idea I would certainly try to define its meaning. I try to define much less significant things.

>>11837551
>>11837571
Sorry, was just clarifying my previous post >>11837564

>>11837533
Yes, so if it’s a closed “circular” system, what “depth” is gained by simply replacing its governing term with a different one that functions exactly the same as the one it usurped?

I’m overstating things when I say Freud added nothing to nietzsche of course. But the most “revolutionary” moves Freud made that led to our age being designated “post-Freudian” were just Nietzschean arguments and observations made scandalous by talking about them in terms of sexuality

>>11835880
Freud may have been wrong but his contributions led actual psychologists to think about the field differently. Kind of like how alchemy led to chemistry.

>>11837564
Yeah but if language is just a bunch of metaphors, which Nietzsche more or less believes, and metaphysics is an illusion insofar as it takes these metaphors as having a true referential correspondence to some “essence” out there, then asking Nietzsche to hypostasize his governing metaphor with one clear definition, as if it were any more than a metaphor which gains its meaning through its various uses in his work, he would be working against his basic presuppositions. Nevertheless there are places where he says more than usually explicit things about “power”. I’ll look for some passages later.

>>11837578
I'm not saying any depth would be gained. I'm saying that perhaps Nietzsche did not add so much depth as people would like to claim.
Look at his 'origin story' it is false and a mess of contradictions. It is basically just the social contract arising through will of force and barbarians creating a golden age.
Perhaps he only survived so well because he did not have the opponents Thrasymachus had...

>>11837609
You’ll have to make a way better case than whatever this is in order to convince me that Nietzsche wasn’t as revolutionary a thinker as I think he is. There is infinitely more subtlety in Nietzsche than in thrasymachus lol

>>11837619
Ok, then prove it. How is it anything more than "justice is the advantage of the stronger." That's all that Nietzsche is saying in the above example, and it basically acts as a replacement for good and evil to which he makes something of a humanist myth out of.

You really don't think it's a significant argument that his origin story is completely false? I mean, that's a pretty huge plot hole suggesting that his perception of the world is off. And in turn this suggests that the question at the core of his philosophy may be wrong.

>>11837641
Related:
"Here we must think things through thoroughly, and ward off any sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially a process of appropriating, injuring, overpowering the alien and the weaker, oppressing, being harsh, imposing your own form, incorporating, and at least, the very least, exploiting, – but what is the point of always using words that have been stamped with slanderous intentions from time immemorial?"
He has simply replaced 'Good' with 'Power'. It's literally 'dude there's no morals just get in your cage because that's what power says to do lmao'. Christian slave morality juxtaposed onto brutalising individualism, decadence thinking that it can keep up with the monstrosity of industrialism.

And right after that:
"It
will have to be the embodiment of will to power, it will want to grow,
spread, grab, win dominance, – not out of any morality or immorality, but
because it is alive, and because life is precisely will to power."
Purely circular logic and fallacies.

>>11837641
>>11837681
>>11837689
I guess you’re right. Nietzsche is reducible to the straw man thesis of thrasymachus in the Republic, and the entirety of his thought amounts to little more than ham-fisted reiterations of this position, circular logic and fallacies.

>>11837721
Is that all you have? An ironic defense of the will to power?
Seems pretty weak...

>>11837721
It's true. There are no facts, only interpretations. If Nietzsche came to him in a dream and said that John McCain was about to be resurrected to awaken the trumpeter and pour down vials of wrath on Neo-Ho Chi Minh City, it's probably true for him.

Who are you to say otherwise?

>>11837737
No I have an entire thread of responses talking about Nietzsche and now am supposed to defend him against “hurr durr actually Nietzsche was stupid because all he argued was that justice is the will of the stronger, prove me wrong!”

You’ve clearly never read Nietzsche, or if you have it was incredibly superficially. For instance in the passages you cite above: he takes power in those passages as the fundamental impetus of life (do you think he’s wrong there) and shows how that impetus can consistently give rise to moralities that up to that point seemed inexplicable from such a starting point (i.e. the Christian monk as expressing will to power). You might not find the first thinker who reveals the sublimative process at work in the very creation of “knowledge” and “morality” interesting or revolutionary, but I certainly do.

>>11837745
>it’s true
>there are no facts

What did he mean by this?

>>11837770
lmao, you have created him into a God and then just say I am wrong.
But come back down to reality for a moment. I'm not saying he's not great. I'm not trying to desecrate his corpse in any way, I'm just asking a simple question: what is power, in his terms, its sense and meaning? And secondarily, since you have moved the goalposts again, in what way does this Urprime mover create knowledge? What is its essence which prevents it from being a circular argument?
I'd be happy with just the first couple, but you being such an adherent you should be able to answer the last as well.
Also, feel free to turn it around and ask me about my thinker if you think I'm such a pseud. I'm not afraid of worldly power, and clearly Socrates wasn't either since he defined it and faced it - unlike someone else unmentionable.

No, they were merely products of the French Revolution, which truly began the decline of western civilization.

Marx >>>>> Nietzsche >> Freud

>>11837770
Also, is the ousia of power the cause of red cheeks? I would think that would be something of a handicap to the will to power.
Or is this just my being a pleb and too unread to understand such a great theory?

>>11837101
I mean only because economics departments think theorists who horrbily misunderstood Marx actually debunked him. And the eternal return wasn’t supposed to be seen as an actual phenomena, but rather more of a thought experiment

>>11837829
Unironically this, and I say this as a reactionary. In fact, I think any reactionary would have to agree with his diagnoses of Capitalism (although not his solutions obviously AND one would have to realize that marxism is really just the flip side of Capitalism). Nietzsche is mostly a meme and Freud is a fraud.

>>11837819
You cited his idea of life as will to power above. Where did these passages fall short for you? I’ve stated repeatedly that as an anti-metaphysician N doesn’t view power in terms of Platonic “essences”. Power is a functional metaphor that acts as a captstone to an interpretational nexus.

Regarding the creation of knowledge, beyond good and evil and the genealogy have whole chapters dedicated to tearing apart the so-called will to truth, showing that much of the work of philosophers who claimed to be seeking “truth” were actually just indirectly justifying themselves, defensively using language and concepts to valourize their own shortcomings.

What do you mean by a circular argument tho?

>>11835830
yes.
in the original meaning of ideas that spread and perdure over time

>>11837777
The same thing Nietzsche did when he said the very same things in my dream last night but also in the Gospel according to John (McCain) and his notebooks and dream diaries.

>>11837865
They fall short precisely in what I said. It is false, societies do not all rise from barbarians conquering their neighbours, nor do the barbarians become golden spirits creating a golden age of culture. That is seriously pseud-tier shit.
He does not necessarily have to use Platonic essences, however, his formulations should make sense. And for someone who looked to the Greeks for so much he sure seemed to misunderstand them.
A functional metaphor just seems to be saying something like 'Absolute Prime Mover (without any possible claim to its being subverted)' which is disingenuous at best. But let's assume this is true, we come back to one of the earlier 'naive' questions: what accounts for all of the people so disinterested in power? The answer seems to lie in its being a non-entity which is also a total essence, a combined Prime Form and Theory of Contradiction wrapped up in one.

Yes, his will to truth is based on another fallacy, that of ressentiment. He created a straw man of both Socrates and Christianity. And the theory of ressentiment is a weak one to begin with. This is also a major contradiction, because his very theory of power relies on a moral relativism. In the Christian situation, that was power, and easily provable because they willed it, achieved it, and held it for nearly 2000 years. But what is the power of the crusades in the face of Nietzsche crying over a horse?
1/2

>>11838070
2/2
The circular argument should be clear, he's saying that power will, and has to, overcome the group's life because life is power and the will to power. It's really saying nothing other than life is power because power is life. Dress it up all you want, maybe even touch on a truth here and there, but that's the core of the argument - and it is a fallacy.
The problem with this is that we must hold to some laws of discourse and communication to see if they have truth or power (again, Nietzsche is just substituting words), and all we have is myth, tradition, logic, emotion, and speculation. Barring myth and tradition, since Nietzsche does not rely on myth and his arguments are not of tradition (apart from Zarathustra perhaps, but this is disconnected from a myth of power), then we are left with logic as the only grounding force to judge the power or truth held therein. He fails here, and we are left with merely emotion and speculation, which certainly in form Nietzsche relied upon heavily.
Is this not precisely a philosophy of power in the form of a woman? Something he critiqued so much? How is the Ubermensch to be a heavy judger of man if he only has partial insight? Will he not strike too deep and too widely against those around him, thus threatening the very power he seeks? If he cannot imagine power in all of its form, its creative as well as errant possibilities, is he not merely leaving it up to fate that he will be blessed with power? And that this blessing will smite his enemies wherever they arise? Here we have pure Christian belief, as well as an ironic belief in the Socratic counter that evil can isolate itself into purely evil acts.

And then we are left with the glaring question of his weakness. Was it merely hubris? Or did fate turn upon him to teach himself something more about power? How could a man so obsessed with power be so devoid of an understanding of it, and be completely dispossessed of it himself?

>>11835830
>people who discovered where society was going ruined civilization

Do you also insult your GPS for showing what route you're going to take?

>>11838070
>>11838075
Lol you read way too much Aristotle, and throw around “trump card” words like “fallacy” more than a second year philosophy undergrad in the midst of an “essentials of logic” course. Enjoy lapring as an Ancient Greek my dude. Meanwhile me and literally every relevant contemporary thinker will continue to appeal to nietzsche to help us make sense of the history of philosophy and the conditions of modernity.

>>11838117
More weakness.
This is why the Greeks and those who larp as them will outlast you and your cultic 'hero'.
And lmao at your appeal to popular contemporary academics. Look at the state of the world, absolute lack of an understanding of power.
A nietzschean appealing to liberal power. lmao.

>>11838166
Just being the Greeks had a philosophy of existence based on certain virtues that enabled people who lived according it to flourish doesn’t mean their naive pseudo-religious conceptions of essences, “Man”, the gods, the divine human purpose and language are correct. I like Plato and Aristotle too. Especially Plato. But though he still has a lot to say about living the good life, it’s ridiculous to act as if he provides a more relevant critique of modernity (looking 2000 years into the future lmao) than Nietzsche.

I don’t get why you’re so dead set on Nietzsche being an irrelevant idiot, unless you’re a Christcuck and see your shallow rejection of a straw man of Nietzsche as a part of your crusade against relativism and aethesim or something.

>>11838192
Just because*

>>11838115
psychiatry and marxism are the very origin of the diseases they portend to cure.

>>11838236
Marxism is the origin of capitalism?

>>11835880
If you were tortured in your infancy, maybe you'd have been a perverted kid.

Yes. Yes. In a way.

I saw some retarded tumblr screencap today about how Freud came up with his entire theory as a way to discredit female patients that said their fathers raped them.
They unironically claimed he had so many of those cases that he said "No way anybody's actually raping their daughters, they must be imagining it because they all desire their dads to fuck them," then wiped his hands of it entirely and said that's it.
Ignoring the whole Oedipal side, ignoring literally everything he ever wrote except a piss-poor wikipedia summary of the Electra complex.
Normally I can ignore stupid shitposts like that but this one hit me hard for some reason.

>ctrl + f
>no ricoeur
>no school of suspicion

>>11838879
Lol these three are the hermeneuts of suspicion what are you talking about

>>11835830
>modernism was a meme
lol

>>11835880
Freud - through popularising psychoanalysis - is almost single handedly responsible for the turn in American culture away from character toward personality in the 20th century. He instigated the shift in focus from the republican ideals of virtue and external altruism indicative of producer-capitalist society, to consumer capitalism's celebration of psychology and the soothing of individual, internal traumas above anything else. You can thank Freud almost directly for modern advertising, for consumer culture, for celebrity worship, for yadda yadda President Donald J. Trump.

It's not to say he invented these ideas - this shift was already occurring - but he catalysed them and made them popular amongst those with power and influence: even if he has since been discredited.

>>11835830
I guarantee that 99% of the people who claim they "ruined western civilization" haven't even read any of their actual books.

>>11837101
>love of fate is an unfalsifiable opinion

>>11837127
How are Foucault and Lacan Postmodern?

>>11839400
>fate=determinism
then prove determinism wrong, muh free will

>>11837178
Id throw in a bit of Hegel too. Expecially for social and power relations.

>>11835830
At least they did more than you senpai

>>11837829
A lot of 20th century Marxist thought involves Freud

>>11837181
gee its almost as if "capitalism" is a meaningless buzzword meant to group together every non-marxist
people who think economics isn't a socialdemocratic discipline are ledditors and pseuds, it has always been center-left

>>11838192
I'm not saying that Nietzsche is irrelevant. Clearly he is relevant in some way if he causes so much passion in people.
All I am saying is that he may be wrong in some areas, and perhaps his understanding of power isn't better than someone like Plato. Again, logic is one of the few tools we actually have for determining the rightness of a law, and you would be surprised how adaptable the old methods are to this new world.
Nothing new under the sun, as they say. Humility is also a form of power.

>>11837101
imagine being so shallow, idiotic in your thinking that you value every idea by it being falsifiable or not. the state of anglos, jesus christ

>>11839400
Love your fate implys you should love your fate, which is an opinion. You cant prove you should love your fate.

>>11839404
They are two of the main 3 postmodernists along with Derrida. Poststucturalist if you like that better. Whether the term has merit, they are literally the postmodern guys.

>>11839870
Opinions are fine, just people can say anything and theres no way to tell if it's true. I live around a lot of religious types, and they literally are out here believing anything.

>>11835830
You're confusing the causes with the effects. Western civilization changed over time due to changes in the technological sector, which produced changes in science, which produced new cultures, which produced those men.

>>11835830
No, actually, western civilization was already ruined, they just told you why.

>>11835830
western civilization was never great, it was always in the state it is now, occasional spots of excellence, constant mismanagement and people trying to fuck everything up, and more idiots than you could ever imagine.

>>11837168
Marxism debunks Land though. Acceleration is an idealist theory. You can't "accelerate" material conditions because if you were in the position to be allowed to do that, you would able to get rid of capitalism anyway. Its kind of an offshoot of reformism, which as we all know is revisionist and has never worked.

>>11839384
PLEASE rec me books about this

>>11839837
>non-marxist
>socialdemocratic discipline
You realize of course that marxism is a social democratic ideology, that marxists are social democrats, and that Marx was a social democrat.

>>11841108
If capital is far too strong to be overcome then its entirely possible that the only real possibilities are the status quo or acceleration.

>>11841325
lol

>>11841325
>Social democracyis a political, social and economic ideology that supportseconomicandsocial interventionsto promotesocial justicewithin the framework of aliberal democraticpolityandcapitalisteconomy.
TIL Marx is actually a capitalist, and that Marxism is a kind of capitalism.

>>11835830
Three men ruined civilization without raising so much as a finger or killing anyone directly

Bravo, gents. Hats off to you. I mean it. That's impressive.

>>11837397
>How do you safeguard against delusion?
Think critically. Most actual-readers can do this.
>How would you recommend I approach truth?
Drop your biases. But you won't.

>>11839859
>the “rightness” of a law can be determined through “logic”

>>11837101
In fairness, economics is about as respectable as a degree in astrology.

>>11841279
The Culture of Narcissism - Christopher Lasch
Culture as History - Walter Susman
Century of the Self d. Adam Curtis (doco)

>>11835880
Freud was pretty much the basis for propaganda and advertisement and by extension western culture though

>>11837140
>implying the kike

>>11837101
How is eternal return an unlikely view? It’s meant to stay hypothetical - it’s about the idea.

>>11843274
Nietzsche believed eternal recurrence was literally true. He did not understand infinity, and believed that infinity implied repetition.

>>11837101
>>11843274
>554. We all know what will happen if we give a little shake to a glass half-filled with water or some other liquid: a little "wave" will form on one side and travel to the other, and the disturbance will gradually die down as the kinetic energy from our shake is dissipated by means of this disturbance, and radiated to the walls of the glass and the surrounding air. The end result, after a sufficient length of time, will be a flat and still water surface, until we decide to give the glass another shake at some later time. Certainly none of us would expect that the wave and the resulting disturbance could "recur" on their own, without any external input, and would rightly regard such an event as "magic" (which is to say as impossible), and anyone who predicted and expected it as a "retard". But what seems like common sense on a local scale, becomes NONSENSE when we try to apply it at the scale of the universe, since at that scale there exists neither an "outside" from which energy can be initially transferred, nor to which it can be later dissipated. Any "disturbance" at that level then, will have to be, not only necessarily inherent in the system (ruling out any "external", "transcendental" influence), but also, and for the same reason, necessarily eternally recurring. I have just proved both the existence of the eternal recurrence and the non-existence of "transcendental" beings and causes, and whoever denies my proof either doesn't understand elementary physics, or what the word "universe" means, or both. End of story.

http://orgyofthewill.net/

>>11843290
This isn't a proof. It's just a bad analogy where the author seems to assume that the universes is bounded and finite. Peak pseud.

>>11843308
>555. In fact a mini-"recurrence" can be observed even in our limited water-glass experiment, since the initial wave will "recur", even if in significantly diminished form, for as many oscillations as it takes for its energy to be completely dissipated. Obviously, if dissipation were impossible, the wave would recur, in identical fashion, forever. That's how simple it is to understand, and prove, the eternal recurrence. Isn't it hilarious then how every single Nietzsche scholar of the past 130 years has questioned this blatantly self-evident concept? (self-evident, obviously, once Nietzsche has explained it to you). Some of them went as far as to try to prove that Nietzsche's philosophy could stand, largely unaffected, even without it! That's how convinced they were of its falsity! And yet it's right there, in perfectly unambiguous terms, in the man's notebooks: “The law of conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence". That's all it took to send me on the path of creating this little proof and thought-experiment that I just explained here. Maybe philosophical scholars simply haven't learned elementary physics? And maybe people who have learned elementary physics do not read philosophy? That's certainly my take on the educational background and intellectual habits of all those people. — William Plank, on the other hand (author of the Quantum Nietzsche), went the opposite way. He was so convinced of the reality of the concept (which is to say that he was so FASCINATED by it, and WANTED it to be true so badly), and so motivated by Nietzsche's references (in his notes) of his impending "proof" of it (a proof that never materialized, beyond the little snippet of it that I just quoted — which pretty much amounts to a proof, as I have explained, for anyone who understands even a little physics), that he set out to create his own proof, a bizarre extrapolation on the basis of Eigen's and Winkler's glass-bead games which, according to Plank, "cannot be disproved". And indeed I can't disprove it, if for no other reason than because I can't understand it. I can't understand, that is, how the laws (or lack of laws) that govern the configurations of beads in a glass-bead game are a proof of anything, least of all of the eternal recurrence; while Plank seems to think that merely repeating a few dozens times that something has been proved proves it. On top of the fact that, even if his proof is somehow valid, it's still superfluous next to my immeasurably simpler and more commonsensical one, never mind Nietzsche's ultra-succinct one-line note that says everything to those who know anything, the complete obliviousness towards which is what betrays that Plank hasn't really understood anything.

>>11843285
>495. Nobody really believes in the Eternal Recurrence. They only give credence to the idea — which is to say they refrain from ridiculing it — by association, because you also solve a lot of other great problems for them. "If he's right on all this other stuff, maybe he's right on this too," they think. But they don't understand what it would mean for this idea to be "right". I don't "believe" in the Eternal Recurrence either. I WANT it. And it is because I want it that the actions I take MAKE IT HAPPEN. And it is because I bring it about, finally, that naturally enough I also believe in it. The subhumans don't believe in it because they don't want it. Not a single one of them would want his life again, never mind exactly the same to infinity. Their ressentiment with their lives is what I have to fight in order to get mine again. And again and again. To infinity.

Nietzsche:

>My philosophy reveals the triumphant thought through which all other systems of thought must ultimately perish. It is the great disciplinary thought: those races that cannot bear it are doomed; those which regard it as the greatest blessing are destined to rule. The greatest of all fights: for this purpose a new weapon is required. A hammer: a terrible alternative must be created. Europe must be brought face to face with the logic of facts, and confronted with the question whether its will for ruin is really earnest. General levelling down to mediocrity must be avoided. Rather than this it would be preferable to perish. A pessimistic attitude of mind and a pessimistic doctrine and ecstatic Nihilism, may in certain circumstances even prove indispensable to the philosopher—that is to say, as a mighty form of pressure, or hammer, with which he can smash up degenerate, perishing races and put them out of existence; with which he can beat a track to a new order of life, or instil a longing for nonentity in those who are degenerate and who desire to perish. I wish to teach the thought which gives unto many the right to cancel their existences—the great disciplinary thought. Eternal Recurrence. A prophecy.

>>11843316
Nietzsche:

>If the universe may be conceived as a definite quantity of energy, as a definite number of centres of energy,—and every other concept remains indefinite and therefore useless,—it follows therefrom that the universe must go through a calculable number of combinations in the great game of chance which constitutes its existence. In infinity, at some moment or other, every possible combination must once have been realised; not only this, but it must have been realised an infinite number of times. And inasmuch as between every one of these combinations and its next recurrence every other possible combination would necessarily have been undergone, and since every one of these combinations would determine the whole series in the same order, a circular movement of absolutely identical series is thus demonstrated: the universe is thus shown to be a circular movement which has already repeated itself an infinite number of times, and which plays its game for all eternity.—This conception is not simply materialistic; for if it were this, it would not involve an infinite recurrence of identical cases, but a finite state. Owing to the fact that the universe has not reached this finite state, materialism shows itself to be but an imperfect and provisional hypothesis.

>>11843285
Wrong.

>>11841325
More magic word shifting.

>>11835830
no. freud was good.

>>11843378
Thanks for posting that Nietzsche literally stated what I said he did here:
>>11843285

Eternal recurrence is based off of a misunderstanding of infinity and an infinite universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

>>11837588
That's a fair point

>>11841531
And? You think we should listen to a cucks feefees instead?
Keep in mind I said grounded also in myth and tradition, but Nietzsche denies those things:
https://youtu.be/AjCGpBUCOOM

>>11843440
>Eternal recurrence is based off of a misunderstanding of infinity and an infinite universe.

Nietzsche:

>We need not concern ourselves for one instant with the hypothesis of a created world. The concept create is to-day utterly indefinable and unrealisable; it is but a word which hails from superstitious ages, nothing can be explained with a word. The last attempt that was made to conceive of a world that began occurred quite recently, in many cases with the help of logical reasoning,—generally, too, as you will guess, with an ulterior theological motive. Several attempts have been made lately to show that the concept that "the universe has an infinite past" (regressus in infinitum) is contradictory, it was even demonstrated, it is true, at the price of confounding the head with the tail. Nothing can prevent me from calculating backwards from this moment of time, and of saying: "I shall never reach the end"; just as I can calculate without end in a forward direction, from the same moment. It is only when I wish to commit the error—I shall be careful to avoid it—of reconciling this correct concept of a regressus in infinitum with the absolutely unrealisable concept of a finite progressus up to the present; only when I consider the direction (forwards or backwards) as logically indifferent, that I take hold of the head—this very moment—and think I hold the tail: this pleasure I leave to you, Mr. Dühring!... I have come across this thought in other thinkers before me, and every time I found that it was determined by other ulterior motives (chiefly theological, in favour of a creator spiritus). If the universe were in any way able to congeal, to dry up, to perish; or if it were capable of attaining to a state of equilibrium; or if it had any kind of goal at all which a long lapse of time, immutability, and finality reserved for it (in short, to speak metaphysically, if becoming could resolve itself into being or into nonentity), this state ought already to have been reached. But it has not been reached: it therefore follows.... This is the only certainty we can grasp, which can serve as a corrective to a host of cosmic hypotheses possible in themselves. If, for instance, materialism cannot consistently escape the conclusion of a finite state, which William Thomson has traced out for it, then materialism is thereby refuted.

>>11843469
He's talking about the Münchhausen trilemma, which isn't the problem I'm talking about.

If you actually read about the grand hotel, you'll understand the error that he's making about infinity.
If you can't be bothered to read a wikipedia page, simply consider the number pi. Can you show me where it starts repeating after a certain number of digits?

>>11835830
I could see you saying that about freud and marx but why nietzsche? Freud was very unscientific with his "research" and as someone previously mentioned his theory of subconscious isn't original, Marx made communism, and thats been a hot topic for a century, but nietzsche didn't really do anything that would cause controversy.

>>11843445
It’s such a naive view of laws and culture. As if we derived the values which the laws codify from pure rational activity.

>>11843489
>grand hotel
After a quick read, it appears to be a ridiculous hypothetical that does not take time into account. The infinite number of guests would never be moved because it would take an infinite amount of time to do so.

>>11843537
>literally disconnected from the argument
Who are you engaging with? Are you on fucking SSRIs? Is this the power of the Nietzschean?
Did you even watch the fucking video? The absolute poverty of discussion in this place...
Yes, unless God intervenes we are left with pure rational or emotional or chance decision-making after myth and tradition have been tossed aside. That's just how it goes. You can bitch and moan all you want, call me a pleb recurring for eternity. Doesn't change the reality of the situation.
A superior logician who knows how to engage the emotions as well will have a better grasp of the law than someone who can't even make basic definitions.
If you want to defend Nietzsche you should do a better job, because your actions aren't much different from the SJWs at this point.

>>11838139
Karl Marx Freud and the others 2?

>>11843580
Thought experiments aren't about practicality. You don't need to perform supertasks to construct proofs that demonstrate that some infinities are bigger than others and that infinity does not imply every possible sequence.

Here's a more literal proof demonstrating the problem visually for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument

>>11843600
Philosophy is not about impractical thought experiments. If a philosopher's observation about the universe doesn't hold up to reality, it's an erroneous viewpoint. Nietzsche isn't mistaken about infinity, and the mathematicians aren't necessarily either, because he is observing the universe when he makes his claims about it, which contains the mathematical and more, while the mathematicians are observing only the mathematical.

>>11843621
Nietzsche's justifications for eternal recurrence are not empirical. They are a priori. Mathematical proofs about infinity are the exact same a priori reasoning, with more expressive and precise notation and following a greater standard of rigor.
If you take some time to look into what we understand and can prove about infinity using the standard axioms, you'll see that Nietzsche's idea is wrong, and that's okay.

Even Walter Kaufmann points out he's incorrect about this.

>>11843642
>Nietzsche's justifications for eternal recurrence are not empirical. They are a priori.
Nietzsche himself admits this. Also, re-read 495 >>11843333

You have to realize that Nietzsche was no longer writing about truth. He put truth to rest. The universe is not about truth, but about power.

>>11843655
Then what he said can neither be true nor truly powerful, since the fecundity of his idea of eternal recurrence has little currency to show for it within the philosophical tradition following him.

Denying truth while making assertions you expect people to take seriously is a fool's errand, and it is another of his flaws.

>>11843677
>truly powerful
Power is not "true" — it has nothing to do with truth. It stands on the side with belief; belief is the final resort of the weakling to use his weakness to reclaim power in the world. The fool's errand for the philosopher, like Nietzsche said, is the pursuit of truth.

>746. Don't all religious people — regardless of religion: from the ancient polytheists to the modern monotheists — believe that they will be reunited with their loved ones "after death" somewhere? But that's also precisely what the Eternal Recurrence says — with the little caveat that we'll also be reunited with all those people that we hate, of course, or just generally dislike: which is precisely what the atheists believe, in their own way, when they say that we don't have to look far for heaven and hell, since they are both right here, right now. See how everyone ultimately agrees on everything, if you know how to interpret what they say correctly? Which is to say, if your grasp of semiotics and psychology is so complete that you can jump between worldviews almost as easily as a translator does between the languages that he knows. And while language translation is possible because all languages ultimately express the same things: mankind's feelings; worldview translation is possible because all worldviews express the same thing too: the world, which all of us, of course, inhabit.

>>11843692
>dude what if someone i don't like is in valhalla OMG
What an insufferable faggot.

>>11843692
I didn't mean to trip you up with my little embelishment, so to speak.
I wasn't using true in the same sense there as in the sense of factual, but rather for rhetorical effect.

Unfortunately, you've done the very undionysian thing of seizing on this bit of linguistic coincidence to try and argue with reason. That seems rather duplicitous considering your project here is to convince me of the futility of reason and the primacy of the will right?

The great thing about Nietzsche is striding from mountaintop to mountaintop, finding the useful bits of aphorism where you can and discarding the bits that are beneath you. I would suggest reading him a bit more carefully lest you mistake his path for your own or try to promulgate the truth you deny to others as if it made sense to prove me wrong.

The notion of truth is more important to me than the road to the horse of Turin, so I'll stick with that rather than let anyone else determine my values and beliefs for me, including Nietzsche or someone claiming to be speaking in his name.

>>11843594
Ivan Pavlov and (((Edward Bernays)))

>>11838139
marx and freud, good
pavlov: derivative dip shit
bernays: derivative dip shit

The fourth horseman is Hegel....and yes. Why is it always fuckin Germans too? Must be from poor stock.

>>11843961
Freud and Marx are both just applied Hegel

>>11843589
>still thinks moral and political principles can be derived using logic and are grounded in their objective “reasonableness”

>>11844115
>still thinks moral and political principles can be derived using pseudo-intellectual bait-and-switch feelz jenga
You really think Nietzsche wasn't relying on logic? There's still logic at the heart of poetry. Nietzsche was just bad at it, and resented Socrates/Plato because he could never say half that much.

>>11843589
>hasn’t heard that god is dead and that the spooks that grew on his body like barnacles like Reason and objective values and humanistic truth died with him

>>11844131
Dude you’re 500 years too late to be thinking like this. No one is saying Aristotle is irrelevant or that Platonisnt a genius but this naive mode of approach to the Ancient Greek mode of philosophy consigns you to absolute irrelevance with respect to what you can say about contemporary philosophy and literature and indeed the modern world

>>11844187
Plato isn’t a genius*

>>11837387
You scratch your ass as a reflex against parasites. Hunger is an impulse to acquire nutrients. If the world was will to pleasure, why is evolution producing fitter and fitter creatures and not natural heroin addicts? Pleasure is just a tool towards power.

>>11843737
What?

>>11844187
>all of the popular philosophers are analytic
>all of the major philosophers are platonists/aristotelians
>all of the Nietzsche scholars are psychoanalysts and leftists
Sure it does, bucko. Nietzsche undoes everything, bucko. Making shit up as you go along and feelings-based history will forever be the future, bucko.

>>11837214
>like medieval philosophers saw themselves as subordinate to theology.
boi

>>11837533
t. metaphilosophical nihilist

>>11844240
Who the fuck is a popular analytic philosopher currently working? Which major philosophers are actually platonists or aristotelians? You're an absolute mong cloistered in some philosophy department that evidently cultishly and uncritically worships the Ancient Greeks.

>>11837135
>unfalsiable
>le bedunked!
huh?

>>11837588
>like how alchemy led to chemistry
no thanks pseud. The alchemists were disgusted with the early stages of experimental science, just like Freud and Jung would be disgusted with the pseudoscientific mess that psychology has become.
speculation>experimentation

>>11844383
I don’t think they’d be totally disgusted. They did their own case studies of sorts. They would be disgusted with those psychologists who fail to account for every possible cause of their experiments’ outcomes, but they would love people like Panksepp and Ramachandran.

>>11837101
>They are basically Keynesian from what I've heard.


Not an economics expert, but I thought that even the "tax and spend" keynesian economics was seen as too left wing for todays free marketeer neolibs?

Surely the WTO and the like are fighting against keynesian economics?

>>11844547
Neolibs are dumb enough not to understand how spending money stimulates an economy.

>>11837185
Haha this is a satire of itself.

If I were to create a caricature of what the believer in an objective truth and scientific utopia likes that caricature would like exactly these things

>So much of philosophy is just opinions
>This is somehow not an opinion but a fact

>>11844356
As did Nietzsche...
Did he even say anything new?