/lit/ - Literature

>>11922741
Nietzsches would start getting into gay bdsm

>>11922741
Generally probably think him a worthy son but an inadequate successor. Like a father who set world records in many athletic fields who has a son who over his wins and olymipc silver medal

>>11922764
God phoneposting is gay.

a son who wins an Olympic silver medal*

>>11922741
Nietzsche would be disgusted at the perversion of his thought by a ressentiment fueled, life denying untermensch

Every bood by Foucault reads like The Birth Of Tragedy (bizzare unfounded historical claims backing up a philosophical argument), a book Nietzche was embarrassed by.

What would Nietzsche think of him?

>>11922808
Yeah it's no coincidence the subtitle for Discipline & Punish was "The Birth of the Prison" - he inherited the shoddy historical argumentation from Nietzsche for whom it worked in an aphoristic context but when you try to do it academically it falls flat

>>11923083
Putting Nietzsche anywhere near the academy is already a crime against both

WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT FOUCALT HERE.

>>11923091
That was part of my point absolutely - Foucault tried to bring Nietzsche into an academic frame and to no one's shock it didn't work

What would Nietzsche think of him?

>>11923192
>cover on the wrong side

I had a dream that Nietzsche met him in some Parisian hotel.

He'd start smooching his lips and wrapping his arms around his face. Then he'd grope his ass as he goes in tongue deep undressing him in the process. He continues to lick his face and works his way to the nipples suckling them like a hungry baby. He proceeds to caress his thighs as he lay in bed, dicks begin to touch and before you know it they suck each others phallus until their heads slowly make their way into their brown ass holes but not before their mouths playing their hairy balls. They finally take turns fucking each others anus and Nietzsche came into his brown french hole with loud moans "OUI OUI NIETZCHE CUM INSIDE LE HOLE ÇA PLANE POUR MOI"

What would Nietzsche think of him?

>>11922781
this is the only correct answer. Foucault was a charlatan

>>11923198
Probably because of the order japanese people read their books in. It's stupid because the title isn't in japanese.

>>11923203
>smooching his lips
stopped reading right there

What would Nietzsche think of him?

>>11923226
Where's the ressentiment in Foucault?

>>11922829
He might not hate him
>>11924537
blond beast LARPer

>>11923203
You know everyone in a dream is you? Sounds like you've got a complex situation bucko

N: power is everything and those who don't have it are losers
Fagoult: power is everything and those who have it are evil people and the powerless are victims we must cry and fight for
yeah, I think it's obvious what he would think of him...

>>11924888
World renowned Foucault scholar right here…

>>11924537
He hated Nazi's and disowned his Nazi sister.

Nietzsche spoke highly of France

>>11922741
they would get along because they were both neurotic idiots

>>11925019
Nazism didn't exist during Nietzsche's lifetime

>>11922741
I'm more interested in what pic related would think of Derrida, did he ever mention him?

>>11925086
t. brainlet

Ultraconservatism in Germany wasn't introduced in the 1930s

>>11925096
>nazism
>conservative
pick one

>>11925100
It so happens that Nietzsche's sister was part of an ultraconservative group of aristocrats which aligned itself with nazism.

Stay on topic, pseud.

>>11925100
Nazism was neither revolutionary nor progressive, they sought to maintain social and economic hierarchies, purge commies/socialists, were huge prussiaboos (which was the German conservatism poster child) and were imperialists of the highest degree.
there is absolutely no contradiction between nazism and conservatism

>>11925095
Heidegger received letters from Derrida and was interested by his work, I think they sent letters to each other and wanted to meet in 1972 according to Lucien Braun (who knew both), but they never got around it

>>11925113
>there is absolutely no contradiction between nazism and conservatism
Everyone who disagree are nazi!

>>11925055
and gay

>>11925113
I'm pretty sure everyday conservatism is a lot more milquetoast and harmless than Nazism.

>>11925134
>>11925191
Obviously I didn't mean conservatism in its practical sense is literally nazi Germany, I am just saying that it does lend itself to the ideology in its social aspect the same way you can support unions and labor laws without being a "class war now" communist

>>11923212
i too often like to imagine Nietzsche and Jack Nicholson as would-be friends

>>11924888
>and the powerless
> are victims we must cry and fight for
Never read Foucault

>>11925113
>they sought to maintain social and economic hierarchies
Who believes this shit. They turned the state into a direct captain over all industry and completely dismantled tons of incredibly wealthy individuals (not just Jews) towards a total recalibration of society meanwhile completely shitting on the old Aristocratic class that were dethroned just a couple decades prior.
The only people who can think the Nazis were conservative are literal commies to whom anyone who isn't pro-Stalin is a conservative

>>11925210
Enlighted opinion

>>11925226
>completely dismantled tons of incredibly wealthy individuals that arent jews
Citation needed, they only increased taxes and took over some industries once war broke out which every nation did at the time, every industrialist funded them in their rise to keep their wealth from the commies, if you're literally funded by the elite of your society you are in no way revolutionary.

>>11925329
>every industrialist funded them
Citation needed.

>>11925329
>if you're literally funded by the elite of your society you are in no way revolutionary.

Define revolutionary here you absolute mong. Pretty sure dismantling the entire Democratic structures of due process and division of powers is pretty fucking radical. There have been actual Revolutions that have resulted in less change to a society than what the Nazis orchestrated.
Again you're defining anything that is not some abstract pinko Marxist society as conservative

>>11922781
this

>>11925339
>no u
how about you cite yours before asking for citations, and as for mine

>"Many business leaders welcomed Hitler's rise to power due to his anti-Communist and anti-trade union stance.[53] The month after being appointed Chancellor, Hitler made a personal appeal to German business leaders to help fund the Nazi Party for the crucial months that were to follow. He argued that they should support him in establishing a dictatorship because "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy" and because democracy would allegedly lead to communism.[54] In the following weeks, the Nazi Party received contributions from seventeen different business groups, with the largest coming from IG Farben and Deutsche Bank.[55] Many of these businesses continued to support Hitler even during the war and even profited from persecution of the Jews. The most infamous being firms like Krupp, IG Farben, and some large automobile manufacturers.[56] Historian Adam Tooze writes that the leaders of German business were therefore "willing partners in the destruction of political pluralism in Germany."[57] In exchange, owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level.[58] Business profits also rose very rapidly, as did corporate investment.[59]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
>>11925347
Revolutionary means changing the structure of society itself, the french revolution overthrew the entire monarchy and centuries of established dogma of divine rights granted to monarchs, the American revolution gave birth to a new nation with a new constiution and set of laws.
A revolution is a radical change in a country's political structure, having a dictatorship that protects private interests by smothering democracy is not "revolutionary", if anything it's a reaction to revolutionary ideologies.

>>11922829
He's say he went too far

>>11925714
great post

>>11925714
This nigger read good.
Hitler was a reactionary shill of the business class.

Nietzsche realised that his own philosophy was all bullshit when he hugged the Turin horse.

>>11925100

>>11925714
>Many = All

>>11925912
>>11925926
Getting impressed by a wikipedia reading leftist

>>11925714
>Revolutionary means changing the structure of society itself, the french revolution overthrew the entire monarchy and centuries of established dogma of divine rights granted to monarchs, the American revolution gave birth to a new nation with a new constiution and set of laws.
>A revolution is a radical change in a country's political structure, having a dictatorship that protects private interests by smothering democracy is not "revolutionary", if anything it's a reaction to revolutionary ideologies.

Directly refuting yourself. The Nazi regime led rise to a new nation with new set of laws. You're just arbitrarily defining an extra criteria that they needed to enact leftist policies which has fuck all to do with the term revolution itself. The Nazis certainly did not respect private property of anyone who opposed them, the fact that many business leaders had to back and support them was itself a consequence of the unprecedented power they amassed in their rise.

>>11925714
>nazism
>protects private interests
Kys

>>11925714
Youre clueless, aren't you?
>business class
>reactionary

As if the Bourgeoisie wasn't the class responsible for the breakdown of aristocracies and traditional aspects of society

>>11926039
The bourgeois was a continuation of the aristocrats that emereged from the shift of the old fuedal order to the liberal-capitalist politics economies. The bourgeois didn't destroy aristocracy, aristocrats became the bourgeoisie.
It is definitely the case that bourgeois reactionaries wished to return to the old aristocratic social order.

>>11925986
>The Nazis certainly did not respect private property of anyone who opposed them, the fact that many business leaders had to back and support them was itself a consequence of the unprecedented power they amassed in their rise.

>The rhetoric of the Nazi regime stated that German private companies would be protected and privileged as long as they supported the economic goals of the government - mainly by participating in government contracts for military production - but that they could face severe penalties if they went against the national interest. However, such threats were rarely carried out in practice, and "companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state without any consequences."[66] Private firms refused government contracts and directions on many occasions. In 1937, de Wendel, a coal mining enterprise, refused to build a hydrogenation plant. In 1939, IG Farben denied a government request to increase its production of rayon and refused to invest in a synthetic rubber factory despite this being an important project for the regime. Froriep GmbH, a company producing machines for the armaments industry, successfully demanded cheap credit from the Nazi government under a threat of cutting back investment if its demand was not met.[67] The regime generally used monetary incentives, such as guaranteed profits, to persuade businesses to support its goals, and freedom of contract was generally respected even in projects important for the war.[68] According to historians Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner, the reason why businesses sometimes refused these incentives was out of long-term profitability considerations. The government usually tried to persuade them to join military projects, but firms were worried about overcapacity in case the armaments boom would end. They did not want to commit themselves too much to war-related production for the future.[69]
Sure sounds like they were forced to comply

>>11925970
I certainly do not like wikipedia, but they provide peer reviewed sources so it's the only good substitute of posting the actual studies.
>if you dislike Hitler shilling for industry you must be a leftist

what would nietzsche think of him

>>11922741
What would Nietzsche think of him?

>>11922741
>>11926196
Hey, what would Nietszche think of him?

wrong picture

>>11925086
lmao

>>11925113
>Nazism was neither revolutionary nor progressive
are you retarded

>>11926254
good post

>>11926174
>Sure sounds like they were forced to comply

"Threats were rarely carried out in practice" is another way of saying "were carried in practice", the fact that organizations whose sole purpose was to create profit behaved in accordance with the best means of gaining profit is a dull tautology nor does it in any way diminish the vast systematic changes enacted by the Nazis and the vast social organizations they developed.

>>11926284
it literally says businesses refused to follow the NSDAP's policy and decided where to invest and when to just maximize their profit.
That's called following capital's organisation, not the regime's, not sure what kind of mental gymnastics you're applying to somehow see it as obedience towards the nazis.

>>11926334
Completely irrelevant to any argument being made. Each policy carrys its own weight and each refussal its own significance. What is said in the very source you provided is that the Nazis did follow through on threats on certain occassions and they did make many, many direct orders to businesses for which they had the capacity to make in their interest to follow.
The fact the process led to conflicting activity just goes to show your proposition that the Nazis were an extension of business is patently false

>>11924888
I don't think you have ever actually read Nietzsche OR Foucault

Obviously Naziism (and, for that matter, Italian fascism and Japanese militarism) was conservative in many respects and revolutionary in others. Like most regimes, it contained internal contradictions, changed over time, and did not always align its actions with its ideology.

As a result, whether you view it as conservative or radical will depend primarily on your own political perspective. It's more interesting to look at the particular ways in which Naziism was in fact conservative (its well-documented alliance with German industry is one example) and the ways in which it was radical (these hardly need elaborating) and think about the reason why Naziism was conservative in the ways in which it was conservative and radical in the ways in which it was radical, rather than arguing about whether it was "fundamentally" conservative or revolutionary.

>>11922758
fpbp

>>11923130
>it didn't work
>Foucault works are still some of the most widely cited in all of academia

>>11922741
an embodiment of ressentiment, with a complete incomprehension of amor fati; an absolute degenerate faggot brainlet

>>11926465
>(((academia)))

>>11923198
It's the manga version

>>11926521
did you even go to high school or are you content being a brainlet because you have screencaps to post?
The most important writers and philosophers in the past 200 years have been predominately academic writing for other academics

>>11922829
He would probably dislike his writing style.

>>11926521
I guarantee you this woman has masturbated to forced content, people whose neurosis becomes so acutely specific to one area 99% of the time endure all of it's perspectives

>>11924888
At the very end of his life Foucault came much closer to Nietzsche's views.

>>11925113
>claiming rightfully German land as German is imperialism

>>11926543
if you honestly believe getting cited in the absolute garbage people have been publishing in academic journals since the 70s is significant, and that academia is in no need of a reform/purge, please stay out of the way while you continue on your suicidal meth-fueled flavored edible dildo binge

>>11926575
epic pic, my fellow kekistani!

>>11926585
you have to go back