/lit/ - Literature

>>14574691

>Taking Nietzsche at face value

Yuri

>How does Nietzsche not contradict himself?

He does contradict himself. Plebs BTFO.

It reminds me of the Unabomber's diagnosis of leftism- oversocialization+feelings of inferiority.

>>14574691
Aristocratic cruelty that can ignore you just as happily as it can destroy you vs Christian morality that seeks you out to torment you with "love"
Freud lays out exactly how hate is psychologically transformed into love with his concept of Reaction Formation. Think of stockholm syndrome.

>he just switches his ideas regarding cruelty between the first and second essays
Words can be used in different ways and a philosopher's disposition toward a behavior changes within context.

>Couldn't you apply this same critique to Nietzche himself?
You can say whatever you want.

>what happens when the slave morality becomes dominant in society and reinforces it through brute strength?
This is what slave morality always does. It is the triumph of the many weak over the few and strong.

>Was Charlemagne or any other Christian conqueror still enslaved?
People are not 2D characters to which only 1 label can ever apply.

>advances a study about morality grounded on materialist evolutionism
Nietzsche was not a materialist or an evolutionist/Darwinian.

>>14574765
Regardless of what the Aristocrat's background may be, it simply doesn't change the fact that cruel actions are cruel. Killing someone and torturing them is always cruel even if the aristocrat could overlook it.

Also I am not talking about only Christianity. Nietzsche says even the Categorical Imperative of Kant is cruel in the same way. I fail to see how the same term could be predicated in both scenarios.

His argument against Kant's moral philosophy isn't that it's cruel, you could make the argument (which is too trivial of a Nietzsche reading, in my opinion) that Nietzsche criticizes Kant's hypocrisy. How did you make the mistake to assume that Nietzsche ever uses "cruelty" to discredit a morality? N seems to believe he can embarrass philosophers by making them show their "true colors".

In the Genealogy of Morals, first chapter I think 15th aphorism, there's a lengthy quote from Aquinas. The quote deals with Aquinas' answer regarding the question whether or not the just and good men will be able to enjoy the suffering of the damned in the after-life. Aquinas' answer is a positive one, it would be unjust if those who were good in this life didn't get to enjoy the tormented screams of the sinners. His verdict: Christian morality, while cloaked in what N calls "slave-morality", really desires master-morality type of goals, just in a more subversive and "parasitic" manner.

To your second question, the Genealogy aswell as BGE are full of Nietzsche suggesting one ought to apply his genealogical critique on himself aswell. Take BGE aphorisms 18-22 for example.

Your third question has wrong premises. Nietzsche doesn't advance a materialistic world-view where "might makes right" because we're just physical entities.

In summary you need to read more/better.

>>14574799
I'm not a nietzche scholar, but i've heard that the genealogy of morals discusses how hate is transformed into pity, while evil is projected onto the object of pity. Think of christian conservative xenophobia.
IMO he's saying honest, Conscious hate is better than unconscious hate expressed as love.

The critique is that it's all unnecessary, even Kant. Their ethic is based in guilt and fear and powerlessness. If Kant was swimming in pussy, do you really think he would write all those stupid books?

>>14574691

>Contradictory ideas don't have value

This is your brain on modern education. Only contradictory ideas have value, because humans are inherently contradictory creatures. Something as simple as A = A isn't contradictory but it's not exactly profound.
Complex ideas are contradictory by necessity. If an argument is completely without contradictions, odds are you're only getting half of the story.

>>14574784
>Words can be used in different ways and a philosopher's disposition toward a behavior changes within context.
Seems like a poor excuse for such a central concept in a philosophical essay.

> It is the triumph of the many weak over the few and strong.
You didn't read my full statement. I said what happens when the few and the strong are the same people that Nietzsche call "slave moralists?" Someone like Charlemagne was of the few and the strong and conquered pagans that supposedly were not of this slave moral structure.

> Nietzsche was not a materialist or an evolutionist/Darwinian.
With regards to his belief regarding the genesis of morals, it is definitely materialist. He says that they are just of natural reasons and have no transcendent or spiritual value whatsoever (beyond maybe some sort of romanticist "heroism").

He beliefs regarding early civilizations once more are very akin to what any evolutionist would think. Early people are just primitive savages etc.
Regardless of how you want to predicate him, the fact that he starts with such things to be assumed doesn't really make much of what he says to be that groundbreaking. Obviously if morals have no transcendent value they are going to be easily reduced to primitive pleasure/pain dichotomies.

>>14574809
He literally says the categorical imperative is cruel verbatim within the essay.

>Nietzsche doesn't advance a materialistic world-view
As I said to the other anon, with regards to his belief regarding the genesis of morals, it is definitely materialist. He says that they are just of natural reasons and have no transcendent or spiritual value whatsoever (beyond maybe some sort of romanticist "heroism"). If you start from this basis, I don't see how anything he says is of much profundity.

>>14574818
Being a Christian that is an incredibly particular and stupid generalisation. Baseless in itself and especially in relation to Christ, and still contradictory.

>>14574818
> If Kant was swimming in pussy, do you really think he would write all those stupid books?
You could say that about literally anyone including Nietzsche. Do you think we would be better as baboon people that did nothing but fuck all day?

>>14574809
I am a Christian, and I have wished only for the punishment to be dealt and taken away from view. No greater focus need be on sinners than necessary.

Is this why people who only read Nietzsche have such a completely distorted and anecdotal view of the world?

Y U ASK /LIT/?

>>14574943
Your desire for others to suffer an eternal punishment is cruelty enough

>>14574906
I was making a joke. Of course sublimation is an admirable way to transform one's feelings of guilt.
>>14574893
Maybe you could repeat that generalization back to meet so i know what you think i said?

>>14574840
>complexity equals contradiction
>the unexpected is contradiction
I have literally never laughed this hard in my life, and I'm having a spiritual revelation.

>>14574943
Nietzsche isn't making generalized views on Christian physique, naturally there's an infite possibility of what N calls "forms of life", he's interested in the metaphysics of Chritsianity and/or the genealogy of this world-view. Read the second chapter in The Genealogy where Nietzsche is engaged in the genealogy of punishment, in German he writes: "Die Form ist flüßig, der Sinn ist es umso mehr." Which roughly translates to: The form is liquid, the meaning even moreso. This obviously applies to something so complex as morality/religion aswell. Anyone who suggests a rigid distinction between slave/master-morality to analyze daily life is a poor Nietzsche reader.

>>14574885
I never disagreed with that, I must again propose that you learn how to read better. Nietzsche doesn't use cruelty as a counter-argument as if he were proposing an anti-cruelity ethics, this is a piss-poor reading of what has been said.

Materialism is a metaphysical position. Metaphysics N famously rejects. He in a somewhat polemical manner characterizes his philosophy as "psychology", I prefer "genealogy" (for his mid-to-late writings at least). He never collapses psyche into "matter" or anything of that sort. I'm assuming you have a limited world-view where one is either a metaphysician or a strong materialist.

I think what you're trying to get angry about is that Nietzsche considers any morality to be a "Zeichensprache der Affekte" IE a sign-language of instincts, which isn't necessarily a materialistic position, especially not in Nietzsche. Read the whole first two chapters of BGE where he extensively attacks a naturalistic world-view in the vein of modern scientism. This too, by the way, is to him a consequence of corrupt Christian slave-morality.

WHY U ASK CHANTARDS?

>>14575003
Oops brain-fart on this post, what I meant was: "Nietzsche doesn't make generalized claims on Christian psyche..."

>>14574989
Did I say I wanted or believed that? Some may say hell is ones own creation and synonymous with sin. It has also been said that Hell is as just and long as our sins. It isn't impersonal.

Wagner already completely btfo'd Nietzsche in Religion and Art however.

>>14574990
>Maybe you could repeat that generalization back to meet so i know what you think i said?
That Christian love is an unconscious hate.

One might, in rejecting the unbounding love of Christ, reject all the love of the world as hate.

You Nietzscheans all seem very sensitive to a fatherly stare for apparent strength.

>>14575003
>Which roughly translates to: The form is liquid, the meaning even moreso. This obviously applies to something so complex as morality/religion aswell. Anyone who suggests a rigid distinction between slave/master-morality to analyze daily life is a poor Nietzsche reader.
I actually agree with you here. It amazes me how people can think Nietzsche simply wanted the eternal destruction of all morals.

>>14574989
shut the fuck up, butterfly.

>>14574990
I know it was a joke, but that really isn't that much far off from what Nietzsche thinks regarding "culture" and the life-denial that results.

>>14575003
> Anyone who suggests a rigid distinction between slave/master-morality to analyze daily life is a poor Nietzsche reader.
> this is a piss-poor reading of what has been said.
Calling every interpretion you dislike isn't an argument. He writes in aphorisms and essays precisely so he could be interpreted in a variety of ways and not be rigid, like you yourself claim.

Either way, I don't know how you couldn't see a rigid distinction in certain elements. He never predicates Christianity in any positive way, it is always negative or rarely neutral. This obviously would lend itself to other rigid distinctions, even if there are other places where it is more of a grey area.

> He never collapses psyche into "matter" or anything of that sort.
>This too, by the way, is to him a consequence of corrupt Christian slave-morality.
He says that primitive morality, even before Christianity was just a result of material necessity and nothing of transcendent value so I don't see how Christianity in any way affects this. You seem to not understand that you can be a materialist in more ways than just pure metaphysics. His worldview regarding how values came to exist is purely materialist. I don't know how you could argue this unless his thought changed in the later books I have yet to read.

>>14575088
Well he did want eternal destruction of morals in the sense that they are ethical systems. He didn't want nihilism. In fact he argued that nihilism was -impossible- in a strict sense: total lack of mythos. He definitely wanted Christianity to vanish. In his final phase he wanted Christians publicly executed.

>>14575112
>He definitely wanted Christianity to vanish. In his final phase he wanted Christians publicly executed.
Why was he so bitter? Was it Wagner?

I could be completely wrong on this but do you ever get the feeling that he was very insecure?

>>14575110
>but that really isn't that much far off from what Nietzsche thinks regarding "culture" and the life-denial that results.
I don't support the blonde-beast theory of life. I just think we shouldn't pass by an oasis without stopping to drink.
>>14575088
>You Nietzscheans all seem very sensitive to a fatherly stare for apparent strength.
Of course Nietzscheans are going to have daddy issues.
>>14575088
>One might, in rejecting the unbounding love of Christ, reject all the love of the world as hate.
Does the animal love the world or see it as an obstacle to sex and nourishment? If so, what does he see sex and nourishment as? I would say he sees those things as Life Affirming.
>>14575088
>That Christian love is an unconscious hate.
Can you imagine a situation where you love an authority because you have no choice? Because your god doesn't give choices. It's his way or hell. That's how Stockholm Syndrome functions. And Freud discovered it long before Stockholm Syndrome was a thing.

>>14575110
The reason why it's a piss-poor reading is because I know what segments you're referring to, and you have obviously failed at reading them. His aphoristic style doesn't mean you cannot get a somewhat unified world-view out of it.

And no he never made that claim, where are you getting that from? He never went the route Marx went down to claim that morality is the afterbirth of certain material circumstances. When he talks of primitive pre-Christian morality he has a multitude of answers as to why they start moralizing. The "aryan" or master-morality type starts moralizing because they are such strong-willed and life-overflowing forms of life. The reduction never goes from morality to materialism. It goes from theory, to morality to psyche and physiology. The Greeks had a noble morality and didn't care for say Socratic truth becaus they were a vigorous society. Socrates, aswell as Jesus, are first symptoms of the declining power of "instincts". This is not a materialistic claim. The reason why you are confused enough to suggest this is the same reason why you're confused enough to suggest he's a Darwinian.

You just need to do some more reading. You have like 10 concepts in your head and try to fit Nietzsche into your coherence-net not realizing it's too narrow. Try starting with the Stanford Encyclopedia article on Nietzsche's political and moral views.

>>14575143
No, he seemed pretty confident really. He was anti-Christian ever since he was writing, from the age of 17 you can see his disgust at the morality of "commoners". His favorite books in his teen years were French books defending a hard-core view of aristocratic elitism. To suggest that N was really just insecure is to pre-suppose your concept of right-and-wrong are probably somewhat universal and any deviation of it must be explained in terms of physological unrest, IE insecurities and so on.

Why does Nietzsche reduce all of religion to simply "morality?" This seems to be a very classical error that results from thinkers who were or at one point had been Protestants.

Eliade, Guenon, Campbell, and even Evola who dislikes much of Christianity, all have shown that Christianity like all religions is much more than just a moral code and that the moral element is the lowest expression, simply made for the people who need to progress towards the path of spiritual union with God.

Even Evola, who as I stated dislikes Christianity, doesn't make such an obvious error to omit the teology of Christian morality and reduce it naturalism. If you omit the end goal of theosis that all Christian morality is naturally oriented towards, it's obvious that nothing makes sense. It would be like omitting Nirvana from Buddhist ethics and then claiming you can present a fair analysis of Buddhism.

>>14575164
He doesn't because he's a strict (in a technical sense) moral-nihilist, IE religion cannot be reduced to morality since religion exists and morality doesn't.

>>14575161
You have a very myopic view of what certain definitions signifiy. Not all materialism is Marxist. Not all Evolutionism is Darwinian. Either way, I'm not going to continuing discussing things that deviate from the threads purpose.

My point remains. He is starting at a point that is already non-Christian and against all traditional metaphysics regarding essence, divinity, and the genesis of societal structures. He takes this as a postulate of his arguments. It is obvious that you are going to end up at a conclusion that is non-Christian and against traditionality morality if you start with postulates that already imply it.

>>14575158
>Of course Nietzscheans are going to have daddy issues.
Well I guess that was Wagner's influence. The same age as Nietzsche's absent father.

>Does the animal love the world or see it as an obstacle to sex and nourishment? If so, what does he see sex and nourishment as? I would say he sees those things as Life Affirming.
Does the mother which dies for its calf or cub, whatever species it may be, only see sex and nourishment?

This question is my answer.

>applying Stockholm syndrome to mans relation with an omnipotent, omniscient and all good god
I love God because he is the all-good. You do have the choice to act against my god and morality. And you complain for suffering for this? "I raped a child, how dare your God be such an absolutist" you are completely retarded anon.

>inb4 we're arguing the metaphysical validity of Christianity

>>14575185
That is such a painfully obvious cope. He is very clearly conversant with such topics of morality and he implies that the social values (if you don't want to use the term morals) of Judaism and Christianity were just spiteful coping mechanisms. This is clear reductionism of the highest category.

>>14575161
>To suggest that N was really just insecure is to pre-suppose your concept of right-and-wrong are probably somewhat universal and any deviation of it must be explained in terms of physological unrest, IE insecurities and so on.
It may seem that way, but I didn't intend it in the sense of his philosophy. Just that he seemed to sometimes seem wildly insecure himself. Especially in relation to Wagner.

>>14575250
>Does the mother which dies for its calf or cub, whatever species it may be, only see sex and nourishment?
The mother-child relationship is one of sex and evolution. The mother projects her narcissistic self image onto the child and thus loves it as herself. So yes, it is love because it is evolutionary sexuality. But a mother can devour her child with her narcissism. Just ask my mom.
>>14575250
>I love God because he is the all-good
A quick read of the bible will show you he does a lot of things that most of us wouldn't associate with "goodness"

>>14575237
I'm shooting off on the common understanding of materialist reductionism. It's obvious to me you have a very very vague vocabulary, IE you don't really know what you're trying to say. Again, my intuition is the following: You find Nietzsche's reductionism simply too violent. He does claim that any attempt to relate to the "transcendent" must be re-routed to instinctive dynamics. This is your main problem, and you don't even really understand why. In trying to argue for this you have greatly misunderstood Nietzsche, just read him again.

He never pre-supposes Christianity has been disproven. He goes at great lengths to argue for why he believes Christianity is best understood as a decline of human civilization. Read a fucking book you stupid moron. Read BGE, Twilight of Idols, Ecce Homo and/or Antichrist before making such retarded fucking claims.

>>14575252
He doesn't believe that the "essence" of religion is their inner morality, meaning, he didn't believe religions were just there to justify a pre-conceived morality. Rather his claim is that a holistic culture, with its logical-boundaries, be it a God, multiple Gods, the transcendent, their manner of science, their mythos, ethos, pathos, you name it, must be ultimately reduced to the type of "life form" this culture is indicative of. The sickly types will express say an "ethos" that will be in accordance with a sickly form of life. This is what has become to be known as Nietzschen perspectivism. Read the first two chapters of the Twilight of Idols or the last chapter of the Genealogy of Morality. The claim "Religion's only use is its moral content" is in many ways the anti-thesis to Nietzsche's position.

>>14575272
>The mother-child relationship is one of sex and evolution.
I didn't know such self sacrificing acts of "evolution" existed within the realm of individual nourishment.

>The mother projects her narcissistic self image onto the child and thus loves it as herself.
Pffff, does pity or compassion not exist for you Ayn(?), you bitter jewish cunt. They are emotions in themselves, not some human attributed complexity.

And you seem to forgot how this ego projection relates to sexuality. In the sense that her ego-projected self can go on and fuck? That is one time of the year anon, the animals mind is in the moment, you think the dears are ever horny? An odd obsession with sexuality by an anon with a cruel mother, strange, but I do pity you anon.

>A quick read of the bible will show you he does a lot of things that most of us wouldn't associate with "goodness"
Then I guess, I'll become a Gnostic.

>>14575274
>Read a fucking book you stupid moron
Is this the will to power I see? You just dodge anything about Nietzsche you dislike and then change philosophical terms to fit your liking when it is obvious they apply. It is okay to admit he can be criticized and isn't some esoteric figure that no one can ever truly understand besides himself. I guarantee once more, you will say nothing more than "no he akshully believed THIS" twist another term to fit it, and then go on as if you done something of value. Trust me, you have not.

>He never pre-supposes Christianity has been disproven.
Of course he does. If Christianity was correct, then it doesn't matter anything what he says about its values. It would be right and pointless to criticize since that was what God ordained. The social background would not matter. By leveling all value systems to be compared haphazardly amongst one another, one is already within modern indifferentism and if they don't outright deny all values, they leave the discussion regarding which one is better to the realm of practicality, a non-religious perspective.

You seem to be blind to anything that doesn't involve a Nietzsche quote or your personal interpretation of certain predicates used for ideological categorization. You are using Nietzsche to interpret non-Nietzschean categories, hence why I can't even discuss any ideological categories with you.

>>14575274
>must be ultimately reduced to the type of "life form" this culture is indicative of.
Regardless of how you define it, it is still reductionism and doesn't take into account the teleology of religion. No religious person who thinks in the mindset of traditional categories (like those of Guenon) would ever try and do such a thing, so as to try and compare traditions based on only one category that can never portray the full picture.

>>14575338
>I didn't know such self sacrificing acts of "evolution" existed within the realm of individual nourishment.
Species-instincts vs ego-instincts. One could argue that species-instincts are more "holy," but that's still just a cultural valuation.

>Pffff, does pity or compassion not exist for you
they do, but for me there is something else behind their surface. something i think you are too frightened to look at. and i'm too lazy to explain. Read freud?

>An odd obsession with sexuality by an anon
You're not the first one to make this critique of the libidinal theory. But you are wrong.

>>14575456
>Species-instincts vs ego-instincts.
You don't know what evolution is do you? There isn't a differentiation between the two in your horrible fucking-over of terminology. Besides, "ego-consciousness" barely exists for most animals let alone at all.

And pls, just learn the correct meaning for your words.

>too frightened to look at.
I've looked at it. You are projecting your own (likely halted by mother) psychology. Jung himself said that the reason psychology was in the sorry state it is because everyone has an *opinion*, not a science, which is necessarily reflective of their own psychology rather than psychology. These emotions, like all general emotions, are self evident. It is only you who thinks it needs a negative explanation.

>You're not the first one to make this critique of the libidinal theory. But you are wrong.
I think the universal Freudian understanding of it was stupid of him and wrong, but I wasn't critiquing it in that post. I was saying your personal psychology is the foundation for your current beliefs.


Stop holding onto your mistaken views, and cast them aside for truth.

>>14575456
>>14575548
Because the self evidence of emotion, is necessarily positive. This Plato new, look to Timias, as did Plotinus, and Schelling, and Heidegger, in the sacredness of being.

>"God lets the oppositional will of the ground operate in order that might be which love unifies and subordinates itself to for the glorification of the Absolute. The will of love stands about the will of the ground and this predominance, this eternal decidedness, the love for itself as the essence of being in general, this decidedness is the innermost core of absolute freedom."

- Heidegger

bump

>>14574699

Yuri??

>>14574731
this, but also he embraces contradiction for the sake of it

>>14575967

Yuri Tarded

Nietzsche can't be wrong because Nietzsche says "wrong" is a slave concept. Nietzsche doesn't think straight up contradicting himself is a problem because "being coherent" is a slave concept. But also, just going through life being an animal who does whatever it wants and tries to impose itself on everything is somehow also a slave concept (doesn't matter though, since as we said contradicting yourself is not a problem).

Nietzsche fags always find a get out of jail free card. Nietzsche discovered the spirit of modernity, but also Nietzsche was really just writing poetry. Nietzsche's insights are of the utmost seriousness to the here-and-now, but also they can be understood as simple heuristics with utilitarian value. Nietzsche's "genealogy" of morality shows the actual path of morality, but also it's not supposed to be a historical account or really deal with history in any way despite invoking it.

It's just so tiring to deal with.

>>14574691
Nietzsche is the least consistent, most overrated philosopher of all time.
The fact that he can be easily interpretated to mean whatever you want him to mean is proof of it.

>>14574691
Nice apollonian decadence, OP
Reasoning is for fags

>>14574699
>>14575967
>>14576870

>>14575164
Because religion is morality. Strip away the morality and you don't have any religion left, just philosophy.

>>14579065
Literally no one with any interest in religion thinks that is the case. Morality is the lowest part of religion yet westerners think it to be all of it.

Nietzsche is a perfect example of a 'passionate' philosopher. Their intention is to put you in a state of mind with their words where you cannot make sense of it completely.

Jeremy Bentham is a much better moral philosopher. His findings are almost distinctly coeval with that of game theorists like Harsanyi who define the social welfare function W (A)superM (subi)= SUM ( A subj (superM)) for all values of M across all integers for all players 1 through j. Meaning the social welfare function is essentially a cardinal function, unique up to a linear transformation (because it's for all integer values M in i's interpretation of the citizen's expected utility from some collected basket of goods.

Although Harsanyi makes some mathematical errors here and there: this is the most novel find, really, and it essentially describes mathematically Bentham's theory of collective morality somewhat: that the interpreted moral sanction of the individual will be in a linear relation to his interpretation of the collective needs of society.

Where it gets interesting is where A subj superM has a finite value for certain values of j only and no others, then depending on what A is, this value of M could be significant for those values of j alone, meaning subjectivity for the individual interpreting society.

Taken as a collective whole (and expressed somewhat loosely verbally), the arithmetic mean of the sum total of the expected utility functions in the eyes of every participant for every other participant is the social welfare function, expressed as a completely symmetric line. This means any idiosyncracies are taken into account with regards to that individual's specific interpretation of society and humanity at a whole. This means the morality of society can be mathematically expressed, loosely, by a linear relation. That's all though.

Those findings are so much more interesting than, say, the absolute word diarrhea of one of the most sophist-like philosophers to ever exist. He can't even agree on a methodology to determine morality concretely, the closest thing you'll come to what I've described above with Bentham and Harsanyi is most likely his 'totem morality'. :3

>>14574691
> modern western morality is cruel and sadistic (even Kant somehow)
> the aristocrats were cruel too but we can't blame them since it's only in their nature. By the way, cruelty in this sense is life affirming and only natural!
Consider this minions' meme and the quote "The slaves' revolt in morals begins with this, that ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of those who are denied the real action, that of the deed, and who compensate with an imaginary revenge. Whereas all noble morality grows out of a triumphant affirmation of oneself, slave morality immediately says No to what comes from outside, to what is different, to what is not oneself: and this No is its creative deed. [...] The reverse is true of the noble way of evaluating: it acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks out its opposite only in order to say Yes to itself still more gratefully, still more jubilantly; and its negative concept, "base", "mean", "bad", in only an after-born, pale, contrasting image in relation to the positive basic concept, which is nourished through and through with life and passion: "we are noble, good, beautiful, happy!"

Slave morality is escapist, promotes and protects meekness. Master morality is not about imagining a world were the meek become strong and vice-versa, but about actually being strong in this real world by overcoming those things that call for strengh to be overcome - not a life without suffering, mind you, a life where suffering is embraced along with the pleasure as something that affirms your will to live.

>Couldn't you apply this same critique to Nietzche himself? He had poor social interactions so instead of having the strength to overcome it, he simply placed value on power instead of social compassion. He himself inverted the values of the dominant structures (Christianity in the case of Europe at the time) to try and regain domination in his life.
Close, you just missed it. Nietzsche was never "powerful" in a way that was opposed to compassion. He was tormented with horrible physical pain and needed to cope with it; he didn't want to lie to himself about how everything was going to turn out OK (by hoping for a painless afterlife for instance), so chose to accept and glad that he got something to try and overcome.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch09.htm
>In the foreground there is the feeling of plenitude, of power, which seeks to overflow, the happiness of high tension, the consciousness of a wealth which would fain give and bestow:--the noble man also helps the unfortunate, but not--or scarcely--out of pity, but rather from an impulse generated by the super-abundance of power.
He seems keen on largesse and magnanimity.

>>14574691
He doesn't contradict himself, cruelty means different things within different frames of context. Certain kinds of people have no capacity for nuance, they need everything to be completely literal and denuded as possible, these people cannot understand Nietzsche who deals largely in aphoristic sentiment. Just go read a math textbook f you're autistic.

>>14579637
Aphorisms means just a pithy little statement. In order for your findings to be applicable over a wide range of fields like moral science, ethics, and sociology, you would need some concise, objective definitions to your system. Otherwise, why even bother? What you’re describing is the same justification people use for Karl Marx. It’s rather scary, to tell you the truth, and should show you that the dangers of passion within literature are real.

After all, to be passionate about something objectively provable is one thing. To be passionate about something morally devoid of meaning like Nietzsche or Marx is another.

There’s the door :3

>>14579658
>In order for your findings to be applicable over a wide range of fields like moral science, ethics, and sociology, you would need some concise, objective definitions to your system.
And why would Nietzsche or anyone want that? You've already taken the first misstep in your approach to Nietzsche, self actualization cares little for the insect like "applicability" you describe, Marx is probably the single worst comparison possible in this respect. Nietzsche does not care what you think.

>>14579658
>Aphorisms means just a pithy little statement.
No it doesn't. I wouldn't be so quick to talk about concise or objective definitions if I were you. Science types almost never argue in good faith, it's strange.

>>14579694
Right so like a nihilistic black hole, he has bombarded your brain into a vortex to be consumed by demons.

Does anyone know why it is that certain philosophers ie. Nietzsche or Marx develop such cult followings despite having very little in the way of scientific truth?

I think most of Nietzsche’s findings are pedantic. I find him empowering at times but do not act like he is the end all be all please. This place went through a Nietzsche phase at its inception, myself included.

Those who treat what they’ve read as the gospel once they’ve already treated it as the gospel and are unable of hanging their tune are immature man children. You must understand there are entire fields devoted to the study of objective moral science, so it offends me when someone extols Nietzsche, a moral nihilist, with fervor.

After all, it is literally logically inferior to function on the basis of moral nihilism. You will generate less coalitions throughout life and enjoy the direction of life’s goals less. :3

>>14574818
>hate is transformed into pity, while evil is projected onto the object of pity
>>14574943
Textbook definition or bait?

>>14579726
>NIETZSCCHE SAID..

Nietzsche said a whole lot of things buddy, and most of them were completely meaningless. :3

His aphorisms especially. They are nothing more than pithy little word phrases to make you feel intellectually superior and mysterious

>>14579730
imagine being this much of a cretin
my sincerest hope is that your reddit styled retardation is affectation meant to get a rise out of people
but I'm not entirely convinced and that is far more alarming than your one man show could ever be

>>14574691
>reading nietzsche
yikes

>>14579748
No doubt this was intended to give me some kind of negative emotional reaction :3

>>14575378
No one was arguing that he wasn't a moral nihilist though. Infact he is a meta-metaphysical nihilist, meaning you can't just brute-force the opinions of metaphysicians against his world-view. Nietzsche again isn't making any descriptive claims about what Christians actually believe, teleology is not a counter-argument to say the lack of coherence in a Christian life.

>>14575340
I've gone at lengths to actually attack your claims, yet it seems you're somehow trying to accuse me of engaging in ad hominem attacks (which I of course am, but that doesn't mean I haven't shown you to be a poor Nietzsche reader).
What I meant by N doesn't presuppose Christianity has been disproven is that he actually attempts to discredit metaphysics (in fact meta-ethics) to justify his anti-Christian views. He's not as dogmatic as you make him out to be, you simply haven't read the guy.

You even suggested he was a materialist/naturalist. It's obvious, again, it's really obvious that you have a piss-poor understanding of the guy. Why pretend otherwise? You know it, I know it.

As for the rest of your post, I don't see how I'm supporting any form of ideology here. In Nietzsche's framework God does not exist and cannot exist, worse than that, any life-form that would affirm God's existence is one that Nietzsche would want eradicated. This isn't a logical proof, it amounts to what has been called Nietzsche's perspectivism, again: Read the fucking SEP article at least before you start acting like you know your Nietzsche.

I don't see where I'm operating with non-Nietzschean categories lol, you are fucking talking out of your ass again. Re-route to my posts where I actually quote the guy in his books instead of talking out of my (gay) ass.

>>14579739
>They are nothing more than pithy little word phrases
yes, that's aphorism means

>>14580003
Cool. So you are admitting to being a cold, black haired, depressing loser?

Get the FUCK off my /lit/.

I don’t get the obsession. You point out that he can’t prove anything he says, that it might as well be a very nicely written opinion piece, and people call you an anglo analytic. Ok. But then they go on to say how he’s irrefutable and correct

>>14574989
Most Christians are constantly praying for people not to go to hell though

>>14579159
There's a footnote in Critique of Pure Reason where Kant says that merging the main questions of metaphysics gives you theology and ethics and by merging those two you get religion.

>>14574691
>How does Nietzsche not contradict himself?
He does, enthusiastically.

>>14574765
>>14574799
That same Christian morality is what drives SJWs and colonialism. The inability to let another be as they are, all must be dominated by one authority and one worldview. Must pay tribute to shame and conformity. The main driver of homogenisation of thought and culture.

The aristocrat is his own man and believes in his worldview and actions above others as self-evidently as anyone or anything does that is not mired in shackling and dysfunctional programming. Yet doesn't seek to entirely deny the existence of anything other, which is alien to him in that it's beneath his notice. He doesn't demand the universe bend to his universalisation, his universalisation is just there within the one man or class unexamined, unforced, and intuitive.

Also Kant is just a rehash of Christian morality like anything else, so the same applies.

>>14579159
Anyone with an interest "in religion" is already a retard. Intellectuals are interested in the philosophy behind them first, and the morality as social effect second.

the refutation to slave morality is the most based philosophy ever
how will christianity ever recover?

>>14576870
lmfao

>>14574893
I’m Christian too, but I think it’s an interesting insight, and there is some truth to it. I mean, just look at modern social justice for an obvious example.

>>14577811
>Nietzsche says "wrong" is a slave concept.
No he doesn't.
>But also, just going through life being an animal who does whatever it wants and tries to impose itself on everything is somehow also a slave concept
Wrong.
>Nietzsche was really just writing poetry.
lmao
Imagine being this retarded.

I'm convinced this is a troll thread.
Pic related

>>14574691
Nothing about Nietzche maks any sense. He was a mentally ill incel writing about his scorn for the weak/sick as he was dying in bed.

His entire philosophy is a nonsensical seething ragepost. Birth of tragedy is the worst philosophy book I've read next to Fear and Trembling by K

I don't understand how people fall for these meme writers

>>14582743

Lmao imagine getting pleb filtered this hard. I feel sorry for you.

Nietzche rejects logic as a mere attempt of the terrified and overwhelmed human mind to impose a feeble order on the inchoate frothing madness of reality. To contradict oneself is nothing. What matters is the whole dancing spectacle of one's thought taken without qualification in its full, uninhibited Dionysian inspiration.

>>14582743
>His entire philosophy is a nonsensical seething ragepost. Birth of tragedy is the worst philosophy book I've read
Yeah I kinda agree with that
>I've read next to Fear and Trembling by K
OK neck yourself

>>14582765
>Lmao imagine getting pleb filtered this hard. I feel sorry for you.

>>14574691
>contradictions cannot be knowing and intentional
fucking pseud

>>14582772
>bro just like stop being rational like those stupid christcucks
>just be heroic and beautiful and stuff
>just have orgies and sacrifice babies to moloch

>>14582772
He doesn't reject logic, he rejects rationality as a mode of valuation. Funnily enough for similar reasons that you pointed out. Viewing the world in a purely 'logical' way is cold and dead, and degenerates into nihilism.

>>14582487
Anon you fool, he is saying this about Christ, the love of the world.

When you get over the newness of what he said you will see this.

>>14582876
Not him, but could you please explain the difference? I am esl and can't understand

His opening argument is that the difference between good/bad good/evil have become entangled. The good in the first binarism (the wealthy and noble) are the evil in the second. This is because of the negative onologistic nomenclature of the weak (see lambs and eagles). This forces nihilism not so much because it shows the rhetorical structure upon which the world rests, that is Nietzsche for the weak, but that we have forgotten the world is built upon a middle rhetorical structure. This as I said forces a nihilism at its most basic form; the absence of the replacement. It asks the the question which for Nietzsche is the limit of critical philosophy; what now?

>>14574691

>1. Nietzsche uses the word cruelty to mean different things?
Yes, Modern western/Christian's are cruel and sadistic in that their raison d'etre is enjoyment of self-torture and pleasure at the eventual torture of others who are not quite as tortured. However, powerful aristocrats were cruel only by incident and didnt place value on cruelty itself. Cruelty sustained them but they were simply focused on their own strength and happiness. It's the difference of cruelty via sadism vs cruelty via apathy.

>2. Nietzsche was a loser so he came up with his theories to make himself be on top
Well, that is precisely what he says everyone does. Everyone creates a moral viewpoint to justify themselves. The only difference between master and slave morality is that slaves are jealous of the masters and create a morality based on hatred where masters think they are so amazing so anything that they are is good. This also seems to imply Niezsche was a homeless bum or something and not a successful professor and renown author during his life.

>2.5 is charlemagne slave morality?
Yes and no. It's not like one is all one or the other. Everyone has a bit of both. Charldmagne's conquesting was very non-Christian and very much master morality while also confessing his sins and saying sorry to god for existing. But obviously the christian rot spread through the european mind through the ages and over time to the point now that we can even justify our own existence as a people without being.

>3. But what about Evols
Christ imagine referencing Evola and Guenon with a straight face. Those thinkers are basically trying to establish a theoretical framework for the supremacy of the priestly class and putting themselves at the head. They have not proven anything except to point to a bunch of points in history where the priestly class tried to pull their tricks. This is why Germanic paganism was the most superior religion: there were no priests just the dude who bought the beer acted as priest.

>>14584077
>Yes, Modern western/Christian's are cruel and sadistic in that their raison d'etre is enjoyment of self-torture and pleasure at the eventual torture of others who are not quite as tortured
Meaningless word salad.
>Well, that is precisely what he says everyone does.
So everyone should write books like Nietzche’s or should they actually try to be their own person???
>existence as a people without being
Meaningless word salad.
>This is why Germanic paganism was the most superior religion: there were no priests just the dude who bought the beer acted as priest
Yes woe be to the followers of anyone who attempts to be good to others! Let’s drink beer and destroy shit!

You fucking retard. Nietzsche’s work hasn’t made you a scholar it’s made you possessed!

>>14584107
You seem to have a lot of issue comprehending simple sentences. I would suggest trying to read a book.

>>14584162
Great argument.

>>14574691
You don't read N like a cliff note
If you don't find joy in reading him, you will never understand him. Life is self-contradictary, it's full of bs, and morons, and pain, and lies and deceit, and slavery and control
And it's still both the greatest horror and the greatest good you can imagine
Stop wanting to be spoonfed

>>14574840
Pure retardation

>>14574840
>doublethinking this hard