/lit/ - Literature

>>14758046
The Bible.

>>14758064
Cringe

>>14758064
This. Based

>>14758064
>>14758094
Cringe

>>14758077
>>14758105
Rejoice brothers, for the time is nearly at hand. You see before you the last man, Ostrich guardians of the memeplex.

>>14758105
>>14758116
Based

>>14758046
There's nothing to refute.

>>14758133
>There's nothing to refute.
Don't say that.

Nietzsche is less about a coherent logical system but many many ideas about human psychology and what exists 'under' culture and morality. There's no point trying to refute him but he's more like an amazing and poetic articulator of a certain style of thought. Whether you accept his criticism of Christianity overall or not, for example, he does perfectly capture the mindset of various human psychological types within that religion, and elsewhere.

>>14758189
But it's true. Refuting him makes as much sense as refuting a bullet - he just shoots his hot takes all over the place without making any grand claims to anything in the same sense as someone like, say, Kant.

>>14758213
In saying that you(*ERROR* *ERROR* >he just shoots his hot takes all over the place without making any grand claims to anything in the same sense as someone like, say, Kant.(Well this is just plain wrong.).) cause the need for refutation. Emotionally and tautologically. And that is a more profound statement in their connection.

>>14758133
Exactly. Nietzsche wasn't a logician, more like a poet or a prophet.

Nietzsche himself opined the lack of logical rigour within "The Birth of Tragedy" but surely it stands as the prototypical Nietzschean work.

Seriously. What would you have as refute? The Ubermensch? The eternal recurrence? These are parable, and essentially irrefutable.

Christian slave morality? Merely a correct opinion. Or would you have us refute the fact that "God is dead. His body lies upon the mountainside." ??

Perhaps we might refute the fact that "life is will to power." But then we simply end up in a dance of defining exactly the meaning of "life" "will" and "power" and any refutation becomes quite hollow I would say.

refutation is exclusive to systematic philosophy

How do you "refute" a philosopher? What the fuck does that even mean? Or is this part of the whole Literatue Discord LE GUENON REFUTED PARMENIDES XD meme?

>>14758046
Yea he’s a retard with moron ideas and an obsession for Rome.
He plagiarized Stirner so he doesn’t have any original ideas worth noting

>>14758401
Read Stirner instead he is perfect

>dude Nietzsche wasn't logical
>dude Nietzsche wasn't consistent
>dude Nietzsche was a poet

Does no one on this board read anymore? And yes, I'm aware that he said he was inconsistent and that he disliked systems. That does not change the underlying system of his thought and the highly logical approach to philosophy that he undertook.

>>14758424
By all means... Please espouse Nietzsche's underlying system of thought and it's logical underpinnings. I would be very interested to hear your opinion as such.

>>14758454
The logos is will to power, which has major implications for all of life, and "everything is inconsistent" is its consistency. He wasn't simply contradicting himself in some parts of his works. To see paradox in the logos means you don't fully grasp it. Seriously, read him.

>>14758064
basado

>>14758064
massive cringe

>>14758475
>his consistency is inconsistent, thus he is consistently inconsistent.

Do you even hear yourself right now? I like Nietzsche but trying to argue he had an actual system, rather than a variation on themes, is doomed to failure.

>>14758046
depends. read Brian Leiter's "Moral Psychology with Nietzsche" for a contemporary empirical vindication of N

>>14758582
The logos is beyond your myopic dualism, order vs. chaos, and that was his point. Again, read.

>>14758590
Yea yea, you're just making him seem like a Taoist. I don't even think you comprehended what you read of Nietzsche if you can flatten him into such a lame statement.

>>14758605
>you're just making him seem like a Taoist.
Which Taoist talked about will to power, retard?

>>14758611
Oh yea, because your two sentence statement is such hot shit that it shows a deep academic understanding of ol' Fritz and his fucking moustache in full. Rather than Taoist I should say you're turning him into a Hallmark card, dumbass.

>>14758626
I keep my posts brief to expose who actually reads him and who doesn't. You don't know what will to power means, so you gloss over it in your responses. There's no Taoist who talks about will to power.

>>14758631
Except that I wasn't talking about that but your second statement which my post was clearly a reply to dumbass. So you admit your reason for coming into this thread is to just wave your dick around trying to be hermetic, trying to say you're the Acolyte who has 'understood the Master' just like Walter Kaufmann or some shit? I mean if you're not here to have any proper discussions of Nietzsche's ideas, but to be a fucking condescending guru, then why the hell are you even here? You might as well go back to sucking at the fount of the Master once again with your superior understanding of the Will to Power.

>>14758582
I think you could argue he had an actual system. He communicated it in parable, in the manner of a poet or prophet, but the system is there.

>>14758672
No one is here to have a proper discussion. If they were, they wouldn't enter a thread on a guy they have barely read, demonstrated by the absolutely absurd assertion that he was nothing more than a sloppy poet with nothing philosophically substantial in his work. I'm the only one contributing to the thread by telling you all to fuck off and actually read.

>>14758046

nietzsche as a philosopher was a mediocre poet

>>14758046
>>14758064
>>14758189
>refuted

Dostoevsky thuoroughly refuted every aspect of Neitzchean thought. Kierkegaard started from the same premises as Neitzche and basically showed how Neitzche took exactly the wrong direction every step of the way.

>>14758475
I don't know why you keep assuming I haven't read Nietzsche, but nevertheless...

> The logos is will to power

It's difficult for me to comment on this unless you explain what you mean by 'the logos'. I'm aware it is essentially synonymous with 'God' or 'fundamental physical forces' but to be perfectly clear what to you mean here by 'the logos?'

It seems to me that 'will to power' may be trivially false or true depending on one's interpretation, as I have stated above, so again I would say Nietzsche is producing poetry rather than a consistent logical system.

> everything is inconsistent" is its consistency

The obvious logical argument withstanding (If everything is inconsistent - then the statement everything is inconsistent must be inconsistent and as such there must be a consistent thing. A contradiction.)

You can hardly claim this as one of Nietzsche's insight. Descartes already stated in the 1600's "perhaps the only certainty is nothing is certain." And such ideas have roots in eastern mystical traditions going back literally millenia.

Hardly a compelling logical system.

>>14758064
The God-Man is the ubermensch.
Sorry to break it to you Nietzschetards, but Christ broke the mold.

>>14758751
Expand a bit please.

>>14758046
He refuted himself. Contradictions all over the place.

>>14758799
Chesterton was such a retard. Did he not know anything about Nietzsche's life?

>>14759086
Neech fell in love with a slut, how smart can he really be?

>>14759098
Cosima Wagner was a slut?

>>14758777
>It's difficult for me to comment on this unless you explain what you mean by 'the logos'.
Different guy. It's the presupposition of all logic, reason, math, etc. et al. to justify themselves transcendentally.

If I were to ask you to justify logic without using logic, how would you? Or to justify reason without reason. Or to justify math without using math. You can't.
Meanwhile you can't really have good faith discussions and debates if your presupposition arguments have no justifiable foundation.

So the ancient philosophers came up with an understanding of Logos that reconciles the justification for using stuff like logic, reason, etc. Hence why Logos translates into many presuppositional things: it's the tautologically transcendent building block on which we all can universally presuppose. Theologians take it a step further and apply deification to it because of its transcendence.

>>14759116
> It's the presupposition of all logic, reason, math, etc. et al. to justify themselves transcendentally.

I can't say I understand what it means for a thing to 'justify itself transcendentally' nor do I see the need for logic or reason to 'justify themselves.'

>
If I were to ask you to justify logic without using logic, how would you? Or to justify reason without reason. Or to justify math without using math. You can't.
Meanwhile you can't really have good faith discussions and debates if your presupposition arguments have no justifiable foundation.

If I were to ask you to justify wheels without using wheels, how would you? The justification is that I am taken from point A to point B. That it works as we intend is justification.

I don't see how 'transcendental justification' is justification at all. It seems to simply be mere hand-waving.

What on earth is a "justifiable foundation" any way? There are foundations, but surely any 'justification involves some other argument which itself must be justified, so I do not believe that anything like a 'justifiable foundation' even exists. That is to say, I certainly think we CAN have good faith discussions without justifiable foundations. Only foundations are necessary.

I'd be interesting in seeing where"ancient philosophers came up with an understanding of Logos that reconciles the justification for using stuff like logic, reason, etc" though.

>>14759098
>>14759109
>Lou Andreas-Salomé
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Andreas-Salom%C3%A9

>>14759196
A passing fancy isn't the same as falling in love. The one he fell for was Cosima, as evidenced by his letters.

>>14758799
So if I swallow my pride and study intently, I can become a brain person? Mind = blown

>>14759172
>I don't see how 'transcendental justification' is justification at all. It seems to simply be mere hand-waving.
You got it backward. If I ask you where logic comes from and you say "nothing", then that's hand-waving.
Why should I believe in logic then?

But if you tie it to something like Logos, then you can use it to justify itself and other things tautologically and constructively.
You can say that reason justifies logic because they are both justified by Logos. You can say math is reasonable and logical because it stems for Logos.
The Logos is this basic foundation of justification that allows you to connect these desperate systems of epistemology. It allows you to build knowledge coherently.

As you build this epistemic network of justification, you can throw new ideas at it to see if they are consistent with Logos: are they reasonable, logical, mathematical, etc (i.e. logoi).

To put it simply, you need justification else people won't believe you. If you take the materialist approach and say that reason comes from a completely random and every changing Universe, that I wouldn't believe you since reason clearly isn't random and every changing. It's consistent, coherent and universal. Same with logic and math.
So we're asking a metaphysical question of what is this stuff that true/real but is not bound by the rules of matter like entropy and thus transcendent of a material universe. We end up with a concept like Logos.

>>14759606

> You got it backward. If I ask you where logic comes from and you say "nothing", then that's hand-waving.

I don't see any distinction between saying logic comes from 'nothing' and logic is 'transcendentally justified.'
For what it's worth, my personal opinion would be that logic (in a broad sense) evolved as pain, hunger or fear evolved. Logic's origins are neurochemical rather than transcendental.

> Why should I believe in logic then?

You would believe in logic for utilitarian purposes. As I said previously, we believe in logic because it achieves the results we desire to achieve. That isn't to say it doesn't extend beyond it's initial conception.

> To put it simply, you need justification else people won't believe you.

Why? Consider something like Euclid's axioms of geometry. "A point is that which has no parts." etc. These statements are routinely unjustified and many people have little problem believing them.

The 'Logos' seems simply to be an artifice to add a 'base level' of justification to any argument whatsoever. Whereas I would say that it is perfectly natural and even necessary for all arguments to contain unjustifiable statements.

> If you take the materialist approach and say that reason comes from a completely random and every changing Universe, that I wouldn't believe you since reason clearly isn't random and every changing. It's consistent, coherent and universal.

Here you are simply saying that order cannot arise from chaos, which is simply not true. On the contrary, Ramsey's theorems state that within the chaos, order must arise.

>>14759437
Yes

>>14758582
dumbest cunt in this thread...
no system? please stfu

>>14758778
but neetsheat liked christ

>>14759886
>Logic's origins are neurochemical rather than transcendental.

Yes transcendental is a shit word for it. Ancient philosophers had no idea about neurological processes but they understood that there was *something* underpinning our ability to reach consensus about the validity of logical statements. They called that *something* "logos".

You can talk about the utilitarian and pragmatic purposes of logic, but *logos* is a place holder concept for how human beings can even agree on what is and isn't logically valid.

We may have evolved over time to increase our ability to exercise power over our environment - in doing that we can survive and reproduce. This is what Nietzsche is describing when he links "logos" with *will to power*.

>>14758046
He refuted himself by failing to implement any of his worldviews.
Also everyone that has ever followed him has met a similar fate.

>>14758361
Yes.
>>14758367
Also, he basically refutes everyone and his style teaches us to refute everyone else, how can one refute that? :O :j

>>14758046
>refuted

You can't refute someone who didn't even have a clear position on things

>>14760620

> *logos* is a place holder concept for how human beings can even agree on what is and isn't logically valid.

But it's not like there's any human consensus on what is logically valid. If you make an argument using the 'logically valid' concept of 'proof by contraposition' how many people on the street will understand you??

It's not some startling thing that people can agree on things. Sorry, I'm still not seeing the significance of 'logos' as opposed to ordinary 'logic' at all.

> We may have evolved over time to increase our ability to exercise power over our environment - in doing that we can survive and reproduce. This is what Nietzsche is describing when he links "logos" with *will to power*.

I don't understand the significance. Of course we exercise power over our environment. What is the alternative?

>>14758046
Max Scheler's Ressentiment is a refutation of Nietzsche, arguing that it is really Nietzscheans that feel ressentiment and that to be a follower of Jesus is the true 'over-man' courage.

Grow up and start living a better life, or at the very least one that isn't as sad.

There's really no point since "his" ideas were already old hat by the year of his birth

>>14760746
> But it's not like there's any human consensus on what is logically valid.
> It's not some startling thing that people can agree on things.

You're just arguing semantics. It doesn't matter whether people on the street understand the jargon used by scholars when describing logic. The vast majority of human beings can, as you yourself just said, "agree on things". They have an intuition regarding the logical validity of every day statements.

Laymen can, and do, intuitively understand that in statements like:

All dogs are brown, I am brown, therefore I am a dog.

The conclusion is not valid.

Logos is not a replacement for logic, it is just a placeholder term for whatever is underpinning our ability to think logically. You described it as "neurochemical".

> I don't understand the significance. Of course we exercise power over our environment. What is the alternative?

I'm not presenting the alternative, you are... or were? Maybe you do agree with Nietzsche after-all.

>>14760888

>Laymen can, and do, intuitively understand that in statements like:
> All dogs are brown, I am brown, therefore I am a dog.
> The conclusion is not valid.

You and I seem to be in agreement here then, insofar as you don't ascribe any transcendental significance to 'logos' as the previous poster did, and seemingly accept a biological origin for the 'logos.'

> I'm not presenting the alternative, you are... or were? Maybe you do agree with Nietzsche after-all.

Maybe I do. The topic originally under discussing was 'refuting' Nietzsche To that end, my point is: when Nietzsche states: "The world is will to power." What is the alternative? The alternative to 'will to power', in a hostile world such as ours, is death / extinction.

The world is thus everything that is not destroyed. But isn't this a completely trivial statement?

>>14758611
>Tao
>>14758046
>Has anyone refuted or has attempted to refute him?
No one that wasn't shadow boxing their own ideas of him.

>>14758211
This. For concrete declarations, field dynamics and will to power are compatible with action at a distance and non-local conscience/intent.

>>14758611
>>14758605
>The Buddha of Babylon
There is a linguistic reconstruction argument for the Persian identity of both Buddha and Lao Tsu (in old Chinese relating to the several epithets thereof). Now add Zoroaster to the mix.

>>14759196
>Lou Andreas-Salopé

>>14761024
I'm the previous poster...

>you don't ascribe any transcendental significance to 'logos' as the previous poster did
I didn't ascribe anything of the sort to the concept. I think you misread that in my posts from my attitude / writing style. I mean, how could I have, when we're talking about Nietzsche — the guy who more or less introduced to philosophy the thought that "transcendental" things, i.e. metaphysics, are bullshit, and who was one of the first to read and comment on Darwin's theories in a philosophical sense?

>Nietzsche states: "The world is will to power." What is the alternative?
>But isn't this a completely trivial statement?
At the time of Nietzsche's writing, there was absolutely nothing trivial about the sentiment. It was a major breakthrough in thought. What was believed to be the logos changed many times over in history — beauty, reason, math, God, the thing-in-itself, you name it. No one has since Nietzsche's time introduced another interpretation of it as encompassing and scientifically valid as his. It will probably survive any upcoming discoveries in the realm of quantum science too.

>>14761308
By previous poster I was referring to this guy >>14759116

And my argument was that Nietzsche's statement that the 'world is will to power' is trivial not his conception of the logos.

Not that I think your statement that

> No one has since Nietzsche's time introduced another interpretation of it as encompassing and scientifically valid as his.

has any validity either from what you have stated here. I haven't read his discussion of the logos in fairness, but how is your (his) interpretation of the logos as "a place holder concept for how human beings can even agree on what is and isn't logically valid" in any regard all-encompassing or scientifically valid.

How can a "place-holder concept" be in any way encompassing or scientifically valid??

>>14759300
>passing fancy
He fell head over heels for her...

>>14761380
>By previous poster I was referring to this guy
Oh, I thought you meant the original poster in this chain. I'm >>14758424

>Nietzsche's statement that the 'world is will to power' is trivial not his conception of the logos
These are the same thing. When he says life itself is will to power, he means the logos is the will to power. He doesn't use logos because it's an outdated term, I just used it in the thread because I assumed it would reach /lit/izens' ears better.

>How can a "place-holder concept" be in any way encompassing or scientifically valid?
The logos is an archaic term that existed prior to our knowledge of neurochemical processes. It simply referred to life, or the "essence" of life. You can just use "life" now and it more or less works. Life is will to power is Nietzsche's message, and that means that the "will," or force, which pervades all of life, or is life itself, is one that strives for self-growth. Christians call this force "evil." Nietzsche is saying that the natural and constant disposition of all life is one of evil, in their terms.

>>14758361
>Christian slave morality? Merely a correct opinion
Spengler refuted the characterisation of Christianity as a 'slave religion', by saying correctly
>Where, on the heights of Faustian morale, from the Crusades to the World War, do we find anything of the “slave morale”, the meek resignation, the deaconess’s caritas? Only in pious and honoured words, nowhere else.
Take note "pious and honoured words, nowhere else", all of this slave morality stuff was in scripture but was never actualised in European civilisation, which engaged in vicious wars and produced fierce warriors throughout its entire history.

>>14758424
>system of his thought
“I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity.”
-Twilight of the Idols

>>14761431
And how are the statements

> the "will," or force, which pervades all of life, or is life itself, is one that strives for self-growth

or

> the natural and constant disposition of all life is one of evil

meaningful or explanatory systems in any way? What new understandings or consequences are to be gleamed from these statements?

How are these statements any more than poetic flourishes, or simple platitudes??

>>14761497
I acknowledged that statement in my post. However, you're not applying it correctly. He was clearly referring to those who RELY on systems, not those who impose them.

>>14761526
They are not supposed to be explanatory. They are conclusions to conversations spanning thousands of years.

>What new understandings or consequences are to be gleamed from these statements?
You can read Nietzsche and find that out. Everything after Thus Spoke Zarathustra gets into this more deeply. For starters: we know that Christian morality and the priesthood is ressentiment glorified, we know that slaves have their own morality that warps language as a survival mechanism, we know that what one labels God is an expression of one's weakness, we know that egalitarians are either naive or up to no good, we know that everything is interpretation and relative and a reflection of the amount of power one is, we know about social constructs and how and why they work with the herd, etc.

>>14761452
>By the scripture we have to do this but in practice we do the exact opposite thing
>Monarchs absent-mindedly exercising will to power under the pretense of christianity somehow proves that christianity promotes strength
Human, all to human reasoning. The last Christian really did die on the cross.

>>14762222
>He was clearly referring to those who RELY on systems, not those who impose them.
Trying to systematize even that statement, and then erroneously as well.
>systematizer
Who do you think this means? Not those who impose systems?

>>14758046
How did Russ refute him?

>>14758064
Based

>>14761452
Sounds like he actually agreed that Christianity is slave morality. But Europe never fully converted.

>>14763208
He didn't. He said Nietzsche's philosophy isn't a system so it can only refuted by a call to emotions and I agree. Nietzsche was a lunatic.

>Brainlets to this day still echo the sentiment that Neetz hated Christianity not realizing that he was actually an admirer

His entire work is one massive COPE.
It is a well known fact he was a failure both personally and professionally, and even his health was poor, the angry incel meme albeit overused does fit him perfectly.
Having said that, he was a great writer and his books are delightful and enjoyable, but as a philosopher he didn't bring anything new to the table.

>>14758064
fpbp

>>14763148
>Trying to systematize even that statement, and then erroneously as well.
Again, applying it in a way that isn't appropriate. If this is what he meant, why did he write anything at all?

The need for a system is not the same as being one for others. The difference has to do with the will. The latter is not a will to a system, but a will to the self. Some individuals are so strong in their individualism and so complex that when they burn through their energy, as they will, they create vast new systems in the world.