/lit/ - Literature

>>16326365
The Overman is a shadow, it's not even a long-term goal. A real disciple of Nietzsche must betray Nietzsche anyway. And Nietzsche has philosophical continuators, like Heidegger and Deleuze.

>Are there any authentic Nietzscheans who developed his philosophy further?
See above, someone who is too Nietzschean would be a pretty poor disciple of Nietzsche.

>>16326365
Literally half of all threads on this board are about him. You are overstating his irrelevance. He inspired me to stop being a fat depressed nihilist about 10 years ago.

>>16326375
Heidegger and Deleuze are exemplary of the Germans and French I referenced. Heidegger utilizes Nietzsche towards his own ends and ultimately rejects him as being trapped within the framework of Western metaphysics, Deleuze "interprets" Nietzsche to the complete contrary of what the latter had to say, as is fashion with him.

>See above, someone who is too Nietzschean would be a pretty poor disciple of Nietzsche.
Lame and tired trope.

>>16326387
Ok, where can I read your books, see your works of art or feats of power?

>>16326789
What does this allude to? It's very beautiful.

>>16326414
>Lame and tired trope.
And nonetheless true. Seriously, what do you expect? A Nietzschean school of philosophy with little Nietzschean disciples? Nietzsche's thought doesn't lend itself well to that kind of formation (assuming schools with disciples are even the way to have authentic Nietzschean). Especially since your OP focused on the Overman, one of the flimsiest and most speculative part of his philosophy.

> Heidegger utilizes Nietzsche towards his own ends
This is what modern philosophers always do. Find me one major philosopher that refers to Kant a lot without "utilizing him towards his own ends". Even the German idealist ultimately end up with massive disagreements with Kant and with one another.

>Deleuze "interprets" Nietzsche to the complete contrary of what the latter had to say, as is fashion with him.
This fondness for inversion is itself pretty Nietzschean. Just give up, it's pointless to except a straight continuator of Nietzsche. It's already hard to find one for Hegel who is much more systematic.

>>16326842
Disagreements are fine, of course, otherwise it would not be a continuation. But e.g. Schopenhauer was still a Kantian, which means he agreed with critical and transcendental philosophy, even if he had theoretical criticisms and worked out his own practical approach. But for Nietzsche, he is quite clear that there are a few positive visions: self-mastery, self-overcoming and the overman. The overman surely is the most murky out of the three, a mere negative vision, but the former two are anything but. They both include an aesthetic approach to life and the will to power which is to be affirmed. Even these core principles, which Nietzsche quite positively endorses, are being ignored by a significant amount of so-called Nietzscheans. Mishima, by the way, stays true to Nietzsche here: he fully embodied these perspectives and virtues, he just failed.

I'm not sure where this trend of reading Nietzsche as "anything goes" and to endorse subverting/inverting your own reading of Nietzsche exactly comes from. Is it the French? I've noticed it is quite popular online on spaces like Reddit. While it is true that we find a certain necessary ambiguity in Nietzsche, both in meaning and language, this does not in any way mean it is unclear what Nietzsche wanted to communicate and certainly it is the case that someone who rejects the core of Nietzschean philosophy can be considered many things, but not Nietzschean (as detestable this idea of Nietzschean might be, I hope it is clear what I seek to communicate). A utilization of Nietzsche by the likes of Foucault is a misappropriation, not staying truthful to the former. It is the very inauthentic action of the so-called objective man Nietzsche despised so very much.

>>16326842
Oh and by the way, for what I expect is more figures like Mishima, but ideally successful ones. Naturally this means I am also interested in those outside of philosophy, or especially so. Authors, artists, perhaps politicians, men and women of different walks of life. I know of a few, of course, but I am interested in what /lit/ has to say.

>>16326822
The painting is called "La Parque et l'Ange de la Mort" and it is by Gustave Moreau. It is a meditation on death and mixes Christian and pagan symbolism. Depicted is the Roman goddess of fate Atropos and the angel of death, which might very well be as well interpreted as one of the horsemen of the apocalypse. The painting was provoked by the death of Moreau's best friend.

>>16326365
Yes.

>>16326365
>The Germans and French of the 20th century read Nietzsche, but quickly utilized him towards their own ends. There is barely any Nietzsche left in them

You can only think this if you are retarded. Derrida and Deleuze are much better readers of Nietzsche than you can ever hope to be

>>16326917
>this does not in any way mean it is unclear what Nietzsche wanted to communicate

If you do not see how Nietzsche puts the question the understanding of text as that which is subordinated to the truth or meaning that it is supposed to communicate, you might as well be retarded

>>16326414
Heidegger doesn’t “reject” anybody, least of all Nietzsche

>>16327073
*puts into question

>>16327073
Hermeneuticoid. You're aware Nietzsche thought his texts would one day be taught in German higher education as seminal, right?

>>16327113
Yes, this doesn’t in any way contradict what I have said

>>16326946
I was wondering. It feels very pagan/roman but the wings, the halo and what looks like a seraphim in the distance are obviously christian, which confused me a bit. Thank you.

>>16327059
you're retarded and you waste your time reading the wrong authors

>>16327600
I strongly doubt you have sufficient philosophical erudition to pass such judgements on Deleuze and Derrida — the fact that you believe that there are “wrong” and “right” authors to read is already a sufficient indication of that. Can you actually elaborate where, for example, Derrida is incorrect in his reading of Nietzsche?

>>16327617
your gay effort post is more proof that you're a faggot retard who can't tell shit from shinola

>>16327623
Dude, everyone here knows that you haven’t read Derrida’s texts on Nietzsche, stop embarrassing yourself. I don’t what kind of a midwit you would have to be to think that my post required any effort on my part.

>>16327617
Philosophers are not untouchable geniuses, in fact philosophy is one of the easiest sciences there is. Massive midwit vibes, ironic considering we're discussing Nietzsche here

>>16327671
Nobody says that they are “untouchable geniuses“, I’m simply saying that people who pass such hasty judgments are clearly not particularly well-read. If you want to criticize Derrida, fine, but unless you have a very strong background in Heidegger and Husserl, your criticisms of him are almost certainly going to be retarded.

>>16327059
>>16327617
>>16327643
>>16327690
this poster is a faggot