/lit/ - Literature

Shut the fuck up mentally ill faggot

>>16492924
I wish we would kill democracy.

>>16492924
>Democracy
No, he meant the Christian theological idea.

>>16493004
No you don't. You hate egalitarianism, not democracy

>>16493061
Both go hand in hand, though. Reality literally proves this.

>>16493087
>Reality literally proves this.
Start with the greeks, then Nietzsche. I was of the same mindset like you before I realized the true source of the ills of our society - bastardized Christian morality (egalitarianism)

>>16493109
Apart from the 1st and 6th images all of those sculptures/paintings are from the 19th century, not ancient Greece. What are you even on about

>>16492924
>>16493109
Christian morality only asserts that all people have an equal responsibility to serve their final cause. Nationalism (specifically non-ethnocentric nationalism) can very easily be supported with a Christian morality system.

>>16492924
kys idiot

>>16493092
true. wifi in moms basement mental hospital was a mistake. undeveloped humans kill internet.

>>16493137
Lol imagine being a humanist.

>>16492924
>we killed democracy
I know you are ignorant, but, are you also retarded?

Stop larping and pick up a sort then.

>>16492924
how could you come up with something this asinine? is this your idea of a joke OP? nietzsche was ardently opposed to democracy

>>16494118
>he thinks his vote counts
OH NONONONONONONONO

The real God we killed was the friends we made along the way

>>16494181
All because I don't live in a swing state doesn't mean my vote is virtually worthless !

>>16492924

>>16492924
>TFW op thinks he understands nietzsche though, unlike all the rest of em.

>>16494597
Shitty meme, only brainlets think Schopenhauer was a pessimist.

>>16493109
>Goes straight from greek to Neitzche
absolutely cringe. The worst kinds of people do this. Yes because this ONE random poetically waxing philosopher is the key to everything. Yah, just disregard the (practically) 1800 years of development in thought between then. Makes you sniff your own farts thats what it does. Doesnt read what Hume has to say, Kant? disregard him, actual popo. Schopenhaur, cringe. No, listen to MY Profit Neitzsche.

>>16494632
you dont know what philosophical pessimism is

OP is correct.

Begin with Spengler.

>>16492924
You're sort of right
God was always man's dream of good government

>>16494646
He wrecks Schopenhauer in a single page. I'm assuming he does the same with the other two, but I haven't read them so I can't confirm. Why wouldn't you go straight to something new after 2000 years of regurgitating the same old?

>>16492924
Oh wow who couldve expected, someone reads a completely arbitrary meaning in the mouth of a vagueposting author this never happened before oh wow this is revolutionary oh better call harvard or some shit

>>16494683
Ok, by that logic why dont you go to something newer than Neitzche? Go to Copleston or Hiedegger. Nietzche just repeated the same old. All he really does is restate Schopenhauer in a different way, and not nearly as achademic.

Philosophers "Wreck" other philosophers all the time in a single page. You kinda just sound like someone who has only read neitszche.

>>16493061
actually I hate both

>>16494716
And you sound like somebody who's never read him. Schopenhauer combines atheism and hinduism. Nietzsche was too cynical for that which is why he chose to shit on everything that came before. Now, unlike an obnoxious teenager, he actually had something to say after he was done.

>>16492924
>>tfw no one actually understood Nietzsche
Those who understand Nietzsche are not the same as those who worship Nietzsche

>>16494762
>Schopenhauer combines atheism and hinduism
cringe and reductionist pill. now I know you are probably not too bright, Might as well say Neitzche combines atheism and cynicism.
>Nietzsche was too cynical for that which is why he chose to shit on everything that came before
Now like an obnoxious teenager you think he is the only one to have actually had something to say after he was done. Im not saying Nietzsche is at all bad, but devotion to him like is often seen is dogmatic and usually causes people to be very myopic.

>>16494812
Explain how the reductionist pill is wrong. Now, you can't seriously call me dumb and then type Nietzsche combines atheism with x, that's like saying Schopenhauer is a theist. Now, I'm not aware of anyone else that had something to say that wasn't covered with a veil of transcendence, but I'll be happy when you prove me wrong.

>>16494900
>Now, you can't seriously call me dumb and then type Nietzsche combines atheism with x
that was my fucking point. saying Schopenhauer combines atheism and hinduism is as reductionist as saying Neitzche combines atheism and cynicism. It totally jumps over how they got to their conclusions. its not like they said
>dur i like athiesm, and I like Hinduism, me smash together.
No, they had a system of logical developments that lead them to creat their own systems (or lack there of, which is a system in itself).

>Now, I'm not aware of anyone else that had something to say that wasn't covered with a veil of transcendence, but I'll be happy when you prove me wrong.
I could list off a whole bunch, but they deal with the concept of transcendence like any good philosopher should, so to not get bogs down into particulars, how about Hume, Wittgenstein and Heidegger.

>>16493139
>non-ethnocentric
>nationalism
Nice try, rabbi.

>>16494926
But that's literally where Schopenhauer ended up, are you joking? The fact it sounds dumb when you distil it is a problem of the philosophy. Why are you avoiding tackling the actual simplification, do you think it misrepresents his central thought?

>transcendence like any good philosopher
ya, maybe when I'm closer to death

>>16494597
if only Schopenhauer were alive to beat the little Nietzsche ass with no mercy

>>16494805
Those who understand are also not the same as those who disagree.

God exists because you are not aware of yourself. God exists because you have not made any contact with your own center. The moment you know yourself, there is no God and there is no need of any God. In fact, I am in absolute support of Friedrich Nietzsche: ‘God is dead.’

“The second part of his sentence is even more significant, “God is dead and man is now free.” That second part has not received much attention from the philosophers, from the mystics, from the psychologists, but the second part is the most important; the first part is not much. In fact, the first part is basically wrong. God cannot die – fictions never die. The moment you know they are fictions there is no question of their death. Neither are they born, nor do they die. God was never born in the first place – how can he die? Death is the other extreme of birth.

“So the first part is not very important, but that has been given much importance by theologians, because they became afraid: “This is sacrilegious, to tell people that God is dead. That means that now no religion is needed.” They became afraid for their own business. But they forgot the second part which is more important. It has tremendously significant implications. It means that God was a bondage, God was a retardedness, God was out of fear. God was not a treasure, but a heavy, mountainous weight on your heart and on your growth.
Once God Is Removed, Man’s Possibility to Grow and Blossom Is Absolutely Free.

>>16495075
Why would you leave yourself open to an euphoric tip like this?

>>16494762
>>16494900
The "reductionist pill" is wrong because this is a literature board. Skipping the literature part to reduce authors to pokemon is not discussion. The Nietzschean will is adapted from Schopenhauer, who posited it as the Kantian noumena. If you've only read Nietszche then you are just agreeing with that without actually investigating it.

>>16495205
what is noumena? i keep hearing that word and have no idea what it means.

>>16495205
Again, you fail to tackle the elephant in the room, what a surprise. The literature part is intellectual masturbation. Discussing what they actually had to say has more sense than contemplating why Schopenhauer hated beards or why Nietzsche unironically wrote "Why I am so wise" or other ridiculous things one might find. Why are you so afraid of it, you wouldn't feel as smart? Yes, he obviously inherited the concept, but they mean completely different things to them.

>>16495222
you need to read your Kant:

Appearances, to the extent that as objects they are thought in accordance with the unity of the categories, are called phaenomena. If,
however, I suppose there to be things that are merely objects of the understanding and that, nevertheless, can be given to an intuition, although not to sensible intuition (as coram intuiti intellectuali),b then
such things would be called noumena (intelligibilia).
Now one might have thought that the concept of appearances, limited by the Transcendental Aesthetic, already yields by itself the objective reality of the noumena and justifies the division of objects into
phenomena and noumena, thus also the division of the world into a world
of the senses and of the understanding (mundus sensibilis & intelligibilis),
indeed in such a way that the difference here would not concern merely
the logical form of the indistinct or distinct cognition of one and the
same thing, but rather the difference between how they can originally
be given to our cognition, in accordance with which they are in themselves different species. For if the senses merely represent something to
us as it appears, then this something must also be in itself a thing, and
an object of a non-sensible intuition, i.e., of the understanding, i.e., a
cognition must be possible in which no sensibility is encountered, and
which alone has absolutely objective reality, through which, namely,
objects are represented to us as they are, in contrast to the empirical
use of our understanding, in which things are only cognized as they
appear. Thus there would be, in addition to the empirical use of the
categories (which is limited to sensible conditions), a pU_'e and yet objectively valid one, and we could not assert, what we have previously
maintained, that our pure cognitions of the understanding are in general nothing more than principlesd of the expositione of appearances
that do not go a priori beyond the formal possibility of experience, for
here an entirely different field would stand open before us, as it were a
world thought in spirit (perhaps also even intuited), which could not
less but even more nobly occupy our understanding.

>>16495326
Yeah and someone had to actually read them to figure that out. Not you apparently

>>16495389
You're persistent with your failure to add anything constructive to the discussion. It is admirable.

>>16492924
>tfw you aren't a Nietzschean literalist

>>16494646
>Yes because this ONE random poetically waxing philosopher is the key to everything.
If you read him you would realize this is true. Nietzsche was the first nuclear warhead Europe produced.

>>16495430
>wants to discuss philosophers based on what -ism's they are tagged with
>complains about level of discourse
Look, if you actually haven't read Schopenhauer and are just relying on a quip from Nietzsche for your view of him, that's your problem. You'd probably like Schopenhauer because he is extremely cranky like you are and can't stop himself from blasting Hegel every hundred pages.