/lit/ - Literature

Nietzsche is cope. All of his philosophy is cope.

>>16905115
fpbp

>>16905037
Is it wrong to say "in order to build on Nietzsche's work, you must disagree with him"?

You have definitely missed the point. Ubermensch doesn't necessarily have to do with Wealth IQ whatsoever. Ubermensch has to do with becoming a better version of yourself(not acquiring material things and stuff)but overcoming problems of yourself bad habits like drinking , procrastination, having a passive life, etc. Life is meaningless for the lst man so he keep on living without even finding himself,the same is also for the ubermensch but he acquired everything from his life whatever the limit of his is and in the way that he wanted it to be and not like the heard wanted to be.That's why also Nietzsche hated the heard.

>>16905037
cope the beginning of copes and the end of copes
nothing but cope

>>16905115
Life itself is just cope.

>>16905115
Is living itself not just cope, if every action we take is to avoid death?

>>16905037
"Optimistic nihilism" is gigacope
Imagine acknowledging you think life has no meaning, but then turn around and willingly embrace a lie, under this framework, that you can magically make a meaning

What is the Ubermensch supposed to do?

>>16905037
1. Because tons of smart people give up, cuck or don't bother since they're pathetic cowards.
2. Because being high IQ doesn't necessarily make you correct.
I could go on.

>>16905037
IQ has something to do with writing? Success? There's some shallow science that may suggest so, most of it is contested though and when measuring man one will always find outliers. Far more important is character and mental fortitude. Richard Feynman may be one of histories greatest scientifical minds but had only a slightly above average IQ. Very often, intelligent people don't know or care to know their IQ.
The hopelessness of an IQ truther is what defeats him most of all.

>>16905165
Except the whole idea of being "not of the herd" is having a higher purpose, which is to bring about the Ubermensch. Yet why would anyone struggle for this meaning if they aren't actually providing anything to bring about the ubermensch? If anything isn't the idea of "improving oneself" an anti-Nietzschean idea? Did not Nietzsche criticize the stoics for attempting to live according to nature, in which he asks how could anyone NOT live according to their nature? So that one has to admit that one cannot "improve" themselves, they are who they are by nature, and to improve that makes no sense - since they can only live according to themselves anyways.

>>16905037
Being a great man is more than genetics, if all genetics do is give man a potential "to do or not do". Which they obviously do not.

You must work hard to be great, and do much.

>>16905229
be a NEET and collect welfare

>>16905262
Hard work is genetic.

>>16905115
Based

>>16905266
That's what I meant, or at least genetics influences that. But the Op didn't see that.

>>16905278
Except that only means that instead of OP's 0.0001% intelligence barrier, there is a 0.0001% intelligence+hard work barrier. His point still stands the same as it did.

>>16905232
> Richard Feynman
Self reported to help low IQ plebs cope. Meanwhile Feynman's reality: "Feynman received the highest score in the country by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam".

>>16905266
>tfw I am an Ubermensch
Feels good man

>>16905354
So you have 180+iq, have shown creativity unlike all others, and work so hard that you wouldn't even bother to waste time here?
>*Presses x to doubt*

>>16905293
No, because these are ridiculous definitions as if the human being is consisted of that organisation which fits a cake! "0.0001% of intelligence with some hard work"-- that's a ridiculous assumption anon.

>>16905256
Well accepting your nature doesn't have to do anything with improving. Nietzsche was pro-Amor fati which means accepting your destiny and embrace it. Ubermensch is overcoming whatever life throws at you. Ubermensch is also searching for envy .In a way becoming an ubermensch technically is an improvement

>>16905383
You need to explain in more depth, since either you have not actually make a single coherent point or "human being is consisted of that organisation which fits a cake! " hold far more meaning that what I can extrapolate.

>>16905037
intelligence doesn't exist, it's just a meme
but by all means, continue with this "last man" narrative
>he doesn't think God is comfort
Nietzsche is a genius, but you shouldn't take what geniuses say too seriously, it really kills the vibe
also geniuses tend to be crazy and the whole
>I'm just doing what crazy people tell me to do
makes you sound like you're in a cult

>>16905395
>Well accepting your nature doesn't have to do anything with improving.
It means exactly that, how does one "improve" their nature? It doesn't make logical sense, you live as your nature dictates and to say otherwise is absurd or to deny a nature exists. Does Nietzsche ever claim an non-ubermench can become an ubermench? I believe all he said is one should strive to be like this ubermensch, such that it is your meaning and goal. Yet my argument was and still is that only those within the genetic 0.0001% can become this ubermensch or help bring about it's existence. Which Nietzsche must agree with since as he said, one can only live according to their nature, there is no such thing as "improvement" of your genetics. Nietzsche himself followed evolution and Darwin I believe, leading me to again believe that he thinks genetics are what humans are. His ideas of the herd strengthen that outlook as well, and his atheist viewpoint again has to follow this train of thought.

>>16905037
Son we're not your therapist

>>16905495
Speak for yourself please. I charge this man 50 dollars the hour.

>>16905373
>doesn't know I already sabotaged his controller
for shame anon for shame

>>16905037
>Der Mensch ist Etwas, das überwunden werden soll. Was habt ihr getan, ihn zu überwinden?
>Ihr seid nur Brücken: mögen Höhere auf euch hinüberschreiten! Ihr bedeutet Stufen: so zürnt dem nicht, der über euch hinweg in seine Höhe steigt!
You have a duty to humanity to help produce the Übermensch. Nihilistic hedonism is not the means to accomplish this.

>>16905413
Mate, you have 0 reading ability. How do you not understand that defining a great man is more complex than just "very intelligent, and work hard"?

>>16905256
Well it seems to me that the ubermensch is by no means a perfect being. I've only read thus spake zarathustra once, and I seem to recall that at the end the other characters are anything but perfect. Furthermore, I also don't think that nietzsche is trying to give a coherent system of how we ought to act, beyond creating our own destinies.

>>16905484
Well, what is then morality for you?? The primitive people didn't have any yet today we have at least a basic one(not all ofc). This is, in my opinion, an improvement.And the 0,00001 % yo uare talking about is the higher man not ubermensch

>>16905037
>If you aren't born with remarkable top 0.0001% genetic intelligence, why would you ever attempt to be anything other than "the last man"?
I don't have that problem.

>>16905546
"Mate", I understood what you wrote, that of an incoherent point, I asked to see if there was a possibility I did not understand you since many times people just do not explain themselves well enough. There are two major flaws with what you wrote, firstly that merely stating something is ridiculous is not an argument or real point, secondly even if that definition is ridiculous as you say it does not address what OP's point is; which is that there is a massive barrier to help implement an "ubermensch idea" that is genetically based since all humans are based on genetics. You are too busy obsessing over what intelligence or greatness is defined by (since I assume you just do not wish to admit to yourself that you are not great or intelligent in a grander scale), that you cannot even address what OP wrote properly.

>>16905564
The other characters weren’t Übermenschen, they were “higher humans”.
> »Meine Gäste, ihr höheren Menschen, ich will deutsch und deutlich mit euch reden. Nicht auf euch wartete ich hier in diesen Bergen.« [...] »Ihr mögt wahrlich insgesamt höhere Menschen sein«, fuhr Zarathustra fort, »aber für mich – seid ihr nicht hoch und stark genug.«
A true Übermensch would probably be perfect, or perhaps so great that our measures of “perfection” would be meaningless and non-applicable to them.

>>16905037
>Have I missed the point or is Nietzsche completely useless for 99.9999% of the population?
You didn't miss the point, but you did wrongly suggest that there's only being either the Overman or the last man and nothing else. There's another thing you could be, which is the bridge to the Overman, which is not the same as being the last man.

>>16905229
His own will.

>>16905570
An improvement requires an idea state and goal towards, otherwise there could be no improvement. So how does one "improve" their nature which is innate and genetically attached since birth? If one were to attempt to change or "improve" this nature, they must in-fact be acting according to their nature to change or improve their nature which makes no sense and is absurd. You example of morality is not addressing this, you cannot "improve" your nature, it is an illogical statement.

Your morality improvement aspect comes to Nietzsche with his ideal state and goal to overcome humanity and bring about the ubermensch correct? Yet as I stated in the OP, only 0.0001% of the population (or higher man if you prefer) is capable of doing so in any manner what so ever. So really Nietzsche is useless for 99.9999% of humanity.

>>16905577
Post proof of 170+iq, I'll wait.

>>16905688
It is not that the 0.0001% are the ubermensch themselves, instead they are merely the only people who can help bring about the ubermensch. That is to say the 0.0001% are the bridge to the ubermensch or rather the higher men. In reality Nietzsche said not even extremely rare men like Napoleon or Goethe were the ubermensch, meaning that this ubermensch must be something like 0.000000....etc....1% of people.

>>16905771
You don't have to be a genius to serve as a bridge, though, so this isn't the same argument as what was in the OP anymore.

>>16905538
And if one does not have the qualifications to help produce this ubermensch? In other words if one is not a part of this 0.0001% club, then Nietzsche has no purpose for you.

>>16905808
Clearly you do have to be genius, for what bridge does the average 100iq man build? The answer is obviously that he does not make any bridge since he is incapable of such. If fact his only Nietzschean purpose is to not breed so as to stop any more lower human creations. At best he may grow some food to feed the higher men, act as a slave for them, and then die with nothing since he is a pointless thing. This is the average 100iq, never mind the lower than 100iq man who might as well be shot on contact for being an overall detriment to the ubermensch goal.

Just shut the fuck yo already.

>>16905698
>An improvement requires an idea state and goal towards. So how does one "improve" their nature which is innate and genetically attached since birth?
For ordinary people finding their true selves (by nature )is a clear goal of improvement (since we all live in denial by Nietzsche). Improvement is not just overcoming your nature is also finding your own nature or leading towards it.

>>16905889
You are again making the mistake that one can act NOT according to their nature, and then "improve" by finding what it is and leading towards it, which is just acting according to it. There is no such thing as a "true self", there is only the self at all times. Nietzsche himself admits this when he criticizes the stoics for their philosophy that one should "aim to be according to their nature", which is a nonsense statement for supposing that one can act NOT in such a case"

>>16905868
There are many different types of bridges. Thus Spoke Zarathustra covers them. Do you think warriors are intellectual geniuses? No, but there is a section where Zarathustra addresses warriors. There are many roles to play in life, and the Overman wants, perhaps even needs, all of them to be played by good actors.

>>16905037
>if i can't have the best possible starting position, i will live hedonistically
??????????????????

>>16905944
>Do you think warriors are intellectual geniuses?
They can be, if fact Nietzsche directly compares them to the intellectual class but says they just cannot let go of hate and envy. I am assuming you are taking that single page literally instead of a more figurative manner that a warrior means conflict and battle. So, what bridge does the warrior build, and what should a warrior do in an age without war? Then tell me why one should be a warrior rather than a last man, when to be a warrior simply means to slave for the higher intellectual class?

>>16906037
>be a slave to other men because you weren't born in the best possible starting position
Ok Nietzsche.

What's the alternative for us untermensch? Schopenhauer? Just kys us?

>>16906074
From my understanding if you were to take Nietzsche seriously, you should slave for the higher men at every second for your entire life, don't breed, and then an hero when you are too old to be a useful slave for them. If you cannot be a useless slave to them, then yes you should an hero right away. The alternative that Nietzsche tries to steer you away from is to just pursue your own happiness without caring about whatever happens to anyone else. You would be apolitical, have no real morals, essentially just live for your own pleasure. Which sounds like a better idea than acting as a dog for other men in my opinion.

In other words just become an Epicurean.

>>16906044
>They can be
But they don't need to be, and it's arguable that being one would get in the way of their being the best warrior possible. Think of a standard production. The director could also be the scriptwriter, sure, but the best director does not need to also be the best scriptwriter, and in fact the best of either of these will typically not be the best in the other realm, and they really shouldn't be anyway, because the production will go much smoother and lead to a far better result if there were two separate individuals handling these very different aspects of the production. Or think of the military. There are many different divisions which handle different aspects of a standard military operation, each division having its own hierarchy of talent(s).

>I am assuming you are taking that single page literally instead of a more figurative manner that a warrior means conflict and battle.
I meant it both ways.

>So, what bridge does the warrior build, and what should a warrior do in an age without war?
The warrior is an aspect of human evolution. It is one of the drives that Nietzsche talks about in his idea of the multiplicity of drives. The Overman is built by having the "greatest number of drives possible under the greatest degree of control possible" or something along those lines (paraphrasing from Nietzsche's unpublished notes). The other question isn't really related to my point.

>Then tell me why one should be a warrior rather than a last man
Because of the above. Because you are choosing to eventually be annihilated by the Overman and his supersoldiers rather than become a supersoldier or superarchitect or what have you for the Overman. Because evolution and nature do not show mercy to the sick and dying.

>>16905308
I always knew the fenman having average iq was bs

>>16906156
125 or whatever he said he had is still well above average.

>>16906119
>But they don't need to be
Why not? You would take a smarter fighter over a stupid one correct? Nietzsche himself compares these warriors to intellectuals, but they are lacking the greatness of being able to let go of hate and envy.
>both ways
For the previous conversation you meant it literally, which is what I want to address. Since the figurative explanation does not disagree with what I write, instead it would come off as more instructions for the higher men.
>The warrior is an aspect of human evolution
That doesn't answer what I wrote, the only reasonable response to such a thing is to ask the same question again "what bridge does the warrior build, and what should a warrior do in an age without war?"
>because of the above
So too then, see anove.

>>16905603
>secondly even if that definition is ridiculous as you say it does not address what OP's point is
I never cared about Op's point, stop pretending as if this is in any way an argument which concerns me. I was only concerned with the Op through him supposing himself a great man. I explained, as Nietzsche did too, that if you don't work, if you don't teach yourself, and if you don't actually have a production or creation, a body, not just scurrying thoughts-- then you are not a "great man". You've never done anything yourself, to explain what exactly you don't understand. And after reading your full post, it's obvious that you still haven't thought much more on it.

>(since I assume you just do not wish to admit to yourself that you are not great or intelligent in a grander scale),
Nigger what the fuck are you talking about? You assume I'm responding to different parts of the Op when I'm not, you assume I secretly mean something when I do not.

I can address what Op wrote on the whole, incredibly easily. It's just I don't want to waste my time. Do you know how many effort posts I make? If you go through a spurt of writing them you get bored and and/or restrict yourself to an effort post which only acts as a more benefactory work for yourself. As in, what you write there is the produce of awakened thought from reading an interesting Op. I still reply to the same old /lit/ questions like "where do I start with Dostoyevsky" and such, but I don't have to reply to every thread in the catalog. it just takes too long and often wont even help the anon.

>>16906207
>I never cared about Op's point
That's why you replied to this thread and replied direct to the OP. Epic.

>>16906205
>Why not?
I explained why in that paragraph. The skill sets required to being a great warrior are not the same as being a rocket scientist, artist, philosopher, etc.

>You would take a smarter fighter over a stupid one correct?
Obviously a degree of intelligence will be needed for the best warriors, but genius level intelligence will not be. We're talking about the higher men, not the Overman. The higher men are specialists. This is the part that you seem to be overlooking.

>what bridge does the warrior build
The one that only the warrior can build. Yes, this is essentially a repeat, but because I already gave the answer. "The warrior" is symbolic of one of the drives in our species, detected by artists and tempered by militaries over a span of many thousands of years. The Overman, who has the highest culmination of drives under his command, must have access to the best actors representing various pinnacles of each drive within us, so that he can learn how to command them in himself with the greatest degree of success.

>what should a warrior do in an age without war?
This is an irrelevant question.

>>16906220
I'm sincerely sorry if I've annoyed you anon, I just made a correction, and a somewhat thought stimulating post from what I could see.

>>16905037
Is this what happens when A*glos try reading Nietzsche?

>>16906293
>but genius level intelligence will not be.
I'm going to stop us here because until you answer the below there is not much of a point in us continuing this section.
>the one that one the warrior can build
This is ridiculous, how much longer will you prance about with obscure nothings instead of answering my question?
>irrelevant question.
It is highly relevant, unless you are just wanting to continue huffing your own abstract farts instead of answering the concrete question.

>>16906336
You mean you made a post, and when challenged suddenly you pretend that it had nothing to do with who you replied to and the thread which you replied in. Such that you merely made a completely arbitrary reply that has nothing to do with anything at all. Very convenient.

>>16906356
>be g*rm
>destroy civilization at every chance you can and genocide millions for no reason
>larp as romans despite being the ones to have destroyed rome >H>R>E
>attempt to conquer other countries only to lose to Anglos and be humiliated for the past hundred years
>accomplishments overall are meager compared to Anglos

>Be Chad Anglo
>create industrial revolution leading to a worldwide transformation
>fight the greatest wars in history with equal super powers such as Spain, Netherlands, and Franch
>come out on top anyways
>conquer half of the world
>even your colonies are a world power

Gods it feels good to be Anglo.

>>16906357
>This is ridiculous, how much longer will you prance about with obscure nothings instead of answering my question?
Do you also think Zarathustra is addressing "obscure nothings" in that section? If not, how are you this confused as to what I'm talking about?

>It is highly relevant
How is it relevant at all?

You seem retarded and like you're not cut out for this man's philosophy.

>>16905037
You could be Nietzsche's ubermensch sleeping in a barrel and masturbating at the marketplace.

As creator of your own values you create your own measures of success. Your fear that you don't stack up to what others would consider a superior person is a reflexion of your own inferiority complex.

Self-overcome.

>>16906472
>Do you also think Zarathustra is addressing "obscure nothings" in that section?
I think Nietzsche is speaking in a figurative manner in that section, not literally as you said you do. You keep trying to steer this conversation away from a literal view, so do you now say it is not literal?
>How is it relevant at all?
Because we are speaking of a literal warrior are we not? If you want you can just say "actually I do not take it literally, I made a mistake" if you so wish.
>you seem retarded
Ok nigger, you're the retard dumb enough to have taken this page literally yet can't explain himself beyond "da warrior make da warrior stuff lmao".

>>16906497
Then why didn't Nietzsche call Diogenes the ubermensch?

>>16905037
Seethe

>>16906504
>I think Nietzsche is speaking in a figurative manner in that section, not literally as you said you do.
You're mistaken then, because everything in TSZ is equally both figurative and literal. Nietzsche's rejection of substance means there is no distinction of the physical and the metaphysical in his philosophy.

Now that that's settled, try addressing some of the actual points that I've made in this thread regarding the OP and how confused it is instead of this retarded shit like "bro you talked about it LITERALLY, he meant FIGURATIVELY" as if that makes ANY difference at all to my points.

>>16905538
sounds spooky.

>but someone could be better and I'd have to resent them and myself
kek, you already comfy being a christian holmes you don't need to worry about becoming comfy enough to be a last man

>>16905820
>And if one does not have the qualifications to help produce this ubermensch?
Then your bloodline will be extinct in due time.

>>16906459
>Be A*glo
>Rant and rave at krauts for attempting to challenge your power
>Still get cucked by them after they lost two major wars in a row
>Create the industrial revolution the greatest mistake in the history of mankind
>Be hated by everyone on continental Europe for being low life trash that keeps poking his nose into other countries business
>Be hated by your ex-colonies
>Krauts can't even hear his howling from across the sea as he's drowned out by Pakis, Poos, Nigerians, and various other third worlders that he can't stop importing
At least you still have Gregg's I guess.

>>16906514
Pretty sure he never called anyone in particular an ubermensch, not even Caesar or Alexander.

>>16905115
/thread

>>16906532
>You're mistaken then
Anon that was a very nice deflection, but I'm not falling for it. Even If I was wrong about this as you say, it wouldn't matter since we were speaking on what YOU believe the page means. You yourself admit that it is literal, you said this yourself and agreed to it. So just answer the question with an concrete and literal answer. Or do you plan on giving me another double digit iq answer "da warrior makes da warrior stuffz".

>>16906581
Yet he referred to people such as Napoleon and Gothe as being close examples of it, surely he would have mentioned Diogenes instead if what your description say would be true. After all Diogenes is the most obvious example of someone who gave no value to what others thought of as value, to the point he would mock Alexander the Great whom Nietzsche would most likely consider to be ubermensch-like.

>>16906559
If you say so.

>>16905037
Dog. Let me tell you. People are stupid. It's not about being intelligent, it's about being able to play the game. Being in the top 1% of intelligence makes you worthless because 99% of the world can't understand what you're saying. Your ideas are as meaningless as garbage art because the world cannot process them. Even if you had divinely inspired truth, the everyman cannot understand you, and the intellectual is too fragile to accept the truth.

The real value comes in being able to orchestrate people. That's the entirety of civilization right there. You need to be fluent in organizing and instructing people, you need to have intense ability to manipulate things like false logic and prey upon the ignorance of people to direct them unto something productive, which usually ends up being some form of service for the exploiter. The world hates intelligence, and even the "intellectual" community is so poisoned with idealism and anti-truth movements just because these are threatening to the "perceived value" of pseudo-intelligent people. These people rely upon the bullshit imaginary "value of human life" proposed by idealists, because it is plain as day that objectively they produce nothing of value and have no capacity to produce anything of value, so instead they spend their days stroking the fires of delusional self-righteousness, human worship, and the pursuit of physically unattainable idealism.

99% of people with power and money are not there because of intellectual enlightenment, but instead due to social enlightenment and the ability to manipulate people. Society doesn't operate based upon objective and empirical optimization, it operates based upon who can tempt the everyman the most. The decadent consumerists win that game, and that becomes the "ideal". It's a game of placating and tempting the everyman into service. That's all it is. The pursuit of knowledge is what the propagandists use to disempower the intelligent. They arm you with the bullets of wisdom knowing that the everyman is a ghost which is impervious to bullets. They manipulate and trick you into thinking that this knowledge is valuable because logically this makes sense but in reality it amounts to nothing but your own disempowerment and disenfranchisement. When you become educated, you lose the ability to connect with the everyman, and this distances the loyal and obedient labor from being recruited as labor for anyone with enough knowledge of the system to actually utilize them in a manner which is a threat to the status quo.

>>16906602
>but I'm not falling for it
Why do you phrase it like this? I'm not trying to trick you, I'm trying to explain things to you. I really think you have no interest in this topic and just want to butt heads with somebody.

>So just answer the question with an concrete and literal answer.
I don't need to answer your irrelevant question because I already answered the OP.

>>16906651
It literally doesn't have to do with what I say. The Overman is what evolution is driving towards, so to be a last man literally means to be up on the list of soon-to-be-eradicated by natural selection.

>>16906716
I came here to shitpost, I don't read books, but realize that educating people is solely promoted in the west to disempower those who might be a threat to those with power. There is logically no reason to educate anybody beyond their labor, and this could be pre-ordained through a series of testing and culling to sort people into jobs. This is just too much work at the moment, so instead the propagandists use the Siren's Song of "intellectual enlightenment" to tempt you towards disempowering yourself, just so they don't need to physically ensure that you don't have access to information which can cause an unfavorable or undesirable reaction.

This chart doesn't show level 5 literacy, which is college level. This is about 2% of the population despite 25% of American adults having a college degree. The everyman is functionally retarded, and the game of life isn't about being intelligent, it's solely about being able to communicate with and orchestrate adults that are functionally mentally retarded. That's the real challenge. At this point, you're essentially trying to train somebody else's dog to work for you rather than his master. This is largely an entirely futile and suicidal task.

The everyman has been raised and conditioned from birth like animals by the propagandists. Attempting to make any action which is not explicitly serving the interests of those in power is doomed to fail because people are trained like dogs to do nothing but obey their masters and react in very certain ways when provided certain stimulus through the channels of propaganda such as the news, and also modern methods of self-serve propaganda like 4chan and reddit. The propagandists train these dogs so well that they voluntarily and incessantly reiterate propaganda amongst themselves that any "sterile" minds are instantly inundated with an unwavering and incontestable stream of propaganda from men with little more intelligence than dogs, and certainly no more capacity to resist the commands of their masters.

I really just liked that image I made, I try to post it on pol, but nobody can read. It's a sad state of affairs trying to shitpost when people are largely illiterate. Just want to have a shitty fucking giggle about the pathetic reality of human existence, but instead people are too stupid to do that. Even the damn captcha still thinks that mailboxes are parking meters.

>>16906629
The anti-prophet, the guy that declares god is dead is clearly Diogenes: http://markandrewholmes.com/godisdead.html

He is symbolic of the age of supermen to come (which isn't here yet).

>>16906563
>Create the industrial revolution the greatest mistake in the history of mankind

>be g*rm
>hate civilization and everything that makes man above animal so much you want to be a nigger in the jungle throwing spears

>>16906746
to you life is pointless then, because if the only thing that works is to manipulate the everyman into doing what is needed to do and that everyman chooses the easy way out everytime you either give up on manipulating them or is yourself a slave to their inferior judgement

>>16906759
Quite a stretch there to be honest. Even if it was true, that doesn't mean Nietzsche thought Diogenes was ubermensch-like, or that the ubermensch is what you say it is.

>>16906776
Ted Kazcynski was a Poolack. Everyone except for A*glos realize what a mess the industrial revolution has been. Only you beady eyed inbreds are still charmed at the hellish dystopia you've created.

>>16906497
This is not what being an ubermensch is though. Being an iconoclast is inherently antisocial and not a civilized thing to do in the slightest. Individualism is the trait of animals. It's literally the antithesis of civilization which is defined as selfless cooperation in order to create a power greater than the individual.

The ubermensch is the one who is able to take the ropes of language and other mediums to tie together masses of peasants into a synchronized machine of power, productivity, and death. That is what the ubermensch has always been and always will be.

>As creator of your own values you create your own measures of success.

By your definition of ubermensch I would be the fucking ubermensch. I am a worthless sack of shit degenerate, but I am happy with myself and enjoy my life. My breath is inherently wasted and I fail to change my writing style despite the fact that it is powerless in regards to shepherding the everyman. Your definition is laughably flawed because it is entirely subjective. There is no value in subjectivity in reality. By your definition Ted Bundy is the ubermensch because he "creates his own values and creates his own measures of success."

There are often profound disparities between subjective optimums and empirical optimums, and reality only responds to empirical optimums. Subjective optimums are solely useful when you need to utilize subjective mediums such as peasant minds as a means to an end to accomplish goals. Even then, this is still the empirically optimized way to utilize the subjective optimums perceived by peasants as a means to the end of controlling and orchestrating their behavior.

Every self-righteous egotists would be considered the ubermensch by your standards, which is again largely nothing more than antisocial narcisissm, often leading to criminal behavior or maladaptive notions of adequacy or supremacy despite the empirical evidence pointing to these notions as being markedly fallacious and delusional. (For example, white supremacists asserting things like IQ despite between 60% and 88% of all White adults having mental capacity below that of a 14 year old.)

Often the stupidest people live by these metrics of supremacy. The only reason diogenes was considered "great" was because his hatred and self-righteousness did not apply to anyone else. This worked because individualism is the feral optimum for a single individual. He enjoyed his life because it was naturally the optimum for a single lone-wolf to live by, but this loses all value the second multiple people attempt to coexist with this optimum.

Diogenes never engaged with other people, and this is why his philosophy brought him contentment, happiness, pride, and a sense of supremacy. By feral standards he enjoyed a high quality of life being a beggar, doing nothing, living for his own enjoyment and satiation. He lived at the optimum of his antisocial philosophy, easily the uberbiest, but not a man.

>>16906807
Replace "God" with "honest man" in the first line.

Weird dude looking for X using a lit lantern in broad daylight in the marketplace? Pretty obvious reference.

>>16906744
>Why do you phrase it like this?
Because clearly you are trying to lead the conversation somewhere else as an escape from the points you yourself made. Either you are an idiot and incapable of understanding what you yourself wrote, or are so petty and act in such bad faith that you cannot admit that you said something you didn't mean or were unsure of.
>I don't need to answer your irrelevant question because I already answered the OP.
In other words you can't answer it because you know you have no concise or literal answer beyond "da warrior makes warrior stuff". At this point I will just accept your concession since you have basically given up anyways.

>>16906856
Ah I skimmed over the lantern part, that seems very obvious indeed. However, that still doesn't clear up if Nietzsche thought Diogenes was ubermensch-like. Unless there is some other supporting evidence you have, I would be interested in such a thing if you know of it.

>>16906834
Germs or poolacks whats the difference, both subhuman compared to Anglo/French/Netherland/Italy/Spanish chads

>>16905230
underrated post

>>16906798
It is futile to attempt to gain the ultimate prize. There is no winning possible at this point, at least without modifying my approach substantially, at which point if I become a real threat to the status quo I am killed. I don't enjoy appealing to the everyman because I'm not good at it. The truth is not appealing because it is cruel and harmful, it is bitter.

The truth is what causes small children's bones and organs to be crushed when they are run over by cars. Clearly the everyman is not going to be fond of the truth. The World Controllers are attuned to the minds of the peasants and understand how to play that fiddle to get the peasants to dance to the master's tune. This is an art developed through hundreds of years of studying the craft of propaganda, and something I am not particularly educated in.

My methods are the childish schoolbook method of "Speak the truth, expect results." which is powerless when the everyman cannot understand the truth, and even if he could, he would be so psychologically, instinctively, ethically, and morally disgusted by the truth that he would condemn the truth as evil and run away from it, much as is seen today in the post-truth idealistic world.

That being said, while I cannot win, I can enjoy myself, I can attempt to win, despite the futility. It does not cost me much money to make these arguments online, and that is my entertainment. It may be as petty as the peasants shouting at the football game, telling the quarterback what to do, but I do it for the same reasons that they do it. It's instinct to try and correct error when you see it, so it's an act of desperation and an almost involuntary reaction to my powerlessness, the mentally ill man writhing, attempting to escape the straight-jacket, despite the inherent futility in his actions.

All people are largely fueled by delusions, and in my case I seek to stir the shit enough to where something happens. I may not be able to bring forward progress to the world, but I can at least hope for some small prize form playing these scratch-off tickets of shitposting. Hoping for a small win, gambling for fun, that's what my life is reduced to. Maybe some sort of silly bullshit which lets me know my words were not entirely pointless.

Intelligence makes people understand the dangers of their actions, and this makes them reluctant to do anything. The intelligent are naturally so concious of danger that they are unwilling to make physical action necessary to accomplish anything, thus the heavy reliance upon being able to convey ideas unto peasants, who with less intelligence have much less inhibition and are far more willing to act upon that which they have been told.

The computer has effectively segregated the intelligent, who are drawn to words and lack of danger and other low-risk low-reward situations offered by this medium, and thus have no physical contact from which to shepherd peasants who enjoy high-risk high-reward physical actions.

>>16906865
>Because clearly you are trying to lead the conversation somewhere else as an escape from the points you yourself made.
Clearly I'm not.

>In other words you can't answer it because you know you have no concise or literal answer beyond "da warrior makes warrior stuff".
Alright, I'll answer your ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT question if it annoys you this much. During peacetime, a warrior should look for a new war to fight in, otherwise he will destroy himself. Happy, retard? Now what exactly was your point in even asking this question?

Namefagging is how you tell others you despair for their validation.

>>16906958
You only answered half of it anon, don't you remember? " what bridge does the warrior build, and what should a warrior do in an age without war?", how many posts have you made to avoid this one question. You have tried to flip flop and change from a literal view to a "symbolic drive" as a figurative view, then tried to use a "warrior makes da warrior stuff" answer, but I'm waiting for the real literal answer still.

>>16906966
based and completely correctpilled

>>16906988
I already answered the other half here >>16906119 which I think you overlooked, but to summarize, the Overman is a warrior among all the other things which our species is so far capable of becoming, and for the Overman to realize and develop that in himself, he needs great examples of warriors to refer to — he can't become the Overman if there is any part of the species lacking in him.

>>16905115
All philosophy is cope

>>16907010
Anon I already adressed that "Since the figurative explanation does not disagree with what I write, instead it would come off as more instructions for the higher men.", or in this case instructions for the ubermensch himself. That doesn't answer what the literal warrior does, that is a figurative view that the Ubermensch needs the values and insights of a warrior-type person in himself.

I'll just be honest, you don't even believe in the literal view you said you did. If it is in bad faith or simply lack of intellect, I no longer care. This is what? 4 or 5 times in a row I have to ask for the same thing? Unless you properly answer me in the next post, this will be my final reply. You may have the last word if it makes you feel satisfied, it matters not to me.

>>16906877
I don't know. I'd argue being Diogenes-like is one facet: being anti-Platonic, anti-other-wordliness ("Christianity is Platonism for the masses"), being in touch with one's own instincts, self-orientation.

Of course, anything that can be considered "power", anything that helps a will impose itself on the world is good to that same will and the supermen should have plenty of power to go with their plenty of will. So the most resourceful people, like the classical greats, come closer to that ideal too.

But even saying these were superman-like might be an error, since that might plant the idea that the proccess by which the supermen will come about is one where we try to conform to past molds.

I don't remember any other reference to Diogenes. Thanks for lending your eyes to my words.

>>16905037
Nietzsche didn't live a tough life.

>>16905115
All philosophy is a cope

>>16907054
I answered your question (regardless if you were satisfied by the answer), so before I continue answering you, you'll answer mine: what does it matter what the "literal warrior" does and why do you want to know that from me?

>>16907059
>helps a will impose itself on the world
Isn't imposing oneself on the world just another way of saying you require outside validation? I actually think Nietzsche has no problem with saying one needs outside validation (although probably in a cooler fashion like "will to power" or something), which is why I thought it strange that you chose the description you did.

>>16907084
But he did?

He fucked his body up permanently in the war.

>>16905308
>I do not work hard and am dumb because of genetics

MASSIVE cope. Talk about completely abandoning responsibility for yourself. Go suckle that bottle because you're right, you sure as hell aren't becoming any ubermensch.

>>16905484
>you live as your nature dictates and to say otherwise is absurd or to deny a nature exists.

Do you have any knowledge of what this nature will bring about in you? Do you have ANY real evidence that your nature is what causes you to be dumb and lazy? You claim a nature exists, but do not describe what this nature supposedly limits you from. Here's the million dollar question: How do you KNOW your nature is preventing you from improving yourself? Have you tried with all your being? Have you accepted potentially giving up your current lifestyle so you can risk trying for a better one? There is no point living according to dumb theory you can't even prove.
Basically, no "nature" can fix being dumb. And you sure as hell can't prove it.

>>16907136
>he thinks hard work isn't genetics
Time to wake up.

>>16907084
I’d much rather have been Bukowdki than Nietzsche. Not even close. Nietzsche was fucking miserable.

>>16905037
it's called having a little dignity, faggot.

>>16907170
This is so incredibly blackpilled and pathetic I can't even begin. I feel pity for you. You think working hard for your ambition is out of your control, but you sadly cannot discern between delusion and fact.

>>16907182
>dignity
Imagine living in a certain fashion because of a spook created by others.

>>16906113
t. triggered leftist

>>16907193
Who cares if you find it suitable and agreeable.

>>16907208
Now yer really thinking lad

>>16907112
It's probably my bad. I say validation in the sense of social validation, of having others telling you are doing the right thing or that your action is justified. That implies being subjected, or subjecting your own mind, to an external value system, to the herd ("Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual").

All life tries to impose itself, says Nietzsche. And the suparman loves life completelly. This we can tied with the idea of eternal recurrence. Imagine a mind that confronted with the prospect of having to repeat it's entire journey from craddle to grave, with every pain and sorrow unchanged, and this proccess would repeat for eternity as matter re-orders itself past the exhaustion of novelty: a man that would welcome that fate as the best would be a superman. Is there anyone alive that loves their own life to such an extent?

>>16906401
I never said it had nothing to do with what I replied to. I tried being polite to you but then fine, you're a fucking retard with horrible reading comprehension. Anyone with half a brain would have easily been able to assume the gaps of what I meant because of the obviousness of what I was talking about. But because you don't think about these subjects, you were unable to and never even explained what you didn't understand. All you ever said is "that doesn't make any sense" effectively.

The Op is a LARPing thinking he's as great as Nietzsche, but at the end of the day you're never going to know that without work, because both your understanding without work, without something to see and understand yourself (and by that the world) in; and then also actually putting that into a concrete creation. There are many "great" writers, or at least fairly culturally dominant ones, such as Salinger, who have literal iqs of 111. The Op is almost certainly not a great genius in his potential, and potential itself includes ones instincts to work, and to be able to work in a specific and great way. As I said, intelligence is not just a repository for "capability", that is stupid. But as I also said, if you want to just use the word "intelligence + work ethic" to define a great man then you're just a moron. Usually someone at least factors in other colloquial terms such as "emotional intelligence" or "creativity" to still get at the heart of the topic while still in casual talk; but if we're being oh so scientific, that you cannot even understand what I say, then consider this, "intelligence" is not just an instantly understood thing. Obviously great men are intelligent, but can you say intelligence (and then just work ethic) make a great man? It shows that you have no understanding of what you talk about, because you would use and see the necessity for an extension into these more various terms, which "intelligence + work ethic" does not cover. If you're speaking casually, then obviously saying "great men are evidently highly intelligent, and with an extreme emotional acuity and creative ability" is a fine description, but if you want to start talking about what defines oneself as great or exactly defining it, then these can be very insufficient, but at least with those few more terminologies do they get at the heart of the issue more, than just "intelligence + work ethic"-- all of this you clearly do not understand and should think about. There are people with 190 iqs who have done so much in their respective field, but almost nothing in contrast to great men of history, even though these iq intelligent people have a high work ethic. Do you want me to spoonfeed you anymore?

You have an obscure and odd force driving you in this conversation which I know not, and you expect me to know it or are entirely trolling. Either way, it is leading you to be so unnecessarily confrontational.

>>16907191
>[X]pilled
The only thing I said was the truth, deep down you know it as well. You haven't even gone deep enough into what the non-existence of gods and immaterial really means.

>>16907226
So then wouldn't it be fair to say that sitting alone in a barrel alone and masturbating wouldn't be very ubermensch, since that is not imposing itself on the world? Or is the idea of imposing itself on the world only for basic humans, while the ubermensch does not need to impose itself?

>>16907242
You can choose to work hard or not. You are delusional if you think otherwise. Whether or not that choice is set in stone doesn’t matter. From the level you are operating on shit like that doesn’t matter.

>>16906925
Buddy. I leafed through your drivel. Imwnot going to refute it in a measured way. I don't feel like it. Say what you will. I just have some advice agter reading two lengthy treatises on what is essentially how to write and think in a self-masturbatory way. The advice is thus. Check your ego m8. You aren't special. That doesnt mean you cantedo great things. Just reflect on your self, your values, and your worldview. It needs refining, more than anything else though, is it needs some self-awareness, some honesty...with yourself. Narcissistic assholes always delude themselves into believeing they are far above the rest, this is never the case, as the true intellectual has replaced egotism and narcissism with reflection and honesty. Cheers.

>>16907242
>what the non-existence of gods and immaterial really means
you just turn atheist like last week dude?

Read some mark manson bro it'll do you good.

>>16905115
>>16905123
But what about Nietzsche's concept of eternal recurrence? Or why even go into such detail on how the Übermensch must be a societal goal? I feel that while is work may not be aimed at every single type of audience, there is an element of a "revolutionary" call-to-action within his work.

>>16907291
The idea of being special because you do great things and not you do great things because you are special is such a radical idea when all they believe is that you have to be 0.0001% ubermensch or whatever

>>16907286
>>16907298
You do not "chose" anything, it was decided at birth if you would do x or y. If you would find studying more or less of a hassle, if you were more likely to feel social pressure to preform or conform, if some topic would take your interest, how easy it would be to stay focused or not, or even if you would be able to properly process the results of what pure materialism means and if you can continue to process it instead of finding some coping mechanics like Jordan Peterson self improvement 12 steps to clean your room or other "sefl help" books.

>>16907312
It's maddening. Fairy tales.

>>16907331
>You do not "chose" anything, it was decided at birth if you would do x or y. If you would find studying more or less of a hassle, if you were more likely to feel social pressure to preform or conform, if some topic would take your interest, how easy it would be to stay focused or not, or even if you would be able to properly process the results of what pure materialism means and if you can continue to process it instead of finding some coping mechanics like Jordan Peterson self improvement 12 steps to clean your room or other "sefl help" books.
bahahaha you are so goddam stupid
Fucking fatalist

>>16907276
>So then wouldn't it be fair to say that sitting alone in a barrel alone and masturbating wouldn't be very ubermensch, since that is not imposing itself on the world?
Why wouldn't that be imposing itself in the world? Actually, it probably would be too imposing for polite society, hence why we (the herd) have laws against it. But you'd expect supermen to have grander designs simply because it doesn't take a superman to want to and be able to jerk off in public.

>Or is the idea of imposing itself on the world only for basic humans, while the ubermensch does not need to impose itself?
It's not an idea, it's the reality of life. The superman embraces it completely mentally. And from that should follow that the superman would cultivate the qualities that help him impose his will more effectivelly. We too, as we become embrace the principle of amor fatii more, would cultivate the qualities that help humanity (or the parts of it that are able) to self-overcome, to be more able of imposing it's will on the world.

>>16907331
Then kill yourself instead of complaining dipshit

>>16907331
And honestly, you should be glad we're calling you a big retard. It means you could be wrong. And in this case, you being wrong could be the best thing you've ever heard.

>>16905037
IQ is irrelevant in the realm of purpose and meaning; and a human purpose doesn't exist as far as we know, and if it did, it wouldn't have any higher meaning--- it would just stand as some crap you devise or a power devises for you. IQ is just a trait after all.

>>16907240
>The Op is a LARPing thinking he's as great as Nietzsche
No wonder you can't address what the OP said properly, he said the exact opposite of this, he's actually arguing in favor of being the last man instead of what Nietzsche said. The rest of your post is you obsessing over the definition of intellect again, as I said you are incapable of understanding what the point of what OP says. That if you were to apply Nietzsche's viewpoint on reality, there is an extreme hierarchy of 0.0001% kind of people who have the ability to change the world (impose their will or build towards the ubermensch), and the other 99.9999% of people are left there with no purpose yet Nietzsche says they shouldn't just pursue their own happiness. OP is basically saying the 99.9999% of humans have no reason to follow something they cannot follow because genetically and financially they had already lost the ability to since birth. Thus one should really just follow what the last man is instead.

>>16907356
Was looking for this:

>"My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it—all idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary—but love it."

>>16907356
>Why wouldn't that be imposing itself in the world?
Compared to Alexander the Great, one of the higher men, it barely is.

>>16907382
>>16907375
>>16907347
What argument do you have? Let me guess "ya but what about the magical fairy lala land of the immaterial where there is totally spirits and shit but only if you follow my religion (or take new ager psychedelics)"? You are a bunch of religious spooked retards who still believe in Christianity (or cultural Christianity if you are agnostic/atheist) and the magical idea of "souls". You are weak beyond belief, unable to process what reality is and what you yourself really are. Not that you could help doing so, you could not have done anything else besides what you have, in the same way I could do nothing except accept that this is the truth.

>>16907447
For fuck's sake, will someone call an ambulance? This guy's having a stroke or something.

>>16907356
As the original person who you were talking to I basically think the same as >>16907426, certainly it may in some way be imposing your will on the world by doing that, but not by any means ubermensch tier. I think Nietzsche wants the ubermensch to impose himself on the world in a grand fashion, the grander the better. Which is why he drew from only the most important and greatest men of history in his examples of the ubermensch such as Napoleon .

>>16907447
Go have your middleschool existential crisis somewhere else

>>16906898
>A*glo coward has to lump himself in with several other nations in order to feel strong
Just like all the wars you fought.

>>16905115
Everything is cope

>>16907506
Except love, which Nietzsche's philosophy was founded on, so that poster is wrong.

>>16907462
>>16907462
You only throw insults because you have no ability to argue against what I speak of, and more importantly you do so because the very idea of accepting what I say as the truth scares you deeply even to this day. At some point you might have thought what I did, but quickly shoved it into the deepest recess of your mind and proclaimed victory over it. So now you run about acting as if it is a belief only for children during the teenage years, yet it is exact opposite since really you have just accepted the common copes of society which are designed so that you will continue to slave for them without interruption. Even if you pretend to be non religious you actually are since you believe in Christianity's idea of "souls" and "free will" concepts. It is so infectious that even pseudo sciences like psychology tend to believe in such things, despite them also realizing such a thing is impossible.

>>16906054
>working in the service of the Overman means being a slave
You're a moron

>>16907492
you are included in >>16907550

>>16907559
I thought all that same shit when I was 14. It is weird to realize, but doesn’t mean much when it comes down to it. You want to be a god or something Whose will transcends causality? Not even god would have free will by your standards.

>>16907552
""""working in the service""""

>>16907586
Why do you hate your species?

>>16907584
>I thought all that same shit when I was 14.
Yes and just like I said, you then shoved it into the deepest recess of your mind and proclaimed victory over it. So now you run about acting as if it is a belief only for children during the teenage years, yet it is exact opposite since really you have just accepted the common copes of society which are designed so that you will continue to slave for them without interruption. Even if you pretend to be non religious you actually are since you believe in Christianity's idea of "souls" and "free will" concepts.

>>16907503
What do you mean? I lumped the rest of those guys in with Anglos just to further shit on germs/poolacks, only France might have a slight argument to be on par with Anglos. In reality Anglos have literally been the kings of the this world for hundreds of years, all while fighting some of the greatest nations ever conceived in human history. Scientifically, politically, economically, Anglos have dominated every possible position a nation could. Hell Anglos even gave birth to the idea of "white" as a race just to shit on "swarthy germs", then germs took the idea and Anglos annihilated them for it, despite it actually being an Anglo idea to begin with.

>>16907594
>Why don't people want to be slaves :(
2deep4me

>>16907635
Someone isn't a slave for wanting to contribute to the evolution of their species, this is a dumb notion and you should feel dumb for pushing it.

>>16907638
>contribute to """"our"""" evolution by feeding me and doing whatever my whim is including sucking my cock every hour on the hour
No

>>16907658
Ok fag, you asked for it

>>16907609
Have you considered that making a big deal out of something that is honestly above your head is the real cope? An excuse for your actions being ineffectual maybe?

>>16907677
Too late fag. I already have two children and donate to a sperm bank monthly so that more people with a sense of individuality will be born in the future, all specifically so that fags like you will be told to get fucked more often.

>>16907718
>has kids
>is an individualist
aka someone who works in the service of the Overman aka someone who contributes to the evolution of his species, dumbass

>>16907625
>In reality Anglos have literally been the kings of the this world for hundreds of years
Maybe for one hundred years tops. Keep dreaming about that precious lost empire though Nigel.

>>16907694
Who said I make a big deal out of it, it was you and two others who grew emotional at the idea of hard work being genetic. I accept the idea and move on with my life as normal, while the rest of you go through hundreds of mental gymnastics each day with magical concepts that make no logical sense like free will and souls.

>>16907727
It is very easy to argue that no one has been able to touch Anglos since the battle of waterloo. Which is 200 years right there, and I could argue that Anglos have been narrowly on the top for a long time even before that, yet at the minimum it was 200 years of solid reign. When have germs or poolacks been at the top? Oh ya thats right, NEVER HAHAHAHAHAHA.

>>16907725
>having kids is service to the overman
And who is this "overman"? Let me guess, you don't know? So in other words a magical non existence marvel superman is effecting you, and I am servicing this non existance being simply because I had children while you will die as an incel? Wowzers!

>>16907770
>And who is this "overman"?
It's a name designating whoever has overcome all the current species' faults to the greatest extent. It's the goal of evolution. The only way not to work in the service of it is to reject will to power which is life itself.

>>16907793
How interesting, so just existing is serving the non existent abstract concept of a superman? In other words your philosophy might as well not exist since as long as people exist in some fashion it is both inevitable and unavoidable to follow it. Where have I heard this all before.... Something something labour, something something means of production.... ah I don't know, probably just some retard neet who lived off his friends savings, kind like how NEETzsche got rejected by his lover and then became an incel neet who lived with his sister. Classic stuff.

>>16907829
>How interesting, so just existing is serving the non existent abstract concept of a superman?
Almost, but it's a little more complicated than that, and it's not merely abstract. The Overman is just that, a name for the goal of evolution, what all evolution is striving towards. However, not every act supports evolution. Do you strive for your kids to have a better life than yours, and to have a brighter future than yours? Then (assuming you're successful) your kids will be a little bit closer to the Overman than you are. You're working in the service of it without even realizing it, so in a sense, "just existing" is serving it. Further, opposing it is actually idiotic, once you properly understand it, because it's precisely what you're striving to create by raising your kids well and following your own will to power.

And this doesn't at all discredit the idea, because the purpose of the idea was to give a name to the natural process (will to power) and its goal (the Overman) in opposition to the nihilistic Socratic Judeo-Christian faith which rejects these and leads the species towards stasis with its muddying of concepts and its constant moralizing against individualists and others who follow their own will to power. By giving names to these, individualists can focus their attention towards what matters most to them, which in turn benefits the species.

>Something something labour, something something means of production...
There's nothing even remotely Marxist in any of this. This is Darwinian. Marx was a materialist, which places him in the long line of Socratic Judeo-Christians who put up blockades against the will to power in order to slow down evolution and impede the coming of the Overman.

>>16907301
-people are hedonists
-the uberman is an hedonist deluding himself he isn't so, by larping as dyonisus, fantasy created by an impotent man so as usual going wild on power trips, but not on physical strength but on ''virtue battles'' to better fit in the atheist, nihilist crowd since the renaissance.

>>16907881
>There's nothing even remotely Marxist in any of this.
Oh but there is, since Marx was a heavy materialist who thought everything he spoke of was inevitable, as if he was a prophet of some kind. There are many communists who believe that there is no point in doing anything since it will come regardless of whatever they do. Because capitalism is by design going to continue in a downward trend forcing it to exploit the workers more and more, thus eventually the workers will tire of it and spring forth into revolution on a global scale. You could call Marx a "economical, political, and historical Darwinian" I suppose, that is what his "dialectal" really means anyways. Truly you are the exact same as the average communist or christian. You think that a magical "overman" is coming, a communist thinks the communist utopia is coming, and the christian thinks Jesus is coming (again). All of you delusional retards believe you are inevitable, although at least the Christians still have enough sanity to realize that following its teachings is not unavoidable at least.
>a name for the goal of evolution
So in other words it is a pointless philosophy, it is inevitable and and everyone is following it regardless so long as they exist. Thus refuting itself since you are essentially stating that existence itself IS the philosophy of Nietzsche and that there is no alternative. One does not even need to read Nietzsche to be his perfect disciple, his writing are uneeded and entirely worthless since even a child at the age of 1 year has mastered what he wrote.

>>16907301>>16905165
>>16905229
>>16905538>>16905636
>>16906497
>>16907793
>>16907829

-people are hedonists
-the uberman is an hedonist in the herd, deluding himself he isn't so, by larping as dyonisus, ie a fantasy created by an impotent man, so as usual going wild on power trips, but not on physical strength this time, but on
virtue battles to better fit in the atheist, nihilist crowd since the renaissance.

>>16907758
>no one has been able to touch Anglos since the battle of waterloo
There was a little event you may have heard called the Blitz that made your grandparents shit their pants Nigel.
>I could argue that Anglos have been narrowly on the top for a long time even before that
In your wildest dreams. B*ngland was an irrelevant backwater compared to all its continental neighbors until at least the later 17th century.
>yet at the minimum it was 200 years of solid reign
Yeah, definitely not. The German Empire was the most powerful country in Europe in the later 19th century and America usurped your place after WW2. And we're A*glo and haven't been for a long time. We're proud mutts thank you.
>When have germs or poolacks been at the top?
Let's see Germany is currently the leader of the EU which you just threw a temper tantrum to get away from so you could sink into the depths of the north sea a bit faster while Poland was one of the most powerful countries in Europe during the 15th-16th centuries and you were a filthy backwater.

>>16907983
>Anglo only means UK
and just like that your entire post falls apart.

>>16907946
Marx is not compatible with Nietzsche. Nietzsche rejected materialism.

>So in other words it is a pointless philosophy, it is inevitable and and everyone is following it regardless so long as they exist.
The most life-affirming philosophy is pointless? Come on dude. And its formulation is needed as long as there's resentment in the world, which breeds nihilistic ideologies, aka those within the Socratic Judeo-Christian faith (like Marx). I mean all you're saying here is:

>lol like why even come up with the theory of evolution like why even think about anything haha who cares about what the point of life is
This is the point, we have a name for it now, we have books now which outline it for us. This isn't a pointless philosophy, this is the best one there is. You need to read Nietzsche to see how much those nihilistic ideologies are ingrained in society and how far they stray people away from nature and hinder the species for it.

>>16907991
Like I said, America is not A*glo no matter how much you want it to be. And if you're some faggot WASP with a muh heritage complex you can slither back to your beloved island with all its grim future prospects and decay.

>>16907992
>Nietzsche rejected materialism.
You just said his philosophy is Darwinian, so what is it retard? Are you going to now suggest that really Nietzsche was actually religious or spiritual all along? Or will you say he was praising Odin and Thor? or will you say he was really a gnostic follower of neoplatonism? Or a new ager free from all conformity of religion? No let me guess, he wanted to attack all dogma, so to with science, thus he couldn't be materialist! Don't kid yourself, Nietzsche was a materialist through and through. Imagine even stating something like "yea I'm about to read Nietzsche, ya know the immaterial spiritual guy!". Fucking absurd. The only way you disagree is if you want to use some strange definition of materialism, how about this "there is no other world of immaterialism"? Surely we could agree on that right?
>Come on dude
You are the one stating that everyone is following this philosophy regardless of even having read it. You yourself refuted it when you did so.
>You need to read Nietzsche to see how much those nihilistic ideologies are ingrained in society and how far they stray people away from nature and hinder the species for it.
Why would that matter? I thought you said you it was impossible to not follow this philosophy? Don't tell me... you mean....you didn't even think before you replied to me with such low quality thought?!?!!? WHAT!? I cannot believe it. How could this have happened? I thought I was perfect disciple of Nietzsche only for you to know reveal that it is possible to not follow it in some fashion, WOE IS ME.

>>16908005
>Anglo colony is not Anglo
Cope.

>>16908039
Nietzschean Darwinism is not materialism. Materialism is substance-affirming. Will to power is the only "substance" and it isn't one, it's a force. Substance is life-denying. For Nietzsche, both materialism and immaterialism are forms of idealism which emerge together from the same nihilistic worldview and are to be rejected.

>You are the one stating that everyone is following this philosophy regardless of even having read it.
You're not following it consciously, obviously for fuck's sake, but you are still fulfilling it, and if you don't like that, then clearly you have another issue with Nietzsche since you refuse to admit that you aren't actually in disagreement with him.

>Why would that matter?
Gee, maybe because these resentful nihilists have been actively seeking to destroy life for thousands of years, primarily by morally corrupting otherwise healthy individuals until their sense of self-preservation is out of whack? Are you out of your fucking mind? If you're actually an individualist like you claimed why the fuck would you even ask this?

Obviously you don't know jack shit about Nietzsche.

>>16908113
>Nietzschean Darwinism is not materialism.
Whatever you want to cope with. Everyone else who isn't braindead and soaked in Nietzsche dogma will continue to agree he is a materialist since he would deny there being a spiritual immaterial "other world". His venomous anti-platoism rhetoric is enough proof for anyone who isn't neck deep in Nietzsche propaganda.
>You're not following it consciously, obviously for fuck's sake
So is everyone else according to you, even Christians who have children are actually Nietzschean according to you. Well you would now pretend that is not the case, since you hate the fact you were dumb enough to suggest that existence itself is the philosophy of Nietzsche.
>Gee, maybe because these resentful nihilists have been actively seeking to destroy life for thousands of years
B-but bro, I thought you said everyone follows Nietzsche, I-I thought you said he is actually evolution itself! You don't mean to say that his philosophy isn't evolution itself? You don't mean to say that you actually spoke before you thought and said something idiotic did you!??!?!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>16905115
>>16905123
>>16907948
Does Nietzsche think his writings affected the coming of the the Uberman, or does he see it as historical inevitability?

>>16905256
>how could anyone NOT live according to their nature?
Ask any self-sabotaging fag on earth. People spend their whole lives fighting against nature, inner and outer

>>16908156
Then that is their nature, that is to self sabotage. You aren't understanding what was wrote.

>>16907049
Based

>>16908143
Jesus, you're a fucking faggot. If you actually have kids they're definitely turning into trannies when they're older.

>>16908158
Who sabotages who?

>>16908143
>repeats strawman after strawman
>continues to be wrong
>continues to not admit he doesn't actually disagree with Nietzsche
You're either really, really dumb or really, really mad about something, either way you're a waste of time.

>>16906925
Get power (you already have it), assert your will. You will even be able to improve the life of the everyman so they are not treated as mere cattle.

Genes do changes through your lives, tho. Based on life you live, your body adapts, and genes follow.

>>16908206
>strawman
Anon you literally that the uberman was inevitable and unavoidable. I'm just repeating what you told me, unless you wish to say that you didn't mean what you spoke?!?!?!?

>>16908187
Yea but then they would be Nietzschean trannies since they are existing right?

>>16908197
He and himself.

>>16908232
>Anon you literally that
Forgot a word there, should be: anon you literally *said* that

>>16908232
>Anon you literally that the uberman was inevitable and unavoidable.
In what post did I say or imply that? It being the goal of evolution does not mean it can't be hindered, which means it's not inevitable or unavoidable. You're not even reading the posts you're replying to.

>>16906925
Selecting women based off of hip size is retarded. There were evolutionary pressures for human women to have narrow hips, as a product of being able to sprint and walk upright.

Maybe there is a natural balance of what hip ratio is perfect but selecting for that is ultimately meaningless. There are much better traits to breed for rather than size (intelligence)

Philosophically correct image, but biologically illiterate.

>>16908307
Your right, you said something far, far worse than that. "The only way not to work in the service of it is to reject will to power which is life itself.", you actually said that existence itself is all Nietzschen! The madlad! Nietzschean trannies and Christians oh my!

>>16906998
agreed

The overman is beyond man so IQ and wealth would be irrelevant. In fact, those two attributes are gregarious herd traits or are perceived as so.

>>16907718
Is that philosopher MAX [FOREHEAD] is see before my eyes on /mlp/?!

>>16905037
1. The Uberman wasn't his only idea and some of his other ideas apply to other people
2. Society is meant to slowly become more advanced until the Uberman can come and exist in society before he can meaningfully change it
3. Now that I think about it, I'd like to hear what your definition of Uberman is because I think we may have different perceptions of who they're meant to be

>Unless you are born with 180+iq and with a wealthy family who will support whatever Ubermensch-like idea you have
Pic related came to mind kek

>>16905115
lmao

>>16905418
You've gotta separate the art from the artist though

>>16908324
>Life itself is will to power and nothing besides
Apparently you didn't understand what was meant by this.

>>16909440
>2. Society is meant to slowly become more advanced until the Uberman can come and exist in society before he can meaningfully change it
Sounds like humanist garbage.

>>16905037

>in a world without religion or God you may as well live for comfort

The whole point is that the only one who actually can live in such a world is the ubermensch who does so by creating it themselves
You are still coming at it from an angle where the world being without religion or god or whatever else is already decided for you and you are simply reacting to it by way of a deductive logical pattern which in itself reveals that you are in fact still living in that world
Think of it this way can even a 180 IQ person supersede an all knowing and all powerful god? No not even close in fact with such a massive gap the difference between the 180 IQ individual and the 90 IQ individual becomes completely meaningless and indiscernible. But that is exactly the point of the ubermensch that all humans are vastly inferior to god yet they must supersede him nonetheless for their own sake.

>>16905115
I thought Nietzsche was specifically anti-cope?

>>16905037
>Have I missed the point or is Nietzsche completely useless for 99.9999% of the population?

He kind of says that himself.

>>16905037
we had this thread last week. Read Simone Weil.

>>16905037
IQ isn’t really the key, so much as seeing the connections between things and being able to think recursively. If you train yourself to be better at these two things, and also refrain from following whatever the current fads are, then you will have something interesting to say. You may only achieve the level of a minor writer, someone like Don Delillo or Thomas Pynchon, but you’ll still be in a completely different league than the wastes of space who currently populate the writing world.

>>16905037
>>16905115
Two different versions of internerd virgin kiddos with zero life experience.
>"I can just assume what all of life is like and what the results of every attempt at everything would be."
You need more Jung and BASIC life experience, and less misunderstood Nietzschean Dragonball Z power masturbation talk. Everything you think you know, because you haven't actually experienced it, is a LITERAL fantasy. Not real, at all. Including about Nietzsche.
>"Trust me bro, I can just guess what is on every website without ever using the internet."
Leave your house and actually fucking talk to another human being. That's a significant goal for you today. You can become an ubermensch tomorrow. Lol.

>>16905037
Evolution is epigenetic. We become what we strive to be. If I am not great then I will work so that my sons are respectable, my grandsons are powerful, and my great-grandsons are Great.

>>16911509

>>16908197
The Persona sabotages the Ego.

Why are nietzsche niggers so obsessed with rape, muscles, cuckolding and how dominant other men are. Are they trannys?

>>16908321
You missed the point that these women are selectively bred solely to reproduce at the greatest rate possible for the longest period of time. These women are in no way bred for natural survival. This is why those traits are selected for, and this is the exact same logic why the general purpose working man is selected to be very small (without hindering the ability to do non-physical labor), because large queen humans (8ft) can bear a larger litter of small men (4ft) than large men (6ft), and smaller men have lower upkeep costs due to needing less food, consuming less resources, and taking up less space.

The natural selective pressure on wolves is the reason why wolves look like wolves. The artificial selective pressure on dachshunds is they reason they look like wiener dogs. The dachshund would not survive in the wild, it would be eaten, and this is why the wolves look like wolves. The reason dachshunds exist is to serve a specific purpose to which they are more capable of doing than wolves, which is to hunt and fight badgers that live in burrows. These people are being bred for a specific purpose in the exact same way the dachshund was. The dachshund is much better at hunting badgers than a wild wolf, even if the dachshund cannot survive in the wild as well. The dachshund does not need to survive in the wild because it is domesticated, so it abandoned unneeded traits in order to perform a specialized skill at a higher degree of performance. This is the specialization of labor which defined the industrial revolution and allowed us to transfer from self-reliant agrarian states into industrial powers with much more powerful economies. People do one job exceptionally well then put the pieces together, rather than do all jobs to some degree of adequacy within a design that is capable of functioning independently.

>>16907291
>>16907291
The issue is that you struggled to read what I wrote, you got upset with this, then this causes you to feel inadequate, so you start talking shit trying to build your ego after being discomforted by the thoughts of your own inadequacy.

You perceive this feeling of inadequacy you feel upon failing to understanding my writing to be my intent when writing because this is the way my writing made you feel. I didn't write that to make you feel stupid, nothing I wrote was in any way "supremacist" or talking down to anyone. My writing is speaking to you at eye level, making eye contact, treating you like a person of equal validity and merit as myself.

Clearly you struggled to understand what I was saying, this made you feel stupid, then you feel personally antagonized due to your own failures. "Blaming the system" because you fail is childish, because the system doesn't give a fuck whether or not you succeed or fail. The system is what it is, the system is a constant, and whether or not you fail is based upon your own capacity to perform.

You've superimposed your own reaction to to your own failure as if it were my intent to induce this feeling of inadequacy within you. That was not my case at all. When you go to class and the teacher asks you a question, the teacher isn't trying to "make you look stupid" the teacher is trying to get you to engage with the material. The same is true for what I wrote in those posts.

If we analyze the tones of the posts I wrote when compared to yours, there is a marked difference in the amount of negativity, name calling, and otherwise antagonistic speech which was entirely absent in mine. Logically, this would be having a conversation with somebody, that person speaks their point of view, then you punch them in the face, not because you disagree, but because you don't understand what they are saying and this makes you feel stupid and inadequate, so you must resort to destructive and illegitimate means to re-substantiate your ego which was clearly so viciously maimed by being exposed to a point which you failed to understand.

If anyone is a "narcissistic delusional asshole" here, it is you, judging by the negativity of your speech, your inability to respond to the arguments I made and instead resorting to personal attacks, then in all irony using your state of admitted under-performance as evidence of your own supremacy.

Nothing I am doing here even compares myself to any of the people on this website, so to think I am jockeying for ego with my argument is laughable, and yet again asserting your own presumptions and your own predispositions onto the acts of others, presuming that other people are like yourself, because in your post you are clearly attempting to jockey for superiority of ego by condemning me while asserting your fallacious "humility" with passive aggressive sanctimony.

>Try to be a "true intellectual" and analyze this with "reflection and honesty"

>>16905308
So, Feynman did receive a score of "125 IQ" in a test at school, but he did exceptionally in the maths test you cite, which was not an IQ test. How is this meant to prove that it's "low IQ pleb cope"?

>>16905037
Because being the last man is not desirable under any circumstances, and you've missed the point entirely. Sacrificing yourself in a war is like the LEAST ubermenschian behavior possible.

>>16905037
Stop worshipping IQ. An above average IQ and a pair of balls is worth infinitely more than a cowardly genius. Particularly in times like these.

>>16905165
You fucking mong. You are the fucking last man.

>>16905115
nihilism is cope, nietzsche is anti nihilism
you therefore are a nigger

None of your retards understand Nietzsche so I'm going to spell it out for you
1) The assumption (also known as the cope): reality is real, can be understood through the senses
Everyone already has this cope hardwired into their brains, including schizos, so it's a moot point.
2) Thus, we can uncover the secrets of "God"/Truth empirically/materially
In which "God" is a stand in for questions like "what is the universe, what came before it, what is outside of it"
3) Pursuing the final understanding of God (Truth) is a collective project, not a solitary task
3a) but Nietzsche is giving psychological history and advice to those who would direct and organize society
4) Man and society should be improved towards maximizing progress in uncovering the final understanding of nature/god
5) The best place to start on this task is to stop being jewish and female
(you are, even if you think you aren't, as explained in Genealogy of Morals. Shalom, cunt)

In the same way that capitalism prioritizes capital over labor, Nietzsche is prioritizing truth over humanism/hedonism/nihilism. He starts showing us that searches for the truth thus far, have been mostly self-serving muh feels pilpul garbage, resulting in nihilism dressed in drag. Nietzsche identifies the myths and cope of his time and gives advice for those who could escape, on how to escape.
There's more but mom made meatloaf for dinner I gotta run

>>16907744
Ok who let the schizo out of his cell

>>16913302
Good posts.
I raise my glass in toast.

>>16905935
Then, if it is in my nature to improve myself, I will do so. Of course, "my nature" is just a code word for "whatever happens;" this does not mean change or self-improvement is impossible. Even if you are deadset on a course in life, there are always external factors that can change you

>>16906119
So the Overman is just Rocko's basilisk?

>>16915309
>Then, if it is in my nature to improve myself, I will do so.
This guy... You don't seem to understand, you CANNOT improve a nature, it is your nature. If your nature is to "improve" then you are simply lying, since that is impossible by definition of what we are speaking of. I think you actually do understand, but are just being a smart-ass honestly. This can be our end point then, since I don't particularly feel the need to engage with such responses.

heroism doesn't require intelligence.

>>16906716
>>16906746
>>16906925
>>16913302
I enjoyed your "shitposts" sir. I understand this may be a stupid question (I think you could consider me an "everyman"), but could you point me in the direction to resources that further explore the ideas you wrote about? Or just post more?

>>16913815
/thread

>>16905145
Did the people who came after Hegel disagree with his work? Same thing with Neech

>>16905204
What else is there to do? God is dead.

>>16907447
Who is to say that you believe in the truth, if you can not help but believe what you believe in?

You only believe in what you were predestined to believe, then. You can still change in the future, for that, too, would have been predestined.

Don't complain about what others are and about "cultural Christianity" if you present a fatalistic view of life, in which there's no difference between me (who is predestined to believe in souls and that this is truth) and you (who is predestined to believe in no souls, and that that is truth).

>>16907550
The entire crux of your argument is that "we're afraid of atheism so we hide from it" and that there is no soul or free will. But there's no difference between free will and determinism; I still have the ability to choose. I do, after all, choose to talk to you right now, I am not being directly 'predestined' or 'controlled by some magical Fate/Norn.'

This is just "you are unnatural because you believe in [thing I don't believe in] and cannot come to terms with what I see as truth."

Nothing is impossible. A God will and must always exist. Even if He did not exist, He would exist.

>>16907635
Why is it bad to serve others? It's bad because you can attach a negative word to it, effectively creating a strawman? (you like to serve, therefore you want to be a punished slave!)

>>16907609
That's because he and I have proclaimed victory over it. And we continue to reenact this victory over atheism every day, on this very board. Every knee shall bow.

>>16907744
You accept the life that YOU have chosen. You have come to the idea that there is no God, no soul, and you "accept the idea" and move on. I merely choose to believe in a God and soul and move on with my life; there is still suffering to be overcome, gaps to be bridged, even in the life of a Godly man.

You are stuck in this crude psychoanalysis, thinking that we "believe God because we are afraid of perishing." But what if we believe in God because there is a God?

What is so great in accepting that you will go to nothing, either way? This is only a concession you must make when you disbelieve in the soul; it does not make you any stronger to accept it. Most atheists will (cope) say it is a relief that they will not go either to Hell or Heaven, but rather oblivion (fearing Hell).

>>16907829
I do not follow their philosophy, but their philosophy might as well exist because it casts a light upon what's going on. Besides, if man inevitably leads to the Ubermensch, it is okay for their philosophy to exist or not to exist. Either way, they win. They just desire to be aware of these things and serve the Ubermensch, an unworthy goal when all can become Ubermenschen in God.

>>16907881
I would say Christianity reigns in the "individualist's will to power" by recognizing it as a perversion of the will to God all men have. They try to find pleasure or power in something that will bring them neither, so they must be corrected.

>>16915437
Exactly, so whatever happens to you is your nature; thus, if you choose to improve, that is also a part of your nature. Everything is in my nature; to improve myself, if it happens, is also within my nature. I'm not the guy you were arguing with, I'm just arguing against fatalism (oh, my life is shit, I guess it's my nature to be shit; actually, you improving yourself would also be in your nature, so don't hamstring yourself with defeatism; of course, you need others to influence you to view things like this).

>>16916240
>Exactly, so whatever happens to you is your nature; thus, if you choose to improve, that is also a part of your nature.
Please, just read what was written before.

>>16916168
>A God will and must always exist.

>>16915437
This comes to the question of whether you believe in free will or not. As a thought experiment suppose someone of infinite drive and ability were to exist. If they experienced less imitations to their intentions wouldn't they be, in a sense, "freer" than us - the same way we might be "freer" than an ape. To me that's what the Ubermensch represents. Someone with the ability to move freely within reality such that his will isn't constrained but rather realized in any way he sees fit.

>>16916320
Free will is a concept for the religious used in order to justify God punishing his own creations, it has no place is any actual debate outside of that framework. Even in the construct of religion the idea is flimsy, which only shows how truly worthless the idea is.

As for your "thought experiment", if by "freer" you mean less constrained by physical limitations, then I suppose yes the ubermensch of your definition would be "freer". I have a feeling this is some setup for an ebin gotcha moment, so I will just state that this "freer" has nothing to do with magical free will concepts, and I certainly will not tolerate any attempt to link the two.

>>16907402
>zooms in on hyper specific point that is *technically wrong* but barely related to the overall message
This is why you're retarded and disingenuous.

What, you're going to punish me for not replying to every one of Op's questions? Fag.

>>16905204
Authenticity and honesty are virtues a nihilist shouldn't believe in.

>>16916403

I don't claim free will is some Platonist idea that exists outside of our reality. I'm also an atheist. I'm saying that it's something resembling free will is enacted by conscious entities and that these entities are "freer" by this definition the more they are able to enact their will, have more knowledge of past, present, and future events, and are able to imagine alternative and novel scenarios. No God is needed in this definition.

If we posit that humans have grown more intelligent over the course of our evolution than we can say that also our power and ability to enact novel scenarios has also increased. We are in a sense "freer" than say Cro-Magnon or chimpanzees. My belief is that an Ubermensch will eventually evolve to be so intelligent and powerful that to us their will would seem boundless. Only such an individual, not bounded by the constraints of his present condition, would be truly free to create his own values, independent of necessity or even prior context.

Regarding determinism I acknowledge that I will never be an Ubermensch but maybe my descendants can be. That is why I act in a way that increases my resources so that I can have more mating opportunities so that I can choose a fertile and genetically fit mate to have many children and teach them to Will to Power such that eventually my children and children's children can eventually be the ancestors to the Ubermensch. This is all because I initially believed in the possibility, which I suppose may be your point in that my belief was predetermined. I don't think it matters personally. Maybe we could experiment by convincing men of all statures and intellect that they too could bring out the Ubermensch and see how their descendants fare.

I'm following the example of the ancient Israelites. if they can create a race that has lasted for 3500 years and climbed to such great heights then why can't I?

Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.

>>16916566
>>16916403
Regarding the arbitrariness of ability and IQ why do you think that some races are more intelligent than others? The answer is selective pressure. The key would be to create such an environment that only the cleverest and most powerful would survive, eg a colony on Mars.

Lol letting some made up number dictate your life. That you obsess over IQ is the only proof I need to illustrate how poor of a measurement it truly is.

>>16916566
>>16916624
I'll be honest, you seem to be having sort of conversation with yourself since I never spoke about the matters you do, nor would I really care about them.

Overall I am unsure why Nietzsche followers are so obsessed with race when Nietzsche was against this sort of group thought. His contrarian nature and hatred of all things christian lead him to his almost humorous or shitposty fashion of speaking on Jews. As if he did it merely to cause Christians further anguish.

>>16905037
Explain to an illiterate serf such as myself what a "last man" is?

>>16916683
Ya I got a little self indulgent towards the end. Regardless I've been working on my concept of Secular Free Will for a bit, so I'm hoping it eventually catches on.

>>16916688
If it feels good, then do it. Simple as.

>>16916694
Isn't the majority of Western culture generally hedonistic? I'm addicted to the major dopamine releasing activities myself

>>16916240
retard.
"nature" is not "genetics" and genetics is definetly not as deterministic as you describe. my genes are nothing i cant escape from or change. genes change all your life with every experience you make. thus it could be said, if we reduce the term nature to the genes of a living being as you like to, that your nature is everchangeable and really quiet elusive since it is changing every moment

the japanese say: the human being is of the same essence as water. floating by in an ever changing current but still appearing as a solid object with some greater kind of uniformity and identity


you people get cought up in your made up definitions of words without ever wanting to contemplate beyond them

>>16916696
Yes, Nietzsche criticizes "the herd" (vast majority of people) for pursuing pleasure instead of greatness, yet also believes that genetic hierarchy exists. Which is what my criticism of his thoughts are.

>>16916700
Ya epigenetics blow a big hole in biological determinist's belief system.

>>16916700
So long as you are born with "a nature" then you cannot do anything except be that nature, even if your genetics were to change it would still be your nature since the beginning nature determined the change.

>>16916690
>secular free will
This is extremely rude, but let me just say; HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>16916709
So you're only bad if you were genetically predisposed for greatness and you waste it?

>>16916722
See my above argument

>>16916739
Nietzsche would say that good and bad don't exist, only that a subjective morality in each person exists and we seek to impose these ideas on the world. For Nietzsche simply not reaching for "greatness" would be bad, yes... even if you were incapable of actually achieving this greatness. Which is absurd and why I don't understand why he criticizes "the herd" for their actions.

>>16916755
Yea mate I suggest a different term than "free will", because you ain't even getting that through no matter what you attempt.

>>16916766
Wouldn't this mean that greatness is then relative to the person. Or at least, if you're striving for something it should be an unobtainium because it's not supposed to be an accomplishable task, or a place where you get there and then stop.

If I were to read one book of his, what should it be?

>>16907718
Based

>>16905115
copeposting is a big cope

>>16916785
>Wouldn't this mean that greatness is then relative to the person
No, because the metric of greatness is how well one imposes their will upon the world. Nietzsche states people like Napoleon or Goethe to be the closest to his "ideal" person.
> I were to read one book of his, what should it be?
Thus Spoke Zarathustra is the tldr of Nietzsche.

>>16907204
>hurr you are [opposite beard and circus party follower] - t. retard

>>16906925
>>16913226
>>16915480

I also am interested though largely in part because the idea of breeding 'human queens' plays strongly into most of my fetishes

>>16913226
what the fuck are you talking about?

>This whole thread
Man, Nietzsche is retarded and so are his followers.

>>16916168
>I would say Christianity reigns in the "individualist's will to power" by recognizing it as a perversion of the will to God all men have.
Will to power and will to God are the same thing.

>>16905230
This. I've noticed a shitton of smart people are fucking pussies. Extremely afraid of trying because they might fail. If something doesn't come easy to them. They dismiss it as being useless to try and cope with the fact that they weren't instantly good at it. Tbh can they ever be real men?

>>16917729
Based