/lit/ - Literature

>>16931643
Dude.. have you never heard of people like Spengler, Schmitt, Heidegger and the likes? Still plenty of great literature in the West during the 20th century too.

>>16931643
The effectiveness of philosophy wanes after Nietzsche but there are philosophers after Nietzsche. They’ve all just been put away in a box, haphazardly dismissed, or pushed out of the discussion by the philosophical gatekeepers.

>>16931643
And that's where I come in,

>>16931643
What are you talking about? The greatest philosopher of all times came after Nietzsche, you retard.

Niche? Retroactively refuted by F. Mariana.

>>16931736
Okay, post is picture then.

>>16931786
Tell me about Mariana.

>>16931643
If he is the height why did he wish and speak of attaining that which is higher than him? He sought for God but did not name it God.

analytic > continental

>>16931829
There's an open thread right now about Nietzsche and Mariana, but nietzschefags are rats and they are ignoring it.

>>16931655
>Spengler, Schmitt, Heidegger
Read them and Nietzsche closer and you'll find that they just repeated what Nietzsche wrote.

>>16931736
total meme, he wrote two books and the first one he repudiated in life

Neetch is a better writer than he is a philosopher in my opinion. His writings tend to veer toward the polemical, a trait that is unbecoming of a philosopher, who must see past his own biases toward the unvarnished truth. His prose, in both the brilliance of the thoughts it expresses and the poetry of its execution, is nearly unrivaled in world literature.

>>16931958
Hard agree. There’s a reason Nietzsche’s such a meme. His prose is beautifully written but, as a consequence, it comes off rather fiery, florid, poetic, and fabulous (ie. Nietzsche incorporates fables and anecdotes).

Kant btfo’s Nietzsche any day when it comes to philosophic rigor and, though I haven’t read later thinkers in the post-Kantian continental tradition, I’d venture to bet their works are attempting projects with greater rigor than Nietzsche (eg. Heidigger).

>>16932023

Anglo hands typed the post.

When you reach the edge of your understanding the only language that makes sense is that of metaphors and fables.

>>16932038
I mean if you want a self-enclosed system that can’t be refuted, sure. You can’t disprove a metaphor, since there’s nothing proved in it.

Ofc I assume that refutation is worthy in this, but your take neglecting refutation (and logic, science, empiricism etc a la one of Nietzsche’s writings, Beyond Good and Evil, I think) neglects any sort of discourse as an upshot.

You’ve, in essence, got a fancy word game that sounds good - cool. I can leave it by the stream while I build a discursive boat on which to travel.

>>16932023
Nietzsche basically culminates Kant while dropping all the architectonic nonsense and moral tartuffery. Nietzsche is Kant's final form: pure destroyer, Kritik raging wildly against everything

>>16931893
Thinking Heidegger just "copied" Nietzsche is an extraordinarily shallow take. Only from the immediate perception from the outiside, could one think Heidegger is NOT doing something wildly different and equally, if not more so, brilliant. It's also similar with Spengler and Schmitt. You could almost say, that if you look closer, you'll find Nietzsche is just repeating Spengler and Schmitt.

>>16932144
heidegger was a retarded version of Schopenhauer

>>16932151
Heidegger was undoubtedly influenced by Schopenhauer, but again, that's just moronic to think Heidegger was particularly close to Schopenhauer.

>>16932144
I didn't say that Heidegger copied Nietzsche. None of them continued his philosophy though, and the best of their stuff is undoubtedly borrowed from Nietzsche.

>>16932169
>None of them continued his philosophy though
Because they were brilliant in their own right.

>and the best of their stuff is undoubtedly borrowed from Nietzsche.
That's stupid, it's like saying Schopenhauer and Hegel were only good in what they got from Kant.

Also newsflash, Nietzsche isn't as original as you think, he just collected a lot from previous thinkers and poets such as Holderlin.

>>16932242
>Holderlin
literally whomst

>>16932242
>Because they were brilliant in their own right.
Of course, but they still didn't continue his philosophy, because they couldn't. Nietzsche was still out of their depth.

>That's stupid, it's like saying Schopenhauer and Hegel were only good in what they got from Kant.
Yet another thing I didn't say. I'm not saying they're not good. I'm just saying that they didn't go deeper than Nietzsche. They mostly extrapolated further on points he already made.

>>16932268
>>Holderlin
>literally whomst
/:

Whom Nietzsche said "was the first to recognise the Dionysian" in Greece. He's lucky in being one of the few enormously influential people for Nietzsche that he wouldn't later trashtalk to pretend they didn't have an influence on him. I understand Nietzsche's need to clear away the past, to create the new, but he was undoubtedly not rejecting them for purely noble reasons of philosophy. I.e., he's not the only thinker to ever live anon and not the only "great" thinker either.

>>16932023
The Genealogy of Morality ironically subtitled "A Polemic")is probably Nietzche's most respectable and most coherent philosophical work, and in it he shows a different side which if he maintained probably would have improved his reputation as a philosopher in my eyes. Considered by himself as a minor work, it is instead his most systematic and rigorous project.

Nietzche was perhaps the first thinker to truly appreciate the ramifications of Darwin's work the study of ethics and morality. Traditional ethics views it as stemming from "on high" from lofty and principled origins. Nietzche instead views morality as an extension of animal nature. At the same time it can't get away from his typical aggressive, intellectually fearless and push approach. It lacks the academic safeness and politeness of a more formal text. It has teeth, it has balls.

Hegel was the end. Nietzsche and the rest are desperate attempts to crawl out of the singularity created by the German idealists. The only way is through.

>>16932310
>Of course, but they still didn't continue his philosophy, because they couldn't. Nietzsche was still out of their depth.
Yes, Nietzsche is more important, but if they met they would meet as equals. He was not "out of their depth", and they didn't continue his philosophy because they had their own. They're own individual philosophies.

>Yet another thing I didn't say. I'm not saying they're not good. I'm just saying that they didn't go deeper than Nietzsche. They mostly extrapolated further on points he already made.
You said the best of their stuff came from Nietzsche, you are stripping them of all merit in hopes that you can see them prostrate before Nietzsche. Again, yes, Nietzsche is more important than Spengler and Schmitt, but they are easily great thinkers on their own, and went much further than Nietzsche in their respective focuses. With Spengler, history, and Schmitt politics (obviously it's just a summarisation). Saying they "mostly extrapolated on points he already made" is ridiculous.

Also, Heidegger is easily an equal to Nietzsche, if not more important.

>>16932327
>Nietzche was perhaps the first thinker to truly appreciate the ramifications of Darwin's work the study of ethics and morality
No, that was Wagner.

>The redemption of woman into participation in the nature of man is the outcome of christian-Germanic evolution. The Greek remained in ignorance of the psychic process of the ennobling of woman to the rank of man, To him everything appeared under its direct, unmediated aspect,—woman to him was woman, and man was man; and thus at the point where his love to woman was satisfied in accordance with nature, arose the spiritual demand for man.
>Whereas the fall of human races lies before us plain as day, we see the other animal species preserved in greatest purity, except where man has meddled in their crossing: manifestly, because they know no 'marriage of convenience' with a view to goods and property. In fact they know no marriage at all; and if it is Marriage that raises man so far above the animal world, to highest evolution of his moral faculties, it is the abuse of marriage, for quite other ends, that is the ground of our decline below the beasts.
>It is here that the Woman herself is raised above the natural law of sex (das natürliche Gattungsgesetz), to which, in the belief of even the wisest lawgivers, she remained so bound that the Buddha himself thought needful to exclude her from the possibility of saint-hood. It is a beautiful feature in the legend, that shews the Perfect Overcomer prompted to admit the Woman.

>>16932338
Look, I'm not discounting them as thinkers or saying they were 100% unoriginal, just saying that they don't disprove OP's claim that Nietzsche is the "non plus ultra" of European philosophy, because their philosophies were not as deep as Nietzsche's, so they don't penetrate the big problems as deeply.

>Also, Heidegger is easily an equal to Nietzsche, if not more important.
Not one idea of Heidegger's is more complex and important than Nietzsche's will to power.

>>16932362
>Not one idea of Heidegger's is more complex and important than Nietzsche's will to power.
Not the Seinsfrage? Not Dasein? Not on Language? Not on art? Not dwelling?

You're unironically stuck in an echochamber of your own particular Nietzscheanism. Just take that Heidegger used Nietzsche to his own ends, and heavily critiqued him.

>>16932336
hegel was a charlatan

>>16932410
>Not the Seinsfrage? Not Dasein? Not on Language? Not on art? Not dwelling?
Lol, no.

>>16932470
>t. barely knows who Heidegger is

>>16932543
No idea why you would think that, but at any rate, will to power is an idea that encompasses all of those because it was an idea intended to be applied to nothing less than life itself. It's so complex that Nietzsche never got around to directly explaining it because attempting to do so risks convoluting it, so it can only be understood indirectly in his writing. No other philosopher has had such a comprehensive idea. I know you seem to want to bring down Nietzsche's authority in the canon but he possesses it for a reason.

>>16932599
>No other philosopher has had such a comprehensive idea.
Yes he has, it's called the Seinsfrage, you know, the question of being itself? Heidegger critiqued Nietzsche's will to power, and whether you agree with Nietzsche or Heidegger's critique of it, it's still a particular phrasing of the question of being. Heidegger ultimately subsumes the question of the "will to power"(because it is a question, being philosophy, in the same way Plato's whole Parmenides is the formation of a question; if it were not a question as you say yourself, Nietzsche would not feel the need to not risk convoluting it) in critiquing Nietzsche making the same mistake as Schopenhauer, by mistaking the will, for what is in essence the Absolute.

>>16932362
Freudian pleasure principle > will to power

>>16931643
>Look at what followed: nothing but deranged psychologists and fraudulent philosophers infatuated with linguistics and prepositional logic. No one has been able to take up the reins he dropped when he died.
huh no, Nietzsche was part of the deranged.
''there are no facts, only interpretations'', ie the birth of nihilism.
Then the birth of postmodernism by our guy Nietzsche with the cope of the uberman and its ''creation of won values'' to feel self righteous, because FUCK THE HERD
THis is why all liberals today like him and want to play dionysius.

The uberman is nothing but the hedonist deluding himself that he is the righteous Dionysus and by setting his likes and dislikes as his new gods.

>>16931643
>It's all been pseudo-philosophy and thinly disguised political agitation for 120 years running
It's been like this since the academia ,ie plato. You are a philistine, an atheist.

>>16931643
What do you about Nietzche?

>>16931643
that’s the point of his work. he prophesized the end. he knew it was ever and it shook him to the core.
>‘nonono what have we done?!’

he broke down and sought consolidation in the warm embrace of a horse mane because of it.

threads like this made me realize just how retarded this board is

>>16932896
nah, it was the syphilis that he contracted on the bugchasing spree that ensued after he got cucked by Salome that caused his brain mush.

>>16933416
go cry on your diary pages, desu.
here’s your (you), now shush.

>>16933416
This. They’re literally just arguing back and forth about who their favourite philosopher is, like /tv/ plebs arguing about superheroes. The obsession with “originality” is very fucking strange also. Philosophy is not poetry or music, it’s a discipline meant to get us to the truth, so originality is not a virtue in philosophy.

>>16932896
“Lou von Salomé met Paul Rée in Italy, and the two quickly became sexually involved. Nietzsche joined the two in May 1882 (on some accounts, their first meeting was late April of that year). He was invited by both Paul Rée to meet this bright young Russian woman, whom Rée thought to be close to Nietzsche philosophically. That the two quickly found each other’s company of interest is certainly true, as is evident in their letters to one another (some letters are below). At any rate, the three – Rée, Nietzsche and Salomé – (strictly speaking, it was four, as Salomé’s mother accompanied them) roamed Italy making plans for the winter. At this time Nietzsche proposed to marry Salomé twice (some sources claim he did so three times), first asking Rée to do this on his behalf; and again, when he realised Rée to be his competition, and after they spent some time alone at Lake Orta, Nietzsche proposed to her in Lucerne (Luzern). He was, according to Salomé, desperately smitten with love, but these feelings were not mutual.”

>During the April 1, 1908, meeting of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, Paul Federn claimed, that Nietzsche had lived a homosexual life for a period during the latter half of the 1880s and contracted his lues [syphilis] in a homosexual bordello in Genoa. The acquisition of the infection from a homosexual brothel was confirmed by Sigmund Freud, who cited Otto Binswanger as his source.”

>”Nietzsche's homosexuality was widely known in the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, with Nietzsche's close friend Paul Deussen claiming that "he was a man who had never touched a woman."”

>Gradually it has become clear to me,'' Nietzsche wrote in 1887, ''what every philosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir.”

>Turin, January 1888—a dreary month, even in Italy. Candida Pino is doing her rounds of the inn she keeps with her husband, Davide. She hears odd noises coming from the room of one of her lodgers. She knows she shouldn’t, but curiosity gets the best of her—she leans down and peers into the keyhole. Inside, she sees a naked man prancing around in a state of rapturous ecstasy. Who is this wild dancer? You know him as the guy who said “God is dead.”

So the whole Superman thing was a failed cope?

>>16931643
Junger has. Read 'the worker', 'on pain' and 'copse 125'

>>16932729
>the question of being itself
Will to power covers that, and without metaphysical nonsense like the Absolute which only serves to convolute it.

>>16933556
oh wow who ever though, i never expected this from a guy who wrote "gay science" "ecce homo"

>>16933556
any philosophy is escapism

this is the academia is so big in atheist democracy

>>16931643
No it actually ended with Heidegger. Postmodernism was about cooing with the implications of Nietzsche

>>16933461
>>16933556
Why can Christians only "argue" with petty slanderous ad hominems like these? Could it be that Nietzsche was right about them?

>>16931643
Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Adorno, Horkheimer, Sloterdijk. Nietzsche didn't kill anything and never intended to.

>>16931643
>Jaspers
>Heidegger

>>16931893
Name one point at which N delved into ontology in a manner similar to B&T. I like N, don't get me wrong but he's not the end of philosophy because he didn't really articulate an opinion on most of it.

>>16932410
>Not the Seinsfrage? Not Dasein? Not on Language? Not on art? Not dwelling?
What consequence are any of these to how people live their lives?

>>16934403
>Will to power covers that, and without metaphysical nonsense like the Absolute which only serves to convolute it.
>without metaphysical
You're a N fan and aren't aware that will to power is panexperiential?

>>16934919
He does that all the time, albeit in short bursts in the form of an aphorism here or there or even an implication within a statement. He doesn't address it in the same manner as B&T, but he addresses it in a deeper manner because his idea is deeper. Will to power is ontological and he derives the natural from it, and consequently the metaphysical, aesthetic, moral, and ethical from it.

>>16934957
There's metaphysics, and then there's "metaphysical nonsense" aka idealism that isn't based on anything.

'Nec plus ultra' or 'non plus ultra'?