/lit/ - Literature

>refute
A concept that only matters to last men

Terence says "I am a man; nothing human is alien to me." Nietzsche's overman is a man who exceeds this definition, trailblazing unassailable paths whilst refuters argue if it can or should be done. A schism of definition apparent only to those who have it, like The Shining.

>>17155591
Will to Power is self refuting. If Will to Power is the main driving force in the world and not the intellect's apprehension or directedness towards truth, then there is no way to assert Will to Power as coherent.

>>17155863
power is that which gives truth because power is immediate and undeniable. You cannot question if someone breaks your arm, if they have the power to do it and do it then that's the truth.

>>17155863
Will to power isn't supposed to be "coherent," since coherence here means comprehensible to humans. You're trying to anthropomorphize something that isn't anthropomorphic.

>>17155900
There is no coherence in any other sense other than by being comprehensible to humans. If Will to Power is not comprehensible to humans, it is again self-refuted by the same fact that one cannot even assert it due to its incomprehensibility. Indeed, one is struck by the fact that there is no reason to assert Will to Power over any other formulation of "Will". And seeing that this has precisely happened historically (Will to Life, Will to Power, Will to Pleasure, Will to Meaning) only confirms our thesis. In this case Will to Power cannot be true as a "main driving force in the world", it is a fiction or an aesthetic choice at best.

>>17155986
>There is no coherence in any other sense other than by being comprehensible to humans.
Right, which is why will to power isn't supposed to be "coherent." It is a term for something that isn't comprehensible to humans.

>If Will to Power is not comprehensible to humans, it is again self-refuted by the same fact that one cannot even assert it due to its incomprehensibility.
Think of it like God. God can only be understood through negation, no? Same with the will to power, except the will to power as a concept asserts everything in the opposite fashion to what God as a concept asserts about the known universe.

>>17155891
>power is that which gives truth because power is immediate and undeniable.

There is no power in 1+1=2, yet it is a truth.

>>17155863
you haven’t read nietzsche have you

>>17155845
What are you talking about?

Nietzsche overman isn't some kind of transhuman. So even if this overman is trailblaizing new paths, in essence these paths are still all too human because it is a human who is walking these paths.

Therefore, It doesn't, and cannot, contradict what Terence said in any meaningful way.

>>17156000
>God can only be understood through negation, no?

No, God's existence can be understood through the use of intellect and reason. Unlike Will to Power. Will to Power is a more nebulous term than God.

>>17156024
Nietzsche fanboys say this everytime their incoherent self-negating midwit philosophers gets destroyed.

y-y-you just didn't understand...it's incomprehensible, above, beyond, the terrible fate! ahhh, roarrrr, who can look into the abyss?!

>>17156033
>No, God's existence can be understood through the use of intellect and reason.
You are full of shit, because the Bible is full of parable rather than direct information, and apophatic theology is a thing. Not to mention, Christians always say "God works in mysterious ways" once their intellect and reason stops helping them out.

What is the overman supposed to do?

>>17156110
Become Napoleon 2.0

>>17156069
>>17156069
>the Bible is full of parable rather than direct information
it doesn't follow from this that one cannot understand the existence of God through the use of intellect and reason. but even this mistake aside, there is a large tradition of theology and philosophy in the Church that specifies precisely that God's existence can be understood through the use of our natural faculties. of course what can be known purely from our natural reason comes far from exhausting what God is.

>>17156069
>apophatic theology is a thing.
you do realize the term "apopathic theology" is one side of the coin, the other being cataphatic theology?

>>17156069
>Christians always say "God works in mysterious ways" once their intellect and reason stops helping them out.
There is a limit in what can be known about God from pure natural faculties, the other side of the equation is Divine Revelation. but even with Divine Revelation and natural faculties together it is impossible to understand God completely and this can be known purely from our natural reason - it is obvious that infinite cannot be exhausted by finite.

>>17156118
>There is a limit in what can be known about God from pure natural faculties
Which is to say that God is not comprehensible to humans. The effects of will to power can be observed and understood as well, meaning that certain things about it can be understood, and certain things can't be, just like God.

>>17156143
>Which is to say that God is not comprehensible to humans.
That doesn't follow. God's existence is comprehensible to humans through natural faculties.

Will to Power overrides intellectual reason, positing that Will to Power is beyond being apprehended to human beings through their use of intellect. This was also your position in >>17155900
>Will to power isn't supposed to be "coherent," since coherence here means comprehensible to humans.

But if Will to Power is not comprehensible to humans through their use of intellect (unlike God), then it has no grounds that one should posit it at all. It makes it entirely fictional/virtual.

>>17156293
>God's existence is comprehensible to humans through natural faculties.
>it is impossible to understand God completely and this can be known purely from our natural reason - it is obvious that infinite cannot be exhausted by finite.
Pick only one. Or, stop being so obtuse and realize that this is precisely my point about the will to power.

>>17156110
Shape the universe to his will.

>>17156293
>But if Will to Power is not comprehensible to humans through their use of intellect (unlike God), then it has no grounds that one should posit it at all. It makes it entirely fictional/virtual.

On the other hand if Will to Power can be comprehensible through the use of intellect, then it is also self-refuting because it means the verification of Will to Power is dependant on and comes from reason and hence Will to Power cannot in fact be the main driving force in humans, seeing as the very act of positing it is subservient to the use of intellect. Which again makes it self-refuting.

>>17155591
Dostoevsky refuted this child :)
deutsch men cant fuck

>>17156319
This is not obtuse at all, except perhaps to idiots (I've got no nicer way of putting this). God's existence is comprehensible through pure natural reason alone, God qua God as He is, is not entirely available to natural reason.

One cannot apply this to to the concept of Will to Power because the intellect is prior to any Will which merely proceeds from it. Will to Power is thus in a state of collapse, it is either incomprehensible and thus unable to be posited in the first place, or has to take a backseat to the primacy of intellect, in which case one cannot say that the Will to Power is superior to the intellect as the main driving force in humans.

Wrote my MA thesis on Neetsch. These threads are so fucking embarrassing. Wish at least /lit/ wasn't anonymous so you could collectively shame and ignore all the low-IQ posters.

>>17156348
Will to power is not self-refuting any more than quantum physics is. You're just (obstinately) still trying to interpret it from the angle of classical physics / metaphysics, which is why it appears that way to you.

>>17156383
>God's existence is comprehensible through pure natural reason alone, God qua God as He is, is not entirely available to natural reason.
Replace "God" here with will to power and this was my point from the start albeit phrased differently. The reason why incoherence isn't a refutation of the will to power is because will to power as a term refers to something that is non-anthropomorphic. You're not going to understand it completely because you're only human. Its existence can still be intuited and sensed. Nietzsche's corpus is founded on the intuition and sense of it.

>>17156416
Sunk-cost fallacy

fyi even when you pursue dead ends for a long time, it's not always a sunk cost, you could turn it into something positive

>>17155863
What if the Will to Power drives a man toward a pursuit of the truth?

>>17156517
N acknowledges that this is possible, except 'truth' doesn't exist if the Will to Power is a sensical principle.

>>17156553
Why should you believe anything some rando german with 0 real life experience preached lmao
you are a cultist

>>17156441
>Replace "God" here with will to power and this was my point from the start albeit phrased differently.

I just told you why you can't in >>17156383

The only way you can replace it is if you claim that Will to Power does not have any claims to primacy as a driving force in humans. If instead it does make that claim then you are left with two positions:
1. if it is incomprehensible to reason, then it is self-refuting. one can posit any "Will to x"
2. if it is comprehensible to reason, then its formulation comes from the intellect and its primacy is demonstrated through the intellect. but one cannot demonstrate the primacy of any will over intellect, when the will proceeds from the intellect as a byproduct of it.

>>17156571
What?

>>17156574
Why can something lying outside of human understanding not be the primary driving force in humans?

>>17155591
>dude im right and everybody else dumb lol!!
why do retards take this deutsche tranny seriously?

>>17156574
Just to make it even clearer.

The first point means that Will to Power cannot claim to be a primary driving force in humans if it is incomprehensible, since anything other than Will to Power could claim to be.

The second point means that we have to use the intellect to construct Will to Power if it is comprehensible, in which case one cannot say that Will to Power is the primary driving force in humans, because the will is not prior to the intellect.

Will to Power can then only "exist" as a fiction, virtually. But if it has no reality and is merely a fiction, then one cannot say that it is the main driving force in humans.

If you however substitute Will to Power with God, the problem disappears.

Consider:
>The second point means that we have to use the intellect to construct God if it is comprehensible, in which case one cannot say that God is the primary driving force in humans, because the will is not prior to the intellect.

The last statement and the distinction between will and intellect becomes non-sensical. But if we believe in Will to Power, we cannot escape this predicament as voluntarists.

If we claim that Will to Power can come from an intellectualist position, then that is self-refuting because it collapses the Will to a lesser category, which collapses the primacy of Will to Power (or any Will). If we posit Will to Power from a voluntarist position, then the "Power" part of the assertion collapses, since it could be anything else and that in turn collapses "Power" (Will to Power as an identity) to a lesser category.

>>17155986
>>17155863
This is how lastmen argue, everyone

>>17156763
lastmen fucked your mom bro

>>17156571
>rando german with 0 real life experience preached lmao

If you are a man and live to middle age you have real life experience. What are you talking about?

>>17156714
It can, you just have to admit then that Will to Power has no grounds for asserting itself over anything else. Which makes speaking of it as "main driving force in humans" and similar incoherent. You can never make that claim in principle.

>>17156768
No they didnt because that would require Will to Power

>>17156818
>It can, you just have to admit then that Will to Power has no grounds for asserting itself over anything else.
Why? I can observe how the unconscious aspects of the body deeply correlate to and influence the formation of consciousness in said body. Will to power works like those unconscious aspects in an individual body, but for nature as a whole.

>>17156763
>>17156763
>This is how lastmen argue, everyone

Nah, it'd be even less intricate than that—like when people argue that Nietzsche was a nihilist or argue against his "God is Dead" statement without understanding the context.

Last men don't really understand logical argumentation, they mainly engage in emotional appeals (viz. "this feels good, therefore it is right"). You've probably seen the more complex version of this; i.e. "It would be really depressing if X were true, therefore X cannot be true."

>>17156763
Nietzsche is a very strong thinker overall, just wrong on some important issues. His rhetorical and artistical skills are high-end. He is the ultimate hero of a tragedy, one cannot help but wonder what tour de force he would be if he were actually correct when paired with his artistic and rhetorical powerhouse skills. But...wouldn't Nietzsche himself had wanted to go down as the highest being, the Greek tragic figure par-excellence?

yar

>>17156029
More human than human

>>17156892
Nietzsche's fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and metaphysics in general makes him think that he is not a nihilist, but his position inevitably collapses into nihilism. People are drawn to the character of his writing more than logical rigour.

>>17156892
>they mainly engage in emotional appeals (viz. "this feels good, therefore it is right"). You've probably seen the more complex version of this; i.e. "It would be really depressing if X were true, therefore X cannot be true."

This is the reaction of Nietzscheans when their prophet is shown to be utterly wrong. Then the only thing that remains are emotional appeals and the far-off mirage of an Ubermensch, which is appealing enough for impressionable midwits to disregard all reason and denounce the opponents for "not getting it" when the going gets tough. Although this is hardly exclusive to Nietzscheans to be honest.

>>17156029
> Nietzsche overman isn't some kind of transhuman

Yes it most definitely is.
“Man is something that shall be overcome. Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman — a rope over an abyss. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.”
- TSZ

>>17156416
What did you write about?

>>17155986
Will to Power is stronger than all those, because it isn't anthropocentric. Will to Life is, as Nietzsche said, a tautology.

>>17156110
Rescue us by immanent miracles

>>17156368
Dostoyevsky was one of Nietzsche's inspirations....IIRC he called him the greatest psychologist

>>17156938
In what sense is he wrong?

>OMG LE EPIC MANLY BLACK AND WHITE BIG MOUSTACHE MAN LE EPIC UBER MAN BACON WAFFLES MANLY!!!
why do people like this cuck?

>>17157114
this hasn't addressed anything. you can't just begin speaking about "Will to Power" as if its an actual thing. "it just is bro" relegates it to the realm of religion. now if you want to claim that WtP is religion, then sure, I don't have any problem with that, that's my position all along. although it obviously differs in the fact that one can prove God as supreme being with our faculties, while WtP is a purely fideist religion.

>>17157210
I miss being a teenager.

>>17157262
Only a teenager could think nietzche was anything more then some delusional unhappy syphilitic

>>17157272
>Only a teenager could think nietzche was anything more then some delusional unhappy syphilitic

It's nice that you've reduced his life, his works, and a century's worth of research and commentary on his works by various academics to just that. The destiny of noteworthy men is to have their works and deeds criticized by legions of nobodies. Many such cases. Sad!

>>17156011
If i have a twohanded axe and one hand on one side of my body and one hand on the other, then it's power to know i can use these two individual hands on a single twohanded axe to cut down my enemies.

>>17157197
Will to Power and slave morality are two cases that seem either partially (slave morality) or completely wrong (will to power).

>>17157310
7/10

>>17157324
If will to power is wrong, what is the driving force of evolution?

>>17155591
The Nietzschean "death of God" is the Bible's separation of wheat from chaff. When our culture had a metaphysical bedrock of Christian dogma, it was much like having training wheels. Now we don't have the training wheels anymore and each will manifest his metaphysical nature in its fullness. To each according to his needs, indeed. What Nietzsche fails to see is that this will be the biggest victory of the Christian God yet, people will precisely Will to believe in God beyond any bedrock whatsoever, it will be an act of faith purer than ever before, perhaps to be challenged only by the earliest Christians. The faith will emerge purer than ever, such is the love between the Christian and his Creator. New martyrs are at hand ready to rebuild our Church, to be more glorious than ever before. The Absolute will yet again be unveiled and in an even purer sense through this dialectic that culminates in New Jerusalem. A new Pentecost is at hand. Prepare the way for the Lord!

>>17157377
God

>>17157554
What is God striving towards?

>>17157247
You're delusional. You can't prove there is a God, and most certainly not that whatever God you happened to be indoctrinated with exists.
Also, the argument was not about arguing for the existence of Will to Power, you're being disingenuous. The argument you made, which I answered, was, and I quote: "there is no reason to assert Will to Power over any other formulation of "Will"".
The argument for Will to Power is made in reference to how the world works, what we know about it. Life is struggle, the eternal struggle between contraposed powers for resources. The argument is fundamentally based on drawing a lesson from what we have learned of physics and biology over the past centuries, of the mechanical nature of physics and the evolutionary nature of biology. Obviously, there will never be a "proof" for will to power, it is a philosophical concept, with far too far-reaching implications to be tested in any fundamental way. This does not relegate it to religion, however, only to philosophy, because it is still based on rational argument and observations of reality, and not on thoughtless adherence to handed tradition and self-protecting delusions.

>>17157324
Why?

>>17157546
The ravings of a madman

>>17157597
God doesn't strive, he has fullness in Himself. It is the Creation that strives and God who provides the gift of Grace.

>For the creation waits with eager longing for othe revealing of the sons of God.
>For we know that sthe whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as wwe wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

>>17157702
an incredibly correct madman

>>17157833
Can you stop posting your bullshit in Nietzsche threads

>>17157875
I'm only replying to questions.

>>17157833
>God doesn't strive
So then why evolution? Why do things change?
>because God
This isn't an answer, so don't try it again.

>>17157933
>So then why evolution? Why do things change?
They change insofar that they lead to the teleological end described in the post you are quoting.

>>17157987
So there are ~6500 species of Passeriformes for the purpose of leading to that teleological end?

>>17158000
Yes. But not only that the entire universe has that purpose.

>>17158024
>Yes.
Give scientific evidence demonstrating it.

>>17158036
>Give scientific evidence demonstrating it.

It might be time to read a basic philosophy of science book.

>>17158188
Good one! Now try adding something of substance to the conversation, otherwise, I have no choice but to conclude that what you're saying is no more than an interpretation of the matter, which immediately makes God no more plausible than will to power.

>>17158024
I don't believe in multiverse, but if it exists, you could make the argument that the infinite amount of other universes exist precisely for that reason, even if they consist of nothing at all. Vast, vast empty space and things completely removed from us by millions of light years. All of that exists for God's glory. And indeed, the entire universe, the entire history, the entire existence hinges on and converges on to the death of a 1st century carpenter that was born in Bethlehem to a certain Mary, grew up and worked in Nazareth under a certain Joseph's tutelage, was baptised by a certain John, preached across Galilee, appointed 12 of his followers, was convicted by Jews, executed by Romans, buried in a tomb, resurrected from the dead on the third day, commissioned his followers to spread the news to the nations and left for heaven to prepare the place for those who believe the news. His followers then went out and preached to the nations unto their violent death, except one who received a vision about end times. The rest is, as they say, history. We now only await the final consummation of things in history, the final unveiling of things as they are.

>>17155591
>>17155863
>>17155986
>>17156000
>>17156938
>>17157308
>>17157933

Why can't all threads be this based and engaging.
Thanks frens.

>>17158212
I don't think that you understand that science is "an interpretation of the matter" that cannot be confirmed non-circularly. Aquinas certainly made more logically sound arguments for God and existence as such than what materialism or scientism has to say about that matter.

>>17158280
>I don't think that you understand that science is "an interpretation of the matter" that cannot be confirmed non-circularly.
I understand it. I was trying to get you to admit this, because it's important for my argument — once your stance becomes an interpretation, it becomes possible to analyze that interpretation with another one.

If God is an interpretation, and will to power is an interpretation, then what is the underlying force which gives rise to both interpretations? God, will to power, or something else? Let's reason it out a little. Let's suppose that the answer is God. Why would God permit the existence of equally valid interpretations? Why would multiple contradictory interpretations emerge from God? What IS God then, and why is he doing this? On the other hand, with the will to power, this situation is very easy to clarify: there are multiple contradictory interpretations emerging from the will to power because the will to power is flux, energy, concentrating into "centers" all over the place, these "energy centers" producing their own interpretations for the purpose of... will to power. A particular interpretation emerges for the purpose of the will to power in a particular concentration of energy within the flux. There's an explanation for the situation in the will to power — what's the explanation in God though? God is creating different organisms, each with their own interpretation, some of them rendering God an impossible or unnecessary concept, without the organic components needed for an interpretation which renders God possible and necessary (what is God to a passerine?), but why? Are we really to believe that these birds will eventually evolve into humans, specifically the ones that read the Bible and believe in God? Or have some species evolved in directions that are doomed to never "know the truth" or go to hell, an evolution which God himself provided the foundation for?

1/2

>>17158477
Through the interpretation of God, the hierarchy of organisms appears to be based on who is the closest to a particular organic structure, that of the homo sapiens who reads the Bible and believes in God. With this hierarchy in mind, evolution appears to be a mess. There appears to be no rhyme or reason for why there are ~6500 species of Passeriformes. Why so many, when the goal is a specific organic structure, and how are these species ranked within this hierarchy? Can it even be measured as to which ones are "closer" to evolving into that particular breed of homo sapiens? Why did so many organisms evolve AWAY from the homo sapiens at all? Billions of years of this so-called "misdirection" has been occurring — God either has quite a sadistic sense of humor, or he has no idea what he's doing. Meanwhile, through the interpretation of the will to power, the hierarchy of organisms appears to be based on who is capable of willing themselves towards more power than another, i.e., who possesses more power. There's no question as to why there are so many species, because everything is simply growing in the direction of whatever benefits them in the moment, with the results being generally unforeseeable and unpredictable throughout most of history, resulting in all kinds of different organic structures with their own instincts and sense organs and interpretations. It even factors in the interpretation of God: that interpretation exists because there is a breed of homo sapiens that finds it beneficial to their will to power to believe in it.

My point is this: when what we are dealing with is different interpretations, then the metric for which we measure their validity necessarily becomes something other than truth. The truth is not a concern in such a matter at all, and can't be the metric. One interpretation being "more valid" than another must be based on another principle. But, if God, i.e. truth and reason, are themselves interpretations, then God can't be used to explain them, otherwise that would be a pointless tautology (unless God means something else, in which case, feel free to define God another way). Right now, the prevailing interpretation appears to be the will to power.

2/2

>>17158477
>Why would God permit the existence of equally valid interpretations?
There are no equally valid interpretations. That's just your conjecture drawn out of thin air.

>>17158477
>Why would multiple contradictory interpretations emerge from God? What IS God then, and why is he doing this?
They don't emerge from God, they emerge from you. When you are presented with rational arguments and choose to ignore them because you want to believe in an inferior theory so badly, it is your choice to do so. This has to be a possibility, otherwise free will would not be possible.

>>17158547
If they aren't equally valid, then one of them could be scientifically demonstrated. Neither can be. In fact, experiments such as the double slit experiment and those of the Copenhagen group end in the conclusion that science can be used to demonstrate anything, because measurements are produced by the one doing the measuring.

>>17158575
>then one of them could be scientifically demonstrated

Scientific method isn't the ultimate standard of truth. It's a simple crude tool, that can't verify itself outside its scientific domain.

>>17158593
Then how do you plan to argue that only your interpretation is truthful?

>>17156011
>hasn't even read 1984
2+2=5

>>17158600
My interpretation is that it is difficult, in fact outright impossible, to judge Nietzsche's WtP as being more explanatory about our existence than classical arguments for God. This is easily shown because Nietzschean WtP is evidently self-refuting as is obvious to anyone who can use reason, while none of Aquinas arguments are self-refuting. So already I am correct.

>no moral value is objectively superior!
>btw, everyone should become an ubermensch ;)
This kills the nietzsche

>>17156011
>There is no power in 1+1=2
Consistency is POWER.
Truth is a buzzword.

>>17157546
You can't "will" yourself into believing in God. Either He gives you the grace of faith or He doesn't.

If you don't believe, all you can do is be sincerely open to the idea that He's actually real, that He is what He's revealed to be by the Bible and then, on your knees, ask that He reveal Himself to you in your life in some way you'll comprehend, ask for faith, ask for the grace of faith and ask that He is present with you whilst you receive this grace. All you can do is take that blind leap. God will do the rest. And hey, if nothing happened, it's not like you lost anything. The prayer wasn't even a minute.

>>17156416
>I-I wrote an essay and got a pat on the head

Poast fizeek virgin

>>17158792
>he
what?

>>17158507
Bravo

>>17158663
>My interpretation is that it is difficult, in fact outright impossible, to judge Nietzsche's WtP as being more explanatory about our existence than classical arguments for God.
But it is an interpretation, and right now God isn't providing a strong argument as to why God is just an interpretation.

>This is easily shown because Nietzschean WtP is evidently self-refuting as is obvious to anyone who can use reason, while none of Aquinas arguments are self-refuting.
Nothing in this thread has shown that will to power is "self-refuting," especially once you've understood it as I used it here >>17158477 >>17158507

>>17158911
as to why God isn't just an interpretation*

No offense but you don't seem to have any clue what you are talking about. Nietzsche also wouldn't accept any appeal to scientific method as a condition for judging metaphysical truth.

>>17158675
>>btw, everyone should become an ubermensch
He never said that

>>17156011
Very succinct, good post

>>17158663
It's not self-refuting you coping mongoloid

>>17155591
Then, bridging to The Second Sex,
you are "having your transcendence, lapsing into your imminence" which in-itself is self-defeating, as there is no way to relinquish knowledge that you already have - you can deceive yourself, which is what the so-called Last Man is doing, but he cannot lie to himself.
Because it is an impossibility to truly become the Last Man in good-faith (or, rather, you become the last man in good-faith precisely because you a so mired in bad-faith - you are authentically inauthentic), and any attempt at becoming him (as with trying to become anything else) is being in bad-faith, this course of action will have to be dismissed.

>>17156011
>there's no power in being able to count or do arithmetic

>>17159008
then why did this stupid caveman climb down his fucking mountain to teach people about the uberman, and weep like a fag when plebs wouldn't chose to become one?

>>17159066
He taught that the overman is the meaning of the earth, not that everyone should become the overman. You can't become the overman.

>>17158792
Can you believe this absolute babble
We're talking about the GOAT and this religious miscreant keeps spouting his nonsense. I hope the jannies start banning them for derailing

>>17159076
>You can't become the overman.
oh yeah?
watch me-