/lit/ - Literature

>>17197514
Killing the "I" and becoming one with god is just a bigger ego you retarded fuck
All you niggas need to read Lacan and stop posting mystic bullshit

>ENÉSIMO HILO RE NIETZSCHE DE EL DÍA.


...

>>17197526
>All you niggas need to read Lacan and stop posting mystic bullshit
Lacan is mystical as fuck though. His concepts are literally taken from the Christian tradition. Serves Freud, the atheist "scientist", right for being such a weirdo.

>>17197514
You are aware that there is no metaphysical ego in Nietzsche, right? He might've been an egoist in some sense, but both will to power and perspectivism meant a plurality of competing drives trying to take control and declare themselves "the individual". Nietzsche falling into madness due to his brain tumor is just a basic material proof of the risk we all constantly carry no matter how individual we feel. And as the other poster said, Ego death is just as much of an illusion.

>>17197545
>Ego death is just as much of an illusion.
Exactly, I'm not saying Hinduism and Buddhism doesn't have value, but its better to stay honest and say we are detatching from our normal ego to identify with the "bigger ego" "Our real selves" or any other name you want to call it, but calling it god is wrong in every fucking sense

>This debunks his whole philosophy.
Boltzmann killed himself, therefore there’s no entropy

>>17197514
Or his mind was physically decaying

>>17197562
oh well thanks god

>>17197545
>>17197555
Given the context here, I'm assuming the "illusion" you refer to is the "world of representation" ala Schopenhauer or "maya" both of which Nietzsche seemed to build off from for the most part, in which case it is completely nonsensical to claim that "ego death" is just as much an illusion as anything else. p
Perceptions/ representations/ illusions are objectified manifestations of will by/ in/ of the ego... Schopenhauer's whole justification of asceticism and Nietzsche's ubermensch was through the transcendence of ego. To go beyond good and evil is to go beyond the confines of ego.

But why bother with the philosophy of it all when the very experience of ego loss, if just for a few moments from time to time, is easily attainable...

>>17197526
Ok, and?

>>17197562
>>17197638
Kek.

But by Nietzsche's own standards ("But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all?") we shouldn't hesitate to consider the author when criticizing, it's just that these memes about Nietzsche aren't intelligent worthwhile criticisms, shocking as that might sound.

>>17197671
Nothing, I just want people to stay honest and use correct terminology

>>17197659
>Nietzsche's ubermensch was through the transcendence of ego.
No lmao, actually go read him before saying this
In Zarathustra he clearly claims that the highest a human being can achieve is ti love the ego in all its manifrstations, both in its worst and best moments.
Transcending the ego is exactly the polar opposite of Nietzsches entire philosophy

>>17197659
Well yes, but also no. It's why Nietzsche is considered a precursor to postmodernism. He's under no illusion that the ego can be transcended truly in favor of some ultimate truth, unless that truth is just that there is a plurality of conflicting unconscious forces always trying to state what the truth is based on their own image. The Ubermensch is just the right balance of these forces, not denying sensuality yet not being enslaved by it, not denying truth yet not being naive about it, etc. And of course it involves a constant "self awareness" of the production of every thought based on the unconscious forces that it is connected to, which puts it in line nicely with today's mainstream psychology for example.

>>17197692
>In Zarathustra he clearly claims that the highest a human being can achieve is ti love the ego in all its manifrstations, both in its worst and best moments.
That's just the affirmation part, but it's pretty clear from everything else Nietzsche wrote that there's also a differentiating part where drives are at odds with one another so you cannot truly affirm all of them except maybe in the sense of acknowledgement. He goes on and on about how raw energies must be transformed and redirected rather than denied, but I don't think he'd like us to act as schizos pushed and pulled in every direction by every whim.

>>17197701
>And of course it involves a constant "self awareness" of the production of every thought based on the unconscious forces that it is connected to,

That sounds like meditation to me. What comes after that self awareness tough? (I never read him so I'm genuinely asking)

>>17197712
>but I don't think he'd like us to act as schizos pushed and pulled in every direction by every whim.
You sure? Thats what happened to him ahahahah

>>17197514
True, becoming yourself is losing yourself. Attaching yourself to a transitory ego instead of that which perceives all change is a mistake. This doesn’t mean that you reject the world, it means that you overcome it. It is a double-life.

>>17197716
>What comes after that self awareness tough?
The balancing part where the drives and their perspectivism are kept in check without being denied. Perspectivism basically means that every drive paints the world in its own image whenever it takes control, from simple things like being unable to think of anything other than food when hungry to depression causing the entire world to lose all meaning and potential joy.

Of course balancing shouldn't mean the hedonistic calculation of the "last man", who's content with a filled belly and a restful slumber, but rather the excess of the philosopher artist who takes the drives to their limits, ideally without letting that destroy him, but that's not always an option in life. It's a constant struggle, but so is life so there's no simple recipe.

>>17197514
Actually, I've been through this myself. Severe depersonalization. I'd look at myself in the mirror in high school during recess and not know myself.
I unironically was really heavy into meditation back then, and the whole killing the ego thing. Which is what got me to that point to beging with.
The only thing that worked?
Well after years of taking medication and seeing shrhinks/psychologists.

The only thing that truly worked for me was exercising, meeting girls/having sex and focusing on my careers. The more you try to move away from the basic primal things that make us human, the more you'll get close to the point of becoming like Nietszche

>>17197677
Bigger ego, smaller god, same difference.

>>17197747
>The more you try to move away from the basic primal things that make us human, the more you'll get close to the point of becoming like Nietszche
Thanks for the advice, OP

>>17197723
>You sure? Thats what happened to him ahahahah
And he was pretty happy (or rather manic) about it too, but I doubt that a lucid Nietzsche would say that that's desirable. I'm not downplaying his Dionysian side, but it's a bit like giving someone cocaine and calling it art. There's a bit more to drives than the ecstasy that accompanies some of them.

>>17197747
>The only thing that truly worked for me was exercising, meeting girls/having sex and focusing on my careers. The more you try to move away from the basic primal things that make us human, the more you'll get close to the point of becoming like Nietszche
I guess I'm destined to go mad because I sure as hell won't end up a disgusting normal fag.

>>17197514
Nietzsche was spot on in identifying every problem with modernity and Europe but I will never understand how his solution was just for people to look more inward and live more for their own ego and values. Had he believed in God and recognized how weak the human ego naturally is, history would be a lot different today

>>17197747
>Severe depersonalization. I'd look at myself in the mirror in high school during recess and not know myself.
All things must be done in moderation anon, no wonder you went crazy. Thats like destroying every base of stability you have which will only make you schizophrenic

>>17197747
>The only thing that truly worked for me was exercising, meeting girls/having sex and focusing on my careers
Imagine being this much of a cuck

>>17197781
Nietzsche was well aware of how powerful a real religious conviction can be and that no amount of secular "reasonable" negotiation can substitute it, which plays a role in his anti-hedonistic philosopher-artist approach (he rejected hedonism as a calculation of pleasure and pain, not sensuality as such). I believe that he was also right about the Death of God as a cultural and social phenomenon though, I don't understand how some people can prescribe belief in God as if they're giving out Yoga instructors' business cards.

>>17197766
>I guess I'm destined to go mad because I sure as hell won't end up a disgusting normal fag.
Do as you feel, I used to be like you and I learned my lesson. Maybe you need to go through it aswell

>>17197747
You were too weak. Identifying yourself with “I” while knowing that such a thing is merely a construction of language and not reality is no different than believing in Christianity.

>>17197786
Yeah, imagine taking care of your physical body, having a social life and going after your goals instead of seeking escapism with philosophies that led the same people that came up with it to end up going mentally insane
You go ahead and suck in all that pseudo intellectual pride, I'll be a cuck.
>>17197783
What are you even talking about, all I did was meditate a lot that's it

>>17197838
Well, to be fair, none of the things you mentioned necessarily go against what Nietzsche believed, it's more about the way you said it.

>“Sit as little as possible; give credence to no thought that is not born in the open air and accompanied by free movement — in which the muscles do not also celebrate a feast.”

>>17197848
On the contrary, its not identifying with the I and having a strong identity that caused it, socializing, exercising, going after your goals anchors you and builds your sense of identity which protects you against depersonalization

you got it the wrong way around

>>17197854
>that led the same people that came up with it to end up going mentally insane
Well the brain tumor might've helped, but it also gave Nietzsche his ecstatic moments so it's probably a worthy trade off.

>>17197865
>its not identifying with the I and having a strong identity that caused it,
I didn’t say that it was. I would imagine that you would have to weaken the illusion to glimpse beyond it.
>socializing, exercising, going after your goals anchors you and builds your sense of identity which protects you against depersonalization
Anchors you to what? Are you an object to yourself?

>>17197877
>Well the brain tumor might've helped, but it also gave Nietzsche his ecstatic moments so it's probably a worthy trade off.
Probably not.
As someone that has gone through that for years, not really. You just feel like you can' think, nothing feels real, you are constantly detached like an outside viewer, even physical sensations feel abnormal or distorted, you are anxious 24/7 for no reason.

You might aswell kill yourself, I don't know how I managed myself sometimes

>>17197854
>Yeah, imagine taking care of your physical body, having a social life and going after your goals instead of seeking escapism with philosophies that led the same people that came up with it to end up going mentally insane
>You go ahead and suck in all that pseudo intellectual pride, I'll be a cuck.
Im calling you a cuck not because you follow those goals but because you ONLY follow those goals as means to happiness. Those things are crucial but if its where your scope ends than you're the same as the average cuck lying around

>>17197900
>ONLY follow those goals as means to happiness.
That's because those are the only goals that bring you meaning and a sense of identity. You clearly have a need to feel special and unique biasing your view on this

>>17197898
True, I was exaggerating a bit. I just meant that we might have gotten a very different Nietzsche (or maybe none at all) without all the suffering (and manic phases) that his illness involved.

>>17197926
I suppose yeah, suffering often brings the best in people

>>17197905
>That's because those are the only goals that bring you meaning and a sense of identity.
You can't be for real my nigga. How brainwashed have you become

>>17197975
You think there's meaning outside socializing, giving to your community, improving yourself and going after your goals?

There ins't, meditating won't stop you from requiring basic human behaviours to be fullfilled for you to experience meaning

>>17197989
You're clearly confusing yourself with everyone else.

>>17197989
>You think there's meaning outside socializing, giving to your community, improving yourself and going after your goals
The problem is that your goals are lackluster and bland as fuck, there are way more ambitious shit to do than "lets have drink with friends and fuck some bitches" lmao

>>17198023
Based

>>17197526
The empirical ego is not the Transcendental Ego. Read Husserl.

>>17198065
>The problem is that your goals are lackluster and bland as fuck, there are way more ambitious shit to do than "lets have drink with friends and fuck some bitches" lmao
You can't say that because you have no idea what my goals are, you are making assumptions based on whichever ever behaviour the chad that clearly cucked you off your high school teenage crush used to do/act
>>17198023
Not really, do you think meaning grows behind rocks?

>>17197905
>>17197989
All identity sprouts from definition, meaning from the entity which evaluates. Who is your definer and evaluater?

>>17198100
Biology is, you don't need to get complex on it. This is why Normies don't get existential anxiety, its not cause they are low IQ, its cause they are out socializing and actually doing the things humans are meant to do

I get you've built an identity based on thinking you are superior to others for being a reclusive person that hates socializing, but that's just the way things are

>>17197514

>>17198107
Remind me, what are humans meant to do?

>>17198119
Have a place to belong, or build one (Community)
Find a way to be useful to this community, a role (Purpose)
Find and build a family with a member of said community
Keeping yourself fit both mentally and physically to be there for your family and take your role as a father/mother

That's about it

>>17198134
I see you are already departing from the boundaries of biology, or is everything you've mentioned determined by some chemicals/neurons/genetic blueprints?

>>17198156
>everything you've mentioned determined by some chemicals/neurons/genetic blueprints?
Obviously, unless you are one of those people that can't handle of thought of that because they are afraid of death, and cope by fantasising about heaven or some stuff like that

Humans are under no obligation to be happy (in the usual meaning) and it's best to let go of that delusion.

>>17198178
.t asocial social reclusive schizo that has never even tried out of fear of rejection

>>17198189
Based Nietzschean

>>17197747
Rooting myself in materialism backfired immensely for me in my late 20s.

>>17198163
I'm afraid it is not so obvious to me, for I cannot see what in Biology tells us we should fill those roles in the community. In that regard, I find biology to be inadequate.

>>17198200
Define Materialism

>>17198205
>for I cannot see what in Biology tells us we should fill those roles in the community.
The fact that when you do you experience a sense of meaning, identity and purpose. There's no reason to believe these supposedly ''metaphysical'' are nothing but the biological manifestation to let you know that you are doing something healthy for the purpose of keeping you alive, at least at some basic level

Maybe it ins't, but beyond Science the rest is basically letting your mind go wild in a mental masturbation designed to satisfy you with vacuous answers that seem meaningful, but fall apart with circular logic upon further inspection.

>>17198163
If everything is biology then fucking explain qualia faggot

>>17198225
How is that even a difficult thing to do?
No one is the exact same, its not like people are copy and paste copies of the same software and hardware.
Individual variation at a biological level leads to qualia

>>17198238
>Individual variation at a biological level leads to qualia
What? How does variation at a biological level lead to qualia? How is it possible for electricity and protein to convert to a being that senses?

>>17198259
>What? How does variation at a biological level lead to qualia?
Because slightly difference changes in the organs behind perception, which are depending on your genetic blueprint and epigenetics is also going to lead to changes in perception, leading to the entire concept of qualia.
Think about it this way. You can buy a watch tower with many different materials, levels of complexity, technology..etc but at the end of the day the purpose of the tower remains the same regardless it was poorly built, or it is some state of the art one.
>How is it possible for electricity and protein to convert to a being that senses?
I don't think anyone knows yet, at least I don't, but that's what we know so far would lead you to conclude

>>17198280
Good enough answer but
>I don't think anyone knows yet, at least I don't, but that's what we know so far would lead you to conclude
This should be enough proof to not discard metaphysics

>>17198289
>This should be enough proof to not discard metaphysics
I fail to see how making shit up is a reasonable option, I guess if it helps you deal with anxiety or whatever, then go ahead.
I just say I don't know and leave it at that till I learn more

>>17198316
What the hell are you on about? This isn't a coping mechanism and I'm not disregarding your world view, I'm merely stating that with the proofs we have rn its important to leave some ambiguity
You have a fragile ego dude lol

>>17198330
What is the purpose of this ambiguity?
I just don't see how stating you magically know the answers based on nothing makes any sense at all

I am trying to understand your world view

>>17198342
>I just don't see how stating you magically know the answers based on nothing makes any sense at all
Where did I even state that? I dont have the fucking answers lmao

>>17197526
fucking retard

>>17198342
>I am trying to understand your world view

I mostly just believe that whatever is possible from the phenomenal point of view shouldnt be disregarded

>>17198217
You didn't answer my question, though I was admittedly obscure. Let me try to illustrate it this way. Imagine a racing competition; naturally this particular event will have a rulebook (for what kind of race doesn't have a rulebook?), and this rulebook will say a great many things. It will state that the race starts here and ends there, and it will say that the winner crosses the end line first, and that the loser crosses last. It may also state that there is prize money, trophies, women and all sorts of fancies for the winner, and that he will certainly experience that sense of meaning, identity and purpose. These things being the case, why should one wish to be a winner rather than a loser. Of what value is prize money, honour, sexual gratification, the 'sense' of meaning, identity and purpose to a competitor who only has a rule book to go by? For the rulebook only defines, but it does not evaluate nor does it moralise.

Likewise, biology and the empirical sciences define and legislate the mechanics of the universe, but they fail to direct it. The biologist can tell you all about life and death, that when so-and-so action is completed, a synapse fires in the brain, and that a contrary chemical is rescinded if the organism is unable to complete that action. But he can only say these things objectively, as things in themselves, isolated from everything else. A community, then, doesn't form itself under Biology and Science alone, but requires another discipline. That is why I call Biology inadequate, it only says 'You are alive' when I also need to hear whethor or not I ought to be alive.

>>17198368
>I mostly just believe that whatever is possible from the phenomenal point of view shouldnt be disregarded
Why is that?

>>17198374
>why should one wish to be a winner rather than a loser.
There is not really a choice on the matter, the same way it is every easy for someone to say, hate women on here then get an erection and want to have sex with them if the opportunity presented, or claim you will keep to your diet then end up choking on some burger when you get hungry
>That is why I call Biology inadequate, it only says 'You are alive' when I also need to hear whethor or not I ought to be alive.
>I also need to hear whethor or not I ought to be alive.
And why is that, and who is going to tell you? Another human like you that is as lost and clueless as the rest of us?

>>17198375
Because the phenomenal POV is just as important as others perspectives, if its possible it therefore exists, how it happens that these phenomena come to be should be left for science to explain, that I agrer with you, but, truth should serve us we shouldn't serve the truth (that I fully subscribe to the pragmatist philosophy)

Even if you're a Nietzsche fan he states in BG&E (or Zarathustra, I dont remember)
"A will to stupidity, sign of a strong character"

>>17197514
>fact about author's life debunks his philosophy
Go read

>>17197514
why did Nietzsche took so many poor life choices?
>went to war because hehe war (stupid)
>he wasn't even a citizen of the austrian empire
>could only participate as a nurse
>got syphilis from infected soldier blood, he didn't even fuck anyone
>the disease gave him insufferable pain for the whole life
>to diminish the pain he had to take various sort of drugs that later corroded his brain
>finally became a crazy lunatic from so much drugs
if he were more prudent like Schopenhauer he could suffer and cope less

>>17198451
>>got syphilis from infected soldier blood, he didn't even fuck anyone
Interesting baseless assumption, I must admit I never heard this version before.

>>17197749
Whatever is big enough to be beyond the concept of big would be God

>>17198398
>There is not really a choice on the matter, the same way it is every easy for someone to say, hate women on here then get an erection and want to have sex with them if the opportunity presented, or claim you will keep to your diet then end up choking on some burger when you get hungry
Your point?
>And why is that?
Because as it stands, the choice between fatherhood and inceldom, community and seclusion, the 'sense' of identity and depersonalisation disorder, life and death even, are of equal value - that is to say, they are lacking evaluation.
>who is going to tell you?
Well, you were the one who volunteered when I asked for meaning. When I asked what humans are meant to do, didn't you say they ought to build a community and be fathers? And I thought for a moment that you might have a clue. Do you think that is still the case?

>>17198342
Do you think rocks have feelings or are aware in any way?

>>17198463
>>17198398
>>17198342
>>17198316
>>17198280
>>17198163
>>17198134
>>17197989
Why can't you niggers just take everything in moderation. Depersonalization isn't a fucking disorder neither is identity if both of them aren't taken to the extreme. Its important to have an identity but have a little bit of skepticism towards it, thats how you grow as a person
The more I read these dumb ass replies the more I think Aristotle really solved ethics and everything after him is just philosophical masturbation

>>17198553
This is the way of mediocrity.

>>17197514
>a neurodegenerative disease disproves a philosophy
Anyway, what's the source on this other than Cioran? Never heard it before.

>>17198562
cringe and cope
Moderation is exactly the rarest thing to see in an individual and is the most sutainable towards personal growth. You're clearly 18 or have no life experience

>>17198553
Tell me about the growth of a person; is it an eternal recurrence or is there an end goal?

>>17198605
>is it an eternal recurrence or is there an end goal
who fucking knows and who fucking cares. You clearly have an intuitive drive towards a certain type of growth, and the most pragmatic and efficient way to reach it is through sustained moderation

>>17198620
For your information, Aristotle cared. He thought that all activies were justified by their end goal - medicine for health, education for knowledge and so on and so forth. He never permitted there be any infinite regress in his philosophy. Will you defy him, or are you going to tell me the end goal for growth?

>>17198259
>How does variation at a biological level lead to qualia? How is it possible for electricity and protein to convert to a being that senses?
Will to power, i.e., the system is driven to discharge what it has at its disposal in order to increase any feeling of power it can muster (which in turn is the catalyst behind entropy; all systems are dissipative). Evolution is motivated by something, otherwise it wouldn't occur, and this is the premise that makes the most sense.

>>17197514
Based, Buddha BTFO’s nietzsche

>>17198650
>Will you defy him, or are you going to tell me the end goal for growth?
I believe that if there is an end goal to growth its clearly not attainable in its entirety (people have unlimited desires and limited time), I'm merely focused on the process and not on the end goal (if there is one)

>>17198669
Since we are so fond of Aristotle, I will quote him saying 'where is the excellence in archery if the archer cannot even see his target'? Inevitably, in order to have a clearer and more insightful understanding on the process of growth, we must first know the end of growth, and then we can decide later if it is unnattainable and so on. It should not be an entirely difficult ordeal; we already know that the end goal is good, or is it not good?

>>17198756
It must be good, for we wouldn't pursue that which isn't good, except out of ignorance.

>>17198877
It being a good, it must be better then the person in his current state.

>>17198885
Yes, I suppose.

>>17198906
You said that the process of human growth was an intermediate between depersonalisation and identity. Do you still maintain that?

>>17198463
>Because as it stands, the choice between fatherhood and inceldom, community and seclusion, the 'sense' of identity and depersonalisation disorder, life and death even, are of equal value - that is to say, they are lacking evaluation.
Kek, so you think depersonalization and suffering is of equal value as having meaning. So basically according to you getting whipped in the back and getting a blowjob are basically the same.
Come on dude, Put the books down.
>Well, you were the one who volunteered when I asked for meaning. When I asked what humans are meant to do, didn't you say they ought to build a community and be fathers? And I thought for a moment that you might have a clue. Do you think that is still the case?
Your own biology, the same one that makes you heart race when you are about to get ran over even if you are a nihilistic emo that wants to off themselves

>>17198927
I do.

>>17198498
I don't know, although it seems unlikely
Do you believe duck turds compute mathematical problems?

>>17198933
Of course, when the person achieves his end goal, would he stop practicing that median virtue?

>>17197514
Reading biographies absolutely destroys most philosophies. A philosophy that does not result in any good in reality is a pointless abstraction at best, destructive and misleading at worst.
Nietzsche's personal life was an absolute mess.

>>17198979
This. Which renders 90% of Philosophy are complete garbage more dangerous and useful.

>>17198927
Its not the same anon responding, I said that

>>17198942
If rocks arent aware then what physical structure cause awareness and how does awareness emerge from mere inert matter?

>>17197545
>Lacan is mystical as fuck though. His concepts are literally taken from the Christian tradition
How? Which ones?

>>17198931
>So basically according to you getting whipped in the back and getting a blowjob are basically the same.
It is the fact that no one said anything which made these things equivalent. Big-brained concept, I know, but if you read more, then it would not be too difficult to grasp. Perhaps you would like to CLUE me in on what is preferable? Did you find your clue yet? I hope you recover your clue soon.
>Your own biology, the same one that makes you heart race when you are about to get ran over even if you are a nihilistic emo that wants to off themselves
As a rule, the racing heart cannot mean anything to the nihilist emo. Otherwise, he is not a nihilist.

>>17198979
>>17198988
Most philosophy isn't intended for layman use. It doesn't matter if their lives aren't the way you'd prefer yours to be, most of them still enjoy their lives and find the time to contemplate for thousands of hours and write thousands of pages on it.

>>17198955
I think so, but I'm not actually sure.

>you need to become an ubermech
>OH NO IS SOMEONE HITTING THAT HORSEYYY IM GOING INSANEEEEE

>>17198990
Bro, how can you even ask this. The answer is obviously the brain. Have rocks even shown signs of awareness to you? Jesus Christ
>>17199014
True, its not for laymen. Its for asocial schizophrenics high in neuroticism that insist in believing they are superior to others, and rejoice and puddle in their own sharts, pretending to be the Ubermensch while they slowly decay into a deeper level of existential anxiety until they finally off themselves.

>>17198994
I'll give you a hint, pic related.

There are plenty of others, but I haven't studied Lacan in ages so I don't remember them, other than Name of the Father which is an obvious one.

>>17198979
Not only that, but one has to remember that philosophers are also human and their experiences shape their works.
Nietzche was cucked by the christian mystic Rilke, which could have very well resulted in the whole "god is dead" ordeal and the birth of ressentiment.

>>17199046
How does the brain, a physical structure, create something called 'awareness'' which does not exist in other physical structures

>>17197838
>aswell
Why can't normies into english?

>>17199019
It's simple, really. We used the examples of medicine and education recently. As it turns out, once health and knowledge is achieved, then there is no one to medicate and educate - such activities cease. Likewise with growth, as our argument goes.

Can you tell what goal of a person's growth is yet?

>>17197701
Nietzsche did not believe in universal truth though. He believed that there are two forces: apollinian and dionysian. The apollinians believe in some kind of universality (metaphysics, morality, scientific truth, objectivity), while dionysians are true to themselves, they are shameless and egocentric if you will. They put their own creativity above conventional thought (plato would be apollinian and homer dionysian). He claims these values only have a negative connotation because of "slave morality" which emerged globally (in the west as christianity and in the east as buddhism). So nietzsche did not believe in absolute truths. My problem is understanding nietzsches distaste for the scientific method. I mean it produces working results...I really did not understand this part of "götzendämmerung". Can somebody offer an interpretation?

>>17199046
>Its for asocial schizophrenics high in neuroticism that insist in believing they are superior to others, and rejoice and puddle in their own sharts, pretending to be the Ubermensch while they slowly decay into a deeper level of existential anxiety until they finally off themselves.
Did a philosopher rape your mother, anon? Jesus.

>>17199046
>Bro, how can you even ask this. The answer is obviously the brain. Have rocks even shown signs of awareness to you? Jesus Christ
The only reason we can detect "consciousness" in other humans and animals is due to a posteriori perception and contrast against the behavior of the self. It's entirely possible rocks (or any particles for that matter) are aware and we simply don't have the means to detect it. Panpsychism is a real and quite strong philosophical position, it would also account for quantum non-determination and certain types of forces (which we believe are merely inherent tendencies rather than actions).

>>17199069
Cause I am bilingual
>>17199066
No one knows yet, and likely won't until we develop better tech and methods to study the human brain with Neuroscience. (Which is not permission for you to go make some shit up)

However, if you need some basic evidence awareness is created by the brain. Try cutting someone's head off and see if they are still exhibiting awareness.

>>17199080
No, I just derive pleasure from breaking down other's peoples cope fortresses
>>17199094
>are aware and we simply don't have the means to detect it
Cool, but we don't know yet so there's no point in believing it just cause it could be

>>17199098
Nobody exhibits awareness at all, you can't observe any awareness except your own. You can observe behavior

>>17199070
Well, there are two possibilities: If a person can no longer be skeptical about his identity, it is either because he has found an identity which is irrefutable, so to speak, or because he has no identity to be skeptical of. Basically, we started by saying that extremes were bad and disorderly, only to find out that they were what we've pursued all along, and called an ultimate good.

>>17199098
>No one knows yet, and likely won't until we develop better tech and methods to study the human brain with Neuroscience. (Which is not permission for you to go make some shit up)
t. has not read philosophy on theory of mind. Science cannot even in theory explain consciousness, only the quantitative aspects of it (such as mapping neural tendencies to subjective assertions of consciousness).

>>17199059
>Nietzche was cucked by the christian mystic Rilke, which could have very well resulted in the whole "god is dead" ordeal and the birth of ressentiment.
Didn't he write that before meeting Salome? Anyways, if a famous and rebellious intellectual couldn't pick up women then he must have had deep seated issues to begin with. Imagine how off putting the he must have been in person.

>>17199122
Don't bother with those kinds of assumptions, he thinks books are for nerds.

>>17199122
Yep, sounds like no one knows and some random ass theories scooped out some schizo's butthole ain't changing that either
If you want to believe, go ahead, I ain't your daddy
>>17199107
Whats your definition of awareness? Cause I'd suggest an animal recognising themselves in a mirror is exhibition of awareness.

>>17199105
>Cool, but we don't know yet so there's no point in believing it just cause it could be
We're never going to know for certain through either philosophy or science, at best philosophy can provide strong arguments. Pick your poison.

>>17198989
Oh well, do you find any flaws in what has been discussed up to this point?

>>17199147
Then why do you care about it, kek
I don't need to pick anything, I can literally just ignore it and move on with my life
I don't know dude, I've never found myself having an existential crisis based on whether or not I could figure out whether the fucking pebbles I step on are aware, it doesn't sound very healthy

>>17199105
>No, I just derive pleasure from breaking down other's peoples cope fortresses
Sounds like you need to take your meds.

>>17199144
Awareness literally encompasses everything for you, everything you have ever known has been known through you being aware. You cannot perceive this in other people, you cannot touch or measure or quantify other people's equivalent of your own subjective awareness.

An animal recognizing itself is behavior, it provides a reason for thinking the animal is aware of itself(awareness itself needn't be self-awareness), you cannot find in anything the animal does nor its brain its subjective awareness, that which encompasses and determines its and your entire reality.

>>17199171
There are no meds for that

>>17199168
You don't even care about this subject, you're just a midwit jerking themselves off for 'not coping'

>>17199079
I didn't mean to imply that he believed in some universal truth as such, but rather in some kind of non-totalizable truth (that has inherent contradictions so to speak), maybe I worded it weirdly.
Also, I wouldn't insist too much on the Apollonian-Dionysian distinction, the two often form all kinds of mixtures and bonds together and I believe Nietzsche eventually learned this as he moved on from the dualism (or transfigured it rather by introducing Ariadne and all that jazz).

>My problem is understanding nietzsches distaste for the scientific method. I mean it produces working results...
I think it has more to do with Scientism and reductionism than anything. Nietzsche was always focused on the truth of the illusion over "brute" truth ("Art is worth more than truth"). It's also in part because he opposed certain metaphysical systems of his day that tried to be scientific such as certain versions of Atomism.

>>17199180
True, glad you finally realised

>>17199168
How can you move on in your life without knowing what to move towards. You still haven't imparted your glorious clue onto me. I beg of you, I beg for the clue; what are humans supposed to do?

>>17199140
Would you date an ill weirdo that might even have Syphilis just because he was famous?

>>17199190
>I beg of you, I beg for the clue; what are humans supposed to do?
very poetic, anon.

>>17199190
>How can you move on in your life without knowing what to move towards. You still haven't imparted your glorious clue onto me. I beg of you, I beg for the clue; what are humans supposed to do?
Holy shit dude, what sort of brain damage or developmental issue do you have that you need some random cunt online to tell you what to do with your life?
What the fuck do you think you are going to do?
Exactly what the entire human population has tried to do to their best of their ability since it began. Create a community, belong, contribute to it, breed, make a family.


How can you not understand that it is THE ACT of going through the process that gives you meaning, and not you sitting there thinking about it?
MEANING is CRAFTED in real time when you ACT, not when you think about what gives you meaning in life. Have you never refused to eat your greens thinking it'd be gross, only to find out once you ACT that they are actually not that bad?
Its literally the same shit

>>17199192
>Syphilis
True. Someone has to do a historical revisionism of Western thought through the lens of syphilis.

>>17197514
I know to be strong you need to lift weights with a form of progressive overload, this doesn't mean I'm strong

>>17199238
I remember reading somewhere that Cioran was lamenting the fact that he could never be brilliant because he didn't have syphilis. Apparently it was something of a trope at the time that syphilis made you brilliant before ruining you completely, not sure how much of that belief is owed to Nietzsche's situation.

>>17199079
>Can somebody offer an interpretation?
Spengler also has something to say on it, and you can see Marx's (socialists being the "new Christians" or "new Apollinians") use of scientific methods to propose a historic teleology which he derives his universal ethics from. Read the On Tarantulas section of Zarathustra to see what he thinks of socialists, although without specific reference to the scientific method.

Generally though, the scientific method is a product of the Apollinian tendency, being essentially produced as a result of the Catholic Church's tendency toward naturalistic and rationalist philosophy (see Aquinas, Mendel for instance). It directs men away from themselves, to pursuits that promise future, general theoretical rewards which have no relation to the self, just as theologians direct themselves to abstract conceptions of god to get away from themselves. Additionally, whether or not Nietzsche was peeved by this in his time I don't know, science has that tendency of asserting itself in the epistemological, philosophical domain without invitation, which is Apollinian in the general moral imperative sense (which Nietzsche no doubt hated)

>>17199211
Sir, you seem to be mad with me, an emotion entirely uncalled for. I assure you, that I am completely ignorant on all matters, and I am asking you because you seem to have a clue abour matters, and not just any matter, but the highest of matters, and so that is why I am so desperate for your wisdom.

>Create a community, belong, contribute to it, breed, make a family
You might've thought that was the end right there, however, I would like to inquire, if it may be permissible, why I should do those things?

>How can you not understand that it is THE ACT of going through the process that gives you meaning, and not you sitting there thinking about it?
Perhaps I really am ignorant, but I always thought that the mind dominated the body, and that thought always governed action. It is a rational to think that; an action must first be thought of before it may come to fruition. Therefore, meaning ought to be derived from thought, not from life, for it is thought which inspires action.

And because it is thought, we can discard this piece of drivel.
>MEANING is CRAFTED in real time when you ACT, not when you think about what gives you meaning in life.

>>17199295
>why I should do those things?
Because that gives you meaning, whether you like it or not. The same way a disgusting fat bitch sucking your dick is still going to give pop up a boner. It is not a choice, but a consequence.
>mind dominated the body
Not true, no one is rational. That's some made up garbage by philosophers that thought the mind existed in a vaccum, you are animal and intuition first, rationale second.

>>17199280
Forgot to add: Scientific knowledge, albeit useful for practical purposes, is just as sterile, empty and truthless ultimately as theological knowledge gained from book learning or metaphysical reasoning.

>>17199328
Tell me then, is the family, the community, or perhaps both the centre of the universe?

>>17199356
You need to lay down the weed

>>17199364
The choice between laying down the weed and smoking more weed is arbitrary, until you tell me in a satisfactory manner what purpose I live for.

>>17199378
I am not your daddy, and I stopped being into BSDM pet play a couple years back. Go find someone else to make decisions for you, little brat.

>>17199390
Damn that's some degen shit
How did you get into that? Are you the pet or owner

>>17199390
Have it your way, then. While we are on the topic, what do you live for?

>>17199390
Kek

>>17199272
>not sure how much of that belief is owed to Nietzsche's situation.
Can’t comment on the neurological implications of the disease, but at the very least having such an awful, permanent STD will lead you to question your entire existence.
I know it would for me.

>>17199295
based Socranon
>>17199328
based Animalanon

>>17197659
Being able to step outside of the ego and see it for the motivating force that it is can be double edged sword. It will make you feel foolish if you see the ego as a donkey following a carrot on a stick through the midden, or proud if it is actually a pack mule deftly climbing to the top of the mountain.

We should respect and love the ego and marshall it to productive tasks

>>17199457
I meant that in the sense that I don't know how widespread that belief about his illness was. It's more probable that Nietzsche had the same genetic brain cancer that killed his father (a theory that Nietzsche himself believed).

In any case, I wouldn't have been able to overcome pessimism under the same circumstances, maybe his manic episodes helped.

>>17199413
>Damn that's some degen shit
Yes, but very eye opening to human nature
>How did you get into that?
Some Nerdy chick I used to talk to online suggested I'd make a good one. I tried it. I liked it. I got into a community for it, eventually moved things online. It was fun but pets are really time consuming, and sometimes exceedingly needy, specially if you try to have a couple.
>Are you the pet or owner
Owner
>>17199415
To fulfil my narcissistic lust of knowing I did not submit at the face of death, beyond that all the other modern age man copes. Such as wanting to know more about existence and get some fun experiences before I die.

>>17199508
>eventually moved things to real life*

>>17198459
Kek. Same. Heard so many versions:
>contracted it on purpose to prove a point
>got it from some milf who seduced him when he was 19
>got it from a gay brothel (Freud’s version)
What is the truth?

>>17199508
So I suppose that Life has a face and that you submit to that face instead.

>>17199573
Not before I bust a nut on it in retaliation

>>17199581
Would you fuck off, you're ruining the thread

>>17199597
Not here in front of the others, sweetheart. Be decent.

>>17197514
The insight here is merely that man can never be as good as his ideals due to the fragile, fickle nature of our material composition.

>>17199581
That is impossible, because Nuts are used for impregnation, for bringing life into the world. It is impossible to nut on life. In reality, you sit on the floor like a cuck simp while life ejaculates indefinitely into your consciousness. The fun experiences you have experienced will only be an astronomically miniscule amount of the sum total of all fun experiences experienced and to be experienced. Such is the consequence of your simptoms.

>>17199641
I disagree, the only thing it proves is that Nietzsche was a pseud. There are people out there in the world that walk the talk, and show up everyday not to talk and ponder in a vain attempt to impress your fellow academics with your seemingly superior intellectual might, but to actually achieve and accomplish valuable things.
These men are often high ranks in the military tho.

>>17199280
That is a start. Nietzsche still made one further distinction: strictly descriptive science and objective claims. He had a lot more respect for descriptive science, atleast they only trusted their senses and did not trust their interpretation. He saw in dühring (some antisemite thinker) a person of the second category, somebody who universalises his own fantasies and idosynkrasies. Now my problem with nietzsche: in thus spoke zarathustra the emergence of the übermensch is presented as a step beyond good and evil. This can only be realised by radical individuals who leave comfort and conformity of their given society. When he (the übermensch) emerges the final humans at the end of history will perceive this as a deep trauma, it will be akin to apes looking at men. Now this step has to become reality beyond the realisation of one or multiple individuals. Do they form a new incomprehensible society/race and humanity will be disregarded as archaic animals? Sounds objective and teleological to be honest.

>>17199650
>you sit on the floor like a cuck simp while life ejaculates indefinitely into your consciousness.
I take it that this is your fetish

>>17199664
You're fooling yourself. You've almost certainly never socialized with carrier officers either.

>>17199684
I bet they've carried you in their arms though, homo

>>17197526
based

>>17197526
Absolutely hella Basederino. This retards think they can kill they ego, but they just end up creating a new one, kek

>>17199669
Did Nietzsche outright reject Darwinism? I can't remember. But Darwinists always refuse to classify the theory of evolution as teleological because it is explained in terms of physical mechanics, ie as a mere natural law as opposed to a striving. And I don't think the Übermensch can be considered similarly, because it is a goal that humanity, or at least some humans, have to set themselves, it's not a natural teleology. The possibility of perennial last bugmen is equally, or perhaps more, likely. I really don't know how an Übermensch society at large would work though.

>>17199772
Even if we describe the Ubermensch as teleological, the necessity would be missing so it doesn't ever have to come to pass, it can just exist as a possibility forever. In any case, Nietzsche's criticism of Darwin mostly has to do with natural selection seen as merely a consequence, a result, which does not describe any of the active processes and strivings that life goes through. Nietzsche was an evolutionist, it's just that he didn't find this "after the fact" description sufficient to answer the question of what life is or what it means to be organic as opposted to non-organic.

>>17199772
>Did Nietzsche outright reject Darwinism?
Yes. Natural selection is about survival, which for N is too meek: life is about domination, it is will to power, not will to merely persist.

>>17198023
It sounds wrong but it is right.

>>17198163
These pseuds refuse to accept the basic uncomfortable truths and yet try to understand the sublime.

>>17197526
Based. You always merge with your own god...how can a man with a different brain and a different past become the same thing as me?

>>17199772
I believe nietzsche saw the last bugmen not too far off in the future. Maybe he even meant his own times of relative wealth and comfort. I usuall reject the idea of übermensch as AI but it is a possibility (definetly not what nietzsche envisioned though). Another not so satisfying interpretation of mine is that it is just a thought experiment like eternal return. A kind of cynical metaphysics that is not to be believed in but rather thought about? Basically thought experiments to provoke a break with traditional values. He famously blamed germans multiple times for being too naively rational about christianity while italian catholics already accepted many christian premisses as mere guidelines/conventions instead of absolute truths. He had a lot more respect for catholic over lutheran values after all. Is he appropriating this catholic, southern, dionysian model to his own thought? Perhaps

>>17200111
>He had a lot more respect for catholic over lutheran values after all.
I always found that a bit puzzling because Catholicism seems to have a lot more shame and guilt (things that Nietzsche disliked), but maybe Zizek is right that it's about treating God as a kind of idiot, where you do something wrong and then confess your sins then do it all over again.

>>17197675
Twilight of the Idols though is positing that there is a problem with the mind of Socrates, not the brain-- "ressentiment" in Genealogy, "decadence" in Twilight.
This doesn't apply when you develop a brain tumor/ brain cancer, especially since his collapse didn't precede his philosophy.

>>17200165
>Zizek is right that it's about treating God as a kind of idiot, where you do something wrong and then confess your sins then do it all over again.
It's about treating yourself as a kind of idiot...

>>17200178
True, but you have to wonder to what extent his illness affected his writing, not just in the sense that it gave him insight into suffering, but also in the sense that concepts such as Amor Fati, Eternal Return or even the Ubermensch might've been inspired by his manic episodes.

>>17197514
Nietzsche literally criticized Kant by refuting the concept of the "I". He said it was a thing that created itself, therefore is no solid foundation for any absolute morality. Did you even read Beyond Good and Evil?
Nietzsche's philosophy is one that takes into account the instability of the "i". This does not refute him at all, and I doubt you read him to have such a shallow take.

>>17200178
>not the brain
Every problem is physiological to Nietzsche. He made much of Socrates's ugliness.

Just a hunch but I would link Nietzsche's madness to his genius. I don't think he happened to get syphilis or happened to grow a tumor. I think he tried to free solo and fell. We all have copes. He kept removing his

>>17200304
So near blindness and days of constant vomiting are just the consequences of being too profound?

>>17197526
Are you suggesting we attack and dethrone God?

>>17197747
fake and gay

>>17197531
>Implicando que existen más filósofos aparte de Nietzsche

Deja las drogas, anon.

>>17198999
t. Retard equating depersonalisation and meaning

>>17200395
He had that his whole life.

>>17200165
He liked the catholic distance. Were you are more playfully religious and even curse god for your fate. It is as if god did not exist and everybody just played along for traditions sake. While germans are retardedly serious without taste or sensitivity to these things. This is the root of luthers thesis. Ultimately they killed christianity as they accelerated the tension to an end, but he still finds it more disgusting as to him it is the ultimate non-culture. Catholicism left room for a person like machiavelli but lutherian morality is so serious, dogmatic, universal and direct it opposes life itself.

>>17198553
>The more I read these dumb ass replies the more I think Aristotle really solved ethics and everything after him is just philosophical masturbation
Pretty much. Every worthwhile philosopher after Aristotle relies on him and he's pretty much right about everything barring the specifics of his physics and some weird easily detectable mistakes he could have caught in his biology. The post-Aristotelian philosophical world is a joke of epic proportions, where literally it's one extreme or the other and there's no such thing as being grounded in reality.

>>17199520

Was probably born with it because he was such a queer.

>>17199520
>>17201887
He probably never even had it.

http://www.leonardsax.com/Nietzsche.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140521184723/http://www.brainlife.org/reprint/2007/owen_070900.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20110706132408/http://www.actaneurologica.be/acta/download/2008-1/02-Hemelsoet%20et%20al.pdf