/lit/ - Literature

>>17262766
>Why did he praise Buddhism
Huh?

>>17262766
What are you talking about, Nietzsche hated Buddhism for being life denying?

>>17262766
stoicism claims that nature is rational, and thus dictates a rational life in harmony with nature. Many sects of Buddhism are anti-rational, they also promote immanence as well.

>>17262780
Buddhism is extremely life-affirming. I think Westerners in the 19th century didn't understand it yet

>>17262952
>asceticism, chastity, and extreme moralfagging is life-affirming

nietzsche was a syphilitic and deranged autist and it’s a mystery to me how he is still revered or taken seriously by anyone

>>17262766
Why did he plagiarize Schopenhauer and Mainlander? Asking the big questions here

>>17262766
His ideas of Buddhism and Stoicism were informed by Schopenhauer. He thought that Buddhism was without a metaphysics and therefore "clean" or something to that effect.

>>17263003
>Asking the big questions here
You youtube midwitts are disgusting. Read a fucking book so you can see how retarded your "big questions" are.

>>17262766
Nietzschefag here. I'll be supervising this thread.

>>17263177
Oh yeah? Supervise THIS! *farts*

>>17263158
>youtube midwitts
Not the guy you were talking to but what do you mean? Schopenhauer, Mainlander, and Stirner obviously influenced Nietzsche. Saying he copied them to the point of plagerism is absolutely retarded, but why are you even mentioning youtube? Keep that shit outta here man.

>>17263232
my guess is there's some video that gets recommended to philosophy video-watchers on youtube which promotes some contrarian thesis about Nietzsche for views

>>17262766
Buddhism fights suffering, christianity creates suffering. Stoicism praises suffering. It is obvious, you fucking blind faggots.

>>17263371
I don't think buddhism fights suffering, it's much more an ambivalence than a fight against

>>17262985
>NOOOOOO I NEED TO CONSOOM, THIS IS LIFE DENYING

>>17263371
>Buddhism fights suffering
Christianity is about defeating and undoing suffering whereas Buddhism is about learning to be indifferent to suffering and becoming enlightened when you realize good and evil are the same thing. Buddhism is just giant existential copium compared to Christianity.

>>17264291
What? Isnt christianity about accepting whatever fate god gives you (Job)
and to be a good, kind, gentle person? lol did you even read the bible?

>>17264397
>Isnt christianity about accepting whatever fate god gives you (Job)
Go read Job again.

>>17262985
That is only for monks, and even at that only certain types of monastics.
It is the 'middle path' for a reason, anon.

>>17264409
But it is. Job remains faithful despite the suffering he faces. The epitome of slave mentality

>>17264397
Christianity is about actively doing God's will on Earth. There's a lot of saints who while generally calm and gentle, beat the dhit out of heretics since it is God's will, e.g. St. Nicholas attacking and punching some Arian during the Council of Nicea.

>>17264425
*shit

>>17264413
you are a western revisionist

>>17264503
No?
Tell me any period of buddhist history anywhere where the laity was required to practice chastity.

>>17264425
cope

>>17262985
>>asceticism, chastity, and extreme moralfagging is life-affirming
This guy think Theravada is real Buddhism

>>17264628
don't awaken the hinayana retards

>>17264291
>and becoming enlightened when you realize good and evil are the same thing.
Yeah, you've never read a Buddhist text in your life. Cope harder, Christcuck. Your imaginary friend isn't real. Most people are able to come to terms with this by age 5.

>>17262952
Nietzsche classified it as life-denying since it seeks to extinguish cravings rather than aiming to overcome them (or at least use cravings to drive one to do good work).

Sonic renunciation is submissive while Buddhist renunciation is rejection of submissiveness.

>>17264663
>(or at least use cravings to drive one to do good work
Buddhism does exactly this though.
Nietzsche's understanding of Buddhism was of course a product of his time, as Buddhist studies was still in its infancy in the west.

>>17264420
That's amor fati though

>>17263371
in gay science nietzsche said great men appreciate their suffering

>>17264701
I suppose so. Nietzsche was coming from the position that extinguishment of cravings was bad and that instead one should channel them towards personal achievement.

So instead of extinguishing anger for the sake of personal peace you do what someone like Michael Jordan did, which was to hold onto it until you were a raging sociopath who used anger and bitterness to get really good at basketball. Or if you're miserable about a girl leaving you instead of seeking to emancipate yourself from the craving you have for her you hold onto that sorrow and dissatisfaction to make a really good painting.

Buddha wanted to free people of dissatisfaction and suffering, Nietzsche wanted people to hold onto it to drive personal achievements (at the expense of inner peace and tranquility).

That being said it's hard to fully read Nietzsche, all he asks is that one determine their own values and live by them without adhering to what others want or rejecting their values out of resentment. So although he considered (at least his understanding of Buddhism) as a form of nihilism, he'd be upset if one also considered Buddhism to be nihilism simply because that was his opinion.

>>17264705
No, armor fati is basically just that life is affirmed and made valuable precisely because of death, thus one must embrace the capacity to die so that life cannot be "taken for granted." And so the same with suffering affirming joy by contrast, it has nothing to do with inaction against suffering.

>>17264602
Nice argument

>>17262766
For the same reason he talked endlessly about the Ubermensch, yet ended up comitting suicide

He was a clueless person

>>17264771
>>17264420
There is absolutely no way to talk to you people. Ressentment overflows from every post of yours. See how you still just affirmed how amor fati is not very different from the christian consciousness of God's Providence and the suffering we all pass through. Amor fati is the mystification of that which Christianity demystifies. Christianity is the epitome of the tragedy Nietzsche praised so much. Sophocles, Aeschylus and Euripides were closer to Christianity than the greek myths, which the tragedians unveil.

>>17264655
Different poster here, but I garantee to you that neither is your crass dualistic system copied from hindus.

>>17265208
Nietzsche died from a stroke, he didn't commit suicide. Stop pulling shit out of your ass.

>>17262766
>Why did he praise Buddhism
because atheists dont understand buddhism

>>17264291
in Christianity, the jewish God creates suffering so if you fight it, you fight the jews and god

Bad translations

>>17264723
yes hedonists and beta males always deify suffering

>>17264750
>That being said it's hard to fully read Nietzsche, all he asks is that one determine their own values and live by them without adhering to what others want or rejecting their values out of resentment. So although he considered (at least his understanding of Buddhism) as a form of nihilism, he'd be upset if one also considered Buddhism to be nihilism simply because that was his opinion.
Yes Nietzsche created pomo and hates reality (because there are no values). Nietzsche wants people to build a narrative in their heads and view themselves as good people .

>>17265636
If you open a book for once in your miserable life you will see that reading is not fun, it hurts and depending on what you read, if you read good books for instance, you will suffer and be annoyed by it. However the consequences of going through all this suffering is rewarding.

>>17265386
What are you on about? I merely clarified that amor fati is not synonymous with resignment to suffering, is it merely the acceptance of its value. Nietzsche said himself in The Gay Science that while the Ugly was necessary to affirm the beautiful, and he would love it accordingly, he would turn his head away from it.

>>17265765
Again see how you are dishonest for either distorting what suffering means in Christianity or for having no knowledge about what it means to christians yet still affirm with conviction whatever you think it may mean. This is an obvious case of ressentment.
There is no resignment to suffering in Christianity, no passive acceptance but there is a continuous active transmutation of this suffering in understanding and mainly Love.
You said earlier
>armor fati is basically just that life is affirmed and made valuable precisely because of death
when ''none can see the face of God and live.''
The fire of God's Wrath and the fire of His Love are one and the same.

> that while the Ugly was necessary to affirm the beautiful, and he would love it accordingly, he would turn his head away from it.
So while suffering is necessary to affirm life he would turn his head away from it too?

>>17265876
>Again see how you are dishonest for either distorting what suffering means in Christianity
I really don't care about Christianity nor have I made any characterizations of it. As I said previously, I merely contested the suggestion that resignment to suffering is what Nietzsche's amor fati is. It's possible Job isn't a story of resignment, so to say, in which case I admit my contention may have been based on false understanding, but everything I've ever heard of the story suggests Job does in fact resign himself to God's wisdom and his having suffered in accord with it.

>So while suffering is necessary to affirm life he would turn his head away from it too?
You would work to overcome it, just as you would work to no longer apprehend the ugly.

>>17264723
This is because Nietzsche himself was always suffering with health problems in his daily life.

>>17264723
Without suffering, and the negative broadly, there is nothing to overcome, and no growth.

>>17264679
>Buddhist renunciation is rejection of submissiveness.
nigger wtf, buddha let people beat him up when he was meditating and didnt try to stop them, nice mental gymnastics

Attention all philologists. What's it called when a sentence doesn't have a finite verb but you supply it in your analysis? In latin fx. a form of esse and in greek a form of ειμι. I know it's pretty basic but I've completely forgot.

>>17264628
>>17264639
low IQ posts

>>17266179
>I don't care about Christianity
>yet I must talk badly about it whenever I have the opportunity
>I have never read Job
>yet I must give my opinion about it to belittle Christianity
It is incredible how every post of yours just proves what I have been saying and what Girard says about Nietzsche: his philosophy is centered around resentment, his own anti-resentment preachings are made purely out of repression of his own resentment.

>suggests Job does in fact resign himself to God's wisdom and his having suffered in accord with it.
There is no passivity in a faith reforced and reaffirmed by suffering, but active transmutation into the very understanding of what I told you about God's Wrath and Love being one and the same; life and death reaffirming each other, beauty and ugliness, strength and weakness (this latter will elude you but think how in a seemingly weak person ''resigning'' to God the force of all suffering is supported and absorbed).
That you don't see this proves that you ignore the synthesis and cycle of contraries in the tragic hero.

>you would work to overcome it, just as you would work to no longer apprehend the ugly
You just said earlier that life is affirmed and made valuable because of death, suffering affirming joy. Trying to escape these is trying to deny the other, their own contrary and reciprocal relation. It is to deny life.

>>17266425
>>17266179
To make my post clearer:
It is to deny life because life is essentially tragic (for all reasons I pointed above, for the intimate relation between the human state and the exposition we have of it by the greek tragedies) and Christianity ''is the only religion that has foreseen its own failure.''

>>17264628
lmao how the absolute fuck is theravada not buddhism?

>>17264274
you didn't get it

>>17266545
no u

>>17266425
>It is incredible how every post of yours just proves what I have been saying and what Girard says about Nietzsche: his philosophy is centered around resentment
Why don't you whine more? Nothing is more characteristically Christian than that. Your posts themselves reek of the exact resentment you accuse Nietzsche of.

>Trying to escape these is trying to deny the other, their own contrary and reciprocal relation. It is to deny life.
You are conflating overcoming instances of suffering with seeking to escape the POSSIBILITY of suffering. The possibility of suffering and death offer to affirm life, but to reject the struggle is to fail tin this affirmation. Amor fati is to LOVE fate and death as your opponents - not because you want to suffer and die, but because the joy of life is in fighting them.

>>17262780
I never got this though, why should we assume that life is to be affirmed? What if it actually just sucks?

>>17266784
because a guy who laid in bed all day fantasizing about life said it was really good

>>17266784
read Nietzsche

>>17263303
you seem to know a lot about youtube. maybe you would be more comfortable posting there instead?

>>17266797

>>17266836
if I had a mustache hair for every time someone replied to me with this image, I'd have facial hair to rival Nietzsche's.
This post is not an argument and I'm tired of replying to it. Regardless of whether it was his fault or not, Nietzsche did not live life and is in no position to advise anyone else on how to do so.

>>17266726
>Why don't you whine more? Nothing is more characteristically Christian than that. Your posts themselves reek of the exact resentment you accuse Nietzsche of.
A literal ''no u'' response. Are you not even ashamed? Anyhow I did not accuse anyone of anything I literally pointed how you (as most Nietzsche's followers) and Nietzsche emanate resentment. Interestingly accusing me of resentment for having pointed your own is another instance of your resentment (literally ignoring everything I said concerning Christianity and tragedy to give me a ''no u'' retort).

>You are conflating overcoming instances of suffering with seeking to escape the POSSIBILITY of suffering.
You were the one claiming a flight from ugliness, for instance, see >>17265732: '' while the Ugly was necessary to affirm the beautiful, and he would love it accordingly, he would turn his head away from it.''
You contradict yourself all the time.

>The possibility of suffering and death offer to affirm life.
No possibility at all, this is a fact, there is no escape, therefore flying away from the Ugly is equally impossible, it only reinforces a negation of life (read again what I wrote about tragedy and life).

>but to reject the struggle is to fail tin this affirmation.
Exactly, just like rejecting the weak, the ugly is to fail to affirm life; most things are out of your control it does not imply a resignful passivity.

>Amor fati is to LOVE fate and death as your opponents.
As though it could be said that Amor fati is to affirm and love God's Providence and death, huh?

>not because you want to suffer and die, but because the joy of life is in fighting them.
And here we can see how Nietzsche's philosophy teems with secularism, atheism, nihilism and is pivotal to the modern mentality. It does not make justice to the tragic sense of life which Christianity, ironically enough, affirms (and in a sense surpasses but I'll not get into it, unless you ask me). Humanity finds itself subject to pure Violence, to the pure tragic reciprocity of violence of the gods, of fullness and absence, of joy and sorrow, etc, yet sees in all this the Glory of the Lord (just like this Violence in the ancient world was the utmost expression of the gods, Dionysus for example).

read gom and tell me where he praises buddhism. stoicism is life denying garbage. apt that it's the bugman philosophy de jure.

>>17266784
>life is to be affirmed
>is to be
It's in the nature of the weak to deny life, and in the nature of the strong to affirm it. Nietzsche makes no normative claims about life.

>>17266853
>Nietzsche did not live life
Yet he was a genius who advocated for it better than anyone else. Your philosophical stance is his stance. He attacks other philosophers for having done the same, and he relegates himself to prophet for this reason.

>>17262766
Nietzsche is a false prophet

>>17266908
>relegates himself to prophet
A philosopher derives his wisdom from nature; a prophet from God. Nietzsche had access to neither. Why should I care about a word he says? Philosophy in a vacuum is as meaningless as math based on a set of axioms that does not reflect the real world -- it might be interesting to a small percentage of academics, but has essentially no practical value.
This is what Nietzsche is.

>>17266929
>A philosopher derives his wisdom from nature; a prophet from God.
That's not the only definition of prophet. Prophet here just means someone who foretells things to come. You seem to think that Nietzsche claimed all the glory for himself, when most of his writing was really about abstaining glory from himself in order to make the most scientific and clinical observations, usually to his own disadvantage in life.

>Why should I care about a word he says?
Why should anyone care what a nobody like you says? A nobody who obviously hasn't read much.

>>17266955
>You seem to think Nietzsche claimed all the glory for himself
Not sure where you got that, but the concept of "glory" hadn't even occurred to me in the context of Nietzsche's life. Fucking kek. All I was saying is that, it's very easy for someone who has never lived as a human to make statements about how people "should" live and what they "should" do, without having any practical understanding of why people don't naturally do the thing you've decided is logical. I think it is necessary to understand humans and life in order to be a philosopher, otherwise you are just discussing abstractions and strawmen of humans/life that you have created.
The reason I don't read Nietzsche's views on human life is the same reason I don't read a biologist's views on physics -- they don't know anything about it.
>Why should anyone care what a nobody like you says?
They shouldn't. Nobody does. We're discussing nobodies like Nietzsche that some actually /do/ care about, for some reason.

>>17266875
Buddhism is not stoicism

>>17266329
That's literally the exact opposite of submission.

>>17266873
>A literal ''no u'' response.
Sure, but you deserve no better as he who began with empty aspersions. Who was it who said cast not the first stone?

>You were the one claiming a flight from ugliness
No, turning away from ugliness as he meant it in The Gay Science is not a rejection of the existence or possibility of ugliness, it is a metaphor for the way in which one struggles against instances of bad or suffering in life. As one can take their hand out of fire without rejecting the possibility and value of suffering, one can look away from something ugly without rejecting the possibility of ugliness.

>there is no escape
Certainly there is not, but nonetheless countless people ground their life in the pursuit of this escape. Including those of religion who seek escape to a heaven or something like that.

>And here we can see how Nietzsche's philosophy teems with secularism, atheism, nihilism and is pivotal to the modern mentality. It does not make justice to the tragic sense of life which Christianity, ironically enough, affirms (and in a sense surpasses but I'll not get into it, unless you ask me). Humanity finds itself subject to pure Violence, to the pure tragic reciprocity of violence of the gods, of fullness and absence, of joy and sorrow, etc, yet sees in all this the Glory of the Lord (just like this Violence in the ancient world was the utmost expression of the gods, Dionysus for example).
Humanity will find no absolution but by its own power and will. If humanity would reject the struggle, and instead call out for help that will never come, it will not find justice nor find it owed. There is little of Nietzsche in the modern mentality. Rather, there is everywhere hedonism and a fundamental rejection of amor fati. Modernity is defined by a people who would gladly walk into slavery if their master promised comfort and ease.

Nietzscheis atheist

>>17266998
>All I was saying is that, it's very easy for someone who has never lived as a human to make statements about how people "should" live and what they "should" do, without having any practical understanding of why people don't naturally do the thing you've decided is logical.
Nietzsche never made statements about how people "should" live or what they "should" do.

>I think it is necessary to understand humans and life in order to be a philosopher
How didn't he?

>>17267080
>Nietzsche never said "should"
he implicitly did with literally everything he wrote
>how didn't he
he laid in bed all day. his discussion of people and life is purely theoretical

>>17267092
Examples of these should's and misunderstandings?

>>17267098
literally all philosophical writing is telling people who they should interpret the world. Telling someone how to interpret the world is inherently telling them how to live in the world. You're not having this discussion in good faith.

>>17267103
So you can't give me any examples? Have you even read him, faggot?

>>17267017
he submitted to their violence

>>17267050
>empty aspersions
holy fucking shit YOU were the one belittling Christianity out of the most blatant resentment with, as YOU yourself admitted, NO knowledge at all about what Christianity is (see how after my attempt at making Christianity more accessible to you, you simply stopped mentioning it). The only one who was spewing empty aspersions was you yourself. You can't even admit what is obvious to yourself you resented little subhuman piece of shit.
>inb4 christianity teaches you to be a passive calm idiot accepting blasphemies, lies and defamations.
You deserve violence to be exerted on you for you yourself perpetuate an irrational, subversive, chaotic violence.

>metaphor for the way in which one struggles against instances of bad or suffering in life.
This is an incongruent metaphor. He posits a metaphoric flight from ugliness to imply an affirmation and confrontation with it? You can't confront (and overcome, mainly) something if you fly away from it, if you don't affirm and absorb it.

>Including those of religion who seek escape to a heaven or something like that.
Thank you, this is the mentality of the modern atheist nietzschean. This is why I doubt Nietzsche made justice to the ancient greeks and tragedians he admired. This is to miss completely what the greek culture was, what the sacred is. Isn't it already clear that there is no negation of life in Christianity and most religions? What do you think I was implying with the tragic rapport between them, the tragic poetry and life itself?
''One can doubt if there is bread or not, but one cannot deny one's hunger if not by reason of a lie, for one's hunger is not a belief, but a certainty''. You deny what the greek tragedy exposes, you deny life.

(1/2)

>>17262985
read the genealogy

>>17267127
>you didn't read the book
not an argument

>>17267009
i didn't say it was.

>>17267231
yes it is

>>17267233
So what's your point then

>>17267050
>Humanity will find no absolution but by its own power and will. If humanity would reject the struggle, and instead call out for help that will never come, it will not find justice nor find it owed.
Again showing a utter lack of understanding of tragedy and its relation to humanity and life. It is its own will and power that keeps this mechanism going on. The Violence makes humanity its subject, it is in the paroxysm of this Violence that involves humanity that the Violence shows its merciful side giving transcendece to the sacred. Humanity nervetheless has no consciousness of this and affirms Violence, affirming the cycle.

>There is little of Nietzsche in the modern mentality.
You are the proof that this claim is false. But I have told you why exactly he is and you ignored. It is the failure to grasp the tragedy in humanity the main point.

>>17267251
No, it's not. I already explained why I don't read his books -- I have no interest in hearing in excruciating detail the conclusions a shut-in makes about the theoretical version of life and humanity he has concocted inside his head.

Apart from that, you do realize that his books were just a means of communicating his ideas, right? You can get his ideas summarized pretty easily online if you're not interested in his prose, which I am not. I guess you just want to feel like you didn't waste your time pretending to understand Beyond Good and Evil?

>>17267270
>It is its own will and power that keeps this mechanism going on. The Violence makes humanity its subject, it is in the paroxysm of this Violence that involves humanity that the Violence shows its merciful side giving transcendence to the sacred.
If fate without intention is your God, I might find something poetic in this. Given your appeal to the Christian one, though, it is but empty, wishful thinking.

There is more of Christianity in the modern mentality than Nietzsche, however perverted it is.

>>17262766
>Why did he praise Buddhism
Are you fucking retarded? He shits on Buddhism as well, did you just read that out of context quote of him praising Buddhism (in comparison to Christianity) and assume he was pro-Buddhism? He was against ALL religion, Have you fuckers even read him?

>>17267380
>I don't read philosophers, I just talk shit about them
No wonder everything you write sounds like total bullshit.

>>17267430
>I haven't been able to find a single flaw in your reasoning
reply when you have an argument

>>17267481
Here's one on par with yours: Nietzsche understood humans and life because he was an observant and well-read genius with a rich inner life regardless of his circumstances, and was a valid philosopher for this reason.

>>17262766
He praised it *RELATIVE TO CHRISTIANITY*, he still thinks it's decadent cope

>>17262766
Nietzsche was the first edgy-emo

>>17267531
>observant
what did he observe? he was laying in bed
>well-read
as someone who goes outside regularly, I can tell you that books are a terrible way to learn about human behavior
>rich inner life
what does this mean? do you mean "small, well-knit social circle"? or do you mean he had a rich life inside his head?

>>17267396
>fate without intention
>poetic
This is oblivious of tragedy, life and even Nietzsche's understanding of tragedy and life. There is no fate separate from humanity (and because of that a blind, mechanistic fate is the farthest from anything poetic).
All I could see from you is resentment but mainly, perhaps impelled by, an egoistic, solipsistic, atheistic, nihilistic mentality, all in favor of your own capricious illusions. And you have the gall to proclaim a purity from hedonism and modernity. You are no different in any way from one.

>>17267531
>Nietzsche understood humans and life because he was an observant and well-read genius with a rich inner life regardless of his circumstances,
if he did he would not push for hedonism and making up narratives about being self righteous

>>17267180
He demonstrated that he had overcome it. It was meaningless to him.

>>17267557
>if he did he would not push for hedonism
Fucking read him you fucking idiot, what's the point of arguing about something you never read basing your entire knowledge on out of context quotes and /lit/ posts? Kys

>>17267549
>what did he observe?
Life.
>he was laying in bed
No actually, he was traveling Europe, teaching courses in Basel, taking long walks in the woods, hanging out with Wagner and possibly banging prostitutes in Italy.
>books are a terrible way to learn about human behavior
Depends on the books.
>what does this mean?
It means he had a brain that was vastly more perceptive than yours.

>>17267571
You cannot overcome physical violence by submitting to it

>>17267579
sounds like he didn't do a whole lot.
>possibly banging prostitutes in Italy
it's almost poetic how this reflects the rest of his life -- an obviously fake and forced attempt at experiencing what everyone else comes by naturally

>>17263232
>Schopenhauer, Mainlander, and Stirner obviously influenced Nietzsche
He readed them --only Schop influenced him. I'm with this guy >>17263158, youtube and 4chan are toxic wastelands for anyone who want to introduce himself in philosophy; you always get a lot of this "nietzsche was influenced by stirner because of his library card and by mainlander because of he said he readed him in his letters" niggers that have never readed nietzsche in the first place.

>>17267612
>sounds like he didn't do a whole lot.
He could walk past a rock and gain more insight into nature than you'll ever accumulate in your entire unread nobody life. Try not being an imperceptive cretin before judging the merit of what others who have made valid names for themselves through hard work have done in life.

>it's almost poetic how this reflects the rest of his life
It doesn't, you pathetic worm.

>>17267642
>He could walk past a rock and gain more insight into nature than
yawn, I don't care about Nietzsche's skills in geology. I want to hear where his credentials are for saying anything about human life.

>>17266878
>>17266878
I think most people who wish to affirm life only do so because they are afraid, and thus weak, it MUST be a good thing because to imagine otherwise is terrifying, it's the only thing we have so it HAS to be good.

What is Nietzsche's evidence that the strong affirm life by nature? I guess it makes sense if you define strong as someone who clings to life against all odds, in that way it may be strong but is it intelligent? If I asked the smartest A.I. if we should affirm life do you think it would say yes? Since I'm not that smart I don't know, for all we know only the deluded affirm life.

>>17267556
>This is oblivious of tragedy, life and even Nietzsche's understanding of tragedy and life.
Enlighten me, then, since you are so clearly willing to.


>There is no fate separate from humanity (and because of that a blind, mechanistic fate is the farthest from anything poetic).
I said nothing of a fate separate humanity, I reject the attempt to synthesize fate with the christian God.

>And you have the gall to proclaim a purity from hedonism and modernity. You are no different in any way from one.
I make no specific claims of myself, as unlike you - ironically - I don't care for pretense. I'll say, though, if you assume submission to some unprovable transcendental is the only way to live separate from hedonism that is indicative of your personal weakness, not humanity's.

>>17267655
>yawn, I don't care about Nietzsche's skills in geology.
It's not "geology" imbecile, it's being a goddamn genius. Pic related is the pyramid-shaped rock that Nietzsche walked past one afternoon, placed his hand on, and from that moment onward was sparked with life-changing inspiration, leading him to spend the next several weeks day and night writing what would become Thus Spoke Zarathustra. A rich inner life such as this is one you will never have an adequate perception for grasping, no matter how much "life experience" you think you have.

>I want to hear where his credentials are for saying anything about human life.
It's already been explained, dipshit. I might as well say it to the bird sitting on my windowsill beside me. It would probably have an easier time understanding me than you ever will.

>>17267684
By that I mean the smartest A. I theoretically possible*

Obviously our current A.Is are pretty useless

>>17267694
>guy touches rock and writes book with spiritual energy
wew I should have known I was talking to a nutjob.
>an animal with a peanut sized brain can relate to the way I think
I'm sure it can, anon. You keep talking to birds, leave the humans to me

>>17267743
>wew I should have known I was talking to a nutjob.
I guess that's the brainlet's way of coping. Many such cases.

>I am so utterly dumb that I can't even match up to the intellect of an animal with a peanut sized brain
Do you understand me now, idiot? Should I dumb it down further for you?

>>17267694
>and from that moment onward was sparked with life-changing inspiration,

>dude the universe is meaningless so you can create your own meaning instead of killing yourself !!!

atheists have no critical thinking, no wonder their democracy turns to shit.

>>17267781
>dude the universe is meaningless
Please take this half-assed and inaccurate understanding back to Wikipedia or Reddit or wherever you found it.

What does it mean when someone says that the universe is meaningful/meaningless?

>>17267759
Yes, I get it. I can't even begin to understand how such a simple creature thinks. I think it's wonderful you can, anon.

>>17267692
>Enlighten me, then, since you are so clearly willing to.
If you could get nothing out of what I posted here in 8 different posts it won't be another post of mine that will be different.

>I said nothing of a fate separate humanity
You did when you said ''without intention''. That humanity ends up in a tragic circular recursion and to claim that what is poetic is a mechanistic fate ''without intention'' different from this very tragedy is kind of ironic, don't you think?

>christian God
Oh, after all my long posts telling you about the relationship between tragedy and Christianity, you decided to bring it back to attack it in a fantastical, imagined strawman with metaphysical discussions implicated?

>I make no specific claims of myself
I showed how Nietzsche and modernity go along and how you is the proof of it. You were ready to outright dismiss any echo in it saying that ''there is no amor fait'' in the modern mentality.

>if you assume submission to some unprovable transcendental
Bringing the metaphysical again when all I said was ''divorced'' in it, as in I was employing anthropological and literary analyses.
Despite of your rage against anything religious and divine without understanding aught of it being typical of the modern mentality!, conffirming again what I have been saying, I can show how humanity needed a transcendental separation of the Sacred: unanimity. I think it was Zizek who said about Dostoyevski's famous quote that: ''if God didn't exist NOTHING would be permitted''. But I'm sure you will get nothing of what I'm saying so I'll lead you to a thorough explanation: Girard's Violence and the Sacred.
I refrain myself here for my point was proved: you are just a product of the bleak times we live in, your obtuse mentality is nothing to be wondered.

>>17267936
>>17267692
>I showed how Nietzsche and modernity go along and how you is the proof of it.
you are*
I'm not at home and that is why I can't expand more on anything I said more thoroughly. I recommended you a book, but I wonder if someone like you would face it.

>>17267930
>I can't even begin to understand how such a simple creature thinks.
Understandable. Only a more complex brain can understand a simpler one, and never the other way around.

>>17267838
it means that life has no conclusion, there is no goal, no aim, no point. You could make one up for yourself but that is subjective and not objective and there is no point in that either.

>>17264701
Schopenhauer seemed to get it

>>17267936
>If you could get nothing out of what I posted here in 8 different posts it won't be another post of mine that will be different.
You've posted nothing but vague gestures, perhaps to unelaborated larger points, that are as well as totally empty as presented. Since it took better than 4 posts for you to cease misunderstanding or otherwise strawmanning a simple expression of Nietzsche's conception of amor fati, all the while whining about imagined resentment and slights as though you're saddling an enormous persecution complex, I doubt there really is much substance behind your vaguery, less your manner be more graceful. It all reeks of high school.

>You did when you said ''without intention''.
I'm amused that you have assumed a false dichotomy between fate as an intentioned God and strict materialism.

>imagined strawman with metaphysical discussions implicated?
You suggested the synthesis of fate and godly providence, not myself.

>I showed how Nietzsche and modernity
You haven't. You've done nothing but impotently throw aspersions around hoping they'll make your point for you.

Thanks for the reading recommendation though, perhaps unlike yourself it has something to say and knows how to say it.

dough is bread.
bred is dough

>>17268144
>vague gestures
In my posts I proved: 1) what I said in my first post, that it is impossible to talk to you people; 2) how 1 is intimately related to a resentment; 3) how all of this affirm a typical modern mentality and how this mentality expresses 1 and 2, that is, all reaffirm each other; 4) how you have no idea about what poetry, tragedy, sacred, anthropology, religion, theology, Christianity, philosophy, life and humanity are. Everything escapes you in order to reforce this solipsitic nihilistic illusion that you created to yourself. Why do you dismiss everything I say as mere ''accusations'', ''aspersions'' and/or with ''no, actually, u''? Precisely because of everything I said. You confirm each post of mine.

>you have assumed a false dichotomy between fate as an intentioned God and strict materialism.
Because materialism is inconceivable without any intelligibility.

>You suggested the synthesis of fate and godly providence, not myself.
Wasn't referring to fate nor to God's Providence.

>You haven't
>proceeds to repeat ''no u'' and dismissing everything I posted as ''accusations''.

>>17268411
>In my posts I proved: 1) what I said in my first post, that it is impossible to talk to you people; 2) how 1 is intimately related to a resentment; 3) how all of this affirm a typical modern mentality and how this mentality expresses 1 and 2, that is, all reaffirm each other; 4) how you have no idea about what poetry, tragedy, sacred, anthropology, religion, theology, Christianity, philosophy, life and humanity are. Everything escapes you in order to reforce this solipsitic nihilistic illusion that you created to yourself. Why do you dismiss everything I say as mere ''accusations'', ''aspersions'' and/or with ''no, actually, u''? Precisely because of everything I said. You confirm each post of mine.
>proceeds to repeat ''no u'' and dismissing everything I posted as ''accusations''.
Pot meet kettle. You have nothing to say.

>Because materialism is inconceivable without any intelligibility.
This doesn't mean what you seemingly think it does.

>Wasn't referring to fate nor to God's Providence.
You did when you said that it was as though amor fati was as to love God's providence.

I enjoy the company of Christians and the religious. I don't know what manner of thing you are, though, as there is none of it in you. I hope in time you find something of peace and are better able to navigate the world and the people in it with positivity.

>>17268540
>You have nothing to say.
As though in the first place you could listen to anything.

>This doesn't mean what you think
At this point I wonder if you have the cognitive function of a human being.

>You did when you said...
Wasn't referring to fate, to amor fati, nor to God's Providence. Read what I wrote: ''magined strawman with metaphysical discussions implicated''. This was referring to your new-atheistic trope ''christian god''.
Anyhow, yes, God's Providence, tragic fate and amor fati are interrlated.

>I hope in time you find something of peace and are better able to navigate the world and the people in it with positivity.
The peace and positivity you are granted now and that sustain all your caprices within a secure range of controled, transcendent violence were once founded by the immanence and dissipation of the paroxysm of this same violence. Violence never fails to take what is its own, even if it is controled, it will never cease to be imminent.

>>17267974
yes, it takes a truly great mind to understand a bird. But an even greater mind to understand a rock.

>>17268636
>At this point I wonder if you have the cognitive function of a human being.
Runs both ways.

>This was referring to your new-atheistic trope ''christian god''
What is your contention with the terminology "Christian God?"

The peace and positivity you are granted now and that sustain all your caprices within a secure range of controled, transcendent violence were once founded by the immanence and dissipation of the paroxysm of this same violence. Violence never fails to take what is its own, even if it is controled, it will never cease to be imminent.
Let come what may. Unlike yours, perhaps, my peace isn't born of comfort or freedom from violence or suffering.

>>17268781
>Unlike yours, perhaps, my peace isn't born of comfort or freedom from violence or suffering.
being this clueless... literally admitting to have no brain; you understood nothing. just move on, intoxicate yourself with yay! modern positivity.

>>17268809
>being this clueless... literally admitting to have no brain; you understood nothing. just move on, intoxicate yourself with yay! modern positivity.
Try not to drown yourself in your equally modern cynicism and rejection of life. I hope you do find yourself and your peace before true difficulty comes and you find yourself not glad for the struggle, but hoping on strength that is not your own.

>>17262985
Other than "moral-fagging," Nietzsche talks about how the ascetic ideal isn't in and of itself "life-denying"-- it was the ascetic ideal being brought to an extreme. This was in the Genealogy of Morals, but I'm at work and don't have it on hand.

>>17263371
There it is guys. The dumbest post of all time.

>>17265610
t. Evolatard

>>17267549
>as someone who goes outside regularly, I can tell you that books are a terrible way to learn about human behavior
Alright everyone pack it up. A guy who goes outside regularly said books are whack.
Holy shit dude did you really cite "goes out regularly" as your credential?
I literally can't

>>17264723
great men appreciate themselves 1000000000%

>>17266305
what a stupid take. suffering means your body lacks food, water, oxygen.

you are all infinite degenerate blind faggots. you use your suffering as virtue signalling.

>>17269326
>there is no life without entropy
is all anon meant, I think. Which is true, isn't it?

>>17268904
>cynicism
>modern

>literally everything I wrote
>rejection of life
I'll repeat what I said: clueless, avowal of having no brain and still not understanding anything of my posts.
You want peace? Go meditate, lobotomize yourself, I don't know. I genuinely believe you can find spiritual peace, but even to reach this peace you will have to struggle to the point of killing parts of your''self''.
Anyhow I am comfortable in this trafic struggle for all the reasons I told you, but you are too dumb to understand anything, as you yourself prove in every post you make. Too dumb to the point of diverging from the very philosophy you were holding in the beginning of this conversation.

>>17269008
>said books are whack
I did not say that. I said that for someone who doesn't interact with people, books will not tell you what normal human interactions look like
>Holy shit dude did you really make a joke in your post
>I literally can't
go back to r*ddit

>>17269575
I can't tell if you are schizophrenic or just retarded at this point. Also, with the angst and bitterness that has dripped from nearly every post you have made, you'll never convince me you are confortable with anything.

>>17262766
>Epictetus, former slave
Grin and bear it isn’t enough to affirm life and it’s travails

Mistranslation of anatta notwithstanding, Buddhism is compatible with his perspectivalism that “is not a phenomenology! (WTP)”, i.e. insubstantiality ~ “The will to power is a Quantum.” Slap Roger Boscovic with Schopenhauer and you’re in the ballpark.