/lit/ - Literature

>>17356607
don't forget the other retards

>>17356607
Sounds like you just read the introduction to any of his works. Anyway, comeback when you have something worthwhile to say or an opinion of your own

>>17356607
daily remainder he hated capitalism

>>17356657
KILL YOURSELF

>>17356686
based

>>17356695
shhh, this is a library

>>17356695
Dilate

>>17356607
>Daily reminder that Nietzsche hated antisemites and his low IQ Nazi sheep sister revised his works after his death to make him seem like he hated Jews
Literally nobody here thinks otherwise.

>implying that a woman with a fivehead of this size could ever be "low iq"
just admit it, IQ is just "agrees with what i agree with"

Nietzsche hated his contemporary antisemites for their pigheaded, chauvinist stupidity. He did not hate "antisemites" in the modern SJW meaning of the word. On the Genealogy of Morality contains sections that in the eyes of modern leftists would condemn him to be cancelled and deplatformed for antisemitism as an "actual nazi", as they like to say.

>>17356627
He strongly supported hedonism. He explicitely said the denial of the hedonistic desire ist he original sin of humanity.
These moralfags "Nietzsche hated hedonism" inbreds should all shut up until they actually read Nietzsche.

>>17357071
Yawn

>>17357071
Based
>>17357090
Cope

>>17357071
I dont trust any reading of Nietzsche that relies on taking a statement of his at face value.

>>17357071
definitely false if you mean hedonism in the sense of pleasure
>>17356895
>On the Genealogy of Morality contains sections that in the eyes of modern leftists would condemn him to be cancelled and deplatformed for antisemitism as an "actual nazi"
this is true but he still thought jew haters are in general dipshits

>>17357071
T. 14 year old

>>17357135
>definitely false if you mean hedonism in the sense of pleasure
No.

>>17357132
It's entirely consistent with the rest of his writing. In Zarathustra he said promiscuity is better than chastity if you have a desire for sex. I really recommend you read his works.

>>17357148
What? Did his Wikipedia article not mention this?

>>17357165
>If a man knows the wherefore of his existence, then the manner of it can take care of itself. Man does not aspire to happiness; only the Englishman does that.
Twilight of the Idols first section after the preface #12

Nietzsche was prophesizing the coming of the man whom I'm not going to name. All the history was progressing to his march to the top, his battle, and his untergehen. A glory not to be attained again anytime soon.
>inb4 mustache man bad

>>17356895
This post is obvious and obviously correct and yet this thread about Nietzsche's antisemitism is done over and over by feeble retards whose brains think in dichotomies of magic labels.

>>17357185
That's an aphorism. Read same book Moral as Unnatural. The point is not that he sought maximum pleasure but that he didn't deny them. The Übermensch would overcome them for pursuit of his own values but that's bot a moralising opposition to hedonism let alone a guiding work for morality. Hence my citation from Zarathustra. Hedonism is higher than denial of your desires. Them being subject to your will to power is higher than hedonism. But in absolutely no way possible he was warning of hedonism or refuting it.

>source: just trust me dude

He has sections in BGE talking about building political empires, in which the most powerful will naturally lead and command a class naturally inclined to servitude. Not sure how seriously one can take his political accounts.
Wasn’t the Jews but he did buy into racial traits and superiorities.

>>17357342
As far as biology went he was full on nordicist. He talked about the blonde beasts that conquered the steppes iirc.

>>17357071
Yeah but dumboi his whole thing was destroying all ideals. If you take hedonism to mean pleasure is the highest ideal, then zarathustras (your) job is to destroy/overcome that ideal, freeing yourself and becoming more yourself. “Self-overcoming of morality into its opposite, that is what Zarathustra means in my mouth.” If you take any -ism you bind yourself with an ideal (including hedonism)

>>17357356
How does he justify pride in racial biology with his self-creating individualism?

>>17357360
Oh don't act obtuse. Like you haven't read the pic about how he worked himself into an early grave to save us from hedonism a million times. Just look at the initial pic I responded to. No of course his goal was not to establish hedonism but he wasn't against it. 80% of his work is mocking ideologies for doing that. It is just something the Übermensch overcomes not denies for a higher individual goal.

>>17357384
That's why I said biologically. Aryan supremacy was the mainline biological theory in his day. Philosophically the idea was that the strong shall dominate and the weak and ugly and sickly perish.

>>17357356
He wasn't a nordic supremacist, he just said that the original aryan conquerors were clearly a powerful, energetic race. He even explicitly points out that modern day Germans have basically nothing to do with them.

>>17357384
Nietzsche was not an individualist dude. You can interpret the call to struggle and self-creation of values on the individual level, sure, but there's far more to it than that. He writes in Ecce Homo that his writings always contain several, often contrary, meanings.
He also has a section in Beyond Good and Evil that is a direct attack on individualism, namely §19

The übermensch is an overblown concept. There are scarce mentions of the term outside of Zarathustra.

There are only 48 mentions in Zarathustra itself. Only 1 mention in BGE. Only 1 mention in Genealogy (where he calls Napoleon a synthesis of unmensch + ubermensch). Only 1 mention in Twilight. 1 mention in Antichrist. And 10 mentions in Ecce Homo.

If you look at Nietzsche's self-assessment of Zarathustra, he doesn't even bother to say that the übermensch is his greatest idea. He instead says that the basic idea of the work is "the thought of eternal return, the highest possible formula of affirmation". He again references the eternal return in his self-assessment when he says that "the second to last section of the fourth book contains the fundamental thought of Zarathustra" (by this he means aphorisms 341 + 342 in GS, Book 4). One should also take note that Nietzsche says with regard to the overman that "he [Zarathustra] does not conceal the fact that his type of person - a type that is an overman in comparison - is an overman specifically when compared to the good." One should also remember that Nietzsche ends TI by styling himself as "-I, the last disciple of the philosopher Dionysus, - I, the teacher of the eternal return..."

>>17357445
He was against any isms but he wasn’t against pleasure or pursuing it. Your lingo is tripping you up.

>>17357540
I just read section 19 of BGE and it’s about explaining the will to power. Says nothing about individualism. Not sure what you’re meaning to refer to.
His philosophy is for individuals, not the herd, encouraging those independent thinkers to self-overcome, liberate themselves, do great things in art, governance, give effect to their individual wills to power. That is what I mean by individualist - using it as an adjective.

Otro libro de autoayuda glorificado más.
Cuanto más leo en otros idiomas más se ratifica el hecho: No se ha escrito nada relevante fuera del Español, así de simple.
Cuando hablamos de literatura hablamos de España.

>>17356607
Antisemitism is good.
Christianity is good.
Self-denial is good.
Redemption is good.
Germany is good.

>>17358298
Based

>>17358298
Basiert

Judging by this thread it seems you retards can't figure out what his thoughts really were on anything.

>>17358298
Based btw.

>>17356799
i didn't know that

>>17358255
Spain has no philosophy, cope spic

>>17357071
He also said that hedonism is nihilism in Will to Power §35, but in §751 he defends it because democrats hate hedonists. Like all things, his relationship with hedonism changes on a case-by-case basis.

>>17358298
I thought Wagner renounced Christianity after he was introduced to Schopenhauer's works by one of his friends?

>>17359124
He went through a revolutionary phase where he idealised Greece and its paganism over Christianity, but after reading Schopenhauer he came back to Christianity much stronger. Parsifal is a very Christian work.

>>17358298
You missed far leftwing Anarchism.

>>17359243
He was never far left-wing, or an anarchist. Though he could be considered to be a partially left-wing revolutionary during the 1848 riots.

>>17359159
>Parsifal is a very Christian work.
and Tristian und Isolde is a very Schopenhauerian work.

>>17359276
And Schopenhauer is very Christian.

>>17356607
True, his sister was a thoughtless worm, a true coward and mountebank. While Nietzche's thoughts on Jews are somewhat contestable, it's certain they by no means approximate those of the nazis, and it's worth it to point out there was a school of zionist though, exemplified by Martin Buber and others. It seems pretty odd that these Jewish thinkers would draw inspiration from Hitler's intellectual lovechild. (Spoiler: Hitler was too much of a brainlet to understand Nietzche or too much of a psychopath to let his ideas be known without perverting them.)

It's an absolute slander and mischaracterization that he shares any affinity with nazism, when he was an vocal anti-nationalist hater of Germany and said supportive things of Jews, and when his entire philosophy is bent on avoiding the "herd mentality" of collectivism which totalitarian ideologies like naziism promote. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain ignorant, open and shut case.

>>17359423
school of *Nietzschean Zionist thought

>>17356799
I've unironically seen people suggest otherwise.

>>17359305
>And Schopenhauer is very Christian.
How? Literally one of the first atheist philosophers.

Friendly reminder that the things Nietzsche said about Jews, their religion and its influence on the west would have put him in prison in modern Germany.

>>17359305
>And Schopenhauer is very Christian.
It is another episode of everything I like is Christian and everything I dislike is non-Christian.

>>17359469
Can you give an example?

>>17356895
There is no reason why you cant both hate and love Jews at the same time.

>>17357483
Modern Germans and their culture have more to do with the people that build stone henge then with the people that invaded India.

People dont understand that the Indo-European culture of Europe was promoted by its warrior class and that most Europeans dont belong to it.

there was literally a book about this available from the princeton sale last week but only one anon ordered it

>>17359452
>>17359481
He certainly wasn't a Christian ontologically. But it's a bit more nuanced anons. His notion of compassion being the foundation of ethics, his approval of the renunciation of the world engaged in by the saint and his aesthetics of redemption are all heavily Christian conceptions. Sure, he would argue that he arrived that those conclusions as a necessary consequence of his metaphysics of Will. However, and as Nietzsche notes, there was an underlying Christianity in Schop's thought. That's part of the reason why Wagner was so receptive to Schopenhauer. Read Wagner's essay "Religion and Art". Also, Schopenhauer says throughout his corpus that his philosophy is the most distilled enunciation of the truths espoused by the Christian and Hindu faiths (which he views as metaphysics for the "masses" - which I don't wholly agree with but that's a discussion for another time).

>>17359596
in case anyone is interested. http://library.lol/main/DCFC93CAF76CCF57922C8136F5213F25

>>17357885
> About explaining the will to power

Yes, he explains the central concept of his philosophy - as explicitly non-individualist. I don't understand how you could read that section and not understand how explicitly anti-individualist it is.

> Wollen scheint mir vor Allem etwas Complicirtes, Etwas, das nur als Wort eine Einheit ist...in jedem Wollen ist erstens eine Mehrheit von Gefühlen....Wie also Fühlen und zwar vielerlei Fühlen als Ingredienz des Willens anzuerkennen ist, so zweitens auch noch Denken: in jedem Willensakte giebt es einen commandirenden Gedanken; — und man soll ja nicht glauben, diesen Gedanken von dem „Wollen“ abscheiden zu können, wie als ob dann noch Wille übrig bliebe!

There is no unity of will, no holy individual centre of will to power. Every decision is already the result of a struggle between affects.

I'm going to translate the key parts of the text following this quote in another post.

> His philosophy is for individuals

His philosophy is for everyone. Individualism is a foolish delusion that Nietzsche did not believe in.

> not the herd

There is more to life than the individual and the herd. Nietzsche did not have such a reductionist view of reality.

> encouraging those independent thinkers to self-overcome, liberate themselves, do great things in art, governance, give effect to their individual wills to power.

If by individual you mean particular. Nietzsche did not believe in individualism.

>>17359816
2/2

>insofern wir im gegebenen Falle zugleich die Befehlenden und Gehorchenden sind, und als Gehorchende die Gefühle des Zwingens, Drängens, Drückens, Widerstehens, Bewegens kennen, welche sofort nach dem Akte des Willens zu beginnen pflegen; insofern wir andererseits die Gewohnheit haben, uns über diese Zweiheit vermöge des synthetischen Begriffs „ich“ hinwegzusetzen, hinwegzutäuschen, hat sich an das Wollen noch eine ganze Kette von irrthümlichen Schlüssen und folglich von falschen Werthschätzungen des Willens selbst angehängt,

"Insofar as in the given case we are both the commanding and the obeying, and as obeyer know the feelings of compulsion, pressure, urge, resistance, movement, which we tend to immediatly after the act of Will; insofar as we on the other hand by habit disregard, hide this duality by virtue of the synthethic concept "I"; for these reasons a great chain of erroneous conclusions and therefore false value judgments about the Will itself are hanging on the concept of Willing."


> Der Wollende nimmt dergestalt die Lustgefühle der ausführenden, erfolgreichen Werkzeuge, der dienstbaren „Unterwillen“ oder Unter-Seelen — unser Leib ist ja nur ein Gesellschaftsbau vieler Seelen — zu seinem Lustgefühle als Befehlender hinzu. L’effet c’est moi: es begiebt sich hier, was sich in jedem gut gebauten und glücklichen Gemeinwesen begiebt, dass die regierende Klasse sich mit den Erfolgen des Gemeinwesens identificirt. Bei allem Wollen handelt es sich schlechterdings um Befehlen und Gehorchen, auf der Grundlage, wie gesagt, eines Gesellschaftsbaus vieler „Seelen“: weshalb ein Philosoph sich das Recht nehmen sollte, Wollen an sich schon unter den Gesichtskreis der Moral zu fassen: Moral nämlich als Lehre von den Herrschafts-Verhältnissen verstanden, unter denen das Phänomen „Leben“ entsteht.

"In this way, the Willing subject takes the feelings of pleasure from the executing, fruitful instruments, the subservient "sub-wills" or sub-souls - our body is only a social structure of many souls - to his feelings of pleasure as the commanding one. L’effet c’est moi [the affect, it is me]: it happens here what happens in every well-built and happy community, that the ruling class identifies with the successes of the community. All willing is absolutely a matter of commanding and obeying, on the basis, as I said, of a social structure of many “souls”: which is why a philosopher should take the right to include the Will as such in the domain of morality: namely, morality as Doctrine of the dominant relationships under which the phenomenon "life" arises. "

>>17356835
damn shes cute

>>17356607
nietzsche would hate Qanon, a manifestation of the Last Man wishing to be saved by someone else and never taking responsibility for their actions.
He would hate stormfront and other neonazis for the same reasons.
He wouldn't hate people trying to address systemic problems.

>>17360486
>He wouldn't hate people trying to address systemic problems.
Ah yes the French's bastardisation of Nietzsche

>>17356607
Weird how you feel the need to make this a daily reminder, especially when you're completely wrong about the topic. Nietzsche was against stupid anti-semitism while he himself took part in a massive metaphysical attack against judaism and the jewish spirit. It's almost like you don't want people to know about the battle Nietzsche waged against the Jewish spirit!

>>17359781
>http://library.lol/main/DCFC93CAF76CCF57922C8136F5213F25
Thanks

>>17356627
>i hope my ideas are not misunderstood

nietzsche said something along the lines of "i want to be misinterpreted" in bg&e. and a good chunk of tsz is about how zarathustra wants to raise his followers up to a certain level whereupon they can stop being followers and form their own philosophy, using zara's teachings as a base even if it goes in a completely different direction than what zara intended.

also while nietzsche def wasnt a hedonist he did have qualities of that. namely in that he was against life-denial. nietzsche had his thoughts on what that entailed but he would prefer if one thought for themselves and decide what it entails.

>>17360486
>He wouldn't hate people trying to address systemic problems

prob trye in some regards, false in others. i can see nietzsche thinking that a lot of the attacks on the system as slaves attempting to bring the masters down to their level.

>>17360542
its almost like hedonism is an undefined and relative concept to people.
Ie to me hedonism is working your ass off 5 days a week on passion projects then doing drugs and fucking for 2 days to refresh your mind. Then there really is no hedonism when it plays into your work through proper application of nueroscience and psychology. People are not robots(unless you are chinese or autistic) and they cannot function without proper releases or pleasures. What hedonism really is, is a life focused entirely on pleasures and comforts to a point they become self destructive and destroy the creative spirit.

I think another good point is that you cannot look at Nietzsche with a narrow lens and realize that he was writing his ideas from a 19th/20th century focus in mind and he had no idea how technology/science would advance to a point where his ideas could become obsolete

>>17358298
>>17359596
>>17359781
Based

>>17359423
>you don’t understand Nietzsche if it doesn’t match my worldview and don’t love kikes
>hidler still living rent free
>everything we don’t like was added in by his sister
>and he totally hated krauts bro and was a zionist
Lol kys

>>17356835
I bet even buttercunt would submit to this

>>17360542
>>nietzsche said something along the lines of "i want to be misinterpreted" in bg&e. and a good chunk of tsz is about how zarathustra wants to raise his followers up to a certain level whereupon they can stop being followers and form their own philosophy, using zara's teachings as a base even if it goes in a completely different direction than what zara intended.
yes the globohomo free thinker, what an atheist dream...

>>17357203
>he unironically thinks Hitler was le Überman
Off yourself, incel faggot.

I see Nietzsche as an individualist while Nazis were hyper collectivist with a slave morality (eternal victims of Jews/Versailles/etc. that needed to break free etc). That alone is a key difference.

>>17361396
That’s not what slave morality is dumb tard

Absolute shitskin cope.

>>17359816
Perhaps what I mean by induvidualist is that his (a)morality is for an individual or particular person. The parts you’ve quoted and translated from German (thanks, although you didn’t need to as I have the book) describe how the psychology of a particular person works. The notions of the ego, the I, the soul are all mistaken constructs. What people mistakenly call the ego is in fact this plurality of affects with the dominant one commanding the others being identified with a falsely constructed I in/by that person. His moral philosophy is about giving effect to what is real, to the will to power, which is that aforementioned psychological/physiological picture. Not subduing it will false ideals or concepts like free will or morality.

Secondly, he does explicitly mention that his philosophy is for those few with taste and intellectual courage who can think for themselves etc. Sure, that might be conceivably be everyone, but for him it was a rare few. And those few would eh great artists, leaders, the aristocratic class in his utopian empire. Although, I think his political views (themselves idealistic) are less interesting, that the moral philosophy which encourages particular people/individuals (to say nothing of an I, ego, soul), to give effect to their individual/particular psychological/physiological being, which is the will to power, which is the only normative force in the universe.

the most satisfying thing about a Nietzsche book is the sound it makes when you throw it at a door

>>17361396
Based, I came to the same conclusion for quite some time ago, glad to see that others have similar thoughts

>>17360542
Imagine not being able to humour a meme