/lit/ - Literature

>>17432721
he was clear, go and read him, faggot.

>>17432721
Read Ecce Homo you fucking pleb.

>>17432721
Crowley in Italy
Cesare Borgia in Vatican City
Napoleon in London
Benis in vagene

>>17432721
The United States unironically. He would have loved Hollywood, Las Vegas, Disney World, and Hawaii.

>>17433335
retard or bait?

Neopagan Pan-European Austro-Hungarian Monarchism.

>>17433403
Neither. Zarathustra was fond of gambling; Nietzsche wanted a Hollywood-style place where there were no restraints and big stakes for art; Disney World is a great place for the masses to take their kids; and everyone loves the beauty of Hawaii. A society that can pull all of these together is one that is multi-faceted and free.

>>17433444
dial 8

>>17433413
Pretty much this

>>17433452
ok pleb

>>17433463
the fuck u called me, u little tranny? go eat some cheese while ur wife is being banged by an immigrant, u faggot cunt. muh americaaa. stfu. enjoy niggers destroying ur country, faggot poop. im sure nitzche would love to see men dress up as women and children being molested by politicians and manipulated by their tv shows to think racemixing, trannyfaggotry, poopiescooper, gaming, and faggotry is cool, again, u fucking diaperwhore.

>>17433486
sneed

He really didnt know, he just wanted that after everything collapsed something new, free from the life denying illness of christianity and platonism would be born
He may number some historical examples but he knew that the future would be something like nothing else before

>>17432721
the United States.

>>17432721
Pan european empire featuring paganism

>>17432721
>>17433413
>Neopagan Pan-European Austro-Hungarian Monarchism.

This, OP.

>>17432721
monarchism without punishment imposed by law.
his ideal society is one that is so strong no number of criminals could bring it down. if the core of the society (the monarch) is strong, the people will be loyal to it, and will want to live under its rule voluntarily, as it will offer them the best life possible. a society comprised largely of individuals loyal to its leader will not crumble even if there are hundreds of criminals running around committing crimes. however, because this society would be so strong, there would naturally be less criminals as less people would be inclined to turn to crime. This would leave only those who would be committing crimes in any society, and in this society their activities would be insignificant.
N says the strength of a nation is tested by how many bad apples it can hold. Punishment as necessity to hold a society together is a testament to its weakness.
He says this all pretty explicitly. It's highly idealistic but if you don't know this you didn't read him.

>>17432721
Well we do know that he thought slavery is the basic requirement for high culture, we also know that he despised commercialism and praised war, but at the same time he had a negative view of petty european nationalism and wars among european nations. He also had a negative view of socialism, in one aphorism he claimed that european workers embrace socialism only because they view fat pink cheecks manlet capitalist as inferior and not worthy of their position and that they would never dare rebelling against warrior generals, in another aphorism he said that europe should import asians as slave labour since they are more passive.

>>17434254
>his ideal society is one that is so strong no number of criminals could bring it down
or rather a society of criminals

>>17434812
no

>>17434812
not at all, read him

>>17434882
>Every enhancement in the type "man" up to this point has been the work of an aristocratic society - and that's how it will always be, over and over again: a society which believes in a long scale of rank ordering and differences in worth between man and man and which, in some sense or other, requires slavery. Without the pathos of distance, the sort which grows out of the deeply rooted difference between the social classes, out of the constant gazing outward and downward of the ruling caste on the subjects and work implements, and out of their equally sustained practice of obedience and command, holding down and holding at a distance, that other more mysterious pathos would have no chance of growing at all, that longing for an ever new widening of distances inside the soul itself, the development of ever higher, rarer, more distant, more expansive, more comprehensive states, in short, simply the enhancement in the type "man," the constant "self-conquest of man," to cite a moral formula in a supra-moral sense. Of course, where the history of the origins of aristocratic society is concerned (and thus the precondition for that raising of the type "man"-), we should not surrender to humanitarian illusions: truth is hard. So without further consideration, let's admit to ourselves how up to this point every higher culture on earth has started! People with a still natural nature, barbarians in every dreadful sense of the word, predatory men still in possession of an unbroken power of the will and a desire for power, threw themselves on weaker, more civilized, more peaceful, perhaps trading or cattle-raising races, or on old, worn cultures, in which at that very moment the final forces of life were flaring up in a dazzling fireworks display of spirit and corruption. At the start the noble caste has always been the barbarian caste: its superiority has lain not primarily in physical might but in spiritual power - it has been a matter of more complete human beings (which at every level also means "more complete beasts").

>>17434882
>Mutually refraining from wounding each other, from violence, and from exploitation, and setting one's will on the same level as others - these can in a certain crude sense become good habits among individuals, if conditions exist for that (namely, a real similarity in the quality of their power and their estimates of value, as well as their belonging together within a single body). However, as soon as people wanted to take this principle further and, where possible, establish it as the basic principle of society, it immediately showed itself for what it is, as the willed denial of life, as the principle of disintegration and decay. Here we must think through to the fundamentals and push away all sentimental weakness: living itself is essentially appropriation from and wounding and overpowering strangers and weaker men, oppression, hardness, imposing one's own forms, annexing, and at the very least, in its mildest actions, exploitation - but why should we always use these precise words, which have from ancient times carried the stamp of a slanderous purpose? Even that body in which, as previously mentioned, the individuals deal with each other as equals - and that happens in every healthy aristocracy - must itself, if it is a living body and not dying out, do to other bodies all those things which the individuals in it refrain from doing to each other: it will have to be the living will to power, it will grow, grab things around it, pull to itself, and want to acquire predominance - not because of some morality or immorality, but because it is alive and because living is simply the will to power. But in no point is the common consciousness of the European more reluctant to be instructed than here. Nowadays people everywhere, even those in scientific disguises, are raving about the coming conditions of society from which "the exploitative character" is to have disappeared: - to my ears that sounds as if people had promised to invent a life which abstained from all organic functions. The "exploitation" is not part of a depraved or incomplete and primitive society: it belongs in the essential nature of what is living, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the real will to power, which is simply the will to live. - Assuming that this is something new as a theory - it is, nonetheless, in reality the fundamental fact of all history: we should at least be honest with ourselves to this extent!

>Nietzsche
>monarchism
All these filtered zoomers in this thread.

>>17434958
>>17434972
you're missing the forest for the trees if you think these passages mean that N's ideal society is one comprised of criminals, of people who seek only to destroy and to harm.
>>17435048
he literally says it multiple times retard

>>17435104
He doesn't explicitly say he wants monarchism anywhere and he has a lot of takes on politics that are contradictory to monarchism. Pathos of distance isn't the same as monarchism. That exists even in our current political structure.

>>17435104
>N's ideal society is one comprised of criminals, of people who seek only to destroy and to harm.
He is literally arguing for an aristocratic society that conquers other subhumans and uses them as slave labour because exploitation is a fundamental aspect of nature itself, but i guess it's some deep metaphor and shiet

>>17432721
test

>>17435174
>because exploitation is a fundamental aspect of nature itself
Was he retarded? If exploitation is "natural" then love and compassion are also natural in human animal.

>>17435174
yeah, and he's equating the violent tendencies of the criminal with those conquerors. I think at one point he calls Napoleon the highest criminal

>>17435223
he also had an aphorism where he said something like "the difference between a great man and a criminal is the audacity of the deed" but i can't find it

>>17435182
TEST THIS DICK

>>17435215
Everything is natural, exploitation included. You couldn't live if your body didn't exploit its environment, from the oxygen molecules you breathe and the animal and vegetable life you consume, all the way to even fabricating things like time and space in order to "feel" itself in the world. Exploitation is not just natural, it's basically the first instinct ever developed.

>>17435174
>>17435223
>>17435272
you're conflating the criminals he talks about when analyzing punishment (as people who act against a societies rules) and his other uses of the word criminal, which are explicitly romantic.
It's not a "deep metaphor", it's fairly obvious where he switches between the literal and the hyperbolic. Slavery with Nietzsche is never literal slavery. This is Nietzsche 101.
>>17435215
Yes, N says the master is often highly compassionate and kind. An immediate tell of who has only read select portions of his writing are those who think the master is some horrific tyrant. Nietzsche advocates for compassion and love, but not slavish "compassion" which is hardly compassion at all.

>>17435407
>>17435432
Is Gay science a tdlr of Nietzsche?

>>17435449
No. there is no tldr. faggots looking for tldr's of him is the reason he's so misunderstood and why we have daily threads like this.

>>17432795
you forgot Cesar crossing the rubicon.

>>17435469
true.

You relly do have to read everything.

Or don't.

And read an actual philosopher.

>>17435469
N is so misunderstood because he uses a lot of words basically wishing for himself and the highest of men to be those faggot OP isekai protagonists that get a harem of slave waifus on their dick. Highfalutin literary types don't understand or want to admit this, so they tie themselves in knots reading their own meaning into him.

If N were alive today, your average anon would call him a faggot cuck.

>>17435432
>which are explicitly romantic
i think he mentioned himself multiple times that he isn't a romantic and that romanticism is a form of sickness. also this isn't some liberation theology anon he isn't talking about you coming out as a faggot to your family as way of overcoming social rules he is talking about colonialist conquest and murderers.
>Thus speaks the red judge: "Why did this criminal commit murder? He meant to rob." I tell you, however, that his soul wanted blood, not robbery: he thirsted for the bliss of the knife!But his weak reason did not understand this madness, and it persuaded him: "What matters blood!" it said; "don't you want, at least, to rob? Or take revenge?"And he listened to his weak reason: like lead its words laid upon him- therefore he robbed when he murdered. He did not want to be ashamed of his madness.And now the lead of his guilt lies upon him, and once more his weak reason is so numb, so paralyzed, so dull.If only he could only shake his head, then his burden would roll off; but who can shake that head?

>Slavery with Nietzsche is never literal slavery
So what is it in your mind? When he says that all great culture is founded on slavery and mentions the great cultures of the past that actually practiced it irl in a literal way, what is he trying to say?

>>17435514
Easily worst post itt.

>>17432721
>what kind of society did this guy want?
Not much of one but violently honest.

>>17435512
>And read an actual philosopher.
Such as?

>>17433413
He was r/atheism though.

>>17435558
Kant.

The answer is always Kant.
Or Wittgenstein if you want an Anglo.

I have read everything by Nietzsche in Highschool, in acadmia its of no use. If you are still in highschool go for nietzsche.

You will become the mc of you own anime, but as an adult? Just no.

>>17435432
What differentiates compassion between slavish compassion?

>>17434958
>People with a still natural nature, barbarians in every dreadful sense of the word, predatory men still in possession of an unbroken power of the will and a desire for power, threw themselves on weaker, more civilized, more peaceful, perhaps trading or cattle-raising races, or on old, worn cultures, in which at that very moment the final forces of life were flaring up in a dazzling fireworks display of spirit and corruption.
Nietzsche didn't read.

>>17435571
kant is an embaracing brainlet, i have yet to read wittgenstein but i expect him to be on the same level

>>17434972
>living itself is essentially appropriation from and wounding and overpowering strangers and weaker men, oppression, hardness, imposing one's own forms, annexing, and at the very least, in its mildest actions, exploitation
WHY WASN'T I THE BULLY! WHY DID I GET KEKED!

>>17435627
Nietzsche may or may have not been bullied himself nonetheless i don't see how this implication would refute this particular argument.
>inb4 sòyjack

>>17435514
Easily best post itt

>>17435645
>resentment bad if god say so
>resentment good if undergod say so

>>17432721
>Seriously, what kind of society did this guy want?
Contemporary scholarly consensus is that he is pretty much apolitical. Zarathustra is as explicitly political as he gets, unless you consider his aesthetic writings as necessarily political.

>>17435519
>i think he mentioned himself multiple times that he isn't a romantic and that romanticism is a form of sickness
pic. literalism is dishonesty.
> also this isn't some liberation theology anon he isn't talking about you coming out as a faggot to your family as way of overcoming social rules he is talking about colonialist conquest and murderers.
Yes, sometimes, just not always, hence why he constantly warns people to read carefully. The master moralist is one who does things for pure reasons, driven by the will to power. The master can be violent and bloodthirsty, or they can be compassionate and gentle, as long as their reasons are masterly.
> So what is it in your mind?
N believes that the world is ultimately comprised of two kinds of people, the master and the slave or the powerful and the weak. The slave is subordinate to the master, as is the natural order. The slave is not literally "person in bondage forced into labor", it is a weak person.
>>17435584
Slavish compassion is the result of the bad conscience. Guilt, fear, pity all these things drive the slave to be kind.
A slave would give a homeless man money because of the bad conscience. They may be afraid of going to hell, worried about what others may think of them, they may feel guilty for being more fortunate than the homeless person, or they may pity the homeless, seeing him as lowly and pathetic. They can also do it for hopes of being rewarded, although this is the double edged sword of heaven/hell, want of reward and fear of punishment are one and the same.
The master, on the other hand, would give money to the homeless person simply because it is in their nature as a powerful person. They do not need any external pressure to do it, they simply want to. It is not an act of negative emotion, it is one of love.

>>17435432
you're right, it's not a deep metaphor, it's literally the same concept.

>>17435599
He did, but reading doesn't ensure understanding.

>>17435670
>Contemporary scholarly consensus is that he is pretty much apolitical.
Blocks your path

>>17435670
have people who believe this even read HH or Daybreak

>>17435697
>The slave is not literally "person in bondage forced into labor", it is a weak person.
This kind off reminds of some comedy that i saw years ago where a serial killer tries to confess and people either misinterpret him or think that he is joking.

>>17435737
literal retard
none of his writing would make any sense if the slave was a literal slave and the master was a literal slave-master.
Please explain the concepts of the slave revolt and slave morality under the notion that he's speaking about literal slaves. It'll be really funny.

>>17435891
tell the truth you probably only saw youtube videos about him didn't you?
>slave revolt and slave morality
morality as formulated by enslave subjects, such as jews under the roman conquest, the ideals of the french revolution as way of "emancipating" paesants
Most of all keep in mind that Nietzsche isn't you modern edgy ironic zoomer who tells you that he will kill you to then later add "in minecraft".
He lived i'd like to remind you at a time where in some parts of the world where slavery was still practiced, like unironic slavery as in forced labour under threat of violence. You know this right?

>>17436189
>morality as formulated by enslave subjects, such as jews under the roman conquest, the ideals of the french revolution as way of "emancipating" paesants
this isn't an explanation but you know that. Please tell me how Nietzsche's concepts of the slave revolt and slave morality, as he writes about them, are referring to literal slaves. Do you even know what the slave revolt is?
> He lived i'd like to remind you at a time where in some parts of the world where slavery was still practiced, like unironic slavery as in forced labour under threat of violence
And? I never said he was opposed to or outraged by the concept of slavery. I said the slaves that Nietzsche talks about throughout his writings are not literal slaves. This is demonstrably true, and accepted by most anyone who has actually read him.
Let me ask, if a master moralist is enslaved, are they no longer a master?
This is some severe autism. Do you also think that N thought his readers were literal hyperboreans?

>>17436276
>Do you even know what the slave revolt is?
The formulation of values by a subject population, the values of the dominant aristocracy who conquered them become viewed as evil and the values that allow cooperation among and the emancipation of slaves become good. This is an inversion of the aristocratic values of where nobility is good by definition and generally vitalistic acts are praised.
>the Jews achieved that miracle of inversion of values thanks to which life on earth has for a couple millennia acquired a new and dangerous fascination - their prophets fused "rich", "godless", "evil", "violent", "sensual" into one, and were the first to coin the word "world" as a term of infamy. It is this inversion of values (with which is involved the employment of the word for "poor" as a synonym for "holy" and "friend") that the significance of the Jewish people resides: With them, there begins the slave revolt in morals.
>his writings are not literal slaves
Yes anon surely he means some "self actualized" small business owner when he talks about master and the wagecuck when he talks about slave.

r/atheism. Look up pics and that's what he'd want.

>>17432721
Because in no way is there a perfect society. One cannot "improve" it because fundamentally what one has to improve is the individual.

>>17432721
A 'true' meritocracy.

The problem with meritocracy is how easy they are to abuse. Most wealthy people just inherited wealth, and it's far easier to stay wealthy by entrenching your position than it is to build new wealth. It's easy to legally enforce a racial caste system to position losers over winners artificially.

Nietzsche recognizes both that people are not equal, but also that most externally enforced 'meritocracy' is a total misnomer, and are just artificial constraints to keep losers on top of the pile.

That's why he wants a perpetual shakeup of traditions and values. A man like Napoleon, who Nietzsche admired, would not have been possible in the old aristocratic system of the ancien regime. Similarly the full on democratic delusions of the revolution were never possible.

He primarily thinks societies that sediment into one way of thinking are bad. So you're asking the wrong question. He doesn't want a specific structure for society. He wants society to be in flux. To question its assumptions, adapt, find better principles. But never a permanent solution, those can't exist, so those new principles themselves will eventually be discarded.

Its all flux and evolution.

>>17435670
Nietzsche is both apolitical and extremely political. You think when Nietzsche is ranting about the intellectual degeneracy of the Greeks via Socrates he's not making political comments?

>>17436536
>Nietzsche recognizes both that people are not equal, but also that most externally enforced 'meritocracy' is a total misnomer
he never even once mentioned the word "meritocracy" in all of his works

>>17436555
No he was just a faggot.

>>17436555
yes socrates was a stinky pleb and tried to poison athenian aristocratic youth with his ideas

>>17432721
tst

>>17436580
Imagine being this stupid

>>17435514

Funny and therefore true

N would say as much

>>17435571
Both Kant&Wittgenstein are pseuds. Nietzsche knew what shit was about instead of wasting his time trying to build a foundation he went balls deep.

>>17432721
Why did he hate England so much bros?

>>17435571
>Wittgenstein if you want an Anglo.
what did anon mean by this

>>17436562
Yeah because the word didn't exist then lmao retard

>>17433444
Checked

He was just a retard

>>17435571
>Kant
The primary cause of the downward fall of Continental philosophy into complete irrelevance

>>17433486
you don't belong here, all of your talking points are parroted. you have no original thought in your body, just a mindless reactionary mentality. stop blaming others for your problems and realize that your shit mentality IS the problem and IS the reason you feel angry 24/7. I advise you to go out and travel, and most importantly gtfo of 4chan, and specifically /lit/, because you are cancer.

>>17438904
suck me

>>17437239
fucking mongoloid the word did existed way before nietzsche was even born

>>17435571
>wittgenstein if you want an anglo

>>17435570
not even close. Dawkins tier r/atheism treats atheism as a sort of post-Christian humanism. Something naturally more moral and just than religion. Nietzsche viewed atheism as the opposite of this.

>>17435571
>Wittgenstein if you want an Anglo

>>17432721
>what kind of society did this guy want?
Commoragh

>>17432721
A society of CRINGE losers who believe themselves inferior to an ideal in their heads, torturing themselves to reach it. Unlike Stirner-chads who realize they are always perfect and their slice of the world is however much is in their might.

>>17438904
>>17438971
the duality of man

>>17435724
a literal who, about as relevant as a NYer article to N studies.

>>17435731
yes. there’s a massive shift in his thinking between Daybreak and GS. this is well-documented

>>17436555
He’s ranting against the spirit, anon, not the contingencies that lead to the spirit (see: any scholarship on theory of the drives, the slave/master exchange, the will to power), or if he is, it is anecdotal, equivalent to literary criticism rather than bonafide positive politics. He loved the French and English satirists and polemicists, his philosophical father was Schopenhauer, of course he was prepared to shit all over society. His ultimate concerns exist above and beyond politics, and any programmatic attempt to parse a political account out of that misses the point.

>>17435571
>Wittgenstein if you want an Anglo.

>>17437201
This is England, people are sensible.

>>17432721
>society
didn't care
>man
Cesare Borgia
>died at my age
I am pathetic

>>17433115
Fuck Foucult, fucking faggot ass bitch

>>17434254
It just seems too utopian. I like Nietzsche but this just seems like a kid playing nationbuilding
>"nuh-uh because my country is so strong that criminals can't affect it that's why it doesn't need a penal system 'cus it's so strong and everybody loves it."

>>17439811
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/meritocracy

Literal retard lmao

>>17435571
Wittgenstein was Australian dumbo

>>17432721
Paneuropean Aristocratic Republic with a Pagan moral ethos and deep appreciation of the arts.

>>17441578
>a literal who
A scholar who wrote a book that refutes you. Doesn't matter if he's not well known yet.

>>17435571
>>17435128

What a non sense you moron.

N wanted Germany to be a true and powerful reich

>>17432721
Nietzsche found menial labor to be abhorrent, and he attacked the premise of "labor" being a dignified existence. I think we can rule out societies that dignify work over artistic creativity and self determination.