/lit/ - Literature

>>17546243
At this point even I am tired of Nietzsche Ad-homs in this board. And I hate Nietzsche

>>17546303
Kind of the point of the thread retard.
But you're most likely a nietzschefag.

>>17546243

Undoubtedly Nietzsche would have come to resent his own writings, would have written a complete set of critical retractions, and would have died in an even more miserable state. He is embraced by the saddest people, those who lost their faith or came to despise their own traditions, and are so utterly desperate to feel big. I think Nietzsche would have much preferred to just win over the spirit of the happy faithful, and not to undermine them but only to transform them into something more sensitive to their own inner guiding princples. I'm an Augustine fag, and I think true power of Nietzsche is in coming to take seriously the internal sense of right and wrong, without conditioning it to the whims of any convenience. I think Nietzsche was himself coming to terms with the true fire of the Holy Ghost, but didn't embed himself in the spirit of any tradition, and that's why he dies alone.

>>17546243
Sneedtzsche is fucking shit. His philosophy is concerned with being more artistic and polemical than helpful, plus his misogyny is hilarious coming from a guy who tried on his sister's clothes until he was 10. That fact really reframes his philosophy to book after book of pussy ass cope.

>>17546322
I'm Christian

>>17546324

>>17546368
Doubt.
But you'd have to be dumb not to see how shit nietzschefags are for the board.

>>17546326
ad hom ad hom adhom ad infinitum>>17546324
>>17546243
*yawn* nietzsche keeps winning

>>17546465
https://youtu.be/m4ZEy31t6Nw
If this what you call winning.

>>17546385
Ad hom

>>17546465

What did Nietzsche win exactly? He's been rolling around in a few niche circles for over a century and has the break-out appeal of Ralph Nader. He's blamed for the Nazi debacle, and like Marx his adherents can't stop trying to spin the story of how he wasn't really advocating for this-or-that and was just wildly confused, etc. etc. 95% of the intellectual sphere surrounding the guy is a busy defense of him against the charge of being the cause of the Nazis. Where do you think his posterity is headed? Absolutely nowhere. And if it wasn't for the accusation of inspiring Nazism, he likely would have been dropped from the scene altogether.

>>17546243
what more cruel revenge could dullness take on genius?

>>17546620
>nietzsche bad cuz his reception retarded huurr durrr
fuck off

>>17546465
so fucking epic B)))

>>17546632

Weak response.

>>17546622
But they're not taking him on they embrace him.

>>17546243
One thing I've learned in life is that the more people someone makes others seethe, the more influential he is
No one in this board makes others seethe more than Nietzsche, so he's pretty based to me

>>17546674
this. same for marx and freud. it makes people go ooga wooga on here

>>17546620
What? Nietzsche influenced almost all large subsequent philosophers that followed him. No one gives a shit that she was a Nazi. So was Schmitt and Heidegger and they're intellectual giants.

>>17546696
you shouldnt respond to trolls

>>17546674
>>17546689
Post any philosopher enough times and it'll make people seethe because they get tired of it. It's not a good measure for anything other than having popular appeal.

>>17546717
nah. Most people just hide or ignore threads they dont like. People choose to get triggered.

>>17546674I
>literally retroactively kills neetch with words
socrates must have been extremely based then

>>17546648
yes exactly, like the iliad being a school book for the nearly 3000 years & never has poem more easy to understand failed more completely of being understood

>>17546674
Does neetch really trigger anyone though? Calling someone a slave moralist was like the incel of its time.

>>17546732
Name one popular thinker/writer that gets posted a lot and doesn't get a lot of hate.

>>17546696

Influenced how? They read him, sure, but who are the Nietzscheans? Everyone still goes back to Plato, back to Socrates, back to Aristotle. Nobody except a few niche people have even attempted to figure out what Nietzsche was really trying to get at, and there is practically no agreement. Yet you basement dwelling neets find no end in amusing yourself with the idea that by reading his disconnected blathering that you've stumbled on something golden.

Reminder that all the nietzschefags came from reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/12god2/bertrand_russell_on_friedrich_nietzsche/

>>17546764
>Nietzsche has influenced philosophers such as Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre,[326] Oswald Spengler,[327] George Grant,[328] Emil Cioran,[329] Albert Camus, Ayn Rand,[330] Jacques Derrida,[citation needed] Sarah Kofman,[331] Leo Strauss,[332] Max Scheler, Michel Foucault, Bernard Williams,[citation needed] and Nick Land.[333] Camus described Nietzsche as "the only artist to have derived the extreme consequences of an aesthetics of the absurd".[334] Paul Ricœur called Nietzsche one of the masters of the "school of suspicion", alongside Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud.[335] Carl Jung was also influenced by Nietzsche.[336] In Memories, Dreams, Reflections, a biography transcribed by his secretary, he cites Nietzsche as a large influence.[337] Aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy, especially his ideas of the self and his relation to society, run through much of late-twentieth and early twenty-first century thought.[338][339]

>>17546763
deleuze. was posted constantly, but very little hate compared to marx, nietzsche etc.

>>17546764
>Although he later worked less on Aristotle, Heidegger recommended postponing reading Nietzsche, and to "first study Aristotle for ten to fifteen years".[109]

>Friedrich Hölderlin and Friedrich Nietzsche were both important influences on Heidegger,[127] and many of his lecture courses were devoted to one or the other, especially in the 1930s and 1940s. The lectures on Nietzsche focused on fragments posthumously published under the title The Will to Power, rather than on Nietzsche's published works. Heidegger read The Will to Power as the culminating expression of Western metaphysics, and the lectures are a kind of dialogue between the two thinkers.

>This is also the case for the lecture courses devoted to the poetry of Friedrich Hölderlin, which became an increasingly central focus of Heidegger's work and thought. Heidegger grants to Hölderlin a singular place within the history of being and the history of Germany, as a herald whose thought is yet to be "heard" in Germany or the West. Many of Heidegger's works from the 1930s onwards include meditations on lines from Hölderlin's poetry, and several of the lecture courses are devoted to the reading of a single poem (see, for example, Hölderlin's Hymn "The Ister").

>>17546775

So who are the Nietzscheans? You had to produce a list of people who claim to have been "influenced" by him, big deal. Nietzsche was "influenced" by Plato and Christ, and he went on to criticize both. But with other mega-figures it is easy to spot who else fell into the tradition. Even Marx has his crew. Nietzsche doesn't have shit.

>>17546764
> According to Heidegger, metaphysics conceives of Being as a being (for more on the reduction of Being to a being, see section 2.2.1 above). In so doing, metaphysics obscures the concealing-unconcealing dynamic of the essential unfolding of Being, a dynamic that provides the a priori condition for there to be beings. The history of metaphysics is thus equivalent to the history of Western philosophy in which Being as such is passed over, a history that, for Heidegger, culminates in the nihilistic forces of Nietzsche's eternally recurring will-to-power.

>They read him, sure, but who are the Nietzscheans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nietzsche_scholars

>>17546812
>So who are the Nietzscheans?
Heidegger for one, who is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

>>17546812
Nietzsche literally told readers to think for themselves and overcome him, he influenced people, but didnt create an over arching system that would mobilize people under one ideal

>>17546823
> who is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

Not even "great" enough to be read in the US/UK. But more importantly, I don't even agree that Heidegger is a "Nietzschean." He picked up on a few things Nietzsche said that jived with his own sentiments, and that's about the extent of it. If you actually sit down and try it, I think you'll have a hard time saying what exactly Nietzsche thought, what exactly Nietzsche was arguing for/against, and what the upshot was supposed to be. And it's easy to see why: Nietzsche himself is all over the place. Hell, he was enamored with Emerson who is himself clearly a theist. If he hadn't said so himself you fags would likely be claiming that Nietzsche would never admire Emerson.

>>17546734
yes. Unironically

>>17546869
>Not even "great" enough to be read in the US/UK
oh yes, US/UK, the philosophical stronghold
> I think you'll have a hard time saying what exactly Nietzsche thought
If you did not understand him at least do not embarrass yourself

>>17546893

What about my point about Emerson? What's your take?

>>17546900
I dont care about some literally who, where does N even mention him?

>>17546916

Fucking comedy gold. You fags tell me to go "read Nietzsche" and you don't even know about his love of Emerson. Unbelievable.

>>17546932
does N even dedicate a footnote to him?

>>17546938

Literally just go google it, jfc.

>>17546869
>I don't even agree that Heidegger is a "Nietzschean."
Good thinkers tend to bring new things, not just rehash old ideas like neo-marxists and the rest of the leftist intellectual wasteland. You never read Nietzsche, you have a double digit IQ, and on top of all you're also arrogant.

>>17546900
Your point about Emerson is dumb like all your points. What the fuck does it matter if Emerson was a theist you illiterate moron?

>>17546900
>>17546916
Lmao

>>17546995
>If he hadn't said so himself you fags would likely be claiming that Nietzsche would never admire Emerson.

Told you.

>>17547040
We wouldn't say that because Emerson is a non-entity and he would never come up in any discussion.

>>17547071
>assuming that being popular among the herd is a sign of be ing aristocratic

>>17547071
>because Emerson is a non-entity

I would say that, if you read Nietzsche talk about Emerson, that you'd have to admit that you can't even approach Nietzsche without understanding his love of Emerson. Nietzsche called him his "twin soul" and read him throughout his life. How can you even pretend to understand the guy if you don't even understand the things that he loved and cherished?

>>17546243
>Nietzsche being embraced by the herd is the best critique of his philosophy and the most cruel fate. What are the chances he would embrace the herd? He loved fate, right?
1. Nietzsche wasn't embraced by the herd. At most, the herd has embraced an inaccurate caricature of him.
2. What the herd does is not a critique of his philosophy.
3. Nietzsche already understood how the herd works, so this embracing of a caricature wouldn't come to a surprise to him.
4. He argued for the protection of the herd because its existence allows the Overman to be.
5. Your thread is shit.

>>17547230
>What the herd does is not a critique of his philosophy
Retard

The best thing about these threads is how they reveal nietzschefags as non-readers.

>>17547629
>type one word
>feel heckin' based for it

>>17547230
It was a LARP so their embrace is sincere.

>>17546774
lmao

>>17547789
No, they reveal that his detractors on this board have not read him, and are motivated to post in Nietzsche threads by ressentiment because of their dumbass religious beliefs, rather than any cogent understanding of his philosophy.

>>17548611
Neetchbot 9000 so based Nietzsche antiressentiment algopost woah muh power go nietzsche you cray cray woah so based. No it was you that didn't read because Nietzsvhe is the Mangod.

>>17548611
Nice reddit cope you faggot.

>>17546465
Only faggoty pussies ad hom

>>17546243
dostoyevsky proactively refuted nietzsche

>>17548799
>Only faggoty pussies bitch about ad hom

>>17548891
Nietzsche was a fan of Dostoyevsky. Dostoyevsky is pro-Nietzsche.

>>17549074
>Dostoyevsky is pro-Nietzsche
ngmi

>>17549074
Wrong. Nietzsche was a retard.

>>17549090
says the cockroach

>>17549094
Cringe.

>>17546324
His last words were "God forgive me."

>seething at a man who has been dead for over a century
The definition of rent free

>>17546689
Nietzsche and Marx are very popular so idk what you people think their ideas are so rare and groundbreaking lmao. Its mainstream and they would hate their followers today who mainly are incels and BLM trannies.

>>17550782
>laughing
>seething

>>17550791
Nietzsche would love trannies for their will to power.

>>17552390
They display too much resentment, like the anti-semites.

>>17552439
They don't resent anyone.

>>17552560
They resent their parents, often the police, and often (usually Western) authority in general.

They also represent the liberal ideal, not the Nietzschean one. The Nietzschean wants opposites to become more fiercely opposed to one another. The idea of a male being able to become female is liberal / anti-Nietzschean.

He influenced modern thought one way or the other so get the fuck over it. The magic is in the process not the pedantic detail. You cowards don't know how to dance.

>>17552587
You focusing on the last trannies not the ubertrannies.

>>17552671
So did Bieber, Kanye, pisschrist, spielburg etc.
Influence isnt necessarily a good thing.

>>17552819
Modern thought not modern consumption

>>17552877
As if there's a difference.

I wonder how fewer the number of faggots would be on this board if they were given a classic education, like the type British grammar schools used to give

>>17553143
It would be closer to the numbers back in 2011-2013

>>17553143
Probably be better cause no neetchfags.

>>17553215
Sounds pleasant
>>17553789
You'd have very few Marxists too. I don't mind 'neetchfags' but the constant subversion is insufferable

>>17555108
Neetchfag threads are even worse than the trolling ones though. They're so fucking humorless and botlike in their worship of neetch..

>>17555204
>They're so fucking humorless and botlike
They're trying to actually learn something from one of the most complex thinkers in Western history, how else should they act? Like retarded memesters?

>>17555728
How do you learn something by being a bot? Braindead

>>17556010
The fuck does "bot" mean? God damn you're annoying.

>>17548728
>Nice reddit cope you faggot.
Go back nigger.

>>17556036
>larping so hard he pretends to not know what bots are

>>17546243
>Nietzsche being embraced by the herd is the best critique of his philosophy and the most cruel fate.

>Nietzsche’s Puritan Warriors
>by Mark T. Mitchell

>Mitchell’s thesis is both simple and elegant: he contends that the worldview underlying a great deal of today’s progressive activism is a curious admixture of Friedrich Nietzsche’s reduction of all ethics to power and the zealous moralism of America’s Puritan heritage. Despite their seemingly irreconcilable presuppositions, the two paradigms nonetheless make up a distinctly American brew.

>But, as Mitchell correctly points out, few of Nietzsche’s latter-day disciples go this far. Instead, “Nietzsche’s Puritan Warriors” prefer to hover at the level of surface criticism, decrying modern civilization as pervasively oppressive while simultaneously immunizing their own premises from critique. Mitchell’s explanation for this apparent inconsistency is that the contemporary campus left simply lacks the courage to embrace the full force of Nietzsche’s work; the philosopher who urged his successors to go Beyond Good and Evil would treat today’s students of critical theory as “craven fools who are unwilling to take the final leap and discard the Christian ideals whose foundations they have sought so assiduously to destroy.”

>Nietzsche’s own work suggests an answer.
>On the Dionysian reading, Nietzsche situates the true end of humanity—that is, the sacred—in the full flowering of passion and material desire,

> This broadly parallels an argument made by Steven D. Smith in his recent Pagans and Christians in the City: Culture Wars from the Tiber to the Potomac, which contends that the rise of Christianity entailed the affirmation of a “transcendent sacred” over against the “immanent sacred” of classical paganism.

>And that pre-Christian ideal may be surprisingly attractive to modern minds. One need only consider the themes of much contemporary progressivism—sexual liberation, biological heritage, environmental apocalypticism, idealization of preindustrial society, experience-based epistemology, and so forth—to see that there are numerous points of correspondence with the “this-worldly” religiosity of the classical age.

>From this perspective, the deconstructionist tendencies of “Nietzsche’s Puritan Warriors” become easier to explain: despite their use of Nietzschean methods, they are not übermenschen but, in an ironic twist, reactionaries. Their demand to deconstruct the “systems of oppression” upon which modern civilization rests is the necessary condition for the full expression of a non-transcendent religiosity, one that promises full liberation from oppressive dogma and all transcendent claims. Theirs is not a cowardly reading of Nietzsche, but simply a bastardized one.
https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/nietzsches-puritan-warriors/