/lit/ - Literature

>>17600166
Based. The only way to really comprehend Nietzsche, and to get the most out of his work, is to read him for what he truly was: a poet, an artist, an aesthetician and philosopher of life.

He overtly built his metaphysics around his aesthetics. That is admirable. Most people misunderstand their worldviews as being grounded on reason rather than emotion, but not Neetch.

>Nietzsche
>metaphysics
Heideggerians get out

>>17600197
Rejection of metaphysics is still metaphysics.

>>17600281
Not Nietzsche's, whose philosophical message amounted to "any metaphysics you read into my books comes from you, not me; all metaphysics is self-swindle."

>>17600352
>Will-to-Power isn't metaphysics
What is it, then? Please don't say a scientific theory.

>>17600388
>What is it, then?
Nietzsche's interpretation of the universe

>>17600404
>it's metaphysics for me (Nietzsche) but not for thee
still metaphysics.

>>17600410
It's not metaphysics for Nietzsche, it was his interpretation. No interpretation suggests a metaphysics in anything. Metaphysics is when we forget that an interpretation is all we have and we convince ourselves that we can know something beyond ourselves.

>>17600166
>I view Nietzsche mostly as a romantic in the large sense and as an aesthetician.
These are the worst words I could possibly hear by another about Nietzsche. Because it's getting so close there, and shows they have the potential for understanding, but just a throwing into the bin, lazily resting from any philosophical legwork-- perhaps to never walk again?! Failure to develop is the sorriest sight I have ever seen.

>>17600421
Is “everything is an interpretation” an interpretation? If not, it’s a metaphysical statement. If yes, then either I can posit objective truth as my own interpretation. If that too is an interpretation, then nietzsche is essentially a radical skeptic who believes nothing can be known or asserted about anything. This too is a metaphysical belief. You literally cannot escape metaphysics, even if you play word games and act like you do.

>>17600426
Just like nietzsche, all as hominem and no explanation.

>>17600352
>The conclusion from Nietzsche to the possible is not valid.

>>17600443
>Is “everything is an interpretation” an interpretation?
Yes.

>If yes, then either I can posit objective truth as my own interpretation.
Yes, you can, and in fact you must, since it is all you have. A strong will unites itself with the phrase "objective truth." That's what Nietzsche saw the overman doing too, since the masses have been doing it for millennia, and they seek to destroy the overman — they portray him as Satan in all their works, and hate him.

>nietzsche is essentially a radical skeptic who believes nothing can be known or asserted about anything.
This is only your interpretation. Nietzsche thinks whatever he wants to think whenever it suits him. Any model you try placing him in will fall apart at some point because he did away with models aka metaphysics.

>>17600421
>Metaphysics is when we forget that an interpretation is all we have and we convince ourselves that we can know something beyond ourselves.

That is a metaphysical statement

>>17600514
It is only if you interpret it as such. You're still not getting it if that's what you think, though.

>>17600521
This is why skeptics just have to be lined up and shot. There’s no reasoning with them

>>17600166
>He should have explored his work from Birth of Tragedy further

Does anyone other than Nietzsche do this? Someone who writes like this on aesthetics.

>>17600529
You aren't trying to reason with me, you're trying to convince me to think how you think.

>this dude walks up to you at the bar calls you an ugly pleb and says CONSEQUENTLY you do NOT understand the Greeks!
What do?

>>17600521
How about I slap you and let you interpret that

>>17600450
Filtered

>>17600450
You must learn to look intuitively, or with a deeper reasoning, into the words you read. You're going to get nowhere with Goethe with this same mentality.

>130. Was Nietzsche a systematizer? The scholars are divided on the issue. But Nietzsche was suspicious of systematizers, and maintained that "the will to a system is a lack of integrity" — why? Because a system's purpose, at bottom, is to refuse the Other its own viewpoint. A complete and total theory of things would be logically binding for everyone; a form of supression, of opression. Besides which, it would be stupid, since no matter what the systematizer may say, the Other will have its viewpoint regardless. This, then, was Nietzsche's system: that there is no "system" — i.e. no complete and total view of things that could cover the needs of every lifeform in the universe. The subhumans will pop up now and bleat, "See? We were right all along in not paying attention to systems!" They were "right", but for the wrong reasons (i.e. they were wrong): not insight in the truth of the matter, but laziness to study. Three levels here, as elsewhere: on the first, and lower level, the subhumans, who maintain a set of utterly contradictory beliefs, precisely because they themselves are contradictory beings: not bothering at all with being consistent or investigating anything and simply adopting any claim that seems to advance their interests at any given moment. On the second, higher level the pre-Nietzschean thinkers: who, having not yet drawn the ultimate conclusions from perspectivism and the flux, believed that a system could be found, and strove valiantly to find it. And on the third, final level Nietzsche and I (and Heraclitus too, actually, if you know how to read between his long-lost lines), who have elevated consistency to the point of total inconsistency, closing the circle at the high point, and therefore the most powerful.

http://orgyofthewill.net/

>>17600166
>squandering his insights on metaphysics.
>squandering
>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.

>>17600535
Burke is the aesthetics god

>people still trying to use their brain to parse Nietzsche rather than their gut
humanity is a hopeless lot

>>17600542
Yeah, a GAY bar!

>>17600651
it works when you're a galaxy brain

>>17600708
a galaxy brain is just a brain fused with the gut

>>17600737
>fused
no, it's a consensual partnership and understanding

>>17600426
>These are the worst words I could possibly hear by another about Nietzsche. Because it's getting so close there, and shows they have the potential for understanding, but just a throwing into the bin, lazily resting from any philosophical legwork-- perhaps to never walk again?! Failure to develop is the sorriest sight I have ever seen.
These are the worst words I could possibly hear by another about this post. Because it's getting so close there, and shows they have the potential for understanding, but just a throwing into the bin, lazily resting from any philosophical legwork-- perhaps to never walk again?! Failure to develop is the sorriest sight I have ever seen.

>>17600794
I blame your inability to understand my post on your intelligence.

>>17600794
lmao is this a nietzsche parody

>>17600388
If Nietzsche is a metaphysician, then he is the greatest of them all. He is not concerned with truth or untruth, his entirely endeavor is the pursuing of that freedom of the soul, in this he is much similar to Socrates in the Republic, where beautiful lies guarantee the cultivation of men to its maximum capacities.

>>17600902
>everything is will to power
>there is no truth
>everything is not about will to power
ggez

>>17600957
people really struggle to see how this kind of thing is self-refuting and think that just by seeing "no, you" it somehow transcends it

>>17600166
>his insights on metaphysics.
????

>>17600957
Basically. Once someone has rejected truth as a concept they've no leg to stand one when someone says "no, you" and calls them an idiot.

>>17600957
>everything is not about will to power
Says who?

>>17601254
>Once someone has rejected truth as a concept they've no leg to stand on
Wrong, power is what one stands on after truth is no longer a sufficient basis.

>>17601506
No individual has the power to uphold his personal interpretations in a system with has forgone truth. Individuals are too fragile and dependent for that. You don't even have the power to suppress the man who says "no, you."

>>17601506
if that is true, then truth still stands

>>17601347
Nietzsche

>>17602722
>No individual has the power to uphold his personal interpretations in a system with has forgone truth.
Nietzsche did, the overman does.

>>17602734
It is not true, it is the expression of a will that is more powerful than yours.

>>17600186
This. This is what ultimately makes him based and anti-cope, anti-LARP.

>>17600651
Based

>>17603307
>It is not true, it is the expression of a will that is more powerful than yours.
if that is true, then truth still stands