/lit/ - Literature

>>17693509
Reminder that Nietzsche didn't really care about politics

>>17693515
Negative attitude towards socialism and proletarian movement was one of the most consistent themes in Nietzsche's philosophy. He wrote negatively of socialism as early as 1862[50] and his criticisms of socialism are often harsher than those of other doctrines.[51] He was critical of French revolution and was deeply disturbed by the Paris Commune which he saw as a destructive insurrection of the vulgar lower classes that made him feel "annihilated for several days".[52] In his later writings he especially praised contemporary French authors, most of whom were right-wing thinkers whose works expressed strongly negative response to the Commune and its political heritage.[53] As opposed to the urban working class, Nietzsche praised the peasantry as an example of health and natural nobility.[54][55]

>>17693520
>one of the most consistent themes in Nietzsche's philosophy.

I dont know who tf wrote that but he clearly never read Nietzsche lmao. Nietzsche's liking for politics comes second to his ethics, and he never put out a consistent political viewpoint (altough its obvious he hated anarchism the most)

>>17693527
>Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman's instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence—who make him envious and teach him revenge.... Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of "equal" rights.... What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge. — The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry....
Nietzsche, F. (1895) The Antichrist (2nd ed.), translated by H. L. Mencken. Alfred A. Knopf, 1918. §57

>>17693520
Evola really is the intellectual inheritor of Nietzsche

>>17693547
No lol, maybe only politically but definetly not philosophically

>>17693533
I mean yeah, but it wasn't a "one of the most consistent themes", he just made some remarks here and there

>>17693527
It's quite obvious that he loathed socialism/anarchism as an example of slave morality. You can't then claim he was some ebin reactionary of course

>>17693555
>but definetly not philosophically
You either haven't read Evola or haven't read Nietzsche

>>17693533
Brutal, Butterfly on suicide watch

>>17693562
I've read both Nietzsche and Evola (only RTT), not only does Nietzsche not believe in metaphysics but Evola is the complete polar opposite of Nietzsche in every way, Evola is just a contemporary esoteric hinduist whereas Nietzsche put a lot more emphasis of aesthectics
You just need to read Evola's disdain for art in general in RTT and you immediately see that Nietzsche would've hated him

>>17693579
Are you aware Evola was an actual artist who produced paintings and poetry? Evola despised art that was proletarian or academically contrived, much like Nietzsche would've. I never claimed they were identical either, the explicit metaphysical claims are probably the biggest difference, but apart from that they are far more similar than you think. Read more of Evola if you want to investigate further, RTT isn't even a good introduction.

>>17693547
>>17693562
>>17693590
No.

>>17693579
More simply Evola is a reactionary traditionalist while Nietzsche is as progressive as they come, and the father of post-modernism (with Stirner) which Evola would've hated as nothing else.

Have some Neetzsche dunking on reactionaries:
>No, we do not love humanity; but on the other hand we are not nearly "German" enough, in the sense in which the word "German" is constantly being used nowadays, to advocate nationalism and race hatred and to be able to take pleasure in the national scabies of the heart and blood poisoning that now leads the nations of Europe to delimit and barricade themselves against each other as if it were a matter of quarantine. For that we are too open-minded, too malicious, too spoiled, also too well-informed, too "traveled": we far prefer to live on mountains, apart, "untimely", in past or future centuries, merely in order to keep ourselves from experiencing the silent rage to which we know we should be condemned as eyewitnesses of politics that are desolating the German spirit by making it vain and that is, moreover, petty politics:—to keep its own creation from immediately falling apart again, is it not finding it necessary to plant it between two deadly hatreds? must it not desire the eternalization of the European system of a lot of petty states? ... We who are homeless are too manifold and mixed racially and in our descent, being "modern men", and consequently do not feel tempted to participate in the mendacious racial self-admiration and racial indecency that parades in Germany today as a sign of a German way of thinking and that is doubly false and obscene among the people of the "historical sense". We are, in one word—and let this be our word of honor!— good Europeans, the heirs of Europe, the rich, oversupplied, but also overly obligated heirs of thousands of years of European spirit: as such, we have also outgrown Christianity and are averse to it, and precisely because we have grown out of it, because our ancestors were Christians who in their Christianity were uncompromisingly upright; for their faith they willingly sacrificed possessions and position, blood and fatherland. We—do the same. For what? For our unbelief? For every kind of unbelief? No, you know better than that, my friends! The hidden Yes in you is stronger than all Nos and Maybes that afflict you and your age like a disease; and when you have to embark on the sea, you emigrants, you, too, are compelled to this by— a faith! ...
The Gay Science, aphorism 377, transl. by "We who are homeless" ("We who are without Fatherlands")

>>17693590
>Read more of Evola if you want to investigate further, RTT isn't even a good introduction

I might read RATMW sometime, I'm just not a fan of the traditionalist movement overall

>>17693600
>Nietzsche is as progressive
Not in the sense progressive is usually used, unless you include literally whatever that happens as progress including debacles like nazism

>>17693600
>Nietzsche is as progressive as they come

Modern-day progressives are literally the pinnacle of slave morality. They are the Last Men of history that he predicted. In what possible way would Nietzsche have anything in common to a transgender leftist activist demanding equal rights and apologizing for being white

>>17693601
Understandable. My only word would be that Evola is probably the most stimulating out of all of them to read.
>>17693600
You haven't read Evola if you think that quote is somehow opposed to his philosophy (for example, it's implying Evola was a nationalist or a biological racist). Stop making claims about authors you haven't read, it's irritating.
>father of post-modernism (with Stirner) which Evola would've hated as nothing else.
Evola was more of a postmodernist than you're probably aware. He is not A postmodernist obviously, but he shares many traits with them due to the influence he received from Nietzsche. He is an advocate of moral relativism, for instance. He's also opposed to that type of rigid ideological/political structuralism that pomos tend to be against.

Also what >>17693617 has said, Nietzsche would not be considered a progressive by today's standards at all. He is in favour of a nobility and inequality, this is virtually as reactionary as you can come in today's society.

>>17693600
You really don’t know the difference between reactionaries and romanticism, huh? Evola disliked nationalism and Christianity too. that greentext is not “dunking” on reactionaries but the romanticism. btw, Evola was hugely influenced by Nietzsche and a wrote often about nietzscheanism. He also discussed Stirner in “ride the tiger” if nowhere else. Why you think Evola would not have known about these Intellectual giants and been influenced by them in someway is hilarious.

>>17693579
If you read Essays on Magical Idealism, Theory of the Absolute Individual, Phenomenology of the Absolute Individual, and the Yoga of Power it will become REALLY clear just how Nietzschean Evola really was.

>>17693617
Nietzsche quite literally invented progressivism, more, he IS progressivism.
His entire philosophical adventure started with anxiety about a godless future possibly leading to nihilism, he was only thinking about the future, and attempted to write a prescription of how humanity should evolve (progress) to avoid nihilism.

>>17693626
>>17693635
>>17693636
Simply put those people who you are speaking about are not progressives, unless your understanding of philosophy and politics is boomer-tier.
>Evola disliked nationalism
How to reconcile traditionalism with globalism?
>Nietzsche would not be considered a progressive by today's standards at all. He is in favour of a nobility and inequality, this is virtually as reactionary as you can come in today's society.
There really isn't any actual connection between progressivism and egalitarianism, unless you believe that historical materialism nonsense. The identification of progress with anal penetration and chemical castration is the biggest psy-op of our times.

>>17693651
>Idealism
>Yoga
>Absolute spirit

How filtered were you by Nietzsche? You do realize he was against all of this

>>17693659
>Nietzsche quite literally invented progressivism, more, he IS progressivism.
Protestant Christians invented progressivism. Liberals invented progressivism. The science movements of the 18th and 19th century and the enlighten invented progressivism? Although he wasn't a traditionalist, Nietzsche took the role of reactionary against all these things.
>How to reconcile traditionalism with globalism?
global Roman Imperium? global Caliphate? global Empire of the Rising Sun? There's like a million ways.
>There really isn't any actual connection between progressivism and egalitarianism, u
you are employing dishonest arguing or what?

>>17693600
What a homosexual quote

>>17693659
>There really isn't any actual connection between progressivism and egalitarianism
So then I guess we can consider Evola a progressive too? What is your definition of progressive. I guarantee you Evola and Nietzsche will both end up fitting together however you define it (within reason).
>How to reconcile traditionalism with globalism?
Evola was in favour of globalism, but only under certain conditions, which you'd know if you read his philosophy.

>and attempted to write a prescription of how humanity should evolve (progress) to avoid nihilism.
Which is exactly what Evola attempted to provide the answer to. Do you remember the scene from the well in Zarathustra? Do you not think Nietzsche was in favor of conflict and experimentation? Do you think Nietzsche cared if the people involved embraced his exact metaphysics or not?

>>17693520
>using wikipedia for philosophy

>>17693659
>Nietzsche quite literally invented progressivism, more, he IS progressivism.
>His entire philosophical adventure started with anxiety about a godless future possibly leading to nihilism, he was only thinking about the future, and attempted to write a prescription of how humanity should evolve (progress) to avoid nihilism.
It's rather Hegelian, the sort of evolutionary process of overcoming oneself, applied to humanity at large. The particularly Nietzschean aspect is the emphasis on the will to power lurking beneath the superficial features of psychology and culture, but the overall structure is still reminiscent of Hegel's unfolding reason.

>>17693600
>>17693676
For now we must set aside such allusions to a higher dimension οf experience of a liberated world in order to define more precisely what such a vision οί existence offers us in realistic terms. It is, in fact, the principle of purely being oneself. This is what remains after the elimination οf what philosophy calls "heteronomous morality," or morality based οn
an external law or command. Nietzsche said this about it: "They call you destroyers of morality, but you are οnly the discoverers οf yourselves";l and also: "We must liberate ourselves from morality so that
we can live morally." By the latter phrase, he means living according to one's own law, the law defined by one's own nature. (This may result in the way οί the superman, but only as a very special case.) This is οη the same lines as the "autonomous morality" οf Kant's categorical imperative, but with the difference that the command is absolutely internal, separate from any external mover, and is not based οn a hypothetical law extracted from practical reason that is valid for all and revealed to man's conscience as such, but rather to one's own specific being.

Nietzsche himself often presented these issues as though they were equivalent to naturalism. One frequently finds in him the simplistically
physiological and materialistic interpretation οί human nature, but it is basically inauthentic, accessory, and prompted by his well-known
polemic against "pure spirit." ln fact, Nietzsche saw deeper than that, and did not stop at the physical being when he spoke οf the "greater
reason" contained ίn the body and opposed to the lesser reason: that which "does not say Ι, but is Ι," and which uses the "spirit" and even
the senses as "little tools and toys." It is a "powerful lord, an unknown sage that is called oneself (Selbst}," "the guiding thread οf the Ι that suggests all its ideas to it," which "looks with the eyes οf the senses and listens with the ears οf the spirit." He is not speaking here οf the physical but οf "being" in the full ontological significance οf the word. The term he uses, das Selbst, can also be rendered by "the Self" as opposed to the Ι (Ich): an opposition that recalls that οf the traditional doctrines already mentioned between the supra-individual principle οf the person and that which they call the "physical Ι"

>>17693698
>>17693600
>>17693676
Once the crude physiological interpretation is cleared away, there emerges a valid attitude for the man who must stay standing as a free
being, even in the epoch of dissolution: to assume his own being into a willing, making it his own law, a law as absolute and autonomous as Kant's categorical imperative, but affirmed without regard for received
values, for "good" or "evil," nor for happiness, pleasure, or pain. (Nietzsche too -regarded hedonism and eudaemonism, the abstract,
inorganic search for pleasure and happiness, as symptoms οί weakening and decadence.)
The man ίη question affirms and actualizes his
own being without considering rewards or punishments, either here or in an afterlife, saying: "The way does not exist: this is my will, neither good nor bad, but my WILL."4 in short, Nietzsche hands on the ancient sayings "Be yourself," "Become what you are," as propositions for today, when all superstructure has fragmented.

We shall see that the existentialists take υρ a similar theme, albeit less confidently. Stirner is, however, not to be counted among its antecedents, because in his idea οί the "Unique" there is virtuallynoο opening οί the deepest dimensions οί existence. One has to go back to Μ. Guyau, who equally posed the problem οί a line οί conduct beyond any sanction or duty; he wrote: ''Authoritarian metaphysics and religion are leading-strings for babies: it's time to walk by oneself. ... We should look for revelation in ourselves. Christ is no more: each of us must be Christ for himself, and be joined to God as far as he will or can be, or even deny God." It is as though faith still existed, but "without a heaven waiting for us or
a positive law to guide us," as a simple state. Strength and responsibility must be no less than they were long ago, when they were born from religious faith and from a given point of support, in a different human type and a different climate. Nietzsche's idea is identical.

>>17693659
Not even gonna bother addressing this you’re just a fucking moron

>>17693698
>>17693704
I´m sorry I just can´t take a man who said anal sex represented a connection with Vishnu or some shit like that seriously. I just can´t man

>>17693698
>>17693704
And what of the death of god in Evola's philosophy?

What is the God whose death has been announced? Nietzsche himself replies: "only the god of morality has been conquered." He also asks: ''Is there sense in conceiving of a god beyond good and evil?" The reply must be affirmative. "Let God slough off his moral skin, and we shall see him reappear beyond good and evil." What has disappeared is therefore not the God of metaphysics, but the god of theism, the personal god who is a projection of moral and social values and a support for human weakness. Now, the conception οί a god in different terms is not only possible but essential within all the great traditions before and beside Christianity, and the principle of non duality is also evident in them.

The conclusion to be drawn from all οf this is that a group of concepts considered in the Christian West as essential and indispensable for any "true" religion- the personal god of theism, the moral law with the sanctions of heaven and hell, the limited conception of a providential order and a "moral and rational" finalism of the world, faith resting on a largely emotional, sentimental, and subintellectual basis-all of these are foreign to a metaphysical vision of existence such as is well attested in the world of Tradition. The God who has been attacked is God conceived as the center of gravity of all this merely religious system. But in fact this may open the horizon of a new essentiality for those who accept as a trial of their strength-one might even say, of their faith in the higher sense-all the dissolving processes brought about by the direction that civilization has taken in recent times. The "moral skin" falls οff a God who has finished υρ as opium of the people, or as the counterpart of petty morality that the bourgeois world substitutes for the greater morality. But the essential core, represented by metaphysical teachings such as those just mentioned, remains inviolate for those who can perceive and live them, remains inaccessible to all those nihilistic processes, and withstands any dissolution.