/lit/ - Literature

because he purposefully wrote in a vague way, so that his work could be as widespread as possible, making him as famous as possible.

They only read wikipedia articles about him.

>>17764315
This. Nietzsche is the philosophical equivalent of horoscopes.

>>17764307
exoteric writing. he was addressing his books to the members of a selected elite.

lukacs was right about his thought being bourgeois reactionism, but that's based fuck the working class

basically his philosphy has appeal to everyone, right wing and left

>>17764315
that makes him quite a cunning artist
not that he enjoyed it during his life

Complexity + nuance, like the bible

>>17764307
because 20yo american rightwingers prefer to cram their ideas onto him, instead of reading him unbiasedly and accepting that he is a nihilist, anticlerical atheist postmodernist, which he says explicitly btw.

Some penises have more wrinkles than others.

>>17764330
>exoteric
>elite

He condraticted himself all the time and he knew it.

>>17764515
bullshit

>>17764515
>accuses others of not reading
>claims nietzsche is a nihilist

oh boy

>>17764315
His philosophy is often so much like poetry that it becomes more about the experience of reading it and being swept away by its imagery than any culminating “objective” truth. Other passages are straight up philosophy though. It’s like he sometimes goes full storyteller and loses all objectivity, developing ideas without any care for consistency. I think you’re supposed to read them, enjoy them as literature, and take and apply what you like.

>>17764515
>nihilist
pseud bait

>>17764566
so it's nonsense ok

>>17764566
if you want to know why nietzsche devolved into writing tweet like aphorisms towards the end of his career, it's because he started using this typewriter which as you can imagine makes it difficult to even string together 140 characters.

nieztche is the kind of nigga who will fill 30 pages of him calling himself based while enlisting a set of philosophical thoughts that are cringe while never giving any explanation for any of his ideas

>>17764515
>postmodern
>but wrote before the modern period
Okay.

>>17764605
in surveys of postmodern thought he is often a starting point though because he was the first to look at morality as relative and understand the role of power in truth

>>17764330
that's not what exoteric means

>>17764307
Wagner was superior.

>>17764533
>>17764640
I meant esoteric, my phone corrected that for me unintentionally. sorry

Because he was faggot motherfucker

>>17764307
Because he was insane (which is what makes him great) and everyone reads what they want to see in his stuff.

>>17764307
jews

>>17764566
In my experience, it can "activate" or clarify thoughts that you're already having. If you truly want to believe a philosophy you have to come to the conclusions yourself. People can say you ought to be honest but when you come to the conclusion yourself you can truly act on it.
That's also what that nazi propaganda guy said; propaganda works best if people believe that they came up with the ideas themselves.

>>17765295
this

>>17764515
postmodernism was started by Kant and De Maistre

>>17764602
>>17765559
Based

Oh great, /lit/ is back again trying to comprehend the legacy of Nietzsche. I'm sure this time the thread will have a productive post instead of being the heap of pointless bullshit the last million threads were.

>>17764307
because Nietzsche wrote to be loved and not to state truths

>>17764307
Cuz nietszche wasnt concerned with being clear. Its a serious technical flaw in his work imo, but it is really fun to read as a result.

>>17764307
Because that's what he intends you to do. He sends everyone out on this great adventure to find Truth as nature filters out those who are wrong, because action speaks louder than treatises. He destroys static, lifeless philosophy by making us work our asses off to cause spiritual growth

>>17765559
Or it could be Descartes... or Martin Luther...

>>17764307
That's what he wanted them to do to him

>>17766328
Btw I don't mean this in the dumbed down fascist BAP way, but i mean it in the way there's a difference between Renaissance (Neoplatonic types) philosophers and analytical ones who wrote in different proses and that indicated different understandings of the world and also cognition. Nietzsche wants us to find that spark again

>>17764307

People co-opt everything.

>>17764533
>>17764640
Exoteric writing means writing so as to conceal something from most readers, i.e., having a teaching for most readers and another for your desired readers. Writing for an elite entails writing exoterically; the *teaching* is esoteric, not the writing.

>>17764661
Nigga don't apologize you were right the first time

>>17764307
His sister, The French, and the outcome of WWII

>>17764330
Based and Straussian pilled

It blows my mind that people think Nietzsche is hard to read or understand. He's one of the easiest to read philosophers ever.

What people need to understand reading Nietzsche is that he wasn't a very logical person. In a very literal sense. He was bad at mathematics, he didn't do logic in the formal sense.

As such his statements are often not the most rigorously logical, and that upsets autistic retards who are unable to process a viewpoint unless it's presented as atomic facts and syllogisms leading to an unrefutable conclusion.

But, despite his debateable weakness in this area, Nietzsche had a very keen eye for psychology and his method of undermining abstract truth via psychological and sociological realities is one of the deepest critiques ever made of the philosophical project.

I can respect someone who has problems with Nietzsche for many reasons, but someone who can't see the obvious truth in most philosophers being pathetic, repressed weirdos, or in "preacher" type people being duplicitous tricksters, is someone I can't respect.

>>17766435
Explain him in 5 sentences or less, then.

>>17766587
WILL TO POWER
WORLD IS A RECURRENCE
TRANSVALUATE EM ALL 1883
I AM OVERMAN
410,757,864,530 DEAD GODS

>>17764307
Heightened rhetoricity of the self-dramatizing kind. He played around rather a lot with exclamation, hyperbole & understatement, as an illustrative ongoing reminder-to-self about how he used to react to things. Montaigne did something similar, though his procedure, considerably less histrionic--to write about his former self from the perspective of the someone else he is at the time of writing, or according to reports of others, as if he had traveled back in time sans a lecturing Guide to his memory pilgrimages--reveals a lot less susceptibility to nostalgia, and by implication a life trajectory that isn't as steeply downward or tragic in its path. Nietzsche's whole manner of reflection is more useful to those who lack Montaigne's high comic grade of social fluency, but happen to be capable enough, as readers of drama.
>>17764566
The most surefire filter in any art, literature especially, is anything that intentionally conveys what the artist himself is most persistently responsive to or subjective about, either as direct experience or in art that reflects it in some way. Lyric poetry most of all. As for this board, anything that plays with, recalls, or summons the upper registers of affect in suitably extravagant terms or detail generally does the trick, though I prefer not to dwell too deeply on how selection pressures are engineered to cause this.

>>17766562
>his method of undermining abstract truth via psychological and sociological realities is one of the deepest critiques ever made of the philosophical project.
No it's not. It's the equivalent of a redditor coming here and posting soijaks and saying "Go Back" out of context.

>>17766647
>Nietzsche is the equivalent of a redditor posting soijaks
kek, do you even think before you write?

>>17764307
What's something people don't have radically differentiation opinions on?

>>17766626
kekd

They don’t but think they do.

>>17764560
>>17764570
That anon is retarded but he was nihilistic, read his fucking letters. His entire philosphy is a cope. He was a nihilist in denial until the Turin Horse incident.
>>17764515
How could he ever be postmodernist though, you fucking brainlet.

>>17766647
Are you ignoring that he was one of the greatest classic scholars of his day, and actually read all of the ancient Greek and Latin texts in the original? Yes you are. He was a masterful philologist.

>>17767080
a great classic's scholar wouldn't have written birth of tragedy since it's totally speculative, i'd say he was actually a very weak classics scholar. he just had good greek and latin because he attended some authoritarian private school that drilled it into him.

>>17766626
Cringe

>>17766587
Difficult, but here goes.

"Priestly" type people take what are natural concepts like strength and weakness and supplant them with their own concepts like good and evil. Good and evil concepts empower the priestly class of men by giving them leverage over the strong. When the strong are subverted by the conniving and duplicitous weak men like this for too long, it is bad and leads to societal decay. Western society has undergone this decay for a long time and is in need of reform. Homeric Greece is a good model for what society could look like.

A huge amount of his philosophy is centered around men with insidious, spiteful philosophies spreading poisonous thoughts and corrupting man. And he's fundamentally right. It helps if you aren't a Philistine and have read much about Ancient Greece, the development of Christianity, how western society developed etc. Nietzsche's critics rarely read anything that's not part of a carefully curated intellectual bubble, but anyone who approaches old texts openly and honestly will be inclined to agree, the men of words are poisonous and inferior to the men of action.

A good example: Nero was actually a very good emperor and was extremely popular in his day. Yet the few records of his reign make him sound tyrannical. And yet.. so on and so on.

>>17767179
On top of this, Nietzsche thinks people have naturally aggressive tendencies when people are confronted with problems. Strong people express that aggression against the problem itself. Weak people turn that aggression inward, and instead fight the impulses themselves to make themselves not care about the problem.

But this is an oversimplification, naturally. No person wholly expresses aggression outward, or inward. People in reality do both. In other words, turning aggression inward isn't a pure bad.

For instance, concepts like duty and discipline arise out of turning aggression inward. How can a person be disciplined if not for turning aggressive against their own actions and behaviors that are bad for them?

So in the end Nietzsche is advocating some degree of awareness about our psychological inner states, and where we throw our sense of aggression. He thinks Christianity is a very bad answer to this question.

>>17766837
>He was a nihilist in denial until the Turin Horse incident.
There was no Turin Horse incident.

>>17764307
He vainglorified the prospect of exacerbating, and indulging, one's primal urges, and compellences; since the world revolves around these latter many are unable to totally sever themselves from a similar ethos, so they concoct spurious rationalizations in a futile attempt to justify his worldview.

>>17764307
He vainglorified the prospect of exacerbating, and indulging, one's primal urges and compellences; since the world revolves around these latter many are unable to totally sever themselves from a similar ethos, so they concoct spurious rationalizations in a futile attempt to justify his worldview.

>>17764515
Obligatory pic related

>>17767968
Obviously, autism really can obscure subtext, so it's okay anon, happens to me too sometimes but I actually meant to mark the beginning of his madness (an admittance of defeat) by the "turin horse incident". Whether the horse was there or not, whether it was beaten or not, doesn't matter. The man broke down one way or another around that time, and never recovered. Just read his letters if you haven't yet, it's helpful context for a good deal of his work. Some may say he was a sick man, and he was a spiteful man.

>On January 3, 1889, in the throes of a manic episode, Friedrich Nietzsche left his lodgings in Turin, walked a short distance across a nearby square, and then halted. Seeing a horse being flogged by its owner, he threw himself towards the animal and embraced it. Breaking into tears, he slumped to the floor. He was almost arrested for disturbing the peace, but was rescued by his landlord and was taken back home and to bed. The remaining 11 years of his life were spent under care, and under the spell of profound madness.

>>17768842
>the extraordinarily productive year leading up to the famous incident with a horse, Nietzsche wrote what are remembered as some of his greatest works. But the year was also marked by his increasingly erratic behavior; he would sing and play for hours at a piano, often tunelessly; he would, allegedly, dance boisterously in the nude around his room; the Finos even discovered torn and discarded money in his waste-paper basket.

>>17764307
Because people can’t see, behind the beautiful seductive life affirming stories are the roots of a man that is suffering existentially in order to inspire. Synthetic meaning, using nihilism.

>>17764307
people don't read it right then those same people teach others the false reading. not complex

>>17766837
>>17768842

>>17764349
>>17764548
>>17764566
>>17765265
>>17765628
>>17766435
>>17766562

each of these is true in some way
and false in another way

>>17764307
I don't know if I'm interpreting it correctly but I feel like I've embraced the idea of amor fati. I feel extreme self loathing sometimes, but one thing I literally never feel is envy. I can be happy for the successes of other people, and I can admire people, but that isn't the same. There is no one in the world, certainly no one living, with whom I would trade lives. I'm incredibly grateful for what I have, and acknowledge that it's all due to fortune, including my having the good fortune to be imparted with the perseverance to get what I want. Are there decisions I wish I had made differently? Sure, but it's only with the hindsight of having made them the way I did that I wish that at all. Thank you for reading my blog.

>>17769109
Good for you brother

>>17765559
Postmodernism has nothing to do with those people, but MODERNITY, in respect to the start of Postmodernism, started with the failure of Aristotelian science.

>>17764315
>because he purposefully wrote in a vague way,
I would use the word ambiguous instead

>>17766400
>People co-opt everything.
I am Jack's self-serving Bias

>Slave morality bro!

>Yeah heh I'll write my magnum opus in an ironic style making use of Christian themes and stuff, that will show them!

>>17770880
>in an ironic style making use of Christian themes
There is nothing ironic there. There is a deliberate attempt to usurp and reappropriate the themes.
In the "Antichrist" #61, N. mentions that the Church during the Renaissance (with Borgias and shit), was actually based, before Luther fucked everything up with Reformation.

In "Beyond Good and Evil" #61, N. mentions that religion holds an instrumental value, and greater human beings are able to use it for crowd control. The only problem arises, when means becomes the endgoal, i.e. when religion becomes a thing in itself.

>>17771146
Luther was good, there is a reason protestant countries are better than the catholic ones

Because they're gay liberals and like to cry a lot

>>17768842
>>17768873
This shit never happened, it was reported once over a decade after the supposed event. None of Nietzsche's friends or relatives say anything about it.

Zarathustra just doesn't seem so interesting to me. Its because Christianity isn't the major influence it was in Nietzsche's time.

What do you guys think?

("Human" is real kino to me, especially "from the souls of artists and writers" and the stuff about art vs science. Really interesting stuff)

Because some people take him for what he said and other people think he was a lot smarter than he was and read a bunch of bullshit into it

>>17766837
Why do you say this?

>>17770880
Why are anti-Nietzsche posters so cringe

>>17771862
Idk well N himself was an edgeking

>>17770683
creating one's value is 100% postmodernism

>>17764318
Spbp

>>17771862
Christfags are always like this.

>>17772691
Postmodernism is a spook

You should be banned from posting about Nietzsche if you haven't Genealogy, Zarathustra, and any other book of his.

>>17773057
That statement doesn't mean anything sorry

>>17771146
That's the third time this week I've heard about some non religious dude praising the older catholic church.

>>17769054
Underrated Nietzschean paradoxysm

>>17764307
Didn't he say that there are no facts, only interpretations? You reap what you sow.

>>17764307
>>17764315
Because he wrote intuitively rather than literally

>>17773673
Neither does the term postmodernism

>>17767179
>>17767442
an honest attempt, but even this is imprecise and blurry

>natural concepts like strength and weakness
i dont think he would argue for natural concepts, or these being it
>supplant them with concepts like good and evil
misses the point about the distinction between good/evil // good/bad
>strong are subverted by the conniving
this is as far from understanding N man as it gets. thinking that "being conniving" is weakness/wrong is exactly the thing n man criticized
>men of words are poisonous and inferior to men of action
assaulting what people have done with their words is not the same as assaulting men of words and so on
>weak people turn their aggression inward rather than outward
this isn't a quality of weak people, or even bad at all


to mindlessly quote neesha for a remedy here "one can never read too slowly"

>>17774445
>this isn't a quality of weak people, or even bad at all
I do say that though and go on about how positive virtues come out of turning aggression inward, like discipline. The master/slave concept is more of an archetype from which humans idealize behavior, not a living reality

>>17764307
because he's good. Great men (in history) have such powerful opinions, and usually powerful personalities split people down the middle. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IS understanding the opposite of love is not hate, the opposite of love is apathy. You have never heard someone say "I don't care about Nietzsche" without it clearly being a seething "look how much i dont care SEE SEE" Napoleon, Caesar, Alexander the Great, and a recent historical figure we all know, all share this quality. They are the people that are the tips of spears, and make new world, physically or philosophically

ctpom

>>17776364
yes atheist beta males addicted to power trips praise other beta cucks who realized their power trips. woah beta cucks like me are alphas !!!11

>>17764307
Because most people can't read.

>>17764307
Why do people have such radically different interpretations of the bible?

>>17764566
This, and that's why he's so good.
He isn't some asshole boring you to death pretending to have all the """objective"""" answers. He knows he's human and he knows his readers are human, and doesn't pretend otherwise. This makes him one of the best philosophers because he wants you to think for yourself rather than worship him, or anyone else.

Some read him.
Academics read about him.
Some have only read him.

>>17774433
Postmodernism is a difference in worldview/cognition. You can see examples of it with Classicism vs Romanticism. Marxists/Egoists making assumptions about how people perceive then & now is a spook

>>17781999
Nice trips

>>17766643
>The most surefire filter in any art, literature especially, is anything that intentionally conveys what the artist himself is most persistently responsive to or subjective about, either as direct experience or in art that reflects it in some way

what?

>>17766626
>said Dumbledore, calmy

the question should be.... WHY the fuck a Nietszche figure didn´t appear before the 19th century in the West?, what did it take so long?

>Nietzsche was a nihilist bro

Meanwhile, the same posters would disagree with this passage from The Antichrist:

>One more word against Kant as a moralist. A virtue must be our own invention, our most necessary self-expression and self-defense: any other kind of virtue is merely a danger. Whatever is not a condition of our life HARMS it: a virtue that is prompted solely by a feeling of respect for the concept of "virtue," as Kant would have it, is harmful. "Virtue," "duty," the "good in itself," the good which is impersonal and universally valid—chimeras and expressions of decline, of the final exhaustion of life, of the Chinese phase of Konigsberg. The fundamental laws of self-preservation and growth demand the opposite—that everyone invent HIS OWN virtue, HIS OWN categorical imperative. A people perishes when it confuses its duty with duty in general. Nothing ruins us more profoundly, more intimately, than every "impersonal" duty, every sacrifice to the Moloch of abstraction. How could one fail to feel how Kant's categorical imperative endangered life itself! The theologians' instinct alone protected it! An action demanded by the instinct of life is proved to be RIGHT by the pleasure that accompanies it; yet this nihilist with his Christian dogmatic entrails considered pleasure an OBJECTION. What could destroy us more quickly than working, thinking, and feeling without any inner necessity, without any deeply personal choice, without PLEASURE—as an automaton of "duty"? This is the very recipe for decadence, even for idiocy. Kant became an idiot. And this man was a contemporary of GOETHE! This catastrophic spider was considered THE German philosopher—he still is! I beware of saying what I think of the Germans. Did Kant not find in the French Revolution the transition from the inorganic form of the state to the ORGANIC? Did he not ask himself whether there was any event which could be explained only in terms of a moral disposition of mankind, an event which would demonstrate once and for all the "tendency of mankind toward the good"? Kant's answer: "This is the Revolution." The instinct which errs without fail, ANTI-NATURE as instinct, German decadence as philosophy—that is Kant!

Makes you wonder what such people who claim that Nietzsche was a nihilist are trying to keep you away from realizing.

>>17764307
There are radically different readings of just about any philosopher. Most modern and old pseuds made a career purely out of writing COMMENTARIES about people who actually wrote worthwhile stuff.

Because his philosophy is just a a chaotic mix of ideas he picked up secondhand

>>17784266
because he was a build up of everything that came before him, and William Blake already held the same message

>>17784641
>and William Blake already held the same message

how come?

>>17784724
They're both romanticists that understood the power of language and where the whole rational metaphysical approach was headed

Madness, beautiful madness

>>17764307
Man was unknowable?