/lit/ - Literature

nonce

>>18949792
faggot.

*salivates all over the screen*

>>18949789
she has a child's face
this is the single most unattractive trait an adult woman might have (keyword: adult)
it's some kind of pedo bait for those who pussy out on being actual pedos or some shit

>>18949810
you are a fucking dumb idiot who should murder themselves
>what is neoteny
OP here, I am an actual pedo and you are a stupid dumb faggot idiot who should murder themselves

lmao at this nonce lad losing his marbles

>>18949814
yes, so it is a disorder - a disfigurement even, in my eyes

>>18949822
the only reason why you are against "nonces" is because you're a herd animal that would parrot whatever the popular morality is

>>18949823
see >>18949825

your an animal you seething kiddy fiddler

cant think without your peeny weeny having the final say

this is worthy of condemnation regardless of any noncery that might come after the fact

run along now

>>18949839
ok

>>18949828
there is a reason I've included "(keyword: adult)" in my first post
there is nothing wrong with certain aesthetic pleasures, but they should be contained within a certain age
this neoteny is for the weak of heart and the shit of taste

>>18949822
>lmao at this nonce lad losing his marbles

>>18949844
I am actually attracted to children (if they're hot), I don't care for your shitty opinion.

>>18949789
Why are young girls so fucking cute brehs

>>18949846
> Anonymous 08/30/21(Mon)13:24:07 No.18949846▶
File: Britbongswine.jpg (49 KB, 500x377)
49 KB
>>18949822
>lmao at this nonce lad losing his marbles

paedophiles losing the plot look at em go

>>18949856
Then why do you post pictures of ugly old wrenches with a simulacrum of a child's face?
Shit taste, that's why.

>>18949810
Your opinion sucks, child face + adult body is the only attractive combo

>>18949870
because i do what i fucking want

>>18949789
>>18949796
>>18949800
>>18949814
>>18949825
>>18949828
>>18949843
>>18949846
>>18949856
>>18949861
>>18949863
>>18949880
>>18949881
comprehensive list of nonces.

>>18949898
*comprehensive list of free thinking individuals

>>18949789
I don't know if either of those quotes are actually quotes but I'll just respond to the argument portrayed in them: a group of weaklings still remain weaklings individually; strength here is being measured on the organic level, and organically, the group doesn't exist. Many weaklings may come together and overwhelm the few strong individuals in the tribe / society, but what's left after the process are genetically inferior organisms. Therefore, strength does not have to do with numbers or actions, but with genetics / innate force of will.

>>18949913
OP here. Thank you, I understand this. This same reasoning would also apply to why Nietzsche was not a Darwinist.

>>18949789
I'm saving and jacking off to this and no one can stop me!

>>18949913
Would Nietzsche support capitalism? For him art was more important than human life. How would he respond to the fact that money degrades art?

>>18949789

weak is strong, strong is weak - reversals

>>18949931
allfinegirls monroe

Did she ever actually take dick? All I've seen from her (Monroe or Angel Monroe or Katerina Kozlova) at most were masturbation vids. Now she charges $$$ for non-nude pics on her OF that get instantly leaked on reddit.

>>18949939
>Did she ever actually take dick?
no because if she did it would be everywhere

>>18949937
okay but what about what >>18949913 said?

UOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH

>>18949913
Neech would need a self then to lodge the inherent superiority in. It still doesn't make sense.

>>18949932
While Christianity and the state were on the brink of collapse during Nietzsche's time and he wrote a lot about both, he wasn't exactly in favor of total anarchy / absence of a state. He acknowledged that the masses were incapable of organizing themselves and needed individuals who had the necessary resources to distance themselves from labor in order to reflect and be strong as creators of new work for the masses to indulge in. So yes, I think he would have been in favor of capitalism, though not necessarily in all its historical implementations.

>>18949970
Zarathustra talks about the Self in On the Despisers of the Body

>>18949979
thank you

>>18949990
Yeah, he says it doesn't exist. The subject ("I") is a fiction of language.

>>18950014
Re-read the section. The I is not the Self.

>>18949913
>Many weaklings may come together and overwhelm the few strong individuals in the tribe / society, but what's left after the process are genetically inferior organisms.
if strength can be beaten by numbers then it's numbers that matter and not strength. that's just a cope and BTW I'd love to see Nietzsche try to defend his own property against a crowd of proles in frenzy

>>18949913
Inferior how? In terms of individual strength, intelligence, etc? Maybe so, but clearly the ability to work together overrides that, otherwise the so called weak would have lost their struggle.

>>18950014
>>18950018
Das 'Du' is alter als das 'Ich'. ?

How can I bring together Giovanni Gentile's and Nietzsche's philosophy?

>>18950018
Just reread it, he still claims there is no self/subject/I and doesn't make any distinction between the I and the self.

>>18950037
Good take.

>>18950037
>if strength can be beaten by numbers then it's numbers that matter and not strength
This implies that the only thing that matters is survival, but only the weaker, short-sighted and shallow kind of organism values survival over all else.

>>18950050
Inferior in will, a will that desires and values less and thus is less creative.

>>18950056
>he still claims there is no self/subject/I
He redefines Self as the body and doesn't say there isn't a body. Re-read it again, because you're not following at all what he says in it.

For Nietzsche, strength is not measured in quantitavely, but qualitatively. Weaklings are reactive and reactiveness defines them, not physical weakness weakness necessarily. Masters, even if low in number, are active, they dont really give a fuck about plebs and do whatever they want, whereas the slaves are reactive, they seethe because they can not be like masters (similar to our distinction between chads and virgin seething incels). Chad can be overcome by a group of incels, but incels will remain reactive incels and this point interests Nietzsche greatly - even the weak, ugly plebs seek power. But of course, Nietzsche doesnt even consider a situation where a group of slaves overthrow their masters physically, he is interested in more symbolic means of revolt, when slave change morals, ideals etc.

Btw, hebephillia is based, since ancient greece and its master morality was built upon it and Nietzsche was in support of it.

>>18949898
This is your brain on monarchy.

>>18950077
>hebephillia
>Nietzsche was in support of it
source?

also there is nothing wrong with pedophilia either and under DSM "hebephiliacs" would still be considered pedophiles.

Good post and agreed, otherwise.
What would Nietzsche think of Lenin and his revolutionary vanguard?

Also, what's wrong with wanting to give slaves a better standard of living if it pleases me to do so?

>>18949900
Bet this works in reverse. Trannies and fags are good!

>>18950102
No one considers trannies evil. Just decadent.

>>18950077

Nietzsche only failed to see (or better: to emphasize) the nobility of the divine and its force. It pacifies the masses and gives the individual stability to develop its own power, thus the true noble natures highlight.

>>18950146
>thinking Eros had the same meaning as the acceptation of the word erotic nowadays

>>18949810
Objectively wrong. Child face is the best

>>18950146
meant for >>18950096
>Good post and agreed, otherwise.
ty
>What would Nietzsche think of Lenin and his revolutionary vanguard?
I dont think he would support it since the ideals of equality, focusing on the problems of the masses are the big evils for him in most cases. Still, in Lenin there is more activeness than in today's left, so I think he would prefer him over lefties of today.
>what's wrong with wanting to give slaves a better standard of living if it pleases me to do so?
there is nothing wrong with helping slaves in itself. Nietzsche only is against it if it does not presuppose another goal. Why fight for masses? If its the aim in itself, then there is no goodness in it. I think he would support helping slaves if it meant in turn creating conditions for higher men to flourish. A well exploited slave caste is a presupposition for his ideal society.

>>18950164
yes it had the same meaning for the greeks and only in Plato's philosophy (which, remember, was a radical opposition to the status quo of his times) it attains the meaning of always approaching the idea of the Good. Even then. Plato does not shy away from the physical, erotic connotations of the word.

>>18950181
Pederasty's is for boys tho, we're taking about girls in this scenario.

I'm positive Lenin didn't care about equality. He cared about the "New Soviet Man".

>>18950066
I'm looking for the quote right now that I meant, I think it's in Gay Science. It's not in Zarathustra. The "self" being the body quite literally has the same implication, because the body is always changing. There still is no self. He only means it is a more accurate illusion. He is still fundamentally the ultimate philosopher of becoming, and thus rejects any real self.

Anyway, here's one anons might be interested in from Will to Power aph. 859:
>The advantages of standing detached from one's age.—Detached from both moral movements, that of individualism and that of collectivist morality; for even the first does not recognise the order of rank, and would give one individual the same freedom as another. My thoughts are not concerned with the degree of freedom which should be granted to the one or to the other or to all, but with the degree of power which the one or the other should exercise over his neighbour or over all; and more especially with the question to what extent a sacrifice of freedom, or even enslavement, may afford the basis for the cultivation, of a superior type. In plain words: how could one sacrifice the development of mankind in order to assist a higher species than man to come into being.

>>18949792
>>18949822
>>18949839
>>18949861
>>18949867
>>18949898
She's an adult. Her name is Katerina Kozlova (Monroe)

>>18950195
>Pederasty's is for boys tho, we're taking about girls in this scenario.
its still hebephilia, but I dont think he would opposite in the case of girls, since greeks married teenage girls and he was a grecophile. But he did remark negatively about Goethes interest in childish, sickly girls (I think about Gretchen of the Faust), since the interest in little girls can be the expression of weak males.
>He cared about the "New Soviet Man".
and what does this Soviet Man entail? I don't know much about Lenin, only from second sources

>>18950201
Nietzsche is against the notion of subject as the creation of slave morality, but he does talk about the self that is created trough self-fashioning, I recommend this article
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#SelfSelfFash

>>18950241
He's against any notion of real self period. I've read almost his entire set of works, minus only one or two less important books.

>>18950232
Helen of Troy would be 12 or younger afik

>The Soviet man was to be selfless, learned, healthy, muscular, and enthusiastic in spreading the socialist Revolution. Adherence to Marxism–Leninism, and individual behavior consistent with that philosophy's prescriptions, were among the crucial traits expected of the New Soviet man, which required intellectualism and hard discipline. He was not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery.

>He treated public property with respect, as if it were his own. He also has lost any nationalist sentiments, being Soviet rather than Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, or any of the many other nationalities found in the USSR

I think Nietzsche would not mind the above except for the rejection of "base instincts" which N would celebrate.

>>18950247
Where do I start with Nietzsche, do I REALLY need Schopenhauer? Can I just start with Kaufman's bio and read all his translations?

>>18949789
Its about active and reactive. The slaves overpower the masters but their values are still only negations and reflections of the masters life-affirming value.

>>18950201
I think you're downplaying what is an extremely central and important aspect of his whole philosophy: that the body is what causes all thought and creates all values and philosophies. Nietzsche's Self is the changing body. What he refers to as illusion is only the conception of the Self, the many forms of "I." Despite the elusive nature of the body as far as the "I" is concerned with it, it is still what the Self amounts to for him and what he derives his sense of strength and weakness from.

>Your Self laughs at your I and its proud leapings. 'What are these leapings and soarings of thought to me?' it says to itself. 'A detour to my purpose. I am the leading-reins of the I and the prompter of its conceptions.' The Self says to the I: 'Feel pain here!' And then it suffers and thinks about how it might suffer no more—and this is what it is meant to think.

Nietzsche's point is that society regularly and historically confuses the "I" with the Self, and over time it has suppressed the Self and ignored what he calls its "great reason" (in contrast to morality, which he calls our small reason). This definition of the Self is what psychoanalysis would later make use of, so Nietzsche predated and basically predicted Freud, Jung and so on in how they viewed the Self and the body.

>>18950247
‘… [b]ehind your thoughts and feelings … stands a mighty commander, an unknown sage – he is called Self. He lives in your body, he is your body. There is more reason in your body than in your best wisdom.’ (Z, I, ‘Of the Despisers of the Body’).

‘

>>18950062
>>18950077
but once again this is a cope. if slaves can form a cohesive group in common interest in order to dethrone the masters then the masters aren't worth much. ironically enough saying something to the effect of
>b-but you won due to your numbers not individual strength, I am the Ubermensch!
reeks of ressentiment of which Nietzsche accused the slaves. if a strategy of using your numbers to your advantage works then it works

>>18950275
Nietzsche never called himself the Ubermensch and "cope" isn't an argument.

>>18950275
of course it works, and Nietzsche acknowledged that even evolution works in favor of the week, since they overwhelm the strong. What is your point? Nietzsche is only against what is bad for the higher men, and the slave revolt is bad for them, nowhere does he assert that slave can not be stronger.

>>18950252
you dont need schopenhauer, but knowing the main problems of Western philosophy would help greatly. Unless you want to be "that diletante type" of Nietzsche reader

>>18950294
>nowhere does he assert that slave can not be stronger
Actually he does, because strength =/= ability to survive. The weak are better at surviving because weakness breeds cleverness and cleverness makes one more adaptive to the environment. I agree with the rest of your post.

>>18950274
Yes, but the body is a fiction because it never "is", it only becomes. What he's saying, as I said, is that the body (or more specifically the psychoanalytical unconscious, which is what he actually means by "sage" here) is only the least illusive use of the term. It's still fundamentally not any substance, and is thus not "a thing." In WtP, he specifically states that any real self requires the idea of substance, and the body, according to a purely naturalistic view, cannot be substance, because pure simple substance (being) cannot exist in a world of pure becoming.
>>18950252
Depends how much philosophy you already know, and how much information you've already picked up about him. Birth of Tragedy or Twilight are usually the two starting points, but the first one needs some knowledge of Greek history and culture. You could also start with Gay Science or Beyond Good/Evil which are 'relatively' straight forward. I started with Zarathustra, got a bit confused at certain parts, read his other works, then came back to it last.
>>18950273
No, that is all definitely fundamental to his philosophy, I'm not saying otherwise. What I'm saying is that he fundamentally rejects any real self, in the Dionysian fashion which he always prided himself on. And not only for the reason of rejecting "slave morality" as the other anon said, although that was one reason (at least for rejecting the simple, substantialist idea of soul like Aristotle/Plato). Self is only useful as an illusion, I think that is Nietzsche's final stance on it, which is why he paintst the body/unconscious that way.

>>18950303
>Actually he does, because strength =/= ability to survive.
agree, and thats why I presented that for Nietzsche strength primarily is qualitative force, but if we are talking about strength as quantitative, then yes, slaves are stronger, since they are more clever, they can overwhelm the masters etc.

>>18950303
>The weak are better at surviving because weakness breeds cleverness and cleverness makes one more adaptive to the environment
sounds antiemetic

>>18950189
Either stop being dishonest or read Phaedrus and Symposium. Plato literally writes that the physical desire is base and unfit for those looking after the Good, virtuous/philosophical life.

>>18950318
its not even controversial in evolutionary studies to say that jews have their iq's because of harsh environment

>>18950318
I think Rockwell is just making it antisemitic, since the phenomenon can be seen everywhere in all races / species.

>>18950301
thank you
>>18950308
>Depends how much philosophy you already know, and how much information you've already picked up about him.
i read orgy of the will a lot

>You could also start with Gay Science or Beyond Good/Evil which are 'relatively' straight forward. I started with Zarathustra, got a bit confused at certain parts, read his other works, then came back to it last.
I'll start with Kaufman's bio and move on to the rest. I also read "the politics of aristocratic radicalism"

thank you both

>>18950317
I see your point now, thanks for clarifying.

>>18950308
>at least for rejecting the simple, substantialist idea of soul like Aristotle/Plato)
I should correct myself here, I don't think Plato's idea of soul is simple because it has at least three separate divisions (according to Plato). This would be a simplification itself. Aristotle's is only simple when considered as pure form. The Christian and maybe Vedantic views are the only ones which consider soul as pure simplicity.

>>18950322
good thing we are not talking about Pl*to, but about greeks and they had no problem with wifeing teenage girls and rubbing their cocks agaisnt boys for educational purposes. Imagine saying eros for greek poets was not about erotic love, lmao. Go to church, granny.

Also, if we are talking about Plato, in Phaedrus Socrates argues against Lysias who separates sensual and spiritual love. Eros even becomes one of the horses among thymos, that the logos has to control, the system of soul that is found both in Phaedrus and his other dialogues.

>>18950062
Why is survival important? Why unimportant? Neech though that the universe was cyclical. Why would one be an uber-man when there's nothing to be gained by so?

>>18950077
That's because neech is an autistic loser who's philosophy is shit.

Second bit is based tho.

>>18950361
Seriously, start reading books:

> Now as they lie together, the unruly horse of the lover has something to say to the charioteer, and demands a little enjoyment in return for his many troubles;

> and the unruly horse of the beloved says nothing, but teeming with passion and confused emotions he embraces and kisses his lover, caressing him as his best friend; and when they lie together, he would not refuse his lover any favor, if he asked it; but the other horse and the charioteer oppose all this with modesty and reason. If now the better elements of the mind, which lead to a well ordered life and to philosophy, prevail, [256b] they live a life of happiness and harmony here on earth, self controlled and orderly, holding in subjection that which causes evil in the soul and giving freedom to that which makes for virtue; and when this life is ended they are light and winged, for they have conquered in one of the three truly Olympic contests.

Also try seeing what Aristophanes thought about homossexualism.

But yes, there was the crude homosexual intercourse among some of the Greeks, but in most cases the relationship did not sink into literal penetration or sodomy.

>>18950367
Lions and tigers have different standards of living than zebras and antelopes. The latter care a lot more about survival, because they're endlessly in fear of being killed and because they're lower energy animals; they don't have the "strength" to care about anything other than surviving, so as long as they can do that, they are content. The former, in contrast, are a lot more dominant, and have a lot more energy to be territorial and playful with; for them, while survival is still important, it is less important because they aren't "weak" enough to be content with life just because they didn't die today, they want more from their existence. And that is in what sense Nietzsche typically uses strength and weakness in his work.

Fuck you pedo losers. Say goodbye to your asshole when you inevitably go to jail.

>>18950448
>implying i'm not the law

>>18950421
what's your point? I know that Plato wants eros to be subordinated to the idea of the Good. My point was that he acknowledges the erotic aspect of it also.
>Also try seeing what Aristophanes thought about homossexualism.
greeks were pluralistic about any given topic, something, that we lack today when it comes to discussing teenager-adult love.

>>18950440
But there's no metaphysical 'more' to strive for; existence IS all. The 2 creatures are doing the exact same thing, the only difference being the relative positions in the food chain. We could quite easily contrive a super-predator the subsists on lion flesh; that would give the lions motivation to 'survive' wouldn't it? That's my point: without changing the nature of the lion at all, the superior animal, we can change its necessary behaviour, its necessary place in the world.

Neech is just retarded unfortunately.

>>18950472
Metaphysics matters less than the body. If the former doesn't service the latter, it becomes damaging to the latter and thus damaging to life itself.

>We could quite easily contrive a super-predator the subsists on lion flesh; that would give the lions motivation to 'survive' wouldn't it?
Yes, it's relative. What's your point? This changes nothing.

>>18950461
>my poiny was that he acknowledges the erotic aspect of it also
No, he does not. All you need to do is to read the passage I quoted:
> holding in subjection that which causes evil in the soul and giving freedom to that which makes for virtue

Yeah I agree, and I think the love in some master-disciple relationships were valid. The narrative normalizing the crass sodomite act is an aberration (even though as I said they occurred but were often harshly criticized).

>>18950515
>holding in subjection that which causes evil
and what causes the evil in the soul? Isnt its the erotic desire? It looks like its hard for you to distinguish his description about eros from his normative claims about how it has to be regulated. He literally talks about two options - giving in erotic pleasure and subordinating desire to philosophy and virtues in the passage you quoted. Again, I'm just saying he acknowledges possibility of unhinged eros, that is bad for your soul, but he acknowledges it. Its only a matter of how it is to be used.

>>18950539
Insofar as for Plato the Good is connate in Beauty, and this is the aim of Eros (symposium), then this is not the case.

>>18950577
ofc, but he still uses Eros and not other concept for the love, and greeks had more concepts for non-erotic love, so he would have used them. But he uses Eros and directly supposes at all times that he talks about sublimation of erotic love. At the very least, we can talk about two meaning of the word Eros for Plato. It's weird that youre so reluctant to acknowledge it.

>>18950601
Plato is the one known for literally employing in and giving the word a new sense.
> Eros, understood in this sense, differed considerably from the common meaning of the word in the Greek language of Plato's time. It also differed from the meaning of the word in contemporary literature and poetry.

>>18950631
and I agree lmao, but he also refers to erotic love when using this concept. You know, a thinker can hold two differing ideas at the same time? This is getting absurd, ciao

>>18950501
If body is all then strength is all. Strength is the agglomeration of force; coalition building.

It's relative in that an uber-man exists only as a superior iteration of a normal man. Thus the latter is necessary for the former. Thus there is nothing but being better than a...nothing? We have two separate points, incapable of being detached yet utterly unconnected to anything else. There is no meaning here.

>>18950649
>Thus there is nothing but being better than a...nothing?
Don't know what you mean here. It sounds like you've mistaken your metaphysics for reality. The lion is not a "nothing," it is an organism that will continue to coat itself in the blood of zebras and antelopes because that's what it does. It will continue to have more energy than the zebras and antelopes that it kills and therefore require more from life than just mere survival because that's what it is, a beast with more energy than zebras and antelopes. The zebras and antelopes can think that the lions are "nothing" while their innards are being scooped out of their half-severed carcasses all they want, it matters not to the lions. Lions remain unequal to the zebras and antelopes.

>>18950647
Literally just read Symposium. The lower sense of Eros is an immitation of its highest sense, both seek what is Good, eternal and divine. In the inferior - physical - sense it is generation. So not even here your buggery narrative fits.

>>18949789
>>18949814
>Why is Socrates wrong? If the proles can overthrow the monarch i.e French revolution then isn't the monarch weak and decadent?
>OP here, I am an actual pedo
Yeah, seems about right.

>>18950674
Different poster, but I think Lions are a poor analogy for individual "strength" or "energy" in many ways.
>Lions remain unequal to the zebras and antelopes.
Single lions and a Zebra for example are rather closely matched, one kick from a Zebra can seriously injure a lion rendering it unable to hunt and thus probably starve without the pride to help feed it. This is to say nothing of what larger herbivores can do to a lion. Lions mostly hunt opportunistically and pursue weakened, sickly, or young prey and require a whole pride to hunt successfully most of the time.

>>18950728
>literally posts a passage where socarates talks about how unhinged eros can lead to evil
>"hurr durr eros is always subordinated to good!!!!"
you must be special

>>18950762
The details don't really matter much, but antelopes alone would have fit what I'm saying better, yeah. Point is, carnivores prey on herbivores and generally speaking the herbivores are lower energy and therefore have less qualifications for reaching personal contentment. It comes down to genetics.

>>18949913
What is the innate meaning of strength if it can so easily be destroyed?

Socrates proposition concerns second order effects and the elusive nature of strength. Power games are not static, but dynamic. What is considered an advantage in a specific setting can be a disadvantage in another. There is no ultimate overpowering, since the new setting can also be dominated by a 3rd one.

Determining the battlefield is more important than being an idiotic unit of strength. Socrates was a warrior and considered participation in the defence force of your city as a prerequisite for Arete XGR4R

>>18950146
>> modern historians made it up.

60% of the quotes are from modern historians

>> 3 quotes from ancient Greeks taken out of context.

>>18950811
This is literally present in all of Plato’s dialogues: everything seeks the good even though it can lead to the evil. I beg you read a book.

>>18950840
For Nietzsche strength = creative power. Christians understand this, but in their own inverted way, when they describe the many nefarious ways in which the Devil obfuscates and derails one from the holy path. Does this mean the Devil is stronger than God? It doesn't. It means the Devil is more cunning, and therefore appears to win more frequently, but only in smaller, inconsequential battles.

Similarly, the cockroach is hundreds of millions of years old, and there is seemingly no end to the cockroach, due to how apt it is at surviving; does this mean the cockroach is stronger than the human? Does the human step on the cockroach, or the other way around? If the cockroach was clever, it could organize and overwhelm humans, and that is how the weaker defeats the stronger, but this does not make the cockroach stronger unless we define strength according to the cockroach's meager understanding of it (which makes it equivalent with nothing more than survival). Strength defined as the power to survive for us would be a stupid thing to do, because it would mean that the cockroach is stronger than the human, which is an impractical mindset for a human to have.

>>18950873
>sex with teenagers is inevitably good, sometimes might be bad
good thing we reached the conclusion with which I started

>>18950904
that mostly comes down to physical size though - humans are extremely weak for their size and rely on cunning to kill pretty much anything

>>18950923
Holy shit you demented faggot. Plato describes in Sumposium exactly that what is good is the desire for what is good “love is always the love of having what is good” (207a).
What is even the point of discussing Plato with someone who has never read a single word of his works.
Ah btw there is a connection between eros and eroton, the latter meaning to examine by question and response.

>>18950936
No analogy is perfect, but physical size wasn't really the point there. The point is that the cockroach has a superior survival rate compared to humans, yet humans have far more of an impact on their environment than cockroaches do. Why would or should we as humans define strength as a cockroach might, in terms of only survival rate, when we are capable of much more than that, much more than what the cockroach is capable of? Do you want to think like a human, or a cockroach?

>>18950952
>“love is always the love of having what is good” (207a).
okay, so if you love a teenagers, then you reach for good, since for you, even lower forms of desire are aimed for the good. What is your problem?

>>18950959
I would actually define "strength" as the ability to compel others or align their actions with your will.

>>18950966
Then you're basically in agreement with Nietzsche. That's what I meant by creative power.

>>18950976
okay so if I lead a slave revolt and do so without being a slave myself, but as a means of taking control over a government, am I a superior being?

>>18950962
>for you
yeah you got aids in your brain

love for teenagers is good only insofar as it is erotic in the PLATONIC SENSE, you animal, that is: none of your buggery.

the same applies to every other kind of pleasure.

go cure your aids before posting here.

>>18950985
Depends what type of slave revolt you lead. Spartacus was a master moralist who found himself enslaved. A moral revolt that leads us back to the cockroach's understanding of reality would mean you're contradicting yourself on your points and not actually in agreement with >>18950966

>>18950987
but you said >>18950873 that everything you do seeks the good, no? So if you have erotic relations (e.g. licking a nubile girls soft skin) with someone, it is inevitably caught up in the movement toward the Good, since for Plato everything that exists, exists in this relation. You start sounding like a sophist ngl, moving your goalposts when it fits you.

>>18950997
A good example of what you are describing would be like Australia whipping up enough fear to justify locking the entire country down because one 80 year old died of Coronavirus - we have to reduce ourselves to such a state because one Human Life might be lost.

>>18951011
you are irredeemable, bye

>>18950997
well we're not going to sit here for a couple hours and pick apart my morality, are we?
anyway the only thing I care about is me, me me me. and structuring society in the way I see fit, with myself on top of course.

anyway I thought nietzsche only proposed master morality over slave morality, but as a philosopher wanted a reevaluation of values rather than a return to master morality for the fact being that master morality created more slaves

>>18951018
how about this, I'll help you, because you seem to be lacking reading comprehension and have not yet subordinated your thymos. First of all, (let's go trough the ABC of Plato's philosophy) Good for Plato is that, which is subordinated to reason, logos, which acts as a medium between phenomena and the Good as a transcendental principle of Being. Eros in its animalistic condition is evil for you, not in the cucked christian sense where things in themselves are bad, but in the greek sense, where disbalance, cacophony of drives is seen as bad. It's bad because its unreasonable, unhinged, without movement toward the Good. And he acknowledges the existence of such type of Eros, you even presented the passage. He only says this: eros as subordinated to reason is better than unhinged Eros. But to say that, you have to acknowledge that which has to be subordinated. Kekking at retard who read wiki on Plato and act like scholars.

>>18951048
Besides Plato now you want to show you have no idea about christian doctrine.

>Good for Plato is that, which is subordinated to reason, logos...
I know aids may be impairing your reason so I assume you wanted to say what is good and not the Good (which is beyond reason).

>Eros in its animalistic condition is evil for you
I don't think having children is evil.

>It's bad because its unreasonable, unhinged, without movement toward the Good.
There is unreasonable and unhinged movement toward the Good. See what Plato says about kinds of madness in Phaedrus.

>And he acknowledges the existence of such type of Eros
This type of Eros is the generative will (it is good because it seeks what is good, immortality).

I won't ask you to read a book again.

>>18951019
>the only thing I care about is me
This means something different depending on how strong or weak you are. To someone who is weak, this means doing anything in order to rule, even throwing mud on life itself, deliberately corrupting language so as to confuse others and cause them to self-destruct and doing nothing to create beyond yourself and only doing what is necessary to keep others from growing beyond you. Such a person is happy to wear the crown even if the crown is made of shit. Why? Because they are weak, so they are used to living in fear, and they are used to reacting to everything quickly and seeing violence in everything and feeling as if they have no power in the world. Their nerves have been trained to cope with their wretched state of existence and now their nerves impel them to ruthlessly claw for the throne at any cost. Such grotesque and tyrannical behavior, Nietzsche tells us, comes from the weak.

Yes, Nietzsche doesn't suggest "returning" to any previous state. He thinks such a goal is reckless and pointless because the past is the past and the world has changed and one should focus on the matter at hand now rather than seek to undo the changes, which requires too much energy to ever properly accomplish. At the same time, he's not exactly advocating that we abandon master and slave morality, just modify them better for the modern world. The master moralist pre-antiquity may have freely clubbed women over the head and raped them as he pleased, clubbed and murdered his neighbor for a piece of meat, and so on, but such straightforward behavior obviously isn't smart in this day and age. The master moralist has to now be smart, perhaps slave-like, in order to get by, but we must still have a strong sense of the master versus the slave so that the slave-like tendencies aren't all we're left with, which would lead us to suicidal decadence.

Guys, DON'T look up about the Egyptian pharaohs. Those dudes would have dozens of preteen concubines at once, and there's records of 11 to 12-year-olds having the pharaoh's child, and some of those were the pharaoh's own family members.

>>18950976
Nietzsche already assumes an allegiance among the strong race (with his references to tribes, etc). Indeed we all know that the formation of community, civilization depends on strict institutions (moral, religion, rites) in order to defend and solidify the community. In this way there will always be a ''slave'' mentality insofar as people living in society must think for the others too. But at the same time such a stable, peaceful environment develops a noble, subtler nature, a purely artistic power. In the ''natural'' state, in the flux of phenomenon, the passions, drives and force are certainly much more powerful and expressive, but there is no subtlety as in the artistic drive.

Nietzsche seems to emphasize one more than the other back and forth, this is certainly his intuition of an intimate connection between the dionysian and apollonian, destruction for creation. But how is the preservation of such civilizational, institutional nobility compatible with his disdain for, say, the divine, when it is the divine which secures the institutions and art?

>>18951116
Thank you for this post, I suppose this all depends on the quantum of power I am. Indeed the throne is not my goal, not for it's own sake anyway. It's more so that the throne is a good place to start giving orders. I don't seek "power", I am power. It's only a matter of releasing it.

When I am dictator of Europe I will shitpost on here. Perhaps I am filled with too much grandeur, but either I win or I die. I don't much mind dying, I will be reborn and try again. :)

>>18951116
>To someone who is weak, this means doing anything in order to rule, even throwing mud on life itself, deliberately corrupting language...
This is so weird because there seems to be a necessary virtuous leaning in a ''strong'' nature. As if there was a truth the strong should embody.

>>18951102
>I don't think having children is evil.
because having children is inseperatable from a certain kind of cultural sublimation of animalistic drives, it already has logos. Using the same drives without reason (if someone just fucked around) would Evil for Plato.
>There is unreasonable and unhinged movement toward the Good. See what Plato says about kinds of madness in Phaedrus.
this is only a proviso to his general argument about what is good for us
>>18951102
>This type of Eros is the generative will (it is good because it seeks what is good, immortality).
so by licking little girls I would be seeking immortality? Plato does not only talk about Eros as the will to procreation or striving toward Good, it also means instinctive search for pleasure as per the excerpt you posted, where its completely unhinged

>>18951182
There is no cultural influence in reproductive drives lol. The logos is in the creation of the World, that is, in this case, telos.

>so by licking little girls I would be seeking immortality?
This is just an exasperation of the power, force within you, just like every deviant behavior. The rationality of Eros is cutting out the exasperated drives. In this way procreation can also be rational.

>>18951156
Define what you mean by the divine exactly. I don't really know how to address you otherwise.

>>18951181
There's a difference between creating a new language or words in a language as a member of that original language-creating group, and being an outsider taking a people's existing language and subverting the meaning of its words in order to confuse them so you can gain the upper hand. The former are creators who may indulge in destruction but as a means to create, while the latter are destroyers who may indulge in creation but as a means to destroy.

>>18951322
>here is no cultural influence in reproductive drives lol
I'm talking about the institution of marriage, norms concerning it definitely influence how reproductive drives work. In this case logos is cultural rationality, which structures disperse drives and actions.
>This is just an exasperation of the power, force within you
good thing Plato had a word for this, ...oh wait, its Eros!

>>18951323
>>18951361
I mean, it was from the religious institutions we derived morals, communication, art and science. Nietzsche criticized the christian “revolution”, but would this not make it a “master-destruction” rather than a slave-destruction insofar as Christianity valued a noble culture, art, science, etc? Can we derive such a traditionalist reading of Nietzsche? The revolts would also be traditiona since it is the natura cycle of every civilization to emerge from ruins and turn back to it.

>>18951698
All of the noble values in Christianity (there are very few) were taken from the Greeks and Romans. What's actually Christian in Christianity is entirely a reactive subversion of master morality, i.e. slave morality. The Christian divine isn't necessary for social organization.

>>18952004
I don’t know why you chose to go this way when I was using Christianity as a general example. It is not the christian divine (it is in another sense, in the sense that it is anti-crowd religion), but the divine in general that is necessary for any community formation. This is what I wanted to suggest with my example of Christianity (that even in the understanding of Nietzsche it could be as valid as any other tradition, hence his opinions about Napoleon).

>>18952038
>the divine in general
But what is that? Do you just mean religion? I asked for a definition before and none was given, so I assumed we were talking about Christianity specifically, being that that is Nietzsche's focus.

>>18952038
>>18952061
While I wait for you to reply, I'll go ahead and assume that by "divine in general" you mean something which is held sacred by a group of people.

This sacred isn't something that Nietzsche holds in disdain, so long as it comes from real creators (the strong) and not frauds (the weak). What would Zarathustra's teachings be if he held the sacred in disdain? Why would he still advocate for democratic institutions despite criticizing the ideology? What he criticized isn't the sacred or the need for institutions but the weak and how they abuse these things. Nietzsche's chief concern is ripping away the higher individuals from the herd and giving them the means to be new creators so that the herd has a purpose again because otherwise, due to industrialization, the herd will wipe itself and humanity out from nihilism.

>>18952061
>>18952243
I would say that the divine, the sacred is that which gives man its actualized state: reason, sociality, order. It is despised by Nietzsche when he attacks the priestly caste, but he does not consider that it is this that makes room for creation. Man before state, before reason was nothing but an animal seeking its own satisfaction. Herd morality is necessary for it gives man stability and thus stability for creation.
True power is in the divine, or the divine is pure power itself, we could say, not restricted to merely physiological aspect.

The apollonian and the dionysian are intertwined and Nietzsche affirms both. How can there be no creation for destruction in this way? That the destruction for creation implies the creation for destruction is the very eternal return inherent in the civilizational cycles.

>>18951368
>I'm talking about the institution of marriage, norms concerning it definitely influence how reproductive drives work
Yes because institutions are products of reason. Marriage is the metaphysical expression of natural love.

>power is eros
ok freud. but no, plato doesn't have a metaphysics of will.

>>18952584
He was aware of the necessity of the sacred within the process of creation. It's why he wrote Thus Spoke Zarathustra and gave humanity the Overman to strive for.

>>18952737
Then how does it relate to what he wrote in the first essay in the Genealogy of Morals?

>>18952756
What do you mean? Is there a certain passage you're referring to?

>>18952768
The very beginning wherein Nietzsche attacks the priestly caste as founded on resentment, devising things (god, afterlife) for power.

>>18952891
The priests that he attacks are the fraudulent weaklings who don't create new values but subvert existing ones. He doesn't attack real creators.

>>18952918
Nietzsche is literally talking about the creators of sacred things there.

>>18952930
He's talking about Zarathustra's backworldsmen and preachers of death. Sicklings who have "created" a divine nothingness out of their compulsive need to escape their weakling bodies. They aren't real creators.

>>18952959
Yes, but Nietzsche thinks this is the case with priests, theologies and whatnot related to the sacred in general.

>>18953125
>in general
Not his point.

>>18953353
Literally just read the genealogy of morals.

>>18953514
I have. You're getting his point confused. Nietzsche was in no way against communities coming together to hold new sacred festivals, so long as these festivals came from the communities themselves.

>>18953537
It is by the very reason of being institutionalized, that is, a product of community, that the sacred and all its culture in general, are attacked by him, insofar as it is constraining morality of the herd.

>>18953665
If what is considered sacred has no root in a people's collective will, then it has no place among a people. In whose will is the Christian God, which by design can't be understood? No one's, so it's rootless. It's not even sacred, it's a scam. Believers in a rootless nothing like that are sick. That's all Nietzsche means, the meaning being summarized by Zarathustra, for example in On Believers in a World Behind and The Preachers of Death.

>>18953736
The collective will is the slave mentality of constraint in favour of the very collective: the culture, the community, that reflects itself (this slavish constraint).

>Believers in a rootless nothing like that are sick
Very foundationalist take for an anti-foundationalist philosopher.

>>18953811
>The collective will is the slave mentality of constraint
No, I meant wills that have drives in common with each other, forming a collective, similar to Jung's collective unconscious.

>Very foundationalist take
That isn't foundationalist but that's a whole other can of worms. It's also not a take, it's what Nietzsche wrote / Zarathustra said.