/lit/ - Literature

>>19121545
does OP refute the allegations of cocksucking

>>19121545
Insofar that you can call anything nietzsche writes a refutation: prologue of zarathustra.

>>19121545
Fucking hell what a brilliant mustache

>>19121545
this is hte complete opposite of what nietzsche said

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_man

That's less nihilism and more "there's nothing new under the sun," which, while not Christian at all (I mean, jacking off and eating fast food), it will remind them enough to snap out of it. They'll go back to being an overstimulated weeaboo or whatever.

>>19121545
for the atheists like nietzsche , nihilism=christianity. Those ''people'' hate any religion, so they build whatever moronic narrative they can come up with in order to mock any religion. Then those atheists are so braindead that with the next generation, their narrative become ideologies, which is just another word for religions lol.

>>19121867
What's wrong with that though

There's an aphorism where he complains about a common type of man who really just wants leisure time to do fuck all, maybe drink, maybe fuck, maybe read the papers.

He doesn't refute such things, more analyses phenomena according to his perspectivalism and his doctrine of willl to power.

He doesn't need to, this kind of "nihilism" always ends up refuting itself in the long run. Sore cocks and bloated stomachs or an early grave, pick your poison.

>>19121975
Refuted by boomers.

>>19121545
Literally me. Tomorrow I will definitely make changes! (won't happen).

>>19121545
He was not a nihilist. He literally hated nihilism.

>>19121545
Besides destroying the old "table of values", the overman is the author of new tables of values, according to the last stage of human metamorphosis (the child). Nietzsche chose the child as a symbol for the upcoming stage of humanity, for the reason that children are characterized by their immense imagination and thus are able to overcome the tragedy of God

>>19122907
I beg your pardon, lit bros, if this response is written in broken english. As it may seem, I'm not a native speaker

>>19121545
Will what you would will eternally. I don't think that's pro bug man.

>>19121545
he tries to with the whole ubermensch thing but it's such a pure cope I don't know how people take it seriously. Evola completely BTFOs it in Ride the Tiger

>>19121545
See >>19121853

Nietzsche's philosophical project was fundamentally concerned with the growing nihilism of his age, much of which appeared in the form of your greentext. One of the earliest cases where he addressed such an attitude was in criticizing Eduard von Hartmann in Untimely Meditations, who he accused of vouching for a restructuring of society using industrialization and a modern understanding of psychology where work was minimized in favor of being able to spend more time at home privately pursuing petty little amusements (kind of like how many people in the West live today). Nietzsche saw this as a wretched state of existence that would eventually kill what remaining ambition and feelings of greatness (and therefore our creativity in general) the species was capable of, and that hard work / conflict / war was necessary as a stimulus to maintain that strength and passion of mankind.

>>19121853
>Wikipedia

>>19121906
Nietzsche was an atheist?

>>19121545
No, thats what he himself did

>>19121545
Yes, because that which you describe is not life-affirming. Nietzsche advocated an approach similar to the old Graeco-Roman stoic/epicurean/platonic/cynic process of ascetic self-mastery, particularly over desire. This self-overcoming is fundamental to his conception of the Uberman, wherein man's spirit, or reason, struggles and overcomes his lower natures and appetites. It's this process of tension of man with himself which acts as a kind of internal reaction and engine which brings out man's sublime nature

>>19124603
>Just become a god lol
Wow, so wise!

>>19124627
>>Just become a god lol
What about any of it entails "becoming a god"?

>>19124586
I believe it is a bit more complicated than that. Nietzsche indeed seemed to recognize the value of reason, the value of self-control, self-mastery, the value of suffering for creative act translated into art. But he also saw the hidden natural impulses as genuine affirmations of life, genuine actions. The thing is that these are in staunch confront. One represented by the cerebral activity, the other by corporeal. The rational/cerebral side is the producer of herd morality, of the collective consciousness, while the corporeal/impulsive is individual, constantly changing. In sober moments Nietzsche affirms a mix of both, but sometimes he sees what lies hidden in every action, in every individual and in concepts, including the consciousness of the collective and its institutions: force and will to power; and because of that he affirmed the very struggle of these two opposite forces. This seems to have been the case with his own life, the ilnesses he suffered as resulting from the conflict between the two translated into the cerebral and the corporeal.

>>19124635
That is the logical conclusion of these philosophies that declare an ideal above man's nature. What is above man, but god?

>>19124126
He was a Satanist

>>19124656
t. never read american comic books

above man is still man. But man making a better choice, deciding to be better. It's not about becoming a god, it's about having the strength to always aim toward good and fix your mistakes, etc

>>19124682
>t. never read american comic books
Yeah I don't read kike shit.
> But man making a better choice, deciding to be better. It's not about becoming a god, it's about having the strength to always aim toward good and fix your mistakes, etc
Why? lol
How do you justify some actions being better than others if they don't represent a divine ideal. Otherwise you're just a, may Allah forgive me for uttering this word, a tryhard.

>>19124716
If you want to live a comfortable, mediocre existence, that's fine, but not everyone can accept / is meant for that. Not who you replied to, by the way.

>>19124636
>The rational/cerebral side is the producer of herd morality, of the collective consciousness, while the corporeal/impulsive is individual
I can't help but disagree in this regard, I think if we examine the herd of modern times, it's quite the opposite. The rational/higher I think is silenced in favour of low natural impulses, to consume (be it fast food, pornography or the latest generic Netflix production programme). The mind I think is lax during any of these activities with which modern man 'busies' himself, and that these draw from lower, base impulse rather than any high natured reason or spirit.

>>19124787
So what is your justification for claiming one existence is superior to another. This is just pretentious.

>>19124656
>That is the logical conclusion of these philosophies that declare an ideal above man's nature. What is above man, but god?
Do you really regard man overcoming base desires and appetites as being so impossible to you that you view such a thing as being so-far above man to the point you call it "godhood"?

>>19124887
Will to power is the justification and how much one creates beyond oneself is the measure of it. There's nothing pretentious about it, it's just a different framework suited for a different kind of human.

>>19124915
In other words, cope.

>>19124942
No, but you are free to read him to try and understand what the framework he established is.

>>19121545
he'd probably judge it to not be a vital, noble way of life from his value system even if he allows that one ultimately "objectively" isn't more valuable than the other

>>19124821
Yes, you are not wrong. The thing is that these two are today very mixed, just like that christian consciousness of the victim is employed to attack the very christian ground itself, to cite an obvious example.

Today the natural impulses, the individual volitions (affirmation of homosexuality for example as a fixity of the Self, the convergence of the sense of I—given by the reflexive movement of consciousness—into an irrational, blind impulse, into the irrational libidinal force) are being clothed in the rational, empathetic discurse. They are justifying, affirming one with another; the ''civilizational'' mentality is allowing the very impulses which, if never controled, determined, human beings would never cease to follow them, meaning they would never happen to ''sacrifice'' themselves for others and establish a community, that is, the unity of the individuals that is translated from the unity of consciousness.

This is perhaps just a stage for the more we advance, the more one will be over the other and as things goes it is just a return to that ''natural state'', where reason gets overpowered more and more.

amazed this thread has more than just a single post telling op that he wasnt a nihilist

>>19125039
The op didnt say he was a nihilist

Nietzsche is self-refuting. He says there is no facts, only interpretations. All morality is no more than a moralistic (mis)interpretation of phenomena. He declares himself to be an immoralist over and over, and then spergs about ‘muh values’ and ‘muh Übermensch’ but has no reason to really condemn the Last Man outside of aesthetic tastes. There’s a reason why pedos like Foucault and other postmodernists love this dude.

>>19121545
>thus spake the last man

>>19124603
>life-affirming

>>19124905
Yes. The philosophers of old times were similar to men outwardly, but inwardly they were so superior that they could hardly be called human.

>>19121975
how is that refuting anything? nothing matters so nothing you said matters

>>19126111
>but has no reason to really condemn the Last Man outside of aesthetic tastes
That's because there is only aesthetics. All philosophy is aesthetics. Did you not read him?

>>19126221
>All philosophy is aesthetics.
And that is retarded

>>19126252
His arguments are sound. He learned it from the Greeks. Did you not read him?

>>19126269
Nietzsche has no arguments. Everything is ‘le interpretation’

>>19126277
Retard.

>>19126290
Notice how ever Nietzchean mouth-breather has no arguments except for ‘YOU HAVEN’T READ NIETZSCHE’ and just boring adhoms. Telling. Nietzsche himself thought that throwing insults and ridicule was an actual argument as well.

>>19126315
>doesn't even read
>acts smug
Like always, you zoomers / Christards / libtards are a joke. Who do you think you're fooling with completely retarded statements like "Nietzsche has no arguments"? Are you out of your fucking mind, kid?

>>19125816
yeah, he ddi

>>19126324
Seethe and cope

>>19126111
Paradox is pretty central to Nietzsche’s philosophy. I’m pretty sure he also denied the existence of noumena and thus an objective reality separate from interpretation (not to be confused with idealism), which allows for the overman to assert his own values onto reality without searching for any “objective” truth to phenomena.

>>19126386
The paradox lies in the fact that by asserting that there is no objective truth underlying appearances, Nietzsche asserts an objective truth about appearances and their nature. He is not dissimilar to Nagarjuna in this regard.

>>19126269
>His arguments are sound
Which one? The one where he just says "there is no truth, only interpretation" and leaves it at that? That's not an argument, it's a statement.

>>19126438
Is that all you know from him, a quote (that isn't even the full passage, therefore actually a misquote in 99% of cases) that anyone can find by searching "nietzsche quotes" on Google / Goodreads?

>>19126488
The full passage is not an argument either. That one statement is the closest he gets to anything substantial. If you could enlighten me on how his arguments are sound (by actually presenting them in a form that is convincing), seeing as you are the expert, that would be great. I have read him though, so I am not expecting anything except maybe an original argument that you made up (which will still inevitably be erroneous).

>>19126502
>I have read him though
Prove it. Post a proper passage from an actually published work and explain how it isn't an argument. You posted an inaccurate quote, that was also incomplete, that was also from his unpublished notes, and that gets posted everywhere all the time.

>>19121545
I don't know, why don't try reading him you fucking retard.

>>19121545
>nothing matters so I am going to do something that matters

>>19126533
I'm not doing your work for you, retard. Anyone with a basic understanding of philosophy knows Nietzsche is not a philosopher of arguments, he is a philosopher of commentary. I feel no need to prove this to some ignorant retard on 4chan because it's so obvious to anyone with the most minute understanding.

>>19126411
Is it really that simple? I don't think Nietzsche and Nagarjuna were so stupid they wouldn't see that obvious flaw

>>19126190
>uhh bro eating pizza hut and jerking off to hentai is irrefutable
young 20 something shit, give it a few years kid

>>19122918
it's alright anon you pass today. i won't be insulting you because of trivial grammar mistakes today

>>19121545
Jodete maldito ateo de mierda, ojalá algún día de verdad encuentres a Dios y aceptes a Jesús en tú corazón

>>19127105
You underestimate the stupidity of Buddhists and crypto-Buddhists.

>>19127105
It wasn’t a flaw for Nagarjuna. All thought that seeks to go beyond itself leads one into the realm of paradox and tension. Only you can traverse the abyss and walk the tightrope.

>>19127117
>>uhh bro eating pizza hut and jerking off to hentai is irrefutable
Yes.

>>19127241
kek this board is filled with zoomers

>>19127260
Not an argument

>>19121849
>not seeing this image 4 times a day for the past 8 years
you must be new

>>19126411
>Nietzsche asserts an objective truth
No. He asserts an interpretation. What people don't understand is that interpretations are not equal, because the bodies from which they stem are not equal; just because there are only interpretations does not mean all interpretations are equal.

>>19121545
>>19121545
>Last Man, "We have found [coomies] and blinks."
People will behave like automatons, and be 'manipulated' or otherwise suggestible as if they were by ghouls as long as Enlightenment rationalism holds sway without a mythopoetic counterweight -- there's the high tension bow sending its shot to the Overman. Don't you want to have a nice burger on a space colony? What the fuck is this technological stagnation since the space race, when actionable plans for just that were live decades ago? The horizon and frontier for mankind has to reach up and out from the earth, and go meet and be with God himself, if the mundane human biomass is going to be made serviceable beyond that human cattle vision of stagnation.

>another thread for people who haven't read N to debate people who didn't understand him about whether it is based and redpilled to agree with him or not

>>19123010
>using industrialization and a modern understanding of psychology where work was minimized in favor of being able to spend more time at home privately pursuing petty little amusements (kind of like how many people in the West live today
Good, though he does delimit the Epicuran gardener model -- it wouldn't have to just be conspicuous consumption and low culture. The rest still holds, and is probably actively pursued in 'worldview warfare' of our time to keep the pace of technical development artificially boosted

>>19126111
>stepping the the same river twice, ect
Destructive things are harmful, which is bad, and enervate the 'feeling of power' -- good & evil: beyond. he doesn't say this for good & bad. Chad Thundercock shouldn't feel any guilt for being a Casanova, like a monk. Foucault doing Bedouin buggering has explicitly deleterious consequences for all concerned; see Schopenhauer on this issue specifically.

>>19128066
>He asserts an interpretation.
Which cannot be true, by definition.
>What people don't understand is that interpretations are not equal
All interpretations are equal. To assert otherwise is to assert that there is a standard by which to ascertain truth, which self-refutes the entire position.

>>19128192
>Which cannot be true, by definition.
Nietzsche did away with truth. Prevailing interpretations, for him, did not prevail on account of truthiness, but on account of their power, i.e. ability to influence and shape the world. What is accepted as "true," what "makes sense," is what furthers our body's goals.

>All interpretations are equal.
No. For Nietzsche, an interpretation is inseparable from the body that forms it:

>Henceforth, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a "pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject"; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as "pure reason," absolute spirituality," "knowledge in itself": these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective "knowing"; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be. But to eliminate the will altogether, to suspend each and every affect, supposing we were capable of this — what would that mean but to castrate the intellect?

It makes no sense to talk about interpretations as if they were equal, because that would mean that all bodies are equal, which we can very easily confirm is not the case.

>To assert otherwise is to assert that there is a standard by which to ascertain truth
No, what is being asserted is that there is a standard by which to ascertain power.

>>19126184
This "godhood" then is within the reach of every human being. You hold onto your slavery, it does not hold onto you

>>19128250
>Nietzsche did away with truth
Which is exactly why there's no reason to listen to him.

>>19128250
>Nietzsche did away with truth.
And this is why no one should read him

>>19128301
>>19128331
Truth is of secondary importance for both of you. You gang up against Nietzsche because you are in a power struggle with him. Your responses justify him. Also, there is plenty of reason for reading the man who influenced some of the greatest minds of the 20th century.

Nietzsche is a pure product of the secular humanism, like the subhumans Hegel, Kant, Heidegger, Adorno, Habermas, Arendt, Husserl, Popper, Strauss, Weisse, Carnap, Engels, marx,Feuerbach, Frege, Fitche, [all germans, weird huh? germans can't think, they suck at wars so they fell back on ''''''''''philosophy'''''' who travestied the greek philosophy which was lived, and they turned it into mental masturbation in sterile universities, in order to get a cushy life like a generic girl gets one from her orbiters]. Germans thinkers are vaginas who think they think.
. He is your typical atheist that you find on every street corner nowadays. Those people are torn apart by nihilism and delusion of grandeur where they view themselves as a benevolent despot leading humanity towards a higher life.
Nietzsche is:
-an atheist [there is no god]
-an anti-christian [like any marxist] [Dude dont think long term like the life-denier christians, only the here and now matters OKAY!!]
-a nihilist [there is no truth, only interpretation, FACT!!!]
-an hedonist [Only this life matters!!1 live in the present moment to coom like my dancing vitalist idol, the great dyonisus!! teehee]
-a narcissist [look how I analysed the totally non-judeo-christian-made concept of ''''''human nature''''' , Humanity is will to power!!! LE HECKIN INSIGHT]
-a jew glorifier ["The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe."]
-a postmodernist [values don't exist but reality doesn't matter bro!!! Just become le heckin uberman, sink further into delusion, create your own values and fight for them until you die!!]

You believe you're a woman? You go giiiiiirl, nobody can tell you otherwise, period!! Trannies are the übermensch neech was talking about!

yeah no wonder that lefty/lit/ trannies shill his diarrhea all the fucking time.

yeah no wonder that self righteous NPCs want to identify with his diarrhea all the fucking time.

>>19128354
kys thomist tranny, there is no skydaddy telling you what is true and false just because you can imagine him

>>19128362
Is your statement true or an interpretation, tranny?

>>19128354
This is how a resentful retard interprets a philosopher who low key calls him a faggot in his works.

>>19127270
Hedonism leads to bad outcomes. You get pain, weakness, and depression from your lack of fulfillment. If you do feel fulfilled from being useless and morbidly obese with STDS you got from fucking ugly fat chicks, then you probably will die soon from your terrible ways. If that doesn't bother you then whatever, you proved that nothing matters by living a life that didn't matter and everyone will quickly forget about you.

>>19124656
>What is above man
Overman.

>>19128483
Cool. And?

>>19126190
Nothing matters objectively, but natural selection continues and your system goes only to death.

>>19126357
I got here late but you are so fucking ignorant and youthful I can smell your bo and hear your snsrky zoomer voice through the screen. Kys

>>19128508
And you're a faggot who will realize the errors of your ways when its too late. No one gives a shit though, except maybe your Mom who will be heartbroken.

>>19128573
Snarky*
>>19128508
Eternal recurrence. If you knew you had to relive life exactly the way it turns out now, would you want to be a doomer loser every time?

>>19128573
You’re literally seething so hard you can’t even spell

>>19121545
prove that you shouldn't be shot for posting this shit

>>19122907
>the overman is the author of new tables of values
This is incoherent to me. Human values clearly arise biologically, are not so intellectual at all, as much as arising from basic biological drives, which are retroactively justified with intellectualism; so unless an “overman” is fundamentally non-human, no need to eat, drink, breathe, regulate temperature, no hormonal drive to sexuality, and no compulsion to socialize in order to accomplish those things, the overman will not exist. Or put it anotherway, an overman cannot exist unless it is fundamentally nonhuman, some non-human entity which does not share human needs, and therefore does not share human values.
In the same way, will to the state of “overman” is a will to one’s own death as a human being.

>>19128576
Seethe harder.
>>19128584
But I'm not a doomer and I like my life. Eternal recurrence wouldn't be so bad because I actually enjoy life and don't shun pleasure like the faggot above me.

>>19128616
The overman isn't such a weird thing as that. It is a euphemism for a stage in human evolution where genes and physiological + psychological development intersect and peak at a given time. The overman is just the most advanced individual in development, and because of this, this individual has overcome the most hurdles and is in the best position to create new values for others.

>>19128695
>The overman is just the most advanced individual in development, and because of this, this individual has overcome the most hurdles and is in the best position to create new values for others.
My argument is that there are no possible “new values” for the human animal, because our values stem from our animal nature, we need to eat and hydrate for example, and then we create vast towers of intellectualization to justify our need to eat and drink ... but unless the mechanics of one’s need to eat or drink are not changed, there will be no fundamental change in values.

>>19128616
Yes the overman would appear as inhuman, like a devil, etc. to the rest of humanity. That is exactly Nietzsche's point. There is a famous poem in the vein of Blake which emphasizes the unleashed natue of the overman. It goes:
The tiger
He destroyed his cage
Yes
YES
The tiger is out

>>19128722
*are changed
rather

>>19128722
>My argument is that there are no possible “new values” for the human animal, because our values stem from our animal nature
But that nature is in a state of change (evolution). No species is a genetic or psychological constant throughout time, and technological / environmental factors are just some of the catalysts for this perpetual change. Our breeding methods and outcomes, our new technologies and sociopolitical structures, our new forms of art, etc. all provide new opportunities for further development / unique developmental pathways.

>>19121545
>”Man does not want to be happy. Only the Englishman wants that.”
>Continuously talks about the value of struggle, especially struggling against the dominant paradigm.
>His hero (Zarathustra) lives in a shack in the woods and subsists on what he forages from nature.
>He simps for the Greeks and the Goths constantly, and expresses special admiration for their militarism.
Nietzsche is about as far from consumerism as you can get, anon.

>>19128727
>Yes the overman would appear as inhuman, like a devil, etc. to the rest of humanity. That is exactly Nietzsche's point.
Then we’re talking about A.I., or the apotheosis of a man to an incorporeal state of pure thoughtforms, his goal of “overman” is non-human and thus is anti-human.
The will to the usurping of man with something unman.
Nietzsche just sounds retarded to me.

>>19128762
Nietzsche was also pro dionysius. You're one dimensional analysis of nietzsche means jack shit. He was contradicting and paradoxical.

>>19128741
In the physical world, there are precious few possible evolutionary leaps for the human animal, and none of the directions in which we take our evolution would result in new values.

>>19121545
.t last man

>>19128781
The problem with a paradoxical philosophy is that it fundamentally does not exist, since it can be found everywhere and is not unique to the philosopher.
If we will make the claim that Nietzsche’s philosophies are paradoxical and self contradictory, then we also assert that he is fundamentally uninteresting.

>>19128793
The overman isn't a "leap," and new doesn't mean completely original / divorced from history, it means refined and developed further.

>>19121545
By doing keto kegels instead of bagels and nofap

>>19128762
>Elliot Roger is not dead. But he must make the world believe that he is dead until he can contain the raging spirit that dwells within him

>>19128764
He is the anti-humanist par excellence, not a pessimist like Schopenhauer but affirming of the advancement to come despite pain, even if only for the few, which will leave behind the last men, too caught up with being docile to be anything greater than human. It is an exercise in new religion, in a new evaluation. Where God had been used to devalue the world, Nietzsche's overman is used to devalue man; the world still remains, existing to support what is and to create what will become, rather than being a waystation to an anti-world or heaven, that endless pasture the livestock dream of.

>>19128793
Go back into the ocean then. You've no knowledge of what a body can do.

>>19128819
My argument is that human values are biological at root.
We have a fundamental need for energy to function, which is acquired through the digestion of food.
You could create hypothetical scenarios where humans come to acquire the energy needed for life through photosynthesis, but even then, without the removal of the need for energy altogether, there will be no fundamentally new values.
Without his becoming entirely non-biological, (and not only that, but not requiring resources of any kind) there is no change in values and no overman.
This probably too subtle of an issue for neetfags to comprehend.

>>19128849
Funny. I’m typing from deep in the ocean right now.

>>19124716
>How do you justify some actions being better than others if they don't represent a divine ideal.
Categorical imperative, my guy.

>>19128830
What you have written is laughably dumb.
Nietzsche’s overman is simply “God” reborn, and the world, in Nietzsche’s conception, a temple which the “overman” relies on for its mere existence as an idea.

>>19128483
Read Mill. There’s a version of hedonism that involves:
>working out
>eating well
>getting married
>pursuing a career
>studying philosophy in your spare time
because these things grant greater pleasure in the long-term than eating pizza and cooming 24/7. Most contemporary hedonists model their beliefs on this system. You’re attacking a strawman.

>>19128873
>My argument is that human values are biological at root
They've changed over time, so is there a biological factor tracking these changes, or perhaps has the way in which humans have bred and organized themselves started to affect our biology the other way around? How do you account for changing values on a purely biological basis? Consider, the value of "being human" has surely changed since the days where 90% of the population lived in slavery to armed bands and worshipped at the altar of bloody chthonic gods. Today people boldly declare on the basis of their humanity they deserve to be taken care of, such an assertion would be bizarre to ages past, where no such human was believed in, but rather descendants of gods ruling over lesser mortals in accordance with divine laws.

>>19128781
>pro dionysius
Yes, and his picture of Dionysius was based on the Greeks. They didn’t just sit around and drink wine all day — they had drunken orgies after winning battles, to celebrate life. You have to view the system holistically. Debauchery is a compliment to struggle, not the antithesis.

>>19128817
>p-philosophy must be logical and contingent else it's uninteresting
You are clearly too dumb for nietzsche or philosophy for that matter. Go back to reading Marx if you want a "philosopher" who tries to make philosophy into a system you can apply and group into a "ism" or ideology. Abstract thinking is not for you

>>19128901
>Nietzsche’s overman is simply “God” reborn,
Yes, Dionysus. Exactly. You thinking it is "dumb" is just your judgment of it, but you seem to have understood better than 99% of /lit/

>>19128928
>They've changed over time
Not fundamentally.

>>19128947
You're not even really discussing values at this point then, you are just referring to people being hungry or horny then. And these are indeed manifest in a variety of ways... and those ways change over time... and the question is still... how does biology change them? Is there a shift in biology every time the values of a society, of man the social animal, change?

>>19128934
>calls me dumb
>did not understand what I said

>>19128968
Just take the dumbpill and disagree with everything.
>x? oh yeah that's pretty dumb
>yes y is for retards
>anyone who thinks z is too stupid to live

>>19121545
>Nothing matters so I will pursue short term pleasure
Only refutation under nihilism is that this ignores long term pleasure.

>>19128965
Too subtle an issue for you.

>>19128965
A big part of "us" is downloaded information. Much like crows who pass on the secret knowledge of how to open nuts using roads, we pass value systems. The change in biology is on the level of chemical balances and whatever is going on in the neurons, basic stuff like how organs work obviously doesn't change beyond mutations. A child raised without human contact will not be healthy, downloading that information is literally required for survival (it's a byproduct of what the child needs, intimacy, but why do we need that intimacy? One of the reasons is the info download).

>>19129003
biology is needed to download the information, sure, and the information is about using the body to accomplish various ends, but that information itself changes and grows and would be overwhelming to someone who had not been prepared to receive it and evaluate it in an expected/produced way. why does the information and our evaluation of it change; that is what Nietzsche wants to know and he proposes a way of doing that. "it's all biology" doesn't even answer the question it's like saying water is wet when asked about designing a seaworthy vessel

>>19128873
>My argument is that human values are biological at root.
We don't disagree on that. What we seem to disagree on is whether biology changes or not. Psychology is biological in that it is embedded and derived from neurology, which is unique to each individual, who is also a unique combination of genes and who has a particular physiological status / condition in each moment in time. All of these change due to various factors, and when they change, new desires can form. From these desires we derive our values.

>>19129043
Oh I understood what you're saying. There is a distinction here between needs and values. You still need food, yes, but is food Good? You've broken free of the value system you were born with, but are still left with the ability to make value systems, then you're as a child in the sand playing with morals etc etc.

>>19129142
Cont.
Because the needs will remain, but the value system is how you react to them, kinda. You still need energy to move, but what if you decide to die? The needs are biological the values are a construct. Ultimately the construct serves the need but it's a distinction

>>19129142
>>19129150
Food is a good example actually. Everyone needs to eat. Millions of people [claim that they] will refuse food if came from an animal. Others require the animal to have been slaughtered correctly. Others require the animal to have been deep fried. Others apologize to the animal. Others thank god for the animal. But biology says man's digestive tract can handle plants and animals and gave him teeth effective enough at tearing and gnashing both.

>>19128978
Isn't there a middle way between the two that allows for both moderate short term pleasure while minimizing long term suffering caused by unbridled hedonism?

>>19124682
American comic book superheroes are intrinsically Jewish and untermensch. Instead of overcoming oneself through great power of will, all superheroes are granted superpowers through a deus ex machina. Often, scientific experiments gone wrong are the source, clearly showing their origin as lying within the socially maladjusted power fantasies of nerds.
The stories are simplistic and good vs bad. There is no growth of character. Superheroes remain whiny, weak nerds but with superpowers which they use to solve all problems. Superheroes are a modern, cultural replacement of god as divine retributor.

Any divergence from this is hailed as a great work of culture, even tho it has the emotional depth of a creek instead of a puddle.

Also kys

>>19121545
>Behold! I shall show you the Ultimate Man.
'What is love? What is Creation? What is longing? What is a star?' thus asks the Ultimate Man and blinks.
'The earth has become small, and upon it hops the Ultimate Man, who makes everything small. His race is as inexterminable as the flea; the Ultimate Man lives longest. 'We have discovered happiness,' say the Ultimate Men and blink. They have left the places where living was hard: for one needs warmth. Sickness and mistrust count as sins with them: one should go about warily. He is a fool who still stumbles over stones or over men! A little poison now and then: that produces pleasant dreams. And a lot of poison at last, for a pleasant death. They still work, for work is entertainment. But they take care the entertainment is does not exhaust them. Nobody grows rich or poor any more: both are too much of a burden. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both are too much of a burden. No herdsman and one herd. Everyone wants the same thing, everyone is the same: whoever thinks otherwise goes voluntarily into the madhouse. 'Formerly all the world was mad,' say the most acute of them and blink. They are clever and know everything that has ever happened so there is no end to their mockery. They still quarrel, but they soon make up - otherwise indigestion would result. They have their little pleasure for the day and their little pleasure for the night: but they respect health. 'We have discovered happiness,' say the Ultimate Men and blink.