/lit/ - Literature

Depends what type of strength and weakness you mean.

In today's state, there are many types of weaknesses that can give you a cunning and massive advantage over a "strong" person if we're talking in the Nietzschean sense.

Obviously being PHYSICALLY strong is better than being PHYSICALLY weak. But other than physicality it really depends on the circumstance of your strength/weakness.

>>20273304
You're weak, that's why you would need an argument.
>>20273440
You're a faggot.

humility is better than arrogance

>>20273304
Of course… the serious argument is that being more powerful is scarier, people pay more attention to you and attention isn’t always filled with good intentions. There is inherit risk with power. Why do you think so many people only stay as powerful as their peers?

>>20273542
Because they is scary little PUSSYoles is what they is

brrrrrr Nietzsche goes 'might is right' lolXD

>>20273542
People in high positions of power are always surrounded by people who can't wait to get rid of them

>>20273304
By his own admission, the "weak" have been triumphing over the "strong" since the fall of antiquity.

>>20273304
Daoism.
From Dao De Jing ch 76 (I edited a few translations together https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html):
>Men are born soft and supple;
>dead, they are stiff and hard.
>Plants are born tender and pliant;
>dead, they are brittle and dry.

>Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible
>is a disciple of death.
>Whoever is soft and yielding
>is a disciple of life.

>Therefore, an inflexible army will not win.
>A tree that is unbending is easily broken.
>A strong tree will be cut down.

>The hard and stiff will be broken.
>The soft and supple will prevail.
>The hard and strong will fall.
>The soft and weak will overcome.

Obviously there's more to it than this but the Daoist weakness is in a sense a kind of strength anyway so yinyang and all that or some shit

>>20273304
Yes. The argument runs "being weak is bad but at least we're morally right which is more important, unlike those strong people who abuse us who are morally wrong."

>>20273944
That's not an argument against the claim. Is being strong better than being weak, regardless of moral quality?

>>20273997
It is an argument against the claim because the claim is that being strong is BETTER than being weak. 'Better' can be interpreted as 'morally better' so it does work. The moral quality is precisely why it does work as an argument. The original claim in no way forbids moral reasoning.

>>20273304
What strength what weakness?
A bodybuilder has a mind si weak I can manipulate him into literally whatever I want. But he has 1% more natural brute force even tough I have access to machines that make millions of time more physical strenghtt
Who is stronger?

>>20273304
no lol

>>20274406
Imagine one strong person and one weak person, of same moral quality. Isn't the strong one better?

Stop introducing other variables, morals DO NOT matter for the question.

>>20273824
This biggest hole in Nietzsche's theories.

Nietzsche was incredibly weak.

>>20274585
How's that? Wouldn't you agree that slave morality has triumphed over the noble ideals for the past two millennia?

>>20274605
I was agreeing with you.

>>20273304
Will to power is a scam. Unless you're chad it's certainly difficult to live by those standards and trust me most people who read Nietzsche are not the chad type

>>20274418
Post body. I bet you’re a skinnyfat abomination.

>>20273304
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God.

10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

>>20273824
The weak are clever, for sure, but that doesn't contradict the statement of the OP.

>>20274599
How does that contradict the claim? Must a weak person believe being weak is better than being strong? Are people not able to believe things are true which aren't self-flattery?

>>20274605
but how can you refer to it as "slave" morality, if its winning?

>>20274615
>Will to power is a scam. Unless you're chad it's certainly difficult to live by those standards and trust me most people who read Nietzsche are not the chad type
The best practitioners of Nietzsche would never read Nietzsche. In fact, the chaddest of all would never even read a philosophy book.

That doesn't contradict the claim that strength is better. It's amazing how many people think it's somehow impossible for someone to believe something which isn't self-flattery. Implicitly you're all arguing in Nietzsche's favor, you cannot comprehend anyone arguing a belief which isn't in their self interest.

>>20274534
I'm literally repeating the line of argumentation that Nietzsche ascribed to the jews bud. Obviously I don't think to be weak is good.

>being strong good
Not that I disagree, but is this what really made this guy popular? Were people so starved for ideas in the 1800s?

>>20273304
In a world where suffering is possible, no.

>>20273304
No

>>20274770
>The best practitioners of Nietzsche would never read Nietzsche.
This is retarded, both in the sense that if you read him you'd never understand that will to power is an over-emphasized meme from among his ideas, but in the sense that he explicitly wrote so that others might understand his ideas and better shape society towards the ubermensch/amor fati and away from the last man/the slow death.

>>20274719
They keep winning though. How is this not indicative of having superior strength?

>>20274973
No this board is just full of pseuds lol

>>20273440
>there are many types of weaknesses that can give you a cunning and massive advantage over a "strong" person
name one

>>20274750
Slave and Master morality isn't about winning or necessarily about strength per se. In an oversimplified way master morality is expressing your strengths and power freely, whereas slave morality is a reaction to being unable to do this by turning your weaknesses into "strengths" because you can't get what you truly want, e.g. can't get pussy so you make chastity a virtue and sex a vice; or you're powerless so you make power evil; or you can't have all the food and money you desire so you deny these desires and vow to poverty or asceticism. But at the same time Nietzsche wasn't exactly saying the specific master morality he was speaking of is what we should emulate, but more that we should avoid slave morality as it's born from ressentiment and is therefore weak and sick.

>>20275190
I'd respectfully disagree here. Nietzsche's slave morality is that we value victims because they are low in power like Christ on Earth. This line of reasoning gives Nieztsche far too much credit - it wasn't about the material conditions but the power relationships. It's a valuable critique of Christianity because victimhood without forgiveness is valueless whereas with forgiveness and grace it is beautiful.

>>20275038
being high enough on the oppression food chain allows you to use the full force of legal and social institutions to destroy your enemies

Happiness in slavery concept, being strong bears a high responsibility on people, from having to discipline oneself to being responsible for others well being, strong people are rarely happy. Whereas "slaves" who follow can do whatever the fuck they want and not bother themselves with high responsibilities.

But from a moral standpoint, the "slaves" corrupt the strong into slave mentality, which in turn, turns the world to shit.

From a rational standpoint though, doing whatever makes you happy would be acceptable.

>>20275200
Interesting, admittedly I'm not well read enough to offer a response but I'll look into this interpretation.

>>20273824
What an unbelievable pseud. Imagine if a historian made this claim they'd be mocked endlessly. But cause it's le epic mustache man he gets away with these insane generalizations.

>>20275190
Sounds like Freud

>>20275641
The person you're replying to is giving the most superficial reading of Nietzsche possible. Nietzsche fully recognizes times where slave morality fell by the wayside since antiquity.

>>20273824
Isn't Nietzsche just pointing out the source of the weak's power, so the strong can fight back?

>>20275244
>Whereas "slaves" who follow can do whatever the fuck they want
lmao

>>20273304
Weakness can be stronger than strength. Lao Tzu told me, like river cuts through rock. So we need better definition of strength.

>>20273824
I like the use of “rabble” instead of “weak”

>>20275345
I believe it's from Beyond Good and Evil

>>20276087
Yes. More importantly, he was pointing out how untermensch operate so that the ubermensch can better recognize himself.

>>20275641
>>20275641
Slave morality and weakness are not one in the same. Many who demonstrated strength for Nietzsche were psychically or mentally weak, although not both. In the middle ages and Renaissance, social conditions and Christianity allowed weak people to float inside of society and avoid problems that normally would have come to them on previous ages where the social contract was weaker. Plenty of historical figures (many Catholics, scientists, J00s) were able to avoid trouble by playing whatever their game was within society. Nothing slavish about it. Unless Aquinas, Galileo, and Nietzsche himself count as slaves

>>20273304
>better.
Wow , so even Neetch was a moralistic fag.

>>20277494
It's amazing how one sentence can expose the cognitive deficiencies of so many /lit/ posters

>>20273514
Disagree. Positioning humility as an ideal creates a culture where people are afraid to have great ambitions for fear of offending others who may perceive them as arrogant. Without people establishing high aims we would have none of the great architecture or technology that we do. Humility is a christcuck slave morality virtue designed to drag higher men down through the weaponisation of guilt.

>>20273940
That makes it sound less like "weakness" and more like "letting yourself be vulnerable so you can be open minded" while being flexible, instead of a stubborn hardass.

>weakness is le bad
>goes insane

>>20277694
nobody can truly go back to pagan morality. anyone who tries will go insane like Nietzsche. we can't undo 2500 years of the Axial Age changing human consciousness.

>>20273304
did you even read nietzsche? also, his definition of weakness is reacting, and his definition of strength is not reacting. so you're weak, you reactionary, right wing, neofascist bigot. i'd shoot you in the head if i had the legal right to, put you down like the dog, the pig, the cow that you are

>>20277751
For all practical purposes Europeans retained traditional aristocratic values. The class system of England goes agains the egalitarianism of Jesus’ teachings. The idolatry of Notre Dame go against Jesus’ teachings. The Crusades would have never happened if it were not for Christianity being rebranded as a warrior religion to convince Germanic pagans to convert. Europeans acted out Platonic virtues despite believing in the Christian metaphysical narrative.

>>20277792
Based

>>20273304
Aren't you making a hidden moral statement?

>>20277792
that's cool that you want to sterilize your children with hormone therapy, expose them to homosexual groomer teachers, and replace your high IQ high trust society with ethnic and cultural conflict, but basically the rest of us are just gonna have to be neofascists, haha I know... UGH I know... I'm sorry! but we're just gonna have to be neofascists is all, hahaha

>>20277694
He rolled a low CON, it happens.

>>20273304

>>20278214
Yeah, the definition of "weakness" being employed there has nothing to do with the definition Nietzsche employs in his work.

>>20278235
What about hardness?

>>20278272
It's confused there. Hardening is the result of that earlier growth, it's basically the endgame of potential. To call the potential good but the realization of it bad doesn't really make any sense, which is why Nietzsche wraps all of it into the concept of strength and calls all of it good. Weakness for him is wherever there is a void which can only breed resentment since it is barren.

>>20275038
being the right kind of weak minded and superstitious, like believing in bullshit new age hippie shit, ghosts, healing crystals, spinal adjustments, astral projection or heretical bullshit Christianity can put you up on the totem pole, significantly

>>20277905
No.

>>20275024
the only people winning anything in this world are rich old men in suits, we're all losers. whether you're a normie trying to fit in or an outcast trying to get by on your own

>>20276062
The dark ages. i wish we could be back

>>20277751
things are different know. during nietzsche's time, America was not yet the hegemon of the world, and there were many opportunities all over for them to exploit. things are different now, we are truly at the end of an era. soon, within our lifetime or the next, the time for the overman to rise will come. all we can do is let mankind run its course

>>20273304
The simple question that confuses the Nietzschean: Why should I follow the master morality?

>>20277751
Nietzsche didn't want to go back to "pagan" morality, retard.

>>20280900
The simple answer that confuses the non-Nietzschean: Do what you will.

>>20273514
Reigning in arrogance even when it could be rightfully displayed due to real true superiority is a strength.

if you think you can just throw simple dualisms around, you have not understood a word of nietzsche

>>20280908
>Do what you will.
you wouldn't be able to give a good argument as to why

>>20280974
It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact.

>>20280974
"Truth to tell man reflects himself in things, he thinks everything beautiful that throws his own image back at him. The judgment "beautiful" is the "vanity of his species." <...>
From the physiological standpoint, everything ugly weakens and depresses man. It reminds him of decay, danger, impotence; he literally loses strength in its presence. The effect of ugliness may be gauged by the dynamometer. Whenever man's spirits are downcast, it is a sign that he scents the proximity of something "ugly." His feeling of power, his will to power, his courage and his pride—these things collapse at the sight of what is ugly, and rise at the sight of what is beautiful. In both cases an inference is drawn; the premises to which are stored with extra ordinary abundance in the instincts. Ugliness is understood to signify a hint and a symptom of degeneration: that which reminds us however remotely of degeneracy, impels us to the judgment "ugly."

"To be obliged to fight the instincts—this is the formula of degeneration: as long as life is in the ascending line, happiness is the same as instinct."

>>20275038
Weak empathy is pmuch a prerequisite for getting wealthy.

>>20273304
The stronger you are the more you have to lose. There's no pleasure in breaking a weak man but there is great pleasure in breaking a strong one. And no man is strong enough to stand against the voracious tide of the ignorant multitude.

This thread was moved to >>>/his/13220775