/lit/ - Literature

>>20486885
It's the moustache, they have power beyond our understanding.

>>20486885
really astute critique u got there dumbass

>>20486885
>another brainlet misunderstands nietzsche

Cuz he's fun to shit post about.

>>20486885
>Destroys 2000+ years of retarded philosophy
>Influences everyone, including fascists, nazis, feminists, jews, postmodernists and everything in-between
>Why is he popular
Because he has a cool mustache.

>>20486885
Cause he's accessible. You don't need brainpower to read him like reading Hegel, most brainlets can get through an N book, and so they do, and then they're happy about it.

That isn't saying he's basic, his writing is good. Just accessible, and fags pride themselves on being able to read anything perceived as even slightly intellectual. This point is proved over and over by people saying they're nihilists cause of N, immediately proving they have not read N.

>>20486971
>>Destroys 2000+ years of retarded philosophy

The only thing he "destroyed" was a very particular brand of german protestantism, a good part of his critic based on worthless value claims without base even within his own worldview.

>>20486885
Nietzsche ideas were just a response to the liberal. socialist, nationalist movements of his day. He needed to provide a strong critique of them, and his philosophy does so by providing some really great explanations of their short comings and possible alternatives.

>>20486991
Ah yes, I forgot, his book title was called The Antiprotestant.

>>20486885
Because he was gay. Normalfags loves gay people.

>>20486885
He isn't.

>>20486979
>This point is proved over and over by people saying they're nihilists cause of N, immediately proving they have not read N.
Have you ever actually met anyone who claims this? It is a stereotype ive heard a lot but never encountered myself. I dont doubt it happens, it just seems like the tendency of people to "become nihilists cause Nietzsche," is overblown. I genuinely want to hear if you have a story about meeting someone this desperate to seem read without having seriously read.

Why the name? What is so interesting about you that you need to stand out from this wonderful collective we have here.

>>20486885
If you didn’t think that the “Problem of Socrates” section of Twilight of the Idols was smart or groundbreaking then I don’t know what to tell you.
That book was a lightning bolt that shattered my world. I was a college student brought up to think that philosophy was a dispassionate, disinterested search for the truth, and suddenly this guy comes out of nowhere and starts yelling at me about shit like “there is no such thing as a dispassionate search for the truth, all of your ‘noble’ intellectual pursuits are just sublimations of your base biological drives, philosophy was invented by nerds who couldn’t get laid and needed a way of exercising power in the world, the whole idea of making a ‘philosophical argument’ is retarded anyway because if the thing was so damn true then you probably wouldn’t have to ‘argue’ for it in the first place”. It totally turned my world upside down and changed how I viewed many spheres of human activity.
Of course you can always say with hindsight “well that’s obvious, I could have written that.” But of course, you didn’t.

>>20486885
Read Lukacs critique of Nietszche:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/destruction-reason/ch03.htm

>>20487270
>we can't know anything, bro
powerful stuff, very convincing

>>20487287
You're just an annoying, pestering faggot.

>>20487299
maybe, but correct all the same

>>20487287
Why are you here if you don’t want to engage seriously with his thought? Literally what value do you gain from making dumb “gotcha” posts like that? Anyway, here’s what I’d say to someone whose interpretation of Nietzsche was “we can’t know anything”:
As is often repeated, Nietzsche was not a systematic thinker - he had no carefully considered, systematic theory of epistemology, whether “relativist” or “perspectivist” or otherwise, that he worked out all the consequences of. This is because a core theme of his thought is being skeptical of the very notion of philosophical theory building in the first place. He’s more interested in exploring the psychological, social, and historical conditions that underly the notion of philosophical theory building, as opposed to building new philosophical theories of his own.
There are a few passages in his works that can be interpreted as him saying that there’s no such thing as truth. If that is what he actually believed, then I think he’s wrong about that. A philosopher getting certain claims wrong is not particularly unique or unsurprising, nor does it invalidate the rest of their work. I think Plato was wrong about their being a supersensible realm of Forms, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of other value to extract from his writings.
At other times, Nietzsche seems to endorse the idea that all knowing is perspectival, and that it’s fundamentally impossible to get outside of your own perspective and know things “as they really are”. As I said earlier, Nietzsche was not a systematic thinker and he did not present a fully elaborated theory of perspectives or perspective-based knowledge. It’s really impossible to know exactly what he believed about epistemology and what the full implications are for his thought. It’s an interesting exercise for scholarly interpretation of Nietzsche, but it’s not like you HAVE to focus on that one aspect.
It seems clear from his writings that Nietzsche thought he knew a lot of things. He knew things about Christianity, the history of philosophy, the future evolution of society, etc. So I see no problem with bracketing concerns about epistemology and just engaging with the wealth of writing he did on other topics.

>>20487274
Why do Marxoids call everything bourgeoisie? Like calling the support of mythopoesis bourgeoisie. They call mythical speech bourgeoisie and proletarian resentment “heroic struggle” when none of the two are related to what he attaches them.

>>20486885
I'm not an expert on him but I like that he was against rationalism. I view rationality as a war on life and the self. A deviant part of the brain that kills God. (Christianity being the attempt to rationalize God and Spirit)

I see "will" as a being's persistence in the world (Why you don't just lay down and die) and the "will to power" as the will's predilection to organize the being into a hierarchy with other beings and nature.

I do think there is something that precedes will to power and that's "Effectiveness"

I can give a quote from Jung.

"Fullness and emptiness, generation and destruction, are what distinguish God and the Devil. Effectiveness is common to both. Effectiveness joins them. Effectiveness: therefore, stands above both, and is a God above God, since it unites fullness and emptiness through its effectuality."

Then many years later Donald Hoffman's Fitness-Beats-Truth Theorem.

In short, the world is hidden from us because of our limited perceptions, we map the world into a visible state (external) and unpack that map with our models and parameters and send it into an internal hidden state.

All that organization to unpack an illusionary world is filtered through what I would say the will to power is a slave too and that would be effective, or what is best for fitness.

Anyway, I'm just an idiot.

>>20487221
Yeah I know a couple people who do this. Best example I got is this pseudo intellectual bitch who claims she read Kierkegaard, N, Hegel etc, she a micro influencer type shit from a small island I'm from, and she posts all the time about how N made her a nihilist and her fundamental view is nihilism cause of him, that Kierkegaard SOMEHOW made her realize that life is pointless and there's no solution lmao. I'd say I've met maybe 10 or so people since high school and through uni that have referred to reading N and come to the conclusion that he's a nihilist and all the typical "muh god is dead".

The name because I don't want to be an anon who can say whatever he wants behind anonymity ; if I'm wrong about something on this board, I'd like to own it :)

>>20486885
Parituclarly in /lilt/ he is popular because retards like you can't leave it alone for a single fucking day. Only once in a while I see people creating a thread to seriously discuss Nietzsche's philosophy here, but every goddamn day there must be at least two threads like yours just for the sake of ??

>>20487560
But what is the point of life? I don’t think Nietzsche would posit something like “life is thus because/in order to…”, as if it needed a justification beyond itself.

>I don't see how he is so popular, so why is he?
he is alive. before alive. he found the egg. he is beyond all faded idols. they built an idol of him and then grown weary while he in a high priestly fashion showeth how to build idols-pneumatic portals and give gifts of grace. philosophy is how to be renewed. not to own '''the truth''' (what an ignoble notion befitting slaves and slaveowners alike), but to bask in an infinite well of inspiration. to escape all symbolic regimes for they are of the side of satan which binds. to reach for the impossible as the creed and the oath. every cycle has its own Dr. No: that is the eternal recurrence, every cosmos shows the struggle of two powers which are designed according to standards of time. eternal recurrence: we've been here before, we would shitpost and sneed (where did it lead us?), only decorations have changed. did we find the way on the last cycle? did we manage, my brothers in the striving, to find the Egg: to devise the language?

>>20486885
Prescience.

>>20487560
Are people really this retarded when engaging with Nietzsche? In no way would I describe myself as someone who is deeply knowledgeable about philosophy but from what I’ve read of Nietzsche his goal is to ensure that nihilism doesn’t take hold of the world in the absence of religion, this is made abundantly clear in the opening pages of Zarathustra so how do people manage to get it so wrong?

>>20487270
>I was a college student brought up to think that philosophy was a dispassionate, disinterested search for the truth
So you admit Nietszche was the very first philosopher you ever even read then, since pretty much no philosopher at all is "dispassionate, disinterested search for the truth" except maybe sometimes Aristotle.

>>20487692
Are you familiar at all with contemporary analytic philosophy? “Dispassionate search for their truth” is their founding principle, the entire idea of the analytic project is to get at objective truths unencumbered by historical or social baggage. And that’s where most of my reading had been in the years leading up to Nietzsche.

>>20487692
Also how are you going to argue that someone like Kant didn’t take himself to be engaged in a dispassionate search for the truth? Maybe with a modern lens you can be suspicious of that claim, but you only find that to be a natural mode of thinking because of the historical/psychological turn in 20th century thought that emphasized our situatedness as agents and the historical contingency of our thoughts and actions, and this line of thinking is ultimately indebted to Marx and Nietzsche.

>>20487692
Can you tell us how platonists, scholastics, rationalists were passionate and had interests guiding them in their philosophies?

>Why is he so popular?
He paved the way for the schizussy gigaposting of those afflicted of the land
past the gate of dunghill
blasted to the kingdom come chuds those hated bc it was easy to hate them, basement-banished ones
yes the Neet is right to rage at the sweet (oh so sweet) Jesus causing diabetism in imitative mannequins: Christ was not a christian. yes, he was of the ancient royal Bogdanoff blood (proofs in the Talmood). to love is to raise sparks from an unformed mass, to love is to refine and purify that which is mixed with falsehoods. Christ-Nietzsche loved Sophia so much bros he expelled the merchants from the Temple. and his fight with systematizations of philosophy must be read as a struggle against the treacherous idea of objectification of the Spirit.

>>20486885
He writes well for a philosopher and is actually fun to read. He also speaks to a certain type of reader in a way no other philosopher does. He can almost be seen as a self help writer

>>20487727
There's a difference between "philosopher" and "philosophy professor". Contemporary philosophy professors are not philosophers

>>20487751
Kant is a stealth Christian apologist

>>20487770
>platonists
Plato's dialogues are hardly dispassionate. They're practically plays (dramas and comedies).
>scholastics
They're literally driven by the love of Jesus
>rationalists
Not real philosophers

>>20487814
>Contemporary philosophy professors are not philosophers
Ok you’re not worth taking seriously. Nice talking to you.

>>20487827
>not worth taking seriously
hm..
>Nice talking to you.
I think you are lying in this one, anon.

>>20487827
>publish le 25-page paper in "Mind" about "Transgressing the boundaries: a modern reading of Don Quixote through a feministic critical perspective"
>
>"Now I am literally just like Socrates!"

>>20487270
Didn't Spinoza say it first tho? I think I remember reading the same thing in "Ethics"

>>20487814
Ah you are either a braindead retard or baiting. As the other anon said, not worth wasting time with.

>>20487006
He thought it was an attack against christianity as a whole, but is clear that his idea of Christ was ultimately tied to the attitudes and difficulties of german protestantism. His critic falls apart the moment you step out of that bubble.

>>20487866
Maybe. In some sense, there’s nothing new under the sun. Descartes’ cogito ergo sum had been anticipated by other writers, but he still gets the credit for it. Hegel’s conception of reason and dialectics has been compared with Aristotle’s hylomorphism. It’s all just footnotes to Plato. Etc etc.
What can be said for sure though is that no one gave the idea such a thoroughgoing treatment before Nietzsche, and no one brought it to the forefront of intellectual life like he did. Also no one had put such a particular emphasis on how our physical situatedness as biological organisms (his obsession with “health”) impacts our thought (it likely would have been difficult to think in such terms before Darwin).

>>20487936
>it's another episode of My Christianity Isn't Cringe Because I Like Incense and Icons

>>20487656
If your entire life has been dominated by the concept of chairs then when reading Nietzsche all you'll focus on is him basically saying chairs don't exist. That the world will fall into chairless anarchy without them doesn't get processed unless you're interested in the world.

Him and Stirner are the backbone of modern individualism

>there is no truth
>might is right!
>weak should be destroyed
How is this not nihilism, again?

>>20488050
Because nihilism = denial of reality and the evaluation of deficiency as morality to comply with the demands of a volcano demon as articulated by his priests

>>20488050
>weak should be destroyed
He says on the GoM that they must not even be dealt directly, and that they should actually just be subordinated to a higher class of individuals.

>it’s all maya
>deprive your life of genuine sentiment in order to grant a comfy place in a realm of which none can be sure of the existence or else you’ll suffer eternally
How is this not nihilism?

>>20488050
>>there is no truth
>>might is right!
You say there's no truth and then you state a supposed truth.
>might is right
And compassion is might, only someone strong is capable of risking things like compassion or giving things away. The fear that is most often the cause of violence is weakness.
Your conditioned concepts aren't fundamental truths, you can always dig deeper. There are practical reasons we consider a chair a chair, if you ignore the reasons and just rely on spoonfed conditioning you're working in a constructed virtual world with no real connection to reality.

>>20488050

>How is this not nihilism?

As nihilism would state that nothing makes sense. Which is quite clearly not the case here.

>>20487952
No. I am, as a matter of fact, a protestant. But go ahead, pretend that there is anything universal in his critic of christianity, despite the fact that one of the biggest complains your kind always has is the extreme contradictions between christian denominations.

>>20486885
why do people read him when they can just read Plato instead?

>>20488332
Dude are you retarded? Nietzsche literay criticizes the virtue inversion of Christianity, the metaphysics on which christian theology supports itself, their cultural shift of morals.

>>20488332
He spends a great deal of his writing on the subject covering Paul and the early church. That's the "genealogy" of all Christianity, therefore it is a universal critique of all its branches, not just Lutheranism

>>20488375
It's still correctable. If Nietzsche is correct then the Paulian body of Christ is sick and needs treatment. It's not aligning with the divine principles that are supposed to animate it.

>>20488483
The "treatment" is to understand that god is dead, something the early christians most famously refused to acknowledge

>>20486885
because philosophy has grown sclerotic. society was stuck in it's ways regarding ethics, morality, etc even though there were obvious issues. few philosophers have been capable of addressing this insufficient mean

>>20488501
Chair is dead. Long live chair.

>>20486885
>and for what? For individualism and freedom?
If you believe they are not worth fighting for then you are a slave, an animal that deserves nothing but being cut in half with a chain saw to be used as dog food.

>>20486885
people like when guy say "power good, get power self" because follow passion=pee pee feel good :)

>>20486885
Easiest philosophy: fuck u i do what i want