/lit/ - Literature

>>20695932
He said "I am dynamite" though

>>20695932
Because you didn't understand him

>>20695940
>>20695953
i dont care

>>20695932
>Bizet is better than Wagner

>>20695955
Typical Nietzsche poster lmao

>>20695932
When Nietzsche asked for the value of truth in the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil, he didn't recognize that truth is the highest expression of the Will to Power, since no thing can surpass the truth, not even a good lie

>>20696011
Very good post actually

OP is almost correct.

N made a couple of mistakes, one of which is that he claimed the theater is a lower artform than music, literature etc. icycalm explains in detail why that's wrong, and claims in turn that theater is higher than music and ultimately videogames higher than anything. I'll post the aphorism if I can find it, it's on his Patreon somewhere.

Another Nietzsche error is that he said the Muslims are better than the Christians. icycalm again says N said that because he never spent time with Muslims.

But basically yes, N made practically no errors.

See also: http://orgyofthewill.net/praise

"And despite his incredibly massive claims of 'ending philosophy', I think he's basically just saying 'I'm finishing Nietzsche's work, which was almost done with everything but then he went mad plus he didn't live in the 21st century with shit like movies and videogames so he missed some shit there which I'm going to fix'."

>>20696011
>he didn't recognize that truth is the highest expression of the Will to Power, since no thing can surpass the truth, not even a good lie
what you term "the truth" is actually non-detection of falsehood via language posits. No such thing as "truth" exists. You talk about "verisimilitude" at best, i.e. a good enough lie.

>>20696011
>he didn't recognize that truth is the highest expression of the Will to Power
He did, but he also recognized that truth alone can't nourish the will to power

>>20696118
>he said the Muslims are better than the Christians
Depends on which ones. The medieval Spain ones definitely were, since they at least took a bath regularly.

Yes, he was right. It's a pity his mind was too weak to handle the power, but I'm working on the gaps he left the next generations to fill.

>>20696156
>No such thing as "truth" exists
Ok, prove it.
>>20696168
Strict hygiene is an ubiquitous Islamic precept.

>>20696176
>It's a pity his mind was too weak to handle the power
Well, a brain tumor will do that.

>>20696178
>Ok, prove it
What you seem to be arguing here is that… hmm… Good question! Either you’re claiming the semantic nihilist cannot argue otherwise without contradicting *your* theory, which is the whole point of arguing otherwise. Or you’re claiming the semantic nihilistic cannot argue against your theory of truth because, well, your theory of truth is *true*. Either you're saying something trivial, or you’re begging the question.

>>20696188
>you’re begging the question.
No, that's only what you are doing when you make self-refuting claims. I don't need to make a truth statement for my question to have validity, the point is you have no justification whatsoever for asserting that there is no truth. In this case, what is left is a vacuum of possibilities, where anything could be true, it is just a matter of determining what.

>>20695932
His philosophy is a compensation for his own pathetic life.
Tell me how many of you truly got ahead in life following his philosophy, and didn't merely use his it as a compensation for your own personal dissatisfaction with your life.

>>20696206
Pleb take

>>20696207
Failure take.

>>20696196
>you make self-refuting claims
I do not. Prove it.

>you have no justification whatsoever
I do not need to. I basically just told you: such thing as "Truth" is something that *you* should keep proving. Similar to such cases as the existence of "god". And you can't prove god's existence. Nor is it helpful much.

>>20696156
You know that "On Truth and Lies..." is a text from his earlier phase, right? He even states after that what is true is true in the measure of how much the "truth" is useful for Life. Not even Nietzsche would believe what you're saying

>>20696196
>In this case, what is left is a vacuum of possibilities, where anything could be true,
No. Behold:

1. It is true, there's no such thing as truth.
2. Thank God, there's no God.
3. Operation successful, no object X found.

You do not need truth for things being designated as "true".

>>20696215
My personal success is irrelevant

>>20696223
>Not even Nietzsche would believe what you're saying
"For us, the falsity of a judgment is still no objection to that judgment —that’s where our new way of speaking sounds perhaps most strange. The question is the extent to which it makes demands on life, sustains life, maintains the species, perhaps even creates species. And as a matter of principle we are ready to assert that the falsest judgments (to which a priori synthetic judgments belong) are the most indispensable to us, that without our allowing logical fictions to count, without a way of measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a constant falsification of the world through numbers, human beings could not live—that if we managed to give up false judgments, it... a priori synthetic judgements: a central claim of Kant’s theory of knowledge, these are judgments which do not arise from experience (i.e., they are innate) but which reveal knowledge of experience (like deductively argued mathematically based scientific laws). would amount to a renunciation of life, a denial of life. To concede the fictional nature of the conditions of life means, of course, taking a dangerous stand against the customary feelings about value. A philosophy which dares to do that is for this reason alone already standing beyond good and evil."

>>20696233
>it would amount to a renunciation of life, a denial of life. To concede the fictional nature of the conditions of life means, of course, taking a dangerous stand against the customary feelings about value. A philosophy which dares to do that is for this reason alone already standing beyond good and evil."
*typo

>>20696206
People already "follow" Nietzsche's philosophy without knowing that they're doing it. Think about the whole "philosophy" behind bodybuilding and fitness for example

>>20695932
>Likewise, Mumford demonstrates at length that the sole conceivable and real finality of "technics'' is the augmentation of power. There is absolutely no other possibility. This brings us back to the problem of the means. Technology is the most powerful means and the greatest ensemble of means. And hence, the only problem of technology is that of the indefinite growth of means, corresponding to man's spirit of power. Nietzsche, exalting this will to power, limited himself to preparing the man predisposed to the technological universe! A tragic contradiction.

>>20696233
Yeah that's the quote i had in mind. And i'm stating that truth, even science, does not lead to an denial of life. It's very easy to see it: Socrates, Plato and Kant became themselves the rule using the reason as a mean for their powerfulness. If this is not an affirmation of life and the Will to Power, i don't know what it is

>>20696255
>real finality of "technics'' is the augmentation of power
>the only problem of technology is that of the indefinite growth of means
"As yet hath his knowledge not learned to smile, and to be without jealousy; as yet hath his gushing passion not become calm in beauty.
Verily, not in satiety shall his longing cease and disappear, but in beauty! Gracefulness belongeth to the munificence of the magnanimous.
<...>
When power becometh gracious and descendeth into the visible—I call such condescension, beauty.
And from no one do I want beauty so much as from thee, thou powerful one: let thy goodness be thy last self-conquest.
All evil do I accredit to thee: therefore do I desire of thee the good.
Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings, who think themselves good because they have crippled paws!"

>>20696267
>And i'm stating that truth, even science, does not lead to an denial of life
Of course it doesn't. How can it, if it doesn't exist?

>>20696272
You must notice that Nietzsche is not saying that there's no truth, but that the value of truth does not lie in its truthfulness, but in its utility for life. And the same goes for the falsity

>>20696250
Hmm looking at yourself in the mirror is real power. Being physically unfit, but looking fit demonstrates a will to power am I right fellas? Replacing real power with the image and worship of power.... Still having to earn a living, still being beholden to your employer.... real power guys. Go Neech! Will to power!
>>20696230
It is relevant. You have achieved no real power. All you do is regurgitate immature philosophy and feel powerful as a result. The effects of Nietzsche's philosophy are precisely this: total impotence and powerlessness coupled with the mental delusion of feeling like the superman.

>>20696286
he said there is not truth, only interpretations

>>20696250
Oh right right, people didn't train to be strong and physically fit before Nietzsche. No way. They didn't even know what that was.
But after Nietzsche somehow looks and image are worshipped. Not performance and ability. Almost like everyone is a fag.
Hmmm.... its obviously a will to power guys!

>>20695940
Napoleon Dynamite

>>20696296
You're misunderstanding it. I mean, the mindset of going to surpass challenges is an important point of Nietzsche's philosophy. It is not the whole, and obviously people trained before Nietzsche, and that they will continue doing it without needing to read him. But you must remember that Nietzsche was a philosopher of the body, and that health was, for him, a great value.

>>20696318
Hmmm real power in being the perfect sexual object of fags guys!
Neech taught that health is demonstrated by the beautiful male physique, not the athletic performance and ability, not the general nourishment and state of the body.
Clearly Neech knows where the real power lies! In the eyes of the beholder ie a fag!
Your idol turns you away from real health and real power at every turn. But you still defend him.
But hey delusion must be another will to power am I right fellas!

>>20696318
Clearly it is impossible to train without subscribing to the endless supply of memes.
Nietzsche's will to power. Reject modernity embrace masculinity.
Literally impossible to be healthy, strong and fit without lapping up severely corrupting philosophies am I right fellas!

>>20696216
>I do not. Prove it.
"Nothing is true" is itself false, therefore self-refuting. It's very simple.
>I do not need to
When you make a claim, you have to justify it, otherwise it has no truth value and no reason to be taken seriously.
>such thing as "Truth" is something that *you* should keep proving.
Correct, but this also applies to you when you claim that nothing is true.
>>20696228
>1. It is true, there's no such thing as truth.
How is this a justifiable assertion?
>You do not need truth for things being designated as "true"
Yes, you do. This is like saying something does not have to exist in order to exist.

>>20696156
>what you term "the truth" is actually non-detection of falsehood via language posits. No such thing as "truth" exists. You talk about "verisimilitude" at best, i.e. a good enough lie.
Falsity and evil do not exist in the Ideal world, neither Good exists, only Truth exists, and Good is simply an expression of Truth

Start with the Greeks

>>20696166
This is the same idea I got from him. It's confusing how different people interpret him but I try not to worry about it. If I imposed my will on his text aren't I following his suggestion on how to read anyway?

>>20696757
>How is this a justifiable assertion?
"We simply have no organ for *knowing*, for 'truth': we 'know' (or believe or imagine) exactly as much as is *useful* to the human herd, to the species: and even what is here called 'usefulness' is finally also just a belief, a fiction, and perhaps just that supremely fatal stupidity of which we some day will perish."

>This is like saying something does not have to exist in order to exist.
This is like saying you misattribute something to be the cause, while being bitch-slapped and pointed at the existence of the "unknown unknowns" that you ignore.

"Is the philosopher not permitted to rise above a faith in grammar? All due respect to governesses, but might it not be time for philosophy to renounce faith in governesses?"

>>20696757
>"Nothing is true" is itself false,
I never said, that nothing is true. I said that there is no such thing as truth. There is a world of difference here.

>When you make a claim, you have to justify it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

>How is this a justifiable assertion?
"He is a thinker: that means he knows how to make things simpler than they are."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispatial_neglect
Things that are ignored do not need to register even as absence. Your mind is more complicated than you think. What does it say about your perception of truth? Why do you presume homogeneity, where it doesn't have to be?

>>20696118
I died a little inside

Power is not a virtue. Just like Germanics can't be philosophers.

>>20697060
>Power is not a virtue.
He never claimed it is.

"And to select for company that mischievous and cheerful vice, courtesy. And to remain master of one’s four virtues: courage, insight, sympathy, and loneliness. For solitude is a virtue with us, as a sublime tendency and impulse for cleanliness, which senses how contact between one person and another—“in society”— must inevitably bring impurity with it. Every community somehow, somewhere, sometime makes people—“common.”"

>>20696011
What does this even mean? Mysticism isn't a refutation of anything, anon.

It's wild how people think two sentences of their philosophical fanfiction is a refutation of anything.

>>20697104
>Mysticism isn't a refutation of anything, anon.
It is. Read Evola and repent.

Anti-Nietzsche posters never argue in good faith

>>20696287
>The effects of Nietzsche's philosophy are precisely this: total impotence and powerlessness coupled with the mental delusion of feeling like the superman.
I believe you. After all, your basis for thinking this about me was a total of 7 words I typed

>>20697372
This. It's literally just seething and anyome can tell

>>20696853
>"We simply have no organ for *knowing*, for 'truth': we 'know' (or believe or imagine) exactly as much as is *useful* to the human herd, to the species: and even what is here called 'usefulness' is finally also just a belief, a fiction, and perhaps just that supremely fatal stupidity of which we some day will perish."
It is our mind. If you think otherwise, then you have to show which organ you've used to know that the mind can't be used to know. Which you can't, because you've just said we have no organ for knowing.
>This is like saying you misattribute something to be the cause
No, not at all. You haven't shown how something can exist despite not existing, or be true despite being false. If you're just going to pull the cheap sophist defense of asserting that grammar is erroneous, then there is still no reason to think there is no truth, because there would have to be some standard (ie, truth) to judge what a correct grammar would be by which to assert that our grammar is erroneous. Second, if grammar is flawed then you simply have no means by which to assert that there is no truth, because such a statement is equally subject to the flaws of grammar, and the same paradox occurs again whereby every possibility is maintained, it is just a matter of sorting through them via intellectual discretion, which is what I said here: >>20696196
>In this case, what is left is a vacuum of possibilities, where anything could be true, it is just a matter of determining what.
>>20696892
>I said that there is no such thing as truth.
In which case this statement is false, so there may be such thing as truth, which is self-refuting.
>Things that are ignored do not need to register even as absence.
Of course, but it's irrelevant to our discussion. One can know what is given directly, regardless of whatever might be obscured. In a sense all that exists and is true is what is (or is capable of being) perceived (esse est percipi), so that the existence of the unobservable is not actually relevant to the question of truth. Aristotle's dictum remains true that, "in a sense, all is mind."

>>20697104
It means that truth = power (and not in a mediated sense, but that directly knowing the truth confers absolute power, and possession of power confers or at least implies absolute knowledge), in that knowing truth confers the potency of absolute and unmitigated will. Almost in a Fichtean sense, but transferred from the relatively weak and attenuated economic/political plane directly onto the personal, existential level.
>>20697111
Nice digits.

>>20699694
>In which case this statement is false
Not him, but if there is no truth, then there is no false either. Statements are neither then and instead must be understood through a different perspective. In Nietzsche's case that perspective is power.

>>20699694
>then you have to show which organ you've used to know that the mind can't be used to know
How often do you see your seeing? With your eye that does that seeing.

For retards: you do not. Any mind projections are done at the severe cost of fidelity.

>You haven't shown how something can exist despite not existing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FIEZXMUM2I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_dimensionality

Your lack of erudition is not my problem.

>Second, if grammar is flawed then you simply have no means by which to assert that there is no truth
If grammar is flawed then you simply have no means to prove the natural selection (Those who are most fit leave more offspring => those who leave more offspring leave more offspring) ...Oh, wait.
Does that disprove the evolution then?

>because such a statement is equally subject to the flaws of grammar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
"heuristic technique, is any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational, but is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal or approximation."

Once again, your lack of education is not my problem. Continue living in a magical fairy land.


>In which case this statement is false
>>20696188
>Either you’re claiming the semantic nihilist cannot argue otherwise without contradicting *your* theory, which is the whole point of arguing otherwise. Or you’re claiming the semantic nihilistic cannot argue against your theory of truth because, well, your theory of truth is *true*. Either you're saying something trivial, or you’re begging the question.
You are not very smart, you realize that?

>One can know what is given directly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatoparaphrenia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_transfer_illusion#Rubber_hand_illusion
That you are a zombie, your hand is actually not yours, while the rubber one is?

>>20695932
>D]ie Kunst zu lügen, das ‚unbewußte’ Ausstrecken lange, allzu langer Finger, das Verschlucken fremden Eigenthums [ist] mir an jedem Antisemiten bisher handgreiflicher erschienen als an irgend welchem Juden.

Translation for your consideration:
„The art of lying, the subconscious reaching with long, all too long fingers, the swallowing of others property, has appeared to me in every antisemite more clearly than in any jew“