/lit/ - Literature

>>20737728
wtf is an aristocrat

Because he affirms the human will and it’s Luciferian impulses, which moderns love.

>>20737745
Someone who believes in an inherent hierarchy between humans or some kind of elitist maybe. I asked that question myself a few times, because Nietzsche himself is often decribed as an aristocrat even though he isn't one in the literal sense. Yes, he says something about being a descendant of polish nobility or something but that could be larp, I think.

You have to understand that Nietzsche is an atheist, a nihilist, a postmodernist which appeals to a lot of liberals and other deeply neurotic teenagers because Nietzsche is the achievement of the secular humanism which booted Christianity out of power. Nietzsche is overtly anti-christian, and it permits to all the atheist bug men to actually see themselves as the righteous resilient guy who create his own values.
In effect trannies are the best ubermen ever: they hate to see themselves as they really are, so they change both their neurotic spirit and also their body to match the narrative of the ubermen and even better, they impose their values to non-trannies. Same thing with feminists and all the idolized minorities in Humanism.

Naturally, the atheists cant know right from wrong, so their mental gymnastics about the uberman is flawed. The uberman is actually the last man: the uberman despises so much reality after seeing nihilism, that out of resentment for reality, the uberman CHOOSES to sink further in his delusion by building a narrative where he is not the last man, but actually the opposite, ie the uberman who creates his own values, ie cooming by living in own brain farts until he dies.

Oh and by the way only atheists take him seriously in the first place. Atheists love him because according to them, he found a way to be nihilistic without leading to suicide. In order to avoid being called a nihilist, friedrich PUSSY nietzsche re-defined nihilism to be 'not living in the present moment', which applies to christianity.
So now atheists dont say they are nihilistic, they say they are vitalist. And as a bonus they get to shit on christianity (their perpetual enemy that they defeated centuries ago, yet they still beat a dead horse to smugly fill up their days). You have to understand that atheists are braindead hypocrites so even when they say they are vitalist instead of nihilistic, they still remain 100% hedonistic and they still dont know what not do with their lives beyond making up self-aggrandizing narratives to feel justified for wanting to and actually doing cooomming all day long.

>>20737728
>why does everyone like him
Because he affirms the human will and it’s Luciferian impulses, which moderns love.

>>20737936
Yes, that's because he is gay. What you said is an elitist, aristocrat is a noble

>>20737728
Because Nietzsche said universal truths that resonate with everyone. While christcuck dogma only resonates with the bungled and the botched.

>>20737728
No one likes him.

>>20738095
universal truths like what?

>>20738538
That god is dead.

>>20738538
That god is dead or something.

>>20737728
Only assholes don’t like him.
Why wouldn’t you like someone who cures nihilism. Dabs on all the assholes, so to speak.

Only assholes hate him.
He dabs on them all.

I think people detect something truthful and valuable in Nietzsche but they have a difficult time determining what it is.

It’s the ‘stache.

>>20737728
Because of technique:
>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.

>>20737728
"will to power" is cringe
read the Bible

>>20739051
I did, the Antichrist is better.

>>20737728
>why (and how) is he so liked among totally opposite groups of people? is it the fact that he contradicts himself every other page?
He doesn't contradict himself any other page.

He's liked, anon, because he was plainly right about human psychology and anyone of any ideology is able to see the truth of his views. Most though don't push through with him far enough to leave their shitty -ism.

>>20738012
Wow you truly are the antithesis of Nietzsche.

For instance, your writing is so boring I can't read more than two sentences before wanting to give up!

>>20738095
>>20738538
Many struggle with Nietzsche because he wrote in such a clever way that it's virtually impossible to recapture what he means without just quoting him.

Nietzsche rejects universal truth out of hand, so anon is incorrect there. But Nietzsche's insights are often truer than those who seek universal truth, making his truths seem more universal despite not seeking it.

>>20739031
But Ellul says technique is autonomous. What does "man's spirit of power" have to do with it?

>>20739123
People identify their power with the strength of their techniques. The more technique dominates all aspects of life, the more citizens see themselves as "free" and "independent" while actually being subjected to living as a mere element of a wider system. This is why Nietzsche is ultimately a reactionary, he asks individuals to create values through their own sheer will precisely at the moment of time when man cannot. And so this will to power is an illusion gladly afforded so long as the real foundational values of the technical system are left unquestioned.

For OP, this is why Nietzsche is so popular, anyone can use his philosophy to justify their ideology, and in fact almost need to, as he appears to be the only thinker to "break free" from the mold while actually being completely encompassed in the modernity of his time.

>>20739254
The post.

>>20739254
>he asks individuals to create values through their own sheer will
He absolutely fucken does not. That may be a true description of HIGHER spirits, which believe it or not Nietzsche did not believe every human to believe.

Nietzsche more or less advocates for an underclass of slave people who are just laborers for the upper classes.

He does not in any way advocate for all people to go off and be wholly detached from society and somehow transcend everything through sheer will, though I suppose that's a nice effigy to burn if you want to write a shitty dismissal of Nietzsche.

bc everyone is a larper but me

>>20737728
His work stands alone. Academia tried very hard to bury Schopenhauer and Nietzsche but their work was spread by artists. It appeals to a kind of Faustian spirit in the western world.

becaus nietzsche was a feminine philosopher rather than a masculine philosopher. example of masculine philosopher was kant and even more hume, who made their points so that everyone else had to respond to them, they made the future their bitch while they stand tall over everyone else.

nietzsche on the other hand wrote in such a delicate, feminine way that more masculine philosophers used the malleable femininity of his writings for their own purposes, essentially fucking nietzsches philosophy and cumming inside its fertile pussy to create new philosophies.

>>20739702
Yes, tell me more about this sex-philosophy. Do you sexualize ideas often?

>>20739376
I'm not sure what you mean by your image, I've said nothing about the vague notion of "improving" your society, I also don't see the connection between the contemporary technical man and the feudalist peasant.
>>20739614
>That may be a true description of HIGHER spirits, which believe it or not Nietzsche did not believe every human to believe.
This is irrelevant, the reader of Nietzsche is exactly the individual who sees in himself the potential to create his own values. The notion of an underclass mass is equivalent to aristocratic fanfiction within the technological system.

>>20739702
https://youtu.be/bWcASV2sey0

>>20737728
Nobody liked him when he was alive

Nietzsche was a very feminine man that constantly failed in masculine enterprises (his service cut short in the military, his failed proposal to Lou Andreas-Salomé), and who possessed a grotesque concept of masculinity, like that of a woman. His greatest accomplishments and posts were essentially given to him, rather than struggled for. Notice, his position at Basel, which was essentially gifted for him based on charms and wiles rather than the usual process of merit. Incidentally, his own work in philology was largely a farce and his related works are filled with obvious errors, which his followers try to cover for as intentional in terms of style rather than mere sloppiness. Have you ever had to deal with a pretty woman in the workplace? Oh, how familiar.
His overly large mustache which covers his childish face is emblematic of this. The exaltation of the overman is woman's fantasy.
Nietzsche's slippery and supple nature, unwilling to abide by anything actually said but always needing to be in rightful stride, is a womanly trait shared in his less original disciples. What their syphilitic god actually meant is a hopeless enigma. A man makes something. A woman invites others to make something of her.

>>20737728
>why (and how) is he so liked among totally opposite groups of people?
Because his writing was so compelling and comprehensive that even the herd has something to gain from him.

>>20737728
Because he was popular academically and everyone wants a piece of the pie.

>>20740964
It's all true, he was greatest female philosopher in history. Probably because he transcended the categories and understood them well enough to use them and present himself as a pussy for you to fuck instead of feeling as if you're being fucked. The ability to fuck your brain like that is a higher level of dominance so ultimately you're the pussy here.

>>20740964
>who possessed a grotesque concept of masculinity
It's just James Bond but as a philosophy. What's grotesque about that?

>>20737728
He's based

He explicitly stated other philosophers fill their works with too much complicated fluff in order to cope with the fact that their jobs aren't real (based). He designed his books speficially so that brainlets and children can understand them.

>>20739822

i think it's just because he's really cool. i mean look at as mustache, the guy looks like a human weapon. and he wrote really cool too, his style is beautiful and he was aware of how he came across; he leaned into the aesthetic.

I have no idea, he's awful.

>>20737728
Because Nietzsche was right. Even people who claim Nietzsche was "wrong" don't believe he was factually wrong, but they're simply mad that he would voice certain truths. It is possible to use Nietzsche to justify literally any worldview and a worldview built on Nietzsche (and Stirner, and Sorel) is a worldview built to last.
>but Nietzsche also had this take that I disagree with
The fundamental basis of Nietzschen thought is totally true, everything that follows from that is not objectively false even if such ideas contradict eachother.
Most importantly,
Nietzschean is not a universalistic idea, nor does it advocate universalism.

>>20739614
That aspect is less prespective and more descriptive. This is like saying Marx tells rich people to hand over their factories to others. Nietzsche tells those of his readers willing to listen to take the necessary steps to further their own interests, much like Marx to the bourgeoisie. As neither are universalist positions, neither are in any way contradictory or hypocritical.

>>20740964
>muh merit

>>20737728
Because they didn't understand him