/lit/ - Literature

Almost all Nietzscheans are like this by necessity.

I think BAP is the most popular Nietzsche interpreter nowadays and he just calls everyone except those two and Heraclitus bugmen or something.

>>22700954
I stopped reading philosophy after Nietzsche and writing my own

>>22700954
They're too grounded and analytical. I moved on to interpreting birds, ornithomancy.

>>22700965
Sure but even before I discovered Nietzsche I just felt, "This shit is dumb" when reading famous names like Camus. There are big names I respect like Plato and Kant and Hume but outside of that we could lose most philosophy & I wouldn't mind

>>22701070
>There are big names I respect like Plato and Kant and Hume
You listed some of the most Nietzsche-incompatible philosophers.

>>22701070
I would place Hume above Kant and Plato. Hume understood the problem of induction and personal identity. I don’t recall Nietzsche having much criticism of Hume, though I think he mentioned him at least once

>>22701076
I view them as stepping stones to N. Plato may be "incorrect" in his conclusions and framework, but he was still extremely intelligent and took that approach toward philosophy to its logical conclusion. Plato is like a crystallized and perfect version of most western philosophy which makes it much easier to understand its flaws

>>22701087
I don't understand how they're stepping stones when Nietzsche almost dismisses them in passing.

>>22700954
Montaigne is kino, I don't think we are ever going to get another one of him anon, and I say that with some sadness. To answer your primary question for me personally no, I have read Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and don't think more or less of other authors as a result. Due to the style in which Nietzsche writes I can sympathize with his fan club to some degree and say that he is one of the more dynamic philosophical writers out there though.

>>22701112
Schopenhauer hated Hegel too but never critiqued him or explained quite why. The fact they hated these guys is still very instructive, they're a great antithesis to Schope/Nietzsche's philosophies and help you understand how their beliefs differ from the norm. But I respect Plato also for those reasons I mentioned. Even if you do not agree with him, he is valuable.

>>22701148
Yeah, that's what I mean though. Nietzsche's criticisms are usually amount to calling thinkers weak, slavish or decadent. He goes somewhat more into depth with Plato, but Hume for example he just calls worthless.

>>22700954
Yes, Nietzsche fundamentally changed the way I saw philosophy. Most of it is dry, boring, and relies on you accepting base premises that are demonstrably false to begin with.

>>22701318
>philosophy should be FUN & EXCITING!

I mean, yeah. Nietzsche simply raised the bar too high for anyone but him to be able to cross.

>>22701148
All this explains the painful impression with which we are seized when, after studying genuine thinkers, we come to the writings of Fichte and Schelling, or even to the presumptuously scribbled nonsense of Hegel, produced as it was with a boundless, though justified, confidence in German stupidity. With those genuine thinkers one always found an honest investigation of truth and just as honest an attempt to communicate their ideas to others. Therefore whoever reads Kant, Locke, Hume, Malebranche, Spinoza, and Descartes feels elevated and agreeably impressed. This is produced through communion with a noble mind which has and awakens ideas and which thinks and sets one thinking. The reverse of all this takes place when we read the above-mentioned three German sophists. An unbiased reader, opening one of their books and then asking himself whether this is the tone of a thinker wanting to instruct or that of a charlatan wanting to impress, cannot be five minutes in any doubt; here everything breathes so much of dishonesty.
>Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga y Paralipomena

>>22701437
Fichte filtered him so hard and I don't even blame him.

>>22701351
I don’t know about fun and exciting but I don’t want to read 300 pages of an old retard contemplating forms or some shit. Philosophers get so caught up in worlds of the their own creation. One would almost wish they channeled it to something more creative.

>>22702424
Missed the point.

>>22700954
Nietzsche is overrated other than Zarathustra, Schoppy is kino to read tho

>>22701148
>or explained quite why
Perhaps because Hegel was very generous with Schopenhauer, argued on his behalf for receiving a chair at (iinm) the University of Berlin, etc., despite Schopenhauer's animus against his philosophy. At a time when he was pretty much ignored, it was Hegel alone who recognized his value, and stated so publicly.

>>22700954
I understand what you mean but if you can't enjoy ruminating on Kant unfortunately you're ngmi. And Plato once you understand how to properly read him is in a tier of his own with Nietzsche, Strauss is right that he shouldn't be taken at face value and the whole Straussian project springs out of a few aphorisms in BGE and Twilight.
I like Descartes and Leibniz because it's interesting to see how Kant, Schop, and Nietzsche were responding to them.
Rousseau and Machiavelli are interesting as political theorists.
>>22703034
Hegel didn't give a shit about Schopenhauer and was "generous" only insofar as Schopenhauer was a non-entity to him

>>22700974
BAP's a ziop though.
at least Schopy and Fred were sincere and didn't present themselves in bad faith serving another private will(s).

>>22701425
how so?

Why is Nietzsche so valued here on /lit/?
It just sounds like he came up with a doomed anthropocentric theology of prophesized apotheosis.

>>22703082
>Hegel didn't give a shit
He was a nice man, a generous human being. So far as his ability to detect Schooenhauer's relevance whereas no one else did, I can understand why you'd want to take that away from him. I think your assessment's more indicative of our own times than of theirs. It's well documented too btw. Want sources?

>>22700974
He is also a fan of Callicles and Plato apparently which I learned on Reddit. He thinks Plato was like a secret atheist, Machiavellian tyrannical guy and he agreed with Callicles and Thrasymachus in the dialogues or something similarly stupid.

>>22703214
>>He was a nice man, a generous human being.
Hegel was a bourgeois addicted to sex, larping as a scientist until exposed, and went back to word salads for an audience of bourgeois.

>>22701455
Schopenhauer killed Fichte with his big fucking dick

>>22703214
Yes, I do want sources. I don't have anything against Hegel but what you're saying is simply untrue

>>22703206
Teenagers. Nietzsche is edgy and easy to read/understand.

>>22700954
I'm a fan of Schopenhauer and not of Nietzsche. I find that a lot of philosophers are completely fine, I just avoid Nietzsche and those that draw from him like Foucault and Deleuze, but beyond that I appreciate Kant, Santayana, Burke, and some neo-schopenhauerians like Eduard von Hartmann. I think that people who internalize the Nietzschean worldview, specifically his condemnation of systematizers of philosophy from Twilight of the Idols, or the ones that embrace his implicit aristocratic normative ethics are the ones that end up finding most authors to be pretty shit. With both of those options, any work dealing with ethics in a more traditional sense, or any systemic philosophy is pretty unappealing, leaving you either with the followers of Nietzsche like Foucault, or just Nietzschean artistic output like Junger, depending on your political inclinations.

>>22703338
I'm sure all the mental gymnastics, presuppositions and headcanons you try to hold in your head make coherence of jewish fairytales is pretty hard on your small brain

>>22703117
It's a bit difficult to explain. But, basically, he was right about everything and retroactively refuted every other philosopher who came before him and has come after him. If you want to a better explanation, then just read the man himself and lo and behold.

>>22701112
Nietzsche integrated elements of Plato, Kant, and even Hume into his work, while simultaneously reversing the philosophical narrative entirely. He ends up being a synthesis of Schopenhauer and Hegel (with himself recognizing this later in life). He was a genius like that.

>>22700974
BAP is not a Nietzsche interpreter, he's an internet meme.

>>22703484
>jewish fairytales is pretty hard on your small brain
the irony is that Nietzsche would see modern jews as the apotheosis of his philosophy.
they've willed themselves as the exception to rules cast on everyone else and can create new rules/values arbitrarily.

>>22703857
Nietzsche is a pre-internet meme, so it fits.

>>22703760
most delusional nietzchetranny.
Only thing he refutes were strawmen and his education was abysmal.

>>22704298
>his education was abysmal.
He is one of the GOAT classicists, and his Greek interpretations are stellar no matter what you think of his philosophy.

>>22704303
>He is one of the GOAT classicists
In what sense?

>>22704303
his does not know shit about greeks retard
his historical analysis is retarded wish fulfilment.

>>22704089
>the irony is that Nietzsche would see modern jews as the apotheosis of his philosophy.
I think about this pretty often
Jews learned from centuries of suffering to basically swallow the Nietzsche pill, and to stop believing in immaterial things like God will save the virtuous. Despite being a religious group, modern Jews are some of the most materialist people on the planet. All they care about is wealth & money, & the only "values" they believe is that all traditional values are phony. This is why most jews suck at art - because any good art is an affirmative statement of what you love, whereas 99% of jewish art is about criticizing some values or system they perceive as phony.

But modern jews are not really Nietzscheans because they still buy into the morality cope. They insist their actions are ethical despite swearing that most morals are bs. To the average goyim it really doesn't make sense, because we still believe in simple morals like always. Jews are like a tribe who read Nietzsche, and only understood it halfway.

>>22704328
Juvenal already called Jews greedy parasites. It's not a trait that they've acquired in recent history.

>>22704337
>>22704328
I always thought of De Juvenal's critique of the jews to be on-point of both jews and Nietzsche: both use any convenient ideology as a glib vehicle to will-to-power power itself with no purpose outside of arbitrary accumulation. Power without purposes is non-teleological; thus it's non-transcendent as no amount of power leads to any form of salvation on an individual or group level; it just becomes an aesthetic experience. In Nietzsche's optimal case: the "winner" becomes the biggest prisoner in the material prison.

I find the fact that fact that most Nietzschean types to today are anti-jew is ironic and just ressentiment at losing at their own game. It's like Libertarianism who resent Neoliberals for grabbing State power when it was being sold wholesale, lamented the fact they should eschewed their moral principles earlier before they became politically disenfranchised.
Following this Nietzschean "philosophy" just leads to a schizophrenic metaworldview of glibly adopting any/all inconsistent & incoherent philosophies/ideologies if it means you'll might get some power; paradoxically this master mentality acquiesces to a slave mentality of accepting this power dynamic for illusionary power via other people's arbitrary wills/values.
This worldview becomes viciously circular and self-defeated under its own weight.
I have no respect for modern Nietzscheans.

>>22700954
haven't read schopenhauer, but the thing about Nietzsche's work is that, if you are indeed on the same page as Nietzsche, you must consider other authors at least dull but most likely dumb as well. This is because Nietzsche's philosophy is very much about contradicting other works, but mainly because the other authors are "men of science" as Nietzsche put it. Meaning, they treat philosophy as if it's a science, and so they treat it with empiricism, rational analysis and observations.
But this is not philosophy at all for Nietzsche. Rather, it are the inspirational visions that transcend contemporary thought that make philosophy. The creating of ideals about the future as opposed to gathering information about the past. It's the constant renewal of ideas, not seeking the one true idea that holds itself above other, which is what most philosophers (or actually, men of science) appear to be doing.
I don't know if you're familiar, but think of pretty much all modern ethics, epistemology or philosophy of mind. It's people trying to make into a system, that which cannot be systemized. They all make their own categories and bullshit terminology, but at the end of the day it's all meaningless

>>22703253
Easiest route is Kaufman's Hegel bio, with full documentation. Of philosophers, Spinoza and Hegel were by far and away the most pleasant dudes, but whereas the former was a little introverted, Hegel was not.

>>22704613
>>22704830
I'm a diagnosed schizo, and I believe I can explain a lot about Nietzsche's approach because I find myself doing very similar things, such as
>Making discoveries that prove everyone else in history wrong
>Making enormous assertions without much evidence to back it up
>Not caring about the finer details of philosophy, only seeing in big picture terms
I don't believe that Nietzsche was schizo, but I do believe his brain's reward system malfunctioned in a way similar to one (through something like CADASIL). The brain's reward system can be split into 2 parts: anticipatory pleasure, & consummatory pleasure. The former is the pleasure you feel when you believe something good is about to happen (aka hope). The latter is the pleasure you feel when you actually do something.

In a lot of schizos, their brain malfunctions so that consummatory pleasure is no longer felt (mostly), but anticipatory pleasure (or hope) is intact because it's a separate mechanism in the brain. So the reason you see schizos come up with these grand theories all the time like "I just disproved the theory of relativity!" or some shit is because coming up with these """discoveries""" is one of the few things they can truly enjoy. Even in Nietzsche's youth he did very little, he gave up poetry quickly, he quit the after school drinking club like right away, & mostly all he did was read.

This doesn't mean Nietzsche was crazy, or that his thinking was wrong. But the way his brain probably worked, is that all his motivation went into making grandiose discoveries instead of making rock-solid arguments. This is why the evidence for nearly all his original ideas like slave morality, eternal recurrence, the last man, etc. is pretty weak. Because so long as whatever revelation popped into his mind didn't have any immediate flaws, odds are he just rolled with it, & went onto searching for the next one. This is also why N. consumed so much fruit -- people with fucked up reward systems self-medicate on sugar & caffeine because the stimulant effect they provide helps normalize them a bit. I'm 1000% convinced his reward system was very fucked up, but he was definitely not schizo.

>>22704950
Genuinely interesting post.

>>22704950
Also remember some of his later writings like "Why I am so clever". Seems like this condition was getting worse as his health declined.

>>22704950
>>22704954
Yeah insightful post anon.
What I do find is a connection between psychological schizophrenia and philosophical schizophrenia as seen with Nietzsche (Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari touches upon this phenomena). I'm particularly fascinated with the concept of what we called "Insanity" as it is effectively Solipsism in practice: the incongruence/imperceivability of a personally crafted worldview/will against a standardly accepted shared worldview and the reaction this causes (for example, the rejection of "discoveries" by the masses which would require a massive change in their worldview and requires too much faith in something that can be readily understood without traditional noetic heuristics). An "insane" person would claim that everyone else is insane; which is not entirely incorrect when viewed throughout history and Nietzsche highlights the imperative & requirements to go against these established norms/values.
I believe this Philosophical Schizophrenia to be the continuation of the Existentialist thread of rejecting the consistent & traditionally coherent Nature of things in favor of willing our worldviews into existence at the expense of what is "Natural" (If Existence precedes Essence, then one exists without form/limits/continuity). This is why Nietzsche is so popular still because he encouraged this type of both Schizophrenic Philosophy and Psychology that are detached from the norm: it allows the individual to hold adapt and hold onto (m)any worldviews at the same time regardless of being consistent or coherent. In today's world, it oddly works given the amount of competing wills that are in contention and the constant "changing of the rules" that individuals must endure. It seems that people are trying to will themselves into a schizophrenic state of mind in order to understand an increasingly schizophrenic world and to live with and master cognitive dissonance.
In other words, one must be "insane" to fully understand an insane world.

>>22701076
Psued post, my dear fellow.

>>22701437
Schopenhauer just doesn’t miss, he was so genuine and not pretentious I love him

>>22703216
Is that a Straussian thing? It sounds like it but I've lost track of all their esoteric/contrarian interpretations of works.

>>22701148
>or explained quite why
he literally does though

>>22701455
Fichte decided to write like a complete fuckwit so it's his own fault nobody understood him

>>22704613
>In Nietzsche's optimal case: the "winner" becomes the biggest prisoner in the material prison.
Solomon said it best:
>Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun

>>22704950
I hear you loud and clear, when I was schizo from drugs I also used to do exactly what you describe and also eat nonstop sugar and snort amphetamine alongside constantly drinking tea. To highlight the point: preparation for a goon session is always better than the actual session.

All german thinkers are subpar, which is why they are adorned by undergrads.

>>22707014
Christmas Trees are also German, but they are adorned by all grades

>>22703216
he doesn't think this. he's a fan of Plato like Nietzsche was.

>>22701076
Literally retarded and shouldn't be allowed to read philosophy if you think this.

>>22707355
Nietzsche says this himself but okay.

>>22707360
Nietzche was one of Plato's biggest students. He held lectures on him, he advised his friends and students to read him enthusiastically etc. Not only that but a lot of what he says comes right from Plato: the difference between sophia and sophia translated in the metaphor of truth as a woman, literally his entire discourse on the nature of the Will comes from Plato's republic. I can say a lot more but what I'm saying is obvious for anyone who read even just Daybreak, Beyond good and evil and Plato's work, even without the biographical informations I gave you.
tldr you're either a midwit or not well read, like a lot of people attracted to philosophy nowadays and get cursory QRDs from bad textbooks or online essays

>>22707370
forgot about Kant: you only need to see how much Nietzsche owes to Schopy and how much Schopy explicitely owes to Kant.

These philosophers were greater, smarter men than you can imagine and their disagreements are not like the stupid internet debates you're used to

>>22707370
You don't seem to understand the difference between influence & compatibility.

>>22707380
you don't seem to have read either

>>22700954
I can't stand nietzsche, arrogant autofellating prick passing off narcissistic poetry off as some timeless work of art on-par with the fucking bible

>>22708002
I hate Nietzsche but Zarathustra in German is quite well-written.