/lit/ - Literature

>womp womp
Why do so many people say gay shit like this now?

>>23250228
That’s because he was an individualist that rejected evolution, so ‘might’ only extended as far as him individually (in regards to his personal lifespan and in relation to other people). If he believed in evolution, he would’ve realized the identity of the racial collective is more fundamental, and viewed ‘might’ from the perspective of the race instead. More than likely, this would’ve resulted in a desire to reproduce, since this expands the race and extends it into the future.

>>23250228
You're right OP, you should just take the /lit/rend pill and go full guenon. I'm sure Guenonanon is around here somewhere and can give you a proper initiation rite.

>>23250228
Sounds like his life speaks to the philosophy. Truly a weak faggot we can get behind.

>>23250228
>die childless, alone, never wooing a woman
Want me to post the list of great, important, profound philosophers who died in the same situation?

>>23250259
Massive cope. Neitzsche was a loser faggot.

>>23250239
zoomers

>>23250287
Incel cope. Nietzsche trashed all those philosophers and still ended up rather like them himself, because despite all his claims, he was in the end a philosopher.

>>23250228
No matter how much you hate being a surplus male in an egalitarian society it will not make Christianity real.

>>23250445
True. Although the same can be said about your ubermensch power fantasy.

>>23250478
i am already aware you haven't read Nietzsche no need to elaborate

>>23250478
We're on the road to the last man society like he warned. You should have listened instead of being an uneducated nigger.

>>23250445
Unbelievable that /lit/ pagans have latched onto this one line as if it's the greatest refutation ever written. It sounds dorky when it's trying to sound witty.

>>23250503
>Erm just make your own morals
>W-wait not like that tho! You can't hate Jews because that's...erm slave ressentiment

>>23250573
>just make your own morals
Not what he said at all. This is yet another liberal misreading of a non-liberal thinker.

>>23250567
/lit/'s christian apologists attack Nietzsche for not being genghis khan but they don't do anything either except voice their resentment and attempt to justify it in terms of a proto-commie universalism, as if that would do anything to check the progress of their very own moral system

>>23250429
Where does he trash philosophers who had no children? I remember he literally mocking married philosophers. How is this a cope if a good part of the greatest names of philosophy have been precisely what you disparage?

>>23250567
>pagan
>(s)
it's one anon spamming his shitty take over and over again

>>23250614
>christian apologists attack Nietzsche for not being genghis khan
You shouldn't take it so personally. People are just shitposting. Nietzsche is a funny target, and people have been making jokes about him failing to be an ubermensch since his own day.

>>23250660
>jokes about him failing to be an ubermensch
These would be funny if they actually made sense, but Nietzsche never claimed to the ubermensch. Everywhere he wrote about the concept, he talked about future philosophers.

>>23250655
it's guaranteed replies, and the replies are never successful in proving otherwise
>>23250660
>only pretending to be retarded
not a good look for anti-nietzsche posters

>>23250631
Try to read between the lines. I'm saying he trashed 'philosophers' in general. Plato and Kant, two of his targets, both never had children and they were, as you say, "important" and "profound" philosophers. In the end, Nietzsche was rather like them, not just as a philosopher but in his childlessness, despite his attempts not to be.

>>23250671
What would you say it is to be successful at life?

>>23250228
He knew that it doesn't matter, everybody will die anyway.

>>23250675
He trashed them for totally different reasons (and still lauded them, even Christian ones, like Pascal) you set forth in the OP, which is what I'm addressing.
>Plato and Kant, two of his targets, both never had children and they were, as you say, "important" and "profound" philosophers.
And he still thought both were great, important and profound. But this is going to a totally different direction. I'm not concerned with what Nietzsche thought of them here, but with what YOU think of Nietzsche.
>not just as a philosopher but in his childlessness, despite his attempts not to be.
I would genuinely love to know where Nietzsche wrote he wished to have children.

>>23250683
for one thing, being a christian apologist on a pornography website and smearing Nietzsche for some lack of virility doesn't make any sense

>>23250715
Maybe so. But what would you say it is to be successful at life?

>>23250727
What does that mean? What does a successful wolf look like? What does a successful pug dog look like? Do we give them the same rules?

>>23250739
Well, you seemed confident at first on your knowledge. What would you say it is to be successful at life for a human?

>>23250228
>Might is right
Cool (shit)post, now prove he said this.

>might is right
Why is it always weak dependent incels who espouse this view and why is it always strong independent happy adults with families and involved in their community who talk about the opposite

>>23250755
what kind of human? this line of thinking you've got leads to women freezing their eggs because they are jealous of businessmen

>>23250790
Well, let's think of a successful man, in this case. We might go on to think of what a successful woman is later.
Or you can start with what is a successful woman if you so desire. I'm all ears.

>>23250669
Nietzsche wanted to be a free spirt more than a Ubermensch but since you do t actually read him you wouldn't know. Ubermensch = power (will to power), the free spirit is the antithesis of power

>>23250766
Some strong people have the urge to protect the weak (Jack London is my personal favorite example of this phenomenon), some others have the desire to dominate and exploit them (e.g., typical high school jock). Some weak people are spineless sadists, others are meek and saintly. I don't think there's any correlation between physical/mental strength and morality.

>>23250287
I don't think you can really compare St. Augustine, St. Bonaventure, St. Maximus, Origen, etc. all being unmarried with Nietzsche at all. They chose to never marry and had extremely active social lives, and were very engaged with the social world of their time helping people and acting as spiritual mentors. Augustine did have a GF before he converted at any rate, and a son who died young. Augustine, Bonaventure, and Bernard of Clairvaux were all born rich and gave it all up to live a life of ascetic discipline in close fellowship with a tight knit community. Even the hermits like Saint Anthony chose that path, they didn't propose to the same women multiple times, get rejected, and then write incel screeds about women.

Most importantly, these people actually believed in their cause and their work. Origen and Boethius were tortured to death and did not recant. Maximus had his tongue cut out and his writing hand but stood firm. Socrates chose to drink poison rather than betray his principles. There is really no way I can see Nietzsche doing this. Why would he? Ultimately he argued that he did stand on nothing.

Most of all, the early philosophers Nietzsche so mocks seem to have a sublime happiness and good will towards all that he emphatically lacked. St. Paul, St. Ignatius, etc. in prison awaiting grizzly executions seem more sublime and at rest than Nietzsche dealing with low books sales and headaches.

>>23250766
Why is it always retards who think Nietzsche advocated might is right?

>>23250830
Why did Christian saints prefer suicide by Roman cop to burning some incense for the magistrate? Why would this be admirable?

>>23250830
>I don't think you can really compare St. Augustine, St. Bonaventure, St. Maximus, Origen, etc. all being unmarried with Nietzsche at all
None would be in the list.
I don't see the point in this rigmarole of yours concerning personal facts about intellectual figures, though.
>Nietzsche so mocks seem to have a sublime happiness and good will towards all that he emphatically lacked.
People who keep repeating this fall for the popular conception of him, but you should try reading the Gay Science, Human All too Human.
>Nietzsche dealing with low books sales and headaches.
Nietzsche's sufferings were described as agonizing by some of his contemporaries and biographers. He did not have common, worldly pains we face on time and another.

>>23250287
A lot of them had spiritual sons or were part of a monastic brotherhood. They "gave birth in beauty," as Plato describes in the Symposium, shaping the minds of their beloved students. Socrates had Plato. Plato had Aristotle. Albert Magnus had Aquinas. Miester Eckhart was the spiritual mentor to a great many mystics. Augustine had the monestary he established and his flock. Hildegard had her sisterhood.

>>23250858
>this fall for the popular conception of him

It's disingenuous in the extreme to say Nietzsche doesn't help scorn on other thinkers. No other writer does it to the extent he does. For someone who is a sort of fatalist, he spends a lot of time blaming.

>>23250860
Another one supposing I meant exclusively Christian monks and Plato. And yeah of course to prove your point there is no beauty/truth in anything Nietzsche wrote and no followers.

>>23250864
Never said Nietzsche doesn't. My point is something else.
>No other writer does it to the extent he does.
I don't know. Have you read Aristotle? I think he wouldn't be left behind. Bertrand Russell? Kant adheres to the practice too.
>For someone who is a sort of fatalist
I think you need to be a bit more subtle here.

>>23250766
Which ideology do you think Alexander the Great or Caesar advocated?

>>23250873
>there is no beauty/truth in anything Nietzsche wrote and no followers
that's pretty harsh, I guess being a "free spirit" is inherently ugly and we all ought to submit to the will of some eunuch or other claiming to know what beauty is
>>23250804
It's the same problem. Who is our successful man? There are some people who would succeed in any station in life—are we to extrapolate that into some sort of universal standard of success despite it being a quality of theirs and not necessarily everyone everywhere?

>>23250910
My question is (sorry if I'm not understanding your answer) what would be success. What is success for a man?

>>23250910
No idea what is inherent in a term such as ''free spirit''. What is inherent ugly in what Nietzsche tried to convey by the term? I think the term is gay, but I don't think it is ''inherently'' gay.

>>23250655
It really is just one guy lol its pretty obvious. Probably with a snipped tip and a giant nose

I DO NOT PARTAKE IN NIHILISM THIS GYNOCENTRIC "MAN" BEARS NO RELEVANCE VNTO ME. HE WAS A WEAK MAN WHO MVST BE FORGOTTEN WERE IT NOT FOR THE HEBOPHILLIC ERA WE LIVE IN.
A PATHETIC NIHILIST ADULTERER HAS NO LESSONS TO TEACH

>>23250951
>What is inherent ugly in what Nietzsche tried to convey by the term?
My mistake I should have realized you were retarded. You said that "there is no beauty/truth in anything Nietzsche wrote and no followers," which would by definition make anything and everything Nietzsche wrote ugly and false, and if you can't explain why you think so you certainly can't ask me to explain what you meant.
>>23250947
>What is success for a man?
How do you give life advice to a totally generic person, whose only attribute is to be a hypothetical, whose only relationship to life is as an imaginary, flattened model of something real? Who is this man? I have a general idea of what my own success could look like, what that of some others could look like, but who is this totally featureless man we are all meant to be equivalent with?

>>23250228
LOOK AT THIS
https://incels.wiki/w/Friedrich_Nietzsche

>>23251021
>How do you give life advice to a totally generic person, whose only attribute is to be a hypothetical, whose only relationship to life is as an imaginary, flattened model of something real?
We are all humans, aren't we?

>>23251046
no

>>23251049
Well, I'm no Aristotle, but I would say all humans are humans. Just like all chickens are chickens.

>>23250897
Prove that they did without doing mind reading

>>23250287
Yes, please post so we can laugh at you for thinking they are comparable

>>23251055
Domesticated chickens are too fat to live and we bred them that way on purpose. What have we been doing to humans? Are they all completely alike? You know of course that's not qualitatively true. Only in quantity does one equal another.

>>23250897
Probably none of the same ideas as the impotent 19th century sperg

>>23251068
>>23251094
Cope

>>23250228
>"WHO ARE YOU? WHY ARE YOU IN MY HOUSE?"

>”Big fan bro but can you do me a favor and make sure you specify your writings only apply to whites"

>"Did I not imply that already?"

>"Well yes but retards on Xwitter need you to spell it out for them. Your racism is at a 9, which is great, but I'm gonna need you to crank it up to 11. I can't deal with seeing so much coal on the timeline anymore"

>"Xwitter..? Coal..? Timeline...?"

>"Long story. Call the Untermensch betaniggers or something."

>"...yes"

>"By the way I haven't read a word of what you wrote where do you recommend I start?"

>>23250228
He was always sick and weak. I imagine he was very rapeable. Especially in his later years with dementia. Oh yes. He would moan like a cow and his eyes would dart around while spittle would leak out of his mouth but he wouldn't be able to fight back. Very rapeable indeed.

>>23251074
Empedocles, Heraclitus, Democritus, Protagoras, Silenus, Hegesias, Parmenides, Epicurus, Epictetus, Seneca, Bodhidharma, Nagarjuna, Jesus, Abhinavagupta, Shankaracharya, Mani, Al-Kindi, Spinoza, Kant, Pascal, Leibniz, Hume, Bentham, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Weininger, Michelstaedter, Spengler, Wittgenstein, Pessoa, Zapffe, Weil, Evola, Kaczynski, Ligotti.

>>23250228
>never wooing a woman who wasn't a prostitute
Even some of the greatest men have had piss poor romantic lives. It's a nice cope knowing that even great men could hardly get pussy sometimes.

>>23250897
Are we still pretending these fan fic characters were real in 2024?

>>23251158
>>23251074
Forgot to add great ones like Locke, Newton, Leopardi

>>23250485
>well uhh akshually nietzsche didn't claim to be an ubermensch. the transvaluation of all values is a goal!
midwit

>>23250239
Were you womp womped in front of a girl you were mighting and righting?

>>23251186
>the transvaluation of all values is a goal!
not him and this is wrong, it's a step at best

>>23251169
Shut up feminist faggot

>>23251186
I'd rather be right and a midwit than wrong and a pseud

>>23251198
Its like telling a child that the Easter Bunny isn't real lmao!

>>23251196
>>23251207
>this is wrong
I kinda don't care

>>23251219
won't make Christianity real, sorry

>>23251216
>th-there's no s-such thing as strong, dominant men!

>>23251221
Ok, and?

>>23251227
so what stake do you have in distorting what anti-Christian writers thought?

>>23251237
Who said anything about christianity? Those christkikes really do live rent free in your head, don't they?

He converted to Christianity shortly before the horse incident

>>23251226
>strong, dominant men

Nigga just come out of the closet already fucking KEK

>>23251252
Impossible. Most nietzchefags are sexually repressed, ironically enough.

>>23251252
>>23251255
Your homosexual projection is a cope

>>23251264
>I hecking love strong dominant men and I want them in my ass!!!!

>>23251264
A cope for what, exactly?

>>23251266
Why are you greentexting your mother?

>>23251267
Being a miserable self-loathing failure, like all Christians.

>>23251274
I didn't know I was a christian. Damn, that's crazy!

>>23251276
You're like a Jew. You're white when it suits you, Jewish when it doesn't. Christianity is Jewish Platonism, after all.

>>23251280
I imagine your mind is a 50/50 mix of fantasizing about muscle men and nightmares of your parents making you got to mass on Sundays

>>23250445
Some nietzschefag unironically thinks this "In this moment I am euphoric"-tier line was worth saving in a .txt file.

>>23251280
Oh no someone just discovered I'm part of a *checks notes* jewish platonic conspiracy

>>23251291
I don't care about what your childhood was like, faggot.

>>23251252
>One may be perfectly justified in being always afraid of the blonde beast that lies at the core of all aristocratic races, and in being on one's guard: but who would not a hundred times prefer to be afraid, when one at the same time admires, than to be immune from fear, at the cost of being perpetually obsessed with the loathsome spectacle of the distorted, the dwarfed, the stunted, the envenomed? And is that not our fate? What produces to-day our repulsion towards "man"?—for we suffer from "man," there is no doubt[Pg 43] about it. It is not fear; it is rather that we have nothing more to fear from men; it is that the worm "man" is in the foreground and pullulates; it is that the "tame man," the wretched mediocre and unedifying creature, has learnt to consider himself a goal and a pinnacle, an inner meaning, an historic principle, a "higher man"
lmao this does sound pretty gay thoughbeit

>>23251296
>But I don't want to go to pray mom, I want to watch strong, dominant men on the TV!!!!!!

>>23251305
My parents are atheist and never took me to church, but keep coping faggot.

>>23251312
Ahh that makes sense. Your dad was also a beta male

>>23251318
He was a black belt and captain of the wrestling team. Both of us could kill your entire family, not that that's difficult to do to a family of faggots.

>>23251328
And now he is obese and miserable with his failure son.

>>23251330
Christcuck faggot cope

>>23251328

>>23251328
You forgot to mention your mom also trained with that wrestling team

>>23251341
She was a model. In what world do you think a guy like that would marry anything less?

>>23251347
So a star athlete and a model produced an incel loser screeching on 4chan? They must be near suicidal

>>23251358
>you must be le incel like me
lol, pathetic

>>23251362
I can tell by your impotent rage, general humorlessness, and your desire to lie on an anonymous forum. It's all gonna be okay anon you might be normal someday

>>23251373
>rage
It's cute that you think you're important enough to me to make me angry. Guess that's the classic homosexual narcissism doing its thing.

>>23251384
You will never be white

>>23251302
it's verbose but he is basically describing cringe—"the loathsome spectacle of the distorted" being elevated inappropriately

The Ubermensch was real and Nietzsche rejected him.

>>23251394
But I am white.

>ad hominem

>>23251394
Sure thing pal. Just like you are not angry and your mom is a model and your dad is a badass karate champion

What chronic masturbating does to a MF

>>23250228
He left a bigger mark on the world than most sexhavers.

>>23251430
That post goon stare.

Even after all this time people still can't come to grips with the very German concept of "angst"

>>23251404
And? Debate rules are slave morality.

>>23250631
>Thus, the philosopher dislikes marriage as well as what might persuade him into it??marriage is a barrier and a disaster along his route to the optimal. What great philosopher up to now has been married? Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibtniz, Kant, Schopenhauer?? None of these got married. What's more, we cannot even imagine them married. A married philosopher belongs in a comedy, that's my principle. And Socrates, the exception, the malicious Socrates, it appears, got married ironically to demonstrate this very principle. Every philosopher would speak as once Buddha spoke when someone told him of the birth his son, "Rahula has been born to me. A shackle has been forged for me." (Rahula here means "a little demon"). To every "free spirit" there must come a reflective hour, provided that previously he has had a one without thought, of the sort that came then to Buddha - "Life in a house," he thought to himself, "is narrow and confined, a polluted place. Freedom consists of abandoning houses;" "because he thought this way, he left the house. -GM

>>23251584
Slaves don't have agency over their own thought, if you need to resort to ad hominem then you are a slave and your beloved master was proven wrong and you are incapable of responding intelligently. We all know you are a bitch.

>>23250429
Nietzsche only “trashed” the philosophers he truly loved.

>>23251093
But where do you think people are different from each other in that success is different for each? What would cause this different?

>>23250228
>never have experienced combat,
he served as a medical orderly in the franco prussian war, its apparent from the jump that your post is either in bad faith or written from a position of ignorance

>>23250445
>being a surplus male
No such thing

>>23251792
Are you literally proving my point?

I think it was just a thought exercise, peddling the exact opposite of Socrates while the latter was everything Nietzsche thought people should strive for.

His will exerted power over you across the centuries which prompted you to write this post.

>>23251792
I know nothing about Nietzsche but it seems like he is defending the celibate life here. Or am I not getting something.

That said, there were some married philosophers. Aristotle, Seneca... I think Epictetus married by the end of his life, but just so his wife would take care of a kid he adopted. Crates and Musonius also married.

>>23250239
Trump said it burning it into the collective gestalt

>>23252132
Thousands of years of civilization disagree

>>23252311
The opposite, civilization was founded on promising those "surplus" males a wife.
Only monogamy is a succesful system, to suggest otherwise is to return to barbianism.
>Muh wars
More people died in plagues and sickness than wars, not until the WWI were they the great winnowing of young men that we see today.

>>23252429
Regardless of what you think, you are viewed as surplus males by the society you are seething at and it will, one way or another, dispose of you if you make a stink about it. The same innovations in technology that let farmers use less manpower have also empowered women socio-economically, and no one is seriously interested in uninventing them. One of the solutions touted to the impending climate crisis is to reduce global fertility, and this is most easily achieved by providing women with education and training to do literally any jobs other than those involving households and children. In other words, even more men must become redundant and have their jobs "taken" by women, which again will impact the least labor intensive and most technologically augmented jobs held by men. And even then, Christianity will still not be real, nor will it be able to harness these surplus men to a particular cause, as it has long since been superseded by more efficient ideology

>>23252311
>>23252492
I'm not the one you are answering to.
I'm just an out of touch anon who doesn't know a lot about Andrew Tate style theories.
What would be a surplus male?

>>23252551
There's like a third of the male population that doesn't bother attempting to mate and the labor force participation rate has continued decline. Young women are more likely to have a higher education and are starting to out-earn their male peers. Your eceleb grifter of choice and his pet theories of a performative masculinity are a symptom of this dislocation, not a cause. I would not be surprised if he ends up like that roosh guy and becomes a christlarper, it seems to be getting better at absorbing the surplus

>>23252571
If we go by your way of thinking, wouldn't Nietzsche himself be a surplus male? Or Diogenes of Sinope? Or Epicurus, even?

>>23250228
>OP shows his weakness by laughing at this eternal thunderstorm of a man.

The amount of copium here is astounding, OP. I’m actually concerned for your sanity. Are you in a skinhead group or something? You didn’t actually read that MiR book did you?

>>23252579
Sure, but are you going to accuse all the more successful people of being evil and ask your volcano demon to punish them? Will you make your impotence a virtue and denounce others for their potency? It isn't necessary that everyone reproduces, or that everyone is a leader, etc. But resentment adds nothing

>>23252157
I suppose the logic could be extrapolated such that you are just a poor excuse for a slave and your master could still possess validity, either way my response still stands, if you have to resort to ad hominem then your opinion of whatever rules there are has no merit and you have fallen into one of the two. You are always welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

>>23252184
His derivations tend to be more specific, I am not even sure I would say he actually cared about it as some sort of rubric for conduct in general. In The Gay Science he makes some pointed criticism about celibacy as it relates to Christian vocation, and scattered elsewhere he mentions artists retaining their essence instead of expending it. I would be inclined to say he used it as a form of sarcasm or in praise of certain things rather than advocated one way or another on it to the extent other philosophers have.

>>23252593
I think you are confounding me withe the anon who I assime is the OP.
I am these: >>23252157, >>23250631

>>23252492
>Christianity will still not be real, nor will it be able to harness these surplus men to a particular cause, as it has long since been superseded by more efficient ideology
Yes, Isalm.
And they know how to treat women correctly.
>One of the solutions touted to the impending climate crisis is to reduce global fertility,
The only countries with above replacement rate fertility are in subsarhan africa, we have the opposite problem now, which is way surpressing female rights will become an increasing attractive proprosal.
Politicans are already starting to take cracks at No fault divorce

>>23252593
>I would be inclined to say he used it as a form of sarcasm or in praise of certain things rather than advocated one way or another on it to the extent other philosophers have
He will often alternate between praising and insulting the same thing, which makes it difficult to summarize "Nietzsche's view on x," and generally makes him a poor ally for the single issue polemicist

>>23252588
But what would make someone successful, anon?

>>23252588
Also, it seems you are implying that being a surplus male is not succeeding.
In your opinion, was Nietzsche unsuccessful?

>>23252605
My apologies, I was responding in the order I saw them.

>>23252608
Yeah I would not say he had a sort of philosophically derived opinion on celibacy, his remarks on it are typically used in the way you mention them wherein the notion of celibacy is really just subordinate or an afterthought to his intentions of the people he is talking about and likely could be substituted for anything pertinent and still possess the same structure in all honesty. I will be frank in saying that Nietzsche makes for a poor source of moral derivation in general, you are likely to either agree with him or disagree with him, and for the most part it is highly unlikely anyone would agree with him on everything. The nature of a number of his ideas is such that he can be inserted almost anywhere, but to your point doing so can be just as damaging as it is profitable for single issue advocates.

>>23250239
retarded zoomie slang nowadays

>>23252606
>surpressing female rights will become an increasing attractive proprosal.
Well, not to women. Studies have found there's like a 20% partisan gap between young western women and men. They are starting to vote as if they are different ethnic groups. Seems like yet another barrier to ferility is going up. Switching to Islam is a Houellebecqian shitpost, not something that is happening at scale.
>>23252614
>>23252618
This is a tiresome question. But I would add there is always surplus and how society manages that surplus is a broader question than some pseudo-libertarian ethics of personal success as an individual. Nietzsche was sickly and argued for the importance of health and vitality, which I have seen /lit/'s Christian apologists mock him for, suggesting he was right about their values all along. Success, how do you measure that, what values do you use? Nietzsche was not sickly enough for them, he didn't give himself stigmata.
>>23252676
>The nature of a number of his ideas is such that he can be inserted almost anywhere, but to your point doing so can be just as damaging as it is profitable for single issue advocates.
This is why it is important not to overlook Zarathustra among his works, he is not looking to substitute one religion for another or one morality for another, complete with prophet and congregation; it's meant to hammer.

>>23252743
>Well, not to women. Studies have found there's like a 20% partisan gap between young western women and men. They are starting to vote as if they are different ethnic groups.
I didn't say it would be attractive to voters, but the powers that be are certaintly starting to recognize the misstep they made, sure they cut wages in half when they pushed women into the workforce but it isn't sustainable. For the vast majority of legislation, public opinion has no bearing on of it passes or not.

>>23252743
>Switching to Islam is a Houellebecqian shitpost, not something that is happening at scale.
You are right though switching to Isalm isn't a real western pheneomen more of a shitpost, but the rise of Muslim groups in Europe will have an affect on politics and it won't be women favored let me tell you that.

>>23252739
it's boomer slang

>>23251401
t. Never read Nietzsche

In general, it is a bad idea to take life advice from philosophers who were not able to successfully put their philosophy into practice in their own lives.

>>23252766
>>23252770
I do think some sort of "capture" at the hands of an energized faction is more likely than society gradually de-liberalizing itself to avoid potential collapse, but public opinion does matter and women are going to vote against parties that want to reduce their power and autonomy. In Europe there might be cross pollination between a "conservative" feminism and Muslims against transgenderism, but for political Islam the goal is always to override whatever the secular law is, so the rights of non-Muslim women among non-Muslim men in non-Muslim countries are likely to endure while we could expect an increasing gray area around those of any women among Muslim men in non-Muslim countries. That might be the price of rolling back transgenderism in Europe, similar to how in America you have abortion and anti-LGBT as a unified issue driven by Christian conservatives. And since transgenderism and abortion are self-sterilizing policies they face an uphill battle to preserve "market share." Women's liberation, though it does depress fertility, easily wins adult "converts;" it is illegal for men to say no to them for starters, and even women who want to say no have the opportunity to freeze their eggs and keep saying yes. It is easier than ever to make the decision to perform "male" labor, not harder.

>>23252743
>This is a tiresome question. But I would add there is always surplus and how society manages that surplus is a broader question than some pseudo-libertarian ethics of personal success as an individual. Nietzsche was sickly and argued for the importance of health and vitality, which I have seen /lit/'s Christian apologists mock him for, suggesting he was right about their values all along. Success, how do you measure that, what values do you use? Nietzsche was not sickly enough for them, he didn't give himself stigmata.
The "surplus male" theory seems like a misunderstanding of history, where people take modern American values and society and try to apply it to the past.
Let's think of an example. There was a very large gender imbalance in Paraguay in the 1870s. Only a few men from Paraguay married and had children.
That's not because the other ones were "losers" who couldn't have casual sex with frat girls and girlbosses while the ones who did were DJs with six packs.
That's because their government sent a large chunk of their population in a war against Argentina and Brazil, two much larger countries.

But let's think about success. You don't think Nietzsche was a failure because he didn't marry, have children and commanded two battalions in war. And I would say this is not what defines success, as well. Of course, as a Catholic I likely have a different view of what success is than you do.
But we both seem to agree that success is not measured by being as close to Genghis Khan as possible.

So, it ends up being a poor argument to say that those who oppose you are "surplus males", wouldn't you agree?

>>23252820
>Only a few men from Paraguay married and had children.
>That's not because the other ones were "losers" who couldn't have casual sex with frat girls and girlbosses while the ones who did were DJs with six packs.
>That's because their government sent a large chunk of their population in a war against Argentina and Brazil, two much larger countries.
How does this disprove anything I said? The government of Paraguay destroyed enough of its male population for there to be almost no single, un- or under-employed men? When i say "surplus" I am not talking about a vital statistics and population gender ratio, I am talking about what USE the society is putting you to. A society where increasing numbers of women are being USED as drone/male laborers is one where less of the actual drone/male laborer population is of use and one where less families can be formed, since you've virtually created a gender imbalance (one which is invisible on paper since women who won't reproduce aren't counted correctly). And so among these men it is now popular to pretend to believe in Christianity, because Christianity is thought to be socially conservative and illiberal, they are turning to this because they resent their position. And since Nietzsche is an atheist he is "bad" for not being Christian, so the line of thinking goes here. And so people are sucked into defending the very religion that eventually birthed secular humanism, liberal society, and so forth, as outgrowths of this original engine of spite. A return to Christianity is a poison pill.

>>23252845
Historically, there were no "surplus males". I don't know where this meme came from.

And I think you are mistaking a false ad hominem used against Christians as a fact...
If you go to Mass, you won't find a lot of unemployed single males...

>>23252815
>women are going to vote against parties that want to reduce their power and autonomy.
A good 40% of Women vote republican, be very careful on treating a large of a group as half of humanity as a reliable monilith.
>and even women who want to say no have the opportunity to freeze their eggs and keep saying yes.
IVF really isn't as reliable as a medical pratice as people assume, there is no guarantee of success.
>It is easier than ever to make the decision to perform "male" labor, not harder.
In a post-Chat GPT world, women not men are more at risk of losing their labor value, women have an adverisity to blue color and engineering positions that are difficult to automate, while office work is most likely to be cut.
Before you attack me for saying this, its replicatable across even the most equal socities, in fact in more oppressive societies women tend more toward stem work as a form of empowerment.

>>23252845
the surplus men are just as likely to cope by secular means. Nietzsche himself was one of these surplus men coping because he was an ugly incel, and his philosophy appeals to those like him

>>23252872
>Historically, there were no "surplus males". I don't know where this meme came from.
Of course there were. When people had five to ten children your priests could be domestically sourced, orders of monks and nuns abounded, and countries routinely invaded one another.
>If you go to Mass, you won't find a lot of unemployed single males...
Mostly elderly people, yes. But where we having this discussion, who is defending Christianity and attacking Nietzsche because of his opposition to Christianity?

>>23252877
>In a post-Chat GPT world, women not men are more at risk of losing their labor value
You can be sure the government is going to try to fix this "problem" so let's see how it goes!
>>23252878
>the surplus men are just as likely to cope by secular means
whats the atheist version—i sometimes see people here mention "bio-leninism" but if Nietzsche were still here he'd immediately recognize that as a product of Christian morality, a heresy of it to be sure but still of the same tree

>>23252880
>Of course there were. When people had five to ten children your priests could be domestically sourced, orders of monks and nuns abounded, and countries routinely invaded one another.
I think you have a very misguided idea of how priesthood and wars worked in the Middle Ages. Or of the demographic issues in the Middle Ages.

>Mostly elderly people, yes. But where we having this discussion, who is defending Christianity and attacking Nietzsche because of his opposition to Christianity?
It is not only the elderly.
The young people are usually married in Masses.
You are taking one thread on one of the smaller 4chan boards by one person (who you don't even know, since this is an anonymous board) to represent millions of people.

>>23252909
A family with 1.7 children isn't giving a son to the church. They are giving a daughter to the university.

>>23251328

>>23250669
>These would be funny if they actually made sense
Oh yeah, jokes always have to make sense!

>>23250671
>>only pretending to be retarded
Say this to anyone who ever makes a joke.

>>23252921
The clergy was not considered a low status occupation and until some reforms, clergy could marry. Even after they couldn't, some priests still would have "civil unions" and children.

>>23252960
>The clergy was not considered a low status occupation
You are getting increasingly slippery. Low fertility is very bad for the church. It makes giving a child to the church very expensive, because children are scarce. But at the same time, in our own society, female participation in the labor force creates a surplus of adult men, who aren't interested in becoming priests, but seem to think you can do religion as a matter of public policy despite a lack of priests, because they resent women more than they actually believe in Yahweh

>>23252743
That is a fair point, if you are drawing more Zarathustra in your thinking then you may want to consider a revaluation of values, this is not to say all morality should be discarded but rather reexamined and the meaningful ones kept or perhaps even updated with more applicable logical derivations. If this is the case then you may not benefit as much from Nietzsche's attempts at his own in other works, although be aware some of his thought patterns may surface at some point so this should also not be interpreted to mean they can be ignored. I think in general when an individual attempts a revaluation it is easy to fall prey to these thought patterns, and I have entertained numerous arguments that he was not actually able to complete it. There are arguments he did though, and that is part of what makes Nietzsche interesting, if you can find aphoristic support you can make one. If you are attempting a revaluation then perhaps analyzing the concept of celibacy and why you feel it can be made into a tenable aspect of your morality is worthwhile. After examining the process you may have to convince others, or at least provide a demonstration if solicited. That is when you will find out whether you are still appealing to slave morality, making a case to a master, or possibly both.

>>23253011
>If you are attempting a revaluation then perhaps analyzing the concept of celibacy and why you feel it can be made into a tenable aspect of your morality is worthwhile
This is where for instance someone like Bataille is of interest... somewhere he describes asceticism as a kind of sacrifice and of course when you sacrifice something you destroy it gainlessly, it becomes pure expenditure, and while there may be some "social capital" for doing so it is still free from a purely material calculation of accumulating the most things through work. And this is coming from an actual pervert and sexual deviant in Bataille, whose understanding of what celibacy means would seem to contradict that of the Nietzsche haters who insist he was a loser for being celibate while themselves praising Christianity, which moderates and regulates sexual appetite to the minimal level needed for reproduction and by encouraging or enforcing chastity/celibacy among its priests makes them "holy" through the separation created by the act of sacrifice. The man who does not lie with women is a man of divine authority... unless he expresses desire for them, then the image is ruined of course

>>23251347
>She was a model
Post pics

>>23250228
How does this deboonk might is right?

>>23253007
You were arguing priesthood was a escape valve for "surplus males" (which, I argued weren't a thing historically). Something where they would sent "men who couldn't hack it". This is not the truth. Priesthood was a high status occupation.

And again, you are really make a confusion, believing some strawman of Christianity is the reality.

>>23253223
You are deliberately misunderstanding me to preserve your nihilistic religion. It doesn't matter how high status celibate clergy were, they are a function of high fertility rates and a way to consume a surplus male population.

In some ways Nietzsche didn't succeed, he was also chronically ill since childhood. At least he didn't look for copes.

>>23253252
You really don't understand medieval culture or medieval demographics, given your theory. Or how individual families act.
Or of what nihilism means.

You are just an ignorant person who likely has read only one author in his/her life. Or not even that, given the other Nietzsche anons seem to be far more nuanced and knowledgeable rather than trying to be bombastic.

>>23253305
I understand perfectly well that low fertility countries struggle to produce priests and monks and that you will say anything for the sake of disagreement

>>23253290
>In some ways
In which ways? The man’s age is still upon us
His poetic take on individualism is what we look for more than the mirthful Stirner’s take. This relevance is how authors win after their passing.

>>23253322
We are talking about medieval demographics.

>>23253328
I think he was a great philosopher, some of the things he said don't seem that special anymore because they have been absorbed by the mainstream but he was arguably the first psychologist and a great sociologist.
His personal life was rough though. It was not a result of his philosophy, he didn't go crazy because of it, he was just chronically ill (his father and sibling likely died from genetic diseases as well) but according to his own philosophy it would have been better if he was physically stronger, had more success with women etc. I don't think he would have denied that.

>>23250228
>you can't state a fact without overcoming it
womp womp to you too
kratocracy is what it all comes down to, people just twisted what power means to mean loyalty, piety, status, wealth etc
walk to a ghetto as a billionaire and tell them you rule them, the broken ribs and empty wallet is the sign of the wealth of money and status
>i can hire goons to beat them up
the goons have the power, you just have something to motivate them to use it for you, should the goons realize that they could just take it from you and leave you in a vat of acid your money and status would evaporate into thin air like the illusion of power they are
the reason monarchy and republics work is because people give their power to the crown and the state as obedient citizens to protect their family and for the promise of mutual security and prosperity that civilization brings

>>23253351
You are trying to disprove the idea that a society can have excess male population that is unengaged in production, labor, reproduction, etc. by bringing up the middle ages and wars in Paraguay. You are wrong. You are a lousy apologist, and most of /lit/'s Christian apologists are, so don't feel bad. They are looking to debate "metaphysics" of one theology vs another and unprepared to do anything else.

>>23253358
>according to his own philosophy it would have been better if he was physically stronger
This, he never once said "blessed are the disabled, protect trans rights." That would be Christian pastors on TikTok. He said health was overcoming illness, not dying and being revived in a celestial realm.

why do you think people are not enlisting, going to church, reproducing and doing menial labor?
they have no motivation, you gutted civilization without understanding it and now all you have left is bunch of people waiting to die who would laugh if an invader cut your head off in the plaza

>>23253404
>it's the oncologist's fault i have ass cancer
Nietzsche is not to blame for Christianity being unbelievable and unable to resist modernity

>>23251328
Are you sure he wasn't also a Navy Seal who worked at Nintendo?

>>23251401
It's true. If you read Untimely Meditations, how he describes Wagner in there makes it clear he was the progenitor for the character of Zarathustra.

>>23253042
Well, the latter arguments I am honestly more aware of, and iirc Nietzsche also pointed out that allowing clergy to bed women was sort of a hypocrisy in and of itself since it demonstrated there is actually nothing exceptional about them, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of fork. I am in agreement arguments about celibacy as they pertain to population control tend to be the realm of slave morality. I am not personally familiar with Bataille's argument, from what you have elucidated it would seem to be a case for a master or at the very least someone who possesses both agency and the capacity for steady and/or frequent sexual relations. The argument sort of poses its own fork, the agent is not allowing the possibility of being deceived by a slave, while exercising total control and seemingly doing so just for the sake of I suppose what could be framed life affirming self-power. In my mind you have made the notion of celibacy life affirming in this instance and appealed to master morality.

>>23253322
You are mixing correlation and causation, countries that have strayed from God's light have been cursed with low birth rates.

>>23253385
There are many different issues here.

Your "surplus male" theory is not real. It just looks like some Andrew Tate/Rational Male meme.
You don't understand medieval demographics.
You don't understand medieval culture, including priesthood.
Your knowledge of history probably comes from memes and Hollywood movies.

I wouldn't blame you for your lack of knowledge of the medieval period. I myself found a lot of it boring when I studied it in university.

But you shouldn't talk about things you don't understand, even more so with your superiority complex.

>>23253471
>In my mind you have made the notion of celibacy life affirming in this instance and appealed to master morality.
This is an instance where India I think has historically made more sense in their relationship with sexuality and religion than westerners have—that one might adopt celibacy and other forms of ascetic conduct for periods of life, that there are choices between yes and no... the "Indian" view could bloodlessly house both Catholics and Cathars
>>23253478
Why would god further deprive the nations of the world of his message to punish them for being deprived of his message?

>>23253485
You keep blathering that I don't "understand" the middle ages, which I can live with, but you are yet to explain where all the priests are supposed to have come from if not from an abundant crop of souls.

>>23253496
This is the worst post I have ever seen in my life.
Were peasants, nobility and merchants also surplus males?

>>23250228
What do you think "might" is? I also don't remember him saying this.

>>23253524
Why do you keep pretending priests were not a class set aside from the general, vastly larger, population of those following "worldly" pursuits? That the church was a prestiguous career for second sons of the nobility only proves my point.

>>23253527
As always, low infomation posters take whatever x said about y in terms of z, substitute their own definition of z, and insist x was wrong about y because they like y

>>23253527
Why are NEETch crotchsniffers always like this? They smugly tell you that your interpretation is wrong but are never brave enough to give out a single prescription
>Erm you really think that Nietzsche...like meant that?
>Umm that's not what he meant and no I won't elaborate because...it's not my job to educate you chud!
>Ummm he was super complex because uhhh he hated Jews but also really liked them!

The intelligent are able to convey their ideas succinctly. Tomes of rambling about being a special snowflake and how Christians "just don't get it" is not some epic insight.

>>23250228
wtf he's literally me

>>23253062
>my solution to might is right is a situation where an impotent weakling loses.. because they don't have might
Everytime. If might was wrong then the nigga in OP would not have been a loser.

>>23253547
>Why do you keep pretending priests were not a class set aside from the general, vastly larger, population of those following "worldly" pursuits?
Because they weren't

>>23253661
Because you retards don't read books and keep spouting popular misconceptions gotten from 5 minute youtube videos

>>23253699
>they weren't
I may not have a degree in Medieval Studies but you have repeatedly said ITT that it was prestigous to be a Catholic priest in the Middle Ages, and therefore they could not be the result of a society deciding how to expend its surplus. But if there is nothing lofty or separate to being a priest that would distinguish them from the general public, how would this public treat them with prestige? It seems like you are more interested in arguing than anything. How long before you claim water isn't wet or shit doesn't stink?

>>23250445
Surplus men no longer exist because war, famine and plagues are a lot rarer than before and nulled with modern trchnology.

>>23252125
Why is the second guy nihilist? He cares about money

>>23253661
Might is personal, not some socially accepted ideal forced on you. Go back now

>>23253833
>he said while being childless and doing makework for a living

>>23252811
And this is exactly why Socrates and Jesus are so compelling.

>>23250830
It's ironic because the people who Nietzsche rails against the most, the monastics, are the ones who embodies his ideals.

They pursued what they saw as the highest good with all their energy. They weren't resentful when they failed to get any recognition during their lifetimes (many glosses, The Cloud of Unknowing, the Book of Causes, etc. were even anonymous). They were willing to pursue their vision even under great duress, including torture and death. They lived in close knit communities defined by the bonds of deep friendship. They had a deep appreciation of beauty. They scorned the world, giving away their money and status and living as they best saw fit.

They built great metaphysical pyramids, whereas Nietzsche saw the ground dissolving beneath his feet.

These are largely things Nietzsche lauded but often failed to achieve in his own life.

I get why Nietzsche was turned off by the faith-alone Protestant piety he grew up with, but it is a shame he took this for being all of Christianity. He seems like the type of guy who would have done very well in a contemplative order, with spiritual mentors.

>>23250834
Nietzsche has absolutely no answer for "what happens when two transvaluers of all values disagree." His philosophy makes no account for the fact that man is a social animal and essentially defenseless for the first 10+ years of his life and reliant on others to actualize his freedom.

So what happens when two Ubermensch disagree? It's unclear, but he heaps praise on people like Genghis Khan, etc., so it's not hard to see how people draw the conclusion that the superior man simply forces his will on others. In the Gay Science he says something to the effect of "the truly superior man must rule over all the others and make his will law."

People might transvalue existing values for more or less Nietzchean reasons, but when it comes to the real world of interaction, it seems they shall have to be constrained, and thus not be true Overmen, or fight it out.

>>23253886
Taking an example from neetchie life, if he were haggling to pay only 4 marks instead of 5 to a syphilitic prostitute, would he have been exercising might in this context?

>>23252811
>>23253921

Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas - really most of the medievals and ancients, seem to have done a pretty admirable job living out their philosophy. It's only in the modern era that the two become increasingly divorced.

Partly this is because moral philosophy became divorced from reality. I think MacIntyre was really on to something with After Virtue. From the Enlightenment on ethics goes from being the lifeblood of a heroic tradition to being autistic rule making, no longer about "how to live a good life."

The other thing is that practice went out the window. The ancients and medievals eschewed pleasures of the body and wealth. It was generally acknowledge that being a philosopher also meant a sort of self-discipline, asceticism, contemplation, meditation, and an attitude of love towards others. Of course, this got rolled into the ideal of the priest/monk in the middle ages, when priests were doing most philosophy. The result was that when the Reformation came, the baby was thrown out with the bath water and practice became completely divorced from theory.

So too, the idea of beauty became divorced from philosophy. No one expects philosophy to include poetry or be beautiful any more.

>>23252811
Now argue how Nietzsche didn't do that without attacking a straw man. Protip: he didn't believe in "might is right" or "just make your own morals."

>might being right is determined by if you have a child

What did OP mean by this?

>>23253661
If you don't WANT to get it then that's fine. But don't ask from those who know and get confused when we try to lead you to the answer by sorting out your preconceived misconceptions.

>The intelligent are able to convey their ideas succinctly. Tomes of rambling about being a special snowflake and how Christians "just don't get it" is not some epic insight.
Have you ever sat down and read the Bible? Honestly, have you study Romans?

>>23253807
>they could not be the result of a society deciding how to expend its surplus.
Society doesn't work like a strategy videogame where a central planner decides where each person will go.

>But if there is nothing lofty or separate to being a priest that would distinguish them from the general public, how would this public treat them with prestige?
Medical Doctors are treated with prestige. It is a high status profession, they study more than the average person and do a job that is considered essential to society. Similar to how priests were viewed. But they are part of society.

>>23254202
>Society doesn't work like a strategy videogame where a central planner decides where each person will go.
I thought you believed in God
>>23254202
>they are part of society.
I never said they weren't. I asked "if there is nothing lofty or separate to being a priest that would distinguish them from the general public, how would this public treat them with prestige"? Again you are creatively misinterpreting what is said to you, hopefully that is clear to lurkers. If a society can spare men to spend years studying "scripture" to prepare them for ministry, and not serving in the army or doing manual labor, etc., and then encourages them to not marry or sire children, it must have a surplus

>>23254273
>I thought you believed in God
This poor anon thinks this is a good answer to my point...

>>23254287
>societies do not allocate resources since there is no player character in charge of them making all decisions himself
you are a retard, you will never be a Catholic priest, they are required to get degrees in philosophy

>>23254049
>Protip: he didn't believe in "might is right"
Correct.
> "just make your own morals."
Wrong. That's the core of his philosophy.

It's why people like him, it's justification for whatever. No wonder such a self-described elitist is the most read philosopher of our era. It's ready made justification for whoever wants to think themselves great.

>>23254312
>It's ready made justification for whoever wants to think themselves great.
It's really not. There are tons of things he is extremely critical of which would disqualify you from being "great" if you value them. Another retarded misreading, or more likely non-reading

>>23254321
Nietzsche isn't saying "like whatever Nietzsche likes, of I say x bad then x is bad."

He is saying: "transvalue all values." To think he wants you to always agree with what he likes is to totally miss the point.

Case in point: anti-Semitism. To hate Jews because you resent them is to fail to overcome. To purge Jewish culture simply because you find it aesthetically displeasing is fine.

>>23254355
>Nietzsche isn't saying "like whatever Nietzsche likes, of I say x bad then x is bad."
Sure but there's obviously things he is knocking like ressentiment, slave morality, world/life denial, petty nationalisms and chauvinisms, etc.

>>23250239
I absolutely hate this slang. This phrase plus "let him cook" makes me want to blow my brains out. It's so incredibly faggy

>>23254312
>That's the core of his philosophy.
No. His perspectivism wasn't "make up anything you want," but "you are limited to your own version of the truth based on who you are." This is an entirely different mindset and it's why all throughout his works he's a biological determinist.

>>23254369
>ressentiment, slave morality, world/life denial, petty nationalisms and chauvinisms, etc.
Nta, but you have to understand that when a philosopher uses a term and you think you know what it means - you probably have no real idea. You have to live a philosopher if you want to be able to come up with your own takes.

>>23254391
NTA, but...
>your own version of the truth based on who you are
...sounds a lot like "make up whatever you're want."

>>23254406
It doesn't. Nietzschean perspectivism is biologically deterministic. It's an unconscious function of the body.

>>23254436
>Do whatever your biology forces you to do anyway. Feels = reals.
Wow. Deep.

>>23254456
>Feels = reals
It's the opposite, imbecile. For Nietzsche, it's reals > feels.

>The awakened and knowing say: body I am entirely, and nothing else; and soul is only a word for something about the body.

And yet you're still discussing his thoughts.

That's a greater kind of immortality than the mere reproduction of his DNA.

>>23255565
It's always the most retarded normies that hate him and yet can't stop themselves from speaking about him.

>>23254070
He meant that nietzsche was a loser nerd
>>23255565
>That's a greater kind of immortality than the mere reproduction of his DNA
Religious tier cope

>>23255586
Lmao you are talking about cope in a nietzsche thread, are you so retarded you can't see the irony?

>>23250271
>proper initiation rite
Why do I get the feeling this is a homoerotic euphemism?

>>23255594
Yes it's ironic, sure. Now what?

>>23255604
Now you should remain happy and stop arguing with people on a nietzsche thread, pseud.

>>23250228
I will never understand this gaggle of male grandmas who think that having a child the highest accomplishment

>>23254460
>>It's the opposite, imbecile. For Nietzsche, it's reals > feels.
that's the opposite you dumb cunt. Nietzsche says you have to delude yourself that fighting for made-up values is a good thing to entertain yourself in face atheism-nihilism.

>>23255660
>t. tourist faggot who never read Nietzsche and thinks he was just another metaphysician liberal retard

>>23255650
How many children do you have?

>>23255718
lemme guess, you think it's the pinnacle of MANHOOD to CLEAN UP VOMIT and CHANGE A DIAPER?

>>23255725
The pinnacle of manhood is to assert dominance over another man by cumming into his ass.

>>23255731
That's very good Pidor, you have won the game of life (dedovschina). But don't you have another human wave assault into a minefield pre-ranged for artillery fire to get to? Those whole square meters of worthless, ruined Ukrainian land won't take themselves. Lord Monke needs the map painted for his rep.

>daily Nietzsche seethe thread
Rent free

>>23255586
>>That's a greater kind of immortality than the mere reproduction of his DNA
>Religious tier cope
You are retarded. The immortality of glory and fame has always been cherished by the ancients, Greeks, Romans, Persians.

>>23255740
I have won the game of Nietzsche, yes

>>23255809
>religious copes appeal to religious tards
What an insightful post

>>23255610
There's no argument here. The fact you think otherwise is cute.

>>23250259
no that's because he was a philosopher, and with few exceptions such as Plato, philosophers are whiny bitches who are afraid of life and spend their time preaching.
Novelists and poets, on the other hand, get deep into the shit that is life and either drown or come out of it with fucking diamonds in their hands. Philosophers very rarely have the courage to bet their lives on anything (Plato did, and he was a poet before being a philospher, and arguably the second best writer of ancient Greece after Homer).

>>23256026
Yeah just keep replying to remind me of this, or is it yourself?

>>23255600
I suppose it could be interpreted that way, but in all honesty I have no idea what the initiation rite is, I just know there is one of some sort.

>>23256775
If you insist so much, here's a (You)

I never saw might is right as a triumphalist statement. It's just the statement of a fact of life, like that the sun goes up then goes down or that gravity pulls things towards the Earth.

what the hell is this thread lmao

>>23253496
>which I can live with
you're making this out to be about opinions. about whether that anon is hurting your feelings or not. this is a discussion. this is on a common basis. you argue not as the sum of all your opinions but you argue instead a concise thought you have created from what you know. you cannot throw with mud here. this is not a pub and you're not drunk. while no one will remember what you said, you will have gained nothing by replying. not even the entertainment you would gain by being drunk and talking shit.
you ought to get yourself an education and some decency before you speak up. that is something you learn, too. you're acting like a pleb for everyone to see. you look like an uneducated lower class child who's only defense against a sound argument and who's only participation in a discussion is parroting the same phrase over and over again. your defense is deafness and your participation is noise.

>>23256067
>says someone who has never studied a novel or a philosophical text
>has never talking about texts with peers in person, social equals in age and education you cannot drown out by crying and seething
novelists do the same thing philosophers do. they foremost do literary work. they are writers. they read, research, compile and write. be that simply reading the room, noting, thinking about what you saw and writing a story from your immediate but written down experience.
there is no genius, there is no spirit. no one has claimed that since the middle ages. and even the greeks in part did not all believe in a truly metaphysical "spirit world" or something. this is a reflection upon how the mind works. the greeks knew that in part, the scholastics did too, in part, and the pre enlightenment, enlightenment modern thinkers certainly knew that. that is genuinely Hegels spirit. there is no charlatan circus magic about it where you have to "get it" by being "very smart".

writing is work and hard work. work demanding diligence and patience and continued effort. work which you compile over decades.
the topics and the scope differ. the depth of language and the complexity of the text, the density of the text.
but ultimately it is all text and it is all literature.

>>23256067
>poet
>his most important works are written in prose
womp womp

Why does /lit/ have this singular obsession with whether historical philosophers "lived" their philosophy or not? Don't you know not everyone had a developed ethical teaching? And why should one care if they didn't follow their "philosophy" to the tee?

>>23256067
Sure, if you disregard most of the other ancient and medieval thinkers.

Marcus Aurelius was an Emperor of Rome and Boethius, who wrote the most copied work of the medieval era, was essentially the deputy of western Rome, and he and both his sons were consuls. So, they certainly "lived" outside of study. Boethius refused to compromise on his ethics and accepted torture, prison, and execution for it, writing his famous Consolation of Philosophy from prison whole awaiting a grizzly death.

Augustine had a rising career in the imperial court before he gave all his wealth away to start a monastic community. Then he lived as a very influential bishop, surviving assassination attempts by Donatists heretics, freeing slaves by force with his congregation, etc.

A great many of the medievals have stories like Augustine. The philosopher as isolated bookworm is a modern thing that gets backwards projected onto the medievals. In point of fact though, no one "lived their philosophy," more than the medieval thinkers.

>>23251158
>Parmenides
Yeah right, as if we could know that when we only have about a fifth of what he actually wrote.

>>23250707
I didn't write the retarded OP
>I would genuinely love to know where Nietzsche wrote he wished to have children.
Didn't say he did.
>And he still thought both were great, important and profound.
Didn't say he didn't. Obviously he recognised their importance. Don't think you can even grasp what I'm saying. Maybe because you confused me with OP.

/// The long black wool coat has gold satin insets along its back and sleeves /// This year's cohort of graduates will have particular difficulties finding jobs /// Success is never as cut and dried as it seems; it's never all skipping through a field of tulips /// Distributed ledger technology, commonly known as blockchain, is the underpinning technology of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin /// The ball went right to him but he flubbed the catch /// The media seem determined not to miss any lurid detail in the unfolding drama /// As the surf crashed against a barrier of sand, pelicans, cormorants and ospreys soared over the dark water /// The newspaper would go to great lengths to get scoops, including by using underhanded techniques /// I hear encomiums on all sides as to his conduct /// I sometimes feel that the watchdogs of public expenditure are lying asleep in their kennels after being gorged and surfeited on the bones of party contention /// The venue is a mash-up of bodega, bar, and restaurant with a Korean-Mexican fusion menu /// It's not unusual to be nonplussed over the meaning of nonplussed /// He is the first to admit that not everything has been copacetic in his life /// She felt burned out, an empty shell /// The children scampered off into the garden ///

>>23250239
Zoomer online brain rot.