/lit/ - Literature

>implying it wasn't syphilis attacking his brain

>>2459845
Just don't brake the law.

>>2459848

>IMPLYING THAT THE FIRST PART OF WHAT THE ORIGINAL POSTER POSTED IS NOT A FACT.

>>2459849
Fuck laws.
Just don't brake.

>>2459848
> implying anyone with syphilis during that time lives for 10 years.
> implying he never collapsed under the weight of the questions he was posing to himself
> implying you are not an idiot.

> that feel of transition between the animal and the superman

>>2459861
>"HURR HIS IDEARS BE SO DEEP HE WENT CRAZY"
>this is what Nietzsche fanboys actually believe

>>2459873

How's ordinary, common life treating you, bro?

feels bad man, real bad.

> that feel when you do live beyond and above the law, can construct another law, so find refuge in awesome

Problem?

>>2459874
>he thinks he doesn't live an ordinary pleb life

> that pain of existence feel.

>>2459887
>mfw when only fools delude themselves into belief in the face of insurmountable irrationality, and thus destroy the harmonious absurdity of human existence

No, sir, it is you who have the problem.

>>2459873

You are the pleb living a plebeian existence.

The only thing saving you from suicide is your lack of intellect.

>>2459906

>posted by someone under 25 who works a shit job, has never had sex, and lives in some shitty apartment.

>>2459906
> Implying he is not well adjusted to society and mentally healthy.

>>2459903
>mfw the absurdity of human existence is merely an opinion in the perception of the human condition/being based on a Platonic fallacy.

>>2459908
> implying i don't live in the mountains looking down on you primitive animals laughing.

>>2459911
>Heidegger looking at doubles
Being wills it.

>>2459909
> well adjusted to society

>implying I won't find a way to stop aging and live forever as a god among men

Ok children, run along now.

>>2459861
>collapsed under the weight of the questions he was posing to himself

Are you really that stupid?

I guess if I ask questions in my own mind that may pose to me a conundrum that I cannot bypass, I'll go crazy as well?

Seriously, fuck off with your horseshit.

>>2460109

>Hasn't read any Nietzsche
>Comments anyway

>>2459906
>calls someone a pleb
>uses 4chan to make the remark

AN UNINTELLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF HYPOCRISY

>>2460119
Oh can I be like you some day

>>2460121

It's apparent this will never happen.

>>2460132
it's apparent you never happened

DO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO

HOLD IT YOU SCHMUCKS

Nietzsche was an awful attention whore and you all fucking know it. PHILOSOPHY SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT CULT OF PERSONALITY, IT SHOULD BE ABOUT QUALITY OF CONTENT. TAKE THIS SHIT BACK TO THE GRAVE YOU PILLAGED PLEBIAN

>>2459911
>mfw perception must corroborate truths, which point towards the meaninglessness and absurdity of the universe

>>2459873
Well, I myself I'm highly critic of Nietzsche, but still I don't deny that he tried to climb up a step which is forbidden to all of us. Our perception is way too limited for what he tried to do, that includes HIS perception. Nobody can survive it and remain the same.

I'd LOVE to know what he saw moments before it pushed him over the edge into the abyss of madness. Whatever it was, he never recovered.

Nietzsche's genius was too powerful for him, too powerful for any of us. It basically caused World War 2. There will never be a writer of greater power than he.

>>2460156
> implying his neurodegenerative diseases was caused by too much introspection and self absorption.

>>2460153
>mfw the concept that perception corroborates truth means that truth is observable and provable to be as such a thing and not just perceptive truth.

Maybe seeing the Turin horse was enough for him to realize that shit was never going to turn out well. It just broke the wave for him.

I think the government killed him, his mind was far too dangerous to be left alone.

>>2460179
>mfw when "truth" is not to be confused with "truths"; truths can be seen to exist independent of observation, but truth is inherently subjective

Hey guys, what's going on in this thread?

>>2460156
Which step would that be? I think you mean creating a whole new system of values for a whole culture by yourself, while this normally is the product of ages of society and not actually created by any one person. Thereby trying what is beyond human.

>mfw everyone in this thread tacitly consents to capitalist value systems

>>2460205
>you will never see his real face

>>2460204
>mfw you're talking about the difference between truth and facts, but you misuse the word ''truths'' when you should have used ''facts'' thus making it a more convoluted thought simply through a basic confusion of language

>>2460205
It's as if though /lit/ and /b/ mated and spawned... This.

Sage because irrelevant post.

>>2460216
wittgenstein stencil. wut. who made that?

>>2460212

It's a system I can easily exploit. Its structural flaws will be the making of me.

Wouldn't it be awesome if somehow they had harnessed the limitless power of nietzsche's mind right at the moment when his genius devoured his sanity and used it to create a perpetual motion device?

>>2460220
someone pretending to be a corporate banker detected

>>2460214
I quite like that. Makes him more archetypical. Some sort of trickster god of egoist philosophy.

>>2460220
>mfw you exploit capitalist flaws in order to win the capitalist game while feeling smugly superior to those who play fair, while still not really breaking the constraints of the system

>>2460226
there's something adorable, hilarious and yet conniving about it. where can i find out more about his portraiture?

I used to worry about this during existential angst sessions. What if Nietzsche was the only one not to puss out, and his brain broke? What if all the people who don't puss out necessarily break their brains and never write anything, so we have only the close-but-no-cigar failed attempts like Marxist humanist existentialism?

Schopenhauer
>STATUS: Kooky ascetic (with no hope for nirvana/divine realization) who thinks life is suffering yet doesn't kill himself
Kierkegaard
>STATUS: Nutjob Christian
Dostoevsky
>STATUS: Nutjob Christian
Sartre
>STATUS: Nutjob Marxist
de Beauvoir
>STATUS: Nutjob Marxist
Camus
>STATUS: Apathetic absurdist Godotist
Heidegger
>STATUS: Pretty sure we don't even exist
Modern philosophers
>STATUS: DURRRRRRR WHAT IS "IS" IS NOT "IS" IN THE INTERTEXTUAL INTERIOR SEMIOTIC DOMAIN OF "IS" = > !+ P = X : QED, everything is relative, now let's calculate more meaningless proofs of this ancient truism until time ends
Innumerable French philosophers
>STATUS: Death by suicide
Nietzsche
>STATUS: Only philosopher not to find recourse in stupid and/or craziness, and thus went literally crazy
Everyone who actually honestly faces reality and doesn't hide in defeatist or absurd ideologies
>STATUS: Unknown, presumed dead and thus missing from Western philosophical canon

>>2460240
What's wrong with nutjob Marxist? Or rather, what's preferable?

>>2460233
It's originally part of a larger sketch by Friedrich Engels, portraying one of the meetings their circle "Die Freien" had in those days. The wiki on Stirner will tell you more.

>>2460255
We will never experience anything with a millionth the brotential of this.

>>2460240
That's the glory of Stirner. He's one of the few who excepted the consequences of his own thought.

>>2460216
Utterly irrelevant. Are we talking about the subjectivity of existential world-views or not?

Yes, I was talking about the difference between truth and facts, but used "truths" instead of "facts." Don't get all pedantic on me, bro.

>>2460275
yeah but did he really engage with nothingness/absurdity/maninglessness/abyss or was he too wrapped up in politics?

>>2460281
You do not understand, this is not mere pedantry, it is important to use the word facts, because this clears up the entire question. Truth is subjective, facts are objective. People confusing the word fact and truth is why we even ask whether truth is objective or subjective.

>>2460255
if engels was alive today, we'd have a funky webcomic instead of communist atrocities.

>>2460301
Fair enough. Truth is subjective, but (I would say) only insofar as the individual's conclusions can be derived from available facts. In the act of interpreting facts, the layer of human subjectivity is injected into the equation, and the resulting frothy mixture could be called truth. This, again, can only be subjective to the extent that facts allow logical deviation of interpretation.

>>2460293
Not wrapped up in politics at all. This is something people often seem to think about Stirner, possibly because he has been claimed by anarchists as one of their own. Stirner isn't necessarily political, although he deals with power structures, most importantly concerning the ways in which people are servants and thus not live for themselves. Any form of political ideology is seen as a way of serving an ideal, and thus being enslaved.

As for the whole abyss stuff, Stirner is a true existentialist in the sense that his take off point is the self, which he calls the creative nothing. Which is a tricky concept that I'm still trying to fully comprehend. I think it would be best described as "the thing which experiences this", which isn't of course a thing. As he put it himself in third person:

"What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable."

This doesn't seem to cause despair though. And frankly, I don't see why it would have to.

>>2460328
There is a metaphysics underlining in his work that isn't easily seen at first. He isn't a nihilist in the metaphysical sense. He actually anticipates stuff Heidegger would say way before Heidegger. You can notice it in the little ways he mentions and mocks the Feuerbach camp in the beginning.

The creative nothing is just meaning that the self is not belonging to anything but rather takes for itself or makes for itself whatever it needs.

this is a nietzsche thread, faggots. the true punk of philosophers, not any of your bedwetting faggots.

he pushed thought to the point where it all sounded like car hors in his head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzp7iCaWNvE&feature=related

>>2460373
* car horns

beeeeep beeeeep beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep

>>2460355
I think it has more to it than that. I think Stirners view of the self and the world is alike to the Buddhist (or perhaps that of Advaita Vedanta) concept of it, it just has different ethical conclusions (namely none, or better: sandbox mode).

"By bringing the essence into prominence one degrades the hitherto misapprehended appearance to a bare semblance, a deception. The essence of the world, so attractive and splendid, is for him who looks to the bottom of it — emptiness; emptiness is — world's essence (world's doings). ...."

"... [F]or 'being' is abstraction, as is even 'the I'. Only I am not abstraction alone: I am all in all, consequently, even abstraction or nothing: I am all and nothing; I am not a mere thought, but at the same time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world. ...."

>>2460378

That is sort of what i was getting at actually. I think that first part deals with the deception of appearance in which our minds trick us into thinking we are a certain way from seeing the world when the world is not the way we think. It is simply us fooling ourselves and later causing problems. We hit a wall where we think it's all nothingness.

But then he hits upon a the fact that nothingness does not exist and anything that would explain myself would merely be going away from self. He is the nothing but he is also part of everything that exists. He, you, me and everything is one and all. Concerning ourselves with what we are is stuff for the birds since we are and that is that. It's akin to a Spinozaesque conception but much more liberating in that it's no use trying to further deceive ourselves on what we are. It's no use trying to find a corner. We should go day by day and just be part of it to find out.

>>2460406
>Kierkegaard in shit tier

Sartre sure but Kierkegaard?

>>2460410
what? no I don't know nearly enough about any of them to judge. I was just summarising what i thought was the general consensus on lit

>>2460406
STOP HIERARCHIZING EVERYTHING

YOU CAN'T do THAT WITH PHILOSOPHY

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

>>2460402
Nicely put. Although I think:

>We should go day by day and just be part of it to find out.

Is already adding to much, if you are talking about Stirner's thought.

I think that he gifts his reader something that is almost unlocking the world as it were, destroying false concepts and not seeking to replace them. And he manages to do this without evoking despair, leaving it neutral and open. And secretly, but that could be just my interpretation, there's a sort of very peculiar joy about him. Like an old Taoist sage or something, someone who has figured things out and deemed it good.

Stirner evokes in something in me that I've only ever found in Eastern thought and perhaps Wittgenstein: The feeling that after you put down this book, there is no reason to pick up another one. Philosophy seems sort of over with, sorted out and taken care of, leaving us to go out in to the world and fuck about. Which is what you were saying too with your last sentance, I imagine.

>>2460410

WHY WOULD SOMEONE READ ARISTOTLE NOW?

HIS ENTIRE "PHILOSOPHY" HAS BEEN OBSOLETE FOR AT LEAST TWO CENTURIES.

>>2460428
His ethics are still interesting, pleb.

>>2460432

They come down to "be an upstanding citizen and a jolly good fellow" .

>>2460427
Yeah. I was hinting at it but could only sort of phrase it awkwardly. I agree with all your sentiments on Stirner and he did sort of spell the beginning of the end for me in terms of philosophy. I went on to do the Wittgenstein/Heidegger stuff but now am more interested in knowing other things. It's like a closing up of sorts. That is why i said the stuff about Heidegger because he did the same thing with philosophy but only later.

>>2460425
i dint even have to try hard and still trolled you.

>>2460410
>Leibniz, Heidegger, Parmenides.

>>2460428
Confirmed for not knowing anything about anything of what we are discussing now.

>>2460428
average tripfag

>>2460439
Being an eudaimon is more than this. Don't forget about the point on all of his "virtue through habit", you become a better man through improving your skills. Why become a better man? Because it's the best thing you can do with your life for YOURSELF, not "because you must lol" like some kantian fag would say. Happiness is like a secondary effect of self-realization. Aristotle's ethics are very interesting, I'd make it mandatory to read him to all depressed fags.

>>2460442
Philosophical works may still be of use or at least entertainment in the "what do while in sandbox mode" way though. Ethics remain a present issue, although less in the sense of "what must be done" than " what might be cool to do?" I think I'll continue researching oriental thought, work through the complete published and unpublished works of Nietzsche, read all of Wittgenstein and then go on from there. Maybe check out Heidegger. Or some writers who might give me some inspiration as to what to do with my life now that I own it. That said, I also greatly enjoyed Sade's libertine musings, who seems to enter ethical sandbox mode from a pleasantly weird 18th century naturalism point of view. He may be one of the most liberating authors in his own way.

Even though I feel like I'm finished with philosophy in a way, I still feel like I have a lot of things to read and learn, if only to get more familiar with the terrain. Stirnerism doesn't necessarily imply the end of busying oneself with it after all. It just becomes a whole lot more playful.

Good day to you sir!

I identify with Nietzsche's musings on the freedom of opinion.
Who's to say I must be a creature of habit? I can hold one view today and an opposing one tomorrow. I don't want to live in a box, even though its comfy.

>>2460466
>Aristotle's ethics are very interesting

That they are. It's such a shame that the man was one of the most boring writers to have ever lived though. Right up there wit that faggot Kant.

>>2460480
>Even though I feel like I'm finished with philosophy in a way, I still feel like I have a lot of things to read and learn, if only to get more familiar with the terrain.

I wholly agree! I still have many works of philosophy i'd like to read because i find them with information i feel is worth pondering over and possessing.

>>2460482
I'd like to get me one of those boxes. Problem is that it's completely impossible for me to be consistent in thought and I find myself often holding completely opposite opinions on the same day.

>that feel when post-modernism incarnated

>>2460485
Well, Aristotle wrote a lot of books but all of them got burnt with the ancient Library of Alexandria. We've got what some of his students wrote about his lessons.

>>2460240
Nietzsche
> >STATUS: Only philosopher not to find recourse in stupid and/or craziness, and thus went literally crazy

People actually believe this juvenile garbage?

> mfw

>thinking that «madness» is something you choose or something like a place where you can freely move in.

bought already your first deodorant?
theres a puberty reek all over this thread...

>>2461817
A man can certainly freely choose madness, though only a madman would.

>>2461817
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uFzhEDdexc

>>2461817

It can certainly be triggered by circumstance. Also learn2english.

Bump for freddy

>>2461819
>implying there is a defined line between sanity and madness
>implying people don't cross over and back constantly

Does /lit/ have a good philosophy chart yet? I've only seen the chronological trudge through the pre-socratics and Deep&Edgy's personal favorites lists.

>>2462710
none of /lit/'s charts are good

Anyone ACTUALLY living nietzsche's philosophy, or any other existentialist flavour ones, at any age over 16, is dangerous to the society and should be shot on sight.

Thankfully western philosophy is thoroughly impotent.

>>2460406

hahahahahahaha

oh wait, you're serious

LET ME LAUGH HARDER!!!!!!

but really though, Wittgenstien's philosophy is a mess, he never defines ambiguous terms that he calls "logically evident" when they're really just presuppositions he has, then fails to take account for temporality in his philosophy

You seem like a nominalistic analytic philosopher as you put Sartre and Kierkegaard at the bottom when they kick the shit out of Wittengstien and Stirner

I feel sorry for you

>>2462788 Here

Don't think that I'm just talking out my ass either, I've been studying the tractatus with my philosophy professor and the thing is so damn full of logical holes that I swear I can see through it sometimes

Oh also, why is Heidegger not even on that list?
as he would say, explicit formulas deworld reality, analytic philosophy is pretty much shit tier compared to it's continental counterpart

>>2462732

why kill?

>>2462732
>Thankfully western philosophy is thoroughly impotent.
>implying eastern philosophy is anything more than the intellectual equivalent of sticking your head in the sand

>>2462801

because I'm the only one around here who has actually studied Heidegger

>>2463260

Ahem.

I think he caught a glimpse into the future and saw the Nazi's running wild with his ideologies.

>>2462801
>I've been studying the tractatus
>2012
Pic related is why Wittgenstein should be on any list. If you're seriously studying theI've been studying the tractatus for anything other then reference then you should seriously consider getting a better professor. The guy who refuted Tractatus was the one who wrote it.

>>2463269

dude, Nietzsche is like a Nazi Godfather

>>2463286
>Nietzsche's anti-semitic sister detected
You are a whore and you know it, go die in a fire.

>>2463286
>fascist totalitarian state forcing its morals onto everyone
>nationalist as fuck
>anti-semitic

the nazis were everything Nietzsche warned against, kiddo. stop talking out your ass

>>2463286

"After I read the name Zarathustra in the anti-Semitic Correspondence my forbearance came to an end. I am now in a position of emergency defense against your spouse's Party. These accursed anti-Semite deformities shall not sully my ideal!!''

Nietzsche to his sister.

>>2463285

still has quality metaphysics in it, even if Witty hated it.

King, for example, builds off of the idea in his Nature and Structure of Content. and Sellars uses the idea to form Jumblese.

>>2463308
Heidegger did the metaphysics part better and he wasn't even focusing much on that either.

>>2463314
>>2463308

> Metaphysics in the Tractatus and Heidegger.
> whatthefuckamireading.png

>>2463321

They're speaking a language, aren't they?

>>2463323
Wittgenstein is showing.

>>2463299

Nietzsche was against Christian anti-semitism because the Christians, unwittingly, were trying to be more Jewish than the Jews, insofar as they were Christian, and yet were criticizing the Jews for not being Christian enough. Nietzsche basically interpreted Christianity as a Jewish trap. The Nazi's anti-semitism was not Christian in origin, on the contrary actually.

Nietzche criticized the second German Reich because it was nothing more than a vain imitation of the British Empire, not because it was 'Nationalistic'. This is parly why he despised the English, because their ideas, always soberly Christian, infected all of Continental Europe in the form of liberalism/socialism/utilitarianism/democratism etc. The Second German empire, despite what you may think, was actually a big welfare state that promoted cosmopolitan commiseration. Imperialism was born out of democratic humanitarianism, not chauvinism/racism. The impulse is the same today with Americanism, though the rhetoric has changed.

"Imposing morals". This only really shows that you are fucking clueless. The Nazis were anti-moral, insofar as morals were always equated with Christianism. They were against Christianity, against bourgeois, cosmopolitan liberalism and socialism, and therefore, unlike the Second Reich, they certainly did not promote assimilation/equal rights.

Only some yuppie dilettante from a chan would believe that Nietzsche was a bourgeois individualist, humanist, or freedom fighter.

>>2463299

Told status:
[ ] Not told
[ ] Told
[x] Knights of the Told Republic

>>2463332

>Nietzsche was
>Nietzsche wasn't
>Nietzsche meant
>Nietzsche said


Are you Nietzsche? If not, please add this phrase: "My interpretation of his works, althrough one more in a pool of thousands, goes as follow:"


(Not the guy you were talking to, btw; just tired of seeing people who KNOW what Nietzsche meant.

>>2459867
>>2459867
>>2459867
>>2459867
>>2459867
>>2459867


uhhh get the fuck out...


16 years old just bought his first "Zarathustra"? How cute.

National Socialist Germany was in a transition phase so their tactics were Machiavellian as fuck, as they should have been. As in how far they would have incorporated Nietzschean values once the Reich would have stabilised, one can only imagine.

As it was, I think it had both Nietzschean and decidedly un-Nietzschean aspects. I think Nietzsche would have actually liked Hitler and placed him amongst his great Europeans, along with Ceasar and Napoleon. Populist strategies may be a necessary evil, even if one has higher goals that transcend nationalism and racism. Life in a National Socialist society would have been more meritocratic than either capitalism or socialism, so it would arguably have been a great breeding ground for higher individuals.

>>2464132
> I think Nietzsche would have actually liked Hitler

4.5/10

>>2463385
You're the same moron as >>2461817 amirite?

Please stop.

this wasn't a great thread to begin with, but stormbabby ruins things pretty hard
i've tried arguing before; it doesn't fucking work, he just accuses you of being a jew
i think most intelligent people just abandon the thread

>>2459845
You'll never b bored

>>2464137
Why wouldn't Nietzsche have liked Hitler? Most of Germany did.

>>2464137
Nietzsche on a higher type of men: "[one should look] even for a Cesare Borgia rather than for a Parsifal"

>>2464157
wah wah wah wah wah

>>2464167
He hated anti-semites.

>>2459845
> that feel when you cannot live beyond or above the law, can't construct another law, so find refuge in madness

that feel when you take refuge in madness because you cannot live beyond or above the law, and can't construct another law, only to realize that the law has imprisoned you by your own madness

>that feel when the madness doesn't kill; it simply makes you stronger.

>>2463379

Actually, it is a pretty standard interpretation, but you're butthurt and so I have to spell it out for you.

>>2464288
Anti-semitism is just a small side effect of National Socialism. It's nonsense of course, but in the tactical sense you might need a scapegoat in such situation. I don't think Hitler and his politics could be dismissed on that matter alone.

>>2464830
I don't think you realise how vehemently he hated anti-semites. You know how some people go mad and think they're Napoleon and fantasize about invading Europe? Nietzsche had similar delusions and went about getting anti-semites.

>>2464830
>anti-semitism
>nonsense

you are aware that international jewry declared war on germany in 1933?
It wasn't about them being a "scapegoat" you faggot, it was about THE KIKES BEING THE PROBLEM.

>>2464846

I can imagine that the jews disliked Germany after the NSDAP came to power, yes. That said, anti-semitism isn't necessary for forms of fascism to be effective. Mussolini managed quite well without.

>>2464947
You think they liked the jews in italy?

>>2464971
Mussolini was a jew.

>>2464971

>In Italy a significant minority of Jewish Italians supported both Benito Mussolini and Fascism. It is estimated that in 1938, the year antisemitic laws began in Italy, 10,000 Italian Jews belonged to the Italian Fascist Party

I don't know, but jews liked them.

>>2464990
And jews served in the nazi party, whats your point?

You all need the light of god in your lives, Ive got a recommendation for you, its called the KORAN

>>2464993
That hard-ass fascist motherfuckers can get along with jews and that it isn't the defining aspect of the ideology, even though it is often made to think so by post WW2 dramatics.

>>2465014
italians were fascists, germans were national socialists

>>2465039
Of course, but the latter is merely a variation on or an offspring of fascism.