/lit/ - Literature

Pursue a philosophy degree.

what will be most worth it is the ability to critically evaluate anything that someone might say and not be intimidated into thinking it's true, or that the truth is intimidating. Apart from that, eg epistomology, ethics, metaethics, aesthetics, whatever, that all depends on what you like and what you want to do with your life.

>>3217074
also, you can impress chix

>>3217074
>critically evaluate

also don't forget to apply the critically evaluation at anything you think by yourself. But the existential abyss. (on the second thought: maybe those are the most important momentum for philosophy?)

>>3217071
Read a couple of introductions to Plato, there were a lot of very good ones written in the early 20th century, then read his dialogues.

>>3217071
I wish I was Damo Suzuki.

What is time
What is philosphy
What

>>3217074
>>3217269
>critically evaluate
>critical evaluation
>critical thinking
>critical anything

for the love of god, teenagers, stop using this meaningless abstraction. there is no such thing.

>>3217071
Yeah, according to Aristotle, Thales could have been rich if he wanted to. But he didn't.

Philosophy = Money

Anyone have an opinion on this as a starting place?

>>3217573

>>3217573
many will criticize it for its bias and omissions but overall I think it's a good starting place as long as you know its flawed. You can tell when Russell inserts his opinion into things (hell, he even tells you most of the time), and honestly it isn't that intrusive to your understanding of various philosophers' "true" intentions (if such a thing exists). Keep in mind that he leaves out Kierkegaard though. In terms of establishing a general understanding of how Western philosophy developed and the general philosophies of its important schools of thought, it's a good place to start. From there you'll have enough knowledge to pursue what interests you.

>>3217573

I hate that man so damn much.

>>3217591
because of his autism or...?

>>3217594

haha bertie wasn't autistic
the man had four wives
such a boss and one of the greatest philosophers to ever live

>>3217594
Because >>3217591 is a faggot

>>3217521
state your argument

>>3217608
>such a boss and one of the greatest philosophers to ever live

8/10 i'll give you that.

>>3217608
maybe not that far, but he was definitely the greatest of the past century

>>3217573
It's good for starters, you need a wide knowledge of western phisolophy. Just try to make your own conclusions and everything will be okay.

It's easy just try to think of what you want when you want and how you want.

>3217625

No its not good, its completely biased and inane. Pick something like an philosophical encyclopedia otr start with the pre-socratics unstead of that drivel.

>>3217615

>singlehandedly responsible for the emergence of the now dominant philosophical tradition (frege would have been lost in time and analytic philosophy would not exist had it not been for russell)
>not one of the greatest

look, i also hated History of Western Philosophy, mainly due to his treatment of Nietzsche, but one must still give credit where credit due

>>3217071

Firstly:

Don't ask that on 4chan.

Philosophy is not much of a commodity. It's not something you can really buy into. Sure you can get into some of its curiosities. But philosophy is not something popularly bought. You really don't see a lot people buying into philosophy and patting each other over the back for their consumption.

That's what 4chan is all about. It's about endorsing our consumerism with each other. It's about encouraging each other to buy into something. 4chan is about talking over popular commodities.

4chan is not a place to share ideas, or to converse about the real meaning of things. 4chan is not about challenging our prevailing narratives. 4chan is not a place for meaningful curiosity.

Sure, you will get a list of books about philosophy. But the list given will be in a manner that says: "Here! read this, I liked it and so should you!" There is nothing there to meet the conditions of you need to get into philosophy, because there is nothing on 4chan about doing that. 4chan is about telling what you buy, and what you should like.

There is a real reason why 4chan doesn't have a /phil/ board.

>>3217640
haha get the fuck out

>>>/pol/

Read Plato's Apology, if you like it read The Republic.

>>3217640

>MUH JEW GOLDS

Back to /pol/ with you.

>>3217578
That fact that Plato or Socrates is on the cover of most of those suggests you should start with them.

>>3217655

Can't deal with the reality of it can you?

>>3217665

>muh commodities *ahem* I mean: muh books, muh /lit/

>>3217071
I actually think Nietzsche might be the best starting point. He is widely misunderstood, even by philosophers. Your opinion on what he was arguing for will set you up pretty nicely for what you should pursue for further reading. You could just start with Socrates/Plato.

Also, if you have to ask if getting into philosophy is worth your time, it probably isn't.

>Is it worth the time?
The unexamined life is not worth living.

>>3217637
How did he treat Nitezsche?

>>3217709
Like shit. Really, when you have to make stuff up about your opposite/opponent philosophy in an intro philosophy book, you only look retarded.

>>3217709

through blatant ad-hominems. entirely disregarded his substance and method preferring instead to attack his personal life. his basic strategy was to mark him as a hypocrite, downplaying the will to power by categorizing nietzsche as an untermensch (which is really unfair, i mean, the guy was crippled by disease throughout his life, so what if he could get women or be the ubermensch of his theory? he was still the prophet we all deserve... bertie was just being a complete dick tbh)

There is a "Introduction to Philosophy" course set for the 28th Jan on coursera.

Sing up for it, /lit/ is a shithole

>>3217725

typical strategy of the hostile brute. feeling left out of intelligent discussion, he opts for an attack on the whole board and being too weak willed and stupid to study philosophy in his own, he opts for some second rate free online course.
i at least hope that after you learn something, you stop being such a shrewish little bitch.

>>3217759

haha, meant to tag>>3217729

>>3217624

Say what bro?

>>3217637
>>3217695
>>3217709
>>3217711

Nietzsche was a shit philosopher. His research and reasoning stank, except for one really good idea: his genealogy of morals. He wasn't much correct about the assertions he made with it, but he did hit upon something with the questioning of how a moralities came to be—its history really.

Nietzsche was a bigot, antisemitic, and a sexist. Most attempts to apologize for those things say his sister is to blame. She contributed to that reputation when she 're-wrote' Nietzsche work. That is just a copout excuse really.

Most people who are 'into' Nietzsche do so for the political fashion statement. They think he is controversial and by subscribing to his philosophy they think they too will be controversial as well.

Nietzsche sucks, stay away his from work UNTIL you've gotten a good head on your shoulders.

>>3217763
That picture of him in front of a dirty chalkboard tells so much about his philosophy, it's insane. I wish I could troll as hard as him, what with writing a book on the subject and then saying to never take anything pertaining to it seriously.

>>3217780
Holy shit, what a moron. Seriously, who told you that you were allowed to leave reddit and post here?

I'd suggest reading some of the primary sources first. Who gives a fuck what Russell thinks.

>>3217780
>ad hominem of philosopher
>ad hominem of the reader
>no reasoning on why he is bad

Dear lord, philosophy doesn't seem to be your calling. The man could have been a serial rapist that laughed at drowning children at the beach, but that does not change the value of his philosophy. If someone believes something just because it is controversial, you are right, they are idiots. But claiming every one that believes a controversial idea for the sake of it is just as idiotic.

To sum up my response in a manner you deserve:

U R Babby

>>3217780
>being this much of an egalitarian babby

>>3217759
>intelligent discussion
>on /lit/

haha

>>3217785

What, you don't like hearing the truth about your god? Most of Nietzsche propositions don't hold up, but they do titillate a bravado. Which is the real reason why 'edgy' people thinks he's so 'edgy'.

>>3217792

>muh ubermensch, muh Nietzsche

>>3217792

If the chief goal of his work is dealing with the politics of morals and values, then yes we should look at his character.

Do you expect a serial-rapist to be suitable in giving meaningful counsel to a rape victim? Know when to shout "ad-hominem!" before you just parrot the term.

>>3217805

That's actually funny. Thanks.

>>3217805
this one is much better than the horse one

>>3217818
Just because he is hypocritical in character does not mean his beliefs should be tossed in the trash. You have to be stupid to think philosophers have upheld their beliefs in every action they have ever done.

>>3217818
>implying bigotry, antisemitism and sexism is objectively bad

you haven't even read any nietzsche, have you?

>>3217640
You are using this as an excuse to justify your mediocrity.

nietzsche wasn't really an anti-semite tho. certainly, he wasn't an anti-semite in a way that was at all abnormal for the time he was writing - in many ways, he was less of an anti-semite than many of his contemporaries. and unless you're willing to throw out a whole hell of a lot of 19th century thought - certainly a lot of marxist and leftist thought, not to mention figures like Heidegger - you can't throw out Nietzsche. you want to throw out people who supported imperialism? that's fine, but again, that includes, like, the vast fucking majority of late 19th / early 20th century socialists

the problem with judging thinkers for their moral behavior is that it only becomes an issue for certain thinkers, and not for others. it's this weirdo fucking thing where certain thinkers get tagged with the "bad person" label and we have to have this whole fucking debate about WHAT WAS THEIR CONDUCT AND WHAT DID THEY WRITE AND WHAT DID THEY REALLY THINK. and then, for everyone who's not in that class of people who's "controversial", we just never ask those questions. we just ignore the entire issue. well, you know, you can't fucking have it both ways.

>>3217854

I'm not saying that because his beliefs sound stupid we should disregard him.

No.

I'm saying Nietzsche really was a bad philosopher, he has shit-tier philosophizing because he sucks at it.

People are so romanced by what they hear when they read his work, they gloss over the indiscrepancies and think he's brilliant. No he ain't. He is a one hit wonder, that's it.

>>3217857

> implying you know how to read philosophy

Yeah keep telling yer' self that.

>>3217869
>I'm saying Nietzsche really was a bad philosopher,

I am sorry, but this is retarded. Nietzsche was a great philosopher by everything other than perhaps analytical standards (which he has a great critique of in Beyond Good & Evil). Not being able to recognize what Nietzsche contributed to philosophy puts you in the same infantile and rebellious category as the very undergraduates who don't read anything other than Zarathustra and understands nothing yet rallies about how great and edgy he was.

>>3217889

>but ...but ...muh nihilism.

His laziness and stupidity with analytic skills is deplorable. The only thing he ever contributed was about looking at the historicity of values, that's it, nothing more.

>>3217868

Yes he was a antisemite.

"When Jews step forward as innocence itself, then the danger is great."

from Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche

Nietzsche distinctly stated that it was the Jews that invert the aristocratic value-equation. He's saying historically anything that was considered aristocratically-good has been transformed by a Jewish inversion-of-values to equate bad.

>>3217792
Ad hominems aren't always fallacious. They tell you that in first semester of first year philosophy at university.

>>3217780
>Nietzsche was a bigot, antisemitic, and a sexist.

Nothing wrong with this. Every superior culture was invented and run by what you would call bigoted sexists, and if they had any interaction with jews, they knew well enough to be anti-semitic too.

>>3217071
It is worth your time if you consider spending years obsessing over highly abstract problems that you won't be able to relate to other people about. My degree was in philosophy, and I spent over year trying to come to terms with scepticism. Not as part of the university course, but reading books and doing research on my own time.

>>3217780

get a load of this faggot,
First of all, you haven't read nietzsche. if you liked the genealogy of morals you would appreciate his entire output as he applied the genealogic method throughout, which is why he was a historian first and foremost, subtly hegelian, a psychologist second (his deep insights into the workings of the human mind, through an application of the genealogic method to the very reasons behind action, cutting through the idealistic fluff filled in retrospectively due the oppressive impulses of whatever metaphysics a person subscribed to, he pierced through to our very motivational subsconscious. psychoanalysis would not exist without nietzsche.) and a philosopher third. after he foresaw the death of loaded metaphysics/was partially responsible for it, he provided one of the few working solutions to the nihilism which follows as result.

and often times, the results of analysis lead to a 'controversial' result, which is merely an emotional reaction and not a criticism in itself. sure he was a sexist, but that does not preclude the fact that women are frail irrational sluts (contrary to nietzsche, it is for this reason that i love them) in the same way that being a racist does not preclude the fact that niggers are our evolutionary ancestors.

>>3217996

see >>3217071

Literally right above your shitty post.

>>3217982
He thought that the Judeao-Christian moral/intellectual/religious/ethical system did that as a matter of historical fact, not that individual Jews did this as a matter of their evil racial makeup.

And even that view was fairly moderate and mainstream for the time in which he was writing, compared to actual anti-Semites, of whom there were plenty in Nietzsche's day, and who Nietzsche did not associate himself with and rather despised. Anti-Semitism was a legitimate political position when Nietzsche was writing - disliked by the middle-class liberals, yes, but very much a political force - and one might have expected Nietzsche, had he been so fervent an anti-Semite, to have supported the anti-Semites, or to have written things that looked like other anti-Semitic writings. He didn't, though. Because he was fairly moderate in his position on Jews, for the time.

>>3218001
>Judeao-Christian

stop this

>>3217997

>results resulting in resulted results

>>3217997
nietzsche wasn't hegelian in any meaningful sense

>>3217968
nihilism? if that is all you can derive from nietzsche then i guess it's 2deep4u.

>>3218001

nicht.

Nietzsche thought the Jews were a race of people that ruined everything good about the German aristocracy. Never mind the fact that his research was faulty and his conclusions about the Jews inverting values were fallacious. He thought and wrote they [Jews] were bad.

>>3218040
>Nietzsche thought the Jews were a race of people that ruined everything good about the German aristocracy.

textual references

>>3218018

>implying the Apollonian/Dionysian split isn't a direct result of Hegelian dialectic

Do you even Neech?

>>3218047
nah, man

nah

>>3218040
he also encouraged the Germans to race mix with the Jews and on many accounts he talks badly of anti-semites (or at least the traditional sort).

i'm not sure why this is even an issue it has already been discussed and Nietzsche, while holding many opinions that may not be very suitable, is not some kind of ignoramus.

Babby's first philosophy.

>>3217997
>First of all, you haven't read Nietzsche. ...he was a historian first and foremost, subtly Hegelian, a psychologist second...

No. That's not exactly right. Nietzsche was a philologist primarily. He studied the history of written text, in the Germanic tradition mostly. He was appointed to the chair of Classical Philology at Basle in 1868~. Nietzsche was a philologist firstly, and a second rate research-linguist* secondly. But mostly a terrible philosopher over all.

* &b4 you say it, I am aware Linguistics did not develop until after Nietzsche.

"Already in the summer of 1876, when the first festival at Bayreuth
was at its height, I took leave of Wagner in my soul. I cannot
endure anything double-faced. Since Wagner had returned to
Germany, he had condescended step by step to everything that
I despise—even to anti-Semitism.…"

From: Nietzsche contra wagner

>>3218093

>Nietzsche was a philologist primarily

awesome nitpicking, and yes you are correct, though one should have assumed that i covered this under
>historian
since a fucking philologist (especially a Classical philologist like he was) is a type of historian primarily.
inb4 you copy paste wikipedia definition of philologist

>second rate research-linguist*

very redundant as this is covered under
>philologist
which in his case is covered under
>historian

>But mostly a terrible philosopher over all.

NO

>>3217521

nah, depends on how you define critical thinking. I'd say. For me it is: Try to refute every thought idea. Of course you can'T do this all the time and it is a bit biased, but at least you should try and practise it.

>>3218138

babby can't take the heat? babby can't stand it when someone shits all over his precious shit-tier philosopher?

waaahhh

>>3218158

e lelelelelele what heat you stupid fack?
all youve said is

>he is shit
>nietzsch is bad
>ees no gud

>>3218191

>said stan, pausing with bewilderment at his own continued insistence in engaging vegetables and stupid facks

>>3217071
The best intro book is "The story of Philosophy" by Durant. It's really cheap and you should be able to find it at a local book store. It's well written and manages to draw you in and be entertaining like a novel almost but ti only covers up until the start of the 20th century.

Check out Tarnas's Passion of the Western Mind. It's a good overview of the history of Western thought. I think it's silly to define yourself by someone else's philosophical thought, but it's interesting in the sense that it's cool to read what brilliant people have thought about the world, reality, God, etc.

>>3218217
also I forgot to add: keep away from the Russel book. It biased me against a lot of people for years and it's a lot harder to recognize his bias than everyone will tell you.

>>3218191

But it's true. He was a shitty philosopher. He obfuscated his reasoning with overt usage of prose, alliteration, and aphorisms. And his body of works are full of contradictions, and erroneous research. Deal with it.

I also think it's stupid for anyone to suggest Nietzsche as an 'introductory' philosopher. His train of thoughts are faulty and will only lead new readers to confusion, or set them off in doing philosophy stupidly.

Nietzsche is shit, and he certainly shouldn't be a newcomers first philosopher.

>>3218262

>He obfuscated his reasoning with overt usage of prose, alliteration, and aphorisms.

seems like you have a distaste for literary language...which is your problem not his. just because his writing wasn't rigorous (rigorous in the 'meticulous analytical tradition' sense of the word) doesnt warrant claims to obfuscation. him being concerned with textual aesthetics does not mean that his ideas don't follow. surely there are lots of hidden premises, which require a substantial background knowledge to fully fish out and understand, but as to claims of 'obfuscation' i'd say youre way off. many would agree that his writing is some of the most clearly written in all of phil.

>contradictions

this cannot be used as an attack to someone who did not consider paradox a negative thing. paradoxes are inherent to our very natures, our egos being composed of conflicting dualities-- nietzsche recognized this.

>I also think it's stupid for anyone to suggest Nietzsche as an 'introductory' philosopher.

I fully agree. Without adequate time spent on his influences and those he reacted against, the reader would be lost. Nietzsche is not the place to start.

>His train of thoughts are faulty and will only lead new readers to confusion, or set them off in doing philosophy stupidly.

nothing of substance said here, you keep rehashing your "herp derp nietzsch is stupid and bad", im starting to get bored

>>3217071
see >>3218065
It's a story about a 15 year old girl, and it is fucking awesome. Seriously an easy to understand introduction to the big names in the West (and Freud for some reason - ugh).

The author is a high school philosophy teacher from Norway who wrote the book in order to teach his students and now a fuck load of professors use it all over the world for their intro courses. I would seriously consider this.

A few remarks:

- Nietzsche was NOT an antisemite, and this is the scholarly consensus. Whenever he talks of antisemitism, he does so with deep contempt; in the Genealogy he ranks antisemites as modern-day men of ressentiment.
His problem with Jew was a "religious" one, if that was a problem at all.
>>3217982
>implying danger is a bad thing for Nietzsche

- Nietzsche is NOT a shit-tier philosopher. To name just a few of his priceless insights: he is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, analyst of the crisis of modernity. He has fully appreciated the historical character of human thought and yet, unlike the swathes of his epigones, avoided the pitfalls of stupid relativism. He is the modern rediscoverer of the central question of philosophy, namely the question of the good life. His answer to the said question is unsurpassed.

- and indeed, Nietzsche is NOT a good place to begin with philosophy.

PLATO

>>3218297

If you're going to write philosophy, keep the 'poetry' under-control. If you use it too much, nobody can wholly follow along with what you're getting at. This is some straight forward communication shit.

If you write stuff that contradicts what you wrote earlier, either you were wrong before or your wrong now. You can't have both if they cancel each other out. This is some straight forward logic shit.

Nietzsche is faulty. He over generalizes things and then cherry picks minuscule and weak evidence to support his claims. That's shitty philosophizing, if you didn't know already.

>>3218344

Wow! You love you some Nietzsche cock.

>>3217982
Yes. That is true. He was against the morality that valued the weak. That doesn't mean he was anti-semitic.

>>3218375
I do indeed; I´ve spent countless nights with him.

And why do you speak of my love as if it was a bad thing?

>>3218300
>>3218065
+1
Don't take it too seriously, it was written to be a light, fun alternative to what tends to be a major clusterfuck of sterile circlejerking and biased as fuck introductions the different schools.

>>3217071
>>3217071
Nietzsche is kind of fun to read

Don't "get into" philosophy unless you want to sound like the assholes in this thread and/or enjoy talking in circles about nothing

>Hurr durr is life even a consciousness or r we just even theoretically free will?

>>3218395

>spray it on muh face, Friedrich!

>>3218418
your stream of conciousness must be something like

>don't think don't think don't think don't think don't think don't think don't thinkdon't thinkdon't thinkdon't think

philosophy is to life as hedonism is to employment.

you will never be a philosopher as long as you dont have time to sit around year after year doing shit all in life.

from what I can gather from this thread, the answer is "no," OP

>>3218428
Thinking and philosophizing are different activities, man

>>3217698
Only when you examine life do you realize it's not worth living.

>>3218462

>>3218463
Well said Anon. Well said.

>Original quote or did you rip off someone? :P

>>3218814
can't tell if you're serious

in case you are

it's plato you dumb sack of shit

>>3218817
Where does Plato say it?

>>3218824
in the apology

>>3218824
>>3218828
you dumbass

anon's quote was "Only when you examine life do you realize it's not worth living." Plato famously makes Socrates say that "the unexamined life is not worth living", which is not the same thing. it is a clever take on the famous saying, you idjit.

>>3218829
>implying ripoff = literal quote

>>3218829
Thats what I thought. I knew Socrates said that, I just liked the 'clever take' on it as I find it more fitting/useful/interesting.

Philosophy is worth it if you enjoy spending every minute of every day depressed.

>>3217071
>How do I into Philosophy?

Well, in order to get a really useful answer for that OP, you need to answer this question:

What do I expect to get out of Philosophy?

Really! Answer that question and you'll get all the help you need.

>>3217071
or you could just fucking use your brain and think for a goddamn moment.
I sometimes feel like philosophy is invalidated as a career simply because half of the famous works could be arrived at with an afternoon's pondering.

>>3218904
Read the Kant's Critic of the Pure reason and try to tell us with a straight face it could be arrived at with an afternoon's pondering.

>>3218927
well, i'd say the basics can

the rest is just, for lack of a better term, worldbuilding

>>3217071
For me at least there were three entry points: the Socratic Dialogues (specially the Apology), Descartes' Metaphysical Investigations (a bit more involved), and something or other that my philosophy teacher told me about Sartre (however his texts are quite complex). Also, if you are interested in Indian philosophy, there's Dasgupta's History of Indian Philosophy, which is available for free in the Internet Archive. It's a bigass book which covers a fuckton of indian philosophy

>>3218934
Read it first, not some wikipedia article you lazy bastard

>>3218943
i've read it faggot

go read it yourself and tell me it's not just a bunch of post-facto justification of the noumenal-phenomenal distinction and sucking hume's cock

>>3217640
>/phil/
In my head the abbreviation of 'philosophy' has always been 'phi', given that it means 'mind' in some circles, and 'generic act' in the obvious.
Anyone have any advances?

>>3217640
Good point. 4chan is peer pressure, distilled.

The irony is -- and I see this as an external observer, since I went to school in the UK and entered university early (17 here) -- that this site seems to mirror the 'cliquey' cliches of an American high school more closely than anything else I've seen outside of film and television.

>>3219000
>4chan as High School Musical

lol!

>>3218361

you need to get the fuck out. on your time away:
first, learn to distinguish between 'your' and 'you're'
after that learn to distinguish between aphorisms as stylistic methods of presenting arguments and poetry. after that learn to actually address your opponents arguments before stubbornly parroting the same sentences (which have already been addressed) over and over. after that actually read something by nietzche, and THEN come back you fucking dunce.
also the contradictions aren't inherent to his claims, merely to the results of his applied claims which points to inherent paradoxes within systems themselves, not within methods addressing those systems, which is a big fucking difference and really beside the matter of "sum straight logic shit yo"

>>3217805
why do I have such a big Nietzsche folder

>>3219061
He used 'you're' correctly.

>>3219061
>waaahh

LOL You think that's a coherent argument, let alone an effective one? No wonder you suck at philosophy.

>>3219081

see>>3218361


>either you were wrong before or your wrong now
>or your wrong
>your wrong
>my wrong?
>you are wrong
>you're wrong

>>3219081

He's clinging to:

>If you write stuff that contradicts what you wrote earlier, either you were wrong before or your wrong now...

Yeah, that should be 'you're'. I'll give him that. But, that's all he has really.

>>3219083

You're very uninformed and annoying. Stan lost the debate just in virtue of having engaged an idiot like you. Good job.

>>3219095

haha youre right but i really only do this for the children who havent been exposed to nietzsche and cannot judge for themselves. they might read this troglodyte's retarded bullshit and actually get swayed. plus i love demeaning those who are intellectually inferior. i get off on it

>>3219103
You just got to let it go bro. I read the first couple pages of Human All Too Human and would just laugh when my friends said Nietzsche was a nihilist. I'm pretty sure he blatantly states that nihilism is something to shirk off in order to no longer be a baby.

The man is widely misunderstood innately, and even more so because of asshats like Russell just making shit up about him.

>>3219103
you have to realise what's at stake in this game, monsieur. nietzsche did not try to convert wagner. he sent him his book, and as cosima wagner records in her diaries, ricky wagner was disgusted by it, and eventually stooped to talking about how nietzsche had some kind of masturbation issue/was a pervert. may or may not have been about what they found in the bedsheets at tribschen.

>>3219133

not exactly. but i do appreciate your good intentions. i think you should finish that book.

>>3219172
I did finish it. I was trying to make the point that it was very obvious to me that Nietzsche was not a nihilist after reading ten pages into one of his books.

>>3219170

>not understanding the complexes of a sexually frustrated incestuous war machine who may or may not have had a gay crush on you

shame on wagner...breaking freddys heart like that

>>3219184

>incestuous

what do you mean?

>>3219095
>>3219103
>>3219133

You know, all I'm really hearing is:

1. You've read Nietzsche, and then you read some more
2. You became romanced by what you read, and accepted it
3. You glossed over the indiscrepancies with his works
4. Declared yourself a personal protector of his name

No wonder you get all butt hurt. You're so engrossed by his work, you can't see the forest through the trees, you can't admit to yourself, Nietzsche wasn't a very good philosopher. (That would destroy your world some how.)

He was a loon, a shitty philosopher. There is reason why there are more books wrestling over what he meant, than there are books talking about what he said. His body of works are incoherent, obscure, and fallacious. He had one really good idea and that was it, end of story.

Now if you take what he said, and make something better out of it, that would be good—more power to you. You'd probably do more respect to his name that way, then getting all butt hurt when someone disses your favorite philosopher.

>>3219182

thats a very good point,he wasn't. but nihilism is still a key part of his philosophy. it is at the same time an omnipresence and a place to rise out of of and react against. all those hours of gazing into the abyss and whatnot, should serve some purpose after all.

>>3219187

Freddy had sex with his sister, and may or may not have had sex with Wagner's wife, who reminded him of his mother

>Asking about the possible uses of wisdom
>Implying wisdom isn't an end in itself
>Mfw

This is why you people always get fannyflustered when /sci/ comes around, because you keep trying to answer their loaded questions about the usefulness of art/philosophy/culture.

Stop it.

>>3219192

>>3219200
Nietzsche was a Secular-existentialist.

>>3219225

awesome clarification buddy!! hence the fucking 'rising out' part.

a childish urge to contradict should not be your only motive in posting.

>>3219236

My work here is done.

>>3219239

>>3218934

>philosophy
>world-building

>both kinda interesting
>both totally masturbatory

I like it.

>>3219192
You are saying incoherent and fallacious as if this is not what Nietzsche intended. He never argued for any form of truth, and did not care much for it. What he said specifically alludes me, but he knew he contradicted himself while he was doing it and chose to do it.
Just a little tip: when you are starting to read a knew philosophy/philosopher, you are going to have to accept their axioms. Otherwise, you are not really understanding their reasoning.

He is not my favorite philosopher in the sense of "most easily agreeable to me", but I still like him a lot. He is not anywhere near shit-tier.

>>3219532
>He never argued for any form of truth

No, this is wrong. He did argue for forms of truths. For example in The Genealogy of Morals there were arguments at the hidden historic truths of morals and values. He did a shitty job at it, and had some shitty evidence to support his claims. But he sure did have some pretty prose, and occasionally some insightful things to say. But again, his thesis was shit.

You see, with posts like yours it lets me know there are still people out there who like Nietzsche because he sounds compelling and mysterious. He fills a void perhaps. You're hypnotized by it. I can relate, language can do that sometimes. But do you realize how far you'll go with that? Do you even realize to what extent at stretching reason you'll go, just to keep your own euphoria with Nietzsche?

>>3219632
>He did a shitty job at it, because he was shitty, ergo, he was shit. Which brings me to my final point, he was shitty.

You DO know why no one is taking you seriously right? You're complaining about Nietzsche's lack of clarity of thought all the while not saying anything substantial. Or even coherent really.

Philosophy is inherently worthless

>>3220129

Apparently you don't get it. It's too much for you to have your heroes 'disgraced.'

>>3220878
>Implying that wasn't my first post in the entire thread.

Whatever dude, enjoy your straw grasping.

>>3220129
I think he's that analytical faggot 18 year old that always pipes up whenever some one criticises his beloved tradition, who actually believes that analytic philosophy can provide any decent answers.

>>3220913

>Implying that idiot has ever read a book of philosophy in his life

You can tell when someone knows what they are talking about or not. He hasn't given one concrete argument or example to support his claims. He's just a child, nothing to see here.
And I'm not defending Nietzsche, because I do not care for him, however, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. And this fucking dolt has no idea what he is talking about.

>>3220936

Look who's talking? Aspy to the max

>>3218927
Methinks perhaps your brain is slow.

>How do I get into philosophy?
read books
>Is it worth the time?
no

This thread is hilarious.

It's like, one guy getting assraped by santa and 3 different people. A most unimpressive debut from Arrogant.

>>3221239

Ha! That's rich.

>>3218927
I think you could 'conclude' in an afternoon, that everything we are acquainted with is appearance, and that we only know appearance, and thus we don't know the thing it self. Wouldn't be as refined as Kant though.