/lit/ - Literature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietszche

>>4079848
In short, you should live by your own standards, uninfluenced by others

>>4079848
"Kill yourself" would be Nietzsche's message for your kind of people.

No, if you're not willing to read him, then its just not for you

>>4079860
I don't have the books you cunt face. I don't feel like spending two fucking weeks learning about it. I just was interested about it and wanted to see the basics of what it is.

>>4079853
this is impossible even in principle

Plato. But opposite.

[spolier]Or is that Hegel?[/spoiler]

> you create your own moral world view
> you try to create your own world based on this view
> your world view and creation are beset on all sides by other world views and other physical forces
> if these external forces don't alter or impede your moral world view or the creation of your world, you are superduper
> thanks for asking
> faggit

>>4079865
>Thinking you can learn about Freddy in only two weeks.

You're cute.

>>4079893
Most straight forward explanation from both /b/ and /lit/

>>4079865
Then it's not for you, baby. This is /lit/, we're the Freddy gang zen monks and you're the cunt standing by the door getting refused and standing around without food or water having to be patient and shit. If you don't feel like it we won't let you in because you can't grasshop for shit, Rick.

Don't rely on other people's truths to get you through the day, unless you can live with learning they are not true at all.

Also don't be a lazy faggot read the books and improve yourself faggot goddamn.

>>4079893
>moral
>Nietzsche
What?

>>4079929
Trollish, all too trollish

>>4079850
>>4079848
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

Better article.

>>4079929
Yes. Read him.

What is meaning in a world without God? What makes life worth living? What is a good life?

Answer: The physical world is the product of a primordial will (the will to power) that exists prior to being. The point of the universe and the meaning of life is acquiring more and more power, changing yourself to get more power. The point of humanity (like anything) is to change into something more powerful, the ubermensh, the over/above/post-man.

Sidenotes to this perspective:
-Truth is constructed by the observer, for the purpose of gaining more power. This includes moral truths. For example: altruistic morality is the morality of the underclasses who beg the nobility for bred+circusplox hue hue hue. Pre-Christian pagan morality is the morality of the aristocrats, the decendants of barbarian conquerors who had a healthy value of power and everything that produced it (honour, strength, health).
-Because truth is constructed, socialists and anarchists complaining about how bad being ruled is makes being ruled bad, and the concept of exploitation makes people feel exploited. There's nothing but will to power and relations of force prior to interpretation. And this interpretation is itself politically based and sets out to achieve political ends, and is therefore part of will to power.
-The observer, as hinted above, is not necessarily an individual. In fact, individuality is a product of people believing in individuals. All entities have will to power and act to increase their power. Classes, nations, parties, people, ideologies, genders.
-Slave classes, nations etc. bend the will to power in on itself by guilting and cosmically threatening the ruling entity with morality and religion. The solution to fixing this problem is logically to totally dominate them. This is something the aristocracy in Europe has failed to do because they're Christians. So has the bourgeoisie. Armed with Nietzsche's new valuation, the ubermensh has total justification to seize power everywhere and create the greatest civilisation(s).
-The coolest society was ancient Greece. The coolest recent guy was Napoleon. See above for why.
-Christianity inevitably breeds world-hatred because its egalitarian, altruistic nature is fundamentally at odds with the world. Christianity is spiritual and social poison.

Evola's objections to Nietzsche:
-Saying the world is will to power is arbitrary. (Por example: It could just as easily be will to being like in Schopenhauer.)
-Saying life (i.e. will to power) is a value in itself is arbitrary.
-Becoming totally free is anguish because we don't know what to do. (Gay, IMO, because Nietzsche is very clear on this: become the ubermensh, get power.)
-There's just as much will to power in slave morality as master morality, so championing one is arbitrary. This point renders the concept of the superman meaningless because everyone is equally (totally) a manifestation of will to power.
(Word limit. Can't be bothered cont'ining. Read Ride the Tiger.)

> Even though God is dead, when should not succumb to Nihilism but rather attempt to make ourselves into ubermensh

>>4080801
Laozi relinquished power, and by doing so was more powerful than Nietzsche could ever hope to be.

>>4080824
TFW when I wrote that by following dao :)

Nietzsche isn't really a philosopher. It's just an angry pamphleteer and epigrammatist who tried to please both anarchists and the reactionaries at once.

Today there are three strains of Nietzschean thought:

1.National Socialism. It was partly founded by his sister. They got their whole vocab and half of their concepts from him. Their favourite essays are the "Genealogy of Morals" and "the Antichrist". There he praises manusmriti (Hindu law) and whines about "Jewish slave morality" having supplanted the "master morality of the heathen". They are the only group to have worked through his magnum opus, "the Will to Power".
2.lolNihilism. Nietzsch is insanely popular with elitist misanthropes. This movement ranges from Ayn Rand over Leopold and Loeb to the modern day goth teens wanking at serial killers online. They like "Human All-to Human", "La Gaya Scienza" and "Zarathustra"
3.French Academics. In 1960s Paris there was a fashion to bait your conservative Gaullist parents by writing praise for (or dramas about) people as nasty as, at least, Marquis de Sade. This is where you got the myth that Nietzsche was somehow "misunderstood" or "misinterpreted" on purpose. Their own (mis)interpretations are usually building on his "Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" where he claims "ALL is LIES *sob sob sob*". They tend to dig out his sudden lefty blurps such that "war is hell" or that "the antisemites should be shot" to show how he's TOTES NOT NAZI. You could easily find him telling the very opposite as well but nobody actually reads him today, aside from the French academics.

>>4079942
crap article as everything else on stanford.edu
secondary sources are generally crap and tell you more about the institution than about the subject.

>>4080852
>National Socialism. It was partly founded by his sister.

what the hell are you talking about?

he hated his mother and sister, hated nationalism and everything german, so even if she had some thule/nsdap-stuff going on, it had nothing to do with him.

>>4080852
Beyond Good and Evil is also a classic groups with 2.
>>4080801
Evola is one of the very last representatives of 1.

>>4080856
>archetypical representative of strain #3.

>>4080859
so "ecce homo" and a bunch of other material belongs to that category then too?
i dont think you have ever read anything by nietzsche, you are just collecting wikipedia articles or something. so detached...

>>4080859
There is correspondence of Nietzsche where he rejects antisemitism and German nationalism without any hint of ambivalence or room for argument.

>>4080864
Of course. And the rest of his oeuvre are schoolbooks for the bunch of amoral heathen superhumans ruling the nazi party.
>>4080862
>i dont think you have ever read anything by nietzsche
aha! now it is tinted by strain #2.
I quote "Zur Genealogie der Moral", "Erste Abhandlung" point 7.
>Alles, was auf Erden gegen „die Vornehmen“, „die Gewaltigen“, „die Herren“, „die Machthaber“ gethan worden ist, ist nicht der Rede werth im Vergleich mit dem, was die Juden gegen sie gethan haben: die Juden, jenes priesterliche Volk, das sich an seinen Feinden und Überwältigern zuletzt nur durch eine radikale Umwerthung von deren Werthen, also durch einen Akt der geistigsten Rache Genugthuung zu schaffen wusste. So allein war es eben einem priesterlichen Volke gemäss, dem Volke der zurückgetretensten priesterlichen Rachsucht. Die Juden sind es gewesen, die gegen die aristokratische Werthgleichung (gut = vornehm = mächtig = schön = glücklich = gottgeliebt) mit einer furchteinflössenden Folgerichtigkeit die Umkehrung gewagt und mit den Zähnen des abgründlichsten Hasses (des Hasses der Ohnmacht) festgehalten haben, nämlich „die Elenden sind allein die Guten, die Armen, Ohnmächtigen, Niedrigen sind allein die Guten, die Leidenden, Entbehrenden, Kranken, Hässlichen sind auch die einzig Frommen, die einzig Gottseligen, für sie allein giebt es Seligkeit, — dagegen ihr, ihr Vornehmen und Gewaltigen, ihr seid in alle Ewigkeit die Bösen, die Grausamen, die Lüsternen, die Unersättlichen, die Gottlosen, ihr werdet auch ewig die Unseligen, Verfluchten und Verdammten sein!“… Man weiss, wer die Erbschaft dieser jüdischen Umwerthung gemacht hat… Ich erinnere in Betreff der ungeheuren und über alle Maassen verhängnissvollen Initiative, welche die Juden mit dieser grundsätzlichsten aller Kriegserklärungen gegeben haben, an den Satz, auf den ich bei einer anderen Gelegenheit gekommen bin („Jenseits von Gut und Böse“ p. 118) — dass nämlich mit den Juden der Sklavenaufstand in der Moral beginnt: jener Aufstand, welcher eine zweitausendjährige Geschichte hinter sich hat und der uns heute nur deshalb aus den Augen gerückt ist, weil er — siegreich gewesen ist…

>>4079865
>lrn 2 wikipedia
Just look it up and then dish out some cash and buy a fucking book. Don't even act like you get it until you've read and understood it, though.

>>4080876
But doesn't want to read Nietzsche. See >>4079848

>>4079893
>you create your own moral world view
HAHA. I laugh at you. Nietzsche knew full and well than no one is fully in control of their perception and that your moral world view is based more on your society, upbringing, etc... than it is on choice. In fact, Nietzsche didn't believe in free-will, so there is no choice. He wasn't a fucking existentialist.
>you try to create your own world based on this view
Well, only creators and the overman do that, but valid point.
>your world view and creation are beset on all sides by other world views and other physical forces
While this is true for most, the overman is strong enough to change those around him and to persuade them to agree with his.
>if these external forces don't alter or impede your moral world view or the creation of your world, you are superduper
Not really.

>>4080852
>secondary sources are generally crap and tell you more about the institution than about the subject.
A fucking men. Although reading interpretations can be interesting.

>>4079929
Although I take it that this is a reference to the fact that he called himself an immoralist, it would be totally wrong to argue that Nietzsche didn't work with morality.

>>4080875
thats just history of christian ethics which is of course closely connected with jews. he wrote in equally hot language against german influence on european history ("kant and leibniz stunted philosophy", "luther and befreiungskriege stunted european development")

antisemitism deals by definition with problems with contemporary jews in society, "judenfrage" etc. and here he was pretty clear that his biggest friends were jews (for example in france). he loved heinrich heine, and said that goethe was first discovered by "german jewish women".

he always made fun of germans who tried to identify german idealism or chauvinism in his übermensch concept. he even broke with wagner, his biggest friend, after wagner "descended to german decadence and antisemitism". i dont remember a single sentence where he didnt put "Reich" in quotation marks.

connecting him with nazis is the plebbiest thing you can do and i dont need secondary lit by anybody to prove it. its right there in almost every sentence he wrote. he considered himself trapped in germany. an accident with "polish blue blood".

>>4080899
Except that much of the Nazi worldview clearly originated in Nietzschean thought and ignoring this is like claiming Foucault wasn't a Nietzschean. The Nazis clearly fapped to Nietzsche.
You can point out that Nietzsche wasn't an anti-Semite all you want, but your point is like saying "Marx had nothing to do with the USSR!"

>>4080875
>Quotes in German to appear superior
Faggot

I'm a hard-core Platonist. I was once dated a hard-core Nietzschean.

Good times.

>>4080875
>cites german source in a place where most people won't speak german
>creates an elegant barrier against any retort while also reserving the option to call people out for not reading the original german and thereby being less qualified to have an opinion

Well done.

>>4080927
So you're a proto-fascist?

>>4080927
>to be in the room when those arguments happened

Yes, but neither Marx or Nietzsche are soiled by their "intellectual descendants" which you're trying hard to make it seem.

>>4080927
You must be a homosexual otherwise I would have to restore my faith in women a little bit.

>>4080885
>HAHA. I laugh at you. Nietzsche knew full and well than no one is fully in control of their perception and that your moral world view is based more on your society, upbringing, etc... than it is on choice. In fact, Nietzsche didn't believe in free-will, so there is no choice. He wasn't a fucking existentialist.
It's true that, for the majority, the moral world view is moulded by external forces. However, to be the overman, the creation of your own moral world view is necessary to attain power. The test of whether you are on the path to the overman is whether your world view and its realisation unimpeded by other traditions and views, because this means that one's power is not vested in the schemes of others. Creating your own moral world view is key to the break from the prisons of established tradition and society, which keep one from attaining power from the source.
>persuade them to agree with his.
Now I must laugh as this contradicts your quibble on the first point. Further, the overman is still
> beset on all sides by other world views and other physical forces
the only difference being his influence over them and their influence over him is weighed in his favour. You can't establish dependency as inevitable in your first point and hand wave it in your third, that's just dumb.

>>4080913
they also fapped to treitschke or carlyle. i guess you know nietzsche's opinion about those two?

nietzsche was just a big name that they tried to claim for themselves with the help of his retarded sister.

>>4080933
I'm a second guy, and I'm not trying to make it seem like that.
It seems like you're trying to distance them from any of their unpopular results tho m8, which is just as judgmental. It's just that you're trying to force a positive judgement, m8. Cheeky.

>>4080934
I am a homosexual. But I was dating a transgendered woman at the time because I'm biromantic.

>>4080899
>>4080913
Yes! That is the Nietzsche of strain #3. The most laughable thing about strain #3 is the degree of butthurt shown while trying to vindicate the very founding father of national socialism.
Strain #1 had a different Nietzsche.
>thats just
thats just! thats just! Yes, relativise! That's just what was quoted ad Verbum by the very Blonde Bestien who would plan the holocaust unfettered by a slave's morality. They also liked his idea of how the medieval made Christendom a master's morality. This was the ideology of the Theozoogische Gesellschaft which first brought Hitler into contact with German racism. Actually, do you know why they called themselves "Aryan"? Because they read Nietzsche!
Genealogie der Moral, Erste Abhandlung point 5.:
In Hinsicht auf unser Problem, das aus guten Gründen ein stilles Problem genannt werden kann und sich wählerisch nur an wenige Ohren wendet, ist es von keinem kleinen Interesse, festzustellen, dass vielfach noch in jenen Worten und Wurzeln, die „gut“ bezeichnen, die Hauptnuance durchschimmert, auf welche hin die Vornehmen sich eben als Menschen höheren Ranges fühlten. Zwar benennen sie sich vielleicht in den häufigsten Fällen einfach nach ihrer Überlegenheit an Macht (als „die Mächtigen“, „die Herren“, „die Gebietenden“) oder nach dem sichtbarsten Abzeichen dieser Überlegenheit, zum Beispiel als „die Reichen“, „die Besitzenden“ (das ist der Sinn von arya; und entsprechend im Eranischen und Slavischen).

Aber auch nach einem typischen Charakterzuge: und dies ist der Fall, der uns hier angeht. Sie heissen sich zum Beispiel „die Wahrhaftigen“: voran der griechische Adel, dessen Mundstück der Megarische Dichter Theognis ist. Das dafür ausgeprägte Wort ἐσϑλος bedeutet der Wurzel nach Einen, der ist, der Realität hat, der wirklich ist, der wahr ist; dann, mit einer subjektiven Wendung, den Wahren als den Wahrhaftigen: in dieser Phase der Begriffs-Verwandlung wird es zum Schlag- und Stichwort des Adels und geht ganz und gar in den Sinn „adelig“ über, zur Abgrenzung vom lügenhaften gemeinen Mann, so wie Theognis ihn nimmt und schildert, — bis endlich das Wort, nach dem Niedergange des Adels, zur Bezeichnung der seelischen noblesse übrig bleibt und gleichsam reif und süss wird. Im Worte κακός wie in δειλός (der Plebejer im Gegensatz zum ἀγαϑός) ist die Feigheit unterstrichen: dies giebt vielleicht einen Wink, in welcher Richtung man die etymologische Herkunft des mehrfach deutbaren ἀγαϑός zu suchen hat. Im lateinischen malus (dem ich μέλας zur Seite stelle) könnte der gemeine Mann als der Dunkelfarbige, vor allem als der Schwarzhaarige („hic niger est —“) gekennzeichnet sein, als der vorarische Insasse des italischen Bodens, der sich von der herrschend gewordenen blonden, nämlich arischen Eroberer-Rasse durch die Farbe am deutlichsten abhob; wenigstens bot mir das Gälische den genau entsprechenden Fall, — fin (zum Beispiel im Namen Fin-Gal), das abzeichnende Wort des Adels, zuletzt der Gute, Edle, Reine, ursprünglich der Blondkopf, im Gegensatz zu den dunklen, schwarzhaarigen Ureinwohnern. Die Kelten, beiläufig gesagt, waren durchaus eine blonde Rasse; man thut Unrecht, wenn man jene Streifen einer wesentlich dunkelhaarigen Bevölkerung, die sich auf sorgfältigeren ethnographischen Karten Deutschlands bemerkbar machen, mit irgend welcher keltischen Herkunft und Blutmischung in Zusammenhang bringt, wie dies noch Virchow thut: vielmehr schlägt an diesen Stellen die vorarische Bevölkerung Deutschlands vor. (Das Gleiche gilt beinahe für ganz Europa: im Wesentlichen hat die unterworfene Rasse schliesslich daselbst wieder die Oberhand bekommen, in Farbe, Kürze des Schädels, vielleicht sogar in den intellektuellen und socialen Instinkten: wer steht uns dafür, ob nicht die moderne Demokratie, der noch modernere Anarchismus und namentlich jener Hang zur „Commune“, zur primitivsten Gesellschafts-Form, der allen Socialisten Europa’s jetzt gemeinsam ist, in der Hauptsache einen ungeheuren Nachschlag zu bedeuten hat — und dass die Eroberer- und Herren-Rasse, die der Arier, auch physiologisch im Unterliegen ist?…)

>>4080929
More or less, yes.

>>4080945
Also it seems like your positive image of Nietzsche and/or Nietzsche's ghost are trying to exert their will to power through you, m8. Better dominate those cheeky cunts or be forced to accept them and cease your path to self-mastery, m8 - you cheeky m8

cunt

Das lateinische bonus glaube ich als „den Krieger“ auslegen zu dürfen: vorausgesetzt, dass ich mit Recht bonus auf ein älteres duonus zurückführe (vergleiche bellum = duellum = duen-lum, worin mir jenes duonus erhalten scheint). Bonus somit als Mann des Zwistes, der Entzweiung (duo), als Kriegsmann: man sieht, was im alten Rom an einem Manne seine „Güte“ ausmachte. Unser deutsches „Gut“ selbst: sollte es nicht „den Göttlichen“, den Mann „göttlichen Geschlechts“ bedeuten? Und mit dem Volks- (ursprünglich Adels-)Namen der Gothen identisch sein? Die Gründe zu dieser Vermuthung gehören nicht hierher. —
>>4080940
"Die Juden sind unser Unglück!" That phrase of Treitschke is an apt summary of Nietzschean morality.
>>4080925
>>4080928
Wanker, we are debating Nietzsche and not some frog-munching francophiliac working from the same set of prejudice regurgiated by so many strain #3 bots ITT.

>>4080801
>(will to power) that exists prior to being.
Although he claimed this, I believe the will to power in physical-applications is more of a thought-exercise than an actual belief of his. That isn't to say that the will to power isn't the dominant psychological force.
>Truth is constructed by the observer
False. I suggest reading "Truth and Untruth," which is a book pieced together of clippings in which Nietzsche talks about Epistemology. At one point, he says, “There are many kinds of eyes. Even the sphinx has eyes- and consequently there are many kinds of 'truths,' and consequently there is no truth.”
Sorry! Better luck next time!
>The solution to fixing this problem is logically to totally dominate them.
That isn't true either. Nietzsche wanted them to give themselves to the overman because he is so agreeable.
>Saying the world is will to power is arbitrary.
You can say that again.
>Becoming totally free is anguish because we don't know what to do.
Nietzsche clearly states that total freedom is bullshit. He says this again again in "Beyond Good and Evil" when he tears Kant's philosophy down. He tells us that we are a collection of parts and therefore we are slave to our parts and unable to be free. That makes this point totally moot.

>I'm not guilty of my own actions, I was inspired by a philosopher.
Cheeky m8, I could learn about cheekdom from you.

>Wanker, we are debating Nietzsche and not some frog-munching francophiliac working from the same set of prejudice regurgiated by so many strain #3 bots ITT.
the German language source is @
http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/GM

Both translations linked on wikipedia indeed tried to write this fascist anew. aha haha! "we don't need the real nietzsche! we can have a nietzsche of our own. our one totally was NOT a nazi"... lemme find an older translation. Ah! there it is!
http://archive.org/details/GenealogyOfMorals
"Translated by William Hausemann" in 1897:
http://archive.org/stream/GenealogyOfMorals/GoogleGenOptimized#page/n51/mode/2up

>>4080958
>we are debating Nietzsche and not some frog-munching francophiliac

lel, another proof, that you never read nietzsche. he was the biggest francoboo.
let me guess, you just browse metapedia or read evola and then parrot the garbage written there.
schwuchtel

>>4080952
>>4080955
ah, the good old "i'm losing the debate, better spam the shit out of the thread"

Some points the other anons have missed:

Popular moral rules are the result of rules that are socially expendient.

Judeo-Christian morality is inherently anti-life and thus nihilistic.

>>4080969
Lel I'll take your recommendations. I posted because I wanted to inb4 the onslaught of even less informed interpretations.

>>4080936
You got it all wrong. The overman is supposed to recognize the natural nihilism of existence and profess his morality. He is supposed to take command and affirm life. He allows his world view to command him, and therefore he commands the world. Get it?
And his persuasion does not clash with my initial point. It doesn't at all.

>>4080976
I'm talking about the translations, bernds. The translation linked on wikipedia are bent on making him seem like totes unrelated to strain #1
>read evola
no way. I'd never read a Nietzschean! Neither Hitler, nor Evola, nor Ayn Rand, nor Baudrillard.
>schwuchtel
Und du bist hier der Übermensch , nicht? möhöhö
>>4080978
That's a quote, from Nietzsche. The translation I have linked here >>4080974
>the debate
what debate? so you want a debate? Like in the argument clinic by the pythons? Ha.
>>4080983
"Jewish Morality" and not "Judeo-Christian Morality". Stop trying to pervert him into some kind of a pomo slob. As if the "Overman" term wasn't painful enough.

Anyhow, I link my overview again because I have to go right now and the thread has been drowned in the droppings of his teenie fanboys.
>>4080852

>>4081000
So which group does Kaufmann fall into?

>>4080995
theres nothing painful about overman, its a good translation of übermensch.
are your obscurantist feels hurt?

and if you dont like "judeo-christian morality", why do you keep quoting genalogy of morals which focusses on the judeo-christian link and the birth of christianity?

>>4080991
I'm not sure how you think that contradicts anything I said so a question:
>The overman is supposed to recognize the natural nihilism of existence and profess his morality.
>his morality
How is this not a creation of a moral world view which is the overman's own? You can pitch it as a channelling of the natural Wille zur Macht, but it is expressly
>a moral world view
>not "based more on your society, upbringing etc."

>>4081008
This. That fucking tool doesn't know shit. You tell him.

>>4081018
Of course it is the overman's own. But it didn't come from him and nothing else. Everything is dependent upon it's environment. That includes the moralities someone "makes".
>lrn 2 determinism

>>4081032
Let me explain more. One cannot create oneself. A person's being is determined by the factors that create and change it (including it's own reactions). A morality is an idea that has been pieced together by the order, degree and type of stimuli that one is exposed to. Therefore, the environment creates a morality, which is part of the person. The person can not create their own morality and they can not choose.

>>4081032
This contradicts things you have said before. The problem isn't determinism, the problem is that your flitting between propositions as though they are consistent when they are not. You assumed a lack of determinism while hand waving the concept that one's world view as ubermensch isn't
>beset on all sides by other world views and other physical forces
which would suggest that your natural faggotry is influencing your posting to the point of making it buttretarded.
The funniest thing is that we largely would agree but your desire to "correct" a post which illustrated determinism too late for your trigger finger is getting in the way of admitting you'll have to take into account the retardedness of your previous posts to talk your way out of this.
>>4081047
>The person can not create their own morality
Would that be because creators are beset on all sides by other world views or are you suddenly going to deny creators?

>>4081067
*you're flitting

>>4081067
I am saying that creators are products of their fucking environment. A creator is a a creator because it is the physical manifestation of what had to happen. A creator can't choose to create. A creator is just a product of it's environment. There is NO flaw to pick at.
However, you are right in that I was being the devil's advocate and picking at the details of your post. I do that.
And yeah, our views are almost identical from what I can see.

>>4081079
lel, I figured. Not starting with determinism is the easiest way to condense the system to n00bs because if I start with the eternal struggle between forces described in the Nachlass it devolves into the National Socialism crap above way too fast in my experience.
I feel like I should buy you a beer so we can mourn OP missing out on Freddy's beautiful prose now we don't have anything else to differ on.

To get this shit back on track.
The biggest thing for understanding Nietzsche is understanding 1800s Christianity.
The whole point to all of Nietzsche's work is that an earlier era's systemist philosophy (guys who want to bring it all together in one neat diagram) was imploding. Christianity changed more from 1700-1850 than it had from 700-1700. Nietzsche is coping with/taking advantage of the dissolution of a philosophic tradition over a thousand years old, and the brutal revelation that no future system of thought is going to be any more real that the one lost.
(The last generation to think ethics are fully empirical is already born)

>>4081167
>The biggest thing for understanding Nietzsche is understanding 1800s Christianity.

I completely disagree. If you want to understand Nietzsche, the most important thing that you need to grasp is what is called the 'Genealogical method'. In the Genealogical method, one basically traces the beginnings and motivations for the foundation of values, and from this you move forward to possible craft your own. This is essentially what Nietzschean philosophy is.

>>4081000
Your overview sucks, for it fails to consider the possibility that Nietzsche was fundamentally an ancient who dealt with nothing but the Socratic question of the good life.

>>4081168
Foucault pls go, your argument is self-contradictory.

>inb4 "that´s the POINT, doofus!"

>>4081109
Alright. I gotta agree with you, man. I'd drink to OP's lack of Nietzsche with you any time.

just came into this thread, this "OP is a faggot" guy is talking like he's an authority, but he demonstrates only a shallow read of Nietzsche. No one here should listen to this guy as though he knows.

Go read your Deleuze.

>>4081218
I'm by no means an authority. I'm just a guy who read a few books and has his own takeaway.
I'm not simply representing Nietzsche's philosophy. I'm examining it and then adding my own understandings to it.

>>4081218
I thought that was apparent. I never claimed some objective understanding of Nietzsche or some identical set of beliefs.

>>4081241
it was your rhetoric: "HAHAHAHAH"

>>4081260
>HAHAHAHAH
>the rhetoric of authority

Nietzsche is the great prophet of nihilism, of intellectual and moral nihilism. If you want to hear his greatest and most succinct prophecy of intellectual Nihilism read Truth and Lies in the Nonmoral Sense, which presages the postmodern approach to the truth. If you want to hear his greatest and most succinct prophecy of moral Nihilism read his aphorism of the Madman in the Marketplace, which predicts the Nihilism that will follow the "death of God".

He is an intellectual nihilist in that he denies absolute truth.
He is a moral nihilist in that he denies absolute morality. Freud did a good job of following up Nietzsche's moral nihilism by making popular psychoanalysis, which undermines morality by saying that evil is just a "complex" or some sort of neurosis, and undermines religion by making man nothing but a beast. Darwin sort of did this, but not really. All Darwin spoke of was the origin of man's body, but because Freud focused on man's "psychology" he essentially attacked the nobler part of man - his mind - and made it scientific and mundane.

Nietzsche was a nihilist, even though people insist that he wasn't. Nietzsche pretty much admitted himself that he was a nihilist, he said, "it's only occurred to me recently that what I've been aiming at is aimlessness itself". He hated nihilism in a way, and was fearful of its consequences, and that is mostly why people say that he wasn't a nihilist, but that only really means that he didn't particularly enjoy being one.

>>4081281
His problem was that he didn't realize there was a truth which couldn't be expressed completely in words.

>>4081282
he did realize that, but he referred to it as Asian or Buddhistic nihilism.

>>4081283
>>4081282
oh, and there's also a quote I remember where he laments the use of language.
He compares his thoughts to a bird, and to express his thoughts he has to cage the bird in the prison of language. Something like that.

>>4081286
there's also the pithy "Every word is a prejudice".

>>4081168
> In the Genealogical method, one basically traces the beginnings and motivations for the foundation of values, and from this you move forward to possible craft your own.

You really can't move forward though.
Chesterton -

>Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, "I think; therefore I am." The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, "I am not; therefore I cannot think."

>>4081309
Once you've accepted the dogma of the Genealogical Method and have resolved the morality of everybody else to mere circumstance and "social condiitoning" and "environmental pressures", and once you've resolved the truth of everybody else to mere circumstance and "social condiitoning" and "environmental pressures", then you are no longer free to have your own truth or your own morality, or any truth or any morality at all, because if you did you would have to say of your own morality and your own truth that "it is really only the product of my surroundings, and it has no legitimacy whatsoever in itself."

>>4079870
fine
you should life by [what you perceive as] your own standards, uninfluenced by [what you perceive as] others

>>4081282

lol

He explain that, in like, 10 different ways. You can open any of his book and you will probably find a passage where he complain about how restrictive words are.

You can even tell that with his style of writing...

>>4081309
another quote from Chesterton

>That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all."

>>4081311
>have resolved the morality of everybody else to mere circumstance and "social condiitoning" and "environmental pressures"...

Ah, but this is where you presuppose too much. No Genealogist claims that this is the case for everything. What they do claim is that certain things are taken for granted as being 'true' or 'innate' within human nature that in actuality are-and here's the key-constructed by means of power/influence. As a result, one can, with this in mind, take such values as arbitrarily imposed and not absolute, and can reevaluate them at will. That is the Genealogical method.

As for the Evolution post, that guy supposes too much about Evolution. As far as we know Evolution to be "true", it is in a strictly biological sense. Ideology on the other hand is not a progress like this; it is a liquid, ever-obscure and ultimately rather arbitrary thing.

>>4081332
> What they do claim is that certain things are taken for granted as being 'true' or 'innate' within human nature that in actuality are-and here's the key-constructed by means of power/influence. As a result, one can, with this in mind, take such values as arbitrarily imposed and not absolute, and can reevaluate them at will. That is the Genealogical method.

That's the problem. If you take the values of everybody else as being arbitrarily imposed and not absolute, then you must, in order to be consistent, admit that all of your own values and any value that you can come up with yourself is arbitrarily imposed and not absolute. You are only "building castles in the air", your thoughts lack any seriousness (they are only vain), and in the end its a complete mystery as to why you hold the values you hold at all, because they have no ultimate legitimacy and can be resolved to nothingness on a mere whim.

>>4081332
>As for the Evolution post, that guy supposes too much about Evolution. As far as we know Evolution to be "true", it is in a strictly biological sense. Ideology on the other hand is not a progress like this; it is a liquid, ever-obscure and ultimately rather arbitrary thing.

That quote was from decades ago. When he refers to Evolution he is talking about the Geneaological Method and similar schemes of thought, because the Geneaological Method is more or less the principles of Evolution applied to morality, just as what we call Evolution is applied to biology.

>>4081339
>admit that all of your own values and any value that you can come up with yourself is arbitrarily imposed and not absolute.

Holy shit, read the post again. I said 'certain' things, not 'everything'. Only 'some' ideological practices are arbitrarily thought to be 'innate/given'. Thus, they can form their own from the process of recognizing others as less than likely to be true.

>>4081339

You are the one building a castle in the air with your "absolute"

You have it totally backward....

>>4081347
>because the Geneaological Method is more or less the principles of Evolution applied to morality

That isn't true. The Genealogical Method doesn't hold that ideology is evolving. It only deconstructs patterns of thinking that have become so ingrained within a cultural that they're thought to be 'innate'. From here, some thinkers (like Nietzsche) set out to replace them with their own valuations. That's it. Evolution = Progress (biological). Genealogy = Deconstruction.

>>4081360
cultural setting*

>>4080949

Privilege status: checked

It's about style. You stylise your life, which does not mean that you pretend to be really tough and the overman: it means that you understand your life as a series of acts that are aesthetic in nature, i.e. open to stylization. When you have prioritised your will, are made your own by giving style to your life. For (the majority of) his thought life is the book that you write and the important thing is you write it without a readership in mind.

>>4081778
What's important here also is that the overman or whatever "uberman" ideal there is in his thought isn't a pre-set style, some series of acts you can dress yourself in like a PUA pamphlet. The overman dresses himself, in himself.

>>4081360
>evolution = progress (biological)
I was with you right up until then.

i'm too lazy to try and find all the posts by that one tool, but:

>2013
>trying to argue that Nietzsche was a Nazi

>>4081919
dont summon him like that

>>4081283
>>4081286
>>4081317
If he believed there was a truth beyond language, he can't be called a nihilist except by those who have such a hard-on for language that the idea that something could be true but inexpressible is ridiculous to them.

>>4081281
nietzsche believed in creating a moral system that exalted exceptional personal development, believing all individuals were responsible for their own progress

Believing that those morals needed to be constructed, rather than being innate, does not make him a nihilist

>>4081857
What is your problem with evolution signifying biological progress?

>>4082293
Because it doesn't make any fucking sense? Progress in one region might be a deathspell in another.

>>4082293
because evolution is not progress? it's just change.

>>4082242
>>4082242
Nietzsche never said anything about creating a MORAL system, wtf, he called humanity to be IMMORAL, not to be slave to anymore moral truths.

>>4082314
>>4082317

It IS progress for those species that evolve. How is that not evident to you people?

If an organism evolves to better cope with it's environment, that would definitely be progress towards a better chance of surviving. If you want to call that 'change' and not 'progress', fine. You're just playing with semantics at that point.

>>4082349
Huh? "Change" and "progress" aren't swappable in this context. Progress implies an ideal that the organism is evolving toward, where change is just a description without an ideal.

The distinction that biological evolution has no ideal to progress toward is important (and uncontroversial to most scientists) because it discounts the notion that "more" evolution is "better." It's much more complex and region-dependent than that.

>Implying philosophy isn't applied depression.

>>4082361
>Progress implies an ideal that the organism is evolving toward, where change is just a description without an ideal.

You could say that an organism is progressing towards an ideal state of coping in an environment. I don't mean to come off as an idealist, but that does seem plausible doesn't it? There's not just 'change' in the case of evolutionary biology in that instance.

>>4082372

>Implying you're not projection your own depression onto philosophy

Sartre is the one, true existentialist