/lit/ - Literature

>>4608710
badly. nihilists are a joke; a collision of desire and ingnorance

>>4608733

>>4608733
>FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, OR "THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA".
>"NIHILIST".

>>4608741
how was he not

>>4608779

HOW DO YOU BELIEVE THAT HE WAS, IDIOT?

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT "NIHILISM" IS?

HAVE EVEN READ ANYTHING BY FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE? HAVE YOU EVEN READ "THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA"?

>>4608784
So no argument then?

>>4608786
Kill yourself, faggot

If you understand it, good job, it sets you up for pretty much doing any kind of philosophical magnum opus

On the offhand, you will constantly think you are a pleb for doing shit that is barely pleb

>>4608790
>>>/b/

>>4608786

The old problem here is that Nietzsche defines nihilism in a specific way, in which for example value systems that devalue what exists (nature) in favor of higher ideals (which are actually just empty concepts) are considered nihilistic. Now this is one type of nihilism (according to Nietzsche, according to Deleuze), another is when someone gets rid of this value system but ends up with no values + devalued nature (the is a very loose relation here to 'the desert of the real', they are not the same but there is a structural analogy). For normalfags, Nietzsche is a nihilist because he denies the veracity of those higher values that he deems nihilist.

If you want an "edgy" and "nihilist" philosophy because you hate everyone - this book is not for you.

Optimism and strength of character is required to fully appreciate this book, you cannot be afraid to say that you love life and its many trials, which is slightly different to the /b/ rhetoric.

>>4608798
so basically nihilism means nietzsche philosophy is dead

>>4608800
>If you want an "edgy" and "nihilist" philosophy because you hate everyone

This board is so unintelligent.

>>4608784
>DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT "NIHILISM" IS?
>HAVE EVEN READ ANYTHING BY FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE? HAVE YOU EVEN READ "THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA"?

DO YOU EVEN READ?

>>4608801

Are you retarded? Can you construct a coherent sentence?

>>4608810
yeah, can you respond to one?

>>4608811
are you haevening mental probelems??

>>4608814
What's that? Nietzsche? Shut the fuck up.

>>4608811

If by 'so basically nihilism means nietzsche philosophy dead' you mean 'So basically Nihilism means that Nietzsche's philosophy is dead', I am confused as to how you draw this conclusion from my previous post. The entire message of my post was that there is no singular coherent, universally accepted definition of Nihilism.

>>4608786
I'm a 100 pages in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but I couldn't understand anything. What I could grasp is that we should find earthly meaning, something tangible, real, and not indulge ourselves in outworldly hope, and then try to become something better than our old selves. I don't see how that's nihilistic.

>>4608865

Read Genealogy of Morals instead.

>>4608865
pretty stupid idea considering earthly or tangible meaning is equally as meaningless as any arbitrary conceptions of transcendance

The Enchiridion would be better.

>>4608865
It's not nihilistic...

>>4609112
I bet you can't give a rational explanation why not

>>4609119
a poem by the Early Nietzsche:
Once more, before I wander on
And turn my glance forward,
I lift up my hands to you in loneliness —
You, to whom I flee,
To whom in the deepest depths of my heart
I have solemnly consecrated altars
So that
Your voice might summon me again.

On them glows, deeply inscribed, the words:
To the unknown god.
I am his, although until this hour
I’ve remained in the wicked horde:
I am his—and I feel the bonds
That pull me down in my struggle
And, would I flee,
Force me into his service.

I want to know you, Unknown One,
You who have reached deep into my soul,
Into my life like the gust of a storm,
You incomprehensible yet related one!
I want to know you, even serve you.

>>4609125
what does it mean

>>4609135
in his core Nietzsche yearns for transcendence, he is not a nihilist

>>4609154
One can yearn for transcendence while being a nihilist. It's a really bad feel.

>>4609154
he sounds pretty silly

we are the species that knows too much to content ourselves with merely surviving, reproducing, dying—and nothing else. we want there to be more to it than that, or to think there is. this is the tragedy: consciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of uselessly striving to be something other than what we are—hunks of spoiling flesh on crumbling bones

>>4608710
For most people, pretty bad. Good for some perhaps. Nietzsche realised this, always stating his philosophy isn't for the masses and universal application.

What it comes down to is that, In the wake of Christianity, we should dismiss the hereafter and focus on earthly matters. But in order not to fall into nihilism (be it of the destructive or the cosy last man variety) we need some goal or purpose, so Zarathustra conjures up this vague image of a hypothetical sort of man better than man that we should strive towards that is more of a never attainable ideal than a defined goal, serving more as a direction on the compass than a destination.

So we declare the Übermensch as the meaning of the earth and we strive towards that particular brand of excellence in a way that lies beyond us personally. The goal is not to become the Übermensch but ready the world for him, make way for him, be the stepping stones towards him, perpetually striving towards greatness according to a Nietzschean recipe.

Nietzsche accepts the notion that people need a sense of purpose and a goal and narrative in order not to fall into nihilism, but he deems Christian and conventional humanist goals to be ultimately detrimental to us, so he offers a more vital and healthy alternative that is kept deliberately open.

Which is admirable, but to me personally he ultimately fails to entice. I lack the sort of dutiful personality that willingly accepts such a mission in life. I'd rather sit here amongst the smouldering rubble in Nihil Reich stating my case on nothing and living for self-enjoyment.

From my admittedly superficial readings of Nietzsche's work, he seemed better at destroying systems than building them.

>>4609340
He never really attempted to build them though. Nietzsche's positive philosophy wasn't very systematic, which is both its strength and weakness.

Great if you want to be a right-winger.

>>4609376
It's pretty dismissive towards politics in general. For all his shit talking about Epicurus, Nietzsche loved nothing more than the idea of secluded philosophising with a bunch of mates.

You shouldn't consider one book written in the 1800s as your guidebook to life.

>>4609391
Why not?

>>4609380
Yes, but think about how his ideas could be applied to politics and what type of people it would favor.

>>4609393
Because following the beliefs of just one book will greatly constrict your world views. Especially a book written so long ago, when there have been so many books written since then on the topic of Nietzsche and other philosophies in general.

>>4609394
Nietzsche has been widely influential across the spectrum from anarchists to socialists to fascists to libertarians. You're just thinking of Nazis because you're adequately indoctrinated. If you actually compare Nietzsche's works to what they were about you'll find more contradiction than agreement.

>>4609399
One can make the well read, well informed choice to adopt a particular work as being the most valued adviser in your decisions. There's nothing inherently short sighted about it. Zarathustra is especially (and deliberately) timeless so it would serve this purpose well.

Also, there's nothing wrong with the concious choice for a constricted worldview, especially once you learn that the sort of pluralistic openmindedness that's in vogue only leads to a paralysed directionless shitheap of a life.

>>4609409
Could you give me examples as to how Nietzsche could have had a great influence on socialists? I admittedly do not know much about him or his philosophies. From the little bit of it I've read, and from the small amount of things I've read in reference to his thoughts, I usually associate him with right-wingers.

>>4609423
You're right, I agree with you. Marx has been the one person I value more than everything/one I've read. But I won't allow his philosophies to fully rule my life without reading other post-Marxist writers as well.

>>4608786
>>4608733
>>4608808

'“Why live? All is vanity! Living – that is threshing straw, living – that is
consuming oneself in flames without becoming warm.” Such
antiquarian babbling is still considered “wisdom”; it is honored all the
more for being old and musty. Mustiness too ennobles.

Children might speak thus: they fear the fire because it burned them.
There is much childishness in the old books of wisdom. And why
should those who always “thresh straw” be allowed to blaspheme
threshing? Such oxen should be muzzled after all.

Such men sit down to the table and bring nothing along, not even a
good appetite; and then they blaspheme: “All is vanity.” But eating and
drinking well, O my brothers, is verily no vain art. Break, break the old
tablets of the never gay! '

Please read something before you bitch about it.

>>4608885
Why? I didn't ask for any suggestion.

>>4609436
You should look towards the socialist side of anarchism. I haven't looked into it much myself because I consider translating Nietzsche into banal political ideology to be pretty uninteresting.

>>4608885
yeah do this

>>4609453
There's also plenty of quotes where he dismisses things such as truth, inherent meaning and morality. Nietzsche was in many ways a nihilist, I don't see why people would even attempt to deny that. He himself wouldn't. He may have been a life affirming nihilist, but a nihilist nonetheless.

>>4608710

You can, OP. Nietzsche was an acute thinker and knew many things others wouldn't even dare to imagine. Everything about him seems prophetical, and like a surgeon, he cutted everything down to its most elemental parts. He knew how horrible the world was and what an even more complete mess it would become without its many camouflaged ideals.

Nihilism was a clinical factum for him; he'd diagnosed on himself and others the lack of faith that surrounded him, namely faith on the bedrock of all religion; life.

His age posited the question"Can you live without religion?" And his answer was, "Yes, if you can drag its ideas into an earthly shape, if you dog nihilism out to its foremost consequences; if you can walk the
desert and the unavailing and yet have some faith for the impending, and if you can experience joy and pain with the same primitive affectivity.

You cannot judge life on the basis of its indifference, because in order to judge something, you are making a comparison; and how can a meaningless world be compared with anything at all? If life is without meaning, isn't it innocent? Nietzsche knew, that for Adam there must be black and white, or else there would be nothingness. Complete darkness.

His quote "God is dead", is a proclamation on the disease that is coloring the blind. Instead of adhering to the present, to the physical, what can be smelled and touched, people dishonour life and create ideals: "they would rather will nothingness than will something."

So for all those that are saying that Nietzsche is a nihilist or atheist or whatever, you are wrong. He spent his whole life fighting against it.

>>4609453
I don't see anything nihilistic about that.

>>4609479
Google the PDF and post them.
So many discussions on here happen without any actual citations =/

Plus, I can't see how an übermensch could ever exist if there was no inherent right or wrong to the universe. The übermensch is more desired than the pitiful ones.

>>4608733
Go home to the seminary.

>>4609557
"there are no facts, only interpretations" - nitch, nachlass

>>4609557
>Plus, I can't see how an übermensch could ever exist if there was no inherent right or wrong to the universe. The übermensch is more desired than the pitiful ones.
Have you even read TSZ and Nietzsche's other works for that matter?

>>4609571
You apparently have, why don't you explain to us why he is wrong? I'm genuinely interested, not sarcastic.

>>4609600
If you need to have demonstrated to you how Friedrich Nietzsche was in fact not a moral absolutist you haven't even bothered to read his wikipedia article. I'm not willing to spoonfeed the most entry level and available information to people.

>>4609571
Yes, I have. And your catchphrase doesn't mean anything, say something that is actually worth talking about or don't say anything at all.

>>4609614

Actually, you are contrived to teach those that are uninformed. If he doesn't know, it is your job to educate him, not judge him.

I'm also quite interested. Please tell us, what is your argument for calling Nietzsche a nihilist?

>>4609393
It's too recent, maybe in a few hundred years it might be something to follow but until then I wouldn't.

>>4609632
>Actually, you are contrived to teach those that are uninformed. If he doesn't know, it is your job to educate him, not judge him.
I don't have a job. If you can't see why Nietzsche isn't a moral absolutist than you simply haven't made any effort to look into him. To say Nietzsche's notion of the Übermensch necessarily relies on moral absolutism is even more absurd. Nietzsche always dismissed universalist ethics, let alone the type inherent to life itself.

As far as the nihilism goes, Nietzsche throughout his works dismisses the notion of truth, the notion of a meaning to life and the notion of morality. If you want quotes on that, read his books or search the internet if you can't be bothered to read a book. I won't accommodate ignorance that stems solely from laziness.

>>4608810
Welcome to postmodernism, kid.