/lit/ - Literature

>>4636400
Nietzsche is my favorite I've read so far. Though, he is the one I've read the most of and he initially sparked my interest in philosophy.

I enjoy him because he is inspiring and daring and was so concerned with aesthetics. I picked up Thus Spoke Zarathustra today.

Now tell me your reasons.

I would argue that Nietzsche was the only post-Kantian philosopher that made an impact on philosophy while also caring about the aesthetic qualities of his work.

Nietzsche's philosophy is what happens when a dramatic dude can't handle Schopenhauer's conclusions.

Should I get
>"Basic Writings of Nietzsche" that includes full texts of
The Birth of Tragedy, Beyond Good and Evil, and On the Genealogy of Morals, The Case of Wagner and Ecce Homo

>"The Portable Nietzsche" that includes full texts of
Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, Nietzsche Contra Wagner and Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Mind that I read "Beyond Good & Evil" and I really enjoyed it.

No. It's Schoppy. Get on his hair level.

>mfw root of reason

>>4636443
Beyond Good and Evil, in my opinion, sets you perfectly up for the Genealogy of Morals. You really couldn't read the Genealogy of Morals without reading Beyond Good and Evil, but now that you have, I think you're ready for one of the greatest sociological works ever written.

Hegel was a better philosopher.

>Nietzsche
>philosophy

Uhh...Wait, what?

>>4636459
>being retard

>>4636459
Terrific post there.

>>4636459
Brilliant critique, now Nietzsche is no more.

>>4636459
*stands up and claps*

Never have a seen a critique as solid as this.

>>4636459

>>4636459
This is the greatest, most well thought-out, post I've ever encountered.

Truly one that transcends the threshold of modern arbitrary discussions and enters the realm of academia. Bravo, sir. You truly are a scholar.

>>4636503
He's probably that catholic shitposter

>>4636453
I thought that Beyond Good and Evil was the masterpiece. If not what is? Thus Spoke Zarathustra is BGE in a different form.

Is the 'Gay Science' a must read?

>>4636497
>HaroldBloomReadingInfiniteJest.jpg

it is a stunning likeness

The only other 'philosopher' since Plato is Nietzsche. The rest are pedants, or at best, philosophical scientists.

>>4636400
Nietzsche is about as fedora as you can get from a philosopher without reading Ayn Rand.

>>4636566

>female
>philosopher

pick one

>>4636558
Big claim you got there.

>>4636558
There's a third one, and he's alive right now. People know him as Icycalm.

>>4636400
Spinoza

Kant is much better.

>>4636459

>making /lit/ THIS angry with five words and an ellipsis
I knew Continentals were irrational and volatile, but not...Like this.

>>4636600
I didn't perceive /lit/s reaction as anger.

>>4636400

>Nietzsche
>not plato

Whos the top 5 philosophers and why?

>>4636584

Nietzsche had a far greater veneration of life.

He understood possibly more than any other philosopher that contemplation of life was a creative act.

>>4636573
That's not a fair choice. Ayn Rand in particular is one of the only true female philosophers. You might not agree with her, but at least she isn't completely preoccupied with feminism like the rest of the "female philosophers".

>>4636791
plato
plato
plato
plato
plato

and for an honorary mention, plato.

>>4636791
Plato
Spinoza
Hegel
Heidegger
Adorno

>>4636791
Top 3:
Plato
Descartes
Hegel
All others are addendums or corrections of their work

>>4636897
And the whys?

>>4636476
>>4636477
>>4636483
>>4636492
>>4636497
>>4636503
jesus christ

Hell ya! Nietzsche is quite pietzsche. The homosexual scientist. The untimely meditator. The ubermensch. The antichrist. Philosophizing with a hammer. Taking down your idols. Cockslapping the corpses of nihilists like Schopenhauer and Plato. And taking you beyond good and evil. My man, Weezy F Neezy. Read it all and read it hard. I recommend reading pic related as well.

>>4636400
It's Nietzsche

>>4637175
why is mbdtf so low on your list? just curious

>>4636417
>only post-Kantian philosopher that made an impact on philosophy

Oh jolly, we're forgetting a bunch of people here. Bertrand Russell, Bergson, Husserl, Sartre, Freud...

It seems to me you're just failing to see the bigger picture: the change these guys brought are relevant at this moment, while you're being stuck in the past...

>>4636558
From that point of view, even Nietzsche is a philosophical scientist.

>>4636791
Aristotle
Descartes
Camus
Derrida
Freud

>>4636791
Zizek
Zizek
Zizek
Zizek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80X0pbCV_t4

>>4637265
He was good with words.

>>4636575
Well, it's Nietzsche's claim. I happen to agree.

That is, if we take a philosopher to be a cultural physician, someone who, by means of his writings, and by means of providing a comprehensive view of life, and evaluating it as a whole, STEERS culture in the direction he sees fit. Philosophy is not about truth. There's almost a consensus nowadays that Plato did not believe in the theory of the forms.

>>4636400
U wot m8?
Don't get me wrong, I love Nietzsche, but I don't get how he could be your favorite. He didn't really say much. He exposed other peoples' bullshit and created a very sturdy foundation for others to follow him.
I think of him as the great clarifier more than anything.

>>4636578

>>4637328
>He didn't really say much.
On the contrary, he said more than anyone else ever did. If you're able to read between the lines, that is.

Heraclitus, Plato, Nietzsche - only important philosophers I know of

>>4637832
lel

Plato

>>4637320.
>There's almost a consensus nowadays that Plato did not believe in the theory of the forms.
Yeah, and the The Prince is satire, right?

According to philosophy the word "best" is meaningless because everything is subjective and opinions. What a load of bullshit. I prefer the objective truth of science.

>>4637876
common sense guy

>>4637876
Hello there Protagoras. Didn't see you coming in this particular thread.

>>4636827
I take it you've never heard of Arendt or Anscombe then.

>>4637863
>Yeah, and the The Prince is satire, right?
Correct.

>>4637876
>According to philosophy the word "best" is meaningless because everything is subjective and opinions.
Nah, it's a fad it'll hopefully grow out of.

>>4637899
Yeah sure.

>mfw reading George Simmel's rebuttal to the concept of eternal recurrence

>>4637911
Do you also believe that The Republic is to be taken literally ?

why is this board so obsessed with Nietzsche

the best philosopher is clearly Kant, or if you're a snowflake, Wittgenstein

>>4637938
what's a good edition/trans of critique?

>>4637935
No. Do you believe Socrates was just 'trolling'?

>>4637832
>Heraclitus
My nigger. Dude literally invented semantics

>>4637945
i have the Dover one translated by Meiklejohn. Its the only one Ive read but i had no problems with it, its very clear and understandable although I suspect thats more Kant`s writing style than the translation

>>4637938
You mean everyone ever

And because nietZsche said it best

According to philosotards science should be seen as a branch of philosophy. Therefore the only correct answer to OP's question is Richard Feynman.

pic related and "Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."

MORE LIKE 'NEET'ZSCHE RIGHT? DUDE WAS A LOSER LOL

>>4637274
Sweetheart, you're cherry-picking your premise. Stop that.

>>4637876
I see you're using mouth-words.

>>4636791
Aristo
Ömer Hayyam
Camus
Farabi
and, would Machiavelli count as a philosopher? Well I will say yes and add Machiavelli to the list.

Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe
>If contraceptive intercourse is permissible, then what objection could there be after all to mutual masturbation, or copulation in vase indebito, sodomy, buggery (I should perhaps remark that I am using a legal term here - not indulging in bad language), when normal copulation is impossible or inadvisable (or in any case, according to taste)? It can't be the mere pattern of bodily behaviour in which the stimulation is procured that makes all the difference! But if such things are all right, it becomes perfectly impossible to see anything wrong with homosexual intercourse, for example. I am not saying: if you think contraception all right you will do these other things; not at all. The habit of respectability persists and old prejudices die hard. But I am saying: you will have no solid reason against these things. You will have no answer to someone who proclaims as many do that they are good too. You cannot point to the known fact that Christianity drew people out of the pagan world, always saying no to these things. Because, if you are defending contraception, you will have rejected Christian tradition.

what's Nietzsche's stance on contraception?

>>4636791


aristoplel
heinigger
huenon
vvitgenrock
leibizniz

>>4636791
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens
Daniel Dennett
Sam Harris
The Amazing Atheist

>>4636400
I love me some Baudrillard, Foucault, and Debord.

I wish I understood French.

>>4637987
pretty sure a eugenicist wouldn't frown at the pill

>>4637911
Not that guy, The Prince is ostensibly satirical, dilating upon the various ways the rulers eschew the very traits they claim to embody, such as honesty and integrity, in the face of a threat to their power.

Nietzsche even notes the satirical nature of Machiavelli, but also correctly notes that only the true essence of the work could be read in the writer's own dialect

>>4638003
I approve of your tastes.

>>4638003
>The Amazing Atheist

>>4638003
Aha!

Another gentleman on /lit/

*lights up marlboro and brilliantly smiles*

What are the odds?

>>4638046


i know this is tongue in cheek but i still cringed.

>>4638033
amazing atheist, brett keane, capnoawesome, gisburne2000, onelessgod, hardcaseownsyou, rabidape, websnarf, paulsego. the old school youtube atheist community. i think taa is the only one left....

>>4638003

The Angry Atheist is the biggest faggot in the world.

>>4636558
>>4637832
>>4637863
>>4636722
>>4636893
>>4636897
>>4636904
Plato was a bore.

>>4636573

>Not remembering Simone de Beauvoir

>>4637180
>why is mbdtf so low on your list? just curious

>Implying

>>4636558
You've clearly never read the book "The European Philosophers from Descartes to Nietzsche"

>>4638142
Dude, you forgot the best philosopher ever, thunderfoot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

best i dunno
but modern philosophy starts with kant
then hegel
marx
nietzsche
heidegger
adorno/benjamin
lacan
foucault
deleuze

i wouldn't call anyone after deleuze a truly original philosopher. zizeks great but he is just repeating marx hegel and lacan to "explain our current situation". haven't read his big hegel/quantum physics work less than nothing yet tho

>>4636573
Susanne Langer

>>4636573
That's right. Women are too smart 4 philosophy. With their higher intellect they go into science itself and leave philosophy to the manchildren.

>>4636791
Pascal
Rousseau
Leibniz
Wittgenstein
Plato

>>4636400

Scopenhauer
Camus
Kierkegaard
Can't
Wittgenstiein
Nietzsche

>>4637274
>while also caring about the aesthetic qualities of his work.

>>4638599
Holy fucking shit what an awful list.
>Adorno
>Lacan
>Foucault
>Deleuze
If anything these people are responsible for the worst trends in modern philosophy.

Kunt
Hume daddy
Lieb "the biz" Niz
Aristots
Bertrizzle Russizzle

>>4636400
*tips fedora*

>>4636400
The best philosopher of all time was Gottfried Leibniz

>>4637876
"I prefer the objective truth of science," he says, using the decomposing computer he purchased after his old computer finished decomposing, concluding its lifespan of three years.

Nietzsche was a man of true character. He showed one the way, and from there they could progress into the night. Unbeknownst they had just met a man who would characterize the earth in the 20th century by captivating out minds with true regret. In such a state of time, it becomes almost pretentious to let a true supporter of life and its intimacy slip passed us. That is why. For why does one even try, except to reason with thy own?

>>4639189

That rebuttal was almost as dumb as the post it rebuts. What the fuck does obsolescence of technology have to do with "objective truth"?

>>4639201
Oh, don't you know about the Theorem of Analogies?

It states: if an analogy can be drawn, the point attempted is true, regardless of how accurate the analogy is.

>>4639201
Our re-appropriation of matter is the best gauge to our understanding of matter. And our shit breaks faster under entropy than all this other shit so somthin is obviously up nig

>>4639189
you post on /lit/
fucking lol

My fav

Freud
Lacan
Foucault
Nietzche
Hegel

>>4639230

Oh and Schopenhauer

>>4639226
I most likely have a bigger penis than you too

>>4639239
Too bad you're never gonna make use of it.

>>4639239
that is actually doubtful
i can post a pic of my dick if you really require

and i talk to you on /mu/ all the time. well moreso back when /classical/ threads were fun but yeah

African Spir

>>4639189
more like lelbniz
>everything is one kind of thing, which is one thing; now bring me more biscuits

>>4639243
post dick

>>4639256
u dont want to see it

>>4639265
pls post dick

>>4639242
I made great use of it yesterday actually

>>4639243
how big's the d no homo

and that's cool, what notable conversations have we had, let's see if I can remember who you are

>>4639295
yo i dont remember im always drunk in classical threads
i remember one about a dandy website a while ago, idk

the d is nearly 8 inches no homo

>>4639254
Nice misreading mate

check theses 8 and 9 from monadology.

>8. Still monads must needs have some qualities; otherwise they would not even be existences. And if simple substances did not differ at all in their qualities, there would be no means of perceiving any change in things. Whatever is in a composite can come into it only through its simple elements and the monads if they were without qualities, since they do not differ at all in quantity, would be indistinguishable one from another. For instance, if we imagine a plenum or completely filled space, where each part receives only the equivalent of its own previous motion, one state of things would not be distinguishable from another.

>9. Each monad, indeed, must be different from every other. For there are never in nature two beings which are exactly alike, and in which it is not possible to find a difference either internal or based on an intrinsic property.

>>4639309
dandyism.net?
fun times, what did you score on the test

also my dick is just below 9 inches. Not even lying. I've literally made girls walk funny the next day because of this. It's kind of a curse, when you're on mountains this high up, looking down on all of the last men. Basic missionary position is hard to manage, I usually scrape the back which hurts them, most can't deepthroat. Sad state of affairs, but also awesome

>>4639324
>andyism.net?
yes that was hilarious

also jesus fuck m8 that is a big dick
good luck with that

well ill see you in some drunken classical thread to come gnht

>>4636791
Deleuze
Wittgenstein
Nietzsche
Schopenhauer
Marx

>>4639336
>muh pyrrho rehash
>muh medieval nominalism rehash

>>4639353
I try to drunk post /classical/ more than I sober post so most likely will intoxicatedly see you around 8 inch anon

>>4638030
Or maybe Machiavelli wrote it believing it actually worked in the turbulent times? But no, he was just being a smartass giddily dispensing bullshit instead of getting on the good side of Medici.

"Nietzsche thought so" doesn't make it true, this board has the most pathetic obsession with them.