/lit/ - Literature

>>6056885
i tried to do that after but i noticed that i was becoming increasingly depressed
then i gave up and turned to buddhism and since ive become happier by day

I think Nietzsche talks about you and it's not in the Übermensch passages. Your self loathing and sense of superiority are one and the same. Your ignoring of the down going concomitant to elevation shows a lack of love for yourself and others which is disturbing and unbalanced. Your view of the "intelligent" as opposed to the "normal" or "contented" life makes me wonder if you have read the boring advice Nietzsche gave for such a life in two different volumes.

Overall, I think you should read Nietzsche.

>>6056885
you flatter yourself too much

>>6056885
this is why people with social or mood problems should stay away from philosophy. it becomes the easy way out. instead of accepting the problem and working to overcome it, which is difficult, the problem becomes something else - ie the evil state of the world, the pleb culture of the masses etc - which requires little or no effort or change from the individual

in other words it's a great for rationalising your problems without ever fixing them

>>6056938

I know. I can't cover every minute detail in one post, or it'd turn into a blog entry. I know that I'm not an Übermensch. I'm probably one of the cynical people that he talks about in Beyond Good and Evil. However, I'm not convinced that the concept of the superman doesn't have assumptions built into it (by the philosopher who had such disdain for systems, assumptions,dogmas, prejudices, etc.)

>>6057081

Yeah, you have a point.

>>6056954

You should probably be specific.

Read Hegel and Kierkegaard then convert to Christianity and leave existentialism behind you like Amy smart person would

>>6057183
The courage of your convictions is not the courage to face an attack on them, anon. Less of the first, more of the latter.

>>6057198
Kierkegaard is as good as Nietzsche as being a frontrunner for existentialism.

Read more.

>>6057226
Step 1 was reading the best existentialists, step 2 was religion, step 3 was forgetting existentialism. Check your reading comprehension.

>>6057233
If you have read Kierkegaard you would know that his faith and existentialism are mutually inextricable.

>>6057198
>le retard faec

OP, if your spirit demands you not be a douche, then don't be a douche. Don't over complicate it

>>6057238
Again, you idiot, I was including him ong the set of the best existentialists.
Check your reading comprehension.

>>6057246
Yes, but to read Kierkegaard is to acknowledge you cannot progress from reading the 'best existentialist' to religion, to "forgetting existentialism'.

nietzsche was basically a manic woman with high verbal iq
just my opinion

When I first read The Gay Science, I found myself developing an unexplainable gay crush on Nietzsche. It's odd. I was always horrified by the mere SUMMARY of his ideas before. But when I read his beautiful poetry, I wanted to bear-hug that walrus of a man. He completely understood me. Nietzsche is my soul-mate. I am the reincarnation of Friedrich Nietzsche, and Friedrich Nietzsche is the reincarnation of me. Nietzsche was a Jungian INFP personality-type, and anyone who can't understand this misinterprets his character. Nietzsche was the most benevolent man who ever lived, even more so than the Buddha or Jesus. Some faggot's gonna come in and tell me Nietzsche wouldn't want me to worship him. Fuck you. I know exactly what I'm doing. I AM Friedrich Nietzsche.

>>6057297
I'm pretty sure he was a INTJ

>>6057280
>>6057297
Samefaggotress

>>6057302
NO, NO, NO, NO! Entirely wrong. What INTJ has that good an insight into the hearts and minds of people? TJ: thinking judging. FP: feeling perceiving. (I'm assuming the IN part is already accepted). Nietzsche realized entirely the shortcomings of his own personality and tried to balance them out with an extreme focus on thinking and judging, but at heart his works are full of feeling and perception. They are the base, the basis of his works, the springboard. Nietzsche was like a more dedicated, more humorous Dostoevsky, a Dostoevsky who didn't jump to God … well, at least not openly. I suspect Nietzsche was a theist. Wait...

>>6057311
wat

>>6057311
Yes, you FOUND ME OUT. Thank you. I am overjoyced. Everyone is in fact the same person. I was thinking just what that guy was thinking.

>>6057331
Sorry, I thought the manic lady might have had a moment of self awareness before her self aggrandising
>>6057334
At least you have given up on grammar but you might need more work on the rest of the subject/predicate problem

>>6057354
What???

>>6057395
Yes.

>>6057316
Get rekt

>>6057414
this is pop psychology pseudoscience at best

>>6057414
Although I agree with >>6057452, those two summaries of Nietzsche and Socrates are pretty solidly written.

Zarathustra goes under and looks for people to be among. Nietzsche doesn't want us to be stuck in the foothills of the mountain as the old saint is.

>>6056885
Just realize that you don't understand him in the slightest and you'll be over that pretty quickly.

I mean, he was a PROFESSOR of philology at age 24, he released his first philosophical text at age 25, he was in the personal company of Richard Wagner himself along with countless others who were well known at the time, he lived his whole life in intense pain alongside all of that and the rest of his accomplishments... it doesn't matter how "misunderstood" you think you are, or how much of his philosophy you may actually understand, there is a 100% chance you do not share even a tenth of his integrity, assurance, and intelligence.

>>6057414
>Neither man's political thinking can be made to fit any box.

thermonuclear kek

>>6056885
What all did you read by him?

>>6057081
What if I'm able to recognize both the "problems" with the world and my own terribleness?

>>6057933

this

The fact that children self-insert themselves into what Nietzsche says or in the character of Zarathustra bewilders me to no end.

>>6056885
everyone is misunderstood, buddy. It happens. You just happen to have a philosophy and you are vocal about it.
Also, you have the capacity to look at yourself and see your flaws...you're not in a too bad state then.
But there is a certain an amount of compromise that any of intelligent people need to have, to be able to have a social life. Are you a teacher? Do you want to teach other people how to think?
If not, then you need to let the others in, and be curious about them. You don't have to agree with them, and it could even add some interesting perspectives.
If you feel that you circle around the same jerks all the time, then maybe you need to find some other circle also.

>>6056885
nietzsches übermensch ist not a socially isolated figure. quite contrariliy he gets admired and is the first among men.

i also think you shouldnt chicken out. you need to get meddled in and invested if you really want to have something to tell or be. everything would be defieying your will to power which would be the ultimate nietzschean sin.
so there really isnt a choice.
you present nietsche here as if he would motivate you to live a reclusive life, which is absolutely not the case.

>>6059219
first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye
- mufasa

>>6056885
>detached superiority

I don't think Nietzsche advocates that at all.

I think Nietzsche wanted people to understand that pain and superiority are two sides of the same coin, the people who can turn a painful situation into something valuable are the true masters of the Earth(i.e Ubermenschen).

For something more practical, start parachuting. It's a nice analogy to life in general, and it will give you affirmation, at least it did for me.

>>6059363
>first cast out the beam out of thine own eye
I'm too weak, that's what makes me so terrible

For you OP. Apologies for the bad presentation.

The eagerness and subtlety, I should even say
craftiness, with which the problem of ‘the real and the
apparent world’ is dealt with at present throughout
Europe, furnishes food for thought and attention; and he
who hears only a ‘Will to Truth’ in the background, and
nothing else, cannot certainly boast of the sharpest ears. In
rare and isolated cases, it may really have happened that
such a Will to Truth—a certain extravagant and
adventurous pluck, a metaphysician’s ambition of the forlorn hope—has participated therein: that which in the
end always prefers a handful of ‘certainty’ to a whole
cartload of beautiful possibilities; there may even be
puritanical fanatics of conscience, who prefer to put their
last trust in a sure nothing, rather than in an uncertain
something. But that is Nihilism, and the sign of a
despairing, mortally wearied soul, notwithstanding the
courageous bearing such a virtue may display. It seems,
however, to be otherwise with stronger and livelier
thinkers who are still eager for life. In that they side
AGAINST appearance, and speak superciliously of
‘perspective,’ in that they rank the credibility of their own
bodies about as low as the credibility of the ocular
evidence that ‘the earth stands still,’ and thus, apparently,
allowing with complacency their securest possession to
escape (for what does one at present believe in more
firmly than in one’s body?),—who knows if they are not
really trying to win back something which was formerly
an even securer possession, something of the old domain
of the faith of former times, perhaps the ‘immortal soul,’
perhaps ‘the old God,’ in short, ideas by which they could
live better, that is to say, more vigorously and more
joyously, than by ‘modern ideas’? There is DISTRUST of
these modern ideas in this mode of looking at things, a disbelief in all that has been constructed yesterday and
today; there is perhaps some slight admixture of satiety and
scorn, which can no longer endure the BRIC-A-BRAC
of ideas of the most varied origin, such as so-called
Positivism at present throws on the market; a disgust of
the more refined taste at the village-fair motleyness and
patchiness of all these reality-philosophasters, in whom
there is nothing either new or true, except this
motleyness. Therein it seems to me that we should agree
with those skeptical anti-realists and knowledgemicroscopists
of the present day; their instinct, which
repels them from MODERN reality, is unrefuted … what
do their retrograde by-paths concern us! The main thing
about them is NOT that they wish to go ‘back,’ but that
they wish to get AWAY therefrom. A little MORE
strength, swing, courage, and artistic power, and they
would be OFF—and not back!

>>6059390
are you the spaniard thats studying art and always posting pictures of traps here?

in any case, dont talk yourself down. ask for help if you need it. there's literally nothing that the right person cant help you with

>>6056885
I don't think N was suggesting a detached superiority. There's a lot which can inspire you in Zarathustra, but overall I think it should inspire you to act toward a goal or several goals and not automatically develop some false attitude of a cultured patrician. The hardest work in reading Nietzsche comes after you read him.

>>6059711
>are you the spaniard thats studying art and always posting pictures of traps here?
No, but that's funny.

>>6057198
>Amy smart person

Is that a character for a series of children's books ?
>Amy smart person goes to the beach
>Amy smart person discovers skiing
>Amy smart person reads Kierkegaard
>Amy smart person hurt her ego

>>6059722
it's kierkegaards famous maxim: if you seek amy

>>6059725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aEnnH6t8Ts

>>6059722
>>6059725
>>6059726
lmao

>>6057933
>assurance

I agree with everything else you said, but to me the way Nietzsche writes screams overcompensation. He might have been self-confident in the earlier part of his life, but once he cut ties with Wagner and started living in isolation, it seems he was writing like a guy who fears he might die unheard.

That might just be my own misunderstanding though.

>>6057081
so would it be fair to suppose that you mean it is either the man, not the system, that is ultimately to blame?

if the man does not fit into the system then it is the man's fault but from the POV of the man at fault, it is the system that is to blame.

are there any middle ground or other paths? say the man does not fit with the system but simply turns away from it rather than criticizing it or himself. "the system does not work for me so i just up and left."

>>6057933

"there is a 100% chance you do not share even a tenth of his integrity, assurance, and intelligence."

Condescend all you want, buddy, but you just described basically anyone who reads him (including yourself). He was arguably a genius, so naturally most of his readers aren't going to be on par with his intelligence. character, and wit. That doesn't mean that someone shouldn't read him and try to get something out of his work or ideas.

But I never claimed to fully understand him, or to understand him in the slightest. I do, however, understand the bulk of his ideas with some complexity and nuance.

And I know that the superman isn't supposed to be isolated or reclusive. I was simply discussing the effect that reading him has on me, even if it isn't the effect that it's "supposed" to have.

At the same time, though, Nietzsche does talk at length about the loneliness of great spirits, the fact that they're misunderstood, have to wear masks, etc. So I'm not entirely off base in that respect, although I know that I'm probably not a truly "great spirit." I alternate between elitism and self-loathing basically. Reading Nietzsche reinforces that tendency for me, as well as the habit to remain at a distance from the "plebeian masses" who don't understand me.

I mean, I don't get why you guys are so eager to say "Oh, you don't understand anything!" He's pretty accessible for anyone who's slightly above average intelligence, even with no prior knowledge of philosophy. It's just that it's gonna take some effort. I'm not saying, "My subjective application of these ideas is correct." On the contrary, I know that it's probably not, but that's what it does for me. So. . .

>>6057933
>he was a PROFESSOR of philology at age 24
This isn't saying much considering how philosophy prior to Russell, Frege, W and co was even more bullshit than it is today.

>>6059837
a: you're a retard
b: he said philology

>>6059837
>>6059842
Sorry, misread that, philology's bullshit as well.

>>6059846
Lol

>>6059741
I think another path is to stop blaming and accept it and affirm it

>>6059860
I think OP is misinterpreting when he blames the masses for being misunderstood, Nietzsche never blames anything he just 'looks away' because that is not his taste.

I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

>>6059741
what im talking about is less philosophical and more particular to the types of people that post here
the people that read philosophy as consolation for their pain or isolation
they generally have socially anxiety or depression and they read nietzsche or stirner or the cynics and suddenly feel better about their spot in society because their problem is really that they're 'enlightened' and everyone else isnt
(to be fair though some people here experience genuine reflection and change, but the majority, imo, are lying to themselves)
they would, if given the choice, drop their philosophical pretensions at the drop of a hat for the opportunity to engage in normie society without whatever hangup they've got
that doesnt happen and so philosophy becomes the lonely pseudo-intellectual's sex-doll

tl;dr dont confuse social problems with philosophical problems

>>6059889
I'm not sure I'm the right person to respond to this, as I am maybe this person you are envisioning.

>>6059786
>I mean, I don't get why you guys are so eager to say "Oh, you don't understand anything!"

Because Nietzsche is notoriously tricky and unstraigtforward, and his style being superficially accessible compared to most famous philosophers make him prone to being oversimplified by idiots all-too-eager to use him as a rationalization for their own shortcomings.

Nietzsche is supposed to be dynamite (that's how he described himself anyway). Being challenged, questioned, puzzled and wanting to investigate or reacting postively (and by this I mean in a proactive way) would be the expected result of reading Nietzsche.


>>6059837
>le young Wittgenstein analytic meme

What's the point of a shitpost that's neither funny nor original ?

>>6059741
what im talking about is less philosophical and more particular to the types of people that post here
the people that read philosophy as consolation for their pain or isolation
they generally have all the symptoms of social anxiety or depression and they read nietzsche or stirner or the cynics and suddenly feel better about their spot in society because their problem is really that they're 'enlightened' and everyone else isnt
(to be fair though some experience genuine reflection and change, but the majority, imo, are lying to themselves)
they would, if given the choice, drop their philosophical pretensions at the drop of a hat for the opportunity to engage in 'normie' society without whatever hangup they've got because ultimately, their philsophy's just an elaborate defense mechanism

tl;dr dont treat social problems with nietzsche

>>6059956
It's only a shitpost if you're a pantsu on head retarded continental.

>>6059967
ok that's cool and all but isnt the perspective you are taken: face your 'problems' instead of making excuses. Just a perspective as well?
Why are you right and they aren't?

>>6060001
where is the destinction between saying someone is rationalizing his problems and someone who has taken a different perspective

>>6060001
im not telling anyone what to do, im pointing out that humans have a tendency of taking the path of least resistance and then rationalizing why every other way is wrong, which often has negative consequences. if you can be completely honest with yourself then you stand a chance

>>6057297
INFP, can confirm

Welcome back Fred. Sorry the world is so fucked. Not enough people have read your shit. btw, your room is exactly the way you left it.

I didn't read a lot of Nietzche, yet I really like his Genealogy of Morality. When I tried to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra it felt like I'm listening to a whining, unsatisfied man. Knowing something about his biography and especially the fact that he didn't have quite good relationships with women might explain his misogynistic and depressed sentiments.
Usually when discussing the work of someone, people tend to not look at his biography yet I think that's one of the most important factors.

>>6057452
It is pseudoscience. You are correct. There are too many varied permutations of personality to easily encapsulate with any categorization method. That being said, I want to know if you're aware of any more insightful, revelatory, complex means available to categorize aspects of personality. I took a few tests and across the board, I registered as an INFP. The summaries were so incisive I can't imagine a more honest assessment of my strengths/weaknesses. I had friends and family take the test and they all reacted similarly. If there is something better out there, I would love to know-- not trolling, genuinely give a fuck.

>>6056885
>Anyway, I don't think the correct response to the mediocrity of industrial civilization is to approach it with detached superiority, as Nietzsche advocates studying the average man from a certain distance or height. I think one has to perhaps get in the mire. . . I don't know. I think it's possible, maybe, to live "normally" or "contentedly" while being intelligent and critically-minded.

There's nothing wrong with analyzing people in a cold and detatched way in an academic context. But we are adapted to be social creatures, so in a non-academic context you need to satisfy the social side of your brain, because it's not equipped to be an analytical machine 100% of the time.

It's like riding a road bike. You can take it off-road and discover some cool stuff, but if you stay off-road 100% of the time you're going to be uncomfortable. Obviously we can't become a different species anytime soon, so we are stuck with the road bike, but we use it as best as we can.

>>6060084
>and especially the fact that he didn't have quite good relationships with women
But I thought he had great relationships with his entire family which was solely made up of women

>>6060084
>Usually when discussing the work of someone, people tend to not look at his biography yet I think that's one of the most important factors.
I think it depends what you're discussing. If it's about the truth of his claims, then as long as his reasoning is sound, his biography isn't important. If you're discussing why he reached his conclusions, then his biography is important.

>>6060084
Bitches couldn't resist nietzsche

>>6060084
>Usually when discussing the work of someone, people tend to not look at his biography yet I think that's one of the most important factors.

People look at biography literally all of the time. It is frustrating how much people focus on biography, and especially because one of the reasons people do it is that it's easy. It involves no thinking or comprehension of the ideas, just regurgitation of accounts which allege this and that about a person who is no longer living, complete with little jokes and disses by the lecturer because he doesn't know how else to connect with his students.

>>6057484
Yeah but in part 4 he realizes he was wrong and that he shouldve gathered the higher men instead of the rabble

>>6056885
If Nietzsche makes you feel down or depressed in any way you are retarded

>>6060264
for an opiate addict he sure has a cokefiend mentality

I remember reading a passage in one of Nietzsche's books where he starts ranting about tourists and how he watches them from a distance from behind some trees as they struggle to walk up the hills where he was living as a hermit pretty much. The image of him laughing to himself and going back to his little hotel to write that down makes me smile but also feel bad.

>>6060526
The sad part is that nobody actually cares how you feel about your own half-remembering of a passage in a book.

>>6060532
I care and I enjoyed his anecdote, faggot.

>>6060517
chloral hydrate isnt an opiate

>>6060532
Wow alpha male detected

>>6060537
this is very funny

>>6060541
opium and morphine are, which he also used.

>>6060537
You don't know what "care" is, you pitying faggot.

>>6060517
>>6060526
Youre just mad cuz nobody give you their best grapes

>>6060548
like seth rogen movies lmao right?

Did Nietzsche get to try any patrician east asian teas or did germany mostly have indian teas at that time?

What's controversial or unreasonable about this quote? When I read it out in class everyone was angry. Even the professor moved on without a response..
>Sometimes it is harder to accede to a thing than it is to see its truth; and that is how most people may feel when they reflect on the proposition: 'Mankind must work continually at the production of individual great men - that and nothing else is its task.' How much one would like to apply to society and its goals something that can be learned from observation of any species of the animal or plant world: that its only concern is the individual higher exemplar, the
more uncommon, more powerful, more complex, more fruitful - how much one would like to do this if inculcated fancies as to the
goal of society did not offer such tough resistance! We ought really to have no difficulty in seeing that, when a species has arrived at its
limits and is about to go over into a higher species, the goal of its evolution lies, not in the mass of its exemplars and their wellbeing,
let alone in those exemplars who happen to come last in point of time, but rather in those apparently scattered and chance existences
which favourable conditions have here and there produced; and it ought to be just as easy to understand the demand that, because it
can arrive at a conscious awareness of its goal, mankind ought to seek out and create the favourable conditions under which those
great redemptive men can come into existence.

What's controversial or unreasonable about this quote? When I read it out in class everyone was angry. Even the professor moved on without a response..
>Sometimes it is harder to accede to a thing than it is to see its truth; and that is how most people may feel when they reflect on the proposition: 'Mankind must work continually at the production of individual great men - that and nothing else is its task.' How much one would like to apply to society and its goals something that can be learned from observation of any species of the animal or plant world: that its only concern is the individual higher exemplar, the more uncommon, more powerful, more complex, more fruitful - how much one would like to do this if inculcated fancies as to the goal of society did not offer such tough resistance! We ought really to have no difficulty in seeing that, when a species has arrived at its limits and is about to go over into a higher species, the goal of its evolution lies, not in the mass of its exemplars and their wellbeing, let alone in those exemplars who happen to come last in point of time, but rather in those apparently scattered and chance existences which favourable conditions have here and there produced; and it ought to be just as easy to understand the demand that, because it can arrive at a conscious awareness of its goal, mankind ought to seek out and create the favourable conditions under which those great redemptive men can come into existence.
*reposted with better formatting

>>6060612
that student's name...?
...albert einstein.

>>6060576
Probably pleb black tea, but he was careful about how and when:

>Nothing should be eaten between meals, coffee should be given up—coffee makes one gloomy. Tea is beneficial only in the morning. It should be taken in small quantities but very strong. It may be very harmful and indispose you for the whole day if it be taken the least bit too weak. Everybody has his own standard in this matter often between the narrowest and most delicate limits. In an enervating climate tea is not a good beverage with which to start the day: an hour before taking it, it is advisable to drink a cup of thick oil free cocoa. Remain seated as little as possible, put no trust in any thought that is not born in the open whilst moving freely about— nor when the muscles are not in festive mood. All prejudices originate in the intestines. A sedentary life as I have already said elsewhere— is the real sin against the holy spirit.
http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/ECCE_HOMO_.aspx?S=3

First paragraph of this chapter is about food and diet and such. Freddy had some strange habits.

>>6060576
India is in Asia.

>>6060556
This is what happens when you read too much Nietzsche, kids

>>6060639
At least he liked his veggies and disdained alcohol.

>>6060648
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:East_Asian_countries

>>6060612
Because it is elitist. The labour of the many in favour of their few rare betters.

Elitism isn't fashionable, at least not in the lip service department, not even among elites.

>>6060636
go back to reddit please

>>6060651
He probably fucked up his stomach more than necessary by eating shitloads of fruit though.

Also, disliking alcohol is not a good sign.

>>6060658
So it's unreasonable because it is not fashionable? You don't seem to have answered my question..

>>6060662
The west is trying really hard to breed the biggest amount of autistic retards who are allergic to everything and too fat to move.

Try again in 100 years

>>6060662
It's controversial because it is not fashionable. That's pretty much the answer to your question.

Controversy in itself is merely something that is decidedly unfashionable to the point of making people upset.

>>6060676
>Controversy in itself is merely something that is decidedly unfashionable to the point of making people upset.
And my question is why it goes to the point of upsetting people. Drinking and drowning.

>>6059726
Those tits look nice.

>>6060685
>And my question is why it goes to the point of upsetting people.
Because they dislike the notion put forth. Just like when you say "I like fucking little boys".

What's so hard to grasp about this? People get mad when they don't like thing.

>>6060704
Your analogy is bad because the common complaint against that is that sex should be consensual and the example isn't. There's no similar explanation being given here.

>>6060650
you btfo virgin anons? cool sign me up

>>6060612
>What's controversial or unreasonable about this quote?
I think other anons have tackled the controversial side, I'll have a stab at the unreasonable.

>How much one would like to apply to society and its goals something that can be learned from observation of any species of the animal or plant world: that its only concern is the individual higher exemplar, the more uncommon, more powerful, more complex, more fruitful
Here is a notion of "more complex, more fruitful" organisms being the "only concern" of a species. Firstly, this quote doesn't define what Nietzche means by these vague terms, what exactly is more "more powerful"?. Taken at face value, he seems to think species exist to produce special individuals. What actually happens is that some individuals happen to survive due to circumstance. If I take "more powerful" etc. as a proxy for better fitness, then fitness depends on the environment an organism lives in. It's not some objective goal all life strives towards.

Secondly, there's an is-ought problem. He says that this is what species do when it "has arrived at its limits and is about to go over into a higher species". Then immediately says "It ought to be just as easy to understand the demand that... mankind ought to seek out and create the favourable conditions under which those great redemptive men can come into existence." Even if we accept he's right about what species do, why does that make it obvious that we SHOULD encourage these special individuals to appear? Just because it supposedly appears in nature doesn't automatically make it better for society. He just says "it ought to be... easy to understand", as if it requires no justification why society needs to create these special individuals.

>>6060776
>this quote doesn't define what Nietzche means by these vague terms
If I remember Schopenhauer as Educator correctly then yes, he means the special individuals represented within the types artist, saint, philosopher.
>What actually happens is that some individuals happen to survive due to circumstance. If I take "more powerful" etc. as a proxy for better fitness, then fitness depends on the environment an organism lives in. It's not some objective goal all life strives towards.
Nietzsche's concept of power is defined in reaction to Darwinism. He thought there was more and greater things to the will to power than merely will to survival/evolution.

>Secondly, there's an is-ought problem
Doesn't seem relevant to me since the alternative his contemporaries follow also doesn't resolve the problem.

>>6057933
>was
>intelligence

> top kek

So what you're saying is we should all get herpes and fuck whores and then die from some std while being insane. Oh yeah that sounds real intelligent.

>integriy
Nietszche has no central thesis for his works, they are all scattered about in contrast socrates at least admits he knows nothing or he's honest unlike nietszche.

assurance>
rest assured that nietszche was the most uncertain fucker out there. He got kicked out his university for doing retarded things, god may be dead to nietszche but he certainly couldnt write it in a manner that was appropriate.

>>6060858
wow you sure convinced me with those hot opinions of yours

>>6060858
lol dis thread smh

nietszche was only good for one thing and one thing only. his interpretations of past works. He didnt really invent anything new and to be quite honest with you most of his beliefs were shit posting at its finest.

You anons fit in quite well with the nietszche crowd, just say whatever the fuck you feel like and then say well there is no objective truth cuz everything is fucking random." And if you disagree then you <3 ayn rands butthole huehuehue"-You.

>>6060887
lol if you actually read his works you would notice that he has a lot of self loathing and if you actually studied a bit about his life then you would know that he was the exact opposite of the ideal man of virtue and integrity and blablabla.

NIKEY IS AMAZON!

dat is why we love nikey, he was a flawed mother fucker who did crazy shit that none of us would ever do. Kind of like jack lalane only more silly.

>>6060902
lol good sir our circle jerking did us good. Sometimes sock puppeting is quite hilarious too because we can write what 20 people cant figure out and then they say aha and move on with their lives. Good work mr peanutbutter

>>6060830
>If I remember Schopenhauer as Educator correctly then yes, he means the special individuals represented within the types artist, saint, philosopher.
Artists, saints and philosophers don't exist in other species, he is talking about the "animal or plant world" so either you are wrong about what Nietzsche meant or he himself is wrong. Another thing: you say that artists, saints and philosophers are examples of special individuals, but that doesn't answer anything as there's no definition of a "special individual" provided.

>He thought there was more and greater things to the will to power than merely will to survival/evolution.
Firstly, what is "the will to power?". What he means by "power" still hasn't been explained. As for "survival/evolution", survival and evolution are not synonymous, they shouldn't be grouped together like that. You also need to define what "will to survive" means in this context, otherwise you can't make a judgement about whether any organism even has a "will to survive". Additionally there is no such thing as a "will to evolution", it happens by itself.

We're also making a huge leap to accept that he's right about "greater things to the will to power than merely will to survival/evolution." (if such things even exist). You can't just claim he says there are "greater things" to them without providing the reasoning or evidence for his conclusion.

>Doesn't seem relevant to me since the alternative his contemporaries follow also doesn't resolve the problem.
I was pointing out an error in his reasoning. The error is still there no matter what his contemporaries did.

Average persons reading reading Nietzsche encounter usually encounter two things:

(1) I understand what he says.
You don't. Nietzsche may be very confusing considering most of his arguments are like a spider web, but he has a very interesting way of saying things which makes you thing you actually understood them.
Without reading Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer in depth before Nietzsche, what you can understand from him is probably wrong.

(2) "He's talking to me" syndrome.
His writings have an almost secretive nature, making the reader feel he is in confidence. Nietzsche constantly talk about "us", and that makes the reader feel special even if he is nothing like the people Nietzsche describes.
Funnily enough, DFW said something right: "Everyone thinks they are somehow different from the rest".

>>6060712
The explanation is just an a posteriori sophism to justify people's feels. People find paedophilia intuitively disgusting. The consent thing is merely a formalisation of this disgust.

You're asking for reason where there isn't any. People are upset by your quote because it is so opposed to their preferences, that is all.

>>6059786
>I mean, I don't get why you guys are so eager to say "Oh, you don't understand anything!"
Because 4chan is notorious for housing losers that really haven't done anything in their lives. If you're someone like that, your understanding of him is purely logical, and not spiritual—really a misunderstanding at the end of the day.

Instead of just feeling superior for reading him you should be actually living your life based on what he says. You wouldn't have the time to meditate on your supposed superiority then, until you were much older and already lived a full life. So consider the condescending attitude also a motivational nudge.

>>6059786
>He's pretty accessible for anyone who's slightly above average intelligence, even with no prior knowledge of philosophy.
He's not. He's accessible for anyone who's slightly above average intelligence, even with no prior knowledge of philosophy, in misread version. All you're gonna produce is misreadings and/or projecting your own opinions in his works and cherry-picking quotes out of context to fit your understanding.