/lit/ - Literature

>>6104997

>implying Hegel didn't BTFO Nietzche

>there are people who read philosophy

>>6104997
>there are people on /lit/ who actually compare philosophers and rank them according to some arbitrary characteristics

Nietzsche is hard to evaluate because he was both extremely insightful, and morally repugnant. There are essays by Nietzsche that are worth more than most other philosophers' entire output, but at the same time, Nietzsche's broader project was such a pile of shit.

>>6104997
Plato is far superior to Nietzsche.

>i read books
>i dont just scroll tru wikipedia articles so i get the basic notion of the philosohper so i can shitpost memes on /lit/

>>6104999

>>6106192
If Plato is so great then why isn't it a planet?

>>6104999
spooks

>>6106169
>morally repugnant.
sup slave
how's hating this world for other worlds goin?

>>6106192
>Plato is far superior to Nietzsche.
Neatcha can't into forms

>>6104997
>greatest philosopher
>not hegel

>>6106260
Still making up excuses? You win the power of limitless smugness, that's it

>reading NEETzsche

Nietzsche looks like paul laidlaw off bargain hunt

>>6106192
Plato is everything wrong with western philosophy. Placing rhetoric over observation, positing metaphysical beliefs, willing Truth over life, denying this world for a more "perfect" world... all of these things were the seeds to the crisis of late civilization: the problem of abject nihilism.

>>6106330
It's a good thing too, since Forms don't exist, but are merely mankind's reason abstracted and made "real".

>>6106351
ur mom looks like paul laidlaw

>>6106369
ur mum sucked off barry chuckle m8

>>6106373
KOASOJHIOFASHJ

>>6106375
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REbD1PEtrV0
just imagine this accompanying your mum choking on barry's shrivelled chode

>>6106381

>There are people who love and want more war, death, and destruction because some dead German dude said it was great

>implying Machiavelli isn't the superior edgelord

At least Machiavelli's philosophy is practical.

>>6106355
>Plato is everything wrong with western philosophy. Placing rhetoric over observation, positing metaphysical beliefs, willing Truth over life, denying this world for a more "perfect" world... all of these things were the seeds to the crisis of late civilization: the problem of abject nihilism.
That's cute, now post your own opinions instead of regurgitating Nietzsche's.

>>6106355
Plato deplored rhetoric, he used observation to illustrate his Dialectical method of reasoning. Truth should be placed above our own lives because Truth is immortal and this life a flitting shade.

>>6106399
What?

People don't need Nietzsche to want war, death and destruction. People have always loved war and destruction. Do you look at these ISIS dudes and seriously think that they are unwillingly executing some sombre duty? Fuck no, they love it, and you can see it quite clearly if you watch videos.

Why does our language glorify "gangstas" and "bad-asses"?

Why are everyone's favorite fictional characters always intense, fucked up Villains like Sephiroth?

Why do countries always make up excuses for war even though conflicts could be worked out through cooperation?

Why? Because people love the shit. This Christian attitude that war is bad is really a minority position, despite the fact that most people pay lip service to it because of Christian-influenced morals. Only a handful of people really dislike war on a deep level. It's probably the most popular pastime in human history. You don't need Nietzsche to think that way.

>>6106425
If in 2015 you think Plato's metaphysics was not a thoroughly religious thought system having no link with reality and doing nothing but provide a means for theologians to justify Christianity in a philosophical way in able to trick both the people and the cultured elites, you are literally and congenitally retarded.

>>6106446
>This Christian attitude that war is bad
whence cometh such an idea

>>6106449
>Plato
>Christian

I thought /lit/ was supposed to be one of the smart boards.

>>6106446
I would disagree that people are motivated to wage war because they love war. I think that most of the world's leaders wage war because they love MONEY. ISIS are a case where, you are right, they are a conglomerate of sadistic psychopaths.

But I do believe that THEY are the minority!

>>6106459
>reading comprehension
>no knowledge of neo-platonic theology whatsoever
>memes as answer


Aaaand, back to reddit with you.

>>6106463
>Tripfag telling someone else to go back to reddit.

>>6106425
Why is it bad to be a proponent of another's thoughts?

>>6106399
>there are young Western men afraid to defend themselves against enemies because a bunch of skinny guys scattered around the ancient earth told them to be

>>6106433
Plato is rhetoric disguised as anti-rhetoric. At least the sophists knew discourse was meaningless; with Plato, his rhetoric is truth, because he had the rights to reason itself... there is no observation in Plato - that took Aristotle - and there is no Truth to be in the shade of.

>>6106460
Most people are leaders, then?

>>6106355
You know you really don't have any grounds to say the Forms don't exist, since Plato clearly states that they can only be perceived by the mind and they're invisible to the senses. They're about as provable or disprovable as God.

>>6106504
Most people are led

>>6106536
Then don't try to pass it as philosophy.

>>6106547
They're not a bad answer to the Problem of Universals. Makes more sense than Kant's assertion that it's all in our heads, which isn't borne out by observation.

>>6106355

Hahaha, it's cute that you didn't notice how Nietzsche thinks he's doing the same thing as Plato.

Read more closely.

>>6106536
Wow, you're really philosophically inept. Read David Hume and.. Well, just think some more you retard

Just because a philosopher says something is something, doesn't mean it's true. Plato's forms may just be incoherent, and no amount of pedanticizing will fix it

>>6106330
Forms are one of the most primitive appeals to objective structure lamo

>>6106550
There is no such thing as a """""Problem of Universals""""" — and answering to a non-existent "problem" by inventing parallel worlds is a lack of probity.

The bees share a DNA, not a magical form in a magical perfect static realm.

>>6106550
The problem of universals is only a problem to those who want to perscribe teleology onto properties. There are universals, because men see universals. The desire to go further and claim "properties" are real and physicals are fake is nothing more than a disease

>>6106563
expand or be ignored fag

>>6106433
>Plato deplored rhetoric

Plato loved rhetoric; he despised Gorgias who revealed who Plato really was

Daily reminder that after Plato's death, no secret works or philosophical bibles were found; instead, on his bed was a play by Aristophanes that mocked philosophers

#shotsfired

>>6106580
What about the properties of entities that don't have DNA?

>>6106598
Name some

>>6106580
To even make the statement-bees share DNA-is to state a universal with no true relation to reality

>>6106606
No it's not, stop believing in words more than the things they signify

>>6106598
They behave according to law of physics.

>>6106615
>No it's not, stop believing in words more than the things they signify

You're literally retarded.

>>6106632
[citation needed]

hey! this is just like /b/!

>there are people who think their opinion is superior to mine

>>6106619
Law of physics are universals. Every single thing that respects and fits the laws conditions behave in that way the law says so.

It is this kind of stuff that made Plato come with up of forms. When he saw the unity in the characterists and behavior of the many.

To negate universals is to negate the intelligibility of the world, because you're negating the existence of any kind of paradigm.

Even for Heraclitus that believed that everything changes, there is a paradigm: "that there is such a place where you can see that everything changes".

>>6106651
>there are people

>>6106643
>tfw the people who make info-graphs about annoying people are probably more annoying as people themselves.

strong ironing

>>6106638
Words can never properly signify the relations of things. When you say "bees share the same DNA", you're talking about abstract bees and abstract DNA. In order for an abstract bee to have any basis in reality, there must be absolutely no ambiguity in how we delineate what is and what is not extensionally a bee.

The most prescient example would be to ask, what if a bee colony mutated and developed new genetic material? Because their DNA is different, are they no longer bees, despite looking, intracting and interacting the same?

>>6106664
Physical laws are not universal, because they fail to describe all phenomena. Universals are only universal in language

Just a gay version of Stirner. Stirner said in 1 book what Nietzche could only hope to in 10 books.

>>6106703
stirner is seriously not that interesting or profound

hello nietzsche scholars

what did nietzsche think of the old testament

>>6106729
he liked the god of the old testament and hated the god of the new testament

>>6106713

To a pleb maybe. Stirner anticipated that we are each subgradiations of God, which is the physical Universe, and therefore are all Gods. He also predicted Boltzmann brains. Stirner was a very intelligent man who reached our Universe's version of CHIM. You're just too disorientated by spooks to allow yourself to see it.

Nietzche on the hand was just the Negroid version of Stirner.

>>6106729
>In the Jewish ‘Old Testament,’ the book of divine justice, there are human beings, things, and speeches in so grand a style that Greek and Indian literature have nothing to compare with it. With terror and reverence one stands before these tremendous remnants of what man once was…whoever is himself merely a meager, tame domestic animal and knows only the needs of domestic animals…has not cause for amazement or sorrow among these ruins—the taste for the Old Testament is a touchstone for ‘great’ and ‘small’

>>6106746
>chim

fuck off /v/

>>6106746
Stirner has one book where he says "fuck hegel." In what way is that better than genealogies, aesthetics, life affirmation, poetry, though-out critique?

>>6106756

Say what you want, but its a fact you're too blinded to see. Stirner was actually a Boltzmann brain that became self-aware and his massive forehead symbolozis this. Stirner "spooks" are actually his dreams. The "winged insect" that killed him was actually an angel come to free him of this mortal realm.

stirnerposters are the same tier as wittgensteinposters

they come into a thread, unwanted, shit up the thread with their retarded, unwanted platitudes, and continue to have unwanted debates with other people

>>6106751
>>6106737
thanks for the enlightenment

question 2 to nietzsche scholars

what did nietzsche think of eastern religions like hinduism, buddhism, taoism, etc

Nietzsche is good, but isn't the best. Think about it.

>>6106815
I know he says Buddhism is 100 times better than Christianity and that it is beyond good and evil. But to him it's still nihilistic thus it isn't fundamentally different from all other life-denying religions (see: The AntiChrist). Don't know about the other two.

>>6106840
whoowhwohwowhooAOAOAHOA SO PROFOUDN!!!!!

>>6106840
nietzsche good but not best (jw best)

>>6106853

Buddhism isn't better than Christianity, its just 19th century misunderstanding. Buddhism has a hell and heaven, just like Christianity, its only the Western misunderstanding of it that caused them to think it was an eternal wheel.

>>6106891
I don't know much about buddism but apparently the West misinterprets buddhism to be nihilistic and it misinterprets it to n>>6106880
ot be nihilistic so I'd like it if someone could just tell me what Buddhism says.

>>6106696
What? The set of all physical laws applies to all phenomena.

>>6106934
>What? The set of all physical laws applies to all phenomena.

LOL

LOL

LOL

No, they don't. They apply to the phenomenon they apply to, which is of course tautological. No, we do not have a complete physical understanding of the world. Sorry.

>>6106943
Not yet.
Are you claiming there exists phenomena which are unable to be described by physical theory?

>>6106955

how could you possibly say otherwise?
where does the sensation of phenomenal experience reside, physically?

>implying this low key motherfucker isn't the best in the end once you get past your edgy posturing phase

>>6106964

>still paying attention to Greek cavemen

you haven't even moved past phase one of edgelordism

>>6106955
Yes, and this is well known in physics and astronomy.

We don't know why neutrinos have mass

We don't know anything significant about dark matter, of which over 90% of the universe is composed

We also can't perform perfect distance calculations on some differential geometries

Literally none of the laws of physics are "real" in the sense you mean. You can cite newtons law of gravitational force all day, but general relativity shows it falls apart. So did the relationship between wavelength and energy in electromagnetic forces.

Physics literally wouldn't advance if why you said was true. All we have are universals in words, never in reality

>>6106963
In the brain.

>>6106963
You don't even have to bring up qualia to know that our physical laws are not provably laws

>>6106995

prove it.
you can't.

>>6107001
Because proof is a deductive. To prove the laws of physics are laws is self defeating.

>>6107013

> axiom x is required for my worldview, therefore axiom x is necessarily true

>>6107009
Really? You think I can't prove that physicists don't know everything?

>>6107013
>the science worshipper who has no understanding of science

>>6107038

>don't know everything

physicists don't know anything, all of physics is an axiomatic semiotic system

>>6107022
You are the one who is assuming your worldview is correct.
What does it even mean for the laws of nature to be provably laws? If you could simply logically deduce their lawhood there would be no need for empirical verification.

>>6107050
You got a hitch in your giddy up and now you're being a tool. Don't come here talking about philosophy if you aren't ready to be shut down from time to time

>>6107053

you can't logically deduce the truth value of anything, much less the shaky notion of a universal 'law'

>>6107070
In formal logic you certainly can.
Formal logic is not about "things" (elements of nature), so expecting a proof of the lawlhood of laws is silly.

>>6107090

so... we agree?
phenomena =/= thing-in-itself

>>6107053
The person who posted the axiom comment you replied to is a different person

>>6107101
We certainly can know reality, you just can't expect to logically deduce that reality is as it is without empirical grounds.
Your idealism is a result of anti scientific ideology, not reason.

>>6107090
Yes, A implies B can be absolutely true in logic, but that doesn't have anything to do with the nature of reality unless if you're an idealist

>>6107119
Hence my second sentence. The laws of physics govern reality, not the laws of logic.

>>6107114

empiricism does not allow us to 'know' any reality outside of the narrow definitional matrix of empiricism

>>6107124
The scientific method certainly does. You are putting the cart before the horse and expecting us to logically deduce the infallibility of empirical reasoning.

>>6107114
Empirical evidence has nothing to do with laws and language. I'm not disagreeing with observation and experimentation, I'm disagreeing with the supposed universality of the laws you are citing

>>6107120
What are "the laws of physics", then, explicate their nature

>>6107140

the scientific method is a framework for observation and interpretation of intersubjective phenomena, it's more of a metaphor than some kind of all-encompassing catalogue of truth

>>6104997
>that piece of atheist shit who hated Christianity
>greatest philosopher
lel

>>6107147
The laws of physics are fundamental relations that apply to the constituents of our physical theories.

The laws are not universals, they are relations between universals. Read D M Armstrong.

>>6107156
Nietzsche transcended the theist-atheist dichotomy.

>>6107168
How so? What did Nietzsche actually have to say?

>>6107161
So relations are not real things then?

The idea of universals in objects is nonsense. Take three oranges, what makes them oranges? The set of relations between the oranges, given to us by our intuition. We create intension post hoc to intuition, from extension. You're putting the cart before the horse by insisting "bee" is a meaningful, universal object without an extension

>>6107182
Read him and stop shitposting

>>6107182

>>6107191
Read Armstrong.

>>6107207
You can try to give his arguments, I don't take "read him" seriously if you can't explain how his thought matters. If you understood it you could do better

>>6107206

Too be honest, all I see in this is degenerated Stirner.

>>6106459

Truth is that Plato anticipated Christianity in his thought.

>>6106590

Read aphorisms 7 and 30 in Beyond Good and Evil very carefully.

Nietzsche & Plato as actors, as esotericists, as liars to non-philosophers reading the book. This goes alongside the notion in BGE of philosophy as world-building.

>>6107206
if there's one type of post I could cleanse this board of, it's people making claims about what famous philosophers would have thought about "SJWs"

>>6107259

>>6107259

>>6106986
>not realising that one does not only start with the greeks but ultimately ends up with them again as well

You've got a long way to go.

>>6107272
>>6107309
Yeah, these posts. These are the bad ones. Good job. Thank you.

>>6104997
>thinking this shit tier cunt is somewhere close to biased ibn khaldun
>using le toplel

>>6107337
I know you want to force your own stupidity and suffering on everything around you, nietzsche explain all that.

But I am overflowing with energy pregnant with the future.

>>6107424
Lol. People against force are shitty, boring people, bar none. Nietzsche wasn't against force, read him carefully

>>6107424
Could you post some caps of Nietzsche's opinions on degeneracy, or cultural Marxism? Really interested in that.

>>6107458
Slave morality as fuck?

>>6107458
This is obviously someone pretending to be from, /pol/

>>6107458
>can spoon feed me the ideas of an aphoristic philosopher vis-a-vis a nebulous concept he predates?

>>6107458
Read Nietzsche you lazy fuck.

>>6107458
No.

>implying Leibniz isn't the most beautifully insane motherfucker to grace philosophy and math and science

>>6107494
>>6107496
>>6107511
>>6107520
>>6107539
I really did not think that joke was subtle at all, but I guess I was wrong.

>>6107554
I've always been pretty hyped about Spinoza but I never understand how you could move beyond the strict necessaritarianism of his metaphysics.

Leibniz at least convoluted tried to reconcile the contingent and the necessary.

>>6107554

>>6107580
Nietzsche never read Spinoza himself (he read a secondary survey text on philosophy) and he willfully misrepresented Spinoza in his published texts. His notebooks show that Nietzsche actually understood that Spinoza's conatus wasn't purely a preservation instinct, but rather one of growth.

>>6106399
No one loves war. But one must be able to wage war if one is to have allies in this life, and some men end up loving what they must do.

>>6107604
>No one loves war.
ernst junger the nietzschean stirnerist conservative anarchist.jpoeg

>>6107320

>he thinks he's ended up where he will remain

truest sign of a tryhard plebeian
going back to the Greeks is necessary, but only until you've surpassed level one of edgelordism

>>6107554
Literally nobody cares about spinoza

Nietzche was a fiction writer, not a philosopher.

>>6108219
Thanks Captain W. Givesafuck

>>6104997
>there are middle-schoolers on /lit/ who think Nietzsche it's the greatest philosopher.

>>6108216
Spinoza has influenced far more great individuals than Nietzsche ever did. Nietzsche is a 19th century autistic edgemaster.

I agree with >>6107552. Leibniz was the greatest philosopher who ever lived.

>>6106192
This man knows.

>>6106964
>Epicurus
>Best
>Can't even trascend the analitic form of axioms and maxims for practical reason.

>>6108226
Dude that hurts my feelings.. You're saying I'm young? Ugh

>>6107552
>Implying Kant didn't BTFO Leibniz synthesizing his own system.

>>6108219
You, my friend, are completely right.

the goal of philosophy is basically to be the best philosopher imo

>he's not a Hermetic Platonist mystic with Orphic and Pythagorean tendencies

>>6107182
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_the_Earth

ignore the 3rd paragraph i was trying to deal it cause it's retarded as fuck but it won't let me

>>6108219
>fiction writer
I can tell you have a loooong way to go in your philosophical readings.

>>6108219
I would say he's more of an 19th century Aesop.

>>6108472
This article starts so strong but like, what the fuck, Nietzsche couldn't have talked about space exploration... the wiki author went off on a angry tangent after being around too many redditors

>>6104997
>greatest philosopher
>a sophist with a passion for poetry who deceived himself throughout all of his works to reject pessimism and embrace optimism
Schopenhauer wants a word.

>>6109520
He saw the light.

>>6106992
>We don't know why neutrinos have mass
the seesaw mechanism is not proven ?

>>6104997
He was an absolute fucking retard until his breakdown. He should have listened to Schopenhauer from the beginning.

>>6108216
>Literally nobody cares about spinoza
the best argument to read him

How the fuck do I start learning about Philosophy /lit/? Like where do you even start.

I'd really like to read Epicurus and Spinoza because they seem like supreme chillers, but I'm afraid I won't understand them

>>6109713
read their wikipedia pages first :)

>>6106192
Plato seemed too draconian, and maybe statist.

>>6104997
How would you say he compared to Heidegger?

>>6109716
this. wiki, iep, stanford.plato. maybe historyofphilosophy.net

>>6106604
Planets.

>>6106921
Life sucks. It's mystic pessimism. Read schops instead.

>>6109713
Start with Russell's 'Problems of Philosophy'. If you agree with him then start studying mathematics and physics you don't actually want philosophy. If you disagree with him then start reading Spinoza, Kant, Nietzsche, and the Bhagavad Gita.

>>6109782
Nietzsche is better because he isn't a theologian.

>>6109831
>Life sucks
If you are ugly you shall see the world as ugly :^)

>>6109902
No, that's what Buddhism says. And that isn't philosophically sound.

>>6109831
>Life sucks.
but what about all these people who enjoy life to the fullest

>>6109831
Life sucks if you let it suck dumbass. Perception colors experience.

>>6110113
>>6110106
No I was referring to Buddhism. But saying life sucks could be making a utilitarian evaluation of the suffering versus pleasure of the world, the former is almost certainly more prevalent, especially given the number of people in poverty, and the 100 billion animals we slaughter every year, and the horrific spectacle that is life in the wild. But yeah, Buddhism.

>>6110113
Also I doubt people have much choice in their subjective experience, why would you let life suck, if you could switch it on to being fantastic instead?

>>6110157
>But saying life sucks could be making a utilitarian evaluation of the suffering versus pleasure of the world
good that nobody should care about utilitarian evaluations of anything then

>>6110113
>Perception colors experience.
There's no distinguishing the two.

>>6110171
It could also be encapsulated in some deontology. One which supremely values (negatively) suffering, or such like. But utilitarianism of some kind really is better, far less arbitrary.

I read the Genealogy of Morals it took me half the year. What should I read next?

Also how is it that anarchists, communists, and fascists all like Nietzsche?

>>6110187
It's impossible to not like Nietzsche, he's just a fun guy.

>>6110192
Don't those ideologies all directly contradict each other in the most fundamental ways possible though?

>>6110199
Hey, I said like, not understand.

>>6110174
I think there certainly is, albeit a bit vague. I would define Experience as actions and events themselves, whereas Perception refers to the collective personal viewpoint towards actions/events.

>>6110162
There's very little choice, but the choice matters nonetheless. Keeping a positive mindset is impossibly difficult but tremendously necessary. I mean, that's basically what Camus's inb4 >Camus Myth of Sisyphus is all about isn't it?

>>6106350

To answer the question in the image.

>>6110199
Nietzsche also contradicts himself in the most fundamental ways possible.

>>6110157
The Buddha himself was free of all stress and affliction, as were his arhat (fully enlightened) followers. It's not "life" that sucks so much as clinging to the stress and unsatisfactoriness of phenomena, which leads to further becoming, and to more clinging, etc, potentially forever. So "life sucks" is fairly misleading in addition to being glib.

>>6110202
Not if you value truth above dumb contentment.

>>6110205
If he contradicts himself why is he regarded highly as a philosopher

>>6110208
I don't think finding contentment and purpose within struggle conflicts with 'truth'

>>6110206
Life as lived by 99.999999....% of humans sucking is more or less the same statement. And the principal goal of many forms of Buddhism is to achieve nirvana as to escape reincarnation at death, and become unconscious forever, as nonexistence is fundamentally preferable to existence.

I don't understand Buddhism in the least. Doesn't achieving enlightenment deny someone from being really human? or is finding beauty/truth/whatever in every human emotion enlightenment? Shit just confuses me

Can someone explain why philosophers make such a big deal of consciousness?

>>6110174

Nietzsche himself refers to text as distinguished from interpretation. The only world there is the apparent world, but this isn't to say that the apparent world is identical with just any perceived world. There are interpretations which are truer than others.

You experience world and evaluate it according to your will. Nietzsche recognizes a fundamental opposition between strong and weak wills. Strength is truth. Weakness is falsity.

>>6110208
>thinking truth has inherent value

>>6110224
Nirvana without remainder, ie nirvana after death as opposed to in this life, is nonexistence nor annihilation. It is unconditioned release from the duhkka of all phenonema.

>>6110217
Finding meaning in pointless struggle, which is the basis of Camus' philosophy, is so repugnant, that it was proposed as a shoddy last resort to escape necessary suicide. Camus, you, me, should just admit we'd be better off suiciding, it is only our irrational desires and fears that stop us from doing so, if we were wholly rational we'd all self-destruct, or at very least stop reproducing.

>>6110205
[citation needed]

>>6110216
He only contradicts earlier things he said, which are usually minor. He develops his philosophy throughout his life and you see this in his works

>>6110229
What is really human? And enlightenment means total disenchantment with sensuality, but sensual pleasure is replaced with a far more subtle joy - the Buddha said he could dwell for a whole week sensitive to suhka, or joy, happiness, pleasure. So it is far from miserable. From that perspective, one could say it is only because you have not perceived with right discernment the stress of sensuality that you still cling to it.

>>6110252
If there is no self, how does one collect karma?

>>6110257
The Buddha refused to answer when asked point blank whether or not there was a self - meaning it was the fourth kind of question, one that should be set aside as it did not lead to the cessation of stress. In this case, holding the view there is /no/ atta is the wrong view of annihilationism. Notice that "all dhammas are anatta" is not the same as "there is no atta"

>>6110252
And that sounds all very well and nice, but doesn't dwelling on sadness, being miserable, a valid and necessary part of experience? Always being thoroughly content just sorta sounds like being ignorant to me

>>6110252

The Buddha as you describe him is not unlike the man on the hedonist treadmill. Pleasure and joy are not appropriate ends of a rich human life. Praiseworthy activity is the embodiment of a good life. These are activities which are not divorced from the everyday demands of living among a community. Sitting under a tree and feeling pleasure is vain.

>>6110216
Because there is nothing wrong with contradiction and because said contradiction can even force the reader to think for himself.

>>6110251
>[citation needed]
His whole oeuvre, really. He changes so dramatically that you can't really say "this is Nietzsche's opinion". You can only pinpoint his opinion as directly presented in a certain work in a certain point in time. His early work is near Schopenhauerian. Then he has an almost positivist phase, after which he goes into jolly roguery in The Gay Science and then full bombastic Nietzsche as most people know him in his later work after Zarathustra.

I like him for that though.

>>6110278
Of course, there's a lot I left out. First and foremost comes conduct, the attainment of skillful qualities in the here-and-now - right bodily conduct, right mental conduct, right verbal conduct.
>>6110276 Contentment is not the same as release.

>>6110276
Not if you acknowledge the bad, and just don't care. I imagine this could lead to complacency though.

>>6110278
But he did want to free everyone else from suffering. Which would solve everything. Too bad his methods were flawed, what we really need is a way to destroy the universe.

>>6110278
WAAAHH HE'S NOT IMPRESSING ME

I'm sure the pleasured monk feels terrible, you know, being all pleasured and all

>>6110300
I'm not sure what "release" means, but is it fair to assume you mean release from desire?
If so, why seek release from desire when it's a perfectly normal and human thing to do?
I've always vibed with Buddhist ideas of balance, but the concept Enlightenment totally eludes me.
>>6110317
The universe is too cool and great to destroy, you know that

>>6104997
>there are people on /lit/ who think Nietzsche wasn't the greatest meme

TOPPEST LEL

>>6110326
More like release from becoming, as in the stock phrase describing the attainment of bodhi: "The task is finished, birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled. There is nothing further for this world." Sensual desire may be "normal" , but the objects of desire, according to the Buddha, are always a mass of duhkka - stressful, fleeting, and unsatisfactory. Ultimately clinging, sustained by ignorance, leads to a potentially endless wandering on the samsaric merry-go-round.

>>6110300
>>6110321

The problem is that the doctrines of Buddhism regarding right conduct are divorced from reality. What is right bodily conduct? What is right mental conduct? What is right verbal conduct? Do they promote survival and strength? Do they promote the furthering of knowledge? Do they promote the deepening of one's love of life? These are the marks at which we must aim. The necessity is written in the world history of our being.

>>6110362
>What is right bodily... mental... verbal conduct?
This is easy to find. I won't quote it at length, but this sutta is one of many that elaborates.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.041.than.html
If you're asking, do you not know? If so, you do you know the doctrines are divorced from reality?
>Survival and strength?
What does this mean?
>Furthering of knowledge?
Yes.
>Deepening of one's love of life?
Is this from the perspective of an ordinary lay follower or a fully enlightened arahant?
>These are the marks at which we must aim
How do you know?

>>6110381
how do you know* whoops

>>6110278
>Pleasure and joy are not appropriate ends of a rich human life.
kek

>Praiseworthy activity is the embodiment of a good life.
Read Nietzsche, or just think for two minutes about what, on a genealogical level, produces something qualified as /praiseworthy/.

protip: mankind doesn't consider something praiseworthy if it is not pleasurable.

>>6110278
Are you saying the Buddha was not praiseworthy? Him and his enlightened followers never lied, never stole, never intentionally killed sentient beings, were in a sense incapable of doing so.The unenlightened ones followed vows to refrain from those things. Him and his bhikkus would have starved for lack of almsfood if Indians did not think their activities of traveling and teaching the Dhamma were praiseworthy.

>>6110471
dude, the buddha was just another conman doing the slave morality hustle...

"oh yes, if you do good deeds like give me free food you will be reincarnated into a higher status in the next life, i swear!

>>6110471
>Him and his enlightened followers never lied
That's a lie right there.

>>6110478
>spouting em Nietzsche buzzwords out of context

>>6110484
implying buddhist monks aren't exactly nietzsche's "ascetic priest"

>>6110381

I'm not an expert on Buddhism so the question was only partly rhetorical, however, I have read a book on the history and doctrines of the religion. As philosophy or science Buddhist doctrines never overcame the mythological attitude. They rely on mythologies and supernatural cosmologies to explain the being of things. There is not a confrontation with the things themselves. Nature as distinguished from "way" or "law" or "tradition" is never discovered.

The doctrines are likely divorced from life because they exist within a thoroughly religious and supernatural cosmology in which life as it is lived is subverted for the advancement of the idea of the ideal life.

Strength is necessary for the preservation of one's community. Men have always waged wars. A philosophy which makes no place for the art of generalship is incomplete.

Knowledge of the spiritual needs of man is good, but knowledge of his bodily demands is more necessary and basic. Only after man has learned to master his environment may he become a philosopher.

There is little more ridiculous than doctrines of enlightenment. The man who leaves Plato's cave and returns teaching of the light of the sun is more probably a madman than he is clever. Nietzsche instructs us to be careful of thinking that we have sole access to the truth.

How do I know? I've bothered to look at the history of mankind.

>>6104999
How exactly did Nietzsche not fuck Hegel with his language philosophy

>>6110479
An arahant cannot lie, because they have eliminated all craving, greed, and delusion. Whether or not you think that's plausible, it does logically follow that if those qualities were irreparably destroyed in you, you would no longer lie.

>>6110618

you can lie out of rationally determined responsibility to a person or a community. like you'd avoid calling your wife fat because its better to be kind to her than truthful.

>>6110202
What you're saying is that there is a reality in itself, when there isn't. There is no thing-in-itself. Life requires a minimum of two things in order to even be.

>>6110233
>Nietzsche himself refers to text as distinguished from interpretation.
Can you point out where he said that? Because I recall him saying that there are no facts, only interpretations, and that there are no things-in-themselves.

>>6110663

Aphorism 38 BGE

>What has happened recently, in the broad daylight of modern times, regarding the French Revolution, that gruesome and, judged from close up, superfluous farce—noble and enthusiastic spectators from all over Europe have been interpreting it from afar for so long and so passionately according to their own indignation and enthusiasm, that the text has disappeared under the interpretation: thus a noble posterity could once again misunderstand the entire past and in that way alone make it tolerable to look at.— Or rather: hasn't this happened already? haven't we ourselves been—this "noble posterity"? And isn't now precisely the moment when, insofar as we comprehend this—it is all over?

He contradicts himself. Many of his aphorisms are simply experiments or temptations. You are reading him incorrectly if you desire to reduce his philosophy to a listing of doctrines. There is incredible nuance in his writings.

>>6110654
Well an arahant wouldn't have a wife, but yes, there are times it is probably better to lie than be truthful for "normal" beings. But an arahant will not lie - not out of volition, they simply will not.

>>6110717
>>6110654
The Buddha goes into detail on this when his interlocutor, Prince Abhaya, questions him, "Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?"
First the Buddha answers,
"Prince, there is no categorical yes-or-no answer to that."
And elaborates:

"[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."
So at no point will the Tathagata say something untrue, although there is nuance as to whether he will say something disagreeable.

>>6110508
Well if one truly believes they have found the truth, who is one to say they are not enlightened just by the fact that their philosophy now encompasses their worldview more strongly than most men's? Albeit I also disagree with doctrines

>>6110700
Nietzsche's philosophy is to me summed up in two things and not just his will to power, like Heidegger said, because he also exposed a latent nihilism embedded in the language itself, in that the moment you're saying something "is", you're already projecting a nothing, nihil, into the world, and I think this is where his works derive a lot of their nuances because everything's an interpretation

>>6110811

I don't know what that means.

>>6110780

It only means they've closed off possible meanings from their world. To a degree it is necessary, but in the extreme it is fatal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh1ToGbVZOI

I love portrayals of Neech in media

>>6110868
>gk chesterton
not even going to watch this garbo

what would nietzsche have said about prozac/anti-depressants

i know he talked lots of shit about alcohol but he took phenol hydrate or whatever and did opium

>>6110868

Was Nietzsche a NEET?

>>6111172
I wonder if Nietzsche would have continued taking opiates if he knew they lowered testosterone production.

>>6110866
>find meaning
>wait scratch that better look for more

And what isn't fatal anon

>>6111523
good god the ideology

>>6111523
Truly, the Last Man has appeared.

Also,
>confusing the Overman to be a Social Darwinian concept
This guy uses the same logic as the Nazis and doesn't even realize it.

>>6104997
how do i into nietzsche? >inb4 start with le greeks
== I haven't read any philosophy other than shit from the greeks ==

>>6111966
>summaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/
Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist

>translators
Hollingdale
Kaufmann
Cambridge Edutions

>Shortest notable work (but unfinished):
http://www2.fiu.edu/~harveyb/HI-NietzEssay.htm

>Nietzsche's own recommended entry-point:
Untimely Meditations, particularly Schopenhauer as Educator, and Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life

>Nietzsche's summary of his works:
Ecce Homo

>His first, overly romantic book:
The Birth of Tragedy

>His first signature books:
Human, All-Too Human, Daybreak, Gay Science

>First-rate Nietzsche
Beyond Good and Evil. Genealogy of Morals, notebooks

>Nietzsche humour on culture:
Twilight of the Idols, Wagner books

>Avoid at all costs:
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, early essays, letters

>>6112145
Also
>his anti-christianity
Antichrist.

>>6112145
>>Avoid at all costs:
You mean for a beginner, right?

>>6111966
The Essential Nietzsche

>>6112189
Yes but in general Zarathustra and the unpublished works are MASSIVELY overrated.

>>6112145
Basic Writings and Portable Nietzsche are also better Kaufmann books than Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist.

>>6112205

Mm, but he calls Zarathustra his Yes-saying work in Ecce Homo, in contrast with Beyond Good and Evil as his No-saying work. Wouldn't any attempt to grasp Nietzsche that treats Zarathustra as overrated misunderstand what he's doing not just with that work, but also the rest of his work, insofar as Zarathustra has a task among his books?

>>6112257
Understanding is different from critique.

>>6111966

I would say, broadly, that Nietzsche's most accessible writings are:

> On truth and lie in extra moral sense.

This is short, features clear writing, and despite its brevity introduces one of Nietzsche's most (his theory of truth). This is the best "bang for your buck" in terms of how much you'll learn about Nietzsche's views per minute of reading.

> Human, All Too Human.

This is the best book from Nietzsche's middle period. This book isn't really that weighty philosophically, but it's the most readable of his major works, and this is before he started getting into the master/slave morality and anti-Christian stuff so it's probably the least likely of Nietzsche's books to give you a heart attack (which his works are wont to do).

> Genealogy of Morals

All things considered this is perhaps Nietzsche's best book. The intensity, passion and the depth of the ideas are quite remarkable. This book is a bit slow to start off but once it takes off, it *REALLY* takes off. Many people consider this Nietzsche's best book. It may not be the most accessible but it is, in my opinion, the richest in ideas. The second essay, in particular, is a fantastic piece of proto-psychoanalysis.

>>6112205
zarathustra is his best book, it's just rated highly for the wrong reasons a lot of the time

>>6112402
Disagree.

Nietzsche himself thought that Zarathustra was his best book and this is why many people take it as such. But as a critical reader I disagree with Nietzsche's self assessment. Zarathustra is some of Nietzsche's worst prose. It's the height of Nietzsche trying to be "poetic" which I felt never really worked.

>>6106433
>this life a flitting shade

>>6106459
He's from /mu/, forgive him.

>greatest philosopher
>not Alex "Icycalm" Kierkegaard

I shiggy diggy doo

>>6104997
HEGEL TIER:
Hegel

TRANSCENDENTAL GODS TIER:
Spinoza
Kant
Aristotle
Hume

MASTERFUL TIER:
Leibniz
Descartes
Heidegger
Marx

GOOD TIER:
Kierkegaard
Plato
Foucault

MENTALLY ILL TIER:
Nietzsche

MEME TIER:
Zizek

>>6112422
underrated post

>>6110700
He's not really contradicting himself there, or anywhere. To say that "there are no facts, only interpretations" is an interpretation itself. To say that there are facts is too an interpretation. But here he isn't really declaring that all text is separate from interpretation, but that in this instance, he interprets this as happening. Saying "there are no facts, only interpretations" is a declaration, not just of a particular instance, but of all instances which he interprets.

>>6106943
>>6106696
>Physical laws are not universal, because they fail to describe all phenomena.
As they are currently known but not as they are posited.
This was the same problem Plato had you idiot. The physical laws right now don't but Plato also couldn't explicate how the forms brought about the world we see.

Knowing the forms was having absolute knowledge and he constantly goes on about not knowing nothing.

>>6112667
>ignoring schopenhauer
>not putting him on top of hegel
burn in hell you utter shit fag

>>6112422
I agree. The Gay Science and Beyond Good & Evil are where he's at the height of his game.

>>6106244

>>6112422

Then you don't know what Nietzsche is doing at all? It's not a critical approach if you don't understand how it fits into Nietzsche's philosophy.

>>6113986
Pleb nigga. The Gay Science is an introduction to Zarathustra; BG&E is a commentary on Zarathustra.

>>6111523
>tfw the meme too real

>>6114570
Saying that he doesn't like Nietzsche's attempts at poetry doesn't mean that he doesn't understand him.

>>6114596
Indeed, it means he's a pleb and doesn't understand anything at all.

>>6114595
>Pleb nigga. The Gay Science is an introduction to Zarathustra; BG&E is a commentary on Zarathustra.
I know all that. But I like them more stylistically.

>>6114611
I can understand, nigga

>a world without slaves or masters
>not anarchism though
wtf did he want then?

>>6114774
>a world without slaves or master
u meme? where did he say that? he says the opposite in antichrist

>>6114780
Just read any of the wiki pages or summaries, they all agree he wanted a world without masters or slaves and to move beyond the moralities of each, so how isn't that anarchism?

>>6113874
>Schopenhauer over Hegel

What are you, 15?

>>6114835
lolwut

The order of castes, the order of rank, simply formulates the supreme law of life itself; the separation of the three types is necessary to the maintenance of society, and to the evolution of higher types, and the highest types—the inequality of rights is essential to the existence of any rights at all.—A right is a privilege. Every one enjoys the privileges that accord with his state of existence. Let us not underestimate the privileges of the mediocre. Life is always harder as one mounts the heights—the cold increases, responsibility increases. A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly consolidated mediocrity. The handicrafts, commerce, agriculture, science, the greater part of art, in brief, the whole range of occupational activities, are compatible only with mediocre ability and aspiration; such callings would be out of place for exceptional men; the instincts which belong to them stand as much opposed to aristocracy as to anarchism. The fact that a man is publicly useful, that he is a wheel, a function, is evidence of a natural predisposition; it is not society, but the only sort of happiness that the majority are capable of, that makes them intelligent machines. To the mediocre mediocrity is a form of happiness; they have a natural instinct for mastering one thing, for specialization. It would be altogether unworthy of a profound intellect to see anything objectionable in mediocrity in itself. It is, in fact, the first prerequisite to the appearance of the exceptional: it is a necessary condition to a high degree of civilization. When the exceptional man handles the mediocre man with more delicate fingers than he applies to himself or to his equals, this is not merely kindness of heart—it is simply his duty.... Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman’s instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence—who make him envious and teach him revenge.... Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of “equal” rights.... What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge.—The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry....

Taken from the 57th aphorism from The Antichrist.

>>6114835
He believes in an order of rank, but his Higher Man is more complex and nuanced than a simple master moralist

>>6114877
No wonder he was so popular among the nazis

>>6115115
>National Socialist

>Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists

>National Socialist

No, the Nazis were just uncultured and retarded

>>6115115
>totalitarism
>Nietzsche
No.

State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."

It is a lie! It was creators who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life. Destroyers are they who lay snares for the many, and call it state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.

Where there are still peoples, the state is not understood, and is hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.

This sign I give to you: every people speaks its own language of good and evil, which its neighbor does not understand. It has created its own language of laws and customs. But the state lies in all the tongues of good and evil; and whatever it says it lies; and whatever it has it has stolen.

Everything in it is false; it bites with stolen teeth, and bites often. It is false down to its bowels. Confusion of tongues of good and evil; this sign I give you as the sign of the state. This sign points to the will to death! it points to the preachers of death!

All too many are born: for the superfluous the state was created! See how it entices them to it, the all-too-many! How it swallows and chews and rechews them!

"On earth there is nothing greater than I: I am the governing hand of God." -- thus roars the monster. And not only the long-eared and short-sighted fall upon their knees! Ah! even in your ears, you great souls, it whispers its gloomy lies! Ah! it finds out the rich hearts which willingly squander themselves!

It will give everything to you, if you worship it, the new idol: thus it buys the lustre of your virtue, and the glance of your proud eyes.

Through you it seeks to seduce the all-too-many! Yes, a hellish artifice has been created here, a death-horse jingling with the trappings of divine honors! Yes, a dying for many has been created here, which glorifies itself as life: verily, a great service to all preachers of death!

The state, I call it, where all drink poison, the good and the bad: the state, where all lose themselves, the good and the bad: the state, where the slow suicide of all -- is called "life."

See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus pull each other into the mud and the abyss. They all strive for the throne: this is their madness -- as if happiness sat on the throne! Often filth sits on the throne. -- and often also the throne on filth.

Better to break the windows and jump into the open air! Escape from their foul stench! Escape from the idolatry of the superfluous!

There, where the state ends -- there only begins the man who is not superfluous: there begins the song of the necessary, the single and irreplaceable melody. There, where the state ends -- look there, my brothers! Do you not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the Overman?

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

>>6114596

It does if it means they think it's "an attempt at poetry", instead of philosophy.

>>6115149
So, I was right in the first place, an anarchist.

>>6115697
He was an anarcho egoist if anything, certainly not a 'red' anarchist.

>>6115149
ah, the tingly moral aesthetic prose.

>>6115697
Anarchists oppose hierarchy

Nietzsche doesn't

>>6115149
Is there any other philosopher with prose as comfy as Neetcha?

>>6116959
Nietzsche opposed the state and the overman is someone who has overcame master-slave moralities. Thats anarchism.

>>6106459
San Augustine ?

>>6106746
Boltzmann brains are just imaginations/guesses, the universe is not eternal as they pictured in those days.

>>6108303
there is always a naked kid, those pedo painters

>>6108303
There's a nopal in the left lower corner, wtf

>>6117015
I mantain my idea that Nietzsche was the first transhumanist, even before the term existed.

Anarchism is a human concept, whereas Nietzsche wanted us to cross the bridge and evolve beyond our humanity into the overman, where such petty terms and classifications wouldn't be necessary.

In a sense, you could call him an anarchist, but that would be an extreme oversimplification of his worldview and ideas. Technology will allow Nietzsche's dream to become reality, and make us more than human and closer to Gods.

"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, herds or believers. Fellow creators the Creator seeks, those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters, for everything about him is ripe for the harvest."

"Man is like a rope, tied between beast and overman. A dangerous on-the-way, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous shuddering and stopping. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end. What can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going-under."

>>6117294
Overman is an organism, not some pagan bullshit result of science fetishization

>>6117418
Enhanced humans are still organisms.

It will have to be an evolution in every sense of the term to fulfill Nietzsche's dream though. Not just in our physical and mental capabilities, but also in our way of life, our ethics, our worldview and our approach to the universe itself.

We must become more than humans and as close to Gods as possible. There's nothing pagan about wanting to fulfill our true potential as a species and individuals.

>>6106433
truth is irrelevant and unknowable

observation is king because our life is the total sum of our experiences and comprises our entire known universe

>>6117294
no he was not a transhumanist

nietzsche recognized something about humanity which is that its the only domestic beast which can be its own master, its just that most people suck at being their own master. thats why religion stepped in at first, it said "hey you guys, you arent youre own master, you answer to a higher power so be sure to live disciplined lives!"

except thats bullshit. now whats not bullshit is that leading a disciplined life results in a happy, successful and fulfilling life, but its bullshit that you should do it for something besides yourself.

nietzsche envisioned a people who replaced religions prescription of discipline with their own self prescribed discipline, of course in reality weve seen what people do when they realize they follow false gods and they are themselves their highest good (orgies, gluttony, greed, substance abuse).

hell the decadence of the late roman empire and why it converted to christianity is because people slowly stopped listening to stoicism and the pagans became dumb and impotent

>>6106498
>bad to be a proponent of another's thoughts
>defending nietshit

i think i hear a dog barking

>>6117462
I have no proof he was a transhumanist, of course, it's all subject to interpretation, and a lot of what you say is true, in the sense that he was more focused on "freeing" mankind from the "trap" of religion and the slave mentality.

But still, I can not help but be amazed at how much his ideas fit perfectly with the transhumanist worldview. To overcome the preachers of death we must embrace eternal life and eternal evolution, eternal self-improvement of ourselves and our species.

Transhumanism feels to me like the natural next stage of Nietzschean thought into the 21st century and beyond.

>>6116888
No he wasn't

>It was creators who created peoples

Creators, as in Caesars, not a herd of lawless barbarians. See: >>6114877

>What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge.—The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry....

He ruins anarchy in Antichrist, as well as his other texts (BGE, for one).

Go read your Stirner; this is not philosophy for "petty politics", as Nietzsche himself calls your shit.
>>6117015
Nietzsche opposed the State as an ideal, abstracted from the person (Genius, higher man, etc.) who created it.

Read part IV of Zarathustra, chapter entitled "Of the Higher Man":

>WHEN I came unto men for the first time, then did I commit the anchorite folly, the great folly: I appeared on the market-place.
>And when I spake unto all, I spake unto none. In the evening, however, rope-dancers were my companions, and corpses; and I myself
almost a corpse.
>With the new morning, however, there came unto me a new truth: then did I learn to say: "Of what account to me are market-place and populace and populace-noise and long populace-cars!"
>Ye higher men, learn this from me: On the market-place no one believeth in higher men. But if ye will speak there, very well! The populace, however, blinketh: "We are all equal."
>"Ye higher men,"- so blinketh the populace- "there are no higher men, we are all equal; man is man, before God- we are all equal!"
>Before God!- Now, however, this God hath died. Before the
populace, however, we will not be equal. Ye higher men, away from
the market-place!


>Before God!- Now however this God hath died! Ye higher men, this God was your greatest danger.
>Only since he lay in the grave have ye again arisen. Now only cometh the great noontide, now only doth the higher man become- master!
>Have ye understood this word, O my brethren? Ye are frightened: do your hearts turn giddy? Doth the abyss here yawn for you? Doth the hell-hound here yelp at you?
>Well! Take heart! ye higher men! Now only travaileth the mountain of the human future. God hath died: now do we desire- the Superman to live.

Leftists are secular Christians, still holding to the Christian ideal: "all souls are equal before God." This has no basis in anything before Christianity. He specifically says that the market place believes in equality, but that the higher men, who Zarathustra is speaking to, ought to know themselves to be better than the rabble and to take control of them once more. Nietzsche is not an anarchist.

>>6117435
An Overman: one who wills power (thus willing Will itself, without relapsing into contradiction and metaphysics, see Heidegger's essay "Nietzsche's Word") and lives by the eternal recurrence.

Don't apply kurzweil fucking nonsense to real thinking.

>>6117485
>Transhumanism feels to me like the natural next stage of Nietzschean thought into the 21st century and beyond.
Yes, indeed, insofar as you grasp "Nietzschean thought" to be the series of gross misreadings and misinterpretations of Nietzsche's philosophy since he published his first book. "Nietzschean transhumanism" will be grouped among the anarchists, communists, fascists, fedoras, and Zionists that tried to claim N for their own ideology.

Transhumanism is an ideology born from scientism, meaning, it will never happen, it is fundamentally flawed, and will act as a spreader of misinformation just as all ideologies before it.

>>6117802
>Leftists are secular Christians
Do you feel intelligent saying that? Christians are clearly right wing.

>>6118601
Leftism still operates on Christian values

>>6118601
>christians are right wing

amerifat detected

>>6118857
Maybe in your mind.

>>6118862
Christians are right wing you idiot, why do you think they keep opposing abortion and gay marriage.

>all these american leftists in denial

>>6119611
Because they believe that abortion is essentially murder.
Because they believe that faggots have no reason to marry as they are unable to create a family.
Guess why hitler tried to remove the church influence on people and state.

>>6119637
Why? Enlighten me.

>We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian - Hitler

>>6119133

That's right, THATS RIGHT, I have the perfect story going along with that:

A gay socialist professor ran into Ryan Ray, a marine veteran who had just finished two tours of duty. The gay socialist professor said to him: "MARX DAMN AMERICA, DOWN WITH THE WHITE AND BLUE, UP WITH THE RED".

Ryan looked at the professor, and came up to him.

"Excuse, mr. Professor"
"WHAT IS IT, KILLER OF THIRD WORLD CHILDREN?"
"I want to become a socialist gaytheist, just like you, if you answer the following question"
"SPEAK UP HILLBILLY, I'M A LIBERAL SO I KNOW EVERYTHING"
"Can you look up, on Wikipedia, the word 'Laminin' and tell me what shape it has?"
"OF COURSE I CAN YOU STUPID CHRISTIAN"

The professor got out his hammer and sickle phone (which, by the way, is the product of free market capitalism, semper fi) and looked up the term. Then the professor screamed, dropped his phone and ran away.

Ryan picked up the phone and smirked, because Laminin is the atom that keeps everyone's bodies together.

The shape of Laminin? The excat same shape of the cross of Jesus

God bless America

Anyone have that infograph on the beginners guide to nihilism? I'm a total philosophy pleb and would like to expand beyond Idealism.

>>6119611
Your world view is so laughably small.

>>6119679
Nietzsche isn't a nihilist honey bun but you should read Cioran and de Sade also most religious writers since they're nihilists in disguise

>>6119768
>Your world view is so laughably small.
How? Because I don't worship Nietzsche? Fuck off.

>>6119611

You're ignoring what's meant by referring to Leftists as secular Christians by focusing on political surfaces instead of deeper natures or tendencies. They both function by resentment in a number of similar ways.

>>6119661

>>6104997

come make your case please?
>>6121323