/lit/ - Literature

>>6145465

sounds like someone has resentiment.

>>6145465
Who are you going to quote to justify your intolerable opinion?

>>6145484
I don't have intolerant opinions
>>6145473
Nope, just tired of you losers quoting that lunatic

>>6145465
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5GFgulByuM

You only make yourself look anti-intellectual by dismissing one of the canonical thinkers merely because of his 'followers' and your shallow reading of him.

Try constructing a clear, specific complaint.

>>6145465

1) Have you read Nietzsche, and if so, what have you read?

2) Who, for you, is an example of someone who's properly "intellectual"?

>>6145465
>>6145489

reported

Why is existentialism still a thing after it was refuted 2395 years ago?

I respect his impact on postmodernism, but aside from that I find Nietzsche juvenile. He's the epitome of what's bad about continental philosophy, nothing but unfalsifiable nonsense and ranting opinions without any arguments behind them.

>>6145692

Ah, so you've never read his books the whole way through! (Or at all.)

>>6145697
>y-you just don't get it, pleb
I've read three of them, stay mad

>>6145692
Nietzsche doesn't care about truth, so trying to fight against him with "muh empiricism" is retarded. He doesn't even make physical claims; he is an advocate for loving existence.

Stirner is fucking shit by the way

>>6145708
So

>>6145465
Doesn't Nietzsche himself recommend that you take some time to chew what he says and look past his rhetoric? I think if people did that they'd get a better feel for what he was trying to say.

>>6145700
If none of those was Gay Science or Genealogy then don't expect anyone to take you seriously

>>6145708
So you excuse sophistry because it acknowledges itself to be sophistry?

>>6145708
>Nietzsche doesn't care about truth,
Then he isn't a real philosopher.

I'm currently reading through Plato's dialogue. I started with the Apology then read Euryphro. Should I keep going and try to get through all of them, or should I skip to several ones that are viewed as the most important? And after Plato, where should I go?

>>6145725
Not sure if you meant to post that in this thread instead of making a new one, but you should read Gorgias and Phaedrus.

>>6145668
>Who, for you, is an example of someone who's properly "intellectual"?
Depends what for, but people like gramsci or even fucking Bertrand Russell is more intellectual than that fucking asshole mystic.

>>6145725
Read the ones leading up to the trial of Socrates and then the Republic, then whatever dialogues you want after that. Aristotle next, obviously.

>>6145728

You've got a long way to go.

>>6145721
No, he simply isn't a Theologian like Aquinas, or you know, Platon. He is about health and vitality, Life and affirming existence despite tragedy -- not about "Truth" for truth's sake, which he considers the essence of nihilism. See "Why We Too are Still Pious" from Gay Science and the third essay of Genealogy of Morals.

>>6145720
Yeah, pretty much, only I don't hold to your petty-filtered definition of sophistry, and Nietzsche didn't charge 10,000 days worth of labor to speak.

>>6145685
>>6145692
existentialist post modernist readings of nietzsche a shit

he is the opposite of juvenile. the topics he concerns himself with (e.g. morality) are mostly not falsifiable (fatass scientisms might not care for aesthetics etc but healthier more cultured individuals do). Read any book by Nietzsche and you will find arguments.

Nietzsche is really good idiot bait. The misreadings bait dumb supporters. The actual readings bait the resentful.

>>6145780
>the topics he concerns himself with (e.g. morality) are mostly not falsifiable
But they are. In fact, Nietzsche's views on morals were refuted in 380BC.

>>6145728
You are a pretty bad reader if you consider Nietzsche's naturalist and perspectivist positions to be more 'mystic' than Russells positions in each category.

Nietzsche had a great mustache.

>>6145465

Nobody uses Nietzsche to justify being GIVEN power, moron, they use him to justify the power THEY ALREADY HAVE, the power they were born with, because of their superior lineage dating all the way back to the big bang.

>>6145800
How can value judgements be falsifiable? What are Nietzsches views on morals that were refuted then and how were they refuted?

>>6145809
>CALLICLES: For the truth is, Socrates, that you, who pretend to be engaged in the pursuit of truth, are appealing now to the popular and vulgar notions of right, which are not natural, but only conventional. Convention and nature are generally at variance with one another: and hence, if a person is too modest to say what he thinks, he is compelled to contradict himself; and you, in your ingenuity perceiving the advantage to be thereby gained, slyly ask of him who is arguing conventionally a question which is to be determined by the rule of nature; and if he is talking of the rule of nature, you slip away to custom: as, for instance, you did in this very discussion about doing and suffering injustice. When Polus was speaking of the conventionally dishonourable, you assailed him from the point of view of nature; for by the rule of nature, to suffer injustice is the greater disgrace because the greater evil; but conventionally, to do evil is the more disgraceful. For the suffering of injustice is not the part of a man, but of a slave, who indeed had better die than live; since when he is wronged and trampled upon, he is unable to help himself, or any other about whom he cares. The reason, as I conceive, is that the makers of laws are the majority who are weak; and they make laws and distribute praises and censures with a view to themselves and to their own interests; and they terrify the stronger sort of men, and those who are able to get the better of them, in order that they may not get the better of them; and they say, that dishonesty is shameful and unjust; meaning, by the word injustice, the desire of a man to have more than his neighbours; for knowing their own inferiority, I suspect that they are too glad of equality. And therefore the endeavour to have more than the many, is conventionally said to be shameful and unjust, and is called injustice (compare Republic), whereas nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior. For on what principle of justice did Xerxes invade Hellas, or his father the Scythians? (not to speak of numberless other examples). Nay, but these are the men who act according to nature; yes, by Heaven, and according to the law of nature: not, perhaps, according to that artificial law, which we invent and impose upon our fellows, of whom we take the best and strongest from their youth upwards, and tame them like young lions,—charming them with the sound of the voice, and saying to them, that with equality they must be content, and that the equal is the honourable and the just.
The rest of the dialogue is him being refuted.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1672/1672-h/1672-h.htm

>>6145800
No they weren't, since Christianity needed to exist and go through millenia of development in order for a Nietzsche to exist. Stop imagining that you are an authority on philosophy just because you started reading Plato yesterday, plen ass faggot

>>6145822
The assertion that the strong should rise above the weak, and that all morals and the praising of equality are just social constructs designed for the weak to keep the strong and courageous from prevailing is nothing new. It is literally the same idea addressed in Gorgias, and it is refuted. We must be talking about completely different "Nietzschian morals".

Opinions require no justification.

OP is a pussy faggot.
I don't like liberals or religious retard conservatives.
I hate pedophiles and want to kill them.
I think gays should be burned alive and force fed to muslims.
I think greedy jews should have molten gold poured down their throat, and machiavellian chinks sliced up into little bits and fed to the whales.
All those ugly angry upper middle class feminists should be put on the island of Elba with convicted nigger murders and a years supply of grape soda and cheetos.
All the blacks in africa should die of aids already, and european sissy faggots should have so much russian cum pumped into their asshole that it comes out of their eyeballs, and ukranians all starve once and for good, and every poster on lit that is studying liberal arts and wants to be a writer/professor gets ebola and dies before their poor ass gets on welfare and uses up all the tax money we should be spending on getting off this useless disgusting planet and I have to come into contact with them when I go to the supermarket or chipotle and they have this resentful attitude because they are born cunts and think they are hot shit when they are pseudo intellectual 110 IQ retards raised on middle class special snowflake syndrome helicopter ritalin dispensing most likely divorced cunt parents just like them who are good for nothing.

You can all just go fuck yourselves and die in a pit, there are 7 billion people in the world and that is 7 billion too many, you are all as fucking ugly inside as you are on the outside you fucking pieces of shit, I hope you die in the nuclear holocaust that is sure to happen and that you're on the outside of the blast radius so you slowly burn like a chicken tender left in the microwave too long. I NEED NO JUSTIFICATIONS

>>6145728

>Russel
>not knowing that Russel was actually a logic-based mystic for a period (see Ray Monk's biography.)
>Not knowing his Platonic leanings make him crypto-mystical throughout his career
>thinking Perspectivalism makes The Grumpy Walrus a mystic and not a radical empiricist.

You're the kind of person who would call Kant a mystic, aren't you?

>>6145758
This. The Grumpy Walrus did care about truth. What he didn't care for was people building up baroque and tenuous structures of thought and calling them truth and then subjugating people. (Like you are doing with your notion of proper intellectuals.) Part of his "anti-truth" rhetoric has to do with his context, which foisted all sorts of absurdities onto people. Truth also wasn't his only project.

The Walrus' philosophy is actually pretty content-empty. It is mostly a procedure you're supposed to pass through in order to become a great person. There's a reason theologians talk about him as the first atheist to truly reject God. Reading The Grumpy Walrus in conjunction with Wittgenstein is very interesting. They're both philosophers who point you back to life.

>>6145801
Ding ding ding.

>>6145845
God, you're like a walking Swans album.

>>6145807
hello icycalm

>>6145700
>He didn't read Nietzsche in German

>>6145465
you probably just hate his generalized ideas, you don't have to agree 100% with philosophers to read them or find them interesting. and his followers have nothing to do with his actual philosophy,

Nietzsche's views are much more complex than a simple advocation of strong types. He analyzes ancient confrontations between masters and slaves, but his point isn't just to revert to the master. He knows that for we moderns things are different, as he puts it in Beyond Good and Evil #260:
"I add immediately that in all the higher and more mixed cultures there also appears attempts at mediation between these two moralities".

His master/slave dichotomy is a tool for studying past human beings who were beginning to form civilizations. He does not advocate one over the other.

You have to keep in mind that Nietzsche is working towards something greater when he talks about morality:
"Basically even then the real concern for me at heart was something much more important than coming up with hypotheses about the origin of morality, either my own or from other people (or, more precisely stated—this latter issue was important to me only for the sake of a goal to which it was one path out of many)" (GM, sec 5 of preface). That goal is the affirmation of life and the rejection of nihilism.

>>6146016
is meant for >>6145813
>>6145908
Is the alex kierkegaard that icycalm associates with the same danish analytic philosopher that posts on here?

>>6145947
Nietzsche thought the german language was shit. at least most of it. goethe, luther, holderlin being among exceptions.

>>6146072
>Nietzsche thought the german language was shit. at least most of it. goethe, luther, holderlin being among exceptions.
why?

>can't understand Nietzsche
>HURR FUCKING DURR I HATE HIM SO MUCH EVEN THOUGH IM JUST A DUMBFUCK WHO CANT UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S SAYING. THIS MEANS HIS FANS SUCK TOO BECAUSE I CANT UNDERSTAND THEM

>>6145685
How was it refuted?

>>6145721
Oh shit son. Shots fired.

>>6145647
>nobody can criticize canon
lol

>>6146072
>Is the alex kierkegaard that icycalm associates with the same danish analytic philosopher that posts on here?
alex kierkegaard is icycalm, it's his made-up psuedonym

>implying you have read nietzsche
>implying I have

>>6145728

I'll give you Gramsci, but Russell is certainly not an intellectual. Merely a logicist; a superb one at that, but he has no grasp of philosophy beyond that.

Not sure how you can conclude that Nietzsche's a "mystic"; if anything, Russell's mathematical Platonism reeks more of mysticism than anything in Nietzsche's pragmatic naturalism.

Come on, this is so obviously bait, guys. I've never heard of anyone who has read any philosophy --even those who disagree with everything Nietszsche has ever written--say that Nietzsche is not an intellectual. If you don't recognize his importance in philosophy, you don't know philosophy. I can think no more than maybe 10-15 more important modern (let's say, post 1600). philosophers. The people ahead of him change depending on whether you personally like the continental stuff or the analytic stuff more.

>>6146187
didnt say that kid

>>6146197
oh then its different ppl i guess

>>6146344
but i have

+1 OP, fuck Nietzsche

>>6146165
I repeat, how was it refuted?

>>6145465

pssshhhh... nothin personel... kid...

>>6146634

100% Agree. Fuck him. If your philosophy makes everybody be like "yer not reading it right" to everybody else, you probably need to learn how to actually write and define your concepts properly instead of aphoristic bullshit.

>all this reactionary pre-/ressentiment

kill yourselves srsly

>>6145465
kek

>>6146681
Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood.

One not only wants to be understood when one writes, but also quite as certainly not to be understood. It is by no means an objection to a book when someone finds it unintelligible: perhaps this might just have been the intention of its author, perhaps he did not want to be understood by "anyone”. A distinguished intellect and taste, when it wants to communicate its thoughts, always selects its hearers; by selecting them, it at the same time closes its barriers against "the others". It is there that all the more refined laws of style have their origin: they at the same time keep off, they create distance, they prevent "access" (intelligibility, as we have said,) while they open the ears of those who are acoustically related to them

>not recognising Hume, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche as being among the clearest of thinkers

>>6145845
oh fuck, are you me?

>>6145465
nice opinion

>>6145845
Careful m8, you'll cut yourself on all that edgy

Remember when Nietzsche said antisemites should be shot because Jews are the oldest and therefore best race?

>>6145465
I thought it was generally agreed he was a fucking lunatic... not that people actually STILL thought this way....

>>6149062
He never calles to shoot anyone, and jews are objectively among the best of cultures (race itself is irrelevant, as we know) - Show me one period in the history, anywhere in the world, when jews werent among the economic and intellectual elite.

>>6149062
Haha, yeah. That was a good time.

I like some of what Nietzsche proposes but I don't agree with most of his musings. I feel that way about almost every philosopher though, I don't think anyone so far has been "mostly right."

>>6149083
Elizabethan England.

>>6146730
I love all three of those thinkers, but I can hardly call Nietzsche clear. His style is very poetic and aphoristic. Any heavy use of symbolism and imagery is going to be diversely interpreted.

>>6149083

Wow, that is absolutely not a thing that Nietzsche was getting at. Major fail.

>>6149119
Except for yourself, obviously. Else how could you make that judgment?

>>6146153
Sounds like you have ressentiment...

>>6151103

I dont think I've got it mostly right either friendo :^)