/lit/ - Literature

>bara body with yaoi hands

>>6163944
Hmm, literature is 'greater' than music I guess.

As a Christian, much of it, though I do nevertheless admire Nietzsche.

>>6163944
Eternal recurrence
Misogyny
I doubt he understood Kant

>>6164028
he definitely understood Kant. I doubt he understood Hegel

I disagree that embracing suffering is more life-affirming than overcoming suffering.

Everything. From his writing (vague, unqualified, aphorisms, and platitudes) to his moral aestheticism to his legions of idiot fans who insist that nobody has "read" him right except them (which is perfectly in line with his teachings).

There is nothing worthwhile in Nietzsche's philosophy whatsoever.

>>6164028
Anybody who has read/studied Schopenhauer understands Kant.

>>6164761
You never read Nietzsche.

>>6164694
[bis]
You read that on /lit/, not in Nietzsche.

>>6164761
The problem with most critics of Nietzsche is not that they haven't read him but rather that they only read one part of him. They get one of his books read it and think they understand his full philosophy which they almost never do.

That's why you get people that think he was an egoist. The the Supermen are something like the Nazi ideal when in actuality he never implied any such thing.

I know Christians are resistant to admitting that the classical concept of a god is dead but once you get past protecting that point, he is really the only relevant moral philosopher.

>>6164832
>You never read Nietzsche.
This is the extent of Nietzschefag argument. Good on you for being honest to the tradition.

>>6164694
The concept of pain and suffering is Christian slave morality, all life is joyful to the Ubermensch.

>>6163944
The will-to-power and ubermensch stuff is fun but anyone who takes it seriously is an idiot

>history writing has no truth object and is just expressing power relations in society

Stop trying to deprive me of a job Nietzsche

Only read Zarathustra, but I disagree with the idea of eternal recurrence. Mostly because I don't understand it.

>>6164841
You are still saying they still didn't read him right. If they read all his works you'd want them to read his correspondence.

>>6164856
Well, I refuse to argue with someone justifying his positions with his lack of knowledge on the matter.

"Oh, yeah, I'm pretty fit to address Nietzsche, I never read a single page, and if you point it out, well, that means you can't argue!"

>>6164841
>I know Christians are resistant to admitting that the classical concept of a god is dead
You wouldn't admit to something that's false.

>>6163944
Nietzsche doesn't agree with Nietzsche half the time

>>6164868
It's just a thought experiment m8. The sciencey/magicy bits are only there to briefly realize the scenario of "you are going to live this life over and over and over again" so you can see how you feel about that.

If you're not living a life worth living for eternity, with no escape ever, you should probably get off your ass and fix that.

>>6164878
I don't refuse argue with someone who is admitted incapable of representing the ideas they are espousing, it's just impossible.

>>6164876
Why do you expect that people will take your point seriously if you open your discourse by proudly parading your absence of knowledge on the subject? Literally like a guy walking in a science classroom without knowing anything and yelling "I'm gonna disprove that shit of y'all, and fuck all this math shit man, it ain't real!!1!"

>>6164891
How do you expect to argue for Nietzsche if you can't even represent his ideas yourself?

>>6164914
Why don't you tell him your interpretation of Nietzsche, so that he can comment on your interpretation?

>>6164914
fucking kill yourself cunt

>>6164885
The fun thing is that, if the eternally recurring lives are exactly the same, then there's no difference between life one or living them all.

The eternal recurrence is a clever piece of intellectual conmanship, like Pascal's Wager. Helps put things in perspective although the idea itself is ultimately unconsequential.

The concept of the ubermensch.

>>6164914
His books already represent his ideas themselves, perhaps you should try reading them?

>>6164914
It's impolite to expect other people to tutor you you know. Not everybody is kind enough to fill you in on a subject that you have no knowledge of while you insult them and resist their explanations every step of the way.

ITT: a bunch of Nietzsche critics are unwilling to say what they think is wrong with Nietzsche and are waiting for people that agree with him to explain his entire philosophy so they can pick those posts apart.

>>6164942
I did. it didn't make him happy.
>>6164980
They don't, because you must certainly have read them (every single word) and are totally incapable of expressing them. Even if I hadn't read Nietzsche, you'd present a pretty bad case for reading him; "I have no idea what the fuck he said! Read him yourself!"

>>6165056
No. My case is, read him first, then drop your retarded philistine comments later. It is not my responsibility to explain my view of Nietzsche; I have no obligation to say such things, but since you raised the point of being called out for not reading him, I have refuted you as uncultured swine, nothing more. I didn't state anything about Nietzsche and I don't have to.

>>6163944
The whole Übermensch thing is pretty lame. I like the nay saying portion of his thought, but the alternative he comes up with is shit.

>>6165088
Then you have no grounds to say I'm wrong about anything. If you want to make a case that I'm wrong you have to produce your view of Nietzsche and why exactly it is more correct than mine. But of course "it's wrong because I don't like it" is a perfect example of applied Nietzsche.

>>6165109
>But of course "it's wrong because I don't like it" is a perfect example of applied Nietzsche.
It's actually a pretty good example of every argument ever.

>>6163944

His critique of egaliatrainism is right on the dot, but Christianity is allot less Egalitarian than he thought it was, His critiques of it really tend to just apply to pseudo Christian inversions into secular politics like Socialism, Democracy, and liberalism.

>>6164028
>Eternal recurrence
That's just a rhetorical device...

>>6165109
Are you somewhat retarded...?

I said I didn't state anything about Nietzsche. I didn't state anything about your view of Nietzsche. I stated something about the imbecility of your complaints about people telling retards like you to go read Nietzsche instead of spouting incoherent garbage about him. I didn't address your view on Nietzsche; I didn't even consider it. I simply told you to read Nietzsche. And I'm telling you again: open a fucking book.

>>6165103
He has no nay saying u dolt

>>6165056
You did not explain your interpretation. You said you didn't like the way he writes
>From his writing (vague, unqualified, aphorisms, and platitudes)

And then you said he was a practitioner of "Aestheticism" which I don't think you are using correctly and even if you were, you didn't explain why that is a bad thing.

Then you decided to rail about how his followers complain that you haven't read him.

From this feeble host of undeveloped statements, you then conclude
>There is nothing worthwhile in Nietzsche's philosophy whatsoever.
which you have not provided adequate evidence for.

I don't know, m8. You seem like a tw@.

>>6165132
He says nay to a lot of things, silly. He's a great critic, just a shitty ideologue.

>>6163944

Eternal Recurrence is an interesting concept, but it hardly makes sense coming from someone as indifferent to metaphysics as he was. It seems to have started off as a thought experiment in The Gay Science and gradually transformed into something that he genuinely believed in by Zarathustra.

>>6165153
It isn't meant literally. He means it as a concept to will you toward living. You are supposed to treat your life as if it were eternally recurrent.

>>6164761
> (vague, unqualified, aphorisms, and platitudes)
You didn't understand it, but it's okay, because he specifically intended for you to not understand it.

>>6165044
More like people arguing with critics to avoid posting their misgivings, probably because they have none.

>>6165167
the man thought that the eternal recurrence was necessitated according to physics. Read Kaufman's introduction to The Gay Science. It doesn't really matter, since we postmodern readers may just use it as a thought experiment, but he thought it was a physical truth.

However, I'm not quite sure if modern cosmology has ruled it out as a possibility. Doesn't really matter.

>Who can attain to anything great if he does not feel in himself the force and will to inflict great pain? The ability to suffer is a small matter: in that line, weak women and even slaves often attain masterliness. But not to perish from internal distress and doubt when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of it — that is great, that belongs to greatness.

>>6164816
Don´t think so, at least not fully. Schoppenhauer, just as all romantics, denied the limits of knowledge and ethics that Kant had proposed. I believe that reading Schoppenhauer without a proper understanding of Kant could lead to false statements.

>>6163944
Does anybody here really agree with music being the greatest thing?

>>6165120
You stated my statements on Nietzsche didn't represent Nietzsche properly, even if you didn't say why, that's still a statement concerning Nietzsche, it states that I don't understand Nietzsche properly and if I don't it must be to the effect that Nietzsche does not represent that which I stated him to represent. He must represent something else, obviously. You are utterly paralytic to define this for whatever reason. You can only repeat "read Nietzsche, read Nietzsche" over and over again and any fault in my own understanding is from not read Nietzsche, and then there is the matter of not having read Nietzsche "properly". You can make the same claim for every single philosopher ever, as long as you don't possess the wherewithal to represent their ideas. If Nietzsche is actually worth reading, he'd leave you with the actual capacity to represent his ideas and why according to those ideas I am wrong.

>>6165136
The primacy of the self, ego, whatever term Nietzsche aren't satisfied with this week is stupid because it presents to the personality the ability to arbitrate truth in any way. If there is any part to this which is true, I may arbitrate what is truth and what isn't. Nietzsche is useless because any form of egoist moral aestheticism (such as Christianity) can be substituted for his thought. There's no use for a philosopher who you can state to be false or true and that would make him true either way based his own concessions to personality (i.e. cuz God made it that way).

>>6163953
lolwat

>>6165860
Your desire for Truth, Truth with a capital T, is one of the foundational scorns of N's philosophy. Nietzsche advocates for the devaluation of thinking in terms of the true/false dichotomy ("why not rather desire untruths?"). In the same way that you say he is arbitrary, he would call you a Platonist.

The strength of his philosophy is that it burgeoned out of aestheticism, but became much more. It was not the Ideal/mathematical approach of the Scoratic School.

Anyways, it's really up to you to move beyond your own critique.

>>6166172
"The will to truth that still seduces us to take so many risks, that famous truthfulness of which all philosophers so far have spoken with respect: what questions this will to truth has already laid before us! What strange, wicked, questionable questions! - Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance?"

>>6166172
He can't say anything against being a Platonist or seeking capital T Truth without defeating himself. How can devaluation even take place without a metric for value?

>>6165787
/mu/

>>6166172
I disagree with the idea of Truth in and of itself, or at least that it is knowable to humans. I always thought that was a foundation of Existentialism.

>>6165860
Finding something useless because it doesn't offer any objective truth is the kind of thinking that Nietzsche argued against in the first place.

>>6166833
Then I must be missing a nuanced point in your post, if you don't care for Truth (or God, or objectivity, in that sense) you *can* arbitrate what is truth and what isn't, in a sense, you arbitrate your collection of personal truths.

>>6166282
Devaluation in the sense of moving beyond, like his urge to move beyond Christanity's conception of good and evil. N has been unreservedly open about the biases and subjectivity of his own position, he admits Zarathustra is written for everyone yet no one, meaning it is accessible to the public, but it will really be accepted by a few who is infatuated with life as he.

He is able to speak against Platonists and those who quest for Truth because they are incapable of skepticism and humor, in a sense. Past philosophers up to Kant had a dogmatic conviction in the foundations of reality built by Plato, the enemy of truth is not falsehood, but convictions. Your precise request for a 'metric' is kind of the scientific thinking which arose out of natural philosophy. Nietzsche is not questing for truths, he intents to convey a new way of perceiving & interpreting.

>>6164028
>Misogyny
this is a good thing

>>6163944
>Is there anything in Nietzsche's philosophy you disagree with or criticize?
he has a few lines on maths on physics which shows that he has no idea of what he is talking about, on this subject.
As usual, such as the typical lietrary person, he confuses science and technology.

Beyond this, like his stance that we must avoid binary thinkings, but everybody knows this.

The eternal recurrence seems appealing but I think it is weak/obvious.

>>6166999
>Nietzsche is not questing for truths, he intents to convey a new way of perceiving & interpreting.
How is this any different from the New Age horseshit of today and why should N be taken any more seriously?

>>6164951
That was rude :(

>>6166999
Oh, I'm not the poster you were replying to, I just threw my opinion in.
But the poster you were replying to does make the point that the ego cannot arbitrate the truth inasmuch as decide that there is no objective truth, and the two are necessarily complimentary.

If one takes the position that Truth is unknowable, that one can obviously not say that their conscious ideas supersede that Truth, as it is inherently more advanced than Man.

Likewise, if objective Truth is nonexistent, then Man making his own truth would be him making a facsimile of an imagined idea rather than perceiving his universe in the way closest to the way it is: free of reason, Truth, and subjective morality.

>>6167054
objective morality* I mean

>>6166999
>Devaluation in the sense of moving beyond,
The movement beyond it must arise from a need to do so, if it is no less valuable, it has no point. There is no need for his new way of perceiving and interpreting, yet it means he has given up trying to find the truth.

>>6163944
The thing about compassion. Given the horse episode, he seemed to struggle with that himself.

>>6167015
at this point I know nothing productive will come out of this discussion, but I will try to illustrate his importance as an intellectual to me, personally.

His occupies an unique position as a reactionary who is capable of satire and humor

He alongside Marx and Freud began a movement of critique of Western civilization which culminated in critical theory (a movement he would be very opposed to).

He is one of the few who advocates for anti-philosophy and anti-history, or at least dramatic overhauls in these departments

Being one of the proto-Existentialists, he characterized the problem of nihilism and some recommendations for overcoming it.

>>6164761
>to his legions of idiot fans who insist that nobody has "read" him right except them (which is perfectly in line with his teachings).

You have to account for the fact that Nietzsche, just like Baudrillard, Deleuze and Derrida all enjoyed the fact that their philosophy was mostly if not in it's entirety unintelligible or obscurantist.

If you personally don't find anything remotely interesting or revealing about his writings then that's fine.

>>6164863
I think you take it too seriously (or rather too literally) yourself, which makes you think it's idiotic in the first place.

This is the "rule of thumb" of any interpretation of anything: if it seems idiotic it's likely that you have an idiotic (reductive, clichéd) interpretation of it.
It is this same idiocy that produces all those reactive atheists. For example, übermensch isn't a person the same way monotheistic God isn't some bearded man in the sky.

>>6164865
Why would that deprive of you or your job? Assuming you're a historian that makes your job much more important and powerful.

>>6163978
Depends entirely on your definition of greater. I would say, though, that lit, music, and paintings are the purest arts

>>6164628
No one understands hegel

>>6163944
Nietzsche is just a soda-masochist.

>>6165860
Nietzsche is against subjectivism and agency, m8. Subject does not produce perspectives but is instead produced by certain perspectives. Otherwise subject would the role of God, being positioned outside of the world.
This makes applying notions of ego and egoism to Nietzsche incoherent.

>>6164028
>2015
>Not being a misogynist
constanza.jpg

The fanbase is shit

>>6167974
Still beats communists and their fanta-Maoganas.

>>6167974
He's more of a masochist in the sense of amor fati whereas sadism is reactive towards moral law. Sadism and masochism don't go well together (when considering their proper meaning outside of the context of mere role-playing in sexual practices).

>>6167990
Still beats expired apple juice too

>>6163944
I studied Nietzcshe proffessionally for many a several of year. Basically he confuses the basis for the intent and doesn't understand how epiontology is implied in his analysis of the purpose of suffering, there is no teleological significance to his ubermensch theory, despite it being soteriologically appealing. Part of me thinks he never read Kant because sometimes he superimposed a completely unrecognized hermenutical structure over the acrtuality of the Kantian a priori intent. If you follow me, in short Nietzsche was struggling to relay what Pippy Longstockings did effortlessly. If you understand this, then you are mc'nietzsched and have reached the gestalt apex of nomenclatural philogy. Just imagine a situation where the Western world didn't have its bedrock in the manner of being the foundation insofar as referencing the Greeks; it therefore wouldn't imply the neccessity of following from that that particular thatness of the demagoguery of Christoforo Christmastide Christendom (nice, metaphor irony, I know). In otherwords, without iterating the reiteration aforementionedly discussed hitherto therefor, therefore Nietzsche if following his own philosophy of suffering, would of secretly been a Christian as to attain the status of the great Pippy Longstockings, which is the closest character in the history of histories the reach the status, or extremely close insofar as being relative to and referencing the, ubermensch. It is not too far off from a profound implicit philosophy that isn't off the map, but isn't on the map due to its antifoundationalist proclivities. I hope you're following because here is where it gets good. Sorry, English is my 5th language, and like the 5th worlders, sometimes it is broken and not as refined as it may one day could of been if I have had not been a non-english speaker in particularly the native sense.

>>6168005
Oh, look at the purposefully obscure words go.

He's doing it, guys.

>>6168005
>teleological
I mean he isn't a hylomorphist.

>>6168251
Oh, I now see this is pasta.

>>6164761
>his legions of idiot fans who insist that nobody has "read" him right except them

Which philosopher DOESN'T have that going on, retard??

You think Marxists, Hegelians and Psychoanalyists aren't at each others' throats every day saying they have the one true interpretation and the other guys have no clue what's going on?

This is a pretty basic feature of philosophical dialog in general. If you're going to call NIetzsche out on something at least make it something that you can't say about EVERY OTHER PHILOSOPHER EVER just as validly.

Something tells me you're an authoritarian faggot who can't handle subtlety, nuance, opposing arguments or even the idea that a philosopher might be worth reading without necessarily being some all-encompassing guru you can surrender your entire will to.

>>6165827

I'll start with one obvious thing:

Nietzsche's anti-foundationalism isn't a cartoonish opposition to the idea of truth. Nietzsche doesn't deny reality, and the fact that some truths *COME CLOSER TO IT* than others. He just thinks (correctly, by the standards of virtually all modern philosophy) that a statement can never be completely true, because statements don't correspond to reality. All descriptive statements are ultimately metaphors of some kind that inevitably break down if we apply the standard of "corresponding to reality" because words have nothing to do with the external world. The only way that we can have an absolutely perfect truth is in the realm of logic--and as Nietzsche pointed out, those truths, are ultimately tautology.

I should like to point out that if you disagree with Nietzsche on this point that you are aligning yourself against virtually every well known philosopher of both analytic *AND* continental traditions. Popper's earth shattering victory in proving that science can only falsify and never actually verify was also partially a victory for Nietzsche; ever since Popper made this discovery, there has been a near-universal consensus that having a real, verified, absolute truth is a complete pipe dream.

So if you're actually advocating some kind of platonist absolutism in opposition to the overwhelming consensus AGAINST such a position in analytical philosophy, continental philosophy, and philosophy of science... Well my buddy boy you have your work cut out for you.

In the meantime, Nietzsche offers an ingenious and compelling alternative metric in place of "moral truth".

What if instead of evaluating moral statements by whether they're true or not, we evaluate them by their effects, their value? Even if you disagree with my statement about absolute truth in the sciences, I'm sure you will agree that there are no such thing as moral facts. Now then, in the face of that, what do we make of morality? What alternative is there to "truth" in the domain of morality? One possible standard is, "how helpful is it, how instructive is it, how much does it contribute to the health of the community or of the human species as a whole"?

That is Nietzsche's anti-foundationalism applied to morality. Not some grim nihilism like anti-Nietzsceans suggest but a very earnest and heartfelt attempt to create a new standard of moral judgment in a world where absolute moral truth is no longer credible. I also personally believe in this "value" standard of morality; I believe that the metric "what is the value of this moral precept to the health of a community" can effectively re-establish most of the moral maxims we intuitively think of as true, such as the recommendations against murder and theft.

>Plato is boring and autistic - Nietzsche

I agree with him to some extent on the autistic part, but boring? muh FORMS

>>6169926
Boring and autistic? He says neither and even praises Plato's spirit in some places. His issues with Plato are elsewhere, mainly with devaluation of appearances.

First, you have to keep in mind that Nietzsche's "total dismissals" are very context-based, often praising the same thing in some other context. Second, what Nietzsche attacks he also respects in some way or another: respecting your enemy and having a respectable enemy is proportional to your own worth.

>>6163944
Slavery, 'pathos of distance' (classism), misogyny, master-slave morality and anti egalitarianism.

I don't like Nietzsche on anything other than perhaps his anti nationalism and anti-anti semitism.

>>6170458
> slavery

Nietzsche advocates in favor of slavery? Where? He does say in BGE that slavery is part of the evolution of society but he doesn't say this is a desirable end state--only that new societies are founded upon slavery, when some barbarian horde sacks an older, more sedentary and more stagnant civilization. He's not saying that the ideal society would include slavery--he often says that the strongest type of society would be forgiving and "humanitarian, albeit out of strength rather than out of morality--he's just imploring us to consider hard truths about how societies develop. Do you think his thesis isn't true? That slavery isn't generally a step in the progression of societies that serves a civilization-building role for a time? Most anthropological theories of how "civilization" developed seem to corroborate it. There is a pretty widely held theory that slavery arose when agriculture was invented and people recognized the potential for reaping greater agricultural surplus by employing servants, and that this is part of what took us from hunter-gatherer societies to settled civilizations. Maybe theoretically the slavery could have been avoided but there's no doubt that as a purely historical point, slavery played a role in developing civilization.

>>6170817
shut up

>>6171031
Why? Too much truth for you?

Yeah I know man truth is hard shit but in the end it benefits you, so keep being mad and sooner or later you will grow by it.

>>6164028
He did, Kant's fans are just cunts who insist he's perfect and no one gets him

>>6164761
Philosophical toddler detected

>>6170458
>>6170817

To abolish slavery would be to abolish life itself, since in a zero sum universe any increase in power must correspond with a DECREASE somewhere else.

And since nobody can abolish life in the entire universe, nobody will ever abolish slavery. QED.

>>6164014

>Christian

HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAH

>I doubt he understood Kant

HAHAHAHHAAHAHA Kant was a useless scared old geezer.

>>6170458
Nietzsche wasn't anti-nationalist in the sense you mean. He believed in an empire, roman-style, to him nationalism actually meant atomistic nations infighting and suppressing the capabilities of the übermensch

>>6169794
>Which philosopher DOESN'T have that going on
Every analytic. If one isn't a hack there's no need to argue over his writings.

Sycophancy abounds.

>>6171311
>Kant's fans are just cunts who insist he's perfect and no one gets him
Irony.