/lit/ - Literature

>tfw Nietzsche is the new Stirner

why is he /lit/'s favorite philosopher if moral relativism was disproved 2400 years ago?

So, you make another one?

Makes sense. Idiot.

>>6250687

A few days ago it was marx threads, so i predict in three days we will see a vast increase in Stirnerposting.

>>6250698
>tfw only 1 or less threads at any given moment about the best philosopher in history

>>6250687
someone needs to write on the "movements" this board goes through. but it has to be someone who posts here

>>6250693
because he's eidzsche

>>6250708
Nietzsche is the Plato of the next 2000 years.

Is this the new Nietzsche thread? if you were married to Nietzsche what would you do to try to cheer him up?

>>6250836
I would impregnate him with the future

this guy was such a fucking douche, holy shit

>rejects morality
>rejects religion
>rejects helping people
>rejects democracy
>rejects pacifism
>rejects egalitarianism
>rejects selflessness

>>6250693

Moral skepticism isn't moral relativism.

Nietzsche's stance on morality isn't susceptible to the standard attack on moral relativism, because it isn't that.

For Nietzsche, morality serves human ends, humans don't serve morality. The moralities that develop serve the purposes of the social classes they spring from. Master morality is 'objectively' correct for the master classes; it keeps them healthy. Slave morality is 'objectively' correct for the slave classes; it prevents them from being completely trampled over by their bosses and from hating themselves. To ask either class to accept the other's morality is absurd; morality is a psychological phenomenon and whatever people believe in consciously, they'll follow their instincts when the chips are down.

This isn't moral relativism. Moral relativism posits that there are basically infinite moralities for infinite different situations. Nietzsche's moral theory is that there are essentially two types, those derived from basically active psychology and those derived from basically passive psychology,

>>6250693

stop, you don't know what are you talking about

>start visiting /lit/
>see every Nietzsche thread with eagerness to know more subtle things about his work
>mfw when people read Zarathustra to understand Nietzsche as the first book
>mfw people start arguing about the eternal recurrence, the Ubermensch, etc, and forget about the really important part of resentment, perspectivism, ascetic life and morals
>mfw people try to simplify the work of Nietzsche in concepts while it was created to make a strong impression in the reader through imagery and reflection
>mfw /lit/ gets his info from wikipedia and stanford everytime

I'm pretty sure that everybody that has read Nietzsche for sure cringes everytime there is a Nietzsche thread

>>6250856

but, wasn't his whole argument that master morality is superior and that we should all embrace master morality and give up ideas of collectivism and egalitarianism?

>>6250687
Because he's one of the most interesting philosophers.

You don't have to agree, but there's no reason to shitpost.

What book should I read as my first Nietzche book.

I've basically never read a philosophy book before. Please don't tell me I should read something else first. I'd rather not.

>>6250711
I like this better than LE CATHOLIC STALANISM or all the godamn Antinatalism threads we had last year.

/lit/ fad tier list.
>Max Stirner
>Nietzsche
>Helenismos
>....
>Catholic Stalinism
>Antinatalism

>>6250863

His point is that slave morality and ascetic ideals bring CANCER to the mind, they make people guilt of their own existence, self-hate, etc

>>6250687
>Bietzsche
LOOOOLL NEETZSCHE BIETZSCHE LOOOL CLEVER

>>6250863
Not at all. Nietzsche never showed preference to either one and the whole point of the Overman is that he would transcend master/slave dichotomy.

>>6250863
No, he said that master morality and slave morality were both concepts with their roots firmly in the past, and that the overman would abandon both altogether.

Nazis willfully misinterpreted his writings.

>>6250868
>Genealogy of Morals
>The Gay Science
>Twilight of the Idols

>>6250844
>>rejects morality

Yeah this sucks let's go back to forcing people not to have sex before marriage because god said so.

>>rejects religion

Yeah everybody loves church, god, what kind of dickhead even comes up with this stuff!

>>rejects helping people

[CITATION NEEDED]

>>rejects democracy

I don't get what's wrong with "rejecting" some idea that has never existed in practice. No country has ever achieved a real democracy ever and it's probably impossible because ultimately you can't consult the population on every decision that society makes. Democracy is an empty shell.

>>rejects pacifism

Somebody punches me, I'm hitting back, sorry this bothers you so much.

>>rejects egalitarianism

So does basically everyone, it's a "feel good" idea, nobody really thinks there's nothing wrong with being retarded or fat or crippled, everybody ultimately believes in grades of values between individuals, and that includes egalitarians themselves, who consider non-egalitarians objectively inferior. The fact that Nietzsche can acknowledge a basic reality instead of parroting some bullshit vapid conventional idea, does not do him any disservice.

>>rejects selflessness

[CITATION NEEDED]

>>6250884
Could you describe the overman as someone who is overflowing with positive creative energy?

>>6250888
Those are three. Please narrow that down to one.

>>6250868

Definitely Genealogy of the morals

>>6250893
Nietzsche's examples of Overman were

Goethe: who wrote a lot

Diogenes, who lived in a barrel and masturbated in public

Napoleon, who conquered.

>>6250893
Perhaps, but I'm not really sure even Nietzsche knew what the Overman would be be like other than vaguely "Superior."

>>6250889

this is why nobody likes nietzsche fans

the logical conclusion of the philosophy is either

>Rand-tier libertarian
>fascism

there has never been a logically consistent nietzsche fan who has advocated for a social system that promotes peace, freedom, or progress.

>>6250909
you weren't convincing in your thread and you aren't convincing now

>>6250909

You see Nietzsche philosophy as a system rather than a inquiry

If you look to read for things that only will give you a complete system, you are too naive

>>6250911

i didn't make this thread, you asshole

>>6250916

it is not an inquiry

it is an active rejection of everything that separates humans from animals (cooperation, non-violence, helping the weakest and least powerful members of society, etc.)

he instead thinks we should replace that all with pure, unadulterated egoism

>>6250918
>>6250924
1/10

>>6250895
read Allison "Reading the New Nietzsche" first then pick one of the books he covers

>>6250924
Quote where he said this.

>>6250929

it's the entire point of his philosophy

it's like asking me to quote where Marx said capitalism is bad.

>>6250893
i don't think the idea of the overman should get all the attention it does relative to his other ideas.

affirming life in the face of eternal recurrence and a morality which cherishes power is more important, in my view

>>6250916
this anon is correct, i feel. i have no intimation that old fred was proposing any sort of orthodoxy. as the fella says hisself
>“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”

he was mere trying to steer the conversation to addressing the need for a new morality, really, one that , as said above, affirmed life uber alles.
>>6250924
and yet all the 'magnamity to the vanquished" the shit talking about wanting to bring people shame, 'politeness always' i think you maybe watched a few youtube videos friend because i do not see how you can read 3+ of his books and conclude he was proposing a totaling system
in fact:
"the will to a system is a lack of integrity"

git gud

>>6250934
>he instead thinks we should replace that all with pure, unadulterated egoism

quote where he said this specifically

>>6250924

>it is an active rejection of everything that separates humans from animals

spooked

I'm the ubermensch and a true stoic because I don't leave the house

>>6250909

>Rand-tier libertarian
>fascism

You're missing the core point of Nietzsche's whole project and the locus of his whole critique.

Nietzsche's philosophy is at its core a hermeneutic of suspicion. VERY CENTRAL to his philosophy is the idea that the intellectual class uses feel good ideas to manipulate other people in society. He does not accept from the beginning that these people are being honest at all in what they say. He thinks they are promoting pie in the sky ideals that A) don't work, B) may never have been intended to work.

When you attack Nietzsche as a conventional political philosopher you're kind of missing the point. Most political philosophers are interested in promoting ideas that will be popular, that will "pull on the heart strings" so to speak. Nietzsche isn't concerned about this. He wants to tackle reality itself head on. He doesn't care if you're disgusted with his ideas, because he's not looking for your "vote" so to speak, his project completely sincere, it's not a "hustle." Truth hurts sometimes, and Nietzsche tries to tell the truth more than any other philosopher. So it's not surprising his ideas hurt or disturb some people.

As for defending Nietzsche's suspicion of those who promote populist ideas, well, I'll just put this out there. Can you think of any societies where the promotion of a populist ideal, has been followed by actual, existing populism? I can't. The modern West, the greek democracies, the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc, all, in practice, have/had social stratification. In the meantime I can think of plenty of situations where populism was used by the ruling class to hoodwink the ruled and oppress them all the more effectively...

>>6250934
no it isn't. consider reading before you post on a literature board

>>6250946

>What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness.

it should be clarified that by "power", he means power of man over man, and by "weakness", he means charitable or collectivist moralities

>>6250954

>lol, you just hate Nietzsche because he tells the TROOOF, lol get over it, lol truth hurts, stop clinging on to fairy tales

yet another reason nobody likes Nietzsche fans

i don't hate him because he tells the truth. i hate him because he's an asshole who promotes anti-human and anti-society ideas.

>>6250966

> i hate him because he's an asshole who promotes anti-human and anti-society ideas.

spooked as fuck

>>6250958
>>6250966
before everyone responds to this just realize that it's a troll

>>6250958
okay, obv troll is obv
no he doesn't and you know it. by power he means the ability to enact an expression of our will. eschewing what proceeds from weakness means having values which do not fetishize impotence as christianity, say does.

you are being disingenuous, friend, and I would have never expected that from a fellow 4chan user.

Nietzsche is like the first taste of philosophy people get so they read Zarathustra and misinterpret the entire thing and believe they now understand how humanity works

It's like that kid who took 2 months of Psych101 and felt he knew how the human mind worked in and out

>>6250971
>>6250972
>>6250974

so, not rejecting the good parts of humanity in favor of animalistic egoism makes me a troll?

ok then

>>6250978
keep trying m8

maybe one day you will be the overman of trolling, but that day is not today

>>6250909
>there has never been a logically consistent nietzsche fan who has advocated for a social system that promotes peace, freedom, or progress.
but there's me anon

>>6250966

Dude can you actually address some of the shit people are saying to you?

The demands that have been made to you here and in that thread the other day have been pretty fucking minimal, yet you just go on saying "he's an asshole," "he supports barbarism," "he's depraved," etc.

The idea that thought leaders might use flattering populist ideas to convince the masses to vote them into power isn't that controversial. I can't see why someone of good faith could think it too trivial to respond to. Nietzsche just takes it seriously instead of merely having that fashionable, defeatist cynicism about it that most people have.

>>6250974

also, you're just saying the same thing i said.

Nietzsche views power as "exercising your will over others". he viewed impotence as "helping others or minimizing aggressive acts of oppressive dominance".

>>6250868

Human All Too Human.

(also, seriously, fuckin read the Greeks)

>>6250990

democracy may have been misused or manipulated in history, but that doesn't mean we should give up on it and promote aristocratic elitism (which has also been used for manipulation and oppression, so i don't see why you think it's so different).

most people who realize the futility of parliamentary democracy advocate for anti-statist and decentralized direct democracy, which has historically worked quite well the handful of times that it's been tried.

>>6250996

No he didn't. He viewed power as being honest and truthful with yourself and others, weakness as being an emasculated coward who resorts to horseshit trickery and self deception to get one over on one's self and others.

>>6250996
>I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!

eat one million dicks

>>6250996

You are simplifying too much things here, seeing that if concepts are consistent and such, it's not the way to see nietzsche

When impotence is regarded with helping others in morality, it's related to help others to have "wisdom", and that "helping" through history has been related to "you have to be humble, etc, etc". That helping is related to ascetic ideals and such, that's why it's weakness because it doesn't fix the problem, it merely makes it strong by negating your own being.

Have you actually read Nietzsche or you just saw some youtube video about him? You see helping others as an absolute helping, not a helping related to power struggles and perspectivism

>>6250825
this

>>6250954

Actually, contra your comment about Nietzsche as a political philosopher, I think he *is* offering popular ideas to those who consider themselves "exceptional", since the herd will kinda keep doing its herd thing, and it's really the exceptions who make or break a culture (the exceptions would include demagogues, religious leaders, lawmakers; basically anyone who can persuade the herd to function for them).

It looks like part of what he's offering is a way to deal with a world that offers religions instead of religion; he'd be fine with the latter, one suspects, but the former causes people to throw their hands up in the air and mope around for the rest of their lives like the dog died. He basically offers a new kind of religion that won't be seen as suffering what the other religions do, namely, an account predicated on Being-Knowledge, which he replaces with Becoming-Belief.

It seems to be largely successful as a philosophic political maneuver as well, based on the last 50 years.

>>6251012

be more specific. both of those ideas are incredibly vague. how would an honest person and an "emasculated coward" be distinguished in their day-to-day lives?

>>6251014

that's where the Rand side of his philosophy comes from. he seemed to be torn between libertarian egoism and authoritarian egoism.

>>6251015

i don't know what you mean.

i see no weakness in occasionally sacrificing parts of your own well-being in the unwavering service of others. it's actually quite noble and admirable.

>>6251037

>i don't know what you mean.

Read the Genealogy of the Morals and see it for yourself

>>6251041

no.

i'm not going to blindly accept his ideas because he has a pretty writing style.

explain why altruism is weak.

>>6251014

HE HAS ALSO SAID A BILLION FUCKING TIMES THAT THE STRONGEST CONCEIVABLE SOCIETY WOULD HAVE NO WAR, WOULD BE FULL OF FORGIVING AND CHARITABLE PEOPLE, WOULD HAVE ECONOMIC SYSTEMS IN PLACE TO PREVENT CAPITALIST EXCESSES, AND NO COERCIVE DISCIPLINE WHATSOEVER... OH, BUT BECAUSE HE SAID THESE VIRTUES HAVE TO ORIGINATE FROM THE STRONGEST IN SOCIETY INSTEAD OF CAVING INTO LAME-ASS PC BOILERPLATE APPARENTLY HE'S A MONSTER WHO ADVOCATES EATING WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

The way this anti-Nietzsche fag is acting is so fucking childish. You can easily tell what their motive is. They read some lines in nietzsche that made them mad and never bothered to follow the line of reasoning all the way to its conclusion. Nietzsche has always said that the strong in society have absolutely no right to abuse the weak and that they should ideally be forgiving people, but because he arrives at this conclusion by unorthodox means and acknowledges some "hard truths" along the way, he's some kind of satanist. This blatant misrepresentation is honestly pretty fucking disgusting and I REALLY have to wonder how much of this guy calling Nietzsche a monster is just projecting.

>>6251050

If you go for the meaning of the words, yes, you will see that good is good, bad is bad, justice is just, altruism is not selfish, humbleness is humble, pain is painful, satan is evil, god is pure, etc. Pure reason can give all the answers of your language

If you go through HOW those things are APPLIED in real life, and how the meaning of those words is used for, and how people use words to conceal their real intentions is where Nietzsche enters.

>>6251058

no, his idea that only the most powerful members of society can bring about change is untrue and flagrantly meant to manipulate people into being subservient to the aristocracy.

true change comes from the people as a whole. his ideal society would not emerge from the aristocracy finally deciding that they want to try things in a different way. it would come from the people overthrowing the shackles of those who would have them oppressed.

your ideology promotes authoritarianism, elitism, and egoism and your defense of it is absolutely sickening.

>>6251065

I may add by the same pure reason that you use, being good and doing good will end always in good, and doing bad, being bad, will always end in bad

in life it isn't like that

>>6250950

Actually, he (INCIDENTALLY) has something on this one; Nieztsche calls the "lack of all cardinal differences between man and animal" one of the doctrines that he holds as "true but dangerous".

Just a plastic version of Stirner.

>>6251065

no, he doesn't criticize the way that non-ego based philosophies are USED. he criticizes the philosophies themselves and sees them as derived from some sort of inherent weakness or character defect.

i find those who would selflessly aid the weak and the downtrodden as a hundred times more admirable and respectable than the selfish and power-seeking "Ubermensch" that you all have such a hard-on for.

>>6251069

Dude, quit projecting your authoritarian fantasies onto Nietzsche and get psychiatric help. I know you would like very much to attack some random group of people you don't like, murder them, and call them "the oppressed' in some gay effort to get a group of laborers on your side, but my deepest instincts tell me that it's not cool to just go around murdering random people just because you dislike them.

perhaps I am the Ubermensch...

>>6251084
>i find those who would selflessly aid the weak and the downtrodden as a hundred times more admirable and respectable than the selfish and power-seeking "Ubermensch"
You'd be surprised how selfish those endeavors really are.

>>6251086

i'm sorry that i don't believe this capitalistic lie that some members of society inherently have the right to rule by virtue of their genetics and character. i guess being a good person is morally contemptible to you.

>>6251092

it just goes to show how little compassion Nietzsche fans have that they can't possibly conceive of someone who wants to help people purely for the sake of helping people.

>>6251069
As an anti-capitalist who is anti-state, I think you are reading this wrong. Why would Nietzsche think that the people currently in charge of societies are the most noble? It is from nobility, real power, not petty political power or wealth that our possibility for change arises.

When a man self creates his life and refuses to be merely a victim of consequence, he attains some great nobility of soul, this is the sort of man of tomorrow. Look at the revolutions born of resentment: the French and the Bolshevik Revolutions being the most dramatic, perhaps. They were bloodbaths that left the least among the populace is scarcely a better place than they started. They effected no meaningful change, but yielded more of the same, only with more blood dripping.

>>6251069
>no, his idea that only the most powerful members of society can bring about change is untrue and flagrantly meant to manipulate people into being subservient to the aristocracy.

Firstly, you've in one respect avoided his trick; that's good, because it wasn't intended for you. On the other, you've been duped by another trick that wasn't meant for you.

For Nietzsche, the "most powerful" are...wait for it...philosophers. Powerful insofar as philosophy since Plato has basically constructed the world that we move within. It's rather more equivalent to how lawmakers work in putting forth laws for everyone to live by.

That trick was actually MEANT for the people who suppose themselves meant for "aristocracy". They themselves (and all those who imagine themselves as "ubermenschen") are all rubes of Nietzsche's actual purposes. You didn't fall for it because Nietzsche doesn't want you too; you're not the kind of person he's actually manipulating.

>>6251097
Alright then, what's something you've done that you felt was solely for the sake of helping people?

>>6251097
pic related

>>6251097
>i guess being a good person is morally contemptible to you.

No, but hiding authoritarian projects behind pretty-sounding language and scheming day and night to control people in the guise of "salvation" fucking disgusts me and frankly scares the shit out of me. This "saving people" crap is the exact same psychology that men who want to "possess" women use to mentally blind themselves as to their own motives. It fucking horrifies me that you people believe your own lies to such an extent and that by means of this outrageous self deception as to your own motives you're able to go around abusing people in the worst possible way (that is, psychologically) and think yourselves actually HEROIC while you're doing it. It's fucking scary man, IDK. You're basically a rapist.

>>6251101

why are Nietzsche fans so inherently opposed to justice?

revolutions are created out of some childish sense of envy. they are created because any logical person with a decent sense of empathy can understand that a society where power and influence are concentrated solely on a very tiny minority of people (based off of arbitrary status and wealth) is WRONG and needs to be abolished. it violates the autonomy and personal freedom of those who are being oppressed and it promotes injustice on a massive and irreversible scale.

do you not fucking realize that people in the French Revolution were fucking STARVING in the streets? do you honestly think that envy is the reason that they felt society is unjust, rather than that they were fucking STARVING for no good reason?

>>6251128

>is WRONG and needs to be abolished.

Please name the morals needed to do such a thing

And name the morals that go against it

>>6251102

so, he wanted philosopher kings? like Plato?

that's still basically wrong.

>>6251103

i never said i was an altruistic person. i said altruism. was admirable.

i will freely admit that i have lazy and selfish character flaws. i'm working on them, but they exist and i won't deny that they exist.

>>6251115

dude, what the fuck are you talking about?

you are just pathologically scared of people. i don't want to oppress or hurt anyone. i want to END oppressive and hurtful power structures. my ideal society is one where NOBODY asserts their will over anyone else. that is the exact opposite of a rapist's mentality.

>>6251128
>the French Revolution ended hunger and poverty in France
>the French Revolution lead to genuine political and economic equality
>things are objectively wrong and right
you're right anon, my bad

>>6251128

Addressing social issues =/= throwing hysterical over the top revolutions that kill more people than they save. There's a difference between policies meant to improve peoples' lot, and all-encompassing ideological movements built on the outrage of said people. The one is something the French royals should have done and their failure to do it was a fuckup on a massive historical scale. But that doesn't make the revolution all awesome and righteous. The French revolution honestly sucked.

>>6251128

They aren't; they point out that the Rawlsian conception of Justice being wholly equal to Fairness has no firm basis (fairness perhaps being a certain part, rather than the whole of justice), and that the fight for fairness might in fact be a displacing of the part of justice that deals with merit.

>>6251143
>my ideal society is one where NOBODY asserts their will over anyone else.

Nobody except you and your cronies, who will then oppress worse than the order you replaced... as has happened in every successful revolution ever promoted by those of your mindset.

>>6251143
>i never said i was an altruistic person
Can you think of even one person who did things solely for the benefit of others?

>>6251143

I'm thinking that you haven't read anything and you just think something is good or bad because the dictionary or some small personal experiences says so

>>6251143

Ah, okay, so you don't have an arguemtn against him or Plato; you just *FEEL* that they're wrong, and certainly there's nothing wrong with a theory and praxis based off of the subjective whims and feelings of an individual, is there?

>>6251138

i know that you're trying to trick me into becoming one of Nietzsche's strawman and i'm not going to fall for it.

morality doesn't even need to factor into the equation. use pure reason; people are more likely to work together with those who they view as equals rather than those who they view as superiors or inferiors. therefore, the most cooperative and mutually beneficial society would be one in which the power structures that artificially create inequality are abolished.

>>6251163

What? TRICK you into becoming one? Dude, you're already fuckin there. There's no tricking that needs to be done by any of us.

>>6251163

do you even master-slave dialectic? Hegel? search for it, and search the criticism

>use pure reason;

dropped, i will leave this thread

LOL @ HOW FUCKING POWER HUNGRY, HYSTERICAL AND IRATE THE /LIT/ ANTI-NIETZSCHE FAG IS.

Fire up the guillotines you fucking faggot, you're not tricking anyone.

>>6251163

So, aren't you admitting that people will intentionally ignore their natural inequalities, in refusing to work over inferiors or under superiors? I mean, while still admitting of the fact of natural inequalities?

>>6251075
stirner is literally a cartoon version of neat-o

>>6251143
There must not be any teachers, artists, philosophers or cultural icons in your ideal society then since these are the people most able to assert their will.

>>6251144
>>6251145

supporting the basic principle of the French Revolution doesn't mean i support the terror and all that shit.

are you people honestly saying that an aristocracy that lives in excesses and stomps on the 99.999% of people who don't fit into it is preferable to an ideology that seeks to eliminate oppression and hierarchy?

you are authoritarians; plain and simple.

>>6251152

why do you have such a warped view of fairness/equality?

people who advocate for equality don't think that we should attempt to discourage, minimize, or attack those who are exceptional or gifted. they argue that this natural giftedness is not a sound basis for a hierarchy or a right to rule.

>>6251156

you are insanely paranoid.

how can you warp "I want peace and justice" into "I want to oppress everyone"?

>>6251158

constant altruism doesn't exist.

however, there have been plenty of people who have engaged in OCCASIONAL altruism. Gandhi, for instance.

>>6251160
>>6251159

i don't believe in elitism because it's unnecessary, causes massive societal instability, and it mostly unfounded in reality.

>>6251163

>Gandhi

ayy lmaooo

>>6251189
>Gandhi, for instance
Gandhi only helped people to satisfy his desire to. The suffering of others was suffering to him, he would not help them if he did not want to relieve himself of his suffering - very egoist.

>>6251186
uh no school has taught me that asserting your will over someone means that you're literally a fascist bolivian dictator stomping your mud-covered boots on some poor peasants face

>>6251189

>how can you warp "I want peace and justice" into "I want to oppress everyone"?

again, because you have to use your will to put that idea into the world, and not everybody has the same wills, so you will inevitable have to struggle through it, maybe doing very cruelty and sad things (which Nietzsche speaks about too)

Srs, can you even into power structures or you just think power structures as the dictionary says so?

>>6251189

Let's try this again:

Do you believe that there are *ANY* differences in nature? That is, do you admit of even the possibility of things like fetal alcohol syndrome as a medical deficiency that someone can be born with, putting them at a certain disadvantage in comparison with those who are not?

Or say, schizophrenia, down's syndrome, predisposition to alzeimers, parkinsons, certain kinds of cancers, etc.?

>>6251172

if you view anyone who disagrees with you as part of "the herd", then yeah, i guess i do fit into your insanely narrow and judgmental worldview.

>>6251176

kthxbai

>>6251180

calm your titties, holy shit

i'm a libertarian at heart. i want freedom for all. i just believe that true freedom necessarily coincides with some sort of egalitarian or socialist socioeconomic structure.

>>6251182

yes.

natural inequalities, first of all, are not cut-and-dry. you can be both intellectual superior AND physically inferior to another guy. therefore, trying to form some sort of social hierarchy out natural inequality is futile and unjust.

>>6251186

asserting your will on others is not the same thing as sharing your worldview or perspective.

asserting is nonconsensual and forceful.

>>6251210
>i just believe that true freedom necessarily coincides with some sort of egalitarian or socialist socioeconomic structure.
#things_blockheads_say

>>6251210

>i'm a libertarian at heart. i want freedom for all. i just believe that true freedom necessarily coincides with some sort of egalitarian or socialist socioeconomic structure.

holy shit, is this your first day on lit or something?

do you even positive freedom / negative freedom?

>>6251198

and said desire came from a selfless empathy or compassion.

>>6251205

maximum personal freedom can not be simultaneously had for every single member of society, because maximum personal freedom results in some members taking away the personal freedom of other members.

the best solution to this problem is: "You are free to do what you wish so long as it isn't nonconsensually harming another person". therefore, libertarian socialism is the best to bring this maxim into society.

>>6251206

obviously.

once again, acknowledging natural inequalities is not the same thing as forming a social hierarchy out of them.

>>6251189
>>6251189
>are you people honestly saying that an aristocracy that lives in excesses and stomps on the 99.999% of people who don't fit into it is preferable to an ideology that seeks to eliminate oppression and hierarchy?
no, retard. i am saying that pretending to want to end oppression isn't any better than acting aloof to it if the practical reality is basically the same you idealist piece of trash.

>>6251223

You realize that trying to prove you right over us is a form of Will to Power?

You see, you see will to power as something inherently bad, but it's not

>>6251213
>>6251215

>right-libertarians

how do you cope with the fact that your ideology would inherently result in hierarchies, power structures, and oppressive organizations ending the personal freedom for every member except the top 0.0005 or so percent?

>>6251189

The question of who should rule is IN FACT related to the subject of natural inequalities.

Whenever one asks the question of who should rule, the next question to be asked is PRIMARILY whether it should be someone with wisdom, or without. And any inspection into the question of how one gains wisdom leads to the observation that not all are equally capable of achieving it, and so not all are equally capable of governing over people. This question doesn't ignore, by the way, concerns with tyranny and oppression. The tyrant isn't naturally better; they're the most like an animal, insofar as they're ruled by their appetites, and have no conception of how to properly preserve themselves. (look at the history of tyrants who come to bad ends; consider how much rarer it is that they come to good ones at all)..

>>6251223
>empathy or compassion
mere symptoms of his own desire to relieve himself of suffering

>>6251210
>asserting your will on others is not the same thing as sharing your worldview or perspective.

How do you think the church managed to maintain their power for so long? Threat of violence? No, it was through education. They passed on their values from generation to generation always paying extra care to children who were the most at risk of falling into sin. Do you even into power structures?

>>6251231

there's a difference between trying to get someone else to consensually ACCEPT your belief and trying to force your belief on others via social hierarchy and coercive force. one is what mentally and emotionally healthy people do; the other is what Nietzsche fanboys do.

>>6251199

Guys, it's just the faux-Chomskyite troll from the other recent thread; just show him dick pics til he he's sated and leaves.

>>6251232
#things_blockheads_say

>>6251236

If you literally readed one book, only one book of Nietzsche you would understand why you are wrong on that one.

Genealogy of the morals pls

>>6251210

Why do you take it that intelligence is not on the same level as physical qualities with respect to natural differences?

>>6251233

no one should rule.

human society cannot neatly be broken down into "complete superiors" and "complete inferiors". nobody is naturally superior to the rest of humanity in every single way possible.

>>6251234

and this confirms Nietzsche's hatred of altruism how, exactly?

>>6251235

it was indoctrination, which is a more subtle form of force. true schooling would result in open and healthy dialog and the encouragement of questions and skepticism.

>>6251210
>asserting your will on others is not the same thing as sharing your worldview or perspective.
>asserting is nonconsensual and forceful.

WILLING IS LITERALLY RAPE GUYS

PLEASE STOP WILLING AND ASSERTING, EVERYONE

YOU'RE ALL JUST LITERALLY RAPING EVERYONE

WAIT AM I RAPING EVERYONE RIGHT NOW BY ASSERTING THIS?

FUUUUUUUUUUUU

>>6251245
>and this confirms Nietzsche's hatred of altruism how, exactly?
because it's not the selfless and admirable act it's made out to be, it's very much the activity of an egoist.

>>6251240

no

Nietzsche was a proto-Fascist and i have no respect for his endorsement of elitist aristocracy. in fact, i view it as one of the most abhorrent suggestions one can possibly make about human society.

>>6251241

if you think intelligence inherently results in a strong or superior character, you are 100% mistaken.

for instance, every single defendant of the Nuremberg trials had an above-average IQ.

>>6251252

how is egoism that helps people less justified than egoism that advances only your own power or influence?

one of them has a noble and positive effect on society. the other results in a bunch of animalistic savages hitting each other over the head with clubs.

>>6251255

I said nothing about intelligence being measurable like an IQ test, which tests for how well you can take the IQ test, BY THE WAY (who cares that the defendants at Nuremberg had above average IQs? They're not intelligent; they just have high IQs! Why can't you tell the difference?).

>>6251266

if you don't believe you can measure intelligence, then how the fuck do you expect to create a social hierarchy where the most intelligent rule?

>>6251261
>how is egoism that helps people less justified than egoism that advances only your own power or influence?
It's not less justified, it's exactly the same. No cause is more important than one's own, regardless of the results.

>>6251245
I know exactly what you think true schooling should be like. The questions raised in class would be about the dangers of the opposing world-view and skepticism would be encouraged when considering wrong ideas.

>>6251274

the effect a cause has on the rest of society determines its merit.

altruistic causes intrinsically lead to better results or society, therefore they are more justified than, say, Nietzsche's philosophy or Objectivism.

>>6251278

stop trying to make me fit into your ridiculous Rush Limbaugh-inspired caricature of big government 1984 liberals. it isn't going to fucking work, because i am a LIBERTARIAN, not a statist.

>>6251292
Why should society be more important? Nothing is more important to an individual than themselves and their causes. How could something make an objectively better society? a better society to you is one that reflects your own beliefs.

>>6251308

society should be more important because it more accurately reflects the status of mankind than the individual.

as biological members of our species, we have an obligation to mankind. causes that progress mankind as a whole are noble and justified. causes that result in oppression, disintegration, fracturing, violent conflict, disconnection, and ultimate destruction of mankind are worthy of contempt and disdain, such as Nietzsche's.

>>6251272

It's not measurable by the kind of measure that IQ tests look for; that doesn't mean it can't be inferred by other means. The sort of person who sees the relations of parts and wholes, and who makes a point of studying the soul, is the person of intelligence who's most capable of ruling. This is a philosophical PROBLEM though; that person is least likely to want to rule.

But you know, you've already dismissed trying to understand philosophy and its problems for some easy answers that you could memorize off a pamphlet or tumblr, pretending they're common sense and achieved by "pure reason".

>>6251325

i am perfectly interested in philosophy and the questions it raises and answers.

you just have no respect for philosophy that doesn't confirm your elitist worldview (i.e., all left-libertarian philosophy).

>>6251323

STOP RAPING US WITH YOUR ASSERTIONS; WE HAVE NOT CONSENTED TO THEM AND YOU ARE NOW RAPING US

With shitty, shitty beliefs.

(*cough*proto-fascist*coughcough*)

>>6251323
>as biological members of our species, we have an obligation to mankind. causes that progress mankind as a whole are noble and justified
There is no objective progress to be achieved. Everybody is out for their own causes in the name of "progress".

>>6251333

are you going to contribute an actual argument, or are you just going to continue to try to make me into some Stalinist when I have confirmed MULTIPLE times that my ideal society is of an anarchist type?

i am not a liberal. i am not an SJW. stop having such a sad and deluded worldview where society is divided into Paultards and Anita Sarkessians.

>>6251323

> we have an obligation to mankind.

>causes that progress mankind as a whole are noble and justified.

>causes that result in oppression, disintegration, fracturing, violent conflict, disconnection, and ultimate destruction of mankind are worthy of contempt and disdain

I'm pretty sure you suffer from a severe guilt from your own existence, accompanied by strong feelings of self-hate, meaningless, and that behaving in good for the "mankind" will save you from your own bad, petty egoistical instincts. "I'm not the Man, not until I help the Mankind!". There is literally no other way that you will have such hate for someone that is egoist or something.

And i'm pretty sure you don't know anything about how morality was constructed since thousands of ages ago

>>6251332

1) I'm a political and philosophical zetetic.

2) No, you're not interested in philosophy. You're interested in answers that affirm your tumbr-tier worldview.

>>6251337

progress is ultimately the state where ALL individual causes, needs, and desires can be satisfied to the greatest degree possible.

>>6251354

Yes, by the dictionary

Go read some Hume please

>>6251348
>>6251349

>i'm just going to psychoanalyze my opponent instead of actually trying to understand his worldview

typical Nietzsche fanboys.

you can't understand how someone could POSSIBLY disagree with complete and total self-gratification at the expense of every other person on the planet.

>>6251347

For my part, I've just been pointing to how little you understand what's entailed by the Will to Power, since you've ignored that *willing* part, and since you make dumb blunt statements about how assertion of any kind is wrong for being nonconsensual, but fail to note your own assertions in this very thread.

(what grade are you in?)

>>6251354
That's ridiculous, no society could be so perfect that all causes are met. There will always be conflict.

>>6251354
iain m banks pls go

>>6251367

assertion of power is when force or subjugation is used.

i have not used force or subjugation. therefore, i am not asserting my power.

>>6251371

i said to greatest degree POSSIBLE. obviously, complete personal freedom for every single person is impossible, because personal freedoms will inevitably disagree with each other. therefore, it is the job of the philosopher to figure out how the maximum amount of personal freedom can be achieved for the individual without interfering with the personal freedom of another.

>>6251379
>therefore, it is the job of the philosopher
You're starting to get funny, you just went up to a 3/10 for creativity

>>6251379
And I'm just going to yield to the cause of this society, and adjust my beliefs to its supposed ideals?

In contrast to laisser-aller, every system of morals is a sort of tyranny against "nature" and also against "reason", that is, however, no objection, unless one should again decree by some system of morals, that all kinds of tyranny and unreasonableness are unlawful What is essential and invaluable in every system of morals, is that it is a long constraint. In order to understand Stoicism, or Port Royal, or Puritanism, one should remember the constraint under which every language has attained to strength and freedom—the metrical constraint, the tyranny of rhyme and rhythm. How much trouble have the poets and orators of every nation given themselves!—not excepting some of the prose writers of today, in whose ear dwells an inexorable conscientiousness—"for the sake of a folly," as utilitarian bunglers say, and thereby deem themselves wise—"from submission to arbitrary laws," as the anarchists say, and thereby fancy themselves "free," even free-spirited. The singular fact remains, however, that everything of the nature of freedom, elegance, boldness, dance, and masterly certainty, which exists or has existed, whether it be in thought itself, or in administration, or in speaking and persuading, in art just as in conduct, has only developed by means of the tyranny of such arbitrary law, and in all seriousness, it is not at all improbable that precisely this is "nature" and "natural"—and not laisser-aller! Every artist knows how different from the state of letting himself go, is his "most natural" condition, the free arranging, locating, disposing, and constructing in the moments of "inspiration"—and how strictly and delicately he then obeys a thousand laws, which, by their very rigidness and precision, defy all formulation by means of ideas (even the most stable idea has, in comparison therewith, something floating, manifold, and ambiguous in it).

The essential thing "in heaven and in earth" is, apparently (to repeat it once more), that there should be long OBEDIENCE in the same direction, there thereby results, and has always resulted in the long run, something which has made life worth living; for instance, virtue, art, music, dancing, reason, spirituality—anything whatever that is transfiguring, refined, foolish, or divine. The long bondage of the spirit, the distrustful constraint in the communicability of ideas, the discipline which the thinker imposed on himself to think in accordance with the rules of a church or a court, or conformable to Aristotelian premises, the persistent spiritual will to interpret everything that happened according to a Christian scheme, and in every occurrence to rediscover and justify the Christian God:—all this violence, arbitrariness, severity, dreadfulness, and unreasonableness, has proved itself the disciplinary means whereby the European spirit has attained its strength, its remorseless curiosity and subtle mobility; granted also that much irrecoverable strength and spirit had to be stifled, suffocated, and spoilt in the process (for here, as everywhere, "nature" shows herself as she is, in all her extravagant and INDIFFERENT magnificence, which is shocking, but nevertheless noble). That for centuries European thinkers only thought in order to prove something—nowadays, on the contrary, we are suspicious of every thinker who "wishes to prove something"—that it was always settled beforehand what WAS TO BE the result of their strictest thinking, as it was perhaps in the Asiatic astrology of former times, or as it is still at the present day in the innocent, Christian-moral explanation of immediate personal events "for the glory of God," or "for the good of the soul":—this tyranny, this arbitrariness, this severe and magnificent stupidity, has EDUCATED the spirit; slavery, both in the coarser and the finer sense, is apparently an indispensable means even of spiritual education and discipline. One may look at every system of morals in this light: it is "nature" therein which teaches to hate the laisser-aller, the too great freedom, and implants the need for limited horizons, for immediate duties—it teaches the NARROWING OF PERSPECTIVES, and thus, in a certain sense, that stupidity is a condition of life and development. "Thou must obey some one, and for a long time; OTHERWISE thou wilt come to grief, and lose all respect for thyself"—this seems to me to be the moral imperative of nature, which is certainly neither "categorical," as old Kant wished (consequently the "otherwise"), nor does it address itself to the individual (what does nature care for the individual!), but to nations, races, ages, and ranks; above all, however, to the animal "man" generally, to MANKIND.

>>6251384

why does everyone think i'm a troll?

nothing i've advocated has been particularly unorthodox or extreme. i just want freedom, a reconciliation of collectivism and individualism, a society that values progress and ingenuity along with charity and altruism, and a mankind that realizes that competing with the rest of the universe is more fruitful than competing with each other.

>>6250868
You should read first the antichrist.
If you've been raisen in christian values it gets better

Let us at once say again what we have already said a hundred times, for people's ears nowadays are unwilling to hear such truths—OUR truths. We know well enough how offensive it sounds when any one plainly, and without metaphor, counts man among the animals, but it will be accounted to us almost a CRIME, that it is precisely in respect to men of "modern ideas" that we have constantly applied the terms "herd," "herd-instincts," and such like expressions. What avail is it? We cannot do otherwise, for it is precisely here that our new insight is. We have found that in all the principal moral judgments, Europe has become unanimous, including likewise the countries where European influence prevails in Europe people evidently KNOW what Socrates thought he did not know, and what the famous serpent of old once promised to teach—they "know" today what is good and evil. It must then sound hard and be distasteful to the ear, when we always insist that that which here thinks it knows, that which here glorifies itself with praise and blame, and calls itself good, is the instinct of the herding human animal, the instinct which has come and is ever coming more and more to the front, to preponderance and supremacy over other instincts, according to the increasing physiological approximation and resemblance of which it is the symptom. MORALITY IN EUROPE AT PRESENT IS HERDING-ANIMAL MORALITY, and therefore, as we understand the matter, only one kind of human morality, beside which, before which, and after which many other moralities, and above all HIGHER moralities, are or should be possible. Against such a "possibility," against such a "should be," however, this morality defends itself with all its strength, it says obstinately and inexorably "I am morality itself and nothing else is morality!" Indeed, with the help of a religion which has humoured and flattered the sublimest desires of the herding-animal, things have reached such a point that we always find a more visible expression of this morality even in political and social arrangements: the DEMOCRATIC movement is the inheritance of the Christian movement.

>>6250861

>mfw Zarathustra is being delivered already

What should I start with, then?

That its TEMPO, however, is much too slow and sleepy for the more impatient ones, for those who are sick and distracted by the herding-instinct, is indicated by the increasingly furious howling, and always less disguised teeth-gnashing of the anarchist dogs, who are now roving through the highways of European culture. Apparently in opposition to the peacefully industrious democrats and Revolution-ideologues, and still more so to the awkward philosophasters and fraternity-visionaries who call themselves Socialists and want a "free society," those are really at one with them all in their thorough and instinctive hostility to every form of society other than that of the AUTONOMOUS herd (to the extent even of repudiating the notions "master" and "servant"—ni dieu ni maitre, says a socialist formula); at one in their tenacious opposition to every special claim, every special right and privilege (this means ultimately opposition to EVERY right, for when all are equal, no one needs "rights" any longer); at one in their distrust of punitive justice (as though it were a violation of the weak, unfair to the NECESSARY consequences of all former society); but equally at one in their religion of sympathy, in their compassion for all that feels, lives, and suffers (down to the very animals, up even to "God"—the extravagance of "sympathy for God" belongs to a democratic age); altogether at one in the cry and impatience of their sympathy, in their deadly hatred of suffering generally, in their almost feminine incapacity for witnessing it or ALLOWING it; at one in their involuntary beglooming and heart-softening, under the spell of which Europe seems to be threatened with a new Buddhism; at one in their belief in the morality of MUTUAL sympathy, as though it were morality in itself, the climax, the ATTAINED climax of mankind, the sole hope of the future, the consolation of the present, the great discharge from all the obligations of the past; altogether at one in their belief in the community as the DELIVERER, in the herd, and therefore in "themselves."

>>6250708
My Plato thread got turned into an ideology thread earlier, but I guess that's what I got for using a picture of Hegel in the OP. The connection to the Ziz was too easy, and the plebs made it immediately.
Plato is beyond this board.

>>6250825
People believe this?

>>6251379
Is your whole misunderstanding of Nietzsche based on you substituting what your own thoughts of what the will -to-power is when reading his quotes and then getting offended?

>>6251400
"How is it with mankind, whose cause we are to make our own? Is its cause that of another, and does mankind
serve a higher cause? No, mankind looks only at itself, mankind will promote the interests of mankind only,
mankind is its own cause. That it may develop, it causes nations and individuals to wear themselves out in its
service, and, when they have accomplished what mankind needs, it throws them on the dung-heap of history in
gratitude. Is not mankind’s cause – a purely egoistic cause?
I have no need to take up each thing that wants to throw its cause on us and show that it is occupied only with
itself, not with us, only with its good, not with ours. Look at the rest for yourselves. Do truth, freedom, humanity,
justice, desire anything else than that you grow enthusiastic and serve them?"

>>6251400

>my position is not extreme, because it doesn't sound dangerous!

you don't know what you are talking about

>>6251400

Because you don't dialogue or truly converse with anyone you're arguing with, you don't attempt to teach anyone anything about how to reach your position, you either don't address questions or address questions selectively, you accuse people of holding positions they haven't claimed, you act defensive and offensive in the face of even politer anons who ask questions, and you display literally zero comprehension of Nietzche, with no wonderment as to how Nietzscheans could come up with an interpretation of Nietzsche that's *not* fascist, and with no appeal to his texts for proof of his supposed crimes, suggesting that you've either not read him but heard of him second or third hand, or that if you have read him, you read him very badly.

>>6251405

Genealogy of the morals

Whether we call it "civilization," or "humanising," or "progress," which now distinguishes the European, whether we call it simply, without praise or blame, by the political formula the DEMOCRATIC movement in Europe—behind all the moral and political foregrounds pointed to by such formulas, an immense PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESS goes on, which is ever extending the process of the assimilation of Europeans, their increasing detachment from the conditions under which, climatically and hereditarily, united races originate, their increasing independence of every definite milieu, that for centuries would fain inscribe itself with equal demands on soul and body,—that is to say, the slow emergence of an essentially SUPER-NATIONAL and nomadic species of man, who possesses, physiologically speaking, a maximum of the art and power of adaptation as his typical distinction. This process of the EVOLVING EUROPEAN, which can be retarded in its TEMPO by great relapses, but will perhaps just gain and grow thereby in vehemence and depth—the still-raging storm and stress of "national sentiment" pertains to it, and also the anarchism which is appearing at present—this process will probably arrive at results on which its naive propagators and panegyrists, the apostles of "modern ideas," would least care to reckon. The same new conditions under which on an average a levelling and mediocrising of man will take place—a useful, industrious, variously serviceable, and clever gregarious man—are in the highest degree suitable to give rise to exceptional men of the most dangerous and attractive qualities. For, while the capacity for adaptation, which is every day trying changing conditions, and begins a new work with every generation, almost with every decade, makes the POWERFULNESS of the type impossible; while the collective impression of such future Europeans will probably be that of numerous, talkative, weak-willed, and very handy workmen who REQUIRE a master, a commander, as they require their daily bread; while, therefore, the democratising of Europe will tend to the production of a type prepared for SLAVERY in the most subtle sense of the term: the STRONG man will necessarily in individual and exceptional cases, become stronger and richer than he has perhaps ever been before—owing to the unprejudicedness of his schooling, owing to the immense variety of practice, art, and disguise. I meant to say that the democratising of Europe is at the same time an involuntary arrangement for the rearing of TYRANTS—taking the word in all its meanings, even in its most spiritual sense.

Corruption—as the indication that anarchy threatens to break out among the instincts, and that the foundation of the emotions, called "life," is convulsed—is something radically different according to the organization in which it manifests itself. When, for instance, an aristocracy like that of France at the beginning of the Revolution, flung away its privileges with sublime disgust and sacrificed itself to an excess of its moral sentiments, it was corruption:—it was really only the closing act of the corruption which had existed for centuries, by virtue of which that aristocracy had abdicated step by step its lordly prerogatives and lowered itself to a FUNCTION of royalty (in the end even to its decoration and parade-dress). The essential thing, however, in a good and healthy aristocracy is that it should not regard itself as a function either of the kingship or the commonwealth, but as the SIGNIFICANCE and highest justification thereof—that it should therefore accept with a good conscience the sacrifice of a legion of individuals, who, FOR ITS SAKE, must be suppressed and reduced to imperfect men, to slaves and instruments. Its fundamental belief must be precisely that society is NOT allowed to exist for its own sake, but only as a foundation and scaffolding, by means of which a select class of beings may be able to elevate themselves to their higher duties, and in general to a higher EXISTENCE: like those sun-seeking climbing plants in Java—they are called Sipo Matador,—which encircle an oak so long and so often with their arms, until at last, high above it, but supported by it, they can unfold their tops in the open light, and exhibit their happiness.

>>6251421

the will to power is very clear.

Nietzsche believes that those who callously disregard others in their own pursuit of happiness are "strong", and that this gives them the right to rule, abuse, oppress, and mistreat all of the supposed "weaklings" that they are so clearly naturally superior to.

>>6251431

it doesn't sound dangerous because it isn't dangerous.

on the other hand, suggesting that society be run by a handful of people based on supposed "superior" characteristics sounds and is dangerous.

>>6251434

i find it difficult to understand where the disagreement is coming from.

nothing i've said has been untruthful. Nietzsche DID support an elitist aristocracy, he DID look down upon the concept of charity and altruism, and he DID think that strength is more important than morality. all of these facts are well-established in both his texts and academic analysis of his texts.

how exactly am i misinterpreting him?

Is that fucker gone?

>>6251493

>how exactly am i misinterpreting him?

You are not even misinterpreting him because you haven't readed him

>>6251400
I think the majority of us are skeptical of your naivete (that's where the troll accusations come from) but compelled to respond to your convictions. It is quite clear that not only do you lack any knowledge of Nietzsche, you lack common philosophical knowledge that led up to his rejection of Platonism. If you have achieved some level of understanding for Hegel or Stirner (Hell, even Kant), your own words will sound immature. Your perspective of the world is precisely the monolithic, good-is-good, unquestioning kind that compels you to defend it to the bitter end, all the while you refuse to even start reading Nietzsche because of his 'fans', who, for reasons unknown to me, is patient enough to try to convey an important education.

>>6251499

nope, i'm still here.

it's kind of funny watching you freak the fuck out at the idea that someone might believe differently than you, though.

>>6251493

If you wanted to make a completely defensible argument against Nietzsche, you'd have to 1) define how you're using your terms (e.g., "elitism", "aristocracy", "charity", "altruism", etc. etc.), and then 2) find passages in Nietzsche where he says the thing you're accusing him of saying, and 3) show that this fits with the plan (structure) of the book you're quoting from.

Enough people are contesting you on *what* he says that you might want to consider how it is they're reading him such that he's not as evidently terrible in their eyes.

>>6251504

i've read analysis and summations of his theories.

that is enough to understand what he believed.

>>6251505

i don't need to have an extensive philosophical background to understand that promoting elitism, violence, and pure egoism is dangerous, reactionary, and misanthropic at heart.

>>6251507

Not freaking out; just bored since your trainwreck personality seemed to be taking a break.

Say another stupid thing.

>>6251514

most people don't even disagree with my interpretation, though.

they just disagree with my conclusion.

>>6251515

I'll bite; WHOSE analysis and summations?

I can tell you; having read him AND a godly amount of secondary works, that the vast majority do not understand him without having to distort some hugely important element.

Also, you're on /it/; you should be ashamed to admit that you haven't even read him and you think someone else's worthless analysis can stand in for your own engagement.

damn, the kid who got bullied ruined another Nietzsche thread.

>>6251530

i don't remember specific authors or anything.

but, i've read literary professors and their essays on what he was saying. plus, the Wikipedia article (which, contrary to what you may believe, is extensively cited with reputable sources, so it's not like they're completely fabricating what Nietzsche believed).

>>6251536

>the Wikipedia article

holy shit 10/10

>>6251524

That's not true! They've been contesting your interpretation almost the WHOLE time!

I'll put it this way; Nietzsche was a trained philologist; that is, he was trained in logic, grammar, and rhetoric, and the other sciences developed in his time meant for analyzing the writings of the Greeks and Romans. He was *trained* to pay attention to how rhetoric is used, how the equivocal meanings of terms are used to make certain points to certain audiences.

You're not even quite at the point of disagreeing with him, because you're not confronting him on any level. You've busted an easy strawman version, a version that was already dismissed by the scholarly work of Walter Kaufmann in the 50s. You're engaging with what *you* think he must mean when you hear aristocracy or elite or ubermensch, and you've not seen how he's intentionally trying to change the way people fundamentally even *understand* these ideas.

>>6251536

Having citations to multiple works that don't even agree with each other on the most basic principles upon which to start reading him doesn't excuse you from doing the hard work of interpreting his texts for yourself, you lazy cunt.

>>6251553

>which, contrary to what you may believe, is extensively cited with reputable sources, so it's not like they're completely fabricating what Nietzsche believed

>>6251556

so, you mean to tell me that when Nietzsche argued for an elitist aristocracy, he ISN'T saying that a handful of exceptional people have the right to rule over the rest of humanity due to their very nature?

because, if so, i feel that YOU are the one who is distorting what Nietzsche was saying. he was very clearly opposed to the idea of equality or mutual cooperation within society. he felt that most people were animals and needed to be treated as animals by the handful who he deemed to be "worthy" enough to rule.

hence, he was a proto-Fascist. I mean, he wouldn't have supported the Nazis because of their antisemitism, but he was still fundamentally a Fascist at heart.

>>6251536

TO THE GULAG FOR BEING A LAZY CRITIC

WE NEED BETTER PEOPLE TO DEFEND *OUR* FREEDOM!

This thread is the perfect example of everything wrong with Nietzsche scholarship and Nietzscheans in general. They can't agree on even a framework within which yo discuss his ideas, let alone what his ideas were.

>>6251579

**This thread is the perfect example of everything wrong with [insert philosopher/critic here] scholarship and [insert philosopher]ans in general. They can't agree on even a framework within which yo discuss his ideas, let alone what his ideas were.**

>>6251536

The bad-sounding passages in Nietzsche (like those quoted above) are part of an exposition of two types of morality. He does call the "master" morality noble, etc, but that's almost a tautology; nobility means aristocracy. He never once says that master morality is right and slave morality is wrong. He says that each is appropriate to the group it originates from. And he gives slave morality its due praise as well: it's a product of more intelligent, more complicated, more "human" humans. He says that the advent of slave morality is the historical moment when man rose above animal. Funnily enough, this isn't that different from the exact same line of attack you use to condemn Nietzsche--that he's advocating brute animality. Leaving aside the question of whether he was in fact doing that, he anticipated your exact criticism of master morality and included it in his own writings as something entirely true. If you still interpret him as just one-sidedly advocating this "master morality" well I guess he's a pretty ridiculous guy and basically striking an edgy pose like a kid wearing black nail polish and reading the satanic bible. That is pretty silly, I'll admit, but it doesn't invalidate the descriptive insights he's making. Beyond that though it seems obvious to me that he ultimately advocates something beyond both master and slave morality--I would say, roughly, a future society that has become so strong it no longer has to rely on petty and small minded oppression and mistreatment of others in order to keep the peace.

>>6251590
It's more true of him than of most philosophers and you know it. Aphorisms are a shit way to make detailed arguments and claims unless you want to he misinterpreted.

>>6251573

Firstly, I'm going to assert that you don't know what fascism even is; unless you've read Mussolini's writings on it, you're basing your understanding off of simplified gradeschool lessons that you never had to think about.

Secondly, Nietzsche is INFAMOUSLY hard to interpret. I don't pretend to know what he's doing, because EVEN THOUGH I'VE BEEN READING HIM FOR TEN YEARS, the difficulties he presents are innumerable. There are pretty good suggestions that he's tricking people who would imagine themselves as being great men into doing something; why he's tricking them, to what end he's doing it is much harder to establish. Does he think the best should rule? In the most qualified way; where you fuck up and start spouting bullshit is when you fill in what YOU imagine Nietzsche to mean by "qualified to rule"; you think he means anyone capable of injuring or killing whoever the fuck, whereas Nietzsche thinks those people are shit. Of course, if you'd have bothered to actually read him (while you talk about him on a forum devoted to READING), you'd have caught on to how strongly he contests the character of Germany and its leaders at the time. He CONSTANTLY rails against them; the country he loves is FRANCE. But militant Germany? FUCK NAW.

>>6251597

doesn't he seem to prefer master morality, though?

he said that the main distinction between master and slave was that masters valued the life-affirming while slaves valued the life-denying. he also inherently viewed the life-affirming aspects of mankind as the best and most ideal. so, in a sense, isn't his "third type" of morality really just a more ambitious form of master morality?

>>6251617
>You only know what fascism is if you've read a dictator's essays about it

>>6251605

Let's see what Nietzsche says about writing the way he does!

"Plato has given us a splendid description of how the philosophical thinker must within every existing society count as the paragon of all wickedness: for as critic of all customs he is the antithesis of the moral man, and if he does not succeed in becoming the lawgiver of new customs he remains in the memory of men as ‘the evil principle.’"
– Friedrich Nietzsche, Daybreak, 202 (aph. 496)

"Our highest insights must–and should–sound like follies and sometimes like crimes when they are heard without permission by those who are not predisposed and predestined for them. The difference between the exoteric and the esoteric, formerly known to philosophers–among the Indians as among the Greeks, Persians, and Muslims, in short, wherever one believed in an order of rank and not in equality and equal rights –…. [consists in this:] the exoteric approach sees things from below, the esoteric looks down from above…. What serves the higher type of men as nourishment or delectation must almost be poison for a very different and inferior type…. There are books that have opposite values for soul and health, depending on whether the lower soul, the lower vitality, or the higher and more vigorous ones turn to them; in the former case, these books are dangerous and lead to crumbling and disintegration; in the latter, [they are] heralds’ cries that call the bravest to their courage. Books for all the world are always foul-smelling books."
– Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 42 (aph 30)

"Whatever is profound loves masks. . . . There are occurrences of such a delicate nature that one does well to cover them up with some rudeness to conceal them…. Such a concealed man who instinctively needs speech for silence and for burial in silence and who is inexhaustible in his evasion of communication, wants and sees to it that a mask of him roams in his place through the hearts and heads of his friends."
– Ibid., 50 (aph. 40)

"On the question of being understandable–One does not only wish to be understood when one writes; one wishes just as surely not to be understood. It is not by any means necessarily an objection to a book when anyone finds it impossible to understand: perhaps that was part of the author’s intention–he did not want to be understood by just “anybody.” All the nobler spirits and tastes select their audiences when they wish to communicate; and choosing that, one at the same time erects barriers against “the others.” All the more subtle laws of any style have their origin at this point: they at the same time keep away, create a distance, forbid “entrance,” understanding, as said above–while they open the ears of those whose ears are related to ours."
– Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 343 (aph. 381)

(cont.)

>>6251630

"[M]y brevity has yet another value: given such questions as concern me, I must say many things briefly…. For being an immoralist, one has to take steps against corrupting innocents–I mean, asses and old maids of both sexes whom life offers nothing but their innocence. Even more, my writings should inspire, elevate, and encourage them to be virtuous."
– Ibid., 345 (aph. 381)

"The effectiveness of the incomplete.— Just as figures in relief produce so strong an impression on the imagination because they are as it were on the point of stepping out of the wall but have suddenly been brought to a halt, so the relief-like, incomplete presentation of an idea, of a whole philosophy, is sometimes more effective than its exhaustive realization: more is left for the beholder to do, he is impelled to continue working on that which appears before him so strongly etched in light and shadow, to think it through to the end."
– Friedrich Nietzsche, Human All Too Human, 92 (1.4.178)

"The misfortune suffered by clear-minded and easily understood writers is that they are taken for shallow and thus little effort is expended on reading them: and the good fortune that attends the obscure is that the reader toils at them and ascribes to them the pleasure he has in fact gained from his own zeal."
– Ibid., 92 (1.4.181)

>>6251617

i am fundamentally opposed to the idea that ANY humans inherently have the right to rule over others, let alone rule based on some arbitrary measure of "strength".

therefore, my reaction to Nietzsche is just; he believes in a small, elite, and exceptional group of humans (whoever they may be) that are so naturally "strong and superior" that they have the right, privilege, and duty to rule over the rest of mankind. such an ideology is inherently authoritarian, capitalistic, and misanthropic.

i believe in people. i don't think people are thuggish animals that need some "superman" to keep them on a short leash. i think Nietzsche completely underestimated the positive potential of the average human and, as a result, he believed only in some vague "exceptional" human while scoffing at those who he viewed as inferior beasts.

>>6251623

Yeah! IF YOU'RE ARGUING WITH IT ON THE BASIS OF THEORY, THEN FUCKING YES YOU NEED TO KNOW THE GODDAMN THEORY YOU LAZY CUNT

>>6251630
Cool, he thought he was deep and justified being unclear that way. But what is his central thesis, and what are his conclusions? What are his arguments? I haven't been particularly impressed by his books, and he's one of the more popular philosophers right now and has been for a while, so maybe that has something to do with the bad smell they give off, being fed to the masses like they have been.
>One does not only wish to be understood when one writes; one wishes just as surely not to be understood.
So he doesn't care about clarity and he admits as much.

>>6251643
>Pure theory
The practice of fascism is nothing but the maintenance of a strong state. Whatever the theory, that's what happens when it's put into practice.

>>6251641

>capitalistic

lel

>>6251650

yes

capitalism assigns humans value relative to each other and then places them neatly into a hierarchical position based off of this value.

>>6251641
He would be proven right if he came into contact with you

>>6251657

>lol ur inferior for not mindlessly embracing my hateful and authoritarian world perspective

i hope you realize that you've been indoctrinated into our hyper-consumerist culture to think that you are "different" and "above everyone else".

you aren't.

>>6251662

I really, really want to see you read Genealogy of the morals or Stirner just to see your reaction

please film yourself and write a logbook about how did you feel afterward in a timeline of months

pls do it pls

>>6251641
>i don't think people are thuggish animals that need some "superman" to keep them on a short leash
Neither did Nietzsche.
>I think Nietzsche completely underestimated the positive potential of the average human and, as a result, he believed only in some vague "exceptional" human while scoffing at those who he viewed as inferior beasts.
Not really, he just thought that some people had an even greater potential.

Nietzsche philosophy was about love not domination. He was speaking in terms 19th century Germans would understand, but his idea of "power" is much more general than conquest or authority.

>>6251665

i wouldn't have any noticeable "reaction".

unlike you, i have critical thinking skills and won't just accept whatever a philosopher tells me the truth is.

>>6251644

Go ahead and read this:

http://press.uchicago.edu/sites/melzer/melzer_appendix.pdf

This is a collection of quotations throughout history associating philosophy with esotericism. The Nietzsche quotes are all from that; and the suggestion is that he's concealing his thought for reasons much in line with most of the figures who appear on this list.

>>6251667

if he was so "loving", then why did he think that people need to be enslaved by a small elite that "knows best"?

authority and hierarchy are not necessary in the vast majority of cases. some VERY basic authority can be justified (i.e, a parent and a child), but, other than that, these are concepts that we have no real need for and that are intended to cause oppression and enslavement.

>>6251619
He hates slave morality because he lived in a christian nation steeped in it. But he also recognized that most cultures contain a mixture of master and slave morality, and that slave morality is also responsible for a lot of positive art and culture because it can look inwards, while master morality is shallow and dull.

>>6251680

i honestly don't see where you guys are getting this from.

i have NEVER seen a Nietzsche quote that said anything good about slave morality. he always railed against it for being "life-denying".

>>6251673
I understand philosophical esotericism, but in Nietzsche's case, tbh I find the idea that his syphilis influenced his style as believable as (and not contradictory to) the idea that he concealed some of his ideas.
But his writings were so explicitly inflammatory that I don't really see what he would conceal that was more controversial than the content of Beyond Good & Evil, to name just one book. If hr cared about being excommunicated or politically ostracized, wouldn't that contradict his philosophy and make him a lesser philosopher than he was?

>>6251688
It is, but master morality is shallow and animalistic. The Overman is supposed to transcend that dichotomy. Unfortunately he's not really clear as to what the Overman is supposed to do. It might be impossible for us to comprehend.

If Nietzsche has a problem, is that his philosophy is non constructive. He deconstructs a lot of things, but he went insane before he really got around to presenting a real alternative.

>>6251669

But you somehow accept as true the interpretation of other people about some guy

Interpretation that you simply take for granted as honest and not with political or philosophical agenda behind.

what the fuck man, you must be trolling or something

>>6250868
>I've basically never read a philosophy book before
If you haven't yet, you shouldn't start. It's not your thing.

>>6251679
Because that is what love is. Parenting.

>>6251688
section 18, essay 2, genealogy. He says slave morality gave us the idea of beauty itself

>>6251704
>what the fuck man, you must be trolling or something
Why would someone do that, just go on the internet and tell lies?

>>6251641
His thoughts on herd morality are spot on especially about how it inevitably leads to dictators rising up and leading the weak. In Germany at least the working class wanting to carry out their socialist sentiments lead to the rise of fascism.

>>6251701

no, i've been reading about it during this conversation, and you guys are just fucking wrong. Nietzsche had a clear and obvious hard-on for master morality and, as far as I can tell, never said anything bad about it.

he viewed master morality as the morals of the "strong-willed" (and he viewed strong will as more admirable than literally anything else). he viewed slave morality (i.e., kindness, charity, and humility) as weak and pathetic. his main goal seems to invent a NEW kind of master morality that is more creative and ambitious, but he still obviously thinks master morality is better and more ideal.

this is absurd. Nietzsche quite clearly had no respect for anything that stemmed from compassion or empathy, and instead only liked or respected things that stemmed from ambition and the pursuit of power.

>>6251699
He didnt have syphilis, that's been ruled out. They think he had brain cancer

>>6251718

>This thread

>>6251722
This is the layman's conception of Nietzsche which gets entirely disproven if you read all of his books.

Read kaufman's introduction to genealogy if you wanna get BTFO'd

>>6251719

oh yes, because it's not like an elitist aristocracy would lead to oppression or anything.

for fuck's sake, at least socialism and democracy give people a CHANCE to have freedom. Nietzsche doesn't even try and instead just dismisses freedom, equality, and cooperation as weak and contemptible.

>>6251722
Which of his books have you read then?

>>6251723
OK, that makes esotericism even less likely.

>>6251736
>>6251738

refute this article if you are so convinced that my interpretation is inaccurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality

>>6251699

I'm the anon you're responding to; tbh, I'm not sure what he's trying to conceal. I have a sense that he's trying to overturn the problem of relativisms by offering a teaching that ends up being a new religion of the self, but what he's concealing...

I mean, I suspect that one would have to work out how he reads if you hypothesize that his primary teachings aren't true, but just noble lies like those in Plato. Haven't quite worked out what would have to fall out of all of that though.

>>6251750
Mister Anon, wikipedia is not a credible source for citations in this class. I'm sorry but i'm going to have to give you a D-
Now if you actually READ one of Nietzsche's works and write a report on it by the end of the quarter, you'll be able to salvage your grade, you won't get an A, but your GPA won't drop any lower.

>>6251750

i also think my interpretation of Nietzsche as a proto-Fascist is spot-on, given that literally everyone i've talked to in this thread seems to have a passionate hatred of all forms of Leftism.

>>6251743

Why would it? He talks about esotericism in his writings; how would brain cancer suddenly also prevent him from doing what Plato did with his writings?

>>6251765

Way to ignore all the Marxists telling you how embarrassed they were of you the other day.

(Also, I'm liberal; suck it.)

>>6251765
I'm a leftist and I fucking love Nietzsche.

Early editions of Nietzsche later works were "corrected" by his sister to make them more in line with her political views. This has been very clearly documented, and newer translations fix this.

Also, why does Nietzsche get blamed for the Nazis, when nobody blames Jesus for the Spanish inquisition? It's not the fault of the author if somebody else misinterprets his works.

>>6251777

how can Leftists possibly endorse or support someone who ruthlessly attacked democracy, egalitarianism, collectivism, and peaceful cooperation?

>>6251756
Well, until you have some idea about what his esoteric doctrines are, don't bother claiming they're there. Plato was esoterically a mystic and one need only point to St. Augustine, Plotinus, or Proclus to establish that, but with Nietzsche, I feel like there isn't anything hidden, only a lot of ugly and hard to swallow ideas regarding morality and society that the vast majority of people aren't willing to consider. None of those quotes really jump out at me as hinting at anything other than the transvaluation of values or a desire to make atheism acceptable. Maybe atheism even was his esoteric doctrine, considering his context and the atheistic stance of most of his followers.

>>6251771
Where exactly does he talk about esotericism? Lime I said, those quotes haven't convinced me that he's hiding anything other than a religion of the self. As the other anon pointed out.

>>6251780

it's not misinterpretation, though.

the ideas of elitism, strength over morality, and the Will to Power have pretty unavoidable ramifications.

>>6251750
Read the last paragraph in your article, under "society." While looking back into history, Nietzsche obviously prefers master morality. But he doesn't want a pack of ancient tyrants to return and kill shit. He wants to cultivate that same strength in a modern context.

he thinks goethe is a dionysian overman. Fucking Goethe (you can read this in twilight of the idols, sections 49-51in the chapter entitled "expeditions of an untimely man"). If that Goethe seems fascistic to you then ok but that's retarded

>>6251737
Nietzche isn't clear on what kind of future society he wanted but didn't want a return a to an aristocracy. He wanted to promote aristocratic values that would aid in the creation of art and culture because he thought the environment he was in at the time was hostile to it.

>crypto-Nietzsche thread on /lit/ gets 200+ replies

>>6251791
>>6251794

why is an artistic or creative nature supposedly dependent on "master morality"?

why do virtues of altruism, kindness, or humility lead to degeneracy or stagnation, in your view? why can't those ideals be compatible with progress? or, better yet, why is strength, pride, and domination more indicative of the artistic or philosophical spirit than compassion and modesty?

>>6251737
He thought freedom was only useful if it was earned. But thay kind of freedom he valued most highly.

>>6251794
Okay ive been arguing with who I assume to be the same person, the anarchist "fuck neechee" guy, for days straight now but I would really hesitate to say nietzsche wasnt for an aristocracy.... i mean it's pretty clear that he was but he was not a fascist nor an egoist nor did he hate being nice and shit like that.

>>6251800

> why can't those ideals be compatible with progress? or, better yet, why is strength, pride, and domination more indicative of the artistic or philosophical spirit than compassion and modesty?

He literally said the opposite

>>6251788

I'm the same anon as that one, btw.

Back at >>6251630, the bit about "Our highest insights" is an entire passage that even uses the words esoteric and exoteric.

I mean, the other, perhaps plainer, possibility is that he's esoteric for pedagogical purposes, which isn't unheard of among the esotericists; Plato and Maimonides were esoteric both for political reasons (to protect themselves from the city, and the protect the city from the truths of the philosophers) and for pedagogical reasons (the contents of those truths are also just actually hard to understand for most people).

>>6251807

assuming that the natural state of mankind is slavery rather than freedom is beyond authoritarian.

why do Nietzsche fans hate freedom and equality so much? what have freedom and equality ever done to you?

>>6251808

>master morality needs to be promoted in art and culture
>he literally said the opposite

you guys are just fucking with me at this point. does anyone have any ACTUAL justifications of Nietzsche's view, or are you just going to keep distorting them to make me believe he wasn't an obvious proto-Fascist?

>>6251800
If you pity mankind's pain, you bring all of their sorrows onto yourself and weaken yourself. Now, when tragedy strikes again, all of pitying mankind will be too weak and tender to deal.

If you convert mankind's sorrows into tragic art, transforming sorrow into mere aesthetic play, you weaken not yourself but the harshness of the pain itself- same for whomever views your art. All mankind views life as a great artwork, cherishes the sorrows as much as the joys, and there is no more need for idealist politics and pity and crying.

>>6251827

so, we should just passively accept all of mankind's problems instead of trying to find a solution for the ones that can be solved?

i thought Nietzsche was OPPOSED to passive nihilism. what gives?

>>6251819

I meant that slave morality made art in the time of Nietzsche, all spiritual art was higher but it comes at a great cost >>6251827

>>6251784

That's not how Plato is esoteric. I refer again to the link posted up at >>6251673; Plato's NOT like Augustine and Plotinus and Proclus (and I've read them all, fwiw). Plato is a political esoteric through and through.

I don't think atheism would've been it, though that's not to say that his approach doesn't encourage it. What makes him peculiar is his willingness to be so upfront about the exotericism and esotericism of previous philosophers, which has the effect of making them seem less trustworthy even to someone who would otherwise already disagree with Nietzsche on most of his points.

>>6251834

I hope I'm not this insufferable in real life

I will be leaving, sage nobody feed the troll

>>6251789
As opposed to the idea that you could spend an eternity in either heaven or hell depending on weather or not you believe in Jesus? It's very easy to come to the conclusion that any amount of suffering the the mortal world is worth it compared to an eternity of salvation or damnation. If they confess their sins before they die, they'll go to heaven and everything will be okay!

There is a much stronger link between Jesus' teachings and The Spanish Inquisition, than Nietzsche's teachings and Nazi Germany. But most people don't accuse the average christian of operating a torture dungeon in their basement.

>>6251819
Because freedom and equality produce absolute pussies

Compare the average American male to the average Roman male.

>>6251813
Honestly, I would think that he understood his esoteric doctrines, if they deserve the name, to be things only a person capable of being an Ubermensch (not that the Ubermensch is more than an ideal) could grasp, and not much else. He couldn't have been advocating the ancient philosophical mysticism of Plato, since he was so violently opposed to that kind of thing, and like I said, I don't think he could have had much to hide.
So what were his doctrines? If you can't propose any, other than the religion of the self, it might be worth considering that there aren't any. And if the religion of the self IS it, it might be worth asking: Which texts were meant to be esoteric and which esoteric?

>>6251835

that doesn't answer my initial question

nobody seems to actually be willing to explain why master morality is more ideal than slave morality. they just accept it because master morality jives well with their callous egoism and complete lack of empathy.

>>6251839

>someone disagreed with me
>I CAN'T HANDLE THIS, I'M OUUUUTTT

good fucking riddance

>>6251842

i never accused Nietzsche fans of being Nazis.

>>6251843

oh, so master morality is better because of arbitrary gender roles and "ME MANLY MAN, LOOK HOW MANLY I AM. ME SO MANLY"

you know, for a second i thought maybe Nietzsche might have something resembling a valid point.

>>6251836
Whatever reason he had for his esotericism, he was a mystic. That's largely what separates him from Socrates, IMO: Socrates knew he knew nothing, but Plato acknowledged that this was knowledge.

>>6251834
Passive nihilism is optimism. Life-affirmation is looking deeply into the face of the horrors and tragedies of the world and affirming them, finding them beautiful. The level of non-nihilistic vitality required for that is the highest possible. That's why his first book is about ancient tragedy.

Nice job guys, real fukkin classy.

>>6251863

yeah, no thanks.

i'd prefer to actually, you know, make the world a better place than to look at it and go "Gee, life sucks, oh well".

>>6251858
You did however call him a proto-fascist and made snarky comments about how Nietzsche fans are always "Complaining about leftists."

Which, i might add, was shot down by a bunch of leftist Nietzsche fans.

>>6251858
hahahahaha that made me laugh out loud

No but try to take things seriously for a second. Read the words of an golden age Roman or Greek writer. They were clearly spiritually stronger than the average mope you see today. Not all of modern men, of course.

>>6251874

he WAS a proto-Fascist

i never said he would have liked Nazism though.

also, come on. you can't tell me that an anti-egalitarian, elitist, pro-aristocratic, pro-violence, anti-charity, anti-compassionate, anti-cooperative, and pro-domination philosophy is actually compatible with Leftism.

>>6251885

>spiritual

that's cute

yeah, once again, arbitrary standards of masculinity aren't enough for me to completely disregard compassion, kindness, and charity. those things are infinitely more important than "I AM SO MUCH STRONGER THAN EVERYONE ELSE, LET'S HAVE A PISSING CONTEST TO PROVE HOW MANLY WE ARE, READY? GOOOOO"

>>6251819

>>6251872
The point is youll never make the world a better place because there are fucking hurricacanes and torandoes and cancers and parasites and fires and asteroids and the majority of the world is living in third world conditions.... all of this shit is beyond your control, and everytime you see terrible shit happening with your optimistic fix-it it will only wither away at your spirits and make you feel guilty, disgusted at the world.

Tragic affirmation is not pessimism, - it's not "oh well" like you said, it's "Yes, Yes a thousand times Yes!"

Spirits like this are probably not familiar to your kind though. By the way, this Yes has been the strength I've been speaking.

>>6251895

why are people so fucking terrified of the idea of equality?

is it really so mind-numbingly horrifying for you to even CONSIDER being held in the same esteem as the rest of your fellow man? can you not even COMPREHEND a society where you aren't acknowledged as objectively superior on the socioeconomic ladder?

>>6251899

the nearly incomprehensible magnitude of progress mankind has made over the years proves your "the world can't be a better place" mentality irrefutably incorrect.

i am not an uncaring nihilist nor do i ever want to be. it is more than possible to change the world through determination and effort, as evidenced by the fact that you and i, two complete strangers, are talking about a philosopher who's been dead for over a hundred years while using an electronic communication service.

if people had your mentality, we'd still be living in mud huts and scavenging the earth for berries.

>>6251862

No; his reason for being esoteric had everything to do with the controversy over Socrates. Socrates kept association with people like Alciabiades, Critias, Charmides, and Meno, all of whom had oligarchic sympathies and wanted to do away with Athenian democracy. Socratic questioning over what virtue or justice was wasn't a merely annoying affair; it undermined belief in the authority of the Polity, which was grounded upon the Gods of the city. Socrates also inquired into the gods, and his skepticism and aporia on the subject also suggested to the Athenians a relationship between philosophic questioning and political dissidence. Plato caught all of this. His most explicit comments on esotericism are in the Seventh Epistle (which can be read in that link).

This is a much simplified account of the matter, but Plato was not a mystic. Plato figured out how to write in a way that would 1) reach the readers his writing sought for, and 2) would not harm the readers who his writing did not seek.

>>6251901
Would you rather live in a perfectly flat plain or a world with mountains and valleys?

Nietzsche is about making a world where people are free to improve themselves and don't have to resent those above them or pity those below them.

how to troll: pretend to be outraged and retarded and then repeat everything you said for two entire threads

there i just saved you the lesson of this thread

>>6251923

>Nietzsche is about making a world where people are free to improve themselves and don't have to resent those above them or pity those below them.


no, that's what I want. What Nietzsche wants is an elitist aristocracy where a HANDFUL of people can improve themselves at the expense of literally everyone else.

>>6251915
I obviously believe in progress and making do with what we have. But there is a endless element of strife and terror to this world which we can never "correct." No matter what kind of electronics we've made, there are still disastrous problems that seem to be unfixable, and for these things I find it better to affirm the Whole despite the pain than to blindly look away with my idealistic politics and Socratism.

>>6250693
how tf was moral relativism disproved

So far as this whole sort of priestly medication is concerned, the "guilty" sort, any
word of criticism is too much. Who would really wish to defend the truth of the claim
that an excess of feeling of the sort the ascetic priest habitually prescribes for his sick
people (under the holiest of names, as is obvious, while convinced of the sanctity of
his purpose) has truly been of use to someinvalid? At least weshould come to an
understanding of that phrase "been of use." If with those words people wish to assert
that such a system of treatment has improved human beings, then I won't contradict
them. I would only add what "improved" indicates to me—something like "tamed,"
"weakened," "disheartened," "refined," "mollycoddled" (hence, almost equivalent to
damaged . . . )

But the main thing to consider about sick, upset, and depressed people is that such a
system, even conceding that it makes them "better," always makes sick people sicker.
You only have to ask psychiatrists what a methodical application of the torments of
repentance, remorse, and convulsions of redemption always brings with it. We should
also consult history: wherever the ascetic priest has put in place these ways of dealing
with the sick, illness has always spread far and wide at terrific speed. And what has its
"success" always involved? A shattered nervous system in the person who was
already ill—and that occurs on the largest and smallest scale, among individuals and
among masses of people. As a consequence of a training in repentance and
redemption, we witness huge epidemics of epilepsy, the greatest known to history, as
in the St. Vitus' and St. John's dances in the Middle Ages. We find its repercussions in
other forms of fearful paralysis and enduring depression, with which, under certain
circumstances, the temperament of an entire people or city (Geneva, Basel) is changed
into its opposite once and for all. With these belong also the witch crazes, something
related to sleep walking (eight major epidemics of this broke out between 1564 and
1605). Among its consequences we also find that death-seeking mass hysteria whose
horrific cry "eviva la morte"[long live death] was heard far across all of Europe,
interrupted by idiosyncratic outbursts—sometimes of lust, sometimes ofdestructive
frenzies, just as the same alternation of emotional affect, with the same intermissions
and reversals, can also be observed nowadaysin every case where the ascetic doctrine
of sin once again enjoys a great success (religious neurosisappears as a form of an
"evil nature"—that's indisputable. What is it? Quaeritur [that's what we need to ask]).

1/2

>>6251929
Again, If you'd actually read Nietzsche you'd see that's not true.

You are just looking for an other to define yourself against. I can guarantee you won't get what you want as long as you continue doing that.

>>6251935

i don't maintain some sort of delusion that all pain in the world can ever be eliminated.

i just don't succumb to the idea that this pain should ever be cause for us to stop taking life seriously or to disconnect from each other completely, which is what you seem to be advocating.

i can't turn off my empathy. if i see other people in pain, i feel, to at least some extent, what they're feeling. this is not something i want to turn off, nor is it something that i think i should turn off.

>>6251946

Generally speaking, the ascetic ideal and itscult of moral sublimity, this supremely
clever, unthinking, and most dangerous systematization of all the ways to promote an
excess of emotion under the protection of holy purposes, has etched itself into the
entire history of human beings in a dreadful and unforgettable manner—and, alas, not
only into their history. . . Apart from this ideal, there's scarcely anything else I know
which had such a destructive effect on the health and racial power of Europeans.
Without exaggerating, we can call it the true disaster in the history of the health of
European people. At most, the specifically German influence might be comparable: I
refer to the alcohol poisoning of Europe, which up to now has marched in step with
the political and racial superiority of the Germans (wherever they have infused their
blood, they have also infused their vices). The third in line would be syphilis—magno
sed proxima intervallo [next inline, but after a large gap].

2/2

Nietzsche confirmed for having syphilis

>>6251947

Nietzsche thinks raw power is more important than strength of character or morality.

therefore, he isn't worth my time and, really, is only worth the time of people who have some sort of bizarre hatred of equality and kindness.

>>6251901

I would trade the entire population of China as it exists today for ONE Leonardo da Vinci. That's how great a gulf exists among human beings.

>>6251956
>therefore, he isn't worth my time
great you've solved it now never post about nietzsche again

>>6251948
I have a question, have you ever been religious?

I feel that Nietzshe can only make sense to someone who was born a Christian and who lost their faith. The kind of total pity and weakness he condemns can instantly be recalled by an ex-Christian, but for some secularists it just sounds maniacal and evil of Nietzsche to say things like that. Because clearly I don't lack empathy anymore, but lacking the kind of pity Nietzsche criticizes is beautiful to me, an ex-catholic.

>>6250687
>stop talking about this extremely famous author I don't like

>>6251918
I disagree. Philosophy prior to Plato was so closely bound up with religion (see: the Egyptian and Persian influence on his thought, and the supposed but contested Hindu connection) that it seems hard to believe that everything about that relation vanishing when Socrates started to question things seems unlikely. Add to that the content of dialogues like the Timaeus, where he discusses the creation of the universe by a unique god above all the standard Greek deities, and the Phaedo where he discusses the immortality of the soul and its ability to observe pure ideas after death, parts of the Republic that showed up in the Nag Hammadi library, Philo's use of Platonic concepts in Jewish scriptural exegesis, the existence of Neoplatonism as a literal religion, and the fact that mysticism wasn't abnormal in 400 BC, and it seems quite plausible that Plato was a mystic.
Proclus wrote a book called the Elements of the Theology of Plato, Plotinus saw himself as an expounder of genuine Platonic doctrines, and Christianity has quite a bit in common with Platonic philosophy. It seems quite plausible to me.
Though yes, he had to conceal some aspects of his ideas for political purposes. We agree completely that he was courting controversy by philosophizing at all.

>>6251972

i don't deny that some people are exceptional.

i deny that this exceptional nature gives them the right to maintain a position of authority over everyone else.

>>6251974

lol

>>6251975

no, i've always been an atheist.

i'm not sure what you mean by pity. pity seems to be a sort of condescending or disingenuous concern for the state of others, and that doesn't seem to be what Nietzsche was criticizing.

>>6251975

I agree, I also experienced that. Also, I have a uncle who gets totally into self-pity and it's the slave morality made man, it's actually pretty funny, he believes himself as a "good" and "moral" man, and in the nights he totally gets into self-hate while listening to sad music and stuff. For him every personal struggle is something good and divine, and everyone who don't care about him is evil and stuff, he just can't comprehend those are personal interests or something.

>>6252001
>no, i've always been an atheist.
Damn this makes so much more sense now.

I think this is why born-atheists like Sam Harris cannot into Nietzsche and create these secular moral systems.

pit·y
ˈpidē/
noun
1.
the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others.

Christianity is the sublime pity, it takes all of mankind's sufferings and sins onto itself, wallows in them, and promises an eternal redemption through the savior. Pity of this kind is incomprehensible to someone who has never believed in the Christian God, I believe, and this is why Nietzsche is so delicious to us but nonsensical to you.

>>6251845

At the very least, I can say that he is NOT opposed to Plato; he only lets himself appear that way.

Cf. the way the Preface, and aphorisms 7, 30, 190, 191, and 295, and notice the connections Nietzsche makes between Plato's esotericicsm, Plato as a follower of Dionysius, and Nietzsche himself as a follower of Dionysius.

With respect to Nietzsche's own esoteric doctrines, another real possibility is that of Plato's actual position; that is, fundamental zeteticism of permanent political solutions AND of knowledge or wisdom of the Whole that philosophy is after.

But I thought you had been asking me a question *different* than what the doctrines are; or at least the one question requires a different kind of evidence than the other. *That* he's esoteric should not be a surprise; I point again to the quotes above, wherein he links philosophic thought to esotericism; the argument should go, IF he's a philosopher, THAN he must be esoteric. This also does a good deal to explain his style; his metaphors and images aren't meant to be merely ornamental, but are meant to be worked out.

>>6252013

i mean, i feel sad when i think of how others must feel in a shitty or unfortunate state.

i don't really understand the difference.

>>6252014
>IF he's a philosopher, THAN he must be esoteric
I can accept this.

>>6252021
Picture not just feeling sad, but feeling that the universe would be totally irredeemable, a place of cold destruction and uncaring torrents of horror and suffering if it weren't for the God that saves this world from being a nightmare.

Then imagine that God going away.

Here is where you'll start to make sense of the "madman" parable, you being the "people standing around just then who didn't believe in God", me being the madman, the person who uncovers the nihilism of the loss of Christianity.

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/nietzsche-madman.asp

I think that nihilism, the main subject of all Nietzsche, the thing he is working away from, cannot truly be felt by someone who has never believed in God.

But for those who lost Christianity and conquered nihilism, it makes sense for them to be filled with this praise of life, basically re-channeling their love of God to life itself -- Nietzsche allows them to do this.

>>6251991

1) The "doctrines" of the Timaeus are never spoken by Socrates, but rather by a Pythagorean who admits that he's telling a myth.

2) The doctrines of the Phaedo are all Pythagorean doctrines that function in part as a joke; half of the people present, and both of Socrates' primary interlocutors, are Pythagoreans who have to be reminded of their beliefs because they're about to give up on thought altogether (misology) in light of Socrates's impending execution. That Plato has to bring up the fact that he's not present isn't a mere historic detail (none of the dialogues are historic in purpose, not even the Apology), but dramatically *distances* Plato from any of the beliefs therein.

An example of an actual esoteric doctrine in Plato would be the belief in coextensivity of virtue in knowledge, which actually reduces the other virtues (courage, justice, moderation) to ONLY wisdom. A very politically iffy thing to go around saying, which is what's meant by esotericism.

Further, Pythagoras and his philosophic precursors were all held to be esoteric for *political* reasons; seriously, read the first few pages of that pdf I linked to. It's all ancient sources, and they all affirm political esotericism, not mysticism.

>>6252033
That actually makes a lot of sense. As a former catholic turned atheist, turned somebody who wishes there were better religions out there, Nietzsche appeals to that part of my spirituality.

God is dead, that's a bad, we need to replace him before the universe collapses around us.

>>6252001

Superiority means that one belongs in a position of authority over others. Just as man is master of the animal world, so too is genius meant to rule over the whole of mankind.

i swear these threads are made by bots

>>6251892
Democracy, egalitarianism, and "freedom" produce nihilism

So did the guy who posted that Nietzsche thread talking about insane philosophies post this one too?

The hell's wrong with him?

>>>/pol/42369416
Average Nietzschean.

>>6252403
Everything in that post is true tho.

Read Rorty you faggy little gayboys

>>6250836
I don't believe that Nietzsche would say that.

Just a note, politics kills the mind. It is basically moralizing the entire way, no one learns anything.

>>6252598

THIS ISN'T LESS WRONG FAGGOT

>>6250861
this guy gets it

>>6250899
From what little Nietzsche I've read I would assume he'd despise Diogenes for being base

Did he actually admire him

Christ /lit/ you get more retarded by the year holy shit.

>>6254804
>From what little Nietzsche I've read
Read more and find out.

I bought his collected works couple of months ago but haven't got to read it yet. Where should I start? I kind of read into Zarathustra but it's kind of hard to understand for me.

>>6250895
>>6250868

Definitely NOT Genealogy of morals, since it will only make him adopt Nietzsche's opinion w.r.t. ethics and he won't be able to see the problems of moral relativism (not that it's wrong).

You need to be exposed to all metaethical theses to reach a synthesis; otherwise, you're spewing Nietzsche without actually thinking about these problems yourself.

Nietzsche is too layered, no beginner should start with him. Most material will just go beyond his head. Even Plato might be too dense.

Get Sophie's World or something.

>>6250687
The irony of this thread is appalling.