/lit/ - Literature

ALBERT EINSTEIN

Hegel

Alasdair MacIntyre

>>6442022

>>6442022

>>6442022

>>6442022
buddha

derrida

tfw Evola BTFO of Nietzsche

>>6442022
Well I suppose milquetoast piece of shit Rorty and altar boy wanna be Chesterton tried. Both are garbage though. The previous was so invested in popular ideology he couldn't see it for what it was and the latter probably never read Nietzsche.

>>6442051
But Andy Rooney BTFOed Evola

>>6442022

Russell.

a fuckin' horse

>>6442064
>a man like G.K. Chesterton

>NOT reading Nietzche

I'll post agin when I've stopped laughing at you.

>>6442115
lamo

>>6442022
Excuse me OP but Nietzsche never even read Kierkegaard, and the world is so much worse off for it. Imagine his cognitive dissonance as he insists there is a great distance between Kierkegaard and himself. Imagine reading Nietzschean commentaries on Either/Or or Sickness Unto Death. This always makes me so bummed.

When Nietzsche saw that horse near the end of his life he broke down and cried like a bitch because he finally admitted to himself that Schopenhauer was right.

>>6442407
coincidentally, it was when he became very sick due to brain cancer/syphilis

tells you what you need to know about that really

>>6442415
Does brain cancer/syphilis inhibit a person from realizing their entire philosophy and life's work was retarded YOLO-tier alphamale-wannabe natalist DNApuppet bullshit?

>>6442032
i like the way you think

>>6442064
GKC talks about Nietzsche in Orthodoxy, why woudn't he have read him?

>>6442423
you don't know how to read

>>6442022
E. L. James.

>>6442022
Heidegger

>>6442464
And you're a Nietzsche fanboi clinging desperately to his shit philosophy.

>>6442072
only true answer

>tfw sainthood soon

>>6442479
go read your bertrand russell faggot, i'll read about how civilizations fall, how to escape the widening chasm of societal nihilism, and why moral relativistism is superior. nietzsche is based, sorry you can't read.

>>6442488
Nietzsche wasn't from a rich or privileged background though, in fact he had some of the most consistently shitty luck imaginable.

>>6442022
/lit/

>>6442022
He hasn't been BTFO.

>>6442488
>[Long wet fart]

>>6442479
hahaha

Schopenhauer's critique of Hegel is actually one of the weaker ones
>I deserve to have all those people attending my lectures
>Everyone is a sophist but me
>Why doesn't Hegel love the Vedas?

>>6442509
>mfw someone thinks Nietzsche even has the most insightful or interesting things to say about those topics

>>6442022
Deleuze and Guttari

>>6442031
>>6442031
This.

Back to Aristotle.

>>6442115
underrated post

>>6443196
It's a stupid post. The horse is his "power animal" and he went to protect it.
Wasn't he actually beat once while getting in the way of the whip or something?

>>6442948
that's true, Schopenhauer, like Nietzsche, was born post-humously

>>6442022
Stirner.

>>6443191
>implying our culture is such that we could even understand or implement the teachings of Aristotle

>>6442115
ayy lama

>>6443347
There's hope for those who aren't britfat or murrifat.

>>6442115
who BTFO of horse?

>>6443422
Catherine the Great

>>6442423
>>6442479
embarassing

>>6443427
no, other way around, horse beat up her guts

>>6442022
Who BTFO'd Nietzsche ? Possibly Zapffe.

>>6443422
lol the bookbinding for Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"

> inb4 someone says basic decency BTFOs Nietzsche, citing the 3 or 4 worst passages in BGE

>>6442022
Russell tried, but was no good at it. Heidegger and Strauss have each put up better arguments, often by understanding him better than almost any other interpreter. They might be the strongest contenders.

>>6443832
Zapffe is just a newer inferior Schopenhauer, who Nietzsche already BTFO.

It's pretty hard to argue against Nietzsche's essential message. I'd sum up his philosophy like this:

> The most important thing to human beings, the closest approximate thing to a 'God' in secular understanding, is the life energy and flourishing of humanity itself. Many priests and philosophers over the years have advocated belief systems that argue effectively against life itself, because they create artificial problems to which the priest is the solution; the priest may further be motivated by feelings of personal resentment when he pushes this toxic stuff on humanity.

I know some people will say I'm missing perspectivism and whatnot but I think all of those things are pretty much side projects for Nietzsche. The real heart and spirit of his ideology is in this fight against philosophies that 'poison' people with unnecessary guilt and shame with no greater purpose than "bro the son of God, who is also God himself, who is also one part of the holy trinity died on a cross, holy shit" or "bro you have attachment which causes suffering, holy shit."

Who BTFOs this?

I'd argue that Nietzsche kind of BTFO'd himself in terms of presenting his ideas in an intelligent way. By going so hard on democracy and socialism in a few passages, he basically guaranteed that a large portion of the population would hate his work. Of course, those people are wrong; if democracy and socialism are THAT important to you that you can't at least stomach a criticism of them in a project with bigger aims, then you're engaging in idol worship. But idol worship is extremely common and for that reason Nietzsche kinda fucked himself in terms of his philosophy being academically acceptable on an undergraduate level.

>>6445146
It's only hard to argue against it if you agree with his atheism. If God (the Christian God anyway) is real Nietzsche has it all wrong.

>>6445169
>If God (the Christian God anyway) is real
I seriously hope nobody itt even considers that as a possibility

>>6442022
/lit/ is retarded. Heidegger is the correct answer, and then Derrida follows from Heidegger.

It's like you guys never read Cioran.

>>6445177
But it's the only argument against Nietzsche that actually matters. This is why, as several in this thread have noted, Chesterton is Nietzsche's true interlocutor.

If God doesn't exist, then Nietzsche IS right. If God does exist, he isn't. That's about it.

>>6445196
I'll add that this makes Nietzsche an excellent weapon against these New Atheists with their claims of a "scientifically derived morality."

>>6445169

Well, you need to remember that Nietzsche isn't 'trying' to destroy God, he just thinks the idea of a truly supernatural god is too discredited to really waste time thinking about. He desperately WANTED to recreate god secularly, hence all that messianic ubermensch stuff. Chesterton thinks that Nietzsche's attack on Christianity is some fedora-tipping "flying spaghetti monster" shiz, but to a very large extent, Nietzsche was himself an abrahamist who was trying very hard to create a credible secular equivalent to God. I haven't read of Chesterton's arguments for the reality of the Christian God, but I've read some of his 'Heretics' and I don't think he's really that serious a thinker. His arguments always seem to come down to 'the common man would see past this philosophical gobbledygook and view the issue for what it plainly is, __________" and I can't take that kind of thing seriously.

>>6445182
>/lit/ is retarded
>Derrida

Yikes.

*SNIFF*
MY GOOD FRIEND
ALAIN BADIOU

>>6442022
>Who BTFOed Nietzsche?

Every philosopher post-1899 notably Heidegger and Wittgenstein

>>6445086
>Russell
>game is still on motherfucker

>>6445257
Chesterton is more of a poet and a mystic than a strict philosopher. In that regard I'd say he's also a good counterpart to Nietzsche. However, I'd say he's deeper than he first appears. If he points out the contradiction between the 'educated' opinion and the common one, and how often our most common assumptions can be turned on their heads, I think this speaks to the fundamental tension of human existence. We are constantly caught up in things that don't make as much sense as we'd like them to.

>>6442022
>uh oh, people around me suck (I suck and project in on them)
>god idea obsolete (I had to read that fucking bible instead of playing with gypsy kids!)
>I like writing poems and cry a lot but then I pretend we are designated to become superheroes and it feels great!
>MOM! GRANDMA! Where is my UBERHUMAN CAPE?!!
Neitzsche was irrational and emotional fuck, he BTFO'd himself.

>>6445357
All masculine souls are irrational and emotional. Stay castrate, friend.

>>6445146
>I'd argue that Nietzsche kind of BTFO'd himself in terms of presenting his ideas in an intelligent way.
He did that so that faggots like you couldn't read him.

>By going so hard on democracy and socialism in a few passages, he basically guaranteed that a large portion of the population would hate his work

"I write for a handful of men scattered throughout the centuries to come."

>Nietzsche kinda fucked himself in terms of his philosophy being academically acceptable on an undergraduate level.
It is not. Misreading and, as in your case, lack of reading of Nietzsche is accepteable on an undergraduate level.

>>6445357
>he uses the words irrational and emotional pejoratively

I knew there were plebs on /lit/, but I didn't know anyone was THIS bad.

>>6442115

>>6442035
Spooky.

>>6445412
stay detached and blame yourself for you misery. Fear is friend of irrational.

>>6445257
>abrahamist
Why not just say Christian? You don't mean Jew or Muslim.

>>6445196
Eh. Most of his beef is with Paul and everything he spawned (the church, etc.) rather than jesus.

>>6445196
Nope. Macintyre's argument is stronger and doesn't have to include religion (despite MacIntyre being Catholic).

Simply, Nietzsche demolishes every moral philosophy that isn't Aristotle and actually kind of directs us to cultivating the virtues (although he didn't know it).

>>6445672
>yfw you read Confucius and Mencius and realize how based virtue ethics actually are

>>6445672
>Simply, Nietzsche demolishes every moral philosophy that isn't Aristotle and actually kind of directs us to cultivating the virtues (although he didn't know it).

It's not quite that simple. He thinks the core of abrahamic morality (10 commandments) is valid because it helps preserve life (though obviously he wouldn't accept any effort to twist the 10 commandments into any 'man is essentially sinful/evil' doctrine).

>>6445287
Heidegger and Wittgenstein were degenerates, including every post 1899 philosopher.

Gottlob Frege

>>6446613
Speaking of, Frege also BTFO Aristotle.

>>6442035
Is there a 1080 version of that? It would make a nice wallpaper.

>>6445257
>He desperately WANTED to recreate god secularly

I wouldn't say that. It's more that he realized the necessity of a shepherd to convince the "lower", ressentiment fueled types to redirect their ire inwards. In other words, that the sick needed a sick doctor. He differentiates between the shepherd (the ascetic priest) who leads his herd this way and the one who uses the "bad conscience" to inscribe guilt into his herd. Which is probably why he liked the Old Testament so much, but despised the New Testament.

Hume BTFO everyone before him and after him, philosophy ended with him.

>>6446667
That's not how you spell Kripke.

>>6446613
>>6446619

All I know of Frege comes from Wittgenstein; what the guy's deal? And how'd he btfo Aristotle? Just curious to hear an anon's take on it rather than wiki's.

>>6446684
Predicate logic, m8. He BTFO Aristotelian logic.

>>6442488
The day the Catholic Church saints writers like Chesterton is the day this Baptist reconverts.

i.e never gonna happen. Feels bad, man, but it's true.

>>6442022
there are certain types of philosophers that you cannot BTFO of because their arguments are so personal

kierkegaard and stirner for example

>tfw things were much simpler when i was into schopenhauer before reading nietzsche
it was a nice little system, like a religion
the whole world made sense
now it's all come tumbling down and i feel lost
help

>>6446746

cool stuff

>>6442022
Nietzsche wasn't probably even aware of Kierkegaard.

>>6446667
This was true until modern logic was developed

All the German stuff that came after him is still fun though

Nobody, Nietzsche ushered in the end of philosophy.

>>6446876
What about Frege?

Why do people keep saying Kierkegaard was BTFO by Nietzsche? Huh?

>>6442051
>search Evola
>two results
Literally, God's work, anon.

Nietzsche argued himself out of being the only God left.

>>6445748
Nah. MacIntyre says Nietzsche destroys kant and utility and thereby opens a space for liberal emotivism, where we don't give arguments for something we just give elaborate 'yaaaay x' statements.

On top of this MacIntyre argues that Nietzsche's philosophy never argues against the virtues and what he provides instead is actually like cultivating the virtues.

The way to escape liberal emotivism is to return to Aristotle, because he avoids feel good relativism without resorting to dogmaticism and rule following, which is what Nietzsche destroyed.

Basically Nietzsche showed that the enlightment was a mistake but if we hadn't have left Aristotle there wouldn't have been the enlightenment.

But now we still hold to enlightenment thinking and Nietzsche's critique of it at the same time. So everything is retarded.

>>6446619
>>6446684
Nah, and Wittgenstein's philosophy is actually really close to virtue ethics. He never read Aristotle because he feared he'd be another Hegel.

He would have liked him.

>>6442488
HA. HA. Bourgeois monogamy, like feudal monogamy before it has always been dutty wine with some grade school biology thrown it. Sexuality is the failure of morality the way violence is the failure of politics.

Wittgenstein BTFO all of philosophy

it's over now

>>6448217
Explain in your own words using primary-source citations why this is true

>>6442744
underrated kek

>>6442488

>lambasted other people's attachment to "the flesh"
>was morbidly obese

>>6448217
>implying the kind of philosophy wittgenstein criticizes has anything to do with Nietzsche
>implying Nietzsche didn't denounce metaphysics constantly

>>6448679
metaphysics is good though

and who the fuck BTFO foucault?

>>6446667
>People seriously believe this
The idea that cause & effect has no a priori basis is something that Kant had to really dig into Hume to get it out of him at all. Hume never says that custom & habit are invalid as reasons to do things or as an epistemological basis, either. Modern Humeans actually branch off from Kant, not Hume, and interpret Hume in a Kantian light so as to support their ridiculous claims that Hume was the end of philosophy.

>>6448540
Wittgenstein (1953) BTFO all of philosophy

it's over now (Heidegger M., 1977)


Bibliography:

Heidegger, M. (1977). The end of philosophy and the task of thinking. Basic writings, 373-392.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (GEM Anscombe, Trans.) Blackwell.

>>6443417
:(

How to lead and understand the world according to what's true in Nietzsches tellings, while also not falling into frustration and becoming an asshole?

>>6446667

>What is Heidegger

>>6448768
>The idea that cause & effect has no a priori basis

excuse me, but can you support this with anything ?

>>6448685
Jej

>>6449194
Realize that Nietzsche is the paragon of opinion philosophy, and that you can have a different one that's just as valid.

>>6449194
While he contradicted himself quite often and didn't really try to base an all-around doctrine, I'd say you just do whatever seems right to you - ignoring what anyone ever once said. Zarathustra sent his student's to seek their own paths - asking them to forget all they were thought.

>>6449194

Heidegger, dreyfus commentary to start

>>6449218
There are truths (and indeed facts) that can be stated only in the context of metaphysics.

>>6448736
AIDS

>>6442022
>Nietzsche
>BTFOing anyone
Nietzsche was shit, and his ideology was self contradicting and nonsensical