/lit/ - Literature

>>6561864
it was immoral

>>6561870

It was the best thread posted on lit in weeks. Can't believe it got deleted. There is fagotry afoot on this board.

p good book. 3rd part was kind of confusing, railing against asceticism as 'idealism' but i haven't read schopenhauer/kant.

>>6561873
reported.

>>6561877

Yeah the third part was shit but the rest was good.

Also I just realized that mods didn't delete my thread; rather I posted it to r9k.

will post my OP below.

>>6561864
Apparently he did not want to hear the madman with the lantern at morning in the village market screaming for the whereabouts of God.

By the way, who did give us the sponge, so that we could wipe away the horizon?

>>6561882
>Also I just realized that mods didn't delete my thread; rather I posted it to r9k.
the amount of /lit/r9k/ crossposting is disturbing.

>>6561864
They like faggotry and cuckoldry threads ultimate degeneracy wtf happend to /lit/?

A certain critique of Nietzsche has been percolating in my mind for a while now--I think I've finally got it clear enough to "go public" with it.

Something seems a little bit funny to me about Nietzsche's treatment of democratic, populist and socialist movements. Don't mistake me for a church lady; I'm not accusing him of heresy or anything like that. Rather, there is (I think) a certain logical error implicit in Nietzsche's treatment of these movements.

In The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche offers some high praise to the what I call 'populist morality' (the whole spectrum of things including democracy, socialism, anarchism, liberalism, etc). Some of these 'praise' points include:

> It is what separates humans from animals.

> It is the morality favored by the intelligent (this comes from Nietzsche's point that intelligence arises as a compensatory mechanism for a lack of power).

> It is the source of depth in the human character.

> It has generally been victorious, historically.

These are all in my opinion completely valid points and I think the main reason that most intelligent people people tend to be progressive. His insight into this stuff is lazer-sharp accurate.

But then, he makes this ridiculous turn of logic.

He says, "yes, the populist morality is smarter, deeper, more essentially human, and more successful generally speaking than the noble morality--and I reject it outright!"

This is so peculiar. The edginess and contrarianism is just unfathomable. It's almost like he's positioning himself AGAINST the intellect, against any virtues that aren't immediately related to natural health, strength and charisma. I don't know what to make of it. Did he really believe this or was he just being sardonic? He was intelligent enough to distill the virtues of populist morality down to their basic essence, so he obviously values intelligence on some level, but he claims to reject it. I can't see anything in this other than deliberately edgy posturing.

>>6561896
>yes, the populist morality is smarter, deeper, more essentially human...
all too human

>>6561896
When you untether yourself from God, you have no ground upon which to stand.

>>6561896
see if your populist view agrees with the ubermencsh.

do people create their won values day after day in democracy (where there is no explicit power against them) ?

is there any historical truth to his genealogy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fTnEB_r_6Q

>>6561864
They delete an honest and interesting thread and meanwhile /r9k/ and /pol/ are being ignored.

Fuck mods, the fucking virgin cucks.

>>6561893
/r9k/ and /pol/ are all the same people.

Once /pol/ came here, naturally, /r9k/ followed.

The most pathetic off human filth on the planet.

>>6561895
People like you came.

>>>/pol/
>>>/r9k/

>>6562117

It turned out it wasn't deleted--I merely posted it initially on the wrong board.

>>6562121
You'd have to be new as fuck to think this. Probably the biggest cancer on this board are you newfaggots who fall for every piece of bait hook line and sinker.

>>6562128
>>>/r9k/
>>>/pol/
>>6562125
That doesn't change the fact of what I'm saying.

Also, fuck you, you ROBOT cuck faggot.

>>6562143
>you ROBOT cuck faggot.
Is it summer already?

>>6561896
He explain that but in other books.

They are smarter but not in a way that advance life forward, not in a healthy way. Only smarter in revenge. So they end up bringing only destruction behind their beautiful morals and ideal.

>>6562159

>>6562159
This. To Nietzsche chaos and absurd destruction aren't completely bad, because they at least allow strong men to exercise their wills (Napoleon, for example).
Also, he's thinking of the future of the race as a whole, the "safer" version of which may be poisonous to humanity as a whole.

>>6562102
Pretty interesting, thanks. Moving on to 2/7.

>>6561896
Classic Nietzsche.

>here is a brilliant way to show to you with all the letters that this something is absolutely shiny bright perfect and beautiful
>and you should hate it because it makes you weak
>only shit you grow through can make you stronger, don't seek to end this struggle

>>6561877
I'm still not sure what the ascetic ideal is.

>>6561882
>the third part was shit

I didn't see your thread, but after seeing the above I can guarantee it was shit.

>>6562143
I'm not a robot.

>>6561873
Please spell 'faggot' correctly... It has two 'g's in it.

>>6561864
Mods can do literally whatever they want.

>>6561896
>A certain critique

Where is the critique? All I see is you calling him "edgy" and "contrarian."

>It's almost like he's positioning himself AGAINST the intellect, against any virtues that aren't immediately related to natural health, strength and charisma.

Right. So where's your critique?

>>6561864
>???
Stop.

>>6561893
>/lit/r9k/ crossposting
Apt use of a semicolon though, in fairness.