/lit/ - Literature

>>6841328
Terrible starting question. I feel like he did exaggerate the impact of religion but it's explained that religion was a very clever way to cope with the world, death etc. We should also take into consideration the fact that a sense of morality that is not directly derived from religion is a rather recent development.

I don't think it's been long enough since I read him to make good, coherent points though. Disregard me if I'm being dumb.

>>6841328
>MORALITY IS A SIGN OF DECADENCE AND IT IMPEDES ON LIFE UNLEASHING ITSELF 100% FOR SUPERIOR POLISH BEINGS LIKE ME IMAGINE HOW GREAT THINGS WOULD BE IF THERE WERE NO MORALS HOLDING BACK SUPERIOR INTELLECTS

Nietzsche project isn't to get rid of morality in an absolute sense, but capital-M Morality in its universalized and metaphysical form (e.g all of philosophy before Neetchee).

> If we are mostly instinctual beings, it is possible for pity to be explained biologically, especially since most people continue to feel that way despite no longer being indoctrinated by religion.

No shit. Some people have built-in slave morality. Nietzsche's project is to save the exceptional few from its grasp that can actually overcome it, not everyone as is so often believed.

>>6841328
>projecting this hard

Nietzsche's position on morality was nuanced and continually evolving. Also, his style involved a lot of sarcastic lamenting over things that can't be changed, which in translation makes Americans typically think that he meant every sentence he ever wrote (or put into the mouth of a fictional character like Zarathustra) literally, word-for-word, and autobiographically.

No position could be further from the truth.

Taking Nietzsche's morality as absolute is an exercise in the kind of limited thinking he actually DOES lampoon scathingly--his whole project (and it really must be viewed as a project, not a schematic, articulated, final philosophy like that of Kant) was, in my understanding, to force the question on as many unquestioned assumptions as he could root out in the contemporary state of philosophy in Europe. As he went on, and found unsound bases which he could puncture and deflate in literally every area of thought, he decided to go for broke and pick up the whole of understood reality, turn it upside down, and shake it to see what would fall out. Not in order to pass judgment on the impermanent pieces that would be jettisoned; more to see what was permanent, what would reassert itself after the 'devaluing of all values', as well as to marvel at the little broken shards all around his feet.

And his project went off the rails a bit as the syphilis set in, and was further distorted by his bitch-ass-nazi-ass sister. I like Heidegger's interpretation that this shit-stirrer really did force his way into the mind of every philosopher after him, since they all have to engage with him at some point (even if in the guise of the grand snub of categorical dismissal).

>>6841398
If capital-M morality is destroyed and the exceptional few are saved from slave morality, then what? How is being more of an asshole and realizing 99% of people are retards unworthy of life going to improve an artists' paintings, a musician's music, or a writer's writings? It seems like a minor issue. Why do these superior beings need saving if they are superior? If the end-goal is more political than he lets on (it is) then the conviction at the heart of his philosophy is "aristocratic radicalism" and contempt for egalitarianism like I wrote at the very end of my post.

The reason I posted this is I am trying to determine Nietzsche's end-goal.

>>6841485
Nietzsche was trying to determine Nietzsche's end goal.
Nietzsche couldn't even fully formulate it by the time he died.
Nietzsche was smarter than you.

he's a stage in a tradition, and one that opened the door for some very awesome if not very finalized strands of thought. is that not enough for you? and no, no matter what you read or think or say, Nietzsche's end-goal was not political. soooooo very not.

>>6841485
>The reason I posted this is I am trying to determine Nietzsche's end-goal.

"Mankind ought constantly to be striving to produce great men—this and nothing else is its duty."

>Why do these superior beings need saving if they are superior?

Because sometimes they get trapped in the things Nietzsche attacked.

is this the nietzsche thread?
anyone have a link to the translations of his works by Hollingdale? can't find them without jews trying to jew me into a virus for them.

>>6841452
But his philosophy is more than question everything, there are no foundations, tear it all down, don't take me completely seriously. That makes him some kind of high-caliber skeptic and critic. It is true but it is too limited. At bottom, his skepticism and criticism is a byproduct of his contempt for modernity. What he hates about modernity is its egalitarianism. He wants a new form of aristocracy. That's his project.

>>6841526
>Nietzsche's end-goal was not political. soooooo very not.
Beginning to think so. It is everywhere in his writings.

>>6841537
>"Mankind ought constantly to be striving to produce great men—this and nothing else is its duty."
And to produce great men, democracy needs to go.

I know he downplays "petty politics" but in the next sentence he advocates a unified Europe, sometimes a unified world under some new form of nobility. By "petty politics" he means transitory nationalist issues, not politics as a whole and on a large scale.

>>6841558
I was totally with you until the last two sentences. No, his project was not setting up a new aristocracy. I understand the misconception and its motivations, but just no.

His project was one of thought, and any revolution he refers to is by turns allegorical or internal. Hates egalitarianism? Yes, in the sense that he hates the vulgar tendencies of the generalizing masses: the 'egalitarianism' he hates is the one that places all men's thoughts equally, not the contemporary kind that involves equality of physical comfort or freedom of action.

You seem very convinced of your opinion based on your readings, so there's no point in truly arguing about them.

I respect that you've come to that conclusion as a lot of people have, but my conclusion is that you're overinterpreting and taking his thoughts beyond their necessary goals, while also conflating him with the old trope of the sinister communist/anarchist/nazi/pick-your-own-boogeyman.

I'm open to changing that opinion, but (curse of the tripfag) your consistent responses sound more like parroting than engaging.

>>6841611
>>6841611
>You seem very convinced of your opinion based on your readings, so there's no point in truly arguing about them.
I am not as convinced as I let on. If I was, I wouldn't have posted the thread. I am trying to come down hard on one side so it will be easier to critique. I genuinely want to understand Nietzsche's philosophy and sometimes Kaufmann's and similar de-fanged interpretations are not convincing. It is too convenient, especially when Zarathustra is so open to interpretation and it is more satisfying for Nietzsche to be apolitical with things like fascism connected to him. To be honest, I would rather your interpretation be correct over the one I wrote.

Anyway, thanks for your well-written responses. I am waiting for The Mask of Enlightenment to arrive in the mail. Do you recommend any other secondary sources?

>>6841712
Lampert's Books on Nietzsche: Nietzsche's Teaching (on Zarathustra), Nietzsche's Task (on Beyond Good & Evil), and Leo Strauss & Nietzsche (on Nietzsche's relation to Plato and esotericism).

>>6841712
I'm a Heidegger devotee, not that he's definitive for anything at all, but the first time I really engaged in thinking ABOUT Nietzsche, beyond when I tried to struggle through his full-length works in high school and later college (on my own and basically thinking 'well there must be something important here and it kinda makes me feel tingly-good to struggle through his sentences', but never really reflecting on it) was his essay 'The Word of Nietzsche: God is Dead' in the collection 'The Question Concerning Technology and other Essays'.

That was horribly formatted with the aside pushing the book I was trying to mention all the way to the end, but I always have trouble keeping my thoughts straight while typing into the little box-thingy.

Again, I recommend Heidi but he's not for everyone--I majored in German Lit so I might be a bit overblowing the case when I say that understanding him takes some knowledge of German, but a lot of his ideas are crystal-clear punning auf Deutsch that gets transmuted into strings of overly-connected-small-English-words-in-place-of-larger-concepts which can be baffling at first approach.

'The Word of Nietzsche: God is Dead' is also a good intro to Heidegger's way of doing things, incidentally, even if not his project as a whole.

>>6841328

NIETZSCHE SPECIFICALLY SAYS HE'S NOT AGAINST MORALITY YOU RETARD HE SPELLS HIS POINT OUT CLEARLY IN TWILLIGHT OF THE IDOLS WHERE HE SAYS HE ATTACKS MORALITY TO OPPOSE MORAL EXCESSES AND HE FURTHER ELABORATES THAT THE REASON HIS PROJECT ATTACKS SO MANY THINGS IS BECAUSE BY DESTROYING FALSE IDOLS THE TRUTHS WE POSSESS AFTERWARDS ARE SHOWN ALL THE MORE SECURE.

ARE YOU JUST A RETARD OR WHAT??

And parroting again:
>His project was one of thought, and any revolution he refers to is by turns allegorical or internal. Hates egalitarianism? Yes, in the sense that he hates the vulgar tendencies of the generalizing masses: the 'egalitarianism' he hates is the one that places all men's thoughts equally, not the contemporary kind that involves equality of physical comfort or freedom of action.
This could still be a true but limited interpretation. It is difficult to believe Nietzsche was unconcerned about democratic politics. Why wouldn't he be? Am I really supposed to believe he was okay with political democracy taking over the planet? Obviously his contempt for "thought egalitarianism" could coexist with a contempt for in-the-physical world egalitarianism. The revolutions could be internal and external. Sometimes I get the impression that philosophers focus too much on Nietzsche's philosophical ideas like perspectivism and ignore his main real-world project. Nietzsche has never seemed philosophical to me in the traditional sense. From the beginning, he approached philosophy from a cultural-revitalizing outlook so it is not crazy to think he is using his philosophical ideas as a tool for another project outside of philosophy.

>>6841748
>>6841735
I will check these out. I am acquainted with some of Heidegger's late philosophy but haven't checked out his books on Nietzsche.

>>6841328
In my view, the motivation for Nietzsches project was his vision to refashion himself as a God, or Anti-God in the minds of the future.

For all his railing against against christianity, I think he had some kind of repressed attraction to monotheism.

This is an end to which his whole philosophy is a means.

He is continually asking us to question the plurality of forces or mode of existence governing the actions and writings of the great philosophers and he is no exception

>tfw best thread i've seen on here in a month was posted by a tripfag

>>6841328
I felt the same way as you before I read him, but the whole nose smell thing made me kek a little so I think you may have only read Ecce Homo, which, while it is badass and one of the most arrogant books ever written, is a bad starting place unless you're willing to drink the kool-aid right away. I feel like Christian morality is thoroughly annihilated in Beyond Good and Evil and On The Geneology of Morals.

That parody is hilarious thought, 9/10, would be 10/10 if you threw in some french phrase and "par excellence".

literally a footnote to stirner, but much more famous because he wasn't willing to take the logic to the bitter end as stirner had.

>>6841796
>it is not crazy to think he is using his philosophical ideas as a tool for another project outside of philosophy.

No, certainly not crazy, and worthy of consideration. We can come to different interpretations on that point, and to parrot Eco here there is no way to disprove an overinterpretation (as we see it), we can only reiterate what we see in the text and context.

And my view is that Nietzsche, while definitely not a philosopher in the classical sense (that was at least a part of his goal I think: to break with the traditional view of the 'philosopher' or 'philosophizing' in general), was always engaged at the higher levels of abstraction (even when sinking to lower levels to rail against abstraction itself) and, in a sense, 'never stopped to think about' the real-world applications of his thought.

So there's my own mixed-up and partially romanticized personal Nietzsche, rearing his head here: a shit-stirrer gleefully anticipating his detractors with a grim face, a holy fool unsure why his blasphemies are holy, a man demonstrating the impossibility of philosophical ideals by living them to their extremes and destroying himself in the process. Surely something I've concocted, a person who could never exist.

But that's why I still enjoy philosophy after having more than my share of 'crises' over where the definitive answers are to be found and if they even exist--the dialogue with past thinkers and the spectres we raise to speak with us in their voice can be very fun, very stimulating, and a very versatile consolation for not having any real friends ;_;.

>>6841860
stirnerfags actually think this

>>6841328
Morality is good for the masses, i.e. the lower castes. It's poison to individuals, i.e. the higher caste, "the few" as Nietzsche calls them. Read more and you'll see this is what Nietzsche thought.

>>6842027
https://youtu.be/jnZIGph965g

>>6841860

No one who's read Nietzsche's works would say this. Go die in a ditch Stirnerfag.

>>6842066
Why don't you post anymore, friend?

So it looks like some insufferable faggot I know on Facebook made a VIDEO REPLY to OP claiming that Nietzsche actually was not opposed to morality.

Fuck, when will people stop engaging in apologetics for the greatest monster of the pre-Hitler era?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=035TpwGLRd8&feature=youtu.be

>>6842544
implying this isn't you

>>6841328
>Some of his Lamarckian racial stuff is off-putting too.

Thank goodness you put this in here. Where's the "kudos" button? I'd love to give you some "kudos" for this.

> Is Nietzsche's philosophy a ploy for him to feel like the greatest, most badass philosopher of all time?

Maybe you subconsciously feel this way and you're projecting this onto Nietzsche himself?

>>6842544
I was hoping you would read what I wrote in all-caps. As a reward for enlightening me on the definition of iconoclasm, here is the definition of "splitting hairs": Using the inherent ambiguity of language to distract from the actual ideas or issues, or deliberately rephrasing the opposing argument incorrectly, and then addressing that rephrasing.

More from the section you quoted from:

>To call the taming of an animal its "improvement" sounds almost like a joke to our ears. Whoever knows what goes on in kennels doubts that dogs are "improved" there. They are weakened, they are made less harmful, and through the depressive effect of fear, through pain, through wounds, and through hunger, they become sickly beasts. It is no different with the tamed man whom the priest has "improved." In the early Middle Ages, when the church was indeed, above all, a kennel, the most perfect specimens of the "blond beast" were hunted down everywhere; and the noble Teutons, for example, were "improved." But how did such an "improved" Teuton look after he had been drawn into a monastery? Like a caricature of man, a miscarriage: he had become a "sinner," he was stuck in a cage, tormented with all sorts of painful concepts. And there he lay, sick, miserable, hateful to himself, full of evil feelings against the impulses of his own life, full of suspicion against all that was still strong and happy. In short, a "Christian."
>Physiologically speaking: in the struggle with beasts, making them sick may be the only way to make them weak. The church understood this: it sickened and weakened man — and by so doing "improved" him.

To put it pithier and more eloquently, MORALITY IS A SIGN OF DECADENCE AND IT IMPEDES ON LIFE UNLEASHING ITSELF 100%
IMAGINE HOW GREAT THINGS WOULD BE IF THERE WERE NO MORALS HOLDING BACK SUPERIOR INTELLECTS
OH THE POSSIBILITIES CUT THE CHAINS

At the end of the section he writes:
>Expressed in a formula, one might say: all the means by which one has so far attempted to make mankind moral were through and through immoral.

Morality as it has been traditionally understood for thousands of years has damaged certain men within certain cultures. This type of morality of taming certain men, domesticating them, "improving" them, is not good. "What is the value of morality?" Do away with it, at least for certain men. If it is not moral (b: I like this) to be moral (a: morality as traditionally conceived) then the former morality (b) is a different type of morality than the latter type of morality (a) but since the latter morality (a) is what is meant by morality then the former morality (b) is not morality, it is preference.

>Are we immoralists harming virtue? No more than anarchists harm princes. Only because the latter are shot at do they once more sit securely on their thrones. Moral: morality must be shot at.
What does he mean by virtue? His preference of how things should be? Anti-egalitarianism. Aristocratic radicalism.

>>6842867

HE'S SAYING HE APPROVES OF OLD TESTAMENT MORALITY NOT CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT YOU UTTERLY RETARDED DULLARD!

HOW CAN ANYONE BE THIS LOW IQ?

>>6842867

What is "aristocratic radicalism"?

Does it mean necessarily rule by the unjustifiably privileged or can it mean the relative superiority in social status of the civilizing elements over those who have (for whatever reason) failed?

Freud points the way out here.

For Freud, it's absolutely necessary for a "civilized minority" to rule society, but he also makes clear that if this minority is too cruel or vicious toward the barbarians it deserves to be overthrown.

I think Nietzsche would have agreed, and there's textual evidence to suggest as much, for example when he says that the strong have a duty to be much kinder to the weak than other strong types.

>>6842867
Me again from before, I think the argument we were having was pretty much concluded and I don't want to sit through that cringey youtube clip, but I just hit this quote in a book on Balkan history:

>For example, Nietzsche is a dangerous philosopher in the hands of an autodidact or a crank, but in the hands of a well-read student of philosophy Nietzsche is beneficial. The same with Machiavelli and others.

And it was too apropos not to post.

>>6842926
The dude who made the video doesn't know what he's talking about. He is conflating moral judgments with morality itself. Sure, Nietzsche praised the Old Testament as an example of master morality PAR EXCELLENCE but Nietzshe's breakthrough is beyond master morality and slave morality: immoralism -- not being hamstrung by absolute prohibitions or commands. But there is an important distinction that has been brought up in this thread multiple times. Nietzsche makes a distinction between the elite (immoralism good) and the masses (immoralism bad). I believe this distinction is what lies at the heart of his philosophy. Only this nobility, especially philosophers, should be (and can be) outside of traditional morality. It allows Nietzsche to simultaneously have his aristocratic political system while freeing apolitical philosophers and artists from unworthy modes of being (feeling pity for the masses, socialism, Buddhism, nihilism.)

Paging Stan

>>6843038
uh, wait, where did he praise the old testament as "master morality" considering Judaism is the very origin of "slave morality"? Also, Nietzsche never said masters were immoral, but that they had a different value system. I think you never read any Nietzsche and are just bullshitting what you think he said based on your wikipedia skimming...

>>6841328
This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He said, "beyond good and evil," because he had not the courage to say, "more good than good and evil," or, "more evil than good and evil." Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, "the purer man," or "the happier man," or "the sadder man," for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says "the upper man," or "over man," a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce. And if he does not know, certainly the ordinary evolutionists, who talk about things being "higher," do not know either.

>>6843067
Common Misinterpretations Introduced by Translation: The Post

>>6843066
For Nietzsche, there are always two types of everything. There is joyous compassion and cowardly compassion. He is okay with the former type of compassion, especially if the compassion is a gift that revitalizes the giver and is not the primary factor in moral judgments. The textual evidence you bring up is in sections 55 and 56 of The Antichrist. It is a good point to bring up.

>>6843066
Pre-exile (master) and post-exile (slave), retard.

>>6841328

what is more important about nietzsche's philosophy than his morality -- which is by no means able to be overlooked when considering him -- is how that morality, or rather that immorality, is attained, and moreover his radical approach to how philosophy is practiced. nietzsche turned philosophy from stuffy academic pseudo-science into a kind of prose-poetry, and his penchant for metaphor expands the realm of what a philosopher can do with language. to be sure, metaphor itself, and nietzsche's employment of it (perhaps more narrowly, of metonymy) is paramount to understanding him. metaphor, metonymy, and aphorism are tools nietzsche uses to weave subtle structures throughout his works that create the impression of a philosophy in the mind of the reader. the metaphor in a sense operates in relation to logic as nietzsche hopes to operate in relation to morality; literally, nietzsche seeks to operate 'BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL.' he is NOT supposing that morality is merely decadent, or useless, and in fact many times (The Gay Science, sections 2, 76, 98&99) nietzsche asserts there is great value to the 'rules' that govern the 'herd,' for without such rules, and without a herd by which those rules are defined, one's tragic sacrifice of mere pleasure in pursuit of personal excellence becomes impossible to begin; without rule, exception is impossible.

although in some sense he turned his back on some of his conceptions in Birth of Tragedy, he retained from it one important morsel: that the interpretation of art is creative in and of itself, and it is in his reader's interpretations that nietzsche comes to life. this is why he says his Zarathustra is a book for everyone, and no one; why he writes so personally, as though to a dear friend; why he concludes the first section of his 'most personal' book, The Gay Science, with a sort of plea: 'Do you understand me, my brothers?'

Spare yourself the time if you are making a video or writing a response to one of my posts because I am leaving. Au revoir.

>>6843188

aw, twig. bye bye

>>6843164
>his penchant for metaphor expands the realm of what a philosopher can do with language
someone didn't start with the greeks

What do you think he finds necessary, absolutely necessary, to give himself in his own eyes the appearance of superiority and to obtain pleasure in an accomplished revenge at least in his own imagination??

ALWAYS MORALITY, BIG MORAL WORDS, YOU CAN BET ON THAT.

>>6843221

well in any case nietzsche did; which in some sense is precisely why he indulges in metaphor -- plato et. al. taught him its value.

Where does one start with Nitch?

>>6841328
>IMAGINE HOW GREAT THINGS WOULD BE IF THERE WERE NO MORALS HOLDING BACK SUPERIOR INTELLECTS

Umm no

>These antithetical forms in the optics of value, are both necessary

It's just that one pull down, the other pull up, nietzsche prefer to pull ppl up than down.

>>6843188

come back

>>6842066
Not even a remotely stimulating response. 0/10, what a terrible /lit/ troll.

>>6842544
>reddit and final fantasy on toolbar
lmao

>>6843244

Birth of Tragedy -- preferably Kaufmann's translation but I find Golffing (whose translation can be found in a volume along with The Geneology of Morals) renders Nietzsche's fervor nicely -- with David Allison's "Reading the New Nietzsche" close at hand for reference; Allison provides comprehensive readings of 4 books, BT included, that function more as extremely informative introductions than critiques or whatever. After that you should probably read some of his essays -- Homer's Contest and On Truth and Knowledge in a Non-Moral (sometimes translated as Extra-Moral) Sense stand out -- and then definitely The Gay Science. From there you can explore. The Portable Nietzsche is a great, cheap book to book up. Also try and get your hands on Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. it's useful for wrapping your head around some of the problems Nietzsche tries to deal with but don't take Kaufmann's word on -everything-

>>6843188

i know you're there bitch. respond

>2015
>Not being a super sexy feroricous and immoral beast of prey

>>6843309
Why do liberals ignore shit like this?

>>6843326

People love to name drop Nietzsche but don't actually read them.

>>6843309
edgy as fuck
sauce?

>>6843108
>Pre-exile (master) and post-exile (slave), retard.

pre-exile from what, fucktard? you're obviously a jew, and also obviously have no clue what the fuck you're talking about.

>>6843326
he was being ironic ;^)

>>6843342
do you even western civ 101

>>6843350
yeah, you seem to be about western civ 101 level, get a clue, fucktard.

>>6841328
>One of his main questions, if not is main question, is "What is the value of morality?" He boasts about being the first person in history with the courage to ask this question. Maybe philosophers before him considered it (Schopenhauer) but realized it's a retarded question that doesn't warrant being at the center of a philosophy.
It does warrant being at the center of a philosophy when your philosophy declares God as dead. No other philosopher made such a declaration because scientific and philosophical progresses had not yet reached a level at which one could finally see how life unravels on itself. So it was not a matter of them considering it but dismissing it as "retarded," but rather, either a matter of not considering it at all, or not seeing the point, both due because they hadn't reached that degree of insight yet.

With God dead, our values are all that's left, the individual's values. Life is a game of different value-oriented individuals battling it out in order to defend or spread their values, no more, no less. "What is the value of morality?" becomes one of the most important questions in such an understanding of the world. Morality, which is basically the values of the herd — should the values of the herd be followed? What are they good or useful for? Who do they hurt, if anyone? They hurt the individual whose values differ from the herd's, because the herd outnumbers the individual, which makes the herd common, which makes the herd mediocre by definition.

The herd will always be mediocre, therefore their values will be mediocre — individuals, who are rare, are either exceptionally worthless people with exceptionally worthless values, or exceptionally GREAT people with exceptionally GREAT values. The herd's values, morality, hurts both type of individual.

A great individual who allows his values to be suppressed and replaced by the herd's values (mediocre values) is only lessening himself. And in this godless world where life is an everlasting duel between the values of individuals, that means defeat. Why cripple yourself? Because it feels comforting? Comfort is for the weak and the mediocre though. No one great ever became such by remaining in their comfort zone.

>>6841485
>I am trying to determine Nietzsche's end-goal.
Art was his end goal, in other words, his own values. You need to be on his level of understanding to get this. Life to him is about defending and spreading your own values and nothing else. He supported the great, the few, and the strong merely because of his values — any logical arguments he applies in their defense are simply a MEANS of which he defends them, but not the reason itself. This is where many other philosophers make their mistake: they place all their values into logic. Nietzsche's values were higher than that, and he made logic into a tool for them. He placed his values into art.

Hopefully I made sense with this post.

>>6843378
then later this guy will be on /g/ complaining that Steve Jobs was a meanie who was a jerk to nerds. 4chan people crack me up.

>>6843378
Interesting as fuck

You wanna battle for cash and see who's Sun Tzu?

>>6843443
This OP, watch this video if you wanna understand nietzsche https://youtu.be/0N_RO-jL-90

>>6841328
>EVERYONE ELSE IS A PUSSY PHILISTINE LOSER EVERYONE IN HISTORY BESIDES ME, CAESAR, HERACLITUS, AND GOETHE

hahaha

>>6843067
Based Chesterton