/lit/ - Literature

He isn't those things. His Jewish interpreters and people who haven't actually read him but like to talk about him on the internet are the only ones who really portray him that way.

He's popular everywhere.

>>7261142
How is that not the case? Your answer just amount to a nuh-uh

>>7261151
Where is he an egalitarian? Where does he demand social justice? He distinguishes between the weak and the strong, masters and slaves, pretty explicitly in many places. Your post has nothing backing it up at all.

>>7261136
Nietzsche appeals to idiots on both sides of the spectrum

>>7261163
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of kryptonite? You are reinforcing what I mean about his work tearing down their illusions.

>>7261136
What in the world makes you say that people here like social justice and egalitarianism?

>>7261136
There are a lot of egalitarians here.

/lit/ is not like /r9k/ or /pol/. Nor is it like tumblr, mind you

>>7261180
Because you don't all hate women and blacks like the other boards

>Why do those birds of prey hate us so much when we are just little lambs.
>b-but but we love you little lambs
He's treated fondly because he taught us to treat you fondly for being retarded and to rip you apart if you continue to be so. Now you have to read his works in order, in German, before posting again, or, again, tearing the guts from under your fleece.

>>7261200
That's just the reactionaries on /pol/ who are even then just a fraction of the population of the board.

>>7261200
we're a very nice board. we only hate philistines which is pretty much everyone but with better reason. we've much bigger problems than jews and your tiny brain wouldn't understand.

>>7261229
What's your scapegoat?

>>7261240
capitalism

>>7261246
Everything wrong with /lit/ in one post

>>7261240
Scapegoats are for the lower classes. An ostrakismos or ostracism is the term you are looking for when a citizen is banished. Please do not post again until you've started the Greeks.

>>7261256
I just wanted a (You) from the resident "MARXISTS ARE MENTALLY ILL" crowd.

Thank you.

>>7261266
Hey man, I don't think Marxists are mentally ill, just misguided and or seduced by Marx's elaborate trap.

>>7261200
Indeed, anon.

>>7261266
but they are anon.

>>7261136
Nietzsche isn't popular here. Every time he's posted there's comments about edgy teens and "babbies first philosophy"

>>7261272
>mfw imagined marx as an elaborate trap
>mfw not showing you my private faces

>>7261136
>Hurr /lit/ is one person

>>7261278
>feminism makes women proud of being wagecucks
slavemorality/10

prose

>>7261272
>>7261282

Gee, I wonder who could be behind these posts :^)

>>7261289
Naw, I saw it. It looked like this.

>>7261306
/leftypol/ pls stay

>>7261306

>>7261246
SMASH IT

>>7261296
You misunderstand, no one gives a fuck about liberal feminism in these parts.

>>7261306
Oh we know who it is, comrade. Can't miss those jelly-rolls and the smell of sulfur!

wow, this thread is the exact reason why nietzsche wrote beyond good and evil.

>>7261320
NOW

>>7261334
explain why succinctly so as to spur interest in it

>>7261334
WOW MIND BLOWN MAN

RADICAL

>>7261200
/tv/'s just bothered about J.J shitting up Star Wars and /r9k/ are very unhappy people so it doesn't feel right to judge them.

>>7261327
if that was true feminism thread wouldn't be getting 86'd.

He appeals for leftists' craving for power: their desire to lead others, shape the world into their image and make all things equal (under them).

Many leftists loath to admit it but Stalin and his regime was basically their dream made manifest through methods more daring and brutal than their weak hearts could imagine employing.

>>7261144
his concept consumes all of existence. he only knew it

>>7261341
it's about how both side's politics are fucked and shouting pointlessly at each other while the relevant question is ignored for being too complex for either to understand.

>>7261349
He was bretty based, yes.

>>7261349
>He appeals for leftists' craving for power: their desire to lead others, shape the world into their image and make all things equal (under them).
He blows them the fuck out if that's what you mean by "appeals"? Or are you just talking about Stalin's writings in a Nietzsche thread?

>>7261349
>Many leftists loath to admit it but Stalin and his regime was basically their dream made manifest
But this is bullshit of course, Mr Rightwing authoritarian. You're the one who idolizes him. The weak minded, "intellectual" or not, were his only admirers.

This is why Marxism needs Stirnerism

>>7261368
>He blows them the fuck out if that's what you mean by "appeals"?
No, it's about what they get out of his writings.

>>7261382
>being so /pol/ you don't even want to talk about the plagiarism confession from nietzsche when you bring up stirner in a nietzsche thread
>being so spooked by /pol/ of all things
I bet you're bedwettingly afraid I'll point out this means you didn't read either Stirner or Nietzsche. The real kicker is that most people who claim to have read 1984 are lying for social appeal and think everyone else is too.

>>7261382
>Orwellfag talking about rightwing authoritarianism
Whew lad

>>7261392
The same could be said of everyone who reads it with a teenage mindset. His sister's version of what to get out of it made her popular with the Nazis even though he said only idiots with inferiority complexes would blame Jews for German affairs. If we're talking about what people who don't read him or do it badly, there's far more interesting sophomoric readings than feminist ones.

>>7261382
>Mr Rightwing authoritarian
Wrong.
>You're the one who idolizes him
No, leftists do. They have a hidden respect for him and will even jump through hoops to defend him and his regime against others who say he was just as bad, if not worse, than Hitler.

Why wouldn't they honestly? He was the most successful socialist in history.

Oh and
>Orwell
A man who wrote children's books people took seriously. He was right about the leftists' hidden lust for power however. If only he was smart enough to totally renounce that socialist junk.

>>7261432
>leftists' hidden lust for power

Hidden? It's pretty obvious one would think.

>>7261443
He hasn't read Nietzsche, it's news to him

>>7261423
I honestly don't think Nietzsche would care about people taking what he wrote and using it to their own ends. What people do with it is all that matters. Leftists don't have to rid of their ideals because they don't sincerely believe in them. It's all in their own self-interest, not anyone else's.

>>7261443
The emperor's new clothes fam

>>7261432
>>7261452
Is this bait?

>>7261452
>I honestly don't think Nietzsche would care about people taking what he wrote and using it to their own ends.
m8 did you miss this string of vituperatives when he disagreed with the press view of him?

>Just see these superfluous ones! They steal the works of the inventors and the treasures of the wise. Culture, they call their theft—and everything becometh sickness and trouble unto them!
>Just see these superfluous ones! Sick are they always; they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour one another, and cannot even digest themselves.
>Just see these superfluous ones! Wealth they acquire and become poorer thereby. Power they seek for, and above all, the lever of power, much money—these impotent ones!
>See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus scuffle into the mud and the abyss.
>Towards the throne they all strive: it is their madness—as if happiness sat on the throne! >Ofttimes sitteth filth on the throne.- and ofttimes also the throne on filth.
>Madmen they all seem to me, and clambering apes, and too eager. Badly smelleth their idol to me, the cold monster: badly they all smell to me, these idolaters.

>>7261474
sounds a bit fedoric tbh

Freddy was a bit austimal, would've been a sanic poster on DA if he was around now

>>7261485
he blows out fedoras too. you'd love him if you ever bothered to read him before telling other people what he thought.

>>7261490
shut up idiot

>>7261501
did that make you feel better? i'm happy for you if it did, but if it didn't, can i recommend some nietzsche?

>>7261506
no thanks, i'm not a 15y.o. shitlord lmao

tears

>>7261406
I can't make out half of what you're talking about. I don't even need to have read them.
I am reading Orwell's essays atm. Suck it.

>>7261432
>Wrong.
You're well right of me, liberal.
>>You're the one who idolizes him
>No, leftists do.
Weak minded ones, as I've said.
>Why wouldn't they honestly? He was the most successful socialist in history.
I do not call that a success, and this is where you tip your hat (in the real sense of the phrase) that you are very rightwing

>>7261464
No doubt. /pol/'s swarming

>>7261511
>I can't make out half of what you're talking about. I don't even need to have read them.
Did you just say you don't need to read books to have a discussion about them? It's true, but I can't imagine why the fuck you'd bother.

>>7261508
don't cry, they have botox and shit now if you're worried about ageing

>>7261200

I wouldn't be so sure m8.

Also hating niggers and whores is classic 4chan. Lurk more

>>7261432
>leftists' hidden lust for power
I hate this meme tbh. What political party or ideologues don't want political power? If you have an ideology, it naturally follows that you want to have the means of power to implement that ideology. You'd be a pretty poor political otherwise, unless you're an epicurean or follow some other doctrine that encourages abstention from politics

>>7261554
you can try not to be such slimy lampreys about it.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the Unabomber read Nietzsche, he channels these same themes

>>7261178
Oh, I misunderstood you. It's been a while since I thought of Superman. Comics are terrible. You should feel bad.

>>7261266
Not all Marxists are mentally ill but you're retarded.

>>7261570
>you
who are you addressing here? I'm not a socialist m8

>slimy lampreys
intrigue and plotting is part of any political process, especially if you're a revolutionary one like the Bolsheviks were.

Imagine a world without politics, where politicians are ridiculed and spat on and throw out of doors.

>>7261606
how are there politicians if politics doesn't exist?

>>7261610

How can there be politics without politicians?

If they are all mocked and abused and not taken seriously, as alchemists are today, how can they prosper?

What is politics? Bartering and haggling with the masses for tiny allotments of power. Suppose the masses stopped listening.

>Why is Nietzsche treated so fondly here
He isn't; how new are you?
Oh wait you're probably from /pol/ and just trying to stir shit up.

>>7261621
ah, the naivete of early undergrad

>>7261200
>you don't all hate women
Not all, but most, hell just look at how often that Schopenhauer quote gets posted, you know the one.
It's just that /lit/ has more women to men compared to other boards

>>7261633

You shouldn't make your projection this obvious.

I understand that it's a difficult concept to wrap your mind around, but I don't believe in the promise of politics, and I think politicians are the premiere parasites in any society. Is there any class of humans in history that have done more harm and less good?

>>7261590
American liberals don't realize that they're part of a revolutionary tradition and so don't realize that everyone sees them for the power players they are. He's probably talking about them.

>>7261644
>He thinks 'politics' is the same as the set of all politicians
> politicians are the premiere parasites in any society
Why? You must not understand that a country can't exist without people running its government. Or do you object to the concept of government, as well?

>>7261633
>not being apolitical
Stay pleb

>>7261662

Are you so deluded as to imagine that government cannot function without politicians whose power derived from a pact with the masses?

>>7261662

officials and bureaucrats are not the same as politicians m8

>>7261200

>women

>>7261681
No, I don't think power derives from such a pact. Power is the ability to enforce one's will on others. It derives from itself.

>>7261677
Where exactly do you draw the line between an official and a politician? Mandarins were a massive load on the Chinese state, but they were officials and bureaucrats, not politicians, and it wouldn't make sense to call the actual nobles politicians because their status had nothing to do with any political activities they may have undertaken. It doesn't seem to make sense to just say that all politicians are loads on the state.

We haven't even defined 'politicians,' 'officials,' or 'bureaucrats' yet, or even 'politics.' If >>7261644 truly rejects the promise of politics, we should figure out what that promise is and what politics is before also rejecting it.

>>7261686

>1845
>not hurling your landlady down the stairs

>>7261655
>revolutionary tradition
I dont see any people going around saying
>a: "those liberals are part of a tradition that you can ultimately trace back to the revolutionary radicalism of the Robespierre and the committee of public safety.
>b: But wait dude, maybe it goes back further, maybe Robespierre was just the embody of enlightenment rationalism??
>a: Let's go study some Montesquieu and Rousseau to see if their ideas align with Robespierre!
>b: ok :^)

In other words, your retarded if you think an establishment party like the democrats, even it liberal wing, is "revolutionary," because participating in the two-party system is literally the opposite of that. Unless you mean racial equality, social security, medicare and New Deal inspired policy in general? Well thats not revolutionary either /pol/llack

>>7261698

>it derives from itself

causa sui? really m8?

>>7261698

Politician by definition is someone who engages in the political process of getting elected. They are essentially demagogues. Officials and bureaucrats are generally not elected, or if they are, it's not by the people. They're just cogs in a system. They can be parasitic, no doubt. Just look at the bureaucratic nightmare we have in Washington DC today.

>>7261698
>we should figure out what that promise is and what politics is before also rejecting it.
We don't have to, politics deals with life, and that alone should be enough to reject it, along with the rest of life, in favor of art.
(Also this guy was a pretty big hypocrite by being a Socialist)

>>7261714
Are you implying that the American revolution wasn't a revolution? You really don't seem to know anything about the American radical tradition. Typical Euro, assuming that only Europeans have ever realized how badly they're getting fucked over. We're a wealthy, intelligent, industrial superpower: our proletariat rejected Communism because it was too smart to fall for Marx as easily as Europe did.
>>7261716
I could say that it derives from the barrel of a gun but I'd have to figure out what the gun derives from first. Ultimately, power derives from God. How's that?
>Politician by definition is someone who engages in the political process of getting elected.
So is your claim that everyone who tries to get elected is a parasite?
>>7261728
Wow, people actually take this kind of vulgar aestheticism seriously?

>>7261714
>your retarded if

Butting in for a second just to say, we don't need no party to still have the heritage.
>I dont see any people going around saying
We should go around saying something though

I do hope our self entitled natures rouse us enough to push hard left soon.

>>7261746
>Wow, people actually take this kind of vulgar aestheticism seriously?
>Vulgar
It's the only correct and beautiful kind, art only serves its own purpose, no more, no less.

>>7261746
>Ultimately, power derives from God

Sounds about right.

>>7261746

Elected officials are universally parasitic. They purport to be pursuing the interests of those who vote for them, when in reality they are pursuing their on interests with the help of the voters.

>>7261760
So you don't think that any elected politicians ever serve the interests of their people?

>>7261714
>your retarded if you think an establishment party like the democrats, even it liberal wing, is "revolutionary," because participating in the two-party system is literally the opposite of that.
Good thing the Democratic Party isn't left wing.

>>7261766

I think they serve their own interests first, and then the interests of the masses if it is in some way aligned with their own private ideology. I don't deny that there are genuinely compassionate people in the political world. The problem is that their idea of compassion is usually quite ruinous.

>>7261784
>The problem is that their idea of compassion is usually quite ruinous.
IMO, the problem goes deeper. The state itself is incapable of showing compassion. When the state tries to be compassionate, it itself becomes a tyrant. The state can do good things for its people, but it isn't human, and expecting it to act humanely is expecting too much of it.
Elected politicians, because they need people to like them, try to display compassion to win votes. But, obviously, problems follow from this; Germans and Swedes are having their land confiscated by their governments to provide housing for refugees that the peoples of these states don't necessarily even want to have.

It's compassionate, but is it sustainable? The primary purpose of a state is to maintain the country and enforce the law.

>>7261808

Oh naturally. Just look what out of control government spending on pension plans and benefits has done to Greece.

The worst part is that such generous gifts on the part of government were not driven by compassionate motives, but by a simple drive to win as many votes as possible by promising lucrative perks and bonuses which elected officials would never have to personally pay for.

>>7261808

>Alas, where in the world have there been greater follies than with the compassionate? And what in the world has caused more suffering than the follies of the compassionate?

>>7261200
Doesn't mean we believe in equality or social justice m8

Don't believe in the stupid forced dichotomies

>>7261829
>>7261838
So should we abhor all compassion shown by officials or authority figures, insofar as they show it while acting as authorities?

>>7261859

We should be very skeptical of their purported motives, and even after that, firmly against any kind of 'helping hand'. When you assign labels to a class or segments of society, they tend to become self-perpetuating. Preferential policies for instance have on the whole done far more harm than good.

Furthermore it is completely different for you to be compassionate or charitable with your own resources, and for you to be compassionate or charitable with my resources. That is the fundamental failing of government 'charity' and 'compassion', that it essentially involves coercion (force, at bottom) to realize its goals.

>>7261859
>So should we abhor all compassion shown by officials or authority figures, insofar as they show it while acting as authorities?
No, you don't have to do anything out of principle. Stop treating Nietzsche like he has a list of dos or don'ts.

Just imagine Nietzsche being a guy who tells really good jokes or something. Or a prankster who's in it "for the lulz". He's about making you stop taking all this shit so seriously. Basically all types of philosophy that make you live a rigid, inhuman life are bad (but don't take that rule too seriously because, you know)

Seriously Nietzsche is the philosopher of anti-philosophy, in the sense of making you not go full-retard into thinking your system is good or true or really all that special because it's not.

>>7261876
>We should be very skeptical of their purported motives, and even after that, firmly against any kind of 'helping hand'.
Even if it's to repair infrastructure damaged by conflict or natural disaster?
>When you assign labels to a class or segments of society, they tend to become self-perpetuating. Preferential policies for instance have on the whole done far more harm than good.
I basically agree.
>Furthermore it is completely different for you to be compassionate or charitable with your own resources, and for you to be compassionate or charitable with my resources. That is the fundamental failing of government 'charity' and 'compassion', that it essentially involves coercion (force, at bottom) to realize its goals.
Tyranny is bad, etc.
>>7261879
This is a discussion about the nature of politics, not about Nietzschean ethics.

>>7261888
>This is a discussion about the nature of politics, not about Nietzschean ethics.
boring, i'm out

>>7261578
Kryptonite, Brainiac, and Bizarro have entered the popular lexicon, and people who don't know they came from Superman (good luck finding someone who doesn't know Superman period) know what they mean.

>>7261888

>Even if it's to repair infrastructure damaged by conflict or natural disaster?

That's not consistent with compassion or charity. It is the role of government to maintain order. Public property has to be rebuilt in a timely fashion with public funds, but private property is not the government's responsibility. That's what we have private insurance companies for.

>>7261200
a misogynist is but a man who hates women as much as women hate one another

>>7261900
Call the comic book police, I don't give a fuck.

>>7261900
>i don't know these words in the oxford dictionary because comics are terrible

negation of negation is at the core of dialectial materialism and also at the core of social justice movements. i think even the the term "progressive" is mainly influenced by dialetical materialism, because in this theory the result of a double negation can be either progressive or regressive, depending on the "engineer" (progressive classes oppose the reactionary obsolete classes).
nietzsche permanently wrote against negation of negation, ressentment and resulting philosophical pessimism. he saw the same traditional prejudice at work in christianity (double negation of the world and yourself as ideal path to paradise).
instead he argued for affirmation of affirmation, optimism and the setting of a positive examples instead of direct attacks on adversaries. most leftists are still trapped inside hegelian idealism or marxism, hence the popularity of gramsci and zizek.

alleged egalitarianism... dunno where OP got the idea. initially he supported parlamentarism but became more radical already during his middle phase. nietzsches social utopia is a pyramid resembling indian caste system or even ancient egypt. in this regard he called the medieval christian church a "nobler" institution than all existing states, because it guaranteed a stable power of spiritual men with. (gay science 358 at the end)
he was also of the machiavellian opinion that durability is the most important metric of a good institution/state. meanwhile everything SJWs touch gets existential anxiety.

>>7261200
not being sexist or racist doesn't mean you are a fucking social justice creep

>>7261136
Wow, you've done a really good job of distilling the varied life's work of a complex man into a poorly worded, barely comprehensible, fragmented sentence. Did you learn these words today, or was it a process of accumulation? If only I could have gone directly to you, instead of reading the entertaining work of a man who's influence continues to be felt by the world's top thinkers, writers and film makers. Please share more of your pearl-like wisdom. Perhaps next you could tackle Socrates in two or three words, you fucking pleb?

>>7262599
>Perhaps next you could tackle Socrates in two or three words, you fucking pleb?
ugly monster

>>7262605
Socrates: "I know nothing"

That's easy mode. He dismissed himself!

>>7262599
>>7262605
DUDE ETHICS LMAO

>>7261136

This is only true of his later books. In his early period, he does disagree with socialism and liberalism, but very mildly... There's a part in human all too human where he says he accept's socialism's ends but not its means, and suggests gradual education and re-defining of human nature instead of state-controlled redistribution.

>>7261554
>>I hate this meme tbh. What political party or ideologues don't want political power?
those who want to impose, on others, their personal view on their personal happiness.

>>7261774
I know that's what I'm saying. when people talk of liberals in america, however, they talk about people who support the more liberal/progressive wing of the democratic party, like Sanders.

>>7261746
I'm not euro. If the American revolution was a revolution, it was a liberal (in the classical sense) i.e. one led from above by colonial elites who wanted to rule themselves. It may have been motivated by republican ideas, but it was not "radical" in the sense of the Reign of Terror of the October Revolution in Russia. In my opinion it was more of an independence struggle comparable to decolonization struggles of the 20th century.

>We're a wealthy, intelligent, industrial superpower
lol, I would question the second and third points considering how poor our education system is and how all our industrial jobs got shipped overseas.

>proletariat rejected Communism because it was too smart to fall for Marx as easily as Europe did.
not really. the government cracked down viciously on the communist and anarchist movements. Workers did join unions en masse and got hard-won benefits like better wages, working conditions and less working hours. But again, the government has suppressed union activity with ever increasing intensity since WWII tbh.

>>7261746
>Are you implying that the American revolution wasn't a revolution?
It was a counter-revolution, in fact.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/27/counter_revolution_of_1776_was_us

>>7262599
he would value the terseness and slightly aphorstic statement. Stop being an elitist shitlord

>>7263396
NEVER!!!!!

http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/THE_GAY_SCIENCE_FIFTH_BOOK_.aspx?S=377

...We children of the future, how could we be at home in the present? We are unfavourable to all ideals which could make us feel at home in this frail, broken-down, transition period; and as regards the "realities" thereof, we do not believe in their endurance. The ice which still carries has become very thin: the thawing wind blows; we ourselves, the homeless ones, are an agency that breaks the ice, and the other too thin "realities". We "preserve" nothing, nor would we return to any past age; we are not at all "liberal" we do not labour for "progress" we do not need first to stop our ears to the song of the market-place and the sirens of the future their song of "equal rights", "free society" "no longer either lords or slaves" does not allure us! We do not by any means think it desirable that the kingdom of righteousness and peace should be established on earth (because under any circumstances it would be the kingdom of the profoundest mediocrity and Chinaism); we rejoice in all men, who like ourselves love danger, war and adventure, who do not make compromises, nor let themselves be captured, conciliated and stunted; we count ourselves among the conquerors; we ponder over the need of a new order of things, even of a new slavery for every strengthening and elevation of the type "man" also involves a new form of slavery.

...No, we do not love Mankind! On the other hand, however, we are not nearly "German" enough (in the sense in which the word "German" is current at present) to advocate nationalism and race-hatred, or take delight in the national heart-itch and blood-poisoning, on account of which the nations of Europe are at present bounded off and secluded from one another as if by quarantines. We are too unprejudiced for that, too perverse, too fastidious; also too well-informed and too much "travelled".

...We homeless ones are too diverse and mixed in race and descent for "modern men" and are consequently little tempted to participate in the falsified racial self-admiration and lewdness which at present display themselves in Germany, as signs of German sentiment, and which strike one as doubly false and unbecoming in the people with the "historical sense".