/lit/ - Literature

>>8625330
That's what Kanye said.

>>8625330
I'm a beast.

For real why hasn't Nietzsche been ostracized like Rand? It's basically qualitatively identical drivel, the only difference being the former's prose is needlessly ornate.

It's just garbage your average /pol/ cretin believes. #FlushNietzsche

>>8625346
>For real why hasn't Nietzsche been ostracized like Rand?
I agree, Nietzsche is responsible for the nazis. I would only add Marx too because his is responsible for another totalitarian state.
#FlushEm!

>>8625330
Aristotle said this first in his ethics. You are a pleb.

>>8625352
>Nietzsche's sister was responsible for the Nazis.
Fixed.

>>8625352
To be honest, we should just burn every philosopher's books except Evola, he got everything right.

>false dichotomy
How can anyone take this dumbass seriously? A human being can delight in solitude, a pet, fictional characters, etc.

>>8625961
>nietzshe is pleb

how edgy of you anon

>>8625979

But if we did that, then we wouldn't be able to compare them and realize how wrong everyone else was. People reading Evola would be like 'this dude sure has a lot of shit to say about how retarded Nietzsche was - I wonder if he's right or not'.

>>8625346
gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8

>>8625988
between beast and god is man

>>8626002
>between beast and god is man
Do you have empirical evidence to support this claim?

HURRY UP WITH MY DAMN MASSAGE

>>8626011
>requiring evidence

MUH SCIENCE

>>8625346
>For real why hasn't Nietzsche been ostracized like Rand?
Because he wasn't as well read by the masses as Rand. He basically had the same views on individualism as Rand. Same hate for altruism, same hate for Kant, same views on will to power (where Ayn Rand just argued that it was rational self interest while he just said it's whatever feels instinctual since you can't know the difference as there is no free will).

Hell, all the bullshit people think about how following Ayn Rand's philosophy will make a person apathetic, nihilistic and without caring for others, only following your own will, regardless of a person's interest, were said to Nietzsche in his lifetime and then after.

The only real difference between Nietzsche's Ubermensch and Ayn Rand's hero is that her hero rejected that the strong should help the weak. Nietzsche hated Altruism but said it was a person's duty to help the weak. People simply inferred that one must truly be alone in the world but this is absolutely wrong. You can make friends, you can hang around people, just don't be around people who don't give you a sense of happiness, teach you anything new or aren't interesting.

Would you be friends with someone you found boring, kept quoting Buzzfeed as all the source of their knowledge and made you wish you were doing anything else but be with that person? This is what she meant.

But of course
>hur hur
>any rand
>[insert quirky quote about how she's horrible]

>>8625330
Literally what proof does Nietzsche have for that. He is such a pseudo-philosopher. He has brought nothing to philosophy save an excuse for slapstick emotionally frustrated irrationality.

>>8626011
God is causality.
Beast is nature.
Man, by creating civilization, has placed above nature, but has not become one with causality nor can manipulate it entirely. Only when man has total domination over nature and causality will man become God.

Hence, that is correct.

>>8626023
Makes sense to me, where did he lose you in that quote?

>>8626022
>This is what she meant.
you really need a philosopher to tell you not to hang out with people you don't like being around? lmao that absolutist autistic logic.
>implying she's not horrible
what's up with asshole edgy philosophers and their use of a character to express their shitty views?

>>8625330

Where does he say this? AzQuotes is often full of bullshit.

>>8626042
Why should someone who delights in solitude be either a wild beast or a god? Why can't he be just a peaceful monk or a hermit? And why should I have to accept that there is, or are, a god or gods, or that wild beasts delight in solitude?

Such a wordfarter!

>>8626030
>God is causality.
God is the concept of stuff happening.

God is entropy.

God is being boring.

God is the potential to be rotated.

>>8625346
Because Nietzsche and Ayn Rand are leagues apart in content, meaning, talent, message. Reading them as saying the same thing is a shitty reading of Nietzsche, guaranteed. I can't believe this needs defending.

>>8626022
>Same hate for altruism
if by same you mean "entirely different for different reasons"

Rand thought selfishness was a virtue, Nietzsche simply said it wasn't an intrinsic bad.

>same hate for Kant
if by same you mean "entirely different for different reasons"

Rand hated Kant for "relativism", Nietzsche didn't even hate Kant.

>Hell, all the bullshit people think about how following Ayn Rand's philosophy will make a person apathetic, nihilistic and without caring for others, only following your own will, regardless of a person's interest, were said to Nietzsche in his lifetime and then after.
I've been an ardent follower of Nietzsche for four years now, and in that time period I went from being a loser with no friends to being in my last year in a college degree with a girlfriend and lots of friends. You're projecting your own personal opinions onto the world.

Yes, Rand fans are autistic though. No disputing that.

>>8626023
>>8626053
People who get all autistic about his quotes and try to dismiss him are often not even saying anything. Like you're not supposed to just like or agree with Nietzsche, most of his aphorisms are just to inspire you to thought, whether you agree or not is besides the point. Maybe if you weren't such a shitty reader you could entertain an idea without accepting it but who knows? This is only 4chan.

>>8626053
Because of the continuum from beast to God.

>>8626053
I see it as someone who enjoys solitude over civilization has either transcended or descended from humanity, not that those who enjoy solitude are literally beasts or are literally in the Christian sense a "God".

>>8626071
specifically what of freddie's philosophy imparted social skills unto yourself?

>>8626085
>in what way was Nietzsche's philosophy shitty self-help?

You're asking the wrong questions.

>>8626082
This is basically the right reading, or at least something like it Nietzsche intended to be read, I also see it a commentary on the psychology of the abused.

>>8626088
how did it happen then?

>>8625346
>It's just garbage your average /pol/ cretin believes. #FlushNietzsche
Nice bait, made me reply.

>>8626096
Because, if you still get bothered by his master/slave morality and infer from it that you ought to be a master, it means you're still a baby who can't accept who they are fully. I'm not a master in that sense and that's fine. I can live with myself. It's made me value myself more and stop being as upset about my place in the world which I used to be, and instead act in the world and get the things I want.

>>8626077
Well his quotes have "inspired me to thought". And I've concluded he sucks.

>>8626082
>solitude over civilisation

Western civilisation has always allowed plenty solitude, or say, it is, or was, based on ways to coordinate various solitudes. Far from what we have now, sure.

>>8626118
>Well his quotes have "inspired me to thought". And I've concluded he sucks.
That's fine. Maybe you could not post in the thread, then, because your shitty attitude really ruins the environment and kills discussion.

>>8626118
>Western civilisation has always allowed plenty solitude, or say, it is, or was, based on ways to coordinate various solitudes.

What part of this makes the quote bad?

>>8626116
why did you need master/slave morality to value yourself more?

>>8626119
I'm sorry if I'm such an anti-environmental force. I will not call you autistic again, and I won't call you a shitty reader again.

>>8626128
Just pointing out that it doesn't make much sense to polarise civilisation and solitude like you did. Wasn't referring to the quote directly.

>>8626130
It's a useful lens to understand the world through.

>>8626143
I'll rephrase it then

Someone who enjoys solitude over being around a group of people as well as what their ancestors left behind for them, aka a civilization, has either transcended or descended from humanity.

>>8626154
>aka a civilization

but, again, that's where you're wrong...

>>8625352

Modern democracies are authoritarian and quickly stripping away civil liberties.

Should we ban the greeks and enlightenment philosophers?

>>8625979

>evola

Yes lets teach people to be superstitious defeatists.

Good idea moron

>>8626186
Then what word would you use to define it? Nietzsche isn't talking about being able to be alone for 5 minutes but rather complete solitude from all other humans, including what other humans have left behind, buildings, writings, art, anything. Someone who doesn't need that has either gone above or below humanity.

>>8625334
savage

>It's not a PHASE! Gosh, mom, you're an untermensch!
- Friedrich Nietzche

>>8626054
How is the concept of stuff happening not Causality?

>>8626297
The same way how Causality isn't the same as being boring.

because you can imagine stuff happening against its cause, even though it never actually happens.

Similarly, you could imagine causality without being boring, although it always is.

>>8626071
>I've been an ardent follower of Nietzsche for four years now, and in that time period I went from being a loser with no friends to being in my last year in a college degree with a girlfriend and lots of friends. You're projecting your own personal opinions onto the world
And how is your personal anecdotes disprove the similar arguments people have said of Nietzsche will to power, like Ayn Rand that you can do whatever you want in a nihilistic sense?

>>8626309
>The same way how Causality isn't the same as being boring.
I never implied that causality is boring nor do I see how God or causality is boring.

>because you can imagine stuff happening against its cause, even though it never actually happens.
That is the fault of the person misidentifying causes that leads to their ends, not causality itself.

Similarly, you could imagine causality without being boring, although it always is.
How so? You just claim it is in a self evident tone.
There is nothing boring about causality because the mystery of not knowing which causes creates ends is what makes everything interesting.

>>8626333
>How so? You just claim it is in a self evident tone.
because it bores me endlessly? thus, me being bored is God.

you're a daft one, aren't you.

>>8626347
Being bored and uninterested of causality does not make it inherently boring.
Are books boring because you deem all plots to be boring?

Boredom does not give you a control over causality, therefore you are not God.

>>8626310
People read Nietzsche wrongly. Yes a surface level shithead reading makes him look bad.

>>8626498
People read Ayn Rand wrongly.
Yes a surface level shithead reading makes her look bad.

Again, my question is what is the difference between people saying the exact same arguments about Ayn Rand and Nietzsche?
On an an individualistic level, Ayn Rand almost argues the same thing as Nietzsche.

>>8625346
Nietzsche had some issues with people and he had some of that classic Holden-Phony syndrome tons of writers get but, to be fair, motherfucker was sick most of his life.
We dont ostracize him because he had nuggets of truth that have been thoroughly mined by his enthusiasts for the mainstream.

Rand's enthusiasts tend to already be fairly despising of the 'parasites' so they don't dig much further beyond the surface.
It's worth pointing out that she was actually very close to Nietzsche but she came from a place of spite where Nietzsche came from a place of optimism.
They both worship those who create

>>8626521
Is there more to Rand than her wanting to be plowed by a man with a strong will? Asking for a friend.

>>8626521
>Again, my question is what is the difference between people saying the exact same arguments about Ayn Rand and Nietzsche?
Some people also say the same things about Obama and aliens. "Some people" are fucking retards. Regardless of your stupid opinion, Nietzsche is valued and read by thousands of good, academic philosophers when Ayn Rand is not, and the reason is simple: he says a lot of value, whereas she doesn't.

>On an an individualistic level, Ayn Rand almost argues the same thing as Nietzsche.
No she doesn't, they hardly say the same things at all. You've probably hardly read any Nietzsche besides Wikipedia but his stuff about power is really not a big part of his philosophy, it's the part that edgelords like because it's cool and Christians like to look at because then it lets them do exactly what you're doing now: strawman the entire thing to make him look like Ayn Rand.

For now, stop posting and start reading, you'll learn alot about the difference of these people:
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1hpdu2/is_nietzsche_relevant/
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/19v8zo/nietzsche_rand_and_virtue/
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/25v30p/how_seriously_are_the_moral_philosophies_of/
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/3n8cw3/could_i_say_that_ayn_rands_objectivism_is_a/
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/search?q=rand+nietzsche&restrict_sr=on

And unless you can start sourcing all of these people who claim they're "the same thing", then I'm going to assert you're talking out of your ass and are clueless about what's going on.

>>8626541
Yes.

>>8626547
>Some people also say the same things about Obama and aliens. "Some people" are fucking retards. Regardless of your stupid opinion, Nietzsche is valued and read by thousands of good, academic philosophers when Ayn Rand is not, and the reason is simple: he says a lot of value, whereas she doesn't.
So your argument is basically an appeal to authority, not what she said?

>No she doesn't, they hardly say the same things at all. You've probably hardly read any Nietzsche besides Wikipedia but his stuff about power is really not a big part of his philosophy,
And you probably hardly ready anything by Ayn Rand except for the memes.
What do you feel is hardly similar at all between philosophies? You state it as self evident, so clearly, it should be easy to explain, right?

>reading
>reddit
Haha. Give me your own opinions faggot.

>>8625346
>For real why hasn't Nietzsche been ostracized like Rand?
Is this a real fucking question? Nietzsche contributed a colossal more than Rand ever did, and he is an utter delight to read. She doesn't compare.

I love reading Nietzsche. He is realer than anyone else in philosophy, and yet he is the most poetic of them all. He turns life into music.

Rand was crude, and not creative. People who can only parse the surface-level endgame of Nietzsche's philosophy think she is similar to him. They are vastly different though. She didn't have the depth at all.

>>8626569
For one, Ayn Rand believes there is an objective standard of action that all humans should follow, and Nietzsche does not. That right there should be enough to show they have no true symmetry in their ethics, but I doubt you'll accept that because you're not here to learn, you're here to be a fucking retard because Nietzsche offends you.

>>8626580
>For one, Ayn Rand believes there is an objective standard of action that all humans should follow, and Nietzsche does not. That right there should be enough to show they have no true symmetry in their ethics,
I didn't argue that they will similar on every point either.
And I would argue that their standard is basically identical. Nietzsche argues from a sense of love for life and Ayn Rand does the same but using that love of life as the objective standard that all humans should follow. The desire to live and not die is objective in all humans but not the ways people should live their lives.

> you're here to be a fucking retard because Nietzsche offends you.
Nice projecting, you think I only like Ayn Rand and don't like Nietzsche more than her which isn't the case at all. Why would you even think that because I hold positive opinions on Ayn Rand that I must agree with all her positions and think that Nietzsche offends me? Especially when I view both as being very similar.

You're purposefully being vague and not wishing to talk about Ayn Rand because you have nothing to say.

>>8626575
Crude is such an empty word that says nothing on what she was wrong. And Nietzsche wasn't crude in his ranting or distaste for women?

>>8626617
>distaste for women
He had a taste for zesty Neopolitan peasant girls, just had a distaste for manly bitches.

Not liking SJW is not disliking women in general.

>>8626630
>had a distaste for manly bitches.
Like women who had will to power?
Like Lou Salome whom he tried to marry many times?
It's still worthlessly crude.

Ayn Rand's entire bitching (like the endless Galt speech) is a rant against SJW to the point where it's insane how accurate she is to actual SJW of our days.

And it's pretty weird that manly bitches is what you consider to be SJW, as though women can never have any authority or will to power without being bitches or SJWs.

>>8626617
>And I would argue that their standard is basically identical. Nietzsche argues from a sense of love for life and Ayn Rand does the same but using that love of life as the objective standard that all humans should follow. The desire to live and not die is objective in all humans but not the ways people should live their lives.
Well then you would argue wrongly and stupidly.

>Nietzsche wasn't crude in his ranting or distaste for women?
Uh, no, in the most literal sense he wasn't, he was stupid when it came to women but that's fine.

>>8626662
Meh, so you say and without anything to say against it.
A love for one's own life and the desire to not die is similar regardless of what you maintain. The only difference is simply perhaps that Ayn Rand went a step further and claimed that the love of one's life is objective among everyone which I would argue is objective.

>>8626668
There's not really anything to argue about.. nothing you've said is of any substance, and you refused to read the stuff which would help explain the differences, so why bother?

>>8626673
If you have nothing to say, then you cannot claim I am wrong. I asked for your opinions and you gave me reddit.

This makes me think that you really never read Ayn Rand and only hate her by reputation and from memes.

>>8626022
Nietzsche never said that anyone had a duty to help the weak lmao, he said that as a matter of taste he would prefer to be stolen from than to be surrounded by starving men and would prefer to permit himself to be tricked rather than being mistrustful and paranoid but these were both matters of taste to him. He was completely outspoken in his opposition to pity. He pretty much never said "I, Nietzsche, have the answer!" but rather, ironically, in the Socratic mode, reminded us that basically no one really had the answer. The answer's not obtainable and that life, rather than being focused on finding the best answers, would be better organized around finding the best questions.

Nietzsche and Rand share some very surface level similarities and it's EXTREMELY clear that Rand was influenced by him despite vehemently opposing being related to his work (she claimed he was his exact opposite) but at the end of the day Nietzsche was a radical relativist while Rand literally called her ideology 'objectivism'. At its core everything about Rand is indeed a complete inversion of what Nietzsche suggests. She glorifies capitalists as heroes while Nietzsche mocks shopkeepers and the philosophies that suit them.

>>8626051
He wrote it a few times IIRC but of course it's not actually his quote, it's a paraphrase of Plato which he fundamentally agreed with.

>>8626071
>im an ardent follower of Nietzsche

only an idiot would 'follow' Nietzsche ardently and Nietzsche said that himself. He wished pain, sickness, suffering and doubt to his future 'followers' in letters with one of his friends. Although knowing his philosophy these wishes weren't purely malicious. In Zarathustra his last 'commandment' to his followers is to damn his name and forsake all of his teachings for a reason.

Nietzsche was the first and last Nietzscheian.

>>8626692
>Nietzsche was the first and last Nietzscheian.
Ho ho, nice.

>>8625330
>implying being alone is the same as solitude

>>8626617
>Crude is such an empty word
Philosophically, she does not demonstrate the same level of historical awareness as Nietzsche. Nietzsche never posits anything as "objective" — there is no "ought to" in Nietzsche. This makes Rand a very crude read in comparison.

>And Nietzsche wasn't crude in his ranting or distaste for women?
Are you mixing Nietzsche up with Schopenhauer here? Nietzsche never ranted about women. What distaste?

>>8626692
>The answer's not obtainable and that life, rather than being focused on finding the best answers, would be better organized around finding the best questions
And Ayn Rand argued that the love of one's life is the basis for an objective ethic and moral position, as Nietzsche argued..

Well yeah, Ayn Rand's heroes are basically Ubermensch in an capitalistic setting. In Thus Speake,the guy runs away from shopekeepers, showing Nietzsche discontent for capitalism but more that the system itself is a entrapment that can bind the will, and less a condemnation for capitalism.

>>8626699
Only because Nietzsche accurately bitched about every philosophical system, that does not make her worthless unless you argue that one has to give criticism of all philosophies to be considered good. By that standard, nearly all philosophers are worthless.

>>8626699
People who never read Human, all too Human have a very distorted view on what Nietzsche thought of women.

One of the first things he says in his first segment on the topic of gender is that, in the three or four civilized countries of Europe they could make anything they wanted of women, even men except in the biological sense. But he said this was completely undesirable because in making men of women, they will inherit all of the vices of men alongside their virtues, and destroy feminine virtues and vices.

He later equates women with truth and notices that all serious philosophers since Socrates were never married, and says that perhaps they are simply not skilled with women (aka truth). Many of his aphorisms on 'women' are him returning to this point, using women an allegory for truth.

You have to understand that Nietzsche was ridiculously pro-diversity and anti-universalism which is partly why he comes off as so anti-fucking-everything, because he wanted the tyranny of universalism (aka fucking Rand, who even says that aesthetics are objective) to go fuck itself. He loved difference at a fundamental level to the point where one of his criticisms of the abolition of slavery and serfdom was that all it fundamentally accomplished was the destruction of a set of virtues. He was antifeminist in that he saw feminism as the process of masculinizing the female gender.

>>8626680
Oh wait you're an unironic Ayn Rand supporter?

lmfao

>>8626761
Not an argument.

>>8626758
It's nice to see someone who has actually read Nietzsche on here.

>>8626783
AND MOLYNEUX TOO?

>>8626023
>he expects the entire argument in the quote

>>8626658
>women can never have any authority or will to power without being bitches or SJWs.
agreed

>>8626818
I don't watch his videos actually, but his not an argument meme is a valid dismissal of people who don't make arguments.

>>8627194
You haven't even made an argument yet, tho

>>8627251
I did.
Saying I didn't make an argument is not an argument.

>>8627268
Still not arguing~