N was a frogposter

[Anonymous No.20762599]

>I draw above all a sharp line between strong and weak men—those who are destined to rulership, and those who are destined to service, obedience, and devotion. That which turns my stomach in this age is the untold amount of weakness, unmanliness, impersonality, changeableness, and good-nature—in short weakness in the matter of "self"-seeking, which would fain masquerade as "virtue." That which has given me pleasure up to the present has been the sight of men with a long will—who can hold their peace for years and who do not simply on that account deck themselves out with pompous moral phraseology, and parade as "heroes" or "noblemen," but who are honest enough to believe in nothing but themselves and their will, in order to stamp it upon mankind for all time.

[Anonymous No.20762654]

>>20762599
God he was based beyond belief.

[Anonymous No.20762687]

>>20762599
>That which has given me pleasure up to the present has been the sight of men with a long will—who can hold their peace for years and who do not simply on that account deck themselves out with pompous moral phraseology, and parade as "heroes" or "noblemen," but who are honest enough to believe in nothing but themselves and their will, in order to stamp it upon mankind for all time.
By that logic he would have loved Osama bin Laden

[Anonymous No.20762751]

>>20762687
why is there always a poster like you making weird connections like this

[Anonymous No.20762756]

>That which has given me pleasure up to the present has been the sight of men with long will
he was gay

[Anonymous No.20762769]

>>20762687
i p sure bin laden had plenty of pompous moral phraseology. then again not sure what difference that makes: why would nietzsche the truthskeptic(saying theres no drive to truth) be so concerned with honesty. its just bullshit desu

[Anonymous No.20762790]

>>20762769
It takes an honest disposition to be able to self-reflect deeply enough to realize one's own creative power, which then enables one to utilize it to create beyond the self.

[Anonymous No.20762805]

>>20762687
Name one thing Osama bin Laden should have done differently.

[Anonymous No.20762812]

>>20762751
It's not a weird connection, he is right

[Anonymous No.20762822]

>>20762769
Nietzsche is stupid for not believing in truth. Also the idea that morality would inevitably collapse due to religion not making sense is retarded, it's on par with communism being inevitable

[Anonymous No.20762825]

>>20762790
thats certainly not what he says in the quote

and also, ironically, nietzsche in that very text engages in moralistic posturing about honesty, as if in his system there would be space for pure uncontaminated honesty extricable from bias. if the detection of patterns outside is an act of artificial biad, so is that of detection of things "inside" which is just a conceptualization thats outside as well. hes still under the influence of the kantian model which was destroyed by heidegger.

[Anonymous No.20762862]

>>20762825
>pure uncontaminated
No. Honesty specifically in the context of living men. It's not an abstract intellectual concept invoked for parades and fancy mind castles. Honesty as in be what you are.

[Anonymous No.20762878]

>>20762599
>N was a frogposter
The state of /lit/.

[Anonymous No.20762883]

>>20762862
>honesty as in be what you are
...and how are the moral pretensions somehow not a part of "who you are"? Is there some "honest" way to determine this, or just more patterns and samples?

[Anonymous No.20762890]

>>20762822
>Nietzsche is stupid for not believing in truth.
You don’t understand Nietzsche or his philosophy. In fact, I don’t believe you have ever read philosophy in your life. Truth with a capital T has to ultimately be grounded in meta psychics. If you reject meta psychics then it follows that there is no Truth only infinite interpretations

[Anonymous No.20762906]

>>20762862
What if you are a lying, deceiving dishonest person? Like an Ukrainian refugee trying to undo your undies for a visa.

[Anonymous No.20762918]

>>20762883
What you are in this context is an animal evolved to exert power over nature, extract carbon and convert it into meat puppets. The honesty referenced is for example not pretending the moral pretensions you appeal to don't serve those goals.

[Anonymous No.20762942]

>>20762906
A liar could be a better liar by evaluating himself honestly. When you're good enough at lying you become a politician and when you're good enough at politics you don't need to lie.

[Anonymous No.20762956]

>>20762825
>thats certainly not what he says in the quote
Yes it is, it's what he's saying at the end of it. It's not honesty he cares about but those who are "honest ENOUGH" to believe in their native impulses without doubt "in order to stamp [their will] upon mankind for all time" i.e. assert their unique, natural creative power over the world.

>>20762883
>If your fathers took to women and strong wine and boar swine, what would be the use of demanding chastity of yourself? It would be a folly! [...] And if he founded monasteries and wrote above the door: "This way to sainthood" — I would still say: What for! It's a new folly! He founded himself a guardhouse and safeguard: good for him@ But I do not believe in it.
From Zarathustra, final part.

[Anonymous No.20762960]

>>20762890
Finite interpretations that are coherent with a wider system, metaphysics can't get it systems straight, it is impossible to derive meaning from it

[Anonymous No.20763030]

>>20762918
>in this context
yeah, a context decided by whom? How can nietzsche revert to objectivity here?

[Anonymous No.20763074]

>>20762956
no its not, since he says he appreciates those with long will who manage to stamp their will without pretensions of morality, implying the utilization of creative power is possible both with and without the moral parade.

also, its inconsistent for him to suddenly believe in the possibility of honesty here when denying it everywhere else. where is the objective vantage point that could allow you to say "nothing but" and how do you regress to such a banality from nietzschean antimetaphtsucs?

[Anonymous No.20763096]

>>20762599
(2/2)
> I know perhaps better than anyone else how to recognize an order of rank even among strong men, according to their virtue, and on the same principle there are certainly hundreds of sorts of very decent and lovable people among the weak—in keeping with the virtues peculiar to the weak. There are some strong "selves" whose selfishness one might call divine (for instance Zarathustra's) but any kind of strength is in itself alone a refreshing and blessed spectacle. Read Shakespeare! He is full of such strong men, raw, hard, and mighty men of granite. Our age is so poor in these men and even in strong men who have enough brains for my thoughts!
This is excerpt is from a letter to his sister

[Anonymous No.20763166]

>>20763030
He doesn't believe you have access to anything objective, you can always dig deeper into any subject, what's certain is you'll never find a bottom.
There's no attempt to categorize anything as objective or subjective. Those categories rest within the same context, the mind of a human animal evolved to propagate its genes. The categories exist to serve the will of the animal. They help us navigate the ultimately unknowable external world but we don't know what the true relationship is. When there are many possibilities open statements can't be verified. You like to claim statements and categories as "objective" because they work but you don't really know how correctly they represent the unknowable reality. Life from the start could have picked out the aspects of the unknowable reality that allow for propagation and defined our perceived world around them for example. The process leading to life didn't have to happen within the temporal world.

[Anonymous No.20763207]

>>20762599
Yes and no, you can't exactly hold not fitting in to a deeply and violently anti-semetic society that was full of retards against him.
>inb4 retarded frog/anime/pol posters disagree

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20763426]

>>20762599

[Anonymous No.20763463]

>>20763074
The honesty he's praising is about self-reflection. The master moralists from ancient times were honest in this way. He got that idea from studying Theognis in his youth, who made the observation that slaves were racially distinct from nobles and made up of dishonest thieves, whereas nobles were hard working and harsh on themselves, only receiving what they were given and deserved to be given rather than taking, in comparison.

As for the "long will," he is making the distinction between those who impulsively follow the herd versus those who maintain their distance, preferring to listen to their own natural instincts instead. "Long will" as in the will that is patient and concerned with long-term goals rather than simply appeasing the clamoring crowds of comfort-loving hypocrites around them.

[Anonymous No.20763529]

best thread up right now. have a bump

[ἐποχή No.20763556]

>>20762599
He's too histrionic for my taste.

[ἐποχή No.20763590]

>>20762599
>in order to stamp it upon mankind for all time.
In short, this conduct is redolent of devotion.

[Anonymous No.20763593]

>>20762790
That's funny because Nietzsche says exactly the opposite, that being oneself implies not knowing oneself (which is how he radically distinguishes his imperative from Socrates', which the latter took from the temple of Phoebus Apollo; "know thyself").

[Anonymous No.20763603]

>>20763593
>Phoebus Apollo
Correction, I believe it was Delphic Apollo, not that it matters much.

[Anonymous No.20763610]

>>20762599
>>20762599
>That which has given me pleasure up to the present has been the sight of men with a long will
Lol gay

[Anonymous No.20763659]

>>20763593
Admitting you don't know yourself is honest. It's honest to admit our highest intellectual accomplishments as a species are not that far from an ape thinking he's a genius for making bone sounds by banging two bones together.

[Anonymous No.20763765]

>>20762599
>the jordan peterson of the 19th century
>who claims in "The Will to Power" notes that what Germans need is a meat rich diet and to be more masculine
>same Germans who turned more masculine and got their teeth knocked in in 2 different World Wars
>who was popularly known to be gay in Vienna's circle after getting rejected by a russian woman
>so basically an incel
>would be a retarded faggot
Yes, I believe you are right.

[Anonymous No.20763795]

>>20763765
Without his contributions it wouldn't have occurred to you to cut your dick off. You're your "real self" now that you're dickless right?

[Anonymous No.20763799]

>>20763426
Push the hairline back a little bit more

[Anonymous No.20763841]

>>20763795
Not even the sky jew u worship could use his bible magic bs to make a tool capable of cutting my mighty cock off, weakpussy-kun. I just didn't need a father figure in my life to tell me I need to "eat meat" to be strong. This nigga has nothing on actual thinkers like Stirner, Marx, Heiddeger, etc.


>Eat your veggies and you will grow tall and strong like the Overman bro!

[Anonymous No.20763846]

>>20763841
>Stirner, Marx
Such stunning bravery and what a twist at the end, your dick was a ghost the whole time?

[Anonymous No.20763855]

>>20763846
>You have to agree with x writer to appreciate their talent
You truly are a fan of Friedrich the Gay, I can tell

[Anonymous No.20763862]

>>20763855
They're "actual thinkers" so they must provide you with insight. Where is some tiny hint of it? Is it a spooky ghost like your dick?

[Anonymous No.20764230]

>>20763166
so how can he observe any honesty objectively or suppise someone couldbseve their honesty or "real nature" objectively. Whether its their or someone elses will, whether its will at all, whether any solud self exits, hat actually is perceived by your brain etc. is unknowable. It could be analyzed just as well from the perspective of power sas care, as heidegger did, or man could be analyzed as collaborative animal, or big brained animal, with the "power" as contingency. The creature could be a part of a chain of conditions so is it not the will if these conditions etc. Theres no single objective angle, unlike nietzsche claims

[Anonymous No.20764244]

>>20763463
>As for the "long will," he is making the distinction between those who impulsively follow the herd versus those who maintain their distance, preferring to listen to their own natural instincts instead
So, with this moral pretentiousness is a natural instinct after all, since long-willed people were divided into morally pretentious and honest ones. But whence this "honesty", uf irs natural instinct? And how could Nietszche have privileged access to what is one's nature, let alone presuppose there is one?

[Anonymous No.20764249]

>>20764230
Start by stopping using the word objective. It has nothing to do with anything in this context.
We noticed we look like apes. You can work from that just like any other axiom and assume the ape thing is accurate which everyone does now btw.
If it is then our ideas of the world including apes are shaped by the imperatives that drive life, not some ideal of "objective" truth or whatever but the prime directive of life, gain power.
Collaboration and big brains serve this idea of power. You apparently are confusing it with the idea of violent force or something.

[Anonymous No.20764259]

>>20764249
you dont actually know which serves which, though, its just bias and more patterns. you dont know which quality came first, or whether the power or even the subject exists independently of other parts constituting the world, like what i mentioned, for example. Again, nietzsche is requiring some objective insight to human nature which shouldnt be accessible by his very own philosophy. If truth doesnt exist, honesty is meaningless. If you pretend to manage to isolate some nature, thats just more of whatever's going on, sampling and psychosis.

[Anonymous No.20764388]

>>20764259
>you dont actually know which serves which
Given the axioms I gave you I do. You keep repeating the word objective like a broken clock, proving the walrus right about some people just being slaves that can never conceive of anything beyond their conditioning.

[Anonymous No.20764410]

>>20762599
So is Nietzsche based or not? and what should i read of his that is a good entry

[Anonymous No.20764415]

>>20762599
Nietzsche was lucky he was born before the invention of the internet because he'd just been a shitposter his whole life.

[Anonymous No.20764418]

>>20764410
Read twilight of the idols. Short and sweet introductory text. But you need to be learned in the Greeks, Christianity and Schopenhauer to fully appreciate N.

[Anonymous No.20764429]

>>20764418
thank you very much. may your (you)s number as the sands of the sahara and troons hang like the lights of the firmament

[Anonymous No.20764434]

>>20764429
Amen to that.

[Anonymous No.20764443]

>>20764388
no you cant, its just more of the same. too bad youre an idiot who cant see past the incoherencies that i very clearly laid out and is unable to engage with thinkers except in uncritical worship. you should stop reading boo, it an insult to them.

[Anonymous No.20764456]

>>20764388
no you cant, its just more of the same. nietzsche should swalliw his pill of no objectivity if hes gonna say such things eather than fuck up his own system. too bad youre an idiot who cant see past the incoherencies that i very clearly laid out and is unable to engage with thinkers except in uncritical worship. consider that maybe you should just stop reading.

[Anonymous No.20764477]

>>20764456
>no you cant,
How do you thinks any of these concepts works? What is an axiom?
If you assume evolutionary theory is true then all your ideas about the world serve the imperative that drives evolution which in the simplest form is about taking material from the world and using it to copy yourself. It becomes more abstract later in evolution but the imperative never changes.

[Anonymous No.20764503]

>>20764477
nietzsche literally said all the scientific theories are just enforcement of patterns and models, so you categorically cant turn to evolutionary theory to explain nietzsche's views. besides, "power" or will isnt even the main concept in evolutionary theory, but rather fitness. which is, IN THE THEORY, shaped by various conditions, unlike in your model where theres an abstract force of "power" from which things emanate.

So, you dont understand nietzsche nor evolutionary theory, despite mixing them up in a way offensive to anyone familiar with either. Just what DO you understand, if anything?

Also lmao@ your axioms, in philosophical discussions if you pick a supposed truism only in order to serve your pre-decided argument and whats more admit to it, you might as well not have said anything at all.

[Anonymous No.20764690]

>>20764503
I can turn to evolutionary theory to explain his positions because that's what he does. The conclusion you reference that the theories including evolutionary theory rest within that evolved bias are based on the implications of that theory like I already explained.
>shaped by various conditions
The imperative is to reproduce. Take control of material. How well life does that is limited by conditions.

[Anonymous No.20764694]

/pol/cel containment thread

[Anonymous No.20764698]

>>20764690
It starts out as a simple replication process but soon the goals of the replicators become more abstract to account for possible futures so direct replication per second doesn't measure success correctly. Potential for future replication does, that's power over the world.

[Anonymous No.20764706]

>>20764244
>So, with this moral pretentiousness is a natural instinct after all
Yes, the instinct to be dishonest, particularly towards the self.

>And how could Nietszche have privileged access to what is one's nature
His will to power is greater than yours. He had in him a more diverse set of instincts which developed his perspective to be further reaching and more complex. He had intense clarity when it came to his self.

[Anonymous No.20764730]

>>20764690
according to nietzsche all scientific theorymaking is pattern imposition. it would be circular and stupid to ground this central philosophical claim, the root of his will-to-power, to a scientific theory.
>imperative is to reproduce
right, so if youre just talking about evolutionary theory, you should use the words "fitness" (i could say: omg we're just pegs to be FITted into natural patterns of selection), adaptation (oh no we adapt to outer demands). "ake control of matter" is not evolutionary terminology and not a known model/concept, nut neither have you shown any essentiality to it compared to all these other depictions and models.

Besides, your reductionism of EVERYTHING to evolutionary theory is unsupportable, since we could think if instances like the invention of condom where humans act against "will-to-reproduce". Is this "unnatural" just because it doesnt fit your reductionist model, or do these exceptions have to ve molded to accord with the midel by any means necessary. Anyway, this is kinda irrelevant, but i really dpnt think nietzsche can support reducing human behavior to scientific model while railing afainst tge objectivity of said models.

[Anonymous No.20764745]

>>20762599
>Read Nietzsche
>yes yes it all makes sense now
>read Jeeves books
>oh wow Nietzsche was fundamentally flawed

[Anonymous No.20764751]

>>20764706
>Yes, the instinct to be dishonest, particularly towards the self.
again, how can there be any objective self or nature to which to compare to, that was already denied. and if creation if moral prejudices as will-to-power WOULD be mans nature, wouldnt it be more dishonest to deny youre doing it too? nietzsche had some good insight but ultimately was stuck in a kantian straitjacket and consequently couldn't produce a truly cutting and enduring criticism.

As for the rest of your post, cult follower jargon

[Anonymous No.20764756]

>>20764730
>according to nietzsche all scientific theorymaking is pattern imposition
Why does he say that? Because we're animals evolved for pattern imposition.
>it would be circular
Yes. He rejects the authority of logic. If you act as if evolution is true and then jerk off philosophically as if it isn't you're again not being honest. That rules of thumb of logic are violated is irrelevant.
>you should use the words "fitness"
No. You're incredibly dumb my friend. Not just uneducated but dumb. The early reproducers didn't reproduce to adapt, they adapted to reproduce. Fitness serves the will to power.

[Anonymous No.20764774]

>>20764730
Condoms are unnatural and emasculating but they serve your will as an organism through power you've co-opted from the genes that originally built you as a giant war robot in a manic arms race. The robot putting on a condom is betraying what his fathers built him and gave him power for.

[Anonymous No.20764777]

>>20764756
>Why does he say that? Because we're animals evolved for pattern imposition.
evolution is a theory you mong
>le nietzsche rejects logic so he can say anything
and we can then disregard it as notjing more than his personal rabtings which gave no value whatsoever outside his head, since they apparently are below discussion
>fitness serves will to power
On what basis? Certainly not in evolutionary theory, which you're using. Youre just assuming theres a clear basis like that, while i could with just as much or little justification say that will-to-power is based on fitness or adaptation, or that will-to-reproduce is distinct from will-to-power or will-to-survive or will-to-adapt or Care (what heidegger thought was essential) etc etc. But this is all in context of just one theory, with which we cant justify metascientific statements.

[Anonymous No.20764818]

>>20764777
>evolution is a theory you mong
And the same criticism applies. It's developed within a context that will impart biases. At least this theory is talking about the sources of those biases.
>and we can then disregard it as notjing
Ok but then act consistently and reject evolutionary theory completely. Either you practically evaluate it as useful or you don't. It doesn't suddenly become less relevant to reality when you're discussing philosophy because your ideas about logic (with the same limitations and biases) don't formally allow it to pass some imagined line. You act as if the idea is correct in all other contexts, you rely on it for drugs development.
>On what basis?
The one I already described and you just ignore over and over to repeat your irrelevant dogmas.
The "goal" of the first replicators was to replicate. This is not disputed unless you want to get into braindead semantics about "want". The process is driven by those that replicating better replicating more. The game is about controlling resources. What part of that don't you get? You drag the word "fitness" into it because you heard it before and all your supposed thoughts are just about parroting things you heard but you clearly have no clue what it means.
>with which we cant justify metascientific statements
Because you decided that's something needed based on your flawed monkey ideas rooted in deep monkey bias. Your biases give you godlike authority over what is true and I must submit to your will instead of honestly engaging with what's apparent.

[Anonymous No.20764819]

>>20764751
>again, how can there be any objective self or nature
Biology.