/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10921016]

Try to prove him wrong
You literally can't

[Anonymous No.10921346]

>>10921016
Oh sweetheart, I don't have to.

[Anonymous No.10921357]

He makes me want to legitimately kill myself thank goodness I'm not an atheist.

[Anonymous No.10921426]

His schizobabble adresses none.

[Anonymous No.10921452]

i can't desu 30 pages that blew my fucking mind out

[Anonymous No.10921465]

>>10921016
His thoughs on history are better

[Anonymous No.10921478]

>>10921357
Ya, I dont believe in god, the only reason I havent killed myself is my family. Goddammit.

[Anonymous No.10921504]

>>10921016
you cant, literally the smart human of all time history

[Anonymous No.10921505]

>>10921357
Why? He makes me happy

[Anonymous No.10921521]

>>10921478
Good on you. They would miss you.

[Anonymous No.10921552]

>>10921478
Sounds like you need to read some Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.10921564]

>>10921357
Didnt you get the memo? God is dead, bucko, and we killed him

[Anonymous No.10921770]

>>10921016
he proves himself wrong.

[Anonymous No.10921820]

>>10921478
Read Nietzsche for fucks sake.

[Anonymous No.10921827]

>>10921770
This desu.

[Anonymous No.10921846]

>>10921016
pic related destroyed Nietzsche before that delusional faggot even had the chance to write a word

[Anonymous No.10921929]

>>10921846
How?

[Anonymous No.10921954]

>>10921929
His Hiin Enkelte was already above the universal (ethical)

[Anonymous No.10921982]

>addresses chief concerns and BTFO your philosophy centuries before your birth
nothing personnel...kid...

[Anonymous No.10922119]

>>10921982
How?

[Anonymous No.10922153]

>>10921346
Coward

[Anonymous No.10922214]

>>10922119
ontological nothingness does not mean moral nihilism in terms of conventional reality. Tsongkhapa follows madhyamaka reasoning to interpret a pretty stalwart defense of Buddhist morality and religious practice while keeping its logic of emptiness consistent.
Although Nietzsche wasn't a moral nihilist, his breaking away from religious authority over moral regulation is unwarranted in the case of mahayana Buddhism; perhaps it was more suited to a critique of Christianity at the time.

[Anonymous No.10922269]

>>10921846
I am debating between jumping into his work vs other Existential thinkers (mainly Nietzsche) as I've only read John Douglas Mullen's brief analysis of Kierkegaard's work. Still unsure.

[Anonymous No.10922278]

>>10922269
Who's that?

[Anonymous No.10922329]

>>10922278
My gf

[Anonymous No.10922379]

>>10922329
john's a guys name though, right?

[Anonymous No.10922395]

>>10921505
His rationalism is unsettling to me, when he says that suffering people who ask for pity are just trying to gain influence over people , or that a man is completely innocent in his actions as they are determined from his surroundings isn't something I could accept

His writing made me realise that dogmatic fundamental Christianity is in ways obsolete ( although my grandfather didn't believe in dinosaurs and he was a good man always charitable ect) and I need to educate myself for myself and others sakes, I read him mostly to understand atheist's and theire reasoning

And his prose and ideas are unlike any others I've read so it's always interesting to read

[Anonymous No.10922485]

>>10922395
>when he says that suffering people who ask for pity are just trying to gain influence over people , or that a man is completely innocent in his actions as they are determined from his surroundings
There is literally nothing wrong with those, you are just looking at them with the wrong perspective

[Anonymous No.10922491]

>>10922214
Umm sweetie, in english?

[Anonymous No.10922545]

>>10922269
Kierkegaard covers everything, people were just unsatisfied with his answer of faith

[Anonymous No.10922550]

>>10922214
You might think link related interesting.
http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/jltr/vol01/06/13.pdf

[Anonymous No.10922640]

>>10922550
pretty interesting. Thanks, friend.

[Anonymous No.10922653]

>>10922395
The reason why you find him "unsettling" or his ideas malevolent and cold is because you're naive about how things work. You're spiritually poor, so you lack the faculties required to bear his philosophy and still feel vigorous and full of love for things afterwards.

[Anonymous No.10922676]

depending on one's beliefs, god can't die

[Anonymous No.10922776]

>>10922676
Big if true

[Anonymous No.10922803]

>>10921426
You could say this about any philosopher

[Anonymous No.10922860]

>>10922653
Not him but can you be an atheist and still be spiritually rich?

[Anonymous No.10922872]

>>10922860
no

[Anonymous No.10922873]

>>10922860
his spirit isn’t the christian spirit and he was an atheist explicitly, so sure but asking meek questions begets nutrient deficient answers and belies weakness

[Anonymous No.10922891]

>>10922776

[Anonymous No.10922914]

>>10922873
But how can one be spiritually rich while being an atheist?

[Anonymous No.10922943]

>>10922914
By reading Neitzsche

[Anonymous No.10922957]

>>10922914
i already told you, its not for you.

here is some help: you talk like a child, you have the intelligence of a nigger, your logic skills are untrained, there is nothing going on between the ears, you were told you are equal, you’re special, you have a bright future, computer science, biology, engineering, maybe even an english major! wow! but, it was all just social engineering, there was never anything there to begin with. Now, instead of reading the author in question, instead of asking intelligent questions. You continually ask me the same toddler consciousness question I answered for you.

Fuck off you fucking bug

[Anonymous No.10922960]

>>10922914
By not being a simpleton

[Anonymous No.10923010]

>>10922957
Pretentious Faggot : The Post

[Anonymous No.10923161]

Neetche was not even a real philosopher. He got lucky that he was a literal noone when he was alive because he would have been BTFO to death by his contemporaries, just as they did with the birth of tragedy

[Anonymous No.10923190]

Girard made him look stupid a while ago, boys. Let's just quit with the make-believe

Look up Girard's essay "Dionysus vs the Crucified"

It's hard to watch such a one sided beating. He even goes on to fuck up all succeeding Nietzscheans.

[Anonymous No.10923208]

>>10922957
what the fuck went wrong with you, man? did your daddy touch you in inappropiate ways? You never answered the question other than saying "sure bla bla bla".

[Anonymous No.10923228]

>>10922860
Yes, absolutely. On earth, away from the Christian vault of heaven, spirit is becoming. The spirit that has become much, and continues to become more, is a rich spirit.

[Anonymous No.10923234]

>>10922957
First question was "can you", and you just answered "sure". Second question was "but how" and you went full drama queen about it.

[Anonymous No.10923235]

>>10921357
>if you dont believe in kikes lies u are an atheist
you are the kind of people he was talking about

[Anonymous No.10923241]

>>10923161
He was a supraphilosopher ;)
Positivists are the most irrelevant hacks ever while Nietzsche opens rivers of thought every single day
Maybe if they had been polite to him he wouldnt had btfo them so hard along with literally everyone else in the rest of his works

[Anonymous No.10923252]

>>10923241
Putting a lot of exclamations with crappy metaphors doesn't make an argument!
Neetche was a hack that convinced a bunch of lazy hacks that are and were to lazy to do anything of note that opinions>reality. If Neetche wrote stuff in a systematic way he would look like an edgy high schooler

[Anonymous No.10923300]

>>10923252
>opinions>reality
Is more like "will to power > attemps to sell your autistic opinions on reality" but I guess you can't read so it doesnt really make sense to try to explain anything beyond stuff as complex as Bill Nye tweets to you, I'm just trying to be polite

[Anonymous No.10923323]

>>10923300
>will to power > attemps to sell your autistic opinions on reality
Will to power is nonesense. Just mental verbiage. You just want to make what makes you feel good a reality while denying any truth. You are just the moron that stares at the shadows inside the cave and the worst part is that you believe you are smart.
In someways Neetcheans are just following a cult, in which they believe that a pile of sophistry is worth more than an honest approach of understing reality

[Anonymous No.10923325]

>>10923323
Stop talking about ideas from philosophers you haven't thoroughly read.

[Anonymous No.10923338]

>>10923325

[Anonymous No.10923344]

>>10923325
I have read Neetche's books. It is all worthless. The bible holds more value as a philosophical book than anything he wrote which is just nonesense to be frank. If it makes you feel good keep reading Neetche and masturbate to patantly wrong stuff and circular logic

[Anonymous No.10923346]

>>10923338
A meme reaction image for an argument. Classy anon.

[Anonymous No.10923347]

>>10923346

[Anonymous No.10923354]

>>10923344
>I have read Neetche's books.
Flipping through pages (just one page most likely, Wikipedia's) and understanding basically nothing is hardly what anyone would call reading. Protip: the hedonists you're complaining about understand Nietzsche as much as you do.

[Anonymous No.10923367]

>>10923346
>A meme reaction image for an argument
Saying a bunch of shit with a shitty metaphor and finishing it with an exclamation sign is not an argument either! I am still waiting for you to bring any argument whatsoever other than
>dumb positivits lmao
>Will to power>autism HAHAHA XD I called you autist because you don't agree with me,while not memeing my retarded idea which is in fact built on sheer autism

[Anonymous No.10923374]

>>10923354
Can you stop creating your own strawman and then namecalling it? You are showing why anyone with 2 brain cells doesn't take Neetche seriously

[Anonymous No.10923377]

>>10923354
You sound like you've only read Nietzsche after some professor name dropped him

[Anonymous No.10923381]

>>10923374
>creating your own strawman
Well, this wouldn't happen if you presented a criticism of Nietzsche that made sense.

[Anonymous No.10923404]

>>10923381
>criticism of Nietzsche that made sense
What do you want me to critisize? Everything he says is infalsible but not grounding in anything other than his own metaphysics making all he says false or unprobable. You only like Nietzsche because he made you feel nice but he says nothing and he is forced to use metaphors and literary resources to hide how empty his work is

[Anonymous No.10923426]

>>10923404
>What do you want me to critisize?
Something, anything at all in fact besides what amounts to "his stuff is dumb." What, for example, do you think about his arguments against the thing-in-itself?

>You only like Nietzsche because he made you feel nice
There's been times where Nietzsche made me gravely serious about my life, considering how much he emphasizes the quality of expertise in his philosophy, and no other philosopher has made me as serious, so that's wrong.

[Anonymous No.10923447]

>>10923426

[Anonymous No.10923475]

>>10923447
>secondary reading
>"a reconstructed dialogue between Friedrich Nietzsche and Soren Kierkegaard"
>"Nietzsche was negating a moral, telos-ful universe by escaping to an imaginary other-world of human rebellion."
>"Nietzsche in particular exemplified autonomous rebellion against divine authority"
You can't honestly expect me to take this shit seriously. If you're genuine right now, you very clearly didn't pay attention to the Western tradition of philosophy very closely — which started long before Christianity came on the scene. Nietzsche didn't rebel against divine authority, he revaluated what divine authority was, per a more complex understanding of life brought upon by advances in science, just as the Christians did when they revaluated what the pagans had understood as divine authority.

I'll say it again: Stop talking about ideas from philosophers you haven't thoroughly read.

[Anonymous No.10923483]

>>10923475
>Ask for argument
>Receives one
>You don't actually expect me to refute this drivel

[Anonymous No.10923495]

>>10923483
That anon refuted it though.

[Anonymous No.10923497]

If Aristotle was right or any variant of virtue ethics, Nietzsche's work is not needed

[Anonymous No.10923509]

>>10923495
By talking out his ass, as if Kierkegaard didn't understand proscratics or authority in a way that MUH NIETZSCHE did. Both authors stand with their points that have intersecting ideas with different solutions, Nietzsche was just, as the pic states, contradictory while Kierkegaard built a more cohesive picture.

[Anonymous No.10923528]

>>10923509
The points in that pic's text about Nietzsche are wrong, and I previously stated how. At no point does Nietzsche claim that "anything goes" i.e. what "an imaginary other-world of human rebellion" is ultimately eluding to; such a conception of Nietzsche is completely off the mark and only comes from people with incomplete readings of Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.10923547]

>>10923528
Where does that pic claim 'anything goes'? And his world of ubermensch is absolutely an other world of human rebellion. Reminder Kierkegaard had already dealt with all of his power dynamics pseudonymously refuting his arguments in realms of the aesthetical and ethical, talking to his 'hiin enklete' (that individual) seducing them to the highest realm of the religious. He walks circles around Nietzsche and died when Nietzsche was only 11, writing volumes and volumes more covering a lot of the same bases except Nietzsche had this cool hip idea of 'and we killed him' because of course Hegel had already pronounced God dead and Kierkegaard turned his own dialectic system against him fighting for the individual above all.

[Anonymous No.10923590]

>>10923547
>Where does that pic claim 'anything goes'?
When it refers to Nietzsche as somehow escaping into an "imaginary other-world of human rebellion." Something utterly one-sided, which at base implies that Nietzsche's philosophy has no foundation or structure to it, as if Nietzsche was not arriving at his conclusions based on any reasoning and was merely attempting to rebel against "divine authority" i.e. the one and only truth as perceived by Christians by creating a recursive chain of non-thought which masks himself away from said truth. This is not the case. Every single one of his aphorisms, each a conclusion, is based in observation and reasoning. Will to power is not a rebellion of any sort, it is a revaluation of all values now placed into just as tight and demanding a hierarchical structure as Christianity had set forth, with its own set of principles and acknowledged limitations.

[Anonymous No.10925095]

>>10923590
Why do you even bother to reply to that retard

[Anonymous No.10925100]

>>10925095
typical nietzsche faggots with MUH RATIONALITY

[Anonymous No.10925119]

>>10925100

[Anonymous No.10925124]

>>10925119
> Dostoevsky "the only psychologist from whom I had something to learn"
>Learns nothing

[Anonymous No.10925129]

>>10925124
Ebin

[Anonymous No.10925147]

>>10922891
;)