/lit/ - Literature

File: 262 KB, 800x1085, Nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Apr 30 03:34:13 2018 No.11076769 [Reply] [Original]

I've been trying to get into Nietzsche without falling into the obvious traps. Even though he tends to contradict himself (sometimes intentionally), there are still times that i read something by him that seems to contradict everything he said before, and i really feel like i just don't 'get' him. Now i realize that this often happens with Nietzsche, and even nietzsche scholars get accused of completely misunderstanding him, but still.

So are there any good secondary sources to help with Nietzsche? I don't want to give up on Freddy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 03:35:48 2018 No.11076775 >>11076769 fgt

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 03:36:35 2018 No.11076776 >>11076775 ngr

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 03:37:33 2018 No.11076779 >>11076776 psy

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 03:38:15 2018 No.11076781 >>11076769 Montinari's book is pretty good

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 03:40:18 2018 No.11076788 >>11076779 fag

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 03:53:57 2018 No.11076819 >>11076788 gey

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 04:29:51 2018 No.11076877 >>11076781 which one?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 04:43:27 2018 No.11076901 >>11076769 My suggestion is reading The Will to Power and working back via the footnotes etc. To me WtP is his summa, not Zarathustra.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 04:44:46 2018 No.11076905 >>11076901 Should you read Schopenhauer before reading WtP?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 04:48:48 2018 No.11076908 >>11076901 The Will to Power was assembled by his sister...

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 04:50:25 2018 No.11076916 This might be a good place to ask without inviting /pol/. Why is Nietzsche so popular with the far right? He seems more like a far left philosopher to me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 05:01:41 2018 No.11076947 >>11076916 His ideas can be applied to both

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 05:16:50 2018 No.11076976 >>11076775 >>11076776 >>11076779 >>11076788 >>11076819 Some high quality discussion right here, lads

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 05:18:30 2018 No.11076982 >>11076947 And they're best applied to neither.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 07:24:01 2018 No.11077286 >>11076982 Nietzsche fits the far right the most

Anonymous Mon Apr 30 07:34:27 2018 No.11077313

>>11076769
>and even nietzsche scholars get accused of completely misunderstanding him, but still.

This is one of those things that pisses me off when there's discussion on Nietzsche; there's always some tired fucking line about how "you're misunderstanding him maaaan! He's talking about self-improvement and living the fullest life you can" or expressing bemusement about how the Nazis had "Misinterpreted" his work. It's like they have to "rationalise" his ideas to be more palatable and complementary to their basedmilk and green tea diet. If you think that Nietszche cared about the self improvement of anybody but the aristocratic superman then you're a misled fool. His ideas are ultimately about power and the exercise of the will to dominate the world by the select few capable of doing it. Most Nietszche "interpreters" are more like the slaves that corrupted the aristocratic ideal in the first place

Anonymous Mon Apr 30 07:59:06 2018 No.11077396

>>11077313
Yeah it's weird how liberals can be a fan of Nietzsche when N was extremely opposed to everything they cherish. Not to say that he'd be sympathetic to fascism (and especially not towards communism), but it feels like they've just butchered all of his aristocratic views and his ethics and just leave his work at "God is Dead" theology and perspectivist epistemology.

Anonymous Mon Apr 30 08:05:11 2018 No.11077409

>>11077396

Yeah, exactly. They point to aspects of his writings, such as his distaste for nationalism, and see it as a refutation of the idea that his ideas could be applicable to right wing ideology. No doubt he wouldn't have cared for the subordination of the individual to the collective, but he sure as hell would have seen the subjugation of the weak and incapable as a natural consequence of the will to power and the aristocratic morality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 08:25:05 2018 No.11077445 >>11077396 I doubt that he would've embraced fascism desu.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 08:36:15 2018 No.11077478 >>11077445 Yeah that's what i said. He probably would not have accepted it, but i see Nietzsche as closer to fascism than liberalism or communism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 08:53:05 2018 No.11077518 >>11076908 >2018 >believing this Jewish nonsense

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 09:24:13 2018 No.11077610 >>11077518 But his sister was an anti-semite

Anonymous Mon Apr 30 09:40:05 2018 No.11077655

>>11077518
I'd gladly be educated.
>>11077409
To me the crux of it is the subtitle of Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None. Nietzsche's superman isn't elite because of his upbringing, his social status, his wealth. It's a mode of thinking, a longing for more and a will to match.
I can't reconcile fascist interpretations of Nietzsche with the all-too-human elements of his Zarathustra.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 09:44:00 2018 No.11077665 >>11077655 >the all-too-human elements of his Zarathustra. Such as?

Anonymous Mon Apr 30 10:01:21 2018 No.11077715

>>11077655

Not everybody can be the superman or embody the aristocratic ideal. It's just not possible.There has to be significantly more undermen to carry out the will of the overlord. That's where seeing his work as some kind of self-help fails. I will agree that the aristocrat is not necessarily so by birth or wealth; but it is probably the case that his behaviour is not learnt .This is to say that a barbarian warlord from the steppes could embody the aristocratic ideal while a blue-booded limp-wristed French noble might not. Obviously there are many elements of Fascism that do not comport with Nietszche's philosophy, but it is completely disingenuous to say that there isn't a lot that does.

Anonymous Mon Apr 30 13:13:54 2018 No.11078450

>>11077665
Just read Das Nachtwandler-Lied(night song? it's in book 4). Or the other night song(Nachtlied in book 2).
Actually just read the whole book. And by read I mean feel it. Experience it.
>>11077715
I think that's the beauty of it. The subhumans are those who do not tread on their own path. The one's who hear about the superman, the higher ones and all they have to answer with is slave contempt - how egalitarian and how easily dismissable is this caste of worthlessness? Everyone can read Nietzsche, everyone could try to understand him. If you do not see the potential for self-help, if you do not see the mountains and the seas in the distance, then you take your rightful place below the superman.
But be careful, supermen out there reading this - do not dismiss the worth and value of the lower classes, the simple ones. Do not dismiss their simple pleasures, their human pleasures.

It genuinely makes me sad how Nietzsche died and that he died and that he did not live later. We could be headed towards a future where everyone could be a superman, it's feasible to end death, to genetically engineer and improve humans and to abolish work and all needs. What would our society look like? What do you do, when you're not forced to do anything? Eternity in your grasp - just what would fulfill you? These are question and problems I'm interested in asking and struggling with, not this bottom dweller human bullshit every millionaire and every bum goes through.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 14:52:59 2018 No.11078870 >>11078450 Nietszche was a weakling who would not have survived in the ideal world he envisioned. I think he knew this as well, but he still believed in what he wrote

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 15:19:44 2018 No.11078954 >>11078870 But that doesn't make him a weakling

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 15:22:02 2018 No.11078971 >>11078870 I think he's explicitly said that he wasn't the unbermensch, though he did see himself as a disciple of Dionysus

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 15:26:31 2018 No.11078984 >>11078870 this tbqh he failed his own ideal as he was a man of letters and of course he knew this this is why you shouldn't take treat him like an all knowing prophet, he wouldn't want you to

Anonymous Mon Apr 30 15:32:21 2018 No.11079013

>>11076901
WTP is a bunch of fragments badly put together with no philological criteria, he literally never wrote a book called "Will to power"
>>11076877
Reading Nietzsche, the man worked at the Nietzsche archive for 20 years and he knew his stuff
>>11077518
Colli and Montinari weren't jewish

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 15:34:37 2018 No.11079023 You're confused because you expect Nietzsche to be a real philosopher instead of a 19th century Chopper Read, which he is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 16:20:47 2018 No.11079241 >>11076916 >Why is Nietzsche so popular with the far right? The right is concerned with building and maintaining hierarchical structure and Nietzsche's philosophy is summed up with will to power. You can do the reasoning from there, I think.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 18:42:26 2018 No.11079934 >>11079241 Not everything is will to power, that's Schopenhauer.

Anonymous Mon Apr 30 18:56:23 2018 No.11079999
File: 23 KB, 250x335, 1512820608253.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11078450
>I think that's the beauty of it. The subhumans are those who do not tread on their own path. The one's who hear about the superman, the higher ones and all they have to answer with is slave contempt - how egalitarian and how easily dismissable is this caste of worthlessness? Everyone can read Nietzsche, everyone could try to understand him. If you do not see the potential for self-help, if you do not see the mountains and the seas in the distance, then you take your rightful place below the superman.

The problem is that the type of traits that will cause a person to be this Uberman are probably conditioned and concretised as children. It seems almost impossible to impart these traits consciously, if they are not already present in some form. Imagine, for example, some son of an early medieval Normal lord. Brought up illiterate , fighting with weapons since he could walk, and hunting with his father and servants throughout his childhood. Taught from the moment he could speak how to lead men and to command respect from those beneath him. You can see how the man that boy grows into would be the epitome of a Nietszchean aristocrat.
Now imagine a modern man, broken softly into a placidness that comports with the modern world; wasting the natural vigour of a child by sitting indoors learning to read and write instead of excercising animal instincts. Do you think that as an adult he can just learn how to think and feel like the lord from reading about it? Perhaps he can; and I'dm like to think that it is possible to completely change and better oneself; but there are some limits that are a part of our moulding, and if it's even possible to reshape ourselves in such a manner it would probably mean destroying whatever we currently are completely

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 18:59:43 2018 No.11080018 >>11079999 dumbest thing i've ever read on here

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 19:04:56 2018 No.11080034 >>11076901 That's an insane thing to say. How the fuck do you justify that belief?

Anonymous Mon Apr 30 19:08:37 2018 No.11080046

>>11076916
He has a lot of elements to him. Almost anyone with extreme political opinions one way or the other will find something in him to identify with. Definitely seems more in line with right-wing thought to me (mostly because of his comments on egalitarianism etc) and I don't really see how you could view him as a far-left philosopher as a whole but that might be my own personal bias

Anonymous Mon Apr 30 19:12:17 2018 No.11080057

>>11076916
>Why is Nietzsche so popular with the far right?

Because he doesn't believe in equality, neither socially nor politically.

Nietzsche quite clearly ascribed to some kind of idiosyncratic individualist aristocracy, e.g the superheroes of humanity should rule.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 19:13:53 2018 No.11080068 >>11080018 Nice refutation there. Maybe I could have used a better example; but the question as to whether someone can actually learn to be the "uberman" if they've been conditioned to live in the complete opposite manner still stands.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 19:14:59 2018 No.11080077 File: 61 KB, 795x615, nietzsche re islam.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] schopenhauer is repackaged buddhism and nietzsche is repackaged islam.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 19:17:35 2018 No.11080085 >>11080077 Well Andalusia was clearly superior to the rest of medieval Europe at the time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 19:20:50 2018 No.11080093 >>11080085 Even today the Islamic world has more healthy instincts than the West. Christianity leads to secularism and secularism leads to nihilism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 19:22:17 2018 No.11080099 >>11076916 anti-egalitarian chest beating as compensation for never getting laid

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 30 20:12:49 2018 No.11080340 >>11079934 >that's Schopenhauer Excuse me? Will to power is Nietzsche's idea, it is different from Schopenhauer's. Will to power is the basis of Nietzsche's philosophy and its ultimate conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 00:46:12 2018 No.11081522 >>11080093 Luther leads to secularism

Anonymous Tue May 1 01:11:51 2018 No.11081618

>>11080093
>wake up
>pick the sand out of your teeth
>wrap the towel around your head
>you'll buy a razor eventually, but not today
>remember you share the name of 1/5 other Arabs
>send your wife and child out into the street with an armed explosive
>take a selfie with your hostage
>watch some shounen you torrented
>post to liveleak on your break
>tell yourself repeatedly that you are not hungry for ham
>abuse women
>get hand chopped off for stealing some stale bread
>post on 4chan pretending to be American/European
>get stung in the dick by a scorpion
>forget to contribute anything of worth to the sciences like the past generation or two or fifty in your family
>sleep and dream of banging a camel
Islam sure is the superior culture.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 01:13:34 2018 No.11081622 >>11080093 This, inshallah. fucks a goat

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 01:44:28 2018 No.11081742 >>11081618 This, but unironically

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 01:49:25 2018 No.11081761 the diminutive of 'friedrich' is 'fritz', not 'freddy'

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 04:14:25 2018 No.11082104 >>11080099 >dude everything is about sex lmao

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 05:01:10 2018 No.11082186 >>11080099 Don't be ridiculous, the Freudian sex obsession is a cover story put in place to prevent examination of the deeper issues.

Anonymous Tue May 1 05:24:53 2018 No.11082238

>>11077313
> If you think that Nietszche cared about the self improvement of anybody but the aristocratic superman then you're a misled fool.

You clearly haven't read Zarathustra, or you actually didn't get it, because he essentially mocks himself for conceiving the idea of the Ubermensch. It is not a core part of his philosophy. Eternal recurrence is actually his most important idea, which he first articulates in aphorism 341 of The Gay Science.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 05:36:49 2018 No.11082257 >>11080340 >Will to power is the basis of Nietzsche's philosophy and its ultimate conclusion. Please study Nietzsche before you make erroneous claims like this.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 06:03:16 2018 No.11082300 >>11081761 lol fritzl

Anonymous Tue May 1 06:57:16 2018 No.11082424

>>11079999

>>11080018
Pretty much this. Nietzsche had no contempt for men of letters, he was one, and certainly didn't feel they were beneath the kind of person who follows 'animal instincts'.

>>11080068
The kind of person who will create uberman will decide that for themselves. Upbringing matters, but part of the point is the genuine capacity to forge their own path. Is someone who leads men because he was taught to do so from birth this kind of person, inherently any more than a scholar is? Why would he be more of an aristocrat of the spirit? Why not instead, a Diogenes, who tells kings to stand out of his sunlight and knows full well what he is saying?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 07:30:00 2018 No.11082520 >>11082238 I thought he considered Zarathustra to be the crown of his works? And where does he mock himself for zarathustra?

Anonymous Tue May 1 07:59:54 2018 No.11082595

>>11076769

Just think like there is a multiplicity of Nietzsches, but even if that's the case, all of them are connected in some way (not that they have a solid some solid principles or so in common, beyond a peculiar concept of "life", a pos-moral ethics and so on). It's a matter of perspectives around the same subjects, specially concerning western culture and its history, from the big pillars to little subjects that are more important that it seemed to be to philosophers until him (diet, for example). Man this guy is fucking dangerous in all senses, I love him and fear him at the same time.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 08:12:36 2018 No.11082621 >>11082595 >pos-moral ethics and so on noob here, but how can you have post-moral ethics?

Anonymous Tue May 1 08:25:31 2018 No.11082652 [DELETED]

File: 3.53 MB, 2801x2100, 20180501_052205.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>hurrr durrr his sister wrote it!!!
>you dont know nietzsche at all bucko
>only REAL nietzscheans wont read this
This is no reason for /lit/ to be so asshurt about this book

Anonymous Tue May 1 08:28:01 2018 No.11082661
File: 3.53 MB, 2801x2100, 20180501_052205.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>hurrr durrr his sister wrote it!!!
>study nietzsche and come back bucko
>only REAL nietzscheans wont read this
There is no reason for /lit/ to be so asshurt about this book in 2018

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 09:12:04 2018 No.11082753 >>11076916 >>>/r/eddit

Anonymous Tue May 1 09:15:08 2018 No.11082761

>>11076769
He's best thought of as passionate rather than methodical. Instead of coming from a single concept, his philosophy is like a series of impulsive expressions of thought, more derived from a mood or perspective than a chain of ideas. He philosophised like a poet, in short.

Anonymous Tue May 1 10:55:16 2018 No.11083054

>>11077715
>>11078450
>>11079999
You have totally misunderstood the ubermensch concept and replaced it with your stupid power fantasies
The uber in the nietzschean sense is temporal. It's the type of human that will come from a future society without religion to shape his worldview. The superman will be to current man as current man is to the cavemen. It has nothing to do with dividing current society to powerfull and weak.
The distinction between master and slave morality is something N traces in the past. Slave morality (Christianity) won. That's it.There are no more masters since we are all children of a society shaped by christian values. But now slave morality has also run its course and we are entering an era without God.The ubermensch will be the inevitable human type,the person who creates his own values.

Lastly N never considered animalistic pillaging as superior behaviour and explicitly praises historical lawmakers i.e. people who rose above the value-system of the society that they were born into and changed it. Zarathustra/Lycurgus/Mohhamed etc

Anonymous Tue May 1 11:05:55 2018 No.11083090
File: 109 KB, 634x1080, OHH YESSSS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Every interpretation of Nietszche is highly contestable in a way, if you're not "getting" it right now that might not be a problem, it might come back to you later as you continue to delve into philosophy, and in re reading it you might be more affected by it.

Anonymous Tue May 1 11:17:12 2018 No.11083134

Nietzsche is just ecstatic declarative after ecstatic declarative, a kind of individualist prophet-polemicist
He's certainly the best at that, especially his polemics are absolutely brutal and compiled with as sharp a vision as anyone had at the time, but his constructive projects are too ambitious and just lead to mental illness and histrionic narcissism
>become the uberman
>disregard anyone (that can't impose themselves on you)
>do not be resentful under any circumstances (this alone is impossible)
>always aim for the highest possible achievement

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 11:42:34 2018 No.11083209 >>11082257 How is it erroneous?

Anonymous Tue May 1 11:55:14 2018 No.11083262
File: 255 KB, 1200x413, nietzsches_world.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11082761
>Instead of coming from a single concept
You people really don't understand the concept of will to power, I gather. If you did, you would realize how everything he wrote correlates to this one concept which he defined as being all that is the world. A concept that he defined as being ALL THAT IS — think about that.

Anonymous Tue May 1 12:04:45 2018 No.11083316

>>11083054
Why did you include me >>11078450 in your reply?
Nietzsche wanted to bring about the coming of the superman, he wanted others to know how and what he thinks, he wanted to get the concept out there. True, I may be stepping out of bounds by referring to subhumans but the context was a reply to the original anon, don't forget that. And Nietzsche clearly does divide humanity into classes - very elegantly and I'd argue inclusively - unless you exclude yourself.

And just what would this society without religion look like? Without dogma, without ideology, every man FOR himself? We could've come so far already...

Anonymous Tue May 1 12:13:46 2018 No.11083356

>>11076916
His critical insights and methodology have been foundational to certain strands of 'leftist' thought - see for example foucault developing the idea of a genealogy as critical tool.
On the other hand he drew some conclusions about the nature of women and social hierarchy which are pretty antithetical to contemporary socialism.
So you certainly wouldn't call him left-wing by our political standards, but since its his critical insights and the method and the style and the attitude and the heroic cleaving to truth which have been philosophically productive, you can say with confidence that its the right wingers who misappropriate him

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 13:12:40 2018 No.11083591 >>11083356 >On the other hand he drew some conclusions about the nature of women and social hierarchy which are pretty antithetical to contemporary socialism. That's an understatement. He's opposed to egalitarianism in almost every way

Anonymous Tue May 1 13:15:58 2018 No.11083608

>>11083356
>So you certainly wouldn't call him left-wing by our political standards, but since its his critical insights and the method and the style and the attitude and the heroic cleaving to truth which have been philosophically productive, you can say with confidence that its the right wingers who misappropriate him
What? The methodology of the genealogy is not nearly as pronounced as his total opposition towards equality and his praise for aristocracy and elitism. Foucault just took his genealogy and epistemology from Nietzsche, but Nietzsche himself disapproved of those who only 'take' a part of a philosopher's thought and disregard the rest.

Anonymous Tue May 1 14:22:07 2018 No.11083878

>>11083316
I wanted to reply to the anon you were discussing with, you are right i shouldn't have included your post.

As for N, yeah he clearly has contempt for the masses but he mostly attacks group think. He doesn't exclude any individual from his ubermensch project ("Even if you can't be the overman you can at least be his precursor").

My objection was mostly about people who
1) read GoM and project the master-slave struggle to contemporary society. We are the result of that struggle, not participants in it. Any notion of caste has been already obliterated.
2) conflate the notion of the master with the overman. Remember that the overman has to go through the camel stage of absorbing his contemporary values before destroying them like a lion. He is not born superior to anyone or as part of an aristocracy. The concept is about dynamic individual evolution not a sociological touchstone as Nazis used it.

For your last point, i don't personally know what sort of society the death of God will produce (i even happen to think that N underestimated religion) but it's clear that N views it as the most important paradigm shift going on in his time. Zarathustra's preaching is all about emboldening the individual to think for himself far from the "flies of the market place".

Anonymous Tue May 1 14:34:14 2018 No.11083923

>>11083591
>>11083608
But what has been influential from his work, what has been productive, what was original is not the pretty stupid set of claims he made about women.
He praises aristocracy yes, but he doesnt advocate it. He advocates a transvaluation of all values. What society looks like after that is novel, not a throwback to some previous form of morality which nietzsche has analysed historically, whether he writes favourably of it or not.
I really don't understand people who read philosophers and go straight to their conclusions and assertions in order to evaluate them. This incidentally is a practice nietzsche would condemn, since he was far more subtle when he criticised for example metaphysical casuistry and knew that what was at stake in a discourse is always far more than mere propositional content and judgement.
But anyway the point is not that you can twist nietzsche into actually supporting, say, egalitarian socialism; the point is that his work has been the progenitor of and directly responsible for philosophy and theory which most people would consider left-wing. He certainly would be no friend to the contemporary right.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 14:37:56 2018 No.11083942 >>11083923 Yes, to be clear, what is most important is methodological innovation, not his fairly unbalanced claims about the lack of potential of the masses, or of women etc

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 14:40:24 2018 No.11083958 >>11083942 Important according to who exactly? Because i doubt that Nietzsche himself would say that his methodology was more important than his elitism.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 14:53:55 2018 No.11084043 File: 1.46 MB, 1608x1608, 20180501_115332.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue May 1 14:57:42 2018 No.11084062

>>11083923

>But anyway the point is not that you can twist nietzsche into actually supporting, say, egalitarian socialism; the point is that his work has been the progenitor of and directly responsible for philosophy and theory which most people would consider left-wing.

That doesn't make him left-wing. Heidegger was extremely right wing, yet his thought has influenced almost all left-wing thinkers that came after him. And to come back to Nietzsche, even those of the modern left who reject Heidegger or are closer to genuine Marxist thinking are absolutely not in the process of "transvaluation of all values", because they are blatantly part of Christian morality.

And Nietzsche would indeed not be a friend of the contemporary right, but he'd despise the modern left as well. That doesn't mean we cannot place his thinking within the political spectrum.

Anonymous Tue May 1 15:05:30 2018 No.11084099

>>11083958
Important according to anyone who wants to actually do philosophy. And if you just want to mine the classics to pick out beliefs to which you can say ah, yes, i will advocate and support and construct arguments in favour of this like the good consumer i am (even though i claim to be an elitist), then go ahead

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 15:06:38 2018 No.11084101 >>11083942 lmao nice try Kaufmann

Anonymous Tue May 1 15:12:04 2018 No.11084127

>>11084062
I suppose I would want to discuss their relationship to contemporary politics historically, rather than as if they were alive and living today. So no we couldn't place nietzsche on the spectrum, it would be to twist his thought from its historical context.
And on philosophers conscious political affilations, like heideggers nazism, i wouldn't put much stock in that. Let us judge the politics of a thinker from our own evaluation of their work, especially when they haven't produced explicitly political philosophy. If in the long run heidegger turns out to have been an important turn in left wing thought, then what does it matter that the man himself mischaracterised his own philosophy or failed to see its significance.

Anonymous Tue May 1 15:14:49 2018 No.11084139

>>11084127
>If in the long run heidegger turns out to have been an important turn in left wing thought, then what does it matter that the man himself mischaracterised his own philosophy or failed to see its significance.

You really don't think it's very arrogant to think that you know Heidegger better than Heidegger himself did?

Anonymous Tue May 1 15:24:36 2018 No.11084182

>>11084139
Well that's not what I said. That's a different matter. With that, First there's the difference between the man and his work. Then it's not obvious in either case who has 'best' acces.
But what I mean is that the only possible practice as a critical reader is to draw your own conclusions, however they may cohere or not with a thinker's self-evaluation. This is what you are doing anyway, of course, even when you think you are being faithful to someone's self-representation.
There are no facts, only interpretations.
Always the consideration, what is it - to me?
etc etc

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 15:24:47 2018 No.11084184 File: 156 KB, 960x696, Fat tiger cub.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Going back to the original topic, what are some good assisting readers for Nietzsche, besides Montinari?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 15:27:03 2018 No.11084201 >>11084139 And moreover, a general point, it really is daft to expect people to be coherent, or to be annoyed at them for not being so, or to use the assumption of coherence as an authority from which to denounce para-doxa

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 15:28:30 2018 No.11084206 >>11084201 Stop talking like a fag, anon. You're making the board look bad, and it gives the impression that you're a commie.

Anonymous Tue May 1 16:39:07 2018 No.11084551

>>11083878
My last point was in response to your post. What do you mean by underestimate?
I think it is an important paradigm shift that may never come. Certainly religion had a much bigger impact on society in Nietzsche's time but it's still here in 2018.
If you wanted to you could trace most of all human folly back to religion, at least for western values broadly speaking this is true. Of course not all our values are inherently bad because of their origin, but there's a refusal to rethink traditions.

I'm tired and can't find the right words right now. The night overcame me. Good thread so far.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 17:58:14 2018 No.11084845 To the guys knowledgeable in Nietzsche ITT, I have a question: When he says "Will to Power" what is it that he means by "power"?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 18:02:25 2018 No.11084866 >>11084551 >it may never come you fucking idiot, god is ALREADY dead

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 18:04:12 2018 No.11084873 >>11084201 It must be exhausting being this pretentious.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 18:06:38 2018 No.11084883 >>11084845 https://youtu.be/ZkQdUeYFlkQ

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 18:08:24 2018 No.11084886 File: 36 KB, 362x346, CjcQBE6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11084883

Anonymous Tue May 1 18:36:37 2018 No.11084982

>>11080077
>>11080093
>>11080085
"Faith is always coveted most and needed most urgently where will is lacking; for will, as the affect of command, is the decisive sign of sovereignty and strength. In other words, the less one knows how to command, the more urgently one covets someone who commands, who commands severely—a god, prince, class, physician, father confessor, dogma, or party conscience. From this one might perhaps gather that the two world religions, Buddhism and Christianity, may have owed their origin and above all their sudden spread to a tremendous collapse and disease of the will. And that is what actually happened: both religions encountered a situation in which the will had become diseased, giving rise to a demand that had become utterly desperate for some "thou shalt." Both religions taught fanaticism in ages in which the will had become exhausted, and thus they offered innumerable people some support, a new possibility of willing, some delight in willing. For fanaticism is the only "strength of the will" that even the weak and insecure can be brought to attain, being a sort of hypnotism of the whole system of the senses and the intellect for the benefit of an excessive nourishment (hypertrophy) of a single point of view and feeling that henceforth becomes dominant—which the Christian calls his faith. Once a human being reaches the fundamental conviction that he must be commanded, he becomes "a believer." Conversely, one could conceive of such a pleasure and power of self-determination, such a freedom of the will [This conception of "freedom of the will" (alias, autonomy) does not involve any belief in what Nietzsche called "the superstition of free will" in section 345 (alias, the exemption of human actions from an otherwise universal determinism).] that the spirit would take leave of all faith and every wish for certainty, being practiced in maintaining himself on insubstantial ropes and possibilities and dancing even near abysses. Such a spirit would be the free spirit par excellence."
tldr muslims are the biggest slaves for they need allah the most

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 20:37:32 2018 No.11085471 >>11084982 It's always funny to see Nietzsche talk about Buddhism when he knows nearly nothing about it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 20:41:32 2018 No.11085485 >>11085471 The two kinds of nihilism end up as either Buddhism or with Freddy. Buddhism is "soft" nihilism, while Freddy went hard af.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 22:03:01 2018 No.11085903 >>11085485 How is Buddhism nihilist?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 23:12:58 2018 No.11086233 >>11085903 Anatman is how

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 23:17:27 2018 No.11086257 >>11080077 what a cuck

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 23:21:01 2018 No.11086281 >>11084866 Don't be so fucking literal. They're still propping up his corpse or whatever. All I'm saying religion's influence is bigger than it ought to be.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 23:34:14 2018 No.11086331 >>11076916 >against democracy, socialism, woman's rights, egalitarianism, etc. >seems more like a far left philosopher to me what nietzsche are you reading?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 1 23:44:52 2018 No.11086380 >>11086233 That's not what anatman means though?

Anonymous Wed May 2 00:27:33 2018 No.11086552

>>11083356
>you can say with confidence that its the right wingers who misappropriate him.

that doesn't follow from your previous statement, and it's obvious that you're trying to claim nietzsche as well, albeit in a roundabout way.

i would agree with you that his insights are what matter. but just because some obnoxious alt-right dudes read the superman as a pretentious social darwinist or something doesn't mean that the aristocratic element in his thought is purely rhetorical. you can find explicit support for elitism and hierarchy in his writing, as well as explicit denunciations of every left-wing political movement of his day. he himself remained self-consciously aloof from politics, commenting mostly as a critic rather than an advocate, but there's just no way to situate a guy who opposes democracy and all forms of mass politics anywhere but on the political right, unless you reject the political spectrum altogether.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 00:39:01 2018 No.11086585 >>11085903 It is focused on reducing suffering, which is nihilist since life contains suffering.

Anonymous Wed May 2 00:50:16 2018 No.11086619

Question about the ubermensch: it seems like the way Nietzsche described him, as so above his peers, would make a society of ubermensches impossible. I thought he was imagining what an evolved ideal man would look like but are his characteristics only coherent in the context of a solitary ideal man in our society?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 00:56:34 2018 No.11086637 >>11076769 please /lit/ my friends are drooling retard manchildren, i haven’t been laid in years, ive been working on essays all day. just one good thread please no retards or half-wits

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 00:57:05 2018 No.11086639 >>11086585 But wouldn't that make something like medicine inherently nihilistic?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 04:21:40 2018 No.11087225 >>11086619 Nietzsche never believed that everyone should be an uberman. If you're a god then be a god, if you're a worm then be a worm.

Anonymous Wed May 2 04:42:45 2018 No.11087275

>>11078450
I think calling everyone who's not the overman slaves is an extremely juvenile viewpoint. Nietzsche praised napoleon as a proto-overman. Were all his soldiers and lieutenants who loved him and died for him the same as some faggot american buzzfeed journalist?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 04:58:59 2018 No.11087305 How do people not acknowledge how painfully irrelevant Nietzsche is now after WW2

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 05:50:38 2018 No.11087411 >>11087305 He's the only 19th century thinker who's still relevant. Marx and Freud fell into obscurity.

Anonymous Wed May 2 06:49:13 2018 No.11087562
File: 9 KB, 189x267, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11079999
>wasting the natural vigour of a child by sitting indoors learning to read and write instead of excercising animal instincts. Do you think that as an adult he can just learn how to think and feel like the lord from reading about it?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 09:58:38 2018 No.11088129 >>11086639 Medicine isn't a lifestyle / set of values. Nietzsche praised the medicinal aspect of Buddhism.

Anonymous Wed May 2 10:57:44 2018 No.11088361

>>11076769
Laurence Lampert has several very solid studies of Nietzsche out that try to understand Nietzsche's work as a whole. Stanley Rosen wrote an excellent philosophical commentary on Zarathustra ('The Mask of Englightenment'). Robert Pippin has a good study on Nietzsche's psychology.

One of Leo Strauss's seminar courses on Zarathustra was just published, and you can read the transcript to his Beyond Good & Evil course at https://wslamp70.s3.amazonaws.com/leostrauss/s3fs-public/Nietzsche%27s%20Beyond%20Good%20and%20Evil.pdf..

Anonymous Wed May 2 11:09:51 2018 No.11088405

>>11082520
It's in Zarathustra that we find his most lucid articulation of eternal recurrence-it's what the entire book is about.

In the Prologue, Zarathustra (Nietzsche) attempts to convince the people of the marketplace that they ought to become the Ubermensch. Not only do they mock him, but in the image of the tightrope dancer we see Nietzsche mocking himself, for he thinks that through an Ubergang alone he can transcend the "last men," but the fall and death of the tightrope dancer show that such an idea belies what it really takes to grow as an individual and become stronger, and that is the untergang, the down-going he mentions on the first page.

Anonymous Wed May 2 11:11:20 2018 No.11088411

>>11083262
Which he began to *move away from* after '85 when his attempts to ground Will to Power in physics came to nothing. By the end, Eternal Recurrence remained and was on his thoughts enough to be considered a volume in the series that Antichrist came to take the place of, while Will to Power disappears.

Anonymous Wed May 2 11:22:51 2018 No.11088448

>>11079999
>wasting the natural vigor of a child by sitting indoors learning to read and write instead of exercising animal instincts. Do you think that as an adult he can just learn how to think and feel like the lord from reading about it?

How is this news to anybody?
Reading to your kid before bed and otherwise attempting to foster a relationship with books and reading is necessary, but so is the natural play of a kid too. If you restrict one for the other, the kid will come to hate the thing that is causing the restriction ("you can't go play, you can only read" = kid hates reading and vice versa).
That being said, aristocracy as it has manifested itself historically has not at all been "noble" or constituting anything near the overman as Neechee supposed.
>some son of an early medieval Normal lord. Brought up illiterate, fighting with weapons since he could walk, and hunting with his father and servants throughout his childhood. Taught from the moment he could speak how to lead men and to command respect from those beneath him. You can see how the man that boy grows into would be the epitome of a Nietzschean aristocrat.
That upbringing you're talking about can just as easily produce a vain tyrant, among other things that he hated.

Anonymous Wed May 2 13:52:35 2018 No.11089028

>>11079999
Uhhh

Here's how Nietzsche speaks about strength in BGE para 39:

"Something could well be true, although it is at the same time harmful and dangerous to the highest degree. In fact, it could even be part of the fundamental composition of existence that people are destroyed when they fully recognize this point — so that the strength of a spirit might be measured by how much it could still endure of the “truth,” or put more clearly, by the degree it would have to have the truth diluted, sweetened, muffled, or falsified."

Note that this doesn't sound like a description of warrior types at all, but of philosophers, who, Nietzsche has already claimed in parts of chapter 1, write exoterically and conceal esoteric beliefs/doctrines.

Here's his description of what philosophers are in BGE para 211:

"But the real philosophers are commanders and lawgivers: they say “That is how it should be!” They determine first the “Where to?” and the “What for?” of human beings, and, as they do this, they have at their disposal the preliminary work of all philosophical labourers, all those who have overpowered the past — they reach with their creative hands to grasp the future. In that process, everything which is and has been becomes a means for them, an instrument, a hammer. Their “knowing” is creating; their creating is establishing laws; their will to truth is — will to power."

Note that this description sounds an awful lot like he's describing his aristocrats, because *he is*. Turn real philosophers = commanders/legislators around, so that commanders/legislators = philosophers, and you end up with his real judgement of what figures like Socrates and Plato are doing, as well as what he really thinks of figures like Alexander and Caesar (who, though well remembered, do not determine the "Where to?"s and "What for?"s of humanity).

Warrior types and types defined by physical strength are still *slaves*; they do the work of commanders and legislators, i.e., they do what the philosopher tells them to do, because they don't have it in themselves to guide humanity toward the development of Great Culture, just vulgar dumb small-scale power struggles.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 13:55:05 2018 No.11089044 >>11080068 >Nice refutation there Why are saying "you didn't refute me" when I clearly didn't attempt to refute you?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 13:58:16 2018 No.11089054 >>11088361 >Three americans and a jew no thanks

Anonymous Wed May 2 13:58:24 2018 No.11089055

>>11088411
>Which he began to *move away from* after '85
Where's the evidence of this? It's certainly not in the author, whose character affirms the idea throughout his lifetime. It's not in the work, which contains explicit mentions of the idea — in Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morals, The Antichrist, Ecce Homo... and implicitly everywhere, wherever Nietzsche acts immorally and revaluates existing values. We also know that he did have a collection of notes titled "Will to Power" and book planned for this, mentioned in the Genealogy — we have no basis for assuming that he wouldn't have eventually completed this for publication.

Anonymous Wed May 2 14:32:57 2018 No.11089276

>>11089055
The evidence is in what's published, and what's unpublished (but still written); he goes fromm working on a projected four volume work titled "The Will to Power: Attempt at a New Explanation of all Events" to changing the subtitle to "Revaluation of All Values" to dropping the "Will to Power" title completely and saying to Koeselitz in February of '88 that "the first version of my “Attempt at a Revaluation” is ready: it was, all in all, a torture, I haven’t had the audacity for it. In ten years time I’ll make it better", indicating that the title has been completely reduced from "The Will to Power"; and about the comment on further work? About two weeks later he tells Koeselitz he's abandoned it. In his published works he mums up about it, because from '85 on through '86, he's trying to work out how Will to Power might explain inorganic matter, and, sensitive as he is to both his own rhetoric and how he might be read, he doesn't want to say get ahead of himself in what he publishes about it. Will to Power subsequently seems to take less and less space in his writings, both because of having said what he already has said of it in BGE especially, and because he hit a wall in trying to find a grounding for it in physics.

For a brief spell in the middle of '88 he tries to revive it before washing his hands of it in August, as he describes in letters both to his mother and Meta von Salis, wherein he says his work on the project is "down the plug hole (ins Wasser gefallen)". In one of those letters to his mother, he describes how he's nonetheless re-energized in his work; he takes what he's able to save from the project and turn those bits into Twilight of the Idols, on the one hand, and The Antichrist, on the other, the latter at least initially projected to be vol. 1 of the Revaluation of All Values. Both are completed by the end of September, and at least at that time, he still holds The Antichrist to be the first volume of a larger work. By November, he's totally changed his mind, saying in a letter to Georg Brandes that "the Revaluation of All Values lies complete before me", referring to The Antichrist on its own, and saying to Paul Deussen that ‘my Revaluation of All Values, with the main title The Antichrist is ready".

The notebooks trace his attempts to expand the psychological doctrine of Will to Power into both biological and cosmological accounts, and he undertook quite a bit of study of ancient and modern physics to build up his account. He finds those attempts to be failed, and so, beyond a very brief suggestion in BGE, he abandons discussing it as a cosmological and biological account in his later works. But while he still stands by the psychological account of Will to Power, he reduces it in '88, as seen especially in Twilight of the Idols, where he both takes up an anti-systematic stance, and offers account of human motivations that aren't reducible to Will to Power.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 14:34:44 2018 No.11089284 >>11089055 >We also know that he did have a collection of notes titled "Will to Power" Actually what we know is that he never wrote a book called "the will to power"

Anonymous Wed May 2 14:52:06 2018 No.11089407

>>11089276
This is some of the strangest mental gymnastics I've seen in a Nietzsche thread. Just because it was taking him a long time to think through how to divulge the concept in a written format doesn't mean he was abandoning the concept. As I said, he uses "will to power" in his works many times after 1885. Him re-organizing his notes into several books with different titles does not mean at all that the concept is abandoned or not vital.

>and offers account of human motivations that aren't reducible to Will to Power.
This also does not prove that he was abandoning the concept or that it wasn't vital to his philosophy. I'd also like to know which motivations in Twilight are "not reducible" to will to power (as if to be connected to will to power reduces something: I think you just exposed yourself for being an opponent of Nietzsche, hence this crusade against the idea of will to power as being vital to his work).

>>11089284
>These things will be addressed by me more fully and seriously in another connection (with the title 'On the History of European Nihilism'; for which I refer you to a work I am writing, The Will to Power: Attempt at a Revaluation of all Values).
From the Genealogy. Several translators have also mentioned this Will to Power titled collection of notes. Nietzsche also writes "will to power" dozens of times... their word against yours.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 14:57:42 2018 No.11089453 >>11076916 > without inviting /pol/ You realize that the far right exists outside of /pol/, right?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 14:58:20 2018 No.11089456 >>11089453 Im just covering myself in case some retard mod decides to ban me for no reason.

Anonymous Wed May 2 15:06:35 2018 No.11089499

>>11089407
>their word against yours.
This the current consensus, not "my word".

>While looking for material for the Italian translation of the complete works of Nietzsche in the 1960s, philologists Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari decided to go to the Weimar archives to work with the original documents. From their work emerged the first complete and chronological edition of Nietzsche's writings, including the posthumous fragments from which Förster-Nietzsche had derived The will to power. The complete works amount to 5 000 pages, compared to 3 500 of the Großoktavausgabe version. In 1964, during the Paris international conference on Nietzsche, Colli and Montinari they met Karl Löwith, who would put them in contact with Heinz Wenzel, editor of the Walter de Gruyter publishing house. [5] Heinz Wenzel would have purchased the rights to the complete works edited by Colli and Montinari (33 volumes in German) after the French Gallimard Editions and the Italian Adelphi.

>Before the philological work of Colli and Montinari, the previous editions led readers to believe that Nietzsche had organized all his work in view of a structured final opus called The Will of Power. In reality, even if Nietzsche considered making such a book, he abandoned these projects in the months that preceded his psychic breakdown. The title The will to power, which appears for the first time in the summer of 1885, was replaced by another work plan at the end of August 1888. This new plan was entitled "Attempt to revalue all values" [ Versuch einer Umwerthung aller Werthe], [6] and ordered the multiple fragments in a completely different way from the one chosen by Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche.

Anonymous Wed May 2 15:08:01 2018 No.11089505

>>11089499
>Montinari and Colli have defined the will to power "a historical falsification" put together artificially by Nietzsche's sister and by Peter Gast (pseudonym of Köselitz). Although Nietzsche announced in 1886 (at the end of the Genealogy of Morals) a new work entitled The will to power: an attempt to reevaluate all values, the related project was shelved and some preparatory texts were used to compose the twilight of idols and The Antichrist (both of 1888); the last was presented for a certain period as the first part of a new impressive four-volume work, which inherited the subtitle Revaluation of all the values taken from the previous project as its new title. [7] Although Elisabeth Förster called Nietzsche's masterpiece of will power, in light of the latter's mental collapse, his intentions about the material he had not used in The Twilight of Idols and The Antichrist are simply unknowable. Thus the will to power is not an accomplished text by Nietzsche, but rather an anthology of extracts from his mystified notes as if it were something more. Nevertheless, the concept remains, and was identified, after the reading made by Karl Löwith, as a fundamental component of Nietzsche's philosophy, so that Heidegger, under the influence of Löwith, considered it to form, together with the theory of eternal return, the basis of his thought.
>In fact, according to Montinari, not only the will to power is the result of an overall reorganization somewhat arbitrary, but many individual fragments were in turn "cut and reassembled" in ways not comprehensible to the reader.
Conducting this research on the original materials, Montinari also brought to the fore the question of the conception of Nietzsche's "masterpiece", given his style of writing and thinking

This was in 60s. Half a century later and angloamericans still believe he wrote a book called "The Will to Power".

Anonymous Wed May 2 15:14:03 2018 No.11089535

>>11089499
>>11089505
>he abandoned these projects in the months that preceded his psychic breakdown.

Unless we have in writing from Nietzsche that they were "abandoned" and not "post-poned" or "strategically readjusted," there is no reason to think he was dismissing the concept.

>Montinari and Colli have defined the will to power "a historical falsification"

So every instance of "will to power" in his work was added in? What about everything he says about truth that aligns perfectly well with the idea?

>Half a century later and angloamericans still believe he wrote a book called "The Will to Power".

Are you reading my posts? I never said he finished the book. I never even said that he intended to.

Anonymous Wed May 2 15:30:27 2018 No.11089618

>>11089407
>Just because it was taking him a long time to think through how to divulge the concept in a written format doesn't mean he was abandoning the concept.
Well, in the first place, he offered it up as a psychological account in BGE, with a tentative cosmological version also suggested, which is what you're referring to at >>11083262; he absolutely abandons the cosmological (and biological) accounts of Will to Power that he was developing in his notebooks. Granted, he doesn't abandon it wholly, fine, cool, but he still does what I actually *said* he did, namely, move away from it.

>Him re-organizing his notes into several books with different titles does not mean at all that the concept is abandoned or not vital.
It means that something in how he was conceptualizing it was undermined; the whole point of the project was to build off of his psychological account and provide accounts grounded in physics. He failed that, what he didn't think failed he published in Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist. More on how vital it is below.

>This also does not prove that he was abandoning the concept or that it wasn't vital to his philosophy.
Do you understand the difference between the following three theses?

1) All human motivation is reducible to Will to Power.
2) Some human motivation are reducible to Will to Power, and some aren't.
3) All matters, organic (such as human motivation) and inorganic are reducible to Will to Power.

In BGE, he takes up thesis 1. Thesis 3 is tentatively suggested in BGE, but while working on the books that were meant to become The Will to Power, he was attempts to prove it, fails, and abandons thesis 3. Thesis 1 is modified into thesis 2 in both Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist.

>I'd also like to know which motivations in Twilight are "not reducible" to will to power
Well, consider the psychology of the artist described in Twilight of the Idols in Skirmishes of an Untimely Man, sections 9-11. Visual art is grounded in Apollonian "frenzy", musical art and dance is grounded in Dionysian "frenzy", and architecture is grounded in "the highest feeling of power". But note then that the latter account *isn't* the account for the former two artistic tendencies. That already should show you that Will to Power is no longer 1) an account of all human motivations, and 2) no longer holds the same pride of place in Nietzsche's thought (which *isn't* to say no place in his thought).

(cont.)

Anonymous Wed May 2 15:38:08 2018 No.11089674

>>11089618
(cont.)

Further, in his notes of '88, sexual frenzy is a *cause* of perception and action, alongside Will to Power, which again means not reducible to Will to Power, which means that Will to Power is no longer as fundamental, but seems to be a drive among others. This shift in his treatment of Will to Power can also be seen in his different treatment of pity and compassion (for example, in his discussion of mitleid as a temptation for Zarathustra in Ecce Homo); pity is no longer the attempt to accumulate power for oneself over another, but pity can rather disperse power in an individual and cause inaction.

Now, in The Antichrist, he does make Will to Power the governing principle of ascending power, but he's very clearly and obviously moved away from the monism expressed in the statement alluded to, again, at >>11083262, since "where there is no will to power there is decline", which suggests that Will to Power isn't as fundamental to his understanding as it was, and that Will to Power isn't the fundamental drive; i.e., he explicitly rejects thesis 1 from above and affirms thesis 2.

>as if to be connected to will to power reduces something: I think you just exposed yourself for being an opponent of Nietzsche, hence this crusade against the idea of will to power as being vital to his work
Do you not know the difference between saying something is reducible and something is reduced? And how does pointing out, accurately, that Nietzsche moved away from an monist stance on Will to Power mean I'm against it and against him? Aren't you the one between the two of us trying to will him into a system that he very clearly rejected in his works of '88?

>From the Genealogy. Several translators have also mentioned this Will to Power titled collection of notes. Nietzsche also writes "will to power" dozens of times... their word against yours.
Which, again, he *abandoned*. Not put aside, but *abandoned*. What survived ended up in Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist, and he went on to take The Antichrist to be what he wanted to say with his whole Revaluation series. That the author mentioned perhaps writing a work of such a title is not the same as a promise to do so bound by natural necessity, and if in his studies he found it not defensible to take his concept where he wanted to, then it was by his own principles of intellectual probity and cleanness that he changed his mind, and properly so. That translators mention a collection of notes with the title says nothing against what I've said, which is that he worked on such a work in his notebooks. That he changed his mind about finishing it and publishing it is confirmed by his correspondences. That he wrote the words "will to power" doesn't mean it carries the same conceptual weight in every instance.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 15:40:21 2018 No.11089688 >>11089499 Nietzsche writes will to power dozens of times in every single major work. You’re conflating the compendium of notes, The Will To Power, with the concept itself

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 15:44:58 2018 No.11089716 >>11082661 >>11089499 The real 'current consensus' was posted earlier so fuck yall for being purposely ignorant itt

Anonymous Wed May 2 15:46:30 2018 No.11089723

>>11089535
>Unless we have in writing from Nietzsche that they were "abandoned" and not "post-poned" or "strategically readjusted," there is no reason to think he was dismissing the concept.

Uh, I literally quoted his own writing, from his correspondences with friends and family, at >>11089276, showing that he *abandoned* the project and found The Antichrist to be the proper fit to take its place. For the transformation in meaning and weight of the concept, see the posts at >>11089618 and >>11089674.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 15:56:03 2018 No.11089780 File: 3.66 MB, 2343x2343, 20180502_125523.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11089716 Continued

Anonymous Wed May 2 16:03:21 2018 No.11089837

>>11076769
Read Kauffman's "nietzsche psychologist philosopher antichrist".

Then read Tanner's small intro book to balance it out a little.

If you can be arsed read them in order, if not then:

Beyond Good and Evil
On the Geaneology or Morals
The Gay Science
Human, All Too Human
Twilight of the Idols
The Antichrist
Ecce Homo
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Geaneology again.

Before this, ideally read:
pre-socs
aristotle
spinoza
kant
hegel
schopes

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 16:06:59 2018 No.11089852 >>11089535 >So every instance of "will to power" in his work was added in? No, I meant the book "Will to Power", not the concept. Google translate forgot to capitalize. >>11089688 See above.

Anonymous Wed May 2 16:10:52 2018 No.11089873

>>11089780
insufficient evidence of what you claim
>>11089723
where did he abandon it? can you cite the specific parts of the letter where he says this conception of will to power is abandoned? it sounds like the total project was abandoned but there’s nothing suggesting the concept itself was rejected from my reading of Twilight of the Idols

Anonymous Wed May 2 16:21:00 2018 No.11089921

>>11089873
>where did he abandon it?
First off, to head off a misunderstanding, it looks like you're either conflating The Will to Power as a projected book (which he wholly abandons) with the Will to Power as a concept (which he abandons in its monistic formulation, and which he preserves in a more limited psychological account) at >>11089535 when you quote "he abandoned these projects in the months that preceded his psychic breakdown", since what the authors were talking about was the projected book, and not the concept.

For my part, I'm talking about the book being abandoned completely, and I quote the relevant selections from his letters in the first two paragraphs at >>11089276.

>it sounds like the total project was abandoned but there’s nothing suggesting the concept itself was rejected from my reading of Twilight of the Idols
I'm not saying he gets rid of it as a concept, but by Twilight, it's not as important; it's no longer as fundamental a point of his thought. It's a drive among drives, and no longer the source of all drives.

Anonymous Wed May 2 16:29:39 2018 No.11089964

>>11089921
I don’t think in your posts that you’ve said anything to convince me this is the case, his inconsistent application of the metaphysical concept and its absence as an overarching cause behind all phenomena doesn’t at all suggest he had abandoned this conception. I really think you’re trying to take a lack of its presence in specific parts of what amounts to around 400 pages of writing and then attributing to it a negation in toto which isn’t there. The logic remains underlying everything he says. The powerful is the most natural, what is natural is what exerts itself automatically, nature is like this, ergo the powerful and natural are as nature is, which is a will to power and a will to life. You’re obfuscating heavily. There’s no doubt at all that you are right about him abandoning will to power, i think this may have been writer’s block and rolling insanity. You aren’t producing direct evidence that the monistic metaphysical conception of will to power was abandoned only the project. and you pivot away by saying its downplayed but you only provide negative inconsistent evidences. I am not willing to believe the logic was retracted but only unspoken as it still follows that this is what is intended by naturalness and power going together, and of course exertion of power over Nature by Life.

Anonymous Wed May 2 16:37:53 2018 No.11090012

>>11089964
So you're just going to ignore the passages I discuss at >>11089618 and >>11089674 re: the complete abandonment of monistic Will to Power and a reduction from even his more confident psychological conception from BGE? At this point, I've done enough showing, both in quoting letters concerning the project, describing the relation between that abandonment and the dead end he hit in his notebooks RE: physics, and the obvious change in what Will to Power accounts for in the later works (which is less than before). At this point, I wanna see something from the later works that defends the monistic thesis or the "all motivations" account of Will to Power. By all means, show me I'm wrong, but I've already put forward more than you have to defend my position.

Anonymous Wed May 2 16:46:43 2018 No.11090066

>>11090012
no you haven’t proven anything you just cited instances where he made general statements about behavior without pathologically inserting a metaphysical principle, you’ve also not at all provided a single instance of his notes or letters that specifically addresses the will to power, only the book itself which was abandoned for reasons we can’t know. You’re now retreating from a bold claim you’ve made.

Anonymous Wed May 2 17:29:12 2018 No.11090312

>>11090066
>no you haven’t proven anything you just cited instances where he made general statements about behavior without pathologically inserting a metaphysical principle
Oh, like when I pointed to his discussion of the psychology of artists in Twilight of the Idols, where he claims three distinct principles at work in kinds of artists, only one of which pertains to the feeling for power? Or the difference between his earlier account of mitleid in BGE with his later account in Ecce Homo where he says it's not all about accruing power (in contrast to his earlier position)? Or that in The Antichrist he suggests that psychological explanations don't end by saying there's nothing but Will to Power, but admits there can be an absence, saying exactly the opposite of the monist thesis? Or that in his 1888 notebooks he calls sexual frenzy a drive that functions alongside Will to Power, and so is separate and not caused by Will to Power?

You either chose not to read what I wrote, or glossed over with the assumption that I wasn't addressing anything you asked for. You want evidence that Nietzsche changed his position? You could either do the arduous work of reading his notebooks (which I've alluded to as containing attempts to work out physical accounts of Will to Power) and see what's happening behind the scenes, or you can even more simply compare what he says about Will to Power in BGE and what he says about pychological drives, causes, and, uh, Will to Power in his last books. If you don't care to work out the differences merely because he uses the same words for a changing concept, then that's on you, but between the two of us, I've shown my work and you've shown nothing.

And retreating from a bold claim sometimes looks like suspiciously like ignoring anything your interlocutors have said, perhaps because sometimes arguers are out of their depths when they claim to understand a concept they seem to absolutely miscomprehend.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 19:23:04 2018 No.11090855 File: 20 KB, 474x528, 880.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >overcum urself is the meaning of life Why should I listen to this crackhead and why should I care?

Anonymous Wed May 2 20:07:21 2018 No.11091040

>>11089618
Just to let you know, I'm the original poster you responded to. I didn't respond to you since that post.

>but he still does what I actually *said* he did, namely, move away from it.
I'm skeptical of this, despite your arguments. Nietzsche's work certainly matures and changes with him. But, considering we /don't know/ all his thoughts on the matter, I find it hard to agree with the assertion that he was really moving away from it, rather than holding off on it, or reformulating it and finding another way to express it in his work without necessarily removing the underlying cosmological premise it had initially.

>Visual art is grounded in Apollonian "frenzy", musical art and dance is grounded in Dionysian "frenzy", and architecture is grounded in "the highest feeling of power".
This frenzy of the will he speaks of and the Apollonian and Dionysian aspects of aesthetics has nothing to do with motivations which are exempt from the doctrine of the will to power. They are both contained within it. The highest feeling of power finding its expression in architecture does not mean feelings of power do not belong in the others.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 04:30:17 2018 No.11092737 bmup

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 10:19:06 2018 No.11093904 >>11090855 He's got the best stache in the game

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 10:55:05 2018 No.11094033 What are some solid critiques of Nietzsche?

Anonymous Thu May 3 14:35:00 2018 No.11094996

>>11094033
After Virtue by Alasdair Macintyre

>Problems I find with Nietzsche
He misrepresented Christianity in regards to the idea that Christian morality is directly against human instinct; he paints it as platonic as he can, but that's simply not the case when we look at the human instincts that align with "weak" Christian morals. But that's no surprise he does this, cuz he's a German who grew up Lutheran..

Another is that he takes man to be overly individualistic, which again is just not the case; take a look at human tendencies independent of social teachings.

Too, if you are to validate virtue ethics, in general, Aristotle, then there would be no need to look to Nietzsche—this is a big argument in After Virtue.

Anonymous Thu May 3 15:16:16 2018 No.11095174

>>11094996
>human instinct
>man
>overly individualistic
He is concerned with elevating mankind, not pampering it. Charging it with the absolute highest goals possible which require superhuman feats to achieve. Men like him are needed, otherwise we fall into stagnation or decline.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 15:21:30 2018 No.11095191 >>11080077 Can you seriously not tell when he is being sarcastic?

Anonymous Thu May 3 15:31:11 2018 No.11095230

>>11095174
For him to elevate mankind he would first need to have a valid critique; I don't find his critique strong.

He misrepresented Christianity on the issue of morality as "morality of the spiritual world directly against the morality of the physical world." He does this—with intention of misrepresentation or mistake doesn't matter—so he is then allowed to affirm only human morality(of the physical world) once he proclaims God's irrelevance and destroys the morality etched for and towards Him. Then Nietzsche is free to maximize and elevate mankind to a morality that supersedes what has been and affirm that of an Übermensch. The logic follows and would be the only relevant and acceptable pursuit imo, given the assumptions and premises.

But that's the problem. Christianity isn't a radical spirit vs body; even Christ had two natures. It very apparent that some if not many Christian morals are present in the natural man, like sympathy, empathy, fogiveness, etc.—Atheists would make the contention that morals are entirely natural, but there are morals that nature is unfit to encompass and they are speechless when they discover that man has mainly conflicting moral instincts(I as a Catholic would attribute that to the Fall of Adam).

So, if Nietzsche wants to affirm life, which implies he wants man to revert—rightfully so—to his natural human instincts, those that which tend towards the will to power, affirming those human instincts, he would have to then affirm the clearly present Christian instincts in human instincts. But to him, those are "weak" and "unnatural." And again, his presentation of Christian morality hinges on the radical "spirit vs. body" Christianity.

Anonymous Thu May 3 15:48:03 2018 No.11095305

>>11095230
>He misrepresented Christianity on the issue of morality as "morality of the spiritual world directly against the morality of the physical world."
I don't see how that is a misrepresentation, at least as far as the church is concerned. There are plenty of tenets that allude to this, like turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor, two ideas which, when encountered by someone full of energy and ambition and nobility, certainly comes across as self-suppressing or antithetical to the noble instincts. But what divines it as well as Plato as something against the physical world is its gravitation towards the thing-it-self, or soul, which to Nietzsche and his predecessors is a pure fiction, a figment of human imagination.

Anonymous Thu May 3 16:02:58 2018 No.11095389

>>11095305
It's a misrepresentation because to the Christian POV, at least the Thomist one, the more tenable one, does not deny the physical fully in regards to morality—Gnostics would say otherwise.
>turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor, two ideas which, when encountered by someone full of energy and ambition and nobility, certainly comes across as self-suppressing or antithetical to the noble instincts.
Yeah here's the thing, if loving thy neighbor, a "weak" or un-noble instinct, can be found in the instinct of man, then Nietzsche runs into the problem. Now, there are two instincts that are instinctual, yet antithetical to one another. And I claim that Nietzsche tries to avoid this big inconsistency by using an untenable interpretation of Christianity(overly Augustinian, entirely Lutheran, radically platonic, borderline Gnostic).

In short, Nietzsche needs to explain the presence of both selfishness and altruism in the set of man's human instincts. It cannot be spirit directly against body (altruism of Christian morality directly against selfishness[whether good or bad doesn't pertain] of physical/human morality), because we currently find altruism and selfishness occur in man naturally; they are both of his human instinct.

Thanks for having a good discussion too!

Anonymous Thu May 3 16:38:14 2018 No.11095541

>>11095389
>the instinct of man
I don't think Nietzsche is ever writing for "the instinct of man," though, and neither does he really support such an idea in the first place. He is writing for his people, the "hyperboreans." To a hyperborean man, or Overmankind you might say, Christianity is self-suppressing and nihilistic.

At the time of writing The Antichrist, for example, he is concerned almost exclusively with setting down a map with which the future hyperboreans can use to navigate through the world and create themselves in it without hindrances. Part of that process might be "deception" in the sense that it does not investigate the whole matter and reduces things to generalizations, but effectiveness in nurturing how he wants the future to be is what matters to him at that point, not truth. However, that doesn't mean he hit the ground running on a lie either.

Anonymous Thu May 3 17:42:52 2018 No.11095801

>>11095541
If his goal is to allow all the hyperboreans to navigate through the sludge of Christian morality to affirm the life of man through the pursuit of his tendencies to will to power, then would it not be from that point man could then perfect himself or embody an overman? And if that point was founded on a lie or misconception, then the philosophy of Nietzsche's seems to be flawed with a false premise, regardless of the practicality of the general argument(which it is on most fronts).

Nietzsche would in principle affirm those christian-like instincts and from those an overman could rise.

I do understand what you mean by N.'s concern not being truth, but the practicality of affirm the natural life of man to then ascend to a man beyond good and evil.

Anonymous Thu May 3 18:41:52 2018 No.11096031

>>11076916
because the right has more moral taste buds than the left, the left only consider the harm-benefit axis and fairness (at least on the surface). The right cares about more things, like honor or decency in itself.

Nietzsche had a lot of ideas that fit right better than the left, even the idea of the uber mensch. A person who has gone matured in moral clarity to go beyond the conventions of his society, for the left this means someone who is extra concerned with gibs (and at the present, taking from whites and giving to NAMs).

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 02:07:02 2018 No.11097898 People saying that you should read everything in order with nietzsche. So what is your thoughts on starting with the birth of tragedy, since that is the first writing by nietzsche, but no one ever reads it? Or should i just start with gay science?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 03:29:21 2018 No.11098063 File: 156 KB, 1080x1208, Screenshot_2018-05-03-15-48-15.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The Minotaur has some new Nietzche secondary lit recommendations on his youtube channel.

Anonymous Fri May 4 03:50:30 2018 No.11098108

>>11076916
Nietzsche is a difficult subject and the far right is not really one cohesive unit, regardless of how it is depicted. The section of the far right that most developed the ideas of Nietzsche was the German Conservative Revolutionary Movement, and if you have investigated it at all it should be clear that they are not big on concepts like "rational truths", or "humanity", or "utilitarianism", or even "objectivity". The most extreme members in their rejection of the entire enlightenment would be Oswald Spengler-- whos ideas of cultural relativism fit neatly with our postmodern epoch-- and Ernst Junger, whos essay "On Pain" is famous for commending the destruction of the feeling- aware individual and exalting his peculiar form of objectivity: the ability to treat oneself as an object. Much like Nietzsche, neither held the fully conscious, rational being with much respect, and Spengler believed that tradition was "life" codified. I didn't really want to write some weird academic bullshit, but the point I'm trying to get at here is that you cannot really get any good concept of the proper Right without understanding perspectivism, which is the antithesis to the entire Enlightenment notion the real is rational and rational real, and that we could fix all of our problems if we just rationally grasped the truth and rationally ordered our societies with the right rational socio-economic foundation.

Anonymous Fri May 4 03:54:45 2018 No.11098119

>>11077409
Even with his distaste of Nationalism I was able to read it as the realization that the collapse of all values would spread across all of Europe without regard to nationality, and that he was advancing a much more pan-European (in a non exclusively racialist sense) position.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 03:56:26 2018 No.11098123 >>11098063 Christ, who OK'd those covers

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 06:47:58 2018 No.11098554 >>11098123 some artsy student probably

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 07:33:05 2018 No.11098703 >>11076916 Everyone on the right is a drooling simpleton who didn't read Nietzsche

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 09:08:08 2018 No.11099027 >>11098703 Now that's just not true. People like Heidegger and Spengler most certainly read Nietzsche

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 10:20:49 2018 No.11099373 >>11082257 >"The world is will to power - and nothing besides!" literally Nietzsche

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 14:45:48 2018 No.11100668 >>11097898 >no one ever reads it Plenty of people start with The Birth of Tragedy. Not everyone approaches matters as serious as philosophy in a lazy half-assed way.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 18:16:36 2018 No.11101777 >>11100668 They should, though

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 18:19:15 2018 No.11101790 >>11089780 your penguin preface is not the "real consensus" you credolous pseud

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 19:16:42 2018 No.11102090 >>11101790 Well obviously it's not in the original language but if you're referring to Kaufmann's Onions to Power he's a far bigger perversion to Nietzsche than this recent edition.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:13:16 2018 No.11102347 >>11076769 Didn’t his sister destroy all the original manuscripts and re-write them to spout Nazi values? I never could see the point of getting into him if what he actually wrote was lost forever and twisted by a pesky editor.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 21:29:30 2018 No.11102651 >>11082661 >>11102347

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:43:22 2018 No.11102925 >>11084184 Leiter

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:46:28 2018 No.11102937 >>11099027 Spengler wasn't far right. When will this meme die? Have you even read his books? Even Hegel was more right wing

Anonymous Fri May 4 22:50:23 2018 No.11102948

>>11099027
This is even from wikipedia, so it shouldnt be hard for a pseud like you to know about it:

>The Hour of Decision, published in 1934, was a bestseller, but the Nazis later banned it for its critiques of National Socialism. Spengler's criticisms of liberalism[15] were welcomed by the Nazis, but Spengler disagreed with their biological ideology and anti-Semitism. While racial mysticism played a key role in his own worldview, Spengler had always been an outspoken critic of the pseudo-scientific racial theories professed by the Nazis and many others in his time, and was not inclined to change his views upon Hitler's rise to power. Although himself a German nationalist, Spengler viewed the Nazis as too narrowly German, and not occidental enough to lead the fight against other peoples. The book also warned of a coming world war in which Western Civilization risked being destroyed, and was widely distributed abroad before eventually being banned in Germany. A Time review of The Hour of Decision noted his international popularity as a polemicist, observing that "When Oswald Spengler speaks, many a Western Worldling stops to listen". The review recommended the book for "readers who enjoy vigorous writing", who "will be glad to be rubbed the wrong way by Spengler's harsh aphorisms" and his pessimistic predictions.[16]

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:59:34 2018 No.11102979 never read nietzsche but i got genealogy of morals lying around is it a good intro?

Anonymous Sat May 5 04:14:36 2018 No.11104018

>>11097898
>So what is your thoughts on starting with the birth of tragedy

Perfect. Not simply because it happens to be the first book published by him, but because it gives you a glimpse into his values, drives and motivations that should orient you towards him appropriately and let you understand how likely it is that his other works will resonate with you.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 04:18:42 2018 No.11104035 >>11102948 That only argues against Spengler being a nazi, but it doesn't discredit the fact that he was far right. It's like saying Evola wasn't far right because he criticized National Socialism.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 04:51:20 2018 No.11104092 >>11084043 underrated post

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 10:54:26 2018 No.11104971 the prince the ego and it's own then beyond good and evil then Schopenhauer concept of will to life then Zarathustra then freud

Anonymous Sat May 5 12:28:10 2018 No.11105400

>>11076916
>>11083356
I have never for the life of me understood why immature children obsessed with their ideologies feel the need to debate on whether not Nietzsche belongs to the left or the right of the political spectrum.

The lot of you would understand he transcends these petty dichotomies, if you bothered with objectively reading his material.

I literally fucking hate you.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 12:32:22 2018 No.11105422 >>11105400 Politicized morons are basically glorified tribal monkey. Works like "automation" or "white genocide" are their tribal signals of recognition which they use to celebrate their ritual and their imagined revenge against the Enemy.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 12:32:57 2018 No.11105427 >>11076916 misinterpretation of his superman concept

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 13:40:09 2018 No.11105752 >>11098123 Ugly covers stand out more.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 13:42:22 2018 No.11105765 >>11076916 Probably because his writings were so fucking ambiguous you can interpret them any way you want

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 13:50:03 2018 No.11105803 >>11105427 Hierarchy, obtaining power, willing yourself onto life, anti-egalitarianism, anti-materialism, traditional gender roles, spiritual.... Nietzsche has far more in common with the right than the left, please dont kid yourselves

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 13:52:07 2018 No.11105816 File: 5 KB, 211x239, retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11105803 >anti-materialism >nietzsche

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 13:52:18 2018 No.11105817 >>11105803 *spiritual racialism i.e. some races (not explicitly genetic but not counting that out) are lower then others

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 14:06:56 2018 No.11105889 >>11105427 The superman concept isn't really what appeals to the far right in Nietzsche. It's more his aristocratism and anti-progressivism.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]