Make your best argument agains "Wille zur Macht"

[Anonymous No.11131677]

Hardmode no
>it's just for edgy teens

[Anonymous No.11131690]

>macht
>power
This is one shit translation.

[Anonymous No.11131692]

>>11131677
Genes determine the Will. The Will cannot determine genes. Eternal return was his best thought (and it was actually not his)

[Anonymous No.11131738]

>>11131692
Humans transcend genetic determinism... and will to power is precisely the mechanism that allows this.

[Anonymous No.11131744]

>>11131692
>Genes determine the Will
it isn't a moral argument, it isn't an ought but rather an explenation of what "is", so the lack of free will doesn't change anything
>Will cannot determine genes
wrong, there is such a thing as artificial selection (we all do it when we choose a sexual partner)

[Anonymous No.11131754]

>>11131738
>humans transcend
[Citation needed]
>>11131744
>the absence of free will does not challenge the concept of a will to power
Get a load of this

[Anonymous No.11131758]

>>11131744
>artificial selection
Even with CRISPR there are too many contingencies for this to be valid

[Anonymous No.11131762]

Empathy and compassion is not a vice but a virtue which has been selected for for generation. I am quite empathetic and I have gotten laid more than Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.11131776]

>>11131762
1) you're thinking of the Wille zur Kraft
2) you're displaying a lot more of it than you think you are.

[Anonymous No.11131786]

>>11131754
He's right though. You don't seem to understand what will to power is about.

[Anonymous No.11131790]

>>11131762
anecdotal, the less virtuous you are, the more pussy you get. Being rude has gotten more pussy then being nice. This is even evident during sex, all women want to be demoralized during sex. It is encoded in their dna.

[Anonymous No.11131798]

>>11131762
Genghis Khan got laid a lot more than you and what could have guided him but the Will to Power?

[Anonymous No.11131799]

>>11131786
>you just dont understand that a will can exist without a will
Okay

[Anonymous No.11131802]

>>11131754
when did he make an argument in favour of "free" will?
also i think that he conceptualized "will" as a drive/instinct/impulse/force common to all biological organisms and even inanimate matter (gravity and other "laws of nature" as will to power)

[Anonymous No.11131807]

>>11131798
exactly, anon gets it.

[Anonymous No.11131808]

>>11131762
You're demonstrating the will to power right now

[Anonymous No.11131809]

>>11131799
Unfree will =/= no will

Also, the freedom of the will is relative, as is everything else.

[Anonymous No.11131811]

The will is eternal.
I know nothing.

[Anonymous No.11131812]

>>11131802
No he did not make that argument; unless you are able to produce a quote then i will disregard this whole line of thought.

[Anonymous No.11131816]

>>11131809
What the fuck is an unfree will? Do you even understand words?

>everything is relative
Then just stop thinking

[Anonymous No.11131817]

>>11131811
those whose instincts are still keen, need not know anything. They will react like a lion would to prey, they know nothing but to will themselves at it.

[Anonymous No.11131820]

>Ruins your reputation for the next century
>"Nothing personal bruder"

[Anonymous No.11131825]

>>11131817
If the action is instinctual it is by definition not willfull for fucks sake

[Anonymous No.11131828]

>>11131762
>Empathy and compassion is not a vice but a virtue
based on what criteria?
what is virtue?

>has been selected for for generation
He would agree, it was selected to create better slaves

[Anonymous No.11131830]

>>11131816
>What the fuck is an unfree will?
A will that is directed by a more powerful will.

>Then just stop thinking
Why should I? Relativity does not encourage inaction except if you're weak.

[Anonymous No.11131833]

>>11131830
>a will that is directed
Is not a will, it is a function

[Anonymous No.11131848]

>>11131833
That's how it looks to the more powerful will, yes.

[Anonymous No.11131869]

>>11131812
>My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on

>692.Is the "will to power" a kind of will, or is it identical with the concept will? Is it equivalent to desiring or commanding; is it the will which Schopenhauer says is the essence of things?
My proposition is that the will of psychologists hitherto has been an unjustifiable generalisation, and that there is no such thing as this sort of will, that instead of the development of one will into several forms being taken as a fact, the character of will has been cancelled owing to the fact that its content, its "whither," was subtracted from it: in Schopenhauer this is so in the highest degree; what he calls "will" is merely an empty word. There is even less plausibility in the will to live: for life is simply one of the manifestations of the will to power; it is quite arbitrary and ridiculous[Pg 166] to suggest that everything is striving to enter into this particular form of the will to power.


>694.According to the obstacles which a force seeks with a view of overcoming them, the measure of the failure and the fatality thus provoked must increase, and in so far as every force can only manifest itself against some thing that opposes it, an element of unhappiness is necessarily inherent in every action. But this pain acts as a greater incitement to life, and increases the will to power.

Please read the fucking book before making comments

[Anonymous No.11131900]

>>11131812
>>11131869
Also

689.

"Will to power" and causality.—From a psychological point of view the idea of "cause" is our feeling of power in the act which is called willing—our concept effect is the superstition that this feeling of power is itself the force which moves things....

A state which accompanies an event and is already an effect of that event is deemed "sufficient cause" of the latter; the tense relationship of our feeling of power (pleasure as the feeling of power) and of an obstacle being overcome—are these things illusions?

If we translate the notion "cause" back into the only sphere which is known to us, and out of which we have taken it, we cannot imagine any change in which the will to power is not inherent. We do not know how to account for any change which is not a trespassing of one power on another.

Mechanics only show us the results, and then only in images (movement is a figure of speech); gravitation itself has no mechanical cause, because it is itself the first cause of mechanical results.

The will to accumulate force is confined to the phenomenon of life, to nourishment, to procreation, to inheritance, to society, states, customs, authority. Should we not be allowed to assume that this will is the motive power also of chemistry?—and of the cosmic order?

Not only conservation of energy, but the minimum amount of waste; so that the only reality is[Pg 164] this: the will of every centre of power to become stronger—not self-preservation, but the desire to appropriate, to become master, to become more, to become stronger.

Is the fact that science is possible a proof of the principle of causation—"From like causes, like effects"—"A permanent law of things"—"Invariable order"? Because something is calculable, is it therefore on that account necessary?

If something happens thus, and thus only, it is not the manifestation of a "principle," of a "law," of "order." What happens is that certain quanta of power begin to operate, and their essence is to exercise their power over all other quanta of power. Can we assume the existence of a striving after power without a feeling of pleasure and pain, i.e. without the sensation of an increase or a decrease of power? Is mechanism only a language of signs for the concealed fact of a world of fighting and conquering quanta of will-power? All mechanical first-principles, matter, atoms, weight, pressure, and repulsion, are not facts in themselves, but interpretations arrived at with the help of psychical fictions.

[Anonymous No.11131912]

>>11131900
continue

Life, which is our best known form of being, is altogether "will to the accumulation of strength"—all the processes of life hinge on this: everything aims, not at preservation, but at accretion and accumulation. Life as an individual case (a hypothesis which may be applied to existence in general) strives after the maximum feeling of power; life is essentially a striving after more power; striving itself is only a straining after more power; the most fundamental and innermost thing of all is this will. (Mechanism is merely the semeiotics of the results.)

[Anonymous No.11131967]

>>11131820
he loved her and she din du nuthing wrong
*my sweet Llama*

[Anonymous No.11131970]

It's not a major concept in Nietzsche's late philosophy and was blown out of proportion by his Nazi sister. There is a reason he never published all of that stuff.

[Anonymous No.11131977]

>>11131970
>There is a reason he never published all of that stuff.
Yes, the reason involves a horse.

[Anonymous No.11131985]

>>11131970
>It's not a major concept in Nietzsche's late philosophy
Your reading comprehension is fucking awful then.

>There is a reason he never published all of that stuff.
The unplanned mental collapse may have had something to do with it.

[Anonymous No.11132016]

>>11131985
He had given up work on much of the fragments long before.

[Anonymous No.11132027]

>>11131970
he refers to "will to power" and explains the concept in some aphorisms in:
Thus spoke Zarathustra
Gay Science
Human all Too Human
Geneology of Morals
Beyond good and evil
Antichrist

The only work in which i don't remember him talking about it is "The birth of Tragedy".

Read his works before making similar claims but you probably only read the wiki

[Anonymous No.11132084]

>>11131677
He had a Protestant understanding of human nature; thought Xtianity was purely spirit v physical in regards to morality, but there's overlap between the two when we discuss what instincts encompass human instincts.

Nietzsche goes from
>God is dead
>no justification for Christian morals now
>It was all a sham anyways, because we ought to affirm human life, the physical
>affirm life
>thus affirm human instincts
>create a basis for people to will to power (where human instincts are naturally geared towards that)
>breeding ground for Übermensch

you're fucking lying to yourself if you don't think humans are naturally capable of instincts like altruism or sharing, not only capable, but tends towards such instincts.

[Anonymous No.11132086]

>>11131970
"the nazis were scary!!! The Will to Power is a minor piece of his philosophy, Nietzsche was an egalitarian feminist, I swear all these right wing retards misread him" Nigga, LEAVE

[Anonymous No.11132098]

>>11132086
Life Affirmation was his baby and that had to stem from dismantling Christianity.

[Anonymous No.11132115]

>>11132098
he disliked christianity because it lacked Hierarchy and had too much of an equalizing ethic i.e. "we are all children under god", destroys the rank of different men under the hammer of eqaulity

[Anonymous No.11132154]

>>11132016
He never "gave up" on the work. He was not satisfied with it. He adapted and included many notes from it in his later works. The core principle of it never left him.

>In the great economy of the whole universe, the terrors of reality (in the passions, in the desires, in the will to power) are incalculably more necessary than that form of petty happiness which is called "goodness"; it is even needful to practise leniency in order so much as to allow the latter a place at all, seeing that it is based upon a falsification of the instincts. I shall have an excellent opportunity of showing the incalculably calamitous consequences to the whole of history, of the credo of optimism, this monstrous offspring of the homines optimi. Zarathustra, the first who recognized that the optimist is just as degenerate as the pessimist, though perhaps more detrimental, says: "Good men never speak the truth. False shores and false harbours were ye taught by the good. In the lies of the good were ye born and bred. Through the good everything hath become false and crooked from the roots." Fortunately the world is not built merely upon those instincts which would secure to the good-natured herd animal his paltry happiness. To desire everybody to become a "good man," "a gregarious animal," "a blue-eyed, benevolent, beautiful soul," or—as Herbert Spencer wished—a creature of altruism, would mean robbing existence of its greatest character, castrating man, and reducing humanity to a sort of wretched Chinadom. And this some have tried to do! It is precisely this that men called morality. In this sense Zarathustra calls "the good," now "the last men," and anon "the beginning of the end"; and above all, he considers them as the most detrimental kind of men, because they secure their existence at the cost of Truth and at the cost of the Future. "The Good—they cannot create; they are ever the beginning of the end. They crucify him who writeth new values on new tables; they sacrifice unto themselves the future; they crucify the whole future of humanity! The good—they are ever the beginning of the end. And whatever harm the slanderers of the world may do, the harm of the good is the most calamitous of all harm."

Now, tell me how he "gave up" on the idea of will to power when this sentiment is all over in his work, especially in Zarathustra.

[Anonymous No.11132280]

>>11132084
>don't think humans are naturally capable of instincts like altruism or sharing

Gay Science: aphorism - 13
The Theory of the Sense of Power. We exercise our power over others by doing them good or by doing them ill - that is all we care for! Doing ill to those on whom we have to make our power felt; for pain is a far more sensitive means for that purpose than pleasure: - pain always asks concerning the cause, while pleasure is inclined to keep within itself and not look backward. Doing good and being kind to those who are in any way already dependent on us (that is, who are accustomed to think of us as their raison d'etre] ; we want to increase their power, because we thus increase our own; or we want to show them the advantage there is in being in our power - they thus become more contented with their position, and more hostile to the enemies of our power and readier to contend with them. If we make sacrifices in doing good or in doing ill, it does not alter the ultimate value of our actions; even if we stake our life in the cause, as martyrs for the sake of our church, it is a sacrifice to our longing for power, or for the purpose of conserving our sense of power. He who under these circumstances feels that he "is in possession of truth," how many possessions does he not let go, in order to preserve this feeling. What does he not throw overboard, in order to keep himself "up," - that is to say, above the others who lack the truth. Certainly the condition we are in when we do ill is seldom so pleasant, so purely pleasant, as that in which we practise kindness, - it is an indication that we still lack power, or it betrays i11-humour at this defect in us; it brings with it new dangers and uncertainties as to the power we already possess, and clouds our horizon by the prospect of revenge, scorn, punishment and failure. Perhaps only those most susceptible to the sense of power, and eager for it, will prefer to impress the seal of power on the resisting individual, - those to whom the sight of the already subjugated person as the object of benevolence is a burden and a tedium. It is a question how a person is accustomed to season his life; it is a matter of taste whether a person would rather have the slow or the sudden, the safe or the dangerous and daring increase of power - he seeks this or that seasoning always according to his temperament.

[Anonymous No.11132461]

>>11132084
There is no altruism, people do "altruistic" acts to gain a good reputation and to obtain favors, or in the case of religious people they are under the illusion that they could get some form of reward in an after life.
So there is no non egoistic act, altruism is pure fantasy, it is all will to power and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.11132481]

>>11131790
That's called passion, anon.

[Anonymous No.11132485]

>>11131970
>was blown out of proportion by his Nazi sister
This. We've been over this in two threads now. It's amazing how pseuds on this board refuse to learn.

[Anonymous No.11132510]

>>11132485
>It's amazing how pseuds on this board refuse to learn.
I know. No matter how many aphorisms are posted in which Nietzsche referred to will to power or expressed it in an active state, people still think will to power meant little to nothing to his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11132514]

Will to Shit
All organic life forms produce shit, and they reproduce only to make more shit producers. Life is nothing more then the will to shit.
But the will to shit goes beyond the organic form, indeed when a star consumes hydrogen to procude light and heat, these byproduct of the star are it's own form of shit/escrement.
And the planets are nothing more then the escrements of the star's creation, in other words just shit.
The universe, the laws of physics and life it self is nothing more then the will to shit.
And you and i, are nothing more then this will.

[Anonymous No.11132533]

>>11131820
Damn she was fine.

[Anonymous No.11132547]

>>11131970
>This world is the will to power—and nothing besides!

[Anonymous No.11132572]

>>11131677
It can't be refuted.

>>11131692
Genes are the will.

[Anonymous No.11132573]

>>11132514
>more then
Will to shit is entropy, how did he know?!!

[Anonymous No.11132583]

>>11131690
>https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Macht
Macht and might have the same root

[Anonymous No.11132618]

>>11132533
>that foot
>belonging to a 6-8 year old
I was baited.

[Anonymous No.11132626]

>>11131820
Now she's a Danish curler

[Anonymous No.11133140]

>>11132461
>he never did anything for another person just for the sake of seeing them happy and find pleasure in it.
I pity you.

[Anonymous No.11133156]

>>11133140
See >>11132280

[Anonymous No.11134132]

>>11133140
of course you feel pleasure in their happiness, because the happier they are the more usefull they will be for you

[Anonymous No.11134142]

>>11132461
>It's another teenager plays semantic sophistry to redifine what egoism and altruism are

[Anonymous No.11134177]

>>11131677
>>11134142
I don't understend why is his philosophy associated with edgy depressed nihilistic teens.
It seems to me that it fits better with some guy in his 20's who does bodybuilding and goes to clubs snorting cocain and fucking sluts to reach a Dionysiac state.

[Anonymous No.11134203]

>>11134177
They simply just haven't read into them and think that nihilism just means "give up" or something

[Anonymous No.11134370]

>>11134142
can you make one example of a truly altruistic action?

[Anonymous No.11134729]

>>11132572
Genes have no Will that is the underlying abyss of meaning that nietzsche recoiled from finally; but he acknowledged the need for self deception. Will to Power like all of his concepts are functionally based
He was essentially an arch pragmatist.

[Anonymous No.11134752]

>>11131677
No unity of thought.

[Anonymous No.11134771]

>>11134752
>will to power as the essence of reality
>perspectivism, all centers of force create their own rapresentation of reality
>eternal return, all matter is made of energy and the priciple of conservation of energy leads to an infinite recombination of the universe, which will create an infinite repetition of the current arrangement of the universe
>morality is a form of brainwashing and it is life denying

All ideas that are at the basis of all his works (perfectly explained and coherent), and never have been disproved by anyone.

[Anonymous No.11134787]

>>11131799
Serious question: What do you think will is?

[Anonymous No.11134795]

>>11134771
>will to power as the essence of reality

Explain that one to me, pal.

[Anonymous No.11134809]

>>11134795
anon i have posted previously some of his aphorism in which he explains it:
>>11132280
>>11131900
>>11131869

For a better understanding you could read his books.
Maybe /lit/ should actually read the books they comment about.

[Anonymous No.11134817]

>>11134787
Will implies choice e.g. volition e.g. sentience and freedom. Our best guees right now is that humans are sentient but because of the predominant, inscrutable actions of life on the most basic level, freedom is at best an useful delusion.

[Anonymous No.11134821]

>>11134817
And sentience is a gamble as well, since that implies our sense of consciousness corresponds to an objectively verifiable reality when mind could in fact be a strange epiphenomenon of more basic functions.

[Anonymous No.11134827]

>>11131816
>>11131833
>>11134817

found the retard

[Anonymous No.11134831]

>>11134827
Wtf i love ubermensch now

[Anonymous No.11134840]

>>11132533

>Fucking angles, how do they work?

[Anonymous No.11134849]

>>11134840
This. I realize tarantino is probably abusing a malaysian child in the photo but that meme is like a mediaeval painting.

[Anonymous No.11134854]

>>11134771
>perspectivism, all centers of force create their own rapresentation of reality
confusing ontology with epistemology
>>eternal return, all matter is made of energy and the priciple of conservation of energy leads to an infinite recombination of the universe, which will create an infinite repetition of the current arrangement of the universe
he never proved it in the first place

[Anonymous No.11134871]

>>11134817
>Will implies choice e.g. volition e.g. sentience and freedom.
This better be bait.

[Anonymous No.11134891]

>>11134871
Maybe it is just semantic. Will can mean desire that is what is usually meant when we say "i will"; but a quick google revealed that the OED suggests a connotation of inevitable events. Idk man maybe an anglophone should just leave German philosophy alone. I am not an expert i just post on here during the morning safety meeting having my first /sip/

[Anonymous No.11134900]

>>11134854
>he never proved it in the first place
if we live in the multiverse, then he is right

>confusing ontology with epistemology
Nope anon, you are the confused one.
His ontology is "will to power" and epistemology is "perspectivism".

[Anonymous No.11134908]

>>11134900
>His ontology is "will to power" and epistemology is "perspectivism"
no you fucking faggot, will to power is metaphysics. his error is making an ontology out of a epistemology

[Anonymous No.11134911]

>>11134891
Don't let language differences keep you away from German philosophy anon, but the fact that Nietzsche denies free will should've tipped you off that his concept of will to power can't mean what you think it means.

[Anonymous No.11134937]

>>11134911
I have to admit that I am only reading Will to Power for the first time. I like his aesthetics; but it would be nice I suppose if his concepts were laid out clearly in a secondary source with relevant documents

[Anonymous No.11134987]

>>11134908
ontology is metaphysics, dear brainlet
>his error is making an ontology out of a epistemology
Are you an idiot?
Epistemology - how we acquire knowledge of reality
Ontology - what reality is

Don't you think that the way this reality/universe is structured determines the way we can acquire knowledge of it?

[Anonymous No.11135016]

>>11134987
>ontology is metaphysics
mein gott, what am I reading
>Epistemology - how we acquire knowledge of reality
>Ontology - what reality is
Exactly, and N's construction of a ontology based on his (correct or not, doesn't matter) perspectivist epistemology is unwarranted

[Anonymous No.11135066]

>>11135016
>>ontology is metaphysics
*is a part of

Metaphysics - what is the core essence of reality

> N's construction of a ontology based on his (correct or not, doesn't matter) perspectivist epistemology is unwarranted

You are going the wrong way, his creates his epistemology on the basis of his ontology.

The reality is will to power, of every center of force against each other, therefore each center of force creates it's own rapresentation of reality.

[Anonymous No.11135123]

/thread

[Anonymous No.11135330]

>>11135123
Either way you will perish like a dog. Imagine thinking that struggle lends merit to the senseless writhing

[Anonymous No.11135425]

>>11131762
>I am quite empathetic and I have gotten laid more than Nietzsche.
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.11135617]

>>11134854
Your thoughts on the matter are pretty fucking irrelevant considering science later developed the theory of relativity, which Nietzsche anticipated decades before, and we all know what that theory led to: the most powerful weapon so far invented by man, and the majority of the most cutting edge advances in the sciences since. History proves him right and you a blathering idiot.

[Anonymous No.11135628]

>>11135330
What else do you do if not struggle?

[Anonymous No.11135635]

>>11135628
Flow

[Anonymous No.11135637]

>>11135425
>Using the notion of good and bad arguments to defend antiphilosophy
abloo abloo ho say can u see???

[Anonymous No.11135646]

>>11135637

Fresh off the boat, from reddit, kid? heh I remember when I was just like you. Braindead. Lemme give you a tip so you can make it in this cyber sanctuary: never make jokes like that. You got no reputation here, you got no name, you got jackshit here. It's survival of the fittest and you ain't gonna survive long on 4chan by saying stupid jokes that your little hugbox cuntsucking reddit friends would upboat. None of that here. You don't upboat. You don't downboat. This ain't reddit, kid. This is 4chan. We have REAL intellectual discussion, something I don't think you're all that familiar with. You don't like it, you can hit the bricks on over to imgur, you daily show watching son of a bitch. I hope you don't tho. I hope you stay here and learn our ways. Things are different here, unlike any other place that the light of internet pop culture reaches. You can be anything here. Me ? heh, I'm a judge.. this place.... this place has a lot to offer... heh you'll see, kid . . . that is if you can handle it.

[Anonymous No.11135651]

>>11135617
>which Nietzsche anticipated decades before
wot

[Anonymous No.11135658]

>>11135651
Either you didn't read Nietzsche very thoroughly or you're dense.

[Anonymous No.11135671]

>>11135066
>You are going the wrong way, his creates his epistemology on the basis of his ontology.
Yes, and the his epistemology ends up circualely informing his ontology which doesn't make any fucking sense. "There are no facts, only interpretations, but the will to power is totally true and I'm right about everything". Literally name one person who takes this faggotous seriously.
>>11135617
What the fuck are you even talking about you fucking retard, if anything it's Kant whose theory can be see as an antecedent to Einstein's relativity.

[Anonymous No.11135672]

>>11135617
Relativity doesn't mean what you think it does. Not the same thing babe

[Anonymous No.11135678]

>>11135646
>hasn't been on 4chan since before reddit existed
>came from reddit
>thinks he's qualified to give advice

[Anonymous No.11135688]

>>11135671
>What the fuck are you even talking about
Do you know what Nietzsche's perspectivism entailed, at all? Did you just read a summary about it on Wikipedia or Stanford's site and call it a day, instead of actually reading the hundreds of aphorisms with which he built the idea? Nietzsche very clearly understood the underpinning principles of the theory and thus anticipated its arrival in his bothering to articulate and write them down.

[Anonymous No.11135718]

>>11135671
>is totally true and I'm right about everything
It is the most plausible explanation/interpretation of the observable world.
Physics and biology seem to conform to this principle.
Can you imagine a change of state that doesn't include a transfer of energy/power?

[Anonymous No.11135721]

>>11135688
oh yeah sure Nietzsche's perspectivism entails that space and time are a continuum, that gravity is spacetime bent by matter, that matter and energy are equatable, that there is a fixated maximum speed in the universe and that this speed is the speed of light and that you're a fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.11135751]

>>11135721
>space and time are a continuum, that gravity is spacetime bent by matter, that matter and energy are equatable, that there is a fixated maximum speed in the universe and that this speed is the speed of light
It does entail these things on the philosophical level. You'd know that if you read him more. What, did you think that philosophy is just talking about random nonsense with no possible bearing on the physical? What is understood philosophically can be successfully applied, if valid, to the physical. The reason for this is because these valid philosophical observations always begin with the observation of the physical.

[Anonymous No.11135782]

I swear, every time there's a Nietzsche thread, every one is just shrieking
>HAVE YOU EVEN READ HIM?
>THAT IS NOT WHAT HE MEANT
and every time anons say this shit, they never fucking conform. It's all fucking different. I don't know why I'm not surprised; of course /lit/ doesn't fucking understand—not saying I do. The amount of variability and inconsistency between all you fucks that say others are misinterpreting are clearly not on the same page. And clearly, a shit ton of you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.11135789]

>>11135782
Your bitching doesn't help.

[Anonymous No.11135794]

>>11135751
my God, please point me to such passages then

[Anonymous No.11135795]

>>11135789
It's called pointing this stupid problem out

[Anonymous No.11135866]

>>11135794
I'll give you some starting points.

>space and time are a continuum

Well, Heraclitus understood this, with the line: "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." Nietzsche regarded Heraclitus as a predecessor.

>gravity is spacetime bent by matter

From Nietzsche:

"Everything goes, everything comes back; eternally rolls the wheel of being. Everything dies, everything blossoms again; eternally runs the year of being. Everything breaks, everything is joined anew; eternally the same House of Being is built. Everything parts, everything greets every other thing again; eternally the ring of being remains faithful to itself. In every Now, being begins; round every Here rolls the sphere There. The center is everywhere. Bent is the path of eternity."

"If one shifts the center of gravity of life out of life into the 'Beyond' — into nothingness — one has deprived life as such of its center of gravity."

"There are no facts, only interpretations."

(as in: each perspective is a "center of gravity" in the world)

>matter and energy are equatable

Look for wherever he writes about will to power. Chances are you will find this idea, since that is what will to power essentially was: all "things-in-themselves" were becomings, intertwined with all other things, defined by all other things, and expressions of different levels of power (i.e. "things" are turbulent forces, or matter is energy).

And another from Heraclitus: "The thunderbolt that steers all things."

Need I go on?

[Anonymous No.11136087]

>>11135866
The only contribution to physics that Nicie, made was a short writing called "Atom-Time Theory".
And yeah he did view matter as energy and time as relative to the center of force.
But he didn't contribute in any way to the theory of general relativity anon.

The first quote refers to the ethernal return, "the center is everywhere" means the present mo
ment.
The second quote "gravity" is intended as the "goal/objective" and not as a physical force.

I'm honestly not even sure if you are shitposting or just confused.

[Anonymous No.11136098]

>>11135866
these are some very creative interpretations right there anon

[Anonymous No.11136200]

>>11136087
>But he didn't contribute in any way to the theory of general relativity anon.

I didn't say that he directly contributed to the development of the theory. I said he anticipated it. He understood it before it was developed as a scientific theory. In my own words,

>Nietzsche very clearly understood the underpinning principles of the theory and thus anticipated its arrival in his bothering to articulate and write them down.

He was grasping the concepts and saw that they would be historically important which is why he decided to write about them.

Obviously the quotes I provided aren't going to use the *exact* same terms or contain all of the *exact* same principles and mechanics of the terms used to define the theory. What's important here is the philosophical concepts that he is grasping and what he is implying with them. Same with Heraclitus, who obviously had no clue what modern science was even about when he said/wrote what he did, and yet was still making intuitive observations which equate to or at the very least anticipate the scientific observations made later.

[Anonymous No.11136562]

>>11131677
Can't really do that in the span of one post.

"Encyclopedia, Genealogy and Tradition" by McIntyre does a good job contending with Nietzsche as Nietzsche, and I think ultimately emerges victorious.

[Anonymous No.11136870]

>>11136562
>by McIntyre
nibba who?

>ultimately emerges victorious
Has he managed to destroy the concept of the "will to power", if not it is pointless.
But i will give him a read.

[Anonymous No.11137023]

>>11136870
Alisdair Mcintyre (my distant cousin)

[Anonymous No.11137751]

>>11137023
>recommends his cousin
the state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.11138162]

Is despair over the fact that everything is will to power also will to power?