Refute this

[Anonymous No.11242276]

>“Almost everything we call "higher culture" is based on the spiritualization of cruelty.”

[Anonymous No.11242282]

>>11242276
It's actually kind of unfalsifiable if you cannot quantify it. To either prove him correct or incorrect would have to count all things that are "higher culture" and see if a significant amount are not cruelty.

[Anonymous No.11242300]

Refute this

>The reabsorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces toward the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, amoung the Brahmans).
- Nietzsche’s NOTES (1880-1881)

[Anonymous No.11242307]

>>11242300
Did Nieztsche start no fap?

[Anonymous No.11242316]

>>11242282
>>11242307
>>11242300
the many faces of autism

[Anonymous No.11242335]

>>11242276
were there any context clues, did he care to extrapolate?

[Anonymous No.11243518]

>>11242335
I guess it goes like this:
Life is dangerous
To stay alive one must be cruel
Same goes for societies
Viola, selection process on cultures

[Anonymous No.11243552]

>>11242282
Is scientism the worst meme of all time? Any time you bring up intuition or introspection or holistic/abstract thinking, the average moderner will think something along the lines of “muh science ... can I verify this in a lab setting?”

Just look at most stories that people are entertained by. Tragedy is about a certain sadomasochistic awe at the suffering and torture of characters. Comedy, equally, is often had at the expense of characters. Instead of just outright physically torturing people as in less developed societies, the desire for cruelty is refined into subtler, more psychological methods. That’s what Nietzsche means.

[Anonymous No.11243558]

>>11242300
pretty great quote
checked

[Anonymous No.11243635]

>>11243552
Nieztsche never brought this up in the context of myth, so no, that's not what he means. What he means is that, given a total of all things higher culture, a nearly insignificant proportional are not spiritualizations of cruelty. The issue with this is that this is a direct statistical claim, which should be verified by empirical thought, but instead he only brings a logical conclusion, which itself has potential for many fualts, as it describes culture holistically.

[Anonymous No.11243661]

>>11243635
No you cherry-flavored gumball, it is what he means. He brings up tragedy right after, and I half-remembered this without even having read Nietzsche for years. He also brings up religious self-denial. Here’s the rest of the passage I got from online:

>Almost everything which we call "higher culture" rests on the spiritualization and intensification of cruelty - that's my claim. That "wild beast" hasn't been killed at all: it's alive, it's flourishing. Only it has turned itself into - a god. What constitutes the painful delight in tragedy is cruelty. What has a pleasing effect in so-called tragic pity, and basically even in everything awe-inspiring right up to the highest and most delicate trembling of metaphysics, gets its sweetness only from the additional ingredient of cruelty to the mixture. What the Roman in the arena, Christ in the raptures of the cross, the Spaniard at the sight of a burning at the stake or a bull fight, the Japanese today who crowds into tragedies, the Parisian suburban worker who feels nostalgic for a bloody revolution, the female fan of Wagner who, with her will unhinged, lets herself "submit to" Tristan and Isolde - what all these people enjoy and try to drink down with mysterious enthusiasm is the spicy liquor of the great Circe, "cruelty." In saying this, we must of course chase off the foolish psychology of former times, which, so far as cruelty is concerned, knew only how to teach us that it arose at the sight of someone else's suffering. There is a substantial over-abundant enjoyment also with one's own suffering, with making oneself suffer - and wherever people let themselves be convinced about self-denial in a religious sense or about self-mutilation, as with the Phoenicians and ascetics, or in general about depriving themselves of sensual experience and the flesh, about remorse, Puritan pangs of repentance, about a vivisection of the conscience, and about a Pascalian sacrifizio dell'intelletto [sacrifice of the intellect], they are secretly seduced and pushed on by cruelty, by that dangerous thrill of cruelty turned against themselves. Finally, people should consider that even the knowledgeable man, when he compels his spirit to acknowledge things against his spirit's inclinations and often enough also against his heart's desires - that is, to say No where he'd like to affirm something, to love, to worship - rules as an artist and a transformer of cruelty. In fact, every attempt to be profound and thorough is a forceful violation, a willingness to do harm to the basic will of the spirit, which always wants what's apparent and superficial - even in that desire to know there is a drop of cruelty.

[Anonymous No.11243692]

>>11243661
That passage does not make your point at all. He details his logic in coming to this conclusion, but 1) it still has nothing to do with myth so you are the gumball and 2) the only way to prove or refute this entirely is to count all examples of higher culture, and then sort them into cruelty and non cruelty.

[Anonymous No.11244059]

>>11243518
I thought he was talking about ballet and polo, and mean elder women gossiping in ritzy parlors

[Anonymous No.11244069]

>>11242276
it's not so much a question of refuting it as it is of asking yourself whether you really want the IRL consequences of endorsing it

[Anonymous No.11244090]

>>11243692
myth is implied, and contemporary tragedy he speaks of is related to myth, drama, story. Also you are the one that brought up myth:

this anon doesnt mention it>>11243552

then you do >>11243635

[Anonymous No.11244100]

ITT: read GM he explains the root of this statement there. its nothing to do with tragedy itself.

[Anonymous No.11244163]

>>11243661
>>11243692
>you cherry-flavored gumball
>you are the gumball
Please calm down, anons.

[Anonymous No.11244185]

>>11244100
>What constitutes the painful delight in tragedy is cruelty.
>>11243661

[Anonymous No.11244193]

>>11243518
this

[Anonymous No.11244202]

>>11242276
as our cruelty declines, as does our culture because true culture is defend by the instinct to deal cruelty where need be

[Anonymous No.11244238]

>>11244090
I read myth as heavily implied by >>11243552 as it would be the underlying of both the tragedy and comedy he speaks of. That being the case, he made it out as if all underlying, and all myth by proxy were based on cruelty. However the only narrative Nieztsche addresses are the tragedies specifically, and only when he addresses the japenese seeing them for enjoyment. Although you could easily claim that many comedies have underlining cruelty as their entertainment value, I would venture to say that certainly not near all of them do. That being said, the aforementioned anon's point of "look at the stories we tell", not only does not stand, but in no way reflects Nieztsche's argument, which was what I had intended to point out.

[Anonymous No.11244320]

>>11242300
wow he even anticipated nofap
has anything escaped this man's intellect?

[Anonymous No.11244453]

>>11244238
did you read nietshches quote here >>11243661
>What constitutes the painful delight in tragedy is cruelty.
You are in the wrong, you read the quote wrongly, you read the anon wrongly, you stated wrongly, you are stating wrongly, you are wrong

[Anonymous No.11244491]

>>11242300
What if i swallow it?

[Anonymous No.11244514]

>>11244320
It often astonishes me how much his brain foresaw.

[Anonymous No.11244591]

>>11242300
What does he mean 'by blood'? Does semen not used get naturally reabsorbed or is he talking about a transfusion?

[Anonymous No.11244673]

>>11244591
he injected semen

[Anonymous No.11244913]

>>11244591
he was a self harmer, he cut a slit into his arm, a little vagina slit and then fucked it until expenditure

[Anonymous No.11244941]

>>11242300
>The reabsorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces toward the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, amoung the Brahmans).

oh shit its real

[Anonymous No.11245117]

>>11243552

Stories are usually a rollercoaster from states of tensions to states of release, accomplishment, satisfaction of desire etc. To focus on the "cruelty" seems narrow. Do we really consume and create most of our stories because we desire cruelty? Comedy seems more cruel to me than tragedy.

[Anonymous No.11245650]

>>11244453
Yes, I read the quote. That doesn't not constitute all "higher culture" though, only tragedy. In order to convince me that all "higher culture" is built on cruelty, you need to convince me of more avenues of it than simply tragedy, and, moreover, you would need to convince me that all, or at least near all are predicated on cruelty.

[Anonymous No.11246599]

>>11245650
Hurdur I’m gonna take this philosopher and cultural commentator’s insightful comment and try to literally and statistically apply it because I am incapable of abstract holistic and deductive thought. Nietzsche gives more examples in the long quote of his I gave, by the way. I really doubt you read the quote when you said it only constitutes tragedy, and Nietzsche goes on to give examples of art, religion, and intellectual pursuits.

[Anonymous No.11246613]

>>11246599
>Hurrdurr I'm gonna take everything this famous thinker thought seriously because disagreeing is heresy and I'm a mental midget that can't think for himself. Remember: Nietzsche is never wrong

[Anonymous No.11246646]

>>11242276
>spiritualization of cruelty
explen

[Anonymous No.11246677]

>>11246599
Isn't philosophy kind of all about meticulous and detailed arguments and making sure to define everything as autistically as possible? I've read my Plato, Descartes, and Kant at least.

[Anonymous No.11246691]

>>11246599
It was a literal claim, to which I did not even say I disagreed. If you had any reading comprehension at all, you would have seen that my first point is that it is literally irrefutable, but also is not capable of being entirely confirmed. And I've read his work. Do you always argue in bad faith? It's a little annoying.

[Anonymous No.11246758]

>>11246613
>>11246677
>>11246691
Nietzsche is not particularly interested in making falsifiable or unfalsifiable claims, he’s interested in psychological intepretations, and even coined the term “perspectivism”, which idea permeates his philosophy.

Anyway, it’s annoying that instead of the psychological insight behind it, you get caught up in the words “almost everything”. Any philosopher could be made meaningless if you go through them on a sentence-by-sentence basis and decide to test them so rigorously. Again, falsifiability seems a ridiculous metric to apply to Nietzsche when he’s dealing with psychological insights which require more abstract thinking (what is higher culture? What is cruelty? Are these terms to use in a lab setting?).

[Anonymous No.11246772]

>>11246677
actual philosophy yes, Nietzsche is strictly a meme philosopher.

[Anonymous No.11246847]

>>11246758
Good god do I have to spell it out for you?
I agree with him. I think what he said was entirely correct. 100% in agreement here. That being said, I was answering OP's question; he asked to refute it, to which I replied it was impossible to either refute or entirely confirm the claim. I have no problem with the way he went about this, but it cannot be talked about as if it is verifiably correct or incorrect, but rather a psychological insight, as you yourself have said.

[Anonymous No.11246886]

>>11244185
Illiteracy plagues this board and will be the death of it in due time. See: pic related, and READ GM
>>11246677
no, not at all. That's something that analytics and Kant started doing because they were/are batshit megalomaniac autists

[Anonymous No.11246890]

>>11244185
more

[Anonymous No.11246895]

>>11244185
reposting second reply

[Anonymous No.11246899]

>>11246677
Nietzsche is an antirationalist

[Anonymous No.11246900]

>>11244185
One final arrow for you my illiterate parrot

[Anonymous No.11246996]

>>11246886
>>11246895
>>11246900

Is all of Neitzche this intensely uninteresting?

[Anonymous No.11247004]

>>11246996
(you)

[Anonymous No.11247021]

>>11246996
I wrote my philosophy capstone on Nietzsche and I can say wholeheartedly absolutely yes

[Anonymous No.11247044]

>>11247021
truly outrageous thing to say, considering how stupefying and inane most philosophy is by comparison.

[Anonymous No.11247063]

>>11247004
I'm not even memeing. Perhaps we're simply incommensurable, but I have not read anything else which seems to have left me entirely without any lasting insight.

>>11247021
Unfortunate. He seems like he's always on the edge of saying something brilliant.

[Anonymous No.11247095]

>>11247044
>>11247063

The problem with Nietzsche is that his philosophy is so ingrained in modern culture that it is impossible for a modern reader to adequately appreciate what he gets right. Unfortunately he was less of a philosopher and more of a failed mystic. He spent his career trying to refute the nihilism which served as a source of constant existential dread for him, and while his works contain many decent ideas, the majority of it is failed attempt after failed attempt to affirm life. What is useful from Nietzsche is already such a part of popular culture (e.g. development of personal ethical systems which transcends the need for a religious metaphor as its metaphysical basis) that actually sitting and reading his stuff is, frankly, kind of boring. There are times when his writing is quite good and can be very entertaining, such as Zarathustra talking with his animal friends, but other than that it's just a bit dreary and dull.

[Anonymous No.11247121]

>>11246646
To make cruelty a spiritual exercise. Basically, higher culture is the intelligent man's exercise of cruelty.

[Anonymous No.11247140]

>>11247095
Brainlet who's upset that big Neet wasn't writing for his untermensch mind

[Anonymous No.11247151]

>>11247095
dumbest thing I've ever read

[Anonymous No.11247153]

>>11242276
Imagine a society that didn't control cruelty in such ways. Matriarchy is scary.

[Anonymous No.11247168]

>>11247095
>and more of a failed mystic.
Lmao, fucking what? You fucking buffoon. He didn't fail remotely and there's nothing about him that's esoteric. He's one of the clearest, most scientific, most militant philosophers out there.

>the majority of it is failed attempt after failed attempt to affirm life.
But he did exactly that, he lived its affirmation, and we witnessed what the affirmation of his life in full bloom could give birth to (everything from Zarathustra on). He even managed to experience the cycle of affirmation all the way through its death and back, and observed it, which is how he came to the idea of eternal recurrence. The fact that his work is seminal to modern day culture means he succeeded in properly communicating that affirmation, too.

[Anonymous No.11247279]

>>11244591
Semen entering the bloodstream through microtears in the anus.

[Anonymous No.11247305]

>>11244591
He said a few things that weren't biologically accurate, but maybe onto something else. Somewhere he also says that timidity makes the blood run cold which causes pale skin and getting angry makes it boil which causes dark skin which is why up north in Europe everyone is pasty and shy and in Africa everyone is dark and aggressive.

[Anonymous No.11247338]

>and perhaps in nearly every joy, as certainly in
every pleasure, cruelty has its place

pleb.

[Anonymous No.11247339]

>>11242282
that one meme about stalin killing more ppl than the nazis.
the inquisition.
and all those islamic jihads.
might have something to do with it.
not to mention the tuskegee experiments as well.
also the false memory foundation.
soldiers that get PTSD for their "patriotism"

[Anonymous No.11248490]

>>11246599
>holistic
hello pseud