/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11345642]

I just recently started delving into Nietzsche, and his philosophy strikes me as narcissistic and essentially dependent on a sort of social darwinism. Somebody born into the wrong situation, whether it be environmental factors or genetic factors, realistically, wouldn't be able to implement his teachings. His overarching philosophy seems to be:

>Religion is politically inspired nonsense
>Be an alpha
>Be a rigid individualist
>Life is only a will to power, all else is illusion
>Martyrdom is fundamentally wrong (He strikes me as almost Machiavellian in his explanation of this)
>Never grow stagnant
>Pain is the most valuable teacher, embrace it and don't turn to vices to numb yourself
>Being "good" is worse than being a nihilist because it promotes stagnation upon a philosophy that is likely flawed

Some of his points were inspiring, but some of them just made me wonder what the world would look like if everybody decided to follow his philosophy. I don't feel it would be sustainable on a mass scale.

[Anonymous No.11345698]

>>11345642
>be narcissist philosopher
>act alpha though be beta
>call out other betas for being betas
>call God a dead beta
>grow frail, mad and mostly alone
>die
>a generation after you passes
>people try to act alpha against God and fling the world into a sea of senseless war and death
We should all feel sorry for this poor man born too smart for his own handling.

[Anonymous No.11345709]

>>11345698
War truly was only ever a phenomenon post-Nietzsche right? The Roman Imperium didn't engage in constant conquest, and before them the Hellens, and before them the Assyrians, and before them the Babylonians and the Akkadians. No, the state of war is a specifically post-Nietzsche occurance. No one else could even fathom it.

[Anonymous No.11345713]

>>11345709
>war in the ancient world is the same as war in the 20th century

[Anonymous No.11345738]

>>11345713
You're right, in the ancient world, States were legitimate and wars were direct and not pursued unless necessary. You know except for the near constant unnecessary expeditionary wars done by just about everyone from the beginning of time.

[Anonymous No.11345881]

>>11345642
What's wrong about the fact that not everyone can apply his philosophy?

>religion is politically inspired nonsense
I would disagree with Nietzsche here. A lot of political propaganda utilises concepts of religion and behaviour of the masses. He has a point, although some religious aspects are good for culture preservation. I'm not sure how clear he was on this point.

>Be an alpha
In what sense? Nietzsche's Ubermensch is someone who spends a lot of time alone and doesn't crave company of others. He is ahead of his time and others don't understand him. It doesn't strike me as particularly alpha. Alpha has to adapt to the social conditions and be a part of the group.

>Be a rigid individualist
I'm personally torn on this one. If everyone was a rigid individualist, who would go into warfare to die for their country. No one. At the same time, it would lead to a conflict on a different, likely civil scale, so more civil wars and conflicts among smaller groups with specific agendas.

>Life is only Will to power, all else is illusion
I wouldn't want to delve too much into metaphysics here. I'm not well versed in it, and the only thing I take from this is that we want to survive. Basically, animal instincts rule our behaviour.

>Martyrdom is fundamentally wrong
Not sure what you mean by being Machiavellian here. There is a valid point in thinking that martyrs are fanatic idiots.

>Never grow stagnant
Sure, if you lay don't on your bed all the time, you will get sick and will die sooner. Not exactly what anyone should aspire to.

>Pain is the most valuable teacher; don't turn to vices
If you want to be better than others in terms of social hierarchy, you can't do the same things they're doing - e.g. drinking, becoming addicted etc. You have to become different.

>Being good is worse than being nihilist
Constructive power is aggressive. Goodness is taken here as a reactive behaviour. A bullied kid in school is only strong if he can retaliate, now if he can get all emotional.

[Anonymous No.11345984]

>>11345881

Some of the bullet points are things I admired about his philosophy, some weren't. I was just trying to put a bow around the package of what I perceive his philosophy to be in a nutshell.

His take on Martyrdom is "Machiavellian" in the truest sense when you consider "The Prince" and his claim that "If you spend your time worrying about how thing ought to be, instead of the way they are, you're going to lessen your own power and productivity." Which sounds logical, but in implementation this point of view actually hinders humanities progress.

Think about how commonplace rape, pillaging, hellish methods of torture, barbaric, moronic politics, unsophisticated medicine, no technology, etc. Why did all of those improve? Because of many valiant souls dreaming of the future that "ought to be," even when it usually meant their lives would be filled with public disdain, constant roadblocks and seas of red tape, and even death by execution. But they knew it was worth it. I'd consider these people "martyrs" to the utmost.

And "life is a will to power" is hardly metaphysics, as you wrapped it up quite nicely. It's following base animal instinct while you demand and conquer as much as you possibly can. In any area of life. It's not merely a statement on violence and war. A fame whore narcissist in a competitive field who does whatever they can do to have influence and gain notoriety as they manipulate people in the business they're a part of to get to the top: They're technically in the right with their inner beasts "Will To Power."

He talked about being moralistic without even providing a basis in his philosophy to inspire such. He literally tells you that God is dead, being good is worse than nihilism, follow your will to power, and then says: "Oh, and make up some good morals along the way and live with them. It'll make you happier, and shit."

[Anonymous No.11346015]

>>11345738
Filthy fatalist. Away with you to High School.

[Anonymous No.11346061]

My hot take:

>Will to Power
Something that not just humans but all life possesses; it is a transcendent quality or something that possesses; it is a bit metaphysical because it speaks about life beyond the physical (i.e. a will)

>Ubermensche
Literally over-man; noone gets to be an ubermensch; the ubermensch will not be a man at all, man is only a bridge.

[Anonymous No.11346135]

>>11345984
We're definitely going to have some disagreements in there. Nietzsche aside now, I disagree with some of what he said as well, but he still remains a powerful and important thinker to me.

The fundamental difference here is that I do identify with Prince's claim. I don't believe human progress is actually a real phenomena. I propose that all our changes in society are due to mutation and misuse of what we managed to get because of our unfortunate minds.

I see humans as animals. Regardless of the level of development and differences, animal nonetheless. Now, one moment in which I apply metaphysics is in natural balance. Reality is, we are not supposed to have hospitals to cure people and have 7+ billion in this world. Our mind has led us to experience fear of death on multiple subtle levels and we anxiously try to avoid it. At all cost. We have achieved a degree of dominance in nature we were never supposed to be given. This leads me to why martyrs can be seen as fanatic idiots. No one can know how the society will evolve, and once many mistakes (both internal and external) have been made, no one can know - with certainty - what the society ought to be. The line of thinking of what ought to be is a desperate attempt to change, re-shape, re-organise and make sure we keep on living.

War is the result of such clash of interests among people and societal hierarchy.

***

Let's suppose that I'm saying here is bogus, and that I get the human nature and social dynamics wrong. Why is it then, that when people are given social media, they use it for narcissistic purposes and essentially abuse it? I bring up Nassim Taleb's example quite often. Thorough the human history, we had limited access to sugar, after the access became not so limited, we immediately started abusing it, and illnesses arose out of that. Same with psychology, social media allows us to abuse our innate need for attention and recognition, but it gets it in the twisted sense.

This is essentially a premise to why it got so twisted and it's not an actual 'progress', just mutation.

[Anonymous No.11346147]

>>11345642
ITT: no one in this thread has read N thoroughly but that’s ok because you get to have an opinion on anything as long as you’ve skimmed

[Anonymous No.11346162]

>>11345642
>Somebody born into the wrong situation, whether it be environmental factors or genetic factors, realistically, wouldn't be able to implement his teachings
lol? did you just MARXed Nietzsche?? I do not understand

[Anonymous No.11346169]

>>11346061
OUch! Burned myself on that hot take.

[Anonymous No.11346310]

>>11345642
"essentially dependent on a sort of social darwinism"
So what you're saying is that you haven't been reading Nietzsche at all?

[Anonymous No.11346325]

>>11345713
fuck dude that picture lmao

[Anonymous No.11346357]

>>11346061

As far as the Ubermensche, he claims that humanity "stigmatizes the highest of personality types," while mocking an individual like Christ who died for what he considered a cause higher than himself, which it proved to be. He even criticized individuals like Siddhartha Gautama who didn't die because of his practices. He wasn't a martyr, but he sacrificed his ego, and all of his earthly possessions and titles of royalty to find peace within. He didn't care about "getting ahead," or conquering anything, but he preferred to live in quiet solitude enjoying a carefree existence. Nietzsche harshly detesting his philosophy made me start thinking of Nietzsche as a cold, bitter human who is utterly incapable of empathy. Which, it's understandable, as he lived in anger and isolation his entire life.

The people I just mentioned were paradoxically antisocial leaders, which seemed to be appealing to Nietzsche, so why shouldn't he approve of them? Because gross narcissism has to be thrown into the mix?

The merits of having drive, ambition, and the ability to obtain power and influence are obvious. Though, Nietzsche seems all-too-eager to accept just about any character defect imaginable so long as they live up to that definition. And if they make everybody around them miserable?

>Nah, bruh, you're good. They're just hatin 'cuz ur so much better than them.. LOL. Will to power, and shit. Oh, but make sure you have morals while you're being a miserable, selfish dickhead to everyone.

Having morals while believing you're better than everyone doesn't make ANY god damn sense. You'll create them with the bias that you'll be the benefactor in the end. Emotionally, and in whatever endeavors you pursue.

Side note: Nietzsche was an anti-semite too. I guess they weren't the master race, either.

[Anonymous No.11346608]

>neckbeards of history