Best Critique of Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.11422780]

I just want to see if anyone will have the same critique as I do. So far, I haven't found any that are like it.

so, lay it on me. What are your criticisms? Know of others? My deals with Nietzsche's stuff on the nature of human instinct.

[Anonymous No.11422804]

>>11422780
No such book or person exists. Everyone's arguments amount to petty ad hominem and incomplete and immature understandings of his philosophy. His philosophy is the bedrock of Western civilization at this point and denying him means denying all major scientific and technological advances since his time.

[Anonymous No.11422832]

>>11422804
Girard's Dionysius versus The Crucified isn't ad hominem and seems to understand his philosophy quite well.

>denying him means denying all major scientific and technological advances since his time.
wat

[Anonymous No.11422834]

>>11422780
>My deals with Nietzsche's stuff on the nature of human instinct.
What is your criticism there?

>>11422804
fpbp

[Anonymous No.11422840]

>>11422834
not gonna give it away on 4chan

[Anonymous No.11422857]

>>11422780
Lukács György

[Anonymous No.11422885]

>>11422832
>Girard
Had hangups about violence and failed to see how the higher cultures were merely the spiritualization of cruelty. Also, I think he misrepresented Nietzsche's position a little: Nietzsche didn't want to remove Christianity from society, he just wanted an end to its tyranny.

[Anonymous No.11422907]

>>11422780
What does Nietzsche say about human instinct?

[Anonymous No.11422973]

>>11422780
it's OP; I have come too early...

[Anonymous No.11422978]

>>11422907
In Antichrist he talks about how human instinct (distinct from spiritual morals) are geared towards the will to power

[Anonymous No.11422983]

literally just argue from Aquinas's five ways and Nietzsche loses

[Anonymous No.11422995]

>>11422885
That post doesn't address Girard's critique of Nietzsche in any way.

>>11422780
Read Girard. There's also Max Scheler's Ressentiment. A-And Macintyre's After Virtue.

[Anonymous No.11423023]

>>11422995
what from Girard and where can I find Scheler's work?

[Anonymous No.11423037]

>>11422983
*snap*

[Anonymous No.11423103]

Ubermensch is a pretty cool guy. He wishes for the eternal recurrence and doesn't afraid of anything.

[Anonymous No.11423210]

>>11422978
Nietzsche defines us as having a plurality of drives which conflict internally and seek to control the others. He doesn't just say that the human instincts are will to power, but all of life is, and he doesn't make any distinction from "spiritual morals" when he says that.

[Anonymous No.11423216]

>>11423023
There's the essay that was already mentioned, Dionysus versus the Crucified
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1FizjVAbSMxMzBhNmQ4NWUtMGU2Ny00ZDA2LWFiMGEtZTNiMjM2ZDA4YmFh/view).). And you can find more in almost any book that he's written that I've read so far. Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, and To Double Business Bound.

[Anonymous No.11423221]

>>11423023
and the Scheler is online if you know where to look ; )

[Anonymous No.11423359]

The mystical experience negates Nietzsche’s heavily anti-spiritual slant.

[Anonymous No.11423366]

>>11423210
"I call an animal, a species, an individual corrupt, when it loses its instincts, when it chooses, when it prefers, what is injurious to it. A history of the “higher feelings,” the “ideals of humanity”—and it is possible that I’ll have to write it—would almost explain why man is so degenerate. Life itself appears to me as an instinct for growth, for survival, for the accumulation of forces, for power: whenever the will to power fails there is disaster. My contention is that all the highest values of humanity have been emptied of this will—that the values of décadence, of nihilism, now prevail under the holiest names." (AC 6)

The ideals of humanity are Christian morals, spiritual figments of morality. Nietzsche says those are degenerative to man. When a man loses his instincts, it's disadvantageous to him. Those ideals of humanity are not his instincts, they've replaced them; N finds that disadvantageous to man.

What drives in man are conflicting internally? Pity and strength? Surely, pity is not an instinct of man according to N...

>Here's N being blatant:

"it [Christianity] has waged a war to the death against this higher type of man, it has put all the deepest instincts of this type under its ban." (AC 5)

"It [Christianity] has made an ideal of whatever contradicts the instinct of the strong life to preserve itself; it has corrupted the reason even the strongest in spirit by teaching men to consider the supreme values of the spirit as something sinful." (AC 5)

[Anonymous No.11423379]

I'm critical of the Will to Power. Its inherent anti-realism just seems stupid to me today, given what we know about the material world these days.

That said, it's obvious human beings, particularly men I would argue, are motivated to gain power. But that's because men know that having power gets them a lot of pussy.

[Anonymous No.11423381]

>>11422840
Wow, asshole.

[Anonymous No.11423408]

>>11423381
I think it's a gem; not gonna give you my intellectual property just yet (if it never publishes I will though). I legit haven't seen it anywhere else and it's not "MUH NAZIS" by any means

[Anonymous No.11423434]

>>11423366
>The ideals of humanity are Christian morals, spiritual figments of morality. Nietzsche says those are degenerative to man.
Because the Christian is subhuman to Nietzsche. When Nietzsche talks of humanity, he talks exclusively of the "hyperboreans."

Judging by Nietzsche's words, there isn't a fixed or defined number of drives in us.

>It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.

>In contrast to the animals, man has cultivated an abundance of contrary drives and impulses within himself: thanks to this synthesis, he is master of the earth.— Moralities are the expression of locally limited orders of rank in his multifarious world of drives, so man should not perish through their contradictions. Thus a drive as master, its opposite weakened, refined, as the impulse that provides the stimulus for the activity of the chief drive.

>The highest man would have the greatest multiplicity of drives, in the relatively greatest strength that can be endured. Indeed, where the plant "man" shows himself strongest one finds instincts that conflict powerfully (e.g., in Shakespeare), but are controlled.

https://archive.org/stream/TheWillToPower-Nietzsche/will_to_power-nietzsche_djvu.txt

[Anonymous No.11423461]

>>11423408
I understand that, still wish you’d be a bit less vague. But I also understand that you wouldn’t want to lead someone to your potentially unique thoughts by being less than vague. I rescind my comment and hope you do publish.

[Anonymous No.11423482]

>>11423461
You're very nice; thank you man!!

[Anonymous No.11423530]

>>11423216
The link is not working

[Anonymous No.11423819]

>>11423216
I wonder if Girard was aware that Nietzsche was quite a devout Christian as a teenager?

[Anonymous No.11423837]

>>11422780
you're a moron desu

[Anonymous No.11423912]

>>11423819
Devout Lutheran, radically different

[Anonymous No.11423927]

>>11422780

He didn't even lift.

[Anonymous No.11423943]

>>11423912
Regardless, he was once writing about having faith and love for God, and he was changed dramatically by his studies in philosophy and philology.

[Anonymous No.11424065]

>>11423943
You have to regard; his critique of Christianity stems from a Lutheran pov, which is so flawed

[Anonymous No.11424073]

>>11423434
The Christian is subhuman by choice; there would not be instincts in man that make him align with being a Christian; it's unnatural.

[Anonymous No.11424090]

>>11423434
Doesn't matter if he's speaking to the hyperboreans, the ones fit to read Antichrist, those who broke free of modern thought of morality. It's just another step in the game.

[Anonymous No.11424107]

>>11424065
I think you're missing my point. There was a self-realization period for him either way. Girard noted that he went from "Dionysus vs. the Crucified" to "Dionysus AND the Crucified" by the end of his writings. Nietzsche couldn't have developed his Dionysian ideal without the foundation he had; the two are opposites in spirit, but they share more commonalities than are typically assumed.

[Anonymous No.11424154]

>>11423216
Girard doesn't really provide anything compelling in that piece. He says Nietzsche "lost" the battle against the Crucified, but doesn't really explain how or why he thinks that, besides saying that Nietzsche went mad (as if a cancerous mental collapse has to do with philosophical defeat). He also notes that since Nietzsche's time we have seen a triumphant return to what he considers the "real vengeance" glorified in "pagan mythology" which Nietzsche sought to revive. So, did he actually lose? And isn't he missing something here? Why is his commentary focused on winning versus losing? According to Nietzsche's depiction of the world, the world is a "monster of energy" of "unalterable size," "a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income". It stands to reason that Nietzsche acknowledged the balance of forces, that when one triumphed the other would merely enter a dormant phase and wait until it may strike and reclaim its territory.

And about that "real vengeance"... Girard makes the same mistake that I constantly see made when people interpret Nietzsche. He miscalculates and thinks that Nietzsche is dealing in Platonic absolutes, and then goes on to spar with them (unconsciously) as Platonic absolutes, but in the end he is really not sparring with Nietzsche at all. Dionysus and the Crucified are not to be understood merely as opposites but as inverse polarities on a spiritual spectrum which are interdependent of one another for their own realization. Ressentiment is not applicable only to one side but to both; which side it gets applied to depends on which side the applicator stands closer to. There is no "real vengeance" here, there is simply vengeance, but two different applications of it: the master's vengeance and the slave's vengeance in Nietzschean terms, and in the Judeo-Christian's terms, the same but with the roles reversed (Girard's "real vengeance" and ressentiment which he cleverly attempts to define as a reduction of violent behavior).

And also, what are the "inhuman aspects of Nietzsche's writing"? He's not clear on that.

[Anonymous No.11424343]

>>11422780
Plato’s Gorgias perhaps, and although Callicles is much more a sensual hedonist than Nietzsche, I still find the two share many identical characteristics.

[Anonymous No.11424345]

>>11422804
>His philosophy is the bedrock of Western civilization at this point

t. Retard

[Anonymous No.11424369]

>>11423408
Unless you are a professor at a large Uni, society doesn't care what you think about Nietzche. Least of all Publishers. So quit being a fag and just post your thoughts here.

[Anonymous No.11424512]

He presupposes materialism. If god real, neet-lord wrong.

[Anonymous No.11425166]

>>11424512
t. brainlet

God is "real," and also dead.

[Anonymous No.11425188]

>>11422983
Hahaha rubbish

[Anonymous No.11425192]

>>11422780
I think he blows himself the fuck out so many times he doesn't even need criticism.

[Anonymous No.11425607]

>>11424369
psyche

[Anonymous No.11425652]

>>11422780
The best counter to Nietzsche is posed by Nietzsche himself: Socrates. I don't think he was all that concerned with Plato as mystic or as cultural-historical event (see: GM and BGE), but I do think that he was aware of the thrust of the older, more skeptical Socrates and his daimon. There is something to be said about a true Socratic who goes around questioning people into oblivion/impiously telling to go fuck themselves. Not to mention the potential nihilism involved in such a practice. Kinda shits all over the self-propelling wheel/child-stage/Dionysian Pessimism thesis that N tried so hard to secure in Z and TI.

[Anonymous No.11425660]

>>11422885
>Had hangups about violence and failed to see how the higher cultures were merely the spiritualization of cruelty.
But even Nietzsche's beloved Homeric Greek had reservations against cruelty.

>Achilles & Priam weeping in each other's arms as the Trojan war draws to a close; Achilles stops abusing the body of Priam's son Hector and returns it for funeral rites.
>Odysseus about to kill an enemy. Goddess tells him to feel no pity but he hesitates knowing that it could be him in that position.

Not even the Greeks liked cruelty for its own sake.

[Anonymous No.11425758]

>>11422780
this thread is full of retards, no one has answered Nietzsche and never will

[Anonymous No.11425761]

>>11425660
>cruelty for its own sake
Who is talking about that, though? Nietzsche never advocates cruelty for its own sake. Girard almost sounds as if he thought Nietzsche did though. For Nietzsche, the act of destruction is required for the act of creativity; one must sometimes say "No" in order to say one's "Yes."

[Anonymous No.11425762]

>>11425761
>one must sometimes say "No" in order to say one's "Yes."
>saying no
>affirming life
lol

[Anonymous No.11425782]

>>11425762
>I haven't read Nietzsche
Anon is virtually straight-up quoting Thus Spoke Zarathustra in that line.

[Anonymous No.11426050]

>>11425762
Saying no is part of life. It's not a denial of it.

[Anonymous No.11426667]

>>11426050
>>11425782
Amor fati
>some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.
saying yes to suffering and pleasure, true Grecian tragic life

[Anonymous No.11426730]

>>11422780
>Nietzsche's stuff on the nature of human instinct

I think he's not wrong on power dynamics influencing what we consider to be morality. His take on ressentiment influencing the development of mass (slave) morality is spot on.

I generally disagree with his concept of higher beings and how all of civilization is just a pretext for the creation of such higher beings. It's such an arrogant statement to make. All 7 billion people on this planet don't exist to make one Newton or Beethoven. Fucking retardation.

[Anonymous No.11426744]

>>11426730
>His take on ressentiment influencing the development of mass (slave) morality is spot on.
What say you of his genealogy?
Rome seems to be the prime counterexample given they value power and strength even though they began as an asylum of slaves, refugees, exiles, and criminals (all types of individuals who are inclined to subvert their masters that they envy).

[Anonymous No.11426771]

>>11426744
I think he'd argue that just because some people are slaves doesn't mean they don't have a master morality. I think his whole master morality refers to the quality of the individual more than their place in society. For example, he'd probably consider Diogenes an overman even though he was a literal homeless fuck who masturbated in public.

So his take on Rome would probably be that over time, the morals of that society was dictated by those with the capacity for master morality, which was emulated by the masses until its decline into decadence and slave morality.

[Anonymous No.11426885]

>>11426771
>For example, he'd probably consider Diogenes an overman even though he was a literal homeless fuck who masturbated in public.

t. has never read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.11427031]

>>11426771
>I think his whole master morality refers to the quality of the individual more than their place in society.

lol then why did he make a genealogy of morals if its not about their place in society? Obviously there are no masters or slaves now, but these morals of power vs mercy was supposed to be justified by that genealogy.
The slave's morals are predicated on the master's in envy and subversion.

[Anonymous No.11427435]

>>11422804
>tfw this is true
In 1884 he literally wrote of the idea of "time as a property of space":

https://archive.org/stream/TheWillToPower-Nietzsche/will_to_power-nietzsche_djvu.txt

[Anonymous No.11427730]

>prescribes behavior
>believes in value and meaning
how is he not a moralist again?

[Anonymous No.11427734]

>>11422804
>His philosophy is the bedrock of Western civilization
Even if you were right, that’s not something to be proud of

[Anonymous No.11427816]

>>11427734
>Shallow mass media Christcuckery on /lit/
How did we get to this point?

[Anonymous No.11427889]

>>11423359
>I've never read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.11428083]

For a philosopher that cares so much about caring, so many caring about him makes me not want to care.

>>11425652
Why's nihilism bad again? Ain't everything going to die anyway regardless? What am I losing by being a nihilist?

[Anonymous No.11428181]

>>11427031
>Obviously there are no masters or slaves now

hmmmm

[Anonymous No.11428216]

>>11428181
sure, but pedantic