/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11594361]

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP
Why do these people feel the need to cry their illiterate opinions out in every corner of the world

[Anonymous No.11594365]

>>11594361
>Pinker
>illiterate
Lol. He's more literate than you, bud.

[Anonymous No.11594373]

>>11594365
>He's more literate than you
Then why does he get every single philosopher he cites wrong?

[Anonymous No.11594375]

>>11594361
Who cares if some academic dumbass doesn't hold the exact same position as you on some meaningless issue that you're eventually going to stop pretending to care about? If you're going to waste your life, do the world a favor and do it by jumping off a cliff.

[Anonymous No.11594384]

>>11594375
No he should Livestream his hanging for our viewing pleasure, OP don't be a selfish cunt I wanna see this

[Anonymous No.11594385]

>words aren't magic
>this is being nullified
>this is bad
but magic be cool

[Anonymous No.11594392]

Words are magical.
>>11594375
The magic of words is an important issue.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qPcasmn0cRU

[Anonymous No.11594396]

>>11594375
>misreading the republic
>meaningless

[Anonymous No.11594397]

[Anonymous No.11594404]

>>11594375
>thinking that meaning is meaningless
wew

[Anonymous No.11594406]

>>11594396
Are you gonna cry?

[Anonymous No.11594419]

>>11594373
Name one (1) thing he got wrong. And go into detail about how it was wrong, don't just say he got it wrong you fucking pseud.

It's so bizarre seeing these brainlets try and talk down to a literal Harvard professor who's at the top of his field. You don't see this shit in other fields. You don't see randos claiming they can shoot better than Lebron James or code monkeys claiming they can code better than Linus Torvalds.

[Anonymous No.11594422]

>>11594397
lmao is this real

[Anonymous No.11594434]

>>11594397
what the hell

[Anonymous No.11594437]

>>11594419
>the top of his field
that field not being philosophy

[Anonymous No.11594439]

>>11594419
Uh, for one he is openly an atheist

[Anonymous No.11594441]

>>11594397
To his credit, would want to do a few things to his nazi sister too.

[Anonymous No.11594446]

>>11594397
lol neetch actually btfo, no wonder you guys are so butthurt at this dude

[Anonymous No.11594447]

>>11594419
Plato thought words were representations of forms. Not conventions.

[Anonymous No.11594448]

>>11594419
>It's so bizarre seeing these brainlets try and talk down to a literal Harvard professor who's at the top of his field.
Since when is pop science a field?

[Anonymous No.11594452]

>>11594419
Words aren’t conventions

[Anonymous No.11594453]

>>11594437
>>11594439
He's an interdisciplinary professor that's known for being interdisciplinary. His field of research is across several domains, namely linguistics, cognitive science, and psychology.

Once again, name one, just one thing he got wrong and explain why it's wrong. Protip: you can't.

[Anonymous No.11594455]

>>11594453
>namely linguistics, cognitive science, and psychology.
so not philosophy

[Anonymous No.11594457]

>>11594361

based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.11594459]

>>11594419
Different anon, but, for starters:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2018/02/20/4806696.htm

And section VIII of:
https://samzdat.com/2018/03/07/everything-is-going-according-to-plan/

[Anonymous No.11594463]

>>11594361
>>11594365
>>11594373
>>11594375
>>11594384
>>11594385
>>11594392
>>11594396
>>11594397
>>11594404
>>11594406
>>11594419
>>11594422
>>11594434
>>11594437
>>11594439
>>11594441
>>11594446
>>11594447
>>11594448
>>11594452
>>11594453
>>11594455
>>11594457
>>11594459
ass

[Anonymous No.11594474]

>>11594463
is this magic

[Anonymous No.11594481]

>>11594419
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0n4dbHbdA

[Anonymous No.11594488]

>>11594365
>>11594419
Imagine how embarrassed this anon is posting this shit in the same thread with
>>11594397

[Anonymous No.11594494]

>>11594459
>Pinker never seems to see the force of the question: How do we know that all this did not take place in spite of, rather than because of, the Enlightenment? In fact, he doesn't even pretend to go to the trouble of establishing a causal connection between his contentious version of the Enlightenment and the various improvements that he imagines follow in its wake. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc seems to be the operative principle.

This is the dumbest criticism I've ever seen of Pinker. Who wrote this trash, you? Fuck off. Everyone agrees that the Enlightenment ushered a great deal of philosophical changes. Like, every fucking historian since that era agrees with that proposition. Trying to claim Pinker is wrong on that count is ridiculous, especially since he backs it up with jack shit (ironic given his claim).

>Pinker seems to operate on the principle, for example, that future catastrophic events are impossible.

I'm done with this pseud. He makes up strawmen and knocks them over. He never addresses anything that Pinker says directly.

[Anonymous No.11594499]

>>11594453
>having someone's dick so far down your throat you literally refuse to think he got a single thing wrong, ever

[Anonymous No.11594501]

>>11594463
>760 KB

[Anonymous No.11594509]

>>11594397
Jesus, and I thought Russel was bad. Why do all these famous tv intellectuals have no idea what they're talking about? It's like they read badly edited wiki pages for the most influential thinkers of all time and became famous for summarizing them in even worse fashion for the lowest common denominator.

[Anonymous No.11594515]

>>11594509
>It's like they read badly edited wiki pages for the most influential thinkers of all time and became famous for summarizing them in even worse fashion for the lowest common denominator.
This is exactly what happens d e s u

[Anonymous No.11594517]

>>11594481
>unironically citing Chomsky when accusing Pinker for doing research out of his field

Also, his hot take on violence in ancient societies is wrong. Ferguson takes issue with his classification of deaths. I don't think any serious anthropologist claims that ancient tribes weren't violent.

http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2014/04/pinkers-list-distorted-record-of.html

[Anonymous No.11594520]

>>11594499
Again, try to name something he got wrong. I'm tired of pseuds like you who drum up hate against a person and refuse to explain what they got wrong.

I'm sure he did, just try and name one thing though.

[Anonymous No.11594524]

>>11594520
Multiple people here pointed out he severely misunderstands plato but whatever

[Anonymous No.11594528]

The world of ideals is meant to be taken literally

[Anonymous No.11594531]

>>11594397
Lol what a blatant misreading of Nietzsche. The way he attributes awesome causal powers to Nietzsche's writings is comical. This would make him the single most influential person in history, defining the entire trend of a century of the most advanced science and technology, weaving through fascism, communism, and everything else.
Nietzsche's gigantic mustache has left a shadow over the human race. He BTFO'd the very concept of the human.
Except he didn't. Much of his writings presage the positive thinking movement and Thus Spoke Zarathustra could be seen as a kind of proto-self help book.
Anyway Pinker sometimes just gets a little ahead of himself. His tone here is of the elitist nincompoop.

[Anonymous No.11594538]

>>11594494
The author isn't disputing that the Enlightenment ushered in changes; he's disputing Pinker's 1) overly broad characterization of reason and enlightenment such that he can't deal with Enlightenment thinkers quoted directly in the article, like Bacon, Locke, Hume, or Kant who suggest that reason has much more limited powers, 2) that he understands enlightenment figures anachronistically as evolutionary psychologists and natural scientists of the most modern sort (which as a judgement will find them often quite wanting, given how speculative their work could be), and 3) that he establishes no causal account of the enlightenment-> modern progress, just takes it as given, here's a bunch of data charts. Altogether, the book doesn't make his case except tendentiously.

[Anonymous No.11594539]

>>11594520
The post you're answering simply points out the depth at which Pinker's penis is shoved down your throat. It doesn't make any other claim. Is it more on the meaty or on the salty side?

[Anonymous No.11594549]

>>11594463
dubs and I fuck your ass

[Anonymous No.11594552]

>>11594524
He really doesn't. Once again, you're all a bunch of retards.

In Cratylus, Plato discusses whether or not language being a convention is a problem for the forms. They eventually conclude it isn't, because a hammer can be made out of different types of iron in Greece and elsewhere and still be a hammer. Therefore, the conventions of language are independent of forms.

Literally nothing Pinker said in the OP was wrong. Try again.

[Anonymous No.11594563]

>>11594538
Sorry if I don't take seriously an essay that doesn't have a single point of data compared to a book that is loaded with actual data.

[Anonymous No.11594567]

>>11594552
Sure, he's right about Plato being aware of the arbitrary nature of words, but you're asking where he's ever been wrong, and that's >>11594459 and >>11594538.

[Anonymous No.11594570]

>>11594361
>study linguistics
>dad constantly tells me to listen to interviews with Pinker

[Anonymous No.11594579]

>>11594567
None of which actually address what Pinker actually says in his books. I don't want shitty vague strawmen attacking his """"""""""""position"""""""""""""", give me literally one, just ONE, single sentence he has written that is factually wrong.

The closest someone has gotten was pointing out Ferguson, but even that is just a matter of interpretation of historical data.

[Anonymous No.11594614]

>>11594517
>when accusing Pinker for doing research out of his field
Where did I do that?

[Anonymous No.11594618]

>>11594552
>Therefore, the conventions of language are independent of forms.
No Plato just thinks words can be conventions, not that they are

[Anonymous No.11594625]

>>11594397

FUCK Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.11594627]

>>11594531
lol i would love to see pinker's book on this: The Better Angels of Our Nature 2: Why Violence has Declined Except for the Persistent Influence of an Obnoxious German Philosopher Whose Affirmation of Violence is Responsible for all the Suffering in the World that Capitalism has not yet Alleviated

[Anonymous No.11594629]

>>11594570
>>study linguistics
>>dad constantly tells me to listen to interviews with Pinker

This is really your own fault

[Anonymous No.11594637]

>>11594531
Pinker defense force here, I agree he comes off as silly in that passage. But I attribute that more to his jewish superstitions than any actual errors of scholarship. He thinks Nietzsche was unironically responsible for the Nazis, as most jews do.

Outside of that nonsense, everything Pinker has said is more or less correct. That's because he's one of the few scholars in the modern era that's strongly data driven. He doesn't make conclusions without a bunch of evidence.

[Anonymous No.11594638]

>>11594579
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pinker.pdf

[Anonymous No.11594656]

>>11594563
Direct quotes from enlightenment thinkers contradicting Pinker's view of enlightenment reason isn't data against his stance?

That's quite a deep throat ya got there boy.

[Anonymous No.11594673]

>>11594638
>http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pinker.pdf
Interesting take. This might actually be a serious challenge to Pinker's claims. I don't know enough about statistics to claim one way or another, but if Arab CK is right, then Pinker's historical data is not statistically significant (because there isn't enough to rule out black swans).

[Anonymous No.11594676]

>>11594579
>shitty vague statement
>you know
>like reason according to pinker

[Anonymous No.11594695]

>>11594673
>Arab CK
He's of Greek descent. His family merely moved to Lebanon (probably because of Turks or something).

[Anonymous No.11594749]

Nietzche is and will always stand as the greatest fraudlosopher of all time, there is not a single insight of depth he has provided to anyone of any aspect of reality, he sought to be controversial and nothing else, having no coherent perspective on anything, he is very much responsible, indirectly, for the military movements of the 20th century, and all of you teenagers need to either wait until you're older before you come to this board, or should at the least be spending your time outside until school starts again in September. Nietzche is and will always be a disgrace to human thought, Tolstoy noted this well, and it's a shame that /lit/ is so ignorant enough that they cannot see that quite literally nothing of Nietzche's assertions have any value to them at all, outside of their poetic style.

[Anonymous No.11594751]

>>11594673
>>11594579
He's """factually""" wrong by saying the Mongol Invasion was one event, since it was several conflicts. I only needed to read the Taleb thing for a few minutes to see one """"fact""" which was wrong.

[Anonymous No.11594841]

>>11594637
I mostly appreciate Pinker's writing, he's a talented author and some of his arguments and assertions are right on point.
I didn't associate his take on Nietzsche on his Jewish identity, which sounds like an almost semitic premise. After all several Jewish scholars had sophisticated readings of Nietzsche, from Walter Kaufmann to Marcuse. Not all Jews fear everything German, it's a ridiculous notion.
I just think here Pinker is being sensationalistic which is ironic for a book about Enlightenment Reason.

[Anonymous No.11594848]

>>11594841
Edit:
>which sounds like an almost *anti-semitic* premise

[Anonymous No.11594892]

>>11594841
Kaufmann in particular mounted a robust defense of Nietzsche, explaining how the nazis had appropriated his work after his death, altering it considerably during the years of the third reich, and that in the English speaker's mind this tarnished and bastardized Nietzsche's reputation.
Kaufmann claimed that ironically the nazis and other such totalitarian nightmare ideologies where the exact thing Nietzsche was writing in warning about, prophesying a catastrophic age of moral relativism and the death of god in which millions would suffer unless they took steps to rise above their tribal instincts and promote the renaissance values of the superhuman, which was for him a property of one's character, not a genetic trait of the Aryan race as the nazis bastardized it.

[Anonymous No.11594905]

>>11594841
Reductionist materialists like Russell and Pinker hate Nietzsche because among all of his anti-religious polemics he insulted their type too and they, believing themselves free from criticism particularly from an "atheistic" thinker, cannot allow that slight to stand.

[Anonymous No.11594938]

>>11594531
>Lol what a blatant misreading of Nietzsche.
Continue. Please explain how it is wrong exactly.

Explain how Nietzsche didn't have a big hole in his ideology where he is overly accepting of evil.

[Anonymous No.11594979]

>>11594419
Stop ignoring every valid piece of criticism against Pinker and the people pointing out all the mistakes he’s made.

[Anonymous No.11595005]

>>11594441
I haven't seen that picture before. I always think of her as picture related.

Also, my favourite line about her husband came from a professor of mine: 'When he shot himself, it was the only time when something good when through his brain'

[Anonymous No.11595033]

>>11594396
lol he's talking about cratylus though
still a misreading I'll give you that

[Anonymous No.11595038]

>>11594905
The introduction to the Gay Science has a particularly wonderful polemic against scientists of these sorts.

>>11594938
The glory of Nietzsche comes from being systematically unsystematic. In the same vein as Hume's 'Reason is a slave to the passions', Nietzsche merely conjects a possibility outside of the universalities prior to him, especially Kant. Nietzsche doesn't have to be 'correct' to have value; I mean, he explicitly states in the Genealogy that he might be replacing one mistake with a better mistake, and to think of his philosophy as a whole under this lens provides many benefits.

As for evil, Nietzsche's Genealogy goes through the whole question as why our concept of evil might be rendered moot; while, as others on this board have actually suggested, Nietzsche's mental breakdown of Turin is precisely the affirmation of those values which he had hope to transvaluate.

Also, as a well asked question is half the answer, why is being 'overly accepting of evil' a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.11595434]

>>11594629
how so?

[Anonymous No.11595456]

>>11595038
Against all unspoken Internet protocol I'm going to be honest with you upfront.

1. I haven't read a lot of Nietzsche. I've read a very small bit first hand and seen some synopsis of key ideas. I like Nietzsche, to an extent. It's better than I expected, but his tendency towards edgelordism is near insufferable. 2. I only initially read the highlighted quote.

So I agreed with the highlighted bit. And a problem I see with Nietzsche is he's so beloved not for what he might get right but for the weakest bits of his philosophy. Namely the edgy bits. When his teenage (and teenage at heart) fans hear any criticism of Nietzsche they just retreat to "he's just misunderstood ;_; (like me). he a good boy, he ain't no nazi." and nothing moves past that. Other philosophers don't get this kind of brigade. You can suggest Sartre got things wrong in places without being subjected to a pseudointellectual lecture about how only think that because you are weak or don't get it.

I see word but I don't see how "treat others like how you would want to be treated" as expressed through hypothetical threat isn't a valid objection.

>Also, as a well asked question is half the answer, why is being 'overly accepting of evil' a bad thing?
Because life sucks. It is at times cruel and arbitrary, and the only weak defense against it is mutual aid and manipulating the universe through intelligence to be a better place. This is especially important if there is nothing beyond and we only get 80 odd delicate years at best (as I believe Nietzsche also assumed). Just laying over and accepting cruelty when you can do better is stupid.

This is something I can never get over with Nietzsche. Acceptance (let alone admiration) of tyranny is dumb. Someone or something will always get you.

Mutual aid aka "slave morality" landed man on the moon. Ironically mutual aid would have cured his syphilis and given him many longer years, had he been born a little later. These are miracles. What magic has the rare precious butterfly of selfishness given the world? War? Murder? Petty vandalism? A bunch of worthless try hard Nietzsche fans thumping their chests from the safety of their parents basement? A grand legacy being subverted by a frail little girl (which ironically his fans whine about)?

Dude overshot himself with the anti-Christianity. Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.11595587]

>>11595456
>Morally speaking: neighbor love, living for others, and other things can be a protective measure for preserving the hardest self-concern. This is the exception where, against my wont and conviction, I side with the "selfless" drives: here they work in the service of self-love, of self-discipline.
--Ecce Homo, "Why I am So Clever" Section 9

You are right to say that you misunderstand Nietzsche, and you do so for a very determinate reason that's easy to articulating here. You fail to understand that Nietzsche was against all moral absolutes: moral values for him were always a question of USE. It's less a question of asking "Is killing good or bad?" than "If killing is called 'bad,' what historical forces gave rise to this and what kind of ideal person is shaped by this cultural prohibition?" I'm sure Nietzsche himself could have articulated many reasons why he would not have wanted to kill anyone, but these would all be explained by the value to the individual doing these acts. Most killing nowadays is done either by state sanction (wars/police), a lack of personal control (crimes of passion), or through opportunistic crime. Nietzsche would object to the first as being a slavish subservience to state control, and the other two as being the individual's failure to control their passions and self-overcome to a life where they are not controlled by revenge. (If you really want to understand Nietzsche's morality, look up his thoughts on "ressentiment" especially in Genealogy of Morals and Gay Science--if his morality can be pared down to a single principle, it is acting in order to eliminate ressentiment.)

As the quote implies, the value of helping others is determined by the individual's motivations and outcomes. If your life is entirely limited by helping others, this is a negative form of the value (think of a mother who devotes her lives to her children and husband and feels that she's wasted her life). Alternatively, helping others can lead to a greater self-control and respect for life (a lot of Buddhist morality is largely based around this principle. A good example of this would be giving away a prized possession in order to lessen its attachment over you. You might be losing the material value of the object, but the value of the detachment you gain from it will help you more in the long run.)

You only see Nietzsche mention this attitude in scattered passages, but it's clear that it's there. It's only when selflessness becomes an obligation (especially in its institutionalized states: religion, nationalism, etc.) that he sees it become a yoke for the individual's becoming and a thing to be avoided.

[Anonymous No.11595633]

>>11594905
Yes, Nietzsche is infamously very critical of scientists, which is one of those reasons he is both loved and hated.
He is loved by continental philosophy for hist mercilessly critical deconstruction of scientific formats and structures. Nietzsche's notable comparison of scientific theory to a "hive of metaphors" is one such critique. Scientists, he argues, ultimately function as maintainers of a body of tentative images, organized around their findings which they helplessly inject theory-laden assumptions. Science floats on conjecture. Some day science will tell a different, amended story.

Nietzsche is hated for the very same critiques. Rationalists see it as an assault on the principle of reason itself, and the empirical understanding of the world as a whole. Fred goes too far here and invites the irrational chaos of perspectivist relativism.

[Anonymous No.11595822]

>>11595456
>I haven't read a lot of Nietzsche
>completely misses the entire point of Nietzsche
You're consistent, at least.

[Anonymous No.11596461]

>>11594406
I'm going to beat the shit out of you that's what I'm going to do

[Anonymous No.11596534]

>>11594453
i just did: he's an atheist

[Anonymous No.11596749]

>>11595822
He gave you 2 walls of text and you gave him a terse, unevidenced statement. Truly a pseud.

[Anonymous No.11596906]

>>11596749
>He gave you 2 walls of text and you gave him a terse, unevidenced statement
Yep. That's right.
>Truly a pseud.
Now, which us of here openly stated they had no familiarity with an author and then proceeded to criticize the strawman of him they created in their head, hm, which of us could that be... I wonder...

[Anonymous No.11596963]

>>11594392
niggerfaggot. How do you like those magical words

[Anonymous No.11596968]

>>11594361
What's the issue here?

[Anonymous No.11597008]

>>11596968
steven pinker = s.phincter

[Anonymous No.11597012]

Pinker's a good writer and he's surprisingly balanced. He's not at all disingenuous. But he's just out of his depth on many of the things he writes about.

What is it about pop scientists that causes them to take a turn halfway through their career and start throwing out misinformed political and philosophical assertions?

[Anonymous No.11597193]

I think Alan Moore puts it quite well in his "Mindscape" documentary.
Language is, and always has been, inherently magical.
Of course a virulent atheist like Pinker wouldn't accept something like the act of writing being analogous to casting a spell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1qACd0wHd0

[Anonymous No.11597198]

>>11597193
addendum:

at about 3:50 he gets into it proper.

[Anonymous No.11597358]

>>11594373
The man is perfectly literate and well educated. It's just that he knowingly misconstrues philosophers' works in order to serve his own argument, because he knows others won't read them. He's a propagandist.

[Anonymous No.11597361]

>>11597358
It wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the "culture" he identifies with?

[Anonymous No.11597599]

>>11594361
>Words have no autonomous agency of their own
Deleuzian and Latour are too hard to understand

[Anonymous No.11597621]

>>11596461
Lol you wrote this with tears streaming down your face.

[Anonymous No.11597636]

>>11595456
>Mutual aid aka "slave morality" landed man on the moon

imagine actually believing in the moon landing hoax

[Anonymous No.11597639]

>>11597012
>he’s not disingenuous
the dude’s saying that words are only being given power because of “duh sjws.” this is patently false, and on a basic issue no less, so he’s almost certainly lying through his teeth.

[Anonymous No.11597645]

>>11597008
Nah. Where do you get the ph and t sounds from? Not very linguistic of you, anon.

[Anonymous No.11597849]

>>11594439
stupid post

[Anonymous No.11598128]

>this guy cognitive psychologist
>Memerson clinical psychologist

Is the psychology the biggest meme field there is what is the reason for these people speaking out of their ass?

[Anonymous No.11598158]

>>11598128
>try too hard to become a hard science
>get mocked by the humanities
>breed ressentiment

[Anonymous No.11598374]

>>11598128
Evo psych is the biggest psued meme field there is.

[Anonymous No.11598475]

>>11594361
The Blank Slate is honestly a pretty good book, the part where he empirically disproves the existence of the soul (as if it matters) is fucking cringe, but it offers solid refutations of some essential postmodern ideas.

[Anonymous No.11599229]

>>11595038
>>11595456

First off, I think >>11595587 did an excellent job elucidating Nietzsche.

Second, I want to address certain aspects of your qualms.

Nietzsche isn't exactly an Edgelord. In many senses, he might fall into that category, but he is not doing these things out of shock value. One aspect of Nietzsche which I find incredibly interesting is that every thinker reads a different Nietzsche; there is a clear and distinct Heideggerian N, a Deulezian N, a Foucaultian N and so on and so forth. You have to read enough Nietzsche to develop your own understanding of the man, and its lens into his philosophy.

For me, Nietzsche is an incredibly happy guy; he is a man who is overjoyed by poetry, song, and dance. It is culture, fine and cultivated,
which requires our attention. Christianity and the Apollonian thinks deny this aspect of life; Nietzsche simply wants more drunkness of art, with greater sobriety of senses.

This is why Nietzsche's Ubermensch, the closest there has ever been to his strong-man, was Goethe! The man wrote poetry, changed the thought of the world to his own aesthetics, and when he bored of one system, he developed another; Goethe was not only a poet, but a scientist and a politician, but he is still indulging with the best that life has offer and the refinement of though which civilization has provided.

Nietzsche would loathe tyranny; in fact, he hates all Nationalisms. If anything, he would be proponent of Weltliteratur and Weltkultur.

In addition, Nietzsche is misunderstood, because people think his is an atheist (while clearly believing in a metaphysics and exulting some form of Spirit), an anti-Semite (he loved 'the Jewish mind'), a Nazi (his works were doctor posthumously), and even a German! (He considered himself Polish Aristocracy, but he might have already been off his rocker at that point).

Also, mutual aid =/= slave morality. We landed on the Moon because the USA wanted to wag its dick around and plant itself there before Russia did. This is staunchly Master-morality.

Nietzsche points to the slave morality as the subversion of all that is natural conducive to a great spirit (such as health, strength, good diet, good friendships.etc). Thus, the slave makes self-flagellation, subservience, asceticism, and the solitary virtues, when all they have done was deny the glory of their contraries. Nietzsche considered himself (at some points) a Cynic and an ascetic, but, as he remarks, there's a difference of going into the desert to find yourself, and going into the desert to escape others.

Also, technically, he overshot himself with anti-Apollo embodied in the spirit of Socrates, which made him was anti-Platonic, and anti-Christian, despite styling himself as 'the Anti-Christ'

[Anonymous No.11599364]

She's right, you know.

[Anonymous No.11599401]

>>11594439
based