/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12177754]

My professor is trying to sell Nietzsche to us as this aesthete romantic and misunderstood self-help guru who battled valiantly against Christian dogma and sacrificed himself in the process. I haven't done an extensive study of Nietzsche but I can't help but feel that this is missing a lot of the details of his work and how truly bad he thought everything was before he came to realization of how good it was. It's almost like he's painting him as a hedonist. Is this a good interpretation of the moustached man?

[Anonymous No.12177770]

>>12177754
No, fuck you and your professor. Nietzsche is a disease, plain and simple.

[Anonymous No.12177796]

>>12177754
just nod your head and agree with whatever your education commissioner i mean professor says anon

[Anonymous No.12177811]

>>12177754
pretty gay takes desu

[Anonymous No.12177820]

>>12177770
7's confirm
also, i'm a big neech fan, but i stopped myself from responding in a "my dad will beat up your dad" sort of way

[Anonymous No.12177828]

>>12177754
You are right to be suspicious. Is your teacher also failing to note that much of Nietzsche's criticism of Christianity stems from the fact that it is a Judeo faith? The slave morality that is pervasive in Christianity is just an extension of Jewish morality which is the original slave morality. Nietzsche is quite plain about this, but when I was taught him in class the Professor rather conveniently skipped over all of the "antisemitic" stuff.

[Anonymous No.12177833]

>>12177820
How in the hell can you be a fan of a man like that? I am asking a genuine question, because it baffles me how so many people can fall into his trap.

[Anonymous No.12177845]

post-Kaufmann sanitizing of Nietzsche.

Best thing you can do is just read Nietzsche. His voice comes through loud and clear. He's more powerful than your professor.

[Anonymous No.12177848]

>>12177828
I doubt he would go over this

[Anonymous No.12177850]

>>12177833
i'm not a fan of his philosophy per se, but of the style in which he renders it. i find it poetic. also i used to get beat up a lot and use the mantra of "life affirmation" to work through the trauma

[Anonymous No.12177862]

>>12177850
That seems to be the universal appeal to him: everyone can get on board if they've suffered. And every fucking body suffers, so everyone can get a piece of the Nietzsche pie. He is not empowering, not life-affirming, definitely not courageous, and by all means a weak, effeminate, nutcase who could conceal vapid meanings behind pretty words.

[Anonymous No.12177870]

>>12177754
>Christian dogma
Is he American? Why is it always Americans who think some meme about their outlier Christians, limited to their country, are representative of that time and place? Urbanite European Christians of Nietzsche's time were all Libertine border-line atheists. Painting Christian dogma as oppressive, with progression winning out, is literally stock Christian dogma and culture, secularised. Also, he shits on those aforementioned Libertines and Hedonists, too.

[Anonymous No.12177891]

>>12177862
can't really argue with this, haha. i think it will be a while before i can meanginfully overcome my own angst, however, so i will continue to "seek refuge" in the Nietzschean tradition

my own intepretation of his approach is that, even were to overcome his own angst, he would plunge himself back into the realm of disquiet in order to "guide" his future readers through their own internal conflict. to dismiss him as merely a 'nutcase' is (i feel) a bit premature

[Anonymous No.12177896]

>>12177862
>He is not empowering
Blatantly false, most of his philosophy is based on the overman which is made into being by enmpowering yourself
>not life-affirming
Also blatantly false, he teaches that life and earth-love is one of the greatest things man can aspire to
>definitely not courageous
See part 1. Most of his philosophy is based off of oversoming yourself which takes courage
>and by all means a weak, effeminate, nutcase who could conceal vapid meanings behind pretty words.
Lmao maybe you should actually read Nietzsche. Start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra then move updates

[Anonymous No.12177902]

>>12177870
>Also, he shits on those aforementioned Libertines and Hedonists, too.
where does he do this?

[Anonymous No.12177904]

>>12177896
Up*

[Anonymous No.12177908]

>>12177896
He is a waste of time who should be hated with every ounce of being. He is the last thing preventing any of you shitheads from actually doing something

[Anonymous No.12177911]

>>12177908
t. Christian who unironically thinks Neetschee is a nihilist

[Anonymous No.12177917]

>>12177911
He was the one to get me out of Christianity in the first place. I've spent the better part of my last 3 years reading and rereading everything he wrote, letters, personal correspondences, lesser known works even.

[Anonymous No.12177921]

>>12177811
checked
>>12177833
I wonder who is behind this post

[Anonymous No.12177924]

>>12177908
Anyone who uses Nietzsche as an excuse for inaction has made the mistake of reading Nietzsche in a very cursory fashion.

[Anonymous No.12177925]

>>12177917
>I've spent the better part of my last 3 years reading and rereading everything he wrote, letters, personal correspondences, lesser known works even.
appeal to experience, not an argument.

[Anonymous No.12177931]

>>12177917
If your the one who wrote >>12177862 then you’ve got more re-reading to do

[Anonymous No.12177932]

>>12177925
You're absolutely right, holy shit. I didn't construct an argument, and I imagine if I did it would be filled with fallacies and more weak assertions. But, when all is said and done, the very idea of being a Nietzschean or a fan of his is self-defeating.

[Anonymous No.12177935]

>>12177924
>>12177925
you're both very silly, and quite dull. I hope you will one day learn why you self harm in this way. I guarantee one of you will reply in an incoherent, artless way to me, assuming I am like the other posters in this thread. Very sad.

[Anonymous No.12177938]

>>12177931
I've done all I can do. I don't want to spend the rest of my life tied down to his inane lunacy.

[Anonymous No.12177941]

Wait, if Christians were basically atheist in Germany at the time why did he feel the need to rail against it?

[Anonymous No.12177943]

>>12177935
You fucking nitwit. If you want to pose as me, outstanding. At least try to write like I do, makes it more believable.

[Anonymous No.12177949]

>>12177870
Christian dogma is here a synechdoche for all other exigent systems of hierarchic social value from one which one might emancipate himself (or herself)

>>12177925
Read between the lines - he's made a compelling (implicit) case for why he might not believe Nietzsche to be a nihilist. You'd only have to read the first half of Maxims and Arrows ("I have you now, nihilists!") to stop [unironically] believing Nietzsche to be a dogmatic nihilist.

[Anonymous No.12177952]

>>12177949
Thank you. I sincerely hope that for everyone's readings of Nietzsche they can finally say "To hell with him" and move the fuck on to something new.

[Anonymous No.12177973]

>>12177952
You're welcome. A devil's advocate might say that even Nietzsche would have the same hope for his readers, however.

[Anonymous No.12177985]

To me, Nietzsche means absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous No.12177986]

>>12177973
That's what I believe. I don't think it was for no good reason that he had Zarathustra say "Now I bid you lose me, and find yourselves."

[Anonymous No.12178010]

>>12177941
>rail against it?
What did he rail against? The moral doctrine and history, namely, some laughable shit about slave morality which I think holds very little weight but the sentiment is relevant. Morality as a continual product of history remains regardless, to this day. It remains even in Libertines and the most revolutionary rejections of one's culture/society.

>basically atheist in Germany
Yes, Christianity has been on the path of diluting God into some overarching force, then into an impartial physical law, and then into nonexistence. God or no God, or that and this God, the culture and morality embedded still remain.

[Anonymous No.12178056]

>>12177870
>Why is it always Americans who think some meme about their outlier Christians, limited to their country, are representative of that time and place?
>Painting Christian dogma as oppressive, with progression winning out, is literally stock Christian dogma and culture, secularised.

you answered your own question right there

[Anonymous No.12178079]

>>12177896
Based Hoellu

[Anonymous No.12178167]

>>12177754
>My professor is trying to sell Nietzsche to us as this aesthete romantic and misunderstood self-help guru who battled valiantly against Christian dogma and sacrificed himself in the process.
that's pretty spot-on except for the self-sacrifice bit

>I haven't done an extensive study of Nietzsche but I can't help but feel that this is missing a lot of the details of his work and how truly bad he thought everything was before he came to realization of how good it was
you're a stupid idiot, listen to your professor

[Anonymous No.12179096]

>>12177754
Nietzsche is Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.12179158]

>>12177828
>>12177848

>antisemitic

[Anonymous No.12179183]

why dont you just fuckin read nietzsche anyway since his shit is tight no matter what your professor thinks of him

[Anonymous No.12179904]

>>12177796
This. You're paying for credentials, just go through with all the shit until you get what you came for.

[Anonymous No.12179908]

Nietzsche was an invention of Wagner. He never existed.

[Anonymous No.12180013]

That’s a personal opinion but it’s based on good evidence and is quite true.
Nietzsche is indeed the man who articulated the modern conundrum in accurate philosophical terms that were based on high quality observation and he gave us a path to choose if we so wish, to actively face this psychological/philosophical problem with honesty.
If this is not admirable I’m not sure what is

[Anonymous No.12180188]

>>12177828
Check out this memelord

[Anonymous No.12181607]

>>12179908
elaborate.

[Anonymous No.12181684]

>>12177828
N did regard Christianity as a "mixture of Judaism and paganism," but he disliked Christianity more than Judaism. From BG&E:

>The Jewish 'Old Testament', the book of divine justice, portrays people, things, and utterances in such a grand style that nothing in Greek or Indian writing can be compared to it. With fear and admiration we stand in the presence of these tremendous remnants of what man used to be, thinking sad thoughts about old Asia and its protruding peninsula Europe—Europe which has come to signify 'man's progress' over and against Asia. To be sure, if you are nothing but a scrawny, tame house-pet, knowing only a house-pet's needs (like civilized people of today, including the Christians of 'civilized' Christianity), you will be neither amazed nor saddened among these ruins: the taste for the Old Testament is a touchstone for 'greatness' or 'smallness'. Perhaps you find the New Testament, the book of mercy, more to your liking (there is much in it of the proper, delicate, dank odour of devotees and small souls). This New Testament, in every respect a kind of Rococo of sensibility, has been pasted together with the Old Testament into one book, as a 'Bible', as 'the book per se'—this is perhaps the greatest audacity and 'sin against the spirit' that literary Europe has on its conscience.

[Anonymous No.12181772]

>>12177754
Sounds like your professor romanticizes the whole story, but this summarizes some of Nietzsche's thoughts. He's much more varied and nuanced than that.

Nietzsche wasn't an hedonist, and he's not promoting it. He'd be more interested in questioning where someone's hedonism comes from, what transpires through it, what's the motivation and the values associated with it, and why? What type of being wills this? If it comes from weakness and conformity he would look down upon it harshly. If it stems from a superior soul who's in mastery over his passions, but stills follows his will then he would be fine with his hedonism.

Also, there is this post-Kaufmann tendency to heavily sanitize Nietzsche (but Kaufmann's translations are great though). You cannot separate his thoughts from its virulent anti-egalitarianism, elitism and amorality. He was complex and his works are too. This is one of the reasons why he's great.

[Anonymous No.12181929]

>>12177754
>I haven't done an extensive study of Nietzsche
You have no right to an opinion then.

[Anonymous No.12181931]

>>12181929
that's why I asked the question, literal retard

[Anonymous No.12183233]

"Now, it is well known that any such attempt to produce a condition in which one realizes a different reality than the ordinary one, is always beset with dangers. Therefore, the process of becoming a medicine man is a dangerous enterprise. He is supposed to experience a different world system than ours; he meets with ghosts, demons, and so on. In reality, those people are often driven more or less mad; a hole is cut in the threshold of consciousness through which the unconscious flows. They are always more exposed to other states of consciousness than ours, whatever they are. We would say the man was mad, that it was a case of schizophrenia, or autosuggestion; we have a hundred words by which to rationalize his condition, but the fact remains that the fellow, if he is a true medicine man, is exposed to experiences of an overwhelming nature which are just as real as any experience in the world system we know. So, since there are such dangers, it naturally often happens that people are injured when they are on the way to such an experience. They may become crazy or physically ill, or die by a so-called accident; all sorts of peculiar things may happen to them on the road to that adventure. […]
So we can make the hypothesis that Nietzsche’s illness, understood under that particular aspect, was an adventure which miscarried, an adventure in which he was injured. And we might assume that his soul was nevertheless able to cross the dark waters and to arrive in the other country, yet was no longer in a position to send back messages. I have told you about that single instance when something happened to come through. He once said suddenly to his sister, “Are we not perfectly happy now?” Then the next moment the clouds descended again."

He died for us just like christ

[Anonymous No.12183318]

>>12177754
I think your professor mixed up his existentialists, as it was the misunderstood one who valiantly battled against the Church and sacrificed himself in the process

[Anonymous No.12183325]

>>12183318
*as this was

[Anonymous No.12183327]

>>12181931
I agree that person is a retard. I’d seriously kick his ass if he were here.

[Anonymous No.12183331]

>>12177917
>Faith dismantled by Logic
How underman of you.

[Anonymous No.12183334]

>>12178010
No.

[Anonymous No.12183341]

>>12183331
Not logic, but wisdom. Deeper understanding. Nietzsche basically said that's what caused atheism in the West.

[Anonymous No.12183342]

>>12183318
>battled against the Church

Wrong, he battled against """Christians""" and their plump and luscious living style.

He is more pro-church (almost Catholic in a High sense) and reaffirms that suffering for Christ is what it means to be Christian.

[Anonymous No.12183343]

>>12183331
Oh fuck you got me, I really am the underman it seems

[Anonymous No.12183377]

>>12183341
My point is proven, regardless. You decided to take a Man and his word to dismantle God. You bent the knee, you bowed your intelligence and life in favor of another Mans, an equal man.

I'm sorry for the meme but that's literally underman tier, a bugman habit at that.

Man can never be Wise, a true Wise life would be a good life, one N did not get to have. He was full of misery- product of his masturbatory act of self deification, proven to the core by his Nihilistic life path.

To tell you the truth, I admire the man, indeed he had a deep understanding of what it is to be Human, Will, Soul, Power, but that's the natural response, the Human response. If you have God in your life while making the same arguements your outcome would be very different.

I have a question, rhetorical but none the less one.

Whats the difference between an Overman and Jesus? God, other than that naught, not one.
Look at the Saints, they show the same journey of soul- to rise over the spheres of Man, and to be one with God.

[Anonymous No.12183385]

>>12177896
>Übermensch is attainable
Zarathustrafags actually believe this?
Lmao maybe you should actually read anyone other than Nietzsche for once.

[Anonymous No.12183412]

>>12183385
Overman isn't unique to Neitzches, it is an idea found through religion and it's civilization.
N's idea isn't correct, but yes it's possible to be an übermensch.

[Anonymous No.12183427]

>>12183342
By Church I meant the Danish Church.

[Anonymous No.12183444]

>>12183377
I can't tell if this post is serious or not.

[Anonymous No.12183460]

>>12183444
100% serious

[Anonymous No.12183489]

>>12183427
Okay, but N is against the Church as a whole, a stance completely different than Kierkegaards

[Anonymous No.12183494]

>>12183412
>Overman isn't unique to Neitzches
I never implied it was--in fact, you were the one to recommend TSZ as the starting point to understanding the übermensch. Perhaps you should read any of the dozens of noteworthy authors who have also written on the übermensch (Safranski, Stirner, London).
>but yes it's possible to be an übermensch.
According to whose definition? This thread has 60 replies and you haven't defended this once or even elaborated thoroughly.

[Anonymous No.12183501]

>>12183444
>t. so far lost in the ironic shitposting that he cannot detect sincerity

[Anonymous No.12183508]

>>12177754
>>12181931

it's possible also you may have misunderstood your professor's main points about n man

>hedonist
nietz explicitly thinks that following passions and desires as they arise is base
this poster gets a lot of things right,>>12181772 though the final point about hedonism isn't right. Hedonism strongly implies pleasure above all else, often to the point of blindly chasing it as a passion, whereas a superior soul with mastery over the passions would not reduce their will to pleasure above all else. They could participate in earthly indulgences lets say, but it stops being "hedonism" and becomes a different interaction with pleasure-interaction

>battled valiantly against christian dogma
Nietz repeatedly claims that christianity is an immiserating value system. his problem was never the dogma - but the kind of value-behavioural systems that fell out of the dogma

>how truly bad he thought everything was before he realized how good it was
repeatedly he mentions how one should love one's enemies and hate one's friends.

[Anonymous No.12183529]

>>12183494
I wasn't the poster you first responded to.
I was chimming in, but the general idea of a Man achieving his own perfection is 100% possible, but it's a Christian path of suffering, not a Nihilist path of suffering.

[Anonymous No.12183543]

>>12183460
I doubt it, but fine.

First off, I'm not >>12177917. I'm another guy, and I didn't start out Christian like him, but N definitely engrossed me for many years when I first discovered him and shaped how I interpret things today.

You don't seem to understand what the role of the philosopher is, much less the role that N understands the philosopher to play. It's not to convince the reader whether something is true or not. The philosopher shows the reader a new perspective, that it's possible to think about something in a way that the reader may not have imagined on their own, or in a way that the reader did imagine but thought impossible or unmanageable. Ergo, it's not a matter of deciding "to take a man and his word to dismantle God." If someone loses their faith after reading a philosopher like N, it's because he showed the reader a new perspective on the matter and the reader realized that that perspective was superior to their own. The reader has to be intelligent enough to realize that, and only the strongest wills are honest enough to acknowledge when someone else's perspective is superior to their own and is able to tune up their own in response. This is not a process of merely parroting someone, this is a process of genuine philosophical education.

The rest of your post is sheer nonsense. Man can never be wise? It was man who created the concept of wisdom, who conceived of the wise soul. Your comparison between the Overman and Jesus is equally as anti-intellectual.

N makes a distinction between types of spirits that you ought to recognize to better understand his position:

>Catholicism is much more internalized in the Latin races, it seems, than is any form of Christianity among us northerners; as a result, lack of faith means something quite different in Catholic countries as opposed to Protestant countries. In Catholic countries it means a kind of rebellion against the spirit of the race, whereas for us lack of faith seems rather to mean a return to the spirit (or lack of spirit) of our race. There can be no doubt that we northerners originate from barbarian races, even in respect to our gift for religion. We do not have much of a gift for it. The Celts are an exception, and for that reason provided the Christian infection with its most receptive northern soil.

In other words, stop thinking everyone is genetically inclined for the same sensibilities as you are.

[Anonymous No.12183558]

>>12177754
the main thrust of nietzsche is that there is no essence of nietzsche, no privileged interpretation. to read nietzsche with a with an eye to other texts, to other experiences, to weave him into the tapestry of one's life is the point. to be creative. to insist that your professor read in him a the 'correct' or authorized way is gay as fuck, and only for the last, keenly pedantic men.

[Anonymous No.12183572]

>>12183460
>>12183377
i'm a different anon but
>bent the knee in favour of an equal man

All Christians today do exactly this. God is completely unknown to us. He is so unknown that we can't know what it is about him that we don't know. We can't get messages from him, we don't even know where to look. We only know there is an "unknown", and we hope God is in there, somewhere. In our contemporary times, we instead take secondhand knowledge from other men and claim to know anything other than a "human" response. All you or I have had is other humans telling us that what is or isn't a human response. Our whole interaction with Christianity has been strictly a human one.

[Anonymous No.12183576]

>>12177754
he gay RT

[Anonymous No.12183600]

>>12183543
I know what a philosopher is, I don't think you know what Faith is. Nor did N.


I don't really have much to say to you other than I agree to disagree. Hope your life isn't as tragic as Neitzches.

[Anonymous No.12183615]

>>12183572
>All Christians today do exactly this.
No
>God is completely unknown to us.
No
>He is so unknown that we can't know what it is about him that we don't know. We can't get messages from him, we don't even know where to look.
the Bible
>We only know there is an "unknown",
Wrong, this only applies to some.
> we instead take secondhand knowledge from other men and claim to know anything other than a "human" response. All you or I have had is other humans telling us that what is or isn't a human response. Our whole interaction with Christianity has been strictly a human one.
Wrong again. You know nothing of the Bible, nor Christian Faith.

[Anonymous No.12183675]

>>12183558
>there is no essence of nietzsche
The essence is will to power, as much of a non-essence as that is. But it's still an essence for all intents and purposes.

[Anonymous No.12183681]

>>12183489
anon I think you're missing the fact that my post was a joke

[Anonymous No.12183685]

>>12183615
The bible? Written by men. Even if they were genuinely divinely inspired/communicated with God, you're holding that belief on THEIR word, not on the word of God.

Alternatively, if there is a way to communicate with God, who would ensure me that the bible is the work that these men claim it is, please instruct me so that I can do the same

[Anonymous No.12183698]

>>12177754
Regardless of what anyone says, the irrationalism and subjectivism of his thought and his aestheticization of morality can be pretty directly followed up to the intellectual foundations behind fascism. Check out Georges Sorel, for example.

[Anonymous No.12183717]

>>12183698
don't confuse "impact on the development of" and " his ideas support in any way" [fascism]

[Anonymous No.12183732]

>>12183685
>1
No, I'm holding in Faith that scripture divine by the will of God.
>2
It's called prayer.

[Anonymous No.12183733]

>>12183717
Not that guy, but while N doesn't directly support anyone's particular brand of fascism (being that he lived prior to fascism), I would say that fascism is more or less the most accurate political implementation of N's thought, hence why all the big fascists of the 20th century read him.

[Anonymous No.12183750]

>>12177754
He was trying to overcome the problem with the death of God and its implications. He doesn't hate Christianity per se, he merely critiques what he sees as slave morality.

[Anonymous No.12183762]

>>12177796
>>12179904
This is the complete opposite of what you are meant to do

[Anonymous No.12183784]

>>12183675
i was being cute, but i think the point stands. if you are right about nietzsche, and nietzsche is right about the world being irreducibly will or the will to power or whatever, the professor's radical reinterpretation of nietzsche, even if this is 'wrong' in an insipid or prosaic way, is definitely correct in a deeper way. the creative, hermeneutical project of making nietzsche live, and jibe with other texts, and other experiences, is the point. to live an active/creative life.

to demarcate nietzsche, to translate and redescribe him, his aphorisms in the dull language of analytic philosophy is so fucking banal. looking for some authority to do nietzsche for you, to read nietzsche for you is so boring.

>ultimately man finds in things nothing but what he himself has imported into them: the finding is called science... Is meaning not necessarily relative meaning and perspective? All meaning is will to power ( all relative meaning resolves itself into it)

[Anonymous No.12183809]

>>12183762
if you can't realize the first post was satire you should leave this board and never return

[Anonymous No.12183837]

>>12183809
Please explain? I've basically been failed classes for arguing with the prof when he clearly didnt understand anything at all.

[Anonymous No.12183839]

>>12183732
holding Faith in the scripture is the same as holding faith in the word of men that the scripture is divine. it may very well BE divine, but the faith is placed in the men who claim it is so. if God ever claimed it was his word, both of us only ever hear this fact from Men, not from Him. I am looking for divinity, and yet everywhere I find only the claims of men

As for prayer, it's true, there is nothing God can't see, and that includes prayer. but i want something divine to show me the divine, not other men, not myself. If I alone believe that that my prayers are answered, i am still relying on some man -namely me.

[Anonymous No.12183867]

>>12183733

Nietzsche
>anti-herd mentality
>anti-nationalism
>hated anti-semites in his own time, didn't hate particular groups
>anti-egalitarian

Fascism
>pro herd-mentality
>pro nationalism
>anti-semitic/anti-outgroup
>anti-egalitarian

fascists had a brutally incorrect misreading of nietzsche, hence why i'll restate my claim of don't confuse "impact on the development of fascism" with "his ideas lay grounds for the support of fascism". The closest similarity deals with the stances towards egalitarianism, but 1. nietzsche wasn't the first anti-egalitarian by any means, and 2. the way in which n man went about resisting egalitarianism does no justice for fascism. finally, n man is not easy to pin down politically since he hasn't written very much political work.

[Anonymous No.12183879]

>>12183867
Neech
>faggot

Fascists
>faggots

its 1:1 my guy

[Anonymous No.12183894]

>>12183879
guess that explains foucault

[Anonymous No.12183940]

>>12183867
Fascism isn't necessarily pro-herd, just insofar as it can use the herd towards realizing its own goals, which is a stance that fits with N just fine. It's also not necessarily anti-outgroup, just insofar as it needs to be in order to establish its own authority and presence, which again, fits with N just fine. There are different brands of fascism, but these qualities aren't inherent in all of them.

I don't recall N ever being anti-racialism. He spoke a good deal about /his/ race, the hyperborean race, the future race. He lamented the death of various races throughout history. There is nothing in particular that prevents fascism's pro-nationalism from being ultimately oriented towards the development of a higher race, and really just a pro-racialism; Hitler's brand of fascism was essentially this, in fact.

[Anonymous No.12184065]

One thing I never got about the old "resisting dogma" meme is, what is wrong with dogma if it's the truth?

[Anonymous No.12184083]

>>12177754
Even five minutes on Wikipedia is enough to enlighten you.

[Anonymous No.12184097]

>>12177754
Why was neecher a nihilist? Pretty aesthetically put together looking dude, could probably pick up and hook up with several wenches a day looking that sharp. Hard to negate existence when your thrusting wenches into the headboard while also getting your dose of exercise.

[Anonymous No.12184257]

>>12183762
Humanities professors are egotistical freaks and will not hesitate to punish people for arguing against the angle from which they lecture.
It’s not all of them, but it’s common enough (in the US at least where profs can do whatever retarded shit they want in their own classes) that you’ve got to be careful until you know how cool they are with it.

[Anonymous No.12184318]

>>12183940
>>12184065
>>12184097
>Neech brings out the tards once more

[Anonymous No.12184326]

>>12177754
>/lit/ is at the absolute cutting edge of anti-social behavior and disassociation

[Anonymous No.12184927]

>>12183940
fascistic orientation towards a higher race is worlds apart from N's ideas of the overman. As per N, there has never been an overman, there isn't anything even close. To be an overman is literally to become something greater than human. Humans are walking the tightrope between animal and overman.

On the contrary: Hitler and Mussolini directly claimed their folk, their people, were overmen. They claimed that their superior race, Aryan or Mediterranean ought to restore former glories, that those glories were superior and that this superiority should be carried into the future. For the Mediterranean race, it was the glories of Greece and Rome. For Hitler, it was just an inherent genetic thing, like a weird darwinism.

Importantly, Hitler/Mussolini thought that their ancestors were overmen, that Italy/Germany as nations needed to collectively return to their ancient morality and carry it into the future.

Also, N's reference to the hyperboreans deals exclusively with the kinds of people who lived in ancient europe - prechristian barbarians, and he explicates the kind of morality they undertook - which was radically different from the morality of modern man. He never advocated for the superiority of this morality, he just used it as a backdrop to criticize modern morality.

I think the most important element of Fascism is in its collectivization, whether through national or racial grounds. Nietz very strongly opposed any form of collectivism. He explicitly thought that a collective weakened the people who participated within it, the kind of weakening that would hinder the overman from arising out of man.

[Anonymous No.12185035]

N has been sanitized so much that he's practically not recognizable anymore. To be taught in modern colleges, they have to do away with his reactionary ethics, his anti-democratic views and his praise of aristocracies. What you're left with is some criticism of Christianity and perspectivist epistemology.

[Anonymous No.12185339]

>>12183733
>hence why all the big fascists of the 20th century read him.

Everyone read him, but the Nazis never claimed to be putting Nietzsche's thought into action. Read their own propaganda and they'll tell you Nietzsche is a flawed thinker and they'll put Schopenhauer and Luther above him.

[Anonymous No.12185387]

>>12184927
>fascistic orientation towards a higher race is worlds apart from N's ideas of the overman.
>On the contrary: Hitler and Mussolini directly claimed their folk, their people, were overmen. [...] For Hitler, it was just an inherent genetic thing, like a weird darwinism.
N deeply admired Napoleon and his imperialistic militarism and aristocratic sensibilities. Napoleon was not a fascist, of course, but he was still an authoritarian figure who used military power to establish a new aristocracy and attempt to unify Europe — which, at the end of the day, is not all that different from what Hitler was doing. N himself talks about a future unification of Europe, the need for great class inequality and counter-movements, and the cultivation of a stronger race out of a leveling-down of the masses. And then there are many lines like these in WTP:

>I am writing for a race of men which does not yet exist: for "the lords of the earth." In Plato's Theages the following passage will be found: "Every one of us would like if possible to be master of mankind; if possible, a God!" This attitude of mind must be reinstated in our midst.

>From now henceforward there will be such favourable first conditions for greater ruling powers as have never yet been found on earth. And this is by no means the most important point. The establishment has been made possible of international race unions which will set themselves the task of rearing a ruling race, the future "lords of the earth"—a new, vast aristocracy based upon the most severe self-discipline, in which the will of philosophical men of power and artist-tyrants will be stamped upon thousands of years: a higher species of men which, thanks to their preponderance of will, knowledge, riches, and influence, will avail themselves of democratic Europe as the most suitable and supple instrument they can have for taking the fate of the earth into their own hands, and working as artists upon man himself. Enough! The time is coming for us to transform all our views on politics.

So, N may not have supported Hitler's brand of fascism, being that it was German, but I see no reason to think that he would not have supported fascism altogether, or that he would have even dismissed Hitler on account of the fascism. Rather, he would have dismissed him because of his being German. Overall, N was not very political, so the political implementation makes little difference to him, as long as the higher species (the "northerners" who stand opposed to all Semitic thought) becomes in power for it.

>As per N, there has never been an overman, there isn't anything even close. To be an overman is literally to become something greater than human.
N never states that the Overman isn't physically possible, however. This is something I see claimed on here occasionally and without any passages from him supporting it. On the contrary, N's Overman is very much Darwinist in theory; culture and philosophy are genetic for N.

[Anonymous No.12185422]

>>12185387
Also, I want to briefly expand on this, since the previous post hit character count:

>the higher species (the "northerners" who stand opposed to all Semitic thought)

N's higher species was not the Germans, obviously. Or the Italians. It wasn't anybody alive during his time and it's not anybody alive now. This doesn't mean his higher species doesn't and can't exist. N puts apes, humans, and the Overman all together on his rope because the rope is genetics, biology; his higher species and the Overman are physical, biological entities. N often writes "does not yet exist" when referring to these things suggesting that these things can be created under the right conditions in nature, not that they are forever unattainable, naturally unattainable. To claim that they are unattainable is really to miss the point of N's entire philosophical endeavor and to ignore what his conception of nature entailed. He put metaphysics to rest; nature doesn't emerge purely out of the metaphysical for N. Will to power is becoming stamped with the character of being, to paraphrase N, meaning it is essentially something in between the essence of being and becoming, a third essence from the unity and suppression of both essences. Both language / "metaphysics" and the physical are required in order to produce the higher species.

[Anonymous No.12187031]

>>12177833
>Fall into his trap
Lmao the guy valued progress and improvement above all else and had a lot of good ideas. You sure have made a great argument against him in your 2 comments faggot.

[Anonymous No.12187057]

>>12177754
Until you provide a more nuanced explanation of "he thought it was bad until he realized it was good," I'm siding with your prof and am assuming you're misintepreting his interpretation as "hedonist." Nietzsche WAS an aesthete and he did have a bone to pick with Christianity.

[Anonymous No.12187155]

>>12177754
He's not totally wrong. I mean obviously he's not a self help guru but he did battle against Christian morality and other types of herd-like idiocy.
>>12177833
>fall into his trap
>literally tells you to improve yourself, fight against the odds, be the master of your own fate and live dangerously
yeah what a scammer lol

[Anonymous No.12187859]

>>12177754
say no to Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.12187886]

People, antikrist is a dead meme - read something else of his.

[Anonymous No.12188847]

>>12177833

[Anonymous No.12188849]

>>12177754
He's not atheist, neither hedonistic. Everyone who understands Zarathustra know this

[Anonymous No.12188871]

Read Zarathustra

Why would you obscure your meaning through such vagueness?

I couldn't get through it

[Anonymous No.12188874]

>>12188871
I mean, are you a fucking poet or a philosopher, motherfucker

[Anonymous No.12188954]

>>12188849
He's atheist as far as Christians are concerned.

[Anonymous No.12189410]

>>12178167
Literally the only anon in this thread who knows his shit

>read two books by mustache man
>"hhhghh ur professor doesnt get him but i do"

[Anonymous No.12189425]

>>12183839
What gave you the idea that there's any value in that argument? To believe in god means to believe he had the bible written according to his will. Your point is irrelevant. If you come up with literally any claim and I then proceed to make the same claim, do you merely believe what I said? When I come up with some claim and you reaffirm yourself of its validity, do you merely believe what I said? Christians have as much of a sense of affirmation in their belief as you do when you read a correct proof in maths. And guess what: both are founded on shit you can't explain

Genuinely tilted by the brainletism in your post, are you underage?

>i am still relying on some man -namely me.
Steered by god. Just read Nicolas of Cusa's idiota de sapientia.

[Anonymous No.12189432]

>>12183615
>You know nothing of the Bible, nor Christian Faith.
Do you take the bible for gospel and the truth or use it as a book of morals? Genuine question, not trying to insult.
Personally, I use it as a book of morals. I think it has some really absurd shit inside but also really great messages

[Anonymous No.12189437]

Nietzsche himself isn't a romantic (was influenced by them and was in his youth) but he specifically thinks romanticism leads to Nihilism (which is one of the reason he has the break with Wagner for example).