[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 297 KB, 325x533, 853.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13479825 No.13479825 [Reply] [Original]

>All these basic bitch Nietzsche fanboys who latch onto him because he gives them a nice, comforting "Define your own meaning" ideology that meshes with their consumerist whore cultural heritage so they don't actually have to change anything, just keep chasing that illusory "success and happiness" society constantly shills
Nietzsche died because all he ate was fruit and milk, he failed miserably at his own ideology and is only as well liked and remembered because he wraps an edgy and counterculture seeming belief in a way that hides the fact it's completely impractical, unrealistic and ultimately nothing but a feel good, pat on the back bluepill for idiots who remain slaves to society while thinking they're getting one over on it.

>> No.13479827

I agree with you but your thread is shit and shallow, and you've clearly never read Nietzsche. The next time you get a short-term ADHD impulse to post for the sake of posting, channel it into reading the author you're pretending to comment on instead.

>> No.13479837

>>13479827
Why would I waste my time reading the works of a man who was all talk? Ideas aren't worth the paper they're written on if they're not useable in real life.

>> No.13479891

>>13479837
There are some good tidbits but yeah just an overview is fine

>> No.13479909

>>13479837
>Thinking you can level a criticism of a writer without actually reading his work
Please leave

>> No.13479925

>>13479909
I know you think he holds untold depth I can only get from reading every word he ever wrote, but he doesn't. No one does. Your life's work can be sumarrised in a wikipedia article. You don't have super in depth insights no ones ever heard, get over yourself.

>> No.13479928

>>13479825
Bad bait
Sage

>> No.13479985

>>13479928
>Opinions that make me mad are bait
Could you get any more childish?

>> No.13480013

>op openly admits to never having read nietzsche
why isn't this a banable offense?

>> No.13480036

>>13480013
Because even though it makes you lose your tiny mind, you don't need to read 300 pages of something that can be summed up in 300 words

>> No.13480075

>>13480036
Care to sum up Nietzsche's philosophy in three hundred words then? Because your OP, if you are the OP, is YouTube comment-tier.

>> No.13480383

>>13479825
What should their ideology be?

>> No.13480396

>>13480383
Nothing. Ideologies are dumb and do nothing but sow discontent.

>> No.13480408
File: 1.18 MB, 209x180, 1421941890336.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13480408

>>13479825
t. never read Nietzche in his wasted and sexless life

>> No.13480417

>>13480075
Most people don't believe in God in any meaningful way, if at all, anymore so we're adrift. He comes to the conclusion that each person should seek out their own meaning, find something that gives them purpose. And then he wrote some YA fiction about a theoretical superman who followed this philosophy so perfectly he ascended past humanity and ushered in a new stage of evolution.

And he said a bunch of other shit I'm sure about ethics and such but nothing mindbending.

>> No.13480419

>>13480408
>Thinking sex has any value
CUMBRAINS OUT

>> No.13480558

>>13480417
This is the most shallow, reductive, pop-philosophy tier interpretation I’ve ever read. Nothing about his epistemology? Nothing about his psychological insights? Nothing about his literary criticism? Nothing about how he plays off of, has insights on, disparages, and even sometimes compliments many other philosophers and writers, some of whom were Christian, mystics, or somehow religious? No, only the most banal shallow interpretation of his works, taking only the most obvious and surface level of it (when Nietzsche is precisely a philosopher you should never only read on one level). Get the fuck out of here.

>> No.13480575

>>13480558
>This is the most shallow, reductive, pop-philosophy tier interpretation I’ve ever read.
And the only information you need. The rest is self indulgent rambling.
>epistemology
Who cares, it's not relevant to practical life.
>Nothing about his psychological insights?
Interesting but ultimately worthless.
> Nothing about his literary criticism? Nothing about how he plays off of, has insights on, disparages, and even sometimes compliments many other philosophers and writers
This is the literary equivalent of e-celeb threads.
>when Nietzsche is precisely a philosopher you should never only read on one level
Seeing deeper meaning where there is none is the sign of a pseud.

Take the relevant, useful information, discard the rest. Stop buying into the celebrity of a man you never knew.

>> No.13480576

>>13479825
Yeah, people are sheep! I have never heard that one before OP. You are right! Nice insight.

>> No.13480580

>>13480417
*watches video essays once*

>> No.13480604

>>13479827
This. Pseud rants aren't thread starter material.

>> No.13480611

>>13479909
You can, you just can't make coherent refutations. consuming the media doesn't qualify anyone to critique in itself, especially in cases like this where a large chunk of the comprehension will come from footnotes and commentary.

>> No.13480614

>>13479925

Wow, with that attitude youll always be stupid.

>>13479837

>> No.13480621

>it's completely impractical, unrealistic and ultimately nothing but a feel good, pat on the back
None of these things are inherently bad.

>> No.13480624

You're not funny

>> No.13480633

>>13480621
>None of these things are inherently bad.
They are bad, they're worthless in practical life and therefore bad.

>> No.13480654

>>13479825
Problem is, with this logic you can say that everything is about feeling good.
Naturally, if you adapt to a certain way of thinking, you want that type of thinking to make you comfortable, at least in some way. Everyone needs a certain comfort and you can't have a life in which you constantly challenge yourself to the point of questioning your sanity every minute.
The idea of Ubermensch is a bit too much at times.

>> No.13480658

>>13480633
If practicality was all that mattered we'd be living in an Ayn Randian utopia where everyone is a perfect little automata.

>> No.13480786

>>13480417
>He comes to the conclusion that each person should seek out their own meaning, find something that gives them purpose.
laughably wrong. go back

>> No.13480789

>>13480786
>laughably wrong
No it's not you dumb pseud

>> No.13480791

>>13480789
Show me where. And I won't accept YouTube videos

>> No.13480798

>>13480791
Piss off retard, show me where it says it isn't

>> No.13480803

>>13479827

>> No.13480818
File: 165 KB, 528x697, 1561365652688.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13480818

>>13480417
You should be flayed for your arrogance and your stupidity. Stop posting.

>> No.13480819

>>13480575
>Take the relevant, useful information, discard the rest
The only way to do that is to actually engage with the material, you brainlet. Video essays and summations do not come without the construct of an elaborate narrative that frames his thought into an easy package that rarely captures its nuances. This is retarded consumerist logic at its finest.

>> No.13480827

>>13480819
>nuances
Nuances are unimportant

>> No.13480843

>>13480798
>Piss off retard, show me where it says it isn't
anon, you haven't read nietzsche, yet you claim to know what he thinks. are you unable even to provide the secondary material you gathered your (woefully inaccurate) summary from? and remember, YouTube videos will not be accepted

>> No.13480928

>>13479837
Please kill yourself you waste of carbon

>> No.13480990

>>13479825
This is true of the postmodernists more generally desu.

>> No.13480998

>>13480990
you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and it shows. please GTFO of this board, you and everyone like you, before you run it into the ground even more than you already have

>> No.13481003

>>13480575

>Seeing deeper meaning where there is none is the sign of a pseud.

I think with Nietzsche its fairly obvious there's a deeper meaning. What about BGE 289:

>In the writings of a recluse one always hears something of the echo of the wilderness, something of the murmuring tones and timid vigilance of solitude; in his strongest words, even in his cry itself, there sounds a new and more dangerous kind of silence, of concealment. He who has sat day and night, from year's end to year's end, alone with his soul in familiar discord and discourse, he who has become a cave-bear, or a treasure- seeker, or a treasure-guardian and dragon in his cave--it may be a labyrinth, but can also be a gold-mine--his ideas themselves eventually acquire a twilight-colour of their own, and an odour, as much of the depth as of the mould, something uncommunicative and repulsive, which blows chilly upon every passerby. The recluse does not believe that a philosopher--supposing that a philosopher has always in the first place been a recluse--ever expressed his actual and ultimate opinions in books: are not books written precisely to hide what is in us?--indeed, he will doubt whether a philosopher CAN have "ultimate and actual" opinions at all; whether behind every cave in him there is not, and must necessarily be, a still deeper cave: an ampler, stranger, richer world beyond the surface, an abyss behind every bottom, beneath every "foundation." Every philosophy is a foreground philosophy--this is a recluse's verdict: "There is something arbitrary in the fact that the PHILOSOPHER came to a stand here, took a retrospect, and looked around; that he HERE laid his spade aside and did not dig any deeper--there is also something suspicious in it." Every philosophy also CONCEALS a philosophy; every opinion is also a LURKING-PLACE, every word is also a MASK.

>> No.13481013

>>13480827
In your retarded consumercuck approach to philosophy, sure. But your delusions are only your own, no one is going to invest in your apathy because it only leads to intellectual stagnation. enjoy your mediocrity anon

>> No.13481023

>>13480998
Um I know what I'm talking about. I've read Nietzsche and been taught by a Nietzsche scholar. He was a precursor to postmodernism, and the stuff OP says is pretty applicable to them as well.

>> No.13481057

>>13481023
do you think you're going to win this exchange simply by claiming that you know what you're talking about? this is the problem with both you and OP. The OP is utterly contentless, it's based on lazy secondhand misapprehensions of Nietzsche and a vague distaste for the sort of person OP imagines reads him. Did the "Nietzsche scholar" who taught you explain how "edgy and counterculture seeming" but ultimately "bluepilled" Nietzsche is? And can you trace for me how this manifests in Derrida and Foucault? You're an absolute cretin

>> No.13481061

>>13481023
>My appeals to authority means my opinion matters

>> No.13481089

>>13480417

stupid kid

>> No.13481091
File: 52 KB, 722x640, 132074721894712944214.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13481091

>>13479825
Nietzsche died in the Korean war, you fucking retard

>> No.13481097

>>13479825
you'll enjoy this video, op https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBRqu0YOH14

>> No.13481121

>>13479825
>Define your own meaning" ideology
you never read nietzsche. He explicitly says: "the meaning of life is the will to power".
>ideology that meshes with their consumerist whore cultural heritage
never seen any of Nietzsche's writings on democracy, have you? He agreed with a description of his philosophy being "radical aristocratism", which is pretty much the complete opposite of what you think he supports.
>so they don't actually have to change anything, just keep chasing that illusory "success and happiness" society constantly shills
and you revealed yourself, as Nietzsche holds suffering over happiness
T. unhappy and unsuccessful
>he failed miserably at his own ideology
you can't even parse his ideology. He didn't fail at his ideology, he spent the latter of his life analyzing history and finding trends and patterns that answered unanswered questions that gave him immense fucking power that influenced billions (either directly or indirectly). Every relevant post-modern philosopher (bataille, foucault, deleuze, baudrillard, guattari, derrida) wrote a book on him, and all their ideologies resulted from his. Hitler used many parts of his ideology to gain power, as well as other fascist movements. This isn't even mentioning his effects on art and political thinkers like george orwell. Nietzsche's effects on anarchist movements have been astounding, larger than Stirner's. What about his effects on psychoanalysis, where the ideas of freud and jung came directly from nietzsches corpus? What about the frankfurt school? What about the fucking figureead of the analytic movement (wittgenstein)? All of /lit/'s precious novelists (Joyce, Kafka, Hesse)? All relevant modern psychology and philosophy is just bastardized nietzsche.

But your idea of power is shooting a gun and killing some people.

>> No.13481133

>>13480417
>>13481121 (me)
ignore what I've said, you already exposed yourself.

>> No.13481141

everyone always saying "you never read nietzsche" is the ultimate non nietzsche reader, as nietzsche himself said he is polysemous in his writings.

>> No.13481150

>>13480013
Not reading NEETCHE is one of the most intelligent things you can do.

>> No.13481159

>>13481141
just because nietzsche can sustain different interpretations doesn't mean he can sustain every interpretation, anon. and OP already admitted he hasn't read nietzsche

>> No.13481252

Nietzsche is actually garbage, though. He was a failed artist with a massive ego that made him attack every thinker more intelligent than him with fallacious and embarrassing arguments. No actual philosopher takes him seriously.

>> No.13481253

>>13479837
This is what Americans actually believe. Y I K E S

>> No.13481265

>>13480417
Never go full retard.

>> No.13481274

>>13479825
This can be said for any philosophy

>> No.13481303

>>13481252
what do you think of the gay science? particularly "how the true world became a fable?" in what sense is it fallacious and embarrassing? and moreover, who do you think qualifies as an "actual" philosopher? heidegger, for example? because I think you'll find he took nietzsche quite seriously

>> No.13481319

>>13481303
>>13481252
my mistake, that particular chapter is actually from twilight of the idols. i'm sure you would have corrected me given the time, seeing as how you've definitely read nietzsche. right, anon?

>> No.13481359

>>13481303
>who do you think qualifies as an "actual" philosopher?
Certainly not any German.

And if you had read his other works you would have seen that almost his entire philosophy is based around being contrarian and any genuinely interesting views he has (primarily of art) are appropriated from others or simply seem impressive because they're greatly polished by his prose

>> No.13481366

>>13481359
For instance, most of his aesthetic views are taken directly from Schopenhauer.

>> No.13481434

>>13479925
t. never read die fröhliche Wissenschaft

>> No.13481458
File: 678 KB, 3192x2124, plebbit1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13481458

>>13480417
>nothing about Apollonian and Dionysian

>> No.13481470

>>13481057
>do you think you're going to win this exchange
No, because I'm not interested in "winning".
>simply by claiming that you know what you're talking about?
Your post contained about as much argument. You need to actually assert something for me to respond to it.
>Did the "Nietzsche scholar" who taught you explain how "edgy and counterculture seeming" but ultimately "bluepilled" Nietzsche is?
No, that's my own conclusion.
>And can you trace for me how this manifests in Derrida and Foucault?
An aversion to objectivity and grand narratives is inherently at odds with radical social change, despite postmodernists' pretenses otherwise. Critiques become empty expressions of emotive dispositions rather than something with any revolutionary force. Capitalism wants everything to be subjective; the force of the market becomes the only one with any authority. You mention Foucault, who became a neoliberal in his later years. I don't think that's a coincidence.
I'd argue this stuff is even worse in Nietzsche himself than in most postmodernists because of his radical individualism. It's yet another attitude that plays right into capitalism's hands; neoliberal atomization and liberalism's ethical individualism are highly compatible with it.
Postmodernism arose as a response to grand narratives, and the result of such a philosophy is to embrace whatever the status quo is (in our case capitalism). It, quite intentionally, has no normative force. It's inherently at odds with societal change. How are we going to mobilize a class war with a worldview that places such focus on the individual, on the "me", explicitly at the expense of wider movements and ideologies that go beyond the individual? Little did Nietzsche know that his complete rejection of everything beyond himself - including movements critical of the status quo like socialism - would cause his philosophy to be one of herd mentality. Leftists are not herd animals like he thought; instead, they are the ones brave enough to critique society, unlike Nietzsche's own shallow contrarianism with nothing to offer beyond superficial cope.
>You're an absolute cretin
I suggest you do some reading before publicly embarrassing yourself like this again. Try some of Fredric Jameson's stuff.

>> No.13481471

>>13481252
>failed artist
what the fuck are you talking about?

>> No.13481481
File: 127 KB, 782x758, 1563361578406.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13481481

>>13479825
>i hate people deciding for themselves. i should be the one deciding for them and i'll use the bible to make my decision
nietzsche wasn't the first person who understood random cretin like yourself don't decide "objective" reality for them. they decided their own meaning and became consumerist whores. now you're a retard grasping for straws frustrated they don't let you decide how they should live.

seems like they made the correct choice.

>> No.13481488

>>13480417
based

>> No.13481517

>>13481359
it seems that you've ignored my (completely reasonable, assuming you've read Nietzsche) question about "how the true world became a fable." can you offer any arguments whatsoever? because right now all you're doing is repeating yourself.
>certainly not any German
you understand how foolish this makes you sound, right? you're saying there has never been a German philosopher?
>For instance, most of his aesthetic views are taken directly from Schopenhauer
Can you describe even one of Nietzsche's aesthetic "views?" and if you can manage that, show that "view" was "taken directly" from Schopenhauer?

>> No.13481558

>>13481517
>Can you describe even one of Nietzsche's aesthetic "views?" and if you can manage that, show that "view" was "taken directly" from Schopenhauer?
His view of classical music proper as a temporary death of self and a medium of becoming one with the All, as explained in The Birth of Tragedy, is taken directly from Schopenhauer, who greatly influenced him. He extrapolated this to include proper tragedy, i.e. Greek tragedy. I will not find the references because I haven't read Nietzsche in years.

>>13481517
>it seems that you've ignored my (completely reasonable, assuming you've read Nietzsche
I haven't read all of his works, just The Birth of Tragedy and Beyond Good and Evil. I don't believe you have to read an authors entire corpus to somewhat understand his thoughts.
>>13481517
>you're saying there has never been a German philosopher?
I'm saying there has never been a good German philosopher, with perhaps the exception of Leibniz, who only gets a pass because of his legitimate and passionate Christianity.

>> No.13481593

>>13481558
>is taken directly from Schopenhauer,
Yes, now is the part where you s_h_o_w me, anon
>I don't believe you have to read an authors entire corpus to somewhat understand his thoughts.
dismissing someone's thought as "shallow contrarianism" without further explanation does n't convince me that you understand them
>I'm saying there has never been a good German philosopher, with perhaps the exception of Leibniz, who only gets a pass because of his legitimate and passionate Christianity.
I don't understand. Are you some kind of Christian LARPer? If so, there are plenty of German theologians you could pretend to read

>> No.13481599

>>13481121
Anon, do you have any resources for Nietzsche's influence on Wittgenstein? I'm really interested in that.

>> No.13481706

>>13481470
you are just telling me your ad hoc, moralistic and shallow beliefs, mixing it in with a dubious definition of "postmodern" and expecting me to take it for an argument. I mean
>foucault was a neoliberal
Wrong
>postmodernism is skepticism of metanarratives
Even Lyotard isn't happy with this
>the postmodernists are haindmaidens of the neoliberal order even though they constantly critique it and most, like you seem to be, are avowed leftists
>Nietzsche's perspectivism--which does not prevent him from developing a positive ethics--is the same as passive relativism
>Nietzsche rejects "everything beyond the self" No idea what you're even trying to imply
>superficial cope
buzzword used by internet memesters like yourself. there is nothing I can do with this, dude, because you neatly avoid discussing N.'s actual thought, let alone that of anyone he influenced. please tab away from the Simple English Wikipedia and get back to me when you figure out what your problem with Nietzsche actually is

>> No.13481747

OP is a faggy camel who will never fight the dragon of Thou Shalt.

>> No.13481756

>>13481747
Agreed.
But why no name of your own?

>> No.13481764

Nietzsche plagiarized Stirner. I should know, those are the only two "philosophers" I've ever heard of.