/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14213745]

>writes everything in flowery aphorisms about supermangs and trascending evil
>nobody can understand what the fuck he meant by anything
>everyone imagines that he's the one who truly "got" Nietzsche
>Nietzsche was just a bitter incel who wouldn't stand out from the /pol/ crowd today

Why couldn't this cunt just write like a normal person?

[Anonymous No.14213759]

Are you upset he recommended daily dancing?

[Anonymous No.14213768]

>nobody can understand what the fuck he meant by anything
>everyone imagines that he's the one who truly "got" [him]

This is the nature of all philosophy, Nietzsche just did the best of pushing it to its limits and exposing the hypocrisy and contradictions of the philosophical life.

"I am not a man I am dynamite" he was right.

[Anonymous No.14213797]

>>14213745
the question is, would Neeche have been a fat neckbeard if he lived today from eating too much fruit?

[Anonymous No.14213798]

felt like this dude came to his conclusions just by flipping shit upside down, he does it a lot

[Anonymous No.14213809]

>>14213745
He understood the true meaning of Jesus's "The Kingdom of Heaven", unlike most Christians.

That alone puts him in the 'God Tier' of Philosophers for me

[Anonymous No.14213820]

>>14213809
>He understood the true meaning of Jesus's "The Kingdom of Heaven", unlike most Christians
>That's somehow an outstanding quality

[Anonymous No.14213828]

>>14213820
It definitely puts him above all the retard "New" Atheists

[Anonymous No.14213838]

>>14213745
The thing is, only stupid people don't understand Nietzche. And the thing there is, lots of stupid people pretend to have an opinion on him without having ever actually read Nietzsche. OP is one, as demonstrated by this awful thread.

[Anonymous No.14213840]

>>14213820
>I-i-i could have figured it out e-e-easily even If I h-had never read the A-A-Antichrist

[Anonymous No.14213844]

>>14213745
Learn german.

[Anonymous No.14213851]

>>14213745
>develop an entire framework for evaluating the inherently predatory and cancerous nature of weakness
>believes it stems from Christianity not Biology
>actively supports letting women attend lectures
>doesn’t even realise he’s laying the groundwork for the last man
Oof

[Anonymous No.14213856]

>>14213851
He believed it stemmed from all Slave Morality Philosophies (including Platonism/Confucianism). Christianity was just the most commonly practised form of it in his country at the time.

[Anonymous No.14213858]

>>14213851
>>14213856
And these philosophies could have been made due to an inherent biological framework within humans

[Anonymous No.14213869]

>>14213856
>>14213858
>believing ideas have precedence over biology
Double yikes.
Existence is zero sum due to entropy, all living beings are inherently predatory. Ideology is an outfit worn to further your own cause. A 6’2 chad will inherently exhibit master morality, dysgenic weak men and women will always promote slave morality because it furthers their reproduction. Nietzsche missed the trees for the forest, fixating on the cultural context and not the underlying mechanism. He was ultimately proven wrong, our current era is evidence of this. He will be proven wrong again regarding the death of god when Islam curb stomps enlightenment ideals. Imagine dedicating your whole life, going literally insane, to a building a set of ideas that had a shelf life of less than 1 century.

[Anonymous No.14213879]

>>14213869
To be fair, he couldn't have predicted that Islam was going to spread all throughout Europe

[Anonymous No.14213891]

>>14213869
>entropy
not relevant in the timescale of the human race
>all living beings are inherently predatory
only if you stretch the term into uselessness
>Ideology is an outfit worn to further your own cause
only if you stretch the term into uselessness
>when Islam curb stomps enlightenment ideals
not going to happen, it's already turning into secular-humanism-with-special-holidays like all other religions

[Anonymous No.14213898]

>>14213809
Which is?

[Anonymous No.14213899]

>>14213879
>make a monumental proclamation that the entire course of human history has changed for ever due to the events of the past century
>use the most dramatic and absolute phrasing possible “God is dead.”
>h-how w-was he s-supposed to know
The absolute STATE of Nietzsche fanboys

[Anonymous No.14213906]

>>14213891
Actually the majority of Muslims (atleast the ones still in the Middle East) arent cool with all the innovations & liberalism being introduced to their religion by the west. Thats just a wastern Islam thing. Its just usually the most vocal Muslims that are spouting the Liberal propaganda because they are terrified of people telling them that their religion isnt compatible with the west.


>>14213899
He was literally referring to the state of the West, his Philosophy had nothing to do with the East/Middle East.
He was 100% correct with "God is Dead", in the case of Western Philosophy, Morality, Politics etc.
literally The only reason God is being revived is due to Islamic immigration to Europe

[Anonymous No.14213920]

>>14213899
Dude nobody could have predicted. The safest bet was that secular humanism would spread its corrupting influence all over the globe and turn everyone into s o y men/consumer units.

[Anonymous No.14213931]

>>14213891
>entropy
>not relevant in the timescales
Embarrassing brainlet post here. You obviously have no knowledge of biology or science so let me clue you in, entropy is not just a reference to the heat death of the universe. It refers to the underlying mechanism of how life operates. We need to eat food, we need to seek shelter, etc. to keep our entropy low. Entropy is the reason we need to keep our body within certain temperature ranges and why resources are scarce.
If we imagine a universe where entropy didn't exist humans would be alive without ever needing food, or oxygen etc. In this sense I refer to entropy as the first building block on which all other conditions of existence are predicated.
Because humans need to lower their entropy, they MUST compete for resources. If humans didn't need food or water or shelter, our entire social structure would be radically different. Because humans compete for resources they develop mechanisms to attain resources. Much how humans collectively compete with our lifeforms for resources, there is INTERNAL competition within humans. As a result humans evolve defense mechanisms, empathy is as much a tool for tribes as it is a defense mechanism for the weak. A woman cries out in pain because in at least SOME instances it will cause Ugg to help her, of course in most cases Ugg would bash her brains in and rape her corpse, but it worked enough times that women evolved the crying mechanism to gather protection. Keep iterating on this base level for millennia and you essentially have a biological subset of humans who promote what Nietszche would call 'slave morality', aka compassion, empathy, etc as virtues BECAUSE in their absence they would be beaten to death, raped, or enslaved. Biology supremacy is debated only by marxist brainlets. All ideas, ALL beliefs, stems from biological defense mechanisms. Nietszche himself strongly advocated for womens rights because he was a dysgenic male so feminism represented his best bet to reproduce.

[Anonymous No.14213942]

>>14213906
And yet he didn't say 'God is dead in the west' did he? If you actually read the Gay Science it is obvious that his wording was to deliberately emphasise that the future of mankind would be in the hands of people who no longer looked to god for values. This could be because he believed that europeans and the west would continue to dominate the rest of the world, but WHEN Islamic immigrants displace Europeans then God is dead will cease to be a true statement for the majority of the dominant forces in the world. You keep making excuses for Nietszche by focusing on how he could not have known X Y Z but my point is that you shouldn't make such grandiose statements unless your certain of them because otherwise its extremely embarrassing later. But Nietszche work IS full of this horrible excess of pathos that makes him cringey.

[Anonymous No.14213958]

>>14213931
gay reductionism in the service of your dismal foregone conclusions. read Yudkowsky
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XPErvb8m9FapXCjhA/adaptation-executers-not-fitness-maximizers

[Anonymous No.14213960]

>>14213745
he intentionally retard-proofed his work. Here you go dumb dumb

>It is difficult to be understood, especially when one thinks and lives gangasrotogati [Footnote: Like the river Ganges: presto.] among those only who think and live otherwise—namely, kurmagati [Footnote: Like the tortoise: lento.], or at best ‘froglike,’ mandeikagati [Footnote: Like the frog: staccato.] (I do everything to be ‘difficultly understood’ myself!)—and one should be heartily grateful for the good will to some refinement of interpretation

[Anonymous No.14213964]

>>14213869
>He was ultimately proven wrong, our current era is evidence of this
>242. Whether we call it "civilization," or "humanising," or "progress," which now distinguishes the European, whether we call it simply, without praise or blame, by the political formula the DEMOCRATIC movement in Europe—behind all the moral and political foregrounds pointed to by such formulas, an immense PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESS goes on, which is ever extending the process of the assimilation of Europeans, their increasing detachment from the conditions under which, climatically and hereditarily, united races originate, their increasing independence of every definite milieu, that for centuries would fain inscribe itself with equal demands on soul and body,—that is to say, the slow emergence of an essentially SUPER-NATIONAL and nomadic species of man, who possesses, physiologically speaking, a maximum of the art and power of adaptation as his typical distinction. This process of the EVOLVING EUROPEAN, which can be retarded in its TEMPO by great relapses, but will perhaps just gain and grow thereby in vehemence and depth—the still-raging storm and stress of "national sentiment" pertains to it, and also the anarchism which is appearing at present—this process will probably arrive at results on which its naive propagators and panegyrists, the apostles of "modern ideas," would least care to reckon. The same new conditions under which on an average a levelling and mediocrising of man will take place—a useful, industrious, variously serviceable, and clever gregarious man—are in the highest degree suitable to give rise to exceptional men of the most dangerous and attractive qualities. For, while the capacity for adaptation, which is every day trying changing conditions, and begins a new work with every generation, almost with every decade, makes the POWERFULNESS of the type impossible; while the collective impression of such future Europeans will probably be that of numerous, talkative, weak-willed, and very handy workmen who REQUIRE a master, a commander, as they require their daily bread; while, therefore, the democratising of Europe will tend to the production of a type prepared for SLAVERY in the most subtle sense of the term: the STRONG man will necessarily in individual and exceptional cases, become stronger and richer than he has perhaps ever been before—owing to the unprejudicedness of his schooling, owing to the immense variety of practice, art, and disguise. I meant to say that the democratising of Europe is at the same time an involuntary arrangement for the rearing of TYRANTS—taking the word in all its meanings, even in its most spiritual sense.

We are exactly where he wanted and expected us to be.
t. Tyrant

[Anonymous No.14213970]

>>14213809
Holy shit, it's been the same retard for weeks trying to say the canonical texts are wrong and that he and neetsche are the only ones understanding jesus (by cherry picking in apocryphal texts) but not Peter, Paul, Augustine, ...

[Anonymous No.14213984]

>>14213970
What does NEETche say about it?

[Anonymous No.14214006]

>>14213970
Holy shit Christians still haven't told me why Jesus needs to brink the Kingdom of Heaven during his second coming, when he said clearly that it was already here during his FIRST coming

[Anonymous No.14214011]

>>14213984
Read his Book "The Antichrist" >>14214006
It will explain everything you need to know.

[Anonymous No.14214017]

>>14213958
gay retort

[Anonymous No.14214022]

>>14214011
I'm gonna sometime, I just want a quick rundown.

[Anonymous No.14214027]

>>14213964
>Nietzsche was right, I am an ubermensch
Delusional. Nietzsches beliefs have become exactly what he loathed, a religion. Because he attempted to apply an almost empirical approach to what are ultimately emotional prejudices his work leaves just enough ambiguity that endless waves of brainlets will continue to espouse his views. Art is reaching its end, democracy is reaching its end, the only thing that has proven to matter in the end is birthrate. Atheism, liberalism, rationalism, nihilism, all other byproducts of European culture have weak memetics. They do not reproduce themselves fast enough to be displaced. I’ve said it four times and I’ll say it a thousand times, matter > mind. Biology > ideology. Human beings are merely the substrate upon which ideas reproduce and Islam is a collection of ideas that have Darwinian fitness that is unparalleled by any other belief system. For every progressive Muslim there are ten non progressive Muslims having twice as many kids. Nietszche fell for the same trap as Marx, the illusion of progress. Like a stock broker who believes in technical analysis Nietzsche looked at history and thought he saw a pattern emerge, that humans were culturally and intellectually progressing towards some set of ideas and beliefs. But it was just stochastic noise in the relentless battleground of self replicating ideologies. Europe WILL become Muslim, God WILL return with renewed vigour in all aspects of our lives, secularism WILL end up being a historical footnote.

[Anonymous No.14214028]

>>14214006
Christian orthodoxy is a mishmash

[Anonymous No.14214035]

>>14213970
And no, Nietzsche doesn't reference ANY Apocryphal texts to prove his point.
Its just a coincidence that The Gospel of Thomas backs up Nietzsche's arguments 100%
Rembering that he hadnt even read it because the full Thomas Gospel wasnt even discovered during Nietzsche lifetime


>>14214022
I can give you a quick tldr.

Jesus vs St Paul:
Jesus taught that the "Kingdom of Heaven" was something here and now, something that was inside you and needed to be brought out from inside you.

St Paul (and some other disciples) taught that the Kingdom of Heaven was something that Jesus was going to bring during the "Second coming of Christ", when he returns and establishes the kingdom of Heaven on earth (or somewhere you go after you die).

Nietzsche interprets Jesus's teaching as the Kingdom of Heaven being a "State of Mind" akin to a type of "Childlike Innocence, free of all sin" (The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to children). And believes that St Paul, and other early church fathers had to invent the idea of the second coming of christ and a literal kingdom of heaven on earth, because they didnt know what Jesus meant when he said "The Kingdom of Heaven is already here" and "The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to Children". The point of the Messiah coming the FIRST time, was to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth, but, apparently he didnt do it? (which is an argument Jews make against Jesus). Although Jesus did say, that the Kingdom of Heaven is inside you and that it is already here.

And, if you read the Gospel of Thomas (The 114 sayings gospel, not the Infancy Gospel) It backs up Nietzsches argument 100%, even though Nietzsche never read it himself..

[Anonymous No.14214038]

>>14214028
Very true. That was the whole point of Nietzsche's "The Antichrist"

[Anonymous No.14214044]

>>14213851
>believes it stems from Christianity not Biology
He does talk about Christianity all the time, yeah. However, this is a little disingenuous. He almost flat out states multiple times that all philosophy stems from physiology. You can't read him thoroughly and come away from it thinking ideas are independent of the bodies that perceive them because it's intricately embedded in his philosophy to deny Plato's forms and the dichotomies they raised in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14214134]

>>14214027
so should we start praising allan ?

[Anonymous No.14214155]

>>14213898
Anyone?

[Anonymous No.14214162]

>>14214155
>>14214035

[Anonymous No.14214165]

>>14214155

It was Just explained
>>14214011
>>14214022
>>14214035

[Anonymous No.14214188]

>>14214035
Is there anything in the Bible, or theology, that suggests that it is part of the second coming?

[Anonymous No.14214190]

>>14213745
There is little controversy over what Nietzsche meant in German philosophical circles and those standing in its tradition (e.g. Japanese philosophy). You Anglo twats forcing your own interpretations that originate from literature departments onto Nietzsche does not mean he is incomprehensible.

[Anonymous No.14214215]

>>14213745
>"Other vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors; in fact, this is the chief mark of vague modern people. Not daring to define their doctrine of what is good, they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and , what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality. Thus they think it intellectual to talk about things being 'high.' It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. 'Tommy was a good boy' is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. 'Tommy lived the higher life' is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule.

>This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He said, 'beyond good and evil,' because he had not the courage to say, 'more good than good and evil,' or, 'more evil than good and evil.' Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, 'the purer man,' or 'the happier man,' or 'the sadder man,' for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says 'the upper man.' or 'over man,' a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce."

[Anonymous No.14214222]

>>14214215
>beyond good and evil
refutes already the possibility of
>more good than good and evil

So you can stop posting the pasta now.

[Anonymous No.14214230]

Nietzsche? More like NEETzsche LMAOOOO
*dabs*

[Anonymous No.14214245]

>>14213745
>writes everything in clear, concise language a ten year old could understand
>repeats again and again that change and growth are possible, the only things standing in a person's way are their own doubts and fears
>gets shit on by trolls being klavier

[Anonymous No.14214247]

>>14214190
So you mean such that little controversy somehow made misinterpretation over his followers like Heidegger and Jaspers?

[Anonymous No.14214262]

>>14214245
>writes everything in clear, concise language a ten year old could understand
Did you even read his early writing where he talks about Theaetetus and Sophists?

[Anonymous No.14214276]

>>14214188
Aside from the Book of Revelation, there are some references in Matthew 24, Mark 9:1, Mark 13, 1 Corinthians 15:24. And there are probably others, I haven't memorised the NT yet.

But It has been a common debate within christian theology as to weather Jesus brought the Kingdom with him or if he was going to bring it at the Last Judgement
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kingdom-of-God


Nietzsche believed though, that the Gospels, being written and modified by the early disciples/church fathers, that it had been made to seem more like the Kingdom of Heaven was something to come during the second coming of Christ. Paul said at one point that the end times would occur before the first generation had passed away, but it didnt end up happening

[Anonymous No.14214303]

>>14214134
It doesn’t matter if you do or don’t. Your descendants will. Nietzsche was not a nihilist, he didn’t believe in arbitrary win conditions (aka nothing matters I’m right) he genuinely poured his soul into his writings and hoped to influence future generations and make predictions about the direction of civilisation. He will be refuted when Islam becomes the dominant world religion and enlightenment values are flushed down the toilet. The European enlightenment has traded on the benefits of scientific discovery (modern medicine, etc) which has diminishing returns. Once the wellspring of European invention has been sufficiently dried all of its discoveries will be competed by communist China and Islam who will reproduce the same science with none of the ideological baggage. People will still make vaccines and build solar panels but culturally we will live in a theocratic state. It’s all a numbers game in the end and the historical materialism that was birthed by continental philosophy will die in the gutter

[Anonymous No.14214344]

>>14214262
I can't be sure, I've read The Birth of Tragedy, Human, All Too Human, Dawn of Day, Beyond Good and Evil, Genealogy of Morals, Twilight of the Idols, Thus Spake Zarathustra, The Antichrist, Ecce Homo, The Gay Science and all of the fragments and letters found in the Viking Portable Nietzsche. Haven't read Thoughts out of Season or the Unpublished Works yet, are the comments on Theaetetus to be found in one of these?

[Anonymous No.14214374]

>>14213745
Because he was on opium. He reported to people in his life having psychedelic effects constantly

[Anonymous No.14214385]

>>14214374
>He reported to people in his life having psychedelic effects constantly
Source?

[Anonymous No.14214392]

>he can't understand philosophy as poetic composition
>he needs philosophical "systems"

kek

[Anonymous No.14214413]

>>14214385
From conversations with nietzsche, there’s much more like this as well
“As I stood waiting by the table, the door to the adjacent room on the right opened, and Nietzsche appeared. With a distraught expression on his pale face, he leaned wearily against the post of the half-opened door and immediately began to speak about the unbearableness of his ailment. He described to me how, when he closed his eyes, he saw an abundance of fantastic flowers, winding and intertwining, constantly growing and changing forms and colours in exotic luxuriance, sprouting one out of the other. “I never get any rest,” he complained“

[Anonymous No.14214421]

>>14214392
Based. The poets express a more accurate depiction of the world than philosophers do.
Plato on poetry:
>Poetry is closer to the vital truth than history.
Harold Bloom on Nietzsche:
>Though he insisted that he was wiser than the poets, he never presented us with that wisdom.
Philosophy is just cringe.

[Anonymous No.14214427]

>>14213745
Because his critique of traditional philosophical thought demands a contradictory writing style. Dont blame the author if you are too fucking retarded to read something that isnt spoon fed to you

[Anonymous No.14214542]

>>14214215
Most retarded shit I've ever read peddled as substantial.

[Anonymous No.14214567]

>>14214222
It doesn't though. Why would you want to move beyond good and evil if it wasn't a better place to be?
>>14214542
>mUh OpInIoNs

[Anonymous No.14214599]

>>14214567
>>mUh OpInIoNs
Fair enough given that I gave you nothing but it's two paragraphs of meaningless ignorance of language noise. The basic point is alright but applying it to so absolutely to the name of a book is cringe. Like maybe think that someone doesn't want to say happy or good, they want to clearly distinguish a man in a separate category, not even necessarily related to 'high'. It's like complaining about 'overcome' and taking linguistic accidents childishly literally that you can't fucking communicate lmao. Wilful autism.

[Anonymous No.14214630]

>>14214599
>Wilful autism.
I think using willful autism to btfo willful autists is a valid way to go about things.
BTW I'm not the guy who posted those 2 paragraphs.

[Anonymous No.14214806]

>>14214599
You're doing the exact same thing you're condemning the post of doing. What Nietzsche does is not seeking for synonyms, but choosing words full of aesthetic and devoid of any real meaning. This is wilful ignorance.

[Anonymous No.14214981]

Bros, I introduced Nietzsche to a friend of mine and now he wants to read his works. I want to gift him a few books but I don't know what to get for him since he doesn't know much about philosophy. I thought of getting Gilles Deleuze's book since it seems quite easy to get into, but which book from Nietzsche should I get him first?

[Anonymous No.14214998]

>>14213958
Did you even comprehend your own article? On an individual scale traits are not necessarily those that maximise fitness, but on the whole they evolve to benefit the group. Slave morality evolved to benefit women and weak men, but individually these kinds of behaviours may have a negative effect. The biological mechanism that selects for ideologies like Christianity may on a micro scale or a contextual scale be negatives, but on the broader sense they benefit the group that promotes them. I hate the fact I share a board with morons like you.

[Anonymous No.14215347]

>>14214998
>On an individual scale traits are not necessarily those that maximise fitness, but on the whole they evolve to benefit the group
Completely fucking wrong.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QsMJQSFj7WfoTMNgW/the-tragedy-of-group-selectionism
Rest of your post is word salad.

[Anonymous No.14215385]

>>14214981
>I thought of getting Gilles Deleuze's book since it seems quite easy to get into

Hell nah

[Anonymous No.14215390]

>>14214981
Do you need help tying your own shoelaces, you disgusting fucking villager. https://lmgtfy.com/?q=best+introductory+Nietzsche+book..

[Anonymous No.14215459]

>>14215347
You're a retard. I mean that sincerely, learn about game theory.

[Anonymous No.14215466]

>>14214981
>he doesn't know much about philosophy
Wouldn't it be better if you gifted him a history of philosophy book? The one by Bryan Magee is good.

[Anonymous No.14215843]

>>14215347
i'm not that guy but you're citing fucking yudkowski and lesswrong without even engaging with his arguments. embarassing. go back to plebbit immediately

[Anonymous No.14216696]

>>14213856
>Slave Morality Philosophies (including Platonism
what do you mean? the ideal man in platonism is a philosopher and a king, who is at the top of the just hierarchy. i believe confucianism also has a great deal to do with the virtues of the statesman, but i haven't read any of it besides the great digest so i don't really know.

[Anonymous No.14216771]

Well /pol/ is the most based

[Anonymous No.14216854]

>>14213844
Is it worth it bros? I get the suspicion that most of what I read in German has been kiked in some way.

[Anonymous No.14216888]

>>14213858
*absolutely have

[Anonymous No.14216940]

>>14213869
Nietszche himself was a ugly manlet with weak virgin voice and uncessful university career, why would HE write the philosophy of the ubermencht, if such thing ever existed?

[Anonymous No.14217485]

>>14214981
tell him to watch this movie instead

[Anonymous No.14217491]

>>14213745
Because that would be submitting to The Man, man! Freedom and kill your idols! Eternal recurrence! Desparately lose your virginity to a hooker and get syphilis!

[Anonymous No.14217567]

>>14215347
>posts an article about a trait that evolved to benefit the group (eating excess young)
That post only disprove teleological evolution, which is obviously wrong. Anons theory is slave morality can be directly inherited by a gene, he even gave you an example. A woman starts crying, she doesn’t get her head bashed in and passes on her weak crying genes. A weak man becomes berry picker, picks so many berries he gets pity sex, passes on his berry picking genes. These are not examples of teleological evolution. Also humans are crazy complex and our behaviour is also complex, it makes sense our values and beliefs stem from evolution. Like “slut shaming” is obviously an evolutionary response to diseases, this has been proven. Some men start shaming women who were slutty, they got less STDs and passed on the squeamish gene. There is a gene for squeamishness and it correlates strongly with conservative viewpoints.

[Anonymous No.14217762]

>>14217567
>Some men start shaming women who were slutty, they got less STDs and passed on the squeamish gene
Not sure what you mean here by shaming. It had to be more complex than that. More cases of head bashed in or rotting to death probably.

[Anonymous No.14217862]

>>14217762
I’m just illustrating a point many people don’t realise and should actually unironically read Dawkins to grasp. Evolution is not a strictly biological phenomena. Dawkins highlights this by showing how religions can “evolve”, any complex system that has feedback and replication vectors can be see as a system in the process of evolution.
Consider a religion that experiences a schism, one group promotes celibacy the other does not. Suddenly the group promoting celibacy diminishes in popularity and vanishes, the other flourishes. Here you have a system that experience a mutation and then naturally selected against that mutation. Ideas are subject to the same game theory as organisms. Since there is finite space for ideas out there they constantly evolve. Morality is also subject to evolution and different modes of morality benefit different groups. However it is clear that a moral code that glorifies victimhood as heroic and compassion as the highest virtue will OVERWHELMINGLY benefit women. To what end? To the pursuit of power. Women use weakness as their strength, we are living inside of a case study on this very process. Argue with a woman and see for yourself, you’ll very rapidly discover the values at hand in her mind isn’t who is “factually accurate” but rather who is “more mean” or “more deserving” the entire value system of women inherently favours women. Is this a coincidence or could it be a subconscious behaviour adapted to maximise survival? According to some it’s all coincidence, according to Nietzsche is all Jesus fault kek

[Anonymous No.14218049]

>>14217862
>Is this a coincidence or could it be a subconscious behavior adapted to maximize survival?
Absolutely but I think you're not giving Neech credit where he deserves it anon. He clearly speaks highly of Christ in Zarathustra, just clearly states that he thinks Jesus was wrong because he was an urbanite (unironically, which seems based even still). He speaks of the death of god as an abhorrent and depressing loss at times. I made a mistake starting with Will to Power and others that were published late in his life or after his death. I'm starting Genealogy of Morals tomorrow morning so I think I'll have a better grasp on what Neech actually thought before he descended into extremely poor health and insanity.

[Anonymous No.14218134]

>>14214027
>>14214303
Slave morality in action lmao.

[Anonymous No.14219149]

>>14214035
Yo dats dat Dead Sea joint ain’t it?