/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14562374]

“It is a self-deception of philosophers and moralists to imagine that they escape decadence by opposing it. That is beyond their will; and, however little they acknowledge it, one later discovers that they were among the most powerful promoters of decadence.”

Refute this

[Anonymous No.14562387]

>>14562374
Can't. Comfort is relative. If you are in a state of happiness then you are being indulgent on some kind of decadence more than you are suffering. Thus being happy makes you decadent.

[Anonymous No.14562413]

>>14562374
What's to refute? An almost completely vacuous statement. He names no names, indicts no doctrine. He is only debating with himself

[Anonymous No.14562414]

What's there to refute. The brain dead take is both opposition and alignment feed the existence of something. The only way to kill something is with ignorance. The best form of weaponized ignorance is distraction. Literally divert yourself away from what you hate rather than fixate upon it.

[Anonymous No.14562416]

Nietzsche has got to be top 10 smartest people ever, right?

[Anonymous No.14562421]

>>14562414
this

[Anonymous No.14562449]

>>14562374
Well we do know that classic conditioning does work in modifying behaviour.

[The Man !QkRJTXcpFI No.14562451]

>>14562416
Top 1

[Anonymous No.14562484]

>>14562416

Definitely but unfortunately that means most of what he said is misinterpreted or taken out of context.

I don’t think there is anyone who was so ahead and detached from their own contemporary framework.

Maybe only Shakespeare could compare for genesis of originality.

[Anonymous No.14562546]

>>14562374
>“It is a self-deception of philosophers and moralists
Claim #1a
>to imagine that they escape decadence by opposing it.
Nobody but you is claiming that Fred

>That is beyond their will;
Claim 1b
>and, however little they acknowledge it,
Claim 1c
>one later discovers
Claim 1d
>that they were among the most powerful promoters of decadence.
Claim 1e

Does he back up these claims? Or does just Sperg out after saying this?

[Anonymous No.14562549]

>>14562546
This is autism

[Anonymous No.14562794]

>>14562549
This is how it’s done

[Anonymous No.14563001]

>>14562546
>Nobody but you is claiming that Fred
So how come every philosophy department / board / site is full of snobs? How come Platonists even exist?

[Anonymous No.14563241]

>>14562794
Yeah and how it’s “done” nowadays is stupid effectively sterilizes thought, and I don’t need a fucking argument for people to get that or agree with it, part of the reason why Nietzsche is so famous despite and because of his lack of argumention

[Anonymous No.14563293]

>>14563001
You're talking nonsense.

[Anonymous No.14563328]

Can someone explain to me why Neetchee is so influential in leftist academia (Foucalt, etc.) when some parts of his thought literally sound like they came from /pol/? I am reading genealogy of morals right now and the part about the blonde beast, might being right, and aryan migration all sound incredibly right wing.

[Anonymous No.14563871]

>>14563293
You're afraid that people are finally on to you, dishonest Platonist. There's no Platonist who doesn't presume a sense of superiority for themselves, because their structuring of knowledge and reality permits a certain hierarchy that places them at the top of it by merely thinking.

[Anonymous No.14563899]

>>14563328
>Can someone explain to me why Neetchee is so influential in leftist academia
He's not. The far left controls people via confusion, first by reversing the meaning of terms and concepts and then by associating concepts and individuals with their antitheses, and it does so mostly unconsciously (because far leftism is extreme suppression of consciousness under the guise of extreme pro-consciousness).

[Anonymous No.14563921]

>>14563899
Care to give an example with Nietzsche and someone like Foucalt then?

[Anonymous No.14563932]

>>14562546
Seems you're the one sperging out lol

[Anonymous No.14563939]

>>14563921
Read Nietzsche's Antichrist, it's full of examples. For example, his disdain for anarchism can be seen plainly written there. I wasn't commenting on Foucault specifically as I haven't read him too much.

[Anonymous No.14563947]

>>14563241
There’s no pride in being wrong

[Anonymous No.14565380]

>>14562374
neet cha is such a faggot

[Anonymous No.14565423]

>they're priestly ascetics
>wait... they're decadent!
>also impotent
>while somehow also imposing forms of life onto the rest of us
>i'm just here to offer fresh perspectives XD

[Anonymous No.14565489]

>>14562374
the anti decadents can't meme because they can't help but use decadent iconography in their memes.

[Anonymous No.14566272]

>>14562416

[Anonymous No.14567401]

>>14562374
Sounds accurate to me.

[Anonymous No.14567463]

daily reminder that Nietzsche's fatal flaw (as well as schopenhauer's and stirner's) was the individuation of the supposed will. perhaps he is correct in a practical sense due to the institution of religion and the degeneration of such, but it is no excuse for his utter lack of worthwhile metaphyiscs. buddha and shankara retroactively refuted him. he thought himself into madness because of this, his rejection of monistic metaphysics forced his separation from the rest of the world, and more importantly god, but there is no division in reality. all of you deleuze reading transexuals should study dependent origination doctrine while you're at it. one should strive to break illusions, instead of becoming further attached to them like nietzsche. once you figure this out you can throw all of his overman worship and eternal return theories into the trash

[Anonymous No.14567491]

>>14567463

there is no you, you don't exist. your psyche, your imaginary will is nothing more a false sense of continuity of thought trying to keep itself alive at all costs, even though your petty little thoughts are already dead as soon as they are born. know it to be true

[Anonymous No.14567518]

>>14567502

[Anonymous No.14567535]

>>14562416
>too stupid for music
>top 10 smartest