[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 79 KB, 602x602, main-qimg-6f6306db31cac0738bfdef13620ddbae.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14960002 No.14960002 [Reply] [Original]

>"Was Socrates Greek in the first place? Ugliness is often
>enough the expression of interbreeding, of a development thwarted by
>interbreeding. In other cases it appears as a development in decline.
>Forensic anthropologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo [monster in the face, monster in the
>soul]. But the criminal is a décadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal?
> A visitor who knew about faces, when he passed through Athens, said to
>Socrates’ face that he was a monstrum—that he contained all bad vices
>and cravings within him. And Socrates simply answered: “You know
>me, sir"

Socrates btfo'd

Why was Neetzche such a good shitposter?

>> No.14960020

because he wrote with the blood and soul of the best writers antiquity had to offer

>> No.14960061

>socrates poor and ugly lmao

>> No.14960115

autism? Here is Bertrand Russell's take on Neet

>Nevertheless there is a great deal in him that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac.
>Speaking of Spinoza he says: "How much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this
>masquerade of a sickly recluse betray!" Exactly the same may be said of him, with the less
>reluctance since he has not hesitated to say it of Spinoza. It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is
>a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every
>man's, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear.
>"Forget not thy whip"--but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he
>knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks
>I will do such things-What they are yet I know not--but they shall be The terror of the earth.
>This is Nietzsche's philosophy in a nutshell.

>> No.14960132

didn't know that white knights were allowed to write books

>> No.14960200

This basically boils down to "get laid, incel" and isn't much of an analysis. Russell accuses Nietzsche of failing to be honest or dispassionate, but it's obvious from this passage that he's failing to keep his own cock out of the arena; he should be asking WHY Freddy was the way he was, and HOW this effects his philosophy. Not just trying to dunk on him like a teenager with a YouTube reaction channel.

>> No.14960224

There are two sorts of saints: the saint by nature, and the saint from fear. The saint by nature has a
spontaneous love of mankind; he does good because to do so gives him happiness. The saint from
fear, on the other hand, like the man who only abstains from theft because of the police, would be
wicked if he were not restrained by the thought of hell-fire or of his neighbours' vengeance.
Nietzsche can only imagine the second sort of saint; he is so full of fear and hatred that
spontaneous love of mankind seems to him impossible. He has never conceived of the man who,
with all the fearlessness and stubborn pride of the superman, nevertheless does not inflict pain
because he has no wish to do so. Does any one suppose that Lincoln acted as he did from fear of
hell? Yet to Nietzsche Lincoln is abject, Napoleon magnificent.
It remains to consider the main ethical problem raised by Nietzsche, namely: should our ethic be
aristocratic, or should it, in some sense, treat all men alike? This is a question which, as I have just
stated it, has no very clear meaning, and obviously, the first step is to try to make the issue more
We must in the first place try to distinguish an aristocratic ethic from an aristocratic political
theory. A believer in Bentham's principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number has a
democratic ethic, but he may think that the general happiness is best promoted by an aristocratic
form of government. This is not Nietzsche's position. He holds that the happiness of common people is no part of the good per se. All that is good
or bad in itself exists only in the superior few; what happens to the rest is of no account.

>> No.14960228
File: 2 KB, 125x125, 1584306754292s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.14960232
File: 24 KB, 465x594, 17854.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

“I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die.”

>> No.14960249
File: 21 KB, 474x528, neetch fedora.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Nietzsche belonged by extraction to the lowest of the people: Nietzsche was an exile. We know, we can even still see, how cucked he was. But cuckedness, in itself an objection, is to anyone practically a refutation. Was Nietzsche actually really a human? Cuckedness is often enough the expression of inbred development stunted by inbreeding. If not, then it appears as a development in Stockholm Syndrome. The epidemiologists amonggynecologists tell us that the typical John is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. But the John is a romantic. Was Nietzsche a typical John?—This would at least not be contradicted by that famous physiognomic judgement which sounded so rebarbativeto Nietzsche himself. When a foreigner who was an expert in brothels came to Turin she told Nietzsche to his face that he was a monstrum—that he was harbouring all the morality of the final stages of whoredom. To which Nietzsche went off like a lantern in the bright morning, "NOOOO!!! YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!!!!!! I NEVER FELL OFF THE HORSE!!!!!! SHE WAS MINE!!!!!!"

>> No.14960317

very Nietzschean opinion of Nietzsche

>> No.14960335
File: 359 KB, 2000x1249, socrates.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

chad socrates was ugly and poor but still got more pussy than neetche

>> No.14960714

Just like too many boring drones out there, Nietzsche was just a little man fantasizing about grandeur.

>> No.14960741

Russell was the very opposite of based and redpilled it shouldn't even be allowable to say that about him ironically.

>> No.14961324

Given that he was a shit philosopher, he had to be good at something

>> No.14961330

This is the best roasting of a philosopher yet

>> No.14961338


Interestingly enough, Nietzsche knew very little about philosophy. He read some Greeks, a little bit of Kant and... that's about it. The same history repeated itself with another "philosophy" guru / opportunist: Wittgenstein.

>> No.14961361

Yeah it is very obvious from reading Nietzsche that he is more of a philologist with a superficial understanding of philosophy. That's the first time I hear that about Wittgenstein though, didn't Russell explain that shit to him?

>> No.14961524

seething mathematically illiterate continentalcel.

>> No.14961562

Except Wittgenstein permitted Russell to nibble on his pee-pee so he gets held up as a saint in comparison. That's the analytic tradition for you.

>> No.14961593

Lmfao at incels who think they're giving rational, not emotional, reasons for why women are inferior, and then cry about rationality and arguments and logic when they get btfo with "get laid, incel" which is what is going on between you, Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell rn, faglord.

>> No.14961621

Neither Nietzsche nor Wittgenstein followed a strict academic regime. Wittgenstein seems to have just gotten credibility from his involvement with Russel. Regardless, the fact that they didn’t partake in the rabbit hole of garbage that is academic philosophy, is probably one of the many things which made them the most notable philosophers of their time.

>> No.14961628

physiognomy is a pseudoscience, and socrates was being humble.

>> No.14961648

>nine out of ten women would get the whip away from him

>> No.14961653

This shouldn't have provoked a laughter from me... but alas...

>> No.14961671

The Whip was not meant to be carried by Nietzsche, but by the woman. Also nietzsche elaborates deeply on his concept of the freethinker as a much more radical being than the freedoer, a warriordom of philosophy, which, it is hard to deny, he did realize.

I will never understand how Russel could get his reputation as a philosopher.

>> No.14961679

pure ignorance, my god.

>> No.14961690

Russell actually was a philosopher, that is, someone concerned with getting to the bottom of the most fundamental issues using genuine analysis and honest, logical argumentation as opposed to nietzsche who was content with screeching about his moral and aesthetic preferences.

>> No.14961696

Amusing, but this is basically just
>no u
in more words

>> No.14961698

He read some greeks? The guy breathed in greek. He was knowledgeable enough to be promoted to philological professor in his early 20's and wrote a book on greek culture, which to this day impacts our conception of greek culture, albeit it was seen as so radical that it cost him his career.

He knew Kant in and out, and funnily enough, you little wikipedia cumslurper, forgot that he was the prime disciple of Schopenhauerian philosophy.

He was a literal student autist, and describes his transformation from an obsessive learner to the more free-flowing and self-centered approach of thinking in his twenties in great detail. After having finished his philological and philosophical education he read only to absorb what he wanted.

>> No.14961744

It may be comforting to pretend that Schopenhauer never showed up, but please refrain from projecting your little anti-philosophical bubble onto others.

>> No.14961832

>For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or a scientific question. I dislike him Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.

Real logical arguments there

>> No.14961887

>He knew Kant in and out
You are a retard.

>> No.14962428

I've always thought Russell was a cuck but that's actually kind of based

>> No.14962495


>> No.14962523

Low IQ analysis.

>> No.14962531

holy BASED

>> No.14962544


>> No.14962549
File: 316 KB, 396x496, 1537730293992.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>literally says 'better red than dead'

>> No.14963113

That's not philosophy and russell wouldn't call it that either. Russell made his name as a philosopher actually doing philosophy.
Nietzsches power fantasies aren't philosophy and so you don't need philosophy to dismiss them.

>> No.14963177

>philsoophy is whatever I, the great philosophy God, define it as
>all of history is meaningless against my personal opinons

>> No.14963275

reading other people is cucked, you have to think by your own

>> No.14963314

you just read that anon's post....LMFAO

>> No.14963375
File: 110 KB, 500x500, npr9q.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


And what fine tools of observation we have in our senses! This nose,
for instance, of which no philosopher has yet spoken with admiration and
gratitude, is in fact the most delicate instrument at our disposal: it can
register minimal differences in motion which even the spectroscope fails
to register. The extent to which we possess science today is precisely the
extent to which we have decided to accept the testimony of the senses—
and learned to sharpen them, arm them, and think them through to their
end. The rest is an abortion and not-yet-science: that is, metaphysics, theology, psychology, epistemology. Or it is formal science, a theory of signs,
like logic and that applied logic, mathematics. In these formal sciences,
reality makes no appearance at all, not even as a problem; nor is there any
hint of the question of what value such a convention of signs has in the
first place.

>> No.14963379


>> No.14963389

>no argument
>ad personam
is this the fabled power of anglo analytic """philosophy"""?

>> No.14963397

Neechay called Socrates an ugly monster. That's the power of Neechay """""""""""""""""philosophy"""""""""""""""""?

>> No.14963404

Neetch unironically btfo. No wonder /lit/ is always so butthurt at Russel

>> No.14963412

learn3 use greentext

>> No.14963420

>hehe le funny mustache man call Socrates ugly XD

>> No.14963507

where's this from?

>> No.14963544

>my diary desu
Twilight of the Idols, Richard Polt translation.

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.