[ 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: 62 KB, 850x400, friedrich-nietzsche-21-45-24.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15762130 No.15762130 [Reply] [Original]

Damn, that's deep. What does it mean though?

>> No.15762249

>>15762130
Woman is nothing?

>> No.15762264

>>15762130
ambiguous statements that can be interrupted both ways really make me hate Nietzsche.

>> No.15762284 [DELETED] 

>>15762130
women are shallow, surface level.
damn, you faggots can't read.
women, outside of the aristocratic caste, weren't allowed an education, which is what he was addressing

>> No.15762299

>>15762130
That women are like two-dimensional surfaces, spiritually.

>> No.15762328

>>15762130
You're looking for the floor when the floor is the ceiling.

>> No.15762341

>>15762130
wow so profound. definitely havent heard that take worded in a million different ways for the entirety of human history. cant believe people take this glorified self help author and pretentious pseud seriously.

>> No.15762344

>>15762341
ROFL

>> No.15762420

>>15762130
The cognition of the healthy heterosexual human female is opposite to that of the healthy heterosexual human male. The female isn't "dumb" or "smart" or "wise" in the masculine sense, and to the masculine the female appears to have no capacity for thought whatsoever (thought is a male invention, after all).

>> No.15762567

>>15762130
Friedrich like da buttie

>> No.15762595

>>15762130
They aren't object-oriented or centred, that's why.

This is a systematic putting of what Nietzsche's quote means. And only people who don't understand the subject, in this case women, do not understand this quote. But it does make one wonder the purpose of it then.

>> No.15762603

>WOMAN BAD

- every white philosopher prior to 21 century, usually just happened to look like a genetic dead-end

>> No.15762604

>>15762595
>But it does make one wonder the purpose of it then.
Like most of what he wrote, it's in order to establish a gulf between the new aristocratic mind and the new non-aristocratic mind.

>> No.15762757

>>15762603
Yes and all of them are correct. It's strange, isn't it?

>> No.15762776

>>15762603
That's not what he's saying anon.

>>15762604
Having knowledge of women to understand the quote makes one an aristocrat?

>> No.15762800

>>15762776
Nietzsche's new aristocrat will understand that about women. That's the thought process behind most of his writing. He's laying down a manual for future aristocrats.

>> No.15762818
File: 172 KB, 1280x1248, 1590380206719.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15762818

>>15762264
>interrupted

>> No.15762820
File: 10 KB, 435x259, s.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15762820

it means this

>> No.15762830

>>15762800
I dunno that sounds quite un-Nietzschean if you ask me.

Are you saying if I disagree with Nietzsche, if I do not rebel against him in some ways, if I don't have a sense of or desire to "overcome" him, then I'm not an Aristocrat?

Apart from whether Nietzsche explicitly thought either, I don't really like him. And in this case, either are bad.

>> No.15762844

>>15762820
He didn't mean that anon, see>>15762595

>> No.15762866
File: 289 KB, 584x433, 1591331599030.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15762866

>>15762130
The majority of women are surface level beings who experience life physically like a monkey. On the other hand, in Human All Too Human, he calls the perfect woman, although rarer than the perfect man, a higher form of humanity.

Filter test 1 failed.
Filter test 2 failed.

>> No.15762878

>>15762130
It means you'll never make sense of women, no matter how hard you try ... it is a never ending journey.

>> No.15762879

>>15762130
You know the meme where the woman is in the shower and she's thinking about drinking and celebrities. That's what he means.

>> No.15763112

>>15762341
>Nietzsche
>Self-help
I thought we sorted this out in a thread yesterday. If you think this you clearly have not read him.

>> No.15763318

>>15762341
self help author here is you.

>> No.15763349
File: 13 KB, 370x270, images (87).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15763349

>>15762130
The woman does not exist

>> No.15763370

>>15762130
>What does it mean though?
Here's a translation:
>This is unfair! Lou Salome should have said yes after the third time I proposed! I am the supreme gentleman, not that subhuman Paul REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>> No.15763412

>>15763112
>>Self-help
Have you seen the Nietzscheans who habitate this board?

>> No.15763488

>>15763412
I only skimmed some Nietzsche books but what exactly is wrong about "self-help" as a term for wanting to be healthy?

>> No.15763555

>>15762130
So if one would put women under the rope between beast and overman and then jump what would happen? If I started to smile to her, would she start smiling back?

>> No.15763589

>>15763488
Self-help as a genre is usually to refer to a bunch of charlatans giving milquetoast advice and worthless feel good platitudes to people. Diluted easy to understand formulas. Just looking at the term in itself well, half of human intellectual, spiritual, scientific and academic progress is self-help.

>> No.15763659

>>15763589
This is equivalent to saying that only bad self-help is self-help. It should go without saying that bad work is not a criticism against a genre. I understand that informally self-help is used as an insult, but when >>15763112 objected to the label, I got the impression that he did it for theoretical reasons, not because he wanted to avoid the association with trash.

>> No.15763673

>>15762603
Women are along for the ride. Every institution has been the product of men wishing to build a safer world for women. Every wise culture of the past knew that women were like children.

In the bible it says that for every thousand men you will find one good one, but for every thousand women you will find no good one. King Solomon wasnt even white

>> No.15763760

>>15762603
Yes.

>> No.15763825

>>15763659
No I'm saying what the genre is used to usually refer to, my point being if that you used the word just on its own that it could apply to basically anything.

>> No.15764622

>>15762830
>Are you saying if I disagree with Nietzsche, if I do not rebel against him in some ways, if I don't have a sense of or desire to "overcome" him, then I'm not an Aristocrat?
Not quite. You won't be a part of his "new philosophers of the future," his new aristocrats, if you do those things, because you haven't evolved to the next stage of understanding then (and if you have, then you'd do those things). This doesn't exempt you from being an aristocrat in another sense.

>> No.15764632

Women are so deceptive by nature that they create the illusion of substance (even shallow substance) where there isn't any at all

>> No.15764642
File: 479 KB, 338x500, Screenshot_2020-05-21 russ pdf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15764642

>> No.15764675

>>15762130
Women are shape-shifting vessels. They do not define themselves; their locus of identity is what they take within.

>> No.15764688

okay everyone, now repeat the stuff you just said to your mother :)

>> No.15764698

>>15763825
I'm not sure I understand your message. I think you're saying that the term "self-help", colloquially, has a specific extension "cheap life advice books", and that in the colloquial sense, Nietzsche's books aren't self-help books. You are also saying that if we broaden the scope of "self-help" to include "books that are helpful to humans", then you could include Nietzsche's books, but only at the cost of including basically anything. Is this fair? but my assumption is that when people characterize that "health" aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy by reference to "self-help", they mean something quite a bit more specific than just "books that are helpful to humans". That attitude of explicitly and consciously (as opposed to unconsciously) making it your goal to become healthy, taking responsibility over your own health and actually doing it, and developing explicit theories relating to how this happens, I think there is a fair bit of overlap here, although I could be just connecting the dots on my own. I have an on and off relationship with reading Nietzsche.

>> No.15764726

>>15764632
Bingo.

>> No.15764731

>>15764632
>>15764726
Do you really believe that?

>> No.15764733

>>15762130

This, sort of:
>>15764632

Most people have a superficial social persona which they use to interact casually in day-to-day matters. When you get to know someone better, you find what they're like "behind the mask". You find out their true opinions, as opposed to the routine social pleasantries.

Nietzsche is saying that with a woman, when you try to get behind the mask, you can't, and you might then assume that she's really deep and isn't giving anything away. It's like "wow, she NEVER breaks character, she never lets on what she REALLY thinks or feels, I bet she has a really good handle on everything!" But in fact, there is nothing behind the mask. The superficial social platitudes are all there is.

>> No.15764738

>discover any bottom to them

In German, "auf den Grund gehen" ("going to/onto the ground") means to find the root of something or understand something.

Pretty sure it's lost in translation.

>> No.15764740

>>15764731
Do you really not?

>> No.15764761

>>15764740
I really don't. I can't seriously entertain the idea that any kind of human lacks substance. Even my seriously impoverished understanding of the moral nature of man does not leave enough room for this possibility.

>> No.15764767

>>15762844
it's a visual representation of what he wrote

>> No.15764801

>>15764731
Does the make-up industry not bolster that idea?

>> No.15764804
File: 90 KB, 680x680, 1592527664344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15764804

>>15762866
>The majority of women are surface level beings who experience life physically like a monkey.
Unlike most men, who are clearly intellectual and above materialism.

>> No.15764877

>>15764804
>Unlike most men, who are clearly intellectual and above materialism.
Yes. Men can be actually inteligent, unlike women. Men have the choice to act like monkeys or be a superior beings. Women will always be the same, even if they deny it.

>> No.15764927

>>15764801
Being vain is not the same as being shallow. Vanity is the spice of life.

>> No.15764950

>>15762130
It means that there's no foundation to what they say. Someone who attempts to dive for a bottom will fail to find ground which gives the illusion of immense depth.

Come on guys, this is an irrelevant citation. He's just taking a jab at women.

>> No.15764964

>>15764761
You should try getting to know some women better, then. You'll find the vast majority of them are superstitious precisely because they lack critical perception.

>> No.15764997

>>15764726
>>15764731
>>15764740
>>15764761
>>15764964
I'm positive Nietzsche didn't believe it himself. There are definitely women who have foundation to their thoughts and actions.
I assume he's referring to airhead bimbo's who do nothing but gossip and chatter about dumb topics for the sake of chatter.

>> No.15765009

>>15764964
I think you're the one speaking from inexperience, since you imply you've not met a single woman you could sympathize with as your fellow human being. Myself, no amount of additional experience can make me unsee what I saw.

>> No.15765019

>>15764997
>There are definitely women who have foundation to their thoughts and actions.
They're all masculine, i.e. not women. He says elsewhere:

>When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality.

Most of them gossip, most of them are superstitious, and none of them really think so long as they are feminine in nature.

>> No.15765022

>>15765009
You're dealing with a woman-hating incel. Their presence along with /pol/tards has increased on this board

>> No.15765032

>>15765019
So you are telling me that Nietzsche believed women could be men and men could be women? No wonder you guys like him so much, he was very progressive for his time.

>> No.15765035

>>15765009
>you imply you've not met a single woman you could sympathize with as your fellow human being.
I'm not feminine enough for that.

>> No.15765034

Women are people and their character varies.

>> No.15765059

>>15765035
There is nothing more feminine then caring about how feminine you are.

>> No.15765078

>>15765032
Touché

>> No.15765094

>>15765022
>woman-hating
Men do not hate women. I have nothing to do with incels and neither does Nietzsche.

>>15765032
That is a complex topic but the long story short is yes, men and women are defined both biologically and psychologically as such, while "man" and "woman" are those where the two are united. Millennia of civilization has taught us the difference. A biological woman can be psychologically very masculine, but for us she is not "woman" then. Only the biological woman who is feminine is "woman" as far as "man" is concerned. Hopefully this helps you understand what Nietzsche is saying.

>> No.15765128

>>15765059
In recalling Jung's animus and anima, an overly masculine male in youth will succumb to feminine attributes in old age.

>> No.15765134

>>15762603
>>WOMAN BAD
Holy... based

>> No.15765156

>>15765128
Why would that be the case?

>> No.15765163

>>15764997
It's his demonology. When he refers to the Englishmen, he doesn't mean all of them.

>> No.15765166

>>15765094
Nietzsche would be referring to ideal types then, not to biological men and women as they appear generally. I think this is what's getting people confused.
In other words, you can't extrapolate the citation given by OP to biological women. as whole.

Unfortunately this doesn't stop certain people from viewing it as an affirmation of their prejudices on women as a whole.

>> No.15765178

>>15762130

Women are like 2d surfaces, and men wish to navigate, to "pick apart" to psychology of women, and as he navigates her psyche he never realizes that there is nothing beyond the surface, so he moves in place and this gives the illusion of infinite unreachable depths as he never finds the end

>> No.15765187

>>15765156
Not him, and I'm not well read on Jung, but my guess is, that being masculine in youth leads to an old age where one feels deeply accomplished and has most if not all needs taken care of, since the masculine is all about exploration, expansion, seizing power and giving gifts. This would lead one to welcome their old age feebleness with open arms. Not fulfilling your purpose early in life while you're physically capable of it would make you bitter towards that change.

>> No.15765216

>>15765156
It's a balanced duality, the force of which one is spent.

>> No.15765220

>>15765166
He is referring to ideal types, but ideal types do exist, and from those types we can better understand all the grey areas in between them, which is why he writes about them.

>Unfortunately this doesn't stop certain people from viewing it as an affirmation of their prejudices on women as a whole.
That's mostly the consequence of the democratic age we live in, where those who should not have access to his books because they are not prepared for them yet still do.

>> No.15765267

>>15762130
Basically, it's a dog eat dog world and I'm the fucking Chinaman

>> No.15765282

>>15765220
Of course, a manly woman and a womanly man is a denial of nature and thus by extension harmful for the health of life.

It's less about access to his books for me than about people for whom his books are not meant to be understood, pretend they actually do. This lack of awareness on there being different natures and hierarchies is what stems from the liberal democratic age we live in.

>> No.15765291

>>15765166
Readers who become confused can be forgiven for mistaking a statement about ideal types for a statement about women as a whole. The English language has a funny way of producing statements about groups, you see; if you wanted to formulate a statement about women as a whole, then "women are x" would be exactly how you'd write it.
To make matters worse, this ambiguity is often used to create plausible deniability for intentionally general statements, and critical readers develop a tendency to be suspicious of everything.

>> No.15765360

Women are simple. The problem is that men are hopeless fools.
There, that's how men-women relationship works on average