Was Nietzsche btfo'd by Jung?

[Anonymous No.15803393]

>“No amount of insight into the relativity and fallibility of our moral judgement can deliver us from these defects, and those who deem themselves beyond good and evil are usually the worst tormentors of mankind, because they are twisted with the pain and fear of their own sickness”.

[Anonymous No.15803475]

>>15803393
No.

[Anonymous No.15803483]

>>15803393
Literally they’re in agreement here senpai baka

[Anonymous No.15803510]

>>15803483
How are they in agreement?

[Anonymous No.15804319]

Nietzsche was not "beyond good and evil" himself, it's just that he could conceive of such a state as an evolved worldview and wrote about it in order to provide philosophical guidance to the potential higher man. Jung's assessment of those who call themselves "beyond good and evil" or consider that it applies to them are really just behaving sociopathically, and worse yet -- because they lack the remorseless affect of the true sociopath -- ensnaring themselves in a web of denial, fear, guilt, and transgression. They are borrowing against a neurosis which will eventually come to collect, and which will most likely take everything these people have as forfeiture. Worse yet, because this hypothetical person doesn't understand his own thought patterns -- or tries to remain willfully ignorant of them -- he is blithe and oblivious in the harm he inflicts on this around him, and derives no improvement or self-knowledge from the process. While the concept of a moral system which is Beyond Good And Evil is fairly simple for one's philosophical mind to grasp, one's actual behavior is calibrated to a kind of fundamental moral law which (ostensibly) predates civilization -- to break that law is to break something in oneself, and to make life a kind of 'unwinnable game' for which there is no evolutionary psychological / psychoanalytic referent. It is the No Man's Land of Maldoror, of Raskolnikov, of Leopold & Loeb -- it makes one realize that, while the Higher Man might have existed in history (and may well exist again), /you are not him/, and existence will exact a high price from any such dumb ape who fancies himself More Than Human.

Jung actually did give a seminar on Nietzsche's Zarathustra in which he was very critical of the man himself, yet had nothing but praise for the depth and beauty of his work. Might be worth looking into and combing for references.

[Anonymous No.15804335]

>>15804319
beyond cringe

[Anonymous No.15804345]

>>15804319
PROTIP: Don't use the term 'evolved' ever

[Anonymous No.15804351]

>>15804319
pseud

[Anonymous No.15804360]

>>15804319
Bro, but morality IS a good in itself.

[Anonymous No.15804548]

>>15804319
faggot

[Anonymous No.15804567]

>>15804319
Just stop posting your offensively idiotic nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15804568]

>>15804360
>This is not a philosophical race – these Englishmen. […] That fatuous dolt, Carlyle, knew well enough what England lacks and has always lacked; Carlyle, that half-actor and rhetorician who tried to conceal under impassioned grimaces what he knew about himself: namely, what he lacked – real power of intellect, real profundity of spiritual vision, in short: philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15804707]

>>15804568
>>This is not a philosophical race – these Englishmen. […] That fatuous dolt, Carlyle, knew well enough what England lacks and has always lacked; Carlyle, that half-actor and rhetorician who tried to conceal under impassioned grimaces what he knew about himself: namely, what he lacked – real power of intellect, real profundity of spiritual vision, in short: philosophy.
Yeesh, why you gotta be so angry bro. Nietzsche considered Carlyle an interesting writer, but he changes his mind to suit whatever he wants to impress the reader with. Carlyle is a rhetorician but to say he doesn't have "real intellect" or "real profundity" is nothing more than another anecdotally dishonest statement by Nietzsche. Nevertheless no one would deny, if Carlyle was dishonest to himself, Nietzsche was all the more in his supposed greater genius.

[Anonymous No.15804729]

>>15804707
N dunks on C multiple times in different works... hardly anecdotal

[Anonymous No.15804733]

>>15804548
>>15804567
>>15804351
>>15804335
>>15804345
This is why there is no good discussion on /lit/. Contribute some discussion or discuss some contrasting points.

What he's stating there, is that like Raskolnikov mentioned above, some who think thinks they are 'above a human' or some such are clearly escaping insecurity or being detached. Being the Overman Nietzsche discussed requires being in connection with being a person, accepting everything that comes with that, like human relationships, and operating from there, with your own virtues. NOT mentally deeming yourself above people and declaring morals as created concepts that can be disregarded because god isn't real.

[Anonymous No.15804734]

>>15804733
Yeah I don't quite understand why they became so infatuated with your post.

[Anonymous No.15804740]

>>15804319
Pseud

[Anonymous No.15804837]

>>15804729
An anecdote can be repeated many times anon. Also you should know, an anecdote doesn't mean someone doesn't believe it. The point was that Nietzsche did in fact find Carlyle interesting at one point.

Besides, as I said, Nietzsche was hardly honest with himself in his own lifetime. And comparingly to the hypothetical dishonesty of Carlyle, the self-deception of Nietzsche is leviathan. Carlyle was a historian above anything else, but no sound person would deny the merit of his philosophical insights. This I find to be a manifestation of Nietzsche's life-deception. No sane thinking person so detests something like this without some disgust for himself, or extreme personal inability. Some say this was because he was the only one who completely grappled with the times, like the Op says exactly, and by this lose himself some factor of the normal intuitively assumed life.

[Anonymous No.15805681]

>>15804319
yikes
pretty cringe bro

[Anonymous No.15805938]

Literally no one gives a fuck what Jung thinks besides /lit/

[Anonymous No.15806147]

>guy who had sex with his patients talking about ethics and morality

[Anonymous No.15806399]

>>15806147
>Yes.

[Anonymous No.15806437]

>>15804319
Did this hit the /lit/ kiddies a little too close to home or something? Why are you all dogpiling on this post?

[Anonymous No.15806451]

>>15806399
they cute

[Anonymous No.15806481]

>>15804319
I dont know why you are being called a pseud. You present a sound argument. I think the main problem here is that is not the place for it. This board /lit/ is probably the best place on the internet to exchange free ideas. But even in here its still full of retarded fat nerds pseudos that larp as sociopaths. So in their small minds they are in fact "beyond good and evil" taking in consideration the ammount of people like that in here. Is not surprise that your argument thats pretty based by the way. Its no surprise a lot of them feel directly called on by what you have written.

[Anonymous No.15807733]

>>15806437
probabaly a samefag who doesn't like the reply.

[Anonymous No.15807782]

>>15806399
chad and stacie

[Anonymous No.15807849]

>>15803393
>they are twisted with the pain and fear of their own sickness
literally me

[Anonymous No.15808179]

>person mentions Nietzsche
>Noooooo, you're misunderstanding him you midwit pseud!
every time

[Anonymous No.15808334]

>>15808179
he isn't even that difficult either. most nietzsche kids would shit themselves if they read kant.