/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16383875]

What are some good refutations of Nietzsche? I don't mean the boomerprot one-liners like "ackshually god isn't dead" but real, intellectual, refutations of Nietzsche's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16383881]

He's irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.16383886]

The Will to Euphoria

[Anonymous No.16383900]

>>16383886
?

[Anonymous No.16383932]

>>16383875
There's nothing to refute when what good faith explications exist are as fragementary as the social material in their fidelity; it's a goose chase, shadow chasing.

[Anonymous No.16383945]

>>16383932
In English please.

[Anonymous No.16383993]

His whole philosophy amounts to a childish temper tantrum. There's nothing intellectual in it. You can't refute something when you don't even know what precisely it is that you're trying to refute.

[Anonymous No.16384006]

>>16383875
Easy, he was not a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.16384013]

>>16383993
T. tradcath LARPer

[Anonymous No.16384020]

>>16384006
Who's the fella in the pic related?
>>16383993
What makes you say that? Surely a claim that his work was childish temper tantrum is a refutation in and of itself so what is the base for saying that?

[Anonymous No.16384155]

>>16384013
I'm an atheist.

[Anonymous No.16384270]

>>16383875
The only things refutable in his philosophy is his views on women. Its so obviously clear when reading Zarathustra or BG&E that this nigga had 0 puss kek

[Anonymous No.16384302]

>>16384270
He has at least 1(one) pucci because he died of syphilis.

[Anonymous No.16384611]

>>16383875
>What are some good refutations of Nietzsche?
Pic related but it's pretty frail. It doesn't take much to see how it's wrong. Other than that it's impossible to repudiate his writings. I'm a big fan of his slave morality theory.

[Anonymous No.16384624]

>>16383993
>There's nothing intellectual in it.
Perspectivism, which everything is based around.

[Anonymous No.16384625]

>>16384155
What don't you like about his works?

[Anonymous No.16384639]

>>16384302
lmao
oh anon if only you knew.

[Anonymous No.16384641]

>>16383875
His reevaluation of all values toward the revitalization of humanity is ironically a higher-level morality and idealism. This becomes especially explicit when you take a look at the naturalist readings; really, how is “strength” and “health” and “strong wills” conceptually different from “good” and “evil” beyond their historical context? P sure this is why even in his last notes N was still trying to overcome the problem of nihilism, which immediately sees through this language and says “Fuck it.”

[Anonymous No.16384646]

>>16384639
Don't tell me he was gay

[Anonymous No.16384666]

>>16383875
I hesitate to post a video but seeing as it's robust perfectly in /lit/ spirit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6gV1MUSXMg
Assessment of philosophic systems and the clear straight-language outlining of essential differences and irreducile primaries must necessarily be deliberate.

[Anonymous No.16384671]

>>16384646
read about his trip to Italy. almost certainly gay because of female rejection.

[Anonymous No.16384674]

>>16384641
as i see it nietzsche tried to dismantle the social constructs of good and evil, which were based on an devitalizing christian idea of morality

[Anonymous No.16384694]

>>16384671
If only Salomé gave him some puss he probably would have lived until old age and would have written the final boss of philosophy

[Anonymous No.16384705]

>>16384641
>“strength” and “health” and “strong wills” conceptually different from “good” and “evil”
Look up Beyond Good and Evil before saying this again please.

[Anonymous No.16384749]

>>16384302
He didn't die of syphilis. This was a misdiagnosis that's no longer regarded as accurate.

[Anonymous No.16384789]

>>16384625
Not him, but you'll notice after reading other philosophers that Neetch doesn't make arguments. He'll call out philosophers ans cultures and applly them labels in an aphoristic manner. Also, some of his biggest philosophical principles are incredibly vague. To this day I still don't understand what makes someone an Ubermensch and it seems N simply gave the title to people he personally liked.

[Anonymous No.16384799]

>>16383875
>literally all of modern politics and philosophy is derived from Nietzsche
>hurr durr wut r sum gud refute-tationz?

[Anonymous No.16384804]

>And more simply, power does not always win either. Fate is the simplest argument against Nietzsche. Where fate intervenes one can be certain that something greater than power has taken hold - as in the strong character up against forces greater than this world. Will always falls short in these situations.
>Germany is the obvious political example, both stronger and morally right, yet it lost. The alpha wolf can be overcome by a larger group, and the deformed deer may be the only survivor of a forest fire. Darwinist nature is merely a myth of technicians.

[Anonymous No.16384814]

>>16384799
>modern politics
Fucking how

[Anonymous No.16384815]

>>16384799
>literally all of modern politics and philosophy is derived from Nietzsche

?

[Anonymous No.16384831]

>>16384814
I wouldn't say all, or even much, but he made a lot of predictions which came true, all the way up to the 21st century. He pretty much followed Bismarck's entire career very closely, and while he lived in Switzerland he learned a good deal about democracy and came to a number of conclusions on where it would lead.

[Anonymous No.16384835]

>>16384804
What you insipidly call fate is simply the sum of wills. It's both completely darwinian and deterministic, you're literally so stupid you've confused a descriptive statement with a normative one.

[Anonymous No.16384836]

>>16384835

[Anonymous No.16384857]

>>16383875
>refutations of Nietzsche
>implying
you're in for a rough wake-up call

[Anonymous No.16384865]

>>16384804
Whoever wrote this didn't understand anything he read.

[Anonymous No.16384889]

>>16384804
Based.
>>16384835
Cringe

[Anonymous No.16384899]

>>16384804
this is the dumbest thing I've read in a while
I'm guessing a christcuck wrote this?

[Anonymous No.16384904]

>>16384020
It is Gustavo Bueno

[Anonymous No.16384941]

>>16384804
Good argument. What's it from?

[Anonymous No.16384976]

Is he a Platonist?
He may be correct.
Is he not a Platonist?
In the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.16384981]

>>16383993
you've never read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16384985]

>>16384981
>>16384865
neetchfags only have one argument.

[Anonymous No.16384999]

>>16384804
>>16384941
>>/lit/thread/S15699953#p15711931

[Anonymous No.16385032]

>>16384985
The shoe fits. That quote is retarded, for two reasons:

1. It doesn't seem to understand anything about Nietzsche's amor fati, or acknowledge anything he wrote about fate.

2. It applied a non-Nietzschean concept, the "alpha wolf," to Nietzsche, and doesn't acknowledge what he wrote about masters, who are masters regardless of their position in society, and who are not necessarily leading it.

Overall, it seems aimed at some other philosophy, not Nietzsche's.

[Anonymous No.16385055]

>>16384976
you gay?

[Anonymous No.16385058]

>>16384666
>Ayn Rand
No wonder she hated Kant and classical German philosophy so much, he Copernicus'd the foundation for philosophy to be ethics (in its inferential form as "logic" and critique) and had anything else come through that.

[Anonymous No.16385095]

>>16385032
retard

[Anonymous No.16385103]

>>16385095
>anti-Nietzsche fags only have one "argument"
It's astounding how everyone who attempts to criticize Nietzsche almost immediately show off how little they understood of him. It's almost as if they didn't read him.

[Anonymous No.16385110]

>>16384006
based granujilla (pbuh) poster

[Anonymous No.16385121]

>>16383875
George Grant in Technology and Justice, as well as Wyndham Lewis in The Art of Being Ruled have decent critiques of him (Grant as a hater of Nietzsche, Lewis as a quasi-acolyte)

Nietzsche is tough to critique on account of his perspectivism, and the majority of (invalid) critiques usually attempt to undercut him by pigeonholing him into some form of objective grounding, attacking him personally or pointing out the consequences of one form of his thought (C.S. Lewis is egregious in this regard)

Nietzsche is only effectively refuted to the extent that you can demonstrate aspects of his thought to be internally contradictory, and I would say that Lewis and Grant get close to that end (despite, at points, wavering into the mentioned fallacies)

[Anonymous No.16385129]

>>16383932
Classic /lit/ malapropism

[Anonymous No.16385140]

>>16385103
nietzsche was having a temper tantrum. and the other argument seems true. but you provide no argument other than "you didn't read"

[Anonymous No.16385158]

>>16384006
>>16384904
(pbuh)

>>16383875
There is no need to refute Nietzsche's philosophy at academical level, since he made academy's buthole hurt so bad that no philosopher will, ever, say that your argument is invalid because Nietzsche said the contrary.

[Anonymous No.16385159]

>>16383875
I think Nietzsche would view trying to "refute" people as a Last Man-ish activity. What matters is life-affirmation.

[Anonymous No.16385178]

>>16385159
>life-affirmation
take this (You) from me
you deserve it

[Anonymous No.16385181]

>>16385159
This. Philosophy was ended before Wittgenstein. Philosophy is a cerebral surrogate for a practical, aesthetic relationship with existence.

[Anonymous No.16385224]

>>16385140
The quote is literally wrong about him.

>And more simply, power does not always win either.
This makes no sense in relation to Nietzsche. Will to power is not something that wins or loses, it is throughout, a constant. Both the master and slave moralist express the will to power. The Christian expresses his will to power when he kneels with his hands folded in prayer. The altruist expresses his will to power when he "unconditionally" gives. The key to understanding this is in his perspectivism.

>Where fate intervenes one can be certain that something greater than power has taken hold - as in the strong character up against forces greater than this world.
Fate is an interpretation. It's subject to a perspective like all other concepts. It's an expression of the will to power. His "formula for greatness" was amor fati, or love of one's fate — or, the feeling of oneself as fate.

>The alpha wolf can be overcome by a larger group, and the deformed deer may be the only survivor of a forest fire.
Nietzsche literally writes himself that great individuals are constantly under threat by the herd. The "alpha wolf" is not what he means by great individuals; he meant something closer to Schopenhauer's genius. But all the same, he wrote about how greatness =/= survival. The great often don't survive.

>Darwinist nature is merely a myth of technicians.
Nietzsche rejected Darwinist nature. From Twilight of the Idols:

"Species do not grow more perfect: the weaker dominate the strong, again and again— the reason being that they are the great majority, and they are also cleverer. Darwin forgot the mind (—that is English!): the weak possess more mind. … To acquire mind, one must need mind—one loses it when one no longer needs it."

tl;dr please actually read some books before posting on the literature board.

[Anonymous No.16385231]

>>16385103
>It's almost as if they didn't read him
>almost
>implying
you know they didn't
why do you think they call him a nihilist?
because his wikipedia article says so

[Anonymous No.16385258]

>>16383875
Nietzche's "God Is Dead" is a claim about society, not God.
And if society killed God, then why are atheists dying out and religious people increasing?
>>16384611
Yeah, he pretty much got everything else right.
And I don't view his hypocrisy as a refutation. I don't act in how I believe I should act at all either.

[Anonymous No.16385312]

>>16384611
good read, saved.

[Anonymous No.16385313]

>>16384835
The sum of wills causes a certain thing to happen? Does the sun rise because we will it to happen? Or will the coin land on heads because I will it, or enough people will it? Is this what you mean?

[Anonymous No.16385335]

>>16385159
This guy got it

[Anonymous No.16385342]

>>16385224
If you do not love fate, is that also not your fate? Or is "fate" something you were destined for, not necessarily everything that happens to you or what you currently are?

[Anonymous No.16385350]

To refute Nietzsche just post that photograph of him naked with Salome and the other guy who cucked him, and look at his tiny incel peepee and laugh at this man, Nietzsche "superman", Nietzsche drooling imbecile, Nietzsche syphillitic cuckold, Nietzsche your prophet

[Anonymous No.16385355]

>>16385350
>To refute Nietzsche just post that photograph of him naked with Salome and the other guy who cucked him, and look at his tiny incel peepee and laugh at this man, Nietzsche "superman", Nietzsche drooling imbecile, Nietzsche syphillitic cuckold, Nietzsche your prophet

[Anonymous No.16385357]

>>16385350
>tiny incel peepee
That wasn't Nietzsche and the dudes penis was average. Please stop sewing insecurity.

[Anonymous No.16385365]

>>16385355
Post wojack and you immediately gravitate towards lookign like a pseud and child. Wrong in other words. Didn't read the post.

[Anonymous No.16385379]

>>16383875
Hello I'm that schizoanon that hears the voices of philosophers.

Nietzsche was just like "They're so obsessed with me. It's hilarious."

[Anonymous No.16385411]

>>16383875
Keith Woods refutes him effortlessly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxRdW7KmffQ

[Anonymous No.16385424]

>>16385365
>Post wojack and you immediately gravitate towards lookign like a pseud and child. Wrong in other words. Didn't read the post.
fun fact, I am this anon>>16385350
but I would fucking die before I let a niggerbrain sºyboy such as you defend any of my posts

[Anonymous No.16385428]

>>16385350
>To refute Nietzsche just post that obviously fake image that looks nothing like any of them

[Anonymous No.16385431]

What does a "refutation of Nietzsche" actually consist in? Have you spent more than five seconds reflecting on what that would imply? Which part of Nietzsche's thought do you want "refuted" in the first place?

[Anonymous No.16385443]

>>16384799
>>literally all of modern politics and philosophy is derived from Nietzsche
This is a thread for people who have read books, please don't comment again.

[Anonymous No.16385468]

>>16385431
Came here to say this. The question is much too broad and fragmented, so we can assume OP wanted instructions on how to discuss him. To be perfectly candid, I'm not entirely sure why someone would even want the ammunition to riddle a philosopher with bullets of pure logic i.e., I'm not nearly as concerned with OP not being specific enough, but why on earth OP is asking how to tell why X-philosopher's is "wrong" rather than why X-philosopher is "right". When you understand how and why X-philosopher came to the conclusions, morals, principles, etc., that they did... you'll understand the limitations therein. In the words of that specter hologram thing from iRobot: "You must ask the right questions"

[Anonymous No.16385500]

>>16385468
>so we can assume OP wanted instructions on how to discuss him
What OP actually but unconsciously wants is to be told to learn to read because he obviously hasn't read anything at all.
>>16385443
It's not that hard to understand what the other anon meant unless you're being deliberately uncharitable. Nietzsche is the father of modernism. The connection is obvious.

[Anonymous No.16385511]

>>16385431
just christcucks who can't get over the fact that they themselves killed their jewish god, obviously

[Anonymous No.16385525]

>>16385431
>>16385468
>>16385500
>No you can't call a philosopher's ideas foul and try to refute them! Why would you even do that? Do you know what that even implies?
Why do Nietzsche's fanboys always act like he is an immovable bedrock of thought? I've read him, I wasn't impressed, and I(OP) was merely looking to see if anyone else has felt the same and articulated it well.

[Anonymous No.16385535]

>>16385511
t. doesn't understand the quote

[Anonymous No.16385536]

>>16384804
>>16384941
>>16384999
>>16385032
I posted that. I am generally hesitant to participate in these threads because any sort of thoughtful post tends to get buried, and Nietzsche threads are notoriously bad. I think the severe division is a good sign in writing, it is like two sides responding to a mortal wound. Most interesting in the Nietzschean responses is the complete inability to see his own methods used against him.

A rough outline of my arguments can be found here:
>>/lit/thread/S15886638#p15891964

One has to be careful with such things however. 'Refutation' is an entirely wrong way to go about philosophy, especially when dealing with any high-level figures. Even critique is something of a catastrophe of thought, and when you engage with other thinkers it is best to have the intent of carrying on a thread, even with an enemy you must give them their due. Nietzsche's status however suggests the necessity of a severe critique, especially when much better thinkers are buried and forgotten because of that status.

Nietzsche is, of course, notoriously difficult to engage with. For one, he contradicts himself to the extreme, which is why any argument is simply met with quote spamming, and why any political position can lay claim to his ideas. He has moments where he is brilliant, appearing equal to the greats, and then in the next line he comes across as an idiot. But rather than dismissing this outright one should understand Nietzsche as something like a political advisor in times of crisis: a useful member of the court if the ruler himself is a discerning thinker. One has to be able to sort through the brilliance and the incredible power for mistakes.

Holderlin's "Of Truth" is revealing here. Nietzsche may be understood as one who is willing to be manipulated and fooled by the first instincts to truth. There is strength in this because in certain moments one must give himself over to fate, or the immediate necessity of decision - any plan is better than no plan - but this is where the instincts may become completely separated from spirit. The will may be set entirely against fate. For the Greeks there was an understanding that one who surpasses the law of drink, a certain number of vessels, is no longer one with the festival and is to be rightly abandoned by Dionysus. The drinker must master his alcohol to elevate it into something greater, beyond madness and even fate. At the same time this was something of a tentative law. Nietzsche was not one for such subtlety, and his incapacity for the decisions of a great drinker suggests his enslavement to the will, one which could set itself against fate or the dionysian.

[Anonymous No.16385544]

>>16385536
2
The question of fate is a very difficult one. The understanding of fate obviously changes, but this does not suggest that the nietzschean view is correct, Fate is certainly not 'the sum of wills' nor any iron decisiveness that one will succeed. Nietzsche's view is something of an impoverished version of the Machiavellian understanding, and paradoxically a Christianisation of it (along with his concept of tragedy). To explain fate in terms of myth and history would be impossible here, but to get a sense of it one may look to Diomedes. After his battle with the gods he says quite plainly to Glaucus, "I'm not the man to fight the gods of heaven... I have no desire to fight the blithe immortals." The deep humility of the fate of the hero. Nietzsche, who was completely lacking in heroic achievements was of a completely opposite character. He elevated himself to the level of gods, a deep hubris. This is to set the will against fate, to mark it as an enemy, perhaps the greatest law of the modern era and the last men. Completely oblivious to the laws of the gods, if not themselves.

https://youtu.be/RUlaiQc9Vpg

[Anonymous No.16385549]

>>16385431
this, also, what is there even to refute? Is Nietzsche now a real philosopher? Because as far as I can tell he was a second rate philologist that wrote some menial prose for teenage boys, and what counts as his "philosophy" is essentialy his admission of homossexuality. All this talk of overman was essentialy him, the bitter queerboy moaning about the fact that his object of admiration - Wagner - would have nothing to do with him.

[Anonymous No.16385570]

>>16385525
Of course, you can refute their pestilent, erroneous allegations that are incongruent with the natural world. Go for it. Not a Nietzsche cat myself, I always preferred the pure irrefutable logicism of Wittgenstein and Kant. Nietzsche seems like he wanted to be divisive. So play with the instruments he has presented. And remember anon, in your refutation of their progenitor be sure to meditate on the supreme irony involved.

[Anonymous No.16385581]

>>16385549
:O he courted Wagner, under this and Wagner dismissed him? Is that true anon?

[Anonymous No.16385582]

>>16385511
Despite my better judgement I'm actually fairly friendly to "trad" Christians, but this obsession they have with Nietzsche has to be one of strongest sources of second hand embarrassment I've ever encountered.
>>16385525
Read him again because you obviously weren't doing it right the first time, then. You can't ask for the "refutation" of a person - you can ask for refutation of this or that specific idea that he came up with. If you want a holistic critique of his entire body of thought, you will have to specify the perspective and parameters of the critique. I have read and agreed with critiques of Nietzsche's naturalism, as well as the incoherence of the concepts of the Overman and the new morality. The validity of these critiques does not "refute" Nietzsche, because he's the most major, influential and powerful critic of nihilism and his tremendous legacy is impossible to dismiss - unless you refuse to read, of course.

[Anonymous No.16385583]

>>16385570
>I always preferred the pure irrefutable logicism of Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.16385584]

>>16385549
>what is there even to refute?
Perspectivism.

[Anonymous No.16385586]

>>16385581
>>16385549
>sorry anon, the computer glitched and the comment was submitted.
:O he courted Wagner, under this guise of heterosexuality, and then Wagner dismissed him? Is that true anon? This little tidbit will make me the coolest guy at the party.

[Anonymous No.16385603]

>>16385549
You also need to learn to read. Nietzche was the first person to seriously acknowledge, tackle and attempt to solve the crisis of nihilism. His solutions may have been completely worthless, but his analytical work, despite its flaws, was a major step forward for humanity. Nevertheless, it is still very difficult to critique it without first making a precise definition of what exactly is to be critiqued.

[Anonymous No.16385605]

>>16385535
>t newfag who can't into greentext
i do very well
>How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves?
and i'm applying it to the jewish cult known as christianity right now

[Anonymous No.16385608]

read Deleuze

[Anonymous No.16385610]

>>16385582
>Read him again because you obviously weren't doing it right the first time, then
It's the same one or two lines with you obnoxious faggots who drool over the though of deep-throating Nietzsche's incel cock. Regardless of whether its on /pol/, /lit/, or /his/ every since thread that criticizes Nietzsche in the slightest gets flooded by retards screeching either "YOU CANNOT REFUTE NIETZSCHE" or "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HIM". Its fucking pathetic.

[Anonymous No.16385612]

>>16385605
You’ve never read Nietzsche kiddo.

[Anonymous No.16385619]

>>16385605
>>t newfag who can't into greentext
Hello, Reddit.

[Anonymous No.16385624]

>>16385549
>>16385581
>>16385586
>homosexual christcuck fanfictions
not surprised in the slightest

Parsifal is still shit

[Anonymous No.16385626]

>>16385610
>It's the same one or two lines with you obnoxious faggots who drool over the though of deep-throating Nietzsche's incel cock. Regardless of whether its on /pol/, /lit/, or /his/ every since thread that criticizes Nietzsche in the slightest gets flooded by retards screeching either "YOU CANNOT REFUTE NIETZSCHE" or "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HIM". Its fucking pathetic

[Anonymous No.16385643]

>>16385612
want me to prove his antisemitism?

"Formerly he had only his own people, his “chosen” people. But since then he has gone wandering, like his people themselves, into foreign parts; he has given up settling down quietly anywhere; finally he has come to feel at home everywhere, and is the great cosmopolitan—until now he has the “great majority” on his side, and half the earth. But this god of the “great majority,” this democrat among gods, has not become a proud heathen god: on the contrary, he remains a Jew, he remains a god in a corner, a god of all the dark nooks and crevices, of all the noisesome quarters of the world!... His earthly kingdom, now as always, is a kingdom of the underworld, a souterrain kingdom, a ghetto kingdom.... And he himself is so pale, so weak, so décadent.... Even the palest of the pale are able to master him—messieurs the metaphysicians, those albinos of the intellect. They spun their webs around him for so long that finally he was hypnotized, and began to spin himself, and became another metaphysician. Thereafter he resumed once more his old busi ness of spinning the world out of his inmost being sub specie Spinozae; thereafter he became ever thinner and paler—became the “ideal,” became “pure spirit,” became “the absolute,” became “the thing-in-itself.”... The collapse of a god: he became a “thing-in-itself.”"

[Anonymous No.16385649]

>>16385342
Fate is a matter of interpretation. Master and slave morality can be viewed as opposite polarities on a spectrum regarding one's feeling of control towards fate. The master feels in control of fate, while the slave feels controlled by fate. Master morality is an expression of strength, while slave morality is an expression of weakness. Both are an expression of will to power, i.e., in both circumstances, fate is being created by a perspective.

[Anonymous No.16385663]

>>16383875
was this retard actually an atheist? wasn't he supposed to be smart?

Actually believing our existence is random. How quaint

[Anonymous No.16385675]

>>16383875
Nothing to refute, his philosophy is just aesthetic appreciation, you agree or not

[Anonymous No.16385687]

>>16385643
"The Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world, for when they were confronted with the question, to be or not to be, they chose, with perfectly unearthly deliberation, to be at any price: this price involved a radical falsification of all nature, of all naturalness, of all reality, of the whole inner world, as well as of the outer. They put themselves against all those conditions under which, hitherto, a people had been able to live, or had even been permitted to live; out of themselves they evolved an idea which stood in direct opposition to natural conditions—one by one they distorted religion, civilization, morality, history and psychology until each became a contradiction of its natural significance. We meet with the same phenomenon later on, in an incalculably exaggerated form, but only as a copy: the Christian church, put beside the “people of God,” shows a complete lack of any claim to originality. Precisely for this reason the Jews are the most fateful people in the history of the world: their influence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that today the Christian can cherish anti-Semitism without realizing that it is no more than the final consequence of Judaism."

oh, yess..

>>16385663
>atheist
he wasn't
he just rejected the disaster that is judeo-christian values and advocated for their transvaluation, in this regard
not the same

[Anonymous No.16385690]

>>16385610
>"hey can I have uhhhh... one refutation of Plato, please?"
>this is you
Zero brain activity. Here's the thing anon - it's not that Nietzsche's ideas are sacred, incontrovertible, perfect and the complete truth. On the contrary, they are very vulnerable and open to all kinds of criticism. Your problem is that you're incapable of understanding his ideas at all, so you naturally conclude that - assuming Nietzsche is wrong - he must be wrong about everything. The notion that his thought has had a colossal impact on world history because at least some of it may be necessarily correct seems to elude you entirely, hence you ask for a refutation of a person, rather than this or that of his ideas - which would be a perfectly possible thing to do. Worse - you have not even outlined what type of criticism actually interests you, which means that you're probably a 105 IQ drone, doomed to eternally repeat pop-sci and pop-phil talking points dependent on the "right/wrong" binary for as long as you live. A dreadful, unenviable fate.

[Anonymous No.16385691]

>>16385643
Was he suicidal, because he wanted antisemites to be shot. He admired his contemporary Jews more than Germans. He admired the Old Testament. He thought Jews were among the best racialists

[Anonymous No.16385705]

>>16385536
Hm. Two things. Are we to assume that Nietzsche, in these bouts of contradiction, is to be interpreted as high irony? Contradiction done correctly is just another rendition of beauty, shaped obliquely to resonate as a compounding iteration. On contradiction, Emerson (in either Nature or Circles, or perhaps Gifts, I don't remember) claimed, with the utmost conviction - I might add - that one should say one thing and contradict himself the next day because the consequences are marginal and the recourse is nonexistent. Blake was an ungodly offender of the transgression of contradictions, and his brilliance is unequivocal. Though, perhaps through all of these evocations of memory, I have directed this freight train off the bridge and into the murky waters below.

The second thing, (and I know it was in conjunction with an elaboration) of the Greeks, one of Socrates' greatest attributes was his "inability" to get drunk. I have always assumed this was because he neglected to drink genuinely and heartedly, not allowing himself to fall victim to the demons that result from such merriment. A ruse, or some clever Socratic trick of perception. Though, looking at it from your lense of the control of disposition makes much more sense. Thanks, anon!

[Anonymous No.16385712]

>>16385032
>>16385224
This is a case of being a bad reader. You couldn't even understand a basic metaphor and insisted that it must be a direct and simple misunderstanding of Nietzsche. Read Aristotle and Plato.

As I wrote above, it's nearly impossible to discuss something like fate in extremely short form, especially when it involves others who aren't read on the subject. Hence the suggestion that it is a simple, passing comment.

That said, it is a very significant argument against Nietzsche's understanding of power and fate. His lack of sympathy for the fated suggests a deep contradiction and inability to reconcile with questions which were quite basic in the ancient world. And his fall to 'fate', really the failure of his own will, shows the incredible power held by fate: it rarely ever needs to act, it is the cold and indifferent passing on of the thread allotted and cut by three goddesses. Your love or hate of it is entirely the wrong response, a concern of bourgeois humanists, or the simply hubristic. For Machiavelli the response was dualistic, one must defend against it but also act towards it as a young man winning a woman. Obviously Nietzsche wasn't very well versed in such things, hence his blind and foolish response.

The other difficulty is that of power (again, a basic question you confuse because of your dogmatic adherence to a philosopher who was supposed to be anything but dogmatic). Whether it is power or the will to power doesn't really matter that much, the argument is basically the same, only the degree of consequences shifts. But one has to imagine that if Nietzsche experienced such a catastrophe in a life without power that any sort of position of greatness which held similar ideas would end up being even more catastrophic. This is, again, a very basic question of the ancient understanding of power, indicative of a further blindness of Nietzsche. One must be aware of the great potential of catastrophe, of the idiot willing to throw himself into the labyrinth. But one must also have sympathy for the fated, that the hero must raise all of the ignoble along with himself, even if this means death.

Nietzsche thought death was a banality, he had no concern for the plight of the fated, only his own ignoble feeling of power. Such an understanding is against fate and heroism. What is the will to power in the face of such high values? A deep impoverishment, a historicised aesthetic, a plebeian romanticism.

Also funny is that you are ignorant that the basic argument here, that which gives rise to my own, is similar to the only true heirs to Nietzsche. Read more next time.

[Anonymous No.16385716]

>>16385691
nothing of what you just wrote is true, impressive
you must be royally butthurt about Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16385718]

>>16385663
"God", "immortality of the soul", "redemption", "beyond" -- Without exception, concepts to which I have never devoted any attention, or time; not even as a child. Perhaps I have never been childlike enough for them?
I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: It is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers - at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!

[Anonymous No.16385727]

>>16385712
Please explain his perspectivism to me. This will make or break your authority on Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.16385730]

>>16385716
>To friend Overbeck and wife....I am just having all anti-Semites shot. - Dionysus Jan 6, 1889

[Anonymous No.16385739]

>"hurr Nietzsche was against anti-semitism durr"
>not realizing he rejected them for their christcucked Herde-Mentality
*sigh*
>>16385687

[Anonymous No.16385750]

>>16384835
based
at least one person itt has actually read Nietzsche instead of misunderstanding wikipedia articles of reactionaries or whatever brain damaged shit goes into the 'refutations' here

[Anonymous No.16385754]

>>16385730
"Must I add that, in the whole New Testament, there appears but a solitary figure worthy of honour? Pilate, the Roman viceroy. To regard a Jewish imbroglio seriously -- that was quite beyond him. One Jew more or less -- what did it matter? . . . The noble scorn of a Roman, before whom the word "truth" was shamelessly mishandled, enriched the New Testament with the only saying that has any value -- and that is at once its criticism and its destruction: "What is truth?""
>To regard a Jewish imbroglio seriously -- that was quite beyond him. One Jew more or less -- what did it matter?
-Antichrist

[Anonymous No.16385769]

>>16385712
Not the anon you're speaking with, but Nietzsche's amor fati is very simply and clearly understood through his concept of eternal return. If you would be willing to affirm your choice within its circumstances thousands upon thousands of times, then you are also a true affirmer of life and a true affirmer of yourself. Pain or pleasure, life or death, victory or defeat all become marginal to the strength of living without regrets.

[Anonymous No.16385770]

>>16385718
What he means to say here is: he is not an atheist the same way that God is not an atheist.

[Anonymous No.16385790]

>>16385619
>>

[Anonymous No.16385893]

>>16385705
A good question, but also a difficult one. Of course contradiction in simple matters should not be a moral concern, to be able to contradict oneself may even be necessary for vitality. Here I am speaking of contradiction in the sense of socratic or mythic paradox set against aristotelian non-contradiction.

Obviously this was something criticised by Nietzsche as well. But what I neglected to mention above is the importance of seeing the essence of what is said. This is one of the other difficulties in reading Nietzsche, in many cases he says the right things or approaches the right questions. But from another perspective it is as if he is simply ticking all of the right boxes. For all of his hatred of the rational he had many mechanistic qualities to his thought. The great danger of the irrational is its impotence before greater laws, its inability to penetrate or even hold to its own character. And in much of what Nietzsche says, beneath the surface, it seems that the essential is lacking. As much as he speaks of the spirit he also condemns himself to mundane concerns. This would be, despite his protests, a mechanised and rationalist set of contradictions resolved through technical measures. In his own way, Nietzsche was an unconscious slave to the law of non-contradiction.

We even see this in his understanding of fate, as I suggested above. His relation is not paradoxical, but an absolute resolution of the contradiction of fate and return. This is how Nietzsche has to be read, not on the surface of whether or not these are interesting questions, as obviously they are interesting. The greater question is to what extent such a path is capable of returning the spirit, whether the will to power is capable of return to fate and spirit or just as likely to fall to the base instincts, if the love of fate is capable of even holding out against nihilism let alone resolving it, if the aesthetics of tragedy and the eternal return hold any power over the higher values. My initial thoughts are that they tend towards contradiction rather than paradox, and are thus fated to a weakening.

[Anonymous No.16385903]

>>16385754
it's for you

[Anonymous No.16385914]

>>16385544
>>16385536
I sincerely hope you've never read Nietzsche, because you have everything comically wrong, it's like you managed to familiarize yourself with all of the terminology and none of the nuance.

[Anonymous No.16385921]

>>16384789
>Not him, but you'll notice after reading other philosophers that Neetch doesn't make arguments
Except he does but you got filtered hard by his style apparently. Read Heraclitus.
>Also, some of his biggest philosophical principles are incredibly vague.
It's more the fact that they are all over his works. But you have to actually read him to know that.
>what makes someone an Ubermensch and it seems N simply gave the title to people he personally liked.
Okay now it's obvious that you're criticizing something you've never read a full chapter of. There hasn't been and won't be any Ubermensch in our time..

[Anonymous No.16385932]

>>16385893
It is a matter of where one begins, the point from which perception begins to look out at the world, and with Nietzsche I see something like the spirit for spirit's sake. There is as much a potential for reduction to the mundane as there is for elevation. What we see with the ancients was opposite to this, the spirit is never a concern in itself, more often it is something received through a clear genealogy, an autochthonous relation to the earth. There is also a deep humility before fate, it is not something active, our spirit is rather a means of transition, something we must elevate ourselves to but also be willing to relinquish. Nietzsche's response is much like the dying monarch's desperate hold on power, reduced to mechanical responses which will only worsen his fate and the court surrounding him. This is technical and self-destructive power of those who are fated to lose everything they have.

As for drink. The inability to get drunk is often due to a mastery over one's fate. It suggests a great strength of character. At the level of comedy it may also be the best way to experience the entirety of the festival, one sees the whole of celebration within a slowing of time. It is a great way to understand the character of everyone involved, and I suppose hold a lawful authority over the celebrations.

In another sense, it is the very necessity of law. As was forgotten in Syracuse one must hold watch over festivities, so the master of drink is something of a watchman or guardian.

[Anonymous No.16385965]

>>16385769
Obviously. But this isn't Fate. Fate for the Greeks was something that could destroy even Zeus, so some weak man's feelings aren't even a question.
To be able to love that which would destroy your possibility of love is an impossibility. This was likely what Nietzsche saw in his final days.

[Anonymous No.16385987]

>>16385965
>To be able to love that which would destroy your possibility of love is an impossibility.
The only thing that can destroy God's love is God. Can God not love himself?

[Anonymous No.16385997]

>>16385965
>Fate for the Greeks was something that could destroy even Zeus
You don't know shit about Greek myth and it shows.

[Anonymous No.16386015]

>>16385965
Zeus controlled fate, anon. Zeus' will IS fate.

[Anonymous No.16386053]

>>16385997
lmao you want to discuss it anon? Even the presocratics discussed this. Read at least one thing before talking shit.
>>16386015
Nice try.

[Anonymous No.16386070]

>>16385727
I'm willing to trade since I've already offered plenty in this thread with very little in return. Give me your understanding of Holderlin's Truth.

[Anonymous No.16386095]

>>16386070
I would say that discussing Nietzsche's perspectivism is more important here than Holderlin being that it's a Nietzsche thread.

[Anonymous No.16386098]

>>16386053

[Anonymous No.16386104]

>>16384976
kek

[Anonymous No.16386111]

>>16383875
If someone had refuted or surpassed Nietzsche then we’d have moved beyond nihilistic modernity into something new by now. The surpassing of nihilism isn’t due (according to Nietzsche) until the middle of our current century anyway.

[Anonymous No.16386123]

>>16386053
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moirai
>They were independent, at the helm of necessity, directed fate, and watched that the fate assigned to every being by eternal laws might take its course without obstruction. Both gods and men had to submit to them, although Zeus's relationship with them is a matter of debate: some sources say he can command them (as Zeus Moiragetes "leader of the Fates"), while others suggest he was also bound to the Moirai's dictates.[3]
>In the Homeric poems Moira or Aisa are related to the limit and end of life, and Zeus appears as the guider of destiny
You are in every sense, wrong. Fate has no control over Zeus, 'moira' literally means 'apportion', because it dealt with mortal lives. Zeus is actually a very great example against fate because he escaped the causal loop of being usurped by his children like the titan gods before him. You are simply an idiot spewing noise.

[Anonymous No.16386129]

>>16386098
>>16386015
You could also try Prometheus Bound. Or literally any ancient text, although that would most likely a waste of time for a nietzschean.
Ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt.

[Anonymous No.16386134]

>>16386123
>sourcing wikipedia to pretend to be an authority on myth
The absolute state.

[Anonymous No.16386136]

>>16385932
>>16385893
Have you happened to read Ludwig Klages? Some of your posts remind me of him.

[Anonymous No.16386151]

>>16386053
>>16386129
>>16386134
You should look into a topic before having an opinion on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moirai
You're not actually going to read anything, so tl;dr
>The Fates worked for Zeus, and he told them what to do. They had no power over him, and their power came solely from him. Zeus is only bound by them in as much as he is bound by his own will. It's like you haven't even read Ho-

...You HAVE read Homer, right? You wouldn't just... Oh dear...

[Anonymous No.16386157]

>>16386123
>others suggest he was also bound to the Moirai's dictates.
Can you read? you just sourced that you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.16386158]

>>16386134
>being so desperate you play the b-b-b-but wikipedia isn't a reliable source card! like some mediocre midwit high school professor
>especially when the wiki article references abundantly common and accessible information
the absolute state of you

[Anonymous No.16386167]

>>16386157
>Zeus having no influence over the fates is the same thing as the fates having influence over Zeus
lmao you're really desperate huh? also this "others" means fringe stories not central to the canon since uhh, HOMER, is squarely in the other camp. Again, the word Moira LITERALLY refers to the shares of mortal lifespans you illiterate dunce.

[Anonymous No.16386172]

>>16386157
>t. doesn't know what he's talking about
You have, once again, fumbled by not actually reading. If you'd taken five seconds to read the article, you'd see that it actually discusses that. Ironically, you'd see that if you read the thread, as this anon >>16386151 already addressed you. The Moirai get their power from Zeus, and enact his will. Zeus is bound by his own will, so the fates account for him (he's not absent from their activities), but if they ever did anything but what he wanted, they'd be unable to do so.

You need to do more reading.

[Anonymous No.16386178]

>>16386157
>>16386053
The very first page of the Iliad demonstrates how stupid and wrong you are, fyi. This is like inexcusable levels of ignorance while pretending to be an intellectual.

[Anonymous No.16386180]

>>16385903
moshi moshi?

[Anonymous No.16386213]

>>16386136
Unfortunately no. He is on my list though.
I think the Nietzschean distinction of mind and spirit is false however. The basic argument is Socratic madness, although I think an even more powerful argument can be made from the perspective of Archimedes. His 'ultrarationalism' was even dedicated to the Muses, whereas the extreme aesthetics of someone like Nietzsche falls well short of being a sacrifice to the Muses. What holds to greater laws is thus not dependent on spirit or mind, the rational or irrational.
This is also contained in the myths as many of the gods have a dualistic quality, there is no divide between types of perception And of course insight, both rational and irrational is a gift of the gods. From this perspective one may sense that abandonment of the deeper laws characterises modern perception, and is applied equally to both the rational and irrational. This becomes clear when we look at art, the irrational descends to even lower levels than the purely rational.
Neither is better, they each hold strengths and weaknesses. What is significant is the relation to greater laws, and one should remember that what may destroy the man of spirit can also occur to the man of the mind in other societies. Arguably the great weakness of Athens, which Xenophon alluded to.

[Anonymous No.16386215]

>>16386070
>öööööööööööööääääääääääüüüüüüüüüü
have some Umlaute, don't spend them all at once

[Anonymous No.16386246]

>>16386213
I will also say that I tend towards the side of spirit, but the other side is neglected at great risk.
>>/lit/thread/S16151939#p16153130

[Anonymous No.16386257]

>>16386167
>>16386172
Not him retards. But nice bait.
>Zeus having no influence
>he was bound to the Moirai's dictates
Try reading your wikipedia links before posting them

[Anonymous No.16386267]

>>16386213
it's actually a trichotomy of spirit, mind & will, like layers of an onion, which constitute the "soul" in Nietzsches writing

[Anonymous No.16386268]

>>16385536
Extremely based.

[Anonymous No.16386279]

The one who has undergone a certain degree of profound suffering, and has also chosen to turn towards it rather than shy away from it, will be unable to refute any "refutation" that a person who has not undergone a certain degree of profound suffering, will put forward against "Nietzsche's philosophy".
What lies within Nietzsche's writings for the latter group of individuals, is a highly unique experience that is dependant on the degree of suffering that the individual has undergone.
What this will often amount to, is an absolute wall.
Those who have undergone profound suffering, are also not exempt from becoming individuals who use their suffering as means of justification for their freedom-denying behaviors -
His conclusions changed page by page, book by book, but that is not the point. To refute him, you would have to determine what his conclusions are, which are hundreds of slightly different but highly similar conclusions - and still end up, someone who has chosen to distract themselves with freedom-denying behavior. The blameworthiness of that someone, however, cannot be too harshly given, unless they have profoundly suffered, and turned away from freedom.

[Anonymous No.16386285]

>>16386257
They fucked up while fishing for mistakes and sliding. No point in even responding to them.

[Anonymous No.16386286]

>>16386257
>doubling down instead of admitting your fault
Grow up anon

[Anonymous No.16386292]

>>16386285
>t. pathetic samefag
really bruised that ego huh?

[Anonymous No.16386305]

>>16386172
>>16386178
>>16386286
>>16386292
>all exactly a minute apart
>accuses someone else of samefagging
Seething neetchfag.

[Anonymous No.16386319]

>>16386305
>anon can't count
>anon stop replying to himself to accuse others of doing the same even as he cites clear replies to him
sad desu

[Anonymous No.16386344]

>>16386285
Based sophistry anon.

[Anonymous No.16386362]

>>16385718
holy cringe. is this really Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.16386364]

why isn't there a single blue board that isn't filled to the brim with schizos who accuse each other of samefagging?
post screenshots & there will be an end to this horror

[Anonymous No.16386442]

>>16386362
Yep. And it gets worse.

[Anonymous No.16386461]

>>16386442
It gets better. The rest of that passage is him talking about the importance of nutrition and how much more important it is than idealism.

[Anonymous No.16386482]

>>16386442
you mean better:

"Mankind has ventured to call pity a virtue (—in every superior moral system it appears as a weakness—); going still further, it has been called the virtue, the source and foundation of all other virtues—but let us always bear in mind that this was from the standpoint of a philosophy that was nihilistic, and upon whose shield the denial of life was inscribed. Schopenhauer was right in this: that by means of pity life is denied, and made worthy of denial—pity is the technic of nihilism. Let me repeat: this depressing and contagious instinct stands against all those instincts which work for the preservation and enhancement of life: in the rôle of protector of the miserable, it is a prime agent in the promotion of décadence—pity persuades to extinction.... Of course, one doesn’t say “extinction”: one says “the other world,” or “God,” or “the true life,” or Nirvana, salvation, blessedness.... This innocent rhetoric, from the realm of religious-ethical balderdash, appears a good deal less innocent when one reflects upon the tendency that it conceals beneath sublime words: the tendency to destroy life."

[Anonymous No.16386497]

>>16386461
>the importance of nutrition and how much more important it is than idealism.
kek cringe.

[Anonymous No.16386521]

>>16386364
It's obvious who was samefagging.

[Anonymous No.16386560]

>>16385159
>>16385158
>>16385379
>>16385500
>>16385570
>>16385582
>>16385605
>>16385626
>>16385675
>>16385690
>>16385418

[Anonymous No.16386630]

>>16386560

[Anonymous No.16386640]

>>16386560
Completely incoherent portrayal of Nietzsche, Keith should have known better.

[Anonymous No.16386751]

>>16386640
>NO NO NO KEITH DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HIM
LMAO IT'S THE SAME TWO LINES FROM YOU PEOPLE! IT'S EITHER "YOU'VE NEVER READ NIETZSCHE" OR "YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HIM" LMAAOOOO

[Anonymous No.16386755]

>>16384976
This. Read the Sophist.

[Anonymous No.16386758]

>>16386751
Still samefagging.
Sad desu.

[Anonymous No.16386781]

>>16386758
Samefagging as who? You have literally nothing lmao, you're coping bro.

[Anonymous No.16386799]

>>16386751
>enraged capslock
>"look at this guy, i will just state he "refuted Nietzsche" (whatever that means) without providing a single quote to back it up"
>"please give my crush some views"
stop plugging your faggot
you can't even tell what it is that he supposedly refutes about Nietzsche's various philosophical concepts
is it the Übermensch?
the Last Man? (despite being proven by the last 5 years alone)
the Will to Power?
God's Death?
the 3 transformations?
eternal recurrence?

your Keithnigger will be forgotten in a year, Nietzsche will still be read in a 100 years
now kys

[Anonymous No.16386808]

>>16386781
>COPE
>CRINGE
noticed how there is absolutely no substantial discussion in your orbiter-thread, reddit-kun?

[Anonymous No.16386812]

I literally don't give a shit. I think that's the most total refutation of Nietzsche. I will never read him. I will never grant any respect or care to his disciples. The root and the sum of the man's life and work are ultimately meaningless to me. His admirers will never be more than pitiful roaches and jumping gnats. And how can I be wrong?

[Anonymous No.16386823]

>>16386812
>i'm ignorant which refutes Nietzsche
the absolute state

[Anonymous No.16386826]

>>16386799
>>16386808
Sorry but you can't service my penis, keep crying.

[Anonymous No.16386827]

>>16386823
And? Are you going to prove me wrong or simply be a primping vagina?

[Anonymous No.16386854]

>>16386826
>>16386827
you didn't said anything that could be proven wrong, all you did was screeching about how you fuckboy supposedly refutes something about Nietzsche
your seething gives away that you're fully aware of that

come back when you can repeat what your cumgargler said in your own words

[Anonymous No.16386862]

>>16386854
Did not read a single word of this post or your last one, you just keep replying cause you're craving my cock. Sad!

[Anonymous No.16386870]

>>16386862
>t. projecting homo

[Anonymous No.16386874]

>>16386854
Why should I care about Nietzsche? Especially since I think you're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.16386881]

>>16386870
Stop lusting after strangers online.

[Anonymous No.16386887]

>>16386874
>>16386458
>He's smart, cute, and has good beliefs
Thus spoke the Faggot

[Anonymous No.16386889]

>how to refute nichie
simple:
he died childless
he was depressed
he was poor
he got cucked
atheism is dead
QED

[Anonymous No.16386909]

>>16386887
You act like there's some transcendental category in the universe which compels me to give a reasoned rebuttal, which you also believe a priori fails in the face of Nietzsche.
In other words, you think I should care about this. I don't. I'll continue to post this despite that, simply because I simply desire to.

[Anonymous No.16386914]

>>16386889
he was depressed
he was poor
he got cucked
atheism is dead
QED

Same is said of Marx. LMAO

[Anonymous No.16386918]

>>16386889
>atheism
jokes on you - he wasn't an atheist
the answer to the other points is Syphilis which he contracted from a french hooker

now will you fight? or will you perish like a dog?

[Anonymous No.16386922]

>>16386751
I don't know how much Keith actually understands Nietzsche, but that video was riddled with atrocious inaccuracies. Worthless discourse.
>>16386812
Then what the fuck are you doing on this board lmao, imagine bragging about what an illiterate troglodyte you are.
>"I'll never read him!!!!"
Good, given how butthurt you are right now, I'm afraid to see how you'd be if you actually engaged with Nietzsche's work.

[Anonymous No.16386929]

>>16386909
dick-smoker say what?

[Anonymous No.16386931]

>>16386918
>he wasn't an atheist
>regarded by literally everyone as the philosopher who finally broke the god-spell
read a book

[Anonymous No.16386938]

>>16386914
>Marx
do we really have to mention this worthless jew in a thread about colonel stache of all places?

[Anonymous No.16386952]

>>16386931
read "Birth of Tragedy"
read "Antichrist"
not an atheist - the spell he broke was the judeo-christian notion of god

[Anonymous No.16386953]

>>16386922
Because it's in my will to do so, obviously. You act like I should be beholden to categories like "literate," and being "engaged." So why should I care about my perceived social standing, be it in an anonymous community or otherwise?
It's almost like your enslaved to these nebulous ideas.

[Anonymous No.16386954]

Weber protestant ethic

[Anonymous No.16386959]

>>16386931
See >>16385770

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16386964]

>>16386938
Should be Stirner or Bakunin.

[Anonymous No.16386978]

>>16386964
do you doubt my folders, tranny?

[Anonymous No.16387001]

>>16386953
Your post is one big cope, my intellectually challenged friend. If it's "in your will" to be ignorant, illiterate, embarrassing and unthinking, then I wish you all the best. I am similarly free to laugh at you for it, all the more so because you've chosen to justify this to yourself as "an act of will". May we all have the strength of will to maximise our idiocy.

[Anonymous No.16387009]

>>16386953
what a sorry narcissistic faggot

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16387042]

>>16386978
Cute, but erroneous

[Anonymous No.16387059]

>>16387042
>Cute, but erroneous

[Anonymous No.16387531]

>>16385932
>>16386213
Interesting effortposts anon. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.16387534]

>>16384804
>when a deer survives a wildfire that is fate
major yikes

[Anonymous No.16387546]

>>16386095
What I garner from this is that you've only read Nietzsche. I don't blame you, he's perfect for midwits.

[Anonymous No.16387560]

>>16386889
>How to refute x:
>He was not successful according to my standards
...

[Anonymous No.16387564]

>>16386953
>In your will
Very Nietzschian of you anon

[Anonymous No.16387577]

>>16383875
I think Nietzsche ignores that compassion, sympathy, and other slave morality stuff he looks down are natural urges. To me he feels so locked into his idea that valuing these emotions is 'undesirable' that he forgets they exist and are not just a lie.

[Anonymous No.16387672]

>>16387577
"pity" and "resentment", not compassion and sympathy, anon

[Anonymous No.16387711]

>>16385312
It's not hard to repudiate it though

[Anonymous No.16387890]

>>16383875
Heidegger and Levinas

[Anonymous No.16388035]

>>16387672
Yet he considers simple acts of compassion to be pity.

[Anonymous No.16388056]

>>16383875
you fucking people are the reason i've never read nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16388086]

>>16383875
there's empirical evidence that suggests children have notions of egalitarianism and fairness long before "slave morality" would be an influence on them

[Anonymous No.16388144]

>>16388086
That's a given. Nietzsche is for narcissists and tyrants.

[Anonymous No.16388145]

>>16386889
>>16386914
>Nietzsche
>atheist
Absolute state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.16388266]

>>16384836
>unadaptive wh*toids get replaced by stronger cultures
so?

[Anonymous No.16388271]

>>16385350
IT'S
OVER
HUMAN
NOT SUPERMAN
fucking americans

[Anonymous No.16388312]

>>16388145
You can't be so stupid as to believe Nietzsche was a theist, can you...?

[Anonymous No.16388315]

>>16388271
>over human
That's literally what superman means. Moron.

[Anonymous No.16388324]

>>16388271
based ESL Faggot

[Anonymous No.16388429]

>>16387546
Okay, coward.

[Jesus No.16388463]

>>16383875
there cannot be good refutations of Nietzsche by modern men.

[Anonymous No.16388472]

>>16386952
>judeo-christian
yeah ok, ben shapiro

[Anonymous No.16388482]

>>16384270
He probably died as a virgin but his views on women are very valid and irrefutable, Schopenhauer's even more so

[Anonymous No.16388497]

>>16385350
Why are Americans so obsessed with big cocks?

[Anonymous No.16388569]

>>16388271
Superman that hoe

[Anonymous No.16388589]

>>16388086
Children are also clueless retards who don't know anything about the world yet.

[Anonymous No.16388622]

Genuinely curious

[Anonymous No.16388684]

>>16385158
there's Heidegger too

[Anonymous No.16388687]

>>16383875
Plato, Heidegger, Christianity itself.

[Anonymous No.16388705]

>>16388145
I never said he was an atheist
I said that he said god is dead, when it's actually atheism that's dead.
>>16387560
>nieche was successful in X standard
what standard is that?

[Anonymous No.16388818]

>>16384804
Are there any books that expand on this?

[Anonymous No.16388848]

>>16388145
>Nietzsche
>not an atheist
The absolute state of r/atheism.
>>16385718

[Anonymous No.16389021]

>>16386751
Why are neetchfags like this?

[Anonymous No.16389055]

>>16385965
This is a good point. Is amor fati really possible?

[Anonymous No.16389062]

>>16385313
For Nietzsche everything is Will to power. he is a tsundere monist

[Anonymous No.16389095]

>>16389062
But will to power is itself an expression of will for Nietzsche. He doesn't regard it as an objective truth, but as yet another interpretation.

[Anonymous No.16389175]

>>16385730
>>16385754
Is it that hard to understand that he mostly liked the Jewish-German elites of his time, and hated the ancient and religious Jews?

[Anonymous No.16389229]

>>16386123
Holy fuck you're retarded

[Anonymous No.16389241]

>>16386111
Isn't it exactly the opposite? If Nietzsche was irrefutable we'd have moved beyond nihilistic modernity into something new by now.

[Anonymous No.16389252]

>>16388086
Before the introduction of Christianity in Europe, they grew up to care less about it than they do now. So something like slave morality was indeed introduced at some point.
As to what is natural as in biological, to argue it you'd have to know what was before the introduction of what Nietzsche classifies as slave moralities both hereditary and most frequent among humans in development *after* childhood, what's instinctive to children not necessarily being representative of what's natural to adults.

[Anonymous No.16389263]

>>16389252
Nietzsche was a retard. He had no clue about what came first.

[Anonymous No.16389272]

>hurrrr nietzshce hate compassion!!

[Anonymous No.16389276]

>>16385754
>>16389175
In Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche explicitly writes that he disliked the New Testament but that he admires the Old Testament because in it he "find[s] a people".
So you're both wrong on that count.
Also >>16385754 is brainlet for not realizing that in that excerpt Nietzsche is taking the point of view of a Roman official in the time of Jesus. For a high-ranking miiltary officier and imperial servant like Pilate, caring too much about the fate of one random Jew would have been a serious mishandling of priorities.

>>16385716
Read Genealogy of Morals. Nietzsche's dislike for Germans and his taste for the OT is not dubious.

Nietzsche's opinion on Jews is ambiguous, in typical Nietzschean fashion. Certainly he disliked the slave morality they brought about (according to his analysis) in the world, but he also recognized its importance and to some extent admired their style, and he understood that antisemites were just as much a symptom of slave morality as anything else. His position on the Jewish Question is pretty telling in this regard, he though the question was superfluous, just leave the Jews alone, it's not like the Protestant German of his time were any better (in his analysis Protestantism is itself very Jewish at heart).

[Anonymous No.16389279]

>>16389263
>"Nietzsche was a retard!!!!"
>t. world renowned philosopher with incalculable impact on global cult- oh wait it's just another /lit/ poster

[Anonymous No.16389280]

>>16385739
>Nietzsche was against anti-semitism
True
>he rejected them for their christcucked Herde-Mentality
Also true.
Both are compatible, you're the only one with a brain too small to understand how both assertions follow naturally from his understanding of the history of morality.

[Anonymous No.16389281]

>>16386015
>>16385997
read the illiad again, this theme is present nearly the end of the book

[Anonymous No.16389289]

>>16383875
>What are some good refutations of Nietzsche?
His biography

[Anonymous No.16389322]

>>16389289
Omg that's so smart anon!! Here, let me try!!!!
The refutation of your refutation is uhhhh... your biography! Wow! It really does work! Amazing. You've revolutionised philosophy today, anon. Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.16389454]

>>16388271
>>16388315
Übermensch
not Overman
not Superman

>>16388472
that includes the religion of ben shapiro, seething christcuck

>>16389175
>t. falseflagging catholikike

>>16389276
you seem to have problems with reading-understanding
in "Antichrist" he rejects christianity for its jewish nature, which he sees as foreign to the "Aryan" or Hyperborean, the "good european"
it is in this context that he notes that the jews have at least their own spirituality, unlike us

in other words, you're a dumb faggot

>>16389280
Nietzsche was an anti-semite

[Anonymous No.16389471]

>>16389454
anti-semite slave moralist detected

[Anonymous No.16389511]

>>16385544
>one may look to Diomedes. After his battle with the gods he says quite plainly to Glaucus, "I'm not the man to fight the gods of heaven... I have no desire to fight the blithe immortals." The deep humility of the fate of the hero. Nietzsche, who was completely lacking in heroic achievements was of a completely opposite character. He elevated himself to the level of gods, a deep hubris. This is to set the will against fate, to mark it as an enemy, perhaps the greatest law of the modern era and the last men.
Based.

[Anonymous No.16389514]

>>16389471
look up what he had to say about christians and polish jews

you are aware that he gave the National Socialists the Vocabulary of "Entartung", "Untermensch" & "Ewiger Jude", right?

[Anonymous No.16389523]

>>16389511
>completely lacking in heroic achievements
>soldier
>poet
>composer
>youngest professor of his time
excuse me?

[Anonymous No.16389578]

>>16389276
>"The Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world, for when they were confronted with the question, to be or not to be, they chose, with perfectly unearthly deliberation, to be at any price: this price involved a radical falsification of all nature, of all naturalness, of all reality, of the whole inner world, as well as of the outer. They put themselves against all those conditions under which, hitherto, a people had been able to live, or had even been permitted to live; out of themselves they evolved an idea which stood in direct opposition to natural conditions—one by one they distorted religion, civilization, morality, history and psychology until each became a contradiction of its natural significance."
That's not ambigious, that's clear cut
especially in the context of his body of work

[Anonymous No.16389610]

>"Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity--the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against "race": the undying chandala hatred as the religion of love."
Nietzsche or Hitler?

[Anonymous No.16389654]

>>16384705
Wrote my MA on it, but whatever nigger. Maybe you missed the part where I distinguished the irrelevance of historical context? If you don’t see how “life-affirming” can be interpreted as conceptually akin to a general “good” then maybe you’re the one who needs to re-read. The larger critique of BGE isn’t whatever meta-ethical placeholders we want to exchange across time, but the necessity for that habit of creation in the first place. N does not provide an answer to this that is exempt from the problem, hence the necessity of a philosophy of the future or a new species of man all together. All our conceptual apparatuses are at a standstill.

[Anonymous No.16389699]

>>16384674
Well you see it wrong. The upshot of N’s project is never the contingencies, but the deeper “human, all too human” psychological dispositions behind them. And he absolutely has a vision for an ideal human psychological disposition, namely one of strength (this is ironically where Bertrand Russell’s offhand dismissal is simultaneously the most accurate, though I doubt he realized this). But therein lies the very problem he is hellbent of investigating. Dionysian Pessimism may be more vitalizing or affirming or organic or whatever but why the fuck should that matter in the first place? We’re back at the same moral disposition that led us to decay in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16389738]

>>16389281
Try reading the Iliad at all, literally the first page contradicts this.

[Anonymous No.16389745]

>>16383875
he failed the ''nothing is true'' test.

[Anonymous No.16389792]

>>16389514
the nazis literally misunderstood everything Nietzsche said lmao.
Nietzsche shat on the jews a lot, definitely, but he explicitly placed them in a higher regard than he did the Germans of his time, who he said had no connection to the barbaric Germans of old.
The Nazis were fucking retards who thought the "blonde beast" that Nietzsche talks about was their Aryan poster boy and not a fucking lion which is what it obviously is by context. They misread Nietzsche entirely, which is hilarious because if you actually read his works he constantly warns you to read slowly and carefully because if you breeze through it and take quotes out of context you'll completely misunderstand.
Which is why people like you and this retarded japanese faggot and hitler exist

[Anonymous No.16389822]

>>16389792
>>16389610

[Anonymous No.16389905]

Do people think that by saying that because Nazis were influenced in their anti-egalitarianism by Nietzsche this somehow refutes Nietzsche's ideas. This is just a fallacy by association and ignores two things.

Firstly, Nietzsche's anti-egalitarianism is unconscious and psychological. The Nazi anti-egalitarianism is supra conscious and biological. The Nazis refer to "volk" , and master races in a biological supra-conscious way. But this doesn't exist in Nietzsche because his anti-egalitarianism is primarily social. So for example Socrates appears in an anti-egalitarian society and reverses horizontal ideas of about politics with holistic metaphysical solutions. The same with Rousseau, egalitarianism appears in non-egalitarian societies because there is always a tension between an organic horizontal ordering and a potential revolution from below. This culminates in the reversal of the master morality with Christianity.

Secondly Nietzsche political agenda does not allow for mass movements that can genuinely change culture from below. Nietzsche hated socialism for this reason, as revolt of the masses in favor of egalitarianism . Nietzsche idea of order and rank therefore does not find common footing with the Nazi one, in a crucial respect. Nazism is nothing without a "people" following a darwinian trajectory. But the ordering has nothing to do with the power of nobility, but an inherited "power" for domination which is superior. The "Aryan" Nazis would prevail against the Jews because were inherently tied to the land they lived in , whereas the Jews were fought insidiously and were cosmopolitan. But the ideal of Nietzsche's "overman" is conniving machiavel that manipulates the masses and is above them. There is therefore an obvious metaphysical disagreement with the two. Nazism thinks of the will to power springing up organically and being shared by a "people" because by providence it is how nature commands, whereas for Nietzsche the will to power is a reserve of power and cannot be squandered , else it becomes impotent and diluted resulting again in a slave morality. From this point of view Nazism seems more Hegelian really than Nietzschean.

[Anonymous No.16389911]

>>16389792
hitler was influenced by nietzsche who was influenced by darwin(even if he wouldn't admit it).

[Anonymous No.16389959]

>>16389454
>he actually buys the 20th century midwit takes on religion
AHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.16389971]

>>16389905
what a convoluted mess of falsehoods
National Socialists got their anti-egalitarianism from Nietzsche
this doesn't refute him, but proves him right
Nietzsche was not against a people or a race, but against Herde-Mentality, which we find in Socialism, but not in National Socialism
National Socialism is not Socialism
see:
>"Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity--the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against "race": the undying chandala hatred as the religion of love."

back to >>>/r/eddit faggot

[Anonymous No.16389979]

>>16389959
>>16389610

[Anonymous No.16389985]

>>16389971
>Nietzsche was not against a people or a race, but against Herde-Mentality, which we find in Socialism, but not in National Socialism
What the. Not that guy but National Socialism has a bigger herd mentality than socialism (which is mostly connived by intellectuals). That's one of its principal strengths - actually tapping into the "will of the people".

[Anonymous No.16390067]

>>16389971

Again, I'm pointing out the philosophical disagreement. Even if Nietzsche believed in things like races,herd-mentality and overmen, he did not believe in "Master-races" that were meant to rule over other no matter what. Nietzsche believes in a political contingency and realism (his idea of grand politics, and political Aristotelianism) , which ultimately come down to social pragmatism. And this is the closest Nietzsche came to have a political program.

But this is not the case with Nazism, which fails the gamut of Nietzsche's herd-mentality because by sheer biological providence or the romantic idea of volk , the upshot fort hem is that they will always collectively dominate. It is an anti-egalitarianism between races that already presupposes mass collectivist action and a shared will from the Fuhrer to the lowest aryan German. Both positions are ant-egalitarian , but differ in crucial aspects and therefore are mutually exclusive. There is no proof Hitler ever read Nietzsche (he was half-literate) and there is no doubt that Nazis were more influenced by American biological racism of the time (which stemmed from liberal social reformism) than any a tract of Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.16390096]

>>16389985
wrong

>“A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."
>It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.
>Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.
>Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.”
-Nietzsche
definitely seems to have inspired Hitler for example:
>"The state is only a means to an end. its end and its purpose are to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred - States which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence. they are monstrosities."
-Hitler

[Anonymous No.16390110]

>>16390067
>represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence
what is the "morality of race" then, which according to this quote by Nietzsche the "Aryan" is supposed to adopt, huh?

your walls of text don't make you less of a pseud

[Anonymous No.16390137]

>>16390110
How do you rationalise Nietzsche's contempt for his sister's racialism and repeated negative references to anti-Semites

[Anonymous No.16390158]

>>16389822
this literally only proves my point, context matters and Nietzsche had a ton of nuance to his language. He warns the reader multiple times to be careful while reading

[Anonymous No.16390167]

>>16389979
>i don't understand christianity: the post

[Anonymous No.16390233]

>>16390167
>I don't understand the Greeks: the post

[Anonymous No.16390242]

>>16390096

You clearly don't understand what I said then, I said in my first post, what Hitler is referring to here is supra-conscious reality that exists for the mass which shares a kinship and cannot be contained by the laws of one state The nazi state was going to be supra-national). But this level of inherent "natural" kinship does not exist for Nietzsche. Nietzsche wasn't even against the use of the state as a lie, because his contradictions point to an amoralistic political realism ultimately. The Nazis by contrast were moral crusaders that everything for the volk was upright and anything else was wrong.

[Anonymous No.16390281]

>>16385379
Sounds legit. What does Plato say? Does he know about Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.16390294]

>>16383875

[Anonymous No.16390352]

>>16385914
>t. seething lesserman

[Anonymous No.16390365]

>>16385914
I really don't think he read him at all. Notice how he engages with none of Nietzsche's ideas and just rambles on about other people the entire time.

[Anonymous No.16390503]

>>16384611
its a literal meme that he broke down bc of a horse, its a made up myth. I thought /lit/ is better than this

[Anonymous No.16390629]

>>16388818
I sourced a few things in the warosu >>16385536

>>16387546
It's telling because Holderlin's Truth is the answer to perspectivism. Nietzsche simply replaces the potential error of truth with a will that cannot error. It is a Kantianism of the instincts which can never know the spirit, hence the aesthetic failure and elevation of the tragic into something like Christian revelation.

A great weakness before truth which must hold to the initial state of pure feeling if it is to endure the lowest values, and elevate them. But it is mistaken to think that even the highest spirits can elevate themselves above the laws, the opposite is more likely true: the dispirited will become a criminal figure in the age of the mind, having to rob from the spirit and devalue in his own way.

This is where Nietzsche falls short of romanticism, and where we sense a deep pessimism that infects his words. He cannot escape moralism, and is in the end destroyed by Queen Truth. The power of the emotions has a demonic quality which has long driven the human to its curse.

[Anonymous No.16390652]

>>16389281
My reference point is again Diomedes. In wounding Aphrodite he threatens a return of the gods to the moment of creation, and it is in this that we see the total violence of a law which threatens the gods themselves. In the Iliad we already see Pindar's fragment on the utmost violence of law which is equal in its reign over mortals and immortals. Diomedes threatens a great incursion into the world of the gods, one which may bring the gods to a state of civil war. This is the risk entailed in the greatest cities, their foundation entails the judgement of the gods as well as their potential conflict. Holderlin's Themis, the great sanctuary of No Man's Land where Diomedes and Glaucus meet. It is equal to the divine law of the city, but appears at the threshold of another world. Where the oath is broken both man and god come face to face with the absolute counsel of violence.

I read another of Holderlin's fragments this morning, on the divinity of wine formed as a river. This is similar to Proteus in Goethe's plants, an entire world metamorphosed within the smallest part of nature. We see in nature its violence against itself, but also a simplicity which is its perfection. A form of total violence which only strengthens, bloodless figures which rise from other worlds. Where the river returns against itself, as in the tidal bore, there is an incredible force, a return to its origins, meandering along wooded banks. There is a great peace in it, all of the debris of a storm that goes on for days returning through calm.

This was how the Greeks understood fate, a severity within which one must not become caught up in the debris, but as the peace as in death and returning to other worlds. Such humility before fate is not weakness, it is simply the necessity of a type of enduring which knows it must give way to the violence of greater laws. This is a strengthening factor, rather than the hardness espoused in the nature of the early conservatives of the modern era. Hardness ensures only greater destruction once enough force is applied. A tool must be tempered correctly for its use, and there is no perspective that may overcome the violence of such laws.

Nietzsche was the type of figure, like Zeus towards his end, that would devour all of his enemies, turn their power into his own hardening against time. It is this side of Zeus that is subject to fate, he does not escape the laws of his genealogy, instead he turns the violence of time into an eternal recurrence - an absolute war in which all will submit or he will stand alone. We see the beginning of his disappearance in Prometheus Bound, a necessity of power, but one which, if it fails, is the beginning of the end of his reign.

[Anonymous No.16390731]

>>16383875

[Anonymous No.16390743]

>>16390731
HOLY BASED

[Anonymous No.16390901]

>>16383875
>What are some good refutations of Nietzsche?

Dostoevsky, as explained by Henri de Lubac in The Drama of Atheist Humanism.
https://b-ok.cc/book/2514721/9cb7c9

[Anonymous No.16390927]

>>16390901
>catholic
In the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.16390928]

>>16390901
>He saw the murderer set off to his massive career. Atheism, the ideal of
superman: he realised both, in all their might.
you're joking, right?

[Anonymous No.16390937]

>>16390928
fuck me, I'm an idiot, but the point is still there

[Anonymous No.16391283]

>>16390901
Ahhh yes, Nietzsche, the notorious humanist.

[Anonymous No.16391323]

He tried to reconcile enlightenment naturalism with German romanticism, and they don't mix

[Anonymous No.16391397]

>>16390652
Really interesting anon.

[Anonymous No.16391467]

>>16385055
>not including master morality
Way to miss Nietzsche entirely, right-wing retard

[Anonymous No.16391490]

>>16391467
Where did he write against master morality?

[Anonymous No.16391544]

>>16391490
To be an Übermensch by Nietzsche is exactly to transcend the master/slave dialectic, not to choose a side.

[Anonymous No.16391559]

>>16391544
doubt

[Anonymous No.16391588]

>>16391544
Where does Nietzsche ever talk about "transcendence"? Also, how would that even work?

[Anonymous No.16391655]

What do I have to read to really understand Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.16391661]

>>16383875
Lets get this to 300 replies so that this shit thread can finally die

[Anonymous No.16391669]

>>16391655
Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16391680]

>>16391669
This. Be aware however that if you criticize him in any manner his followers will autistically claim you never read him.

[Anonymous No.16391743]

>>16391669
This. Be aware however that you need to read his books in full, not skim one book and let his Wikipedia page do the rest.

[Anonymous No.16391871]

>>16391559
To be a master is to rely on other people in the failure to succeed on your own. To be an übermensch is to be above human society, above slavery itself, and its demographically rooted conceptions in which the mensch is trapped.

[Anonymous No.16391921]

>>16391680
i have yet to see an argument against his core philosophy that wasn't result of misreading or lack of reading.

[Anonymous No.16392079]

>>16391921
Uh-huh

[Anonymous No.16392101]

>>16391871
>To be a master is to rely on other people in the failure to succeed on your own.
This bullshit has nothing to do with Nietzsche's concept.

[Anonymous No.16392177]

>>16383875
stirner is a refutation of nietzche

nietzche cries about static valuations and christian morality, but he just supplants it with his own static values and morality. that of strength and artistry. what if i dont care about being "strong" according to nietzche? what if i dont want to reach heights and just want to take care of my family? im a bugman according to nietzche, but so? fuck nietzche.

[Anonymous No.16392206]

>>16392177
>but he just supplants it with his own static values and morality.
Stirner does this too.

[Anonymous No.16392211]

>>16392177
This isn't a refutation. You're just a herd animal, which Nietzsche never says is a bad thing inherently.
Nietzsche hates Christian morality because he believes it's harmful. Not because it is a morality.
Your """refutation""" is purely you being butthurt that Nietzsche is calling your behavior what it is.

[Anonymous No.16392346]

>>16392211
according to who? nietzche? fuck nietzche i dont care what nietzche or the people that suck him off say. I say I'm not a herd animal. I say that (hypothetically) taking care of my family as a first priority is the most heroic thing one can do, and that trying to autistically spend my life living up to some fictional ideal some syphillic tryhard is not only romantic bourgoise adolescent nonsense, its a waste of valuable time

now what?
>>16392206
no he doesnt. stirner actually understood the project for what it was. destroy all valuations, align with the "ego" (which is not a set thing) and leave it at that.

[Anonymous No.16392374]

>>16392346
>ego
See >>16386978

[Anonymous No.16392389]

>>16392374
spooks are static valuations
the ego is not a static concept and is not a spook
retard.

[Anonymous No.16392395]

>>16392389
>the ego is not a static concept
What do you even mean by static? Because the ego would be subject to perspectivism like everything else.

[Anonymous No.16392425]

>>16383875
Evola, The Bible, reality, or just nothing cuz his writings are just derranged schizobabble from a seething gama incel

[Anonymous No.16392428]

>>16392395
its not subject to perspectivism because it isn't a thing. its a word stiner uses to denote the desires and interests, qualities, and properties of it's owner at any given point in time, which change literally by the second. What you wanted a second or an hour ago is irrelevant if that's not what you want now and so you are not held accountable to decisions made then, and people that try to hold you accountable can get bent unless you desire yourself to be held accountable as part of your desires

[Anonymous No.16392439]

>>16392346
>I say that (hypothetically) taking care of my family as a first priority is the most heroic thing one can do

one could say that´s admirable but there´s nothing heroically about raising a family, it´s the most basic shit normies do in life

[Anonymous No.16392485]

>>16392439
Says who? I say its admiriable according to my own values informed by both historical and biological processes. I assert that the denial of this as "normie shit" is blind tryhard nonsense that doesnt see the ultimate value of raising anfamily. I assert that to be heroic is actually not an elitist aristocratic thing. It is something common and the birthright of all people. I reject wholeheartedly Nietzchean romaticism and embrace my own fate , amor fati, in an actual genukne way.
In a way the rejection of nietzche, this rejection of nietzche. Is more nietzchean than nietzche himself, who was an unhappy sad sack who had to intellectually come up with concepts to help him deal with fate, whereas hypothetical me simply knows it and acts it.

[Anonymous No.16392512]

>>16392428
Everything is subject to perspectives. If "ego" isn't, then it's nothing at all. I don't think that's what Stirner meant.

>its a word stiner uses to denote the desires and interests, qualities, and properties of it's owner at any given point in time, which change literally by the second.
From this, it sounds like "ego" is a synonym for "perspective," since that's how a perspective functions.

[Anonymous No.16392529]

>>16392485
i think you´re just trying to "grandiose" mundane things of life like having a family, maybe because you feel like having one will be enough to give purpose to your pathetic life, i will never think of someone raising a family is something that belong to heroism because there´s no danger in having a family, specially if you´re a man, you just a meet a woman who shares the sames values as you and both agreed to have a child, then you raise your child, you´re just following the easiest path of life to bring fulfillment to your pathetic life, rich and poor, beautiful and ugly, all have families
it´s mediocrity at its finest specially in this present age of superpopulation that plagues the world

[Anonymous No.16392870]

>>16392346
yes, according to Nietzsche, the one you're attempting to refute.
Nietzsche would say there's absolutely nothing wrong with you wanting to raise a family as a purpose for your life. But it doesn't make you a master and certainly not an ubermensch, at least not on its own.
If you think that Nietzsche is calling you bad for not being a master moralist, then you're misunderstanding his philosophy. He isn't saying you're either a master which is good or a slave which is bad, he's saying that the world is mostly comprised of masters and slaves and that both are necessary. What he does condemn explicitly is Christian morality (which is a slave morality), and the harmful slave mentality resulting from resentiment.
You're mad at Nietzsche because he called you as you are. If you were a master moralist you wouldn't be upset by these assertions, because you can be a master moralist and raise a family. But you're a herd animal full of resentiment, which is why his philosophy angers you.
>inb4 "everyone I disagree with is a herd animal"
Not at all. Just you, by your own admission.
Also there's nothing bourgeois about Nietzsche's philosophy, and him having syphilis is a non-point.
>>16392485
>Says who?
Why do you keep saying this? Its very childish.
>>16391871
>>16392079
It's true. There are things you can pick apart from earlier in his writings (although he himself condemns a lot of his earlier work) and his writings on women are essentially worthless and full of projection, but by Genealogy of Morals the core of his phiosophy is irrefutable.
Keep in mind that it's not just his detractors that misread/don't read him. It's also a large amount of his followers. For example >>16391871 a complete misunderstanding of master morality.
Nietzsche is really easy to misunderstand, which is why he constantly urges the reader to read with patience. The wording is very careful and an excerpt which may say one thing on its own can mean the complete opposite in context. Also why it's very important what translation you read. Nietzsche was a wordsmith.
>>16392425
N is far more precise and eloquent in expressing his ideas than any philosopher I can think of. Hardly babble and not at all schizophrenic. Only deranged if his ideas disturb you.

[Anonymous No.16393151]

>>16385411
why are irish people such hectic cunts?
its a wonder why they were ever persecuted at all