/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16976596]

Where do I start with him?

[Anonymous No.16976603]

only edgelords and self-proclaimed alpha males think there is anything of worth in Nietzsche. Just another building block for amoral, hedonistic, soulless and powertripping mouthbreathers to hone their narcissistic personality.

>eternal recurrence, amor fati

cringe self help

>dionysian and appolonian greece, socratic deformation of ancient greek worldview

refuted by Wilamowitz, an actual classical scholar.

>master-slave morality

cringe dialectic made by cherrypicking history and a weird form of psycho-analyzing avant la lettre

>ubermensch

"great man" worship, copycat from Carlyle and others.

>muh herd

yea yea you are sooo great and elite, totally not like the profanus vulgus etc.

all in all, a big yawn from me for this syphilistic retard who should have stuck to studying and teaching classical history.

[Anonymous No.16976614]

>>16976596
Greeks first, then brits and germans.

[Anonymous No.16976649]

>>16976596
Twilight of the Idols, or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer

[Anonymous No.16976659]

>>16976596
go to high school, support BLM, dye your her pink, HRT

anything that subvert the herd mentality, ie patriarchy and impose your own values like the overman does

[Anonymous No.16976703]

>>16976603
who do you support?

[Übermensch No.16976779]

>>16976603
*profanum vulgus, pleb.

[Anonymous No.16976781]

>>16976703

If I have to name someone, Aristotle probably. Macintyre is also good. As are Thomas Carlyle and J A Froude. Bertrand de Jouvenel is also interesting.

[Anonymous No.16976807]

>>16976779

forgot that vulgus is neutral. Latin can be confusing, but I should have known from Horatius; odi profanum vulgus

[Anonymous No.16976812]

>>16976596
I would say either his book the Gay Science, (lol) or find a secondary introduction book. People will shit on this idea, but there is a lot of interpretation involved with Nietzsche. Just search "Nietzsche Routledge" or "Nietzsche Cambridge" on libgen and a good book by one of those publishers will pop up.

[Übermensch No.16976837]

>>16976807
Pagkálōs légeis. Ad fontes properemus. However, Erwin Rohde, also a renowned classicist, wrote a treatise in defence of Nietzsche (Afterphilologie, Butthole Philology) after Wilamowitz von Möllendorf published his invective against DGdT.

[Anonymous No.16976845]

>>16976596
Don't.

[Anonymous No.16976848]

>>16976603
Why do you think the soul is real? Why do you think hedonism is bad? probably because you suffered in the conditions of modernity and retreated to something like christianity rather than creating new values. cringe.

eternal recurrence is an expression of the same metaphysical sentiments found in many other places, like the Eleusinian mysteries. It's the embrace of constantly occuring cycles of destruction and renewal. It is only repetition in that difference constantly returns.

Nietzsche's historical hermeneutics aren't about "facts", but turning history into a useful interpretation for the present, so he's not concerned with how accurately his thought reflects the "factual" (lol, historians are always reforming what they believe from scraps of cloth or whatever) of Greece

Nietzsche is anti-dialectical.

The ubermensch is very clearly stated not to be human, and thus not a great man. Being the ubermensch is a constant process of self-critique and alignment with the superhuman forces of creation.

The herd is a pre-existing idea used by Nietzsche not just to describe the rabble but all people incapable of true creation, which likely includes losers like you.

[Übermensch No.16976871]

>>16976837
Addenda: Nietzsche is also responsible for an essay accurately detailing the sources of Diogenes Laertios and was responsible for the editio princeps of Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi. His work as a philologist, while scant, shouldn't be discarded as scraps as you seem to think fit.

[Anonymous No.16977045]

>>16976848
Not a christian, not even baptised or whatever. my use of the expression "soulless" is not to be taken literally, but indicates the lack of substance, the emptiness and narcissism that make out the general herd of nietzsche-disciples.

>old thing (christianity)bad
>new thing (self-created new values) good

why?

>embrace of constantly occuring cycles
>Eleusinian mysteries.
>difference constantly returns

not interested in this pseudospiritual mumbojumbo from someone who ended up in the loony bin. Might as well fall for Guenon and other memes.

>constant process of self-critique

So the uebermensch is a figure for do-it-yourself psychology? dissapointing.

> alignment with the superhuman forces of creation.
As valid as astral-projecting. do point out these superhuman forces for me will you? thanks chap.

[Anonymous No.16977068]

>>16976649
Based. I usually recommend beginners read Genealogy essay #1, the Antichrist, and at least the section of Twilight on Socrates to start. Work backwards...the opposite of what Nietzsche himself recommended

[Anonymous No.16977094]

>>16976603
There's no need to be upset, friend. You should try reading more of him than the Wikipedia page if you want to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.16977100]

>>16977045
>old thing (christianity)bad
>new thing (self-created new values) good
>why?
Fucksake man, put a little more effort into your posts.

[Anonymous No.16977104]

>>16976871
>>16976837

agreed. Nietzsche could have been great at this, why I said that he should have stuck to studying and teaching classical history. that said, his ideological insertions and personal projections into dionysianism are faulty to a degree.

His blaming of Socrates is also a serious failure. Does he not realize that the presocratics and the increasing complexity, monetization of greek society led to the decline of the old worldview that he so admires? That socrates did not actively attack that worldview, but lived in a period where the warrior-aristocratic "master morality"were already heavily in decline, because of changes in the economic, political and social structures? and that Socrates/Plato was struggling to find new values, new foundation for life and society? All the certainties of old aristocratic greece had declined well enough without Socrates. And yet he blames Socrates for trying to consolidate a new worldview, a new foundation for living in a polis void of ancient certainties and mythical narrative.

[Anonymous No.16977131]

>In Christianity nothing has a single point of contact with reality. It offers purely imaginary causes (“God,” “soul,” “ego,” “spirit,” “free will”—or even “unfree”); purely imaginary effects (“sin,” “salvation,” “grace,” “punishment,” “forgiveness of sins”); intercourse between imaginary beings (“God,” “spirits,” “souls”); an imaginary natural history (anthropocentric; a total denial of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary psychology (misunderstandings of self, misinterpretations of agreeable or disagreeable general feelings—for example, of the states of the nervus sympathicus with the help of the sign-language of religio-ethical balderdash—, “repentance,” “pangs of conscience,” “temptation by the devil,” “the presence of God”); an imaginary teleology (the “kingdom of God,” “the last judgment,” “eternal life”).
I return to this unanswerable BTFO regularly for sheer reading pleasure.

[Anonymous No.16977152]

>>16977100

Ah if it isn't our self-creating uebermensch himself! How is that amor fati coming along? Had any eternal recurrence lately? I noticed you had some difficulty in "aligning with the superhuman forces of creation" last time we met. Have you had any luck with that since then?

seriously though, your inability to engage my argument is pathetique

>>16977131
copycat from Stirner. Sad!

[Anonymous No.16977178]

>>16977152
>my argument

[Anonymous No.16977317]

>>16977178

more correct would be my Judgment of the utter worthlessness of Nietzsche and his fanboys. there is no argument since you are unable to refute anything.

will to power is cringe. uebermensch is cringe. eternal recurrence is cringe. amor fati is cringe. dionysian/appolonian theory is cringe. master/slave morality is cringe. elitist individualism is cringe. his personal life is cringe. misinterpretations of him by left, right, center are cringe.

[Anonymous No.16977376]

>>16977317
Bro, we are not the same. I'm not taking your awful posts seriously. Sometimes your paper gets a B. Sometimes it gets a, "Fuck this, write me something else."

The lesson you need to take from this is: more reading, less posting. And when you do post, review it and try really hard to make it not retarded.

[Übermensch No.16977387]

>>16977104
He's not entirely wrong in that sense, but the point itself, i.e. identifying the decline, is prosaic, yes. As much as he blathers about being unzeitgemäß, he's sometimes nothing more than stylistically polished expression of the late Romanticism which he early on admired in the music of Wagner. At any rat, it's difficult to discuss in measure a man who called himself dynamite.

[Anonymous No.16977964]

>>16976603
Try reading Human, All Too Human. He talks about the necessity of goodwill and other things that contradict the view that he's amoral. The way he writes is enough for want to read him anyways, last night I was reading the end of 'The Religious Life' in Human, All Too Human and it was beautiful. He wants the frre spirit to really think whether the things they do that claim to be morally correct come from a place of genuineness rather than just doing it because a system said to do it for thousands of years. I can see why people are so harsh on Nietzsche and people who read him, he says some stupid stuff, but then refines what he said later, but he does just say stupid stuff sometimes too.

[Anonymous No.16978005]

>>16977045
There are things in Christianity that align with Nietzsche's views, there's even an aphorism in Human, All Too Human on the wisdom of Christianity. Part of what he doesn't like about Christianity is how it has evolved, and how people go to it out of fear and instinct. The people within Christianity advocate a life of not doing anything outside of doing it because a higher Christian says so.

[Anonymous No.16978045]

>>16976596
tl;dr edition: Beyond Good and Evil, Genealogy of Morals, Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, Ecce Homo, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

tl;dr of tl;dr edition: Kaufmann's Portable Nietzsche

full edition: Schopenhauer's bibliography preceding Nietzsche's, both in chronological order

faggot edition: wikipedia, like this guy >>16976603

[Anonymous No.16978058]

>>16978045
'The Portable' series are so good, they're edited by people who truly understand the authors.

[Anonymous No.16978071]

>>16976596
Gay Science

[Anonymous No.16978126]

>>16978058
True. I recommend the Milton.

P.S. shitting on the Kaufmann translations is a pseud giveaway

[Anonymous No.16978183]

>>16978126
The Portable Milton is not available on any torrent websites.

[Anonymous No.16978196]

>>16978183
>he reads off screens
>he can't be assed to spend like $5-15 on a book (depending on used/new)
>after the nice editors did all that work
disgusting

[Anonymous No.16978347]

>>16978196
I don't support capitalism, sorry. I'll just buy it from Amazon, download the ebook via usb, then refund it again. It's so exhausting, but it's free.

[Anonymous No.16978692]

>>16978347
you are so cute and pathetic I can't even hate you
you really think you're fighting the man when you pirate lol

[Anonymous No.16979614]

What did Nietzschy think of Schopenhauer later in his life?

[Anonymous No.16979859]

>>16977045
Sorry, I made some unfair assumptions about your beliefs and philosophy based on the general makeup of the board, which honestly illustrates the importance of a philosophy which embraces multiplicity like N's.

Christianity is only one example of a "bad" form of morality. Nietzsche rearranges previous hierarchies so that creativity is the highest good, basing this on the differentiated nature of the will-to-power. This can be explained with comparisons to darwinian evolution, which itself is an expression of life as will-to-power. Christianity, or Kantian morality, or the liberal and especially the fascistic view of the state limit creativity, which is bad to N.

I include the reference to the eleusinian mysteries to illustrate that Nietzsche's views on pre-Socratic metpahysics are not entirely detached from "reality", and the return of difference is a direct reference to Deleuze. Whatever you think of Deleuze, he presents a sophisticated and intriguing metaphysics based on Nietzsche. Nietzsche himself is a much more rigorous philosopher than those twentieth century wannabe shamans. Also, not reading someone because at some point they became insane seems like a troll statement.

I just didn't want to say the Ubermensch is a static human telos, the most clear practical expression of that would be that kind of self contemplation.

Superhuman doesn't mean supernatural. Desire is probably the best, simplest example of a force which supersedes humanity.

[Anonymous No.16979869]

>>16979614
He said anyone who claims all life is suffering should just kill themself if that's the case

[Anonymous No.16980687]

>>16977045
>kike thing (christianity)bad
>euro thing (self-created new values)good
>why?
Because I'm euro, not a kike.

[Anonymous No.16980698]

>>16976603
Why is every first post on every Nietzche thread always a pseud writing a long LE EBIN DEBUNKING of Nietzche?

[Anonymous No.16980761]

>>16976596

Start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Then read everything else. End by rereading Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

[Anonymous No.16981194]

>>16976848
Why is it a "retreat" to Christianity? I could as easily say you retreat to thinking you've created "new values" when nothing you've made is new; you're just influenced by a pastiche of what other philosophers you've read.

>>16977131
It's just presenting Christian ideas and calling them "imaginary." He hasn't argued for why that's so.


>>16980687
"Self created new values" in the service of what? For what purpose? Has it helped any "Euro" overcome or weather Christianity? You'll find there's a great intersection between the "imaginary ideas" of Christianity and a man's ability to create, which are not curtailed but rather enhanced

[Anonymous No.16981399]

>>16981194
belief in god limits creativity like any other dogma or absolute outside of the subject. Although reason serves a similar role, in modernity, its formerly unquestioned dogmas are now not accepted as readily, thus accepting those dogmas is a retreat.

And Nietzsche's philosophy allows the movement outside of pastiche through the kind of unyielding criticism of presuppositions and dogma, which produces the conditions conducive to real creativity. Putting an image like the Platonic forms or God over life and judging by this image reduces the possibilities for both thought and existence, negating life which should instead be affirmed through the creation of images which recognize they are inadequate to describe life, and thus are immanent to life.

The ideas are imaginary because all human ideas are constructions. The issue is choosing the constructions that best serve the will to power, which god did for a while but became superseded by ideas which better serve the will to power.

[Anonymous No.16981699]

>>16981194
>"Self created new values" in the service of what?
Myself, and it's not a matter of help, it's the default for Europeans. Christianity is poison.

[Anonymous No.16981729]

>>16981399
>belief in god limits creativity like any other dogma or absolute outside of the subject
So what?

>And Nietzsche's philosophy allows the movement outside of pastiche through the kind of unyielding criticism of presuppositions and dogma, which produces the conditions conducive to real creativity
So then Nietzsche really just causes those who read him to re-evaluate their presuppositions and dogmas and not necessarily move past them, but construct upon them and make something new of them.

Of course, creativity for creativity's sake alone often just leads to aberration and filth; what kind of creativity are we freeing up?

>The issue is choosing the constructions that best serve the will to power
Why should I do this? Why should I not, instead, choose what I believe serves my will? Not Nietzsche's concrete idea of the "will to power," (and nothing besides), but rather whatever it is that I believe I have a will towards?

>which god did for a while but became superseded by ideas which better serve the will to power

And answer my damn question about the 'will to power.' Don't give me that "people who question the 'will to power'" are decadent schtick, that's just limiting my creativity; besides, I wouldn't be criticizing the will itself, just its direction and what kind of power it entails. You may say I think in terms of utility, but I am not doing so by asking a mere question. If there is no utility heeded, I want to hear it said- "it's circular. The will to power is just the will to accumulate more power for the sake of more power."


Either way, your interlocutor being "despicable" or "slavish" (a knockoff "evil" for some) is not a reason to withhold answers.

[Anonymous No.16981737]

>>16981399
>>16981399
>>And Nietzsche's philosophy
is a pastiche too, the whole life purpose of the uberman is to deny reality

[Anonymous No.16981741]

>>16977131
>In Christianity nothing has a single point of contact with reality.
Just like the create your own values meme

[Anonymous No.16981745]

>>16981741
You're creating them right now.

[Anonymous No.16981747]

>>16981699
What does your "self" will? Only power? What will you do with the power? What you do with your power may determine whether or not it truly is power.

>it's the default for Europeans
Is this not the picture of dogmatism? Where is your evidence for this; empirical evidence, not superficial trend/myth analyses?

>Christianity is poison
That's how you see it

>>16981399
>The ideas are imaginary because all human ideas are constructions
Obviously, but this doesn't stop us from discrediting "all human ideas."

[Anonymous No.16981770]

>>16981747
>Where is your evidence for this
bugman.jpg

[Anonymous No.16981771]

>>16981737
But not life

[Anonymous No.16981777]

>>16981770
Even Nietzsche did not present his criticisms without evidence. That's what separates wishful thinking from an actual, incisive criticism that can lend credence to the statement "Christianity is poison." Of course, most of these people have the slightest experience with Christianity; if they are proud "ex-Christians," the same.

[Anonymous No.16981779]

>>16976596
Unironically at the very least with the Greeks, Bible, Schopenhauer and Wagner. Considering he got most of his philosophy of art from the latter two, and started out their staunchest supporter.

[Anonymous No.16981793]

>>16976596
the greeks then skip to kant and wagner and you should be ready

[Anonymous No.16981866]

>>16976596
How tall was he?

[Anonymous No.16981884]

>>16981729
The will to power is complicated to explain, here is Lee Spink's introduction from his book on Nietzsche:
"Nietzsche’s conception of the will to power describes a principle of life that is interior to life rather than a metaphysical concept above and beyond life such as transcendental reason. It presents all life, not just human life, as united by a common striving for power. Will to power liberates us from representing existence merely in anthropomorphic terms by announcing an inhuman principle of creation that both constitutes and exceeds human life. All life is a continuum created by an inhuman will to power that produces human consciousness and identity as one of its effects. The aim of life is neither self-preservation nor moral and spiritual enlightenment but the increase of power and the pursuit of dominion. The will to power interprets existence by identifying a hierarchy of forces between different forms of life and judging how far one force has become master of another. The hierarchy of force represented by the dominance of a particular perspective upon life over other perspectives is the basis for the formation of every ‘truth’ and ‘value’. There is no ‘real’ world behind this hierarchical play of perspectives; will to power is the productive force that constitutes every level of life. Consequently, the conflict between interpretations and the quest for dominion becomes fundamental to our experience of being."

[Anonymous No.16982026]

>>16981884
Is this perspective that everything is an "interplay between perspectives, with no underlying, objective reality" not a perspective?

Also, Christianity would just say that the "increase of power/pursuit of dominion" do not really help you gain power.

Matthew 16:26, and more verses. It would just subsume the "will to power" under the will to communion with a God who is ultimate power already personified.

[Anonymous No.16982075]

>>16982026
ah yes, you are describing the christian slave revolt quite well: don't seek power in life but turn towards something outside of world, and then your weakness becomes true power as you get closer to "god"

and yes of course perspectivism is a perspective, but it makes a negative claim of universality rather than a positive one, and it accounts for this epistemological deflation

[Anonymous No.16982124]

>>16982075
> don't seek power in life but turn towards something outside of world, and then your weakness becomes true power as you get closer to "god"
That's not what Christianity prescribes, but it says that there is a power beyond the power on earth, which is not truly power because it has an expiration date. You're neglecting years of Christian kings, warriors, colonists, and other "earthly men" who were not the ascetics you are describing when saying those who "don't seek power in life but turn towards something outside of the world."

Of course, Christianity does even prescribe an earthly power; power of yourself, first. To curb your hatred and envy of others. To curb your self-destructive appetites. It does not say to not defend yourself, only warding against petty vengeance and such resentment

[Anonymous No.16982172]

>>16982026
Why is a transcendent power necessary?

[Anonymous No.16982210]

>>16982124
"The meek shall inherit the Earth"
"Thou shalt not Kill"
"Give money to the Church"
Yes, not everyone turned away from life fully. Every negation of life still retains some element of vitality, but is limited in its expression due to its metaphysics of transcendence which direct desire outside of the world.

The power over yourself you are describing is a form of ascetism. If one desires unbridled hedonism, there is nothing wrong with that. However, very few people desire a life like that.

Further, Christianity only served society, which serves the will to power, as it supported a cosmology of elitism, and people who served well as peasants could expect a good place in the afterlife. Religion served the will to power as it allowed for the functioning of society, until reason became the organizing structure of society in the early modern period and the state/capital didn't require god anymore. This is why Christianity has lost its grip on society in the past two centuries.

The will to power isn't about individual authority, although it can be expressed in that way, but the images created allowing one force to express its will over another. Kings for example are the end result of the will to power encouraging the formation of a society with a central authority. This centralized form of power becomes discarded as individuals can be organized to produce in synchrony in a decentralized way which allows greater creativity from individual units while still ultimately controlling them, i.e. capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16982224]

>>16982172
good point, anon. why do we need a transcendent being? Why can't we direct all of our desire towards material existence?

[Anonymous No.16982227]

>>16982224
What is "material existence" in the absence of a non-material one? Why is a non-material existence necessary?

[Anonymous No.16982235]

>>16982227
yeah, I'm agreeing with you. claiming something outside of life precludes the full expression life

[Anonymous No.16982307]

Hows the Portable Nietzche by penguin?
I own it and im too lazy and poor to buy anything else

[Anonymous No.16982320]

>>16982224
You can, but you will be unfulfilled and settling for less. Furthermore, your question is only valid if you presuppose that Christianity is not true.

We cannot direct all of our desire towards material existence because material existence isn't enough; it's too small to encompass us, too feeble for us to chain our desires to.

>>16982227
Christianity doesn't even truly make a distinction between a "material" and "non-material" existence; Ephesians 6:12, for instance. The only real distinction is that we have limited ourselves so as to not see the war and reality around us, being spiritually atrophied, and so justify this lack by saying "what is not immediately apparent to me (and also difficult to attain) is surely untrue."

Once again, you forget the resurrection. You are working towards your material existence by virtue of this resurrection, which to my knowledge occurs here, on this very Earth, with our very bodies (which are soul and body in one, the soul being the animating element; the soul is only separated in death, where it waits in Heaven or Hell for the final judgment, where all are resurrected and judged).

>>16982210
It says "thou shalt not murder."
The "meek" are the restrained; look at the original Koine Greek. That is, people who have self-mastery
"Give money to the church;" where does it say this? This seems more pragmatic, as obviously you'll give money to your immediate church-community to help it grow and provide its secular and spiritual services. It has a reason; that some people abuse it for their own gain is no wonder; but it's up to you to discern between the hip megachurch money-grabbers and the priest who needs money for his church and what it does on the side (festivals, summer camps, clubs, education, charity, etcetera). Thankfully, there are usually measures to prevent fraud.

>due to its metaphysics of transcendence which direct desire outside of the world
No, your desires within this world and the desire for a world outside of this one are united; this was my point. In this, the "desires for things within this world" is enhanced, and the "desire for Heaven" is given a vehicle. Monasticism is one vehicle. To be a leader, a warrior, a scholar, are others; what matters is that what you do in this earth does not conflict with your other desire.

As always, merely looking for heaven doesn't mean you deny this world; we're not some kind of gnostics or haters of this earth. We just don't shackle ourselves and our destinies to it.

>reason became the organizing structure of society in the early modern period and the state/capital didn't require god anymore
So then society is the problem. I don't need Nietzsche's cushion for this "inevitable and unstoppable shift," I'll attack society instead

[Anonymous No.16982350]

>>16982320
is christianity true?

[Anonymous No.16982374]

>>16982320
>Christianity doesn't even truly make a distinction between a "material" and "non-material" existence
So then what does the word God mean? And how does it differ from will to power

[Anonymous No.16982443]

>>16976596
>>16976649
these are great picks, but beyond good and evil should be where you start
his book on the greeks is also well received, but i hated it

[Anonymous No.16982571]

>>16982320
technocapital is accelerating idiot notions like God out of this world. I would continue arguing with you but its pointless and I can console myself with the rapidly approaching death of Christianity regardless of me convincing you or not.

Go ahead and consider this a win, I have to write a paper that involves slightly less talking in circles. Have fun pretending the words you say to yourself are answered back and that you must rely on a man on a stick in order to make this existence worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.16982642]

>>16982443
This.
I'm so glad I started with Beyond Good and Evil. Its one of his more digestible works and works as an overview on most of his ideas