/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17406467]

Why did he hate Socrates so much?

[Anonymous No.17406477]

Socrates was based
He was cringe
Simple as

[Anonymous No.17406485]

>>17406467
Nietzschie is a pseud

[Anonymous No.17406493]

>>17406467

Socrates was a great man who was heroic, famous, respected, intelligent, pious, loved and honest. He was everything that piece of shit Nietzsche wasnt.

Socrates pretty much demolishes the proto-nietzsche Callicles in the Gorgias.

[Anonymous No.17406560]

>>17406477
>>17406485
>>17406493
Don't you guys think that socrates is just, like, so extra, annoying and kinda shit at positing new things to value?
and annoying?

[Anonymous No.17406582]

>>17406467
Socrates created the tyranny of logic that plagued the West for 2000 years

[Anonymous No.17406587]

>>17406560

I unironically have this opinion of Nietzsche. He posited nothing new, the will to power, eternal recurrance, ressentiment and apollonian/dionysian are derivative or contrary concepts.

Hes also annoying, contradictory, bitchy, grandiose, supercilious and superficial.

Gadamer claims he didnt even read Kant or Hegel but read secondary literature on them.

[Anonymous No.17406609]

>>17406587
Hegel is garbage though.
>>"If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.
Hegel's "philosophy" has only produced more repugnant people ever. There is not a single person influenced by Hegel that did anything that ever contributed to the world in a positive light.

[Anonymous No.17406612]

>>17406587
Nietzsche is the Frankenstein's monster of German philosophy. Not an original bone in his body, hideous and all mixed up, but he's immensely powerful and can't be stopped. The rest of the German philosophers are ultimately to blame.

[Anonymous No.17406613]

>>17406609
Based.

[Anonymous No.17406614]

>>17406587
we know that nietzsche definitely read the ancient greeks, schopenhauer, f.a. lange's 'history of materialism', and kuno fischer's book on the history of philosophy. we don't know if he actually read kant or hegel directly. i'm pretty sure that nietzsche didn't even directly read spinoza until 1886 and that he only knew about him from fischer's history book.

[Anonymous No.17406680]

>>17406467>>17406477
>>17406493

socrates is the last man: roaming the citing doing nothing while bugging people off and asking stupid questions about ''definition'' (peak atheist rationalism) and building a narrative where he is the most wise and righteous guy around lol

[Anonymous No.17407634]

>>17406467

He knew Socrates implicitly sodomizes him Philosophically AND literally.

[Anonymous No.17407636]

>>17406477
>>17406493
Based.

[Anonymous No.17407639]

>>17406467
he got filtered so hard he got the exact opposite of what Socrates was saying

[Anonymous No.17407641]

>>17406609
Wasn't Wagner heavily influenced by Hegel before Schopenhauer?

[Anonymous No.17407642]

>>17406560
given that he was from 500 BC and was the first one to say these things, fucking no.

[Anonymous No.17407644]

>>17406467
This is why
>Perhaps—thus he [Socrates] should have asked himself—what is not intelligible to me is not necessarily unintelligent? Perhaps there is a realm of wisdom from which the logician is exiled?

[Anonymous No.17407647]

>>17406680
How fuck up mentioning that bad lmao. Also:
>reddit spacing
>>>reddit.com

[Anonymous No.17407651]

>>17406477
fpbp

[Anonymous No.17407658]

>>17407644

Did he proceed to explain said realm?

[Anonymous No.17407661]

>>17407658
Yes. Read The Birth of Tragedy.

[Anonymous No.17407671]

>>17406467
The war hero, the philosophical genius, the charismatic social leader Socrates. Nietzsche was disingenuous to Socrates, and only shows his own insignificant characteristics when contrasted with those of Socrates in which he willingly ignores.

I cannot imagine the sublime beauty of his face, his features, as in all geniuses the "great men"; and furthermore as derivative of the face of modest wisdom, the stayed conduct of his form.

I love him so much, I have tears in my eyes.

>Heidegger identifies Socrates as the “purest thinker of the West”, and it is this classification as a “pure thinker” that we are committed to unpacking as it relates to Socrates’ understanding and practice of his dialectic method, his view of “truth,” and his understanding of philosophy (or thinking) as a process of original learning (paideia). Socrates, in his ever-renewed quest for truth, observes Heidegger, is courageously “drawn to what withdraws,” and when this happens to a thinker in the process of authentically thinking, he is drawn into “the enigmatic and herefore mutable nearness of its appeal”, despite being “far away from what withdraws” and even though “the withdrawal may remain as veiled as ever.” This, as we explain constitutes or instantiates for Heidegger the “living context” of thinking, a context facilitating the “draft” of the dynamic counter-striving of lighting and concealing, and Socrates, according to Heidegger, did “nothing else than place himself into this draft, this current, and maintain himself in it,” and this is why, according to Heidegger he was the purest thinker of the West.


>Kiekegaard said ”The knowledge that he knew nothing is not at all the pure, empty nothing one usually takes it to be, but the nothingness of the determinate content of the world as it is. The knowledge of the negativity of all finite content is his wisdom, through which he is drawn into himself, and he expresses this exploration of his own inwardness as his absolute goal, as the beginning of infinite knowledge, yet merely the beginning since this consciousness has nowise been consummated but IS only the negation of everything established in a finite sense”. Also Kierkegaard wrote, “He admittedly freed the single individual from every presupposition, freed him as he himself was free”.
>“Instead of speculatively setting his negativity to rest, he set it far more to rest in the eternal unrest in which he repeated the same process with each single individual. In all this, however, that which makes him into a personality is precisely irony… Naturally this [Socrates’ claim of knowing nothing] conceals a polemic and dismays anyone who has found his repose in one or another finite relation to the divine”.

https://medium.com/@edwardliguori/kierkegaards-view-on-socrates-and-its-relevance-to-modernity-403bb3c1a66
https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_9433_cd416ca3cda1374115faa0a437a0729c.pdf

[Anonymous No.17407695]

>>17407671
Lot of text to defend a tactless old fart.

[Anonymous No.17407698]

>>17407661

>By 1886, Nietzsche himself had reservations about the work, and he published a preface in the 1886 edition where he re-evaluated some of his main concerns and ideas in the text. In this post-script, Nietzsche referred to The Birth of Tragedy as "an impossible book... badly written, ponderous, embarrassing, image-mad and image-confused, sentimental, saccharine to the point of effeminacy, uneven in tempo, [and] without the will to logical cleanliness."[8] Still, he defended the "arrogant and rhapsodic book" for inspiring "fellow-rhapsodizers" and for luring them on to "new secret paths and dancing places."

I see...

[Anonymous No.17407706]

>>17407695
>Socrates
>tactless
You would get publicly humiliated by Socrates.

[Anonymous No.17407729]

>>17407706
Congrats on proving my point. To have tact is to take into consideration nuance and the position of everyone involved in the conversation. Socrates didn't do that. He just wanted to dissect things and then throw his hands in the air and say "you lack knowledge! admit it!" when confronted. That is the definition of tactless.

[Anonymous No.17407748]

>>17407698
Nevertheless contained many gems like the one above. Nietzsche correctly understood the problem of legibility. The problem of making a theory to predict something's behavior - when that thing exhibits behavior outside your theory - calling that thing "irrational" and dismissing further inquiry.

[Anonymous No.17407859]

Just read The Problem of Socrates in Twilight of The Idols. Its like six pages long:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52263/52263-h/52263-h.htm#THE_PROBLEM_OF_SOCRATES

Its worth noting that Nietzsche sees Socrates more as a symptom of Greek decline, and not a cause. The Greeks had become decadent, and Socrates' asceticism was a cure for their disorderd instincts:

If one needs to make a tyrant of reason, as Socrates did, then there must exist no little danger of something else playing the tyrant. Rationality was at that time divined as a saviour; neither Socrates nor his ‘invalids’ were free to be rational or not, as they wished – it was de rigueur, it was their last expedient. The fanaticism with which the whole of Greek thought throws itself at rationality betrays a state of emergency: one was in peril, one had only one choice: either to perish or – be absurdly rational.… The moralism of the Greek philosophers from Plato downwards is pathologically conditioned: likewise their estimation of dialectics. Reason = virtue = happiness means merely: one must imitate Socrates and counter the dark desires by producing a permanent daylight – the daylight of reason. One must be prudent, clear, bright at any cost: every yielding to the instincts, to the unconscious, leads downwards…

[Anonymous No.17407894]

>>17406587
>reddit spacing
>hates/doesnt understand nietzsche
adds up

[Anonymous No.17407926]

>>17407859
>Reason = virtue = happiness means merely: one must imitate Socrates and counter the dark desires by producing a permanent daylight – the daylight of reason. One must be prudent, clear, bright at any cost: every yielding to the instincts, to the unconscious, leads downwards…
>ChadFaceYes.png

[Anonymous No.17407963]

>>17406477
Nietzsche hated Socrates because Socrates bummed Plato. Socrates was a paederast, so he would regularly bugger Plato, since plato was his apprentice.

[Anonymous No.17407986]

>>17407642
>and was the first one to say these things
The first documented person to say those things.

[Anonymous No.17407996]

>>17407894
Reddit spacing is not a thing. Ironically the only people who complain about it are newfriends such as yourself trying to fit in.

[Anonymous No.17408006]

>>17407729
>He just wanted to dissect things and then throw his hands in the air and say "you lack knowledge! admit it!" when confronted
And he was right.

[Anonymous No.17408094]

>>17406493
>Socrates pretty much demolishes the proto-nietzsche Callicles in the Gorgias
lmao
Callicles: lol justice is for weak faggots, just follow your desires
Socrates: ummmmm dont! its just bad okay? its just is bad, punishment is better than doing bad deeds! its because I said so! dont believe me? let me invent a story about how you will be punished for bad actions in the afterlife so I can scare you like a good moralfag that I am!

[Anonymous No.17408103]

>>17407996
keep telling yourself that

[Anonymous No.17408111]

>>17408103
>t. unironic newfag
kys giganigger.

[Anonymous No.17408113]

>>17407963

Do... does that mean that Plato buggered Aristotle?

[Anonymous No.17408133]

>>17408006
More proof of his tactlessness. "I am right though!".

[Anonymous No.17408140]

>>17406467
Haven't you read The Birth of Tragedy?