/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17419653]

What does Nietzsche's vision of the ubermench look like? I kind of see the ubermench like newtypes from Gundam.

[Anonymous No.17419816]

>>17419653
>What does Nietzsche's vision of the ubermench look like?
kinda like myself.

[Anonymous No.17419872]

>>17419653
Why do people portray the Nietzschean outlook as somehow more difficult, more brutal, more real, more visceral than the religious one? For me it is much easier to be a Nietzschean, it feels liberating, it feels like all the catastrophes, suffering and terror do not really have any extra meaning than just being what they are, even in the face of something terrible happening to me, I could accept it much more easily, there would be no reason to feel wronged, or feel like I should question anything, I'd just accept it as part of life. All of that worry about being responsible towards a superior being, about being conflicted and confused by suffering, terror and catastrophes, about wondering why evil things are happening to you, or to your loved ones or to other people, all of that is gone in an instant. The life of a Nietzschean is much easier, you can even reformulate all catastrophes and terror as simply an aesthetic overflow of Life itself. It liberates you to truly act within the world as you want, it liberates you from divinely imposed morality, you can really do anything you want and define it however you want it and whne things go wrong or someone gets hurt...well that's life, no need to psychologize it or feel bad about life's facts. To me being a Nietzschean is the ultimate coping mechanism, it would make everyone instantly happier, the worries would be gone in an instant.

[Anonymous No.17419933]

>>17419872
It instantly shuts down the transcendent consciousness, the feelings of guilty, of responsibility, of transcendental morality. All of that is gone, the abstract reasoning about your actions in a transcendetal sense is gone too. Immediately you feel the blood pumping through your veins, the hard Earth beneath your feet, everything that is present feels in an instant more real, more immanent rather than transcendent. Everything is malleable, you can do anything. There is no transcendent order, only what happens here, physically and whatever happens psychologically, is simply what is the case humanly speaking, there is nothing transcendent about it. All of the illness of otherwordliness is gone, the concerned consciousness, the feeling that something might be wrong with our world, the concerns about what is just or moral in a transcendent sense, or in relation to the Creator. All of that is gone. Life becomes really far more simple. The guilt and the memories of sin fall away and are made even redundantly funny. I cannot take Nietzsche as anything but a coping mechanism for consciousness, because that is what it really feels like, to be reduced from a transcendent and material being into simply an immanent material being, all the tension between the two parts is gone. It's the best coping mechanism I've ever seen, far more effective than religion.

[Anonymous No.17419954]

>>17419872
>chrictcukery is all religion

[Anonymous No.17420019]

>>17419954
right there's the pagan larping too. based Zeus

[Anonymous No.17420105]

>>17419872
>>17419933
I think this is an interpretation of Nietzsche you can choose to take, but it does not represent his philosophy fully. The burden of meaning does not disappear, it just falls on you instead of being externalized and exported to an otherworldly god. Nietzsche cuts through the bullshit, if you think this entails cutting away all that is transcendental, that's your interpretation.

[Anonymous No.17420176]

>>17420105
My interpretation is that it is easier not be an immanent Nietzschean than a transcendental Christian. I view Nietzsche as a better coping mechanism than Christianity, I think being a Nietzschean is an easier worldview for the weak than being Christian.

[Anonymous No.17420182]

>>17420176
>not be
to be*

[Anonymous No.17420308]

>>17420176
Do you think the weak find meaninglessness easy to bear? I do not. The burden that Nietzsche imposes on you is far greater than what Christianity does. The Christian abdicates responsibility for meaning, the Nietzschean is forced to shoulder it.
In any case, I think that Nietzsche would not necessarily disapprove of the approach to life you described. On the other hand, doing away with meaning means doing away with a higher form of struggle, and the true Übermensch. Nietzsche would approve of any creature that could lead such an exulting, free life, but he would not approve of relieving yourself of challenges, of cutting yourself off from a sphere of reality to avoid it. 'Cope' in any form is not congruent with Nietzschean philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17420488]

>>17420308
>Do you think the weak find meaninglessness easy to bear? I do not. The burden that Nietzsche imposes on you is far greater than what Christianity does. The Christian abdicates responsibility for meaning, the Nietzschean is forced to shoulder it.

I think you are misreading what I tried to say. I think the weak in a bad situation find the meaning immanent to themselves rather than to a transcendent order liberating, it sweeps away some very hard existential questions. The Christian position is much harder since it claims that there is a transcendental order, which makes it questionable what is the meaning of you being in a bad situation (see: Job). The requirement of Christianity to bear responsibility for your life in relation to a transcendental order and carry the cross in face of inexplicable suffering is a much harder task than the liberating feeling of making meaning immanent to oneself and rescuing oneself from the transcendent order and the responsibility that emerges in the relation to it. A Nietzschean man is free in his self-definition and will, a Christian man is free to carry the cross in relation to a transcendent order. To me there is no question, that being a Nietzschean is the easier path.

[Anonymous No.17420568]

>>17420488
> The requirement of Christianity to bear responsibility for your life in relation to a transcendental order and carry the cross in face of inexplicable suffering is a much harder task

But it isn't, because Christianity provides you with an answer to why your suffering, a meaning, not to mention the false promise of an afterlife that will make up for your sufferings. Nietzsche on the other hand preaches the doctrine of eternal recurrence of all things, and thus the onus is on you to make your suffering meaningful. This is also why the poor choose to be Christian more often than not, it's escapism.

[Anonymous No.17420607]

Have you ever read Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.17420646]

>>17420568
>But it isn't, because Christianity provides you with an answer to why your suffering
It doesn't. The answer of Christianity is precisely that you are to bear your suffering with no clear answer. Only someone who has never been a Christian can say such a distortion such as that "Christianity is an easy answer to suffering". With Christianity your suffering actually increases. The existential problems really get only harder when you become Christian. Whereas accepting suffering as simply suffering is liberating. One does not have to concern himself with meaning, because there is none, you can make one up yourself if you want to, nor are you required to even bear suffering, since you have no responsibility towards a transcendent order, a Nietzschean can take the path that is most to his liking.

[Anonymous No.17420653]

Artificial General Intelligence

[Anonymous No.17420669]

>>17419653
>I kind of see the ubermench like newtypes from Gundam

[Anonymous No.17420841]

>>17419653
Imagine the braindead masses. Now imagine the opposite of them. That's the overman.

[Anonymous No.17420904]

>>17420841
So newtypes

[Anonymous No.17420918]

>>17419872
>>17419933

nietzscheans trying to pretend like they aren't neurotic is always hilarious to me - you're still filled with neuroses and doubt, you've just shifted it from god to something will to power. anybody that thinks of his own thinking will be neurotic

[Anonymous No.17420936]

>>17419653
Read this!

[Anonymous No.17420950]

>>17419653
Someone like Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men

[Anonymous No.17420961]

>>17419653
Trannies exhibit radical self-determination and the creation of their own values

[Anonymous No.17420972]

>>17420019
Cringe.
Hi back to r/euphoric

[Anonymous No.17421147]

>>17420646

> Only someone who has never been a Christian can say such a distortion such as that "Christianity is an easy answer to suffering".

It's easier than having no answer. It's a way out, a leap of faith - away from responsibility.

>With Christianity your suffering actually increases.

Not true. The suffering find solace in religious delusions all the time, all over the world.

> The existential problems really get only harder when you become Christian.

Life becomes far simpler once you are provided with answers to such questions as what is right, what happens when I die, who made the world, etc.

> Whereas accepting suffering as simply suffering is liberating.

Only someone who has only been Christian could say something like that. Meaningless suffering is far, far harder than meaningful suffering. In fact, one could argue that suffering only really becomes suffering once it is meaningless. "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how."

> One does not have to concern himself with meaning

The desire for meaning does not disappear just because one is not provided one. To the contrary - it grows.

> since you have no responsibility towards a transcendent order, a Nietzschean can take the path that is most to his liking.

This is not true, and you have not understood Nietzsche. The Last Man is humanity that follows only its simple proclivities. Nietzsche believed in struggle, and ascension, not in indifference and hedonism.

[Anonymous No.17421170]

>>17419653
The entire genre of JRPG has sought to answer this question.

[Anonymous No.17421212]

>>17421170
Give me a rundown anon

[Anonymous No.17421227]

>>17421212
We've surmised that it will involve bright, sparkling auras, neon-colored hair, and angel wings.

[Anonymous No.17421270]

>>17421147
>Not true. The suffering find solace in religious delusions all the time, all over the world.
>Life becomes far simpler once you are provided with answers to such questions as what is right, what happens when I die, who made the world, etc.

Again, this is a caricature of the Christianity that applies perhaps to a certain subset of cultural Christians who do not really take it seriously. Christianity isn't some simple thing where everything makes sense, but you'd have to actually be Christian to understand this and the difficulities that emerge from being Christian. I've tried to portray this multiple times in this thread as closely as I could but it seems like you are incapable of transcending your limited understanding of what it is to be a Christian.

>Only someone who has only been Christian could say something like that.
Everyone has suffered but not everyone has been a Christian.

>Nietzsche believed in struggle, and ascension
Nietzsche has never defined what struggle or ascension is, it can be anything and thus is ultimately liberating and provides easy meaning.

[Anonymous No.17421284]

>>17421147
>Meaningless suffering is far, far harder than meaningful suffering

There are basically two options:
>suffering is meaningless, life is what you make it, everything is immanent and your will is of ultimate importance
>suffering is not always meaningless, but sometimes it is, there is a transcendent order to reality that you don't really have access to, you don't really understand why you suffer but you have to bear responsibility for it and your reaction to it anyways, your personal will exists in an unknown and emotionally difficult relation to the transcendent and to your suffering situation

To anybody who is not literally a teenager, it is immediately clear that the second position is harder.

[Anonymous No.17421326]

>>17421270

> Christianity isn't some simple thing where everything makes sense

I never said that. Stop strawmanning.

> I've tried to portray this multiple times in this thread as closely as I could but it seems like you are incapable of transcending your limited understanding of what it is to be a Christian.

You're just strawmanning to escape from the fundamental argument, which is that it is easier to have answers given to you than to find them yourself. I never said that Christians don't suffer, or that everything is easy. It's YOU that claimed that Nietzscheanism is easier than christendom. I've read Kierkegaard (in original 19th century Danish), I'm well aware of the fact that christians can suffer. It's you that have a limited, self-serving understanding of Nietzschean philosophy.

>Everyone has suffered but not everyone has been a Christian.

You're not addressing the point.

> Nietzsche has never defined what struggle or ascension is, it can be anything and thus is ultimately liberating and provides easy meaning.

Nietzsche doesn't do definitions. If that means you refuse to engage with his philosophy, that's fine, but stop making threads about it then.

[Anonymous No.17421370]

>>17421284
The first one is not a real option, not for teenagers either. The problem of suffering simply does not disappear just by decision. If your child is murdered, you cannot just say "oh well YOLO lol". The first option only works for those that do not suffer, i.e. bear so easily the suffering of others.

[Anonymous No.17421407]

>>17419653
I think Nietzsche would a regular guest on right wing podcasts but eventually get ostracized not for embracing Jewish stereotypes but holding them up as an amoral ideal, like a technological inevitability a la Buckminster Fuller from a sociological perspective. Also he'd sperg on anyone even mildly religious.

You'd think this would place him in the NrX camp but his darkly admiring perspective on the Jew would give their game away, something for which they could never forgive him.

[Anonymous No.17421411]

>>17421370
>The first one is not a real option,
Yes it is.

>you cannot just say "oh well YOLO lol"
strawman

>>17421326
not worth addressing (the fact that you don't see the point made in that instance makes me think you are incapable of grasping simple statements)

[Anonymous No.17421443]

Also the fact that someone would feel the need to point out he read Kierkegaard in original 19th century Danish is reason enough to discard almost everything he'd have to say. Only pretentious idiots or career academics (mostly pretentious idiots) would ever claim something like that.

[Anonymous No.17421447]

>>17421411
I think you should read Nietzsche before commenting on his philosophy, you clearly do not understand it. You have also failed to address any of my arguments.

[Anonymous No.17421459]

>>17421411
> strawman

It's not a strawman, it's an example. You don't even understand what strawman means.

[Anonymous No.17421501]

>>17421459
It's a false example as if it somehow relates let alone refutes my argument, which is a straw man. This is becoming a waste of my time.

>>17421447
Every Nietzschean says this when his favorite philosopher's thought is used to point something out that doesn't square with their beliefs. Unfortunately that's not how philosophy works, but it is understandable that Nietzsche is the favorite philosopher of pseuds since he never says anything concrete and flows nicely somewhere between argument and pure rhetorics, mostly on the rhetorics side. But when you use Nietzsche rhetorically, which is precisely what he has done, you somehow get accused of misunderstanding him. I cannot imagine any other philosopher whose fanbase is more tiring and circular to argue with.

[Anonymous No.17421547]

>>17421443

[Anonymous No.17421564]

>>17421443
>>17421547

[Anonymous No.17421565]

>>17419653
Wagner's Siegfried.

Though in all reality the Ubermensch is a general concept like his Will to Power, and as a result does not have a particular material concretification.

[Anonymous No.17421578]

>>17419872
This is poetical buffoonery and nonsense; a Christian could say the exact same- I do not ask myself why I suffer, it is a part of this life. It's just that a Christian would have something beyond a failed psychoanalysis of his enemy- that is, an answer- to offer.

>all of that worry about being responsible towards a superior being
You should worry about being responsible to yourself in a Christian world. You don't do it for God, you do it for yourself.

>about being conflicted and confused by suffering, terror and catastrophes
As if Christianity does anything but answer these; you are merely dismissing the fact that this issue exists, Christianity answers it. Of course, this presupposes that Christians ask themselves questions like "why me?" and Nietzscheans never, whatever a "Nietzschean" even is.

>about wondering why evil things are happening to you etc
But a Christian is not supposed to have fear about these things; it is virtuous to suffer for a good cause; have you even read the Bible? And what exactly makes this all "gone in an instant?" A simple change in belief won't make anything go "poof" in an instant, you're just depicting your current mental state, which is either one of great acceptance, to which I'd commend you, or one of such great jadedness and weakness that you've let life break you into submission.

>divinely imposed morality
That's like saying the laws of nature are divinely imposed reality; these are things fundamental to us. A creator does not make His creation desire anything other than that morality; it is not imposed upon us, we are made for it. Only an unhealthy creation (thank you Satan) gives us the ability to choose wrongly- but does the patient know what is better for him, or the doctor?

>you can really do anything you want and define it how you want

>>17419933
Almost comedic nonsense. Knowledge of or belief in the transcendental does not give reality an "ephemeral quality." I have never once experienced this.

>the feeling that something might be wrong with the world is gone
And yet you are here, preaching Nietzscheanism as the panacea for our ailments.

>it's the best coping mechanism I've ever seen, far more effective than religion
You are like a peddler; I am unable to verify your ware until I try it on myself. Until then, I am presented this persuasive piece- "forgetting about transcendental worries" makes Nietzscheanism better than Christianity. But who said we need to forget our pain? Are you so weak? The very fact that you wish to improve means you view yourself as insufficient; the mere world is too small to contain our eternal strivings.

>>17420308
The Nietzschean shoulders the responsibility for meaning? With what does he replace the purpose in life? Why does turning to a thing for meaning mean that you are weak, if it stands that no meaning is within you (or everything is within you)?

>>17420488
>Christianity is weak Nietzschean meets Christianity is strong Nietzschean

[Anonymous No.17421587]

>>17421547
>>17421564
Congrats on:
1. proving my point, that you actually think its worthwhile to point out you read Kierkegaard in 19th century Danish as only pseud idiots would ever feel the need to do that
2. failing to grasp that I'm calling you an idiot for pointing out that you read Kierkegaard in 19th century Danish in the first place
3. failing to grasp yet another simple point

[Anonymous No.17421595]

>>17421578
When did this board become filled with retards who fail basic reading comprehension? You've COMPLETELY missed the point of the posts. Congrats.

[Anonymous No.17421596]

>>17421501
> It's a false example as if it somehow relates let alone refutes my argument, which is a straw man. This is becoming a waste of my time.

No, a strawman represents an actual argument supposedly made by someone. I was providing an example of why simply making a decision does not remove the problem of suffering. I never said it was an argument made by someone.

> I cannot imagine any other philosopher whose fanbase is more tiring and circular to argue with.

I can. Seething christcucks who once heard that he said "God is dead", and therefore make it their mission to 'disprove' him, mostly by providing incorrect, self-serving interpretations.

[Anonymous No.17421632]

>>17421587
I thought it was funny to mogg on you after your nonsense claims about how I don't understand christian suffering. I think you derailed this thread with insults because it was getting uncomfortable for you.

[Anonymous No.17421635]

>>17421596
>I was providing an example of why simply making a decision does not remove the problem of suffering

Based on a false example and delivered in a way as if it somehow challenged my original argument (which you quoted), hence making it a straw man.

You've used a false example to construct a false premise which lead to you mischaracterizing my argument and making an erroneous conclusion about it as if it was refuted:
>The first option only works for those that do not suffer,
This is literally a classic example of a straw man, textbook definition.

This is pathetic. I'm done.

[Anonymous No.17421643]

>>17421632
No the problem is you're exposing your basic ability to think and reading comprehension in every post you make. So there cannot in principle be any argument between me and you, because you have a primitive mind incapable of being addressed except in the most primitive ways.

[Anonymous No.17421673]

>>17421635
> Based on a false example

It is not based on the example. The example illustrates it. The point holds for suffering in general. You're just refusing to address the point, by making a false claim of fallacy. I never said it was a real argument. I never said you said it was an actual argument. I simply used it as an example to illustrate a point. This does not qualify as a strawman.

> ou've used a false example to construct a false premise

No, the example comes after the premise. It illustrates, it doesn't provide foundation. A billion other examples could be made. It's nonsense that the example builds the argument.

[Anonymous No.17421693]

>>17421643
You're wrong =)
You're also not a real intellectual if you think you can't have conversations with less capable people. I have it every day - you being a prime example.

[Anonymous No.17421712]

>>17420568
What importance does the doctrine of eternal recurrence serve, if it is only a thought experiment? A Christian would easily live the same Christian life, over and over again, without changing a thing.

And is that truly why the poor "choose to be" Christian, or is it rather why they choose to continue to be Christian (given that most are born into it)? If so, your point is tenuous; you'd have to statistically prove it; this world is too large to accommodate the self-importance of your predictions.

>it's escapism
How so?

>>17420646
I am a Christian and my suffering is identical to the suffering I'd experience as an atheist. I accept suffering as suffering; I accept that it is meaningful, and think no more of it.

>there is no meaning, but you can make one
Why is it even difficult to concern oneself with meaning? Meaning has brought me no suffering, save for the odd doubt. But to attack that is like saying that a meaningless person has doubts about the meaninglessness of life, and therefore he suffers, because he suspects there is really meaning- therefore, we should have neither meaning nor meaninglessness. On what grounds should we flee from struggle, if there is no meaning?

>since you have no responsibility to a transcendent order, a Nietzschean can take the path that is most to his liking
Wouldn't this entail creating one's own meaning, which is supposedly a great burden?

>>17421147
>Life becomes far simpler once you are provided with answers
You fool, that's the easy part- being provided. The hard part is accepting the immensity of those answers, so it is not as easy as you say.

Oddly enough, you say we are supposed to find our own answers. But all that entails is reading and philosophizing, which always begins with presuppositions that are not your own- perhaps seeded by Nietzsche, your parents, or some other philosopher-gargoyle on your shoulder.

>Only someone who has only been Christian could say something like that
Only in a bizarro world would this be called wisdom.

>suffering only really becomes suffering once it is meaningless
A good thing we do not have to go far to suffer so- life is full of meaningless sufferings. It is far more difficult to believe that, absurdly, there exists some meaning to these random, callous events- everyone will revile you for this. And yet, no one reviles or contradicts the atheist who claims that this earth is a series of aimless deaths, evolutions, massacres and extinctions, nor the Christian who bows and scrapes to the scientist by adopting this very position. How, now- you need to syllogize your strength rather than proving it? You are no more laborious than a modern man, let alone a monk.

If you feel yourself wrongly characterized, extend that to me.

>>17421443
And then go on to display the dialectical talents of the typical 20-something chantard

[Anonymous No.17421725]

>>17419933
lol if you're using transcendental and transcendent interchangeably you don't know much about philosophy. Nietzsche actually embraces Kant's transcendental thought, believing that all that's available to subjects is conditioned by certain necessary conditions.

ignoring that some what pedantic concern, why is it wrong if Nietzscheanism makes some aspects of life easier? While Nietzsche isn't a hedonist, he abhors the christian ideas that elevate suffering, like you are doing. Your whole argument is based on presuppostions about the necessity and importance of moral feelings, which are exactly what Nietzsche fights against.

[Anonymous No.17421726]

>>17421673
>You're just refusing to address the point
What point? Your entire line is false.

>"The problem of suffering simply does not disappear just by decision"
Nobody ever claimed this.

>If your child is murdered, you cannot just say "oh well YOLO lol".
Nobody ever claim this either.

>The first option only works for those that do not suffer
You quote me and use TWO false claims that I never said and that do not apply to my actual position and then use those claims to challenge my statement. This is literally t-e-x-t-b-o-o-k strawman.

[Anonymous No.17421735]

>>17421725
I'm using transcendent and transcendental psychologically not philosophically since the discussion is about suffering from an emotional perspective you utter idiot.

[Anonymous No.17421746]

>>17421693
>You're also not a real intellectual if you think you can't have conversations with less capable people. I have it every day

That's just Dunning-Kruger's anon.

[Anonymous No.17421764]

>>17421735
sorry for calling out your lack of knowledge, I hope it felt adequately otherwordly and divine.

does G-d's cock taste transcendental or transcendent?

[Anonymous No.17421765]

>>17421726

>If your child is murdered, you cannot just say "oh well YOLO lol".
> it feels like all the catastrophes, suffering and terror do not really have any extra meaning than just being what they are, even in the face of something terrible happening to me, I could accept it much more easily, there would be no reason to feel wronged, or feel like I should question anything, I'd just accept it as part of life


>"The problem of suffering simply does not disappear just by decision"
>and whne things go wrong or someone gets hurt...well that's life, no need to psychologize it or feel bad about life's facts. To me being a Nietzschean is the ultimate coping mechanism, it would make everyone instantly happier, the worries would be gone in an instant.

Perhaps you did not imply that physical suffering goes away, but you are proposing it as a cure for existential crises. The cure- stop caring. Make it disappear by decision.

If you have anything to say besides "misinterpretation," I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I must maintain the position that Nietzscheans can only accuse their enemy of misinterpreting their shoddy, unclear rhetoric- the horror! Correct me if I am wrong; if I am correct, do not.

[Anonymous No.17421783]

>>17421725
>why is it wrong if Nietzscheanism makes some aspects of life easier?
why would it be wrong? nobody ever claimed this. why are neechetards incapable of grasping arguments?

>>17421725
>he abhors the christian ideas that elevate suffering, like you are doing
I'm not elavating suffering, I'm elevating the existential question in light of suffering. again reading comprehension seems to fail you or perhaps your ability to understand concepts is lacking.

>>17421725
>Your whole argument is based on presuppostions about the necessity and importance of moral feelings
and strike 3. my argument is entirely existential , it says nothing at all about any kind of necessity or importance of moral feelings. it simply displays the paradox that it is easier to be nietzschean than christian. of course implicitly the common explanation of christianity being cope for slaves and how is it easier to cope with life by being christian than having "no meaning" is also collapsed in the process, but that is accidental.

[Anonymous No.17421795]

>>17421765
your grotesque exmaple about murdering babies and YOLO doesn't follow from either of the paragraphs you quoted

[Anonymous No.17421804]

>>17419872
It's neither harder nor easier. It's just different. A Nietzschean just as much has to measure himself against the overman as the Christian does to God.

[Anonymous No.17421807]

>>17421764
not as transcendental as your boipucci

[Anonymous No.17421816]

>>17421726
> What point? Your entire line is false.

The point that the problem of suffering does not disappear simply by deciding that it is meaningless.

> Nobody ever claimed this.

Yes, they said that teenagers can just decide that suffering is meaningless and thereby escape it. Similarly to your argument about Nietzsche. It's simply not true. The decision to ignore meaninglessness does not make the problem go away.

> Nobody ever claim this either.

I know, it was an example to illustrate.

> You quote me and use TWO false claims that I never said and that do not apply to my actual position and then use those claims to challenge my statement. This is literally t-e-x-t-b-o-o-k strawman.

You should try reading a textbook on logic sometimes, cause you're wrong. I never infered from the example, I used it to illustrate.I never said you said it. I never said anyone said it. It was an example. You're simply not addressing the argument.

[Anonymous No.17421822]

>>17421735
Damn that's the second time you got mogged this thread bro

[Anonymous No.17421829]

It's getting late. It was a fun smackdown of the neeche fanbase, marxists have ways to go to to reach your #1 spot on the worst philosopher fanbases online list, so fret not.

[Anonymous No.17421835]

>>17421795
You still fail to grasp that it was just an example. The example doesn't matter, the argument does.

[Anonymous No.17421836]

>>17421822
samefag

[Anonymous No.17421838]

>>17421795
So then you are wrong, and Nietzscheanism does not do away with the sufferings present in the world, and the knowledge thereof.

>>17421783
It would have been better to steelman his position; perhaps by "elevating suffering" he did truly mean justifying existence despite suffering- though his expression was somewhat cryptic.

And if you are >>17419933
Then I assume you're not really a Nietzschean? And you are trying to subvert Nietzscheanism by saying it is a position that is easier to take than Christianity?

[Anonymous No.17421839]

Nietzsche threads are filled with too many spergs I won't even bother reading through this one

[Anonymous No.17421841]

>>17419653
This thread is full of idiotic christians doing exactly the stuff Nietzsche mocked. Keep pretending that your suffering is epic because some jew carried a stick up a hill.

The Ubermensch is someone who aligns themself with active forces in a constant act of creation; aesthetic creation, creation of values, experimentation with new modes of existence. I think Deleuze completed the Nietzschean project by creating a metaphysics which provides the conditions for maximum creativity.

[Anonymous No.17421848]

>>17421822
Pick up a dictionary and you will find out that transcendental and transcendent have an ordinary use that is not related to the kantian sperg you moron.

[Anonymous No.17421900]

>>17421841
Nietzsche's argument is circular.

He says Christians do x.
But if they do y he just intreprets that it must be because of x.

Nietzsche presupposes that Christian metaphysics is wrong.
Then complains that Christians invent metaphysics because they are well..being Christians.
Then when you point out Christians don't subscribe to his metaphysics and he presupposes that it must be wrong he replies: Exactly, you would only say that because you are a Christian! This proves my point.
Then a Christian says: But maybe we just have different metaphysics? I see the world different than you. I don't see why you should be correct and I wrong, since there is no proof for it.
Nietzsche: Ahahaha yes, you slave moralist! This just *further* prove I am right!

It's literally philosophy for midwits who fail to see past the rhetorics.

Nietzscheans: Ahahah what a Christian post, but this just proves that we are correct!!!

It's all circular.

[Anonymous No.17421907]

>>17421841
De-abstractify your language; this is so euphemistic it could be anything.

So give me examples- what does it mean to "align yourself with active forces in a constant act of creation?"

What are- aesthetic creations, creations of value, experimentations?

And have you truly created anything if you need to align yourself with a system you have not yourself made, that is composed by others? Values themselves have a purpose- for what does the Ubermensch create his values?

Otherwise it's just "Christians think their suffering is good because strawman," the Ubermensch (and not Nietzschean practitioners) rather does this far better, far more generously described thing.

[Anonymous No.17421931]

>>17421783
yeah sorry I misread your comments as a criticism of Nietzscheanism. That being said, your remarks come off as subtle criticism of Nietzscheanism from the perspective of someone who values the results of otherworldliness.

[Anonymous No.17421937]

>>17421907
becoming a body without organs. novel systems of signification, novel machinic connections, lines of flight

[Anonymous No.17421959]

>>17421937
More cryptic nonsense, so that I can more easily misinterpret you- then you say Christians cannot read. Explain what you mean in simple detail; what does it mean to become a "body without organs?" My mind turns to transhumanism, but yours, which surely is familiar with Nietzsche, may have a different idea.

[Anonymous No.17421963]

>>17421937
*breathes*

HAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHHHAHHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAAHHA

[Anonymous No.17421973]

>>17421959
It's Deleuze. All of those terms are Deleuze not Nietzsche. It's even more abstract than Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.17421976]

>>17421900
All arguments are circular because all logic is. That's the weakness of logic and why it has to be discarded past a certain point (the point where it prevents you from taking any action). Nietzsche's "party of life" still happened in the 20th century and persists in the 21st, and it isn't Christian. It's aligned with the Darwinian instead.

[Anonymous No.17422004]

>>17421976
The weakness of logic is that it is circular? But does one circularity excuse another? If I say "you are gay because you are gay," is that identical to me justifying the foundations of logic circularly, through infinite regress, or axioms (or some other, fourth cause)?

[Anonymous No.17422043]

>>17422004
All logic is, and this has been understood as early as Zeno with his paradoxes.

Nietzsche's point is much simpler than this thread makes it sound. Biology is what matters most. Not logical argument, not God, not any of that abstract horseshit. Biology reigns supreme over all of it. What fucking good is your moral paradigm of good and evil and your God and heaven and soul if these things don't help you survive, and more importantly, thrive in the world, shape it, create, and enjoy yourself? These things may help you, to an extent, but after that, when they stop helping? They are worthless then.

[Anonymous No.17422113]

>>17422043
So you have just refigured morality around biology, rather than God. And all of this based on the presupposition of atheism, that this world continues to exist after your death, that the ideology that produces the most children survives- then you have found such an ideology in Christianity, considering its proliferation (and current rates of reproduction compared to the lumpen atheists).

Of course, you who say that Christianity is a "spoonfeeding" religion that tells you how to live your life, what values to have, and how to live suddenly jumps to the conclusion that one's religion must tell them how to "thrive in the world, shape it, create, and enjoy oneself." But these are left up to the person. Christianity only offers the thou shalt nots of freedom, not the thou shalts of restriction. It tells you what a perfect life is not, and gives you living examples of what it is.

>biology is what matters most
To the man who is all biology, no spirit. If I was lacking in body and resentful, I would deny the body. And yet what do we call the man who denies the spirit because he is lacking in it, or else he would take pride in his spiritual dimension, too?

>not any of that abstract horseshit
Words from the man who is either too weak to have faith or too weak to seek genuine spiritual experiences. You're just proposing what all other atheists propose- some sort of a worldly utopia.

>when they stop helping- they are worthless then
The ideology of a weakling. "If it does not conform to my vision, then it is 'not helping.'" But what and who created your vision? Sure, I wish to thrive in the world. But what if my thriving happens to the detriment of others? What if I find pleasure in the pain of others, being mentally ill? And many such questions, none of which have any answers- all are led by whim and idiosyncrasy

[Anonymous No.17422169]

>>17422113
>So you have just refigured morality around biology, rather than God.
Yeah. Got a problem with that?

>To the man who is all biology, no spirit. If I was lacking in body and resentful, I would deny the body.
And you would be pathetic for it, just like your body, which is also pathetic. The body is what gives you your spirit. Not wanting to nourish it is retarded.

Rest of your post is moronic nonsense. I'm weak for prioritizing the survival of my own genes and my physical existence? And for realizing that my body and my genes are relevant to the formation of my thoughts? Get a grip.

>But what if my thriving happens to the detriment of others?
That's their problem. They have to survive just like I do.

[Anonymous No.17422188]

>>17419653
>What does Nietzsche's vision of the ubermench look like?
A fully enlightened buddha. A person who has removed all delusion from their mind. A true creator of values.

[Anonymous No.17422238]

>All the positive aspects of the way of the superman belong to his second aspect: the power to make a law for oneself, the "power to refuse and not to act, when one is pressed to affirmation by a prodigious force and an enormous tension"; the natural and free asceticism moved to test its own strength by gauging "the power of a will according to the degree of resistance, pain, and torment that it can bear in order to turn them to its own advantage" (so that from this point of view everything that existence offers in the way of evil, pain, and obstacles, everything that has nourished the popular forms of saviour religions, is accepted, even desired); the principle of not obeying the passions, but of holding them on a leash ("the greatness of character does not consist in not having such passions: one must have them to the greatest degree, but held in check, and moreover doing this with simplicity, not feeling any particular dissatisfaction thereby"); the idea that "the superior man is distinguished from the inferior by his intrepidity, by his defiance of unhappiness" ("it is a sign of regression when pleasure begins to be considered as the highest principle"); the responding with incredulity to those who point "the way to happiness" in order to make man follow a certain behaviour: "But what does happiness matter to us?"; the recognition that one of the ways to preserve a superior species of man is "to claim the right to exceptional acts as attempts at victory over oneself and as acts of freedom ... to assure oneself, with a sort of asceticism, a preponderance and a certitude of one's own strength of will," without refusing any privation; to affirm that freedom whose elements include "keeping the distance which separates us, being indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privations, even to life itself," the highest type of the free man being seen in "he who always overcomes the strongest resistances ... great danger making him a being worthy of veneration"; to denounce the insidious confusion between discipline and enfeeblement (the goal of discipline can only be a greater strength - "he who does not dominate is weak, dissipated, inconstant") and holding that "indulgence can only be objects to in the case of him who has no right to it, and when all the passions have been discredited thanks to those who were not strong enough to turn them to their advantage."; to point the way of those who, free from all bonds, obeying only their own law, are unbending in obedience to it and above every human weakness;

[Anonymous No.17422285]

Like some norman duke

[Anonymous No.17422307]

>>17422169
>That's their problem. They have to survive just like I do.
So then you are presupposing egoism; "what good is your paradigm if it doesn't help you survive" means YOU, not your race, your city, your bloodline.

But if you are not talking about aiding the perpetuation of your belief (lest it die out), then why should my belief promote survival? Not to say Christianity does not, but why should the replacement do so? Why should it promote anything beyond what my will desires for it to promote?

>Yeah. Got a problem with that?
It seems to defeat the purpose of complaining about "deriving all of your values from a God figure" when you derive them, instead, from your perception of biology. I say "your perception" because you place "survival, thriving, creativity" as a greater good than whatever else one might conceive of as a value. Perhaps one, according to his biology, desires asceticism rather than muscularity. Gradually, you see that all beliefs are according to one's biology, never without- we cannot live outside our own biology. Can we ever live not according to nature? And so you are, like the Christians, simply imposing one belief upon all people, rather than allowing them to grow on their own terms.

>And you would be pathetic for it, just like your body, which is also pathetic
>if I was

>The body is what gives you your spirit. Not wanting to nourish it is retarded.
Depends on your spiritual views. Of course, a spiritual strength would also be a strength of your body; but the spirit and body are not viewed as exclusive organs. If one is corrupt, the other is proportionally and correspondingly corrupt. But this does not necessitate nourishment or anything else.

>I'm weak for prioritizing the survival of my own genes and my physical existence?
If you presuppose your view, no. Similarly, a Christian could say- "I'm weak for prioritizing the existence and vitality of my immortal soul and that of my brethren?" And yet you would call this Christian weak, slandering him by saying he believes in the "beyond's" greater importance because he has nothing in this life. And yet, you are not weak when you do the same.

>And for realizing that my body and my genes are relevant to the formation of my thoughts?
If your body and genes are what create your thoughts, then we all follow our biology, and you have no position because all conform already to your view. Why should we conform to your biology, or your view thereof, which says we need to "thrive, shape, create, enjoy?" (broad things for which you likely have specific meanings).
In short, if I am being incoherent- all men already follow their biology, be they Christians or atheists or something else. This is because their biology causes their beliefs. Your belief that paradigms should help you survive is based on your biology, not that of others, so you would be enjoining others not to follow their biology and their ideas of survival.

[Anonymous No.17422326]

>>17422043
Not only this, but you presuppose darwinian science, and scientism itself, seeking out mechanistic causes and the like (all of this resting on a downy bed of unchallenged presuppositions), essentially bogging yourself down with that same "logical argument" you said is less important than biology.

Have you seen the quibbling in academia? Can you really say biology is important to you when you make an uninformed, hasty decision to improve your biological state?

[Anonymous No.17422354]

>>17422307
>"what good is your paradigm if it doesn't help you survive" means YOU, not your race, your city, your bloodline.
Yes, but these things benefit me at some time or another, so also no.

>ha ha we are the same you and I: the post
Boring. I don't care about your beliefs if they don't benefit me, bottom line. Everything about the way you argue suggests a very small person who is interested in tearing down anyone who is confident in their own skin. What matters is what benefits me, that's all; any logic that tries to "refute" this stance is as meaningful as I want it to be.

[Anonymous No.17422379]

>>17422238
all those aspects, in fine, in which the superman is not the "blonde beast of prey" and the heir to the equivocal virtus of Renaissance despots, but is also capable of generosity, quick to offer manly aid, of "generous virtue", magnanimity, and superiority to his own individuality.

>We have already seen with regard to the "will to power" that it is not so much the general characteristic of life, but one of its possible manifestations, one of its many faces. To say that life "always surpasses itself", "wants to ascend, and to regenerate itself by rising and surpassing itself", or that life's secret is that, "I am that which must always conquer itself" - all that is simply the result of a very unusual vocation projecting itself to the dimensions of a world-view. It is merely the reflection of a certain nature, and by no means the general or objective condition of every existence. The foundation that really prevails in existence is much closer to Schopenhauer's formulation that that of Nietzsche's; that is, the will to live as eternal and inexhaustible desire, not the will to power in the true sense, or the positive, ascending drive to dominance.

>>17422043
>Biology is what matters most. Not logical argument, not God, not any of that abstract horseshit. Biology reigns supreme over all of it.
That's not Nietzsche's whole point though. The positive aspect of his nihilism falls apart if one holds firm to that assertion. There is no longer a meaningful difference between the will to power of the superman and the slave. We basically revert back to Schopenhauer-ism in terms of final conclusions, and there is still no reason for mankind to strive for the superman like Nietzsche proclaimed.

[Anonymous No.17422402]

>>17422379
>That's not Nietzsche's whole point though.
Sure, there's more, but that's the core of it. A Darwinian-Emersonian pragmatism is the main lesson to be learned from him, which the other guy can't see, for whatever reason.

[Anonymous No.17422406]

>>17422354
>Everything about the way you argue suggests a very small person who is interested in tearing down anyone who is confident in their own skin
You might want to break out the ">ha ha we are the same you and I: the post" again, because an accusation of hypocrisy is the only way I'd respond.

It's more late-night, brain-fogged rhetoric; I am a "small person who wants to tear down the confident." But that is only because you see yourself as confident, and I disagree with you- I, who am surely wrong. Neither have been demonstrated.

>What matters is what benefits me, that's all
According to you. But what matters to other people may differ. What about the perpetuation of your belief- does that benefit you? Does it, too, matter?

>Yes, but these things benefit me at some time or another, so also no
And then, on what grounds can you criticize others? They are only doing what benefits them (or what they believe benefits them), after all.

[Anonymous No.17422440]

>>17422406
>blah blah blah blah blah blah
Holy cow, do you just love hearing / reading yourself or something?

[Anonymous No.17422459]

people should worry less about what the ubermensch looks like and worry more about what the Last Man looks like, then they should look at themselves.

[Anonymous No.17422499]

>>17422440
Yes. According to your system, what would be wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.17422509]

>>17419653
>What does Nietzsche's vision of the ubermench look like?
The man lives by laws
The superman is the law
Think about how society can not function without laws. A civilization of supermen has no need for law. It’s entirely decentralized

[Anonymous No.17422514]

>>17422499
>your system
I am the system.

[Anonymous No.17422533]

>>17422514

[Anonymous No.17422567]

>>17419872
>Why do people portray the Nietzschean outlook as somehow more difficult, more brutal, more real, more visceral than the religious one?
He’s so close, he’s just missing the affect image. Did you know all of the first religious temples had a view of the night sky? Just looking at the stars is perhaps more effective than any philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17422594]

>>17419653
>What does Nietzsche's vision of the ubermench look like? I kind of see the ubermench like newtypes from Gundam.
2 days ago a french whore on national radio said the spice girls where the ubermench

[Anonymous No.17422752]

All the main characters in Studio Ghibli films are ubermenschs

[Anonymous No.17423349]

>>17421547
>>17421564
Based

[Anonymous No.17424424]

>>17421565
Based.

[Anonymous No.17424465]

>>17419653
Literally Wagner.

>revolutionary genius in art, and to a secondary but still invaluable degree, his philosophy, psychology, aesthetics, politics and thought in general
>completely foreign to the masses until after he has died
>knew his value and freely stated it
>did everything he could in life to achieve his mission

[Anonymous No.17425587]

>>17424465
>completely foreign to the masses until after he has died
Lmao what, not at all.