[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 73 KB, 442x600, 442px-Nietzsche187a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17499786 No.17499786 [Reply] [Original]

>still hasnt been refuted
how did he do it bros?

>> No.17499812

>>17499786
WELCOME TO NIETZSCHE THREAD #1937672956

>> No.17499875

you can't refute what is correct

>> No.17500384
File: 389 KB, 1258x1600, 1612825724839.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17500384

>>17499786
>Nietzsche, as every one knows, preached a doctrine which he and his followers regard apparently as very revolutionary; he held that ordinary altruistic morality had been the invention of a slave class to prevent the emergence of superior types to fight and rule them. Now, modern people, whether they agree with this or not, always talk of it as a new and unheard-of idea. It is calmly and persistently supposed that the great writers of the past, say Shakespeare for instance, did not hold this view, because they had never imagined it; because it had never come into their heads. Turn up the last act of Shakespeare’s Richard III and you will find not only all that Nietzsche had to say put into two lines, but you will find it put in the very words of Nietzsche. Richard Crookback says to his nobles:

Conscience is but a word that cowards use,
Devised at first to keep the strong in awe.

>As I have said, the fact is plain. Shakespeare had thought of Nietzsche and the Master Morality; but he weighed it at its proper value and put it in its proper place. Its proper place is the mouth of a half-insane hunchback on the eve of defeat. This rage against the weak is only possible in a man morbidly brave but fundamentally sick; a man like Richard, a man like Nietzsche. This case alone ought to destroy the absurd fancy that these modern philosophies are modern in the sense that the great men of the past did not think of them. They thought of them; only they did not think much of them. It was not that Shakespeare did not see the Nietzsche idea; he saw it, and he saw through it.

>> No.17500398

The answer is always the same: s/he made a deal with Satan.

>> No.17500404

>>17499812
fpbp
nietzsche fags get the rope

>> No.17500433
File: 17 KB, 338x500, 1605517452023.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17500433

>>17499786
*refutes Nietzsche*
*obliterates rightoids*
*vindicates socialism, empathy, human rights and altruism*
how did he do it?

>> No.17500683

>>17499786
Why is this board obsessed with "refuting" things they don't like?

>> No.17500694

>>17500384
Christ Chesterton is unbearable

>> No.17500700

>>17500683
Insecurity

>> No.17500723

>>17500683
Lack of Nietzsche. They have no manners. They don't know that to do away with an idea you don't deboonk it, you
>lay it respectfully on ice.

>> No.17500784

>>17500384
>nietzsche is wrong because shakespeare wrote a retarded character
oh no nietzsche bros, we got too cocky..

>> No.17500903

>>17499812
>WELCOME TO COPE THREAD #1937672956
Literally refuted five times on the catalog alone.

>> No.17501040

Nietzsche is but a gnat on the tail of Emerson

>> No.17501074

>>17501040
>This case alone ought to destroy the absurd fancy that these modern philosophies are modern in the sense that the great men of the past did not think of them
fat fuck havent read gorgias

>> No.17501085

>>17501074
meant >>17500384

>> No.17501108

>>17499786
Because his system of philosophy has not been completed yet and will not be completed until later this century