[ 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: 72 KB, 900x331, ExkXcb6WEAIAL_c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17901405 No.17901405 [Reply] [Original]

Is it necessary for ones intellectual development to move past Nietzsche or is he the end all be all, taking account of philosophical development in the last century? I kinda feel like the latter right now

>> No.17901416

>>17901405
Nietzsche would certainly think so.

>> No.17901430

>>17901405
Only a cringetard thinks Nietzche is the end all be all bro.

>> No.17901439
File: 46 KB, 720x900, 1588223655176.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17901439

>move past Nietzsche
none of you could even move up to Nietzsche if you wanted to, let alone move past him.

>> No.17901446

St. Aquinas is the endgame.

>> No.17901467

>>17901430
I studied philosophy chronologically up to Nietzsche and now, after overcoming my medieval Tomistic phase, I subscribed to fideism (which is a heresy btw) and that later lead me to Platonism. Then I read Twilight of the Idols and I completely dropped metapsychics all together and now I believe that, given metapsychics to be false, Nietzsche IS the end all be all.

I have no desire or motivation to dwell in autistic metapsychical thoughts, honestly anymore

>> No.17901482

I'm in agreement with Nietzsche that Metapsychics is all just a big fat cope to try to justify the concept of Justice in an inherently unjust world, this was Socrates mistake (or intended error) in plunging the West into Philosophical autism by asking the question: "What is justice?"

>> No.17901573

Nothing in the public domain is the end. Secret esoteric cults have the answers. You really think we live in a world where you can buy powerful knowledge on Amazon?

>> No.17901591
File: 122 KB, 1563x512, Twilight of the Idols.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17901591

>>17901467
Twilight of the Idols seems stupid as fuck based on first glance.

>> No.17901600

>>17901591
>on first glance
>reads someone's summary of it

>> No.17901601

I am still stuck.
There is a certain depth .The more you read and learn, the more his schizo aphorisms make sense. Has great reread value.

>> No.17901602
File: 91 KB, 1567x351, Twilight of the Idols2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17901602

>>17901467
Not getting any better. Let me guess - in the book itself he uses reason to tell me why these absurd positions are actually correct?

>> No.17901606

>>17901600
Oh so are you saying the wikipedia is misleading, or even completely misinterprets what he is saying to the point that these takeaways are completely false? Or what?

>> No.17901617

>>17901591
>>17901602
What do you think is stupid about any of that?

>> No.17901621

>>17901606
Yes. You can't learn philosophy through a summary.

>> No.17901645

>>17901482
Cringe.

>> No.17901660

>>17901602
You'll never get it.

>> No.17901665

>>17901405
Admittedly I'm not that well read but he's the best blend of practical and poetic I've read.
As long as your understanding isn't the cartoonish villainous caricature he's often misinterpreted as you can't really go wrong with him.
I think of him as a foundational philosopher. A philosopher of vigorous individuation that sets you up with a foundation for other ideas that can be incorporated into your journey to the Ubermensch.

>> No.17901667

>>17901621
No wait just answer the question specifically please. Are those points that are supposed to be the main ideas and takeaways just flat out wrong? Obviously it is possible to summarize philosophy, it just requires extensive reasoning to prove why it is correct, which is what necessitates so much writing. Wait he can't use reason though, can he?

>>17901617
Instinct over reason = cattle tier existence
Believing there is a superior unchanging world does not make me hate nature. I love nature because through it I catch a glimpse of what is higher. I hate modern society though. And oh, anything but being weak, please no you got me there sir, I would never want to be considered weak!

Unironically seems like self conscious boomer, oaf tier, philosophy tbqh.

>> No.17901670

>>17901660
Apparently I will if I just stop thinking.

>> No.17901681

>>17901667
The points made in a summary are always going to be inaccurate because you can't divorce a philosophy from the philosopher and his style, which you can only ever learn by reading the philosopher directly. If you don't follow the philosopher's own thought process through his own style, you'll only get a colder, shallower idea of his philosophy. This goes for any philosopher.

>> No.17901689

>>17901667
>And oh, anything but being weak, please no you got me there sir, I would never want to be considered weak!
There's more nuance to it than that and his use of the word power ignores the negative connotations. This could be a translation issue.
Nietzschean power is similar to energy power. Electricity, life.
Power to build great things, not destroy and abuse.
Destruction and abuse were to him signs of internal weakness.

>> No.17901696

>>17901602
>Nietzsche
>caring about whether or not the reader thinks he's 'correct'

Wew lad

>> No.17901705

>>17901689
Fair enough, thanks. I find that interesting then, because it seems like the people who are strongest in this life and this world in the way that you mention are those who devote themselves to the divine fully.

>> No.17901720

>>17901681
>you'll only get a colder, shallower idea of his philosophy
I am not insisting that reading a summary is even close to the same thing as reading the original. I am just asking if those things are statements his text actually makes, or that he seems to agree with, or what?

>> No.17901733

>>17901667
>Instinct over reason = cattle tier existence
What Nietzsche is saying is that you cannot think yourself happy. He thinks you would be better off trusting your instincts for what you value, rather than sitting down and trying to reason out what is valuable.
>Believing there is a superior unchanging world does not make me hate nature.
Would you choose the eternal return given the chance to do so? If life is imperfect, then you cannot help but want for what you think is eternal and superior.
>Unironically seems like self conscious boomer, oaf tier, philosophy tbqh.
Nietzsche's philosophy is essentially amor fati.

>> No.17901750

>>17901689
>Destruction and abuse were to him signs of internal weakness.
In some cases yes, but this dismissal is just a sign of your own slave morality.

>> No.17901756

>>17901720
>I am just asking if
You should already know the answer because I've already given it to you. Actually read him, don't go by summaries. The summaries regurgitate his observations and conclusions in a shallower, inferior form, without the nuance built up by the chain of other observations and conclusions leading up to them. It's like listening to a 1 minute clip of a 1+ hour classical piece and pretending you listened to the piece.

>> No.17901764

>>17901405
No. Nietzsche was the last major philosopher that really mattered. The old idols have been abolished, modernity is a period of decadence and technological slavery, and we don’t really know what to do from there except wait for something to change or a great figure to restore humanity back to strength. If anyone cared about philosophy they have to pick up where Nietzsche left off which is what happened in the 20th century

>> No.17901766

>>17901705
>I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!
He was extremely Christian in his youth and it shows. His philosophy is similar to a Christian one in a lot of ways, despite calling himself an Anti-Christ.
I recommend giving him a read. Much better/different than advertised.
>>17901750
Have you read his books or only summaries? There's more to slave morality than that, and there's a whole lot more to Nietzche than slave morality.

>> No.17901781

>>17901733
>you cannot think yourself happy
I can confirm that this is the case based on Aristotle.
>better off trusting your instincts for what you value, rather than sitting down and trying to reason out what is valuable
I think you have to think first, then act based on what you have reasoned. If you have reasoned well and you have ingrained your beliefs into daily habits as second nature, then you are happy. This is the concept of eudaimonia.

>Would you choose the eternal return given the chance to do so?
Not sure what you mean by return. I think that question is actually harder to answer than you might think, and than I had originally thought. I have sort of come around to a personal opinion that it is necessary for us to endure the trials we face because they are what builds us into someone who is capable and worthy in that next life. So would I take the short cut if given the opportunity? Well, there are no shortcuts when it comes to God, and I don't believe someone can, in good faith, skip over the trials they have been dealt. This was all off the cuff thought, haven't thought about that before.

>amor fati
I don't know what that means exactly, based on a quick googol. Come to think of it, seems like what I said above in a sense.

>> No.17901784

>>17901750
Also this could be the same issue I pointed out here
>his use of the word power ignores the negative connotations
I'm ignoring the positive elements of destruction and abuse you could inevitably find.
In some instances destruction could be necessary, abuse might be necessary, but I'm not talking about the exceptions.

>> No.17901809

>>17901756
Whatever man, this is going nowhere and you can't just answer the question clearly. Unironically it seems like you yourself have become "absurdly rational" haha.

>>17901766
The wikipedia for Twilight of the Idols says it is meant to be his philosophy in a nutshell, so would that be a good book to get? I am currently reading Aristotle and I plan to read a ton of the Catholics, so I am not particularly interested in just pumping Nietzsche like crazy at the moment or at any time in the near future. Having read the start of the summaries I'd be shocked if I agree, but I'd take your word for it and do it just because, as he is a pretty smart guy nonetheless.

>> No.17901822

>>17901809
I answered the question "clearly," but you seem more interested in treating philosophy like a tabloid that gives you information about hot topics quickly. You should stick to reading tabloids then because they seem more your speed.

>> No.17901833

>>17901809
I like TSZ. It's a more poetic and loveable Nietzsche, which is more of the true Nietzsche in my eyes, whereas Twilight of the Idols is him screeching (it's wildly entertaining and intelligent screeching) and shitting on things.
He often gets mischaracterized as the psychopath's philosopher (that's more Stirner) when really he's the artist's philosopher.

>> No.17901843

amor fati is one of the most retarded ideas even conceived by a human desu famsquad

>> No.17901844

>>17901781
>I think you have to think first, then act based on what you have reasoned. If you have reasoned well and you have ingrained your beliefs into daily habits as second nature, then you are happy. This is the concept of eudaimonia.
Do you think you are a blank slate that you can mold into whatever reason tells you is good to be?
>Not sure what you mean by return.
It's one of the ideas Nietzsche talks about. When you die you will relive the life you have already lived eternally. If that seems pointless or miserable to you, Nietzsche would say you are pointless and miserable.
>Come to think of it, seems like what I said above in a sense.
I wouldn't say so. It means to love ones fate with no reservations. Not merely to accept it, or rationalize the unpleasant parts as having paid off, but to regard everything that has happened and will happen as being good.

>> No.17901860

>>17901843
How

>> No.17901861

>>17901667
What if reason is a mere illusion we use to conceal our instinctual will to power?

Now that could certainly be some dangerous knowledge.

>> No.17901863

>>17901784
It's not a matter of deeming it necessary or differentiating between positive and negative. To Nietzsche, there is no point to feeling guilty or trying to modulate your nature to be more socially acceptable.

>> No.17901871

>>17901860
eternal experience is eternally boring the only solution is suicide

>> No.17901874
File: 30 KB, 313x341, nietzschebeingacreep.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17901874

>>17901405
I read every book by Nietzsche in a week in middle school and realized he's a giant faggot pussy

>> No.17901877

>>17901861
not rlly

>> No.17901881

>>17901822
>but you seem more interested in treating philosophy like a tabloid
There is nothing wrong with getting a quick, but accurate enough, take before giving something an extremely substantial commitment. You're coping, unfortunately.

>>17901833
Thanks, I will look into it at some point.

>>17901844
>Do you think you are a blank slate that you can mold into whatever reason tells you is good to be
No I think man has a particular set of capacities and a particular end and correct reason can reveal the truth, or some truth, about these things. Then I can work on those capacities and move towards the end.

>If that seems pointless or miserable to you, Nietzsche would say you are pointless and miserable.
CS Lewis wrote something about this. He wrote that heaven and hell are retroactive, and that if you are in heaven you will realize you have been there all along, and likewise with hell, that once you arrive, you will realize you were already there in life.

>Not merely to accept it, or rationalize the unpleasant parts as having paid off, but to regard everything that has happened and will happen as being good.
Well, I may not have said that, but I do agree with it.

This really is quite interesting, I am confused because I seem to be hearing both highly agreeable things and highly disagreeable things from Nietzsche lol.

>> No.17901895

>>17901863
Man is to be overcome.
It's not about being socially acceptable, it's about adhering to your own code of ethics.
Nietzsche does not mock or dismiss virtue, he praises it, he only mocks the virtue of the slave who has not forged his own values, or subscribes to a lowly self effacing virtue.

>> No.17901900

>>17901874
Classical lit

>> No.17901915

>>17901861
If that is the case then you should be silent because you are suppressing your instinct by reasoning.

>> No.17901917

>>17901881
>No I think man has a particular set of capacities and a particular end and correct reason can reveal the truth, or some truth, about these things. Then I can work on those capacities and move towards the end.
You have that. Those capacities and that end are particular to you. If you turn that reason towards yourself you will be examing your own instincts and nature.

>> No.17901924

>>17901881
>There is nothing wrong with getting a quick, but accurate enough, take before giving something an extremely substantial commitment.
That works for a lot of things, but philosophy isn't one of them. There is no "accurate enough take" of a philosophy besides the one derived from directly reading a philosopher. The "substantial commitment" is philosophy itself, and if you're not willing to make it then go back to reading tabloids.

>> No.17901932
File: 26 KB, 275x295, 1491531860956.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17901932

>>17901881
>There is nothing wrong with getting a quick ...
???
>Read summary of conclusions without their context
>disagree with conclusion
>never read context to find out if it is something that would have changed the way I think
You are not interested in philosophy, you are interested in sophistry.

>This really is quite interesting, I am confused because I seem to be hearing both highly agreeable things and highly disagreeable things from Nietzsche lol.
Maybe you should read him in order to find out what you agree and disagree on.

>> No.17901939

>>17901895
It is certainly not about adhering to a code of ethics.
>Nietzsche does not mock or dismiss virtue
That he does. At length. And not "the virtue of the slave", but virtue as a concept. Read Ecce Homo.

>> No.17901943

>>17901895
>subscribes to a lowly self effacing virtue.
And if one comes to this virtue of their own volition? If they bravely hold onto it despite the trials of life and their own pain would that not be itself a will to power? That is of course, a higher power, the power of one’s own virtue.

>> No.17901955

>>17901844
>Do you think you are a blank slate that you can mold into whatever reason tells you is good to be?

Yes. We all have genetics that gives us our qualities and characteristics but that doesnt mean thats the end of it. To say perhaps your mind is comparable to a garden bed and you can only plant certain flowers is daft. In this current reality we have the capacity and the comfort to reinvent ourselves through routine habits and discipline. We're not blank slates, but we are creatures that can develop and reinvent ourselves.

>> No.17901962

>>17901955
>We're not blank slates, but we are creatures that can develop and reinvent ourselves.
In a lot of ways, sure. But not in the ways that matter(to Nietzsche).

>> No.17901989

>>17901939
>My brother, if you have a virtue and she is your virtue, then you have her in common with nobody.” Even naming one’s virtue would make her too common; if one must speak of her, it should be: “This is my good; this I love; it pleases me wholly; thus alone do I will the good. I do not will it the law of a god; I do not will it as human statute and need”
>>17901943
If that's your will to power, it's yours.

>> No.17901990

>>17901405
>Nietzsche
I personally would rather go with Buddhism
but that's the exact opposite of Nietzsches death cult

>> No.17902002

>>17901764
no the flow of time isnt just cut off? what is happening now is meant to be.

>> No.17902023

>>17901989
>All those things which mankind
has valued with such earnestness heretofore are not even real; they are mere creations of fancy, ·or, more strictly speaking, lies born of the evil instincts of diseased and, in the deepest sense, noxious natures-all the concepts, " God," " soul," " virtue," "sin," "Beyond," "truth," "eternal life."
>There are no such things as egoistic or altruistic actions : both concepts are psychological nonsense. Or the proposition that " man pursues happiness " ; or the proposition that "happiness is the reward of virtue."

>> No.17902029

>>17901917
How are human capacities and the human end particular to me?

You don't have to answer I am getting off in a moment, lol.

>>17901924
>>17901932
1+1=3, just hear me out, trust me, read hundreds of dense pages to find out why.

My point is that there is indeed an initial checkpoint content has to meet in order to be considered worthwhile. When I see a call to drop reason and embrace instinct, that is similar to seeing 1+1=3, because reading philosophy requires the use of reason.

Having said that, it is not sophistry to preliminarily engage with the surface level material as I have, because in turn it has led me beyond the surface and into deeper waters, thanks to posters who don't insist on acting like pseuds and actual sophists, but who actually engaged with what I wrote and thought.

>> No.17902033

>>17901917
>>17902029
Actually you can tell me how human capacities and the human end are particular and not universal, maybe I can check back tomorrow. It would be a hard sell though, especially when it comes to capacities I think.

>> No.17902049

>>17902023
Yes. Those are someone else's virtues. Those are someone else's ethics.
When I speak of ethics and virtue in Nietzschean terms I speak of them without the classical religious connotations that he sought to destroy.
Your great virtue may be to create art. That is your code. That is your ethic.That is your will to power.
When Nietzsche says
>>There are no such things as egoistic or altruistic actions
That becomes his virtue. The concepts of virtue and ethics are inescapable, only re-definable.

>> No.17902050

>>17902029
>How are human capacities and the human end particular to me?
Would you be satisfied with animal capacities and the animal end? Or would you feel that the difference between animal and human is so great that lumping humans in with animals leaves out too much of what is particular to just humans?
It is same way between humans. Your capacities are not the same as other humans and whatever end you imagine is not the end that other humans imagine.

>> No.17902051

>>17901405
>Is it necessary for ones intellectual development to move past Nietzsche
Absolutely.
He's a great stepping stone if you grew up in the west but he should not be the end.
You should be able to come up with some criticisms of his work at the very least.
He existed in a time with very limited information and limited knowledge and understanding and that stunted his philosophy, not that it was his fault.

We don't exist in his time or place, so hes not the end.

>> No.17902053

>>17901405
It takes being well read, from homeric greek to the renaissance, to understand him.

>> No.17902054

>>17901405
Move past him but always keep him in mind. It's not hard.

>> No.17902056

>>17901482
metaphysics and ethics are different branches of philosophy boyo

>> No.17902068
File: 916 KB, 498x280, 1607234895282.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17902068

>>17902029
You only think Nietzsche is advocating for something inane like 1+1=3 when he questions the value of reason BECAUSE you have relied solely on summaries of him. That's precisely why I'm telling you not to read summaries.

>> No.17902090

>>17902049
Usually when people talk about ethics and virtue, they mean something formalized. A set of propositions, logically coherent. Value, I think, is a much better word to use for what Nietzsche talks about.

>> No.17902098

>>17901405
>move past Nietzsche
orgyofthewill.net

>> No.17902139

>>17902090
It could be a translation issue, but he uses both and context usually gives the meaning.