[ 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: 531 KB, 1338x2048, licensed-image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18585110 No.18585110 [Reply] [Original]

is there a way to unswallow the nietzsche pill? reading him ruined the way I view everything

>> No.18585119

>>18585110
Why would you want that? Leave free, disregard the rabble, exalt great art and strength and pay women no mind other than occasional holes.

>> No.18585124

>>18585110
Jordan Peterson

>> No.18585128

>>18585110
cough up over Wagner's pubes.

>> No.18585166

Turn 18.

>> No.18585190

>>18585110
Read more Nietzsche. It's part of the reading experience. Or if you already read everything by Nietzsche read Christopher S. Hyatt.

>> No.18585194

>>18585110
Stirner.
Neetshe understood the foundation of current thought crushed and suppressed himself, but failed to realize that by making a new foundation he merely traps himself again. There is no such thing as a Superman, a superior me, for I am Nothing yet All in All. No Concept can truly express me or label me, nor can I be compared to anything.

>> No.18585199

>>18585194
I always thought Nietzsche was an extension to Stirner but I like your point

>> No.18585210

>>18585194
ok Fichte

>> No.18585223

What's so objectionable about it that you'd want to go back?

Also /lit/ is a terrible place to ask, nobody here really reads books or has good insights on this kind of stuff. You're lucky to get more than one or two non-meme answers.

>> No.18585227

>>18585223
I read solely to flex on the pseuds here. It's a sad life, but someone's got to do it.

>> No.18585229

>>18585210
>Fichte
Stop shit posting cunt

>> No.18585240

>>18585229
Shitirner is literally childish version of Fichte.

>> No.18585245

>>18585199
>Quote, Stirner
No thought is sacred, for let no thought rank as “devotions”;[Andacht, a compound form of the word “thought”] no feeling is sacred (no sacred feeling of friendship, mother’s feelings, etc.), no belief is sacred. They are all alienable, my alienable property, and are annihilated, as they are created, by me...

If religion has set up the proposition that we are sinners altogether, I set over against it the other: we are perfect altogether! For we are, every moment, all that we can be; and we never need be more. Since no defect cleaves to us, sin has no meaning either. Show me a sinner in the world still, if no one any longer needs to do what suits a superior!
>Quote over
This is one part that Nietzsche greatly differs on. Nietzsche believes you can *sin* against the idea of the Superman, while Stirner says he is.

>> No.18585256

>>18585240
We were talking about Fichte being shit posting, not stirner.

When German Ideology spends more text on Stirner than Stirner spends on Stirner and Stirner's most significant contributions are an Engels cartoon and a failed icecream factory we know what we're talking about.

Fichte posting is shit posting. P M W.

>> No.18585279

>>18585245
At least Shitirner is honest to himself and justifies his own lynching.

>>18585256
I was just referring to the fact that Shitirner grounds his egology on Fichtean metaphysics, autist.

>> No.18585300

>>18585279
No, he grounds the metaphysics themselves.
>
People have always supposed that they must give me a destiny lying outside myself, so that at last they demanded that I should lay claim to the human because I am — man. This is the Christian magic circle. Fichte’s ego too is the same essence outside me, for every one is ego; and, if only this ego has rights, then it is “the ego,” it is not I. But I am not an ego along with other egos, but the sole ego: I am unique. Hence my wants too are unique, and my deeds; in short, everything about me is unique. And it is only as this unique I that I take everything for my own, as I set myself to work, and develop myself, only as this. I do not develop men, nor as man, but, as I, I develop — myself.

This is the meaning of the — unique one.
>

>> No.18585566

god what a horrendous thread

>> No.18585588

>>18585110
>reading him ruined the way I view everything
Keep reading him. The edgy nihilism and angry cynical rants resonate the most strongly on early readings. The longer you spend with him, though, the more his ideas on life affirmation bleed through.
He's a ranter and pulls a lot of things apart. But his ultimate goal is to teach you how to be in love with life.

>> No.18585589

>>18585279
Thank you for the compliment

>> No.18585603

>>18585588
what I meant is the critical lense he has on everything

>> No.18585645

>>18585110
https://nsfwyoutube.com/watchmore?v=ti9zdpLlXf0

>> No.18585701

>>18585110
I read him, disagreed with him, and moved on.

>> No.18585800

>>18585701
>disagreed with him
Low IQ

>> No.18585803

>>18585800
Literal NPC mentality

>> No.18585822

>>18585803
It's the opposite of NPC by definition. But good to know you didn't get it.

>> No.18585894

>>18585822
>you have to agree with neetche otherwise you didn't get it!
As I said, pure NPC mentality, incapable of forming his own opinions. Funnily enough, Nietzsche would utterly despise someone like you.

>> No.18586247

>>18585894
>assumes I hadn't this opinion before reading him
You're projecting. That's what got me interested in him in the first place. He's just way more well-read than I am and strenghtend my position with FACTS and LOGIC.

>> No.18586321

>>18585194
>There is no such thing as...
Spooky.

>> No.18586347

>>18585110
Read Heidegger's Nietzsche.

It will gloriously affirm every positive reaction you had to Nietzsche while simultaneously reground you and allow you to branch out elsewhere.

>> No.18586388

>>18586347
>while simultaneously reground you
That's because Heidegger is a Platonist rather than a Nietzschean.

>> No.18586399

>>18585110
Kierkegaard

>> No.18586438
File: 40 KB, 320x479, 320px-Nietzsche_paul-ree_lou-von-salome188.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18586438

Just look at the guy. How can you take him seriously?

>> No.18586452

>>18586388
Which is good.

>> No.18586453

>>18586438
>that stache
How can you not?

>> No.18586630

>>18585300
Yeah yeah the I is so absolute bro. I don’t care about what your guru thinks, I’m just being objective.

>> No.18586641

>>18586452
If you're a Platonist.

>> No.18586659

>another thread for people who haven't read N to debate people who didn't understand him about whether it is based and redpilled to agree with him or not

>> No.18586669

>>18586630
Fichte > Hegel, Kant, Schelling

>> No.18586726

>>18586659
>anyone who doesn't have the exact same interpretation as me didn't understand him
>everything Nietzsche said that I don't like is just ironic bro, trust me

>> No.18586748

>>18586669
Why do you think so?

>> No.18586760

>>18585110
What did you read?

>> No.18586770

>>18586748
Because he's honest about the conclusions of Kantian idealism and doesn't take any idiotic illogical leaps like Sch*lling and H*gel

>> No.18586787

>>18586641
Read Heideggers Neitzsche.
Why would you read Neitzsche's Neitzsche?

Of course Heidegger being a Platonist, or a subscriber to any other broad thought, would be a good thing when opening up some other broad thought.

Also, Heidegger is definitely more of an Aristotelian. Inb4 Aristotle is a Platonist ergo yadada.

>> No.18586817

>>18586669
Who is the easiest of
those writers to understand?

>> No.18586827

>>18585110
read his bio.
he is disproved by his sad life.

>> No.18586837

>>18586817
Kant by far. And you can't even understand the rest without Kant.

>> No.18586853

>>18585194
>just like, don't even label me omg
this sounds like its hung up on language semantics
>i am nothing
okay
>i can sprint at usain bolt speeds vs being 600 pounds
hm
>i am able to pick up languages effortlessly
hm
>i have a well developed skill that allows me to illuminate myself and others
hm
(not me, just example)

you can definitely be and experience more in this life

>> No.18586868

>>18586827
isn't that like the ultimate ad homonym argument.

>> No.18586873

>>18585110
Good. Now stop being miserable and turn yourself into a piece of art!

>> No.18586876

>>18586748
I might also mention that Fichte is seriously overlooked for his prediction of the state and general goal of mankind. Too many people focus on Hegel due to his historicism and explicit theories of dialectical development, and then wonder why reality has not really progressed along Hegelian lines (Marxists easily have a better time explaining recent history than Hegelians). Fichte's theory of the abstract I dominating and imposing itself on the non-I, of using science and mechanical/technological processes to accomplish this goal, was more genuinely insightful than any of his contemporaries, yet this usually gets overlooked. In this sense you could argue Fichte actually grounds Marxism metaphysically (not that they'd ask for that grounding), by providing a non-scientific explanation for the massive expansion of capital (the I progressively mechanically subjugating the non-I to make itself Absolute).

>> No.18586930

>>18586787
Heidegger is only good to read if you want to perpetuate Platonism (and yes, Aristotle is a Platonist), but Platonism can't produce the Overman and thus the Platonist is sterile within Nietzschean perspectivism.

>> No.18586971

>>18586930
You havent read Heidegger's Nietzsche.

Hes got a whole section devoted to the destruction of Platonism and how Platonism is dead.

Seriously, give it a shot. It's fucking amazing. You'll be surprised to see where it goes.

>> No.18586982

>>18586971
I've read it, and I found that section amusing because it told me that he didn't really understand what he was fighting against.

>> No.18587000

>>18586982
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then

>> No.18587057
File: 3.32 MB, 1024x1024, 1620369077881.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18587057

>>18585110
Go back and read Schopenhauer and it will fix you. Nietzsche was just an aberration from the true path, an example of what happens to you if you embrace the Will. You get moral and philosophical syphilis.

>> No.18587095
File: 13 KB, 261x324, 7928468636bed5e7551e762e1b7adee4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18587095

>>18587057
>the true path
Nietzsche understood it better.

>> No.18587194

>>18587095
The Dao is a road to nowhere but suffering. We must kill it.

>> No.18587210
File: 56 KB, 600x761, heraclitus-of-ephesus.-tribes-manual.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18587210

>>18587194
>We must kill it.
Fight fire with fire, you say?

>> No.18587230

>>18585110
Nietzsche was a philosemite who hated his own country so much he LARPed as a Pole. WHy do you people take such a pathetic man seriously?

>> No.18587236

>>18586726
>anyone who doesn't have the exact same interpretation as me didn't understand him
Correct
>everything Nietzsche said that I don't like is just ironic bro, trust me
Kys irony-poisoned zoomer. Everything Nietzsche published is kino.

>> No.18587242

>>18586971
If you want to kill Platonism off read Deleuze's Difference & Repetition and his Nietzsche & Philosophy.

>> No.18587254

>>18587230
>was a philosemite
>so he pretended he was Polish
Huh?

>> No.18587257

>>18587242
Deleuze kills nothing of Plato. There is no ignorance of Difference in Plato, it is actually as fundamental as Identity itself.

>> No.18587752

why is plato vs aristolte the ultimate end of philosophy. like why does it matter whether some idea is made up by our human mind or whether it "exists" "metaphysically" or not? why does that shit matter at all? who cares about a circle??

>> No.18587768

>>18587752
ultimately
because most philosophers are aristotelics, and the few who are not aristotelics are platonics.

>> No.18587922

>>18587768
whether a chair has a thingness that may or may not exist metaphysically is really that important?

>> No.18588001

>>18586876
Where to start with Fichte?

>> No.18588297
File: 74 KB, 511x423, neetch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18588297

>>18587254

>> No.18588403

>>18587922
>>18587752
IDK but maybe your "self" , your persona is either some idea made up buy human mind, or it exists metapysically. Like a circle.

>> No.18588969

>>18588403
so plato invented trannies. i see.

>> No.18588984

>>18587257
Plato only uses difference to set up original/copy/simulacrum.

>> No.18588998

Read Baudrillard, Hegel, and Levinas.

>> No.18589725

>>18588969
thats a direct consequence of Protestantism.

>> No.18589736

>>18588984
No, difference is constitutive of the very identity of a thing. Read Plato.

>> No.18589982

>>18588969
There are no trannies in Platonism because Platonism does not even see men and women.