/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18999621]

Why did he love Jews so much even though he knew they were responsible for the Christianity that he hated?
Also why did he hate Germans so much even though he was a German

[Anonymous No.18999626]

>>18999621
because he´s a cuck

[twilight of the tripgods !!jSL0eMzLPNK No.18999644]

Because the OT is great and pretty cool.

I guess Nietzsche would say they don't have slave morality. The ones blessed by God prosper and their enemies are destroyed.

[Anonymous No.18999696]

>>18999644
In Genealogy of Morals, first essay, section seven, he says "with the Jews there begins the slave revolt in morality."

[Anonymous No.18999732]

>>18999644
Impressively terrible post all around

[Anonymous No.18999824]

>>18999621
He didn't. His "philosemitism" is widely overstated, just like his anti-Wagnerism. He himself said that Bizet, for example, didn't matter much to him, and he only said that Bizet was superior to Wagner to make a point; he didn't really mean it.

Nietzsche was addressing a certain audience at the time. If you read him without taking the historical context into consideration, you're going to misunderstand him like many scholars have. He's instructing fellow Germans and Europeans at large to take new things into consideration and to stop idolizing certain things, because he sees the potential self-destruction and stagnation latent in the idolization. It doesn't mean he hates what's idolized or that he even thinks the new / foreign thing is better than what's idolized. Jews fall into this category for him. He praises them on more than one occasion, but simply to make a point to the Germans, who at the time were forming their identity almost entirely around NOT being Jewish — a huge mistake in Nietzsche's eyes as it would have rendered the Germans culturally impotent in the long run. He also accused the Jews of having a number of flaws and was fairly critical of several Jews, so there's not only praise for Jews in his work.

[Anonymous No.19000257]

>>18999824
If all he had to say about Germans was to express a certain anti-Teutonomania in contrast to Wagner's perspective, that would be fine; but Beyond Good and Evil and particularly Ecce Homo contain such extended and vicious slanders of the Germans on the grounds of everything from race to diet to their very language that I think a deeper bigotry is at work.

[Anonymous No.19000318]

>>19000257
Self deprecation

[Anonymous No.19000331]

>>19000318
I think it may actually be self-aggrandization by putting down the race he comes from and the language he uses in order to make his "ascent" seem even more miraculous.

[Anonymous No.19000335]

Because as a great thinker, he judged the same thing from many sides with different valuations. Only brainlets can think in "either or" dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.19000347]

>>19000331
He considered himself a Polish gentleman like some larping amerimutt

[Anonymous No.19000350]

Syphilitic retard

[Anonymous No.19000483]

>>19000257
>If all he had to say about Germans was to express a certain anti-Teutonomania in contrast to Wagner's perspective, that would be fine
It's fine regardless because his view of the Germans is equally as nuanced. He doesn't only criticize them. Criticism towards Germans may feature in his work more than any other people partially because he was brought up in German culture, and partially because he seemed to think that they had the greatest potential among Europeans to unite all Europeans.

[Anonymous No.19000561]

>>19000483
...So he would be happy of the current EU and Germany's leading role?

[Anonymous No.19000745]

>>19000561
You're assuming 19th century Germany is the same as 20th century Germany. They're two different environments. I wouldn't claim to have enough insight to say what he would think about the current situation.

[Anonymous No.19000751]

>>19000745
... same as 21st century Germany*

[Anonymous No.19000771]

>>18999621
>Why did he love Jews so much
He didn't. He just didn't hate them.

[Anonymous No.19001957]

>>19000771
he loved them so much he wanted to kill anyone who was against them

[Anonymous No.19002029]

>>18999621
What most miss is the irony and the humor. There's a lot of laughter in his books.

Also, context is king.>>18999824

[Anonymous No.19002047]

>>18999696
>>18999732
zoomers have no idea what "slave morality" is except its bad and thus everything you don't like is slave morality.

[Anonymous No.19002086]

>>19000483
which books elucidate to nietzsche's political views? i'm referring to his works which aren't polemic.
i read nietzsche and the politics of aristocratic radicalism

[Anonymous No.19002169]

>>19000257
19th century Germany was full of their equivalent of stupid zoomers thinking the deutsches reich was so based and epic as well as the other end of the shit spectrum (c.p. his contempt for socialism). If he were alive today he'd critique Americans instead of Germans.

[Anonymous No.19002178]

>>19002169
why is nietzsche against workers getting the full value of their labor?

[Anonymous No.19002179]

>>18999621
Because he wanted to be a published author and respected academic. He bought is own bullshit. His sister was rad

[Anonymous No.19002183]

>>19002169
>If he were alive today he'd critique Americans instead of Germans.
and capitalists instead of socialists?

[Anonymous No.19002184]

>>18999696
He also says "and good for them!" unironically.

[Anonymous No.19002229]

>>19002178
Against the utopian attitude of revolution since it is a crypto-christfag larp. I don't know (or care) what he thought about wages and that would be a highly banal point for any philosopher to spend much time on.
>>19002183
I wonder. Would he say billionaires wanting to go to mars was based or cringe? Does capitalism truly transvaluate all values, or does it make anything of value completely interchangeable, i.e. totally flat and level? I would lean towards assuming critical. On the other hand, since everyone "hates" "capitalism," his vicious contrarianism might come into play, and it might be defensible. Certainly capitalism allows for one to extend and amplify their will...

[Anonymous No.19002342]

>>19002229
both those posts are me, my understanding of socialism is more along the marxist line in the sense that it deals with economic organization and not crypto-christ fag shits like "redistribution" or "equity". marx spends his whole life railing against utopian socialists and writing polemics against them. tho i am not a marxist.

do capitalists really want to go to mars? capitalism is not concerned with innovation it is concerned with *profit*.
the last time we went up to the moon it wasn't through capitalism.

sure capitalism has many critics today, but the criticism stems from resentiment. the utopian socialists criticized the german nation state as much as nietzsche did. yet it was the difference in their critiques which shows what kind of persons they were.

you can critique capitalism both from a master morality perspective and from a transvaluation of values as well. spartacus lead a slave revolt yet he was still one of the higher beings.

[Anonymous No.19002348]

>>19002178
Workers are retards

[Anonymous No.19002362]

>>19002348
but i am egoist and the plight of the workers makes me sad :(
(btw i never worked a day in my life)

[Anonymous No.19002442]

>>18999621
>loves Jews

He was saying they are exceptional in academia but he still recognized the stifling life Jewish men suffer under the thumbs of fat neurotic Jewish mammies. They really didn't represent the last man.

As for Nietzsche criticizing Germans, he's German and had genuine grievances over the German diet. His genetic disorder was aggravated by the German diet. His whole life was overcoming an inborn sickness and the more you read about his life the more you realize his philosophy was about overcoming that.

[Anonymous No.19002490]

>>18999621

schopenhauer hated germans too despite being german himself
after publishing world as representation and will he left germany thinking that there would be a backlash

he also hated jews which distinguishes him from nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19002690]

>>18999621
Nazi's lost World War II. Jesus cheek conquered the whole western world and beyond without a bullet. What do you expect from a great philosopher? Human reality is what it is, whether you like it or not.

[Anonymous No.19002697]

>>19002690
I take back the bullet, but my argument still stands

[Anonymous No.19002707]

>>19002697
funny to me how the italians put nietzsche's writing to practice better than the germans.
what did the neech have to say on italy?

[Anonymous No.19002730]

>>19002707
No idea, I am a child of Nietcxhze. Not his autobiographer

[Anonymous No.19002739]

>>19002730
nietzsche said to understand someones philosophy you have to understand their entire life.

[Anonymous No.19002800]

>>19002739
I know and I tried, but there are only so many hours in a life one can waste on texts. I truly believe philosophy in general is a handy self-help guide to life, but not a Umberto Eco novel to drown yourself enotional into. Your 80ish existence here on earth may be different, but its just all too clinical and sterile to me.

[Anonymous No.19002852]

>>19002800
>I know and I tried, but there are only so many hours in a life one can waste on texts.

>life's too short
translation:
>my power is too little

[Anonymous No.19002868]

>>19002800
also
>your 80sh
i am much older than that lol.

[Anonymous No.19002888]

>>18999621
Because if you think Germans good Jews bad you're a literal braindead /pol/-tard and you should go back

[Anonymous No.19002899]

>>19000257
But the Germans were an actually retarded culture. They proved their inferiority and distemper by starting and losing two world wars.

[Anonymous No.19002912]

>>19002178
Nietzsche didn't give much of a fuck about economics. He just thought socialists were resentful retards.

Nietzsche did say the relations of people under capitalism were more barbaric than those of feudalism though.

[Anonymous No.19002944]

>>19002342
>do capitalists really want to go to mars?
Yes, pay more attention to what billionaires are throwing money at
>capitalism is not concerned with innovation it is concerned with *profit*.
There is profit in delivering innovation. Innovation is today largely inconceivable without profit. Hence the use of patents to protect designs and uses. Even if there were innovation without the hope of profit, one would still need to fund the fruitless trial-and-error and prototyping.

[Anonymous No.19002956]

>>19002944
>Yes, pay more attention to what billionaires are throwing money at
you mean musk? no one besides him really cares about it.
>There is profit in delivering innovation. Innovation is today largely inconceivable without profit. Hence the use of patents to protect designs and uses. Even if there were innovation without the hope of profit, one would still need to fund the fruitless trial-and-error and prototyping.
patent licenses have been declining and are in an all time low.

[Anonymous No.19002967]

>>19002944
also
>patents
>innovation
lol patents curtail innovation
imagine if philosophies had patents lmao

[Anonymous No.19003048]

>>19002956
Bezos, Branson, etc. all investing in the outer space space. Someone is going to send someone to Mars.
>>19002967
They curtail in the sense that patent holders can do lawfare with their rivals, but in the absence of patents there would either be much lower profit margins (and less incentive to innovate) or some kind of cartelization (and less incentive to innovate).

[Anonymous No.19003058]

>>19003048
>They curtail in the sense that patent holders can do lawfare with their rivals, but in the absence of patents there would either be much lower profit margins (and less incentive to innovate) or some kind of cartelization (and less incentive to innovate).
i doubt it. this is like saying philosophers wouldn't write if their books don't sell

[Anonymous No.19003092]

>>19003058
How are you defining philosophers or innovators? Anyone alive today of any renown who writes and publishes philosophy is attached to a university and copyrights their work. Ditto for "innovators" except they have some kind of capital investment vehicle and patent instead of a university and copyright. it's how stuff works

[Anonymous No.19003113]

>>19003092
>Anyone alive today of any renown who writes and publishes philosophy is attached to a university and copyrights their work
this is precisely why philosophy today is an utter joke. people write for fame and money.
>Ditto for "innovators" except they have some kind of capital investment vehicle and patent instead of a university and copyright
inventors don't invent for money. they invent because they like inventing and are glad when people are using their creations. do you think innovation would suddenly stop without cash incentive?
>it's how stuff works
it could work better

[Anonymous No.19003128]

>>19003092
No one alive today writing and publishing anything attached to a university is writing and publishing philosophy. There is some good scholarly work done, at best. Philosophers don't get published because true philosophy is either horrifying or boring to the average human being.

[Anonymous No.19003143]

>>19002169
Wrong, he would still have critiques of German culture a la Bernhard or Sloterdijk.

[Anonymous No.19003158]

>>19003092
>>19003113

[Anonymous No.19003186]

>>19003113
>people write for fame and money
Oh but they don't invent for those reasons? Every invention has a use, every use has a value, and nearly everything of value can be exchanged. I guess there are people who tinker for fun with no interest in deriving any use or profit from their inventions, but those people are either enlightened or dupes.

[Anonymous No.19003209]

>>19003186
i just said that it's precisely people who write for money who are shit writers
in fact anyone whose main goal is money but not the creation of what they want will be mediocre.
the fact that capitalists are able to "innovate", read: make products which are desirable in the slave society is not an argument in favor of capitalism for me.

[Anonymous No.19003211]

>>19000331
Welcome to the tradition of making fun of other Europeans, including the stock that produced you. It's fatalistic, but it's the truth.

[Anonymous No.19003218]

>>18999621
He identified as Polish

[Anonymous No.19003222]

>>19003128
>Philosophers don't get published because true philosophy is either horrifying or boring to the average human being.
That's sort of the joke. There are no notable contemporary philosophers 1. not attached to a university or 2. attached and doing original work. So comparing philosophy (under or unvalued) to innovation (highly valued) was a poor choice by the other anon in the first place.
>>19003158
I don't think he's a good comparison either. There's nothing innovative about putting your name on buildings and being a landlord. Romans did it already.

[Anonymous No.19003229]

>>19003209
>the fact that capitalists are able to "innovate", read: make products which are desirable in the slave society is not an argument in favor of capitalism for me.
No it's not supposed to be. It's descriptive. I was explaining it and yoy kept going "but I don't LIKE that" and you still are. But again, that's how it works

[Anonymous No.19003233]

>>19003222
>I don't think he's a good comparison either. There's nothing innovative about putting your name on buildings and being a landlord. Romans did it already.
he is the one responsible for their construction

[Anonymous No.19003245]

>>19003233
Ah no, that would be the lender! They have the deed to the building

[Anonymous No.19003246]

>>19003218
In Ecce Homo 1-3, he talks about having Polish nobles in his patrilineal ancestry but also talks extensively about how German his matrilineal side was, and says that he is "more" German than Teutonomaniacs.

[Anonymous No.19003255]

>>19003222
icycalm is the only notable contemporary philosopher, is not attached to a university, and is doing highly original work (and barely anyone reads him).

[Anonymous No.19003265]

>>18999621
In short? edgyness. No different from today.

[Anonymous No.19003271]

>>19003255
Last I heard, he'd started a pickup artist community right before the wu flu shut the world down.

[Anonymous No.19003275]

>>19003229
>but I don't LIKE that
yes that is my central argument.

i like how capitalism made it so that I could have cool shit like motorcycles and fighterjets (latter is funded by public money)

so my central argument against capitalism? i don't like the kind of products capitalism makes for the market.
and this is why capitalism must be overthrown
because it doesn't make what i want it to make.
and i want what i want to be made to be made.
and this is why i should be in charge of the economy, not the "market" read: slaves

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY3cHnRY No.19003280]

>>18999621

>JEWS.

>RESPONSIBLE FOR CHRISTIANITY.


?


>Why did he love Jews so much... [?]

BECAUSE THE HISTORICAL AMORALITY, OR ANTICHRISTIAN MORALITY, OF THE MAJORITY OF JEWS, IS CONGRUENT WITH HIS OWN ANTICHRISTIAN BARBARISM.


>Also why did he hate Germans so much even though he was a German[?]

PSYCHOLOGICALLY: HE HATED HIMSELF; IDEOLOGICALLY: HE HATED CHRISTIANITY, AND ANYTHING RELATED TO IT EVEN TANGENTIALLY, LIKE «PROTESTANTISM».

[Anonymous No.19003282]

>>19003255
Top results are patreon and being wanted for wire fraud. Pretty sure that's the definition of a sophist

[Anonymous No.19003304]

>>19003255
i started critiquing his philosophy and he blocked me on twitter
if he didn't block me and actually responded i would have bought his patreon shit

now i would never give him money, because of that event alone. otherwise he is the only contemporary writer I read.

[Anonymous No.19003311]

>>19002342
>you can critique capitalism both from a master morality perspective
Isnt it pretty master morality in comparison to socialism/ SINCE THE SYSTEM ITSELF IS DESPOSED TO ONE SEEKING EVERY ADVANTAGE FOR THEMSELVES THROUGH THEMSELVES AND THEIR RESOURces, while socialism is essentially distributional and communal and servile in its nature. Not so much the revolution itself, but the proported aftermath.

[Anonymous No.19003319]

>>18999621
>Why did he love Jews
Because he was an idealist and every idealist - sooner or later - surrender to religious trickery (same think deleuze and land)

[Anonymous No.19003321]

>>19003275
>this is why capitalism must be overthrown
>because it doesn't make what i want it to make.
>and i want what i want to be made to be made.
We have that; it's called capitalism. It's why there are no more revolutions. You can just invest in the future. It is cheaper, if you are person of any means and power and influence, to buy out or financially starve the things you don't like than to mount a rebellion against your similarly endowed opponents.

[Anonymous No.19003327]

>>19003319
He was against idealism

[Anonymous No.19003344]

>>19003304
post the tweets

[Anonymous No.19003356]

>>19003311
>SINCE THE SYSTEM ITSELF IS DESPOSED TO ONE SEEKING EVERY ADVANTAGE FOR THEMSELVES THROUGH THEMSELVES AND THEIR RESOURces
every advantage for themselves or just the accumulation of money?
socialism at least scientific socialism isn't distributional and servile, though communal

[Anonymous No.19003357]

>>19002047
This applies to everything it seems. Cant trust anything they say to be a conclusion from a well thought out position

[Anonymous No.19003368]

>>19003344
pm on throwaway account. i don't use the twatter.
basically i told him that he wasn't god and that I was, and that his philosophy while good is not "the end" because it's riddled with errors, and I also told him he didn't understand music.

[Anonymous No.19003373]

>>19003327
Yeah, he talked a lot about that (just as deleuze and land), but all he wanted to do was to save the I (not the self) as an active being. Factually, this is just another Idealist-mode: Traditional Idealism (from plato to hegel) wanted to detatch the spirit from the body; Nietzschean obsessive idealism seeks to secure spiritual control over the body (or material unconscious).

[Anonymous No.19003378]

>>19003368
he never responded to me. it was just a block

[Anonymous No.19003390]

>>19003373
>Factually, this is just another Idealist-mode: Traditional Idealism (from plato to hegel) wanted to detatch the spirit from the body; Nietzschean obsessive idealism seeks to secure spiritual control over the body (or material unconscious).
reminds me of pic related

[Anonymous No.19003398]

>>19003368
I would have probably blocked you too, do you approach strangers irl and start talking to them that way?

[Anonymous No.19003409]

>>19003398
of course i do, and if you don't it's because you're a pansy faggot.
after i become dictator of europe i'm finding him and deporting him to america

[Anonymous No.19003416]

>>19003368
>errors
what did you have in mind?

[Anonymous No.19003418]

>>19003390
why? (I don't know him)

[Anonymous No.19003443]

>>19003409
You're using too correct grammar for a proper schizophrenic larp mate

[Anonymous No.19003450]

>>19003356
first, sorry for the caps, that was accidental caps lock, didnt try to imply yelling, and I didnt feel like rewriting my sentence once I say it.
>every advantage for themselves or just the accumulation of money?
Uh, yah I guess. You are not forced to simply accumulate money. However the shareholder system does highly incentivize it. Though you dont necissarily have to go that route (though it is the most effective way to oncrease power), but there is a degree of freedom of actualization.
>though communal
and thats the key point, it necessarily rather than incentively pushing you towards a particular mode of power exertion. Thus slave morality. Instead of best practices there are necessary practices. You can have all the progress you want, but if its controlled, its bonds. It may be more utopian, but thats note exactly the point on whether it is more or less master mentality.

[Anonymous No.19003457]

>>19003246
Yeah his mom and sister definitely played a role in his depictions of Germans. I think it was his sister wrote about it too, or some other family members or close acquaintance, from the other side, saying that Nietzsche would not shut up about being descended from Polish nobility, which the rest of the family seemed to think was kind of spurious mythic genealogy for their family. He based it off his surname matching some Pole's, iirc, which is like the burger who decides because his name is Sullivan he is completely Irish.

[Anonymous No.19003541]

>>19003457
Nietzsche was spiritually American, so it checks out.

[Anonymous No.19003553]

>>19003416
i have to reread orgy of the will again. i don't remember, there are some things which simply are NOT correct. i wish i still had access to the twitter account, i wrote in a pastebin. now that I recall I spent the good chunk of my writing praising him. which was why I was pissed off at being blocked. my polemic was against some of his conflations with everything being slave morality, i.e saying not wanting to be a slave is resentiment, while obviously people like spartacus have lived and were not motivated by resentiment.

there is just a lot of little things that ruin his philosophy from being "the end", again i agree with like 90% of his stuff, and he is a very entertaining writer. however, I don't appreciate his arrogance and also the fact that for someone who is "god" they don't do all that much besides being a layman's nietzsche. I think his video game criticism is much better, but he also obviously doesn't know a thing about music (which is why he never talks about it) he has no "feeling".

>>19003418
>“(...) intellectualism divocers thought from action, science from life, the brain from the heart, and theory from practice. It is the posture of the talker and the skeptic, of the person who entrenches himself behind the maxim that it is one thing to say something and another thing to do it; it is the utopian who is the fabricator of systems that will never face concrete reality; it is the talk of the poet, the scientist, the philosopher, who confine themselves to fantasy and to speculation and are ill-disposed to look around themselves and see the earth on which they tread and on which are to be found those fundamental human interests that feed their very fantasy and intelligence.”
Giovanni Gentile
>>19003443
that is what should be worrying you even more.

[Anonymous No.19003609]

>>19003450
>Uh, yah I guess. You are not forced to simply accumulate money. However the shareholder system does highly incentivize it. Though you dont necissarily have to go that route (though it is the most effective way to oncrease power), but there is a degree of freedom of actualization.
i don't agree, capitalism directly wants people to play by "the rules" and every single free market economists supports their system because it allows for greatest "human freedom" and support it using conventional liberal morality. i.e milton friedman's: "socialism is force"

why would an aspiring overmen care about other peoples rules and systems or "human freedom"?

>and thats the key point, it necessarily rather than incentively pushing you towards a particular mode of power exertion. Thus slave morality. Instead of best practices there are necessary practices. You can have all the progress you want, but if its controlled, its bonds. It may be more utopian, but thats note exactly the point on whether it is more or less master mentality.
this may be true, but there is nothing to stop prospective supermen from using communism as a veneer for power, see: lenin.

[Anonymous No.19003623]

basically his whole deal was always do the opposite of what wagner does

[Anonymous No.19003629]

>>19003255

Icycalm is a high functioning schizo attracting disturbed youths into a cult like function. His writings are dumb bullshit and do not merit much interpretation. Zero indication he has read or understand Nietzsche which he references so much

[Anonymous No.19003672]

>>19003629
he is honestly kind of cute

[Anonymous No.19003683]

>>19003672
but def a schizo.
abysmal sense of fashion, but he can still pull it off thanks to his confidence. his girl in the pic is also cute.

not bad anthony, not bad.

[Anonymous No.19003709]

>>19003672
sanpaku alert

[Anonymous No.19003868]

>>19003553
>the right amount of complexity
Is that not, just... more complexity? And isn't 751 talking about music / art specifically? Of course we wouldn't want to have to solve a math problem to flush the toilet, but where art is concerned we would like the maximum amount of stimulation possible, which means ramping up the complexity of the art form as high and as far as possible.

[Anonymous No.19003880]

>>19003553
>i have to reread orgy of the will again
Do you really?

[Anonymous No.19003936]

>>19003868
>Is that not, just... more complexity
no it isn't, adding more complexity to something doesn't make it better. goal of music is to convey feeling, the amount of complexity involved has no bearing on to how complex the piece it is.
> And isn't 751 talking about music / art specifically
yes, and that's precisely what i'm addressing.
>but where art is concerned we would like the maximum amount of stimulation possible
which can be achieved without complexification of a piece.

compare baroque with classical, the former while being more complex and technically excellent is not as emotionally stimulating as some classical pieces which are far less complex

i never cried listening to bach

>>19003880
i genuinely enjoy reading it. it's like smut philosophy

[Anonymous No.19003944]

>>19003936
>the amount of complexity involved has no bearing on to how complex the piece it is.
how GOOD* the piece is

in conveying feeling, obviously

[Anonymous No.19003952]

>>19003609
>care about other peoples rules and systems or "human freedom"?
they shouldnt, they should be caring about their own.
>but there is nothing to stop prospective supermen from using communism as a veneer for power, see: lenin.
true, but again, that makes it a necessary measure of power within rather limiting constraints rather than a more liberal one in terms of actualization of power. I would agree in terms of the initial revolutionary period of socialism, but not once it is established as it is actively trying to prevent indiviguals from becoming masters to the detriment of others.

[Anonymous No.19003963]

>>19003936
>it's like smut philosophy
Huh?

[Anonymous No.19003966]

>>19003952
>but not once it is established as it is actively trying to prevent indiviguals from becoming masters to the detriment of others.
not the doings of a "system" though. remember that SYSTEMS are people, so keeping other people from achieving their own WTP through your own will is the same as exercising your own
capitalism does the same thing today

in other words socialism would not perpetuate any more slave morality than modern day liberal capitalism does.

[Anonymous No.19003972]

>>19003963
very vulgar and obscene, but very true.

[Anonymous No.19004028]

>>19003966
yes, but capitalism is more indivigual and contract based in its actuation. in socialism a submission to reciprocation is required rather than just encouraged. from an a prioi position it lays out an implicit slave morality in its very nature.

Even putting asside moralfaggorty Christianity has a similar issue, and many of the utopian proto socialist Christian communities follow through with it.

[Anonymous No.19004040]

>>19003936
I still don't see how what you're talking about isn't just more complexity. Adding more instruments does not equal more complexity if those instruments aren't used properly. Complexity in art involves both increasing the number of elements and striking a balance between all the elements in a work of art.

[Anonymous No.19004047]

>>19004028
socialism is simply workers being in charge of their labor, getting the full value for what it is that they produce. i don't see how that's slave morality a-priori. again "socialism" in the way i am saying it has nothing to do with using democratic elections and taking wealth from one strata and giving it to another.

in fact, socialism is about power. it's about workers being in control of their labor power, and though workers may be slaves, wanting to not being a slave is the first step to overcoming slave morality- i.e being a slave is not good.

[Anonymous No.19004063]

>>19004040
complexity has nothing to do with if it was used properly or not. complexity is a standalone variable. my entire point is that a piece can make use of fewer elements while producing a superior product. it is by the very nature of what "complexity" means, less complex.

[Anonymous No.19004065]

>>19004047
yes, but My point is using your power to make others your slaves is required to be a master. otherwise your power is limited as there is a no go zone in this other persons labor. If you dont care about master morality, that is fine, but there is not a finite stop to a beings grasp of power where another one's begins. Other people are still exterior objects to you and thusly a sanctuary over that one thing is itself a limit. a binding.

[Anonymous No.19004085]

>>19004063
>my entire point is that a piece can make use of fewer elements while producing a superior product.
That would be because it brings its elements into a stronger harmony. It's still a matter of complexity. Complexity isn't just the number of elements in a work but also the tasteful arrangement of them.

[Anonymous No.19004093]

>>19004085
my point >>19003936
was that the purpose of music is to convey feeling, not to be technically excellent.
my post above literally said that someone like bach's technical expertise was superior to say, someone like beethoven, however I would prefer to listen to the latter not for the technical brilliance of the work but rather the emotional depth that is expressed through the work, which is why to me it makes "better music" while being technically inferior.

[Anonymous No.19004100]

>>18999621
Reread The antichrist again OP

[Anonymous No.19004106]

>>19004065
nietzsche did not advocate for master morality but reevaluation of values. if you want a better society where people are not slaves to capital i don't see how this perpetuates resentment, this is the crux of my argument.

[Anonymous No.19004112]

>>19004093
think of it as you would a painting.

[Anonymous No.19004127]

>>19004093
>the purpose of music is to convey feeling, not to be technically excellent.
But increasing the complexity of art (which means, to repeat myself, both increasing the number of elements, and achieving a strong harmony between them) leads to conveying more complex feelings rather than none at all. Complexity doesn't take away that purpose from art at all, except for those whose feelings aren't complex enough to measure up to what is conveyed in the art. In the end, to support the increasing complexity of life means also to support the increasing complexity of art, and supporting the increasing complexity of life is what the most complex lifeforms / Overman do.

[Anonymous No.19004148]

>>19004127
>leads to conveying more complex feelings rather than none at all
again i did not speak to the complexity of the feeling, but it's depth/intensity.
> Complexity doesn't take away that purpose from art at all
I never said complexity necessarily takes away anything, i said it doesn't necessarily make something "better". I said that a more complex and technically impressive work can express less intense feelings. the purpose of music in the baroque era was an expression of skill and precision, not feeling, in contrast to the classical era.
>except for those whose feelings aren't complex enough to measure up to what is conveyed in the art
again, I was never talking about the complexity of the feeling.
there are pieces where the theme is literally just "sad" but are more intense than works which have a concoction of emotions. in fact i'd even argue the work which is a concoction of emotion is worse.
> In the end, to support the increasing complexity of life means also to support the increasing complexity of art, and supporting the increasing complexity of life is what the most complex lifeforms / Overman do.
wrong. complex is not better. german tanks were more complex. they were not better.

this in general, is why icycalm is "wrong", because you are arguing in the way he would. there is a fundamental difference in the way both you and I experience the world.

[Anonymous No.19004160]

>>19004100
Just elaborate, fren

[Anonymous No.19004173]

>>19004106
of course. but that is the old oxymoron of security vs freedom. Freedom in itslef implies and requires the freedom to dominate other wills, or it is not a freedom by its on sense. I personally, in a hypothetical sense would like a concentric ring of "political forms". Almost Greek city-state esque. Where there is different levels of community engagement and mutualism and individualism in each commune of forms.You have the freedom to opt out of one to move to another that better fits your life philosophy.

Of course, this is entirely hypothetical, as it would be necissary for some power or understanding to keep this system (or multiplicity of systems) in place. Though I think an important part of it would be the implicitcy of it all. If you don't like it here. literally leave. And of course even still, there are a myriad of other problems such as societal shift and whatnot.

[Anonymous No.19004176]

>>19004148
>>19004127
>> In the end, to support the increasing complexity of life means also to support the increasing complexity of art, and supporting the increasing complexity of life is what the most complex lifeforms / Overman do.
by the way, upon closer examination icycalm would not think this either.

"the last of us part 2" is a more "complex" work of art than "grand theft auto iii"
we both know which one he would prefer though.

[Anonymous No.19004179]

>>19004148
>again i did not speak to the complexity of the feeling, but it's depth/intensity.
What's the difference? It sounds like you're splitting hairs. The more complex feeling would undoubtedly be the deeper / more intense one, no? Someone who is overwhelmed by an emotion which leaves them in a matter of moments can't possibly be said to have experienced a deeper or more intense emotion than someone who is perhaps not overwhelmed all at once to the same degree, but gradually has the emotion sink into their being over the course of a larger span of time, affecting far more of their self overall. The latter, which I'm sure anyone would agree, has felt not only the deeper and more intense emotion, but also the more complex one.

>I never said complexity necessarily takes away anything, i said it doesn't necessarily make something "better". I said that a more complex and technically impressive work can express less intense feelings.
Right, but I've already explained why that is, and how this isn't actually a problem with greater complexity, but rather a problem with complexity in number not being accompanied with complexity in arrangement — in other words, the problem is not enough complexity. So, in the end, increasing complexity DOES increase quality; if you want to keep arguing otherwise, you'd have to provide a more satisfactory definition of complexity in art than I've given.

[Anonymous No.19004183]

>>19002800
>I truly believe philosophy in general is a handy self-help guide to life
cringe

[Anonymous No.19004194]

>>19004173
this is an issue I am always thinking about. my nietzscheanism is conflicting with my socialism. my flirtation with the latter system is borne out of the fact that it brings me great pain to see others toil and suffer in labor when they don't have to. again, I am not a worker myself. will a socialist state mean the negation of the will to power over others? certainly over your own countrymen sure, but others?

i have to think about this myself for awhile.

[Anonymous No.19004197]

>>19004179
>So, in the end, increasing complexity DOES increase quality
This may seem like a bit of a leap because I forgot one small part I wanted to add before it. Basically, according to your argument, the song with less elements can be better than the song with more elements, and this disproves the claim that more complexity = better art; however, the song with less elements isn't necessarily the less complex work, if it has achieved a greater sense of harmony than the song with more elements has. The song with more elements may have more elements, but if it has achieved far weaker harmony between those elements, then it is the less complex song in the end, and that is precisely why it is worse than the other song.

[Anonymous No.19004218]

>>19004197
I don't see how the amount of hamornization changes the level of complexity. That seems like an escape hatch from the problem that maximum complexity would just be noise therefore more complex does not equal better than.

[Anonymous No.19004249]

>>19004179
>>19004197
my definition of complexity has nothing to do with the "harmonization of the elements"

i dont know how to explain it to you because I keep on repeating the same thing, just as you say you are.

which one is more complex, left or right?

>>19004218
this. thank you.

[Anonymous No.19004261]

>>19004218
Harmonization is related to complexity because it's through harmonization that more elements are meaningfully added. An element can't be said to have been added to a work if it hasn't been arranged to complement the work; it just dangles there and distracts one from the work. Or, consider it this way: isn't it a more complex task to harmonize a greater number of elements than a lesser number of elements?

[Anonymous No.19004278]

>>19002184
So why is slave morality good when Jews do it but not when Christians do it?
Hint: it’s for the same reason that slave morality is cool when the exotic Mohammedans, historic enemies of Christendom, do it, but not when boring old Christians do it.
Hint: it’s the same reason that slave morality and life-denial is super cool when the heckin buddhists do it, but not when the boring, stuffy Christians do it.
What’s the common theme here?

[Anonymous No.19004286]

>>19004278
because he wants europeans to be master moralists

[Anonymous No.19004287]

>>19004278
Nietzsche does dunk on the Buddhists and Vedic stuff fairly routinely. He doesn't like their asceticism or idealism. I don't quite remember if he ever registers an Islam take

[Anonymous No.19004296]

>>19004261
Dragonforce is very complex and also harmonic. I distinctly remember back in high school that some kids legitimately thought that it made them objectively superior to other music. I disagreed then and still do

[Anonymous No.19004300]

>>19004287
From his Antichrist:
>Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (—I do not say by what sort of feet—) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin—because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life!... The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust—a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very “senile.”—What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich.... Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won.... The German noble, always the “Swiss guard” of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church—but well paid.... Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious.... Christianity, alcohol—the two great means of corruption.... Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala or he is not.... “War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!”: this was the feeling, this was the act, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can’t make out how a German could ever feel Christian....

[Anonymous No.19004321]

>>19004296
Those kids were right as far as the music they probably had in mind goes. Power metal is more complex, and for that reason better, than most of whatever else you'll find kids listening to.

[Anonymous No.19004324]

>>19004296
to add to your statement, complex and technically impressive =/= harmonious either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF0g-2SeoMM

I hate this album but it proves my point

[Anonymous No.19004329]

>>19004321
>more complex, and for that reason better,
No, we've already established that it's not that simple. Maximum complexity would be white noise. There is a relationship between complexity and quality but it's not linear. It's, dare I say, complex

[Anonymous No.19004336]

>>19004329
>Maximum complexity would be white noise.
This would only be the case if we were using some retarded definition of complexity that no one in their right mind would use.

[Anonymous No.19004376]

>>19004336
Complexity is number of elements. Zero instruments playing would be minimum complexity, infinite instruments playing would be maximum complexity. Playing one note all together would be minimal complexity in arrangement, playing diverse notes all together would be maximal complexity in arrangement. Therefore maximally complex music is: noise.

In reality, quality music exists at many different levels of complexity. In fact music that is as complex as a single instrument, but complicated in its progression, is often highly regarded. There's even avant garde music which consists of no instruments, playing nothing, I'm sure you've heard of this as it was rather famous and it's an example of absolute zero complexity.

[Anonymous No.19004397]

>>18999824
You are right, indeed, there are both praises and critiques against the Jews, after all, it is with them that Soul versus Spirit war begins (or at least begins in a more determined shape). Nietzsche knew his enemies but does he not say that to hate unconditionally is a symptom of illness? One should know how to respect one's enemies.

[Anonymous No.19004413]

>>18999824
>the Germans, who at the time were forming their identity almost entirely around NOT being Jewish — a huge mistake in Nietzsche's eyes as it would have rendered the Germans culturally impotent
This is completely false. You are a Jew! There is no way anyone else would create a lie like this or have any reason to do so. You made up this lie to imply that the Germans had nothing to build an identity around and that whatever achievements they did have it was only because of the Jews. Lol nothing could be further from the truth. Germany was a cultural powerhouse at the time and Jews were NOT a part of this except as promoters and as media provocateurs, etc. Jews were NOT the creators. The degeneracy in Weimar Germany WAS overwhelmingly Jewish though. Jews were not artists, painter, sculptors or musicians by and large. There were a few but not many.

Nietzsche was an edgelord so he by his nature had to hate on the mainstream German culture and give a pass to the Jews and their pornography.

Nice try there jewboi

[Anonymous No.19004423]

>>19004376
If complexity is only the number of elements, then how come it's a more complex task to harmonize a greater number of elements than a lesser number of them? Why is it a task at all, even? Surely the harmonization should just happen on its own if it has nothing to do with the complexity of the work?

Nietzsche, by the way, described the Overman in a similar manner, stating that the Overman would have "the greatest multiplicity of drives, in the relatively greatest strength that can be endured" (Will to Power, 966). In other words, it isn't enough that the Overman have the greatest number of drives in him — the relatively greatest level of harmony between those drives is also in him.

[Anonymous No.19004460]

>>19004413
The Germans had plenty to build an identity around. The problem is that they weren't utilizing it. You underestimate just how many drunken, envious louts there were among the Germans during Nietzsche's time; he was disgusted with many of his contemporaries who he thought had nothing in common with the Germans of the previous generation like Goethe.

[Anonymous No.19004499]

>>19004423
Nonlinearity is a typical property of complex systems. Consider the complex system of a set of things, and the simple operational rule that you multiply the set by its own size. As you linearly increase the size of the set, you don't linearly increase the output of the operation, you exponentially increase it. It's not because the rule gets any more complicated. Same concept applies to harmonizing more and more instruments

[Anonymous No.19004611]

>>19004499
We are talking about art specifically. Complexity is not only technical complexity in this case, since art is more than technique, given that it involves the emotions. So, it doesn't make sense to use the word complexity in relation to art while only referring to technical complexity; that's how you get gibberish statements like "maximum complexity is white noise," which no one would ever say. They might instead say, "maximum complexity is a symphony orchestra," and even if some disagreed, they would at least acknowledge the sense in the statement. But at this point we are just arguing semantics over the word complexity; the bottom line is that impressionist paintings are less capable of communication and therefore less emotionally arousing / engaging as art, and abstract paintings even less so, making them inferior art, and this is because their technical complexity is lower.

[Anonymous No.19004815]

>>19004413
Nietzsche was not alive for Weimar you stupid fucking election tourist.

[Anonymous No.19004854]

>>19004815
I didn’t say or imply that he was. I was making a comparison between ethnic Germans and ethnic Jews and the very different ways each group contributes to culture. You don’t like the truth. It angers you. Maybe kill some Palestinians and you’ll feel better

[Anonymous No.19004908]

>>19004815
He died right before it you fucken pure evil lying jew. Meaning he lived through the times leading up to it and saw what and who shaped it

[Anonymous No.19004915]

>>19004908
>((((((((((who))))))))))

[Anonymous No.19006498]

>>19004915
Bump

[Anonymous No.19006711]

>>18999824
How do you know this? I mean, how do I know this myself, so I don't misunderstand him?

[Anonymous No.19006727]

>>19004413
seething reply to a based post

[Anonymous No.19007063]

>>19006711
He's basically giving the Kaufmann perspective, his secondary book on Nietzsche is good, he's also the best translator

[Anonymous No.19007178]

>>18999621
he didn't love Jews and he wasn't german, he was Polish.

[Anonymous No.19007246]

He writes like a Hollywood villain most of the time. Is this just Kauffman or other translations are like this too?

[Anonymous No.19007312]

>>18999621
>Why did he love Jews so much even though he knew they were responsible for the Christianity that he hated?
they're brilliantly cunning
>why did he hate Germans so much even though he was a German
he was polish
/thread

[Anonymous No.19007316]

>>19007178
>>19007312
Sorry but you're wrong

[Anonymous No.19007330]

>>19007316
i'm correct
>>19007178
beat me to it

[Anonymous No.19007450]

>>19004278
dude you are so dumb holy shit. don't read nietzsche, you're too dumb to get it

[Anonymous No.19007451]

>>18999621
>loved the jews
>>18999644
>they don't have slave morality
Do you people even read his works? The guy stablished the jews were one of the more succesful spreaders of slave morality, he even says the jews went with the priesthood and their misleading ways because it was the only way they could survive, being such a small and persecuted race. He doesn't praise them, he recognizes they have tricked us with their morality through christianity

[Anonymous No.19007504]

>>19007316
sorry, but facts dont care about your feelings, germ

[Anonymous No.19007642]

>>19007330
>>19007504
Sorry but you're wrong

[Anonymous No.19007654]

>>19007451
Yes he recognized that they were the origin of slave morality and the Christianity that he blamed so much degeneracy on, yet he loved them anyway, he wanted to unironically kill all antisemites, very strange

[Anonymous No.19007792]

>>19000257
>race
Reaction from the racism autism from his own Era.
>diet
Obsession with Beer isn't good for you, And German cuisine, even if isn't awful as the English one, It's still very generic and bland
>language
The German obsession with compound words is pretty much a malignancy in their language.
and I say all of this being pretty much a German fan, Being appreciative of a culture doesn't equal not seeing its flaws.

[Anonymous No.19007903]

>nietzsche was polish, guiz!!!!!
hilarious

[Anonymous No.19007955]

Redpill me, is there anything more to Neetshane than
>luv stronk people
>'ate weak people
>simple as
Cause the osmotic fumes from /lit/ never go deeper than that.

[Anonymous No.19007998]

>>18999621
He did not love Jews. He disliked them but also disliked moralistic anti-semitism.

[Anonymous No.19008039]

>>18999621
1. He considers Christianity a necessary development in human progress. He describes it as a fruit that Judaism bore.

2. He thinks Christianity loses the qualities he admires in Judaism. And it's more that he admires the Jews as individuals and as a society, it's less of a concern for the religion.

3. He didn't hate the Germans. He doesn't hate anything. He recognized some decline in German culture and maybe some unjustified pride. But again, he doesn't hate the Germans, and he doesn't hate Christians. He doesn't hate Plato and he doesn't hate democracy. He doesn't "hate" things. He critiques things, viciously, but that's not directed by his personal feelings. He mocks Spinoza, but also openly admires Spinoza. It's not emotional, it's dialectical.

[Anonymous No.19008075]

>>19007955
His central concern is values. His writing is extensive over ontology, morals, and psychology

[Anonymous No.19008090]

>>19008039
>3. He didn't hate the Germans. He doesn't hate anything. He recognized some decline in German culture and maybe some unjustified pride. But again, he doesn't hate the Germans, and he doesn't hate Christians. He doesn't hate Plato and he doesn't hate democracy. He doesn't "hate" things. He critiques things, viciously, but that's not directed by his personal feelings. He mocks Spinoza, but also openly admires Spinoza. It's not emotional, it's dialectical.
Sorry but that is plainly not true, I know you're saying that because he makes claims to "amor fati" and avoiding gravity and all that shit, but when he spews a bunch of hateful vitriol it is what it is, no matter how he copes and rationalizes it elsewhere

[Anonymous No.19008113]

>>19007998
He did not dislike the Jews. If you read Nietzsche, he praises Jews to an unusual degree in various places. I don't think there's another race he speaks of as positively as Jews, come to think of it. Let me know if you want excerpts

[Anonymous No.19008127]

>>19008113
>I don't think there's another race he speaks of as positively as Jews, come to think of it
Greeks and Romans

[Anonymous No.19008131]

>>19008113
When he talks of the Chandala class in twilight of the idols, he immediately compares them with the Jews. He passes no moral judgement but clearly views them as a hateful people.

[Anonymous No.19008160]

>>19008090
I mean you haven't really said anything. What I said is one of the central facts of Nietzsche.

And why are you specifying "hateful vitriol", is that as opposed to friendly vitriol?

[Anonymous No.19008181]

>>19008160
Instead of worrying about which adjectives I choose to append to my nouns maybe you should just read Ecce Homo and see for yourself the kind of slander he lathes out

[Anonymous No.19008206]

>>19008127
No, the Greeks are exactly who I have in mind as I say this. Do you know what the first half of Twilight of the Idols is about?

Nietzsche certainly likes the Greeks. Praising the Greeks wouldn't be meaningful with the rest of academia being a general din of praising the Greeks. Nietzsche sets his philosophical efforts on dissecting the Greeks and exposing them. The major part of his comments on the Greeks and Romans are about the phenomenon of Slave morality emerging with Plato and Socrates and its consequence of Stoicism - something he certainly does not praise.

He also describes Rome as a gaudy imitation of another culture.

>>19008131
There are negative comments, as there are for everything in Nietzsche. They are indeed part of the evolution of slave morality. The point would be that he praises the Jews more. He calls them a jewel of Europe, and the greatest part of its sum intelligence, he says they are misunderstood and that Europe would improve if they looked to the Jewish example.

[Anonymous No.19008218]

>>19008181
I'm sorry Nietzsche's tone was so traumatic to you

[Anonymous No.19008227]

>>19008206
>The Romans were the strongest and most noble people who ever lived. Every vestige of them, every least inscription, is a sheer delight, provided we are able to read the spirit behind the writing.

[Anonymous No.19008271]

>>19008227
Yes, that is a nice thing to say, he also says nice things of the Greeks, that just doesn't alter the point. My point was that amid the various negative and positive remarks offered to various things, the Jews are upheld to an unusual degree. You can find negative remarks about the Jews as well as positive remarks for the Romans, but the Jews are praised in more instances and in service to more substantial arguments.

[Anonymous No.19008282]

>>19008218
Lol ok bud

[Anonymous No.19008283]

>>19008271
Idk about that the Jews literally inventing slave morality is a pretty heavy strike against them and that quote about the Romans is pretty unambiguous high praise

[Anonymous No.19008294]

>>19008283
??? Slave morality begins symbolically with Socrates, and not really as an invention, it was an inevitable mass development that begins with the existence of a lower class.

[Anonymous No.19008298]

>>19008206
>He also describes Rome as a gaudy imitation of another culture.
So what? It's not like he never said anything bad about Jews. He lavishes so much praise on Romans and in The Antichrist clearly favors the Romans over Jews/Christians.

[Anonymous No.19008306]

>>19008294
Nietzsche puts the origin of slave morality with the Jews in Genealogy of Morals 1-7

[Anonymous No.19008310]

Why are people so concerned with what Nietzsche thought and correcting those who interpet Nietzsche "wrong"? The man was, by all accounts, an embarrassing fuck-up of a human.

[Anonymous No.19008318]

>>19008310
Except for the part where he became a renowned German philosopher in his own lifetime

[Anonymous No.19008331]

>>19008294
Have you even read Nietzsche m8
>the Jews achieved that miracle of inversion of values thanks to which life on earth has for a couple millennia acquired a new and dangerous fascination - their prophets fused "rich", "godless", "evil", "violent", "sensual" into one, and were the first to coin the word "world" as a term of infamy. It is this inversion of values (with which is involved the employment of the word for "poor" as a synonym for "holy" and "friend") that the significance of the Jewish people resides: With them, there begins the slave revolt in morals

I cant get you the full quote because I cant copy paste from pdfs on my phone but that should be enough

[Anonymous No.19008332]

>>19004278
nope he doesn't say that, he rejects all of them but traces christianity to the plebs within jewish society and judaism to the priests, despite of his hatred for priest he considers them a higher type than plebs.

[Anonymous No.19008388]

>>19008306
He says a revolt begins with the Jews. The morality grows with the lower class, and Socrates is the symbolic beginning.
What begins with the Jews is the successful undermining of the "masters" through these values and the transformation of the world rather than being contained in the demographics whose mentality it expresses.

[Anonymous No.19008431]

>>19008331
We've all read Genealogy of Morals. Have you read Twilight of the Idols?

If you're isolating slave morality with the Jews, and excluding Socrates, Platonism, and Stoicism, then you can't have read more than one work of Nietzsche. The fact that this is one thread is one of his essential arguments. In fact, I think it's one of the essential overall arguments of just the Genealogy of Morals.

[Anonymous No.19008451]

>>19008388
>>19008431
When a poster simply will not admit he got it wrong lol

[Anonymous No.19008482]

>>19008451
It's funny how explicitly you can explain something and still get a response like this

[Anonymous No.19008527]

>>19008431
Where does he say anything resembling that passage about any other group wrt slave morality?

[Anonymous No.19009234]

>>19003158
what the fuck? trump was never a good business man was he?

[Anonymous No.19009240]

>>19009234
He literally became a billionaire m8. Despite what memes you may have heard this is not easy to do

[Anonymous No.19009339]

>>19004194
I can sympathise somewhat. I personally see more aesthetic value in the american dream myth, myth that it might be. the idea of true virtue being in willingly giving something to someone of their own volition. a chose of their own making, rather than it be a requirement. the later doesnt have someone as a moral agent, simply a system of equitization.

Unironically, i think the state set up in the republic by plato is probably the best happy medium. but thats a bottom up state.

[Anonymous No.19010076]

>>19008527
He says it of Socrates, Plato, and the Stoics. Democracy is also included in the fold.

In the very same part (first part) of the genealogy of morals, where the passage in question is from, you see him describe it as a broad phenomenon, and then distinguishes the Jews as "the most important example".

It's not the origin of the morality that Nietzsche attributes to the Jews, that's uncontestable, what he attributes to the Jews is an unusual degree of consequence. Previously, slave morality was just something that slaves did, to no consequence.

[Anonymous No.19010110]

>>19010076
>its not the origin of the morality that Nietzsche attributes to the Jews
Except he literally says they were the origin of it. No idea why you're trying so hard to weasel around this

[Anonymous No.19010488]

>>19010110
Except no he doesn't at all and I've explained this about three times now, you're just being obstinate. God knows why. I've allow me tp repeat myself:

He calls the Jews an "example". Do you know what "example" means?

What he attributes to the Jews is a specific development. The language "inversion of values" is clearly confusing people here, it seems to suggest that this is the singular case of slave morality. Except he doesn't say that. It's only an instance of slave values. He describes them again in the Problem of Socrates, attributing them to Socrates, and even calling that, too, a slave revolt.

Slave morality is not Jewish morality. It does not begin with the Jews. It begins with slaves. Something more specific and consequential begins with the Jews, it is a part of slave morality (again: "most important example", which Nietzsche traces to Athens. This is intro level shit. It's literally explained in the Genealogy of Morals itself, in the very beginning, I don't understand how I can get you to acknowledge this without rewriting the book to you. The whole beginning of this book is a rigorous explanation the origin of slave morality. The Jews come in after he explains the origin of slave morality, in service to the argument that the Jews brought about a victory for slave morality. You're confusing Nietzsche's specifying description of Jewish ideology with a description of slave morality. What does it mean to you, then, when he does the same for Platonism, Stoicism, and democracy?

[Anonymous No.19010506]

>>19010488
"With them(jews) there begins the slave revolt in morality"
It really cannot be more explicit than this lmao

[Anonymous No.19010550]

>>19010506
Kaufmann doesn't even translate it as "them." The sentence, which is from GM page 34, is literally: "[...] with the Jews there begins the slave revolt in morality: that revolt which has a history of two thousand years behind it and which we no longer see because it—has been victorious." In the next aphorism he writes, translated by Kaufmann, that slave morality grew "from the trunk of that tree of vengefulness and hatred, Jewish hatred—the profoundest and sublimest kind of hatred, capable of creating ideals and reversing values, the like of which has never existed on earth before [...]"

[Anonymous No.19010572]

>>18999621
Why people like this retard so much if he was a retard? Is cause the God is dead meme? Muh revolution against God?

[Anonymous No.19010812]

>>18999824
Dude he famously hated his own sister for marrying an "anti-semite" and called for "anti-semites" to be shot. Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

[Anonymous No.19011622]

>>19010506
Again
He says "revolt". He doesn't say "there begins slave morality". What I believe is the first mention of slave morality in the genealogy of morals is in a broader and earlier context than the Jews.

AGAIN, the fact that slave morality precedes the Jews and includes Greeks is something you should know at the most basic level of Nietzsche, it's cliche level knowledge, it's unbelievable that you're trying to contest this. Sink your teeth in something else or go to bed, good god

[Anonymous No.19011660]

>>19010550
>slave morality grew "from the trunk of that tree of vengefulness and hatred, Jewish hatred

you literally just inserted the words "slave morality" into a quote where it doesn't occur to make this point work lol

Slave morality begins with ressentiment. Ressentiment occurs in any languishing lower class. Nietzsche says its a response to the predatory qualities of classical nobility.

What the Jews did was "defeat Rome", which is a pivotal event for the general course of European history.

[Anonymous No.19011762]

>>19011622
>>19011660
What the fuck is wrong with you, dude? Anyone who has actually read Nietzsche realizes how full of shit you are.

>What the Jews did was "defeat Rome", which is a pivotal event for the general course of European history.
In The Antichrist he calls Christians vampires that ransacked and destroyed the superior culture of the Romans (paraphrasing here). Christianity is Jewish, the chief offending Christian for Nietzsche being the Jewish Saint Paul.

[Anonymous No.19011895]

>>19011762
Stop saying "anyone who has actually read Nietzsche", it's a fucking weak bluff in the face of someone who is citing more than you and explaining things explicitly. All you're doing is firing out mindless quips while ignoring everything that's said to you. It's not a debate. I don't know if you're drunk or some sort of poorly programmed AI, but I'm not really needed to explain one of the most fucking well known features of Nietzsche.

Would you really get up on a stage, be handed a microphone, and declare to an audience of scholars that slave morality does NOT predate the Jews, that it begins precisely with the Jews, and not with ressentiment, good/evil valuation, or any of the rest of the fucking things he uses to characterize the development of slave morality? No, it's just the Jews, because of one passage about the Jews "starting a revolt"?

>In The Antichrist he calls Christians vampires that ransacked and destroyed the superior culture of the Romans (paraphrasing here).
So what?!

>Christianity is Jewish, the chief offending Christian for Nietzsche being the Jewish Saint Paul.
Fucking utterly pedantic. Christianity is Christian. Nietzsche likes them less than Jews. Not that it changes anything at all. You're not saying anything at all.

[Anonymous No.19011914]

>>19011895
You haven't actually quoted anything. The only quote we've been talking about is the one from GoM that clearly identifies slave morality with Jews

[Anonymous No.19011917]

>>19011660
The Jews defeated Rome *with* slave morality via Christianity. He makes it very clear that's how it happened

[Anonymous No.19011958]

>>19011914
I don't think you've responded directly to a single point. It's all attitude.

Here, you bitch

https://www.google.com/search?q=slave+morality&oq=slave+morality&aqs=chrome..69i57.1768j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Anonymous No.19011966]

>>19011917
Yes, that is indeed the point, I don't think you're tracking this discussion. We're not arguing about whether the Jews participated in slave morality

[Anonymous No.19011983]

>>18999621
This >>19003623

>Just to liberate himself from me, he succumbs to all available platitudes!
t. Wagner

[Anonymous No.19012133]

Inventing slave morality was an act of creativity and hating the Jews over it would be ressentiment. Another act of creativity if required for a transvaluation of values similar to what he ascribes to the Jews 2000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.19013233]

>>19011895
>someone who is citing more than you and explaining things explicitly.
You haven't cited anything. Where is the quote stating that slave morality began with Socrates, for example?

[Anonymous No.19013240]

Nietzsche's greatest contribution to philosophy was his invention of cringe.