/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19214750]

>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!
What the fuck, I thought Niet was supposed to be le heavy metal will-to-power ultrahardcore man.

[Anonymous No.19215104]

>>19214750
Well it is obvious that the difference is that it is not the desire to rule that constitutes a noble disposition, or a noble expression of the will to power, since, as he himself says, this desire can distort the very nobility in holding power, becoming “slaves of their followers, fame, etc”. It happens that people indifferent to such political expressions of power end up assuming it for their will to power naturally leads them to it, as if it was a natural completion of their natures.

[Anonymous No.19215110]

>>19214750
It's surprising how many people misunderstand Nietzsche's will to power, miss all its relation to genius as it's apparent in this quote.

[Anonymous No.19215148]

>>19215110
It is not the will to power that they misunderstand (after all everything is will to power) but what Nietzsche understood as a noble expression of it. It is not their fault to understand its noble expression in different ways when Nietzsche himself affirms two different expressions: that of the blonde beast and the civilized aristocratic one.

[Anonymous No.19215388]

>>19214750
It's unfitting of a noble disposition to DESIRE to rule. The noble rule by nature. Those around them fall in line and become followers because of their inborn leadership ability. If you look at the throne lustfully and have to claw your way to it, you don't belong on it.

[Anonymous No.19215508]

>>19215148
The will to power is a far more subtle psychological conception than what most people take it for. It's place in the history of philosophy as an understanding of the self, has anyone who only understands it in the now popular and common sense way ever seen its importance to that? I think it is something altogether far different from the blond beast and a civilisation articulation of that. The conception of the blond beast is still a sublimation of desires, the Op quote is not.

[Anonymous No.19215513]

>>19215148
The will to power is a far more subtle psychological conception than what most people take it for. It's place in the history of philosophy as an understanding of the self, has anyone who only understands it in the now popular and common sense way ever seen its importance to that? I think it is something altogether far different from the blond beast and a civilizational articulation of that. The conception of the blond beast is still a sublimation of desires, the Op quote is not.

[Anonymous No.19215557]

>>19215508
It is not a psychological conception for Nietzsche, as he affirms that it is prior to any physical and psychical manifestation. How is the beast a sublimation and the OP kind not when the first is much more instinctual?

[Anonymous No.19215563]

>>19214750
>I thought Niet was supposed to be le heavy metal will-to-power ultrahardcore man.
Please read him. I really like the Gay Science

[Anonymous No.19215565]

>>19215513
>>19215557

[Anonymous No.19215570]

>>19215563
Read the Genealogy of Morals

[Anonymous No.19215582]

>>19215570
You can read any of his works. I think the Gay Science is the most well rounded one. That or Beyond Good and Evil.

[Anonymous No.19215599]

>>19215582
I don’t know, he shifts from one kind to the other; this is his philosophy: affirmation of both destruction and creation, both No and Yes, after all.

[Anonymous No.19215638]

>>19214750
>and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule
Only a retard who haven't lived among them could claim such bullshit. The so called simple people are pieces of fucking shite like most people.

[Anonymous No.19215692]

>>19215565
I didn't mean psychological in that it wasn't metaphysical, but the significance of the will to power is something which can only be apprehended through the psychological (or determinateness of self). You do it yourself when you see the blond beast as the true expression of it in man.

>How is the beast a sublimation and the OP kind not when the first is much more instinctual?
Firstly I meant the will to power seen through the beast would make the Op quote, the noble expression as you call it, a description of sublimation; secondly I consider the Op quote to show the will to power to be something different from the blond beast.

[Anonymous No.19215701]

>>19215638
Cope.

[Anonymous No.19215714]

>>19215638
You're projecting your own image of "the simple people". He explicitly says the simple people who are pleasant and don't desire to rule. Nietzsche means here the people that are authentically themselves and thus "pleasant" and don't seek fame or status, which is not what most simple people (that you obviously are projecting) do, cause you equate "simple" with "npc"

[Anonymous No.19215721]

>>19214750
Test

[Anonymous No.19215764]

>>19215563
>really like the Gay Science
haha what a fag

[Anonymous No.19215798]

>>19215638
>The so called simple people
I don't think you at Neet are talking about the same kind of 'simple people'.

[Anonymous No.19215871]

I hope Nietzsche posters kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.19215889]

>>19214750
Nietzsche has always been about being genuinely kind, simple, not unlike Christ in some respects

[Anonymous No.19215901]

>>19215692
It can only insofar as it is a manifestation of a physiological disposition.
It is not I but Nietzsche who sees the blonde beast as a true expression of the will to power, which is a physiological affirmation of the will to power.

But yes, the OP is indeed a different expression of WtP.

[Anonymous No.19215910]

>>19215889
christ was a horrible man.

[Anonymous No.19216059]

>>19214750
>I thought Niet was supposed to be le heavy metal will-to-power ultrahardcore man
You are still a little child

[Anonymous No.19216112]

[Anonymous No.19216115]

>>19216112
that's anglo utilitarianism

[Anonymous No.19216123]

>>19216115
Oh no no no, this is a noble soul.
A simple, mild, pleasant person without the least desire to rule.

[Anonymous No.19216235]

>>19216112
>implying he was calling them overmen

[Anonymous No.19216263]

>>19214750
>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
He's stating that those who rule us are but sophists and demagogues; he wishes for a true warrior-king to sublimate the position, much like Plato wished for his philosopher-king.

>The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger.
Those who dominate the meta-physical are those with the greatest power. Dominion of mind, wealth of knowledge; non subservient to the Demiurge and it's worldly material.

[Anonymous No.19216294]

>>19215388
Wow can't believe Friedrich Nietzsche predicted sigma males, what a brilliant mind.

[Anonymous No.19216320]

>>19216294
More like he revived what alpha originally meant before it was redefined by resentful gammas and omegas

[Anonymous No.19216390]

>>19216059
read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19216524]

>>19216235
read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19216577]

>>19216524
I did, but for this thread making sense of the quote in the OP is enough.

[Anonymous No.19216606]

>>19216577
read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19216614]

>>19216606
Seethe

[Anonymous No.19216619]

>>19216614
read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19216744]

>>19216112

wtf is this shit?

[Anonymous No.19216778]

>>19214750
Its a pretty obvious conclusion imo. The men who a pleb would typically view as the most powerful also tend to be those who are slaves to their subjects in the sense that they spend all their time scheming and trying to figure out ways to cling to their power.
At one point Nietzsche says that the Brahmins of ancient India were the highest expressions of the WtP, and the Brahmins weren't active rulers - they delegated the responsibility of ruling to the kshatriya and spent all their time in contemplation.

[Anonymous No.19216802]

Test

[Anonymous No.19216846]

>>19216112
It would be overman except he wouldn't rationalize over the distribution of happiness, he would simply not give a fuck because his overflow of happiness is immune to such things and because any indignation whatsoever would constitute resentment that is beneath him.

[Anonymous No.19216883]

>>19216123
nah the noble soul would just accept the loss, not cope by thinking that the thief's happiness quantitatively justifies that loss

[Anonymous No.19216952]

>>19214750
Real strength is turning the other cheek and not being resentful. Do NOT strive for greatness and fame.

[Anonymous No.19217132]

>>19216952
>fame
Rabble virtue.

[Anonymous No.19217320]

>>19217132

[Anonymous No.19217332]

>>19216846
>>19216883
>not even arguing with the assertion that bike cuck is Nietzsche’s overman
So you’re saying I could fuck your gf, and you not feeling anything would be Nietzsche’s ideal?
Truly I love his nobles
Were that there more of them in the world.

[Anonymous No.19217348]

>>19217332
Anglo hands typed this post.

[Anonymous No.19217352]

>>19217348
You should be more of an overman, sweety.
Less resentment, ok?

[Anonymous No.19217356]

>>19217352
Keep seething for daddy.

[Anonymous No.19217367]

>>19217356
Seething?
You just assented to Bike Cuck being the overman.

[Anonymous No.19217392]

>>19217367
Little people aren't the overmen, you dumb Anglo troll. Not sure whose buttons you think you're pushing.

[Anonymous No.19217533]

>>19217392
There was something that bugged me about Nietzsche and I couldn't put my finger on it.
These posts have helpt me greatly.
>>19216846
>It would be overman except he wouldn't rationalize over the distribution of happiness, he would simply not give a fuck because his overflow of happiness is immune to such things and because any indignation whatsoever would constitute resentment that is beneath him.
>>19216883
>the noble soul would just accept the loss, not cope by thinking that the thief's happiness quantitatively justifies that loss

Two posts have assenting to the idea that Nietzsche's noble would simply accept the theft of his property. You could steal everything from the overman and enslave him for eternity, and he would happily work under your whip.
I am so glad I have a better philosophy.
No wonder Nietzsche infected himself with syphilis.

[Anonymous No.19217549]

>>19217533
You are a terrible troll.

[Anonymous No.19217573]

>>19217549
So terrible.
Great and terrible.
You are full of awe, because I am awful.
Just keep calling me a troll, without even trying to argue against my point.
Your Nietzschean nobility impresses.

[Anonymous No.19217663]

>>19217573
Alright I'll bite. Why do you think the quote in the OP vindicates your argument? What do you think it's saying?

[Anonymous No.19217667]

>>19217663
First of all, what do you think is my argument?
Re-state what I have said, so I know you understand it.

[Anonymous No.19217741]

>>19217667
I think your argument is that Nietzsche is claiming that the simple, pleasant people are representative of the overman in totality, even though all he's doing is contrasting them with tyrants merely to express how he (and by extension, the noble and the overmen) see strength: as inner strength, not as something materially quantifiable and unwieldy. The tyrant is not strong, because strength is measured by an inner calm (which is not passivity, but confidence to the degree of active sublimity), and tyrants are far from calm and confident — they neurotically obsess over those with more power than them and with maintaining their own power (since they do not deserve it) and their tyrannical impulses stem from inner restlessness and weakness.

[Anonymous No.19217835]

>>19217741
>I think your argument is that Nietzsche is claiming that the simple, pleasant people are representative of the overman in totality
What if, instead, my argument is that Nietzsche's "simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule" are weak, and ready to be exploited: and if they are not ruled, their children will be, simply due to being spoiled and out of touch?
What if my argument is that this image of nobility and refinement that Nietzsche fellated is the byproduct of wealth, which is acquired by power, and that living in wealth and luxury inevitably creates spiritual weakness?
What if my argument is that nobility cannot exist without the wealth, power, and wisdom to maintain it, because a "noble and gracious spirit" in the body of a poor man is the Bike Cuck: an idiot.
What if my argument is, moreover, that a man "without the least desire to rule" will be ruled, as water will flow into a ditch

This isn't my argument, but what if it was?

[Anonymous No.19217906]

>>19217835
>What if, instead, my argument is that Nietzsche's "simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule" are weak, and ready to be exploited: and if they are not ruled, their children will be, simply due to being spoiled and out of touch?
Then you'd have to give some other group of people to contrast and make your point and the likely case is that Nietzsche would already agree with you. Nietzsche is certainly not saying that these people, who are merely "simple, mild, and pleasant" to him (i.e., they are the herd, ripe for being controlled) are the epitome of strength, but compared to tyrants, who sweat anxiously over the throne and are unable to reach any inner solidarity (which makes them poor leaders and thinkers), they possess a certain degree of strength more than them.

>What if my argument is that this image of nobility and refinement that Nietzsche fellated is the byproduct of wealth, which is acquired by power, and that living in wealth and luxury inevitably creates spiritual weakness?
Then you're not following what he or I am saying. The strength he is referring to is stems from natural ability, from your genes and physiology, not wealth, or anything materially / externally quantifiable. This is the point of the quote in the OP: genetics determine everything, and there are people born leaders, and people who aren't, and those who aren't must punch up to attain the throne, at the nobility (because they were not born for it), while those who are must punch down, at the tyrants (because they were born for it). The tyrants are not leaders, and they are not strong; they can only maintain a veneer of strength. They can succeed for a while, but nature topples over such sand castles eventually.

>What if my argument is that nobility cannot exist without the wealth, power, and wisdom to maintain it
True to some extent, and Nietzsche basically agrees. The noble race fell apart because the ignoble race was more cunning, he says this somewhere. The noble race today must become more cunning so that it can continue its work in peace.

>What if my argument is, moreover, that a man "without the least desire to rule" will be ruled, as water will flow into a ditch
The natural born leader does not desire to rule either. To desire to rule implies that you do not already rule. Natural born leaders always rule their environment despite their circumstances. You completely overlooked this meaning in the quote in the OP.

[Anonymous No.19217958]

>>19216123
I have no desire to rule, and if after a hard day's work I discovered that they stole my bike I would be fucking mad. Not because of the bike, but because of the annoyance.
Good thing I don't have a bike.

[Anonymous No.19218030]

>>19217835
insufferable faggot post of the year

[Anonymous No.19218033]

>>19217906
>The strength he is referring to is stems from natural ability, from your genes and physiology, not wealth, or anything materially / externally quantifiable.
Things are generally biologically determined in the world, but there is a malleableness to living things. A weak man can become strong. An intelligent man can become dull. An ignoble man, through sheer will, can become noble. And so on. Extend transformations over generations, and formerly noble races can fall, and the children of slaves can ascend to power. When I say "ascend to power" I do not only mean that slaves can achieve power, wealth, and the image of nobility, but True Nobility through honorable and right living. But, in my view, "nobility", "refinement", and so forth, are correlate with weakness and inevitable loss of wealth, social standing, and so forth (all of the worldly features of "nobility"); and again, a noble, gentleman's spirit in a man without means makes for a perfect slave.
What's more, do you and Nietzsche not assent to the role of the Soul in all of this?
Again, I am glad of my superior understanding here.

>The natural born leader does not desire to rule either. To desire to rule implies that you do not already rule. Natural born leaders always rule their environment despite their circumstances. You completely overlooked this meaning in the quote in the OP.
On the contrary, you misunderstand: the hypothesis is that a man without the desire to rule, even if he rules naturally and without effort, will eventually be ruled by those with the desire to rule.
>The noble race today must become more cunning so that it can continue its work in peace.
Can they be called noble if they were conquered so easily? Or would better words be "gullible" and "idiotic"

[Anonymous No.19218042]

>>19217958
Then you are far from Nietzsche's Overman because of your resentment.
This says more about Nietzsche than it does you.
>>19218030
Now you know how I feel about Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.19218168]

>>19218033
>Things are generally biologically determined in the world, but there is a malleableness to living things.
To an extent, and that extent ends in regards to what Nietzsche is talking about with strength here. This strength is something one is either born with or not. It's a part of one's destiny or it isn't. It's something innate within a person, because it has to do with the harmonious soundness of their body, which is already present at birth. This strength can be tempered and guided, but only if it's already possessed within. That's why a great number of men can be disciplined, and even disciplined well, but only a rare few will excel beyond the rest and will find themselves seamlessly entering into positions of authority in the world according to their talents.

>When I say "ascend to power" I do not only mean that slaves can achieve power, wealth, and the image of nobility, but True Nobility through honorable and right living.
True nobility is genetic. No slave has ever become master in history, and no master has ever become slave, except superficially so. You can chain Prometheus to a rock and torture him every day, he is still an immortal god. "Who cares about this strength, then?" you may ask, but the question you should be asking is, "why does nature care about it?" because it does care, because nature is unfair and it will always favor the strong, it will always unequally distribute itself among organisms and make some strong and others weak in this manner, it will always make the weak feel humiliated and low on the inside as they extract their vengeance on the gods, and it will never give the weak the means to truly become gods themselves.

>the hypothesis is that a man without the desire to rule, even if he rules naturally and without effort, will eventually be ruled by those with the desire to rule.
For a time, such people may and have taken the throne. But again, they will always lose it, because they aren't born for it. They aren't actually strong and capable of possessing it. They can't handle the responsibilities of the throne and the kingdom they pretend to rule over will eventually decay. A bluff only gets you so far.

>Can they be called noble if they were conquered so easily?
So easily? The noble have ruled for most of this universe's life span and they continue to do so. Nature will always favor some organisms over others, and those it favors are stronger within.

[Anonymous No.19218366]

>>19218168
>>Things are generally biologically determined in the world, but there is a malleableness to living things.
>To an extent, and that extent ends in regards to what Nietzsche is talking about with strength here. This strength is something one is either born with or not.
And that's where Nietzsche is an idiot.
Even considering whether or not one is born with inner strength, time, chance, and circumstance can cause a man to develop strength or to lose it.

>True nobility is genetic.
And genes are far more malleable than most of the world believes. You will find noble phenotypes in unexpected places, and you will find the children of the once noble bearing the looks of decay. Nobility can be seen in the body, but the body is not the source of nobility. Is Nietzsche really such a materialist?

>>the hypothesis is that a man without the desire to rule, even if he rules naturally and without effort, will eventually be ruled by those with the desire to rule.
>For a time, such people may and have taken the throne. But again, they will always lose it, because they aren't born for it. They aren't actually strong and capable of possessing it. They can't handle the responsibilities of the throne and the kingdom they pretend to rule over will eventually decay. A bluff only gets you so far.
You, ever the idiot, overlook the one who is simultaneously noble and desires to rule. He would rule forever, and with the love and support of the people.

>Can they be called noble if they were conquered so easily?
So easily? The noble have ruled for most of this universe's life span and they continue to do so.
If Nietzsche's "nobles" still ruled, then why must they learn cunning?
What has ruled the universe for all time is other than Nietzsche's conception of "noble".

[Anonymous No.19218505]

>>19218366
>Even considering whether or not one is born with inner strength, time, chance, and circumstance can cause a man to develop strength or to lose it.
Not the inner strength he is talking about, which (again) stems from your genes and physiology, not your mind or anything you have learned.

>genes are far more malleable than most of the world believes.
What does that even mean?

>the body is not the source of nobility.
It is and always has been. The body is the source of our personality, our mind, and our thoughts. The nobility is always those whose bodies are best composed of harmonious elements, and who as a result have excess energy to spend towards loftier goals. Conflicting urges and thoughts and poor physiology lead to everything ever regarded as vices and keep one concerned with immediate, shallow, baser goals.

>the one who is simultaneously noble and desires to rule.
Why would a ruler desire to rule? Desire implies a lack. The one who desires to rule is not a ruler. Note that the tyrant is the one who, even after attaining the throne, endlessly seeks new ones to seize; his desire to rule never ends because his natural lack for it never ends.

[Anonymous No.19218526]

>>19218505
So Nietzscheans are materialists and proud cuckolds.
Got it.
Thanks for playing.

>Why would a ruler desire to rule?
Because it's fun.

[Anonymous No.19218627]

>>19218526
Nietzsche was a hard biological determinist, this shouldn't come as a surprise to you unless you haven't read him. You did enter a thread for a philosopher you read, right? You aren't a cancerous underage blight on the board who doesn't even read, right?

>Because it's fun.
Tyrants don't have fun, they sweat in anxiety day and night, focused more on losing their power than on enjoying it.

[Anonymous No.19218641]

>>19218627
>Nietzsche was a hard biological determinist
That is what we call an idiot.
The prototypical reddit atheist, enlightened by his own intelligence and in this moment, euphoric.

>>Because it's fun.
>Tyrants don't have fun, they sweat in anxiety day and night, focused more on losing their power than on enjoying it.
You asked why a ruler would desire to rule, and I gave you the answer.

[Anonymous No.19218669]

>>19218641
>That is what we call an idiot.
Yes, I already know that's what Anglo flatheads who don't read call idiocy.

>You asked why a ruler would desire to rule, and I gave you the answer.
An answer that ignored the rest of my post, which already dismissed your answer. Please, if you're not going to read the philosopher the thread is about, at least read the posts you reply to. They're only a few sentences long. A ruler does not "desire to rule" because that feeling can only emerge in one who doesn't already rule. Rulers desire other things.

[Anonymous No.19218736]

>>19218669
It must be nice to live in your idiots' world, where nobility is determined by genetics, not the efforts of the soul, and idiocy is determined by whether or not someone reads, not whether one reads and understands what is correct.

I would read Nietzsche if I believed he were worth reading, but you and another poster both assented to the idea that his overman would be too happy to care about his property being stolen.
This is quite the opposite of a glowing endorsement of your favorite poet, and has convinced me to steer well away.
You, however, I encourage to cling to Nietzsche's ideas and care as little about your property and your wellbeing as possible. Shed all resentment.
Say yes to all of life, even when it is embarrassing and counterproductive for you.

[Anonymous No.19218829]

>>19218736
>where nobility is determined by genetics, not the efforts of the soul
What do you think the soul is?

>you and another poster both assented to the idea that his overman would be too happy to care about his property being stolen.
I never did that. The overman does not share the feelings of the pleasant people, only their confidence in being themselves. Where did you even get this retarded idea that these people would be okay being stolen from? The average person, who doesn't want to run things, would be annoyed by it and do what they can to prevent it / get it back.

[Anonymous No.19218879]

>>19218829
>What do you think the soul is?
Fluctuations in the em field which permeates the universe, created by the oscillations of individual stars, which manifest as the temperament/personality/disposition/impulses/Will of individual beings, animal and man, on Earth.
If this theory is correct, it explains incarnation, the apparent phenomenon of reincarnation, the existence of recurrent archetypes, and so forth. It also gives material reality to Pagan deities revered since ancient times. This is close, I think, to the beliefs of the Pythagorean mystics. But this is to explain things from a physicalist perspective, which is not the only way to explain it.

>>you and another poster both assented to the idea that his overman would be too happy to care about his property being stolen.
>I never did that.
Poster A wrote
>It would be overman except he wouldn't rationalize over the distribution of happiness, he would simply not give a fuck because his overflow of happiness is immune to such things and because any indignation whatsoever would constitute resentment that is beneath him.
Poster B wrote
>the noble soul would just accept the loss, not cope by thinking that the thief's happiness quantitatively justifies that loss

[Anonymous No.19218902]

>>19218879
>Fluctuations in the em field which permeates the universe, created by the oscillations of individual stars, which manifest as the temperament/personality/disposition/impulses/Will of individual beings, animal and man, on Earth.
Just a more roundabout way of what Nietzsche and I mean by "the body." Ultimately, you're a biological determinist too, then ("biology" being the term for everything you described); you don't think oscillations don't lead to one another.

I'm neither A nor B, in fact I think those posts were by one person.

[Anonymous No.19218951]

>>19218902
>Just a more roundabout way of what Nietzsche and I mean by "the body." Ultimately, you're a biological determinist too
No. I put it in terms that I knew you would like, but have you considered what it is that determines the oscillation of the stars?
Have you fathomed the origins of the universe?
Will you prove to us that the universe is not both created and destroyed instantaneously in this moment?
We are in the middle of the Teilhard point, which is perfect Chaos.
You could say the soul, that indefinable quality in man, which remains despite all dogmatic materialists attempts to snuff it out of mind, is Chaos.
You, or Nietzsche, or both, do not seem to account for the ability for things to mutate and change: how fundamental change is to the fabric of reality and experience.
In fact it seems to me that Nietzsche could not cope with change, and went insane trying to convince himself he was still noble when instead he was degrading.

[Anonymous No.19218976]

Just read foucault
A better version of nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19218991]

>>19218951
>have you considered what it is that determines the oscillation of the stars?
Yes. And what you currently are, within these oscillations, is your body. Your body is where your current thoughts and feelings are stemming from. Our use of the word body means this, no more, no less. Your "soul" is your body, or some aspect of it. So with that in mind, you were wrong to reject the notion that nobility stems from the biological.

[Anonymous No.19219034]

>>19214750
>ITT: cope from nazoids

[Anonymous No.19219045]

>>19218991
You lack perspective, and are more concerned with the maintenance of your ego than with what is correct.
I dislike talking with people like you.

Consider that "your body" will exist for at most around 80-120 years, barring some misfortune, or some advancement that leads to an extension of the average lifespan: but a star can exist for tens of billions of years.
If it is stars that determine an individual's personality, their essence, their "soul", as it were, then souls would also exist for very long times, growing, living, and dying with the stars that project them on this Earth.
A certain soul, whether the nature of a soul is determined by an individual star, or by the arrangement of multiple stellar bodies in alignment, could appear anywhere, in any race, in any animal, in art, in a 4chan shitpost: in any vessel that could contain it.
Consider that one soul, one star or arrangement of stars, might be older and more noble in character than another: but could appear in different bodies, different races, different places, and different intervals in time.
From this perspective, it is not the biology of the individual that determines their nobility, but the inherent nobility of the orbit of their stars: and from my perspective, the universe, the stars, is inherently intelligent.
There is a conscious intelligence, a will, in all things: the stars choose their orbits, and move as they Will, towards nobility or ignobility, but generally always toward the good and the noble as they age and die.
And it is in the nature of things to not be so simple as this either.

[Anonymous No.19219086]

>>19219045
This is great and all, but it's besides the point. Your body is still what you currently are within these oscillations. Abstract the origin of that body from whatever more complex process you'd like (Nietzsche's term for this infinitely complex process is "will to power"), it does not change what the body and its determination over your current thoughts and feelings entail. This body, by the way, should be understood in an evolutionary sense; Nietzsche is an evolutionary biological determinist. So your point about him not acknowledging change is entirely mistaken.

>I dislike talking with people like you.
Likewise, because people like you don't read, yet are determined to post on the literature board in threads you haven't even covered the basic material on. This entire conversation wouldn't have had to happen if you just read a book.

Nobility: individuals who, by birth right / biological destiny / oscillation of the stars, dominate their environment. They do not choose the throne, the throne chooses them.

Tyrants: individuals who, by the same process, are dominated by their environment. They cheat their way to the throne because the throne refuses to open itself up to them.

Your point: null and void.

[Anonymous No.19219110]

hmmm i guess i should just be my best yourself!

[Anonymous No.19219140]

>>19219086
>you are the body
>the body is a bunch of parts put together that we ascribe a unity to
>none of these parts have any self-being of their own
>in actuality the self and matter are empty
Based Buddhist Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19219153]

>>19219086
>Likewise, because people like you don't read, yet are determined to post on the literature board in threads you haven't even covered the basic material on. This entire conversation wouldn't have had to happen if you just read a book.
Tell me, why would I read, when eternally combative adolescents, like you, fueled by testosterone, will argue incessantly in favor of someone else's ideas, as if their balls depended on it, spilling all the beans in the process?
I'll never have to read your oh so noble syphilis self-inflicted poet, because people like (You) will not shut the fuck up. You cannot help yourselves!
In insisting I read Nietzsche, too, you are merely insisting that I auto-hypnotize myself with his ideas and submit to his way of thinking. You come to this thread, not because you want to engage in philosophy, but because you want other people to affirm your self-assumed that you're right because the cute man with big mustache made the words look pretty.
You are not interested in developing your own soul, inventing your own ideas, coming up with your own values, or anything like that.
Convince yourself that you've won an argument here, but I have succeeded in getting Neetchfaggots to admit Bike Cuck is close to their ideal, in his pathetic inability to resent a crime committed against him.
There was never an argument here, that you could win.
If I am a troll, as some have accused me of being, why even engage with me?

But at any rate, to address your idiot points:
Whether Noble or Tyrant, whether popular or unpopular, no one is on the throne who is not put there by the stars.
Nobility of the soul is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not one rules.
There is no law that says the tyrant will not rule forever, or that the noble will always have the throne.
The horrible truth that you seem unwilling to attain, is that the one who has the will to the throne has the throne, and keeps it for as long as they have the will.
If they attain the throne through tyranny, they will become noble, at least in appearance if not in soul, if they have the will to keep it for any length of time.
And there are tyrants who are considered noble by the people, and nobles who are disgraced as tyrants.
Your thinking is dogmatic and uninteresting.

Maybe stop reading books.

[Anonymous No.19219440]

>>19219045
>the stars choose their orbits, and move as they Will

Are you quoting the Stoic from De Natura Deorum or something?

[Anonymous No.19220486]

der Wille zur MACHT

MACHT

MACHEN

MAKE

THE WILL TO MAKE, CREATE,

IE: TO FORGE THE THINGS YOU WANT, TO LITERALLY MAKE REALITY AS YOU SEE FIT.

[Anonymous No.19220492]

>>19215910
Not according to neesha

>>19215889
ecce homo, homo

[Anonymous No.19220828]

>>19215388
The noble certainly don't rule by "nature" and of you had actually read Nietzsche you'd know that there's no idea he contests more than the notion that there is any kind of fundamental human nature. Nietzshe's examination of master v.s slave morality in Genealogy is not a simple endorsement of masters as "good". You need to read more carefully.

[Anonymous No.19220872]

>>19214750
nietzsche's definition of strenght is "not reacting". it has nothing to do with physical strength.

[Anonymous No.19220921]

>>19218951
>You, or Nietzsche, or both, do not seem to account for the ability for things to mutate and change: how fundamental change is to the fabric of reality and experience.
Have you read Nietzsche? Pretty sure he is all about change, everything is constantly growing, willing, becoming but never being. Please actually read the thinker you're discussing. This is just embarrassing. Even having only read Genealogy and Beyond Good and Evil I know this. Do any of you retards actually read?

[Anonymous No.19220972]

>>19219153
>no one is on the throne who is not put there by the stars.
Tf does this mean?
>Nobility of the soul is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not one rules.
Never a point Nietzsche makes. His analysis of the noble soul in Genealogy is an examination of the psychology of the rulers in Ancient times & how their morality stemming from their psychology conflicted with that of the slaves--Christians and Jews who worshipped self abnegation as a cope due to their low position.
>If they attain the throne through tyranny, they will become noble, at least in appearance if not in soul, if they have the will to keep it for any length of time.
And there are tyrants who are considered noble by the people, and nobles who are disgraced as tyrants.
The nobles Nietzsche describes were what we would today consider tyrants. They were unthinking brutes that went around raping and pillaging while believing themselves to be the source of the good.

[Anonymous No.19220985]

>>19220828
You may be referring to Nietzsche's earlier works. In his later works, he came to embrace his will to power, a very complex idea given a very simple name, as the "fundamental nature" from which all his values stemmed from, and yes, he viewed the superior noble class as being such by this nature:

>The superior caste—I call it the fewest—has, as the most perfect, the privileges of the few: it stands for happiness, for beauty, for everything good upon earth. Only the most intellectual of men have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can goodness escape being weakness. Pulchrum est paucorum hominum: goodness is a privilege. Nothing could be more unbecoming to them than uncouth manners or a pessimistic look, or an eye that sees ugliness—or indignation against the general aspect of things. Indignation is the privilege of the Chandala; so is pessimism. "The world is perfect"—so prompts the instinct of the intellectual, the instinct of the man who says yes to life. "Imperfection, whatever is inferior tous, distance, the pathos of distance, even the Chandala themselves are parts of this perfection." The most intelligent men, like the strongest, find their happiness where others would find only disaster: in the labyrinth, in being hard with themselves and with others, in effort; their delight is in self-mastery; in them asceticism becomes second nature, a necessity, an instinct. They regard a difficult task as a privilege; it is to them a recreation to play with burdens that would crush all others... Knowledge—a form of asceticism.—They are the most honourable kind of men: but that does not prevent them being the most cheerful and most amiable. They rule, not because they want to, but because they are; they are not at liberty to play second.

[Anonymous No.19221010]

>>19220985
The genealogy of morals is one of his later works. In any case not saying Nistzsche is any kind of egalitarian.

[Anonymous No.19221052]

>>19220921
That person admitted to not reading Nietzsche, so it's pointless replying further to him.

>To have and to want to have more – growth, in one word – that is life itself.

>The two greatest philosophical points of view (devised by Germans): a) that of becoming, of development. b) that according to the value of existence (but the wretched form of German pessimism must first be overcome!)—both brought together by me in a decisive way. Everything becomes and recurs eternally—escape is impossible!—Supposing we could judge value, what follows? The idea of recurrence as a selective principle, in the service of strength (and barbarism!).

Will to Power

[Anonymous No.19221059]

>>19220828
Holy shit, try reading Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.19221124]

>>19221059
I have. While he clearly admires some attributes of nobles, he also calls them unthinking brutes lacking depth, and he argues that slave morality made man both deep and interesting in so far as it turned agressive drives inward and so expanded human's interior space.

[Anonymous No.19221182]

>>19221010
It's been a while since I read GM, but it seems we're basically in agreement. Nietzsche's "fundamental nature" is something turbulent and in development and simultaneously physical and "metaphysical" in the sense that it includes many different renderings within different perspectives (in other words, a "thing" exists uniquely for each perspective, its existence transcending a single perspective while not transcending perspectives altogether, or in other words, not existing on a literal, separate "metaphysical" plane but as an extension of the physical). The moral dichotomy he develops in GM mostly pertains to ancient societies but is relevant today because the modern world is now a (both physical and "metaphysical") mixture of the two. Our culture is now full of language and values from these two once-distinct systems. With that said, I'm not saying that the privileges of the superior noble class would just fall into their lap; a lot of hard work is required to "undo" the mixture, separate the wheat from the chaff, obtain a new self-awareness and discipline oneself in order to temper the stronger impulses that are now laying dormant due to the impulses that were once possessed by the slaves.

[Anonymous No.19221204]

>>19221124
Yes and you should read the reasons why he lauds ''unthinking brutes lacking depth'', read what he says about interiority/depth, about thinking.
> he argues that slave morality made man both deep and interesting in so far as it turned agressive drives inward and so expanded human's interior space.
No, he doesn't. He says that resentment can still be creative as in the case of the Jews, but he never says slave morality is something interesting. You are retarded. Read the guy for once.

[Anonymous No.19221218]

Does anyone have one of those guides on to read nietzsche?, i started with "thus spoke zaratustra", didn't understand shit it was like reading the bible, i already read the twilight of the idols and im about to buy "genealogy of morals" or "beyond good and evil". any guidance on how to get this dude better????

[Anonymous No.19221219]

>>19215148
>that of the blonde beast and the civilized aristocratic one
those are one and the same for Nietzsche.
>>19214750
Nietzsche isn't.a systematic philosopher and he's often contradictory, which makes him more interesting.

[Anonymous No.19221251]

>>19221219
No. The blonde beast is anti-civilizational and the aristocratic noble is obviously civilized, cultured by society. The latter is a much refined mode of the former, the former a much more genuine than the latter. There are differences and identities shared.

[Anonymous No.19221260]

>>19221204
>you should read the reasons why he lauds "unthinking brutes"
He doesn't laud them. He lauds some aspects of them--self-affirmation and a healthy physicality, but also thought them dumb beasts of prey.
>never says slave morality is something interesting. You are retarded. Read the guy for once.
I didn't day Nietzche thought slave morality interesting, but that it made man man interesting. He says that everything with priests became more interesting with their emphasis on purity and self-denial. The ascetic turned the drive towards destruction and domination inward and so invented the guilty conscience, but it is this guilty conscience which for Nietzsche for the first time made humans actually interesting creatures. It also of course ultimately led to a self destructive denial of life and one's own will.

[Anonymous No.19221267]

>>19221260
*say

[Anonymous No.19221276]

>>19221218
There's a couple guides floating around, but in my opinion they include some baggage and have you jump through too many hoops. Some purists here may disagree, but I would recommend Kaufmann's book on Nietzsche first. Besides Twilight of the Idols since you already read it, the main works of his you should read next are Beyond Good and Evil, Genealogy of Morals, and The Antichrist, in that order, since those cover his core and most popular ideas in a more concentrated format.

[Anonymous No.19221300]

>>19221260
>but that it made man man interesting
Dude READ NIETZSCHE. He literally says slave morality was what made man deny life, holy shit.

>He says that everything with priests became more interesting with their emphasis on purity and self-denial.
Lmao, this is bait. READ THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS. He says how deceptive, how resentful the priestly caste was and how it was through this sentiment that they started to rule in detriment of the warrior caste.

holy fuck this can only be bait, i'll avoid responding to you from now on.

[Anonymous No.19221396]

>>19221300
>He literally says slave morality was what made man deny life, holy shit.
Did I deny that? Read my last sentence.
>Lmao, this is bait. READ THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS. He says how deceptive, how resentful the priestly caste was and how it was through this sentiment that they started to rule in detriment of the warrior caste.
None of that conflicts with what I said. I'm paraphrasing but there's a direct quote where Nietzsche says something like "with priests everything becomes more interesting". The priests emphasis on the denial of the pleasures of the will (or rather of pleasure in the denial of pleasure) made them both sicker and more interesting.

[Anonymous No.19221476]

>>19221396
See the context of a passage like that. If I’m not wrong this passage is from the Genealogy of Morals. You are really taking an ironic remark without its due context as an axiomatic belief of Nietzsche’s.

I’m literally discussing with a person who thinks Nietzsche thought life denying slave morality was something gracious. Nuke this board.

[Anonymous No.19221561]

>>19221476
>You are really taking an ironic remark without its due context as an axiomatic belief of Nietzsche’s.
Doesn't change the fact that at numerous points he refers to the nobles of past socities disparingly as dumb or lacking intelligence.
If you actually read Genealogy you'd know that part of his critique of slave morality is that it has made us overly conscious and sensitive. Yes he's critiquing Christianity/slave morality but I don't think he either simply exalting the simple minded master morality of the past as the answer.
>I’m literally discussing with a person who thinks Nietzsche thought life denying slave morality was something gracious
Keep the strawmen coming. I never said he loved slave morality you thick brained herdman.

[Anonymous No.19221659]

>>19221561
Find me a single passage of his calling the blond beasts dumb, you retard. Read everything he wrote about “intelligence”, consciousness, soul, etc. What he does is to contrast reason with instincts/senses affirming the latter to be authentic, more reliable and much more honest.

>strawman
You are a literal retard now coming with this sort of dumb and incongruous accusation. You literally affirmed Nietzsche thought life denying mechanisms to be interesting. You are so dumb I won’t even tell you to read Nietzsche, it’s obviously worthless.

[Anonymous No.19221876]

>>19214750
Nietzsche was a schizoid and he was happy when he met other schizoids, schizoids would make the world better simply because they have no ego like most normies

[Anonymous No.19222430]

>>19217332
If an overman wanted a monogamous gf and found out his current one was cheating he would leave without giving a fuck and get a new one. You don't need to writhe in emotional pain in order to take action and do what you want. How is this difficult to understand?