/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19291639]

Who are philosophers that are critical of Nietzsche? One philosopher I can think of who disagrees and agrees with many aspects of Nietzsche's ideas is the great Slavoj Zizek.

[Anonymous No.19291646]

>>19291639
Russell.

[Anonymous No.19291648]

>>19291639
i know a poet that was critical of nietzcshe

[Anonymous No.19291659]

>>19291639
>Zizek
Could you explain? I'm not familiar with his philosophy

[Anonymous No.19291668]

>>19291639
Heidegger sort of

[Anonymous No.19291669]

>>19291646
Hahahahahahahhahaha

[Anonymous No.19291672]

>>19291639
Weininger.

[Anonymous No.19291674]

>>19291669
he asked

[Anonymous No.19291710]

>>19291659
He is a hegelian-lacanian-marxist, and he's considered the greatest philosopher alive today. His work unfortunately requires alot of prior reading to understand.

[Anonymous No.19291727]

Wow you’re really mad. Toxic man Nietzsche activated your almonds.

[Anonymous No.19291743]

>>19291639
What a faggot, no wonder these academic commies are bunch of retards.

[Anonymous No.19291744]

>>19291710
>he's considered the greatest philosopher alive today
Is he?

[Anonymous No.19291812]

>>19291639
hes a heckin hack

[Anonymous No.19291824]

>>19291639
Is he a philosopher? To me he seems to be one of the great psychoanalysts. I have read his books cautiously, but he seems to be a very important theorist. The only problem I have with his books is that they are a bit over-the-top.

Is the professor a philosopher? I'll say it again, he seems to be a psychoanalyst. I have been very hesitant to say that, as I do not know enough to make an informed decision. In an interview he gave on Maddox, he was asked whether he was a philosopher. He said, "Why obviously, otherwise I would not be a psychoanalyst."

He says that his mother was a psychiatrist. This makes me wonder how much of his philosophy comes from his mother. he also says that he is a motivational speaker and a writer.

Imagine a quiet, rather introverted young man who ends up conceiving a 'revolutionary' theory. Think about the world of ideas you grew up in and became familiar with. If you were taught by Marxist professors at college, then not much of this will be new to you. I still think that there is value in reading theory and philosophy. The best philosophy books that I have encountered recommend them as one's first source of food for thought.

I feel that we need to replace the elite of think tanks and journals with popular intellectuals and professors – who can inspire – and whose writings and thoughts we can understand and relate to.

Today the thoughts of top intellectuals and professors seem very little and insignificant to me.

[Anonymous No.19291838]

>>19291639
>i think that the task of philosphy is not to provide answer
i think that anyone who listen to this cunt is a massive retard. you're losing your time, go outside and play or something.

[Anonymous No.19291844]

>>19291824
well what he was mostly thought was marxist titoism specifically in the south slavic context

[Anonymous No.19292431]

>>19291824
Nah. Having culture war peeps as philosophers isn't a very good idea.

[Anonymous No.19292441]

>>19291838
Do you know how to read more than a sentence at a time? Or are you just bitter at his popularity with actual intellectuals?

[Anonymous No.19292476]

>>19291710
>he’s considered the greatest philosopher alive today
I’m not sure about this

[Anonymous No.19292494]

>>19291710
>he's considered the greatest philosopher alive today
Retard

[Anonymous No.19292528]

>>19291824
You think like Rawl. You've great skill in writing and stretching out concepts. But the moment we figure out what you're getting at, it's full of shit. This is the worst take I've ever seen on this website.
Philosophy isn't meant to inspire. It's meant to question and comment on issues that aren't temporary culture war bs. They're not self help guides.
Zizek isn't part of any conspiratorial Marxist "elite". Your attempt at making him look biased is pretty shallow, it seems you have other issues with this man outside the fact you're too occupied to read any of his works.

[Anonymous No.19292927]

Cioran was a bit negative about him

[Anonymous No.19292966]

>>19292927
Thank you!

[Anonymous No.19293075]

>>19291710
>hegelian-lacanian-marxist
>requires alot of prior reading
lol, he's like a pop-philosopher that is above Jordan Peterson, nobody regards him as a serious thinker.

[Anonymous No.19293259]

>>19292927
He wasn't a "bit" negative about him but a lot.


Still young, we launch ourselves into philosophy, searching not so much for a vision as for a stimulant; we track down ideas, diagnose the delirium which has produced them, dreaming of imitating and exaggerating it. Adolescence delights in the juggling act of altitudes; what it loves in a thinker is the acrobat; in Nietzsche, we loved Zarathustra, his poses, his mystical clown-show, a real farmer’s market of the peaks…
His idolatry of power derives not so much from an evolutionist snobbery as from an inner tension he has projected outward, from an intoxication which interprets becoming and accepts it. A false image of life and of history was the result. But we had to pass through such things, through the philosophical orgy, the cult of vitality. Those who refused to do so will never know the relapse, the antipodes and the grimaces of this cult; they will remain closed off from the sources of disappointment.
We had believed with Nietzsche in the perpetuity of trances; thanks to the maturity of our cynicism, we have ventured further than he. The notion of the superman now strikes us as no more than a lucubration; it used to seem as precise as a given of experience. Thus the enchanter of our youth fades. But which one of him — if he was several — still remains? It is the expert in failures, the psychologist, an aggressive psychologist, not merely an observer like the moralists. He scans with the eye of an enemy and makes enemies for himself. But he draws such enemies out of himself, like the vices he denounces. Does he attack the weak? He is merely being introspective; and when he attacks decadence, he is describing his condition. All his hatreds bear indirectly on himself. His weaknesses he proclaims and erects into an ideal; if he execrates himself, Christianity or socialism suffers for it. His diagnosis of nihilism is irrefutable: because he himself is a nihilist, and because he avows it. A pamphleteer in love with his adversaries, he could not have endured himself had he not done battle with himself, against himself — had he not placed his miseries elsewhere, in the others: on them he took revenge for what he was. Having practiced psychology as a hero, he proposed to the enthusiasts of the Inextricable a diversity of stalemates.
We measure his fecundity by the possibilities he affords us of continually repudiating him without exhausting him. A nomad mind, he is good at varying his disequilibriums. In all matters, he has championed the pro and the con: this is the procedure of those who give themselves up to speculation for lack of being able to write tragedies — to disperse themselves in many destinies. Nonetheless, by exhibiting his hysterias, Nietzsche has spared us the shame of ours; his miseries were salutary for us. He has opened the age of “complexes.”

Emil Cioran, All Gall is Divided

[Anonymous No.19293276]

>>19293259
he doesn't even talk about any of his philosophy concretely here.

[Anonymous No.19293292]

>>19293259
"To a student who wanted to know where I stood with regard to the author of Zarathustra, I replied that I had long since stopped reading him. Why? “I find him too naïve….”
I hold his enthusiasms, his fervors against him. He demolished so many idols only to replace them with others: a false iconoclast, with adolescent aspects and a certain virginity, a certain innocence inherent in his solitary’s career. He observed men only from a distance. Had he come closer, he could have neither conceived nor promulgated the superman, that preposterous, laughable, even grotesque chimera, a crotchet which could occur only to a mind without time to age, to know the long serene disgust of detachment.
Marcus Aurelius Is much closer to me. Not a moment’s hesitation between the lyricism of frenzy and the prose of acceptance: I find more comfort, more hope even, in the weary emperor than in the thundering prophet."

Emil Cioran, The Trouble with Being Born

[Anonymous No.19293298]

>>19293292
cioran outing himself as a big pseud

[Anonymous No.19293330]

>>19293276
And that’s perfect. Because that’s how Nietzsche treated other thinkers. His critique of stoicism being the most paper thin retarded example, but also his treatment of Socrates in Idols.

[Anonymous No.19293340]

Von Hartmann on Nietzsche

Studies in Ethics

Nietzsche’s “new morality”


Nietzsche often complains that the Germans do not understand his books, and pardons them, because his books are too profound for the understanding of the living. Perhaps it is nevertheless not impossible for a unbiased third party, to understand Nietzsche better than it was for himself from his subjective standpoint. It is certainly not the purpose of Nietzsche’s peculiar way of writing to make it easy to penetrate into his thoughts. For it fundamentally violates all methodology and classification and is equally unsuitable for an architectural design or a coherent logical development. All his works are compilations of aphoristic splinters of thought, which are sometimes epigrammatically sharpened, and sometimes spun into digressions. One can start and end this lecture at any arbitrary page; as he seems to have done with the works of all previous philosophers (with the exception of Schopenhauer), and the purpose of his works is to have a nibble, and to impede a coherent reading. Without any plan he turns for the hundredth to thousandth time around – but we may not call this a flight of ideas, because there are so few underlying thoughts, that possess his complete imagination – in a circle, where he comes back, after all his detours, which is not the case with a flight of ideas. Because he acknowledges no truth, his discourse is not yes or no, but instead yes and no; there is hardly a sentence in his work, that does not assert the opposite of another.

To distill positive thoughts from this cloak of words would be a nearly hopeless labor, if these thoughts would be rich and many-sided. But the labor is alleviated because they are so poor and limited, that they can be led back to a few meagre thoughts, that are constantly varied in diverse new forms. The poverty of the content of his thought would immediately come to light in a systematic presentation and can conceal itself only behind a wit-pap, like a cat that turns around the hot pap and makes thereby dainty or grotesque jumps.

[Anonymous No.19293349]

>>19293340
One can distinguish in Nietzsche three periods. In the first period he places feelings at the top, in the second understanding, and in the third period the will. The first period has only significance as preliminary stage for his development course; the second may be attractive to the negative elements of a radical opposition, but has little objective value, because his critique flows everywhere from personal feelings and is consequently judgmental, whimsical, obstinate, unjustified, exaggerated, unsystematic and without principles. A philosophical meaning can at most be sought in his third period, of which we should consider “Thus spoke Zarathustra” and “Beyond Good and Evil” the main works. The former contains rhetorical, poetic and prophetic outpourings, mixed with paradoxical, bizarre and partially cynical additions; he wants to teach the reader about the overman [Übermensch], but succeeds in not much more, than giving account of Nietzsche’s desire for these overmen. At least this makes him attempt to provide this nebulous ideal clearer outlines. Consequently, a critique of what has been accomplished by Nietzsche must connect itself to these last works, and may only occasionally consult the early works for clarification.

The starting point of Nietzsche is and remains Schopenhauer, and is therefore without doubt to be designated as a Schopenhauerian in the wide sense of the word, the more so because, after having distanced himself from Schopenhauer in the second period, he came back to Schopenhauer again in the third period. Schopenhauer’s “will to live” specializes itself into a “will to power”. Life is more than self-preservation, it is striving after the increase of one’s own being through nutrition, growth and procreation, is essentially appropriation, overpowering, incorporation, imposition of one’s own forms for the spike of the individual’s feelings (“Beyond Good and Evil”, § 259). Modern biology and Spinoza reach him the hand, to affirm the essential conformity between will to live or existence and will to power. Yet the will to live remains the encompassing, more general concept, of which the will to power forms a subset. Nietzsche emphasizes this side of the life-will with regard to his ideal of the tyrant; but we will come to see, that the power-hungry tyrant remains but one side of the “overman”, that therefore here also the will to power does not cover will to live, but capsizes, just as with Schopenhauer, in a “will to know”.

[Anonymous No.19293353]

>>19293349
Just like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche does not escape from the indecision between subjective idealism and metaphysical will-realism. “It is we alone who have devised cause, sequence, reciprocity, relativity, constraint, number, law, freedom, motive, and purpose”; which all do not exist in the “in themselves” of the things (§ 21) though these concepts are systematically related amongst each other like the collective members of the fauna of a continent (§ 20). It is a deceptive principle in the being of the things (§ 34) and truth is not more valuable than semblance with its lighter and darker shades, tones or valeurs (§ 34). The world, which concerns us, can be a fiction without an author or carrier (§ 34), thinking can be without a thinking I or ego (§ 17). This sounds one moment like the absolute illusionism in the sense of esoteric Buddhism, another moment like Feuerbachian sensualism, who declares sense-images and the content of consciousness to be the only reality, and then like skeptical agnosticism in the sense of the most modern epistemology, which calls itself, which is ironic given its pure negativity, positivism. All these standpoints are unclearly jumbled together. But on the other hand he sticks to the lordly task and grandeur of philosophy regarding the founding of a metaphysics and criticizes the positivists, who spread the disbelief in this task amongst the public (whereby he oddly enough believes to target me as well, § 204). “The hypothesis must be hazarded, whether will does not operate on will wherever "effects" are recognized, will affects will”, so that all causality, also that of the mechanical forces, is will-causality (§ 36). But then the mechanical and material actions may not be deception, no illusion, not mere representation, but must as an art of lower urge have equal reality as our human desires and passions (§ 36). A reconciliation of these contradicting assertions has not been attempted by Nietzsche.

Like Schopenhauer, he knows reasonability only in the sense of an abstract, discursive reflection, and considers the intuitive, for example in the moral judgement, to be something irrational, because it is not abstract and discursive (§ 191). Just like Schopenhauer he appears to have had some bad experiences with women, condemns them to eternal slavery and silent bearing of the legitimate masculine tyranny, and recognizes in opposing sexes only eternally hostile tension (§ 238) but not the mutually harmonic extension to the complete ideal of humanity in marriage and family.

[Anonymous No.19293379]

>>19291710
>and he's considered the greatest philosopher alive today
the absolute state of philosophy.

also he's not a Marxist. Marxism is the negation of philosophy. Marx & Engels:
>Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as onanism and sexual love.

>>19291824
>Is he a philosopher? To me he seems to be one of the great psychoanalysts.
lol psychoanalysts are clinicians who actually work with patients. whereas Zizek hasn't even gone though a proper psychoanalysis as an analysand himself (which is a prerequisitexc for being an analyst) because he was sabotaging his analyst at every step. calling him a psychoanalyst at all is an insult to psychoanalysts even if the latter are already one of the most worthless people on earth. zizek only steals concepts from psychoanalysis and uses them as philosophical masturbation material

[Anonymous No.19293442]

>>19293379
>Marxism is the negation of philosophy.
This is a remarkably effective propaganda phrase for how empty it ends up being once you actually study Marx. You know no Marx scholars still think this, right? Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, all acknowledged the Hegelian core in Marx's thinking, acknowledged that it was a failure, and then could do little more than perfect it as a "tool." Lukacs and Lenin's entire justification for communism was a Hegelian philosophy of history, it was only "post-philosophical" in the sense that Hegel himself took himself to be post-philosophical. Gramsci acknowledged that ultimately the justification for being a Marxist and using the Marxist critical apparatus cannot come from within Marxism, i.e. has to result from personal ethical considerations, philosophy.

The only people after the 1930s who still hold to the "Marxism is the negation of philosophy" line are Communist party members taking their script directly from Moscow, more out of fashionable rebellion against Marxist humanism than actual commitment, and Althusser, which is saying the same thing. And none of them, not one, can answer to Lukacs' critique of bourgeois pseudo-Marxism.

If your interpretation of Marxism sublating abstract contemplation and praxis were right, then the proof of the pudding would have been in the eating by now. Instead the exact opposite happened. A peasant revolt in the last country Marx expected to produce communism was pulled off by Blanquist means and turned into a Hegelian religion. Every bonafide Marxist communist became bourgeois in WW1 or got shot in a fizzled revolution like Rosa.

Your own theorists disagree with you, and your pudding is shit.

[Anonymous No.19293457]

>>19293298
Cope

>Was it philosophy you were first interested in?
>I studied philosophy almost exclusively from the age of seventeen to twenty-one, and only the great philosophical systems. I disregarded most poetry and other literature. But I broke happily very soon with the university, which I consider a great intellectual misfortune, and even a danger.

>Were you reading Nietzsche then?
>When I was studying philosophy I wasn’t reading Nietzsche. I read “serious” philosophers. It’s when I finished studying it, at the point when I stopped believing in philosophy, that I began to read Nietzsche. Well, I realized that he wasn’t a philosopher, he was more: a temperament. So, I read him but never systematically. Now and then I’d read things by him, but really I don’t read him anymore. What I consider his most authentic work is his letters, because in them he’s truthful, while in his other work he’s prisoner to his vision. In his letters one sees that he’s just a poor guy, that he’s ill, exactly the opposite of everything he claimed.

>You write in The Trouble with Being Born that you stopped reading him because you found him “too naïve.”
>That’s a bit excessive, yes. It’s because that whole vision, of the will to power and all that, he imposed that grandiose vision on himself because he was a pitiful invalid. Its whole basis was false, nonexistent. His work is an unspeakable megalomania. When one reads the letters he wrote at the same time, one sees that he’s pathetic, it’s very touching, like a character out of Chekhov. I was attached to him in my youth, but not after. He’s a great writer, though, a great stylist.

>Yet critics often compare you to him, saying you follow in his tracks.
>No, that’s a mistake, I think. But it is obvious that his way of writing made an impression on me. He had things that other Germans didn’t, because he read a lot of the French writers, that’s very important.

>You’ve said that you also read a lot of poetry in your youth.
>That was after. It was, if you like, the disappointment of philosophy that made me turn to literature. To tell the truth, it’s from that point on I realized that Dostoyevsky was much more important than a great philosopher. And that the great poetry was something extraordinary.

[Anonymous No.19293785]

>>19293292
>with adolescent aspects and a certain virginity, a certain innocence
"have sex incel"

[Anonymous No.19293970]

>>19291844
slovenia is at the very north of yugoslavia

[Anonymous No.19293992]

>>19293785
Kek

[Anonymous No.19294413]

>>19291710
>he's considered the greatest philosopher alive today

[Anonymous No.19294426]

He is very good at waffling on and on without actually saying anything profound. As others have pointed out, he is the jbp of the left, except at least Peterson has/tries to have meaning in his material, and I don't know if he is even a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.19294455]

>>19293442
But it wasn't real Marxism.
Unironically.

[Anonymous No.19294495]

>>19294455
marx was a stupid jew working for rabbis, who cares what that plebian hack "thinks"

[Anonymous No.19294552]

>>19294495
Not reading because it's light text over light face with a shit font.
Actually post something readable, thank you.

Provide a citation as well, thanks.

[Anonymous No.19294630]

>>19294552
it isn't hard to read at all, your mental disability makes things hard for you though. it is from a private letter of his published in a french literature journal.

[Anonymous No.19294710]

>>19292927
Damn, I felt the same exact way but still want to disagree.

[Anonymous No.19294769]

>>19292927
>muh psychoanalysis instead of refuting the ideas
gay

[Anonymous No.19294810]

>>19293442
>You know no Marx scholars still think this, right?
the fuck is a Marx scholar? you mean bourgeois academics? why should I care?

>Lenin's entire justification for communism was a Hegelian philosophy of history
no, he rejected Hegelian philosophy along with Marx. this is Marx:
>Hegel accordingly conceived the illusory idea that the real world is the result of thinking which causes its own synthesis, its own deepening and its own movement; whereas the method of advancing from the abstract to the concrete is simply the way in which thinking assimilates the concrete and reproduces it as a concrete mental category. This is, however, by no means the process of evolution of the concrete world itself.
communism is not based on or justified by this illusory idea. it's not based on or justified by a philosophy that doesn't correspond to the process of the evolution of the concrete world. in fact, communism is not based on or justified by ANY philosophy whatsoever. Engels:
>Herr Heinzen imagines communism is a certain doctrine which proceeds from a definite theoretical principle as its core and draws further conclusions from that. Herr Heinzen is very much mistaken. Communism is not a doctrine but a movement it proceeds not from principles but from facts. The Communists do not base themselves on this or that philosophy as their point of departure but on the whole course of previous history and specifically its actual results in the civilised countries at the present time.
>Gramsci acknowledged
Gramsci was a liberal cretin who was clearly at odds with Marx as even you yourself show
>The only people after the 1930s who still hold to the "Marxism is the negation of philosophy" line are Communist party members taking their script directly from Moscow
Althusser and Gramsci were Stalinists. Gramsci helped Stalin overtake the Italian party. Althusser believed USSR was socialist. I say it was capitalist. which one of us talks according to Moscow's script?
>If your interpretation of Marxism sublating abstract contemplation and praxis were right, then the proof of the pudding would have been in the eating by now. Instead the exact opposite happened. A peasant revolt in the last country Marx expected to produce communism was pulled off by Blanquist means and turned into a Hegelian religion.
holy jesus, stop writing like complete pseud. if you're older than 18 and you still write like this you should consider desublating yourself off a cliff. and if you're not then you should fuck off because this website is for adults only.
>Your own theorists disagree with you
I already gave 3 quotes from Marx and Engels but I can keep going if you want.

[Anonymous No.19294823]

>>19294810
based cuck annihilator

[Anonymous No.19295049]

>>19291710
>he's considered the greatest philosopher alive today.
REtard that's Jordan Peterson.

[Anonymous No.19295083]

Marxism died the moment Lenin implemented the NEP. Anyone after that is just a grifter.