/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19473639]

> Philosophy is just third rate poetry and ramblings. Doesn't even bother making a coherent system.
> Filtered by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle—the bread and butter of all ensuing Western philosophy.
> Philosophically mogged by Schopenhauer, artistically mogged by Wagner.
> Christianity is le cringe, but Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism are le based!
> Hated women and was filled with incel seethe.
> His entire life was dominated by his female relations like his mother and sister.
> Simped for Salomé, was friend-zoned twice.
> Had to pay a prostitute to have sex.
> Nooooooooo!!! nooooo!!! Not the horsey!!!!!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh I'm going insane!!!
> Syphilis made him insane and he died lol.
This guy didn't even try to embody his "super-duper based Chad man"™ at all did he?

[Anonymous No.19473663]

>a coherent system
Modernity has moved on from the delusional Enlightenment idea that this can ever be produced.

[Anonymous No.19473678]

>>19473639
>Philosophy is just third rate poetry and ramblings
This is the only good thing you wrote. Philosophers are a pathetic gaggle of failed artists and scientists. If you cannot do, teach, is exemplified perfectly in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19473685]

>>19473639
Did you even read him lmao, where does he simp for Judaism? And show me where he says that Islam is based as well. Also saged

[Anonymous No.19473709]

>>19473685
Yeah the image I got from reading him is that he doesn't really mention other regions than Christianity because those other religions weren't relevant in Germany at the time.

[Anonymous No.19473715]

>>19473639
He eliminated cartesianism and the entire tradition of german idealism in a single sentence of six words. Retards confuse the potent brevity of such genius with ramblings, because it is literally unfathomable to them that such a severe refutation should not fill an entire oeuvre of dozens of tomes. Not kidding. You failed to identify this because you are stupid. No, I am not going to tell you what the sentence is, and no, your foreseeable attempts to call it a bluff do not matter to me, you have already shown yourself an unworthy interlocutor. Cope, seethe, dilate, and then go read Matthew 7:6

>>19473678
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.19473732]

>>19473663
This. Philosophy is now concerned with processes (as is science with its modern theories of evolution and thermodynamics).

[Anonymous No.19473740]

>>19473639
>This guy didn't even try to embody his "super-duper based Chad man"™ at all did he?
He did, he had bad health his whole life, so every day was for him a struggle

[Anonymous No.19473742]

>>19473678
OP means Neechay's philosophy, not Phil in general

[Anonymous No.19473760]

>>19473742
It's pronounced "NEET-Chuh" actually.

[Anonymous No.19473835]

>>19473663
nietzsche cant be made sense of without fitting him into a coherent system

[Anonymous No.19473846]

>>19473835
Nietzsche can't be fit into any system other than that of relativity

[Anonymous No.19473851]

>>19473639
>filtered by socrates
>literally the only one that understood what socrates's death meant

>haha guys look this major person in philosophy is irrevelant

go back to your country you feral fucking nigger

[Anonymous No.19473852]

>>19473639
Just wanted to say, I criticized someone for the poetry thing, but I wouldn't stoop to wojak posting.

[Anonymous No.19473872]

>>19473851
>literally the only one that understood what socrates's death meant
Retarded take unless you literally are plato/Socrates. Everyone who thinks they know what Socratese death means by definition "Understood" what it means in their own opinion. And someone who is a follower of x person would think that x person was the only one that understood (besides their euphoric self, of course, and those that agree with them.)

[Anonymous No.19473925]

If nietzsche lived in our times he would be taking HRT

[Anonymous No.19473938]

He induced his own mental breakdown and died, and was also a virgin who couldn't get pussy despite being from a very rich family.
His life was whack and his life advice is also whack.
Don't talk to me about this man ever again, I don't care about whatever incel shit he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.19473941]

>>19473872
Not who you replied to, but Plato can't be trusted on the matter because it's obvious he was using the event / Socrates as a vehicle for his own political agenda. Nietzsche's understanding, out of everyone's, seems the closest to that of the Greeks who actually sentenced Socrates to death.

[Anonymous No.19473987]

>>19473851
> Guys! If someone is famous that means they must be profound!1!!1!
>>>/r/eddit.com

[Anonymous No.19474074]

>>19473639
>Has a simple and comprehensive system that filters anybody with an iq below 90
>Destroys Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and all of their pseud followers with one aphorism
>still unmogged by any past or present philosopher
>btfos christcucks which keep eternally seething
>rarely ever even mentions women, which is why they and their simps keep seething
>fucks around non stop to the point of getting stds
>has more compassion towards animals than subhumans
>dies and reaches the goal of his life which was to change the entire history of philophical thought in the world
only christcucks and trannies hate him
which one are you?

[Anonymous No.19474109]

>>19474074
This

[Anonymous No.19474132]

>>19473941
>Not who you replied to, but Plato can't be trusted on the matter because it's obvious he was using the event / Socrates as a vehicle for his own political agenda.
I understand this, and the trial of Socrates itself might be in part a platonic invention. The actual death of Socrates may not be as important as Plato's telling of it. Thus why I said plato/Socrates, as where Socrates ends and Plato begins is not necessarily an easy distinction to come across, or even one that is all that helpful. As socretese the figure may be more important that socretes the person. The guy I responded to even said
>what socrates's death MEANT
rather than
>what socrates's death WAS
As in meaning or its narritive function.

[Anonymous No.19474251]

>>19474074
Anon is right

[Anonymous No.19474271]

>>19474074
How was the world changed by him? What part of his thought is so revolutionary?

[Anonymous No.19474290]

>>19474271
big mustache and made a few gestlat words that stuck (basicly just refurbishing others ideas into a new package, not a bad thing.)

[Anonymous No.19474305]

>>19474271
Philosophy, psychology, politics, and art departments have all been influenced by him

[Anonymous No.19474309]

>>19474271
>What part of his thought is so revolutionary?
In the context of Western culture, everything. He was the first philosopher since adoption of Christianity who managed to overcome the artificiality of man's emancipation from the surrounding and thus influenced most of philosophers who followed after him, from Evola to Derrida. He also clearly stated that "the good" is indistinguishable from the "the evil" - not in a manner of grey relativity, but rather in the same way Taoists proclaim the lack of moral dualism in Tao. And he was largely responsible for defining Modernist aesthetic too, which had a tremendous impact on the contemporary world.

[Anonymous No.19474331]

>>19474271
every single philosopher and thinker after him was inspired by him
>What part of his thought is so revolutionary?
read him and find out
but to put it in a way low iq people would understand
>deconstructs morality as a system of control both from those at the top and those at the bottom
>shows how metaphysics has always been merely a coping mechanism for biologically inferior types who deep down wanted to kill themselves
>retroactivelly refutes sjw's and postmodernists
>predicts the rise of the sòyman (last man)
>

[Anonymous No.19474333]

>>19474309
>In the context of Western culture, everything. He was the first philosopher since adoption of Christianity who managed to overcome the artificiality of man's emancipation from the surrounding.
Not true at all.
>He also clearly stated that "the good" is indistinguishable from the "the evil"
Not a new idea in the least
>largely responsible for defining Modernist aesthetic too
this one, is true however. I agree he very much did contribute to the tonal and aesthetic drifts. I think his primary contribution was in consolidation rather than a revolutionary new premise.

[Anonymous No.19474363]

>>19474333
>I think his primary contribution was in consolidation rather than a revolutionary new premise.
I think so too, though from my perspective most of ideas Nietzsche expressed had been lost to Western mind since about late Antiquity. Perhaps some of them can be discerned in the age of Romanticism but it was Nietzsche who put an emphasis on them. Guess that can be called "revolutionary" in a sense.

[Anonymous No.19474367]

I would argue that Nietzsche was bad because he ended the need for interesting philosophy to even be conducted. He just won philosophy and said everything. His was the last word.
In the post-Nietzsche vacuum where philosophy used to be, SJW linguists and charlatans came in and started talking about stupid shit.

[Anonymous No.19474371]

>>19474309
>He also clearly stated that "the good" is indistinguishable from the "the evil"
no no no anon, please don't talk bullshit
he gives a clear definition of what is good and what is evil in The Antichrist, i think it's either the second or third aphorism of the book.
Everything that comes from power and increases power is good, everything that comes from weakness is evil.

[Anonymous No.19474381]

>>19473715
dilate

[Anonymous No.19474406]

>>19473639
>> Philosophy is just third rate poetry and ramblings. Doesn't even bother making a coherent system.
And that's a good thing.
>> Christianity is le cringe, but Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism are le based!
This is objectively true, and literally cannot be argued against.

[Anonymous No.19474414]

To me he is the only philosopher who managed to see beyond liberalism and Marxism, beyond religion and morality, beyond all the unnecessary limitations which man placed upon himself to be "good" and "moral" - and that is why he is so dangerous to all the conservatives and liberals, who are still reeling from his impact on Western culture.
To me, the most important thing about Nietzsche is that he is the last Western philosopher who tried to break free of the Christian moral, which he blamed for all the problems of Western culture. He was the first who tried to replace the Christian morality with something else - and that is important, because now we can look at what he proposed and see what actually worked well and what didn't.

[Anonymous No.19474421]

>>19474371
"Will to power" isn't itself an ethical imperative, Nietzsche just believes it to be the primary nature of human behaviour. Conceptually it isn't too far off from Freudian libido or Christian metaphysical pursuit of getting closer to God. I think his stance on ethics was expressed at its clearest in "Beyond Good and Evil", where he comes to a conclusion that any sort of moral dualism is meaningless. He also subtly pointed that out when he was talking about the meaning of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" 's title.

[Anonymous No.19474436]

I’m in love with Friedrich Nietzche. I am a heterosexual man but I am in love with Nietzche. I have never felt this way about any living being not even my mother or partner. Books or songs for this feeling.

[Anonymous No.19474437]

>>19474406
>>> Christianity is le cringe, but Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism are le based!
>This is objectively true, and literally cannot be argued against.
he doesn't even say that
he sees hinduism as more aristocratic due to the cast system
buddism as life denying but at least more honest than christianity
islam and judaism (at least the old testament version of yahve) as more life affirming
but all of them in general absolutely inferior to classic mythology

[Anonymous No.19474440]

>>19473639
everything you said is right, albeit fairly exaggerated. this board just can’t help sucking nietzsche’s dick every chance it gets.

[Anonymous No.19474443]

>>19474421
>"Will to power" isn't itself an ethical imperative
lmao, no
it's a metaphysical interpretation of reality, will to power is the core essence of each force of nature, evolution and human psychology
tis not something that you need to conform to but rather the real reason behind all of your actions and thoughts

[Anonymous No.19474451]

>>19474436
my diary desu

[Anonymous No.19474456]

>>19474436
After I heard about the Turin horse situation, I stood outside looking at photos of Nietzche, smoking cigarettes, and listening to music asking “Who are you Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche?”

[Anonymous No.19474468]

>>19473639
In origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebs. We know, we can still see for ourselves, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. [“monster in face, monster in soul”] But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would not be contradicted by the famous judgment of the physiognomist which sounded so offensive to the friends of Socrates. A foreigner who knew about faces once passed through Athens and told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum -- that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!"

From Twilight of the Idols

To Nietzsche ugly people are monsters with bad vices and appetites. Seems like a poor criticism.

[Anonymous No.19474469]

>>19473685
4chan is now nu-/pol/. Anything a particular anon doesn't like is inherently jewish

[Anonymous No.19474474]

>>19473685
He simps for jews in Human all too Human

[Anonymous No.19474483]

>>19474421
>"Beyond Good and Evil", where he comes to a conclusion that any sort of moral dualism is meaningless
That's what the title might make you think, but the never reaches such conclusions if you actually read the book.

[Anonymous No.19474498]

>>19473685
while on the one hand he shits on kikes for being the most subtle subverstors of aristocratic values in gme he also views them as ultimately useful for the european breeding stock in other works and also shits on antisemites as being merely salty poorfags

[Anonymous No.19474507]

>>19474443
Yeah exactly, and this is why it isn't ethical. If you project it onto the material layer of reality it becomes identical to the life itself, and interpreting life as a whole as "good" makes no sense because that would be all-encompassing. You can only do so much as oppose it to self-destructive tendencies, but these on the other hand correspond to death which is simply absence of life rather than its immanent antipode.

[Anonymous No.19474521]

>>19474468
Neet-Chan was the first shitposter, he is basically using the sòybòy meme against socrates.
That being said it's reasonable to assume that ugly people would be salty and that this would inform their world view and take on morality.

[Anonymous No.19474533]

>>19474271
(You)

[Anonymous No.19474540]

>>19474521
Like being reasonable?

[Anonymous No.19474549]

>>19474540
Like succumbing to the vile cult of rationality, yes.

[Anonymous No.19474551]

>>19474363
>had been lost to Western mind since about late Antiquity
You see, I would actually really disagree. seeing how the antiquity classics were consistently popular in the west since forever, of course mixed with a christian context, but even the scholasticists echo many neitzchean concepts. And doubly so even from a basic distancing from orthodox christian religiosity and conception in many subgroups in the enlightenment of the 1700s into the 1800s.

[Anonymous No.19474552]

>>19474507
>and interpreting life as a whole as "good" makes no sense because that would be all-encompassing
It's not that will to power itself is good, but those who have power are the good and the weak are evil. The powerful create structures that increase their power, that accumulate power, while the weak can only try to subvert and damage centers of power.

[Anonymous No.19474562]

>>19474436
Its called platonic love.
>>19474456
This however, is full on homosexual love.
>>19474469
Would you consider the post you are responding to inherently jewish as well?

[Anonymous No.19474566]

>>19474540
>Like being reasonable?
No, like trying to manipulate and fuck over those who are superior to them. You can see the same tendencies that Socrates had among trannies and leftists in general.

[Anonymous No.19474575]

>>19474562
>Its called platonic love.
but i want to cuddle with him

[Anonymous No.19474581]

>>19474551
cont.
I dont mean that Nietzche wasnt special in this regard, just that he was an apotheosis of an already existing intellectual trend.

[Anonymous No.19474587]

>>19474549
Lel

[Anonymous No.19474597]

>>19474575
cuddling isnt sexual.
Most people did it before particular individualization became more of a thing in the west. For example, sharing beds with random travelers where common in taverns until the mid 19th century.

[Anonymous No.19474599]

>>19474566
Not very superior if you can be outsmarted by your pleb inferior and form the basis for Western Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19474618]

>>19474562
Both >>19474456 and >>19474436
were me. I must be pansexual. I literally feel this way. Kill myself.

[Anonymous No.19474625]

>>19473639
Nietzschesisters...I don't feel so good!

[Anonymous No.19474683]

>>19474599
Superiority from a biological health perspective doesn't imply necessarily intellectual Superiority.
You are already displaying slave values.

[Anonymous No.19474720]

>>19474683
So a gorilla is superior to a human because it's stronger?

[Anonymous No.19475298]

>>19473639
This. His fans only like him because he gave them an excuse not to think. This is why you often hear them say "Nietzsche destroyed every philosopher who came before him!" or something similar. In their minds, it's okay to ignore real philosophy now because mustache man said it's all gay anyway.
His writings are still fascinating from a psychological perspective if you enjoy analyzing the minds of strange people but anybody who takes them seriously is just a midwit seeking to justify their midwitism.

[Anonymous No.19475323]

>>19474552
>weak are evil
wrong. read the genealogy of morals ''good and bad vs. good and evil''

>while the weak can only try to subvert and damage centers of power.
nietzsche literally says that destruction is also part of the creative process.

[Anonymous No.19475515]

Hope this dude does Neetchuh at some point. His video on Diogenes was excellent. It's like you're listening to someone who knew the guy, very natural and honest.
https://youtu.be/kmYjhIVR9MA

[Anonymous No.19475553]

>>19473685
read The Antichrist idiot, he says Islam is superior to Christianity and Europe should have become Muslim

[Anonymous No.19476100]

>>19474443
You just restated what the guy you replied to said.

[Anonymous No.19476137]

>>19473639
Cioran destroyed this pathetic invalid


>Were you reading Nietzsche then?

>CIORAN: 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.”

>CIORAN: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.

[Anonymous No.19476148]

How come all of these Philosophers who talked about becoming greater than yourself and what not are all simps and faggots who pay for whores? Schopenhauer for example was completely ruined for me after I learned that he didn't abide by any of the virtues or principles he preached. Dude literally payed whores and simped for a girl with 3 other boyfriends. The biggest blackpill for philosophers is seeing how they lived.

[Anonymous No.19476164]

>>19476148
Philipp Mainländer, Carlo Michelstaedter, Albert Caraco, Cioran and Zapffe practiced what they preached.

[Anonymous No.19476218]

>>19476164
>Mainländer
By killing himself?

[Anonymous No.19476223]

>>19476218
Yes

[Anonymous No.19476232]

>>19476218
>>19476223
Not only that but he preached virtues of compassion, vegetarianism and serving one's motherland. So he served in military and was a compassionate vegetarian. He also said that virginity is sacred so he took a vow on the death his mother to never touch another woman so he died a virgin.

[Anonymous No.19476246]

>>19476164
Mainlander is a wholly different case, don't put him among these retarded losers. but holy shit how much of a retard you have to be to kill yourself in the name of the most retarded, sensitive philosophies there is? this is much less admirable than it is laughable.

[Anonymous No.19476250]

>>19476246
>>19476164
>Mainlander
fuck, not mainlander, but michelstaedter.

mainlander was one of the most retarded

[Anonymous No.19476258]

>>19476246
We're talking about noble philosophers who practiced what they preached so your retarded opinion doesn't matter.

>>19476250
>mainlander was one of the most retarded
Why?

[Anonymous No.19476293]

>>19476258
>noble philosophers who practiced retarded philosophies
i guess you'd consider it noble if a guy wrote that eating shit was nice and actually ate it right?

[Anonymous No.19476303]

>>19476293
>A Nietzschean is moralfagging to justify his bullshit
Le irony

[Anonymous No.19476306]

>>19474436
>Books or songs for this feeling.
Phaedrus

[Anonymous No.19476313]

Nietzsche, as he claims, is most concerned with physiology. He marks a return to the body in philosophy, much like Spinoza did in his ethics but without attempting any kind of doomed to fail rational system. What he does best, in my opinion, is hint at things. He's constantly talking about diet, climate, activity, illness, etc and it's consequences or relations to consciousness. From this he gains a lot of psychological insights. The more you read posterior writers, the more you see his influence.

[Anonymous No.19476338]

>>19476303
what does it have to do with moralfag, retard? what is bad is not evil, it is just base, inferior

[Anonymous No.19476368]

>>19476338
I don't give a shit about your categories of inferiority or superiority lmao. I think if a philosopher doesn't commit to his philosophy then it is shit.