[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 222 KB, 1000x1000, DD41024F-0633-49BA-BC17-51F38D04AEE4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19649407 No.19649407 [Reply] [Original]

The weak and ill-constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so.

>> No.19649421

>>19649407
He's saying philanthropy only happens because we won't let nature naturally select people, or that our message should be the weak will perish in this world?

>> No.19649431

>>19649421
The weak and ill-constituted shall perish

>> No.19649450

>>19649407
Matthew 7:19

>> No.19649508

>>19649407
>The weak and ill-constituted shall perish
>goes insane

What did he mean by this?

>> No.19649557
File: 125 KB, 634x423, article-2168197-13E823D3000005DC-735.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19649557

>What is more harmful than any vice?—Active sympathy for the ill-constituted and weak—Christianity.
Very controversia-

>> No.19649664

>>19649407
>The weak and ill-constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so.
>was chronically weak and ill-constituted
the eternal suicidal bottom

>> No.19650059

>The weak and ill-constituted shall perish!
>"so what if Neetzsche became syphilitic living on government handouts and couldn't take care of himself?"

>> No.19650066

>>19650059
>living on government handouts
You're getting your egoists mixed up.

>> No.19650074
File: 125 KB, 634x659, NEETzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19650074

Couldn't hack the army over a minor injury.
Couldn't keep his friends.
Gets laughed at by Wagner over a cringe composition he wrote to Wagner's wife.
Goes mentally insane and can't take care of himself.
Needs government assistance to survive.
This is the prophet of the new age. All Nietzscheans can do is cope over the fact they worship a perpetual weakling who's claim to fame is being misinterpreted by liberal professors and being the first stop for illiterate pseuds to feel enlightened.

>> No.19650080

>>19649407
Starting with himself I assume?

>> No.19650084

>>19650074
He's probably the most influential philosopher since the Greeks. It's not the critic who matters, ultimately.

>> No.19650090

>>19649407
His sister couldn't live up to it

>> No.19650092

>criticizes religions and philosophies for "life-denial"
>makes up an outright cope of "eternal recurrence"

>> No.19650152

>>19649407
This is actually a very Christian message. The God-deniers and decadents shall not enter into the Kingdom of God, and you cannot help those who do not want to be helped.

>> No.19650163

>>19650084
John Stuart Mill is highly influential, too, and I still think he's a tard.
Are you a student of philosophy? It's common among the sophomoric student to believe this.
Nietzsche really isn't that influential in the way Hegel or Kant were. And even though he's admired by many philosophers after his time, almost none of them are consistent with or in continuation of Nietzsche's philosophy. He has become, in this sense, a literary figure. If you've actually read his books and know about 20th and 21st century philosophy, it's abundantly clear he's an island, despite the homage many pay to him. Yes, he is respected, but in college class rooms and later philosophers, he is consistently misinterpreted to fit their own ideas. His antecedents are mostly scholars of Nietzsche, who produce no original philosophy of their own.
Heidegger goes through great lengths in studying Nietzsche to merely contradict him and work around him. To which, he merely reads his own ideas into his study of Nietzsche (similar to his treatment of Aristotle).
This is demonstrated in these quotes:
>Nietzsche's philosophy is the end of metaphysics, inasmuch as it reverts to the very commencement of Greek thought, taking up such thought in a way that is peculiar to Nietzsche's philosophy alone.
This is, I think, an ultimately self-defeating idea on Heidegger's part and in reference to the further history of western philosophy, untrue.
>Nietzsche once wrote, at the time when the thought of return first loomed on his horizon, during the years 1881-82 (XII, 66, number 124): "Let us imprint the emblem of eternity on our life!" The phrase means: let us introduce an eternalization to ourselves as beings, and hence to beings as a whole; let us introduce the transfiguration of what becomes as something that becomes being; and let us do this in such a way that the eternalization arises from being itself, originating for being, standing in being.
And in this case, you can see Heidegger reading in alien concepts to Nietzsche. Perhaps he can make an argument that such is ultimately true of Nietzsche, but it is not a continuation nor exegesis of him.
Spengler claims to be inspired by Nietzsche, yet it's really only his first book, the Birth of Tragedy, that plays into Spengler at all, and he still goes to great lengths to contradict Nietzsche.
In terms of the analytic school, almost no analytic I've read has ever references him. And I think it's obviously because he's mostly a literary figure.

>> No.19650165

>>19650084
Not the philosophers either, apparently.

>> No.19650251

>>19650074
You forgot told people in his mental institution that he was brought there by "my wife, Cosima Wagner"

>> No.19650261

>>19650163
>His antecedents are mostly scholars of Nietzsche, who produce no original philosophy of their own.
Read Baudrillard.

>> No.19650329

>>19650163
The entire existence of the analytic school is essentially a reaction to Schop, Neech, and Hegel, so of course they're not going to use him. Your sense of the history of philosophy is confused.

>> No.19650336

>>19650074
He also broke his friendship with Wagner because he told Nietzsche's doctor that his coming addiction might the cause for his poor health.

>> No.19650349

>>19650336
desu even ignoring that, the way that friendship went makes sense to me, considering Wagner's views and the kind of art he would go on to make.

>> No.19650409

Does anyone ever think how strange it is that these eccentric people with terrible personalities, who were also perennially broke, addicted, and whatnot, could maintain friendships with a number of other people, who were often in good standing; while today if you're ever so slightly outside of the norm you are labeled an autistic creep and you're doomed to be completely alone for the rest of your days? Like the "chud" type gets shit on on the basis of physiognomy for being ugly and wearing thin-framed glasses, oh my God, how outrageous, oh the humanity! Oh WOW dude you wear THOSE sneakers? What are you, some kind of LOSER?!!!11!!1 Is the absurd post-WW2 stress on conformity a byproduct of the feminization of society?
Don't try to act cute and quote me with an image of a chud with a transparent balloon pointing at the text attached. I know there's a resident hormonster who'll do that.

>> No.19650435

>>19650409
Nietzsche had immense social standing which coincided with the fact that a man as great as Wagner even gave him the light of day: he was appointed full professor of philology at Basel aged 26 and was a well-respected scholar before his publication of the Birth of Tragedy, which, rightly tarnished his reputation. He lost many of his friends the moment he starting to become a chud. Don't make him convince you that he was the one who broke off his friendship with Wagner. It was the other way round. Wagner too was a leech and perpetually broke and infinite debt and he got exiled for it. People still loved him though, bc unlike all those other chuds, he actually had something to offer. Even before his exile, he had written Rienzi, Tannhauser, and Lohengrin, which on their own would have cemented his standing as a truly great composer.
If you have something to offer, people will respect you regardless of what you're like or what you look like. Just look at Lewis Capaldi

>> No.19650451

>>19650435
>Don't make him convince you that he was the one who broke off his friendship with Wagner. It was the other way round. Wagner too was a leech and perpetually broke and infinite debt and he got exiled for it.
What are you talking about that was like two decades before he met Nietzsche, and when he did he was being funded indefinitely by Ludwig. The break was entirely Nietzsche's decision.

>> No.19650467

>>19650435
>t., hasn't read Nietzsche's pre-tragedy works

>> No.19650470

>>19650435
I was not talking about qualifications, though. I was talking about character. Maybe not Nietzsche but there are many examples in the past few centuries of people who had a contentious or unpleasant character or were simply difficult to work with, yet achieved very much and were held in high esteem by people, and also had a social circle of friends. Even more so further back in time, where you had legitimate misanthropes win their place in the world by merit alone. Academia today is mostly made of social climbers with little to offer. Nietzsche had to literally go insane to lose his circle. Tolstoy was extremely eccentric, he was excommunicated, he had a gigantic ego and would shit on just about everyone, yet he had a number of sincere friends, whether from the elites or not. I know what Tolstoy represented, but today, realistically, someone so divorced from the norms would be alone on the basic of nonconformity alone. Or better, you can be anti conformist but only in the sanctioned fashion, like sexuality, or some other thing. Character-wise you need to be a social butterfly in just about the same way as everyone else. Everyone today talks the same. Everyone uses the same language, has the same amount of humor, talks about the same subjects in the same way. Even just not having the same degree of humor makes you weird. You had a very high number of people in the past who were completely humorless, as other people around them pointed out, and yet they managed to be social.
I'm naming famous people but it's not necessary; I can look at my own family and the more elderly people in it have a much more stronger personality and much stronger quirks, many of them retained from their youth, and yet they had friends and lived a social life. Today they'd have to "smooth down" all of these traits to participate.

>> No.19650486

>>19650470
Nick Land was only kicked out because he was handing drugs to his students though.

>> No.19650490

>>19649508
He means that the weak and ill-constituted shall perish.

>> No.19650508

>>19650451
I apologise. The Wagner was a leech sentence and the Nietzsche-Wagner sentence are unrelated.
And it wasn't Nietzsche's decision. Wagner was already tiring of Nietzsche by the time of the break, especially since Nietzsche kept distracting him with petty compositions while he was building Bayreuth and working on his great musikdramas.
>>19650470
I think you're talking from a perspective that distinctly characterises your environment. Great fashion designers are very eccentric and obnoxious and still have a wide circle of friends who love them, not so much for their personality but what being associated with such a person brings. Dustin Yellin is an extremely eccentric character who I would probably never want to meet myself and his entire appeal lies in his unusual vision and mannerisms. In my own personal life I know many egoistic, offensive, ugly, unconscientious, insecure bastards of moderate intellect but a large personality who still manage to get people to gravitate towards them even though on the face of it, they have little to offer but are charismatic in their own way. They repel as many people as they attract. This was true in the 19th century and it is true today. It's not just what you look like, how you behave or what you say. It's how you present yourself, the tone and cadence of your voice and your facial expressions etc.

>> No.19650518

>>19650470
Isn't this just a US thing? The obvious answer is that both white and black Americans are savages.

>> No.19650539

>>19650518
All the West is Americanized. But perhaps >>19650508 is right and I've just become extremely out of touch.

>> No.19650725

Anyway it's just sad this board is filled with nitwit tourists who think their drive-by enlightenment puts them above one of the most lucid lifeforms ever born on this planet.

>> No.19650936

>>19650508
>Wagner was already tiring of Nietzsche by the time of the break,
He was very busy with the festival, he wasn't tiring of him at all. But Nietzsche had already started visiting less, replying to less letters, retracting previous dedications, etc. Which the Wagners felt insulted by. Wagner even told Elisabeth that he had been very lonely since Nietzsche left.

>> No.19650944

>>19650936
>ywn have a bemustached philosopher fren who replies to your emails
I wasn't ready for this feel

>> No.19650977

>>19650152
Kinda goes to show that all his anti-christian sophistry is really just as much a dogma as that which he rails against.

>> No.19651203

>>19649407
wtf bros i thought nietzsche was life affirming, if he is saying that by killing our inferiors we would be doing them a favour isn't that kind of life denying? we would literally be denying them life.

>> No.19651282

>>19651203
Life denying in the sense that in the act of philanthropy (the conventional philanthropy, not the Nietzschean one), one need to keep some sense of pretension. Pretension that all human beings are equal. Yes, I think this is the most accurate example.

>> No.19651317

>>19651282
Everyone knows that people aren't equal in their conditions. This isn't some kind of revolutionary fact. But all people participate equally in their common human nature, in their common moral life. That is the brotherhood of man.
It is not "rational" to sympathize with the deer instead of the wolf. But that we sympathize with the deer is the proof that we are human.

>> No.19651549

>>19650074
And despite all that, he’s the most influential single philosopher outside Aristotle and Plato

>> No.19651573
File: 6 KB, 235x215, 1619377404677.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19651573

>>19650470
>the more elderly people in it have a much more stronger personality and much stronger quirks, many of them retained from their youth, and yet they had friends and lived a social life. Today they'd have to "smooth down" all of these traits to participate
[last man intensifies]

>> No.19651581

>>19649407
>If there were no curiosity, little would be done for the good of one’s neighbor. But, under the name of Duty or Sympathy, Curiosity creeps into the house of the unfortunate and needy.–Perhaps even in the much celebrated maternal love is to be found a bit of Curiosity.

>> No.19651587

>>19651317
>that we sympathize with the deer is the proof that we are human.
Uh, it's proof you are sentimental. You could just as well sympathize with the wolf and be rational. Or you could overcome that entirely:
>Tyger Tyger burning bright,
>In the forests of the night:
>What immortal hand or eye,
>Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

>> No.19651602

>>19651587
My point is that we sympathize with the prey, not the predator. It's what makes us human.

>> No.19651616

>>19651573
are you telling me I'm the Last Man for assuming that they'd never make it in a modern society, or is that simply a comment on that truth?

>> No.19651622

>>19651587
>thy fearful symmetreye

>> No.19651631

>>19651616
If people can barely express themselves, or evaluate, anymore outside of a flatline of herd behavior then Nietzsche was right

>> No.19651646

>>19651602
Why is it "human" to side with prey animals? There's no animal we won't kill no habitat we won't demolish if we want it enough. We remove both deer and wolves from our territory.

>> No.19651725

>>19651646
Possibly the same reason why the greatest movement in human civilization is built upon a figure who is metaphorically likened to a lamb, possibly the meekest animal there is.

>> No.19651736

>>19651622
>this anonapu's little brain has a seizure when the dictionary transitions through unite to untie.

>> No.19651737

>>19651725
>slave morality is the greatest movement in human civilization
until Napoleon, sure

>> No.19651905

>>19649508
he means we need to liberate gays and women from capitalism

>> No.19652754

>>19650725
This comment seems directed at a shitposter like me, so for fun I will address it
nietzsche's ideas are both hardly unique and presented in a manner similar to that of a cult leader or a con man. He certainly has a cult following.
I've read plenty of "lucid people" like him. I've encountered plenty of ideas like his from around the world.
If you receive posts like mine as "drive by enlightenment" and are a diehard fan of nietzsche, you should be able to articulate what is worthwhile about his ideas. I present a challenge to nietzsche posters to, instead of resting comfortably in their feeling that "funny moustache man had it all figured out", fight for the value of his ideas, which I am not convinced of.
Tell me why the sad invalid, despairing at the state of the world, is worth more than pity.

>> No.19652784

>>19650074
Literally me

>> No.19652798

>>19650163
Nietzsche solved plenty of philosophical dilemas and other philosophers spent their life coping.

>> No.19653164

>>19652754
>I've encountered plenty of ideas like his from around the world.
So you've read the Pali Canon, Montaigne, David Hume, and dozens of other geniuses and masterpieces in psychology? If you had, then Nietzsche's significance would be palpable, even if you don't agree with him.
In a single sentence, what makes Nietzsche one of the greatest is his supreme psychological acuity. His ability to understand mental processes and feelings so well that he could cut through and unmask the logic and systems of so many different philosophers, religions, and even contemporaries allowed him to carry out a philosophical project with an unheard-of ambition: to take the entirety of human aspirations and bring them under a single piercing gaze to evaluate them and plot out a future for humanity. Since he stopped writing, maybe only Baudrillard has attempted something comparable, and obviously Baudy took some inspiration from him.
And it doesn't matter that he was awkward with women and spent half his life thrashing on a couch against various illnesses. If anything, his suffering just sharpened his insight and buttressed the life-affirming pathos of his philosophy.
There's so much more to his ideas than I can explain in a single post, but hopefully I can interest you to look into it. (Also if you've already read his predecessors, start with The Dawn).

>> No.19654113

>>19653164
You've failed to interest me with your pretension.

>> No.19654210

>>19654113
look, moustache man can wait till u read gr33ks

>> No.19654246

>>19651646
Who's we?

>> No.19654268

>>19654246
Humans. Who are you?

>> No.19654307

>>19654268
>a fraction of humanity represents it in its entirety.
>it's therefore okay
alright then lmao

>> No.19654327

>>19654307
>just a fraction of "humanity," a concept which can only be conceptualized through the actions of that fraction which have created the very disparity between human and animal life we are discussing, destroy and exploit animal life to its advantage without blinking
>just a fraction bro

>> No.19654338

>>19654327
Still not addressing the point that it's still a fraction. A post hoc rationalization. There would be no need for a Nietzsche, no need to rail against Christianity, its slave morality, if it weren't at least as "human" as the destruction and exploitation of animal life. You can naturalize the pulsation for destruction all you want. It doesn't change the fact that humans are also empathetic creatures.

>> No.19654349

>>19654338
I am not sure if you are the other anon who said sympathy for animals is what makes us human, but entirely different claim than what you are saying now

>> No.19654353

>>19654349
Nah I'm someone else.

>> No.19654376

But have you guys read that aphorism where neech explains empathy?

>> No.19655215

>>19651587
you cant have human society without some form of cooperation ultimately leading to empathy.

>> No.19655233

>>19649407
>Has sex ONCE in his entire life
>Dies syphilis-ridden invalid

lmao

>> No.19655239

>>19650451
leftists always lie

>> No.19655245

>>>>Additionally, he commanded the German emperor to go to Rome to be shot and summoned the European powers to take military action against Germany, writing also that the pope should be put in jail and that he, Nietzsche, created the world and was in the process of having all anti-Semites shot dead.

I can see why you people love this guy

>> No.19655265

>>19649508
Was he wrong?

>> No.19655452

>>19651549
Notice how the Nietzschean always defaults to his influence and popularity. It's so contrary to their own philosophy of will-to-power. They all ultimately have a slave complex either to the masses, or to the circle of academics, to the trends that made Nietzsche famous after his death. It's pathetic how they speak of master morality and ubermensch ideals, when they themselves sheepishly adore that Nietzsche finds acceptance in the formless masses of pleb and the elite intellectuals. It's disgusting.

>> No.19655480

>>19655215
Where does cooperation stop and coercion begin? I don't think you can hold up one as human to the exclusion of the other.

>> No.19655609
File: 84 KB, 429x582, Nietzschad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19655609

>>19650074
The military forbids you from staying enlisted if you're injured; nothing he could do about it.
It was his friends' loss, not his.
Wagner was a bad friend and an abusive husband.
Brain cancer will do that to you; nothing he could do about it.
His family and friends kept him alive with government assistance; it wasn't a personal decision.
This is the ressentiment of the last man. All anti-Nietzscheans can do is cope over the fact they construct their identity out of things they hate rather than what they love and pretend that their slave morality makes them superior to one of the greatest geniuses in the history of civilization.

>> No.19655651

>>19655609
>nothing he could do about it.
>nothing
>he was powerless
>not against malice and hate, but powerless against empathy and help
ironic

>> No.19655663

>>19655651
Nietszche wasn't the ubermench bruh. He was just prophesying him

>> No.19655682

>>19655651
t. slave moralist who thinks will to power = omnipotence magic and ubermensch = God

>> No.19655805

>>19654210
I've read a bit of the g33ks and they also fail to interest me. It's just a bunch of homosexual pedophiles talking about ideas which are better developed in other cultures with an unhealthy amount of skepticism, which led to the emptiness of modernity.
Try again fag.

>> No.19655930

>>19655480
i dont see how your question makes sense cooperation begins with cooperation coercion begins with coersion its self explanatory.

just generally speaking high trust and cooperations is necessary for a cohesive society the less trust and general cooperation there is, the lower the empathy and less prosperous.

examples of low trust low cooperation societies are third world shitholes like brazil, no one cares about anyone else, people are trying to one up eachother,nobody trusts anyone.

>> No.19655952

>>19655682
And you are a master moralist who is equally at the whims of fate as me, yet superior?

>> No.19655975

>>19653164
> his supreme psychological acuity
>>19655663
>He was just prophesying him

What do you think happens when you apply the same "psychological acuity" and standards to Nietzsche that he applies to the rest of humanity?

>> No.19656575

>>19655805
Fair enough, philosophy doesn't speak to everyone. I won't tell you to read anything else.

>> No.19656918

>>19650059
He really did perish.

>> No.19657107

>>19655952
the slave moralist yet again struggles to comprehend basic concepts

>> No.19657133

>>19655930
You don't understand and are just reciting your opinion. The cooperation you think you are seeing has violence behind it is my point. Sure some of it genuine, plenty of it isn't, it is hungry and frightened animals being dominated by others. So once again, empathy clearly isn't the sole qualifier of what is human to the exclusion of the less rosey behaviors

>> No.19657618

>>19656575
Now ask yourself why I’m in the thread.

>> No.19657857

>>19655609
>Wagner was a bad friend and an abusive husband.
How??

>> No.19657886

>We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.
Right on, Fred
www.youtube.com/watch?v=c08wiEyVuak

>> No.19657909

>>19657886
Worse than American self help books.

>> No.19657917

>>19657909
>no fun allowed
Reddit is def worse than American self help books if you're looking for that

>> No.19657971

>>19657917
Idk, the idea that everything needs to be fun seems pretty reddit.
>we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.
This is so bad it's repulsive. The reasoning of a maniac.

>> No.19657999

>>19657886
Huh? What a hack, he edited Chamfort's aphorism about laughter

>A day without laughter is a day wasted.

>> No.19658090

>>19657971
>>19657999
>this is the kind of reading /lit/ gives to an allusive author
>within their own canon
>because it's about dance
Gonna be a bummer for you when you realise how big dance masters were and why.

>> No.19658140

>>19657971
If you read
>no fun allowed
and your mind instantly goes to
>everything needs to be fun
as the argument being presented by anon, you need to leave and go to reddit. The correct answer is [sonicrobot.png] not
>everything needs to be fun
TL;DR- Stop being a filthy fucking newb who knows no memes.

>> No.19658264

>>19658140
The quote, by Nietzsche, is almost exactly “everything needs to be fun”.

>> No.19658291

>>19658264
NTA but laughing and dancing have a different meaning than just "fun" when Zarathustra says it. There's a sense of elevation associated with them for him. One laughs and dances because one has overcome many things.

>> No.19658322

>>19658291
It’s always this way with Nietzsche.
>“I’m not actually retarded, I was just pretending”

>> No.19658362

>>19658322
You mean it's always this way with posts responding to yours, because you've never actually read him and you're just baiting. If you tried reading him yourself, you wouldn't always need to be corrected.

>> No.19658374

>>19650163
Sources of Normativity (the best work in analytic ethics, maybe after theory of justice) ends with a fairly substantive engagement with Nietzsche. And after virtue spends a long time with him, although maybe not an especially good reading of him. Nietzsche isn't the most popular figure among analytics but the best writers often will get into it.

>> No.19658424

>>19658362
>n-no you
Pathetic. I bet you get off on this.

>> No.19658436

>>19650074
you're too retarded to see that this proves him right. we are the last men. of course we take someone like that as our prophet. the last man is the übermensch

>> No.19658461

>>19658424
I didn't say "no you." Can you even read?

>> No.19658521

>>19658436
>the last man is the übermensch
If you’re being serious, I think I’ve found why I truly hate Nietzsche

>> No.19658538

>>19650074
Hello insecure liberal boy. You have every right to be worried about the day a real man fucks your girlfriend and gives her everything that you’re incapable of dealing. ;)

>> No.19659025

>>19658521
i am.
please elaborate

>> No.19659047

>>19657133
ofcourse irl is not black and whitev i never said that coercion never occurs infact i gave examples on when society isnt as cooperative as it should be what im saying is that societies and humans tend towards cooperation wether you are in civilization or hunter gatherer tribe its fundementally human and necessary unless you like dysfunctional societies and eventual extinction. our ability to cooperate is what makes humans and what has led us this far.

>> No.19659064

>>19659047
>ofcourse irl is not black and white[...] our ability to cooperate is what makes humans and what has led us this far.
Still just repeating yourself, but now also contradicting in the same post