/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19749538]

Is he right about moralism being disguised envy, shame, and spite? Like how virgins on this site usually seek the moral high ground over people who have sex.

[Anonymous No.19749542]

>>19749538
UH, EXCUSE ME CHUDDY, BUT NEITSCHE WAS A HECKIN' ANTISEMITIRINO FACISTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO BETTER, SWEATY. CHUDDIES WILL COPE AND SEETHE BELOW.

[Anonymous No.19749858]

>>19749538
Absolutely.

[Anonymous No.19749868]

>>19749538
Yes it basically boils down too:

>I dont have the social skills to get a woman
>I dont want to man up and improve myself
>I am afraid my wife will leave me for another man

Therefor they want to spoil the fun of people who do.

The only time sex should be limited is when its dysgenetic or involves an actor without sufficient reason.

[Anonymous No.19749876]

>>19749538
why does neechee look like he works in accounting remotely from India?

[Anonymous No.19749877]

>>19749868
Cope. You WILL give me a wife.

[Anonymous No.19749878]

>>19749877
You are the woman anon

[Anonymous No.19749887]

>>19749538
Why are you so obsessed with sex?
In my experience, it's mostly non sex-havers who are.
Sex without meaning is detrimental to the mind, which is why many people view it negatively, read Saint Augustine (who was a former big sex-haver, since you seem obsessed with that)

[Anonymous No.19749924]

>>19749538
Freud should have been gelded and lobotomized

[Anonymous No.19749978]

>>19749538
Isn't this just an ad hominem?
You call those you disagree with losers instead of engaging arguments over the merits of promiscuity vs chastity.

[Anonymous No.19750040]

>>19749978
What does it matter if it's ad hominem, it's true in so many cases. This board is full of such people

[Anonymous No.19750050]

>>19750040
>What does it matter if it's ad hominem
Because even if 100% of those who promoted chastity were losers, this wouldn't make them wrong on promiscuity being bad.
This is just an intellectually dishonest way of trying to "win a debate" without dealing with the arguments of the other side.

[Anonymous No.19750064]

Besides, if you look at the strictest moralists, the Roman Stoics...
Marcus Aurelius was a Roman Emperor. He could have as many lovers as he wished. But he didn't.
Seneca was absurdly wealth. But he was a monogamous man who had a very happy marriage.

[Anonymous No.19750094]

>>19750040
you or any anon for that matter don't know what "kind of people" this board is "full of". you can't judge a person by his posts on an anonymous mozambiquan ostrich-hunting forum but you always judge others (anons in this case) based on yourself or your perception of (You), that's why I find >havesex posters even more tiring than actual neckbeard losers but I could never really care who you and they actually are and what they are like. For all i know you could be a normie, a chad or a virgin or anything else (all memes, in reality, sexuality is probably the least accurately defining factor and people are much more similar). I can only judge your post and if you want to go the >many such cases route, give us real-life examples.

[Anonymous No.19750112]

>>19749538
No, morality develops firstly because a group of people whose moral principles are the same will spend less effort on infighting, leading to their outcompeting the hypothetical group which fails to adopt a moral code.

[Anonymous No.19750160]

>>19749538
Following a moral code that is not purely your own is instinctive herd mentality because of reclusion.
If pain is a feedback and warning system about physical harm, reclusion is a feedback and warning system about social harm.

While envy, shame and spite are factors that can drive a person further down the path of vigilant moralism, it is within a person's interest to teach others the customs that they believe are key to the other's wellbeing and survival.

[Anonymous No.19750185]

I think he's right in many cases but it doesn't fully capture the complexity of the moral instinct. I also think there's more links between the moral instinct and the Will to Power than he wants to admit.

[Anonymous No.19751396]

>>19750040
This, incels are just in denial.

[Anonymous No.19751709]

>>19749538
Pernicious nonsense wrapped in twiddle twaddle ramblings while easily being one of the most influential books published in the 20th century. This is the most different of all of Nietzsche’s books while simultaneously epitomizing all of his other writings even to the point of making this book seem unoriginal, something that I’ve never felt with any of his other books. It’s clear that a lot of this book were notes from his other books, and the rest were notes for what would become this book. There is one thing that struck me about this book, overall it was the most unoriginal of all of Nietzsche’s writings because he had for the most part said it elsewhere in his writings but says it here in such a way that it will appeal to the proto-fascist and soon-to-be Nazis who will lap this stuff up.

Ayn Rand loved Nietzsche and was going to use his quotations as chapter headings for ‘The Fountainhead’ until she realized that she misunderstood him; she obviously agreed with his fascism but wasn’t able to understand his philosophy beyond the superficial and I suspect it was this book that originally hooked her. Heidegger wrote an incredibly influential book explaining this book that influenced Derrida, Foucault and Rorty, but, most importantly, Oswald Spengler explicitly cites Nietzsche and Goethe as his major influences for volume I of Decline of the West (by all means read that God awful book if only to understand why one can call Trump a fascist), and lastly in Hitler’s autobiography, Nietzsche with Goethe, Luther and Fredrich the Great were Hitler’s acknowledged greatest influences. BTW, within this book I would say that Goethe was equally praised by Nietzsche as Hitler and Spengler praised him.

Make no mistake. This book is vile. The ‘always conniving Jew uses their knowledge against the ignorance of the other’ or whatever nonsense Nietzsche wrote, hysterical women never can learn or write good literature, the German is superior, Machiavelli was a great thinker, and so on and so on. But, that’s not my real problem with this book since it’s easy to dismiss that has nothing but prejudices.

All of the perniciousness of fascism lurks within this book. All of Donald Trump and what he is trying to do against humanity is within this book. Equality is anathema for them. Humanism is irrelevant and dangerous to them. A great leader, according to Nietzsche is required in order to save us. Spengler made Julius Caesar his great leader while in this book Nietzsche did too, but also Napoleon would do, or until a Hitler comes along or a Trump.

[Anonymous No.19751711]

>>19751709
Trump has anointed himself as the self-appointed uber-mensch for our time. Nietzsche is really saying ‘stop thinking and follow me and let your feelings be your guide’. There is no being, there is only becoming and a great thinker will be needed to rise above the herd. A thinker who is not encumbered by sympathy, empathy or reciprocity and one who is a narcissist with socio-pathological tendencies would be Nietzsche’s ideal, and Hitler would fit the bill as would Trump. Somebody who would always be able to always say that they didn’t fail, but only those around them failed, since the uber-mensch is always right by definition and all failure must come from the herd.

Anyone who is not in synch with what Nietzsche desires is considered weak, corrupt and not worthy of consideration exactly how Trump campaigned in 2016, and all awhile fascist such as Trump projects their faux strength through bluster and flays against imaginary windmills and also real windmills as he babbles incoherently how the TV won’t work on non-windy days if we attach windmills to the power grid. Overall, Nietzsche makes as much sense as Trump does regarding windmills, and both are just as dangerous.

Nietzsche will say that morality is immoral and therefore only the morality that he feels is worthwhile or worthy of consideration since Truth is what an uber-mensch says it is. Of all the statements from fascist beware of the statement such as ‘stop thinking and follow me, and all facts are alternative facts, and no science is true except for the science I say’. All are ravings of a lunatic, but only a bigger lunatic could believe such crap, and Nietzsche does have that kind of crap within this book, and there will always be Fox News viewers who want to be afraid of the imaginary windmills. They only need to be told.

Spengler, Heidegger, Hitler and Ayn Rand loved this book and were influenced by it until they weren’t for a reason. This book gives a ground for the hate they want to practice, and ironically, a justification since in the end Nietzsche believes the only justification that exists is the justification that we make for ourselves, just like Donald Trump does.

Before I had read this book, I wasn’t sure that it was really representative of Nietzsche. But now, I’m fairly certain that it does represent him overall since so much of what was in this book seemed to overlap with what he had written elsewhere. In this book, he’s more explicit on his active nihilism, moralic acid and his contempt for democracy, equality and his always blaming the individual for not understanding that morality is immoral because he says it is, but overall, that only differs from what he previously said by degrees not kind. By putting all of his twiddle twaddle in one place the wanna be fascists were falsely lulled into a non-existence coherence within this guidebook on becoming a good fascist.

[Anonymous No.19751736]

morality i.e virtue has existed always. Just because a society without virtue is non-existent. Even the greeks who Neeche praised so much valued morality (read the Greeks).

[Anonymous No.19751985]

Moralism!=morality

[Anonymous No.19751988]

>>19750040
Ad hominem is a fallacy. If the argument is fallacious it can not possibly be sound.

[Anonymous No.19753048]

>>19750050
The point is that there's no virtue in being an incel and more often than not people who can't get sex have some kind of underdeveloped faculty that they need to strengthen in order to not only have sex but general health and strength of character. Voluntary celibacy is a virtue when it doesn't cull every instinct that strengthens other virtues. In Zarathustra he says people of voluptuous natures shouldn't be celibate because its not in their nature, while those who are less horny need not.

[Anonymous No.19753160]

>>19749538
His criticism of Christ is that Paul reinterpreted his message to be about sin and redemption and not the demonstration of the most powerful way to live. Nietzsche argues in the Antichrist that Heaven is a mental state achieved by acting the way Jesus did. The moral commandments in the Bible are like guidelines to not fuck up and ruin this state for yourself. The reason why morality (especially master morality) feels good is because it increases the power of those who act according to it.
The reason it feels bad, according to Nietzsche, is because we've been conditioned to psychologically self-harm for disrespecting God or our rulers. Nietzsche believes that remorse is a sickness.
>>19750050
As this anon says, promiscuity has practical negative repercussions on both the individual and society. A Nietzschean would avoid it to the degree to which they saw value in avoiding it, not due to arbitrary customs imposed by society. Likewise they would have sexual experiences inasmuch as they saw value in having it.

[Anonymous No.19753178]

Slave morality is not the only form of morality. Anyways, I think it is possible to entirely reject morality and replace illogical, top-down authoritarian mores with ethics

[Anonymous No.19753180]

>>19753160
>A Nietzschean would avoid it to the degree to which they saw value in avoiding it, not due to arbitrary customs imposed by society. Likewise they would have sexual experiences inasmuch as they saw value in having it
This sounds like one big fat fucking truism; literally anyone can be described as "avoiding an action if it seems damaging and pursuing an action if it seems beneficial."

[Anonymous No.19753204]

>>19753180
If you examine the way people act thoroughly its not. That's the point of Crime and Punishment. In Book One of the Gay Science he writes about how some people have an "intellectual conscience" and are distinct from the common person who's moral values and emotions are inherited and commanded. This is how he begins his criticism of good and evil and how it is perceived.
People blindly going to college and have all their expectations and desires calibrated with getting a degree because they were told to is an easy example.

[Anonymous No.19753245]

>>19753204
"everyone is a P zombie but me!" Is some 14 year-old debate club enthusiast trash. Yes, some people are iconoclasts, but you are not any more immune to psychological conditioning than the swirling masses. Germanic egoism is hard cope - Nietzsche himself, the great genius, died of complications from syphilis.
Crime and Punishment is Catholic apologia so I'm not sure why you'd cite that as any kind of authoritative work.

[Anonymous No.19753251]

>>19749538
complete projection by the sickly, weakling with delusions of grandeur

[Anonymous No.19753263]

>>19753245
>Crime and Punishment is Catholic apologia so I'm not sure why you'd cite that as any kind of authoritative work.
I'm not its an example of someone attempting to act beyond arbitrary customs for a greater benefit and failing

[Anonymous No.19753284]

>>19753245
>Yes, some people are iconoclasts, but you are not any more immune to psychological conditioning than the swirling masses.
Anybody who has not gotten the vax is clear proof this is wrong. If you dont believe in higher natures it's because you werent meant to read Nietzsche.