/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20071653]

Cucks and feminists fear the Nietzche scholar.

[Anonymous No.20071683]

>>20071653
Feminists love high value men. Just like Nietzche.

[Anonymous No.20072896]

Nietzsche is a starting point for plebs who want to get into philosophy.
He is by no means an end stage for 21st century sophisticated /lit/erature enjoyers.

[Anonymous No.20072907]

>>20071653
>I am a heckin ubermensch guys!
>It’s not my fault I can’t get laid, it’s n-niggers! And trannies, I guess

[Anonymous No.20072909]

>>20071683
So? Women love men they fear

[Anonymous No.20072919]

[Anonymous No.20073115]

>>20072907
this, but i get laid a lot and it's literally globohomo fault

[Anonymous No.20073122]

Jews unironically love NEETchud though...

[Anonymous No.20073132]

Bleak.
I don't know how anyone can read Nietzsche, absorb his message and still call themselves a "leftist".
They've got to do some insane mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.20073160]

Nietzsche was just a Schopenhauer Paul Rée jukebox

[Anonymous No.20073166]

>>20073132
Moralfaggotry can play some hideous tricks on the brain

[Anonymous No.20073168]

>>20073132
This poll was taken on leddit to be fair.

[Anonymous No.20073175]

>>20073132
First of all, that poll is on a website which is basically leftist. Second, Nietzsche has a certain popular mystique and reputation which paints him in a very odd and lukewarm light (you can even notice this tendency in academics, particularly women, who study him, by reading the academic introductions to his books or their published articles). Those who tend to read his books generally think it's coherent to dismiss the parts they find offensive even if it breaks up any kind of greater coherency in the general body. The goal is to extract a specific message from Nietzsche which is congruent with the reader, which is not problematic in itself but only when externalized. This is generally because the kind of person who is drawn to Nietzsche by this mystique is not very interested in coherency to begin with, and they tend to like portraying Nietzsche as someone who "didn't understand himself" which is why he made "offensive" and "outrageous" statements about, for example, women in Gay Science, which becomes a common theme throughout his work (although by no means a focal point).

[Anonymous No.20073400]

>>20072919
Schopenhaer?
More like
BASED.

[Anonymous No.20073422]

Nietzsche gave me the justification I needed to be myself.

[Anonymous No.20073770]

>>20073132
Accelerationism

[Anonymous No.20073857]

>>20073132
>>20073175
Nietzsche himself advocated that people take what they want from his work, and believed that all reading is actually a reflection of the reader. Looking for a system in Nietzsche would ignore one of his fundamental points: greatness can’t be systematized.

[Anonymous No.20073872]

>Nietzsche scholar
Some out of shape middle aged academic who has written four different articles the last year about Nietzsche's philology and his system of morality in the anthropogenic age?

[Anonymous No.20073894]

>>20073857
Coherency does not equal making/having a system. It just means being coherent as a human being capable of any sort of meaningful action. And he also called
>Nietzsche himself advocated that people take what they want from his work
the literary equivalent of plunders and dilettantes

[Anonymous No.20074081]

>>20072919
Nice

[Anonymous No.20074093]

>>20073857
Those are all ideas he got from Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.20074103]

>>20071653
I think people don't understand how self defeating it is to have to photoshop your favorite thinker into a chad. It's basically proof that he is a s0i.

[Anonymous No.20074105]

>>20073894
By that logic, wouldn’t lefty activists be coherent, since they basically run the university system? That’s about as “meaningfully active” as an academic can be, barring shit like going to war.

[Anonymous No.20074115]

Any good?

[Anonymous No.20074120]

Nietzsche was a schizophrenic incel.

[Anonymous No.20074241]

>>20071653
i like nietzsche because he was an outsider just like me and he was based just like me

[Anonymous No.20074253]

>>20072919
in the end schoppy is right but i like being happy so i cope

[Anonymous No.20074580]

>>20074115
Absolutely not. Author is a self confessed beta cuck who doesen't know anything about theory or state. Read Stalin.

[Anonymous No.20074607]

Nietzsche hated scholars.

[Anonymous No.20074687]

>>20074103
Well the original gigachad is entirely created in Photoshop. It's not an actual guy.

[Anonymous No.20074723]

>>20074115
>I'm not your average, weepy communist
>I'm a le Nietzschean commie!!!
Absolutely embarrassing

[Anonymous No.20074901]

>>20072909
>Women love men they fear
Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.20075057]

>>20074115
he's a nietzsche scholar but also a cuck and a feminist, so much for OP's claim

[Anonymous No.20075795]

>>20071653
Nietzche debunked in
Nihilism: The root of the revolution of the modern age - Fr Seraphim Rose

[Anonymous No.20075815]

>>20074901
rape

[Anonymous No.20075824]

>>20073132
Because commies and nazis are the same at the core, nihilists

>>20073166
For that statement to induce any meaningful effect, it must imply that morality is bad, which is a moral claim. You are contradicting yourself.

Also adding "faggotry" more explicitly implies that morality is bad, claiming something to be bad is a moral claim. Making you a moralfag.

[Anonymous No.20076149]

Kierkegaard is not only more relevant for the present age, but he also wrote a Nietzschean character convincingly and then published a book-length argument against that position (and then argued against *that* position). Kierk is more fun, more influential to the history of philosophy, a better thinker and writer, and a better reader of the Greeks. Schopenhauer is also extremely based and a great reader of the Greeks, for the record.

[Anonymous No.20076974]

>>20076149
>Kierkegaard
>relevant
Got any more jokes, anon?

[Anonymous No.20077682]

>>20076974
How about a dissection of NPCs, found on a page opened at random?
>Don Quixote is the prototype of the subjective madness in which the passion of inwardness embraces a single finite fixed idea. But, when inwardness is absent, we have the madness that rattles away and is just as comic, and which one could wish some experimental psychologist were to portray by taking a handful of philosophers of the kind and bringing them together. When the madness is a raving inwardness, what is tragic and comic is that this something, which is of such infinite concern to the unfortunate, is some fixated particular that is of no concern to anyone.
>But when the madness is absence of inwardness, what is comic is that, although the something which the blissful individual knows is indeed the truth, the truth that concerns the entire human race, it does not concern the much-respected rattler in the least. This is a more inhuman kind of madness than the other. One shrinks from looking the former in the eye, lest one plumb the depths of his ferocity; but one dare not look at the other at all, for fear of discovering that his eyes are not real but of glass and his hair made from a carpet-mat: in short, that he is an artificial product.
>Should one chance to meet someone with his mind so deranged, and where the derangement consists in his not having a mind, one listens in cold horror to what he says, hardly knowing whether to believe it is a human being speaking and not perhaps a 'walking-stick' [...]. It is always unpleasant for a proud man to find out that one has been drinking a toast of brotherhood with the public hangman; but to become engaged in a rational and philosophical conversation with a walking-stick, that is just about enough to drive one crazy.

[Anonymous No.20077718]

>For that statement to induce any meaningful effect, it must imply that morality is bad, which is a moral claim. You are contradicting yourself.