[ 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: 10 KB, 249x399, The_Antichrist_(book).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20252653 No.20252653 [Reply] [Original]

Last thread was derailed by spammers:

>>/lit/thread/S20213395
^^^ Take a look at the link above ^^^

I have waited a bit, and now I am trying this again. We'll see if this one goes better.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too many Nietzsche threads filled with new anons who have not done the readings. To fix it, I think we may have to start a book club. We will be reading through "The Antichrist" by Friedrich Nietzsche. You can find a pdf of the book here:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm

We will be reading about 5 passages a day. Since there are 63 sections, including the preface, it should theoretically take less than two weeks to complete. However, some passages might warrant more time than others, so it may take anywhere from 13 days to perhaps even a whole month or more, depending on how it goes.

If you have any thoughts or questions based on the reading, feel free to post them. Or just sit back, observing and enjoying the text. You can challenge other anons on their opinions and interpretations, but keep it respectful. Overall, let's have some fun reading a classic.

Without further ado -

>> No.20252657

The Preface:

This book belongs to the most rare of men. Perhaps not one of them is yet alive. It is possible that they may be among those who understand my “Zarathustra”: how could I confound myself with those who are now sprouting ears?—First the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some men are born posthumously.

The conditions under which any one understands me, and necessarily understands me—I know them only too well. Even to endure my seriousness, my passion, he must carry intellectual integrity to the verge of hardness. He must be accustomed to living on mountain tops—and to looking upon the wretched gabble of politics and nationalism as beneath him. He must have become indifferent; he must never ask of the truth whether it brings profit to him or a fatality to him.... He must have an inclination, born of strength, for questions that no one has the courage for; the courage for the forbidden; predestination for the labyrinth. The experience of seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for what is most distant. A new conscience for truths that have hitherto remained unheard. And the will to economize in the grand manner—to hold together his strength, his enthusiasm.... Reverence for self; love of self; absolute freedom of self....

Very well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my readers foreordained: of what account are the rest?—The rest are merely humanity.—One must make one’s self superior to humanity, in power, in loftiness of soul,—in contempt.

Friedrich W. Nietzsche.

>> No.20252665

Section 1:

—Let us look each other in the face. We are Hyperboreans—we know well enough how remote our place is. “Neither by land nor by water will you find the road to the Hyperboreans”: even Pindar, [1] in his day, knew that much about us. Beyond the North, beyond the ice, beyond death—our life, our happiness.... We have discovered that happiness; we know the way; we got our knowledge of it from thousands of years in the labyrinth. Who else has found it?—The man of today?—“I don’t know either the way out or the way in; I am whatever doesn’t know either the way out or the way in”—so sighs the man of today.... This is the sort of modernity that made us ill,—we sickened on lazy peace, cowardly compro mise, the whole virtuous dirtiness of the modern Yea and Nay. This tolerance and largeur of the heart that “forgives” everything because it “understands” everything is a sirocco to us. Rather live amid the ice than among modern virtues and other such south-winds!... We were brave enough; we spared neither ourselves nor others; but we were a long time finding out where to direct our courage. We grew dismal; they called us fatalists. Our fate—it was the fulness, the tension, the storing up of powers. We thirsted for the lightnings and great deeds; we kept as far as possible from the happiness of the weakling, from “resignation”... There was thunder in our air; nature, as we embodied it, became overcast—for we had not yet found the way. The formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight line, a goal....

[1]Cf. the tenth Pythian ode. See also the fourth book of Herodotus. The Hyperboreans were a mythical people beyond the Rhipaean mountains, in the far North. They enjoyed unbroken happiness and perpetual youth.

>> No.20252673

Section 2:

What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.

What is evil?—Whatever springs from weakness.

What is happiness?—The feeling that power increases—that resistance is overcome.

Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid).

The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.

What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity....

>> No.20252677

Section 3:

The problem that I set here is not what shall replace mankind in the order of living creatures (—man is an end—): but what type of man must be bred, must be willed, as being the most valuable, the most worthy of life, the most secure guarantee of the future.

This more valuable type has appeared often enough in the past: but always as a happy accident, as an exception, never as deliberately willed. Very often it has been precisely the most feared; hitherto it has been almost the terror of terrors;—and out of that terror the contrary type has been willed, cultivated and attained: the domestic animal, the herd animal, the sick brute-man—the Christian....

>> No.20252683

Section 4:

Mankind surely does not represent an evolution toward a better or stronger or higher level, as progress is now understood. This “progress” is merely a modern idea, which is to say, a false idea. The European of today, in his essential worth, falls far below the European of the Renaissance; the process of evolution does not necessarily mean elevation, enhancement, strengthening.

True enough, it succeeds in isolated and individual cases in various parts of the earth and under the most widely different cultures, and in these cases a higher type certainly manifests itself; something which, compared to mankind in the mass, appears as a sort of superman. Such happy strokes of high success have always been possible, and will remain possible, perhaps, for all time to come. Even whole races, tribes and nations may occasionally represent such lucky accidents.

>> No.20252690

Section 5:

We should not deck out and embellish Christianity: it has waged a war to the death against this higher type of man, it has put all the deepest instincts of this type under its ban, it has developed its concept of evil, of the Evil One himself, out of these instincts—the strong man as the typical reprobate, the “outcast among men.” Christianity has taken the part of all the weak, the low, the botched; it has made an ideal out of antagonism to all the self-preservative instincts of sound life; it has corrupted even the faculties of those natures that are intellectually most vigorous, by representing the highest intellectual values as sinful, as misleading, as full of temptation. The most lamentable example: the corruption of Pascal, who believed that his intellect had been destroyed by original sin, whereas it was actually destroyed by Christianity!—

>> No.20252988

Sounds like a good read, this should be higher on the catalog desu

>> No.20253086

>>20252653
Thank you so much, I commit. I guess it has already started because you have already post the first five sections. I can't read it now but in several hours I will. I hope this thread won't die before I'm avaliable

>> No.20253236

Nietzsche really likes using dashes and exclamation marks, doesn't he?

>> No.20253251

>>20253236
Generally I believe the dashes were ellipses but editors generally change them to dashes to avoid confusing it with an abridgement.

>> No.20253547

What a coincidence, I picked up and finished reading The Antichrist yesterday. But I'll be following this thread...

>> No.20254589
File: 332 KB, 429x582, 643.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20254589

>>20252653

>> No.20254933

>>20252657
He requires too much for being a reader of him, reachable though

>> No.20254955 [DELETED] 
File: 578 KB, 806x708, -[-[--]-]-[---==.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20254955

>>20254933
Anonymous 04/21/22(Thu)16:44:22 No.20254747▶>>20254752 >>20254790 >>20254810
File: =-=-=-=----=-=.jpg (9 KB, 193x261)
9 KB
[Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]17 / 1 / 16 / 1 [Update] [Auto]
File: F59F0DBE-7C23-4684-858D-D(...).jpg (52 KB, 900x750)
52 KB
All three of my romance novels flopped Anonymous 04/21/22(Thu)08:22:09 No.20252862▶>>20252871 >>20252912 >>20252961 >>20253180 >>20253185 >>20253203 >>20253219 >>20254711 >>20254724 >>20254731 >>20254740 >>20254742
>friend is a romance author
>made $100,000 last year
>decide to become a romance author myself
>challenging and time consuming
>work 3 months straight
>my books totally flop.

I am currently trying to do a fourth but it is seeming very futile at this stage. How do I write romance in a way that middle aged normie women, and gays appreciate?
>>
Anonymous 04/21/22(Thu)08:23:51 No.20252871▶
>>20252862 (OP) (OP)
>How do I write romance in a way that middle aged normie women, and gays appreciate?
You have to pick one, it's impossible to appeal to both in significant numbers
>>
Anonymous 04/21/22(Thu)08:24:46 No.20252877▶
Write a book about a handsome gay man who gets seduced by an aged hagraven.
>>
Anonymous 04/21/22(Thu)08:31:06 No.20252899▶
What's your friend's name? I'm genuinely curious to read their work now kek.
>>
Anonymous 04/21/22(Thu)08:32:54 No.20252912▶
>>20252862 (OP) (OP)
Women love rape and someone to take care of them. Also pirates

Gay men are like men and they like physical things
>>
Anonymous 04/21/22(Thu)08:40:11 No.20252944▶
Just get the bestsellers, distill their formula and archetypes and just fill the rest for your books. Don't tell me you're actually trying to make up shit.
>>
Anonymous 04/21/22(Thu)08:43:42 No.20252961▶
>>20252862 (OP) (OP)
It's all about marketing and not how you write.
>>
Anonymous 04/21/22(Thu)09:45:18 No.20253180▶>>20253220 >>20254726
File: men vs womyn.png (2.67 MB, 1328x1254)
2.67 MB
>>20252862 (OP) (OP)
>How do I write romance in a way that middle aged normie women, and gays appreciate?
Write abusive smut. That's what holes like. Arrogant bullies who are also tall, muscular, rich, and for some reason obsessed with them even though they're mediocre females.
>>
Anonymous 04/21/22(Thu)09:46:40 No.20253185▶
>>20252862 (OP) (OP)
are you using a female pseudonym? if not, use it.
>>
Anonymous 04/21/22(Thu)09:51:26 No.20253203▶
>>20252862 (OP) (OP)
Maybe you're a shit writer.
>>
Anonymous 04/21/22(Thu)09:54:36 No.20253219▶
>>20252862 (OP) (OP)
Why did you post a picture of a convicted child molester. What kind of romances are you writing?
>>>>20254589
>>20254589
>>20254589
>>20252653
>>20252653
>>20252653
>iiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr0
Anonymous 04/21/22(Thu)09:55:15 No.20253220▶
>>20253180
This.

>> No.20255058

>>20252690
Nietzschean has as its ground the contradictory, he is an alchemist coinciding oppositions to reach the Hyperborea of the Real. He is not saying 'troofs' but showing how to break (with a hammer) that which is a hidden untruth that offlines innocence of life with guilt and patterns. If it is possible to say that this “outcast among men” is merely a cope made to camouflage inability at higher ontology (what is more complex easily includes that which is less complex, i.e. cannot be dominated/made outcast/be forced to suffer) then iit can be also said about Christianity: that yes, there are vulgar versions (perhaps every historical one?), preoccupied with forming man from an outside, but the True Christianity is an attempt at non-man or an absolute Man. Non-Man is beyond the dialectical: a Christian never crosses path with his non-Christian 'opposition'. A Nietzschean who is defined by its own and not by what is of le slave.

Nietzsche is showing ways to overcome Nietzsche. Nietzsche is a Christian in a sense that Jesus Christ was a Nietzschean.

>> No.20255403

>>20252657
i didn't read nietzsche before so i don't know if in a true reader of him as he says this books is for. I meet some of the requeriments he ask, i hope they are sufficient.

>>20252665
I feel very identified here though i didnt understand what the last line means
>The formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight line, a goal....
a yes, a no, a straight line? I understand the goal part, maybe he treats them as synonymous here. What i mean is that a goal is a yea (because you decide to do something), it is a nay (because the things you have to reject) and it is a straight line (because you planned a path to reach your goal).

>>20252673
i dont know what he understands as power and he doesnt argue any of his statements. I guess and hope they are argued in previous books or later in this one.
I can infer that he means
>we sickened on lazy peace, cowardly compro mise, the whole virtuous dirtiness of the modern Yea and Nay. This tolerance and largeur of the heart that “forgives” everything because it “understands” everything is a sirocco to us. Rather live amid the ice than among modern virtues and other such south-winds!... We were brave enough; we spared neither ourselves nor others; but we were a long time finding out where to direct our courage. We grew dismal; they called us fatalists. Our fate—it was the fulness, the tension, the storing up of powers. We thirsted for the lightnings and great deeds; we kept as far as possible from the happiness of the weakling, from “resignation”... There was thunder in our air; nature, as we embodied it, became overcast—for we had not yet found the way.
as power, from the first section. That is, something like being honest with oneself and be brave to overcome the difficulties, maybe even enjoying the path

>>20252677
i think this doesnt add much. Obviously if there is a better way of living the children must be educated that way

>>20252683
based and surely this is going to remain that way the rest of human species existence. I think this is innate for the human being

>>20252690
this is true. If there is little strong men and to those christianity ban, there is none strong men. Thankfully, christianity isn't as prominent now as it was in the past although it is far from disappearing

it was a good read, thank op. I'm eager to discuss the next sections. It is a shame that too little people got engaged, maybe they will in the future

>> No.20256141

>>20255403
I'll offer my analysis or critique. I'm going into this blind.
>>20252657
>>20252665
I see this as self-granduer. Practically meaningless.
>>20252673
>What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.
>What is evil?—Whatever springs from weakness.
What is power and why is it within the boundaries of morality or something we should strive towards?
>What is happiness?—The feeling that power increases—that resistance is overcome.
Why should we attain happiness? There are higher goals in life than happiness like sacrifice.
>Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid).
Again, what is "power"? Something given to us in the form of war? For what purpose does efficiency serve and to what end? Why should we separate virtues from morality?
>The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.
What is "weak" and why is it bad? I thought we were separating ourselves from morality?
>What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity....
Does he mean to say that helping the poor and meek is bad? For what possible reason could he have this assumption?

>The problem that I set here is not what shall replace mankind in the order of living creatures (—man is an end—): but what type of man must be bred, must be willed, as being the most valuable, the most worthy of life, the most secure guarantee of the future.
What is "valuable" or the most worthy of life? Why should we guarantee any future?
>Very often it has been precisely the most feared; hitherto it has been almost the terror of terrors;—and out of that terror the contrary type has been willed, cultivated and attained: the domestic animal, the herd animal, the sick brute-man—the Christian....
Why is it that he thinks it is the Christian that is a "herd animal" or a "sick brute man"? Perhaps he's referring to the soft, liberal Protestants of his time, but even then he's making a historical claim pre-dating the German Protestantism.
>>20252683
I agree with this, but again I don't know what he means when he speaks of a "higher type" of man or culture. Is he referring to people such as Alexander the Great or Caesar? Or would he have spoken the same way of Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill?
>>20252690
>We should not deck out and embellish Christianity
It's a bit too late for that. The rest of the section is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. I can imagine reading this from a teenage redditor today.

From what I've read so far, Nietzche is making a lot of assumptions without elaborating further or defining what he means. You are required to interpret what he means on your own without his elaboration. He seems deluded in thinking he has achieved some sort of enlightenment but his words are empty.

>> No.20256406

bumping this quality thread

>> No.20256603

>>20256406
This thread isn't going to take off. Hopefully my effortpost wasn't for nothing.

>> No.20256639

philosophy after plato was a mistake

>> No.20257012

>>20256141
>I don't know what he means when he speaks of a "higher type" of man or culture.
A generous one, showing others the way to become generous: the gift-giving virtue: the virtue of gift-giving. Think posting: when posters engage each other in the spirit of generosity they express themselves without ill will to impose themselves on the other party, there is no war to win. There is only a game (gamers) to play. In Sneedzsche there is no 'left' nor 'right' — no worldly insecure greed of the ignoble — but becoming towards the Real.

The higher man of our region would speak in poetry (both versified and not versified), innocently proposing ontological questions then giving possible answers full of lies and truths. The higher man is a gardener tending to a Rose field.

>> No.20257030

>>20256639
is nietzsche really that much philosophy? i dunno, i didn't understand too much of what he wanted to say but he definetly was a great writer

>> No.20257074

>>20256639
this adds nothing to the conversation, please elaborate so we can understand your point

>> No.20257084

>>20257030
>is nietzsche really that much philosophy? i dunno
i don't know neither, that's what this thread is for, to know him as a writer and philosopher

>> No.20257093

>>20256639
I'm the critique anon and I agree. I'll stick with the Greeks, these Germans are mentally ill.

>> No.20257224

>>20256141
it sounds slef-granduer because he speaks as we, ie he includes himself, but i think it isn't meaningless. I do feel identified with it, i guess the critique is that it is emotionally-dependent. I mean that if you dont feel it, maybe it sounds meaningless as you said. But it is justified, in the prologue he says
>This book belongs to the most rare of men. Perhaps not one of them is yet alive. It is possible that they may be among those who understand my “Zarathustra”: how could I confound myself with those who are now sprouting ears?—First the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some men are born posthumously.
>The conditions under which any one understands me, and necessarily understands me—I know them only too well.
ie this book is for the people who understand him ie people who can relate to his words.

>What is power
it isn't clear for me neither but maybe it is what this >>20255403 anon says, idk. I hope some nietzsche-versed anon explain this

>why is it within the boundaries of morality or something we should strive towards?
i think that is because the nature of his target reader because of how he describes them pe this line
>The formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight line, a goal....

>Why should we attain happiness?
he just says what is happines, nothing about it being the higher goal

>Does he mean to say that helping the poor and meek is bad? For what possible reason could he have this assumption?
imo he doesnt mean that literally but metaforically. I mean not monetary poor but poor of mind, self-respect, etc

>What is "valuable" or the most worthy of life?
probably those who are powerful or seeks power

>Why should we guarantee any future?
because the good of the species? or maybe as an alternative ie gave that we will have children it is better to raise it well (nietzsche way in his opinion) than bad

>Why is it that he thinks it is the Christian that is a "herd animal" or a "sick brute man"?
read section 5, i think he blames the christians in sections 2, 3 and 4 without explaining for explaining it in section 5, as foreshadowing

>I don't know what he means when he speaks of a "higher type" of man or culture.
probably those who look for power and fit in his section 1 description

>> No.20257245

>>20257012
i think you've understood, at least partially, nietzsche. Good post anon

>> No.20257251

>>20257224
Yeah I'm sorry, I'm not wasting time with Enlightenment cope. Maybe others can enjoy his writings but this gave me a bad taste for godless Germans.

>> No.20257365

>>20257251
okay anon you do what you consider the best with you time, not gonna critique that. Maybe in the future you can revisit him, future is unsure

>> No.20258898

>>20257251
As opposed to what, the even more degenerate French and Americans?

>> No.20259415

>>20257365
Perhaps it's important for my personal interests to understand at least the basics of modern philosophers but I can tell I will be annoyed by unanswered fundamental questions and definitions in one's philosophy, especially in hindsight of the unanswered questions and assumptions in the world we live in today. In his defense, Nietzche at least seems understandable compared to Kant or Hegel where you would need a guidebook to understand their jargon and meaning. I have enough of an understanding of Nietzche and his dialectic of power being the determiner of truth in a world without morality. This iron will to power seems to have influenced the Fascists of the early 20th century and their motives for war.
>>20258898
No, they're the same shit. Such godless people can only produce a soulless world as this. This board has taught me Germans are too autistic for their own good.

>> No.20259432

>>20252653
>derailed by spammers:
False. Go to the church.

>> No.20259437

>>20252657
>This book belongs to the most rare of men.
lol
>Some men are born posthumously.
oh look he steals from the Gospels again

>> No.20259440

>>20252673
>>20252665
these are reposts

>> No.20260543

>>20259415
>This iron will to power seems to have influenced the Fascists of the early 20th century and their motives for war.
As far as I know fascists misinterpreted him. I don't think Nietzsche power is military power neither
>The weak and the botched shall perish
means you should kill worse (in the Nazis opinion) races

>Perhaps it's important for my personal interests to understand at least the basics of modern philosophers
Yes it is, you gain new perspectives and ways of thinking

>I can tell I will be annoyed by unanswered
Not based, I mean you should be better than that. If it isn't a good reading because they doesn't explain terms you drop it. If it is good enough for you to break your brain trying to understand them, so do it. But annoyance is never a good response, it gives you nothing worth it

>> No.20261174

>>20252673
> Be unmarried sickly siphilitic man
> Say:
> What is evil?—Whatever springs from weakness.

What should we make of this apparent incongruity? Doesn't his sickly nature debunk his philosophy?

>> No.20261225

>>20261174
Nietzsche hiked for 8+ hours every day, you can't even go without jerking off for 8 hours.

>> No.20261233

>>20261225
>Nietzsche hiked for 8+ hours every day
Bullshit.

>> No.20261245

>>20261233
Oh? What's the problem? The "sickly weak" man was showing more vigor and strength in his daily life than you? Keep coping.

>> No.20261301

>>20261225
Source?

>> No.20261349

>>20252673
Nietzsche was such a pathetic man. A small, insecure, fragile person whose only happiness was in the moments where he could feel powerful and strong. In seeking feelings of power he signals his weakness.

>> No.20261509

>>20261245
I'm not the anon you think you're responding to, but it's completely unrealistic. Even experienced hikers only do around 10kms of cardio twice a week.

>> No.20261654

ITT: seething christers

>> No.20261750

>>20261349
> In seeking feelings of power he signals his weakness.

Based. A strong man does not seethe and write a bunch of books about how christianity touched him in his naughty place.

He couldn't even get a woman, he was too autistic. A genetic fitness of 0. What an embarrassment. Even a retarded indian day laborer has more of a hand in the future with his 8 children than poor old mustache man.

>> No.20261841

I have been understood. At the opening of the Bible there is the whole psychology of the priest.—The priest knows of only one great danger: that is science—the sound comprehension of cause and effect. But science flourishes, on the whole, only under favourable conditions—a man must have time, he must have an overflowing intellect, in order to “know.”... “Therefore, man must be made unhappy,”—this has been, in all ages, the logic of the priest.

>> No.20261869

>>20261841
This is embarrassing.

>> No.20261873

>>20261869
rent free

>> No.20261879

>>20261750
Christianity has historically valued a genetic fitness of zero, it's called celibacy

>> No.20261963

>>20261879
The eternal seethe against Christianity only makes it stronger.

>> No.20261986

>>20261963
You will worship the Pachamama

>> No.20261999

>>20261986
Kek, tell that to the perennial Catholics. I feel sorry for the West.

>> No.20262041

>>20261999
Push what is falling

>> No.20262116

>>20259432
>>20259437
>>20259440
Back to seethe again cuck?

>> No.20262142

>>20262116
>seethe
>cuck
Nice thoughts - did you get them yourself

>> No.20262146

>>20261841
>The priest knows of only one great danger: that is science—
snorted and laughed. Define science by using only the scientific method lmao - I can wait

>> No.20262155

>>20262146
science just means knowledge, his point is that the priest fabricates obvious lies about another world because he is a nihilist and an enemy of knowledge as such

>> No.20262256

You can see the exact same pattern from the last thread, look at the last 100 or so replies in it. Christcuck seething and samefagging.

>> No.20262354

>>20257030
Yes, but I think that the reason why needs to be drawn out, because, especially after the Enlightenment thinkers, with their preoccupation in making philosophy adhere more to the rigor of mathematical arguments, it's not self-evident that he seems to be a philosopher.

Consider this more a tl;dr than a thorough argument itself; that shit would take too long.

1) Nietzsche, for all his complaints about Plato, does grant that Plato is a legitimate model of philosophy, and he in certain ways does similar work in his books. He takes it that philosophy values questioning, and not just merely answers, and in this agrees with Plato's characterization of philosophy in the Symposium as Eros (longing, desire) for wisdom. So his skepticism and effort to call into question "truths" taken for granted are both in the spirit of Plato. Practically, he's trying to put his readers in the position of questioning their received opinions. (His notebooks, on the other hand, especially earlier ones, show him privately working out hypotheses he just declares in his writings; he basically hides his work.)

2) He seems to also agree with what he takes Plato to be doing; to be, as a philosopher, a skeptic, but as a writer for readers who won't necessarily be philosophers, to present a teaching or dogma to. (This relates, not incidentally, to his criticisms of Plato and the Good and immortal soul.) But by the by, this is the meaning of what he says in Beyond Good and Evil when he says true philosophers are legislators; they present a comprehensive way of understanding the world that people might subscribe to, even if they're not strictly true. In his journals, he admits to writing "with a mask" and using bombastic rhetoric that he feels is appropriate to the situation he's addressing. It's worth doing a quick word find in Beyond Good and Evil for his only two uses of "Dionysus", which he uses to imply he and Plato are both closer than his initial argument makes clear.

3) All this puts him squarely more with the Greek philosophers than anyone after them. Parmenides laid out his thoughts in a poem mimicking Homer's style. Heraclitus wrote short passages using wordplay and puns. Empedocles and Anaxagoras use love and strife to describe material processes. Plato wrote dialogues obscuring what he believed from what Socrates believed. Etc. Nietzsche's literary style is meant to do similar work, alternately inspiring and obscuring what's going on.

I'm not sure this helps *much*, but maybe it helps to begin situating him?

>> No.20262511

Trad caths should be banned from /lit/. First effort post in ages and they make every effort to derail it.

>> No.20262523

>>20262155
>science just means knowledge
Sorry I can't figure out an expirement for that statement. Please help
>his point is that the priest fabricates obvious lies about another world because he is a nihilist and an enemy of knowledge as such
Yikes. The worst part is I can tell you're older than a teenager.

>> No.20262531

>>20262256
Hi
>>20262511
not catholic

you won't even debate me :(((((

>> No.20262536

>>20262523
>no argument from the nihilist to defend his fancies
Sorry, I don't believe your absentee father is the cosmic ordering principle of my universe. Yes I am probably older than you, pachamama castrato

>> No.20262555

>>20262536
>Sorry
I forgive you :)
>I don't believe your absentee father is the cosmic ordering principle of my universe
He's p bad at being absent if I believe in him. Then what is?

>> No.20262576

>>20262555
checked
>>20252653
get derailed noob

>> No.20262597

>>20253547
>>20252988
>>20253086
I too am joyous for this thread :)

>> No.20262601

>>20262555
>muh fideism
No one cares what you "believe." You either have an argument or not. Go "testify" at church if that's all you have the capacity for

>> No.20262610

>>20255058
Partly correct tbvh - the thing is Christianity without divinity is contradiction with ethics, with divinity is the ego/oversoul merging into one via faith in the Logos. Good post.

>> No.20262621

>>20261349
honestly this
>>20261750
yep
>>20261879
1,000% yes

>> No.20262623

>>20261301
his neighbours who saw him walk around the house - for roughly eight hours - each day

>> No.20262628

>>20262601
Oh look an atheist having a debate about Christianity on the terms Christianity laid out 1.8K years ago

>> No.20262663

>>20262531
>you won't even debate me :(((((
debates are for losers.
you don't like Nietzsche and yet you come into a thread about him wherein people interested in his work try to discuss him. that is petty and exposes your weak, unloving character. you are no christian. you are a fool without an identity, plastering one onto yourself without knowing or caring about it.

>> No.20262685

>>20262663
>debates are for losers.
uhhh
>you don't like Nietzsche and yet you come into a thread about him wherein people interested in his work try to discuss him.
Yes
>that is petty and exposes your weak, unloving character.
How? I flag all my posts - just ignore them.
>you are no christian.
I could feel a lot of spiritual energy went into this and trying to hurt me. Good try :)
>you are a fool without an identity, plastering one onto yourself without knowing or caring about it.
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

>> No.20262694

>>20261245
>hiking for 8 hours is strength

>> No.20262700

>>20262694
People who don't hike aren't spiritual.

>> No.20262705

>>20262663
>without an identity
Also, identity is a false idol - the pinnacle of self-creativity as vanity.

>> No.20262711

>>20262700
>spiritual
define it

>> No.20262764

>>20262711
All your stuff is made up anyhow. I can meet you on those terms. Spirituality is what I like, non-spirituality is what I dislike.

>> No.20262820

>>20262764
>Spirituality is what I like, non-spirituality is what I dislike.
Ice cream is your god - understood

>> No.20263470

Thanks for making this. At this point posting literature here is intelligent. Especially empowering works like Nietzsche. Anyone who doesn’t like Nietzsche is depressed. And if you don’t like him because of some of his readers then you are too focused on other people.

>> No.20263499

>>20261841
You misread Genesis. The point is that the knowledge fragmented us. Consciousness gave us more power but in doing so it made us see ourselves as weak. Also, your point is stupid because science came out of religion. Science wasn’t created in a vacuum. Even Nietzsche touched on this. The concept of truth is where science originated.

>> No.20263525

>>20262694
Hiking for 8 hours straight AND holding a black belt in mma. I bet they don't teach you that in the sunday school (fuck schools lmao).
>>20262820
Cuck, your a slave lol basically "NOOOO YOU CANNOT RESPECT THE BASED MOUSTACHE HORSE-ENTHUSIASTIC MAN NOOOOO" + making an idol out of the Bible is reproachable.
>Ice cream is your god - understood
Projecting, you imaginatively weak chump. Obviously, that what I like is only GOOD, NOBLE and FULL OF DIVINE Light, otherwise, I wouldn't like it. As the first rule of Knowledge is an ability to discern.

Now get the fuck out of the SNEEDZSCHE thread, I command thee.

>> No.20264024

Anons. Should I repost these first five sections of the book yet again in the future? There seems to be much controversy regarding these first 5, which spurred many discussions. I almost get the feeling that a third thread might be worth it. Alternatively, we can move on to the following sections of the book. However, I am curious to know your guys' thoughts on the matter.

>> No.20264122

"Some Germans want to kick out the jews. You know who we should really kick out? Anti-semites!"
Nietzsche, pg 512, Beyond Good and Evil

>> No.20264172

>>20262354
Thanks Anon, this is the only good good post in this entire thread.

>> No.20264190

>>20264122
You're lucky he wrote that mineworthy quote or you wouldn't be allowed to read him anymore. He was fighting Abrahamism on levels you lack the education to comprehend.

>> No.20264505
File: 719 KB, 682x586, Overman.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20264505

>>20257093
He was a syphilitic raised by women when his beloved father died when he was a youth.

His way of thought enables evil, privileged people to deny the immortal souls of their fellow men, treat them like cattle and claim "godhead" for themselves. It is the underlying message of Noah Yuval Harari's "Homo Deus," the bible of globohomo, which seeks to make most men chemically controlled slaves, self-evident truth simply a matter of power, and reason little more than agreeing with power.
Silly young men, emptied of real connection to their fellows by the alienating horror of this modern world, read FN and think it somehow applies to them. It doesn't. And they will be culled and herded for denying the soul of their fellow men by those with greater resources who deny theirs.

That said, he's a terrific writer. I loved Mein Kampf--clearly influenced by FN-- Germans on fire are still so analytical--it's quite seductive.

>> No.20264597

>>20261879
Christianity valued celibacy in its religious orders--to allow them to focus their will/energy on religious devotion and reflection. The laity are encouraged to focus their sexuality on procreation as the best way to express it--as something shared and creative rather than what modernity calls for it to be: empty and sterile.

>> No.20264631

>>20262354
I do agree FN does something important and different after the turn philosophy took toward mathematical rigor and steadily moved away from the center of what it is to be human to an arcane curiosity, eventually the preeminent punchline about the uselessness of strictly academic exercises/pursuits.
He is readable. He is alive. His vision, his method, his pursuit of truth for good or ill, is a living one.

>> No.20264642

>>20252653
>Too many Nietzsche threads filled with new anons who have not done the readings.
So true. I’ve people saying that Nietzsche was a Christian because “he thought the death of God was bad.” Morons. Their only exposure to Nietzsche is through Jordan Peterson videos, probably. As for me, I’ve already read The Antichrist so I won’t be joining you.

>> No.20264675

>>20255058
Stop trying to cling to Christianity and just read the damn book with an open mind.

>> No.20264770

>>20264675
Nietzsche was fundamentally Christian
>B..But he wrote...
His criticisms were directly pretty much exclusively at Lutheranism. None of his critiques make any sense in a Catholic or Orthodox context. Nietzsche's "uberman" is the person who has fully united with Christ, the lawgiver.

>> No.20264785

>>20264770
>His criticisms were directly pretty much exclusively at Lutheranism.
YOU HAVEN’T READ NIETZSCHE. His criticisms apply to Christianity - all the way back to it’s origin. Here’s a passage from Genealogy of Morals:

(1/2)

Nothing that has been done on earth against ‘the noble’, ‘the mighty’, ‘the masters’ and ‘the rulers’, is worth mentioning compared with what the Jews have done against them: the Jews, that priestly people, which in the last resort was able to gain satisfaction from its enemies and conquerors only through a radical revaluation of their values, that is, through an act of the most deliberate revenge [durch einen Akt der geistigsten Rache]. Only this was fitting for a priestly people with the most entrenched priestly vengefulness. It was the Jews who, rejecting the aristocratic value equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = blessed) ventured, with awe-inspiring consistency, to bring about a revesal and held it in the teeth of the most unfathomable hatred (the hatred of the powerless), saying: ‘Only those who suffer are good, only the poor, the powerless, the lowly are good; the suffering, the deprived, the sick, the ugly, are the only pious people, the only ones saved, salvation is for them alone, whereas you rich, the noble and powerful, you are eternally wicked, cruel, lustful, insatiate, godless, you will also be eternally wretched, cursed and damned!’ . . . We know who became heir to this Jewish revaluation . . . With regard to the huge and incalculably disastrous initiative taken by the Jews with this most fundamental of all declarations of war, I recall the words I wrote on another occasion (Beyond Good and Evil, section 195) 21 – namely, that the slaves’ revolt in morality begins with the Jews: a revolt which has two thousand years of history behind it and which has only been lost sight of because – it was victorious . . .

>> No.20264793

>>20264785

(2/2)

This Jesus of Nazareth, as the embodiment of the gospel of love, this ‘redeemer’ bringing salvation and victory to the poor, the sick, to sinners – was he not seduction in its most sinister and irresistible form, seduction and the circuitous route to just those very Jewish values and innovative ideals? Did Israel not reach the pinnacle of her sublime vengefulness via this very ‘redeemer’, this apparent opponent of and disperser of Israel? Is it not part of a secret black art of a truly grand politics of revenge, a far sighted, subterranean revenge, slow to grip and calculating, that Israel had to denounce her actual instrument of revenge before all the world as a mortal enemy and nail him to the cross so that ‘all the world’, namely all Israel’s enemies, could safely nibble at this bait? And could anyone, on the other hand, using all the ingenuity of his intellect, think up a more dangerous bait? Something to equal the enticing, intoxicating, benumbing, corrupting power of that symbol of the ‘holy cross’, to equal that horrible paradox of a ‘God on the Cross’, to equal that mystery of an unthinkable final act of extreme cruelty and self- crucifixion of God for the salvation of mankind? . . . At least it is certain that sub hoc signo Israel, with its revenge and revaluation of all former values, has triumphed repeatedly over all other ideals, all nobler ideals. – –

Please just go back to your fucking bible thread.

>> No.20264824

>>20264785
>His criticisms apply to Christianity
None of that is relevant to Catholicism or Orthodoxy though? It's relevant to Protestantism. The issue with Nietzsche is that he didn't really have a good grasp of Christian history and continually conflated "Christianity" with "Protestantism". It's a stunning critique of Protestant thought, in fact it's even fundamentally Orthodox in his thought about the Jewishness of Protestant theology.

>> No.20264825

>>20261750
>>20261349
>>20261174
I guess if someone is sickly, the only acceptable philosophy for them is to constantly go around in resentment of the strong, and to invent another world where strength doesn't matter, so they can pretend to no longer be sick, right?

Nietzsche is very open about his illnesses in Ecce Homo, he says it's what makes him such an expert in decadence. He can identify Christians and philosophers for what they are BECAUSE he himself was afflicted with diseases that produce Christians.

The only difference is he didn't succumb to the mental weakling position of pretending that strength isn't obviously good just because he didn't have it.

And the lime about Nietzsche hiking for long periods is real, when his health recovered he would walk long walks. He always said it was how he got his best ideas, and that sitting around constantly kills your ability to think. He famously thought of eternal recurrence when high up on a mountain and saw a certain stone which inspired him.

So yes, Nietzsche was a sickly man. He was also stronger than you at his best. We all know you're a pasty weak faggot who has nothing better to do than shitpost online.

>> No.20264839

>>20264770
Please shut the fuck up and go away. You're a pest. I guess your life of constant rejection us why you have nothing better to do than harass people online who don't want to talk to you.

>> No.20264842

>>20264825
So basically Nietzsche was a self hating cuck who identified himself with weakness and argued he needed a big strong ubermensch to save him and everyone else. That's still pretty pathetic.

>> No.20264843

>>20264824
You’re a retard trying to deflect all of the downfalls of Christianity onto one type of Christianity. What Nietzsche wrote (which I doubt you even read) applies to the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.

>> No.20264868

>>20252690
I like the line about Pascal. If Pascal felt extreme anxiety about himself due to the teachings of Christianity, then Christianity really did hold him back.

Christians romanticize being in agony of one's own sin as if that's good. No, it's a pathology, and putting people in that state is a crime.

>> No.20264873

>>20264842
>argued he needed a big strong ubermensch to save him and everyone else.
And you are arguing you need a weak Jew to save you and everyone else.

>> No.20264884

>>20264842
Please stop shitting up the thread desperately stumbling over bad takes to "own" Nietzsche. He was a self aware person and there's nothing embarrassing about him to anyone with a slight amount of maturity.

>> No.20264893

>>20264873
In weakness you are strong, in strength you are weak. Nietzsche, a man who fetishized strength was the weakest cuck of his age, powerless to reach his own ideal, impotent in his hatred of his own deficiencies. He could not transcend the dialectic so he remained stuck within it's quagmire, trying to pull himself out of the muck but never achieving it.

>> No.20264898

>>20264893
You should call your mom, she'll make you feel better.

>> No.20264902

>>20264898
Why are people who idolize Nietzsche so thin skinned?

>> No.20264916

>>20264893
>In weakness you are strong, in strength you are weak.
This is exactly the kind of worldview that Nietzsche criticised Christianity for creating. It invents heaven and other fantasies to create a universe in which good is bad and bad is good. Jesus glorifies weakness and poverty, saying those who suffer are actually fortunate for they will be blessed with eternal life and those who are fortunate should feel guilty. Everything about Christianity is motivated by the desire for revenge and resentment of the powerless. Unironically the Gospels are pure cope and seethe.

>> No.20264926

>>20264916
It's very obviously a message meant for slaves, who had no power or strength, so they could feel good about their situation.

The fact Christians don't comprehend that Christianity spread predominantly through slaves, or any of the context in the Roman Empire, is interesting. I've never met a Christian who understood the Romans more than superficially.

>> No.20264928

>>20264916
That's hylic style thinking. Can't you achieve at least psychic thinking?

>> No.20265743

>>20264675
You are misguided missing a finger for the direction it is pointing at.
>>20264770
You are misguided as well. You stuck on the level of American identity political wars. The lawgiving instance is related not to the law given once and for all but to an ability to navigate every instance of dynamically deployed Time towards the True North. First is merely an idol legitimized, latter is to be in contact with the Holy Ghost ('The wind blows where it wishes' John 3:8).

Identities fail to grasp the Real: they attempt at representation and by that try to objectify that which is ever 'fugitive'. Always missing the mark of the paradoxical.

>> No.20265957

Nietzsche was one of the following:

1. An idiot that thought he was a genius
2. The greatest troll in philosophy
3. A genius

>> No.20265979

>>20265957
He was all three, because the law of non-contradiction does not exist, and especially because idiot and genius are relative terms. He's a genius compared to all philosophers before him

>> No.20266075

>>20264893
>In weakness you are strong, in strength you are weak
>Nietzsche was the weakest cuck of his age
so by your logic he was the strongest ubermensch of his age. loll

>> No.20266295

NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE NIETZSCHE

>> No.20266498

>>20252653
>>20252653
anon these threads will always be full of schizophrenic christfags. Their entire goal is to shit up any normal discussion with their mental masturbation. Just post these threads anyway, and don't give them any attention

>> No.20266506

>>20264172
>>20264631
No prob anons.

This passage might help, especially since it's from the book being discussed in the thread and comments on the Zarathustra book.

From section 54 of Antichrist:

>Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are sceptical. Zarathustra is a sceptic. The strength, the freedom which proceed from intellectual power, from a superabundance of intellectual power, manifest themselves as scepticism. Men of fixed convictions do not count when it comes to determining what is fundamental in values and lack of values. Men of convictions are prisoners. They do not see far enough, they do not see what is below them: whereas a man who would talk to any purpose about value and non-value must be able to see five hundred convictions beneath him—and behind him.... A mind that aspires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is necessarily sceptical.

>> No.20266994

>>20263525
>Hiking for 8 hours straight AND holding a black belt in mma
Why is this something to be proud of?
>making an idol out of the Bible is reproachable.
Using terms from Bible to criticize the Holy Bible? Totally rent free lmao
>Projecting, you imaginatively weak chump.
At least I'm imaginative, very kind

Okay the rest of your post is genuinely ridiculous

>> No.20267007

>>20264843
>downfalls of Christianity
these don't exist

>> No.20267012

>>20266295
Neat cheeks desu.

>> No.20267023

>>20264902
No Christ = no Truth = no place to rest your head

>>20266498
>Their entire goal is to shit up any normal discussion with their mental masturbation.
>normal discussion
This is 4chan

>>20266506
Literally assumes dogmatic value of scepticism in this passage and then pretnds it's not a value. Nietzsche is such a cute clown

>> No.20267101

>>20264843
Not that anon, but he literally wasn't exposed to anything but Protestantism.

>> No.20267329

>>20266994
>Using terms from Bible to criticize the Holy Bible? Totally rent free lmao
Using the Bible in a redditor's concondescending smilefagging greed-ridden rhetoric — simply ugly, my guy.

Your coquettishly self-deprecating trip (ah, such a mental lolita!) could never balance your flawed conduct: taking what is perceived as Holy and making it into a dildo (a phallos they, castrati, are lacking) to impose their decadence wherever they wretchedness may step. Of course, without spreading their diseased ethos they could never feel complete: parasites.
>At least I'm imaginative, very kind
Insincere and unimaginative.

>> No.20267807

>>20267329
>Using the Bible in a redditor's concondescending smilefagging greed-ridden rhetoric — simply ugly, my guy.
mixing sins for poetic effect
>Your coquettishly self-deprecating trip (ah, such a mental lolita!) could never balance your flawed conduct:
Wasn't trying to
>taking what is perceived as Holy and making it into a dildo (a phallos they, castrati, are lacking) to impose their decadence wherever they wretchedness may step
>Of course, without spreading their diseased ethos they could never feel complete: parasites.
>ethos
>decadence
>wretchedness
>coquettish
>balance
>greed-ridden
You misused all of these words

>> No.20269353

>>20267023
>Literally assumes dogmatic value of scepticism in this passage and then pretnds it's not a value. Nietzsche is such a cute clown
I actually don't disagree entirely. His skepticism is grounded in the principle of probity, but he doesn't realize (or does but is unsure how to deal with) the fact that his probity is a lingering element of Christian morality in his thought. Plato deals with it in a sounder way talking about the "lie in the soul" in the Republic.

As a technical aside, he's not arguing about not having values per se; will to power seeks out values to mediate through after all.

>> No.20269871

>>20262354
This all sounds good, but is actually completely wrong and retarded. This post reads like you're shoving both neesha and plato into the same "philosophy" hole, without actually reading what he had to say.

1. His reverence with plato is with him is as an opponent - he doesn't agree with his idealism, his dialectic method, the longing for wisdom as being as being fundamental to philosophy, the *point* of philosophy being moral, etc. In fact, neesha's whole gripe with plato is that plato led people astray by cowering in fictional idealisms and setting up moral rules. Plato is not any model neesha would emulate - he treats him as a successful opponent and nothing more.

2/3. Neesha is NOT writing for a lay audience, and certainly not even for most philosophers. He is explicitly elitist in his writing. He also explicitly insists on not having his word being taken as dogma. Yes, he willingly chooses his style, but this not done to hide away and mask himself. It's coherent with his more broad beliefs; specifically him paving the way for "value revaluation". His style is him "going to war" with other authors, treating them like opponents, using humour and rhetoric but rhetoric that makes incredibly precise strikes. When he makes the german pun of Spinoza as a fucking spider(Spinne) spinning a web, he's not just trolling behind a facade. He really is targeting Spinoza for building up this gigantic system of interrelated concepts that only serves to snare intellectual victims. In this, he tries to reevaluate philosophical methods. The idea of philosophers being legislators is to say that they are in the business of revaluating values (and legislating them) is because politicians, stemfags, scientists, etc can't actually be trusted to do that

>> No.20269937

Bump

>> No.20270482

>>20269871
1) As far as seeing Plato as an opponent, I both agree and hadn't said anything that denied that. But everything else you're insisting distorts what Nietzsche collectively says about Plato and the nature of philosophy. I didn't claim that Nietzsche agreed with everything he thought Plato was doing; I explicitly pointed to his disagreement with the Good and the immortal soul. But with respect to Eros and Nietzsche's agreement with Plato on it as the nature of philosophy, I'll point back to >>20266506 as an example of crucial overlap between them. I'll note that the dialogues Sophist and Statesman also share peculiar preoccupations with the identification of power and matter in the former and knowledge and making in the latter that show up everywhere in Nietzsche.

What's more, Nietzsche plainly doesn't stick to one way of speaking about Plato; for every accusation that seems genuine, you get Nietzsche playfully attacking him for a purpose not having anything to do with Plato per se, such as when he notes Plato "becomes a caricature in my hands", which admits of willful distortion for some purpose. N. even pays him especially high complements by calling him the "finest product of antiquity" in the opening of BGE, which is far from just being a mere opponent. Further, you have N. suspecting Plato wasn't even an idealist:

>Is Plato's integrity beyond question? - But we know at least that he wanted to have taught as absolute truth what he himself did not even regard as conditionally true: namely the separate existence and particular immortality of "souls."

Note that what he's describing Plato as doing often matches what he encourages in his own work: the possibility of those of weaker constitutions believing in beautiful falsehoods for health, as opposed to the dangerous and even ugly truth.

Again, actually looking more closely at BGE shows the kinship he feels with Plato:

>7. How malicious philosophers can be! I know of nothing more stinging than the joke Epicurus took the liberty of making on Plato and the Platonists; he called them Dionysiokolakes. In its original sense, and on the face of it, the word signifies "Flatterers of Dionysius"—consequently, tyrants' accessories and lick-spittles; besides this, however, it is as much as to say, "They are all ACTORS, there is nothing genuine about them" (for Dionysiokolax was a popular name for an actor). And the latter is really the malignant reproach that Epicurus cast upon Plato: he was annoyed by the grandiose manner, the mise en scene style of which Plato and his scholars were masters—of which Epicurus was not a master! He, the old school-teacher of Samos, who sat concealed in his little garden at Athens, and wrote three hundred books, perhaps out of rage and ambitious envy of Plato, who knows! Greece took a hundred years to find out who the garden-god Epicurus really was. Did she ever find out?

>> No.20270491

>>20269871
On the surface of this passage, N. simply continues his psychological account of philosophers and their motives. But, recalling the importance of Dionysus to N., we see at the very end of BGE:

>295. ...I have also encountered on my path many strange and dangerous spirits; above all, however, and again and again, the one of whom I have just spoken: in fact, no less a personage than the God DIONYSUS, the great equivocator and tempter, to whom, as you know, I once offered in all secrecy and reverence my first-fruits... In the meantime, however, I have learned much, far too much, about the philosophy of this God, and, as I said, from mouth to mouth—I, the last disciple and initiate of the God Dionysus: and perhaps I might at last begin to give you, my friends, as far as I am allowed, a little taste of this philosophy? ...The very fact that Dionysus is a philosopher, and that therefore Gods also philosophize, seems to me a novelty which is not unensnaring, and might perhaps arouse suspicion precisely among philosophers...

Putting the only two passages in all of BGE together that refer to Dionysus, one looks back at the earlier one and notices that the Epicurus has called Plato a follower of Dionysus, who N. claims to be himself a follower of: they're both followers of Dionysus, according to N.

2/3) I didn't claim N. was writing for laypeople; otoh, it would be silly to play down the fact he was aware of the possibility that laypeople might read him, given his many comments about how to read, how to read him, misreadings he expects, etc.

You're explicitly wrong re: the mask, and in such a way, I'm confused why you'd bring up N.'s elitism (which I also explicitly pointed to), since the consequence of that elitism is that of different types of people with different capacities for understanding/misunderstanding, similar to what Averroes says in the Decisive Treatise, or Plato in the Republic.

After all, N. says in BGE:

>40. Everything that is profound loves the mask: the profoundest things have a hatred even of figure and likeness.

And:

>30. Our deepest insights must—and should—appear as follies, and under certain circumstances as crimes, when they come unauthorizedly to the ears of those who are not disposed and predestined for them. The exoteric and the esoteric, as they were formerly distinguished by philosophers—among the Indians, as among the Greeks, Persians, and Mussulmans, in short, wherever people believed in gradations of rank and NOT in equality and equal rights—are not so much in contradistinction to one another in respect to the exoteric class, standing without, and viewing, estimating, measuring, and judging from the outside, and not from the inside; the more essential distinction is that the class in question views things from below upwards—while the esoteric class views things FROM ABOVE DOWNWARDS.

>> No.20270504

>>20269871
Or:

>290. "Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood. The latter perhaps wounds his vanity; but the former wounds his heart, his sympathy, which always says: "Ah, why would you also have as hard a time of it as I have?""

This is about as explicit as a writer could be that he's doing not quote what appears in his writing without giving it away.

Consider his notebooks of 1885-1886, where he says that "it is today necessary to speak temporarily in a coarse manner and to act coarsely. What is fine and concealed is no longer understood, not even by those who are related to us. That of which one does not speak loudly and cry out, is not there."

In the Nachlass of 1882 he says that "to speak much of oneself is also a way of hiding oneself."

I don't think you're wholly wrong in some of your points, but you aren't putting together what it means that Nietzsche is elitist and non-dogmatic, which would seem to point to reading him as if aware that he thinks he can pull the wool over your eyes and surprise you; as it is, you seem too happy to take him at face value, as if you were equals.

>> No.20270519

>>20270482
>what he himself did not even regard as conditionally true:
Where does Plato say this?

>> No.20270581

>>20270519
He doesn't say anything forwardly; N.'s inferring it. Presumably he has something in mind from reading Phaedo.

>> No.20270597

>>20270581
In Phaedo it is reasoned out directly. The only cases I can think of are the myth in the Republic which Plato outright calls falsehood, namely that the citizens of the Republic all grow out of the Earth like plants and have no human fathers or mothers. There are other cases where he justifies belief in God/s without actually proving the existence of God as such, but the latter is not related to the soul, and is also just for the purpose of ethics.

>> No.20270686

>>20270597
The Phaedo doesn't quite reason it out directly; that's why Socrates has to settle for a myth in the end. It's almost a joke in Plato scholarship that the dialogue is baffling, partly because it spends so much time going through four different proofs only for the first three to get shot down, and the last one only passes muster because Socrates gives the stinkeye to someone questioning it afyer everyone else gets onboard with it. By the end, there's a real question whether Socrates believes what he's said; he curiously asks to make a libation to the gods with the hemlock, which is...aggressively blasphemous, and at least indirectly fearful of drinking it. It's also pointed out that he's covered his head in his last moments, an odd detail that points to the private nature and possible fearfulness over death as destruction.

In the Republic, there's two passages where Socrates makes a comment about how simplistic everything they've set down has been, but that, if they choose, there's a "longer, harder way" to the truth. Unsurprisingly, his friends choose the easier path they've already taken, and, having brought up that the arguments about the soul they've made are also implicated as being part of the easier way, something in them is either very incomplete or struck with falsehoods for understanding. You're right to point to the Noble Lies though; ince they come in, it's a real question how many falsehoods might be lurking around in the arguments.