[ 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: 53 KB, 429x437, 1-friedrich-nietzsche-bettmann.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20805956 No.20805956 [Reply] [Original]

>Jesus was an ubermensch!
>Will to truth is the will to power!
>Spiritual aristocracy!

Silly mental gymnastics.

>> No.20806013

Nietzsche getting mentioned in every other reply convinces me he is to pseudo smartarses what jordan peterson is to common plebs

>> No.20806035

>>20805956
No, the last man is a dung beetle. Who couldn't even get a job facilitating the logistics of the spatial movements of post-colon poo because he had no 'work experience.'

>> No.20806058

Probably the same reason why communists try to appropriate him.
I say "probably" because i cannot possibly think of a single rational reason.

>> No.20806212

Only ones I see trying to claim him are trannies and their pals, which makes sense given how accommodating his thought is to their bullshit. As a Christian I want nothing to do with this turd.

>> No.20806237

Neetch = Heglel

>> No.20806269

>>20806212
no, just because he didn't embrace universal ethics doesn't mean he implicitly endorsed everything that follows sans Christianity.

>> No.20806283

>>20805956
this doesnt happen. you're just amking things up because you hate christians

>> No.20806334

>>20805956
>neetchuds have to photoshop him with a fake chin to make him not look beta

>> No.20806342

>>20806269
He didn't believe in anything. Nothing he says has any meaning because.

>> No.20806396

>>20806283
you absolutely have heard people try to claim Jesus was an ubermensch before

>> No.20806403

>>20805956
Read Jordan Peterson.

>> No.20806463

There's not one honest person in this thread so far.

>> No.20806497

>>20806396
Didn't Nietzsche say that himself? Pretty sure he did.
>>20806463
There's plenty, except you

>> No.20806501

>>20806212
They are inflicting themselves with stigmata to become more christlike. They are closer to you than they are to Nietzsche, who you've almost certainly not read because you are filthy tourist

>> No.20806514

>>20806501
Everything he said is up to interpretation because nothing he said is concrete or coherent

>> No.20806548

>>20806501
>>20806514
He deliberately filters both of you.

>> No.20806571

>>20806548
You unintentionally acts like a retard. What is the correct interpretation of N

>> No.20806627

>>20806514
>Everything he said is up to interpretation
this is true of everything ever said by everyone; not sure why you think this is a gotcha against Nietzsche and allows your position to be unassailable, maybe you are underage or retarded
>because nothing he said is concrete or coherent
this is bizarre coming from someone whose beliefs consist of taking fairy tales as evidence that we can enter into contracts of servitude with divine beings to get eternal life. Nietzsche is very concrete and coherent when he is talking about power, health, the psychological and social roots of different moralities etc. What is not concrete and what is not coherent is asking a dead wizard to save you from the earthen prison you believe his father built for you. "As a Christian" you should indeed "want nothing to do" with actual philosophy, and do take the advice of your founder Paul to avoid that most prideful and gentile sin of a man thinking for himself and in terms of what makes him good, and do stick to your sickly lusting for another world in which your astral father may spank all the children who were sharper and swifter than you, and seat you next to him as his heir.

>> No.20806644

>>20806627
excellent read, you definitely have such a good grasp on Christianity that you have no issue btfoing it with your brutal honesty.
as a Christian i was shaken to my core reading this, ive been found out

>> No.20806648

>>20806501
>to become more Christlike
Kek
Also crucifixion has nothing to do with genital mutilation.

>> No.20806662

>>20806627
>this is true of everything ever said by everyone;
Sure, except their interpretations can be true or wrong. Not so with Nietzsche because he isn't coherent and his perspectivism is self refuting. I'm sorry you are too retarded to understand abstract thought. Now, define honesty

>> No.20806663

>>20806571
We're both sitting in a house having tea and talking about how nice the house is. It's really nice and strongly built.
I mention that it's built on wooden foundations which you take as a great insult. It turns out you actually think it's impossible to even leave the house, you don't think there are any foundations needed at all. You live in a constructed reality and refuse to acknowledge that it's not fundamental.

The house is any logical structure, it can be Christianity or secular philosophy. All your ideas and cloud castles of logic apparently rest on biology, wood. These aren't binary, absolute problems where if you acknowledge the criticism of logic it completely invalidates logic. That you can't conceive of them in other terms than that is a demonstration of your mental slavery to old wizards like Zoroaster.

>> No.20806680

>>20806662
If I grunt and point at the moon is there no coherent interpretation you can think of that would be more valid than others?
I wouldn't be making some coherent formal argument rooted in the authority of formal logic and philosophical traditions but would you use that to pretend I don't mean anything? Would that be honest?

>> No.20806688

>>20806648
I am talking about stigmata, which is christer self-mutilation undertaken for ideological and identity-performance purposes. That to me sounds extremely familiar, and also extremely life-denying, so these behaviors—these moralities—share an underlying impulse, one which is resilient to being uprooted even after god is dead or the operation is regretted.

>> No.20806698

>>20806663
What do you mean? The house does have a foundation. I live in reality. What is biology and is it real? Do ypu think biology exists in reality?

>> No.20806699

>>20806662
>he isn't coherent and his perspectivism is self refuting
you keep repeating this as if it were axiomatic, like water being wet, but what more can one expect from the sort of mind that believes something must exist because it can be conceived of. I could conceive of a (You) who has bothered to read Nietzsche instead of relying on a tradzoom cribsheet shared in crusader kings 2 discord servers, but that doesn't make him real.

>> No.20806707

>>20806680
>If I grunt and point at the moon is there no coherent interpretation you can think of that would be more valid than others?
I'm not sure I follow this analogy. If all you are doing is grunting and pointing at the moon then that's what you are doing. Are you implying that the grunt means the moon?

>> No.20806713

>>20806699
Can you please stop strawmanning and using ad homs? Perspectivism is self refuting because claiming that perspectivism is absolutely true refutes it.

>> No.20806715

uh no the perspectivist and objectivist chuds are going at it again

>> No.20806720

>>20806715
It's called realist not objectivist

>> No.20806721

Coping

>> No.20806723

>there's no truth!
>but mine that is!

>> No.20806729

>>20806698
>The house does have a foundation. I live in reality.
The connection between the house and the presumed reality is through you, an apparently "biological" thing, whatever biological is. You can't account for your experience, the only thing you actually know using any of these tools you claim represent "reality".
When you keep appealing to your ideas of real you're refusing to acknowledge the house has foundations outside the house. You're appealing to the construct, saying all that is is inside the house we built.
>>20806707
>I'm not sure I follow this analogy.
Try.
>Are you implying that the grunt means the moon?
Obviously I'm referencing the phenomena in some way, assuming we share experience of the phenomena. You should look where I'm pointing and make the same grunt back unless you're a retard, dumber than a caveman.
In these threads instead of even looking in the same direction to begin criticizing my ideas of the moon you deliberately look down to the ground and chimp out.

>> No.20806746

>>20806729
No I'm not, I'm not implying we will ever know the full truth. But you are appealing to reality by assuming biology exists.
>Obviously I'm referencing the phenomena in some way, assuming we share experience of the phenomena.
Ok? And can you tell me what the moon is or is it just a meaningless non-thing that can not be defined?

>> No.20806750

>>20806713
Not sure what you're even getting at, is this some schizo metaphysics thing where you just assert something '[slobbering] because it's true!'without having any further context, criterion, etc.?

>> No.20806760

>>20806750
No, I'm saying that from the context of perspectivism.
I'll just repeat myself
perspectivism must be construed either as a fact or as one further interpretation—but in the former case the doctrine is clearly self-refuting, while in the latter case any reasons or arguments one may have in support of one’s perspective are rendered superfluous. It's meaningless

>> No.20806762

>>20806746
>But you are appealing to reality by assuming biology exists.
I'm referencing my apparent situation, my perceived experience. Saying biology exists in some philosophical sense includes many more claims that do not have to do with my direct experience or the relevant criticisms of things like logic that you don't grasp. Your claims assume solipsism is false for example, my claims don't make any claims except about the direct phenomena.
"I see a moon" as an absolute statement rests on a million assumptions, ideas about "I" and seeing etc. Pointing at the moon is just referencing the experience. I can't point at my own experience using fingers, I have to use flawed words so I cheat and say things like "I see a moon" as a reference to the experience, hoping you will be more interested in finding things out (noble curious spirit) than attacking the language (resentful slave spirit). It's not an absolute statement that includes the nature of "I" or seeing or moons.

>> No.20806763

>>20806760
Can you use your own words or is everything an ism to the rising generation?

>> No.20806767

>>20806763
>t. esl retard

>> No.20806768

>>20806762
>my perceived experience.
Is that percieved experience really existing? Is it true that you are thinking right now?
Solipsism just assumes reality isn't real which ironically bases it's ideas on reality. Then you'll go hungry and die or something.
Is experience an assumption you think is truly happening?

>> No.20806772

>>20806763
Can you actually say anything of value or respond to what I just wrote?

>> No.20806774

>>20805956
you have to be a mentally agile gymnast to cross over the narrow bridge: Nietzsche studied Deleuze on his long 5-hour long athletic rides. but the idea is not to speculate about ideas so to own a virtual symmetrical rival but to find ways that are not taken by the enemy: it is not enough to make a victim to stamp over it in a vulgar self-asserting move — that only affirms the world as we know it — the true emancipatory shift victimizes the paradigm itself, breaks it, denies it, commands it as a master: Christ momentum. and precisely in this spot the Christ and Nietzsche coincide.

>> No.20806775

>>20806768
>Is that percieved experience really existing?
I don't have to make any claims either way about your ideas of "existence". They are ideas, the things I'm referencing just are. The perceived experience is directly revealed to me unlike these ideas. If you have no direct revelation you're what they call a p-zombie.

>> No.20806778

“Irony against those who believe Christianity has been overcome by the modern natural sciences. Christian value judgments have not by any means been overcome this way. ‘Christ on the Cross’ is the most sublime symbol—even today.” —Friedrich Nietzsche

>> No.20806784

>>20806778
Does German have em dashes?

>> No.20806785

>>20806775
>the things I'm referencing just are.
Ok so they are real. Glad we figured that out and now we can infer that perspectivism is false.

>> No.20806787

>>20806772
>uh it's self-refuting to argue against absolutism
>there now I don't have to argue for my brand of abolutism, which is extremely particular and fantastical
remind me where you said anything of value yourself ITT, christer

>> No.20806793

>>20806775
You are contradicting yourself massively here. You say they just are, what does that mean?
>The perceived experience is directly revealed to me
Who the hell is "me"? What is experience?

>> No.20806800

>>20806784
Haven't read Nietzsche tl notes in a while but iirc he wrote with lots of elipses, in a style that made his writing seem spoken, and these were replaced with dashes in English to avoid confusion around whether something had been omitted

>> No.20806801

>>20806787
>tu quoque

>> No.20806808

>>20806787
>>uh it's self-refuting to argue against absolutism
That's not what I said. I said perspectivism is self refuting ON ITS OWN. Absolutism doesn't refute it, it refutes itself. Do you understand?(if you think "understanding" is possible)

>> No.20806810

>>20806801
You deserve a tu quoque for pretending god/platonism isn't dead and arguing against that position from the assumption that the contrary requires no demonstration

>> No.20806812

>>20806785
You can think that but you spent all this time spamming your braindead perspective with no reason or any elaboration given, just to end up in the exact same place you started with no insight gained or anything learned.
>>20806793
>Who the hell is "me"? What is experience?
I talked about all this in the previous post >>20806762 but you can't remember even one post back?
>"I see a moon" as an absolute statement rests on a million assumptions, ideas about "I" and seeing etc. Pointing at the moon is just referencing the experience. I can't point at my own experience using fingers, I have to use flawed words so I cheat and say things like "I see a moon" as a reference to the experience, hoping you will be more interested in finding things out (noble curious spirit) than attacking the language (resentful slave spirit).
Why do you keep repeating yourself and demanding I repeat myself? You seriously need some kind of help.

>> No.20806814

>>20806787
Also, I'm not a christian, schizo.

>> No.20806823

>>20805956
Blind adherence to Nietzsche is the most anti-Nietzschean thing you can do, kek.

>> No.20806829

>>20806814
Other anon declared he was, and they only ever argue in bad faith because they don't believe anything can be demonstrated and ignore the bloated elephant corpse in the room

>> No.20806830

>>20806812
>spamming your braindead perspective
How is my "perspective" braindead? Remember reason is an idea that isn't real, as N points out.
>>20806812
Answer the question and stop refering to mindless assumptions and ad homs that led me to asking you that question. What is "me" and how can things "just be"?

>> No.20806835

>>20806829
What the fuck are you talking about? The only corose here is Nietzsche and his perspectivism.

>> No.20806845

>>20806810
>argumentum ad lapidem

>> No.20806847

>>20806830
>How is my "perspective" braindead?
You just repeat your conclusion and ignore all the points actually raised. You're not even part of any discussion about the subject yet. It's dumber than being wrong, someone wrong about a subject is at least talking about the subject.
>Answer the question
That was answered in the post you're replying to? Elaborate on what you don't understand. You don't understand the difference between pointing at a phenomena and creating a formal model to represent it?

>> No.20806854

>>20806835
>you can't have perspective there's only the absolute and undying truth of the great volcano demon
metaphysics brainlets don't even understand what they're arguing for they just hate "nihilism/postmodernism" and think doubling down on what causes such things will get rid of them

>> No.20806857

>>20806847
No, how do you *know* that my perspective is braindead? What conclusion are you talking about? That biology is real?

What is "me" and how can things "just be"?

>> No.20806863

>>20806854
You can have perspective and opinions, but that doesn't mean reality and reason don't exist. Perspectivism literall just refutes itself, it is meaningless.

>> No.20806867

>>20806845
sorry fallacyfag, god as the larpers advocate it in order to rollback to the earlier version of nihilism (Christianity/Platonism) is indeed an absurd premise that requires no more discussion

>> No.20806874

>>20806863
In what sense is there a "reality" or a [faculty of] of "reason" beyond "perspective"? Is this reality perhaps void of all perceptions? Are we going to become Buddhists now to own Nietzsche?

>> No.20806878

>>20806867
My man, there is nothing to discuss in Nietzsche. His ideas are nebuluous and meaningless. He contradicts himself all the time.

>> No.20806879

>>20806867
reductio ad absurdum

>> No.20806886

>>20806878
>>20806879
Are these really the standard-bearers of 95 IQ theology?

>> No.20806888

>>20806874
The fact that you are percieving something is real and you already implicitly take all these ideas for granted because you can't actually behave without them. You just ignore using the words themselves on principle because you are dogmatic.

>> No.20806889

>>20806886
>argumentum ad hominem

>> No.20806891

>>20806857
>What conclusion are you talking about?
That your ideas dictate "reality". Your ideas are not reality and that includes your ideas about things being "real".
My personal beliefs are separate from all this. There is objective truth and God exists but I don't need to appeal to any such ideas to point at the phenomena in my direct experience like Nietzsche did to point out to you that your house is made of wooden foundations which you would be grateful for if you were honest with yourself. If you had the intuition of a competent man worth anything instead of the programmed slave you are.

>> No.20806894

>>20806886
I already told you I'm mot a christian. Stop strawmanning and actually say something instead of grunting like a retard and getting mad when people, reasonably, don't understand you or think you are retarded.

>> No.20806895

>>20805956
Things no one is saying for 500

>> No.20806897

>>20806889
It's like Chesterton and reddit had a deleuzean butt-baby

>> No.20806901

>>20806888
>You already implicitly take all these ideas for granted because you can't actually behave without them
This is backwards. We modeled the phenomena and behavior using ideas after, the description doesn't precede the phenomena.

>> No.20806907

>>20806894
Well which is it? Are you some sort of atheist believer in a trascendental absolute? Or are you the the theistic version which is 99% of them? I am simply following your position to its end rather than going over all the needless minutiae.

>> No.20806921

>>20806891
Listen, can you stop strawmanning me already and please tell me what "me" is and how you know some things "just are"? Don't skip around it and stop throwing around meaningless buzzwords
>>20806901
Sure, but they are still describing real phenomena that objectively exist

>> No.20806926

>>20806907
I am a realist and I am wondering if you think perspectivism is objectively real.

>> No.20806932

>>20806888
>percieving something is real and you already implicitly take all these ideas for granted
don't presume to know what I consider real, you minor phantasm
>because you can't actually behave without them.
sure, there is a heuristic fashion of dividing the world, or experience, into digestable perceptions owing to the efficacy of such a method for achieving our desires, but that is no reason to take up all our little volitions and snapshots of life as absolute truths, particularly if we are capable of relenting from them and governing ourselves. If I had to take everything I could think of or register as sensation as reality, I would surely be living in the street and screaming at people incoherently
>You just ignore using the words themselves on principle because you are dogmatic.
Having faith in the words themselves is dogmatic

>> No.20806944

>>20806921
>can you stop strawmanning me already and please tell me what "me" is
I really don't get this. It's the biggest mystery in these threads how you can be this braindead. I believe I already answered so elaborate what you're confused about instead of demanding I repeat myself.
That's an idea but I wasn't talking about ideas, like I explained in detail. I was trying to reference direct experience and hoping you would relate to the reference in the spirit of curiosity instead of attacking the language based on deciding that your ideas are right before even considering anything said.
I'm referencing my direct experience without imposing preconceptions about what the phenomena I experience are. In that context all our best ideas seem incredibly weak because they don't account for anything fundamentally. They're just descriptions of apparent phenomena, you derive abstracts from those observations and then demand these abstracts apply to things you have no idea if they actually apply to.

>> No.20806951

>>20806926
To use terms you seem to prefer, I am more inclined to nominalism, which perspectivism would seem to be a species of in any case. But I would hestitate on accepting labels as shorthand because precision is difficult when relying on few and contentiously abstract words. I would say an "objective real" is constructed by discoursing subjects for efficacy. Otherwise we will have to set up some exernal thing and blast it down to its atoms or reason it up to the heavens only to be no closer to any truth than before

>> No.20806957

>>20806932
>don't presume to know what I consider real,
That's not what I'm doing but that is indeed the only thing you are capable of. So do you consider anything to be real?
>If I had to take everything I could think of or register as sensation as reality, I would surely be living in the street and screaming at people incoherently
That has more to do with your opinions and hatred of life than reality itself I think.
>Having faith in the words themselves is dogmatic
Which is what you rely on as you can't actually explain or claim to know anything about meaning. I can use them because I know they have meaning and reference something meaningful.

>> No.20806970

>>20806957
>I can use them because I know they have meaning and reference something meaningful.
I can sit inside the house too and use the dishwasher but I can also point at things outside it. You apparently can't conceive of it even hypothetically that there might be things outside the house.

>> No.20806975

>>20806944
Ok so you were expecting me to buy into your dogma. Now can you please tell me ONLY(without going on a tirade about how stupid I am, whatever that means) and tell me what "me" and "just are" means.

>> No.20806980

>>20806970
This house anology makes zero sense. What things are outside the "house"? Don't use another retarded analogy.

>> No.20806987

>>20806975
>tell me what "me" and "just are" means
In this context they're attempts to reference what established language calls "my direct experience". To relate my experience to yours, it's a sincere attempt to relate to you which you responded to by sperging out with another disgusting display of your subhuman slave instincts.

>> No.20806990

>>20806957
>you can't actually explain or claim to know anything about meaning
I wonder if we're making progress? Please show me your claims regarding value or meaning and demonstrate that they are absolute and real rather than partite and subjective. I'll wait. If I'm not mistaken we have all of eternity and may will this debate over and over until the sun dies and we have to start over from bacteria

>> No.20806994

>>20806980
I am not him but it seems he is using a clumsy metaphor for umwelt or one's constructed environment which necessarily filters out data that others may not be filtering out, due to their differences of sensation, evaluation, consciousness, and so forth

>> No.20806995

>>20806987
>"my direct experience".
Is that experience really happening? What does "just are" mean?

>> No.20807009

>>20806980
>makes no sense
Because despite appealing to logic constantly you don't know how to use it, how it actually works. All your logical constructs rest on foundations, when you go to the root foundations of all of them they are much weaker than you present them. In your case could never have made these constructs yourself, you don't understand anything about them so you're not really even appealing to them, you're just appealing to your cultural conditioning.
>What things are outside the "house"?
The foundations of the house. The assumptions needed to construct any logical system. This analogy applies to any system but becomes surreal when you apply it to the house that life built. What's outside that house? Maybe all coherence is part of the house that life built.

>> No.20807011

>>20806994
Then how can he be able to point outside it? What is outside it?

>> No.20807015

>>20806342
filtered christcuck

>> No.20807018

>>20807009
>life
Is that real? Why are you using words you don't know the meaning of?

>> No.20807030

>>20806627
extremely based

>> No.20807032

>>20807011
We are able to cheat because of imagination; as far as we can tell most animals don't do much in the way of imagining. They repeat. They're schizophrenic.

>> No.20807038

>>20806644
this, but unironically

>> No.20807041

>>20806995
>Is that experience really happening
This is an appeal to your ideas about what experience "is". Imposing preconceptions before even establishing the basics. "I" is an idea with ideological baggage, the thing I'm attempting to reference with the word is not.

>> No.20807042

>>20806990
The fact that I am thinking and typing and experiencing right now is absolutely true. As is the existence of logical constructs that correlate to reality. An assumption that is inferred by sheer intuition. Now tell me, is perspectivism correct?

>> No.20807051

>>20807032
And you know this. What does this have anuthing to say against logic?

>> No.20807057

>>20807018
>Is that real?
You assign to much baggage to the word. It's the apparent state of things that I and my ideas are a product of life.
I operate based on those assumptions generally like I generally assume logic works. Turns out my ideas of logic are also apparently a product of life and I have no reason to think I have access to anything "absolute".

>> No.20807065

>>20807041
That's what you are doing. I am just asking you if experience is really happening. You cant say yes or no because then your whole ideology falls apart and you shoot yourself after realizing you've been spending your life 24/7 acting on /lit/ like a retard. You are too cowardly to actually take a stance on anything so you try and pretend to be above ideology only to end up being so pbnoxiously ideological that it drives people away from you like magnetism

>> No.20807067

>>20807042
I don't dispute that you think, but that you think at all is proof that you are garbling whatever there is (perhaps we could call this be-ing "reality") into partite scribblings and cacophonies, none of which ought to be reified as absolutely real for the simple reason that if they were known to be absolutely real by merit of you having thought them, it would make you the solipsist and the subjective idealist you claim to be arguing against.

>> No.20807069

>>20805956
>>Jesus was an ubermensch!
He was. But each ubermensch's path is unique. And if you follow Jesus's decrees, you are a fag.

"And when a person goeth through fire for his teaching—what doth that prove! It is more, verily, when out of one’s own burning cometh one’s own teaching!"

"Thou goest the way to thy greatness: it must now be thy best courage that there is no longer any path behind thee!"

>> No.20807070

>>20807057
And is that life real? What is "apperant"?

>> No.20807076

>>20807051
if by logic you means "thing causes other thing" that is observable but if by logic you mean "imaginary transcendental causality" then there is obviously a problem, that your stinky volcano demon is dead

>> No.20807098

>>20806994
I already said the house is a logical construct and can represent any philosophy. The foundations of all philosophies are weaker than their dogmatic adherents claim.
Part of the umwelt of a person can arise from the philosophical framework / ideas, the person pays more attention to some things over others which changes the perceived reality.
It's possible that even logic or perceived absolutes can be constructed to serve a goal, so it's part of our "umwelt" in that sense. This idea rests in logic but that doesn't invalidate it. If what we're talking about is constructing logic by filtering out the parts of the world that don't adhere to logic there is still some form of higher rules/logic but it's not like our ideas of it.

>> No.20807101

>>20807067
They are real by merit of having thought them. Ideas are real. And everyone is ideological is a fact of life.
>>20807076
No it isn't, everyone is still religious/ideological and is influenced by their outside surroundings which exist regardless of their perceptions. The problem is one can infer which ideology is more correct and in accordence with observable reality with reason.

>> No.20807111

>>20807101
>one can infer which ideology is more correct and in accordence with observable reality with reason
what's taking so long, eh Platon?

>> No.20807147

>>20807065
>I am just asking you if experience is really happening
You're asking me to accept your ideas of "is" etc instead of looking at what I'm referencing sincerely.
>your whole ideology
I already told you I believe in objective truth and God. My beliefs are not relevant to understanding these criticisms of any philosophy or ideology. The entire point is to criticize dogmatic adherence to ideologies yet all you can do is demand to frame that idea itself as an ideology.
>>20807070
>What is "apperant"
Direct revelation without ideological impositions.
>And is that life real
It's a word. You either know what I'm referencing or don't. There's not supposed to be any absolute claim involved, if you impose one you're not trying to understand what I'm referencing.
Separately from all these points, despite the very valid criticism (from Nietzsche, not you) I believe that life is real, sacred and holy.

>> No.20807158

>>20807111
It's true. The only assumption one ever needs is that Truth exists and isn't solely bound to "experience" for even thinking about experience as a concept requires you to assume it is true independant of the mind, it is objectively true that you are thinking about it. The words used are not as important as the real meanings they attempt to convey. Ideas exist and it is a fact that they influence us.

>> No.20807181

>>20807147
How does "my" idea of "is" differ from yours?
And how is it not an ideology?

Words have meaning

>> No.20807190

>>20807158
>even thinking about experience as a concept requires you to assume it is true independant of the mind
You're already piling on ideological baggage with that statement. You're not referencing an experience but an abstract.
It's not like we don't understand what you mean, you don't have to repeat it again.
>it is objectively true
Like an object, you're appealing to previously established conditioning, imposing preconceptions.

>> No.20807197

>>20807158
it is apparently not true that we're all truth-discerners of the true truth by means of our truly true ideas, which are truthfully known in fact by the existence of their truths, since if we were, there wouldn't be any need for these debates and the endless task of suppressing simulacra

>> No.20807202

>>20807181
>How does "my" idea of "is" differ from yours?
I'm referencing direct experience, you're referencing the constructed idea.
To communicate the words "direct experience" I need to construct a statement that rests on a million assumptions but to experience what I'm attempting to reference it I need zero assumptions.

>> No.20807209

>>20807190
>You're already piling on ideological baggage with that statement
Your idea of "experience" is an idea.
And aren't you supposed to think that one can only ever talk about experience?
>Like an object, you're appealing to previously established conditioning
I don't think so. I am ideological, but so is everyone. Ideas and their meanings are real and can only exist within the order of existence which we live in.

>> No.20807234

>>20807197
What "true truth"? There is only truth, that's redundant.
>>20807202
And all assumptions can be true or false. It's still an idea that you are forced to communicate through because that is how you ultimately come to conceptualize and understand the world. So I'm trying to better understand what you truly mean by experience.

>> No.20807247

>>20807234
>What "true truth"? There is only truth, that's redundant.
So all your appeals to just-believe-me logic are tautological and redundant? Who could have guessed...

>> No.20807273
File: 25 KB, 584x532, perspectivetruth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20807273

>>20807209
>Your idea of "experience" is an idea.
Yes and the idea is not the actual directly revealed experience I'm trying to reference with the word.
You're constantly pointing at a map and demanding this map is not only a perfect representation of some territory, the map itself is the territory according to your arguments.
>but so is everyone
There are tools you can use to avoid being misled by your preconceptions. Tools like intellectual honesty.
>Ideas and their meanings are real
This is a statement not "absolute truth", it's a rough map that helps us navigate a territory but we don't really know what the territory is or how well our ideas of "objective truth" map on to that territory.
I still operate based on logic and create models that I test. I just know they have weak foundations and could be basically completely invalidated by some subtle change in perspective. These criticisms also apply to ideas of "truth", especially your binary categories which you misuse constantly.
>>20807234
>And all assumptions can be true or false
False. That's a heuristic to simplify everything into manageable units. Powerful but not true, as in with more fine grained conceptualizations you can have more power over the world if you're capable of wielding more complex abstractions.

>> No.20807281

>>20807247
No no, I'm just saying that saying "true truth" is redundant, it's not wrong to say it but it is redundant.
Let me but it this way:
Your direct experience is real. That is: it is true that you are actually experiencing that specific experience, whatever it may be. What I am trying to do is to understand your experience, the *true* experience that you directly experienced and not a wrongfull one which you did not experience. I hope that's clear.

>> No.20807307

>>20807281
>Your direct experience is real
Sure but that leads to Nietzsche and "perspectivism", not to Plato and an "absolute truth" shorn of the worldly particular. I've lost track of who is arguing what anymore ITT

>> No.20807323

>>20807281
>Your direct experience is real
That's a conceptualization of the event. I want you to relate what I say to the event itself as you experience it right now. You're some weird thing that can't begin to account for what it actually is except in physical terms and all those descriptions rest in a context that defined what you are which you have basically no idea what is. I'm using high level concepts again like "I" and all that but you can have these sorts of thoughts as a caveman with little language and no conceptualization of high level ideas like "I". That's apparently the starting place for all our other ideas like "I", assuming history happened and a demon didn't create me with all my memories 5 seconds ago or whatever but even then I can still talk about the fictional history and its logical relationship to the present. In that case I'm speaking within a context, the context of the fiction the demon presented.

>> No.20807344

>>20807273
>You're constantly pointing at a map and demanding this map is not only a perfect representation of some territory, the map itself is the territory according to your arguments.
No I din't think so, I'd agree and say the map is not a fully perfect representation of a real territory, assuming it is a representation of a real territory.
How can I be intellectually honest then?
>>20807307
Not necessarilly, perspectivism refutes itself but I don't think Plato disregards experience. I mean, we may not experience reality completely or perfectly but the experience still happened.
>>20807323
How do you want me to relate to it? Does that not count as my relation?

>> No.20807382

>>20807344
>we may not experience reality completely or perfectly but the experience still happened
if "your direct experience is real" why would it be an incomplete or imperfect reality? Which is it? Are we to affirm our experiences as the reality which we must engage with, or are we to deny them as inferior and false so as to pine for a sur- or hyper-reality of trascendental realms and godhoods?

>> No.20807420

>>20807382
>if "your direct experience is real" why would it be an incomplete or imperfect reality?
I don't see how one necessitates the other. I said that while we are really experiencing things and the things we experience are real, they may not necessarily be perfectly accurate.

>> No.20807423

>>20807420
Accurate to reality beyond our own perception, that is.

>> No.20807431

>>20807420
Experiences being degrees of reality which may vary in accuracy is a backdoor for "perspectivism." You've already taken an axe to us ever having perfect knowledge of an objective real, and all other things being real enough subjectively means we may dispense with the notion. So you have "self-refuted" yourself like all other metaphysics midwits.

>> No.20807437

>>20807344
>assuming it is a representation of a real territory.
That assumption is also based on a map you made. I work from the same assumption generally but the point is basically these assumptions aren't as pure as we like to think.
>How can I be intellectually honest then?
Playing, hypothesizing, empathy. It's a game where you explore ideas so you try to enter new contexts without dragging baggage with you then enter a new meta context to evaluate the one you previously established. You can operate within the context the demon defined without accepting that context as some sort of holy truth.
>How do you want me to relate to it?
By understanding what I'm trying to point at with the words instead of focusing strictly on the words themselves as if I'm presenting something formal when formal thinking itself is part of the thing under scrutiny.

>> No.20807441

>>20807431
>You've already taken an axe to us ever having perfect knowledge of an objective real
No, just that objective reality exists.
Perspectivism refutes itself as I've explained countless times but you can only ever use ad homs to protect your fragile ego. This is pointless. Your ideology is useless.

>> No.20807457

>>20807437
>You can operate within the context the demon defined
There is no demon and I don't hate life as much as you
I've been doing nothing but try to understand you but you explicitly believe that knowledge is an impossibility and you will never change. Instead you demand that everyone just turn their brain off and just take your word for it or just automatically understand your schizobabble. Now please take your meds and go to bed, you've been doing this shit for 24 hours and its clear you are extremely frustrated. Get help and goodbye

>> No.20807477

>>20807457
>There is no demon and I don't hate life as much as you
It's hypothetical. It relates to advice I was giving about being able to explore ideas using hypotheticals and play.
>you explicitly believe that knowledge is an impossibility
I know how it works. You have no clue and don't care. You apparently don't have a clue what I mean by logical contexts despite giving many examples. You appeal to what you don't understand while I honestly accept criticisms of the things I do understand.
>its clear you are extremely frustrated
Yes. I despise the daemon that controls you. You represent a trend of the people that think the least and pretty much despise thinking taking over all disciplines of thought. Seeing people like you spread decay and thought-stopping dogma everywhere you go is incredibly frustrating.
It doesn't really affect me directly except here so I engage with you here. In my life I'm not exposed to any brainwashed burgers like you except through media. It's just as frustrating listening to you retards there spreading your dogmatic and destructive propaganda to groups that until recently were capable of reason.

>> No.20807479

>christians
desert people larp for the mentally deranged

>> No.20807480

>>20807441
>perspectivism is self-refuting
>uhhh we all have our own little slice of truth that's true but that's not perspectivism with extra steps because I say so
who has the fragile ego? the guy who needs there to be an inaccessible objective truth since he can't cope with the reality of experience, right? Why else would you need to deny your own life and accuse anyone who doesn't of being some sort of ideologue? This is just the Christian morality Nietzsche identified but wearing whore makeup

>> No.20807491

>>20807479
Good example of the dogmatic burgerisms I'm talking about. It's from all sides of all questions. If there's more than one burger or anglo involved with a question there's no hope of discussing it at all, everything will be overwritten by conditioning.

>> No.20807493

>>20807437
>empathy
>proceeds to spend 90% of posts using ad hom attacks calling people who even slightly disagree with him slurs
>>20807480
You literally are too retarded to understand him

>> No.20807510

>>20807493
I'd rather be a retard than a nihilist worshiper of volcano demons

>> No.20807517

>>20807493
>proceeds to spend 90% of posts using ad hom attacks calling people who even slightly disagree with him slurs
They're reasoned slurs based on empathy. The best thing I could hope for if I was in your position (which I was many years ago) was someone calling out my retardation. You're all retards appealing to conditioning. It's not that I don't understand the conditioned perspectives, everyone on the planet is exposed to them constantly.
I have spent more time in my life arguing for the position of objective truth than against it. Burgers generally don't argue, like these threads demonstrate, they try to condition other people using the same tactics that programmed them.
Proving me wrong is so easy, all you have to do is actually use reason instead of constantly appealing to lazy emotional conditioning like this retard >>20807479 and this retard >>20807457

>> No.20808511

>>20806212
>which makes sense given how accommodating his thought is to their bullshit
His thought is accommodating for both trannies and the most masculine imperialists in history, and lo and behold, the most masculine ages in history also always had trannies.

>> No.20808529

Nietzsche's philosophy is designed to be usable by anyone for any reason and there's nothing you can do about it other than bitch on /lit/. Cope and seethe, daydream warrior.

>> No.20808537

>>20808529
Liberals and women only use part of it though. To use the whole thing, you need to be a straight white male.

>> No.20808555

>>20808537
>you can't just take one line from his work for your own purposes because...m-muh systematic philosophy
Cope.

>> No.20808575
File: 68 KB, 850x400, quote-the-worst-readers-are-those-who-behave-like-plundering-troops-they-take-away-a-few-things-friedrich-nietzsche-34-56-88.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20808575

>>20808555

>> No.20808610

>>20808575
Flip to a random page of Nietzsche's work and you will find something that contradicts your cute little quotable.

>> No.20808612

>>20808610
I won't because Nietzsche never contradicted his philosophy, only his commentary.

>> No.20808863

Because everyone who reads Nietzsche wants attention, Christians included. They just want people to go WOW LOOK HE READ BABYS FIRST PHILOSOPHER. this guy sucks balls also gay mustache so if you like him your a gay. Fag.

>> No.20808910

>>20805956
Just like christoids raped and assimilated every other idea that wasn't theirs, it is just another new way for them to gain new converts to their cult. They see that their old ideas do not speak to anyone nowadays, which is why their religion is dropping in attendance like a stone in the western world so they are attempting to claim that actually Nietzsche is the gateway to christianity.

>> No.20810307

>>20806013
No, its that /lit/ hasn't read him and don't know his philosophy.

>> No.20810312

why are there 10+ Nietzsche bait threads on the catalog is what I want to know

>> No.20810317

>>20810312
it just works, try it. you can type literally anything along with a picture of N and people will somehow fill in the gaps