/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20892163]

Was Nietzsche a transhumanist?

[Anonymous No.20892172]

>>20892163
more like a transexual

[Anonymous No.20892201]

>>20892172
/thread

[Anonymous No.20892568]

[Anonymous No.20892578]

>>20892163
see https://odysee.com/@CJBbooks.com:8/Occult_History_of_the_Ubermensch:0

[Anonymous No.20892584]

>>20892163
No.

[Anonymous No.20893288]

>>20892163
Overcome yourself through yourself.

[Anonymous No.20893300]

>>20892163
He clearly did not mean it like that. In fact I think he would abhor everything about our modern society and where it is headed. He did not intend "overcome" as falling in the trap of "progress" or "enlightenment". It was always about being, and not becoming.

[Anonymous No.20893315]

>>20892163
>Become what you are…

[Anonymous No.20893536]

>>20892163
>Nietzsche has a mark on his head
>Harry potter has a mark on his head
Hence Nietzsche = Harry Potter proved.
Guys I cracked the code.

[Anonymous No.20893644]

>>20892163
Did OP actually read any of Nietzsche's books from cover to cover?

[Acid Cop No.20893903]

He was post humanist.

[Anonymous No.20893929]

>>20892163
No, he was just gay.
>Man is something that must be cummed on.

[Anonymous No.20894640]

>>20893315
>Become what you are
I fucking hate with a burning passion that people associate this quote with tranny shit in our décadent age.

You were supposed to be thinking about someone like Alexander or Napoleon when reading this. Sadly men in our day have no desire whatsoever to strive for greatness anymore; we live in an age of practical sympathy for the botched and the weak taken to its ultmost extreme—an age of CULT and WORSHIP for the botchedness and the weakness. Christian morality has created a monster; men, as we know them, have not become the Übermensch like the old philosopher once envisioned, instead we fell and came to the point of being literal subhumans.

[Anonymous No.20894645]

>>20892163
Retard

[Anonymous No.20894776]

>>20892163
the most generous interpretation would be transhumanist, yes. Including gender abolition, and other arbitrary inherited schemata for ordering social life. The chuds in here will ofc insist that he meant some kind of based viking warrior...

[Anonymous No.20894797]

>>20894776
bait

[Anonymous No.20894908]

>>20894640
Not true, christianity at a basic interpretation outcasts sinners from society. It doesn’t promote or worship the meek. It doesn’t shame them either. It certisinly doesn’t promote the sinful lifestyles they embrace.

[Anonymous No.20894922]

>>20892568
Based...

And fishpilled

[Anonymous No.20895050]

>>20893315
Jordan Peterson took notes

[Anonymous No.20895064]

>>20894797
not at all. It might have escaped you that Nietzsche is the godfather of postmodernism

[Anonymous No.20895070]

>>20895064
he got people looking into the abyss but it looked into them too and that's where the bullshit came from

[Anonymous No.20895078]

Didn't he fell in love with a horse? Transanimalistic, me think.

[Anonymous No.20895118]

>>20895064
You have never read Nietzsche if you seriously think if he could look at the world in the state it is today it wouldn't make him immediately vomit.
And no, you fucking retard, listening to some söyfied neomarxist """professor""" spout horseshit bastardized interpretations of what he wrote in order to make them fit into his retarded agenda does not count as reading him.

[Anonymous No.20895167]

>>20895118
Whether nietzsche would be aesthetically pleased with the modern world or not (he would not), his ideas contributed to it's state and in fact he realized they might be dangerous.
I couldn't care less for marxism, but its telling how you identify it with postmodernism, wrongly of course. One can smell from here that you got your philosophical education from jordan wash-your-penisson.

[Anonymous No.20895182]

>>20895118
he would recognize Trumpoids as creatures of ressentiment

[Anonymous No.20895226]

>>20895167
You're obviously illiterate because you couldn't even identify the fact that i said NEOmarxist—the abomination that is the spirit of the man of today cannot even be called "marxism"; it's an insult to the man, as much as i might be against his ideas.

>le joorden peterson boogeyman
That's a nice strawman you got there. I haven't seen a single video from this guy or any other e-celeb—shallow youtube gurus that make videos for troubled teenagers don't interest me.

>>20895182
You can create any strawman you want. It's only gonna show how emotionally distressed you are right now in being called out.
I am not even american, and i couldn't care less about what any politician has to say even if i tried. No political figure or movement alive today represents me or what i think (and that includes /pol/ to, which i am sure is making you eat at your fingers in desire to use as a boogeystrawman).

All in all, it's definitely evident that i struck a nerve there in both of you. Both of you have never read Nietzsche, and both of you get your opinions on him from compromised dogmatic contemporary sources. I recommend actually reading his books if you want to stop making a shame of yourself by displaying such ignorance.

[Anonymous No.20895229]

>>20895118
>it's yet another "retarded sheeple equates marxism with post-modernism despite the latter being fundamentally opposed to the materialism espoused by the former" episode

[Anonymous No.20895238]

>>20895226
>how emotionally distressed you are right now in being called out
not him

[Anonymous No.20895257]

>>20895182
America in general is an excess of resssntiment

[Anonymous No.20895266]

>>20895257
the country was indeed formed by butthurt turboProtestants

[Anonymous No.20895303]

>>20895238
I know. But you also felt personally attacked by that post, given the fact that you just could not resist the need you felt to make a low-effort strawman response and send it; so it serves you right.

>>20895229
Should i assume you didn't read the thread, are illiterate, or are just pretending to be retarded? I don't know which one of these would be worse, to be frankly honest.

[Anonymous No.20895310]

>>20895118
>>20895226
>you fucking retard
>söyfied neomarxist """professor"""
>STRAWMAN BOOGEYMAN AAAAH!
>YOURE EMOTIONALLY DISTRESSED!!
>struck a nerve didn't i? *smugpepe*

Thanks for the pottery anon, thats why i come here

[Anonymous No.20895326]

>>20895310
>if i write my adversary's words in all caps and in a sarcastic meme manner, i win
How embarrassing. You are clearly not fit for this game.

[Anonymous No.20895347]

>>20895326
The contrast between your clearly emotionally charged posts and your cringe presumption to have 'struck a nerve' made sarcasm just impossible to resist

[Anonymous No.20895390]

>>20895347
The fact that you are so angry at the saying of mine that i "struck a nerve"—to the point that you repeat it two times—only goes to show that i, most certainly indeed, struck a nerve.

I cannot really see other acceptable conclusion here that isn't the one that you did in fact get all of your "knowledge" about Nietzsche from some contemporary tertiary source of questionable ideological trustworthiness and, because of this fact, felt personally targeted by that post because you really cannot refute it—if i were that wrong about it, you would just post a quotation by Nietzsche that goes entirely against what i said and exposed me to the entire world for what an idiot i am, but of course you couldn't, and that's because you haven't read him.

[Anonymous No.20895451]

>>20895390
your remote readings of my mental state are fascinating. To indeed return to nietzsche, since you originally replied to my rather calm post that nietzsche was 'the godfather of postmodernism', i can refer you to "ueber wahrheit und luege im aussermoralischen sinn" (you read german i assume, no?), clearly a text of postmodernist ideas. Its a bit more than a single quotation im afraid.
Btw, what was that about a basedified neomarxist "professor" who supposedly propagates a transhumanist take on nietzsche? Can you give one name? It wouldnt be strawman, would it. Cause i gathered you're anti-strawmen...

[Anonymous No.20895458]

>>20895451
*basedified kek

[Anonymous No.20895463]

>>20895303
>I know. But you also felt personally attacked by that post, given the fact that you just could not resist the need you felt to make a low-effort strawman response and send it; so it serves you right.
lmao, meds brother. I just want you to avoid the noob pitfall of making Nietzsche right wing. all causes are for losers, and the conservative cause is for the losers of the losers.

[Anonymous No.20895553]

>>20895463
Define "right-wing".

[Anonymous No.20895587]

>>20895451
Don't go around throwing sentences in german to appear more knowledgeable than you are when you can't even type an ß character or properly capitalize the nouns as is standard grammar of the language. This is such a pretentious attempt from your part it gets to the point of being pathetic, makes your post almost sad to contemplate as if i were watching a crippled man trying to climb an entire hill of stairs. You're making a mockery of yourself.

>clearly a text of postmodernist ideas
From this statement alone any non-idiot can tell you have never read a single word from that book. No one who has read a written work merely posts its title and follows with "clearly a work of X"; the only thing you know first-hand about that book is its name. "oh my, this book is about truth and lies... in a NON-MORAL SENSE! I haven't read it but surely it must fit with my 21st century post-modern ideas".
But i'm just gonna discard all of these assumptions and take your post as something in good faith, just for the sake of it: can you show to us, enlightened anon, one or more brief passages from that work and explain in a concise manner how would they fit into what we know today, in 2021, as post-modernism? And don't give me cope like "Nietzsche would not agree with it but it inspired post-modernists nonetheless" and all that blablabla. That's not the point here.

>what was that about a basedified neomarxist "professor" who supposedly propagates a transhumanist take on nietzsche? Can you give one name?
Nowhere in my post do i talk of specific professors. I talk in my post about "some" professor, that is, in the sense of "if there is whoever be a person that fits this criteria and you gathered your opinions on Nietzsche from him, you are wrong". And it seems i was obviously right because it got you so defensive.
Also, nowhere in my post do i say such professors would talk about "transhumanism". You're not retarded. Any idiot could know what you're trying to do here. Don't get cute.

>>20895463
Now you are just stupid to a point beyond belief. Typical brainless small-person, can only conceive of things in terms of binary thinking, "left and right", "good and evil", "I-I-I-IS THIS GUY FROM GOOD SIDE OR IS THIS GUY FROM BAD SIDE? I CAN'T TELL." "OHGOOD HE JUST SAID HE NOT BE BAD SIDE HAHA DONT BE BAD SIDE BROTHER!".
Go read "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzsche. It's free and you can find it on google. If that book doesn't filter you it will do great good to you by doing away with this line of thinking typical of a worthless useful idiot.

[Anonymous No.20895595]

>>20895553
Whatever it is, it's certainly political. Nietzsche warned would-be free spirits against "the political infection."

[Anonymous No.20895601]

>>20895587
Jesus Christ you're like 15. Touch grass NOW.

[Anonymous No.20895640]

>>20895601
>anti-intellectualism
>on a board about literature
You don't belong here. If you would be so kind, please stop posting so that the level of discussion in this environment will not be lowered anymore by your presence.

[Anonymous No.20895677]

>>20895640
It's not anti-intellectualism, it's literally just you getting off your computer for a bit right now

[Anonymous No.20895685]

>>20895587
>falling this hard for a simple bait
NGMI

[Anonymous No.20895696]

>>20895685
>i-i-i-i was just pretending to be retarded...
It's alright, my man. I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.20895707]

>>20895587
It's getting grating to read your literally shaking posts, but since i like you so much anon, im gonna make one more reply for tonight.
Here are some quotes from the mentioned work (btw, being a grammarfag on 4chan is unbecoming):
>This creator [of language] only designates the relations of things to men, and for expressing these relations he lays hold of the boldest metaphors
>We obtain the concept, as we do the form, by overlooking what is individual and actual; whereas nature is acquainted with no forms and no concepts, and likewise with no species, but only with an X which remains inaccessible and undefinable for us. For even our contrast between individual and species is something anthropomorphic and does not originate in the essence of things
>What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and; anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have become worn out...
>so far we have heard only of the duty which society imposes in order to exist: to be truthful means to employ the usual metaphors. Thus, to express it morally, this is the duty to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie with the herd and in a manner binding upon everyone

If doesn't sound like pomo to you, you just have no idea what you're talking about (a suspicion of mine that grows and grows). The text is rather short btw, i do recommend reading it fully.

[Anonymous No.20895784]

>>20895707
>your literally shaking posts
Nice projection. Thank you for sharing your current feelings with us, though.
>but since i like you so much anon
And thanks for this too.

About the quotations: very interesting. Not at all too different from ideas he would further elaborate in Beyond Good and Evil though, so i am not in any way unfamiliar to this.

Now although it can indeed be considered a "post-modern" line of thought in the technical sense of the word, i must not stay silent to the fact that you decided to try and subtly dismiss the fact that in my post i request you to cite passages that would in any way allude in any way to anything akin to our current-era, 2021 postmodernism. And now to make even further clear for all of the 1,5 people reading this post right now your subtle-but-not-so-subtle intellectual dishonesty, i am just gonna be so very kind right here as to post this related screenshot of your very first post in this thread.

Now show me, in Nietzsche's words, anything in his thought in which the undeniable interpretation for so would be for it to be an endorsement of this very point of view of yours, right here. I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.20896101]

>>20894908
>christianity at a basic interpretation outcasts sinners from society
Sinners are the ones who keep the weak faggots out of society. With them almost entirely gone now, there's hardly any authority left.

[Anonymous No.20897305]

>>20895784
what is the exact difference between post-modern thought "in the technical sense" and "our current-era, 2021 postmodernism"? I'm sure you dont subscribe to some caricature view of postmodernism being represented by some screeching sjw undergrads, do you? And whats your trouble with my original post? I mentioned "arbitrary inherited schemata for ordering social life" and provided quotes in >>20895707 that substantiate that interpretation.
Come to think of it, you never told us why Nietzsche absolutely cannot be interpretated as transhumanist. Can you provide anything other that variations of "retarded", like passages where N clearly positions himself against such ideas?
>undeniable interpretation
doesnt exist of course, you can deny any, and therefore continue to ask for more and more "evidence" - nice intellectual dishonesty there bud. Not to mention that Nietzsche was infamously contradictory throughout his writing

[Anonymous No.20897675]

>>20892163
No

[Anonymous No.20897683]

>>20894908
Jeebus only hanged out with sinners though, because a doctor spends his time with sick people

[Anonymous No.20897684]

>>20892163
When he uses "man" like that, he is referring to "man" as the mass, man as a herd animal. Not a genetic or otherwise specifically evolved or transformed organism in the physical sense.

[Anonymous No.20897707]

>>20897305
>I'm sure you dont subscribe to some caricature view of postmodernism being represented by some screeching sjw undergrads, do you?
No; i'm talking about the caricatural postmodernism as was presented by you, yourself, in your first post.

>Come to think of it, you never told us why Nietzsche absolutely cannot be interpretated as transhumanist
And there's you trying to get cute again, pretending i wouldn't notice.
You clearly talk in your post not only of a transhumanist interpretation: you specifically mention "gender abolition" as a means to "own le chuds", and even go so far as to say that the concept of a warrior-like figure being compatible with the Übermensch is somehow an unnaceptable thing "le chuds would ofc insist"; which is something absolutely ridiculous to anyone who has ever read Nietzsche even once in his life, given not only the fact that one of the few historical figures he puts in his writings right next to the term "Superman" is the name of NAPOLEON, but also that throughout many and many of his aphorisms he makes himself very clear about how much he values the Will to Power and criticizes Christianity for castrating Man and making him unable to embrace his Will to Power.

>passages where N clearly positions himself against such ideas?
You mean "Gender abolition", which was the original idea presented in your post? Yes, i can gladly give you some, for he does talk many many times in Thus Spoke Zarathustra about the specific roles of Man and Woman, and i can give you multiple instances of him being particularly vocal about such gender roles.

May i refer you to:
>Chapter XVII, "Old and Young Women"
>Chapter XX, "Child and Marriage"
>Section 23 of Chapter LVI, "Old and New Tables" (this is probably the best one for clarifying this point)

The chapters themselves are just a couple pages each but i'm already near the character limit so i can't paste them here. The full text available here, just do a ctrl-f and you'll find the chapters. And i hope you're not some one to just get filtered by archaic english.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm#link2H_4_0023

[Anonymous No.20897721]

>fuck society
>fuck good and evil
>girl put on that dress

[Anonymous No.20898143]

>>20897707
Oh gee, I get it now, you have a problem with connecting gender abolition to transhumanism. I mentioned the former in my first post just because some anons made memeposts about trannies. Here is a simple wiki article for your elucidation on how it (obviously!) connects to transhumanism, which after all was the object of OPs question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postgenderism

The whole topic of transhumanism also clearly connects to postmodern thought, Nietzsches influence on which I already explained. No matter how much one rages about this or that postmodern neomarxist corrupter of youth, the ideas and their linkages stand on their own regardless of who espouses them. Btw, you havent answered what the difference between technical pomo and current-era pomo is, I'm curious why the former is ok and the latter unacceptable.

For the rest, I clearly said transhumanisn is *the most generous interpretation* - from todays pov ofc. The strongman reading you seem to prefer would indeed be ungenerous to N since it failed so spectacularly in the 20th cen. We would simply need to discard N altogether if that was the only way to read him.
The passages of Zarathustra you cited indeed posit trad gender roles, but only to suggest that they are the conditions within which the Übermensch shall be created. Now, "fit for war, the one; fit for maternity, the other" did not exactly create Übermenschen in any of the right-wing regimes that adopted that ideal, so again it's either discard N as empirically wrong or look for another overall interpretation, e.g. transhumanist.

[Anonymous No.20898191]

>>20892163
but was he also a transparentist?
i'll let that sink in

[professor of sneed No.20898282]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA NIEtzche a trans?????????????????? wtf... bros

I thought he was a straightjacked white MALE like me??? and you telling me he is a girly.. cute loli? Nietzsche walking
Miles kilometers wandering in
Aramean sandals
On his feet thinking
'Kingdom of SNEED is nowhere to be seen'
>*sees a city from a far away hill*
'das capital is the steaming blood of whatever tha tis there'
then Nietszche
>*wtf, need to overman*
>*turns TRANS*
>adherents are crying in anguish: *NOOOOOOOOO MY NIETZSCHERINOOO*

haha Nietzsche.. he smiles in Heaven. 100% true.

[Anonymous No.20898336]

Nietzsche sisters...

[Anonymous No.20898448]

This thread is complete shit. What a bunch of morons.
Do people ITT understand that they're basically using a vague butchery of Nietzsche to talk about boring political shit, like trannies, left wing, right wing, women, etc.?
I don't even know what to call this.


This anon is correct:
>>20895595

[Anonymous No.20898722]

>>20898143
So you do agree that Nietzsche did not espouse any of the ideas you painted the man as doing so, and therefore come to the conclusion that "they failed" and "did not create Übermenschen" and the like; the second paragraph bringing forth the point that Nietzsche did indeed have an influence on said lines of thought, which you rightly do not imply in any way in your post as having in any way been intended by the writings of his.

The conclusion to this, therefore, is that you do agree to disagree with Nietzsche and what he wrote about said ideas—i'm not gonna contest that; a man is entitled to his own opinion. This was indeed a sane and lucid post, not really anything too objectionable about it. I therefore consider continuation of this debate no longer necessary.

[Anonymous No.20898875]

>>20898722
Fair enough, nothing to add then. Well, just one last tiny clarification: my concept of "interpretation" would be looking at the logic of someones ideas and what it entails, not whether said someone literally spelled it out. Thats why i said "interpretation" and not "N literally said/thought this". Its not like Einstein derived every result of general relativity himself etc...

[Anonymous No.20898886]

>>20892163
Nietzsche was a worthless retard

[Anonymous No.20898896]

>>20898886
/thread

[Anonymous No.20898971]

Yeah dude Nietzsche was really talking about trannies, women who he never had a high opinion of, that are obsessed about appearance and have no will to power outside of capslocking Trans rights on Twitter.

[Anonymous No.20899009]

>>20894640
>Sadly men in our day have no desire whatsoever to strive for greatness anymore;
Musk and Bezos off the top of my head. Both have already incredible accomplishments and are poised to have even more future contributions that elevate the heights of humanity. I'm not sure where you get the idea that we aren't still rushing forward.