/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21036954]

Why are all of his followers cringe? There's literally not a single cool Nietzschean.

[Anonymous No.21036966]

>>21036954
Because no matter what his ideas were, the man himself was cringey as. Chesterton's writing on him, while having the typical Chestertonian lack of precision, still hit the mark precisely:
>The man calling for men to become like unto gods was driven into derangement by a horse
>He was in every way inferior to, e.g., Joan of Arc, who completed his entire virtue system as a little girl without taking a single one of his "recommendations"

[Anonymous No.21036974]

>>21036954
Nonsense. Beat it.

[Anonymous No.21037688]

>>21036954
It was my birthday a few days ago and I got a gift voucher of 10 bucks that I ultimately wanted to spend on a book. I figured I'd get a book in spanish but the local store had jack shit in that department so I settled for the philosphy section and thought what the hell when I saw Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
I've never read Nietzsche but read or heard some stuff about him through Jung, what memory I have of high school philosophy classes on him, seeing how some self-proclaimed Nietzscheans claim to have it figured out calling everyone and their mother a nihilist, or lurking /lit if that counts as anyhting. I picked the most famous of his books and I kind of knew it was probably a bad idea to start with this but I thought I might get something out of it anyway as it's a literary piece of work.
"Bought" it a few hours ago but I haven't started it yet. I'm not against getting something else from him that might serve as a preliminary for Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Any recommendations on that front or do I just dive in?

Guess I'll pick up either el Lazarillo or Las Moradas later for the spanish read.

[Anonymous No.21037706]

Because Nietzsche is not a true philosopher and most of his readers read him for purely therapeutic reasons. It's basically pretentious self-help shit.

[Anonymous No.21037723]

>>21036954
>Nietzschean
A true Nietzschean wouldn't identify as one.

[Anonymous No.21037764]

>>21036974
Spbp

[Anonymous No.21037777]

>>21036954
They are too obsessed with him and breaking down his philosophy. They seem to miss the whole “student must surpass the teacher” part. You aren’t Nietzsche. You are yourself. Don’t try to be Nietzsche and copy his beliefs

[Anonymous No.21037859]

>>21037706
>It's basically pretentious self-help shit.
That's all of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21037870]

>>21036954
I don't know. Tried reading the Birth of Tragedy and just couldn't get into it. Couldn't follow him much either.

[Anonymous No.21037889]

>>21036954
Because you're not supposed to be a "follower of Nietzsche" and anyone who self-identifies as such didn't read him thoroughly and is ngmi. It's not like the unnamed religion you are presumably partisan of, where you pretend you have qualities you lack and deride the people who in fact have them.

[Anonymous No.21037910]

>>21036954
Robert Spaemann is actually someone whom I can take serious. And he takes Nietzsche serious. But for myself, I haven't gotten yet to the point where I can take Nietzsche serious.

[Anonymous No.21037921]

>>21037859
how the fuck are Aristotle's Metaphysics or Frege's Logical Investigations self-help?

you should not say that all philosophy is self-help. You should admit that only the philosophy you know is self-help. You yourself are to blame if you read stuff which you do not think worthy of reading, faggot.

[Anonymous No.21037962]

>>21037688
Twilight of the idols is a great starting point as it gives a comprehensive view of his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21037992]

>>21037870
See
>>21037962

[Anonymous No.21038008]

>>21037992
>>21037962
Read a brief synopsis of it. Sounds like I'd had to have read the Greeks; with his critiques of Socrates and Plato and such. Haven't read them as I'm not big on philosophy. I'll look into it though.

[Anonymous No.21038015]

>>21036954

[Anonymous No.21038063]

>>21038015
ophelia, ophelia
cringing in a ring of fire
something with snakes
something with drugs
something with murder
>poetry
ophelia dances
and burns burns burns
in a burning ring of cringe.

[Anonymous No.21038091]

>>21038063
>anti-creativity

[Anonymous No.21038101]

>>21036966
>Chesterton
Dude's as much of a hack as Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.21038119]

>>21036954
Because his whole philosophy is the female ideal of masculinity rationalized. He's longhoused, feminized, and thus ultimately unappealing to the truly masculine.

[Anonymous No.21038128]

>>21036966
Joan was probably a male with complete AIS.

[Anonymous No.21038131]

>>21038119
It's not masculine to whine about things being masculine or not.

[Anonymous No.21038169]

>>21036954
Deleuze, Foucault, Bataille, Heidegger

[Anonymous No.21038176]

>>21036954
His philosophy produced the coolest movie ever made, though.

[Anonymous No.21038192]

>>21038169
>Deleuze, Foucault, Bataille, Heidegger

[Anonymous No.21038236]

>>21037723
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.21038451]

Kierkegaard will forever be the better existentialist.

[Anonymous No.21038729]

>>21036954
German philosophers are cringe maxx, it just doesn't belong.

[Anonymous No.21039427]

>"I am superior to both slaves... and masters!"
>"My morality is superior to both moralities and is also the least moral!"

>Fails to provide even a clear and concise example of his 'morality that will obsolete both slave and master morality' to begin with

He advocates a 'morally antisocial, instinctually prosocial' model of living that makes NO sense, and once again there is no concrete example of it in any of his works. All he just says is "let's go against morality... by replacing compassion with a life-affirming equivalent OF compassion!" and that's it.

[Anonymous No.21039448]

>>21038131
There was no whining involved, only use of reason, in order to explain the answer to a reasonable question. And Nietzsche is still for teenage femboys only.

[Anonymous No.21039450]

>>21036954
With jews, you always lose in the long run.

[Anonymous No.21039466]

>>21039450
>Be Nietzsche
>Walk in on a burglar robbing your flat
>Start praising his aptitude at breaking and entering and his defiant master morality that made him become burglar
>Doesn't try to stop him because that would be resentful
>Say "Perhaps we should drive police from our country" and go away

>Be Nietzsche
>Contact nasty disease
>Your immune system can't defeat it
>Praise how strong disease ruining your body is
>"Perhaps I should drive white blood cells from my system"

Btw wasn't latter real and he succumbed to syphilis contacted during whoremongering, a real ubermensch activity?

[Anonymous No.21039505]

>>21039450
I have been saying how much Nietzsche wasn't an anti semite for years and all it took to catch on was a maymay this part of /lit/ is retarded

[Anonymous No.21039532]

>>21036954
Hitler

[Anonymous No.21040910]

Hello.

[Anonymous No.21040934]

>>21039448
>There was no whining involved, only use of reason
yeah that's definitely what "this is for girls, this is for boys, if you like it you are girly because I said so" is, definitely not the sort of argumentation used by teenagers

[Anonymous No.21041029]

>>21039466
>>Walk in on a burglar robbing your flat
>>Start praising his aptitude at breaking and entering and his defiant master morality that made him become burglar
>>Doesn't try to stop him because that would be resentful

"The spear which I hurl at mine enemies! How grateful am I to mine enemies that I may at last hurl it!
Too great hath been the tension of my cloud: ‘twixt laughters of lightnings will I cast hail-showers into the depths.
Violently will my breast then heave; violently will it blow its storm over the mountains: thus cometh its assuagement.
Verily, like a storm cometh my happiness, and my freedom! But mine enemies shall think that the evil one roareth over their heads.
Yea, ye also, my friends, will be alarmed by my wild wisdom; and perhaps ye will flee therefrom, along with mine enemies."

[Anonymous No.21042188]

try aristotle

[Anonymous No.21042296]

>>21038192
a century of philosophical thought put on the ropes by one meme

[Anonymous No.21042329]

>>21036966
Nietzsche hates the English, the English hate Nietzsche

Makes sense to me

For the record, Nietzsche had no descent into madness. What happened to him seemed to be what happened to his father - a genetic, neurological problem, activating suddenly like a snapped cord. One day he was writing in the same manner he always did, the next day he was utterly incapacitated. There was no descent into madness.

[Anonymous No.21042397]

>>21036954
Y'all should know, people in the actual world of philosophy - meaning people who read and take philosophy seriously - never speak like this.

Casual and professional philosophers, undergrads, grads, professors, philosophers of all sorts of temperaments and values - you ask them what they think of Nietzsche, and you know what they say?

"He's cool"

People generally like him. They don't make a big deal out of it, not many are Nietzscheans, they just take him into account along with other philosophers. Heidegger said you could define a German individual by how they interpret Nietzsche. Jung and Freud based a substantial amount of their thought on Nietzsche, he's an uncredited ancestor to the field of psychology. Wittgenstein read everything Nietzsche ever published. People all over, in the arts and sciences, people from all walks of life, any kind of person can like Nietzsche.

This board is unique in this regard. Only here do we rant and rave and spit like melodramatic pissbabies, it's a crime to bring a word like "cringe" anywhere near a field like philosophy. Did you wake up today and decide to be a joke? Grow up, get real

[Anonymous No.21042737]

>>21036954
he was just another uptight german prick who wanted everyone else to change just for him

[Anonymous No.21042784]

>>21042329
Classic sign of a pseud
No true genius has ever hated England, let alone Englishness
Anglophilia is the one guaranteed marker of a person's intellectual brilliance

[Anonymous No.21042854]

>>21042397
>it's a crime to bring a word like "cringe" anywhere near a field like philosophy. Did you wake up today and decide to be a joke? Grow up, get real
"The field of philosophy" lol. Imagine caring what some retarded dick sucking academics think. You're the joke for riding the dick of your professor. The opinions of contemprary academics are also just fads that come and go with time. They put more work into justifying their own fads and preferences, but they, like all people, have the same basic tendencies to value more the thinkers that are in fashion among themselves.
Even in the example you gave it didn't sound like your teacher had any deeper judgement than "he's cool". How is this less shallow than the average /lit/ thread?

[Anonymous No.21043347]

>>21042397
Imagine not reading Zarathustra honestly. You have to take a stand, pussy

[Anonymous No.21043534]

>>21042784
lol

Look up a list of the great philosophers up until Nietzsche's time.
Count the english.
Let me know what you find.

Anglosphere philosophy, with some exceptions, is awful. It's petty, trivializing, unimportant, short sighted, almost childish. Right now it's been granted a bit of self obsession due to places like Australia and America, who are not all that aware of what exists outside the English speaking world, no less what's important. To them, what they see and hear in their part of the world, must be true of the whole world.

[Anonymous No.21043578]

>>21042854
Call them dick sucking if you want, what they are are people who made an occupation out of working with the subject in question. So you have some lazy dipshit kid on the internet who makes opinions for fun, and you have someone who is focused on the books in question, and spends their daily lives in the company of others who do so as well.

>Even in the example you gave it didn't sound like your teacher had any deeper judgement than "he's cool".
Sure they did. I'm describing a sentiment - that people receive Nietzsche in a positive but not dramatically positive way.

I don't know what the fuck you're mad about to be honest lol, you really don't seem all that familiar with academia so there's no reason to be having strong opinions.

However
>he opinions of contemprary academics are also just fads that come and go with time. They put more work into justifying their own fads and preferences
Almost true. If you're a PUBLISHING academic, you're forced into a niche. Philosophy's pretty hard for this, not easy to find something both new and worthwhile to say. If you're not a publishing academic, you can just relax and read whatever you want.

But by nature, people in philosophy aren't "fad followers". All departments keep wildly varying views and the students vary further. You really think a lifetime of reading philosophy doesn't do you a little better than that? All the skepticism and independent thought fostered by almost every philosophy just vanishes in a fucking puff of smoke the instant some college gives you a job?

No. There's no indoctrinating system, there's nothing to put them beneath you. A person in academic philosophy is nothing but a person who is under pressure to spend more time studying than normal. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.21043804]

>>21037723
Are you a edgy teenager? I thought that exact same shit until I realized that Nietzsche was a massive pussy loser.

[Anonymous No.21043822]

>>21043534
>Look up a list of the great philosophers up until Nietzsche's time
hahahaha classic german take
"ja zer is ze list of ze philosopher zat ze zeitgeist tells me should matter and having done ze consulting I see ze englischen mannen iz not on zer ja"
loooooooooooolll

[Anonymous No.21043873]

>>21043578
>So you have some lazy dipshit kid on the internet who makes opinions for fun, and you have someone who is focused on the books in question, and spends their daily lives in the company of others who do so as well.
Appeal to authority the post. In all honesty the lazy dipshit kid's opinions are at least more honest and authentic, even if they're expressed with less technical depth or vocabulary.
Both of your posts here display the kind of superficiality I expect from contemporary academics. The thought process of an actual child wowed by jargon.
No I dont think academia inspires independent, critical thinking. It does, however, teach you how to be a good dick sucker.
Better get back to it pupil

[Anonymous No.21044008]

>>21036954
The Nietzscheans who aren't cringe haven't read him

[Anonymous No.21044028]

>>21044008
This. The true nietzscheans don't know that they are nietzscheans

[Anonymous No.21044037]

>>21036966
>>The man calling for men to become like unto gods was driven into derangement by a horse
Literally a bullshit made-up story.

[Anonymous No.21044049]

Read the first ten posts in this thread and it's all cringe.

Please stop talking about things you haven't read, /lit/.

[Anonymous No.21044071]

>>21039427
>>Fails to provide even a clear and concise example of his 'morality that will obsolete both slave and master morality' to begin with
Extremely elementary misreading, Nietzsche claims modern morality *already* has surpassed master and slave morality.

>>21038119
Flat earther of Nietzschean interpretation.

>>21037870
Filtered

>>21037706
You're right, Nietzsche is not a philosopher of truth. Though, he is more truthful than most.

>>21039466
Elementary misreading.

>>21042784
David Hume and Adam Smith are the only good British philosophers, which should tell you quite a bit about the English.

John Maynard Keynes is the only English man worth reading.

>>21043804
Oh and what are you now? I'm sure none of "massive, pussy, loser" applies anymore to you, right? Surely you're a dick winner.

[Anonymous No.21044086]

>>21043822
You're just pathetic.

[Anonymous No.21044161]

>>21043822
>Appeal to authority the post.
People really have no clue what "appeal to authority" means. It's a fallacy of appealing to an authority when it's not relevant.

Now you're hiding behind that namedrop right now, what I'm doing is arguing something that is plain, or likely at worst.

I'll spell it out for you.

Academia person read lot

Now to say there's something about academia that makes people worse at the things they've made their job, that's a pretty fascinating idea, you'd need to do some work to explain how that works.

Back to the appeal to authority question. I am the authority. I teach philosophy. Not appealing to anyone.

>Both of your posts here display the kind of superficiality I expect from contemporary academics. The thought process of an actual child wowed by jargon.
Right, which must be why you're talking in such wide circles around the issue and not actually making a point.

I never said anything technical either. Feels like you're putting some sort of class hatred

>No I dont think academia inspires independent, critical thinking. It does, however, teach you how to be a good dick sucker.
yea but you wouldn't know
this is what separates people who are serious about philosophy from those who aren't
the latter can't stop making shit up

[Anonymous No.21044165]

>>21043873
sorry bud >>21044161 is for you

[Anonymous No.21044199]

>>21043822
Idk who the "zeitgeist" would be in this scenario. Philosophy is extremely divided, that's usually what people are criticizing it for.

People from across these divisions usually agree on a certain list of essential people, measured at least by their impact.
But if you disagree with that, that's fine, we can end this conversation with the following:

Take a list from ANY AREA OF PHILOSOPHY. Go gnostic if you have to. Go underground. Fascist. Anti-academia, anti-zeitgeist. Whatever you want.

do that

and count the english

Don't even make it pre-Nietzsche. Make it pre-Russell. Count the english. go

[Anonymous No.21044295]

>>21044161
>People really have no clue what "appeal to authority" means. It's a fallacy of appealing to an authority when it's not relevant.
Idgaf what the official OED definition. You're appealing to the idea that having some credential lends a person's views more credibility.
An academic's views are not inherently better or worse than any non-academic. All that makes a particular viewpoint authoritative is the rigor and intelligence with which a person develops their pov.
>Back to the appeal to authority question. I am the authority. I teach philosophy. Not appealing to anyone.
You are not an authority on anything by virtue of being a professor or by possessing a piece of paper. The only thing which lends authority on a topic is knowledge. You are an authority because you, hopefully, as a teacher possess knowledge.
You feel the need to defend academics because you are one. That is all.
>I never said anything technical either. Feels like you're putting some sort of class hatred
Many academics enjoy sniffing each other's farts and using technical language to puff themselves up and filter outsiders. To give an example, some retarded shit like: "An Inquiry into the Hegemonic Spatialization and Production of the Embodied Patriarchical Gaze in New French Cinema".
And then you read it and it's just some fart sniffer stringing together a bunch of empty terminology, and showing off how many different allusions they can make to other philosophers.
>this is what separates people who are serious about philosophy from those who aren't
No I'm not serious about philosophy. Philosophy and all abstract intellectual engagement ought to be pursued frivolously for enjoyment or as a hobby. Those who claim to take philosophy "seriously" are some of the least serious people imaginable. I can't imagine anything more pathetic.

[Anonymous No.21044299]

>>21036954
He fills the minds of the edgy with ideas and they spend their time arguing with those ideas. Maybe his ideas are good but his prose and gusto he gives to them makes it dangerous for the impressionable

[Anonymous No.21044317]

>>21036954
Because the logical endpoint of Nietzsche's philosophy is to ignore everything Nietzsche said and DIY

People who "follow" his philosophy obviously don't get it, hence they are inherently cringe

Kill the Buddha, etc.

[Anonymous No.21044475]

his entire philosophy is literally just a power fantasy for losers, thus losers swarm around him like flies on shit

[Anonymous No.21044523]

>>21044295
>Idgaf what the official OED definition
That's the only possible definition that would make it be meaningful at all.

>Having some credential lends a person's views more credibility
I mean regarding the area that credential concerns, YES. YES IT DOES. That's literally what "credential" means, retard.

>An academic's views are not inherently better or worse than any non-academic
9/10 an academic's views are better concerning their subject of expertise. Just as a bodybuilder's views are better than someone who doesn't work out but goes on /fit/. Right?

But no, my point isn't some elitism about academia. The reason we're talking about this is only because people are weird and sensitive about academics, I didn't make it an issue. It's really just class hatred. People freaking out over anyone they suspect sees themselves as better. Ironically this is a major topic in Nietzsche... People who identify with the lowly, and how mad they get at people they see as trying to be too lofty. It's an unusual passion to experience, when you think about it

>The only thing which lends authority on a topic is knowledge
Yea
What do you think I did to get a piece of paper? I read a lot of philosophy and wrote a lot about philosophy.

>You feel the need to defend academics because you are one. That is all.
No. I'm actually telling you something very simple. I don't even want to be an academic I'm just stuck here temporarily

>Many academics enjoy sniffing each other's farts and using technical language to puff themselves up and filter outsiders
Bullshit. Completely made up.

From your example I don't know if you're talking about sociologists and pomos or something, but that's not what we do. Philosophers are constantly going on about the importance of being clear, accessible, not obscurantist. It's one of the most conventional criteria we have. That's how I know you don't read a fuckin thing in the field and are just making it up, and somehow being passionate about your own imagination.

>No I'm not serious about philosophy. Philosophy and all abstract intellectual engagement ought to be pursued frivolously for enjoyment or as a hobby.
Well, there it is! That's why you have such a bizarre and divorced from reality perception of how it works.

>Those who claim to take philosophy "seriously" are some of the least serious people imaginable. I can't imagine anything more pathetic.
This, I only want to frame, for everyone to see. Delicious

[Anonymous No.21044533]

>>21036954
>cool
So its about apppearance? Substance doesn't matter?

[Anonymous No.21044552]

>>21042784
Other way around. No cultivated mind can like or love anything english.

[Anonymous No.21044579]

>>21044552
>cultivated

[Anonymous No.21044584]

>>21036954
True
Nietzsche is absolute cringe besides dunking on Wagner

[Anonymous No.21044594]

>>21038128
Didn't she have huge momongas?

[Anonymous No.21044603]

So, how many of the people posting laughable misinterpretations of his work have actually read him and aren't just seething at the fictional version of his work they have in their head?

[Anonymous No.21044604]

>>21042784
hehe, nice one

[Anonymous No.21044622]

>>21044071
Worst and most useless post on 4chan this year

[Anonymous No.21044625]

>>21044604
Average to above-average intelligence is the domain of the Anglophobe, but genius is the realm of the Anglophile. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.21044628]

>>21036954
This is true of the followers of virtually every author. The occasional Schopenhauer follower is cool, but only the ones interested in his metaphysics and not that popular book of essays and aphorisms.

[Anonymous No.21044634]

>>21044161
Why are you assuming just because someone gets paid to do something, they are necessarily good at it? Why couldn't it be that, for example, they are useful for someone without being particularly good at something? Of course, we are assuming that objective goodness exists.

[Anonymous No.21044657]

>>21044523
>That's the only possible definition that would make it be meaningful at all.
Why?
>I mean regarding the area that credential concerns, YES. YES IT DOES.
You are assuming that those who give plebs said credentials to make them authorities are capable of also endowing said plebs with appropriate level of expertise in what ever field. You are also assuming that the ones who hand out credentials are incorruptible and care deeply about the field and see that the field has value in itself. And thirdly you are assuming that the same level of expertise can't be achieved outside of academia under any circumstances.
>9/10 an academic's views are better concerning their subject of expertise. Just as a bodybuilder's views are better than someone who doesn't work out but goes on /fit/. Right?
That's not guaranteed. While all of 4chan is cancerous, /fit/ has some commonsense and people there generally understand how to get bigger muscles. While it may be more likely, it is not guaranteed. Again, you are assuming your academic circle jerk has the right answers. And why do you assume this? Because you might have spent more time reading and discussing philosophy? What if someone does that outside of your academic circle jerk? We live in the age of the internet and everyone in the first world and even third world has access to all of the significant philosophical texts. Almost everyone can read and almost everyone can find someone to discuss philosophy with.

You are making baseless assumptions, which quite frankly, are false/outdated. You obviously have emotional grudge against the anon you are conversing with because he denies the significance of your piece of paper.

[Anonymous No.21044764]

>>21044523
>That's the only possible definition that would make it be meaningful at all.
This is exactly why people hate academics. You are splitting hairs and being pedantic. You know what I meant by an "appeal to authority". Among the non-pretentious, we infer the meaning or purpose a person intends in using a word, and refrain from autistically quibbling about the dictionary definition.
>YES. YES IT DOES. That's literally what "credential" means, retard.
Once again doing some semantic quibbling. There are plenty of people that get all kinds of positions or credentials due to pure nepotism. Despite credential and credible rhyming, in the real world they are anything but synonyms . You can put any word in front of your name. Kim Jong Un calls himself a God, doesn't mean he is one.
There are also plenty of grad students out there in humanities that are total retards. And there are plenty of people outside of academia that are extremely knowledgeable on particular topics. It's called the information age for a reason. All it takes is a brain and discipline.
>9/10 an academic's views are better concerning their subject of expertise. Just as a bodybuilder's views are better than someone who doesn't work out but goes on /fit/. Right?
A better analogy would be between a bodybuilder that follows a regimen from social media v.s a bodybuilder that has their own private gym. Neither is inherently better or worse. Different tactics to achieve a similar end.
>What do you think I did to get a piece of paper? I read a lot of philosophy and wrote a lot about philosophy.
Right in which case it's your knowledge which lends you authority. Glad you agree with me.
>Philosophers are constantly going on about the importance of being clear, accessible, not obscurantist.
So that 20 page paper about "The Hyper-Reality of the White Colonial Gaze in Liminal-Afro Porn" was written out of a pure love of wisdom. Definitely not at all about signaling "hey I know all these cool words & references look at me!"
Analytics would fit what you're describing, but there are plenty of academics out there that absolutely write inane, pretentious bullshit. The fact that you feel this defensive need to defend all philosophers is really weird to me.
I'm not saying all academics are bad but there's a lot of pointless bullshit out there.
>This, I only want to frame, for everyone to see. Delicious
Go right ahead.

[Anonymouṡ No.21044918]

>>21036954
>There's literally not a single cool Nietzschean.
This is so wrong you couldn't be wronger without leaving the solar system altogether.

I'm tempted to compile a definitive list of role-models who venerated Nietzsche, but it would take a while and I have other things to do. Here's half-a-dozen off the top of my head (I'm sure other anons can add more):

— Anthony Ludovici
No-one these days has heard of this guy but he was based and, dare I say it, redpilled. He was an early 20th-C polyglot who translated Nietzsche. Check out his book "Choice Of A Mate". It says things like "Don't marry a girl with a university degree, because for one thing she will have learned a lot of nonsense, and secondly, if she's been to university, she's too old."

— D.H.Lawrence
He wrote a fascist novel called "Kangaroo", set in Australia, partly based on his experiences there.

— Knut Hamsun
His mustache was clearly an homage to Nietzsche.

— Jonathan Bowden
A self-described Nietzschean. See attached gif to get an idea of his approach to life. If you can't pick up girls in nightclubs using this technique you need to get in touch with your inner Ubermensch.

— Richard Strauss
Inspired by Nietzsche, wrote the music which goes Bong — Bong — Bong... BONGBONG.... at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

— Aristotle
He was prevented by temporal circumstances from appreciating FN, but if he had known him, he would definitely have admired him.

[Anonymous No.21045079]

>>21042854
this anon won

>>21043578
this anon is CLEARLY lost
God damn, thats almost a self btfo

[Anonymous No.21045113]

>>21044071
The dude did nothing except ponder abstract thoughts that went absolutely nowhere and did really nothing for the human race. Kinda like 4chan or really any kind of social media platform where a bunch of people waste their lives on trivial bullshit and let their talent go to waste because they are cowards.

[Anonymous No.21045717]

I don't think individuals can create their own meaning. They can only find it. Maybe a people, a culture, but not individuals. For them, meaning is either imminent in the world, or it's not. Attempts to overcome this come off as crazy or cringe.

[Anonymous No.21045827]

>>21037688
Nietzsche is a critic first and foremost, which means you literally can't understand what he's saying unless you understand who he's critiquing. He will make comments that seem silly or opaque, like "Man does not strive for happiness, only the Englishman does" or "They say evil men have no songs. How is it then that the Russians have songs?". Comments like these are completely unintelligible if you don't know what he's referring to--the first is directed at Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the second is a comment on Dostoyevsky's Christianity. The Russian comment is especially opaque because it actually means the opposite of what it superficially appears to.

Even the work that is an easiest introduction to his ideas, Twilight of the Idols, consists largely of critiques of other people's ideas, starting with Socrates and ending with his contemporaries.

[Anonymous No.21045878]

>>21045827
a good rule of thumb is that if someone is referred to as a 'philosopher', but they lived anytime after about 700 AD, it's best to ignore anything they've said

[Anonymous No.21045905]

>>21044657
>This is exactly why people hate academics. You are splitting hairs and being pedantic. You know what I meant by an "appeal to authority"
No, it wasn't hair splitting at all. This is the issue. "Appeal to authority" is bad if the authority is irrelevant. If you're speaking in practical terms, and say "the experts on the subject say X", there is nothing mistaken in doing so. I think I explained why sufficiently already, you avoided the point entirely.

>There are plenty of people that get all kinds of positions or credentials due to pure nepotism
Sure. In the humanities, there's less we have to regulate bullshit. People can graduate with degrees in philosophy while not really doing a good job at the work.
>Despite credential and credible rhyming, in the real world they are anything but synonyms
I understand your point, and I was not being pedantic. What I am telling you is that a "credential" flatly means that it's given that the person put an unusual amount of work into that thing.

What we're arguing here is not whether non-academics can be credible, it's whether being an academic means "nothing". It means something. Empirically, you will find that most academics are going to be better at their subject of choice than people who are self-taught. This is not elitism, this is how it plays out, and it's for many reasons. Not just because you got to be lectured by someone with a bigger credential.

> It's called the information age for a reason. All it takes is a brain and discipline.
Yeah, absolutely. The majority of the materials for studying philosophy are available for free. The potential is high to self teach.
Is it common? I don't think so. But I have nothing but respect for someone who has bothered to do this, I don't evaluate people at all on the basis of whether they go to school or not. It is purely about what they know, as you said.

That said, the problem is that people who don't go through college underestimate the amount of learning that is actually likely to get done in it. That's what bothers me, and it would bother me if it wasn't anything to do with my field - I don't like people making judgments on that which they are unfamiliar.

>So that 20 page paper about "The Hyper-Reality of the White Colonial Gaze in Liminal-Afro Porn" was written out of a pure love of wisdom
No. I think you missed what I said. That sounds like postmodernism and yeah postmodernism is exactly the sort of bullshit you just described. I'm just telling you there's a general character to philosophy, and that is a deep concern with the opposite of what you're describing. They're not stupid. They don't like being unclear or "pretentious". That they are pretentious is a public perception, one that's largely made up.

[Anonymous No.21045933]

>>21044764
sorry, >>21045905 is for you

>>21044657
>>>21044657
>You are assuming that those who give plebs said credentials to make them authorities are capable of also endowing said plebs with appropriate level of expertise in what ever field.
I wasn't endowed much by professors. They help conduct an experience, they can check you if you're going off the rails, it's a backbone.

But for me and many others, most of the growth I've had with philosophy was outside the classroom. I can't actually pay attention for more than 5% of a lecture. What I did for philosophy is repeatable outside of school. I read on my own, talked with my friends, wrote papers.

So no, it's not necessary that an academic is better. As I told the other guy, the point is that people seem to go the opposite way, and say that being an academic means nothing. It doesn't mean nothing. It means you worked more than average with the subject.

So usually, the person who has formally occupied themselves with a subject, is ahead of the person who doesn't.
And no, of course this isn't necessary. No reason to say such a thing. There is some genius autodidact out there who I'm sure is better than these PhD's.

>Again, you are assuming your academic circle jerk has the right answers.
No. I never said that. And it's not a circle jerk. Everyone disagrees with everyone on just about everything.

You are making baseless assumptions. About what academia is (obviously, you aren't familiar with it, why make things up?), and about what I'm saying (I never said you can't be credible and self taught or that no one outside of academia is credible, or that academia is right about everything).

> You obviously have emotional grudge against the anon you are conversing with because he denies the significance of your piece of paper.
I don't know how you managed to read that into my posts. I feel like my points are reasonable. I think you have a grudge against what you perceive as elitism or class condescension or something. It's common on this board. People preemptively freaking out at academics, for no reason.

I'll tell you this. Keep in mind. We, the "academics" in philosophy, love people who are engaged with it outside of academia. Personally, I respect it more than someone who is in academia. There's no gatekeeping here. If someone was self taught, and has read what I have, I will suck their fucking dick. You understand?

Just don't pretend that me being at this level means nothing. I've read a lot. The self-teachers and anti-academics are eager to engage with me, and I with them. And I'll go one step further:

The best possible relationship you can have with philosophy IS outside of academia. If you can do it. Unfortunately, the reality is that this is so rare to achieve, that you should have some trust someone who has given their ass to the program.

[Anonymous No.21046216]

>>21045905
>"Appeal to authority" is bad if the authority is irrelevant.
Your "authority" is irrelevant here. You are anon. Your degree means as much as toilet paper.
>Sure. In the humanities, there's less we have to regulate bullshit. People can graduate with degrees in philosophy while not really doing a good job at the work.
>What I am telling you is that a "credential" flatly means that it's given that the person put an unusual amount of work into that thing.
Pick one
>like people making judgments on that which they are unfamiliar.
I will make a judgement on whatever I want to.
>That they [philosophers] are pretentious is a public perception, one that's largely made up.
"They" are not anything. Philosophers are just people. Some are pretentious windbags. Some aren't.
>I think you have a grudge against what you perceive as elitism or class condescension or something
Quite the opposite colleges will admit just about anyone that pays. It's not the 1950s anymore where going to college was exclusive or a status marker.
If colleges today were elitist I would respect them, but instead as you yourself admitted:
>People can graduate with degrees in philosophy while not really doing a good job at the work.
>We, the "academics" in philosophy, love people who are engaged with it outside of academia
No you don't. We are competitors. Like animals competing in the same ecological niche we undermine the fiction that is your authority. Simple as

[Anonymous No.21046426]

>>21046216
My degree means I spent a few years reading, writing, working with people who've read more than me. It's not a pride thing. At this point it's a far more significant issue to you than it is to me, it's not much to do with what I originally said at all. People like you are making a fat fucking stink about this academia/credential question, I don't think it should have been a significant topic. It's a whole lot of "so you think you're better than me, do ya?"

Again, people get really freaked out about academics, anticipating that they must hold all these nasty opinions and be about to say all these nasty things. But I didn't say anything bad about non academics.

>Pick one
Why? Seems fine to me. I thought you'd be happy I made a concession to you, I even exaggerated it. I underestimated your commitment to spite

>Quite the opposite colleges will admit just about anyone that pays.
I mean no. That isn't true. And if it was (it isn't) it's not all that significant.

>No you don't. We are competitors. Like animals competing in the same ecological niche we undermine the fiction that is your authority.
lol ok
what are we competing over? Why would I be threatened?
What's the fuckin ecology? Philosophy is for your private world. Doesn't change a thing for me whether you do it or not or do it in our out of school.

>fiction that is your authority
My authority - which I don't really ask or care to have, the topic here was forced - is that I probably know a lot more than you.
Say what you will, but it's not that I have degree. It's that I've read and written a lot, and you don't seem like you have. So you can bitch and moan and shit and piss about the secret inner thoughts you imagine for people you know nothing about, but you won't have a point.

But yeah we're at an impasse now. I can tell you I like people to study outside of academia, that it's not all to different to do so. You have decided this can't be true.

So you're now basically at leisure to make up whatever you want, and if I tell you my feelings on the matter, you can simply decide that it must be otherwise. How you have this knowledge, I do not know, I just hope you use this power responsibly

[Anonymous No.21046433]

>>21036954
Because the people who call themselves Nietzscheans are dorks who missed the point.

[Anonymous No.21046672]

>>21042329
He's talking about Hume et al - not the English in general.

[Anonymous No.21046685]

>>21036954
>Why are all of his followers cringe?
Because her has no answers. He's great at psychologising and taking apart the western canon but his solution to the problem is more or less "fuck knows, someone will fix it one day". Adult iconoclasts in 2022 are just regarded as pretentious hipsters.
>There's literally not a single cool Nietzschean.
There is not a single cool person that identifies with anything popular on the internet.

[Anonymous No.21046698]

>"Is that a.... HORSE? -ACK"

[Anonymous No.21046703]

>>21045113
>did really nothing for the human race
N is the father of psychology. It's not his fault it descended into self help books.

[Anonymous No.21046711]

>>21046433
Uh no they got the point. Nietzsche essentially exalts what people in the 21st century would describe as sociopathic behaviour. He believes violence doesn't need justification, mercy is a weapon jsed by the weak to avert destruction at the expense of the strong, that morality should be tailored to the will of the Overman, and believes science infringes on human pleasure.

It's pretty vile and reprehensible stuff.

[Anonymous No.21046723]

>>21046711
0/10. Weak bait. You'd have been better off asking why Nietzscheans shouldnt call themselves Nietzscheans when Nietzsche specifically told them not to and why obedience to his commands should be considered independence.

[Anonymous No.21046736]

>>21046723
how is it bait faggot? if youre a nietszchean this is verbatim what you believe.

[Anonymous No.21046741]

>>21046736
0/10. At least read N to come up with good trolling.

[Anonymous No.21047644]

>>21036954

> “a student must eventually surpass his teacher”.

That's interesting because that's exactly how i see Nietzsche's work, and even more.

Only to put it in a more crude way, Nietzsche is an encompassment of teenage spirit, in his work, conclusions, outlook, type of writing, ideas and probably in reference to general history of thought in general, he is at the point of a teenage development of our collective thought as a whole.

Refusal or very contrarian way he chose to walk. It's very negative too, he, in many eyes became: Nietzsche, the nihilist guy. Very utilitarian and reductionist.

Nietzsche became a spokesman for those fragile who wish to be strong like others and strong others who wish to be affirmed in their decisions, acknowledging both sides, yet clearly defining and giving priority to a dominant one, seeing it at the end as ultimate goal.

But the part about surpassing.. I have this thought about his "death", and please anons give me your takes on this. As it's common knowledge, at the end of his days Nietzsche went mental. As the story goes he jumped on the horses in a desperate attempt to "save it" or at least protect it from the guy who was beating it.

Now yes, it is a very based move from the based guy himself, but what is the meaning of it? Cocks here, with the same excitement that they adopted his ideas would proclaim he went full I'll shizo. But what is shizo then? Isn't it just a mode of behavior that is unaccepted as the norm, and norm being our small set of very precise functions?. Even in definition, the emphasis put on "clarity" as though actions of such a person are mysterious. So indeed they are, but aren't we here to solve those?

Again on surpassing. Would it be correct to assume that this Nietzsche guy, out of nowhere decided to re-establish personal psychology and philosophy, did it, and said - ok, I'm done here, time to reap the benefits. Well it would if you would forget what a true thinker does: he thinks, even if seemingly all has been thought. Besides, as previously mentioned, not only in essence, but in body Nietzsche was a teenager, eager to prove and push boundaries, ..sometimes irrationally if needed.

It will be my guess, since we can only speculate, but also from personal experience, that the absurdity of existence that had been discovered hasn't haltered Nietzsche in his quest of discovering a better world. Again, to clarify, yes, what Nietzsche had discovered is anything but a better world, in fact quite the opposite, a crude and cold one, we're literal violence on every level of being, as a conquest itself, is glorified to the highest good. Yet there is still this idea of peace and goodness. We all know deep down inside that it's an illusion and there is every reason to believe it to be so, yet when we experience it, this goodness, it feels very much real. This peace and calm of the soul when you are in a moment, absent of any biologically induced fears, a perfect fantasy.