/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21478228]

Debunk the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.21478236]

>>21478228
In the spoken manner of Samwise Gamgee

[Anonymous No.21478238]

>>21478228
"He's literally a character in a Dostoevsky novel." and other ad hominem bullshit.

[Anonymous No.21478280]

>>21478228
I literally can't i'm just yelling at a tightrope walker and jeering to come be a bugman like me

[Anonymous No.21478300]

>>21478228
Spurious bullshit written by a coping and seething incel. Cartoonish, simplistic view of many things that have much more nuance, such was the atmosphere of his day. He was a man of his time and yet did not even partake in his time. Ended his life a broken down schizo freak and a virgin, under the care of his sister -- but only after having spent so long writing about his contempt for the weak and needy! Pathetic louse.

[Anonymous No.21478305]

>>21478300
Based and cheering at the tightrope walker falling pilled. One of us one of us

[Anonymous No.21478439]

If you were to ask Nietzsche whether he preferred the ancien regime or socialists, I think he would take the former any day. All the same, he is in the same intellectual camp as the latter. It's just not enough, his philosophy is a completely blunt weapon against what he seeks to fight.

The weak will for sure perish and egalitarianism is an obvious attack on civilization, but how exactly is that sufficient? His ideas are novel, not ancient. And all novel ideas these last three centuries have been defeated again and again by even newer ones each and every time, this isn't a game anyone ever wins.

[Anonymous No.21478443]

>>21478228
undebunkable

[Anonymous No.21478448]

>>21478228
OHohoooooooooooooHHHHHHHH im,,,,, im about to`````` ah,,,,,,. IM DEbOOOOOOOOOOONKKKKKKKINGG AHHHHH YESSS oh DEBOONK!!!!!!!!!111!

[Anonymous No.21478458]

>>21478305
Nope, more critical of Nietzsche for being all talk, no (tightrope) walk. Even so, his diagnosis isn't so enthralling.

[Anonymous No.21478548]

>>21478458
But he did what he wanted- published.

[Anonymous No.21478700]

Because the will to power is bullshit, or at least not the central thing in everything, or something that ‘every great man should aspire to’.

[Anonymous No.21478980]

>>21478548
Wow, what a noble, adventurous spirit. He "published". Lmao. No, he did what he hated -- sat alone in a room, writing away in bitter envy, a male virgin, giving all his profound diagnosis as the rest of the world moved on without him, and so he blamed everyone else for his own inability to do anything. Sure, he left a few good insights along the way, but doesn't take away from the fact he was a pathetic louse. In fact, he reveals what a loser he is in his insistence of a future man -- too feeble and cowardly to amount to anything in his own time, you see. In the end, he became everything he hated -- a parasite who withdrew into the house of a woman, and not even one he was sexually involved with, but his sister, where he was taken care of like a baby for the rest of his pathetic days.

[Anonymous No.21479742]

>>21478228
Actual criticism here. Nietzsche's take on ascetism being the will to power fulfilled by being turned inwards is inconsistent with the ascetic experience as described by the mystics, which is calm and serenity, compared to how the will to power fulfilled towards the outside world universally manifests itself as egotistical conquer and debauchery.
So Schopenhauer's theory that ascetics actually experience the denial of the will is much better, because it explains the feeling they experience.

[Anonymous No.21479920]

>>21478228
Likewise, Mumford demonstrates at length that the sole conceivable and real finality of "technics'' is the augmentation of power. There is absolutely no other possibility. This brings us back to the problem of the means. Technology is the most powerful means and the greatest ensemble of means. And hence, the only problem of technology is that of the indefinite growth of means, corresponding to man's spirit of power. Nietzsche, exalting this will to power, limited himself to preparing the man predisposed to the technological universe! A tragic contradiction.

[Anonymous No.21479944]

>>21478228

[Anonymous No.21479981]

>>21478228
His life already debunked it.

[Anonymous No.21480004]

>>21478228

It's just Stirner, but with an unfounded optimism in man and some faggy poetry.

[Anonymous No.21480195]

>>21478228
He, like all philosophers, just made it up and can't prove anything by doing mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.21480231]

>>21478228
Why would I do that.

[Anonymous No.21480267]

"Be that as it may, one has the general impression that, in the present state of things, there is no longer any stability; but while there are some who sense the danger and try to react to it, most of our contemporaries are quite at ease amid this confusion, in which they see a kind of exteriorized image of their own mentality. Indeed there is an exact correspondence between a world where everything seems to be in a state of mere 'becoming', leaving no place for the changeless and the permanent, and the state of mind of men who find all reality in this 'becoming', thus implicitly denying true knowledge as well as the object of that knowledge, namely transcendent and universal principles. One can go even further and say that it amounts to the negation of all real knowledge whatsoever, even of a relative order, since, as we have shown above, the relative is unintelligible and impossible without the absolute, the contingent without the necessary, change without the unchanging, and multiplicity without unity; 'relativism' is self-contradictory, for, in seeking to reduce everything to change, one logically arrives at a denial of the very existence of change; this was fundamentally the meaning of the famous arguments of Zeno of Elea."

"We must also state that our demonstration, which avails against all reincarnationist theories, whatever form they may take, applies equally and for the same reason to certain ideas of a more philosophical allure, such as Nietzsche’s notion of an ‘eternal return’—in a word, to everything that presumes any kind of repetition in the universe."

[Anonymous No.21480313]

>>21480267
Naw

[Anonymous No.21481097]

>>21478228
Name a genuine value system that was deliberately and successfully created consciously rather than unconsciously

[Anonymous No.21481109]

>>21480267
pbuh

[Anonymous No.21481116]

>>21478228
Metaphysics is possible, the Good is real and it does go with reason, peace and kindness win the day.

That said, Nietzsche is right far more than he's wrong. He definitely doesn't give a shit if you disagree, he aims at the small audience who has better tools than shit like this >>21478300

Seriously evaluating philosophers as "incels" and pretending to know anything about the "atmosphere of his day", and most bewilderingly, declaring about the lack of nuance in someone for whom nuance is a greater staple than for almost any other philosopher. For better or for worse.

Nietzsche is available for critique, but holy fuck, no one attracts worse critiques. People are really out here coming up with dramatic opinions on things they know nothing about. I don't know how that works in their heads

[Anonymous No.21481125]

>>21481116
>lack of nuance in someone for whom nuance is a greater staple
Anon, this is a façade Nietzsche put on for the philosophically gullible.

[Anonymous No.21481274]

>>21479742
i think you should reread the third essay in the genealogy, he addresses this at around the 11th aphorism.

[Anonymous No.21481282]

>>21478300
Such a shit point and I'm tired of hearing it. Nietzsche was THE philosopher who really lived according to his principles. All his suffering and illnesses made it necessary for him to write and pushed him towards more insight. He acted according to his being and his own law until the end and he perished because of it. It's truly baffling to me how deep he got without being trained in any esoteric tradition.
Pushing these stupid standards on him really only reveals your own insecurities and enslavement to them.

[Anonymous No.21481697]

>>21478228
Why would I do that?

[Anonymous No.21481704]

>>21481274
aphorism more like apori(a)sm

[Anonymous No.21481710]

You can't debunk that which doesn't exist. He was more like a bland poet than an actual philosopher. Much more concerned with flourish and provocation than evidence. This is why it's so right that he's taught as literature rather than a serious philosopher alongside like, Kant or Hegel or someone who does the work.