/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21859106]

This was garbage. How can anyone defend that embarrassing Jesuist head canon? The book was okay until he tried to explain what Jesus REALLY meant, and how his heckin wholesome teaching got le distorted by his disciples. Was he too much of a pussy to tear apart his childhood hero? The Genealogy hyped me up for what I thought was going to be a real challenge. I'm disappointed, but maybe I'm missing something.

[Anonymous No.21859109]

>>21859106
Stfu christcuck go drink some holy water

[Anonymous No.21859206]

>>21859106
>The book was okay until he tried to explain what Jesus REALLY meant
Not true, it was bad from the very beggining.
It's almost impossible to read Nietzsche nowadays and not roll your eyes at every sentence because it sounds like every athetist talked from 2000 to 2015 when it started to be redundant and cringe.
I get it though, I respect Nietzsche but this one specifically a a tough one.

[Estelle Ventura No.21859233]

>>21859106
He makes the same argument as Tolstoy in The Gospel In Brief: that Jesus’ teachings were distorted by Paul. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it.<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

[Anonymous No.21859283]

>>21859233
>makes the same argument as old, mad, Tolstoy
This ain't the zinger you think it is

[Anonymous No.21859286]

>>21859106
>and how his heckin wholesome teaching
Do you know how to read? In the text he explicitly rejects both Christ's teaching (which he interprets as western buddhism) and Christianity as it historically developed.

[Anonymous No.21859358]

>>21859106
He did tear apart rabbi Yeshua AND he tore the apostles apart. What's your problem? You're just a christcuck with a black and white morality.

[Anonymous No.21859363]

>>21859106
>The Genealogy hyped me up
Post BGE works are not parsable without having the entirety of the pre-TSZ works in mind. Atonement fixation is the target (when the Resurrection is the point), and the churchianity REV 3:9 fake Judean LARP that is an outgrowth of it. For all his anti-Plato posturing, he is also reserving unwritten doctrines for himself and closer sympathetic readers.

[Anonymous No.21859419]

>>21859286
>Christ's teaching (which he interprets as western buddhism)
That's just it though. Jesus wasn't some western Buddhist. That's Nietzsche being retarded, and buying into Tolstoy's bullshit. Regardless, it's clear that he's trying to "save" wholesome Jesus from being blamed for big bad Christianity. There was no reason for him to separate Jesus from Paul. Only the most slavish of Nietzsche fanboys would defend this dung heap.

[Anonymous No.21859449]

>>21859419
Are you retarded or just pretending?
Rabbi Yeshua didn't make christcuckery, it was Saul and the rest of the Jews. They are also the ones who turned the rabbi into a supernatural who resurrected, chimped out at the temple and all that made up nonsense.
And if you don't see the similarities between Yeshua and Buddhism then you are retarded, even some Christcucks see the similarities and have made theories how Yeshua went to India to learn Buddhist teaching before returning.
Even if you read Nietzsche you clearly didn't understand anything, probably because you have low IQ, stick to marvel.

[Anonymous No.21859472]

>>21859419
>Regardless, it's clear that he's trying to "save" wholesome Jesus from being blamed for big bad Christianity.
I just checked Merriam Webster and "I pulled that out of my ass" isn't one of the meanings of clear.

[Anonymous No.21859474]

You're right it was just disappointing. The book sucks and it's weird because twilight of the idols was written just before and it was so much better.

[Anonymous No.21859531]

>>21859363
I'm willing to believe that's what this work started out as, but then the syphilis started kicking when he was halfway done. It becomes unreadable when he starts in on Paul. He makes Paul out to be this resentful judaizer who sought priestly power, which is just not true. If anything, Paul was too Hellenistic in his thinking. It would have made much more sense for Nietzsche to critique Paul's apparent stoicism and platonism.

[Anonymous No.21859536]

>>21859472
Read the book nigger

[Anonymous No.21859557]

>>21859419
>Only the most slavish of Nietzsche fanboys would defend this dung heap.
Par excellence: >>21859449

[Anonymous No.21859575]

>>21859557
Not an argument, not that you could come up with any. Stick to Jewish fiction.

[Anonymous No.21859583]

>>21859531
Nietzsche never had syphilis. But you have low IQ, so ad homs are the only thing you can conjure up.

[Anonymous No.21859616]

>>21859531
>but then the syphilis started kicking when he was halfway done.
This. It also explains the amor-fati bullshit in Ecce Homo.

[Anonymous No.21859633]

>>21859616
>Got filtered by amor fati.
Sad state of Christcucks.

[Anonymous No.21859684]

>>21859575
>Everyone who criticizes my mentally unstable daddy is a christcuck
Seethe more. Jesus was one of many messianic apocalypticists, not some western Buddhist. The parts of Christianity that you think are similar to Buddhism were later accretions, and most likely due to mistranslations.

[Anonymous No.21859698]

Really funny how nietzschetards get worked up and rush to defend their horse hugging savior when that's exactly what Nietzsche was trying to convince them against
>>21859633
>>21859449
>>21859358
etc

[Anonymous No.21859714]

>>21859233
There's not much to distort. Paul says about a million things Jesus never did, I'm not sure people need famous authors to explain this to them.

[Anonymous No.21859723]

>>21859106
Nietzsche was closet christcuck.

[Anonymous No.21859725]

>>21859684
You don't critize, you put words into Nietzsche's mouth because you didn't understand what he was writing and now you are mad because you got corrected. Stick to fiction.
>>21859698
The horse thing never happened. Also you either didn't read nor understand, now you chimp out. You are free to make an argument.

[Anonymous No.21859729]

>>21859633
>Amor fati
>Not like other spooks
The sad state of neechfags

[Anonymous No.21859738]

>>21859725
>either nor
Hey ESL

[Anonymous No.21859746]

>>21859616
>>21859633
Amor fati is pathetic, weak and defeatist as fuck. Rousseau was right when he said that only the strong can be ethical.

[Anonymous No.21859749]

>>21859729
Stirner was a spook.
>>21859738
Hey Christcuck, ready to make an argument? Not that you could make any, since you have low IQ.

[Anonymous No.21859767]

>>21859725
What did I get wrong? You said Nietzsche saw Jesus as a western Buddhist, I said that's wrong because Jesus was actually a messianic apocalypticist, and any similarities between Christianity and Buddhism were due to later accretions and mistranslations.

[Anonymous No.21859776]

>>21859746
>Defeatist
I could call you a retard and be done with you, but I do want to know how your small brain got to the idea that amor fati is defeatist, so explain.
>Rousseau was right when he said that only the strong can be ethical.
So seeing as you have no ethics I can come to conclusion that you are weak.

[Anonymous No.21859793]

>>21859776
>I could call you a retard and be done with you, but I do want to know how your small brain got to the idea that amor fati is defeatist, so explain.
No.

[Anonymous No.21859799]

>>21859233
what did paul say that isn't supported by the gospel of matthew? does the anti-paul crowd really believe that being accepted into jesus's inner circle (john, peter, matthew, james, jude) with little resistance on theological matters is insignificant?

[Anonymous No.21859820]

>>21859776
Amor fati is basically what the christcucks do but taken to the extreme.
When something terrible happens and they say, "God must have a plan or a good reason for it"
They love or accept everything that happens because it is necessary in God's plan or rather his will.

[Anonymous No.21859823]

>>21859767
You don't understand anything, the thing that makes a Buddhist and rabbi Yeshua the same isn't the shit they preach, but WHY they preach it, which is negation of life, hence both are the same. Just because one sits still meditating and the other screeches about the end of the world doesn't change the fact that their goals are the same, to hate this world and hoping to pass to the next, better one.

[Anonymous No.21859886]

>>21859823
>Jesus preached negation of life
no he didn't.

[Anonymous No.21859923]

>>21859776
Nietzsche was a hack. Amor fati it's just the opposite of Schopenhauer's rejection.
Christians can live in a fantasy like cucks but Nietzsche instead of facing harsh nature and fighting it, embraces his dagger like the biggest cuck of all
>>21859823
Filtered
>A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ Then “‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!”’
For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”
>Luke 23: 27-30

[Anonymous No.21859971]

>>21859823
>the thing that makes a Buddhist and rabbi Yeshua the same isn't the shit they preach, but WHY they preach it
That's not how Nietzsche viewed it though. He thought that Jesus was some buddhistic teacher whose words were corrupted by his followers. Yes he was critical of Jesus' teaching, but he tried to separate Jesus from the rest of Christianity, as if Jesus were some innocent bystander. That's completely disingenuous. If you're going to shit on Christianity, go all the way. Don't pussy out halfway through, and be like "oh but it wasn't really Jesus's fault, he was just a naïve mystic". That's the kind of shit liberals do ("Christianity is bad, but Jesus totally would've supported abortion rights").

[Anonymous No.21859972]

>>21859820
What's so extreme about amor fati? Nietzsche didn't even come up with it. The only thing different could be that Nietzsche views that suffering can lead to something "profound", Nietzsche doesn't view suffering as good in itself and to just accept it for acceptings sake to le cope.

[Anonymous No.21860066]

>>21859886
Yeshua didn't say anything since everything was made up by the Jews, but either way the whole thing is about going to the "other, better world" to meet Jew god yahweh and how you all are sinners.
>>21859923
See >>21859972 that answers the first question, you clearly don't understand Nietzsche, probably didn't read him and project christcuckery onto him.
Now the second one
>Filtered
>Posts literally what I talked about
Thanks for proving Christcuckery negates life. Guess you are confused and injured yourself.
>>21859971
>He thought that Jesus was some buddhistic teacher whose words were corrupted by his followers.
Correct, and by Buddhist he means someone who also negates life. What's your problem? You literally said "you aren't correct, yes you are correct" with those first two sentences.
>Yes he was critical of Jesus' teaching, but he tried to separate Jesus from the rest of Christianity
Correct, "there was only one Christian and he died on the cross." There is nothing Yeshua like about christcuckery. The latter was made up by Saul.
>That's completely disingenuous.
It isn't, you're just butthurt for no reason.

[Anonymous No.21860067]

>>21859972
>What's so extreme about amor fati?
Nothing. That's the problem.

[Anonymous No.21860079]

Nietzsche's view of Buddhism is informed by his attack on Christianity and his break with Schopenhauer. Buddhism is presented as a superior form of world-denial, which while as nihilistic as Christianity is in that regard, lacks the kernel of ressentiment which animates Christianity. He is aware of the canonical metaphor of the Buddha as a physician, which places Buddhism on a much more robust footing than Christianity, which in Nietzsche's view has bred a deliberate sickness and anti-vitality into European morality. It would have been interesting if Nietzsche had lived later enough to comment on the more non-dualistic Mahayana literature which was yet to be translated—the formulation of Buddhist philosophers such as Nagarjuna that samsara is not different from nirvana, or the explicit boddhisattva vow to endure the return of transmigration for the sake of teaching others liberation, are both themselves critiques of the "world-denial" Nietzsche interprets and which some Buddhist schools evidently pursued

[Anonymous No.21860103]

>>21859206
>redundant and cringe
You've said nothing of value. I could call the Nicene Creed cringe for glorifying an executed peasant as the supreme lord of the universe

[Anonymous No.21860144]

>>21860066
What evidence do you have of Paul differing from Jesus in the way Nietzsche described? As >>21859531 pointed out, the new thing Paul might've brought to the table was stoicism.

[Anonymous No.21860167]

>>21860079
Was Nietzsche familiar with Eastern orthodoxy? A lot of his criticisms against Christianity as "anti-physician" and "life-negating" are far from the orthodox understanding.

[Anonymous No.21860336]

>>21860167
All Christian denominations would more or less dispute Nietzsche's criticism of them. As a serious non-larpist response what you'd have to do in the case of Orthodoxy is (a) prove Nietzsche is wrong in his assessment of the origins or moral genealogy of Christianity, or (b) somehow exclude Orthodoxy from that critique. Usually in these threads someone will come along and declare Nietzsche is only talking about Protestantism, which isn't true but lets the adherent pilpul himself away unscathed. What really confirms Nietzsche and would also cover Orthodoxy is the history of the Egyptian church (the Alexandrian patriarchate) in the Roman era—rabble rousung priests and monks shrieking about demons, terrorizing the gentry, destroying temples and property, commanding mobs of looters. Both sides adopt these tactics but our proto-communists are more successful.You have got it all, the slave morality, the ressentiment, the reification of evil. So again, how do you salvage this? Is Nietzsche entirely wrong or were the early Christians wrong in a way Orthodoxy corrects upon? It is hard to sustain the former—it is too obvious what early Christianity was, does not the glorification of martyrdom as a way of life speak for itself? You'd rather commit suicide by centurion than toast the health of the prince? As for the latter I am not versed in Orthodoxy enough to confirm, but surely they do not reject the core texts and doctrines of Christianity. If anything the cults of the martyr and monastic are probably even more pronounced...

[Anonymous No.21860356]

>>21860167
Same is true for Catholicism. Weirdly enough, Nietzsche argued that the Church was on the cusp of transvaluation via the Renaissance before it all came crashing down with the Reformation. Admittedly the best parts of the book were the shots he was taking at German nationalism. Good to know he detested Norse faggotry as much as christcuckery, if not moreso.

[Anonymous No.21860359]

>>21859776
Someone post the quote from the guy seething about how amor fati is essentially Nietzsche surrendering to necessity and circumstance rather than doing battle with his great enemy and resisting it.

[Anonymous No.21860379]

>>21860359
Where's the lie tho?

[Anonymous No.21860396]

>>21860379
I didn't say it was, I just like the passage and can't recall where it's from.

[Anonymous No.21860408]

>>21860396
I want to say it's Shestov.

[Anonymous No.21860410]

>>21859106
>we have no idea what this old kike actually said
>let's still care about it and try to figure it out
>instead of tossing this jewish horseshit out and killing everyone who believes in it
Nietzsche is a blatant fraud who has no idea what he's talking about in any case.

[Anonymous No.21860450]

>>21860144
Have you read Nietzsche? Just even google Nietzsche talking about Saul. It's absolutely not the same how Nietzsche talks about Yeshua.
>>21860359
>Surrendering
That guy hasn't read Nietzsche then. You clearly don't understand Nietzsche.
You just keep changing labels and adding your own projections onto Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.21860495]

>>21860066
>Thanks for proving Christcuckery negates life. Guess you are confused and injured yourself.
Elaborate I guess? I don't understand how Christianity denies life in this quote. It clearly says that there would be guys who, because of the terrible things in the world, would want life to go extinct.

[Anonymous No.21860569]

>We can't know what the historical jesus actually taught if we ignore the teachings of the apostles
>But we can know that what Paul taught was his own invention and completely different to what Christ taught! if we ignore that the apostles accepted his teachings into their churches[ /spoiler]
holy shit it's like pulling teeth from a retard's head. one true christian? what about the people he directly taught, who taught his teachings, founded churches, and died martyrs like him? Like the apostle Thomas, who founded a church in India, 2,000 miles away from Paul and yet reached similar conclusions as to the teachings of Christ?

[Anonymous No.21860581]

>>21860569
i fucked up the spoilers so you win i guess. not really. believing paul repurposed christ into a wholly different figure to fulfill his political aims is amazing atheist tier thinking. if you want to bitch and moan and christianity maybe you should familiarize yourself with its histoey first.

[Anonymous No.21860592]

>the catholic church was founded by peter and no other christian church was
why am i supposed to take this at its word exactly

[Anonymous No.21860596]

Borges said this was Nietzsche's worst book. Called it barely readable. Haven't read it because I shun Germans in all things.

[Anonymous No.21860831]

The book is good, readable, but most people can't handle it and need to cope. All the historical stuff is based on the so-called "quest for the historical Jesus" which was a Protestant movement that sought to demystify the Gospels and engage with the texts as any other historical text would be treated at that time, so not as a religious text that is above scrutiny. These investigations had certain conclusions, and Nietzsche based much of the Antichrist on those conclusions.

Read Renan, Strauss. He based his arguments on the state of the art theology at that time, he didn't just pull it out of his ass. It reads to you that way because he assumes his audience is well-read and already familiar with the theological disputes of the time.

[Anonymous No.21860842]

>>21860450
Let me rephrase: What other sources are there to support Nietzsche's claim that Saul and Yeshua taught different things?

[Anonymous No.21860848]

>>21860831
So it's just outdated then.

[Anonymous No.21860856]

>>21860596
>Haven't read it because I shun Germans in all things.
Based

[Anonymous No.21860863]

>>21860848
Last I know is that Albert Schweizer pretty conclusively btfo certain aspects of Renan and Strauss, and today only very, very few facts about Jesus's life are accepted.
>he existed
>he preached for a period of 3 years, give or take
>he was baptized
>he died on the cross
That's really all historians would say that we can know for sure about Jesus's life. For reference, Strauss denied the reality of the miracles and that caused a stir, and Renan even denied Jesus's godhead. If anything, the historical quest was kind of a failure, and theologians have to honestly reckon with the fact that from all the information in the Gospels, almost none of it can be verified.

So really, it's up in the air what Jesus really did say, think, or do.

[Anonymous No.21860899]

>>21860450
Nta but explain how Nietzsche understands "amor fati" is? I don't want to waste my time if it's just "embrace whatever fate deals you, even if it's shitty". That's straight-up masochistic. I'd much rather go the Shestovian route, and assume all things are possible, but maybe Nietzsche means something else.

[Anonymous No.21861037]

>BGE -> GM -> GS -> TSZ -> Bataille
That's the only right way to read Nietzsche. Anything else is fanboy retardation.

[Anonymous No.21861065]

>>21861037
/thread

[Anonymous No.21861074]

>>21859106
People greatly exaggerate how much Nietzsche praises Nietzsche in that book. Yes, he says Jesus was a great symbolist and free of resentment. But Nietzsche says:
1. Jesus was incapable of heroism (stories of him chasing out the money lenders and whatnot are resentment fueled fabrications)
2. Jesus despised reality.
3. The only noble character in the New Testament is Pontius Pilate (which of course means Jesus was not noble)
4. It was not just Paul who corrupted Jesus' teaching. The entire new testament is the product of sick, resentful souls.

And what Nietzsche said about Jesus prior to The Antichrist was not all that admiring. In This Spake Zarathustra he says Jesus might have become noble if he lived longer. And in Human, All too Human he compares him unfavorably to Socrates.The "actually, Nietzsche admired Jesus" spiel you regularly hear from people is unwarranted.

[Anonymous No.21861455]

>>21859109
>>21860103
neetchcuck defense force arrived

[Anonymous No.21861541]

>>21861037
You should be reading Sade before Bataille, and then not reading Bataille at all.

[Anonymous No.21861604]

>>21861541
>he didn't start with the caves
ngmi

[Anonymous No.21861619]

>>21859749
you never made any argument neetchcuck. Your kind will hang on the day of rope so your impotent screech is hilarious while it lasts.

[Anonymous No.21862919]

>>21860495
>Blessed will be those who will have no children
>How it le negates life?
Have you read it?
>>21860842
The difference is that Saul taught resentment while Yeshua didn't. You would know all this if you read Nietzsche.
>>21860899
See >>21859972
>>21861619
>Day of the rope
>Impotent screeching
Ironic, you're so unselfaware that you're the same like christcucks who think "evil" people who they don't like will burn in hell.

[Jessie Long No.21862944]

>>21862919
lmao chrstians have been ropeing your atheistcuck kind for years you subhuman. Your tranny neetch was literal cuck you should not be using that word carelessly troon. Also it also says to spread out and multiply. Keep being uppity you impotent cuck that's what neetchcucks are spiritual troons.<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

[Johnathon Hunter No.21862964]

The argument Nietzsche makes in Thus Spake Zarathustra is much more coherent and not trapped so much by psychologicaly biased historiography.

In that he says Jesus died too young and rushed to his death to prove a point as a martyr. Which is short of correct. The problem for Nietzsche was that Jesus was someone who was "insensitive to pain", in contrast to his ideal which somone who feels too much because of overbearing vitality and power and thus lives life tragically like art. When confronted with the martyr or scapegoat we have no choice but to relate and sympathize because we recognize life's unfairness and injustice, thus we strive then to follow the path of less resistance and to be more sociable and merciful. But for Nietzsche pity is the greatest trap and pittfall of slave morality, since it is a kind of emotional blackmail. If it isn't obvious enough, the ideal "Messiah" for Nietzsche is someone who fails at the end yet still keeps going , like Zarathustra, not someone who sacrifices himself for the "greater good".

However, I think Rene Girard's idea of the scapegoat as mimesis loops nicely with the idea of why a messiah and the scapegoat is socially necessary for the social to function. Nietzsche is too much of an ivory tower thinker sometimes and ignores social necessities which he puts unto the social backdrop of "the rabble". Nietzsche's social interpretations are too much biased towards an aristocratic bend to make accurate historical and social interpretations (not that he cared to do that anyway).<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

[Anonymous No.21863313]

>>21862964
Good post anon

[Anonymous No.21863316]

>>21862964
>>21862944
>>21859233
Are these actual bots?

[Anonymous No.21863571]

>>21859536
>Read the book nigger
I have, but your thread is not about the contents of the book, it is about speculating about Nietzsche's motivations for writing it, in other words it is about you pulling things out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.21863833]

>>21862944
You genuinely have a low IQ.

[Anonymous No.21863971]

>>21862944
'We live in a society' where our govt empowers women to punish men for having sex with them.
Choosing to have sex is choosing to have sex
Getting pregnant is an accident
Giving birth is a choice. Progression of the medical field has made that a fact. It is the woman's right to turn over a man's life by deciding to have his baby and the man doesn't have any escape even if he would have chosen to not allow the baby to be birthed.
If a woman becomes pregnant a man shouldn't be able to decide if she gives birth or not, but it should be within his right to disown the child and any responsibility for the child. Women are not retarded; a woman knows there are costs to having a child and the absolute power to put those costs on the father shouldn't be over him. Why can a woman choose if a man has a child when a man can't choose if a woman does? Having sex consensually is not an agreement to give life and child support.

[Anonymous No.21863993]

>>21861074
Exactly this. Nietzsche only said Paul is worse than Jesus, not that Jesus was great or admirable. Paul by his own admission was a really loathsome piece of shit, suddenly redeemed by becoming Christian. No, he was the same piece of shit wrapped up in Christianity after his conversion.

[Anonymous No.21864004]

>>21860103
...
Correct

[Anonymous No.21864277]

>>21862919
>>Day of the rope
Nietzsche hated antisemitism and (particularly German) nationalism. He saw the Vikings for the retarded pirates they were.

[Anonymous No.21864300]

>>21863993
Not a christcuck, but have you even read the Pauline Epistles front to back? It's mostly him telling judaizers to stop acting like elitist douchebags to gentiles.

[Anonymous No.21864331]

>>21864300
>stop acting like elitist douchebags
Well that explains why Sneedche hated him.

[Anonymous No.21864361]

>>21862919
>>21859972 didn't say what Nietzsche's understanding was, and got BTFO by >>21860067
I've since looked it up, and it's exactly what I thought
>Get fucked like a bitch by fate until you love it
How hopeful. So glad I gave up Schopenhauer to be Fate's little whore... truly ubermensch.

[Anonymous No.21864393]

>>21864277
N is god to you? Do you try to be like him and follow every one of his opinions? So what if the Germans were uncivilized. As long as they were deriving pleasure from the barbarism and enjoying sex with each other they lived as highly as anyone could hope to.

[Anonymous No.21865008]

>>21863833
you genuinely need to dilate.
>>21863971
ok bot

[Anonymous No.21865287]

>>21864300
Yes, I took a college course on the New Testament taught by a Southern Baptist minister. It was great, he was a really cool guy, and he had the same opinions on Paul as Nietzsche and me, but of course he was more charitable and forgiving, as Christians are supposed to be.

[Anonymous No.21866107]

>>21864361
>>Get fucked like a bitch by fate until you love it
Wrong, how can you read it and still not understand it, again, you have low IQ, stick to fiction.
>>21865008
Your IQ is literally low, and I don't even mean it as an insult.

[Anonymous No.21866684]

>>21866107
your dick is missing and on it's place is the bleeding wound like all neetchcucks. I don't mean this as an insult just an observation to all cuckworshippers here like you subhuman.
Also Nietzche was low IQ he said as much to his mother.

[Anonymous No.21866846]

Was Nietzsche raised as a protestant? That should answer many questions?

[Anonymous No.21867163]

>>21859106
Post Geneology he drops off hard. Early stuff is kinda mid and too metaphysical for his own liking. Nietzsche is kinda like a fruit. He has a period where he is overripe and where he is rotten but the middle is excellent.

[Anonymous No.21868176]

>>21859106
was nitzsche into masonery?