/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22729862]

Is it really Christian morality very different from the Greco-Roman one? Didn’t the ancients praise moderation and virtue?

[Anonymous No.22729870]

it's not that different. aristotle already did everything nietzsche tried to do regarding values (but better) in Nichomachean Ethics. the middle path

[Anonymous No.22729884]

>>22729862
And self sacrifice and being humble. Slave morality always wins and all master moralists can do is kvetch about it.

[Anonymous No.22729890]

>>22729862
It depends what you mean you "greco-roman". Post-platonic philosophy is not too different from the Christian. Nietzsche wants to return to what he sees as a better pre-socratic morality. The ones from e.g. the illiad. Though I would personally dispute how different pre and post socratic morality truly was. It's probably more of a modern fiction about the ancients than what is reality.

[Anonymous No.22729949]

>>22729862
In almost every single moralistic system derived from some religious dogma there is some aspect that preaches the benefits and virtues of moderation. They all did the work for you and independently and concurrently reached the same outcome.

[Anonymous No.22729954]

>>22729949
Actually, I will remove concurrently, there may be a sense of concurrency to you based on your question but they did it independently at differing times in actuality.

[Anonymous No.22729959]

>>22729862
>Didn’t the ancients praise moderation and virtue
no. who told you that? they basically did their praising when they had finished being moderate

[Anonymous No.22729963]

>>22729959
(guy who has never read the pre socratics)
(retard)

[Anonymous No.22729964]

>>22729862
Oh, they praised virtue. Virtù, that is, moraline-free virtue.

[Anonymous No.22729972]

>>22729963
yes, im a cratylus schizo. it's not my fault. my teacher wanted to see 5 es

[Anonymous No.22729995]

>>22729862
>be moderate about vices
>honor is your higest value
>if you are pater familias you can kill all your family if it pleases you and some men are literal animals you can dispose as you wish
Vs.
>be moderate bout vices
>faith is your higest value
>you have to respect your family and every man is sacred

[Anonymous No.22730008]

>>22729995
Ancients were much more religious than christcucks. They also respected their families much more (ancestors are gods), unlike christcucks who want you to treat everyone equally and be a proto-communist.

[Anonymous No.22730014]

>>22730008
Agree. Here's a list of quotables I made on this very subject (feel free to use)

[Anonymous No.22730067]

>>22729862
The biggest difference is the Person of Jesus and what He has to say.

As Ratzinger repeatedly emphasizes, what distinguishes Christianity from all the religions before it, and all the religions that came after it, is that its central figure is also its God, and also set up a sequence of events as a test case to prove His validity.

Basically, you should take Jesus seriously because of the Resurrection. Jesus' teachings, and everything said about Him, gain authority from the fact that He rose from the dead. All the Gospels build to this truth if you bother to read them.

[Anonymous No.22730081]

[Anonymous No.22730192]

moderation as something the individual accepts as a sort of challenge against the turbulent self and as a peak to climb through will is not the same as moderation being moralized=collectivized as an herd instinct to follow

[Anonymous No.22730254]

It is very different but Spengler pretty much refuted Nietzsche entirely in DoTW. He makes clear that Nietzsche just projected what he liked onto the Greeks and what he didn’t like into the Christians, without regarding either as they actually were.

[Anonymous No.22730261]

>>22729862
>Wasn't this polytheist society who celebrated war, tragedy, and the hunt the same as this monotheist one that came centuries later?
Gee OP, I wonder. I mean, why stop there anyway? Maybe all organisms along the evolutionary chain were in fact Christian? Do you think the early hydrogen molecules in space were Christian too? I think so.

[Anonymous No.22730322]

>>22730261
>polytheist society who celebrated war
The ancient war gods generally had strongly negative aspects. Mars/Ares were considered savage deities and regarded with fear.

[Anonymous No.22730328]

>>22730322
Yeah whatever, the city states of ancient Greece still went to war constantly and their society eventually produced one of the greatest warmongers ever known in history (Alexander). This was not a very peace-loving people. They also built an entire elaborate social function with massive popularity, the Olympic Contests (not games — the Greeks had no word for "game") designed specifically to find and elect new military commanders and political leaders, a function which attracted people from outside Greece, and which Roman Christians eventually discontinued.

[Anonymous No.22730330]

>>22730328
>Christians didn't go to war

[Anonymous No.22730331]

>>22729862
you should read more

[Anonymous No.22730355]

>>22730330
Those Christians are mostly gone now. They're all gay faggots who hate war now.

[Anonymous No.22730358]

>>22730355
Good.

[Anonymous No.22730406]

>>22730261
Do you think medieval Christians didn’t celebrate war, tragedy, and the hunt?

It’s so funny because all of you Nietzscheans are obvious non-readers. You could only accept his historicity as gospel of you know basically nothing at all about history. All of the modern stuff you dislike came from a deliberate revolt against Christianity in the 18th century onward.

[Anonymous No.22730435]

I think when it comes to war the medieval Catholic church had the right idea (I'm not a Catholic): stop waging pointless wars on neighbouring Christian states, but wage war on infidels if you must, and take their stuff. Basically what Nietzsche would call "grand politics".

[Anonymous No.22730443]

>>22730406
medieval "christians" were as christians as your average gay pro-tranny pastor is nowadays
Germanic aristocracy kept living more or less as their gentile forefathers did, glorifying in plunder and booty, and christians adapted to it begrudgingly, not certainly because the doctrine of early OG christians is warlike

[Anonymous No.22730456]

>>22729862
>the golden rule
>laws of the covenant
Completely different

[Anonymous No.22730473]

>>22730322
>Mars/Ares were considered savage deities and regarded with fear.
I may be wrong, but those two differed.
Mars was closer to a disciplined general and also had some connection to agriculture. Ares was the god of slaughter, not war.

[Anonymous No.22730485]

>>22730473
>Ares was the god of slaughter, not war.
wut

[Anonymous No.22730518]

>>22730485
Ares represented the distasteful aspects of war, such as slaughter, not war in its entirety.

[Anonymous No.22730523]

>>22730518
>Ares (/ˈɛəriːz/; Ancient Greek: Ἄρης, Árēs [árɛːs]) is the Greek god of war and courage.

[Anonymous No.22730546]

>>22730443
> Nietzsche said X about history and he’s right
> how do you know that he’s right
> Nietzsche said so
Stop pretending you know anything about the Middle Ages beyond what little you took away from Nietzsche and Evola. You embarrass real medievalists.

[Anonymous No.22730549]

>>22730546
Fuck off with your faggot desert religion

[Anonymous No.22730554]

>>22730546
no refutation, I accept your concession
"real" medievalists don't consider history like your pc videogames either where people "switch" from a faction to the other, to say a 1st century christian and a 11th century christian are the same thing is asinine, as much as thinking the lifestyle of the medieval aristocracy of the middle ages is something they imported from 1st century judaeans

[Anonymous No.22730563]

>>22730435
The difference between a pagan view of war and a Christian view of war:
Pagan: “Blood is what makes the world turn and the act is divinely-sanctioned.”
Christian: “Correct. It’s my blood. I sanctioned it. Do it right.”
The modern delusion that created a self-destructive drive to utopian pacifism at all costs is not Christian, but a sympathy informed enlightenment “metaphysics”, liberal politics, and progressive law. None of it is Christian. We moderns are closer to pagans than to medieval Catholics.

[Anonymous No.22730571]

>>22730549
Hit a nerve I guess. Must have been pretty on the money.

>>22730554
> hurr durr you didn’t refute my blatant lie
> no I won’t read history I get all my history the insane emotional mustache man and that’s good enough
Fucking loser. You’ll never get it.

[Anonymous No.22730574]

>>22730571
seething brown golem, love to see it

[Anonymous No.22730588]

>>22730574
You got outed as an uneducated /pol/tard and non-reader but the best you can come up with is insisting I’m brown.

[Anonymous No.22730594]

>>22730563
>None of it is Christian.
Where do you think Enlightenment science and morality came from? From the delusion that everything stems from a single source, from one god. Certainly not from the view that there are multiple truths, multiple realities, and that knowledge is constrained by local limitations.

[Anonymous No.22730602]

>>22730588
absolutely fuming + crying le /pol/ boogeyman, you just outed yourself as a bioleninist tourist, fuck off back to rebbit ape

[Anonymous No.22730635]

>>22730594
> people smuggle Asian ideas into the West
> those Asian ideas form heretical cults
> they go on to inform the enlightenment ideals and enlightenment science
> Christian church works hard to suppress it
> some historylet a thousand years later: “the Christian church did this”

[Anonymous No.22730649]

>>22730594
TThis is 16 year old caliber historicity. Nietzsche and Evola have truly been a disaster for serious scholarship. You are probably a grown man and giving a take on something for which you could not even name 5 primary sources that you’ve actually read.

[Anonymous No.22730660]

>>22730602
> le leftist
> le Reddit
> le communist
Got anything else in the tank mouthbreather? It’s obvious you’ve read maybe 5 books in your entire life.

[Anonymous No.22730664]

>>22730660
keep seething, the projector is running in overdrive right now, illiterate ape

[Anonymous No.22730729]

>>22730635
>Christian church works hard to suppress it
There can be multiple ways in which a religion influences a society, even on opposite sides of a given fence. You didn't actually provide a refutation of the assertion that modern science and mathematics are founded on the monotheistic principle that everything springs forth from a single source / mind.

>>22730649
>blah blah blah Nietzsche and Evola muh sources
Retard.

[Anonymous No.22730766]

>>22730729
History is the refutation. What you’re asserting is plainly an ahistorical pile of lies. It didn’t happen. Enlightenment political thinkers for example accepted an origin story of man that supposed he climbed out of the muck as a tadpole or something and existed in a pre-political state of nature. You would know that if you actually read then, which you didn’t. There’s absolutely nothing Christian about this story. It’s in direct conflict with the Christian story. The whole thing is a deliberately constructed myth with the express purpose of going against the Christian story, not naturally following from it. You read some really mediocre writers, took what they said as gospel, read nothing further, no primary sources, very little history in general, and that’s just that for you and that’s why you think there is no refutation. You think I need to deconstruct your quite literally imagined and fake theory about what really happened, but I don’t because it’s not what happened. This idea that mathematics was founded in monotheistic principles is also a lie. Did pagans not do math? This is occult historicity that you find exactly in writers like Nietzsche, but it’s not true. You just have no idea what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous No.22730770]

>>22729862
consider how a mainline Protestant or a Catholic would respond to Nietzsche's critique of Christianity as a base resentment of power, an engine of spite—they would affirm it! The Gospel is the preferential option for the poor. How can you refute someone who has described you so accurately? His only error, then, is in rejecting this.

[Anonymous No.22730776]

Every year the Nietzsche, Evola, Guenon devotees get worse…

[Anonymous No.22730778]

>>22730776
the evola and guenon posters are at least a little more refined
the NEETzsche posters are noticeably schizo

[Anonymous No.22730779]

>>22730770
*burns you at the stake for being a heretic*
Nothin personnel

[Anonymous No.22730789]

>>22730778
I don’t agree. They’re all bad. For a long time, it’s been almost a ritual where young men discover these guys after not reading very much or knowing a whole lot about anything, but each cohort seems to be even less and less well-read otherwise, less and less critical, less and less inclined to pursue further or investigate, and worst of all, double down more and more on their ignorance. Maybe I’m just getting old and cranky, but even though I know I went through that and many others do too, it does seem to be getting worse

[Anonymous No.22730793]

>>22730789
>he's pretending to be le epic chungus wise old fella
these little bioleninist kids are hilarious

[Anonymous No.22730797]

>>22730789
I doubt these guys read Guénon. His writings aren't edgy and there are no quotable passages about le warrior ethos and such things.

[Anonymous No.22730802]

>>22730789
Yea, i think the proliferation of smart phones play a role in this.

[Anonymous No.22730826]

>>22730523
Is that Wikipedia? If so, right under what you just quoted is this.
>He embodies the physical valor necessary for success in war but can also personify sheer brutality and bloodlust, in contrast to his sister, the armored Athena, whose martial functions include military strategy and generalship.
He represented a side of war, the bloodlust and carnage, not war in its entirety. Therefore, he is a god of slaughter associated with war, not on the level of Mars.

[Anonymous No.22730836]

>>22730826
Yeah I already said that he embodies savage aspects of war, but also virility and courage. Still the main god of war.

[Anonymous No.22730842]

>>22730766
>History is the refutation.
In other words, you don't have to provide a refutation, because "le look around you!"

Natural law hinges on monotheistic values. Secular thinkers of the Enlightenment were almost all concerned about natural law. You think over a thousand years of Christian influence suddenly evaporated within a century or two because of some heretical cults and secular revolts? Are you fucking dumb?

[Anonymous No.22730846]

>>22729862
Maybe if you read Nietzsche you will learn since he explains it like youre 5, you dumb retard
>>22729884
Slave moralities lose to amoralist blacks and browns and all you can do is kvetch about it
Such is life

[Anonymous No.22730850]

>>22730443
>medieval "christians" were as christians as your average gay pro-tranny pastor is nowadays
So Nietzsche's complaints apply only to early Christians, if that, and nobody else?

[Anonymous No.22730851]

>>22729964
>moraline-free virtue.
can you elaborate?

[Anonymous No.22730855]

>>22730846
go back to your reddit

[Anonymous No.22730861]

>>22730850
As far as slave morality goes, yes
His main criticism against nonchristians and larping christians alike is nihilism, which is even worse

[Anonymous No.22730865]

>>22730855
Cope

[Anonymous No.22730867]

>>22730861
Funny that nihilism is what people accuse Nietzsche of.
>but you need to overcome nihilism
Yet he didn't.

[Anonymous No.22730875]

>>22730328
Alexander justified his conquest as a way to liberate the Anatolian Greeks from Persian, seems that almost no one wanted to be seen as an agresor without a just motive, the Spaniards used Catholicism, Hitler used defense against communism, etc

[Anonymous No.22730876]

>>22730867
>nihilism is what people accuse Nietzsche of.
And where do they base that criticism on?
Also yes Nietzsche wasnt particularly successful at life, this is undeniable

[Anonymous No.22730881]

>>22730876
It's not about worldly success but about his inability to create his own values. He puts the creation of new values off indefinitely, until the coming of the overman. This is what I'd call a cop-out.

[Anonymous No.22730884]

>>22730328
Incorrect. Παίγνιον from παις meant game. Olympic Contests were αγώνες, agon(s) which is more about struggle
But the Greeks did have a word for games

[Anonymous No.22730886]

>>22730881
This is why Aristotle mogs. Literally defined his own values in a scientific way

[Anonymous No.22730890]

>>22730881
Nietzsche's ubermensch was cope imo. Trying too hard to create his own brand of philosophy since the rest of his work was quotations and ripoffs
Still, on what grounds is he a nihilist?

[Anonymous No.22730893]

>>22729862
comparison shield doesn't quite feel safe?

[Anonymous No.22730894]

>>22730890
nihilist
/ˈnʌJ(h)JlJst/
noun
a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.
"it is impossible to argue against a nihilist"

[Anonymous No.22730899]

>>22730894
So literally the opposite of Nietzsche, since he fought against the notion that life is meaningless, and hoped for superior moral principles

[Anonymous No.22730905]

>>22730894
Christians are nihilists to Nietzsche. Nietzsche is a nihilist to Christians. Christians were atheists to the Romans. Romans were atheists to the Christians.

[Anonymous No.22730906]

>>22730899
That's exactly what I said in my earlier posted. He told us nihilism is bad but remained a nihilist himself. 'Hoping for values' doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous No.22730907]

>>22730899
>"superior" "moral" "principles"
spook

[Anonymous No.22730928]

>>22730850
of course, he's getting at the source of it, not at how every group interacted with this doctrine over thousands of years per se
apparently the epic chungus "learned medievalists"(they studied, you see) of /lit/ find it baffling that someone could suggest a christian of 1st century judaea is not the same thing as some Frankish knight of 10th century France in how they see warfare

[Anonymous No.22730950]

>>22730884
Παιδιά is also a word for game. Άθυρμα could be translated as game as well. Idk where he got that from.

[Anonymous No.22730951]

>>22730928
Was Nietzsche familiar with the writings of the church fathers though?

[Anonymous No.22730952]

>>22730851
He can’t because they are extremely similar concepts.

[Anonymous No.22730958]

>>22730067
Blessed

[Anonymous No.22730970]

>>22730905
>Nietzsche is a nihilist to Christians.
Is he though? They dont consider people with different moralities nihilists just infidels
>>22730906
He didnt reject morality AND tried to convince everyone that life is not meaningless ergo 0/2
Youre just coping methinks

[Anonymous No.22730973]

>>22730952
can you elaborate on how they are similar?
not trolling, just curious

[Anonymous No.22730974]

>>22730970
>He didnt reject morality AND
Which morality did he adhere to?
>tried to convince everyone that life is not meaningless ergo
What was the meaning of life for him?

[Anonymous No.22730983]

>>22730970
>They dont consider people with different moralities nihilists just infidels
Nietzsche is an infidel and a popular target of poorly argued contemporary christian apologia

[Anonymous No.22730989]

>>22730974
The morality where he found some things good and others bad, as he explicitly wrote in his books. Not sure if he followed a religion so there is probably not a name for it
But then again most people are like that
>What was the meaning of life for him?
Life itself. There are many reasons to live and life is beautiful ergo life isnt futile. He wrote books on that, you should try reading them
He literally disliked christianity because it hates the world and life and copes for an afterlife

[Anonymous No.22730994]

>>22730983
Your observation seems correct

[Anonymous No.22730995]

>>22730989
I don't think you've read Nietzsche or understand what nihilism is. Here's a hint: nihilism doesn't mean being sad.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYqWRDiE No.22731052]

>>22729862

>Is it really Christian morality very different from the Greco-Roman one?


NOT REALLY; IT IS VERY DIFFERENT, THOUGH, FROM THE «PROTESTANTISTIC» HERETICAL ONE, AND THIS, IN TURN, VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE GRECOROMAN ONE.

[Anonymous No.22731126]

>>22729862
Yes, but christians didin't praise virtue.

[Anonymous No.22731145]

>>22730067
>you should take Jesus seriously because of the Resurrection
Which never happened.
>Jesus' teachings
Which were not remarkable.
>and everything said about Him
Which was not true.

[Anonymous No.22731155]

>>22730649
>Muh sources.

[Anonymous No.22731177]

>>22730973

Machiavelli mourned the loss of virtu. Virtus is derived from the word Vir (man in Latin) and referred to manliness and manly qualities such as bravery and strength and had little to do with pity for the weak or universal kindness like Christian virtue.

[Anonymous No.22731191]

>>22731177
aristotle had concord with others in his definition of virtu. machiavelli (with nietzsche) is the one to say self-centeredness ought to be thought of as virtu

[Anonymous No.22731195]

>>22731177
Seems like a Conan the Barbarian tier misrepresentation of Roman virtues.

[Anonymous No.22731223]

>>22729862
You're making a mistake in how you even frame the question. When people talk about 'the ancients', they're making a statement about an entire group. You're going to find a variance of opinion within that group, but the claim is about sort of the 'average position'. So yes, you can find commentary from 'the ancients' on moderation, but that doesn't mean it's indicative of the entire group.

In fact, if the sorts of persons you're reading to infer this are ancient philosophers, then you're already lost in a Nietzschean interpretation. Nietzsche's entire belief is that philosophers were the sidelined weirdos in Athenian society, it's modern humans that go back and read Socrates and think he was a hero. Socrates was treated like a clown who was executed by 'the ancients'. It's the people who executed Socrates that Nietzsche is speaking so highly of, not Socrates.

[Anonymous No.22731228]

>>22730008
>more religious
Wtf that even means
>respected their families much more
I wasn't talking about respect (honor was their most important value as I said), but how they could dispose of them. The point is that human value was only recognised to mature male citizens, while for christianity everyone has the same dignity (even women and children). That doesn't mean they abolished gerarchies in the family (wife, children/pater familias) or in society (servants/masters), they only put a limit to unleashed absolute power abuse on them.
Tl,dr: if you were born in antiquity your father could have killed you without any consequence. If you're free to spam shit on 4channel instead of being a slave to your master be thankful to Christ

[Anonymous No.22731277]

>>22731223
Your post makes absolutely no sense considering what Socrates was tried for.

[Anonymous No.22731292]

>>22731155
>Read? Who reads?
> t. /lit/

[Anonymous No.22731300]

>>22730797
They do.

[Anonymous No.22731314]

>>22730842
Yeah, dude. You’re the one who thinks Rousseau’s state of nature and Darwin’s protozoic soup are somehow obvious implications of orthodox Christian theology but I’m the retard.

By the way, the conception of natural law as we take it comes to us from pre-Christian stoics. You’d know that if you read much of anything at all.

[Anonymous No.22731316]

>>22729884
Explains why feminism and Afrocentrism took over

[Anonymous No.22731322]

>>22730906
>>22730974
nietzsche did create values of his own though
more importantly he thought humans should have a morality. he hated "nothing matters" types

[Anonymous No.22731325]

>>22730014
Ironic that “his” name is the first bishop of Rome

[Anonymous No.22731333]

>>22731322
>nietzsche did create values of his own though
Not really.

[Anonymous No.22731390]

Master morality is a fiction, when it comes to some grand Greek ethos. Nietzsche was actually a sloppy and shitty philologistand historian, which is why so many of his disciples make the post hoc claim that he was intentionally being shitty at it to make a point. He'll often make basic errors, like claiming Socrates' inner voice never tells him to do things actively, but to avoid things (blatantly contradicted in the text).
I've always held that Nietzsche was a lazy albeit brilliant thinker, which is why he failed at every project in his life, despite the fact his disciples will play up mere early potentials as glory to him. Nietzsche was the ultimate clever child that is still coasting on mere potential. Which explains why his ideas are expanded based on how captivating they are over raw substance. If Marxists are delusional because they move the revolution down the centuries and disown previous failures, Nietzcheans are delusional because they can always play coy and claim that wasn't what Nietzsche REALLY meant. Or that his philosophical ideas don't really need to come to fruition in the real world.
Anyway, there are plenty of Presocratic and Preplatonic Greeks that demonstrate the Nietzschean reading of the Greeks is faulty (but I'm sure Nietzscheans have some clever play for us on how Nietzsche really meant .... because apparently Neetzsche never said anything at all).
>Property is not for seizing: far better God-given. For if a man does seize wealth by force of his hands, or appropriates it by means of words - the sort of a thing that often happens when profit deludes men's minds, and Shamelessness drives away Shame - the gods easily bring him low, and diminish that man's house, and it is but a short that prosperity attends him.
From Hesiod's Work and Days
Hesiod has a lot of qualitatively moralistic statements like this, and Zeus almost equals to the God of Christianity in purpose. Even so, other Greeks had their criticism of this era of Homeric religion.
>Homer and Hesiod have attributed to the gods
>Everything that men find shameful and reprehensible-
>Stealing, adultery, and deceiving one another
From Xenophobes of Colophon
>[Heraclitus] said that Homer deserved to be expelled from the competition of and thrashed...
A fragment about Heraclitus
Nietzsche projects into history the master/slave dichotomy, and that the prechristian Greek world was held by a master morality, and that Christian morality is, in a sense, a subversion. He reads into history the idea that Christian was a religion propagated by women and slaves. Now there may be an extent that Christianity spread among slaves and women, but ultimately it spread along all sorts of classes and peoples. This is important to note because there were actual examples of religious groups that truly were female-led and oriented among the Greeks. Also, the fact that women were forbidden from leadership roles. Alas, Nietzsche was a shitty historian, and so are his disciples.

[Anonymous No.22731420]

>>22731390
based Nietzsche making christcucks uncontrollably seethe and shit their pants, you literally didn't make an argument in your long ass text, literally
>Nietzsche bad
that's all you did

[Anonymous No.22731436]

>>22731420
You're so vulgar and pathetic.

[Anonymous No.22731450]

>>22731333
he literally did, have you read him? what do you think eternal recurrence is useful for? what do you think will to power is? what do you think nietzsche thought of these? do you think nietzsche thought nothing matters?
I'm struggling to understand your critique

[Anonymous No.22731472]

>>22731390
Good post
I read Nietzsche as Nietzsche, not as someone with good analysis of ancient times.basically his exegesis is his own fanfiction, and thats what I like reading

[Anonymous No.22731481]

>>22731450
The things you listed are descriptive. If you don't understand what values are it's not surprising that you'd struggle.
As for nothing matters, I'm not sure that's an accurate description. I'd say Nietzsche believed nothing has meaning, or that nothing contained truth.

[Anonymous No.22731487]

>>22731390
>>22731472
However
>Nietzsche projects into history the master/slave dichotomy, and that the prechristian Greek world was held by a master morality
Completely true. Master morality is moralistic
>and that Christian morality is, in a sense, a subversion
Correct and he explains why, as does natural selection

[Anonymous No.22731506]

>>22731481
Lol you havent read nietzsche. He valued strength, overcoming, transvaluation, art, creative drive, affirming life and other things. His ubermensch is someone who creates values out of the central value of life, amor fati is also a value
He had values both in sense of this is le good and this is le principle that must be followed. He never supported a life without morality where even decadence can be seen as good

>As for nothing matters, I'm not sure that's an accurate description.
well then that's what nihilism (nihil) is. nihilists view the world as meaningless nothing worthy in it and nietzsche saw all of the world as worthy or rather full of worthiness
thats even in his birth of tragedy

[Anonymous No.22731510]

>>22731228
Ancient Rome was still subject to natural selection. If the father enslaves or otherwise mistreats his family, they won't be a successful family and will lose to families which have better cooperation. Or could it be that harshness towards women and children makes them better and provides an advantage? Hmmm.. What if everything you believe is a dysgenic lie? In any case, children can't be free (though the most mentally ill liberals like Rousseau have proposed this). So either you own your kids or the state owns them. Even christcucks, despite all their shortcomings, say that the man should be the head of family and believe in The Father.

[Anonymous No.22731512]

>>22731510
>christcucks

[Anonymous No.22731551]

>>22731506
>His ubermensch is someone who creates values out of the central value of life, amor fati is also a value.

You have a self-help guru understanding of Nietzsche:

>The consensus of the sages-I comprehended this ever more clearly-proves least of all that they were right in what they agreed on: it shows rather that they themselves, these wisest men, agreed in some physiological respect, and hence adopted the same negative attitude to life-had to adopt it. Judgements, judgements of value, concerning life, for it or against it, can in the end never be true. They have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms; in themselves such judgements are stupidities.

[Anonymous No.22731563]

>>22731551
That is to say, life is only good because the life-affirming individual judges it to be good. There's no "central value of life" in Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.22731591]

>>22731551
Yes, he's attacking Kant's thing in itself, it's already clear you haven't read Nietzsche no need to demonstrate it again
>They have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms
Nietzsche did indeed think several things hold value
>There's no "central value of life" in Nietzsche.
There is in his ubermensch which nietzsche moralizes as good and nietzsche himself upholds affirming life as good hence his shilling for it. He considers life itself good too since he considers life denial extremely bad and attacks it
Not sure what your point is. Nietzsche had a morality, followed a morality, and shilled for a morality since he literally had moral (le bad/le good) principles.

[Anonymous No.22731600]

>>22731591
Heres a good work for understanding nietzsche's moralfagging
https://www.grafiati.com/en/literature-selections/nietzsche-friedrich-wilhelm-1844-1900-estetica/dissertation/
He held will to power and affirmation of life as extremely good values that should be followed.

[Anonymous No.22731601]

>>22731591
>"ubermensch" which nietzsche "moralizes" as "good"
Spooks.

[Anonymous No.22731611]

>>22731591
>Nietzsche did indeed think several things hold value.

No, he is reacting against the concept of intrinsic value in its entirety. Values for him are merely lies or idols.

>Whatever has value in our world now does not have value in itself, according to its nature—nature is always value-less, but has been given value at some time, as a present—and it was we who gave and bestowed it. Only we have created a world that concerns man!

[Anonymous No.22731651]

>>22729995
>Faith is your greatest value
This is only for some flavors of Protestantism, which has existed for a small fraction of Christian history and has only ever accounted for a fraction of all Christians.

Nietzsche makes the mistake of thinking that "how lay people around me practice this millennia-spanning, global religion," is the essence of that religion.

I think a more common take would be:
>Mystical union with the divine/the possession of God's Spirit and Logos is your greatest value
Or:
>Holiness is your greater value.

Christianity as merely something you "believe," instead of something you "do" or "become" is a Reformation thing.

Christianity as primarily "avoiding punishment and getting reward" is a medieval invention that has had unfortunate staying power. It's also more a lay perception, less something theologians of all stripes have ever embraced.

Part of the problem is that people think anyone should be able to be an "authority" on spiritual matters. Just because your aunt "believes" in what physics tells you about the world, you wouldn't expect that she can explain physics to you (unless she's a physicist). But people expect that anyone who professes a faith must be able to explain it to them expertly, and assumes they now understand what people mean by the faith.

[Anonymous No.22731689]

>>22731314
Stoics were proto-Christians, so you failed to make a convincing argument.

>You’re the one who thinks Rousseau’s state of nature and Darwin’s protozoic soup are somehow obvious implications of orthodox Christian theology
No, I think that ideas have genealogical histories and that Enlightenment secular thought would have never happened had Christianity not prepped the intellectual soil for it.

[Anonymous No.22731692]

>>22731510
You can't see a difference between being the chief of the family and have the literal right to kill its members?

[Anonymous No.22731731]

>>22731692
Yes

[Anonymous No.22731756]

>>22731390
The NEETzsche response is basically
>well nuh uh!

[Anonymous No.22731849]

>>22731390
Theognis of Megara:

>Never do the enslaved go upright,
>But the crooked necked are ever gnarled;
>As a squill doesn't bear roses or hyacinths,
>So neither does a slavette a free child.

>It does befit the good to have wealth,
>Poverty is to be borne by the bad.
>Pray to the gods, 'tis in their power. Indeed,
>Without the gods, men will neither become good nor bad.
>According to Zeus' will, money comes to the man,
>'Tis pure and ever abiding.

>The mother of helplessness has seized them...
>Who leads the soul of man astray to sin,
>To pervert his body by severe necessity, ...
>Yielding to need, who teaches every badness,
>Lies, deceits and accursed quarrels. ...
>For need engenders harsh helplessness.

>The bad are not all bad straight from the womb, but
>Transform in the friendly company of bad men
>Learning base deeds, shameful words and lewdness ...
>You will never be able to make a bad man good.

>There is no glory in helping the lowborn,
>Just like sowing the grey, salty sea —
>Sowing the sea brings not a rich harvest
>Nor will doing good to the bad return good.

[Anonymous No.22731872]

>>22731849
The context of this is that he was butthurt because he was poor after the plebeians had overthrown the social order and taken his wealth. It's ironically an example of resentment.

[Anonymous No.22731883]

>>22731872
It's an example of master morality, which sees good against bad rather than good against evil, and which regards the slave a slave by birth. So, that anon was completely incorrect, master morality is real and did exist.

[Anonymous No.22731891]

>>22731883
>master morality
spook

[Anonymous No.22731895]

>>22731883
Everyone would break out in butthurt rants if robbed & condemned to a life in poverty. It's not particularly interesting no matter how you classify it.
French aristocrats said exactly the same things during the revolution.

[Anonymous No.22731896]

>>22731891
Do you think slave masters had the same morals as their slaves in ancient times? Nietzsche's master morality is referring to ancient slave masters.

[Anonymous No.22731904]

>>22731895
>French aristocrats said exactly the same things during the revolution.
In other words, master morality continues to be a thing throughout history and that anon is wrong. Good to know.

[Anonymous No.22731906]

>>22731896
he's famous now. if you can get it started you can keep it going?

[Anonymous No.22731923]

>>22731904
As I said, I think the poem is much closer to an expression of resentment. Theognis certainly lacked amor fati (until perhaps late in his life).

[Anonymous No.22731943]

>>22731923
Master morality is simply the morality of the ancient slave master. Anything else is an extrapolation away from Nietzsche's works. Got anything else to add, or just more coping and bitching to you?

[Anonymous No.22731948]

>>22731943
>"Master" "morality" is "simply" the "morality" of the "ancient" slave "master"
spooks.

[Anonymous No.22731949]

>>22731943
from you*

[Anonymous No.22731960]

>>22731052
You're pseud Christcuck trash.

[Anonymous No.22731963]

>>22731960
>You're pseud Christcuck trash.
>AH BLOO BLOO YOU UGLY STUPID

[Anonymous No.22731967]

>>22731963
Imagine being you right now and coming to the defense of one of the worst and most autistic posters on the entire board.

[Anonymous No.22731971]

>>22731943
You should actually read Nietzsche. He specifically mentions master morality as not being motivated by spite or resentment. Merely calling others bad and yourself good isn't enough.

[Anonymous No.22731972]

>>22731967
This is what you get when you post even worse and dumber than a tripfag

[Anonymous No.22731980]

>>22731972
All I did was insult him by calling him a Christcuck. Are you a Christcuck? If so, why do you adopt a religion for women?

[Anonymous No.22731986]

>>22731980
>pseud Christcuck trash
YOU STUPID, VERY STUPID RELIGIOUS TRASH!
85 IQ facebook tier posting. not even redditor material

[Anonymous No.22732001]

>>22731986
>YOU STUPID, VERY STUPID RELIGIOUS TRASH!
I don't hate religion, you stupid Christcuck.

[Anonymous No.22732012]

>>22732001
85 IQ confirmed. I was dunking on your 85 IQ post that wouldn't be amiss from a schizophrenic facebook post, imbecile. i'm buddhist. lmao.

[Anonymous No.22732058]

>>22732012
>i'm trans. lmao
Indeed.

[Anonymous No.22732064]

>>22732058
I'm sure that would appeal to you, faggot. lmao

[Anonymous No.22732092]

>>22732064
>doesn't deny it

[Anonymous No.22732135]

>>22731971
Wrath is not resentment.

[Anonymous No.22732141]

>>22732092
>doesn't have the mental horsepower to detect a subjunctive tense
try taking your grammar courses more seriously, little bud

[Anonymous No.22732149]

>>22732092
yes im fucking trans so what? it's not against the precepts of buddhism boomer fag

[Anonymous No.22732152]

>>22732135
Nietzscheans are masters of pilpul.

[Anonymous No.22732160]

>>22732141
not me but thanks for standing up for me anon

[Anonymous No.22732168]

>>22732152
You'd know what pilpul is, wouldn't you, rabbi?

[Anonymous No.22732172]

>>22729862
Greco roman ethics is fundamentally judaic in origin

[Anonymous No.22732178]

Atheism means standing up for LGBT rights. chuds, get in line

[Anonymous No.22732182]

>>22732141
I'll ask again, why are you defending superstitious low IQ christcuck trash like cumgenius?
>>22732149
I don't care if he's a buddhist or not because someone who'd defend an annoying pseud POS like cumgenius is LARPing.

[Anonymous No.22732189]

I’m new to this board but is Nietzsche one of those topics that gets posted every day, people shitfling and argue, and nobody changes their stance?
/v/ has dark souls 2 threads
/int/ has race threads
/sci/ has IQ threads

[Anonymous No.22732194]

>>22732182
life must be hard in the single digit iq realm

[Anonymous No.22732198]

>>22732189
Any major author gets this treatment

[Anonymous No.22732204]

>>22732194
I'd much rather be low IQ than crawling out of whatever loveless cunt that dysgenic twiggy abomination spawned out of.

[Anonymous No.22732209]

>>22732189
>>22732198
yeah kinda. for the past year or so, Nietzsche and Hegel are the meme authors on here
bleak

[Anonymous No.22732686]

>>22731883
The idea that Greek civilization operated under master morality as some unconscious norm, which was then subverted by Christianity (or Platonism, take your pick) is categorically false. That's the point. Evil was not invented by either Platonism or Christianity. Nor was it invented by Greeks in their more urbane state. The mere fact that manumission was possible in society demonstrates that. Or the fact that the Plebeians eventually shook out the orders in Rome, to which nobility no longer affected social distinction or wealth (and nobility itself became a sort of fraud, given that powerful families had a short lifespan of a few generations).
The point is not that no Classical person expressed something which resembles master morality.

Even in my own classes in 19th century philosophy, the fact that Nietzsche is incoherent is quite apparent, even beyond the mere evolutions he undertook from his first book, or the fact many of his works were aphorisms and notes, and his own mental state declined through disease. But I noticed quite clearly that Nietzscheans reinterpret this as ever intentional, but even Nietzsche realized some of this at times, even if he recanted self-awareness from his hideously malformed ego, a malignant tumor which would be well-fitting an image in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
This is why I hate Nietzscheans, even though I actually like a lot of his books and he influenced writers I like even more.
Especially when they treat his biography as some kind of luminous wonder (it plays an unusual role in studying his philosophy, in my experience). If we had none of his books to go by, he's basically a failure: failed his military service from an ouchie, failed a marriage proposal (prompting a "well acschually... from NEETzsche, as expected), failed a professorship, failed his major friendships. Most Kraut philosophers are inflated windbags in terms of personality, to be fair, for all their genuine brilliance.
No wonder, Nietzsche has disciples from reactionary Nazis to libshit university professors. And what do they say, often? Neetie is a prophet, not s philosopher.
Many of his moves to prophethood basic cope for being an incoherent, like his giant mustache covering his lips. His philosophy was ultimately an expression of his own person, as is typical of excessively psychoanalytical types.

[Anonymous No.22732721]

>>22730328
wow. you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.22732734]

>>22730523
>>22730518
>>22730826
two retarded fags quote wikipedia to each other to prove one of two retarded points. In the words of the great philosopher Demonax in a similar situation. "I heard two men arguing, one was milking a billy-goat and the other catching the products in a sieve"

[Anonymous No.22732739]

>>22732734
Cringed.

[Anonymous No.22732740]

>>22730594
astoundingly wrong

[Anonymous No.22732763]

>>22732721
>>22732740
Cry harder

[Anonymous No.22733355]

>Monotheism vs Polytheism
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t even pre-socratic Greeks have believed in a kind of monadism? They didn’t think the gods were “real” in the Christian sense, that they were literal historical flesh and blood people, they would have believed them to be emanations of the divine. It’s that same reason-based metaphysics that inspired enlightenment thinkers as well so it seems pointless to argue about it. Christianity is both polytheistic and monotheistic, and pagan theology was similar.

Ultimately the problem with Christianity is that it was just buckbroken more than all the other religions. Western countries had to adapt to capitalism, technology, information, and globalization more rapidly than any other civilization. You still had war, monarchy, patriarchy, etc, for hundreds of years under Christian rule, but now that the sun is setting on European civilization people want to point to Christianity as the cause.
White women from California try to take up Buddhism because they think it’s cute hippie fare, and they get disillusioned when they learn that people from Laos still believe in demons and fire and brimstone. In the same way, you have teenage boys who get their morality from gigachad memes cheering on Islam against Christianity cause they think it isn’t cucked, but when they read the texts they learn that it’s still about loving your fellow human and submitting yourself to God. I don’t think Christianity is that different from pre-Christian pagan religions, especially considering how much the latter influenced the former. The one-size-fits-all mental gymnastics of tradcaths annoys me, but Nietzscheans are the worst posters by far. Nietzsche is a poet and a lifestyle guru, not a philosopher nor an historian. He writes cool things but 20-something’s latch onto him too hard. No one would try to make a religion out of Mishima.

[Anonymous No.22733382]

>>22729884
Yeah until your slave morality is overtaken by even worse slave morality, like >>22731316, where you are now kvetching about how no-one goes to church anymore.

[Anonymous No.22733931]

>>22731316
bioleninism and unironically chemicals in the water turning the men gay

[Anonymous No.22735050]

>>22731145
source: your blown out aids infested asshole

[Anonymous No.22735314]

>>22729862
Moderation can be generative or degenerate. The recent Christian/protestant tradition was against displays of opulence and anything excessive that separates the individual from the masses. It's anti-elitism which is obviously degenerate, those that excel should be celebrated and imitated.
If you think this guy was fundamentally against basic concepts like moderation in all cases you're not looking for the meaning behind the words.

[Anonymous No.22735349]

>>22735314
>Moderation sees itself as beautiful; it is unaware that in the eye of the immoderate it appears black and sober and consequently ugly-looking.

[Anonymous No.22735357]

>>22735349
>moderation is ugly

[Anonymous No.22735368]

>>22735349
If you're implying he's fundamentally against any kind of moderation you really are illiterate.

[Anonymous No.22735369]

>>22729862
No there is nothing original in the Bible just some things packaged in a new way. It's a product.

[Anonymous No.22735375]

>>22735368
I take the man at his word.

[Anonymous No.22735381]

>>22735357
It’s true, the real-life example of Nietzsche’s ideas put in practice is a fat retarded nigger who dances and fucks and doesn’t think about what happens after death. He even has a chapter in Zarathustra where he praises Africans for those reasons.

[Anonymous No.22735391]

>>22729862
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INgTzv2vyxc

He finds objectionable the view that the numinous is wholly other and beyond this realm. That includes truth and beauty. When you lose those displaced to fictional elsewheres, nihilism is only a matter of time. "... the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must." The gods of Greek and Roman antiquity were in the world and active. Where falsehood is quite literally ugliness - bereft of beauty, strength ... - Beauty (or splendor, strength) supersedes 'Truth for its own sake'. Socrates put the cart before the horse for personal self-preservation requirements because he was by all accounts, hideous. Abstemiousness is no virtue when one hasn't the stomach nor inclination in the first place; enervation (and niceness) likewise are of no merit. Church-ianity is a far cry from what He actually taught, and Nietzsche's objection is its emboldening of the spiritual lumpenproletariat. We're living the consequences of that Rev 3:9 misunderstanding as we speak.

[Anonymous No.22735393]

>>22735375
To sincerely read means giving the text the benefit of the doubt and assuming a coherent interpretation that you can relate to instead of assuming the author is retarded.

[Anonymous No.22735400]

>>22731277
You've clearly never read Plato if you think Socrates didn't revile excess.

[Anonymous No.22735412]

>>22735381
The real life example is that and the Roman Empire and everything in between, and politically and morally speaking, Nietzsche was a Roman.

[Anonymous No.22735420]

>>22735391
Truly, Socrates philosophy was but a product of his bad looks. Here's your prophet of strength and beauty.

[Anonymous No.22735426]

>>22729890
>pre-socratic morality. The ones from e.g. the illiad.
>literally just "ugly/weak people are wrong"
Based.

[Anonymous No.22735430]

>>22735426
(retard who never read the odyssey)

[Anonymous No.22735435]

>>22730563
>Christian: “Correct. It’s my blood. I sanctioned it. Do it right.”
Examples?

[Anonymous No.22735442]

>>22735430
>read
No such thing.
t. Homer

[Anonymous No.22735720]

>>22731177
>Machiavelli mourned the loss of virtu. Virtus is derived from the word Vir (man in Latin) and referred to manliness and manly qualities such as bravery and strength and had little to do with pity
>>22731195
>>22730851
Yes ; but Virtu and "manliness" in relation to "The Patriarchy" that is upheld by Roman Religion

Christianity changed the Signifiers, the "meta - relationships" are now in relation to Christian Metaphysics , to the ideology of "the Church" and not anymore the actual "fraternity between Patricians" that stems from Indo-European Warrior Cults.

This is why Rome is a Republic in the first place.
The Republic exists because it has been Generated by this Patriarchical Cult that Christianity has replaced.

[Anonymous No.22735771]

>>22735720
What you wrote sounds really stupid, and it's not in Nietzsche's works.