/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22732685]

>Why I Am So Wise
>Why I Am So Clever
>Why I Write Such Good Books

[Anonymous No.22732691]

>why i am a cuck
>why i suck bbc
>why i love sissygasms

[Anonymous No.22732692]

>>22732685
Pain and suffering is the greatest teacher

[Anonymous No.22732694]

>>22732685
you kind of have to fear the anonymous approach, what do you have to lose?

[Anonymous No.22732729]

>>22732685
I’ll admit it. I thought he was overrated before I actually read him. He just seemed like a typical atheist moral relativist. But after reading him I can honestly say that I have never been more impressed by someone’s intelligence, outside or hard sciences. He is maybe the only person that I consider superior to me in philosophical insight, especially considering the fact that many of my “independent” conclusions were no doubt inspired by him in some indirect way.

[Anonymous No.22732750]

>>22732729
>He is maybe the only person that I consider superior to me in philosophical insight
Lol sounds like you haven't read any other philosophers.

[Anonymous No.22732786]

>>22732750
the only other one that comes close is Hume

[Anonymous No.22732794]

>>22732786
Since you have the gift of philosophical insight: what is the fundamental nature of being?

[Anonymous No.22732796]

>>22732729
>t.

[Anonymous No.22732799]

>>22732794
i think you know him well

[Anonymous No.22732803]

>>22732685
>Mogged by Wagner and copes and seethes about it to his death

[Anonymous No.22732808]

>>22732691
It's 1:45 in the morning here I'm 3 beers, scrolling 4chan alone in my room and this made me laugh uncontrollably for 5 solid minutes

[Anonymous No.22732821]

>>22732794
If by “being” you mean all that exists (which is everything that we can interact with, or that is related to us in some way), then there is your answer.

[Anonymous No.22732822]

>>22732729
>He is maybe the only person that I consider superior to me in philosophical insight

[Anonymous No.22732825]

>>22732821
idgi

[Anonymous No.22732829]

>>22732803
IIRC he admitted he felt like he was in constant competition with Wagner and had all of his potential followers stolen by him.

[Anonymous No.22732835]

>>22732822
>>22732825
What is fundamental nature? That which is common to all. That which is common in being, or everything that exists, is that it can be related to us in some way. If you want a more specific answer, you should ask a more specific question.

[Anonymous No.22732842]

>>22732821
>>22732835
>thinks fundamental questions are so broad they lack meaning
Holy shit you are fucking dumb read a book. Do you think anyone in the world couldn't have given such a meaningless and sloppily written answer? Stunning dunning krueger in effect.

[Anonymous No.22732843]

>>22732835
I rate your insightfulness 0.3/10 (slightly above Nietzsche).

[Anonymous No.22732856]

>>22732842
You should know that such a question is quite useless and doesn’t merit 300 pages of autistic rambling. I re-worded your question (what is common in all that exists) and then answered it. So what is wrong with my answer? You didn’t actually give a reason

[Anonymous No.22732881]

>>22732856
It was a question Aristotle tries to answer in metaphysics. I just wanted to test you to see if you have something interesting to say.

[Anonymous No.22732901]

>>22732829
Nietzsche didn't give a shit if he had followers or not. wagner wanted to be praised by lesser people, Nietzsche wanted camaraderie and kinship with fellow thinkers

[Anonymous No.22732903]

>>22732856
Stop coping and actually read philosophy before you give your opinions on it.

[Anonymous No.22732910]

>>22732685
wintergreen is not a-
you can't start a-

[Anonymous No.22732915]

>>22732685
>>22732691
Nietzsche v Russell

[Anonymous No.22732940]

>>22732901
Nietzsche quite literally wrote Hymn to Life to 'seduce' the common person to his worldview in the same way as he thought Wagner had done with his worldview. He also said he felt lonely that he had no followers who looked up to, and felt as if they needed, him.

You shouldn't judge great figures, whether Wagner or Nietzsche, with your plebeian glorification of social comradery.

[Anonymous No.22732952]

>>22732881
I’ll entertain the question a little more, then.

It would be useful to know exactly *what* things are. We only see objects by their surface, and through science we know of atomic theory and so on, but we still don’t really know what those fundamental particles are. Going beyond physics, you might ask similar questions about the soul etc. if you believe in such things. In any case the “nature” of the thing is again defined by how we relate to it. After all, why do we want to know the nature of things? To use them, manipulate them, create them, destroy them. Because we understood atomic theory, we created atomic bombs, which were really useful for our desires.

There is no such thing as a thing in itself, a thing which does not relate to something else. It isn’t necessary to say that the object *is* green, but simply that it appears green to us, in comparison with other objects which have different colors. So the fundamental nature of things is ultimately determined by how they interact with other things, and ultimately with us, and the best way to discover those interactions is to purposefully create them through experimentation as we do with physics and the other sciences.

Basically, if you want to understand something better and use it to your advantage (which is the underlying intent behind your question), then you should interact with it more.

[Anonymous No.22732962]

>>22732940
complete nonsense

[Anonymous No.22732965]

>>22732952
ywnbap

[Anonymous No.22733009]

>>22732962
LOL. Try reading his letters some time, everything I'm saying is in them. He also didn't break with Wagner because he was treated as a lesser by him; they were friends and Wagner respected him. He threw away this 'comradery' for his values. So once again you know nothing about Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.22733032]

>>22732965
Go sit in a room for the rest of your life philosophizing about being. You’ll surely discover what thousands of years of philosophy could not. I’m not a good writer, but there is no better answer than mine. In the distant future everyone will think like me (or at least, those who are in control…), because my way of thinking gives the biggest advantage in survival. Until now the bulk of humanity can get by with its stupid monkey intuitions and illusions, and ask these questions and pretend to know some absolute answer (which turns out to be useless ironically), but eventually we will be much more sensible, either out of necessity, or out of the consequence of being much more intelligent and practical in general.

[Anonymous No.22733043]

>>22733032
Do you really believe your dull utilitarianism is a philosophical discovery?

[Anonymous No.22733065]

>>22733043
I never implied that it was my discovery

[Anonymous No.22733077]

>>22732796
Atheists hate Nietzsche lol
They have to filter and misinterpret him leaving all the le bad and spiritual stuff out

[Anonymous No.22733957]

Were someone to paraphrase Beyond Good and Evil 232 and publish it, it would be banned in most places. I laughed loud when reading it.

>Woman wishes to be independent, and therefore she begins to enlighten men about "woman as she is"—THIS is one of the worst developments of the general UGLIFYING of Europe. For what must these clumsy attempts of feminine scientificality and self-exposure bring to light! Woman has so much cause for shame; in woman there is so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmasterliness, petty presumption, unbridledness, and indiscretion concealed—study only woman's behaviour towards children!—which has really been best restrained and dominated hitherto by the FEAR of man. Alas, if ever the "eternally tedious in woman"—she has plenty of it!—is allowed to venture forth! if she begins radically and on principle to unlearn her wisdom and art-of charming, of playing, of frightening away sorrow, of alleviating and taking easily; if she forgets her delicate aptitude for agreeable desires! Female voices are already raised, which, by Saint Aristophanes! make one afraid:—with medical explicitness it is stated in a threatening manner what woman first and last REQUIRES from man.

> We men desire that woman should not continue to compromise herself by enlightening us; just as it was man's care and the consideration for woman, when the church decreed: mulier taceat in ecclesia. It was to the benefit of woman when Napoleon gave the too eloquent Madame de Stael to understand: mulier taceat in politicis!—and in my opinion, he is a true friend of woman who calls out to women today: mulier taceat de mulierel.

Church: Women should be silent in Church.
Napoleon: Women should be silent in Politics.
Me: Women should be silent about Women.

[Anonymous No.22734554]

>>22733957
And yet Jung only mastered the psyche through his invitation to woman that she be allowed to express herself however she could.

To speak or express in symbol the inner world is to climb above the animal within ourselves. In the final analysis, Nietzsche was dominated by just that which he considered his greatest distraction. Where was his greatest fear? With woman. And he failed to conquer her, as he failed to conquer his own unconscious drives. Jung was and will always be his superior in wisdom for that reason alone.

[Anonymous No.22734596]

>>22732685
>Why I Am So Wise
>Why I Am So Clever
>Why I Write Such Good Books

[Anonymous No.22734651]

>>22733077
Nietzsche was atheist. Also when are we going to just accept that atheists don’t all think the same shit? I don’t understand the obsession with atheists, I don’t think they’re nearly as prevalent a force as this board would have me believe. I think most people either believe in a god or just don’t think about it much. Like it really is this mostly irrelevant musing and a handful of people just keep trying to force it into the conscious.

[Anonymous No.22734660]

>>22734554
Feminism, leftism and its exaltation of the weaker types has been a disaster for the West so this doesn’t work.

[Anonymous No.22734677]

>>22734651
On obscure internet forums atheists are very common (and obnoxious).

[Anonymous No.22734681]

>>22734660
If you've read Jung, which you haven't, and your conclusion was that he was a feminist, then you've made a dramatic error of philosophical judgment.

[Anonymous No.22734695]

>>22734681
I’m just commenting on Nietzsche’s quote and why I don’t think your conclusion is satisfactory. I don’t make claims about Jung.

[Anonymous No.22734705]

>>22734695
> I don’t make claims about Jung.
Well, I made a claim about Jung, and your comment was a direct refutation of my claim. Thus, you've made a counter-claim, which is a species of proposition.

[Anonymous No.22734752]

>>22732729
You’re such a faggot man