What are the consequences of no one on /lit/ actually having read Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.23217394]

Has philosophy ever recovered from Nietzsche BTFO'ing it?
>[Philosophers] all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic (in contrast to all sorts of mystics, who, fairer and foolisher, talk of "inspiration"), whereas, in fact, a prejudiced proposition, idea, or "suggestion," which is generally their heart's desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event. They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders, also, of their prejudices, which they dub "truths,"—and VERY far from having the conscience which bravely admits this to itself, very far from having the good taste of the courage which goes so far as to let this be understood, perhaps to warn friend or foe, or in cheerful confidence and self-ridicule ... It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of—namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown. Indeed, to understand how the abstrusest metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have been arrived at, it is always well (and wise) to first ask oneself: "What morality do they (or does he) aim at?" Accordingly, I do not believe that an "impulse to knowledge" is the father of philosophy; but that another impulse, here as elsewhere, has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken knowledge!) as an instrument.
This mere quote from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil renders 99% of all philosophic meandering on this board hollow and useless.
All claims to truth are innately empty.
Philosophy is merely a tool to justify through logic the prejudices and desires of the heart. We all basically live according to our own hearts and souls, we live according to what ideas/values naturally occur to us, and all "logic" is an after-the-fact charade to make it seem as if our positions are reached by honest deliberation.
Thus anyone who wants to seriously discuss philosophy but critiques arguments on the basis of being "right" or "wrong" is a retard. There is no right or wrong, there is simply that which affirms life and that which denies life -- philosophy therefore is best used as a tool to produce the best possible outcome for ourselves, whatever we esteem that to be.
Nietzsche destroyed philosophy in 1886 yet for some reason we are still pretending that there is anything left to talk about.

[Anonymous No.23217492]

you're all cowards for not replying, this is the only thread of substance on this board right now

[Anonymous No.23217727]

>>23217394
Where do these "wills" originate from I wonder? From deep within? Or perhaps from above?

[Anonymous No.23217750]

>>23217394
>All claims to truth are innately empty.
That is itself a claim to truth, brainlet

[Anonymous No.23217753]

>>23217750
Wow! Nietzsche must’ve not realized this.
Nietzsche BTFO’d!!!!

[Anonymous No.23217761]

>>23217753
Are you saying that Nietzsche's mere awareness of this fact somehow refutes its validity? That makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.23217783]

>>23217761
re-read the quoted text, moron. You’re missing the point.

[Anonymous No.23217807]

>>23217783
I read it. He makes a series of vague generalizations about the intentions of all philosophers, and then advises the reader to approach every philosophical text with the foregone conclusion that the author is "aiming at" some existing moral system. This is circular reasoning which proves nothing.

[Anonymous No.23217831]

I suppose this rings true for me. Everything is subjective, and when I can make a non-reflexive response, I just do as I please while experiencing it all. I don't really have much else to say on the matter as I don't have much experience in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23217838]

>>23217831
>Everything is subjective
no it isn't

[Anonymous No.23217853]

>>23217394
A better appreciation of Hegel, and the real Plato.

>Accordingly, I do not believe that an "impulse to knowledge" is the father of philosophy; but that another impulse, here as elsewhere, has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken knowledge!) as an instrument.

Particularly important in light of both, and Heidegger after him.

[Anonymous No.23217923]

>>23217394
Well, I would say there is a distinction to made between truth and validity. The quoted section you have provided still holds merit and validity, and is still considered to be a quintessential aspect of Nietzsche's core philosophy. Nietzsche does go into the knowledge/instrument dichotomy more in other works as well and also demonstrates an understanding of what Aristotle had to say about the purpose of and limit of what dialectic is actually capable of achieving, he even morphs the argument further into a sort of breed of argument wherein the person is ultimately using knowledge to understand the external world only in their own mind and the seemingly endless practice of division is ultimately incapable of ever truly creating an understanding which implies the adherent eventually either becomes comfortable with what they know or does not. These passages become the basis for much of his existential or nihilistic interpretations respectively and with validity. This notion itself also sort of constitutes an argument in favor of the limits of what localized data pooling can actually achieve as well, which also adds a third option for the adherent in which they can continue the process but also exclude some of the innate stoic aspects of their person and achieve better results as well, and some of the reverse extrapolation that seemingly always devolves into ad hominem style argumentation can be stripped since the coded nature of the thinking is no longer tripping the friend/foe system innate to humans. The passage should be empowering, the individual has a blueprint for creating their own meaning.

[Anonymous No.23218990]

>>23217838
Yes it is. Even measurable things are filtered through a layer of subjectivity. That is, the things we see may be nearly identical, but our interpretation of and reactions to them can be wildly different.

[Anonymous No.23219003]

>>23217783
The logical conclusion is that what’s left is your ability to make argument and stand on business, you do realize that right? I like Nietzsche a lot but this is obvious. He hasn’t actually proven anything and a big part of his philosophy is how we can’t really know.

[Anonymous No.23219020]

>>23217394
/lit/ is full of viciously dumb christer apologists validating Nietzsche's reading of Christianity through their performances
Captcha: 2GAY

[Anonymous No.23219100]

Post2015/lit/ doesn't read actual literature and there is no consequence to this because/lit/ is an irrelevant waste of time for most anons.

[Anonymous No.23219286]

>>23219003
>you do realize that right?
i would hope that my statement "There is no right or wrong ... philosophy therefore is best used as a tool to produce the best possible outcome for ourselves" would demonstrate that i do indeed realize that but i guess i was unclear.

[Anonymous No.23219325]

>nietzscheanism

[Anonymous No.23219416]

>>23219325
>stirner

[Anonymous No.23219436]

>>23219416
>make pretentious faggot shitpost with Ni*tzschiesse
>receive predictable no u answer
>cry

[Anonymous No.23219470]

>>23219436
>anyone who disagrees with me is crying

[Anonymous No.23219538]

>>23217394
>This mere quote from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil renders 99% of all philosophic meandering on this board hollow and useless.
No, it doesn't. It only changes what the use or value of the philosophic meandering is. Nietzsche and philosophers like him understand their work as a kind of therapy rather than a system of positive knowledge. Are therapeutic activities "hollow and useless?"

[Anonymous No.23219564]

>>23219538
>It only changes what the use or value of the philosophic meandering is
yes. obviously the "99%" part is hyperbolic.
the point is that we should stop arguing over philosophy on the basis of whether or not something is true/untrue or rational/irrational and instead argue on the basis of how useful, empowering, and vitalizing said philosophy is. basically, philosophy should be a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[Anonymous No.23219729]

>>23219470
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything I'm saying you're a faggot and your 'philosophy' is gay.

[Anonymous No.23220462]

>>23219470
Fucking kek’d.

[Anonymous No.23220467]

>>23219729
no u

[Anonymous No.23220482]

>>23217394
Well, I *do* agree with it but as devil's advocate, suppose I say you 'truth does exist and is knowable.' You'd probably respond with 'demonstrate it' which would mean you'd want me to prove it to you with arguments and such, right? Well, that's what philosophy is and what philosophers attempt to do. You can't so easily blanket dismiss them all.

[Anonymous No.23220502]

>>23220482
i didn't mean we should dismiss philosophy, i was unclear, explained it here: >>23219564
i'm just saying we should stop caring about truth

[Anonymous No.23220578]

>>23220502
Ah. That's what 20th century continental philosophy was working towards and postmodernism in general basically is. As Deleuze put it, the purpose of philosophy is 'the production of concepts.'