/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2550455]

Why is this cry baby, nihilist, emo faggot considered a /lit god??

[Anonymous No.2550463]

Because he had to pay for sex and became famous for being a bitter, opinionated shut-in.

He's like the king of this place.

[Anonymous No.2550462]

this thread is going places.

[Anonymous No.2550472]

>>2550463
>Because he had to pay for sex
>Implying all sex isn't paid for in one way or another

[Anonymous No.2550475]

>>2550463
someone let this man write a journal article. it will invalidate all nietzchean studies since the beginning of time.

[Anonymous No.2550476]

>>2550472
I've had times where I've never had to bullshit to a girl or buy her anything to have a screw. Plenty of average to good looking girls love casual sex as well.

[Anonymous No.2550479]

>>2550476
are you some sort of degenerate? Casual sex is fucking disgusting from literally every single angle.

[Anonymous No.2550482]

>>2550476

>Not chemically castrated
>Hyperborean

Also he didn't sleep with anyone, he just played the piano!

[Anonymous No.2550485]

>>2550479
How so?

I am clean of sexually transmitted infections. The girls I sleep are never fat or below average. I don't see the problem man. It's a thrill, the adrenaline of picking up a girl you just met. Am I the only one that feels it? I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.2550488]

>>2550479
>are you some sort of degenerate? Casual sex is fucking disgusting from literally every single angle.

hahaha wow I hope you're trolling

[Anonymous No.2550491]

>>2550485
It's a meaningless thrill which has damaging mental effects on both people involved.

[Anonymous No.2550493]

>>2550485
>shallow behavior in 2012 America
>am I the only one

[Anonymous No.2550495]

>>2550491
Life itself is pretty meaningless, does that mean I should kill myself now?
>>2550493
I asked it knowing that the answer would be 'no' since it's a pretty common thing to do.

[Anonymous No.2550496]

>>2550455
Well if you weren't such a moron maybe you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominem, you impressionable malleable little shit. No one should say cry baby, emo, or faggot unironically and you just did all three.

Nietzsche certainly isn't the greatest philosopher of all time and probably wasn't even decent, but you can bet your ass that he'd tear you down.

Criticism for the sake of criticism is weak and cowardly, you catering piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.2550498]

>>2550496
>Well if you weren't such a moron maybe you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominem, you impressionable malleable little shit.

oh the irony

[Anonymous No.2550499]

>>2550495
Life is not meaningless, we are here to build, create, and spawn a new generation, same as our ancestors did for all of history.
This is our duty.

[Anonymous No.2550503]

>>2550491
>It's a meaningless thrill which has damaging mental effects on both people involved.

umm how is that now?

[Anonymous No.2550505]

>>2550498
>That's the joke.

[Anonymous No.2550506]

>>2550499
if that's what you think, glad you created meaning out of meaninglessness but it doesn't mean you're right.

[Anonymous No.2550759]

Nietzsche is basically a philosophical troll, and that is why he is awesome.

[Anonymous No.2550931]

>>2550495
>Life itself is pretty meaningless, does that mean I should kill myself now?

Yes please.

>>2550479
>Casual sex is fucking disgusting from literally every single angle.

Agreed, it's not even as erotic as proper sex. Protected sex is like sex between an infertile woman and a sterile man.
The danger of pregnancy is vital to sex.

[Anonymous No.2550934]

>>2550759
>philosophical troll
>implying philosophy hasn't always been refined trolling

Socrates the grandfather of all trolls.

[Anonymous No.2550944]

>>2550455
Because he made people aware of a dichotomy of values that classifies values as either vital and beneficial to life or entropic and decadent. He basically applies medical values to ethics. Vitality, health, strength and power are good, weakness, sickness and passivity are bad.

This leads to a system of values that is compatible with scientific findings, evolution theory, the well being of the world as an ecosystem, the general vitality of the human species, the glory of the individual and the advancement of technology and the arts.

It is perhaps the only value system than rings true on both an instinctive and rational level and is capable of replacing nihilism, since it's so embedded in living things in general. One anon or tripfag connected the concept of the will to power to the concept of negentropy recently, which I found very insightful.

In a way Nietzsche is part of the long line of philosophers that said one should live according to nature. The Cynics said this, the Stoics said this, the Taoists said this in a way. Nietzsche's values are most compatible of them all however with how we see nature nowadays. It connects almost seamlessly as a prescriptive philosophy with the descriptive findings of science.

[Anonymous No.2550946]

please erase this thread.

someone might see it

[Anonymous No.2550947]

>>2550476
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_capital
http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/71520.pdf
http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71503.pdf

[Anonymous No.2550951]

>>2550944
I think Nietzsche would say he was simply returning to Greek virtue/excellence (ἀρετή) as the way to live one's life, after Christianity had gotten us all confused into thinking objective/divine purpose or nihilistic, utilitarian hedonism were our only options. I think the existentialists see it too, with their distinction between "intentional" labour and listless hedonism.

>>2550934
It is impossible not to read him as a mischievous little prick. Especially when he's facing a sophist he doesn't like. The Protagoras is amazing for this.

[Anonymous No.2550954]

>>2550951

Looks like someone just read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance recently.

[Anonymous No.2550955]

>>2550944
Five star post.

[Anonymous No.2550957]

>>2550954
I demand to know what the hell those are if I look like a dilettante pretender who has just read them

[Anonymous No.2550963]

>>2550944
>This leads to a system of values that is compatible with scientific findings, evolution theory, the well being of the world as an ecosystem, the general vitality of the human species, the glory of the individual and the advancement of technology and the arts.

Some of those are a bit of a stretch, I mean how can a "system of values" be compatible with scientific findings and evolution theory?

I think this guy (>>2550951) is correct in saying that it beckons back to ἀρετή.

[Anonymous No.2550991]

>>2550963
I meant that they are compatible with scientific findings and evolution theory in the sense that they don't contradict it.

For example, there are religious and philosophical doctrines that claim that humans poses some sort of basic goodness. That empathy is an underlying trait that will flourish if one removes certain layers of human thought and activity. This sort of ideology conflicts with information we have about the make up of both humans and our closest primate relatives as well as most other organisms. It could be said that a certain conflict is part of the normal state of things, since we can see it on every level. Trees struggling for sunlight and doing this blocking out light for the lower specimens, baby sharks rivalling each other in the womb, the cells in your very body combating each other as we speak. These are all observations that can harmoniously coexist with Nietzschean values, whereas many other sets of values are directly contradicting the state of things and cause disharmony between it's adherents and the rest of existence, thereby leading to decadence, decay, weakness and eventually the dismissing and extinguising of life itself. Ideals that oppose natural phenomena and laws if nature if I may say so eventually become crippled. Ideals that compliment nature instead of oppose it flourish.

I agree that Nietzsche beckons back to the ancient concept of virtue, but not merely in a classicist reconstructionist sort of ways. Nietzsche wasn't very concerned with the polis. These times call for a wholly different view of life than the ancient Greeks used to adhere too. Except for that glorious old sage Heraclitus maybe.

[Anonymous No.2550994]

>>2550991
But there is a natural basis for empathy/altruistic activity. But that doesn't matter because any sort of appeal to nature should be disregarded immediately.

[Anonymous No.2551013]

>>2550994
Of course there is, I never claimed otherwise. There is no natural basis for all encompassing, undiscriminating empathy to the point of self sacrifice though.

I've never seen the problem with an appeal to nature in the way that I just made it. I wouldn't say that everything that is natural is per definition good, but I would say that values are dysfunctional if they don't correspond with basic universal patterns. It's not that everything that is natural is good, it is the things that aren't in harmony with what is natural that will fail. Subscribing to overly idealistic ethical systems is like making rules to a ball game without taking gravity in consideration. An easy example of this would be clerical chastity, a concept that has pretty much has been disharmonious since the moment it was conceived.

A sculptor has to take into consideration the material he is working with.

[Anonymous No.2551818]

>>2550954
Why would you say that?

[Anonymous No.2552632]

Bump

[Anonymous No.2552659]

>>2550944
>>2550991
Jumping into the discussion:

If we take evolution theory, for instance, that presupposes that those organisms who are most fit for life are the only ones flourishing. Nietzsche, however, points out that this is not applicable for humans as many individuals (seen from a moral point of view) are life-negating, yet still flourish over those who are life-affirming.

In my view, the system of values that he advocates is never intended for the "general vitality of the human species" as you point out. In fact, he constantly stresses that his philosophy is for the "very few". Those with life-negating morals are best left alone, he never intends to use his philosophy or system of values as a means of "improving" the masses.

[Anonymous No.2552763]

alright faggots, I dare each and every one of you literati to list 1 "superior" philosopher than Nietzsche, without repeating someone else's post.

I fucking dare this cesspit to actually get to at least 50 posts.

[Anonymous No.2552825]

Yeah I fucking thoughts so.

I don't even like the fucker but this piece of shit board really rustles my jimmies sometimes with it's suprematist bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2552867]

>>2552659
>he never intends to use his philosophy or system of values as a means of "improving" the masses.
Uh, that's not exactly true. Depends on what you mean by improve I suppose. He does want to cultivate human excellence, and the road to that is through actions with extrinsic value, though he does say it might not necessarily make us "better" so much as more "profound". However, profundity is prerequisite for excellence.

Anyway, by nature extrinsically valuable actions do not affect the performer, they affect others. So his basic argument is people, not individuals, must be improved for human excellence.

[PatchouliAndMarijuana !!j/vDLMdkJUQ No.2552875]

>>2552763
Marx

[Anonymous No.2552876]

>>2550951
>I think Nietzsche would say he was simply returning to Greek virtue/excellence (ἀρετή) as the way to live one's life
I'm willing to bet you've only really read ancient phil and/or only read TSZ. No, Nietzsche is not a born again Greek.

[Anonymous No.2552890]

>>2552763
Jung
>inb4 every philosopher

[Anonymous No.2553810]

>>2552867
Again, I disagree.

In the preface to "The Antichrist", Nietzsche begins with exclaiming that "This book belings to the most rare of men". I don't like to bring up the political Nietzsche, but further into AC, when commenting on the laws of Manu, he praises the differentiation of men where the "noble" can be allowed to flourish, whereas the weak (or religious) should be left as they are.

The betterment of the noble or "very few" (that is, the emancipation from christian morals) is imperative to him, whereas he leaves the weak, "the great masses", to mind their own business. They can never become noble and they can never understand his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2553817]

>considered a /lit god
>considered a god
>a god

Why are you implying this person is merely a figment of someones imagination and therefor not real?

[Anonymous No.2553819]

>>2552763

He wasn't a good philosopher. He just had a massive influence on 20th century thought.

[Anonymous No.2553821]

>>2553817

Because you have aspergers.

[Anonymous No.2553839]

>>2551013
>There is no natural basis for all encompassing, undiscriminating empathy to the point of self sacrifice though.

I would love to hear some input on this from a buddhustic scholar from the point of arhatship.

All the buddhist stories and practices i've read about draw towards the fact that empathy to the point of self sacrifice can be cultivated through the abolition of the ego.

And all of these methods and texts stress that this 'universal loving-kindness' "wells up" or is "uncovered" instead of built up.

Is there a natural basis for the ego?

[Anonymous No.2553844]

>>2550944
Nihilism will never lose.

[Anonymous No.2553854]

>>2552659
>If we take evolution theory [...] life-affirming.

One of the ways in which Nietzsche's thought was flawed was that he misunderstood Darwinism. I believe he once tried to refute Darwin's evolution theory by claiming that a sickly person might overcome the strong by becoming more clever. This doesn't contradict Darwinism however, it is the survival of the fittest, of the best adapted to the situation. Not the strongest.

Also, Nietzsche seemed to care more for those who are life-affirming by action, not necessarily by ideology. Take for example this quote from Twilight if the Idols:

"One should not be childish and object by naming Raphael or some homeopathic Christian of the nineteenth century: Raphael said Yes, Raphael did Yes; consequently, Raphael was no Christian."

People who are truly Christian from a moral point of view are simply incapable of survival. You can look at Jesus himself and many a martyr to see that. Of course, there are many Christian elements that can weaken a people and a culture without fully enveloping them. I think this was his main concern, and that he wished to present those worthy with his ideas that reunited ratio and instinct and by truly swearing loyalty to the earth making the great ones /whole/ again, without being plagued by sabotaging ideologies.

>In my view [...] the masses.

Note that I never stated that his values are intended for the general vitality of the human species, but that it is compatible with it. The values of those very few would influence society as a whole. I'd say the masses are improved as a result of it, without this being a goal.

[Anonymous No.2553869]

>>2553844
I'd rather say it always will. Nihilism as a system of (non)values leads to decay and will never be adopted by a large group of persons in an organised way. Of course, it will always rear up it's ugly head from time to time, but never in such a way that it delivers an actual blow to humanity.

The strong thinkers overcomes it, the weak thinkers perish from it. And the average person doesn't even give it more than five minutes of thought.

[Anonymous No.2553870]

>>2550944
This makes me curious... Could lines of thought around ones death that are heavily based off the realization that we are just multicellular organisms, and therefor everything that happens "after death" is solely what happens to those cells; be apart of what you just described?

[Anonymous No.2553878]

I hate to say it, but Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club offers a pretty good depiction of the practical limits of nihilism.

Here nor there I know, but it was on last night and I made this mental comment.

Just sayin'.

[Anonymous No.2553880]

>>2553844
it will always lose to sunyata

[Anonymous No.2553890]

>>2553870
In the sense that Nietzschean thought is compatible with a lack of afterlife? I'd say very much so. Of course, there is the notion of the Eternal Return, but I think that is more of an hypothetical question to shed light on ones way and view of life.

By pledging allegiance to the earth and embracing it wholly, the escape into an after life becomes obsolete. I'd say this would be one of the fundamental differences between the vision Nietzsche has for future humanity compared to the ancient cultures he praised: The affirmation of life not by the use of myths and tales, but facing cold hard reality.

>>2553878
If you are speaking of the ideas of Tyler Durden, they aren't very nihilist. The protagonist would be more of an exponent of nihilistism before he met Tyler Durden. Tyler Durden himself was more of an anarcho-primitivist with values, a goal, and a plan.

>>2553880
Aren't they rather familiar?

[Anonymous No.2553900]

>>2553890
>Aren't they rather familiar?

Familiar, yes. Though vastly different in understanding, coming down to the fact that the Voidness on sunyata does not mean Nothingness.

[Anonymous No.2553904]

>>2553900
Doesn't it mean something like emptiness of self or identity or meaning, while still being phenomena?

Also, most versions of nihilism don't claim that nothing exists, merely that nothing has inherent value or meaning.

[Anonymous No.2553912]

>>2553904
>Also, most versions of nihilism don't claim that nothing exists, merely that nothing has inherent value or meaning.

Aha, well in that sense Nihilism correlates this Nargajuna's version of sunyata:

>...emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. Those who are possessed of the view of emptiness are said to be incorrigible.

Sunyata states that all things lack intrinsic: reality, objectivity, identity and referentiality. So it's not that nothing exists, just that everything is relative I think.

There is a different 'view' of sunyata for pretty much every Mahayana school of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.2553914]

>>2553912
I like old Naggy. Dudes the best Buddhist.

[Anonymous No.2553918]

>>2553912
Ah yes, I like Nagarjuna too.

What I never got however is the leap from these realisations to altruistic morality. It's all empty, our self is an illusion, other selfs are an illusion, therefore we should be nice to people. How would you explain this leap? Are ethics an important part of Buddhism or is it merely some form of cultural baggage?

[Anonymous No.2553919]

>>2553912
>just that everything is relative

That makes it sound more akin to scientific lines of thought--such as time and space. Fascinating...

[Anonymous No.2553920]

>>2553919
The concept of dependent origination also seems to hold ground with modern science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

[Anonymous No.2553921]

are you people actually this stupid or is this but a giant trollconvention?

[Anonymous No.2553922]

>>2553921
>couldn't find the words for his frustrated opinion on all these subjects discussed so starts pouting because he can't play

grumpybabi.avi

[Anonymous No.2553926]

>>2553922
no, i really am serious. i just get dissapointed in you people....
ive had interesting discussions about philosophy on this board, but i really cant find a single valuable post in this thread.

[Anonymous No.2553930]

>>2553926
What about
>>2553870

[Anonymous No.2553940]

>>2553854
>Also, Nietzsche seemed to care more for those who are life-affirming by action, not necessarily by ideology

That is questionable. If we look at Nietzsches affirmative morals we find that they are character-oriented rather than action-oriented, thus being compareable to the ancient ethics of virtue as someone pointed out earlier.

If N cares for anyone, it is those who are life-affirming by a general disposition of character. Actions can be only be viewed as merely symptomatic.

[Anonymous No.2553941]

>>2553930
you described your naturalistic position on afterlife-crap in response to the guy who doesnt undestand metaethics.

[Anonymous No.2553944]

>>2553870
>>2553890
This aspect of Nietzsches thinking was heavily influenced by Epicurus, whom N read extensively

[Anonymous No.2553952]

>>2553918
>altruistic morality

Aha, now I don't have the most stolid understanding of this, so please allow some muddled interpretation here.

Compassion (karuna, metta) in buddhism is not reached at an intellectual conclusion, but rather it is simply what remains through the absolute realisation of sunyata.

Karuna is active sympathy extended to all sentient beings. Metta is benevolence toward all beings, without discrimination or selfish attachment. These are two states of the four states in the Brahma-vihara. States which arise naturally; are said to 'well up' or become obvious upon the realisation that to harm another being is in essence to harm oneself.

Basically, 'there's no harm in it', theres nothing impeding or barring a Bodhisattva from compassion, and so he takes a spiritual joy in it. This is known as Mudita is taking sympathetic or altruistic joy in the happiness of others.

Basically...empathy is not a logical conclusion arrived at through discursive thought, but realised through acceptance of the truth of reality.

[Anonymous No.2553953]

Hey, I was just about to post a new thread, which I'm glad I didn't. Does anyone know any interesting anecdotes about the gay science?

Trying to impress a girl, if it's not ironic that we're discussing different payments for girls- research is one hell of a price.

[Anonymous No.2553960]

>>2553918
Oh, ethics, right.

The way I see it, the ethical practice in buddhism stems from the ideal, i.e. the way a Bodhisattva would behave in every day life.

So in essence, one who is absolutely committed to the path of enlightenment, obeys all the precepts, accepts all the truths, and follows each step of the path, even if he has never even heard of buddhism.

Ethics are known to be simply 'skillful' practice, in that the skill lends towards enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.2553965]

>>2553953
why the gay science? im afraid i cant help you with that one but here's a nice anecdote on beyond good and evil: nietzsche was baptised by his father, a pias protestant pastor, and during his baptisement sermont he used the quote from scripture: "what do you think will come of this little child - good or evil?" so when nietzsche choose the title of his book to be "beyond good and evil", this did not solely refer to the metaethical stance as an error theorist he takes in this book, but it also has a more personal aspect, telling the story of how he overcame his religous education and lived as a free man, beyond good and evil.

[Anonymous No.2553980]

>>2553965
She was reading The Gay Science and I implied I had an interesting anecdote about it. Ironically, I was thinking of an anecdote about Thus Spoke Zarathustra and now I'm trying to frantically find one before tomorrow morning (this is via fb messages)

[Anonymous No.2553988]

>>2553980
ill look for something

[Anonymous No.2554030]

sooo, here's the only interesting thing i could think of. diogenes laertius wrote of this anecdote concerning diogenes of sinope: diogenes one time lit a lantern in the middle of the day and shouted: "i seek a human! can you show me a human?". this was nietzsches inspiration for the chapter of the madman looking for god on the marketplace. (i suppose you have read the gay science?) the death of god becomes his central concept throughout the book and in referrig to the anecdote about diogenes he marks that this is the end of all metaphysics known from ancient western philosophy. the death of god marks the beginning of a new era, the era of the übermensch. i know this isnt an anecdote but it comes close to one and its an interesting fact to tell to someone who's reading the book.

[Anonymous No.2554065]

>>2553980
Tell her about the origin of the phrase, findable on wikipedia. Bitches love free spirited knightly poets. Also, Nietzsche commented on his own works in Ecce Homo. Might find something interesting in the paragraph/chapter on The Gay Science.

>>2553952
>>2553960
Thanks guys. I think I can grasp what both of you are getting at. On the one hand it comes out of the Buddhist realisations, and on the other hand it is a form of imitation of realised persons in order to become like them.

It's just that such a conclusion doesn't come natural to me, but then again, neither does it to most Buddhists I presume. I tend to see Buddhist enlightenment not as a singular achievement unique in human life, but as one of many tried and true psychological transformations. So in that way I think it's acceptable to state that compassion comes natural in this state, without this state necessarily having to be a de facto truthful position for people in general.

[Anonymous No.2554252]

>>2554065
Thanks man. Also Thanks to the >>2553965 bro for the help!

[Anonymous No.2554263]

>>2554030
Oh actually I will totally use this one. Thanks bro! This is actually really interesting and I'm glad to know it. LOOOOOVE Diogenes of Sinope, so it will be a good ice breaker, too.

[Anonymous No.2555880]

Bømp

[German Girl !!U1zrDtZdnC8 No.2555903]

Because he introduced us to German philosophy and spoke of Asian philosophy as well, thing that is very common of Germans, the respect they have for Asians [and other Germans, even if they don't particuklary agree with eachother]. He is the German that made me get into other Germans, and those other Germans: Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel, and Wagner, made my interests in even more Germans grow, although, for me, the German that truly started my journy was Herman Hesse with his novel Demian.

But, there is also the dark side of Nietzche you know, he is also the saint patron of atheist teenagers alongside Dawkins, and at a less childish degree Russell (Still a very British influential political activist overrated aspie faggot of epic proportions though).

[Anonymous No.2555912]

>>2550455
>Nietzsche
>nihilist

>>2555903
Seriously? What use can the Dawkinsjugend have for that incoherent psycho who didn´t even do any proper science? Most amusing.

[Anonymous No.2555917]

>cry baby
>emo faggot

The retards have escaped the circus again.