/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3447501]

Hey /lit/ why is nietzsche the most often mentioned philosopher in current media? I'm talking about movies, television shows and music for the most part.

[Anonymous No.3447508]

Because he was the last one to pretty much get it right before people stopped taking philosophy seriously.

[Anonymous No.3447510]

>>3447501
Because he has a lot of good quotes. And edgy atheists like that.

[Anonymous No.3447512]

>>3447508
>Last one to get it right
That makes no sense dude.

[Anonymous No.3447515]

>>3447510
>Because he has a lot of good quotes. And edgy atheists like that.

/thread

[Anonymous No.3447519]

>>3447515
I was hoping for more of a reason that had something to do with his actual ideas.

[Anonymous No.3447520]

Because of the brilliance of his metaphors and his prodigious output.

[Anonymous No.3447526]

A few reasons:
1. Edgy teenage atheism
2. Good quotes
3. Very good writer
4. Ideas aren't very hard to grasp

This being said, I still find Nietzsche the most profound thinker of the last 200 years.

[Anonymous No.3447528]

>>3447512
I wouldn't expect it to make sense truncated and taken out of context.

[Anonymous No.3447529]

Because he said there would be a before Nietzsche and an after Nietzsche just like Jesus and he was right.

[Anonymous No.3447531]

>>3447519
The vast majority of people who adore him these days haven't even bothered to get a real understanding of his ideas.

[Anonymous No.3447534]

>>3447510
But Nietzsche wasn't an atheistic thinker.

[Anonymous No.3447535]

>>3447519
>implying any average person can understand him beyond the edgy god is dead shit.

A very small segment of the population have the necessary knowledge of the greeks, kant, schopenhauer and hegel in order to understand what's he's really talking about. So if they read him at all, which they don't, they just come away with edgy atheist nihilist shit. Otherwise they just take his quotes out of context to justify their faggoty beliefs.

[Anonymous No.3447536]

>>3447510
>>3447515

This is the lazy thinker's response. The response any one of us expected to already be here as a reply once we read the thread criteria. Put a little effort in.

[Anonymous No.3447537]

>>3447526
>Most brilliant thinker of the last 200 years
Do you even Kant?

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3447538]

He was an atheist?

[Anonymous No.3447541]

>>3447537
He said profound, not brilliant.

>putting words in other people's mouths

[Anonymous No.3447543]

>>3447541
The point still stands

[Anonymous No.3447546]

>>3447531
You don't actually know that, you're just making assumptions based off of a couple of people you might know.

>>3447534
His post doesn't imply Nietzsche was an atheist, only that "edgy atheists" like his quotes.

>>3447535
That's more work than necessary. I "got" Nietzsche from my readings in the Presocratics and Heidegger alone...though I do have a good amount of knowledge of Kant without having read him.

[Anonymous No.3447547]

>>3447537
Kant is more than 200 years old

[Anonymous No.3447551]

>>3447543
>brilliant = profound

[Anonymous No.3447552]

>>3447546
He's attacking Kant and supporting the greece of the illiad most of the time. You should at least know those.

[Anonymous No.3447554]

>>3447534
He was an atheist. Are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.3447556]

>>3447547
Holy shit you're right.

>mfw I just realized it's 9 years past 1804...

Fuck.

[Anonymous No.3447559]

>>3447537
Kant is older than 200 years buddy

Do you even 1st grade math?

[Anonymous No.3447560]

>>3447547
>implying he wrote all his stuff the year he died

[Anonymous No.3447566]

>>3447560
>mfw he did

[Anonymous No.3447570]

>>3447554
He wasn't an atheistic thinker. I imagine he would have been thoroughly disgusted by r3ddit's "New Atheism" and their dogmatic scientism.

[Anonymous No.3447571]

>>3447560
>implying I implied that

[Anonymous No.3447574]

>>3447559
Do you even read threads before posting?

[Anonymous No.3447575]

>>3447571
His ideas are all more than 209 years old.

[Anonymous No.3447578]

>>3447570
He was an atheist. And he was a thinker.

That doesn't mean he was richard dawkins.

[Anonymous No.3447581]

>>3447501
Because of Nazis

[Anonymous No.3447583]

>>3447575
So, does someone cease to be considered a think AFTER they publish their ideas? Is that what you're seriously saying right now?

[Anonymous No.3447586]

>>3447575
But, I mean, I was wrong, he's over 200 years old, but you're also an idiot.

[Anonymous No.3447587]

>>3447551
The way I see it...


Brilliant refers to the intellectual capacity of the man. It is a personal assessment, an inference into the intelligence of an individual as demonstrated by his acts/works. (In calling a thinker brilliant, the assessment of the work is subservient to the assessment of the man.)

Profound refers to the products of thought and creative works themselves, wholly. It is impersonal. It dwells on the substance of the thinker's thought (which would comprise only what he has written/produced), rather than the totality of the thinker's gestalt (which we may surmise from accounts given of him by contemporaries, enemies, friends, etc).

[Anonymous No.3447591]

>>3447583
No. The point is he is more than 209 years ago.
>>3447586
Your a faggot

[Anonymous No.3447599]

>>3447591
Lol, what? I've already acknowledged he's over two hundred years old. But let's say he died in 1830 (which is roughly what I'd thought before I realized I'm a goddamn idiot). If he published all his works in 1812, that wouldn't mean that he was thus excluded from the thinkers of the last 200 years. That's your logic right now.

[Anonymous No.3447596]

Nietzsche was not atheist.

He wrote in Ecce Homo that he doesn't like crude answers and both god and atheism are crude answers to him.

[Anonymous No.3447604]

>>3447599
>If he published all his works in 1812, that wouldn't mean that he was thus excluded from the thinkers of the last 200 years.

Except that you, or whoever, said nietzsche was the best in the last 200 years, then some one said what about kant, then some one said kant is more than 200.

Hence to say kant is the most important in the last 200 years is wrong

[Anonymous No.3447608]

>>3447570

probably would have just read beyond good and evil in which he outright attacks logical positivism, atomists, and naturalists

[Anonymous No.3447609]

>>3447604

Yes...yes, I know that. Are you...are you even reading the posts you're responding to or are you just really dumb?

[Anonymous No.3447616]

>>3447609
No u

[Anonymous No.3447619]

>>3447616
I'm sorry. I'm dumb, you're dumb...let's be friends, ok? There's no need for this hostility.

[Anonymous No.3447624]

>>3447619
>I'm dumb, you're dumb.
No, u

[Anonymous No.3447716]

>>3447526
>I still find Nietzsche the most profound thinker of the last 200 years

That's not Marx.

[Anonymous No.3448005]

For some reason, the Nietzsche hate has become a universal counter-reaction to the edgy teenage atheism the haters always love to spout out when someone mentions Nietzsche.

It's almost like a fashion statement, it reminds me of something....

[Anonymous No.3448024]

>>3448005
That's a perfectly good reason to dislike a philosopher. If teenagers in 2013 are identifying with the philosophy of Nietzsche and Rand then it tells you all you need to know about said philosophers, i.e. they are shit.

Sorry that you don't like your ox getting gored. No one does. Maybe you should pick a less intellectually bankrupt ox, as it were.

[Anonymous No.3448041]

>>3448024
The people who hate a philosopher because of that philosopher's fans instead of the philosophy itself are just as bad as those edgy teens, maybe even worse. You don't have to like Nietzsche, but to refer to him as an intellectually bankrupt ox says to me that you've spent little to no time studying philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3448045]

>>3448024
You're missing the point. Also, I did not mention my relation to the man, so you're projecting.

But yes, I get that you don't like edgy teenagers. Who does? But that is no reason to dismiss Nietzsche, you bloody obtuse moron.

[Anonymous No.3448047]

>>3448041
Nope. Wrong. I've studied philosophy quite extensively for over a decade now. Nietzsche was shitbrained (literally).

Try this book on for size, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.3448049]

>>3448047
Then give solid reasons for your statements, instead of following trends you asshat.

[Anonymous No.3448053]

>>3448049
It's a trend to dislike Nietzsche? Where? Since when?

[Anonymous No.3448054]

>>3448053
You ain't the brightest lamp, are you? Read my first post.

[Anonymous No.3448056]

>>3448024
What's even more shitbrained than Nietzsche's philosophy are the fuckheaded French postmodernist twats that have succeeded in synthesizing it with Marx's and Freud's philosophy. French Nietzscheanism, if you will. It has raped academia and Western culture as a whole.

[Anonymous No.3448058]

>>3448054
Yeah. I read it. Still not seeing any proof for this supposed fad of anti-Nietzscheanism.

The vast majority of Nietzsche threads around here are circlejerks and Nietzsche is beloved on college campuses across the country, by both student and professor alike.

[Anonymous No.3448059]

>>3448056
Yes, calling the whole of French academia "twats" is going to convert people to your ideas. Read your post again, and wonder how you could improve your arguments.

[Anonymous No.3448063]

>>3448058
Yes, you are correct that Nietzsche is liked by some people. But in every thread there is at least one guy who starts fights by mentioning how Nietzsche is "just a phase," without giving any reasoning behind these blank statements.

It is a fad as well, if you don't give any real basis for your arguments, other than "lol, edgy, lol." Please, enlighten us with your knowledge.

[Anonymous No.3448065]

>>3448059
I really don't give a fuck if some pomo-fag (like you) gets asspained over me calling Derrida or Deleuze postmodern twats. There's no convincing pomo-fags with rational arguments either. At the end of the day the blood from the bloated corpse of Western academia and culture is on your hands, not mine. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3448066]

>>3448065
Yes, I can see your intelligence shine through. Apologies, you rationality exceeds everyone. It must be hard for you.

[Anonymous No.3448068]

>>3448063
>there is at least one guy

So one guy = a fad?

Fuck off already. Deal with the fact that some people find Nietzsche's philosophy reprehensible. Some of my favorite philosophers get torn apart around here on a daily basis. I don't go around shit-posting because of it.

[Anonymous No.3448072]

>>3448066
What's cute is that you think these twatty little responses are intelligent but in actuality they're just making you look like a bitch.

Either specifically respond to what I said or don't respond at all, dunce.

[Anonymous No.3448075]

>>3448068
Dude, you aren't listening. When there is always this "one guy", it shows that some people always like to be that "one guy", which constitutes a fad. Whether this fad is as bad as edgy teenagers depends on point of view, but jesus, will you please give me something else to work on than "I don't like Nietzsche."

Even if you disagree with me, I don't dislike it. I dislike the lack of arguments. It is perfectly fine to disagree with Nietzsche, I am not a fanatic.

>>3448072
And you, please, will you share your extensive knowledge about the progress of Nietzschean thought, I am certain you have something to share as well.

[Anonymous No.3448086]

>>3448075
And further clarification in case somebody missed my point: these Nietzsche threads always go the same way, if somebody showed some original thought and shared their insights I would delighted. But this level of shit-posting doesn't serve anybody, so either we move on and forget Nietzsche once and for all, or we can find something together, yes?

[Anonymous No.3448094]

>>3448075
Fucking pick one. I don't like Nietzsche because:
-His philosophy, like Rand's, has inspired an entire internet army of anti-intellectual fuckheads that are either teenagers, or lolbertarians, or poststructuralists, or postmodernists or a nightmarish synthesis of all 4 (i.e. the pro-Nietzsche assholes that frequent /lit/)
-His philosophy inspired the systemic extermination of several million people
-His philosophy is completely inviable in the 21st century because it requires a belief that art is myopic, a belief that science is reactionary and an obsession with hierarchy and feudalism
-He had brain cancer for God knows how long and I'm not buying into the philosophy of a man that had a rotten brain with holes in it
-His philosophy spawned relativism which, like his brain cancer, is a terminal disease

So on and so forth.

If he was alive today he'd be Tucker Max. If that's the kind of guy you want to model your sorry life after, then by all means go for it. But don't act like a little bitch when people object to it.

[Anonymous No.3448097]

>>3448094
>-His philosophy inspired the systemic extermination of several million people
>grasping at any straw available
What a shame.

[Anonymous No.3448101]

>>3448097
>Point out the one bullet point that is a fact
>Ignore the other ones that would have been more easily argued
What a shame.

[Anonymous No.3448102]

>>3448094
Thank you, we can move on.

1. We can agree on this, it is an annoying phenomenon, but we can't blame the man if idiots read him. It was inevitable.

2. Again, Hitler and fascism were not something Nietzsche would have been big on. It was because of his sister that Nietzsche was widely read in proto-nazi circles, and we all know what happened between the two.

3. Nietzsche was a product of his time, and I can agree with the points you are making.

4. Verification, verification, verification. But it is certainly evident that the man's life had an excessive influence on his philosophy, so this remains subjective.

5. You're just posting an opinion, hopefully you can do better.

And once again, you're projecting something else entirely. Please, is it impossible to just, I don't know, argue properly?

[Anonymous No.3448106]

"The sick are the great danger of man, not the evil, not the 'beasts of prey.' They who are from the outset botched, oppressed, broken those are they, the weakest are they, who most undermine the life beneath the feet of man, who instill the most dangerous venom and skepticism into our trust in life, in man, in ourselves…Here teem the worms of revenge and vindictiveness; here the air reeks of things secret and unmentionable; here is ever spun the net of the most malignant conspiracy – the conspiracy of the sufferers against the sound and the victorious; here is the sight of the victorious hated."

>1edgy6me

[Anonymous No.3448110]

>>3448094
So, in other words, it hurts your feelings?

>>3448102
>Nietzsche was a product of his time, and I can agree with the points you are making.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. I hate when people say this shit. His whole philosophy was about questioning the beliefs long held by society, yet people still say things like "oh well the things I disagree with are just because it's a different time."

[Anonymous No.3448112]

>>3448110
I am not a big fan of hierarchy and feudalism, something wrong with that? That said, Nietzsche was a radical that really wanted to set foot down on certain things, and lived a difficult life that influenced his views.

He even wanted people to disagree with him, he was not the Overman he wrote about. He hoped he was the spark, not the flame.

[Anonymous No.3448115]

I read the entire thread, from first to last post, and i have yet to see a hint of anyone genuinely comprehending his philosophy.
I order to save his face,(and in the lack of a better scholar) i will try to answer any and all questions regarding Nietzsches philosophy and the phenomenon (inb4; Kant joke) that is Nietzsche.

I would hardly call myself a leading expert on the subject, but as a student of philosophy (not a philosophy major!) who has centered his progress around perspectivism and phenomenology, i have to say that i've done a fuck ton of Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.3448117]

>>3448115
>we have not discussed his philosophy, derp.

[Anonymous No.3448122]

>>3448115
Did he actually 'get over' Christianity or not? How do you interpret his breakdown in the countryside (italy or switzerland or somesuch, not the horse thing), is this a return to metaphysics?

What do you think about the whole Dionysus schtick with Salome?

[Anonymous No.3448124]

>>3448102
Of course it's my opinion that relativism is a disease just like it's my opinion that Nietzsche is a piece of shit for fathering it. When the fuck did I ever say otherwise? And how do you suggest I "argue properly" when it comes to my opinion, particularly when I couldn't care less if you hold a favorable opinion of Nietzsche? My point of contention arose when you suggest that anti-Nietzscheanism is a fucking fad, which is so far from the truth its staggering.

As for your verification, here you go:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educati/3313279/Madness-of-Nietzsche-wasancer-not-syphilis.html

If you still want to believe it was syphilis I really don't care. Either way he was diseased beta.

[Anonymous No.3448125]

>>3448102
God damn it, where did he get that Nietzsche was anti-science? I totally forgot that while responding.

[Anonymous No.3448127]

>>3448115
>i have yet to see a hint of anyone genuinely comprehending his philosophy.

Typical pomo fag. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.3448129]

>>3448117
Yes, yes you have. When addressing his writing in the sense of medium from "him to you" and literal interpretation in the same sense, you made an error of judgement. You addresses his work, while neglecting his work.

>>3448122
Christianity was his starting point for the idea of translavuation. You could (but shouldn't) identify identify two instances who he sees as an extreme: christian moral values and the active artists creativity.
His break down was IMO purely physical, he was sick long before his 50s. Also, his father exhibited the exact same symptoms, from the pain in the eyes to the frontal lobe pain. He could have "gone mad" because of this (note Schopenhauers take on pain). As far as Salome, i think he didn't have a stiffy for her, as much it has been portrayed. If he loved any women, it was Wagners wife! Salome and Ree were his friends who abandoned him (in a way), and he was mainly hurt. Not saying that there wasn't something between them, but it wasn't the love people portray IMO.

[Anonymous No.3448132]

>>3448124
Holyyy shiit, you just don't like arguing, do you? Sometimes I just worry about humanity.

Whether it was cancer or syphilis is irrelevant, you clearly don't want to answer my questions.

Your display of frustration in this post shows some disturbing traits what are common in this fad:
1. You think people reading Nietzsche are all the same.
2. You have trouble responding to arguments clearly.
3. You "couldn't care less if you hold a favorable opinion of Nietzsche".

Projection, frustration and lack of arguments. I know you don't like to view yourself in a negative light, but come on.

[Anonymous No.3448133]

>>3448102

On the subject of antisemitism, isn't there a connection between Jews and his 'slave morality?'

[Anonymous No.3448136]

>>3448133
Judeo-Christian morality is the term, and it was not connected to race in anyway. It was about morals, not racial purity.

[Anonymous No.3448152]

>>3448129
I don't see the point you're making, we were discussing about fads in Nietzsche threads as far as I can see. But I digress, I am not a Nietzsche expert, merely a dilettante.

[Anonymous No.3448154]

>>3448132
>"projection"
Cut the babby's first Jung bullshit.

As for not arguing, or not arguing clearly enough for your dumb ass, I already stated there's no arguing with Nietzscheans or postmodern fags. Do I like arguing with doorknobs? Do I like arguing with my dog's turds that he leaves out in the backyard? Do I like arguing with my dinner before I eat it? No. I don't. So this isn't me arguing. This is me telling you that you're a fucking idiot for suggesting that being anti-Nietzsche is a fad. Nothing more.

I truly don't care if you like Nietzsche or not. I really don't. Maybe one day you'll grow out of it, maybe one day you won't. It doesn't matter one iota to me because the damage has already been done to our society and academia. So if some Amurrikan tween wants to read Zarathustra or Beyond Good and Evil and pretend that he knows all there is to know about life and morals and theology then that's perfectly fine. It's no different than that tween sitting him or herself in front of trashy television or video games all day. In fact, one begets the other.

As I already said, you shitbrained fuck, my point of contention arose when you suggested being anti-Nietzsche is a fad around here. This thread has clearly illustrated the opposite of your fucking stupid thesis, as I'm the only anti-Nietzschean in this thread. If you really want to call this an argument then you can chalk up a win for me in this regard.

Finally, this is 4chan. Not a meeting of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. I can call you a little faggot all I want, and if you want to turn that into babby's first psychoanalysis then that's your prerogative cupcake. I'll still be over here laughing my ass off at how easily asspained you Nietzsche-fags are and how serious some of you shitbrains take yourselves.

[Anonymous No.3448158]

>>3448152
The fad aspect is something that can be constituted from Nietzsche perspective (or our perspective, set from Nietzsches philosophy).

Nietzsche would hate the bandwagoning, but would love the introspection. And would slit his wrists over the fact that noone bothered to read him in depth.

He wrote his philosophy in aphorisms so that he could reflect on them himself (later on) and give them meaning to himself, upon which he progressed in his work (and that was almost a circular process of continual progress).

And even this is unknown to 99% of Nietzsche fanboys.

[Anonymous No.3448160]

people complaining about "Friend Zone" = slave morality

[Anonymous No.3448161]

>>3448160
Ironic, since Nietzsche himself was friend zoned beta forevervirgin.

[Anonymous No.3448168]

>>3448154
Okay, okay, take a chill pill. I can see that this is a sensitive matter to you, so I try to be gentle:

It's okay, you don't like Nietzsche, I got it the first the time around. You're a repeating pattern, and you don't see it yourself. Somebody needs to call you out, and you're bothered by this. I get that.

I enjoy talking various subjects, Nietzsche is just one of them. Whether or not I'll "grow out of it" is another discussion, and you're not adding anything new to these threads. You're just as bad as the other side, I want you to see that.

This is 4chan, you're correct. I should just shut up and watch people continue repeat themselves ad nauseam. But please, we're all people here, is it impossible to have a conversation here? I guess it is.

[Anonymous No.3448174]

>>3448168
Also, a fanatic is something that Nietzsche would've opposed, so we can clearly see why don't like him.

[Anonymous No.3448176]

Also, these threads do wear me down greatly. All I see is wasted time and potential.

[Anonymous No.3448210]

>>3448158
Thank you for the insights, even though I knew of them. Nietzsche; Nietzsche's Voices by Ronald Hayman suggested similar views, with slightly different interpretations. Check it out if you haven't already.

[Anonymous No.3448215]

Sterilization.

[Anonymous No.3448219]

>>3448158
>Nietzsche would hate the bandwagoning, but would love the introspection. And would slit his wrists over the fact that noone bothered to read him in depth.

Very accurate and correlates perfectly within, and outside of this board.

[Anonymous No.3448229]

>>3448129
I tend to think of Nietzsche more as a provocateur within philosophy than someone from whom a reader could draw far reaching conclusions about anything. I realize he did not trust systems of thought, so I tend to base it on that and his bombastic style. "Philosophizing with a hammer".

Do you think this is an accurate assessment? Also, do you think this is where most people go wrong in their approach to reading him?

[Anonymous No.3448238]

>>3448154
Relativism isn't really a cancer that afflicts thinking. I'm not sure where you're getting all this hostility toward this guy from other than Nietzsche apologists.

For ex. Nietzsche's formulation of relativism isn't even one that people subscribe to today.

At worst the contemporary glib relativism is a dangerous idea for stupid people to have and put into practice. Most of the time it's a benign affectation of the pseudo-educated.

[Anonymous No.3448242]

>ctrl+f
>"edgy"
Buzzword bingo!

[Anonymous No.3448259]

>>3448242
>saging on one of the slowest boards on 4chan

Your edge is showing, faggot.

[Anonymous No.3448289]

>>3447570

>gnu atheism dogmatism

i loled

[Anonymous No.3448292]

>>3447537
Kant contradicts himself a lot, though.

[Anonymous No.3448300]

>>3448242
I just did that, wow

>>3448259
>bumping on one of the slowest boards on 4chan

[Anonymous No.3448307]

>>3447501
Nietzsche is mysterious and cryptic, and he has a way with words that is nothing like what we have today. Yes, we still have vitriolic writers like Amis or Hitchens, but they lack a certain down-to-earthness and substance. Imagine if you had someone like Oprah (who "tells it like it is"), with the wit and erudition of Will Self, and also had the power of thought of a great philosopher. That's, to be fair, Nietzsche turned up to 11, but even if you tone it down or whatever, those set of characteristics together I doubt would be published today. I mean, Chomsky doesn't step on so many toes or step on them so well, but he's had publishers refuse to publish/silence him. And then combine that with this media obsession with taking things out of context and soundbites. So it's not just his philosophy, I think we almost have a nostalgia for his voice.

[Anonymous No.3448308]

>>3448289
>"Every age has its own divine type of naivete, for the discovery of which other ages may envy it: and how much naivete—adorable, childlike, and boundlessly foolish naivete is involved in this belief of the scholar in his superiority, in the good conscience of his tolerance, in the unsuspecting, simple certainty with which his instinct treats the religious man as a lower and less valuable type, beyond, before, and ABOVE which he himself has developed—he, the little arrogant dwarf and mob-man, the sedulously alert, head-and-hand drudge of "ideas," of "modern ideas"!"
I like Nietzche

[Anonymous No.3448310]

Because he was one of the first philosophers that FINALLY realized that their subjectivity was swallowed by the monster that Hegel created, the Modernity. Instead of following Kant's ideas of liberty, people went after Hegel, and boom, instead of we getting a new style of reason, based on the greeks(a reason that is seen as instrument, regulated by the politics of man, and by extension, ethics), we got a secularized version of the reason of the Middle Age. And because of that, we got:

- scientificism
- economicism

The two plagues that fucked(and is still fucking) the world. In every single area. I'm a jurist, and the impact that it had on Law is gigantic. See the EU, for example, and the project of a true european democracy(if you guys want to read about, Europe. The Faltering Project, written by Habermas). The only country that freed itself from the shackles of the Modernity is Finland, their recuperation was just amazing. It's almost symbolic.

[Anonymous No.3448312]

>>3448229
>I tend to think of Nietzsche more as a provocateur within philosophy than someone from whom a reader could draw far reaching conclusions about anything.
You can draw far reaching conclusions, just not anything particularly concrete. He's not giving us a system, and yeah generally speaking his work is more about aporia, but there are certain things about morality, human excellence, love of fate... that he makes definite statements about. But yes, he's extremely provocative. If you haven't read her, look up Alenka Zupančič's work on Nietzsche, she goes into this a lot.

[Anonymous No.3448349]

>>3448310
Though you might be right on a deeper level, I don't think it is what OP was getting at. Nietzsche just happens to be one of the most hyped and accessible quasi-philosophers for teenagers, and in media out there. I mean, that's the problem, isn't it; Getting your hands dirty with Nietzsche prior to Plato, Kant and Schopenhauer. It's like trying to solve a difficult equation in higher mathematics, without the prior, required and systematic progress of mathematical knowledge; in any field.

Moral of the story; good luck in understanding Nietzsche on a deeper level, kids.

[Anonymous No.3448427]

Something that has always bothered me, can a master become an ascetic? I understand its not like leveling up or anything, but would it be common, would something major have to happen to the master to become more slave-like or ascetic-like (again, I know ascetic is not a level 2 slave).

Or is it just not in their nature to come out of it?