/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3663153]

Hey /lit/,
why didn't this book become much more influential? Also, what is your opinion of this book?

[Anonymous No.3663176]

It's really influential, but if you're wondering why it didn't become the next Bible or whatever (it almost became something of the sort in Nazi Germany), then here's a quote from Kierkegaard that I think is relevant:

>In vain do individual great men seek to mint new concepts and to set them in circulation — it is pointless. They are used for only a moment, and not by many, either, and they merely contribute to making the confusion even worse, for one idea seems to have become the fixed idea of the age: to get the better of one's superior. If the past may be charged with a certain indolent self-satisfaction in rejoicing over what it had, it would indeed be a shame to make the same charge against the present age (the minuet of the past and the gallop of the present).

[Anonymous No.3663182]

>>3663176
What confusion? Sure, the book may be a bit difficult to read at times, but it's style is similar to many religious texts and quite honestly, if many people adopted his ideas into their lives, it could have greatly helped the human race. The bible isn't perfect nor understandable sometimes, and yet more people will follow it. Why is this so? It makes me sad.

[Anonymous No.3663201]

>>3663182
>What confusion?

He's not talking about this book in particular, he's talking about new ideas/ideals in general and how there being so many in circulation has caused such a confusion. With the opening up of the press and with more and more people from different walks of life becoming literate there are now more different 'philosophies' and 'world views' than there have been. Think of all the different denominations of Christianity and Buddhism and New Age religions and all the different "Science based" views like Social Darwinism and Futurism and the philosophic ones like Existentialism. What Kierkegaard is saying is that when someone like Nietzsche creates a new and original thought it all goes to waste because people aren't interested in testing new and original thoughts for any length of time these days, because there is such a plethora of different ideas people are just putting them on and tossing them off like they are clothes that are going out of fashion.

[Anonymous No.3663207]

>>3663201
Oh, I see. I guess I myself am guilty of that trend. This book is different, I can feel it though. I guess your answer satisfies my curiosity, thanks.

[Anonymous No.3663215]

more influential? nietszche caused holocaust, how much more influential can you get?

[Anonymous No.3663221]

>>3663215
No, German Nazi Policies caused the holocaust. Nietzsche wrote down a goal for humanity, something that we could all strive for as a species. You can't blame a misapplication of his concepts on him.

[Anonymous No.3663234]

>>3663221
nazi idiots wouldn't have had intellectual justification for what they were doing if it weren't for nietzsche. they wouldn't have dared to pull that shit of if it weren't for nietzsche's writings.

[Anonymous No.3663244]

>>3663234
So do we blame the guys who invented guns? Do we blame inventors of automobiles for all the accidents? Do we blame germs for the fermentation of alcohol? Do we blame Einstein for the creation of the bomb? Or perhaps we blame the planet for having Uranium in the first place?

[Anonymous No.3663248]

>>3663244
did hitler kill a single man with his own hands?

[Anonymous No.3663263]

>>3663248
Did Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.3663674]

>>3663263

Did you?

[Anonymous No.3663689]

>>3663263
Your defense of Nietzsche is that he is as culpable as Hitler.

Nice.

[AnalCrust !m9jxTLhLcw No.3663727]

>>3663153
>much more influential
Strauss composed a fucking tone poem about it, man. It doesn't get much more influential than this.

[Anonymous No.3663760]

>>3663176
Could you provide the reference for that quote?
I would like it in the original danish.

[Anonymous No.3663780]

>>3663248
That argument does not hold. Hitler killed by direct orders.

[Anonymous No.3663788]

>>3663215
>nietszche caused holocaust

[Anonymous No.3663796]

>>3663760
>Journals IA 328 1835

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.3663797]

>>3663248
Very probably. He was a fierce as fuck soldier in WW1

[Anonymous No.3663806]

>>3663215
stop that

[Anonymous No.3663815]

>>3663689
Fucking lol'd man :D

[Anonymous No.3663824]

>>3663153
Nietzsche wasn't for the hoi polloi. He never even wanted that. He's tremendously influential among the chosen ones though.

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.3663836]

Sometimes amazing sometimes stupid like all Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.3663845]

It's fucking hard to grasp, you have to be wize and smart just to get the basics. I was about 21 when i read it the first time, but mostly pushed on through just to finish it. Now years later I'm gonna read it again, but its not like 1984 or some other at-face-value literature that the mundanes might get...

[Anonymous No.3663846]

>>3663836
Which parts are stupid, miss?

[Anonymous No.3663853]

>>3663824
yeah the Aryan race

[Anonymous No.3663859]

>>3663796
Thanks but it didn't help much. The quote isn't from 1835 but 1836, and there isn't a journal by Kierkegaard called IA. Found it in the journal CC. Maybe the international indexing of his work is different than the danish.

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.3663865]

>>3663846
I'd rather not unleash the autism of a thousand shit flinging Nietzschean ubermen before I get off /lit/ so I'll just say most of Zarathustra is stupid besides a few great passages and lines. It's my least favorite of his books. I'm also not really a girl

[Anonymous No.3663872]

>>3663865
perhaps, you, my friend, are the "stupid".

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.3663876]

>>3663872
Maybe so a-hyuck hyuck

[Anonymous No.3663889]

>>3663876
you stupid fucking faggot bitch nigger fuck you in the dickhole u dumb cunt

[Anonymous No.3663900]

[Anonymous No.3663923]

>>3663865
2deep4u lady.