/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4755974]

>It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear, which he would fain disguise as lordly indifference. His "noble" man—who is himself in day-dreams—is a being wholly devoid of sympathy, ruthless, cunning, cruel, concerned only with his own power. King Lear, on the verge of madness, says: "I will do such things—What they are yet I know not—but they shall be The terror of the earth." This is Nietzsche's philosophy in a nutshell.

> -Bertrand Russell

Thoughts, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.4755986]

Sounds about right

Nietzsche was the Ted Kaczynski of 19th century Europe

[Anonymous No.4755992]

Pro-tip: Russell was a fucking retard that got wrecked by Godel.

[Anonymous No.4756009]

>>4755992
2/10

[Anonymous No.4756026]

That's honestly not even a good refutation. He's essentially saying "NO! SOME PEOPLE REALLY ARE NICE DEEP IN THEIR HEARTS ;^)"

[Anonymous No.4756069]

>>4755974
agreed. all those nietshy fanboys genuinely creep me the fuck out. angsty, anal weirdos that got stuck halfway through puberty.

[Anonymous No.4756078]

>>4756069
>that got stuck

Referring to people as if they are things is a bit creepier.

[Anonymous No.4756101]

Didn't Russell also say that Nietzsche loved his sister?

[Anonymous No.4756121]

>>4755974
I thought Nietzsche dismissed universal love as a psychological impossibility because love, being a heightened affection for something, only exist in that contrast with the lesser affection for other things. Universal love is like universal heat, it fails to mean anything if it doesn't discriminate.

I would say that Nietzsche was a disturbed man and that his philosophy is largely a product of that, but he was also a genius. Rustle is one of those savants who shouldn't venture outside his highly specialised field because he's simply a dullard regarding anything he's not familiar with. He's the Dawkins of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.4756135]

Russell was a fag but Nietzsche was a teet-suckling psychopath. He's really the finest product of the constipated culture of 19th century Europe, in a way. If you read Nietzsche it's easy to tell he was born into an insane society.

[Anonymous No.4756164]

>>4756121
>it fails to mean anything if it doesn't discriminate.
nah. you can still "discriminate", as you call it. you just don't go into the extreme negative for no reason.

nietzsche is guilty of black or white thinking. misery seeks company. if you're happy, you can bare to see other people happy as well, but if you're unhappy, you're very cautious about who is and isn't happy, you need to know why they are and wether they deserve it; everything becomes hostile and in turn actual love, or more generally, positivity becomes, supposedly, an impossibility.

>>4756026
how you could possibly come to that conclusion is a mystery to me

[Anonymous No.4756202]

>>4756164
Universal love is theoretical masturbation. It's an arrogant notion, really. Humans are simply biologically incapable of universal love, paying lip service to the concept of it doesn't change that.

Nietzsche is actually one of the most nuanced philosophers ever. He's passionate and strong in his phrasing, but far from being unsubtle. It's only people like Bert Rustle who fail to grasp the nuances and caricaturise Nietzsche. There are a lot of them sadly, among his critics as well as his admirers.

[Anonymous No.4756234]

>>4755974
>Thoughts, /lit/?

Bertrand Russle more like Turdman Butthole

[Anonymous No.4756239]

The fact that people consider Russell knowledgable on the history of philosophy is disheartening.

[Anonymous No.4756268]

nietzsche is /lit/'s hero mang

[Anonymous No.4756303]

>>4756202

>being this reductionist

[Anonymous No.4756334]

>>4755974
Sympathy is not justification, it is an emotion. Bertrand is a utilitarian in this regard; he is positing that the overall happiness and togetherness of everyone is worth it, to put it very loosely. Nietzsche, and any philosopher worth his salt if you ask me, is concerned with justification, which logic. Sympathy just not justify. In fact, in the case of Nietzsche, he certainly felt sympathy. To him, the struggle not to let emotions like sympathy was a struggle, as it certainly wood be for a sympathetic man. I can certainly understand this; I am a very sympathetic man and have been walked over much of life. Around 20 I had a sort of identity crisis and now run my life with logic, not kindness. I am much happier for it, but refusing to show other's sympathy when I find them to be, logically, in the wrong, is something I feel I need to do but that is very difficult and often very emotionally taxing.

[Anonymous No.4756339]

>>4756303
>loving people you don't know
>possible

sure is spooky in here

[Anonymous No.4756343]

>>4755974
That's wrong though, because Nietzsche felt universal love. But his love is more downward, stemming from the perspective of the highest point, the point of the universe, whereas Jesus and Christian notions of love in general stem from the perspective of the lowest point.

[Anonymous No.4756356]

>>4756339
>being warm and appreciative of people, in general
definitely possible.

[Anonymous No.4756366]

>>4756356
>calling friendliness 'universal love'

[Anonymous No.4756379]

>>4756366
how's universal love defined? serious q.

[Anonymous No.4756394]

>>4756379
love that is universal. new age hippy shit, basically.

[Anonymous No.4756398]

>>4756394
are you sure Russel meant it in the new age hippy kind of way?

[Anonymous No.4756402]

>>4756398
yes, but his own personal bland autistic analytical variety

[Anonymous No.4756408]

>>4756402
lol fair enough. i don't agree but i like your style so let's call it a stalemate

[Anonymous No.4756412]

I don't know what expresses universal love better than Nietzsche's amor fati, honestly.

[Anonymous No.4756413]

>>4756334

Emotions are a type of intelligence required for an ethical life. Logic without feeling gets us to gulags and concentration camps.

[Anonymous No.4756439]

>>4756413
I disagree. I think if someone rejects emotion as justification and that kind of thinking is all they can come to, that is a failure on the part of the individual.

[Anonymous No.4756447]

>>4756413
Logic is content empty. If there were no desires, no emotions, there'd be no action. What you're talking about, really, is unchecked pragmatism, which is driven by fear or strong certainty.
If there was genuinely no emotion people would just wither away and die because there'd be no impulse to eat, drink, etc. We'd be rocks that understood they were rocks.

[Anonymous No.4756455]

>>4756339

It's only a natural course of evolution that as we progress mentally our appreciation for all living things will grow. The cultural modes and lifestyle of current civilizations often deters from this, but it's the truth.

A lack of universal empathy is the mark of a small intelligence or an oppressive culture.

[Anonymous No.4756462]

>>4756447
I'm just proposing it isn't justification for something. If we allow emotions to be justifications, we either open the doors to an anarchic hellscape of an existence, or we must be hypocrites at some point. Unless, of course, you are a utilitarian measuring the sum of happiness and frustration sadness etc. But then, I value things on principle, not on consequence.

[Anonymous No.4756469]

>>4756413
Concentration camps are perfectly ethical, pleb.

[Anonymous No.4756471]

>>4756455
I understand it's natural, but I do not accept natural as the qualifier for justification. If we accept the natural state to be the correct one, think about the flood gates this opens, let alone the debate over what is "natural" as anything humanity does is technically the accumulative result of nature, even if we nuke the planet, just like a beaver building a dam isn't unnatural.

[Anonymous No.4756486]

>>4756471

The value in natural comes from existing vs. not existing. If you have a society where everyone stabs each other in the face, such a society will die out

[Anonymous No.4756522]

>>4756486
I assure you, people were quite the anarchic murderous raping bastards before religion convinced us that we'd get rewarded for good behavior. The state of humans getting along is only as natural as government.

[Anonymous No.4756527]

>>4756234
>Turdman Butthole
You win the most insightful post award. Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.4756545]

>>4756412
We got a winner!
"I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer."
F.N.

[Anonymous No.4756675]

The end justifies the means. If you want to change things, you shouldn't be afraid to dirty your hands. Creators are never innocent.

[Anonymous No.4756682]

>>4756069

[Anonymous No.4756690]

Russell was a dumb sperg who took everything literally. When Nietzsche is "praising" the raping alpha male noble at the height of his senses he doesn't mean you should do that, he means that you should "feel" like how they did back in time.

[Anonymous No.4756718]

Russell being a small-minded prick as usual. Think about it: one was narrow-minded, arrogant and betrayed those who loved him the most. The other died out of empathy when he witnessed the beating of a horse.

[Anonymous No.4756759]

fuck off and die /lit/.

Fucking hate this board now. First philosophy book you pick up is Nietzsche. Fucking fags.

[Anonymous No.4756767]

>>4756675
>tfw you will never be the überkorbinitschen

[Anonymous No.4757031]

>>4755992
He was also shuddered by Wittgenstien
and who thought of him as a bad Philosopher

[Anonymous No.4757052]

>>4756675
nice bra raptor lmao

[Anonymous No.4757083]

>>4756759
Nietzsche is practically the king of /lit/.

[Anonymous No.4757116]

I remember an aphorism where Nietzsche said that those who want universal love are ultimately egoists because they are the ones who want to be loved by other people.

[Anonymous No.4757121]

>>4757031

That's a point in favour of Russell, because Wittgenstein is a retard.

[Anonymous No.4757127]

>>4756121
Based Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.4757129]

>>4757121
But he wasn't

[Anonymous No.4757154]

Would Nietzsche like James Joyce?

[Anonymous No.4757660]

>>4757121
>most influential philosopher of the 20th century
>revolutionised western philosophy twice
>retard

[Anonymous No.4757679]

Been reading a little Nitch lately. I'm surprised at how funny he is. Nobody said there'd be jokes.

>"How are synthetic judgments a priori possible?" Kant asked himself—and what really is his answer? "By virtue of a faculty": but unfortunately not in five words, but so circumstantially, venerably, and with such a display of German profundity and curlicues that people simply failed to note the comical German inanity involved in such an answer. People were actually beside themselves with delight over this new faculty, and the jubilation reached its climax when Kant further discovered a moral faculty in man—for at that time the Germans were still moral and not yet addicted to "Realpolitik". — The honeymoon of German philosophy arrived; all the young theologians of the Tubingen seminary went into the bushes—all looking for "faculties." And what did they not find—in that innocent, rich, and still youthful period of the German spirit, to which romanticism, the malignant fairy, piped and sang, when one could not yet distinguish between "finding" and "inventing"!

[Anonymous No.4757690]

>>4755974
>Thoughts, /lit/?
No, there aren´t any thoughts in that quotation.

[Anonymous No.4757701]

>>4757690

Nietzsche didn't even have the guts to propose. He got his mate to do it for him. Ultimate beta.

[Anonymous No.4757704]

>>4757679
gibe sauce. i wanna find it in german.

[Anonymous No.4757705]

>>4757701
He also proposed by letter once, demanding a punctual answer since his train was leaving at 12.00 the next day. Your point being?

[Anonymous No.4757709]

>>4757704
Jenseits von Gut und Boese §11

[Anonymous No.4757712]

>>4757704

'On The Prejudices Of Philosophers' from BGAE.

>>4757705
That his behaviour in his life is entirely consistent with Russell's sketch of of his personality.

[Anonymous No.4757714]

>>4756121
Who gave this man a twitter account

[Anonymous No.4757720]

>>4756101
You'd have to be a pretty terrible person not to love your sister. Don't you love your family anon?

[Anonymous No.4757728]

>>4756234
This is the best post on /lit/. I am going to print it out and frame it on my wall.

[Anonymous No.4757731]

>>4757712
I don´t see how you derive from his failure to propose in person that he himself "he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear". That´s what a sheltered suburban teenager may feel after a rejection, but not a well-educated mature man who leads a meaningful life.

Not to speak of Russell´s utter lack of reading comprehension when it comes to nobility and other Neech´s doctrines. Seriously, it´s bad even by English standards.

[Anonymous No.4757743]

>>4757679
Nietzsche has a pretty good sense of humour.

So did Schopenhauer, the amount of shit that man talked about Hegel/Fichte/Schelling is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.4757742]

>>4757731
>I don´t see how you derive from his failure to propose in person that he himself "he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear"

It's just an example. I think Russell way overeggs the pudding (and it's not like it even stands as a criticism of the guy's actual work) but you've got a hard row to hoe if you want to sell Fritz as anything other than a snivelling fantasist in his personal life.

[Anonymous No.4757755]

>>4757679
Sometimes he just straight up starts ripping on people.

>My impossible ones. — Seneca: or the toreador of virtue. Rousseau: or the return to nature in impuris naturalibus [in natural filth]. Schiller: or the Moral-Trumpeter of Säckingen. Dante: or the hyena who writes poetry in tombs. Kant: or cant as an intelligible character. Victor Hugo: or the pharos at the sea of nonsense. Liszt: or the school of smoothness — with women. George Sand: or lactea ubertas — in translation, the milk cow with "a beautiful style." Michelet: or the enthusiasm which takes off its coat. Carlyle: or pessimism as a poorly digested dinner. John Stuart Mill: or insulting clarity. Les frères de Goncourt: or the two Ajaxes in battle with Homer — music by Offenbach. Zola: or "the delight in stinking."

[Anonymous No.4757761]

>>4757743
Schopenhauer when he gets mad at Hegel had me laughing out loud.

>If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.

>Further, if I were to say that this summus philosophus [...] scribbled nonsense quite unlike any mortal before him, so that whoever could read his most eulogized work, the so-called Phenomenology of the Mind, without feeling as if he were in a madhouse, would qualify as an inmate for Bedlam, I should be no less right.[96]

>At first Fichte and Schelling shine as the heroes of this epoch; to be followed by the man who is quite unworthy even of them, and greatly their inferior in point of talent --- I mean the stupid and clumsy charlatan Hegel.[97]

[Anonymous No.4757759]

>>4757743

Yeah, from what I hear, you get a pdf of his stuff and just Ctrl-F 'Hegel' for big-time laffs.

>>4757755
>pessimism as a poorly digested dinner

HIYOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.4757766]

>>4757742
I think his main concern was to turn philosophy around, and I think he was pretty successful at that. If he was (that´s a matter for discussion ofc), he was no fantasist, but a visionary.

[Anonymous No.4757807]

>>4756303
>reductionism

How about you stick to words you know.

[Anonymous No.4757826]

>>4755974
I think it is a pretty good description of the edgefags who try to adopt Nietzsche as one of their own, but it is not a good reflection of Nietzsche's philosophy.

For one thing, Nietzsche loved Emerson and was heavily influenced by his work. So while the grouchy old krout may have rejected the milquetoast concept of universal love presented in Sunday school classes, he was not some hateful, anti-Romantic miser who thought it impossible to be filled with warmth and contentment.

For another, and I'm sorry but I couldn't find the quotes easily, Nietzsche a couple times expressed a relative preference for the Borgias as opposed to the Popes who followed them. However, when he was accused of glorifying Cesare Borgia, he clarified that it was very much a relative preference. Better a healthy, strong man than a sickly, pious one. That does not mean, however, you should run around betraying everything and wreaking havoc for the sheer Hell of it. If nothing else, the Borgias immorality and inconstancy got them all killed. So being a complete asshole is just not practical.

[Anonymous No.4757830]

>>4757761
The more important bits are general remarks about what Harry G. Frankfurt would later call "bullshit".

It's in Parerga and Paralipomena II §283.
http://aboq.org/schopenhauer/parerga2/stil.htm
Where did you get the English text?

Making it into a personal attack against Fichte et al. is fairly weak since Fichte prefigured all of his points 50 years in advance in his «Sonnenklarer Bericht an das grössere Publikum».

[Anonymous No.4757841]

>>4757830
wiki