/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4829089]

how do i go from camel to lion?

[Anonymous No.4829095]

>>4829089
You watch Elliott Hulse, don't you?

[Evola Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Kid: Th(...) !vKJYJAzBlI No.4829101]

>>4829089
by revolting against the modern world

[Anonymous No.4829120]

http://vocaroo.com/i/s08ti1yeuPZP

[Anonymous No.4829123]

By means of the revolution of everyday life.

[Anonymous No.4829226]

>>4829095

Got a link, Brah?

It's darkly fascinating to watch Elliott's interior and professional life unravel over the last few months...

[Anonymous No.4829230]

>>4829226
Now we know why /pol/ hates Jews

[Anonymous No.4829235]

>>4829226
>It's darkly fascinating to watch Elliott's interior and professional life unravel over the last few months...
what's happened?

[Anonymous No.4829239]

>>4829226

What has been going on? I haven't watched him in forever?

[Anonymous No.4829241]

>>4829235
don't think it's difficult to imagine, nigger is crazy, probably flipped out on someone/his wife and now no one wants to go to his workshops

[Anonymous No.4829303]

>>4829235
>>4829239
>>4829241

>http://youtu.be/HBNXKw7iVdw
We tantra now.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMy4sl9bze4
He gets psychic handjobs from Asian men.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHFYEQRnQew
No comment.

>http://youtu.be/WjWU0Rt7F7A?t=5m58s
>http://youtu.be/WjWU0Rt7F7A?t=9m7s
idem

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyaCs6Z_t-4
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYddMNOwk
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pafdo1Pln5I&list=UULrI-dOLyDbRnPyUeWadsOg
Full time snake-oil salesman.

The man is certifiably Looney-Toons at this point.

Tren: not even once.

[Anonymous No.4829327]

>>4829303
I think it's the same with all reasonably successful youtubers who aren't successful outside of youtube.

[Anonymous No.4829339]

>>4829303
>Just posts videos of Elliott being Elliott

Where's the unraveling? If you think this stuff is nuts, you clearly haven't been watching.

And if this is Looney-Toons, Frank Yang will blow your mind.
Maybe even literally.

[Anonymous No.4829384]

>>4829339

Fr0nk has always been fun. Batshit, to be sure, but he at least gives the impression that he's in touch with reality when the cameras stop rolling.

Elliott takes himself seriously. And it's absolutely terrifying.

[Anonymous No.4829445]

>>4829303
>>4829384
Meh, all of Elliot's shit is just power of suggestion. If you honestly, seriously believe with 100% conviction that a 10-minute session of convulsing and screaming like the goddamn Exorcist will help you feel better about yourself, then it really will. Some people just need to see something "fresh" and super out-of-left-field like Elliot to gain that conviction.

[Anonymous No.4831010]

>>4829303
oddly erotic

[Anonymous No.4831129]

>>4829089

[Anonymous No.4831135]

How does it feel knowing Nietzsche has never, and will never, be taken seriously by true academics? He wrote the equivalent of an angry letter to the editor.

[Anonymous No.4831156]

>>4831135
He was a philologist, not a philosopher. I'd make the analogy that he wasn't an athlete, he was a sports announcer.
That doesn't make him totally irrelevant, people still find him interesting with good reason. Your statement is kinda bullshit considering all the ridiculous subjects I've seen for academic papers. Nietzsche is still a compelling character.

[Anonymous No.4831168]

>>4831156
>That doesn't make him totally irrelevant
He's relevant in the same way many ancient philosophers are, for the history and a somewhat entertaining read, while being wrong about essentially everything. But generally, he was wrong on everything, offered nothing new in terms of thought itself and failed at his attempt to change the mind of anyone.

[Anonymous No.4831174]

>>4831135
he's taken super seriously in english departments.

[Anonymous No.4831180]

>>4831168
Sure man you win totally right yep ok. Meanwhile in the real world he's a compelling character with interesting ideas that still captivate today, thus not totally irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.4831192]

>>4831168
>philosophy is about being right or wrong
dear lord

[Anonymous No.4831202]

>>4831180
>with interesting ideas that still captivate today
Well, in the same way that a story about child wizards may captivate. However in the world of philosophical academia he is about as relevant as Empedocles' elements.

[Anonymous No.4831209]

>>4831135
I feel no different because "true academics" will always be pleb in comparison.

[Anonymous No.4831211]

>>4831192
Well, yes it is. It's about knowledge, and part of knowledge is coming to the best conceivable understanding. To come to the best understanding of a given subject you generally have to figure out the truth from the lies, so to speak. What is correct and what is false.

[Anonymous No.4831213]

>>4831211
college freshman discovers analytic philosophy: the post

there is no method for determining the right and wrong. which is what nietzsche was going on about.

[Anonymous No.4831218]

>>4831213
>u can no nuthin u dun no nothin: the post
god why is /lit/ so horrible

[Anonymous No.4831222]

>>4831209
To Nietzsche? No, no, no. He did nothing of importance.
>>4831213
>there is no method for determining the right and wrong
Yes there is, we've been developing methods and applying them for 2500 years.

[Anonymous No.4831229]

>>4831218
Ὁ δὲ Πειραιεὺς δῆμος μὲν ἦν ἐκ παλαιοῦ· πρότερον δὲ, πρὶν ἢ Θεμιστοκλῆς Ἀθηναίοις ἦρξεν, ἐπίνειον οὐκ ἦν· Φαληρὸν δέ, ταύτῃ γὰρ ἐλάχιστον ἀπέχει τῆς πόλεως ἡ θάλασσα, τοῦτό σφισιν ἐπίνειον ἦν· καὶ Μενεσθέα φασὶν αὐτόθεν ταῖς ναυσὶν ἐς Τροίαν ἀναχθῆναι, καὶ τούτου πρότερον Θησέα δώσοντα Μίνῳ δίκας τῆς Ἀνδρόγεω τελευτῆς. Θεμιστοκλῆς δὲ ὡς ἦρξε (Τοῖς τε γὰρ πλέουσιν ἐπιτηδειότερος ὁ Πειραιεὺς ἐφαίνετό οἱ προκεῖσθαι καὶ λιμένας τρεῖς ἀνθ᾽ ἑνὸς ἔχειν τοῦ Φαληροῖ) τοῦτό σφισιν ἐπίνειον εἶναι κατεσκευάσατο· καὶ νεὼς καὶ ἐς ἐμὲ ἦσαν οἶκοι, καὶ πρὸς τῷ μεγίστῳ λιμένι τάφος Θεμιστοκλέους. Φασὶ γὰρ μεταμελῆσαι τῶν ἐς Θεμιστοκλέα Ἀθηναίοις, καὶ ὡς οἱ προσήκοντες τὰ ὀστᾶ κομίσαιεν ἐκ Μαγνησίας ἀνελόντες. Φαίνονται δὲ οἱ παῖδες οἱ Θεμιστοκλέους, καὶ κατελθόντες καὶ γραφὴν ἐς τὸν Παρθενῶνα ἀναθέντες, ἐν ᾗ Θεμιστοκλῆς ἐστι γεγραμμένος.

[Anonymous No.4831235]

>>4831222
>He did nothing of importance.
“The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly.” — Nietzsche

And so it is with the naive academics that claim the same as you do.

[Anonymous No.4831241]

>>4831235
Name one relevant field of thought that Nietzsche significantly improved or influenced. It's all well and good to be able to write a few quotable chapters once in a blue moon, but his works had no substance and, as I stated previously, are equivalent to an angry letter to the editor.

[Anonymous No.4831258]

>>4831241
Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4831265]

>>4831258
That lets me know you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.4831284]

>how do i go from camel to toe?

[Anonymous No.4831286]

>>4831265
Did you even read Nietzsche? For fuck's sake, this board is full of morons who talk about Nietzsche but don't actually know anything about him. Nietzsche DESTROYED thousands of years of religious and philosophical thought. He exposed more layers of bullshit than anyone had even FATHOMED was there since the Greeks, and before Christ. You and the rest of the academic pea-brains don't understand a damn thing Nietzsche was saying apparently especially considering the academic scene today still discusses all of the bullshit philosophy Nietzsche tossed out the window and makes all the same errors Nietzsche identified in the academic scene over a hundred years ago.

[Anonymous No.4831312]

>>4829089
>Implying you can.
Nietzsche created Zarathustra, an imagined being, who could eventually create a new soul - a feat which Nietzsche (yes, even Nietzsche who knew which steps needed to be undertaken) thought himself incapable of developing. That's why he developed Zarathustra. Also, he certainly didn't think people would be capable of attaining Zarathustra's status any time soon.

[Anonymous No.4831316]

>>4831286
>Nietzsche DESTROYED thousands of years of religious and philosophical thought.
Could you give some examples, please, because I still see religion and the ideas that Nietzsche opposed continuing as if they were never destroyed. I guess he 'destroyed religion' in the same way Richard Dawkins did, right? Hasn't he been influential lol.
>He exposed more layers of bullshit than anyone had even FATHOMED was there since the Greeks, and before Christ.
Such as?
>You and the rest of the academic pea-brains don't understand a damn thing Nietzsche was saying apparently especially considering the academic scene today still discusses all of the bullshit philosophy Nietzsche tossed out the window and makes all the same errors Nietzsche identified in the academic scene over a hundred years ago.
That's not because academics are wrong, it's because Nietzsche was wrong.

[Anonymous No.4831327]

>>4831316
Do your own homework. Nothing of value ever comes from being a lazy shitstain.

[Anonymous No.4831336]

>>4831327
How am I being lazy? I've read parts of Nietzsche, but he doesn't seem to have anything worth reading, philosophically speaking. So could you please show me what relevant fields of thought Nietzsche has influenced? Or how he was in any way relevant now or at the time of his works.

[Anonymous No.4831340]

>>4831336
Read it all, and stop being a lazy shitstain, or keep responding to me and continue being one. Your choice.

[Anonymous No.4831348]

>>4831327
>>4831340
>calls ohers lazy
>won't explain anything in detail
I just want to know what makes Nietzsche relevant and what fields he influenced. I think I know why you can't answer, though..

[Anonymous No.4831350]

>>4831316
lol you've never fucking read one word of Niet have you? see>>4831340

fuck you asshole do your own homework

[Anonymous No.4831351]

>>4831336
Not that person, but what have you read? If Nietzsche isn't worth reading philosophically, I don't know what is.
Also, it isn't really much of surprise if you've only read parts of Nietzsche's work. It costs a lot of time to understand - adequately what Nietzsche has to say.
In any case, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is absolutely mind-blowing, and if you didn't thought it that interesting, it's probably because you didn't understand most of it.

Captcha: genealogical
>That coincidence.

[Anonymous No.4831362]

>>4831350
Sorry for insulting your poster child, but the fact is he is irrelevant to modern academic philosophy.
>>4831351
I have actually read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, I don't see the academic value.

[Anonymous No.4831374]

>>4831362
what the fuck is your degree?

i am a bachelor of divinity- studying masters now - at a prestige university and you're just rumbling shit; how did you READ thus spoke? by yourself right?

if you're not shitposting/an american than you're beyond hope

[Anonymous No.4831376]

>>4831316
>because I still see religion
You can still see everything. Nazism, Racism, Arianism, etc. You will not see religion taken seriously in Western academics anymore, unless you go to the university of Texas or Utah, maybe.

>Such as?
Read the first chapter of Beyond Good and Evil. He goes over every stream of philosophy that has thus far existed at the time of him writing it, basically.

>That's not because academics are wrong, it's because Nietzsche was wrong.
Academics are wrong a lot of the time, especially when it comes to social sciences. Academics in social sciences are just as biased, ignorant, afraid of change and indocrtinated by their surroundings as anyone else, the difference is that they feel superior in their opinion because they feel legitimised by their titles. Look at John Lewis Gaddis for example, and admire his picture with George W. Bush, then read Tony Judt on how everything Gaddis says is bullshit. (Judt being the one with sources and ratio, Gaddis being 100% Texas)

[Anonymous No.4831390]

>>4831374
I'm currently studying mathematics, so I am most interested in logic.
>i am a bachelor of divinity
lol, ok.
>>4831376
>He goes over every stream of philosophy that has thus far existed at the time of him writing it, basically.
And does what, critiques them? I doubt there is any substance to it. From what I've seen from in the field of logic he is a total pleb.
>Academics are wrong a lot of the time, especially when it comes to social sciences
>philosophy
>social science
Oh lordy.

[Anonymous No.4831397]

>>4831316
>>4831376 again

Also:
'An excellent recent study (Aschheim 1992) which is dedicated to the influence he's had in Germany between 1890 and 1990, lists the groups whom he has inspired through his works: Anarchists, feminists, nazi's, religious cultists, socialists, marxists, vegetarians, avant-garde artists, (tough to translate: pro body culturalists?) and hard core conservatives, and the list certainly does not have to end there.'

M. Tanner, Nietzsche, Oxford University Press, (1996), 9.

(Translated from Dutch, some words might not be literally translated, obviously)

[Anonymous No.4831401]

>>4831390
>I'm currently studying mathematics, so I am most interested in logic.
what year are you

[Anonymous No.4831403]

>>4831390
>Maths

no fucking wonder, enjoy your crappy research based lifestyle, raising petite bourgeoisie family and misreading of great literature for god knows how long while i read and touch ancient papyrus from all around the world :)

[Anonymous No.4831405]

>>4831362
Hmm, yes Thus Spoke Zarathustra is tremendously difficult to understand without help. That being said, Nietzsche is a key figure in postmodernism and existentionalism, and has influenced many philosophers (to name a few, Foucault, Sartre, Adorno). So I'd say he is definitely of academic value.
However, his idea of the Übermensch isn't exactly suitable/applicable in the current society and, therefore, not in academic life. So in that I agree with you, but I think the before mentioned reason already makes him valuable enough. Also, I'd say Nietzsche's Übermensch theory and his critique of Christian morality is at the very least philosophically interesting.
Furthermore, Nietzsche's philosophy isn't only the Übermensch (although it is his core idea), he has also contributed to post-structuralism and to many sociological/philosophical theories. You can see how many idea's of Nietzsche has been used, Geertz's "thick-description," Foucault's genealogy etc.

[Anonymous No.4831420]

>>4831397
Those aren't academic circles, my lad.
>>4831401
Third.
>>4831403
Are you from tumblr or something?
>>4831405
I'm sorry but he is only a key figure in some areas of post-modernism and existentionalism.
>I'd say Nietzsche's Übermensch theory and his critique of Christian morality is at the very least philosophically interesting.
Not really, maybe as a read, but not to study. His critique, particularly of 'Christian morality', (Aristotle's natural law ?), is not really well grounded, it seems to broad, generalised and, at times, misrepresented. He also tends to ignore more prominent ethical theories of the time such as Kantianism and Utilitarianism.

[Anonymous No.4831422]

>>4831390
damn shame your arrogance will forever show how truly pleb you are

[Anonymous No.4831462]

>>4831420
It's written by an Oxford academic. He wrote an entire book on the guy. He has contributed to scholarly debate, he has contributed to scholarly publishing. What more do you want? What did Epicurus change? or Zeno? Even Plato. Are they invalid philosophers now?

[Anonymous No.4831469]

>>4831420
Wow, I would definitely not associate that with Aristotle's natural law. Also, how can you judge that it "is not really well grounded" if you've only read Thus Spoke Zarathustra? For that you should consult On the Genealogy of Morals, Twilight of Idols and The Anti-Christ.
Also, Nietzsche was definitely a key figure and he influenced so many philosophers and sociologists, not only with his grand ideas but also concrete ones.
Also, are you trolling? and just trying to minimise Nietzsche's legacy and contributions? Because you're really stretching the whole "Nietzsche was worthless" thing. I'm actually putting effort into this.

[Anonymous No.4831482]

>>4831420
>>4831362
Nietzsche deeply influenced late Wittgenstein, with his works and those of Fritz Mauthner, who Wittgenstein had tried to refute in the Tractus. Nietzsche revolutionized ethics by going beyond dichotomic views and treating it in a psychological manner, bringing paradoxes into thee questions, And now, even neuroscientists are starting to take he in, studying some of his idias of power and the will to power in correlation to the reward center of the brain, just as behaviorists on the concep of ilusion of control. But this is just the tip, many political thinkera, from left to right still take his ideas very seriously, even if they often modify them for their own purposes. Nietzsche's works have seen new light in recent years, since no original authors have surfaced in many decades and he remains deeply seriously unanalysed.

[Anonymous No.4831491]

>>4831462
>He has contributed to scholarly debate, he has contributed to scholarly publishing
Yes, but that is debate about Nietzsche, not the validity of his malformed ideas.
>What did Epicurus change? or Zeno? Even Plato
Epicureanism, would be a start. It kind of pioneered negative hedonism. Zeno is known for his paradoxes, and Plato changed the entire world view, essentially.
>Are they invalid philosophers now?
No.
>>4831469
>Wow, I would definitely not associate that with Aristotle's natural law.
That's where almost all Christian ethical philosophy has been focused for the last 1800 years.
>Also, Nietzsche was definitely a key figure
Not really, I mean, he contributed basically nothing of worth to logic or ethics.
>Because you're really stretching the whole "Nietzsche was worthless" thing
I'm exaggerating it, mainly because of the exaggeration on the opposite side. Those who claim Nietzsche to be some all powerful king of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4831493]

>>4831420
>also tends to ignore more prominent ethical theories of the time such as Kantianism and Utilitarianism.

What? He is basically the first one to call bullshit on Kant's Categorical imperative, and constantly bashes all Kantian relasted ethics, same goes with Utilitarianism, even more in his later work, all the the time, when he is not criticizing it, he is mocking it

[Anonymous No.4831501]

>>4831390
>I'm currently studying mathematics, so I am most interested in logic.
Now I know why you think Nietzsche is worthless.

[Anonymous No.4831504]

>>4831491
>he contributed basically nothing of worth to logic or ethics.
Okay, I know the answer to my question now.
Also, your reason for associating it with Aristotle's natural law is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.4831509]

>>4831482
>Nietzsche revolutionized ethics
Not really, he just seems to be a mix of might makes right and Utilitarian, where he states that fostering strength is good, and fostering weakness is bad.

[Anonymous No.4831513]

>>4831491
>Epicureanism
So many academics are negative hedonists nowadays.

You claim he has malformed ideas, but you've admitted you haven't actually properly read him.

Why are you arguing with us over this again? Go read him to see what you really think.

[Anonymous No.4831514]

>>4831504
>your reason for associating it with Aristotle's natural law is ridiculous.
I can't see anything else that would fit 'Christian morality', as natural law is all but official church doctrine.
>>4831501
Why do you think, I want to know.
>>4831493
I found him to be somewhat utilitarian, not a hedonist, but rather wanting stregth over weakness.
>He is basically the first one to call bullshit on Kant's Categorical imperative
He was not, but that is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.4831520]

>>4831513
>So many academics are negative hedonists nowadays.
Such as?

[Anonymous No.4831526]

>>4831491

hey guy. We get it, you're smart! Maybe if you read Nietzsche you can apply some of those brains too and learn even a little more.

My thoughts on him are this.
As a precursor to existentialism and post-modernism Nietzsche is a foundational thinker. He has inspired many artists, thinkers—and politicians as people have mentioned.

Maybe he provided little to the world of philosophy.
But if read his work you'll see he tries to redefine what a philosopher is, and the bias' that have been incorporated into the philosophy before him. His writing on Truth in On the Genealogy of Morals would be relevant because you seem to have the Platonic bias that truth is the good and the good is divine etc.


sorry this wasn't better written

[Anonymous No.4831542]

>>4831526
I may read him, though I'm kind of in the middle of covering early Tasmanian history, but his view of philosophy, from what I've read, seems to pin philosophy itself as somewhat subjective. Which means he discusses areas which do not appeal to me at all, as I am of a mathematics background.

[Anonymous No.4831546]

>>4831514
People who praise and seek logic above all aren't deep enough to get Nietzsche, plain and simple. There's logic in Nietzsche, but his logic is so much more subtle and elusive, and focused, that the standard notion of logic doesn't come close to his; standard logic only extends into the surface level of thought.

It's this way because of his writing style; he didn't explain anything he wrote, he only wrote the conclusions to his thoughts. And he was against systems. Logic-minded people can't into Nietzsche and never will.

[Anonymous No.4831558]

>>4831546
>standard notion of logic
Do you mean formal logic?
>he didn't explain anything he wrote, he only wrote the conclusions to his thoughts
That's a terrible way to write, he needs to have his reasoning reviewed by others for a greater view. Good thing nobody of his era noticed him or he may have been questioned.
>And he was against systems.
Systems of what? Logic? You can't deny logic, it's objective.

[Anonymous No.4831568]

>>4831558

ok this is getting ridiculous just read his work. not Zarathustra.

[Anonymous No.4831571]

>>4831514
>>4831491
>>4831420
>>4831542


If you are not shit-posting, I truthfully feel bad for you; I have never seen such unsound arrogance that is both anathematic to learning and noxious in dialogue: your experience in life/logic/mathematics is not showing and /lit/ has no special snowflake treatment.

Stop shitposting and trying.

[Anonymous No.4831574]

>>4831568
It's not hard to explain, I know you like Nietzsche, but if you want to be taken seriously you have to explain your reasoning. So please answer my questions.

[Anonymous No.4831577]

>>4831571
this is coming from the retard "tumblr divinity student" too - you are a pitiful case

[Anonymous No.4831583]

>>4831571
>your experience in life/logic/mathematics is not showing
I wouldn't expect it to in a thread about Nietzsche, seeings he was devoid of it.

[Anonymous No.4831584]

>>4831574

I'm not that other guy you responded to.

and we're not explaining shit because we don't stand in for the act of you picking up his books and using that great critical faculty of yours to figure out what that bastard friedrich was all about.

Why would anyone explain anything to you. You're unreceptive, you attempt to trivialize his work, you have us out to be mindless nietzsche worshippers, and this thread still hasn't told me how to get from camel stage to lion stage.

[Anonymous No.4831588]

>>4831558
>That's a terrible way to write
Actually it's a very good way to write if you intend to only have a philosophically mature audience and to re-establish the proper philosophical elite in society that has been damaged and destroyed for thousands of years. By writing in this way you bar anyone who doesn't deserve to have access to your work from accessing it.

>Systems of what? Logic? You can't deny logic, it's objective.
All systems, any kind of system. A will to a system was a lack of integrity for him. Logic is not objective; toss the words objective AND subjective from your vocabulary. The distinction is a false and outdated one.

[Anonymous No.4831594]

>there is a person in this thread who thinks NEETshit isnt the most relevant phylosopher since his time
Mate even your parents have heard of him probably.

[Anonymous No.4831595]

>>4831286
Yes, in much the same way as a rock thrown through a stained glass window destroys the window.

The rock, of course, remains useless.

[Anonymous No.4831607]

>>4831595
He didn't just break a stained glass window though. He took down the whole building, and then erected a brand new one on top of the rubble.

[Anonymous No.4831608]

>>4831595
not sure if you're mr. logician but what you typed is something Niet explored: too bad you'll never have the eyes to recognize it :(

[Anonymous No.4831631]

>>4831491
>Not really, I mean, he contributed basically nothing of worth to logic or ethics.

What are you talking about ? Most of the chapters of Zarathustra are on ethic. You can belie yourself into saying that nietzsche was more of a poet than a philosopher in some sense (and the man accepts this himself somehow) but poets don't need logic my friend. They're wholly on the ethical. And in my opinion ethics, if it needs any at all, needs only basic logic. If you have really read Zarathustra you wouldn't say Nietzsche contributed nothing on ethics.
You might even say that everything he said, someone else had said it before. Probably everything someone says , someone else has said it before if we're talking about ethics. The spark is in how one represents the stuff he has to express because that's what poets do I guess. They rediscover.

[Anonymous No.4831636]

>>4831520
I was trying to make a point that they aren't....

[Anonymous No.4831647]

What do I need to read before Nietzsche? I started reading beyond good and evil but got bored because he takes 50 sentences to say anything, plus it was like turning up in the middle of a conversation that's been going on for about 2000 years

[Anonymous No.4831658]

>>4831647

so troll. xP

shut the fuck up and take your adderall
if there's one thing you can respect about Nietzsche it's his sense of style.

[Anonymous No.4831681]

>>4831420
>He also tends to ignore more prominent ethical theories of the time such as Kantianism and Utilitarianism.

"A word now against Kant as a moralist. A virtue must be our invention; it must spring out of our personal need and defence. In every other case it is a source of danger. That which does not belong to our life menaces it; a virtue which has its roots in mere respect for the concept of "virtue," as Kant would have it, is pernicious. "Virtue," "duty," "good for its own sake," goodness grounded upon impersonality or a notion of universal validity--these are all chimeras, and in them one finds only an expression of the decay, the last collapse of life, the Chinese spirit of Konigsberg."

[Anonymous No.4831695]

>>4831658
No, because Jesus was like, "God is dead," and all. Haven't you read his post? The conversation has been going on for about 2000 years, man.

[Anonymous No.4831700]

>>4831420
>Not really, maybe as a read, but not to study. His critique, particularly of 'Christian morality', (Aristotle's natural law ?), is not really well grounded, it seems to broad, generalised and, at times, misrepresented. He also tends to ignore more prominent ethical theories of the time such as Kantianism and Utilitarianism.
philosophy 101 confirmed as the only phil class you've taken

[Anonymous No.4831702]

>>4831695
their* Sorry about that.

[Anonymous No.4831758]

>>4831647
Read a book on the greeks amd their worldview.

[Anonymous No.4831768]

>wanting to be a lion

Be a dog or a cat.

[Anonymous No.4831849]

>>4831595
The rock was used to break the fucking window, jesus are serious

[Anonymous No.4831852]

>>4831768
>be a pussy

[Anonymous No.4831856]

>>4831849
*Are you serious

[Anonymous No.4831871]

You don't because lions are useless in our modern world

[Anonymous No.4831881]

>>4831871
Next you're gonna tell me that masculinity is useless today. Or is that what you're saying right now?

[Anonymous No.4831888]

>>4831881

For the most part it is, yes. We don't need big strong muscles, we mostly have them for showing off

[Anonymous No.4831908]

>>4831888
Masculinity isn't just big strong muscles. And even if it was, how can you say that when wars will still be fought by humans for centuries?

[Anonymous No.4832149]

Abandon modern liberalism and democracy. They are wrong. They are ideologies that support the current government agency, not the interest of the people

[Anonymous No.4832221]

>>4831881
>>4831888
I'm not even left wing and I'll tell you that their is neither such thing in the way you interpret it.

Masculinity and femininity are the courses of action our bodies are chemically designed to operate along.
>Women emotionally
>men strategically and logically

These are not strange concepts. The hormones in our bodies promote the behaviors which we are subject to unless consciously suppressing. Even then, it is not that effective. You cannot prevent your body from interal chemical reactions .

[Anonymous No.4832283]

>>4832149
What do you suggest take their place?

[Anonymous No.4832318]

>>4832283
Become a radical. Read Evola without angrily reading him as a fascists.

People claim he advocates mysticism, he just explains things via literary illustration, essentially the same concepts that Plato and Socrates use

[Anonymous No.4832832]

>>4831218
because you

[Anonymous No.4832857]

>>4829089
shed everything you believe in and hold dear

that's what he meant by it anyways