[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 26 KB, 274x300, Nietzsche-274x300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4848861 No.4848861 [Reply] [Original]

Nobody actually takes this moron seriously, right?

>> No.4848867

Great thread OP.

>> No.4848870

I sure as hell don't, literally everything he believes is the opposite of what's established.

>> No.4848871

Great thread OP.

>> No.4848873

i came to the exact same conclusions about meaning he did after my babby's-first-depression when i was around 15. like, word for word. when i started to read actual philosophy i realized how stupid i was.

>> No.4848876

>>4848861
>Nobody actually takes this moron seriously, right?


You've really made me reconsider my stance on him. Great thread

>> No.4848884

>>4848873
It's too bad, you had a better understanding as a fifteen year old. Nietzsche has great things to say, and only a completely shallow and incapable person denies his works outright.

>> No.4848885

>>4848870
What? Do you care to back up this view?

>> No.4848886

>>4848884
No he is a dumbass, everything he believes is only because he wanted to be edgy.

>> No.4848891

>>4848886
Okay? Say something worth our time to read

>> No.4848895

>>4848885
I think a lot of his views are simply based on his hate for authority

>> No.4848900

>>4848895
Nietzsche didn't hate authority.

>> No.4848904

>>4848861
>hasn't read nietzsche

>> No.4848909

>>4848900
he did

>> No.4848916

Sorry, just testing my /lit/ bot, guys.

>> No.4848919

>>4848909
Not at all. He speaks well of Rome and war. I'm sure there was plenty of authority in Rome. He speaks well of the Old Testament where the Jews are commanded to slaughter. What he hated was weakness, especially self-subjected weakness via slave morality.

What's the point in shitposting about Nietzsche if you understand nothing of his views?

>> No.4848922

>>4848909
>>4848900
>>4848895
y'all misspelled "majority", apparently.

>> No.4848923

>>4848919
>He speaks well of the Old Testament where the Jews are commanded to slaughter

this is what I mean
he probably browsed /pol/ too, you can't take those people seriously

>> No.4848927

Individuals' only worth is to produce goodness for the rest of the world. Purpose is not a matter of the arbitrary conclusions of individuals. Nietzsche was a bitch.

>> No.4848931

>>4848923
What? Authority is just a tool, like, a man who's good at fighting is the authority on the subject. You will be subjecte by authority. Nietzsche knew this. What he really didn't like was the idea of turning this lack of ability to rule into a moral principle. What he's saying in his works is, if the weak don't like being weak, then they should fight the strong. Otherwise they should submit to the authority. But to sit there and pretend that they hold some form of superiority over the powerful due to virtues of some sort was what he thought was despicable

If you're summarizing nietzsche in one sentence, then I can guarantee you know absolutely nothing correct about his views

>> No.4848934

>>4848931
Ok maybe you are right
You know what I agree with you

>> No.4848936

>>4848927
>doesn't establish terms

You are the antiphilosopher

>> No.4848940

>>4848931
Biological beings naturally crystallize into societies because it's their essence. It's a moral obligation that they serve the society as long as what it stands for is just. However, societies are dictated by ideals, which are developed by humans. Nobody should turn their back on society just because it cramps their style as an individual.

>> No.4848941

>>4848934
Alright man. Just realize that Nietzsche isn't a philosopher that you can just jump into and start quoting with any semblance of knowledge. He requires lots of studying and consideration, because he rarely expresses any conventional view with complete gusto, there are often caveats to anything he establishes as true

>> No.4848948

>>4848940
Nietzsche wasn't Ayn Rand. He wasn't simply a social Darwinist

>> No.4848949

>>4848900
He hated people who accepted it.

>> No.4848966

>>4848948
I'm probably partially talking out of my ass here, I haven't thoroughly read much Nietzsche. Just expressing that the idea of placing arbitrary ideals of individuals above the more applicable humanist ideals of society (at least, when those ideals actually reflect what's good) is immoral.

>> No.4848978

>>4848940
>essence of biological beings

Next your gonna start talking about "human nature."

>> No.4848981

>>4848949
I don't think it's as clear as this. I mean, Nietzsche was smart enough to realize that society wouldn't have all this science without authority and slave morality. It's important to remember that Nietzsches main value as a philosopher is to point out the contradictions and conflicts within society up until his day, right? Nietzsche may have thought that men who subjected themselves were despicable, but that is not to say he thought all men should resist authority always. You should only make logical inferences from Nietzsche with extreme care, because its rare that he has a clear value or belief on any one topic.

So, he saw how horrible it was that men had to be slaves, but also recognized their necessity.

>> No.4848988

Nietzsche was a dreamer.

>> No.4848990

Nietzsche's ethics as espoused by The Genealogy is the least interesting aspect of his philosophy (though the genealogical method is pretty damn critical to modern theory).

The Gay Science and Zarathustra are the best encapsulations of Nietzsche's thought.

>> No.4848994

>>4848978
What? All I'm saying is that organization of life into a higher power more capable of adapting to the changing circumstances of what is right is inevitable. It's the next logical step, not a decision some people come up with and force on to others.

>> No.4848999

>>4848981
>society wouldn't have all this science without authority and slave morality

>> No.4849000

>>4848994
give 5 examples, mr. empirism.

>> No.4849001

>>4848966
Is morality a value we should place value on? Nietzsche would say that you should at least consider what the value of morality is before assuming it as the target for societies structure

>> No.4849012

>>4848999
What can I say? Slaves are useful. Nietzsche would say that slaves are despicable, so all that means is that if you resign then you accept your own despicableness. You're the one making the inference about what people should be done if Nietzsche is right.

Of course, once you realize that Nietzsche is often playing mind games with you in this sense, then you start getting a new understanding of him

>> No.4849016

>>4849001
Morality isn't a value.

>> No.4849023

>>4849012
I'm not making any inference, you are. I'm saying Nietzsche despised slaves; I don't think you can well argue that. Then you inferred, "Yes but I'm sure he saw them as necessary." Do you have any basis for that assumption?

>> No.4849024

>>4849016
Whatever, establish what morality is worth before you tell me to abide by it

>> No.4849025

>>4849000
Humans developing society, ants developing society, fish developing society, ewoks developing society, cockatoos developing society, penguins developing society; I could go on and on, but if you just go outside and observe nature it's obviously evident for anyone to see.

>> No.4849027

>>4848895
If you're gonna troll at least come up with a good argument.

>> No.4849040

>>4849001
>>4849016
Morality is value. Every iteration of advancement in the mechanisms of the universe (from inorganic molecules to life, life to society, society to justice) is a reflection of what is good, and when an action is exchanged from one thing to another that produces something more adaptable to change, it is a moral act. Society doesn't place an arbitrary "value in morals"; it's the result of morals, and it follows that it's imperative that they enforce them, lest they become outdated and counterproductive societies.

>> No.4849048
File: 55 KB, 486x409, 1311949083856.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4849048

>>4849040
> 7 x 7 = 49 is morally good

>> No.4849049

>>4849048
What?

>> No.4849053

>>4849024
Morality makes valuable. It has worth in itself.

>> No.4849056

>>4849049
> Every iteration of advancement in the mechanisms of the universe (from inorganic molecules to life, life to society, society to justice) is a reflection of what is good

>> No.4849057

>>4849023
What do you mean? If there's a master, then there's slaves by necessity. This wasn't something that can be broken in Nietzsches view, it's a law. Slaves, as in those who have began accepting slave ideas, are despicable purely in that they are not masters. Or more accurately, the men who resign are simply not worth regarding, they're undermen. Overmen are the ones that are interesting. Slaves though end up moralizing by their rules for life and thus create slave morality, which condemned master morals as evil. This was the worst of all to Nietzsche because it was a perversion of truth, it disguised resentment as pride and virtue as evil.

All he would say to slaves is "you deserve your life".

>> No.4849058

>>4849025
I'd call it "survival strategies", that fucktard Dawkins wrote a little something something 'bout that.

>> No.4849061

>>4849056
When did I say anything about examples of arithmetic being good?

>> No.4849062

>>4849056
mathematics working is good

>> No.4849063

>>4849057
>What do you mean? If there's a master, then there's slaves by necessity
Not when you define "master" by a morality.

>> No.4849067

>>4849061
You said "moral good" is defined by "advancement" (presumably toward complexity?). 49 is more complex then 7, and therefore morally better.

>> No.4849070

>>4849056
>>4849048
what the actual fuck are you talking about

>> No.4849074

>>4849062
Mathematics are just language to describe what is.

>> No.4849077

>>4849067
I mean advancement towards adaptability to the ever-changing conditions of what is good and necessary in the world.

49 isn't more complex than 7, by the way.

>> No.4849078

>>4849077
>more parts isn't more complex than fewer parts

>what is good and necessary
That, per se, is a metaphysical value

>> No.4849082

>>4849078
I'm not sure you know enough about math to use that analogue. Besides, I just said that I'm not referring to complexity.

>That, per se, is a metaphysical value
As opposed to what other kind of value?

>> No.4849086

>>4849074
no

>> No.4849087

>>4849078
you can do just as much arithmetic with 7 as you can do with 49. that is, an infinite amount.

>> No.4849088

Feminister you're hot <3

>> No.4849089

Is there a religion based on Thus Spoke Zarathustra yet?

>> No.4849091

>>4849078
SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT THE FUUUUUUUUUUCK UUUUUUUUUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>> No.4849092
File: 958 KB, 3264x2448, sheep.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4849092

Hello, stosh here

and i approve this message

>> No.4849093

>>4849063
Nietzsche doesnt though, he simply defined them as the powerful

>> No.4849095

>>4849089
Nietzsche was an intelligent idealist.

>> No.4849100

>>4849087
Lol this statement makes no sense I any level

>> No.4849101

>>4849058
Survival isn't the "goal" of living things, it's just an aspect of them that becomes more commonplace as a result of itself. Things better at surviving will live longer, and create more things better at surviving than things that do not adapt well.

>> No.4849104

>>4849082
You're talking about physics and biology as philosophical concepts, so I apply the same to math. A greater degree of something is more difficult to comprehend than a lessor.

>As opposed to what other kind of value?
None.

>> No.4849106

>>4849100
no number is more complex than another, and if you think otherwise then you probably failed high school geometry.

>> No.4849108

>>4849095
Okay. So, is there a religion based on that book yet?

>> No.4849110

>>4849093
Yet you can be powerful and subscribe to slave morality.

>> No.4849111

>>4849104
>You're talking about physics and biology as philosophical concepts, so I apply the same to math. A greater degree of something is more difficult to comprehend than a lessor.
Except I already said twice that I'm not talking about progression being things that are harder to comprehend than others. I'm talking about adaptability to and preservation of quality.

>None.
Then what's your problem with my referring to value in a metaphysical context?

>> No.4849123

>>4849106
How about "the first number that cannot be named in less than nineteen syllables"

Is that phrase effectively a name for that number? Shit, looks like we got a paradox.

>> No.4849124

>>4849104
⇒A greater degree of something is more difficult to comprehend than a lessor.

Vague, vacuous and meaningless claims like this are a great example of how philosophers are unqualified to talk about science or math. Keep your quisquilious balderdash to yourself and don't talk about things you don't understand.

>> No.4849125

>>4849111
You ascribed a Teilhard notion to quality. But you can be against life for moral reasons.

>Then what's your problem with my referring to value in a metaphysical context?
Metaphysics are arbitrary and non-quantifiable.

>> No.4849131

>>4849110
Yeah, you can be. Not all of the master virtues are choices that people make. If you're good at convincing people, that's a master virtue regardless.

But you're kind of an idiot for not using your virtues, aren't you?

>> No.4849143

>>4848990
And Twilight of the Idols

>> No.4849149

>>4849110
You can believe you're powerful, at least. You wouldn't be though.

>> No.4849159

>>4849125
Lol, it's not the duty of anything to be quantifiable in order to be valid. If you think metaphysics are arbitrary, as well, then you clearly don't know the definition of either metaphysics or arbitrary.

I never said all life forms produce morality. Things destructive to higher forms of justice are certainly not moral. If what you mean is that there are moral reasons to be against ALL life, well, you're just incorrect.

I think we're going in circles now, and it's not possible to win an argument with a tripfriend since their egos demand that they get the last word in, so I'm going to step out; I think I've made my point. Go ahead and satiate your pride.

>> No.4849165

>>4849123
what

>> No.4849166

>>4849149
Nietzsche said that whatever heightens the feeling of power in man is good.

Feelings lead to actions, so they are sort of relate anyway.

If you died struggling with the masters, then you may have been weak, but at least you lived a life of master morality. You lived to see yourself through, live or die, which is worthy of the respect of anyone.

Note: women tend to not be able to grasp this idea

>> No.4849174

>>4849159
⇒If you think metaphysics are arbitrary, as well, then you clearly don't know the definition of either metaphysics or arbitrary.

Metaphysics solely relies on belief/faith. It has no basis in neither evidence nor logic. For once our resident retard tripfag got something right.

>> No.4849177

Why do people reply to tripfags? Half the posts in this thread are filtered, I don't give a fuck about their content. But...why?

>> No.4849184
File: 176 KB, 680x680, pukenikki.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4849184

>>4849174
>>4849125
>logical positivism

>> No.4849190

>>4849174
Logic is subservient to the nature of things, not the other way around. Were the conditions of the universe different, logic itself would be based on different principles.

>> No.4849191

>>4849184
Why do you incorrectly use a word you don't understand?

>> No.4849194

>>4849191
Why do you incorrectly use a word you don't understand?

>> No.4849196

>>4849190
Go take a class on formal logic, simpleton.

>> No.4849204

>>4849184
In your own words, please explain what "logical positivism" means. I could need a good laugh at your cretinous ignorance.

>> No.4849215

>>4849204
only after you tell me what you think metaphysics means

>> No.4849220

>>4849159
Metaphysics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWjLjPqwtk8

>> No.4849223

>>4849204
>I could need

>> No.4849224

>>4849196
Logic is based on truth preserving arguments. Truth is based on the conditions of the universe.

>>4849220
stop posting you worthless article of scum

>> No.4849231

>>4849224
>arguments
Statements, I should say.

>> No.4849233

>>4849215
metaphyscs = empty talk without basis in reality

>> No.4849244

>>4849224
Take the advice from >>4849196

>> No.4849247

>>4849233
i didn't ask your uninformed opinion on it, i asked what you think the definition is.

>> No.4849251
File: 38 KB, 277x368, 1399014748878.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4849251

>>4849224
>stop posting you worthless article of scum

>> No.4849255

>>4849251
lol nice meme bro

>> No.4849257

>>4849247
A make-believe world made of essences

>> No.4849262

>>4849190
Logic has unsolved problems. Consider the liars paradox. The problem is no mathematical system can both be complete and not have paradoxes. Te only systems of logic that "work" can't answer all logical questions.

What's with the influx of idiots on /lit/ that don't know the basic limitations of systems? This is like undergrad shit

>> No.4849267

>>4849257
I'm sorry to inform you that you could not be further from the truth.

>> No.4849271

>>4849247
What's a definition? Define "definition".

>> No.4849273

>>4849262
Did you mean to respond to me? I didn't say anything concerning that.

>> No.4849278

>>4849196
Formal logic is very simple and babby-tier.

>> No.4849287

>>4849271
If you don't know, you have no way of gauging the accuracy. But I know you're just being a smartass.

>> No.4849294

>>4849257
>metaphysics
>a world
stopped reading. wish i stopped earlier.

>> No.4849298

>>4849267
>thinking stuff like morality is anything other than cause or result essentialism

>> No.4849305

>>4849278
Not to a philosopher. They tend to be rather simple-minded.

>> No.4849309

>>4849298
If you refuse to accept the proper definition of words you are arguing about, then I have no interest in trying to educate, because you've made it apparent that the only reason you're still posting is to assert your power as a tripfag.

>> No.4849312

>>4849273
Sure just remember that logic and infinite are huge problems, not solutions.

Nietzsche makes a very good argument against the pursuit of absolute "Truths"

Of course the constant reply is "there are no absolute truths is an absolute truth, therefore it's a contradiction and there must be absolute truths!"

Lel. It's just another proof that our method of understanding is flawed, not a proof for absolute truths

>> No.4849317

>>4849312
...Agreed? I didn't challenge that.

>> No.4849323

>>4849287
But anon, I'm doing philosophy. In philosophy you cannot know nuthin. Ignorance is the ultimate goal of philospohy.

>> No.4849328

>>4849323
What is the last philosophy book you have read?

>> No.4849329

>>4849317
I just thought I sniffed some "logic makes everything possible"

>> No.4849331

>>4849328
The God Delusion

>> No.4849334

>>4849323
Ignorance is the goal of people who ignore philosophy

>> No.4849336

>>4849309
>it was real to me

>> No.4849340

>>4849331
lm fucking ao

>> No.4849344

>>4849336
>p-pls let me have the last word

you know what? go ahead.

>> No.4849364

>>4849329
There's plenty of that in this thread, nothing I said though.

>> No.4849373

>>4849312
How does flawed method of understanding prove there aren't any?

>> No.4849378

>>4849373
Aren't any what?

>> No.4849381

>>4849378
Absolute truths

>> No.4849387

>>4849381
It proves that logic can't always prove absolute truths, and therefore absolute truths (presuming there are any) don't have to be verified by logic to be absolute.

>> No.4849390

>>4849344
>let

>> No.4849397

>>4849387
Okay, I got ya.

>> No.4849399 [DELETED] 

>>4849387
>absolute truth
Immutable truth doesn't exist except in abstract systems that are defined by their own axioms--which means that the truth is not absolute.

>> No.4849413

>>4849399
Agreed.

>> No.4849429

>>4849373
Well, I was speaking from a solipsist view. It's certainly possible that there are absolute truths, but it seems very much the case that we will never find them. The point is kind of moot

>> No.4849454

>>4849387
Well it's more ambiguous, I mean, absolute truth may never be possible to humans