[ 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: 462 KB, 429x425, nietzsche.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4865355 No.4865355[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>implying even his madness letters weren't pure genius

Is there any doubt anywhere of this man being THE philosopher king?

>> No.4865363

>philosopher king
He's cool and all, but I wouldn't bend my knee to him.

>> No.4865367

I'd suck his dick

>> No.4865368

>>4865355
>the philosopher king
More like baby's first philosopher lmao
Have you ever wondered why disgruntled teens typically jump to reading Nietsche instead of starting with classical philosophers? He's entry-level, at best.

>> No.4865379

>>4865368
He is the first and the last.
Seriously there are very few philosophers better than him.

>> No.4865381

>>4865355
Kant's the fucking man. Just as much as a dick as N without the batshit insane part.

>> No.4865395

How did this nerd become famous?

>> No.4865401

god is kill

>> No.4865406

>>4865395
By being right about everything and generally godlike in every way.

>> No.4865408

>>4865395
By examining and question morality through its history, effects and significance. I actually find it strange that people like you hate on him so much, seeing as how conceptions like ressentiment are quite in line with right-wing thought

>> No.4865421

>mfw the ultra-plebs are the ones who proclaim Nietzsche to be entry-level because the ostensible difficulty of his texts (or lack thereof) somehow detracts from what he is actually saying in said texts

It's like you're actually surprised that you understood what a philosopher said and therefore, by definition, it must be shit. You don't trust what you actually read, you dirty balloon.

>> No.4865424

>>4865421
>dirty balloon
Did you really mean balloon?

>> No.4865427

>>4865355
where are there translations of the letters he wrote after the breakdown?
also, so he was able to write, send letters, etc. they just didn't make sense?

>> No.4865429

>>4865421
why hello derrida

>> No.4865430
File: 50 KB, 640x480, 456686505_640.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4865430

>>4865421

>> No.4865432

>>4865424
Yes. A dirty balloon.

>> No.4865437

balls

>> No.4865451

My favorite thing about Nietzsche are his comments on Wagner. They basically sum up his entire thought. Love, hate and idolatry for this giant of art, someone who succeeded far more at representing the 'madness', emotion and 'subconscious' of humanity in art than he ever did.

Nietzsches superman is basically Wagner

>> No.4865491
File: 24 KB, 366x367, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4865491

>this thread
>being this ontic

>> No.4865493

>>4865429
Why are you calling me Derrida, oh wise Feminister? Oh, and where to start with him?

>> No.4865508

He's the philosophical joker.

>> No.4865574

>>4865451
>tfw you will never discuss Schopenhauer with Nietzsche and Wagner

>> No.4865583

>>4865355
He is up there, Kant is pretty top tier as well.

>> No.4865587

>>4865381
Kant was a terrible stylist and also Nietzscheanism is a terribly effective critic against all he said.

If you fully understand Nietzsche you can't be kantian. You can either be Hegelian or a Positivist.

>> No.4865589

>>4865493
Because inability to comprehend is often used a defense of Derrida.

Where to start with whom? Nietzsche, or Derrida?

>> No.4865594

>>4865589
The latter

>> No.4865599

>>4865574
Thats actually a feel I know anon. Well sort of haha
I have a pretty romanticized notion of 18th and 19th century Vienna and other big cities, but I don't take it very seriously

>> No.4865606

>>4865355
Schop was king. Nietzsche copped the fuck out

>> No.4865615

>>4865594
Of Grammatology

>> No.4865619

>>4865355
>nietzsche
>philosopher
pick one

>> No.4865623

>>4865606
>Christianity is stoopid and Eastern
>Eastern thought is so much better

>> No.4865624

because the philosopher king title has been taken by wittgenstein 1,2 and 3

>> No.4865625

>>4865619
tips fedora

>> No.4865627

>>4865619
>if isn't speculative philosophy, then it doesn't count!

>> No.4865628

>>4865625
tips fedora back

>> No.4865646

>>4865623
fuck off you dumb slut

>> No.4865648

This is reductionist bull shit, much of his work was based on absurdism and existentialism

Your like neo nazis that claim hitler started national socialism by himself and then conquered other countries by him self

>> No.4865652

>>4865587
>If you fully understand Nietzsche you can't be kantian.
If you think you fully understand Nietzsche, you don't understand him.

>> No.4865655

>>4865623
>Kant
>Not Western

>> No.4865658

>>4865408
>people like you
People like him are ressentiment incarnate.

>> No.4865660

Nietzsche is just the bridge between Stirner and Freud

>> No.4865663

>>4865655
>Kant
>not derivative of Christian thought

>> No.4865665

>>4865658
That's true but he wouldn't understand that.

>> No.4865723

He is the patron philosopher of artist

>> No.4865737

>>4865663
exactly. you haven't read schop have you?

>> No.4865750

>>4865737
Nope. Nor Hegel. I doubt I'll ever read either.

>> No.4865759

>>4865750
Why not? Are you a racist

>> No.4865763

>>4865401
no

>> No.4865764

>>4865750
missing out best philosophers

>> No.4865776

>>4865763
Sure, technically.

>> No.4865779

>>4865750
Hegel is actually fantastic
Seriously hegel is like the key to the 20th century along with a few other figures

>> No.4865785

>>4865764
Probably not. Hegel is speculative as fuck, and Schop damages his work heavily by making essentialism such a central theme--something that I will look past with the ancients, but I don't care to waste by time on in modern philosophy.

>> No.4865791
File: 55 KB, 447x604, 1398840991566.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4865791

>>4865785

Let me guess- anything having any real qualities would be an affront to your theories about gender?

>> No.4865807

>>4865791
It would be an affront to sensibility. I like philosophers like Stirner and such who are practical. Speculative philosophy is basically aura and tantra shit but with internally applied logic.

>> No.4865812

>>4865368
its not because of an entry level

its because of the ideas he proposes you stupid fuck

>> No.4865820

>>4865785
Nah Hegel is not that speculative, he actually is a great teacher in how to think if you learn to follow his thought.

Especially all of the phenomenology is lethal when confronted with certain systems of the fragment, of the individual, as Kierkegaard quickly understood using Hegel against the aesthete (the man who lives in the "postmodern" fragmentation).

Adorno manages to be so piercing in his analysis exactly because he is standing on Hegel's shoulders.

>> No.4865826

>>4865785
Are you really going to complain that a philosopher during the height of Victorian ideals actually agreed with them?

You seem incapable of viewing things outside of your own 'muh individualism' and realizing that essentialism works just fine with your cultural marxism.

>> No.4865834

>>4865820
He might be a great teacher in the sense that Plato was (how to reason), but I'm not going to slog through his obnoxious style of writing.

>The individuality of the body is the negative unity of the concept, which is not self-positing simply as an immediate entity and an unmoved generality, but only in the mediation of the process. The body is therefore a product, and its shape a presupposition, for which the end that it will ultimately achieve is also presupposed. The particularisation of the body, however, does not stop at either mere inert diversity or the opposition between different attributes and their tension within the body's pure selfhood. Rather, since the particular attributes are only the reality of this simple concept, the body of their soul, of light, the entire corporeality moves into tension and the process which is the development of the individual body, a process of isolation; — the chemical process.

>This infinity of the spirit as the relationship of itself to itself in its immediacy is its own suspension, which has been produced first and is therefore still a moment, though against and in this infinity. What is included here with itself in otherness is also determinate individuality, which is the subject for itself and contains itself as this negativity. The judgment, in which the subject becomes "I" in contrast to an object, as if in contrast to a foreign world, is thus reflected immediately into itself. Thus the soul becomes consciousness.

>> No.4865843

>>4865368
Your opinion is wrong.

>> No.4865844

>>4865826
If wanted essentialism I'd read works on tree and rock spirits, they're much more entertaining

>> No.4865847

>>4865834
>quoting Hegel out of context
because he totally didnt spend the last godknowshowmany pages defining all those terms

>> No.4865855

>>4865844
Hopefully someday you'll grow out of 'muh spooks, muh individualism, look everyone at my tripcode see i am egoist' and you'll realize how silly you were and ascend to identifying as a socialist collectivist.

>> No.4865857

>>4865847
Which really doesn't detract from the obnoxiousness.

>> No.4865864

>>4865855
>ascend to servitude
Get a load of this guy

>> No.4865865

>>4865857
Have to agree to disagree then, I like Hegels writing style.

>> No.4865866
File: 147 KB, 1080x1920, ee724b53-0520-45cd-9829-785a33819.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4865866

the anti nietzschean people in this thread are just afraid to even indirectly associate themselves with edgy teenagers, even though they were all edgy teenagers who just think their smarter now. They aren't.

>> No.4865869
File: 241 KB, 742x1122, 1375198420638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4865869

>>4865864
>i want to be a selfish prick before my material body withers back into the cosmos

10/10 best new edge

>> No.4865877

>>4865857
naw feminister hegel is a very funny and sprightly writer who is full of puns

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/se/abstract.htm

>> No.4865879

>>4865368
have you ever wondered why name and tripfags have the worst opinions

>> No.4865881

I prefer Kierkegaard.

>> No.4865890

>>4865869
What you don't under is that there are SEVEN cosmic vibrations. The basest, we shall call that grey, is collectivism. The next one, brown, is atheist collectivism. The highest, we'll call that blue, is pure egoism, and when you live as an egoist is aligns you with the vibration and allows you to participate in pure-ego energy, which can be used to augment wealth and sexual prowess, whereas grey energy only allows you to take a crap, and grey energy only allows you to manifesto crap in literary form. When an egoist dies they merge back into pure ego, which is sustained cosmic bliss, but when a a brown or grey dies, they live in an eternal cosmic toilet bowl that receives the refuse of the egoist, which the collectivists divide fairly and in dutiful love

>> No.4865913

>>4865890

8/8 gr8 b8 m8

>> No.4865920

>>4865866
>their smarter
Then they and pro-Nietzschean people have something in common.

>> No.4865967

>>4865855
How does one grow out of maturity?

>>4865879
That's anonymous shitposting as me again. (I never say shit like "baby's first..." or "lmao".

>> No.4865978

>>4865967
one day my butterfly i will both see and touch your vagina. u r so beautiful.

>> No.4865979

>>4865978
pics?

>> No.4865991

>>4865979
Just close your eyes and imagine a chubby version of '90s Björk.

>> No.4866013
File: 76 KB, 457x446, Kip_Dynamite.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4866013

>>4865991
I know why you keep calling me chubby and it's not going to work.
Back to topic please.

>> No.4866022

>>4866013
maybe it's because you are

>> No.4866023

>>4866013
>I know why you keep calling me chubby and it's not going to work.

Oh my god. You think I'm not being serious?

>> No.4866035

>>4866022
>>4866023
I'm not. You've guessed.

>> No.4866043

so, zarathustra is the only one of his works that im familiar with. there were a lot of moments in it that gave a real sense of empowerment but i still cant help but feel overall it was a lot of genuine angst.

>> No.4866050

>>4866035
you might as well cop to those webcam pics: everyone knows it's you

>> No.4866056

>>4866035
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6VTfhgQKZQ

>> No.4866058

>>4866013
fat or small my butterfly i will one day hold your hand and I will pull my pants down, then yours and we will share our gentials. In time my love.

>> No.4866059

>>4866043
Genealogy of Morality is a supplement to Beyond Good and Evil, but it really is the best place to start with Nietzsche.

>> No.4866060

>>4865491
>that nose
nope

>> No.4866082

Hey, I lurk /lit/ from time to time and peek into philosophy threads since they're interesting but I rarely know what's going on.

My question is, are all of you philosophy majors or do you just read it in your free time? How do you know so much? I obviously don't know enough to gauge whether you guys know your shit but generally you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about things I wouldn't expect 4chan user to know much about let alone comprehend.

>> No.4866089

>>4866082
I have a masters in philosophy and I've been reading philosophy and literature regularly since 16 so I have something like 10 years of studying and a library of 500 title (basically a little less than a book a week)

>> No.4866096

>>4866089
>masters in philosophy
how can you fuck up this badly?

>> No.4866098
File: 203 KB, 1024x1540, tumblr_miuq0x9HoQ1qfxj3uo1_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4866098

>>4866082
Never seriously studied. Picked this habit up form /lit/, like smoking in school bathrooms.

>> No.4866100

ily Feminister <3 lol

>> No.4866104

>>4866100
Because of egotism and I wouldn't torture you, don't worry. Maybe kill

>> No.4866111

>>4866082
I'm just a casual reader, have been since my teens. I study on my own and would love to write a short work someday when I have a firmer grasp on life, I'm too young to understand these things, I'm not nearly wise enough

>> No.4866114

>>4866043
Read The Gay Science.

"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."

Really, that along with a good supplemented reading of Zarathustra will get you the best of Nietzsche's thought, at least in regards to living the good life.

The negative, the tearing down and criticism of Nietzsche is only the means by which one can become the child, the dancing star.

>> No.4866116

>>4865508

Joker was already the philosophical Joker, and many of his lines in The Dark Knight were just cleverly rephrased Nietzsche.

>> No.4866117

>>4866096
It was cheap and i didn't feel like working.
Also the french government paid 3/4th of my rent for two years to live in paris.

>> No.4866119

>>4866082
Most philosophy is simple, just sometimes the prose is purposefully misleading, and dense. most people on here just read the summaries on the stanford encyclopedia while insisting their interpretation is correct.

>> No.4866136

>>4865379
almost all of them are better than him, Nietzsche is for plebs

>> No.4866138

>>4866119
Philosophy is politics and politics is psychology, there's pretty much nothing more too it.

>> No.4866142

>>4866089
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you're not rusing me real hard. Has all this studying of philosophy helped you figure life out?

>> No.4866147

>>4866136
and yet he is our inescapable destiny. Even people that think of going beyond him remain in his shadow.

>> No.4866160

>>4866147
what shadow? Nietzsche was not at all innovative

>> No.4866162

>>4866147
>and yet he is our inescapable destiny
More like Plato is. Everyone, including Nietzsche, is a follower.

>> No.4866174

>>4866116
I wasn't talking about the comic book Joker, but okay.

>> No.4866175

>>4866082
>philosophy major
Fuck that, I just read on my spare time. The internet has given me access to hundreds of thousands of texts and I love it. But it's really not so much about reading lots of books as it is just having an intuitive eye and a wide range of personal experiences yourself that gives you access to higher philosophical discussion.

Lots of people here haven't done too much reading though, or have that knack for philosophical discussion. You'll be able to tell once you've actually read a portion of some philosopher's body of work and then you come on here to discuss that philosopher. They seem to just read Wikipedia articles on various -isms and short research papers online. That or they just don't grasp the material.

>> No.4866187

Nietzche is great but incredibly misunderstood.

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/d/1/6/d1677410823f120c/Brian_Leiter_on_Nietzsche_Myths.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01c18e32d3c85423ec&c_id=1779634

>> No.4866193

>tfw when every nietzsche thread is just "you misunderstood him", "no u misunderstood him", "people commonly misunderstand nietzsche", etc

fucking hell guys

>> No.4866196

>>4865652
>If you think you fully understand X, you don't understand X.
please just kill yourself

>> No.4866210

>>4866162
I don't see many people arguing for the unity of truth goodness and beauty, nor ethical rationalism is that popular (actually quite the contrary) and for a few crazy people like Mark Tegmark no one thinks that reality can be reduced to ideas.

Also plato had no conception of history as the moderns understand it which is the great advantage we have on him.

That philosophy is just a footnote to plato is just a soundbite by whitehead that has been taken too seriously.

>>4866160
It's not so much about him being innovative but that every attempt at philosophy either perishes under his criticism or can be reconduced to his ideas.
Hegel pretty much is the only exception to this.

>> No.4866211

Schopenhauer > Nietzsche > Kant > Hegel

If you disagree, you didn't read Schopenhauer or didn't understand him.

>> No.4866220

>>4866211
I would invert Hegel and Kant but for the rest I agree

>> No.4866224

>>4866211
yes

schopenhauer was more engaged with the philosophical 'tradition' proper, and less the accessible

>muh feelings
>muh desire

existentialist poet who is chicken soup to insecure souls

>> No.4866225

>>4866196
No, please check yourself.

>> No.4866230

>>4866220
>>4866211
>Schopenhaur
you have got to be shitting me

>> No.4866235

>>4866211
>Schopenhauer better than Nietzsche
Nietzsche surpassed him though, by far. Didn't you read both?

>> No.4866255

>>4866235
Maybe if you're a egotistical jerkop. Schopenhauer is more inline with the spirit of actual people. he's far more relatable both individually and historically. Nietzsche always sounded like the sad kid that was never picked, and still thought he was better than everyone else.

>> No.4866271

>>4866255
>spirit of actual people
You pretty much admitted right here that Nietzsche was better than Schopenhauer. Newsflash: "actual people," i.e. common people, are mediocre. Pessimism is for mediocre types. Nietzsche was beyond pessimism yet Schopenhauer wasn't.

>> No.4866275
File: 195 KB, 1123x800, 1386002204507.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4866275

>>4866255

>> No.4866282

>>4866275
It appears I took all the drugs, made a cocktail, lol.

>> No.4866298

>>4866275
you're my favorite trip <3

>> No.4866306

>>4866230
>>4866235
confirmed for didn't read

nietzsche had like one good idea--genealogy. and thats only applicable to history, which can be considered a special topic in epistemology. schopenhauer in 'the world as will and representation' not only made much more broad and deep analysis and comments on epistemology as a whole (not just one topic), but also aesthetics, ontology, and ethics. like schopenhauer actually engages with other previous and contemporary philosophers, whereas nietzsche is more like 'this is how i feel right now and i am justified in how i am feeling because i am who i am and nobody else is me'

nietzsche's other ideas were either second-rate/half baked or are the dove chocolate wrapper 'inspirational quote' equivalent for pseudo-edgy existentialists ie 'pls gib guidance for angst'

second-rate/half baked nietzsche ideas:
>will to power
vitalism

>ubermensch
value-laden and speculative. the furthest this idea goes is 'I am ubermensch,' 'no *I* am an ubermensch,' or '[artist/composer] was an ubermensch.' which is as useful as genre debates on /mu/ ('battles is indie rock,' 'no battles is math rock!')

>eternal return
basic as fuck existentialism covered since time immemorial ie buddhism ie hinduism

>god is dead/nihilism
kierkegaard already covered this topic with further depth and breadth than nietzsche. this and his other ideas were just put in more poetic/artistic terms people that are easy on the tongue and mind.

like i said most everything else is just chicken soup for the extistentially anguished soul. personal empowerment. self help. humanism, not philosohy. go read childrens books and watch spongebob for similar insights into life.

>> No.4866308

>>4866210
>It's not so much about him being innovative but that every attempt at philosophy either perishes under his criticism or can be reconduced to his ideas.

You can't honestly believe that. No philosopher is that infallible.

>> No.4866313

>>4866271
Sounds more like Nietzsche or his admirers are conceited.

>> No.4866315

>>4866275
I don't understand. Can someone please explain this.

>> No.4866317

>>4866306
>humanism, not philosohy
Because Schop was oh so above humanism

>> No.4866324

>>4866298
why thank you

>>4866315
Which philosophers have you read?

>> No.4866326

>>4866306
>nietzsche's other ideas were either second-rate/half baked or are the dove chocolate wrapper 'inspirational quote' equivalent for pseudo-edgy existentialists ie 'pls gib guidance for angst'
/lit/ trolling at its finest. Or its worst, however you look at it.

But if you're serious, I wouldn't give you a serious response anyway. It's obvious as hell you've only read the Wikipedia article for Nietzsche.

>> No.4866353

>>4866317
not above, but further up than nietzsche.

>>4866326
i am entirely serious. go ahead and give me some quotes from zarathustra or beyond good and evil. he is an existentialist poet and has a fraction of ideas per page than any other important philosopher usually mentioned in the same breath. and that fraction of ideas was already covered by previous philosophers.

i think your post is trolling at its finest because it had essentially no content. your post is just worthless because if you really believed what you wrote you wouldn't have replied at all.

>> No.4866363

>>4866298
wtf i will kill u mate

>> No.4866366

>>4866353
>not above, but further up than nietzsche.
Not really. Nietzsche was relatively simple, Schop broke things up into a bunch of spiritual nonsense. Both were humanist (hence I prefer Stirner, although Nietzsche's poetic spirit is fun), Schopfags don't have any place using that as a criticism.

>> No.4866367
File: 19 KB, 335x500, lange and nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4866367

name a single thing he didnt appropriate from
-schopenhauer
-f.a. lange
-burckhardt
-stirner
-goethe

>> No.4866373

>>4866367
I think his strength lay in connecting and beautifying concepts. The comparison of pagan and Christian morality that Nietzsche did was already done by Machiavelli.

>> No.4866376

Say whatever you want about Nietzsche, but goddamn that guy was a good writer. Out of all the philosophers he's definitely the most eloquent.

>> No.4866378

>>4866353
Where was will to power covered previously? Or his critique of Christianity and Buddhism being nihilistic at their core? Or his critique of Socrates and Plato, or Jesus? Or perspectivism to the extent which he ran with it?

No other philosopher has outputted as life-affirming a concept as the Overman or Nietzsche's amor fati, bottom line. Everyone else is below Nietzsche for this reason.

>> No.4866382

>>4865368
I don't see him as entry level at all. I majored in philosophy and barely read any Nietzsche until after college. (American colleges are super analytic, you can get by without reading any Continental stuff.) His ideas seemed radical precisely because I had read the Greeks and the Moderns and came from an analytic and mathematical background. I don't think he would have had the same effect if I'd just been starting out.

>> No.4866384

>>4865368
This. I'm so sick of hearing about him because he is every pretentious high-schooler's first philosopher, alluded to constantly by the same annoying people who graduate to Ayn Rand once they get to college. And these same people don't even know about Hegel or Kant, much less classic philosophers who have less to do with Nietszche so it's obvious they are more about name-dropping/quoting than seriously getting into philosophy.

Personally though, I only know him in context from his work on other thinkers and what other thinkers thought about him, so no comment. Epic moustache though.

>> No.4866390

>>4866382
It was a troll's post :(

>> No.4866410

>>4866193
Maybe to understand him is to realise you can't understand him.

>> No.4866422

>>4866410
I understood him and I didn't even read him, maybe that's the real trick?

>> No.4866600

>>4866306

You don't have the first clue about Nietzsche.

>> No.4867242

>>4865355

Yes, in the part where he wasn't a king.


There's no use for kings with Nietzsche. You follow him to follow yourself, because he is you naked and if you were naked you'd be him, get it?


Still, he's just a bridge, don't be so silly.

>> No.4867370

>>4866366
best response to my inflammatory first reply so far. i cede the point to your argument.

>>4866378
you failed to comprehend either the post you replied to or the original one i wrote. i said that the ideas that weren't already covered by other philosophers were "second-rate/half baked." will to power is just vitalist hand-waving nietzsche did because he wanted something alternative to darwin's theories about life.

second, offering critiques of religion is not nearly at the same level as what i originally alluded to as making an engagement with the 'philosophical tradition.' as a counter-example i offer heidegger, who was a recent example of a philosopher who made a critical contribution to some high-level abstraction and truly 'meta'-physics. critical analysis of religion and prophets takes place at a lower level of abstraction and discourse. but just for fun:

kierkegaard already made a critique of christianity and jesus with far more depth than nietzsche. i will cede that he does not say it is nihilistic with as much aplomb as nietzsche says, but he at least points towards nihilism if not is already there. buddhism was already nihilistic at core since its inception. western misunderstanding of buddhism is to blame if it was ever interpreted to not be nihilistic.

critique of plato and socrates and their ideas has been ongoing since the beginning of philosophy. aristotle, kant, hume, etc were all highly critical of metaphysics and put forward criticism and synthesis.

perspectivism? again, kierkegaard in 'subjectivity is truth.'

>life affirming

again, life-affirmation is for dove chocolate wrappers, childrens books, basic existentialism, etc. if you need someone to sooth your soul and calm your mind thats about your personal feelings, not abstraction and thinking. overman is also as i said a second-rate idea. it is a dead end. "i'm an overman!" "no I'M an overman!" if you use it for personal inspiration thats great but thats not philosophy, thats self-help.

>>4866600
why do nietzsche fanboys make such substanceless replies? at least try to make an argument

>> No.4867443

>>4867370
I think you're looking for the wrong thing from Nietzsche. Despite his will-to-power, humanist cop-out, he was a metaphysical nihilist, and by extension a moral nihilist; but he rejected a lack of values that came from nihilism, and so created a meaning, then beautified it; self-created values would become a prominent existentialist theme until postmodernism begin to question it.

>> No.4867465

>>4866308
It's not Nietzsche's personal merit, it's the logic of nihilism.

>> No.4867469

>>4866142
made me very well read and I had a great time.

>> No.4867622

>>4867370
>>4866600
>>4866306

>will to power
>vitalism

This is like saying 'spontaneous generation => Darwinism'.

>ubermensch
>value-laden and speculative

'Value-laden' isn't a criticism here. 'Speculative' implies a misconception of the idea. Given Nietzsche's understanding of the intellectual recession of Christianity, the uebermensch is largely a goal for people to aim at in its absence - the point being that this already moves far beyond the squabbling about who is/isn't/was/wasn't 'an uebermensch'.

>eternal return
>basic as fuck existentialism covered since time immemorial ie buddhism ie hinduism

I can't think what you might be talking about here except the karmic wheel. Pardon my confusion if that's not the case, but if it is the case, then you either don't understand eternal return or you're badly confused about karma. Or, of course, quite possibly both.

>god is dead/nihilism

This is pretty cryptic - are you suggesting Nietzsche was a nihilist? Because half his life was spent carving out a way to stave off the nihilism he saw as implied by the 'death of god'.

>personal empowerment. self help. humanism, not philosohy

And from this we can add 'humanism' to the list of 'things you don't have the first clue about'.

Will that do?

>> No.4867635

>>4865881
>i prefer a guy who was so hopelessly tied to religion all his ideas are dismissive

>> No.4867690

>>4867635
Dismissive of what, small-mindedness?

>> No.4867855

>>4867370
>will to power is just vitalist hand-waving nietzsche did because he wanted something alternative to darwin's theories about life.
Bullshit, you know nothing. All of life is will to power, not just "living entities" with a "vital spark." ALL of life. If you can't understand this then you can't hope to understand anything Nietzsche said, and it's clear to me you don't.

Back to your babby philosophers like Kierkegaard, untermensch fool.

>> No.4867863
File: 40 KB, 611x425, stirner91.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4867863

>philosopher king
>not rolling with the philosopher trickster rogue reynard loki of uniqueness

>> No.4867875

>>4867863
but that's meme-philosophy

like foucault or kierkegaard

>> No.4867889

>>4867875
Stirner made some really fucking good points, and he totally clear about them. He's a solid philosopher who is highly under appreciated, whereas Foucault is rockstar

>> No.4867955

>>4866366
I don't see how Nietzsche would be at all "simple." He would be if you neglect so many parts of his work and only focus on some few key concepts, just as >>4866306 is doing.
But then again, so would Schopenhauer be.

>> No.4867967

>>4867955
A lot Nietzsche's work was just him being poetic and not 100% of what he actually believed/ He has some basic, interesting ideas, and he does a lot of genius stuff with them

>> No.4867982

>>4866384
>>4865368
>he's commonly misinterpreted
>using this as an argument against him

OP, Nietzsche is the most important man of the 1800s

>> No.4867993

>>4867967
Max Stirner is even more basic and has none of the amazing prose or style that Nietzsche does, so I don't get you

You have the least valuable opinions on /lit/, feminister

>> No.4868021

>>4867967
To understand Nietzsche's concepts at all, that is, in a detailed manner (I would say that is the only valid option), is incredibly difficult and would require that you link almost all of his works together. For example, the concept übermensch is extremely complex, considering the fact that it is defined throughout the whole of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (of course, to even better understand it and it's urgency for it, you would have to read more than that).
Furthermore, especially the key concepts are highly related to each other and cannot be understood properly if you atomise them (as, again, >>4866306 is doing), e.g. eternal recurrence must not be seen apart from the übermensch.

For all who think Nietzsche is easypeasy, I recommend you read studies done about him (I'm not saying you didn't understand him, since from what I have seen you are quite clever. Though I would really not present Nietzsche as being basic or simple). It would really blow your mind what that man's thought is, how he linked it all together (this is the only way to understand him properly, I would say) and how he presented it.
Nietzsche is far more than a presenter of a handful of ideas.

>> No.4868033

>>4867993
Max Stirner doesn't have the amazing prose, no, but he is really more groundbreaking and consistent than Nietzsche is. Nietzsche exalts egoism and denies metaphysics, but then tries to come up with some humanist claptrap in order to justify his moral values. Stirner is pure egoist (whereas Nietzsche crystallizes egoism into a value system and a spook), and he takes apart morality itself (as opposed to just Christian morality) in a way Nietzsche never does.

>> No.4868047

>>4868033
It's all crap, don't you know? Stirner is a spook

>> No.4868050

>>4866324

>Which philosophers have you read?

Absolutely none. Where do I start?

>> No.4868055

>>4868050
Presocratics, Plato, Aristotle, then the Cynics and the Stoics

>> No.4868063
File: 25 KB, 1000x1000, 1398952894024.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4868063

>>4868050
Stirner

>>4868055
>where should I start studying medicine?
>with Hippocrates, of course

>> No.4868064

>>4868050
The Chinese

>> No.4868066

>>4867635
>implying Kierkegaard doesn't offer us a way out of nihilism
>implying the leap of faith isn't something everyone has to make, whether you believe in Christ or not

>> No.4868076

>>4868063
This post is proof that every single person alive should have Feminister filtered

>implying the Hippocratic oath isn't still a thing

Stirner is a shithead nothing. He says nothing new or interesting. We live in a world that has already embraced his ideas for the most part. You're clinging to an empty shell. Nietzsche is an empty shell too, but at least he's interesting

genuinely telling people that all they need to know is Stirner is just fucking dumb. You are a stupid person.

>> No.4868086

>>4868076
Hippocratic Oath is a thing; having to read all the Hippocratic works to start with when studying medicine, is pretty stupid.

The world has not embraced his ideas, if they did then every state would collapse. Post-existentialism has pretty much just begin to touch on his shit.

>> No.4868089

>>4868063
>where should I start studying medicine?
>with Hippocrates, of course

That is such an absurd comparison, get out.

>> No.4868094

>>4868089

I don't think it's perfect, but I wouldn't call it 'absurd'.

>> No.4868103

>>4868089
No it isn't. Hippocrates practiced metaphysical medicine. Metaphysics are interesting to study, but they're not a requisite place to start in either medicine or philosophy. It's best to start with having them soundly demolished so you don't spend years chasing this or that idea and getting this or that massive revelation and chasing and chasing; much better to see it all in perspective as the philosophical equivalent to holistic healing.

That's not to say there's no value. Like the man said, the Hippocratic Oath is still relevant--so is Socratic method.

>> No.4868113

>>4868086
Alright, let me explain it to you very clearly: philosophy and medicine are not equivalent. If we COULD NOT solve medical problems, then we WOULD still look at Hippocrates medical works.

As for Stirner, he answers, with conviction, questions that have no answer. Any idea that says "if everyone would embrace X" is a patently false, idiotic belief for women and manchildren. They will never happen. You're still stuck on the pipe dream of Utopia and truth. I honestly laugh at how pathetic your life must be, that you cling to patently false "truths" so you can avoid reality.

Stirner's philosophy is a spook. Nietzsche's answers are spooks. The only thing Nietzsche did was crush any semblance of an answer, but even he couldn't face the abyss without accepting it.

There is no truth, none of the problems that matter are solvable, philosophy goes nowhere.

It's time to grow up, Feminister.

>> No.4868123

>>4868113
>the Enlightenment went nowhere :^)

>> No.4868127

So...

Start with the Greek progenitors. Yes? No? Just pick up a philosophy book and start reading?

>> No.4868130

>>4868127
Read whichever one you want. I recommend Stirner because he'll save you a lot of confusion down the road

>> No.4868133

>>4868123
Have you ever studied Rousseau and Paine? They are laughable; the "enlightenment" is laughable, you are laughable. Nietzsche is the greatest philosopher because he is fun, he makes you laugh, his works are the music that makes life tolerable. They are not answers.

>> No.4868134

>>4868130
I recommend first, you filter Feminister so you don't get confused. Then, start with the Greeks. And I mean, don't be stupid, don't just buy the Republic and start reading, read books on the philosophers and then move on

>> No.4868135

>>4868133
The Enlightenment is the creator of liberalism, I'd hardly call that laughable.

>> No.4868139

>>4868135
"The enlightenment" ideas were coined by the Greeks. "Equality" is a bastardization of slave morality brought from the bible. It's a spook; equality solves nothing, because to enforce equality requires an imbalance of power, which is a contradiction. The very onset of the idea of equality is counter-intuitive to anything we can possibly know about the world

>> No.4868147

>>4868139
>to enforce equality requires an imbalance of power, which is a contradiction

Equivocation.

>> No.4868149

>>4868147
Non sequitur; strawman.

>> No.4868150

>>4868139
I know the ideas were spooks, but it's pretty fuckin clear they brought about significant change in reality.

Truth is, you're the one who's thinking in absolutes here. "It's not REAL equality and is therefore rubbish." Really, nigga?

>> No.4868159

>>4868150
"real equality" is just a nonsensical idea and all "moral" codes are simply justifications or rationalizations; there is no way to say something "should be" without admitting that the shoulds are derived subjectively.

all there is is is, there is no ought, and there is no equality; neither will any idea ever fix that. You're living in the dark ages of philosophy; because all philosophy exists for is to prove everyone wrong, because as a razor humans are incapable of being right

>> No.4868178

>>4868159
You can say "I want", and I very much do want what liberalism brought as contrastedd to what came before. Now you can call that Joe's Homemade Society, or you can call that equality, it makes no difference to me.

I'm familiar with all you're saying, obviously, which I'm sure you know, seeing as how I recommended Stirner.

>> No.4868188

>>4868178
I don't want either, because the quality of my life is inconsequential to meaning or happiness.

Solve every problem, and all that remains is boredom. I don't even care that all systems are impossible to prove consistent internally but are possible to prove inconsistent. All it means is we have no faculty toward a perfect Truth.

Stirner is no better than Nietzsche in helping you understand any of this. You just don't get the same sense of awe, completeness, history, or connection that you do with Nietzsche. It's a hollow egoism. Hollow because Stirner, unlike Nietzsche, failed to recognize that the music of life is all there is.

>> No.4868206

>>4868188
You can say that: trying working all fucking day and not having enough to eat.

It's not my problem you get bored, it's yours.

Anyone can say "x is all there is to life". Stirner left it up to you, Nietzsche chose an x and then tried to back it up with humanism, which unfortunately detracted from his work.

>> No.4868208
File: 187 KB, 514x600, 1397078643892.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4868208

I like reading some of his work but absolutely loathe the kinds of people who admire him so I never mention his name to others. I've run into too many teenagers/manchildren who haven't matured mentally and think they're some sort of ubermensch who can see through the rabble.

It's painful.

>> No.4868221

>>4868208
*takes out dick*

>> No.4868222

>>4868206
>You can say that: trying working all fucking day and not having enough to eat.

First, I can't really try that without the exercise being pretentious, and second, if my life were in that state, it would be simple and my problems would be less confusing. It wouldn't be any better or worse, and any mental exercise that causes you to "walk in someone else's shoes" is a meaningless exercise in empathy. You CAN'T and NEVER WILL walk in someone else's shoes; the point of the exercise is to manipulate your emotions. It's worthless.

>It's not my problem you get bored, it's yours.

It's not my problem that you are a stupid person.

>Anyone can say "x is all there is to life".
You're undermining the depth of the metaphor

>Stirner left it up to you, Nietzsche chose an x and then tried to back it up with humanism, which unfortunately detracted from his work.

Nietzsche doesn't leave it up to you because he proves it's up to you. The "you" is all you have, so pretending there is an external motivator beyond you is completely incorrect. I don't deny that Stirner's ideas and Nietzsche's are prototypically similar, but neither is inherently superior in the ideas they communicate; Nietzsche just wrote about more topics, better topics, interesting topics, and did it with style.

There's no point in reading Stirner for any reason above reading the Greeks: he's a piece of history of the failed attempts to deny the consistent inconsistency of the system

>> No.4868223

lyircs to this song were written by nietzsche ama me anything

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4Y-FbeCX14

>> No.4868225

>>4868208
Now you know why Nietzsche recognized the danger in God dying. You hate Nietzsche, but you don't even realize that Nietzsche got it righter than you can possibly imagine

>> No.4868233
File: 11 KB, 373x354, 1387745173472.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4868233

>>4868225
I didn't say I hated Nietzsche. I said the kinds of people his philosophy attracts are generally fedora tipping subhumans who I don't desire to communicate with in real life or online.

>> No.4868236

>>4868222
>I can never know what it would be like to be another person but I know it would be, like, less confusing

Stirner actually makes more of an argument.

>failed attempts to deny the consistent inconsistency
Stirner utterly trashed speculative philosophy. Are you saying the other sorts are inconsistent as well?

>> No.4868238

>>4868233
I talk about Nietzsche to people in real life, but often I make little sense because most people are so incapable of focusing on anything but the inconsequential that they don't "get" the basic principles enough to have an interesting discussion

and i don't like playing lecturer

>> No.4868252

>>4868236
Once you've established that the whole system of thinking is inconsistent, then you've demonstrated that there is no way to derive anything of lasting meaning.

I doubt Stirner argued that you CAN put yourself in another person's shoes. Nietzsche argues against speculative philosophy too; all attempts to empathize are speculative. All I have is my ingrained intuition

>> No.4868286

>>4868238
Could you give a quick run down of Nietzsche's philosophy to the uninitiated here? How do you talk about him and his works in real life?

>> No.4868290

>>4868236
Your problem, Feminister, like all humans, is once you face the absurd/the nihil/the untruth/the inconsistency, you feel the abyss and no one comes through this clean; because the response to the abyss is not atheism.

You still cling to dogma, you trust your speculative ability, you believe in solution, you believe in a man. You think there's a beginning and ending, you think there's a solution, but like all doctors, the Hippocratic oath is a projection of your image onto the world; it's a system that you break, because in the realm of experience there is no ethics, there is action and justification, there is health and there is death, and there is no sense to be made of it.

Just a side note; I highly doubt you fully understand Nietzsche's aphoristic depth. If you did, you would have deep respect for him

>> No.4868291

>>4866117
Do you just study in France or are you french?
Because I started reading some philosophy works since 1 years but it's pretty hard and I always wanted to speak to someone who can suggest me some works

>> No.4868297

>>4868286
First I instill respect for who Nietzsche was, then I explain some of his basic quotes with the appropriate caveats, and it gets (some) people interested. Most people glaze over, but some respect the depth when they become aware of it.

>> No.4868321

>>4868286
You have to realize first that, even though it seems Nietzsche's primary goal is to demonstrate something, the end result is his demonstration of nothing. Nietzsche doesn't ignore the good arguments against himself, he embraces them, tries to work them out, and fails. This is the most important relevance of Nietzsche for us.

His ideas of "Ubermensch", will to power, and so on are best disproved by Nietzsche himself. This is why when you contain yourself in Nietzsche, you don't really leave, assuming you have done the proper homework to get through him

Nietzsche's works also center heavily around his ideas on philology, which while they probably aren't accepted as flawless theory, are predicated upon a deep and lasting impression of his philosophy, which is incredibly accurate. Deep cynicism of all humans is a common trend, and he establishes fairly well I would say that all philosophizing, religion, and though are narcissistic self-expressions. This is why his favorite philosopher was clearly Diogenes (considering hNietzsche himself was in some ways similar, and Zarathustra is DiogeNietzsche). If you want a run-down of what Diogenes was like, listen to:

http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/cynics

Nietzsche recognized that all that was really "true" was to prove something wrong. In the end, Nietzsche's biggest value was the utter destruction of Christian thought, which people underestimate the importance of.

Anyhow, you should definitely understand Greek life and thought with careful scrutiny, and approach Nietzsche with a truly open mind and careful consideration, because he was brilliant, and the brilliance blinds any man who is stuck in a cave. For the person who knew to squint and to look carefully, you will see Nietzsche's life casting a faint light into the abyss, even if it's just for a moment

>> No.4868329

>>4868321
Remember, that if Nietzsche is correct about all philosophy being narcissistic self-expression, than Nietzsche is best understood as narcissistic self-expression.

Always judge a psychologist by their own razors if you want to know what's in their head

>> No.4868359

>>4868286
So for something to express what cynicism means in proper, take my debate with Feminister. She claims that "putting yourself in another's shoes" is somehow going to give you some truth. Isn't such an exercise ultimately narcissism? It's drawing solutions out of yourself, projecting them onto another person, and feeling clever for doing so. It's insane, and the Cynics were simple men who strove to knock down cultural or mental cliche. Nietzsche hates cliche and loves the Cynics.

It's about such a clever and razorlike devotion to truth that you break everything down into nonsense

>> No.4868360

>>4865890
Aha. Can you justify with evidence?

>> No.4868380

>>4868360
It's feminister. She is incapable of anything but repetition; not of application.

>> No.4868392

who is this dunecoon

>> No.4868411

>>4868321
Serious question: then what good is he?

Philosophy is the seeking of wisdom and the instruction of life. But all of Nietzsche's work seems a kind of disinstruction, a disabusing of any sympathy for any other thinker.

So what are we left with? An individual makes his own way in the world, with his own morals. But we can never be fully separated from what we are taught, and if we could, we would have no grounds for anything. Pure originality in anything- even morals- is impossible. Rousseau was wrong, state of nature a shit, Aristotle was right, a man is most natural when he has fully become himself.

Nietzsche wants the impossible, and not in the same way other philosophers, like Plato, want it, because Plato seeks what cannot be, while Nietzsche seeks what was and has inexorably been lost.

It's worthless.

>> No.4868423

>>4868411
Nietzsche doesn't want the impossible, Nietzsche is the impossible. He actually shows respect for many thinkers

>So what are we left with?
I don't know. Music? Love? Impulse, irrationality? Accepting that you can't make yourself happy by sitting in your room and thinking about happiness?

>An individual makes his own way in the world, with his own morals. But we can never be fully separated from what we are taught, and if we could, we would have no grounds for anything. Pure originality in anything- even morals- is impossible. Rousseau was wrong, state of nature a shit, Aristotle was right, a man is most natural when he has fully become himself.

Yes, there is nothing new or interesting.

>It's worthless.
How so? You're starting to gain some real knowledge.

>> No.4868430

>>4868411
This sense you're getting of futility, of the emptiness and lies of it all, is the abyss. When you stare into it, it stares into you. It's uncomfortable, yeah?

>> No.4868431

>>4868423
No, it IS impossible, because to even approach Nietzsche and get at him, you have to read everything he's referencing, and by the time you've done all that, you're incapable of crafting your own morals. Nietzsche defeats his own ideology.

Nietzsche's dream of the original man can only be achieved by some hermit living out on the steppes. Which, to be fair, would probably please him.

>> No.4868434

>>4868411
>An individual makes his own way in the world, with his own morals
>Aristotle was right, a man is most natural when he has fully become himself

Isn't it the same thing ?

>> No.4868441

>>4868411
Also; you can always identify a weak-willed, submissive self-justifier when they call anything "edgy" or pretend they've "gotten past" all of this. You don't get past the truth, you simply make an incomplete conviction and cling to it, like all humans, in order to make life palatable. There should be comfort in knowing the discomfort and abyss of life is what we all go through.

>> No.4868451

>>4868431
He doesn't "defeat" it like that, no one defeats it, he just rips away the scales on your eyes.

Nietzsche's dreams are the dreams all people end up adopting as they get old and close to death.

>> No.4868462

>>4868451
Nietzsche is the philosophy of teenage narcissism, more or less the complete opposite of a mature adult.

>> No.4868464

>>4868451
Honestly, Nietzsche sounds an awful lot like he's talking about faith, which is hilarious. Knowing beyond knowing? Absolute conviction? Sounds familiar.

>> No.4868468

In the transvaluation of all values, what necessarily acts as the foundation for the values to come? From where does the individual ground the construction of new values without simply modifying the value system they were born into?

Are the three metamorphoses a one and done sort of act or is their a constant movement between camel to lion to child back to lion back to camel and so an?

How can it be expected of us to become Gods ourselves, truly Gods in the ultimate sense?

I think Heidegger salvages Nietzsche's project in some way. There are moments of authenticity, there are ways in which we realize the groundlessness and uncaniness of that which we've been thrown into and we act accordingly. But eventually, we realize that even that which we've replaced our unhomeness with is still not home, still not completely our own. Authenticity and creation of distinctly individual value seems an impossible task (this is not to say it's a task that shouldn't be undertaken though).

Nietzsche's imperative is really terrifying and I don't think people fully understand the extent to which he wants us to radically alter our lives. This isn't humanism, this is attempting to transcend what is human. Man will seem to overman what ape seems like to man. Most people who walk that tightrope between animal and overman will fall.

>> No.4868469

>>4868462
A "mature adult" is the exact concept that's impossible. In western society, "maturity" always means accepting and becoming part of the system, living a life of depression and wage slavery, and dying a broken and incomplete person. This isn't "mature" in any sense at all, the narcissism is pretending you are capable of avoiding it.

>> No.4868471

>>4868423
>He actually shows respect for many thinkers
Very unlike his fanboys.

>> No.4868475

>>4868464
This is the perfection of Nietzsche, in order to accept him as pure truth you HAVE to doubt him, so they cycle is complete.

>hur de hur hur hur

>> No.4868479

>>4868471
I studied the Greeks for months before tackling Nietzsche, and I have much respect for what they said and did. Respect has nothing to do with accepting them as true.

>> No.4868483
File: 1.75 MB, 640x360, fedora tip.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4868483

>>4868469
>"maturity" always means accepting and becoming part of the system

Go watch Fight Club a couple more times kiddo.

>> No.4868486

>>4868479
What is the point of respecting someone ?

>> No.4868487

>>4868431

>Nietzsche's dream of the original man can only be achieved by some hermit living out on the steppes.

Holy shit did you even read Zarathustra? Did you miss the fucking constant one must go under to go over puns?

He even puts a fucking hermit in the first few pages and critiques him.

>> No.4868488

>>4868468
Nietzsche's demands require a superhuman, or rather, they require someone with more-than-human strength behind them.

This is why, despite Nietzsche's antipathy for Christianity, he loves the saints. They are perhaps the closest the world has come to his Ubermensch, men and women who seem to have moved and acted beyond any restraint of reality.

If all there is is humanity, can there truly be a more-than-human? Surely something more must be there, if the Ubermensch is to be true.

>> No.4868490

>>4868468
He wants us each to become our own Zarathustras, and in trying to do so you will learn more about anything then you ever wanted to know, and still understand it. Which is the beauty, pursuing Nietzsche's thought is about total self-defeat

>> No.4868494

>>4868483
This is a very pure example of narcissism. Thank you for proving my point with such enthusiasm

>> No.4868495

>>4868475
It certainly does sound familiar.

>> No.4868502

>>4868486
There isn't a point? It's an emotion, a feeling, not something you rationally conclude

>> No.4868512

>>4868495
Say what you will. You're only deluded in that you don't recognize the fallibility of thought and the pointlessness in your own views, I don't give a shit about Nietzsche, he just made me as a person. You're simply weak because you haven't experienced the pure deconstruction of truth, because you're too afraid to look into the abyss, like a child who clings to his mother because he's afraid to stand alone

I know nothing, I have no clue what to do and life is uncomfortable. I can admit that, because I developed enough mental strength by flexing my mind with Nietzsche that I've learned nothing else can be true. But I can't accept Nietzsche, because if Nietzsche is right Nietzsche is wrong. Nietzsche takes you in, only to throw you out and leave you isolated and alone. You gain power, and at the same time you realize just how terrible it is.

>> No.4868517

>all these people criticizing Nietzsche for not putting out a systematic, jargon filled metaphysics or ethics
>all these people who think philosophy should necessarily be in the style of Kant or Hegel to be worthwhile

The greatest task of philosophy is to guide us towards the good life. That's Nietzsche's project. It's not self-help bullshit, it's not inspirational quotes. It's the complete affirmation of everything.

I'd like to see any self-help guru tell you that your moment of happiness was predicated on the entirety of existence (in all its hideousness) leading to that moment and that as such, any affirmation of that happiness is necessarily an affirmation of EVERYTHING.

>> No.4868522

>>4868512
HAHAHA. Everyone look at this guy, he fell off the tighrope.

Nigga, the goal is to become a child again, to become a dancing star, not to wallow in your little abyss.

The Greeks saw the chaotic and devoid of meaning nature underlying everything and still fucking lived it up.

>> No.4868523

>>4868517
This is what people don't get. Everyone who's looking at a derivative of Plato's philosophizing is still in the cave. They haven't understood the value of values, the truth of truth, they haven't questioned the basic assumptions with enough sincerity to have true humility

>> No.4868528

>>4868483
Have fun with your Reddit-esque moderatism!

"We must not abandon the culturally accepted lifestyle. Our lives must be guided by looking left and right at our neighbors and following what they do."

This is what's wrong with moderatism. Everyone is looking around to see how they ought to live. No one is brave enough to live adventurously in their own way, like Sinatra, like me! *raises spork high and proud*

>> No.4868530

>>4868494
Yes Fight Club is a pure example of narcissism, that's probably why it's your favorite movie.

>> No.4868535

>>4868512
You're a humongous fuccboi. Maybe that's why he threw you out.

>> No.4868536

>>4868522
Children are literally the purest example of narcissism, so I'm glad you've ceded the point.

>> No.4868539

>>4868522
Who says I'm wallowing? I'm only implying that sitting there looking at the world is to wallow in the abyss, which is why Nietzsche hated it so much. Go climb a mountain and philosophize, and you will be aware of the narcissists we are

>> No.4868547

>>4868535
All Nietzsche does is try to throw you out. He's your trainer

>> No.4868554

>>4868547
Nah, he's just having a giggle at others' expense because he knows it's futile.

>> No.4868589

>>4868469
>In western society, "maturity" always means accepting and becoming part of the system, living a life of depression and wage slavery, and dying a broken and incomplete person.
It will with that entitled attitude.

>> No.4868919

>>4868252
>I doubt Stirner argued that you CAN put yourself in another person's shoes. Nietzsche argues against speculative philosophy too; all attempts to empathize are speculative

>WHAT ARE MIRROR NEURONS

Stirner argued for a 'mute naturalism', which means that you follow your urges, if these include behaviour that is commonly linked to empathy, so fucking be it.

>> No.4869291

dirty balloon, new meme of lit 2014


...fucking dirty balloons.

>> No.4869306

>>4865355

Sure; his heir Heidegger is the best.

>> No.4869320

The modern day equivalent of Nietzsche ( or whoever your favorite philosopher is ) is probably starving to death in some godforsaken downtown apartment building. His works will never be published nor even read.

How does that make you feel, /lit/?

>> No.4869640

>>4869320
Feels good man. His ideas, and anyone wanting to elaborate on his ideas deserve nothing less.

>> No.4870119

>>4869320
Icycalm already published books though and people have read them.

>> No.4870172

>>4870119
go away icycalm your site sucks

>> No.4870196 [DELETED] 
File: 99 KB, 800x533, 591ab9c9-6719-438f-bb4b-2ec229d97.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4870196

ITT: I want you to be as /lit/ as you can.

>> No.4870443

>>4868528

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8dqCQ2MHfQ

>> No.4870982

>>4868290
I don't believe in a solution, I believe that some things are in my interest, others are not.

I don't have a deep respect for anyone. I greatly enjoy Nietzsche, but the concept of will to power as humanism is bro science, and master/slave morality is more similar to alpha/beta than most of us would care to admit.

>>4868360
All of the greatest figures of history were blues: Napoleon, Caesar, Cesare Borgia, Genghis Khan. The next greatest were non-egoist individualists (greens), such as the Founding Fathers. Collectivists have made up the slaves. This is objective, metaphorical fact.

>> No.4871025

>>4870982
>>4865890
>>4865844
And then their souls ascended to the center of the earth, assuming, of course, that they were able to get past the lava men.

>> No.4871046

>>4870982
>Napoleon, Caesar, Cesare Borgia, Genghis Khan
>greatest figures of history
u avin a giggle m8

>> No.4871072

>>4871046
I'm ticklish!

>> No.4871073

>>4865587
>stylist

I'm guessing you mean their writing style, in which case, that's the kettle calling the pot black. Kant unintentionally wasn't clear, Nietzsche intentionally wasn't clear.

And no, neither of those things is a good thing. It's never good to pretend to be retarded.

>> No.4871081

>>4868359
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

>> No.4871086

>>4871073
Nietzsche was aiming to be artistic.

>> No.4871096

>>4871073

So you're not pretending?

>> No.4871248

>>4871086
Why would an artist compromise their message with their choice of style?

>>4871096
Most of the NIetzsche fanboyism here is by people who don't actually understood his message more than what wikipedia could tell them.

>> No.4871274

Feminister, what colour do you think I am?

>> No.4871341

>>4870982
you are so stupid. are you female?

>> No.4871349

>>4871341
I think she's very intelligent. She certainly gets hung up on the right things anyway :D

>> No.4871360

>continental philosophy

Into the trash it goes

>> No.4871376

Feminister I don't suppose you read mine and that dude's interaction after you left last time? About it all being banter, all of it, every bit of it? Sounded like belonging transmogrified to me, lol. I wonder how far more that might be extended, though.

>> No.4871379

>>4871376
or...uh, "belonging", I dunno.
Funny things we get into our heads, though.

>> No.4871390

I like max stirner more

>> No.4871397

those last letters were just sad. even though the anti christ was pretty amazing his tone was so shrill and almost pathetic at times, a far cry from those blissful, assuring tones he could strike the preceding works.

>> No.4871417

>>4871248
>Why would an artist compromise their message with their choice of style?
Because art is about a multifaceted message, not about some clerical account. Try to imagine poetry without interpretation or nuance.

>>4871379
Dude what

>> No.4871427

>>4871417
Just talking. Not in the mood to get too long-winded, either.

>> No.4871430

>>4871427
that's too bad....

>> No.4871433

>>4871430
<3

>> No.4871435

>>4871430
You're seeming a little bit lost, lol

>> No.4871438

>>4871435
I am. I can't let my mind go for an instant, it's like leaving a child unattended in a mall

>> No.4871442

>>4871438
Embrace madness

>> No.4871446

>>4871442
Stroking a clock's future

>> No.4871449

>>4871446
Things go places

>> No.4871456

>>4871449
Genuine antipathy sewing seeds of empathy, love's not a game, it's a rip off

>> No.4871460

>>4871456
I'm a big lovely monster

>> No.4871702

>>4868512
If you keep pathetically holding to your new found "truth" like that, it'll dissolve in your hands.

>> No.4871894

Look here, this very thread, It is philosophy.

Is there any doubt one specific replier holds THE most exalted view on Nietzche?
Just look through the the thread for the answer, and for your answer..

>> No.4871909
File: 1.39 MB, 657x3777, 1398449351554.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4871909

>>4866275

>> No.4871912

>>4871456
>it's a rip off
People letting you down?
Hugs and pats if that's the case.
Love itself still works.

>> No.4871959

>>4871909
are there more of these?

>> No.4871988

>>4871073
>Nietzsche intentionally wasn't clear.
What the fuck? Nietzsche had one of the most clear, easily understandable writing styles ever.

>> No.4872013

>>4868411
The tearing down is a transitional stage between God and Overman. The overman is what he builds back up. He does add, he doesn't just take down. And everything he adds is based on perspectivism, which allows him to add to life without making any absolute claims, and the idea of the eternal recurrence which is basically the force that drives everything he proposes.

>> No.4872064

>Nietzsche is certainly life affirming, but then violence, rape, exploitation, and destruction are intrinsic to his view of life. Attempts to protect the weak, see that justice is done, and mitigate suffering are "anti-vital" projects that, being adverse to life itself, actually tend towards "a reign of nothingness." Thus, if we actually care about others and are not just interested in asserting power over them and using them for our own pleasure, then we can look forward to extinction.

"The delicacy -- even more, the tartufferie -- of domestic animals like ourselves shrinks from imagining clearly to what extent cruelty constituted the collective delight of older mankind, how much it was an ingredient of all their joys, or how naïvely they manifested their cruelty, how they considered disinterested malevolence (Spinoza's sympathia malevolens) a normal trait, something to which one's conscience could assent heartily.... To behold suffering gives pleasure, but to cause another to suffer affords an even greater pleasure [Leiden-sehn thut wohl, Leiden-machen noch wohler]." [pp.197-198, boldface added]

>A great part of the pleasure that we get, according to Nietzsche, from injustice to others is simply the pleasure of inflicting suffering. In this it is worth recollecting the feminist shibboleth that rape is not about sex, it is about power. Nietzsche would heartily concur. So much the better! And what is more, the value of rape is not just power, it is the chance to cruelly inflict suffering. The rapist who beats and mutilates, perhaps even kills, his victim, has done no evil, he is instead one of the heroes of true historic nobility. And people think that the droit de seigneur represents some "abuse" of power! No! It is the truly noble man as heroic rapist! Nietzsche would turn around Susan Brownmiller, who said that all men are rapists. No, it is just the problem that they are not. Nietzsche would regard most men as virtual castrati (domestic oxen, geldings) for not being rapists.
http://www.friesian.com/nietzsch.htm

How can you admire a man like this?

>> No.4872225

>>4871417
It's entirely possible to communicate a multifaceted message explicitly. Poetry isn't about the message. Poetry is about sounding good.

If Nietzsche's philosophy is about sounding good, then fine, but it isn't very good philosophy then.

>> No.4872262 [DELETED] 

le edhgy ;^)

>> No.4872279

>That feel when I want to take Intro to Philosophy as one of my two required humanities but know it could be a mistake
Knowing how pretentious philosophy majors can be, especially professors knowing they picked the worst possible major. I don't want to risk my precious GPA over a class that has nothing to do with my major.
Looked at the RMP ratings and comments for all the philosophy professors and it looks grim. Not taking the chance and I'll just study philosophy in my own terms. It's a CC anyway and the stuff they teach isn't Plato 101 at my school. Here is the description:
61 readings by leading twentieth-century writers, chosen to provide a solid introduction to traditional philosophical problems
Centers on 12 basic issues
Provides contrasting perspectives on the issues, demonstrating relevance of philosophical inquiry in contemporary times

>> No.4872370

>>4871988
eh wha? Nietzsche's writings are notoriously deconstructable and full of multifaceted meaning. There's a reason why there's nobody who claims to have a really good translation of Zarathustra.

>> No.4872392

where to start with nietzsche
in english though

>> No.4872936

>>4872370
Zarathustra is the only book I can see having trouble with because the ideas it talks about are unbelievably obscure. Everything else is very straightforward.

>> No.4873133

>>4871912
No, it's okay. ty tho <3

>>4872225
Some of his philosophy is ACTUAL poetry. The Gay Science has a ton of poetry in it.

His philosophy is about sounding good, music is his everything. That was his solution to nihilism.

>> No.4873685

>>4873133
lmao The Gay Science. Was he a homophobe?

>> No.4875774

Hey /phil/ anons

what do you call a guy who cherry picks what he would believe in ?

ie. x wont believe text, but would easily believe video or image of the text.

there must be some sort of philosophical -ism that ridicules people for believing what they see.

since you cant see all, but he believes what he sees.. that cant be right-right? thats like cherrypicking?

desperate.

>> No.4875794

>>4873685
Once upon a time, gay was a word that was used to denote a kind of happiness. These days it is used by anons like you to express your secret desire to be rammed up the butt by a man's penis.

>> No.4875815

Hey philosophy anons, how do you live with yourselves being so useless and attracting the absolute worst examples of tripfaggotry to this board and your threads?

>> No.4875833

>>4873133
>His philosophy is about sounding good,

no

>music is his everything. That was his solution to nihilism.

stop

>> No.4875851

>>4872064
The biggest problem with Nietzsche is that most people have no fucking clue what he was talking about