/Nietzsche/ General

[Anonymous No.6121414]

/Nietzsche/ General

>Nietzsche applauds Caesar, Napoleon, Goethe, Dostoevski, Thucydides and the Sophists as healthier and stronger types.
Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

Who else does Nietzsche praise highly as a healthier and stronger type? Does Dostoevsky really belong on this list?

[Anonymous No.6121420]

Mr. Neat Z seemed to think he did. He clearly respective him as he said in his works.
I think he was like kierkegaard in the sense that he came to existential conclusions in an independent sort of way. Although Nietzsche never read kierkegaard according to cannon.

[Anonymous No.6121422]

So what's the difference between Nietzsche & stirner

[Anonymous No.6121429]

found this a couple of days ago and thought it was interesting

[Anonymous No.6121439]

Reminder Yeshua the Christ was an Ubermensch :^)

[Anonymous No.6121449]

>>6121429
I love nietzsche

[Anonymous No.6121450]

>>6121429
>and thought it was interesting
It wasn't

[Anonymous No.6121461]

>>6121450
wow thanks for ruining my night

[Anonymous No.6121486]

>>6121414
>Dostoevsky

Nietzsche praise him as a good psychologist(in twilight of idols), but he say that his books represent decadent not "healthy and stronger types"

[Anonymous No.6121598]

>>6121414
I just read Genealogy of Morals. I ordered The Gay Science what should I read after that?

[Anonymous No.6121602]

>>6121598
The Antichrist

[Anonymous No.6121604]

should I star with the birth of tragedy or human, all too human

[Anonymous No.6121607]

>>6121598
Beyond Good and Evil. Then maybe Zarathustra. Maybe.

[Anonymous No.6121610]

>>6121604
gay science

[Anonymous No.6121625]

>>6121486

but that's the same as every one of his appraisals: you'll find a criticism of the same person somewhere else in his work. and that's a good thing. he expected the same treatment himself (see beginning of ecce homo)

[Anonymous No.6121629]

"Nietzsche is dead"

- God

[Anonymous No.6121644]

>>6121629
lol ebin

[Anonymous No.6121679]

>>6121414
>Sophists
anyone know any specific examples of sophists nietzsche was into

[Anonymous No.6121696]

>>6121629
nice ;)

[Anonymous No.6121795]

>>6121414
>Dostoevski
Probably a pisstake, didn't they have beef?

[Anonymous No.6121806]

For all the times you fuckers went "Slave Morality General" on our threads. I hereby dub this thread Moral Aestheticism General.

Captcha:ealsomo politics

[Anonymous No.6121838]

>>6121414
Heraclitus, perhaps not as a "healthier and stronger type," but as a genuine philosopher.

[Anonymous No.6122603]

I am kind of a pleb, but wow is Nietzsche easy to read compared to pretty much everyone else

are their any other famous philosophers who actually have a real and proper skill in writing?

[Anonymous No.6122604]

>>6121806
Yeah, whatever. Bitch.

[Anonymous No.6122609]

>>6122603
Montaigne's essays, I also found Plato pretty easy to read, though that might've been just a good translator.

[Anonymous No.6123411]

>>6122603
Easiness to read is not the same as a real and proper skill in writing. Many philosophers develop their own style of writing that can be very poetic and expresses the feeling of the philosophical world that they talk about. In fact, the style of writing can't be completely separated from the content. I think this is especially clear with Heidegger.
And once you get into some philosopher's weird and difficult style it becomes very easy to read, you see how it is a much more powerful expression of what the writings want to say, and how writing it in a more common style wouldn't even be talking about the same thing at all.

[Anonymous No.6123421]

>>6123411
And to add: Nietzsche's readable style is actually often the reason for so many misinterpretations. People rely to much on his use of common expressions, and think that what he talks about is relatively straightforward, while this readable style hides a lot of depth. His criticism of existing grammar and language, that he himself uses, should be taken very seriously.

[Anonymous No.6123447]

>>6121644
>>6121696

>meme-speak

[Anonymous No.6123451]

>>6121422
Nietzche was aesthetical, Stirner nihilist.

[Anonymous No.6123453]

>>6121629

[Anonymous No.6123484]

>>6121422
Nietzsche abolishes the ego, the I, the subject via tracing it back (genealogy) to the notion of the soul.

[Anonymous No.6123615]

>>6122604
Only there's nothing wrong with having Slave Morality, while there's everything wrong with being a moral aesthete, it's fundamentally inhuman.

[Anonymous No.6123624]

>>6123615

>there's nothing wrong with having Slave Morality

[Anonymous No.6123630]

>>6121450
no, according to my sources it actually is interesting

[Anonymous No.6123640]

>>6121679
I'm not sure about this, but I don't think any sophist texts exist

[Anonymous No.6123665]

Want to start reading Nietzsche,which of his works should i begin with?

[Anonymous No.6123667]

>>6123624
Every single sustained human achievement we owe to slave morality.

[Anonymous No.6123668]

>>6123640
Plato :^)

[Anonymous No.6123670]

>>6123640

There is one by Antiphon, "On truth", though it is fragmentary.

[Anonymous No.6123673]

>>6123615
Ah, the great humanistic exclusion of the "inhuman".

[Anonymous No.6123682]

>>6121679
I think Nietzsche's relation to Sophists is ambivalent. After all, some of them were within what he calls "slave morality" or the nihilism of "last men". Their distinction between nomos and phusis took various forms, sometimes opposing to each other.

[Anonymous No.6123701]

>>6123667
Name some.

[Anonymous No.6123715]

>>6121439
That's just wrong, Nietzsche himself said he wasn't on a couple occasions. He was, however, a man N' did respect even though he despised his creation.

[Anonymous No.6123723]

>>6123715
>he despised his creation
You mean St. Paul's creation?

[Anonymous No.6124009]

>>6121422
Nietzsche's god is the Human race. Stirner's god is the individual.

[Anonymous No.6124067]

>tfw people pick apart everything philosophers say without first realising opinions can change or that not all their words are meant to be taken as fact or as a direct representation on their thoughts on the subject matter

[Anonymous No.6124071]

>>6124009
>Stirner's god is the individual.
I can guess that your basic conception of the difference between nietzsche and stirner isn't completely retarded, but the way you phrased this just makes it 100% bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6124381]

>>6123665
Start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.6124476]

So who was his arch-nemesis? The last Man, or the degenerate nihilist?

[Anonymous No.6124484]

>>6124476
spirit of gravity

[Anonymous No.6124490]

>>6121422
Later one was devastated by critique made by Marx.

[Anonymous No.6124559]

>>6124476
Many different things that can be somewhat inadequately connected under this or that label (slave morality, nihilism, will to truth, life-denial, ressentiment, morals as such), but ultimately he didn't have (or tried to not have) an opponent because he disliked oppositions.
In the most abstract terms negativity, reactivity, and opposition are his nemeses, which at least partially goes against putting too much emphasis on a nemesis in the first place. (He speaks of both respecting one's enemy and having a respectable enemy, but this enemy shouldn't be something that defines one's own position.)

[Anonymous No.6124688]

Nietzche was in favor of autocracy, aristocracy, the caste system, and the wholesale slaughter of much of the human population. While his ideas on religion's "slave morality" are pretty provocative and he makes some valid points, he represents the world in such dualistic terms that its hard not to cackle here at there as he presents arguments for "strong vs. weak" and brute force with an air of bombastic pseudo-sophistication. He was an aesthetician of violence and exploitation, he was pro-slavery and subjugation, and believed that all of humanity and animals are locked in an eternal struggle in which mercy and compassion had no place. He was right in that people are losing the concept of gods in the face of technology and science, but wrong in his belief that the strong have a right to dominate the weak and especially, dangerously wrong when he said that instincts are the most powerful form of intelligence. Instincts are very primitive and relying on snap judgments, emotions, and "intuition" makes people go horribly wrong most of the time. And while he would have disagreed with the Nazis on anti-semitism and racism, his entire philosophy gave birth to MANY of the ideologies of the Nazis. Namely, Nietzche was a collectivist, he believed in the magnificence and essentially of war, he believed in might and deception, he believed in the ridding of guilt and conscience when suppressing the weak as he believed their subjugation was a biological, Darwinian inevitability, he believed that trade and economic liberalism were damaging, he was anti-intellectual, believed in strong government, the ridding of conscience and replacement of it with the opposite values to form a new "non-slave" conscience, and he believed in state regulation of marriage and sex, and eugenics. The Nazis believed all of that and made the Hitler Youth read some of his work. Not much room to counter argue for the Nietzche apologists or circle jerkers, you're all just angsty fags.

[Anonymous No.6124705]

>>6124688
tl;dr

[Anonymous No.6124766]

>>6124688
Are you this guy?
http://youtu.be/cSEbkmzapPE

>>6124705
Nietzsche is evil because he says dirty things and we're all just edgy fags.

[Anonymous No.6124904]

>>6124766
Damn, Nietzsche is a really nice super villian...

[Anonymous No.6125041]

>>6121486

[Anonymous No.6125073]

>>6124766

>that video
>mfw people actually take horseshit like this totally serious

[Anonymous No.6125080]

>>6125041
>Nietzsche on SJW3.jpg
Man, you really have some resentment issues if you project such a petty, limited, small "enemy" (doesn't even deserve that name) into such a general passage.

[Anonymous No.6125179]

>>6125080
>resentment

That word is not like your sjw words, you can't just shout it at anything and hope to scare ppl with it.

You should stick to your >big moral words

[Anonymous No.6125210]

>>6124688

>Philosopher
>Can into politik

Pick one, ばか。

[Anonymous No.6125221]

>>6123715

This. Nietzsche thought that Jesus wasn't an iconic ubermensch, however was close as in Jesus' "will to create" overrode his "will to survive".

[Anonymous No.6125670]

>>6125073
It's actually a pretty solid video, Nietzsche said all of that and should be held accountable, and he has clearly been called out.

[Anonymous No.6125782]

>>6125670
Nah, he didn't. He heavily criticized Darwinism and the idea of progress. His idea of aristocracy had nothing to do with the rich and poor. I didn't bother watching after that. (Not that anon btw.)

[Anonymous No.6125823]

>>6124688
>and the wholesale slaughter of much of the human population
Uh, no.

[Anonymous No.6126250]

>>6124688
Wow, you really woke me up from my Nietzsche infatuation. Thank you,

[Anonymous No.6127123]

>>6124766
>>6124688
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2C90l7YlT8

[Anonymous No.6127711]

>>6124766
It could be cool if Nietzsche`s part could be cut off form rest of vid.