/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6244720]

Anyone here checked in with our friend the Overman lately?

It appears he has added more than 50 new aphorisms since we last saw him.

Will he be remembered as a great philosopher as he seems to think he will?

[Anonymous No.6244722]

go to bed overmang

[Anonymous No.6244780]

the fact that he thought this passing thought which 90% of humanity has was worth posting on his website makes him a dumb, irrelevant faggot

[Anonymous No.6244802]

>>6244720
What Nietzsche does well, is in his aphorism related to a particular subject, he never ceases to convey a penetrating psychological insight into a movement/people/ideology because he has a deep understanding of it before speaking. What this writer betrays in his two aphorisms alone is a superficial understanding of the PUA movement, in fact I would characterize PUA stuff to essentially address: if you don't have money, how do you find success with women?

Then the commentary devolves into fag calling and placing PUAs directly into an enemy camp, which is something Nietzsche will never do and what the Last Men always does. I argue that if he really understood the style of Nietzsche, he would seek to ironize (if that is a word) the intentions of a pickup and speak from above, which I doubt he is capable of.

[Anonymous No.6244816]

>>6244802
... and honestly, if Nietzsche is alive today with a comprehensive understanding of today's terminologies, would he really be so low and plebeian as to call someone a fag? How is that Overman-esque of the writer? He puts in no effort to capture N's style.

[Anonymous No.6245306]

>>6244720

Short answer is "No."

Long is, also, as it turns out, "No."

[Anonymous No.6245342]

>>6244720
>do you think borgia chased skirts?
But he did, it was on the show

[Anonymous No.6245394]

http://orgyofthewill.net/

[Anonymous No.6245481]

>>6245394

...it's all so terrible. Ugh...

[Anonymous No.6245578]

> The difference in physical strength between an average person and a champion cage fighter or world-class weight-lifter is NEGLIGIBLE compared to the difference in brainpower between the average person in the street (or on the internet, reading these words right this very moment) and me. The complete ownage of my brain over yours is real. Believe it.

Sounds like he believes himself quite smart.

[Anonymous No.6245591]

> The difference in physical strength between an average person and a champion cage fighter or world-class weight-lifter is NEGLIGIBLE compared to the difference in brainpower between the average person in the street (or on the internet, reading these words right this very moment) and me. The complete ownage of my brain over yours is real. Believe it.

Does anyone else hear the sound of a hat tipping, or is it just me?

[Anonymous No.6245625]

can this be a blog sharing/discussion thread?

where the fuck did the last psychiatrist go?

[Anonymous No.6245887]

Someone post more interesting/fedora tipping blogs. I need to put Dostojevskij down for a moment.

[Anonymous No.6245933]

>>6245578
>>6245591

this reminds me of that really old pic of some kid dressed in yellow with a quote that says like "i often leave people questioning everything they thought after they meet me" or some shit.

[Anonymous No.6245948]

whenever i try to read Nietzsche, I remember icycalm and become too embarrassed to continue. how can i be sure that i won't turn into something like him?

[Anonymous No.6245964]

>>6245948
>be me
>young impressible boy on the internet
>discover icycalm
>be enamored with his uberman philosophy and computer game review
>what a sensible mix!
>want to become Greek too
>want to behave like him
>shave my head
>commit wire fraud in the US to the extent of $165,000 to be exactly like him
>have to flee the country
>now hiding in Greece up the road from his hiding spot

wat do?

[Anonymous No.6245968]

let this be a lesson to everyone here: to write dull thoughts with a grand style is to put lipstick on a pig

[Anonymous No.6245971]

>>6245933
>>i often leave people questioning everything they thought after they meet me
>I thought people were decent
>I thought people washed themselves on a regular basis

[Anonymous No.6246044]

>21. The theory "of everything". To realize how absurd the notion of such a theory is consider this: such a theory would be able to predict what you would do before you did it. You would have the prediction before you acted. In which case you could do something else and prove it wrong. The theory of everything would end up being a theory that anyone could prove wrong at any time, lol. The purported smartest theory would actually be, as is only fitting, the stupidest.

Oh, he's absolutely clueless.

[Anonymous No.6246053]

>>6246044

in two thousand years, will historians of philosophy trace the technical term "lol" back to this piece, in an effort to uncover its primordial meaning and clarify the confused debates that surround it in their time?

[Anonymous No.6246059]

>>6246053

Nobody's gonna remember this guy tomorrow, let alone in two thousand years.

[Anonymous No.6246060]

>>6246053
>academics spending their time debating over text abbreviations

I don't want to live in the future.

[Anonymous No.6246062]

>>6246060
your already there

[Anonymous No.6246066]

>>6246059
Tell that to these guys.
http://www.pompeiana.org/resources/ancient/graffiti%20from%20pompeii.htm

[Anonymous No.6246082]

>>6245578
>>6245591
Translation: goblins stole my gainz.

[Anonymous No.6246270]

He has a lot of good insights, even though he is delusional

[Anonymous No.6246545]

>>6246044

Wow. It's like he's never considered what it means to provide a comprehensive account, as opposed to an account of infinitely many particulars.

[Anonymous No.6246550]

>>6246270

No he doesn't; this is some shit-tier, plebian, fedora-tipping beta spew.

This shit's embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.6246740]

Rate this aphorism:

> 597. And it's precisely because the brain is our most complex body part (most complex structure in the known universe, in fact), that brainpower differences between individuals are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than say muscle differences and the like. The difference in physical strength between an average person and a champion cage fighter or world-class weight-lifter is NEGLIGIBLE compared to the difference in brainpower between the average person in the street (or on the internet, reading these words right this very moment) and me. The complete ownage of my brain over yours is real. Believe it.

[Anonymous No.6246750]

>>6244720
he's an idiot that desparately fails in his biting nietzsche

[Anonymous No.6246803]

>>6245968

crazy irony in this post

[Anonymous No.6246832]

>>6245971

[Anonymous No.6246845]

>597. And it's precisely because the brain is our most complex body part (most complex structure in the known universe, in fact), that brainpower differences between individuals are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than say muscle differences and the like. The difference in physical strength between an average person and a champion cage fighter or world-class weight-lifter is NEGLIGIBLE compared to the difference in brainpower between the average person in the street (or on the internet, reading these words right this very moment) and me. The complete ownage of my brain over yours is real. Believe it.

I know "cuck" is a tired old meme but I can't imagine someone with this big of a chip on his shoulder about intellect over physicality fapping to anything but CUCK TRAINER SISSY MIX BBC BRAINWASH [BY OK2BGHEY]

[Anonymous No.6246850]

>>6246740
You're the third person posting this shit in this thread.
>pic related, it's you

[Anonymous No.6246857]

>>6246845
And you're the fourth one.

[Anonymous No.6246936]

557. Ever seen a mother hold her dead child in her arms and cry? That is the cry of a hyper-predator who sees its hopes for world domination dashed. And you were told she was being "selfless"...

Holy fuck, this guy is the biggest anime-watching edgelord on earth.

[Anonymous No.6247068]

>>6246936

This guy's a double virgin isn't he?

[Anonymous No.6247074]

>>6246936
Wow, I literally hope he dies.

[Anonymous No.6247171]

>446. You say you want to understand, but do you understand what to understand means?

>mind = blown

[Anonymous No.6247404]

>>6247171

This shit reminds me of this one book that I think you can find on scribd by some dipshit, Daniel Ferrer, called "Philosophical Aphorisms, Critical Encounters with Heidegger and Nietzsche"; it's all full of this guy's own shitty aphorisms based on his pleb understanding of Nietzsche's style, but the contents of which end up being lame rants about MTV.

What happens to these people later on in life? Like, at what do they come to realize that their efforts were comical instead of deep?

For fucks' sake, what "depths" are contained in these "aphorisms"? They're just straightforward twitter-length rants!

[Anonymous No.6247475]

>>6247171


damn...

[Anonymous No.6249530]

bump

[Anonymous No.6249533]

>>6245887
http://militantcomic.blogspot.co.nz

[Anonymous No.6249808]

ITT: subhuman fagots

[Anonymous No.6249828]

>>6247404
>google the book
>he uploaded it on archive and gutenberg
>page 2 has the preformatted citation just in case you want to cite him
>started in fucking 1974 and not three weeks ago
>published 2004
>this man spent 30 years on a book and didn't grow one bit
>>God created man to suffer as
mortals condemned to time and their own death. Hence the main goal of mankind - to overcome his master and leap to freedom. God lives on and we suffer, thus the end of God is the end and completion of suffering. Next step God must
suffer.
>>Nietzsche is peachy. Perhaps over the top or
just too easy, but you have said it and now it
is with you.
>>The Greeks and Platonism are the first beginning.
>literally "start with the greeks"
>gets better towards the end
>>Is Marx’s version of socialism and communism just another form of Platonism for the people – only without religion? What are th
e ideals of socialism and communism? Is
this a form of incomplete nihilism? Answer: yes!
>>Nietzsche said Zarathustra is no longer concerned with happiness, but with his work. Crabs, fish, -- what is this? How can Zarathustra go fishing on the tops of mountains? Zarathustra is like a ripen grape. In vino vertas
>motherfucking [sic]

[Anonymous No.6249861]

it's sort of sad to the degree that he apes Nietzsche
like that part with the PUAs where he mention Borgia, who Nietzsche spoke of
like why not come up with your own examples

and this happens all of the time
also
>595. Kulisz is incensed with child abuse. Plank with "slaughter that goes on for generations". Baudrillard with jogging, exercising, and any healthy activity whatsoever. Every little retard has his own stupid little pet peeve. How can you take them seriously as men and leaders of the future when you see them get so massively hung up on such trivial stuff?
>PUA: 68 matches
lmao

[Anonymous No.6249873]

>>6246845
I laughed so hard at this that an elderly couple at the table next to me if I was OK. Completely serious.

[Anonymous No.6249880]

>>6249873
Hipster in starbucks detected. Posting embarassing pictures so people will see on your laptop screen.

[Anonymous No.6249882]

>>6246044

I know nothing of this man. Does he ever rise beyond Freshman dorm bong-tier pseudo-philosophizing?

[Anonymous No.6249883]

[Anonymous No.6249889]

[Anonymous No.6249891]

>>6245625
I don't know.
I miss them too. In all of their neo-Schopenhauerian glory.

[Anonymous No.6249892]

[Anonymous No.6249899]

>82. To make fun of stupid people is part of what it means to be intelligent.

Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.6249910]

>>6249533
what the hell is going on in these comics, this is hilarious

what's this "young female news anchors" comic about? Porn stars? What?

[Anonymous No.6249987]

>>6249899

He's more meta than he realized?

[Anonymous No.6250375]

>>6249828

Right? The book's fucking TERRIBLE.

>5 - You say, "Everything is basically O.K.". With this statement I see you, a puffed up decadent, forever caught without history - a non-political animal. Do you not see this lost animal? For him, the universal never moves the particular. The only thing left is a little atom fellow, he who speaks from his little niche - speaks only of his little niche. Never forget how and why our system stinks. Philosopher as nose!

>does he think that's supposed to be deep, or...

[Anonymous No.6250525]

LOL if you think he's not funny. Once again, lit hates a tryer.

[Anonymous No.6250535]

>>6250525
"Orgy of the Will" is a 10/10 title I have to say

[Anonymous No.6250552]

>>6250535

No, that would be "Gangrape of the Will"

[Anonymous No.6250571]

>>6246545
What do you mean by a comprehensive account? I though that comprehensive meant taking into account a wide range of particulars. Do you mean to say a generalization that includes everything, like an omnipresent God? I think he's right about this. A theory that is too general is not even expressible through words or pictures, it would be a mystical insight into Being. A theory that includes too many particulars isn't even a theory anymore, it's just the world and itself in its particulars. The whole point of a theory is that it abstracts from particulars to form a neat generalization that can be easily understood. A theory like the biblical mythos which tell us the origin of humanity and its end is not a theory of everything or even close, even though it seems epic in scale. A mathematical theory that accounted for all movement in the universe is not a theory of everything or even close.

A theory of everything is mysticism. Science works by breaking up the things into easily manageable parts. It has no concept of "everything".

[Anonymous No.6250574]

>>6244720
Seems like you picked up my torch of making threads about him.

Cool.

[Anonymous No.6250590]

>>6250571
>A mathematical theory that accounted for all movement in the universe is not a theory of everything or even close.
the mythical "theory of everything" is a really informal term anyway

[Anonymous No.6250611]

>>6250590
I always thought the "theory of everything" would connect quantum formulas with macro formulas, e.g., a set of unified formulas you can use to predict the behavior of planets and of electrons

[Anonymous No.6250619]

>>6250611
I thought it was supposed to be something which explained the properties of everything, like some fundamental particle which you could use to simulate a universe if you had a computer bigger than a universe

[Anonymous No.6250749]

>>6250571

The comprehensive does not need to deal with a lot of particulars; there may be the possibility that it need not deal with any. Comprehensive accounts that I have in mind would be those offered by the Pre-Socratics (Thales' line about how "all is water" I think gets at it pretty well), the biblical mythos, Plato, Aristotle, and especially Nietzsche.

What I was contesting in his statement was the view that a theory of everything need only be like a scientific theory (theoria need not be modern scientific theory; theoria can just as well be a comprehensive, as opposed to systematic, account; a little more on this in a second), and further, the view that the attempt to develop such is outright ridiculous.

Tl;dr: he dismisses a shit notion of "theory of everything" that ignores the possibility of the comprehensive account.

Now, the example I'd like to discuss for a second here, RE: comprehensive accounts, is Nietzsche. Nietzsche, a lot of people forget, has both a political teaching (his psychology is in large part this) and a cosmological teaching (eternal return and will to power, the othe rpart of his psychology). The attempt to unify both realms, the human-subjective and the inhuman-objective, is what makes the account "comprehensive". This is not to say that one can't contest anything in the account, but this is to point to the fact that this guy's model (Nietzsche) was himself an ancient in his approach to the concern of knowledge or wisdom. What's more, the better comprehensive accounts can get away with not bringing in particulars because they can get away with a simpler kind of truth, such as "all is becoming", which, when one reflects upon it, does in fact have something to say about both cosmology and the political realm.

[Anonymous No.6250769]

>>6250749
Yeah, I see what you are saying.
The thing that you are talking about would be phrased in Aristotelian terms as a theory of "ultimate causes", or something like that.
It's what postmodernists call a "grand narrative".

[Anonymous No.6250780]

>>6250769

Yeah, pretty much.

There's a good argument to be made in both Plato and Nietzsche that comprehensive accounts can become noble lies.

[Anonymous No.6250802]

The only thing worse than Nietzsche fanboys are Nietzsche fanboys who don't understand his philosophy.

Literally the LAST thing the Ubermensch would do is sit around pompously mocking the rest of humanity for not being as "intelligent" as himself.

[Anonymous No.6250816]

>>6250802
subhuman detected

[Corn Father !!uz0+/KObrCh No.6251202]

>>6245625
the websites still up, just no new based posts. There have been periods new content has been sparse, I would suspect this is merely a hiatus

[Anonymous No.6251259]

>554. We all know what will happen if we give a little shake to a glass half-filled with water or some other liquid: a little "wave" will form on one side and travel to the other, and the disturbance will gradually die down as the kinetic energy from our shake is dissipated by means of this disturbance, and radiated to the walls of the glass and the surrounding air. The end result, after a sufficient length of time, will be a flat and still water surface, until we decide to give the glass another shake at some later time. Certainly none of us would expect that the wave and the resulting disturbance could "recur" on their own, without any external input, and would rightly regard such an event as "magic" (which is to say as impossible), and anyone who predicted and expected it as a "retard". But what seems like common sense on a local scale, becomes NONSENSE when we try to apply it at the scale of the universe, since at that scale there exists neither an "outside" from which energy can be initially transferred, nor to which it can be later dissipated. Any "disturbance" at that level then, will have to be, not only necessarily inherent in the system (ruling out any "external", "transcendental" influence), but also, and for the same reason, necessarily eternally recurring.
I have just proved both the existence of the eternal recurrence and the non-existence of "transcendental" beings and causes, and whoever denies my proof either doesn't understand elementary physics, or what the word "universe" means, or both. End of story.
Did The Overman just prove the eternal recurrence?

[Anonymous No.6251376]

>>6251259
(pardon me if i misunderstand)

"energy can't enter or exit the universe, by definition, so any disturbance must have been generated within, and must reverberate within."

our overman equates this notion to proof of eternal recurrence?

am i missing something?

[Anonymous No.6251478]

>>6244720
Autism has reached new heights.