/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7018514]

>left-wing nietzschean

[Anonymous No.7018523]

>>7018514
How would that even work?

[Anonymous No.7018541]

>>7018523
it doesnt

[Anonymous No.7018554]

>>7018523
Better than right wing Nietzschean but Nietzsche's philosophy goes beyond left/right orientation... Same with Foucault. Both defy explicit categorization

[Anonymous No.7018558]

>>7018554
right wing = hierarchy, which is one of the things nietzsche preached
explain how can one be nietzschean and left wing.

[Anonymous No.7018571]

>>7018558
Right-left wing are purely modernist political spectrums. As John Milbank pointed out, even classical right-wing was modernist. France did not have a monarchy that was so centralized until Louis XIV, and the right-wing of France was not about restoring a decentralized system.

Nietzsche is not a modernist, he supported multi-cultural empires, not nationalism.

[Anonymous No.7018585]

>>7018571
it doesn't have to do with modernism, and the origins of the left/right system are irrelevant too.

right = hierarchy is good/needed/unavoidable
left = hierarchy is bad

from wiki:
Left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.[1][2][3][4] They typically involve concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.[3]

>multicultural empires
back in the day this was called imperialism

[Anonymous No.7018604]

>>7018585

What if you believe that hierarchy is only good when justified?

[Anonymous No.7018617]

>>7018604
what does that mean exactly? of course there are many cases today of hierarchy that shouldnt exist or is dominated by the wrong people, according to nietzsche this is because of the slave morality.

[Anonymous No.7018619]

>>7018585
Those are both too abstracted to be meaningful, you could categorize Charles Fourier as right-wing by that.

[Anonymous No.7018622]

>>7018585
>back in the day this was called imperialism
An Nietzsche is an imperialist, just an anti-nationalist one.

[Anonymous No.7018628]

>>7018619
yeah, the left-right is not the best dichotomy there is, but there's no other way to describe it.

>>7018622
it's very silly to say he was anti-nationalist, afaik he hasn't really expressed his position, he only disliked the nationalists that existed in that time in his country.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.7018636]

>>7018514
>>7018523
>>7018541
You don't even know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.7018645]

>>7018617

It means to only have hierarchy when it benefits the survival of mankind. For instance, we know why there's an hierarchy when it comes to the selection of an astronaut, it needs to exist in order to select capable people for a hostile environment like space.

When I look at bankers though, I don't see any reason why they should be on the top of the food chain. They're for the most part dumbfucks who spend their money on drugs and pink cars, something that doesn't benefit mankind at all. In economics, we can do away with a hierarchy

[Anonymous No.7018658]

>>7018628
>yeah, the left-right is not the best dichotomy there is, but there's no other way to describe it.
Sure there is, you just stop trying to shoehorn every perspective into a fucking dichotomy

>it's very silly to say he was anti-nationalist, afaik he hasn't really expressed his position, he only disliked the nationalists that existed in that time in his country.

He hated populist, herd ideologies across the board.

[Anonymous No.7018665]

I'm inclined to treat every atheist as left-wing. Remember "if there is no God, everything is permitted"? By denying God one also denies any objective set of rules, which means everyone essentialy is equal. Therefore, any hierarchy is a social construct.

[Anonymous No.7018671]

>>7018665
>Remember "if there is no God, everything is permitted"?

Yes, it's probably the stupidest statement ever made

[Anonymous No.7018686]

>>7018671
If you do not believe in God, there really is no basis from which you can argue against Stirner. Marx tried but it was mainly just picking in Stirner for Stirner mocking communism.

[Anonymous No.7018695]

>>7018665
So you're ignoring Atheist right-wingers like Ayn Rand and such?

>By denying God one also denies any objective set of rules
Where did you get this idea? Christian radio?

[Anonymous No.7018700]

>>7018686
> Marx tried

No, he just dismissed the book as useless speculation that doesn't material world in the slightest. Most of Marx's argument is that declaring yourself free doesn't automatically makes you so.

[Anonymous No.7018714]

>>7018695
The opposite also holds true, any philosopher insisting on exististence of "natural order" is a crypto-judeau-christian. Rand, being a self-proclaimed "objectivist", is an extreme right protestant.

[Anonymous No.7018731]

>>7018714

I've seldom seen so much cognitive dissonance in one post. According to you, if you believe in any order, you're a theist, regardless of whether you actually are a theist.

Are all christfags as dumb as you?

[Anonymous No.7018732]

>>7018558

There's no hierarchy among hermits.

[Anonymous No.7018739]

>>7018645
how many bankers do you know?

[Anonymous No.7018782]

>>7018665
Right-winged atheist here
>"if there is no God, everything is permitted"?
The bible tells us that God gave us free-will and the ability to commit evil acts so even under his rule everything is permitted.
>By denying God one also denies any objective set of rules, which means everyone essentialy is equal
I don't know how you reached that conclusion, what does objectivity and subjectivity have to do with equality? If anything a theist is more likely to view every human life as sacred and made equivalent through the concept of a soul, whereas an atheist is more likely to look at genetics and behavior to determine a person's worth.
>Therefore, any hierarchy is a social construct.
Any biologist, atheist or not, would be able to elaborate extensively on the rampant prevalence and usefulness of hierarchies in nature

[Anonymous No.7018808]

>>7018645
Though it's probably not a very popular opinion around here, bankers and business leaders at the top of their industries are some of the most intelligent, cunning and ruthless people on the planet. The amount of competition you have to wade through to even get close to a position like being the CEO of an investment bank means that you have to effectively be a fucking genius.

[Anonymous No.7018825]

>>7018782
>God gave us free-will

So that he can judge us and determine our worth.

>what does objectivity and subjectivity have to do with equality

How about a math example? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order
A set have to be ordered before you can compare its elements. No order means every element is incomparable with each other. Hence, everything is "equal".

>usefulness of hierarchies in nature

Usefulness isn't a philosophical concept. Also, you seem to be infamiliar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

[Anonymous No.7018835]

>>7018558
>right wing = hierarchy, which is one of the things nietzsche preached

Except he didn't. Nietzsche was apolitical and preached for individualism. Just because he idolized great men doesn't mean he had some moral commitment to an aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.7018838]

>>7018665
>I'm inclined to treat every atheist as left-wing.

Most libertarians are atheist, especially the more extreme ones. A decent slice of fascists are atheist, too.

[Anonymous No.7018848]

>>7018838
Most libertarians don't have any idea what they're doing. What else would you expect from memeideology?

[Anonymous No.7018852]

>>7018838
>Most libertarians are atheist
They are not. They worship invisible hand of the market.

[Anonymous No.7018860]

>>7018852
save me free market

[Anonymous No.7018862]

>>7018852
Hail the giant flying invisible hand!

[Anonymous No.7018864]

nietzsche hated socialists and herd mentality and hegel

but the left love a tormentor so they keep trying to do 'radical interpretations' to sanitise him

[Anonymous No.7018867]

>>7018848

Yeah, we get it, you dislike libertarians. I'm not fond of them either, but they're just the most prominent example of a right wing community that's largely irreligious.

>>7018852

This makes me wonder. Have ideologies like marxism, neo nazism, social justice, environmentalism, conservatism and libertarianism taken the place of religion in modern secular life? It seems like most peasants in the past weren't particularly political.

[Anonymous No.7018870]

>>7018665
we don't need god for hierarchy. humans are above ants and high iq people are above low iq people. where's god in this?

[Anonymous No.7018871]

>>7018870
>humans are above ants

More powerful, but I doubt we'll outlast them.

[Anonymous No.7018875]

Like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny-hn5Mf-Q4

[Anonymous No.7018876]

Right versus Left is the dichotomy of prize idiots.

[Anonymous No.7018878]

>>7018867
>This makes me wonder. Have ideologies like marxism, neo nazism, social justice, environmentalism, conservatism and libertarianism taken the place of religion in modern secular life?
HURR DURR Of course, idiot, a lot more shit, including scientificism and capitalism and tv shows as well

Read Nietzsche for fucks sake

[Anonymous No.7018880]

n obv cant be fitted within liberal frameworks but doesnt mean that people surely arent trying, and failing miserably precisely due to the very inegalitarianist dogma of freddy's work. even within the most extreme spectrum of secularism there will be the remnants of judeo-christian slave mentality, diguised now as secular humanism. and precisely because people have been conditioned to harbor these inclinations, throughout generations and starting from the day they were born, there will be inherent inequality between the ubermensch and cattle. the majority will simply not get it, and that works, because it is from this very inequality that uber gets his will, power, and dominance.

[Anonymous No.7018883]

>>7018558
It comes down to what one sees as being a legitimate source of authority and what hierarchical system one tends towards. To assume that comes down to what the modern "right" calls "culture" and "power" is really uninspired and reeks of slave morality. Nietzsche has never been about a going back to anything.

>>7018665
This is something of what Nietzsche was afraid of. Not the doing whatever you want but the lack of perspective to judge people on so that they have goals to strive for. He wanted great men to come along to set forth new morality so that created a striving and creation like never before.

It seems just as likely that Nietzsche's man could be someone who writes a book as someone who establishes some new political system or even establishes a new art form to communicate with. There necessary wiggle room for the perspective and will of the Nietzschean. It is master morality not I'm on Nietzsche's dick morality.

But some extent you are right. Being a Nietzschean implies that you believe in some kind of hiearchy, but that could be a simple as believing you want to write a book that changes that world and sets forth new ideas. This seems inevitably at odds with the kind of right winger who wishes to keep things the same.

[Anonymous No.7018885]

>Reads books
>isn't a liberal or inclined to the left

[Anonymous No.7018890]

>>7018885
cuckolding is the intellectual's fetish after all

[Anonymous No.7018897]

>>7018514
>>7018523
>>7018541
>has never heard of Pragmatism

[Anonymous No.7018899]

>>7018890
>pic
>filename
I don't know why I keep getting surprised

[Anonymous No.7019085]

>>7018871
They might be adaptable, but they surely aren't as adaptable as humans.
I'd say only cockroaches and some marine animals will outlive us.

[Anonymous No.7019301]

>>7018645
Non-STEM major pls

[Anonymous No.7019324]

>>7018585
>back in the day this was called imperialism

Yes, and modern imperialism sucks, while classical imperialism is awesome.

[Anonymous No.7019332]

>>7018731
No he's right. Modern atheism has it's roots in Protestantism. Modern science was invented by Christians under the assumption that a loving god would create a universe with simple rules that man can understand.

[Anonymous No.7019351]

>>7018523
democratic equality for all based on the ultimate virtue of work. And an effeminate mind stupid enough to believe it somehow relates to a sentence about love and dancing Nietzsche once said while high on opium ignoring how it contradicts everything else.

Forgive my trip acknowledgement but case in point >>7018636

[Anonymous No.7019358]

>Socially liberal, fiscally conservative

fucking disgusting

[Anonymous No.7019371]

>>7019324
They're essentially the same, and Tacitus was still right.

[Anonymous No.7019373]

>>7018514
>female nietzschean

[Anonymous No.7019382]

>>7018880
dis :3

[Anonymous No.7019387]

>>7019332
>Modern atheism has it's roots in Protestantism.

Right, because there are no Catholics, Muslims or Jews that stopped being religious, ever.

>Modern science was invented by Christians under the assumption that a loving god would create a universe with simple rules that man can understand.

This is complete nonsense. Modern science came about by the collective effort of a whole range of people, including pagan Greeks and Romans, Christians, Muslims and Jews, agnostics, atheists, etc. etc. Their goal was to gain more knowledge about the world they lived in, and that was it. Whatever meaning they personally subscribed to this is largely irrelevant. We might as well say that math is a pagan invention to satisfy Zeus. It's complete nonsense

[Anonymous No.7019388]

>>7019358
literally who are you quoting

[Anonymous No.7019406]

>>7019388
>he can't into greenarrowing
newbubs exit now

[Anonymous No.7019436]

>>7019387
That's not what I'm saying at all. I am a catholic who stopped being religious.


I'm saying the modern atheist movement can be traced back to Protestant thinking. Anybody can become an atheist, but they are going to be ultimately following ideas invented by Protestants to criticize the catholic church.

I said modern science, and yes they got their ideas from Muslims and pagans. But if you think the beliefs of the researcher won't influence how they interpret the data, you are sorely mistaken.

The Greeks did most of their work on the assumption that they would find perfection if they zoomed out far enough. This caused them to make assumptions such as the universe being a collection of perfect spheres with the earth in the center.
The Christians eventually learned some of this was wrong, but they continued to look for simple equations that govern existence. Assuming that god would have created the universe with a simple consistent set of rules.

[Anonymous No.7019441]

>left wing anything

[Anonymous No.7019447]

>>7018700
>useless speculation that doesn't material world in the slightest
Kind of like Communism?

[Anonymous No.7019449]

>>7018714
>>7019332
>>7019436
Modern everything is just the logical outcome of Ockhamist voluntarism

[Anonymous No.7019450]

>>7019436
>Anybody can become an atheist, but they are going to be ultimately following ideas invented by Protestants to criticize the catholic church.

Atheism has been around as long as theism has. In light of that, this sentence means absolutely nothing whatsoever. You're simply conflating two corresponding eras: the eras when heretics within Christianity couldn't be eradicated completely and the era when people who disagreed with Christianity itself couldn't be eradicated completely. The two are not one and the same thing

>But if you think the beliefs of the researcher won't influence how they interpret the data, you are sorely mistaken.

And one of the main goals of science is to minimize this as much as possible, so that would make them pretty rubbish researchers

[Anonymous No.7019451]

>2015
>believing in politics

We should all be doing our part to abolish politics and destroy politicians

[Anonymous No.7019452]

>>7019387
Most lapsed Catholics, Muslims and Jews don't join New Atheism, though. Most New Atheists were raised in Protestant sects.

[Anonymous No.7019458]

>>7019452

Where are the actual numbers that demonstrate this?

[Anonymous No.7019471]

>>7019358
the single biggest pleb opinion in the world

[Anonymous No.7019503]

>>7018665

> if there is no God there is no deontological moral philosophy

[Anonymous No.7019526]

>>7019503
there may be no God, but there is the Good.

[Anonymous No.7019532]

>>7018514
>le pernicious Jew meme

[Anonymous No.7020346]

>>7018825
>So that he can judge us and determine our worth.
Not really relevant, we're not talking about how we're viewed by God or what judgement he gives as a consequence of our actions, we're talking about what he permits. Regardless of whether or not God is real, while I'm still on earth I can do whatever I want (even murder, rape, torture, etc) with 0 divine intervention. Also, an omniscient being wouldn't need to judge us or determine our worth in the first place, but like I said, that's not relevant to this conversation
>A set have to be ordered before you can compare its elements. No order means every element is incomparable with each other. Hence, everything is "equal".
The absence of a divine order will only create an absence of divine comparability among elements. There doesn't need to be order from God for there to be order on earth. Women are still weaker than men, Adults are still more logical than children, and, arguably, some races are still smarter than others. Whether or not God is real changes none of this, as these are orders of secular magnitude alone.
>Usefulness isn't a philosophical concept
Last I checked left-wing-right-wing was a spectrum of economics, not philosophy. The biggest disagreement between the two sides is over what works and what doesn't, or, what is useful, and surprise surprise, the left doesn't work

[Anonymous No.7020350]

>>7018835
Read Twilight of the Idols. He glorifies the caste system. Read his middle period essays on Greece. He says all great nations are built on slavery.

[Anonymous No.7020352]

>>7018864
He didn't hate Hegel. I don't think he was overly familiar with him, but he respected the idea of historical consciousness, especially because it negated free will.

[Anonymous No.7020359]

>>7019406
>>7019358
but you literally are not addressing anyone itt. just shitting out your shitty opinion to get attenshun

[Anonymous No.7020361]

>>7018514
Would this guy qualify as a left-wing Nietzschean?

[Anonymous No.7020370]

All the contemporary degeneracy was basically predicted by the Neech. He essentially said there'd be a period that could perhaps last centuries where all kinds of decadence and replica Gods would be attempted, but eventually humanity might overcome and develop into something higher than humans. I think we're a looooong way from that, but I do believe it's possible and the fact that everything is so quickly memed and discarded only contributes to the process which will lead to people realizing that we're only going to keep playing the same old ideological games unless we overcome basic self-delusions.