/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7047502]

Why don't you consider Nietzsche the greatest philosopher to have ever lived?

[Anonymous No.7047509]

because Hegel successfully refuted him before he was even born

[Anonymous No.7047572]

>>7047509
what do you mean by that?

[Anonymous No.7047594]

>>7047572
he doesn't know what he means

[Anonymous No.7047635]

I've heard he's a fedora, and judging by his fanbase, ah reckon that'd be true.

[Anonymous No.7047653]

>>7047502
Yeah he's basically right about everything, but the implications of his philosophy are so horrifying that I can't help but resent him just a little bit

[Anonymous No.7047660]

Because he's not a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.7047665]

>Joan of Arc was not stuck at the cross-roads, either by rejecting all the paths like Tolstoy, or by accepting them all like Nietzsche. She chose a path, and went down it like a thunderbolt. Yet Joan, when I came to think of her, had in her all that was true either in Tolstoy or Nietzsche, all that was even tolerable in either of them. I thought of all that is noble in Tolstoy, the pleasure in plain things, especially in plain pity, the actualities of the earth, the reverence for the poor, the dignity of the bowed back. Joan of Arc had all that and with this great addition, that she endured poverty as well as admiring it; whereas Tolstoy is only a typical aristocrat trying to find out its secret. And then I thought of all that was brave and proud and pathetic in poor Nietzsche, and his mutiny against the emptiness and timidity of our time. I thought of his cry for the ecstatic equilibrium of danger, his hunger for the rush of great horses, his cry to arms. Well, Joan of Arc had all that, and again with this difference, that she did not praise fighting, but fought. We KNOW that she was not afraid of an army, while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow. Tolstoy only praised the peasant; she was the peasant. Nietzsche only praised the warrior; she was the warrior. She beat them both at their own antagonistic ideals; she was more gentle than the one, more violent than the other. Yet she was a perfectly practical person who did something, while they are wild speculators who do nothing.

Fucking thrashed.

[Anonymous No.7047681]

>>7047665
Chesterton did thrash himself with that retarded commentary.

[Anonymous No.7047691]

>>7047681
Found the butthurt fedora. Nice rebuttal, "fag"

[Sage No.7047764]

>>7047665

Each to their own talents, and engaged in activities appropriate to the exigencies of their time and inclination. Chesterton is ultimately making a judgment of character, which does little to undermine the real work of Nietzsche or Tolstoy, and is probably basically false anyway.

[Anonymous No.7047789]

>>7047764
He is saying that if either of them actually lived the philosophy they advocated, they would quickly find out how retarded they were.

Incidentally, neither of them came close. So why should you?

[Anonymous No.7047791]

>>7047665
>, or by accepting them all like Nietzsche

>Our happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a Goal....
From The Antichrist

>while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow.
Nietzsche was in the German calvary. what did this fat fuck ever do?

[Anonymous No.7047792]

>>7047502
Because the greatest philosopher is Descartes.

[Anonymous No.7047794]

>>7047791
Go to bed, Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.7047801]

>In 1867, Nietzsche signed up for one year of voluntary service with the Prussian artillery division in Naumburg. He was regarded as one of the finest riders among his fellow recruits, and his officers predicted that he would soon reach the rank of captain.
He ended up tearing his side by mounting a horse incorrectly. Still more than cheetos-terton ever did

[Sage No.7047811]

>>7047789

I'm saying such a criticism is groundless because neither pretended to be anything more than they were. Nietzsche was fully aware of his physical handicaps, and knew he was not artistically-inclined. One can call for the appearance of what one isn't--thus his desire to have those who 'followed' him to 'overcome' him.

[Anonymous No.7047836]

>>7047801
>fail miserably
>at least i tried :^)

[Anonymous No.7047847]

>>7047665
Based Chesterton's truth increases sodium levels
>"Other vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors; in fact, this is the chief mark of vague modern people. Not daring to define their doctrine of what is good, they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and , what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality. Thus they think it intellectual to talk about things being 'high.' It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. 'Tommy was a good boy' is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. 'Tommy lived the higher life' is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule.

>This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor port. He said, 'beyond good and evil,' because he had not the courage to say, 'more good than good and evil,' or, 'more evil than good and evil.' Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, 'the purer man,' or 'the happier man,' or 'the sadder man,' for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says 'the upper man.' or 'over man,' a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce."

[Sage No.7047862]

>>7047847

>I don't like his use of metaphor

Great.

[Anonymous No.7047864]

Nietzschefags BTFO as always.
/thread

[Anonymous No.7047870]

So has anyone actually come close to refuting Nietzsche without sinking down to the ad hominem of Chesterton or Rorty?

I haven't read Hegel but I'd like to hear what >>7047509 has to say

[Anonymous No.7047897]

>>7047870
Not worth the bother. Has anyone come close to refuting the original redditor who made that comment about being enlightened by his own intelligence? Not really.

Does that make him right? No.

[Anonymous No.7047899]

>>7047789
But Nietzsche didn't advocate a philosophy he didn't live, so it's retarded.

[Anonymous No.7047911]

>>7047897
Jesus Christ you people are obnoxious

I'm not even a devotee of Nietzsche, the fucker's writing has been looming over my head my whole life and I desperately, DESPERATELY want him to be wrong, but writing him off with memes isn't good enough for me.

[Anonymous No.7047940]

>>7047911
I literally have not read a single thing Nietzsche has written. Didn't even read OP's picture. Can't even spell Nietzsche without letting it auto-correct.

I'm just here for the bantz.

[Anonymous No.7047943]

I do, I'm not an entry-level pleb.

[Anonymous No.7047953]

>>7047911
Why do you want him to be wrong?
>>7047940
What philosophy or literature do you like then?

[Anonymous No.7047955]

Is Nietzsche Whitman or vice versa?

[Anonymous No.7047966]

>>7047870
Hegel didn't "refute" Nietzsche in any way. They're very different philosophers.

OP has a point though. The longer I live and the more philosophy I read, the more I realize Nietzsche was a fucking goddamn genius.

[Anonymous No.7047971]

When will the Nietzsche meme die?

We all know that Schopenhauer was right about everything.

[Anonymous No.7047972]

>>7047911
Have you read Twilight of the Idols?

[Anonymous No.7047975]

>>7047971
>implying schopenhauer can be right about what i'm going to do

fuck off cant

[Anonymous No.7048035]

>>7047864

[Anonymous No.7048043]

Because icycalm is better.

orgyofthewill.net

[Anonymous No.7048055]

>>7047953
>598. Nor does reading a genius's writings help in any significant way, shape or form, if you are not already a genius, as all the inferior intellects are pleased to think. "Maybe I wasn't born as smart as him, but all his smartness must be contained inside his books, so all I have to do to become like him is read them!" A gross overestimation of the power of words, that amounts to believing that reading books can change your genes! The reality is that, at most, and if you are sensible, the genius's books will give you an inferiority complex. If you aren't, they'll turn you into a stark raving retard for whom there is no cure. — And you thought that lifting weights above your strength was dangerous! But reading books above your intelligence is unimaginably more so. But that, too, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge and heed, precisely because evaluating the power of books is an unimaginably harder task than sizing up the weight of a couple of barbells, while to you books are, after all, just books. "What harm can there be in reading them?", you think, like all uneducated people.

[Anonymous No.7048060]

>>7048055
This is me.

>>7048043
This is not me.

Spooky coincidence.

[Anonymous No.7048068]

>>7048055
this guy is a fag

[Anonymous No.7048083]

>>7048068
It's true, but boy can he shitpost, and on such a scale it can hardly be called shitposting at all

shitbroadcasting
shitbeaming
shitblasting

[Anonymous No.7048129]

>>7047502
He doesn't even come close; even if you just look at other Modern philosophers he is significantly outclassed, let alone looking at the entire history of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7048140]

>>7048129
lmkao

[Anonymous No.7048141]

This thread ruined my good feeling after watching Ran and reading a little in The Gay Science

i hope you are happy

[Anonymous No.7048165]

>>7048083
Who?

[Anonymous No.7048196]

>>7047502

Because Kierkegaard exists

[Anonymous No.7048204]

>>7047502

Can someone tell me what Nietzsche said that no other philosopher has said before?

Is he praised for accessibility?

[Anonymous No.7048212]

>>7048204
Heh, implying that's how even to think of him

[Anonymous No.7048274]

>>7048196
Which one :^)?

[Anonymous No.7049745]

>>7048204
Pain is good

The weak and ill consituted shall perish

Eternal return except for a few randoms

Loads more

[Anonymous No.7049875]

>>7047502
I was smarter than nietzsche by the time I turned 16.

[Anonymous No.7049908]

>>7047502
He didn't go far enough, he stopped somewhere along the way, it was too painful not to lay his head upon the ubermensch.
That is his rest.

What about kierkegaard, where is his rest?
He went as far as he could, almost reaching mystic levels of contemplative thought, and then passed out in the streets and died.
That nigga was a monster.

But still, nietzsche was wrong.
Mysterium Fidei.

[Anonymous No.7049920]

I turned 16.

[Anonymous No.7049928]

that boy needs lao tzu

[Anonymous No.7049941]

Nietzsche is the most importent philosopher of his time and probably the thinker that had the most influence on modern philosophy.

Yes, he wasn't completely right about everything, and yes - he based himself on many people. Still, he took existing yet unpopular concepts such as nihilism and proved them beyond any argument, and managed to single handedly make the leap above it and lay ground for the post-nihlistic thought.

[Anonymous No.7049961]

>>7047971
Schopenhauer based his thought on concepts like morality, which were completely blown off by Nietzsche.

>>7048196
overrated

>>7048204
Read him faggot

[Anonymous No.7049962]

>>7049875
you read "critique of pure reason" and "world as will and representation" and thinking about their implications came up with something better than nietzsche by the time you turned 16?

[Anonymous No.7049973]

>>7049962
Nietzsche didn't have no dank M&M memes though

[Anonymous No.7050098]

>>7049962
No.
If I had read those then it would be no surprise that I would have been smarter than nietzsche.
But the moral of the story is that I didn't.
i.e nietzsche was dumb.
: ^ )

Still, critique of pure reason even falls short.

[Anonymous No.7050132]

>>7047862
he's saying that nietschze escaped proper definition by creating some abstract 'higher' values for already existing ones. basically he was an edgy special snowflake.

[Anonymous No.7050514]

>>7050132

I get what he's saying, it's clear enough. It's still just wrong-headed. Chesterton is demanding of Nietzsche something that he, Nietzsche, is not in a position to give. If the 'overman' is someone who fights against his time and forges his own values, there's no standard to pin him to. The overman makes his own standards; he doesn't follow some prescription set down by Dr. Philosopher, no matter how much the weaker-willed might seek such a thing. If Nietzsche comes off as vague, it's because he has to be; he couldn't foresee the constitution of the overman, and could only give a rough outline of the kind of character he would possess, which is basically just that of an iconoclast.

[Anonymous No.7050574]

>>7047502
Syphilis is a hell of a drug.

[Anonymous No.7051733]

>>7050098
>598. Nor does reading a genius's writings help in any significant way, shape or form, if you are not already a genius, as all the inferior intellects are pleased to think. "Maybe I wasn't born as smart as him, but all his smartness must be contained inside his books, so all I have to do to become like him is read them!" A gross overestimation of the power of words, that amounts to believing that reading books can change your genes! The reality is that, at most, and if you are sensible, the genius's books will give you an inferiority complex. If you aren't, they'll turn you into a stark raving retard for whom there is no cure. — And you thought that lifting weights above your strength was dangerous! But reading books above your intelligence is unimaginably more so. But that, too, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge and heed, precisely because evaluating the power of books is an unimaginably harder task than sizing up the weight of a couple of barbells, while to you books are, after all, just books. "What harm can there be in reading them?", you think, like all uneducated people.

[Anonymous No.7051817]

>>7047572
>>7047509


Nietzches Will is something that can not be manifested in our experience and so it makes no sense to talk about it to Hegel.

Plus individualism to Hegel is pointless because if you can't test your progress against something external then nothing is developed.

[Anonymous No.7052447]

>>7050514
but i don't think you do.
chesterton doesn't argue that nietzsche is unable to become what he puts forward (the "overman" etc), he argues that nietzsche's terminologies are cop-outs, attempting to convey ideas that already exist but refusing to accept that they already exist and presenting it as some higher truth. and that if nietzsche simply cut all the post-modern rubbish he wraps his actual ideas in he would see how nonsensical he really was.

[Anonymous No.7052462]

>>7047971
Schopenhauer was wrong when it came to women.

[Anonymous No.7053002]

>>7047847

It's funny because a line of philosophical inquiry that Nietzsche himself started, refutes Chesterton perfectly.

Language basically IS metaphor. Look at how sentences are constructed. Words refer to each other, never directly to the world, and to the extent that categories are never absolute, almost every sentence reduces to a series of metaphors.

Let's apply this assessment to Chesterton's argument, for example.

Chesterton says that Nietzsche is "not bold" because instead of demanding something so clear as "the sadder man" or "the happier man," he asks for "the higher man," a kind of metaphor for physical height.

But this analysis can be used to describe the categories that Chesterton himself claims to be preferable. To call a man "happy" or "sad" in himself is also a kind of metaphor; a man per se can't properly be reduced to an emotion, he merely expresses emotions at given times. So when we call a person "sad" that itself is a metaphor; the nature of the metaphor is simply disguised because we're comparing him to a state that does in fact go on inside him, instead of a totally external reality. If you rephrase it as, "David is happiness," this makes the metaphorical nature of the assertion evident. And that's what Chesterton is demanding insofar as he holds up "the happy man" or "the sad man" as being "less metaphorical" than "the higher man." To call a man "happy" outside of a specific happy event in his life is itself a disguised metaphor, as are, in the final analysis, all acts of labeling.

[Anonymous No.7053032]

>there are people ITT actually believe that Chesterton le totally refuted based Nietzsche
>literally all they present as 'refutation' is misrepresentation and namecalling

The levels of delusion of christfags truly never ceases to amaze me

[Anonymous No.7053061]

>>7053002

This is probably the most intelligent post I've read on /lit/ in 2015.

[Anonymous No.7053088]

>>7053002
>Words refer to each other, never directly to the world
wait, what? that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard
>>7053061
>This is probably the most intelligent post I've read on /lit/ in 2015.
that doesnt say much though

[Anonymous No.7053113]

>>7053088
>wait, what? that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard
lol so you don't hear yourself?

[Anonymous No.7053402]

>>7053088

If you think that's dumb, then you are yourself dumb, because it's so obvious if you even reflect on grammar for 2 seconds it shouldn't even be controversial.

[Anonymous No.7054587]

>>7053002

Bravo! Words are metaphores indeed. The word "threat," for instance, if you trace it back to Old English means an angry mob. It is therefore in Beowulf that an angry mob = something which might absolutely harm ye. Best regards.

[Anonymous No.7054642]

>>7053061

What? You've never read Ricoueur or Lakoff & Johnson?

[Anonymous No.7054660]

>mfw i still have to endure shitposting

[Anonymous No.7054765]

>>7047502
Because Hitchens proved his greatest line "what doesn't kill me makes me a bed-wetter" wrong.