FUCK NIETZSCHE

[Anonymous No.7172919]

Here's why I don't like Nietzsche. What are Nietzsche's ideas exactly? Were they interesting? Were they right? OK, he had some theories, like slave morality. That's something that's truth-apt, it's an empirical claim. But let's be real, as a claim about psychology, it just doesn't hold any water. Saying Christianity is "slave morality" can't really be said to be true. It's like pseudoscience, but because it's attached to the name "Nietzsche" it's treated as being of interest, because we're prone to conceiving of philosophy as a succession of historical names.

What is a "transvaluation of all values"? Who the fuck knows? Is it just a way to say, "these values are antiquated, man, let's start afresh".

The death of God is a nice metaphor for saying you can't take God seriously anymore. Right? OK. If you give a fuck, you could try to give it more nuance but have no doubt it's all very tedious.

The "ubermensch". This is only Zarathustra, and TBH he doesn't give us much details. It's what we should be striving for though, you can be sure of that. Be fearless, like a camel. But also, laugh. Like a hyena. Zarathustra gives us nice metaphors and prose but little in the way of coherent philosophizing.

And going back to master-slave morality. The idea is that 'great men' need to rise above, like, pity and other slavish emotions. Isn't compassion pretty much the basis of all morality. Isn't this master morality sound like valorizing primitive, predatory behavior. And is there any reason to think that rejecting compassion actually does help you achieve greatness? No, I don't think there is. Basic ethical conduct and altruistic behavior are actually pretty good things.

On top of that, he's an exegetical mess. He's almost impossible to interpret. He seems to contradict himself a lot and no one ever quite seems to be getting to the core of what he 'meant'. Basically he was fucking nuts and by comparison other philosophers seem like actual adults. Also, Schopenhauer was based as fuck and a lot of Nietzsche's ideas started with him.

Nietzsche's mostly popular because he was a great prose writer but he also wrote a lot of goofy-ass shit that's hard to translate into glean insight from either as philosophy or psychology.

[Anonymous No.7172937]

you have some good points and some bad points but i'm tired tbh

[Anonymous No.7172940]

Pretty much.

[Anonymous No.7172949]

>>7172919
>babby realizes that neets a meme philosopher
i remember when i had that moment too

[Anonymous No.7172953]

if you've been here longer than a week and you still like Nietzsche, you need to read more

[Anonymous No.7172954]

>>7172919

all analytic philosophers are pseudo-intellectual manchildren who are more concerned about posturing and jerking off over the definitions of words than actually thinking.

[Anonymous No.7172961]

>>7172919
I answer your wall of text with another wall of text.

[Anonymous No.7172981]

>>7172919
Nietzsche in the Nachlass of 1885-1886 says that "it is today necessary to speak temporarily in a coarse manner and to act coarsely. What is fine and concealed is no longer understood, not even by those who are related to us. That of which one does not speak loudly and cry out , is not there."

In the Nachlass of 1882 he says that "to speak much of oneself is also a way of hiding oneself."

These two privately written passages are reflected sometimes in his published writings, such as in Beyond Good and Evil:

270. "The intellectual haughtiness and loathing of every man who has suffered deeply—it almost determines the order of rank HOW deeply men can suffer—the chilling certainty, with which he is thoroughly imbued and coloured, that by virtue of his suffering he KNOWS MORE than the shrewdest and wisest can ever know, that he has been familiar with, and "at home" in, many distant, dreadful worlds of which "YOU know nothing"!—this silent intellectual haughtiness of the sufferer, this pride of the elect of knowledge, of the "initiated," of the almost sacrificed, finds all forms of disguise necessary to protect itself from contact with officious and sympathizing hands, and in general from all that is not its equal in suffering. Profound suffering makes noble: it separates.—One of the most refined forms of disguise is Epicurism, along with a certain ostentatious boldness of taste, which takes suffering lightly, and puts itself on the defensive against all that is sorrowful and profound. They are "gay men" who make use of gaiety, because they are misunderstood on account of it—they WISH to be misunderstood. There are "scientific minds" who make use of science, because it gives a gay appearance, and because scientificness leads to the conclusion that a person is superficial—they WISH to mislead to a false conclusion. There are free insolent minds which would fain conceal and deny that they are broken, proud, incurable hearts (the cynicism of Hamlet—the case of Galiani); and occasionally folly itself is the mask of an unfortunate OVER-ASSURED knowledge.—From which it follows that it is the part of a more refined humanity to have reverence "for the mask," and not to make use of psychology and curiosity in the wrong place."

290. "Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood. The latter perhaps wounds his vanity; but the former wounds his heart, his sympathy, which always says: "Ah, why would you also have as hard a time of it as I have?""

So, he's an esotericist, willing to speak loudly and extravagantly on behalf of some philosophical end. Part of the hint of his real position is provided in BGE in his only two aphorisms about Dionysus, suggesting he's actually a partisan of Plato.

(His qualified disagreements with Plato end up being suggestive too, once you notice the qualifications.)

[Anonymous No.7172986]

yeah he just sucks

the rest of the thread will just be people saying if you don't like him you're just not smart or well read enough though

[Anonymous No.7173003]

He was a literal syphillitic madman.

[Anonymous No.7173009]

"These wisest men of all ages — they should first be scrutinized closely. Were they all perhaps shaky on their legs? tottery? decadent? late? Could it be that wisdom appears on earth as a raven, attracted by a little whiff of carrion?"

--Nietzsche bein' deep an' philosophical

[Anonymous No.7173014]

>>7172919
Best

Troll post

Ever!!!!

The biggest problem you're having is you're taking his ideas in their most simple exposition and assuming they're just that. Nietzsche adds tons of nuance and detailing that's important in its own.

Like, if you have a car with a bumper that rattles, and you drive it for years, you know that rattle and you understand it's nuances. No amount of describing it will actually imprint what it's like on a person's mind, and they will never know until they drive it themselves. That's what Nietzsche is like, his ideas often sound dumb but when you see the level of depth and nuance he adds it changes your perspective

Also you got many of his basic ideas very wrong. It's hard to explain how but often people hear Nietzsche say "power is good", and they interpret both power and good in a naive way. "Good" is a suspicious word.

The truth is tho fam you just want easy answers, and because you want easy answers, that's what you find. The easy answer is to just dismiss Nietzshe and that's fine, you're completely unimportant and what you do is irrelevant, so really what I'm saying is I like Nietzsche and I don't really give a damn what you think of it

[Anonymous No.7173017]

>>7173014

this post has no meaningful content

[Anonymous No.7173018]

>>7173009
Except when he says "Socrates was ugly as shit", it actually makes it very clear why he argues the way he does.

[Anonymous No.7173025]

>>7173017
Neither does the OP and neither does your reply tbh.

[Anonymous No.7173032]

>>7173018
Socrates fanboys called him that. Socrates fanboys called him fucking annoying too.

[Anonymous No.7173037]

>>7172953
I've been here for three years and I'm still obsessed with him. And fam, many men much better than you or I were equally enamored, so TBH if you think your breath is pushing the wind then you ought to reconsider

It's actually funny to me how through my Nietzschean lens I can see you (and I'm doubling down on my metaphor) blowing with the wind, believing you're causing it so you blow harder. As if some random dude on /lit/ not reading Nietzsche matters to anyone. I encourage people to read Nietzsche because I'm an altruist, but when they return with content like the OP, i chuckle

[Anonymous No.7173038]

>>7173032
Yup. And so you have the philosophy of an annoying as fuck ugly man. And it shows in his works.

There is no philosophy apart from the philosopher

[Anonymous No.7173042]

>>7173014
This is part of my problem with Nietzsche. It seems nobody can agree on what he meant, and in any field of intellectual endeavor, if we don't understand what we're talking about, we can't make progress. That's why I tried to distill some of his ideas into simple language.

>they interpret both power and good in a naive way.
This kind of thing just feels like obscurantism. If you're not using words in a conventional way, you should at least be able to explain what you mean.

[Anonymous No.7173044]

>>7173037

lmao right on

[Anonymous No.7173049]

>>7173037

>fam
>tbh
>so many big strong men admired cutey fred
>my nietZsche lenz lets me see you how you RLY are

go away
you've been here for a few months at most

[Anonymous No.7173057]

>>7173042
Because the demand to reduce everything into bite-sized sentences is bullshit. It's just bullshit. You have one language: yours. It's different from everyone else's and you have a billion blind spots in your world view that hinder you.

You overcome these be racking your brain against tough opponents. Your language develops. And often you don't even comprehend what the other is saying until you've tried a few things until it clicks.

What you want is a bite-sized neatly wrapped package of Nietzsche that fits neatly into your already-formed concepts like a machine. Nietzsche is about destroying this entire apparatus.

So really fuck you. Philosophy isn't about summaries and quick tidbits. It's a fucking struggle and thousands of minds more brilliant than you and I struggled with Nietzsche and came out saying, "that guy is good". So I won't fulfill your demands. You climb the mountain by your own will, or you don't. But it's not my responsibility and can't be mine.

>obscurantism

Again, you just want every philosopher to conform to your preconceived notion and language. That's what an idiot, a follower, a weakling does.

[Anonymous No.7173060]

>>7173049
Kek nope I used to trip and argue with feminister about Nietzsche, and I've learned much since then.

[Anonymous No.7173062]

>>7173060

oh
you're one of those
bye

[Anonymous No.7173070]

It's funny many people think their not liking Britney matters one bit. Nobody cares, bytch. Britney's a superstar, and you ain't. I have been posting here for many years.

[Anonymous No.7173077]

>>7173070
Nice parody I missed the humor the first time around because it was so subtle and then I grasped the self-mockery

[Anonymous No.7173081]

>>7173057
Could you explain just one of Nietzsche's interesting ideas for us?

[Anonymous No.7173084]

>>7173081
No, I can't, because I don't have an ounce of his wit or his insight.

Much of the OP is partially right (the true/false dichotomy is absurd, mate) and partially wrong. Nietzsche does not say it's better that people follow master morality, for one.

[Anonymous No.7173087]

>>7173081
why don't you teach a first grader calculus?

Until you can do that calculus is bullshit

[Anonymous No.7173089]

>>7172986

100% on point

[Anonymous No.7173098]

Imma let the thread die

[Anonymous No.7173106]

>>7173098
a hero

[Anonymous No.7173110]

>>7173106
Well OP made this thread to bait me and I'm the only one with any passion so when I'm gone, the last men will scurry to find warmth elsewhere

But yeah laterzzz haterzzz

[Anonymous No.7173113]

>>7172981
>Part of the hint of his real position is provided in BGE in his only two aphorisms about Dionysus, suggesting he's actually a partisan of Plato.
>(His qualified disagreements with Plato end up being suggestive too, once you notice the qualifications.)
what do you mean by this? what passages about Dionysus, and how so? and what "qualifications"?

[Anonymous No.7173127]

>Crossed races always mean at the same time crossed cultures, crossed moralities: they are always more evil, crueller, more restless.

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.7173132]

>>7173113
The two key passages on Dionysus are at the very beginning and the every end.

7. "How malicious philosophers can be! I know of nothing more stinging than the joke Epicurus took the liberty of making on Plato and the Platonists; he called them Dionysiokolakes. In its original sense, and on the face of it, the word signifies "Flatterers of Dionysius"—consequently, tyrants' accessories and lick-spittles; besides this, however, it is as much as to say, "They are all ACTORS, there is nothing genuine about them" (for Dionysiokolax was a popular name for an actor). And the latter is really the malignant reproach that Epicurus cast upon Plato: he was annoyed by the grandiose manner, the mise en scene style of which Plato and his scholars were masters—of which Epicurus was not a master! He, the old school-teacher of Samos, who sat concealed in his little garden at Athens, and wrote three hundred books, perhaps out of rage and ambitious envy of Plato, who knows! Greece took a hundred years to find out who the garden-god Epicurus really was. Did she ever find out?"

At 295 he says:

"In the meantime, however, I have learned much, far too much, about the philosophy of this God, and, as I said, from mouth to mouth—I, the last disciple and initiate of the God Dionysus: and perhaps I might at last begin to give you, my friends, as far as I am allowed, a little taste of this philosophy?"

So Plato and the Platonists are flatterers of Dionysius, which has the double meaning Nietzsche offers: 1) flatterers of the tyrant, and 2) actors (read: esotericists). On the latter bit about actors, consider this passage on masks:

(cont.)

[Anonymous No.7173133]

>>7173087
I'm not saying I have to understand it. An explanation, even one that was beyond my understanding, would be enough.

I also don't think you can really say that Nietzsche's philosophy is comparable to mathematics. Calculus can be explained in relatively simple ways; rates of change, slopes under curves, etc. Mathematics is a rigid logical formalism that allows us to develop abstract ideas with great clarity and consensus. On the other hand, Nietzsche wrote in a very literary, metaphorical language and is notoriously difficult to interpret.

I just find it very strange that you can't explain just one of Nietzsche's intriguing ideas. However you prevaricate, even if you say I'm much too stupid to ever understand, it doesn't seem like a tall order.

[Anonymous No.7173138]

>>7173127
Literally marrying another race is "evil", but again evil doesn't mean shit. If a Muslim and a Christian married they would both sacrilege.

What it means metaphorically is intellectual "worlds" such as Christianity and other conglomerates of biases and perspectives can't mesh without huge conflict.

Aka ideas should always be tested and fight because restlessness and evil are good things for Nietzsche (in this context)

[Anonymous No.7173144]

>>7173133
Maybe it's just because doing so is dull as fuck and I'd rather shitpost

Most of Nietzsche's best stuff is not "ideas" of his like "necessary connection" in Hume. You can talk about Hume's work like that, it just doesn't do so well with Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.7173150]

>>7173144
I really like Hume.

[Anonymous No.7173154]

>>7173132

40. "Everything that is profound loves the mask: the profoundest things have a hatred even of figure and likeness. Should not the CONTRARY only be the right disguise for the shame of a God to go about in? A question worth asking!—it would be strange if some mystic has not already ventured on the same kind of thing. There are proceedings of such a delicate nature that it is well to overwhelm them with coarseness and make them unrecognizable; there are actions of love and of an extravagant magnanimity after which nothing can be wiser than to take a stick and thrash the witness soundly: one thereby obscures his recollection. Many a one is able to obscure and abuse his own memory, in order at least to have vengeance on this sole party in the secret: shame is inventive. They are not the worst things of which one is most ashamed: there is not only deceit behind a mask—there is so much goodness in craft. I could imagine that a man with something costly and fragile to conceal, would roll through life clumsily and rotundly like an old, green, heavily-hooped wine-cask: the refinement of his shame requiring it to be so. A man who has depths in his shame meets his destiny and his delicate decisions upon paths which few ever reach, and with regard to the existence of which his nearest and most intimate friends may be ignorant; his mortal danger conceals itself from their eyes, and equally so his regained security. Such a hidden nature, which instinctively employs speech for silence and concealment, and is inexhaustible in evasion of communication, DESIRES and insists that a mask of himself shall occupy his place in the hearts and heads of his friends; and supposing he does not desire it, his eyes will some day be opened to the fact that there is nevertheless a mask of him there—and that it is well to be so. Every profound spirit needs a mask; nay, more, around every profound spirit there continually grows a mask, owing to the constantly false, that is to say, SUPERFICIAL interpretation of every word he utters, every step he takes, every sign of life he manifests."

Now, Nietzsche throughout the first part of BGE seems to suggest that *most* philosophers were esotericists. That he picks out Plato and the Platonists in the only passage containing any reference to Dionysus (where the "actor" gloss is a direct reference to the god and not the tyrant with the slightly different name) seems crucial. These passages taken together with above quoted passages about provoking misunderstandings of his work suggests that with respect to the work being done in BGE, it's Plato who stands as a kind of paradigm.

Now as for the qualified disagreements, consider how the preface is worded:

"the dogmatic philosophy was such a mask; for example, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia and Platonism in Europe."

(cont.)

[Anonymous No.7173161]

>>7173150
Me too, and Nietzsche is not terribly far from Hume.

It's just a mistake to read Nietzsche like other philosophers. His style is not conducive to this style of conversation. He doesn't list out arguments and shit. He has clever mechanisms to show you why he believes what he does and uses ambiguity and faults in language to his advantage.

I mean, Nietzsche's really good at just smashing down how overly prideful and pretentious we all are. Part of his project is to humble all of humanity and make us realize that we're just human beings.

[Anonymous No.7173167]

>>7173161

I feel this way about Derrida except for the Hume part

[Anonymous No.7173172]

>>7173150
>I really like Hume.
Hume lacks the phenomenology then the contemplation

[Anonymous No.7173175]

Nietzsche was a virgin. I think not having sex made his mind go haywire. It's what happens to organisms when they can't complete their biological imperative. It's unnatural, and the psychological consequences are clear when you read the stuff Nietzsche wrote or go to the right YouTube channels. Life's just a bunch of things trying to fuck. Viruses, bears, fish, however fish fuck. The universe is a giant fuck machine. And Nietzsche didn't fuck. So he scribbled down a bunch of his deranged thoughts about life from his perspective, the perspective of an unloved creature who never got to do it. I think that's why his writings have a lot of emotional power. He was angry because he didn't get to have sex at all.

[Anonymous No.7173176]

>>7173167
Derrida was influenced by Nietzsche, wasn't he?

You'll find a huge part of continental philosophy, for better or worse, is inspired by Nietzsche

So one thing Nietzsche sort of believes is that words are just flat insufficient, you should test yourself constantly against reality, and learn to love failure. This can be in science or in romance. That's a very positive message, because being willing to get hurt always comes from a position of great strength and overwhelming courage.

[Anonymous No.7173177]

>>7173154
Again, consider his passage about masks along with that. He goes on to criticize Plato, but he prefaces it with the statement: "Let us not be ungrateful to it"(!) We should also take note that for Nietzsche, Plato is "the most beautiful growth of antiquity".

He also stresses the difference between Plato and Platonism somehow:

But the fight against Plato or, to speak more clearly and for "the people," the fight against the Christian-ecclesiastical pressure of millennia—for Christianity is Platonism for 'the people'..."

Now, for Nietzsche's critique in the preface, we should note what his criticism *doesn't* say:

"the worst, most durable, and most dangerous of all errors so far was a dogmatist's error—namely, Plato's invention of the pure spirit and the good as such."

It's Plato's pure spirit and the good as such are criticized as *inventions*, not as falsehoods. This points to the passage again at aphorism 7, regarding Plato as an actor.

Somehow, it seems important to Nietzsche to present himself as undoing Plato, while really doing something similar. The ideas are different, but the desired trajectory seems to be the same (i.e., the move from the Philosopher to the dogmatism, such as Neoplatonism, to the religion, namely Christianity). Note how BGE is divided; the topics of philosophy and religion seem to belong together in the first half.

[Anonymous No.7173184]

>>7173175
>Nietzsche was a virgin.

[citation needed]

There's good scholarship that argues he was gay, actually, and it's rather plausible. Also there's quite literally a photo of him with a girl holding his dick.

[Anonymous No.7173186]

>>7173176

>you should test yourself constantly against reality, and learn to love failure.

good thing there are French post structuralists or a lot of people would be into this still

I guess a lot of people are anyway
can't be helped

[Anonymous No.7173187]

>>7173175

[Anonymous No.7173193]

>>7173175
Not sure why but this is the funniest thing I've ever read on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.7173194]

>>7173186
Good thing I don't need yours or their permission to live!

[Anonymous No.7173196]

>>7173184
I read a long time ago that he was a virgin. I see in the picture he has the huge moustache. Mutsche. However you spell it. I thought he only had that after he went nutso. So in that picture, he's already gone. Also, is that picture photoshopped? I know they do a lot of stuff with computers these days. I think the girl in the picture feels sorry for Nietzsche, and also for herself, because she has to masturbate insane people for money. That's why she's looking up and not having fun like sex is supposed to be. I think she's very uncomfortable doing this. I think she's being paid money. I think Nietzsche is smiling because his brain has shut down and he can finally engage in unadulterated pleasure without guilt. I think Nietzsche was a very sad man, in life.

[Anonymous No.7173201]

>>7173196
I actually have a stitch.

[Anonymous No.7173205]

>>7173194

I don't need to imagine myself in a constant state of embracing failure to live life

[Anonymous No.7173206]

>>7172919

>And going back to master-slave morality. The idea is that 'great men' need to rise above, like, pity and other slavish emotions. Isn't compassion pretty much the basis of all morality. Isn't this master morality sound like valorizing primitive, predatory behavior. And is there any reason to think that rejecting compassion actually does help you achieve greatness? No, I don't think there is. Basic ethical conduct and altruistic behavior are actually pretty good things.

Even for a troll post yours is poorly thought out. I mean do you have an argument supporting that compassion is the basis of all morality, because not even Schopenhauer said that.

[Anonymous No.7173220]

>>7173206
OK, I shouldn't have said compassion is the basis for all morality. Maybe if you're a utilitarian, and you define "compassion" as "altruism", then it makes sense but

Here's what I'd say. Nietzsche does seem to disparage compassion and that kind of ethic in his work. The point I'm making is that some notion of compassion or altruism is central to morality everywhere. And I would also say that I don't think Nietzsche's case that disavowing the ethics of altruism is necessary for 'greatness'. But it's possible that in trying to pin Nietzche's views down like that, I've misrepresented them, or maybe the views are inherently amorphous and resistant precise formulation. Maybe.

[Anonymous No.7173226]

>>7173220
>Nietzsche's case that disavowing the ethics of altruism is necessary for 'greatness'.
My sentences are all fucked up today. It should have been:
>I don't think Nietzsche's case that disavowing the ethics of altruism is necessary for 'greatness' is persuasive

[Anonymous No.7173228]

>>7173177
>tl;dr
Nietzsche, like the early scholars of Plato, where really no Platonists, because that went directly against what Plato was preaching, namely how in philosophical inquiry one needs to incorporate doubt and skepticism and reject dogma in order to test it or truly build on it.
Thus, he was a true Platonist, similar to Aristotle, who famously remarked "For though we love both the truth and our friends, piety requires us to honor the truth first.".

[Anonymous No.7173243]

>>7172919
Religious people have never liked him, I wonder why.

[Anonymous No.7173252]

>>7173243
I know why. He said that God died. Religious people don't think that God died. They think he's still alive. That's why they pray. If God were dead, then they would be praying to nothing. That would make lots of people very sad. I think Nietzsche said God died because he wanted to spoil the fun of everybody around him who was having sex and having fun. A lot of people liked God and prayed to God at that time. Nietzsche was very smart and he thought that if he said God was dead, then everybody would become very sad and stop having fun. He was very smart but he was very mean. But I think I understand why he was mean. It was because he never got to have sex. He was a virgin.

[Anonymous No.7173254]

>>7173228
That seems in part right, but I think at least some of what he sees Plato doing can be gleaned from this passage:

211. "I insist upon it that people finally cease confounding philosophical workers, and in general scientific men, with philosophers—that precisely here one should strictly give "each his own," and not give those far too much, these far too little. It may be necessary for the education of the real philosopher that he himself should have once stood upon all those steps upon which his servants, the scientific workers of philosophy, remain standing, and MUST remain standing he himself must perhaps have been critic, and dogmatist, and historian, and besides, poet, and collector, and traveler, and riddle-reader, and moralist, and seer, and "free spirit," and almost everything, in order to traverse the whole range of human values and estimations, and that he may BE ABLE with a variety of eyes and consciences to look from a height to any distance, from a depth up to any height, from a nook into any expanse. But all these are only preliminary conditions for his task; this task itself demands something else—it requires him TO CREATE VALUES. The philosophical workers, after the excellent pattern of Kant and Hegel, have to fix and formalize some great existing body of valuations—that is to say, former DETERMINATIONS OF VALUE, creations of value, which have become prevalent, and are for a time called "truths"—whether in the domain of the LOGICAL, the POLITICAL (moral), or the ARTISTIC. It is for these investigators to make whatever has happened and been esteemed hitherto, conspicuous, conceivable, intelligible, and manageable, to shorten everything long, even "time" itself, and to SUBJUGATE the entire past: an immense and wonderful task, in the carrying out of which all refined pride, all tenacious will, can surely find satisfaction. THE REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS; they say: "Thus SHALL it be!" They determine first the Whither and the Why of mankind, and thereby set aside the previous labour of all philosophical workers, and all subjugators of the past—they grasp at the future with a creative hand, and whatever is and was, becomes for them thereby a means, an instrument, and a hammer. Their "knowing" is CREATING, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is—WILL TO POWER.—Are there at present such philosophers? Have there ever been such philosophers? MUST there not be such philosophers some day? ... "

The true philosopher seems to legislate the very values and categories that we live by and understand the world through. What seems important is this "world building" that the philosopher does, which might suggest that the truths of philosophers are really inventions (which then points back to the passage from the preface about Plato's "inventions").

Though as with much of Nietzsche it's hard to be precise; that take could be another part of the mask.

[Anonymous No.7173257]

>>7173196
I agree. I also think that he wanted a Fox or a Horse or a pony when he was young and his father didn't allow it so that contributed to a lot of his childhood anxiety.Painful stuff.

[Anonymous No.7173259]

>>7173254
I should also note that there's some interesting correspondences between some ideas Nietzsche presents (I hesitate to say whether they're his beliefs) and ideas presented by the Eleatic Stranger in Plato's dialogues Sophist and Statesman (notably, Being as Power, in the former work, and Knowledge as Making, in the latter).

[Anonymous No.7173284]

ITT: christfags with a hurt in their asshole

[Anonymous No.7173325]

>Isn't compassion pretty much the basis of all morality
Finally some moralfags admit that their so-called morality based on MUH FEELS

[Anonymous No.7173338]

>>7173325
All morality is based on feels. The axioms are all feels. The idea that the human being is worth anything at all is a feel. Rationality is a feel. Based on your picture, you seem to think you can get outside this. You can't get outside being human and having a human brain, no matter how much edgy philosophy you read.

[Anonymous No.7173344]

>>7172919

>Nietzsche's mostly popular because he was a great prose writer

Yes, and isn't that all that counts? The same can be said about Rand; shit philosophy but enjoyable (I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged tbh fam).

[Anonymous No.7173369]

>>7173338
Can anyone define "compassion" please? Noob here with somewhat related question maybe.

Let's say my ex-girlfriend asks me not to harass her by calling her 30 times a day then does she lack compassion for my honest love ? Am i being immoral by going against her wishes ?

[Anonymous No.7173370]

>>7173252
But he was a martyr! He died for our ignorance. He saw that religion was in fact making a lot of people really sad even if they didn't know it themselves. He wanted to save us from ourselves. To liberate us from our imagined cages. To show us the light where there was nought but darkness! I'm sure if his wise opinion could be asked he would say that to die a virgin was a great honour for he saved at least a few souls because of it. We must never forget his moustache.

[Anonymous No.7173491]

>>7173037
Just the same blabber I would expect of any die hard Nietzsche idiot

[Anonymous No.7173515]

>mfw even though Stirner and Nietzsche are often compared, Nietzsche is one of the spookiest philosophers in history

[Anonymous No.7173524]

>>7173127
race A has 3 bad and 3 good attributes
race B has 4 bad and 4 good attributes
mixed race A and B has at least 4 bad and 4 good attributes hence more dynamic.

most people like op make the mistake of reading nietzsche's late books with the edgy titles and thinking he was "almost impossible to interpret", when he delivers the roots of his ideas in plain language in the all too human and daybreak/gay science boooks. in later books he returns and develops them, but if you dont know where he returns, it sounds cryptic to you.

http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/HUMAN_ALL_TOO_HUMAN_BOOK_ONE_.aspx?S=475
>So soon as it is no longer a question of the preservation or establishment of nations, but of the production and training of a European mixed race of the greatest possible strength, the Jew is just as useful and desirable an ingredient as any other national remnant Every nation, every individual, has unpleasant and even dangerous qualities, it is cruel to require that the Jew should be an exception.

http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/DAYBREAK_.aspx?S=103
>Therefore I deny morality in the same way as I deny alchemy i. e. I deny its premises but I do not deny that there have been alchemists who believed in these premises and based their actions upon them. I also deny immorality—not that there are innumerable people who feel immoral – but because there would be no true reason for such a feeling. I should not of course deny—unless I were a fool—that many actions which are called immoral should be avoided and resisted and in the same way that many which are called moral should be performed and encouraged but I hold that in both cases these actions should be performed from motives other than those which have been used up to the present time. We must think differently so that—perhaps very late in the day—we may achieve something more: to feel differently.

[Anonymous No.7173526]

>>7172919
>implying The Birth of Tragedy isn't GOAT
Smells pretty plen here.

[Anonymous No.7173535]

>>7173524
>mixed race A and B has at least 4 bad and 4 good attributes hence more dynamic.
pure speculation

[Anonymous No.7173547]

more about the origins of his "slave morality"

http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/DAYBREAK_.aspx?S=72
>Christianity found the idea of punishment in hell throughout the Roman Empire: for the numerous mystic cults had hatched this idea with particular satisfaction as being the most fertile aspect of their power. Epicurus thought he could do nothing better for his followers than to tear this belief up by the roots
>Christianity took under its wing this belief in subterranean horrors which was already beginning to die away in the minds of men; and that was prudent. For without this audacious leap into the most complete paganism how could it have proved itself victorious over the popularity of Mithras and Isis? In this way it managed to bring timorous folk over to its side—the most enthusiastic adherents of a new faith!

http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/DAYBREAK_.aspx?S=74
>This was the feeling of poor provincial folk in the presence of the Roman praetor: "He is too proud for us to dare to be innocent". And may not this very sentiment have influenced the Christians when envisaging their Supreme Judge?

http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/DAYBREAK_.aspx?S=75
>There is something Oriental and feminine in Christianity as is shown in the thought "Whom the Lord loveth He chastiseth"; for women in the Orient consider chastisement and the strict seclusion of themselves from the world as a sign of their husband's love and complain if these signs of love cease.

http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/DAYBREAK_.aspx?S=78
>The Greeks had a special word to signify the feeling of indignation which was experienced at the misfortune of another: among Christian peoples this feeling was forbidden and was not permitted to develop; hence the reason why they have no name for this more manly brother of pity.

http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/DAYBREAK_.aspx?S=80
>A Christian's compassion for the suffering of his neighbour has another side to it: his profound suspicion of the joy of his neighbour in anything that he wants or is able to do.

http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/DAYBREAK_.aspx?S=89
>doubt as sin
>Christianity has done all it possibly close the circle and has even gone so far as to declare doubt itself to be a sin. We are to be dropped into faith as by a miracle without the help of reason after which we are to float in it as the clearest and least ambiguous of elements—a mere glance at some solid ground the thought that we exist for some purpose other than floating the least movement of our amphibious nature: all this is a sin! Let it be noted that following this decision proof and demonstration of the faith and all meditations upon its origin are prohibited as sinful. Christianity wants blindness and intoxication and an eternal song above the waves under which reason has been drowned!

[Anonymous No.7173564]

>>7173524
>and perhaps the young Stock Exchange Jew is in general the most repulsive invention of the human species.

[Anonymous No.7173569]

>>7173564
small concession embedded in a paragraph against antisemitism
>nazis will ignore the whole paragraph and just take this bit out of context

[Anonymous No.7174073]

>>7173127
I googled that quote to check its legitimacy. Holy shit Nietz.

[Anonymous No.7174078]

>>7174073
>Hopefully we shall one day also achieve a pure European race and culture.

I know where Ludovici got his views from now.

[Anonymous No.7174093]

>>7173369
christian definition of compassion: non-egoist action motivated by true understanding of someone's suffering

in your scenario a christian would assume that the person who suffers more needs compassion of the other. the one who suffers less is guilty of egoism, depending on outcome of scenario.

nietzsche would call you an embarrassing weakfag, because in order to be successful you need her pity, while she doesnt demand pity for herself.

[Anonymous No.7174106]

>>7173127

restless and evil does not necessarily mean bad for big N though.

I actually do wonder what he meant by this.

[Anonymous No.7174107]

>>7174093
>christian definition of compassion: non-egoist action motivated by true understanding of someone's suffering
>>7174093
>action
no, the action is the charity

the compassion is not an activity, but an emotion [which manifests as the charity]

[Anonymous No.7174110]

He was really a German Romantic poet and he was probably on drugs.

[Anonymous No.7174116]

>>7172919

>I don't know anything about the greeks and i don't care because god and satan are my only means to judge the world

smh tbh

[Anonymous No.7174118]

Yeah, you're right

[Anonymous No.7174124]

>>7173175

>this is what a virgin believes

[Anonymous No.7174130]

>>7174116
>Nietzsche
>Knowing anything about the Greeks
Philology doesn't count

[Anonymous No.7174133]

>>7174130

If you read a good introduction to Nicomachean Ethics (one that speaks about Homer and post-Plato) you will see Nietzsche summarized for plebs

[Anonymous No.7174141]

>>7174133
So what? That doesn't make him an Aristotle scholar. He endorses a form of virtue ethics, I agree, but that certainly doesn't mean he endorses the Aristotelian virtues. Besides, Aristotle was an atypical Greek, as was Plato.

[Anonymous No.7174153]

>>7174073
>should be assessed with consideration and caution.
everything he says about purification needs to be mentally juggled together with his permanent view that society should still allow individualism.
he means purification after being mixed. reductive, not plastic. not purified by avoiding to be mixed via nationalism. as written here

all too human I 475
>Commerce and industry, interchange of books and letters, the universality of all higher culture, the rapid changing of locality and landscape, and the present nomadic life of all who are not landowners, these circumstances necessarily bring with them a weakening, and finally a destruction of nationalities, at least of European nationalities; so that, in consequence of perpetual crossings, there must arise out of them all a mixed race, that of the European man.

all too human II, maxims and opinions 186
>Side by side with the cult of genius and violence we must always place, as its complement and remedy, the cult of culture. This cult can find an intelligent appreciation even for the material, the inferior, the mean, the misunderstood, the weak, the imperfect, the one-sided, the incomplete, the untrue, the apparent, even the wicked and horrible, and can grant them the concession that all this is necessary. For the continued harmony of all things human, attained by amazing toil and strokes of luck, and just as much the work of Cyclopes and ants as of geniuses, shall never be lost. How, indeed, could we dispense with that deep, universal, and often uncanny bass, without which, after all, melody cannot be melody?

and he wrote his views about "society as organism" in the same book where he wrote about this purification of race.
daybreak 132
>Nothing else is being attempted - whether admitted or not - than the complete transformation, even the weakening and suppression of the individual: the supporters of the majority never tire of enumerating and indicting all that is evil, hostile, lavish, expensive and luxurious in the individualism that has to date prevailed; they hope that society may be administered in a cheaper, less dangerous, more uniform and more harmonious way when nothing is left but large collective bodies and their members. This drive for grouping men into bodies and memberships and its ancillary drives is felt to be good—this is the chief moral current of our time; individual sympathy and social feelings work hand in hand. (Kant does not share these sentiments: he expressly teaches that we should be insensible to the sufferings of others if our benevolence is to have any moral value—a doctrine which Schopenhauer, in anger as may easily be imagined, described as the Kantian insipidity.)

[Anonymous No.7174155]

>>7174141

I meant, that some introductions to N.E. lead to what Nietzsche was speaking about, to the struggle of the path of the Homer hero (self-centered and unaware of the *good*) vs the struggle for the logos in the political realm

[Anonymous No.7174166]

>>7174153
Shut the fuck up. Stop trying to mould Nietzsche into your personal little philosopher who adheres to your niche brand of whatever.

[Anonymous No.7174171]

>>7174166
Too bad there weren't enough people around to shout that at the Nazis...

[Anonymous No.7174173]

>>7174107
yeah, well this is a Nietzsche thread and Mitleid means both compassion an charity.

[Anonymous No.7174178]

>Here's why I don't like Nietzsche
>What are his ideas exactly?

Grow up

[Anonymous No.7174201]

for me nietzsche is based because he hated jews, niggerrs, sjw and women


redpilled philosopher

[Anonymous No.7174221]

>>7172937
I'm tired of using tbh tbh

[Anonymous No.7174248]

>>7172919

ITT: OP sees through lit's appeal to authority tendencies and the bullshit involved with most of academia in the arts / humanities.

Also I could explain calculus to a 5 year old no probs, assuming I can explain addition adn the other subunits.

Also there is so much cancer on here. This cancer is why every intro to philosophy class ignores the problems of philosophy and just gets in to a historical top trumps circle jerk

[Anonymous No.7174257]

>>7174155
So what? I don't see your point. Nietzsche didn't even know that the Minoan civilization actuallu existed on Crete, to mention just one thing archaeology has revealed to us since Nietzsche's death; anything he said about Greek culture should be reevaluated in the light of the massive amounts of stuff we've learned since he died. My point is that Nietzsche is the wrong person to read if you want to learn about the Greeks, or Christianity, or 19th century Germany.

Besides, you're talking about particular introductions to a book Nietzsche didn't even write. None of this has anything to do with him, unless you seriously believe N. was the first or most noteworthy person to articulate the idea that Greek heroism gave way to other ways of seeing the world and the individual as Greek civilization aged.

[Anonymous No.7174274]

>>7174257

So, what are the good books to read to know about Greeks, or Christianity, or 19th century Germany?

[Anonymous No.7174318]

>>7174274
Herodotus, Plutarch, the Bible, St. Augustine, the Church Fathers, yknow, actual histories and the writings of the figures involved in the time periods in question. I'm not a Marxist but Marx understood the country and century he shared with Nietzsche in a way Nietzsche failed to. Everything Nietzsche talks about relating to the transvaluation of all values can be explained by the emergence of industrial capitalism in Western Europe, but Nietzsche decided he didn't care about that kind of thing and blamed changes in psychology rather than in the economy.

[Anonymous No.7174332]

>>7172919
At first I was going to discuss Nietzsche, but this bearded shame of Russia can take his opinions and fuck right off.

[Anonymous No.7174381]

Authority Fallacy.

[Anonymous No.7174393]

>>7174221
We all are, but we can't stop

[Anonymous No.7174404]

>>7174130
>Philology doesn't count
Oh, okay, so an expert who studied and taught the Greeks doesn't know about the Greeks, I see.

[Anonymous No.7174440]

I agree. If Nietzsche were alive today, he'd just have fedoras tipped at him and nobody would pay any attention to what he said. Same could be same for a lot of dead old white guys tbqfh

[Anonymous No.7174519]

>>7172919
You are the reason he wrote the way he did, he knew only a certain type would pick up what he said.

[Anonymous No.7175371]

>>7174221
I'm tired of being tired tbqh

[Anonymous No.7175383]

Between Nietzsche and De Sade, I don't know who needs more [citation needed]'s placed in their work.

[Anonymous No.7175436]

>>7172919
>That's something that's truth-apt, it's an empirical claim. But let's be real, as a claim about psychology, it just doesn't hold any water.

Slave morality is one of the clearest, most empirically demonstrable phenomena in the history of philosophy. Go on /r9k/ some time. What pray tell do you think all that 'normie' shit is? There's also plenty of empirical psychology backing up the idea of envy as a powerful human motivator, for example that famous study that a person would rather refuse a gift than get a small gift while someone else got a big one.

>The idea is that 'great men' need to rise above, like, pity and other slavish emotions. Isn't compassion pretty much the basis of all morality.

You're conflating pity with compassion, which itself is an error that nietzsche himself pointed out.

Nietzsche was unequivocally against pity but his views on compassion were more complex. He believed that real 'compassion' involved encouraging others to own up to their shortcomings and to attempt to overcome them, he disliked pity-laden compassion because it entailed at bottom a contempt for the one pitied.

Like someone else in this thread said, Nietzsche's ideas have a lot of nuance. More than any other thinker perhaps, reducing his concepts to something 8th grade level will inevitably distort them. Take 'slave morality' for instance. It's a common interpretation to say 'Nietzsche thought slave morality is bad because it comes from envy.' But he doesn't think slave morality is 'wrong' or needs to be 'eradicated', he is quite clear that it is a necessity for those who are oppressed... His merely pointing out that it is rooted in envy is taken as wholesale condemnation, but that's merely a byproduct of oversensitivity and hypochondria on the part of certain readers.

I don't want to sound too harsh, but I get the feeling you're just not that intellectually-inclined, or don't have much of an ear for nuance, or are just too drunk on certain value judgments to cope with alternate perspectives. Your criticisms of Nietzsche are extremely weak and superficial.

I'd also point out that people like you are 90% of why Nietzsche is so famous. I always find myself getting bored with him or thinking "I'm finally over Nietzsche," then I read some simplistic post hyperventilating at Nietzsche's ideas and suddenly need to go to bat for him again. This dynamic is what keeps his name in circulation.

[Anonymous No.7175530]

>>7173127
miscegenation causes alienation

[Anonymous No.7175543]

>>7174404
>Greek language
>Identical with the Greek people
>Implying Nietzsche had access to the same information about the Greeks we have access to today
>Implying anything in Nietzsche's philosophy of history can be salvaged from his utter inability or unwillingness to make proper arguments backed up with solid evidence
Nietzsche wasn't quite a fraud, but anyone who thinks he was simply 'correct' about anything is a fraud.

[Anonymous No.7175578]

>>7173524
>when he delivers the roots of his ideas in plain language in the all too human and daybreak/gay science boooks.

Understanding this is the key to knowing whether someone has actually studied Nietzsche.

The early books are generally way better (though the second essay of the genealogy of morals was the best thing he wrote)

[Anonymous No.7175588]

>>7174073
The Nazi-esque interpretation of this is utterly insipid. People are so ready to be up in arms about the proximity of the words racial and purity they completely fail to distinguish the niceties being expressed
>purity is the final result of countless adaptations, absorption and secretions

He is not talking about genes, but values.

>>7175436
Holy shit, 10/10 post, this entire thread BTFO.

[Anonymous No.7175599]

>>7175543
His work is of an artistic bent, not scientific. That doesn't preclude it from philosophy, nor does it make him half a fraud.

[Anonymous No.7175607]

>>7175588
>Argues against Nazism
>Posts symbol of nordic aryan beauty to strive toward

[Anonymous No.7175610]

>>7175588
But seriously, just admit that he's talking about race in that section. He even mentions the 'white' man and the 'black' man a few lines before.

[Anonymous No.7175641]

>>7175543
kek confirmed for never reading any sophisticated scholarship in his life

[Anonymous No.7175654]

>>7175610
He is not talking about race, white and black simply offer a poignant artistic dichotomy to render his point. He could just as easily mean a pure African race as a European one.

>>7175607
>tfw no Rose
;_;

[Anonymous No.7175679]

>>7175610
Context matters, what is the ubermensch but a purified man? It has nothing to do with race but is just another example of Nietzsche's fictional superman who isn't haunted by the subconscious and moral decay of primitive man. When has Nietzsche ever espoused anything remotely scientific? Genetics wasn't even on people's radar until the start of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.7175697]

>>7175610

> But seriously, just admit that he's talking about race in that section. He even mentions the 'white' man and the 'black' man a few lines before.

A: he says that pure races don't actually exist in reality.

B: He suggest that 'races' should strive to become pure somehow.

C: Throughout his works, he constantly stresses the need for an end to nationalism and 'bringing racial elements together' (for example assimilating Jews into Europe, or combining Asian civilizations with European ones).

The 'purification' he's talking about is not the kind that you're thinking. He means the end-product of racial integration when a new, singular identity is achieve and the previously 'discrete' racial elements have completely assimilated each other. It's literally the complete opposite of what you're thinking. He quotes livingstone not to make some biological claim about mixed races but to show that racial integration--INITIALLY--comes with a degree of conflict which is somewhat internalized in the individuals. You can see this quite plainly when half-asian half-white people talk about not fitting in to either color, or second generation foreigners who say "I'm an outsider to Americans but I'm also an outsider to Indians." This is what Nietzsche is getting at, it's not primarily anything biological.

[Anonymous No.7175774]

>>7175679
>It has nothing to do with race
>>7175654
>He is not talking about race

>“The deep and icy mistrust the German still arouses today whenever he gets into a position of power is an echo of that inextinguishable horror with which Europe observed for centuries that raging of the blond Germanic beast (although between the old Germanic tribes and us Germans there exists hardly a conceptual relationship, let alone one of blood).”

[Anonymous No.7175823]

>>7173037
Calm down man; I can feel your despair from here. Stop denying your self.

[Anonymous No.7175836]

ITT: Neetposters defend obscurantist bullshit

I know that you like to drool at the sight of purple prose like a hungry dog next to the hot dog stand, but if the only way you can defend your philosophy/philosopher is "you dont understand" "that's not what it means" "youre misinterpreting him", your not doing philosophy at all

[Anonymous No.7175862]

>>7175836
Only wageslaves need to defend obscurantist bullshit. NEET Stirnerists are in no need of apologetics.

[Anonymous No.7175967]

>>7175836
bait so great it made me faint

[Anonymous No.7176111]

>>7172919
>What are Nietzsche's ideas exactly?
Have you read even a single aphorism of his? Every single one of them is an idea. And he has several books composed entirely of hundreds of aphorisms in each. The man had thousands of ideas.

>What is a "transvaluation of all values"?
An inversion of the most fundamental values that have been carried through centuries of human societies which Nietzsche identified, based on a brand new, modern philosophy. Basically, think of value systems as stemming from older value systems which stem from a group of individuals with strong ideas who influenced a lot of people at one time. If you know how to analyze the world like Nietzsche, you'd have seen in the 1800s also the connection between Christianity and so much of modern morality then, modern scientists and poets, etc. It seeps into everything. Nietzsche overturned all tables that were built by that holy carpenter.

>TBH he doesn't give us much details
Nah not really, just an entire book, and several other books to help you understand that one book.

[Anonymous No.7176184]

>>7175588
>He is not talking about genes, but values.
No, "values" would be part of "culture" in that passage. Culture comes out of race. He is definitely talking about genetic groups of people. Why else bring up the Greeks? Not to mention this is fucking Nietzsche, who believed that nutrition, climate, and place of living were extremely overlooked factors in one's health, who was more "down to earth" than anyone else in his evaluation of things, not seeing things-in-themselves or other illusory concepts, seeing how everything is connected, seeing the massive importance of the organic structure in everything, etc.

Dude, genetics are fucking key to everything. The culture / education / nurturing part is actually just a minor aspect.

[Anonymous No.7176204]

>>7175654
>>7175679
>>7175697
Holy fucking shit. I have never seen such denial and delusion in my entire life. I hope this is a troll.

Let me guess, you read Nietzsche's works translated by Kaufmann?

[Anonymous No.7176365]

>>7176204
Let me guess, you read the shit his sister published to pander to the anti semites of her age for money and took it seriously?

[Anonymous No.7176375]

>>7176184
>Why else bring up the Greeks?
Because they triumphed as a people and forged a definite identity as per their triumph. It has absolutely nothing to do with race. Any retard who thinks Nietzsche was a Nazi hasn't actually read him, he has many good thing to say about the Jews for example (and bad too, not unlike Christians as well.)

[Anonymous No.7176382]

>Nietzsche, the guy who vehemently denounces herd behavior and values individuality above everything else to an insane degree
>in any way compatible with Nazism

You realize this is the same guy who explicitly states the best thing for Europe to do with the Jews is to assimilate them, right?

[Anonymous No.7176452]

>>7176204

What reading of 'purification' do you propose based on that passage? It seems quite clear to me that he's talking about a harmonizing effect where mixed groups synthesize into a cohesive identity over time... My interpretation is especially well-supported by the sentence, "purity is the final result of countless adaptations, absorptions and secretions." It's quite clear that he's talking about elements of previous heterogeneous groups synthesizing into a new kind of homogeneity.

[Anonymous No.7176520]

>>7176452

> It's quite clear that he's talking about elements of previous heterogeneous groups synthesizing into a new kind of homogeneity.

This. He cites the Greeks as "a model of a race and culture that has become pure", but the Greek nation was famously a synthesis of four disparate ethnic groups -- Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians, and Achaeans. He's anticipating the EU, not the Third Reich.

[Anonymous No.7176905]

>>7175436

>muh empiricism

yikes

[Anonymous No.7176979]

>>7173325
That's not Stirner, that's Hume.
Read Kant and then Stirner.

[Anonymous No.7176994]

>tfw you realize /lit/ is forever dominated by idiots
>tfw you realize it's better to not visit this site

whelp.

[Anonymous No.7177017]

>>7176994
pretty much. I thought I was stupid when I first started frequenting this board in high school. Then I realized that, in fact, almost no one on this board has any awareness of contemporary philosophers. I rarely see any philosopher who has emerged after the 80s that is mentioned with any frequency here. It seems to be composed mostly of people who dropped out of school and read fiction all the time. And art school dropouts. I mean, really, you'd have to be a trustfund NEET with no meaningful relationships in your life to have read so many books under the age of 30, 35. You would have to be devoid of meaningful life experience. But now and then there's something of merit and sometimes I don't have anything better to do and sometimes I learn something new.

[Anonymous No.7177178]

>Hasnt read The Birth of Tragedy
>Hasnt read The Geneology of Morals
>Hasnt read The Gay Science
>Hasnt read Beyond Good and Evil
Thus Spake is what he builds up to mang, please get a better understanding.
Slave morality is traced back to Socratic thinking btw, he wasnt just mocking Christianity and he has huge points to show why its correct and why its led to the downfall of Western (specifically Germanic) culture.

To ignore Nietzsche is a worse sin than ignoring Hume or Hegel I'd dare say.

[Anonymous No.7177184]

>>7173325
>Muh spooks disprove the entire Utilitarian Tradition
Please leave.

[Anonymous No.7177185]

>>7177017

what are your thoughts on Judith Butler or Slavoj Zizek

[Anonymous No.7177193]

>>7175836
Purple prose that leads to Golden reasoning I'd say.
He only uses so much metaphor to better explain his ideas; argument by analogy is as valid of an argument as any, and usually a strong one.

[Anonymous No.7177232]

>>7173037

My little anon-kun can't possibly project this hard.

Why do so many self important assholes like Nietzsche? On some level you have to realize how weak and powerless you are right?
There are so very many philosophies that allow you to have a positive outlook on your life without having to be absolutely delusional. I mean, you can be as crazy as you like, but you make me tired just reading your bullshit. Your life must be either exhausting or terribly boring.

[Anonymous No.7177237]

>>7177178
>reading the abomination that is Hegel

Scram.

[Anonymous No.7177246]

>>7177237
>Disagrees with Hegel
>Thus I should not read him
This is like reading Mill's complaints against Kant without at all understanding Kant. Hegel is a massive figure in ethics regardless of whether you agree with him, to skip him over is a misstep in legitimate critism of his ideas.

[Anonymous No.7177349]

>>7177246
>reading Hegel
>implying it isn't a huge mess with a few interesting ideas littered here and there under piles and piles of nonsensical verbiage
>implying thinkers like C.B. Macpherson haven't dedicated their entire lives to reading Hegel and still don't have a clue what he's talking about

Reading Hegel is nowhere near as important as reading those who reply and are influenced by Hegel. Philosophy really starts going to shit after Hegel, Fichte, and friends.

[Anonymous No.7177956]

>>7174166
daybreak 167 on unconditional homage
>We never forget what we endeavour to forget. And how great would be the "balance "which we should have to forget if we wished henceforth to continue wholesale admirers of these three great men (schopenhauer, wagner, bismarck)! It would therefore be far more advisable to profit by the excellent opportunity offered us to try something new i. e. to advance in the spirit of honesty towards ourselves and become instead of a nation of credulous repetition and of bitter and blind animosity a people of conditional assent and benevolent opposition. We must come to learn in the first place however that unconditional homage to people is something rather ridiculous that a change of view on this point would not discredit even Germans and that there is a profound and memorable saying: "Ce qui importe ce ne sont point les personnes: mais les choses".

[Anonymous No.7177998]

>>7172919
These arguments aren't why you're angry with Nietzsche, the same criticism could be leveled at many popular philosophers yet you aren't angry at them and can't be. You are angry at Nietzsche because he has from his grave thrown a spanner into the discourse surrouding your political narrative and identity, and the spanner continuous to frustrate the furthering of your narratives. Stay butthurt.

[Anonymous No.7178002]

>>7174093
so is it immoral to ask for pity? because the one who pities also suffers for you, though very little i suppose.

[Anonymous No.7178040]

>>7174093
Thanks,anon. I am not asking for her pity(i think). I am just asking for an apology, man. But i feel like i am doing an immoral act since i assume she also feels responsible for my acting like a teenage girl. Sorry, if that's too /r9kish/. Just naively trying to seek consolation from philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7178042]

>>7175599
Like I said, Nietzsche wasn't a fraud.
>>7175641
Are you saying Nietzsche is sophisticated?

[Anonymous No.7178047]

>>7177193
>Reasoning
Idiot

[Anonymous No.7178181]

>>7176520
>He's anticipating the EU, not the Third Reich.
What the fuck am I reading.

[Anonymous No.7178255]

>>7178181
Jewtalk? It's sad how active they are :(

[Anonymous No.7178313]

>>7174221
You can not not use it
To bear it,
you can not either

[Anonymous No.7178362]

>>7178255
Those darned Jews will do anything to not only insist that Nietzsche was a good scholar but go so far as to insist that their wrong interpretations of his work are correct! Fugging ZOG :DDD

[Anonymous No.7178380]

>>7178362
When the Jew comes forth as virtue itself, the danger is great. - Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.7178412]

>>7178380
Nietzsche's white supremacist sister is responsible for most of the antisemitism in his writing.

[Anonymous No.7178415]

>>7178380
>Will to Power

[Anonymous No.7178422]

>>7178412
>Nietzsche's white supremacist sister is responsible for most of the antisemitism in his writing.

People alive today have been trained since birth by Liberalism to be religiously terrified of anything remotely resembling Nazism, let alone Nazism itself, and I think that it is this that causes people to make outlandish claims about Nietzsche's sister and Nietzsche himself, even going so far as, in your case, to spread outright lies. Kaufmann was irresponsible for latching onto this fear and using its power to guide his own scholarship, instead of the other way around. That is why as a scholar Kaufmann is a failure. Kaufmann totally ignores and suppresses all of the subject matter in Nietzsche that has historical continuity with Fascism, and then blows out of proportion and context Nietzsche's seemingly protean comments about Jews, Germany, Race and other highly charged and complex issues that are in Kaufmann's hands handled with the smuggest liberal moralizing.

[Anonymous No.7178444]

>>7178415
He wrote everything in that book. I don't understand why people take issue with it just because of the fact that his sister published it. Spinoza's Ethics was published posthumously but it's held up as a masterwork of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7178454]

>>7178444
1) Nietzsche's sister actually ended doing quite a bit of editing to the material, putting together different unrelated fragments to make up some of the material that became Will to Power, and in some cases outright added her own ideas.

2) The Ethics was a carefully crafted work. The Will to Power is a collection of notes taken from a bunch of different notebooks, none of which was arranged by Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.7178470]

>>7178454
The manuscript has been analysed by lexicographers as having been written by Nietzsche. You only object to it because it has some illiberal statements in it though, you would fully embrace it otherwise.

[Anonymous No.7178475]

>>7178454
also, Peter Gast edited the Will to Power. He edited ALL of Nietzsche's works before they were published. Nietzsche considered Köselitz's editorial input to be essential to his philosophising.

[Anonymous No.7178502]

>>7178470
There was no manuscript, because Nieztsche didn't write one; the material comes from a bunch of different notebooks.

Also, I don't recall making any comment about the "illiberality" of the material; I'm not any of the people currently arguing stupidly over Nietzsche's comments on race. But it's silly to maintain that Will to Power was a work composed by Nietzsche.

>>7178475
No, Peter Gast AND NIETZSCHE'S SISTER edited Will to Power; and being invaluable as an editor hardly says anything about understanding of the material.

[Anonymous No.7178504]

>>7178470
>>7178475
>You only object to it because it has some illiberal statements in it though

Are you new to nietzsche? He has much worst things in the stuff he published... And he actually meant to publish those.

[Anonymous No.7178578]

>>7178422
people called out förster-nietzsche for her bullshit even before walter kaufman was born, why are you so obsessed with kaufman? nietzsche personally resisted visits by charlatans like julius langbehn while his sister kept inviting them, exploiting nietzsches growing helplessness. the bits about jews in his officially published books were already discussed itt, one can also search the unpublished fragments and letters online. there is the same pattern: the overwhelming majority where he mentions jews is positive.

http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/NF-1885,34[154]
>nietzsche praising heinrich heine

http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1886,669
>letter by friedrich to his sister, he calls her "lama"
>i'm happy about a recommendation... but then i remembered that you'd say "he's just a jew". this is a manifestation to me, how much the lama has jumped outside the tradition of her brother... we don't enjoy the same things anymore...

http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1887,854
>again letter to his sister (in paraguay)
>no, i wont send you money
>no, i wont support your antisemitic project
>i hope though, germany gets rid of all its antisemites (they will surely all go to paraguay), and also that jews gain power in europe, so they lose the qualities which they needed while they were suppressed
>btw, it's my conviction that a german who, simply because he's german, thinks he's better than a jew, belongs inside a comedy if he's not already inside a mad house

http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1887,940
>i was at an excellent astronomical congress, financed and organized by a jew called bischoffsheim, nizza loves him

http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1887,964
>...my fan georg brandes, the wittiest dane, that is a jew...

http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/NF-1888,15[80]
>scribbles about possible causes of mass fatigue
>stupid alcoholism among germans... what blessing is a jew among them...

http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/NF-1888,21[6]
>again: what a blessing is a jew among germans
>a jew knows that he's lying when he's lying. an antisemite doesnt know that he always lies.

http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/NF-1888,21[7]
>antisemites are jelly and dont even realize that they resemble the stupidest version of a jew.

[Anonymous No.7178694]

>>7178380
Depending on what he means with "the Jew", "virtue" and "danger", that could mean vastly different things.

[Anonymous No.7178994]

>>7178694
Haha! How much do you get payed to do this thing? Or is it on "ideological basis"?

[Anonymous No.7179172]

>>7177998
>spanner
Go fuck your self.

[Anonymous No.7179295]

>>7178994
Here's a little quote from Nietzsche:
>The true man wants two things: danger and play
In this sense, the danger posed by the jew is a good thing, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.7179469]

>>7179295
The Jew is no foe. He's far too sneaky for that. The Jew is a snake.

[Anonymous No.7179992]

>all of these buttblasted insisting Nietzsche was a fascist
>blatantly giving away that they haven't actually read him, or if they have completely failed to grasp his writing
>volunteering their shit opinions with growing violence

[Anonymous No.7180000]

>all of these buttblasted faggots insisting Nietzsche was a fascist
>blatantly giving away that they haven't actually read him, or if they have completely failed to grasp his writing
>volunteering their shit opinions with growing violence

[Anonymous No.7180028]

>>7180000
>violence

Confirmed for post-modern retard. Or just retard in general; look it's really simple: violence /involves/ VIOLENCE as in NOT WORDS YOU MONGOLOID.

[Anonymous No.7180168]

Political debate in a Nietzsche thread as usual. /lit/ needs to get more creative, and also an understanding of Nietzsche that isn't bogged down by silly politics.

Yes, he was authoritative. Yes, he liked the strong, he wanted to be in the military, and he was the Antichrist and Dionysus through and through: He was above everyone, he criticized all beneath him. But he had almost as much to do with human political affairs as Jesus did. His hierarchy was based on a very different thing from petty nationalistic politics. I'm not saying he would have completely hated the Nazis, but get over it already, it's not important.

[Anonymous No.7180202]

>>7180168
tldr: harrumph

[Anonymous No.7181004]

>>7172953
Go to bed, no children allowed on lit

[Anonymous No.7181025]

>>7174318
Economic changes are a result of psychological changes. For instance, northern bourgeois supremacy would never have existed without Luther. One could blame the entire existence of Capitalism on the Sack of Rome in 1527 and the French Revolution.

Also all those primary source authoes you listed were available to Nietzsche in their original language (since you probably can't read Herodotus in Greek), so I don't know why you even said that

[Anonymous No.7181071]

>>7181025
It's the other way aroung, chief.

[Anonymous No.7181148]

>>7181025
I'm also a Hegelian

[Anonymous No.7181162]

Every initial Nietzsche admirer considers himself a possible ubermensch. As the years go on, that possibility becomes more and more of a joke due to countless experiential evidence. It's then that they realize "Nietzsche was wrong all along."

[Anonymous No.7181187]

>>7181162
Or they figure out that it was a ruse he was using on certain readers.

[Anonymous No.7181202]

>>7181187
If they figure it was a ruse then why what would they be saying he was wrong all along about?

[Anonymous No.7181215]

>>7181202
I didn't say they would be; I was offering that as an alternative to the other poster's comment.

[Anonymous No.7181271]

>>7172986
Isnt that what happens in Aquinas threads?

[Anonymous No.7181278]

>>7181271
nah, Scotusbro actually tries to clear up misunderstandings

[Anonymous No.7181338]

>>7173060
>Openly admit to trip fagging
You've lost all credibility.

[Anonymous No.7181787]

>>7181338
Which is nothing because we are all anonymoose?

[Anonymous No.7181800]

>>7181787

And therefore credible

[Anonymous No.7181912]

>>7181800
no, because you can't separate one person from another. I am not OP for example.

[Anonymous No.7181917]

>>7181912

hence legitimate, identity-free credibility to your post

[Anonymous No.7181956]

>>7173184
>>7173196
there was a gril he loved but she didn't love him back and chose some other guy

[Anonymous No.7181973]

>>7181162
The ubermensch is nothing but the stoic sage dressed in more modern clothes. It's something to strive for, or rather, recognize and help in bringing the potential for rather than something one can attain for oneself, even if you dedicate yourself to that goal fully.