Who was more intelligent?

[Anonymous No.8545743]

[Anonymous No.8545789]

Marx

[Anonymous No.8545793]

Nietzsche, obviously

[Anonymous No.8545798]

>>8545743
kill urself

[Anonymous No.8545827]

Marx was an intellectual ant compared to Neitzsche

[Anonymous No.8545833]

>>8545827
I keep criticizing the remainder of this board being high school students but the overwhelming obsessive love of Nietzsche and not even spelling his name correctly, really just speaks for itself.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.8545837]

What sort of a stupid comparison is this? It's like asking who was smarter, Adam Smith, or Confucious?

[Anonymous No.8545845]

>>8545833
Nietzsche wasn't even a very good philosopher, which becomes apparent when you really delve into the study. I had a philosophy prof. who would rant about Neitzsche for hours.

I've never understood the love for him on this board. Perhaps because he's one of the easiest philosophers to pick up and quickly read?

[Anonymous No.8545850]

me, my intellectual iq intelligence is avobe double (2) digital digits

[Anonymous No.8545858]

>Guaranteed 300 replies

Here's mine

[Anonymous No.8545882]

One has value as a philosopher and one doesn't. What's even the point of comparing?

[Anonymous No.8545887]

>>8545845
>he wasn't a very good philosopher
>he's easy
rofl. this is how people on this board "discuss" philosophy. fucking pathetic pleb.

[Anonymous No.8545893]

Nietzsche obviously.

>>8545845
Your professor probably got a bit too much of that Schoppy dick and got addicted. Nietzsche is legitimately good. Unless you are an analytic autist, but even then I think there should be something there for them. What were his criticisms?

[Anonymous No.8545897]

Anyone who fawns over Nietzsche is object proof positive between the age of 16 and 19

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.8545912]

>>8545893
>Nietzsche is legitimately good.
*from a Nietzschean perspective

[Anonymous No.8545937]

Marx. Actually reading him and realizing that he's making such original in depth theories, even if they're wrong, of capitalism on the brink of its creation made me recognize him as one of the great geniuses of his time.

[Anonymous No.8545946]

It's Marx. He provided the framework for an entire alternative mode of society and influenced some of our world for the better, some for the worse.

You can thank workers rights movements inspired by his work for many of the rights in capitalism you take for granted today. A rather large one being child labor laws

[Anonymous No.8545959]

>>8545837
Adam Smith

[Anonymous No.8545977]

>>8545912
I don't really understand what you mean by "Nietzschean perspective". If you mean the obsession with will to power and being the ubermesch or whatever you are wrong. He was extremely influential to other schools of thought that used the way he thought about things without necessarily drawing the same conclusions.

I suppose he opened a door that some would have rather stayed closed.

[Anonymous No.8545989]

>>8545946
>because many unintelligent literal plebs followed Marx's ideas, he was smart
You sound like one of those unintelligent literal plebs yourself

[Anonymous No.8545997]

>>8545989
Yes those uneducated liberal plebs who gave you the right to be a neet fuck who doesn't work in a factory at 12 were evil fuckers weren't they

God damn communists taking away my right to make a living at 11 at a sweat shop. They're ruining the lives of job creators

[Anonymous No.8546004]

>>8545989
You're using the word liberal horrifically wrong.

[Anonymous No.8546013]

>>8545989

>communist
>unintelligent
>plebs

You'll hang.

[Anonymous No.8546018]

>>8546013
Please. Like the Cold War Truman Doctrine didn't have larger ramifications worldwide, and didn't cause death for people not accepting America rules the Earth and it's way of life is just and correct. Sovereignty be damned.

[Anonymous No.8546037]

>>8545977
>I suppose he opened a door that some would have rather stayed closed.
the same can be said about marx

[Anonymous No.8546045]

>>8545937
>of capitalism on the brink of its creation
???

[Anonymous No.8546971]

>>8546004
I'm not using it at all, retard

[Anonymous No.8547347]

>>8545882

underrated post for declining to specify which is supposed to be which, in this poster's opinion. Because the point of the post is not to elucidate, but to invite obfuscation, to invite others to read in what they wish.

[Anonymous No.8547363]

>>8545845
Nietzsche is a literary figure, not a philosopher. He's best considered a writer of philosophical themes. But his work wouldn't be considered professional philosophy by today's standards.

[Anonymous No.8547369]

>>8546045

I'm not that guy but he's probably referring to how modern capitalism as we understand it was just getting going during Marxs' lifetime, and so the other poster is presumably very complimentary of Marx as having made a very early and very serious (and very historically consequential) effort to understand this new large scale phenomenon. "Colonialism" and "mercantilism" are not the same thing as capitalism, despite their similarities.

Read the Communist Manifesto and other writings of Marx/Engels. There is a persistent mention of "old" pre-IR European modes of class, exchange, etc (feudalism, artisans, handicraftsmen, masters and apprentices ) which are "now" superseded by Marx's conception of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In this sketch (the Manifestos'), the lower bespoke-work type folks who still manage to have their own little shop someplace eventually get squeezed off into prole-territory as a consequence of how capitalism works. This narrative parallels a modern media/cultural fear of "the shrinking middle class".

[Anonymous No.8547382]

>>8547363
I'd be rolling in my grave if anything I did was considered professional philosophy by today's standards.

90% of the useless human beings I've encountered in academia are 'philosophers of X', or 'X Ethicists'. Maybe it's just a fixture of American academia but they always seem to pad out every school with a few of those people who just teach those really stupid and easy classes where you share your feels about things and get an A as long as you write papers that agree with everything the professor thinks.

[Anonymous No.8547387]

>>8547382
Fine.

My point was Nietzsche's on his own level. Marx was an actual academic, writing formal theses and making citations. N was writing more off the cuff with a more subjective, personal message.

[Anonymous No.8547455]

>>8545743
Nietzche's works when applied to your life can make you a much better person in comparison to Marx. However Nietzsche's works are often misinterpreted and memed to death by high schoolers who think they understand him.

[Anonymous No.8547460]

>>8545743
Dostoevsky > both of em. By a mile.

[Anonymous No.8547466]

>>8545743
NIZSHE

[Anonymous No.8547473]

>>8547460
More psychotic? Yes. More emotionally unstable? Yes. More intelligent? At his best he was "as intelligent as", certainly not more.

[Anonymous No.8547519]

>>8545743
pic related >>> both

>>8547473
Dostoevsky BTFO'd Nietzsche before Nietzsche even wrote anything.

[Anonymous No.8547530]

>>8547519
>Dostoevsky BTFO'd Nietzsche before Nietzsche even wrote anything.
when exactly?

[Anonymous No.8547535]

>>8547519
Also,
>pic related
Was quite naive and trusted theosophists all his life. Great artist =/= intelligent person.

[Anonymous No.8547545]

Marx is more thorough in his work, but Nietzsche writings are exquisite from a pure literary view point.

[Anonymous No.8547553]

>>8547530
Crime and Punishment's character is essentially Nietzsche's ubersmenschen.

>>8547535
>Was quite naive and trusted theosophists all his life.
What's naive about trusting theocentricism? He also respected eastern philosophers, particularly the buddhist and zen. He believed that people regardless of religion should care about what will happen after a few decades of their life ended, something that neither Nietzsche and Marx even cared for. He was right when he said that the miserable state of the society today is caused by the selfishness of individualism.

[Anonymous No.8547578]

>>8547553
>Crime and Punishment's character is essentially Nietzsche's ubersmenschen.
It's Dostoevsky's ubersmensch, not Nietzsche's. And it's a problem of Dostoevsky's mind.
>>8547553
>What's naive about
What's so naive about being in Blavatsky's sect, indeed?

[Anonymous No.8547596]

>>8547578
No, it's Dostoevsky's untersmench.

>What's so naive about being in Blavatsky's sect, indeed?
There is no humility in esoteric religion.

[Anonymous No.8547611]

>>8547530
He 'beat' Nietzsche to most of his main conclusions.

Heidegger had two portraits on his wall, one was of the great Russian.

[Anonymous No.8547613]

>>8547596
it was sarcasm all along

[Anonymous No.8547616]

>>8547611
>He 'beat' Nietzsche to most of his main conclusions.
What text are you talking about? What conclusions did Nietzsche have?

[Anonymous No.8547626]

in the land of the blind, the blind guy with a stick is king

Round goes to Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.8548682]

>>8546018
>America was more imperialistic than the Soviet Union
Leftists are barely sentient beings. Look up Kaczinski's criticism of liberals, what you're doing here is described there exactly.

[Anonymous No.8548709]

I appreciate Marx for his social theory, though I haven't adopted it. Whilst I think the focus on labour obscures other aspects of social life, within that particular realm he does a great job of explaining it.
I'm not versed on Nietzsche so I can't comment on him.

[Anonymous No.8548727]

>>8547387
The ideas of theses and citations are just modern inventions and not really relevant. Would you dismiss Plato and Socrates as philosophers? Whta about Diogenes?

"Professional philosopher" lol cmon anon think about what you're writing

[Anonymous No.8548743]

Disclaimer: both Capitalism and Socialism are races to the bottom based on inhuman value systems and will collapse in a few decades.

That being said, definitely Marx. His thoughts caused a literal apocalypse. Nietzsche had no comparable impact on the world, or anything. His legacy is just one bumper sticker meme phrase dudebros and STEMlords mindlessly abuse.

[Anonymous No.8548833]

>>8548743
You are clearly biased and you interests dictate your limited worldview.
Marx appealed to the most basic of human instincts, i.e. fairness, and monkeys latched onto him.
Nietzsche, on the other hand, was a wholly intellectual force and influenced subsequent culture as a whole and actually made them think. Marx simply doesn't get to do that.

[Anonymous No.8549063]

>>8547387

>Marx was an actual academic, writing formal theses and making citations.

No, Nietzsche was the ACTUAL, literal academic. Basel's youngest ever Professor of Philology at the age of 23.

Marx's WORK may have been more academic than Nietzsche's, but Nietzsche himself was the more superior academic by far.

With this in mind, it soon becomes clear that the apparently nonacademic nature of Nietzsche's work is much more interesting (and revealing) than it first appears. Nietzsche could certainly have written academically, with formal theses/citations/etc, and yet chose not to do so.

We can wonder why, but the answer is quite obvious upon reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche isn't looking for converts; rather, he is preaching to a choir, even if some of it members may not be aware of the fact that they are already members. His fellow 'Creators', to be specific. Regarding those to whom he speaks, or wants to speak, he has no need to 'defend' his philosophy or remarks to any meaningful degree; rather, he only needs to lead them down the rabbit hole.

[Anonymous No.8549089]

Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.8549095]

>>8547347
It's quite obvious who he's talking about. Their writings formed the political foundation of one of the greatest powers in WWII, after all.

[Anonymous No.8549117]

Which one waa the better poet.

[Anonymous No.8549184]

>>8548833

The second world war wouldn't have happened without the writings of Marx. What comparable event in history did Nietzsche's writings even partially cause?

[Anonymous No.8549192]

>>8549184

Wow, what a fucking achievement. If I had to choose between "fucking up geopolitics forever" and "having no discernible impact on the world", I'd rather my philosophy be the latter.

[Anonymous No.8549203]

>>8549117
Marx

[Anonymous No.8549274]

>>8549184

That depends what you define as an 'event', friend. Your definition seems limited to revolutions and wars, much like most blinkered Marxists.

As for why Nietzsche's impact on the world is not so noticeable as Marx's, that's pretty fucking obvious. Nietzsche spoke to the few, whereas Marx addressed (and roused) the rabble. In politics, it is not survival of the fittest, but rather the most numerous.

[Anonymous No.8549281]

>>8549192
That doesn't sound very übermemsch.

[Anonymous No.8549284]

>>8549274

So what few people's thoughts and/or actions did Nietzsche influence? Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club?

[Anonymous No.8549296]

>>8549284
The Nazis were heavily influenced by Nietzsche as well as the modified anti-semitic pamphlets by his sister.

Just because you are ignorant doesn't detract from Nietzsche's huge cultural impact.

[Anonymous No.8549302]

>>8549281

Nietzsche was by his own admission anti-political. There's nothing admirable about being involved in politics, even Socrates knew better.

>>8549284

It's hard to tell, as individual/small-scale events are much more difficult to detect than wars/revolutions/etc. It could be that some of the bigger events throughout history were choreographed by people who took Nietzsche to heart. Who knows?

Although if you want two examples of people whom Nietzsche identified strongly with his own thinking/philosophy: Napoleon/Caesar. He also had a lot of time for Frederick the Great.

[Anonymous No.8549415]

>>8549296

I think the Nazis were the natural conclusion of the autistic bottom-up mechanistic worldview that was prevalent in Western Europe and in Germany in particular for centuries. Neither eugenics, nor race-based Nationalism, nor manifest destiny-type thinking were Nietzsche's ideas. He didn't even crystallize or Romanticize them.

[Anonymous No.8549446]

>>8549415

There was a clear eugenic aspect to Nietzsche's thinking though, but it wasn't really race-based. That said, Nietzsche clearly did think in 'race' terms too.

He thought the permanently 'sick' were a drain on society, to the point that they should be euthanized, and that we have gone too far astray from the Ancient Greek ideal that bodily good health/perfection MUST precede intellect/genius - as opposed to vice versa or, what's worse, the modern belief that both have nothing to do with one another.

He certainly believed the European races should mix, that there should be a Pan-European State, frequently (and positively) alludes to the fair-haired Aryans of yore. And so on, and so on.

All of which I do not consider to be an objection, however. Eugenics is one of modernity's few secular heresies, which can only be a good thing.

[Anonymous No.8549807]

>>8549302
There's also nothing enviable about being having zero impact.