/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8792935]

How can you take this guy seriously? I can see why he appeals to precocious college teenagers, but how an adult could think good of him is beyond me.

He represents the infantile whine of modernity - for him, the world isn't as it should be, man isn't as he should be; He knew better than nature how the universe ought to be constituted, much like a petulant and particularly loquacious toddler knows better than its parent how the world works.

The great philosophies of antiquity, whether they be that of Plato, Epictetus or Zhuang Tzu, sought to understand the constitution of the universe and its nature, advocating calm acceptance of the inevitable and unavoidable, and coming to terms with the certainty of uncertainty. The world is as it is, the only way it could possibly be, and as such the way it should be.

These philosophies promised a calm and happy life, and resulted in exactly that for those who developed them. Nietzsche's philosophy promised a new overman superior to all before them, but resulted in driving him to pathetic lunacy. The teachings of Epictetus allowed people in the most horrific of conditions, such as torture in POW camps, to survive psychologically unscathed, and guided men such as Frederick the Great. What has Nietzsche's thought accomplished?

[Anonymous No.8792953]

>>8792935
your purple prose, however rich and savoury, suggests that you have not read him all that seriously

i'm not even saying i disagree, or that didn't enjoy reading such a lovely victorian-era post. plato is plato and i like epictetus and chuang tau a lot myself. it's even nice to see those two in the same sentence.

but 'infantile whine of modernity?' 'petulant and loquacious toddler?' come on now fella. let's keep it a buck, as the hip-hop guys say

>tfw if you really are pic related, i take it all back. you are a god and never have i heard anything more divine

[Anonymous No.8792957]

>>8792953
*chuang tzu

[Anonymous No.8792960]

>>8792935
>He represents the infantile whine of modernity - for him, the world isn't as it should be

Most religions preach the same, it's not a modern thought.

[Anonymous No.8792965]

>>8792935
Stoicism comes in handy after being caught. Ubermenschism makes sure you don't get caught in the first place.

Put that on a meme and smoke it

[Anonymous No.8793000]

>>8792953

You'd discount the substance of what I say on account of the form of my words?

I'm largely self-educated and, by using free copies of works on the internet, am largely restricted to antiquated translations. That influence over my vocabulary is unavoidable and not at all intentional.

You're correct in saying I'm not overly familiar with all of Nietzsche's works.

>>8792957

Pinyin transliteration is superior to Wade-Giles

>>8792960

No they don't, that's a common modern anachronism. In the Abrahamic faiths God is all-powerful, all-knowing and the creator of the universe. The universe according to them is perfect. 'Islam' literally means submission to the will of God, and predestination is even an obligatory article of the faith.

The European pagan religions (I won't talk about the religions I haven't studied) all venerated nature as sacred.

[Anonymous No.8793020]

>>8792965

Your influence over external circumstance is extremely limited; most aspects of circumstance, such as getting caught, are due entirely to chance (or predestination if that floats your boat) and are beyond your control. Stoicism is acceptance of that fact.

Acceptance of that fact renders strong feelings of anxiety, fear and anger obsolete. Control of these emotions make you less likely to slip up and 'get caught'.

Also, Frederick the Great carried a copy of the Enchiridion everywhere. Was he less 'ubermensch' than Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.8793036]

>>8793020

To put that more concisely

You have limited control of external circumstance, but total control of how you react to what happens to and around you. Stoicism teaches you this control and habituates you to it, increasing what little control you have in general and minimizing the negative effects of external circumstances.

[Anonymous No.8793046]

Yes and he was known to have feasted on his own feces and to have drank his own urine. Even before his descent into madness, Nietzsche is the most infantile of all the philosophers. I also use the word "philosopher" loosely to describe him. One grows bored of his preoccupation with religion, a worn out topic in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.8793053]

>>8793000
i'm beginning to suspect you aren't familiar at all with any of his works. you seem like a nice and well-spoken guy, so why not just talk about the stuff you are familiar with, rather than start a thread with a picture of nietzsche in and shit on him. some of us have read him pretty closely

are you a stoic? i'm a member of new stoa, was asked at one point to be a tutor. i turned it down because i had my doubts but not because the stoics are bunk. i rather like them. and fwiw i have more than once defended stoics against nietzscheans who only understand stoicism through nietzsche

but you have to be fair to both sides or nobody will take you seriously. that's all i'm saying

[Anonymous No.8793082]

>>8793053

What makes you suspect I haven't read him? I could post at length about such relatively obscure topics as how exactly he misread Schopenhauer, his responses to Darwin, and his views on Stoicism, which would be difficult without having read him.

In relation to both your doubts about becoming a tutor and your question as to whether I'm a Stoic, I'll quote Epictetus: "You're not yet Socrates, but you can still wish to be him."

[Anonymous No.8793091]

>>8792935
>plato
>great
top kek, triggered dogmatist over here

[Anonymous No.8793093]

I will write this in as simply as one could:
The point stands: he's right, in complete denial, driven by "uncorrupted utopia".
One should understand Nietzche for what he is, and lend an ear to Camus, which did brought nihilism to an end in a very down to earth manner, which "makes him a pleb" by the eyes of this very comunity somehow.

[Anonymous No.8793104]

>>8793082
you do seem like a nice guy, and i don't mean to seem rude. i am trying to move on past nietzsche myself in some sense, but i find it rather difficult, and even though i will no doubt read your continuing thoughts on this i nevertheless take issue with mischaracterization of the neetch. to my mind at least he was the most interesting man who ever set his thoughts down on paper, even if those thoughts make me feel profoundly upset

but the stoics are always a good look, as are the chinese, who i also like. epictetus was where it all began for me. and given that we have at least that much in common i can be civil. carry on then anon. i'm going to read gibbon. find a way to work him into your posts and i'll really have nothing to complain about

[Anonymous No.8793105]

>>8792935
>He represents the infantile whine of modernity - for him, the world isn't as it should be, man isn't as he should be; He knew better than nature how the universe ought to be constituted, much like a petulant and particularly loquacious toddler knows better than its parent how the world works.
So you haven't read him. He does appeal to too many people who haven't read him or who are poor enough of intelligence to think they are psychic for books.
>The problem with the other origin of the “good,” of the good man, as the person of ressentiment has thought it out for himself, demands some conclusion. It is not surprising that the lambs should bear a grudge against the great birds of prey, but that is no reason for blaming the great birds of prey for taking the little lambs. And when the lambs say among themselves, "These birds of prey are evil, and he who least resembles a bird of prey, who is rather its opposite, a lamb,—should he not be good?" then there is nothing to carp with in this ideal's establishment, though the birds of prey may regard it a little mockingly, and maybe say to themselves, "We bear no grudge against them, these good lambs, we even love them: nothing is tastier than a tender lamb."

Enjoy a life founded on book blurbs and listening to teenagers.

[Anonymous No.8793108]

>>8793091

That's not the case. I first read Plato without any secondary sources, commentaries, analyses or significant background reading and immediately found him to be a good teacher.

[Anonymous No.8793114]

>>8793108
You live in a Platonic culture you nimrod. Did you even read Nietzsche you stupid fuck?

[Anonymous No.8793116]

>>8792935
There's Nietzsche the meme and then there's what he actually wrote. Nietzsche went through different phases and he was famously against grounding his ideas in any philosophical system. So you can pretty much pick and choose what you find useful. Some of your criticisms of Nietzsche are ironically quite Nietzschean

[Anonymous No.8793125]

> Mfw we are even talking about this Western Idiot
> Mfw any one has ever taken him serioiusly
> Mfw humans won't let go of "might makes right"
> Mfw you won't just fucking study Schopenhauer

You can't top the Schop.

[Anonymous No.8793140]

>>8793104

It's nice that you're being nice, but educating me about my mistakes and misapprehensions would be nicer.

>>8793105

You've misread me and falsely made the assumption that by 'should' and 'ought' I was implying Nietzsche believed in an objective morality - which isn't the case.


Anyone who's even seen his book with the title 'Beyond Good and Evil' would know the information conveyed by the quote you posted.

[Anonymous No.8793149]

>>8793114

I can guarantee you that I don't live in a Platonic culture.

You should really avoid making assumptions about others, particularly anonymous strangers.

[Anonymous No.8793154]

>>8793149
You do, the entire West does. Most of the East is in some way Platonic. Go read Nietzsche you fucking dogmatist.

[Anonymous No.8793165]

>>8792935
t. guy who read his wiki article

>>8793000
and he admits that he doesn't know shit. But I don't fault you, every smart person on an imageboard makes stupid posts like this in order to get people to come and educate him on subjects he is ignorant of.

Come back when you've read a bit. Start with On Truth and Lies, On the Use and Abuse of History and Schopenhauer as Educator. Read the rest chronologically. Nachlass are optional but not a waste of time at all, some of his best shit is in his letters and notes. Will to Power is a selection of the Nachlass compiled by his sister and is a useful work from a historical perspective but is sub-optimal from an academic one.

And yes, he didn't write anything not worth reading on some level. Even if you disagree with his "conclusions" (which implies he even believed conclusions were possible, the existence of end states is in a way contrary to his philosophy) observing his methodology, his wit and talent for polemic will make you a wiser person and a better writer. It might also get you laid.

[Anonymous No.8793184]

>>8793140
fair enough. i'll leave you with this then:

>Nietzsche's philosophy promised a new overman superior to all before them, but resulted in driving him to pathetic lunacy

His lunacy was by no means pathetic. He drove himself to the edge of breakdown, and had brain cancer to boot. Nietzsche's health was notoriously frail for most of his life.

That is not the point, though. The pathetic lunatics you are talking about would be the Nazis. Or anyone else who announces themselves as the ubermensch because they assume it has 1:1 political ramifications. It does not.

Nietzsche's life was neither calm nor happy, but it did not lack for integrity. He breaks down because he sees things too clearly, not because he fails. Nietzsche's work *also* helps people to live through conditions and periods of enormous suffering, by helping them to embrace the tragic mode of life. It is not the only answer, but it's hardly a poor one.

What has Nietzsche's thought accomplished? He has proven himself to be, time and again, massively more interesting than his worst interpreters - I don't mean people like you, I mean people who believe that he would have wanted fascism - when by being who he is he collapses their goals from the inside better than any lefty/prog critique ever could. Nietzsche is for all time for this, and philosophy owes the great sufferer more than a small amount of gratitude for it.

[Anonymous No.8793199]

>>8793184
And, for what it's worth, his political legacy is to my mind the *least* interesting part about the man. Warrants mentioning.

[Anonymous No.8793207]

>>8793104
>>8793165

Also, I wouldn't contend that he isn't interesting, he certainly was. Even his breakdown on account of the horse was incredibly fascinating. I just can't take him seriously.

In TSZ he claims that he belongs to the elite of mankind, and in the same paragraph condemns the spread of literacy (and not the concept itself, literally just the fact that the common man could understand his mystifications) and calls for it to be restricted to elites such as himself. You say I use purple prose, but you can take statements such as "Of all that is written I love only what a man has written with his blood" seriously?

His writing has an aesthetic appeal, but his reasoning is abysmally poor as his ability to argue. He makes a good writer but a poor thinker.


>>8793154

I don't live in the West.

[Anonymous No.8793208]

>>8793140
>You've misread me and falsely made the assumption that by 'should' and 'ought' I was implying Nietzsche believed in an objective morality - which isn't the case.
lol you're really shit at interpreting anything, including your own objections to Nietzsche. i don't really care what imaginary friend you attribute your fantasies about Nietzsche to, but don't bother ascribing the misreading or your latest interpretation of your words to me. excellent defense of your "knew better than nature" claim or his idea that things should be different to nature, no wonder all your imaginary friends think you're smart enough to understand a rhetorical writer.
>tl;dr/thought you understood this post
you misread you, nietzsche, me, and how dumb you are.

[Anonymous No.8793229]

>>8793207
>I don't live in the West.
You aren't telling me where you live because you don't want me to break your dogma.
>reasoning
Reason is the worst way to think

[Anonymous No.8793231]

>>8793207
When you prove yourself to be a thinker of Nietzsche's caliber, you can write as purple a hue as you like. In 99.9% of cases saying you belong to the elite of humanity would be hilariously pretentious, I agree. But Nietzsche? I have no problems with this whatsoever.

And I like purple prose! I'm a big fan! I wouldn't want the Neetch to write any other way. And if you are as interesting as he is, then you should write that way too!

>his reasoning is abysmally poor as his ability to argue. He makes a good writer but a poor thinker

Come on now. Just stop already. This won't get you anywhere. Read the man. Read The Birth of Tragedy, Genealogy of Morality, any of that. Do NOT start with Zarathustra - or, for the love of Sam Houston, TSZ. Start at the beginning. That's all we're asking. And you know, you'll probably like him as much as we do in the long run. Even if you disagree - shit, even his most popular translator said he disagreed with him up and down, and even preferred Kierkegaard - I am 100% convinced you will find there's more going on than you suspect.

[Anonymous No.8793236]

>>8793231
*meant to say Will to Power, not TSZ..

[Anonymous No.8793241]

>>8793229
>Reasoning is the worst way to think

Please explain, using reasoning.

[Anonymous No.8793243]

>>8793208

You assume you know what I mean when I refer to 'nature' and 'ought', assume you know what I consider 'good' to constitute, and assume you know that I project those understandings onto Nietzsche.

You're wrong on all three assumptions. I can assure you that if I had meant what you say I meant I would have written accordingly. The fact is that I've distinguished and examined what is the proper subject to each of those things, and that I didn't at all presume to project my understanding of those things onto Nietzsche.

It's counterproductive to make such assumptions: by making them you imply that you are a more capable interpreter of what others say than they themselves are, simultaneously preventing them from saying what they mean and denying their agency as a rational subject.

[Anonymous No.8793248]

>>8793207
Nietzsche is a jokester trying to piss on Hegelians, so he writes tacitly (as every good post-Hegelian philosopher has), and himself has chosen a prophetic style. You know, because he is claiming to be a prophet of the coming philosophy (he was a bit late though) and an Antichrist.
>>8793241
Why would I fall into your dogmatic trap?

[Anonymous No.8793260]

>>8793229

I'm not telling you because it's none of your business. If my aim was to deceive anyone I'd just lie and pick any well-known non-western country. You assumed I was western, your assumption was wrong, and you were caught out.

>Reason is the worst way to think

An astonishing claim. By what means did you reach that conclusion?

[Anonymous No.8793266]

>>8793248
Well, why not?

[Anonymous No.8793280]

>>8793260
Yes it is my business because I clearly understand your culture more than you do. If you are here, you are by default a Platonist or a post-Platonist. There exist very few people that are completely Aplatonic.

Asia? It's all Platonic, including the regions that are strictly Buddhist or Vedantic or anything remotely similar to that. Africa? Same deal unless you live in some mysterious absolutely perspective village. Eastern Europe? You're damn right any country that as been Christian is Platonist. Australia? Basically the West, and even the Abos are Platonist even if they have never heard of him. South America? You've guessed it: Platonist. The polar regions? Again, unless they are strictly perspectivist, they are Platonists.

Platonism existed before Plato existed, Plato came from a Platonic culture himself.

This is what you don't understand and why you are so horrible at comprehending Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.8793291]

>>8793260
Thought insofar as Nietzsche is concerned with thought is made manifest in a fundamentally spiritual manner - this is why Nietzsche is a prophet.

In What Is Called Thinking? by Heidegger, he examines in detail Nietzsche and his characterizations of the Uberman; I recommend you check out this book as it helped me to understand Nietzsche somewhat less opaquely.

As far as thought is concerned, Parmenides writes: che to legein te noein t'eon emmenai.
Useful is the [laying-out] and (also) [taking-to-heart] of being to be.

Heidegger understands this noein, taking-to-heart, of being "to be", as the door (or process-by-which) one leads towards thought. This is not accomplished through Reason - this is a result of following the calling of thinking.

[Anonymous No.8793296]

>When you prove yourself to be a thinker of Nietzsche's caliber

Of what caliber? I asked in the OP what influence his writings have had, and still haven't got an answer.

>In 99.9% of cases saying you belong to the elite of humanity would be hilariously pretentious, I agree. But Nietzsche? I have no problems with this whatsoever.

This seems unreasonable to me. Why should he be judged by a different standard to anyone or anything else?

[Anonymous No.8793320]

>>8793296

>I asked in the OP what influence his writings have had, and still haven't got an answer

Good lord. What *influence?* Virtually every major continental thinker in the 20C follows from Nietzsche: Heidegger, Lacan, Deleuze, Baudrillard...even Derrida, who I do not much like, is following from Heidegger, who will freely admit that Nietzsche is the one he is wrestling with. Oswald Spengler. Freud claims to be inspired by Schopenhauer rather than Nietzsche, but I would say that Nietzsche is the true founder of depth psychology. The list goes on and on. Nietzsche is *the* thinker for not only continental philosophy, he is also the reason why there is a continental/analytic split, because analytic thinkers prefer to avoid him altogether...to make a long story short, he is one of if not the most significant philosophical thinker since Hegel.

>Why should he be judged by a different standard to anyone or anything else?

It would sound unreasonable to me too...if it weren't true. Because he *was* different! He really was! Sure, there are other people who write like him, others that he admires - he will happily credit Heraclitus, Dostoevsky, Montaigne, Spinoza, and of course Schopenhauer, who he describes as his great tutor - but you have to understand, this very question - why do we judge things differently? why do we judge them at all? - this is right there at the core of the man's thinking. Valuation and difference is what Nietzsche is all about.

Now surely you aren't asking me to prove to you why Nietzsche is important before you read him. As much as I would like to be able to do that, I can't. No doubt somebody else can. But values, the creation of values, the need for valuation, the responsibilities of values, the entire meaning of why we can and should judge things according to life-affirming aesthetic principles...this is the man's work. You really have to read him.

Now I have to tell you, that's all the time I have this evening. I really cannot recommend that you read the man's work highly enough. You're obviously an intelligent and thoughtful guy, and I can confidently say that this won't be time wasted for you. But if you are asking anons on 4chan to make the case why you should read him in advance, I think you're going to be disappointed. For myself, all I can say is that there is no substitute for reading the man. Moreover, he is the most readable philosopher in the canon, I would say. Heidegger, Kant, Hegel...they are all tough going. Nietzsche is the one philosopher serious philosophers (people other than me, that is!) read for pleasure. That should tell you something. Bernard Williams said he wanted to quote him every five minutes. They aren't wrong about this.

[Anonymous No.8793324]

>>8793280

That of course is according to Nietzsche's broad definition of Platonism as the belief in the existence of abstracts, which you seem to broaden even further, seriously overestimating its reach.

You haven't answered my question by the way. By what means did you reach the conclusion that reasoning is the worst way to think?

The results of your philosophy are shown by your posts, which are flippant, angry, arrogant, and rude. You even seem to have difficulty answering the simplest of questions. Your philosophy clearly isn't of much benefit you.

[Anonymous No.8793327]

>>8793324
>nonpost: the post
Fuck of ESL-kun.

[Anonymous No.8793328]

>>8793280

That of course is according to Nietzsche's broad definition of Platonism as the belief in the existence of abstracts, which you seem to broaden even further, seriously overestimating its reach.

The results of your philosophy are shown by your posts, which are flippant, angry, arrogant, and rude. Your philosophy clearly isn't of much benefit you.

[Anonymous No.8793329]

>>8793320
I like this anon

[Anonymous No.8793334]

>>8793291

Whole interesting, that doesn't answer my question at all.

[Anonymous No.8793356]

>>8793320

I mean tangible influence with results. Who's character has he bettered, and what have they done that is admirable? I'm a Stoic after all; I'm only interested in philosophy that can objectively improve me and my understanding of the nature of reality.

>It would sound unreasonable to me too...if it weren't true. Because he *was* different! (...)

I don't mean to be disparaging, but this sounds like religious dogmatism. If he's so different there should be no difficulty in explaining how and why. What I've read from him has left me unimpressed, with the exception of his Birth of Tragedy, because of my interest in Greek tragedy, my passion for Aeschylus and my dislike of Euripides.

I

[Anonymous No.8793376]

>>8793356

>this sounds like religious dogmatism
Anon, please. I am quoting no scripture here. I am trying - with some difficulty - to communicate my enthusiasm to you. Be reasonable.

>Who's character has he bettered, and what have they done that is admirable?

Continental philosophy. Arguably the entire field of psychoanalysis. Many, many other writers, artists, and creative spirits.

>I'm only interested in philosophy that can objectively improve me

Now you're worrying me.

I've been a Stoic too, anon; I've read it all. I am a card-carrying member. Stoicism is great. Nietzsche's own thoughts on Stoicism are highly uncharitable, there is no question about this - but you need to keep an open mind about these things.

If you like Greek tragedy, FW Nietzsche was the all-time superfanboy you have been waiting for.

I wish you all the best, anon. Good luck.

[Anonymous No.8793380]

>>8792935

no, you know what—you're right. the world in which you're only worth as much as the various legal entities are able to extract from you is definitely the best one imaginable.

[Anonymous No.8793382]

>>8792965
what does "being caught" mean

[Anonymous No.8793383]

>>8792935
>What has Nietzsche's thought accomplished?
Unironically, the birth of the ubermensch

[Anonymous No.8793384]

Your post basically proves him right

[Anonymous No.8793385]

>>8792935
Dear OP: your interpretation whatsoever is correct: it was not serious. Nietzsche tried to raise awareness trough satire/irony against nihilism and the loss of morals and life purpose. He didn't accomplished it.

[Anonymous No.8793395]

>>8793280

I'd classify myself as a perspectivist by the way. My favour of reason is utilitarian, I don't claim it to be the only or definitive way of understanding.

It's essential for communicating understanding between people though.

[Anonymous No.8793401]

>>8793280
if everything is Platonic, nothing is. The word is meaningless

[Anonymous No.8793428]

>>8793376

>Anon, please. I am quoting no scripture here. I am trying - with some difficulty - to communicate my enthusiasm to you. Be reasonable.

I should have taken that into account, but I'm just eager to learn. Please excuse my autism.

>Continental philosophy. Arguably the entire field of psychoanalysis. Many, many other writers, artists, and creative spirits.

I don't like to presume to judge an entire field of philosophy, but if I measure continental philosophy by the people and societies it has produced, then I want very little to do with it.

>I wish you all the best, anon. Good luck.

Thanks for bearing with me. May your mind be conformable to all circumstance.

[Anonymous No.8793442]

>>8793428
>continental philosophy by the people and societies it has produce

which are those?

[Anonymous No.8793451]

An interesting post from another thread:

>>8792984


>See I have a problem with this dualism, which I see in Nietzsche and other Western thinkers, the whole humanist vs religious, life denying vs life affirming.

>I remember when I used to really be bothered by this, and sometimes, it still bothers me, whether I fall into one camp or another. And then there are times I think, the dichotomy is bullshit, its bullshit created by the particular trajectory of Western thought, which has split human experience into categories like science vs religion, secular and spiritual, death vs life.

>Perhaps its my engagement with eastern religions like the Daoists and Buddhists, and the feeling that something has gone wrong in the whole Schopenhauer vs Nietzsche, life affirmation vs life denial theme we have here in the West.

>I think Nietzsche's desire to embrace everything is just as absurd as Schopenhauer's rejection of all life as an evil Will. You can't embrace everything, you can't reject everything.

>Likewise, I think that to be radically humanist is to also embrace the religious and transcendent, the numinous and the Holy - there is no contradiction. Some choose a path that rejects most earthly goals in favor of this, while others do not bother with it at all. There is no reason why either path is better, they are both equally human, and I think, both important, if not necessary.

>They are not contradictory.

[Anonymous No.8793457]

>>8793243
you're the one bringing up good. i know what nietzsche and heraclitus meant by nature and ought, and how that makes your idea of nietzsche wanting to change things even more hilarious, but why the fuck would i care about your special snowflake definitions in a nietzsche thread? do you think you're nietzsche? you've got too close to the teenagers if you do; be careful.

btw for someone with a problem with assumptions you make a hella lot of them while trying to pretend other people came up with them.
contrast makes for harmony proponents probably wouldn't have a problem with that. but you do :3

[Anonymous No.8793479]

Hi there, I'd just like to point out that philosophical discussion on /lit/ should be limited to discussion of particular works of philosopher. Threads on the value of a certain philosopher's entire contribution to the field does not meet /lit/'s rules. Perhaps you should try >>>/his/ instead

[Anonymous No.8793491]

>>8793479
for those of you who don't recognise major quotes of the modern era, we're talking about: the genealogy of morals; the birth of tragedy; beyond good and evil; how OP thinks nietzsche wrote the new idol in ASZ about himself; smatterings of Greek theatre and Stoicism.

you need to not post until you've completed the required reading. just because the thread isn't about spot the dog or some other book you recognise does not mean it's not about a book- or several as in this case.

[Anonymous No.8793500]

>>8793457

Again with the assumptions.

I'm more than familiar with pre-Socratic thought, having studied Heraclides, Thales, Parmeneides and Anaxagoras in uni, and its influence on Nietzsche.

Also, the first person to bring up 'good' was you here >>8793105 when misinterpreted what I meant when I said Nietzsche thought he knew better than nature.

[Anonymous No.8793508]

>>8793491
Ah, but I'm afraid the rules of the board require threads about philosophy to be about particular works regardless! What a shame that the OP doesn't engage with any of them specifically, as I would love to discuss any of Nietzsche's works without being roped into a useless discussion of how valuable Nietzsche is as a scholar.

[Anonymous No.8793512]

>>8793500
>anyone saying they know what heraclitus said about something means they're seckritly saying you don't know ASSUME THEY MEANT THAT
>they should accept your special snowflake redefinition of nietzsche or heraclitus just because you're you otherwise they are making DREADED ASSUMPTIONS
man, i'd hate to be you.
>the first person to bring up 'good'
that's a false and mislabelled "good" nietzsche is talking about. i.e. it ain't good.
it's nice how better exists without good in your world, it fits well with the crazy you got going on with that "assumption!" nervous tic.

[Anonymous No.8793518]

>>8793508
You really this lonely and afraid of reading a book?
(You)
(You)
(You)
Sorry it seems your mom is dead or tired of your shit or raped you with books or whatever brought you to this.

[Anonymous No.8793544]

>>8793479
>>8793508
>>8793512

/lit/ gets an interesting thread for once and these fucking retards have to ruin it. I know this is often said, but this place has really gone to shit lately.

Oh well, at least OP got a few sincere replies. I hope these fucks haven't put him off

[Anonymous No.8793553]

>>8793544
>be talking about how to interpret nietzsche passage
>rude anon wants to talk about board culture
i hope you choke while regurgitating that bile, convinced it's sympathy. pls pretend to discuss Nietzsche better.

[Anonymous No.8793764]

>>8793207
TSZ is a novel, not a treatise or essay.

[Anonymous No.8793871]

>>8792935
What's immature is your idea of there being a single proper way to approach life. Different situations call for different approaches and what's most important is that one's philosophy be in tune with their spirit, which transforms according to one's origins and environment. Seeking to "understand the constitution of the universe and its nature, advocating calm acceptance of the inevitable and unavoidable, and coming to terms with the certainty of uncertainty" is fine and has its place. So does striving for the Overman, attacking and despising as a means of preserving and adoring, crushing idols of the past, and re-evaluating one's values.

>Nietzsche's philosophy promised a new overman superior to all before them, but resulted in driving him to pathetic lunacy.
It's called brain cancer. You should look it up.

[Anonymous No.8794098]

>>8792935

[Anonymous No.8794160]

>>8792935
Nietzsche influenced a lot of academic bigshots of the late 19th and early 20th centuries as well as artists such as the author Lovecraft and the composer Scriabin

[Anonymous No.8794681]

>>8793764

>novel

kek

[Anonymous No.8794709]

>mfw this thread

[Anonymous No.8794719]

>>8793046

What a cuck. His family should've left him in a landfill.