Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.882480]

Lets talk about Nietzsche /lit/
What do you think of his work?

[Anonymous No.882494]

I don't care.

[Anonymous No.882501]

>>882494
What do you care about then?

[Anonymous No.882506]

I'm reading The Birth of Tragedy right now (kind of as I'm typing this, actually), and I like it quite a lot. I have been told that it isn't exactly representative of his philosophy. (It is his first book). Anyone else read it?

[Anonymous No.882510]

I'd like him if I were an angsty high school Mansonite.

[Anonymous No.882571]

I am an angsty college Mansonite and I love him

[Anonymous No.882573]

Hey, you know what would be cool? If. when you start a thread, you could actually put some fucking content in the OP. That would be fucking awesome.

I mean, I know you don't know anything about Nietzsche, but come on duder.

[Anonymous No.882599]

pretty cool since a quote by him is used in the intro for baldur's gate on pc.

[Anonymous No.882608]

>>882599

[Anonymous No.882610]

>>882510
Oh well, as every single philosopher, he knows to overact sometimes. But you have to admit, his idea of the uberman, if combined with some conscience and tolerance, it's pretty amazing.

[Anonymous No.882618]

I want to read his work, but I never have the patience for philosophy.

[Anonymous No.882666]

>>882573
I just wanted a general discussion about him. Anything about him would've made me happy, and putting content would only limit the discussion.

[Anonymous No.882675]

>>882506
>>882506
>>882506
>>882506
>>882506
>>882506

[Anonymous No.882722]

>>882666

Do you have any questions? What did you read? You have to start with something or else nobody will care.

I would suggest you to read Foucault's "A Preface To Transgression" which starts as a description of Bataille but later he explains some of Nietzsche's thoughts.

[Anonymous No.882731]

>>882722
Not OP but is that in the back of "Madness and Civilization"?

[Anonymous No.882750]

>>882731

I honestly don't know since I have it in a collection of Foucault's interviews and short writings.

[Anonymous No.882752]

pretty cool since a quote by him is used in the intro for The Fountainhead

[Anonymous No.882755]

Beyond Good and Evil sums up most of his philosophy and it's probably one of the greatest books I've ever read.

[Anonymous No.882761]

>>882750
Okay. I understand if you don't remember specifically, but did he also discuss Sade? I'm trying to see if I have the same thing because at the end of Madness and Civilization, he goes into the arts.

[Anonymous No.882769]

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is interesting, as well as an easy read

[Anonymous No.882781]

>>882752
gtfo lol

[Anonymous No.882784]

>>882769
this. it wasn't an easy read for me but it was pretty staggering to consider nietzsche's mindset when writing it (IMO).

"i think i'll write my own religious text tyvm."

[Anonymous No.882788]

pretty cool since a quote by him is used in Watchmens

[Anonymous No.882795]

>>882761

He mentions de Sade a few times because he mainly discusses sexuality. I don't know if it could help you but the title in french is "Préface á la transgression" and is to be found in "Critique 196-196" in "Hommage á G. Bataille". It starts with a discussion of sexuality, the mysticism of it in Christianity and he later explains the death of God in relation to the importance of sexuality.

[Anonymous No.882801]

>>882795
It's not the same, but I really want to read it because of the discussion of Bataille. Thanks for your help. It must have come from his History of Sexuality.

[Anonymous No.882810]

I love Nietzsche's philosophy, the only problem is that Nietzsche's real life as a misogynist failure and subsequent decent into insanity, makes me wonder if anyone should listen to him.

[Anonymous No.882815]

A genius. People should take a look beyond the stereotypes and what they usually hear about him. He's very interesting and thoughtful.

[Anonymous No.882820]

>>882810
That's really stupid.

[Anonymous No.882831]

>>882810
>misogynist
Most of the females who knew him had nothing but kind words. But If you pick up misogyny in his writing, stop interpreting it so literally.

>decent into insanity
Shouldn't deter you from taking him seriously since all but (arguably) his last work were written while he was considered "sane".

[Anonymous No.882839]

[Anonymous No.882871]

There's no doubt in my mind that he was a genius, but he was also a complete and utter lunatic. No one should take him too seriously.

[Anonymous No.882872]

I think what caracterises him is that he's entirely, maybe not self-taught because there's a point where that denomination may not make sense anymore (once you've reached a certain culture and discipline, I guess you're reading what you have to read to progress in your education anyway, I mean even if it's by yourself, you're still following some methodology in your pathway. I don't know if I'm making sense. and also he did come from a family with a religious background, his father was a pastor, and theology and philosophy often go hand in hand.), but he actually experienced everything he thought about, as a personal feeling. His whole philosophy, and you could probably say every single of his points, have an actual relevance to everyday life. Eating lightly, seeking accomodating climates, but also rejecting some ways of thinking in favor of others, are all things of the daily life in his writings, both from a physical and intellectual point of view. He has an extremely sensible and intuitive way of thinking, he's living his thoughts instead of applying an abstract and "pure" logic on abstract and pure concepts. I think that's to an extent what it's like to be an adolescent/young adult, thus part of the reason he's so popular with those. I think he just happened to be intelligent enough for this way of thinking/feeling to remain productive for him, in the long run, and so was able not to change it and develop his thought while remaining "himself". You know, whereas someone not as clever could fall into a dead-end, apathy, or become some sort of caricature (like adolescent "nihilists", or a pothead).
I actually really feel like that's what happened to me so I relate to that (I never dressed goth or smoked pot, that's another thing, but still).

[Anonymous No.882875]

>>882872
hum I think maybe I meant "sensitive" instead of "sensible".

[Anonymous No.882885]

>>882831

Good points, but he didn't marry or have any children.

I agree his writings are sane, but his later years were not. If it was due to any environmental or biological factor, then its not relevant to the validity of his writings. But what if his personal beliefs and practices ruined his mind.

[Anonymous No.882890]

>>882506

yes and your statement is kinda true.

[Anonymous No.882891]

>>882872
I can tell you're just starting in philosophy.
There is a basic division between continental philosophy and 'analytic' philosophy which has recently overtaken philosophy in the west like a disease. Everything is now premises and conclusions and validities etc.
That is not to say that continental philosophy does not involve reasoning, far from it, but it is far more complex and interesting, and in my opinion, useful.

[Anonymous No.882894]

>>882885
That's like saying anyone with a mental/personality trouble has no valuable opinions.

[Anonymous No.882917]

>>882891
brother (or sister?), where have you been when I have had to single-handedly grapple with the Wittgenstein goon squad so regularly?

[Anonymous No.882921]

>>882872

Interesting thoughts about Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.882926]

>>882506
The Birth of Tragedy is his first and it's not his best or best to start with. He does a better job explaining himself in The Gay Science and Beyond Good and Evil/The Genealogy of Morals (they go together).

[Anonymous No.882934]

>>882917
Good to know I'm not alone in my position as well

[Anonymous No.882936]

How can you consider someone a 'brother' in fighting off Wittgenstein goons, just because they sympathise with continental philosophy rather than analytic? To claim that Wittgenstein is firmly in either camp is to completely misunderstand him.

[Anonymous No.882942]

>>882894

Nietzsche has some valuable opinions and contributions.

I did not mean to disregard everything he wrote, but everything he wrote should not be regarded as genius or final.

[Anonymous No.882946]

>>882936
It isn't Wittgenstein himself who I take issue with, but his supporters who are most vocal on /lit/, surely you can see the distinction. Also, there are so many continental bashers on here as a result of no understanding of what continental philosophy is, and this is exhibited by the fact that the same anons will often name-drop Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.882950]

Extraordinary thinker. Helped me break down the walls my parents attempted to build around me in high school, & to think for myself.

The Gay Science was his first work I ever read. Brilliance.

[Anonymous No.882968]

>>882891
I'm not really starting in terms of years of interest in the field, but I'm far from having studied extensively or even remotely methodologically. I hope you didn't mean I sounded 14, fascinated which "spontaneity" or something. I know about that division, I'm from Europe and I'm very much leaning towards continental thinking. I think Gilles Deleuze follows exactly the same tendency, but bringing it to heights unapproached before...
Did you mean the analytical side had taken over by saying "everything is now..." ? I wish more people thought like you do that continental thought is valid...

[Anonymous No.882972]

>>882946

Yeah, I see the distinction. To be honest, I've never really spent time on lit, but will say that Wittgenstein probably is my personal favourite philosopher, and that I study analytic philosophy on the whole, specialising in logic. Though, I don't really see why you'd bash continental philosophy, beyond unverifiable Hegelian metaphysics, the 'value' side of philosophy is far greater and more comprehensibly explained by continental philosophers. Doesn't make them right, though, but it's got worth, for sure.

[Anonymous No.882977]

I think it's funny how the continentals have taken up Nietzsche as their mascot, seeing as they disagree on nearly everything. Maybe they like his style. On the other hand, N shares many common points with (some of) the people on the analytic side of things, like the rejection of metaphysics, dualism, etc.

[Anonymous No.882991]

>>882968

Continental thought is absolutely valid! Rawls uses Continental and Analytical ideas in his philosophy. He bridges the two in a good way.

[Anonymous No.883003]

>>882972
I am most definitely in favor of reconciliation between the two, it is just that I get people like >>882977 making snarky, half-baked remarks.

[Anonymous No.883022]

I read The Antichrist (only once) and from what I remember it was the weakest book... His speculative portrait of Jesus is extremely interesting (maybe says more about himself than Jesus, and he probably knew that), but that seemingly "political" part was entirely baseless... I mean he just goes on describing the indian caste system, without explicitely praising it while it's obvious he wants to, and without ever mentioning its WORST drawback : the inheritance of your caste, which makes it basically pointless since it absolutely prevents it from having anything to do with actual merit. Did I miss or am I forgetting something ?

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.883051]

reconciliation is already happening. not for nothing was rorty such a big deal. hegel is starting to get real looks.

it's just that analytic philosophy is purely an academic institution, and it has to follow certain standards of 'professional production', which means a clear and traditional set of philosophical terminology and so on is used and anything outside of it is difficult to digest.

the prejudice against continental guys is typically the "they are not doing philosophy the right way" kind of pride/judgmental attitude. it's not really healthy, but since most people who hold that kind of a prejudice are not doing any useful work or concerned with real problems anyway, they have the idle luxury of being arrogant.

[Anonymous No.883064]

Rorty is a retard.

[Anonymous No.883086]

Ecce Homo, his "philosophical autobiography" is really funny.

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.883094]

rorty is mostly wrong but largely right

[Anonymous No.883112]

>>883051
once again I cast my vote for onionring as the most readable tripfag on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.883213]

>>882872

Yes, absolutely. Also don't forget that he was incredibly anxious and weak (his numerous ilnesses) and thus he created as a form of autosuggestion things like the Übermensch.

[Anonymous No.883225]

someone recommend me some shit to read on this motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.883228]

>>883225
thus spake zarathustra. i never read the whole thing tho... i got bored.

[Anonymous No.883333]

>>883225
Thus Spake Zarathustra
The Gay Science
Ecce Homo
The Anti-Christ
Beyond Good and Evil
(no order meant to be implied)

If you're interested in literary criticism, give "The Birth of Tragedy" a go, too.

[Anonymous No.885255]

I just heard that Sasha Grey(world's hottest pornstar atm) reads Nietzsche and likes it ^_^

[Anonymous No.885280]

Could someone please explain to me, in layman's terms, what Nietzsche is trying to say? As far as I know, it's just an eclectic mix of ideas. Is there a logical progression in his books?

[Anonymous No.885288]

>>885280
some people are better than others and that god is a jerk

[Anonymous No.885290]

>>885280
From what I've read, he's saying to people to stop lying to themselves, man up, and stop whining. Other than that, he mostly breaks apart old stupid philosophies which were(and some still are) accepted as "the way it should be" by most people.

[Anonymous No.885294]

I would probably ask this somewhere else, but this thread seems appropriate. I know very little about Nietzsche, but I'm reasonably up to speed with Marx - does /lit/ think that the two could be compared well as the two schools of thought that defined 20th century thinking? Obviously many of today's capitalists would oppose comparison to Nietzsche vis-a-vis links with Hitler etc., but does his concept of the ubermensch match up to the idea of a competitive capitalist society?

[Anonymous No.885296]

>>885255

Such a splendid ass.

[Anonymous No.885301]

>>885294
>does /lit/ think that the two could be compared

Only as polar opposites.

>but does his concept of the ubermensch match up to the idea of a competitive capitalist society?

No. The idea of the ubermesnch isn't about success in society, and it's not defined in terms of competition within society. It's more about overcoming one's self, and overcoming humanity.

[Anonymous No.885309]

>>885255

[Anonymous No.885310]

>>885301
thanks for the feedback.

[Anonymous No.885322]

Posting some OC

[Anonymous No.885323]

>>885294

No. Ubermensch is a form of being, with no link at all to a 'superior class,' or any kind of 'survival of the fittest.' His so-called links with Nazim stem from very, very bad readings of his work and also his sister who put a considerable amount of effort towards arranging/portraying his works in an anti-semetical fashion.

[Anonymous No.885326]

> does his concept of the ubermensch match up to the idea of a competitive capitalist society?

Sort of, but that's just a minor part of it. It does include a competitive society, but not in a way that people would ever be jealous of each other. Mostly like everyone being maximum of itself in all points of view. The uberman would be someone with complete self control, no fear of anyone or anything, no emotional weaknesses, someone completely honest(who sees lying and all hypocrisy as too low for him), not bound to a universal moral, yet not in a shallow egoistic way, but from the point of someone who understands things in a way deeper level than the men of today.
At least it's how I understood it.

[Anonymous No.885328]

>>885323
>implying übermensch is being and not "becoming"
;p;

[Anonymous No.885331]

>>885296
Indeed :D

[Anonymous No.885367]

>>885328

aha indeed. you got me there.

[Anonymous No.885404]

>>885326
I don't quite agree with that. With "total self-control" and "without any fear", what would there be left to surpass ? And how is being affected, be it emotionally, by things you disagree with a "weakness" ? Nietzsche wouldn't have been Nietzsche without syphilis. I think you're forcing some kind of modern superhero/super business man ideal on N.'s idea. Overcoming man (even without mentioning Übermensch) isn't about not feeling anything or being "efficient", but recognising those feelings, knowing what they are (and the part of nihilism or negativity they may contain), seeking and understanding where they come from (psychological insight), and ultimately willing them as part of life and your own development.

[Anonymous No.885456]

>Overcoming man (even without mentioning Übermensch) isn't about not feeling anything or being "efficient", but recognising those feelings, knowing what they are (and the part of nihilism or negativity they may contain), seeking and understanding where they come from (psychological insight), and ultimately willing them as part of life and your own development.

By emotional weakness, I meant the current man's lack of understanding its own emotions, and being damaged by it.
Someone who understands his emotions and uses them as a tool, instead of being used by them as a tool, is free of emotional weakness.

[Anonymous No.886075]

bump

[Anonymous No.886097]

The ubermensch in and of itself is an idea to which Nietzsche says we should transcend humanity. His ties to nazism are completely slanderous as well. His works were edited by his sister, so as to have him be the philosopher of the third reich. He wrote letters to her specifically denouncing and tie of his or her name to the then growing anti semetic movement. He may seem to criticize jews in his writing, but again we must realize we are reading an "attack philosopher". In the same passages he condemns christians and buddhists. One of my new favorite aspects of nietzsche, is his idea of the Will to Power, or what I call it the Urge to Self at odd with Mill's Utilitarianism.

[Anonymous No.886612]

bump

[Anonymous No.886635]

>>882506

real quick, is this the same guy that wrote about TBOT yesterday? if so, I am back, the anon who supplied you with his christian upbringing. Good to talk to you again

[Anonymous No.886645]

>>882769

i have to disagree. His prose was terribly confusing in TST

[Anonymous No.886648]

>>886097

the idea of transcending humanity is idiotic, much like the christian ideal of transcending sin and vice

a real human should strive to be as human as possible

[Anonymous No.886651]

>>886635
Oh yeah I am here, actually (where else could I be?) What you brought up is really helping me unearth the mystic aspects to his aesthetic. I don't think it detracts from his later developments at all and if anything it makes him 3-dimensional as opposed to the kind of pseudo-fascist strawman he sometimes gets portrayed as. TBOT is an excellent book (I'm actually reading it to aide me in writing my play)

[Anonymous No.886654]

>>886648
What do you mean by being human?

[Anonymous No.886656]

>>886648
I think what he was trying to say was that we shouldn't use the average, contemporary man as an ideal for what comes next.

[Anonymous No.886662]

>>886654
This. Humanity as a construct was only truly fleshed out in terms of the negative, that is, the period of European Colonization created a desire to outgroup the indigenous people and out of this process came the concept of "Human". I don't think Nietzsche really jives with concepts which are essentially Negative, he seems more to be of the cult of positivity.

[Anonymous No.886683]

>>886648
That's exactly what the uberman is.
A human without all the cover up lies we've made through the ages. An honest and strong human.

[Anonymous No.886687]

>>886651
Strive to be human? I heard once that to deny our impulses is to deny the very things that make us human. I used that for a while, then found myself hopelessly lost in the world of impulsiveness and chaos. Nietzsche, as well as the Christian doctrine, give us a way out. Christianity requires humility and rebirth through God, Nietzsche gives us our "Will to Power". I dont know about the whole striving to be human thing, I find it to be the most easiest way to live, but not the most rewarding. In retrospect, I have found that to deny our impulses is to deny the very things that make us animals.
>>886648
Excellent! Writing plays, aye? I don't know if you've delved into Aristotle, but you can pick up a combo Poetics/Rhetoric for under ten dollars at Barnes and Nobles. the poetics side is under 100 pages, and chock full of useful information on writing dramas. One of his main points is the catharsis of pity and fear; if you haven't read it, I suggest it.

[Anonymous No.886690]

>>886654

being human is being honest about your desires, whatever they may be

it's about living in this world at this time, not some make believe afterlife or some make believe political utopia..etc

it's about fulfilling transient and superficial needs and letting go of futile philosophical ramblings

[Anonymous No.886694]

>>886687

got the numbers backwards, oops. Just imagine the responses were to the opposite number

[Anonymous No.886698]

>>886687
Heh that exact book is what's next on my list, seemed like the logical choice. I might buy it or it's probably on Gutenberg.

[Anonymous No.886703]

>>886687
You're taking the impulses part too literary.
Not denying your impulses doesn't mean to do whatever your instant desires require, but to combine all your tools, and satisfying your impulses in a balanced long/short term connection

[Anonymous No.886723]

Nietzsche is really growing on me, but something that is already apparent is that he is not the sort of philosopher which one should read for a praxis. He is far too mystical and theoretical for that. I think a lot of people who try to use Nietzsche's ideas for a personal code of ethics would be better served by the Stoics. Marcus Aureleus and Epictetus, Seneca and there are quite a few others. Nietzsche is great, for refining the concepts of life you might have, but for practical use, I would look elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.886728]

>>886703
and you got that definition from where?

[Anonymous No.886738]

>>886698
My personal advice: avoid Gutenberg if possible when it comes to stuff like Aristotle (or any other translated philosophy, for that matter). If you have access to a university library, get the Oxford translations (edited by Jonathan Barnes, iirc.) because those are the definitive shizzle when it comes to Aristotle. Dunno about that Poetics/Rhetorics combo though.

[Anonymous No.886747]

>>886738
Hm, yeah it's true Gutenberg does have some sketchy translations. I might go with the library or maybe just buy it.

[Anonymous No.886756]

>>886723
true story, anon

[Anonymous No.886757]

>>886738

its a translation by S.H. Butcher. I haven't read any other translations, but i thoroughly enjoyed this one.

[Anonymous No.886831]

>>886687

Thats a good post

[Anonymous No.886840]

>>886723

Au contraire, he is an extremely practical philosopher and lived by what he preached.

[Anonymous No.886841]

When it comes to English Nietzsche translations, do not ever read anything that isn't by Kaufmann. NEVER.

[ReactionImage.txt No.886844]

>my visual thoughts

[Anonymous No.886849]

>>886840
How is this done, exactly?

[Anonymous No.886873]

>>886849

What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.886875]

Nietzsche is so 8th grade man...

[Anonymous No.886878]

>>886841
Hollingdale and Ludivici are good too.

[Anonymous No.886890]

>>886875
who is 1st grade?

[Anonymous No.886918]

>>886873
How would Nietzsche live by his philosophy? Or how would anyone do so? What would it look like?

[Anonymous No.886919]

>>886840
Yeah, that's the whole point of The Gay Science (he exposes that clearly in the very begining of the book).

[Anonymous No.886923]

>>886890
Dr Seuss.

[Anonymous No.886935]

>>886918
He tried to, but I don't know enough about him yet to argue. What I know is that "real life" is highly related to his philosophy. His physical experiences, the experience of living, everything like that, according to him, must be in harmony with the "philosophical life".

[Anonymous No.886942]

>>886935
I can see this, but it still seems like it's part of his interior life. When I suggested the Stoics, it was because they gave actual, practical information on how to live, how to behave, how to comport one's self publicwise...I think Nietzsche could be used to develop the interior, theoretical aspect of life, but this is not praxis.

[Anonymous No.886953]

>>886942
I think he tried to join the two.
Also, Epictetus, which you mentioned, was one of his "guide".

[Anonymous No.886958]

>>886953
Well I think it would be a good idea to get both.

[Anonymous No.886959]

>>886918

Nietzsche died before he could write his planned "The Revaluation of all Values" which would probably have gone some way towards answering your question.

[Leonidas !!Tw8GZoimMMm No.886960]

Sorry, I don't want to sound like a philistine or anything, but I think it's complete bullshit and useless.

[Anonymous No.886964]

>>886960
Shut up, tripfag.

[Anonymous No.886966]

>>886960

Nietzsche would have sympathised with you. He thought that Socrates was the beginning of everything which is wrong with Western Civilisation, after all.

[Leonidas !!Tw8GZoimMMm No.886968]

>>886960

Just want to add, I think his ideas are bs and useless.

honestly, if you reduce his books to bullet points they're laughable. The language he uses makes it sound better than it really is.

Same with a lot of philosophy. E.g. the categorical imperative, why not just use plain English? So that people don't understand you and can't tell how dumb it is?

[Anonymous No.886973]

Nietzsche is a liar at his worst, and fool at his best.
once and a while, he got lucky.

However, I will always refuses to believe, that he was a static individual, as he had claimed.

[Anonymous No.886975]

>>886973
cool arguments, bro

[Anonymous No.887043]

>>886968
Just because you don't understand it does not mean that it is incomprehensible. Reducing literature to bullet points? Why don't you just GTFO

[Anonymous No.887053]

For me he is a writer. Always been. His philosophy is just messed up random stuff, but it's interesting.

[Anonymous No.887062]

>>887053
>Nietzsche is lolrandom.
Ah, summer....

[Anonymous No.887063]

>>886960
>>886968
>>886973
>>887053

Never before in my life have I seen a samefag samefaggier than this one.

[Anonymous No.887064]

>>886973

"You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star."

[Anonymous No.887071]

>>887053
Random stuff?

[Anonymous No.887101]

Read Max Stirner, he did it first, he did it harder, faster, bloodier and with more love.

“When one is anxious only to live, he easily, in this solicitude, forgets the enjoyment of life. If his only concern is for life, and he thinks "if I only have my dear life," he does not apply his full strength to using, i. e., enjoying, life.”

[Anonymous No.887107]

>>887101
comparisons are odious, even though I do like Stirner. Nietzsche is a whole different animal.

[Anonymous No.887257]

>>887107

You can smell over the internet? But seriously, there are very clear ties between the two's writing which I think people should be aware of. Read both, he only wrote one book. It really just a hope that by doing so people will put Nietzsche in context rather than using him as an excuse to be an asshole to people. Stirner's egoist is made of other people (making each other, etc) but Nietzsche wants to do it all by himself.

[Anonymous No.887267]

>>887257
I agree ("comparisons are odious" is phrase that recurs in literature, btw) people really do go at Nietzsche with a lot of false presumptions, and they get out of it what they put in. Stirner would provide a good counterweight.

[Anonymous No.887307]

READ BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL.

/cruise control

If you take the time to understand what he writes, it will blow you away.

[Anonymous No.887340]

>>887307
I had a hard time reading Ecce Homo, I'm probably not going to be able to read that.

[Anonymous No.887344]

>>887307
why? what exactly are you talking about? what will blow me away? the idea of a slave's and a master's morality, anon? this has blown me away in the history lessons.

[Anonymous No.889905]

bump