/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15886638]

>praised the Greeks for their passion being so consuming and whole in itself that it blended seamlessly into their politics and caused various wars between city-states
>praised the Greeks for their pure sense for the aristocracy that gave way for the Olympian ideal for men and regarded the plebs as lowly playthings for the gods
>lamented that the modern times lacked "great politics" and only had "petty politics"
>lamented that the modern times made waging war increasingly difficult, and sang "a Paean for war"
>regarded the State as good when it was forged in bloodbaths caused by "blond beasts of prey" and regarded it as synonymous with the military when it was created this way
>regarded the modern State as bad because it was controlled by money to force creative genius to serve it
>regarded slavery as a necessary constituent to all culture
>thought Plato's ideal state was great for establishing a pyramid structure for the purpose of creating genius besides that it lacked recognition for the art genius

Can someone explain why people interpret him as being non-political? In no way does he appear to be non-political to me. On the contrary, he seems as politically charged as the most eccentric Greek politicians, who were so political they made life itself political.

[Anonymous No.15886665]

>>15886638
It's because he's political, that he doesn't care about politics.

Also he got the Greeks wrong.

[Anonymous No.15886755]

>>15886665
In what way did he get them wrong?

[Anonymous No.15886795]

>>15886755
>did they get him wrong
You mean did he get them wrong? I'll forgive you because you've got dubs; but he got them wrong because he thought they were "le stronk not care for weak" archetypal image of Nietzsche's idea of nature. As if someone like Thrasymachus wouldn't have been frowned upon and set up as shameful when the average Greek read the Republic. No apparently Pythagoras and Socrates and Plato just popped up out of no where and corrupted the Grecian spirit.

[Anonymous No.15886837]

>>15886795
His thesis on Theognis and the Greeks from 6th century BC and earlier is pretty hard to deny. Greek culture went back hundreds of years before Socrates and Plato arrived.

[Anonymous No.15886869]

>>15886837
>Greek culture went back hundreds of years before Socrates and Plato arrived.
Obviously, but I'm saying that didn't arrive out of nowhere. Even looking at Homer or Hesiod we can find much similarity.

But I am unfamiliar with Theogenis, tell me about him.

[Anonymous No.15886906]

>>15886869
According to Nietzsche, Theognis expressed the old Greek aristocratic character through his poems, and that through his writing he expressed the hardships he faced when his home was ransacked by an angry mob and he was exiled from Megara along with the other nobles. His poems are sometimes subtle, but it's pretty clear how he felt about the differences between nobles and plebs; plebs were so worthless to him that they didn't even deserve names.

[Anonymous No.15886934]

>>15886638
all that stuff about greece doesnt sound that different from medieval times. if he was born 20 years later (or outside the neo-gothic movement) would he have just been a medievalist instead?

[Anonymous No.15887596]

>>15886906
Interesting, but don't you think it's still somewhat disingenuous to suppose Plato and the likes appeared out of nowhere, when it is obvious they did not?

[Anonymous No.15887689]

>>15887596
He thought Plato agreed with him on all of this besides not also incorporating the art genius into his conception of genius.

[Anonymous No.15887700]

>>15887689
Do you mean agreed with him that this is what the Greeks believed, or agreed with him and believed it himself?

[Anonymous No.15887745]

>>15886638
It's French cope
>The weak and ill-constituted shall perish
How can Foucault reconcile that with a political program of mental patient activism against capitalism? They have to misrepresent Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.15887765]

>>15887700
The latter. Plato formulated a social hierarchy that prioritized the production of genius. Where they differed, from Nietzsche's point of view, was on their conception of genius; Plato concentrated it on the intellect, whereas Nietzsche considered both the genius of mind and genius of art.

[Anonymous No.15888093]

>>15886755
Thought he could critique Plato without reading him.
Thought he could start a Cult of Dionysos when he couldn't even hold a half cup of milk.

[Anonymous No.15888102]

>>15888093
Source on either?

[Anonymous No.15888119]

>>15887765
But don't you think is quite a larger difference than that? Namely Plato's asceticism and faith in God.

[Anonymous No.15888147]

>>15888119
His asceticism and faith come from his dedication to the old aristocracy and from his extolling of the intellect over everything else. Plato, like Socrates, knew that the Greeks had become decadent compared to the old aristocracy, but wanted their values to survive.

[Anonymous No.15888226]

>>15888102
"Madness, provided it comes as the gift of heaven, is the channel by which we receive the greatest blessings . . . the men of old who gave things their names saw no disgrace or reproach in madness; otherwise they would not have connected it with it the name of the noblest of arts, the art of discerning the future, and called it the manic art . . . So, according to the evidence provided by our ancestors, madness is a nobler thing than sober sense . . . madness comes from God, whereas sober sense is merely human."

[Anonymous No.15888239]

>>15888226
That could just as well be read as though Nietzsche wrote it.

[Anonymous No.15888258]

>>15888102
>>15888093
>“If only I were master of my stomach once more!” declared German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, referring to his frequent indigestion. To address the problem, Nietzsche experimented with a wide variety of diets. He tried vegetarianism. He tried living on milk and eggs alone. He tried eating hardly anything at all. At one point, he put his faith in something called Liebig’s meat extract. The product, a thick liquid that could be mixed with water to produce a beef broth, was believed to be an appetite stimulant. Because it took about 34 pounds of South American beef to produce 1 pound of extract, many consumers thought it was particularly nourishing. But in fact it had few nutrients, if any.
OH NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.15888262]

>>15888093
>Thought he could critique Plato without reading him.
Neetszche was a first rate philologist and bragged about getting his style from the best Greek and Roman writers.
Neck.

[Anonymous No.15888267]

>>15888239
And?

[Anonymous No.15888282]

>i've been alone for so long that it's almost impossible to connect with other people. and nobody understands that i spend all my time alone. i go back to my cage and am alone. so all my interactions with others are superficial and fake. i have to put on a song and dance and pretend i'm okay, when i'm miserable, alone, and suffering. which just makes it harder to connect with others. it's like an unbridgeable abyss. depression, anxiety, PTSD. alcoholism. other people haven't been alone like this, or had the traumatic experiences i've endured. they don't understand. i wish i could connect with others. i wish i had one person to look me in the eyes and talk to me. everybody's against me. everybody hates me for no reason. they just want to fight me, or punish me when i've done nothing wrong. and that only makes me anxiety worse, because i feel like i can't trust other people. so i isolate myself more. if i even want to interact with other people i need a drink. i'm afraid of everybody. i can't trust anybody. they're all out to get me, everybody hates me, nobody understands...

[Anonymous No.15888561]

>>15888267
I'm not really sure what the point of posting that was given that they shared the sentiment.

[Anonymous No.15889941]

>>15888561
Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.15890012]

>>15889941
No.

[Anonymous No.15890438]

>>15886638
>glorifying war despite never being a soldier
What authors glorified war after actually experiencing it?

[Anonymous No.15890452]

>>15890438
>What authors glorified war after actually experiencing it?
Pretty much all generals who won in them.

[Anonymous No.15890741]

>>15890452
I mean authors who were on the ground doing the actual nasty shit. Yes, yes, people like Alexander were certainly accomplish warriors in their own right, personally leading men directly into violent conflict and suffering wounds for it, but those are the exception. I find it to be cringe for someone who has never actually been in a life-or-death situation, which they volunteered to enter at their own risk, to wax poetic about war. They simply can't provide a sincere account of violent conflict.

[Anonymous No.15890842]

>>15890741
I sincerely doubt that if Nietzsche had been physically able to remain in the military he would have been just a soldier. There's also no reason to hold the soldier's account of war over the general's account of it, because the soldier wouldn't be able to do the general's job and vice versa, and both are contending with different aspects of war rather than only one of them contending with the "real" aspect. War is not just a matter of survival, it's also a matter of domination.

[Anonymous No.15890900]

>>15890842
I agree with most of your post. What I should have emphasized was that I think it is disingenuous for someone who has never fought other men to death in a war situation (self-defense is different), to then go ahead and glorify and promote war in and of itself, because they only have a romantic idea of what war is really like, probably from reading the Iliad or something. It's common to see people praise something like a violent crusade of jihad without mentioning that most of the time is spent marching around, carrying heavy shit, possibly being food or water insecure, getting diseases, dying from weather exposure or an infection, etc. Even if they just want to glorify the individual battles themselves, they still have never been in that situation and can't prove that they would think and feel the same about it after having a spear run through their thigh or getting shot in the balls with an arrow or something like that.

Even despite all that, the individual soldier, for the most part, is a treated like an expendable pawn who is essentially a prostitute for the benefit of someone else. The soldiers rarely benefit from war, but there are plenty of profiteers and generals who, even if they stood side-by-side with other soldiers in the fight, are still one spear among a thousand and yet they are given all the glory, prestige, and a disproportionate amount of spoils and loot. And at the expense, of course, of the lives of other soldiers in the other faction who were also just poor people or possibly conscripts who are treated like pawns. I just can't take someone seriously if they are so flippant about human life being spent in order to make somebody else rich if they haven't in the trenches or defending a besieged town themselves. They haven't put their money where their mouth is on a deadly serious subject.

[Anonymous No.15891103]

>>15890900
I think you're responding more to a notion people have of Nietzsche's "Paean for war" than Nietzsche himself. There are a lot of Ragnar Redbeard types among his readers who are just rah-rah for war because they are full of envious rage and gluttony. They latch on to him and share quotes of his around and color the tone of his writings, so it's understandable how you feel and I basically agree.

The reason for Nietzsche's Paean for war is that he strongly believed, in the context of 19th century Europe, that a great war would lead to a healthy culture for Europe. Without war, there's no impulse to form a hierarchy, the head of which is where culture springs from, and while there are petty wars that create sickly hierarchies with sickly heads bearing sickly cultures, there are also great wars that create healthy hierarchies with healthy heads bearing healthy cultures. "War is the father of all things" per Heraclitus. Great culture is born from great war for Nietzsche, and a great war is one that soldiers are willing to participate in.

[Anonymous No.15891114]

>>15891103
Ah, I see. I will gladly admit that I have not personally read much Nietzsche, so I can't make a good judgment on him. Is his Paean for War self-contained enough to just jump right in and read without reading other of his works first?

[Anonymous No.15891122]

>>15890438
Junger

[Anonymous No.15891129]

>>15890012
Thanks for answering a rhetorical question retard.

[Anonymous No.15891210]

>>15891114
>Is his Paean for War self-contained enough to just jump right in and read without reading other of his works first?
It's not a book itself, but rather a line from one of his essays. The book you would want to read on this would be his Genealogy of Morality, and yeah, I think you can jump right into it. Just keep in mind that, for Nietzsche, the great life is to be found in a great war, which makes war an aesthetic phenomenon for all involved (basically, it is a war, but one in which the prize from victory is so stunning and desirable, that even death, should you face it while fighting, becomes an aesthetic experience for you; it's a war you'd rather die in than avoid being in).

[Anonymous No.15891396]

>>15891129
You're full of shit, dude. Get the fuck out of here.

[Anonymous No.15891431]

>>15888093
owned

[Anonymous No.15891439]

>>15888262
So a pseud and incel.

[Anonymous No.15891481]

why are neetcheans such a fucking cancer?

[Anonymous No.15891964]

>>15886755
This is actually quite difficult to answer, but as a short form the arguments basically come down to this
A focus on a single Greek era/Enlightenment understanding of the Greeks, mirroring the errors of his opponents.
Failed to grasp the very basics of Plato, which may call into question his understanding of the other philosophers, and more importantly Greek culture beyond its aesthetic interests.

Elevates art and philosophy above myth and numinous law, again calling into question his understanding of what was truly significant to the Greeks.
In contrast to someone like Holderlin Nietzsche's concerns are entirely plebeian and wrought with the earth forces characteristic of the modern era - this could be likened to the military strategy of the modern era rather than the ancients for whom honour and even aesthetic considerations were sovereign over bare power. One may also say that he was closer to the military tactician of total mobilisation rather than the brilliant strategist. Holderlin's power through inaction, as for example Putin's military humility which could have been a great lesson for the Germans. In short, the concerns of a dying aristocracy and the forming bourgeois sentiment rather than elevating to the aristocratic or noble values of a new era.

Similarly this suggests a link to political romanticism rather than its superior form in the aesthetic, which contradicts Nietzsche's own philosophy, or at least his ability to practise the power of the art form he advocated.

Replaced morality with something far worse, even romanticizing a functional taxonomy of its technical form. For instance, his understanding of war - fighting where I stand alone and destroying for the sake of what endures - has the qualities of an engineer rather than the divine decisiveness required of ancient military advisors.

Failed to grasp the conflict of fate and dominion so central to Greek politics and religion, which in turn places him closer to the humanist understanding of power. For example, a Darwinist and industrialist understanding of power in which the strong man can be revered simply for a historical moment which ends up disastrous for the state and its people. This is characteristic of a decline from even early modern figures, Machiavelli for example, and suggests an entirely humanist understanding of power and the individual.

[Anonymous No.15891970]

>>15891964
2
Obviously, this same question suggests a misunderstanding of his own fate and the strength of a numinous force over that of will and power. Will as the tragedy of non-being which cannot be seen beyond the destructive force of the technical.

He never addressed the question of work necessary to maintain the dualist nature of Chiron-forces, which in turn leads leads to a valueless morality, or morality of the demonic forces of nature. Interestingly, this is a conflict in qhich he echoes the Christian conservatives and technicians of the soul, so rather than addressing the question of nihilism he falls into a weak romanticism caught between dying Christianity and the secular order that was already the revaluation of all values.

This can again be contrasted with Holderlin, who not only grasped the numinous center of the Greeks, their omphalos architecture of the spirit, but was able to transpose that onto the modern soul completely opposed to the Greeks. Holderlin's effort was thus divinely inspired, autochtonous in the Greek sense, rather than of the humanist engineering of an idol of man.

Finally, and perhaps most simply, a basic misunderstanding of Apollo and Dionysus for whom he is concerned with artistic and secular qualities rather than elemental force and mysterious power. This suggests an empty form of politics, or even a Christian secular borrowing of idols which hold only qualities of revelation rather than apprehending - where descent into madness is a danger. One could thus say Nietzsche is even more destructive of the Greeks than the Christians, to whom he is in debt for their creation of demonic nature. Holderlin, again, is capable of revealing the Apollonian cult of the modern era while still holding a reverence for Apollo - and in two simple lines which reveal Nietzsche as a simple blue-eyed boy.

[Anonymous No.15892006]

>>15891970
And please keep in mind that this is a critical outline only, a great danger presents itself in critique through the technical collision of ideological positions and facts. A proper writing on this would be more of a dialogue, considering the positive aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy as well and placing the whole within a discussion of forms and figures rather than ideas.
Nietzsche, in some cases of what first appears to be a fault, may be reaching towards a higher point or engaging in political decisiveness out of necessity.

[Anonymous No.15892017]

>>15886638
>besides that it lacked recognition for the art genius
that the world has picked the non-political metaphorical work of Republic against the actually political work Laws and the fact that the philosophers of the world completely gloss the Laws, one of his best if not THE best dialogue, is a damn shame.

[Anonymous No.15892189]

>>15891964
>>15891970
>>15892006
I fear that most of what you are referring to is a liberal misreading of Nietzsche, mostly popularized by Kaufmann, whose work on Nietzsche was primarily concerned with separating him from the failed Third Reich project so that he wouldn't end up in utter obscurity, rather than establishing proper historical context for him and the different stages of thought he went through in his life, which inevitably skewed Nietzsche's purposes in many ways. It's not accurate to what Nietzsche thought, and the humanist conception of Nietzsche is almost entirely Kaufmann's doing, and most English scholars of Nietzsche followed Kaufmann's interpretation for many decades. On top of this, Nietzsche wasn't done writing when he fell ill and became unable to write; he was only just starting to develop his political philosophy.

There is no elevation of art and philosophy above myth and numinous law in him, no lack of considerations for honor and aesthetics, no real hint of Romanticism in his work, no overbearing individualism, no overbearing destructive tendency, no lack of understanding towards the importance of the good of the state and its people, no disregard for Greek mysteries and the importance of their contest. Will to power is not a "take all for yourself" call to petty war, and his developing political philosophy was hardly autocratic. He had a lot of respect for Greek culture, as shown in various essays of his, that I can see, such as The Greek State, Homer's Contest, De Theognide Megarensi, On the Future of our Educational Institutions, On the Pathos of Truth, and Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks.

Nietzsche's later works like Twilight of the Idols, which I think is where most get his view on the Greeks from, requires historical context to understand. It also requires the context of Nietzsche's earlier writings.

[Anonymous No.15893179]

>>15892189
Thanks for your response. My criticisms aren't based on the liberal reading of Nietzsche, rather they may be similar to Schmitt's analysis of romanticism.
Certainly, at the surface level no one would ever agree that Nietzsche is a humanist, that is clear, but few would ever consider someone like de Maistre as conciliatory with the revolutionary spirit either, even though that is the result of Schmitt's commentary on his thought.

Criticism is a dangerous territory, which I attempted to clarify in my final comments. Nietzsche was obviously brilliant and any analysis should be set without a much greater discussion, and even though I disagree with some of his thinking there is also much of value that has to be considered with care. Junger's remarks on him are useful in this, in regards to his being a thinker, in the sense of political decisiveness, rather than a philosopher. There is a gravity and force in such a position, but also one that comes with the cost of great risk, so we should respect that.

At the same time, one must admit the incredibly powerful cult of thought surrounding Nietzsche. There is nothing even approaching such a following with Junger, his only true heir, or Schopenhauer, and this speaks to the extent that Nietzsche himself was of the age, and not just as a commentator but as a representative. He would never have become so popular if there was not something essential in his thought that was equal to the modern formation of society, and even the levelling process.

There is also the incredible amount of academic work surrounding Nietzsche, almost any interpretation can be defended or refuted, and it seems as if we are struggling against an entire world when we go against such figures. This in itself is a humanist relation, one which deals with the idea and image of a man rather than his figure, the questions become lost and like the problem of freedom of speech the individual becomes good in itself, a being that must never be destroyed. There is likely some level of this in your remarks which you wouldn't like to admit.

This is clear in that you dismiss everything I said without any real consideration, and as if I had committed heresy - to the point that you even begin to go against Nietzsche in your attempt to defend your idea of him. Would anyone really say that there is "no real hint of Romanticism in his work"? Of course he had great interest in the Greeks, and even some level of admiration for them, but this in no way suggests a truth in his position. His interests were very much selfish, and romantic in the individualist sense, they also echo the liberal conception of history in the parasitic need of vitality - again in contrast to Holderlin whose return to the Greeks was autochthonous and natural.

[Anonymous No.15893183]

>>15893179
Since you don't seem very interested in my arguments I will simply state that the Junger brothers, again the only real followers of Nietzsche, would agree with this analysis, at least in terms of the Apollonian/Dionysian, divinity, and morality. As for the other arguments I will have to read further to see if they cover any similar territory, but for the most part my ideas/criticisms follow the same line of thinking and are thus entirely logically consistent. They would, of course, need some elaboration, but this is a short form medium and simply a place to play with ideas.

In any case, there is potential for an interesting discussion here, so if you can go further in any of your comments please do.

[Anonymous No.15893193]

>>15893183
>*follow the same line of thinking as these core criticisms*

[Anonymous No.15893222]

>>15888093
He was a philologist and his favourite book as a young man was the Symposium, so why do you believe he did not read Plato?

[Anonymous No.15893286]

>>15886638
It's kinda weird how considering the few words he had for him in the preface to The Birth of Tragedy I think Nietzsche was the only 19th century philosopher to really "get" history other than Hegel. Truly he threw off Schopenhauer's mantle

[Anonymous No.15893514]

>>15890438
>>glorifying war despite never being a soldier
(not true, by the way)
>In 1867, Nietzsche signed up for one year of voluntary service with the Prussian artillery division in Naumburg. He was regarded as one of the finest riders among his fellow recruits, and his officers predicted that he would soon reach the rank of captain. However, in March 1868, while jumping into the saddle of his horse, Nietzsche struck his chest against the pommel and tore two muscles in his left side, leaving him exhausted and unable to walk for months.[50][51] Consequently, Nietzsche turned his attention to his studies again, completing them in 1868 and meeting with Richard Wagner for the first time later that year.[52]

[Anonymous No.15894647]

>>15893514
What violent battles was he involved in?

[Anonymous No.15895072]

>>15894647
He fell off his horse.

[Anonymous No.15895475]

>>15894647
>shifting goalposts

[Anonymous No.15895499]

>>15893514
Vegan Gains

[Anonymous No.15895585]

>>15893179
>>15893183
>>15893193
Any recommended reading to continue down this line of critique?

[Anonymous No.15895751]

>>15888282
What is this? There was no PTSD back then

[Anonymous No.15895978]

>>15895475
see >>15890900, that's me
>I think it is disingenuous for someone who has never fought other men to death in a war situation (self-defense is different)
I'll ask again, where did Nietzsche fight other men to death in the context of a war?

[Anonymous No.15896552]

>>15890438
This dumb diluted neoliberal critera doesn't work as smoothly in reality as it does in theory. You don't have to experience or do something or meet some criteria before you're granted granted the permission to write about that specific thing or express your thoughts on it, if you're a normal man, though the modern man is not normal. Dostoevsky for example never murdered anyone, but he did write about murder in a very captivating manner, and Crime and Punishment is considered a classic today. Your argument only holds its weight in today's industrial society because men are trained to be weak, passive, puerile and indecisive. It would be right to tell them not to write about anything, whether they've experienced it or not, because, when push comes to shove, they wouldn't be able to do anything strenuous or difficult to begin with, because they don't have the capacity for it. But this isn't the default state of man. Men like the Greeks, for example, who Nietzsche is targeting and who needs to be judged according to their standards, were able to rape and pillage one day and spend the next day weeping over poetry for example. Men were fuller in those days. Doubt and hesitation weren't such all-pervading factors back then like they are today, the very prerequisites for the validity of your criteria. Today's eras is one where a concept as asinine as white guilt could gain prominence, after all. So Nietzsche had the right to write about war and about whatever else he wrote about, because he had the capacity to describe them in a full and realized manner. He may as well have been through a war, given the way he wrote about it.

[Anonymous No.15896750]

>>15895751
tell that to neetch.

[Anonymous No.15896814]

>>15896552
post war quotes

[Anonymous No.15897112]

>>15890438
Baron Evola

[Anonymous No.15897128]

>>15897112
Which is kind of ironic since if I am not mistaken, he suffered from existential anxiety after WW1 and even considered taking his own life.

[Anonymous No.15897680]

>>15896552
>Your argument only holds its weight in today's industrial society because men are trained to be weak, passive, puerile and indecisive.
Pretty much this. Men's brains are too effeminate these days which hinders their capacity for imagination and empathy. They just want a constant shot of shallow dopamine instead of bothering to cultivate anything deeper in their lives.

[Anonymous No.15897756]

>>15894647
He served as a medic in the Franco-Prussian war but didn't see combat. Interestingly enough he had the habit of going to veteran's meetings and often to called himself "an old artilleryman". He was basically a LARPer.

[Anonymous No.15899211]

>>15895585
Not that I'm aware of. It comes from my understanding of Greek myth mostly, although I've come across a few similar remarks in Junger's writing. These are mostly just passing comments however.
FG Junger has a book on Nietzsche, I'm hoping to read it over the next month or so and maybe do a thread on it. There may be some similar threads in it.

[Anonymous No.15900829]

>>15897756
STOLEN VALOR

[Anonymous No.15900849]

>>15896552
What percentage of the greek population in antiquity were soldiers who raped and pillaged their neighbors and then wept over poetry afterward?

[Anonymous No.15900917]

>>15896552
I'm glad you brought this up actually. I mostly agree with the notion that one can write on a topic without having direct personal experience. Otherwise the entire field of fiction would quickly became barren. And, in this case, implicit in my post is a judgment about war despite the fact that I have not personally experienced violent fight to the death in the context of a war (or otherwise). However, reading and hearing accounts of people who have been exposed to the capricious spectre of death and suffering in war have convinced me that, in most cases, war is not an edifying experience or something that is worth carrying out. Often times the instigator of the war is simply looking for more territory or to enrich themselves, and a great many more faceless and nameless peasants and other low born people spill their blood and die in terrible agony all for the benefit of some other person distant from them. If you simply value the lives of those people less or not at all, that's your opinion. I believe that implicit in the promotion of war is a readiness to spend the lives of disinterested soldiers and countless innocents basically to get good goy points. Anyway, if war is so good and edifying, help yourself to as much of it as you can get. There are plenty of ways to get paid to do violence so other people can profit from it.

[Anonymous No.15901097]

>>15886638
didn't he hate Socrates because deep down he envied him?

[Anonymous No.15901371]

>>15901097
He didn't hate Socrates

[Anonymous No.15902004]

>>15901371
lol

[Anonymous No.15903126]

>>15902004
Hate and envy are the wrong words. He had a lot of respect for Socrates, enough to still consider him one of the greats. He also felt similarly to Socrates in that he also felt himself to be a gadfly. He thought Socrates was plebeian, however.