>If we affirm one single moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event—and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed.
What did he mean by this?
A'ight. It's just that, take the good wif the bad, innit? Or the bad wif the good, I don't know, I mean, take sumfin, like a Chinese restaurant where they give you them sauces for free, an life is like that as well.
So life's like that, innit? Like a Chinese dish, with a shit afterwards. Take the dish, an take the shit with it
>One moment of pleasure justifies all the shit and misery of the rest of eternity, because it was connected to and required for that one moment
He's telling you to settle for what you get, pretty slave-like mentality there, Nietzsche.
i can't stop thinking how the fuck did he grow that mustache. i mean come the fuck on its the size of a banana. my dick is smaller than that thing on his face. its just mind boggling. and then to hear the words coming from nietzsches mouth, but you did too many drugs this past week and so you sort of fall into this dreamlike state where the mustache is the one actually philosophizing and its just using fred to voice its thoughts on the nature of existence. i mean that thing has got to have something to do with his philosophies. sure fred grew but did his growth not induce the growth of the mustache, or by some illogical induction did the mustache not grow fred.
>i mean that thing has got to have something to do with his philosophies.
Actually you're not entirely wrong, he hints at growing it so people who look at him only see the moustache and the military man stereotype or something like that
it's impossible to not feel joy in life, mate. does that mean that because joy can exist all suffering is worth it? more to it, why would it be that way? what if we're taking values to suffering and enjoyment? schopenhauer shows rather quickly how suffering outdoes existence in his example regarding food (the pleasure of the one eating compared to the suffering of the one being eaten).
This is the dilemma Nietzsche is bringing to our attention--what is it to affirm our joy, to 'say yes' to life? For the conscientious man it is, ironically, a great horror. Or appears to be. It is a more primordial existential anxiety. It is inescapable, but you must choose: affirm or deny.
One way to interpret Nietzsche's skepticism on free will is by thinking what droves Nietzsche to such a stance. Nietzsche was a petite bourgeoisie in a historical period that it was very difficult for a petite bourgeoisie to accumulate further wealth and raise his social status. It was the rise of the industry era, the power of the accumulated wealth was already visible, and big wealth was in a position to limit the mobility and the prospects of other classes. His own life was filled with accidents and poor health, so by his perspective, the notion of free will, that naturally arises from a period of history in which the middle class was able by using hardiness, luck and belief in oneself to sustain or develop their social status, has become an empty concept. With the same method you can understand the problem of the cause and effect. Now, effects seemed uncorrelated to the causes, no reasonable selection of causes could create the necessary effects i.e. the social sustaining and growth. "Now" the traditional methods of social rise were obsolete, "a human could no longer satisfy the requirements". It would require a "super-human" for this. A mystical, immoral way of wealth accumulation and social status. This is the perspective of the petite bourgeoisie, camouflaged behind a criticism to the urban free spirit.
You know those passages from Twilight of the Idols about how pathetic our enjoyment is when we think that we control the truth? That is, that we have discovered a way to understand things which brings us closer to the truth than anything else done before? Read those before spouting this nonsense. The Overman is no capitalist spirit and if you read Nietzsche's passages about workers and work you'd see that.
This. Delay is already an answer. Denial can take many disguises. Of course, what many don't want to admit is that affirmation itself can be a dangerous concept. Cryptovitalism can justify atrocities.
wew lad, this is some next level shit
> and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event—and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed.
>> and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once
and if you try to say that it means something else I'll accuse you of being a disgusting commie specialized in rhetoric that wishes for nothing more but to make pomo shit the highest art.
so the winner of life is he who parties the hardest or achieves the highest excellence in some art, assuming the latter gives you some kind of deep inner satisfaction that can trump the momentary euphoria and happiness of making sweet love on some designer drug with the most beautiful lovable member of the opposite sex imaginable. like jazz. and im sure drugs can get u almost as high if not higher than playing great jazz can, although if you say drop acid while playing great jazz maybe you win?
thats fucking awful