>you will never master the Apolline and Dionysiac forces
>you will never create beautifully ordered drama upon the primordial Oneness of world-spirit
>you will never match the universal artistry of Greek paedophiles from two and a half thousand years ago
Modern man is fractured and cannot achieve the great holism that came naturally to the Greeks.
>mfw reading TBOT for the first time after being used to late Nietzsche
So be me the other watching a program on tv about literature. The program is:
host who is a literature professor
they discuss some dead writer and his work.
This time it was time for Nietzsche and the guest was a professor in political science. Here is what i took away from the whole thing. 1) when Nietzsche was writing about the Ubermench people still believed mermaids were real and they were looking for them. that is why they believed in the Ubermench. 2) Nietzsches critique of reason, logic, ethics, aesthetics is not good. It's not a systematic critique. 3) People take him too seriously. That includes thet Ubermench part 4) Basically he was a "some men just want to see the world burn" kind of guy. 5) he became a professor at 24. They gave him that much.
Nietzsche fags BTFO T F O!
Not being systematic is entirely consistent when you critique the very notion of systematic approaches in the first place.
Also, the Übermensch as a concept is simply a direction he proposes people move towards, not an actual magical being that is arrived at. If there were such a thing as the Übermensch, he would strive towards becoming an Übermensch and not considering himself one. The Übermensch is a carrot on a stick to replace the carrot on a stick of religion by more vitalist, healthy, non-otherworldly values that propel people towards excellence.
This thread is about his early work The Birth of Tragedy which he wrote at the beginning of his public life as a classical philologist. The excesses of his later philosophy - which I find interesting, but have never sympathised with sufficiently to give it serious study - are irrelevant.
Reading Also Spoke Zarathustra right now, and I don't agree with your interpretation. Nietzsche seems a thoroughly versed nihilist from a very Lutheran background whose dead unhappy with life, and then gets all ecstatic and 'prophetic' about his new 'ubermensch'. I think he's drawn his will to power from some sort of 'natural progression of soulless life' shit he perceives in the world, and it's essentially true for him because it has to replace the religion of his youth.
Nietzsche deliberately uses a religious style and religious imagery in TSZ, but I don't see any reason to believe he took it as anything more than a vague and symbolic presentation of a new set of ethics for the post-religious era.
Why do you think so?
People believe that people who claim to be the opposite sex are so in our age so your points are moot.
He said about 500,000 things so you can critique one of his ideas all day it won't ever stand up in the whole.
I don't think it was deliberate in the precise manner you just described - I understand it to be his most jubilant work, when he exposes his triumphant discoveries. That he write in such a painfully obfuscating and turgid style may have seemed appropriate to him, but it just makes me question the motives for his thought. I think the whole construction of TSZ was a cathartic process for him, reconciling his predilection for dogma with a nihilism-overcoming idea.
I'm not particularly convinced by his conception of the 'will to power' as it stands as an independent concept either.
Read it for an Esthetics course and was blown away. Nothing like his later writings, but really interesting as narrative buildiing nonetheless - also, the banter is REAL and nobody ever fucking talks about it which is a shame since I think it is one of Nietzsche's best qualities
>Nietzsche isn't a systematic thinker
>The ubermensch is his central concept
Your interpretation is poor. Nietzsche is the anti-nihilist. If you knew how to read him, you'd know he considers "the religion of his youth" nihilistic because—and this is not going to be eloquently and is generalizing broadly—it establishes a value higher than life, viz. heaven. Once you have something higher than life, the value of life perpetually approaches zero in a kind of evaluative Zeno's paradox. This, for Nietzsche, is effectively nihilism. You value life at nil because heaven has a value of plus one.
You really shouldn't just dive in with Zarathustra. It results in the kind of idiot reddit-tier misreadings like the one in your post. People who only read Zarathustra will only find confirmation of their existing biases. You need to read Nietzsche chronologically, and realize that he is first and foremost an ironist in the tradition of Socrates (as in Kierkegaard's reading thereof). I would say Birth of Tragedy and The Gay Science are his most important works, with Genealogy of Morals codifying their insights into something that could be called systematic. There is a sort of moral calculus to Nietzsche.
>I don't think it was deliberate in the precise manner you just described
Nietzsche is one of the most deliberate writers of the German language. Your arrogance is really unbelievable.
Another really important thing to realize with Nietzsche is that he works mainly in the thought experiment. When he speaks, for instance, of the eternal return, he obviously doesn't mean to offer a metaphysical treatise on the nature of time. Rather, he wants you to imagine for a moment that the eternal return is real, and earnestly ask yourself if you would live your life differently if that were the case. His answer to his own thought experiment could be the Ubermensch—the way a man who knows he is allowed to repeat every moment ad infinitum would live. Of course, by nestling the Ubermensch in a double thought experiment, or by situating him as the hypothesis of the first experiment—however you want to arrange it, the point is they are "tiered"—Nietzsche makes the concept unattainable, and this is distance between it and reality as lived is central to the idea itself.
As for the will to power, again it isn't entirely meant as a "independent concept," but is deeply engrained in his experimental philosophy. It is situated as a postulate, a guiding principle to allow investigation into the origin—dare i say the genealogy?—of morals. I would even go so far as to say Nietzsche takes it axiomatically.
All we have is the fragments of the greatest of the great. There is NO reason to assume all of Greece was represented by those people. I'm willing to bet there were just as many pathetic little faggots like you back then.
I interpreted the eternal return as meaning that one striving toward the ubermensch should act in a way that is so true to themselves, their values, their being, etc they would constantly choose it even if they knew it had horrid consequences. Hence the gracious praise of the demon for giving it the gift of constantly being able to build oneself through their action and to continuously affirm their being.
but it isn't shall we say actual praise; only virtual. Recall his exact verbiage (I am unfortunately limited to Kaufmann's translation): "Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you." TGS, S. 341. Note that the passage is almost entirely in the subjunctive mood. He is not describe an actual case, a state of facts, but a possibility. It's a challenge, a question, a hypothesis meant to be tested not in a metaphysicians tomb, but in the daily movements of living.
It is arrogant to accuse Nietzsche of prosaic naivety, of being unaware of how his writing is received, especially in contradiction of the anon who has read more than you, especially having read bits and pieces of but one of his books. You should read more.
Exactly it's a challenge to live in a way that defines one's values in such a way that they are filled with joy at the opportunity. One should act in such a way that they rejoice at the very idea that they might be able to live their life over again, not because they get to change it, but because they get to simply live THAT life again.
Most niggas who read and criticize Nietzsche have no fucking clue what they're talking about. If you haven't even studied Plato in depth, you're not anywhere near prepared. Nietzsche HATED Plato and if you don't know any Plato, you can't even begin to fathom what Nietzsche is talking about.
There is a reason why Zarathustra emerges from a cave at the beginning of TSA.
>Nietzsche HATED Plato
"I attack only things where any kind of personal difference is excluded, where there is no background of bad experience. On the contrary, to attack is with me proof of a good will, under certain circumstances of gratitude." - section 7, Why I Am So Wise