Nitzke

>stirner fanfiction

>>1961061
He seems interesting might start reading his books.

>>1961061
>maintained a love for hierarchy and a caste system

This is really arguable.

>>1961090
In The Antichrist 57 he may not express love for it, but he uses a comparison of Christianity to the Code of Manu to expose the "unholiness" of Christianity, and then proceeds to outline his own "holy lie" i.e. caste system (which is what he was slowly building up to through all his books post-Zarathustra). So maybe love is not the right word; acknowledgement of an order of rank as an inevitability in nature?

>>1961119
Well Nietzsche was in many ways a Darwinian, which if you are one, it's undeniable that hierarchy is literally inevitable.

I mean, dominance-hierarchies are literally older than trees.

>>1961061
>So was he a radical liberal or what?
Nietzsche isn't really anything. He doesn't exactly care about mass politics so much as he cares about a very specific kind of individual that he expects to be able to prosper regardless of political system.

If you were actually to try and govern a country on Nietzschean ideals however socially and economically it probably would be pretty liberal. But the actual organization of it would probably be called authoritarian by most. Like Napoleonic France for context.

File: 1468868498844.jpg (87KB, 529x424px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 529x424px

>>1961061
>against antisemitism
Maybe I misread Genealogy of Morals but I'm pretty sure he didn't like Jews

>>1961158
Judaism*

>>1961158
He actually loved Jews. He was a self-described anti-anti-semite.

He said a lot of things about Jews that might sound stereotypically antisemitic, but these are compliments on their cunning and intelligence. Just as with anything else what he might see as a good thing is something people normally wouldn't like.

>>1961061
>So was he a radical liberal or what?
You must have some really idiosyncratic definition of liberalism. So please explain.

Nietzsche in general railed against liberalism of his time (in general the ideas that a German petty burgeois in second half of XIXth century might hold), which he perceived as being an outgrowth of Christianity that had done away with its very basis - God, yet continued without it like a headless chicken.

>>1961181
>which he perceived as being an outgrowth of Christianity that had done away with its very basis - God, yet continued without it like a headless chicken.

Which is somewhat true, but not completely. I mean, tolerance of sexually deviant people for example isn't particularly Christian, but it is very much liberal.

>>1961191
Of course it's not completely Christian (nor are any of Christianity's cultural spin offs). But it's what Nietzsche was talking about when he said something to the effect of even though god is dead, his shadow will linger for centuries.

And indeed I'd say that even though the way liberals aggressively embrace sexual minorities is by no means biblical. I'd say the general air of unconditional tolerance that permeates western culture is a definite remnant of Christian ethics.

>>1961181
>So please explain.
To be liberal: to favor progress and reform over sticking with tradition in order to stay complementary to the modern, showing open-mindedness and an appreciation for diversity.

I think that is pretty reasonable and not very idiosyncratic. The thing is, most people who claim to be liberal are not that way. They actually want to see whatever subculture they are a part of thrive over the subcultures that they claim threaten them, and their claims of supporting diversity is simply their means to achieve that end.

>>1961207
Nietzsche also says in Will to Power that the death of God will either make people insanely nihilistic, or resort to ideological authoritarianism.

Both of these things I've experienced first-hand by people I know in real life; which actually scares me a bit, because I never believed a philosopher could actually be a prophet.

>>1961191
Which is why I specified liberalism of his time, not liberalism in general. XIXth century pretty much created the notion of sexual deviance by taking religious dogma and applying it to a scientific model of human behaviour. When doctors tried to define sexuality in normative terms, they just equated heterosexual relations with pure and normal, and homosexual with sinful, therefore unnormal.
It has been argued that this led to the creation of homosexuality as a separate orientation, since before that it was just something that you did, sinful or not.

Regardless, a 1880s liberal townsperson would sure as hell consider homosexuals to be sick or unnatural, even if that person was secular.

>>1961216
He also anticipated that the century following his lifetime would be wrought with destruction. And if I remember correctly even as accurate as saying that Germany would lose two consecutive massive wars.

>>1961229
Sure sure, I can't say I disagree with anything you say.

>>1961061
Being an anti nationalist but pro hierarchy/aristocracy is the only logical position. Nationalism basically is radical egalitarianism that tries elevating the entire nation into some sort of collective aristocracy, like a German pleb being equal to a German king just by the virtue of being German. Nationalism is inherently a plebeian AND liberal sentiment.

File: 1478875643197.jpg (45KB, 472x316px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 472x316px

>>1961329
>monarchism
>hereditary aristocracy
no

>>1961090
No, it isn't. You're either dumb or you never read him. Or both.

>>1961142
This. Even anarchists acknowledge a form of naturally occurring hierarchy in the form of emergent leadership.

File: 1465855687093.jpg (61KB, 504x720px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 504x720px

He was just a politically correct Max Stirner.

>>1961158
Nietzsche doesn't really have anything against jews, he's just against judaism and christianity, because it's like a weapon that guaranteed the survival of the jews at the detriment of everyone else it came into contact with(of course it was a detriment to the jews as well, but rather sick than dead)

>>1961759
Nietzsche is much more all-encompassing than Stirner and his philosophy is actually quite different - if similar.

>>1961790

>nietzche is much more all-encompassing

Neitzsche never explained exactly why someone should do something someone tells them - or why indeed they should not. He never made a solid case both for and against authority.

>>1961807
That's because he understands that philosophy is seduction and tyranny

Why is Napoleon and Renaissance art better than Gordon Brown and soap operas? Ultimately, no reason except "Because I will it", but you can feel their seductive power too, can't you?

nietzsche works from a position unassailable by stirner

>>1961807
>Neitzsche never explained exactly why someone should do something someone tells them - or why indeed they should not.

Why should he? He says outright there's no one true way, so you can either listen to what he says or not.

>TFW you used to have to defend Stirner's merit as a philosopher from Nietzsche fags but now you have to defend Nietzsche's merit as a philosopher from Stirner fags.

Some day, I dream that there will be a 4chan where people don't make a habit of flippantly dismissing philosophers because they like another one more (though I am guilty of this myself).

>>1962144

>philosophy is seduction and tyranny

So why trust him then? Stirner never made that argument.

>Why is Napoleon and Renaissance art better than Gordon Brown and soap operas

Because your comparing apples to oranges.

>Why should he

He shouldn't if he doesn't feel like it. Doesn't make his theory equal in utility to Strirner's though.

>>1962189
>He shouldn't if he doesn't feel like it. Doesn't make his theory equal in utility to Strirner's though.

Stirner's doesn't really have much utility either. Both just advocate perspectives from which to work from. Stirner's ideal is basically the raw Linux kernel of philosophy, and while it makes a good bedrock, it offers nothing else.

>>1962205

Stirner's philosophy not only explains why life is shit, but you have to be a shitty person to even realize it is and how to reverse the situation in the first place. I feel like Stirner's tehroy is not hated because its wrong, but it helps people who think it helps people they deem are wrong.