Nietzsche and drugs

Drugs will make you Ubermensch? Nah, they will just turn you into a street hooker.

>>10030732
>Drugs will make you Ubermensch?
Nice reading comprehension.

>>10030755
>The link between said experiences and his philosophy seems to be

My first question is, given your formatting, why you chose to type this in a separate program and then copypaste your post without reflecting on your shitty grammar?

Second, whether or not the N did drugs does not diminish or exalt his philosophy. What do you have to say about his thoughts without reflecting on some stupid speculations about drug use?

Moreover, why are you reading N in 2017. There are far more interesting authors and works. Are you seeking peer approval of your fringe theory or actually trying to understand the contexts in which N's writings were produced and therefore the texts themselves?

>>10030844
Nietzsche wasn't an übermensch, he just came up with the concept.
There is no actual relation between Nietzsche's behaviour and his idea of übermensch (he clearly did not derive this notion out of his personal experience, nor has he modeled it after his life), but there is a relation between his experience and the formulation of said concept operated by N himself (as I said he had been a chronic user until his death, which means that drugs have always been a part, or to put it in clearer term, a framework of his thought).

This is why I'm not implying that drugs will make you an übermensch, in the same way I am not implying that migraines, or annoying sisters will do the same.

File: Hippolyte.jpg (112KB, 544x612px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 544x612px

>>10030712
>Nietzsche did extensively drugs for 3 decades: opium and chloral hydrate
I think he was using stimulants as well. There's scant evidence, but somewhere in his notes or correspondences he mentions the acquisition of intoxicating substances from a Javanese merchant.
Java was the dutch colony producing cocaine at the time.
His writing style fits the profile of a habitual drug user, with its small, concentrated outbursts of epiphany, and abhorrence of systematization.

>Nietzsche used often Goethe as an example
Nietzsche was a big fan of Taine, the french man of letters, as well, kept up a dialogue with him in fact.
Perhaps his three-pronged approach to the contextual study of a work of art, based on the aspects of what he called race, milieu, and moment, may be current once again in the future.

>>10030851
>My first question is, given your formatting, why you chose to type this in a separate program and then copypaste your post without reflecting on your shitty grammar?

My grammar IS shitty: English is not my native language (I've studied it for 7 months so far). I'm sure at the moment I can't do better than this: sorry for the inconvenience.

>Second, whether or not the N did drugs does not diminish or exalt his philosophy.
I have not criticized him on these grounds, in fsct I have not criticized him at all.

>What do you have to say about his thoughts without reflecting on some stupid speculations about drug use?
Nietzsche has been high on opium and chloral hydrate for about 20 years, and all of his books were written under the influence of these substances. Why should I gloss over this fact?
Also notice that this is not the way I have studied Nietzsche, this is just a thought I have entertained for a couple of says: am I not allowed to consider not even once major biographical implications on his works (which is in fact a very Nietzscheian approach), not even after having studied them "properly". There's no need to be this aggressive.

>Moreover, why are you reading N in 2017. There are far more interesting authors and works. Are you seeking peer approval of your fringe theory or actually trying to understand the contexts in which N's writings were produced and therefore the texts themselves?
Nietzsche is a required reading for many modern and contemporary philosophers that I want to read. I am also genuinely interested in his philosophy. Regardless, this is beyond the point.

>>10030856
There's a reason why Nietsche's mouthpiece Zarathustra is not the overman but goes before and announces the coming of the overman. He is to the overman as John the Baptist is to Jesus.

I think Nietzsche probably had a personality that presupposed him towards metaphor and imagination; the opposite of autisme really (literalness). High on openness.

Nietzsche isn't necessarily anti-psychoactive substances. He's anti-alcohol specifically because it's basically liquid Christianity. It's a degenerating influence on the spirit that doesn't offer any particular insight or benefit beyond the immediate feeling of undeserved satisfaction.

>>10030712
No. The Übermensch just isn't clear defined.
>There is no right way
That doesn't mean Nietzsche's thoughts were unclear and there is no evidence in his writings except maybe ecce homo that they were.

Interesting idea but imo meaningless insertion.

>>10030996
The fact that there is no way to identify with the concept of übermensch is a specific attribute of its definition, rather than incoherence: it wasn't meant to be criticism.

The Ubermensch has no characteristics beyond the 'I want', mmkay? That's literally all you should say about him, mmmmkay?

>>10031004
*identify oneself

>>10031006
Not true.

>>10030712
Is this passage true?
>The cognitive jump is inhuman. The models that are usually used to define übermensches (Nietzsche used often Goethe as an example) are merely a metaphor, in the same way a man can be a metaphor for a überAffe (overmonkey).
Was this anon ( >>10030878 ) right?

>>10031014
Yes.

As Zarathustra says man is a tightrope between animal and Ubermensch.

>>10030851
>There are far more interesting authors and works.
No one from the 20th century has surpassed Nietzsche in this regard. We're only just now seeing some texts arise that might be more valuable, but other than that, everyone who took his work and tried to continue it in the 1900's always failed to reach the conclusive depths about life that he did. His philosophy has also been usurped by a number of bastardizing groups, like the postmodernists.

>>10030712
First of all, his life doesn't affect his ideas. I don't know why some people thinks that is somehow an "argument" agaisnt his philosophy.
Second, everyone who has used drugs know that they do show stuff you couldn't acces without them, they can give you another point of view on whatever. Intelligent people can benefit from them, weak ones only use them solely for scapism.
Drugs are also known for bringing creativity in some people, other ones just get brain fried.
I have experienced closed eye visual hallucinations and other stuff, related to drugs, when trying to sleep. But nothing during the day.
What you are defining as derealization, as far as I know, is not derealization, sounds a lot more like ego death. Ego death is usually associated with psychedelics, but I don't see why it couldn't be triggered by others drugs.
I don't see Nietzsche even close to a mystic, but he was a passionate man. No one can be ubermensch, but you can experience little moments in life that are like if you were in that fear-less and extatic way, when the world is yours.
In my opinion, Nietzsche was very likely bipolar.

>>10031742
Not him but
>First of all, his life doesn't affect his ideas
have you ever EVER read Nietzsche? On his own terms life ALWAYS affect ideas. What do you think GoM is about?

>>10031796
I'm saying using the aspects of an author's life to critic his ideas is not an argument
Read the next line after reacting

File: 1393216825409.png (728KB, 798x1000px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 798x1000px

>>10031661
>like the postmodernists

>>10031862
OP here.
I'm not criticizing his ideas, I'm only thinking about Nietzsche's ideas while thinking about this factor, which is that he arrived to his main concepts while he was in states of cosciousness, which were particular to say the least.
I'm not being dismissive at all, nor am I being radical. I'm only entertaining this idea.

In the spirit of the Gay Science I'm asking you too to entertain this way in a jovial way, with a light heart. I'm not trying to write a manifesto or an essay here.

>>10031910
I wasnt saying you were doing that, it was just to clarify and express my repulsion towards the people who do that

>>10030851
He made a couple of typos, you fucking unbearable uptight cunt.

>Moreover, why are you reading N in 2017. There are far more interesting authors and works.
After Plato, Nietzsche is the only universally essential philosopher. Aristotle and Wittgenstein are essential for analytical philosophy, Kierkegaard and Camus for existentialism, Husserl and Heidegger for phenomenology, Aquinas and Augustine for theology and so on. But Nietzsche is as essential as each of those to their respective subcategories to philosophy in general. And he's a spectacular writer, the poetry of his work alone would be enough to justify it.
Moreover, why would you not read an author because ''there's better ones!''' jesus fucking christ you retard, how much I hate your ilk of petty, miserly censors who can't stand the sight of someone being genuine on the internet, you pitiful smug fuck.

>>10031919
Then you are expressing repulsion toward Nietzsche.
As edgy as it may sound, you are being a moralist: you are being scared if entertaining certain thoughts because you know that other idiots out there would mess it out ("duuuuude, think about it... woooah"), which is not the case.

>>10032863
It doesn't scare me, is just dumb
I create my own values, niqqa

Jung did a psycho-analytic reading of Zarathustra that analyzes each line individually. From skimming the massive tome and reading reviews of it he seems to have thinked Zarathustra was a result of a neurosis where Nietzsche was crushed by his own mental weight.

>>10031661
Just shut up

File: Alex-Grey-3_768.jpg (294KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 768x1024px

Im not saying to do DMT or Acid but they really do allow for perceptions that feel like magic or god or parallel universes.