Anyone else here fall for the Nietzsche meme?

please go back to /his/

>>7901792
never been, don't intend to now

hurrdurr nietzsche is a edgy meme xdddd
just because he's mentioned here so often doesn't make him less great.
he's still a dank philosopher.

>>7901852
he's shit

>>7901762

I have studied upon Nietzsche and I find it hard pressed to retort any of his basic philosophies.

We should encourage the world to get rid of the slave morality.

>>7901872
slave/master morality is unfalsifiable bs

>>7901861
good argument.

>>7901885
almost as good as yours

File: FyodorPushkin.jpg (272KB, 679x923px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 679x923px

here would seem to be only one question for philosophy to resolve: what must I do? Despite being combined with an enormous amount of unnecessary confusion, answers to the question have at any rate been given within the philosophical tradition of the Christian nations. For example, in Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, or in Spinoza, Schopenhauer and especially Rousseau. But in more recent times, since Hegel's assertion that all that exists is reasonable, the question of what one must do has been pushed to the background and philosophy has directed its whole attention to the investigation of things as they are, and to fitting them into a prearranged theory. This was the first step backwards. The second step, degrading human thought yet further, was the acceptance of the struggle for existence as a basic law, simply because that struggle can be observed among animals and plants. According to this theory the destruction of the weakest is a law which should not be opposed. And finally, the third step was taken when the childish originality of Nietzche's half-crazed thought, presenting nothing complete or coherent, but only various drafts of immoral and completely unsubstantiated ideas, was accepted by the leading figures as the final word in philosophical science. In reply to the question: what must we do? the answer is now put straightforwardly as: live as you like, without paying attention to the lives of others.

If anyone doubted that the Christian world of today has reached a frightful state of torpor and brutalization (not forgetting the recent crimes committed in the Boers and in China, which were defended by the clergy and acclaimed as heroic feats by all the world powers), the extraordinary success of Nietzche's works is enough to provide irrefutable proof of this. Some disjointed writings, striving after effect in a most sordid manner, appear, written by a daring, but limited and abnormal German, suffering from power mania. Neither in talent nor in their basic argument do these writings justify public attention. In the days of Kant, Leibniz or Hume, or even fifty years ago, such writings would not only have received no attention, but they would not even have appeared. But today all the so-called educated people are praising the ravings of Mr N, arguing about him, elucidating him, and countless copies of his works are printed in all languages.

Turgenev made the witty remark that there are inverse platitudes, which are frequently employed by people lacking in talent who wish to attract attention to themselves. Everyone knows, for instance, that water is wet, and someone suddenly says, very seriously, that water is dry, not that ice is, but that water is dry, and the conviction with which this is stated attracts attention.
.

>>7901909
Similarly, the whole world knows that virtue consists in the subjugation of one's passions, or in self-renunciation. It is not just the Christian world, against whom Nietzsche howls, that knows this, but it is an eternal supreme law towards which all humanity has developed, including Brahmanism, Buddhism, Confucianism and the ancient Persian religion. And suddenly a man appears who declares that he is convinced that self-renunciation, meekness, submissiveness and love are all vices that destroy humanity (he has in mind Christianity, ignoring all the other religions). One can understand why such a declaration baffled people at first. But after giving it a little thought and failing to find any proof of the strange propositions, any rational person ought to throw the books aside and wonder if there is any kind of rubbish that would not find a publisher today. But this has not happened with Nietzsche's books.


The majority of pseudo-enlightened people seriously look into the theory of the superman, and acknowledge its author to be a great philosopher, a descendant of Descartes, Leibniz and Kant. And all this has come about because the majority of the pseudo-enlightened men of today object to any reminder of virtue, or to its chief premise: self-renunciation and love - virtues that restrain and condemn the animal side of their life. They gladly welcome a doctrine, however incoherently and disjointedly expressed, of egotism and cruelty, sanctioning the ideas of personal happiness and superiority over the lives of others, by which they live.

>>7901914
>>7901909
i agree

>>7901914
>Similarly, the whole world knows that virtue consists in the subjugation of one's passions, or in self-renunciation.

Oh does it? How does it know that?

>>7902065
Also, what is virtue and why is it the most important thing in determining the validity of an idea?

>>7902065
Because that's what everyone more or less believed before Freddy came and fagged up the world with his "master of daydreams' shit

>>7902071
There are plenty of common beliefs throughout history that are completely baseless. This is one of the stupidest arguments a person can put forth.

>>7901881
OK popper

>>7901909
>And finally, the third step was taken when the childish originality of Nietzche's half-crazed thought, presenting nothing complete or coherent, but only various drafts of immoral and completely unsubstantiated ideas, was accepted by the leading figures as the final word in philosophical science. In reply to the question: what must we do? the answer is now put straightforwardly as: live as you like, without paying attention to the lives of others.

Wikipedia-tier reading of Nietzsche, desu. didn't read past this.

So to le Nietzsche is le GOAT people, is it not possible that there is virtually zero consensus on anything at all that he said because he was obfuscatory as fuck, a good rhetorician and played you all for chumps?

Contradictory all the time, 2deep4u bs.

Deepak Chopra with more effort and more pull for 'smart' people to fall for

File: 1450838277188.jpg (437KB, 1508x1493px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1508x1493px

>>7901881

>>7902085
>be Nietzsche
>say that nobody will understand you
>make no special attempt to be understood
>nobody understands you
>inspire what you hate
>feels good man

>>7902105
>>7902080
hello triggered people!

File: 1459056882151.png (7KB, 418x416px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 418x416px

>>7901909
>Turgenev made the witty remark that there are inverse platitudes, which are frequently employed by people lacking in talent who wish to attract attention to themselves.
nietzsche fucking rekt

>>7902085
I feel that's the issue with most critics of Nietzsche. There aren't many people who are deeply critical of him who have also read him exhaustively and understood him well.

Even intelligent people like Bertrand Russel reveal their ignorance in their criticism. Granted, Nietzsche wrote in his style for a reason, he wanted to inflame passions and be controversial. He cared more about stimulating thought than about expressing his own thoughts at times, he's very hard to pin down.

But the litmus test for knowing whether someone gets Nietzsche is if they criticize him for misogyny. Because he wasn't, and in fact held women in higher esteem than most men of his day.

>>7902116
>Because he wasn't, and in fact held women in higher esteem than most men of his day.
kek, how do people believe this?
Ironically, the poster you're replying to failed understand Tolstoy's criticism.

>>7902116
To play devil's advocate, this is also the issue of the Freddy lovers.

He was so contradictory and impossible to pin down that if anyone comes up with their interpretation of him they can just say: 'Oh no, you haven't understood'

There's a plethora of quotations which suggest he had a strong dislike of women and then there are some where he compares them to ultimate truth or whatever.

To favour the one interpretation that suits you is exactly what Russell did just not the way you happen to like.

To say he loved

File: 220px-Si_Léon_Chestov_noong_1927.jpg (12KB, 220x303px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 220x303px

>>7901909
>>7901914
>Implying Lev Shestov didn't blow Tolstoy out of the fucking water on this issue.

Nietzsche was not perfect and I don't agree with him about everything but he just wanted people to be better. Tolstoy was actually a shit person who was utterly crushed by pessimism in his moments of idleness but couldn't face it without lying to himself.

Both were great writers, but a great, or even good philosopher Tolstoy was not.

>>7902172
>Both were great writers
lol, as if you can sneak nietzsche in with the greatest novelist of all time

File: 1437235802963.jpg (166KB, 1002x1200px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1002x1200px

>>7902116
Bertrand Russell just didn't go in depth onto post-greek philosophers (from what I remember while reading him).

>>7902183
Nietzsche was a great stylist. I didn't say equal fuck head.

>>7902187
You sound butthurt.

File: 1459055729023.png (85KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 420x420px

>>7902201
>Nietzsche was a great stylist
fucking kek

>>7902203
How so?

>>7902205
Wow amazing, you might win redditor of the year with that post.

>>7902221
>le hating reddit 4chan hivemind
Hold your own opinions, mate.

File: 1459134686300.png (10KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 420x420px

>>7902221
>Reddit out of context
>enjoys Nietzsche's cringeworthy prose
>thinks Nietzsche was anything save a plagiarist of Machiavelli, Rochefoucauld, Emerson, Dostoevsky, etc

Hello, Reddit!

File: download (2).jpg (8KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 275x183px

>by walking

I did

>>7902172
>>7901909
These guys, like most Russians, are crude, practically incomprehensible hacks as far as the world of philosophy goes.

Philosophy needs passion. It's too cold in Russia for the fiery passion one needs to properly perform philosophy.

>>7902242
>plagiarist of a buncha dudes

don't forget vico too brah

i dig nietzsche but he easn't some hegelian douche like marx trying to make a spooky framework to organize and explain ur whole life, he was just a dude with some rad ideas about history and art, which is why his forefathers are in history and art, not so much the autismal and life wasting discourse known as "philosophy"

>>7904364
non-systematic philosophers existed before nietzsche, even more so it's likely that philosophy started as non systematic

>>7904374
>even more so it's likely that philosophy started as non systematic
Not likely, it did start this way. The original philosophers were Greeks like Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, etc. Guys that all the systematizers and Analytics would find impossible and unpleasant to read.

>>7904382
>The original philosophers were Greeks like Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus

Since all we have is fragments and secondary sources, I wouldn't go as far as taking it for certain. A thing is sure though: the first physophical systems like we understand it today is the Aristotelian one and we didn't problematize systems (putting the form of system itself under philosophical inquiry) only well into modern era.

>>7904374
but what i'm saying is nietzche engages more with history and christianity than with "philosophy" so i don't consider him a philosopher, all the problems he worked on where related to history and art, there's no queer cartesian "how do i know i exist and the world exists dur im autistic" type shit or silly systemic "the whole world can be explained by this one neat trick" bullshit, god i fucking hate philosophy it's so fucking dumb, but i like nietzsche and foucault

>>7904414
You're not doing Nietzsche any favour. And restricting philosophy to a camp which was never its exclusive concern throughout history.

>>7904400
>Since all we have is fragments and secondary sources, I wouldn't go as far as taking it for certain
Well sure, but as it stands that is how it appears. There were more non-systematic philosophers in ancient Greece than there were systematic ones.

Also, Aristotle was pretty weak philosophically-speaking, hence why he didn't really get much of his predecessors. Which is fitting for him certainly being one of the first systematic philosophers.

>>7904430
the whole philosophy project is pseud as shit, keeping tipping dorito lord

>>7904436
>the whole philosophy project is pseud as shit

too bad you can't escape it

>>7904435
>Aristotle was pretty weak philosophically-speaking

Come on now.

>>7901762
I loved this quote when I first read it. It is actually very relatable

literally the Stefan Molyneux of his times. Duped the most idiotic mognoloids on earth.

Hopefully in 100 years time people will realise this. But more likely is that Stefan Molyneux will be regarded as the new God-like figure who is studied at universities

>>7904445
>too bad you can't escape it

escape what? it's a fucking spook, it has never accomplished anything, if it had u wouldn't need to start 2500 years ago, you would just read the latest stuff and that's it, the fact that philosophy is a two thousand year idea buffet that ppl random pick and choose what suites them show it has never found anything of value and is mere vanity

>>7904469
you're doing (naive) philosophy right now, that's why you can't escape it.

>>7904445
>Come on now.
I'm not saying we should scratch him out of history or anything. But quite a few other Greek philosophers are more memorable / significant / intense than he was.

>>7904472
I'd have difficulties to name another greek philosopher other than Plato who had a bigger impact on what came after him.

For example it comes to my mind that just before the end of Being and Time there's a big ass note, probably the biggest of the book) in which Heidegger explains how the Hegelian concept of time is fundamentally derived from the Aristotelian concept of time.

File: 11216818_1217108471650543_471289189689238268_n.jpg (43KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x480px

>>7901762
Nothing is funny anymore.

>>7904491
I side with Nietzsche on the discussion. In his Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, he lists the following as the real "giants" among the Greeks:

>Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedodes, Democritus and Socrates

and claims that they are the purest philosophical archetypes to ever exist, and their archetypes continue to resurface in philosophy even now.

Then he mentions that Plato came and mixed the philosophies of these guys. His mixture was great and archetypal in scale, and he influenced the world far more than the others. But because he was a mixed type, Nietzsche does not regard him as highly, but in fact, considers him a bit of a poisoner and the beginning of a kind of "dark ages" for philosophy. The whole thing is reminiscent of the single God of Christianity overriding the more complex, creative, Pagan religions that came before with their multitude of gods.

>>7904374
LIst more non-systematic philosphers before Nietzsche please. Not trolling. Me? I'm reading D&G's Anti-Oedipus right now and am feeling it, but wondering if "non-systematic philosophy" existed back in the day
(b4 nietzsche).

>>7904516
Montaigne
Seneca
Cicero
Pascal

>>7904514
I am aware of his position about Greek culture and philosophy in general (which gained traction via Heidegger in the modern discourse, but he puts it differently) can't say I agree tho.

>>7904516
Heraclitus is about as non-systematic as you're ever gonna find.

>>7904516
"non-systematic philosophy" is a euphemism for "shooting off your mouth like that guy at the bar"

>>7904526
>>7904533
Good. But essayist/letter-writer and Nietszchean-esque, "non-systemic" philospher seems to be a fine line for me... Will check out ol' Pascal and Heraclitus tho, mates. Cheers m8s.

>>7904526
He puts it in a pretty cool perspective though, doesn't he? Even if you disagree. I mean this is one of the things that made Nietzsche so wild in the 1800s and while practically the entire academic world in Europe denounced his writings. The claims he was making was almost heresy to the academy.

Nietzsche's philosophy can be summed up as "the philosophy of the Antichrist." He perfectly positioned himself against everything that was tied to Plato and Christianity. His idea of perspectivism emphasizes value and prejudice — notions that ideologies focused on oneness / the single God try to ignore and diminish as much as possible. He goes so far as to say that his philosophy says Yes to everything, and that his No that he hammers into things is a part of this eternal Yes, while Christianity is a solid, eternal No to life. Suddenly in this light Christianity is seen as being fundamentally anti-life with its notion of oneness.

>>7904544
systemic philosophy is shooting off ur mouth like that priest at the church except instead of god controlling the universe it's ur pet idea, it's like nigga if god don't even control reality then u think ur motherfuckin idea do? trick plz

He's just an edgelord. Schopenhauer at least groped towards some greater understanding. Nietzsche is a minor philosopher that is only spared from the memory hole because he is vague enough to be conscripted into all sorts of (-ism)s. We all have an edgy Nietzsche phase.

>>7904582
>the entire academic world in Europe denounced his writings.
lolno

>mfw this thread is filled with nihilists.

>>7904668
That was an exaggeration, sorry. He got shit for The Birth of Tragedy though.

>>7904665
Go get an education, child.

>>7904469
Philosophy is just life on a finer scale, that's why you can't escape it. Even without it as a recognized area of expertise, everyone is "doing" it per se. Except everyone aside from philosophers is doing it very poorly, so dismissing them would be like dismissing the experts in any field at all (this field being life itself), which is retarded.

>>7904708
get uneducated, geezer, ur mind is a spooknest

>>7902116
The former Pope obliterated him in an encyclical

>>7905424
Ugh

File: cucktholicism.jpg (34KB, 635x423px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 635x423px

>>7905424
>obliterated him

If I recall, his argument boiled down to NUH UH, NO, YOU MESSED THINGS UP WE DINDU NUFFINS!

Anyways, just looking at the Catholic Church today is probably the best evidence that Nietzsche was spot on about Christian morality in the end, and the worst part is that it didn't die alongside God.

Nietzsche went in a big huff after literally getting cucked by his friend Paul Ree over a girl called Lou Salome whom he spent weeks with together, expected she'd become his girlfriend and she didn't want anything to do with him.

His entire philosophy is the ramblings of a completely divided manchild who fetishised pain as a rationalisation of his mongoloid solitary choice instead of facing the obvious truth that he needed company.

His work is so obfuscatory that it can quite easily be seen as advocating violence, he certainly wasn't opposed to the idea generally and he want to suck Napoleon's 3 incher.

His life was a joke and his legacy was to create a more violent, confused world because people fell for the 'so imprecise and contradictory that it must be genius meme'


Literally the Elliot Rodger of his time


A cunt

>>7905484
>I know more about Nietzsche than a man who has spent his whole life studying philosophy and who is among the leading philosophers of the worlds greatest institution of philosophical thinkers

>>7901914
>And suddenly a man appears who declares that he is convinced that self-renunciation, meekness, submissiveness and love are all vices that destroy humanity (he has in mind Christianity, ignoring all the other religions).

Except Nietzsche didn't ignore the other ones and didn't exclusively BTFO of Christianity.

Daily reminder Christfaggotry is a religion of and for losers, and it champions being a weak cuck, which is part of why the West is on its way to collapse.

>>7902095
Genealogy of morals is pretty straightforward desu.

>>7902116
>Even intelligent people like Bertrand Russel reveal their ignorance in their criticism.

Bertrand Russel was a betafag who got into an open relationship with his wife and then threw a shit fit when she started getting laid and he didn't.

>>7905538
Post some of his actual arguments instead of sucking the pope's dick because of his position of authority.

>>7905566
Aristotle was a homo, so the whole discipline of physics was built on faggotry.

>>7905584
Aristotle didn't pontificate on the virtues of women and open relationships like a Disney-ass miladylord and then throw a temper tantrum when his wife became the town bicycle.

>>7902095
he's really not that hard to grasp

>>7905582
Here is a good summary of it

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7124

808

>>7905630
holy shit needed a good lol russsell blown the fuck out like the lil bitch he was

to be honest tho worst part of russell was giving us wittgenstein the same way john mccain gave us sarah palin, thanks for nothing u naive bad judgement dufus

>>7905646
Wow what a joke.

>>7905630
Aristotle was a notorious cockrider.

>>7905630
Aristotle is so boring. Fuck Aristotle

>>7905663
protip: philosophy is boring

>I believe myself that romantic love is the source of the most intense delights that life has to offer. In the relation of a man and woman who love each other with passion and imagination and tenderness, there is something of inestimable value, to be ignorant of which is a great misfortune to any human being.

-Bertrand Russell. He had 4 wives, 3 children. Got cucked by his wife.

>The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies and chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth and see those dear to them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.

-Gengis Khan. Had thousands of wives, thousands of children. Nietzschean ubermensch.

>>7905669

>Killing and cucking makes you an ubermensch

It makes you closer to a primitive scum that the ubermensch is the polar opposite of.

>>7905679
You're right, this is what non-scum looks like:

>As for Dora Russell, the story is incredibly perverse. Their marriage was, at first, designed by both of them, to allow for liberal bouts of adultery. Bertie became infamous, in the 1920s, for various writings, promoting their concept of the “marriage of the future.” The problem is, when Dora took the matter to heart, and started having children with another man, Bertie went berserk, and began a lifelong campaign of hatred and revenge against her, the which included an about-face, against his former “liberal” views on marriage. Monk’s descriptions, of how he dealt with Dora, from the late 1920s, on through the rest of his life, make for gruesome reading.

>>7905669
> actually pays attention to what some historical figure has to say about "society" and "sexuality"

Try reading actual philosophy, son.

>>7905501
This.

>>7905683

I imagine the ubermensch to be something alien and unrecognizable, because it is so many levels ahead of our thinking.

Like Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen desu senpai.

>>7905689
no u

>philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world, the point is to change it

>>7905703
Well the ubermensch definitely wouldn't post ghetto memes like t.b.h. f.a.m. on a board intended for the discussion of literature.

>>7905717
You can't lift the hammer, can you?

>>7905501
This. A literal meme person.

>>7905646
So basically like I said, the Pope says NO, CHRISTIANITY DIDN'T FUCK US, MODERNITY DID!

Without recognizing that Nietzsche identified Christianity as not only a bad bandage placed over nihilism, but a now completely ineffective one since nobody truly believes in God anymore. And it is the spirit of Christianity that haunts this phenomenon of modernity. Both the reaction to it and the chains which are not yet broken. The gospel is turned on its head on a whim, politics trump theology. It's now good to be gay or lesbian because this is politically correct, not because the words of the gospel have changed.

Nietzsche is of the mind that basically conservatives cannot reverse degeneration, Christianity is fucking doomed, it was doomed from the start. Luther drew out its death but he was fighting forces far greater than him. So there is no 'going back' to old values, only going forward into new ones.

>>7905703
Nietzsche said the ubermensch was not some sort of meta-human figure in Ecce Homo.But the Zarathustra description does more or less fit this model.

>>7905740

:)

>>7904514
How does he consider Socrates so great when we don't even have any works from him?

>>7905824
Why consider Jesus great, he never wrote anything?

>>7905828
Jesus never even existed.

>>7901762

I woke up from a nightmare one time with the thought in my head about "loving life" or the eternal return test, or whatever it was.

It doesn't make as clear sense to me anymore as when I barely woke up, but it had to with "Why should I love the bad parts? If we are to overcome in the pursuit of power, what is power? The truly powerful are the ones who know so fear, and seeks to eradicate the causes of fear in the world. Or maybe that isn't power, maybe power is the true thing to seek in life."

To love the world in the good and bad, in the pain and pleasure, you are submitting your being. To submit is to lose. Never say die.

>>7905824
He's obviously referring to Plato's Socrates.

>>7901891
>almost

>>7901872
>we should encourage the world to get rid of slave morality

bruh revelling against ressentiment is ressentiment in itself.

A true noble does not care what others think - he finds his 'goodness' (in the origin of the word) through actualising his inner will to power

>>7905703
I don't know if Dr. Manhattan is that alien in thought to us, his alienation is mostly from his prescience and godlike superpowers instead of inherent character traits