Is there something to read beyond Nietzsche? I've been on

File: Max_stirner.jpg (10KB, 200x237px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x237px

>>8079492

>>8079498
kill yourself

Sam Harris
Stefan Molyneux

These 2 are the philosophical descendants of Nietzsche. True thinkers in the best sense. And we are lucky enough to have them around today and see them actually speak and so on.

>>8079507
kys retard

>>8079492

Don't fall for those advocating all those Post-Modernist/Structuralist hacks.

I think, deep down, they saw (and see) themselves as the 'New Philosophers' that Nietzsche prophesied; those of the 'Perhaps'.

*At best*, you could take a look at Wittgenstein. Apart from him, there really hasn't been anything yet that justifies going beyond the 19th century.

>>8079498
I thought Stirner was anterior to Nietzstche? His work is even inspired by him.

File: Sam.jpg (16KB, 310x475px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 310x475px

>>8079511
all i can do is hope you read it and turn your life around from cynicism and nastiness

>>8079516
So this is it? I feel strange, now what do I do?

>>8079492
You have been grossly misinformed. Time to call Cioran.

>>8079522

Revisit those you've read.

More to the point, think. Reading is one thing, thinking another.

People rarely think about what they've read; something that Schopenhauer complained about.

>>8079533
Cioran is the Linkin Park of writers

>>8079533
Cioran is a literal retard that made his living by pretending to be le deep and depressed man.

>>8079533
>Cioran didn't kill himself to prove his theory
into the trash he goes

Depends. I personally enjoy 20th century philosophy, especially post-structuralism, but I know it's not a shared opinion. I'd suggest at least reading Heidegger, Deleuze, Foucault, Baudrillard, Barthes (though not strictly a philosopher), Cioran, Bataille (same as Barthes), Vattimo and dunno, Land (yeah meme I know) and Negarestani - although this is an entirely subjective list, made up by my taste, so feel free to sneer at it.

File: 900x900px-LL-561292ef_abatman382f.jpg (30KB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 852x480px

>>8079574

Think about what said to you >>8079516 and >>8079574. One gives to you something to do, another one enters you into the void of the nothingness.

I guess is clear who can be nearer to the "New Philosophers" that Nietzsche prophesied. Keep developing, never stop, fullfil everything. Be rizoma.

File: 1457910155827.jpg (25KB, 308x450px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 308x450px

>>8079507
Memes aside is harris really a philosopher?There's nothing new about what he says,nor his ideas are something ground breaking.

Molyneux is batshit and everybody acknowledges it,not in the case of harris though.

>>8079492
Jordan peterson.

>>8079492
Heidegger is the last person who has contributed anything enduring to philosophy. Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida have some interesting points on occasion but to me have always read like a dog chasing it's tail. Philosophy has largely proven itself unable to escape the questions Nietzsche raised about the value of truth.

>>8079511
don't even respond to this troll, you're just encouraging him. It's the same few people who spam blatant troll threads with Stefan/Sam.

>>8079601
What has heidegger contributed? He's just a calmer less chaotic version of Nietzsche

>>8079492
>Is there something to read beyond Nietzsche?
Yes.

Charles Sanders Peirce, Gottlob Frege, Pierre Duhem, Bertrand Russell, G.E. Moore, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolf Carnap, Hans Reichenbach, Gilbert Ryle, Alfred Tarski, Ernest Nagel, Karl Popper, Frank Ramsey, Carl Hempel, Nelson Goodman, H.L.A. Hart, W.V.O. Quine, Alfred Jules Ayer, J.L. Austin, Wilfrid Sellars, Paul Grice, Roderick Chisholm, Donald Davidson, J.L. Mackie, P.F. Strawson, R.M. Hare, G.E.M. Anscombe, Philippa Foot, John Rawls, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Michael Dummett, Wesley C. Salmon, Hilary Putnam, David M. Armstrong, Richard C. Jeffrey, Bernard Williams, Alasdair MacIntyre, Harry Frankfurt, Jaakko Hintikka, Richard Rorty, Ronald Dworkin, Paul Benacerraf, John Searle, Fred Dretske, Alvin Plantinga, Ruth Millikan, Jaegwon Kim, Jerry Fodor, Ian Hacking, Thomas Nagel, Alvin Goldman, Robert Nozick, Gilbert Harman, Joseph Raz, Saul Kripke, Thomas Scanlon, David K. Lewis, Larry Laudan, Bas van Fraassen, Daniel Dennett, Paul Churchland, Derek Parfit, John McDowell, Alan Gibbard, Stephen Stich, Nancy Cartwright, Simon Blackburn, Peter Singer, Tyler Burge, Gareth Evans, Philip Kitcher, Martha Nussbaum, Elliott Sober, Robert Brandom, Christine Korsgaard, Michael Smith, Timothy Williamson, David Chalmers, Theodore Sider.

i wonder what nietzsche would say about heidegger

>>8079518
Stirner basically restarted (sophists had this in mind 2,000 years ago, Heraclitus and Protagoras both generally understood this) the LE EVERYTHING IS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION meme and was very narrowly focused in his writing, sticking close to that subject as well as egoistic individualism. Nietzsche took these to be true but his core question is why the fuck do we care so much about truth. All of this truthseeking ended up in denial of life (exemplified in Socrates taking the hemlock and Christ his cross), so he says we should care less about what is true and right and more about what makes us stronger.

>>8079626
Can't our beliefs about "what makes us stronger" be true or false?

>>8079492
Heidegger's interpretation is the only reason Nietzsche is influential so read that

>>8079613
We have a new analytic memester around

Too bad /lit/ is a Catholic board

>>8079616
He'd probably be pissed off that his sister published his notes and pissed off at Heidegger for considering WTP more important than most of Nietzsche's self published works.

For Nietzsche, even, and especially in his aphoristic works, presentation was everything, the design of how aphorisms were laid out was as important as what they said in themselves. People think that his works are fragmentary because he writes in aphorism but they most certainly are not. And it's that central misunderstanding that makes/made Nietzsche one of the most poorly understood philosophers of his time.

>>8079649
Yes but true and false don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, both have their utility as do good and "evil". True and false are technical definitions which have no value in and of themselves.

If Nihilism is the 'truest' form of belief, we would do better to lie to ourselves, because as Lovecraft said some truths are too terrible for the human mind to behold. Granted we won't necessarily go mad as a result of nihilism running wild but it will, slowly but surely, destroy our society through its corrosive effects.

>>8079654
>For Nietzsche, even, and especially in his aphoristic works, presentation was everything, the design of how aphorisms were laid out was as important as what they said in themselves.

What do you mean? He tends to just list a bunch of aphorisms at parts in his books. How is that a unique layout?

>>8079665
How aphorisms are arranged relative to each other is part of how Nietzsche explains and makes a reader experience his philosophy, Nietzsche sees himself as a psychologist more than a philosopher in many senses and orders them in order to take your mind on an adventure. Sometimes he will play devil's advocate without even telling the reader he is doing so, the reader must deduce this from reading a prior passage for negation of this logic.

Sometimes he will apparently have three different viewpoints on the same issue without ever making it clear what he actually believes. That is because it is not at all important that the reader know what he believes, only that the reader is compelled to think about the same questions Nietzsche is thinking about. He doesn't necessarily want you to have the same answers because what is good for him is not good for you.

Half of Nietzsche's product is just to get you to think about shit because he freely admits he has no fucking clue what particular set of values are appropriate for anyone but himself. He freely admits he is a destructive thinker above all else (see: Philosophizing with a hammer) and leaves the burden on the rest of us to figure out what to do with ourselves.

>>8079492
>does he really add up anything substantially new?
yes
I can't see someone who loves nietzsche being too into heidegger tho. did you read spinoza?

>>8079721
Sounds a bit like what Kierkegaard did by using pseudonyms. P interesting

>Heidegger
>but does he really add up anything substantially new

Similarly to Kant, the conversation of philosophy after Heidegger proceeds within the conceptual framework he established, whether it is recognized or not. If you find something in Heidegger that has the ring of familiarity, it is because it is an echo of an echo.

>>8079721

>He freely admits he is a destructive thinker above all else (see: Philosophizing with a hammer)

For someone who thinks he knows that much about Nietzsche you sure fail to even grasp the point of the hammer and the rest of his works. Congrats. Are you that guy who starts every month or so about taking questions regarding Nietzsche? You are a fraud, and you know absolutely nothing about Nietzsche. Get back when you've read his entire works in German, because that's what scholars do, and you aren't anything but a poseur. Have fun cobbling together your understanding by reading wikipedia and your penguin introductions.

Nietzsche never overcame Schopenhauer. Bit disappointing when you realize it because you are so rooting for the old chap

>>8079613

Could you be any more /anglo-american/?

>>8079743
>Similarly to Kant, the conversation of philosophy after Heidegger proceeds within the conceptual framework he established, whether it is recognized or not. If you find something in Heidegger that has the ring of familiarity, it is because it is an echo of an echo.
I don't really think Heidegger is a horizon of all culture in the same way Kant, Descartes, Hegel etc are. Many of the important figures in contemporary continental philosophy (and needless to say, analytic philosophy) like Deleuze or Foucault have little, if anything, to say about him. The post-Kant figure that gets that laurel is Nietzsche.

>>8079743
What about the analytics?

inb4 rorty

>>8079747

Are you going to say anything?

>>8079740
Was just going to recommend ol Soren Blueballs because he and Nietzsche share a thematic thread.

>>8079795
What about the memester's?

>>8079774
this is really a complement if you think about it

>Could you be any more the most successful culture in history?

>>8079774
YOU ..ARE ...A ...WHITE ...MALE !!

>>8079492
Wittgenstein, Kripke, basically most of the analytic tradition.

The ghost of Nietzsche is on tinychat / 4chanlit

>the meaning of being is SHROUDED IN DARKNESS

like woah, I can already tell reading Heidegger is gonna be intense from these first few pages

>>8079492
Freud, Marx, Deleuze/Guattari, Foucault, Jameson

>>8079932
Analytic samefrogs are the worst

Why are they on lit even
Is leddit leaking like /pol/ is?

More reason to solidify /lit/ as a traditionalist board.

File: yLDWu8P.jpg (178KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 800x600px

>>8079774

>>8080432
What new things has Deleuze contributed to philosophy? He's just an easily distracted Hegel??

E V O L A
V
O
L
A

>>8079662
Not even memeing but Stirner says truth is a spook.

Idk i love reading Xenophanes, Anaximander and Anaximenes.
Pre socratics rules

Jiddu Krishnamurti
UG Krishnamurti

Start at the beginning and finish the catalogs of whom you haven't, re-read, take notes, absorb the material before you look for others and lose the knowledge you've supposedly acquired already.