>There can be little doubt that Nietzsche is the most imp

>>8411910
thanks for the rare nietzsche, op

Why did he go crazy?

>>8411966
He liked horses.

>>8411966
Syph

>>8411976
Where did he contract syphillis?

>>8412008

ur mum

>>8411966
G-d punished him.

>>8411910
You're confusing "atheists" with "philosophers," but don't feel bad, it's a common mistake (just like confusing them with "scientists." Not being convinced in the existence of deities that require worship and obedience is an idea just as old as religion, and exists with or without any other considerations. There's absolutely no need to "cite" anyone, nor do the roots of "liberalism" mean jack shit to its current form. If you're worried about being mocked by a dead guy with a great moustache, that's your issue.

>>8412033
>nor do the roots of "liberalism" mean jack shit to its current form

This is what liberals ACTUALLY believe.

>>8412016
Except he liked jews. He didn't like Christians, I'm not sure he knew any Muslims. But he loved jews.

>>8411966
Stroke

What does liberal mean for whoever wrote the article?

>>8411910
>im 12 and like philosophy
Nietzsche ^

>>8412213
Secular Christianity.

>>8412008
Whores

>>8411966
he always was. just lost his grip, as brilliant but insane men all inevitably do.

>>8411976
HE DIDNT HAVE SYPHILIS, WHEN WILL THIS MEME DIE:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3313279/Madness-of-Nietzsche-was-cancer-not-syphilis.html

>>8411910
>he thinks Nietzsche meant "atheism" by "God is dead"
>he thinks he criticised the Jews for believing in God instead of being slaves to people
>he thinks Nietzsche didn't criticise his form of atheism
wew lad why is this babby so butthurt his church is dead? he could at least have the decency to say he's christian

>>8412182
That's right. "Durr, Locke hated atheists!"
So? Fuck off.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2446x2632px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2446x2632px

>>8411910
an excerpt from zarathustra.

>>8412207
He admired Jews for their intelligence and "priestly" behavior, but disliked Jewishness and Judaism, especially because of their relation to Christianity. He wasn't an anti-Semite in the sense that he believed their presence was undermining the national culture or contributing to a secret world order, and he of course opposed herd behaviors like pogroms, but he subscribed to some stereotypes about their character and felt that only the best of the Jews should be assimilated into a new European master race. He believed they had an incredible amount of power and desperately wanted to be European.

>>8412207
>He didn't like Christians
He used his book money to buy his clergyman dad a nice tombstone. He didn't like a lot of things or people in christian communities tho for a number of reasons..

>>8412276
>but he subscribed to some stereotypes about their character and felt that only the best of the Jews should be assimilated into a new European master race. He believed they had an incredible amount of power and desperately wanted to be European.
He tried to thwart an anti-jewish conspiracy in one of his delusions once. I also wouldn't take Nietzsche's work as some kind of political project. That's a very shallow reading of his stuff on master/slave and aristocracy, and often coincides withh such shitty interpretations as "Nietzsche HATED slave morality and LOVED aristocracy" that are simply incompatible with his work.

>>8412246
Then how do you explain him describing the painful symptoms of syphilis in his letters? Last time I checked brain damage doesn't make your cock hurt.

>>8412346
>He used his book money to buy his clergyman dad a nice tombstone.
This has nothing to do with Christianity. It's obviously a son paying respects to his father.

>>8412354
Through a set of christian rituals within a christian value system.

A better question would be why you think he hated Christians.

>>8412347
Psychosomatic. In fact you probably get itchy genitals sometimes (assuming you have some), but don't think twice about it. But if you believe it's part of a disease it suddenly seems like it's meaningful. Bit like hypochondria.

>>8411966
The abyss stared back.

>>8412369
>Through a set of christian rituals within a christian value system.
And if he was Chinese it would have been through Chinese rituals. His father were a priest, to give him some sort of weird non-christian Indian sky cage funeral would have been really weird and not what he (the father would have wanted). Engaging in some token act out of respect says nothing about his attitudes towards Christianity as a whole. Is it respect to go against what you know you father would have wanted?

>Psychosomatic
There is a difference between and ich and unbearable pain. I'm not saying that it couldn't have been brain damage but in the same way people love to speculate about why Van Gogh was ill you can find five different causes which all sound sort of plausible when they are pushed hard enough by someone opinionated. And I don't think a single article from the telegraph is enough by itself to make me believe something most people don't and actively contradicts evidence we have to the contrary.

>>8412395
>And if he was
If he were... it's a rare example of subjunctive mood in English.

His father was dead and buried already. His parishioners (is that even the right word in lutheranism?) didn't bother to sort it out either, nor anyone else in the family. For someone that hates Christians and didn't believe in universal value systems it's damn weird.

Psychosomatic goes beyond that example, it was just illustrative. Pain isn't always based on physical sensation. The arguments for an inherited brain tumor are convincing considering his dad had something very similar.

File: feuerbach.jpg (13KB, 200x266px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x266px

Nietzsche was brainwashed by Schopenhauer so he didn't take the time to understand dialectics so he could never grasp the real essence and significance of Christianity... all he had was his own subjectivist whining and psychological ailments to put on paper in the end

>>8412431
>For someone that hates Christians and didn't believe in universal value systems it's damn weird.
No it isn't. Just saying it is doesn't make it so. I don't think it's weird so you are going to have to explain why. Do you think that atheists just stop having funerals? These are things that while co-opted by religion have other purposes in peoples lives. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they won't name their children with names from the bible, or bury them or be buried. As I said before that if Nietzsche were Chinese he would have honored his father in an equivalent Chinese way. There is important overlap between social mores, social customs and religious practice. Ishiguro's family went to church every Sunday even though there weren't Christian because they thought it was just something that English people did.

As for the brain tumor all I am saying is that a single news article isn't going to convince me since a) these are the kinds of things that are rife with speculation as to the cause so having someone talk about one more isn't surprising, b) it does nothing to combat contradictory evidence and c) it comes from a source that makes money out of sensationalism (and also that journalists always seem to misrepresent medical and scientific things). I'm not saying it wasn't a brain tumor but I am far from convinced.

>>8412476
>I don't think it's weird so you are going to have to explain why. Do you think that atheists just stop having funerals?
You're not reading the posts bro. Again daddy Nietzsche was buried already, Freddy bought him a nice tombstone.

I think you actually read what you're replying to and explain why you think he hated Christianity then we have a possibility of conversation.

>>8412469
Who was it that truly grasped Christianity, then? Hegel?

>>8412207
He thought Muslims knew the proper way to handle women.

>>8412486
I never said anything about him hating Christianity, that was a different anon.
>Freddy bought him a nice tombstone.
And as I said twice if he were Chinese he would have done some equivalent Chinese token. He didn't do it because of Christianity. Nietzsche just wanted to honour the memory of his father. He has to actually do something. So the question is rather why wouldn't he do something that would be completely normal for a German of his time to do?

File: 1466138269755.jpg (24KB, 350x392px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 350x392px

>>8411910
>for the prevailing notion that atheism and liberalism go together.
liberalism is the faith in the human rights which are exactly the promotion of atheism through their faith in ''''''''''''''''''property'''''''''''''''''''' and ''''''''''''''''''''''''''liberty''''''''''''''''''''''''

this guy is total moron

>>8411910
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/06/adventures-in-old-atheism-part-i.html?m=1

literally this

>>8412513
Again it wasn't perfectly normal. Only Fred did it. For someone quick to cry thay "saying it doesn't make it so!" you yourself are at least as quick to do it.

Might also be an idea to read some Nietzsche. A big part of it is about blindly accepting value systems.

File: golly gee2.jpg (274KB, 1024x776px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1024x776px

>>8412528
Rights are given to you by god, without god given rights you would just be a subject to arbitrary man made social arrangements based upon mere power relations

>>8412548
>Rights are given to you by god
Not necessarily. There are arguments for various natural rights.

>>8412010
Never heard that one before.

>>8412546
There is nothing inconsistent about what he did with his philosophy. Getting his father a new tombstone is not inconsistent at all with what he says about Christianity and the act itself doesn't have to have anything to do with Christianity. I still don't understand why you think this one act, which doesn't contradict his ideas in any way is so important. A very big part of Nietzsche is arbitrary willing. What's so hard to believe that about this being an act of such willing?

He wanted to honour his father, which means he has to do something to honour him. This is a something. He thought it was fitting. Why make it out that this act is some clear revelation upon his ideas and character when it fits within those ideas?

>>8412557
>There are arguments for various natural rights.
none of them are convincing, just pure ideology to forward interests

>>8412579
>A very big part of Nietzsche is arbitrary willing.
Huh? Where are you getting that from?

>>8412602
It's the core of his ethics. We are free to create the new rules in which we engage in much as artists do (with their restrained arbitration's of willing to make art). Nietzsche extends this to all men so that all men are artists and that life is our art. So for Nietzsche an ubermensch is something like a Beethoven of Shakespeare except for their whole life and not just to art.

I mean it's fucking stupid but it was his view.

>>8412207

>Except he liked jews.

He absolutely did not. It shows what kind of a Kaufman secondhand knowledge of Nietzsche you have. His comments on Jews and Judaism are absolutely antisemitic, Cosima Wagner of all people told him to tone it down with the jew hatred. You'll find references to Jews, though admiring their cleverness, throughout his work, and his thoughts on the Jewish threat that would fall on Europe are clearly described in Twilight of the Idols. Adding to that, his comments on Jews in his private notebooks without fail are absolutely filled with animosity towards them. Even the purported break with Wagner over the issue of antisemitism was not at all the cause, not even a reason for it. He agreed with antisemites in all but its loud expression, which is the reason why he developed an anti-antisemitism because he knew the problem would only get worse should they get louder, and alongside his proclamation of having all antisemites shot you can clearly see in the notes and in the Antichrist what Nietzsche really meant with it.

>>8412548
Which god?

This is because of the ascendancy of Anglo-American power, which is more likely to cite liberals like Locke and Mill. Anglos are more conservative than continental Europeans, and distrust intellectuals, so more likely to accept a degenerate version of the old status quo than revolt entirely.

>>8412629
The art thing is Schopenhauer. Art frees you from servitude to the Will to Life and allows true choice. Nietzsche argues against this with his whole Apollonian-Dionysian dialectic in line with Will thing.

The making your own rules thing is also only the second metamorphosis of the soul (Lion). It isn't the same as willing what you want, and neither of those things is "arbitrary willing" anyway.

I assume you've sort of skimmed over his work from this. Not that any of that has any bearing on Nietzsche fulfilling his father's wishes or just being German and not Chinese or whatever else is up there. That isn't "arbitrary willing" either.

>>8412654
The Judeo-Christian of course

>>8412634
Are you reading his sister's edits again?

>>8412586
That's the thing though. The liberal theorist don't need to appeal to divine or even natural rights. They just say that every individual has a regard for his own interest, and that individuals can come together to form a mutually beneficial "social contract" for the sake of their individual interest. So that guy above is right in the sense that liberalism makes the individual and his own self interest the beginning and end of all things, without any reference to God, unless one can enter into a contract with God that will prove to benefit one's self interest.

I think what the man in the OP meant though, was not liberalism so much as humanism/humanitarianism, the idea that human beings have any inherent values or rights, and that individuals owe any amount of care or respect to other human beings except insofar as they serve one's interest, once one has discarded God as the Father of the universal family of mankind and left in His place only the individual and his self interest.

>>8412634
lmao

>>8412676
You are wrong about lion. Lion tears apart camel (representing acquisition of external values), keeping what is life-promoting and leaving what is life-denying. There is no creation in this stage.

>>8412557
They are arbitrary.

>>8412948
Now you're making shit up.

>>8412546
I'm as fedora as it gets, but if I survive my parents I'm going to contribute to their Christian funeral, buy them a nice casket and a tombstone to honor them and their religious views. Not just because it's something they would have wanted, but because other surviving loved ones are likely to believe themselves Christian as well. As for myself, I don't really care. Funerals are for the living, at most I'll just save up the money for it when I have a surplus in order not to be a financial burden to those who succeed me.

>>8413011
Nice blog post bro. Please keep us updated on your headwear and funeral arrangements.

>>8413018
Thanks. Where's the upvote button, I'd like to acknowledge you further.

>>8412676
Schopenhauer's aesthetic view of art is not what I refer to when I talk of Nietzsche trying to turn your life into a work of art. You mistake what I refer to as willing as something akin to the automatic and reflective will to power of master morality. The arbitrary willing doesn't mean you just do what you want because you are free from the constraints of moral realism, for if it were so he would have no arguments against the last man.

The reason why I talked of art (asides from the fact the people Nietzsche admired most were Goethe, Shakespeare and Beethoven) is that to create great art like them requires insight, skill that is acquired through great amounts of intelligent effort and suffering and (perhaps most importantly) that they do so mostly because they can. For Nietzsche art has no ontology. Beethoven doesn't create great music because of some universalised aesthetic good or (let us just assume this for the sake of the hypothetical) that because someone told him to. He has endevoured upon this difficult task for the joy that comes from the challenge and the power of real accomplishment. For Nietzsche this isn't just how you create good art but is how one should create value in their life.

But you are right, this has nothing to do with Nietzsche and his fathers grave other than for me to say there is nothing unNietzschean about what he did and we don't need to reconsider anything about him because he did so.

moralizing atheists are literally the most retarded ideologues of all time.

Bird worshipping mud hole fucking savages and nation of Islam pedophiles look like rational people in comparison

What is this talk about "self interest"? It's not even a coherent term.

>>8412528
he means necessarily jackass. as in, sure, the logical conclusion of liberal humanism might be atheism, but certainly the converse is not true.

>>8413118
Are you saying that atheism inherently proposes moral non-realism? If you do I think academia would like to have a word with you.

File: 1399394409776.jpg (95KB, 550x413px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 550x413px

>>8411910
>Awkwardly, Nietzsche pointed out that liberal values derive from Jewish and Christian monotheism

But this is the part that Nietzsche got wrong, and it's the part that the Neo-Reactionaries also got wrong.

There is literally nothing about liberalism that can be traced to Christianity or Judaism, unless you think capitalism, homosexuals rights, a woman's right to be equal to men and the rule of law under rational legislation, is in any way shape or form Christian or Judaic(which it isn't).

>>8413301
>academia is correct
Atheism is inherently amoral.
>>8413302
Oh look, another Redditor that knows nothing about Christianity. Shouldn't you go to reddit9001? There have been so many of you trolls there as of late.

>>8413077
>Schopenhauer's aesthetic view of art is not what I refer to when I talk of Nietzsche trying to turn your life into a work of art.
100% it is. Schopenhauer inspired the Appollonian, and that might be where you're getting stuck a bit. That isn't the totallity of Nietzsche's aesthetics, it isn't even half really because not only is there the Dionysian it should be aligned to the Will to power. That's quite clearly put in The Birth of Tragedy (tho it's maybe lacking finesse of later work).

>You mistake what I refer to as willing as something akin to the automatic and reflective will to power of master morality.
Will to power you would do better to think of as actual willing in this case. Master morality can be born from Will to power but does not intrinsically or internally produce it. It actually undermines itself a la Daybreak.

>>8413077
>For Nietzsche art has no ontology.
I don't think this is arguable. Appolonian and Dionysian take differing ontological positions on aesthetics. You also get Nietzsche writing about differrent claims to artness in Nietzsche Contra Wagner.

>>8413308
>Oh look, another Redditor that knows nothing about Christianity.

I know enough about Christianity to know that it has nothing to do with political liberalism.

>>8412395
http://www.nietzschecircle.com/nietzsche4.html

> As for the question of whether or not Nietzsche actually had syphilis, these claims have been vigorously disputed, in particular and at length by Richard Schain. It is improbable that Nietzsche ever had syphilis, but more likely suffered from "endogenous" psychosis (a schizophrenic disorder originating within the body, not from an outside agent); in a short paper, Dr. Leonard Sax argued that nearly all of Nietzsche's symptoms correlate in particular with meningioma (eye cancer) of the right optic nerve. Schain states that a "final diagnosis of chronic schizophrenic disorder . . . is perfectly compatible with all of the manifestations of mental disorder and physical dysfunction exhibited by Nietzsche" (The Legend of Nietzsche's Syphilis, Schain, p. 103).

>>8413322
kys

>>8413337
Great argument fagtron.

>>8413313
Whenever Nietzsche says anything about Wagner it is sublimated jealousy

File: 1435818063333.gif (1MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x225px

>>8412271
Different anon. You are so retarded you made me reply to you. The roots of an ideology/system of ideas not being important in considering its current form and how we should evaluate them?

>>8413308
So really what you are saying is that you are smarter than almost all moral philosophers and you spend your time on 4chan?

>>8413313
>That isn't the totallity of Nietzsche's aesthetics
I'm not talking about Nietzsche's aesthetics at all. I'm merely talking about art for its analogous qualities in regards to Nietzsche's ethics.

>Master morality can be born from Will to power but does not intrinsically or internally produce it.
I meant that the masters do what they will and believe it to be good because they do it. This is why I called it automatic and unreflective (Ed: I noticed that I said reflective in the other post, I meant unreflective). When I used will to power in that sentence I meant it is what is being manifested when they act in such a way. Even if you draw issue with this it is beside the point so I was only making the point that I did not equate the ubermensch with the master and that the ubermnesch requires an interiority impossible with the master.

>>For Nietzsche art has no ontology.
It has been a very long time since I engaged in his first book but I don't remember getting the impression that the Appolonian and the Dionysian had any ontology and were just two of the better approaches (among many others that Nietzsche doesn't deem worthy talking about) that man had of engaging with the world.

>>8413500
muh utilitarianism makes me so profound

>>8413340
You're literally an idiot. Probably low iq. Your parents should be put to death for raising such a sickening husk of a human. I can't bear to imagine what you look like, or what other depraved and draining opinions you've got loping around in your tiny squashed little head. Sitting around in your cheap baggy jeans with no socks on wearing some off-brand zip-down hoodie. It may be unzipped completely, or maybe only one third of the way leaving that v shape so we can all see what comic book character you're sporting today, but one things for sure, you're a fucking dope. You've got that wet-lipped mongoloid expression and your hair is either buzzed down or completely unkempt. You're not fat but to imagine your misshapen battered body would be just as upsetting. Ooooh what games are on sale on Steam this week? Any new apps on the app store? Is Gamestop open? These are the banalities that float around behind those plain beady little eyes of yours. You're folded out on your couch wondering what tiny piece of enjoyment you can squeeze out of your miserable life today. You'd be depressed if you weren't so fucking stupid. OOOOH you're going to play your video games on the bus today? That sound fun. Maybe some more during the day? Maybe a movie, one of the classics? Minority Report? I'm going to fucking kill you. I'll find you one day and I'll come to wherever you live and I'll shoot you through your heart. I'll leave you dead in your fucking driveway, sprawled out and tangled in your headphones. You were up all night watching Netflix and drinking energy drinks, so fitting the jack into your Nintendo DS is difficult, and then you'll look up and you'll be dead. I will freeze you in that fucking moment for forever and ever.

>>8413543
There is more to moral realism that utilitarianism. And please go ahead and publish your brilliant ideas to show that you are one of the greatest philosophers ever, I'm rooting for you!

Well, i suppose God it's alive after all.

>>8413555
>if anybody calls my ideological nonsense stupid, they are clearly arguing for their own ideas

>>8411910
what a gross moustache

>mfw a modern atheist has read trash like Dawkins and Hitchens but not based Fritz

book one of Genealogy of Morality is worth more than all the atheist literature written in the last 100 years put together

File: equality.jpg (117KB, 751x923px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 751x923px

>>8412274

GOAT book

slaves gonna slave

>>8411966
Realized the last step of the 3-Way Metamorphosis: From Lion to Child. He didnt go insane, he merely reached radical subjectivity

>>8413500
Moral philosophers are realists in the same way that theologians are theists. They possess no special knowledge, it's purely a matter of ideology.

Unless they can actually show me a moral fact they can fuck off.

>>8414098
>Unless they can actually show me a moral fact they can fuck off.
So you are saying that anything that isn't directly accessible to the senses is hogwash?

>>8414133
>rationalist in damage control

it hurts that your mental proliferation is cancer, does it not?

>>8414098
>Unless they can actually show me a moral fact they can fuck off.
It's almost like that isn't what a moral fact is.

>>8411966
because of siphilis

>>8413512
>but I don't remember getting the impression that the Appolonian and the Dionysian had any ontology
There are very clear ontological aspects to both.

>>8413512
>I meant that the masters do what they will and believe it to be good because they do it.
I'm tired right now so my Nietzsche recall is on the fritz, but I would suggest it's more like that they appear to do as the will but cannot (this is established in Daybreak for sure), and that it is generally recognised to be moral because they promised or commanded it (this is where I'm hazy but it's probably is genealogy of morals if anywhere).

>>8411910
This isn't really much of a revelatory comment. The majority of any group of people will always be ignorant of their roots.

But, I don't see how this is accurate either, or even meaningful. Plenty of capitalists and business men, scientists and engineers, artists and writers, etc. are atheist today, and many of these people are running society. The entire upper cultural hemisphere of the world is still hierarchical and elitist in its ideas and attitude, it has to be, because master moralists are the ones who climb the social ladder and are the ones that sustain the lower rungs.

The type of people I think of with this comment are fairly irrelevant to society anyway and not worth commenting on. So there are people who are against religion and are either atheist or sometimes a skeptic (which is just an indecisive atheist) and they also carry a liberal attitude. Whatever. People carry disharmonious ideas with them all the time. Why do you think "free will" is still a problem for so many people? Because they don't bother doing the work that is thinking, and try to hold onto ideas without knowing their origins.

File: crystal palace carroll.jpg (158KB, 470x720px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 470x720px

>>8411910
reading pic related right now, it's pretty fucking good
it contrasts the liberal and marxist traditions of the late 1900s with an individualist one as read in the three writers mentioned in the title

>>8414256
make that the late 1800s...

>>8411910
In calling himself the "antichrist", he affirmed his deep longing for Christ.

>>8414133
If they're not accessible in any way, then they might as well not exist.

If they are accessible in some way, build a moral fact detector and settle the debate forever.

But no, realists want to have their cake and eat it too. They include facts in their ontology but then come up with preposterous excuses about why they're not "directly" accessible, but somehow magically accessible through intuition or some shit like that. It's ridiculous.

>>8414256
Looks interesting. How does Dostoevsky fit into that trio?

>>8412503
whitehead

>>8413500
>So really what you are saying is that you are smarter than almost all moral philosophers and you spend your time on 4chan?
yes

>>8411910
>le Nietzsche was right wing

reminder that Nietzsche was making a cultural analysis by the statement God is dead and not a statement of fact.

File: fuckingshit2.jpg (325KB, 1354x551px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1354x551px

>>8411910

>>8414273
>detector
only once you choose to equate the ontology of the reading of the detector with the the nature of your sense inputs.

File: fuckingshit3.jpg (299KB, 1354x551px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1354x551px

>>8414325
fixed the nietzsche cover

File: Is this Who serious.jpg (18KB, 403x370px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 403x370px

>Terry Eagleton

A washed-up Marxist.

>>8414284
He hasn't been mentioned much at this point in the book so don't want to say too much, but the idea is that they were pioneers of using existential and psychological perspectives in their respective ideological critiques, in the case of Stirner and Nietzsche largely against supposedly secular humanist ideals.

>>8414330
What?

The most ridiculous aspect of realism is the desperate attempt to evade the question of how the moral facts were created in the first place.

Apparently the big bang, along with various fundamental molecules, spat out "thou shalt maximize utility".

>>8412503
Yah but hegel tho
If Nietzs had read hegel he'd a known to stop trying so hard cuz philosophy was already completed

>>8412629
Sounds like you read Wikipedia but forgot to pick up a copy of the Fredmeister himself

File: Beyond Memes.jpg (46KB, 400x619px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 400x619px

>>8414364

He did read Hegel, he just didn't think him worthy of that much attention. From his lectures on education:

>“Prussia, by subordinating all educational aspirations to state purposes, has succeeded in appropriating the one legacy of Hegelian philosophy that can be exploited in practice: its apotheosis of the state.”

>>8414324
Thank God someone said it

You know I think the leets here could use a dose of Heidegger's great essay "The Word of Nietzsche, God is Dead"

>>8414370
Like usual, there is is refeerring to the Hegelian school and the Hegelians rather than Hegel himself.

And no intrinsic problem there, it's not like most people today read Hegel. It's just that Nietzsche gave some authors (like Plato and the biblical authors) such extraordinarily detailed attention that it would have been cool to see what he'd say after a more sympathetic and detailed engagement of Hegel.

>>8414382

In that instance, he is actually interpreting Hegel quite correctly. The only 'useful' parts of his philosophy are those that predict/demand an inevitable/perfect state, with an inevitable/perfect 'Godhead' figure. Hence why Napoleon was his fucking husbando.

He did say that Schopenhauer went too far in his utter trashing of Hegel, however - which is a pretty big admission from a philosopher that once praised the ground he walked on.

>>8414396

Just to add, Nietzsche did love Napoleon as such - so I'm not trashing on Napoleon per se. Just that they held him in very different lights.

>>8411966
too much fruit

File: Please stop.gif (3MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x266px

>>8414406

7lbs a day.

No wonder he was up all night vomiting/etc.

can someone give me a "{You)" already?

What did Nietzsche and Marx think of each other?
Nietzsche (1844-1900) and Marx (1818-1883) weren't quite contemporaries, but both were prominent and influential German thinkers, and one might expect that they have at least heard of each other. Marx might have missed Nietzsche's most active period (1880-1889), but it is certain that Nietzsche had known of Marx's ideas.

Both were prominent materialists and anti-religious thinkers: "God is dead" vs "Religion is the opiate of the people" and both also subscribed to historicist views on the evolution of human thought. But mostly they seem to be in dialectic opposition to each other.

Marx's view on the value of community and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" seems antithetical to Nietzsche's views on master vs slave morality and his ideal ubermensch.

Is there a chance that Marx had heard of Nietzsche, or did Nietzsche only gain prominence after Marx's death?
Assuming Nietzsche read Marx, what did he make of his ideas?
Is my reading of their ideas as being antithetical correct, or is it superficial, and they can actually be reconciled?

>>8414418

Just to give you a heads up, lad: Nietzsche absolutely hated Socialism/Marxism.

I can't remember the exact quote, but I believe it said it convinces the rabble to pursue "mad desires" (the quoted part he definitely did say).

He regarded Socialism/Marxism/etc as ressentiment in its purest form.

Nietzsche (Nee-Cha) e.g. "Name's Nee-cha, nice ta mee-cha!"

Nietzsche threw his arms around a horse to defend it from being beaten - this completely contradicts his philosophy and i happened near the end of his life.

>>8414396
But that aspect was prevalent in all of Hegel's immediate forebears. Schelling, Fichte, definitely Kant... And it's far from being a "useful" idea; it's precisely where his political philosophy ceases to be pragmatic and leaps to idealism.

That's something you find in the description on the back of the book. Nietzsche just gives the impression that he never sat down with H's greatest book (the Phenomenology) for longer than half an hour.

File: Tfw.jpg (22KB, 480x311px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x311px

>>8414426

You mean "Knee-chuh".

And what happened in Turin in no way contradicts his philosophy. If anything, I wouldn't even look at it philosophically - his sanity was coming to an end, and trying to combine philosophy and psychiatry gives you psychoanalytic bullshit.

If you REALLY want to postulate a 'why', then you should look to Nietzsche's youth. Prior to the injury that left him weakened for life, he was one of the Prussian army's most up and coming horseback infantrymen. He'd have had to develop a remarkably close bond to his horse in order to do that well, and so the sight of a horse being flogged by some dumbass peasant would have probably driven his maddened self over the edge.

>>8414431

>But that aspect was prevalent in all of Hegel's immediate forebears. Schelling, Fichte, definitely Kant

But Hegel is by far the prime example: his whole philosophical claim is that all of Human history is leading up to an ideal state with an ideal leader. Hence why he shilled so hard for Prussia/Napoleon/etc.

>And it's far from being a "useful" idea; it's precisely where his political philosophy ceases to be pragmatic and leaps to idealism.

I'd say it's more of a leap from philosophy to politics.

>Nietzsche just gives the impression that he never sat down with H's greatest book (the Phenomenology) for longer than half an hour.

Possible, but we'll never know now. I couldn't blame him in any case.

>>8414396
>In that instance, he is actually interpreting Hegel quite correctly
>being as dumb as Popper in 2016
lol

>>8414324


this should be rule nº1 to approaching Nietszche. Atheists going "God is Dead" without the sociological implications are the scum of modern philosophy.

>>8413460
Could you rephrase that as a coherent sentence?
But if I take your meaning, no. OP's shit isn't "evaluating" current atheism, it's making up crap about what he thinks modern atheists are like and trying to claim they have important links to Nietzche (who didn't do fuck-all except observe something everyone already knew about the culture of his day), and that ignoring those supposed links and roots is a fault. It's the same pissant shit dumb teen atheists use to tell their Xtian classmates that they should feel bad about the Crusades.

>>8414445
>Couldn't blame him for not reading most important/insightful/lasting book ever written in German

File: Schopringles.jpg (200KB, 400x534px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 400x534px

>>8414470

Found the Hegelian.

>>8414445
Say more about how it's a leap from philosophy to politics? My understanding was that for Hegel, self-consciousness is political from the outset. And philosophical self-knowledge is the end of history. So based on the Phenomenology, things are rather reversed.

Don't get me wrong, the ideal state is still out there as an ideal, but Hegel's Philosophy only turns more philosophic after postulating that ideal.

>>8414370
If you read TGS you will notice that his statements on Hegel (which are mostly contained within a few aphorisms in that book) are brief, and the first criticism he offers that I am aware of is actually predicted and countered in the forward to Phenomenology of Spirit.

So his reading of Hegel was either imprecise or his criticism was based on what he had read/seen/heard out of later Hegelians. I doubt that he seriously engaged with the works of Hegel, in fact in terms of post-Hellenic philosophy I would argue that he only seriously engages four thinkers in his published works: Machiavelli, Spinoza, Kant and Schopenhauer.

>>8414324
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Obviously he didn't literally think that god existed and died, it would be retarded as a "statement of fact".

>>8414481

I've read Kaufmann's Portable Nietzsche, so I know at least a couple of the aphorisms you're referring to.

It could be that he didn't seriously engage Hegel, but that doesn't bother me because I'd still disagree with Hegel and Hegelians, even if he did.

>>8414469
So you think that modern atheists arrived to Christian beliefs independently?

>>8414423
Hold on, I have a perfect aphorism for exactly how Nietzsche felt about socialism, let me find it.

>>8414440
The horse story is actually a bit apocryphal, there is little proof that it actually happened other than hearsay. But most people seem to accept it and I think it's a very fitting end for him.

Consider this: What caused Nietzsche his injury? The horse. He fucked up a pectoral trying to mount his horse. What inspired Nietzsche to philosophize, to abandon philology, to grow past Schopenhauer and the nationalist tendencies he had in his youth? His injury. The horse was what caused all of this, without the horse there would be no Zarathustra, no Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche might have evolved into a relatively normal and conventionally successful officer and philologist. The injury made him the man he was, it made him sick which made him healthy from his perspective. It allowed him to separate himself from not only the herd but from the academic herd, when he resigned due to constant health problems. It was what gave him all of those solitary mountain walks in Switzerland during which he formulated the ideas for his writings.

Nietzsche's embrace of the horse represents pure affirmation, pure amor fati. A lesser man might come to resent the beast yet Nietzsche not only accepted what the horse did to him, he loved it. It's just sad he had to linger for 10 years after the breakdown (likely caused by a tumor that applied pressure to his prefrontal cortex and slowly lobotomized him rather than a disease, his symptoms after the breakdown much more strongly resemble those of lobotomy patients than those of syphilitics).

>>8414418
Nietzsche equivocated socialism with Christianity and thought it was just as disgusting.

I don't see the flaw in Jesus Christ's religion. I see all these philosophers as straying from the religion of that Great One, the Judean peasant who millions would die for, thousands of years after His death. All these philosopers are just playing in the puddles near His ocean, incomplete without that Great One's religion.

>>8414514
Here's the aphorism, it's from his notes published in WTP

Socialism - As the logical conclusion of the tyranny of the least and dumbest, i.e., those who are superficial, envious, and three-quarters actors - is indeed entailed by "modern ideas" and their latent anarchism; but in the tepid air of democratic well-being the capacity to reach conclusions, or to finish, weakens.

One follows-but one no longer sees what follows. Therefore socialism is on the whole a hopeless and sour affair; and nothing offers a more amusing spectacle than the contrast between the poisonous and desperate faces cut by today's socialists-and to what wretched and pinched feelings their style bears witness! - and the harmless lambs' happiness of their hopes and desiderata.

Nevertheless, in many places in Europe they may yet bring off occasional coups and attacks: there will be deep "rumblings" in the stomach of the next century, and the Paris commune, which has its apologists and advocates in Germany, too, was perhaps no more than a minor indigestion compared to what is coming. But there will always be too many who have possessions for socialism to signify more than an attack of sickness - and those who have possessions are of one mind on one article of faith: "One must possess something in order to be something." But this is the oldest and healthiest of all instincts: I should add, "one must want to have more than one has in order to become more." For this is the doctrine preached by life itself to all that has life: the morality of development. To have and to want to have more - growth, in one word - that is life itself.

cont.

>>8414518
In the doctrine of socialism there is hidden, rather badly, a "will to negate life"; the human beings or races that think up such a doctrine must be bungled. Indeed, I should wish that a few great experiments might prove that in a socialist society, life negates itself, cuts off its own roots. The earth is large enough and man still sufficiently unexhausted; hence such a practical instruction and demonstratio ad absurdum would not strike me as an undesirable even if it were gained and paid for with a tremendous expenditure of human lives.

In any case, even as a restless mole under the soil of a society that wallows in stupidity, socialism will be able to be something useful and therapeutic: it delays "peace on earth" and the total mollification of the democratic herd animal; it force the Europeans to retain spirit, namely cunning and cautious care, not to abjure manly and warlike virtues altogether, and to retain some remnant of spirit, of clarity, sobriety, and coldness of the spirit - it protects Europe for the time being from the marasmus femininus that threatens it.

Written in 1885.

>>8414518
>I should add, "one must want to have more than one has in order to become more." For this is the doctrine preached by life itself to all that has life: the morality of development. To have and to want to have more - growth, in one word - that is life itself.

Almost Landian.

>>8411910
>Today’s atheists cultivate a broad ignorance of the history of the ideas they fervently preach
>contemporary atheists are earnest and militant liberals
True

>>8414423
>>8414515
You realize the only "socialist" Nietzsche was actually ever exposed to was Eugen Dühring's anti-Semitic moralist polemics right? Nietzsche thougth socialism was what Dühring was expounding i.e. proto-Nazism. He definitely never heard of someone like Marx who would at that time have been an extremely obscure overseas British intellectual, he probably never even read popular authors who would have been well known at the time like Proudhon.

Nietzsche later in life pretty much never even bothered to read anything. He was just absorbing what surrounded him and reflecting upon it.

>>8414560

Butthurt Marxist detected.

>>8414560
It would be very clear to you if you actually read Nietzsche that he knew what socialism was in the sense we mean it, because he equivocated it with democracy, Christianity, slave-morality, etc.

>>8414584
I have read the grand bulk of Nietzsche's works. Nietzsche analysis of socialism is based upon his readings of Eugen Dühring's critic of capitalism. You really need to read Dühring if you want to understand what Nietzsche's psychological exposition of socialism is all about.

>>8414610

>Just kidding g-guys, he'd have l-liked Socialism if he knew what it R-REALLY was!

Nah, he wouldn't have time for such ressentiment.

>>8414610
>Nietzsche never mentions Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels, and it is generally assumed that he had no knowledge of them and their kind of thinking and socialism. However, this is not correct. Marx is referred to in at least eleven books, by nine different authors, that Nietzsche read or possessed. In six of them he is discussed and quoted extensively, and in one of them Nietzsche has underlined Marx’s name. The nine authors who mention or discuss Marx, whose works we know that Nietzsche either owned or read, are Jörg, Lange, Dühring, Meysenbug, Frantz, Schäffle, Frary, Bebel, and Jacoby. Of these, the books by Lange, Dühring, Frantz, Schäffle, Bebel, and Jacoby contain extensive discussions and long quotations. Nietzsche read several of these nonphilosophical books in 1876 or shortly thereafter.

>>8414635

BTFO

Guys it's not that complicated. Socialism is for pussies, and Nietzsche noticed that before any of us did. There. End of that argument.

Reminder that Nietzsche was Christian.

>>8414635
Nietzsche skimmed over various political propaganda polemics [there's no reason to believe he "underlined Marx’s name" in a book he checked out from a library] by minor socialist authors [Lassalle not Marx was the major theorist who was spreading socialism in Germany at that time] but the only one of those authors Nietzsche seriously extensively studied was Dühring. That's why he associates socialism throughout his work with moralism and anti-semitism, he obviously had no grasp of the anti-humanism of someone like Marx.

>>8414927

>Wriggling.jpg

>>8414324
This.

>>8414744
And this.

I'm an atheist myself, but all this misinterpretation and make-believe regarding Nietzsche from all sides (be it edgy /pol/-tier alt-right, neoliberal r/atheists or neo-Marxist Tumblrinas) sow despair into my thoughts.

>>8412354
>>8412395
>>8412476
>>8412513
>>8412579
>>8412629
>>8413077
>>8413512

you have not read nietzsche, and if you have, not nearly well enough

>>8411910
John Gray is based.

>>8414964
LOL you actually think Nietzsche was Christian? The irony is that's the stupidest, most bastardised reading of all.

>>8414498
Define "Christian beliefs." If you mean following a moral code roughly the same as everyone else around them, it would be idiotic to expect much variation. Certainly Western cultures are largely founded on Christianity, nobody's arguing that. It's just fairly meaningless, since it applies to everything we do. Both the worst horrible shit practices of historical societies (slavery, honour killings) and the reformations that eventually influence current liberal thoughts have used religion as their justification. We don't get any brownie points for that: there isn't a single act that hasn't been justified by faith, at some point. Its our excuse for human nature. And if you're brought up in a system where the need for active worship to keep people in line is dying out, it's because religion already did its job so well that "pastoral power" (as Foucault terms it, and toss in his use of Bentham's Panopticon) have created people who assume a watchful authority at all times and shape their life accordingly, whether they think of that watcher as a deity or a surveillance camera or a parent. Crime rates, overall, are falling in almost every category. We're becoming docile sheep, and the need for literal fairy tales to keep us tame is fading away, in the West.

>>8414927
>but the only one of those authors Nietzsche seriously extensively studied was Dühring.
He lived for a few years in a commune with Von Meysenbug in Sorrento who kept trying to set him up with various leftie intellectual women like Salomé and Nat Herzen (Nietzsche found her intellect particularly attractive). The last name might give you a clue as to how ridiculous this "Nietzsche insulated from socialist thought" thing is

>>8415109
Both of those are incredibly minor figures in the development of socialist thought.

>>8415116
The father of Russian Socialism is relatively minor?

>>8415116

Nietzsche did not like Socialism.

Get it through your thick, Marxist head.

>>8415126
>Get it through your thick, Marxist head.
>.
>this indicates I'm excited and ready to beat you up irl
why not go with thick. Marxist. head. LMAO

>>8413630
I'm always wondering whether Nietzsche consciously grew them quite that big or whether it was just his sister making him look the part of the crazy philosopher (while Friedrich himself was already too insane)

>>8414964
>>8415031
People should just accept that Nietzsche can be pretty ambiguous.

This especially goes for all political readings. His political philosophy can be argued to not exist at all, even more than it can be argued to be this or that.

>>8415126

>what "Nietzsche likes" in anyway dictates the uses to which a body of thought dedicated to the dissolution of moralizing limitations is put

"Get that through your thick, [illiterate] head."

>>8414273
So you're a positivist?

>>8415631
Well, literally the entire point of moral realism is to bridge the is/ought gap. In other words, realism allows you to make positivist statements about morality. So those are the terms on which we must judge realism.

>>8415935
>this is a fact about moral realism
>therefore this is how we ought to treat it
NO!

>>8411966
It was the only way his life could end, divorcing himself from everything to become the child of pure subjectivity. That and the constant loneliness and abyss gazing caught up with him.

>>8415950
>what is a hypothetical imperative

>>8415958
Someone's gone very Kantian.

If you really want to argue like a positivist then that's your own business, but it doesn't follow that
>>8415935
>realism allows you to make positivist statements about morality. So those are the terms on which we must judge realism.

That reasoning properly goes against is/ought.

>>8414517
>I don't see the flaw in Jesus Christ's religion
There's no flaw. It's just womanly.

>>8415099
The grand majority of people have always been nothing more than cattle. The fact that they literally cannot act in a moral manner without fairy tales shows this. Christianity is one of the better religions to help create the great victories of civilization we know today.

The majority of people don't deserve better than to be treated as cattle.

>>8416076
>The fact that they literally cannot act in a moral manner without fairy tales shows this.
I'm highly skeptical of your "facts".

>>8416076
One day, you'll be on the receiving end of this philosophy and understand that you brought it upon yourself.

From a man filled with ressentiment.

>>8416511
>appeal to karmic turnaround as an argument
Classic slave morality.

>>8413943
only one who knows his Nietzche in this entire thread.

>>8417907
Yeah in his madness letters he wrote that his breakdown was a breakthrough, doesn't change the fact that it's highly probable he had a brain tumor which caused his decline. It's true that only the child can create and adopt new values but I have a hard time believing that his new values were to sit at home and get cared by his sister for 10 years.

only the eternal return changes your life since it means that as soon as you accept dukkha over and over as in a samsara, as soon as you stop despising life, as soon as you stop being a nihilist, your existence changes in accessing a different perspective on existence. the eternal return is a surrender, an abdication of your self before your sufferings and joys stemming form your failure to fulfill your wish to live in hedonism, in avidity towards pleasures and aversion towards pains. once you abdicate, you destroy (mundane) hedonism.

>>8418030
The child can have values indendent of the dragon. The lion creates its own values but they're not independent of the dragon. They're directly in response to the dragon. But the child is not the only one that creates values.

What was his problem with Socrates?

>>8418171
He was a gadfly. That is, he was sometimes good and sometimes bad, but he was always fly.

>>8418184
he was never bad

>>8418194
socrates ushered the era of degeneracy

>>8418233
How? He just pointed out how everyone was already a bunch of degenerates.

>>8418171
Socrates was just the prelude to Christ i.e. he's responsible for undermining everything that was once great with his pompous mumbo jumbo

>>8418284
>wtf i hate philosophy now

>>8414635

>nietzsche was so unimpressed by the quotes that he didn't even bother reading Marx

Shame desu. Fritz would have torn Marx a new one

>>8412274
>tarantulas
>poison spiders
>spiders
>poisonous

>>8418359

What's the problem you autist? Tarantulas are spiders and all of them are venomous to some degree

>>8418171
Check out _Nietzsche and "The Problem of Socrates"_ by James Porter

>>8418359
>>8418425
It's a clever bit of wordplay. Look up tarantism, it's a folk disease from Italy where crazy compulsive dancing was thought to be caused by the bite of the tatantula. He's saying there there are """Nietzscheans""" that preach his philosophy but don't apply it to themselves. They want to make everyone else get up and dance while they stay the same.

This idea is elaborated in a couple of parts of TSZ, that you shouldn't just quote his philosophy and so on.

File: When+acquaintances+come+over_b523f2_5999022.jpg (163KB, 900x563px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 900x563px

>>8418693
You must have read the same article by someone who did one of his forwards, because I remember the same reference from somewhere.
I've read too much about Nietzsche.

>>8419625
Nah, a local band where I grew up was called Tarantism.

If you remember which edition the article was in I wouldn't mind reading it tho. Might try and google it.