AMA Nietzsche

>>8465182
What is nietzchian politics

Please explain eternal recurrence

>>8465182
What is the best order in which to read his works?

is it ok if i dedicate my life to art even if i suck at it?
second question, how do i get a qt gf?
third question, is the lifting meme true?
last question, what are your favorite films?

>>8465196
Y.O.R.E - You Only Recur Eternally

>>8465210

> If you think you suck then exert yourself to improve. If you don't think you suck look at yourself with less pity. If others think you suck or don't, you're depending on the validation of the mob and you can never truly create art.

> Fucked if I know (google Lou Andreas-Salomé) but keeping your bitch of a sister out of things will probably help.

> All things that are held by society to be true or decent should be attacked without pity.

> Triumph of the will /s

>>8465189
I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you want to know if Nietzsche leans left or right, or what sort of politics N envisions?
If the former, then I can tell you this:
There's nothing that Nietzsche wants to conserve from the past, so he's not really a conservative.
There's nothing about where the left wants to take culture into the future, so Nietzsche's not a leftist, either.

This view is however complicated once we forget about the content of each position, and focus on the form of each. THEN N can be said to a bit of both. I can expand on this if you'd like me to.

>>8465196
Huge topic. Essentially, Nietzsche believes that our sense of time, whether it's linear or circular, is the platform on top of which all manners of ideologies, philosophies, religions and so on develop. By coming up with a new sense of time, Nietzsche thinks he's creating a new framework on top of which new philosophies, new religions, new whatevers will develop.
Read EH Destiny, 3, in which N answers the question of why he chose Zarathustra as his mouthpiece--a question nobody bothered to ask him, he complains.

He says he choose the historical zarathustra because he thought that he created MORALITY, but nietzsche has a very specific thing in mind when he says that. He means that the original zarathustra created an understanding of time, a theory about time, whih is linear, and which unfolds--so to speak--in some part because of good and evil fighting against one another.

In other words, the original zarathustra created a linear-time-infused-with-morality timeline/framework, and it has been on top of that framework that we've had the historical Platos and Mohammeds, and Jesuses, and Karl Marxes and all manner of world-views.

His new zarathustra wants to affect the same sort of change with a new circular-time that which unfolds without good/evil being a part of its mechanism. So, Nietzsche wants new platos, jesuses, mohameds in the 1000s of years in the future to create worldviews on top of his platform.

I'm willing to expound on this if you ahve questions.

>>8465205
Read philosophy in the tragic age of the greeks, schopenhauer as educator, but read them as N's promise to himself about what he hoped to one day become.

He'll be telling you about these great individuals, but he is essentially measuring and trying to understand the shoes he wants to one day fill--and which by the time he wrote TSZ, thought he filled.

Then read his Ecce Homo, because in that book he attempts to describe this philosopher--himself--along the same lines he described the original philosophers in philosophy in the tragic age of the greeks.

Only then, in light of these three books, should you read the middle and late books.

Keep in mind, for instance, that he intended to title his Human all too Human "The Ploughshare," originally. He wanted to title this, because as he says in one of his notebooks--paraphrasing here--"after the ploughshare comes the sower."

He saw his life mission as that of the ploughshare, i.e., uprooting weeds from culture, and making it fertile, then after that, sowing new seeds for a new culture plant.

His books are the means by which he thought he could do it. His highest ideal for a human being is, as with Plato, the philosopher.

>>8465251
>I'm willing to expound on this if you ahve questions.

Thanks. I've seen people on here say that his view of eternal recurrence is either something he actually believed in, or that it was metaphorical (which seems to be closer to what you're saying here). Is this made clear in his writings?

A different question: Did Nietzsche address Schopenhauer's will to live? I find it much more believable than the will to power, but I'd love to hear what you have to say on it.

>>8465205
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 fulfil your wish to live in hedonism, in avidity towards pleasures and aversion towards pains. once you abdicate, you destroy (mundane) hedonism.

the uberman is cannot be hedonistic

What did Nietzsche believe about truth? If he is right in saying that "there are no facts, only interpretations", then what in Nietzsche's view privileges his own perspective on Truth?

>>8465235
thanks freddy

>>8465210
1.You're having these questions and uncertainties about what to do with your life because your culture is decadent and has not furnished you with a goal for life, and so now all your energies, your will is scattered in every which direction, mostly turning inward and harming yourself. Pursue art, if you want, but know that it'll be like that cow out in the pasture, who sees some land to graze upon in the near horizon. Once you're there, you'll get bored of it and want more.
>read kierkegaard's either/or, and take the advice the ethical gives to the aesthete.
2. women are not merely indecisive about what to eat. That's merely a symptom of underlying uncertainty. The most prominent and unbearable way in which it manifests itself is in taht they cannot decide about which NARRATIVE about the world to believe. Because of that, they need man. They need a man to make decisions, to command (to use N's language). But the only way they can rely on your decisions is if they trust your judgment. The only way they'll trust your juddgment is if they think you have info they don't have (b/c if they thought you had the same info they did, then they wouldn't be able to see why you'd be certain where they are not). The only way they'd have to think that you have info they don't is if they think you're special.
>Moses made going up the mountain punishable by death to anyone but himself. It is in that way that he ensured that he was the sole provider of wisdom, of knowledge of good and evil. People HAD to rely on him. Essentially, then, create a mountain within yourself from which you tell your woman you get your info on the basis of which you make decisions. Do not let her climb that mountain or know what you know, otherwise she'll distrust your commands--which she needs and wants.

3. yes.
4. i like gods must be crazy i and ii, solaris, stalker (despite it's heavy religious undertones), probably more that i can't think of right now.

>>8465269
it's not metaphorical. Our sense of time is not metaphorical. We in fact don't consciously even know it is affecting us or that we believe in it, but we do. We all think time is linear. Nobody had to convince us of it. We've not seen the proofs, or really thought out the implications of it. We just believe it because we were born into it.

Because we believe it, our hopes for the future are conditioned to be a certain way. Our understanding of the present and past is conditioned in a certain way as well. Because of this, we are limited in the sort of world-views we can come up with, philosophically, or religiously, or even scientifically.

Linear time is a background thing. It manipulates us into thinking in this or that way. We believe it.

N wants ER to be the same thing at some point in the future. He thinks, in fact, it WILL be that.

2. N did address it, and doesn't buy it, because he doesn't think it accounts for a variety of phenomena in which organisms willingly sacrifice themselves. He thinks wtp accounts for these much more.

This guy will answer most of the questions you seem to have.

Moles 1989 (Moles, Alistair.1989. "Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence as Riemannian Cosmology;'International Studies in Philosophy 21: 21-35

>>8465182
How did his views of truth evolve through out the years?

What did he get wrong?

Why all the aphorisms? why not use more indirect story instead of all this direct denouncing? (all the anger really infects one's mood as thought that was his aim)

>>8465303

Thanks a lot, buddy

>>8465292
>Once you're there, you'll get bored of it and want more.
I dont see nothing wrong with that freddy

Where do you think most of N's misrepresentation comes from? A while back we had a Chesterton thread and some guy kept claiming N was a christian. I've also seen people claim he is a feminist, there is a book of it at my university.

>>8465402
>Where do you think most of N's misrepresentation comes from?
Retards (normies)

>>8465410
I would accept that but it is also pretty big in academia.

>>8465427
what makes you think the academia isnt retarded?

>>8465292
>>2. women are not merely indecisive about what to eat. That's merely a symptom of underlying uncertainty.
women are uncertain because men have invented their fantasy of certainty and women do not even need this

How to combine slave + master morality?

>>8465410
While I agree many normies are tards, I think many of you basement dwellers are far, far more retarded.

>>8465402
People misinterpret Nietzsche because they think he was a 19th century philosopher concerning himself with 19th century ideas, whereas he was in fact an ancient Greek scholar who thought he rose at the level of theorizing...about the issues he thought he discovered in ancient Greece.

Nietzsche's opinions about democracy, for instance, are in essence no different from the ancient's opinions about democracy, specifically Plato's. He even uses the same terms for it, such as "motley/colorful city."

Another feature of ancient thinkers is that they thought BIG, unlike modern thinkers. A philosopher in Greece, for instance, was often called to write up a constitution for a new colony. Read Plato's Laws, for instance, and you'll see that their concern was with beliefs, worldviews, and how these worldviews affect one's conduct in a society.

The question of what is true was sort of left as a big question mark, and was in effect secondary to the question of how to cultivate the people by means of their worldview.

Take the interaction between Socrates and Polemachus in the Republic for example.

Polemachus, a rich stranger in athens, and thus someone in charge with leading, is wondering about the nature of justice, but really he's concerned about how to behave in society as an equal there. Socrates asks, and this should have raised some eyebrows, whether a horse trainer helps a horse when he harms it. And polemachus says no, and the conversation goes on from there.

What needs to be picked up from thsi little interchange is that Socrates essentially tells him to start looking at other [poorer] athenians like animals that need to be shaped. He says your ethics are different from theirs. Your ethics are the ethics of a cultivator. What is right and wrong for you is determined by how you're cultivating the people.

It's worth also noting that the philosopher was defined as the "cultural physician." As in, the person who feels responsible for the welfare of society as a whole.

Nietzsche looks at himself in relation to society in a similar manner. Questions of truth and falsehood are not as important as questions of how some beliefs affect his patient, culture.

Feminism, christianity, all these things are the concerns of the patient itself. Cultivators don't take them seriously, except as a medicine or poison. Their "truth" is not as important.

Hey Friedrich, should I study philosophy or something I can make money with (economics in this case)? Please give me advice, dead man.

>>8465559
Why not study PPE?

Which men in history, before and since Nietzsche's time, have come closest to being Ubermensch, and why?

>>8465481
"Stupidity in the kitchen, woman as cook, the ghastly absence of intelligent thought in taking care of the nourishment of the family and the man of the house! Woman understands nothing about what food means, and she wants to be cook! If woman were a thinking creature, then, as cook for thousands of years, she'd surely have found out the most important physiological facts, while at the same time she'd have had to take ownership of the art of healing! Because of bad female cooks and the complete lack of reason in the kitchen, the development of human beings has been held up for the longest time and suffered the worst damage. Even today things are little better. A speech for fashionable young ladies."

"Woman understands nothing about what food means"!

Fucking legendary. And so true. Woman had one job in the past, and she never once thought to ask about what it fundamentally meant.

>>8466729
Napoleon. Goethe.

>>8465547
>Questions of truth and falsehood are not as important as questions of how some beliefs affect his patient, culture.
Do you mean that truth and falsehood don't matter *at all*, or that they don't matter for the "cultivated"?

From what I gathered, N seems to want his readers - the cultivators - to seek the truth, even if it is painful. With the truth, a cultivator could perhaps make better choices, even if he does not communicate the truth to the "cultivated".

Is that right, or does N mean by truth something like "your way", "your values", "your truth"?


I am also wondering a couple things related to this topic:
1. N addresses his "creators", the ones creating new values, and writes just for them, as far as I can tell. N seems also to be trying to cultivate us, to shape our thinking. Is he really doing both, or am I misunderstanding him?

2. Could one say that a values' creator "level" is dictated by how free he is from ideologies and unfounded influences? This "level" seems necessary to me, because simply creating values and making people believe them doesn't make you one of N's disciples. Some piece is missing here, I can't quite express myself more clearly.

3. N puts the emphasis on this value creation and world reorientation - but is his teaching still as useful for one who doesn't want to change the world? for one that lives a quiet life? A good chunk of his philosophy is just great life advice, but what about this part?

>>8465303
Doesn't eternal recurrence ultimately fall in the same type of scheme as linear time? After all, both models are recurrent, it's just that in ER it is circular, in LT it is accumulative.

Related somehow, what were his thought on Buddhism, and how did they relate to Schopenhauer's?

>>8466794
If he hates the sheep so much then how can those people be the übermensch?

>>8465182
What was Nietzsche's view on Nationalism?

Nietzsche mastered ancient Greek quite quickly--how does one learn a language as well as Nietzsche did?

and

>I understand you!
What did he mean by this?

>>8465182
Were you projecting when you characterised Christians as men that were impotent and trying to find virtue in their impotence

Is it true that he was influenced by Stirner

>>8467453
http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html

bump for this worthwhile thread

>>8468123
Double bump. I'm annoyed this thread is going well, as now I need to take time to read it carefully before posting.

>>8465547
>He even uses the same terms for it, such as "motley/colorful city."

Can anyone expand on this? I've often wondered why he gave the city such a rubbish name 'Motley Cow'.

bump

plz come bak, freddy

>>8467345
>>8467364
Oi Fred m8
u gonna reply?

>>8465303
So your interpretation of the ER is one thing, but it's not Heideggerian perse, nor is it explicitly Deleuzian... you've seemingly kept your distance from the ontology.

What do you think of those two ways of grappling with the thought?

pmub

did this special kind of atheist believe in the greek god dionysus, or did he believe himself to be this god

Did N condemn hedonism?

What was Nietzsche's view on the inevitable death of all good threads?

>>8473284
They eternally recur.

>>8465182
Why do Nietzche's opinions matter? Why should I care about what he thought? Genuine question.

>>8467345
Hated it

File: hi.jpg (89KB, 660x893px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 660x893px

>>8465182
>>8465182

How is overman different than pure egoism? Does he talks about the value of ideals and having a set of code, even though you can be a psycopath you can justify yourself doing anything if you have a clear set of rules?

And why does he talks about overman to the herd if they cannot be one. He talks about how it is a process, how it is "becoming" but I don't know how one arrives there, or let alone tries it. Can you help on that?

>>8473462
Because he's often right. He sees what you can't see and points it to you while dancing and singing.

Is it true that Nietzsche was gay? What would he think about gay marriage?

>>8473630
>The objection to the philosophical life that it makes one useless to one's friends would never occur to a modern man: it belongs to antiquity. Antiquity lived and reflected on friendship to the limit, and almost buried friendship in its own grave. This is its advantage over us: we in turn can show idealised sexual love. All great achievements on the part of the man of antiquity were supported by the fact that man stood beside man, and that a woman was not allowed to claim to be the nearest or highest, let alone sole object of his love-as sexual passion teaches us to feel. Perhaps our trees fail to grow as high on account of the ivy and the vines that cling to them.

File: QONVIyz.gif (2MB, 331x197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 331x197px

>>8474156
>Perhaps our trees fail to grow as high on account of the ivy and the vines that cling to them.
Schop-senpai would be proud.

>>8465182
What are your thoughts on the validity of Stirners works/ideas with respect to big N?

>>8474640
I don't see any major contradiction, but Nietzsche doesn't openly proclaim his philosophy egoist.

>>8473523
That's interesting. Can you go into more detail about why he hated it?

What would Nietzsche think about feminism?

>>8465182
I've stumbled across this quote a couple of times

>To interpret Nietzsche correctly is to know that power isn't what the will wants but what wants in the will.

what does it really mean?

How can Nietzsche's philosophy teach me to not worry about what others think of me?

>>8476942
It can't. Nietzsche ain't self help crap.

>>8466800
pt. 1
The truth for him is a tricky thing. He says his new philosophers, the ruling caste, will still hold on to "truth" language, but Nietzsche is definitively a perspectivist. There is no trans-perspective truth, apart from perhaps that there is only perspective truth.

Truth seeking is painful because idols are erected to make life easier. In essence, the more idols you destroy, the closer you are to staring into "the abyss." The abyss is realization that there is no foundation for values, no fact about it, no fact about justice, about what the good life is, what justice is, the good man, the evil man, and so on. This is a philosophers truth, by which I mean that it is a truth for only those who can create value in light of realizing that there's nothing but your own will to serve as its basis.

Only a few people among the species can create value. Until now, it's been the religious founders (e.g., Mohammed or Moses), but they've been able to create value (read: to establish a new evaluation yardstick by means of which to measure this or that aspect of life, e.g., marriage, friendship, circumcision, and so on) by posing as middle-men. GOD --> prophet --> people. The evaluation yardstick they hand to the people, they claim is based on God's will.

>>8476996
However, the problem nowadays is that God is dead. The prophet is left without a god to which to attribute his evaluation, and he cannot convince himself of what he absolutely needs to believe. Namely, he can't convince himself that he got the evaluation yardstick elsewhere, from the realm of the forms, or from a deified constitution, or the ancestors, the laws, or any such "God" -- keep in mind "god" for Nietzsche is simply that "beyond" which we've used as a foundation for our evaluation. God is dead means we're left with no beyond on which to situate our ways of life, which means that religious founders can no longer create value. They see it as impossible. Only value founded on a beyond is valid, they think to themselves. Any value that's found to have been made up by people is invalid. You see, religious founders hate humanity. whatever they find to have been created by humanity they consider trash. We all think like this too. To say that x is a social construct is to effectively dismiss it. Beauty standards is a social construct means that standard for beauty is created by people---hence, fuck it. Only if it were found to have some "beyond" as a foundation would it be accepted.

Without creators of value, the old values begin to become calcified, dogmatic, decadent. The world changes, but the values remain the same. That's a recipe for disaster. We need creators of value to rejuvenate culture, but with the death of God--the loss of a beyond on which to situate value standards--that prospect seems dim. The only solution N could see is if a new species of philosopher achieves what only religious founders have been able to do, viz., to be able to accept the value they create as their own AND VALID. That requires love of man...keeping in mind that's what Zarathustra says to the old religious hermit in the forest who says he only loves god, and consequently finds people loathsome...with a standard only god could meet, how could he possibly love humanity and what humanity creates.

Anyway, the new philosopher hears "I will" in his ear, instead of "thou shalt." That means that when he puts forth his value standard, he sees it as his own, as his "I will it." He doesn't look at his value standard and think "thou shalt," as if he got it from somewhere beyond, somewhere above, and he is, like the prophet, commanded by god...as if god were telling him "thou shalt."

>>8465182
Pls briefly explain Nietzsche's epistemology/views on language, particularly as described in On Truth and Lies ...

>>8467305
I'm not sure what you mean by "accumulative" with your first comment.

Contrary to what everyone appears to believe, Nietzsche despised Buddhism. Yes, he said it was 100 times more honest than christianity, but that's not much of a compliment when you realize that N thinks that the lies christianity tells is a sign that it still has some fight, some love of life, still left in it.

Both Christians and Buddhists cannot tolerate suffering, but whereas the Buddhist highest ideal, highest goal, is to effectively die, the christian's goal is to escape suffering but continue to exist. The christians have heaven, because they hope and imagine of a world without suffering. The buddhists have nothing.

If you live by the standards of christianity, if you become a christian saint, you'll get to heave, continue to exist forever in a place without pain. That's the christian sales pitch, and it says something about the sort of people it was sold to.

if you live by the standards of buddhism, if you become a buddhist sage, then you get to escape the ring of reincarnation. That is effectively what buddhists introduced to hinduism that made them break off. It's what they pitched to the world-weary, to those who couldn't tolerate the thought that they would come back in this shit-hole, even if as some other creature. And so, they promised the nothing. Be good! Do the shit we tell you to do! And if you do it right, then...you get to just die! What incentive! What a sales pitch! Now think of the kind of people to whom this would seem attractive?

Nietzsche ranked men in terms of their love of life, and he thought he could ascertain their rank by means of eternal return. If you loved your life so much that you were confronted with the thought of doing it all over again, and doing it all over again in the same way, and for all eternity, then obviously you love life the most. Budhists were confronted with a similar criterion. The eternal return of a different life. This criterion is not as harsh as Nietzsche's, but they could not even stomach this much...so they broke from Hinduism and invented a way out. Only then could life be tolerated...

>Plato did the same thing, by the way, but I'll end this here.

>>8477086
Plato also despised buddhism or Plato also found a way to escape recurrence?

>>8467345
Nietzsche ceased to be a nationalist--if he really ever was one--when he broke with Wagner. After this break, he referred to himself as "the good european." That is to say NOT "the good German."

He despised nationalism in some part because he despised the state, called the state a "cold monster," because the state is this bloodless thing the citizen works to preserve. It does not cultivate genius, explosive geniuses, those who would take over the state and transform it according to their will--no it destroys them by integrating them, by making them into cogwheels into its machinery. At least with the monarchy the work of individuals contributed to the elevation of HUMAN BEINGS (king and nobles), and in their luxury they could discharge their genius to its full extent. They could rise and--this is Nietzsche's criterion for greatness--treat the world like Plato's demiurge. That is to say, they could look at themselves as a sculptor and the world as their marble block...something to take on the form that THEY give it....and to do it NOT FOR GERMANY, or for france, or for whatever little shithole, but for THEMSELVES.

True genius and greatness in Nietzsche's sense needs to see itself not as an instrument of the preservation and growth of a cold bloodless state, like Hitler for example...they need to see themselves as the instrument to their own will, and the people, the world itself (or if not that lofty, then surely Europe as a whole) as their clay.

Obviously the existence of the state cannot afford to let these sort of people exist. Their existence puts their own in danger...and so it makes everyone mediocre as a mechanism of preserving itself. It makes everyone do things on its behalf....a cog in the wheel of a dead monster....

>he was not a fan, basically.

>>8476942
Then what is the whole ubermensch thing about?

>>8467374
You encounter this instinct a lot when dealing with people who read Nietzsche. The instinct for revenge. The instinct that wants to find a hypocrite in him, the same instinct that delights when it hears about a republican senator caught sucking dick in an airport bathroom. That way you--a fellow cocksucker--justify your existence (hey, even your accuser is guilty of your sins) while at the same time elevate yourself above them.

>>8467453
It's possible, but last time I researched this, I couldn't find any solid piece of evidence to justify it.

Overbeck's wife apparently said that in the early 1880s Nietzsche had told her in confidence that they'll accuse him of plagiarising him, but it's not true! She wrote about this a few decades after it happened, when Nietzsche became popular and any story about the man would sell.

>>8468689
In the 8th book of the Republic, Plato calls the democratic city--which falls into existence from the Oligarchic city--the "colorful city." In other words, it's a mix of value standards. It's not unified in it's mission. The predominant value of such a city, Plato says (and N seems to agree) is freedom. That is to say, a grazing cow's sense of freedom...wanting to be free from all legal and social standards that forbid it from grazing here and there, and from shitting wherever it wants, and fucking whatever/whoever, and so on. It's basically the understanding of freedom that modern liberals want...which amounts to "freedom from culture," i.e., freedom from the standards that made the culture what it was...

Think of culture in the way that a biologist thinks of it about his little organisms in a petri dish. They all more or less have the same characteristics, and will be forced in one way or another to be like that. When each little organism demands freedom, it's usually freedom from the cultural norms (and the way the culture enforces them...through legal measures, shame, ostracism, etc.) Soon enough, this petri dish becomes...colorful, so to speak.

You can also think of it in terms of how Freud spoke about civilization can only exist by restricting the libido. The sense of freedom that democracy demands is well, freedom of the libido...but that usually comes at a cost to culture and civilization.

>>8471249
They're too academic, and N didn't give a fuck about academia. He cared about culture, and as he said...somewhere...every wise man knows that it's not what's true that matters, it's what's believed to be true. Nietzsche wanted to affect culture, and he thought by changing their beliefs in time, he would succeed. He's right, in effect.

Imagine the island from Lord of the Flies, but instead of a few kids, you had 50,000 kids eager for adult supervision. Ignorant about everything, and so malleable in every way. You could give them any sort of govt. you want, any belief about morality, truth, time, and so on. Imagine convincing these kids that time is circular and that they'd have to relieve the life they choose to live for all eternity. Then come back in a few generations and imagine what sort of people you'd find. Nietzsche thought the ones who couldn't live with that thought would die out on their own. Life would seem too much for them. They would be unable to live in any way which they'd be alright with living again and again for all eternity, and so the logic inherent in that framework would make them think it's best to just end it as quickly as possible.

Only those who would find a way to live they'd be fine with relieving forever would survive, and these would be healthy types, those who adore life.

>>8472150
In a metaphorical sort of way...think of dionysus, the child, who was devoured by the titans when he was looking into a toy mirror. He looked into the mirror and he saw himself. Think about that for a second. What a profound thought! The world is reflected in your image. This is what I've been talking about a few posts back with respect to Nietzsche's great types...those who see themselves as sculptures and the world as their marble...giving it their own shape, imposing on their own will.

The second aspect, fragmentation and reconstitution, is also important here. Dionysus is essentially the "god who comes back." Dionysus dies and comes back. He is a physical metaphor for eternal return, which Nietzsche believed was the secret doctrine of the greeks. He says so in a note from the 1880s...something to the effect of "I have discovered the greeks. They believed in eternal return!"

Dionysus, in his later works, is what he otherwise calls "the philosopher of the future," or "the tempter-god," because he thought that genuinie philosophers, like Socrates, were seducers, tempters of the new generation. The genuine philosophers seduce away members of the flock, the young nobles, like Socrates did, and he gives them a new standard of value. Before Socrates, the greeks thought that the good man, the noble man is the one who is physically strong, physically beautiful, politically powerful, and so on. After socrates, i.e., after Socrates got his hands on the noble's sons, they began to think that beauty isn't important, neither is strength or political power. What's important is your mind, your soul. THAT is what makes someone noble.

Essentially, before Socrates, a person like Socrates was considered contemptible. After Socrates, someone like Socrates was considered noble. THAT is the change that he affected in Greece. And think about it, after him, every school of thought came to think of him as their sage, their highest type...the type to emulate, to become. The stoics, the cynics, later on christians, and so on. Be ascetic. Reject the body. It's useless.

Socrates demonstrated his asceticism in two critical moments of his life. First, he demosntrated that he had overcome the instinct for sex when he didn't stick it in Alcibiades even though he was the hottest piece of ass around and he had (many) opportunities. Second, that he overcame the body's instinct for self-preservation when he went willingly into his own death, discussing philosophy, as if nothing was about to happen. THIS image is what he left for posterity to idolize, to seek to become. He made the future pregnant with himself. He made the future of the western world attempt to try to bring this type, what was considered the lowest type, into being. And he succeeded...until Nietzsche effectively killed that type. We now have contempt for it. Life denier, we say.

>It's worth also noting that the philosopher was defined as the "cultural physician." As in, the person who feels responsible for the welfare of society as a whole.

Foucault noted that in his Nietzsche essay. How do you think N reconciled this diagnostic and shepherdic tactic of Greek Philosophy with his account of how the literalism of Socratic skepticism became a causal factor in the decline of what he admired most in Greek Tragic theatre? (as per The Birth of Tragedy).

>>8476942
he'd tell you a tale of why you feel that way loaded with value terms in the hopes that you'll start to be ashamed of feeling that way.

he'd say for instance, as he does, that you care for other people's opinion of you because you cannot trust your own judgment about your own self's value. He'd say that this happened, historically, when the masters were defeated and bred with the slaves.

You see, the masters had the capacity to pass judgment, to evaluate themselves and the slaves. They could say, this is a valuable thing, a good thing, a noble thing. This is bad, base, ignoble. And because they said it, it was believed and accepted. Their word was treated as standard...by the slaves. The slaves, you see, couldn't pass judgment about the value of things, including their own value. They had to wait for the masters to do that. "Good boy," they'd say, and the slave would delight. The slave relied on the master for this judgment, like labrador.

Eventually though, master and slave interbred, and now we're all muts in that respect. So, when we want and rely on others to evaluate us, that's the slave in us making it's demands. When we want to pass judgment ourselves, it's the masters. Unfortunately, the master's blood has all but been eliminated, so even though we want to pass judgment on others and ourselves and have that be the standard...we can't actually do it.

We want to evaluate ourselves as good/noble/etc., but we simply can't believe our own judgment. And so, what do we do? Well, we know we can believe the others, the crowd, so....well, if we can convince them of how we'd like to see ourselves, then when we see them looking at us in that way, we can then believe it! So, we have facebook, for example. We create a fake image of who we are in an effort so that others will treat us as if we were that...all in order so that we may believe it ourselves. We seduce the crowds into passing a certain value on us so that we can believe it.

>>8477114
pt. 1
The latter. You see, in the myth of er from Republic, and in Phaedo, Socrates puts forth the idea of eternal return. In the myth of er, when you die, you go in the afteworld and for each injustice you have committed you suffer ten times its worth in tartarus, and for every good thing, you enjoy 10 times its worth up above. This math ultimately determines how long you spend above or below, but you come back after you serve your term, and you get to make a big choice, viz., what sort of person you'll be in your next life.

The truly unjust men, the tyrants, when they go in the afterworld,tthey're sent far below, and they can't come back. Anytime they get near the gateway to get back, it screams at them and they're trapped. Socrates, however, posits the philosopher as the opposite of the tyrant. Where the tyrant is totally bad, the philosopher is totally good. And he tells you what happens to the totally bad...stuck below for all eternity, all the while hinting at what happens to his opposite...presumably stuck forever up above...in the good place.

>>8477297
pt. 2

In the phaedo, socrates tells his swan song. you see, swans sing a song on the day they die. they know or something, and they're the bird of apollo. socrates says he's become like a prophet of apollo. in the same way the muses (of apollo) spoke to homer and revealed to him events past, and things in the future, and what's on the other side, socrates thus justifies his knowledge of what's the come.

what's to come?

Well, socrates says that there's the body, earthy heavy stuff, and there's the mind, pure, light, floaty stuff. the goal of life is to shed as much earthy stuff from the soul, so that when it does, it does not get weighed down, and it remains here on earth until it inhabits another body, animal body at times. he says a robber, someone who cares about earthy shit, money and pelasures of the body, would have a soul that lingers on earth and eventually enters into a vulture, or wolf or somesuch. However, if you become a philosopher, then it's because you've shed the earthy shit from your soul. you've become, essentially, pure mind. The whole persona of socrates is supposed to demonstrate and sell you on this point.

Look at this guy. He can drink forever and still keep his wits about him. Why? Because he's effectively severed the connection between his body, the earthy thing, and his mind. the drunk body does not cloud his pure mind. he can stay out all night in the middle of winter just thinking and not even feel cold or care, because, again, his body does not affect his mind. he can, as i've already said, sleep next to the hottest piece of ass in athens, but still not let this powerful instinct (sex drive) affect his judgment. he can ultimately die without any fear, because he knows his soul is leaving this earth...it's not weighed down by his earthy body...he severed that connection....and he's so cheerful, he seems to have figured things out. BE LIKE SOCRATES is the message.

The unexamined life (i.e., the unphilosophical) life is not worth living. Why? Because life itself is not worth living, and if you don't do philosophy, if you don't get your soul to shed it's earthy heavy shit, it'll have to keep living in another body. This is the insidious part of Plato's philosophy that Nietzsche uncovered. This is how he killed Plato, too.

OP, you should make a webpage with all the Q and A, that would be fucking fantastic.

Thank you so much, everything is starting to clear up, finally.

>>8477297
Thank you

>>8477253
I meant to say that dionysus looked into the mirror and saw the WORLD.*

>>8477218
>they're too academic

Dropped.

>>8467314
Because they are shepherds

What do you make of Nietzsche's attitude towards death in the literal sense? Because while he's obviously extremely pro-life and like Stirner seems to offer some criticism of Socrates and his decision to accept death, Nietzsche seems flippant towards it as well at times. I recall in HATH in particular he says that our society shouldn't deny an old man his suicide, and then of course there's the famous "the thought of suicide helps many a man get through the night" statement.

I get the sense that there's more here, unlike Stirner who basically just says that Socrates was spooked out of his mind, Nietzsche seems to respect the act in some ways. In a sense it reminds one of the heroic, Laconic desire for a good death and eagerness to put themselves before the ultimate test even though it was 99-100% likely to kill them.

Herodotus was frequently full of shit but I get the sense that his account of the Persians being utterly dumbfounded at how the Greeks and Spartans in particular acted in the face of death was likely accurate.

That and his entire amor fati formulation seems to suggest that, in accepting pain that come's one's way as ultimately necessary or possibly even desirable one has to embrace his death (or at least the sense of his mortality) if he is to be worthy of life.

File: heart-sutra.png (1MB, 1048x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1048x800px

>>8477086
Thank you for your answer.

It's interesting that Nietzsche has some very comprehensible mistakes in his understanding of Buddhism. Namely that transcendence isn't supposed to be death or a stop of life, but rather something that exists outside the logical chain of action and reaction--it's not supposed to stop the wheel of reincarnation, but do away with it entirely as a life-myth. As such it can't be conceptualized, and can't be said to be like death because death is simply an opposite to life, with both of them being dependent of the existence of the other; the disappearance of suffering is simply this process applied to attachment: once attachment is taken out of the equation, suffering (which is dependent on it) naturally goes away as well.

As such nothingness in Buddhism isn't an abscence of things, which would be the same opposition game just on a total scale. Rather phenomena are *already* empty and as such there's... nothing to attain or realize. The state we live in is already the "perfect" state; therefore it's not something that one seeks or becomes, to say it is like dying is to call it an event, when nothingness has no events.

When ı asked about time it was this that ı was referring to. In linear time one event leads to another, typically in a progressive fashion, as a straight line; in eternal recurrence events lead to one another as well, but with the addition that, unlike LT which has a terminus, the line in ER is assumed endless and as such it eventually turns back into itself--but the line is still there. Buddhism intents to do away with the line however.

This leads into the issues ı have with what ı've gathered of Nietzsche: he falls like so many others in Stirner's prediction about revolutionaries--that they do not do away with kings but rather replace the king with another. Nietzsche is so attached to life he doesn't seem to be able to enjoy it at all--he wants to enjoy it, but that doesn't mean he does; he wants to promote life, and wisely sees it cannot be without pain, but his model is mortifying and brutal, and easily leads into attachment to pain itself as something that is valuable by itself. He feels like he suffers from severe Stockholm syndrome, in a word, rather than aiming for a healthy relationship with existence.

>>8477959
How's that any better?

>>8465182
How do you feel about Kaufmann's falsificated "translations" of your works?

>>8477309
>>8477334
Very insightful, somehow I never made the connection that Plato effectively denied the ER. Thanks.

>>8477942
Who do you think their audience was? What sort of effect did they hope to have with their style of writing? Who could they even hope to understand them?

How far does Nietzsche go into real epistemology, in a Kantian sense, with his genetic perspectivism?

I only know about his perspectivist analyses of beliefs and habits and stuff like that. Does he go more into modalities of knowledge, reasoning, or perception, anywhere?

Who do you think Nietzsche's biggest philosophical foil is? Plato? Jesus? Kant?

I have read on german idealism, some french enlightment, a bit Hobbes and bit greeks/romans (plato republic and some Cicero)
Am I ready for Nietzsche?
If so should I start with TSZ and what then?

>>8480085
You're not ready. You need to read Schopenhauer beforehand. Schopenhauer requires knowledge of Kant. Kant is his own monster that requires knowledge of empiricism and rationalism. And before any of that read Aristotle and more Plato.

Also for the love of God don't start Nietzsche with TSZ. Read his books in chronological order starting from Untimely Meditations.

>>8480185
Not really that much into Kant, would it be that awful, if I only get second hand knowledge?
I would really like to get to his essential works as soon as possible, is it that devstating if I don't read all his works before TSZ

>>8465251
>There's nothing about where the left wants to take culture into the future, so Nietzsche's not a leftist, either.
He's closest to National Socialism. Or Ludovician Aristocraticism.

>>8465304
Thoses question are really interresting
I heard he gave up on th unbermench, why?
Whats the best part of his work and the worst?
Why such a way of writting?

>>8480185
>for the love of God don't start Nietzsche with TSZ
God is dead

>>8480257
Nietzsche was fundamentally anti-modern as a thinker, National Socialism was hypermodern. He was a reactionary who saw past periods as producing much greater men than the present he lived in, but was also not dumb enough to think that we could 'bring back' what made the past great. The path away from the last man and towards the Ubermensch was not moving forward or backwards, but moving up and above, he was an accelerationist who saw that conservatives had already given up too much ground to maintain their positions. Spengler drew out the majority the decline of the west from this idea.

>>8480288
1. He never 'gave up' on the ubermensch, the idea was a poetic one that he used only in Zarathustra. In all other works he speaks of 'higher' types of men who are generally speaking, the men who can see through the bullshit of society, and refuse to stop at just seeing through the bullshit, but proceed to build their own edifice, whether it be an empire, a novel or a song.

His work specifically denies the notion of it being some posthuman construction or an evolutionary step above mankind. The Ubermensch is an aristocrat of the soul who unashamedly puts himself and his project apart from and above the men who would presume to be his peers.

2. There are no truly bad parts of Nietzsche really, although parts of Human, all too Human feel quite superfluous and tiresome and IMO only Schopenhauer as Educator and On the Use and Abuse of History are really great as far as his untimely meditations are concerned, the other fall flat by comparison if you don't know much late 19th century German cultural circles. His best work is probably in BGE/GM or Zarathustra depending on whether you prefer plainer language or more literary flourish. Zarathustra is much stronger in German, while most of his philosophy tends to translate relatively well (you do miss a lot of subtle memes though, and some aphorisms with a double meaning retain only one).

3. He wrote to stimulate people, not to simply inform them of his idea of truth-in-itself like so many philosophers tried to do. So many of his aphorisms read like linguistic puzzles, they take you one way then pull you the other and then leave you with no satisfactory answer. A lot of his opinions are like that too, like with women he has some aphorisms that on first reading are just blind misogyny yet on rereading actually attack men and masculinity more harshly than women and femininity.

>>8465182
You early say that eternal recurrence was related to wanting to build a new framework, enacted by a Zarathustra. From my understanding it was more a kind of thought experiment. An ubermensch would be a person who wanted eternal recurrence. To accept everything as it is and say yes to it despite yourself.

Nietzsche didn't, and couldn't, have said eternal recurrence is or isn't happening. Thoughts?

>The falseness of a judgement is to us not necessarily an objection to a judgement: it is here that our new language perhaps sounds strangest. The question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding; and our fundamental tendency is to assert that the falsest judgements (to which synthetic judgements a priori belong) are the most indispensable to us, that without granting as true the fictions of logic, without measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a continual falsification of the world by means of numbers, mankind could not live – that to renounce false judgements would be to renounce life, would be to deny life. To recognize untruth as a condition of life: that, to be sure, means to resist customary value-sentiments in a dangerous fashion; and a philosophy which ventures to do so places itself, by that act alone, beyond good and evil.

But soon after that he chastizes philosophers for letting their prejudices get in front of truth. Whats going on here?

>All your love of truth notwithstanding, you have compelled yourselves for so long and with such persistence and hypnotic rigidity to view nature falsely

This implies that nature can be viewed truthfully, no?

Does anyone know how to find the previous Nietzsche AMA threads?

Is Benardete right in thinking the Socratic turn is a rediscovery of the poets' knowledge and, if so, could you please explain?

Why does Clytemnestra confuse her claim to right with that of Aegisthus in the Oresteia?

>>8477942
There are a handful of good bits here.

It's another idiot tho stuck on "Nietzsche liked KANGZ" and "Nietzsche was appolonian" shit. Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche is also delightfullly unacademic. On certain important points the dude is tripping up, but if it gets people reading/interpreting/posting then great.

I suspect it's mostly going to be regurgitation tho.

>>8478302
Nietzsche thought those who think life is not worth living should do life a favor and eliminate themselves, thereby getting rid of one of its accusers...he jokes somewhere by saying that doing this would almost give them a right to live. Basically, his thought on this is that a diseased arm should be cut off before destroying the whole body. Those who want to end it because they determined that life is not worth living have not made a discovery about life; they've made a discovery about themselves.

Essentially, if you think life is not worth living, then you, as a part of life, are a failed specimen. There is no truth about whether life has value or not. No such investigation into the value of life can be taken seriously, scientifically. The only worth of this kind of investigation is that its results can be studied as SYMPTOMS. A conclusion about the value of life is an indication of one's taste for life, not the product of a scientific investigation.

The living, he says, can't investigate the value of life, because they are an interested party, a bone of contention, and not properly situated judges...while the dead can't pass judgment on the value of life "for other reasons." Hence, again, all value judgments about life should be treated as mere symptoms of the judge's taste for life...whether they have the strength to love it in spite of the suffering that it necessitates...becoming, change, growth, decay, suffering, death.

This is not to say that all suicide is a sign of weakness for nietzsche. He leaves room for "free death," as he calls it in Zarathustra, and THAT kind of suicide he holds in high regards.

OP, you should trip.

>>8480735

Would appreciate any help.

When explaining the eternal return, Nietzsche states in posthumous fragment XV, 11 [202] that the universe is made up of a finite quantity of forces, yet the will to power implies would be infinitely divisible, and therefore not limited. If this is right, the will to power and the eternal return would be mutually exclusive. Strauss, on the other hand, thinks that the two are intimately connected, since one first views the world as will to power and then affirms it with the doctrine of the universal return. How do we reconcile these two positions?"

>>8479866
Socrates. I don't mean Plato's Socrates. I mean the "pre-Platonic Socrates" that he talks about in his lecture series. Socrates is not only the model for a philosopher for Nietzsche, albeit a failure at that, but also his arch nemesis. As I've said up above somewhere, N thought Socrates legislated his will, his value standard, on the millenia that followed him. He made the future pregnant with his type, and the future finally conceived during the enlightenment.

Socrates opened up a thirst for knowledge, a specific kind of knowledge, which he left unsatisfied. Plato was the first casualty, and he attempted to answer Socrates' question in his own way, but the attempts at an answer have not stopped coming. It was with the Socratic question itself that nietzsche qualmed.

>>8480085
Hell yeah you're ready. Take my advice from before.

>>8465262
Nietzsche must be properly situated before he can be read, and you must understand that he is unique, as a human being, in that he really was motivated by a single goal during his whole life. The story of his life that he tells in Ecce Homo places this "task" at the center of every big event. I....sort of believe him, too.

>>8480219
If you really want to read TSZ then just read it. But without all the context of his previous work you run a greater risk of misunderstanding a lot of things. Also sure, reading books about Kant rather than Kant himself is okay for what you want.

>>8480257
I think Georg Brandes, who was the first person to lecture on Nietzsche's philosophy in 1887 asked N in a letter whether it would be fair to characterize him as a "radical aristocrat," or somesuch. Nietzsche said yes...for what it's worth.

>>8480288
The Ubermensch is a tricky subject. Zarathustra begins in full force about this type, but by the end of the second book, you hardly see Z mentioning him. He goes from the meaning of the earth to....simply dropping out. In a crucial moment in the book (Z III "The Convalescent,") Z briefly recounts his life and says that at first he PROCLAIMED the overman, but now, after convalescing, he TEACHES the eternal return. There's some reasons to think Nietzsche gave up on the overman.

For my part I don't think he did, since he brings back talk of overman in his last work, ecce homo...there however he talks about an overman-type.

Essentially, my thoughts on the overman are this. Nietzsche says in BGE 200 that theres' a tension of the spirit in Europe, and this is the result of the intermixing of the races (by races he meant people cultivated together in one way for a long time--so the germanic race, french race, english, and so on). These "races" got mixed up, and so did their values.

So, since one value found its meaning within its proper context, instrumentally, as a means of achieving the type of man that was cultivated there (the good germanic man, french, etc), when these values are deprived of their context, when they are no longer instruments for the achievement of the type they were invented for, there's...chaos. Goals are lost in Europe, and plenty of aimless values still exist. Nobody knows what to do with their life, what sort of person to become, and so on.

Out of this chaos of the spirit, this "tension" of the soul as he calls it in the preface of BGE, there can be two possible results. First, the rabble wins out, and the tension is resolved. Second, the higher type uses this tension in the spirit, these thousand aimless values, and gives them a new goal. He appropriates them for his task. He instrumentalizes them--gives the values meaning--for his goal...in relation to his goal. Remember that values were created as instruments to bring about a certain type of man. Christians want a meek tamed type, so they made pity one of their values. Pity makes no sense outside of that context, goal.

>>8481434
Talk of overman is always associated with "goals,"...think "a thousand and one goals" from Zarathustra. There are many goals, brought together in europe with the mixing of the race, and since they're all regarded as equal, or in any case since they're no longer ranked (as the germanic type would obviously rank the german goal far above the others, and the french the french type, and so on), and they effectively cease to exist, meaning they cease to be pursued. Those values which were created for the sake of the goals remain, but they quickly turn decadent and unhealthy.

I feel like I'm not being clear here, so I'll be direct with where I'm going: the problem is that there is no goal HUMAN BEING for Europe. There used to many (the french had their idea of a good man, and they tried to produce him by means of their values, institutions, laws, religion, etc., germans had their own, english, and so on). Now there's none...So, lacking a goal, but in possession of goal-less values, europe experiences a tension of the spirit which it wants to resolve...it wants the calm, peaceful, moderate and medicre happiness of a grazing cow. This is the last man, and the last man is willed by europe in light of what I said above. The last man is most perfectly depicted by the fat slobs in the movie Wall-E.

The last man however is only one of two possiblities N foresees for a goal-less but value-saturated europe. The other possiblity is someone who unites all these values and instrumentalizes them, gives them meaning, in relation to a new goal--a NEW TYPE OF HUMAN BEING...and you should read this in the same sense as I spoke when I talked about the type of human being the french willed, and the germans, and so on.

So...one thousand goals AND ONE. The ONE will unite all the other. This is where you should think to place nietzsche's talk about himself being a "good european." He's a good european in that he seeks to give to europe that one goal...he wants to make europe pregnant with his type of human being....just like I've been saying Socrates made greece and the world that followed it pregnant with his type, the scientific and ascetic body hating type.

The overman should be understood in this sort of light...not as a conan the barbarian, or fucking sociopath or whatever. He's simply a goal human being for culture, and culture has always had a goal human being until recently...the christians had a goal human being, the meek tamed type, and they worked in an effort to bring him about via the myths, social institutions and values that they created...

This may still not be clear, but I'm writing as fast as I can type here, and my thoughts are not that well organized or expressed. You can ask further questions about this one.

>>8481459
>You can ask further questions about this one.
Yeah, when are you going to get around to GoM and realise that whole thesis goes nowhere?

>>8480756
Look, people who interpret ER as a thought experiment, or litmus test for life affirmation or whatever do so because they think they're doing N a favor. ALL OF THEM, be it Soll, Magnus, Clark, Parkes, Williams, Nehamas, Reginster, etc., say that ER is a thought experiment because they think it fails as a cosmological theory. That is to say, they love nietzsche, and don't want to give up what they see is a failed hypothesis--especially one which Nietzsche seemed to value so much--so they take philosophical charity to an absurd level to then say that Nietzsche intended ER as a mere...little test you do on yourself every so often.

Maybe every few years you ask yourself whether you'd want to relieve this life that you've built, remarry the bitch you're with, and so on...and if you come to the conclusion that you would not, then that would motivate you to change some things...dump her or get a new job. The problem with this is that it is not that weighty a thing, and N called it the WEIGHTEST THOUGHT. It's supposed to crush you if you don't love life enough. ER as they see it is this little barbell you pick up every so often, and then put down. You consider ER true for a second, then go back to thinking of time as linear.

No. ER must be believed for it to have its full effect. ER is supposed to replace God as what gives life meaning. God is not a thought experiment. God does not do it's work in giving life meaning by being merely a litmus test. God works only when people believe it. Only when they internalize it and the thought of god becomes background, and when you FEEL (even after claiming that you're an atheist) that something's watching you and judging you, and when you FEEL bad masturbating or having sex out of wedlock.

The only way these grand thoughts can have the effect that their creators intended is if they seep deep in the soul, past conscious thought. It's only once they're there that they can do what they're intended to do...and basically color your whole experience of the moment, past, future...the only way they can condition your hopes for the future, and make you regard suffering and life itself as a good or bad thing.

ER as thought experiment people are pitiful. They're like battered housewives, convincing themselves the one they love isn't so bad...no, they're good! They're different. They're like the idiots who study and love aristotle, who then encounter his thoughts about slavery, and then spend their lives apologizing on his behalf...noooo! you're mistinerpreting him, they say. of course he wasn't ok with slavery. No what he meant was....

>>8481474
What do you mean?

>>8481491
Even within a bona fide monolithic culture values are built upon other values and are removed from their original reasoning. So you have sickness becoming unclean becoming evil etc.

Read your Hume. All your Hume. Nietzsche is very much Hume All Too Hume a lot of the time.

File: 1469812163047.jpg (11KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 240x240px

What does Nietzsche base his love for life on? Why is living good?

>>8481459
So basically you're telling me he's willingly cucked by History just like all Great Men?

>He's a good european in that he seeks to give to europe that one goal...he wants to make europe pregnant with his type of human being....just like I've been saying Socrates made greece and the world that followed it pregnant with his type, the scientific and ascetic body hating type.
How does this relate to his statement of being a philosopher of the feminine then, if he wants to impregnate the land?

>>8481500
Are you criticizing or interpreting Nietzsche?

>Even within a bona fide monolithic culture values are built upon other values and are removed from their original reasoning. So you have sickness becoming unclean becoming evil etc.
Are you saying Nietzsche doesn't think that values were instrumentalized for another goal? Or are you saying that in fact they weren't instrumentalized for another goal.

I'm not interested in the latter, but if you're holding the former, then I'd like to know how you explain Nietzsche's thoughts about nihilism in Europe, which is often expressed in terms of it lacking a goal, and mixing of the races and value standards, the motley cow, tension in the spirit and so on....what's his face, the After Virtue cunt got right in my opinion, as far as his reasoning for thinking that morality talk is no longer meaningful in europe...

>>8481525
I also have a small critique of your choice of words, but please don't take it the wrong way. I'm also open to reasons for thinking otherwise.

I think you have to decide who you want to affect with all these honey wisdom you're gathering. If it's academia, then god bless you...keeping pursuing truth and consistency and following the logic of your axioms, or the implication of a lack of any givens for what's been built on top of them...keep talking about "value," and "monolithic cultures" and so on without explaining what you mean. If it's culture you want to affect, then you have to at least give the layman and the rich nobles a means of deciphering what you're saying, otherwise they will at best treat your texts as an inkblot into which to read whatever it is that they already think, or what's most likely, they will just ignore you.

>>8481529
macintyre

File: 1466446694542.jpg (264KB, 940x658px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 940x658px

>>8481581
Holy non-sequitur! I can't decide if you're transparently hurt or just had a Dionysian fit of piety! Regardless, you forgot where we are.

t. third party

OP, did you say you studied under Laurence Lampert or just read his books? And are you currently a grad student?

I've been doing this for about 6 years now. I teach ethics, but I don't like it, and I've even got to teach an upper level Nietzsche course, but this is the only place I've ever felt like I'm actually teaching. The only time I've felt like I'm teaching on campus is when this kid, one of my foreign students, told me he wanted to kill himself. He was laughing when he said that, too. Fucking weird man, but I knew he was serious. Shit woke me up. I had a three hour long conversation with him outside the library about Nietzsche. He didn't even tell me anything about what was wrong with his life. We were talking about Nietzsche. I was going on about master and slave morality, god is dead, nihilism and whatnot, and he was asking me some good questions about this stuff. These were questions that were important to him and so they became important to me, too.

You gotta understand, though, that I was teaching Nietzsche to this kid in the way that I imagine Strauss was teaching Plato to his students...faithful to the text, to a good extent, but no reverence for the text itself, reverence for the text as an instrument, as a pair of goggles to grasp and through which to evaluate the current situation...later though, after the lecture is done and they've gone on with their day.

I absolutely hate those sour cunt students who say the title of whatever book I've assigned in the french or german. There's one in every class. The same guy, man. Copy and paste. These cunts didn't exhaust all avenues of their own thought in pursuit of some solution to a life problem, and then turn to me, as a teacher, with some genuine interest, ready, listening, concerned, and discerning because it clearly means something to them...Nah, they treat the shit they read like newly purchased ornaments they can't wait to show off in class. I think I was this cunt in my undergrad to be honest senpai. But anyway, they have no real questions, nor any interest in what I have to say. Every time they raise their hand, I know they're looking to show off.

Here, though, the interest seems somewhat genuine. I still see that same cunt posting, but a good chunk of the people seem actually care. It's not at the level of that suicidal kid, but then again, who the fuck says "thank you" on 4chan? It's gotta be the ones who actually got something out of it.

>>8481732
as a former indifferent college student, I think much of what you complain about has to do with factors beyond the kids' control. Most people don't go to college because they're looking for answers to life's great questions; they go because it's the "thing to do" after graduating high school, even if you have no intellectual curiosity whatsoever. moreover, your students are very young and probably somewhat sheltered, so might not have had exposure to events that would cause them to ponder "deep" questions. and they try to show off because they did the same thing in high school and their teacher wrote them a good letter of recommendation because of it. pretty soon, colleges won't even try to look like they're providing an education- it'll just be four years of adult babysitting and "networking", kind of like business school is now.

>>8481732
You're alright. Folks like you make me want to read stuff ı wouldn't considered otherwise.

>>8481732
I didn't ask any questions. Ive just been lurking, butI love this thread and what you've posted and genuinely want to thank you. It makes coming here worth it even though most of this board ends up being bullshit. Thank you.

>people still take this 19th century plagiarizing charlatan seriously
lmao

>>8481529
>Are you criticizing or interpreting Nietzsche?
Really?

>Are you saying Nietzsche doesn't think that values were instrumentalized for another goal? Or are you saying that in fact they weren't instrumentalized for another goal.
I don't see what you're saying here as meaningful. Like we are nowhere close to being on the same page I think. I would say that values and systems surrounding them can grow, and it's p much akin to saying morality is a social construct. It looks to me like you want these things to actually achieve a goal when you talk about instrumentalising.

>>8481581
>keep talking about "value," and "monolithic cultures" and so on without explaining what you mean.
I sincerely hope this is not OP. That was a wanky comment broheim, I feel a little sorry for whoever you are.

>>8480707
>A lot of his opinions are like that too, like with women he has some aphorisms that on first reading are just blind misogyny yet on rereading actually attack men and masculinity more harshly than women and femininity.

Could you please expand on this, or give an example?

How accurate is Ayn Rand's view of Nietzsche?

>>8465182
Have you even read Ecclesiastes before?

>>8481482
Weird response. Apart from the names you mentioned, do you think for example Heidegger thought he was doing Nietzsche a favour? Really? Do you think Heidegger loved Nietzsche and wanted to do him philosophical charity by deliberately misinterpreting Eternal Recurrence to suit a more acceptable version of his ideas?

And what's with the last paragraph? Seems like you've given up on argument by that point and resorted to name calling. Not convincing.

File: Rust.jpg (47KB, 700x404px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 700x404px

>>8465303
Did you have good laugh at True Detective when Rust shot the paedophile Nietzschean cultist after he exclaimed that "time was a flat circle"?

Have you ever seen Mr Nietzsche in the Convenience Store and how accurate was is to your daily rigmarole?

>>8482396
I think you're looking in a similar area to me. It'd be nice if it turned out Nietzsche had particularly special knowledge of Ecc, Job, and similar texts from other ancient civilisations, but I think it's better to look at how, for example, Hume viewed Will v how the mercantilists viewed Will (and even how the Lutherans viewed Will). I think Nietzsche was trying to work through that whole theological thing to get it sans God in one sense.

>>8482409
I always find that I have to pick apart Heidegger from others like Gadamer. For example, the idea that Heidegger doesn't think we can't see things undifferentiated in a philosophical sense I think is incorrect, it's a different kind of philosophy. However, for Gadamer "all philosphy is language" it's important to deny this Dionysian aspect to philosophy, and all of a sudden it's like Heidegger thinks we have to always be talking about and differentiating everything.

On Eternal Recurrence, there are different aspects to it I think. It's a little lazy to see it purely as a little metaphor. In some ways it's like Sisyphus/the daily grind, in some ways it's like the rise and fall of civilizations, or life on other planets, or reincarnation.

In his notes he seems genuinely concerned about his own amor fati, and also seems to think there is a scientific/mathematical basis to it. The thing above is kind of related too I guess.

>>8482445
>>8482454
If I see Nietzsche at the convenience store, I shoot him and say 'Time is a flat circle'.

>>8481864
I asked if you were criticizing my interpretation of Nietzsche because Nietzsche didn't mean it, or because you think Nietzsche got it wrong...or perhaps because you think my interpretation of N would render him factually wrong and that can't be what N intended to mean.

I asked you this because there's no doubt in my mind that values for Nietzsche are created within any given system as a way of accomplishing a goal, viz., to form man. And yes, each value gains its significance in relation to a goal. The value is an instrument to the will and goal of its creator.

These goals aren't organic for him. There's a man at its helm...a man who creates value...for the sake of his goal. Standing behind the fire in Plato's cave, those who cast the shadows on the wall, are not "society." It's people. It's Homer, Hesiod, and the rest of the poets. You're thinking of Taine with his notions of mileu; he certainly sought to eliminate the great man from any original thought or creation, and to render him as nothing other than a product of his mileu...in effect, society itself ought to be responsible for its constructs of values, morality, aesthetics, and so on.

But Nietzsche rejected Taine specifically for this reason. It's against precisely Taine and these notions of 'mileu' (society as the ultimate engine of social change, not the great man) that he and other Bonepartists put forth Napoleon as the exception. The "genius of the species" is one whose great labors and creations are not socially constructed. They are the moseses, the dionysuses who seem to come out of nowhere with their new ideas about what sort of man should be considered noble, and what values culture needs to embrace in order to produce that kind of person.

Now, being the kind of sour democratic modern cunt that I suspect you are, this is just non-intuitive. Wrong, and common sense that it's wrong. How could Nietzsche have possibly have thought that a single man is responsible for what a culture aims for and what values they prize in order to get there? How could he not have seen that responsibility for those forces that affect culture must be democratized, for we are, after all, democratic men...EVERYONE needs a participation model in what goes on in society, not just the one noble man. No, it's not Muhammad who is responsible for the character of over a billion men and women today. That man cannot stand above all others. We can't tolerate that thought. We must subsume him into the crowd, and redistribute the responsibility ascribed to him to everyone else.

And it's not a wanky comment, you pretentious twat. Do you know how long it took me to figure out what "value" meant for Nietzsche and others? I went on for years on end talking about value this, value that, but it wasn't until an honest moron in my class asked me what value meant that I was stumped and ended up having to research it and find out.

>>8481864
Did you know "social construction" is different from cultural relativism only in that CR merely says that what's considered knowledge, criteria for knowledge, moral, evil, etc., is relative to culture whereas social construction goes one tiny little step further to also attempt to explain WHY this is the case? It posits culture as the culprit for change among different cultures and change within the same culture.

Maybe you did, but why is it so many intellectual fakes toss that phrase around to justify and LEGITIMIZE fat chicks being considered beautiful among other such decadence, when it should be fucking obvious that once you work within CR's framework, every standard is delegitimized. My thesis is that they don't fucking understand what the fuck they're talking about.

I spoke with a feminist friend of mine, and I asked her why oppression is wrong. She literally told me she had not thought about it. This is a fucking PhD. She's taught ethics before and she has certainly started some classes with the controversial question: why is killing babies wrong? then gone on to introduce the many theories which one can use to found a judgment....yet about the thing she's supposedly an expert in, she not only does not have a clue, but it did not even occur to her to ask. No, she just tosses around terms like deconstructionism, postmodernism, social construction and whatever.

THIS is why I made my suggestion. Don't get butthurt over it. You must know that I'm right. Often times clarifying terms is all that's needed to resolve certain issues.

>>8482396
It's my absolute favorite part of the bible. It said in a couple of pages what it took Camus an entire book to say. It also offers a much better solution to the issue of nihilism than camus, too.

If you're interested, I highly recommend Tolstoy's A Confession. That book quickly became one of my favorites especially since I accidentally read it after reading Ecclesiastes. Tolstoy is amazing in his description of what Nietzsche calls "the abyss." Check this out:

>There is an old Eastern fable about a traveler who is taken unawares on the steppes by a ferocious wild animal. In order to escape the beast the traveler hides in an empty well, but at the bottom of the well he sees a dragon with its jaws open, ready to devour him. The poor fellow does not dare to climb out because he is afraid of being eaten by the rapacious beast, neither does he dare drop to the bottom of the well for fear of being eaten by the dragon. So he seizes hold of a branch of a bush that is growing in the crevices of the well and clings on to it. His arms grow weak and he knows that he will soon have to resign himself to the death that awaits him on either side. Yet he still clings on, and while he is holding on to the branch he looks around and sees that two mice, one black and one white, are steadily working their way round the bush he is hanging from, gnawing away at it. Sooner or later they will eat through it and the branch will snap, and he will fall into the jaws of the dragon. The traveler sees this and knows that he will inevitably perish. But while he is still hanging there he sees some drops of honey on the leaves of the bush, stretches out his tongue and licks them. In the same way I am clinging to the tree of life, knowing full well that the dragon of death inevitably awaits me, ready to tear me to pieces, and I cannot understand how I have fallen into this torment. And I try licking the honey that once consoled me, but it no longer gives me pleasure. The white mouse and the black mouse – day and night – are gnawing at the branch from which I am hanging. I can see the dragon clearly and the honey no longer tastes sweet. I can see only one thing; the inescapable dragon and the mice, and I cannot tear my eyes away from them. And this is no fable but the truth, the truth that is irrefutable and intelligible to everyone.

>The delusion of the joys of life that had formerly stifled my fear of the dragon no longer deceived me. No matter how many times I am told: you cannot understand the meaning of life, do not thinking about it but live, I cannot do so because I have already done it for too long. Now I cannot help seeing day and night chasing me and leading me to my death. This is all I can see because it is the only truth. All the rest is a lie.

>Those two drops of honey, which more than all else had diverted my eyes from the cruel truth, my love for my family and for my writing, which I called art – I no longer found sweet.”

>>8482409
There is no doubt in my mind that Heidegger adored Nietzsche. He plagiarised him enough, and in any case, the decade he dedicated to Nietzsche is probably solely responsible for his "turn."

I don't think H deliberately misinterpreted ER, and I don't think H was trying to be charitable towards N to an absurd degree. I think he's actually one of the few scholars who sees N pretty closely to how N saw himself, as a man with world historical significance.

My argument is pretty simple, and I'm neither alone in holding nor wrong. It's a FACT that each of those names I listed begin their interpretation by agreeing with Simmel's critique of cosmological ER. They think Simmel precluded that sort of interpretation of ER, which is why they spend almost all of their time on GS 341, and don't see that it as the sole source of info for this thought. That section is merely a teaser trailer for the main event, Thus spoke zarathustra. It is THERE that Nietzsche fully treats ER, and in TSZ it is pretty clear that Zarathustra does not consider ER a mere thought experiment.

Your worry is probably that I offered a psychological reason for why these and other scholars see ER as a litmus test. in my defense, their approach to ER is indefensible, and the only way I can muster any interest in their interpretation is as a psychological symptom.

>>8482445
Oh that's not even the end of it. Whoever made that show was well versed in greek myth...the allusions to dionysus are pervasive. E.g., the end scene in the labyrinth where women are sacrificed to the monster, the Minotaur...the one with many voices, who transforms...the minotaur is the bull baby, which is obviously another instantiation of Dionysus...it's also why Dionysus cries out to artemis to AVENGE him for what ariadne did to him...giving Theseus clues on how to kill the Minotaur.

What really struck me is how they showed Rust getting absolutely crushed by the thought of ER. He didn't think much of it when the tattooed guy told it, but later on...The schopenhauerian man is confronted with Nietzsche's ER, and what happens? He's crushed by the thought. GOAT show.

>>8482791
What show? I don't watch much TV or really any and am not up to date on what's on

>>8482836
he's talking about true detective season 1

>>8481379
>>Nietzsche thought those who think life is not worth living
once you are born. If you had the choice to refuse life before you were born, he thought that it was the most clever move.

As person employed as Associate Professor in Philosophy and a writer of many journal articles about Nietzsche I have a warning for you all.

OP is a master sophist and most of what he writes is carefully constructed jargon and nonsense. The most sympathetically I can describe his interpretation of Nietzsche is purely "headspace".

>>8482877
How so?

>>8482877
Where have you published? Give me just the volume, so I can just narrow it down. I may have read your work, might even be a fan.

>>8482886
Not him but OP typically takes like one very limited piece of evidence from a work and overextends it. Like the horse fluff above. Or the cow fluff.

It's mostly about animals and how people are stupid with factoids thrown in, so I'd guess it's aimed at autists.

>>8482877
Which side of the pond? I may have some v general questions for you.

>>8465182
>>8481930

OP I dont know if you missed it but might you answer this question? Was not a troll question.

>>8482877
Show us better then.

>>8477197
>The sense of freedom that democracy demands is well, freedom of the libido...but that usually comes at a cost to culture and civilization.

I've heard this often recently, how are you drawing this correlation?

>>8482781
I didnt read the people's you mentioned take on N but i dont really see how "thought experiment" and sincere believing in ER make a difference in the light of N practical aproach. It doesnt matter what tools do you use if you make your job right. This is how i understand N. ER is a tool that according to him would bring a higher human, but its only a tool in the end.

>>8482877
Care to give any sort of explanation at all?

>>8481930
I'm not OP. but one in particular I recall was TGS 24:

Diverse dissatisfaction

>The weak and quasi-feminine type of the dissatisfied has a sensitivity for making life more beautiful and profound; the strong or masculine type, to stick to this metaphor, has a sensitivity for making life better or safer. The former type manifests its weakness and femininity by gladly being deceived occasionally and settling for a little intoxication and effusive enthusiasm, although it can never be satisfied altogether and suffers from the incurability of its dissatisfaction. Moreover, this type promotes all those who know how to provide opiates and narcotic consolations , and it resents all who esteem physicians above priests: thus it ensures the continuation of real misery. If this type had not been superabundant in Europe since the middle ages the celebrated capacity for constant change might never have come into existence, for the requirements of the strong among the dissatisfied are too crude and at bottom so undemanding that eventually they can surely be brought to rest.

>China, for example, is a county in which large scale dissatisfaction and the capacity for change have become extinct centuries ago: and the socialist and state idolaters of Europe with their measures for making life better and safer might easily establish in Europe, too, Chinese conditions and a sicklier, tenderer, more feminine dissatisfaction and romanticism that at present are still superabundant here. Europe is sick but owes the utmost gratitude to her incurability and to the eternal changes in her affliction: these constantly new dangers, pains and media of information have finally generated an intellectual irritability that almost amounts to genius and is in any case the mother of all genius.

So basically he sets you up to think that he's going to rag on religion and femininity for the aphorism then in the second half he reverses. He says no, it is precisely this effeminate romanticism that have saved Europe from the much worse fate offered by the quack doctor that's trying to cure her.

>>8483860
Not only is it not about women it's not really about femininity.

>>8482877
Prove yourself.
I always dig OP's take on the Neetch.
OP, can you go into Nietzsche's views on women?

Op here. Will start answering questions in a bit. One thing though, I'm not writing a dissertation here so I don't think it's fair to object to my interpretations on the basis that I gave too little evidence. I think I have plenty for what I've said. Ask for it if want.

Second, I'm neither criticizing nor affirming N's positions. Merely interpreting them... sometimes with the aid of Plato because he read Plato closely, other times simply to make his position clearer.

>>8483034
Look, either put up or shut up. Point me to pieces of text that prove problematic for my interpretations, or quit hinting that they exist. It's not like I'm in love with my interpretation. Im still working on it in fact. If I see reason to abandon it, I will.

>>8483996
Not op but aren't they quite straightforward?
If there is a female Ubermensch she will apear better than a male one because the bar has been set lower for women.

File: image.jpg (276KB, 857x1134px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 857x1134px

What do Nietszche's ideas add to the theories of rhetoric?

Nietszche's ideas about love?
The Ubermensch can love?

>>8484643
He loves and hates with volcanic intensity

>>8484037
>Point me to pieces of text that prove problematic for my interpretations, or quit hinting that they exist.
How am I hinting? You saying "like Plato mentions a horse once" and writing a load of wank on it that overextends to the point of not having anything to do with the original text is not academic.

Tl;dr you're writing more than you're reading Merenghi.

>>8484871
The original text is about how a philosopher can and should manipulate a people of a city into possessing certain virtues, into behaving a certain way, feeling a certain way, judging and so on by means of the world-view he gives them you dense motherfucker. Read Plato's Laws and tell me that I'm wrong about what Plato intended for philosophy.

I'm not trying to be academic. I'm trying to communicate the complicated ideas of a major philosopher to 4chan. If you want academic, then read my damn journal article. I'm answering questions in a stream of consciousness sort of way, pulling examples and whatnot from the text from the back of my head. I don't have the texts in front of me, but as I've said, if you have an objection and want to make it about the text, I'm willing to oblige.

Saying that I'm overextending my interpretation of a passage is obviously not enough. You gotta engage a bit, explain WHY you think that's the case. Give me a more faithful interpretation and we can debate, otherwise, shut the fuck up and stop trying to undermine my authority with petty and unsubstantiated "nuh-huhs!"

>>8483120
Any quick glance at any democracy will show you that that is the case. Democratic countries inevitably end up loosening their legal and moral norms to permit more debauchery--as the older generation saw it. Democracy is a corrosive to culture once you properly understand what "culture" means. What makes french culture different from chinese culture? The quick answer is that they have different legal and moral norms. One considers one thing proper, the other something else. They both forbid their people certain things, though. They both regulate their people's sexuality, their conduct with one another, and so on. If Iran were to become a democracy, then iranian culture as we now know it (and you should withhold your judgment about the moral status of certain norms of that culture) would begin to permit it's citizens more and more personal freedoms, but a personal freedom means nothing else than the freedom to do as you please, fuck whoever you want, dress as you want, speak as you want, and so on. Whereas the culture previously restricted these by legal and social enforcement, after a democracy, it begins to permit them. Is this not obvious?

>>8483063
the question you want me to answer was not posed to one of my posts.

>>8483197
pt. 1
Take a very famous thought experiment, the demon example from Descartes' meditations. One does not BELIEVE that such a demon exists. One merely considers the thought, as an EXPERIMENT, in order to see what sort of implications one can draw out IF IT WERE TRUE. In order for the the demon example to be a thought experiment, one needs to believe that there is no such demon. You can't experiment with a thought you already believe. It'd be like experimenting with the thought that the sun will come up again tomorrow. And...?

Let me put it another way. TO have a belief means to possess an idea about how some part of the world is, e.g., that the sky is blue, the sun goes down then comes up, that when you sit your ass on a chair you won't fall through it. A belief is never inert, meaning that it a belief will always impact how you behave. If you say you believe in God, but that idea never affects you in any way whatsoever, except that it makes you answer "yes," when someone asks if you believe in God, then I'm not clear that you should say you believe in God. My grandmother told me when I was young that if I wear different kinds of socks, then my spouse would die when I got married. She told me because someone told her when she was young, and I believed her. I'm older now, and if you asked me if I believe that's true, I'd say no, yet I still don't wear different kinds of socks. It's not habit either, because I've had plenty of opportunities to just put something on. No, I'm basically afraid to do it, so I don't do it. Can I therefore be said to believe even though i say I do not? my answer, derived from what I just stipulated above, is yes. I believe and I carry that belief with me.

A thought experiment affects you only in those moments in which you consider it. You don't internalize it. You don't behave differently on its basis, except if the experiment reveals to you something about your OTHER beliefs and they change. So if you behave differently, it's not on the basis of you having internalized the idea with which you experimented. It's on the basis of those beliefs you do hold having been changed from the experiment. My point is that Nietzsche intended ER to have a perpetual affect on every moment of your day...and not, as would be the case if it were a thought experiment, only during those times in which you consciously consider it.

If ER was a thought experiment, then that would mean you live your life as if time were linear for 99.9999% of your life, with the exception of those moments every few years where you prima facie suspend that belief for a quick second and consider if things were otherwise. There is no way N could have possibly seen as much significance in that thought if that were the case. As I've already stated, his main protagonist, who struggles with the thought of ER in TSZ, obviously did not consider it a thought experiment.

>>8485099
pt. 2
in addition, in his notebooks--for whatever they are worth--Nietzsche DOES say that the thought needs to be believed in order for it to have the effect he desires. There is nothing to suggest that ER is a mere thought experiment from N's texts. The only reason to think that it is a thought experiment is if you take GS 341 and neglect all other places N talks about it....if you, in other words, neglect N's presentation of ER as a cosmological doctrine in GS 109 and 285, and in ALL OF ZARATHUSTRA. The fundamental thought of that book he says himself is eternal return, and as I've been repeating over and over again, it is not treated as a thought experiment in that book.

>>8483996
He held the traditional view about women, i.e., that they are passive. His issue with nihilism does not bother women, he doesn't think. It's only a man's problem, because the meaning of a woman's life--what she also finds meaning in doing--is having children. If there is a problem for women it is in that their INSTRUMENT of accomplishing their life's goal, namely men, experience the problem.

The solution to a woman's problem is always the same, he says somewhere, and that is pregnancy. With men, the issue is different. And let me be clear about what I mean by "problem." The problem is why live. As already stated, for N, women have an easy answer. That is to say, once they have a child, they attain a reason to live, they also find a reason to tolerate their suffering, the necessary slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. This is why he says that if a woman is persuing intellectual things, it must be because of some sexual deficiency. This means that he thinks the only reason to pursue higher intellectual goals is to remedy the problem of nihilism, lack of meaning, and since a woman's life meaning is found in bearing children, if she lacks meaning, it must be because she won't or can't bear children.

For men, the issue of why to live, why to tolerate the suffering that comes with being alive, is far more complicated and doesn't have a good answer. This is why it is only men, he thinks, who bother with creating value. It's only them, in light of life having given them no meaning, that can be bothered enough to create it. Another way of saying it is the way he puts it in Zarathustra...something to the effect that "if god were not dead, then how could I create value?" In other words, one can create value only if there isn't one already there.

>>8485147
Let me be a bit more precise. The only motivation one can have to create value--i.e., a value standard by means of which to measure the worth of life and suffering and the world, and existence, and also circumcision and eating pork and everything else--is if one lacks such a value standard. The lion must slay the dragon with his "thou shalt," in the metamorphoses of the spirit. It is only after all "thou shalts," are gone--meaning only after all previous value standards are eliminated that there grows a need to create a new one. The lion, by slaying the dragon with his 'thou shalts,' creates freedom for himself, a space within which to create value.

Women, however, can never kill their dragon. It's a biological imperative, and one which there is no reason for them to reject. A child does redeem suffering of life, and a child does become an evaluation standard by means of which to measure the worth of everything in existence. A woman with a child can and does measure everything else in existence with their child in mind--it is their worth-yardstick. Nature did not provide men with such a luxury, so they have to make them up, and they have to invent "beyonds," in the form of god, or the forms or whatever on which to found their evaluative yardstick.

Moses needed his mountain on top of which he could have god tell him what's right and what's wrong, and more importantly why and how to live. And the israelis needed moses.
Homer needed the muses, and the ancient greeks needed Homer.
Plato needed his forms to get such answers, and the greeks needed Plato.
The the muses, the forms, and God all died for Nietzsche's age, so even though Nietzsche needed to create a new evaluative standard, he could not persuade himself that he got it from somewhere else, beyond. He had to create one himself OUT of himself, recognize that it was not founded on anything but himself, and still accept it as legitimate. He had to be, as he puts it in Zarathustra, the judge and avenger of his own law...and not the judge and avenger of God's law--as was the case with all other value creators.

>>8485195
Take this poem I've brought up in all my other AMAs for example. It is called "The Pious One Speaks:"

1st line: God loves us because he created us!
>that is to say, god created us, recognized that we were his creation, and still loved his creation in spite of recognizing it as his own construct.
2nd line: 'Man created God!'--respond the jaded.
>We have realized that god is a creation of human beings, and we have become jaded about that idea. We ceased to believe in god upon realizing that we created it. It is no good, we think. We made it, and what value does anything that man creates? Nothing. In doing this, we reveal something about our criteria for for what we can love.
3rd line: And yet should not love what he created?
4th line: Should even deny it BECAUSE he made it?
5th line: Such cloven logic is limping and baited.
>This is crucial. Nietzsche chastizes modernity for their reaction to the realization that god is a human creation. They despised it. Instead of marveling at what we created as a species, fucking God for fuck's sake, and love our creation--the way that god can love his creations, we tossed it out. What is revealed in this move is that we can only love those ideas, standards, which we believe comes from outside humanity. The realization that a beauty standard, for instance, is just made up by human beings is sufficient on its own to dispose of that standard.
>What we created in god was a power which we ourselves do not possesses. I don't mean the big omnis. I mean the ability to create standards of value, to say that thou shalt, and to accept those standards as legitimate. God, we've imagined, is judge and executioner of his own law. People, however, for some reason cannot be. We must deceive ourselves that our standards are rooted in something outside us, perhaps in fact, or in the constitution and the founding father's intentions (but of course, not without first diefying them and the document they produced), in the realm of the forms, or god himself.
>Nietzsche's move here is historic in it's audacity. Instead of positing a new outside on which to legitimize his evaluative standard, he says ME. It's all from me. I command and legislate. I don't get it from elsewhere but from me, and it is only your hatred of humanity, of me AS A HUMAN BEING, and your love of god (despite claiming to be atheists, that prevents you from considering it legitimate.

>>8485024
>You gotta engage a bit, explain WHY you think that's the case.
Engage with "in a list of hundreds of things, plato spends 2 lines on horses, horses are a bit like cows... Nietzsche!"?

I think work out what learning disability you have first then get that sorted out.

>>8465543
This.

I'm half-normie half-basement dweller and I'm half retarded. I dunno if that's relevant cus I'm half retarded.

>>8485147

Hey dude, these are really interesting posts. I don't know anything about Nietzsche so this is enlightening. Thanks for putting the time into them.

Been looking to get into Nietzsche, what of his works should I start with? I've already read a little Kant and barely any Hume, would his works confuse me if I don't have the background reading done?

Thanks.
Great thread, one of the many reasons why I love /lit/.

>>8485364
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

Ideally you read all the shit listed before Nietzsche, absolute essentials being Plato and Schoppy.

>>8465182
Was Nietzsche anti-Semitic? Everywhere I look I find answers that contradict one another so it'd be nice to hear from someone who's well-read on him.

danger and play is what women are and want [they want play = safe danger] and men want women, but only because women are the ultimate danger and play thing. This is nice, but you can reach a life beyond this.

once you understand that men are not meant to be as good hedonist as women, you first acknowledge the superiority of women at the hedonistic life (which is just called life by men and women) and you see the misery of hedonism, either the direct hedonism of the woman, or the nihilistic fantasy of the delayed hedonism [hedonism of the will] of the man [the one that men advocate for, the one about engaging yourself into challenges after challenges, seeking merit, pursuing your passions, in one word still clinging to entertainment (typically to attract women sooner or later) to better turn away from their impotency at the hedonistic life..] created by men once they get beat by women.

Once you see the game as well as the noneffective masculine life, you lose faith in hedonism. At this point, you either see the solution or not {Nietzsche did not see it, or rather he did not claim explicitly that he saw it]: you strive to do the exact opposite of hedonism (either the masculine one or the feminine one): first you stop being nihilistic, in accepting what you are (it is crucial to be sincere about the starting point], meaning a worm, and in stopping to analyze the past to get a better future (= the strategy of men, which remains inside hedonism (even though they claim that it is not, and in practice is is clearly not), but even more nihilistic than the feminine hedonism, once they are beaten by women] and in stopping to take what you desire, feel and think seriously [=the hedonism of the woman, and the fueling of this hedonism by men].

Women are wrong for having faith in what they desire, in thinking that this is relevant to ones life, then they are wrong to cling to their fantasy of devotion, through children and ''social causes'' (which always have the goal to make ''minorities'' as hedonistic as women are) far more than their lovers, as justification for their means of hedonism.
they are a bit wrong to let men spend their life trying to serve women.

Men are wrong to try to play with women, which is just serving women
men are wrong, after being defeated, to be resentful towards women
men are wrong to think, after being defeated, that the solution is to be even more nihilistic than women in dwelling in hedonism of the will and praising this hedonism

>>8485533

men can be devoted or narcissistic, most men are devoted
men cannot be egotistic
women take the narcissist of higher men as the egotism of women, which attracts women to what men call ''alpha males'' [those alphas males are still devoted towards women]
devoted men cannot imagine the life of narcissistic men
Women can avoid being egotistic if only they are raised properly.
Even after their menopause, after decades of being exhausted by their hedonism and their fake devotion, they continue to linger towards their past and try to get more devoted [plus a touch of exoticism towards asian doctrines where they see what they want to see in them]

The lack of efficacy of the masculine life leads to a narcissism (opposite to men who spend their life devoted to their will, and always fail)), but without egotism (opposite to women who spend their life trying to negate/justify their egotism in being devoted to children), a more equanimous and benevolent stance towards what is desired, felt and thought. At this point, you stop looking at hedonism of the body [=the feminine hedonism], turn towards hedonism of the soul [what religious call it], spirit, consciousness [what buddhists call it] [=the hedonism of the mild ascetic, the hedonism that most men fail to see and the one that women love to think that they embody (women love to think that they are not as egotistic as they are, that they embody a humanist stance)] and then you understand that even this is doomed to be disappointing, so you refuse it until you stop caring about this one too.

>>8481394
lit 7687729 - nietzsche ama 1.zip

https://mega.nz/#!Ih8WzKzK

>>8485447
Nice list. I got tired of Hegel just flipping through his secondary sources.

>>8485577
rather
https://mega.nz/#!Ih8WzKzK!wxqSKOKypwBHBF_G-QAlNGF33StuGWh_7ZaTx9WjPKA

How many times have you accepted offers of "anything goes" sex from your female undergrads after talking about N?

Did you flip the tables or just smash her on top of them?

>>8485046
Why does that guarantee the cost of civilization, though? The only evidence I've seen remotely related to the libido is that Freudian work Sex and Culture by J.D. Unwin; but it still seems a bit mushy to me, as it doesn't necessarily imply causation. I just find it a bit reductive to ignore all of the preceding internal and external factors leading to a civilization's downfall, and proceed to claim it was the libido or just a democratic society.

Could you identify specifically the factors of a decaying civilization for me, as well as provide me some historical evidence to serve as foundation? Alternatively, you could recommend me some reading material.

I'm not saying this just to troll, and I don't even really disagree, but I have to make sure it's all solid, as anti-democratic views are quite controversial and I feel it's important to have a bulwark of information/arguments to anchor oneself with.

>>8465182
Why did he let his moustache grow so big? Surely it would make eating uncomfortable?

>>8485970
it is actually easy, you just part it through the middle and then draw the curtains again and you can still eat with your mouth open and no one can see in.

>>8485970
Apparently, most pictures of him were taken after he went insane. When he was sane, his moustache was normal-sized.

>>8466739
>Woman had one job in the past
Oy fucking vey.

>>8482747
>LEGITIMIZE fat chicks being considered beautiful among other such decadence
Thinking about the important questiona right here.

What's Nietzsches relationship with music? Why doesn't he mention, for example, painting as often as music?

This is a legendary thread. I've learned so much reading it. Thanks to all the posters. Saving this as an HTML file.

>>8485099
>My grandmother told me when I was young that if I wear different kinds of socks, then my spouse would die when I got married. She told me because someone told her when she was young, and I believed her. I'm older now, and if you asked me if I believe that's true, I'd say no, yet I still don't wear different kinds of socks. It's not habit either, because I've had plenty of opportunities to just put something on. No, I'm basically afraid to do it, so I don't do it. Can I therefore be said to believe even though i say I do not? my answer, derived from what I just stipulated above, is yes. I believe and I carry that belief with me.
This is from Games People Play

>>8467364
He was a philologist first and a psychologist second and somewhere in there he was a philosopher too

>>8485595
Thanks. Do you have any of the others?

>>8486249
He composed. I don't think that he painted.

>>8486249
He just really liked music which is part of why Schopenhauer was so appealing to him at first, Tristan was his favorite which is why he hooked up with Wagner's circle. He composed some stuff and Wagner laughed at it which was probably the last straw for their relationship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DxMc2fQgO4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_xIvlUYyPc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBO1B3Wf4mk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3khPVc4DaA&index=3&list=RDrBO1B3Wf4mk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1_2PJCA6FQ&list=RDrBO1B3Wf4mk&index=11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4dz1tXZfcY

His compositions survive (might have duplicated some in the links). It's not horrible like Wagner made it out to be but nothing spectacular. I find Zigeunertanz pretty fun to play in particular.

>>8482877
As a professor of philosophy as well, I agree with this post. I was the one who commented "dropped."

For those of you interested in Nietzsche, don't take these interpretations and comments as definitive. They're fairly shallow and don't hit upon the contemporary literature and interpretations. Read the Nietzscheans. Especially the French. And see how they try to combat against Heidegger. See where Heidegger's interpretations falter or perhaps succeed. Keep in mind that H's analysis is metaphysical, and see how some of the French (Kofman) try to push back on this as well. Or see how some (Deleuze) take up H's project of ontology and keep in Nietzschean.

OP is giving readings of Nietzsche that are undergraduate. Not to be a jerk about it. They're fine for that level. But there's a lot more going on here. The Cambridge editions have introductions that are pretty good at pointing you in the right direction of the major discussions.

>>8488653
>OP is giving readings of Nietzsche that are undergraduate.
You really think so? The guy missed the whole fairly overt references to indo-european creation myths in TSZ to shoe horn in some other tenuous points.

>>8488653
>>8488738
Give me some examples. If you don't want to bother pointing to any portion of text to refute what I've said, then maybe write a quick interpretation of eternal return or the problem of socrates or will to power or any Nietzschean thing.

Give me anything at all to suggest you know as much about Nietzsche as you claim to know.

>>8488767
I usually post quite freely about Nietzsche, but you make my skin crawl and I suspect you're doing something like a MPhil or PhD. I don't want to give my work product so your creepy ass can get a qualification.

I've also been quite clear in my criticisms, but you're asking to really spell shit out.

>>8488786
>I've also been quite clear in my criticisms, but you're asking to really spell shit out.
Your criticism has been that you're a professor and I'm not. I'm not asking you to spell anything out, just at the very least point to some piece of text that I'd have to contend with. Give me some substance.

Put yourself in my shoes for a second. How can I respond to you? You've said my interpretation is shallow. What do I do with that? You've said I don't hit upon contemporary literature, but why measure my posts against a standard i didn't try to live up to. Like I said before, this is stream of conscience posting, a distraction, an ultimately an experiment. It's not a journal article. My posts are not well researched and i don't mention conteporary literature--what kind of criticism of a 4chan post is that? I don't take into account every allusion to prometheus, zagreus, trophonius, moses, jesus and budhha--undergrad! I say H and Derrida are too academic and give my reasons--dropped!

Another douche said I've missed overt references to creation myths, but when did I offer what I considered a comprehensive interpretation of TSZ and leave that shit out?

I'm baffled by your responses. You're either bluffing, lazy, or successfully trolling me. In any case, I'm losing patience.

>>8482791
Any other examples of mass media fiction faithful to N? or at least provide a decent perspective on him? I keep hearing that Nolan's Batman Trilogy is.

>>8488809
>Your criticism has been that you're a professor and I'm not.
While I'm glad we've got that out of the way Mr "I've been teaching for 6 years", I'm not either of the prof dudes.

>>8489436
When did I claim to be a professor you wet noodle. I'm a grad student, yet I've taught 25 college classes--not counting TA shit--some even 4000 level, over the last 6 years... national average for PhD is 7 years btw.

>>8465182
What do you think of stoicism and what philosophy of life makes you the most happy?

>>8465182
So, was N an anti-Semite?

>>8485491
No. He wasn't. He was critical of the Judaeo religion but he didn't hold Jews to be inferior

>>8466739
probably because they weren't educated or encouraged to learn??? what if a woman came up with something, how to the hell is she supposed to record that information and let it develop over the years like men in universities did?

Is morality arbitrary? If so, is it still necessary that we all have one common set of ideas as to what's good and what isn't so that a society can function? Units of measurement are arbitrary, and yet we still need them. Also, what would the perfect morality, as created by ubermenschen, be like?

>>8465182
Did Nietzsche hold any views that could be considered traditionalist? If so, what were they? More specifically, in what aspects were they traditionalist.

>>8491422
>Is morality arbitrary?
Yes
>If so, is it still necessary that we all have one common set of ideas as to what's good and what isn't so that a society can function?
No
>Also, what would the perfect morality, as created by ubermenschen, be like?
Depends

>>8491502
>>If so, is it still necessary that we all have one common set of ideas as to what's good and what isn't so that a society can function?
>No
Why not?

>>8491516
Since there's no single "correct" set of ideas, different sets can coexist. Think of it as taste in literature: different authors liking different things, having different styles, different views, that's what makes literature interesting. Proclaming one set of ideas as "the Truth" is not only false, but it tries to prevent change. Only set of values can't be "of good taste" for all eras, all people and all circumstances.

>>8491529
Even if those coexisting sets of ideas give rise to conflict between different groups? Won't one set of ideas always become dominant, whether by pen or by sword?

>>8491537
That's the price of change.

>>8491550
So it's that chaos that helps our society thrive?

>>8481732
I'd do anything for a philosophical mentor, like those that existed in the Ancient Greek era, who personally discussed and taught me philosophy. It'd be so much better than the current system of lecturers standing at the front of halls.

I think you like how personal the questions you're being asked are. You're not giving answers because it's written in your lecture plan, or because we need to pass exams, you're giving the answers because they truly mean something to us.

>>8491537
Conflict being bad is the common western ideology rearing it's ugly head. If morality is arbitrary, you can't simply argue that conflict is bad.

>>8490606
pt. 1
I think Stoicism, like Kierkegaard, is decontextualized. It was a conservative movement on the tail end of a great empire. An attempt at preserving dying values. They saw that what was leading their youths astray was their emotions, so they took Socrates up on his suggestion of making reason tyrant in an effort to combat change. Reasons for the stoics is not what reason is for Nietzsche. Reason for them, and for Plato and Socrates is essentially what the muses used to be. It is a divine instrument by means of which one can attain the truth.

What truth?

Truth about things unknown, unseen, the fundamental nature of things, the invisible, the afterlife, the future, ultimately truth about good and evil. Why did the ancients need the muses? Because they were pessimists about the power of reason to reveal to them any such things. The past was lost, and the future was unforeseeable given what they could SEE with their senses. So the only access to this kind of knowledge was, they thought, through revelation. The muses spoke THROUGH a poet, and the poets were no less than prophets. By relying on those who were inspired (literally those possessed by a god), you could be guaranteed access to things unseen from the moment, the invisible. Truth to them was alethia, literally the uncovering, the revealed, what's made visible.

With Socrates and Plato faith in the gods and the muses and in revelation perished, and a new faith was established. A faith in reason. But reason was transformed into a new capacity. It was no longer what the ancients thought of it--on the basis of which they considered it useless for knowledge. Reason was transformed into a divine capacity. It came to be that which was capable of providing truth, what is invisible to the senses.

If you just hopped onto the reason tesla car, and let it drive you to it's default destination, and don't touch the steering wheel with your emotions, instincts, inclinations, etc., then you'd be guaranteed truth. What truth? Well, for the stoics, that was the truth of the old values. They seriously thought that barring emotions from the truth faculty would tell you that you must behave as a good athenian once used to behave.

>>8465182
As I understand it master morality is a fundamentally life affirming value system, but Nietzsche believed we could not (should not?) return to it because we had grown too self aware. But he did believe that we should seek to be life-affirming, right? The whole idea of ER seems aimed at this goal.

What do you think that a life-affirming value system/morality would look like in the modern world? And how would it differ from traditional master morality.

Thanks for everything, I appreciate it.

>>8491674
pt. 2
You can't be a stoic nowadays. You can't possibly believe
1. that the body--by which i mean inclination, instinct, emotion, feeling, etc.,--corrupts reason.
2. that pure reason--pure from the body--automatically leads to the truth.
3. that the truth pure reason leads to is the truth that athenian good and evil were true...as well as the understanding of the natural world which they concocted in order to justify THAT good and evil and not another.

To be stoic as you probably understand it is closer to being Buddhist...eliminating desire or somesuch, because you think it's the primary and sole cause of suffering.

if you're wondering what I meant with the kierkegaard comment, it's that existentialists think you can still have the three major spheres of existence without believing in God...that you can tweak it for a secular world. and maybe you can, but i don't see much of Kierkegaard left if you do.

>>8490630
I don't think so. I sometimes think he was writing for the jews, and that he thought it was only among them that anything great could come.

Off the top of my head, reasons for thinking he is not:
>he didn't go to his own sisters wedding because she was marrying an antisemite
>he said over and over that he was not. in fact was afraid of being called one.
>after his insanity in the early days of january 1889, he wrote a letter in which he said that he was having all antisemites shot
>of the four great peoples that he mentions in tsz (persians, greeks, romans and jews), only the jews are left. There are no more peoples except for them, and it's pretty clear that nietzsche hated the state and wanted a world with peoples...because if you have a peoples, you have the possibilty of a charismatic philosophical leader capable of transforming them according to his will. IMO nietzsche considered the world like a garden, and he wanted all sorts of plants (diff. cultures, peoples) to thrive an contest with one another in it.

reason to think he was an antisemite:
>he considers the jews the slaves which revolted, gave birth to christianity, and corrupted the course of european history. I could go into the intricacies of genealogy of morals and antichrist where this point is made to show that this isn't much of a nietzschean insult or bad thing, since it signifies strength, but you'll just have to trust me.

>>8491682
I'll give you a broad brush stroke version of an answer:

He says in GM that we should not waste the labor performed by morality on the human clay. It's been invaluable for literally expanding conscience, our inner life, that mind's eye Hamlet refers to, from the "thin membrane" that it used to be. The masters and people used to be very simple, instinctual beings. It was until the slaves, wanting to discharge their natural instinct for cruelty (but being unable to, because they were physically weak) turned inwards and worked out their inner life, their mind's eye to such a capacity that they could IMAGINE inflicting suffering, that consciousness grew...and here we are.

The slave wanted the master to suffer, but he couldn't make him suffer, so he essentially hypertrophied his consciousness into being capable of simulating cruelty...just so he could feel better. Here you have the invention of hell, as well. The slave invented a place, far off into the distance beyond what he could see, where the masters suffer for what they did to him, and in so doing he breathed a sigh of relief.

Then the masters lost to these clever slave beasts. The masters were strong, but the slaves became clever. And by winning, they also interbred with masters. N says there is no such thing as a pure master anymore. Yet, as previously stated, N doesn't see this as a bad thing, because we attained consciousness...and conscience, but i didn't get into that. Useful stuff. Bad conscience, guilt in other words, was utilized to turn the peoples' attention towards the beyond, other-worldly. By means of guilt, self-flagellation, inner pain, the people were taught not to value (not to consider good) anything from this world, the body, sex, cleanliness, and all manner of things that makes THIS world worth-while.

So we have guilt now. Thanks slaves. What does N want to do with it? Toss it out? No, because that means he wasn't strong enough to incorporate it into his future plans. He instead wants to use it, but simply redirect it. Whereas the slaves used bad conscience to turn people towards god, N wants to use it to turn people towards the earth. He says he wants to tether bad conscience to thoughts of beyond. He wants people to feel guilty when their instincts, their "reason," tells them to rely or hope for salvation beyond. Guilt for disparaging the body...it's a useful tool for cultivating human beings who love the earth, just as it was a useful tool for cultivating people who hated it and loved god.

>>8491422
>Is morality arbitrary?
No. There is an explicit statement that gives Power primacy within the moral framework in Antichrist.

>>8491746
Oh interesting! It never would have occurred to me that Nietzsche would look positively at self flagellation. Like of you're living your life forever why would you choose to experience guilt? But if the project is to shape people towards a specific type then I can see how a proverbial stick would be useful in addition the the natural carrots.

Who is the new Nietzsche? Which philosopher continues the same project of becoming better, soaring higher, affirming life and being true to oneself?

>>8491746
Thank you, this is an unusually good explanation.

>>8492916

The trouble is that the 20th century has yet to produce a single philosopher of worth.

For now, Nietzsche is the end of the line.

>>8493053
>the 20th century has yet to produce a single philosopher of worth.
I think if the 20th century has yet to produce one it probably won't. Considering it ended nearly seventeen years ago and all that

Can we make a correlation between mearsheimer's political theory about hegemony and the state's priority to survive and do it through power and dominance AND nietzsche's will to power and general overman's views? A sort of political execution of nietzche's (insert correct terminology) views/theories?

>>8493053
you clearly have no clue what you're talking about

>>8493149

List me some worthwhile philosophers after 1900.

Jean Baudrillard is the only philosopher of note in the 20th century. In the 21st, Alex Kierkegaard.

546. Why do subhumans believe that claiming that someone is powerful is an insult? Because hatred of power — which is to say reaction to it — is the very essence of the existence of subhumans. The finger-pointing followed by the damning cry of "Power!" is their call to arms: the rallying cry that gathers together all the subhumans, like the cry of "Brains!" does to zombies in zombie apocalypse movies, and sets them loose on the destruction of whatever strong, healthy and proud human or group of humans has lately enraged them and provoked their fury. In our times, this may be the rich (the "capitalists"), the beautiful, the intelligent, the Americans or the Jews: any human group whatever that has turned out well, that has managed to distinguish itself and achieve something. And that is how, through their near-automatic, almost-instinctive opposition, the subhumans make it harder for those successful groups of people to become even more successful. Subhumans, in other words, as far as our planet is concerned, are the sentient component of ressentiment/reaction/reversibility, or whatever other name you want to call the built-in, automatic difficulty-adjustment mechanism of the universe; of the "videogame" known as "Life".

http://orgyofthewill.net/

56. Linguistic optics: the time for it has come. The idea is basically that no one (and nothing) is "wrong"; they can't be wrong because they are part of the universe, and whatever is in their brains — in the brains of even the stupidest person — is as "correct" as what's in my mind or Nietzsche's or Baudrillard's. What we need then is an art of interpretation so subtle and powerful that it can bring out the "truth" that's hiding inside even the dumbest person's brains.
For example, when a Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", he is not wrong. It's just that the concepts he designates with the words "God", "universe" and "love" are different from the concepts someone smart and educated, like me for instance, designates. For me the word "God", going by the Christian's definition of omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc., is an empty word, a non-concept, since the predicates the Christian attaches to it are incommensurate with each other. But when the Christian says "God", he doesn't really mean an "omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being" (since he's so dumb he can't even grasp what these concepts mean, and hence uses them in ape-like and parrot-like fashion); he simply means "a very powerful being". Similarly, when he says "universe" he doesn't mean what I mean by "universe" (i.e. "everything"), he simply means "the earth" — or at most, if he's had a whiff of astronomy, perhaps "the solar system". And finally, when he says "love" he doesn't mean what I mean by "love" (i.e. a desire for possession, in order to shape the thing possessed), but the exact opposite, i.e. "help me" (= shape me).
So basically, when the Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", what he's really saying, translated in our language, is "A very powerful being created the earth (or the solar system), and he wants to help me" — which could very well be true!
All of this stems from Nietzsche's positive theory of language, which basically says that a word means WHAT THE SPEAKER WANTS IT TO MEAN, and has no necessary connection to any pre-existing convention between speaker and listener. Ultimately, each person gives his own meaning to every word, which is only natural since this meaning is to be found inside each person's brain, and all brains are different.

>>8491567
you would have to give up that boipussy to get the best info.

I need to stay awake all day even though I have only had 3 hours of sleep. Though I don't have motivation. I feel like I might end up lying in bed all day.

What would Nietzsche do

>>8493423

Nietzsche survived on about that much sleep.

Most of his nights were agony, either due to migraines or throwing up.

>>8493423
What would you be comfortable doing for the rest of eternity, again and again? :^)

>>8493340
>All of this stems from Nietzsche's positive theory of language, which basically says that a word means WHAT THE SPEAKER WANTS IT TO MEAN, and has no necessary connection to any pre-existing convention between speaker and listener. Ultimately, each person gives his own meaning to every word, which is only natural since this meaning is to be found inside each person's brain, and all brains are different.

BGE 268
What, in the end, is common?
Words are acoustical signs for concepts; concepts, however, are more or less definite image signs for often recurring and associated sensations, for groups of sensations. To understand one another, it is not enough that one use the same words; one also has to use the same words for the same species of inner experiences; in the end one has to have one's experience in common.

Therefore the human beings of one people understand one another better than those belonging to different peoples even if they employ the same language; or rather when human beings have long lived together under similar conditions (of climate, soil, danger, needs, and work), what results from this is people who "understand one another"-a people. In all souls an equal number of often recurring experiences has come to be predominant over experiences that come more rarely: on the basis of the former one understands the other, quickly and ever more quickly-the history of language is the history of a process of abbreviation-and on the basis of such quick understanding one associates, ever more closely.

What is wrong with pity? Nietzsche was strongly against it, but why?

>>8493112
This is interesting. I think the problem you have is that M's power is not N's power. However you can look at some of the structural elements of each theory and make some worthwhile comparisons I think. So probs ultimately incompatible but not necessarily fruitless.

File: Pity.png (145KB, 692x535px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 692x535px

>>8493893
He can't be clearer than this

File: Pity2.png (243KB, 697x796px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 697x796px

>>8494207

>>8482759
>It said in a couple of pages what it took Camus an entire book to say.
Oh dear, it certainly does not my man.

There are 3 or 4 variations of that fable. My favourite is the old master and the cake.

>>8481732
>who the fuck says "thank you" on 4chan?


i think you don't go on the right boards or threads pal

>>8494207
>>8494217
So is he referring to pity only in the religious sense? As in someone feeling pity for someone solely based on the teachings of Christianity.

What about basic empathy? Does pity and empathy differ? He explained some negative aspects of pity, but to do away with it completely seems obsequious.

>>8494500
>So is he referring to pity only in the religious sense? As in someone feeling pity for someone solely based on the teachings of Christianity.
Nothing points to that conclusion. However, Christianity was the main champion and source of pity in Nietzsche's environment.

>Does pity and empathy differ?
Yes. I couldn't tell you exactly what Nietzsche thought, but I would say that pity is really Mitleid, feeling miserable for another, while empathy is the capacity to understand what another is feeling.

>>8494195
What's N's power, in few words?

>>8494522
>Nothing points to that conclusion.
In the second picture he says nothing is less healthy than Christian pity—that's what made me think that way

>>8494548
Running towards life in experiential terms and exercising your will on it. It's like you become a person by making your own decisions and embracing the results.

>>8494608
You I like, good point.

>>8494608
He starts by saying that Christianity is based on pity, then goes on talking about pity itself. Read the section without the first sentence and what he says still feels whole.

It seems, rather, that the promotion of pity is one big problem with Christianity, precisely because pity itself is unhealthy. It is hostile to life, Nietzsche says, which is naturally why Christianity promotes it and names it a virtue.

>>8494907
>Read the section without the first sentence and what he says still feels whole.
So take out the bits you disagree with and if it's still readable it's all good.

>>8494217
Does he actually present an argument for why we should listen to him beside
>you gotta be strong because otherwise you don't live
>you gotta live because otherwise you're not strong

>>8495507
He doesn't care if you listen to him. He only says that those like you will become subject to the strong.

File: Saint Michael the Archangel.jpg (276KB, 1069x1600px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1069x1600px

Is Nietzsche fundamentally an atheist and a materialist, or is there room in his philosophy for the mystical, the metaphysical, and the supernatural?

File: port_merion_atlas.jpg (2MB, 1692x2552px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1692x2552px

>>8495523
If those "like me" survive by becoming subject to the strong, then how are "we" against life? To try to beat things that are obviously beyond your capability, as pretty as it sounds, is tremendously stupid and self-destructive. Who wants an empire that they can't enjoy? By their "strength" the strong are used by everyone: their peers, their culture, their epoch.

Beethoven had no peers. He ended up deaf. Now it is we that listen to his songs, it is we that pass them on because we enjoy them, because we don't mind being taken by them. Are we the slaves? Or is his name just a convenient quality seal?
Napoleon crowned himself. Hundreds of men would die for him. He was not defeated by an army, true, but his humiliation was even bigger: he was defeated by the Russians allowing him to march on their land, by the destruction of their wealth by their own hands--nobody benefitted, nobody won anything. What is more pitiful than that?
On mass extinctions it is always the bigger animals that die first--it wasn't the dinosaurs, but the little mammals that inheritted the earth. Nowadays rats and cockroaches still resist being eliminated. To even try to do too much is a waste of energy for destined for oh so greater things--those which are still vulnerable to the even smaller diseases that clung to pests.

How is a strong man above anyone? How are they not exploited by the weaker which then reap the benefits, even the fame in the form of the nation? How are they not actually under the whole world?

>>8495642
I don't know f a m, I haven't read Nietzsche. I just told you something basic you should've figures out yourself.

File: Shrug.jpg (46KB, 377x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 377x500px

>>8495652
If your comment was so worthless then you should've kept it to yourself.

>>8481732
professor this almost made me Crai

>>8481732
thank you professor. we love u

>>8495507
What is manifest. - Oh dear, oh dear! What has to be demonstrated most clearly and with the most obstinate persistence is what is manifest. For all too many lack the eyes to see it. But demonstration is so boring!

N doesn't want to try to convince you. He thinks that if you're at his level, you will have to agree with him.

File: if only.jpg (74KB, 800x792px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 800x792px

The Greeks->Copernicus->Nietzsche->Heidegger->Zizek->Sloterdijk

T/F?

File: 1.png (87KB, 724x732px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 724x732px

>>8495507

File: 2.png (164KB, 878x764px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 878x764px

>>8495507
pt. 2

Was Nietzsche a relativist?

"There are no facts, only interpretations" should tell you where Nietzsche stands on that matter.

>>8497240
>>8497243
This is a bad joke right?

>>8497830
Welcome to Nietzsche's philosophy.

>>8497857
I mean Nietzsche's philosophy is there but then someone put like a dadaist piece of crap next to it that seems unrelated.

Is OP schizo I wonder?

Have you read any of Icycalm's stuff? I learned about Heraclitus, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Baudrillard from his reading lists.

>>8493334
>http://orgyofthewill.net/
That's a perfect example of what I would jubilate of writing, which I have come to associate with the immature euphoria of "being enlightened" by my own youth, while just vomitting pseudo-intellectual "reflections".

Is he full of shit and just masturbating with Nietzsche's thoughts or is he actually adding something to them? I can ignore the meme-speak, but it doesn't seem to be a good sign.

>>8498596
>Reggae is the most disgusting kind of music there is, more disgusting even than the most miserable, most depressing kind of peasant and folk music. And a look at the smelly rastafarian bastards will reveal the reason why. Ugly, lazy, shitty music for ugly, lazy, stupid people. "Don't worry, be happy." Keep telling that to yourself, dude!

Nevermind, I would never write such worthless and cringy pseudophilosophy filled with name dropping. He truly is euphoric.

>>8485195
I open the thread. I see the same autistic Breitbart shill talking about biological imperative for an over 8 paragraph argument. I close the thread. Wondering why I thought the thread would be any different

File: 1416519900073.gif (262KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 300x300px

>>8497240
>>8497243
You coulda just said no. This guy is a philosopher for the frustrated.

Im planning on doing my dissertation on N.

What should I write about? I obviously have a few idea's but would like suggestions.

>>8499151
what did that sword even do?

>>8499151

Do you always out yourself as a retard this readily?

>>8499747
What are your ideas first.

Be aware that snippets posted to 4chan can come up in those plagiarism detection programs

>>8499766
Bonjourno neuvo friendo.

>>8490872
I think he did join in with some of Wagner's rants early on, but that exposure + people like his sister's husband put him off.

>>8499836
Non. It was Wagner's rants that really killed the relationship. When they met up in Sorrento Wagner was very rude to Paul Ree

>>8499850

Absolutely false. Everyone in Nietzsche's circle was antisemitic, and he himself was by 19th and 21th century standards antisemitic (Rohde, Gersdorff etc.). He despised particularly the "Ostjuden" who would come each year to Leipzig and stink up the place with their smoked fish etc. (look up his letters in the period from 1865; he variously describes "Jew faces", hooknoses, bars in Leipzig he avoided because they were full of Jews, everything that we consider to be racial stereotypes N felt to be true - the Ostjuden he also describes in Twilight of the Idols as the biggest threat should they not assimilate in Europe.) And all of his antisemitism was already part of his mind before he even met Wagner. An interesting part of The Case Wagner descibes whether Wagner might not even be German but a Jew, which was a real fear Wagner had. So Nietzsche is saying in a defamatory way that Wagner might be a Jew, as if that's something terrible. Regarding Ree: Wagner was NOT rude to Ree, because Nietzsche himself only found out way after they'd first met that Ree was a Jew, a very assimilated one at that, which was the reason Nietzsche's circle liked him: because he was so unlike a Jew.
Nietzsche even taunted his sister with antisemitic observations (letters in 79ff), and if you look at his family, particularly his mother, they'd never had any bad feelings toward Jews (why? because all the Jews they knew were assimilated or had rejected it altogether).
If you want to see Nietzsche's thoughts on Jews and the banking system see KSA 13, p. 369.

>>8499918
Your whole argument is he did like Jews but No True Jewsman because really they were German ;^). A friendly reminder that Nietzsche said the most worthy thing about the heritage of the German people was that they were mostly descended from Poles. Also a friendly reminder thay Sorrento is in Italy you dipstick and that a vast number of the people there with N and Von Meysenbug were Jewish and/or Russian.

And when you reincarnate in 150 years you'll be saying the same shit about Zizek "oh he said something unPC he was such a racist, and also did you know he looked at child porn" and just generally missing context and such.

>>8499766
Only when it will make you angry.

>>8481732

I really appreciate you taking the time to write these posts. I wish you would collect them all and archive them on a blog or something.

Could you explain the three transfigurations he speaks of in TSZ? Thanks for the thread overall.

>>8500789
Methamorphoses*

>>8500789
There are some points you've likely already gotten:
That the camel is a humble moral fag that tries to do great things for others

That the lion starts making his own morality, but this is really to attack the dragon (contrarian faggot) and so is not a defacto new morality

That the child is like the lion, but whereas the lion can only say "no" the child is able to embrace things and say "yes!". This by far is the most open to interpretation out of the stages.

There's also the whole going into the desert: it's a lonely road to go down.

Some think the child is the ubermensch, but really I think this is all about amor fati. Nietzsche describes his troubles with the yes saying aspect of amor fati in his notes a few times.

Some other points on camel: acorns and grass may well be a reference to hunter gatherer type pre-societies. If you read enlightenment thinkers like Locke you'll sometimes see it as this. So the camel doesn't take from society, it subsists off its own and off what's just lying around naturally. The frogs and toads probably to Aristophanes The Frogs where they mock Dionysus. And N's nickname for his sister was Llama which was often described as a sort of small camel. She however made up some shit about how if they're badly treated they refuse nourishment and die in the road (I.e. they're a kind of moral animal that cannot just be bent to your will). The book they read together as kids was Schoedler's Buch der Natur and actually it describes them as spitting in defense, often with food. That said Schoedler does say that the camel doesn't respond to negative action (you can't hit it to make it get up and go) but has to be coaxed with talking and music. Make of that what you will!

I honestly can't help thinking of Locke and Hobbes with the lion in the desert with the dragon (obv Leviathan, obv rising up against a tyrant).

The child seems to be only the beginning too. We finally get to a holy yea.

Have you ever tried sucking your own dick only to feel ashamed afterwards?

>>8501387
You do not feel ashamed if you learn to love fate. No regrets!

>>8500789
The camel is characterized by reverence to traditional values. Like Buddha before he turned 30, he lives and abides by them, he investigates and understands the world by means of them. He also, most importantly, attempts to "redeem" suffering of life with them. There comes a point, however, when these values no longer serve to make life worth living, the world explainable, no longer redeem suffering.
>to redeem suffering means to contextualize it; to understand it in light of some context that makes you be ok with it. For instance, if you contextualize your daily grind and suffering as the means by which you can get wealthy, or to support your kids, that suffering is redeemed, tolerated...not seen as an objection to life.]

Like the buddha who took to his desert, far from the community where he received his values--the ones which he cannot longer accept because they don't redeem suffering--the camel goes into the desert and is transformed into the lion. THe lion is a no-saying spirit. He purges himself of those values which were inclulcated in him. THe desert is painful. Being a lion is painful. All you have is freedom FROM, but no new means, no new values, with which to measure the worth of living, with which to redeem your suffering, understand the world. It is passive nihilism.

In order to see the world anew, in order to redeem suffering anew, you need new values...and in order to do that, the lion must slay the dragon who says "thou shalt." This is a confusion part, but nietzsche explains the dragon in BGE 199 in terms of the "formal conscience," which also says "thou shalt"...thou shalt accept only those values which come from outside you, beyond you, only those values you get from god, from tradition, those values inherent in the world itself (objective values). THIS "dragon"--his formal conscience which stipulates the conditions under which he can accept a value as legitimate--is what stands in the way of the free spirit CREATING new values with which to redeem suffering (among the other things I've said values do.

Once this dragon is slayed, the lion wins freedom for himself to accept a new standard with which to accept values. He can accept his OWN values as legitimate. The ones he creates. See my post here to illustrate this point. >>8485223

>>8501455
the lion becomes the child the moment he is no longer restricted by his "formal conscience" which makes him accept only those values that come from outside as legitimate.

Once he's free from that restriction, he can accept his own, and becomes the child. As child, he can create new values. The lion has FREEDOM FROM, the child has both freedom from and FREEDOM TO...create values.

With new values, the child can understand the world in a new way, he can evaluate his life and life in general anew, he can find a new way to redeem his suffering and suffering in general.

He is a "self-propelled wheel" in the sense that his values are self-created. A spirit who does not create their own values; one that thinks it receives them from a beyond is "propelled" by a beyond, not by himself. Such a spirit is still bound by the "formal conscience." They still accept as true the great dragon's [serpent--the same serpent zarathustra that chokes the shepherd/zarathustra, and prevents him from speaking his word, creating new values] claim that the values of all things rests on him, and THUS cannot be created. Only those values found on the great dragon's scales are valid.

The lion can defeat the dragon because he has devalued the dragon's values (old values) during his time in the desert, the wilderness, the mountain, solitude. These values did not bring the lion any comfort. He, like the Buddha after witnessing suffering and death and disease for the first time in his life, cannot reconcile suffering with the already existing values. He no longer has a...taste for them.

>>8501492
Think of it this way:
Camel - drinks and enjoys/reveres the old coolaid
Lion - can no longer stand the taste; throws up the coolaid, but can't make new coolaid...ends up miserable because he's starving. thinks he can only buy coolaid; must learn that he can drink his own.
Child - makes his own coolaid, pours and drinks himself a cup...pours a lot onto his own cup, the cup overflows and he fills up other people's cups with his own coolaid.

>>8495642
You don't seem to be making a distinction between living and surviving. I think Nietzsche generally referred to the former, not the latter. Existing longer than anyone else means nothing if that existence is wasted.

>>8499795
Id quite like to explore the supposed incident with the Turin horse, work from Nietzsche's self ascribed parallels between him and Christ. (signing 'The Crucified' within the madness letters). Along with general parallels and contrasts between TSZ and and Christian theology.

>>8501952
Then it should be the metamorphoses ofsoul and Dionysus turning into a Titan right? You can easily draw parallels between the horseand the camel, and Dionysus is the true christ figure for Neech etc etc. Be wary of only drawing from TSZ but it's usually straightforward to findout where a particular idea pops up again in his other works.

I don't get the will to power ( or any other "will to" from other philosophers)

Like explain that shit. If I am hungry and go to a store and buy something is that "the will to power" because buying stuff keeps me alive? Is eating "will to power" ? what about working to get money ?

Is the will to power the will to exist ( and anything that comes from that) ? I don't get it.

>>8485491
No, he explicitly attacks anti-Semites in the Genealogy

File: caesar.jpg (167KB, 1650x900px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1650x900px

>>8501795
That dichotomy is always the refuge of the dispossessed and the superficial: "Oh, you haven't shot heroine down your urethra? You don't know what it means to live, dude!"

This idea that life is something that could possibly be outside oneself is not only poisonous, it is completely illogical, spoused by people who think they can cast definite judgement on something that is not over, that they can distance themselves from something that is inherent to their being, that can do anything but imply the absolute while being partial, who cry for freedom while not seeing how throughly conditioned they are. Just look at Nietzsche: talking of super-humans who are completely defined by their place in the human realm, abhorring pity and talking of the bodily when he himself is a wretch, talking of how creating new values is what defined great men of the past, screaming as loud as he can supposedly for no ears.

To think anything that happens *in* life could go *against* life is mistaken to the point it forgets death isn't life's antonym, but birth's; that death is what feeds life. What is more life-denying than not accepting other ways are possible? Who is there that being a single being can cast judgement on every being? What is more subservient than to call for the rise of great tyrants, that should be the stubborn model of all life? And how can one talk seriously about wasting life, knowing all victories are nothing but a man-made game?

I'm overreacting, yes. I have no intention of going forever, however; not only is that impossible, it would be tiring and needless. I will move on with my life after being done writing this, rather than rejoice that it will repeat forever. I only have and want what is mine. I have no pretensions of knowing or getting anything but. I trust the world is large enough already to entertain me for a life, if allowed to.

>>8502698
>This idea that life is something that could possibly be outside oneself
I'm not really sure where you're getting this. I didn't say anything of the like and Nietzsche certainly never said anything of the like in what I've read of him. If anything, you whole idea of life outside itself is pretty much the opposite of what Nietzsche wrote about.

>Just look at Nietzsche: talking of super-humans who are completely defined by their place in the human realm, abhorring pity and talking of the bodily when he himself is a wretch, talking of how creating new values is what defined great men of the past, screaming as loud as he can supposedly for no ears.
Nietzsche was pretty straightforward with the fact that he did not consider himself by any means to be the overman he wrote about.

>To think anything that happens *in* life could go *against* life is mistaken to the point it forgets death isn't life's antonym, but birth's; that death is what feeds life.
Okay? I don't recall Nietzsche ever claiming that death is the opposite of life, and I don't really see what that has to do with being life affirming or denying, because it has nothing to do with death. You seem to have this idea in your head that Nietzsche was advocating for people to live as long as possible because he thought that was life affirming, but that's not the case at all.

>What is more life-denying than not accepting other ways are possible?
Have you ever read anything written by Nietzsche? His entire schtick was that we need other systems of morality and ethics, lest we become the Last Men.

>Who is there that being a single being can cast judgement on every being?
Every being casts judgement on every being, this is a fact of life. I'm judging you, you're judging me, we're all judging each other whether it's conscious or not. Nietzsche wasn't concerned with who judged who, he was concerned with what ethical system you judged people against.

>What is more subservient than to call for the rise of great tyrants, that should be the stubborn model of all life?
As opposed to what? A society can't stand if every single person has a different ethical code. If I think rape is morally acceptable, and my neighbor thinks arson is morally acceptable, and Bill down the street thinks cannibalism is morally acceptable, ect, society would collapse. And this is all assuming that every single person has the mental capacity and maturity to think up their own independent ethical system. Abraham died 4000 years ago and we've put a man on the Moon, yet most of the world is still worshiping his god, what does that tell you about people?

>>8502698
>>8502958
Continued


>And how can one talk seriously about wasting life, knowing all victories are nothing but a man-made game?
I don't even understand the point of this question. You're just rehashing the stale leftist mantra 'but it's just a social construct'. No shit, that's the entire point. Society is itself a social construct built out of many smaller social constructs. It's all just man-made bullshit, what's your point?

I feel bad for you that you only want what is yours, that's unimaginative. Unless of course you're a disciple of Stirner, in which case that's it's own insult.

>>8502698
Nietzsche never claimed to be a superman.

Determined principles affirm life. When people speak of the "greats", the act of recognition is a determination and therefore finite; and since every particular corresponds to a non-particular, speaking of a finite establishes a determination which corresponds to an indefinite; the indefinite are the roaches, the rats, the little mammals, etc. -- which is effectively the meek. By their very nature they have not affirmed their existence. The greats *affirmed* life. Determined principles which integrate the self into life are what define the Will to Power; the great orients to principles, the people orient to the great, and the culture orients to the principles-- why? Culture is a direct expression of the consciousness of a given people, and because the people, failing to affirm their own life, inherit.

You are correct that integration on the "lateral" plane, for lack of a better word, is logically void, as one cannot integrate the self more than one is within the immediate profane sense; but truly living and becoming who one is subsists in a higher, transcendent experience of life.

To the 'stubborn' model of tyrants: Despotism of so called man-made principles is chimerical. There is no sacred authority distributing justice to those who defy whatever law by engaging in a behavior a given society prohibits at the time. But if you *are* seeking normative claims why one ought to correspond to principles that integrate the self, consider the fact you live in a civilization that corresponds to principles finding their origins in the greats. This should make clear some principles subsist as a perennial force, echoes of a past superman that maintain order even now. Failing to lend recognition, or even denying such actualities, does not diminish their influence, it just means you're one of the meek, abdicating oneself from the duty of integrating yourself - or you haven't fulfilled your role yet. The former not being wrong in the sense of ethical delimitation, as reconciling one's nature is still more noble than living blindly, even if it is of a lower region.

cool thread

thanks !

>>8502059
Think about the alleged first man Adam. Everything he does on his own, all the consequences are his alone. Whose else could they be? That little separation and relationship between action and effect is where Will comes in. Nearly every enlightenment thinker talks about this to some degree, often in terms of whether we (should) all have one or not. You could say it's like a premeditated act or a planned course of action, the the gist is if you do something and other things happen, you caused it all to happen.

Later on as we begin to go towards romanticism more we have guys like Schopenhauer taking the Will not only for granted but as a force that underlies everything inasmuch as we can say it has certain universal properties. So in Schopenhauer's thoughts, everything living strives to survive and has a Will to Life, a very particular manifestation of the Universal Will that lies behind and within everything (you could call the Will in this framework a demiurge or the prime mover, the latter is probably better since the idea is it's a thing that causes everything). Schopenhauer viewed this Will as overbearing and wanted to escape from it, mostly through becoming Will-less.

Neech recognised another possible manifestation of Will in this tension, the Will to Power. In order for your own Will to be felt it must be cultivated in a way that makes it stronger. You have to recognise where your Will is not your own (was it really yourself that intended to do such and such) and where the Will is more powerful (did what you intend and the actual outcomes coincide). On the latter it is probably better to think of it as "can you take responsibility" that is love fate and have no regrets in the outcome of your actions. In the end we cannot be totally in control of anything beyond being able to take ownership of our actions.

This is obviously very simplified but should give you an alright grounding for your own reading.

Yeah, I drank that koolaid too for a while. But what you're saying is crazy. icy/Alex is not a terrible way to begin thinking about philosophy, but he's an utterly terrible way to *finish* thinking about it. Which includes convincing yourself that Baudrillard was the only guy who mattered in the 20C, and so on.

As cults go it was a great one. But it is definitely a cult and there's a lot more going on out there. It's time to move on.

What are his dissonances with Absurdism/Camus? No need to elaborate a lot, the answer seems to be long already.

Also, this thread is fantastic, thank you, OP.

>>8503325
Start a new thread

>>8503123
Where to start with Schopenhauer?

>>8503658
The Greeks. You need to be somewhat familiar with Hegel and Fichte. Mostly though it's a response to Kant. If you have some understanding of Kant you should be able to grasp the gist of Schopenhauer and where his idea of Will fits in.