>Politics lecturer tries to argue that Nietzsche & Nietzschean

Am I wrong in thinking Nietzsche was far from a nihilist? I am naïve and also making huge concision, but didn't he basically say "life is meaningless, but we can fill the void of meaning by allowing ourselves a life of constant self-improvement"?

>>8604408
Put "History of Western Philosophy" in the center and it will be perfect

>>8604443
>Am I wrong in thinking Nietzsche was far from a nihilist?
For Nietzsche nihilism is anything that isn't amor fati. For Nietzsche the only way out of nihilism is not to be ok with your life, but to actually love it. Every second of it, every suffering, every fear...

Most people don't think of nihilism like that.

>>8604408
Why Foucault? Just to meme because baldman le funny? French Hunter S. Thompson keke

>>8604457
>>8604443
Disregarding the snakeoil that is "The School of Life". Alain de botton (aka All in the Bottom) Has a TV show from forever ago called "The philosophers guide to happiness". I think the episode on Nietzsche might be of interest.

>>8603871

I wish we could substitute all Nietzsche threads for Plato ones instead.

>>8604408
Nietzsche's diagnosis of the current world/culture and where it would lead was spot on. You sure that isn't what he was saying?

Mussolini loved Nietzsche, as testified by his mistress:

Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi, Fascist Spectacle: The Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini's Italy, University of California Press, 2000, p44: "In 1908 he presented his conception of the superman's role in modern society in a writing on Nietzsche entitled, "The Philosophy of Force." Other national leaders did not escape Nietzsche's allure. Philip Morgan, Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945, Routledge, 2003, p. 21: "We know that Mussolini had read Nietzsche"

File: nietzsche.png (1MB, 1625x963px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1625x963px

>>8604449
I got you. Made a few other improvements too.

>>8604474
>actually wanting fascism
wtf? this is hilarious because it's inevitably those who wouldn't make the grade for any power who want the philosopher kings proposal. read some Nietzsche before you wreck yourself

>>8604457
How can you love every moment of life. How can you love snapping your leg in half when playing football or something without being a delusional idiot? It's pain, excruciating pain, you can't reason it into being good let alone worth of love.

Nietzsche was a hack dagger

>>8604549
I never understood why I should care that fascist leaders read this or that book. As if some mediocre political leader misreading matters. They use anything they can get their hands on to justify themselves.

>>8604575
How about Hegel then

>>8604408
Sometimes people get confused when they get taught a particular reading of a philosopher in order to understand later responses to the misreading. So in Nietzsche's case it might be important to see how his sister rewrote his work to fit a certain power-mad ideology. But either your lecturer or yourself had snoozy time at key moments because that is really not Neech.

>>8604576
>you can't reason it into being good let alone worth of love.
>something must be good in order to be loved
I smell ideology.

>>8604576
You love it because that incident played a role in turning you into who you are right now, it's not good but it's part of your life and your history so you love it for that.

>>8604589
His works lack the "literary" quality that Nietzsche's do. He could never catch on in the same way.

>>8604408
The axis focused so much on their misreading of Friedrich when they had Evola to work with. baka

>>8604408
One who makes this claims is Jordan Peterson. The thought might is right, is way older than Nietzsche. In certain ways the weak always have and had to submit to the strong, so there is some Universal/leftist/utopian ideology involvt, if you want to reach somewhere, where this isn't the case.

>>8604635
Nietzsches work has many nuances he is a phliologist first, a historian secound and a psychologist third. It is not wrong that you can condence, something like facsism out of his work, after all he had three losley contected periodes of work (at minimum).

>>8604672
F-- see me

And I mean see me in the aggressive Glaswegian sense.

>>8604576
It's foolishness and hypocrisy that loves only some moments rather than all of them, because all moments are interdependent.

To look at this on a vastly smaller scale: the warm, relaxing feeling you get when you come in after being out in the cold, or after shoveling snow, laying back in your recliner with a hot drink, would not have come about without the intense cold and labor you experienced prior to it.

And what about the life that never gets that joy at the end, you might ask. What about the people who suffer in war, tortured brutally in war until death, etc. How does that get justified? It is on a grander, less easily noticeable scale, but think of it this way: that suffering turns into joy for something else, in the ends. The lives those sacrifices end up saving; the lives that suffering ends up sparing; the joy of others who extract that suffering; the joy of others who get revenge; or even in the simplest form, the joy of flies and maggots and the soil that consume the nutrients from the corpses of war. Something, somewhere, will benefit.

And your life right now is a product of intense suffering in the past - because it is all tied together. Because it could not have happened any other way than the way it DID happen. Those millions of other sperms died so you could make it through, those tribes and beasts were slaughtered so your ancestors could survive.

>>8604576
It is worthy of love because it is there to remind you that you are alive to experience such pain and agony. It reminds you that for all of the pain you endure throughout your life, for all of the disappointing, depressing, nauseating garbage you have to wade through, you would not know it as horrible if there were not greater things in life. If you were to live entirely in pain and suffering, you would not know it as such. It would only be life.

If you could not experience excruciating pain, you could not experience joy and bliss. There is nothing more peaceful than the void of death and non-being, and there is nothing more horrible.

May as well blame the late Sophists for fascism too.

>>8604687
Yes as german native speaker and nietzsche reader, i can agree with this, contrary to what many claim, he is not a man of abstract thought not bound to reality. He is most concernt with our interactions in reality and the paths we go/chose in it. He wants to be as realistic and describtive of history, as a human can be. The problem of Vita activita and Vita contemplativia, is crucial to understand him. Nietzsche writtes about his time and the times which had to go bye, to make his time arrive and contextualise it. He is influenced by Heraklit who's Philosopy evoles around fire and Nietzsche takes this concept and wrote about the methaporical spark in man kind.

>>8604741
Right Popper says facism in the pure form can be found in Platos Republic. They see History as Development and forget about the circumstances, which make something nesseasary, which otherwise wouldn't be exceptable.

>>8604687
This assumes that all suffering us justified because in the end it'll lead to a path of some love worthy moment. Instead of just an onslaught of pointless suffering that has been the experience of pretty much everyone who cares to look at life without too much sentimentality and romanticism. But, hey maybe the thousands upon thousands of years of horrific suffering before me wasn't enough and my little drop in the pool of a life of abject joylessness will be the straw that breaks the camels back for a whole lot of joy to come. Flies in the face of everything that's come before but fingers crossed eh?

>>8604687
Plus, that's not loving all of life because regardless of whether the leg break or whatever led you to some sort of resilient growth or crushed you further, in that moment that it happened you were in intense pain and could not reason it to be a loveable moment by any standard. That moment is an actual experience in your life which, once gone can only be reflected on and which is largely highly contingent illusion as all memory is fundamentally. So to say you love that moment through and through is sentimental shit.

File: 73168858_4f638777be.jpg (170KB, 500x377px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 500x377px

>>8604408
So how does the whole Hitler analogy not make sense? Nietzsche's entire philosophy was about creating your own virtue and rising above the virtue of the pack mentality of others. Rising above others is inseparable from his philosophy because of the way he regards the self in relation to the pack, who he refers to as the rabble. I read Zarathustra and I find it hard to argue against the whole Hitler loved Nietzsche example. Unless there's something else i missed in his other works which you would like to explain to me, but what I read seemed pretty clear. In fact I could probably point to 1 in every 3 of the parables in Zarathustra and use it as example for Hitlers justification. My point is, you say your professor "summed up" Nietzsche with a throwaway line but your post lacks the same amount of depth which you accuse them of.

>>8604725
>If you were to live entirely in pain and suffering, you would not know it as such. It would only be life.
Wow I never thought of it like that thanks

>>8604795
You're missing the point. If you had even one moment of pleasure or joy in your life that you loved, then you must necessarily love all suffering that occurred before it lest you be a hypocrite, because you owe that moment to all of it. Then all suffering IS justified.

Not every life will feel the same way, and no one is saying you need to.

>>8604816
Complete nonsense. The claim that you have to love the most horrendous suffering because without it a good moment may not have happened is an assertion with no reasoning. Not to mention the assertion that it makes you a hypocrite. Hypocritical about what exactly?

>>8604824
>The claim that you have to love
>have to
No one is saying you have to. You're just a fool if you don't, because your knowledge of phenomena is incomplete (if you understood what I said, I am clearly saying that each moment is defined by all others — i.e. there is no pleasure without pain), or a hypocrite, because you understand well how all phenomena works but refuse to acknowledge it (i.e. you understand what I said, yet still choose to love only a "part" of it, despite this making no sense at all and meaning that you do not really love it).

Love does not mean like, by the way. Loving all of life doesn't mean you like pain.

>>8604813
Which edition of Zarathustra are you reading?

>>8604890
Why don't I hate all of life because even with moments of joy it still leads to moments I hate and without the moments of joy the moments of pain and suffering would not have happened?

Plus, this is more baseless assertion. You don't know that a moment of joy that is not different in any way perceptible to you could not have occurred with a completely different set of circumstances coming before it. On top of that, that exact moment of joy could have been destined for you regardless of many of the prior circumstances which you are claiming to love for having lead you there. Unless you understand the entirety of your psychology and external world then it is arbitrary to love all of this. Plus, as I said, research on memory shows how contingent on current mood, along with a myriad of other factors, along with memory being very shady in the first place and the fact that humans have very little knowledge of what is actually going on within them and why means you are claiming to understand and know phenomena that there is little reason to think you can know. That's the real refusal of acknowledgemental.

>>8604795
>This assumes that all suffering us justified because in the end it'll lead to a path of some love worthy moment.
No. That anon is trying to be a poetic twat and convoluting the message. Love of fate means you accept what is going to happen rather than regret what is going to happen. This is something to work towards, not something to just do. Amor fati is something hard to achieve.

>>8604929
The message of that post is clearly that suffering is justified because it'll necessarily lead to benefit elsewhere which is just conjecture obviously.

I mean thay statement doesn't sum up Nietzsche's philosophy but it certainly describes part of it.

>>8604973
My view of their posts is they were a little vague at first and went down the wrong trouser leg in later replies, but I don't really care about it so can concede if it makes you happy.

To go back to the original point about breaking your leg, if it's already happened you can't change it. Yes you could have acted differently but you didn't. Do you then go "I don't like this bit of life so it didn't happen", and escape into a fantasy land where for some reason you acted differently? Or do you go "this is how I acted, I ended up withe a broken leg, I may not like it but this is my situation", in fact going beyond acceptance to actual love? Amor fati is hardest at such times if anything.

>>8604925
>Why don't I hate all of life because even with moments of joy it still leads to moments I hate and without the moments of joy the moments of pain and suffering would not have happened?
You could. That is called a pessimist's philosophy. It is totally valid, and this all boils down to glass half-full / half-empty shit. We could also break each other's psychology down in order to defend ourselves endlessly; Nietzsche broke Schopenhauer down for this, for example. In fact Nietzsche's philosophy was very much a reaction to Schopenhauer's pessimism who thought in this hateful way that you proposed.

>You don't know that a moment of joy that is not different in any way perceptible to you could not have occurred with a completely different set of circumstances coming before it. On top of that, that exact moment of joy could have been destined for you regardless of many of the prior circumstances which you are claiming to love for having lead you there.
I do know that it occurred in the way that it did, however. I guess I could entertain the thought of alternate universes — but why is that more practical to you than simply addressing the universe I'm in?

If we look at the example of pleasing warmth after being out in the cold, then your argument that the moment of joy could have happened without the prior circumstance is rather baseless. It's pretty clear that I feel pleasure from the indoor warmth because of my presence in the harsh cold minutes beforehand. As far as I can discern, there's a relation between the two events. Which means all experience is reciprocal.

>Plus, as I said, research on memory shows how contingent on current mood, along with a myriad of other factors, along with memory being very shady in the first place and the fact that humans have very little knowledge of what is actually going on within them and why means you are claiming to understand and know phenomena that there is little reason to think you can know.
To me, you are just proving what I am saying here. You're saying that all these factors determine your experience. But all these factors rely on something. Current mood was influenced by something; memory capacity is influenced by something; ability to concentrate is influenced by something. Those "somethings" were influenced by other "somethings". Every experience is reliant on the eternal past.

>>8605022
No, you go 'I don't like this bit of life, let me take it in as fully and realistically as I can... Yeh, no, not enjoying it, the bone sticking out of my leg is a bit of a drag. I could maybe frame it as being good, like it's a piece of modern art or something. Or I could get a grip and accept the reality of my lack of love for this moment and the reality than any affirming of the moment after it's past is affirmation of a highly contingent construction of that moment that is solely in my head. Not the moment itself because that is impossible.

>>8605070
>dude what if you're having a seizure you physiologically can't feel love in that exact moment nietzcshe btfo
I think you're looking at this the wrong way

>>8605074
If that's what I said or was the take home of what I said I'd agree. Luckily it wasn't as i suspect you know and are too lazy to address

>>8605066
Strange misreading of my point on memory. What I'm saying is that memory can not be trusted and is always a shoddy representation and imagination of past events. To love all your life especially contained in a sense of it (which is all one can do unless they are prepared to go through every memory they can achieve in the attempt to achieve amor fati) then they are relying on very shaky and inaccurate accounts and senses of the past. This is not lover of your life as you've lived it each moment. This is love of your piss poor interpretation of your whole life which you are giving far too much value as a reliable indicator of how your life has actually been and how it lead you here. If we are going by your fire example that is not amor fati as far as I understand it because thats only taking into account a bit of life. In fact this example proves my point I think. If it's true amor fati I should love all (memories of) past experience even before having been in the cold for having lead me there. But what if when I decided to jump around for 3 hours when I was 10 (which seems likely but again unknowable) had no bearing on whether or not this scenario of cold and then warmth that I so enjoy? Am I to love it despite its lack of effect on this joy I feel now?

>>8605105
Also if what I love so much about this feeling is the relief from the cold, am I not to feel some regret at not experiencing an even greater joy by having walked the whole way home without a shirt on? This at least seems a more viable indicator of what it is that can lead me to joy or not than my fragmented past memories, no?

Nietzsche, in trying to outdo Schopenhauer, ended up simply inverting him, ultimately he ended up being derivative of him.

You can't create new values from scratch, you can only rediscover values that have been lost and dress them up in new ways, which is what N. did.

His project of the higher man is simply the greco-roman ideal of the demi-god, an ideal which historically amounted to a few foolish Greeks and Romans calling themselves gods when they were really just pathetic thugs.

Zarathustra just replaces religion and God with the ubermensch, but the ubermensch is just another old project to smother the fear of death, the denial of death is a powerful force and it has led to ideals like the ubermensch in other cultures too, such as the Daoist quest for immortality. Nietzsche's fear of his own unhealthiness, mainly because of the weakness of his body, caused him to overcompensate.

>>8604408
Nietzsche predicted that terrible things would happen in his name because powerful dullards would confuse the ubermensch for the blonde beast. It sounds like your professor misunderstood Nietzsche in the same way that the Nazis did.

>>8604589
Progressivism has been just as dangerously misinterpreted and misused as anything Nietzsche ever wrote. Not that progressivism is a terribly good idea in the first place.

>>8604549

So did Roosevelt. German philosophers were and remain popular in the states.

Liking Nietzsche was the cultural equivalent of having watched Breaking Bad. It doesn't mean that you're going to immediately rent an rv and cook biker meth, it just means that you are enjoying the culture of the time.

>>8605198
>His project of the higher man is simply the greco-roman ideal of the demi-god, an ideal which historically amounted to a few foolish Greeks and Romans calling themselves gods when they were really just pathetic thugs.
If you read just the wikipedia article on nietzsche or just looked up what "master morality" meant, you'd realize how retarded this statement is.

>Zarathustra just replaces religion and God with the ubermensch, but the ubermensch is just another old project to smother the fear of death
And now you're copying shit from some quack psychology book for no reason.

File: nietzsches_world.jpg (255KB, 1200x413px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1200x413px

>>8605105
>memory can not be trusted
Next you'll say our perception cannot be trusted. And skepticism of your perception is fine, but you might as well not try and discuss anything then if that's a point you raise in an argument.

Philosophy is analysis of life. The Overman is a philosopher king (not Plato's conception of it, but Nietzsche's). To Nietzsche, the philosopher king, the Overman, loves all of life, life understood as one giant reciprocity of energy (see pic for Nietzsche's fairly vivid description of the reality that the Overman sees). To love only fragments is to love partially which is seen as impossible when knowledge is formed from the deepest wells of philosophy.

>>8604408
Nietzsche is chicken soup for the pseud

>>8604408
Imagine how that guy reads someone in his field like Hobbes. Pure trash.

>>8605310
Not him, but,

perception cannot be trusted, memory/reflection is a faith between perception and conception. e.g., I have faith (belief, but belief invokes faith;) that based off of both perception of past objects following such a path, and the conception of gravity, that upon kicking a can it will follow a parabolic path of some sort.

I can be certain that I am perceiving the can (do not confuse this with being certain that there actually is a can and even such a thing as a parabola;), but I must have faith that every can I perceive, or that will ever or has ever been perceived, or any other object with any degree of can-ness, will follow my conception of how an object will behave upon being kicked (and likewise, will behave an accepted way by any movement, or even when static will also follow my conception).

For a similar reason, perception cannot be trusted because there is this same issue with cause (what happened) and effect (what I perceived).

Kant's rebuttal to this was not satisfactory, because universals themselves cannot be known certainly but only trusted and hoped to exist. But, I doubt a Nietzschean would invoke a Kantian argument.

The only intellectually honest option is to allow oneself to not be a skeptic, but a being of pure doubt & faith.

I am not any sort of expert on Nietzsche, like you seem to be, (nor am I an expert on anything I am speaking of in this post;) but did he not also proclaim that there exists no ontological Truth/Good/Logos? Would that not imply that the actual existential state is one of doubt & faith? This is what 'is', now, what one 'ought' is purely subjective (because an objective 'ought' would of course imply a Truth must exist to direct that 'ought'.

Is it a gross misinterpretation to say that the overman is somebody who can build an entire society of themselves, whereas the lower men need to be of multiple types?

File: Wew.png (75KB, 500x448px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x448px

>>8604408

Nietzsche is horribly understood, or rather misunderstood, in 99% of academia; especially outside of actual Philosophy departments, precisely because his philosophy is not systematic. Indeed, he even argues against the 'Will to System' - which is a huge problem for most of academia who are, in their own way, retarded/autistic. Specifically, they thrive on clarity, well-defined (and consistently used) terminology, and any philosophies/ideologies that have a clear 'path'/'plot'.

All of these things are very far from Nietzsche, which is why, in Politics departments, for example, they prefer faggots like Rousseau/Hobbes/Locke/Fukuyama/etc. They all have well-structured books and a very clear 'idea' which permeates their work - as opposed to Nietzsche, whose aphorisms on occasion can appear so contradictory/extreme that you'd mistake him for someone with schizophrenia.

>>8604569
Those additions contradict each other you mong cunt. Kill yourself.

>>8604443
He was an existentialist.
Him being labeled a nihilist is just a quirk of history repeating a thing over and over again until it becomes accepted fact.

>>8606205

This. Nietzsche is like Hegel in that he requires a serious time investment. A couple of semesters or a community college course won't cut it.

In Hegelian circles, for example, 10 years+ is not considered an unreasonable amount of time to put into the Phenomenology.

>>8604601
i think that's kindof a copout, i mean c'mon, you don't love choosing to take a shit before vs during the packers game because it impacted your life. i'm pretty sure the 5 minutes of one packers game that you missed or didn't miss doesn't meaningfully affect your life trajectory or lived experience in the span of years

>>8604598
i smell delusion.
>>8604601
what if i'm in a wheelchair now because of it? i don't have to resign my fate to being depressed about it but i'd rather not be in a fucking wheelchair. try telling a paraplegic to love their handicap you fucking moron. neechee never lived life it's so easy for him to preach loving every moment of pain when he clearly opted out, his entire range of experience to draw from was so limited that for anyone to take him seriously is fucking hilarious.
>>8604725
yea let me break your leg i'd like to see you enjoy it.

i get it, life has its ups and downs and while detaching yourself might opt you out of the downs it also opts you out of the ups.
neechee was obviously a little bitch who needed rhetoric to level off his oversensitivity to the downs of life. instead of approaching pain and suffering like a normal person he chose to delude himself into believing pain and suffering was a positive thing.
yes i get that bad shit makes good shit look better but to say bad shit is good is retarded as fuck.

>>8606611
>neechee was obviously a little bitch who needed rhetoric to level off his oversensitivity to the downs of life. instead of approaching pain and suffering like a normal person he chose to delude himself into believing pain and suffering was a positive thing.
Nietzsche praises courage above all, calling it the most virtuous virtue. He tells you to grab the bull by its horns and face all your fears and overcome them.
Now he never said that pain is a positive thing. He says that happiness and suffering are sisters, twins even, they can both either grow or be stagnant. Suffering is merely a means to an end.

>>8604742
>german native speaker

I don't know if I shoud believe you

>he is most concernt

yep, checks out.

>>8604816
what is the problem with being a hypocrite?

>>8606685
Hypocrisy usually means ignorance. Otherwise it's fine.

>>8606669
Was freddy familiar with Buddhism and their claims about the possibilities of freedom from suffering and possibilities of great inner joy and peace?

>>8606711
Yes. He called buddhism a hundred times more honest than Christianity and hygienic but still a nihilistic religion.

>>8605325
>Nietzsche is chicken soup for the pseud
Nietzsche is easy to read. Most of his ideas are very straight forward.

>>8606715
this buddhism is about the nil value of pain and pleasure with respect to being happy

>>8606669
you see, courage, pain, happiness, suffering etc etc. are they not obvious elements of the human condition?
do you really need to read nietzsche to figure this out?

furthermore you're following a guy who clearly didn't live his philosophy. anyone who did what he wrote to do would not be anywhere near nietzsche's philosophy because as much as people love to claim he is misinterpreted his writings were full of contradictory elements that would prevent anyone(HIM) from ever becoming the "ubermensch".

>he genuinely cares about politics

>>8606611
>try telling a paraplegic to love their handicap you fucking moron
Thanks for speaking for them all, since you surely know what their attitude toward life is. My brother is in a wheelchair. I have some serious mental disorders, which are probably not comparable, but I hope I can somehow speak for why you're misunderstanding the whole idea. Is it not better for the man who is hurt by circumstance, not to "pretend" that their handicap doesn't disable them and prevent them from many joyful aspects of life, but to accept it and develop a positive atittude toward their place in the world? You will be more happy for trying to appreciate your life, warts and all, than spending your whole life resenting entire aspects of it. I am plagued by terrible OCD, but it has made me, and I can work with it in my life.
>neechee never lived life it's so easy for him to preach loving every moment of pain when he clearly opted out, his entire range of experience to draw from was so limited that for anyone to take him seriously is fucking hilarious.
You don't know what you're talking about anon. Nietzsche served as a hospital attendant in the Franco-Prussian war and took part in the Siege of Metz, contracting dysentery and dealing with wounded and dying soldiers. Have you experienced something like that?

>>8604459
because no one reads Foucault

>>8604408
Nietzsche's writings were hijacked by his nazi loving sister. A lot of the subtext in his work that could be viewed as potentially racist, anti-semetic, etc can be very easily placed on the shoulders of Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche.

>>8604582
Powerful political figures misreading philosophers does matter, it shapes their vision and propaganda which ends up being applied to thousands more people

It doesn't make it any less wrong, but it's the influence that counts

>>8604582
contd>>8606947

Though if they were going to misappropriate any philosophy or culture available to fit their message, as in, if they hadn't read Nietzsche and instead picked up ____, they would just be polluting the idea of a different philosopher until it fit their needs.

But all political leaders will do this to some degree to meet their ends, some more subtly than others

>not pointing out that he's full of shit because its well know Nietzche's sister, who was married to a fascist, twisted his works to justify fascism and then advising that is why you never trust women and then not killing yourself for taking a subject as intellectually void as politics

>>8604909
I read Hollindale

>>8606925
where did i say the handicapped should be defined by their handicap? i agree that a positive attitude despite whatever disadvantage you may have is a good thing. but there's a difference between acknowledging your disadvantage and loving your disadvantage.

this romantic idea that you should identify with your disadvantage is what i'm against. though i don't think ocd is an actual condition why can't you appreciate what you've achieved despite it and not define yourself by having whatever thing you have. it's not about ignoring it but neither is it about wearing it like some badge of honor.

>>8607255
>though i don't think ocd is an actual condition
REE my ego. But this just solidifies my opinion that you're a pseud.
You seem to have mixed up "loving fate" with some kind of identity politics, special snowflake shit. It is not about wearing your problems on your sleeve, but about trying to embrace all of life.

>>8604576
Non-vital impotent cucklord detected

Better start stocking up on viagra

>>8607290
psychology as an entire field is quackery. i'm not saying that you don't experience those things but rather they are a product of bad thought habits that can be changed by simply talking it out with someone, assuming you have someone you feel comfortable divulging everything to.

anyway, you seem to be contradicting yourself, you clearly said "it has made me", i'd argue that you made yourself and your condition had nothing to do with it. also, loving your disadvantage is exactly special snowflake shit, perhaps not in the same way as 13-year olds who treat it as an advantage but why can't you just accept it without having to feel any particular way about it?

life as a whole is a series of obstacles. do you really have to love the obstacles to overcome them? loving the challenge is perhaps what you're going for.

>>8607387
All psychology does is validate your impotence and convince you to not be ashamed of shameful behavior.

If somebody tells me they've seen a therapist, I know instantly to disregard everything they say.

>>8607403
well if someone doesn't have anyone they can talk to i'd say therapy is pretty helpful just for the talking part. but obviously it's highly dependent on the therapist and whether they can treat you like a normal human being who's unhappy with their life and not as a mentally diseased person who needs drugs and even stranger thought habits.

>>8607387
Kek, OCD certainly cannot be solved by "simply talking it out with someone", ironically that sounds more like therapist quackery than normal psychological procedure for OCD treatment, which is a form of therapy that actually, tangibly alters your brain structure. OCD is also not really a "product of bad thought habits", since the disorder is in fact "bad thought habits" and I doubt it is its own cause, unless you are implying that there is really no essential thing as "OCD", and that it merely refers to a set of bad behaviours someone develops by themselves. This is not quite true, since there's a genetic component since identical twins are more likely to develop OCD if the other has it, than nonidentical twins. OCD also tends not to be completely eradicated even after treatment, which implies it is some permanent or significant change in the brain chemistry of the person affected, rather than merely bad thought patterns that can be reversed.

>oving the challenge is perhaps what you're going for.
Not quite but you're getting closer to wrapping your head around it than you were before.

>>8606761
You're a complete retard.
Not everyone is suit for philosophy. Go back to history, science or whatever you like, anon.
Your interpretation of Nietzsches concept of Ubermensch is the most superficial possible.

>>8607437
we all have OCD to a certain degree, tics, fidgets, weird mini-rituals that we tell nobody about. when it becomes a problem it's generally the product of a poor control of the mind and probably some unresolved issues.

as for the twin study, i don't see what you're getting at, obviously there's a genetic component in behaviour that passes down from parent to child. your parents probably have some elements of what you term OCD too.

OCD isn't a disease. you can choose to view it as such and resign yourself to your bad thought habits and resulting actions but it's really just a trait you have (however it manifests) that you haven't learned to either harness or manage.


i like how you pretend that i don't know what you're saying, is that one of your compulsions?

>>8607507
>we all have OCD to a certain degree, tics, fidgets, weird mini-rituals that we tell nobody about
Indeed, I would describe OCD as an extreme manifestation of behaviour already present in the human mind, to the point where it becomes dysfunctional.
>it's generally the product of a poor control of the mind
This is where we differ. Since there is no conscious control of anything but our reaction to the OCD stimulus, which is very strong (and developed very rapidly in my adolescence, when symptoms had been present during my childhood), and the OCD compulsions don't ever really completely fade, they can become less powerful and less common but have something to do with the unconscious mechanisms of the brain misfiring and producing fight-or-flight responses a lot.

>OCD isn't a disease. you can choose to view it as such and resign yourself to your bad thought habits and resulting actions
This doesn't follow. A disease is something that you treat. A trait is something that you possess. It is much healthier to view a mental illness as a disease than as "part of your personality", it would be especially destructive in the case of OCD since it is absolutely necessary to make the distinction between the OCD and ones conscious mind.

You have spent the entire thread talking down to more knowledgeable people on things beyond your understanding, and you continue to do it here. Ironic, considering you made the point of "hurr dont tell a paraplegic to love his handicap" as an example of the supposed hubris of the other anon you were talking to.

>>8607403
What is shameful behavior? Why should we be ashamed?

>>8607507
So are you just out to prove that you don't know what you're talking about or what?

>>8607507
>and resign yourself to your bad thought habits and resulting actions

this is the opposite of seeking therapy and taking meds.

>>8607507
I've got trichotillomania and I sure as hell can't just talk it away. Most of my close ones (over 6 people) know I have it. Basically I don't even notice happening a lot of the time, and it's kind of ironic since I don't have any discipline-related problems when it comes to other areas of life (been lifting 4x/week for over 5 years, on top of my shit @ uni etc)

Changing your brain chemistry with drugs and supplements does the trick for a lot of people. From what I've seen though, people with trich will literally have dopamine released as a result from pulling whereas those without it won't feel anything (I can't imagine pulling my beard or chest hair for example, it does absolutely nothing for me).

>>8607539
you don't consciously control the OCD stimulus, it's about being aware of the real-life situation you're in and also keeping busy.

considering how radically different OCD can manifest have you considered that it's probably indicative of something more ordinary? the fact that this condition involves the creativity of the person?
what i'm saying is that OCD as a condition is really just a word for someone who represses many things, you clearly have some things that you have not understood and gotten over.

>>8606611
>neechee never lived life it's so easy for him to preach loving every moment of pain when he clearly opted out, his entire range of experience to draw from was so limited that for anyone to take him seriously is fucking hilarious.
You sound butthurt.

First of all, Nietzsche suffered from chronic headaches that disabled him his entire life. He was kicked out of the military as a result. The dude fell to brain cancer in the end. He had problems up there.

Second, Nietzsche states very clearly that his philosophy is not for everyone. He even talks much about ressentiment and pessimism, both which originate from the lower species, the weak. Love of life is reserved for those that life loves most - the strong, that is, the nourished. For everyone else, there's Christianity to console your dreadful existence.

And they are strong. A strong will feels itself as everything around it, it is an unbreakable, relentless juggernaut. A weak will feels surrounded and crushed. The strong necessarily affirm all things, the weak necessarily resent all things. This is a matter of the physics of the spirit.

File: 6358825569063013271230682545_spongebob-lonely.gif (464KB, 500x338px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 500x338px

>>8605226
How is that any different though? The Ubermench rises above virtue to create his own form of good and evil
>>8605233
What about the initial point does not coincide with what Neitzche writes?
>>8605430
Again another poster saying nothing
>>8606205
Gah what are you talking about? The fact that some of his ideas don't agree with each other doesnt mean there was not an underlying form of what his philosophy represents. The fact that it may be hard to say 'what' Nietzsche believed is complete nonsense, his ideas are clear. Unless you have supplements from texts which disagree with each other to such an extent that he can't be called an existentialist than your point is moot. Even if there are some ideas which don't match its easy to say what he wasn't, and he wasn't opposed to the same ideas of Hitler's justification.
>>8606946
Lel because it was so easy to twist that way


What a surprise another utter vacuum of nonsense on this board. You people are more concerned with name-dropping and ridiculing people who "misunderstand" texts than actually taking the time to understand it yourselves. Someone explain to me how Hitler misunderstood Neitzche, please I'm sitting on the edge of my seat.

>>8608244
w/r/t first part: wrong, the overman is free from good and evil, he doesnt create his own

>>8604443

nihilism =/= existentialism

>>8608244
>Someone explain to me how Hitler misunderstood Neitzche
Their ideals are similar, but Hitler is baser and unphilosophical. Nazi culture is not quite the culture of the higher species that Nietzsche envisioned. Too German.