Is he the Joker of philosophy? Why do so many edgy teenagers like him?

>>8638157
Why do you feel the need to post this thread every day?

>>8638170
I never posted this thread before

>>8638157
>Why do so many edgy teenagers like him?

Because adolescence is the age of finding one's true self. Which is what Nietzsche did, but on a global scale.

>>8638157
He made people think they are special enough to overcome their faults to be an Ubermensch. Also the whole "I did it myself" which narcissists relate to.

>>8638157
He appeals to them because he's edgy and is quotable without having to read any philosophy. He also has a cool sounding name.

Nietzsche appeals not just to teens but to anyone in a transitional stage of life. All of life is becoming and he himself said to divide such a short thing into stages was foolish, but of course there are points where we feel it more acutely and he absolutely recognized that. I think he knew that his work would be best understood by people during these periods of their lives as well. He includes quite a bit of advice to adolescence in HATH and Zarathustra in particular, as well as some observations he had made on aging.

tl;dr his entire corpus of work focuses on transformation and becoming, and these are topics which teens are naturally drawn towards.

>>8638170
I was going to say it

>>8638171
Don't do it again then

>>8638157
most teens and YAs up to 25, even people up to early 30s are edgy. Its part of growing up but you cant see it in yourself, ego and the brain not having fully developed use of the front areas that grew last prevent this. It why adults take almost no notice of the opinions of the young, they know the opinions are badly formed and untested by reality. dont worry though, its almost everyone this happens to and even though because you call others edgy you think you are past it, you aren't by the very fact you dont understand why they are edgy yet.

>>8638179
>"Which is what Nietzsche did, but on a global scale."

whatever the fuck that means,

>>8638359
Nonsense

>>8638157
He's easy to read, and you can just jump right into any of his books. He's one of the few philosophers people actually read. There's no rigorous system explaining all existence or even any required prerequisites. Just jump in and have fun.

>>8638399
well well well
I seriously hope you don't believe everything you wrote

>>8638157
>Why do so many edgy teenagers like him?

Because they misunderstand, also a little of this >>8638179

>>8638157
freddy had no sense of humour so no he's more like batman if batman just wrote about how great it would be to be batman.

>>8638157
Because they're taught this shit in university.
Meanwhile if you're lucky you just might hear about Aquinas.

Nietzsche fans tend to fit a similar profile - fairly or very intelligent teenagers, invariably men, likely from backgrounds that entail a certain amount of comfort, but this aside, they are lonely and feel like outsiders. Nietzsche appeals to them for lots of different reasons. His philosophy lets one blames one's problems on everything but oneself - it is society that is at fault, contemporary mores and morals that are fault, and what's more, these things exclude you because you are better than them, you are superior. Morality and society are illusions you, as a superior being, can and must transcend. Believing this makes you feel good in the same way that having strong religious faith does. Nietzsche is a feelgood writer in this sense. Reading him does not prompt one to the potentially distressing process of introspection and frank self-criticism.

>>8638157
>Why do so many edgy teenagers like him?
the vast majority of teenagers have no idea who any philosophers are

most of the discussion on this board is done by people who are immature and thus can appear to be "edgy teenagers"

>>8639284
>fairly or very intelligent teenagers

Dropped.

Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals is an important contribution to ethics, psychology, and politics. Not sure why you would want to read anything else unless you were specializing in the Late Romantic period.

>>8639284
>Reading him does not prompt one to the potentially distressing process of introspection and frank self-criticism.
maybe if you read him superficially or not at all, which honestly does describe most nietzsche "fans"

>>8639284
Nietzsche appeals specifically to the outsiders who are smart or ambitious relative to their classmates or people around them. He has an unmistakeable elitism about that makes you feel good about being smart and alone, even if you're 15 and completely misunderstanding his basis for this kind of elitism.

>>8639298
fred's an idealist though is he not

>>8639347
What the fuck

Nietzsche is obviously a materialist. The dude hates Kant specifically because Kant didn't do a good enough job tanking metaphysics.

I don't even understand how you could possibly have been under the impression that Friedrich "God is Dead" Nietzsche was an idealist. Like normies in high school know that's retarded.

>>8639347
i cannot find any quotes because i don't care that much but self-hatred and introspection is frequently referred to in nietzsche iirc

so the thing that i quoted is just wrong

>>8639356

there's really nothing material about his metaphysics of will to power. calling will a "force" structuring the real doesn't make it a materialist theory.

>>8639347
>fred's an idealist though is he not
wait what do you mean by idealist

he was opposed to platonism and universalism of any kind, whether materialist or idealist

i don't even think that post is a coherent response to what i said, it's a non sequitur

>>8639373
He literally roots it in Darwinian theory

Have you ever read Nietzsche?

>inb4 you define Idealism in such a way that it necessarily encompasses all philosophy

Beat you to punch, megapleb.

>>8639412

will to power is an ontologization of the principle of self-overcoming and in that respect Nietzsche is not very far off from Hegel, who he likely did not read carefully but with whom he shares a number of idealistic tics. the Hegelian "aufheben" and the Nietzschean "sublimieren" are functionally identical and describe the same view of reality—each is idealistic in the sense that it takes forms of thought as constituent of the objective world. now if you want to argue that "dialectics of nature" (this is the conclusion of any metaphysics of will to power) is itself a materialism, then we'll talk, but i would first have to direct you in that case to Engels and Stalin and I don't think you'd be interested in their take on things.

>>8639428

I should add that Nietzsche never actually got much further than Birth of Tragedy, he just united Apollo and Dionysius under the common header of will to power, and then went further to claim that the conflict of form and content which they represent is a fact of the material. this is idealism insofar as it derives an ontology from an aesthetic, i.e., from the ideal.

>>8638157
>Why do so many edgy teenagers like him?
>Most people read something as teens, hence it is teen tier.
Stupidest meme in music and lit ever.

File: 1475998739361.jpg (6KB, 267x189px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 267x189px

>>8639428
>A FUCKING TANKIE

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No wonder you grossly misunderstand the simplest philosophic principles. "Self-overcoming" in Neechee is explicitly grounded in the evolutionary biology of its day. Nietzsche is 'materializing' it in the same way that Marx 'materialized' Hegel's dialectic or "stood it on its head."

But go ahead and rec me Kim Jong Il's The Ontology of Starvation I'm sure it'll provide me with useful insights on the failure of all hitherto philosophy

>>8639412

He said he thinks "will to power" is a metaphysical notion, when Nietzsche's ostensive goal was overcoming metaphysics. If it is metaphysical than it hardly differs from Schopenhauer's concept of will. I think our friend here is exemplifying what Nietzsche called the "art of reading badly".

>>8639428
>each is idealistic in the sense that it takes forms of thought as constituent of the objective world
does this parse for anyone else

i'm starting to think no one itt knows what they're talking about

>>8639454

i'm not a stalinist, the point of that was precisely to point out that the attempt to argue for diamat is the same exact idealism you're currently defending and which leads to defenses of totalitarianism.

as for your reading of marx, i would say read althusser, but then you've probably read on wikipedia that he's a stalinist, so again i would be called a tankie. but the turning on the head of the dialectic is not just a reversal whereby the dialectical logics hegel discovered turn out to be "reflections" at the level of thought of the same laws in capitalism. the basic gesture is one of externalization, a kind of reversal of the transcendental deduction. but just because at the formal level of the writing of a work like Capital, the dialectic is relocated in the body of material forces of production, it does not necessarily follow that the actual pattern of those dialectical laws are "the same," otherwise Marx would have no use for the extensive empirical researches which drive the bulk of Capital's argument. on the contrary, materialism is precisely the assertion that the laws of production, dialectical or otherwise, have to be discovered, before the superstructural content of idealisms like nietzsche's can be understood for what they are.

>>8639463

i've offered my reading, and i'm not seeing much in the way of counterarguments except for the post to which i responded above. in any case i'm not alone in this reading. kaufmann, foucault, and deleuze all offer something similar, and i should add that i disagree with the latter two insofar as they offer idealisms of "power/discourse" and "desire," as well. nietzscheanism leads directly to the idealisms of writing and discourse which so many on this board toss out as ideologies of the postmodern. materialism, meanwhile, is not easy to defend, and very easy to lapse out of. the obverse applies for metaphysics: it's incredibly easy to defend, and one can very quickly fall into it, as nietzsche, regardless of his "intentions," does, time and time again.

>>8639475

hegel and nietzsche both argue from thoughts toward an understanding of the world outside of thought. this is idealism.

>>8639484
>hegel and nietzsche both argue from thoughts toward an understanding of the world outside of thought.
this doesn't parse for me at all

>>8639488

let's say that i notice that i frequently think about things in terms of self/other, subject/object, basically in dualistic terms. i then assert on this basis that there must be some dualism inscribed in the "nature" of things, that the world, apart from me, is organized into a great dualism, like Descartes' distinction between body and mind. this is idealism.

and before any of you think i'm turning "all of philosophy" outside marxism into idealism, i should add that there is nothing idealistic, for example, about Husserl's phenomenology, because by virtue of the phenomenological bracket, it makes no claims about reality.

>>8639493
Marx looks at the world. Thinks of his given social formation as the product of its economic base, that is, he thinks of the world in terms of historical development. He then asserts that there must be some dialectical progression inscribed in the nature of things. That Asian social formations can be understood in the same way as European social formations. This is idealism.

Hahaaaaa.

>>8639505
>That Asian social formations can be understood in the same way as European social formations

but that's not true. sorry.

>>8639508
>>8639505

and anyway you're referring to grundrisse, which if you are convinced by althusser as i am, represents the thoughts of a far more hegelian, ergo idealist, marx than the mature marx of capital. so not surprising that you've diagnosed idealism there. the problem of what to do theoretically with the asiatic mode of production is one marxists today still scratch and butt heads over.

>>8639493
>i frequently think about things in terms of self/other, subject/object, basically in dualistic terms. i then assert on this basis that there must be some dualism inscribed in the "nature" of things, that the world, apart from me, is organized into a great dualism, like Descartes' distinction between body and mind. this is idealism.
ok i get it now but no you're wrong
>>i frequently think about things in terms of self/other
nietzsche says that all values are based in the self of the self and the self of others, see slave/ master morality, and are subjective

there is no objective dualism in the world, no subject/ object; others may have their own values but they cannot be objectively wrong, only wrong from my perspective

>>8639508
I know it's not true I'm making fun of poor eurocentric idealist philosopher Karl Marx and you for defining idealism in such a way that it encompasses all philosophy like I said you would.

>>8639513
What about Marx's notion of a dancing table isn't Idealist to you?

>>8639297
There's a difference between recognising Nietzsche's canonical and intellectual significance and agreeing with his philosophy. Plato's Republic is a highly important contribution to ethics, philosophy and politics, but that doesn't mean his models of political governance have any credence. As is the case with Nietzsche's philosophical conclusions.

>>8639530

>there is no objective dualism in the world, no subject/ object

i agree, i was only providing a description of a possible idealism. Nietzsche's is still an idealism, it's just not the Cartesian one i glossed.

>>8639536

>I know it's not true I'm making fun of poor eurocentric idealist philosopher Karl Marx and you for defining idealism in such a way that it encompasses all philosophy like I said you would.

but i didnt, and marx wasn't perfect. marxism is not a dogma.

>What about Marx's notion of a dancing table isn't Idealist to you?

exactly nothing. commodity fetishism is itself an idealism. materialism is showing that it derives its apparent veracity from objective social relations. this is marx 101.

>>8639298
What I 'got' from Nietzsche was that he does a fine job of exposing the antinomies and contradictions of metaphysics, hegemonic morals of morality, idealism and so on. The logic of the ubermensch is itself contradictory, though, as if the ubermensch is a category that a subject can attain, they must transform themselves in some sense to do so. Yet the edgy teenage boys (and it's always boys) who read Nietzsche assume that their outcast status is what makes them an ubermensch.

>>8639575
>objective social relations

Oooooo, I've got you there Jimbo. What makes Marx's ideas about the organization of labor in a given social formation any more (((objective))) than Nietzsche's ideas about will to power? As far as I can tell both men are making observations about the world based on their perceptions of it and then concluding that that's how it really is.

>>8639593


Labor-power exists, "power" and "will" don't. and there's no need to condescend, i've been perfectly civil and i'm happy to break a lance with you provided you do the same.

anyway, i have class shortly, but i'll probably be around later if any one wants to continue the discussion.

>>8639575
>Nietzsche's is still an idealism, it's just not the Cartesian one i glossed.
you're very vague

what idealism is nietzsche's then