Does this book actually elaborate more on its themes and statements

>>8955078
Beyond Good and Evil is a collection of thoughts.
On the Genealogy of Morality continues exploring that particular aspect in a more systematic way.

>>8955120
Thanks for confirming it then. I'll read this anyways and then pick up on OTGOM.

Was there any philosopher that Nietzsche liked? He seems to hammer everyone down in this book with his bantz.

>>8955156
He liked Plato and Schopy but he viewed them as any healthy adult should look at their forebears and superiors: as rivals to be surpassed.

Also he liked Dostoevsky.

>>8955156
stirner

>>8955368
This is the first Nietzsche I'm reading. Doesn't seem to me that he likes Schopenhauer that much. He definitely sees his philosophy as something to leave in the past.

of Plato he seems to talk about in a more positive light.

>>8955404

He likes/respects Socrates more than Plato.

He's extremely dismissive of metaphysics, which Plato practically invented.

>>8955536
>He's extremely dismissive of metaphysics
My reading comprehension must be fucked, or maybe it's not as apparent in this book as in his others or maybe the translations fucked and doesn't properly portray this.

>>8955556
Nietzsche destroyed metaphysics so thoroughly that it never recovered.

>>8955773

It was a very surface level argument.

Basically, that metaphysics is based upon an innate distrust of our senses. He says that because there's no such thing as an extrasensory experience (i.e. some sort of impartial/objective vantage point from which to judge the accuracy of our senses), metaphysics makes little sense.

He stops short of trickier questions, however. I think he dismisses the objective existence of mathematics, for example, in a single sweeping statement.

File: 1480006151944.jpg (10KB, 350x490px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 350x490px

>>8955536
>He's extremely dismissive of metaphysics
No he doesn't. What the hell is his conception of Will if not metaphysical?

>>8955856

Nietzsche denies the existence of 'Will' you total hack.

>>8955856
biological instincts grappling for power and the their relation to each other and compromise is the will

idk lol

>>8955404
>Doesn't seem to me that he likes Schopenhauer that much
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Schopenhauer_as_Educator

>>8955865
[citation needed]

>>8955871
Except according to Nietzsche non-conscious things have Will.

>>8955904
where he says that?

>>8955904
>Except according to Nietzsche non-conscious things have Will.
im not sure what nietzsche says but there's no fundamental difference between conscious and non-conscious beings

>>8955930
Except for consciousness, of course

>>8955913
I would need to consult my notes to find specific aphorisms though there are these sources.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/nietzsch/#H6
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche
Sadly none of them really talk about it in more than just passing but at least they acknowledge that The Will to Power is a metaphysical idea for him.
EDIT: Had to remove most of my links because it makes 4chan think I'm a bot.

Nietzsche is similar to Schopenhauer (though not the same) in his conception of Will as being something so much more than just a physiological drive.

>>8955930
>im not sure what nietzsche says
Which is the whole point. I'm saying this is what Nietzsche says. Taking some non-Nietzschean idea and turning back onto Nietzsche in a thread about his particular ideas (rather than the truth factor of those ideas) makes no sense.

>>8955965
>conception of Will as being something so much more than just a physiological drive.
What? That's the exact opposite of what I've understood from this book see >>8955871

Of course my first book and all.

Thanks for the links I'm gonna read on them.

>>8955078
>Except according to Nietzsche non-conscious things have Will.
I think you're confusing him with Schopenhauer. He's the one who attributes Will to every thing, including non-living objects.
However, Nietzsche did say once that the "Will to Life" can only be attributed to non-living objects. But he was only being hyperbolic to prove that it's the "Will to Power" rather than the "Will to Life" that underlies human motivation. Maybe that's where you got confused?

>>8955972
meant for >>8955904

>>8955965
>In the 1880s notebooks—those from which his sister collected together a large selection after his death under the title, The Will to Power: Attempt at a Revaluation of all Values—Nietzsche sometimes adopts a more metaphysical orientation towards the doctrines of Eternal Recurrence and the Will to Power, speculating upon their structure, implications, and intellectual strength as interpretations of reality itself. Side-by-side with these speculations, and complicating efforts towards developing an interpretation which is both comprehensive and coherent, Nietzsche’s 1880s notebooks also repeatedly state that “there are no facts, only interpretations.”

Yes, in his unreleased notebooks he "adopts a more metaphysical orientation" than his current one. Don't think it can take over what he actually released?

>>8955971
The thing to keep in mind with Nietzsche is that he lies to you all the time. His purpose is to excite a change in a person, not to present a thesis. You need to read an aphorism in the context of the book, the section and even in relation to the immediately surrounding aphorisms. For example he wrote OtGoM because BGaV sold terribly, so he decided to write a much simpler book about some of the more important ideas of the previous. However in order to do this he intentionally distorts and sometimes tells outright falsehoods about his epistemology in order to simplify the experience of understanding the slave revolt of morality and the showing off of his psychological investigative lens for understanding philosophy.

>>8955982
Ok sir big sir I keep this in mind thanks.

File: tips Christian morality.jpg (20KB, 474x528px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 474x528px

>>8955904

>Of these three 'inward facts" which seem to guarantee causality, the first and most persuasive is that of the will as cause. The conception of a consciousness ("spirit") as a cause, and later also that of the ego as cause (the "subject"), are only afterbirths: first the causality of the will was firmly accepted as given, as
empirical. Meanwhile we have thought better of it. Today we no Ionger believe a word of all this. The 'inner world" is full of phantoms and will-o'-the-wisps: the will is one of them. The will no longer moves anything, hence does not explain anything either - it merely accompanies events; it can also be absent.

>Wherever responsibilities are sought, it is usually the instinct of wanting to judge and punish which is at work. Becoming has been deprived of its innocence when any being-such-and-such is traced back to will, to purposes, to acts of responsibility: the doctrine of the will has been invented essentially for the purpose of punishment, that is, because one wanted to impute guilt.

>>8955982

>BGaV?

???

>>8955972
No I am not confusing him with Schopenhauer and that to which you refer is not something I am confused about.

>>8955977
>Don't think it can take over what he actually released?
Well many scholars (including Heidegger) think so. That's also not to say that he doesn't have a metaphysics which is tangentially related to his Will to Power in his earlier works.

>>8955991

>will as cause

Context, retard.

>>8955999

Is there a reliable way to tell what parts of the Will to Power are Nietzsche's, and which parts are the forgeries/etc?

I'm sceptical of treating it as canon/legit on account of the tampering by his sister/etc, never mind the fact that he didn't publish it.

>>8955996
Sorry, it's six in the morning where I am. I meant BGaE (although I suppose even then BGE seems to be the standard).

>>8955991
Neither of those quote do what you think they do. You clearly took the first quote out of context from the aphorisms around it to distort its meaning.

>The error of a false causality. People have believed at all times that they knew what a cause is; but whence did we take our knowledge--or more precisely, our faith--that we had such knowledge? From the realm of the famous "inner facts," of which not a single one has so far proved to be factual. We believed ourselves to be causal in the act of willing: we thought that here at least we caught causality in the act. Nor did one doubt that all the antecedents of an act, its causes, were to be sought in consciousness and would be found there once sought--as "motives": else one would not have been free and responsible for it. Finally, who would have denied that a thought is caused? that the ego causes the thought?

This far better contextualizes what your quote to show he isn't doing what you say he is.

>>8956009
I couldn't really say. We are getting into some deep Nietzsche scholarship at this point. Far beyond what I am knowledgeable about.

>>8956018

>Will to Power
>Deep Nietzsche scholarship

Nah bro. Deep Nietzsche scholarship is actually going to Nietzschehaus and reading his notes/etc that they keep there, in the original German, 90% of which are unpublished.

Will to Power is available as a PDF on Google for anyone to see.

>>8956022
You misunderstand. I was saying that looking into The Will to Power to see how it modifies Nietzsche's thought with the knowledge that it is composed of unpublished notes to which we do not know for sure their importance, and that passages have been willfully perverted to change their meaning by his sister, is the part of deep scholarship.

>>8955156
The Greeks

>>8956032
I've only read Plato's dialogues and The Republic.
I know I need to read more.

Downloaded Aristophanes's plays but fuck, I think they were in original language, some scribbly shit.

>>8955078
>Does this book actually elaborate more on its themes and statements or is it just a "short collection" of Nietzsche's thoughts, because that's how it feels like so far?
>NEETche
>Writting anything but unfalsible bullshit

>>8956438

>2016
>Demanding nothing but falsifiable shit
>Missing the point of philosophy this hard

You'd be more at home in science, kid. Your Socratic/Reason fetish is all the rage there.

>>8956546
>Your Socratic/Reason fetish
>I am not listening because it hurts my feelings :(
Is this supposed to be an attack?

>>8955156
he lists heaps, especially spinoza and plato. he hates on plato but can't stop talking about him