This guy is currently kicking my existential ass. How did your

>>9372064
I found out that he is right about all the problems and not even wrong about any of the solutions. He just failed to deliver on his magnum opus completely.

>>9372068
You mean Zarathustra?
I haven't read enough to get the whole thing yet.

>>9372121
No, I mean The Revaluation of All Values. The magnum opus he announced multiple times that never came to be.

Zarathustra is just something that was championed in retrospect because he could not deliver.

There's a reason why Nietzsche is generally associated with nihilism more than with an answer to it. He didn't have one.

>>9372134
Nietzsche thought that Thus Spoke Zarathustra was literally the deepest book ever written, and he kept thinking it as late as 1889.

He also stated that everything past Thus Spoke Zarathustra was just a new perspective on Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which, he thought, was self-sufficient and encompassed his entire philosophy.

>>9372152
Yes, that's what he said in Ecce Homo I believe. A work which he wrote at the point where he had already realised his main project was not going to work out.

The Antichrist and Twilight of the Idols are salvaged pieces of what The Revaluation of All Values was supposed to become.

He himself rebranded TSZ as his central work retrospectively when he realised he couldn't deliver on his promise of a planned future work. But before that he was hyping up the 'Yes-saying' bomb he was going to drop now. Which he failed to do.

File: justb.jpg (108KB, 914x1091px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 914x1091px

just b urself famperini

>>9372205
>>9372134
Thanks for the explanation.

>>9372064
might as well kill yourself nazi POS

File: ohyou.jpg (12KB, 263x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 263x200px

>>9372401

Reading TSZ was like having a guy telling me in a very accurate way why and how I'm such a piece of shit, would say it changed me for better, at least a little. That doesnt mean I think I understand his thought completly, at all. Currently waiting for birth of the tragedy to arrive at my mail desu
>>9372205
ffs why cant things go right for once

>>9372425
>Currently waiting for birth of the tragedy to arrive at my mail desu
That's a whole different Nietzsche, when he was pretty much still a Schopenhauerian.

>>9372134
>Fred had no answer to nihilism

I didn't know it was possible to be this dense

>>9372466
Could you tell me what his answer was in a straight forward and non-obscurantist manner?

>>9372448
I want to go chronologically

>he hasn't realized the role Nietzsche has had in revitalizing Christianity
>he doesn't realize the sun was made to rise for him

>>9372490
I understand, I did the same myself.

I got the most out of The Gay Science, Beyond Good and Evil, Genealogy of Morality and Twilight of the Idols myself. Nevertheless the stuff leading up to it is still interesting and very much worth reading.

Reading some of his correspondence is a good idea too by the way for that all too human aspect.

>>9372486

Make your own values

File: 1464711027895.jpg (239KB, 1508x850px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1508x850px

>>9372064

I found some aspects of BG&E to be inspiring and insightful. The one thing I'd really taken from it over the years, and this quote is burned into my head, paraphrasing here, "One must be careful fighting monsters lest they themselves become a monster. And if thou gaze into the abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."

I found the whole "let nihilism forge you" thing to be lackluster; I'm much more partial too a sort of Kierkegaardian perspective wherein objective dogma brunts the blow of nihilism in lieu of the individual becoming the poet of their morality. This is not to say that Christian dogma is more correct than Nietzschean moral poetry, but it is to say that I think the former is a better cure to nihilism if indeed one hasn't already killed God.

I also thought Nietzsche too eagerly castigated Christian morality as slave morality, that there's great virtues to be found in Christian morality, and that his proposed system would lend itself to a too uncaring ethic, one that maybe wasn't conducive to the progress of a civilization.

Moreover, and perhaps more important that any of this: Nietzsche himself recognized that when God died, one could not make themselves believe again. Yet he went on to posit that one should will themselves into believing in their own moral poetry. This I find paradoxical.

I see nihilism as a permanent condition, not one that can necessarily forge an individual. I think the cure is faith, which, when gone, is gone forever for a lot of people. Nietzsche himself wrote later in life that one would have to be mad to truly live by his system, and that few men could ever do it.

"all superior men who were irresistibly drawn to throw off the yoke of any kind of morality and to frame new laws had, if they were not actually mad, no alternative but to make themselves or pretend to be mad"

I am not an ubermensch, but I'm pretty happy about it.

>>9372642
That's what I got out of it as well, just make some shit up.

I didn't find it satisfying and it neglects that values are not something an individual chooses to have but are part of a larger social and cultural framework. People can't just decide to sincerely adopt a set of brand new beliefs.

I think Nietzsche realised this as well though.

>>9372707
>it neglects that values are not something an individual chooses to have but are part of a larger social and cultural framework

they indeed are, but is it not exactly the task of the ubermensch to free himself from this?

>People can't just decide to sincerely adopt a set of brand new beliefs

The genealogy is supposed to be the first step to being able to do just this

>>9372749
This guy gets it

>>9372707
Your rebuttal is very social constructionist though, and pretty much missed Freddy's point because of it

>>9372205
He talks about it in the Geneaology and BGE. Also when he wrote Ecce Homo he still did not know anything about his impending death. He wrote it between 1887 and 1888, and he started getting scared for his lifemonly in the mid 1889.

Even in his last years, when he was still writing all day long new books, he still thought thay his philosophy was complete with Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

>>9372749
>they indeed are, but is it not exactly the task of the ubermensch to free himself from this?
I think it's an impossibility. People simply aren't self-made, they don't exist outside of causality and context.

>Your rebuttal is very social constructionist though, and pretty much missed Freddy's point because of it
I don't think I've missed it as much as I simply disagree.

>>9372835
If you're coming from a perspective that necessarily says that values are societal in nature then that is an ideological disagreement

Nietzsche argues that values can (emphasis on the can) be created on an individual level

Hence the ubermensch as far as Nietzsche is concerned

And hell look at the history of philosophy, its filled with people creating ideas and values as rebuttal to other's ideas (see Rationalism v. Empricism)

Seems like a silly way to look at things is all, maybe clarify if I'm missing a point?

File: CIAOK.png (363KB, 838x911px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 838x911px

>>9372663
>>9372749
>>9372835
>decent conversation on /lit/
This is actually quite insightful.

>>9372848
Another thing to consider is that Nietzsche is rhetorical in his arguments. Originality is not the important point, it is the individual will to create values or follow their own values that is important to living and rejecting nhilism, even if you don't become an ubermensch.

>>9372835
>I think it's an impossibility. People simply aren't self-made, they don't exist outside of causality and context.

In the Geneaology of Morals Nietzsche aknowledge this (the segment is in the second part of his treatise on the ascetic ideal), and states that most likely his point of view is a direct consequence of his society too.

>>9372749
>The genealogy is supposed to be the first step to being able to do just this

Read what I've wrote above. His geneaologies are nothing more than a speculation: the point of GoM is that ideals and concepts that may seem natural can be deconstructed, showing that there may be hidden, never examined motives behind them. He doesn't think that what he is saying is necessarily true: in this case the geneaological method is the real subject, the conclusions he reqches through this method is just a way to show to the reader to what extent something as natural as "guilt" can be analyzed genealogically.

This by the way is what most of Nietzsche's works are about: he justifies his thoughts and reasoning, but he never implies that there is an actual metaphysical foundation for said arguments: what is important is that these arguments can still be made even if you're at heart a nihilist (because he was, at heart, a skeptic nihilist), and that it is still worth doing so.

>>9372855
Seems to me that the Ubermensch is just a thought experiment, not really something that a person could expect to become but rather strive to be as though they could be

That or the ubermensch is just a masturbatory thing for Freddy, and its best to not take it seriously but rather look at his other arguments more seriously

>>9372863
>>9372880

Meant for this post

>>9372880
In GoM he specifically states that everyone is sick and that no one can be a ubermensch yet. It's also a big point in TSZ: in Nietzsche's opinion, who's not a ubermensch (the undesirables) should still strive for the creation of the first ubermensch, instead of drowning themselves in ressentiment.
Nietzsche's never thought that he was a Ubermensch, but he still thought he could imagine him.

>>9372707
he thought all nonscientific consensus is contingent and arbitrarily frozen, according to an unpublished essay at least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Truth_and_Lies_in_a_Nonmoral_Sense

>"A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins."

>These ideas about truth and its relation to human language have been particularly influential among postmodern theorists, and "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" is one of the works most responsible for Nietzsche's reputation (albeit a contentious one) as "the godfather of postmodernism."

>>9372863
>His geneaologies are nothing more than a speculation

Nietzsche is quite clear that his genealogy of morality is not fictional. If you do not take his statements on the topic literally, you should argue why.

> the conclusions he reqches through this method is just a way to show to the reader to what extent something as natural as "guilt" can be analyzed genealogically

how would this be convincing if his GoM would be fictional?

>>9372907
>Nietzsche is quite clear that his genealogy of morality is not fictional. If you do not take his statements on the topic literally, you should argue why.

He literally states at the end of the third treatise that he doesn't really trust his point of view on the matter, nor he trusts the point of view of any other living psychologist, but he still sees the inherent, revealing value of the genealogical method.
Also at the beginning of the third treatise he states that all he said was, ultimately, a speculation. Later on I'll search the actual quotes for you.

>how would this be convincing if his GoM would be fictional?
The point is that he believed in his conclusions, but he has really no way to justify it, nor does he think that there is a objective way to do so.
It may be anti-philosophical to some other anons, but Nietzsche still trusts his reader to understand and value this informations even if the informations themselves are not confined in a strict system (not that his reasoning is volatile, but it's not Kantian either, which is relevant, considering that he was living through a age dominated by both positivism and Idealism).
Also at the beginning of GoM he states that this analysis should only be seen as a starting point for future psychologists more than a finishing point.
You're suspect towards his method is directly inquired in the part about sciences in the ascetic ideal section.

>>9372848
>And hell look at the history of philosophy, its filled with people creating ideas and values as rebuttal to other's ideas (see Rationalism v. Empricism)
I would say that is illustrative of the fact that individuals can not create their own meaning. It's like a pebble bouncing off a rock and saying it has created its own momentum. Repulsion is no less conditioned by circumstance than attraction.

I think that in the development of ideas and values the individual is almost irrelevant, a mere particle, and that the actual shifts take place on a level beyond the control of any specific individual, just like a school of fish changes direction without any one fish choosing said direction.

The mere possibility of individualism seems to me like a temporary illusion created by a tiny window in societal development, the place between the industrial revolution and the information age where a city person could feel just atomical enough to feel separate from society and not connected enough to realise that humanity is as intertwined as ever.

I guess from my perspective Nietzsche is very much a product of his time in that regard.

>>9372960
I should add that in just typing this I feel like I don't do Freddy justice since he's such a multifaceted lad that developed much throughout his career as a thinker/writer.

It just never feels right to pin him down as subscribing to this or that in any strong and meaningful way.

I recall parts of his work where he would seem to be in agreement with what I just said, for example, but in others he takes a more individualist perspective.

File: latest[1].gif (10KB, 279x305px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 279x305px

>>9372064
Nietzsche failed at the solving the problems he identified. I'm not sure that it affected him as deeply as to cause his breakdown, but I think he did see that himself towards the end. The last man was always our destiny, maybe even always was who we really are.

The Birth of Tragedy is severely underrated, though I can totally see how the viewpoint that the greeks were conflicted pessimists was and still is suppressed.

Honestly I think Kierkgaard is more interesting and Stirner just way better.

>>9372960

>I would say that is illustrative of the fact that individuals can not create their own meaning.

>The mere possibility of individualism seems to me like a temporary illusion created by a tiny window in societal development, the place between the industrial revolution and the information age where a city person could feel just atomical enough to feel separate from society and not connected enough to realise that humanity is as intertwined as ever.

I, too, am an advocate for neoreactionary traditionalist theocratic fascism

>>9373004
Reminds me of what Camus said:

>Stirner laughs in his blind alley; Nietzsche beats his head against the wall.

>>9373021
That's really fucking poignant.

So much pomp in this thread.

>>9373043
Who cares if it looks pompous, as long as it's actually an interesting, civil conversation.

File: 1491570077702.png (148KB, 222x293px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 222x293px

>He read Nietzsche before Schopp

>>9373063

All smoke and no heat imo.

>nietszche
>existential

So...

Where do I start with Nietzsche?

File: 83288[1].jpg (9KB, 256x400px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 256x400px

>>9375085
Have some working knowledge of the greeks, then I'd just start with pic related and go with what seems interesting from there.

>>9375103
I mean where do I start with the author Nietzsche

>>9375183

Not the same guy, but Nietzsche can be rather dense and his work compartmentalized. Before I started him, and this was years ago, I read myriad books about him from other authors.

Some people want to read him chronologically, and I find nothing wrong with that, but, and as the other guy pointed out, some rudimentary knowledge of the Greeks will help you along with that.

I personally started at Thus Spoke Zarathustra and enjoyed it quite a lot, though without my prior readings I would've been lost.

A lot of people on here will tell you to speed read philosophy while not consulting any outside sources and playing chess. I think this is just a dick-measuring-contest type thing, but definitely don't listen to anyone who says to jump right into BG&E with no prior knowledge of Nietzsche and his ideas and start speed reading the thing (if that's even possible).

>>9375193
Isn't beyond good and evil his most accessible work?

>>9375103
Also, what's a "working knowledge of the Greeks"?

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-10 at 6.14.54 PM.png (12KB, 294x172px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 294x172px

>>9373021
That's actually really funny.

>>9375216
Whatever you do don't start with Will to Power

Feels dense man

>>9372822
The last decade of his life was spend drooling in a corner, mate.

>>9375216
It's his best, for sure.

>>9376635
Of course for "his last years" I meant "his last years of sanity"

>>9372134
>No, I mean The Revaluation of All Values. The magnum opus he announced multiple times that never came to be.

Nietzsche wanted to try to reevaluate all values, but he did not think that he had a actual shot ij doing so (I don't know if this is the right translation, but the actual title was meant to be "ATTEMPT at reevaluation of all values". He did not want to be a prophet, he just wanted to show us how to be one, but this process was already presented and explained in his TSZ, meaning that RoaV, just like every other Nietzsche's post-TSZ books, was nothing more than a appendix, a footnote to it.

>Zarathustra is just something that was championed in retrospect because he could not deliver.
This is objectively false. Stop lying, he championed it until he lost his mind. There are literally zero occasions in which he doubt about the infinite value of that book.

>There's a reason why Nietzsche is generally associated with nihilism more than with an answer to it. He didn't have one.
That's a shallow interpretation, even if you're right (the anons who doubted you are even more pseud than you). What I'm saying is that, although your saying a correct thing, your phrasing and wording shows that you have not really got what Nietzsche was saying. It would be like saying "Dostoevskij? He thought that if there is no God anything goes!". It's not wrong, but such a sentence just shows a lack of nuance that proves that who said it was obviously uncapable of grasping to its full extent what the author/philosopher was trying to say.

That said, Nietzsche had a response to nihilism, and that response was a strong, shouted "yes".

I translated the entirety of Zarathustra into English while heavily intoxicated and without speaking much German. I began by composing a song by assigning notes to each of the articles that begin the chapter titles.
I would post it online, but I want to reserve it in case I ever become famous enough for it to be a saleable novelty. If you ever come across such a book, you will know it was I who wrote it.

>>9376831
post some notes, i'm interested

File: 27-years-old.jpg (227KB, 988x555px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 988x555px

>>9372064
>How did your reading of Nietzsche translate into your everyday life? Did you even tried to let it change you?

It changed me a lot actually. I now see straight through politics. Everyone is just trying to manifest their will to power in the real world.

It also made me realize that my own previously strongly held values, e.g liberal values of tolerance and brotherhood, are literally just the specter of Christianity's slave morality.

I'm making a mistake starting with The Will to Power, aren't I

>>9377130
Not really. You can just read them in what order you want but I would recommend reading Thus Spake Zarathustra last.

>>9372064
Realize everything is meaningless. With that you choose we're you put meaning in things. An analogy I like to use is if a meteor his earth the universe would still exist. Do what ever you want, its a pretty freeing feeling.

>>9375183
The book I showed you has nothing in it (save for the introduction) not written by Nietzsche. Think of it like a "best of" thing for aphorisms.

bju,mo0

>>9377509
I already started reading it, thanks for the recommendation

>>9376220
Ooops... why not?

>>9375103
Why do you need a working knowledge of the Greeks in order to get into philosophy it always seems to be recommended

>>9375103
do those books called an XYZ Reader annoy anyone else? using reader as a noun is fucking obscure and sounds stupid. it just feels like you're a pseud walking about like "look at me I'm a NIETZCHE READER! soo edgy"

>>9378850
better to have a working knowledge of the hebrews if you want to get into nietzsche's major works t b h, only birth of tragedy really needs greek awareness

I've now accepted that every argument is based on the dualistic Apollonian Dionysus dichotomy and that everyone is wrong. I live my live accepting conflict, pretending to be a fool so that when I open up not simply being an idiot, it takes people aback and opens them up for further discussion.
I've now started to become more creative by writing down my thoughts and creating art.
I feel complete but it also feels like I've understood everything there needed to be known about life, and it leaves a weird taste. Like taking a helicopter ride to the top of the mountain while watching everyone trying to struggle upwards below you.

>>9372134
The revaluation of all values is simply life affirming, meaning that the basis of all values should not be on power or what is good for the whole community, but on your own life. The desire to live and to allow others to live their own life and not destroy it should be the new basis for our morality.
The problem is that questioning our values and face nihilism is often equated with accepting nihilism.

>>9379628
>I've now accepted that every argument is based on the dualistic Apollonian Dionysus dichotomy and that everyone is wrong
so you only read BoT? you might as well call yourself schopenhauerian.

>I feel complete but it also feels like I've understood everything there needed to be known about life
absolutely disgusting

>>9379645
>so you only read BoT
>thinking that the Apollonian Dionysus Dichotomy isn't a central part of his thought.
Nice dismissal.

>>9373021
accurate

>>9379756
no, it's only central to BoT, hence it's similarity to will(dionysian) and representation(apollinian). he disengaged from dualism and what reappears as dionysian drive later doesnt carry an antagonist princple with it.

>>9379820
Only because Shoppy viewed both as the same, which is Dionysian.

>>9372835
This is kind of the conclusion I came to a few years ago but it feels so unfulfilling and unstructured. It's scary.

>>9379863
Yeah it is scary.
That said, I have been apathetic these past months/years, and re-discovering Nietzsche bring me an energy I didn't know I still had.
I'll gladly take uncertainty if it goes with drive, cause I have been barely living lately.

>>9379856
transforming into each other and interlocked, but never the same. one of the points BoT tried to make was that greeks found the right combination of D&A unlike eastern or roman civilizations, which allowed greeks to make great art. the hope that such kind of balance could be retrieved again was a romantic consolation, similar to hope of german idealism, which nietzsche later hated about that book.

>>9379896
But didn't Nietzsche advocate a merging of Apollonian and Dionysian principles to become a Ubermensch?

>>9379928
he doesn't even talk about apollonian and dionysian shit that much after BoT, BoT was a one off

>>9379928
that would bring him back into array of domesticated traditional wise men. übermensch is all about muh dionysian drive and resistance against alexandrinian-socratic modern world (which isnt apollinian either) .

>>9379963
How is Alexandrinian socratic modern world not Apollonian? How is pure individualism not Apollonian?
Nietzsche disliked slave morality and preferred master morality so long as one did not go the entire way, ala Socrates.

>>9379975
the ultimate culmination of A was roman empire and its deification of the state and order. in BoT it was squashed by alexandrinian culture preoccupied with dialectics, science, welfare and so on.

>>9380009
You still haven't explained how it's not Apollonian.
The roman empire is the purest form of Apollonian, for sure, but how is science not Appolonian, or Socrates, which Nietzsche hated because he was a the furthest version of master morality to the point where he denied everything from existing.

>>9380019
in BoT model science=dialectics=new alien principle or defect independent of A&D.
slave morality is related to dialectics and progress of welfare state.

A is more individualist than D, but its top priority is still duty towards state.

>>9379891
I guess that's my issue, is the uncertainty.

I'm afraid of making the wrong choices in my life, and I just don't feel like I'll ever find my purpose or drive. I'm also so apathetic towards everything in my life, suicide just seems like almost a rational option, and that's scary in itself.

>>9380045
Uncertainty is an issue only if there is value to truth.
I'm realising I've spent my time in academia playing the game of interpretation according to established methods, while thinking deep down the world is infinitely complex, enough to give it various (maybe infinite) meanings. For me accepting uncertainty is less comfortable in some ways (some sort of loneliness in the choice of values; giving up some idea of being understood), much more in others (I can try and be true to myself, even if it is wrong to everyone) - and I haven't tried yet, so why not? It is still something worth doing before suicide/death.

>>9380044
>in BoT model science=dialectics=new alien principle or defect independent of A&D.
That can't be right. Science is purely Apollonian, a replication of reality to mold existence and dominate nature. Though that might just be the faulty BoT model view of science.

And Apollonian, in its purest form, I agree, is the duty to the state, but it should be ideally about the individual itself, without any duty.
The only duty it should hold is towards civilization to combat and maintain control over nature, not the state itself.

Unless I'm wrong, Apollonian represents our will over the world, our desire to be above nature and causality, while Dionysian represents nature and the fact that we are animals and nothing more, without volition.

>>9380063
that fits more with what's usually called promethean.
the romans were never good scientists but they had good engineers and architects. something like mathematics or theoretical physics belongs to a more dialectical sphere, it requires scepticism and aimless speculation that is simply incompatible with greek heroes. nietzsche's problem with science was that it built an own self-defeating momentum and that "certain people even prefer to lie down and die on a certain nothing than an uncertain something", viewing it as just a tool would be too naive.

>>9380109
Regardless, the dichotomy is that of reasons against instinct, and Nietzsche valued instinct more than reason while being life affirming.

Tfw Nietzsche wrote something along the lines of "when I read a few lines of Schopenhauer I knew I had to read it all", and then you know that feel because you have to read all of Nietzsche's work. Even the crazy letters.

>>9379863
The chance that the truth in any way corresponds to what people would like to hear is pretty slim, to be honest.

But Nietzsche himself considered untruth to be a necessary condition of life. Delusion is what makes us function.

>>9372663

>there's great virtues to be found in Christian morality

Strike One. There really isn't. He devotes a great amount of effort to taking every single Christian value to task, and indeed to pieces.

>his proposed system would lend itself to a too uncaring ethic

Strike Two. You really didn't understand him if you think that evil or apathy are a problem, never mind evil or apathetic people.

>wasn't conducive to the progress of a civilization.

Strike Three. See above.

Who cares? He was a virulent racist who died broke and alone.

File: iq by country.png (235KB, 2877x1745px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 2877x1745px

>>9380424
I know this is bait but racism is scientifically correct.

>>9380433
Not really. People who have the capital to move to the USA are obviously not as stupid as the average person in their country. Read a fucking book.

>>9380424
He wasn't a racist at all. In fact I would argue that he was pretty exemplary on that topic compared to the rest of society at that time.

>>9380457
Yes he was. Have you even read him? He is /pol/'s first philosopher. There is no objective metric by which to judge a human life.

>>9380433
>what is the blank slate theory

>>9372642
What exactly do you mean by values?

>>9380462
>He is /pol/'s first philosopher.

This is the stupidest shit I've ever heard. Nobody on /pol/ would ever read a book, let alone a book by Nietzsche.

>>9380503
I agree.

File: 1490987073565.jpg (100KB, 610x395px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 610x395px

At this point I'm just constantly in an existential crisis. Nihilism was a box of Pandora that I never should have opened. And there's no way back.
Till the day I die, I will go trough life with hundreds of questions in my head but zero answers.
This nightmare will never end.

File: image.jpg (38KB, 630x603px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 630x603px

>>9380462
>>9380462

You guys are both wrong.
Nietzsche was racist for today's standards, but not in a /pol/ way.
He really thought that there was a difference between african and european people, but he did not value said difference negatively: in fact he considered African people more tuned to their humanity (which for N. is one of the greatest compliments one could imagine) when compared to the typical European citizen.

Also in Nietzsche is always necessary to make a distinction between a person and his societal definition: for example to Nietzsche the terms "woman" and "female" are completely different.
A female may choose to not adopt this social convention, but if she chooses to adopt the, imsyead she should aknowledge it. Nietzsche was very anti-feminist because he saw women that were trying to emancipate themselves while still championing those same conventions, trying to adapt them to their will in a way that seemed vapid and weak from Nietzsche's point of view. They were not emancipated "females", rather they were sick "women", people who tried to keep living by an arbitrary ideal, adapting to a instable, contraddicting form. A similar example can be found in his Geneaology of Morals, in his first treatise, where he considers scientism/positivism as a new, more instable form of the ascetic ideal, the instability being that his ultimate goal is the complete denial of life and humanity. It looks like a progress, but the continuum between the ideals is still too strong: the result is the deepening of these arbitrary values that will be now even harder to eradicate.

>tfw Nietzsche was a post-feminist

>>9380562
Nihilism is refuted by the existence of good in the world.

>>9380563
>in fact he considered African people tuned to their humanity (which for N. is one of the greatest compliments one could imagine) when compared to the typical European citizen.
sauce?
Would definitely like to hear some theories about what humanity means to Nietzsche.

>>9380572
That makes absolutely no sense.
Good in the world is refuted by nihilism.

>>9380577
Geneaology of Morals, Treatise 2, paragraph 7.

>>9380607
Also always in the Geneaology of Morals, I can't remember where, he talks about how African people have a keener istinct for their impulses, which, to Nietzsche, is a central skill when it comes to being human (he uses it as a criticism for the European man).
It's either in the first or the second treatise, I'll search it for you later.

>>9380572
>"good"

>>9376831
Never change /lit/

>>9380607
>>9380623
love

>>9380572
>world
>any measure of 'good'
What do you determine to be 'good' in the world? Beauty? The sublime? The order of the world? The uncarringness of everything that eventually dies?
There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

>>9380433
>>9380439
>>9380474
This chart isn't very convincing.

You could control for income. One interesting fact is that blacks with family income greater than $200,000 have the same mean SAT score as whites with family incomes under $20,000.

However there are still a dozen other factors, including net worth. This isn't a hard science.

>>9372064
>try to let it change you
oh honey...

>How did your reading of Nietzsche translate into your everyday life? Did you even tried to let it change you?
As a youth, cathartic. Dropped at 21. Rediscovered the good bits for what they were a few years later. Find him rather stale and simple minded now.

>>9381038
For fuck's sake

File: Ayn-Rand-.png (346KB, 451x451px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 451x451px

>>9380433
Oh, and what does being correct about racism entail? Do tell us!
Should we exterminate all of those who have a lower IQ? Should specific individuals represent their collective and thus, all IQ are identical to the collect they represent? Do all Asians have over 106 IQ? Should people not love others for who they are, rather than in service or duty towards their collective?

>>9372134
>No, I mean The Revaluation of All Values. The magnum opus he announced multiple times that never came to be.
Nietzsche almost produced a system ; but he had the probity to die beforehand.

>Zarathustra is just something that was championed in retrospect because he could not deliver.
False.

>There's a reason why Nietzsche is generally associated with nihilism more than with an answer to it. He didn't have one.
False.

>>9380572
>moral world-order
kys

>>9380628
You don't think good exists? Then evil doesn't exist either?
Wait, let me guess, Hitler did nothing wrong either?

>>9372960
Man from society or society from man are literally just opinions though, and the point of opinions is to empower and help the people who hold them. If you consider yourself as metaphysically bound to society it sullies your opinion of yourself, nothing you own is yours. But things are bound to each other both ways, and you can instead claim the past as your own, which will probably be a psychological source of energy to help you bring out any hypothetical greatness inside of you.

>>9381170
Why don't you define "good" instead or throwing rhetorical questions about its existence? I mean, that could lead to a productive exchange.

>>9381170
No they don't not really. Good and evil don't exist outside of your individual perspective you may think what hitler did was the "evil" thing but from his perspective he was the "good guy" because he was saving germany

>>9380439
>the top people aren't as dumb as the average people
Well of course.

>>9380474
Nonsense.

My experiences have been that people retain nothing noteworthy from Nietzsch which they can communicate like a normal adult.

You have a conversation with fanboys of Kant or Heidegger or Hume, they keep giving and giving. I'm always left with the impression "Great fucking lad" and that person being at least moderately intellectual.

Nietzsche fanboys.. boring uninteresting bunch desu.

>>9381566
> tfw this is you

>>9381566
probably because nietzsche's major works total like 800 pages, just go read it yourself

>>9381566
Because Nietzsche is extremely hard to speak about and most of his "fanboys" haven't understood anything. Meanwhile since other philosopher have systems, without deeply understanding them, you can grasp they key ideas of their system and discuss them at length while having fun. That's why you should never speak about Nietzsche in public, except with people whomst've read all of Nietzsche and whomst you know have a real understanding of him.

>>9381092
Read all his work chronologically and the nachlass and the Curt Paul Janz biography and his correspondence you lazy cunt

>>9381566
>You have a conversation with fanboys of Kant or Heidegger or Hume
No shit, you idiot, only academics read and fully understand them. Nietzsche cqn be read by amateurs too, which mean taht you'll end up talking with lots of people who should not talk about Nietzsche with other people. Either they misread it or they read it right, aka in a biographical way, which mean that that insight is infinitely valuable to them and utterly worthless to everyone who is different than them. Only academics read Nietzsche and its sources enough to talk about him while remaining outside of their life and personality.

>inb4 "I've talked with amateurs who read and understood Heidegger, Hume and akant"
Then you were to ignorant to see that their opinion was not even wrong.
It should be illegal for people without PhDs related to those authors to talk and discuss them publicly.

>>9372064
It was alright. BGE and Genealogy really opened things up for me but that was a few years ago.

Reading GS now after learning a lot of political economy and I just don't really care about anything he's saying.

Weird how this works.

>>9382858
Nietzsche never said anything specific about politics themselves, he's more concerned about the zeitgeist in which politics takes place.
He doesn't say anything about what politicians do, rather he talks about what does actions means in our collective imagination and self-identification.

Can you be more specific?

>>9382566
only a mouthbreather would assume that "academics" have anything but superficial interest in philosophy. and in connection with nietzsche its even more comical after everything he wrote about universities. philosophy is an art and not a science.

>>9383059
>only a mouthbreather would assume that "academics" have anything but superficial interest in philosophy.

They for sure, for the most part, have a deep interest in certain philosophical works.

>and in connection with nietzsche its even more comical after everything he wrote about universities. philosophy is an art and not a science.

This has nothing to do with what I was saying.
My point was that if you find people who can talk about Heidegger, Human and Kant chances are that behind their philosophical statements there is a formal education (which implies intense study, extensive contemplation and a direct confrontation with what was studied).

Since Nietzsche is so easy to read there are more chance for you to find fans of his who have only a even more superficial appreciation and knowledge of it than the one you were postulating for academics. I can distractly read Beyond Good and Evil in 3-4 hours, understand maybe 1% of it and go on with my life without having realized how much of it I've misread it. You simply can't do it with Kant, Hume and Heidegger: if you want even try to pretend that you've understood them you have to read them in a way that very few people would apply to Nietzsche's writings.

It's not cause of Nietzsche's ideas, rather it's cause of how they were presented.

>>9372134
>There's a reason why Nietzsche is generally associated with nihilism more than with an answer to it. He didn't have one

Have you read beyond good and evil? How can someone be this retarded?

>>9373004

Stirnerfags need to go somewhere far away and never come back

Ultimate meme philosopher

>>9384344
There isn't a single meme in his post, whereas your post doesn't have a single argument or point OTHER than "meme."

Jump in front of a cliff, you pathetic fuck

>>9384316
>How can someone be this retarded?

You're posting on 4chan

>>9384354

>muh spooks

Gtfo. Stirner is obscurist trash

>>9384439
Wow, as someone who's read his entire wikipedia summary you must know a lot about his beliefs.

I'm not asking, I'm telling you: stick your head in the pier, turn on the gas, and kick the chair.

He empowered me, but then I became kind of a horrible human being. Not 100% horrible, but far too violently opposed to morality, by far not focused enough to accomplish anything. I did not build a new morality, I merely acted on my desires. He did reveal a new side of myself to me, though: the truly despicable human being. This is a good thing, for now I know what I must still overcome.

I'm still struggling with that. I managed to defeat my old insecurities and flawed moralities, but I did not overcome nihilism. I may have gotten from a camel to a lion, but not from a lion to a child.

I need a re-reading of him, my first reading was something like 5 years ago and the second 2.

>>9384454
What did you do that was so horrible

>>9384448

Sadly there's not much worth reading about him other than the wiki page. He's a favorite among philosophy hipsters who think nietzsche is too mainstream

>>9375193
Who ever says to speedread philosophy
W h a t