What does /his think of Nietzsche?
I think he was an autistic smug philosopher who only cared for himself
>what does /his/ think of Nietzche
We've had Nietzche threads every few days for the past 6 months, I would expect you to know by now
>>1111373
Hugs ponies.
Why should he give a shit about anyone else?
He's a respectable philosopher whose ideas could do lots of good. You clearly know nothing about the man.
>>1111373
My knowledge of him is in passing, but I think he shared a lot of the insecurity and anxiety that we do now in our postmodern society.
>>1111373
Sadly incomplete. Had he finished "The Transfiguration of All Values", perhaps there wouldn't be so much contention about him.
Retarded Nazis and revisionists like to associate him with the Rise of The Third Reich.
Really loved "On Genealogy of Morals".
People shouldn't act like they're capable of stepping outside of history in order to objectively tell others what history was like.
He knew damn well that all people are subjective in terms of retelling the past.
Rather than trying to tell us the "facts", they ought to just accept that they're only telling their perspective on it.
most 20th century continental philosophy is merely a footnote to him
>>1111400
kek
Like Father Seraphim Rose, I think Nietzsche's heart was in the right place, but his effort to combat nihilism in fact merely formed a dialect sublated by nihilism which made it even stronger. Nietzsche helped relative truth, which has let to quality being relativized.
>"The falseness of an opinion," said Nietzsche, "is not for us any objection to it.... The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving...." [15] When such pragmatism begins, Nihilism passes into the Vitalist stage, which may be defined as the elimination of truth as the criterion of human action, and the substitution of a new standard: the "life-giving," the "vital"; it is the final divorce of life from truth.
>The Christian Truth which Liberalism has undermined. and Realism attacked is no mere philosophical Truth, but the Truth of life and salvation; and once there begins to gain ground, among the multitudes Who have been nourished by that Truth, the conviction that it is no longer credible, the result will be no mere urbane skepticism like that with which a few Liberals console themselves, but a spiritual catastrophe of enormous dimensions, one whose effect will make itself felt in every area of human life and thought. Thinkers like Nietzsche felt the presence of the first shadows of this catastrophe, and so were able to describe it in some detail and deduce certain of its consequences; but not until these shadows had begun to steal into the hearts of the multitudes could these consequences manifest themselves on a large scale.
cont
>>1113354
>Toward the end of the nineteenth century increasing numbers of quite ordinary men had begun that restless search--so much a part of our own contemporary scenes--to find a substitute for the God Who was dead in their hearts. This restlessness has been the chief psychological impetus of Vitalism; it is raw material, as it were, ready to be shaped after the pattern of the intellectual presuppositions we have just examined, by craftsmen inspired by the latest current of the "spirit of the age." We tend, perhaps, to think of this restlessness mainly in terms of its exploitation by Nihilist demagogues, but it has been an important stimulant of Vitalist art and religion also. And the presence of this component in most Vitalist phenomena is the reason why they--as opposed to the seeming "sanity" of Liberalism and Realism--present symptoms, not merely of intellectual deviation, but of spiritual and psychological disorientation as well.
>Such an approach is an open invitation to obscurantism, not to mention charlatanry; and if the latter may be dismissed as a temptation for the Vitalist that has not become the rule, it is by no means possible to ignore the increasingly blatant obscurantism which the Vitalist temperament tolerates and even encourages. It becomes ever more difficult in the contemporary intellectual climate to engage in rational discussion with Vitalist apologists. If one, for example, inquires into the meaning of a contemporary work of art, he will be told that it has no " meaning," that it is "pure art" and can only be "felt," and that if the critic does not "feel" it properly he has no right to comment on it. The attempt to introduce any standard of criticism, even of the most elementary and technical sort, is countered by the claim that old standards cannot be applied to the new art, that they are "static," "dogmatic," or simply "out-of-date," and that art today can be judged only in terms of its success in fulfilling its own unique intentions. If the critic sees a morbid or inhuman intent behind a work of art, the apology is that it is an accurate reflection of the "spirit of the age," and it is implied that a man is naive if he believes that art should be more than that. The latter argument is, of course, the favorite one of every avant-garde today, whether literary, philosophical, or "religious." For men weary of truth it is enough that a thing "is," and that it is "new" and "exciting."
Did Nietzsche just see nihilism (lack of inherent meaning) as fundamentally life denying, when the realisation can lead to either life denying or life affirming depending on your perspective? is it simply a false dichotomy?
>>1113383
I think the nihilism he was railing against was the despairing variety that came from transitioning from a Christian mindset to a nihilistic one. Nietzsche himself could be described as a nihilist (he rejects the notion of an absolute truth to the universe).
>>1111373
>implying you can care about anything other than yourself
>>1113396
>>1113383
He gives a very clear definition for what he believes nihilism to be
>That there is no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs-no 'thing-in-itself.' This alone is Nihilism, and of the most extreme kind.
>Nihilism represents a pathological transitional stage (what is pathological is the tremendous generalization, the inference that there is no meaning at all): whether the productive forces are not yet strong enough, or whether decadence still hesitates and has not yet invented its remedies. Presupposition of this hypothesis: that there is no truth, that there is no absolute nature of things nor a "thing-in-itself." This, too, is merely nihilism-even the most extreme nihilism. It places the value of things precisely in the lack of any reality corresponding to these values and in their being merely a symptom of strength on the part of the value-positers, a simplification for the sake of life.
>>1113029
I'm honestly surprised no one took this bait, I guess a lot of the trolls has abandoned /his/ now that the newness has worn off.
>>1111373
Camus took his philosophy and made it better.
>>1111373
All philosophers are by definition smug.
