Alright, let's counterbalance some of the incessant Christfagging and discuss unChristian moral systems.
My system is superior to Christianity. I believe strength is superior to all other virtues. Yet, I also don't believe in violating other people. It's my belief that I should lead others to greatness. Everybody has better and worse versions of themselves, and it's my mission to bring out the better in people. As well, I take in the idea of existence before essence, and don't judge people until they prove themselves to be something. I'm also hesitant to judge, because people have time and time again proven to me they have beauty within them that can be expressed. Also, it's my desire to be strong enough to be able to share myself with everyone. To be pleasant in conversation, eager to help and provide for others.
And I don't need moral rules to do it.
Of course, it's important to be willing to be proved wrong. Which I am, constantly, because healthy people adapt, unhealthy people cling to one system.
So, /his/, what are your antiChristian morals?
>>1199437
>What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
not strokes tho
>>1199437
What is the proper order to read Nietzsche's work?
>>1199503
Depends on what you already know. Familiar with Greeks, not modern philosophy? The Birth of Tragedy. Other way around? Beyond Good and Evil. Familiar with Neither? On the Genealogy of Morals.
>>1199503
Read Stirner. Nietzsche just plagiarize him,and added garbage tier methaphors to the mix. The ego and its own is like a no bullshit version of Nietzsche's work.
>>1199484
not what n is talking about m8
the quote applies only to the spiritual realm of will
>>1199526
except for not at all. stirner and nietzsche have a few similarities but nietzsche says alot more and says it alot better.
>>1199554
Each new passage in BG&E either directly or indirectly refers to another modern philosopher. It's not worth reading unless you're well versed in modern philosophy. On the Genealogy of Morals and The Gay Science are much easier and more straightforward reads. If you choose TGS, read the first passages after the poems very slowly and carefully, because they're super important.
>>1199569
I have OtGoM in my possession already, is it okay to start with that one? Followed by TGS? What is the minimum to read so that I may understand BG&E?
>>1199553
>except for not at all. stirner and nietzsche have a few similarities but nietzsche says alot more and says it alot better.
>Few similarities
He copied most of it,added some crap from Schopenhauer,and you basically have Nietzsche's work. Stirner just exposes things as they are,without all of Nietzsche's bullshit like the eternal return. Hell Nietzsche even copied Stirner writting style. It is so obvious that he plagiarized him that it is not even funny.
>>1199584
Perhaps he was merely heavily inspired by him, and did not intentionally set out to copy him.
>>1199581
Yeah it's fine to start in OtGoM, it's sort of middle work though so you're missing out alot on Nietzsche's development. For BG&E you should at least have read Descartes, Kant and Plato.
>>1199584
>He copied most of it,added some crap from Schopenhauer,and you basically have Nietzsche's work.
No. Not at all.
>Stirner just exposes things as they are,without all of Nietzsche's bullshit like the eternal return.
Eternal recurrence isn't a literal statement.
>Hell Nietzsche even copied Stirner writting style. It is so obvious that he plagiarized him that it is not even funny.
? I'm all for the interpretation that Nietzsche read Stirner, but their writing styles are not the same.
You sound really ignorant of Nietzsche
>>1199586
That would be true,if he bothered to mention him as an influence,but he didnt. He just took the work of other modify it a bit and call it his own. That is plagiarisn 101
>>1199599
On what basis are you making these claims?
>>1199601
Ach," he said, "I was very disappointed in Klinger. He was a philistine, I feel no affinity with him; but Stirner, yes, with him!" And a solemn expression passed over his face. While I was watching his features intently, his expression changed again, and he made something like a gesture of dismissal or defense: "Now I've told you, and I did not want to mention it at all. Forget it. They will be talking about plagiarism, but you will not do that, I know." Frederich Nietzsche to Franz Overbeck's wife . He read Stirner,basically copy pasted his ideas,and never mentions him directly,eventhough, he discussed him with his friends. That is plagiarism.
>>1199622
One anecdote from the same website I've read. There used to be a ton of literature attempting to prove Nietzsche plagiarized Stirner but, except for a few anecdotes, there's no hard evidence. The best we can say is that it's a nice speculation, and even if Nietzsche did plagiarize, there's still volumes of original work in Nietzsche. Let's not overstate the case or be too bombastic here.
>>1199625
His first works are totally original,I will give you that,but his later works,when he mostly dismisses his older works is pure Stirner.
>>1199584
You're a retard. There are similarities to Nietzsche that makes you wonder if he read Stirner and why he didn't mention him, but at the same time Nietzsche's work goes far beyond Stirner.
>>1199437
>I believe strength is superior to all other virtues. Yet, I also don't believe in violating other people. It's my belief that I should lead others to greatness.
Non sequitur.
>>1199584
>Taking the Eternal Return at face value literally
End yourself.
>>1199640
Made up my mind to vote Leave because of this, but why exactly are you posting it here?
>>1199437
You remind me of myself, Anon. Yet I am a Christian and you are not.
I believe in human-expression; the ability to become one's ideal version of thyself through effort and humility. I believe the successful should lend to the unsuccessful, and that only God has the capacity to judge fellow man, and does that not make us the same?
I subscribe near identically to your moral fiber, yet what makes you better than Christianity if you and I are so similar? Can you benchpress 2 plates and squat 3? Because I can. Have you learned three languages with near perfect fluidity within the span of your lifetime? Because I have. Do you give to the poor and eliminate that which makes man suffer? Because I certainly try.
Yet, I am of the belief that no man is inherently "superior" to another, by method of creed, race, or religion. No man can claim "superiority" through reason of self-judgement or otherwise.
If you and I were to sit in a room together, could you truly call me your inferior for believing in a God which you have no conflict over?
It is important to be a self-aware creature; to be able to catch ourselves in our moments of hubris, but has it not occurred to you that you and I, so nearly alike, may simply be trapped in delusions of grandeur?
If you do not believe in a God, what gives you the right to be one?
t. "Modern" Christian
>>1200049
>Taking the Eternal Return at face value literally
I said that it was bullshit,never said that it was literal. It is just pointless writting
>>1199437
Have you followed your own system of morality without exception?
How do you evaluate "greatness", " better or worse" or "beauty"? If your opinion on these qualities differs from someone else's how do you decide who is right?
>>1200121
No, of course not.
>>1199640
A VOTE IS A VOTE
The Sharia Referendum is on xx/xx
>>1199640
A VOTE IS A VOTE
The Trojan Referendum is on xx/xx
>>1199640
>>1199526
Facebook trier philosophy
>>1200636
The truth is that you must put forth a value system and define these things yourself. Everyone does this, even when it's subconscious.
Metrics are also created which a wide majority of people will agree upon, but they must be agreed upon only within the context of their goal / contest. For example, in the Olympics, there is a reward for first place. How do you determine who deserves first place? This is measured by the rules in place which create the contest. The runner who reaches the goal line first will earn first place, because the goal is to reach it first. Similarly, this is how values are agreed upon, by way of first defining the goals and rules of the contest before in order to create a tool of measurement.
>>1199640
On the left:
>old
>probably smells bad
>skinny
>wears shitty clothes
>probably constantly ill
>low energy
>low T
right:
>muscly
>sharp clothing
>high energy
>young
>probably smells great
>high T
>healthy as fuck
Hmmmmm.
>>1199640
What the fuck is this. What are we voting?
>>1201502
Brexit.
>>1201519
Oh thank god I though it was something important. I wish the eternal to go and stay go.
>>1200112
>If you do not believe in a God, what gives you the right to be one?
#rekt
>>1200756
So if you were to be judged solely by your adherence to your own set of moral standards, rules that you yourself set up, you would fail?
Does this not give you pause?
