>tfw your most famous work was only appreciated after your death
Anyone else know this feel?
No one knows that feel, because they're dead when it happens.
>>571389
>tfw your life's work was not only widely ignored during your lifetime, but to add insult to injury the vast majority of people who appreciate it posthumously are nihilistic degenerates who don't understand it.
Poor Nietzsche.
>>571389
My work will never be appreciated... Welp, better go off myself.
>>571395
>>571406
That's not true.
A number of them were antisemite degenerates who don't understand it.
>>571437
2bh I'd say the Nazis understood Nietzsche much better than modern anarchists do.
>>571431
this. my boyfriend didn't really like Bowie's music before his death, but now he's a fan all of a sudden ._.
>>571444
Nietzsche was popular among anarchists even during his life. Herd-mentality Nazis fundamentally miss the point of his work.
>>571446
He's shallow as fuck.
>>571461
Except anarchism is also very herd-mentality. There's a good reason why in life Nietzsche had no love for anarchism.
>>571471
>Except anarchism is also very herd-mentality.
No necessarily. Social anarchism certainly is, but individualist anarchism, particularly that derived from the egoist tradition most certainly is not.
>There's a good reason why in life Nietzsche had no love for anarchism.
If I were to guess, it was because European anarchists were typically socialists or communists of an egalitarian bent.
>>571431
Also, if they died young/suddenly it adds a certain mystique to their person and people get curious to see what it was all about.
Nietzsche like hardly talked about the government. His concern was chiefly in the field of morality, and he was very intelligent in that regard. His theory of consciousness and willpower is very wise and apt.
I prefer Kierkegaard, because I am a believer in God, but a great philosopher he was if you're a moral nihilist.
>tfw works were largely unappreciated during lifetime and still pretty obscure after death
Being regarded as a crude precursor to Nietzsche is a disservice to both men's works.
>>571389
He was really successful in life though.
Gatsby was just panned by the people he was criticizing
>>571983
waking life?
>>572049
The movie is nice, and Nietzsche was namedropped once. So was Plato.
>>571995
The extra kicker is that he'd honestly be even LESS known today were it not for the fact that Marx was so MASSIVELY assblasted over Stirner that he wrote what amounted to a gigantic philosophical shitpost that was itself longer than all of Stirner's actual works combined.
>>571542
>but individualist anarchism, particularly that derived from the egoist tradition most certainly is not.
It is though.
It divides society into two groups, the state, and the rest. Individualist anarchism generally encourages banding together to resist this statism thus making a new herd. Of course there's figures like Stirner who doesn't particularly endorse revolution, but this is a minority in the anarcho-individualist world.
And even still ego-centricism isn't particularly appealing to Nietzsche either.
>>572064
By those metrics, all revolutionary movements are "herd mentality." Hell, any cooperation between sizable groups of individuals towards a common goal would be "herd mentality."
If the combating by the majority against the state-ruling minority serves as a fulfillment of the rational self interest of those involved, then what should it matter if cooperation is utilized in order to achieve that? That still sounds to me like it's working as intended.
>>572084
Yes, they are.
>If the combating by the majority against the state-ruling minority serves as a fulfillment of the rational self interest of those involved, then what should it matter if cooperation is utilized in order to achieve that?
At this point you've just abandoned Nietzsche's more or less apolitical philosophy and are just discussing pure Stirner.
>>572084
>By those metrics, all revolutionary movements are "herd mentality."
They kind of are. They're all pretty much destructive to the individuals within them, turning them into an asset to serve "the revolution" as something ahead of themselves.
>>572064
It divided society into two groups, the state and the rest.
Not really, the state is a distinctive organization, but the people within it are still considered autonomous, unique individuals, as are the rest of society. Further, banding together for mutual benefit isn't the same as herd mentality; you can work together without compromising your individuality or becoming subservient to someone else.
Individualist anarchists were largely against revolution, they tended to prefer the idea of grass-roots services to come in and supplant the state with an alternative, rather than any sort of organized uprising.
>And even still ego-centricism isn't particularly appealing to Nietzsche either.
Nietzsche was remarkably inconsistent. But the concept of the ubermensch is fundamentally egoistic. If the ubermensch does something for a "greater" cause, he does it strictly at the direction of his own will.
>>572096
>But the concept of the ubermensch is fundamentally egoistic. If the ubermensch does something for a "greater" cause, he does it strictly at the direction of his own will.
When we talk about Nietzschean "will" in English, it's not like any egocentric desire. It's much more like the very esoteric Crowleyan concept of true will.
The creative power of the ubermensch isn't just motivated by self-interest. It's motivated by raw life-affirming love for this world. And this can manifest itself in ways that are distinctly un-selfish.
>>572110
>The creative power of the ubermensch isn't just motivated by self-interest. It's motivated by raw life-affirming love for this world. And this can manifest itself in ways that are distinctly un-selfish.
I know this is gonna sound like bait, but it sounds really, really Christian, only replacing god with "this world."
Anyhow, I'll admit error here. Regardless, individualist anarchists weren't particularly prone to herd mentality, and I would argue that their misuse of Nietzsche was less blatant than the misuse it experienced at the hands of the previously mentioned "antisemite degenerates." It's also worth noting that that they were (and still are) much fewer in number than social anarchists. They were also given to basing their positions on an external moral principle, though there were (and still are) exceptions (Max Stirner comes to mind immediately, and Benjamin Tucker's later work also springs to mind).
>>572123
>I know this is gonna sound like bait, but it sounds really, really Christian, only replacing god with "this world."
It kind of is.
The general idea of what an ubermensch is supposed to do is fill the vacuum of nihilism that exists with the decline of Christianity.
>>572126
I guess the similarities between Nietzsche and Stirner really are only superficial.
