Has anyone properly overcome Nietzsche yet? Can he even be overcome? Can the labyrinth he set forth for the world be escaped?
So far it doesn't seem like it. Academics, analytics, and other unphilosophical people have tried, but don't seem to come close to even understanding him. And he himself foresaw the end of philosophy with his own; he knew that what he was bringing to the table was going to end in tragedy for philosophy.
>>854173
Sanity overcame Nietzsche.
Why has Nietzsche replaced Stirner as meme supreme?
>>854173
100% guarantee you Nietzsche now believes there very much is a God.
100% guarantee.
But he didn't set a labyrinth. He freed us from the one set up by Socrates and the Abrahamic religions
And I'm sure this thread will be filled with christposters who will try to mental gymnastic their way out of Nietzsche's philosophy, probably without a single one of them having read anything by Nietzsche. We will probably get long spiels about how Nietzsche was a nazi and a nihilist, proving once again that they don't understand anything he ever wrote
>>854181
because he's the better, more interesting philosopher.
Nietzsche didn't manage to overcome Stirner
>>854183
I habeeb it
Do you mean him taking apart the build up of mythic lies from the Greeks and religion //tippy fedora
or did you mean his failed Ubermensch thinking?
>>854192
In destroying the old one he created a new one. It's qualitatively different from the old, and yet at the same time it's just as gripping. His Will to Power incenses everything.
Hence why, when he wrote his "madness letters", he started writing to Ariadne the princess of the labyrinth as his eternal lover.
>>854173
Overcoming Nietzsche is as simple and easy as deconstructing Nietzsche... if you can stomach the irony that it would be Nietzschean of you to do so.
Any one can overcome Nietzsche by avoiding adherence to ideology. When it came to deconstructing ideologies Nietzsche was masterclass, but at creating one he failed. Almost every aspect of life has "overcome" Nietzsche. Nobody actually believes in the Master/Slave morality, they believe in modern psychiatry, which is a far more cohesive and scientifically grounded theory on human behavior. "The meaning of life is to make your own meaning", one of Nietzsche's central points, is practically a cliche in our culture. one of those trite things that low-information women repeat continuously to each other. "Ubermensch" is understood by most people to mean "asshole", because we know what happens when people who believe themselves the superior race try to build their own society, from Nazis to skinheads to organized criminals.
>>854289
Mind pointing me in the direction of the philosophy that properly supersedes his will to power then?
>>854366
Jesus Christ
>>854366
at risk of using buzzwords:
it doesn't exist.
Nietzsche was the last gasp of the dying Rule of the Strong. We are now firmly in the Rule of the Weak. A paradigm shift has occurred and whatever philosophy supersedes Nietzsche will not be in the same vein as his writing.
The other problem is that authors were primarily the Strong because literature is written with singular genius. Rule of the Weak does away with all that. The closest thing to a book by mass creation is some sort of cherrypicked anthology designed to create a certain line of thinking without the editor having a claim to any of it.
>>854414
lel
>ended scripture
>being able to influence anything
>>854204
Their philosophies are complimentary
>>854289
It's more like his work in enscapable. Anti-liberal intellectuals accuse liberals of being adherents of slave morality. Liberal intellectuals try to justify slave morality or sitance them-self from the concept.
Once you start reading him you realize Nietzche is everywhere. A lot of his ideas have become thought of as self-evident, although they have been dumbed down into ways the public can digest.
He's the new Plato and by that I mean all thinking has ended up being derived from him.
>>854192
Exactly. Socrates or rather the influence he had on Plato separated the world into two halfs, the higher 'other world' and the lower 'real world'. Religious themes just communicated these ideas to the masses.
Nietzche re-united the two worlds.
>>854414
I don't think you actually understand Nietzche's theory. You can't just say Mai Jeebus and expect it to end.
But I will tell you this. Even Christianity is being overtaken by Nietzsche. When you look at what is happening at the scholarly level it's all out of his play book. The general consensus amoung biblical historians is that Paul radically altered the religion, taking it in a direction inauthentic from the origenal.
>>854451
>The general consensus amoung biblical historians is that Paul radically altered the religion, taking it in a direction inauthentic from the original.
Sauce me or gtfo.
>>854458
Look up Jewish Christianity. Basically Christianity in it's earliest form was not seperate from Judaism but an extension of it. You still had to get circumsized and couldn't eat pork, until Paul claimed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul
It is also believed the earliest interpretation of Jesus was something called exaltation Christianity, in which Jesus was not God but a special prophet or angel that became divine at a certain moment in his life: usually on the cross, but sometimes during his baptism. Erhman covers this pretty well in "How Jesus became God". The Jesus=God thing came around later. This new interpretation also came in on the wings of Paul's ministry.
There's a lot of things but if you read Nietzsche's interpreation of Christianity and look at the scholarship that's coming out. He sounds like a prophet. I'll just give one spooky example, Nietzsche thought early Christianity was extremely derivative of Plato. Than 60 years after his death we found the Nag Hammidi library with some of the earliest texts. A copy of the Republic is put right next to the holy texts.
>>854489
>especially Protestant scholars
keke kekeke
>>854489
it doesn't take a genius to realize that a lot of christianity is derived from platonism, you can see the roots of christianity in Philo of Alexandria's attempt to blend platonism into Judiasm
>>854533
>it doesn't take a genius to realize that a lot of christianity is derived from platonism
You say this now, over a hundred years after Nietzsche illuminated everyone with this comparison. It may be a given at this point but there was practically two thousand years in between where no one properly pointed this out.
>>854489
Peter, not Paul, and on a vision from God where God said all food has been cleansed, and all people can be saved.
Because you can't tell Peter from Paul, I doubt very much you can tell the Old Covenant from the New.
>>854489
This was written in the late 30's AD, and is the first creed.
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve," (1 Cor. 15:3-5, NASB).
Your notions are propagated by "liberal scholars", which means "godless liars".
>>854533
Plato is the Messiah, died for the sins of the world, and rose on the third day?
No?
Then STFU.
>>854554
nice strawman. christ fulfills the role of the demiurge, the Father created the world through him. Remember the beginning of the Gospel of John? Christ is the Logos, translated as Word normally
>>854552
Paul's letters are considered be around 50 AD. And yes, my point is that Christ dying for your sins is Pauline idea. There is some theory that the other Gospels, except for John was was the last to be written, do not support this.
>Your notions are propagated by "liberal scholars", which means "godless liars"
Scholarship cannot axiomatically assume that a certain theology is true. That's bad scholarship. A hardcore Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant scholar's work is just as valid as an Agnostic, Atheist, or Muslims. Historical truth is the same no matter who is reading it.
>>854571
There is no demiurge, hate to break it to the gnostics, but it's just the devil. The god of this world, not God.
Plato no more described Christianity than he did Islam.
>So, philosophers tell noble lies, myths and/or ideologies in order to make civilization possible, which, perhaps, is nothing more than putting off the day of ruin. As Rosen says, "A myth is a story, it is a fiction, something that is not true. And yet this untruth, which we hesitate to call a falsehood, is able to communicate deep truths." One is forced to wonder if myths do communicate deep truths, or simply cause deep truths to be embodied, or lived, by the people. The Stranger, when choosing metaphors, will compare the craft of the statesman to weavers, doctors and gymnasts, crafts that operate on the body and its behavior. As Rosen says, "Politics is oriented toward the body; but philosophy, or the genuine art of statesmanship, is oriented toward the soul." One is tempted to ask if politics cares for the citizens' bodies because they have no souls? This would go a long way in explaining why modern philosophy, with a clear conscience, turns humans into mere artifacts. Humans are things anyway. Or, as Nietzsche said, "We are entering the phase of the modesty of consciousness." It amazes us that to this day one can meet people who read those words as libratory!
>But this is the difference according to Rosen, between ancient philosophy and modern philosophy (i.e., ideology). Ancient phronesis defended the human body against nature, beasts and men in order to create a space in which philosophical care for the soul was possible, or at least available. Ancient philosophical interventions were defensive. Modern philosophy (i.e., ideology) has gone on the attack and wishes to change the nature of both man and world. Thus we can say that the 'right' of ancient philosophers to rule rests on their self-control. Phronesis rests on moderation, not the 'philosophical mania' of Theory. While modern philosophy cum ideology rests on the 'philosophical' mania of a merely technical theory.
>>854584
Godless scholars cannot assume they can treat holy text as unholy text, and do so constantly, to their error.
You are correct in the writing; the events were in the late 30's when Paul was saved. Same Paul who wrote those letters.
As to your claim that nobody else said Jesus died for the sins of the world, you may have missed Isaiah.
Isaiah 53:12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.
>>854584
So, is Isaiah a Pauline notion too?
>>854598
you're thinking of the neoplatonic demiurge. the demiurge before the 3rd century was an intermediary figure or part of God that allowed the immaterial God to interact with the material world. several of Jesus's attributes are the same as this demiurge: God created the world through him, gives revelation of God to those in material world, allowing salvation from the knowledge of God
>>854612
should scholars assume that Hinduism and Islam are correct when studying their scriptures?
>>854621
Since there's no demiurge, there's no differently imagined demiurges.
>>854635
so then there is no Jesus. i can agree to that
>>854621
Let me put it this way.
Jesus created the world. Jesus is YHWH. Jesus is the Word, Jesus the Word was with YHWH, and Jesus the Word is YHWH.
>>854632
They're not holy texts. I don't care how they're treated.
>>854635
>hurr durr my imagination is so dogmatic and limited from my adherence to xtianity as to be unable to entertain hypothetical constructs
>>854640
No Jesus, no you.
>>854646
Since I know the truth, I know what's false. It's quite comfy.
>>854173
Why would you want to overcome Nietzsche? He wants you to overcome yourself
>>854173
I want /lit/ kiddies to leave
>>854173
The best argument against Nietzsche was probably written before he was even writing desu, pic related
>>854667
Try making a Nietzsche thread on /lit/, they'll tell you to go back here
>>854648
No Asherah, no you
>>854663
You can lie about whatever you want, yes.
The holy is not subject to the unholy.
>>854678
She's not even responsible for the creation of human beings. Your logic center is whack.
>>854674
Dosto influenced Nietzsche you half wit.
That's like saying the Magna Carta is the best argument against the American Constitution.
>>854682
Muslim scholars could say the same thing and we would get nowhere. surely if the bible is as great as you say it is it should easily be able to pass based solely on merit on an even playing field
>>854689
prove that she isn't
>>854700
Except Crime and Punishment shows that Nietzsche's ubermensch is nothing more than a lie you tell yourself
>>854674
Even a barebones interpretation of C&P should tell you that's wrong.
Raskolnikov questions if he has the right to the act, and so denies the Will to Power Napoleon had.
>>854709
>ubermensch is nothing more than a lie you tell yourself
Of course. Everything we tell ourselves is a lie. That's the whole point of Nietzsche: pulling back the curtain on the mythic lies started by the Greeks.
>>854709
The Ubermench is defined by his actions towards changing the world.
And as another anon said Nietzsche read Dostevesky. He even used some of his own ideas, for instance his analysis of Jesus as an "idiot"
>>854737
>Jesus as an "idiot"
m'lady
>>854737
>defined by his actions towards changing the world.
No, that would be changing himself into the best possible version of himself which would have an impact on the world as a side effect
>>854675
no not really
>>854744
You're a cowardly nihilist
>>854674
I too have read the CliffNotes summary that hilariously declares Svidrigaïlov as an Ubermensch. Are you sure you understand Nietzsche and the Ubermensch theory?
>>854745
>No, that would be changing himself into the best possible version of himself
I think you have a poor understanding of Nietzche. The Ubermench reevaluates values. The short chapter the Hammer Speaks, shows impacting history is very much part of the package.
There are numerous other hints such as the chapter on the old and new tablet in Zarathustra. Or the fact that every fucking time he gives an example of someone like an Ubermench it's someone that changed history.
Sounds like you are struggling with basic concepts. I'm guessing your knowledge consists of youtube videos and skimming a wikipedia page.
>>854200
I'd give you more interesting, he covered a lot more ground and did it with some very interesting prose, but I wont give you better. What Stirner covered is covered in a rock solid fashion.
>>854204
He is no better than everyone he denounces before him considering that his intellectual endeavour amounts to nothing more than a seduction. In its own little way it is a sort of immature petulant and infantile seduction as well, one that does not have the sincere conviction behind it of past ideologies but on the other hand it has the gall to disrupt the game of rhetoric that ideologues gleefully take part in, sort of like a child who disregards the rules of a game because he is tired of losing at it or some such poor behaviour.
Stirner knows his own doctrine does not have a leg to stand on, that the whole exercise he engages in is contradictory. His whole project is a failure simply because it's a contradiction. The only way you could consider it a success is if you think the overall outcome is that you have the ability to question or attack ideology. But that is hardly a quality specific to Stirner's writings, it's simply the ability to think critically, and it's what most philosophers with a system of thought have done throughout history. Except Stirner appears to be inferior to most of them because where every other philosopher attacks the previous prevailing ideology and replaces its center in its own coherent if not infallible manner, Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement, the attack itself is contradictory, and there is no real insight gained into the lack of the center because Stirner himself has no answer or interest in attempting to solve this contradiction of negation. So where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass. And on the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction.
>>854289
>>854366
Philosophy is not mathematics, you cannot say X solved X problem for all time. Philosophy is the process of constant scepticism hence why it is impractical and sometimes denounced as "useless".
Heidegger criticized Nietzsche's Will to Power but it isn't the same as superseding it since Heidegger was immensely influenced by Nietzsche's "end of metaphysics"
You don't supercede Plato,Kant, Nietzsche or Heidegger, they all have their historical and philosophical significance
>>854415
Wouldn't that just be indicative of Nietzsche's last man becoming the thing?
>>854787
> is covered in a rock solid fashion
Sure, Stiner can't never be accused of inconsistency.
I'd argue Nietzsche's biggest failing is simply the fact his work is incomplete. In the end, while fiercely independent, his foremost priority was guiding the reader towards a path he never imagined before.
>>854602
Can someone explain this to me? It sounds interesting but I'm not sure I get it...
>>854701
Don't bash your head against a wall. This Christposter will not budge. In his view, the only people who can correctly evaluate Christian texts are those with the emotional baggage to cloud their evaluation of them. He's intellectual filth.
>>854744
You just made a kneejerk assumption. He didn't mean idiot as someone stupid.
>>854797
Wunderbar.
Have an art, anon.
>>854800
Yes.
You can look around and see the seduction of the concept. The constant emphasis on 'ending suffering', the process of turning everything (even importaint stuff such as education and politics) into entertainment, the active goal of destroying all things spirtual, etc.
I've seen many people that when exposed to the concept of the Last Man even think it should be strived for.
The Last Man defeats the Slave by making the slave accept his culture of complete indifference, all passion is wiped out (except for perhaps momentary entertainment) so the slave cannot even be ressentful.
The alternative path is the way of the Ubermench marked by a warrior spirit and a fierce desire to steer the course of history. This will eventually lead to a direct conflict with the Slave, who will attempt to once again destroy the Strong using his weapon of pity.
>>854831
so idiot as in baka?
>>854831
That's alright, Neecheetards are massive fedoras anyway. Right on down from the man himself.
>>854797
Where was this from again?
>>854838
great pots i rate it 666/666
>>854837
More as in an idiot that is indifferent to the world itself.
>>854838
You know, this fedora meme has always bugged the hell out of me, and it only becomes more glaring on /his/. The general idea seems to be that there can be no criticism of Christianity as an ideology or Christians themselves without it being a personal failing. But you currently sit on a board dedicated in part to the discussion of philosophy and religion, and attempt to shame people into silence? What wretched cowardice, hang your head in shame for attempting such an utterly pathetic tactic, you miserable imbecile.
>>854824
and what flawless texts would you have our society be base on instead brave secular poster?
>>854857
There's no such thing as a flawless text. I would prefer people look out for their own interests reflected through the lens that they're still social animals.
What was his labyrinth even about? In this thread I see only a baseless claims about how nobody come close to even understanding him which is slightly disappointing and doesn't live to his hype.
>>854855
I would have sympathy for your desire to criticize Christianity if it were not form the fact that the secularist obsession with mindless criticism for the sake of criticism had not completely undermined our societies and alienated the youth to the point that they no longer care if the world burns down around them.
I HATE YOU as a secularist for raising me as an atheist and severing my psychological and cultural ties with those that came before me.
>>854857
This isn't about whether or not the biblical ethical code is good or not you dumb fuck.
Biblical study is the study of history. This isn't about your personal feelings about what you WANT the history to be but what it actually was!
Of course non-Christians can weigh in biblical history. In the same way that non-Russians can study Russian history.
Asking real history to confirm to your preconceived nothing is REVISIONISM and here you are acting like a miserable worm on a history board activily asking for the corruption of the field.
>>854890
*tip*
>>854289
>Overcoming Nietzsche is as simple and easy as deconstructing Nietzsche
>Any one can overcome Nietzsche by avoiding adherence to ideology.
Bad deconstructions don't qualify as overcoming. There's a reason he felt the ground needed cleared first so that philosophers of the future can do their work.
>Nobody actually believes in the Master/Slave morality, they believe in modern psychiatry, which is a far more cohesive and scientifically grounded theory on human behavior
First of all, "nobody believes" seems like an argumentum ad populum. Secondly psychiatry doesn't even begin to cover the topics concerned in the Genealogy; it's not philosophy, it's not even psychology. The definition of psychiatry ironically enough could reveal that, with its slavish connotations.
>"The meaning of life is to make your own meaning"
That's not even a Nietzsche quote. And when I googled it I found a Nietzsche hate thread that could quite possibly be you yourself posting this same misattribution. Anyway, I don't think that summarises him, I think he would consider the need to look for a "meaning" decadent, or at least he would want meaning to be a result of deep philosophizing and historicising, unlike your whimish picture.
>"Ubermensch" is understood by most people to mean "asshole", because we know what happens when people who believe themselves the superior race try to build their own society, from Nazis to skinheads to organized criminals.
Yet more popular appeal, yet more whimish caricature. The reference to the Nazis seems to confirm your whole post does not come from a deep familiarisation with Nietzsche. I think that's required for an overcoming.
>>854890
>I HATE YOU as a secularist for raising me as an atheist and severing my psychological and cultural ties with those that came before me.
That poster isn't your mommy or daddy. It sounds like you have severe mental issues.
Some people feel like they got a bad experience being raised by non-secular parents, or by parents of a denomation they don't like. Sorry your mommy and daddy didn't read you the bible when you were a kid.Grow up.
>>854864
What nonsense.
Just call it law of the jungle and be done with it, stop dressing it up with pop culture buzzwords.
>>854799
But going by Nietzsche, some philosophers go much further than others. He himself took down the majority of them and referred only to Heraclitus as his true philosophical predecessor. While many others might continuously serve as a foundation, or at any rate a "philosophical pure type" / philosophical archetype according to Nietzsche, I'd say that some philosophies are stronger and have greater clarity of thought than others.
Nietzsche's will to power was also supposed to be an overcoming of Schopenhauer's will and any other notions of will before Nietzsche, such as will to truth and will to survival.
>>854892
>Nietzscheboo of all people calling someone else a fedora
Yeah nah
>>854890
>I HATE YOU
>>854891
This is a humanities board and I am under obligation to treat your little pseudointellectual field of study with respect.
History is unverifiable bullshit.
>>854915
*fips tedora*
>>854918
> History is unverifiable bullshit
> he doesn't know about cliodynamics
>>854183
100% guarantee you Nietzsche does not now believe there very much is a God
100% guarantee
>>854893
>The reference to the Nazis seems to confirm your whole post does not come from a deep familiarisation with Nietzsche. I think that's required for an overcoming.
Not the other guy but you brought up a really good point. The way Nietzche overcame Plato, Socrates, Christianity, Kant, and all the rest is by learning about them first. He was very well read in all his opponents.
I think in Zarathustra he also says that he wants his followers to try to surpass him.
You can't overcome anything by ignoring it, you need to grapple with it.
>>854901
We already live by law of the jungle, and this remains true even in a Christian conception of the world. The strongest guy around the enforces his order is just God in that view. Might makes reality, this is, and shall remain forever, an immutable fact of reality.
>so what about this philosophy?
>you're a fedora!
>no you're a fedora!
>no you're a fedora!
Secularism isn't the reason why philosophy and theology are undervalued today. It's pissants who sit on their ass all day and do this.
>>854918
>History is unverifiable bullshit.
Holy shit you're retarded. Are you the same person that beleives in the historical truth of the bible? Doesn't that make Jesus's life unverifiable bullshit. Dude, you fedora'ed yourself!
>>854900
This is about bigger things than whether or not some homo felt loved by his Christian parents. This is about keeping in touch with your own culture and not just throwing everything away for the sake of globalist relativism.
Christian ethics were the foundation of our society and now they are gone, replaced by ethics based on relativism and tyranny of the majority.
>>854946
> The strongest guy around the enforces his order
There is no such guy. Nobody can control everything and that so called order is just wishful thinking from your part.
>>854950
Found the buttmad fedora
>>854839
Deep&Edgy, a philosophy PhD grad from old /lit/. Probably the most prestigious academic confirmed to have posted here regularly.
>>854957
> throwing everything away for the sake of globalist relativism
There is no need to throwing anything for the sake of globalist relativism. How you even imagine this in practice?
>>854941
>I think in Zarathustra he also says that he wants his followers to try to surpass him.
Homer's Contest deals with this. The short version is that every single Greek was trying to become the next Hesiod, Homer, or even Plato, and this constant effort to overcome them is what allowed the Greeks to produce so many greats.
So yes, Nietzsche certainty wanted someone to surpass him because to do so means having something better.
>>854890
So in other words, you have parent issues. Well, bravo, the first step to overcoming is to admit a problem. Now be a stronger man and become greater for it. But you wont find the secret to your completion as an individual in a holy book; at best you'll find a comfort that ultimately serves only to slow it down.
Further, there is no such thing as mindless criticism. Christianity has been thoroughly deconstructed and put through rigorous analysis from every possible angle, and will continue to be subjected to such. The funny thing is, the most vicious critics of Christianity have been by far Christians themselves, as evidenced by its continued fragmentation over doctrinal disagreement.
>>854799
>Putting Heidegger in the same sentence as the greats when not even a century has passed
>Nietzsche is not actually the overcoming of nihilism, he's just the completion of it, ya gotta know Being first :^)
>will to power and overman are metaphysical/otherworldly
>the true Nietzsche is not found in the published works ;)
>the Being, not becoming!
Heidegger is exactly the kind of obtuse German barrier to European enlightenment Nietzsche described past figures as being (right down to personal inclinations towards romantic nationalism nazi volk shit).
>>854946
The difference is God represents ultimate authority that trumps the will of simple mortal men.
It allows a sense of morality that doesn't necessarily shift the moment the strongest man gets his head bashed in in his sleep.
>>854993
He trumps the will of mortal men because he's stronger than mortal men. If another like him were to come along and do away with him, that other would then be the arbiter of morality as the god he destroyed once was.
>>854957
They were always based on tyranny of the majority. That's how Christian ethics came to be the norm.
>>854993
God doesn't trumps the will of simple mortal men. Didn't you forget that he literally give us free will?
>tfw no one wants to talk about based Schopenhauer
>So yes, Nietzsche certainty wanted someone to surpass him because to do so means having something better.
What do you guys think of Icycalm? Apparently he is to Baudrillard what Nietzsche was to Schopenhauer. His main concept is "Immersion", a way to affirm the simulacrum in the same way Nietzsche affirmed the Will despite Schopenhauer's excellent slandering.
>>854976
Horseshit.
It the inevitable result of this autistic desire to pick everything apart regardless of ability to put things back together again.
>>855020
>Icycalm
a truly meme-tier mind
>>855010
Oh anon.
Free will does not mean freedom from judgement. You can't "free will" yourself out of hell.
>>855027
At least he's funny. This is a great thread, let the memes complement rather than hinder it.
>>855010
>making shit up directly contrary to Holy Scripture
I pray you find your way back to Jesus.
>>855009
Nonsense.
Christianity did not come to dominate Europe through a popular vote.
>>855032
You can't free will yourself from black hole either but is doesn't matter from ethical point.
>>855045
No, it came to dominate Europe by gaining enough converts that it couldn't be rooted out through force, and then using it's newly found might to utterly destroy what remained of the old order.
>>854173
Easy as fuck.
>>854957
>Christian ethics were the foundation of our society
And before than it was the Greek/Roman ethics, and before that it was something else. And not everyone is from Christian backgrounds. I'm from Europe my ancestors had some weird pagan religion. What if my parents were Jewish, am I obligated to continue their thing. No, people do what they want.
Societies change. This is because ethics ARE relative. Rome did it's thing, Greek did it's thing, China does it thing, and we do our thing.
If PERSONALLY want to follow Christian ethics you can do that. It's your life, but screaming your head off that not every person on the fucking planet is choosing the same path as you is childish and stupid.
We are not going to start doing historical revionism just because it makes Christians look better.
>>854979
That's very cute anon but I can't help but notice you still have not addressed the meat of my argument.
Our culture used to have a moral center we could turn to in times of crisis. Now it does not.
What do you have to say to that?
>>855046
You've lost me anon.
Are you now claiming the laws of physics are just another exercise in rule by the strongest?
>>855057
So not by tyranny of the majority in other words.
>>855062
> Now it does not.
How can you be sure? There is no crisis for which we need to use our culture core to overcome it. You can't demand heroic acts in the relatively peaceful time.
>>855062
But it does have a moral centre. The humanist ideals of the enlightenment absolutely form the core of modern ethics and morals, which were themselves built off of Christian ethics and morals. It may not have a church, but there is absolutely a moral system guiding our societies.
How can you look at the insanity and idiocy of medieval and renaissance Europe and say they were any more moral than we? I don't think ourselves to be particularly greater, but we're certainly no worse. Though no doubt you'll bring up some whiny aesthetic hangup about homosexuals getting married, or people getting abortions as proof of our evil.
>>854993
>It allows a sense of morality that doesn't necessarily shift the moment the strongest man gets his head bashed in in his sleep.
But this is exactly how Christian societies were ran. They did wars all the time, at a much greater rate than we do now.
>The difference is God represents ultimate authority that trumps the will of simple mortal men.
Except God never interferes with anything man does so the argument is pointless. Napoleon captured the Pope and put him in jail, than he proceeded to destroy the church's power structure, allowing for the secular age. God didn't give a shit.
People CAN and DO do whatever they want. An angel is going to come down from heaven and stop them. It is precisely because we are free agents that we need philosophy like Nietzsche's.
>>855068
Exactly by tyranny of the majority. Unless you're just being a simp and using that as a shorthand for democracy. It was might, brought about by a majority, that resulted in Christianity becoming the norm.
>>855062
>Our culture used to have a moral center we could turn to in times of crisis. Now it does not.
Of course it does, it's just not one you agree with anymore.
Have fun being obsolete.
>>855020
i like his video game stuff
>>855060
Well I hope you're happy with your descendants (Oh who am I kidding, we both know you won't have children!) living under the ethics of Islam because that's what's coming down the pipe to replace your secular ethics built on sand.
>>855020
No one is going to admit it. But he is a legitimate philosopher. Like all big figures it's going to be a few decades before he really takes off in popularity and he's going to be dismissed in his early stages because his writings are contraversial and unorthodox. His work is solid and does advance Nietzsche. Immersion theory is legit and his writings are fascinating. Because Orgy of Will is entirly aphoristic Alex's writings need to be digested slowly. As Nietzsche said aphoristic writing is for people that want to be learned by heart, it's more difficult and forces you to reflect on the writing to get the meaning out.
>>854799
>Philosophy is the process of constant scepticism
Descartes pls leave
>>854173
>Nietzsche
>Faggot under cover of fake Zarathustra speech.
>Nietzsche talking about a death of god, while god is like do revive. Also Nietzsche claim about death of god which have meaning that god at least was and was alive.
Nietzsche was an overrated philosopher.
>>855066
Think about it. God is so strong that anything that he enforces is basically a physical law. By going backwards with this logic moral laws aren't really enforced by God. You can't ignore gravity but you can define what is good and what is bad how you want. Even if heaven and hell are factual truth and sin somehow send you to hell in practice it can be treated as another physical law. Heavy object falls on the ground like corrupted souls fall into the hell. Maybe there can be a situation where right choice is to do something and go to hell because of that?
>>855080
>Of course it does, it's just not one you agree with anymore.
LOL
Oh really?
Name it then!
>>855062
We've moved awya from a collectivist to society to an indviulistic society.
This was inevitable giving the emphasis on freedom and rights.
People are free to define their own way. To do this properly you need to read philosophy. However if you don't want to do this nothing is fucking stopping you from going to one of the prebuilt ethics systems that religion offers.
>>855097
>god is like do revive
???
>>855020
He understands Nietzsche, and has good taste in art. People piss on him like angry analytics / STEMfags piss on Nietzsche, because they don't get him aside from the fact that he makes fun of them. I haven't really read Baudrillard yet so I can't comment there.
>>855091
>Because Orgy of Will is entirly aphoristic Alex's writings need to be digested slowly.
>662. Why does it feel good to talk to a girl while fucking her? It's yet another level on which to touch each other, and if you don't you are seriously missing out.
Yeah anon, I'd be missing out on so much depth if I didn't digest this stuff slowly.
C'mon, Alex has all the philosophical sophistication of a particularly intelligent teenager. Hell, I wrote aphoristic screeds like this myself back in high school when I was equally full of myself, and I'm sure a lot of you have too.
>>855113
>and has good taste in art
he thinks capeshit is good art because a lot of special effects designers are employed for each one
>>855119
>I'm sure a lot of you have too.
Should we have a thread where we can share our most sophisticated teenage writing together to have a good laugh?
>>855079
Except I was the one who brought up the term in the first place, and I was using it to refer ethics decided by popular vote. You don't get to redefine the terms I'm using in a statement, then claim my statement is undermined.
Modern secular ethics are based on relativism and the will of the mob so they shift accordingly, do you disagree?
>>855082
>living under the ethics of Islam because that's what's coming down the pipe to replace your secular ethics built on sand.
But annon Christianity is ENCOURAGING Islam. The Pope is pushing for mass immigration and the Protestants have those Lutherian cucks.
Besides why the hell would secular people give a shit about Islamic ethics. We think their God is just as fake as yours. They have a right to practice their religion in their own personal life but they can't enforce it on others. Our view of religion is based on Enlightenment values backed by constitutional forces.
Besides man, don't you think these Muslims will be faced with the same secular forces the Christians are. There are already stories of Muslims leaving their religion after being exposed to Western culture.
>>855119
It relates back his idea of immersion, in this case the embracment of additional sesnes (talking=hearing sex=touch) He uses sex as an example because it's blunt. It's also why say...silent films are not as good as talkies.
I'll give an example of something where stuff takes reflection. His comments on homosexuals literally changed how I saw my entire sexual identity.
>Homosexuals have serious psychological problems because there are so few of them. They are a minority, and this makes it hard for them to adjust to and live in a world which is dominated by people who are very different from them. The result is that they spend their entire lives wrestling with their identities, trying to reconcile their values with those of the people who are on top. Black people spend their entire lives concerning themselves with their blackness, cripples with their disabilities, ethnic minorities with their marginalized cultures, and so on and so forth. This makes it both annoying for us to interact with them, and it also makes it very difficult for them to succeed in a world dominated by people who are happy and secure with their identities, and who are therefore far better able to focus on goals external to them — which is how the world is shaped.
He described how I felt about being homosexual PERFECTLY and after some deep reflection I eventually acknowledged and defeated my inferiority complex. He described in a just a few sentences exactly why the gay community is so fucked up and retarded.
>>855140
Christianity was undermined by secularism decades ago so pointing to the actions of modern Christian figures as evidence of Christianity welcoming Islamic ethics is fallacious.
Your "enlightenment values" are irrelevant so long as you live in a society whose legal code and government is shaped by popular vote. Secular humanists do not have children. Islamists do.
In two generations they will out number you and demand that their religious practices be given special precedence and they shall have the numbers to ensure that politicians who will cater to them are elected.
After that it's game over for Western Secular Humanism.
>b-but anon they will surely secularize!
2nd and 3rd generation Islamic citizens are universally more religious than their parents and grand parents. If anything the evidence supports the opposite claim. Secularism is a western philosophical tradition and only Western philosophical traditions are vulnerable to it.
>>855126
Judging the merits of an artwork by how impressive the effort required to make it was is nothing new. Big budget works are automatically more impressive because it takes an incredible amount of effort from society to pull such a project together, and it takes a great director to handle it.
But in his Genealogy he states that this is only the half of it with art. How impressive the effort was is the more negligible half. For Icycalm art is about increasing immersion, and relaxation from war. Therefore he separates intellectual pursuits from art. A Marvel movie is the perfect example of something that is easy to digest and get into while being incredibly impressive and immersive due to its high production values.
Also, a movie like Deadpool or Guardians of the Galaxy is just way cooler than some "contemplative" bullshit like Prometheus.
>>855133
>Modern secular ethics are based on relativism and the will of the mob so they shift accordingly, do you disagree?
My own ethics are not shaped by any mob. A mob may shape it's own ethics. One is only bound by mob ethics when one submits to them.
And I would argue ALL ethics are relative. Augestine, Aquinas, Luther, John Calvin, all had different approaches yet they supposedly got their source from the same God. Islam too supposedly has the same God but has widely different ethics. So do the Jews.
>>855069
>There is no crisis for which we need to use our culture core to overcome it.
Are you kidding me?
>>855179
christianity was undermined by secularism because it was inherently weak to it, you can't go back, you must move on to more solid ideologies, this is a big part of nietzsche
>>854797
>Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement, the attack itself is contradictory, and there is no real insight gained into the lack of the center because Stirner himself has no answer or interest in attempting to solve this contradiction of negation. So where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass. And on the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction.
I had a very similar impression from Nietzsche, am I doing it wrong?
>>855187
>One is only bound by mob ethics when one submits to them.
Well good luck with that, mountain man.
>>855184
marvel movies are trash for the lowest common denominator and icycalms love for them mixes poorly with all his anti-egalitarian rants
and now we're not even talking about artsy film, just entertaining cinema in general
>>855201
>more solid ideologies
aka. Islam.
Have fun with that.
>>855179
>Christianity was undermined by secularism decades ago so pointing to the actions of modern Christian figures as evidence of Christianity
If Christianity has been corrupted why are you even talking about it as an alternative.
Now the two fastest growing religions in Europe are Atheism and Islam. Islam is growing by immigration but atheism by conversation. There is a correlation between increased education and atheism. The major turning points for secularism where when certain things could be explained by natural proccesses: earthquakes are not caused by God, animals by evolution, etc.
The same process of disenchantment that happened to us will happen to them.
The idea of Islam conquering anything is a fucking joke. They can't even conquer Israel despite surrounding it on all sides.
>>855240
islam is pretty much the same as christianity in this regard only more macho and autistic
>>855240
Islam was basically what pro-religion people want anyway. The society under God laws.
>>855102
>Maybe there can be a situation where right choice is to do something and go to hell because of that?
If your choice causes you to wind up in hell or a black hole for that matter, it clearly wasn't the right choice.
>>855234
>marvel movies are trash
Care to elaborate how and make a proper criticism of his stance?
Also, he makes no distinction between art and entertainment like you do. He wrote an entire book covering this.
>>855234
His taste in video games is pretty good: dififcult arcade games and complex rpgs/strategy games. His approach to FPS is terribly shallow though, favoring mechanically simple and easy games such as GoW.
>>855245
I'm not talking about it as an alternative.
I'm simply pitching vitriol at secularists for destroying it in the first place.
I want them to remember that this is all their fault when Western civilization is put to the torch by Mahometans.
>>855272
why are you crying about things that happened centuries ago?
you're not black are you? Live moves on. Sitting around mourning the past is pointless.
>>855272
So all you're saying is >waaaaaaaaaah?
Shit conversation tbqh, don't know why I even participated
>>855254
From egoistical point of view you can say this but some ethics allow self-sacrifice for the great good.
>>855249
Except not really since Christianity does not demand the beheading of infidels while Islam does, and it is that "macho autistic" quality that renders it immune to the criticisms of Western secularists.
They don't care what science says, they don't care if you think their religion doesn't make sense. You are just a kafir and you will submit or die.
>>855272
>modern music is all terrible!
>fuck rap!
>it's all kanye's fault I can't turn the radio on and hear good music
>>855280
I'm not mourning so much as I'm reminding smug secularists who it was exactly that killed God, and Western civilization with Him.
>>855294
And what conceivable sacrifice for the greater good would send a man to hell?
>>855258
>quips
>shallow CGI
>boring plotlines
>the entire superhero concept
etc
like I said, we're not even talking artsy film vs entertaining film, this is purely in the realm of entertainment now, these massive modern CGI action movies are generally awfully mediocre
something like fury road is wayyy cooler in an adolescent way than shit like the new star wars movie, and generally you could tell that more effort was put into it. Not purely numerical of course, but in the sense of blood, sweat and tears. That this phenomena exists is true, or the effort of seth rogen dude weed lmao comedies would outshine tolstoy novels.
>>855261
yeah, like I posted earlier I like his video game stuff
I hope he's not dead for real
>>855306
Are you implying modern music is not garbage and rap does not belong in a garbage can?
>>855310
What if you done mass murder to stop a deadly war like when first nuclear bombs was dropped?
>>855297
>You are just a kafir and you will submit or die.
from a civilization that can't conquer a small jewish enclave I really don't see their threats meaning much in the greater scheme of things
>>855133
I'm pointing out that ethics have always been shaped by the will of the mob, you fucking retard. It was the will of the mob that imposed it, they just didn't do it through a fucking vote. Were you dropped on your fucking head?
>>855319
Are you against modern art too? Can you be the one of those people who have like zero aesthetic sense and like only what is approved to be great art by hundreds of critics of the past?
>>855326
They cannot conquer a small Jewish enclave because the are legally barred from entering it.
There is no such equivalent prohibition barring Muslims from entering Western countries, our modern secular ethics prevent such a thing.
>>855307
Actually the Church killed Him because they closed Scripture and deified Jesus from birth instead of post-Crucifixion. Read Emerson sometime, he was a formally-trained and church-ordained Minister, and even he saw that the church was killing their own doctrine.
What motivational purpose does something that occurred in the past really have? If all the church teaches is that long ago there was an aspect of God named Jesus who came down for a bit then went back up to Heaven, what's the point? Moreover, instead of using Jesus as an example of a man who attained sainthood and/or divinity, the Church simply made him great from the start. They changed him from being an ascension of mankind that all could attain to being an unattainable aspect of God Himself.
The Church killed God. All Nietzsche did was say it publicly.
>>855319
Radio music has always been garbage. This has not changed going into the 21st century. If you want to find quality music, you need to look for it.
>demonizing forms of media because you personally don't like them
See: the anti-movies, anti-television, and now anti-video game crowd that has now replaced them.
>rap is about stealing things and sleeping around
and Doom teaches children how to murder.
>>854890
>secularist obsession with mindless criticism for the sake of criticism
Only kind of criticism worth doing.
>>855338
> our modern secular ethics prevent such a thing
Populist rhetorics of politicians prevent such thing. There is nothing is secular ethics codex that can be threated as pro-open borders.
>>855338
>legally barred from entering it.
bruh
that's how all territorial laws work. I'm legally barred from walking across the border to canada because nations must control their borders to exist as sovereign entities. The european nations taking the immigrants in have made a legal exception and/or do not have the force required to stop them, as is the case in some of the southeastern nations.
>>855328
What does that have to do with what I said?
We're talking about two different things.
>>855345
I kind of agree with this. You can actually see the dawn of secularism in people like Thomas Aquinas. He took religion further away from mystism and towards falling into a binary true and false. He argued for a "true" and a few hundred years later Spinoza would turn his system upside and make it a "false". Religion became based on historical or metaphysical truth rather than a way of living.
And this is a result of what you said. They turned Jesus into something alien and unrelatable. You can't try to be like him or surpass him. There were even theological things which said his nature wasn't even the same as yours (Augustine tells us humans have a sin nature. But Jesus and Mary are exceptions because of unique circumstances).
The thing is we can revive God if we want. Nietzche's "God is dead" speech is supposed to be that. To do that we have to fix the mistakes the Christians made. That's what Jung tried to do, he tried to revive spiritualism in a Niezchian fashion.
>>855314
That's not much of a criticism though...
>quips
>the entire superhero concept
???
>shallow CGI
Are you saying all CGI is shallow? Why? If not, which CGI is?
>boring plotlines
Predictable, but I wouldn't say boring. They feature strong, healthy values nonetheless, which is always entertaining to see. THIS is the most important part, which I think everyone who complains that Marvel movies are crap fails to realize—the values displayed in a work are super important. A movie could be intelligently written and skillfully directed, but if the values present in the work are ugly to me, I don't give a shit about it.
The new Mad Max is without a doubt better than the new Star Wars. But it's pretty ignorant to think that all Marvel movies are handled so callously. There are a ton of people who are very passionate about western comics.
>>855338
the concentration of muslims in israel is like 3 times higher than in european countries like germany, france and sweden
>>855333
Depends on what you mean by modern art.
Abstract sculpture and painting?
That's fine.
Some lesbian shrieking about the plight of the subaltern while daubing herself in menstrual fluid and feces?
That's not fine.
>>855370
>There is nothing is secular ethics codex that can be threated as pro-open borders.
So what exactly are these populist politicians appealing to, to justify their policies, if not the secularist morals of their constituents?
>>855373
>The european nations taking the immigrants in have made a legal exception
Rooted in what system of ethics?
>>855425
Irrelevant as Israel is not accepting millions of Muslim immigrants while Germany is.
>>855119
You can cherrypick a particular aphorism from one of Nietzsche's books that appears simplistic when taken out of the context of the entire book that it's included in, too. Doesn't mean you aren't just a baiting idiot for doing so.
>>855474
They are populists so maybe they are appealing to primitive emotional responses instead of moral considerations? Just a wild guess here.
>>855479
Christianity. Forgiveness means letting them in.
The Pope confirms this.
>>855423
The "quips" part is about how marvel movies are all too easy and light in tone. "Dance off bro, you and me" - said by main character to the main villain in the climax of the plot. As for superheroes, I never liked the concept. They build up these terrible overarching plotlines, where characters run around in spandex and treat the world like a childrens cartoon (like how batman has a recurring cast of villains), and the constant rebooting of the series until the original has been lost in time, it feels incredibly commercial and lame. That's just me though.
>Are you saying all CGI is shallow? Why? If not, which CGI is?
I don't know, I'm not a movie expert, but a lot of the marvel/TFA/etc CGI is incredibly complex, but it feels shallow, like a cacophony where your ears glaze over. Mad Max, however, was not a cacophony, but a kickass metal album. I don't think it has as much to do with CGI as the direction of the action scenes, it's just that the style is 100% enabled by the CGI tech. They're also pretty pg-13.
>They feature strong, healthy values nonetheless, which is always entertaining to see. THIS is the most important part, which I think everyone who complains that Marvel movies are crap fails to realize—the values displayed in a work are super important. A movie could be intelligently written and skillfully directed, but if the values present in the work are ugly to me, I don't give a shit about it.
What values? Save new york city from the evil invasion force? No really, I don't remember, remind me.
>The new Mad Max is without a doubt better than the new Star Wars. But it's pretty ignorant to think that all Marvel movies are handled so callously. There are a ton of people who are very passionate about western comics.
Like I said though, I think "western comics"(not really, just marvel/dc stuff, I doubt you're talking about garfield here) are bad.
>>855500
Secular ethics are based entirely on primitive emotional responses though.
>>855513
> and the constant rebooting of the series until the original has been lost in time, it feels incredibly commercial and lame.
Yeah know this is why I can never like comic book media. There's no climax.I remember I read the Killing Joke because it's supposed to be one of the best examples of a comic book. Gordon's daughter gets cripplied and the Joker maybe or maybe doesn't die. Who cares? It all gets reset next issue. There can be no develop in a world which things are constantly being reset.
As for the movies I think they are all based on shock and awe. When you first see the scenes there are lots of loud sounds and quick camera cuts, lots of witty lines that sound neat the first time you hear them. It's cheap though and has no substance. I remember when I first saw the interregation scene with the Joker in the Dark Knight I thought it was awesome. A few years later I rewatched it and was physically laughing at how corny it was.
>>855513
>What values? Save new york city from the evil invasion force?
That's one of them, and downplaying that is symptomatic of petty arrogance.
The classic hero, the sibling rivalry, the starry-eyed youth who naively exercises his power in a playful manner, the noble guardian, camaraderie, sacrifice, the fact most of these hero stories begin with some form of tragic event—all of these things exhibit very human, healthy values which have been prevalent in art for thousands of years. In this sense, modern Marvel stories are similar to ancient Greek myths in that they are more about displaying healthy values than about stimulating the intellect.
>Like I said though, I think "western comics"(not really, just marvel/dc stuff, I doubt you're talking about garfield here) are bad.
You can think they're bad all you want, that doesn't give you the right to assert this though:
>and generally you could tell that more effort was put into it. Not purely numerical of course, but in the sense of blood, sweat and tears.
Because there clearly are tons of people in the United States who are absolutely passionate about western comics. And I guarantee you most of the people involved in the production of these movies are too.
>>855569
>Yeah know this is why I can never like comic book media. There's no climax.
Now now, lets not put it all on the comic book media, there's plenty of comics that have healthy chronologies.
>As for the movies I think they are all based on shock and awe.
ironically this was part of Nietzsches criticism on Wagner if I remember correctly
>>855503
Yet this Pope is the first Pope to take such a stance on mass immigration of Muslims into Europe.
Logically this means that either this Pope is the first Pope to exemplify traditional Christian ethics, or this Pope is out of line with traditional Christian ethics.
>>855541
What does this even mean? Which secular ethics? The Enlightenment ones? Or some other one?
How is "God is the leader. Obey him" not the most primitive shit ever?
How is "Do this or god will punish you?" not based entirely on the emotion of fear?
>>855590
but following this thinking, Paul was either the first to destroy Christian values as created by Jesus, or he was out of line with traditional Christian ethics.
This seems more on topic here, since this is now a thread about Stirnerian dialectic
To continue a notion begun by Leibniz and unknowingly present in Stirner Junger, I would to present a concept to you.
>The Anad
1. Consider the qualities of a monad: it is self-sufficient and nothing can enter into it. It is not affected by anything else. The Monadology is long and vague, but this is what I got out of Leibniz's account of the Monad.
2. Consider the qualities of Stirner's Unique One: it is utterly unique and absolutely creative, and therefore already has power over everything, merely needing to assert this power to attain ownership of anything.
3. Consider Junger's concept of the anarch, who is to anarchy as the monarch is to monarchy. He is not an anarchist, he simply accepts that authority must exist while not respecting it as the Statist does.
4. The Anad is the notion being gotten-at by all of these thinkers. The Anad is utterly un-self-sufficient, and is therefore always in the presence of another being, always another anad. There are only anads, insufficient beings which require each other to attain sufficiency. The process whereby anads come to be and cease to be sufficient is all that exists.
>>855590
Christianity always spread through the poor. Church's would give a basic education and food inexchange for being able to teach them about Christianity.
Even during the 2nd centuary the Christian church was known to go to sites of local disators and give aid while spreading their religion.
It was always funded from wealthy aristocrats and the money is redistributed to the poor.
So the Pope is just doing what Christianity always did, what Jesus commanded, to seek out the poor and give them to them. Catholism is in favor of it because their local population is dropping. They need fresh uneducated, needy, poor people, to gain new converts or they will stop living.
This system worked fine the past because it operated on a local level. Now it isn't needed because the government fufills the roles of social services and education. Secular government has replaced Christianity in so many ways.
>>855608
If it were 50 AD you might have a point.
It's not though.
It's much more difficult for modern people to concretely say what exactly was mainstream Christian doctrine prior to Paul, than it is for modern people to concretely say what was exactly mainstream Christian doctrine prior to Francis.
>>855588
>You can think they're bad all you want, that doesn't give you the right to assert this though:
of course I have the right, i gave a bunch of reasons why i don't like the superhero comic
>Because there clearly are tons of people in the United States who are absolutely passionate about western comics. And I guarantee you most of the people involved in the production of these movies are too.
I'm not so sure, and I'm not so sure that they get free enough reign over the billion-dollar colossi for it to show in the movie. But sure.
>>855603
If you don't understand why secular ethics inherently devolves into ethical relativism and by extension emotional thinking there's really no point in talking.
>>855642
Christianity spreading through the poor is not the same thing as a doctrinal stance that allows heretics to freely coexist within your society. The Cathars were poor too, that didn't stop the church from wiping them out.
>>854173
Nietzsche never set anything up.
Anyone who understands him knows this, all he did was recognize that people are inconsistent and power hungry....
The World doesn't follow Nietzsche, Nietzsche followed the world.
He just acknowledged the irrationality of man and its uselessness.
>never even proposed a philosophy
>just tore down others while at the same time acknowledging the unspoken one
>not realizing that Christianity is the only religion that he legitimately respected and the only religion that actually presented a dichotomy of man similar to his own "all men are inherently fickle, evil, and only the strong survive"
Come on guys, it's like your libraries are just 11 books and all of them pure commentary.
>>855706
by evil I mean that there is no man who lives "rightly" this is half of Nietzsche's spiel.
The man basically said that you need to be a solipsist in near every sense of the word...
>tfw Schopes was the unspoken conclusion of Nietzsche
>>855706
>never even proposed a philosophy
>what is will to power, Thus Spoke Zarathustra and the Dionysian ideal
>>855706
>Come on guys, it's like your libraries are just 11 books and all of them pure commentary.
I wonder why
>>855727
you understand that Nietzsche is at time using the Greek sense of "good" and "bad/evil" and at other times using the Christian sense of the words, right?
"bad/evil" in the Greek sense is ignorance, or being untaught. Teaching implies a beginning state of ignorance, as Man was originally ignorant in the garden of Eden.
>>855659
What about the value aspect, any thoughts on that?
>>855662
But religious ethics are relative too dummy. "Because God says so" doesn't make something objective, especially when every theologian has a different idea about what God is saying.
>>855695
Than why is that this this very church is demanding we import poor people? I already gave you the answer. The church is dying and it needs fresh blood, it can't find any willing converts in it's own country so it needs to import them. The very religion you think can save us from the refugee's is the one inviting them.
You have this idea that religion provides some objective unquestionable source of morality: it doesn't that's why theologians bicker argueing over what *should* be done, and religious wars happen over who is *right*, it's why there are different religions.
If you really think religious rule has some special magical property you should the idea of the Islamic coming in. You are contradicting your central premise.
>thread about philosophy and Nietzsche
>turns into endless Christian technobabble
cool
>>854178
Growing up usually is a very effective remedy.
I overcame Nietzsche when I was like 17.
I don't know when 'deconstruction' became synonymous and freely interchangeable with 'analysis' and 'critique', but it needs to stop.
>>855854
Said the individual whose only exposure to Nietzsche was the 1982 Conan the Barbarian movie.
>>855877
Even that was too much.
>>854173
>there isn't an actual exit to the maze
What the fuck you dagos
>>855706
That's simply not true
Of metaphysics, he proposed perspectivism
Of morality, he did The Genealogy of Morals
There's also his eternal return, his Overman, his principle of the Will to Power
One of the reasons he's so widely assumed to just be rambling is that though he does dedicate ample argument to these (at least as much as a metaphysical perspective as antimetaphysical as perspectivism "reality is just your interpretation" shit) he dedicates a lot of his book to aphorisms which talk about a million little things which are more poetic and literary than strictly philosophical, but that's not grounds to dismiss him.
Even if some of his ideas have been either expanded upon or even thrown out the door, you have to see how everyone from Freud to Jung to existentialists to postmodernists etc etc etc borrowed from Nietzsche and expanded on him (rather than just ignore or dismiss him, albeit the analytical school might do that). He's really looked down, I think because a lot of our present philosophy and thought deals with what appears like an expansion of Nietzsche, or an interpretation or a rope that parts from his shadow. Most interpretations of Nietzsche seem almost like a theology of his Zarathustra because it's really hard to say "he's just wrong" even if you dislike his derision toward Christianity, toward democracy, egalitarianism, utilitarianism, and everything we hold dear now.
>>856215
>That's simply not true
>Of metaphysics, he proposed perspectivism
>Of morality, he did The Genealogy of Morals
>There's also his eternal return, his Overman, his principle of the Will to Power
Talking about a bunch of concepts =/= having an ordered system
>>856234
The word "ordered system" was never used in the post I responded to, nor is it a requirement to be considered philosophy.
But it is indeed an ordered system in that they are interconnected, without perspectivism you can't really frame the Will to Power or his moral theory, or eternal return properly. The pieces of Nietzsche's peculiar world view don't work if not with each other.
Does he propose an ethos for everyone to follow? No, that's not his scope and in fact he says in his Genealogy of Morals that such a thing fails because (and he provides a very rudimentary explanation that's of course accepted as wrong today, but I will paraphrase to omit his simplified idea of the body) even if your morality is at least partially behaviorally conditioned, you're gonna be what you're gonna be, and you can't escape the physiological origins of your diseases and neuroses
>>854709
Raskolnikov admitted that some people, such as Napoleon, were able to go above the social norms and achieve greatness, and in the end admitted that he didn't have what it took
>>856276
>The pieces of Nietzsche's peculiar world view don't work if not with each other.
Maybe they don't work because they weren't supposed to, anon.
>>854183
Gurunteed!
>>856423
It's just the self-consistent broad system which is what I think the guy I responded to asked about, you can't somehow reconcile Kantian ethics or Platonic metaphysics with Nietzsche's work. Doesn't make him any more right or wrong for that matter.
>>856455
>you can't somehow reconcile Kantian ethics or Platonic metaphysics with Nietzsche's work
Why would you want to?
>Doesn't make him any more right or wrong
I never claimed he was either.
>>856459
Oh, I think I misunderstood your post for implying it made it wrong.
>Why would you want to?
You wouldn't. Just stating it's consistent within its set of ideas and not with those, for instance.
>>855297
It is most certainly not immune and has at its heart much of the same neoplatonic material in Christianity that enabled its subversion.
Perhaps it will survive another few hundred years before the Muslim world is overcome by the death of god, but it will happen. It is destined to happen in every civilization. Nietzsche was merely a mortician, not the poisoner of the west which some Christians make him out to be.
Every society comes to the conclusion of nihilism eventually. Read Spengler.
>>856533
>Read Spengler.
Said no serious historian, ever
>>855828
It's funny how the Christposters here act pretty much precisely like how they claim the supposed fedora menace acted.
>>856276
Exactly. Ordered systems are the type of thing Nietzsche destroyed. Philophical pipe dreams about how things ought to be fall apart because we already live in a reality with preset rules. Nietzsche explores these rules and see's how they are interpetted and interacted with. Everything follows the Will to Power in different ways.
The very idea of perspectivism deflects this idea that everyone is striving towards one 'truth'. The idea of philosophy as needing to be a self-contained system was invented by Plato. Nietzche destroys Plato and with it the very idea of systems. It's non-systemtic in the way that Pre-Socratic philosophy was. But Nietzsche also de-systemizes everyone else's system by explaining how a psychological factor, and the rules of the Will to Power led them to their system in the first place.
This is also why you can't overcome Nietzche using pre-Nietzchen systems.
>>854173
>ctrl + f "existentialism"
>0 matches
wow this board is trash
>>857816
How does any existentialist other than Kierkegaarde overcome Nietzsche? Heidegger merely interprets him and doesn't even try to overcome him.
>>857823
camus
myth of sisyphus?
“The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy”
>>857835
How does that overcome Nietzsche?
>>854458
This is now à protestard vs cathocuk thread
>>854797
Contradiction of negation? Pls explain
>>857839
so beautifully simply
I have a theory that nihilism is a developmental phase, an obstacle to overcome
eventually you come to realize how it's not the endpoint, it's the canvas, finally blank, making you free to paint over it whatever you please
nihilism limits your potential and if nietzsche was something, he was against limits
Is it true that Nietzsche invented Quantum Physics?
>>857850
But why should I believe that? You aren't confronting Nietzsche, Nietzsche himself takes a decidedly non-nihilistic perspective.
>>857856
No that was Heraclitus.
Nietzsche just expanded it.
>>857860
>Nietzsche himself takes a decidedly non-nihilistic perspective.
correct
so what was there to overcome again?
>>857865
Let me see if I am following your logic
1. Camus overcomes Nietzche becomes he overcomes nihilism
2. Nietzche's thinking is not nihilistic
3. There for Camus overcame Nietzche
???
wtf that maze has no exit, unless it's some ridiculous corny notion like "All doors are both entrances and exits"
Hierarchical gradation in terms of opinion doesn't work and even in terms of something like a sport hierarchy is an illusion based on preference of action.
We are the music makers, the dreamers of dreams.
>>857816
Existentialism is a joke, anon. Anaximander is to Heraclitus as the "existentialists" are to Nietzsche. Two steps back, with a silly injection of morality to boot.
Nietzsche was already completely beyond nihilism. He figured out philosophical problems of the past, present, AND future. People in the 20th century just didn't get how he had already moved in on problems of the future, so they kept talking about shit that was obsolete, moralizing bits of it nonetheless.
>>855215
Kind of. Nietzsche matured in an area where not only was he able to gain a deeper understanding of the ancients (particularly the pre-socratics) but also benefit from the recent sheer brutality of truth-making that modern science, mass scholarship, and technology could now provide. The combination of these two pools did a lot to enable a thorough critique of everything inbetween, a target he identified as being the dominant force in philosophy still: the Socratics and Judeo-Christianity. Clearing up all that takes a lot of work, so it's no surprise he expected future philosophers to take on the burden of creating anew once that field was cleared.
But then you obviously can see he did a lot of positive work himself, with probably some of the best metaphysical, aesthetics, ethics, ontology, history, and epistemology studies to-date: will to power, eternal recurrence, perspectivism, Dionysian, ubermensch, ressentiment, amor fati...
There's a reason he is up there in popularity with Plato en al while Stirner is still a footnote. The amount of content in each thinker for academics to work on is completely different.
>>854173
Dostoyevsky
>>855614
>X is defined as that which can only exist beside X
That's an ad infinitum. And you use the slavish language of "require", an anthropomorphism. Reaction may just be one side of existence, the declining side, don't describe it as the only existence. If they are all insufficient then they wouldn't bring each other to sufficiency, this is slave ontology.
You want to describe the process but your way of doing so theoretically prevents any process occurring. It's the idealist fear of becoming, instead favouring being, the fiction of things, all these atomisms. This is just so servile in comparison to a description of becoming/process like will-to-power.
>>858593
I don't even think you understand the concept.
>"require," an anthropomorphism
I'm specifically talking about humans existing in society, so this objection doesn't make sense. It's based on an idealist dialectic so the roots of idealism are in there.
>fear
Not sure what this has to do with anything.
>but your way of doing so theoretically prevents all process from occurring
No, you're missing the basic point. You ought to just reread my post.
>favouring being...all these atomisms
Could you elaborate on how the atomists were not substantially different from Parmenidean monists?
>This is just so servile
And so are you, in fact, even if you don't admit it. I know for a fact that you aren't the master of your own universe.
>>854797
In what way was Stirner's work contradictory? As far as I can tell, his work is entirely consistent in its application.
Further, he does advocate a replacement: that of voluntary egoism, in which you can build from and engage in the pursuit of sincerely held ideals.
>>859552
>And so are you, in fact, even if you don't admit it.
Not that guy, but I think everybody straddles a balance between servility and independence. Each of us is a unique individual with independent drives, but our individual selves are defined and influenced in part by the people around us, who are likewise defined and influenced by us. Nobody is truly beholden to the collective, but nobody is truly independent of it either.
>>859771
>I think everybody straddles a balance between servility and independence.
That's precisely the point of the anad.
>>859783
Well, then it's a fine concept. Even in Stirner's own writings, he acknowledges that we're influenced by our societies and pursuit of our self interest means engaging in social behaviours such as altruism and cooperation.
>>859803
For some reason people don't talk about 'interdependence' very much. There's a lot of talk of intersubjectivity and whatnot, but really, this is all I'm trying to inject into things. People don't exist in a vaccuum. Solipsism, absurdism, etc. are unhealthy and delusional. We need to save existentialism from itself and return to the things that are.
>>859816
Well, ultimately, all you can truly know is what you experience, which means it's easy to retreat into the shell of your own mind. I think there's nothing wrong with keeping an independent attitude and your own values, I just think you should keep perspective that you are influenced by others and likewise influence others with your presence. People seem to think that acknowledging the influence of others is admitting obedience or submission to others.
