Arguing with a Nietzsche fan is infuriating. Any time you make a point against him, they tell you you've misinterpreted him. Any time you cite an incompleteness in his thinking, they tell you you haven't read enough of him. If you REALLY start to critique him properly, they'll pull the ultimate weasel move and claim he wasn't even a philosopher at all.
It's almost not worth it. Just put them all in the zoo where they can enjoy themselves.
Sounds like arguing with Marxists.
It's because every white boy has an intimate sentimental relationship with neetskeet and doesn't like to see their favourite aphorist go.
>>988693
>t.Christcuck
>>988653
Well, Nietzsche is indeed complete. He died before he could write "The Transfiguration of All Values" which would have been the culmination of all his previous works.
>>988653
Arguing with a Plato fan is infuriating. Any time you make a point against him, they tell you you've misinterpreted him. Any time you cite an incompleteness in his thinking, they tell you you haven't read enough of him. If you REALLY start to critique him properly, they'll pull the ultimate weasel move and claim he wasn't even a philosopher at all.
It's almost not worth it. Just put them all in the zoo where they can enjoy themselves.
>>988693
Thanks for your input Jack T. Chick.
It seems you have misinterpreted
There really is nothing to argue about in Nietzsche
Wow that happens with me too.
My only Nietzsche peeve is when people say he was a nihilist. He coined it. He advocated rising above nihilism and empowering/focusing on forwarding your own morality.
>>988693
Funny considering Marxism is pretty much the Creationism of the social sciences.
>>988760
reacs love saying this but never say why.
>>988767
No modern economist tales Marx at face value. I know, I know, neither do Marxists, but hey, they're still Marxists. Marxism is more useful as a prescriptive motivator of revolution than it is as a descriptive economic model.
>>988693
So the people that hate Nietzsche are also the ones that think evolution is a lie?
Oh it's angry Christians, what a surprise!
>>988653
Arguing with a (insert philosopher here) fan is infuriating. Any time you make a point against him, they tell you you've misinterpreted him. Any time you cite an incompleteness in his thinking, they tell you you haven't read enough of him. If you REALLY start to critique him properly, they'll pull the ultimate weasel move and claim he wasn't even a philosopher at all.
>>988796
Not saying it's a lie. Dogma can be true.
>>988779
...nor do modern physicists and biologists take Darwin and Newton at face value.
But Marxist is by far the best analyst of the function of the legal status property in economics there is, why is why there are economists today who are also Marxists.
>>988822
t. commie
>>988822
And yet when I said 'Darwinism' you assumed I was rejecting along with it every form of evolutionary theory. You have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who says Darwin ought to be more controversial than he is.
>by far
I admit he's important in that area, but again, see my comments about prescription.
>>988653
Now you know how we feel when arguing with people who don't understand Nietzsche, and continuously infer the exact opposite of what he's saying or avoiding to address what he's saying at all.
>>988961
Look, OP's bait worked
>>988980
Is it really bait when it's in plain sight?
>>988999
Yes
Nietzsche thought that truth didn't matter and the sophist were right. What do you expect of his followers? Read the Euthydemus by Plato to get a grip of what it was like to argue with a sophist.
>>989184
>reading a bias account written by the guy arguing against them
>>989184
>Nietzsche thought that truth didn't matter
No he didn't.
>>988844
who exactly believes Darwin to be 100% correct today? It was hard to tell that you weren't rejecting all evolutionary theory because the only people who say Darwinism are creationists. What exactly is your stance?
>>989206
Yes he did. Start reading and stop posing.
>>988653
That's because you never fully understand Nietzsche. He has a degree of depth and nuance that no other philosopher in history managed to capture. I've read 7/11 of his books, some of those 7 multiple times. I'm literally at school with a Nietzsche department, have gone to multiple conferences, conversed and bumped elbows with top Nietzsche scholars (Alexander Nehamas, Kathleen Higgins, Maudemarie Clark). I've read and discussed their interpretations and asked about it.
All I can say is that he's an incredibly deep thinker, and no passage is ever immediately what it seems.
So when faggot retards come into threads saying "hur hur Nietzsche wouldn't like <your political views>", I know from experience that Nietzsche would probably say "fuck you retard, you're no better".
>>989231
Suck it.
>4. The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it: it is here, perhaps, that our new language sounds most strangely. The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing, and we are fundamentally inclined to maintain that the falsest opinions (to which the synthetic judgments a priori belong), are the most indispensable to us, that without a recognition of logical fictions, without a comparison of reality with the purely IMAGINED world of the absolute and immutable, without a constant counterfeiting of the world by means of numbers, man could not live—that the renunciation of false opinions would be a renunciation of life, a negation of life. TO RECOGNISE UNTRUTH AS A CONDITION OF LIFE; that is certainly to impugn the traditional ideas of value in a dangerous manner, and a philosophy which ventures to do so, has thereby alone placed itself beyond good and evil.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4363/4363-h/4363-h.htm
>>989184
>Nietzsche thought that truth didn't matter
No, he thinks the truth matters, he just doesn't believe it is the value to supercede all values.
>>988796
Read "American Nietzsche", it's a hilarious book. American Christians lost their fucking shit when Nietzsche first came over the lake. The book talks about all sorts of crazy shit they were saying, interpreting Jesus as the "ubermensch", and so on because American Christianity is properly refuted by Nietzsche.
>>988779
Marxism is useful as a historical razor and as a historical icon, but yes, many of the theories he stated are believed to be false.
>>989274
>No, he thinks the truth matters, he just doesn't believe it is the value to supercede all values.
Semantics. I won't waste my time arguing with someone who thinks truth is not important because, what is the point?
>>989260
This reminds me of midrashic interpretations of the Torah trying to squeeze out as much meaning out of their scriptures as is possible
>>989287
He doesn't think it's not important you retard. Stop changing Nietzsche's stance.
You're doing the stupid thing of trying to say everything in life is categorically easy to determine the truth and falsity of. For the vast, vast, vast majority of our lives, truth is an irrelevance. This is true in all psychoanalysis, it's true on any inspection of how you actually live your live.
Nietzsche is fine if you want to become a scientist and value truth. But he's insisting it's not the only valuable life. There's many ways to live, and not all of them involve crusades to find truth.
That's a very reasonable stance. He's just opposing scientism and dogmatic philosophy. WOW. Now stop tipping your fedora and remain silent where one cannot speak, such as in any informed discussion on Nietzsche.
>>989293
Eh, just dig out all of Nietzsche's quotes about science/truth from TGS and his nachlass and try to assemble them. People have made careers debating exactly what he means. Personally I think Nehamas is on the right track, from what I've heard him say in lecture.
>>989267
Thank you, I'm sick of people making these assertions that basically boil down to "I'm right, you're wrong" followed by another "I'm right, you're wrong"
>>989297
Again, I'm not arguing with a sophist. I will not be the Socrates for your Euthydemus. Enjoy talking to yourself faggot.
BTW your so called arguments have been refuted to death as is known by anyone besides edgy Neetzsche teen fans.
i say "neech" internally every time i see his name
>>989318
oh lol, i thought you weren't a troll for a second. my mistake! hope your bait catches many fishes :-)
>>989325
He wasn't to start with. Once you refuted his arguments he threw a hissy fit and tried to save face leaving the discussion and insulting you.
Don't blame him though, I suspect he's an INTJ with a fragile ego. Tell him you still think he's intelligent, you just disagree because you see things from a different perspective. He needs validation otherwise he'll always be a stroppy cunt.
>>989324
*BANG BANG BANG* TURN DOWN THAT FUCKING MUSIC, AJ
>>989219
Evolution occurs as part of God's plan.
>>989410
What is God planning? Why does God even need a plan? Since he is omnipotent can't he just will whatever outcome he desires? Also he can't be doing it all for the fun of it, as he is omniscient and already knows all the spoilers.
>>989401
>refuted
Again, why do you care if someone misrepresents Nietzsche's stance? I thought what really mattered was the will to power? Are you fedoras on a crusade to find truth or something? Wow, so dogmatic.
>>988804
Calling considering evolution true dogma is like saying considering heliocentrism true dogma. But of course you're dogmatic so you can't actually see it.
>>989454
But that was exactly my point.
>>989423
You could read the Bible if you want.
>>989510
I know - he did create Eden which was his endgame, until Adam ate the apple after God told him 'do not eat this delicious knowledge apple that I'm going to crate and leave right here for some reason'. Actually that silly bitch Eve ate the apple because she was tempted by a 'snake' (lol)
then she tempted Adam.
Even if 'free will' makes God not omniscient when it comes to man, a fucking 10 year old knows what will happen when you tell someone not to do something. Anyway, all of mankind is tainted with this sin as a result and we have to work back towards God's final vision of Eden again.
Seems like a story that's meant to
A. Make all of mankind already sinful and requiring them to actively submit to the religion, or you go to hell.
B. Use symbolism to tell them "knowledge is bad, its what got us in trouble in the first place we should just listen to what I'm telling you God said"
C. Blame women for tempting men, justifying our dominance over them. Also, don't let your woman near anyone's snake or she'll shove his apples in her mouth become sinful.
D. Explain why we suffer and can't have nice things, despite God supposedly being a loving nice guy & omnipotent.
>>989510
The bible doesn't address the free will problem.
>>989433
You value 'truth', and proving you wrong by your own measure asserts our euphoric dominance over you. Feels nice actually.
Keep trying though.
>>989454
>believing any science
>not realizing Rama invented the illusory world to fool us into this-worldly desires
This post and this is cancer
>>988779
>Marxism is more useful as a prescriptive motivator of revolution than it is as a descriptive economic model.
TOPKEK
O
P
K
E
K
