All of his books are retarded blabbering. They make no sense and have contributed nothing to humanity.
When is /lit/ going to stop posting threads about this fuck?
>>8258957
>guy who indirectly inspired or directly informed pretty much every relevant political movement of the 20th century
>guy who flat out said the 20th century would be fucking cataclysmic and welcomed it with open arms
>lol hes just retarded and did nothing 4 humanity xD
/lit/ is not going to stop posting about him because he is not only not irrelevant, he is basically the most relevant thinker of the 20th century and pulled that off while only living in the 20th century for one year during which he was completely insane. Only an idiot could approach his body of work and think of it as 'blabbering'.
A perfect woman, knows that she IS woman.
>>8258973
Guy is nuts, his body of work is the result of his retarded thinking. His writing is unintelligible and nonsensical.
>>8258957
My only exposure to his writing directly is through Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but I'll partially agree with you based simply on that. Anyone capable of writing something as unstructured, dense, and repetitive as that must be wired improperly on some level, and based on historical speculation, he probably suffered from a hereditary physiological disorder that affected his cognitive function. Calling it 'retarded blabbering' insults his intelligence- it's certainly difficult to read, but clearly thought-out if you actually make an effort to understand his indulgently excessive amount of aphorisms. That we still discuss him after all this time is a testament to his influence on our thought in an academic and social context. Nihilism naturally fits that intrinsic psychological mold which most fill with religion, or politics, or whatever else one decides to involuntarily pass his time with- it's the other half of that dichotomy. I respect him more for his courage to discuss taboo than his intellectual quality. He was no Einstein, but you can't say he's 'contributed nothing to humanity.'
>>8259047
>excessive amount of aphorisms
I have trouble with understanding aphorisms clearly, and if I do, I still feel like I am not quite grasping its meaning.
Am I retarded?
>>8259242
Considering aphorisms are the most easily understood form of writing and philosophising, absolutely.
>>8259242
Zarathustra was intentionally written to be obscure and difficult to understand, he says as much in Ecce Homo IIRC. Keep in mind he was miming the bible with it and he frequently wrote about how much he hated the new testament. If you're not reading Zarathustra in German, you're missing out on some of his dankest literary memes which robs the work of a lot of its meaning. Read BGE/GM if you want his ideas presented more clearly, in a form that is not damaged in translation.
>>8259263
Ah, I see, I haven't finished it yet (~100 pages in)
Since I am reading it in Dutch I thought the translation to be somewhat more accurate in comparison to English, but I will look into BGE and GM. Thanks
Nietzsche was neither retarded nor edgy.
This board is useless for any discussion about him, however.
>crossed eyes
>underbite
Sounds about right to me.
>>8259010
>His writing is unintelligible and nonsensical.
maybe you're just retarded
>>8259252
lmao what is this guy on? Aphorisms can be deep in many ways and need to be pondered for a while after reading them. You cant just read them real fast, you need pauses where you pensively stare off after some of them
Nietzsche:
>I want readers like cows, who know how to ruminate.
Anon:
>Stupid aphorisms, you can blow right through this whole book, and none of it means anything.
>>8259242
No, the aphorisms you're reading are.
>>8259320
Or maybe Nietzsche is the retarded one. He thinks he's too deep and worth reading, but in reality he's no more than a John Green.
>>8259447
>Or maybe Nietzsche is the retarded one. He thinks he's too deep and worth reading, but in reality he's no more than a John Green.
That's fucking it.
I'm quitting /lit/.
>>8259447
>no more than a John Green
>the Freddy Got Fingered guy of his generation
just, no
>>8258957
>When is /lit/ going to stop posting threads about this fuck?
OP is retarded
>>8259263
>intentionally rendering something abstruse purely to build pretense
So he was a Lacanian before it was cool?
>>8258957
>All of his books are retarded blabbering.
>insulting one of the greatest prose stylists in existence
yowtch more second hand embarrassment than when feminists damn Lolita as child porn. I did not think that was possible.
>>8259707
you probably thought you were making a brilliant critique, but you couldn't have said anything more retarded. it's sad to think about how stupid you are.
>>8259731
No, I was making a brilliant meme. I haven't actually read Neitzsche or Lacan for that matter.
>>8259707
He was just copying kant
>>8260033
>more retarded than OP
Schopenhauer's the one who follows Kant, and his style is much easier to follow than Kant's. Kant doesn't write anything like Nietzsche, you'd be better off trying to compare Nietzsche to Hume's style than to Kant's.
>>8260060
I mean in being hard to comprehend you retard
>>8259268
Word
>>8260060
Nietzsches easy if uve red any other philosopher around.
Neitzsche was smart,
Freud was the retard.
