Is Nietzsche actually the worst philosopher? He's an epiphenomenalist spastic who couldn't make a single clear argument. He jumps to ridiculous conclusions, such as his stance that there is no "self", that there's a cosmic "world will", etc. without providing any substantial reason to believe anything that he says. He's all about making statements, most of them contrary to common sense or any serious philosophy, and never makes an argument. He fails to keep the reader's attention and serves only as an example of a bad philosopher. Is anyone actually worse than him?
>>7471241
>Is anyone actually worse than him?
Yes, and he's pretty much /lit/'s favorite philosopher.
YOU'RE MISUNDERSTANDING NIETZSCHE
>>7471247
He's not even a real philosopher. At most he's a critic.
>>7471241
> He jumps to ridiculous conclusions, such as his stance that there is no "self",
Yes, truly ridiculous of him. Although I wouldn't call it so much a conclusion as a starting point. Why would you begin by presupposing a self in the first place? Is a sense of self reason enough?
> that there's a cosmic "world will"
That would be Schopenhauer. Nietzsche, to his fault, hesitated and experimented with this idea, sometimes extending it only to life and sometimes, in unpublished fragments mostly, to the fundamentals (such as we imagine the laws of physics to be) of being. He insists rather on a plurality of wills that constitute a "self".
> without providing any substantial reason to believe anything that he says
What do you mean by substantial reason? Because philosophy can be understood to have a unique content (and not just elaborating on others as if some specialists desperately need philosophy to do their job) when it is working with undecidable models that are resistant to empirical proofs and integrate the empirical, as well as the value of proof, within themselves (even when these are not systems, but fragments as in Nietzsche's case).
> He's all about making statements, most of them contrary to common sense or any serious philosophy, and never makes an argument
What do you mean by serious philosophy, preferably with concrete examples of serious philosophers? I don't think Nietzsche was being contrarian for the sake of it, although he certainly gained fame due to his polemical style so the notion is not to be entirely dismissed.
> He fails to keep the reader's attention and serves only as an example of a bad philosopher.
Nietzsche fails to keep the reader's attention? I'll admit that I don't think his style is always as grand as he (and many others) claim it is, but come on.
I don't care if this is shitty pasta, I'm in the narcissistic mood for discussion.
>>7471330
>Why would you begin by presupposing a self in the first place? Is a sense of self reason enough?
Descartes gives us good enough reason in his cogito argument that thought exists (something Nietzsche stands against) and that there is something doing the thinking.
>World will
While Schopenhauer may make a case for such a thing, Nietzsche presents it with no argument, no reason to support it. I'm unfamiliar with Schopenhauer, but I've read enough of Nietzsche to say that he neither makes substantial reference to Schopenhauer's arguments, nor does he make any attempt at a substantial argument of his own.
>Substantial reason
Any process of logical deduction, any movement from premises to conclusions. Where he does provide premises, he makes little to no attempt to justify those premises. Even Thales did a better job at that. Nietzsche grips on to mystic ideas (he clearly has a hard-on for Indian religious traditions) and provides no justifications or arguments. Just statements. It's as if I were to say "The sky is green", and provide no argument for why my point of view is better than everyone else's point of view that the sky is blue.
>Serious philosophy
Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Berkeley, Locke, Hume, Kant, Nagel, Hegel... should I go on? All of those people provide arguments. All of those people did philosophy. Nietzsche just makes statements, most of which are baseless. At most he's saying "Wouldn't it be a neat idea if x?"
fuck off positivists! I am the warrior of my own daydreams, you uncultured baboons!
>>7471260
I understand why you might think that. Most people thought that until this book came out.
>>7471414
He meant Stirner
>>7471421
It popularized Nietzsche as a serious, systematic philosopher rather than just a literary berserker guy.
>>7471241
Please read Nietzsche, then return. Until OP has performed this simple task, t'would be damn nice if y'all could just stop replying to this thread.
>>7471414
mcfucking kill yourself son
>>7471362
> Descartes gives us good enough reason in his cogito argument that thought exists (something Nietzsche stands against) and that there is something doing the thinking.
Depends on what you understand by good enough. Most philosophers disagree with Descartes on that point using arguments. Nietzsche analyses Descartes' position from his own philosophy of will to power and explains why having a sense of self is so important for a being's growth that said being takes it as a fact. This way of analyzing questions the value of arguments as such because making arguments is already a specific way of philosophizing, one which can itself be analyzed within a different framework. If you understand the framework, arguments are optional.
> Any process of logical deduction, any movement from premises to conclusions.
Well there are other types of processes, such as induction or abduction, along with various combinations of them.
> At most he's saying "Wouldn't it be a neat idea if x?"
True to some extent, he is perhaps overvaluing creativity and affirmation. When he does try to provide proofs, such as his defenses of the Eternal Return as metaphysical fact (not just ethical experiment, although that part is essential as well) he is not nearly as interesting. What you must consider however is that Nietzsche must be read as a fragment author: he produces many ideas and frameworks that can after that be scraped or improved, without constant fear of having to maintain a consistency between all of his works. If you read him searching for intensions and extensions, syllogisms and proofs you're missing the point.
>>7471414
>Deleuze characterized his reading of philosophers as guided by the tendency "to see the history of philosophy as a sort of buggery" or (it comes to the same thing) immaculate conception: "I saw myself as taking an author from behind and giving him a child that would be his own offspring, yet monstrous. It was really important for it to be his own child, because the author had to actually say all I had him saying. But the child was bound to be monstrous too, because it resulted from all sorts of shifting, slipping, dislocations, and hidden emissions that I really enjoyed."
τοῦ Nietzschou τοῦ δέοντος αἰεὶ ἀξύνετοι πολλοί γίνονται kαὶ πρόσθεν ἢ ἀkοῦσαι kαὶ ἀkούσαντες τὸ πρῶτον
>>7471513
Πηγαίνετε να είναι kάπου αλλού πούστης
>>7471241
>fails to keep the reader's attention
I will grant every criticism but this one. How spastic do you need to be to find Nietzche boring?
Nietzsche's biggest problem was that he romantic born 50 years too late.
It's like if you were to raise a child today reading only Kierkegaard. Then when hes 14-15 you tell him Soren was actually a closeted cucckboi and introduce him to Schopenhauer. He will reject you with such fervor that his output of work over the next 20 years will be some grand reorganisation of the Christian faith into a cult of necessary authenticity for all human beings.
Always consider the individual man before you consider his philosophy. Humans don't exist in a vacuum, they are living breathing snapshots of a culture and time. Their ideas are often hamstrung by how narrow or wide their field of view is. Most modern philosophers tend to be weak willed men, spineless cowards with no authority or power, their station in life naturally informs their views on it. Most ancient philosophers tended to be privileged and wealthy with no sense of reality.
There is a reason ancient cultures, Homeric/Hellenistic and Taoist in the east focused heavily on individual balance. The Platonic virtues and Tao in general teaches its followers to be moderate and harmonious in all things and eschews overspecialization.
Ancient Greeks held fighting, athletics, singing and poetry, mathematics and astronomy to the same levels as rational inquiry or philosophical debate. Ancient Chinese practiced horse riding and archery alongside calligraphy and poetry, all held in high regard. Of course only nobles could be afforded these luxuries; as a wealthy land owner or of a royal lineage, your service to your common man was to practice and perfect some in vogue ideology.
These ideas are just a natural extension of the previous pseudo-religious spiritualist cultures which heavily relied on the same principles but were more economic with their view of mankind in a balanced pantheon of animalism and ecological sustainability. This view was a knee jerk reaction to the previous era which led to hunter gatherer mass extinction events prior and during the last Ice Age.
His work reads hollow under a modern and discerning eye because he was espousing childish ideas hidden in good prose. A good author, a bad philosopher.
>>7471986
I fail to see how his ideas are childish.
>>7471986
HOW YOU MANAGE TO WRITE SO MANY WORDS AND NEVER ONCE ACHIEVE ANYTHING REMOTELY INTELLIGENT OR TRUE (in the we have learned something sense, not in the "i believe non-axiomatic truth is possible" sense) IS ASTOUNDING
>>7471986
>Always consider the individual man before you consider his philosophy
A very Nietzschean idea, which might make sense to you if you actually read him.
>>7471241
You're the first person who's summed up my thoughts on Nietzsche.
>>7471241
if philosophy were only conducted through convincing arguments, then it would be debate. it isn't. likewise, if philosophy were not contrary to "common sense," then why do it in the first place?
Nietzsche is the greatest philosopher of the thought experiment. he works not at the level of logical apprehension, but of intuition, and affect. nowhere in his work will you find a claim of truth—what nietzsche's mastery consists in is presenting seemingly pathological material which is in contrary to common sense, and the subordination of the true and the real to the logical which common sense entails. in this way, he is a bit of a dialectician, albeit indirectly; he requires that you be complicit in his dialectic, that you start to imagine a world where what he is saying is valid. then you start to notice the pathology latent in this so called common sense.
the most famous example of this is his eternal return. Here he is in The Gay Science: "What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.'" Of course such a thing is ludicrous, even more so considering all that common sense tells us about the reality of time, the fleetingness of life. but as you start to consider how you'd live were this demon to come to you, the pathology of this common sense, which at once has merely ascertained life's fleetingness yet has not truly known let alone lived it, may become apparent; to wit, in contemplating a life lived as though every moment is eternal, it becomes necessary to ask oneself why life is not lived as though every moment is irreplaceable. Nietzsche's gambit is that his readers are imaginative, and his writing leaves so many cold and with a sour taste in their mouths because of a slavish vaporization of common sense and "that which is real," a chronic lack of sympathy, and, I dare say consequent of these, an atrophy of the imagination.
>>7472518
vaLorization*
post prophet nietzsche
"There is a point of morbid decay and decadence in the history of society when it itself takes sides on behalf of the person who harms it, the criminal, and does so, in fact, seriously and honestly. Punishment: that seems to society somehow or other unreasonable. What’s certain is that the idea of “punishment” and “We should punish” causes it distress, makes it afraid. “Is it not enough to make him un-dangerous? "
>>7472544
>>7472275
Reductionism is self-refuting
>>7472290
If you cannot learn from falsehoods, how can you distinguish them.
>>7472318
Nietzsche considers man as a statue, an idol, a naked figure in a void. He was a deeply repressed and resentful homosexual. So basically the exact opposite idea, which might make sense to you if you actually read what I wrote.
>>7472552
rome checked it's privilege.
No, he was a fruit fetishist lower who tried so hard to convince himself that being alone is great despite the fact he'd tried to be with others and just failed because they didn't like him.
A man in complete denial who both insisted on individualism and was tormented by people not reading him while he was alive. A moronic manchildren tard.
Tallis tier
He wanted the world to be a "strong preys on the weak" society. He was batshit crazy.
>>7472570
???
did you even read him
are you one of those types that think socrates was a fascist
>>7471241
>Hey does anyone already think the same thing as me and can you make that point more effectively than I can?
>>7472590
yes
no
This whole thread is full of first year Uni cringe.
>>7472557
any textual evidence in support of any of those claims?
Is Hegel actually the worst philosopher? He's an idealist spastic who couldn't make a single clear argument. He jumps to ridiculous conclusions, such as his stance that there's a "Zeitgeist", that there's a cosmic historically constituted consciousness, etc. without providing any substantial reason to believe anything that he says. He's all about making statements, most of them contrary to common sense or any serious philosophy, and never makes an argument. He fails to keep the reader's attention and serves only as an example of a bad philosopher. Is anyone actually worse than him?
Is Nietzsche actually the worst philosopher? He's a Marxist spastic who couldn't make a single clear argument. He jumps to ridiculous conclusions, such as his stance that we all eat constantly from the trash can of ideology, that only atheists can genuinely be Christians, and so on and so on, without providing any substantial reason to believe anything that he says. He's all about making statements, most of them contrary to common sense or any serious philosophy, and never makes an argument. He fails to keep the reader's attention and serves only as an example of a bad philosopher. Is anyone actually worse than him?
Is Plato actually the worst philosopher? He's a rationalist spastic who couldn't make a single clear argument. He jumps to ridiculous conclusions, such as his stance that there's a transcendental world of "Forms", that democracy always leads to tyranny, etc. without providing any substantial reason to believe anything that he says. He's all about making statements, most of them contrary to common sense or any serious philosophy, and never makes an argument. He fails to keep the reader's attention and serves only as an example of a bad philosopher. Is anyone actually worse than him?
more prophet nietzsche
"frog-like wretchedness!"
How did he know about that meme, is there something he cant predict?
>>7472629
failed at copypasta smdfh
1. Is Wittgenstein actually the worst philosopher?
1.1 He's an Austrian spastic who couldn't make a single clear argument.
1.2. He jumps to ridiculous conclusions, such as his stance that the limits of my language means the limits of my world, that if a lion could speak we could not understand him, etc. without providing any substantial reason to believe anything that he says.
1.2.1 He's all about making statements, most of them contrary to common sense or any serious philosophy, and never makes an argument.
2. He fails to keep the reader's attention and serves only as an example of a bad philosopher.
3. Is anyone actually worse than him?
>>7472621
i always thought he was simply a bad communicator, but then that's the very thing a philosopher needs to be good at in order to make a living, yet he made it as one of the top in the world in his own time. Maybe it was the german school of the time who bred bullshitter?
This thread is a theater
>>7472619
1. Planck length,
2. An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth - Bertrand Russel,
3. Thus Spoke Zarathustra - Friedrich Nietzsche.
>>7472687
How dose thus spoke provide any evidence that he was gay.
>>7472698
Dude character assassination lmao
>>7471986
>good prose.
kek nietzsche's prose is absolutely cringeworthy
>>7472730
He's considered the to have the best prose and easiest reads of any philosopher if not at least of all the Germans.
>>7472736
>He's considered the to have the best prose and easiest reads of any philosopher
only because simpletons like you enjoy edgy prose lel
>>7472698
Nothing provides evidence he was gay, there are just unsubstantiated rumors of his travails through many male brothels and his contraction of syphilis being a common homosexual ailment of the time; all in dispute of course.
I provided textual evidence for some of my claims as requested.
>>7472744
I think in poetry guy guys guyss guysss guysss
DFW is so good look at all the footnotes fooooooootnoooootes
>>7471241
That's because he's primarily interested in ethical, rather than philosophical, questions. It is telling that nearly all of his work dealing with metaphysics is contained in the Will to Power, in sections that he never intended for publication. It's like asking why Nietzsche never dealt seriously with economic or political topics.
>>7472959
>metaphysics is more philosophical than ethics
Fag.
>>7472565
/thread
>>7472687
non sequiturial lists of things are not within the purview of textual evidence
>>7472764
I don't see how a myopic autist like Russel has any relevance to the topic at hand. moreover the appraisal of N in History of Western Philosophy reveals that its author never earnestly read him, and your citation of the same proves equally damning. I suggest you start providing some passages and demonstrating their relevance to your claims if you want any hope of salvaging this train wreck into which you've so delicately engineered yourself.
>>7472565
All this projection.
>>7473538
I mean the evidence is clearly contained within that list, would you like me to post those texts in their entirety? I thought people on /lit/ actually read.
Knowledge of the concepts and the books listed leads to the 3 self-evident points. You would have to actually gain that knowledge through read them. I can't summarize it for you in some kind of mid-length diatribe for your to digest in 5 minutes if you are completely unfamiliar.
Russel explains truth in language, Nietzsche explains his views on man.
The self imposed and completely logical Planck length necessarily invokes dualism into reductionism (which is effectively monoism), it puts an a priori assertion on scale. It would be like saying you are an atheist but believe in a god for atheists. Only referring to the concept as a philosophical position.
There is debate between linguistic theorists as to whether the question of dualism vs monoism is even properly stated and not some giant confusion, there are no monoists left, they are in the annals of history alongside the materialists,romantics and many others who tried to impose hard limits on reality then hide behind a wagging finger when asked why. It seems self evident that everything is one, but you can never prove that so it is a meaningless assertion, a useless repetition "blue is blue".
The expression you're looking for is non sequuntur :^)
>>7473549
I'm pretty sure was not bespectacled.
Claiming something basic is controversial because you fail to understand is simply a stalling tactic used by the ignorant to entrap the foolhardy.
