Is he misinterpreted?
For you
I don't know but man that's one fucking amazing mustache
Yes, but given how grossly he misinterpreted the Bible (to the point where I don't believe he ever read it), he deserves it.
>>7961218
Plz explain.
Nietzsche is often interpreted fragmentarily by people who only want to use him for specific purposes. Most of his relevance today is to left-inclined postmodernists who are interested in his power-over-truth relativism (Uses & Abuses of History, Genealogy of Morals) and little else. Most of his other stuff is relatively minor, doesn't really dominate any current discourse.
Probably he is more underread than misread. People don't really care about his moral-philosophical project.
Anyone who can inspire both the right and left, the modern and those who have left the modern behind... is perfectly interpreted.
>>7961218
That's some serious shit right there m8 considering his friends in school all called him the pastor. Nietzsche studied the bible more seriously than the majority of people even in his more studious age. It was the seriousness of his study that caused him to reject it.
>>7961237
Agreed, people take what they like and leave behind the rest which his aphoristic style lends itself to. Everyone respects Nietzsche's deconstruction and uses it to their own ends (Foucault is probably the ultimate student of Nietzsche's genealogical method), but hardly anyone reads him in his entirety which is necessary for understanding his project.
Even fairly serious scholars seem to fall into this trap. You read BGE and think you know what Nietzsche is about, WRONG! Nietzsche's works constitute a flowing continuum rather than a set of discrete books. He even goes back in time, so to speak, to add aphorisms to his old books even though nobody's reading them. Late Nietzsche and early Nietzsche are constantly intertwined, he references old books in his newer ones frequently as well as going back to older ones to add things. He sees himself as more of a psychologist than a philosopher, he is more interested in how humans are and what influences them than how humans should act and what should influence them.
And he writes to reflect this. He often throws in hypothetical arguments and devil's advocacy without saying that it is such. For example, his most commonly misinterpreted passage, where the old woman tells Zarathustra that he should bring his whip when he speaks with women. Even Russel sees unmitigated misogyny here, but in reality this was Nietzsche saying that women are not so weak and defenseless as we might think. He is not literally saying that women should be beaten into submission, in fact he's quite opposed to the establishment of women as a wholly submissive class because it gives preachers of slave morality a natural ally constituting half of the population.
>>7961334
>He sees himself as more of a psychologist than a philosopher, he is more interested in how humans are and what influences them than how humans should act and what should influence them.
This is a helpful insight. Are you that guy who studied nothing but Nietzsche for a year? I think I've read your posts before.
>>7961334
Nietzsche got caught up in the "Paul ruined Christianity" meme, which was hugely popular in Europe at the time. This was back before we learned that Paul's epistles are older than the Gospels. He thought there was an 'authentic,' 'Jesuetical' Christianity that Paul had come in and ruined with resentment. It's not wholly his fault, therefore, that he gets the Bible wrong. But he does get it wrong.
>>7961237
>People don't really care about his moral-philosophical project.
Yeah but isn't the destabilization of Victorian morality by a power-oriented critique an actualization of the larger moral-philosophical project in which the discovery of the will to power plays a central role?
>>7961334
>Even Russel sees unmitigated misogyny here,
it's funny that you say >Even Russel, as though Russel has some reputation of being a good reader of philosophers, least of all Nietzsche.
>>7961399
I agree.
Russell's assessment of Nietzsche in The History of Western Philosophy was a painful read.
>>7961373
I don't think Nietzsche considered almost any of the bible to be a truly accurate reflection of what Jesus was teaching. I think like most protestants he projected onto Jesus what he wanted to see in Jesus which is why Nietzsche still thinks highly of the man despite the whole death of God thing. Jesus was a moral revaluator which put him leagues above almost anyone else in Nietzsche's mind, which is why he still likes Socrates and Plato despite not liking their ideas.
>>7961365
He meant psychologist in the sense of doctor of the soul. Psyche = soul. This is the same as how Plato conceived of the philosopher. He says what the doctor is for the body, the philosopher is to the soul. Directly opposed to this is the chef and sophist. The chef does not improve the body. He only gives it what it wants (and what the body wants is often times harmful to it -- think 2lb of nutella day). The sophists claimed to improve human beings (their souls), but like the chef, they actually only harm it.
Think of it in terms of a proactive sociologist. Nietzsche sees that there's something wrong with society and with individuals in it, and he prescribes a new "worldview" which he thinks would help. Think of this metaphor. A constant stream of water will shape the pebbles in it. If you change the stream of water, you change the effect that it has on the pebbles. Through this change in worldview (stream), you create new individuals.
>>7961373
Nietzsche hated the jesuits. He said that he was to the enlightenment (think voltaire) what Pascal was to the jesuits. In other words, the enlightenment like the Jesuits were optimistic about reason's ability to know, to discover truths about God, about nature, about morality. Pascal railed against this idea, and Voltaire and the enlightenment railed against him. Nietzsche, pessimistic about reason, railed against the enlightenment.
There is no discovery through use of reason. There is only an artistic creation from the instincts which reason then rationalizes.
>>7961373
Indeed. It would be closer to the truth to say Paul invented Christianity.
>>7961421
Go back to /pol/, imbecile.
>>7961464
Go back to r/philosophy, faggot.
>>7961533
If we're going knock philosophers for their sex lives, though, Nietzsche's gonna get BTFO because he was a wimpy NEET.
>>7961547
At least he wasn't a whiny beta fedorafag who willingly cucked himself.
>>7961559
Yeah he was a whiny, beta fedorafag who was convinced that the world was chucking him (wrong btw). He's the patron saint if /pol/ in that regard.
>>7961562
rilke totally cucked him, and nietzsche could see it coming; poets are better liars
>>7961562
The difference is that Russell actually was cucked.
>>7961651
Ree etc.
>>7961421
>personal attacks on an author totally make their arguments less worthwhile
Why are you on a literature board discussing philosophers if you don't even understand the basics of what makes a good argument? I'll give you a hint, ad hom attacks are the lowest level.
Nietzsche was literally a cuck as well, does that mean he wasn't an important figure in philosophy?
>>7961838
>Nietzsche was literally a cuck as well
except he wasn't, stop using words you don't understand
>>7961863
salome fits his definition of marriage
>>7961863
He chased after Salome for a very long time, despite her already being in a relationship and rejecting him. She eventually abandoned him because he was so obsessed with her It might not be the textbook definition of cuck, but in the context of how the insult's used here, he absolutely was.
And my point was it doesn't fucking matter, it's absolutely irrelevant in terms of the validity of their arguments. Would you refuse to see a brilliant medical expert as a result of them having being cheated on if you were sick? What about if their car was stolen? They had funny coloured eyes? They're all so far from relevant that I don't even see why it was brought up in the first place, except for you having no ability to actually refute anything Russell stated.
>>7961867
Nietzsche was never in the business of letting his wife fuck other dudes and helping to raise the resulting children.
Heidegger also raised his wife's son.
>>7961210
yes, people think he is a nihilist for some reason
>>7961886
Russell was not a physician or a car mechanic, he was a pompous ass who made a living trying to tell other people what to do (ie philosophy) and thus his philosophizing can be safely discarded, just like he discarded his hilarious championing of open relationships after he got cucked
>>7961984
People assume talking about an idea = agreeing with it. Common dumb ass mistake. People think that same thing about Shestov.
>>7961210
He suffers similar problems in classification that say Tolkien does. You can put them both in pleb and patrician baskets depends on which lens you look at them.
People that are eager to label either author as "pleb basket only" are the same types when they meet someone of great achievement say shit like "I met him and he's only human". This being a sign for them to not pay attention to this person they previously admired. In other words they're common things, they're undercutting them to make themselves seem bigger.
Nietzsche is great, we wouldn't be here talking about him if he wasn't.
The same reason why Stirner is irrelevant, because he's thrust upon /lit/ by a few autistic anons
>>7961995
Either you're incapable of understanding what I'm saying, or you're just deliberately ignoring my points. Either way I'm not surprised, seeing as you think ad hom attacks are a valid form of philosophical arguments.
I'd recommend you learn about these basic tenets of debate before you start discussing the validity of philosophers.
>>7962012
*tips fedora*
"Did I just hear someone use a rhetorical fallacy on my favorite 4chan subreddit, this bastion of intellectualism which rests above the idiocy and banality of the rest of the internet that we know as /lit/?"
"Well worry not, he won't be long for this world"
*unsheathes katana*
*teleports behind >>7961995*
*thrusts it through his back, piercing his heart*
*he falls to the ground lifeless*
*does a 180 spin towards the audience*
"Heh, I guess now he gets the POINT"
*tips fedora*
*twirls trenchcoat*
*vanishes into the night*
>>7962027
Wow, you calling me a fedora wearer sure made me look dumb! If only I hadn't underestimated your abilities in meme warfare, then maybe I could have lived a happy life.
>>7961838
Yet Nietzsche did the same thing.
> Maybe Socrates was just ugly and had the view he had
> Maybe Schopenhauer was just an asshole and had the view he had
>>7962031
It was more amusing than any of your posts though, anon
>>7961218
Speaking as a Catholic, none of his critiques of Christianity make any sense in light of the real fucking thing, but it's a pretty solid demolishing of /r/christianity.
>>7962027
Right in the nostalgias.
8/10
>>7961210
that beard looks so fake. He's trying hard. poor guy.
>>7962217
My dude
>>7962217
He also demolishes liberalism, socialism, anarchism, humanism and 'movement atheism' since they all cling tightly to the worst parts of Christianity.
He also liked Catholicism better than Protestantism because he respected the church as a power structure, he really disliked Luther because Luther's reformation, and the Catholic counter-reformation it inspired put off the death of god by a few hundred years. Ideally for him, I guess, the church would have dispensed with its mysticism and started to function more as an institution for the cohesion of European nations. Protestantism kind of fucked that up as well.
>>7962217
>unironically being a Christcuck
I seriously hope you guys don't do this
>>7962282
>>>/reddit/
>>7962027
ahaha dudde epic meme ;-))
>>7962267
>since they all cling tightly to the worst parts of Christianity
>implying Protestantism is Christianity
careful m8
>>7961420
the chef in reference to the body. and saying that the chef harms the body, well, what.
but the chef in reference to food, and the art of being a chef is the art of manipulating food, no? not giving to the body what food it wants, but giving to food what seasons it wants.
>>7962558
I doubt a chef can satisfy the crave for salty french fries with any seasoning other than salt.
>>7963125
>chat masala
>pepper
>Chilli powder
>salt with a lil lemon juice
>>7963056
>not the textbook definition, but in the context of how the insult is used here, he was
Telling me to reread something I already addressed isn't an argument anon.
>>7962217
The real thing died at the council of nicea.
