Daily Reminder that he literally got cucked by some guy called Paul Ree over some girl called Lou Salome whom he spent about a week with, assumed she'd go for him and got rejected.
Daily reminder all his work is a backlash tantrum and le epic journey/search for ''''truth'''' despite denying the absolutely crystal clear (to anyone non-retarded) truth that he was in need of some mates.
Daily reminder he wanted to suck on Napoleon's 2 incher because he was so brave and could like set in motion the actions leading to mass death and suffering and that's good for some reason.
Daily reminder he was convinced one has to suffer because you need it to be happy because yeh like they are mixed or something..! His reasoning really was about as good as that. He was the edgy, loner faggot who makes a manifesto before shooting up his school because he's listened to too much Marilyn Manson and couldn't get his dick sucked of his day.
A shithole legacy and effect on the world, a pathetic guy
>>7983561
Yet people will read him and write about him for centuries while OP will probably die anonymous. Pathetic indeed.
>>7983561
You sound like the beta king, right there max.
syphilis is a hell of a way to go.
Regardless, The Birth of Tragedy is a beautiful piece of theory. You're just an anonymous faggot, surrounded by other anonymous faggots.
you literally havent read netzche
>>7983561
Daily reminder that Paul Ree was impotent and couldn't have sex even if he wanted to
embarrassing
all these people are upset their new god has been rekt and nothing but ad homy
top wew
>>7983922
said you havent read nietzche not that you werent an avid reader of everybody else
>>7983561
Also one of the most lauded thinkers with a massive legacy.
You're such a fucking mammal. Get über, fuckboy.
>>7985265
>p-people like him, so take that op
>>7985270
>he did-didn't get laid enough so he stupid
Your criticism is inane and the fact that scholars laud him is, at face value, enough to dismiss the ramblings of a sexually frustrated 20-something undergrad.
>>7985275
strawman argument, appeal to authority and ad homidomers , good stuff
>>7985278
Not among scholars, no.
But you win. Your reasoning is sound. Nietzsche was a loser who didn't get laid, and therefore, wrong.
I'm going outside now. Your posts convinced me, finally, that there is nothing for me here.
The "he just needed to get laid" criticism can be applied to literally any activity or work that isn't getting laid.
It's 100% projection.
>>7985292
i didn't say that but if that's all it took to change your mind then I'm glad you're at least part way to realising him for what he was.
Enjoy outside!
>>7985297
Sounds like someone needs to get laid
>>7985297
i don't think activity and work has the capacity to get laid
>>7985302
Learn English and read it again, retard.
Also your criticism of him is strictly biographical, which means you either haven't read his work or you're too retarded to evaluate them on their own merit, or likely both.
>>7985311
...yeh, reread you own post. If you still don't get it then that's too bad.
>>7985313
it's not strictly biographical because I mentioned things to do with his works as well.
Also this: what his life was like is irrelevant meme is pretty terrible especially considering the nature of his philosophy being so focussed on how to live life
>>7985316
I get that you're too stupid to comprehend the implied object.
>>7985322
nice backtracking, just accept you made a mistake which i made a casual joke about so we can move on, or don't
>>7985318
You didn't criticize his work, you caricatured it.
You also caricatured my post since I never said an author's life is irrelevant to studying his work, so I'm sensing a pattern of retardation. Your OP has nothing to do with his work.
>>7983561
Most of what he writes about I believe he knew he could never achieve. Also its more about suffering because if you suffer through things you are more likely to stand up to that suffering as it comes and complain less when it does. You don't NEED to suffer to be happy but in life suffering is unavoidable and dulling the suffering with drugs/alcohol only enhances the suffering you have to face somewhere down the road. However, yes, some of what Nietzsche wrote was borderline school shooter-tier but you shouldn't overlook his positive thoughts.
>>7985325
well if i caricatured it in your opinion then that's a criticism of it even if it's one you happen to think badly of. Thats fairly obvious.
i'm le sensing le pattern of le retardation friend
>>7985324
>emphasizing how it was originally written is "backtracking"
What is there to accept other than you're retarded so far on two counts, firstly that you have trouble parsing sentence-length posts and secondly that you shit up threads with low IQ "jokes."
>>7985302
>"The 'he just needed to get laid' criticism can be applied to literally"
The criticism that someone needs to have sex because they are too stressed out or negative can be given to this, this being an activity or work.
>"any activity or work"
An activity or work that you do or are doing.
>"that isn't getting laid"
Any activity or work that is not you getting laid. This work or activity is not you having sex.
His post translates to. "You can criticize anyone for doing anything that isn't having sex if they are stressed out, negative, or seem uptight."
>>7985331
yeh, this is going nowhere. You know you miswrote that sentence unless you're actually an idiot. It just doesn't make sense and it does make out that it's the activity or work that isn't getting laid because that is literally what you say. I'm not going to spell it out more than that
>>7985330
Do you even know what caricatured means?
A caricature is a deliberate distortion for comedic effect.
Key word distortion.
By definition it isn't a valid criticism.
This would be like you reproducing a painting intentionally shitty, then judging it as shitty, and then saying you've produced an accurate analysis of the original work.
>>7985334
the fact you need to translate his work with further explanations proves that it can be interpreted the way I jokingly did.
Yes, I understood what he meant, he just worded it badly
>>7985336
You're more focused on pulling a "gotcha" (which doesn't even make sense because the sentence is perfectly intelligible) to defend your shitty joke that has nothing to do with the thread. You're an idiot spinning your wheels trying to be smart on 4chan. If your ego wasn't so bloated you'd step back and think about how insignificant your current actions are and how pathetic you are for being emotionally invested in them.
>>7985337
You didn't say it had to be valid criticism before you just said it wasn't a criticism. Of course if you're disagreeing with me you don't think my criticism is valid
>>7985340
I did find it a bit hard to comprehend at first and it required a second reading.
>>7985344
Jesus, you just fucked up the sentence and I made a nothing joke about which you got wound up about instead of letting be. All of this denying is on you, I've been happy to leave it as a poorly worded sentence which I made a joke about for a while now.
>>7985345
All valid criticism is criticism.
Your post is neither but you're creating false distinctions to squeeze it in somewhere.
How deep down the rabbit hole do you want to go?
>>7985349
>you fucked up the sentence
>sentence isn't fucked up
How important is it to you to get this win?
>>7985354
how is me referring to parts of his work and expressing disapproval of it not criticism?
>>7985366
Have you read anything by Nietzsche? I'm just a random Anon asking if you have any real footing in this or if you're just going off Wikipedia articles and blogs.
>>7985367
yes
>>7985366
Because what you wrote isn't in dialogue with his work. You're referring to parts of your work inspired by Nietzsche. You've essentially produced a criticism of yourself.
>>7985373
How is it not in dialogue with his work? It's me having read his work and giving my critical views. Whether you think it's valid or not is irrelevant in this discussion because this is about your clearly false claim that it wasn't a criticism.
Let me make it crystal clear. I read some of his work, I disliked it, I made a post here which in some part criticises the work I read.
How is this not criticism?
>>7985377
It's not in dialogue with his work because it has nothing to do with what Nietzsche actually wrote you fucking sperg. Or would you refer us to the passage where he says he wants to suck Napoleon's 2 incher?
It's pretty clear to anyone that you're trolling, and that includes this talmudic logic-chopping defense of what constitutes criticism.
Did you really think that trolling is actual criticism? We both know you don't. What makes you think you would even be capable of criticism? If I physically take a shit on a book is that criticism? Do you even understand what the term criticism means in a literary context? You're a moron.
>>7985391
I said 'in some part' as I'm sure you know so you going off on other parts of the post is irrelevant, we're talking about the parts which do.
He did write works to do with suffering and so on which I criticise.
Again, whether you agree with it or not, whether you think it is good criticism or not does not stop it from being criticism and you know it.
Again, because you refuse to answer let's try again:
'I read some of his work, I disliked it, I made a post here which in some part criticises the work I read.'
Let's remind you again that your position on whether it is good criticism is utterly irrelevant in the context of this discussion or whether you think my interpretation is good or not.
Unless you come up with an actual answer then you have nowhere to go but concede that it is criticism of his work.
Your 'it's not in dialogue with what he said' point is irrelevant because it is quite clear that what i've wrote has parts referring to what he wrote and me criticising it. You know this. And this is all that needs to be true for it to be called criticism. You know this too.
rorty was right again!
It goes like this
Hegel > Nietzsche
Heidegger > Nietzsche
Emerson > Nietzsche
Women are nietzschean by nature
>>7985463
they're all shite t b hhhhh
>>7983561
>Napoleon caused a war and wars are bad guise
>how can he bee good person when war?
Off yourself
>>7985493
>criticising your own misunderstanding
good work
>>7983561
This truly shows us how much you value women. You know that if you couldn't get a woman, nothing would matter to you so you think everyone who doesn't bother with them bases their entire world view off of how much suffering that causes. You might as well be a monkey if lack of an unnecessary biological function bothers you that much
>>7985504
He didn't not bother with them. He himself was obsessed with Lou Salome as I mentioned and referred to woman as 'ultimate truth' in some albeit not particularly easy to define passages. So yeh, good stuff man
don't reply to stupid
>>7985676
shhh
>>7985652
oops
xD
>>7983561
faggot OP can't even make the difference between the writer and his audience (100 years later )
I think losing one's virginity should be the minimum criteria for having your philosophical opinion taken seriously.
It shows you are a well adjusted human being with an understanding of how life works. It also means it is less likely for you to be biased due to bitterness.
Also, you shouldn't be a manlet either.
>>7983561
>some girl called Lou Salome whom he spent about a week with
>Lou Salome
>just some grill
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>7983561
>Daily reminder all his work is a backlash tantrum and le epic journey/search for ''''truth'''' despite denying the absolutely crystal clear (to anyone non-retarded) truth that he was in need of some mates.
Can you elaborate on this one?
>>7986569
tbqh I understand what you're saying, and I further understand that simple virginity loss is quite different from just being unmarried, being a bachelor, etc.
All of that being said, philosophy and closely related areas of human endeavor (religion, creative aspects of the sciences) are notoriously littered with unmarried men, who had lots of free time to themselves. Christ, Kant, Leibniz, Newton, Spinoza, certain Greeks...
Nietzsche even has some quote somewhere about how all these dudes were some combination of bachelors and permavirgins, and then lamented a particularly great philosopher (Hegel?) who did in fact marry, thereby spoiling the trend. You could of course maintain your position, and reasonably argue your own rejection of several of the above, but it seems to me that that's besides the point.
The point is that what we call "philosophy", whatever it is, is a practice that is regularly and seriously undertaken by very undersexed men, Nietzsche among them. The point being that the opposite of your view is also tenable, that since philosophy has historically been done by these types, then there must be something about their life choices which predisposes them to the activity (free time plus "autism").
In other words, you must reject a large bulk of philosophy (again, reasonable), but you are obliged to admit that much of its output to date is due to these permavirgins.
all those people OP mentioned were into pony play btw
>>7983571
Yeah hey OP while we're on the subject of acknowledging the truth, this^
>>7983571
nice spook
>>7986903
>seriously undertaken by very undersexed men, Nietzsche among them
Didn't Nietzsche use prostitutes quite often?
>I think losing one's virginity should be the minimum criteria for having your philosophical opinion taken seriously.
I think that is a very foolish and I can't think that anyone would take that serious.
>>7986971
He tried to romance prostitutes often. It's a problem when you're a dynamite independent soul who don't need no boss man because bitches just be sending you free fruit all the time any how.
bwow
Look, this is easy, you either want to be full normie, or full robot
me, being honest, i really despise normies, they humor is so basic, they lack the fundamental bitterness of dark humor, the witty that comes from chugging alcohol alone
i prefer being a ugly bitter robot than a ugly naive normie
OP is a gaylord.
nietzsche was an manchild
>>7983561
You're gonna post this every day?
>>7990716
i've never posted this b4 m80
>>7983561
>le epic journey/search for ''''truth''''
Wasn't that exactly what he was against?
>got cucked by some guy called Paul Ree
REEEEEEEEEEE!
>>7991478
kek'd
>>7991478
Why is this so funny?
>>7991478
More like NEETzsche amirite?
nietzsche is not a strong philosopher
>>7993763
Who was the strongest philosopher? Plato? Could he deadlift over 400 pounds?
Th eternally butthurt Anglo, I see.
Is this the thread for shitposting? How do I write the best shitpost? Would reading Nietzsche help with that?
>>7985299
>Enjoy
My gott
>>7994160
time 2 take ur meds m80
>>7983561
>ad hominem
>appeal to motive
>strawman and argumentum ad homofag
>strawman
Great post!
>>7993905
heidegger and hegel are much stronger
deal with their work instead
bamp
>>7994196
>implying attacking the guy himself as well as his work wasn't my intention
Plus there is zero strawman
>>7994196
>>ad hominem
>>appeal to motive
>>strawman and argumentum ad homofag
>>strawman
You know, just because the argument has these things, there is no rule where it says it's not real.
It's just an excuse for you to ignore it so you don't have to show your own ignorance in a rebuttal attempt.
Suck start a pistol, faggot.
>tfw I want to hug and comfort Nietzsche
>tfw he would've hated me for wanting to give him comfort and pitying him
>tfw he'd reject the hugs and lecture me about living life poorly and my meeting with Papa Freddy would end in tears
Feels bad
>I have rarely been so utterly bored reading a book. I think that Nietzsche had nothing to say and, in fact, didn't say it
>In general the book is annoyingly vague and pretentious while containing precious little meaning
>the first time i read Nietzsche i felt that his books were just a ridiculous collection of nonsense, written in poor German, and largely based on an embarrassing degree of ignorance about anthropology, sociology, art and science; and i haven't changed my mind since then
BASED SCARUFFI
NIETZSCHE BTFO
