Has anyone refuted Nietzsche?
I'm currently reading 'Human, all too Human' and it's hard to fault anything he says. Aphorism 107 in particular (Irresponsibility and Innocence), where he seems to most clearly set out his argument against the ideas of 'Good' and 'Evil', has given me particular food for thought; all of it challenging, and leading to conclusions I am trying to resist.
Then again, he himself calls it man's "bitterest pill", so I don't think he was under any illusions either.
Still, it's hard to imagine a world that would be built upon his thinking. What would things look like, if the traditional morality of 'Good' and 'Evil' was superceded by the morality of Pleasure/Pain/Vanity/Egoism?
I do find myself with the lingering impression that he misunderstood Schopenhauer on one point, however. Namely, "Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."
If you're only on Human, you still have a long way to go
>>8144511
>I do find myself with the lingering impression that he misunderstood Schopenhauer on one point, however. Namely, "Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."
How?
If anything, Schopenhauer misunderstood his own point. If man cannot will what he wills, then by definition he must do everything he ever does.
Ergo, in every sense, he does not have free will.
Yeah, Father Seraphim Rose
You can skip the preface, which isn't by the author, and just start with the introduction.
http://oodegr.co/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm#I._
Father Seraphim Rose argued that Nietzsche's "cure" for nihilism in fact just formed a dialectic with nihilism, and came to be sublated by it.
>>8144515
I read Beyond Good and Evil first.
Working backwards, my man.
>>8144532
>Priest/Christian
>Refuting anything
Enjoy your slave morality, tripfag.
Evola had a much better refutation regardless, but I can't be bothered finding it.
>>8144511
Nietzsche elaborates on Schop's will later in his work creating the will to power as the penultimate rule which governs men, and nature as well depending of your reading of it. As far as good and evil goes, he didn't necessarily advocate a return to animalistic morality, aka master morality. He was annoyed by slave morality because it weakened men, but also he felt that it created an internal tension within both individuals and cultures. Nietzsche was all about tension and struggling and to him without it humans would just be a bunch of retarded cows getting fat in an endless field of grass, never aspiring to more or even believing more to be possible after a long enough time out in the pasture.
The bitterest pill line is about determinism IIRC and not about good and evil. But while other philosophers focus on finding capital T Truth, ask "what is truth?", "how do we find truth?", ect, Nietzsche's epistemology is basically asking the question "Why do we have such a myopic focus on truth?"
And so his attitude towards determinism is easily explained, he sees it as obviously true to him, but he sees little value in that truth and as such works himself past it. He comes to the Eternal Recurrence, seeing it as possibly true, and works towards explaining it as something which would be good if true, therefore something that ought to be believed.
Basically the entire God is Dead exclamation was about meme magic. The God meme had hollowed itself out, nobody legitimately believed in its universal power anymore and even the most devout practitioners of Christianity were just going through the ritualistic motions by his time. He knows that God was never a literally true being but instead a myth that helped people stave off the corrosive effects of nihilism (though one that was quite bad at this by his estimation).
I remember reading some stuff he suggested as a replacement for Christianity which included the eternal recurrence as the afterlife belief and Apollo, Dionysus and Ariadne as a new trinity of Gods.
>>8144511
>Has anyone refuted Nietzsche?
Our better understanding of human psychology. Such is the fate with most old thinkers philosophizing with the human condition.
>>8144511
>"Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."
can someone please explain this to a newfag?
Nietzsche/Machiavelli are all about how to enslave people.
>>8144556
Determinism.
>>8144556
You can like sucking dicks, but still choose not to do it. You can't choose to not like sucking dicks, though.
You can't really refute Nietzsche because his beliefs aren't based on reason. They're still retarded but I can't offer anything that 'disproves' them.
>>8144548
>The bitterest pill line is about determinism IIRC and not about good and evil.
It's about both:
>Man's complete lack of responsibility, for his behaviour and his nature, is the bitterest drop which the man of knowledge must swallow, if he had been in the habit of seeing responsibility and duty as humanity's claim to nobility. All his judgements, distinctions, dislikes have thereby become worthless and wrong...between good and evil actions there is no difference in type; at most, a difference of degree. Good actions are subliminated evil actions; evil actions are good actions become coarse and stupid."
>"But this standard is continually in flux; many actions are called evil, and are only stupid, because the degree of intelligence which chose them was very low. Indeed, in a certain sense *all* actions are stupid even now, for the highest degree of human intelligence which can now be attained will surely be surpassed."
>>8144592
>his beliefs aren't based on reason
In almost everything he writes, you can see him vigorously taking the side of reason and science in particular.
>>8144549
>>8144635
I'm a large fan of the humanities, and philosophy. But there is an underlying (whether cultural or various otherwise), response to certain actions we're just not made to handle. A lot of Nietzsche is extremely important to philosophy, and an equal part is equally redundant or dubious for reasons varied.
>>8144648
>But there is an underlying (whether cultural or various otherwise), response to certain actions we're just not made to handle.
Back up nigga, you better elaborate upon a claim like that.
>>8144511
>Has anyone refuted Nietzsche?
Well he failed to refute his predecessor, Schopenhauer, so start there.
>>8144648
>continental philosophy
>important to philosophy
>>8144679
>Analytical Philosophy
>Mattering at all
>>8144511
> What would things look like, if the traditional morality of 'Good' and 'Evil' was superceded by the morality of Pleasure/Pain/Vanity/Egoism?
...surprise, motherfucker, it already is.
>>8144635
Schrodinger and Bohr almost ruined quantum physics.
>>8144656
Certainly. For example, we respond to certain kinds of trauma; it's really impossible to go through life without experiencing a multitude of it. But it scales in severity, the higher up in this scale of such, depending, the more likely you just aren't mentally equipped to handle it. You self destruct under the pressure without even being aware you're self destructive. Things like shell shock originate this way.
It's very easy to see human beings as individuals, in fact that makes life far more easy, to see things through an individualistic narrative. It's positive. But the fact of the matter is individuals by themselves without others, are far more weak than people think. Taking onto task most of his philosophy onto oneself seems more like a form of denial, or coping.
Most of Nietzsche's individualist perspective falls flat, certainly it became apparent after World War I.
>>8144696
>Implying
Society is gripped by the Semitic desert morality of 'Good' versus 'Evil' - arguably now more than ever.
See what vitriol bubbles up in debates about paedophilia, for example.
>>8144702
None of what you say contradicts Nietzsche. In fact, his life (or rather, the end of it) supports your claims.
Nonetheless, individualism was in fact quite absent from his work. At most, he speaks of "the few" who will understand his philosophy; never mind put it into action.
Nietzsche, if anything, wanted to replace the herd with the pack; as opposed to the lone wolf.
>>8144635
Saved, thank you very much
>>8144699
>Implying they didn't save it
>>8144713
The point is people think they do things for "moral" reasons, but really it is all pleasure, pain, vanity, egoism, necessity.
I think Nietzsche was a great guy, honestly speaking.
>>8144726
Copenhagen shit is utterly loathsome.
>>8144730
>The point is people think they do things for "moral" reasons, but really it is all pleasure, pain, vanity, egoism, necessity.
If that's what he meant, then my main man Stirner beat him to it.
Then again, Nietzsche did plagiarize Stirner :^)
>>8144742
According to your own boy, isn't plagiarism a mere spook?
>>8144717
My pleasure, friendo.
>>8144744
>Le "everything is a spook" meme
The only way plagiarism could be a spook is if one sacrificed their individuality to it.
You can't sacrifice your individuality to an action, as actions are themselves the fruit of causes.
>>8144742
Fuck off.
>>8144790
It's vitalism.
>>8144541
First section of Ride the Tiger
>>8144511
>refute
I don't have to refute someone who either says nothing or hasn't met his burdon of proof.
>I still enjoy his books, tho
>>8144990
is burden of proof the ultimate meme? it seems beneficial as an automatic culling mechanism for dismissing lesser minds, but towards the upper echelons of thought it's nothing but prohibitive.
>>8145006
Proof is one of the biggest spooks in existence.
>>8145124
it seems like the ultimate defense mechanism of retarded subjectivists. the way they say so smugly. "But you can't PROVE it!" they say, smirking jewishly, their faces a real world analog of the :^) emoticon - they are delighted by their attempts to drag you down into their mad world of uncertainty and suffering, where nothing has meaning and the spirit grows feeble.
>>8145006
Not the way I used it. The only way to "refute" Nietzsche would be to point out errors in his reasoning. But that wouldn't be refuting per se. It would just mean there would need to be some adjustments needed.
And just having a different opinion is also not "refuting", since none of us really have anything going for us, other than how sound our respective reasoning is.
There is nothing to refute about Nietzsche, because there aren't really any real tangible claims. He never really had any premises for which he put out any evidence. Apart from maybe appealing to the readers intuition.
I think most people don't realize how much comparative philosophy is a lot of "no u", essentially.
That's probably why analytical philosophy ended up winning out in academia. It's just way easier to discuss ideas without it devolving into high brow shit talking.But I did enjoy how Locke wiped the floor with Descartes, tbqh pham
>>8144749
The cause "avoiding plagiarism because reasons" can be a spook that hinders your individuality. If Nietzsche had the power to plagiarize Stirner and get away with it, then that settles it, there's nothing to complain about.
But thinking Nietzsche just amounts to plagiarizing Stirner is a fucking joke. Nietzsche has so much more going on with him it's insane.
Nietzsche's arguments are no different from the arguments of the sophists that Plato refuted, he simply embellishes them with even more rhetoric.
>>8144613
Wrong, he openly declares himself an enemy of reason and criticises Socrates and Plato for making reason a virtue, while praising the sophists for relying more on will and persuasion.
Nietzsche should not be called a philosopher.
>>8144511
Max Scheler has a fantastic book called "Ressentiment" which you should definitely check out (there are free PDFs) he goes through things Nietzsche did right, and things he was somewhat narrow minded on.
Nietzsche's arguments against "morality" are a strawman. He does not attack the classical account of ethics and virtue (Aristotle), he attacks the nominalist Protestant account where good and evil are based on submission to an arbitrary divine will, and that of Kant where good is seen as obedience to pure reason.
There are two kinds of moral relativism that are both fallacious.
There is an absolute relativism which says that true/false, good/evil are determined solely by the individual. So the rapist's claim is just as valid as his victim's, or the idea that the sky is red is just as valid as the idea that the sky is blue, that 2+2=5 is just as valid as 2+2=4.
Then there is a mitigated relativism which says that true/false, good/evil is determined by a society or culture. So if one society decides that killing Jews is good then killing Jews is good in that society, but if another society says killing Jews is bad then killing Jews is bad in that society, but both societies make equally valid claims.
If you destroy the objective foundation of morality you cede the definition of good and evil to the Will, to the most powerful will, i.e. to the State. Moral relativism is, and has always been, nothing but a justification for tyranny and dictatorship. It is no wonder that Nietzsche was an apologist for tyrants.
>>8146163
and the great hypocrisy is that moral relativists try to justify their relativism by saying that moral absolutism leads to tyranny
>>8146163
>There is an absolute relativism which says that true/false, good/evil are determined solely by the individual
How is this fallacious in any way?
I found Nietzsche as I was beginning to develop a similar philosophy of my own. I was trying to live as a half-assed Christian, but I found the self denial aspect just wasn't compatible with my constitution. I was limiting myself by acting against my natural inclinations, because I was afraid of devolving into hedonism. I was also excessively polite and overly generous, which I was realizing stemmed from cowardice rather than goodness. Nietzsche confirmed this for me. Self assertion is a lot easier now that I don't think of it as "bad".
By striving for self discovery and greatness, it's easier to control my degenerate impulses while remaining true to who I am. I'm being a lot more honest in everything I do, and don't even feel bad about having insecurities anymore. I still want to deal with them, but the meta-shame of being insecure about being insecure is gone.
/blog
I think the best "refutation" is that slave morality is necessary for a stable society. Not everyone can be an independent maverick. Also, by Nietzsche's own standards, his morality is no more "true" than slave morality, he just thinks it's clearly "better". Factor in people's different temperaments and capabilities and it's obvious he didn't expect everyone to follow his philosophy.
>>8144613
Nietzsche actually rejected world views that were based entirely on reason. He recognized that our passions and subconscious impulses drive us, which is why he didn't prescribe any particular "correct" path, other than exerting your own will to power.
He bitterly detested soulless rational systems like the categorical imperative or utilitarianism. He even rejected "cogito ergo sum", because we may not control our own thoughts.
>>8144635
Dawkins first quote is actually a good one, and perfectly complimentary of philosophy. "Common sense" almost always refers to completely unscrutinized intuitions.
>>8146163
I think it's a mistake to view Nietzsche's philosophy as universal. And your representation of moral relativism isn't really what he advocates.
It's very clear from his writings that he values certain things more highly than others. Affirming life, striving for greatness, becoming your true self, creating, living passionately. He even lays out what he thinks is the lowest form of humanity, the last man.
Nietzsche wasn't a moral relativist in the "do what you want, it's all relative" sense. He basically wanted people to unlock their potential, and felt that concepts like guilt and pity held them back. To live largely and dangerously and gloriously and passionately and do it all without dogmatic moral codes making you second guess yourself.
>>8146139
>an enemy of reason
"Three orders of thinking beings. The religious believers are totally irrational (i.e. it is impossible to discuss anything with them). The scientific believers will take rationality to their graves — and therefore fail to understand anything about the universe beyond some petty, narrow facts about each individual science. And finally, the philosophical believers, who operate wholly on the level of rationality, while recognizing the irrational foundations of all rationality. They can, in other words, rationally demonstrate their irrationality. They operate, therefore, on a higher, third-level rationality, a rationality which the scientific believers are not rational enough to understand (not to speak of the religious ones)."
Orgy of the Will, §516
what is the correct nietzche reading order? should i read schopenhauer first?
>>8146362
start with his top quotes on Goodreads, then move on to his Wikipedia page once you have a good grasp on it.
>>8146362
Watch the School of Life video on him and read some amazon reviews for The Portable Nietzsche. If you're really interested, you can also watch Crash Course: Existentialism which Nietzsche is featured in.
>>8146256
Nietzsche did not recommend exterminating slave morality, in fact he recognized that it was important to high cultures, that it created a tension in society and in men and that this tension, like all strife, is the mother of invention and creation.
He just felt that Europe had gone too far in one direction to 'relieve' the tension. He worried more than anything else that Europe would relieve its philosophical and moral tension and become like China, which was a society that had fallen past decadence into pure stagnation of the spirit.
>>8144549
>scientific realism
>2016
>>8146362
>>8146385
>>8146397
>/LIT/
>Wanna get into Nietzsche watch a John Green video on it
stateofthisboard.jpg
>>8146256
>I was trying to live as a half-assed Christian, but I found the self denial aspect just wasn't compatible with my constitution. I was limiting myself by acting against my natural inclinations, because I was afraid of devolving into hedonism
this
religion is a coping mechanism once you face your failure of your life, just like other contrived fantasizes, your faith in the scientific method included.
Religions are meant to leave material-bodily hedonism, travels, concerts, foods, sex and so on, for a spiritual hedonism, through prayers for theists and mediation for atheists.
Plenty of material hedonist love to think of themselves as less hedonistic than they are, since it improves their hedonism in thinking that they are not animals...most people who claim to be religious are not all, it is just the way they are.
In buddhism, you even leave this spiritual hedonism, after you have gained it, which is called jhanas, since you understand that this bliss from prayers, which is just a great, but not perfect concentration-stilness, are not personal nor permanent and that you are still prone to avidity and aversion.
>>8146652
>religion is a coping mechanism once you face your failure of your life, just like other contrived fantasizes, your faith in the scientific method included.
lol
>>8144515
In what order should I read Niechee?
>>8144532
It's you again.
I think you created a thread with that exact passage.
And then it took 100 replies to get to the point that you admitted God = Truth and that's why Nietzsche was wrong.
It was dreadful.
Keep your "answers" away from existential discussion.
Shilling for christ is fine, but intellectually dishonest.
>>8146736
>>8146362
Personally I would recommend reading Beyond Good and Evil first. Then you can smash out into either The Gay Science or Human, All Too Human. From there you can read Zarathustra or you can go around mopping up other works (Genealogy, Ecce Homo, etc.) and leave Zarathustra for a while.
You don't 'need' anything to read Nietzsche, but do bear in mind that he was a classically-trained philologist and had a lot of Greek, Latin, and even Sanskrit works/ideas/culture in his head. Expecting people to have read everything ever written, in chronological order, before reading a philosopher is silly, as long as you remember that nothing stands alone.
A wikipedia reading of Schopenhauer should be enough to get you to see where N. is coming from.
As always, reading isn't something you do once and put away -- expect to have this stuff rattle around your brain for the rest of your life. I am still discovering new points in Nietzsche, and (as I read through ther philosophers both before and after) new influences and stuff he interacts with.
>>8146248
because it leads to the denial of the principle of non-contradiction
>>8146275
>Most tyrants tend to insist that their causes are objectively right and accuse their opponents of relativism. Shallow people like you help them out.
The point is that without any truth or moral good above the will of man there is NOTHING for the weak to appeal to in the face of the strong. When the strong man is crushing the weak man under his boot, all the weak man can appeal to is: law, justice, truth. But if all law, justice, truth is the invention of the will, then the law, justice, and truth of the strongest will dominates that of the weak, so there is absolutely nothing to appeal to above the tyrant.
This is Orwell's point in 1984. He says that "freedom is being able to say that 2 + 2 = 4", i.e. freedom is being able to acknowledge that their is an objective truth / reality independent of man's mind. If there is no such truth, then man is the sole inventor of truth, in which case the State becomes the determiner of what is true and false, right and wrong, good and evil.
Or, as the rapper Hopsin puts it: "if God doesn't exist, then the government is God."
>>8146304
Nietzsche is an extreme moral relativist/nihilist in the formal/metaphysical sense. His advocacy of "passion" or "will" or whatever is based totally on his own preference / poetic instinct, and he admits it.
>To live largely and dangerously and gloriously and passionately and do it all without dogmatic moral codes making you second guess yourself.
See, this is what dumb adolescents read into Nietzsche. They think that Nietzsche's triumphant individualism will allow them to climb mountains and half sex with girls. OK, maybe for you that's what it will be, because you are a bourgeois liberal in the 21st century. But in other places or in other people, Nietzsche's moral relativism means being able to kill whomever you want, rape whomever you want, enslave whomever you want. Because you're a "nice guy" this new moral "freedom" means "living life to the fullest" or some banal shit like that, but to a person less nice than you it means being able to stamp on whoever they feel like.
>>8146256
> I was trying to live as a half-assed Christian, but I found the self denial aspect just wasn't compatible with my constitution. I was limiting myself by acting against my natural inclinations, because I was afraid of devolving into hedonism. I was also excessively polite and overly generous, which I was realizing stemmed from cowardice rather than goodness.
This is called over-reacting. You admit yourself that you were a half-assed Christian. Your timidity did not come from your Christianity, but from your lukewarmness. Christianity does not advocate cowardice, you can see this simply by reading the lives of the saints and seeing what superhuman feats they did. Self-denial doesn't mean being shy around girls, it means heroic self-sacrifice to the point of death for the love of God and humanity.
>>8144511
God desu sempai
>>8146806
Well usually I'm reading very casual stuff, just for pleasure, but I want to get into a philosopher and I kinda like Nichee. As a total beginner in this field, should I start with some other philosopher? I want something modern, already read some of the core Greeks.
Basically my question is, what's a good modern philosophy that will challenge me and make me a better more knowledgeable person?
>>8147011
I'm in the same boat as you for having an interest in philosophy as a hobby. I've begun reading a review of aesthetics (because I study Art History) and a two general reviews of History from Will Durant and Bertrand Russel. It's not an easy in, but I think it's given me enough exposure to see the general process and evolution of logic, science, and how they apply to modern concepts, like certain disciplines such as linguistics and evolutionary biology. You have to understand now that technology is basically materializing a concrete understanding of reality that past philosophers didn't possess, although their thoughts are potent and sequential, they're wrong about certain things we find elementary today. Also, I would suggesting plucking from some more obscured philosophers or theorists like Machavelli or Descartes.
>>8144511
Yeah, me
Going to publish when I complete my PhD
>>8146256
Christian kindness is challenging, not impulsive. Often it involves being the very opposite of polite and affirming. And it beckons you to be generous to people when there would be no reason for you to do so, like the momentary anxiety you get that makes you submissive.
>>8146867
This meme annoys me. No one who knows what Nietzsche actually means should be seriously offended by this phrase, and it also demonstrates an uncharitable schadenfraude on the part of whichever person created it.
Nietzsche writes for us smart philosopher types, he's a total elitist, that in itself refutes him. He's too narrow.
>>8144511
Basically all of Heidegger begins with a refutation of Nietzsche.
And all of Derrida begins with a refutation of Heidegger.
>>8147189
And all of Land begins with a refutation of Derrida
>>8146840
>The point is that without any truth or moral good above the will of man there is NOTHING for the weak to appeal to in the face of the strong. When the strong man is crushing the weak man under his boot, all the weak man can appeal to is: law, justice, truth. But if all law, justice, truth is the invention of the will, then the law, justice, and truth of the strongest will dominates that of the weak, so there is absolutely nothing to appeal to above the tyrant
But we know this. Nietzsche knew this. It is precisely the weak who need God, because they are weak and have no other way to get by and pretend they aren't weak. Meanwhile, the strong know the real truth, which is indeed that they are God, and the so-called "objective reality" nonsense is a fantasy from desperation.
But Nietzsche also knew that not everyone ought to read his books. In fact, in the Antichrist he says that it is the strong person's duty not to force the strong's ways onto the weak and mediocre, it is ignoble to do so and unbecoming of the strong. If this doesn't sound pleasant to you, it's not meant for your ears and you should just relax and step away from philosophy.
>>8147220
>Meanwhile, the strong know the real truth
I should say the strong "know better" instead.
gotta love it when lit discuss philosophy instead of muh infinite jest
>>8147210
Land sucks though
>>8147220
>If we said what we felt, we should say, “So you are the Creator and Redeemer of the world: but what a small world it must be! What a little Heaven you must inhabit, with angels no bigger than butterflies! How sad it must be to be God; and an inadequate God! Is there really no life fuller and no love more marvelous than yours; and is it really in your small and painful pity that all flesh must put its faith? How much happier you would be, how much more of you there would be, if the hammer of a higher God could smash your small cosmos, scattering the stars like spangles, and leave you in the open, free like other men to look up as well as down!”
>>8144635
saved, god bless you anon
>>8147391
>image.jpg
>>8147220
>indeed that they are God
you need to go back and try again in your reading of Nietzsche, you've missed some core points.
>>8146163
>he thinks ethics and morality are the same thing
Yes, a Nietzsche reading order please.
>>8147391
is that you lol
>>8146840
>>8147391
"i don't like this" isn't a refutation
but yes all sane men should pretend that nietzsche has been refuted
> I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant
but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the
emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.
>>8147974
1. All of Plato
>>8148320
>I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain
No less than any other serious philosopher; it's not like the 'problem of pain' is a new philosophical problem.
If anything, Nietzsche contemplated IN pain, so it's no surprise that he contemplates ABOUT pain. The injure he sustained from failing to mount that horse, combined with his stomach ulcers/etc, resulted in a life of nigh constant pain and weakness.
>he erects conceit into a duty
An obvious response to the slave morality that is Christian morality, which sees sinfulness in everything; or at the least, man's greatest achievement.
Schopenhauer said the only good idea of the Old Testament was that ours is a fallen world. If anything, that is the idea in Christianity which Nietzsche objects to most vigorously.
>the men whom he most admires are conquerors
1) Nietzsche speaks against both praise and condemnation.
2) The 'conquerors' he refers to, are treated primarily with indifference. Xerxes, for example.
>but in an appeal to the emotions
Well congratulations, Nietzsche appeals to them frequently. He was one of the earliest critics of 'scientism' (that is, a purely logical/reasonable outlook devoid of passion/emotion) and readily conceded that mankind has an need for the illogical.
>Nietzsche despises universal love
Stating the fucking obvious. The end of this stupid argument (that is, the paragraph quoted) is Nietzsche's beginning; a large share of 'Human, All too Human' is devoted to tackling that very notion.
There are so many better arguments, that one is terrible.
>>8144699
How so? I'm genuinely curious
>8148353
>There are so many better arguments, that one is terrible.
it's not an argument it's an appeal to the emotions
i find it bizarre that people will argue in favour of nietzsche when he himself was against the idea of argument and of convincing; "Nothing with real value needs to be proved first."
if you're trying to prove nietzsche right you're not his audience
>>8144511
Well you see, it's hard to refute Nietzche because his philosophy is based in perspectivism, which is in simplest terms boils down to "there are no truths, simply interpretations."
In N's world of the superhuman, we would be comfortable and embrace, even thrive off the lack of existence of any absolutes such as God or the one true religion, ideology, creed or system.
Instead, the superhuman would instead be comfortable and fullfilled by developing their own system of the world through art, creation, and self-expression, rather than reverting the the regressive ressentment of slave morality typified by the church, for example.
Nietzche would say, to refute him is to disbelieve one system he believed would unlock man's potential and lead him to the superman state. That doesn't make it any less valid, it simply means you impose a personal preference in place of his interpretation, in the same way you're inclined to jump between threads on a message board.
>>8148426
>>8148436
>"Nothing with real value needs to be proved first."
Congratulations for misunderstanding him again.
1) Argument and debate is not necessarily conducted with an eye to 'proving' anything
2) He wasn't trying to 'prove' that which has real value; so much as 'disprove' that which has none at all. That is why his writing is essentially written warfare; he is always on the attack, regarding Christianity/etc.
This becomes particularly obvious when you observe just many people perceive value in that which is worthless; such as traditional 'Good' and 'Evil' understandings of morality, for example.
>>8148460
firstly, i'm not bertrand russell
>Argument and debate is not necessarily conducted with an eye to 'proving' anything
well we're discussing how you can refute him which literally means "prove wrong"
>He wasn't trying to 'prove' that which has real value; so much as 'disprove' that which has none at all. That is why his writing is essentially written warfare; he is always on the attack, regarding Christianity/etc.
i never said he was trying to prove anything, i said you were trying to argue in favour of him, presumably to try and prove him right
i don't know why you're calling traditional 'Good' and 'Evil' understandings of morality worthless but it seems irrelevant
>>8148485
>firstly, i'm not bertrand russell
Not for lack of trying, friendo.
>well we're discussing how you can refute him which literally means "prove wrong"
You quoted him in defence of how pointless it is to prove worthwhile things right. Nietzsche was much more interested in proving worthless things wrong. I am also interested in proving you wrong.
That this is perceived as a defence of Nietzsche, or what he was saying, is entirely coincidental.
>i don't know why you're calling traditional 'Good' and 'Evil' understandings of morality worthless but it seems irrelevant
It was an example, and also arguably the point.
>>8148500
>You quoted him in defence of how pointless it is to prove worthwhile things right.
i never said proving things right was pointless, i just said it was bizarre to try and prove nietzsche right
also i don't know why you've added worthwhile there when the point of my quote was that that which is worthwhile doesn't need to be proved; that is the definition of worthwhile according to nietzsche
>Nietzsche was much more interested in proving worthless things wrong.
irrelevant
>I am also interested in proving you wrong.
well my position is that nietzsche cannot be refuted but it is bizarre to try and prove him right
>That this is perceived as a defence of Nietzsche, or what he was saying, is entirely coincidental.
i think you're trying to defend an interpretation of nietzsche or some of nietzsche's positions
what i said wasn't even really aimed at you but the thread in general
>It was an example, and also arguably the point.
how so
>>8146649
joak
>>8146163
your a dorable
>>8147756
Nah, I didn't miss anything.
>>8148851
the ubermensch replaces god, it isn't god
the definition of god is that it is otherworldly, the ubermensch is thisworldly
>>8148875
>the definition of god is that it is otherworldly
Not universally, and it certainly wasn't used in that sense before.
>>8144511
One thing I've noticed with Nietzsche is that there are some interesting parallels between him and Christ. Completely different in nature, but some of the end results, as seen by outsiders to either of them, appear the same.
For example, the fact that there is no real way of refuting them. The reason why you can't is different for each, but you still can't in essence.
Or, the fact that both boil down to requiring a certain insight in order to gain access to their understanding of life. If you don't share Nietzsche's level of insight, you won't get anywhere's near grasping him. Likewise for Christ. This puts everyone else, the outsiders, at a disadvantage, who then say that both Christians or Nietzscheans are just spewing unfalsifiable shit.
Also, the fact that, in the end, despite what people in the world accomplish, the information that governments hide, the forces and people that governments and people in power nullify and put down and censor... despite what the strong in society do, the fundamental philosophy of Christ and Nietzsche are both destined to resurface, because they are based on a world order that is indistinguishable and eternal. They are, in a sense, the most truthful philosophies out there, in different ways, and every other philosophy in between them is fleeting by comparison.
if you're using some non-christian, non-religious definition of god that exists only in your head then fine, just don't be confused when others assume that you're using nietzsche's definition
This guy is a tenured research and clinical PhD psychologist that specializes in self-deception, mythology, religion, narrative, neuroscience, personality, deception, creativity, intelligence and motivation. What does /lit/ think of his lecture on Nietzsche?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsoVhKo4UvQ
>>8144511
traditional morality is good, for the masses. most people are complete idiots/assholes either by choice, intent or accidental intent. god is good for those people.
and we are approaching a world driven by the morality of pleasure/pain/vanity/egoism.
what people will fail to see is that the traditional notions of good and evil exist now and will forever exist they will merely take different forms which the average naive person will be blind to and may fall victim to. shapes and unnaturally natural masks are the new thing pretty much everyone in our generation is a sociopath in some form or another. evil may look good and good may look evil unless you're aware. i mean i get that we're all good and evil in some sense, but it's about intent and how we choose to express our evil.
bionp
>>8144511
Philosophy is not a long series of refutations.
kek, plebs trying to find truth totally unaware that they create it
its like you dont have internet
>tfw chilling at sixth dimension
>if the traditional morality of 'Good' and 'Evil' was superceded by the morality of Pleasure/Pain/Vanity/Egoism?
>if
>>8150230
Because non-philosophic and non-poetic types think every word has only one meaning and don't follow the conversation very well because of that.
>>8144635
Meme-man's first quote is on the money. Nye's quote is a semantical joke. Black Science man is technically correct.
>>8144548
>Basically the entire God is Dead exclamation was about meme magic. The God meme had hollowed itself out, nobody legitimately believed in its universal power anymore and even the most devout practitioners of Christianity were just going through the ritualistic motions by his time. He knows that God was never a literally true being but instead a myth that helped people stave off the corrosive effects of nihilism (though one that was quite bad at this by his estimation).
That sound an awful lot like projection.
>>8144511
Someone make this into a frog meme:
"in their wisdom there is often an odour as if it came from the swamp; and verily, I have even heard the frog croak in it!"
