So /lit/-
Nietzsche refutes Plato, or Plato refutes Nietzsche?
Discuss.
Plato offers a powerful refutation of Nietzsche.
The trick with Nietzsche is that his greatest opponents are in the past. People try to find the person who 'opposed' Nietzsche, but none of them came after him.
Nietzsche's two greatest opponents came before him. His two greatest refuters are Plato and Jesus. They are both powerfully opposed to Nietzsche and everything he stands for. Both of them make compelling arguments against Nietzsche's view of the world.
Naturally, Jesus is a special case, and one might take the thinkers who follow in his stead as being additional refuters of Nietzsche. I speak of Origen, Paul, Athanasius, Basil, Augustine, etc..
Nietzsche is a mofucker nazi that could never get proper erection. That's why he hated the world and kept braging about being Clark Kent and that everyone was shit except himself. In truth, he can't. He was just like Lex Luthor with hair and no intelligence.
At least Plato made sense.
>>7950951
shut up faggot
Plato's logic was thouroughly refuted by Aristotle.
Nietzsche didn't really bother with that, but was more than anything else opposed to his moralism, the spirit of his philosophy -his emphasis on virtue, of knowledge being more important than carnal and power seeking desires etc...-.
>>7950927
Nietzsche is the demon Socrates dedicated his life to refuting.
>muh truth
>muh arete
hes got the nihilism, he taught for money, he doesnt believe in truth or virtue, and he professes with profound rhetoric. nietzsche is a sophist.
>>7951176
because he can't get proper erection while being teased
So what I don't get has to do with Nietzsche's refutation of Socrates scientism in Birth of Tragedy. How can he criticize Socrates on this point if his pre-socratics who he had a hard on for like Heraclitus basically had proto-scientific attitudes. Sorry I didn't cite my sources, if anyone has an issue I guess I could dig them up. I don't think I'm spouting nonsense though.
How does Plato refute Nietzsche? I honestly don't know.
>>7951744
Plato had this diatribe on how art amounted to mere 'representation' and had no place in the ideal state along with music, theater, and poetry. This idea that 'representation' amounts to a bastardization arises due to the fallout conclusions Socrates and co. reach during their articulation of the theory of forms. Sometimes people point to Plato as a proto-totalitarian in terms of his ideals of governance. Nietzsche loves art, music, poetry and the like.
>>7950968
how did you manage to write so much without saying anything?
Nietzsche, unkowingly, points to Aristotle. Aristotle renders Nietzsche moot.
>>7950968
Max Scheler refuted Nietzsche pretty well. As he did of Heidegger too.
>>7951786
Gimme the deets nigga.
>>7950927
They don't refute each other, they are just diametrically opposed philosophically.
Plato
>this shit ain't real
>but the forms are real
>perfection and shit, nigga
Nietzsche
>the forms ain't real
>but this shit is real
>power and shit, nigga
>>7951768
Nietzsche describes the Dionysian man as a pleasure obsessed drunk and the Apollonian as a platonist with a truth boner. The übermensch would bring balance to the force basically
Nietzsche refutes Plato, Aristotle refutes Nietzsche
>>7951176
Do not confuse nihilism for sophism.
Stirners refutes all.
>>7950927
>Plato will never write a book about a dialogue between Nietzsche and Socrates.
>>7951176
> Nietzsche is a nihilist
boy howdy maybe you should actually read one goddamn word he actually said
"Nietzsche is a nihilist" is basically the litmus test for intellectual poseurs
>>7951195
Heraclitus did not have a proto scientific attitude.
>Kant deceives himself
>Plato was a bore
>Schopenhauer was superstitious
>Spinoza clad his philosophy in mail and mask by means of mathematical hocus pocus
>[Augustine behaves] as an unfairly elevated or favored slave
>Schopenhauer [was] unintelligent when he raged against Hegel
>"How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?" Kant asks himself - and what is really his answer? "By means of a means" - but unfortunately not in five words.
Nietzsche is very Platonic in his politics.
Everything he says is found in the republic. The only thing Nietzsche disputed was Plato's theory of forms and his form of "critical philosophy".
>>7952615
lol Heidegger is pathetic.
Nietzsche was more of real nigga than that coward was, also "dasein"??? lol way to sneak in Kantian subjectivity through the back door.
Heidegger did not end metaphysics, nor did Nietzsche signal it's end. He merely pointed out the deadlock of ontotheology and nihilism, Nietzsche was in favor of metaphysics because he was a realist, but he wanted to reinforce a vitalist philosophy that would be reinforced through critical thinking. Heidegger on the other hand is a pessimist idealist. He refuted nothing.
>>7952970
I don't know any modern major philosopher that accepted the synthetic a priori apart from neo-kantian fanatics. Nietzsche was smart to see Kant's obvious bullshit there.
However he was very unfair to Plato.
>>7951768
Not really. I havnt read the Republic in a while but the issue Plato had with the arts is if they didn't encourage virtue or union with the forms. For instance, he had issue with Homer because of how he claimed it influenced the temperance of the audience. However, this isn't to say art shouldn't be allowed in the state at all. Plato says music specifically should be taught to children to habituate them towards recognizing beauty as is and thus union with the forms. True he had a huge issue with poetry, but thats only because the subjects were mostly whiny bitches who led away from the cardinal virtues.
>>7951744
Most of Plato's entire philosophy is based on the difference between soul and body. According to Plato matter is a mistake and only a reflection/representation of the true reality of forms. With this in mind we have to understand it puts us in the poiston of reaching out of our body and thus "out of the earth" for answers; in the alegory of the ship the philosopher gazes at the stars for answers. This is the biggest difference between classical philosophy and modern philosophy I think; the conflict of body. Nietzche actively denies this claim of meaning beyond what we directly see and experience urges people to stop looking to the stars for answers of the earth. According to Nietzche everything arises from the body;we are beings of the earth and true virtue begins when we recognize that fact.
I think thats clear, I'm on my first read through of Thus Spoke Zarathustra so criticism is welcome
>>7952607
The oft quoted Dionysian and Appolonian divide belongs to the fantastical realm of German speculation
moreso than any actual Hellenic history. The force between the two was already balanced by means of the Orphic/Pythagorean doctrine that Plato inherited.
>>7951799
I think this is honestly the only right way to approach this issue, they start off on such radically different points and beliefs which set the tone for their entire philosophy.
>>7952827
He accepted the inherent meaningless of things but he said that was just the starting point. He said that only an idiot would stop there.
Which was why nihilism worried him, because he understood that most people are idiots and when faced with nihilism, without a metaphysical heuristic (as they would be as the west began to realize that god was dead), they would give in to the worst kind of pessimism imaginable. Though he hated the plebs, he recognized them as ultimately a necessary class for the functioning of society.
I think the holocaust was what woke the west up to the death of god finally, and just a scant few generations later the west is literally dying. No western people are reproducing above the rate of replacement. By 2060, absent a major uptick in the birth rate there will be 200 million fewer white people than there are today in the world in absolute numbers as the global population continues to grow.
>>7951768
Nietzsche actually said that Plato was completely correct in his ideal ordering of society in the Republic, though of course he had issues with a lot of Plato's ideas.
He also tends to agree more with Plato on some peripheral points on art. Like I recall a passage in human, all too human where he talks about whether art is an expression of emotions, whereas writing and seeing tragedy helps us push bad emotions out of us, or something that produces emotions, whereas the writer of the tragedy is made gloomier by it and the people watching it are also influenced in such a way. He doesn't give a clear answer in the passage but the way he writes makes me inclined to believe he leaned towards Plato.
We still have this debate today of course. I agreed with Aristotle when I was younger but as I grow up I see Plato's point more and more, reflected both in the growing generation and in myself as a younger man.
>>7952988
3/10
>>7951774
fucking true
>>7953371
>whereas writing and seeing tragedy helps us push bad emotions out of us, or something that produces emotions, whereas the writer of the tragedy is made gloomier by it and the people watching it are also influenced in such a way. He doesn't give a clear answer in the passage but the way he writes makes me inclined to believe he leaned towards Plato.
Sounds like a straightforward empirical question. Not detecting any philosophical content there.
>>7953542
If it's a straightforward, empirical question then why are we still fucking asking it over 2,000 years after we have the first records of it being a question?
>>7954291
We're not.
Go do an experimental psychology PHD if you're so interested in investigating this random issue that no one else cares about.
>>7954307
> muh scientism
This point would come across as much more solid if fields like experimental psychology hadn't recently been shown to be laughable bullshit
>>7954319
Do you even know what "scientism" is, dumbass?
You asked a straightforward empirical question. In order to answer it, you need to actually gather empirical evidence. You can't just pull something out of your ass.
In any case, I don't see why that particular question has any importance at all. It certainly has zero philosophical import.
>>7954338
Do YOU even know what scientism is? Because it seems to me my meaning is fairly straightforward. What exactly do you think it is?
> You asked
Not the other anon, just making note
> Straightforward empirical question
Except it's not really straightforward since we have no means to answer it
When we lack the means to answer an empirical question philosophy and intuition is a perfectly fine approach
>>7951799
/thread
If you treat philosophy as a series of refutations then you're a fucking dumbass.
Also Nietzsche wrote much of his work as polemic - he had an incredibly deep understanding and appreciation for the western canon, particularly Plato. Needless to say, more than anyone itt. Its just that when he expresses his own ideas, he intentionally takes no prisoners and says shit that may seem a little coarse.
>>7954459
Are you trolling? This is the original question:
>whereas writing and seeing tragedy helps us push bad emotions out of us, or something that produces emotions, whereas the writer of the tragedy is made gloomier by it and the people watching it are also influenced in such a way. He doesn't give a clear answer in the passage but the way he writes makes me inclined to believe he leaned towards Plato.
It's a trivial, straightforward empirical question, amenable to the methods of empirical psychology. It is not a very interesting question, and certainly has zero philosophical content.
>>7954496
And that's why I pointed out that recent developments in psychology have raised doubts about exactly how strictly empirical it is. Funny enough, overall, it seems like it's more intuitive, and then it uses a very poorly run experimental process to cover up the fact that their judgments are actually intuitions
And if we have no means to empirically determine the answer to that question, then philosophy is a perfectly acceptable approach
Maybe stop acting like you're any sort of authority at all at what qualifies as philosophy
>>7950985
stop
>>7954692
Now you are changing the subject. If you want to make shoes, you should get involved in shoe-making. The fact (if it is one) that all the current shoemakers suck is irrelevant. The activity you wish to pursue is shoe-making. The activity of hat-making will not produce shoes, however admirable the current hatters are.
>>7953356
Don't worry. The Mormons will save the west.
To anyone who thinks I'm joking, I'm not. Mark my words. The Mormons will be the ones who will rejuvenate western civilization, just as the Germanics did when Rome fell.
who here /spengler/?
>>7952781
Why can't you?
>>7954723
But the Mormons aren't an answer to Nietzsche, they're just an avoidance of him. They still operate under a God-driven system of morals and values, after all.
>>7954716
Listen man, stop being such an autist
It's not necessarily the quality of the current psychologists, it's the question of how empirical we can ever really be about these issues. There ARE limits to empiricism. I accused you of scientism because you seemed to just idly dismiss these. I mean after all, you were the one directing us to go question current shitty experimental psychologists
>>7954743
You asked a straightforward empirical question. It's not as if you asked some deep metaphysical question that only philosophical methods can address. Your question was an utterly trivial one that could be resolved in a single experiment. I never 'directed' anyone to 'go question' anyone. That's utter bullshit and you know it.
>>7954735
You're right, they aren't the saviors Nietzsche asked for. That doesn't stop them from being the group that is most likely to restore the west to something that is not drenched in nihilism. Would I prefer to have a bunch of existentialists running around who are making art, working out, and shitting on Wagner? Yeah. That'd be rad. Are we going to get that? Most likely, no. The Mormonism thing is far more likely.
>>7954723
If I remember correctly, the Mormons in the US have a tfr of 2.6, while the American average is 1.8. They tend to have good work ethics, value their health, and value family. If we could get them to support worker ownership of the means of production, we might be onto something.
>>7954774
You might just as well expect the Catholics to ride to the rescue. There are more of them, after all, and they're more spread out, plus they saved Western civilization last time.
They're not white, of course, but so what? "The West" was rebuilt on the backs of savage drooling barbarians anyway. The culture is important, not the race.
>>7954799
>You might just as well expect the Catholics to ride to the rescue. There are more of them, after all, and they're more spread out, plus they saved Western civilization last time.
Nah. I can't see them making a comeback. A large portion of Catholics have the same values as any other ordinary Christian. The pope has had his time.
>They're not white, of course, but so what?
A large portion of Mormons aren't either. Racism is stupid. What I was saying has nothing to do with race.
> "The West" was rebuilt on the backs of savage drooling barbarians anyway. The culture is important, not the race.
That wouldn't have been a good argument if I was coming from a racist perspective. Those barbarians were even whiter than the Romans. According to nazi racial theory, they are the best preserved stock of the descendants of the indo-europeans. But as I just said, racism is stupid and what I was saying has nothing to do with race. It has to do with cultural traits that tend to be advantageous for a budding civilization.
>>7954840
The Church will rebirth itself from Africa and Asia. The Catholics there don't fuck around, and their populations are growing.
>>7951774
Fucking kek
>>7954840
Pic related, the REAL saviours of the West
>>7951799
kek
This is pretty good.
>>7954840
>racism is stupid
No it's not. Genes exist. Averages exist. You're in denial.
>>7954882
Genes do exist. Averages do exist. Racism is still stupid.
>>7954882
Bite your tongue, nigger.
>>7954887
>Racism is still stupid
hating people because of their race is dumb
Ignoring facts and trends is also dumb
