I've always hated Nietzsche, but since I hadn't read any of his work before, I never said a word against him. But now, I've already read Thus spoke Zarathusta and I'm currently reading Human, all too human.
And what the fuck.
How can people actually agree with this dipshit? In Human, all too Human he spends a fuckton of time glorifying rebellion without justification. He himself says that rebellion is a childish thing, something that all young people feel at some time, and he says it's also something great to mess with the sacred, to disrespect authority and basically send everything to hell, without saying why.
I'm completely against rebellion of all kinds, but Nietzsche is just absurd. Look at Sartre. He, at some times, spoke well about rebellion, but with justification. I don't agree with him, but it's just opinions. But Nietsche does it without saying why. He also attacked God frequently without a reason.
He were an arrogant self-indulgent asshole. Everytime someone attacked his ideals, instead of defending them he just attacked the attacker back. That's why he's idolized these days, he's the teenager model.
One day anon, one day.
I can tell you that you are a shallow reader, you can go from there.
I laughed my fucking ass of while reading this post.
Do us a favour and start with the greeks. Learn a bit about philosophy and as the poster above me said: learn how to read.
>>8201356
>le meme the post
At least you tried.
>>8201356
Nietzsche is not for everyone:
you are to weak and stupid, there is literally no fedora about Nietzsche but the "hate" on religion. All he is saying is stop being a fucking pussy slave ass nigga. Zarathustra is basically a masterpiece if you aren't an idiot
>>8201356
>hates on Nieztsche before reading him
??
>>8201356
now thats a shiggy post
>>8201797
That's what I was talking about. "M-muh being part of a religion is bein a slave". What the fuck is wrong with that? I don't believe in God, and I agree being part of a religion is being a slave, but there is not a single problem with it. When I was a teenager and believed in God, I felt way safer and happier than now. I had to refuse many things because of my religion, but everytime I refused something I felt happier and happier. Our objective in life is to achieve happiness, the way you do it doesn't matter.
Zarathrusta wasn't horrible, it's injustified. That's the biggest Nietzsche problem, he never explains why something is good and why something is bad.
>>8201805
I read many things about Nietzsche before, disagreed with almost everything. But I had only read about him in external sources, so maybe they were wrong.
>>8203734
Did you actually read fucking Zaratrhrusta, in which Nietzsche actually advocates against "good" and "bad", you fucking dolt?
>>8203734
>Our objective in life is to achieve happiness
>>8203792
There is neither an objective of life nor an objective that would be agreed upon.
>I've always hated Nietzsche
>I hadn't read any of his work before
>>8201356
Why are you against rebellion of all kinds? Everything which is now orthodox started off as a rebellion
>>8203849
Did you even read my post. That's the reason I never spoke against him, I had only read and heard about his thoughts and ideas from external sources, and all of them could be wrong. So, until I had read any of his books, I refused to say anything because I could be wrong
>>8203734
>there is not a single problem with it. When I was a teenager and believed in God, I felt way safer and happier than now. I had to refuse many things because of my religion, but everytime I refused something I felt happier and happier. Our objective in life is to achieve happiness, the way you do it doesn't matter.
Could you sound like any more of a fucking slave?
Also:
>Our objective in life
Now I know you're trolling, trying to rile the Stirner aficionados up like that.
>>8201356
>I've always hated Nietzsche, but (since) I hadn't read any of his work before
/lit/ encapsulated. /lit/ personified.
Well done, OP.
>>8201356
You clearly are not capable of understanding what he means by the stuff he says. Read some secondary literature and guide into philosophy for teenagers, lel.
>>8203850
Well, you're right. I'm not against all kinds of rebellions, just the childish rebellion that Nietzsche adores, like in Human All too Human. Rebellion without reason and justification, without a target. Like I said, Sartre defended a rebellion against the status quo, rebellion as a way to make things better, rebellion against all things that are bad for us. That is the right, justified kind of rebellion.
>>8203854
"M-muh, you're a slave get out that is bad"
I'm not trolling, just explaining why Nietzsche is wrong. Also, I haven't read Stirner so I won't talk about him.
>>8203856
>>8203849
>>8201805
Damn, didn't realize these are bait, sorry. >>8203852
>>8203859
I have a friend who likes Nietzsche. He's a nice guy, and we sometimes talk about Nietzsche. We always have nice discussions, and he agrees that Nietzsche opinions are injustified.
He is the only person I know that likes Nietzsche that you can have a normal conversation with. I knew some other guys who agreed with Nietzsche, and everytime I wanted to discuss Nietzsche with them they always replied to every argument with "Y-you need to become free, become a Ubermensch"
Are all Nietzsche-fags like that? Can't you have a normal discussion instead of using escape arguments?
>>8203870
If you think the pursuit of happiness is the purpose of life, or that of philosophy, or that philosophy is 'supposed' to help in any way with the pursuit of happiness, then you are sorely fucking mistaken.
Philosophy is the pursuit of truth. Schopenhauer said it best:
>Truth is no harlot who throws her arms around the neck of him who does not desire her; on the contrary, she is so coy a beauty that even the man who sacrifices everything to her can still not be certain of her favours.
Now by all means, you can make the point that there is no such thing as 'truth', in which case things get interesting...
>>8203895
aren't injustifeid***
>>8203897
Unjustified*
>>8203900
Thank you.
>>8203909
No sweat m7.
What's your first language?
>>8203900
Memes**
>>8201356
Low quality bait nigger
>>8203914
Portuguese. I was going to write Unjustified, but OP's post is injustified, so i made a bad decision.
>>8203949
It's fine. Can see where the confusion arose desu; Injustice vs Unjustified.
>>8203882
No, I don't think philosophy is the pursuit of happiness. I think that philosophy is the understanding of man and the truth. But the greeks understood philosophy as the understanding of man, the truth, the world, and the pursuit of happiness. That's why we had the philosophy schools such as stoicism.
And I don't see why the pursuit of happiness isn't the purpose of life. We are rational, but biological creatures. As all animals we pursuit the satisfaction of our needs. That satisfaction is happiness. Our objective as biological creatures is to satisfy ourselves, to be happy.
And I consider the pursuit of truth the same thing as the pursuit of morality. I pursue morality, because I consider it a good thing. It satisfies me, makes me proud of myself. But there is no real reason to do it. Pursuing truth might satisfy you, but I really doubt you'll be happy if you refuse to believe in some lies, if you choose to only believe in absolute truths. You won't receive any prize, you won't get anything out of it.
I also believe there is no truth. That's common knowledge.
>>8203949
My first language is also portuguese. "Injustified" is similar to the antonym of justified in portuguese.
>>8203792
>Can you deny that?
Yes.
>>8203966
Do it then, please. I'm anxious.
>>8201356
i dislike him intensely too, but it helps to understand what developments he's responding to, which are darwinian evolution, a completely mechanistic/materialist conception of existence (and therefore a loss of transcendence, meaning, self-determination, and truth), liberalist moral theory (utilitarianism, for instance), and the flattening effect all of these ideas combined have on life.
he fails, and fails spectacularly, because there's no getting outside of these problems once you assume them to be true. as an answer he resorts to solipsism lol, and the madness into which he dove later in his life seems to suggest he was a faithful practitioner of his method.
>>8203983
Nothing more retarded than to imply Nietzsche's mental problems stemmed in any way from his philosophy.
>>8203999
"all superior men who were irresistibly drawn to throw off the yoke of any kind of morality and to frame new laws had, if they were not actually mad, no alternative but to make themselves or pretend to be mad" (Daybreak,14)
>All "superior men" must go mad or at least fake it once they escape morality
Here's another things I don't understand about Nietzsche. Why impose yourself something that will only and uniquely make you suffer? There is literally no reason to do that.
Also, although I yet see no reason to agree with Nietzsche whatsoever, I'm still open to understand why he did these things that sound so immensely stupid.
>>8204033
Remember that Nietzsche was philologist. He once said: "One must read me like I read everything.", or something like that.
So, sometimes, when he means 'mad', try to figure out what he really means.
Usually he is not meant to take literally.
Words like "demons", "god", "spider", "mad", all have a specific meaning in Nietzsche's literature.
>>8204044
This should be obvious, I don't know how people fail to see it.
>>8204072
It is pretty obvious. When he says mad, it's just a hyperbole. God and demon are also obviously metaphors, such as in here
>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.'
Although I immensely disagree with him, I must say his writing is really good.
>>8203976
I just did.
>>8204083
Elaborate.
canty believe beople fell for this bait hehe :^)
>>8204088
Why does he need to? You made the assertion - "Our objective in life is to achieve happiness." and all he said was "No it isn't."
You prove that's our objective in life, he doesn't need to prove a negative. You may as well have said "Our objective in life is to please God." or "Our objective in life is to masturbate as much as humanly possible before we expire."
>>8204088
The goal in life is obviously to collect as mant bubblegums as possible.
OP, just- Jesus....
It's not childish rebellion. It's rebellion in the sense that we just reevaluate all values. Nietzsche even believes some Christian values will make it through. But we must first rebel and destroy all values before we can find what is useful for ourselves and our individual drives. HE IS FUCKING EXPLICIT ABOUT REBELLION. Did you even understand the dragon's scales in Zarathustra?
Secondly, he doesn't attack God WITHOUT REASON. If you can't figure out why he attacks Christianity and the Judean God (the most shallow part of his philosophy) you're really better off reading something light and fluffy.
10/10 b8, I raged
>>8204532
Anon, you do realize around 20% of this board is composed by brazillians right? We used to have portuguese critique threads, and threads dedicated just for brazillians to talk about literature. There were tons of brazillians in these threads.
If it wasn't clear, no. I'm not that guy.
>>8204588
>Anon, you do realize around 20% of this board is composed by brazillians right?
jaajjajajaja
Don't remind me.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche - a romantic who published tracts against reason, morality, and religion. He epitomised the irrational, pantheist, tyrannical spirit of romanticism. In philosophy he was a self-acknowledged sophist: like the sophist Protogoras, he said that truth is a matter of opinion; like the sophist Thrasymachus, he said that morality is the invention of power; like the sophist Gorgias, he says that philosophical argument is based, not on reason, but on persuasion; like the sophist Heraclitus, he says that there is no being, but only a perpetual becoming, or flux. A student of ancient Greece, he plagiarised the Greek sophists and combined their absurd and self-contradictory ideas with the rhetoric of European romanticism, especially that of Richard Wagner early on. A an extraordinarily sick, sensitive, and timid man himself, he wrote apologies for tyrants, and has since been promoted by tyrants such as Adolf Hitler. He correctly noted the decline in moral standards that would ensue in Europe with the collapse of Christianity, but did nothing to prevent or cure it. He has not produced any notable followers, because his philosophy is negative and amounts to a license to do what one pleases; stronger men have used this license to conquer with violence, weaker men have used it as an excuse to indulge in degrading pleasures. He appeals very greatly to adolescents, both because of the license he gives them to indulge in their adolescent passions, and the passion that his romantic style induces in them. He is always an enemy of reason, freeing young men from the responsibility to think. Where he not metaphysically a total nihilist, he is a pantheist in the typical German fashion: he sees the world as being but the expression of a blind Will, the Will to Power, which is neither good nor evil, but is stronger in some places and weaker in others. Nietzsche cannot be accused of failing to live out his philosophy, because he spent the last 10 years of his life totally insane. Despite his very profound intelligence and his very great artistic sensitivity, his life was ruined by his weakness and sickliness, which caused in him a great hubris in his ambition to be a romantic hero, embracing the romantic mood of defiance that was growing in Europe at the time, which can be seen also in men like Byron & Shelley.
>>8204606
>He has not produced any notable followers
I mean, if you ignore the entire post-modern tradition, then sure...
>>8204606
Where did you get this from?
Human All Too Human was one of his weaker works IMO, need to read the other stuff
>>8204776
copy pasta
>>8204776
it's Russell
>>8203734
"injustified" isn't a word, semenbreath
>>8203965
>I also believe there is no truth. That's common knowledge.
^so, is this statement true? if not, what is it?
Why the fuck are we in here Addressing OP?
He can barely read and he is genetically destined to be a Slave.
He will be nothing but a Slave in his life and he is fine with that.
most of the dumb shit you said has been pointed out and made fun of. but here's my attempt at a run-down.
Nietzsche justifies rebelling against accepted values because he wants to re-evaluate values. This is why he criticizes the "justification" of the anarchists of his time; they are expressing an infantile psychological rage whilst keeping every value of western society except particular forms of government.
His justification for wanting re-evaluation of all values is that the values that the west has produced, christianity in particular, are no longer useful or life-affirming. Nietzsche observed that in his time, and one can easily say of our time as well, many people are aimless and miserable, with or without God, and adhering to values that will not make them stronger and more life-affirming. These values including but not limited to: democracy, free will, guilt and punishment, so on.
Does he justify why all of those things are slavish and life-denying? Endlessly, and that's plain from any one of his books if you actually read them.
Is he also thinking all of the above for certain psychological reasons? Is something compelling him to want to rebel at all costs? Yes and he would be the first to accept that. Important parts of his work are laughing at oneself and not ordering people to follow you word for word. Needless to say, OP has probably got some mommy issues that make him angry with rebellious persons too, so maybe you should be a little more cognizant and forgiving when it comes to "justifying" the will.
>>8203965
what then of the happy revelations that finding truth might bring?
>>8205678
*unhappy
>>8201356
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
cucks
>>8204606
Russell's reading of Nietzsche is the worst I've ever seen. Even Danto does a much better job. Disgraceful. Though I'm not surprised that a man with no aesthetic sense whatsoever could fail so badly to understand Nietzsche.
>>8205687
Define "aesthetic sense".
>>8205594
which book
>>8205607
>There is no Objective Fact.
wah-w-wah........ woah.
>>8205653
Nice pic brah.
SCREEEAM! BLOODY! GAAAWWWAHAHH
>>8205917
it's pretty much a summary of russell on nietzsche though, except for:
>He appeals very greatly to adolescents, both because of the license he gives them to indulge in their adolescent passions, and the passion that his romantic style induces in them. He is always an enemy of reason, freeing young men from the responsibility to think.
>>8205925
Wow! You should get that published; twas an excellent breakdown of his work. Very observant and sensory writing that really makes me think...
>>8201356
One does not agree or disagree with Nietzsche. One must live with him.
>>8205932
i'm not the person i was responding to you retard
>>8205946
Yeah but I was too lazy to scroll up to quote him, and those green words were a good example of how dumb he is.
I now understand why Wittgenstein nearly rekt Russel... never read him, but: Holy shit; what a dweeb
>>8205951
> those green words were a good example of how dumb he is
but my point was that's not something russell said
>>8205946
And shut up Anon, youre all the same to me
>>8205953
I know, it was something that autist said. But if that is basically the gist of Russel, Im going to assume he deserves chaos-pokes from based Wittgenstein
>>8205955
>if that is basically the gist of Russell
the section i quoted wasn't, that's the point
>>8205961
But I had already read his post beforehand, and it was a very stolid conception of Nietzsche. I'm not sure how youre not comprehending this.
>>8205969
stupid*, not stolid, lol autocorrect
ok guys Nietzsche is actually a kind of hard philosopher so its normal to not understand him. read the sep page on him and read genealogy of morals his other works are even more conceptual
>>8205969
>Yeah but I was too lazy to scroll up to quote him
wait did you mean this seriously
>>8205978
Technically, yes. I was disgusted when I read OP (of this convo chain), and didnt feel like cut pasting a part of it out and putting a meme arrow in front of it.
I have no guilt for the anon pleb that might've been emotionally destroyed by the direction of my reply.
>>8205983
When I read that "OP" post earlier today*
I had heard a lot of good stuff about Nietzsche and decided to read up on him
Starting with the Birth of Tragedy, I was a bit disappointed and didn't have interest to read any more of him
The book gave me a picture of a man with a lot of information and little thought trying his best to look good in the academic world
I guess I should read his later stuff, but after that 200-pages-made-a-chore I really don't feel like it
>>8205906
History of Western Philosophy. gets shit on a lot around here, but it's actually GOAT.
>>8206217
Do not listen to this stupid fuck. Russel knew about math and prison, don't listen to him on anything else.
>>8206244
you're right man, lemme rephrase that: def don't read Russell if you're braindead, or you think you can into Philosophy with just one book, or your autism is so strong you can't tolerate things written from an unfamiliar perspective. def do read Russell if you wanna get one of the great philosopher's take on the other great philosophers.
>>8206293
>or your autism is so strong you can't tolerate things written from an unfamiliar perspective.
You can't be serious here. This, more than anything else, is where it becomes obvious. Got me twice though. 4/10
>>8201356
>he says it's also something great to mess with the sacred, to disrespect authority and basically send everything to hell, without saying why.
You don't find joy in slaughtering sacred calves? Why are you posting on 4chan?
>>8206309
cmoncmoncmon this is a Neech thread, right? Fred wouldn't dismiss Russell out of hand. he'd read him, think about him, and then crucify him. but I'll have one more go at ye: I'm not saying Russell is great bc he's right about everything (I disagree with him about lots of things, including N.,) but imagine how cool it'd be to hear, say, Hegel's lectures on the history of philosophy, or Neech on the preplatonics. I think of Russell the same way: important perspective, take the good and leave the shit.
>>8206344
I said not to read the book you recommended. I also said to only listen to Russel on math or jail. I do this because I have read him.
There is no "unfamiliar perspective". It certainly is not "cool" to listen to what he has to say about anything, because he is doing what you are accusing me of, dismissing these figures without a close reading.
His History of Western Philosophy is a wretched potboiler.
>>8206365
1) I said that I think he's unfair to Nietzsche. he's also unfair to Aquinas and Bergson, and his take on Rousseau is eccentric. (just a few off the top of my head.)
2) if I remember correctly, he quotes Nietzsche from the Thomas Common translations, which by itself tells you what scholarship on Fred was like in Russell's day. his interpretation was pretty mainstream.
3) for every philosopher he gets wrong, though, there's a dozen to whom he gives a fair reading. plus he puts them in their historical/intellectual context. there's a lot more to be missed than gained by not reading Russell, sorry his fuck ups left a bigger impression on you than his victories homey.
Nietzche, in a few words, was a poetic contrarian. Nothin' personal.
With a Spartan rigour which never ceased to amaze his landlord-grocer, Nietzsche would get up every morning when the faintly dawning sky was still grey, and, after washing himself with cold water from the pitcher and china basin in his bedroom and drinking some warm milk, he would, when not felled by headaches and vomiting, work uninterruptedly until eleven in the morning. He then went for a brisk, two-hour walk through the nearby forest or along the edge of Lake Silvaplana (to the north-east) or of Lake Sils (to the south-west), stopping every now and then to jot down his latest thoughts in the notebook he always carried with him. Returning for a late luncheon at the Hôtel Alpenrose, Nietzsche, who detested promiscuity, avoided the midday crush of the table d’hôte in the large dining-room and ate a more or less ‘private’ lunch, usually consisting of a beefsteak and an ‘unbelievable’ quantity of fruit, which was, the hotel manager was persuaded, the chief cause of his frequent stomach upsets. After luncheon, usually dressed in a long and somewhat threadbare brown jacket, and armed as usual with notebook, pencil, and a large grey-green parasol to shade his eyes, he would stride off again on an even longer walk, which sometimes took him up the Fextal as far as its majestic glacier. Returning ‘home’ between four and five o’clock, he would immediately get back to work, sustaining himself on biscuits, peasant bread, honey (sent from Naumburg), fruit and pots of tea he brewed for himself in the little upstairs ‘dining-room’ next to his bedroom, until, worn out, he snuffed out the candle and went to bed around 11 p.m.
>tfw finished my reading of Nietzsche
Ecce Homo is a masterpiece, I cannot think of a single author who so beautifully capped off his career, with a comic autobiography that nonetheless retains the hints of serious tone, and the dreadful promise that his ideas would shatter the earth one day soon. I struggled to understand him at times but Ecce Homo tied everything together while exhorting me to return to his other works with the new understanding he had attained of them at the end.
What order should I follow with Nietzsche books?
I'll just repost this here: If you ever think you've pinned down a position Nietszche held you're very probably wrong.
OP, it's obvious you are letting your prejudices very in the way of your understanding. Nietszche is a philosopher of perspectives. He'll take one up and see where it leads, what it reveals,workout necessarily taking it as his own. He does seem to consistently come down in favor of iconoclasm, which seems in line with so-called 'master morality', but to equate the two is a mistake. Nietszche is after the revaluation of values, which overturns master and slave morality alike. It's an attempt to step outside, or to step over, any inherited moral framework. In his case this is Christianity.
>>8207528
chronological order works well
>>8205969
Einstein couldn't possibly have said this
>>8201356
>I'm completely against rebellion of all kinds, but Nietzsche is just absurd.
>>8201356
OP is evidence that not everyone should be taught to read.
I like it how you are all butthurt when someone questions Nietzsche. The truth is half of the stuff he said is dubious to say the least, and OP is right that he really needs more justification for some of his key claims. Your dogmatic acceptance of him is absurd and ridiculous. Of Nietzsche could be said the same thing that can be said of most philosophers- his criticism of other philosophies, of morality and other things is outstanding and worth the reading. His solution to the problems he formulated is ridiculous and lacking in any substance or reality. The "ubermensch" talk is ridiculous and utterly impossible. The attempt was quite idealistic for a philosopher who is otherwise quite cynical.
And no, you are not all ubermenschen who have re-evaluated all values and reached godhood. You are idiots who worship Nietzsche and you play uncritically with his ideas without fully realizing the implications of them.
I'm out.
>>8203882
Except it isn't.
Schopenhauer couldn't even refute Plato.
>>8206478
"Nowadays it frequently happens that the process of the sacred 'rascooarno' in your favorites takes place 'by thirds' —that is to say, they 'die
in parts ' This also proceeds from the fact that, arising and being formed only according to the principle of itoklanotz and existing inharmoniously, they use up the contents of the bobbinkandelnosts of their three separate, independent brains disproportionately, and hence they frequently undergo such a horrible
'dying' as is not proper to three-brained beings.
"During my stay among them I personally very often witnessed their 'dying by thirds.'
"And this can take place because even though the bobbinkandelnost of one of their brains may be entirely used up, the beings themselves, especially the contemporary ones, sometimes continue to exist for quite a long time.
"For instance, it often happens that, owing to their particularly abnormal existence, the contents of one of their bobbinkandelnosts are used up and, if it is the case of the moving center or, as they themselves call it, the 'spinal cord,' then although this three-brained being continues to 'think' and to 'feel,' he has already lost the possibility of intentionally directing the parts of his planetary body..."
>>8209631
Except it is.
And Schopenhauer didn't try refuting Plato.
Hell, he agreed with Plato more than he agreed with Kant.
>THE divine Plato and the marvellous Kant unite their mighty voices in recommending a rule, to serve as the method of all philosophising as well as of all other science.
That's how he begins 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason'.
>>8209695
why
