One thing every bad reader of Nietzsche seems to get wrong is they think he advocated selfishness.
Nietzsche did not advocate selfishness. He basically looked down on base egoism as being what literally everyone in the herd does. Your average family is filled with people satisfying base urges and not contemplating morality.
Nietzsche actually liked people who could be irrationally moral, he even liked Christians like Dostoevsky above your average herd person.
Can we discuss other common misconceptions of Nietzsche?
Nietzsche sure liked looking down on things
Nietzsche like Dostoevsky because he only read Notes from Underground. If he read more of Dosto, he'd have cried out in alarm that Dosto advocates for remorse and contrition.
>>1162640
Well yeah, Nietzsche wouldn't be able to tolerate Dosto's stupidity with religion. But I think he earned Nietzsche's respect as a thinker as far as he could.
And I do still think Nietzsche would esteem Dosto above common people.
>>1162652
I would hope so, considered Dostoevsky addresses most of Nietzsche's ideas before Nietzsche does.
>>1162591
Nietzsche liked people who created their own morality instead of following the established morality, like Christ. However, he also happened to dislike the actual morality that Christ thought up.
>>1162755
Maybe I'm just a dumbass but I never really understood what Nietzsche would consider an example of morality he could agree with.
>>1162696
kek, he may address the same sorts of things but dosto did not beat nietzsche to the punch.
>>1162794
Read Goethe's conversations with Eckermann
Part of Nietzsche's whole thing is there is no "final morality", so any codified system of morals is wrong. Goethe always changed which is why Nietzsche liked him.
>>1162804
He sure did. Last Man, Ubermensch, the Death of God, ressentiment, master vs. slave morality, eternal recurrence, it's all there.
Nietzsche was also much more sensitive and humble than people give him credit for. People don't realize that Nietzsche's greatest foe is not Christianity, but Don Quixote. Christianity isn't worth lifting a finger towards, but Nietzsche always recognized his own insanity and how foolish his whole project was.
A favorite quote of mine: "if I knew myself [making a reference to the Greek mantra], I would run away". Nietzsche knew we were basically all deluding ourselves in the end about what we are.
>>1162825
No it's not. No offense but you're also the most biased person in this thread; I have no reason to trust a roleplaying Christian wannabe priest in his opinion on anything.
>>1162825
Everything I've ever seen you post about Nietzsche is wrong.
>>1162864
Well you don't have to trust me, but it's clear to me that you've never read Dostoevsky, and you should do yourself a favor and start.
>>1162905
Everything I've seen you post about Nietzsche is wrong.
>>1162905
>Costantine is wrong
>Finding this remarkable.
>>1162914
He's not a special snowflake tripfag, so you have no idea what he's said about Nietzsche.
>>1162924
Not an argument.
>>1162927
I know he's said everything he's seen me say is wrong, which wrong, which means everything I've seen him say is wrong.
>>1162908
I've read Notes from Underground and The Brothers Karamazov.
I'm pretty damn sure you're just overestimating how much Dostoevsky actually captured. In any case, he may have just been a good writer. Writing a good philosophical text is not the same as writing a good fiction story.
>>1162914
Epic reply there memer. Why do you use a trip?
>>1162938
You wouldn't know what you've seen me say about Nietzsche, so you're wrong about yourself. I've talked with you about Nietzsche before.
What? A Christian with no self-awareness?
>>1162939
You need to read Crime and Punishment and Devils as well.
You can't deny that Notes from Underground explores the concept of the Last Man, as well as ressentiment, in some detail.
>>1162924
I just find it annoying that he thinks he has any validity to speak with authority; he never justifies his positions with evidence.
Also the tripcode thing really needs to end.
>>1162908
Constantine I have not read much Dostoevsky but frankly you have lost all credibility. You've lied too much, never made a legitimate reply away too many times when someone showed an error in your thinking, and have been too dishonest with how your represent books.
Your entire character seems to be based on resentment and lying.
>>1162952
You've seen what I've said in this thread which you said was wrong which makes you wrong.
>>1162958
>You can't deny that Notes from Underground explores the concept of the Last Man, as well as ressentiment, in some detail.
ressentiment as an idea of course existed long before Nietzsche. To say Nietzsche invented ressentiment is just a strawman. Nietzsche's particular take on it though has nothing to do with Dostoevsky.
The last man is also a minor point in Nietzsche's philosophy and really doesn't relate to the underground man. Of course you've read Nietzsche's letters about it, what did Nietzsche say?
>>1162965
You can stop being a pedantic twat any day now.
>>1162965
No you haven't.
You've seen what you think he's said, he might simply have never said anything and just came into the thread to reply to you.
We have no id's here, you're just assuming.
>>1162993
>it's another constantine thread
>>1162977
Nietzsche doesn't make any extensive commentary on Dostoevsky, he just calls him a kindred spirit and a powerful psychologist.
Nietzsche didn't "invent" ressentiment, but I would say he did significant investigation to it as a source for values, morality and justice, as well as a way the weak justify their weakness, which Dostoevsky also did.
The Last Man is pretty significant, it is Nietzsche's nightmare about utilitarianism. It's not just about a future, it's about the intent.
>>1162996
Threads like these always have so much potential, but this fag has to come in here and shit them up and now he's the center of attention. Tbh, the only way this thread is going to have anymore meaningful conversation is if we ignore him and his reddit-tier faggotry.
>>1162591
Nietzsche disagree with you
>>1162977
Until you read Devils and Crime and Punishment (which really explore this in depth), here is a quote from The Brothers Karamazov which might refresh your memory
>the new man is allowed ti become a man-god, though it be he alone in the whole world, and of course, in this new rank, to jump lightheartedly over any former moral obstacle of the former slave-man, if need be.
Ivan's "Devil"
Here is from Dostoevsky's "Devils"
>No, not in a future everlasting but in an everlasting life here. There are moments, you reach moments, and time comes to a sudden stop, and it will become eternal
>There are seconds, they come only five or six at a time, and you suddenly feel the presence of eternal harmony, fully achieved. It is nothing earthly; not that it's heavenly, but man cannot endure it in his earthly state. One must change physically or die. The feeling is clear and indisputable. As if you suddenly sense the whole of nature and suddenly say: yes, this is true.
cont
>>1163040
>To recognize that there is no God, and not to recognize at the same time that you have become God, is an absurdity, otherwise you must necessarily kill yourself. Once you recognize it, you are king, and you will not kill yourself but live in the chiefest glory. But one, the one who is first, must necessarily kill himself, otherwise who will begin and prove it? It is I who will necessarily kill myself in order to begin and prove it. I am still God against my will, and I am unhappy, because it is my duty to proclaim self-will. Everyone is unhappy, because everyone is afraid to proclaim self-will. That is why man has been so unhappy and poor up to now, because he was afraid to proclaim the chief point of self-will and was self-willed only on the margins, like a schoolboy. I am terribly unhappy, because I am terrible afraid. Fear is man's curse...But I will proclaim self-will, it is my duty to believe that I do not believe. I will begin, and end, and open the door. And save. Only this one thing will save all men and in the next generation transform them physically. for in the present physical aspect, so far as I have thought, it is in no way possible for man to be without the former God. For three years I have been searching for the attribute of my divinity, and I have found it: the attribute of my divinity is--Self-will!
>>1163045
And here are passages from Notes from Underground, you tell me if they are in line with Nietzsche's thoughts
>you say, science itself will teach man (though this is really a luxury in my opinion) that in fact he has neither will nor caprice, and never did have any, and that he himself is nothing but a sort of piano key or a sprig in an organ; and that, furthermore, there also exist in the world the laws of nature; so that whatever he does is done not at all according to his own wanting, but of itself, according to the laws of nature. Consequently, these laws of nature need only be discovered, and then man will no longer be answerable for his actions, and his life will become extremely easy. Needless to say, all human actions will then be calculated according to these laws, mathematically, like a table of logarithms, up to 108,000, and entered into a calendar; or, better still, some well-meaning publications will appear, like the present-day encyclopaedic dictionaries, in which everything will be so precisely calculated and designated that there will no longer be any actions or adventures in the world.
....
>I, for example, would not be the least bit surprised if suddenly, out of the blue, amid the universal future reasonableness, some gentleman of ignoble, or, better, of retrograde and jeering physiognomy, should emerge, set his arms akimbo, and say to us all: “Well, gentlemen, why don't we reduce all this reasonableness to dust with one good kick, for the sole purpose of sending all these logarithms to the devil and living once more according to our own stupid will!”
>>1163052
Some more
>I, for example, quite naturally want to live so as to satisfy my whole capacity for living, and not so as to satisfy just my reasoning capacity alone, which is some twentieth part of my whole capacity for living. What does reason know? Reason knows only what it has managed to learn (some things, perhaps, it will never learn; this is no consolation, but why not say it anyway?), while human nature acts as an entire whole, with everything that is in it, consciously and unconsciously, and though it lies, still it lives. I suspect, gentlemen, that you are looking at me with pity; you repeat to me that an enlightened and developed man, such, in short, as the future man will be, simply cannot knowingly want anything unprofitable for himself, that this is mathematics. I agree completely, it is indeed mathematics. But I repeat to you for the hundredth time, there is only one case, one only, when man may purposely, consciously wish for himself even the harmful, the stupid, even what is stupidest of all: namely, so as to have the right to wish for himself even what is stupidest of all and not be bound by an obligation to wish for himself only what is intelligent. For this stupidest of all, this caprice of ours, gentlemen, may in fact be the most profitable of anything on earth for our sort, especially in certain cases. And in particular it may be more profitable than all other profits even in the case when it is obviously harmful and contradicts the most sensible conclusions of our reason concerning profits – because in any event it preserves for us the chiefest and dearest thing, that is, our personality and our individuality.
>>1163057
And this, this part is very good
>WHAT HAPPENS, for example, with people who know how to take revenge and generally how to stand up for themselves? Once they are overcome, say, by vengeful feeling, then for the time there is simply nothing left in their whole being but this feeling. Such a gentleman just lunges straight for his goal like an enraged bull, horns lowered, and maybe only a wall can stop him. (Incidentally: before a wall, these gentlemen – that is, ingenuous people and active figures – quite sincerely fold.
cont
>>1163063
> For them a wall is not a deflection, as it is, for example, for us, people who think and consequently do nothing; it is not a pretext for turning back, a pretext which our sort usually doesn't believe in but is always very glad to have. No, they fold in all sincerity. For them a wall possesses something soothing, morally resolving and final, perhaps even something mystical . . . But of the wall later.) Well, sirs, it is just such an ingenuous man that I regard as the real, normal man, the way his tender mother – nature – herself wished to see him when she so kindly conceived him on earth. I envy such a man to the point of extreme bile. He is stupid, I won't argue with you about that, but perhaps a normal man ought to be stupid, how do you know? Perhaps it's even very beautiful. And I am the more convinced of this, so to speak, suspicion, seeing that if, for example, one takes the antithesis of the normal man, that is, the man of heightened consciousness, who came, of course, not from the bosom of nature but from a retort (this is almost mysticism, gentlemen, but I suspect that, too), this retort man sometimes folds before his antithesis so far that he honestly regards himself, with all his heightened consciousness, as a mouse and not a man. A highly conscious mouse, perhaps, but a mouse all the same, whereas here we have a man, and consequently . . . and so on . . . And, above all, it is he, he himself, who regards himself as a mouse; no one asks him to; and that is an important point.
Very Nietzsche, eh?
>>1163045
That actually doesn't really capture Nietzsche's philosophy, that's closer to Stirner. Nietzsche isn't about you becoming a tyrannical mangod.
>>1162977
This.
Everything Nietzsche talked about is related to the human condition. So in terms of discussing them as feelings they have been around long before him. You can find the eternal recurrence discussed in all sorts of myth and religions, you can find discussion of ressentment in the show Miraculous Ladybug. But again these are discussing the concepts as FEELINGS. And that's what Dostevesky and any other fiction work is about, feelings.
However in terms of discussing them as philosophy, explaining what they mean, Nietzsche was a trailblazer.
>>1163066
>Let us now have a look at this mouse in action. Suppose, for example, that it, too, is offended (and it is almost always offended), and it, too, wishes to take revenge. For it may have stored up even more spite than l'homme de la nature et de la verité. The nasty, base little desire to pay the offender back with the same evil may scratch still more nastily in it than in l'homme de la nature et de la verité, because l'homme de le nature et de la verité, with his innate stupidity, regards his revenge quite simply as justice; whereas the mouse, as a result of its heightened consciousness, denies it any justice. Things finally come down to the business itself, to the act of revenge itself. The wretched mouse, in addition to the one original nastiness, has already managed to fence itself about with so many other nastinesses in the form of questions and doubts; it has padded out the one question with so many unresolved questions that, willy-nilly, some fatal slops have accumulated around it, some stinking filth consisting of its dubieties, anxieties, and, finally, of the spit raining on it from the ingenuous figures who stand solemnly around it like judges and dictators, guffawing at it from all their healthy gullets. Of course, nothing remains for it but to wave the whole thing aside with its little paw and, with a smile of feigned contempt, in which it does not believe itself, slip back shamefacedly into its crack. There, in its loathsome, stinking underground, our offended, beaten-down, and derided mouse at once immerses itself in cold, venomous, and, above all, everlasting spite. For forty years on end it will recall its offense to the last, most shameful details, each time adding even more shameful details of its own, spitefully taunting and chafing itself with its fantasies.
>>1163070
> It will be ashamed of its fantasies, but all the same it will recall everything, go over everything, heap all sorts of figments on itself, under the pretext that they, too, could have happened, and forgive nothing. It may even begin to take revenge, but somehow in snatches, with piddling things, from behind the stove, incognito, believing neither in its right to revenge itself nor in the success of its vengeance, and knowing beforehand that it will suffer a hundred times more from all its attempts at revenge than will the object of its vengeance, who will perhaps not even scratch at the bite. On its deathbed it will again recall everything, adding the interest accumulated over all that time, and . . . But it is precisely in this cold, loathsome half-despair, half-belief, in this conscious burying oneself alive from grief for forty years in the underground, in this assiduously produced and yet somewhat dubious hopelessness of one's position, in all this poison of unsatisfied desires penetrating inward, in all this fever of hesitations, of decisions taken forever, and repentances coming again a moment later, that the very sap of that strange pleasure I was talking about consists. It is so subtle, sometimes so elusive of consciousness, that people who are even the slightest bit narrow-minded, or who simply have strong nerves, will not understand a single trace of it.”Perhaps,” you will add, grinning, “those who have never been slapped will also not understand” – thereby politely hinting that I, too, may have experienced a slap in my life, and am therefore speaking as a connoisseur. I'll bet that's what you think. But calm yourselves, gentlemen, I have not received any slaps, though it's all quite the same to me whatever you may think about it. Perhaps I myself am sorry for having dealt out too few slaps in my life. But enough, not another word on this subject which you find so extremely interesting.
>>1163068
Nietzsche's philosophy is more full expressed by Raskolnikov's theory, in Crime and Punishment, of the "extraordinary man." Raskolnikov is against society, but does not wish to become merely another "brick of socialism", and he develops a theory that once in a blue moon, nature produces supermen, like Napoleon, who are far above their fellows and therefore not bound to public morality, which is good for the masses, because they are like "cows". But the extraordinary man creates his own values and imposes them upon society, as is his extraordinary right, and he can kill, pillage, or do whatever he pleases to accomplish this, because this is the sort of man who brings in the future.
>>1163103
Nietzsche spoke almost completely in terms of passions...his philosophy was a turn against the philosophy of utility and reason.
>>1163066
Not really. Dostoevsky's prediction about men in the future having easy lives is different. Nietzsche doesn't believe we can actually make everything pleasant like Dosto implies. He believe we will strive to.
This is really just pathetic. I'd have more respect for you if you admitted you just don't really know Nietzsche that well and remained silent. Dostoevsky talks about the same things as Nietzsche at times. He draws different conclusions. He maybe foreshadows but Nietzsche has volumes of texts of interesting stuff past anything Dostoevsky ever dreamed of.
>>1163113
No it wasn't. Utility, maybe, but reason, absolutely fucking not. Nietzsche more believes irrationality isn't wrong, not that it's superior to rationality.
What would Fred have thought of Stirner?
>>1163115
> Nietzsche doesn't believe we can actually make everything pleasant like Dosto implies
Nietzsche's nightmare of the Last Man is identical to this. Nietzsche DOESN'T consider it pleasant.
>>1163127
He rebels against reason as above passion, yes he does.
>>1163113
Maybe if the only fucking book he wrote was Zarathustra.
>>1163045
Compare this to Nietzsche
>God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
> 'DEAD ARE ALL THE GODS: NOW DO WE DESIRE THE OVERMAN TO LIVE.'
>>1163100
That's a shitty reading of Nietzsche.
The barrier here is that you have a very shallow, Wikipedia understanding of Nietzsche. I've studied him now for about four years. I've read 6 of his full texts, letters, interpretations, and maintained correspondences with top scholars. Still to this day his work surprises me, because it has a degree of nuance and perspective to it that most people just fail to grasp.
You've failed to grasp it.
>>1163153
Literally the only critical method Nietzsche ever uses is philology.
>>1163143
Neither are "above" you doltish child.
>>1163158
History? Psychology? Hell he even starts getting more rational when trying to rebuke Kant.
>>1163157
I've read Beyond Good and Evil, Genealogy, Zarathustra, Birth of Tragedy, Gay Science, Will to Power, Antichrist, Twilight of the Idols, The Dawn, Ecce Homo, and many letters.
>>1163166
Nietzsche doesn't use any critical historical or psychological method. He uses philology for a lot of his psychological conclusions though, especially in Genealogy.
>>1163163
To Nietzsche, will, passion, life, beauty, are all the same thing, and paramount; all other things are to be subject to that. "Above" as in subjecting other things. Reason is not to subject will, but vice versa.
>>1163132
He would say, he's right about many things but wrong about egoism.
>>1163166
Don't pay attention to Constantine, Nietzsche uses more than the philological method. He's becoming less coherent and more flailing as the thread goes on.
>>1163196
>Let me speak to them of what is most contemptible: but that is the last man."
>And thus spoke Zarathustra to the people: "The time has come for man to set himself a goal. The time has come for man to plant the seed of his highest hope. His soil is still rich enough. But one day this soil will be poor and domesticated, and no tall tree will be able to grow in it. Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer shoot the arrow of his longing beyond man, and the string of his bow will have forgotten how to whirl.
>"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.
cont
>>1163244
>"Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man.
>"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?' thus asks the last man, and he blinks.
>"The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea-beetle; the last man lives longest.
>"We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him, for one needs warmth.
>Becoming sick and harboring suspicion are sinful to them: one proceeds carefully. A fool, whoever still stumbles over stones or human beings! A little poison now and then: that makes for agreeable dreams. And much poison in the end, for an agreeable death.
>"One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.
>"No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.
>"'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink.
>"One is clever and knows everything that has ever happened: so there is no end of derision. One still quarrels, but one is soon reconciled-else it might spoil the digestion.
>"One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health.
>"We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink."
>>1163216
What other method does Nietzsche use? Please, name it.
>actually good thread about Nietzsche hijacked by the Drag Queen of Resentment
>>1163299
is there any proof that constantine is actually a tranny
>>1163319
I don't care what they are, they just have an insufferable posting style.
>>1163137
What Dostoyevsky is talking about there seems to be about the free will and science destroying it, turning the world into a clockwork, which happens to be very safe and comfortable. The last man is about the liberal democratic sentiment, you know, utilitarian measures of happiness, equality, safety, moderation, good economy, work, pension at 65, peace, mockery of the old "shitty times", all that. What zarathustra doesn't speak of is free will and the mechanistic universe. Furthermore, the last man is the LAST man. There is no coming overman, there is no creators of new values, it's just a big black hole of comfort, a zero state of energy, a perfectly balanced and therefore UNCHANGEABLE system. Dostoyevskys character clearly considers the possibility of the whole setup getting torn down after it became established.
Basically you saw that both were sort of unheroic times and that they were based on modern inventions and instantly shitposted away without thinking further.
>>1163520
Glad someone took the time to say it. I started getting bogged down by the amount of quotations they were posting and gave up trying to talk seriously. Constantine is more about being right than about having a discussion.
>>1163520
>The last man is about the liberal democratic sentiment, you know, utilitarian measures of happiness, equality, safety, moderation, good economy, work, pension at 65, peace, mockery of the old "shitty times"
Have you read Notes from Underground? he talks extensively about this.
Both really go hand-in-hand with Bentham and the like.
>>1163537
No, it's on my reading list. I just went by (some of, because fucking hell) what you posted in this thread. If you have relevant content, post it and not shit that makes you seem super retarded when paired with your arguments. Also go outside, you're in practically every other fucking thread I visit posting dozens of posts in each.
>>1162794
He gives hints in some books, and the fourth book of Will to Power is all about that.
>>1163537
Your point was basically that Nietzsche did nothing original and Dostoevsky did it all first. No amount of pedantic shitposting will defend an irrevocably retarded statement like that.
>>1163575
People really ought to read Goethe when contemplating Nietzsche. Goethe exemplifies a person with a complex, changing moral character that served as a model for Nietzsche.
>>1163036
How so? To recognize the importance of "evil" acts in the general economy of humanity is not the same as advocating selfishness.
>>1163036
How does said passage disagree with me?
>>1163143
He doesn't say passions are "above" reason, but that the latter somehow emerges from the former. And the only thing he has against reason is when it is used AGAINST the passions. I don't know if he says it somewhere, but probably he thought that to use your passions against reason is equally dumb as hell. Reason isn't life-denying by itself.
>>1163681
Shhh, let the Christian strawman Nietzsche, it's amusing
>>1163588
I've not read Goethe very well, I've considered give him a look by what I've read of his influence on Nietzsche. Maybe starting with the conversations mentioned in this thread.
>>1163036
Did you not read past the first passage?
>2. The Intellectual Conscience.
I have the same experience over and over again and always try to resist it for although it is evident to me I still do not want to believe it: in the greater number of men the intellectual conscience is lacking; indeed, it would often seem to me that when demanding such a thing, one is as solitary in the largest cities as if you were in the desert. Everyone looks at you with strange eyes and continues to use of his scales, calling this good and that bad; and no one blushes for shame when you remark that these weights are under-weight - people do not feel indignant; they merely laugh at your doubt. I mean to say that the greater number of people does not find it contemptible to believe this or that, and live according to it, without having been previously aware of the ultimate and surest reasons for and against it, and without even giving themselves any trouble about such reasons afterwards, the most gifted men and the noblest women still belong to this "greater number." But what is kindheartedness, refinement and genius to me, if he who has these virtues harbours lazy sentiments in his faith and judgments, if the longing for certainty does not rule in him, as his innermost desire and profoundest distress - as that which separates higher from lower men! In certain pious people I have found a hatred of reason, and have been favourably disposed to them for it: their bad intellectual conscience was at least exposed by that! But to stand in the midst of this rerum concordia discors and all the marvellous uncertainty and ambiguity of existence, and not to question, not to tremble with desire and delight in questioning, not even to hate the questioner- perhaps even finding him amusing - that is what I regard as contemptible, and it is this sentiment which I first of all search for in every one.
he says people who don't ponder moral questions are basically cows
>>1163739
Nietzsche said the Conversations with Eckermann is the best work in the German language. It's very human, you can definitely watch Goethe struggle with hard questions.
>>1163584
I don't think either men explored original ideas, both men took them from the air of their time. Dostoevsky critiqued them, whereas Nietzsche beautified them. Nietzsche is really the first post-Christian thinker, to offer a truly *poetic* system of thought alternative to Christianity. Christianity is extremely artistic and poetic, and Nietzsche, perhaps, saw this as the greatest lack among secular alternative worldviews of his day.
>>1163563
It's really to long for me to spam it all here
Here's the link to the full story, just read the first fifteen pages: https://7chan.org/lit/src/fyodor-dostoevsky-notes-from-underground-1.pdf
>>1163681
Nietzsche isn't opposed to reason per se, he is opposed to reason as the sun which thought orbits. After the end of revelation as the sun, reason took its place, and then among some reaction to that, utility took that place. Nietzsche has no problem with reason as a tool, but as a god he is its bitter enemy.
>>1163808
>Christianity is extremely artistic and poetic, and Nietzsche, perhaps, saw this as the greatest lack among secular alternative worldviews of his day.
Sure, but Christianity today isn't artistic or beautiful at all.
>>1163825
Nietzsche thinks reason CAN'T be the orbit. That's the difference. He says: "thoughts are always the shadows of our feelings: darker, emptier and more shallow", I'm paraphrasing. In every situation ever thoughts are slave to the passions, he's basically a Humean in this regard.
He's against the elevation of reason because he thinks it's just antihuman, it tells people that a fundamental aspect of themselves is wrong. There's nothing about which should be which here, he's diagnosing illnesses like a doctor.
That doesn't make reason bad, or passions bad, he just says improper valuing of them makes a person sick.
>>1163962
>Sure, but Christianity today isn't artistic or beautiful at all.
Orthodox Christianity is, but back then, even Protestant Christianity was.
>>1163962
>he's basically a Humean in this regard.
Yes, but this is just already worked out by Hume. Nietzsche affirms it as a value rather than makes any case of substance against it. Nietzsche argues about *values* more than over truth (since Nietzsche sees truth as nothing but a good produced by power).
>>1163986
>Nietzsche affirms it as a value rather than makes any case of substance against it.
Really? Last I checked, Beyond Good and Evil was a text working out every implication of this for philosophy.
>Nietzsche argues about *values* more than over truth (since Nietzsche sees truth as nothing but a good produced by power).
Not necessarily, he discusses truth quite a bit but it's hidden. He actually lays out an entire pragmatic theory of truth (really William James-esque) in The Gay Science, cf Alexandre Nehamas.
But pragmatic truth does tend to not jive with philosophical truths.
>>1162640
>>1164028
kek
fritz is on the fritz again
>>1164012
>Last I checked, Beyond Good and Evil was a text working out every implication of this for philosophy.
But from values expressed through philology and aphorisms, it's nothing like Human's systematic arguments.
>he discusses truth quite a bit but it's hidden
At the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil, he identifies it with a woman--which means he thinks it only looks deep, but is actually quite shallow.
>>1162640
you don't know shit about nietzsche
>>1163575
no, it isn't
>>1164039
Sure, Nietzsche doesn't lay out arguments, he mocks the practice in BG&E
>At the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil, he identifies it with a woman--which means he thinks it only looks deep, but is actually quite shallow.
WOW, now you butchered the fuck out of that.
The actual quote from Nietzsche is: women aren't deep, they aren't even shallow. He basically says "depth" of thought is men's folly, and is a compliment to women.
He's saying that truth is often very simple and very complicated simultaneously.
Now I'm doubling down on my certainty that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
God's death is beautiful
Existence precedes essence
>>1164128
>The actual quote from Nietzsche is: women aren't deep, they aren't even shallow. He basically says "depth" of thought is men's folly, and is a compliment to women.
And all this could be applied to his perspective on truth
>>1164366
Epic burn bro :^)
Also, I've been on 4chan long enough to know that when one critiques Nietzsche, the first criticism is invariably and ALWAYS, "you don't understand"/"you haven't read him". ALWAYS, without fail. Every time. You will never see a single critique pass without this defense, and it will always veer toward some form of literary analysis being treated as gospel.
ie
>the will to power is a natural force that moves through all things
>the will to power is a natural force that only moves through living things
>the will to power is a natural force that only moves through human beings
>the will to power is defined by individual affirmation
>the will to power is a longing for power, not an act
>the will to power is an act, not a longing
>the will to power is both the act and the longing being present
or
>Nietzsche's slave-master dichotomy is purely describe
>Nietzsche exalts masters
>Nietzsche doesn't care for either, preferring an all new morality
>Nietzsche sees both as necessary to combine for the greatest morality
>Nietzsche sees them as both useful, but for different people
or
>the Ubermesnch is a kind of individual man
>the Umbermensch is a future race
>the Ubermenschen is an ideal in flux, it's never meant to be realized
>the Ubermesnch is something realized in certain times and moments and lived, rather than attained
And so on and so forth.
Nietzsche also didn't want you to blindly follow his beliefs
>>1164418
Have you ever considered that maybe different people have a different reading? His work is incredibly in-depth, with ideas being developed over 10+ books, in addition just about every philosopher after him have tried to incomprate their own ideas into Nietzsche, compound this with the fact that 4chan is a bunch of novices rather than experts and this result is not be expected.
In addition a lot of what you said are not contradictions. It is perfectly compatable with literally everything you said about Masters.
Nietzche does say Masters are preferable to slaves. But he acknowledges that it is the slave's circumstance that makes it useful for them. His idea that the ideal morality is never fixed means you can have a powerful morality that combines elements from both Masters and Slaves (for instance he praises the slave's cunning). This also opens up the door for a new morality.
One thing you seem to be incapable of grasping about Nietzche is he is capable of analyzing things from not just his own ideals but from other people's perspective. He is able to accept them as being useful or true for certain people and that certain perspectives performe better in different situations. This deep analysis is possible because he accepts the subjective, perspective nature of reality and (thus morality): something you constantly rebel against.
I think this is why you can never grasp any decent philosophy you are incapable of understanding anything through any perspective but your own so you cannot even begin to understand the thought process of a man who is asking you to do this to understand philosophy. You keep thinking in terms of being "for" or "against" something as a universal ought rather than being able to analyze individual situations.
To even consider the possibility is to renounce your theology that "good"/"correct" is some transcendent divine thing which is wrapped up in your God. Maybe you just lack the divine spark of Gnosis and are Demiurge puppet.
>>1164418
Don't be salty just because you made bad criticisms of a philosopher you secretly hate.
>>1164477
Yes, that's certainly true.
>>1164533
Which means, unless you're a scholar, and instead are looking for a way to live your life, your interpretation is irrelevant
>>1162591
hey do any of you have a shot of that one guy that basically summed up nietzsche in like three posts? I saw it get posted here a few months ago and it is a very good, concise summary. if any one has it & posts it i will give them a kiss like i did this bird i found
>>1164795
uh what?
>>1165914
I'm saying that theres no point in trying to live your life like Nietzsche did because thats what he didn't want you to do
danger and play is what women are and want and men want women, but only because women are the ultimate danger and play thing. This is nice, but you can reach a life beyond this.
once you understand that men are not meant to be as good hedonist as women, you first acknowledge the superiority of women at the hedonistic life (which is just called life by men and women) and you see the misery of hedonism, either the direct hedonism of the woman, or the nihilistic fantasy of the delayed hedonism of the man [the one that men advocate for, the one about engaging yourself into challenges after challenges, seeking merit, pursuing your passions, in one word still clinging to entertainment (typically to attract women sooner or later) to better turn away from their impotency at the hedonistic life..] created by men once they get beat by women.
Once you see the game as well as the noneffective masculine life, you lose faith in hedonism. At this point, you either see the solution or not {Nietzsche did not see it, or rather he did not claim explicitly that he saw it]: you strive to do the exact opposite of hedonism (either the masculine one or the feminine one): first you stop being nihilistic, in accepting what you are (it is crucial to be sincere about the starting point], meaning a worm, and in stopping to analyze the past to get a better future (= the strategy of men, which remains inside hedonism (even though they claim that it is not, and in practice is is clearly not), but even more nihilistic than the feminine hedonism, once they are beaten by women] and in stopping to take what you desire, feel and think seriously [=the hedonism of the woman, and the fueling of this hedonism by men].
Women are wrong for having faith in what they desire, in thinking that this is relevant to ones life
they are a bit wrong to let men spend their life trying to serve women
>>1166153
Men are wrong to try to play with women, which is just serving women
men are wrong, after being defeated, to be resentful towards women
men are wrong to think, after being defeated, that the solution is to be even more nihilistic than women
The lack of efficacy of the masculine life leads to a narcissism (contrary to men), but without egotism (contrary to women), a more equanimous and benevolent stance towards what is desired, felt and thought. At this point, you stop looking at hedonism of the body [=the feminine hedonism], turn towards hedonism of the soul [what religious call it], spirit, consciousness [what buddhists call it] [=the hedonism of the mild ascetic, the hedonism that most men fail to see and the one that women love to think that they embody (women love to think that they are not as egotistic as they are, that they embody a humanist stance)] and then you understand that even this is doomed to be disappointing, so you refuse it until you stop caring about this one too.
Who were the best examples of the concept of Ubermesch?
>>1166140
I never was trying to do that
>>1166253
Goethe
philosophers are fucking stupid UNLESS they are also fucking experts in psychology/sociology/anthropology/b neuro-biology
>>1166253
Lenin
Stalin
Putin
>>1164418
I dare one of you Übermensch to refute this. I'm an edgy fedorafag but I hate Nietzschefags.
If his philosophy can mean anything (i.e. whatever is convenient for the Übermensch shitposting about him at the moment) then it means nothing.
>>1166572
Laffs
Laffs
And more laffs my friend
>>1167345
>different people have different views of a thing
wow explain yourself thingfags
>>1167345
If his philosophy can mean anything then it means nothing.
And how do you conclude that?
>>1163036
you have 10 seconds to explain to me how Nietzsche isn't a hack
>Humans only do what is best to preserve humanity
>on pure instinct
>What you are going to do is not decided by yourself but your nature as a human
>Because reasons
>a murderer is actually a good thing as it keeps people strong
>People can't decide to do something by themselves, they have to be stimulated for them to produce a conditioned reflex
>>1167578
I can't tell what parts of your post are supposed to be sarcastic and which are supposed to just be a really shitty reading of him.
Also shitty pleb way of speaking
>"you have 10 seconds to x"
>"i won't prove my assertions, you must disprove them!"
>>1167592
>I'm too stupid to read both posts
>>1167578
first you could try understanding him
>>1162640
Why do you even exist?
>>1164483
>Have you ever considered that maybe different people have a different reading?
Which they present as dogma, and so soon as you critical of Nietzsche from one perspective they say, "You don't understand him, *this* perspective is the correct one. You probably haven't even read him."
This is /his/ not /Nietzche discussions general/
these threads are destroying this board and OP is a gigantic FAGGOT
>>1169961
So just hide the thread. It's not like someone is forcing you to sit through them.
All political powers nowadays try to exploit the fear of socialism in order to strengthen themselves. But in the long run it is democracy alone that derives the advantage: for all parties are nowadays obliged to flatter the 'people' and to bestow on it alleviations and liberties of every kind through which it will in the end become omnipotent. As socialism is a doctrine that the acquisition of property ought to be abolished, the people are as alienated from it as they could be: and once they have got the power of taxation into their hands through their great parliamentary majorities they will assail the capitalists, the merchants and the princes of the stock exchange with a progressive tax and slowly create in fact a middle class which will be in a position to forget socialism like an illness it has recovered from.
>>1170201
The practical outcome of this spreading democratization will first of all be a European league of nations within which each individual nation, delimited according to geographical fitness, will possess the status and rights of a canton: in this process the historical recollections of the former nations will be of little account, since the sense of reverence for such things will gradually be totally uprooted by the domination of the democratic principle, which thirsts for innovations and is greedy for experiments. The corrections of frontiers which prove necessary will be so executed as to serve the interest of the large cantons and at the same time those of the whole union, but not to honor the memory of some grizzled past. The task of discovering the principles upon which these frontier corrections should be made will devolve upon future diplomats who will have to be at once cultural scholars, agriculturists and communications experts, and who will have behind them, not armies, but arguments and questions of utility. Only then will foreign policy be inseparably tied to domestic policy: whereas now the latter still has to run after its proud master and gather up in a pitiful little basket the stubble left behind after the former has reaped its harvest.
>>1169935
>"You don't understand him, *this* perspective is the correct one. You probably haven't even read him."
That's not even true and you know it. You may get your reading of Nietzsche *mostly* right, but usually what people do is they take one piece of him and hammer home points without considering his full corpus, which is exactly what you do you stupid faggot.
>>1169961
ebin memes xD
>>1166567
*tips fedora*
>>1166567
>implying Nietzsche wasn't all of these except neuro-biology
and neuro-biology is a meme
>>1166572
I'd give you Lenin.
>>1164418
>Also, I've been on 4chan long enough to know that
>on 4chan
Don't base much on your experiences here. People of worth don't come to 4chan. It's just incompetent children and complacent idlers frequenting this site.
People on here are just readers, that's the problem. "Readers" have never been Nietzsche's audience. "Readers" are a sad type, they're idlers, their idleness warping what he writes. They aren't able to take Nietzsche to heart at any length. For starters, they constantly argue with "opposing" sides. This flamewar shit is so un-Nietzschean, it's just preposterous — a huge waste of time, and not even aligned with Nietzsche, who, if you were clever and observant enough, would notice that he rarely makes straightforward declarations — he's beyond calling others wrong, because he understands everyone to be right. His "no" is qualitatively different than the common person's "no" in that he has gone up and over such matters of truth, and into the realm of pure interpretation, pure simulation, and no longer addresses things as "right" or wrong," but rather, some are "righter" and others "wronger." He treats all things, concepts, etc. as simulation. Everyone posting angrily or in "his defense" against others on here are missing the mark.
Of course, that isn't to say that you can't say anything at all. But you're only worth what you say, where you say it, and how you say it. This website is pointless because what you write will go nowhere, because posts disappear rapidly, and everyone on it is a fool.
>>1172079
Then why are you here?
>>1172079
why are you here
Nietzsche was a brat and a manchild
He would approve of all the degeneracy in our world today
>>1172224
*tips*
>Nietzsche did not advocate selfishness. He basically looked down on base egoism as being what literally everyone in the herd does
"Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul."
-Nietzsche
>>1172904
You claim to have read Stirner but you still do not know what the word "Egoism" means in Nietzsche and Stirner vocabulary. You are saying Egoism is an absense of kindness. Altruism/kindness is only advocated if it's done for Egostic purposes, don't do something because some "other" is spooking you into it, do it because you want to do it.
Have you actually read any of the philosophers you claim to? Your understanding is basically at the level of someone that skimmed wikipedia.
>>1172959
>Where?
Nietzsche was the one who
No this is you reading it into the text. If you actually look at that text in it's context instead of playing this stupid "gotcha" quote-mining game there is nothing there to say that Egoism means you must be incapable of kindness. But that wouldn't fuel your agenda of painting Nietzsche as a cartoon super-villain.
>>1172904
well look who frantically thumbed through nietzsches entire corpus to find an out of context, misinterpreted quote to post after their previous position in the thread
egoism as the will to power, the overflowing cup
not as not sharing material goods and other basic shit
words can have several different meanings amazing I know
>>1172959
>Every. Single Time.
Yes. You do suck at reading every single time. This is why no one takes you seriously. You should learn some humility.
>>1172977
Seems like you're strawmanning me. Nietzsche said it was incompatible with compassion (Mitleid), but I never suggested he thought kindness was impossible for an egoist.
>>1172998
Especially when one is discussing Nietzsche, where they can be mean one of countless things, but only the person who supports Nietzsche understands what the exact use is in the exact context (even if it is different for each supporter), and anyone critiquing him misunderstands.
>>1173024
yeah nice weaseling your way out of actually responding to my interpretation
you've shown yourself to be retarded with zero reading comprehension several times (see the last man/clockwork world fiasco), just stop trying
i hope you realize that you're sullying the name of the orthodox church in the eyes of everyone on this board by your rampant fucking autism
go to your priest and ask him to give you a fucking beating
>>1173012
Nietzsche said pity is worst than any vice. Again you are cherry-picking out quotes.
Saying he thought pity was the worst thing ever sounds pretty mean-spirited said out of context. If you go to the context you see that pity is a game where everyone loses. The strong lose because they feel ashamed of their success and end up seeing everything they pity as ugly. The weak lose because it affirms the very things that are holding them down, rather than looking to strength and trying surpass themself, they wallow in their own misery and focus their mental energy on their own failures.
You arlready told us 2 posts ago you saying Nietzche thinks kindness is not compatable with a noble soul.
>>1172959
So you're doing your usual routine of moving goal posts or ignoring points when you are refuted.
This is why it's obvious to us you never read Nietzche with an intent to learn, you've just been looking for dirt on him to reaffirm beleifs you've already held. Either that you truly haven't read his work and just read Christian apologetic.
>>1173051
I'm interested in responding to your interpretation because it is a response to a strawman
>>1173054
The word used here (Mitleid) doesn't just indicate remorse, it means sympathy or compassion in general.
>You arlready told us 2 posts ago you saying Nietzche thinks kindness is not compatable with a noble soul.
Nope. You're strawmanning me.
Is this another thread where Constantine makes everything worse?
>>1173061
Ah, the double strawman. Your concession is accepted.
>>1173142
You're arguing against a position I never espoused, which is that egoism and kindness are mutually exclusive. I never said that.
>>1172904
>egoism is the same thing as selfishness
God you are one seriously retarded person.
>>1173157
Yes, it is, unless you're defining "ego" in Freudian terms.
>>1173153
I never argued against it
jesus christ learn to read
>>1173184
so what the fuck is your understanding of "base egoism" then
>>1172904
>>1172959
You seem to have this image of yourself as some pious, intellectual gift from God gracing us with his overwhelming wisdom.
You're just an idiot dude. Literally nobody would think twice if you didn't act like such an overweening prat. There's nothing shameful about admitting you're not competent enough to read Nietzsche. None at all. What's shameful is your shitty, antiChristian behavior.
You're a secret narcissist faggot who has no wisdom. Stop fucking posting about Nietzsche. Nobody likes you or respects your opinion about any of this.
>>1172959
>Every. Single Time.
Because you say fucking wrong things all of the fucking time. You give super uncharitable, bad readings of Nietzsche and then get pissy when we tell you you're a fucking moron. You're an idiot, and we don't want you here.
>>1162591
>reader of Nietzsche
9 times out of ten, OP, you're the only one ITT who ever once though of reading Nietzsche. Everyone else just forms gossip opinions based on some fool's misperception of his work. If you meant this thread in earnest, then thank you for actually reading his stuff.
You can safely ignore public "perception" now.
>>1173225
Second.
>>1173214
So is Constantine a sophist who doesn't know that he knows jack shit?
>>1173012
Don't use compassion in that sense. You're equivocating. Nietzsche gives a very specific meaning to compassion that you can't ignore.
This is all you ever do, equivocate.
>>1173078
Yes.
>>1173167
No it's fucking not. How about instead of just contradicting everyone, you actually try to form a discussion?
You're only here to be some "le super smart Christian memester intellectual" and lecture to everyone else how much you know about everything. Just fucking stop with your charade. I wanted to have a talk about Nietzsche, but it's impossible to talk to you because your pride is so fucking glaring that we can't even have a discussion. For someone who professes Christianity you know fucking nothing about humility.
>>1173236
>It's not just me, it is anyone who ever critiques Nietzsche
There are good critiques of Nietzsche, but you aren't the one giving them.
>>1173235
He's the sort of person who spends a few months studying Nietzsche, formulates a few opinions, then believes he has mastered the material, understands Nietzsche and has no more room for development.
I honestly believe you could spend your entire life studying Nietzsche and still be surprised, and have your opinions of him change. He's a surprisingly complicated thinker and working his passages together takes tons of skill. You can't do exactly what Constantine does, which is to assert one reading and violently defend it.
He's just a common intellect with too much pride. He has no interesting insight, but secretly has an image that tells him he's really smart and gets everything. But it's all an illusion, he hasn't really understood how much of a Don Quixote he is, he thinks he's a knight but really the entire populace of Spain is laughing at him.
He has a few Sanchos as well, but we laugh at them too.
So yes, he knows jack shit, because he doesn't know himself.
>>1173238
>Don't use compassion in that sense.
The word is literally a calque of compassion.
>>1173238
>How about instead of just contradicting everyone, you actually try to form a discussion?
All discussions of Nietzsche are almost always free of critique of him. If there is a critique it is always, inevitably perceived as misunderstanding Nietzsche. Nietzsche himself would not want discussions about him to just be a circlejerk of veneration, he'd want people to find conflict with him, his mission was to provoke deep thought and consideration of values, his own included. Nietzsche would find my Christianity cancerous, but he would roll in his grave if he saw how much of anathema any criticism of him is. Marx did not want his work to be dogma that was taboo to ever speak out against.
>>1173255
I've heard it said that anyone who claims to understand Nietzsche fully is lying. I really ought to read his works, but I'm stuck on starting with the Greeks.
>>1173264
*Marx
Hm. I meant Nietzsche. Marx did want his work to be dogma
>>1173242
What is your favorite critique of Nietzsche's philosophy?
>>1173267
>I've heard it said that anyone who claims to understand Nietzsche fully is lying.
This is elevating Nietzsche to a saint, and Nietzsche himself said overtly he did not want that. It's an invitation to obfuscation, because anyone who critiques his philosophy a priori doesn't understand it, because no one does.
Constantine, did you ever stop to think that in just about every discussion you're accused of misinterpreting, willfully misrepresenting, and outright lying about thinkers, and how this keeps happening seems to imply one of two things: everyone else is an asshole, or you're the asshole? Which one is more likely?
>>1173285
No, it's not claiming any sort of sainthood status. Just that his work covers a lot of ground and is very dense and complicated. I've heard similar claimed of Hegel for similar reasons.
>>1173264
>All discussions of Nietzsche are almost always free of critique of him.
This thread isn't about listening to some Christian rant about why Nietzsche hurt his feelings. We're here to talk about Nietzsche. If you respected the format of the discussion, you wouldn't have gotten this reaction.
You don't understand Nietzsche. I don't understand Nietzsche. Nobody on /his/ understands Nietzsche. That's why we talk about him, to bounce insight off of each other and learn. You're not doing that, you're abrasive, prideful and it's just fucking offensive. You're a bad, terrible conversationalist and I would never invite you to dinner if I knew you personally, because you can't go along with anything, it's "HERE'S ME, HERE'S CONSTANTINE, NOW LET ME LECTURE YOU ON WHY I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG"
Learn. Some. Humility.
>>1173267
Yes, this is true.
>>1173274
That it only works if Christianity is false. Nietzsche doesn't give any argument for why we should believe that, he assumes it.
>>1173285
>because anyone who critiques his philosophy a priori doesn't understand it, because no one does.
We're not really here to critique his philosophy, we're here to discuss common misconceptions of it. Respect the discussion.
>>1173285
This isn't what he meant, dude. There might not even be a "true" exegesis of Nietzsche's work. Most criticisms fail because they attempt to look at his work analytically, which doesn't make sense. Either you agree with his insights or you don't, it's the word game shit you play that's frustrating because it always involves narrowing the meaning of a given word and using it to do some stupid Socratic shit and find a reason to disregard Nietzsche. That only works in a framework and we never have good cause to accept some frameworks above others.
Maybe this is your inner Christian delusions coming out that just can't accept that there's ambiguity in the world. I mean, you do actually spend time debating stupid shit about the Bible and what's the correct interpretation, which is a hilariously awful waste of time.
>>1173291
I have seen countless discussions of Nietzsche, and in every single discussion where an overt critique against Nietzsche is introduced, it is responded to with "you haven't read him"/"don't understand him"
I defy you to produce a single exception to this from the archives
>>1173293
>That it only works if Christianity is false
For Nietzsche, truth is a product of perception
>>1173299
>we're here to discuss common misconceptions of it.
But the idea that Nietzsche is for egoism is not a misconception, it is a cornerstone of his thought. Why do you think he didn't see Cesare Borgia and Napoleon as extremely competent egoists?
>>1173315
Nietzsche critiques values he dislikes, but you can't critique his?
reminder that constantine has slightly less than a third of all the posts in this thread
>>1173321
Of course you can, but again THIS ISNT A NIETZSCHE CRITIQUE THREAD. You have no friends in real life, do you? Nobody could possibly have a conversation with you. You can't make any concessions for the sake of discussion. You're stupid and on some autistic quest for truth and it's unbearable. Nietzsche is a philosopher of conversation. He sparks thought and conversation. He's not a systematic philosopher that we can analytically deconstruct.
The problem here is you're so socially inept you can't read what's literally written to you. We simply DO NOT CARE what criticisms of Nietzsche exist. Our discussion is different entirely and you're not respecting that at all.
>>1173367
Disgusting. They are so unchristian, so egotistical, so selfish, they must make everything about them. What an immoral person.
>>1173319
But it's not just Nietzsche where you see this accusation pointed at you. It's basically every thinker, even Christian ones such as Augustine, Aquinas, or Origen.
You're one of the most prolific posters on this board, and possibly the most absolutely despised. Give that some thought and subject yourself to some personal criticism more deep than "I am the worst of sinners :DDD."
>>1173319
>I defy you to produce a single exception to this from the archives
so what is your point? That the criticism is this invalid? Nietzsche is harder to 'get' than Kant, and even Kant is a challenge. Maybe it's just a constantly valid criticism because so many people don't understand him at all?
Again either participate in the discussion or fuck off. We do not like you, respect you, or desire you here unless you're participating like a Christian should.
So in the spirit of the thread, is it a misconception to say that Nietzsche favoured master morality? I've heard that you were supposed to overcome both, becoming neither master nor slave.
>>1173421
>The last two are heretics, and the first made a number of significant mistakes from an Orthodox perspective
>the point
.
.
.
>your head
You're really fucking thick, aren't you?
>>1173420
He favored it over slave morality certainly. It's generally hard though to say what Nietzsche "favors", despite what people tell you.
His most exalted person was Goethe, who was not at all master-like. Goethe didn't violate anyone and was pretty nice to people.
The biggest difference between Goethe and a slave is, goethe didn't have to be nice. He had money and prestige, he could have been an ass and lived an alright life. He chose that moral and lived by it. The biggest thing Nietzsche is opposed to is forming morals out of resentment.
So being a nice person out of overwhelming abundance is great for Nietzsche. I assume in Constantine's efforts to fairly judge Nietzsche he missed the quote where Nietzsche said, being the hunter who returns to society with the fresh kill is better than the thief who steals from the village. Being a provider is better than being a leech.
>>1173421
>Nietzsche is actually a lot easier than Kant, I'd say. If he weren't, there is no way he'd be as popular as he is
Given how badly you misread the quote about women in this thread, I'm gonna go ahead and say you're wrong and most people are misreading. Nietzsche's aphorisms have multiple layers of depth, like an onion and you already established you can't comprehend anything but the surface level.
>>1173457
So, if you're at the bottom rung of society, what should one do in a Nietzschean sense? Should you just take it and never rail against your masters?
>>1173421
>Nietzsche is actually a lot easier than Kant, I'd say. If he weren't, there is no way he'd be as popular as he is
Is this b8?
>>1173565
No, Constantine really is that full of himself.
>>1173420
Between the two Master morality is better. Nietzche would tell you to look at everything useful the slaves have done and appropriate it for yourself, he would also say to the same of the Masters but that there are heaps more wisdom to stock up on from that camp.
One of the problems with Master morality is that it relies heavily on tradition and this can back-fire and become a prison that prevents you from moving forward. Let's say the Master morality realizes a certain thing is terrible for them so they call it "bad" but after centuries socioeconomic conditions have changed and that "bad" needs to be reevaluated.
>>1173478
I mean, that sort of depends. People who can't figure it out themselves can't be taught a set of rules that will allow them to escape slavery. Escaping slavery comes from within. A slave with the ability, will escape or overthrow his masters, or even might argue well enough to convince them to reform their practices and be nicer to slaves. It's not all blood and gore like Constantine would have you believe.
>>1173611
Well, I'm aware that asking what one "should" do is perhaps a bit absurd in this sense. I just mean that if you're supposed to avoid values based on resentment, how can one ever really rail against their masters without resenting them on some level? Would the natural conclusion of this be some form of rigid hierarchy?
>>1173615
>Nietzsche appears easy to read but hard to comprehend
Beacause he keeps contradicting himself at every turn and whenever he reaches a dead end he bullshits with anecdotal evidence and bullshit he just makes up that corresponds to another field
He said he believe in perspectives instead of ideas which means everything he wrote is pseudo psychology and sociology
He sucks
>>1173636
>contradicting himself
Only if you read him as laying out an explicit philosophical platform, which he isn't doing most of the time.
>>1163036
>Hey friends: let's set an axiom within a moral framework and follow it to it's logical conclusion
>Keep in mind this is a thought experiment, a plumbing of the essence of bourgeois morality, and not a statement of my own perspective
>Or rather, this is merely one perspective of infinitely possible ones
You are the poor reader OP is talking about, you dunce.
>>1173622
If you are actually angry and seeking revenge, yeh. I think a noble spirit would dethrone the old masters and start building stuff, he wouldn't seek revenge because there's nothing to avenge.
>>1172079
The only one who gets it ITT mi familia
>>1173659
Yeah, except for he's discounting the role of polite conversation.
>>1173648
In any way you look at his work he keeps contradicting himself and making baseless claims, the only angle this doesn't happen is his which pretend that anything that goes against what he claims is not important because everything is relative .
He even has to make up his own definition of things to try to hide the contradictions and the fact that he denies metaphysics just because like he did with nihilism and values
And at every turn he reminds you that its his opinion and you should make up your own so that he doesn't have to defend his trash
He is not a philosopher , he is a failed pseudo Psychologst+sociologist
>>1173702
Also i bet the only reason he got shilled is because what he wrote aligns itself with post modernism and capitalism
>>1173702
Is this a bamboozlement from the Supreme Meme Team?
>>1173735
The only meme is you who fell for the nietzfraud meme
>>1173738
>>1173742
Nice no arguments
>>1173706
Nietzsche was explicitly anti-capitalist
>>1173766
All the basis of his arguments enable capitalism and pretty much anything as he demonized any kind of universal principle because the hipster denied metaphysics and never gave a compelling argument
Thats why he had to pull out of his own ass a moral and ethic code that also contradicts itself and the basis oft his pseudo sociology/psychology trash
>>1173766
>Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker’s sense of satisfaction with his small existence–who make him envious, who teach him revenge. The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of “equal” rights.
>>1172892
>lmao im above this flame war shit neechee would have disapproved xd
>but i like to flame people to feel better about myself but im better than u so its okay for me to participate in flame wars!
You are human, all too human mi familia.
>>1173805
>if you're not fidel castro you're john d rockefeller
>>1173805
>Soldiers and leaders still have far better relationships with each other than workers and employers. So far at least, culture that rests on a military basis still towers above all so-called industrial culture: the latter in present shape is altogether the most vulgar form of existence that has existed.
Your mistake is being fucking retarded enough to think capitalism and socialism are the only modes of existence.
>>1173931
>>1173805
>People consider an opinion of an observation of a current year claim to have any value
>He is pretending know what is going through the head of people
Literal hack and non philosopher
>>1174007
Thanks for the valuable insight!
>>1173931
you just cherry picked a sentence where he's talking about the lack of style
If anything he's giving tips and trying to help them...
>>1174021
are you some sort of shill?
were you told to post those kind of pictures whenever confronted with something you cannot answer?
>>1174044
He's literally saying manufacturers are unnoble people and don't deserve to rule the workers.
>>1174061
"so far at least"
"in the present form"
"so far they have apparently been much too lacking"
"If they had the refinement"
"the masses are basically prepared to submit to any kind of slavery"
>>1174078
And what do those snippets imply? He's saying the wage labor system is shit, and it hasn't changed any.
He's saying enslavement is better than free market capitalism mumbo jumbo.
>>1174091
>He's saying enslavement is better than free market capitalism mumbo jumbo.
No he's not. He's saying that submitting to someone who deserves it is better than submitting to someone who does not.
>>1174044
How is this philosophy?
>>1174112
>No he's not. He's saying that submitting to someone who deserves it is better than submitting to someone who does not.
He never once says that. Read the passage? He never mentions deservedness or who it's better to be ruled by, he makes a factual claim about that.
>Also i bet the only reason he got shilled is because what he wrote aligns itself with post modernism and capitalism
Is not defended at all by that passage, no matter how you try to spin it. Nietzsche thinks capitalism is inferior to past modes of being.
>>1174113
What do you expect philosophy to be? Dense, incomprehensible tomes filled with abstract analyses of truth and mind?
One thing I don't get about 4chan is why people who don't like something feel the need to fucking tell you. I just wanted a thread about Nietzsche and a bunch of people have to roll by and offer their opinions. Nobody fucking cares if you don't like Nietzsche. Stop telling everybody.
>>1174159
That's sort of how the internet is. It's a place to complain. If you did this IRL you would just lose all your friends. Internet means you have infinite people to complain to.
There is also no real enforcement online. If you had a Nietzsche club at college and someone like these came in you could just agree to ban him from the club. The guy would also ruin his reputation and be known as a guy that just likes to start arguments.
>>1174112
You just said what he said and what he said doesn't make sense either
>Im right cause things i don't know nor i have a way of proving and only apply in this specific context which I define arbitrarily
>People only submit to other people
>Not to the principles that give legitimacy to the idea of submission
>because I said principles don't exist cause Im a hipster that claimed metaphysics don't exist
>im also presuming that there can't be any generals or tyrants who can be worse or less legitimate than the free market
>And that what he says is what ALL people actually think, in fact that is the center of his argument in that page
>People are also incapable of understanding in a free market economy who or what is to blame for what happens
>The submission would be only to the capitalist and not to the state or the law who enable the capitalists
>>1174137
Thats a pseudo historical analysis in which he does not provide any proof or reasoning, not philosophy.
>>1174159
>Please don't expose the hack, just keep pasting quotes so more retards get brainwashed to help whoever i shill for with whatever agenda he has
>>1174199
In the mountains the shortest way is from peak to peak, but for that route thou must have long legs. Proverbs should be peaks, and those spoken to should be big and tall.
>>1174113
How to better enslave your worker 101
Give yourself style like apple, and even if your employees jump off your building every day, communist will still buy your shit and worship you.
>>1174131
>Is not defended at all by that passage, no matter how you try to spin it. Nietzsche thinks capitalism is inferior to past modes of being.
He just said "SO FAR AT LEAST" "IN THE PRESENT FORM" it lack style compared to the old forms
You are just projecting hard, do you see anti capitalist message on your cereal box too?
>>1174229
>Give yourself style like apple, and even if your employees jump off your building every day, communist will still buy your shit and worship you.
The exact same thing can happen under virtually all forms of government and economic system
and then again, he is presuming that people will behave in that specific way based an observation made of the context in which he lived in
He is talking about them sociologically as in real people not the idea of people and society which competes philosophy
>>1174180
I know you're right, it's just viscerally annoying at times.
>>1174199
>Thats a pseudo historical analysis in which he does not provide any proof or reasoning, not philosophy.
I suppose you're the arbiter then, and only your shitty opinions matter, and everyone else is wrong.
>>Please don't expose the hack, just keep pasting quotes so more retards get brainwashed to help whoever i shill for with whatever agenda he has
Nietzsche makes sense when you're educated and informed in philosophy, because he's speaking to that sort of person, he doesn't speak to retard nobodies like you because he doesn't care what you know.
>>1174229
>He just said "SO FAR AT LEAST" "IN THE PRESENT FORM" it lack style compared to the old forms
That doesn't make it false today, and I would argue his analysis is even more true today.
>You are just projecting hard, do you see anti capitalist message on your cereal box too?
No, I see capitalist messages on my cereal box.
>>1174259
>I suppose you're the arbiter then, and only your shitty opinions matter, and everyone else is wrong.
Not an argument. He is using personal observations that are based on nothing to back made up claims
>Nietzsche makes sense when you're educated and informed in philosophy, because he's speaking to that sort of person, he doesn't speak to retard nobodies like you because he doesn't care what you know.
Not an argument
You are literally using personal attacks
If you have nothing to say then ill assume you agree with me but are too embarrassed to admit it
I still wonder what you are shilling
>>1174283
>on nothing
but the context he find himself in
>>1174283
>Not an argument
I don't need to make argument to be right or convince people, and neither does Nietzsche.
>He is using personal observations that are based on nothing to back made up claims
You don't need evidence to say something true. Pi is irrational. Oh, no evidence? Must be false.
>You are literally using personal attacks
You're just being an annoying jackass, you deserve nothing but insults.
>If you have nothing to say then ill assume you agree with me but are too embarrassed to admit it
>I still wonder what you are shilling
I don't really understand what the hell you're talking about with this stuff, but it sounds like really paranoid fedora bullshit.
To sum up every Nietzsche thread:
>>1164049
>>1174294
Yup, imagine a world where people actually attempted to have conversation and tried to legitimate philosophers instead of "LOL EVERYTHING EXCEPT WHAT I THINK IS RIGHT IS WRONG"
Imagine what interesting things we could talk about if 4chan didn't amount to one person saying something stupid and then defending their stupid shit with flailing insults.
>>1174293
>I don't need to make argument to be right or convince people, and neither does Nietzsche.
No arguments have no value
>You don't need evidence to say something true. Pi is irrational. Oh, no evidence? Must be false.
>its true cause i say so but i don't know why
>You're just being an annoying jackass, you deserve nothing but insults.
you are the only annoying douche bag
>I don't really understand what the hell you're talking about with this stuff, but it sounds like really paranoid fedora bullshit.
> paranoid fedora bullshit.
>paranoid
Confirmed for shill, i bet in the next post you are going to use tin foil hat
So i was right.
>>1174298
> "LOL EVERYTHING EXCEPT WHAT I THINK IS RIGHT IS WRONG"
Who are you quoting, shill?
>>1174308
>No arguments have no value
*tips*
>So i was right.
*tips*
>Who are you quoting, shill?
*tips*
You're boring.
>>1174314
Shill on full damage control spamming hte only meme he was taught
I know you are going to try to get the last word
So you are stuck here, idk why your kind does it, i mean 4chan is not a forum where you can slide posts
>>1174314
Forgot
>So i was right.
>Tips*
>Who are you quoting, shill?
>*tips*
>Cropping text fragments to take it out of context and make it fit whatever retarded shill tactic you tried to use
You are a shill and i was right about that
>>1162591
>>1163264
Wow you really are bootyblasted.
So you've got one guy citing quotes and one guy going nu-uh and being a stereotypical internet atheist.
One guy looks like someone trying to have a discussion the other looks like an asshole
>>1174526
Man. It feels good to be a contributor to two posts in that.
Saved
>>1174526
Fukken saved.
>>1174526
>Doesn't attempt to explain from where values come from beyond they are inherent to life and the context the person is in, they are "perspectives"
>Doesn't define whats life either beyond whats opposed to death
>Says there are 2 qualities to life, preservation which is necessary to live but self destructive and enhancement
>values must be constantly re-evaluated and changed over time, seeking to conserve them leads to decadence and ultimately death
>Its literally impossible to reevaluate them because there are things that are necessary to life which are immutable
>therefore nietzsche is saying nature is entropic
>when you reevaluate you can only change how its applied to the world, not its core, life
>so the ultimate or real state of everything we come ultimately realize is chaos aka nihilism
>enhancement is the improvement and expansion of that thing that is preserved beyond its limits
>But there are no set principles beyond opposing death
>so he had to come up with a arbitrary with no foundations, moral system as anyone including himself can make shit up and justify it in any way
>Also by saying nature is the guide he is saying we have no free will in which case there can be no ubermensch
>If the ubermensch has to be free of all influences then it means it has to be outside of nature, it has to be god
>As values come from nature and life so does the will of power which is the driving force of enhancement
>so people are essentially unconsciously doing something they didn't get to decide
>The fight between moralities is something that is predestined
>also the claim people seek power just because is the same marx did when he claimed that every kind of organization but communism (ultimate equality) is a fight between groups of power. They assume people aren't people but conditioned animals
>He also rejects methaphysics but keep spouting universal rules inherent to a supreme being (nature)
>God is death, o wait it isnt
>>1174663
>>Doesn't attempt to explain from where values come from beyond they are inherent to life and the context the person is in, they are "perspectives"
>>1174663
It would be completely impossible to take the 10+ books of Nietzche's philosophy and describe it in detail using a few 2k character posts.
OP's question in the post already assumes that everyone in it knows what Nietzsche is saying the origin of morality is, what the different types are, and how they manifest themself.
Stating what these points are would make no fucking sense in the context of the post. The posts are written for people already familiar with the basic concepts and assume the reader knows them as well.
You've essentially told us that you yourself lack this basic understanding so of course you wouldn't be able to contextualize ideas that build on them.
If you want to know the basics read at least 2 books fully. Yes, that is what it takes to get to entry-level in any serious philosophical study. There is no way any amount of reading posts on 4chan, or watching youtube clips, can ever get you to the point where reading the books will.
>>1174680
>OP's question in the post already assumes that everyone in it knows what Nietzsche is saying the origin of morality is, what the different types are, and how they manifest themself.
Not that guy but here's the thing Neet goes 0-60 with his analysis. What I'm saying is if you buy what Neet's selling (E.G his take on morality's foundation) than he is quite profound as you go from A - Z with him in his attempt to avoid the logical conclusion of a Godless universe in nihilism.
However he reaches some beautiful conclusions based on weak premises. It's a castle built on sand.
>>1174674
Are you trying to disapprove what i said ,cause thats almost what i wrote
and in fact that page doesn't make sense
>Because i can't prove something which i also can't prove false ill ignore it and make shit up
>Every philosopher from the past 2k years of human history is autistic
>>1174680
>make a thread about x philosopher
>what did this guy thought
>He thought x y z b a , you can read more about it in his books
>ok nice
>make a thread about Nietzsche
>Nietzsche thought x y z
>but those contradict themselves
>you don't understand, you have to read all his books because he kept making shit up and had to correct himself down the road
>through all his career
>>1174714
Your previous post asked for all sorts of specific questions, many unrelated to the origenal topic. So you get told X, than you want to know Y, I'm telling you read the book if want to know Y. It's going to be that way with every philosopher, not just Nietzsche.
EVERY philosophy requires indepth to reading to know their XYZ.
If I tell you Plato thought truth was an objective thing that exists separate from the material world it really doesn't give the details. Same if I tell you Nietzsche thought truth only exists in a perspective. Why does Plato/Nietzche think this? Well it's connected to all sorts of other things they wrote. What does it even matter that truth is as he said? Well you'd need to read this and that and see how they applied it to politics, personal life, art, etc. What proof did they give? Read the book nigga.
>>1174726
>"Jesus was a proto-Marxist"
>"The trinity represents 3 different entities and thus the religion is polythestic"
>"Christianity hates the material world"
>"The Old Testament Messianic prophecies are Zoroastrian inspired"
*Constantine posts a 6 post long essay explaining how you don't understand
>Every. Single. Time.
>>1174745
>If I tell you Plato thought truth was an objective thing that exists separate from the material world it really doesn't give the details.
Irrelevant
if X Y Z are premises used to found all the rest of his thoughts
then if either contradicts the others it will cause his reasoning to be flawed.
The point of this thread and all Neet threads should be why should anyone think Nietzsche is right about anything if he barely thinks he is right?
And
What benefit does he perspective bring in contrast to the perspectives he criticizes?
>>1174755
Nietzsche's critique is fundamentally correct as applied to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Augustine and Aquinas and Tertullian, for instance, are major influences on Western Christianity, and major sources for Nietzsche's idea of the Christian mindset. I really make clear the distinction between Western forms and Orthodoxy
>>1174756
This sort of
-axioms
-conjecture
-conclusions
format of philosophy doesn't exist until Spinoza and even than not everyone used it. Even than the ideas he is pushing are basically meaningless until you have really come to terms with all of them. So you still have to end up reading the whole damn book.
There are more than one ways to write out ideas. You are essentially complaining that Plato, Nietzsche (and hell 90% of philosophers) do not fit into your little box of how ideas SHOULD be represented.
The best analogy I can give you is that I could break my computer open, show you each individual part, explain what it does, but you still wouldn't be able to experience what a computer is like until you assemble them all into one place. Just like each part in a computer is dependent on every other part for it's function to matter so does each idea in any philosophers arsenal.
