>no good logical arguments exist against Nietzsche
>no good arguments against him exist without ad hominem
>le Nietzsche was just a sick weakling with a power fantasy
You all do realize that by making claims such as this, you're basically giving credence to his entire view on human life, right?
You have to despise Nietzsche for being weak, you wouldn't be a Nietzschean if you didn't agree. And talking shit on him for it is perfect evidence that's he's just so right, we're all disgusting and favor youth, strength and virility over weakness and sickness, and no amount of philosophasting will change that.
Best/most misunderstood philosopher general
Nice strawman there, op.
>>254097
no
>>254127
>being a naysayer
>>254135
Nietzsche defends ad hominem and I do as well. It's a perfectly valid way of arguing.
irrationalism just reverses knowledge as a process: it reverses the relations of sensitivity to thinking and cognitive (sensations) to affective (emotions)
>>254097
He was the first edgelord of the history.
>>254148
I'm pretty sure at least half of the sophists in Plato are edgelords too.
Nietzsche also subverts his own edginess. I swear the only criticisms anyone has of Nietzsche are superficial at best.
>>254142
Sure, sentimentalism runs straight though Hume, Adam Smith, Stirner (who learned his sentimentalism from Smith), Nietzsche and through Freud.
Guess what? I love all of these thinkers. Sentimentalism is the best theory we have to explain human action.
I wonder what Nietzche would think about modern leftist ideology, considering it's basically christian cluckmorals on steroids.
>>254256
>anything christian
He'd hate it really. Christianity was a reaction to the roman conquerors to whom the prophecies would have proclaimed that the son of god would rescue them. Hell the seven heads of the beasts in the Revelations have to do with the roman emperors that succeeded Nero as a symbol of roman paganism being the whore of babylon.
The bible literally has an entire chapter of being butthurt about their superiors. Only the mentality of the servant would care so much about other people instead of themselves.
>>254097
I'm starting to understand Nietzche you little bitch! I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
>>254304
epik!!!!! meme'd pretty good there, friendo
I once read a compendium by Barnes and Noble because I wanted to be a faggot in my highschool debate and I feel I am the only one who really bothered in this thread about honestly trying to understand Nietzche.
I believe the biggest problem I had with him was his insistence on using so many fucking french terms. It was a headache
>>254135
How's your fedora tipping, you pretentious little man? You don't know anything and your arguments are plastered together with No True Scotsman feces. I can't even imagine how you sleep at night, except upon a mountain of fail that is your dakimakura collection, you shill of sadness and misery.
>>254310
I love Nietzsche but I just shitpost because it's literally impossible to talk about him on 4chan.
>>254336
in Nietzsche threads, trying to prove you're the biggest internet tough guy is the best simultaneous argument/derail
>>254336
He was a self-c ucl fuccboi loser virgin with autism that couldn't into real life. There was no hope for him and he an hero'd with a twelve gaueg shotgun after doing a hot dose of heroin.
I'm currently reading through Stirner's The Ego and It's Own and enjoying it thus far. would Nietzsche be a good philosopher to move on to? Where should I start with Nietzsche if so?
Where's a good place to start with Nietzsche? Any pre-reqs?
>>254360
>who's doing that
The Navy Seal Ubermensch
>>254349
compendium faggot here, most of his essays are on a variety of different topics but most people agree he DID change his opinion on a lot of things the later the essays of his career/life that you'd read.
In short, a variety of his later essays were supposed to be "hooks" and that the "bait" was "Thus Spake Zarathustra". DO NOT bother reading anything written before Thus Spake Zarathustra and do not read ANYTHING later UNTIL you finish Thus Spake Zarathustra. KEEP IN MIND however that the "sinker" to these "hooks" was never written so it's very hard to tell what exactly he was meaning to say at all since he would have a mental breakdown and die a few years later.
>>254362
The Gay Science. Not any necessary prereqs, but it's kind of hard to get him unless you're familiar with alot of the philosophy before him.
>>254197
Being a retard is more accurate.
>>254377
Yes, TSZ practically reads like a fiction story with little substance but he makes several references and it helps better understand what he's talking about in his later essays. Reading everything together should give you a picture of whatever he was trying to hook the readers into
>>254148
>of the history
I'm using that. My sides! kek
>>254405
"Humans are inherently retarded. Once I realized this, I immediately fell into a an alcoholic coma. Upon waking up, I then talked to God through my tinfoil hat and he told me, 'Friedrich, I made humans so that they would never be able to get anything right, including your misplaced negativistic horseshit and mall ninja bravado. I hope you realize that going through life as an invalid is how you were meant to be, because I will not allow a fucking hipster like you to procreate.' Nietzsche fucking gave up on life after that and wrote his powertrip The Will to Power in order to help himself cope with his life of utter uselessness. After that, he seen a horse getting beaten and flew to its aid with his pretentiousness in understanding its suffering, then mentally collapsed to have his diapers changed by his family." -Fred "The Big Bitch" Nitch
>>254097
How do you know if you're being Ubermensch?
Any other Übermensch here, apart from me?
I wonder why 4chan has such a problem with Nietzsche.
>>254463
By being a super man and having incredible natural abilities and virility with women for sex in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation.
>>254469
Contrarianism and Nietzsche being associated with fedora neo-atheists
>>254463
Isn't that the whole thing where you reject external morality and act upon your own values?
>>254480
Why would Nietzsche be associated with them? Most humanist thinkers tend to take a utilitarian approach to morality.
>>254468
me to be quite honest with you my family
>>254481
Yeah, and I seem to be doing that. But I'm also a big alcoholic which is very un-ubermensch.
>>254483
I don't think fedora neo-atheist read him, they just assume that because he hated christianity he was one of them.
Is he making an assumption that we care about passing on our genes? Is it an over-simplification to say it boils down to "might makes right" ?
>>254463
Eternal recurrence, master morality. The master morality part is relatively easy. Eternal recurrence is hard because it matters most in the difficult or painful moments.
>>254349
Nietzsche and Striner are highly compatible. They share a lot of the same ideas but explore them in very different areas. You could say Striner's philosophy is a first person view and Nietzsche's is a bird's eye view.
Zarathustra is essential reading, but is generally not where you should start unless you have an understanding of Nietzsche already. If you are sufficently de-spooked you might be able to jump straight into Zarathustra. If you can't understand it read Beyond Good and Evil and the first essay of Genealogy of Morality than return to Zarathustra.
>>254540
>Striner's
You still spelt it wrong.
Also, both of those Authors can only be read in conjunction with Marx for a full comprehension of their topic matter.
can you first prove the relevance of his theories?
>>254555
Wouldn't Feuerbach, Bauer, or Hegel be a better pick?
>>254567
Why Feuerbach?
>>254580
Because he's referenced constantly in Stirner's work, being one of the philosophers that The Ego and Its Own was intended partially as a polemic against.
>>254097
I think nietzsche would be a fucking chill drinking buddy țbh
>>254589
Feuerbach's framework can be detracted from his Christian ethic (the thing Stirner takes aim at); something Marx actually does around the time he writes to his Father about his pursuit of philosophy.
>>254598
Nietzsche absolutely hated alcohol, my friend.
>>254618
Really? Why?
>>254540
How does one "have" Eternal recurrence? I understood it more as a tool to atain the amor fati than anything else.
>>254622
Because it removes one's self-control. He compared it to Christianity. He also put a lot of emphasis on personal health and a proper diet in Ecce Homo. Nietzsche himself ate 7 pounds of fruit every day!
>>254618
Is there anything not related to power that he liked?
>>254622
He said it was escapism much like religion. To truly embrace life and get down with the eternal recurrence that means embracing the suffering as well.
Nietzsche was all about living life to the max, and that meant not using alcohol to make things more fun or easy. He was basically the Ian McKaye of his time in that sense.
>>254635
Prostitutes.
>>254632
Interesting, don't know if I agree with that, since I doubt it any more removes self control than the normal ebb and flow of our neurological chemicals. But I can see the rationale.
>>254642
Would he netflix and chill?
>>254651
No, he'd syphilis and fuck.
Netflix and chill would imply he could get a gf.
>>254651
It was 1936 when he was alive bro
>>254625
I think it's something that really needs to be understood spiritually and personally. As in I can describe it but it won't mean as much until you internalize the idea and use it to examine yourself.
Basically you need to keep telling yourself that what you are doing is something you will repeat, especially when you are doing something painful or sad. Than you realize that you need to find meaning in the event or stop doing it altogether. It's a very crushing and trasnformative way of thinking. It can force you to relive your past and search for meaning there for instance.
The Overman is fully immersed in world to such an exstend that his entire life has profound meaning and he wants the eternal recurrence. While the nihilist wants to run away from reality and never relive anything. I think most of us are somewhere in the middle, going full Overman is very hard and frankly impossible for most people.
>>254673
Yes, like I said, a tool more than anything else.
>>254673
>I think most of us are somewhere in the middle, going full Overman is very hard and frankly impossible for most people.
What does this look like is this a continuum or metric by which action is measured what if full on ubermensch is the obliteration of personal meaning eye eee pure being what what what
Isn't the übermensch basically just Diogenes?
>>254635
>power
According to him literally everything is related to power. You may work with another entity or object in a mutual benefit where each others power increases. Or one may be the master and the other the slave and it's always preferable to be the master.
I think he said once society only exists because it increases the net power of everyone involved it in.
>>254717
ugh. Is this really going to be /his/'s meme?
>>254463
Are you exceeding mankind? Are you doing it with a smile and overwhelming will to power? Then you're becoming what you already are. You don't actually ever become a ubermensch, because the ubermensch can't be corporeal.
>>254469
Because most people on 4chan are pushovers who can't get past the master/slave morality bit.
>>254474
ebin
>>254480
Except Dawkins, Harris are often the antithesis of Nietzsche's ideal person. Most people just like to think Nietzsche fans are all fedora tippers, but I've never met a person in graduate school who really dislikes Nietzsche. Most people in elite positions in society agree with his ideas to some degree.
>>254483
This, he's anti-utilitarian which is radically opposed to most humanist/atheist thinkers.
>>254501
Not at all.
>>254622
Because he was horrendously sick and weak throughout his entire life and any bit of alcohol would make him worse.
>>254632
Self-control is just a lack of faith in one's self.
>>254625
Basically it tells you to maximize the awesomeness of your life. It's not about picking specific things, but letting you find what you want more of in your life and putting it there, instead of being so distracted by dumbass ideas that you let life pass you by.
>>255116
>Because he was horrendously sick and weak throughout his entire life and any bit of alcohol would make him worse.
Weird, why would such a man idolize power then?
I've heard he was also fairly critical of "master morality" but never really got around to expanding upon his views there due to the whole mental breakdown and eventual death from syphilis. Is this true?
>>255176
>Weird, why would such a man idolize power then?
Because he's not going to deny the world and cling to otherworldly bullshit just because of that.
>>255176
Also the best thing I've heard said about Nietzsche is, he lived a miserable time on this planet, but he didn't live a bad life, his life was his books. he put everything he had into writing.
>>255212
Commendable.
Is Ecce Homo his funniest work?
How could it not be with chapter titles like:
> Why I Am So Clever
> Why I Write Such Excellent Books
>>255345
It's pretty good, he also talks very directly about things like egoism and individualism which are very profound.
He also literally lies about all the dates in the book
>>255353
He's gone beyond such pedestrian concepts as accurate dates :^)
>>255376
it's more like the specific date he wrote a book doesn't matter, and the whole point of ecco homo is to mock autobiographical writing anyway while expressing more philosophy
>>255193
The problem with master morality is that it it turns into dogma and eventually what was good in the past is no longer good in the present.
For example, say thousands of years ago it was difficult to cook pork properly and eating it was risking sickness. Master moraltiy would dictate that eating pork is wrong. Eventually it becomes a cultural norm and even when the ability to cook meat properly is available the old morality still won't let you eat bacon.
>>255176
Come on. Do you really think that Nietzsche was putting physical power, which he lacked, on par with mental or the power to influence society (both of which he had)?
Nietzsche does not 'idolize' power, he recognizes it as the binding thing in the universe. Power, or specifically the Will to Power is basically the Force. Given that it would make sense to interpret everything within the context of power.
>>255345
It's probably the most triggering book to outsiders after anti-christ.
>>255353
Can you give some examples of wrong dates?
Ecce homo has a ton of things in it that are extremly difficult to verify so it's difficult to tell if he is giving us the truth. For instance he describes himself as being almost universally loved by his students during his teaching days, with the exception of one kid. That's pretty impressive sounding but there's no way to confirm it.
>all that shitposting
>all that made up garbage
>all that samefagging
>looks away
You know it's a good point. Christians do not approach Nietzsche beyond character attacks and strawman burning.
I'm reading a book which talked about how the American intellectuals received Nietzsche in the early 1900s. The chapter on how the Christians reacted to him is bizarre. They were really fucking scared of him and his ideas. They went full damage control and tried really hard to make Christianity fit in with his philosophy, borrowing his lingo with weird terms like "will to faith" and calling Jesus a "transvalutor". They tried to align Jesus with Nietzsche's teaching and turn him into an Ubermench. They emphasized how Jesus attacked the dogmatic and power-surpressing ways of the Pharisee and tried to say Jesus was a preacher of Master Morality, telling Christians to create their own values.
They tried to reconcile Nietzsche's clear death sentence for their religion by saying Nietzsche only hated 'other' types of Christianity Freddy was a a prophet attacking weak, slave Christianity.
>if you can't beat em, join em
>>255662
Holy fuck, is pic related the book?
>>255116
>Self-control is just a lack of faith in one's self.
Damn.
That's going right into bombastic bank of YOLO sayings.
>>255694
Yeah. It's great stuff.
https://books.google.com/books?id=P0BhVJqlhPQC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=nietzsche+jesus+parallels&source=bl&ots=fwHdANQmW-&sig=yF2ndZdpq1DAm-ZT-RSgI2MXiY8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBGoVChMIycqyr9KYyQIVTVyICh3SjAJi#v=onepage&q=nietzsche%20jesus%20parallels&f=false
Good stuff starts on page 94.
>>255716
I think Nietzsche says that somewhere. He's kickass like that.
Nietzsche is basically the YOLO philosopher.
>>254097
His "ethics" is just an arbitrary assertion of a moral system in order to avoid nihilism because he hates nihilism. When your ethics amounts to holding onto a rock for dear life in an infinitely deep well that is nihilism, you haven't done anything significant. You're still trapped in the well of nihilism, and when your fingers finally give way you'll be falling down once again.
>>255996
uh, yeah he does hate nihilists, because they make posts like this.
>>256094
I'm probably the opposite of a nihilist by his own admission. I'm a Christian.
>>256112
>Christians
>not nihilists
When theologians reach out for power through the 'conscience' of princes (or of peoples), we need never doubt what really happens at bottom: the will to the end, the nihilistic will, wants power.
Christianity is definitely a passive nihilism to Nietzsche. All you really do it avoid living in favor of your death cult antics, i.e. heaven. That's a nihilism.
>>254330
Have a (you), my friend. Even if this is pasta, I really like this post.
>>255996
he is an almost worthless "philosopher" basing his entire project on childish polemics and rhetoric since clearer language would expose the flimsy basis of the entire word salad that is his oeuvre. what saves him though is the fact that in him we can clearly see the bankruptcy that is atheism or any worldview that isn't christianity.
>>256121
>Christianity is definitely a passive nihilism to Nietzsche
You've very obviously never read the Geneology.
>>256133
I thought at least the Geneology was a good read even if I was shaking my head the whole time. Even if his specialization was more as a historian he was a bright man, if not a particularly reasonable or likable one.
>>256141
well no one is calling him stupid, only dishonest and also clearly insane.
>>256147
Syphilis mang. Degeneracy is deadly.
>>254148
can you define edgelord?
>>255996
I think it's a matter of perspective
you think creating our own morality through reason instead of holding on imposed religious values is an arbitrary assertion against nihilism?
Idealistic, yes, but not arbitrary
>>256192
It's arbitrary in that it could just as easily be any number of other constructed moralities that you could ascribe to. In terms of religion, it's either the Truth or it isn't. If it's the Truth, you've got an incontrovertible standard.
For everyone else who sits in relativism land, their moralities admit to their own worthlessness in that they're literally just arbitrarily selected standards of conduct ultimately with no truth value (as per relativism).
>>256197
Morals are not selected arbitrarily. Nietzsche clearly lays out the rules for how they are constructed. He even has a hierarchy, master morality is superior to slave morality. Furthermore sense morals reference things other than them self by definition if these things the morals reference have value than the morals themself have value. Hence it would be a direct falsity to say the morals are without value in his analysis.
If something was truly without value it wouldn't even be included in moral judgements, it would be ignored entirely. Why would someone waste time creating moral rules for something that has no value?
Also Nietzsche says religions are not exceptions they too are bound by the formula outlined in his genealogy.
>>256211
>Morals are not selected arbitrarily
Unless they're dictated by God, yes they are.
When you just pick a number of values with which you derive a moral system and put them in order from 'most desirable' to 'least desirable', you're arbitrarily deciding what's important and what's not. There's no Truth basis to it at all - you're just making things up.
It's utterly arbitrary.
>>256223
Abritiary would be if I rolled dice to decide my morals. Self-constructed morals are made from reasoning and experience. We change the morals when we receive new information, revising the old system to a more relevant and improved one.
These are also the ways in which we conduct our sciences and virtually every school of knowledge. An initial premise is formed by reasoning and experience, than we change the theory when something else knew is learned.
Human-made morals are no more arbitrary than our sciences or culinary recipes. The fact that culinary recipes may be altered to suit a particular culture or individual does not make them arbitrary. You wouldn't say culinary is "basless" "nihilistic" or "arbtiary" just because it varies from person to person culture to culture.
>>256134
You've very obviously never read The Antichrist.
>>256237
>We change the morals when we receive new information, revising the old system to a more relevant and improved one
"Improved" toward *ARBITRARILY SELECTED VALUES*. I can make a morality wherein the greatest most virtuous thing I can do is kill llamas. I can revise the old system of llama hunting when I receive new information in order to better facilitate my slaying of llamas - thus improving my moral system.
A.R.B.I.T.R.A.R.Y.
It's fundamentally just making up rules, and is existentially worthless.
Anti- in Greek doesn't mean just "against", but can mean "in place of", by this revelation I'd say Nietzsche is using Hegel's concept of sublation on Christ himself. Nietzsche usurped Christ.
>>256238
You mean the book where the syphilis started to kick in? Yeah; I like to do his memory a little bit more credit than to take syphilitic ramblings as his penultimate work.
>>256260
How human of you. And here I though I was dealing with a Christian.
IDK why I even bother.
>>256270
>How human of you to remember how your dad was before his seizure that rendered him retarded rather than after
Yeah; I'm pretty sure that's right.
my thoughts on nietzsche: fuck him
super edgy, pop culture drivel of philosophy
plus, the loser typed zarathustra on a typewriter like a goddamn hipster boy writing a screenplay.
the man was no closer to the truth than those starbucks drinking plebs. or a court stenographer for that matter!
nietzsche is dead.
>>256271
Kek, don't be so angry.
>>256277
No problems with his thought, just various insults.
I like it, keep proving Nietzsche's point.
>>256279
>>256257
>I can make a morality wherein the greatest most virtuous thing I can do is kill llamas. I can revise the old system of llama hunting when I receive new information in order to better facilitate my slaying of llamas
But you won't because humans are not robots sitting in vaccuum. One responds to their own enviroment, morals are relative because they are relative to the situation. A group of dessert nomads in a lawless wasteland filled with hostile tribes is going to need a very different set of morals than an unemployed NEET living in a low crime city.
Our morals are also shaped by our irrational parts. Remember, humans are emotional animals. We respond to pain and happiness. These will factor in greatly into the creation of morality.
Even if you did through sheer force of will force yourself to make llama killing or anything else you got from rolling a dice the highest good, you wouldn't uphold it. You arn't going to actually sneak into a zoo with hatchet. There is nothing your environment to make that outcome worthy, nor is there some deep emotional force pulling you towards it.
Have you noticed every culture's morality seems to have a purpose. That it accomplishes certain goals or responds to certain things. Do you think it was just an arbitrary coincidence that the Shik's who lived on the boarder towns of battle zones developed a morality where courage, honor, and being will to physically fight 'evil' where the top moral goods. Sounds like they made a morality up that allowed them to survive in war zones!! Hmm maybe it's not arbitrary!!
Now think about what would happen if they did just roll dice to create their morality and did stupid crap like kill Llamas. Their towns would be invaded, they would be killed, and their arbitary morality would be gone from history!!
>>256260
He had brain cancer, syphilis is literally ww2 anti-propaganda. The've done autopsies on him, his father died the same way. After he went mad he never wrote books.
>>256289
>morals are relative
And thus arbitrary. Thanks for playing.
>>256257
Nothing about Nietzsche's revaluation of all values is at all arbitrary. You're a Wikipedia warrior, who maybe read Genealogy, which is a fraction of Nietzsche's thought. Chill the fuck out.
>>256259
Read this. Nietzsche wants you to test values, and try different ones and see what works for you. There's nothing in there that suggests all values are then equal, it means your values must survive incorporation.
>>256289
>Even if you did through sheer force of will force yourself to make llama killing or anything else you got from rolling a dice the highest good, you wouldn't uphold it. You arn't going to actually sneak into a zoo with hatchet. There is nothing your environment to make that outcome worthy, nor is there some deep emotional force pulling you towards it.
I receive sheer unadulterated joy from killing llamas and fulfilling my morality. I will do anything and everything to kill more llamas, including sneaking into zoos, breeding llamas for the slaughter, dancing naked in front of a crowd if I'm promised the opportunity to slay a llama, or engaging in biochemical experiements where I try to develop a pathogen to bring the most deaths to the most llamas as quickly and as continuously as possible.
>>256293
>being this retarded
>"Thanks for playing."
Christkek can't get on our intellectual level.
>>256299
>Nothing about Nietzsche's revaluation of all values is at all arbitrary
He thinks the Will to Power is the ultimate moral motivator. That's arbitrary, in that he decided that such "must be" what humans strive/ought to strive for, when it could just as easily be "happiness" or some other rubbish.
>>256302
>>256305
These words are talking about things that aren't at all arbitrary. I don't think you're communicating effectively at all.
>>256318
>These words are talking about things that aren't at all arbitrary.
>randomly choosing values and saying all humans *are driven*, or at least *SHOULD BE* driven by pursuit of those values
>not arbitrary
>picking a number of values and saying people should care about them
>not arbitrary
>>256325
Yeah, I'm like two seconds from filtering you.
>>256305
>He thinks the Will to Power is the ultimate moral motivator
Please....don't try to criticize philosopher from Wikipedia knowledge. I've said this before, Will to Power is like the Force. It's behind EVERYTHING it's not something you can choose to ignore or follow. Power flows through the universe and you can ride the waves, try to swim upstream, or just stay still and have it push you around.
Nietzche's philosophy isn't just 'morality is relative k thanks bye'. The very fact that the value system is made to enforce certain outcomes tells us that there are things that are literally above morality. For Nietsche morality is not the be-all end-all. It's just another tool or another path. There are things that are Beyond Good and Evil.
This is where Christians ability to understand Nietzsche stops. Because in Christianity nothing is beyond good and evil, not even God is that powerful. So even when you get these explained you just deny it or shout insults, what else could you do. Nietzsche has effectively placed his philosophy and the humans that follow it above the comprehension of God himself.
As this go puts it
>>256259
>Nietzsche usurped Christ.
Nietzsche, if everyone becomes an overman then there is no one for them to be over.
>>256333
You're inarticulate, stupid, and aren't worth my time - go right the fuck ahead faggot.
>>256337
I've read the Geneology you dumb cunt. This is *FROM THAT*.
He lays down his own moral system and asserts it's right. He could have laid down any other system and asserted it was right in the same regard. It's arbitrary nonsense that I have no time for - it's worthless.
Despising anyone is contrary to Nietzsche's philosophy because it is ressentiment. Read the Geneology of Morals OP.
This desu
>>256338
Well not everyone can be become Overman. I can't remember where but he once said every society needs to have slavery in some form.
The herd has a function in society, the problem is when the herd tries to bring down the Overman. Than there is a big problem. A society where everyone is a sheep is just as disastrous as a society where everyone is an Overman. That's why he said the best form of a society is a caste system where the various duties a society need will all have specialists.
A big mistake people believe is that Nietzsche's philosophy is for everyone. The idea of a one size fits all is egalitarianism which Nietzsche is very against. Personally I do not even believe philosophy itself is for everyone. I think there are many people who should never read a philosophy book in their life.
>>256357
I've read it, and I know, despising people is pretty stupid, I more mean aversion to sickness and death. What I mean is that, you recognize his sickness and have no sympathy for it, not despisure as such.
Friederiech Von Nietzschenerst: Ze Vil to Sociopathy.
Humans are naturally sociopathic, they seek only what is good for them.
>>256360
Epic burn
>>256357
He advocated just killing people who posed problems to you if you could get away with it. Totally better than resentment.
Totally.
>>256370
>Personally I do not even believe philosophy itself is for everyone. I think there are many people who should never read a philosophy book in their life.
why?
>>256394
People who disagree with him shouldn't be able to coherently disagree with him, obviously. That would be disadvantageous to his feelings.
There are many ways to being.
Just refuted Nietsche 4 u
>>256394
Think of the stupidest person you know. Now realize there are stupider people than that. I think a remember Nietzsche once said he worried about the masses reading his books because they would just use it as an excuse to commit petty theft. I think there are a lot of people that are perfectly fine just doing some low-end job than going home to watch anime and play videos. What would they need philosophy for? You've heard it's easier for a dog to be satisfied than Socrates, right.
Even worst they might become pseudo-intellectual 'activist' with their philosophy, the idiot liberal being the poster boy. Fuck if the world consisted of 90% passive hedonists that stayed out politics and big matters and the 10% active intellectuals made all the choices...both tribes would be happier and get exactly what they want.
And don't tell me we can turn every idiot into an intellectual power house...look at public education we tried that. There's something called genes and they mean we can't all be equal.
>>256353
Genealogy really doesn't get into Nietzsche's own idea of how to conduct one's life, it does a lot but it's not his moral guidebook. It's just breaking down the history and formula for morality. Genealogy is just what it says, a genealogy of morals.
>>256357
This is true. It doesn't mean you can't have enemies. Zarathustra says to love your enemies because they give you a chance to test yourself and let you do battle. This is a different type of love your enemies from Christ who says to give mercy. Zarathustra says to neither give nor request mercy but to love the fight itself.
To be against resentment also doesn't mean you can't harm or be cruel to someone, it doesn't restrict any activity at all. Resentment is a state of mind, which in turn leads to actions. It's very different to harm out of resentment and to harm out of a superior reason.
>>256426
>Genealogy really doesn't get into Nietzsche's own idea of how to conduct one's life
Huh. It does.
>>254734
Who the fuck is so rhetorically self-referrencial that they feel the need to post a thought like that out loud? How can anyone respond-
Ah. gr8 d8 2 cre8 b8 m8 I r8 it 0/8. Fuck you.
>>256426
>Fuck if the world consisted of 90% passive hedonists that stayed out politics and big matters and the 10% active intellectuals made all the choices...both tribes would be happier and get exactly what they want.
This is already how it is in Murika, man. With the "intellectuals" of course being sell outs to big business who vote for whatever their paymasters tell them.
>>256430
>>256430
Compared to something like Zarathustra, Genealogy is highly impersonal. It is a Genealogy after all. If you really want to see how he thinks a proper way to conduct one'se self is read that book. But remember he is not saying ALL people should live such a life, only those that are capable and willing...although the rewards are amazing.
Anyway I need to sleep. You're a good kid, talk too passionately about things you havn't really taken the time to understand, but I don't dislike you. Have a Nui.
>>256426
>There's something called genes and they mean we can't all be equal.
Do you happen to frequent /pol/? Just curious.
>>256430
No, his other books delve much deeper into his thoughts on that.
>>256476
It's not about 'personableness'. Nobody should be interested in tone or sensationalism. He lays out how people should live quite clearly in the Geneology, and it's abhorrent.
>>256486
That doesn't mean he doesn't in the Geneology. It's quite clear what he wants out of people in the Geneology.
>>256426
I do understand what you mean but I do believe in justice as fairness.
I do not believe "knowledge" can be used against itself, for example you mentioned pseudo intellectul activist, if he/she came to me, trying to argue about human rights just because he/she read some liberal propaganda I'll just give my points and listen to theirs.
If their argument's better than mine I'm willing to change my opinion, if not, I'll point out the defiencies in theirs. Simple as that.
I know reality is not that easy, but I try to believe and work for creating a better place everyday.
>>256489
But it does mean the view he expresses in the Genealogy isn't complete and should only be viewed in context of his entire corpus.
>>256602
That's like saying you can't judge the categorical imperative unless you read all of Kant. You don't need everything surrounding an idea to get the gist of it. And the gist is pretty explicitly clear.
In analytic philosophy a lot of philosophers are misunderstood.
They basically use Russell's history of philosophy as a textbook on who is good or not.
With that said, the one who is most severely misunderstood is probably Meinong. He has been strawmanned so far that the very name is used as a way of ridiculing each other.
I'd also say that Freud could be claimed to be misunderstood.
If we look at the common population, Marx is extremely misunderstood.
Feminism on the internet.
Any anarchist philosopher.
But given an actual intellectual institution, I'd say Meinong, or perhaps a Christian philosopher like Anselm or Platinga.
>>256632
>I'd also say that Freud could be claimed to be misunderstood
Give me one redeeming feature about psychoanalysis.
>>256639
I talk about Freud in the context of philosophy.
Most of his arguments are somehow implicitly accepted within our culture today. Which is basically that there is a coherent system on which a sub/un-conscious operates.
I don't talk about the "science" of psycho-analysis but rather the philosophical bedrock on which he built his proto-science upon.
It would be like judging Aristotle's metaphysics based on all the errors he made in the physics.
I talk about Freud as a philosopher, not a psycho-analyst. I thought it would be obvious given the context and I should have explicated so.
>>256652
>Which is basically that there is a coherent system on which a sub/un-conscious operates
It's certainly accepted by many. I don't accept it. Nor do I see any reason to.
Freud's "philosophy" is innately caught up in his methodology of psychology. Separating the two is isn't feasible.
>>256660
So if one accepts the philosophical arguments one is bound to become a psycho-analyst?
One could accept them but later deem that there is no sensible way of doing psycho-analysis; or that the way in which he proposes is problematic.
There are other psycho-analysts than Freud, who has built upon Freud, as the younger Freud, Klein and Lacan.
The main problem I have with this is whether to see if you're talking about his psychology or psycho-analysis. Since you're talking about "methodology of psychology", I can only assume the latter.
And honestly, I would disagree. There are too many epistemological errors, not enough self-insight/self-criticism, too many interpretations and so on for it ever to succeed.
One could use his philosophy as a justification for cognitive behavioural treatment or so.
In any case, I don't see how your argument is supposed to work, and honestly, I study theoretical philosophy and not psychology and have only read Freud in my spare time, there may very well be something I am missing here.
>>256686
>So if one accepts the philosophical arguments one is bound to become a psycho-analyst?
He doesn't make anything that might be called a philosophical argument outside of his practice and psychological theory.
>There are too many epistemological errors, not enough self-insight/self-criticism, too many interpretations and so on for it ever to succeed
I agree with this.
>In any case, I don't see how your argument is supposed to work
I'm not making an argument. Unless you think
>Freud's "philosophy" is innately caught up in his methodology of psychology
is an "argument". It's an observation of historical collusion - all of Freud's "philosophy" is extracted from his psychoanalytic work.
>>256623
Nietzsche isn't Kant, so the analogy fails.
And yes, judging the categorical imperative by quoting lines from CoJ would be about the same as what you're doing. Nietzsche's views aren't entirely covered in Genealogy, even in brief. Just stop, dude, you can't argue us into believing you understand Nietzsche when you so clearly don't.
>>256723
You completely missed the point. Unsurprising.
>>256700
You do a very good job of making me never want to become a Christian.
>>256726
You don't have a point.
>>256734
I wonder what in that post you objected to? Or maybe you're just upset that someone's disagreeing with you on the internet? If it's that, then I have nothing but disdain for thin-skinned tendencies.
>>256737
>the view he expresses in the Genealogy isn't complete and should only be viewed in context of his entire corpus
>"that's a silly position"
>You don't have a point.
Go fuck yourself.
>>256700
>all of Freud's "philosophy" is extracted from his psychoanalytic work
But see, this is another claim.
As I stated earlier in the discussion, the analogy with Aristotle and the Physics/Metaphysics goes further: the Physics is BEFORE the Metaphysics, hence the name meta-physics.
In like manners we see that Freud in his Introduction to Psychoanalysis first of all justifies his work with philosophical principles, and in other works like Beyond the Pleasure Principle he re-evaluates assumptions and introduces a new philosophical concept, which he from his psycho-analytic work has extrapolated.
Then, even if most of his philosophy which we would without shame or moving the goalpost call Freudian, would have laid rest upon psycho-analytic insights, I don't see how the Death Drive, as an example, is such an absurdity.
Now, I don't defend Freud, neither have I defended the works of Marx, Meinong, Platinga or Anselm; I have merely stated that they are misunderstood.
I'll try to make explicit the two major points:
A lot of Freudian BASIC philosophy, as unconscious/subconscious is accepted but not necessarily attributed as Freudian thinking (which I would warrant as misunderstood).
Also, that the principles such as the sexual instincts seem to be taken for granted, and taken as an explanatory role for much in contemporary society (and I would claim that this is Freudian thinking, and not yet attributed to him but rather taken as a fact).
This leads to people accepting Freudian principles and at the same time disregarding him as a serious intellectual, which I would claim would satisfy as misunderstood.
>>256759
>which he from his psycho-analytic work has extrapolated
All of his written "philosophy" stems from his work. His psychoanalytic work precedes everything for him, and taints it all.
I don't think people don't take some things from him (although I don't), but he really had no work that was not secondary to his psychoanalytic theory.
>>254097
There is no lightning behind the strike, it is the strike.
>>256778
Well, if you cannot separate chronology from value or try to debunk one doctrine based one genealogy; I guess it is your modus operandi and not mine.
I have presented my case as clear as I can, and have not yet seen any substantial claim against it. Primarily it was a vague suggestion, I don't see why I should spill more time over it.
Thanks for a nice chat.
>>256799
There are ideas that can be extrapolated from bodies of work. No shit.
But Freud's work was literally *ALL* about supporting his shit. He failed miserably, but that was his purpose in all of his work.
>>254097
he looks funny
>>256827
Calling you a cocksucking faggot on the internet makes me not-a-Christian? You have enlightened me by your supreme gentlemanly intelligence.
>>256835
"I'm a Christian, you cocksucking faggot"
>>256837
Yeah I am you dick sucking queerbag. How many men have penetrated you today? The ghosts of six-hundred-sixty-six syphilitic ghost-Nietzsche's?
That's some real "Will to Power" there faggot.
>>256842
"I wonder why all these dicklicking queer-ass faggot fuck bitch nigger retards won't debate me. Must be cuz my arguments are so good. I'm a Christian btw."
>>256849
For most people it's because they're stupid/have thin skin. Usually both, as those qualities have a high degree of correlation. Enjoy your aids though m8.
>>256852
"I'm a Christian"
>>256857
"I'm an atheist"
>>256112
>Im a meme Christian since 4 months
>>254140
How so?
>>256866
>I'm a meme atheist since tomorrow
>>256866
Tripfag confirmed for meme Christian by God given dubs
I tried several times to read some Nietzsche but it just sounds like psychobabble to me.
Is there any Nietzsche book that does not involve psychologisation in any way? Because I'm more or less triggered by this.
>>256872
>first I got redpilled by /pol/ now I visit the catholic™church once a week
>>256879
>Catholicism
>>256880
>protestantism
>>256882
>something something genetically engineered cat-girls for domestic ownership
>>256884
>not being into Straight Shota
>0+2015 years after christ was born
Nigga, are you even christian?
>>256894
Gay. Not even Nietzsche was that gay. And Nietzsche was pretty gay. Hence syphilis. Get it? Gay? Syphilis? Will to Power? More like Will 2 Dick lmao
>>256901
now youre not even trying anymore, apply yourself tripfag
you make me sad if you dont treat our little shitpost with respect
>>256912
>shota
>not-gay
You know what other philosopher liked little boys? Aristotle.
That's why it's called Aristotelian naturalism; cause they wuz naturally all up on his dick lmao
>>256919
>straight shota
>gay
Just look it up you uneducated proto meme protestant
>>256978
>shota
>straight
He is just a thinker. You shouldn't take any philosopher's word as gospel. They are human. Not superhuman :^)
Why did he prefer Frederick III to Wilhelm I?
Because even liberalism wasn't as bad as german conservatism?
>>255514
>For instance he describes himself as being almost universally loved by his students during his teaching days, with the exception of one kid. That's pretty impressive sounding but there's no way to confirm it.
I remember reading that there are quotes from his students in existence. They say something like "he seemed like a reincarnation of the greeks we were studying, you had to respect him".
Records of his class attendance show that he was never that popular, just had a few consistent enrollments every year. And class sizes were really small back then.
>>255551
This.
>Praceteom: making your own values is necessarily more arbitrary than following Christian ones
How so? To be a Christian you have to use reason and experience also, you have to choose between denominations, learn what Christianity even is from your parents/teachers/bible
It seems no different other than that Nietzsche's alternative is more "modern".
>>257029
Are you that retarded or just pretending?
>>254097
If you read On the Genealogy of Morality with a slightly bit of critical mind you'll realize he's just making stuff up with no real empirical basis to justify his theory (if you aren't triggered by calling it a theory).
>>254097
But he literally was a social reject with no idea how interpersonal relationships worked, he had zero friends in fact and ended up in an asylum.
And now you tell me his vision on how social interactions work is legit? Please it'd be like taking anything coming from /r9k/ as an absolute truth.
>>257391
>making stuff up with no real empirical basis to justify his theory
Continental philosophy in a nutshell
I really like how he predicted communism
>>257411
>muh logic
>muh analytical "philosophy"
>muh Russel
>>257424
>muh feelings
>this thread
It's like I'm really browsing reddit!
>>257431
>They are not a philosophical race - the English: Bacon represents an ATTACK on the philosophical spirit generally, Hobbes, Hume, and Locke, an abasement, and a depreciation of the idea of a "philosopher" for more than a century. It was AGAINST Hume that Kant uprose and raised himself; it was Locke of whom Schelling RIGHTLY said, "JE MEPRISE LOCKE"; in the struggle against the English mechanical stultification of the world, Hegel and Schopenhauer (along with Goethe) were of one accord; the two hostile brother-geniuses in philosophy, who pushed in different directions towards the opposite poles of German thought, and thereby wronged each other as only brothers will do. - What is lacking in England, and has always been lacking, that half-actor and rhetorician knew well enough, the absurd muddle-head, Carlyle, who sought to conceal under passionate grimaces what he knew about himself: namely, what was LACKING in Carlyle - real POWER of intellect, real DEPTH of intellectual perception, in short, philosophy. It is characteristic of such an unphilosophical race to hold on firmly to Christianity - they NEED its discipline for "moralizing" and humanizing. The Englishman, more gloomy, sensual, headstrong, and brutal than the German - is for that very reason, as the baser of the two, also the most pious: he has all the MORE NEED of Christianity.
Empty men, living empty lives, saying empty things.
>>257391
>if something's not falsifiable then it's worthless
Personal anecdote here but I've never met someone with a bsc or higher who thinks this. Probably because it gets ridiculous when you apply this logic beyond it's proper domain.
Also, Nietzsche was constantly complaining about how no one was going to bother testing the type of shit he considered important in an empirical fashion.
>>257507
I just came back to 4chan after a month of abstinence and this thread single handedly crushed any little hope I had for /his/
>>254097
Or you just have different pressupositions and you have made yourself look like a retard by thinking you can even have "arguments against" him.
>>257391
What sort of proof you want for a history on morality? There isn't exactly going to be historical documents saying the truth about why people made their morality, you have to interprete the history with reasoning. Historical interpretation isn't exactly new. The fact that his theory on morality has incredibly explanitory power is the reason to take it seriously (it can explain communism, all the insanity of leftism, tumblrism, Christianity, and even aspects of your personal life).
>>256494
You are making the assumption people operate entirely rationally they don't, that's why resentment even exists in the first place. Resentment actually becomes worst when these people are a little educated because than they can project it onto sociology, history, philosophy, art, politics, and everything else they learn about. That's partly what academia is contaminated with insane ideas.
In regards to everyone learning philosophy. Different people have different lives which means they have different needs. When you are young and in school it's very easy to think that everyone being educated about everything is a good idea, because that's what your environment is about. Think about someone that's been working at walmart for 20 years. WTF is he going to with philosophy, maybe he could read Stoism or Buddhism...but Nietzsche would be totally inappropriate for him. And that's assuming everyone can understand philosophy....which they aren't partly for genetic reasons partly for upbrining reasons.
The way a society goes about changing stupid people isn't with rational arguments. You use religion, media, or art.
>>256310
Social Contract you tard
>>257411
he thinks that he is an empiricist whereas he dwells in rationalism.
can you prove that whatever fantasies you have in your mind connects to empirical data ?
I love The Antichrist and Beyond Good & Evil, but zarathustra bugged the fuck out of me. The prose was obnoxious and you could tell he was starting to lose it, what with the syphilis and all.
I found that he was pretty robust. I wish he got more pussy, all of the German guys suffered from living in their time, so I understand why he had such a negative opinion of women and of marriage. I think if they all had access to internet porn and loose skanks they would have been a lot less uptight.
Did Nietzsche ever have sex?
Was he just a talented wizard?
Anyzink zat iz done out off love, takez a plaz beyont gud ant evil
>>257805
He died of syphilis, so probably.
>>257805
he might have been a gay
Is Foucault's methodology the first example of a Nietzschean historiography?
I don't understand what's so bad about nihilism. Once everything means nothing, you're free to do anything.
>>258053
Salutations, faggit!
>>256112
No, you're engaging in the exact same behavior Nietzsche proposes, only much less honestly. You're using your reason to impose a set of values over nihilism as an escape, to grant yourself a feeling of purpose and moral direction. You haven't been endowed with some form of higher mental faculty that enables you to escape your own mind, and so you're using your own human capabilities to do so. When your faith wears away, as it quite likely will (the crisis of faith is a very common crisis indeed), you'll be left just as much sinking in nihilism, only with even less capacity to regain a foothold since you believed your values to be objective and eternal.
>>256652
>Most of his arguments are somehow implicitly accepted within our culture today.
Sometimes a cigar is not really a cigar.
>>257798
>The Antichrist
was written in the last year before his collapse, almost a decade after
>zarathustra
So you're talking bullshit.
>>256861
You're a massive baby, family. You literally threw a temper tantrum and then everyone, EVERYONE, you argued with called you out on it. How do you ignore reality like that? Are you able to turn your conscious off and then auto-spew random, meaningless ad hominem bullshit at everyone?
Jesus, what a shame you are. It's almost impressive how deeply fucked you are, like your brain is just mush past the immediate abilities to read and write.
>>257614
TL;DR: stop hurting my feelings with your logic and facts and shieete. Cool story bro.
>>254097
>>no good logical arguments exist against Nietzsche
You don't argue with someone who unironically thinks "u cant know nuffin LOL". nietzsche is the only person who managed to turn that one shower thought into several hundred pages of vague bullshit.
>>260819
Your hero Russel was so rekt by Nietzsche he could do nothing but write several pages of nothing but ad hominem
>>260843
Example?
>>261051
>There is a great deal in Nietzsche that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac… It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man’s, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. “Forget not thy whip”–but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks.
>He condemns Christian love because he thinks it is an outcome of fear… It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear, which he would fain disguise as lordly indifference.
>[...] But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world.
>>261152
Sounds pretty adhom yeah. Why can't he just find the holes where Nietzsche asserts something that isn't provable? There's got to be tons of it and a lot of hidden premises since this is philosophy. If it was easily provable, people likely would've gathered around the best explanations in a scientific manner rather than going every which way in what philosophies they adopt.
>>261152
>>>There is a great deal in Nietzsche that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac… It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military.
this is true. he thinks of himself as a warrior in ecce homo. but every intellectual uses war vocabulary. war is ingrained in us.
>>261152
Oh god what an autistic manchild
>>261277
>war is ingrained in us.
Ain't that what Nietzsche was telling us
>>256868
Everything we say or do is anthropomorphic. In other words, there's no "facts" outside of humans, it's in us, and often a criticism of the people making an idea is a criticism of the idea itself. E.G. bad motives = bad ideas.
>>261152
Prime examples of what I mean with the OP.
>>260819
>"u cant know nuffin LOL"
I agree, in modal logic a universe exists where Nietzsche said this, and in that universe he's dumb. But we're in our universe.
>>261456
>Oh god what an autistic manchild
Basically this, if you look at Berty's life it makes sense.
>>257805
It's uncertain. We don't know whether he went insane because of syphilis or because of brain cancer. Even if he did have syphilis, it may have been tertiary- acquired during his time as a medical orderly in the Franco-Prussian War.
>>261971
Or that prostitute he failed to fuck.
>>261971
This, if he did have sex he was very discreet about it.
There's a picture with Lou Salome grabbing his erect dick though so I don't think it's too unlikely.
>>261971
For historical purposes
what should I read before I start my journey into Nietzsche.
I only know am becoming an actual reader
>>262055
What's the context of this shit? He seems to already have gotten in an advanced state of dementia in this pic.
>>257933
Anybody?
>>262084
your are right actually. I know I probably should but I don't think right now I'll be bothered to go that far. Will I be able to understand him without any books beforehand?
>>262095
You'll be able to understand some of him, but other stuff will slip by. Just be slower to judge stuff because you might be missing things.
"A politician divides mankind into two classes: tools and enemies."
>>262103
ok thanks friend. I will eventually branch out and study the greeks+romans for sure
>>262111
Wew, now I understand why he grew a moustache.
>>257933
I think there have been other examples but none are nearly as extensive, Focault covers multiple books.
>>262071
Good entry books are Beyond Good and Evil, Genealogy of Morality, Anti-Christ.
Zarathustra is essential reading but should not be the first book because it assumes knowledge of his philosophy.
In general you should try to stick to the texts as much as possible and only look at 3rd hand accounts (youtube videos, intro books, etc) when you feel you can't go on anymore. Part of this is that you will not be aware if the 3rd hand account is accurate, part is that they have to dumb down the message to make it accessable. That said this is an excellent video that covers his thoughts on power, which is the primary aspect of his philosophy. All of his other concepts are viewed through the concept of power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVoCKLyt2uw
>>262113
Nietzsche gives a lot of respect to some obscure Greek philosopher called Heraclitus, who he describes as being the greatest of all the Greeks and Romans.
Nobody replie to my post there >>256877
Is there anything about Nietzsche that is not psychobabble so that I can read him without cringing?
>>257614
analytic philosophy was pretty much invented by a continental european
>>263345
not really
>>263711
So it's confirmed Nietzsche is a psytard trying to frame everything in psychology.
Explains why there are Nietzschefags though.
>>263773
Can you prove him wrong though?
>>263773
Kek do whatever you want, just stop shitposting in my thread
