Has Nietzsche ever been BTFO? Who has the best counterarguments against his philosophy?
>>7789806
Start with the Aristotle.
>>7789806
>his philosophy?
>his
kek
Pope Benedict has gotten in a few really good blows.
>>7789932
WUZ
>>7789947
KANGZ
Siddharta Gautama
>>7789941
He attacked Nietzsche on his point that Christianity had destroyed Eros and was poisoning the well of western culture and tried to turn it on its head to claim Nietzsche poisoned the west but IIRC he conveniently ignores all of the attacks Nietzsche directed at Christian metaphysics. He slaps away at the surface level issues that Nietzsche had with Christianity but hopes we forget the core issues the religion has not, and cannot address (that it is based on bullshit). He also doesn't even begin to address Nietzsche's issues with morality.
I didn't consider it a BTFOing at all, it was a limpwristed attempt at self defense focusing on refuting peripheral arguments and not even doing that convincingly.
It's been awhile since I've read that encyclical though so I might be forgetting something.
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.
Bertrand Russell
Evola builds off a lot of concepts proposed by Nietzsche while at the same time setting him straight in his errors and inconsistencies
>>7790089
The end point of philosophy is religion. Religion is a tapestry of psychoanalytic archetypes and symbolic imagery that serves an allegorical purpose in the development of the human psyche over the course of our lives.
>>7790139
This is a shitty argument masked by big, fancy words.
>>7790128
"Cease not your dancing, ye lovely maidens! No game-spoiler hath come to
you with evil eye, no enemy of maidens.
God's advocate am I with the devil: he, however, is the spirit of gravity.
How could I, ye light-footed ones, be hostile to divine dances? Or to
maidens' feet with fine ankles?
To be sure, I am a forest, and a night of dark trees: but he who is not
afraid of my darkness, will find banks full of roses under my cypresses.
And even the little God may he find, who is dearest to maidens: beside the
well lieth he quietly, with closed eyes."
- Nietzsche
The quote you mention is never used in its original context and misinterpreted by retards like Russell.
>>7790152
If anything Nietzsche probably had a foot fetish.
So no one? Cmon /lit, there's got to be someone able to take on le mustache man
>>7790128
Some roastie is getting toasty. Nothing Nietzsche said about women was what he considered to be an absolute truth. It was just his opinion. This argument boils down to WAAHHHHH NIETZSCHE SAID MEAN THINGS ABOUT GIRLS HOW DARE HE HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION INFORMED BY LIVED EXPERIENCE THAN ME! HE IS A LOSER VIRGIN KEK THEREFORE HIS OPINIONS ARE INVALID, WHILE MY OPINIONS ARE MERITORIOUS BECAUSE I AM SOCIALLY SUCCESSFUL!
Russell, for all his merits, was a bit of a useless cunt when it came to criticism. His other criticisms of Nietzsche follow the same general pattern. HE LIKED STRONG MANLY TOUGH GUYS BUT HE WAS A WEAK LITTLE GIRL, HAHAH LAUGH AT THE PATHETIC LITTLE WEAKLING! His critique is based on misinterpretation, intentional misrepresentation and generally churlish ad hominem.
Rarely, only rarely does anyone actually delve into criticizing his core positions, Russell does the same things Benedict does with slapping away at peripheral and generally unimportant points. Nietzsche leaves himself open to these kinds of attacks because he has opinions on everything and includes them in his works despite many of them being fundamentally unimportant to his greater project.
>>7790139
you can't be a true philosopher unless you're not religious.
>>7790198
No, you have to be religious but suffer a constant existential crisis because of the questions pertaining to your place in it and in the world as a whole
>>7790164
He doesn't say very much that he claims to be concretely true. If someone criticizes him thy can just say you're misinterpreting him.
>>7790164
Nietzsche philosophized with a sledgehammer, in his own words. He never made anything, only smashed things. It's much harder to respond to criticism than it is to criticize a system, and Nietzsche left no system.
Whenever people criticize Nietzsche, they usually have to latch on to a peripheral point, or misinterpret him. For example, Santayana, who hated Nietzsche, claims that Nietzsche did not hate morality, only Christian morality, and had his own conception of a master morality which he advocated for. This is patently false, as in Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche condemns master morality as a dead end, a perfect compliment to Christian slave morality. If one reads only The Antichrist, one might miss this important distinction, because in The Antichrist, Nietzsche is starting to come unhinged, and is specifically attacking Christianity and is not focused on the weaknesses of the master morality.
He then kind of goes off on the same triggered sort of rant that other Christians and Pseudo-Christian moralists go off on when confronted with Nietzsche's understanding of truth and morality. He claims that Nietzsche denies god because he would be upset if god existed (again, trying to reverse the situation, though Santayana was an atheist he was a platonic in his metaphysics). I remember his criticism ending by essentially saying "his philosophy offers no answers and doesn't make any of us happy, especially Nietzsche himself." as if that was a refutation.
>>7790238
Though in smashing he often comes to what he thinks is more fundamental. I.e. smashing the 'awful English" views on morality's genesis and coming up with his own. Pretty unfalsifiable stuff though
>>7790253
He definitely had his own idea of what his good life was, he had some broad idea of what the 'overman' looked like as well. He broadly classified himself as a 'higher being' in Ecce Homo, alongside Goethe and Beethoven. It should be noted that again, he was starting to go nuts as he wrote this, his inhibitions were clearly diminished. But it still fits in quite well with his overall outlook.
He believed that higher men essentially sought solitude and were creative, and if there was to be a good system of morality it would be one which allowed these higher types of men to flourish as best as they could (he's almost the opposite of Rawls in this respect). The danger of slave morality run rampant was, in Nietzsche's mind, that it could poison the minds of these geniuses and deprive them of their opportunity to flourish. A lack of universal morality was preferable to this slave morality, and master morality was no better because it encouraged a false consciousness. It was a 'myth of the metals', and many of those who were 'aristocrats' were just as base and idiotic as those they governed. Politics and governing to him were an idiot's pursuit so no higher type of man would bother with them.
If there was a political form Nietzsche advocated for, it was certainly an aristocracy. But Nietzsche also comes across as an anarchist in his anti-political stances. There's a reason he's such a protean figure as far as his influences go, he was fairly eclectic.
The overman of Zarathustra was sort of an extreme version of this higher man, a man who could isolate himself so much that he could escape his own humanity, climb into the mountains of solitude and look down on the human race from up high. From this perspective he could perform the transvaluation of all values. To him the human would be but a crude mockery of his type, closer to the beasts than to him.
The transvaluation was kind of the end goal for Nietzsche, discovery of a natural basis for morality, but he went nuts after finishing the first of his four parts of this project, coincidentally the part that did nothing but deconstruct contemporary morality.
>>7790281
I've only really ever found Nietzsche insightful when his writings were put in the context of other writers who were building upon conceptions he put forth. Julius Evola to be specific
>>7790289
It is hard for the modern reader to find him as insightful as he truly was simply because so many of his ideas have been absorbed into the Zeitgeist.
Crowley took Nietzsche and made Thelema to provide a metaphysical backing to his system. Nietzsche was rehabilitated and rediscovered in the late 1950s by Foucault in particular, who took many of his ideas and especially his methodology and ran wild with it. Nietzsche underpinned the counterculture of the 60s which has become part of the prevailing culture today.
Not all of Nietzsche came along for the ride, but fuck, who's father hasn't told them "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger", which was straight out of Nietzsche? I think he's trumped Marx for the title of most influential philosopher of the 19th century, for better or worse.
>>7790297
>but fuck, who's father hasn't told them "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"
mine
>>7790139
I used to talk like you. Then I realized that I was ultimately saying nothing.
>>7790297
Without him, my favorite movie of all time Conan the Barbarian wouldn't have been made the way that it was, so he'll always have a special place in my heart.
>>7790300
Probably because you weren't putting action behind your words. You thought that the knowledge alone would save you, rather than the actualization of the knowledge through every day that you're alive in this place.
>>7790308
wew lad
>>7790310
I've seen it happen a handful of times before. A person will have a religious awakening, and after the initial feelings of elation pass, they return to their disillusionment that they were originally seeking to overcome. It's hard to maintain religious discipline and conviction. You have to understand that you will eventually settle into quiet contentment rather than ecstatic fulfillment.
Chesterton destroyed him by seeing right through his writing. Nietzsche fanbrats throw a fit but he was right on the money and he didn't do anything Nietzsche didn't do, which was focus on a individual's character behind the words.
>>7790089
Religions are meant to leave material hedonism, for a spiritual hedonism, through prayers.
In buddhism, you even leave this spiritual hedonism since you understand that is i not personal nor permanent.
>>7790139
This. I believe very strongly that religion is philosophy for the masses. Where an atheist or agnostic has existential dread as encouragement to read philosophy, religion adds in heaven and hell. Both transmit centuries of symbols, stories, and ideas.
They are tightly wound together and when people attack a religion on its "baselessness" without refuting it's philosophy they are missing the point entirely.
>>7790198
Okay. Kindly explain this to all philosophers from about 300AD until the Enlightenment. Philosophy asks the fundamental question "what should we do?" Religion asks the fundamental question "what does God(s) want us to do?" They aren't that different.
Also religions like Christianity spring out of philosophical movements like stoicism and often transmit core tenants along with their collection of myths.
>>7790708
Religion provides an answer for the questions proposed in philosophical thought. Francis Bacon had some good thoughts on this matter
>>7790128
Coming from the degenerate leftist scum who cucked TS Eliot... means a lot.
>>7790528
Not really. He does better than most in shooting to the core by making some attempt to psychoanalyze Nietzsche, but most of his arguments are, again, based on misrepresentation and informed by Christian butthurt.
I think his core arguments are
1. that Nietzsche is saying nonsense and contradicting himself (which is something Chesterton accused many people of)
2. that Nietzsche was a timid thinker and not revolutionary namely because he didn't know what he wanted man to become, he said 'overman' and did not explain what this man would be
1 is correct in some ways, Nietzsche does contradict himself occasionally. I can think of at least one example in Twilight of the Idols. But to be fair, he went bonkers shortly thereafter. He seemingly contradicts himself in Zarathustra but most of that is just due to the lyrical nature of the work.
If you want to dig into the minutiae of any author's works, you will find contradiction, especially with a thinker as eclectic and experimental as Nietzsche. His aphoristic style of writing also kind of lends itself to this, he does not create meaty tomes full of evidence to support the majority of his ideas. He drops them there and typically lets them stand as they are. He only provides great support for his core ideas. Partially because of his shitty health, his migraines impacted his vision and made it difficult to write or read for long stretches after his retirement.
2 is a misunderstanding or just plain old belligerence. The entire point of Nietzsche, down to the core of his work, is that everyone is of a different type. How the hell, under that framework, would Nietzsche tell his reader much of anything about what the overman is and does? And he does lay out some details in Ecce Homo.
Another argument I recall from him was around the meaning of 'beyond good and evil' where he said Nietzsche ought to have phrased it more good than good and evil or more evil than good and evil so he could have seen his own idiocy. Chesterton is just playing the fool here, I find it very hard to believe someone who read the book could have such a quibble with the formulation of its core concept.
Is anyone aware of any amoralistic atheist critiques of Nietzsche? The only atheists I find criticizing him are those who consider themselves humanists or worship at some other new idol carved out of the corpse of Christianity. It'd be interesting to see someone who didn't have a horse in the race, so to speak, address his work.
I BTFO him the other day but I dont wanna talk about it
>>7789806
The thing is, he's incoherent and rambling without consistency or logical argumentation, really no one cared enough to do it.
>>7790174
>roastie
stopped reading
>>7790327
w e w
e w e
w e w
>>7790198
this post is true
>>7790174
>>7791280
Nah, not really, some of the greatest philosophers were religious, or at least spiritual in a way, whch is something that doesn't necessarily demerits its philosophical work. What I agree is that there is a huge difference between philosophy and theology, even when some authors intertwine both.
Pic related.
>>7791295
Difference between the two was always recognized, but they are said to shed light on one another
>>7790308
oh my god i bet you think youre smart. you sound like a dope
>come on /lit/ he must have a weak point!
Knowing that his implications were based on philiological analysis and his conclusions destroyed the metaphysical topic from philosophy. The unique "weak points" that he could show would be his creator-maker side. This applies to every philosopher.
>>7791392
>not systematic philosophy
He actually wanted to the reader's "hearts". The main point of his big proposition is accepting the dionysian side of the human being.
Many critics against him focus on a veiled implication ad hominem, or a high-level-deduction which is based on an idea refuted by Nietzsche.
Also, you could criticize his creative writings, proposing another human end.
>>7791420
>wanted to reach to the reader's
fix'd
>>7790238
Pretty much.
Whenever one of our lectors or professors talk about Nietzsche, they usually only point out the things he effectively destroyed and the fact that he was "fascinating".
I don't think any of them has claimed he was right about anything.
>>7790128
The whip comment is from Zarathustra. N has the advice spoken by an old hag who is old enough to finally tell the truth about women, because she can no longer benefit from keeping it secret: bring your whip.
Russell was a pacifist who married 4 times and published that quote during ww2, of course the book had to be anti-Nietzsche if he wanted accolades. There is no way N could be bothered with women all the time, I never talk about my exploits with them because they aren't important, history would think I'm a virgin too, you think you write like that and not know how to exploit women. It's just not worth it if you want most of the day to yourself.
>>7790297
>who's father hasn't told them "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger".
Mine.
Also, that line is palpably false.
>B-baka Jesus! It's not like I l-like you or anything!
>>7789971
N'SHIET
>Who has the best counterarguments against his philosophy?
God.
>>7791880
It's spelled Nietzsche.
>>7791883
>christfags actually believe this
>>7791626
Nietzsche liked Jesus, he had no problem with the man. He claimed that Jesus was killed too early to have delivered a comprehensive ethical system though, and that Paul took advantage of that and warped the teachings of Christ (which represented in some ways an improvement on those of the temple priests) into a system of values where Paul could finally appease his conflicting zealotry and love of doing non-kosher things.
He calls Jesus the last true Christian and the most noble person. He attacks modern Christianity so viciously because he sees more of the temple priests in it (ie Paul) than what Jesus actually taught from his point of view. Jesus was fundamentally taking part in a revaluation of all values of the Jews (which is what Nietzsche was trying to do for the west when he went nuts). There's a reason Nietzsche identified with him in his madness and began to sign letters as The Crucified One. He also wrote Ecce Homo in part because he was afraid people would call him Holy and misappropriate him, just as they did with Christ.
Nietzsche in a way has become the Christ of the new age (the new age being a thing which Nietzsche was among the earliest to identify) in how he has influenced all those who came after him, in particular New Age religion through Crowley. We haven't yet begun to undertake the project of fixing the nihilism at the foundation of our society. Nietzsche himself said that the 20th century would be wasted in pointless trade wars taking part under the guise of wars of mass ideology, and that the west was unlikely to start truly addressing the issue of nihilism until the 21st century.
We live in interesting times, especially when it comes to the field of Nietzsche studies.
>>7791933
>was afraid people would call him Holy
That self image.
>>7791933
I've never read so much bullshit in my life. good job.
Is your next post going to be about how Nietzsche actually liked Socrates?
>>7790128
he never said who the whip was for. he staged a photo shoot with lou salome after zarathustra was published in direct response to the criticism he received from this quote, but salome was holding the whip, not nietzsche.
>>7791883
>Cartesians actually believe this
>>7791955
This misinterpretation of Nietzsche as misogynist or woman hater is the most cuck of all Nietzsche misinterpretations
>If anyone has any argument against Nietzsche, they just misinterpreted him.
This is a horrible and cancerous thought process.
>>7792008
But it's all they've got, anon :^)
>>7791949
Nietzsche respected Socrates, but not what he stood for. Nietzsche had a softer view of Christ than of Socrates. He unironically calls him the most noble man.
Nietzsche was kind of obsessed with the revaluation project so it's not exactly strange that he would scrutinize those who had done this in the past so intensely, and even find some sense of kinship with them.
>>7792008
Again, Nietzsche leaves little but rubble in his wake. He builds little so there is little to criticize him on. Criticizing criticism is inherently more difficult than criticizing built up systems. Why do you think that 'critical theorists' are so reluctant to propose counter-systems to the ones they identify as pathological? They know the poison they brew.
Really, with Nietzsche and his postmodern, poststructural descendents, the core criticism is "Yeah but you don't propose anything constructive so you can go fuck yourself, at least I'm trying." Going deeper than that is essentially futile.
>>7790671
>implying
>>7790198
>implying Kierkegaard isn't a true philosopher
>implying you've done anything with your life 1/1000th as impressive as him
Didnt Dostoevsky refute him ?
>>7790089
>west but IIRC he conveniently ignores all of the attacks Nietzsche directed at Christian metaphysics
Nietzsche's metaphysics is cookie-cutter nominalism. It is nothing special. He just embellishes it with a whole lot of rhetoric. Is best metaphysics work is "Truth and Lies in the Nonmoral Sense", which is where he lays out his nominalism most clearly.
>>7793489
And even that work is filled to the brim with rhetoric. Nietzsche was an awful philosopher. He could hardly ever think without rambling poetry.
There is nothing in Nietzsche that Plato didn't refute thousands of years beforehand. Nietzsche is just a rehash of the sophists, only in the drunken romantic German "style".
>>7793513
Why do you feel the need to post uninformed shit like this? Do you like the sound of your own voice?
>>7793628
Not him, but you can make a fairly compelling argument that Plato fucks with Nietzsche in a profound way. Nietzsche HATES Plato. Plato and Platonism cause him problems. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
>>7789855
Start at Plato you shill.
>>7790128
Russell was SJW before SJW was a thing
>>7791955
>he staged a photo shoot
kek nice try, most nietzsche's comments about women were deragatory
your feminist thesis on hims will have to wait :(
>>7793643
>Nietzsche HATES Plato.
Yes, and for very good reasons. The idea that our knowledge, our version of reality is something that reality is supposed to obey is completely ridiculous and has been refuted endlessly. All Plato provided the world with was dry, computable 'knowledge'. That reality doesn't have to follow this 'knowledge' never occured to him, or to Aristotle, and their intellectual heirs would set up an entire tradition based on this completely nonsensical idea.
Same thing with the moral tradition of the Abrahamic religions and the one you can find in Buddhism. Nothing in reality commands that he should eliminate all suffering from the world, and then the Kingdom of God will come about, quite the opposite. What we see in reality (and what the Greeks and the Romans understood pretty well) is that disorder, strife and suffering are essential elements of existence, elements without which no one can thrive or do well. To put it simply, without sorrow there can be no joy, and without suffering there can be no triumphs.
When I read this entire thread, I don't get the impression that any of you have 'BTFO' anything by Nietzsche. What a sad, desperate phrase by the way, almost as if you guys are begging for someone to barge in and save the day from a threat you can't raise anything meaningful against. Anyway, you guys just seem like a bunch of desperate Christfags who really examplify the Last Man, a sad and terrified creature that begs for outsiders to help him, because he can't defend any of his principles on his own and needs a Deus ex Machina to save his ass
>>7794583
HAHA LE CHRISTFAG (i actually cannot argue but le christfags ;**********>>>>>>>>>> < le epic new meme face)
>>7794590
Is this the famed rhetoric that you learned from Aristotle, or did Aquinas tell you that ridicule is an argument?
>>7794599
>arguments are good because i like them
please stop before I waste even more time doing nothing past midnight.
hahha little boy talks about how 'reality doesn't have to follow 'knowledge'' then decides to submit to a system where one has to follow 'knowledge' (reason).
Do you not see the complete fault in this or are you that Kant shitposter that thinks posting a wall of text makes him ''''''''''right'''''''''?
>>7794583
>To put it simply, without sorrow there can be no joy, and without suffering there can be no triumphs.
yes, this is the rationalization of the hedonist in face of his failure to sustain pleasures.
Once yo understand that hedonism is bound to fail, due to the lack of control of events and what you think is your self, disappear the faith in the avidity towards pleasures and the aversion towards pains, the faith in your speculations to get control over what you think is your life.
this state is not reversible and makes you despise hedonism. you have seen the ugliness and the eternal disappointment with hedonism.
There remains to put into practice your new knowledge. you switch back to equanimity, joy, contentment, benevolence in meditating to be still. Once you eliminate your faith in hedonism, you are happy.
>>7794583
>Nothing in reality commands that he should eliminate all suffering from the world, and then the Kingdom of God will come about, quite the opposite.
Says you, atheist.
>>7789806
>Who has the best counterarguments against his philosophy?
Chesterton
>>7794668
>why say beyond good and evil? Why not simply say "more good than good and evil"?
wew lad
>>7794627
Yes, and when the dictatorship of the proletariat is achieved, the social classes and the state will wither away.
Give me a break. You utopians are all the same, you just give your utopias different names
>>7790128
>not posting the thing that truly destroyed Nietzsche
If Buddha and Nietzsche were confronted, could either produce any argument that ought to appeal to the impartial listener? I am not thinking of political arguments. We can imagine them appearing before the Almighty, as in the first chapter of the Book of Job, and offering advice as to the sort of world He would create. What could either say?
Buddha would open the argument by speaking of lepers, outcast and miserable; the poor, toiling with aching limbs and barely kept alive by scanty nourishment; the wounded in battle, dying in slow agony; the orphans, ill-treated by cruel guardians; and even the most successful haunted by the thought of failure and death. From all this load of sorrow, he would say, a way of salvation must be found, and salvation can only come through love.
Nietzsche, whom only Omnipotence could restrain from interrupting, would burst out when his turn came.
"Good heavens, man, you must learn to be of tougher fibre. Why go about sniveling because trivial people suffer? Or, for that matter, because great men suffer? Trivial people suffer trivially, great men suffer greatly, and great sufferings are not to be regretted, because they are noble. Your ideal is a purely negative one, absence of suffering, which can be completely secured by non-existence. I, on the other hand, have positive ideals: I admire Alcibiades, and the Emperor Frederick II, and Napoleon. For the sake of such men, any misery is worth while. I appeal to You, Lord, as the greatest of creative artists, do not let Your artistic impulses be curbed by the degenerate fear-ridden maunderings of this wretched psychopath."
>>7794743
Buddha, who in the courts of Heaven has learnt all history since his death, and has mastered science with delight in the knowledge and sorrow at the use to which men have put it, replies with calm urbanity:
"You are mistaken, Professor Nietzsche, in thinking my ideal a purely negative one. True, it includes a negative element, the absence of suffering; but it has in addition quiet as much that is positive as it to be found in your doctrine. Though I have no special admiration for Alcibiades and Napoleon, I, too, have my heroes: my successor Jesus, because he told men to love their enemies; the men who discovered how to master the forces of nature and secure food with less labour; the medical men who have shown how to diminish disease; the poets and artists and musicians who have caught glimpses of the Divine beatitude. Love and knowledge and delight in beauty are not negations; they are enough to fill the lives of the greatest men that have ever lived."
"All the same," Nietzsche replies, "your world would be insipid. You should study Heraclitus, whose works survive complete in the celestial library. Your love is compassion, which is elicited by pain; your truth, if you are honest, is unpleasant, and only to be known through suffering; and as to beauty, what is more beautiful than the tiger, who owes his splendour to his fierceness? No, if the Lord should decide for your world, I fear we would all die of boredom." "You might," Buddha replies, "because you love pain, and your love of life is a sham. But those who really love life would be happy as no one can be happy in the world as it is."
For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or a scientific question. I dislike him Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.
>>7794614
>this state is not reversible and makes you despise hedonism. you have seen the ugliness and the eternal disappointment with hedonism.
This is armchair psychology at its worst. Do you seriously think that you've 'confirmed', from one post on an anonymous imageboard, my deepest inner thought and desires and that this is 100% correct? Because if that's the case, you christposters are even more delusion than I thought.
No, I simply recognize variatipn as a fact of life. Some days are better than others, and viewing any deviation as an evil error, trying to use naive rationalizations to find the 'causes' of these 'errors' and using naive intervention to 'correct' them is a complete waste of time. I'm willing tp bet that even you don't follow your own Christian utopian program. If I'm wrong, then please tell me about all the times you've given away all your possessions to the poor and now spend most of your time feeding the homeless for free in a soupkitchen. Something tells me you've never done this and never will, because christposters are usually all talk, no action
>>7793628
Plato did refute Nietzsche. None of Nietzsche's ideas are really original, they were all had by the ancient sophists, who were prolific with coming up with ideas. Plato refuted them.
Nietzsche's idea that truth is just something that men make up in their minds, Plato deals with in the form of Protagoras.
Nietzsche's idea that truth is ultimately just a delusion of language and is a rhetorical ploy, Plato deals with in the form of Gorgias.
Nietzsche's idea that morality is something invented by men in order to impose their power on other men, Plato deals with in the form of Thrasymachus.
Nietzsche's idea that there is no being but only a constant becoming, Plato deals with in the form of Heraclitus.
What Nietzsche calls the Übermensch is what Plato would call a tyrant, someone who puts his own will as the only rule of law, completely ignoring the universal law of reason or nature.
Ultimately, all sophists, like Nietzsche, are reduced to 3 propositions, which were formulated by the ancient sophist Gorgias (mentioned above), who was also called the "nihilist":
1. There is no truth / reality.
2. Even if there were truth / reality, it could not be known.
3. Even if truth / reality could be known, it could not be communicated.
Nietzsche's entire body of work is dancing around these three propositions. His conclusion is that since there is no truth, no real knowledge of truth, and no real communication of truth, all human interaction is really just a matter of pure Will, without Intellect. The Will is prior to the Intellect and fully determines it. You can see this German inversion of philosophy in Goethe's Faust (although this inversion really and fully began with Luther, who put his own Will as the sole authority):
(He opens a tome [of the New Testament] and begins.)
It says: ‘In the beginning was the Word [Wort].’
Already I am stopped. It seems absurd.
The Word does not deserve the highest prize, I must translate it otherwise
If I am well inspired and not blind.
It says: In the beginning was the Mind [Sinn].
Ponder that first line, wait and see,
Lest you should write too hastily.
Is mind the all-creating source?
It ought to say: In the beginning there was Force [Kraft].
Yet something warns me as I grasp the pen,
That my translation must be changed again.
The spirit helps me. Now it is exact.
I write: In the beginning was the Act [Tat].
>>7794743
>From all this load of sorrow, he would say, a way of salvation must be found, and salvation can only come through love.
I thought Buddha said that salvation comes from detachment, and that love or attachment is the first mistake.
>>7794737
>Yes, and when the dictatorship of the proletariat is achieved, the social classes and the state will wither away.
In the actual case that that happened, why wouldn't (or couldn't) it? The world doesn’t have to follow Marxist theory to a T, but it's neither stupid nor impractically utopic. The indefinite continuation of capitalism is frankly a more ridiculous idea.
>>7794797
>2016
>Unironically being a Marxist
>The indefinite continuation of capitalism is frankly a more ridiculous idea.
Not really. Indefinite growth is increasingly feasible in economies and markets that do not rely on finite physical resources. There are quite a few of them, nowadays.
>>7794761
After reading this I went and read Gorgias, but I can't see how it argues about the nature of "truth", only the nature of rhetoric itself and whether a tyrant/unjust rhetorician can be happy.
Can you clarify?
>>7789859
>his philosophy
>philosophy
lel
>>7789806
Yeah Aquinas like 700 years before
Neither Nietzsche, nor Schoppenhauer have ever been ``BTFO''. They were right about literally, literally everything.
>>7796337
>degrading Schopenhauer to the level of Nietzsche
>>7796354
subject and object mixed up there friendo, easy mistake, perchance are you from /r9k/?
>>7794543
He wasn't excessively misogynistic for his times and many of his close friends were women, he was raised by a single mother and considered his sister among his best friends until she cucked him with a nazi. Most of his comments about men were derogatory as well.
Schopenhauer was the /r9k/ philosopher who advocated quite literally treating women like animals.
>>7794761
Based fucking post 10/10
>>7794761
>Ultimately, all sophists, like Nietzsche, are reduced to 3 propositions, which were formulated by the ancient sophist Gorgias (mentioned above), who was also called the "nihilist":
You are misrepresenting Nietzsche as a nihilist, which he was not. While he did refute "objective truth" he very clearly left a path to a teleology in the Overman & Last Man concepts. Also, his philosophy is one of life affirmation. His critiques of morality, religion, state, etc. were because he saw them as life denying. Doesn't sound like a nihilist to me.
>>7796524
Nowhere does he claim that Nietzsche was a nihilist. He simply mentioned Gorgias was the first nihilist, which is relevant because, yes, Nietzsche was opposed to nihilism
>>7789806
It's indulgent. He's playing on people's angst while contributing nothing to society.
