/lit/ - Literature

big simp energy

How do you all deal with the problem of knowledge? I don't know if nihilism is the word, because I can know this table is in front of me, but higher philosophy seems endless. You read one guy and then another guy and they disagree. Then there's the specialization problem where the level of academic philosophy seems too technical for a regular person to tangle with.

Every intellectual subject has massive specialization, so it seems impossible to synthesize different disciplines into each other. Then there's numerous interpretations of past thinkers.

Makes me want to be an epistemological constructivist, but it seems like a cop out. Not everything can be true based on perspective right.

Is the only answer a nietzchean dance with life?

How do you all deal with this problem? Or maybe I'm just discovering my midwit status.

Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: "master morality" and "slave morality". Master morality values pride and power, while slave morality values kindness, empathy, and sympathy.
Sl𝘢ve mor𝘢lity is the inverse of m𝘢ster mor𝘢lity. 𝘈s such, it is ch𝘢r𝘢cterized by pessimism 𝘢nd cynicism.
How is it so? How could cynicism and pessimism possibly be negative attributes? They are useful in teaching us to be careful when navigating the world, don't they?
If Nietzsche considered the world as being inherently tied with suffering, don't the above attributes help us in lessening suffering?

>adopts a meat based diet because Wagner is a vegetarian
What are some other kek worthy stuff like this from other /Lit/ people

Am I the only one who thinks he´s extremely Hegelian?

How do I become the ubermench?

Nietzsche's best books are Human, All Too Human and The Gay Science

>just be confident, bro

I think it's good to be skeptical about every philosopher's political connections and repercussions. Aristotle thought women and slaves lacked practical reason, Kant was obsessed with giving new ground to theories of race in spite of their having lost early empirical claims to scientific status, Hegel argued that all of Africa was "somnambulent" and that Asia represented an earlier and inferior historical form than Europe. Althusser said demeaning things about the family and murdered his wife. Singer's groundbreaking work on Animal Ethics put intellectually disabled human beings on a level with non-human animals and he's since argued that it might be impossible to rape someone who's (supposedly) too intellectually disabled to understand consent. I'm not giving these examples to say that stupid and mistaken political ideas shouldn't impact how we read a philosopher. I'm saying that we should read every major contributor to the history of philosophy with eyes wide open to their good and their bad ideas. As Nietzsche noticed, philosophers rise to fame thanks to both their good and their bad ideas. Suzuki, along with the Kyoto School and some Japanese feminist philosophers, had some bad ideas. They were also some of the first Buddhists to become thoroughly educated in the history of European philosophy, and many of its substantial oversights, so I think what they had to say matters. How would any of you suggest sorting out Suzuki's good ideas from his bad ones?

This guy just feels like a poet repeating what Maquiavelo and Spinoza said once you've read them

What’s the best way to read nietzsche?

>The Gay Science
>Ecce Homo

He had a heart as cold as ice.

Daily reminder that Nietzsche identified as a Polish Catholic trapped inside a German atheist's body.

Alright /lit/. We settle this here and now. Which is more cancerous?
>Neechfags
>Nietzsche hate
I think they're both retarded, and should just leave this beyond good little Polish boy alone.

Why should you get into traditionalism when you have pic related?
Who wants to be a priest when you can fuck bitches as a God on Earth?

*makes tradcath larpers seethe uncontrollably*

What’s so great about this cunt?

This is an experimental general because there are too many threads about Nietzsche on this board.

>>17495853
>There is but one answer to the woman question: pregnancy.

Did he adhere to slave or master morality?

What is the relationship between the Higher men/Übermensch, and the herd man, in Nietzsche's philosophy?

Are the higher men meant to be the rulers of the herd? Nietzsche does talk about how religion can be a useful tool for managing the herd in the hands of higher men, maybe Nietzsche sees it as in the best interests of humanity for the higher men to become the rulers. There is a paragraph in On The Future of Our Educational Institutions that suggests this hierarchical yet symbiotic relationship, along the lines of 'only a few are truly able to attain culture, yet the majority who don't are still indespensible as enablers of this few (I can post the actual quote tomorrow if anyone wants it).

Alternatively the dichotomy between the Ubermensch and the Last Man suggests entirely separate paths rather than a symbiotic relationship. In other words it seems like Nietzsche is willing to throw the herd under the bus for the benefit of higher men, his talk of sacrifice and some quotes from BGE disparaging the worth of the lives of the majority seem to suggest this.

See also this quote ”The higher nature of the great man lies in being different, in incommunicability, in distance of rank, not in an effect of any kind - even if he made the whole globe tremble," I think clearly crude domination isn't enough to qualify as one of the higher men. Though I'm not sure if he rejects dominating others altogether, there's a particular quote in Beyond Good and Evil where he contrasts religions which are used as tools by the higher types to deal with the masses, and religions which actually believe in themselves (which he sees as a bad thing). I can find the quote if you'd like.

What would he say about trannies?

>Vanity.- Vanity is the fear of appearing original: it is thus a lack of pride, but not necessarily a lack of originality.

>Self-enjoyment in vanity.- The vain man wants not so much to predominate as to feel himself predominant; that is why he disdains no means of self-deception and self-outwitting. What he treasures is not the opinion of others but his own opinion of their opinion.

>Vanity enriches.- How poor the human spirit would be without vanity! But for this reason it resembles a well-stocked and continually restocked department store that entices customers of every kind: they can find almost anything, have almost anything, provided they bring with them the valid coin (admiration).

>Skin of the soul.- Just as the bones, flesh, intestines and blood vessels are enclosed in a skin that makes the sight of man endurable, so the agitations and passions of the soul are enveloped in vanity: it is the skin of the soul.

>To him who denies his vanity.- He who denies he possesses vanity usually possesses it in so brutal a form he instinctively shuts his eyes to it so as not to be obliged to despise himself.

What do you think of his takes on vanity /lit/?