/lit/ - Literature

He was right.
There is no god, all morals are wrong and evil and man is only man when he gets to determine his own destiny.
He was right.

>"No one is responsible for his acts, no one for his nature; to judge is tantamount to being unjust. This applies as well when the individual judges himself. The proposition is as clear as sunlight, and yet here everyone prefers to go back to darkness and untruth: for fear of the consequences."
Paragraph 39, Human, All too Human

Just another fatalist pre-Kantian dogmatic metaphysician

>'to be in love with life' is a reproach, and one that the Greek would defend himself personally against, as the tragic dramatist avoids it for his heroic characters. 'Only a coward or a fool', says Sophocles, 'will cling to life in misfortune'. Servants and slaves are often accused of 'loving life', a low trait which distinguishes them from free man.

Well, Nietzscheans?

Remember to start making new gods anon.

>>18533830
>What do you think are the causes of the atheist society we live in ?
Christianity

>>18531891
>MUH MORALITY
Spotted the slave

>>18353035
Wrong

Count Frydryk Nietzky

So is there actually any good refutation to materialism?
And I mean actual refutation, not a religious text with baseless dogma. Give me legitimate books from real philosophers.

Why does everyone take him so seriously? He says interesting things, but why do so many intellectuals act like it their duty to embody his ideas?

I often wonder what Nietzsche would think about the modern world and especially modern America.

>>17201429
One need only observe the eye color of this known midwit to realize there's no wisdom to be found here.

is it possible to be a Nietzschean and a Catholic? the way I understand his philosophy is that the death of God means the destruction of the foundation of truth (at least in the moral sense) and that all other philosophies that were potential substitutes (Kantianism, utilitarianism, socialism etc.) were produced for weak people by weak people hence his answer to this dilemma is that the strength of the foundations should be measured by the strength of the people who make it up and therefore we have to strive to "breed" a race of Overmen. however when I look around myself I notice that nowadays people who are spiritual (not necessarily in the Christian sense) tend to be stronger, more robust physically, more domineering and generally give off a more Ubermenschy vibe than people who are atheists who tend to be mindless consoomers of entertainment, deprived of will to power, submissive, boring and generally unimpressive. Is it possible that Nietzsche made a mistake in declaring Christianity a slave morality on par with socialism, positivism, Platonism, Kantianism and so forth?

did I interpret this fragment of Nietzsche's Wanderer and His Shadow correctly, bros?
>62.
>The Advocate of the Devil.—“Only by our own suffering do we become wise, only by others' suffering do we become good”—so runs that strange philosophy which derives all morality from pity and all intellectuality from the isolation of the individual. Herein this philosophy is the unconscious pleader for all human deterioration. For pity needs suffering, and isolation contempt of others.
my understanding of it is that utilitarianism (with which Neecha obviously had major problems) posits the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people as its goal however since happiness is admittedly an inmeasurable quantity utilitarians end up advocating an ethics of pity based on compassion for others and their suffering but since suffering and pain are internal states it follows that the more success utilitarianism has with eliminating pain the less we'll be able to empathize with people who experience pain and suffering. I admit that I'm just beginning with Nietzsche but from what I've gathered already my interpretation seems to be consistent with the spirit of his philosophy. how would you guys and gals interpret this?

>Bad eyesight disqualified him from active soldiering, and he had to be content with nursing; and though he saw horrors enough, he never knew the actual brutality of those battle-fields which his timid soul was later to idealize with all the imaginative intensity of inexperience. Even for nursing he was too sensitively delicate; the sight of blood made him ill; he fell sick, and was sent home in ruins. Even afterward he had the nerves of a Shelley and the stomach of a Carlyle; the soul of a girl under the armor of a warrior. - William Durant
Uh Neetchbros

Why do so many people here want to try and discredit ma boy Niche?

but the highest values devalue themselves....christianity leas to it's own demise from it's very origins...i tried to warn you bro...

How does one become the ubermensch. How does one know when they have become the ubermensch??

>"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood."

What did he mean by this?

>>14153383
*retroactively BTFO’s Socrates and Plato*

>>13625123
"Besides, we are friends of the lento, I and my book."

>Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life.

So this is why you incels have turned to Christianity. You're disgusted with life.

>It is always as it was between Achilles and Homer: one person has the experience, the sensation, the other describes it. A real writer only gives words to the affects and experiences of others; he is an artist in divining a great deal from the little that he has felt. Artist are by no means people of great passion, but they frequently present themselves as such, unconsciously sensing that others give greater credence to the passions they portray if the artist's own life testifies to his experience in this area. We need only let ourselves go, not control ourselves, give free play to our wrath or our desire, and the whole world immediately cries: how passionate he is! But there really is something significant in a deeply gnawing passion that consumes and often swallows up an individual: whoever experiences this surely does not describe it in dramas, music, or novels. Artists are frequently unbridled individuals, insofar, that is, as they are not artists: but that is something different.

Agreed, disagree?