/lit/ - Literature

>>15976018

Pope's translation isn't very good

Poetry doesn't need to rhyme. Pope both degrades and butchers Homer.

Robert Fitzgerald has a better translation

Before anyone starts hurling insults about "wine-dark", you should know that the Greeks saw different colors than we do today.

>>15956924

No, just like there isn't any worthwhile literature written in the modern era, besides a couple Cormac McCarthy novels being halfway decent

Do not mourn OP, it's just like how no one is composing operas and string quarterts in modern times either.

However, we need to cherish these great minds so that they can help guide us through the muck of modernity.

was he right in "The Genealogy of Morals"? if you think about it, there's no real reason why you'd feel humiliated and defeated after f.e. loosing a debate if it weren't for the process of development of morality from the debtor-creditor relation. still, there's something missing, he's obviously trying to be scientific with the etymological analysis but that didn't strike me as too persuasive

what did I lose if Nietzsche was my first exposure to philosophy? is it possible to make up for the foundations and context I did not have?

>>15589736
I'd say Nietzsche, but let's be honest here - I was born to an upper middle class family, teachers and lecturers have catered to me since I was 6 years old, although I didn't experience any romance or sex like my peers did I was genuinely satisfied with the way my life was progressing. I want to finish my university studies and pursue a PhD in my subject. When it comes to attractiveness I'd say I'm perfectly average, but if I don't get any poon in my life that's perfectly okay with me. I am obviously less attractive than Cavil but I'm much smarter than him and that's fine, everyone has his strengths and weaknesses. The problem is people like me make up 2, maybe 3 percent of males in contemporary society. To the vast majority of males having a gf and eventually marrying her is the number 1 priority in life, all other endeavours are lower on the list of priorities and that's not surprising - I couldn't imagine being fulfilled in a job like a security guard, college teacher, shopping clerk etc. which nonetheless have to be done and men who do those jobs want to have a fulfilling life. So I am aware of the fact that the road I went is pretty much closed for a vast majority of males in our society. Those people will find no fulfillment in their romantic lives as well as in their professional lives. Nietzsche was aware of this, he emphasized that only a small fraction of the population may ascend to the levels of the Ubermensch. But where does that leave the unattractive rest of the society? I think we're entering some very interesting times and the transvaluation of values (not in the Nietzschean sense) will have to take place in sexual politics. (sorry if my post is unintelligible, I'm ESL and a little drunk atm)

>>15587617
nothing wrong with that, but please be sure to supplement that with philosophers who've inspired both of them
>>15587416
this is a good list but by no means exhaustive. to understand Nietzsche you need a degree of familiarity with 19th century evolutionary biology. read Darwin, Herbert Spencer and Ernst Haeckel. Nietzsche destroys Darwin in "Twilight of the Idols" and Spencer in "Genealogy of Morality". read the sellected writings of Nietzsche's close friend Paul Ree. Schopenhauer is good but doesn't really give you the full taste of decadent late 19th century pessimism that disgusted Nietzsche so much, add to this Philipp Mainlaender and Eduard Hartmann. read the Cambridge Companion to Fin de Siecle, get a proper understanding of the predicament of the period Nietzsche was reacting to. read John Stuart Mill and Auguste Comte - they were both cringe bugmen and Nietzsche correctly assessed that their philosophy was peak last man and not Ubermensch. read Stirner, R.W. Emerson and Thomas Carlyle all of whom were sort of proto-Nietzscheans

>>15579724
yes

how do we restore the idea of Progress and solve the death of God, bros?

>>15533967
lmao your "high IQ" philosophy for pseuds was refuted by Nietzsche

>>15505647
holy fuck, it's official, /lit/ in 2020 consists mostly of fucking wikipedia readers.
I'm posting this from work so I won't be able to provide any quotes but plainly put most participants of the riots are spiritually nihilists and the riots are inherently nihilistic in their nature, Nietzsche would fucking destroy the rioters for being pathetic examples of the destructiveness of last man (progressivism, socialism and anarchism with the exception of individualist anarchism are ideologies of the last man). rioters share all to many bad characteristics with Raskolnikov
>unsure of the validity of their goals and ideologies which is why they need to provoke retaliatory action to entrench in them the certainty that their actions are justified
>because of aformentioned uncertainty they feel the compulsive need to compare themselves to great men of history ("muh Boston tea party was also violent"), see Raskolnikov's sperg article about Newton, Kepler and Napoleon
>they represent pure negation which destroys the old but brings nothing new to the table
of course the entire project of the Ubermensch was supposed to safeguard mankind from nihilists like Raskolnikov which is why the rioters have nothing to do with Nietzsche

this is our bad boy Nicki's music, say something nice about it (keep in mind he was 19 when he composed it and he was not a musician by training)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2afrV4f-9EI

>>15328867
>I want to abolish power.
refuted by Nietzsche

how do right "libertarians" cope with the fact that this bad boy and his homie Stirner refuted their entire ideology to shreds? I often see libertarians complaining about intellectual property and tariffs but what institution of "an"cap society would stop a landed proprietor from imposing a toll (basically equivalent to a tariff) on whomever wishes to transport commodities over the "border" of his property, what would stop the inventor from hiring a defence corporation to forcefully keep others from utilizing his invention thereby restoring good ol' intellectual property rights? the only possible answer is that there isn't any such institution which further begs the question - how is an "an"cap society different from what we have now except for the slightly different distribution of power? the mental gymnastics some of them engage in to reconcile economic efficiency with private property are truly hilarious, it's like some of them even realise that at times efficiency requires us to infringe upon sacred property rights but still neglect that obvious contradiction at heart of their retarded ideology

>>15298579
To the uninitiated listener it will seem like she has answered the moral questions about abortion forever and anyone who attempts to disagree with her is a religious fundamentalist and a fossilized relic of history, someone who will not accept reasoning and arguments. Of course anyone who is even superficially acquainted with academia will know that this solves nothing, that her work probably received both enthusiastic acclaim as well as thoughtful criticism so the issue is far from being closed. This has been the continuous trend in moral philosophy for 2500 years and Nietzsche already refuted any attempts at """rationa""" moral philosophy. If you feel like you disagree with her on the issue of abortion (either because of religion or moral intuition) but can't really point to any flaws in her argumentationthen worry not - reason is just a post-Enlightenment manifestation of the Will to Power but we've been tricked into thinking that it's somehow more "civilized" and less "barbaric" than raw force and it is this stealthiness that makes it even more disgusting than raw force. Fundamentally there isn't any difference between being physically attacked and being disagreed with so feel free to kill her and facefuck her dead body, Nietzsche advocated doing just that with Socrates but unfortunately Socrates' ideas survived his corporal life.

how do we solve the death of God problem without resurrecting God in another form (political ideology, hedonistic lifestyle etc.) in the process?

*predicts both World Wars*
*predicts state socialism*
*predicts the postmodern condition*
*predicts consumerism and postmodern revival of decadence*

refute him (no tradLARPing and christcucking allowed)

did he really solve moral philosophy or was his entire oeuvre just one big cope for being unable to find objective moral framework so he just concluded
>dude morality is relative lmao
and retarded existentialists thought that he was a genius for evading a complex problem by sweeping it under a rug?