/lit/ - Literature

>pro-war
>pro-slavery
>pro-aristocracy
>pro-eugenics
>anti-democracy
>anti-anarchy
>anti-socialism
>anti-feminism
>anti-religion
>anti-hermaphroditism
>rejected natural law
>rejected herd morality

How do leftists get away with calling him one of their own?

Record yourself reading something.
https://vocaroo.com/

What would Nietzsche think about the modern state of politics, art, music, etc? Would he would have anything good to say about how things have played out so far or have we completely failed him?

>>17101844
that's just how germans look

>>16867902
>realizes this and promptly rejects Plato in favor of his own will to power

>>14961369
This >>14961772

I don't know enough about Kant, but Nietzsche certainly did.

Will to power is not merely a hedonistic He-Man ideology like so often portrayed and misunderstood. There is a tragic element to Nietzsche's concept that is often ignored. His understanding of power came from personal experience, and he worked harder for it than most would be willing to endure.

First, he was not a philologist, professor, and philosopher by choice. His choice before that was to be a military man. He enlisted at a young age but didn't last because of his health. In other words, he didn't choose his profession simply because it was a comforting one, and a further testament to that is the fact that he nonetheless excelled at what he did: he became one of the youngest professors, one of the best philologists, and evidently one of the greatest philosophers in history. It was not his first choice, not his first passion, and yet he still dedicated his life to the work.

Second, there was hardly anything comforting about what he ended up doing. He was still sickly enough that sitting up for long periods of time to read and write was difficult for him at times; someone with his condition absolutely did not have to spend his life slaving over books and a typewriter to achieve what he did. There are many letters and second-hand accounts on how he lived, struggling to stay upright just for brief periods only to read and write as much as he possibly could in the small window of clarity that he had. It doesn't sound like the lifestyle of a hedonist because it wasn't one in any sense.

Third, the philosophy that he possessed and wrote about did not do him any favors at all. He didn't write to his own benefit. He made enemies with most of his colleagues with his first book that he published as a professor, The Birth of Tragedy. He made enemies with many journalists when he decided to partner with Richard Wagner and defend him against controversies. And, ultimately, he made enemies with his own friends and family, with Richard Wagner and his sister Elizabeth. He repeatedly made enemies because he was ceaselessly focused on his work and maintaining its integrity.

And as a consequence of all this, the philosophy itself has nothing to do with hedonism or comfort. In fact, it criticizes other philosophies for prioritizing comfort above all else. He called out almost every other philosopher before his time for trying to rearrange the inner workings of the world in order to better suit their desires, calling them magicians who cast illusions on the world so that they may rise to power in it, inventing new language as a means to place themselves above and minimize all resistance. Meanwhile, his philosophy is all about the opposite, at bottom: increase resistance at all times and battle directly with monsters as this is how power grows and what the source of life entails. All else is life-denying cowardice.

>>14819794
There's no difference. You've conned yourself, Heraclitus, despite your genius.

Imagine being an unconscious solipsistic retard like all monotheists are.

>>14243642
There's no cracks after you read Nietzsche. He even understood God and the Son of God better than Christians do.

>If I understand anything at all about this great symbolist, it is this: that he regarded only subjective realities as realities, as “truths”—that he saw everything else, everything natural, temporal, spatial and historical, merely as signs, as materials for parables. The concept of “the Son of God” does not connote a concrete person in history, an isolated and definite individual, but an “eternal” fact, a psychological symbol set free from the concept of time. The same thing is true, and in the highest sense, of the God of this typical symbolist, of the “kingdom of God,” and of the “sonship of God.” Nothing could be more un-Christian than the crude ecclesiastical notions of God as a person, of a “kingdom of God” that is to come, of a “kingdom of heaven” beyond, and of a “son of God” as the second person of the Trinity. All this—if I may be forgiven the phrase—is like thrusting one’s fist into the eye (and what an eye!) of the Gospels: a disrespect for symbols amounting to world-historical cynicism.... But it is nevertheless obvious enough what is meant by the symbols “Father” and “Son”—not, of course, to every one—: the word “Son” expresses entrance into the feeling that there is a general transformation of all things (beatitude), and “Father” expresses that feeling itself—the sensation of eternity and of perfection.—I am ashamed to remind you of what the church has made of this symbolism: has it not set an Amphitryon story at the threshold of the Christian “faith”? And a dogma of “immaculate conception” for good measure?... And thereby it has robbed conception of its immaculateness— The “kingdom of heaven” is a state of the heart—not something to come “beyond the world” or “after death.” The whole idea of natural death is absent from the Gospels: death is not a bridge, not a passing; it is absent because it belongs to a quite different, a merely apparent world, useful only as a symbol. The “hour of death” is not a Christian idea—“hours,” time, the physical life and its crises have no existence for the bearer of “glad tidings.”... The “kingdom of God” is not something that men wait for: it had no yesterday and no day after tomorrow, it is not going to come at a “millennium”—it is an experience of the heart, it is everywhere and it is nowhere....