/lit/ - Literature

>>11584344
>God is Real, and he wants Human to remain human, the nano-second you try to climb his Throne he will fuck up, no mercy guaranteed.

Someone didn't read his medievals.

>>10331720
Society should exist to maintain the majority, and permit the highest achievers to excel. To some extent, permitting the great to grow in power would benefit the majority. Let the genius live so that masses might have great art, great innovations, and a great city. This is the difference between the philosopher-king and mere tyranny.

From Wikipedia's 'Thrasybulus of Miletus':
>Thrasybulus was an ally of Periander, the tyrant of Corinth. He features in a famous anecdote from Herodotus's Histories, in which a messenger from Periander asks Thrasybulus for advice on ruling. Thrasybulus, instead of responding, takes the messenger for a walk in a field of wheat, where he proceeds to cut off all of the best and tallest ears of wheat. The message, correctly interpreted by Periander, was that a wise ruler would preempt challenges to his rule by "removing" those prominent men who might be powerful enough to challenge him; this story gave the name to Tall poppy syndrome.

The philosopher-king would not worry about tall grains of wheat, as he himself is one, and, if one should be taller, than the philosopher-king would be wise enough to abdicate to the wiser.

>I think Nietzsche believes it should be a constant state of revolution, so a chaotic system should replace an ordered on endlessly.

I think this is an incorrect interpretation of Nietzsche, as Nietzsche embraced the Dionysian so that the tyranny of Apollo could end. I believe he thought both forces should be balanced, but to be balanced he had to become Dionysos himself! So revolution wouldn't necessarily be the right term, for it is not pic related, but rather a scale which totters.

A great example of this is his comments in the Genealogy of Morals wherein he does not want us to undo the morality flip of Bad-Good to Good-Evil, but rather he wants to go beyond it. So despite his comments in GoM about the Jews possessing 'ressentiment', in Beyond Good and Evil he praises them as making history more interesting and that the intellectual state of Europe would be that much the poorer. He seeks not to undo, but push forward. His philosophizing with the hammer breaks the idols, but does not allow us to forget them. That's the issue with post-modernism as we smash with the hammer, expunge our memories, and let the pieces lie. I think Nietzsche would want us to smash the idols, clear the ground, recognize this ground was holy, and build new temples to new gods - precisely as the Christians converted the Pagan temples to Churches, or Enlightenment France did to Notre Dame.