/lit/ - Literature

>>16343599
I gotchu, homie

>>14683805

I can't understand:

What actions can I complete more efficiently with his teachings?
If I eliminate my "phantom", how will my thoughts and behaviors change?
What kinds of thoughts to replace the "phantom" with something better?

Is believing "I am the body" a bad thing? It seems true: I can see my body attached to my field of vision whenever I look at it, and I can see it from mirrors. I can trust neuroscientists, and my own experiences with breathing, drinking, pain, pleasure, etc, that if my body (including brain) changes, my consciousness changes: put the right chemicals into our bodies, and we'll lose consciousness and fall asleep and remember no experience until waking up after a predictable time. Chemicals alone can change personalities. Lose parts of our brains, and personalities change.

His self is also dependent on his body which includes his brain. Or does he not breathe etc?

He says there's 3 things: Pure Consciousness, I, Body. He says "I" is "Pure Consciousness" unified with "Body". Sounds like a useful word: sounds like "I" is true to what we are: unifications of our minds and bodies.

Why does he want to dissolve "I"? What is he left with, if only pure consciousness remains? Catatonic psychosis?

What is he trying to do with this?

Give me something good

Nietzsche distinguishes in a number of aphorisms between the Romantics and the Classicists. Are there any books or authors (besides Nietzsche) that explore this distinction in depth? I feel like Nietzsche is unfairly harsh to the Romantics and that his point of view is somewhat skewed.

>>13840794
>Philosophy isn't as easy as desultorily greentexting a few lines.

Man is something that shall be overcome. What have (You) done to overcome him?

>>13832203
Don't make me slap you
I'll slap you so hard

>It’s lonely at the top
- Zarathustra, probably

>>13771686
>they seem to think they can adopt multiple inconsistent ethical, epistemological even ontological systems at once, jumping from one to another at the slightest convenience
Just try and stop me, faggot

How do I start with him?

>>13715652
The Truth is in Power not the hairsplitting logic of lesser men

What is Nietzsche's self overcoming if not identical to the ascetic ideal he criticizes in GM?

Say someone practices self-overcoming by denying himself ice cream. Is this not simply self denial in the Christian sense? Perhaps the reason for the denial is the difference. Ascetics deny pleasure out of distaste. Those who deny pleasure to self-overcome do so in service of a higher cause, to ascend.

https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BS/k/54/Overcoming-Part-5-Self-Denial.htm
"Jesus calls upon His followers to reject the natural human inclination toward self. [...] Our own pleasures and happiness can no longer be primary goals."

I recognize that I may be conflating whatever he meant by self-overcoming with those ideas of modern day self-improvement communities. I also may misunderstand the critique of the ascetic ideal.

Are all political ideologies transvalued Christian morality? I think they can only exist in a civilization where the State itself has become an a priori concept (the nation state=God's kingdom)

If you were able to stomach everything repeating itself at least once in spite of the inherent horrors of existence, would you be able to stomach everything repeating itself eternally?
would there be a greater cost to things recurring eternally rather than once?
Could this be a reasonable way to determine the value of existence?

I've never read Nietzsche before. I didn't know he was an empiricist redditor

Which of his works is best to start with?

If you disagree with him, you're a slave. Plain and simple.