/lit/ - Literature

>>17813860
>If you read or support Neetcha you are from redditt
>everything you post confirms my bias

>>10327699
>implying someone else knows how to live my life better than I do

>>10145369
>what people take as me or mine is already a fantasy, there is no denying what does not exist outside your little imagination.
Bullshit. Existence exists. Reality is not a fantasy but real and in front of you. If everything is simply a fantasy, then I guess you wouldn't mind if I take all your property and, maybe if I feel like it, your life, because being one with the universe means that you're not yourself. This is inherently what I mean whenever I say that Buddhism is inherently nihilistic. By not having a sense of self, by denying existence, all that is left is nothing and nihilism. Yet too many people say that it's just similar to stoicism; controlling your emotions, not entirely suppressing and removing them. But past the rhetoric, you see that it's actually what is being preached.

>Also, using a picture of N here is retarded.
He shares my views on Buddhism. And I'll post whatever I damn well please. Maybe you should just act zen and control your desires by not caring at all.

>>9383814

>Rousseau

Last Man par excellence.

>This entire thread

Einstein got it right:

>It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.

Or for the retarded among us:

>Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

There are some ideas so grand/complex/etc that they can only be made so simple without losing something. Over the years, however, some have come to believe that if something can't be made so simple that even the dumbest single/double-digit retard can comprehend it, then obscurantism/etc is at play.

>>9262582
>everybody I dont like is ugly!
heh, nice try kid

>>9206765
>>9207305
Wanting to focus by learning how to focus is for degenerates who've never tried doing anything worthwhile in their lives, or for disadvantaged kids who grow up in an environment that doesn't offer physics classes or snowboarding. If you haven't already learned how to "focus" by the time you hit 18 (and indeed, be a master of it) you never will, no matter how many self-help books you read. All the "success stories" are below mediocre people. Neurotics, depressed men, drug addicts, for whom so much as holding a job is an achievement, etc. Utter losers. In whose cases the books are INDEED helpful — I am not knocking the positive steps these people have made in their lives or anything — good for them, but their titles are misleading. They'd have to be "How to be Moderately Successful if you are a Complete Loser", not how to be successful full stop.

tl;dr self-help books are for losers and I'd rather spend all day masturbating (i.e. doing the opposite of what they teach) — WHICH I HAVE DONE SEVERAL TIMES IN MY LIFE, BY THE WAY — than read them. If you want to improve yourself, enroll in a tough college degree and learn a real sport. All the rest are for losers.

Start a bioengineering degree, and don't worry: "determination", "focus", "self-possession", etc. will come — or you will fail.

If you can't get through an advanced degree, then you already know you are a failure. It is the minimum requirement to be a human. And the same goes for a proper sport (i.e. not ping pong or cricket). Hopefully both. If you can't do both you are half human. If you can do neither you are subhuman. (Though there are plenty of subhumans who can do both — all the more reason to realize that these achievements are merely the absolute minimum to be considered a human, never mind a "success").

How did I learn to focus? I went to school! Any given school system in a Western country throws so much stuff at you, that like it or not you HAVE to learn to persevere, to study, to focus, to plan, etc. etc. in order to succeed. These books are for middle-aged losers, drop-outs, depressed loners, etc. If they help them, fine, but as far REAL success is concerned (as opposed to merely not being depressed and miserable), if you need to read a manual about that in your 20s, never mind your 30s or 40s, there's not the slightest chance that you will ever "succeed" in anything going by the common definition of the word.

>This entire thread

>>9141961

>He confuses strength/power for greatness/nobility/etc

You're precisely the sort of retard Nietzsche was calling out in his Untimely Meditations.

Specifically, those who believed German culture was superior to that of France because the former had defeated the latter militarily.

Similarly, the Greeks were superior to the Romans, despite having been brought down by them militarily.

>“Aphoristic thinking is impatient thinking.”

>>9078570

>Studying philosophy after Nietzsche

Never gonna make it.

>>8986489

>It's another episode of 'Nietzsche secretly wasn't all that opposed to Socialism/Communism/etc and therefore capable of being utilized by we ressentiment-ridden Leftists'

>>8947214

>English philosophers
>English political theorists
>English thinkers

>>8903779

>"some individuals are certainly worth more than others", even though that opinion only comes from people who are severely fucking rustled.

Projection.

The idea that "some individuals couldn't possibly be worth more than others" comes from those who are themselves worthless.

>>8881396
>Each is free to pursue his own interests which often work to meet the needs of the commune.
>to meet the needs of the commune

That is collectivism dribble. Nowhere is this found in her books. Stop talking falsehoods. Repeating your own words does not make it true. The one true rule of their hidden society is that they are not allowed to 'give' to others. Work for your own self interest, not for society itself or the commune. The beneficiary of helping yourself, which helps your tribe in turn, is not collectivism. This is a failing on your end, not Ayn Rand.

Anyways, I am not here to defend Ayn Rand nor do I have any interest in defending her book or characters. You have misinterpreted her and are purposefully spreading misinformation.

If you have nothing to say, then don't say anything at all.

>>8881405
Does it matter? Of course it does. It helps you categorize the world and myself easier. I am neither a pro nor an anti Stirner. I merely see merit and failings of his philosophy and ideology. However, as I have stated, those who value Stirner fail to understand that a spook is a spook in of itself and a core failing of his philosophy.

If you have a rebuttal to what I have said, I will gladly hear it.

>>8871487

>Pretension

OR

>The democratisation of literature

I'll take pretension, thanks.

What this person is railing against is not so much pretentiousness as the mere existence of a hierarchy within literature. Should we draw a parallel with a ladder, the author is one of those who would fail to reach its highest rungs. Rather than aspiring to do so, they do away with the ladder.

Those who cannot climb, can only writhe in the muck.

>>8858798
>Not living in a respectful rivalry with Nietzsche, him being the ultimate Dionysian and yourself trying to become the ultimate Apollinian
pleb

>>8837558
No, it proves that you have absolutely no sense of aesthetics

>>8828526

>a lot of people don't know it because it's not true

“Where the state ends—look there, my brothers! Do you not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the overman?”

“I, the state, am the people!’ That is a lie!”

“Where there is still a people, it does not understand the state and hates it...”

“The history of the state is the history of the egoism of the masses and of the blind desire to exist.”

“All-too-many are born: for the superfluous the state was invented.”

“Culture and the state—one should not deceive oneself about this—are antagonists... All great ages of culture are ages of political decline: what is great culturally has always been unpolitical, even anti-political.”

>>8804034
>Don't ask whether X is true, instead assume X to be true and ask why it is.
>Everyone falls for it and accepts X as true.

>value

>I want to do it about Nietzsche since he's not too hard

Try not reading him upside down.

>>8708196

>Political philosophers like Rousseau and Montesquieu contributed greatly to the development of modern western civilization

Is that supposed to be an argument in favour of them?

Literal Last Men par excellence.

>>8694857

>Strawmanning this hard

Reread Hume.