/lit/ - Literature

(You)

if i value denying life, would that technically make me life affirming?

>>11113705
let's not forget that the whole of his philosophy is L I T E R A L L Y just
>b yourself :^)
I have no idea how someone so shallow can be regarded as a major philosopher

>>11113763
He just seems shallow in comparison to the gnostic pretensions of other philosophers.

>>11113705
reminder nitch was a virgin

>>11113763
philosophers are as profound as you are. you sound like a pseud. amor fati isn't just b yourself :^), you soft or what?

>>11113705
I feel like the most common thing written about Nietzsche is that some other person or group of people has misread Nietzsche. Has anyone properly read Nietzsche?

>>11113935
>philosophers are as profound as you are
literally stoner undergrad-tier comment

>you sound like a pseud. amor fati isn't just b yourself :^)
who the fuck is talking about amor fati you goddamn idiot?
Nietzsche's whole shtick was 'values are not given or derived from anything external, but created by Man himself' and it was therefore necessary that each individual find his own set of laws by which he could conduct himself in an affirming, vitalistic manner. The subjectivity of all values, each man having a set of laws that pertain to himself alone and himself along being the sole lawmaker, is nothing but 'be yourself'
It has nothing to do with "amor fati" and has everything to do with Nietzsche lightweight, insubstantial cop-out epistemological driveling

>>11113705
This post is life denying. I bet you are a depressed life denying faggot irl. Have fun living your shitty life over and over for all eternity.

>>11113982
It’s not “be yourself” it’s “become yourself.” Look at what N subtitled Ecce Homo. Philosophy has been driven by the Delphic dictum “Know thyself” since before Plato you absolute pseud

>>11113917
He whored, so no.

>>11113959
He's just too fucking vague.

>>11113982
you seriously underestimate the role of the negative in nietzsche's philosophy. the value creator is himself as long as he says no to himself, his no is his yes. but what's a pseud like you know about it?

>>11114040
>>11114074

>>11114103

>>11113959
Nietzsche truly split the history of philosophy into two. There is a before him, and an after him. No one before had fully espoused "evil", let alone elevated it above "good": not even the daoist sages, not even Heraclitus. But that is only part of it. The other part is that, though he was very good at presenting complex ideas simply, his most valuable ideas were nevertheless terrifically complex. Witness Alain Badiou telling us that doctors create a disease by naming it, then being chased off stage by doctors laughing at his pathetic attempts to explain what that means. The idea is correct, but you have to be a fucking genius to understand it, much less explain it to people, especially to doctors, who will roast your ass over hot coals, as they should, if you are not a complete and total master of the idea. These are such complex conceptions that non-geniuses simply have no hope with them. At best, they grasp one part here, a corollary there, some application to their daily life; but the essence of the idea, and its relationship to all others, remains forever beyond them. Deleuze, Artaud, Bataille: they each grasped some things, and Baudrillard by far the most. The mess of gibberish produced on the continent is the result of their sometimes sincere, sometimes dishonest grasping with these terrifically complex conceptions that Nietzsche bequeathed us, just as the simplistic stupidities of the "analytic" morons is how they dealt with the same stuff. No one would propose that Rorty or Dewey invented their best stuff: it's got N's mark all over it, and they copied it straight off him (and in the instances where they denied him credit, they plagiarized...) Or Adorno and Horkheimer. Or Heidegger. One after another, failed attempts at understanding what N had said. And the HIGHEST ideas of his of all have not even been TOUCHED on. I have yet to read of anyone even MENTIONING his invention of the central ideas of quantum mechanics, decades before the quantum mechanists ran up against them in the lab. Or the Big Bang-Big Crunch cycle decades before the astronomers dreamt it up. I am literally the first person to find these ideas and the beginnings of such ideas in Nietzsche, while everyone else had trouble parsing such simple statements as "men aren't equal". Deleuze was still trying to "deconstruct" that lol (read: convince us that he meant the opposite lol). All this is simply what happens when genius texts fall into the hands of merely above-average intelligences, and the fact that two entire massive traditions — the "analytic", and the "postmodern" — flowed directly from him, is merely a symptom of how vast the power of his intellect was, and therefore, naturally enough, how vast his influence, for better or worse (and in the case of the "analytics" and the "postmoderns", clearly for the worse).

>>11113705
i took her to my penthouse and i freaked it

>>11114128
>it's icycalm
I fucking knew it that last parenthesis is so obvious.

>>11113959
I've properly read GoM and it is hard work, but he is probably the most innovative philosopher i've read.

>I dislike everything that is life denying

What if I support dead plants? Dead plants are really good for living plants. Am I life denying or life affirming?

>>11113705
This is just me saying this, but I wager the depth of this guy's thoughts are more than your meme arrow attempt to make him irrelevant.

I'd bet my life.