/lit/ - Literature

Refuted? You mean disparaged. Refutation is something different

>>15670655
With will to power there is little to no difference.

>>15670655
Cope

>>15670661
>change the definition of refutation
>look, i refuted them!
Bravo, Nietzche!

I really like his writings but how has he _refuted_ them?

>>15670644

>>15670685
No definition was changed.

>>15670661
Yes there is. Will to power refutation is crushing and enslaving them, not simply denigrating them, or else they refute anyone they denigrate.

>>15670644
Resentiment causes stupidity.

>>15670697
Disparaging is the process of crushing and enslaving when discussing philosophy.

>>15670695
If something is refuted, it is refuted within a logical order. If in the will-to-power, you say, nope, fuck logic, it's refuted because I say it's refuted - this is a clear and distinct change. It's worthless to dispute with Nietzschean twits because if you think assertion is the same as argumentation obviously you're simply incapable of admitting what you've just said is incredibly stupid.

>i'm right because i say i'm right!
philosophy for stupid teenagers

>>15670727
>If something is refuted, it is refuted within a logical order.
That's right. Nietzsche refuted Christians, socialists, and anarchists.

>>15670714
Cope

>>15670760
What am I coping over? Being right?

>>15670734
No, because, as I have just explained, you fuckwit, refutation must mean refutation within a logical order, and Nietzsche disregards logic. It is not legitimate to say he refuted these three things because he denied the validity of logical and moral frameworks, the thing by which you would arrive at affirmation or refutation. You claimed that there has been no definition change for refutation to take this meaning, and this is an inconsistency, but, per will-to-power, you're too much of a blockhead to register your own blockheadedness. Nietzsche does make some good contributions to thought, but his philosopher is astoundingly popular with idiots who simply can't admit when they are wrong because it lends itself to that very easily.

>>15670764
Coping over your inability to realize your power so pretending derogatory remarks is potency

>>15670784
>defining a word with itself while complaining about the disregard for logic
Your post proves your opponent correct.

>>15670807
I said refutation must mean refutation within a logical order to distinguish the meaning given of refutation in this fucktarded sense where it simply means to say something is wrong without any framework. I appreciate your attempt to join the discussion but you don't have any worthwhile to say.

>>15670685
What determines your rank order is the quantum of power you are... all else is COWARDICE

>>15670644
>Is it ressentiment, or just stupidity? Books that explain this phenomenon?
Philosophy is not a dogmatic subject akin to religion, where if you subscribe to the system of a certain philosopher, you must agree with them on all their conclusions or be a heretic. All these groups may have found something valuable in the Nietzschean interpretation, even if they didn't agree with his views on certain subjects. It's really that simple, but of course you only made this thread because you have no actual substantive critiques of Nietzschean Christianity/Socialism/Anarchism.

>refuted nationalists
>nazis co-opt him all the time

>>15670644
>fedora flip

>>15670644
Nietzsche wouldn't ever use drugs, anon. They are akin to Christianity.

Nietzsche wasn't in the business of proving anything wrong.

He was only concerned with a critique of the values which each philosophy posited. Critiquing the values that they uphold has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. That is why Nietzsche failed while Schopenhauer did not. Of course Buddhism, Stoicism, Christianity is pessimistic. That's because that's the way the world is. Nothing lasts.

>>15670784
>Nietzsche disregards logic
He only disregards the false pretense of universality applied to it. He doesn't disregard logic in his arguments. His arguments are refutations.

>>15670644
don't forget anti-Semites

>>15670893
he used to go to chemists with prescriptions he'd written himself and signed "dr. nietzsche"

>>15670917
>Nietzsche wasn't in the business of proving anything wrong. He was only concerned with a critique of the values which each philosophy posited.
There's no difference at the level of abstraction he was operating off of. Yes, he was concerned chiefly with values, or "power," and under his framework, all philosophies are "true" within the perspectives that bear them, but not all perspectives are equally true, because not all perspectives are equal in power. The ubermensch is an internally far greater individual and thus possesses a perspective that is far "truer" than those of the humans and he was working to grow that individual. So, I disagree that he "wasn't in the business of proving anything wrong."

>>15670917
>Critiquing the values that they uphold has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. That is why Nietzsche failed while Schopenhauer did not.
Nigga, most of Nietzsche's project is questioning the value of truth.

>>15671479
You are close, but Nietzsche didn't find an equivalence between value/power and truth. In fact, he said the complete opposite: "power makes stupid".

>>15671479
>but not all perspectives are equally true
This is wrong, too. All perspectives are equally true (since their are no degrees of truth), it's just some perspectives are larger than others. THAT'S how they aren't equal.

>>15671368
Hmmm I wonder why OP conveniently forgot racists, fascists and traditionalists?

>>15670869
>but of course you only made this thread because you have no actual substantive critiques of Nietzschean Christianity/Socialism/Anarchism
No, of course he has substantive critiques because such critiques are imminent in Nietzsche's own philosophy, which is why he is asking the question why the others ignore that part which would destroy their pathetic cobbled-together pseudophilosophy.

>>15670727
>If something is refuted, it is refuted within a logical order.
Yes, it is refuted in a logical order. It is refuted in Nietzsche's logical order. What Nietzsche is arguing against when he argues against logic is people who believe their interpretation of a situation is the only one possible, people who transcendentalize their own interpretations into "god" or into the "thing-in-itself" etc. etc.

>>15670838
rank order and refutation have nothing to do with one another.

Hilarious. Every Nietzsche thread is rank with morons and idiots who would probably describe themselves "Nietzschean" even though they can't even grasp the largest and most obvious parts of his system, like perspectivism. Good luck understanding the will to power if you can't even understand perspectivism, nevermind his genius psychological connections between historical personalities, or the connection between amor fati, eternal recurrence, and the overman.

It's a lot like how there are so many capitalist societies co-opt socialist policy. They don't ascribe to the core belief, but they can re-purpose ideas from it for their own use. A rifle can also be a club.

>>15672017
>Nietzsche didn't find an equivalence between value/power and truth.
You're right, but only if we're talking about truth as universal, not truth as Nietzsche's "prevailing interpretation," which would be one's own truth:

>All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

Here, one's own personal truth is directly related to the power one is. But I didn't specify or clarify this well, so your comment is justified.

>>15672039
Since he put universal truths to rest, since the concept is no longer logically tenable, and only personal truths remain, which are equivalent to "the quantum of power you are," the larger perspective would be the more "truthful" perspective, from our post-universal perspective.

So, in summary: universal truth is NOT power; you're correct on this. Personal truths, however, which are interpretations, which is all we have to analyze, are DIRECTLY TIED to one's power, and power is not equal, therefore personal truths / interpretations are not equally valid as far as the more powerful interpreter is concerned.

And that means the more powerful interpreter can refute weaker interpreters merely by demonstrating how they are weaker.

>>15671479
It is still pretty clear that there is no such thing as an absolute perspective in Nietzsche.
Even nihilism is a creative force when it self negates, according to Nietzsche.

So while I think you are partially right, I still don't think Nietzsche operated in this sort of absolutes. (X philosophy is wrong, Y philosophy is right.) Everything is tinged with nihilism to some extent insofar as it operates within western history (Heidegger claimed this at least in his interpretation of Nietzsche), so simply to exist is to be part of this cycle of perpetual becoming.

has anybody else gone from ubermensch to letzer mensch? i thought i could plow through the untermensch world but im just fucking tired of trying so hard, i just want to watch anime, play vidya and fap to big titties waifus

>>15672561
If you are aspiring to a figure of the ubermensch you are still living in a dialectical world, and therefor, not an ubermensch. The ubermensch doesn't think of himself as a model of any figure, he simply acts and affirms his difference against the dialectic

>>15670828
>I said X means X within Y!
Try again maybe?

>>15672106
You don't get Perspektivismus, do you?

>>15672579
i believe i was one before knowing of nietzche's work and im not gonna lie it inflated my ego when it perfectly matched me but as more time passed i just felt overwhelmed and just realized the letzter mensch life made more sense plus is more comfy, so yes, im not an ubermensch anymore. funny how the ubermensch can never know they are one, thus increasing their greatness

>>15670644
Nietzsche is like a rorschach test

>>15672691
Lol dude, you were never an ubermensch

>>15670685
kek

>>15672691
Sorry but you can never return to the last man life. The last man is not aware of his lastness, and you can never become unaware.

>>15672691
Haha great! Are you 15 years old?

>>15673167
I never knew Voltaire had access to reddit.

>>15672051
>Hmmm I wonder why OP conveniently forgot racists, fascists and traditionalists?
Fascism was after his era so this makes no sense. He was extremely racist. In fact, he lamented the decline of racism in his own time and would likely think the nazis were not racist enough if he lived through the Hitler regime. Nothing suggests that he was an anti "traditionalist" either. His entire philosophy is highly aristocratic and elitist.

>>15673368
Nietzsche is a traditionalist insofar as he believes that harsh aristocratic forms should adhered to and protected. In the words of Heraclitus: "Laws have to be defended like walls", which is why he villifies resentment. But he is NOT a traditionalist insofar as someone like, for instance, Ted the murderer is. Nietzsche desires progression (that is, strengthening), and this necessitates the strengthening of technology too as a tool, since it is a necessary one for the acquisition of the overman, and therefore the eternal recurrence.

>>15673407
Where did I deny any of this? Traditionalist isn't exactly a clear definition of anything. I guess you or whoever I quoted here >>15673368
associates "traditionalists" with trad catholics or some shit, but I guess you can't expect much from someone who thinks Nietzsche refuted fascism and racism

>>15673368
This
He was an antisemite and loved the Reich

>>15673488
He was explicity not an antisemite and thought antisemitism was ignoble, but he also though the jewish race was ridiculous and that in their ascension in european high society would lead to them eventually being assimilated.

>>15670893
He did opium.

>>15673445
It wasn't an attack, I was just looking at the "Nietzsche as traditionalist" angle based on multiple definitions of the word traditional, and replying based on my knowledge of Nietzsche's philosophy. And I am not that guy, of course Nietzsche never refuted racism or fascism, since his philosophy is fascistic (and is proud of it).

>>15673488
Retard, do you really believe the bullshit his sister made up?

>>15673770
>Nietzsche never refuted racism or fascism, since his philosophy is fascistic (and is proud of it).
So you have never read Nietzsche and just blindy parrot /pol/, got it.

>>15670644
>Is it ressentiment, or just stupidity?

Most Christians, socialists, and anarchists haven't read Nietzsche—they just get their idea of what Nietzschean philosophy is by absorbing vague society-wide opinions of his work ("Lol, god is dead.")

Genealogy of Morals should be required reading, unironically.

>>15673488
You know he hated Germans and Germany right?

>>15673770
>since his philosophy is fascistic (and is proud of it).

I could probably write a book on how wrong this is.

>>15673797
That anon is correct if you use the modern American left's definition of fascism. Nietzsche was authoritarian.

>>15673935
>the modern American left's definition of fascism
By their definition Marx could be identified as a fascist. 90% of academics befere the 1960's are fascists and 100% of anyone before the 1700's are neonazi extremists literally hitler. The exceptions are non-europeans, which are only circunstancially fascistic. The modern left is mentally retarded and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

>>15673935
>That anon is correct if you use the modern American left's definition of fascism. Nietzsche was authoritarian.

It was Wagner who was the (proto)fascist, not Nietzsche.

He was a whiner who hated Christian morality because he wanted to live like a nigger in Africa. That's why dumb teenagers like him.

>>15674080
>Christian morality

Slave morality, the same kind espoused by the people who are currently tearing down works of art and destroying western cities.