/lit/ - Literature

Eduard von Hartmann wrote some critical essays on Nietzsche early on, he was also the first to draw the connection between Nietzsches Philosophy and that of Stirner - wrongly, i believe. They are a decent read, however, but are only available in German as far as i know.

Scheler wrote a response to the Genealogy, he agrees with quite a lot but he disagrees with N's identification of Christian morality as slave morality born of ressentiment, instead he argues that what N is talking about is bourgeois morality.

nietzsche created nihilism out of a strawman from chirsanity, which according to him was nihilism, but he created the nihilism of the secular humanist bourgeois that the middle class crave today.

nietzsche says that facts are irrelevant and created the moronic meme of creating one's values. this is how braindead he was and why the bourgeois took over. When you combine this with humanism, you get the mixture of capitalism with bourgeois humanism, bourgeois republic where the middle class feels righteous for just creating their won values through the goods they purchase. THe field of activities in the bourgeois republic, ie Purchasing goods and making capitalism thrive while shitting on capitalism during their arm chair philosophy time is the best basis of society that the bourgeois could have built for the middle class to feel smart and righteous while embracing an ideology which will always shit on them.


This is why the middle class likes nietzsche

>>16069691
>chirsanity, which according to him was nihilism
Pretty sure he didn't say that anon, he viewed both Christianity and nihilism as dangerous symptoms of degeneration of Western culture but he nonetheless separated the two issues

>>16069703
No, he didn't. He stated that both Christianity and Buddhism were fundamentally nihilistic and life-denying.

>>16069632
why is Genealogy of Morals such a good fucking book? The part of the utility of ascetism for the philosopher is beautiful

>>16069632
How do you refute someone who is not only completely irrational, but did not make anything that could properly be called an argument in his most important works?

>>16069891
Read Nietzsche's System and Nietzsche as a Philosopher, there most surely is a main argument in his works although he never stated it clearly enough for it to be comprehensible to Anglo mentality

>>16069923
There is a difference between an argument and an assertion. Nietzsche's work consists of a series of assertions, not a series of arguments. There is no reason to accept anything he says, especially since much of it is simply nonsensical.

Cioran on Nietzsche

>To a student who wanted to know my position about the author of Zarathustra, I answered that it has been a lot of time since I stopped frequenting him. Why? He asked me. Because I find him naive. I blame his infatuations and his fervors too. He pulled down idols only to replace them with other ones. A false iconoclast with adolescent traits and I don’t know what kind of virginity, what innocence related to his career of lone man. He observed men only from the distance. If he’d observed them closely he never could have conceived and celebrate the Ubermensch: a rummy vision, a laughable, if not grotesque, chimera or caprice that could only spring from the mind of someone who didn't have the time to live, to age, to know the real detachment and the long serene disgust. Marcus Aurelius is much more close to me. There’s no hesitation in me between the absolute lyricism of frenzy and the prose of acceptance. I find more comfort, and even more hope too, in a tired imperator than in a thunderstruck prophet.

>Man is an abyss, if you want. In essence. More bad than good. That, I do believe. Nietzsche thought so as well. But Nietzsche was a pure kind of man, like every solitary man. This is why I feel much closer to La Rochefoucauld, to the French moralists. In my opinion, they are the ones who perceived man, because they have lived in society. Myself, I haven't lived in society, but I have known many men. I have a great experience of human beings, even if that's so. Nietzsche didn't have it. He was pure like all solitary men. But he didn't know of all the conflicts that exist between beings, the hidden side; all this, precisely because he has lived alone. He guessed, naturally; he thought a lot about this. But the real experience of man, we find it in Chamfort, or La Rochefoucald. Undoubtedly, if Nietzsche had lived in society, he would have seen things approximately like them, and not bookishly. He just didn't live as such.

>>16069954
>Were you reading Nietzsche then?
>CIORAN: When I was studying philosophy I wasn’t reading Nietzsche. I read “serious” philosophers. It’s when I finished studying it, at the point when I stopped believing in philosophy, that I began to read Nietzsche. Well, I realized that he wasn’t a philosopher, he was more: a temperament. So, I read him but never systematically. Now and then I’d read things by him, but really I don’t read him anymore. What I consider his most authentic work is his letters, because in them he’s truthful, while in his other work he’s prisoner to his vision. In his letters one sees that he’s just a poor guy, that he’s ill, exactly the opposite of everything he claimed.
>You write in The Trouble with Being Born that you stopped reading him because you found him “too naïve.”
>CIORAN:That’s a bit excessive, yes. It’s because that whole vision, of the will to power and all that, he imposed that grandiose vision on himself because he was a pitiful invalid. Its whole basis was false, nonexistent. His work is an unspeakable megalomania. When one reads the letters he wrote at the same time, one sees that he’s pathetic, it’s very touching, like a character out of Chekhov. I was attached to him in my youth, but not after. He’s a great writer, though, a great stylist.

>>16069954
>HE WAS A LONELY VIRGIN, WHAT WOULD HE KNOW ABOUT PEOPLE?
I dislike Nietzsche, but this is an absolutely brainlet-tier take.

>>16069954
>Give up on improving
>I know people and since I'm a brainlet who cannot conceive of anything outside of what I perceive in reality, humankind cannot improve.
>Aspiring to anything is naïve.
Yikes

>>16069632
no. prophet sees much more than Nietzsche, but you are blind.

>>16069632
A lot of Nietzsche is set in the context of Nietzsche, where things take on a strange appearance if you haven't read the prior works. Especially the Genealogy, which I believe is outright intended to clarify his earlier works.

>even assessed scientifically
Well, actually Nietzsche inspired quite a lot in the empirical fields related to those statements. I want to say psychology in particular but some nitpicking bastard will come in and make a remark about psychology's shortcomings as a science and I don't give enough of a fuck about it to put myself in the position to defend it.

But to answer your question... Of course, but it's not refutations of his "works". That doesn't work, as all of Nietzsche's works are varied, layered, and ever evolving. They are not systems bound around a driving elementary thesis, they are composites of thought, and what people refute are POINTS. It would be outright bizarre if someone disagreed or agreed with literally everything Nietzsche said in any one place, and that's the last thing he wants in the first place. No, you agree with something here, disagree with something there, and as far as overarching theses go, those are subtle to interpret and two attempted refutations of Nietzsche may not even be compatible with each other. But anyone who reads Nietzsche has critical things to say - which, again, is what he wants.

>>16069954
I've seen this sort of interpretation/complaint about Nietzsche before and it's sad. I'm convinced it's broadly missing the point and making a bizarre estimation of his self awareness along with unfair assumptions against his life. A few well placed points of slander have painted an utterly inaccurate picture of Nietzsche as some blundering, incompetent, manchild when that actually spits in the face of what we factually know of his life. He was a popular kid and leader figure in his graduating class, he was well mannered and likable among those he met and had plenty of female acquaintances, he called free sex the equivalent of fine wine for the lion-hearted, and he most certainly didn't "observe men only from a distance", his friendships and academic relationships were deeply formative for him. He had a personal circle of intellectual friends and fans. It just deteriorated in the end, and like so many others there seemed to generally be something missing for him in those relationships, as his loneliness was without a doubt very real. You just don't get to say that he didn't know people, he did.

>>16069632
There's nothing to refute. Nietzsche never gave any arguments since he wasn't a philosopher.

>>16069676
Is this in Ressentiment?

>>16069936
You're mistaken. The argument is implicit. I suggest reading secondary sources on him just like the other anon did.

With Nietzsche, you basically either buy his points or you don't.

That being said, I think that you can argue that his diagnosis is correct but his prescription is wrong, i.e. his diagnosis of nihilism and the decline of religion as lying at the root of the West's collapse is correct, but you can argue whether the creation of hypothetical ubermenschen is the correct response to that.

>>16072405
Why would changing the aim to a thoroughly and consistently earthly one after abandoning all theological fantasies which caused the nihilism settling in Europe be an incorrect response?

>>16069632
you cant refute non-sense

>>16070028
>A few well placed points of slander have painted an utterly inaccurate picture of Nietzsche as some blundering, incompetent, manchild when that actually spits in the face of what we factually know of his life.

lol, what are you talking about? This is what he does to other thinkers, he's just getting a taste of his own medicine.

>>16069691
You've never read Niche, just admit it

>>16072557
He never does that to anyone.

>>16069632
Nietzsche wrote to be adored and not to state the truth
why do you think both left and right wing like this guy?

>>16069691
>Neitzsche
>Nihilist
Holy fuck you're retarded. Goes to show you niggers don't read.

>>16072620
>Nietzsche wrote to be adored and not to state the truth
Is that why almost everything he did was highly controversial at the time? His first book placed him against almost all his colleagues, politically aligning himself with Wagner and opposing Bismarck placed him against many of his peers, and philosophically opposing Plato and Christianity placed him against many others, his sister, and eventually Wagner too. His readership became increasingly smaller over time and it never persuaded him to change his position; in fact, he only got fiercer as he got older and more alone.

>>16072577
he did that with Mainländer and Stoics

>>16072653
>Mainländer
But he actually was a blundering, incompetent manchild, so he's not being slanderous there.

>Stoics
Nah, he had a lot of respect for them. Even in the aphorism that's famously posted here, he starts off by calling them noble. Elsewhere, he calls Epictetus a much higher type of slave than the ones that bore Christianity.

>>16072468
From a philosophical point of view, it's wrong because it doesn't take into account the reality of 'other worlds', which have been a part of human experience since forever. From a human point of view, it's wrong because humans, or at least men like Nietzsche, will never be satisfied with a 100% earthly solution.

>>16072649
he wanted to deconstruct all big thinkers so people would worship him instead

>His readership became increasingly smaller over time
every literate normie has one of his books on shelf today

>>16071616
Yes.

>>16072743
>it doesn't take into account the reality of 'other worlds'
Yes it does. Perspectivism.

>will never be satisfied with a 100% earthly solution
Why is that?

>>16072756
>he wanted to deconstruct all big thinkers so people would worship him instead
This is ridiculous. What's the basis for even thinking this?

>every literate normie has one of his books on shelf today
What's that got to do with his motivations for writing while he was alive?

I mean there’s not much to refute. He has a weird still where he just kind of tells you what he thinks. It’s hard to flat out disprove someone like that, but it’s also not very convincing. Other philosophers have a much more logically structured way of arguing which makes it much easier to directly engage. You almost have to strawman him to refute him. It’s not really a strength though. He makes no contribution in the positive sense that really seems worthwhile.

Nietzsche general didn't answer this, trying here:

Did he ever defend the presumption that our goal should be the Ubermensch?
AFAIK, in Zarathustra he only states that it's what animals do generally - evolve, but doesn't really say why it should be our goal too. We could also well say that the animals we evolved from didn't evolve purposefully by their will.

Also, what does he really mean by the death of God? At first I thought he meant the west abandoning tradition and ideals, but I'm not sure now..

>>16072962

Ubermensch: Most humans are sick pathetic beings. Even the best humans (Napoleon, Goethe) are not great enough. Key feature of the ubermensch is that they will be strong enough to affirm eternal recurrence. It is a too often neglected fact that Nietzsche says that he himself is unable to affirm eternal recurrence.

>>16073482
So we get another presumption: the ultimate goal is eternal reccurrence.
Is eternal existence of our descendants a universal desire not requiring defense?

>>16069632
Nietzsche was preemptively refuted by Wagner, namely in the Ring. Nietzsche himself claimed that he could not understand Siegfried's motives towards the end.

>>16069632
>philosophy
>refutations
Hello 17 year old

>>16072962
>Did he ever defend the presumption that our goal should be the Ubermensch?
That's what the death of God is. It means the old belief is no longer tenable. But, we still need art so we can endure the suffering of existence, so, a revaluation of all values is required, which posits working in the service of overmen as the new task for mankind.

>>16074325
That's an interesting answer!
Is that something he really wrote though? I never read him, only now am I reading TSZ and he deffinitelly didn't state that in the part I read so far.

There are generalizations and lazy contradictions to refute but there will never be a refutation of nature, which is what he represented when he was writing at his best.

No one else has been as successful in creating a value system for the world-weary, either.

You cannot escape him with crude mischaracterizations or by associating him with unpopular things.

>>16074422
He elaborates on it in Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist. Late Nietzsche is fixated on the "revaluation of all values" and on positing a new political legislation for an anti-Christian future. He also found the origins of his ideas of the eternal recurrence, will to power, and the overman in the Greeks, discussed in "What I Owe to the Ancients" in Twilight.

>>16069632
>One should not understand this compulsion to construct concepts, species, forms, purposes, laws ('a world of identical cases') as if they enabled us to fix the real world; but as a compulsion to arrange a world for ourselves in which our existence is made possible:—we thereby create a world which is calculable, simplified, comprehensible, etc., for us.

You can't really refute Nietzche, least not scientifically, because of the basic approach of his philosophy. Nietzche is an anti-representationalist when it comes to truth. Truth is not a simple propositional representation of some external fact within the mind. Truths are infused with humanness, with willing and creative potency. We will our truths into existence. He predicts the pragmatist theory of truth in that what is true is what is useful.

>We have no organ at all for knowledge, for ‘truth’: we ‘know’ (or believe or imagine) precisely as much as may be useful in the interest of the human herd, the species: and even what is here called ‘usefulness’ is in the end only a belief, something imagined and perhaps precisely that most fatal piece of stupidity by which we shall one day perish

At the same time this very approach has its limitations and it's difficult to engage with it through the use of rational arguments. That's the whole point. Nietzche presents his ideas as creative art forms, unconcerned with cause in effect, that stand on their own and operate by their own internal logics.

>>16074491
True true. He's the only thinker I've read who incorporates biology/evolution into his ideas about value, and sees slave morality for what it really is: life hating, life denying, life killing.

The third essay in Genealogy ("The Ascetic Ideal") offers an interesting perspective on why, from an evolutionary standpoint, a morality opposed to life could possibly take hold of a population. I understand it as a method by the species as a whole to cull the sick from the herd so that the healthy may not be contaminated. The weaker/sick/degenerate members of the species unconsciously remove themselves from the gene pool with their life denying morality, allowing the rest of the DNA to have a better chance at survival.

>>16069691
you post this all the time

>>16074782
This makes sense, and is aligned with Death as a biological phenomenon.

Some species don't die. Some species continue to regenerate their cells and live eternally, so long as nothing happens to them externally. These species usually reproduce asexually.

Sexual reproduction offered a survival advantage to our DNA, which looks out for itself if not for us. By recombining DNA with a mate, the offspring is 99% genetically identical to the parents' DNA, but introduces enough variation to possibly confer a survival advantage. This way, should environmental conditions change, a population with greater variation stands a better chance of at least some individuals surviving.

Eventually, the limited resources of the environment will create competition for the parents and their children, children's children, etc., so the DNA has the greatest chance of survival if the parent DNA "shows itself out the door" by removing itself from the competition for resources, allowing the younger, more varied DNA to survive with less competition.

Hence, death.

>>16069691
Replace "nietzsche" with "marx" in your post and then you'd have a point.

>>16074845
It is in this manner that death became genetically programmed in 99.9% species. Death provides an evolution-driven survival advantage to our genes.

I think Nietzsche was arguing in "The Ascetic Ideal" something along those lines, if not with our 21st century understanding of genetics, with sound reasoning and a broad vision history, noting all cultures throughout the world have had an ascetic priest to gather "the botched and the bungled" to themselves. His philosophy is driven and underpinned by Darwin's ideas on evolution.

>>16074899
When he looked at the world around him, and saw the predominance of The Ascetic Ideal in the various life-denying religions/philosophies of his age, he cried out: "Grant me but one glimpse only of something perfect, fully realised, happy, mighty, triumphant, of something that still gives cause for fear! A glimpse of a man that justifies the existence of man, a glimpse of an incarnate human happiness that realises and redeems, for the sake of which one may hold fast to the belief in man!"

I am certainly not the most well read cat on the block, but I can hold my own. I have never read another writer who affirms life and its inherent value like Nietzsche. I have read philosophers who construct much more elaborate, teleologically complete ideologies, that are incredibly impressive in their fidelity to deduction and go through elaborate logical steps to justify their structure, but none that deal with the single most important issue of our lives: our lives.

>>16074975
And I think most cats who shit on Nietzsche do so because he is not a traditional philosopher in the sense that he builds a system of thought based on a few axioms and deduces the rest. He is not particularly logical or orderly in his approach.

But that doesn't make him wrong, nor does it mean he's not writing important shit. He skips the unnecessary BS of chapter after chapter of preemptively justifying his conclusions, building a thought pyramid that can only lead to the conclusion he has waiting in the wings. Instead, he makes a statement most people would agree has at least some value to it (i.e., Christianity is a life-denying religion) and discusses WHY that is, and what the importance of it is.

>>16072557
That makes no sense. In what way is it "what he does to other thinkers" and why would that do to validate misinformation?

Is eternal recurrance a thought experiment or did he believe it to be a reality of the world?

>>16075297
It is a thought experiment, but one that he uses to determine whether you are fit for his "party of life" or not. Those who are to work on his project for him after he dies must deeply want the eternal recurrence to be true. So, in a way, the answer is "both."

>>16069632
Divine Comedy

>>16069632
His entire philosophy is thought experiments, opinions, and feels. There's nothing to refute.

>>16075379
If you actually read him, you'll find that it's everyone else in philosophy besides the Greeks who are mere thought experiment, opinion, and feeling.

>>16075394
These things are not mutually exlusive.

>>16075420
They are. The tragic philosopher stands opposed to all of "philosophy" from Socrates onward, because it is not philosophy, and not even interested in sophia.

>>16072962
It is to create God. Hence, in the "death of God" aphorism from the Gay Science, the clamoring that we will have to become Gods ourselves. He wants to create God so as to instantiate the Eternal Return. See The Will to Power:

712. "God" is the culminating moment: life is an eternal process of deifying and undeifying. But withal there is no zenith of values, but only a zenith of power.
Absolute exclusion of mechanical and materialistic interpretations. they are both only expressions of inferior states, of emotions deprived of all spirit (of the "will to power").
The retrograde movement from the zenith of development (the intellectualisation of power on some slave-infected soil) may be shown to be the result of the highest degree of energy turning against itself, once it no longer has anything to organise, and utilising its power in order to disorganise.
(a) The ever-increasing suppression of societies, and the latter's subjection by a smaller number of stronger individuals.
(b) The ever-increasing suppression of the privileged and the strong, hence the rise of democracy, and ultimately of anarchy, in the elements.

1037. Let us banish the highest good from our concept of God: it is unworthy of a God. Let us likewise banish the highest wisdom: it is the vanity of philosophers who have perpetrated the absurdity of a God who is a monster of wisdom: the idea was to make Him as like them as possible. No! God as the highest power—that is sufficient!—Everything follows from that, even—"the world"!

>>16075297
He believed it to be the reality of the world. His calculation was to influence the eternal recurrence so as to control the whole chain of becoming, including his own creation.

>>16069691
>nietzsche says that facts are irrelevant and created the moronic meme of creating one's values. this is how braindead he was and why the bourgeois took over. When you combine this with humanism, you get the mixture of capitalism with bourgeois humanism, bourgeois republic where the middle class feels righteous for just creating their won values through the goods they purchase.
Not particularly true. The majority of consumption is nothing but the attempt to differentiate yourself socially in a favourable way and signify prestige according to current fashion trends, justified through discourse out of the "need" to differentiate and consume, where the clamor for "liberation" of "repressed" needs is nothing but the way in which the system represses now, the way it forces an interiorization of external values proffered off as your "needs", which are actually the needs of the system to sustain itself.

>>16072769
What's perspectivism?

>Why is that?
It feels incomplete.

>>16073542
I'm not sure N believed in universal desires.

>>16076061
Perspectivism is Nietzsche's acknowledgement that everyone possesses in them their own sense of the objective, or in other words, their own sense of the world, and that no particular perspective transcends this paradigm and senses the objective itself. All "other worlds" are accounted for by Nietzsche as perspectives.

>>16074782
>The weaker/sick/degenerate members of the species unconsciously remove themselves from the gene pool with their life denying morality, allowing the rest of the DNA to have a better chance at survival.

Does that mean that Nietzsche himself was a life-denying degenerate? Since he didn't have any children...

>>16076103
Then why didn't he reject the physical world as just another perspective as well? If every man has his own sense of the objective, and it's impossible to sense the objective directly, does it even make sense to speak of an objective? And what makes an earthly aim better than the theological fantasies, if ultimately every world is a fantasy?

>>16076225
Only other perspectives can be fantasies. Nietzsche was fighting against perspectives which have strove to squash his own and those of ancient pagan nobility, so that these perspectives may have a means to express themselves outwardly in the world again. There's no reason to reject your own perspective and he wasn't asking for anyone to do that.

>>16069663
Von Hartmann’s philosophy btfos Stirner as well as Nietzsche.

>>16075454
why we puny humans must have a concept of "god" to begin with? are we really that pathetic as a species?

>>16076357
How so?

>>16076424
because it asserts that will isn’t reducible to reason. Nietzsche thought it was

>>16076154
Probably. As he wrote, "Homer would not have created an Achilles nor Goethe a Faust had Homer been an Achilles or Goethe a Faust."

>>16076429
>Nietzsche thought it was
Doesn't he attack reason in Twilight of the Idols?

>>16075446
There is simpy nothing concrete in any of Nietzsche's thought. It doesn't matter how he characterizes other post-greek thought nor that he places himself in opposition to it. This doesn't change his own work's quality or nature.

>>16076581
There is nothing concrete in life either, which should be an indication to you that he and Heraclitus were on to something.

>>16076590
No, there's definitely a concrete, material world underlying human experience, we're just shit at getting at it. That's no excuse to hand wave the matter.

>>16076713
I don't know anon, I think you're just dumb. You really think, after reading him thoroughly, that there is nothing substantial to his work?

>>16069964
Agreed.

>>16076357
He already got BTFO'd by Nietzsche in Untimely Meditations, where Nietzsche made fun of the concept of the unconscious by calling Hartmann's philosophy "unconsciously ironic".

>>16069954
>>16069959

He's right. Only slayer chads get to philosophize. Social rejects are not only societal detritus but intellectually and spiritually too. They're ghosts, nothing at all.

>>16076405
Well, it is useful as an ideological concept for the mass repression of the populus through a set of values. All you have to do is justify the valuations through a simulated referent (in this case, God). This relationship between signifier (set of values) and signified (God) constitutes all of ideology. In Nietzsche's case, this would be expressed by evolutionism with the eternal recurrence as simulated referent. Bataille rightfully attacks Nietzsche for this in On Nietzsche, but I have not looked into Bataille enough to attack him.

>>16077113
You realize that Nietzsche was all about ripping philosophy away from sheltered virgins and back into the hands of slayer chads, right? It doesn't matter if he wasn't one, he was on their side.

>>16076429
If the will isn't reducible to appearances, then it is a useless concept. Read Nietzsche.

>>16076545
The person who you were responding to wasn't referring to reason as an ideological referent like Nietzsche was in Twilight of the Idols when he was lambasting the "wise" post-Socratic philosophers. He is referring to it as conscious thinking.

>>16069691
Stop this copypasta

>>16076538
>>16076154
No. Nietzsche had far more influence on the world via philosophy than most fathers would if they had 30 children. He didn't reproduce sexually, he reproduced mentally.

>>16077177
Lou Salome tried to write some lowbrow critiques after his death, accused him of being a spiritualist at heart who couldn't live without a notion of divinity.

Will to Power is an interesting concept because it borrows so heavily from Schopenhauer but draws the opposite conclusions. Schopenhauer was probably the only contemporary philosopher he respected and if shows.

>>16077186
Uhhhhh yeah I can see that, but Anon was showing how a philosopher so rooted in biological reality did not procreate himself, which is a completely valid criticism of the man himself, if not his philosophy. And I agree. He was not a "slayer chad" as another Anon writes above, he was a philosopher. But he was the philosopher of the slayer chads, and that's why I like him, and am glad he wrote his thoughts for posterity.

Will to Power and Eternal Recurrence are not fully developed concepts, he died before he could flesh them out adequately. But that's not really criticism.

>90 post thread.
>basically no mentions of any actual nietzsche scholarship.

we can just start with the most obvious one. Heidegger. he called nietzsche 'completion or end of metaphysics' thus his refutation (although maybe a slight misreading) is that he is trapped by same platonism he tries to escape.... thus Heidegger and his focus on Being.

>>16077207
He is superior to mere "slayer chads". You only idolize attractive guys who can lay a lot of women because you yourself are unattractive and do not get very many women. Such an ideal is completely worthless to a man trying to father god. So what if you father a billion snotty nosed retards? You are confused why a philosopher so rooted in "biological reality" never procreated? That's a valid criticism? Have you even read his philosophy? Such immediate things are for ant-like degenerates good merely to keep the herd alive, which the TRUE higher men experiment on and use as a tool as an artist-tyrant, and it is these men that Nietzsche is infusing with a set of values and controlling.

>>16076991
I didn't say there was nothing substantial, I said there was little to nothing strictly concrete. Big difference. I agree with Nietzsche more often that not.

>>16069632
Permit me to give you every so-called anti-Nietzsche argument.

Haha edgelord.

>>16069954
>>16069959
This interpretation is what you arrive at when you don't read Nietzsche thoroughly (ignoring his writings prior to Birth, his lecture texts, his letters, and his notes, and not reading his published books from beginning to end) especially prior to more recent scholarship which has examined his philosophy better thanks to the Colli-Mortinari edition and to the now significant enough passage of time since World War II, and when you confuse yourself as his intended reader due to his grand and persuasive writing style. Nietzsche paid close attention to Germany's politics his whole life, given that he lived to see the German Empire be formed, and responded to many new developments directly in his work. He gave lectures to hundreds at the University of Basel and was respected by fellow philologists for his cutting edge scholarly work on the Greeks. He was close with Wagner and his wife, close enough that he omitted a section of The Birth of Tragedy per Wagner's advice, and even wrote the book because they suggested it to him after hearing his lectures on the Greeks (in other words, Wagner attended his lectures — Nietzsche was that well known at the time).

While he spent a great amount of his life indoors reading, the idea that he had shallow experiences with others has no basis, and makes little sense, since Nietzsche frequently exposes the shallowness in his contemporaries, demonstrating how much MORE human he was compared to those around him. Calling his work an "unspeakable megalomania" and he a "solitary man" who didn't have a "great experience of human beings" is an egregious claim when you know the truth, and says much more about Cioran than about Nietzsche.

>>16077758
>and was respected by fellow philologists for his cutting edge scholarly work on the
No, he mostly wasn't. In fact, he was lampooned everywhere for The Birth of Tragedy.

>>16069632

Not a 'refutation' of his work but lol that none of you pseuds mentioned Jurgen Habermas' critique from The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity.

>>16077779
He was. His study on the sources of Diogenes Laërtios was especially noted

>>16077146

Successful philosophers in the modern era have always been high status, otherwise their work would have never been published and circulated

>>16077779
The philological work that rose him to prominence in the community was done prior to Birth.

>>16077758
>in other words, Wagner attended his lectures — Nietzsche was that well known at the time
This is also false. Very few people ever attended Nietzsche's lectures (see https://www.dartmouth.edu/~fnchron/1872.html (I have read his whole biography, this being the most detailed version I could find)).

>>16077784
I'm not saying he wasn't respected, I'm saying he mostly wasn't respected. Proof: extreme critical reaction to BoT with little support outside of close friends.

>>16077810
Yes, but Birth of Tragedy is the synthesis of all his previous Greek philology into one book, and this was pretty much universally scorned by philologists (even Nietzsche's philology mentor who rose him up in the universities went against him, to my knowledge).

>>16077758
>demonstrating how much MORE human he was compared to those around him
Actually, he used "humanity" to signify ignorance, hence his funny phrase "human, all-too-human". To be more human would be an insult to him. He talks in Twilight about the drive to psychology being also a drive to distinguish yourself from humanity.

>>16077868
I remember reading, long ago, that his lectures were given to "hundreds" (cumulatively, no doubt). I don't see anything in your link opposing that.

>>16077884
>Birth of Tragedy is the synthesis of all his previous Greek philology into one book
Not relevant to when his prominence in the community was originally established and also not true. The first appearance he made on the scene was his lecture on Theognis of Megara in 1866, which doesn't particularly feature in the book (although, it would have, had Wagner not advised against the part that was axed). I recall that a fellow philologist had stated that that lecture alone would have granted Nietzsche some importance in history books, even if small, so the work was obviously acknowledged for its quality.

>>16077909
I wasn't using human there in that sense, but in his sense of the pathos of distance, as if "human" referred to his "great men." I thought it would be easier to understand it that way in the response to Cioran.

>>16077943
It over and over again references in that link that only 3 or 4 students would appear at his lectures (as well as through his whole career, if you were to click on the other years. Also, it clearly was a synthesis by the fact that you are struggling to even find an exception (the exception you give is only an exception since it was cut at the last second). Even then, the exception doesnt refute the rule, it proves it.

>>16077996
What difference does it make again that Birth is a synthesis? It still brought to light for the first time his personal and philosophical reflections on his philological work, which is where the negative reactions stemmed from. His 1866 lecture, for example, had nothing of the sort in it, and was strictly a scholarly work. Birth was not intended to be a scholarly work.

>only 3 or 4 students would appear at his lectures
This was the case for all of his lectures even at the start of his career?

>>16077408
Son. I'm praising Nietzsche. I love his philosophy. I wrote all the shit about his biological bent above.
But I also agreed with Anon over the contradiction between his life-affirming philosophy and the fact he never procreated. Obvious contradiction between philosophy and reality. That doesn't negate his philosophy, that shows he didn't live up to his own standard of life affirmation.
I do not not idolize attractive men, kid. I am an attractive man. This is irrelevant to the conversation. Anon was making a point about Nietzsche's personal failure to procreate, I was agreeing it was a personal failure. You somehow took that personally and started getting mad at dudes that get laid? Are you capable of carrying on an adult conversation?

>>16072405
I think this is true for the most part. The response is much like medicalised health where one eats an apple for health reasons rather than simply eating it because it is an apple. Other responses are the technical denials of a government in relation to legal corruption, the refusal to admit error because it would be seen as weakness, or in the case of work the boss who extends benefits because it is mandated and the economic theory suggests a greater return. There is a short-term increase of morale, or at least the violence of opposition is temporarily offset, but then the nomos is revealed as a sham and unity further weakened.

There is also the sickness of romanticism, even with its refusal of the rational and the aesthetic of the numinous there remains a purely technical relation - the sublimity of being remains a mere formal association. The dancing star is also a fading away. It is no mistake that the greatest romanticists fell to sickness and, paradoxically, in their time of madness revealed great health, the numinous potential of their ideas. I don't know that this is true in the case of Nietzsche, and this may have to do with his falling short of romanticism, his holding on to conservative politics limited a purely aesthetic relation and a return to the numinous.

Ironically, formalism is a very moralistic, Kantian, and even Christian relation. Law for law's sake, power for power's sake, being for being's sake. Numinous and fateful qualities are lost. With Eternal Return there is a revealing of the great power of fate, but it is an historical understanding, as if Machiavelli's fortuna were reduced to a simple mechanical functioning. The love of fate must also be a conflict, as if trying to stretch the thread of Lachesis when needed, or weaving out of it to increase its beauty. And then one must realise that even beyond death there is the law of Atropos - the greatest decisions are also prone to defeat, impossible weakness before the ineluctable. Eternal return is completely opposed to the law of fate, in its measure it is the will of the cosmos subject to the categorical imperative - kantian humility turned to absolute pessimism.

>>16078578
2
Nietzsche's amoral will does not solve the problem of morality, rather decisions gain a heaviness, a gravity which forces them against the world where good and evil are even possible. Where the amoral begins to take on the qualities of the moral one must assume an end to the leveling process: the laws of association are completely destroyed and the intellectual order leveraged to a will of effects. This is where Nietzsche replaces morality with something far worse. The great mistake, and this applies to Nietzsche and Kant equally, is that morality becomes a thing-in-itself, but where it is written as such all difference subsides. Certainly an opposite history of Christianity could be written, one in which virtue is increased through vice, where the moral will approaches devastation and the chasm between good and evil widened. Morality is defeated only where it becomes impossible, this is the greater lesson of the Death of God, as in the story of Simplicissimus - the Fool is to nihilism as the Madman is to the numinous.

Junger suggests that the Last Man is only the next to last, and that an understanding of nihilism would entail lessons for all people. Nietzsche's concern is certainly not with an entire people, let alone all of humanity, instead his romantic conservatism imagines the Great Man who is willing to best the impossible rather than simply endure it. This, aside from being individualist and even liberalist in its assumptions, is a gross misunderstanding of Fate. And in it we see a man equal to the process of leveling, of devaluation - the reduction of Dionysus to the mundane also suggests a man unacquainted with the laws of the drinking festival. One may say that there is a resentment of the gods in this, or at least a misery guts quality in the face of their abandonment of the world.

>>16078580
3
In this we see that Nietzsche was a man of his era, not in opposition to it. One of the great lessons of Hesiod, and all of Greek myth, is that men will be left to their own destruction. Where Nemesis abandons the world man has already taken up the destructive power of the gods, against himself and for his exile. It is not possible to worship one who has the power to proscribe - the paradox of sacrifice and rite so plainly written in the false sacrifice to Zeus. The precultic has no laws, and the primordial gods demand no sacrifices because they know their power extends beyond all will, even their presence and necessity. Humanity may be left to the dominion of its own power because it will reveal the impossibility of escape, of laws which transcend belief, whether pious or impious. There is an Age after that of the Iron in which no laws need to be written because they are total.

Nietzsche demands these laws, a framework of the impossible. This is where his Dionysus is a dead god, or one who returns to war against those who are not even his enemies. A god drunk on his own loss of purpose. The dionysian which is only a symbol of its end, a Christian Dionysus. One must instead imagine a relation to Christianity which does not kill Dionysus along with Christ, where other-worldliness is left to law and dominion, for it cannot be struggled against in any case. We are left to the gods of exile, consorts of the human who stands upon the precipice of the end of all laws - and then we abandon them. This is something entirely other than nihilism. This is where the Last Man fears and resents the "storms of the age." But even in him "a certainty of goodness remains," for the Ineffable Age is closer to the Golden Age than the Heroic. In the same way morality may be understood as the nihilism of values, the transition to the highest where other-worldliness is also a place of life affirmation.

https://youtu.be/_F8PYeDrdIk

>>16072405
What do you think a better prescription for nihilism is?

>>16077084
>unconsciously ironic

>>16077884
>(even Nietzsche's philology mentor who rose him up in the universities went against him, to my knowledge).

why?

>>16076316
>Only other perspectives can be fantasies.

But that doesn't make any sense.

>>16077084
Making fun of a concept isn't the same thing as refuting it.

>>16080135
Why would your own perspective be a fantasy to you? You can't see outside it

>>16080267
No, what I'm asking is, how can one justify calling other perspectives 'fantasies'? It sounds really childish.

>>16080398
Because they don't apply to yours.

>>16080436
What kind of stupid solipsistic logic is that?

>>16080516
Your perspective is all that you have access to at any point in your life. How else do you explain when another perspective tries to convey something to you that makes no sense to you because it doesn't apply to you? That other perspective and what it is referring to is your fantasy, i.e. not part of your reality, but part of a nonsensical sphere in it. Your own perspective and the truth that you see is your reality. How else can you conceive of this complex situation?

>>16069691
>nietzsche created nihilism
tradcath intellectuals, everybody.

>>16069632
Nietzsche was good at dismantling things but he wasn't good at putting them together. His criticisms were mostly right on point but his proposed alternatives were laughably shallow (uberman/coming up with your own values).

>>16081178
I don't see how those are shallow when that was what the older Greeks were already pursuing.

>>16072405
>is wrong
More so incomplete. He was overtaken by illness before he could complete the revaluation of values.

>>16077084
>unconsciously ironic
brutal

>>16081245
No they weren't.

>>16083437
The older Greeks more or less were, even if they did not formulate those exact concepts.

>>16083510
What book is this image from? Looks interesting

>>16083579
Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols

>>16083510
>quotes Nietzsche
Retard.

>>16083598
Nietzsche was right, I quoted him because he condenses it well. You can study those Greeks yourself. Jacob Burckhardt, who he mentions there, is a decent start.

>>16083610
so he argues that Socrates improved philosophy at the cost of decaying his own culture?

>>16083634
Not "improved," more like muddied. He thought Socrates had good intentions, and was aware of the Greeks becoming decadent, but was a pleb who necessarily misunderstood the older Greeks due to his resentment.

>>16083654
>misunderstood the older Greeks due to his resentment.

resentment of what? you mean his opinion and attitude towards the sophists?

>>16083610
>he's right because he said it
Nice try, retard.

>>16083679
When he called Socrates ugly, he meant that Socrates was plebeian. As a lowly pleb living in the Greek state, Socrates resented the older Greeks and the artists. When he realized that the Greeks were degenerating, his proposal entailed weakening the authority of beauty in exchange for the authority of reason.

>>16069632

retroactively refuted by jesus, buddha, and shankara

>>16083654
>greatest thinker in history was a pleb
How do people fall for such obvious bullshit?

>>16083713
What makes Socrates the greatest thinker?

>>16083697
This is what happens when you don't read the Greeks.
>I had an even finer opportunity to observe Socrates there than I had had at Potidaea, for I was less in fear because I was on horseback. First of all, how much more sensible he was than Laches; and secondly, it was my opinion, Aristophanes (and this point is yours); that walking there just as he does here in Athens, ‘stalking like a pelican, his eyes darting from side to side,’ quietly on the lookout for friends and foes, he made it plain to everyone even at a great distance that if one touches this real man, he will defend himself vigorously. Consequently, he went away safely, both he and his comrade; for when you behave in war as he did, then they just about do not even touch you; instead they pursue those who turn in headlong flight.

>>16083723
he told me it was ok to be a loser with nothing in life because at least I'm smart and don't bother trying

>>16083728
Nietzsche did read the Greeks. You haven't read Nietzsche.

>>16083697
>Socrates was so powerful he had to be killed by the state
>Neetch was so weak he went mad and died surrounded by people he hated
>Socrates and his entire school will be remembered as legends
>Nietzsche is only remembered because he was such a simp and his followers are lvl. 99 plebs
Really tough to figure this one out.

>>16083751
>because muh feelings told me so
Post proof. The quote above shows that he did not read them.

>>16083764
It's not that tough to figure out how your post is a cope.

>>16083786
>the irrationalist doesn't know what cope is

>>16083764
Socrates was a big fat faggot that would have you whipped for browsing 4chan, you fucking dimwit.

>>16083780
But the quote above doesn't prove the contrary? The proof is in Socrates' evaluation of art, his philosophy of reason, his famous last words ("Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius."), and in how other and older Greeks opposed his views. Read Nietzsche's Rheinisches Museum publications — De Laertii Diogenis fontibus, Der Danae Klage, and Zur Geschichte der Theognideischen Spruchsammlung — and his Homer und die klassische Philologie, Über die Zukunft unserer Bildungsanstalten, Fünf Vorreden zu fünf ungeschriebenen Büchern, and Die Philosophie im tragischen Zeitalter der Griechen. And again, read Jacob Burckhardt, and Kahn's The Art and Thought of Heraclitus while you're at it.

>>16083902
Nietzsche said Goethe didn't understand the Greeks. Why should I listen to an obvious retard?

>>16083945
Read my suggestions and find out.

>>16083977
What's the point in pretending you read when you are incapable of reason?

>>16083510
This is Varg tier.

>>16084026
>incapable of reason
What the hell are you talking about? You asked for proof, I gave it. Stop being a pseud and go educate yourself.

>>16083902
>>16083510
>Madness, provided it comes as the gift of heaven, is the channel by which we receive the greatest blessings . . . the men of old who gave things their names saw no disgrace or reproach in madness; otherwise they would not have connected it with it the name of the noblest of arts, the art of discerning the future, and called it the manic art . . . So, according to the evidence provided by our ancestors, madness is a nobler thing than sober sense . . . madness comes from God, whereas sober sense is merely human.
- Plato

This quote is better in every way. Not only is it more truthful, it is better written, simple, succinct, and proves Nietzsche wrong.
But I'm sure you have some namedrop to prove he was wrong, even though Nietzsche wrote nothing more than a bad footnote.

>>16084052
Because your only arguments so far are that Nietzsche was right because he wrote what he wrote, and that listing a bunch of essays (listed in German for extra pseud points) somehow proves that your feeling that he was right is right.
This is what happens when you don't read Plato. What have you read besides Nietzsche, anon?

>>16084074
Madness is just the Dionysian instinct Nietzsche also champions. Plato and Nietzsche are hardly different on that point, on the surface. However, Plato misunderstood what the old madness fully entailed thanks to Socrates' mistake, and as such he conflated it with the authority of reason and with the good.

>>16084101
The arguments are in all the texts I referred you to, and the texts they refer to. What else do you want? To be spoonfed thousands of pages of reading in a brief post so you can dismiss it with a meme without pulling any effort to actually learn something on your part? Your opinion is the way it is because YOU don't read.

Don't bother responding to me again because I have nothing more to say to you. Read my suggestions.

>>16084108
Nice cope. Why do you refuse to make arguments?

>>16084139
>Don't bother responding to me again
Nice will to power faggot.

>>16069691
>And why the bourgeois took over
Are you serious dude? Bourgeois took over because of the development of the production system and the cowardice of the working class. Nietzche is against any gregarious behavior, society is not possible under it's morality becuase each individual would adapt it's values to it's own personality to be valued as perfect before them. "Love thy self" and nobody would share a morality. But nevertheless, what Nietzche says has no effect on the grand scale of things considering that is read by a minority and understood by even less. In fact, in The Walker and his Shadow he argues that individual are completely irrelevant and whatever they do has no meaning at all. You can't seriously make Nietzche responsible of an economic process started long before he was born.

>>16084108
>THIS JUST PROVES NIETZSCHE RIGHT
Nietzschefags are cringe.

>>16084187
>You can't seriously make Nietzche responsible
Why not? It's what Nietzsche does to Socrates.

>>16077884
The Birth of Tragedy was written in his twenties and Nietzsche later called it embarrassing

>>16084200
No he doesn't. He calls Socrates a symptom of an existing decline. As he expresses pretty intensely, there's no separating of the lightning from the flash here: The cause of Socrates and the effect of Socrates are interwoven.

>>16084360
He says both. But there is also a deep resentment of Socrates and much more blame than apology.
The other problem here is Nietzsche's confusion. There is decline and then greatness, Socrates is the worst representation of the Greeks and then he is typical. Why would the Greeks kill him if he was typical?
Nietzsche simply doesn't know what he's trying to say other than opposing everything based on feeling.

>>16084360
He was literally seething and cried about his appearance.
Fucking postmodernists.

>>16069691
They hated him because he told them the truth

>>16069632
History refuted him when some autists actually attempted his bullshit, unless you consider liberals the ubermensch lol.

>>16084723
? Plenty of individuals "attempted his bullshit" and did quite well for themselves, the issue is that this is a matter of individual accomplishment and - by Nietzsche's own argument - not inviting to the recognition of the masses. Appealing to "history" is kind of a red flag of not reading Nietzsche. Of all things, Nietzsche believes that the embrace from general society is a symptom of bad philosophy. History has proven that pretty well.

>>16084487
That was a stupid fucking remark and I'm not even dignifying it with a rebuttal, and I won't go any further with this response in case you're mentally ill as I don't want that on my conscience.

literally seething cringe based cringe based reddit reddit onions onions

>>16084162
>>16084175
>>16084194
Loving this high level of discourse on /lit/

>>16084108
>>16084139
>>16084108
>>16084921
>>16083977
>>16083848
>>16083786
>>16084933
>Loving this high level of discourse on /lit/

>>16084921
My mistake. Nietzsche actually had a deep understanding of truth when he seethed over Socrates being a Chad.

>>16084980
>no u

>>16084995
cringe. seethe more faggot.

>>16084994
>this ugly mofo
>chad
lmao

>>16085000
Digits confirm you're gay.

>>16084438
No, people INSIST on this interpretation as Nietzsche having some sort of personal misgivings with Socrates on account of nothing else except attacking him.
They're missing the fact that this is just a method on his part, both rhetorically and philosophically. He attacks everything. He attacks his favorite philosophers, his favorite cultures, his old philosophy, EVERYTHING, in the name of dialectical progress of a certain sort. There's a reason why he announces at the outset that he's making a polemic, and according to his own metaphor, hitting the history of philosophy with a hammer to see what sound it makes.

The notion that Nietzsche "resented" Socrates is, with all due respect, absurd. The Problem of Socrates is just an over-famous piece that people can't take in context. Nietzsche, elsewhere, calls Socrates an essential sage and praises his personality. Like almost anyone ever, Nietzsche makes celebrating remarks about Socrates-era Athens. It's a conventionally accepted fact in philosophical circles that Athens was the shit, and Socrates something of a hero. That is WHY Nietzsche attacks him. It's a methodical contrarianism, the same sort you see him do everywhere else: Taking something conventionally accepted, and negating it, to the effect of a novel insight.

As a final point - Nietzsche writes with a sense of humor. He makes this utterly clear in TSZ, as something he considers a sort of proper philosophical conduct. Dancing on light feet so to speak. So in anything he writes, there's an element glibness. He's fucking around, messing with any convention he can find, trying to throw you off and confront you with contradictions of everything you hold sacred. It's fun if you're not a bitch.

Short answer: Nietzsche never, ever hated Socrates. There is no evidence of this except him writing an attack against Socrates, which is blinding to people who haven't read enough Nietzsche to realize he writes attacks against everything. Essentially, missing one of the few universal points of Nietzsche there are.

>>16084994
>"Socrates. If all goes well, the time will come when, to develop oneself morally-rationally, one will take up the memorabilia of Socrates rather than the Bible, and when Montaigne and Horace will be employed as precurosors and gudies to the understanding of the simplest and most impersihable mediator-sage, Socrates. The roads of the most divergent philosophic ways of life lead back to him; at bottom they are the ways of life of the different temperaments, determined by reason and habit, and in all cases pointing with their peaks to joy in life and in one's own self - from which one might well infer that the most characteristic feature of Socrates was that he shared in all temperaments. Above the founder of Christianity, Socrates is distinguished by the gay kind of seriousness and that 'wisdom full of pranks' which constitute the best state of the soul of man. Moreover, he had the greater intelligence."
- The Wanderer and his Shadow 86

go to bed zoomer

>>16085006
Nice cope.

>>16085000
Checked. Neetchfags seething.

>>16085006
Maybe that's the point you fucking idiot. He attacked everything because he resented everything.
That was the extent of his will to power. An impotent virgin who only appeals to leftists and neolibs. Fucking KYS.

>>16085160
>>16085186
>>16085206
Isn't it past your bedtime? You've got church in the morning.

>>16085006
>>16083902
>I've thought about this a lot

>>16084723
Attempted what bullshit lol

>>16085234
Have fun at drag queen story time.

>>16069691
>but he created the nihilism of the secular humanist bourgeois that the middle class crave today.
Nihilism has a longer intellectual history than that

>>16085160
Why are you trying to be a dick about this? If you have the remotest interest in philosophy, shouldn't that entail some respect for discourse? When faced with an opportunity to either inform or learn from someone, you just want to talk shit? Only part of me is even annoyed with you at all, most of me is genuinely struggling to understand your state of mind.

>>16085234
Cringe.

>>16085851
He's just a zoomer. Most of them are mentally ill and have severe ADHD. It's unfortunate, but nothing can be done about it over anonymous posting.

>>16085206
The point is that Nietzsche was so overwhelmed by spite that he attacked everything?
First of all, you don't even know what works it is I'm referring to, otherwise you wouldn't be able to say that on account of the contents. You're basing an argument based on your opponent's secondhand description of something you have an existing, politically motivated opposition to. The fact that you are retorting against a high effort, substantiated post with "kill yourself virgin" and memes from 2010's Reddit doesn't help you either.

Second of all, your interpretation sucks. It's ridiculous, and corroborated by nothing.

>An impotent virgin who only appeals to leftists and neolibs
He wasn't a virgin, no reason to believe that. And people complain about his appeal to conservatives too. I think it's you who has a problem with leftists, it has little connection to Nietzsche. Nietzsche says things that are incompatible with leftism. I don't know what it is you think about Nietzsche appeals specifically to leftists. Not like you put any thought into that

>>16085944
>He wasn't a virgin

>>16085006
>he attacked him because he liked him
What a bunch of bullshit.

>>16086105
>bullshit
Look at the post right below that one.

I'm not either poster, but the assertion is correct that Nietzsche was not attacking anyone personally. Starting with his falling out with Wagner and Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche undertook a project that was aimed at nothing less than a great philosophical and political fight against what he considered to be the one true cultural enemy of the Greeks. Necessarily, that meant attacking some of the Greeks themselves, especially Socrates and Plato. There is no indication of a personal vendetta against anything or anyone he attacked anywhere besides if you consider his love of the Greeks to make his project a personal one. Love, however, not resentment, was the motivator.

>>16086105
Yes, this is an important feature of Nietzsche's philosophy that is the cause for the name of "Twilight of the Idols / How to Philosophize with a Hammer".

This is one point on which I agree with Kaufman's interpretation, see file. You don't have to read the whole thing I indicated the main points in blue.

>>16086070
nice bro

>>16069632
I am reading Genealogy of morality now and I agree it seem a lot of that are opinions and observations. However even if it's all true it seems he is arguing against evolution of morality in our society which objectively improved lives like never seen before so I am not sure what his point is. In any case it's well written and intellectually stimulating read that I think is useful for individual. It made me think and shaken some beliefs that I maybe have taken for granted. It's a good read.

>>16086254
>Though Nietzsche's uneven style brings out the negative and critical note most strongly let's rewrite the exception as the rule.
Nice cope.

>>16069691
>nietzsche created nihilism

>>16086138
>>Love was the motivator.
>In origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebs. We know, we can still see for ourselves, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. [“monster in face, monster in soul”] But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would not be contradicted by the famous judgment of the physiognomist which sounded so offensive to the friends of Socrates. A foreigner who knew about faces once passed through Athens and told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum -- that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!"
Do you retards really expect anyone to believe this horseshit?

>>16077758
>(in other words, Wagner attended his lectures — Nietzsche was that well known at the time).
No you retard Wagner was just friends with Nietzsche and something of a fatherly figure when he wasn't well known at all, and it was Wagner who got him published in the first place.

Nietzschefags literally just twisting facts. The only fame Nietzsche had at that time was being a friend of Wagner's in Bayreuth, and at worst in the gossip his "lapdog".

>>16086651
It's literally just a "fuck you Socrates" but he's trying to stretch it out into one of his well known aphoristic anecdotes.

https://youtu.be/y4x6OiHe3AU?t=144
>Nietzsche masturbates you know,

>>16086685

>>16086690

"The famous episode of Wagner contacting Nietzsche’s physician appears as well: Wagner sent word to the doctor to inform him that excessive masturbation was responsible for Nietzsche’s health problems. Köhler interprets Wagner as lamenting about Nietzsche’s lack of intercourse with women. Köhler displays particular ingenuity by exploring yet another episode, which has puzzled Nietzsche biographers: In a letter to Nietzsche on his 33rd birthday, Paul Rée reminded him of an earlier joint stay in the village Bex, insisting that stay amounted to a picture of perfection “even if Stella had not been there.” So who is “Stella”? Offering his own answer, Köhler refers to a passage in Hölderlin’s Hyperion where the hero asks: “Do you know how Plato loved his Stella”? Stella, the Latin word for star, was a male character. Does Köhler mean to suggest that Rée and Nietzsche were gay lovers, at least briefly? Presumably, and then he goes on to say that it was Rée’s Jewish nose that turned Nietzsche off. This is as close as Köhler comes to actually connecting Nietzsche’s alleged homosexuality to a particular person.

Very illuminating is Köhler’s suggestion that Nietzsche went to Italy because it offered refuge to German homosexuals exiled from their own country. Long before Thomas Mann’s Aschenbach encountered the boy Tadzio, German homosexuals ventured south to find their own Tadzios. Köhler focuses on Nietzsche’s journey to Sicily in 1882, from which he seems to have emerged unusually well relaxed. We know nothing about what Nietzsche did in Sicily, but Köhler argues that he could not possibly have gone for any other reason than to seek homosexual encounters. (Köhler includes photographs of Sicilian adonises taken by a German photographer who had made a permanent transition from the cold, Protestant North of Germany to the allegedly sexually liberated South of Italy."

>>16086685
How often did he coom?

>>16069954
huh, Ciorans a pseud

>>16072405
>hypothetical ubermensch
T. another non-reader
If you had really understood the meaning of the overman, you'd want him with every fiber of your being

>>16086679
>>16083510
>>16075454
You can't correct people's retarded readings of him by throwing more Nietzsche at them.
see quote >>16085234

>>16069632
He makes no arguments, so there is nothing to refute.
His Geneaology of Morals is embarrassing pseudoscience that fails even the most basic standards of scholarship in the historical sciences.

>>16085006
>He attacks everything. He attacks his favorite philosophers, his favorite cultures, his old philosophy, EVERYTHING, in the name of dialectical progress of a certain sort.

why he didn´t attack Hegel?

>>16069632
this is like the standard post on this board in 2020
so thoroughly retarded

>>16085006
I think this is largely correct, although perhaps we can reformulate the relationship into a more genuinely Nietzschean one. Nietzsche looked at Plato/Socrates as his "enemies." And as Nietzsche knew, a worthy adversary to such colossal figures demands a kind of respect and appreciation. I think this allows us to understand why Nietzsche wrote against Socrates/Plato, against the spirit of gravity that resulted out of philosophy, and yet understand his obvious appreciation for these thinkers and their problems.

Deleuze has a similar approach with Kant. Where Deleuze explicitly says he approached Kant as an enemy, he also wanted to get inside his thinking and understand it before attempting any kind of "refutation." I don't think Nietzsche/Deleuze are interested in "refutations" at all (anyone who has read enough of either of these thinkers is well aware of this). That being said, they could be writing against someone with an appreciation, and yet still be writing against them.

>>16084348
He meant that it was embarrassing in the sense of being a Wagner rip-off.

>>16088224
>That being said, they could be writing against someone with an appreciation, and yet still be writing against them.
Yes. Which is what Nietzsche was almost always doing, in the same way that Zarathustra advises to his disciples that they will be closest to him when they strive against him.

This goes back to Homer's Contest years earlier, where Nietzsche describes the importance of the contest and agon (which he refers to as the agonal instinct much later in Twilight of the Idols) in ancient Greece. He understood the Greeks to have acknowledged the value of having enemies and that this desiring an adversary was made into a principle and a law in Greek society. Similarly, Nietzsche takes it upon himself to make enemies, especially with the most powerful individuals in the history of philosophy, so that his own philosophy can grow in power.

>>16088368
i can understand why Nietzsche wanted enemies, i personally had enemies all throughout my life, but because of it (although it pains me to admit), it made me the person i am today

https://discord.gg/UUvVy5

His theories on ethics and religions have been thoroughly debunked in anthropology

>>16088492
Small, self-correction
his theories of the origins of ethics

>>16088492
>>16088496
Can you share any readings on this? I'm interested.

>>16088518
Anthropology is often a very retarded field of study so be very careful
That said, Geertz's interpretation of cultures is a great introduction and covers the related topics(mind you the book is a little old by social "science" standards but there haven't been very many actual developments since)

>>16069954
This guy is an idiot Nietzsche wrote Thus Spoke Zarathustra as a pleasure read

>>16086668
Why would Wagner befriend Nietzsche at all? Wagner was a busy man.

> it was Wagner who got him published in the first place
>The only fame Nietzsche had at that time was being a friend of Wagner's in Bayreuth
False. Do you know that Nietzsche became a professor at the University of Basel at only age 24, making him the youngest on the board at the time? He had been recommended by several respectable men for the position due to his early philological works which had been published already.

>>16086651
No, we don't expect anyone to understand any general truth about Nietzsche when the DON'T FUCKING READ HIM

see >>16086254 please

>>16086685
So THIS is the power of the ubermensch.

>226 posts
>still not a single refutation
it's like Christians trying to refute the Antichrist. can't be done, they can only ward him off with magickal incantation and denial. the position of the Antichrist however is eternal even if contained or hidden away somewhere.

>>16085006
Cringe take

>>16090040
Cringe.

>>16085006
Extra cringe.

>>16090973
>>16091566
>>16091577
underage

>>16080549
No, that's perfectly sound.