/lit/ - Literature

>>16100511
>Answer to Job

>>16100532
I never read it but I intend to, could you give me a tl;dr?

>>16100543
>tl;dr
Jung argues that the book of Job shows God's evil side, a secret fourth part to the Trinity

>>16100599
Danke fren

I am convinced nietzche did not actually read a lot of the stuff he attacked and that was part of the joke for him

>>16101064

You don't make full professor in your early 20s by not reading, especially back when something resembling intellectual honesty existed. You just don't like what he had to say about things.

That if you play with Leviathan you have a right to kill children?

>>16101127
plus no computers or phones but you're still an incel. i mean that's a fucking lot of free time.

>>16101064
he read them alright, rather read very quickly almost like a glance, he was a notorius fast reader and his knew greek philosophy, criatiniaty and episdemology. nietzsche is fine

>>16100599
Jung is a schizo retard, fuck him and every other pseud that worships him on this pozzed board.

And nothing of value was said in the OP or the replies. OP, justify your claim so we can show you how dumb you are.

>>16101305
Is that a one-sided view to life? I think so.

>>16101319
>Is that a one-sided view to life?
Yes.

>>16100511
why?

>>16100511
Should i even bother finishing "On the genealogy of morality?", i'm in the middle of the first essay and it doesn't seen like he's going to present anything to back up all that he claims. There are some nonsense like jews being a nation of priests, and priests being the biggest haters of humans history. Or when he deduces the entire morality system of european aristocracy through the etymology of a few words. What the fuck is this shit?

alah

>>16101369
Where do you find fault with this?

>>16101369
Yeah, most people who worship this guy refuse to be critical about anything he says, and if pushed say he was being wrong on purpose and stupid shit like that. Its a cult of disaffected 20yr olds

>>16101424
He's not pointing out anything that corroborates what he says about those things. Not even anedoctal evidence or scripture.

>>16101369
Same. I finally got to him will fasttracking my way through the western Canon and i have a real hard time following him through some of this really wishy washy stuff.

>>16101478
You need to learn how to think and observe. Stop asking to be spoon-fed with analogy, anecdotes, and examples while you’re reading writings that gets to the heart of what’s happened. He’s giving you a rich quasi-poetic history of ideas and their development in a very straightforward and articulate manner. Maybe you’re in over your head with Neeto right now, and you should understand the general structure of religion first. While you’re at it, read some primers on morality too. After that I’m sure you’ll enjoy the things he has to say.

>>16101503
in other words its unsubstantiated bullshit lol

>>16101503
>Stop asking to be spoon-fed with analogy, anecdotes, and examples while you’re reading writings that gets to the heart of what’s happened. He’s giving you a rich quasi-poetic history of ideas
Thats not the fucking problem. It paints a good story, but the problem is that its full on continental schlock. for every one overarching framework he proposes, i could see it being readily interpreted a different way. its not that its not interesting or insightful, but that it seems like a particular lense out of a possible many and he often treats it as definite.

>>16101513
No, it’s work written with a substantial amount of knowledge in mind. It is substance alone, if his writing can be called anything.

>>16100511
kys faggot

>>16101521
So do you want a narrative? Or would you prefer a bunch of loose and disjoint ideas justified by using some form of evidence/example/etc? The latter sounds boring and tedious. If you want to learn things and make the difficult connections yourself, go do that. Neeto is not for you. But his insight and organization of ideas is not haphazard. He makes very specific points on purpose.

>>16101527
>No, it’s work written with a substantial amount of knowledge in mind
Why didn't he put this knowledge into paper, then? Are you telling me the reader must do the same research that he - supposely - did after reading the essay so they can understand his points?

>>16101544
>The latter sounds boring and tedious
I dont mind if its philosophically coherent.
>But his insight and organization of ideas is not haphazard
I dont disagree, he paints a real methodical picture, but I am not convinced by his methodology in terms of universal application. All I can take from it is a particular lense of interpretation rather than an even analysis.
Some one like Hegel goes through his conceptualization of history from the very abstract and defines his system solidly in a way that can be dynamically applied.

>>16101369
If you're having trouble seeing where he's coming from, you need to study more history or pick up some secondary materials that can provide you with the context you personally lack.

>>16101575
>convinced by his methodology in terms of universal application.
Rightfully so, given my understanding of Neet man’s work. Milk what you can from
it. My first time around I used a companion text (Mangus/Higgens). It helped out.

If you want to put a philosophical system into any rigorous, day to day practice, it’ll only be the one that you create and temper for yourself that will work.

>>16101397
nigga... easy on the hemp

>>16100511
what order to read the books of the bible in? about to finish St. Matthew

>>16101570
>Why didn't he put this knowledge into paper, then?
Not enough time. As it was, his health failed him before he was able to really finish his project. Nietzsche had a lot to say and didn't have much interest in sharing it with anyone who didn't have the educational background to understand his philosophy to begin with.

>Are you telling me the reader must do the same research that he - supposely - did after reading the essay so they can understand his points?
As someone outside the top academic circle of 19th century Europe, yes, that's how it is. Realize that Nietzsche wasn't just some random NEET penning a bunch of flowery bullshit from the comfort of his bedroom, he was a highly esteemed classical philologist and professor who experienced many major political changes in Europe first-hand and maintained communication with various colleagues who he sent his published works to all the time. He was part of Europe's intellectual elite back then. This is not a throwaway author like all the self-help New York Times bestseller guru faggots that are scribbling their nonsense today.

>>16101671
You say this like he isnt also the go to edge choice for teens first philosopher. Dont get me wrong, im not disagreeing that Neitche was great and well read, but I think its important to note, even though how over played it is, to say people dont often understand neitzche.

I highly recommend people read through the chronologically previous big names before him, sice almost without exception people who first dive into him without prior knowledge (and a lot, and i mean a lot, of people due) become fucking obnoxious mouthpieces wh odont understand (funnily enough) the geneology of what they are saying.

>>16101706
I can at least attest. to this for myself. I'm just passing through, but when I was in my mid-to-late teens I absolutely adored the flowery, strong pose without considering, studying, or learning any of the material surrounding and supporting his work.

Do the Religeorinnnnos usuly seethe this hard about N? I feel like there at least 3 of these threads an hour

>>16101369
There's a reason Nietzche's biggest fans are immature 20 year olds

He's barely even a philosopher, more like an angry poet who just makes tunnel-visioned assertions and statements

>>16101834
It's been particularly bad this year. I think it's a combination of kids and non-essentials being stuck at home due to coronavirus and it being election year.

>>16101369
Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source, I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field?

A college degree? In that field?

Then your arguments are invalid.

No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

>>16102190
Your understanding of empirical evidence is twisted if you think there are evidence regarding the subjects i mentioned.

>>16101872
>immature 20 year olds who don't even read him
>his biggest fans
Fucking retard.

>>16102251
don't worry anon, there's a big chance a vagina wrote that post

>>16100599
Where is this?

>>16100599
oh wow that sounds retarded

>>16100511
true

>>16102190
Imagine getting so pissy at having your bullshit called out that you make a copypasta like this.

>>16105128
Imagine thinking you need sources and proof for continental philosophy. You're the retard

>>16101544
Its not tedious, its rigorous.
Making sweeping claims and then barely attempting or justify them is not entertaining, its annoying if one is meant to take his work seriously.

I disagree with a lot of Kant's ideas, or perhaps his application of them to reality. But he is nonetheless rigorous.

>>16105147
Imagine thinking that you don't.
Philosophy is all about understanding the best way to navigate reality. The human mind cannot do that on its own, empirical data is needed to back up claims.

If I make the claim that giving people the most autonomy possible is the key to a greater world, then I have to provide evidence to back that up.
Claims without real world evidence are just claims and should be dismissed if they aren't based in reality.

>>16105172
>The human mind cannot do that on its own, empirical data is needed to back up claims.

t. Bugman anglo retard

>>16104831
>>16100511
Hahahha no no no.

>>16105266
have you ever read the bible butterfly?

>>16101064
He was the son of a minister.

>>16105274
Yes.
What in Job or anywhere else in the bible “refutes” Nietzsche?

>>16105261
If you don't understand that the biases and misconceptions that you acquire through life get in the way of finding truth then you are a fool.
The one's that find their way deep enough into you that you don't even realize they're there are the most impactful in this way.

Its only by obtaining empirical data from many different areas, and by obtaining an understanding of what those datasets say exactly and where they come from, that one can step outside their own limited mindscape and find something closer to truth.

>>16105284
Job makes a better example of the Dyonisian spirit than Nietzsche does

>>16105300
What do you think the Dionysian spirit is?

>>16105323
acceptance and affirmation of all good and bad that comes with life

>Refuted by the boo-

Cool, all of Nietzsche's criticism of Christianity is backed by the actual execution of Christianity.

>>16105330
That’s an “unholy” synthesis that thoroughly corrupts the both of them.
Job is completely Apollonian. All about unswerving obedience and acceptance of the lawgiver.
Read Euripides’ Bacchae?

>>16105300
>>16105385

making a bullshit distinction between ‘apollo/dionysus’ makes no sense when discusssing job, a book of monism

>>16105172
The empirical data for Nietzsche was the older Greeks, the Titans and the Olympians among them. He wasn't that original, truth be told; he just actually fucking read the Greeks, and not just the younger Greeks, the portion of them that the Christianized academies teach.

>>16100511
How is God saying "yeah, I fucked your life up. Deal with it" a refutation to anything Nietzsche wrote?

>>16105172
>>16105261

its not that its not emperical data, its that N. guy doesnt make a comprehensive system like hegel fir historiography.

>>16100599
Ngl that's p dumb seeing as the whole point of Job is to go beyond good and evil in a mere human sense

>>16101064
He was literally the son of a Lutheran pastor or some shit, you just seem buttblasted by his critiques and are trying the indirect route of subtly discrediting him instead of directly engaging

>>16101369
He isn't an analytic, which seems like more your speed.

>>16105330
Incorrect, go read the book again

>>16101064
What are you talking about? He's attacking the general perception of Christianity and the Christian mind. If that is not written anywhere, that's because this is what religion is: write something, do something else. All of it.

I, for one, get the feeling you idiots can't get anything that is subtle and rush to attack anything that doesn't agree with your faith or preferred philosophical system.

>>16106276
i mean, you have to be fair though, since on the other side a lot of people read some neitzche and go to the exact opposite polarity and jusr as much don’t understand the perspective of religiosity, so a lot if it is a reaction to that, that then puts Nietzche himself in the splash zone.

in this way its two groups of modern people fighting each other with nietzche as a proxy.

>>16106313
Idiocy goes on both sides. Religious fools and atheist preachers deserve each other.

>>16106330
Genetically speaking, they're probably of the same stock.

>>16106330
i dont disagree. though i have more sympathy for the religious since at least it comes from a place of defending their culture, even if its fucking odious in how bad faith it is done. a lot of athiest preachers do it seemingly for the sake of pure reactionism and self masterbation. though regardless both are still ass.

>>16101064
He was a preacher's son that forced him to read the Bible. Im sure he was well acquainted not just with the Bible but also the works of Aquinas which at lot of his criticism is aimed at

>[On "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"] I have rarely been so utterly bored reading a book. I think that Nietzsche had nothing to say and, in fact, didn't say it.

>>16106592
Brainlet underman low t take

>>16106386
>i have more sympathy for the religious since at least it comes from a place of defending their culture
They don't defend any culture, they defend their church. Whenever they have the chance to be on top, the next thing is to burn "heretical" cultures. Religion is only good when it's on the lower receiving end, then it's docile and acts like a harmless puppy. Most of those white knights or pseudo crusaders on the internet are either fakes or simply enraged because their churches aren't in a dominant position. Mark my words: you put a Pope as the leader of New World Order or something like that and, out of nowhere, 99,9% of Catholics, which were so against it, suddenly are zealots in favor of world domination. Never defend idiots unless you want to have your life ruined.

>>16107098
>They don't defend any culture, they defend their church.
like that is so easy to separate.
> Whenever they have the chance to be on top, the next thing is to burn "heretical" cultures.
sounds like reductionism and narrative creating to me rather than a well thought out analysis.

>>16100511
Imagine all the bullshit we would be spared from if someone replied to one of the earlier Nietzche's works with "ok, incel" or "have sex".

>>16107122
>sounds like reductionism and narrative creating to me rather than a well thought out analysis.
All religions did this through history, anon. Rome committed violence against Christians too. So did Muslims. Are going to pretend to be dumb about this or do you just concede when I post a fact that is in favor of your church?

See? That's why your kind can't be taken seriously. To make an apology, you pretend to forget about everything. What is truth to you?

>>16107173
>All religions did this through history, anon. Rome committed violence against Christians too. So did Muslims.
this is what o mean by reductionism. yah that is true. but so did states and indiviguals and ideas. x caused x is usually hopelessly uninformative. btw im not religious, but i see it as a multifaceted part of the human experience like everything else.

>>16107210
Pointing facts is not reductionism. It's just facts. Also, this is a well known fact. Calling it reductionism is a fallacious argument, like you're just trying to brush it away to prevent a debate. Everything I said can be applied to governments, philosophy, ideologies, even science itself -- and this is precisely what Nietzsche is talking about (since we're in a thread about his works).

>>16100599
>Christian retard mumbo jumbo
Yep: It's schizo time!

>>16107254
it is reductionism because you are pointing to a particular as the cause of abstract gestalt occurrence like “violence”. its not facts its a uninformative and somewhat bull headed application of blunt force autism.

the very core of the epistemology here is fucked.

if you said something a little more internally coherent like
>when one system of knowledge and belief amongst a peoples interacts with another a destabalization seems to often occur.
but no.
Its religion causes violence.
thats a 5thgraders understanding of a world.

>>16107301
You're trying to act very intelligent but you're not, really. What is the point of having a whole logical analysis of my post if the place we're discussing this, in itself, is not even proper for an academic discussion? You're a goddamn idiot.

Just admit you got assmad about something and is now trying to brush it off. And stop pretending you're not religious. Even if you don't visit churches, you are the religious type by definition.

>>16107338
>im a god damn idiot for trying to be logical and trying to explain why i do not believe what you put forward was correct.
wew.
im sorry, this is not /pol/ sometimes, funnily enough, we do have informative discussions on /lit/ every now and then. i was not assmad, i said that i dont think religion=violence is a particularly insightful statement even though you said it was fact. if you do not want to have a conversation then fine.

>>16107338
Holy fuck, rarely do I see a cope-post of this magnitude.

>>16105341
/thread

>>16107415
Nietzsche was an egoist who want so far as to say that virtue was only useful to help you sleep at night. He has no leg to stand on in opposing hedonistic living.

>>16100599
>Jung argues that the book of Job shows God's evil side, a secret fourth part to the Trinity
Sounds badass honestly but more than likely horseshit

>>16107440
>was only useful to help you sleep at night
A fucking CHAPTER in Zarathustra refuted this. Try to read object of critique next time.