/lit/ - Literature

>>16662232

Camwhores - yes. Or at least a camwhore engaged in an adamantine quest to perfect the art of extracting cash out of her legion of simps.

BLM and Communists? No. Like the nazis before them there may be individual members of these groups with a menschy feel but they are still relying on a group.

>>16662252
Nietzsche said to create your own values, because nihilism is true according to him, which means exactly postmodernism and everybody can become the overman like this.
This is why all the Nietzscheans talk about being empowered.

Of course values means just taking your personal tastes as gods. But Nietzscheansare so deluded that instead of acepting reality, which is being sex addict hedonists trying to cope, they call themselves Dyonisus and get a feeling of smugness free of charge from their mental circus...

A lot of people misunderstand Nietzsche. He realized religion didn't have the same impact on people's worldviews, ways of life and morals as it did in the past. He also realized Christianity promoted what he called "slave morality", which values piety, humility and charity.
What he wanted to do was to replace that which was lost with morals that valued strength, pride, power, etc, because otherwise we would fall into nihilism. Obviously that project failed

>>16662274
>Of course values means just taking your personal tastes as gods
Right. Never mind revaluing all values to the point you understand being encast to biological impulses which, should have you properly applied Niche thought, you’d never regard in any manner again.

>>16662232
>he's directly responsible for the decline of Western civilization and modern day degeneracy.
Except he himself was criticizing and attacking the effeminization of civilization in his day, which is the real cause of these issues, so how can that be?

>>16662274

Nietzsche was not a nihilist. He did believe people create their own values... But he did not believe those values were equally good. Truly great individuals must be free to create truly great values.

You're right that lefties often characterize Nietzsche as basically saying "be yourself." However, Nietzsche thought most people's selves suck, so this reading reduces Nietzsche to vaguely inspirational platitudes that could have been acquired anywhere.

>>16662232
>but he's directly responsible for the decline of Western civilization and modern day degeneracy.
Nah that was the communists (and jews)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g

You're misinterpreting his words. He was gravely concerned that religion, the bedrock of Western morality was being undermined.

>>16662232
>he's directly responsible for the decline of Western civilization and modern day degeneracy.
thats Plato and Descartes and Kant you fucking retard

>>16662572
more like William of Ockham

I both believe Nietzsche has value and that people who over-fixate on him and use him as justification to do whatever they want are massive faggots.

>>16662572
>plato caused democracy
The absolute state of neetchfags

>>16662232
>Nietzscheans
>Nietzscheanism

Here's something funny buddy boy, those things are not real.
It's like Twilight of the idols never existed in some minds.

>>16662232
Nietzsche described the ills of our society, he didn’t invent them. He took the death of God to its logical conclusion, unlike hacks like Hitchens and Harris.

Nietzsche is dead

>>16662316
gb2 >>>/pol/ nigger

>>16662492
No, that was not his concern. Stop watching Peterson and actually read his work. Nietzsche is moving beyond the herd morality of religion and trying to leave it's corpse completely behind. Unlike other philosophies which tended to still have religious tendencies.

>>16662274
>Nietzsche said to create your own values, because nihilism is true according to him, which means exactly postmodernism and everybody can become the overman like this.
>This is why all the Nietzscheans talk about being empowered.

Good lord. Read some of his actual work.

>>16662232
Nietzsche wasn't a fan of degeneracy or groupthink, which both camwhores and activists/communists advocate and embody -- because they still focus on the material.

Read TSZ. It's incredibly clear that Nietzsche believed human beings had to, and probably would, pass through a dark age of hedonism and degeneracy and some kind of barren/decadent wasteland where nothing made sense and everything was permitted because there wasn't any overarching system to prevent it from being not permitted. This is most likely what we are in now.

It's also clear that his philosophy doesn't just have to be applied on a macro-level -- it can and should be applied to the individual as well. Zarathustra, and Nietzsche himself, sequesters away for years, contemplating the problems he sees in the world. He emerges several times and is rebuffed several times by the public and nature. Near the end of the book, even after finding disciples, he finds that there's still a long way to go.

More than anything, Nietzsche wanted people to abandon their systems of belief as sources of personal power -- that power had to, and did/does, come from within. Anyone can be a Zarathustra or an enlightened figure. And this isn't blasphemous because Nietzsche never really decried God in the idea of the sublime or the aesthetic or the transcendent -- he decried the abuse of power wrought from systems of belief that convinced people they needed those systems in order to be fully human. These systems corrupt people by annexing parts of their soul away, and keeping them from genuine peace and contentment.

Anyone who has the power to change their situation and instead blames their station in life on someone or something else, especially Nietzsche, misses the whole point, and may just be a real-life example of the Last Man Fred talked about in his books.

>>16663348
>More than anything, Nietzsche wanted people to abandon their systems of belief as sources of personal power -- that power had to, and did/does, come from within. Anyone can be a Zarathustra or an enlightened figure. And this isn't blasphemous because Nietzsche never really decried God in the idea of the sublime or the aesthetic or the transcendent -- he decried the abuse of power wrought from systems of belief that convinced people they needed those systems in order to be fully human. These systems corrupt people by annexing parts of their soul away, and keeping them from genuine peace and contentment.
This just translates into BLM or anti Slut-shaming IRL.
this is what all the shut in autistic intellectuals will never understand: people are hedonists so any made up internal strength they have will just be sex libido

>>16663412
I disagree, because BLM and all that "slut" bullshit are still focused on material gain. There's nothing transcendent about those beliefs -- they don't look beyond anything other than the human. They don't seek to overcome, ironically, they seek to oppress.

>>16663412
But I'll agree with you that most people given these options will resort to hedonism. And that's the choice they make. They have another option, choosing not to exercise it is their responsibility.

Why is Nietzsche spoken so much by those who don't read his works?

>>16662274
>because nihilism is true according to him
>just taking your personal tastes as gods
And which book did he say any of these things in? Because pretty much all of his polemical works are scathing critiques of nihilism (Off the top of my head, Zarathusta, Genealogy, and Twilight of the Idols), not even tacitly but in the most overt way possible. The man insults at least 75% of philosophers before him for being nihilists or chandalah. What books have you read by Nietzsche to confirm anything in your post?

>>16663455
Marx has the exact same problem. I've stopped talking about Marx in the real world because I've seen so many "Marxists" shriek at the actual content of his work.

>>16663455
Peterson and the whole "intellectual dark web" farce has wreaked havoc on the internet, and now it's full of arrogant pseuds.

>>16663494
Peterson works as a starting point, not in anything meaningful, but just as a popular potential introduction to far better thinkers. That being said it's definitely an issue because most don't seem to go beyond him and instead stay with Peterson and only Peterson.

No it's was Marxism.

>>16662232
Jung was the only one who got him right

>>16662232
You havent read Nietzsche you fucking retard. Everything you mentioned is the offspring of christianity
Camwhores-its ok, jesus still loves you and will forgive you
BLM-literally slave morality incarnate
Commies-all humans are equal, we are gonna build heaven on earth

>>16663660
You still haven't shown how Nietzscheanism can help us overcome this pathetic condition. OP was fundamentally right, your kind always responds to this charge with some platitude like
>muh not real Nietzscheanism! that's actually slave morality, not Nietzscheanism! WAAAAH

>>16662274
>Nietzsche said to create your own values, because nihilism is true according to him

>>16662232
what are you even talking about you fucking retard?
>today's Ubermenschen are camwhores, BLM activists and communists
Have you ever read Nietzsche? Camwhores are the only thing listed here that could even be possibly considered master morality, but that would still be a stretch. BLM activists and communists are both slave moralist herd animals, the spawn of Christian morality and the evolution of what Nietzsche directly attacks in Genealogy.
How can you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of his philosophy? I'm not even right wing and I don't think you can classify Nietzsche as right wing either (if you did it would be a misleading simplification) but he is explicitly anti-liberalism and on multiple occasions goes on rants against socialism. He hated collectivist ideology.
>>16662274
Nietzsche's whole goal was to negate nihilism.
And the Dionysian is not about sex. It's like you haven't even read Birth of Tragedy.
>>16662492
Somehow more of a retard than OP
>>16663660
> Everything you mentioned is the offspring of christianity
Yes, closest person to being right in this thread.

>>16662232
I agree with the sentiment but not the application. Nietzsche did open the door for blatant hedonism which is why so many elements of the right have as much free love and take as many drugs as the leftists they're supposed to oppose. Camwhores, BLM activists, and commies are not ubermenschen though.

>>16662277
People always act as if Nietzsche's claim that Christianity is based on slave morality disproves the religion but always fail to make the actual jump required to prove that. Under Christianity Europeans conquered the world, when they started replacing it with secular "logic" they fell apart. Makes one think.

>>16662277
Nietzsche saw value on that though, because he knew creating your own values and morals is something the vast majority can't do, so it's a necessary evil if you want to look it that way, because without stablished values (Christian in this case) people would just fuck around and be on a self-destructive quest, which is more obvious with the leftist groups.

>>16663660
>>16664025
>nooo you don't understand christianity is responsible for everything that is against christianity!!!
When will you absolute retards pick up a book on Christianity that wasn't written by a seething drugged-up failure? To say that BLM, communism, and camwhoring is all a-ok with Christianity shows a total lack of understanding of what the religion fundamentally is. You can observe all the filth and degeneracy in the world today, see how it has infested our institutions, and yet you conflate the infestation with the institutions themselves? Jesus you're retarded. Liberalism was the total rejection of everything Christian in favor of a secular world built on "reason". Have you ever read Voltaire, Rousseau, Descartes? Obviously not.

>>16664068
>>16664073
Nietzsche did prefer Christianity over nihilism, he just didn't think it was possible to go back to that previous state. When he says that "God is dead, and we killed him" he's not gloating over the death of religion or trying to disprove it, he sees it as a bad thing but also inevitable because we already crossed over that bridge.
That's why he wanted build new values to replace the old ones which were already in decay, because the only choices we have is either build something new or fall into nihilism.

>>16664068
You seem to think that slave morality=losing, which is the exact opposite of what Nietzsche says. He says the slave revolt was successful. Christian morality has become the predominant morality.
It also isn't that Christianity makes people weak physically. It's that it makes them spiritually weak and fills them with ressentiment, and ultimately turns them into life-denying nihilists. It has nothing to do with them being unable to win wars.
> when they started replacing it with secular "logic" they fell apart
The morality is the same. Liberal thought is Christian thought. Atheist libs still operate under Christian morality. They just don't wear the dress.
>>16664081
You don't understand what Nietzsche is saying. Christianity in its essence is liberalism. "The meek shall inherit the earth"--arguably the most important passage in the bible.
You think Christianity at its essence is anti-degeneracy, but this is simply untrue. Christianity at its essence is about holding the downtrodden, the weak and the pitiful up as the true righteous ones.
> When will you absolute retards pick up a book on Christianity that wasn't written by a seething drugged-up failure?
is the bible not good enough for you? Is attending church, being confirmed, not enough?
I used to very much admire Christianity even when I stopped believing in God but Nietzsche is entirely right about it.
If you think that Christianity at its core is anti-degeneracy then you don't understand it. That is just adornment.

>>16664147
>It also isn't that Christianity makes people weak physically. It's that it makes them spiritually weak and fills them with ressentiment,
I find this assertion strange. It seems like if anything it helps them cope with being poor or powerless without making them have to hate the rich/powerful since the whole religion advocates forgiveness and not resisting evil and whatever.

I find Judaism and secular ideologies like communism and fascism much more full of ressentiment

>>16662232
>today's Ubermenschen are camwhores, BLM activists and communists.
yeah the Ubermenschen are the ones parading around with the rabble, sure thing.

>>16662232
>he's directly responsible

He's not responsible for it, he just forecasted it

>>16664203
Fedor, the most overhyped can of all time. Got his ass beat by every UFC fighter

>>16664147
> muh evangelical social justice jesus
Oh go neck yourself.

>>16664172
Christianity tells you that you are, from birth, guilty. It teaches you to hate your body, your body is unclean and certain parts of it will send you to hell. It teaches you to pity everyone around you. It tells you you MUST go to church, you must pray to God every night, and you must apologize for your every sin (and so many things are sins) otherwise you will go to hell. It also tells you that lying will send you to hell just as much as murdering. It tells you that your life doesn't actually matter; your whole life is just a test which determines where you will spend all eternity. It tells you that strength, wealth, and fortune are bad, and that weakness, poverty, and misfortune are virtues. It tells you that hatred is wrong and love is right, but that pity is good, that pity is actually love.
Also its moral system makes no sense at a fundamental level, and is an active denial of life.
just look at any Christian on this site. They are the most hateful, nihilistic people there are. And worse they try to reframe their hatred as enlightenment. "Oh how we pity you nonbelievers, you will burn in hell, praise Jesus love thy neighbor."

>>16664250
>jesus wasn't evangelical
kek a very interesting take

>>16664264
Yeah but it doesn't teach you to be jealous or resentful of the ruling class, which is the basis of slave morality as I understand it.

And I agree that Christians are often hateful but Idk how you can call Christ hateful

>>16664264
the error in your thinking is the belief that those who are un-Christian are different in their behavior at all. do you really not see the parallels in all the traits you described in atheists, scientards, political people, or just everyday men? They are exactly the same and if you disagree it’s because you fell for the logical trap of identifying with your ‘own kin’. Whether these values started with the Bible or not, I don’t know nor it is important, but simply not being a Christian changes NONE of what you said, as we are all in the very same boat and swapping one ideology for another is meaningless or worse

>>16664172
I agree with this sentiment, it's part of what i said >>16664073
You can also take Christianity and not be a slave, just like Jesus did, he took God's teachings and did his own interpretation.
>>16664097
I believe we might go back to Christianity, a new one though. Humanity has to follow a figure bigger than theirs for their own sake (at least the majority), people replaced that figure with science (whatever that means for them) and technology, it doesn't seem to work, seems to be more harmful in a personal level, i guess you can argue that it's a natural result of chaos and once it settles there will be more peace of mind.

>>16664277
>Yeah but it doesn't teach you to be jealous or resentful of the ruling class, which is the basis of slave morality as I understand it.
That's not the basis of slave morality. You should read Nietzsche, I recommend getting the Kaufmann editions. Nobody will be able to teach you what these things mean without you having read his word first, it's the reason every Nietzsche thread is full of misinterpretations; people get their info from secondary sources or skim him and take these concepts for much simpler than they are and ultimately misunderstand them.
>And I agree that Christians are often hateful but Idk how you can call Christ hateful
I'm not speaking about Jesus Christ himself. I'm talking about his word and the affect it has on people.
>>16664305
> the error in your thinking is the belief that those who are un-Christian are different in their behavior at all. do you really not see the parallels in all the traits you described in atheists, scientards, political people, or just everyday men? They are exactly the same and if you disagree it’s because you fell for the logical trap of identifying with your ‘own kin’
I don't disagree at all. As I said Christian morality is liberal morality and is actually upheld even more and with more strength and efficacy by atheist liberals than it is by self-identified Christians. But it is still the spawn of Christianity, as Nietzsche identifies.

>>16664273
"Evangelical" is in the American shabbos-goy religion, of course.

>>16664025
>But Nietzsche was also a Socialist without knowing it. Not his catchwords, but his instincts, were Socialistic, practical, directed to that welfare of mankind that Goethe and Kant never spent a thought upon. Materialism, Socialism and Darwinism are only artificially and on the surface separable. It was this that made it possible for Shaw in the third act of “Man and Superman” (one of the most important and significant of the works that issued from the transition) to obtain, by giving just a small and indeed perfectly logical turn to the tendencies of “master morale” and the production of the Superman, the specific maxims of his own Socialism. Here Shaw was only expressing with remorseless clarity and full consciousness of the commonplace, what the uncompleted portion of the Zarathustra would have said with Wagnerian theatricality and woolly romanticism. All that we are concerned to discover in Nietzsche’s reasoning is its practical bases and consequences, which proceed of necessity from the structure of modern public life. He moves amongst vague ideas like “new values,” “Superman,” “Sinn der Erde,” and declines or fears to shape them more precisely. Shaw does it. Nietzsche observes that the Darwinian idea of the Superman evokes he notion of breeding, and stops there, leaves it at a sounding phrase. Shaw pursues the question — for there is no object in talking about it if nothing is going to be done about it — asks how it is to be achieved, and from that comes to demand the transformation of mankind into a stud farm. But this is merely the conclusion implicit in the Zarathustra, which Nietzsche was not bold enough, or was too fastidious, to draw. If we do talk of systematic breeding — a completely materialistic and utilitarian notion — we must be prepared to answer the questions, who shall breed what, where and how? But Nietzsche, too romantic to face the very prosaic social consequences and to expose poetic ideas to the test of facts, omits to say that his whole doctrine, as a derivative of Darwinism, presupposes Socialism and, moreover, socialistic compulsion as the means; that any systematic breeding of a class of higher men requires as condition precedent a strictly socialistic ordering of society; and that this “Dionysiac” idea, as it involves a common action and is not simply the private affair of detached thinkers, is democratic, turn it how you may. It is the climax of the ethical force of “Thou shalt”; to impose upon the world the form of his will, Faustian man sacrifices even himself.
>t. Spergler

>>16664352
>Evangelical is only a denomination of Christianity and not a word that literally means Christ-like
bruh

>>16664339
I have read Nietzsche, he says that slave morality is based on resenting the ruling class and declaring them evil while you, the underclass, are good, an inversion of noble values. This is not what I see Christ saying, it is what I see eg. Exodus saying, or revolutionary political movements that attack some elite.

Jesus advocates actually giving away your wealth should you have any, it could not be more different than the people of Israel becoming kings, or the political revolutionaries taking over the government.

>>16662232
The philosophers before Nietzsche are even bigger degeneracy enablers since they enabled Nietzsche.

>>16664177
Exactly. OP is a troll

>>16664081
Again, you havent read him. You dont have to be christian to operate within christian moral framework. And even if the things mentioned are fundamentally incompatible with christian faith, they are the byproducts of this framework.

>>16663816
Yes the OP who thinks that Nietzsches Übermensch is either hedonist or collectivist is 100% right. I know you are both baiting but at least be more creative next time.

>>16664398
>slave morality is based on resenting the ruling class and declaring them evil while you, the underclass, are good
It's not based on that at all, and I urge you to reread whichever work you got that from with a much more careful eye. Resenting the ruling class can be a symptom of slave morality, it is not what defines it. Otherwise the successful slave revolt would be a complete contradiction.
>Jesus advocates actually giving away your wealth should you have any
How is this any different than saying having wealth is bad?

>>16664470
>The beginning of the slaves’ revolt in morality occurs when ressentiment
itself turns creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of those
beings who, denied the proper response of action, compensate for it only
with imaginary revenge. Whereas all noble morality grows out of a triumphant saying ‘yes’ to itself, slave morality says ‘no’ on principle to
everything that is ‘outside’, ‘other’, ‘non-self ’: and this ‘no’ is its creative
deed. This reversal of the evaluating glance – this essential orientation to
the outside instead of back onto itself – is a feature of ressentiment: in order
to come about, slave morality first has to have an opposing, external
world, it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act
at all, – its action is basically a reaction.
...
>d! Against this, imagine ‘the
enemy’ as conceived of by the man of ressentiment – and here we have his
deed, his creation: he has conceived of the ‘evil enemy’, ‘the evil one’ as a
basic idea to which he now thinks up a copy and counterpart, the ‘good
one’ – himself! . . .

Seems to me he is saying exactly that slave morality is birthed from a resentful underclass inventing a new morality where the elite are evil and they are good. And it's different than saying wealth is bad because one advocates giving up your power, the other advocates trying to gain power at the expense of the elites you hate.

>>16664172
It makes poverty seem noble and virtuous, while saying that its easier for a camel to pass trough needles eye than for rich to attain heaven. Where does this come from if not from place of deep ressentiment?

You are correct that judaism and communism both share this, but fascism was the attempt to reassert master morality so its the opposite of that. Resentment always comes from the bottom

>>16664516
You are being far too much of a literalist. It's not about rich vs poor or elite vs underclass (although it can be--but it isn't inherently). It's about spirit.
It is important to note that Nietzsche never says the poor and the needy cannot be righteous, cannot be virtuous and cannot be masters, just that the Christian conception that being poor and needy are virtues is false and breeds ressentiment.

>>16664569
Because you are supposed to give up everything you own, share it with the people. You are not supposed to hate the rich, you are a sinner just like them.

and wrt Fascists it was the Jews and some other elite classes they were resentful towards

>>16664584
I don't see why it breeds ressentiment, becoming poor is not the point, the point is believing in Christ, he is just telling the poor they don't have to worry if they are with him.

>>16664616
Why have you danced back to the beginning?
The bible doesn't just say that poor people are ok by me. It says that the meek shall inherit the earth, it is the poor and the weak who are virtuous, and that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. And that is just among all the other things that I previously listed here >>16664264
If you don't see the relation between these concepts and ressentiment, then I don't think you are ever going to get it.

>>16664655
Does praising poverty necessitate being resentful against the rich?

>>16664670
Necessitate? No. it is a consequence, though. But regardless it's not just praising poverty.
>it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven
Among much more

>>16663660
>>16664147
>>16664339
I am speechless at this absurdity.
>ACKSHUALLY the best representatives of Christian values are the most ardent anti-christian BLMers, camwhores, etc.
>Oh, and also CHRISTIANITY is actually the degenerate and liberal worldview.
>Oh! And not only that, but it's also the ONLY world religion that is degenerate. That's why it's bad!
These sound like the bad faith arguments of a schizo (probably an american atheist) with a bone to pick specifically with Christianity even though it has the exact same moral code as any other religion.

>>16664732
>I am speechless at this absurdity.
of course you are, you've grown up in a Christian world where Christian values and morality are considered inherent and you've never once questioned it in your life.
> Oh! And not only that, but it's also the ONLY world religion that is degenerate. That's why it's bad!
Nobody said this.
>even though it has the exact same moral code as any other religion
would love for you to tell me how it's the same moral code as Taoism or Buddhism. Let's be real though, you're only familiar with Abrahamic religions and even then you don't know much about Islam or Judaism.
You're gonna lose your mind when you read Nietzsche. And no, he wasn't an American.

>>16664797
I know plenty about Islam kafir but this is no cawk measuring contest although you are faggot. Name anything good in Buddhism that is not also found in Christianity. Also I demand an explanation NOW about how BLMers and camwhores are better representatives of Christianity than actual Christians

>>16664595
Im not saying christianity is hateful religion, but you have to ask yourself where the notion that you are obliged to share the wealth came to be. If you think about greek and roman culture and their mythologies, such ideas never did occur to them. The thing is the slave wants what the master has and is resentful of it, but since its too weak to get it trough force he has to get it by twisting morality ("your wealth is bad, share it with me and you will be a good person"). Hating master would achieve anything.

Also I dont see how fascists could be resentful of jews, you cant feel that way against starving people in camps since they have nothing that you would want

>>16664177
>>16664451
you just don't understand how individualism drives those who get behind group ideologies.
A communist is a good nietzschean

>>16664871
>Name anything good in Buddhism that is not also found in Christianity
Bruh. Buddhism is not just Christianity without Christ. Buddhism literally rejects the notion of good and evil. If you don't even know this then I don't know what to tell you.
> Also I demand an explanation NOW about how BLMers and camwhores are better representatives of Christianity than actual Christians
Just read through the thread if you're actually interested--it's been said numerous times-- and if you're legitimately intent on learning more read Nietzsche. Otherwise just don't waste your time posting, you're arguing about something you don't understand.
I am interested in discussing this topic but I'm not gonna argue with someone who doesn't even know the basics.

>>16664892
>since they have nothing that you would want
Didn't you just skip past the rationale behind why they were put in camps in the first place?

>>16664904
None of those groups have members who even know who Nietzsche is, and "Ubermensch = individualism" is a liberal meme.
>A communist is a good nietzschean
You're gonna have to explain what you mean by communist here.

>>16664904
>A communist is a good nietzschean
you have to have a deep misunderstanding of both communism and nietzsche to say something this idiotic

>>16664732
You seem to confuse christian religion and christian morality. I already tried explaining it here >>16664465 and Nietzche himself adressed that.

Also it has similar moral code as the rest of abrahamic religions, because it shares the same roots. That doesnt mean it has same moral code as every other religion that exists or has existed

>>16662232
Nietzsche did nothing for modern degeneracy, he just pointed the fact out, that the basis for christian morality was dying and that there would take place a transvaluation of all values. His prescription of the overman isn't related to the consequences of the fall of chrisitanity.

I would contend that the decay from catholicism - protestantism - enlightenment rationalism - the postmoderns was a natural progression. The philosophers generally tend to be spokespersons of the zeitgeist doing cultural diagnostics rather than people precipitating cultural shifts, though this definitely happens as well -- as a result of the precipitation of the condensed knowledge of the times being dispersed throughout the masses. Man is always his own enemy.

>>16664584
>the Christian conception that being poor and needy are virtues

the Christian conception doesn't say that being poor or needy is a virtue.

>>16664992
>the Christian conception doesn't say that being poor or needy is a virtue.
How does it not? Literalism is rife in most practiced christianity.

>>16664655
Being meek does not equal being poor and weak.

In fact ironically enough:
meek: enduring injury with patience and without resentment

>>16664942
I'm not talking about the doctrines of Buddhism, all religions have different doctrines, I'm talking about the moral framework. I don't know why we're focusing on Buddhism my point was that all world religions have same metaphysical core but you're only attacking Christianity.

>I am interested in discussing this topic but I'm not gonna argue with someone who doesn't even know the basics.
So you're talking nonsense and don't want to get exposed? Got it.

>>16665002
Literalism is a cancer found everywhere, how is that unique to Christianity? Just admit you're biased.

>>16664992
>the Christian conception doesn't say that being poor or needy is a virtue.

>>16664701
And what do you think that proves? Jesus is saying that acquiring riches is often connected to disordered behavior (which it obviously is) and that having riches often leads to disordered behavior (which it also obviously does). You don't get to heaven because of disordered behavior not because of being rich. Jesus is also reacting against the Jewish belief taht God rewards just people with riches in life and vice-versa. It's so tiresome debating with Nietzscheans who don't even understand Christianity.

>>16665024
The virtues of Christian faith are literally written out in the Catechism:

>
1804 Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life. The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good.

>1805 Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called "cardinal"; all the others are grouped around them. They are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. "If anyone loves righteousness, [Wisdom's] labors are virtues; for she teaches temperance and prudence, justice, and courage."64 These virtues are praised under other names in many passages of Scripture.

This is so tiresome. Either Nietzsche does not understand Christianity or Nietzscheans don't understand Christianity. Or both.

>>16665002
How about you actually search through the doctrine of the Church and what it actually says? Or actually read the Scriptures? Is that too hard for Nietzsche and Nietzscheans?

>>16664960
>>16664972
it's really simple. It doesn't matter if you try to save face when denying the logical conclusions of your ideology by believing in an impossibility(the ubermensch is hyper individualistic and doesn't depend on systems blah blah blah).
Someone who gets behind an ideology that benefits him the most is the ubermensch.

>>16665022
Yes, and how is this relevant to my point?
1. Literalism is a cancer found anywhere
2. "Anywhere" includes christianity
3. This means that literalist interpretations of credos such as "the meek and poor shall inherit the earth" are bound to be disseminated throughout the christian community
Hence: The christian conception, insofar as constituted by the community's image of it, can be said to hold poverty as a virtue.

>>16665062
What the church says and what the commons think aren't nearly the same thing

Literally every single line of Church doctrine and Scripture contradicts phantom assaults peddled against Christianity by Nietzscheans.

>"You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm

>>16665064
Yeah but only in rare situations would getting behind communism benefit you the most, eg. you are going to be Lenin.

>>16664949
I havent read mein kampf yet but I think they always regarded them as inferior race of parasites, similar as slavs, gypsies, the disabled... So they were hateful because they percieved them as a burden to superior race, but not resentful. It was more of an exercise in social darwinism i think. Idk it just seems to me a different dynamic than slave-master or communist-capitalist one

>>16665070
>What the church says and what the commons think aren't nearly the same thing

You mean what the church says and what you think it says and your worthless speculations about what the commons think aren't nearly the same thing.

>>16665007
>I'm not talking about the doctrines of Buddhism
pic
>I don't know why we're focusing on Buddhism my point was that all world religions have same metaphysical core but you're only attacking Christianity.
Because Buddhism doesn't have the same metaphysical core at all? And just one major religion not having the same moral framework disproves your ludicrous claim? But we can discuss Taoism too, as I brought up.
Rejecting the idea of good and evil is in and of itself a negation of Christian morality.
And I am critical of Buddhism too, but Christianity is shit-tier.
>So you're talking nonsense and don't want to get exposed? Got it.
No, this thread is full of morons and pseuds who misunderstand both Christianity and Nietzsche but they at least have knowledge of the fundamentals. You don't. If you're interested in learning you can do the legwork but there's no point in engaging in a discussion about these things otherwise.

>>16665094
Nietzsche himself mentioned antisemitism as the masses practice it as an example. There is obviously another variant of antisemitism that is more like master morality, present in the nobility of various countries then especially, but Hitler was definitely the resentful type.

>>16665064
>not addressing his ideas at all
>not addressing posts you reply to
Dumbass troll.

>>16665070
Nobody holds that poverty in itself is a virtue, they do hold that poverty is a virtue when it is paired with a desire for God on a spiritual level and is thus a result of striving for something beyond material. This is what Christians means when they say that poverty is good. They don't literally mean that the drunk aggressive bastard down the road who is also poor is somehow virtuous. The fact that you have such poor knowledge of Christian doctrine leads me to believe that you cannot interpret conceptions that Christian communities come up with, since you do not share any commonalities with these people. We should just call it for what it, worthless secular speculation about things you don't understand.

>>16662232
You're right that he paved the way for a lot of the positions of postmodern writers in the 20th century. Basically Foucaults entire argument about the way power is shaped by institutions anf the way morality is determined by the ruling class is greatly indebted to Nietzsche.

>>16662274
He’s so close to the truth, though. He takes rationalism to its end, and paves the way for the return of true spirituality. Nietzches failure is in a way a success.

>>16665148
Furthermore, I believe the ascribing of "slave morality" to Christianity is a necessary reaction by those who have lost Christ. One needs to re-valuate his disordered life by discarding that which is ordered, temperate and just by calling it "slave morality", hence his obviously disordered behavior can be re-cast in a new light and the pestering conscience subdued. One is in this way, according to modern standards, "liberated". This is the driving force of this phenomenon.

>>16665175
I personally don’t believe Christianity was ever meant to promote a slave morality. I think that was a misunderstanding of Christ’s teachings. I think christ rather points to being an individual that’s not a slave to their own ego, like Buddhism.

>>16665094
>inferior race of parasites
Inferior in values yes, but not inferior in power. How much of the Nazi narrative was about the Judo-Bolshevik or Jew controlled Capitalist systems? They created the image of the Jew growing wealthy and powerful off of the honest German's back, who then suffers the Jew's abuses. Can you not see the resentment there?

>>16665092
>Yeah but only in rare situations would getting behind communism benefit you the most, eg. you are going to be Lenin.
but that doesn't matter. If someone believes that communism or any ideology benefits him the most, he's not being the slave that smug nietzscheans talk about.
You don't really believe that your worldview is possible so why should I?
>>16665147
one reply asked me to ''define communism'' and the other referred to how idiotic I was. I think my contribution to this debate is higher than theirs.
Also, you gotta do more than call me a ''troll''. Just because I'm making you rethink your unrealistic ideology it doesn't mean I want to see chaos. It's quite the opposite. You're seeing a bunch of rats forming the shape of an elephant instead of the obvious elephant.

>>16662232
Based and 100% correct.
Nietzschefags SEETHING

>>16665213
>Just because I'm making you rethink your unrealistic ideology it doesn't mean I want to see chaos.
No one is rethinking anything due to your uninformed posts, lol. For example:

>Someone who gets behind an ideology that benefits him the most is the ubermensch.

This is meaningless garbage. Even a slave moralist "gets behind an ideology that benefits him the most" too. Your idea of the ubermensch is no deeper than the Wikipedia article on it.

>You're seeing a bunch of rats forming the shape of an elephant instead of the obvious elephant.
What the fuck is this schizo crap? Kill yourself.

>>16665103
>No, this thread is full of morons and pseuds who misunderstand both Christianity and Nietzsche but they at least have knowledge of the fundamentals
They might but you don't. It's rich that you think you can criticize anyone when you misunderstand Christianity so severely. Please elaborate on why it's so shit.


>there's no point in engaging in a discussion about these things otherwise.
Right cause you would get BTFO

>>16665294
You didn't even know who Nietzsche was before entering this thread. How do you expect to engage in any argument about his ideas?
>Right cause you would get BTFO
>arguing is about winning and losing
"no"

>>16665196
Nazis did not create that image, the image of the jew exploiting the goy is much, much older than the 1920s.

>>16665294
>Please elaborate on why it's so shit.
Not him, but let's see...

1. Christians are among the dumbest, most annoying people you may come across on the internet, who insist on countless non-arguments to make their shitty unscientific "points."

2. Protestants are some of the most liberal people in the world today, and we all know what issues rampant liberalism cause.

3. Catholics are some of the most conservative people in the world today, and we all know how creative conservatives are.

4. Tons of Christians still deny evolution.

5. Tons of Christians still deny quantum mechanics.

6. Tons of Christians still deny the utter inadequacy of the church to generate belief in people in the modern era.

That's just off the top of my head.

>>16665323
So did the Nazis depict them in a different manner then? The question is how they regarded the Jewish race

>>16665314
>Waaahhhh! Y-You don't even know nietzsche
Yes I do faggot. Now what?
>Waahhh! But you don't know him like I do!
Let's skip this kindergarten nonsense and get back to the original point of why you hate Christianity so bad other than you being extremely biased

>>16665294
don't listen to this guy >>16665338
he also doesn't understand Nietzsche and will give you the wrong idea of what people are criticizing in this thread

>>16665338
None of that is christian specific but a matter of organized religion. You're not answering my question about why you're so against Christianity in particular and that's because you have no reason.

>>16665342
>Yes I do faggot. Now what?
you don't. you think that christian morality is universal. You've never read him. Even his critics wouldn't be so ignorant.

>>16665354
>You're not answering my question about why you're so against Christianity in particular and that's because you have no reason.
Christianity is herd morality. That's the reason.

>>16665341
I just take issue with how you used the word 'created', a much better one would be 'invoked' in my opinion. It's not like the Nazis had to make this up from scratch or something, it's a common and well-founded accusation made of jews for the last thousand years at least.

>>16665368
You have no clue what you're talking about, got it.
>>16665355
Not what I said. Lets forget about Nietzsche for a second. Whats wrong with Christianity? Ready? Go.

>>16665368
yeah bro only LONE WOLF morality is worth following hehe *tips fedora*

>>16665449
I know exactly what I'm talking about, and I'm not advocating for "lone wolf morality" or any such nonsense as >>16665460 claims. Everything I listed about Christians here >>16665338 are the result of the powerful herd tendency that Christianity fosters in its followers. If it weren't the case, then the sins wouldn't cover all the traits that all stronger men naturally possess at their disposal and make use of.

>>16665476
All peoples in all cultures have a herd mentality because that's the nature of humans, a social animal with strong group identification.

>ITT Nietzschefags showing off how little they know about anything and circlejerking each other off
Glad to see /lit/ is still the same.

>>16665476
>then the sins wouldn't cover all the traits that all stronger men naturally possess at their disposal and make use of
Gluttony, laziness, uncontrolled lustfulness, envy, dishonesty, and uncontrollable wrath are the tools of strong men? I can guarantee you don't have a chin.
>>16665338
>Tons of Christians still deny evolution.
Evolution is a theory and can only ever be a theory which means it literally cannot be proven. Chastising people for not believing in an unprovable theory shows that you're really retarded.

>>16665476
That is NOT Christian specific. What is your beef with it in particular, quit dodging otherwise I'll assume you're another biased American who has a hate boner for Christianity because you got called a mean name by one as a little kid in the boys scouts or whatever stupid reason.

>>16665491
>because that's the nature of humans
That's the nature of underdeveloped humans. I'm not arguing that herds aren't necessary, but insofar as your head is destined to stick out over the herd, the herd is shit, and it looks to behave unconsciously, unintelligibly, pettily, and clumsily. The herd is braindead and seeks only comforts, which is why Christianity calls everything great devilish.

>>16665532
>everything great
Like what?

>>16665113
Yeah I think you make a good point, thats basically difference between Hitler and someone like Wagner. The question is was party more filled with hitler types or wagner types? Most people joined once nazis took power and by then it was probably easy to believe jews were inferior to you in every way.

Also there is italian fascism to consider here, it came before the german one after all. Who were they resentful of?

>>16665196
There is also a lot of propaganda depicting jews as ugly and weak. Think about all the stuff about jewish rats and strong german eagle.

Overall there is definitely an element of resentment in early supporters of national socialism but I am just not sure that fascism as ideology is resentful, since one of its core tenants is placing your nation/people so high above the rest

>>16665532
> I'm not arguing that herds aren't necessary
Then why are you criticizing people for having a herd mentality lmfao
kid, you are not anywhere even fucking close to being serious.

>>16665544
>easy to believe jews were inferior to you in every way.
That's just not an accusation that was made of jews. The accusation was that they were ruling the country and people to their detriment and subverting the morals of society. That's it.

>>16665449
>Lets forget about Nietzsche for a second
>let's forget about the guy who came up with the concepts for the reasons that Christianity is bad that you believe in
Your idiocy knows no bounds, anon

>>16665571
You never answer the question. You are a troll. Thanks for wasting my time

>>16665583
>Thanks for wasting my time
I told you from the getgo that you need to read Nietzsche to understand what we are talking about, otherwise you are wasting your time. You have no one to blame but yourself. I've just been trying to help you.

>>16665491
Finally somebody with sense. These people I swear

>>16665522
>Gluttony, laziness, uncontrolled lustfulness, envy, dishonesty, and uncontrollable wrath are the tools of strong men?
Yes, except strong men don't view their appetites and instincts in such disgusting ways, and they are capable of wielding them towards their goals. A weakling who destroys himself through his own appetites and instincts was never a strong man. Strong men are evil, according to Christianity, and they work to their own benefit, and are cruel to others when necessary.

>Evolution is a theory and can only ever be a theory which means it literally cannot be proven.
That's not really what theory means. A theory in science is, in a roundabout way, "what is currently the most likely case given the evidence — the best interpretation we currently possess." It's not "a random guess that we spitballed without any good reasoning for" as you made it sound. There is denying evolution on scientific grounds (i.e., through scientific skepticism) and then there is denying evolution because you don't understand science (i.e., through backwards herd hardheadedness).

>>16665523
>That is NOT Christian specific.
It doesn't have to be? What makes you think I only oppose Christianity on account of its herd morality?

>>16665557
>Then why are you criticizing people for having a herd mentality
Because when the herd gains power, it slowly mediocritizes everything. Exhibit A: the internet, which was overall higher quality about 15 years ago, before the influx of dogmatic normalfag idiots showed up. Herds are necessary, but that doesn't mean I need to enjoy being near their filth.

ITT: Retards who hate Christianity for no reason but cover it up with extremely generic justifications that apply to everybody so they don't look like so obviously biased (Ex: I don't like Christianity because some Christians are extreme!). If you call them out on it they then change tactics and claim you don't understand Nietzche.

Enter at your own peril

>>16665602
The herd doesn't have power you fucking imbecile, the herd is carefully directed by the elite, just like you are. Can you explain the quantum fucking physics to me that Christian are 'too dumb to understand'? No? That's because you're part of a different herd and are just being directed to think what 'all the smart people think'. Your problem is very obviously not with Christianity, but with normal people.
>before the influx of dogmatic normalfag idiots
You mean before the elites got their clutches into it and started cracking down and monopolizing the space.

>>16665671
>imagine seething this hard because you entered a thread full of things you don't understand
couldn't be me

>>16665684
>this nigga thinks he can chime in when he never answered a direct question

>>16665678
>The herd doesn't have power you fucking imbecile, the herd is carefully directed by the elite, just like you are.
If it didn't have any power, then why has the internet become a cesspool of idiocy and mediocrity? The herd does have power, because it has numbers, and it's also blind to the course it's moving on, so it doesn't bother to stop before trampling things in front of it. Every day, all day long, hundreds of thousands of such people are mangling the ideas of far more brilliant minds across social media sites, and also here (and even in this thread), and it's all because they're part of the unthinking herd, with no instinct for anything other than comfort.

>Your problem is very obviously not with Christianity, but with normal people.
It's with both, and let's get something straight here: I don't hate either of them. Declaring something as a disease is not the same as hating it.

>You mean before the elites got their clutches into it and started cracking down and monopolizing the space.
"The elites" here are just the top of the herd. Kings and CEOs are not hyperboreans. You really haven't read your Nietzsche, have you? This is elementary stuff.

>>16665728
read Nietzsche faggot. I know it's scary to learn knew things and find out that everything you believed in is wrong but it will be good for you.
Nobody on 4chan, no academic, no expert is going to be able to successfully explain Nietzsche's concepts to you without you having read him first. You will misunderstand it. Most people who read Nietzsche don't understand it.
Read the Kaufmann collections.

it was actually da joos

NEET CHEESE

>>16665752
Still waiting on that off the cuff explanation of quantum physics which you totally understand because you're 100% not part of the herd and definitely a big ubermensch boy.
>"The elites" here are just the top of the herd.
Wrong, they are the shepherds.

>>16665760
Read the quran

>>16665822
i am lol

>>16665792
>Still waiting on that off the cuff explanation of quantum physics which you totally understand because you're 100% not part of the herd and definitely a big ubermensch boy.
I never called myself an ubermensch. Also, I may not fully understand or be aware of all the latest developments in quantum mechanics, but I actually read papers from time to time and strive to understand it, which is something the herd would never do or even so much as admit. Instead, the herd just reads mass media articles on science, and then either makes some memes or rejects them because they don't suit their goal (comfort).

>Wrong, they are the shepherds.
...do you know what a shepherd is? It's someone who tends to the herd, as in the top of the herd, like I said.

>>16662232
transgender people are ubermenschen
I don't see how all those other things you named are

I don't base it on what Nietzsche actually wanted but what actually happened in the real world
just like socialism should be judged on real existing socialism (social democracy, russian socialism etc.)

the reality is that people want to use technology to transcend nature, the victory over nature
german fascism and russian socialism where technocratic societies just like the european union
it's basically just accelerated liberalism and not movements that go against modernity, but an expression of it just like liberalism

>>16662277
>he wanted
basically the gist of it is Nietzsche wanted that humanity accepts the world as it is and not flee into a spiritual created perfect world but he did realize that the masses can not exist without metaphysics
the death of god would then mean the degeneration of humanity to the last man

Nietzsche wanted that people leave their ressentiment behind because slave morality does not want to affirm reality but rather destroy it via spiritual revenge
Theodore Kaczynski is more or less that kind of person if you read/listen to his "industrial society and it's future"

I read somewhere that Nietzsche never got to finish his work (master morality) but honestly when you think about it you can piece it together yourself

>>16665568
I mean they did say it was trough nepotism and treachery, not merit. If you were my boss because your dad gave you a job I would consider you benath me. But if you got the job because you were smarter than me than I would be resentful. I think thats the difference

>>16665856
A shepherd is not part of the herd, a shepherd directs the herd. Goddamned pedant. Do you have any idea how painfully obvious it is that you're like 19?
>>16665877
Very liberal attitude desu, if you think about it, it's actually very traditional for people to inherit status and wealth.

>>16665917
>A shepherd is not part of the herd, a shepherd directs the herd.
Okay, I don't care about your semantics crap, you still don't understand Nietzsche's concept of the hyperboreans either way. The hyperboreans were not CEOs or kings; he viewed such roles as merely the guardians and arbiters of the herd, like Plato's silver souls.

>>16665948
That's not semantics, that's a fundamental difference in the conception of what a leader is. Anyway, I don't care what Nietzsche thought, point is that you're using his philosophy as a means of falsely placing yourself others when you're actually a fucking twat.

>>16665990
>Anyway, I don't care what Nietzsche thought
Can't care about what you don't know about lol.

Gramsci said that the old world is dying and the new cannot be born
I don't think it is possible for people to escape Nihilism because for a new culture to rise it needs to bring forth everything that is necessary and then forget about it's origin to birth the new culture
the 3 stages in the book of Zarathustra

Nihilism is when you think about it basically just western version of Buddhism and Socialism is what Christianity was to the Romans

>>16666031
did you know it's possible to disagree with nietzsche even thought he's a dead famous guy?
It's called not being part of the herd

>>16666047
You need to know what someone thinks in order to disagree with them.

>>16666031
>>16666051
>writes edgy teenaged retard-tier polemics about christians and normal people
>gets btfo
>"you just don't understand nietzsche!!!"
goodbye lmao

>>16666062
>goodbye lmao
Good, get the fuck off the board since you don't read shit.

>>16665856
I'm willing to bet you do not understand 99.9% of math involved in quantum mechanics papers.

>>16664984
Yes but a lot of the justifications for that degeneracy then uses neitche as a etiface. he enables what he saw and he made people see it his way.

>>16662274
>Nietzsche said to create your own values, because nihilism is true according to him
You have never read a page of Nietzsche. He hated nihilism and called for its destruction.

>>16666173
>he enables what he saw
How does he do that? Who even are these people who use his name to justify their degeneracy? Do they even matter?

>>16663455
Because eceleb "intellectuals" like to parrot summaries they've seen other ecelebs shit out.

>>16666292
Yes, as they estrange traditional virtue ethics for be u (be what you consume) and phoney pick and choosing ethics which combine the worst of virtue ethics with the worst of persectualism. Allowing one to both preach what is noble while also wearing a mask of lazy post modernism. Picking apart what you want while sanctifying what you will. Not going through with either course and leaving with a muddy inauthentic middle route of mediocrety.