/lit/ - Literature

Anon, NEETs are literally called after him, what did you expect?

>>19856037
"I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!"

Reminder, if you haven't read the original first English translations, along with the early 20th century Nietzscheans, Levi, Ludovici, etc. you haven't read the TRVE Nietzsche

>>19856037
Nietzsche has never been refuted, that's why you can only attack him personally, lmao.

>>19856095
Clowns have also never been refuted. They are inherently funny, and you cannot prove otherwise.

>>19856192
I guess you're the clown then? Rekt lmao

>>19856051
This quote is fine and sensitive on the surface, but these powerful recluses are weak if they are able to be conquered or controlled.
If these sorts are controlled by slaves, unwillingly, then this quote is just cope.
One must have a desire to rule over inferiors and outsiders, even if they just want to be left alone, or they will soon be ruled.
See: literally anywhere conquered by british imperialism. Having any opinion that is not kosher with the current sjw line of thinking on current era internet.

>>19856274
Funny because it’s true.

>>19856278
The will to power isn't about your every desire being fulfilled retard. Being executed by a foreign army is not intrinsically 'slave morality' or anti-will to power. Stop reducing philosophical ideas to political practicalities.

>>19856278
>Conquered by the British
I think you meant bought, British were merchants, not warriors like the Mongols. Learn some history.

>>19856312
Unironically, if philosophy cannot be practically applied, what’s the point?
I have little care about Nietzsche beyond the fact that it’s endlessly amusing to poke at people who like him in these threads. I have little to no idea what Nietzsche’s “will to power” is, but if it is not “will to power” in a practical sense, then it must mean something like “will to live believing oneself powerful, and being self satisfied with that.
Which is not actually will to power at all, it’s a will to vulnerability and weakness to those who have practical power.

>>19856322
Conquest can be mercantile.

>>19856051
>>19856095
sounds like incel cope

>>19856357
>Doesn't know Nietzsche
>Makes a wrong guess what's his philosophy is
Go read fiction, LMAO

>>19856381
Nietzsche’s writings exist. You, hypothetically, could prove me wrong by posting a few quotes that explain, in his words, what his will-to-power is, but I will gamble on my guess that you will not, because my assessment is accurate.
If you can argue I’m wrong, with quotes from Nietzsche himself, then the thread is benefitted with philosophical enlightenment: so I think this is the play.

it is all that matters but he didn't aspire to it cuz he didn't have the genes to. not that hard nigga

>>19856037
Nietzsche is telling you to be racist. That is the filter.

>>19856357
The will to power is at the point where it's difficult to speak of applying and not applying it, it's a conception of life. So you can't refute it by specific political hypotheticals. The Will to Power is expressed and understood most plainly in individuals of genius.

I don't think anyone thinks the will to power is a systematically worked out idea either.

>>19856424
So, then, it’s a blanket term Nietzsche cope’d up with to describe “people I like” as he jealously wished he knew how to be like them.
Got it.

>>19856436
How do you manage to misunderstand everything?

>>19856411
wtf is going on here
who am i supposed to be mad at

>>19856446
Will you argue what and why I misunderstand, or just assert that I did?
From what you describe, it sounds like Nietzsche saw people he liked, wanted to reverse engineer their glories, and came up with a nebulous notion of “will to power” as some sort of lifestyle to approximate that of an “individual of genius”.

Feel free to quote Nietzsche to argue against these points at any time.

Neetdom is just acceptance you'd be a hindrance to other's wills

>>19856047
underrated

>>19856489
Will to Power isn't a lifestyle, and you seem to think what defines an individual of genius is merely subjective.

>>19856037
Nietzsche is just a poet/social critic pretending to be a philosopher

>>19856512

>>19856512
>will to power isn’t a lifestyle
Feel free to quote Nietzsche any time, to argue what his “will to power” actually is.
>you seem to think what defines an individual of genius is merely subjective.
And likewise, feel free to quote me where I implied that.

>>19856489
Lol at asking people to do your homework for you. If you want to tell yourself you’re right without reading him then just tell yourself you’re right and leave the thread.
inb4 this just proves my point!!!
Seriously though, read Twilight of the Idols, may be good for your development outside of reading too ;)

>>19856464
at the evil jews getting attacked

>>19856051
This is the definition of cope.

>>19856037
You're stupid.

>>19856095
It's a tough read, anon. Don't be mad at him

>>19856549
a philosopher doesn't need to be systematic

>>19856550
Im not even that anon, you could literally google this shit in seconds
>Suppose, finally, we succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life as the development and ramification of one basic form of the will--namely, of the will to power, as my proposition has it... then one would have gained the right to determine all efficient force univocally as--will to power. The world viewed from inside... it would be "will to power" and nothing else.
>Beyond Good and Evil, s.36
>My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on--
>The Will to Power, s.636,
>[Anything which] is a living and not a dying body... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant - not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power... 'Exploitation'... belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will to life.
>Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, s.259
Will to Power has nothing to do with being "a quality of people Nietzsche liked", it's a fundamental drive that everyone has. Whether it's to overcome others, themselves or something else is up for debate (because the main work about this was not finished, and depending on the translation used), but only a lazy mongoloid would think your interpretation is any way accurate
>tldr: read nigger

>>19856574
>Lol at asking people to do your homework for you.
Interesting assertion, that reading Nietzsche is “my homework”, as if you, or Nietzsche, had any kind of authority. I read what I will.
>If you want to tell yourself you’re right without reading him then just tell yourself you’re right and leave the thread.
You misunderstand, dear anon, I do not think myself “right” and Nietzsche “wrong”, I have my own philosophy and seek to challenge Nietzsche fellators to argue the value of his words, in order to strengthen my own position by comparing it to his. If beauty, utility, and wisdom can be found in his words, then let them be posted.
If Nietzsche acolytes respond to challenges with wheedling and “leave the thread, bully :((( then what value is Nietzsche to me?
>Seriously though, read Twilight of the Idols, may be good for your development outside of reading too ;)
Who do you think you are? Who do you think I am?

>>19856400
Sorry, I was having fun with my gf.
Here's some quotes.
"What is good? — All that increases the feeling of power, will to power, power itself, in man."
"The will to power can express itself only against resistances; it seeks that which resists it--this is the native tendency of theamoeba when it extends its pseudopodia and gropes around."
Get fucked incel, maybe read before spouting nonsense LMAO.

>>19856620
All of this seems to support my assertion, here, that “will to power” is a practical exercise >>19856357 , which I posted arguing against this Nietzsche acolyte frogposter, who claimed “will to power” was about something other than power, practically >>19856312
How about you read, nigger

>>19856037
>Am i getting filtered or what?

NEETzsche got filtered by life.

>>19856632
See >>19856659

>>19856550
Nietzsche fans refuse to ever actually explain anything about his concepts apart from the Apollo/Dionysus dichotomy and a handful of other ideas he had that actually mean something. Its
very obvious that his perspectivism and will to power dont mean anything because his fans cant describe a litmus test for when the concepts apply or dont apply. It's a lot like asking a commie to explain precisely how communism will function. This phenomenon pops up in many subjects, arguing with these people is utterly pointless, they dont have a shred of intellectual honesty. They sometimes eventually half admit that the concepts dont actually have real definitions at all but they think this is somehow a strength lmao. People literally get PhDs doing this kind of thing, their minds are just festering tangles of lies and obfuscation.

>>19856683
>arguing with these people is utterly pointless
Truth can unironically be found in the comedy, so there may be at least one utility in arguing with these half-developed types

>>19856665
>>19856683
>>19856698
t. Filtered by Nietzsche
Go read fiction, hahahaha.

>>19856711
If you’d been paying attention to the content of the thread, you’d realize anon has been applying Nietzsche’s philosophy to itself.
>>19856051
>>19856278
>>19856312
>>19856620
>>19856659
These awful threads are exactly what Nietzsche fags deserve.

>>19856745
Oh no, he will make an awful thread, nobody cares, keep making them, you filtered pleb LMAO.

>>19856759
I did not make the thread.
I merely laughed at it.

>>19856278
Nietzsche was strongly influenced by stoicism. The will to power is not about ruling the world, it’s about affecting reality in a way that let you sticks to your ethics/realise your ideals. As long as you have a body there will always be someone stronger than you, but if you value your principles more than your own life, then no one can rule over you.

It’s scary how much people misunderstand Nietzsche but at the same time understandable since it was kind of insufferable with his LE EPIC DANCING POET contradictions and metaphors.

>>19856767
I guess laughing is the only thing you can do when you have no arguments LMAO. It's okay, nobody has ever bested Nietzsche, certainly you won't, kek.

>>19856779
No one ever beats a clown, at the game of laughs.

>>19856777
>The will to power is not about ruling the world
A reasonable end of >>19856620 is a king and kingdom that rules the world, physically.

>>19856785
Can a clown like you make an argument or just laugh? The former is probably too hard for you, LMAO.

>>19856804
>calls me a clown
>makes no arguments
>ends all his posts with LMAO
the great pagliacci indeed

>>19856037
I had the misfortune of having to listen to a pseud talk about this guy for what felt like an hour at a social gathering last week.
I got so annoyed that I started pronouncing it "Nitch" just to piss him off, it worked well.

>>19856813
Hopefully your next post will be an argument, clown LMAO.

>>19856823
You got filtered by Neetzsche, LMAO.

>lmao

>>19856037
And yet here you are hundreds of years later making threads about him on an anime forum

>>19856874
>hundreds of years
He’s not even 200 years old

>>19856799
For a fungus, maybe, not for a man. What do you have to gain from an empire? Kings and emperors of all ages went to philosophers for advices, why is that?

>>19856903
>100
>101

>>19856799
>>19856659
How do you persistently misread this? Every person and from that, ideologies have a will to power. There is nothing about a reasonable end, it is just what Nietzsche describes as the engine that drives people towards their values. World domination would be as much as an expression of WTP as would be to partaking in a constant heroin binge, or a solitary life of a monk. If a person is striving towards actualizing his values, that is an expression of WTP
>"I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!"
You keep thinking of WTP as a practical exercise, like its some page out of 48 rules of power. He's is trying to describe a universal phenomena, not give instruction here. I wouldn't even implore you to read anymore, Nietzsche is pointless if you are a physical-utility driven bugman which you appear to be

>>19856074
>Levi, Ludovici, etc
who else? what are the other nietzscheans?

>>19857662
>will to power is when you do anything
Very useful Nietzsche thank you

>>19856037
his only regrets were having a bitch mom and sister
you can be a king even in a mad house
seethe

>>19856037
>translates macht as "power"
Yes you got filtered.

>>19856037
You don't understand power, yet your post implicitly suggests that you already agreed with Nietzsche before reading him. Nietzsche didn't invent his ideology, it's baked into reality itself. Maybe you think Nietzsche wasn't a good prophet, so maybe don't consider him as such. Nietzschean-Darwinist principles will continue to govern society even if you refuse to acknowledge them.
Personally I prefer Stirner. His less grandiose style makes his lack of "glorious deeds" more understandable.
Power isn't about politics, business or military success. It's about the ability to do what you want. Do what thou wilt.

>>19857826
Yes. You're right. Darwinism is also when you do anything. Does that make it any less true? Everyone is a Nietzschean. Everyone has always been a Nietzschean.

>>19858350
>Everyone has always been a Nietzschean
Not possible because most of humanity predates him.

>>19858885
Tell me you didnt understand anything anon said without telling me you didnt understand

>>19858918
What did I not understand?

>>19858350
>Nietzschean is basically everything bro
Neets will never able to define it will they?

>>19858930
His ideology describes a innate part of being living things have, and it existed before Nietzsche was born, when he says
>Everyone is a Nietzschean. Everyone has always been a Nietzschean.
saying HURR DUUR AKTAUULLY HE WASNT BORN YET is retarded

>>19858350
Darwinism is a specific pattern which could be disproved by evidence. How can you disprove will to power in theory?

>>19858947
>His ideology describes a innate part of being living things have
Prove it.

>>19858953
read a book

>>19858956
I'm supposed to read a book to confirm your assertion? No the burden of proof is on you. Try again.

>>19858959
Nietzsche's works are the assertion

>>19856037
Neitzche was someone who never really practiced what he preached.

Something not often mentioned was that neitzche believed in semen retention yet he frequented prostitutes.

Neitzche talked about being an ubermensch yet he was far from that ideal.

He just postulated these ideas and never walked the talk.

>>19858965
No that was your assertion about Nietzsche's works. Don't hide behind him.

>>19856037
>>power is all that matters
Nietzsche never said that. Try reading a book before making a thread, this is the literature board.

>>19856037
You are filtered. Nietzsche didn't say power was all that mattered, just that the anti-power slave morality gave way for pessimism. Thus even with the cruelty, the pre-Christian world was more lively.

>>19859236
Except that's when slavery was far more common.

>>19856037
Nietzsche didn't spend his life shitposting in a basement. He spent most of his adult life traveling from place to place in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy trying to soothe his physical problems. He had many friends. He was famous in certain intellectual circles even before he went insane. As for the power is all that matters thing, that is a simplification of Nietzsche's ideas. But even if it wasn't, why would it be hypocritical if someone thought that without actually having a lot of power? For example, I am not a great painter, but I think that it would be cool to be a great painter. Where is the contradiction?

>>19859249
Does this contradict my sentence? Nietzsche thought slavery was dandy

>>19859236
So if you cheerfully enslave people you're master morality and better than a slave who is angry that he is a slave? The southerners in the US who enslaved blacks because they thought it was just right and cheerfully believed themselves to be superior are better than th black slaves who respectfully wanted to be free and hated their masters?

>>19859277
Listen, Im a Christian, not a Nietzschean. But Nietzsche would say even the slaves were happier before their resentment was vindicated. When the attitude of 'woe to the vanquished' were more common.

>>19859273
Well Nietzsche was wrong obviously. Empirically people were more free post Christianity. Kings weren't worshipped as literal gods and were still somewhat bound by the same rules and morals as everyone else.

>>19859287
But he would say the American slavers had superior morality to the black slaves who hated them wouldn't he?

>>19859297
He would say master morality means a more joyous relationship to life. If you read him carefully you will see that he doesn't prescribe a return to slavery. But a letting go of pessimistic and resentful ideas, epitomized in people like Schopenhauer.

A Nietzschean would love difficulty, struggle, power AND the lack thereof. A person should love all of fate, and find joy in the wrestling with fate we all do.

>>19859310
But who would he prefer, the southern slavers, who had a grand idea about the future of America, and were generally upbeat about things, or the black slaves, who were resentful and angry and hated their masters?

Cant you answer that?

>>19859320
The slavers no doubt. Although Im not sure how Christian they were, he would have despised their Christianity.

>>19859320
>>19859324
Also he would have loved the slaves who revolted, to assert their own will with libido.

>>19859310
How can you struggle against it while loving your position? That doesn't make sense.

>>19859324
So if a modern Hitler did a military coup and enslaved all blacks again, because he thought they just deserve to enslaved for being inferior, and set them to work in camps for his grand goals of conquering the stars, this would be much more Nietzschean than for example Ta nehisi Coates's opinions about blacks being oppressed by whites and how evil this is?

>>19859320
>>19859324
>>19859330
And another thing, he would have loved modern black culture, colorful free, unrestrained by conscience or the similar. Sexually liberated, totally free in a non-Christian way.

>>19859333
By not being gay lmao

>>19859342
sure, but again, the emphasis in on the freedom and joy, not on the cruelty itself. Its not about being cruel, its about loosening of inhibition and resentment and pessimism. You can do that without becoming cruel.

>>19859330
But isnt the slave morality defined by slaves revolting against their masters?

>>19859343
>Sexually liberated
Modern black culture is more sexually conservative than modern white culture.

>>19859349
So you can enslave entire races as long as you do it while being joyous and free, that's fine for Nietzschean thought?

>>19859350
yes, but only in the Christian way, where its about shaming the powerful.

Also Im a Christian remember, I disagree with this

>>19859353
pic related

>>19859358
>pic related
Get with the times old man. That's conservative by today's standards.

>>19859356
yeah, he would argue your aversion to it is a reflection of your own weakness.

>>19859361
Why? To struggle against what you do not like (in this case to speak against it), does that not align with Nietzschean philosophy?

>>19859366
Again, if it is in the name of glory, and joy, its fine.

And if you do it to emancipate yourself, its your Nietzschean duty.

>>19859358
Are you sure you're a Christian?

Was jesus Christ the son of God, did he resurrect?

>>19859389
Yes, He walked among us, when I take communion at the one apostolic Catholic Church I eat his actual flesh. Why?

>>19859375
Well technically to be against any type of tyranny or any thing harmful at all really is emancipating yourself. Even if it does not directly affect you. Since you fear that if you allow it to exist, it may one day do so. So I guess being against anything you don't like is Nietzschean.

>>19859396
I guess, remember he once said anyone who takes "do onto others as you would be done by" Serious is a massive fool.

>>19859393
What do you think of Paul saying
>Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord

>>19859411
I adhere to Pauls teachings, cause they were vindicated by St Peter, Jesus foremost disciple.

Although if you read the whole thing, Husbands are also asked to die for their wives, so its hardly a one way relationship

>>19859418
But should women submit to their husbands? That's different then men dying for their wives right?

>>19859422
yeah, women should submit to their husbands. A democratic family is a great way to cause conflict and potential divorce. The man has final say like the Pope in the Church. But the man has to treat his wife with love, and sacrifice himself for his family.

>>19859436
Then you are consistent. I was wrong about you. I thought you were a liar. I apologize

>>19859442
lmao, why would you doubt it? Im a Catholic, not some Neo-Nicolatian proddy

>>19856037
Being a philosopher was Nietzsche's vocation. Machiavelli was another who wrote about worldly power but had little himself. They were simply being their authentic selves.

>>19856037
It was the same with Schopenhauer. They won in the end because without Schopenhauer and Nietzsche there would have been no National Socialism, and history would have turned out dramatically different. What I can't wrap my head around is how they were so sure of themselves, despite being fucking living failures, history proves them right.

I can go my whole life without reading this and be better off than him and you nerds. philosophy is for tryhards.

>>19856411
based jew slayer

>>19859330
>>19859324
Would he have loved Lincoln, considered a tyrant at the time, for asserting his will over the nation and the Union Army for using scorched earth tactics? Not that guy, just curious.

>>19859745
>despite being fucking living failures
They were not. Stop thinking that your life goals apply to everyone else and stop obsessing with the incel/chad 4chan dichotomy.

So many midwits in this thread. Nietzsche never said that 'power is all that matter'. Try thinking more and go less on 4chan.

>>19859745
They are powerful in their own way since they influenced so many people after them. That's power, at least as much as having two kids, a dog and a nice wagie cagie job which seems to be your definition of 'success'.

>>19859863
>>19859888
Ahh, You are right, I concede. Certainly, confidence in their destiny oozes from their writings, that wording is quite rude to these geniuses...but rather I meant that neither had achieved great fame as they surely deserved. Schopenhauer had some disciples in life though.