/lit/ - Literature

Pretty accurate. Whatever drove Nietzsche mad (syphilis or brain injury) was noticeable in his writing after Daybreak

>Christcuck gets filtered by Dionysus
>has to write about it to air out his ass pain
Many such cases.

>Many such cases.

Read the libretto to Parsifal and research Nietzsche's relationship to Wagner. Zarathustra is just a seething response letter to that.
I'm tired of having to explain this

>>23158031
Yeah but Tolstoy wasn't exactly sane either.

>>23158031
He's a closet Hegelian. There are intractable forces working themselves out. Assent isn't required.

>>23158090
Go back to sucking God's Jewish cock like your fat whore mother, faggot.

>>23158144
Shalom, Levy.

Totally accurate and the enlightenment and its subsequent liberalism and reactionary romanticism brought with it a sense that it was the rustic or the madman who was in most in commune with the truth and with art

We’re living through a disaster society

>>23158031
>What will society be like if such a madman, and an evil madman, is acknowledged as a teacher?”
We are witnessing that.

>>23158258
>We’re living through a disaster society
Damn right you are, and there's no getting off this ride. Strap in buckaroos.

>>23158275
>>23158258
>>23158280
All this (including WW2 and the holocaust) could have been prevented if Lou just put out.

>>23158286
>I have no friends (had to cut off Wagner because he was more successful than me)
>I can't breed (because Lou rejected me twice)
>Billions must die

>>23158056

>christcuck

using some real mental genius here

>>23158144
Jews say the most disgusting things.

>>23158371
Don't they?

>>23158286
I know this is a shitpost thread but if you read tolstoy or atleast accept his philosophy of history you know it would’ve been some other mad syphilus ridden germanigger

>>23158474
Meh doubtful, Nietzsche was a particular accord of an analytic mind, integrative poet and insanity

Hmm. I don’t know about this, much as I respect Tolstoy. Many of the greats have had “hot takes” like this on other greats, Nabokov is infamous for them, for instance, but it doesn’t mean they’re right on every score just because they’ve been canonized. (You can also find Tolstoy being totally dismissive of Shakespeare, which many would clearly disagree with). Similar criticisms as Tolstoy is lobbing at Zarathustra here (of its seeming incoherence, rapid, flitting, seemingly disjointed imagistic style of jumping from image to image/idea to idea/metaphor to metaphor/etc.) were made of works like Ulysses or Eliot’s early experimental poetry (The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, The Waste Land, The Hollow Men, etc.) when they first appeared on the scene.

Some great artists, writers, poets and thinkers, or specific works of theirs, almost have to TEACH you how to read them. They need patient and generous readers willing to work through something that seems so new and to learn how to read in a new way, getting used to the author’s style and manner of thought. They seem so new, so odd, and so strange at first that there’s no real precedent for them, they’re difficult to appreciate and get much out of by the reading public, and they can be easily dismissed at first for that reason.

And Nietzsche also has really been a philosopher for writers, poets, and artists from the start, besides his influence on philosophy proper. Figures as seemingly diverse as Kafka, Rilke, Hesse, D.H. Lawrence, and Jung are all on record as having loved or been deeply admiring of Nietzsche. It wasn’t just for nothing. He was even somewhat one of Heidegger’s own personal heroes, although of course this was in a deeply qualified way, with Heidegger not at all reading Nietzsche unsuspiciously and uncritically (which is what Nietzsche would have wanted from his readers, after all).

It’s kind of like Wittgenstein on Otto Weininger’s “Sex & Character”, where W. is on record having read and loved the book while entirely disagreeing with it, Ludwig saying, “He’s entirely wrong, but the WAY in which he’s wrong is fascinating.” This is one of the ways it’s possible to read Nietzsche, while still getting much from him.

>>23158583
The Wasteland and Ulysses are experimental works of fiction, though. As a work of philosophy, Zarathustra is incoherent. Generally agreed though that it's possible to enjoy N. while totally disagreeing with him.

>“There are three fashionable philosophers I can recall: Hegel, Darwin and now Nietzsche. The first tried to justify everything that exists; the second tried to put man on the same footing as an animal and to justify struggle, i.e. the evil in men; the third contends that what it is in human nature that resists evil is merely wrong upbringing, error. I don’t know how much further one can go.”

>>23158056
kek it do be like that

>>23158808
Even in commentary, the prose is excellent.

>>23158808
>Darwin was a philosopher
Darwin was a scientist.

>>23158823
Hope this helps.

>>23158822
I'm taking these from his diary entries (the best diary I have ever read)

>>23158731
> As a work of philosophy, Zarathustra is incoherent.
It’s not completely incoherent, just deeply imagistic, aphoristic, and in a frequently metaphorical and symbolic language. Other works are better for getting what Nietzsche thought in a much less opaque form. But this work also contains his thought, and, in Nietzsche’s own judgment, was also one of his particularly greatest achievements.

Here’s some of Heidegger on it, written in all its classic Heideggerian glory, somewhat mind-numbing excursions into Greek and Germanic etymology and typically circuitous language aside:
https://www.bard.edu/library/pdfs/archives/Heidegger-Who_is_Neitzsches_Zarathustra.pdf

>>23158456
why does the idea that a variety of people can be saved "disgust" you? ironically the entire reason this had to be said was jews going around claiming they were gods chosen people

>>23158031
He was being possessed by the Dionysian, in his youth he offered his soul to Odin and it was probably being slowly taken from him at this point.

>>23159198
>why does the idea that a variety of people can be saved "disgust" you?
Because it covertly also asserts the idea that everyone is equal and distinctions between people are artificial. It's slander against nature.

>>23158031
It is a riot the way Tolstoy says this while pushing his crackpot version of Christianity as if it more coherent than the Bible.

>>23158031
>that by denying all the higher principles of human life and thought
"And some want to be edified and raised up, and call it virtue: and others want to be cast down,—and likewise call it virtue.
And thus do almost all think that they participate in virtue; and at least every one claimeth to be an authority on “good” and “evil.”
But Zarathustra came not to say unto all those liars and fools: “What do YE know of virtue! What could ye know of virtue!”—
But that ye, my friends, might become weary of the old words which ye have learned from the fools and liars:
That ye might become weary of the words “reward,” “retribution,” “punishment,” “righteous vengeance.”—
That ye might become weary of saying: “That an action is good is because it is unselfish.”
Ah! my friends! That your very Self be in your action, as the mother is in the child: let that be YOUR formula of virtue!
Verily, I have taken from you a hundred formulae and your virtue’s favourite playthings; and now ye upbraid me, as children upbraid.
They played by the sea—then came there a wave and swept their playthings into the deep: and now do they cry.
But the same wave shall bring them new playthings, and spread before them new speckled shells!
Thus will they be comforted; and like them shall ye also, my friends, have your comforting—and new speckled shells!"

>>23158275
This

>>23158031
>What will society be like if such a madman, and an evil madman, is acknowledged as a teacher?”
"And ye also asked yourselves often: “Who is Zarathustra to us? What shall he be called by us?” And like me, did ye give yourselves questions for answers.
Is he a promiser? Or a fulfiller? A conqueror? Or an inheritor? A harvest? Or a ploughshare? A physician? Or a healed one?
Is he a poet? Or a genuine one? An emancipator? Or a subjugator? A good one? Or an evil one?
I walk amongst men as the fragments of the future: that future which I contemplate.
And it is all my poetisation and aspiration to compose and collect into unity what is fragment and riddle and fearful chance.
And how could I endure to be a man, if man were not also the composer, and riddle-reader, and redeemer of chance!
To redeem what is past, and to transform every “It was” into “Thus would I have it!”—that only do I call redemption!
<...>
All “It was” is a fragment, a riddle, a fearful chance— until the creating Will saith thereto: “But thus would I have it.”—
Until the creating Will saith thereto: “But thus do I will it! Thus shall I will it!”
But did it ever speak thus? And when doth this take place? Hath the Will been unharnessed from its own folly?
Hath the Will become its own deliverer and joy-bringer? Hath it unlearned the spirit of revenge and all teeth-gnashing?
And who hath taught it reconciliation with time, and something higher than all reconciliation?
Something higher than all reconciliation must the Will will which is the Will to Power—: but how doth that take place? Who hath taught it also to will backwards?"

>>23158031
>I read a woman's secondary thoughts on a man's thoughts and used this as my guidestone
KEKED.COM

>>23158031
A very long-winded "I didn't get it", penned by a midwit.

>>23160714
Ironic, as that explains your post pretty well, other than writing more than a sentence seems hard for you

>>23160725
Yeah his one sentence post that said "very long winded" totally fits that bill. Anyone ever tell you you're a little bitch?

>>23160733
>I can't understand variable clauses of a sentence
>Anyone ever tell you you're a little bitch?
No, but you're MY lil' bitch, friend.

>>23159886
It makes more sense than most other Christian sects. True asceticism is closer to the Gospels than the history of the church without an doubt

>>23158031
>What will society be like if such a madman, and an evil madman, is acknowledged as a teacher?
Pic related, obviously

>>23158481
cope

>>23158031
>incoherence, jumping from one idea to another, comparisons with no indication of what is being compared, beginnings of ideas with no endings, leaping from one idea to another for contrast or consonance
Almost like…life?

>>23158056
Where do you pseuds come from? You know this is a board for people who read, right?

>>23158031
the more i read about this Tolstoy man the less i care about him

>>23161535
wtf this is.... deep

>>23158031
Interestingly, Nietzsche was reading Tolstoy in his last sane days as seen in his final notebooks. Not sure what he is paraphrasing here though

>>23158583
Tolstoy also thought Shakespeare sucked. Suuure Leo, no one is a genius except you. Yes Leo, sex is evil, I will not have sex or reproduce.

Sorry, TolstSOI was debunked by Chesterton

>If a perpetual talk about one's own robustness leads to being less robust, it is even more true that a perpetual talking about one's own simplicity leads to being less simple.

>And a little plain thinking would teach them how harsh and fanciful are the mass of their own ethics, how very civilized and very complicated must be the brain of the Tolstoyan who really believes it to be evil to love one's country and wicked to strike a blow.


>The false type of naturalness harps always on the distinction between the natural and the artificial. The higher kind of naturalness ignores that distinction. To the child the tree and the lamp-post are as natural and as artificial as each other; or rather, neither of them are natural but both supernatural. For both are splendid and unexplained. The flower with which God crowns the one, and the flame with which Sam the lamplighter crowns the other, are equally of the gold of fairy-tales. In the middle of the wildest fields the most rustic child is, ten to one, playing at steam-engines.

>>23158031
>his sister’s note
His sister was thoroughly unreliable and stupid.

>denying all the higher principles of human life
He denies hierarchical oppression. But Tolstoy was the oppressor - he was part of the psychopathic Russian aristocracy that would collapse under Lenin and Stalin.

>>23162836
Tolstoy struggled with his nobility all his life and was forced to leave his own estate in his final days because his bitch wife refused to surrender their wealth. Nowadays Tolstoy is defamed as a misogynist and she is painted as the victim. Tolstoy did not directly oppress people for most of his life, only in his youth did he actively abuse peasants

>>23158837
Is it Confessions?

>>23161535
>>Almost like…life?
life of a woman yes

>>23158031
Nietzsche filters christians.
TSZ is an artistic interpretation of the man's thoughts

>>23158035
Not at all accurate. His madness was seen in a few letters he wrote after the supposed horse incident. His works are serious, perfectly sane and perfectly understandable

>>23161569
He's completely accurate. Didn't you mean to defend Tolstoy on the ground of a faulty translation? No?

>>23162920
Well, we've called it Mother Nature for a long time.

>>23162849
>Tolstoy did not directly oppress people for most of his life, only in his youth did he actively abuse peasants
He was consumed by guilt for realizing what the Church truly stands for and knew what fate awaited the Russian aristocrats.

He tried to save his neck and his bloodline.

>>23162905
His diaries from 1895-1910. Full of early concepts for stories he wrote and never wrote, philosophical thoughts, self-loathing, details of his artistic process, his family and daily routines, etc. The most interesting thing about his diary is that he wrote it with the complete knowledge that not only would future generations read it, but his own wife was reading it (they exchanged diaries with each other all the time to air grievances). He is always candid and clear

>>23158031
Nietzsche idiots btfo.

The history of philosophy and religion from Plato / Judaism onward was a cult of toxic masculinity from the start, claiming to praise reason above all else, while simultaneously reserving it only for men and despising femininity and the unconscious aspects of nature, hence the hatred of women and the view that animals are beneath humans prevalent throughout said history and in modern society today. The people who are deeply entrenched in this neurotically hateful memetic prison see a man like Nietzsche, who is a philosopher of love, ecstasy, and the unconscious, and thus the polar opposite of Plato and his toxic cultists, and can't understand him in the slightest — they call him weak, womanly, gay, insane, and various other pointless labels to cope with their inability to assimilate his ideas into theirs. And yet it is men like him who, many thousands of years ago, came upon the art of horse riding, invented love poetry and the various rules of romantic courtship, and unsurprisingly had both gods and goddesses and worshiped animals and nature as part of a divine unity of love. Nietzsche sees beauty in all things and affirms life while the toxic Platonist / Abrahamic ideologue, insecure in his natural position in life, sees evil and weakness everywhere, and constantly talks of "the beyond," "the life after," and so on, because he has no respect for life or the universe and secretly desires to sling mud on it whenever and wherever possible.