/lit/ - Literature

Any rational arguments you'd like to put forth, or is it just unbridled feminine emotion for you in this thread?

>>2512354
>feminine emotion
typical hypermasculine repressed homosexual.
ohhh it has to be FEMININE emotion
nerd

Agreed.

Also, hated at fifteen, I somehow read him as being a whiney faggot. Now I realise he is truly awesome, but only because I've gained better perspective.

>>2512364
hated him*

Awesome mustache he has there. Read a couple of his books when I was like 17, haven't understood anything though.

Unfortunately, these days, you will never find a well read 15 year old. So its no wonder that they don't understand what he's writing about.

The young Marx was reading the works of Hegel at the very young age. I think he was 12 or 13

>>2512423
Hegel's far more straight forward though. Nietzsche is always somewhat of an enigma.

>>2512353
He wasn't advocating it, but he sure was a nihilist, even if it wasn't wholly by choice. I love Nietzsche, but I don't think he succeeded in his revaluation of all values and kind of failed to install his new OS after clearing out his harddrive. Which was maybe partly responsible in the errors he proceeded to receive.

He is greating in breaking up, tearing down and quietly dismantling all kinds of shit. But his positive work seems lacking to me. I would like to know what my fellow /lit/erati think Nietzsche's prescriptive philosophy was/would have been.

Some say he didn't have one, but that would be a faulty assumption since it would be giving in to the nihilism he sought to overcome.

>>2512438
Not at all. By that meausre Taoism is nihilism.

>>2512438

I would assume it would be to choose your choices more wisely or be doomed to repeat the same choices over and over again.

I assume this from his conception of cyclical time in the Gay science and Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Then there's the passage on the hunched back man. And Zarathustra's speech how to become a complete person.

I think these are some of his positivist philosophies as trivial as they sound

>>2512353
Does anyone understand anyone, really?

>>2512353
ITT : Christian butthurts about Nietsche.

>>2512446
Taoism is also prescriptive in a way, even though it's a bit paradoxal. There are principles to adhere to in order to arrive at the Taoist ideal. Sort of a non-clinging go easy rakish quietist sort of thing.

Nietzsche is even more vague in his ideals.

>>2512592
>Taoism is also prescriptive in a way, even though it's a bit paradoxal. There are principles to adhere to in order to arrive at the Taoist ideal. Sort of a non-clinging go easy rakish quietist sort of thing.
Uh, no. The closest thing to prescription is Wu Wei, and that's not quietist though I guess I can see how you might think that. Sort of.

>>2512608
Also Lao Tzu praising the simple natural life and hating on fancy knowledge and power and customs and pre tense and all that stuff. It's like Cynicism in the sense that you are urged to live a life according to (their concept of) nature.

>Presenting: /lit/s 's version of Nietzsche:

'Well, I haven't actually read him, but he was all about doom and gloom and depressive shit so that means that EVERYONE WHO LIKES HIM IS AN ANGSTY TEENAGER!!!'

>>2512708
Seriously, I never understood this. I waited until I was 19 to read Nietzsche, and was laughing every couple pages. I mean he makes dick jokes, whats so dark and edgy about that?

>>2512356
This is the dumbest post I have ever seen on 4chan, ever.

>>2512735
masculinity is homosexual at it's core

>>2512356
Dat feminine emotion.

>>2512706
>Also Lao Tzu praising
That's not prescribed. The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. It's something you yourself have to come to or not at all.

he writes self-help books for people who are too ashamed to read anything that is classified as 'self-help'. as an inadequate failure, he certainly appeals to me, but i hate him, because i hate myself

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche basically corrected the fuckups of the moron pictured and Kant, right?

And didn't Kant and Hegel basically ruin Europe by sterilising the positive aspects of British and Dutch thought and protecting the dangerous irrational aspects of European or Continental thought?

Please respond.

>>2512803
No and no. Though Schopenhauer seemed to hate Hegel, and Kant is often in contrast to Hume. If you want to look at Nietzsche wrt him vs Hegel, and also an interesting take on Kant check out Alenka Zupancic.

>>2512803
Correct. No Hegel, no Marxist bullshit which currently plagues this board.

>>2512461
No Christian should be huttburt about Nietzche...once you get past all the insults he has some pretty interesting views on Jesus/Christianity which read much more favorably than what people see ostensibly in his writings on it.

>>2512803

> ruin Europe by sterilising the positive aspects of British and Dutch thought

What positive aspects?

>>2512438
I agree with you.
He does away with value and metaphysics then smuggles it back in with his eternal recurrence and will to power.
He's a kind of hopeless idealist in my view.
He doesn't succeed in his aim, but his philosophy is very complex and there is a lot to be gained from reading it if you read him properly.

>>2512837
Radical choice.

>>2512837
skepticism; secularism; materialism, the list could go on...

>>2512813
A Christian would still find his views on Jesus/Christianity extremely insulting, even when ignoring Nietzsche's critique. What he has to say about Jesus contradicts the whole christian faith

>>2512851
No. By all means be more specific though.

>>2512438
Really? Sure he was against metaphysics and "christian" morals, but it's not like he only seeks to destroy morals.

He seeks to replace the christian values with new values, those following the umwerthung, or "old" morals in the sense that they can be compared to those existing i pre-christian times, like i pre-sokratic Greece for instance.

>>2512843
>He does away with value and metaphysics then smuggles it back in with his eternal recurrence and will to power.
>eternal recurrence
>big crunch theory, autopoesis
>will to power
>negentropy

so metaphysical

>>2512855
He interpretation of what Jesus was trying to say in the Gospel, for instance. According to Nietzsche, paradise for Jesus was a state of mind, something that was not waiting after death, but something that could be experienced here and now - on this earth.
While this, being one of the few things he acknowledges as "good" in what he calls the original form of christianity, i.e. that which was preached by Jesus, is not a critique of christianity itself, it would be impossible for a christian to accept as fact without going against the elementary principles of christianity.

>>2512870
His*

>>2512870
Well, no, since the elementary principles of Christianity are "the things Jesus Christ taught". Nietzsche is no more radical than Erasmus in this sense.

In the example you gave, that's an interpretation the Catholic church finds acceptable, so not radical at all.

Nietzsche was a Gnostic.

Harold Bloom was, and still is, a bro.

>>2512876
Except that the whole concept of paradise, advocated by other parts of the bible, is thereby overturned.

To give you another example, he views Jesus as just an ordinary man, not, as christians view him, an incarnation of God. Once again, what seems just as a seemingly "uncritical" observation is still completely impossible for a christian to agree with while still remaining "christian".

>>2512903
>Except that the whole concept of paradise, advocated by other parts of the bible, is thereby overturned.
Well, no. You still have paradise, just on earth. There is no problem with this.
>To give you another example, he views Jesus as just an ordinary man, not, as christians view him, an incarnation of God.
While it's the mainstream view, not all Christians think of Jesus as God. This view is from Paul's theology, and becomes de facto with the Nicene creed in the 4th century. However, there have always been people who disagree with the creed, and it's certainly not the only interpretation. Look up "antitrinitarianism". I also would have thought you'd have heard of people like unitarians.

>>2512870
Actually Christ says the Kingdom of God is already in our midst.

>>2512914
We seem to have reached the point where we can no longer view "christians" as one homogenous mass. Obviously there are differences in the interpretation of the bible in different groups of christians, and obviously these different groups would be more/less eager to agree with Nietzsche on his views of Jesus/christianity.

>>2512941
>We seem to have reached the point where we can no longer view "christians" as one homogenous mass.
Might have something to do with Christians being individuals with different points of view. What did you expect, really?
>Obviously there are differences in the interpretation of the bible in different groups of christians, and obviously these different groups would be more/less eager to agree with Nietzsche on his views of Jesus/christianity.
Just like anything else really. Anyway, seems;
>A Christian would still find his views on Jesus/Christianity extremely insulting, even when ignoring Nietzsche's critique. What he has to say about Jesus contradicts the whole christian faith
Was stated prematurely.

>>2512813
>Was stated prematurely.
as was your original statement.

>>2512954
Not following.

Shut the fuck up capsfag.

>>2512955
>No Christian should be huttburt about Nietzche

Implying that no christians should be upset by N's views on christianity. By rejecting my argument on the grounds of it being a generalisation of a differentiated religion, you can't at the same time claim that "no" christians should be upset by his views, as, like you stated, they are individuals with different points of views.

>>2512971
>Implying that no christians should be upset by N's views on christianity
Actually not my claim.
>By rejecting my argument on the grounds of it being a generalisation of a differentiated religion, you can't at the same time claim that "no" christians should be upset by his views, as, like you stated, they are individuals with different points of views.
Doesn't matter anyway, you're confusing would or might with should. Everyone can recognise it's just another view. Christ taught tolerance.

>>2512860
Nietzsche contradicted slave values with master values, as in christian vs. pagan. His whole Übermensch thing was neither of those as it was very individualistic and worldly. His answer wasn't "we should all be like the ancients again".

>>2513468
Stravinsky went through the same fad only to return to Christian values in his intellectual maturity since he wasn't beta enough to contract syphilis

Friedrich Nietzsche was epic
thus spake zarathustra was a godlike book
not from the literature point of view but from philosophical perspective
dont talk about something you are too dumb to understand

>>2513479
>comparing some little composer to one of the most important philosophers since the Ancients
>implying syphilis isn't contracted by fucking bitches which is alpha as fuck
>implying returning to the faith of your youth and upbringing isn't the most cowardly form of regression and defeat
>implying you don't have to severely lack intellectual honesty not to recognise you've been exiled from that world of thought and the only thing you can honourably do is trudge on through the darkness
>implying someone who in his old age returned to believing in Santa is intellectually mature instead of senile

>NIHILISM STUPID AND BORING AND OVERRATED

Philosophical argumentation at its finest.

Well done, old boy.

>>2513542
Well, Nietzsche has nothing whatsoever to do with nihilism anyway.

And the reason he's so popular is that he's readable, as opposed to the majority of important philosophers.

>>2513549
Nor was I saying otherwise. The simple-mindedness behind the line is just humorous to me. Nihilism in a philosophical sense is a whole lot more complex than just the "we believe in nothing" line from the Big Lebowski. To fob it off with an ad hominem, shows the OPs ignorance.

That's all.

>>2512971
>Should:
>1. Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions: "he should have been careful".
>2. Indicating a desirable or expected state: "by now students should be able to read".

To further elaborate in case you still miss the point I used the second definition in the post you replied to. So either you are an ESL guy or a needlessly combative babby. Perhaps both.

>>2512423
about what he is writing.*

Apparently you aren't "well read" either. Faggot.

>>2513595
I really don't think nihilism is a philosophical school of thought one could adhere to..

>>2513621
Oh, also, you've misused "its" and said "the very young age" instead of "a very young age."

Please die.

>>2513607
why the inability to keep a civil tone?

I read the thread but I'm 15 so can I read Nietzsche or no?

So..
what books do you people recommend to start with nietzsche?

I'm not far away from the stupidity of "I've never read him, but he sure sounds like an edgy teen", and I want to end that.

>>2513952
Genealogy of Morality or Beyond Good And Evil are probably good places to start to appreciate his thought, especially the aspects of it that are obviously not just edgy teen BS.

I am also required to state that an understanding of the intellectual and philosophical background for Nietzsche is enormously illuminating in terms of what he's trying to do.

>>2513939

If you have the capacity. Just like every other book and situation.

>>2513513
> angsty preteen detected

Richard Dawkins would be proud

>>2512423
I was well read at 15, which was two years ago. had read Sartre, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer etc

>>2515549
Reading doesn't necessarily equate to understanding though

>>2515553
No. But I'm sure many 15 year olds have read and understood philosophy before.

>>2512364
Did you know what projection was at the age of fifteen?

>>2513549
>Well, Nietzsche has nothing whatsoever to do with nihilism anyway.
No, he doesn't espouse Nihilism, but he is very much about Nihilism.

>>2515557
Not Nietzsche. Also
>implying "understand" is meaningful here

>>2515570
Nice one liner, but do you know what projection is?

>>2515581
Teenagers can't understand Nietzsche? As a rule?

>>2515586
Teenagers are Nietzsche's target audience.

>>2515586
He's one of the most misread philosophers. On top of that, his philosophy requires life experience to appreciate.

>>2515590
You don't need life experience to understand anything.

>>2515593
Teenager detected.

>>2515593
Unless you're going to learn by rote, you need some sort of life experience ot understand anything.

>>2515599
All experience is life experience, no matter what age you are you have life experience.

>>2515608
Not at all. You have to go out into the world to gain life experience. You could stay in your room in your own little world, but that is removed from life.

>>2515616
But that doesn't make any difference to the point I made. Most young people don't shut themselves from the world, and at least go to school.

>>2515619
>thinks school is "going out into the world"

>>2515616
Introspective experiences are just as valuable as the extrospective.

>>2515625
What is "going out into the world", genius?

Working? travelling? Is all the same shit.

>>2515629
>>2515627
>Where one must travel.—Direct self-observation does not by any means suffice for self-knowledge. We need history, inasmuch as the past wells up in us in hundreds of ways. Indeed we ourselves are nothing other than what we sense at each instant of that onward flow. For even when we wish to go down to the stream of our apparently ownmost, most personal essence, Heraclitus's statement holds true: one does not step twice into the same river.—The maxim has by now grown stale; yet it is as nourishing and energizing as ever. So too is the maxim that in order to understand history one must search for the living remnants of historical epochs—and do so by traveling, as the venerable Herodotus traveled to sundry nations. . . .

>It is quite probable that the last three centuries, in all the hues and refracted colors of their civilization, live on, quite close to us: they only have to be discovered. . . . Most assuredly, in remote places, in rarely penetrated mountain valleys, self-contained communities manifesting a much older sensibility can be more readily preserved. That is where we have to go looking for them. . . . Whoever after long practice has become a hundred-eyed Argos in this art of traveling will finally rejoin his Io—I mean his ego—everywhere, and will rediscover the travel-adventure of this transformative and evolving ego in Egypt and Greece, Byzantium and Rome, France and Germany, in the periods of the migratory or the sedentary peoples, in the Renaissance and Reformation, in one's own homeland and abroad, and indeed in the sea, the vegetation, and the mountains.

I see we all have totally read and understood Nietzsche here.

>>2515632
Having read and understood it doesn't mean you agree with it. Nietzsche's opinion on something isn't fact.

>>2515637
Says who? Oh, you, some teen with no life experience. Don't care.

>>2515640
>dismissing people because they do not take Nietzsche's opinion as fact

You're Nietzsche's nightmare.

>ITT: Zoophiliacs

>>2515938
That's not what has happened here.

>>2512364
But he is a whiney faggot, anon. He his.