/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10335602]

Who is the opposite of Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.10335609]

>>10335602
Kierkegaard.
Hiin enkelte > ubermensch

[Anonymous No.10335630]

[Anonymous No.10335633]

Plato

[Anonymous No.10335670]

>>10335609
They wouls be bros

[Anonymous No.10335671]

>>10335633
wrong, they are similar in many ways

[Anonymous No.10335776]

G. K. Chesterton or Kierkegaard for the "same" time period.
Emerson, or, Aquinas - for any period.

[Anonymous No.10335777]

>>10335602
Plato or Kant

[Anonymous No.10335790]

>>10335776
I meant to say St Augustine.
>Aquinas is a complete retard.

[Anonymous No.10335863]

>>10335670
How the fuck would they be bros?

[Anonymous No.10335865]

>>10335609
More

[Anonymous No.10335901]

>>10335609
I want to put my hand on that belly and feel the warmth of it.

[Anonymous No.10335922]

The opposite of N would be Kant, or the stoics. Kant bc, muh pervailing objectivity. The stoics because they effectivwly say no to life. Or really any new age garbage now a days

[Anonymous No.10335932]

>>10335922
>The stoics because they effectivwly say no to life

[Anonymous No.10335940]

>>10335932
How am i wrong?

[Anonymous No.10335944]

Socrates or Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.10335946]

>>10335609
reported for being nasty, this is gay communist muslim board

[Anonymous No.10335951]

>>10335940
>the stoics say no to life

[Anonymous No.10335956]

St. Thomas Aquinas aka the Devil

[Anonymous No.10335999]

>>10335951
nice try you filthy shitposting animal. Go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.10336028]

>>10335670
>Ardent christian and ardent anti-christian would be bros

[Anonymous No.10336031]

>>10335999
lmao peabrain

[Anonymous No.10336033]

>>10335999
nice get you filthy brainlet

[Anonymous No.10336040]

>>10335602
>Dionysus v. the Crucified...

[Anonymous No.10336052]

Contradicting opposites.
>Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel
Contemplative opposites
>Kierkegaard, Spengler

[Anonymous No.10336110]

>>10336052
i second this

[Anonymous No.10336205]

>>10336033
Limit should:
be x>> [=/=0]
X>>(sideways)8
X>>-(sideways)8

Way to recycle memes and think you are being smart and cool. No wants to sit with you at the lunch table.

^I do get the feeling we are friends tho, lel

[Anonymous No.10336264]

>>10335630
>>10335633
>>10335776
>>10335777
>>10335790
>>10335922
>>10335944
>>10335956
>>10336052
All wrong. Nietzsche identified who his opposite is, it's Christ.

[Anonymous No.10336284]

>>10336028
Aside from that Nietzsche wouldnt agree with the 'knight of faith' conclusion they were pretty similar

[Anonymous No.10336295]

>>10336052
>Contemplative opposites
Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.10336329]

>>10336284
No.

[Anonymous No.10336343]

>>10336264
If you read the book the title of which you are referring to you'd know that he didn't dislike Jesus, but mainly his followers, most importantly Paul.

[Anonymous No.10336425]

>>10336343
I'm referring to Ecce Homo, not The Antichrist.

[Anonymous No.10336813]

>>10335946
Wow you actually reported it, kys faggot

[Anonymous No.10336821]

>>10335602
/lit/

[Anonymous No.10336822]

>>10335602

Faertzsche.

[Anonymous No.10338170]

>>10336329
Yes.

[Anonymous No.10338185]

There are no opposites, only superficial estimations. N paraphrase

[Anonymous No.10338200]

>>10336425
Even then, he recognizes Jesus as his ultimate rival, not exactly "opposite."

[Anonymous No.10338229]

>>10335602
His philosophy is an inversion of Platonism, so Plato.

[Anonymous No.10338276]

>>10338200
It's more or less the same thing. There is really no greater opposite framework to his Dionysian will to power than Christ and his legacy.

[Anonymous No.10338572]

Stoics. Seems like every soyboy nu-male is into that today.

[Anonymous No.10339222]

>>10335602
Just commenting to agree with those who have listed Christ, Kant, Plato, Hegel, and Aquinas. The Stoics too. Schopenhauer I can understand, and isn't even a bad answer, but he and N. have too many similarities and parallels in their worldviews and projects to be accurately called opposites ---- even though they do heavily diverge in their conclusions.

>>10338572
'Soyboy nu-males' are absolutely identified and controlled by capricious emotions. There's a higher percentage of isolated gaming and internet nerds who are in awe of stoicism.

[Anonymous No.10340231]

>>10335940
I'm no expert, I've only read Meditations, but it seems stoicism is more about dealing with life and getting on with it no matter what harsdhips are thrown at you. It's not "saying no to life".

[Anonymous No.10340322]

>>10336295
This is the only correct answer.

[Anonymous No.10340401]

>>10340231
isn't that the same as buddhism

[Anonymous No.10340406]

>>10340231
But in order to do so, it requires one to detach from emotions and the world; hence, no to life

[Anonymous No.10340425]

>>10340401
Very similair, both rubbish

[Anonymous No.10340705]

>>10340425
let me guess, you're a christian

[Anonymous No.10340715]

>>10340425
You dumb as hell boy.

[Anonymous No.10340718]

>>10340715
dude the ultimate numale lebensphilosophie combo lmao

just post on tumblr and watch school of life vids for the rest of time

[Anonymous No.10340727]

>>10340425
t.

[Anonymous No.10340735]

Kierkegaard is the correct answer

[Anonymous No.10340765]

>>10340401
>>10340425
>>10340705
>>10340727
Jesus Christ, when did /lit/ get this bad?

[Anonymous No.10340831]

>>10340705
No
>>10340715
Why

[Anonymous No.10341222]

>>10335776
You haven't read Emerson and Nietzsche have you? If you have, I recommend reading Nietzsche's "The Future of Our Educational Systems" and anything Emerson.
>>10335922
>>10335940
The stoics do NOT say no to life. Oftentimes, like Montaigne adapted, Seneca says life is beautiful, especially if you keep death on your mind. Disce gaudere. Do not worry about the past or the present, but live in the moment. If that's saying no to life, then idk.
>>10340765
Unfortunately this, but it's probably always been this bad.

[Anonymous No.10341260]

>>10335602

[Anonymous No.10341265]

>>10335602
Kant

[Anonymous No.10341267]

Nietzsche was a cuck philosopher. He acknowledged he was not the ubermensch and instead prepped the bull for Chad

Had he been alive today he would be an incel

[Anonymous No.10341282]

>>10341267
I'm naked right now

[Anonymous No.10341406]

>>10341267
he was an incel

[Anonymous No.10341505]

>>10335602
Hegel.

[Anonymous No.10341782]

>>10335602
Wagner. That's why they were such good buddies.

[Anonymous No.10342837]

>>10340406
It's more about enduring pain without getting emotional about it. You don't detach from positive emotions, Marcus probably still enjoyed shooting ropes onto Faustina's face.

[Anonymous No.10342880]

>>10340406
I see what you're saying, now. It's like when Schopenhauer praises them in certain ways, but inevitably compares them to a wooden post. I find a stoic mindset highly incompatible with a girlfriend, and Montaigne made that clearer.

[Anonymous No.10342935]

Zarathustra's "enlightened man" says:

>I am body entirely, and nothing beside; and soul is only a word for something in the body. The body is a great intelligence, a multiplicity with one sense, a war and a peace, a herd and a herdsman. Your little intelligence, my brother, which you call 'spirit', is also an instrument of your body, a little instrument and toy of your great intelligence. You say 'I' and you are proud of this word. But greater than this — although you will not believe in it — is your body and its great intelligence, which does not say 'I' but performs 'I'. What the sense feels, what the spirit perceives, is never an end in itself. But sense and spirit would like to persuade you that they are the end of all things: they are as vain as that. Sense and spirit are instruments and toys: behind them still lies the Self. The Self seeks with the eyes of the sense, it listens too with the ears of the spirit. The Self is always listening and seeking: it compares, subdues, conquers, destroys. It rules and is also the Ego's ruler. Behind your thoughts and feelings, my brother, stands a mighty commander, an unknown sage — he is called Self. He lives in your body, he is your body.

You should be able to figure it out from there.

[Anonymous No.10343277]

>>10335602
Kierkegaard, of course. The two founders of Existentialism - one who swerves back, to the roots of Western thought and faith, and one who swerves away.

>>10335776
ding-ding-ding! you win

>>10336264
pretentious

[Anonymous No.10343386]

>>10343277
>pretentious
And true, from Nietzsche himself.

[Anonymous No.10343413]

>>10342935
It astounds me that anyone has temerity to claim Nietzsche never read Stirner

[Anonymous No.10343432]

>>10342837
>>It's more about enduring pain without getting emotional about it. You don't detach from positive emotions,
This is what hedonists live for.

[Anonymous No.10343436]

>>10342935
>The Self is always listening and seeking: it compares, subdues, conquers, destroys. It rules and is also the Ego's ruler.
Yes, and putttjanas claim that it is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.10343445]

the opposite of Nietzsche is the woman who turned down 3 separate marriage proposals from him

not once, not twice, three fucking times. three times our all-dancing all-singing yes-saying knight of rarefied alpine air had his bold pro-life pro-conjugal tumescence deflated to the sad tuba of woman's heartless apollonian discrimination of who gets to reproduce and who does not

i love St. N but no wonder his writing about women gets a little ragey

[Anonymous No.10343583]

>>10343386
>because Nietzsche said it it's true

No.

[Anonymous No.10343619]

>>10343445
>his writing about women gets a little ragey
but then its only in the later work, like Idols and even then the rage is primarily subtextual, and there is always a nonmisogynist reading left available

have you read her book on him? I would highly recommend it

[Anonymous No.10343627]

>>10343583
He knows his philosophy better than you do, obviously.

[Anonymous No.10343631]

>>10335602
Any decent philosopher? Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, Chesterton, Kant... Really, anyone

I love Nietzsche for conveniences like "you don't get over something until you replace it for something else", but philosophy-wise he couldn't be further away from the truth.

>>10335790
Aquinas is likely the greatest philosopher there ever was.

[Anonymous No.10343638]

>>10343627
>>10343386
People like you made me hate Nietzsche for a long time. Nietzsche is often baby's first philosopher, and they end up thinking the shit he wrote is actually true. You probably think he is a nihilist too. Fuck, Nietzsche is the responsible for so many fedora tipping idiots we have today.

[Anonymous No.10343639]

>>10335602
Have I been understood, Dionysus versus the Crucified? Its Jesus guys

[Anonymous No.10343697]

>>10343638
>You probably think he is a nihilist too.
I don't... it's not true just because Nietzsche said it. But Nietzsche did say it and he's the philosopher in question here, and it's pretty bizarre to dismiss it without explanation as to why. Why do you think I'm wrong?

First of all, Nietzsche is an immoralist. If you don't understand that about him, then you don't understand him, period. You've missed a key aspect of his philosophy. Second, he refers to Dionysus and Ariadne for a reason, because the god of ecstasy and the abyss and the woman of the labyrinth characterizes his philosophy very deeply.

For Nietzsche, "soul" and "spirit" and even "mind" are playthings of the body. He rejects otherworldly (read: absolute) notions. All roads lead to the absolute — Nietzsche's only absolute is that he keeps changing roads and never stops walking, never gets there. He rejects pity and he rejects turning the other cheek, because it is ignoble. His deepest truths are in poetic form throughout Thus Spoke Zarathustra, because his truth is closer to music than it is logic or scripture. His understanding of truth is like Ariadne, an elusive female of a complex dungeon abyss.

He wrote extensively, while Christ wrote nothing. Christ was not an intellectual. His freedom as a spirit and from the "taste of death" was not earned by mountain-climbing but by moving the mountain away from sight. Christ said, "The kingdom of heaven is within you." This is a massive denial of life, an inversion of its values towards the inner world and an "afterlife" (read: the imaginary).

I'm open to discuss it further as I could be overlooking some things, but this is what I have read and understood.

[Anonymous No.10343728]

>>10343639
>>10343697
>I am by far the most terrifying human being there has ever been; this does not prevent me from being the most benevolent in future. I know the pleasure in destroying to an extent commensurate with my power to destroy— in both I obey my Dionysian nature, which is incapable of separating no-doing from yes-saying. I am the first immoralist: hence I am the destroyer par excellence.—

>Zarathustra is more truthful than any other thinker. His teaching and it alone has as its highest virtue truthfulness— in other words the opposite of the cowardice of the "idealist", who takes flight from reality; Zarathustra has more bravery in his body than all the other thinkers put together. Tell the truth and shoot arrows well, that is Persian virtue.— Am I understood?... The self-overcoming of morality out of truthfulness, the self-overcoming of the moralist into his opposite— me— this is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth.

>One the one hand I am denying a type of human being who has hitherto been considered the highest type— the good, the benevolent, the beneficent; on the other hand I am denying a kind of morality that has achieved validity and predominance as morality in itself— decadence morality, or to put it more concretely, Christian morality.

>Christian morality has hitherto been the Circe of all thinkers— they were in its service.— Who before me has climbed into the caves from which the poisonous fug of this kind of ideal— world-denial!— emanates? Who has dared even to suppose that they are caves? Who was there among philosophers before me who was a psychologist and not rather the opposite, a "higher swindler", an "idealist"? There just was no psychology before me.— Being the first here can be a curse, at any rate it is a destiny: for you are also the first to despise... Disgust at man is my danger...

>What sets me apart and aside from all the rest of humanity is having discovered Christian morality.

[Anonymous No.10344105]

>>10343728
Truly he was a fraud intellectual with no grasp of truth

[Anonymous No.10344334]

>>10335602
Messy-cha

LOL

[Anonymous No.10344381]

>>10343432
From leddit:
They're polar opposites. Stoicism, just as most other Greco-Roman philosophies, teaches that maximizing pleasure does not make a man happy. Happiness in Stoicism and other philosophies is to achieve eudaimonia, commonly translated as "flourishing", by gaining virtues. That concept derives from the Homeric ideal of arete, meaning excellence, whether that be martial, financial, familial or many others.
Stoicism is about enduring what happens and gaining full control over yourself to reach an inner peace. At the same time it is about working as much and as hard as you can, and immersing yourself in your work as part of that inner peace. You should read Marcus Aurelius' Meditations if you are interested in learning about Stoicism, as it has been translated very well into English. He did not want to be the Emperor, but he recognized that it was his duty and he did it to the best of his ability. He did not enjoy it, but that doesn't matter to his happiness. Stoicism teaches you to recognize external stimuli as only that; your reaction determines the importance of that stimuli and how it affects you. If you have full control of yourself, external stimuli should not affect your judgment or decision making in any real way. Hedonism to me seems to be entirely reliant on the effect external stimuli has* on you, which as I have explained puts them in direct opposition.

[Anonymous No.10344575]

Buddha. There are no other alternatives.

[Anonymous No.10344931]

>>10344105
His truth can only be understood once you fully understand what perspective and being body entirely means.

[Anonymous No.10344949]

>>10343413
Maybe it’s just that Stirner is very simple and it’s easy to come up with his thoughts on your own

[Anonymous No.10345163]

[Anonymous No.10345236]

depending on your interpretation of Christs words
pic related

[Anonymous No.10345250]

>>10345236
"fight back smartly" as in underhandedly, wretchedly, unequally, ignobly, "the only way a weak man can against a strong one," or at least that's how Nietzsche more or less interpreted it. Good post / pic though.

[Anonymous No.10345297]

>>10343627
Apparently not, if he thought his opposite was Christ and not Kierkegaard. Now run along fanboy, you'll grow out of your blind admiration phase someday.

[Anonymous No.10345306]

>>10335776
Nietzsche absolutely loved Emerson--compared them to soul brothers or something. Read up on that connection.

[Anonymous No.10345358]

>>10345297
Kierkegaard may be his academic opposite, but not his most serious philosophical opponent.

[Anonymous No.10345517]

>>10345358
In the same way Nietzche isn’t Jesus’ main political opponent?

[Anonymous No.10345535]

Some boring analytic philosopher or logician

[Anonymous No.10345543]

>>10345517
I suppose. Nietzsche was not a politician so I don't think the thread is calling for his "political opponent."