/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11044035]

>when you realise that Nietzsche's bias against metaphysics comes from the fact that he never studied it properly as he wasn't actually a philosopher but a philologist-become-would-be psychologist

[Anonymous No.11044037]

>>11044035
true but he still was right about pretty much everything

[Anonymous No.11044039]

>>11044035

Doesn't make his observations any less brilliant or valid

[The Red Barron No.11044043]

What are they

[Anonymous No.11044045]

>>11044043
Yes

[Anonymous No.11044052]

>he wasn't a philosopher

and that is precisely why he was so wise, 'philosophy' is a dead end

[Anonymous No.11044056]

>philologist-become-would-be psychologist
Was Nietzsche the opposite of Jordan Peterson?

[Anonymous No.11044058]

What's metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.11044062]

>>11044035
philosophy was a mistake

[The Red Barron No.11044065]

what

[Anonymous No.11044066]

>>11044035
Nietzsche basically said he'd kill himself if he ever considered himself a philosopher

[Anonymous No.11044069]

>>11044056

> Makes real observations
> Uses fluffy language lucidly
> Rejects rather than affirms the status quo and hierarchies of the world
> Has his own voice rather than speaking from beneath the veil of other people's language like a coward

Yeah

[Anonymous No.11044082]

>>11044066
Where did he say that?

[Anonymous No.11044113]

>>11044035
nietzsche nuked metaphysics, heidegger founded existential humanism on the ruins, then said zen had everything he had actually meant to say. true story.

[Anonymous No.11045194]

>>11044037
i associate the idea of being an egomaniac who is terrified of death with him even though i am ignorant man with a nebulous-at-best understanding of his thought

[Anonymous No.11045221]

>>11045194
>terrified of death

well that would make you a dumb motherfucker then cuz the whole idea of will to power is that the "will to life" darwin shit of the day had a big flaw in that motherfuckers would do risky shit like try revolutions, crusades and various other shit that could end in death, for the purpose of gaining power, how do u explain? will to power trumps will to life

[Anonymous No.11045231]

>>11044113
> nietsche nuked metaphysics
How?

[Anonymous No.11045343]

>>11045231
He didn't. Only teens that haven't bother anything else because its too hard believe that

[Anonymous No.11045345]

>>11045231
He didn't. Only teens that haven't bother anything else because its too hard believe that

[Anonymous No.11045694]

>>11044035
>Nietzsche was a pseud
what a discovery!

[Anonymous No.11045716]

>>11045231
With his edgy prose
Metaphysics will never unironically recover

[Anonymous No.11045820]

>>11044035
This applies to literally everything that he wrote about. Simple lack of education.

[Anonymous No.11045879]

Begone, the übermensch.

[Anonymous No.11046573]

>muh life affirmation :)
>be your own god lol
>don't listen to people who say you shouldn't slut around or something
>they just jelly cuz resentment
>be a special snowflake
>you know who's really life affirming? the Muslims - just look at the dope harem art mane

Kim Kardashian understands Nietzsche after all

[Anonymous No.11046584]

What are metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.11046915]

>>11045221
i c ty

[Anonymous No.11046923]

>>11045221
that will to power thing still seems like its trying to control death by attempting to gain immortality through legacy though

[Anonymous No.11046962]

>>11046573
>christcuck is also a butthurt incel
like clockwork

[Anonymous No.11047168]

>>11044066
Well, he kept refering himself as a philosopher so you better find a source

[Anonymous No.11047842]

>>11044035
So you take off your glasses when this happens?

[Anonymous No.11047934]

>>11045231
He literally did not come close to dinting Kant's metaphysics. Honestly, reading Nietzsche is like being in a waiting-room with a drunken, knife-wielding Paki.
>"How are synthetic judgments a priori POSSIBLE?" Kant asks himself—and what is really his answer? "BY MEANS OF A MEANS (faculty)"—but unfortunately not in five words, but so circumstantially, imposingly, and with such display of German profundity and verbal flourishes, that one altogether loses sight of the comical niaiserie allemande involved in such an answer.
>How does opium induce sleep? "By means of a means (faculty)," namely the virtus dormitiva ... But such replies belong to the realm of comedy.
Nice strawman, faggot.

[Anonymous No.11048812]

>>11047934
>not recognising the comic genius in this

[Anonymous No.11048910]

>Kant was a STEMfag who read something about philosophy and then turned into a philosopher
>Popper was a psychologist who got bored
>Freud was a psychologist who just wanted to jew people out of money
>Wittgenstein was a plane engineer who turned to philosophy out of sheer autism
>Frege was just a mathematician, as was Spengler
>Schmitt was a lawyer
>Adorno was a music fag

Lmao are "philosophers" even trying?

[Anonymous No.11049212]

How did Nietzsche obliterate metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.11049226]

>>11044037
He's the only solution so far if you don't think Aristotle/Aquinas was right; but they really are some tough cookies.

[Anonymous No.11049353]

>>11048812
Funny, ha. ha. Doesn't change the fact that he was out of his element up against Kant.

btw, Kierkegaard was funnier and a better philosopher.

[Anonymous No.11049451]

>>11049226
I've been looking around and haven't been able to find concrete refutations of those two. Closest I've heard of is Hume's thing about causation, but honestly if you have to get so autistic that you're deconstructing causation, you've probably gone past the point where you should stop

[Anonymous No.11049484]

>>11049226
Can you point me to any defense of Aristotle against modern atomism and so on?

[Anonymous No.11049509]

>>11049353
>Kikekergoy

[Anonymous No.11049528]

>>11044035
>when you have no arguments but at least you have a formal education in philosophy so you think you have the upper hand on Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.11049611]

>>11049528
I am but a frog.

[Anonymous No.11049922]

>>11047934
>>11049226

>kant
>kierkegaard
>clearly hasnt read hegel
>even more clearly hasnt read kant because anon is still on the receiving end of niets jokes

hey anon what if i told you nietzsch was making fun of people who make fun of kant when they get to the end of CoPR and think kants ultimate conclusion is "by virtue of a faculty."

what if i also told you he was making fun of hegelians while praising hegel

what if i also told you he was making fun of people making fun of the jews while praising the jews

>>11048812

[Anonymous No.11050764]

>>11049451
You aren't gonna find any salvageable critiques from the Enlightenment. I've heard that

>Thomism And Aristotelianism: A Study Of The Commentary By Thomas Aquinas On The Nicomachean Ethics
by Harry Jaffa
is by far the best critique of Aristotle and Aquinas. Honestly, I pretty convinced of Aquinas's work. It's pretty damn strong.

>>11049484
For modern atomism, I am unsure. But here are two books that argue in favor of Aristotle and Aquinas. Both are by Macintyre.
>After Virtue
followed by
>Whose Justice? Which Rationality?
>Modern Moral Philosophy
and
>Intentions
by Anscombe too.

After Virtue's biggest set back is Macintyre's inability to say a set of virtues is objectively found, more specifically, he seems to be unable to direct us to a singular, true, objective telos for man.

I want to read more Aquinas and see how he deals with that problem. The second Macintyre book supposedly deals with that problem(haven't read it yet.)

[Anonymous No.11050782]

>>11049922
>>11049226
Why was I mentioned?

[Anonymous No.11051085]

>>11050764
Why do we let croats in here