/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12119732]

Whats /lit/ opinion on Nietzche ?

[Anonymous No.12119751]

this is a picture of edgar allen poe

[Anonymous No.12119753]

[Anonymous No.12119756]

>>12119732
He's like JBP for pseuds.

[Anonymous No.12119778]

>>12119732
the epitome of self-help

[Anonymous No.12120900]

bump

[Anonymous No.12122107]

he was right

[Anonymous No.12122122]

One of the few people to come close to the intellect of Peterson

[Anonymous No.12122150]

Based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.12122157]

>>12122122
Lol

[Anonymous No.12122183]

There is a bitter loneliness that pervades his work. He was gay and believed the Church was the reason it wasn't accepted and so he hated it. He is a proper Lutheran in that regard because Luther felt oppressed by this feeling of not being saved and this drove him on a psychological level to seek reform in the Church to make being saved easier. Nietzche sought to reform society to make being gay easier.

[Anonymous No.12122574]

[Anonymous No.12122627]

>>12119732
Easily refuted

[Anonymous No.12122638]

>>12122150
This

[Anonymous No.12122658]

>>12119732
Well, he is not Dr. Peterson, but I find his works inspiring on occasion.

[Anonymous No.12122700]

>>12122627
It's so easy nobody has bothered to do it yet.

[Anonymous No.12122714]

>>12119732
He's pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.12122717]

>>12119732
Very inspirational - especially if you've fallen into a pit of despair and nihilism

[Anonymous No.12122739]

>>12119778
All philosophy should be reclassified as self-help desu.

[Anonymous No.12122746]

>>12122700
Not him, but check out Resentiment by Scheler

[Anonymous No.12123586]

>>12122183
E Micheal, please

[Anonymous No.12123594]

>>12119778
name one moral philosopher who can't be classified as self help
pro-tip: you can't

[Anonymous No.12123601]

>>12119753
how the fuck did I lose to this?

[Anonymous No.12123605]

>>12119732
He was right about everything
I also want to thank him for single handedly digging the grave and nailing the coffin of objective morality

[Anonymous No.12123609]

Witty, nihilistic, and had a wicked sense of humour.

[Anonymous No.12124056]

Unironically redpilled and based.
"Life itself is will to power. Self preservation is just one of the most frequent results"

I think about that almost every day

[Anonymous No.12124159]

He keeps himself afloat by using highly idiosyncratic definitions: for things like “strength” especially, and his work is frustrating because ultimately it has nothing to say except STRONG MAN GOOD
I defy his supporters to give me anything else. He might say the same thing a thousand different ways with his epigrammatic profligation but it all amounts to the least. I say this but i enjoy reading him when I’m depressed, it’s like listening to DSBM

[Anonymous No.12124169]

>>12124159
what do you think he means by strength? you didn’t define it, you gave an explanation you believe to represent his opinion regarding it.

[Anonymous No.12124177]

>>12122183
>He was gay
>if I say something contrarian that nobody believes and is contradicted by the events of his life then maybe I'll trick people into thinking I'm smart

>the Church was the reason it wasn't accepted and so he hated it
>let's ignore everything he ever wrote on the subject for the sake of unsubstantiated conjecture

>to seek reform in the Church to make being saved easier
>making it so you have to trust in God and repent as truly as you can is easier than just paying the church to go to heaven

I know it wasn't serious but I had fun responding.

[Anonymous No.12124179]

>>12124177
I don't read people who greetext me.

[Anonymous No.12124182]

>>12122183
>anyone who hates Christianity must be gay
wow, really makes you think. weird that the catholic church has been a den of pedophiles for at least a century and that multiple popes and cardinals were burned, executed, excommunicated for pederasty in the middle ages and renaissance period. No projection at all.

Also
>letting anon’s fantasy hold, his being gay must mean god is real and catholicism is the true faith
genius

[Anonymous No.12124187]

>>12124159
>using highly idiosyncratic definitions
Yes, but if you aren't a brainlet you can figure out what he means by the terms he uses.

>it has nothing to say except STRONG MAN GOOD
The fact that you assume that master morality is what Nietzsche proposes means you haven't read his Genealogy, or BGaE, or Ecce Homo, or The Gay Science. Unless you mean something else by strength but then you are doing the exact same thing in not defining your term so it boils down to I'M RIGHT BECAUSE OF REASONS.

[Anonymous No.12124188]

>>12124169
I can’t say what he means because he himself pussies around it and uses it without any specific meaning. It could mean vitality in the physical sense or dominance in the social, it could mean a kind of rigorous attention to the logical outcome of moral systems it could just mean the most rudimentary picture of strength, but like I said he doesn’t get past his worship of strength, he can’t even really be in favor of Power as such, because as he says time and again power is in the hands of “the weak”, especially in his day.

[Anonymous No.12124192]

>>12124182
There are actual Nietzschean scholars who think he was most likely gay. This is not some radical assumption and neither am I arguing that because he was gay therefore Christianity is true. You're retarded.

[Anonymous No.12124205]

>>12124187
You’re just talking out of your ass and name dropping and it would be absolutely no effort to find at least fifty quotes of his that boil down to STRONG MAN GOOD. His idiosyncracies can’t be understood because they are ambiguous and he is constantly undermining and prevaricating in them.
And you don’t say anything at all except “oh you’re a brainlet you haven’t read this and this”
The man repeats himself so much it is a chore to get through one of his books.
My opinion is that he would not go far enough in his attack on objective morality, he retaliated, he demands NEW values which ironically are old ones; I love him when he is exposing humanism for its inconsistencies but then he proposes an Overman as the culmination of history or some such shit, which is nothing but sentiment.

[Anonymous No.12124221]

>>12124205
Again, he wallows in sentiment, in his cult of the masculine, he is constantly referring back to other thinkers because he is in an agitated state of reaction, of response, he is a commentator and not a philosopher at bottom; he does not hold rigorously to any truth or even any unambiguous statements at all, and he mistakes this for subtlety, for his own complexity as a thinker. Again and again he returns to the same tropes: men are ill, society is ill, illness is because of altruism, comment on Buddhism despite having close to no knowledge on the subject, throwaway attack on Wagner despite being creatively impoverished, what if...the STRONK will inherit the earth and so on and so on.
I only read his books to feed on his negativity; and when he tries to be positive I cringe.

[Anonymous No.12124224]

>>12124192
>there’s nietzsche scholars that think he was gay
that explains why he proposed to a woman, all homosexuals tend to do that and not be forced into marriages of convenience don’t you know?
>i didn’t imply what im now backtracking from, you see I am not a catholic, that’s why i immediately pivoted to attacking Luther and calling N a Lutheran
>im really just a tactful and disinterested observer
>Nietzsche was gay and i meant nothing by it, even though my post implies i mean his arguments against god are lutheran homosexuality, and that this relates back to Luther’s rage at being incapable of escaping sin (which i wasn’t at all trying to tacitly related with N’s purported homosexuality which i deduced from his nonexistent sexual interest in men unlike countless other authors who literally wrote poems and diary entries about their lust for their male friends, including Kafka and Russell)
>silly retard
You are a pseud and shouldn’t be allowed to share your opinion on anything

[Anonymous No.12124238]

>>12124224
>gay people never get married case closed shut up!

[Anonymous No.12124244]

>>12124224
Yeah it's completely unheard of for gay people to get married to women. Never happened ever. Forgive me but I'll trust people like Kathleen Higgins or Robert Solomon over people like you who aren't capable of expressing themselves in complete sentences. I'm not reading your greentext.

[Anonymous No.12124251]

>>12124244
Bro Oscar Wilde was a full on hetero he had a wife and a kid ffs.

[Anonymous No.12124254]

>>12124221
all philosophers refer back to other thinkers, the entirety of Being and Time is just Heidegger dueling with ontotheological assumptions. What are you even on about? Genealogy of Morals is an explicit assault on morality, The Gay Science is a statement of the new values, Twilight of the Idols is a measure discussion of the history of philosophy and idealism, The Anti-Christ concerns Christianity specifically and the Will to Power is a compendium of his total conception of the world, with a conclusion regarding the necessity of a new kind of society. I don’t think at any point any culture has been organized around a militaristic artist-aristocracy that makes the public a vehicle for their aims and ends. Deliberateness and the context of modernity are distinguishing features of his vision. The emphasis on the individual’s depth and preservation as a unique one over all others and the explicit delineation of why privilege exists and what its purposes all culminate in the idea of an overman which the National Socialists put into action erecting the first Caesar since Napoleon. Repetition isn’t an argument against someone being a philosopher, he explicitly eschews the formal logical style of Spinoza and Kant for aphorism, its poetic philosophy much closer to the pre-socratic fragments, the Gospels and at times even the Platonic dialogues than monologic treatises like Descartes or Kant or Hegel. Everything you’ve said is shallow, the exaltation of the strong would, if absent, sully the whole critique of the humanistic ideology. What would replace that? He’d just be a social commentator and nothing else. His attacks on the effeminacy of the romantics are exactly in line with his championing of Aeschylus and Homer.

[Anonymous No.12124255]

>>12124205
>name dropping
>mentioning books by the author in question is name dropping

>no effort to find at least fifty quotes of his that boil down to STRONG MAN GOOD
Nietzsche is a polemical writer and the aphorism that he gives are important within context. He wrote his Genealogy in response to the failed reception of BGaE, thus he simplified a some concepts in it and thus to an extent misinterpreted his own position for the purpose of making it more accessible. In such a circumstance if one finds parts of the Genealogy which contradict elements of BGaE the later which take precedent.
That being said one of the main points of his Genealogy is that master morality is not superior to slave morality and that a synthesis is needed. Literally one of the main points of an entire book by him directly contradicts your strong man good idea.

>His idiosyncracies can’t be understood
We aren't talking about his idiosyncrasies, we are talking about his idiosyncratic definitions. There is no debate in academia about what he means when he uses terms central to his philosophy even if the definitions of which are largely only used by him. We all know what he means when he talks of nihilism, or life affirming, or the will to power.

>but then he proposes an Overman as the culmination of history
The overman isn't some buff strong dude. It's a person who is able to will themselves to turn themselves entirely into a character and thus live an artistic life. It's got nothing to do with strength other than a strength of will.

[Anonymous No.12124258]

>>12124254

[Anonymous No.12124264]

>>12124238
>>12124244
He proposed to a woman he was in love with, never once expressed sexually charged affection for another male and may very well have frequented prostitutes. Being a reclusive incel doesn’t make you gay, saying this is the epitome of effeminate modern anachronistic, decidedly homosexual ideation. i would never listen to a jew or a woman’s interpretation of Nietzsche, the only reason I’ve used Kaufmann is because he removed disgusting attempts by fascists to censor his works and gives extensive elucidations of N’s nuance in his aesthetic arguments which others completely ignore.
>>12124251
Oscar Wilde also frequently had sex with men, and was obviously a homosexual, A Portrait of Dorian Gray is blatantly homosexual in its eroticism.

[Anonymous No.12124270]

>>12124264
I'm sorry your hero was a homo.

[Anonymous No.12124287]

>>12124254
Philosophers refer back to other ideas often yes, but to compare Heidegger’s vivisection of phenomenology to N’s glib remarks on Wagner, the pablum of an artistic dilettante with a schoolboy’s love of the Greeks—is blatantly wrong, and again you’re just name dropping.
His “aphoristic style” is sloppy, it doesn’t appeal to me and I see no advantages in it, but as you say he did it to piss on Kant so I guess that is a good enough reason for him, the eternal beta female bursting with resentment.
The romantics were not “effeminate” but that is a popular opinion of people who have never listened to them or read them. Was Beethoven effiminate? Was Wagner? Like Nietzsche you probably haven’t considered it. Nietzsche even tries to belittle Goethe. Fucking Goethe. His lack of appreciation for genius does not devalue genius, in the least.
He alone conflates Humanism with weakness, and he won’t let go of that so he feels if he is to critique Humanism he must always exalt strength—this is wrong and simple minded. Humanism also exalts strength. Napoleon was not an antihumanist either, actually look at his policy as a statesman, Napoleon was a republican.
Aeschylus and Homer? I get it. Nietzsche is a sucker for exotics just like every rootless cosmopolitan of his day.

[Anonymous No.12124312]

>>12124255
What is nihilism to nietzsche? He only defines it ever in the negative, he opposes it to that which is strong? What is strong to him? You and I disagree and I’ve been spending the past week reading his book so it’s not like I’m just bullshitting. I don’t see his idea of strength transcending physicality. Maybe in his early works like Birth or Tragedy or Zarathustra, but in his final works like Twilight and Will to Power he comes again and again to the physical realm to describe strength as opposed to weakness, again in the negative. Was Nietzsche a social philosopher? Who can tell? He upholds militarism in some places but tears down the marketplace in others. He is interesting, because he is so incomplete and self contradicting, but here is the thing: I’m moving and getting rid of a lot of books, I’m downsizing the collection and i want to keep only books that will help guide me through this period of my life and for the life of me, after all these years I can’t see why I should keep Nietzsche. This whole process of reviewing my own intellectual development has been harrowing, I am unsure where to go from here. I say this because I am an essayist and these things actually matter, I don’t look for self help, but for the raw material.

[Anonymous No.12124321]

>>12124287
You’re a fucking faggot with terrible taste and what you’re doing is so hypocritical its not worth being honest with you. Goethe was a disgusting, fat decadent of the late aristocracy, his books are unreadable tomes exalted by weak minded frivolous people. His aphorisms are sloppy? how so? Really, this seems like bitterness and a lack of appreciation of how much can be said in so little words.
>he rejects Kant’s insane conception of consciousness and objective truth and the categorical imperative thus he must he resentful
Yes, scientists are so resentful by not taking seriously Kant’s insanity. And of course conquering Europe and committing countless massacres and burning cities is the epitome of humanistic values. Did you read N? did you see his discussion of the renaissance as veiled paganism and a rejection of the cult of equality among souls?
>schoolboys interpretation of the greeks
yeah the trained philologist who published papers on the greek poets and tragedians must have just been a starry eyed welp gazing up at the taint of bestial rude barbarians from the “old times” before we knew definitively that humans have souls, humans are entitled to equal treatment, and that the world of republics and women’s sufferage which annihilated the social cohesion of old europe were the ordained structure for human social relations. You’re so incisive anon, how do you pluck these canned and unthinking critiques from the nouemenal maelstrom of titanic eidos you bear upon that all-too-human (humanistic and pitiful) crown of yours? Must be such a burden for you to crane like that while you reify the most bland attacks against someone that heidegger saw as a legitimate philosopher, who inspired the entirety of 20th century continental philosophy, a tradition that kant was as much a progenitor of. But, go on tell us the doctrine of true ontology, true ethics: a fat 90 iq mestizo truck driver is entitled to the same treatment under the law as a war hero, no? And the laws of the great european parliaments that led to the insanity of corporate citizenship and of demographic replacement of financial capital raping the very people you “freed from predation”, these are divined by scions like you, like Kant and like Napoleon? You’ve not even the vaguest talent as a thinker and the very fact you snidely insert some veiled defense of Kantian ethics and ontology is debased beyond redemption, if I were you I would take a long break from philosophy so you can find your scrotum somewhere in the aforementioned dreg heap of philosophical phlegm you’ve filled your belly with. Go ahead though, be the champion of enlightenment and inform me of why you’re correct in your housewives’s intellectual impecunity towards Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.12124348]

>>12124321
>Goethe was fat, an aristocrat! I have nothing to say about art I will just tear down great men
You’re mediocre
>Napoleon was a brute and nothing more and that is why I like him
Idiotic and simplistic
>reeee you’re a faggot let me (racist) virtue signal, say something homophobic to uphold my manhood and throw around $3 words like a poseur
Really I’m sorry I’ve insulted your husbando. You haven’t defended him that well. You think he was seminal to 20th century continental philosophy? So much the worse, it’s trash. Go suck Foucault’s pozzed up cock you eternal teenager.

[Anonymous No.12124356]

>>12124321
Someone cool off this hothead

[Anonymous No.12124447]

>>12124312
>what is nihilism to nietzsche?
That which is life denying. That which sublimates striving to live well in subservience of something other than actual living, like living for heaven, or receding to some abstract ideal, by living in pity.

I really don't understand much of your position. First of you start with the ridiculously polemical stance that STRONG MAN GOOD without any elaboration or qualification or even definition. I mention that I don't know how you are defining strong and believe it is akin to master morality. I even added unless you mean something other by strength which was the invitation for you to explain your position but rather than clarifying you carry on with your STRONG MAN GOOD which fairly clearly indicates you do mean it as something akin to master morality.
Then you go on to talk about strength in a clearly different way, still never defining what you mean by it and mentioning that Nietzsche mentions strength as being opposed to weakness in his later works without commenting on the meaning of it much less defining strengh or weakness. Then you go on some tangent about why you are getting rid of your Nietzsche books.

I have zero idea what your position is because you are doing the very things you accuse Nietzsche of doing. Who knows, maybe we agree but you won't actually outline what you believe.

[Anonymous No.12124503]

>>12124251
>>12124264
He's bi. Oscar had onitis for bram stoker's wife and once he couldn't have her, he resigned himself to marrying some random bitch and dominating twinks on the side

[Anonymous No.12124507]

>>12122157
Epic

[Anonymous No.12125116]

I disagree with his assertion that there is necessarily a master and slave morality in society. There is an anarchist ethics that does not involve hierarchy.

Ergo, the overman is actually, necessarily an anarchist.

[Anonymous No.12125149]

>>12119732
A buttbogger and pedophile. Probably died with a pozload in his jowls

[Anonymous No.12125183]

>>12124447
Forgive my uninformed take anon, and I haven't read Nietzsche, but should I take it that he would advocate a strong sense of pragmatism? I.e., taking what is in front of you rather than driving toward an ideal?

[Anonymous No.12125252]

>>12123594
>Nietzsche
>moral philosopher
Rookie mistake, hang in there.

[Anonymous No.12125267]

>>12119732
Misunderstood genius, so much so that he essentially revokes the so called morality of the modern world. And attempts to pinpoint the spiritual sickness of Europe, which is partially aspects of christianity. However, that is not all. Nietzsche was a student of Schopenhauer, a genius of his own right though he eventually refuted his writings.

I honestly cannot give you a full analysis of this man because of just how and where to begin with him. He was a seer, ahead of his time, and a Cassandra of things to come.

Inspired some of my other favorite authors and good books like Decline of the West and Might is Right.

[Anonymous No.12126173]

>>12125252
Did he not philosophize on issues regarding morality?

[Anonymous No.12126341]

is pretty funny how leftists want to hijack his views

[Anonymous No.12126405]

>>12126173

Yes, but he didn't advocate for morality, he rejected it, instead proposing that one should think for themselves/develop overman ethics.

[Anonymous No.12126409]

>>12126405

Or rather that morality would be replaced by overman ethics.

[Anonymous No.12126990]

>>12124321

A reply so shitty, and so distinctly histrionic, so faggy, so spastic, that it could've been written by NEETzsche himself.

[Anonymous No.12127005]

>>12119732
edgy twat

[Anonymous No.12127327]

>>12122183
>if make up stuff it means i'm right

[Anonymous No.12127332]

>>12123609
literally me senpai

[Anonymous No.12127354]

he makes a lot of people mad because they know he was right about lot of things too bad pseuds tend to like him too.

[Anonymous No.12128693]

>>12122122
u get all my keks ma mann

[Anonymous No.12128699]

I’ve been persisting with WtP and I have to say the experience is nice, despite my initial reservations. I am compiling notes on it and might make an effort post after I’m done reading. So far I get the impression that he would audibly laugh at his most ardent defenders itt.

[Anonymous No.12128712]

>>12119732
a girl i work with showed me a book she's reading called "F*ck Feelings," and i suggested if she likes it she should read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.12128723]

post 2016 /li/ is retarded
WHY ARE YOU ASKING?

[Anonymous No.12129205]

>>12122739
like diogenes' fucking bullshit was self-help? like hemlock curing socrates of life was self-help?

[Anonymous No.12130436]

>>12123586
Does EMJ say that? lol

[Anonymous No.12130592]

>>12122746
>reading scheler
You’d be better off reading peterson jfc

[Anonymous No.12130600]

>>12124312
Read Reginstar’s book. He devotes an entire chapter fleshing out what Nietzsche meant by nihilism you pseud

[Anonymous No.12130784]

>>12130436
He says he was likely gay and that he intentionally infected himself with syphilis. Both of these things I find unfounded and ridiculous.

I like Nietzsche and EMJ, though.

[Anonymous No.12130879]

>>12130600
Why would I read another writer’s opinion to clarify Nietzsche? It’s not like Nihilism is jargon, N just never gets to the essential meaning of anything. I doubt he even tried to.

[Anonymous No.12131034]

>ecce HOMO
>the GAY science
Definitely not gay desu

[Anonymous No.12132065]

>>12126341
It's pretty funny how conservatives try to do the same.
Shut up you fucking American cum stain. I hate all of you with your mindless political mud flinging. Your brain literally only works in 1 and 0.
Fucking NPC meme if I ever saw it

[Anonymous No.12132070]

>>12131034
In German it's fröhlich which is not at all related to homosexuality like your shitty word.
Fröhlich is more like happy, gay used to be happy before fags or fsg haters started using it.

[Anonymous No.12132075]

I haven't read one book of his.
I really haven't. What would I gain from it?

[Anonymous No.12132116]

>>12132075
everything

[Anonymous No.12132693]

>>12132075
Always an odd question. Why read anyone with that attitude? Why even learn to read?

[Anonymous No.12133839]

>>12119732
Bushy mustaches.

[Anonymous No.12133948]

>>12122574
a+++++

[Anonymous No.12133961]

>>12119732
Unoriginal thinker.
also these>>12119778
>>12119756

[Anonymous No.12134015]

>>12122717
Seconded
>>12119732
A very commonly misunderstood and misquoted genius.

[Anonymous No.12134052]

>>12126409
Or ethics by aesthetics. At least that's the traditional interpretation.

[Anonymous No.12134788]

>>12119751
based and gay

[Anonymous No.12134797]

>>12119732
a tour de force

[Anonymous No.12134855]

>>12123605
objective morality is to be in full awareness of your own ulterior motives
proof: anything else distorts your view of reality and takes you away from truth, which is objectively good
reason: it is the side of reality we're on

[Anonymous No.12134863]

>>12130592
Heh, looks like we got a textbook case here boys

[Anonymous No.12134880]

Triggers the genetic underclass like no one else, soft and shallow souls can get fucking rekt

[Anonymous No.12135233]

>>12134880
this, except minus the insecure motive of using him to tell yourself you're on the superior side

[Anonymous No.12136023]

>>12134855
The full awareness indicates that there is no truth.

[Anonymous No.12136031]

>>12119732
haven't read him yet

[Anonymous No.12136268]

>>12119732
I am not a philosophical genius by any means but I know enough to be weary of professors putting their own spin on the greats. I am taking a class on skepticism and the prof had us read Genealogy.

In summing up N he pretty much explained that the whole idea of N was that humanity had to abandon morality and do what makes them akin to a stereotypical warrior. Take what you what when you want it for the only reason that you want to. Is this a good summation of what Neitzche was advocating? Besides of course his critiques of morality

[Anonymous No.12136280]

>>12131034
based
>>12132070
cringe

[Anonymous No.12136664]

>>12125267
>Inspired some of my other favorite authors and good books like Decline of the West and Might is Right.