Could someone explain to me what was the problem between these two?

[Anonymous No.14738660]

Was the moustache guy just an autist?
Who was in the wrong?

[Anonymous No.14738673]

>>14738660
>Was the moustache guy just an autist?
Yes
>Who was in the wrong?
Nietzsche
>Could someone explain to me what was the problem between these two?
There was a (false) rumor that Wagner converted to Christianity and that triggered Neetche

[Anonymous No.14738678]

nietzsche, a progressive, leftist and anarchist, opposed Wagners antisemitism and nationalism. because both of those things are illogical and stupid

[Anonymous No.14738707]

>>14738660
>They shared a distant ancestor, going 300 years back; a fairly prominent church official
>RW wanted an acolyte to proselytize Wagnerianisms
>FN had a father figure he was deprived of, whom increasingly encouraged more narrow intellectual horizons (the Js, cult atmosphere and sycophancy surrounding RW, ect.)
Wagner indiscreetly suggested FN'd health troubles were due to literally the Coomer meme to enough in his circle to cause gossip, with the final straw a letter to FN's physician saying as much.

Philosophically, Wagner presages the contemporary art-for-art's sake subjectivity/'self-expression' paradigm he lamented (George Sand being the writer's version) as being part and parcel of the European Man's crisis of nihilism.

[Anonymous No.14738710]

>>14738660
Wagner was a complete chad and Nietzsche was an incel who had to invent a meme version of superman that was basically what Wagner actually was to begin with.

[Anonymous No.14738713]

>>14738707
>the Coomer meme
May have caught on to a not-insignificant infatuation FN had with his wife, Cosima -- with this as a pointed neg

[Anonymous No.14738768]

>>14738678
ok joomer

[Anonymous No.14738800]

>>14738660
Both had incredible work ethics yet within those confines W had a far more comfortable go at it than NN ever did. N needed to shake off the daddy figure as well.
In truth 'the problem' was a little one-sided; N ultimately dealt with it by converting W into a kind of muse.
No Goethe, no Wagner.. no Nietzsche. That much is certain.

[Anonymous No.14739211]

>>14738660
Nietzsche liked his attitude, then he moved on. I'd also guess that Wagner probably didn't like the close "friendship" and "friendly visits" Nietzsche was having with his wife

[Anonymous No.14739232]

>>14738673
>>14738678
>>14738707
>>14738710
>>14738800
>>14739211
Why does everyone has a different answer?

[Anonymous No.14739258]

This article puts it well

>Later in 1876 Nietzsche and Rée found themselves staying in Sorrento at the same time as the Wagners. They spent quite a lot of time together, but there is some strain in the relationship. Wagner warned Nietzsche to be wary of Rée on account of his being Jewish. He also discussed his next opera, Parsifal, which to Nietzsche’s surprise and disgust was to advance Christian themes. Nietzsche suspected that Wagner was motivated in this by a desire for success and popularity rather than by authentic artistic reasons.

>Wagner and Nietzsche saw each other for the last time on November 5th, 1876. In the years that followed, they became both personally and philosophically estranged, although his sister Elisabeth remained on friendly terms with the Wagners and their circle. Nietzsche pointedly dedicated his next work, Human, All Too Human, to Voltaire, an icon of French rationalism. He published two more works on Wagner, The Case of Wagner and Nietzsche Contra Wagner, the latter being mainly a collection of previous writings. He also created a satirical portrait of Wagner in the person of an old sorcerer who appears in Part IV of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He never ceased to recognize the originality and greatness of Wagner’s music. But at the same time, he distrusted it for its intoxicating quality, and for its Romantic celebration of death. Ultimately, he came to see Wagner’s music as decadent and nihilistic, functioning as a kind of artistic drug that deadens the pain of existence instead of affirming life with all its sufferings.

https://www.thoughtco.com/why-did-nietzsche-break-with-wagner-2670457

Also, NEVER take /lit/ or any other internet community's opinion on Nietzsche. It is based on nothing but a shadow of a shadow of an impression of people who haven't read him, the contrast between the reality of Nietzsche and what people say is pretty astonishing. I think he's one of those people that, for being a popular name, becomes a popular target for those who want to pretend to be informed ie the majority of /lit/

[Anonymous No.14739293]

>>14739258
>rée

[Anonymous No.14739310]

>>14739232
I Know its pretty great.

[Anonymous No.14739335]

>>14739258
>In 1876 the first Bayreuth festival took place. Wagner was at the center of it, of course. Nietzsche originally intended to participate fully, but by the time the event was underway he found the cult of Wagner, the frenetic social scene swirling around the comings and goings of celebrities, and the shallowness of the surrounding festivities unpalatable. Pleading ill health, he left the event for a time, returned to hear some performances, but left before the end.

Nietzsche is LITERALLY the meme of the guy at the party saying his feet hurt and the music is too loud

[Anonymous No.14739339]

>>14739232
Because it's all speculation which -as (we) know- is human, all too human. But there's no harm in this, and even interesting to see what different people think.

[Anonymous No.14739358]

>>14739258
Actually this applies to most anyone discussed on any forum whatsoever. But if Nietzsche's to be a special case, that's okay by me..

[Anonymous No.14739370]

>>14739335
more like the guy who says "this party sucks' while everyone is screaming into snapchat and pretending to be cool

[Anonymous No.14739383]

>>14739339
FIrst of all, take your pills, second, op never asks about what people think, there's literally a book written by nietzsche about this.

[Anonymous No.14739500]

>>14739383
There's a book written about 'autism' by Nietzsche? Gee, perhaps youre right, I need to read more! Two, I, er, was *alluding* to the book in question....
But whatever

[Anonymous No.14739585]

>>14739500
you were alluding to an article dipshit

[Anonymous No.14739594]

Nietzsche wanted to cuck Wagner with his wife Cosima and actually wrote her a love letter, but he forgot Wagner was a celebrity and the equivalent of a rock star in Germany while he was a philosopher which was pretty much the equivalent of a philosopher today, namely a loser, and not even a professor. So he got rejected, which drove him to rage write a book where he went back in everything good that he had said about Wagner before and was literally that meme where two guys pass each other and one humiliates the other and the other goes home to shit post about it on the internet, and he eventually went literally mad.

[Anonymous No.14739602]

>>14739335
lmfao what a fucking incel, no wonder lit loves him so much

[Anonymous No.14739608]

>>14739594
what a fucking stupid attempt at revisionism

[Anonymous No.14739624]

>>14739608
Go to sleep Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.14739628]

>>14739624
If you had said nothing it would have been a better comeback

[Anonymous No.14739638]

>>14739608
No it's basically exactly what happened. You can literally feel the bitterness and butthurt dripping off every page of Nietzsche, especially later on

[Anonymous No.14739642]

>>14739638
it doesn't matter what you decided to interpret from the vibe, your order of events is stupid

[Anonymous No.14739658]

>>14739642
it’s the correct order though

[Anonymous No.14739760]

>>14739658
You definitely didn't read Contra Wagner for one, but Nietzsche's split from Wagner was in effect long before the "Princess Ariadne" letter which some interpret as romantic. There was no rejection that resulted in Nietzsche getting mad at Wagner, his friendship and correspondence with Cosima continued after his split from Wagner. To attribute an extended critique written by Nietzsche to being mad at someone's husband because their wife wouldn't leave them is a childish and idiotic projection, and doesn't line up remotely with the content of said critique.
And Cosima staying with Wagner isn't because he was a "rock star", she was deeply invested in his career and identified personally with it as it.
Nietzsche was also a professor at the age of 24, and quit, being unimpressed with academia and preferring independent pursuits.

But from your "casual" memey writing style I'm assuming you put no effort into investigating this and have no intention of being accountable for being full of shit. At least try to limit your use of the word "literally" to once.

>eventually went literally mad.
He literally had a neurological condition that manifested suddenly, where he "went mad" one day, died two days later after multiple strokes.

[Anonymous No.14739984]

Wagner was a successful artist who also fought in a revolution while Nietzsche was a provincial pastor's son who failed as a poet and musician. It's simply chad vs incel.

[Anonymous No.14740050]

>>14738660
Wagner was an antisemitic Christian nationalist, which made Nietzsche hate his guts.

By the way Nazism is the only correct interpretation of Nietzschean philosophy, I know that because the erudite people on /pol/ told me so.

[Anonymous No.14740064]

>>14739232
Because they are human.

[Anonymous No.14740488]

>>14739760
He went insane in january 1889, he died in late August 1900 after a series of strokes, not 2 days later lol

[Anonymous No.14740503]

Fun fact: Nietzsche lived with Wagner in his house. Wagner's wife always complained about Nietzsche only masturbating in his room instead of socializing.

[Anonymous No.14740821]

>>14739585
Combine poor reading comprehension with the inability to express oneself clearly (and a reliance on ad hominem) and behold the protector of Nietzsche's legacy on teh 4chin. Concluding comment:
Not based

[Anonymous No.14740836]

>>14738660
Wagner had a bigger pre-frontal cortext but Nietzsche was very angry about this because his was big, but it just wasn't as big as Wagner's. The bitterness of not losing completely but still having a vary large pre-frontal cortex in his own write being so close and then Wagner because his father figure, never to be better really made him bitter. Wagner never stopped caring though. And neither did Nietzsche, except he just kept running.

[Anonymous No.14740896]

>>14738673
>There was a (false) rumor that Wagner converted to Christianity and that triggered Neetche
Wagner's Christianity has been exaggerated and de-exaggerated, however it wasn't false. You are right that this was one of the centrals reasons if not the most central for their break.

>>14738678
Lol, for anyone wondering, Nietzsche wasn't a progressive or a leftist or an anarchist. And Wagner wasn't an "antisemite" or "nationalist", he was Wagner.

>>14738707
>>whom increasingly encouraged more narrow intellectual horizons (the Js, cult atmosphere and sycophancy surrounding RW, ect.)
>Philosophically, Wagner presages the contemporary art-for-art's sake subjectivity/'self-expression' paradigm he lamented (George Sand being the writer's version) as being part and parcel of the European Man's crisis of nihilism.
Just plain wrong anon, you completely miss the point of Nietzsche and Heidegger's criticism of Wagner as well as completely have no clue as to what Wagner said.

Wagner, as well as Nietzsche, saw the aesthetic experience as the highest. Wagner saw art as having a redemptive character, -which if you don't understand Schopenhauer you will not understand- and being chiefly a product of religion, as well as mans religious drives/feeling. Wagner viewed art as the epitome of all humanity at that time so much so to form religion with emphasis on it, this Nietzsche did not have a problem with but that the average person would never be able to understand it. Nietzsche misunderstood what Wagner was saying here. Wagner put emphasis in action as much as Nietzsche did, except of course perhaps with a more religious moral nature; the active relation of and to the good but they were almost too distant at this point to clarify this. This has been a bad explanation because there's a whole books worth of background information, chorus and eventual tragic end that one has to know to understand but at least what I have said will set you on the right path.

>>14738710
Yes.

>>14738800
At least this post is aware of the personal cause.

>>14739211
Cringe and false.

>>14739232
Because most people pick a side based on which they agree with philosophically.

>>14739258
>It is based on nothing but a shadow of a shadow of an impression of people who haven't read
You just did this to Wagner. There would be no Nietzsche without Wagner, he haunts his every work. You present it as if Nietzsche made a clear calm philosophical critique of Wagner, when in reality it was far more personal a reason for Nietzsche. And it was him who caused the break, Wagner never stopped caring for Nietzsche.

As far as that philosophical critique goes, Nietzsche misunderstands both Wagner's intent in his art as well as the effect of the art itself. Though Nietzsche was just plainly philosophically wrong in his rejection of death. It is true Wagner could not come about in a healthy society, but that does not make Wagner unhealthy, like any great thing it must find its seed in difficulty.

[Anonymous No.14740904]

>>14739760
I new all of these things anon but you're still a retard and I identify more with the meme anons understand than yours.

The simple fact is that Nietzsche was philosophically wrong in his critiques of Wagner though it did have "some" value, but that really the break was far more personal a reason than anything more abstract. The closest one could get to something abstract would be Wagner's Christianity. Don't misunderstand what I am saying in that last sentence anon.

[Anonymous No.14740906]

>>14740836
I can't tell if this is a joke.

[Anonymous No.14740942]

>ONE might say that where Religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for Art to save the spirit of religion by recognising the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in their literal sense, and revealing their deep and hidden truth through an ideal presentation. Whilst the priest stakes everything on the religious allegories being accepted as matters of fact, the artist has no concern at all with such a thing, since he freely and openly gives out his work as his own invention. But Religion has sunk into an artificial life, when she finds herself compelled to keep on adding to the edifice of her dogmatic symbols, and thus conceals the one divinely True in her beneath an ever growing heap of incredibilities commended to belief. Feeling this, she has always sought the aid of Art; who on her side has remained incapable of higher evolution so long as she must present that alleged reality of the symbol to the senses of the worshipper in form of fetishes and idols,— whereas she could only fulfil her true vocation when, by an ideal presentment of the allegoric figure, she led to apprehension of its inner kernel, the truth ineffably divine.
>It was otherwise with the Christian religion. Its founder was not wise, but divine (1); his teaching was the deed of free-willed suffering. To believe in him, meant to emulate him; to hope for redemption, to strive for union with him. To the "poor in spirit" no metaphysical explanation of the [215] world was necessary; the knowledge of its suffering lay open to their feeling; and not to shut the doors of that, was the sole divine injunction to believers.
>Our best guide to an estimate of the belief in miracles, will be the demand addressed to natural man that he should change his previous mode of viewing the world and its appearances as the most absolute of realities; for he now was to know this world as null, an optical delusion, and to seek the only Truth beyond it. If by a miracle we mean an incident that sets aside the laws of Nature; and if, after ripe deliberation, we recognise these laws as founded on our own power of perception, and bound inextricably with the functions of our brain: then belief in miracles must be comprehensible to us as an almost necessary consequence of the reversal of the "will to live," in defiance of all Nature. To the natural man this reversal of the Will is certainly itself the greatest miracle, for it implies an abrogation of the laws of Nature; that which has effected it must consequently be far above Nature, and of superhuman power, since he finds that union with It is longed for as the only object worth endeavour.

[Anonymous No.14740947]

>>14740942
>We have nothing here to do with the astoundingly varied attempts of speculative human reason to explain the nature of this Son of the God, who walked on earth and suffered shame: where the greater miracle had been revealed in train of that manifestation, the reversal of the will-to-live which all believers experienced in themselves, it already embraced that other marvel, the divinity of the herald of salvation. The very shape of the Divine had presented itself in anthropomorphic guise; it was the body of the quintessence of all pitying Love, stretched out upon the cross of pain and suffering. A—symbol?—beckoning to the highest pity, to worship of suffering, to imitation of this breaking of all self-seeking Will: nay, a picture, a very effigy! In this, and its effect upon the human heart, lies all the spell whereby the Church soon made the Græco-Roman world her own.
>the Saviour's birth by a Mother who, [218] not herself a goddess, became divine through her virginal conception of a son without human contact, against the laws of Nature. A thought of infinite depth, expressed in form of miracle.
>but the mystery of motherhood without natural fecundation can only be traced to the greater miracle, the birth of the God himself: for in this the Denial-of-the-world is revealed by a life pre-figuratively offered up for its redemption. (3) As the Saviour himself was recognised as sinless, nay, incapable of sin, it followed that in him the Will must have been completely broken ere ever he was born, so that he could no more suffer, but only feel for others' sufferings; and the root hereof was necessarily to be found in a birth that issued, not from the Will-to-live, but from the Will-to-redeem.
>But that picture of Raphael's shews us the final consummation of the miracle, the virgin mother transfigured and ascending with the new-born son: here we are taken by a beauty which the ancient world, for all its gifts, could not so much as dream of; for here is not the ice of chastity that made an Artemis seem unapproachable, but Love divine beyond all knowledge of unchastity, Love which of innermost denial of the world has born the affirmation of redemption. And this unspeakable wonder we see with our eyes, distinct and tangible, in sweetest concord with the noblest truths of our own inner being, yet lifted high above conceivable experience. If the Greek statue held to Nature her unattained ideal, the painter now unveiled the unseizable and therefore indefinable mystery of the religious dogmas, no longer to the plodding reason, but to enraptured sight.

[Anonymous No.14740970]

>>14740942
>>14740947
*simultaneously destroys and regenerates Western Civilisation with the Will to Redeem*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y-xxhBia0s

[Anonymous No.14740972]

>>14738660
https://discord.gg/4KHymZZ

[Anonymous No.14740979]

>"As for Wagner, Heidegger despised him. In the Notebooks, Heidegger condemns Wagner and his effect on mass culture, excoriating his swoon-inducing compositions as part of the modern role of art as fulfilling the ever-hungrier cravings for excitement and raw feeling as a distraction from the ever-increasing emptiness of the age. [11]."

[Anonymous No.14740984]

>>14740836
Skull-mogged.

[Anonymous No.14741000]

>>14740979
Not even a taste, Martin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s88hmJ_osjY&list=PLhPjdy0vQ8QvkY7cE_HCOaEPedlcXnTPC&index=47

[Anonymous No.14741047]

>>14741000
Based triage prefaced by a numeric palindrome
Speechless....

[Anonymous No.14741089]

>>14741047
>triage prefaced by a numeric palindrome
I am such a genius I know what this means without knowing what this means.

[Anonymous No.14741331]

>>14738660
Who needs Wagner when there's Wanger

[Anonymous No.14741402]

>>14739760
Contra Wagner is pure, unadulterated butthurt and I’m sure neetch would be proud to see you carrying on the tradition with this comment

[Anonymous No.14741812]

>>14738660
it's literally virgin vs chad meme IRL, neetchuh was a fucking wreck

[Anonymous No.14742624]

>>14738673
>There was a (false) rumor that Wagner converted to Christianity and that triggered Neetche
>false
What the actual fuck? I didn’t think anyone is stupid enough to think that Wagner wasn’t Christian, his racism may have been wrong and against the religion but he certainly identified himself as a Christian

[Anonymous No.14742784]

>>14739760
>He literally had a neurological condition
Pretty sure the jury's still out on what he went mad and died from.

[Anonymous No.14743026]

>>14739760
The irony of this reply is delicious, in that Nietzsche didn’t think you could separate a philosopher’s work from his biography, and yet you try to argue that we should: oh no his critique of Wagner had noooothing to do with his personal issues. LMAO. But Neechee’s game was known. He spilled the beans.