Nietzsche on Romans and Jews

[Anonymous No.14864091]

>The Romans were the strong and noble, and nobody stronger and nobler has yet existed, on earth or even been dreamed of: every remnant of them, every inscription gives delight, if only one divines what it was that was there at work. The Jews, on the contrary, were the priestly nation of ressentiment par excellence
>Which of them has won for the present, Rome or Judea? But there can be no doubt: consider to whom one bows down in Rome itself today, as if they were the epitome of all the highest values—and not only in Rome but over almost half the earth, everywhere that man has become tame or desires to become tame: three Jews, as is known, and one Jewess (Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the rug weaver Paul, and the mother of the aforementioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: Rome has been defeated beyond all doubt.

[Anonymous No.14864152]

>>14864091
Very based

[Anonymous No.14864169]

>>14864091
He’s wrong tho. He writes shit like this on purpose sometimes. As if to provoke a response

[Anonymous No.14864192]

>>14864169
triggered tradcath christcuck larper

[Anonymous No.14864196]

what's this from?

[Anonymous No.14864218]

>>14864091
The pope is the god emperor and the high priest combined. Not sure why neetz wanted to see this as a total victory for the high priest.

[Anonymous No.14864246]

>>14864218
>high priest of worshiping jews
>somehow not a victory for jews

[Anonymous No.14864247]

>>14864091
imagine believing anything other than 5th century greece was the height of western civilization

[Anonymous No.14864260]

>>14864196
Genealogy of Morals.

[Anonymous No.14864261]

>>14864247
ah yes, the well known political entity of "5th century greece"

[Anonymous No.14864264]

>>14864247
This. The Romans were shit tier degenerates who literally couldn't stop backstabbing each other for power. Nietzsche once again outing himself as a pseud.

[Anonymous No.14864270]

>>14864169
This is a major reason why he is a brilliant thinker though. Even where he is wrong he is able to elicit a response that demands action. Paralysis is worse than the abdication of time. This was incredibly important in an era of romanticism. Even though I disagree with him in some areas it is necessary to recognise this strength.
To play devil's advocate, the Jewish position is much more difficult. There is a potential weakness in the thinking of King Solomon, his judgement is dependent on the Good as a force within his subjects. Perhaps there is an irony in this. Otherwise, Nietzsche and his allies were incapable of seeing it, their only judgement is that of an eternally recurring division.
I won;t say that it was purposeful, since there is certainly a lack of an understanding of power within the Jewish myths, however there is an incredible test of power contained within their line of questioning. Ressentiment can also present itself ex negativo, as a means of extraction.

[Anonymous No.14864273]

>>14864192
Who fucked your halal kosher pie? Stay mad and ill informed. Or try reading his work instead.

[Anonymous No.14864283]

>>14864246
>of worshiping jews
But that's wrong. Provide evidence of this insane claim. It'd be more reasonable to state that the pope is being worshiped as god emperor.

[Anonymous No.14864284]

>>14864273
Work your way up to one coherent sentence, pal. Then give a shot at stringing multiple sentences together without rambling like a retard.

[Anonymous No.14864287]

>>14864270
Of course he’s brilliant. He knows how to provoke, even himself. It’s that that he exaggerates badly the older he gets. It’s almost a bit funny sometimes. He’s looking for refutations in himself and others. He knows some of his ideas are whack.

[Anonymous No.14864299]

>>14864261
kek
>>14864247
>>14864264
How about 16th century BC Greeks?
Categorising those people is almost impossible, but there is no doubt that the power of the Romans reveals much to us. I prefer the Greeks in many ways, but the Romans faced other challenges and their counsel of law amidst risk is one of the greatest achievements of civilisation.
Tier lists of civs, especially western ones in our current situation, is silly.

[Anonymous No.14864304]

>>14864284
Teen is mad. Beware! He knows at least three Nietzsche pictures and has studied two covers and half an introduction to Nietzsche for Wankers. He’ll fuck you up.

[Anonymous No.14864316]

>>14864283
Let's see, on one hand we have people who literally worship jews, and on the other we have a rump state celebrity, hmm... which claim is more reasonable...

[Anonymous No.14864324]

>>14864304
>Teen is mad.
Indeed you are ;)

[Anonymous No.14864327]

>>14864287
Yes, it's an unfortunate thing that you almost have to force a Socratic dialogue within yourself in the modern era.
It may be obvious, but I think worth restating, that the Nietzschean form of romanticism was necessary in its era. i'm no expert on him, but madness was perhaps the correct response in his time, as grappling with suicidal drugs is in ours.

[Anonymous No.14864329]

The Romans destroyed much history and knowledge, took some for their own and distorted/forgot the rest. Kind of like jews today do to our modern mythos and history.

[Anonymous No.14864334]

>>14864324
Sorry about your temple. Who did that again, remind me, lol.

[Anonymous No.14864339]

>>14864327
I see you understand. Nice to not be alone in that.

[Anonymous No.14864349]

>>14864316
>on one hand we have people who literally worship jews
American circumcised psycho mutts don't count as Christians. They cannot, as stated in the NT; "Christ is of no use to you if you are circumcised".
Besides, it's the protties who form the zionist bloc. They reject the papacy.

[Anonymous No.14864351]

>>14864329
>The Romans destroyed much history and knowledge
How so?

[Anonymous No.14864353]

>>14864334
my body is my temple, manlet, and ur mom bent my penis last night (cause she's fat)

[Anonymous No.14864361]

>>14864339
In some ways I prefer this forum of communication to books. That probably makes me a pleb Nietzschean, but there is a force and vitality in the means of communication that is lacking in most books.

[Anonymous No.14864365]

>>14864329
This. The Romans destroyed native Europe and erased our cultural traditions. I spit on their memory.

[Anonymous No.14864367]

>>14864349
You are touching on something significant, but ultimately distinct from the fact that Roman ethics and theology was completely supplanted by jews. All over the world, a small cohort of historical jews are worshiped as saviors/prophets, with every other child named after one.

[Anonymous No.14864373]

>>14864353
Imagine me flicking your hooked nose for no good reason. Also, qed. Your body may be massive, but certainly not a temple. Unless you’re likening it to a ruin. What’s it like being a moron btw? Tell us, because we don’t know.

[Anonymous No.14864384]

Imagine thinking Nietzsche means everything literally the way he writes it.

[Anonymous No.14864392]

>>14864261
universally considered the golden age of their larger civilization, with athens at the lead (at least culturally).

[Anonymous No.14864393]

>>14864361
Nietzsche thought lowly of sophist philosophers and people who would rather learn than discover. He also believed the ideal philosopher was someone who wasn’t one, especially who never had to try being one.

[Anonymous No.14864398]

>>14864384
This

[Anonymous No.14864401]

>>14864373
>Imagine me flicking your hooked nose for no good reason

[Anonymous No.14864418]

>>14864367
Roman PIE ethics were supplanted by more roman thought called Christianity. Big victory there. Yeah, some names are hebrew. A nod, an acknowledgment and of course larping.

[Anonymous No.14864433]

>>14864169
how is he wrong about what he's saying there? I also don't get why you think he's provoking, he talks constantly about the stuff in that passage.

[Anonymous No.14864450]

>>14864433
He doesn’t actually believe it. He can’t. You’d know if you had read and understood Zarathustra. He simply has little tantrums now and then when he can’t solve an apparent contradiction. Like with the u mad meme. It pisses him off, he knows it’s crud but he has no comeback. So he repeats it to provoke and see if anyone, or he himself at a later date, has an answer

[Anonymous No.14864452]

>>14864384
What does he mean here if not what he said?

[Anonymous No.14864455]

>>14864418
>roman thought called Christianity

[Anonymous No.14864462]

>>14864450
But it is a fact that Judea in the form of Christianity completely took over Europe and there was barely anything of the old classical culture at the time Nietzsche was writing. He's also right about the outlooks of the two.

What are you even disagreeing with him about?

[Anonymous No.14864469]

>>14864393
Certainly, and wouldn't this create incredible difficulties for anyone in our own time?
Sophistry is, of course, not all bad either. As it can be wielded as a weapon. Almost necessary to figure out in an era of information and post-truth. The sensual is as foreign to us as the logical.

[Anonymous No.14864472]

>>14864450
Imagine getting filtered this hard by one of the easiest to read philosophers in history

[Anonymous No.14864474]

>>14864452
That’s a long discussion I can’t have on an iPad. He’s mad that glorious Rome became Christian because of Jesus. He can’t understand how that should have happened if one was superior to the other. He didn’t understand that Jesus in effect was at least as much Roman and Greek as Hebrew, he just glosses over that fact and he remains confused.

[Anonymous No.14864481]

>>14864091
Nietzsche was retroactively refuted by Soprano

[Anonymous No.14864484]

>>14864469
He thought it reflected a weak and slavish mindset

[Anonymous No.14864489]

>>14864472
Stfu you know nothing. That text is his hardest because he wrote it as a poem. Calling it the easiest read is straight up idiocy.

[Anonymous No.14864493]

>>14864489
>he wrote it as a poem
He quite literally did not.

[Anonymous No.14864496]

>>14864489
No wonder you can't read Nietzsche, you can't even read a single sentence post. I'll break it down for you:
>Imagine getting filtered this hard by one of the easiest to read philosophers in history
>by one of the easiest to read philosophers in history
>easiest to read philosopher
I trust you can take this exercise from here?

[Anonymous No.14864497]

>>14864462
Except that Christianity isn’t Judea. It has firm roots in Greek, Roman and Pagan traditions. Jews supplied the background myth, that’s all. And weren’t even the originators

[Anonymous No.14864504]

>>14864497
Christianity literally evolved as a Jewish sect for hundreds of years before widespread adoption outside. This is extreme cope.

[Anonymous No.14864505]

>>14864497
Christianity definitely began as a Jewish sect

[Anonymous No.14864507]

>>14864493
yes he did you idiot. It is after the biblical style
>>14864496
stfu again. you cant call him the easiest once again because he shaded and hid each meaning behind pretty words so stfu

[Anonymous No.14864510]

>>14864489
Why did you respond to they guy mindlessly insulting you and not to me asking you to explain what you mean. Nietzsche talks at length about the idea of slave morality, its Jewish origins, and the loss of the master morality he associates with people like the Romans. I have no idea why you think he's just being provocative or saying things he doesn't mean here, it all seems like very standard Nietzsche fare.

[Anonymous No.14864511]

>>14864504
Too simple. It’s not that clear.

[Anonymous No.14864514]

>>14864507
You are literally acting like a pudgy hispanic manlet, knock it off jesus

[Anonymous No.14864515]

>>14864484
Sophistry as weak and slavish? Do you have a quote? Not that I'm doubting you.

[Anonymous No.14864518]

>>14864497
For Nietzsche they are similar though, because they are both the morality of the slave, the downtrodden righteous. He seemed to think that Christ himself was not so bad, but that Christianity had just taken the morality of Judaism even further along the same path.

He is quite explicit about this link, I think he's literally the guy who popularized 'judeo-christian' as a term, in whatever German form it was.

[Anonymous No.14864520]

>>14864510
That was someone else. I didn’t ignore you. I agree with most of what you say but I added that I believe that this contradiction pissed Nietzsche off in a way. It shouldn’t have been possible from his pov. The standard Nietzsche fare perhaps, but always good for a debate.

[Anonymous No.14864521]

>>14864507
>It is after the biblical style
And most of the bible is prose.

[Anonymous No.14864522]

>>14864091
>The Romans were the strong and noble, and nobody stronger and nobler has yet existed, on earth or even been dreamed of
What would have happened to him if he had read the graffiti of Pompeii

[Anonymous No.14864529]

>>14864520
It shouldn't have been possible for the slaves to overcome the masters? I don't see why not

[Anonymous No.14864531]

>>14864514
there we go no rebuttal. gg

[Anonymous No.14864532]

>>14864518
Maybe we can talk about why he admired Jesus. It should go a long way in explaining some things.

[Anonymous No.14864536]

>>14864531
whatever helps your blood pressure go down ;^)

[Anonymous No.14864543]

>>14864536
lay down sad boy. You've been hammered by logic and facts

[Anonymous No.14864548]

>>14864543
Truly, I've been undone by a jewish master of pilpul
Are you Shapiro?

[Anonymous No.14864551]

>>14864532
from what I remember of Antichrist it was because Christ showed a sort of joy of life, the 'glad tidings' he brought. I find this reading rather suspect seeing as Christ constantly emphasizes the unimportance of this world and the importance of the next, but that seemed to be what Nietzsche was trying to say.

[Anonymous No.14864554]

>>14864548
I've watched enough hours of his showdowns to be well versed in logical flaws such as your ad hominem and rhetorical karate. Ez.

[Anonymous No.14864558]

>>14864529
Maybe it’s way it happened. Or did it happen that way? If through exploiting a “noble” naivety as history indicates, well that would be a tragedy in his eyes.

[Anonymous No.14864564]

>>14864554
damn, I should have been watching youtube instead of reading

[Anonymous No.14864565]

>>14864551
What about the fact that Jesus denied his own society and took charge instead. Creating in his own fashion

[Anonymous No.14864570]

>>14864565
very true, but then he lets himself be killed by the society he'd been rejecting

[Anonymous No.14864586]

>>14864551
Of course the affirmation of life is also hugely important, didn’t want to downplay that. In fact, it underlines the idea that it would madden him if he believed that Jesus as a historic figure was unadulterated and essentially Jewish. That’s what I’m contending though. I am not sure if or why Nietzsche chose to ignore this interpretation.

[Anonymous No.14864592]

>>14864570
Exactly. What does that say of the society? Market place of fools ring a bell?

[Anonymous No.14864600]

>>14864592
...and who are those fools? Two answers. One applies here. Now that’s the contradiction I meant.

[Anonymous No.14864611]

>>14864586
Jesus is obviously not simply "Jewish'', the jewish reaction to him alone makes that very clear. But to deny that he and Christianity are intimately linked to Judaism and the Jewish people is just as ridiculous, they literally sprang up out of it. Christ said he had come to fulfill the jewish prophecies.

[Anonymous No.14864628]

>>14864611
Yes, as a founding myth of no further importance. Jesus failed catastrophically in that ambition, so much so that it should become clear that anxieties engaging in the very same dialogue we are having but with himself in OP text. It’s a challenge he raises. Never easy and I know we didn’t succeed here either. It’s difficult

[Anonymous No.14864633]

>>14864628
*he is

[Anonymous No.14864664]

>>14864628
>Jesus failed catastrophically in that ambition,
He did convince a bunch of Jews he was the messiah so im not so sure he failed completely

[Anonymous No.14864679]

>>14864091
Nietzsche fails to recognize here that Jew takes on a different meaning after the crucifixion. It is no longer an ethnic designation, instead becoming a spiritual identity propelling individuals to rebel against the moral law and revolutionize the world. Much like philosophers. In fact, Nietzsche was kind of a Jew. He rejected Christ, was weak; was a drug addict, and with his philosophy of the future sought to bring about the transvaluation of values, the fruit of which is today's infantile nihilism.

[Anonymous No.14864694]

>>14864091
I should really get a round to reading this guy. He seems like a pseudo intellectual but his works were a massive influence on the west so it might be worth for that reason alone. This dude basically created modernism which led to the Nazis

[Anonymous No.14864704]

>>14864664
I’ll concede that point. He as a shunned man had disciples, leading to the birth of Christianity on and with foreign soil. But as something that one shouldn’t call as coming from Judaism imo. I’d tweet all of this to Nietzsche if I could to see his response. Rome didn’t die the way he apparently claims it did.

[Anonymous No.14864712]

>>14864694
He was a legitimate professor (at an early age) and a learned man.

[Anonymous No.14864715]

>>14864679
This reads like someone who only read 2nd hand writing on Nietzsche.

>It is no longer an ethnic designation, instead becoming a spiritual identity propelling individuals to rebel against the moral law and revolutionize the world.
This is already exactly what he meant.

>In fact, Nietzsche was kind of a Jew.
He would take that as a compliment.

>He rejected Christ, was weak; was a drug addict, and with his philosophy of the future sought to bring about the transvaluation of values, the fruit of which is today's infantile nihilism.
He diagnosed and discussed the already strongly emerging nihilism. This statement right here is probably the most damning of your entire post, outing you as a pseud rather than an eager amateur.

[Anonymous No.14864721]

>>14864715
>He would take that as a compliment.
eh i dont think so. He wanted to move past that.

[Anonymous No.14864722]

>>14864679
He underlined the importance of the now. He disliked Buddhism for being future oriented.

[Anonymous No.14864723]

>>14864704
>Rome didn’t die the way he apparently claims it did.
that i agree with. It died for a host of complex reasons that accompany any civilization's death. But it is true that the West took more from Christ than pre-Christian Rome imo.

[Anonymous No.14864724]

>>14864694
Nietzsche was right about everything.
The only reason he is controversial is that some people still cling to forms of idealism and get hurt confronting reality.

[Anonymous No.14864734]

>post mental illness Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.14864769]

>>14864521
>and most of the bible is prose.
LITERALLY NOT A SINGLE LINE OF THE ENTIRE BIBLE IS IN PROSE YOU FUCKING PSEUDO THEY ARE CALLED VERSE FOR A REASON MMMMMMMM SAGED

[Anonymous No.14865187]

>>14864169
Care to explain how he was wrong regarding the 19th century?

[Anonymous No.14865190]

>>14864418
>roman thought called Christianity
lol

[Anonymous No.14865213]

>>14864260
>>14864091
>>14864196
It was aded after his death by his racist sister

[Anonymous No.14865214]

>>14864329
Damn anon that's getting pretty BARP

[Anonymous No.14865216]

>>14864724
Right about what? Don't get too caught up in wanting to be an intellectual and making ignorant statements like NIHILISM IS ALL THERE IS, EVERYTHING IS POINTLESS!
Just on the basis of idealism being a human trait that exists in the universe, that makes it VERY REAL. And sometimes its worth fighting for things just on the basis of them bringing meaning into the world.

[Anonymous No.14865252]

>>14865213
Prove it

[Anonymous No.14865268]

>>14864734
becoming schizo is enlightenmant.

[Anonymous No.14865313]

>>14864715
>He would take that as a compliment.
Probably not unless it was being said by an avowed antisemite.

[Anonymous No.14865495]

>>14864481
The Jews controlling global finance, media and arguably the US government while the romans are low class gangsters would prove Nietzsche’s point

[Anonymous No.14866538]

[Anonymous No.14866711]

>>14864715
Trust me, I get it. I know Nietzsche loved the idea of acting "beyond good and evil," but what he didn't understand is that Jesus had already accomplished this by extending God's grace, mercy, and eternal love to humanity. When Jews rejected this gift, Jew became an identity obsessed with the unreal, awaiting the true Messiah, whether it is an übermensch, a Marxist, communist utopia, or the sexual liberation of Sigmund Freud--a Jew, mind you, who was obsessed with overthrowing Rome. In rebelling against Jesus, the Logos incarnate, you rebel against the cosmic order itself and invite the inevitable consequences of such an ill-conceived notion.

Nietzsche's drug abuse is well-documented, as well as the ailments he suffered from throughout his life which rendered him sick and weakly. For all of his talk of strength, he lacked the courage to propose to the woman he wanted to marry and asked a friend to do it for him. These are historical facts about a personality who, like Goethe, people seem to believe is impervious to criticism. Believe it or not, the way a person lives and acts is related to the way they think. There is a reason that he thought of himself as an antichrist: he wanted to attain the same status of Jesus. Our history revolves around his birth, death, and resurrection; not so with Fritz.

As for nihilism, if you can't differentiate between the nihilism of Nietzsche's time and the nihilism of today, I really dont know what to tell you.

[Anonymous No.14866814]

>>14866711
>but what he didn't understand is that Jesus had already accomplished
He acknowledged this in The Antichrist. He calls Jesus a free spirit and considered him a higher, misunderstood psychological type, somewhat of a proto-Overman. However, how he attained elevation over the masses was not by living in the world with them, but by denying them and the world. Jesus was no genius.

[Anonymous No.14866886]

>>14866814
Sounds like you're parroting Nietzsche instead of contradicting what's in the Bible.

[Anonymous No.14866901]

>>14864091
The romans were the equivalent of today's america. Materialistic, imperialistic, unintellectual etc.. Read roman philosophy and laugh.

[Anonymous No.14866905]

>>14866901
>Materialistic, imperialistic, unintellectual
based

[Anonymous No.14866939]

>>14866901
what's wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.14866947]

>>14864152
>>14864091
if the romans are so strong, then why did they lose

[Anonymous No.14866953]

>>14866711
why the pinnacle of the female or jewish brain is ''god is love''

[Anonymous No.14866965]

>>14864722
yeah for women living in the present moment is important, they even try to pass this as enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.14866969]

>>14866901
so they were chads?

[Anonymous No.14867139]

>>14864329
Colonizers rape their women and erase their culture, happened in Gaul, reason why french people are not all blond, happened in the continent of America. And gauls probably erased someone elses culture too in a pre-historical past, it's natural, then they appropriate the conqueror's culture and overcome them.

Obsession with being rooted in a culture is utopic, find a middle ground between retarded cosmopolitics and Varg autism. Imagine if Schopenhauer had rejected the Upanishads because it's not german.

[Anonymous No.14867845]

>>14866886
The Bible is a book of stories that have been reinterpreted by different interest groups countless times over. The Bible is just one such reinterpretation. Nietzsche's interpretation of Jesus is based on a psychoanalytical theory that presupposes the Nag Hammadi library which wasn't known during Nietzsche's time.

[Anonymous No.14869373]

>>14866901
>The romans were the equivalent of today's america
Perfect, the Founding Fathers wanted to emulate Rome. Read "The Idea of America" by Gordon Wood.

[Anonymous No.14869838]

>>14867845
>how he attained elevation over the masses was not by living in the world with them, but by denying them and the world. Jesus was no genius.

This is patently false. Like I said though, you're just parroting Nietzsche. I've been there. You'll move on one day.

[Anonymous No.14870003]

>>14869838
>This is patently false.
Prove it or at least try to give me a good reason why.

[Anonymous No.14870634]

>>14870003
You're basically saying that the Bible is not a reliable source on the life of Jesus Christ, yet you trust Nietzsche's evaluation of him? I accept the Bible as a legitimate source. I've read more than Nietzsche's screeds against Jesus. Perhaps you should educate yourself before you accept the thinking of others as truth.

[Anonymous No.14870648]

>>14870634
fuck off

[Anonymous No.14870670]

>>14864497
>Except that Christianity isn’t Judea
Do Christians actually believe this?
>It has firm roots in Greek, Roman and Pagan traditions
Yeah. Despite 100s of years of Christians trying to ban the traditional festivals like Yule, which eventually they compromised and allowed as Christmas. Those aren't roots if they were added after the seed was already planted.
>Jews supplied the background myth, that’s all. And weren’t even the originators
What is there even to say to this? Straight mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.14870716]

>>14866814
Actually, it appears to me Nietzsche did in fact consider Jesus a kind of genius. He may not have personally liked Jesus' artistry, the empowerment and proliferation of a life-denying slave morality which would spiritually conquer the western world for millennia, it is among the highest heights of an immense and successful Will-to-Power. Consider how as much N. bemoans the Jews and their birthing slave morality, he nevertheless admits it was borne out of a indomitable Will, a refusal to give-in and let their people die-out as well as recognizing the traditionally superior via their ungracious resentiment, ultimately resulting in a more creative and interesting kind of human, in addition to his outlining an example of a highest kind of man as a "Roman Caesar with the soul of Christ."

>>14866711
Nietzsche's success toward his own ideal is unrelated to his sickly physical state or his absolute romantic failures, for his artistic creation, the divine lightning of his philosophy and writings, have come to influence countless souls and events in such a short time. There are different methods of impressing and imposing one's Will-to-Power onto the world; ancient Rome was Caesar's canvas, renaissance Italy was Cesare Borgia's, enlightenment Europe was Napoleon's, but Nietzsche's is more akin to Goethe and Beethoven in lighting a fire in the souls of men and unfolding the dynamite of his Will by way of the mind, through poetry and philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14871107]

>>14870716
>Nietzsche's success toward his own ideal is unrelated to his sickly physical state or his absolute romantic failures, for his artistic creation, the divine lightning of his philosophy and writings, have come to influence countless souls and events in such a short time.

So influence negates one's behavior and lifestyle? You mean to tell me that his emphasis on the Dionysian principle had nothing to do with his opium usage? There's no relation between a person's life and what they end up thinking and creating? I get that you're defending Nietzsche like a good little apostle, but you're making absurd claims here.

[Anonymous No.14871132]

>>14864261
Did he say "political entity"? Why are you bringing that up?

[Anonymous No.14871188]

>>14871107
>So influence negates one's behavior and lifestyle?

I was mainly using your post as an excuse to rant about those who claim Nietzsche did not exhibit the same traits or reach the lofty heights he attributed to Higher Men while considering himself a part of that, a criticism that focuses mostly on his meek nature and weak physical health and unsuccessful romantic pursuits. I dislike such criticisms because for whatever strength or courage he lacked in his personal life or relationships, as you put it, he exhibited a fiery vitality and intense power in his writings, where he does in fact live up to his standards for Higher Men.

As for linking various aspects of his thought as being influenced by or serving as compensation for some personal failing, I agree there is a great hypocrisy in dismissing psychologizing Nietzsche's work while revering it, because N. himself was psychologizing everyone else! So why do I think such claims fall short when it comes to him? You're probably right, it's certainly has something to do with my high regard for his work, but there's always been a sense of self-overcoming when it came to his work that I think can best be explained by what Freud said about ol' Neech: "He had more penetrating knowledge of himself than any man who ever lived or was likely to live."

>There's no relation between a person's life and what they end up thinking and creating?

There is, but again Nietzsche has such a penetrating analysis of 'resentment' and 'ressentiment' which, combined with his immense self-awareness, allows him to avoid falling into exactly which he mocked and criticized. Now, I do think his personal sufferings contributed to his celebration of suffering as a means of growth and impetus for tremendous creativity, but hey, it did exactly just that for him!

[Anonymous No.14871487]

>>14866947
>if you are strong in boxing, why did you lose in chess?

[Anonymous No.14871961]

>>14871188
This is a perfect example of the way that people seem to regard Nietzsche's thinking as objective truth. Ultimately, the standards that he had for so-called "Higher Men" are just that, his own standards, which due to the constant revision he performed of his ideas can hardly be said to be consistent or final. Will to power is an idea he failed to develop, whereas he articulates eternal return in many different ways, from his aphorisms in The Gay Science to the poetic expressions in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. This praise of him is like revering a man who wrote the great tome on fatherhood while being a deadbeat dad. We judge persons and their character based on what they do and how they behave, not on how "fiery" and "dynamite" their writings are. Not only are you blinded by your love of Nietzsche, as I can imagine you heavily identify with his thought, but you're aping his style and language.

I'm glad you quoted Sigmund Freud, the lothario whose own sexual misbehavior served as the basis for his inane sexual theories. The guy's entire career consisted of him regurgitating Nietzsche and covering his intellectual tracks. He's not an authority on anything, let alone the thinker he got his ideas from. He admitted himself that psychoanalysis is not an effective treatment but was a great way to make money. Ultimately, what I'm trying to bring out here is that what we're really dealing with is a projection of one's psychology through works, and in that work we consistently find rationalizations of misbehavior and an unruly, irrational state of mind, whether it results from sexual misconduct or drug abuse. Invoking divinity to safeguard the thinking of your favorite thinker is an obvious tell that you're moreso infatuated with him than interested in his ideas. When one is touched by divinity, such as Bach, who dedicated every piece he wrote to God, it is plainly obvious and beautiful, whereas a crazed, tortured being like Beethoven goes on to create frenetic, over-the-top music to temporarily satisfy his own need to feel great.

[Anonymous No.14872053]

>>14870634
I don't "trust Nietzsche's evaluation." I understand his evaluation after having read him on and off for over 10 years. He provides the logic and reasoning for understanding his viewpoint, and it's more sound than anything Christians manage to come up with in their own defense.

[Anonymous No.14872084]

>>14872053
One needn't muster a defense when your attack consists of uninspired paraphrasing of a secondary source.

>logic and reasoning

You sound like a militant reddit atheist, friend. You should know that the quantity of years for which you have kept your blinders on and stopped up your ears with philosophy means nothing to me, and certainly doesn't imbue your comments with authority. I still fail to understand how Nietzsche could have understood anything about Jesus without having a reliable source on the Man.

[Anonymous No.14872175]

>>14864270

philosophy without truth is useless and dangerous

[Anonymous No.14872205]

>>14872175
The truth is that there is none.

[Anonymous No.14872215]

>>14872205
Is it true that there is no truth?

[Anonymous No.14872243]

>>14864169
>>14864192
>>14864264
This is why I don’t like fucking retards. Nietzche doesn’t say this is a fucking good or bad thing, just that it happened. Then people sperg out into low polemics

[Anonymous No.14872251]

>>14872215
True in the sense that my will validates it in this given moment.

[Anonymous No.14872281]

>>14871961
Beethoven>Bach though

[Anonymous No.14872290]

>>14864712
lots of professors are pseuds dude

[Anonymous No.14872336]

>>14872281
That's where you're wrong bud

[Anonymous No.14872345]

>>14872084
>read the bare minimum on the guy
>come into threads about him offering nothing in the way of a substantial argument and act like you own the place and know best
It's the same shit every thread, I don't know why I bother with this place anymore.

[Anonymous No.14872371]

>>14872345
The thing is that you keep invoking how much and for how long you've studied Nietzsche as if that gives your comments more weight. I've been waiting for you to tell me just how Nietzsche understands anything about Jesus if the Bible is "a book of stories that have been reinterpreted by different interest groups countless times over," which I understood to imply that it's not a reliable source. We're not discussing any of Nietzsche's claims here, but your unsubstantiated comment.

As for myself, I've read plenty of Nietzsche in and out of university, took a course specifically about him taught by a German, yet not only do I not think that this information is relevant to the discussion, but it's also the exact reason that I am comfortable in challenging Nietzsche's ideas, which are dangerous to encounter if you haven't engaged the rest of the Western canon, especially the Bible.

[Anonymous No.14872429]

>>14872371
Have you read The Antichrist? There's no way for me to summarize it on here. In the book, Nietzsche reaches his understanding of Christianity's history and Jesus's life through psychoanalysis of the Bible, which is the only point of reference we have (and also the Nag Hammadi library, discovered after Nietzsche's time, if you consider it valid).

He comes to the conclusion that there are contradictory psychologies present in the writing, as if there are multiple sources behind it, and more importantly, sources that deeply disagree with one another. He points out that statements like "the kingdom of heaven is within you" stem from a drastically different spirituality than the rest of the Bible, because it skips over all acknowledgement of dualism completely, ignoring dualities like "life vs. death" or "heaven vs. hell vs. earth" and such, uniting all opposites at once and expressing the discovery of the power within ourselves to make any given situation we are in either a heaven or a hell at any time. And if the Nag Hammadi is valid, this makes even more sense, since the Gospel of Thomas in that, a supposedly lost scripture containing sayings from Jesus, starts with Jesus saying, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

The difference between Nietzsche's argument and your argument is that Nietzsche provides psychoanalysis for understanding his viewpoint on the matter. He provides a scientific basis for understanding human nature. He helped pioneer the field: Freud and Jung both built their foundations on his work.

[Anonymous No.14872465]

>>14871961
You're making it sound like Nietzsche had very specific first-order normative beliefs he required these higher men to have, when his standards were more along the lines of very broad characteristics suitable for pursuing and accomplishing great things. Sure, I suppose you could dismiss traits such as life-affirming and creatively driven toward noble ends as 'merely his opinion,' but they are difficult to disagree with and line-up well with the ways and life of historically great figures. Yes, the WtP was never fully developed, but his conception of Higher Men is one of his most fleshed-out ideas, central to his entire philosophical project (compared to how overhyped in importance the Overman/ubermensch are in the layman's understanding, for example). One of the latest aphorisms he wrote stated, roughly, "the goal of society is the production of great men -- nothing else."

And you've missed my point entirely, as the immense originality and stunning insights of his works, which have resulted in influence so large as to rival the likes of Kant and Aristotle, are more than enough to secure his place as one of the higher men of history. N. divides the higher men along 'active types' and 'contemplative types' -- with the likes of Napoleon and Caesar in the first type, N.'s work elevates him into the second camp much like music does for Bach and Beethoven and poetry for Goethe and Shakespeare. I don't see how then, even if one finds his works disagreeable, you can claim he didn't accomplish his goals simply because of some shortcomings in his personal life, for he did precisely what he set out to do. The references to 'fiery' and 'dynamite' were me paraphrasing N.'s thoughts on his own work to show the self-reverence he had for himself (one of the characteristics distinctive of Higher Men -- as A. Rich said of E. Dickinson, "genius knows itself"), but I won't deny the monumental influence he's had on me, writing style included.

Right, I understand your point, and we'll simply have to agree to disagree, for I not only disagree with the influence his romantic failures and his addiction to opiates and sedatives (used to treat genuine health ailments he had, from chronic pain to nausea to insomnia) had on his works (though the Dionysian link with opiate use has been playing around in my brain as amusing), but also if to any degree true that they at all diminish the value and wisdom of his works for I see nothing of 'misbehavior' or an 'irrational state of mind' within them. Instead, I see a stunningly lucid philosophical project full of depth and layered meanings suggestive of a sharp and sober mind.

And yes I love Nietzsche and his work and have expended more energy on studying and contemplating and discussing his philosophy more than any other philosopher, but so what? Sue me. By the way, as much as we disagree, I really enjoy the way you write.

[Anonymous No.14872501]

>>14866953

One Love is the singularity of a baselined consciousness

[Anonymous No.14872502]

>>14872175
Unfortunately the truth often escapes us. Without decisiveness we may become paralyzed by the very search for truth. Everything may be sacrificed for an uncertainty.
There is no truth if it has no being. A bad plan is better than no plan at all, and that is where useless wisdom piles up into endless documents - a barracks of unfulfilled planning.
In other words, if it only exists in the metaphysical space then it is just as useless as empty materialism. This explains the paradoxical position of modern philosophy: vast knowledge that is essentially useless.

[Anonymous No.14872507]

>>14872429
You mean the proto degenerates sjws

[Anonymous No.14872544]

>>14866953
>female
>love
Pick one

[Anonymous No.14872562]

>>14872507
What are you referring to exactly?

[Anonymous No.14873446]

>>14864505
A heretical jewish sect.
You /pol/tarts are so hung up about what is and isn't jewish that you're completely one-dimensional in your understanding of Christianity.
I'm not even a Christian and think you're take on it is laughably simplistic.
JEW BAD, CHRISTIANITY PARTLY JEW, CHRISTIANITY BAD

[Anonymous No.14873458]

>>14873446
>JEW BAD, CHRISTIANITY PARTLY JEW, CHRISTIANITY BAD
This is literally as deep as /pol/tard thought goes.
They aren't capable of anything more sophisticated than this.

[Anonymous No.14873461]

death to rome

[Anonymous No.14873521]

>>14864247
This so much, read Spengler

[Anonymous No.14874102]

>>14873446
>You /pol/tarts
>JEW BAD, CHRISTIANITY PARTLY JEW, CHRISTIANITY BAD
calm down, I didn't say anything negative about Christianity or Judaism.