/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15199550]

Was Nietzsche a simp?

[Anonymous No.15199552]

>>15199550
He was a super simp.

Still kinda based tho.

[Anonymous No.15199553]

>>15199550
Salomé's mother took her to Rome when Salomé was 21. At a literary salon in the city, Salomé became acquainted with Paul Rée. Rée proposed marriage to her, but she instead proposed that they should live and study together as "brother and sister", along with another man for company, where they would establish an academic commune. Rée accepted the idea, and suggested that they be joined by his friend Nietzsche. The two met Nietzsche in Rome in April 1882, and Nietzsche is believed to have instantly fallen in love with Salome, as Rée had done. Nietzsche asked Rée to propose marriage to Salome, which she rejected. She had been interested in Nietzsche as a friend, but not as a husband. Nietzsche nonetheless was content to join together with Rée and Salome touring through Switzerland and Italy together, planning their commune. The three traveled with Salomé's mother through Italy and considered where they would set up their "Winterplan" commune. This commune was intended to be set up in an abandoned monastery, but no suitable location was found. On 13 May, in Lucerne, when Nietzsche was alone with Salome, he earnestly proposed marriage to her again, which she rejected. He nonetheless was happy to continue with the plans for an academic commune. After discovering the situation, Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth became determined to get Nietzsche away from the "immoral woman". Nietzsche and Salomé spent the summer together in Tautenburg in Thuringia, often with Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth as a chaperone. Salomé reports that he asked her to marry him on three separate occasions and that she refused, though the reliability of her reports of events has come into question. Arriving in Leipzig, (Germany) in October, Salomé and Rée separated from Nietzsche after a falling-out between Nietzsche and Salomé, in which Salomé believed that Nietzsche was desperately in love with her.

YES

[Anonymous No.15199557]

>>15199550
You need to refer to something specific, like a text or idea he had.

[Anonymous No.15199567]

>>15199553
What exactly did he see in this slag anyway?

[Anonymous No.15199573]

>>15199553
look at that ugly old bitch
such a smart and handsome man deserved at least something like pic related

[Anonymous No.15199574]

>>15199567
Guy was lonely as shit and she showed him some attention. You look up simp in the dictionary and it's a picture of NEETzch

[Anonymous No.15199578]

>>15199573
He was nearly twice her age in that picture, when they first met he was 38 and she was 21.

[Anonymous No.15199580]

>>15199567
he saw what we see in every girl we want, the need for her acceptance

[Anonymous No.15199581]

>simp
Reddit PC equivalent of cuck. Time to go back.

[Anonymous No.15199598]

>>15199553
She had a chance to marry a Polish legend and she refused...

[Anonymous No.15199601]

>>15199578
why were women so ugly in those times?
there is something really fucked up about her face

[Anonymous No.15199605]

>>15199601
Puritan age my dear.

[Anonymous No.15199611]

>>15199598
She had an open marriage and affairs with Rilke and Freud. I don't know if she ever slept with the Nzzzz but she definitely did with Ree

[Anonymous No.15199613]

>>15199574
Yeah but Nietzsche was best buddies with Wagner who was possibly the most famous man in Germany after the Kaiser himself.

Why did he beta orbit this ho when presumably Wagner had a legion of fangirls? Would he just not hook up his boy?

[Anonymous No.15199615]

>>15199605
it's not about the fact that she isn't using make up, there is something wrong with her face it's as if she is either an old woman or a tranny

[Anonymous No.15199616]

She look a lil bit like Daisy Ridlsy

[Anonymous No.15199628]

>>15199611
Her and Nietzsche seemed to go off and hang around alone together a lot and play teacher student, and apparently it used to annoy her mother no end.

I don't know what happened, but Nietzsche said something to her that he deemed potentially unforgiveable, she mentions him a lot in her books but in a slightly detached way.

[Anonymous No.15199630]

>>15199613
Oneitis maybe. Neatozs seems the type

[Anonymous No.15199635]

>>15199615
Tight bun, it's like an old lady pseudo facelift trick.

[Anonymous No.15199639]

>>15199611
His oneitis was bonking every Jew in town and he STILL refused to be antisemitic?

What a simp lol.

[Anonymous No.15199641]

>>15199628
>but Nietzsche said something to her that he deemed potentially unforgiveable
Did Nietzsche invent the word "roastie"?

[Anonymous No.15199642]

>>15199635
You know what they say about a tight bun. Tight B above means tight B below

[Anonymous No.15199647]

A spiteful mutant.

[Anonymous No.15199656]

literally a goblin

[Anonymous No.15199660]

>>15199656
Maybe she was a tranny and Nietz was into it.

[Anonymous No.15199668]

Short story idea:

Rich Nietzsche fan builds time machine
Hires high-class prostitute
Goes back
Tells H-C P to make Herr N. happy

fast forward

it worked!
but...
it turned all Nietzsche's books into Rupi Kaur - tier garbage

ohshitohshitohshit

Time Machine 2

Go back

H-C P is still there living happily with Herr N

How do we break them up?

[Anonymous No.15199680]

>>15199660

I read somewhere that she was frigid and Nietzsche surely realized it (even if only subconsciously) and that's what he liked about her - it was completely safe because he knew she would never reciprocate so he wouldn't have to risk getting enmeshed in a real relationship.

[Anonymous No.15199683]

>>15199668
Inject him with syphilis and make him think he got it from her. It's what drove N crazy and would close the time loop

[Anonymous No.15199691]

>>15199639
Nietzsche: a simp
>Has a oneitis
>His oneitis is banging ever Jew from the Rhine to the Elbe
>Still gotta bang on about how great Jews are because antisemitism isn't contrarian enough.
>Hates his country, wishes/pretends he was Polish.
>Lashes out at higher men than himself and scorns their uplifting message
>Failed academic, to this day philosophers are bitterly divided on whether he was a retard or a based retard.
>Was embarrassed about his music.

Wagner: a Chad.
>Has a wife and many children, some of them illegitimate
>Hates kikes, if his wife banged a kike he'd probably stone her to death.
>Cucked his own patrons and conductors.
>Loves his country, basically invented German nationalism.
>Takes an interest in beta incels that he sees potential in like Nietzsche and tries to raise them up to be Chads.
>Revolutionised music, music scholars are unanimous that Wagner was the kind of genius that comes only once in several lifetimes.

Nietzsche.... you were so close to making it.....

[Anonymous No.15199719]

>>15199691
It's official.... Tannhauser takes it!

[Anonymous No.15199721]

>>15199691

The story of the Wagner - Nietzsche falling out is sort of funny. Basically Wagner took a fatherly interest in N. and tried to help him. Nietzsche had loads of health problems (crippling migraines all his life, among other things). In 1877, Wagner went to Nietzsche's doctor and said in confidence that he thought N.'s health problems probably resulted from too much fapping. He said he'd known several young men with all N's symptoms, and in all cases it was that.

The doctor then somehow let on to N. that Wagner had said that (WELL DONE DOCTOR YOU ASSHOLE) and N. flew into a fury and split up with N. for good.

Of course we don't know if he was angry because Wagner was wrong, or because he was right.

[Anonymous No.15199729]

>>15199721
>and split up with N. for good
and split up with W., obviously. He didn't split up with himself. Not until the end of his life anyway.

[Anonymous No.15199735]

>>15199721
He should of pulled a Diogenes and masturbated on Wagner

[Anonymous No.15199756]

>>15199735
Wagner probably would have kicked his ass before he could finish tbf

[Anonymous No.15199780]

>>15199735

I wrote a short story in which Nietzsche & Schopenhauer get into a heated quarrel via correspondence about the nature of the Ubermensch and eventually Nietzsche sneaks into Schopenhauer's apartment when he's out and masturbates into his flute and clogs it up to establish dominance.

[Anonymous No.15199790]

>>15199735
on his wife and children

[Anonymous No.15199804]

>>15199721
I tried semen retention and got a prostate infection

[Anonymous No.15199853]

>>15199804
you get what you deserve

[Anonymous No.15199904]

>>15199721
What really happened is they met up in Italy when Nietzsche was living there, and Wagner was an autistic asshole and rude to everyone. Nietzsche stopped talking to him after that, they'd drifted apart a bit beforehand but that was the final straw.

[Anonymous No.15199930]

>>15199904

Wagner certainly wasn't easy guy to get on with, from all I've read. Nietzsche I'm not so sure about, but I think he might have been quite pleasant. Didn't someone say something like "he had a mind like a razor but a heart like melted butter"? (Whatever that means.)

[Anonymous No.15200053]

>>15199553
Nigga just wanted german coochie baka

[Anonymous No.15200070]

>>15200053
Salome was Russian.

[Anonymous No.15200109]

>>15200070
Nigga just wanted that soviet coochie desu

[Anonymous No.15200204]

>>15199721
>>15199735
This is, perhaps unintentionally, the funniest thing I've read about Nietzsche. 1/3

[Anonymous No.15200210]

>>15200204
2/3

[Anonymous No.15200218]

>>15200204
>>15200210
3/3

[Anonymous No.15200221]

>>15200210
Hahaha that is incredible I can't believe I haven't seen that before

[Anonymous No.15200445]

>>15200204
>>15200210
>>15200218
Kek

[Anonymous No.15200502]

>>15200204
>>15200210
>>15200218
I can't imagine how embarrassing this was.

[Anonymous No.15200509]

>>15200502
I can.

[Anonymous No.15200522]

>>15200204
>>15200210
>>15200218

This changes my view of Nietzsche. I knew he was kind of a poser anyway but to let something like that bother him so much he wasn't really above the societal morality that he claimed to despise.

[Anonymous No.15200534]

>>15200522
I can't really blame him. I would be mad as fuck in his place.
He would need to be some Stoic sage to not be bothered by this. But then, a Stoic sage wouldn't become a chronic masturbator or visit prostitutes in Italy.

[Anonymous No.15200976]

>>15200204
>>15200210
>>15200218
This is the most important thing I ever saw on /lit/
These posts literally changed my worldview

[Anonymous No.15201035]

>>15199550

[Anonymous No.15201041]

>>15200204
What's the source? It sounds like BS to me

[Anonymous No.15201073]

>>15200204
>>15200210
>>15200218
Holy shit how have I never heard about this before
How is this real.........
WHAT THE FUCK

[Anonymous No.15201080]

>>15201035
Woops wrong image...

[Anonymous No.15201082]

>>15199550
>applying 21st century Islamocentric manosphere terminology to 19th century European academics
Shameful.

[Anonymous No.15201099]

>>15201041
It's definitely true that Wagner was obsessed with masturbation and went around accusing everyone of it and claiming that they'd die young because of it.

[Anonymous No.15201119]

>>15201099
Where do you got this from, that Wagner liked accusing people of excessive masturbation? Either way, I found the source, but how does the author justify the claims he's making? This stuff is so wild, I've never heard of this before.

[Anonymous No.15201172]

>>15200204
>>15200210
>>15200218
Nietzsche was right about Wagner being a Christcuck.

[Anonymous No.15201176]

>>15199550
Why do you feel the need to make threads like this?

[Anonymous No.15201185]

>>15201176
Read
>>15200204
>>15200210
>>15200218
some good information in this one

[Anonymous No.15201186]

>>15201172
coomer detected

[Anonymous No.15201189]

>>15199804
Lmao it was probably caused by bad health, not by abstaining from ejaculating, retard

[Anonymous No.15201206]

>>15201186
Why do you fear the mechanisms of your own body?

[Anonymous No.15201214]

>>15201206
Because if it is not I who's in control then it is they.

[Anonymous No.15201217]

>>15200204
>>15200210
>>15200218
If you read Nietzsche these accusations against Wagner far outreach whatever "embarassment" he had caused Nietzsche. If this is true, then Nietzsche was correct about Wagner's impotent Christianity.

[Anonymous No.15201234]

>>15201099
He was right lmao even Nietzsche had to admit it years later
Cooming = death

[Anonymous No.15201237]

>>15201214
"they" who? You ARE your body.

[Anonymous No.15201247]

>>15201206
Truism, there's nothing natural about masturbation, it's a stereotypical coping mechanism for distressed animals in captivity

[Anonymous No.15201252]

>>15201189
You're the fucking retard. The body continually creates semen for a reason, not because satan lives in your penis

[Anonymous No.15201254]

>>15201247
>there's nothing natural about [phenomenon]
Shit ontology you have there, buddy.

[Anonymous No.15201253]

>>15201237
Read Nietzsche, that isn't true

[Anonymous No.15201255]

>>15201234
Wagner died like a year or two after writing those letters. So either he was masturbating like a champion or he was wrong.

[Anonymous No.15201259]

>>15201217
Nietzsche clearly ended up losing this exchange. And Wagner didn't even do it out of malice. He cared about his friend's well-being.

[Anonymous No.15201264]

>>15201254
You started it by assessing about "fearing the reaction of your own body"
I merely entered your inherently fallacious plane and refuted you

[Anonymous No.15201266]

>>15201253
I have read him. He shit all over Kant and Descartes on this.

[Anonymous No.15201274]

>>15201237
You believe there is no problem in being dominated by your base desires?

[Anonymous No.15201280]

>>15201266
You didn't understand him
Read Aurora

[Anonymous No.15201281]

>>15201264
You provided a fallacious ontological view of the matter. You refuted nothing.

[Anonymous No.15201290]

>>15200210
>he recently had intercourse several times in Italy on medical advice

[Anonymous No.15201294]

>>15201255
I think he is saying that eventually Nietzsche agreed that being a Coomer is bad.

[Anonymous No.15201312]

>>15201281
You proposed it in the first place, and I made you notice how it was not empirical under your own assumption

[Anonymous No.15201315]

>>15200218
you have very cute and feminine fingers anon

[Anonymous No.15201323]

>>15201237
The dopamine hungry parts of your brain telling you to coom. While man is the animal whole the better you can control and direct your animal instincts the more in control "you" are and the less enchained you are to your impulses.

As Nietzsche said
>He who can't command himself will be commanded.
This isn't just true of societal authority, this is also true of the impulses from within yourself.

[Anonymous No.15201325]

>>15201274
You ARE your "base desires." How can YOU dominate YOURSELF? Is your will to power really so damaged?

>>15201280
Nah, I understood him. I'm expressing his ontological view in my posts while you aren't. In Will to Power he describes consciousness as consisting of multiple drives, or impulses, which are all conflicting and seeking to reign over the others. It is not some independent vessel like the soul. Did you even read The Antichrist?

[Anonymous No.15201339]

>>15201259
Truly virgin vs Chad.

[Anonymous No.15201350]

>>15201325
>You ARE your "base desires." How can YOU dominate YOURSELF? Is your will to power really so damaged?
You have base desires and you have a rationality. You can use your rationality to control your base desires.
Do you really think there is no problem in following all your base desires?

[Anonymous No.15201374]

>>15201312
>You proposed it in the first place
Point to where I proposed that masturbation is unnatural.

>>15201323
>The dopamine hungry parts of your brain telling you to coom.
You are those "hungry parts." You are your brain. This is how one feels when one is in control, not the way you feel about it.

>This isn't just true of societal authority, this is also true of the impulses from within yourself.
Here's the irony: you think these parts of you are separate from yourself. You don't actually have command over yourself at all. You've distanced yourself from yourself and pretend that that's command. That's not command, not any sense of it that would be used in the military, where the concept of commanding reaches its purest sense. To command one must join with the commanded, feel the commanded part as a limb.

[Anonymous No.15201387]

>>15201325
>Nah, I understood him. I'm expressing his ontological view in my posts while you aren't. In Will to Power he describes consciousness as consisting of multiple drives, or impulses
They are not drives or impulses, they are souls.
He uses the term souls, wether it indicates a representation of cerebral activity or actual spirits.
He does this in Aurora, Zarathustra, Beyond good and evil, and the will to power
Most importantly, he identifies the self, the ego, the I, with "the tyrant" or "king" inside (this comes from Plato's republic).
So anon, under Nietzsche's views, is completely right in saying that it's external, that it's a "they"

[Anonymous No.15201390]

>>15201217
Nietzsche was incorrect about Wagner's christianity by his own admission. Stop taking Nietzsche literally, especially regarding Wagner.

[Anonymous No.15201393]

>>15201374
>You are those "hungry parts." You are your brain.
In your opinion, the human brain only have the base desires? Where do rationality comes from? Ancient alliens implanted chips in some irrational animals?

[Anonymous No.15201396]

>>15201325
>you ARE your "base desires".
At any one time your base desires can be telling you to do like 10 different things, what do you do? That's what up to you, you are the active agent. You aren't just a responsibility free single-minded machine that only ever has one directing impulse at a time that you have no choice but to satisfy. Unless you are a true bona fide last-man.

[Anonymous No.15201403]

>>15201374
>Why do you fear the mechanisms of your own body?
This is a truism and a slogan based on the naturalist fallacy, it means nothing

[Anonymous No.15201404]

>>15201387
>He uses the term souls
Can you show me the original German text where this is the case? Why would he use the term "souls" when he debunks the concept of a soul and a thing-in-itself in various books?

[Anonymous No.15201405]

>>15200204
I've been quoting this forever on /lit/. Good to see the truth finally coming to light.

[Anonymous No.15201409]

>>15201390
Considering Nietzsche was mad as fuck with Wagner (and he had some reasons to be mad as fuck), I think it is fair to not take what he said about Wagner that seriously.

[Anonymous No.15201413]

>>15201404
There's no relationship between the soul and the thing in itself

[Anonymous No.15201452]

>>15201393
>In your opinion, the human brain only have the base desires?
No. Nothing I've written suggests this.

>>15201396
>At any one time your base desires can be telling you to do like 10 different things, what do you do? That's what up to you, you are the active agent.
This is a fallacious model. It's not "base desires vs. you" to begin with. They aren't "telling" "you" anything. YOU have many desires within you because you are a complex organism and the choice you make is whichever one of those desires overpowered the others.

>>15201403
lol how is that a truism? So you're already aware that you're afraid of yourself?

>>15201413
I didn't say there was. Are you going to provide the text?

[Anonymous No.15201469]

>>15201452
>No. Nothing I've written suggests this.
Then you are not your base desires.
Now, tell me, why do you think we should not control our base desires?

[Anonymous No.15201470]

>>15201374
Psychologically speaking "I" don't exist in any permanent sense. Physically I exist as the animal named anon. But the psychological states of that creature change and evolve as life progresses and in large part the man I am tomorrow is determined by the actions I take today.

That's what command of yourself is, the freedom to make who you are tomorrow by force of your own will. If you constantly feed the man you are today then he's gonna live forever.

[Anonymous No.15201484]

>>15201404
Selbst-Beherrschung und Mässigung und ihr letztes Motiv. - Ich finde
nicht mehr als sechs wesentlich verschiedene Methoden, um die
Heftigkeit eines Triebes zu
bekämpfen. Einmal kann man den Anlässen zur Befriedigung des Triebes
ausweichen und durch lange und immer längere Zeitstrecken der
Nichtbefriedigung ihn
schwächen und abdorren machen. Sodann kann man eine strenge
regelmässige Ordnung in seiner Befriedigung sich zum Gesetz machen;
indem man in ihn selber auf
diese Weise eine Regel bringt und seine Fluth und Ebbe in feste
Zeitgränzen einschliesst, hat man Zwischenzeiten gewonnen, wo er
nicht mehr stört, - und von da aus
kann man vielleicht zur ersten Methode übergehen. Drittens kann man
sich absichtlich einer wilden und unbändigen Befriedigung eines
Triebes überlassen, um den
Ekel davon einzuernten und mit dem Ekel eine Macht über den Trieb zu
erlangen: vorausgesetzt, dass man es nicht dem Reiter gleich thut,
der sein Pferd zu Tode
hetzt und selber dabei den Hals bricht, - was leider die Regel bei
diesem Versuche ist. Viertens giebt es einen intellectuellen
Kunstgriff, nämlich mit der Befriedigung
überhaupt irgend einen sehr peinlichen Gedanken so fest zu verbinden,
dass, nach einiger Übung, der Gedanke der Befriedigung immer sogleich
selber als sehr
peinlich empfunden wird (zum Beispiel wenn der Christ sich gewöhnt,
an die Nähe und den Hohn des Teufels beim Geschlechtsgenusse, oder an
ewige Höllenstrafen
für einen Mord aus Rache, oder auch nur an die Verächtlichkeit zu
denken, welche zum Beispiel einem Geld-Diebstahl im Auge der von ihm
verehrtesten Menschen
folgt, oder wenn Mancher schon zu hundert Malen einem heftigen
Verlangen nach dem Selbstmord die Vorstellung des Jammers und der
Selbstvorwürfe von
Verwandten und Freunden entgegengestellt und damit sich auf der
Schwebe des Lebens erhalten hat: - jetzt folgen diese Vorstellungen
in ihm auf einander, wie
Ursache und Wirkung). Hierhin gehört es auch, wenn der Stolz des
Menschen, wie zum Beispiel bei Lord Byron und Napoleon, sich
aufbäumt, und das Übergewicht
eines einzelnen Affectes über die gesammte Haltung und die Ordnung
der Vernunft als Beleidigung empfindet: woraus dann die Gewohnheit
und die Lust entsteht, den
Trieb zu tyrannisiren und ihn gleichsam knirschen zu machen. ("Ich
will nicht der Sclave irgend eines Appetites sein" - schrieb Byron in
sein Tagebuch.) Fünftens: man
nimmt eine Dislocation seiner Kraftmengen vor, indem man sich irgend
eine besonders schwere und anstrengende Arbeit auferlegt oder sich
absichtlich einem neuen
1/2

[Anonymous No.15201485]

>>15200204
Is this true though, Does fapping make someone stupid?

I feel like I was much smarter when I was younger and touched my dick less

[Anonymous No.15201495]

>>15201452
>YOU have many desires within you because you are a complex organism and the choice you make is whichever one of those desires overpowered the others.
Exactly, and if your will to coom is one of the most indomitable wills within you then what does that say?

[Anonymous No.15201498]

>>15200522
He didn't particularly think stoicism was a good thing, lol. So of course he was bothered.

[Anonymous No.15201501]

>>15201485
If I don't jerk off regularly I just get angry and my nuts get sore. I'll take an IQ drop to avoid that

[Anonymous No.15201506]

>>15201484
Reize und Vergnügen unterwirft und dergestalt Gedanken und physisches
Kräftespiel in andere Bahnen lenkt. Eben darauf läuft es auch hinaus,
wenn man einen
anderen Trieb zeitweilig begünstigt, ihm reiche Gelegenheit der
Befriedigung giebt und ihn so zum Verschwender jener Kraft macht,
über welche sonst der durch
seine Heftigkeit lästig gewordene Trieb gebieten würde. Dieser oder
Jener versteht es wohl auch, den einzelnen Trieb, der den Gewaltherrn
spielen möchte, dadurch
im Zaume zu halten, dass er allen seinen ihm bekannten anderen
Trieben eine zeitweilige Aufmunterung und Festzeit giebt und sie das
Futter aufzehren heisst, welches
der Tyrann für sich allein haben will. Endlich sechstens: wer es aushält und vernünftig findet, seine gesammte leibliche und seelische
Organisation zu schwächen und
niederzudrücken, der erreicht natürlich das Ziel der Schwächung eines
einzelnen heftigen Triebes ebenfalls damit: wie zum Beispiel Der
thut, welcher seine Sinnlichkeit
aushungert und dabei freilich auch seine Rüstigkeit und nicht selten
seinen Verstand mit aushungert und zu Schanden macht, gleich dem
Asketen. - Also: den Anlässen
ausweichen, Regel in den Trieb hineinpflanzen, Übersättigung und Ekel
an ihm erzeugen, und die Association eines quälenden Gedankens (wie
den der Schande, der
bösen Folgen oder des beleidigten Stolzes) zu Stande bringen, sodann
die Dislocation der Kräfte und endlich die allgemeine Schwächung und
Erschöpfung, - das
sind die sechs Methoden: dass man aber überhaupt die Heftigkeit eines
Triebes bekämpfen will, steht nicht in unserer Macht, ebenso wenig,
auf welche Methode
man verfällt, ebenso wenig, ob man mit dieser Methode Erfolg hat.
Vielmehr ist unser Intellect bei diesem ganzen Vorgange ersichtlich
nur das blinde Werkzeug eines
anderen Triebes, welcher ein Rival dessen ist, der uns durch seine
Heftigkeit quält: sei es der Trieb nach Ruhe oder die Furcht vor
Schande und anderen bösen
Folgen oder die Liebe. Während "wir" uns also über die Heftigkeit
eines Triebes zu beklagen meinen, ist es im Grunde ein Trieb, weicher
über einen anderen klagt;
das heisst: die Wahrnehmung des Leidens an einer solchen Heftigkeit
setzt voraus, dass es einen ebenso heftigen oder noch heftigeren
anderen Trieb giebt, und dass
ein Kampf bevorsteht, in welchem unser Intellect Partei nehmen muss.

Now for analysis on my next post

[Anonymous No.15201515]

>>15201501
Maybe the anger brings out innovation.

I know that my greatest periods of writing and drawing is when I am at peak anger by some minor slight.

[Anonymous No.15201529]

>>15201498
I wouldn't have expected to just quietly take it but I thought he would of flung it back in their faces. So much of what he wrote was about fighting insipid bourgeois morality

[Anonymous No.15201530]

>>15201485
It probably reduces your concentration

[Anonymous No.15201541]

>>15201529
Does Nietzsche's philosophy say that there is nothing wrong with being a huge Coomer?

[Anonymous No.15201546]

>>15201469
>Then you are not your base desires.
Wrong: you are these and all the other desires at once.

>Now, tell me, why do you think we should not control our base desires?
By "control" you mean "suppress" and by "base" you mean "the ones I don't like." Feel free to divide yourself up internally and suppress aspects of yourself however you want. I'm not telling you to live a certain way, I'm just telling you that your interpretation of the matter is wrong.

>>15201470
I agree with all this. I just don't see how it supports the Christian ontological view of the matter.

>>15201495
>Exactly, and if your will to coom is one of the most indomitable wills within you then what does that say?
It says that you are likely, but not limited to, bored or lonely. Christians like to think that it's an insult to say that someone is "controlled" by their desire to "coom" when in most cases it's an expression of boredom and the desire isn't even as strong in such a person as it is in ascetics.

[Anonymous No.15201577]

>>15201506
>>15201484
>>15201452
This comes only from Aurora.
On beyond good and evil there is a similat intepretation, and explanation on what is a Will, psychologically (note that psyche means soul:) the ability to give orders and to follow them, i.e. a unity of wills inside your own body.
The idea that "you" means your own body makes absolutely no sense! When does your body start and where does it end?

Nietzsche said it time and time again: what we identify as I (wether is real or not) is the inner tyrant, the egemonikon, which can be strong or not mind you.
'Reaction of your own body' means nothing: if I insert a poison inside me that causes me excruciating pain, am I fearing a reaction of my own body?
If I'm starving, am I fearing a reaction of my own body?
What is my own body?
The one when I'm starving or the one where I'm not?
Are you american perhaps? It would explain a lot

[Anonymous No.15201581]

>>15201541
He thought Christianity was a dead husk founded on the ressentiment of weak slaves that preached a denial of life. Not jerking off would of been a stupid joke or rather should of been in he kept to his ideas

[Anonymous No.15201583]

>>15201541
Implicitly you can get that impression but he later said.

> “The reabsorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces toward the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, amoung the Brahmans).”

[Anonymous No.15201605]

>>15201546
>I agree with all this. I just don't see how it supports the Christian ontological view of the matter.
I'm not Christian I'm just saying resisting the urge to wank is good.

[Anonymous No.15201609]

>>15201041
"Wagner and Philosophy" by Bryan Magee. The exact same section occurs in "The Tristan Chord" by the same author (They might be the same book but published under different titles).

[Anonymous No.15201611]

>>15201546
>Wrong: you are these and all the other desires at once.
Is the United States Alabama? Or is the United States Alabama, California and the union of those countries?


>By "control" you mean "suppress" and by "base" you mean "the ones I don't like." Feel free to divide yourself up internally and suppress aspects of yourself however you want. I'm not telling you to live a certain way, I'm just telling you that your interpretation of the matter is wrong.
Don't try to sidestep.
It is quite clearly that you are trying to argue against controlling your base desires.

[Anonymous No.15201617]

>>15201119
He has read the letters. Wagner is maybe the most well documented person in history and Magee had access to the Bayreuth archives.

[Anonymous No.15201619]

>>15201581
Are you sure you have read Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.15201628]

>>15201546
We are already divided internally.
By eliminating a parasitic soul inside you you are only making your inner kingdom more united.
Nietzsche did think that eliminating wills and desires inside you permantently was possible and he reccomended it:
>>15201506
>>15201484

He also said that one of the biggest problems of our age was the fact that in so many people there wasn't even a stronger will inside them anymore, but si many contrasting wills that you couldn't even call those persons person, but amorphous blobs

[Anonymous No.15201640]

>>15201619
He never did, he is yet another psued retard who approached him or hopefully an underage retard

[Anonymous No.15201649]

>>15201619
Highly doubt.

[Anonymous No.15201650]

>>15201611
>Is the United States Alabama? Or is the United States Alabama, California and the union of those countries?
The latter, which supports what you quoted. Was that your intention?

>It is quite clearly that you are trying to argue against controlling your base desires.
No. I'm deconstructing a fallacious ontological view. I've read Nietzsche and he not only, quite literally, worked himself to death, but he strongly admired those who were hard on themselves, to the point where he was basically the first man to really understand Greek tragedy since the Greeks themselves. I share his sentiment on this. So why would I be trying to tell you such a thing? Why would I refer to them as "base" either?

[Anonymous No.15201666]

other then the fact that philosophy is a meme in academia does Nietzche actually say anything useful or is it just used by edge lords?

I always see people thinking they know what hes saying/ reference him in some way but desu alot of these books are so full in bullshit i doubt anyone actually read it with understanding

it's like the critique of pure reason, ye shit sounds cool but i doubt anyone has read it without using google/dummy guides

[Anonymous No.15201676]

>>15201619
>>15201640
>>15201649

I want to hear this one. Where do you think that Nietzsche advocated not jerking off? This has got to be the most bizarre interpretation I've ever seen

[Anonymous No.15201680]

>>15201650
>The latter, which supports what you quoted. Was that your intention?
So, the United States are not Alabama and you are not your base desires, do you agree?

>No. I'm deconstructing a fallacious ontological view.
Is it a good or a bad idea to be a Coomer?

[Anonymous No.15201686]

>>15201666
He said a lot of useful things but he's often contradictory and developed his thought a lot from book to book
You have to see his books as a collection of posts of a very intelligent yet troubled 4chan anon

[Anonymous No.15201691]

>>15201676
I'm not a Nietzsche scholar, but even I can see that >>15201581 is a pretty bad post.

[Anonymous No.15201699]

>>15201676
In his notes specifically about masturbation, in basically every book since Aurora about any parasitic influence inside the body (and since Wagner confirmed he was addicted to masturbation I can assume nonchalantly that a lot of his thought refers to his struggle to quit masturbation and other habits that causes struggle inside him)

[Anonymous No.15201700]

>>15201294
Nietzsche got committed to a mental asylum not that long after either, like it's 6 years before he has the horse breakdown.

[Anonymous No.15201709]

>>15199598
He liked to LARP as Pole because of his special snowflake syndrome even though not a single Polish ancestor was discovered in his genealogy.

[Anonymous No.15201712]

>>15201691
In other words you've got zero evidence for no fap Nietzsche. What a fucking brainlet take.

[Anonymous No.15201725]

>>15201712
Did you just ignore every post made by me who btfod this view?
>>15201709
>>15201628
>>15201577
>>15201506
>>15201484

[Anonymous No.15201726]

>>15201577
It seems that I partially misjudged what you meant by soul. I assume my detracting responders are Christians so I assumed your use of the term was in ontological alignment with the Christian conception of it, which is not shared by Nietzsche when he conceptualizes the will and its drives and how one manages them within oneself.

>The idea that "you" means your own body makes absolutely no sense! When does your body start and where does it end?
From a certain ontological view, it makes no sense. But Nietzsche provided a world view where there are no bodies at all: will to power. All of life is force under his model. Rather than bodies, there are waves of forces. A beginning and an end aren't discernible in this model. But for the sake of conversation and activity, we must treat ourselves and each other as individual bodies. Our bodies, too, are like this force: we consist of many waves of forces and the only place where it seemingly ends is wherever we no longer have influence (the external world, and perhaps in some aspects of ourselves if we are not strong enough to manage them). Weakness, then, creates "the external" — that which we can't influence. Inner weakness is simply the colorization of aspects of ourselves as things which are external to us, if that makes sense. The Overman does not feel this way.

[Anonymous No.15201740]

>>15201725
>>15201699
Meant this not>>15201709

[Anonymous No.15201744]

>>15201712
I'm not saying Nietzsche was some free-love hippie or an ascetic. I'm saying your post was pretty bad and I doubt it represented the opinion of someone well read in philosophy (which I know Nietzsche was).

[Anonymous No.15201747]

>>15201699
Wtf is Aurora? You somehow misconstruing him as some type of closeted puritan is making me angry.

[Anonymous No.15201749]

>>15201676
Here
>>15201583
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=blfwSlxhjvAC&pg=PT54&lpg=PT54&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+reabsorption+of+semen+by+the+blood+is+the+strongest+nourishment+and,+perhaps+more+than+any+other+factor,+it+prompts+the+stimulus+of+power,+the+unrest+of+all+forces+toward+the+overcoming+of+resistances,+the+thirst+for+contradiction+and+resistance.+The+feeling+of+power+has+so+far+mounted+highest+in+abstinent+priests+and+hermits+(for+example,+amoung+the+Brahmans).%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=ksWor1TuGM&sig=ACfU3U22aAvFo_rWe7ls2uf-Ze3DtmitZw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIwqnKxIbpAhUHEcAKHbf-DfIQ6AEwBXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThe%20reabsorption%20of%20semen%20by%20the%20blood%20is%20the%20strongest%20nourishment%20and%2C%20perhaps%20more%20than%20any%20other%20factor%2C%20it%20prompts%20the%20stimulus%20of%20power%2C%20the%20unrest%20of%20all%20forces%20toward%20the%20overcoming%20of%20resistances%2C%20the%20thirst%20for%20contradiction%20and%20resistance.%20The%20feeling%20of%20power%20has%20so%20far%20mounted%20highest%20in%20abstinent%20priests%20and%20hermits%20(for%20example%2C%20amoung%20the%20Brahmans).%E2%80%9D&f=false

[Anonymous No.15201750]

>>15201680
>So, the United States are not Alabama and you are not your base desires, do you agree?
You seem REALLY confused. In your analogy, Alabama = "base desires" ... and I just told you that you are these desires plus all the others in you. I agreed with your part of your analogy that the United States is the unity of Alabama AND all the other states... like your "base desires" and all the others in you. What part of your own analogy aren't you understanding?

>Is it a good or a bad idea to be a Coomer?
Depends on your goals.

[Anonymous No.15201773]

>>15201628
but how was Nietzche able to measure will and if it was measurable by him how could he have a objective historical data?

[Anonymous No.15201787]

>>15201747
>Wtf is Aurora?
Oh my god what the fuck is this pleb doing?

[Anonymous No.15201801]

>>15201750
Mugabe was part of Zimbabwe. Would you say there was no tyranny in Zimbabwe because it was controlled by someone who is part of Zimbabwe rather than by England?

>Depends on your goals.
Which goals make it good to be a Coomer?

[Anonymous No.15201820]

>>15201726
>Rather than bodies, there are waves of forces. A beginning and an end aren't discernible in this model
He often uses (figuratively) the terms souls or spirits to identify these waves of wills

But for the sake of conversation and activity, we must treat ourselves and each other as individual bodies. Our bodies, too, are like this force: we consist of many waves of forces and the only place where it seemingly ends is wherever we no longer have influence (the external world, and perhaps in some aspects of ourselves if we are not strong enough to manage them). Weakness, then, creates "the external" — that which we can't influence. Inner weakness is simply the colorization of aspects of ourselves as things which are external to us, if that makes sense
This is wrong, both logicality and under Nietzsche's worldview.
The identification with our body comes afterwards, or rather, it only comes when everything is going on correctly: it's the identification of the king with the state (I am the state, said Louis XIV).
The greeks themselves, both before and after Socrates, didn't identify with the passions inside them, this is why it's often described as either daemonic influence or an artifex by the gods, and again, Nietzsche agrees with them.
Your question "why are you afraid with a reaction from your body?" that you asked to that anon remains loaded with assumptions, incorrect logically, and even absurd under Nietzsche's worldview.
If I injected you with heroin a lot of days, the addiction, both physical and psychological, would be a parasitic will and a reaction from your body.
There's no difference from heroin and masturbation, because as Nietzsche explained, "according to nature" makes no sense.
Even if we used the other meaning of the term "natural", which he himself used in the Genealogy, (i.e. an innate instinct pre civilizational corruption, like wanting sex or wanting to make those who hurt you pay) it would still be the same, since masturbation didn't exist before civilization

[Anonymous No.15201823]

>>15201801
I really don't care for these analogies. They don't prove anything one way or the other.

>Which goals make it good to be a Coomer?
If your goal is to reduce your boredom a little for a night where you have nothing to do and neither the next day, a nice wank can help wonders with that. Just as one example.

[Anonymous No.15201828]

>>15201749
Meh a throw away line out of context and Nietzsche was always inconsistent. Reading a hidden no fap line through his work is still bizarre and indicates more about you than him. And besides the book you linked says he wrote that after 1880 and he had the falling out with Wagner in 1876. No way would he have written that after Wagner embarrassed him like that

[Anonymous No.15201834]

>>15201747
Read Nietzsche's books or at least know their names before talking about his ideas
>>15201773
Intuition, he didn't measure anything

[Anonymous No.15201840]

>>15201787
I have never heard of Daybreak called Aurora until just now. I don't read German and I haven't read Daybreak but still I know enough about Nietzsche to recognize his books

[Anonymous No.15201842]

>>15201834
but Nietzsche must have explained how he got that intuition

didn't he?

[Anonymous No.15201844]

>>15201801
Mugabe was a fundamentally Napoleonic figure. He was a revolutionary counter-revolutionary that created a completely new nation in revolt against the Anglo and his ways from a completely arbitrarily drawn colony.

He's Nietzsche approved. If Mugabe is just one will within the whole of the Zimbabewan self than he was a strong will indeed.

[Anonymous No.15201855]

>>15201828
Often we disagree with people out of pride but comes integrating their arguments into us later, this is what happened. He ad a little crisis after the Wagner situation and realized Wagner was right.
But this is a false interpretstion: he knew Wagner was right from the beginning, otherwise he would have never been so ashamed about what happened

[Anonymous No.15201862]

>>15201842
Both inborn and the suffering that he went through

[Anonymous No.15201864]

>>15201842
Right now you're getting the intuition that Nietzsche's a bullshit artist with an ulterior motive, where did you get that from?

[Anonymous No.15201876]

>>15201823
A Coomer would be a masturbation addict.

[Anonymous No.15201883]

>>15201828
Alright so consider that coupled with the evidence this guy presented.
>>15201725

[Anonymous No.15201888]

>>15201855
Again this is a joke interpretation and you should feel bad for putting it forward. Nietzsche was weak and hypocritical to care so much but no way in hell did he actually believe Wagner or that jerking it harmed him. The guy despised Wagner that's not open for interpretation

[Anonymous No.15201891]

>>15201864
>>15201862

kek i mean if he was a social able person i'd be more willing to believe him

if neitzsche was at my work i wouldn't base any business decisions on him let alone life views

[Anonymous No.15201911]

>>15201888
On one hand we have Nietzsche's words on masturbation, his words on how he regretted what he said about Wagner, the accounts of the people who knew him in real life, entire books and passages spent on analyzing the proglem of will and how it relates to bad habits
On the other hand we have your post with literally no proof except "trust me bro"

Why are addicts so pathetic?

[Anonymous No.15201932]

>>15201888
>The guy despised Wagner that's not open for interpretation
Only after he had worshipped Wagner for a long time.

[Anonymous No.15201947]

>>15201911
Because this is just the boring self-discipline Ubermensch the Nazi's were enamored with. If Nietzsche is really just the same old sexual neurosis repackaged I'll stick with my misinterpretation

[Anonymous No.15201953]

>>15201947
The irony here is that you're the one who is suffering from an extreme case of neurosis and you don't even notice

[Anonymous No.15201975]

>>15201932
Are you reading the same thread?! He broke with Wagner over him calling him a chronic masturbator. He's not going to turn around later when he is still dripping invective and agree with the guy on the thing that caused the rift to begin with

[Anonymous No.15201991]

>>15201953
Worrying about losing some type of power from jerking off is as neurotic as it comes

[Anonymous No.15202004]

>>15201975
The rift was caused by Nietzsche's shame over the fact that his addiction became known to everyone publicly, including his friends and romantic interests
Imagine if you had a serious issue that causes you shame and trouble, and only one of your friends knew it.
If through this friend the thing became public domain, wouldn't you become angry?

[Anonymous No.15202013]

>>15201991

[Anonymous No.15202023]

>>15201975
Why couldn't he?

Wagner was a good friend of his and he told his doctor that he was concerned about his wanking habits. It was tragic that they parted ways and if Nietzsche was of a stronger emotional constitution it wouldn't have happened. It'd be right that he regret it.

Nonetheless that's irrelevant because the quote posted was written in 1881, one year before they fell out.

[Anonymous No.15202024]

>>15201991
Reminds me of fatties saying that diets and exercise are unhealthy

[Anonymous No.15202025]

>>15201891
Anon, you misunderstand. Anti-social schizo's are the only people capable of using their intuition correctly. It's sad that you would only see Nietzsche's point of view as valuable if he was a 21st century wage slave, like you

[Anonymous No.15202036]

>>15202004
If someone broadcast my masturbation habits there is no way in hell that I would later on agree that they were right about not masturbating. I get you guys are trolling me right. Hahaha. I'm willing to be the brunt of a joke rather than believe there is a bunch of incels thinking that Nietzsche has a esoteric teaching of semen retention that leads to becoming Superman

[Anonymous No.15202052]

>>15202036
He wrote that before he got exposed by Wagner.
Nietzsche was a self aware masturbation addict, and tried to stop it
You can't even imagine this because you are literally not of the same leaugue ad Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.15202097]

>>15202025
indeed how can i understand nietzsche when i have no will? wagies only live to serve jeff bezos-sama

[Anonymous No.15202103]

>>15201947
As opposed to the very interesting, video game playing, porn watching, weed smoking Ubermensch?

[Anonymous No.15202105]

>>15201820
>The greeks themselves, both before and after Socrates, didn't identify with the passions inside them, this is why it's often described as either daemonic influence or an artifex by the gods, and again, Nietzsche agrees with them.
Out of the Greek philosophers he agreed the most with Heraclitus, who didn't do this and possessed a very different ontological world view compared with Socrates and even the other Pre-Socratics.

>If I injected you with heroin a lot of days, the addiction, both physical and psychological, would be a parasitic will and a reaction from your body.
What do you think this proves? I already said: weakness, then, creates "the external" — that which we can't influence. A powerful drug like heroin is overpowering to our body's chemistry; our body is therefore weak to it. Heroin does not integrate with it well. Heroin remains viewed as external to it.

>There's no difference from heroin and masturbation
For who? Not everyone, surely. Perhaps if your sexual desire is so strong and your other desires are too weak to manage it, and you're given copious amounts of time and ways to satiate your masturbatory fantasies intensely, then over time this can become relatively true for you. But again, it doesn't prove me wrong. Weakness creates "the external," that which we can't influence. It is the FEELING of your weak nature that the sexual desire can't be controlled, and that feeling leads to the internal rhetoric that said desire is something external to yourself. The stronger nature, meanwhile, does not possess that feeling, but the opposite feeling: that it CAN be controlled, and that feeling leads to the internal rhetoric that said desire is a part of you, like a limb.

[Anonymous No.15202128]

>>15199550
the virgin Nietzsche vs The Chad Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.15202137]

>>15202023
He was already pissed at Wagner when he wrote that the last time they spoke was in 1876 and that is generally the date tied to their falling out

[Anonymous No.15202169]

>>15202052
>>15202103

This is the type of Ubermensch fan boy misreading of Nietzsche that is mocked as the province of teenagers. Embarrassing

[Anonymous No.15202174]

>>15202105
>Out of the Greek philosophers he agreed the most with Heraclitus, who didn't do this and possessed a very different ontological world view compared with Socrates and even the other Pre-Socratics
Ironically because Heraclitus believed exactly in this! It's the philosopher who mostly comes close to the vedic tradition and represents the homeric thought most accurately

>What do you think this proves? I already said: weakness, then, creates "the external" — that which we can't influence. A powerful drug like heroin is overpowering to our body's chemistry; our body is therefore weak to it. Heroin does not integrate with it well. Heroin remains viewed as external to it.
What does this mean?
How does heroin "overpower" you?

>For who? Not everyone, surely. Perhaps if your sexual desire is so strong and your other desires are too weak to manage it
Masturbation is almost completely unrelated to sexual desire

>and you're given copious amounts of time and ways to satiate your masturbatory fantasies intensely, then over time this can become relatively true for you

No, there's absolutely no inherent difference. You're assuming heroin is somehow lethal or dangerously addictive to everyone, it isn't.
You could hypothetically use heroin for your whole life into old age without diying of overdose and without having serious negative consequences for your health.

>Weakness creates "the external," that which we can't influence. It is the FEELING of your weak nature that the sexual desire can't be controlled, and that feeling leads to the internal rhetoric that said desire is something external to yourself. The stronger nature, meanwhile, does not possess that feeling, but the opposite feeling: that it CAN be controlled, and that feeling leads to the internal rhetoric that said desire is a part of you, like a limb.

This makes absolutely no sense.
I can control a weaker person of animal with my stronger body. That doesn't mean it's me, or even part of my body

[Anonymous No.15202191]

>>15202137
He hadn't cut ties with Wagner yet, he wouldn't do that until 1882 with the masturbation fiasco. He had other disagreements with Wagner about nationalism, antisemitism and other bullshit but none of this actually bothered him enough to completely disown Wagner. In fact in 1876 he wrote "Richard Wagner in Bayreuth" in which he completely rides Wagner's dick despite knowing full well what Wagner thought about Germany, Jews and presumably masturbating.

[Anonymous No.15202202]

>>15202169
You sound very ugly

[Anonymous No.15202205]

>>15202169
Yet there is abundant evidence to support that reading ITT.

[Anonymous No.15202241]

>>15202023
And this book is BS here >>15200218 it says Nietzsche wrote that letter on April 21 1883 and is presented as him being angry enough to harm Wagner but Wagner died on February 13 1883

[Anonymous No.15202263]

>>15202174
>Ironically because Heraclitus believed exactly in this!
There are fragments which suggest a different view than yours, the river one being a good example. There was an implicit acknowledgement on Heraclitus' part that being is part time, part space, and therefore all relative, which was Nietzsche's takeaway.

>How does heroin "overpower" you?
The same way you think masturbation does, but with a higher rate of success. The point is: it's relative to you.

>Masturbation is almost completely unrelated to sexual desire
Absolutely? What is it related to, then?

>You could hypothetically use heroin for your whole life into old age without diying of overdose and without having serious negative consequences for your health.
I didn't say otherwise. You didn't really address what I wrote here. Again, it's relative.

>I can control a weaker person of animal with my stronger body. That doesn't mean it's me, or even part of my body
It does though. Whatever you control, that is a new limb for you. You refraining to utilize it as such doesn't refute this.

[Anonymous No.15202283]

>>15202241
It straight up pointed that out, you dumbass
>and as we have seen, the documentation suggests that in his maddened state that he began to contemplate doing wagner some terrible injury in revenge for it - and that this was obviated by Wagner's death.
>and that this was obviated by Wagner's death.

I'm sceptical of the author's interpretation myself by he obviously knew Wagner was dead and you can fact check the letter if you don't believe it's authentic. Why is this relevant anyway?

[Anonymous No.15202328]

>>15202263
>There are fragments which suggest a different view than yours, the river one being a good example. There was an implicit acknowledgement on Heraclitus' part that being is part time, part space, and therefore all relative, which was Nietzsche's takeaway
Which is unrelated to our discussion

>The same way you think masturbation does, but with a higher rate of success. The point is: it's relative to you.
This applies to every health notion. Why are you scared of being inserted formic acid inside your eardrums?

>Absolutely? What is it related to, then?
It starts either as a coping mechanism towards stress or as an attempt to gain social approval, or both. Then it becomes an addiction, a pure form of will to power which wants only to increase itself

>I didn't say otherwise. You didn't really address what I wrote here. Again, it's relative.
I did. The mechanism under they operate is the same for both. The effects being different depending on the person doesn't change the underlying essence of both, which is akin to an external spirit

>It does though. Whatever you control, that is a new limb for you. You refraining to utilize it as such doesn't refute this
Then this becomes a question of semantics, and even accepting this new premise: your question remains loaded with assumption, it's basically an insult towards that anon that betrays naivety.
The "overman" doesn't worry about these things because he's immune: Nietzsche intended precisely with the overmen a new SPECIES, different biologically.
A new kind of Homo, beyond homo sapiens.
He makes this very, very, very clear. It's not just a differentiated type of human, it's not human anymore. It's a prophecy, he never once suggested his readers to become the overman, or even thought that it could be possible.
He believed in the possibility of becoming stronger: and tell me, if all is relative, and strength is relative too, don't you become stronger by removing a weight attached to you? Don't you become stronger by eliminating a parasite that causes you illnesses?
What you mistook now for strength is hiding your head under the sand

[Anonymous No.15202338]

>>15202283
The letter was presented as evidence that Nietzsche was thinking of hurting Wagner but at the time Nietzsche wrote it he must of known Wagner was dead. The letter is Nietzsche speaking ill of a dead man which is something very in character but it's not him shaking from some hidden inner revelation to himself about his masturbation habits. In fact the book gives no evidence to support your idea about his hidden no fap and just goes with Nietzsche being enraged at being embarrassed publicly like that

[Anonymous No.15202358]

>>15199668
Please do not ever write a short story.

[Anonymous No.15202360]

>>15202328

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15202376]

>>15199550
No, you.

>thread devolves into shots at Salomé’s looks
>blowjack posters advertising for re**it
>semen retention anecdotes.
See?

>>15199930
That sounds right. Where did you read it?

[Anonymous No.15202391]

>>15202376
Read further they have a whole theory about him being secretly no fap and contrite over his treatment of Wagner

[Anonymous No.15202392]

>>15202376
Sorry cunt we already had discussion in this thread, it's too late for you to ruin it with your ignorant, insipid, boring, fallacious, bigoted, unoriginal, resentful, takes
Your mind is rotting as your body is
One day not even this board will remember you - one day not even this board will keep the fear away

[Anonymous No.15202398]

>>15202338
Okay but we were talking about a quote from a different book that dated Nietzsche having nofap views to 1881.

The quote in 'Wagner and Nietzsche' that you linked makes no mentions of his views on masturbation, whether positive or negative. It's not relevant.

[Anonymous No.15202415]

>>15202398
It's not a random "different book", it comes from Nietzsche's notes

[Anonymous No.15202425]

>>15202415
Which were published in a different book that was linked ITT.

What a pedant!

[Anonymous No.15202426]

Imagine being over 18 and masturbating unironically
no, no, imagine thinking that people that tell you to stop being a loser are puritans

[Anonymous No.15202437]

>>15202425
And?

[Anonymous No.15202438]

>>15202426
>just use someone else as a cum removing device bro

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15202451]

>>15202392
Just calling out the “simps” ITT. Glad you’re all having fun.

>>15202391
I donno about this theory.
Reminds me of Vidal’s fictional about the whole Burr/Hamilton feud.

[Anonymous No.15202459]

>>15202438
Yes, that's what non incels do

[Anonymous No.15202477]

>>15202437
That was actually it? That was your argument? I thought that was just a shitty drive by take from some other, anon. But no, that was actually your argument!

I point out you're making a weak-ass effort to derail the discussion from a first hand source of Nietzsche having nofap views to a vague assault on the credibility of an unrelated text. Your whole counter-argument to this is "uhm akshually it wasn't just ANY different book". You have a crayon for a brain.

[Anonymous No.15202496]

>>15202477
I legitimately don't knoe what you're talking about and what's your problem

[Anonymous No.15202513]

>>15202496
Yes, that's because you are a brainlet that can't follow one post to the next. Lemme go back to basics.

This argument (you)
>>15202241
Is completely unrelated to what it is responding to (me)
>>15202023

[Anonymous No.15202530]

>>15202398
I told you what I thought about that quote above, it's an anomaly with no further basis that I've seen you provide. Looking at the book you linked it's not from Daybreak as you claimed but rather taken from "Notes 1880-1881" and I feel safe in disregarding it rather than think of Nietzsche as some have some crypto-Lutheran agenda against jerking off.

[Anonymous No.15202533]

>>15199573
This bitch isn't cute. Why would you save that? Simp.

[Anonymous No.15202543]

>>15202513
It's two different anons bro

[Anonymous No.15202547]

>>15202530
>Looking at the book you linked it's not from Daybreak as you claimed
When did that happen?

[Anonymous No.15202549]

>>15202513
Anon I didn't write any of those posts, all I said is that Nietzsche was aware that nofap worked and at the same time had a masturbation problem

[Anonymous No.15202554]

>>15202543
oh lol

[Anonymous No.15202574]

>>15202530
Again, two different anons.
You're neurotic and assign values of meaning to completely unrelated things
I said that he talked a lot about how to kill one's desires in Aurora, and that in his notes he described the benefits of abstaining from masturbation (there's nothing puritan about it, again. Masturbation is a neurotic mechanism, it doesn't exist in healthy human beings capable of expressing their sexuality naturally with other human beings)

[Anonymous No.15202588]

>>15202547
Is this you? >>15201699 If not one of you claimed it was in Daybreak. It is just some unpublished note weird but Nietzsche is weird and there is further evidence to support it. I mean shit if Nietzsche really thought that why did he keep jerking off so that Wagner got worried

[Anonymous No.15202607]

>>15202588
No I'm the guy who linked this
>>15201749

[Anonymous No.15202621]

>>15202588
Do you not understand how addiction works anon?
Or in general desires.
Like, didn't you ever procrastinate at least?

[Anonymous No.15202667]

>>15202621
This is boring, Nietzsche as punk altar boy showing the kids how cool Christian morality can be is a retard level reading.

[Anonymous No.15202673]

>>15202667
Abstaining from masturbation is not christian morality
It's a practice reccomended in every tradition, even you know, barbarians who used to rape and kill, it's a part of tantra, which uses sex as a method to reach the absolute etc
It's a method to have more energy, sexual energy, there's literally nothing puritan about it

[Anonymous No.15202678]

>>15202128

[Anonymous No.15202692]

>>15202621
God is dead we have killed him is a call to build a new morality not fall back into the old with this shit. All the Ubermensch crap is typical bombast and a failure but he sure as hell would of had nothing but hate for you calling him no fap you're as bad as his sister

[Anonymous No.15202706]

>>15202692
Report for being underage

[Anonymous No.15202710]

>>15202667
Why is semen retention Christian?

If anything the belief that recycling semen into the body by not ejaculating enhances your vitality is a deeply pagan belief. It's just some ritualistic evolution away from eating your own semen for supernatural properties, as has been done in some Indian religious practices before, where semen retention practices are common.

[Anonymous No.15202719]

>>15202692
>a call to build a new morality not fall back into the old with this shit
Time is a flat circle my g.

[Anonymous No.15202726]

>>15202673
This makes you sound like an Evola fan and you know exactly what Nietzsche would of said about Evola

[Anonymous No.15202735]

>>15199581
How would you know what reddit is? GET HIM

[Anonymous No.15202738]

>>15202726
That he was a racist, sexist, anti-semitic chud? Is that what you think he'd say?

[Anonymous No.15202744]

>>15202726
I don't care about what Nietzsche or Evola would have said about anything because I'm not an approval seeking corybant like you.
I read the man, I understood it, went on
You didn't even read him

[Anonymous No.15202763]

>>15202744
You read him and walked away with the idea that Nietzsche supports semen retention. It would have been better if you had never read him at all then you wouldn't have as much reason to act like a jack ass.

[Anonymous No.15202770]

>>15202763
>Nietzsche says that semen retention is useful to have more vitality
>but he didn't approve it because ???

In better societies once we reached this point in the discussion it would have ended with me beating you up with a club

[Anonymous No.15202779]

>>15202770
kek

[Anonymous No.15202783]

>>15202770
Internet tough guy doesn't like someone calling BS on his pet theory about semen retention. This is as /lit/ as it gets

[Anonymous No.15203130]

>>15202328
>Which is unrelated to our discussion
It isn't in the slightest. You can't have a discussion about the will without a discussion about its ontological basis.

>This applies to every health notion.
Yes. But, I guess I see your point: it was a trivial point for me to make with my original question to that anon, since I already had an idea as to why he feels that way about "cooming" (he is weak to his own sexual desire and as such dislikes that part of himself and needs to treat it as an enemy that needs suppressing).

>Then it becomes an addiction
Not necessarily. You seem to be ignoring another case: a person who is bored, horny, and doesn't have a sexual partner in the immediate area. I don't see how that case is "absolutely unrelated to sexual desire."

>The effects being different depending on the person doesn't change the underlying essence of both, which is akin to an external spirit
What "underlying essence" do you think there is?

Nietzsche:

>Desire magnifies that which one desires; it grows even by not being fulfilled—the greatest ideas are those that have been created by the most violent and protracted desires. The more our desire for a thing grows, the more value we ascribe to that thing. If 'moral values' have become the highest values, this betrays the fact that the moral ideal has been the least fulfilled (—to that extent it represented a 'beyond all suffering,' as a means to blessedness). Mankind has embraced, with ever-increasing ardor, nothing but clouds: finally it called its despair, its impotence 'God'—

>The highest man would have the greatest multiplicity of drives, in the relatively greatest strength that can be endured. Indeed, where the plant 'man' shows himself strongest one finds instincts that conflict powerfully (e.g., in Shakespeare), but are controlled.

His idea for the Overman wasn't so much like the ascetic that you're describing but more like someone whose drives have fallen in line under a single dominant drive. Such a person doesn't feel the need to suppress any aspect of him or herself with arbitrary "Thou shalt" rulings.

>What you mistook now for strength is hiding your head under the sand
So you'd like to believe.