[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 30 KB, 700x505, nietzsche_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15200408 No.15200408 [Reply] [Original]

refute him (no tradLARPing and christcucking allowed)

>> No.15201122

Superman = unrealistic expectations; assumes that a person can hop from one system of beliefs/ethics to another, successfully overcoming each one of them.
His ideas, like the eternal reoccurance, have to be also overcome (especially since it has been refuted by science), so you cannot rely on that as well.
Never made an argument against the metaphysical God, he just pointed out the dwindling of faith that happens after some time regardless of the amount of evidence against God.
Strawmanned some parts of Christianity.

>> No.15201307

>>15201122
How the fuck has eternal reoccurrence been refuted by science?

>> No.15201346

>>15201307
Big Bang retard

>> No.15201368

>>15201346
kek holy shit you're retarded

>> No.15202046

>>15200408
He couldn't even put his own philosophy into practice

>> No.15202443

he had absolutely no idea about the dionysian spirit and its intimately religious significance

>> No.15202476

>>15201307
It sounds like the multiverse theory could breath some life into it, but it’s just an outlandish theory still.

Have you read Borges The Doctrine of Cycles?

>> No.15202515

>>15201122
>Eternal recurrence refuted by scenece.
He didn't mean that it literally happens. Holy fuck.

>> No.15202569

>>15201122
The superman isn't supposed to be real. The idea is meant to draw attention the quality of the soil. The past men he pointed to were examples of higher men, not Overman.

>> No.15202597

>his ideas are based on power (except his negation of morality which is fine)
>power is relative
thus, all his rambling about will to power his absolute nonsense considering that power itself doesn't exist. then you could say that hes saying that we strive for our own subjective representation of what is power, but that is actually not the case considering that hes putting some kind of power above others. for exemple, the power of slave morality corrupting the strongs is for him something BAD

when you think about it, he's even refuting himself, putting the attainment of power above everything else, but if the way of getting power isn't DIRECT by brute force then it's bad, it has to be the germanic beast and not the imp jew! (funny when you consider that he himself denied the fact that evil existed, he implies that the jewish way of getting power is bad!)

brainlet philsopher (or you could even say: not a philosopher) that only gets credit because he appeals to the normies and is easily quotable, you appear very smart quoting Nietzsche to your average folk!

>> No.15202709

>>15202476
Do you actually have any understanding of mathematics and physics or do you just inform your ideology on it without understanding it?
I mean, do you understand the motivation for the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? Do you understand what superposition actually is and what it implies about material?

>> No.15202734

>>15202597
>>power is relative
where does Nietzsche say this

>> No.15202821

>>15202734
im saying this

>> No.15202853

>>15201368
Nope

>> No.15202855

Guys did you know Nietzsche was into semen retention?

>> No.15202861
File: 35 KB, 300x359, 299628DF-D755-49D7-A5D6-628D8244400E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15202861

>>15202709
>do you understand the motivation for the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics?

>> No.15202862

>>15202855
He believed it gave you vitality and mystical power like in tantra

>> No.15202864

>>15200408
this board make me crazy!!!!

>> No.15202888

>>15202597
You didn't understand the will to power

>> No.15202889

>>15202709
Eternal Recurrence is Nietzsche's version of no regrets

>My formula for human greatness is amor fati: that one wants to have nothing different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely to bear the necessary, still less to conceal it—all idealism is mendaciousness before the necessary—but to love it.

Not so bad at the time I guess and doesn't have anything to do with real cosmology

>> No.15202900

>>15202597
He literally said the jews were 10x smarter than normal man. And Bad conscience is literally his opiniom based in his views, he isnt trying to claim it as truth set in stone. Hes just trying to bring out the hypocrisy

>> No.15202903

>>15200408
if you think moral is relative to the point that raping a baby is not good nor bad then you must kys
also funny mustache

>> No.15202917

>>15200408
>refute him
>b-but these certain angles of attack are invalid because i say so

>> No.15202919

>>15202888
yeah, you didn't either because there's nothing to understand
>>15202900
are you telling me that nietzsche did praise the jews? i do not recall that

>> No.15202925

>>15200408
He was a virgin and couldn't talk to girls.

>> No.15202939

>>15202889
Thank you. People misunderstand it so often, I sometimes forget its intent.

>> No.15202961

>>15202939
Butterfly I really do love you, you should of stayed in the other thread to help me fight the semen retainers. I wouldn't retain any semen from you.

>> No.15202977

>>15202889
>and doesn't have anything to do with real cosmology
I will say it's arguable, but it's reality isn't that important to understanding his philosophy and it's not something that most scholars argue. I think it's fine scientifically even if many "STEM" people sperg out about it, and Nietzsche does question its reality in his notes. It's very similar to the Boltzmann brain concept in many ways. Also people tend to ignore that it's a recapitulation of an ancient concept, like the Greeks had this concept of history repeating and certain characters recurring and so on.

>> No.15202978
File: 242 KB, 759x869, 1568122003880.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15202978

>>15200408
what interest would a healthy man having in overcoming the state of being man?

>> No.15203005

>>15202919
He did praise the jews for their intelligence, its in genealogy of morals

>> No.15203099

>>15202597
>considering that power itself doesn't exist
oh yeah retard? *punches you in the face repeatedly* what do you think about power now?

>> No.15203105

>>15201346
Big Bang is outdated. Look up the Big Crunch.

>> No.15203113

>>15203105
Explain

>> No.15203126

>>15202977
>I think it's fine scientifically even if many "STEM" people sperg out about it
the philosocuck par excellence
>yeah all the people “who know what they’re talking about” laugh at me for it but it FEELS scientifically right to me :3

>> No.15203129

>>15203105
This is fucking dumb even if the Big Crunch was the currently favored model(it's not) it would come at the end of the universe not the beginning like the Big Bang

>> No.15203133

>>15203105
You have it backwards dummy.

>> No.15203151

>>15200408
Retroactively btfo by syphilis. Should have stayed away from them horses, Neetzsche.

>> No.15203172

>>15201346
Big Bang is not fact.

>> No.15203174

>>15202597
>well I have a different opinion of things than Nietszche and also didn't read him, what now huh?

>> No.15203187

>>15203172
t. Institute for Creation Science

>> No.15203199

>>15203187
What if the universe never began? Nietzsche didn't think the world had a beginning.

>> No.15203204

>>15203187
Creationists like big bang theory tho, right?

>> No.15203219

>>15203174
ok faggot

>> No.15203224

>>15203199
>What if the universe never began?
It did. Doesn’t matter what neetch’s opinion was (although he could be forgiven for not knowing since no one knew back then)

>> No.15203233

>>15203204
The ones with half a brain do. Big Bang was originally a derogatory name for the idea that was come up with by a Catholic priest. Before science had some idea of a steady state universe with no beginning

>> No.15203237

>>15203224
It didn't. Doesn't matter what anon's opinion is (although he could be forgiven for not knowing since he's a faggot)

>> No.15203251

>>15200408
This is going to be a cringe fest, and lol at any 4channer who thinks they have the capabilities to refute Nietzsche with their little ideologies, God help them

>> No.15203254

>>15203224
>It did
prove it

>> No.15203261

>>15203237
Seethe all you want brainlet

>> No.15203263
File: 927 KB, 1050x1050, 1582052555669.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15203263

>no christcucks allowed
>thread full with christcucks

>> No.15203277

>>15203254
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Try reading

>> No.15203295

>>15203261
It's not fact that what we call the "Big Bang" is a "beginning" in the sense that we understand it. Our universe doesn't seem to support beginnings in those sense; see law of conservation of energy.

>> No.15203298

>>15203261
you’re very intelligent because you keep up with science, you must have created a bunch of valuable insights of your own too, and i imagine you love yourself and your girlfriend and your life too

>> No.15203306

>>15203251
Look at the other 2 threads on him going on now there are several in there that claim Nietzsche espoused semen retention as a core belief. /lit/ is full of brainlets today

>> No.15203309

>>15202889
>>My formula for human greatness is amor fati: that one wants to have nothing different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely to bear the necessary, still less to conceal it—all idealism is mendaciousness before the necessary—but to love it.
He's basically saying one must imagine Sisyphus to be happy. What a fool to not realize Infinity is greater than finitude. To wish to reduce yourself to the small moment and claim that it is the greatest and nothing is better. He is saying: feel like you have won and be content with your shity little moment. How is this different from Esau losing his Birthright for one meal? Human desire is infinite. Necessity makes idealism into a lie? He's just your typical atheist that has nothing more to strive for than some retarded idea of "dude let's figure out how to make this crude creature body immortal, cause then we will totally be something greater than a man". Meanwhile Many religious folk of old, some that he has read probably like Boheme, claims that man is already a god. But no, dude. Only be in the necessity of the creaturehood which is inferior to God, but love it. for such a guy to be concerned with Sexual Energy he sure did want absolutely nothing cause this pathetic body can't feel or know much at all.

>> No.15203316

>>15203309
>He's basically saying one must imagine Sisyphus to be happy.
lmfao
stopped reading there

>> No.15203326

>>15203295
conservation of energy is violated in the universe as a whole dummy. the metric is time dependent
>>15203298
thanks, I know :)

>> No.15203346

>>15203326
If you're referring to quantum time, it doesn't violate that law. It just means that that law works both forwards and backwards and every which way. A crude cut beginning to this universe still isn't fact.

>> No.15203356

>>15203346
>quantum time
lol.
I’m referring to the fact that appealing to conservation of energy is retarded because energy isn’t conserved here.

>> No.15203362

>>15203356
Oh, so you think the law is bullshit outright? What's the argument for that, exactly?

>> No.15203373

>>15203129
>>15203133
That’s what I thought.

>>15203263
Golem Operating System?

>> No.15203374

>>15203316
>lmfao
>stopped reading there
Cope with dilation. I know it's hard to accept that he said something on the same level as the french pleb.

>> No.15203381

>>15203373
>Golem Operating System?
yes

>> No.15203394

>>15203362
>Oh, so you think the law is bullshit outright?
No.
>What's the argument for that, exactly?
Noether’s theorem.

>> No.15203397

>>15202709
>Do you have PhD level knowledge on a branch of physics?
What exactly do you really expect people to answer?

>> No.15203441

>>15201122
his ideas of etern reoccurance were not literal he meant that we shoudl live our life as if it will repeat over and over again.

>> No.15203455

>>15203394
Can you explain in layman's terms how Noether's theorem gets us back to the universe having a finite beginning via the Big Bang as being fact, or was your point something else entirely?

>> No.15203480

>>15203441
Don't you think that the modern, scientifically minded public will reject this idea subconsciously because of the big bang, etc.? People might desire to believe this, but we live in a too scientific age for that to happen - I think.

>> No.15203483

>>15203455
Not anon but Noether's theorem goes from the time invariance of physical laws to the conservation of energy

>> No.15203484

>>15203455
Noether’s theorem says energy conservation = time independent dynamics. The evolution of the universe isn’t time independent, so energy isn’t conserved. So appealing to conservation of energy to argue that the universe can’t have a beginning is retarded.

>> No.15203503

>>15203484
Does the universe itself actually evolve?

>> No.15203508
File: 7 KB, 250x250, 1558920522962.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15203508

>bring up critiques of Nietzsche
>people respond with "You just don't understand him!"

Like fucking clockwork. This happens every single time people criticize Nietzsche. And it doesn't matter WHAT they say about him, the response is always the same: that we're misunderstanding him. If he's so obtuse and easily misunderstood does he have any value at all as a philosopher? I read Plato and he's not hard to understand. Why is Nietzsche apparently so difficult that he's prone to misinterpretation? Or is this all just a cope?

>> No.15203518

>>15203484
I'm not sure that Noether's works backwards like that from energy conservation to time invariance

>> No.15203520

>>15203508
He's not hard to understand for anyone besides Anglos.

>> No.15203526

>>15203508
You need to practice semen retention to understand Nietzsche's inner doctrines

>> No.15203527

>>15203518
It does.

>> No.15203528

>>15203508
If you dont understand him you just dont understand him.

>> No.15203531

>>15203204
Protestants usually don't

>> No.15203535

>>15203503
Yes. That’s the point of the model, it has explicit time dependence in the metric.

>> No.15203539

>>15203520
it's because anglos aim at precise truth, not pseud self-contradictory obscure rambling

>> No.15203542

>>15203508
every edgy teen has their own personal interpretation of neetch that they will defend to the death, and he wrote enough self-contradictory nonsense that you can always accuse anyone who disagrees with you of just not “getting it”

>> No.15203544

>>15203251
Nietzsche's readability and lack of obscurantism really is a double edged-sword when anyone can just pick up the book and come away with completely brainlet conclusions.
Sad..

>> No.15203547
File: 2.43 MB, 2215x3000, Lempertz-1040-1103-Fine-Art-Nicolas-Bertin-The-Resurrection-of-Chris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15203547

>>15200408
>(no tradLARPing and christcucking allowed)

OP had to say this because if Jesus really did rise from the dead Nietzsche is permanently BTFO. The Resurrection is the ultimate refutation of Nietzsche.

>> No.15203554

>>15203542
>>15203544
You need to stop cooming and retain your semen like Nietzsche said

>> No.15203556

>>15203539
>it's because anglos are autistic
ftfy

>> No.15203563

>>15203503
It goes through a process of becoming does it not? What you think we are, something separated from the Earth? We are the Earth. Like gives birth to like.

>> No.15203566

>>15203556
autism is benefic to truth attainment

>> No.15203568

>>15203547
>fairy tale
>refutation
maybe in your mentally ill mind

>> No.15203581

>>15203568
>he thinks Jesus didn't literally rise from the dead

>> No.15203586

>>15203554
you stupid niggers are giving me brain damage
fuck this place

>> No.15203588

>>15203535
I can't quite wrap my head around the universe itself evolving yet. What does it evolve towards? Was the Big Bang a step in this evolution? In that case, what does "universe" even really refer to?

At any rate, it seems less and less likely that the Big Bang was a "beginning" in our common sense of the term. It was more like a step in an ongoing transformation.

>> No.15203599

>>15203588
The universe is God's body. It's probably way bigger than what we can see.

>> No.15203617
File: 152 KB, 1008x360, coffeewithjesus39.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15203617

>>15203566
autistic truth, yes

>>15203586
brainlets always turn great influencers that seem cryptic to them into mouthpieces for their own ideologies, pic related

>> No.15203618

>>15203588
>In that case, what does "universe" even really refer to?
The totality of spacetime. Evolution means it’s expanding; the distance between two points in space grows with time. The rest of your post is >>>/x/

>> No.15203627
File: 48 KB, 852x260, eaturjizz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15203627

>>15203586

>> No.15203637

>>15202597
Plebs like you who can't grasp relativity should just refrain from philosophy.
>>15203309
What the quote means is that you should live every moment knowing that you will want to repeat it to infinity. It isn't about concealing it, it's about living a live with such a will that there aren't regrets possible to have because you have done literally everything you wanted to do.

>> No.15203683

>>15203637
tell me about your understanding of relativity, you cocksucker

>> No.15203711

>>15203618
>Evolution means it’s expanding; the distance between two points in space grows with time.
And energy is not being conserved during this process, and "exiting" the totality of spacetime somewhere, at some point — is that accurate?

If so, then we're just running into an issue of semantics, I think. Because "the totality of spacetime" would have no outside to it, by definition. Would it? How would it? In other words, energy couldn't be exiting from the universe anywhere, and it's still being conserved.

>> No.15203720
File: 562 KB, 513x513, 1583981794910.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15203720

>>15200408

Ubermensch - overcoming your base human nature and becoming the best version of yourself

Christianity - false

Some of you when you get the time should sit down and deeply analyze the Upanishads. You will save those of us who have thought critically and impartially on this matter, and have come to the same conclusion as Ludwig Feuerbach, that God is created in the image of man, rather than vice-versa,
the trouble of having to deal with our sides constantly launching into orbit whenever have to endure slogging through a pitiful excuse of an intellectual discussion with individuals who genuinely believe that an ancient book of Jewish fairy tales is the be all end all of human aspirations and our teleological destiny.

Let it be known that humanity will conquer the stars!

>> No.15203780

>>15203683
>you cocksucker
Nice start. The fact that all interpretations are relative doesn't mean that some aren't better than others, yeah, that's where power comes in.
Now, you won't understand this, I can already tell. You will try to think with your stupid little monkey brain and since people like you are not capable of seeing the chaos that reality really is, you try to use absolute concepts in order to easen the understanding of it all.

>> No.15203816

>>15203263
Where?

>> No.15203837

>>15203627
He was probably talking about a tantric technique where you do a retrograde ejaculation. It was thought that it would go to your bloodstream.

>> No.15203850

>>15203837
He would also eat his own semen. It's an important part of his philosophy you can't really understand him unless you follow the path

>> No.15203852

>>15203720
>Let it be known that humanity will conquer the stars!
I hope they won't just cuz you said that.

>> No.15203860
File: 89 KB, 1111x523, 88888888888888888.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15203860

>>15203309
lmao

>> No.15203862
File: 8 KB, 220x230, 1547853476688.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15203862

>>15203780
>The fact that all interpretations are relative doesn't mean that some aren't better than others,

OH NONO NO HAHAHAHAHAHAHA LOOK AT THIS DUDE, you shouldn't have commited you fucking brainlet, you had it better staying safe using the usual strategy of non-commitment commonly use by absolute retards, yikes XDDDDDD

>> No.15204070

>>15201122

This is the worst post I have seen

>> No.15204074

>>15204070
what about this post?

bqowerngporieghpurhgqpu4ngpoiuqnfpugvbspuinvpiruhnapiubfipbvibr4iubnw3pieuhbwngpowirnfprog42qpiurghpt4qu3o5nhpiwunpginrpibwnpnhnfqn4pgnuq34p

pepepeeee

pooppoooooo

butt

peeholebooppoopholebeep

>> No.15204084

>>15204070
watch this:

hey huh hihi poo in the loo :) :s :D dzdzdzdzdzd

>> No.15204107

>>15204074
>>15204084

Okay I change my opinion. Now that is the third worst post I've seen.

>> No.15204175

>>15203711
>And energy is not being conserved during this process, and "exiting" the totality of spacetime somewhere, at some point — is that accurate?
No.

>> No.15204205

>>15204175
Then law of conservation of energy is the case which suggests the universe did not have a beginning as we understand beginnings.

>> No.15204229

>>15200408

Can someone explain to me what his problem with darwinism was? That it somehow didn't align with his faggy vision of will-to-power? Because I would think it's a perfect natural example, but somehow he takes issue with it.

>> No.15204240

>>15204205
>Then law of conservation of energy is the case
Still wrong.

>> No.15204263

>>15204240
>energy is not exiting the universe
>but the total energy is not staying the same
So it's just growing? From where does more energy come from? And if it can enter the universe, why wouldn't it ever exit?

>> No.15204289

>>15204263
>So it's just growing?
Yes. It doesn’t come from anywhere, it doesn’t exit anywhere. Those are both tacit assumptions of energy conservation, which is violated.

>> No.15204348

>>15204289
I don't see how that makes sense. Something is coming from nothing, in that case.

>> No.15204629

Random excitation events have an extremely small possibility of generating instantaneous universes even after heat death, but given infinite time the probability of any possible event occurring approached one. Therefore, eternal recurrence is a physical reality (but so is every version of yourself that could have been but was not, which complicates Nietzsche's conclusions).

>> No.15204728
File: 48 KB, 500x625, 1587792626078.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15204728

>>15201346
>eternal recurrence was refuted by the big bang

>> No.15205121

>>15204348
>Something is coming from nothing, in that case.
Yes. Energy is not conserved.

>> No.15206103

>>15205121
Something can't come from nothing. Obviously the theory isn't fleshed out yet, or the terms chosen to describe it aren't accurate, if that's the presupposition. Or, it's actually coming from somewhere (or some *when*), and we just don't know it yet, in which case energy is still conserved.

In terms of ontology, Nietzsche remains unrefuted and I don't see this changing.

>> No.15206138

>>15200408
>His ideas, like the eternal reoccurance, have to be also overcome (especially since it has been refuted by science), so you cannot rely on that as well.

He didn't propose this as a reality. It was an exercise for his students to evaluate their actions in life by considering they would be destined to repeat it.

>> No.15206164

>>15206103
>Something can't come from nothing
It can when energy isn’t conserved.

>> No.15206178

You can't refute him because there still isn't even a scholarly consensus on what he even thought lul. He isn't a philosopher. Stanford Encyclopedia Article still doesn't have a conclusion on the eternal return lmao

>> No.15206214

>>15206164
But where's the evidence that it isn't?

>> No.15206220

>>15206214
>>15203277

>> No.15206225
File: 99 KB, 1024x314, EV1PfXCWkAEK67x.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15206225

What the fuck was the madman trying to say?

>> No.15206234

>>15206220
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state

>> No.15206260

>>15206225
Who cares? Derrida is such a pseud.

>> No.15206280

>>15202443
only good post in this thread
his immanence leads to transcendence

>> No.15206290

>>15206234
What about it?

>> No.15206296

>>15206225
it's like when you're thinking to yourself while writing and you write what you're thinking
this is what happens to me for example when I write my name on a piece of paper but I start writing what my mind is saying instead of my name. this is the "spurting style"

>> No.15206370

>>15206290
The Big Bang can co-exist in a universe where the law of conservation of energy is true.

>> No.15206386

>>15206370
How’d you conclude that from the article you linked?

>> No.15206479

>>15203480
holy fuck you're stupid

>> No.15206531

>>15202821
ok you're retarded

>> No.15206542
File: 132 KB, 503x670, 27826764-7574-4532-B0CD-EE7B9BAAA226.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15206542

>>15200408
>no Christcucking allowed

>> No.15206563

>>15206386
The Big Bang doesn't theoretically mean a beginning by necessity, and what came prior to it is not necessarily nothing.

>> No.15206584

>>15206563
>However, Hawking does state "...the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
C’mon man

>> No.15206612

>>15206584
He means the universe "as we know it," not the universe in its totality. It is heavily implied that something else existed before the Big Bang, which implies the universe did not begin with the Big Bang, only this physical form of it.

>> No.15206636

>>15206612
>He means the universe "as we know it," not the universe in its totality
No he does not.

>> No.15206643

>>15206636
>If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

>> No.15206658

>>15200408
There is nothing to argue against, he never elaborates on anything and anyone who reads him comes up with a different interpretation. A shitty poet larping as philosopher.

>> No.15206691

>>15206658
>anyone who reads him comes up with a different interpretation
Not true, and there being many interpretations out there doesn't mean there isn't a correct one among them.

>> No.15206704

>>15206691
>Nietzschean philosophy
>Objective truth

>> No.15206711

>>15206704
>an interpretation being correct means there's objective truth

>> No.15206722

>>15206711
There are no correct interpretations of any philosopher, the only person who can interpret a philosopher correctly is himself. Everyone else who reads said philosopher can only read them from the perspective of his own socially constructed worldview that will change during the course of his life.
Thats why there are infinitely many ways to interpret any philosophy, religion etc. and so many different sects/branches of each

>> No.15206730

>>15204229
Nietzsche was opposed to all herd ideologies.
Edge lords take this as just Christianity, but it also included ideologies like democracy, equality, scientism etc.
So he opposed Darwinism because it presents itself as a complete arbiter of absolute truth (like science).
And yes, because it's materialist and deterministic it contradicts the will to power

>> No.15206735

>>15206722
You just agreed with Nietzsche, so why did you call him a "shitty poet larping as philosopher" then?

>> No.15206738

>>15206691
>>15206691
The point is that he doesn't explain his positions in enough detail, so you have to speculate on your own and make shit up about what he actually thought. That is, assuming there actually was some coherent worldview inside his demented mind.

>> No.15206740
File: 94 KB, 547x433, 1576355726749.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15206740

>>15200408
>complains about religions repressing sexual desires
>Claims that the overman would have to be a celibate

>Claims to be a follower of Dionysus, the god of Intoxication and madness
>Hates alcohol and thinks it has terrible effects on the human mind

>> No.15206743

>>15206711
It does

>> No.15206746

>>15206740
>Claims to be a follower of Dionysus, the god of Intoxication and madness
Are you retarded? He never said this.

>> No.15206755

>>15206735
Maybe because he isn't me

>> No.15206756
File: 58 KB, 649x239, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15206756

>>15206746
Okay retard pseudonietzschean

>> No.15206766

>>15206738
>The point is that he doesn't explain his positions in enough detail
The man wrote ten thousand aphorisms, and yet that is not enough detail for you. Are you sure he's the problem here?

>> No.15206775

>>15206756
The relationship between Apollo and Dionysus is a complementary one.
A society has to have both of them together in moderating each other, and working in harmony.
Fucking retard read HIS BOOKS!

>> No.15206812

>>15206775
We get it, you read Peter Sloterdijk.

Nietzsche himself however, was(claimed to be) fully Dionysian. Think about how he refers to himself as "The Antichrist", because he portrays himself as being the opposite of Jesus Christ, who was a manifestation of the Apollonian.
The same way Pythagoras was thought to be an avatar of Apollo.

There are contradictions in Neechs philosophy, when he talks about the abstaining from sex and alcohol as being traits of the Overman (Dionysus), when in reality they are very Apollonian traits

>> No.15206819

>>15206643
Yes, I agree with all that.

>> No.15206828

>>15206766
Even a million aphorism may not be enough to extract a coherent worldview, what kind of retarded point is that. A number of random thoughts cannot replace an elaborate and well argued philosophical system.

>> No.15206843

>>15206828
Whatever man, science was changed forever and millions died in the 20th century due to his, according to you, "not detailed or well argued" philosophy.

>> No.15206858

>>15206843
>science was changed forever
Do philosocucks really think this?

>> No.15206875

>>15206843
Millions died because the nazis didn't understand his philosophy lmao

>> No.15206876

>>15206858
>implying Einstein and Freud would be remembered in history without Nietzsche's influence

>> No.15206882

>>15206876
>Einstein
Yes, absolutely
>Freud
Not a scientist

>> No.15206887
File: 405 KB, 900x1001, deleuzelet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15206887

>>15206730
eXcEpt MaRxIsM!!!
nIeTzChE lOvEd mArXiSm!!!!

>> No.15206895

>>15206875
Wrong, the Nazis did understand him. The communists and fascists didn't.

>>15206882
Psychology is a science and it is indebted to Nietzsche.

>> No.15206903

>>15206895
Psychology is not a science...

Psychiatry is a science, Psychology is a branch of the Arts/Philosophy

>> No.15206941

>>15206280
>his immanence leads to transcendence
Sounds interesting, where can i read this?

>> No.15206951

>>15206903
The early renditions may not have been scientific, but it's evolved into undeniably scientific branches, like neuropsychology.

>> No.15206957

>>15206951
>but it's evolved into undeniably scientific branches
primarily by escaping the influence of charlatans like neetch and freud

>> No.15206978
File: 632 KB, 1790x1559, 1508648944258.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15206978

>>15201122
>especially since it has been refuted by science
wrong, there is in fact a possibility that after the heat death of the universe a new big bang will take place. If this happens for eternity than at some point this same exact timeline will happen and keep re-happening for all time. Quantum field theory.

>> No.15206979

>>15206957
Freud yes, Nietzsche no.

>There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.

>> No.15206985
File: 46 KB, 496x496, delphi oracle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15206985

>>15206979
Its almost like one should "Know Thyself"

>> No.15206996

>>15206887
Yeah I should have added socialism to that list.
Does Deleuze really argue that Nietzsche liked Marxism?

>> No.15207016

>>15206985
Knoweth thyself and that thine body is thyself.

>> No.15207030

>>15206812
>read Peter Sloterdijk
No I haven't, I've read The Birth of Tragedy where he says exactly what I just said.
>Jesus Christ, who was a manifestation of the Apollonian.
Lmao what?? Nietzsche said Socrates was the manifestation of Apollonianism because of his complete championing of rationalism and empiricism over other things like myth
How the hell is Jesus Apollonian??

>> No.15207086

>>15206812
To me, Nietzsche's Dionysian ideal was always best summed up at the beginning of the Antichrist, where he distances himself from the good vs. evil dichotomy and exchanges it for the good vs. bad dichotomy. By calling something bad, he acknowledges his perspective in the judgment, and doesn't condemn the thing that is bad for anyone besides himself. The Dionysian spirit embraces the chaos that this perspectivism wroughts on ontology and consequently morality and everything else.

>> No.15207100

Nietzsche should have converted to Islam

>> No.15207109

>>15206979
>There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.
Sounds like wine aunt philosophy desu

>> No.15207143

>>15207109
Wine aunts are usually airheaded fatties who think life is like movies.

>> No.15207247

>>15207030
Did you read his later preface to the birth of tragedy where he says that the whole book is Hegelian bullshit? That was his first book and dosen't actually represent his philosophical system

>Apollo
Denial of the will to live (Schopenhauer, Jesus, Buddha, Pythagoras, Socrates etc.)

>Dionysus
Affirmation of the will to live (Nietzsche, Osho, Paganism in general)

>> No.15207510

>>15203204
Yes, I do

>> No.15207524

>>15203568
Anon, at least says its a conspiracy Anon, early church writings show in under one generation the resurrection was in the creed. Most fairy tales or myths take at least 3 generations. So say it was a conspiracy by the Apostles if you are going to refute it.

>> No.15207529

>>15203720
Pack it up theists, we are done

>> No.15208541

>>15203862
As I said, stupid little monkey brain.

>> No.15208609
File: 5 KB, 250x174, 1550089461471.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15208609

>>15206531
>>15208541

>> No.15208674

He sided with the most tyrannical powers he could imagine a lot like Jesus, that's all he really represents to me someone who chose the side of power and it ended badly, because like Jung said: “Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.”

and others have criticized him as a person, he talked all this game but then his life was lacking, he was just a privileged normie, people project onto him or jesus or others but the reality is less magical.

So in a lot of ways like jesus you can just criticize his larpers and not he himself who is dead as fuck, overly arrogant for what he turned out as. Nazi philosopher from the race of autists.

>> No.15209314

>>15201346
Where’s the double blind study on that?

>> No.15209729

>>15200408
retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh)

>> No.15209797

>>15206996
No, but Deleuze does say that if the 19th century had followed Schopenhauer/Nietzsche instead of Hegel, that Marx would not have been needed to "turn Hegel on his head"

>> No.15209816

>>15206843
Can't tell if irony or delusional Nietzsche fanboy. He had no impact in science and he sure as hell didn't cause the WW2. His main achievement was inspiring really bad continental philosophy.

>> No.15209847

>>15207143
all the more embarrassing for neetch to sound like one then

>> No.15209864

>>15209314
>>15203277

>> No.15209967

>>15208674
>Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.
That's a low point for Jung right there. Clearly he didn't understand the love of the Overman, and could only understand the love of Christ: a subjugating love, one that feels as though it is in the presence of something greater than itself. The Overman does not feel this way and consequently does not love this way. Nietzsche wrote that in love the feeling of power is at its highest, which expresses the opposite view on the matter.

>> No.15210028

>>15209816
>He had no impact in science and he sure as hell didn't cause the WW2.
What's your reasoning for this claim?