/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15695364]

What kind of person hates Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.15695386]

>>15695364
Christians, Communists, Jews, ideologues. Basically 90% of the world.

[Anonymous No.15696041]

>>15695364
Who didn't read him.

[Anonymous No.15696054]

>>15695364
A Bloomer

[Anonymous No.15696062]

fake prophets and sheeps

[Anonymous No.15696072]

tankies

[jesus No.15696098]

>>15695386
yep. they would crucify Nietzsche. lol.

[Anonymous No.15696106]

>>15695364
Chad

[Anonymous No.15696135]

>>15696054
Why?

[Anonymous No.15696141]

>>15696106
Why?

[Anonymous No.15696143]

the kind that find him problematic

[Anonymous No.15696156]

>>15696135
Because a Bloomer is unimpressed with Nietzsche's navel-gazing catastrophisation of the world, even though he sympathises with the man.

[Anonymous No.15696196]

>>15696141
Nietzsche is a nerd who doesn't accept his place in the hierarchy.

[Anonymous No.15696298]

>>15696054
>Bloomer
>Doomer
>Zoomer
>Boomer
>Go-Getter
>Coomer
>...

[Anonymous No.15696310]

>>15695386
why jews and communists xd

[Anonymous No.15696312]

>>15695364

[Anonymous No.15696482]

>>15695364

Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.15696520]

>>15695364
His own sister.

[Anonymous No.15696528]

>>15695364
Collectivists

[Anonymous No.15696623]

>>15696298
>Wojak

[Anonymous No.15696664]

>>15695386
Are you implying Nietzsche wasn't an ideologue? lol

[Anonymous No.15696748]

>>15695364
Himself.

[Anonymous No.15696767]

>>15696298
>quoting back with a wojak

[Anonymous No.15696781]

>>15695364
Anybody who isn't a fedora flipper

[Anonymous No.15696782]

>>15695364
People like Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.15696783]

>>15696664
I'm honestly interested. In which way is there a Nietzschean ideology? He was against systems, which are the essence of ideologies, he tried to overcome them by writing chaotically, sometimes even contradictory things.

[Anonymous No.15696784]

>>15696767
>pictures

[Anonymous No.15696855]

>>15696782
only right answer ITT

[Anonymous No.15696935]

>>15696156
Do you have Nietzsche confused with Schopenhauer?

[jesus No.15696964]

>>15695386
it is actually obvious
>But to suffer from reality one must be a botched reality....
all "left" are losers, and blame anybody but themselves (capitalists, white cis males), and Nietzsche shoves responsibility back up their asses.

[Anonymous No.15697019]

>>15695364
• liberals, much more than communists, who are, unlike liberals, anti-pacifist.
• positive rationalists. that is, anyone believing that a) truth = logic, and b) logic is perfecty apt to describe perception.
• idealists. nietzsche's epistemology belongs in the area of phenomenism.
• theorically mystics and christians should hate him more than anyone else, but actually they happen to love him and deem him as one of them. lmao.

[Anonymous No.15697087]

The last man hates him.

[Anonymous No.15697448]

>>15696196
The first incel.

[Anonymous No.15697547]

>>15695364
Everyone likes to imagine that they're the overman, and that the overman is good and right, until they're being lined up beside a ditch and shot in the back of the head because they're not up to snuff.

[Anonymous No.15697575]

>>15695386
+muslims
(family against me reading it was funny)

[Anonymous No.15697583]

>>15697547
I think you confuse the overman with resentment, the overman is not resentment, so he wont kill someone who is not up to his standards

[Anonymous No.15697599]

>>15695364
Most people with a scientific education usually hate him if they read him because of his anti-realism, perspectivism and the concept of the Will to Power. All of these things could be argued are in direct opposition to scientific epistemology and logic.

[Anonymous No.15697607]

>>15695364
Bootlickers, neoliberals, religious cucks, that sort of nitwit

[Anonymous No.15697715]

>>15697599
people who believe in miracles, angels, souls, and anything you can't see are the most distant ones from his perspectivism.

[Anonymous No.15697751]

>>15697715
true but how many empirical scientists would agree with the statement "there are no facts, only interpretations"?

[Anonymous No.15697832]

>resentiment is bad

>>15697607
>religion cucks, that sort of nitwit
>>15696781
>anybody who isn't a fedora flipper
>>15696062
>>15695386

[Anonymous No.15697835]

>>15697832
OP asked a question.

[Anonymous No.15697845]

>>15696783
That itself is an ideological maxim of operation.

[Anonymous No.15697872]

>>15695364
brainlet sjws who believe he was racist when he condemned racism.

[Anonymous No.15697929]

>>15697751
> there are no facts, only interpretations
you didn't understand it. he didn't say "everything is subjective" like some drunk, dumb thot or bergson would.
first of all, nietzsche himself calls his perspectivism a kind of "phenomenalism" in the aphorism 354 of the gay science.
second, in that postumous fragment he argues that there is no subjectivity, but just perception, and everything is perceived. which doesn't mean "fake" or "arbitrary". you don't decide, say, that from your perspective nietzsche was a woman, you only decide how you organize perceptions (this stence is very akin to mach's and poincare's). the they one will say "nietzsche was a woman" and that will make sense is the day when the words "nietzsche" "was" and "woman" will have completely different meanings from today. it just a matter of
> perceptions
> connections of perceptions
it's not a matter of opinions or subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.15697936]

Bugmen and Christians

[Anonymous No.15698335]

>>15697929
btw this is nietzshce's fragment

<< Against positivism, which halts at phenomena—”There are only facts“—I would say: No, facts are precisely what there is not, only interpretations. We cannot establish any fact “in itself”: perhaps it is folly to want to do such a thing.
“Everything is subjective,” you say; but even this is interpretation.
The “subject” is not something given [das „Subjekt“ ist nichts Gegebenes,], it is something added and invented and projected behind what there is. [Hinzu-Erdichtetes, Dahinter-Gestecktes]— Finally, is it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the intepretation? Even this is invention, hypothesis [dichtung, hypothese].
Insofar as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.— “Perspectivism" [Soweit überhaupt das Wort „Erkenntniß“ Sinn hat, ist die Welt erkennbar: aber sie ist anders deutbar, sie hat keinen Sinn hinter sich, sondern unzählige Sinne „Perspektivismus“]. It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm. >>

[Anonymous No.15698381]

>>15697929>>15698335

But isn't interpretation necessarily subjective?

[Anonymous No.15698391]

>>15698381
>The subject is not something given, it is something added and invented and projected behind what there is.

[Anonymous No.15698398]

>>15697929
>>15698335
Thanks for sharing, that's interesting.

[Anonymous No.15698405]

>>15698335
>nsofar as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.
>It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule;

[Anonymous No.15698439]

>>15698391
Scholar anon, I'm finding it difficult to understand this, and I really want to. How is a subject not given? Mustn't there be an 'I' to do the interpreting, or is 'I' just a linguistic convenience?

[Anonymous No.15698453]

>>15698439
I know this is very Cartesian of me, but I simply don't understand how one can do away with the subject.

[Anonymous No.15698510]

>>15698439
I'm not who posted the fragment, but as I understand it, perception never ceases. A subject is something that must be perceived, which means it is invented. Perception persists even when no subjects are perceived and in that perception the world is rearranged so as to make sense even without the inclusion of subjects. The world continues to make sense even in perceptions where no subjects exist because the world itself is part of the invention of perception. A hydrogen molecule also perceives, and what do you think it perceives? The hydrogen molecule is a reality onto its own, its perception defining that reality, and so it is with everything that perceives.

[Anonymous No.15698520]

>>15698510
>A subject is something that must be perceived,
isn't the definition of a subject that which is perceiving?

[Anonymous No.15698524]

>>15698381
the whole point is this:
SENSORIAL perception. nietzsche is a "materialist" thinker, to him senses matter above all, above logic, above belief, above grammar. he says it many times.
so nietzsche is not concerned with your epistemological question, to him "meaning" is a percective content, and truth is "subdued" to meaning.

[Anonymous No.15698548]

>>15696783
N's system is the system you get when you follow the Will to Power to its logical conclusion

[Anonymous No.15698554]

A bit off-topic: there was a thread yesterday about morality and being "good," and someone brought up Stirner and Nietzsche about how people worship external idols and that the "issue with people who seek to be good is that, eventually, they wish for you to be their notion of good, as well" -- or something along those lines.

Aside from Stirner, what from Nietzsche should I read about this external idol worship?

[Anonymous No.15698560]

>>15698520
A subject is a starting point. Perceptions don't necessarily need to perceive beginnings or endings in the world. A thing "makes sense" when it is a useful thing, and "the world" is always a "useful thing" to perception, so perception always rearranges "the world" so that it "makes sense."

[Anonymous No.15698581]

>>15698524
also if you could read it in german you would get why this is consistent with his prose style. he is an extremely dense, incisive, un-abstract writer. and of course extremely intelligent, because intelligence is not a words pun.

[Anonymous No.15698809]

>>15695364
women.

[Anonymous No.15698823]

>>15697583
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

[Anonymous No.15698858]

>>15698560
I have no idea what that has to do with what I said, isn't a subject never the object of perception, but the thing perceiving?

[Anonymous No.15698874]

>>15698335
But the interpreter IS the interpretation! That's the whole fucking point of subjectivity! Then people ask themselves, "well, why am I this and not that", because people are concened with the body/interpretation THAT THEY ARE! And THAT'S why everybody praddles on about subjectivity this subjectivity that, not because they believe in a constant "soul" behind their interpretation, but because THEY ARE THEIR INTERPRETATION. So everything IS SUBJECTIVE. Nietzsche was a bit off here, to say the least.

[Anonymous No.15698898]

1005. Journey of an Idea, from the heights of Genius to the Gutter.

1. Friedrich Wilhelm NIETZSCHE: There are no facts, only interpretations.

2. Jean BAUDRILLARD: You mean that all viewpoints are equal? That the simulacrum is never what hides the truth, that it is truth that hides the fact that there is none? That the simulacrum is true? That there's no reality??? Damn, how depressing!

3. Laurence and Andrew WACHOWSKI: You mean that there is a clear distinction between reality and illusion? Awesome idea bro, we wrote a movie about it, wanna help film it?

4. Jean BAUDRILLARD: I said NOTHING OF THE KIND! I in fact said THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you're saying! You are complete and utter morons and I want nothing to do with your stupid movie!

5. Laurence and Andrew WACHOWSKI: Ummmm, whatever bro, the movie's already out and your book is in the first scene, sorry. We're already working on the sequels!

6. Mencius MOLDBUG: Hmmmm, The Matrix is such an insightful movie! I especially liked the metaphor of the red and blue pill! Who'da thunk that the distinction between truth and lies is clear-cut and all you need to see it is swallow down a pill! Those Wachowskis are such geniuses! Let me now take this earth-shattering insight and apply it to all our contemporary issues!

7. Alex "ICYCALM" Kierkegaard: Uhhh, guys, Baudrillard simply misunderstood Nietzsche's perspectivism. Nietzsche wasn't saying that all interpretations are equal, he was merely saying that nothing exists besides interpretations and that it was the Overman's job to impose his own intepretation on his environment just as mankind has been doing since the beginning, and the animals before that all the way back to the Big Bang. [This user has been banned for this post.]

8. MANOSPHERE: Moldbug is such a genius! It all makes sense now! It's all THE JEWS' fault! (((THEY))) warped reality with all their evil blue pills! They... write books and stuff and they... make movies! DEATH TO THE JEWWWWWWWWWWWS!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.15698902]

>>15695364
I love Nietzsche for all the same reasons I hate myself.

[Anonymous No.15698907]

>>15698560
This doesn't answer his question, it is just misdirection. The fact that there is a perception means there is a percieving, which means there is a subject.

[Anonymous No.15698959]

>>15697575
where are you living anon?

[Anonymous No.15698964]

>>15698898
>he was merely saying that nothing exists besides interpretations
Nigger, then what the fuck am I interpreting if their doesn't exist anything but interpretations? Dumb idealists. Other than that, funny. Also, 2. is wrong. Baudrillard never thought "all viewpoints are equal". He makes multiple judgements between different types of cultures, and places harsher games of seduction over weaker and more enervated ones.

[Anonymous No.15698989]

>>15698964
It reminds me a bit of Berkeley and the other idealists who though there existed nothing but sensations. Do you know the definition of sense?

[Anonymous No.15699068]

>>15698823
He literally just said resentment and thats your reaction. Amazing how faggy some men have become. I bet youve been cheated on or hurt dude dont do that to others.

[Anonymous No.15699111]

>>15698858
>>15698907
I guess I didn't explain it well enough. Whether there is a world outside of perception is neither here nor there; such a world is impossible to know, not even retroactively knowable, and no traces of such a world can be found through perception, which is all we know. There is no evidence that perception is even the "effect" of such a world because we can't know whether that world has anything we perceive as "laws." If that world is lawless and timeless, it has no causes and effects, no subjects and objects, no "time" and no "substances" and no "essences." But we don't know and we can't know, and we can't just assume that perception implies a subject, or an essence, because we don't know perception, we only know the things that perception invents.

[Anonymous No.15699132]

>>15698874
you are missing the point, anon. for nietzsche subjectivity is a superfluous even meaningless concept. to say it in another manner, if everything is subjective, than nothing is subjective. therefore you need another word to define the difference between
> "my hand has 5 fingers" (subjective)
and
> "my hand is a dog" (subjective)
nietzsche is not concerned with this, he looks at the moment before, the creative phase of a certain perspective.
for nietzsche, the words "hand" , "5" and "finger" and the synthax of the proposition above were created by a "will to power", a gestalt, a language , a way-of-seeing-reality which is ruling over you and me right now. that is the meaning of the NORM. read this passage again, under this light:
>Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm
again: a NORM.
subjective: a creation that can't become a norm, and remains a belief.
perspective: a creation that can and does become a norm and reduces all the opposing creations to (subjective) beliefs.
if you want to "extort" an epistemology from nietzsche, then it is a modulated epistemology of the "opinio communis".

[Anonymous No.15699135]

>>15698964
His viewpoint is that reality is truly subjective and ones goals should be in the eye of the beholder.
Me gifting your pseud of a clever english class clever wordspeak pseud is actually anti nietschean because im depleting my advantage. I just had a flashback to my former moral compass and that coupled with deep irritation means well here you go.

[Anonymous No.15699355]

>>15695364
Christians, trads, conservatives, libertarian/ancaps, natsoc/fascists, neolibs, etc.

[Anonymous No.15699848]

>>15696784
>

[Anonymous No.15699876]

>>15699355
>fascists
No they don't. They usually modify or only partially take his message, but they don't hate him spook guy.

[Anonymous No.15699903]

>>15695364
people who are scared of losing what little control they have over the world. essentially everyone because most people believe in some 'truth'

[Anonymous No.15700488]

>>15698964
>Nigger, then what the fuck am I interpreting if their doesn't exist anything but interpretations?
It's like being in a dark room and feeling the furniture around but only enough to guess what they are, there is something there but you can never be certain of what exactly it is.
There are objects of interpretation, but you can't know them as they are themselves, as pure objects.
So in essence there is nothing that exists that can exist beside our interpretation, they must always exist within an interpretation.

[Anonymous No.15700509]

>>15700488
this is exactly the opposite stance to nietzsche's.

[Anonymous No.15700580]

>>15700509
then I suppose you've misread him.

[Anonymous No.15700590]

>>15697835
So naturally, you must use pejoratives in your answer, right? To show how your opponents are the ones suffering from resentiment, you must adopt their mentality first. The abyss looked back

More typical examples of people with hated caricatures and boogeymen in their head:

>>15699903
>>15697936

[Anonymous No.15700669]

>>15696855
when I read him he is just talking about things that I have thought about, why would that make me hate him?

[Anonymous No.15700676]

>>15695386
He hated anti-semitism you dong

[Anonymous No.15700683]

>>15699876
they would if they understood

[Anonymous No.15700704]

>>15700676
Doesn't change the fact that lots of Jews (mostly the intense Zionists and the socialists and anarchists among them) hate Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.15701657]

>>15697575
Iranians love him because he wrote about their prophet.

[Anonymous No.15701674]

>>15695364
der eternal christcuck

[Anonymous No.15701906]

>>15699876
They love a malitiously misunderstood, cherrypicked, heavily modified version of Neetch.

[Anonymous No.15701915]

>>15697575
Ņeitzché was a Muslim.

[Anonymous No.15702114]

>>15697715
>perspectivism
Stop with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy terminology. Nietzsche never uses the term “perspectivism.” You’re just parroting some faggot who thinks he understands Nietzsche better than he understood himself.

[Anonymous No.15702121]

>>15697607
>Bootlickers
Nietzsche despised leftists.

[Anonymous No.15702126]

>>15700704
Just like with Christianity, right? But when Nietzsche is hated by Jews, then he is based, beliefs be damned

[Anonymous No.15702127]

>>15697872
Yeah, Nietzsche “hated” racism. He was also a Redditor and would have voted for Bernie if he could.

[Anonymous No.15702151]

>>15696783
>He was against systems, which are the essence of ideologies
wrong. you're confusing idealism with ideology. ideology is about your perception of the world. it can be based on idealism but it's not the same thing.

[Anonymous No.15702163]

>>15700704
>the intense Zionists and the socialists and anarchists among them

[Anonymous No.15702180]

>>15702121
>Nietzsche despised leftists
He hated certain strands of utopian socialism and socialist anarchism with heavy christian underpinnings and inspiration. Shooting your landlord is always extremely based, an action worthy of the greatest of Free Spirits. So yes, if you think aristocratic individualism has anything to do with sucking bourgeois cock in a capitalist or fascist chinlet utopia you're an extremely sick, subhuman bootlicker and deserve to be gassed for your own good.