Nietzsche and Stoicism

[Anonymous No.16128224]

>despises stoicism
>embraces concept of eternal recurrence and "amor fati"

Does this not seem like obvious hypocrisy? What are the differences between these ideas? "Amor Fati" is usually considered as support for a stoic mindset

[Anonymous No.16128229]

Stoicism is reddit, alas Nietzsche wasn't a redditor like Zeno.

[Anonymous No.16128231]

You don't understand what the Eternal Recurrence is. Read Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.16128373]

>>16128224
I agree. There is no relevant difference between stoicims and Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16128414]

>>16128224
Use the general thread that's already up

[Anonymous No.16128415]

>>16128231
I've read some Nietzsche and I've separately read all the excerpts pertaining to eternal recurrence (there aren't many) and I still don't see the difference. What am I missing?

[Anonymous No.16128427]

>>16128224
>>despises stoicism
based, stop reading there

[Anonymous No.16128445]

>>16128224
He disagrees more with the fact that the Stoics attributed their moral system to nature, as most moralists did. He also disliked the indifference that stoics showed towards this world. Nietzsche thought that we can escape nihilism only by offering meaning to things in our world instead of being indifferent towards them. This being said Nietzsche had a lot of respect for that trait which you presented as being stoic, namely strength of character, resilience. His dislike of the stoics is not absolute; he just didn't like a certain mindset of stoicism, a mindset of denial, of creating moral laws, sometimes laws whose purpose is to go against our will to power, to go against life, but that doesn't mean he didn't appreciate some things from the Stoics. Instead of trying to deny suffering like the Stoics tried, he instead affirms it as a means to improve ourselves, as something to be overcome.
Try to have some nuance when you read.

[Anonymous No.16128845]

>>16128229
>>16128427
What's so wrong with stoicism?

[Anonymous No.16128856]

There is no free-will for Nietzsche so the "amor fati" is accepting whatever comes. You are on a roller-coaster and you can't get off. You have to accept not being stoical.

[Anonymous No.16128947]

>>16128224
I had a conversation with someone about this recently. Amor fati really did sound like Stoicism to me.

[Anonymous No.16128955]

>>16128229
>neitzche wasnt a redditor
im absolutely speechless

[Anonymous No.16128994]

>>16128445
I was under the impression that when the stoics said "nature" they didn't mean mother nature, they meant the specific processes and purposes inherent to each thing or person, and how they relate to each other. And that by investigating one's own nature and the nature of others you will learn to accept it with "indifference".

[Anonymous No.16129751]

Nietzsche's only real disagreement with the stoics is the "natural" bit in stoicism
This being said, the idea of nature is very vague and diverse across the different stoics
Seneca and Nietzsche have essentially the same attitude towards life while using a different vocabulary to talk about it

[Anonymous No.16129767]

Stoicism is for people that are not gay to learn to be dignified bottoms.

"Oh life is fucking you dry? Just ignore it." Fucking brilliant, Mark.

[Anonymous No.16129776]

>>16128955
nietzsche was the kind of redditor who defected to 4chan after his favorite subreddits got banned and then accused others of reddit spacing

[Anonymous No.16129830]

>>16128224
Niggtche is the biggest fraud pendant of literature

[Anonymous No.16129841]

>>16129776

Wh-wh-who would do something like that?

[Anonymous No.16129963]

>>16128224
Amor Fati doesn't mean embrace your fate with indifference. It means to love your fate, to affirm it in both the suffering and delight it brings you. Also stoicism is retarded in every tradition. In the Eastern traditions you attempt to get out of the cycle of suffering. In the Western tradition you take the suffering and turn it into something positive like love of God. In Stoicism you... do nothing.

[Anonymous No.16130008]

>>16129963
in stoicism you live a good life bacause its all there is, and not because some after-life guessing

[Anonymous No.16130022]

>>16128224
>OP essentially announcing for everyone to see that he hasn’t read any Nietzsche and instead just watched a YouTube video
The absolute state

[Anonymous No.16130046]

>>16129963
In Stoicism you accept suffering but temper your will so as not to let it cloud your judgement, and lead you to doing evil

[Anonymous No.16130078]

>>16129767
This is not quite right. Stocism is about not occupying your thoughts with things out of your control (e.g. death), and instead focusing on the things that are within your power to change.

[Anonymous No.16130096]

>>16129841
What sub of yours got the axe, redditor. For once, you can speak freely and i wont accuse you.

[Anonymous No.16130097]

>>16130078
I'm pretty sure I had this mindset when I was like 10 years old. But there really is nothing worth doing that you can't already change. Otherwise it becomes Sisyphus tier.

[Anonymous No.16130108]

>>16130046
you accept it as a brute fact, which is the same as doing nothing to counteract it. pagan morality is better desu.

[Anonymous No.16130132]

>>16130097
I think the stoic mindest is mostly helpful for grappling with things like death, illness, the past, etc.

[Anonymous No.16130136]

>>16130108
>which is the same as doing nothing to counteract it
How so? You should still try to end your suffering if it is within your power, whether by change the external circumstance, or changing your perception of it. That is doing something I would say

[Anonymous No.16130220]

>>16130096

It's not worth talking about. Although I thought I had finally left this place. Was out for maybe 4-6 years. Reddit is going to hell.

[Anonymous No.16130238]

>>16130220
It was /r/drama, wasnt it?

[Anonymous No.16130312]

>>16130078

My only real qualm with stoicism is that its precursors lived lives that was no where near ours in a lot of different ways.

I would accept stoicism as a legitimate base for starting a philosophy. Especially now that civilization is going to hell, a rebuilt society based on stoicism seems pretty based and it seems like the most pragmatic school currently en vogue. But only if it was tweaked for todays society. Futurism stoicism?

The problem is that, again, its precursors lived lives based on a whole different ball game. Nowadays we have psychoanalysis, game theory, multiple cultures competing for dominance, a world either in the brink of extinction or a new era of consciousness.

The world needs absolutely absurd creativity and space for exploration of all kinds regarding all dimensions. We need to re-think social structures, laws, ambitions, goals. A group that ambitious can't be purely stoic. Like you said, "focusing on the things that are within your power to change." This period requires leaps of absolute faith.

If you start with an agnostic, stoic stance and just allow everyone to do whatever, you're going to be killed. Because the Chinese, Russians, and the US (at least the conservatives and neoliberals) are not playing by any rules that will allow a stoic person to just think reasonably. We're reaching points, psychological points, that were strategically created where as individuals we feel cornered and powerless even though the number of those individuals added up have the power to over come everything if they were together. And the thing keeping them apart are the power that be. You can't be stoic in this situation unless you're just waiting for an easy death after being a bootlicker you're entire life.

[Anonymous No.16130315]

>>16130220
I dont go there, so could you tell me whats going on with reddit?

[Anonymous No.16130327]

>>16129963
>It means to love your fate, to affirm it in both the suffering and delight it brings you
Did Nietzsche just copy Seneca and call stoics name to avoid charges of plagiarism?

[Anonymous No.16130442]

>>16130315

There's a sub called "theoryofreddit" that explores the various stages of reddit.

But it without a doubt reached a critical breaking point where "subreddits", like 4chan channels that anyone can create, have become neighborhoods that align with other subreddit neighborhoods and they will create coalitions and networks. They all talk in and out of reddit ,eg discord, facebook. They plan raids on each other. They report each other to admins. They bicker at each other in and out of unrelated subreddits.
If you make a comment no one may say anything but you'll have people flocking to your user account and investigating who you are. If they don't like something they'll comment that at some point you were an asshole and that you shouldn't be listened to. There's bots that will ban you if you comment on an enemy sub. If you say something questionable you'll absolutely be taken as 100% serious and you'll castigated and judged before some random tribunal.
Then you have mods. Reddit is the most popular relevant social media in the world right now and the mods are not capable of being in charge of a lot of subs. It's like 4chan users that dreamed of being jannies got their wish. They'll pick sides, be rude, delete posts, shadowban users where user can comment like normal but no one else can read them.
The communities themselves have like "vibes" and if you're not a regular and don't really give a shit about their vibe, just commenting on the internet like a mad man, they'll be upset.
Reddit became high school social cliques but they're all the weird faggy one and they can't stand each other.

[Anonymous No.16130471]

Should we write a Nietzsche FAQ once and for all?

[Anonymous No.16130484]

>>16130442
Sounds like reddit should be terminated and its moderators should be killed desu

[Anonymous No.16131420]

>>16128229
>>16128955
>>16129776
>haha the stoics were like totally redditors
>NOOOOO ANON YOUR PHILOSOPHER WAS MORE LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN A REDDITOR
literal retards

[Anonymous No.16131502]

>>16128224
Good to know the barrier to entry for discussion on the literature board is not reading, but watching 5 minute YouTube videos.
He didn’t “hate” the Stoics, he just disagreed with them in part 1 of BG&E. I believe later in the book he even refers to the free spirits and “us last of the Stoics”.

[Anonymous No.16131607]

>>16130327
There are definitely huge similarities, I think it's almost certain Nietzsche read Seneca, I wonder if he ever makes any direct mention of him.
Suppose the main difference is that Nietzsche considered the tumults of emotion to be a good while Seneca considered them to be the remnant of the animal half of man, enslaved to the primal instinct found in beasts, which ought to be mastered by man's other half (reason)

[Anonymous No.16131746]

>>16128427
based

[Anonymous No.16131755]

Stoics didn't come up with eternal recurrence.

[Anonymous No.16131786]

>>16131502
Based fren

[Anonymous No.16131986]

>>16128845
>expecting to get a satisfactory response from people who use the word 'based' to refer to philosophy
You won't get anything resembling a reasoned response anon because there's little substance in their opinions, it's mostly instinct and feeling

[Anonymous No.16132000]

>>16128845
>expecting to get a satisfactory response from people who use the word 'based' to judge philosophy
You won't get anything resembling a reasoned response anon because there's little substance in their opinions, it's mostly instinct and feeling

[Anonymous No.16132038]

this board is dumb as fuck

[Anonymous No.16132068]

>>16128994
Yeah that's what the stoics meant, and that's what Neechee deliberately got wrong to make his argument seem at least remotely reasonable. And I say deliberately because I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't misunderstand stoicism, literally one of the easiest philosophies to understand.

[Anonymous No.16132104]

>>16128224
HE DIDN'T FUCKING DESPISE STOICISM YOU FUCKING FAGS. IF YOU ACTUALLY READ ANYTHING YOU WOULD KNOW THAT. IF YOU WERE REMOTLY SMART YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THE CONCEPT OF NIHILISM IS A MORE DEVELOPED CONCEPT OF STOICISM. STOP WATCHING FUCKING YOUTUBE AND ACTUALLY READ YOU SHEEPISH ZOOMER PEWDIEPIE CUNT!

[Anonymous No.16132689]

>>16128231
Why are nietzschefags such faggots? I don't think I've ever seen them post anything besides "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND! READ NEETCH!"

[Anonymous No.16132729]

>>16128445
Christian All Too Christian

[Anonymous No.16132780]

>>16128231
>You don't understand
This is the classic "cope" answer. Any time Nietzsche meets a criticism his followers can't handle, they always attack the integrity of the critics understanding.

The irony of it is, Nietzsche didn't want faggot dickriding cheerleaders

[Anonymous No.16132839]

>>16131607
What's supposed to be the similarity here? They both use the word fate?

[Anonymous No.16132848]

>>16131755
Neither did Neetch

[Anonymous No.16132855]

Is Nietzsche only popular because he made certain ideas and inclinations known to modern philosophers which had been forgotten or long since revised into something else?

[Anonymous No.16132858]

>>16132068
>>deliberately got wrong
>HE WAS JUST PRETENDING TO BE STUPID

[Anonymous No.16132877]

>>16132689
i mean it's good advice probably. and honestly most people who see posts like this have already forgotten what they read so it would be better for you to read the original source instead of listening to somebody's muddled interpretation.

[Anonymous No.16132878]

>>16128224
It's as if Neetch is just a big meme or something.

[Anonymous No.16132888]

>>16132104
So Nietzsche was a nihilist?

[Anonymous No.16132896]

dude Nietzsche's brain exploded from a horse please be gentle when talking about him

[Anonymous No.16132899]

>>16132877
But it isn't. Nice cope.

[Anonymous No.16132913]

>>16132855
Seems that way. Going to be nice when the Nietzscheans start eating their own.

[Anonymous No.16132920]

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

[Anonymous No.16132938]

>>16128224
How much did he hate Socrates?

[Anonymous No.16133006]

>>16132938
Enough that he seethed about him as much as Wagner.

[Anonymous No.16133042]

>>16132855
Wisdom is constantly lost and forgotten, as time and language separate from old wisdom much is lost. Nietzsche might have rephrased older thought in his contemporary culture but that is not taking away from his accomplishments, instead adding

[Anonymous No.16133059]

>>16132855
Not even that. Most of what gets attributed to him had already been discussed heavily in his own time. There was definitely a lot of creative plagiarism going on.

[Anonymous No.16133153]

>>16132104
>You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power--how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live--is not that just endeavoring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise-- and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves--Stoicism is self-tyranny--Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? . . . But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.

http://throughablogdarkly.blogspot.com/2012/10/nietzsche-on-stoics.html

[Anonymous No.16133175]

>>16131502
See >>16133153

[Anonymous No.16133340]

>>16132855
He's popular because he's right, and the West has descended into an era of nihilism thanks to Christianity, with only Nietzsche among the philosophers surviving our spiritual apocalypse.

[Anonymous No.16133365]

>>16133340
>t. reddit

[Anonymous No.16133374]

>>16128845
Identifies with a false conception of nature and then derives its ethical teleology from this false conception. Nature is struggle between rival wills, not harmonious symphony of a single natural will that you ought to play in tune to.

The Stoic would have you obey an imaginary conductor and play your part in a natural orchestra. Nietzche rocks up to the concert hall of life with his own ghetto blaster.

[Anonymous No.16133377]

>>16133365
newfag

[Anonymous No.16133391]

>>16133153
>One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

[Anonymous No.16133470]

>The industrious races find it extremely difficult to tolerate idleness: it was a stroke of genius on the part of the English instinct to spend Sundays in tedium with a te deum so that the English people would unconsciously lust for their week- and workdays.

[Anonymous No.16133483]

>>16133374
>Nietzche rocks up to the concert hall of life with his own ghetto blaster.

[Anonymous No.16133576]

It's meant ironically.

[Anonymous No.16133600]

>>16133576
>>16131502

[Anonymous No.16133635]

>>16128224
Nietzsche and Stoics are two faggots on the same coin

[Anonymous No.16133981]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16134063]

>>16128445
I read three Nietzsche books and as far as critiquing modernity and it's lifelessness it all made sense until I read some Evola and recognized that Higher values are the single most profound and powerful ideas in all ontology and that life would be shit for everyone and everything without them be it dunce or genius. Abstract Ideas and computing itself being so incomprehensibly profound in the animal kingdom that it gives us a very special place. Nietzsche had his higher values in the superman ideal. You're gonna need them one way or another. If you wanna critique the current system or any system go ahead but life will be meaningless barren torture without some sort of value attributed to something. Nietzsche even has value in his "overcoming". Imagine if someone confronted Nietzsche after he felt great for overcoming something and told him he needed to reassess his values and that his accomplishment wasn't actually an accomplishment it was a completely valueless experience. So ya know what, sticking to nature isn't actually such a fucking bad idea cause it just makes the most raw and tangible sense out of any idea.

Also Stoicism never meant denial of suffering, and stoic philosophy would work the same whether you pretended there was no suffering after you accomplished something or said yes there was suffering but it was worth it. It basically boils down to "life is shit and hurts just get over it" which everyone is going to have a different way of managing and the stoics had various methods of approaching.

Nietzsche has no decent critique of stoicism and I don't think critiquing stoicism was even a notable thought in his head. The videos that introduced this Nietzsche vs Stoicism thing are completely retarded.

[Anonymous No.16134129]

>>16128955

[Anonymous No.16134261]

>>16134129
Reddits favorite philosopher

[Anonymous No.16134272]

>>16128224
Fuck this plagiarising thief motherfucker
His every single major concept was stolen from the philosophers that despised

[Anonymous No.16134425]

>>16134272
Arthur pls go

[Anonymous No.16134875]

>>16128224
>just try some mindfulness bro
>yeah, while brushing your teeth and stuff, yeah man
>yah, i've been doing yoga too, reading meditations by marcus aurelius
>lost a bit of weight, got a treadmill
>yeah, my job is tough man but stoicism my man. i just realize nothing is in my control, ya know, go with the flow
>yup, exactly. how can you get mad when life just happens man?
>agency? i'm not traveling man what are you talking about

[Anonymous No.16135587]

>>16128845
It forces the slave into an empty idea of freedom.
Read Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, Self-consciousness, Freedom of self-consciousness, Stoicism.

[Anonymous No.16135719]

>>16133153
>Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power--how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference?

[Anonymous No.16135881]

>>16135719
Cute webm, but just to clarify, Nietzsche's nature is something more like what quantum physicists think nature is like, due to Schopenhauer, due to Kant. Nature is without properties like time, space, and causality, since these are properties that develop in the subjective, where there is relativity. This nature is totally indifferent and impossible for subjective beings to be compatible with, much less even comprehend.

[Anonymous No.16135913]

>Nietzsche goes to the woods.

[Anonymous No.16135934]

>>16135719
kek Neetch btfo

[Anonymous No.16135984]

>>16135881
>Nietzsche follows the understanding of science which recreates not just the world but also nature and the cosmos in its own image
Wow great insight anon. Maybe there's a point in there somewhere.

[Anonymous No.16136000]

>>16135984
>Maybe there's a point in there somewhere.
There is, but clearly you missed it. That webm doesn't represent the concept nature being referred to in his critique of the Stoics.

[Anonymous No.16136030]

>>16136000
Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.16136044]

What's natural about fucking fags in Italy and getting Syphilis?

[Anonymous No.16136050]

>>16136030
You're a babbling moron. I doubt you even understand what I wrote.

[Anonymous No.16136136]

>>16132858
He either got it wrong on purpouse or not. Either way he attacked a position that stoics never held.

[Anonymous No.16136337]

Musonius Rufus, 1st century Roman Stoic philosopher:

>But, speaking generally, if one devotes himself to the life of philosophy and tills the land at the same time, I should not compare any other way of life to his nor prefer any other means of livelihood. For is it not "living more in accord with nature" to draw one's sustenance directly from the earth, which is the nurse and mother of us all, rather than from some other source? Is it not more like the life of a man to live in the country than to sit idly in the city, like the sophists?
Lecture XI, "What means of livelihood is appropriate for a philosopher"

>At another time when an old man asked him what was the best viaticum for old age, he said, the very one that is best for youth too, namely to live by method and in accord with nature. You would best understand what this means if you would realize that mankind was not created for pleasure. For that matter, neither was the horse or dog or cow created for pleasure, and all of these creatures are much less valuable than man. Certainly a horse would not be considered to have fulfilled its purpose by eating and drinking and mating at will, and doing none of the things which are the proper work of a horse; no more would a dog if it simply enjoyed all kinds of pleasures like the horse and did none of the things for which dogs are considered good; nor would any other animal if kept from the functions proper to it and allowed to have its fill of pleasures; in short, according to this, nothing would be said to be living according to nature but what by its actions manifests the excellence peculiar to its own nature. For the nature guides it to its own excellence; consequently it is not reasonable to suppose that when man lives a life of pleasure that he lives according to nature, but rather when he lives a life of virtue.
Lecture XVII, "What is the best viaticum for old age?"

tl;dr - Nietzsche's critique is correct, you're all just reading the wrong Stoic. If you read Rufus, you'll find that Nietzsche's labeling of Stoicism as slave philosophy is absolutely correct, and his attack of Stoicism is really just a part of his larger, more sweeping attack on Christianity.

[Anonymous No.16136656]

>>16132000
>Critiquing instinct and feeling on a thread about nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16136712]

>>16132780
Except nietzsche constantly accused everyone else of not understanding. And nietzsche also attacked his critics pretty brutally, see wagner. Regarding his fans, I think he imagined that in the distant future there would be a set of people who just "got" what he was saying intuitively; felt his correctness in the soul. Which is pretty gay. But then again so was he.

[Anonymous No.16136817]

>>16136050
>Nietzsche attacks philosophy for its creation of the world in its own image
>attacks Stoicism for creating nature in its own image
>NOOOOO LEAVE ME ALONE IT'S FINE WHEN I CREATE NATURE IN MY IMAGE
Nietzsche was a weak faggot who was scared to go outside. He cried because a horse got hurt. A fucking bug people relation to nature. A total larper who didn't understand anything he was talking about.
And you're a fucking retarded redditor.

[Anonymous No.16136869]

>>16132839
Not the best example, just the first thing I came across flicking through, but the emphasis being on accepting whatever chance and fate inflict upon you whether it is random or by divine design

[Anonymous No.16136872]

>>16135913
kek

[Anonymous No.16136886]

>>16136817
the point is that EVERYONE makes up a viewpoint to benefit them but not only are most people in denial about that and convince themselves that their view is magically correct but they pick viewpoints that shun the harder parts of life and just make you a weakling instead of embracing life and doing anything interesting

[Anonymous No.16136889]

>>16136817
>attacks Stoicism for creating nature in its own image
That's not what he attacked. He attacked the Stoics for being slaves. He's not saying, "you can't create nature in your own image, that's wrong, only I can do that," he's saying, "the image you've created is inextricably bound to your character, which is that of a slave."

[Anonymous No.16136948]

>>16128856
In what way is it an empty idea of freedom?

[Anonymous No.16136961]

>>16135587
In what way is the idea of freedom empty?

[Anonymous No.16137978]

>>16136961
Not the idea of freedom itself, but the idea of freedom that stoic finds is empty.
I'm not good at explaining philosophies, especially if they require tremendous knowledge of previous doctrines, you're better of consulting Hegel if you want an in-depth explanation.

[Anonymous No.16138093]

>>16128224

Anything can be support for a stoic mindset because stoicism doesn't actually mean anything
It's a philosophy of constantly moving goalposts to cope at all costs

[Anonymous No.16138142]

>>16138093
>Anything can be support for a nietzschean mindset because nietzscheanism doesn't actually mean anything
>It's a political aesthetic of constantly moving goalposts to cope at all costs

[Anonymous No.16138202]

>>16136889
Nice cope. But who was the greater slave? Seneca was married and died in a great ritual. Nietzsche went mad from fucking gay prostitutes and died surrounded by people he hated.
How is the latter image better? And why is writing nature as a diseased cuckold okay? By Nietzsche's own account nature is nothing more than an immensity enslaved to itself, meaning that only the perspective is different, nothing essential.

[Anonymous No.16138210]

>>16136886
>EVERYONE makes up a viewpoint to benefit them
But that's wrong.

[Anonymous No.16138259]

>>16138210
from your viewpoint maybe ;)

[Anonymous No.16138322]

>>16138202
>look mom i posted it again
Seethe harder, retard.

[Anonymous No.16139328]

You either haven’t read stoic literature or you don’t understand it enough.

[Anonymous No.16139333]

>>16139328
Meant this for
>>16129767

[Anonymous No.16139377]

>>16137978
Yeah, that was what I was asking about. Seems to me that the Stoics (and other Hellenistic schools) were the freest of all, without need for the material world, content with food, water, shelter and their mind. As much as I ought to read Hegel, I'm still some way off getting to him, could you give any hint as to what the essence of the dispute with Stoic freedom was?

[Anonymous No.16139396]

>>16132780
The universe exists in the process of eternal return, where the repetition of identical cycles occurs.
Nietzsche writes in plain text that will is just pathos, this is an introductory, invented concept that he uses to analyze reality in all its diversity, as a convenient tool in order to eliminate the need to introduce a whole series of other speculative constructions that figure in the previous philosophy ... Kant, Leibniz, Spinoza and so on.

[Anonymous No.16139453]

>>16138322
Nice argument, slave.

[Anonymous No.16139460]

>>16139396
>The universe exists in the process of eternal return, where the repetition of identical cycles occurs.
Is this all eternal return really is?

[Anonymous No.16139475]

>>16139453
Only slaves argue.

[Anonymous No.16139484]

Is there anything more reddit than obsessing about reddit? Fucking losers

[Anonymous No.16139508]

>>16130078
what if the problem with stoicism is its actually impossible to know what is in your power to change, so you're just limiting yourself to your own mental concepts instead of proving past impossibilities are actually possible?

A stoic would have never ran the first 4 minute mile.

Amor fati and Nietzsche would say you can't possibly know what is in your control.. or what the effects of any action would be. It's pure fucking hubris to pretend you can.

[Anonymous No.16139541]

>>16139508
If he loved fate so much then why didn't he shut the fuck up and die sooner?

[Anonymous No.16139550]

>>16139475
Ok, so be quiet.

[Anonymous No.16139571]

>>16139550
You misunderstand. I'm not arguing right now. The process of you reading my words is me reaming your metaphysical ass. Hope you're enjoying my master dick rn.

[Anonymous No.16139657]

>>16139508
This always seemed like a big problem with stoicism to me, just by deciding that something is outside of your control you may very well be affecting the outcome compared to if you tried doing something about it. Maybe the point was that if you can't be sure it's in your control you should remain indifferent, but that just sounds like sour grapes cope to me and obviously cuts off so many possibilities for life.

[Anonymous No.16139733]

>>16139541
Its amazing how anti-Nietzscheans manage to be edgier than Nietzsche. Go tip that fedora elsewhere, cringelord.

[Anonymous No.16139775]

>>16139541
Are you 13? Serious question, because you're not allowed to post here if so.

[Anonymous No.16140201]

>>16139508
>>16139657
The point is that the Stoics wouldn't crave after such achievements as running the 4 minute mile or trying to enact a revolution or change their societies, or any other achievement that one could achieve, even if they appear out of your reach, they see the only true realisation of any true human happiness in wisdom and reason - which are strictly internal. You could describe a Stoic as being "his whole world" I think, a cynic (in the literary sense) might describe this as stagnation and apathy, while one who might be able to appreciate the philosophy might describe it as light-hearted and joyful indifference.
The point being that I don't think the Stoic would particularly crave for the fruits of any of these feats, not to say he is a man of stone, but the Stoic probably wouldn't emotionally invest their whole soul to the extent of achieving a revolution, or desperately trying for the milestone of a 4 minute mile, the Stoic has preferences and interests, but as I understand it, no burning needs
Quite a good excerpt from Seneca here regarding this kind of insular outlook

[Anonymous No.16140264]

Fuck Nietzsche, Fisher, Marx, Aurelius, Deleuze, Heidegger, whatever. Any one of these "philosophy" guys.
You want to know what to read to understand the world?
Spengler, some Aristotle and Kant, Land, Foucault, Buddha, Aquinas. That's literally all you need. After that you can go study something cool, like try and retake that calculus class you failed two years ago.

[Anonymous No.16140337]

>>16140264
>calculus
>implying i didn't fail to grasp entry level algebra

[Anonymous No.16140348]

>>16140264
Surprise surprise, anime poster's opinion is as garbage as his so-called hobby

[Anonymous No.16140360]

>>16132068
>>16135719
>>16135881
While a meme, this is actually correct. Nietzsche's understanding of nature is no closer to reality than the utopian ideas of Fourier, that the oceans could be turned into lemonade and have whales singing as they are enslaved to ships. There is simply nothing essential in either picture of nature, each is simply an effect of a mindset which sees nature as nothing more than a means to deepen the sense of a new human figure.

Of course Nietzsche wasn't stupid, but there is something going on here that causes this great divergence in understanding which no one seems capable of resolving. A question remains if this was abuse of concepts was intentional, however, given his philosophy it seems almost entirely accidental. A confused philosophy that has no relation at all to the tragic, so one has to wonder why he did not take up the artistic method that was the ideal, the solution to all things. Was he not capable of holding to values completely opposed to the stoics? To Socrates? Or even the bad tragedians? Was it all just a cover for his inability to best the tyranny of moralism and rational thought? Perhaps it was nothing more than resentment, and in character and writings we see that such an accusation is more applicable to Nietzsche than to any of his enemies, even Socrates, Christ, or the stoics. A plebeian question, was his theory of nature nothing more than the non-being of his own?

What Kant did for idealism Nietzsche did for romanticism. His concern was the pure feeling of power, not power in itself. Yes, the nietzscheans will cry about this being a misreading because 'He critiqued Kant!', but what isn't a misreading to them? This confusion set within endless contradictions is the natural law of those without any nature. It is not a solution to Aristotelianism it is the ultimate conclusion. The void of nature is not the end of the world, it is the labyrinth, within which Nietzsche voluntarily sacrificed himself.

[Anonymous No.16140374]

>>16140360
2
Paradoxiscally, Nietzsche's idea of nature is used just like those he is attacking, and curiously it is the exact same form of nature used by both Christians and the reason-crippled scientists: those whipped into a mechanistic thinking. Nature, in the modern era, is nothing more than a fulcrum to leverage one's theological, political, or economic purposes - because otherwise it cannot even be seen, it is an unknown. In Nietzsche this is leveled to an even greater extent, appearing as little more than a political economy of feeling and without the revelatory qualities of the romanticists. It is nothing more than a "tyranny of arbitrary laws" because, just like all those he accused, Nietzsche cannot escape that which he is against - it is even uncertain just what it is he is against. His appearance is the abstract negation of German philosophy.

This is the great paradox, Nietzsche is much like the anarchists in that the more he struggles the worse he becomes ensnared by the trap. His great trick is to fight so violently as to make it seem as if he had escaped. Again, there is no certainty if this was ironic or just a mistake, but the lack of grounding in his philosophy suggests the latter. We should say that what he reveals is only accidental because throughout his work and life we see just as many false, even terrible, revelations as we do great ones.

This was, of course, the mark of the 19th century, an unbelievable extraction of knowledge through the very process of leveling. Ernst Junger describes this as putting the blinders on, this is what calms an animal through temporarily blinding it to the elements and potential predators. The process allows the animal to learn and work at a much greater rate. And it was this method that created a new way of seeing in which untold wealth of knowledge would be surfaced. But the question remains if this wealth of knowledge is applicable in any substantial way, or if it is simply a process equal to that of the museums - or the leveraging and refining of stores of nature as a force to increase technological being.

[Anonymous No.16140378]

>>16140348
you know I'm right. And if you're deep in a filter away from the real surroundings you will wake up before death and your thought will be "damn, he really was right all this time"
That's just the nature of this.

[Anonymous No.16140380]

>>16140374
3
This is where Nietzsche no longer appears in opposition to his era, and where the confusion with nihilism takes over. There are countless examples of this confusion throughout his writings, even suggesting in places that humanity is transitioning to a war of earth forces. However, just like Joseph de Maistre, his answer to this new form of war is completely wrong. And elsewhere, in his simple Apollonian writings, Tocqueville gives a very clear answer to the problem of the new form of war even accurately predicting the mobilisation methods of its forces and external boundaries - the great enemies of Russia and America. Even the very laws of democratisation and antiwar are described, nearly a hundred years before the great theorists of 20th century warfare.

What this points to is the significance of aligning one's thinking towards the essential. In philosophy there is no for or against, all things are deserving of a trial - the revaluation of values is the only constant. But a philologist rarely makes a good lawyer, and to represent power one must become powerless. This is not only the great lesson of Socrates and Nietzsche, but all of the great sovereigns throughout history. Nietzsche did not even understand the nature of power, how could he speak of nature itself?

For all his significance, Nietzsche appears to be wrong more than he is ever right, and for a man of action his philosophy leads to a confused ethic in the realm of pure feeling rather than having any political significance. What this means is that one can look to any of the highly regarded figures of the 19th century and find an equal cache of knowledge, the only difference being the force of feeling through which the ideas are expressed. Although Nietzsche's skill at this is highly overestimated, and he annoys more often than he ever seduces. Anyone who tires of the hypocritical will be instantly put off by a man who preaches against Christianity while moralising more than they ever could have, and over a much shorter period. Nietzsche, the great puritan of romanticism.

[Anonymous No.16140397]

>>16140380
4
For all his worship of great men and the highest - while not even understanding what such a path entails, even ridiculing such a path - he was incapable of elevating himself above any of those he attacked. In most cases he was far less than them, and his efforts amounted to nothing more than dragging them down with him. He followed the very methods of Christian theology rather than taking up the methods of pagan myths. Even where he spoke of the great return to decisiveness and action he immediately contradicted himself, relying on the methods of revelation. And for all his criticism of the Aristotelian closing of contradictory laws it was the only method he ever attempted himself - not only failing in it but placing himself even lower than Socrates than if he had used his dialectical method. And finally, his nature was of an even more enslaved mind than the stoics, his life and death not only failing to live up to the beauty of their enslaved era but dying pathetically even for his own time.

Against nature but completely of it. A Diogenes of the decadents. His understanding, as well as his fate, should be seen through his final words, "I owe Dionysus nothing."

https://youtu.be/4T8ile1uq-U

[Anonymous No.16140409]

>>16140360
Second sentence should read
>Nietzsche's understanding of nature is no closer to reality than the utopian ideas of someone like Fourier, who believed that the oceans could be turned into lemonade with all of its whales singing as they are enslaved to ships.

[Anonymous No.16140895]

>>16129841
outed

[Anonymous No.16141052]

>>16128224
Amor fati is LOVE of fate. It isn’t the same as keeping a stiff upper lip.

[Anonymous No.16141081]

>>16131607
Seneca was a complete and utter faggot. He was a fraud. No integrity. Nietzsche and Seneca are nothing alike.

[Anonymous No.16141098]

>>16134261
Reddit’s favorite philosopher would be John Stuart Mill. Or maybe John Rawls.

[Anonymous No.16141144]

>>16141098
Cope.

[Anonymous No.16141153]

>>16141081
>neetch
>integrity

[Anonymous No.16141170]

>>16140895
What would an incel know about love? His understanding of fate was nothing more than his resentment of Salome.

[Anonymous No.16141178]

>>16141170
>>16141052

[Anonymous No.16141217]

>>16140360
>>16140374
>>16140380
Based. Fuck Neetch.

[Anonymous No.16141234]

>>16131607
>I think it's almost certain Nietzsche read Seneca
He was likely reading Rufus, >>16136337

[Anonymous No.16141309]

>>16136337
>>16141234
Friendly reminder that for the Romans, who had the greatest army in history, the soldier/farmer was the ideal.

[Anonymous No.16141318]

>>16141309
Romans were also second-rate Greeks.

[Anonymous No.16141322]

>>16141318
Not for Nietzsche's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16141338]

>>16140264
Fuck these memes. Read these other memes instead.

[Anonymous No.16141353]

>>16141153
Yes, Nietzsche had integrity. He was a noble man.

[Anonymous No.16141355]

>>16141322
He loved both of them, but as far as philosophy and art goes, the Greeks were superior.

[Anonymous No.16141361]

>>16141318
Wrong. And Greek soldiers were farmers too.
Read the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.16141376]

so was Nietzsche just a faggot that made contrarianism his identity and went insane because of it? is that /lit/ gravitates to him?

[Anonymous No.16141382]

>>16141361
I'm not sure on what basis you think Nietzsche saw the Greeks and Romans as philosophically and artistically equal, especially since he shit on the Roman Stoics.

[Anonymous No.16141400]

>>16140360
tldr?

[Anonymous No.16141406]

>>16141353
lmao

[Anonymous No.16141443]

>>16128224
Nietzsche showed up to philosophy when all the good ideas had been used up at least 400 years before, so he came up with some bad ones.

[Anonymous No.16141515]

>>16141098
Don’t forget Karl Popper

[Anonymous No.16141518]

>>16128224
>hates christianity
>still loves his neighbor

Fucking hypocrisy

[Anonymous No.16141529]

>>16141400
A clown without a wife. One who threatened to destroy ages but could never bring himself to laughter. Some claim he went crazy from the horse, others the eternal return of Chrysippus' laughter. An alternate ending: "The comedy is finished."

[Anonymous No.16141567]

Stoics:
Zeno
Seneca
Epictetus
Marcus Aurelius
Chryssipus
Cato
Posidonius

Nietzscheans:
Nietzsche
Bataille
Land
Delueze
various other degenerates and trannies

[Anonymous No.16141608]

>>16141529
>A clown without a wife. One who threatened to destroy ages but could never bring himself to laughter. Some claim he went crazy from the horse, others the eternal return of the donkey and Chrysippus' laughter. An alternate ending: "The comedy is finished."

[Anonymous No.16141816]

>>16141518
>still loves his neighbor
He hated the Germans though

[Anonymous No.16141889]

>>16133483
Who?

[Anonymous No.16141961]

>>16128231
>Be NEET
>Be butthurt at stoics, Pythagoras, Plato, and Christianity
>Build philosophy around eternal return and not realize its pretty much exactly like transmigration of souls that shapes Platonist/Stoic philosophy

[Anonymous No.16141992]

>>16141961
>Be NEET
>Claim Socrates' philosophy and acceptance of death is evidence of his life-denial
>"but like, amor fatty man, long for this eternal-confirmation"
Hmm

[Anonymous No.16142043]

>>16141081
Not really, his great wealth really wasn't a contradiction of his principles, (a lot of it was given to him as gifts by Nero anyway), Seneca always maintained an indifference to his wealth and said himself that as long as it's utilised with prudence and apathy it can be a useful tool. Seneca always slept on a hard bed without any cushioning, wore plain clothes, and ate so frugal a diet that when he cut his arteries when accused of being involved in a plot by Nero, that they had to put him in a warm bath in order to encourage the blood to flow quickly enough to hasten his death. The point of Stoicism isn't to despise wealth, as with most things, it's about indifference

[Anonymous No.16142063]

>>16142043
Stoicism derives a lot of its view on this respect from Socrates,who summarized it well;
;that virtue does not come from wealth and power, but wealth and all good things which men possess are a product of virtue.

[Anonymous No.16142077]

>>16129776
That actually makes sense.

[Anonymous No.16142090]

>>16130312
>game theory
Please tell me you didn‘t

[Anonymous No.16142128]

>>16140201
So stoicism is dumb then. You'd have no world class anybodies. It'd be a soulless world of mediocrity.

[Anonymous No.16142162]

>>16142128
Stoicism is pretty good for a personal worldview that allows one to be independent and conscious of themselves. A truly ideal society, one in which humanity finds the perfect balance of living with each other and in nature in a way which allows our perpetual peaceful existence and growth into the future would necessarily be a Stoic one - but it is just unrealistic for the vast majority of men.

How we could want things to be is something different altogether from how they are. If someone is to be considered "great" today they must pursue the things which degrade them. They must be close-minded dogmatists, in a sense, because we live in an era of competing cults of revolutionary principles. None of them provide the answers they claim to have, yet they allow the animalistic part of men to feel satisfied by pursuing them. And this is how the world really is - the balance of power and those who can claim it. Even the most seemingly humanistic idealist revolutionaries of our era are in actuality merely puppetmasters stringing along their followers for their own financial and societal benefit. They are inherently selfish.

If one wants to escape the pressure of social conformity in an era of clashing identities and value systems, one can always return to Stoicism. Accepting that, despite this culture being undesirable, we cannot change the hearts of the people who make it - choosing to walk independently from the hordes of these misguided and finding comfort and meaning in being apart, while still being able to love even these people who have aided in making our world so weary, because we too are very susceptible to falling prey to the same pressures.

[Anonymous No.16142415]

>>16128224
Main difference:
Stoicism: Don't give a fuck about things you can't control
Nietzscheans: Achieve control or die trying

[Anonymous No.16142455]

>>16139377
Discussion of stoicism (and scepticism and unhappy consciousness) comes right after the Master-Slave dialectics. In summary, mutual recognition between consciousnesses is necessary for Absolute Knowing; two primitive selves run into each other and after a death struggle one becomes Master and other Slave; Master sees Slave as less than himself and therefore unworthy of recognition, and Slave's recognition is not enough for Master (because of that asymmetry); Slave realizes his existence as fragilely externally dependent on the Master, and tries to achieve self-consciousness through himself, his truth is recognizing himself as independent, having freedom in his mind; that causes a contradiction in the Slave himself.
First step is stoicism. Without stretching too long how stoicism is explained through this view, Hegel says that freedom in though (as controlling the passions, achieved by retreating from the external world, withdrawing to self-consciousness to be indifferent to the actual) is only abstract freedom, not actual freedom.
He built this view watching the progress of world history, stoicism, therefore, living mainly in ancient Rome. He was impressed that both an emperor and a slave were famous stoics. Even his "nothing great in the world has been achieved without passion" could be seen as a stab at apatheia. We could then, of course, say that stoicism is different in our age, but it might actually be worse. You'll see many more acting as stoics, saying that they don't care, than actual stoic minds.

[Anonymous No.16142680]

>>16142090

if every businessbro is operating under a corrupt understanding of game theory, then the stoic analysis changes because the other person is likely playing psychological games. Stoicism requires an even playing field. Have you ever argued with a stoic? They'll just bitch and complain about the argument is shit because not enough Stoicism. It's their cope

I fucking hate you for bating you fuck

[Anonymous No.16143097]

>>16142455
So what is freedom?

[Anonymous No.16143112]

>>16141567
It's not even fair.

[Anonymous No.16143128]

Nietzsche
>didn't understand power
>hated the stoics
Schmitt
>understood power perhaps more than anyone in the modern era
>admired the stoics and even employed their philosophy
This is not a difficult argument.

[Anonymous No.16143283]

>>16141529
This is a good point. How is stoicism life denying when someone like Chryssipus died laughing? Nietzsche was completely humorless

[Anonymous No.16143647]

>>16133374
>Nietzche rocks up to the concert hall of life with his own ghetto blaster.
unbelievably reddit

[Anonymous No.16143777]

>>16142455
>Hegel says that freedom in though (as controlling the passions, achieved by retreating from the external world, withdrawing to self-consciousness to be indifferent to the actual) is only abstract freedom, not actual freedom.
inner freedom is the only real freedom

[Anonymous No.16143824]

>>16143097
Achieving self-consciousness and freedom is intertwined. Classical liberal conception sees freedom as you being free to choose or reject any option given to you, but that sets options as determined by an external force, and that's not true freedom. Freedom is setting those options ourselves. It must will itself, that is - it chooses the social conditions that make our self-awareness possible, our freedom possible.

[Anonymous No.16143834]

Nietzsche expressed in The Antichrist the strongest argument not merely against theology, but also against metaphysics: that it confuses hope with truth; that the impossibility of thinking, living happily or living at all without something absolute, doesn't testify to the legitimacy of that thought. He rebuts the Christian “proof by efficacy,” that belief is truth, because it brings bliss. For “isn’t blessedness – technically expressed, pleasure – always a proof of efficacy? So little, that it almost proves the contrary, yielding the highest suspicion against the ‘truth’, if feelings of pleasure have anything to say to the question ‘what is true’. The proof of ‘pleasure’ is proof of ‘pleasure’ – nothing more; how in the world can it be established, that it is precisely true judgments which are more pleasurable than false ones and, according to a pre-established harmony, necessarily draw pleasant feelings after them?”. But Nietzsche himself taught amor fati, “you should love your destiny.” This latter, according to the epilogue of the Twilight of the Gods, is his innermost nature. And it is worth asking the question as to whether there is any more reason to love what one encounters, to extol that which exists, because it is, than for considering as true what one hopes for. Is it not the same faulty conclusion, which leads from the existence of “stubborn facts” to their installation as the highest value, which he reproaches in the transition from hope to truth? If he dispatches “blessedness through a fixed idea” to the insane asylum, then one could seek out the origin of amor fati in the prison. Those who no longer see or have anything else to love, fall victim to the love of stone walls and barred windows. Both instances are ruled by the same ignominy of adaptation, which, in order to be able to endure the horror of the world, ascribes the wish to reality and meaning to nonsense of compulsion. No less than in credo quia absurdum, renunciation crawls in amor fati, the glorification of what is most absurd of them all, from domination to the cross. In the end, hope, which eludes reality by negating it, is the sole shape in which the truth appears. Without hope the idea of truth would scarcely be thinkable, and it is the cardinal untruth, to pass off the existence which is recognized as bad as the truth, if only because it was once recognized. Here, rather than the opposite, is where the crime of theology lies, which Nietzsche prosecuted without ever reaching the final court. In one of the most powerful moments of his critique he accused Christianity of mythology: “The sacrificial victim, and indeed in its most repulsive, barbaric form, the sacrifice of the innocent for the sins of the guilty! What ghastly paganism!”. Yet the love of destiny is nothing other than the absolute sanctioning of the infinity of such sacrifice. Mythos separates Nietzsche’s critique of myth from the truth

[Anonymous No.16143841]

>>16143777

[Anonymous No.16143846]

>>16133374
>The Stoic would have you obey an imaginary conductor and play your part in a natural orchestra. Nietzche rocks up to the concert hall of life with his own ghetto blaster.
lmao saved.

[Anonymous No.16143857]

>>16143834
>Nietzsche expressed in The Antichrist the strongest argument not merely against theology, but also against metaphysics: that it confuses hope with truth
lol what a retard.

[Anonymous No.16143969]

>But my own instincts are profoundly opposed to the English diet too, which in comparison with the German and even the French is a type of 'return to nature', namely to cannibalism; it seems to me that it gives spirit heavy feet . . . Alcoholic drinks are bad for me; one glass of wine or beer in the course of a day is more than enough to turn my life into a 'veil of tears'
Here's your life-affirming Dionysus bros.

[Anonymous No.16143981]

>In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
Imagine reading this and not siding with the stoics.

[Anonymous No.16143999]

>>16143283
He wasn't humorless
https://www.reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/comments/9nhojq/far_right_misogynist_humourless_why_nietzsche_is/

[Anonymous No.16144009]

>>16141567
Don't forget Jordan Peterson

[Anonymous No.16144264]

>>16142128
Why do you judge a philosophy by the criteria of its utilitarian value to wider society? Philosophy has never been a tool to maximise the production of as many 'world class' athletes or figures as possible, what it concerns itself with lives and dies inside the individual. You are not society, you are an individual - live according to the reasoning that fulfils you, a self-contained individual, for you will never be anything else

[Anonymous No.16144412]

Why is this thread still going with anti-Nietzsche sentiments when his critique was already shown to be at least an accurate depiction of the Stoics once the context was pulled up from Rufus? There is nothing questionable about the accuracy of his critique anymore. Rufus (who taught Epictetus) clearly had an idea about nature that possessed a characteristic indifference. Nietzsche was simply siding with the Epicureans, pointing out that all is hedonistic, and there is no indifference towards pleasure as Rufus would like to think.

[Anonymous No.16144868]

>>16144412
Because that which is factually correct and what is self-referential is not significant. It does not get to the essential. It doesn't matter that Nietzsche's superficial argument connects to a single paragraph from a single stoic philosopher. What would be significant is that which gets at the idea of the stoics and their relation to nature/fate.
Nietzsche attacked the stoics, and basically everyone else, as if they were the problem behind history. Of course, all his followers say this is really just to get at something deeper, but they never say what that is.

Where is the essential nature in Nietzsche's comments on the stoics? It's simply that they are slaves and their idea of nature is false. Who gives a shit? There's nothing in this, it's just an opinion.

Again, one can point to Seneca or Chrysippus to see that even in death they were more life-affirming than Nietzsche in his life. What does this say about the essence of their philosophies? It says that the stoics had a wealth of being even as slaves, while Nietzsche's life was worse than that of a slave. His problem was simply that he resented his condition and applied it to all these figures throughout history, even history itself. Just like his critique he created an image of the world in that of his own. This resentment is present in all of his writings, and is so strong that it affects the tone to an extreme degree. The same cannot be said of those he accuses of resentment.

While you could say that what many see as a period of decline is due to a long historical process, what does it matter? There's nothing you can do about that in any case, you cannot fight the entire weight of the past. And what is ironic is that this very process may be due to human nature, it is as much a part of fate as it is a historical process. So why does Nietzsche not love it? Why does he not follow his own philosophy?

The brutal reality is that Nietzsche did not understand his own nature and so could not do as the Stoics even if he wanted to. His philosophy was that of power and the strong man, but he did not realise that the mark of a strong man, at least partly, is revealed in his ability to rise to the age. He could not rise to the age because he did not understand it. The conservative in him holding onto a dying figure of a man, and his idea was not of an eternal man but of one of its dying and transitional figures.

This is his great misunderstanding of the Greeks. They did not treat the lowest as things to be disposed of, but instead that all should rise up together - that even the slave should have access to the wealth of being, or at least of being in its presence. Even the heroes must accepting being reduced to slavery or worse, beggars. If you deny one side of power then there is nothing, one who is to rule must be able to identify with the lowest among his people or the state is doomed to see its nation as a totality of nothingness.

[Anonymous No.16145035]

>>16144868
This is also true of the warrior who only cares about skill in battle. He must be decisive and dispassionate, and if he is only to see skill in battle than he must be willing to step away from life in order to view this strength objectively. There is a stoic element in this. And in all great decisions it is the human element that must be removed.

Of course, this is a too strict meaning of power. It is also an element of fate. Nietzsche's philosophy can only really be understood from the point of view that if reason has been totally enslaved then the same may be true of the instincts. Even imagination can be enslaved and turned to beggary. Reason and imagination are two sides of the intellect, and Nietzsche's obsession with emotional power, of being overwhelmed may suggest that his instinct were enslaved.

His inability to resolve contradictions would certainly suggest this. A greater control over his instincts and imaginative power, giving up his resentment of reason, would certainly have given him stronger ideas, while also allowing him to abandon the bad ideas and all of his moralising.

And in the end he went crazy because of his confrontation with fate. That certainly does not indicate a love of fate nor an ability to live up to it. This means that on the ground of fate he was less than the stoics, so maybe their thinking still holds important lessons for us.

[Anonymous No.16145104]

>>16144868
God, what an absolute farrago of leftist shit.

>Just like his critique he created an image of the world in that of his own. This resentment is present in all of his writings, and is so strong that it affects the tone to an extreme degree

Completely ungrounded claim. I suppose that what you are vaguely fumbling at is Nietzsche's unmistakable tone of fury and contempt, in his late writing, at Judaism and Christianity for what these ideologies have done to the world. But fury at the ideologies of "ressentiment" is not "ressentiment". It's fury.

>There's nothing you can do about that in any case, you cannot fight the entire weight of the past. And what is ironic is that this very process may be due to human nature, it is as much a part of fate as it is a historical process.

Nietzsche vigorously denied both these things and was right to do so. There was - and continues to be - another path for the human race than the self-poisoning of Judaism and all its Christian, socialist and feminist avatars.

[Anonymous No.16145144]

>>16144868
>There's nothing in this, it's just an opinion.
Our perspective is all we know; will is everything. Before writing any serious philosophy, Nietzsche read and understood Schopenhauer, who reached this understanding about the world. The "essential" in Nietzsche's arguments starts here, in this notion that there is no "essential," but only will. Will is what you might call essential. Nietzsche calling the Stoics slaves is him being honest to himself, that all claims and observations we make are expressions of this will and that we are unable to say anything about anything that is not an expression of will, that is not "opinion." You can say that Nietzsche does not get to any essential, but you would have to remain ignorant of Schopenhauer's arguments on the world and the will in order to do so.

>Again, one can point to Seneca or Chrysippus to see that even in death they were more life-affirming than Nietzsche in his life.
No, one could not see this, if we see Nietzsche lucidly enough. For it's true that the Stoics were also being honest to themselves, but in Nietzsche's (also honest) view, which he learned from his readings of older Greek nobles, the Stoics were slaves, and slaves are reversed creatures, expressions of a tangled will that has learned to contradict itself in the deepest sense. In sum: the honesty of the slave is dishonesty, first and foremost towards himself.

>While you could say that what many see as a period of decline is due to a long historical process, what does it matter? There's nothing you can do about that in any case, you cannot fight the entire weight of the past.
This is a Stoical point of view. But why should anyone share this view? Why should someone strive to want what they don't want? The "essential" is in this, from Schopenhauer: we can do what we want, but we cannot want what we want. People reject Nietzsche's arguments as meaningless attacks that do not cross the barrier of his ego, but no one's arguments do. You have no way of truly persuading the opposite character to become like your character. You can torture someone until they have suppressed their character, like they did in the Holy Roman Empire for so long, but the character has not really changed; it has simply become suppressed, mangled. It will continue to manifest, but now in another form. What was once an immediate and physical feeling will become a slow and spiritual one. Nietzsche's character is one of former nobility that has undergone this process of suppression, which is why his philosophy and attitude is what it is.

[Anonymous No.16145166]

>>16144868
>his great misunderstanding of the Greeks. They did not treat the lowest as things to be disposed of, but instead that all should rise up together - that even the slave should have access to the wealth of being, or at least of being in its presence. Even the heroes must accepting being reduced to slavery or worse, beggars. If you deny one side of power then there is nothing, one who is to rule must be able to identify with the lowest among his people or the state is doomed to see its nation as a totality of nothingness.

Try googling "The Greeks", kid. I think you may be confusing them with the Seattle Autonomous Zone.

>
And in the end he went crazy because of his confrontation with fate. That certainly does not indicate a love of fate nor an ability to live up to it.

This is "YouTube Nietzsche-for-Dummies" level philosophy-through-anecdote. The "his philosophy drove him crazy" meme is even more infantile than the famously invented story about him throwing his arms around a carthorse ("ah! so he DID believe in Jewish rachmones after all! The carthorse proves it!") Nietzsche suffered a mental breakdown because his brain was rotting away with syphilis kid, just like a hundred other 19th century intellectuals whose thoughts bore no relation to his. His mental illness is an irrelevance.

[Anonymous No.16145190]

>>16145104
>vaguely fumbling
How was Socrates a figure of ressentiment?
Your post doesn't deal with anything I said, and I'm not a leftist.

[Anonymous No.16145203]

>>16145166
So you haven't read Odysseus. Nice job, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.16145229]

>>16145144
Can a Kantian understand the Greeks?

[Anonymous No.16145240]

>>16133374
What a crock of shit

[Anonymous No.16145268]

>>16145144
If there is nothing essential and only will then how can we know what is right? There is only a war of will against will. And then who is to say which will is correct?
If Nietzsche's will is not strong enough to win then it cannot be right, which would account for the low level of discourse his followers rely on. Nothing but cope to pretend they're winning.

[Anonymous No.16145280]

>>16145190
If you don't understand why Nietzsche considers Socrates to have been a "figure of ressentiment" then you have clearly not read Nietzsche, and specifically not read "The Problem of Socrates" in "Twilight of the Idols".
I haven't bothered to go back to the text to check whether Nietzsche explicitly uses the term "ressentiment" of Socrates there but I quite clearly remember that he does, for example, describe Socrates as "Poebel": a representative of "the rabble" - and "ressentiment" very definitely is a characteristic, indeed the ESSENTIAL characteristic, that Nietzsche assigns to "the rabble" elsewhere.

I honestly don't understand the mentality of kids like you who choose to post on topics like this on /lit/. You are clearly not very familiar with the material that you purport to know about. I would guess that, at most, you've assiduously taken some notes in an undergraduate class taught by some Nietzsche professor you look up to - who, in 2020, is pretty much bound to be a lefty, so you ARE a lefty yourself here, although you are too ignorant to know it - and yet you insist on adopting a tone here as if you were someone who is genuinely informed and educated and whose opinions have some weight and authority.

[Anonymous No.16145290]

"God", "immortality of the soul", "redemption", "beyond" -- Without exception, concepts to which I have never devoted any attention, or time; not even as a child. Perhaps I have never been childlike enough for them?
I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: It is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers - at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!

[Anonymous No.16145317]

>>16145280
Not what I'm saying. I'm asking you to prove it because Nietzsche's argument is shit.
He either didn't read Plato or he simply didn't understand the Greeks. There is no other possibility.

[Anonymous No.16145350]

>>16145290
Protip: all these fedora-tippers are from families who were formerly slaves. Their fedora-tipping is just slave morality trying to survive in an atheistic environment and isn't related to atheism at all.

[Anonymous No.16145351]

>>16145203
What do you mean "read Odysseus"? No one of even elementary education would write such a phrase because "Odysseus" didn't write anything?

Do you mean "have I read the Odyssey"?

Yes, I've read the "Odyssey", in which I found absolutely no evidence that Odysseus, a king, had any desire to degrade himself to the condition of "the lowest" in his or any other society.

I've also read the Iliad, in which that same Odysseus gives perhaps the most resounding and irrefutable proof in the history of literature that he does NOT have any such desire and has in fact the very OPPOSITE desire to this.

When "the lowest" combatant in the Greek army before Troy has the temerity to raise his voice against himself, Agamemnon and the other monarch generals Odysseus does not rest content with ordering him to be silent. He beats him like a bitch in front of the whole assembly.

[Anonymous No.16145366]

>>16145317
>Nietzsche didn't read Plato.
OK, my child, time for your beddy-byes, I think

[Anonymous No.16145391]

>>16145280
>whose opinions have some weight and authority.
Maybe you're just stupid, anon. You really can't figure out why a discussion of his fate may be connected to a philosophy of fate?
>Sein Ende war notwendig, war das Ergebnis seines Denkens, des tiefsten und intensivsten Lebensprozesses, der ihn beschäftigte. Ein solcher Mensch ist vor dem Zufalle, das heißt vor Relationen, die mit seiner Bestimmung im Widerspruche stehen, viel geschützter, als man gemeinhin annimmt. Wer seine Schriften zu lesen versteht, dem bleiben die Spuren nicht vergorgen, die dem Ende vorangehen und darauf hinweisen.

[Anonymous No.16145396]

>>16145268
>If there is nothing essential and only will then how can we know what is right? There is only a war of will against will. And then who is to say which will is correct?
If it exists, it is correct, because then it is an expression of will, which is everything.

>If Nietzsche's will is not strong enough to win then it cannot be right
He already won.

[Anonymous No.16145414]

>>16145351
Not the point. And you might as well stop reading since you still don't get the reference.

[Anonymous No.16145430]

>>16145391
I really don't see how posting a big chunk of text by the person you GOT your opinion from constitutes an argument for your opinion.
I haven't bothered to google the passage to find out whose it is.
From the turgid, mock-archaic style I would guess Heidegger - and Heidegger's Nietzsche seminars are, considered as philology, a joke. He made no attempt to actually understand Nietzsche's own philosophical project. His only concern was to fold this project into his own ongoing Seinsmystik.
So don't imagine you've impressed me by suggesting that you can read German, kid. I read it a lot better than you do, believe me. But the point is one of the things I've read in German is Nietzsche. Somehow, it doesn't look like you can say the same.

[Anonymous No.16145442]

>>16145396
>He already won.
How so? What do you think his legacy is right now and how will it be more significant than someone like Plato?

[Anonymous No.16145459]

>>16145430
>Heidegger
Nope. Thanks for outing yourself as a pseud though.
>He made no attempt to actually understand Nietzsche's own philosophical project.
Damn, sounds a bit like someone else.

[Anonymous No.16145469]

>>16145442
>What do you think his legacy is right now
It's among the newly emerging wealthy nobility backed by Western capitalist globalism since the 20th century.

>how will it be more significant than someone like Plato?
It won't be more significant, but it will be more tragic.

[Anonymous No.16145478]

>>16145414
>you still don't get the reference

You sound like you're running scared now that you've actually bumped into someone on /lilt/ who knows Nietzsche.

Baiting and teasing about a "reference" that you can claim someone is "not getting" so you can make them look ignorant may be a trick that works well at your high school, kid. But it doesn't work with me.

You made a reference to Socrates. I replied by pointing out that your claim does not concord with what Nietzsche said in THE passage recognized to be the key point of reference for his late views on this figure.

If your "reference" was a different one, then go ahead and specify what passage in Nietzsche you WERE referring to.

Somehow I feel you won't.

[Anonymous No.16145489]

>>16145430
>I really don't see how posting a big chunk of text by the person you GOT your opinion from constitutes an argument for your opinion.
Pathetic arguments. I didn't need to get that from anyone because it is obvious, I only included it because you are an obvious slave moralist who only follows.
>you don't read
How about making an actual argument anon? All you've shows so far is that you have not read the Odyssey, you don't understand basic logic, you haven't read Plato, and you can't even defend your master.
What did you think you were going to prove?

[Anonymous No.16145503]

>>16145469
>capitalist globalism
So Bezos is the Ubermensch. Got it.
>more tragic
What's tragic in Nietzsche's writings/life?

[Anonymous No.16145510]

>>16145478
>You sound like you're running scared now that you've actually bumped into someone on /lilt/ who knows Nietzsche.
lmao I'd tell you to stop but this is great.

[Anonymous No.16145544]

>>16145478
>>16133374
>Nietzche rocks up to the concert hall of life with his own ghetto blaster.
You wrote this didn't you.

[Anonymous No.16145557]

>>16142455
So basically he called stoicism cope?

[Anonymous No.16145575]

>>16145489
OK, this is my last post because I am clearly arguing with a child.

Googling indicates that the German passage you quoted is from Jaspers - whose philosophy is perhaps closest to Heidegger's of all twentieth-century philosophies, so I wasn't far off.

But as I say, how does quoting that passage further your argument. You read in Jaspers that Nietzsche went mad for romantic pseudo-mystical reasons related to "the hubris of his thought", posted that plagiarized opinion here, and then, when it was challenged, posted a big chunk from the book you got it from to defend it.

As to the big splurge of defensive insults you come out with in the next post, well, since I am not a child myself, I really don't know what to say. I have in fact read all of the things that you claim I haven't read and have, as I say, found nothing in "the Odyssey", for example, to support your ridiculous idea that the Greeks were what you claim they were and not the highly aristocratic, hierarchical culture that, say, Nietzsche says they were.

And I have offered several arguments against your - or rather, as we now find out, Jaspers's - positions over the past few posts, all of them in accordance with "basic logic" and all of them backed up by references to Nietzsche's text. You appear to be too ignorant about Nietzsche's text to offer any counter-readings. You just keep going on about some secret passage that YOU claim to know about but you won't tell anyone what it is.
As I say, time for beddy-byes, I think, kid.

[Anonymous No.16145581]

>>16145503
>So Bezos is the Ubermensch.
No. Bezos is, in Plato's terms, part of the silver auxiliaries.

>What's tragic in Nietzsche's writings/life?
I think you need to read more books before you ask this type of question.

[Anonymous No.16145655]

>>16128224
>>16128231
>>16128415
>>16129963

When you look at Nietzsche's life, it would seem like eternal recurrence in any sense would be his worst nightmare. Sickly and lonely for most of his life, and spent his last ten years in a cationic insanity that required caregiving by his nutso sister. Especially ironic, because he seems to have such disdain for those who aren't self-sufficient, yet required a pension from a university where he no longer worked and financial support from friends and family to live his isolated and painful life. I've tried reading him and he's just so melodramatic, unrealistic, and hypocritical that it's just not an enjoyable or worthwhile use of time,

[Anonymous No.16145731]

>>16145655
(Sigh). "Nietzsche studies" today.
Tens of thousands of gape-mouthed, gullible little NPC undergraduates sitting there obediently taking dictation from the Marxist Jew who gets an extra ten shekels an hour for twisting and distorting beyond all recognition one of the few philosophers whose ideas might actually pose a threat to the Jew World Order.

[Anonymous No.16145769]

>>16145575
Not Jaspers and has nothing to do with hubris. I only posted it to show that someone else discusses the idea of fate in relation to Nietzsche's life. I only just read it this morning.
My argument, aside from all the memeing, is that Nietzsche's end could indicate either fate or a complete failure of the instincts. The reason for this is because fate, according to the Greeks is not entirely certain. What is interesting in the Greek myths, at least in relation to man, is the element of freedom, strength, and heroism. One can even fight the gods.
This is not Nietzsche's understanding, he sees it as simultaneously horrific and something you must love. He is compelled by kantian duty to love that which by its very nature is capricious and cruel. The reference to Nietzsche's character should be obvious, but beyond this it is a Christian and slave mentality towards fate. (A counterargument that is more sympathetic could be made, but there's not a lot of room here and you haven't shown any interest in genuine discussion anyway.)
This relation to fate is completely opposite of that of the Greeks, and in relation to the instincts it suggests that Nietzsche's were completely wrong. Rather than loving fate he was crushed by the very idea of it.

The reference I was making was obviously to the Odyssey and becoming a beggar. And also more generally to the labours of the heroes. This does not mean that they were not noble, only that they saw slavery as a matter of fate for even the highest, and that there could be nobility eve in slavery. This is tied to raising the whole of society up to greater laws of value and wealth rather than the mundane concerns of diet, psychology, power, and emotions. Again, suggesting that Nietzsche himself was of a completely other type than the Greeks. His ideas of power, values, nature, and fate were entirely modern.

And this is not to suggest we shouldn't have sympathy for Nietzsche's life, it is just a bit of turning his own methods against him to show why his followers shouldn't fall into a slave mentality themselves.

[Anonymous No.16145837]

>>16145581
>just read
How many people have pointed out that this is all you idiots do? Why do you repeat this stale shit like the worst reddit academics? Why not deal with what is said rather than using references to Nietzsche as if they were a moral code?
The point of the question was, what was truly tragic in Nietzsche's writings or life in the Greek sense? (and also because it wasn't clear which you meant) Tragedy is basically a dead and overused word today, and no doubt Nietzsche can be understood in that sense. But he denied any divine qualities, so what is it do you think was tragic to the extent that it transcended his own thinking?

[Anonymous No.16145952]

>>16145769
More simply, what I am saying is that in order to understand, for example, the Greeks one may have to completely give himself over to fate, and without any preconceptions. This would require one to, first of all, abandon all instincts and thinking, to first 'know that one knows nothing'.
This is a bit like slavery in that the individual must hand himself over to the ideas he seeks. There is actually strength in being able to do this, and when one travels between different territories, whether in reality or in thought, it is a necessity to give oneself over to it. This should be obvious to anyone who has travelled, whether in populated areas or in the wilderness you may be confronted with powers greater than yourself. For example, where outnumbered it is not wise to think that you have an advantage, that you are more powerful.
This should be obvious, and where someone indicates they don't understand such laws it must be assumed that they are of very limited experience. That this misunderstanding is so widespread suggests a severe closing of the mind, even amongst those considered to be philosophers.

[Anonymous No.16145964]

>the world is shit man
>just stop caring bro

this is why stoicism has always bothered me a bit. not that i have any better way to COPE.

[Anonymous No.16145965]

Nietzsche wrote that the overman will create his own values. But what are those values, and what are they based on? Will they even matter?

[Anonymous No.16145974]

>>16145769
Kid, do you not get it that this kind of "ring-the-doorbell-and-run-away-teehee" bullshit means that NO ONE is going to take you seriously as someone who wants to debate the significance of Nietzsche?
OK, so you "read that someone discusses the idea of fate in relation to Nietzsche's life". To write THAT alone indicates that you are about 14.
Practically EVERYONE who has written on Nietzsche has disussed the notion of fate and amor fati as they relate to his life. I translated a book myself just last year that had a whole chapter on it. The fact that you think that you've discovered a "new perspective" here shows that you are a highschool kid unfamiliar with any of the literature.
But what makes it worse is this even sillier, even more childish refusal to just come out and SAY who this "someone else" is that you are quoting from. "Is it Heidegger?" "No, it's not Heidegger tee-hee" "Is it Jaspers? No, it's not Jaspers tee-hee, u mad bro?"
You put on this professorial tone (even when you are spewing obvious illiterate nonsense about Nietzsche being "compelled by Kantian duty" (!)) and yet you are so obviously an absolute philosophical newbie.
For this reason I am not even going to try to correct you on your childish incomprehension of the Odyssey.
Please, just wait until you grow up before you talk about grown-up stuff.

[Anonymous No.16145981]

>>16145837
>Why do you repeat this
Because it's evident that you don't read, given your remark about Bezos, and you're posting on the literature board. Now stop being a charlatan and go read some books.

[Anonymous No.16145986]

>>16135719
This is true nature

[Anonymous No.16145997]

>>16145974
NEEEEERRRRDD FIIIIGHT!!!! NERD FIGHT! NERD FIGHT! NERD FIGHT!

[Anonymous No.16146001]

>>16145952
Which suggests that the Stoics had the better understanding of nature as it relates to law, fate, whatever you want to call it. Nietzsche essentially denied nature, which is why he could never come to terms with it. Like an idiot who becomes lost and panics, he gets himself killed even quicker.

[Anonymous No.16146014]

>>16145952
>More simply, what I am saying is that in order to understand, for example, the Greeks one may have to completely give himself over to fate, and without any preconceptions. This would require one to, first of all, abandon all instincts and thinking, to first 'know that one knows nothing'.

Hahaha, you HONESTLY don't know how pompously ridiculous a 14-year-old tryhard like you SOUNDS when you type like this, do you?

> in order to understand, for example, the Greeks

Kid, when Nietzsche was your age he was a star pupil at Schulpforta. He was CONVERSING IN GREEK with the other kids over breakfast. He knew classical civilization back, forth and sideways before he grew pubes.

And you think that throwing out some babbys-first-Socrates quote about "knowing that one knows nothing" gives you some sort of SUPERIOR PERSPECTIVE on the work of the GREATEST HELLENIST OF HIS GENERATION?

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.16146016]

>>16145981
You said that capitalist globalism was the legacy of Nietzsche, and now you're mad because I made a joke about Bezos.
You're all fucking retards.

[Anonymous No.16146041]

>>16146016
I specifically wrote this:
>It's among the newly emerging wealthy nobility backed by Western capitalist globalism since the 20th century.

If you read the relevant works you'd understand what that means. It's not referring to Bezos.

>You're all fucking retards.
Save it until you've read some books, kid.

[Anonymous No.16146052]

>>16145974
>amor fati as they relate to his life
Are you really this stupid or are you trolling? You first claimed it was a ridiculous notion to even bring it up >>16145166
and now you want to pretend it is obvious.
Fucking pseud, redditor, and a liar. Nothing you say has any weight at all.

[Anonymous No.16146060]

>>16146014
Apparently it is superior given that you don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.16146068]

>>16145986
Truly Nietzschean

[Anonymous No.16146080]

>>16146014
>filtered by the simplest reference possible

[Anonymous No.16146110]

>>16145190
>How was Socrates a figure of ressentiment?
It is implicit in his valuation which placed reason over beauty. Early Nietzsche uncovered (and we have his philological publications to understand how) that the older generations of Greeks did not agree with Socrates on this. When Nietzsche says "Socrates is ugly," he means that Socrates was plebs. This, combined with Socrates' last words, suggested to Nietzsche that he "suffered life" and harbored resentment toward the older Greeks.

[Anonymous No.16146114]

>>16146041
>>16146014
>>16145974
>>16145575
>OK, this is my last post
Possibly the best argument against Nietzsche I've seen on this board. Well done.

[Anonymous No.16146138]

>>16146052
Poor child. They really have stopped teaching highschool children to read, it seems.
Let me spell it out for you.
What I originally dismissed was your claim that

>And in the end he went crazy because of his confrontation with fate

This is - to anyone who can read - obviously not to dismiss ALL discussion of what Nietzsche understood by "fate".Any commentator on Nietzsche has to say something about "Nietzsche and fate" because "amor fati" is a notion he himself proposes again and again. It's just to dismiss the ridiculous, completely unscholarly fairy-tale idea that "he was driven mad by an idea". He was driven mad by a bacterial infection. Sorry to burst your Grimms Fairy Tales bubble.

[Anonymous No.16146165]

>>16146110
Correct. It really would be a good idea if a system could be introduced whereby everyone who posted on an author would have, like this sensible and insightful poster, to have actually read the author in question - and not, like the tryhard kid who's posted a dozen times, dribs and drabs of everything EXCEPT the actual author.

[Anonymous No.16146195]

>>16146110
Thanks for the serious reply, but the question was intended to move towards a non-nietzschean discussion because my original argument was that you can sense the resentment in Nietzsche's writing but not Plato's (or certainly not to the same degree). And also because the poster said "for what christianity has done to the world".
So not because I haven't read, I'm very familiar with what Nietzsche said, I just think it's a terrible argument. I'm trying to step away from a dogmatic reciting of quotations to see if there is any real logical argument for Socrates being compelled by ressentiment.
Yes, pretty naive to try to have a socratic discussion with Nietzscheans, but also very revealing.

[Anonymous No.16146235]

>>16146195
>you can sense the resentment in Nietzsche's writing but not Plato's
I don't recall Nietzsche saying that Plato was resentful. It was Socrates who was. Nietzsche thought Plato was authentic but had been misguided by Socrates. Also, how can you sense that in Nietzsche's writing? Just because his writing style isn't calm doesn't mean he himself was not a calm thinker. Lack of a subservient attitude is also not a good indicator of resentment.

>I'm trying to step away from a dogmatic reciting of quotations to see if there is any real logical argument for Socrates being compelled by ressentiment.
Well, I gave it to you in the post before. Is there another question about it?

[Anonymous No.16146240]

>>16144264
Oh so philosophy isn't the things that don't conform to your beliefs, in fact, philosophy is only concerned with things that align exactly with your beliefs. Cool post, thanks.

[Anonymous No.16146247]

>>16146110
And as for an argument against this. Socrates was clearly arguing for a return to the old Greece, this is the most basic thing in Socrates possible as he basically calls democracy the worst form of government (yeah, second worst). And elsewhere in the discussions of myths and justice this becomes even more clear.
Nietzsche didn't read him, or for some reason was incapable of understanding the very basics. There's also a very simple logical problem in that Socrates was living in a period of decline, by siding with those who killed Socrates Nietzsche is essentially siding with the era of decline.

[Anonymous No.16146251]

>>16146195
Please kid, stop LARPing.
You have clearly not read a line of Nietzsche. You haven't even managed to grasp the basic Duktus - I use the term because you DO appear to read German, judging by the quotation you posted - of Nietzsche's thought.

> I'm trying to see if there is any real logical argument for Socrates being compelled by ressentiment

You see, to anyone who HAS read Nietzsche this gives you away straight away as someone who hasn't.

You are wasting your time looking for "logical argument" supporting the claims about Socrates made, for example, in the key chapter of "Twilight of the Idols" that both I and the other poster were referring to. The whole chapter is built up on statements that do not bear any sort of resemblance to "logical arguments" at all - such as "Socrates is refuted by his ugliness" - AND THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.

You have not read Nietzsche, you have no interest in Nietzsche, you have no understanding of Nietzsche. You are just some little prick who has read a few lines ABOUT him in the past couple of days and you thought you'd come on here and show off.

Sorry kid, but it didn't work

[Anonymous No.16146264]

>>16142162
>Stoicism is pretty good for a personal worldview that allows one to be independent and conscious of themselves.
no it doesn't. It makes you a slave to your mental concepts, which are always riddled with errors and misconceptions.

>Accepting that, despite this culture being undesirable, we cannot change the hearts of the people who make it

Why not. Dozens, hundreds, thousands of men have helped revolutionize the world. You are not powerless here and you're limiting yourself by pretending you can predict the consequences of your actions.

[Anonymous No.16146277]

>>16144868
why are you trying to change people's minds? You shouldn't argue, stoic, stay in your lane and accept you cannot change us.

[Anonymous No.16146289]

>>16146235
You see, I'm not just randomly attacking posters in this thread. (I'm a 60-year-old professor of philosophy by the way, so I know what I'm talking about).
THIS guy's posts are immediately recognizable as posts by someone who has read Nietzsche and read him carefully.
The reason I'm angry at the other kid is that HIS posts are equally immediately recognizable as someone who has never read a single line of the writer he is pretending to have understood and be "critiquing"

[Anonymous No.16146293]

>>16146235
>how can you sense that in Nietzsche's writing?
In constantly attacking people without basis, attacking their character, calling them stupid, plebs for being more powerful than him, etc. And in his endless moralizing.
>gave it to you
Where? All I saw was a rehash of Nietzsche's shitty argument.

[Anonymous No.16146296]

This thread exposes stoics as pseuds

Imagine thinking you understand stoicism from watching three YouTube videos better than a literal classics scholar who was fluent in Latin and read every single stoic in the original

[Anonymous No.16146307]

>>16146293
>In constantly attacking people without basis, attacking their character, calling them stupid, plebs for being more powerful than him, etc. And in his endless moralizing.

Nietzsche literally does not do a single one of these things anywhere in his entire body of work.

Please just leave, you pathetic LARPing 14-year-old illiterate

[Anonymous No.16146309]

>>16145366
>>16145575
>time for beddy-byes
cringe faggot

[Anonymous No.16146318]

>>16128845
It makes virtue out of necessity and inevitably reverts to the most despicable fatalism imaginable.

[Anonymous No.16146335]

>>16146277
I'm not trying to change your mind. I just wanted to reveal you for what you are so that others who read understand.
Thanks for playing.

[Anonymous No.16146369]

>>16145166
Nietzsche actually liked jews you know that right?

[Anonymous No.16146385]

>>16146318
This is just a caricature of stoicism

[Anonymous No.16146386]

>>16146369
If you are the little 14-year-old idiot who's been playing the professor all through this thread I would actually believe that you believed that.

[Anonymous No.16146401]

>>16146247
>Socrates was clearly arguing for a return to the old Greece, this is the most basic thing in Socrates possible as he basically calls democracy the worst form of government (yeah, second worst). And elsewhere in the discussions of myths and justice this becomes even more clear.
Nietzsche doesn't actually say that Socrates wasn't ultimately doing this. Rather, his interpretation of Socrates is that he did have these intentions, but they were clouded by his resentment and base plebeian status, and he misunderstood the older Greeks as a result. Following this, Plato, an authentic and more noble philosopher, attempted to integrate Socrates into his grand philosophy and political project, necessarily corrupting it in such a way so that it could eventually be co-opted by the early Christians in their ideological revolution.

>>16146293
>In constantly attacking people without basis, attacking their character, calling them stupid, plebs for being more powerful than him, etc.
Who does he attack without basis? For example, with Socrates, I gave you the basis and logic here >>16146110.

>>16146296
These posters aren't really Stoics. They're too woven into an outrage culture to be. This thread gets created rather often and is full of these posters all the time. Ironically, Nietzsche has more in common with the Stoics.

[Anonymous No.16146402]

>>16146335
Nobody else read those posts.

[Anonymous No.16146429]

>>16146386
Trumpeting the "Nietzsche wasn't an anti-Semite" meme is actually the most typical trait of ALL the typical traits of the little moron highschoolers and undergrads who've "done Nietzsche". It's THE paradigm example of what you little pricks let your Marxist Jew teachers spit into your gaping mouths as "a handy little factoid that you can say and that will really make you sound like you've read Nietzsche".

It's a complete lie that anyone who HAS read Nietzsche knows is a lie. Nietzsche hated Judaism and Jews

[Anonymous No.16146484]

>>16146401
Ok, but is there a reason besides "NIETZSCHE SAID SO"?
No, there isn't because, again, Socrates wanted to go back to the older Greeks, who Nietzsche himself did not understand so how could he be a judge?
His arguments are all about going back to the old forms of government and the old gods. In every dialogue there is respect for all of the old thinkers, leaders, and poets. Even the warriors who want a society based on power are given fair treatment.
At the base of this argument there is a very simple problem, either Socrates was right about the Greeks or Nietzsche was. The answer should be common sense, and only those who haven't read Socrates (by way of Plato) would think Nietzsche had the better understanding.

[Anonymous No.16146535]

>>16146402
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.16146546]

>>16146296
I doubt you read all of them faggot.

[Anonymous No.16146570]

>>16146138
Fucking go back.

[Anonymous No.16146580]

>>16146484
>Ok, but is there a reason besides "NIETZSCHE SAID SO"?
If you don't understand the logic I've already outlined for you, or don't think it has any worth to it, you can read Nietzsche's philological publications yourself (which I mentioned before) to see exactly how Nietzsche came to his understanding about Socrates over time. There's really nothing else to say about it besides this. And if reading is a problem for you, then I don't think you're sincere and you're either just here to participate in what you perceive to be an ongoing culture war here or you're here for your own petty amusement, or both.

>Socrates wanted to go back to the older Greeks
>His arguments are all about going back to the old forms of government and the old gods.
I've already addressed this. You're sounding like a broken record.

[Anonymous No.16146612]

>>16146580
So there is no logical argument outside of Nietzsche's feelings. Thanks for clarifying.
The board is supposed to be for discussion of literature, so I guess it must be your ressentiment of logic that forces you to reject that.
Some of the worst posters on the board, next to the other nietzscheans.
Now why would that be...

[Anonymous No.16146628]

>>16146580
And didn't Nietzsche himself say not to treat him as a mere teacher or master to consult? Fucking idiots who only come here to pretend they win arguments

[Anonymous No.16146638]

>>16146612
>So there is no logical argument outside of Nietzsche's feelings.
I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt for a while now, but I'm starting to think that you might really be a genuine moron. That, or you really are just a troll. Either way, you're not making the Stoics look good at all.

[Anonymous No.16146676]

>>16146638
>a nietzschean pretending to have christian morals
What a faggot.

[Anonymous No.16146720]

>>16146676
>christian

[Anonymous No.16146763]

Every single one is a redditor wtf?

[Anonymous No.16146832]

Here's your God
>"God", "immortality of the soul", "redemption", "beyond" -- Without exception, concepts to which I have never devoted any attention, or time; not even as a child. Perhaps I have never been childlike enough for them?
>I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: It is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers - at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!


>Another question interests me in a much different way: the question of nutrition; the 'salvation of humanity' is much more dependent on this question than on any theological oddity. We can formulate it in rough and ready terms: 'what do you yourself eat in order to achieve the maximum of strength?'
>But my own instincts are profoundly opposed to the English diet too, which in comparison with the German and even the French is a type of 'return to nature', namely to cannibalism; it seems to me that it gives spirit heavy feet - the feet of an Englishwoman . . . The best cuisine is from Piedmont. Alcoholic drinks are bad for me; one glass of wine or beer in the course of a day is more than enough to turn my life into a 'veil of tears'

[Anonymous No.16146854]

>>16146832
Explain how he's wrong.

[Anonymous No.16147183]

>>16146854
lmao go back

[Anonymous No.16147197]

>>16146429
Fake and gay.
Read Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.16147233]

>>16147183
Go back where? Your mom's house so I can fuck her again?

[Anonymous No.16148087]

>>16130238
/r/drama is kinda based ngl. Rip in piece.
t. on 4chan since 2008, and on a few subrebbits since 2016

[Anonymous No.16148224]

>>16130442
>Reddit is the most popular relevant social media in the world right now
bullshit, reddit consists of shit-tier memes recycled from here and twitter, le wholesome 1000 style humour, twitter screencaps, shitlib politics, and the leftovers of old new atheist i fucking love science types
reddit isn't even a particularly popular site, it's b-list at best

[Anonymous No.16148232]

>>16130442
>>16148224
and to add to this the top jannies over there have actively created the current situation of power users and groupthink, banning anything slightly edgy or avant-garde, or just right-wing in general. they want the site to be as bland and non-offensive as possible save for an undercurrent of chapotrannies that they tolerate.

[Anonymous No.16148997]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16149028]

>>16146386
>>16146251
>>16146235
>>16146138
cringe. why is it always like this?

[Anonymous No.16149144]

>>16149028
It isn't

[Anonymous No.16150326]

>>16148087
Reddit as a whole seems to be going down the Digg hole, with everything that's even slightly controversial being banned.

[Anonymous No.16150370]

>>16149144
It is.

[Anonymous No.16150381]

>>16148224
It is visited more than any other social media site besides Facebook.

[Anonymous No.16151487]

For man to thrive, he has to live in harmony with the world.

[Anonymous No.16151864]

>>16133374
you're correct but why'd you have to post that cringe last line