I'm confused

[Anonymous No.16189213]

He criticizes the stoics for being hypocrites but then on BG&E advocates for a certain type of asceticism that is WAY too similar to stoic asceticism. Did I read it wrong?

[Anonymous No.16189237]

>>16189213
He criticizes the stoics because of their interpretation of nature. His main point is that they think they are rational and neutral in their interpretation, whereas Nietzsche shows that they just exert their will to power when talking about nature, because they shape it in their own image. He has nothing against askesis. Protip, when Nietzsche criticizes something, it doesnt mean he dismisses the whole thing off-handedly.

[Anonymous No.16189260]

>>16189237
Oh okay that makes much more sense. Thank you anon

[Anonymous No.16189363]

>>16189213
Yeah I bet you confused lmfao

[Anonymous No.16189372]

>>16189363
Yes I was. But >>16189237 clarified it for me

[Anonymous No.16189379]

>>16189237
Cope.
Neetch was a retard.

[Anonymous No.16189391]

Stoicism and asceticism are very different, politically and morally.

[Anonymous No.16189400]

>>16189391
how?

[Anonymous No.16189678]

>>16189237
At least I'd say stoicism is the nature of man, amor fati would be the feminine opposite imo.

[Anonymous No.16189689]

>>16189678
Stoicism is the nature of the slave man, not the free man.

[Anonymous No.16189709]

>>16189689
>Stoicism is the nature of the slave man
>Stoicism advocates for the replacement of habits in order to make the subject not be the object of his habits

[Anonymous No.16189710]

>>16189213
You are right. Don't listen to retards who say otherwise

[Anonymous No.16189722]

>>16189709
>in order to make the subject not be the object of his habits
This is a slave's attitude about habits. The subject does not become "the object of [its] habits" unless it is unable to control them, i.e., it is a slave to them.

[Anonymous No.16189734]

>>16189722
>The subject does not become "the object of [its] habits" unless it is unable to control them, i.e., it is a slave to them.

Are you blind my nigga? Thats the exact goal of stoicism, not to be a slave to them

[Anonymous No.16189751]

>>16189734
What you aren't realizing is that Stoic morality STARTS from the conditions of the slave. No one besides the slaves have such a goal in the first place, because they don't feel any threat from their habits, since they already control them — in fact, they don't even see themselves as separate from them, which is how the free man and master sees the situation. Stoicism is only needed by slaves.

[Anonymous No.16189765]

>>16189751
Lets me guess, you read the last chapter from BG&E and some Evola and suddenly think you have unlimited free will? lmao
"The noble man sees himself as a height" like Nietzsche says, is only applicable in terms of attitude, not in terms of the reality of your habits, thats why even Nietzsche advocated for asceticism. Read Peter Sloterdijk to understand that all your attitudes boil down to training

[Anonymous No.16189853]

>>16189765
I was merely explaining how Nietzsche himself viewed Stoicism. Pic related is from The Dawn of Day.

>Nietzsche advocated for asceticism.
I never disputed that, but there are two kinds of asceticism in Nietzsche. Stoicism is the slave's kind and he did not advocate for that kind.

[Anonymous No.16189901]

>>16189853
I never really payed attention to Nietzsches elitism because I think it falls short of an actual training routine (Which all philosophies posing as athleticism should have). If Stoicism is a "slave" philosophy, I still prefer it because it actually goes into detail of its training + seems the most propeled to providing the max amount of free will.

Since Nietzsches Philosophy of athleticism was never completed because he died before completing it, I only regard him for his analysis, because he falls short of providing solutions.

[Anonymous No.16189926]

>>16189901
and I dont mean this as "oh I need to be spoon fed a philosophy in its entirety to learn", I just mean that Nietzsche barely offers a starting point except from his Dyonisian attitude

[Anonymous No.16189943]

Nietzsche is the bastard child of Seneca and Lucretius in his view of life
He is only different in terms of semsntics

[Anonymous No.16189944]

>>16189765

Peter Sloterdijk sounds like an interesting thinker. Where should I start with him?

[Anonymous No.16189959]

>>16189944
Du musst deine Leben andern (you must change your life)

[Anonymous No.16189983]

>>16189959
can you give a short tl'dr what it is about?

[Anonymous No.16190020]

>>16189983
de-spiritualization of asceticism as practice. The self is shaped by practice and nothing else, personality and identity is a meme and vertical tensions come from "lacking"

[Anonymous No.16190024]

>>16189901
>Nietzsches Philosophy of athleticism
>he falls short of providing solutions.
I'm not really sure what you mean, but matters of the will are philosophical in nature, and Nietzsche's understanding of will stems from Schopenhauer, who understood the will as something distinct from the mind and unable to be touched by it — similar to Kant's thing-in-itself, but, unlike Kant, both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche saw the world and the will as conjoined.

Nietzsche's elitism stems from his view that he is from a noble (master) bloodline and that morality is given by blood only, not something that is earned or worked for. Hence the difference between the master's asceticism and the slave's asceticism: while both the master and (higher) slave are harsh towards themselves while creating and establishing their will in the world, exerting themselves over the world in the process, they work towards a very different art. The master's art celebrates the world, including all conflict, pain, and misery inside of it, while the slave's art celebrates a world "beyond," one that rejects this world on account of the conflict, pain, and misery inside of it.

[Anonymous No.16190041]

>>16189722
habits imply a lack of control, like definitively
dumb

[Anonymous No.16190043]

>>16190020
sounds like the continuation of Foucault's project, I'll probably pick it up, Rage and Time was a decent read

[Anonymous No.16190057]

>>16190043
Great part of the book is about Foucault too. I'll probably pick Raga and Time next

[Anonymous No.16190064]

>>16190041
One doesn't necessarily have to interpret a habit as a lack of control.

[Anonymous No.16190066]

>>16190041
>He thinks his sense of control isn't an habit aswell

[Anonymous No.16190081]

>>16190024
Good point anon.

I honestly don't know how to interpret his asceticism then, honestly it feels like masochism when you boil it down.
One could detach stoic asceticism for a world "beyond" and apply it to a sense of duty coined by the individual. I guess then you could have a master asceticism or pseudo-master asceticism

[Anonymous No.16190097]

>>16190064
this is how i know you're being intellectually dishonest

>>16190066
hmm maybe

[Anonymous No.16190114]

so what the fuck is the point of stoicism? To me it just sounds like a quietist philosophy that has very little to say about truth and more to do with being able to deal with reality slightly better without wanting to kill yourself. Is it really just a more sophisticated version of "clean your room bucko"?

[Anonymous No.16190187]

>>16190081
>honestly it feels like masochism when you boil it down.
I think the point of Nietzsche's asceticism is to increase our power (understood as something like overcoming oneself to increase your capacity to act and to be affected). This kind of asceticism is inevitably painful and displeasurable. A banal example would be weight lifting. It is a sort of physical askesis since you do things that bring no pleasure to increase your strength. Or something like studying hard and investigating a topic to write an essay, you suspend all the fun things if you want to focus properly etc., but then you become better at writing. You see, its not displeasure for its own sake. Christian askesis has a different aim, you purify and keep yourself in check for the world that awaits beyond. Askesis in both cases, but different aims (power/salvation).

[Anonymous No.16190208]

>>16190114
ye. but imo utility has much more value to the layman than most philisophical texts, would you not agree?

[Anonymous No.16190210]

>>16190114
Not all philosophy has to deal with "truth"
Some philosphy is to be trained, not studied. Stoicism is one of them.
You don't need to agree with it, just understand not all philosophies are meant to be followed by everyone, stoicism is just one alternative of many

[Anonymous No.16190227]

>>16190187
This only goes to prove that Peter Sloterdijk was right and you can incorporate Nietszchean philosophy with stoicism (or atleast stoic askesis). If you never read him anon you should

[Anonymous No.16190278]

>>16190208
I don't care about how "useful" art and truth are to me, I'm simply interested in them for their own sake. It's what separates from animals
>>16190210
do you care about intellectual truth or not?

[Anonymous No.16190292]

>>16190278
>do you care about intellectual truth or not?

Not if its counter-productive to my well being. If you really only care about truth for its own sake you'll turn into a nihilistic anglo bugmen. Even Nietzsche advocated for a will to stupidity

[Anonymous No.16190301]

>>16190187

Isn't this just straight Hegel?

[Anonymous No.16190300]

>>16190292
>not if it isn't useful to me!!!
the only bugman here is you.

[Anonymous No.16190311]

>>16190300
You clearly missed my point. Truth is meant to serve you, not the other way around. Read Nietzsche and William James

[Anonymous No.16190316]

>>16190278
you're speaking as if your personal preferences should be applied to humanity at large, not really much of an argument
you can't discout utility simply because it doesn't interest you

[Anonymous No.16190341]

>>16190301
where does Hegel talks about askesis in this way?

[Anonymous No.16190342]

>>16190311
Truth isn't "meant" to "serve" anything. You prefer a useful "Noble Lie" to a truth that might dissipate any romantic hallucinations with regards to reality you have. You prefer to be the "furrow-browed stoic striving against contemporary decandence" rather than understanding you position in history (that you're actually a liberal at the end of the day)
>>16190316
If you think searching for truth is a 'personal preference' then i don't know what to tell you.

[Anonymous No.16190357]

>>16190342
>Truth isn't "meant" to "serve" anything

Yes it is retard ahahahah. Who are you to claim you have the "truth"? What even is your method for acquiring the truth, empiricism? Rationalism? Lmao, you don't know what you're talking about

>that you're actually a liberal at the end of the day

?????

[Anonymous No.16190365]

>>16190342
>If you think searching for truth is a 'personal preference' then i don't know what to tell you.
it literally is dipshit
>he thinks values exist objectively, in the material world
i don't even know what to say to this

[Anonymous No.16190377]

>>16190357
I am a sage at the end of history and you need to humble yourself and read kojeve unless you insist continuing to larp as a radical with "fashionable ideas" (which is only possible because of liberal world order at the end of history, so yes, you are a liberal, and so is everyone here)

>>16190365
>it literally is dipshit
prove it
>he thinks values exist objectively, in the material world
when was this even implied

[Anonymous No.16190425]

>>16190377
>I am a sage at the end of history and you need to humble yourself and read kojeve unless you insist continuing to larp as a radical with "fashionable ideas" (which is only possible because of liberal world order at the end of history, so yes, you are a liberal, and so is everyone here

Do you hear yourself? You seem to be posessed by some notion of "truth" that has no basis in reality and is clearly just a personal perspective you have. Also I'm not a radical, I'm just not delusional by the idea of an objective truth like you are lmao

[Anonymous No.16190430]

>>16190425
>I'm just not delusional by the idea of an objective truth like you are lmao
so you're a nihilist yes? objective truth is impossible?

[Anonymous No.16190456]

>>16190430
Objective truth is impossible without god and no I'm not a nihilist. You clearly have no idea about what nihilism means, but yet again you've only shown yourself as a retard so far so thats not suprising

[Anonymous No.16190467]

>>16190456
so only god can posses absolute truth? It's impossible for man? what's the point of any of this then? Relinquishing truth to the "mysteries of the powers that be" means that all the advancements in thought since Jesus have essentially been for naught right?

[Anonymous No.16190480]

>>16189379
christcuck tears are YUM

[Anonymous No.16190490]

>>16190467
>Relinquishing truth to the "mysteries of the powers that be" means that all the advancements in thought since Jesus have essentially been for naught right?

Ofcourse they weren't for naught wtf, verissimilitude exists anon, but the only thing that can eliminate the gap between relative and absolute is god.
Also why do you crave the truth so much? Life isn't just about the truth lol, if that was the case then life would be pretty fucking boring

[Anonymous No.16190534]

>>16190490
But didn't christ show that actually you could achieve such a thing? Or is becoming like Jesus impossible? Was his ministry simply an example that was not meant to be reached, but approximated?
>Also why do you crave the truth so much?
"For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open." Luke 8 17
"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." John 14 26
Seems fairly clear to me?

[Anonymous No.16190550]

>>16190534
>Or is becoming like Jesus impossible? Was his ministry simply an example that was not meant to be reached, but approximated?
Yes and yes
But this doesn't mean nihilism. Only Christ can be Christ, but we can be his champion, not his sucessor

[Anonymous No.16190554]

>>16190550
>Yes and yes
we disagree fundamentally

[Anonymous No.16190560]

>>16190554
There is nothing wrong with a healthy disagreement

[Anonymous No.16190570]

>>16189400
they are spelled differently

[Anonymous No.16190606]

>>16190278
>It's what separates from animals
Animals have no concept of truth and you're also one of them.

[Anonymous No.16190619]

>>16189237
Why does he resent them for exerting their will to power?

[Anonymous No.16190623]

>>16190619
He doesn't

[Anonymous No.16190627]

>>16190619
Where do you get "resent" from?

[Anonymous No.16190639]

>>16190480
"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.16190648]

>>16190639
tldr eat shit nigger hahaha

[Anonymous No.16190653]

>>16190639
Based Neetzsche

[Anonymous No.16190661]

>>16190648
>>16190653
go back.

[Anonymous No.16190679]

>>16190661
Alright I'm back

[Anonymous No.16190692]

I like Nietzsche but the man was the ultimate edgebeard necklord next to Socrates. He could shitpost with such eloquence that no man alive in his day stood a chance. Nietzsche, master yroll, confounder of scholars, inflicted such butthurt upon religionfags that he bears the title of Antichrist for the 19th century. Imagine this man, rather a god, baiting /lit/ in German. We'd all die a hideous death witnessing the crowned king shitposteur baffle with bullshit akin to Guenon the Ruseman harping on about Islam. Fred would do us all proud. We could only stand in awe, stricken dumbfounded, before his unbannable, unironic funpostan.

[Anonymous No.16190703]

>>16190692
There's really nothing edgy in Nietzsche though, that's an anachronistic take.

[Anonymous No.16192088]

>>16190703
gay

[Anonymous No.16192154]

>>16189751
Speedreader spotted, never talk about Nietzsche again

[Anonymous No.16192198]

See, if you aren't a scholar going after philosophy, don't grapple with Nietzsche or any of the other very fucking difficult philosophical texts. You'll get hurt in ways you can't imagine. Often, people take up philosophy incorrectly and are driven insane by it, especially perfectionists who expect too damn much of themselves.

[Anonymous No.16192214]

>>16190703
Fucking smoothbrain subwit leddit immigrant

[Anonymous No.16192217]

>>16189853
Incredible how you managed to misunderstamd that passage anon

[Anonymous No.16192240]

Yikes

[Anonymous No.16192260]

>>16189237
>He has nothing against askesis
lol

[Anonymous No.16192532]

>>16192217
What's the misunderstanding? He clearly calls the Stoics a type of slave there.

[Anonymous No.16193115]

>>16190024
>Nietzsche's elitism stems from his view that he is from a noble (master) bloodline and that morality is given by blood only, not something that is earned or worked for.
>i'm right because muh feelz
cringe

[Anonymous No.16194889]

>>16189213
This is a huge thing people miss in Nietzsche:
When he criticizes something he is not damning it. He is not establishing an absolute position against the thing and everything affiliated with it. If he disagrees with a point, all he's doing is disagreeing with a point.
Everything is open for criticism, it's healthy to criticize. Nietzsche has something negative and positive to find in most topics, and at the end of the day he seems to put the worst and the best things on even ground.

[Anonymous No.16194980]

>>16193115
>i'm right because muh feelz
that's right virgin, now get used to sucking chad dick.

[Anonymous No.16195639]

>>16189213
gay

[Anonymous No.16196326]

>>16190024
Nietzsche is fully aware of the 'theologian's blood' flowing through his veins (and his philosophy) and therefore while an advocate for elitism, doesn't feel as if he himself is an elite at all despite his time and again addressing his readership (and himself) as we free spirits. Were he an elite there'd be no need for a struggle- which is what his philosophy is; ironically his Kampf is directed at a Christian elite. This becomes abundantly clear in Anti-Christ.