/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16625530]

what did he get wrong?

[Anonymous No.16625536]

>>16625530
stoicism

[Anonymous No.16625538]

>>16625530
Chinlet

[Anonymous No.16625558]

>>16625530
the mustache was cope for being ugly and looking like a girl

[Anonymous No.16625559]

>>16625530
mustacheman

[Anonymous No.16625615]

>>16625530
He got art wrong. It didn’t turn out as he intended it too and now we are placing urinals in museums and calling it art because of Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16625618]

>>16625530
Speaking on a lot of his points from an antithetical or critical perspective of a standard. That standard sets up a binary dichotomy and his ideas become chained as a response to a standard rather than being uninhibited and freely explored in their own rite without the residual connection.

A lot of what he was talking about was the doorsteps to some Indian cultures, like tantrics, but they engaged in their way as without this chain of rebellion against something.
In doing so, they were able to fully bloom what they were about, fully embracing it without any thought to the defiance of something else

A lot of his work would have been better if he lived it instead of looked for something antithetical with merit

[Anonymous No.16625624]

>>16625530
There was one of these pictures for Kant. Does anyone have it?

[Anonymous No.16625636]

>>16625558
Tell me what part of this looks feminine?

[Anonymous No.16625670]

>>16625618
>That standard sets up a binary dichotomy and his ideas become chained as a response to a standard rather than being uninhibited and freely explored in their own rite without the residual connection.

Reminds me of

>The soul of the great masses of people is receptive to nothing weak or half-way. Like a woman whose spiritual perceptions are attracted more by the strength of a leader than the reason of a follower—the masses love the ruler more than the follower and they find more inner satisfaction in
a doctrine that tolerates nothing that it, itself, has not granted approval and freedom.

[Anonymous No.16625754]

>>16625530
Ultimately nothing, because he wrote only for a very specific audience. If he got something wrong, it was minor and probably related to Wagner, since he had emotional investment there.

[Anonymous No.16625756]

>>16625670
Yeah this is well put.
Anything potent will have gravitas. Doesn't matter what It is, it just needs to be well developed and in its own element.
If it challenges a stagnant status quo and is generative, people will start moving towards it.

You can perhaps start something off the basis of antithesis, but it quickly needs to sprout on its own without this connection. Otherwise it's like a whiney bastardized brat that aims to only collapse rather than do so with the offer of something else to replace it.

[Anonymous No.16625762]

>>16625530
The greeks
http://www.nodulo.org/ec/2008/n081p13.htm

[Anonymous No.16625891]

>>16625762
Who are his favourite authors?

[Anonymous No.16625903]

>>16625530
nothing

[Anonymous No.16625947]

>>16625891
>authors
Cervantes, Homer, Sophocles, Dante, Bocaccio, Chaucer, Rabelais, Fernando de Rojas, Pessoa, Gabriel García Márquez, Borges, García Lorca, Vicente Alexaindre, Milton, Blake, Goethe, etc
>philosophers
Gustavo Bueno, Spinoza, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel and the Scholastics

[Anonymous No.16625958]

If someone wrote “Thus Zoroasta said” today would people ignore it

[Anonymous No.16625996]

>>16625636
>nigger features
What an imbecile.

[Anonymous No.16626446]

>>16625636
he look nordic as fuck is that prussian ancestry?

[Anonymous No.16626460]

>>16625530
Fashion

[Anonymous No.16626503]

>>16625996
based black Nietschze

[Anonymous No.16626517]

>>16625947
>Hegel
Dropped.

[Anonymous No.16626701]

"Na, also." sprach Zahnarzt Thustra.

[Anonymous No.16626746]

>itt /lit/ pretends it knows anything better than one of the greatest geniuses to ever live
Why does philosophy attract so many idiots?

[Anonymous No.16626764]

>>16626746
>u have to agree with everything the smart man says
you want a priest, not a philosopher

[Anonymous No.16626813]

>>16626764
>NOOOO MY OPINION IS JUST AS VALID DESPITE PUTTING IN 1/10000000TH AS MUCH THOUGHT AND INFERIOR QUALITY THOUGHT AT THAT INTO IT
>NOOOOOOOOOO PEOPLE ARE EQUAL WHY IS A NUCLEAR PHYSICIST BETTER THAN ME AT PHYSICS N O O O O O YOU'RE IRRATIONAL YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU'RE SO STUPID I BET YOU BELIEVE IN GOD YOU CRAZY STUPID YOU
Ok, retard.

[Anonymous No.16626858]

>>16626813
based bootlicker who needs to be told what to think

[Anonymous No.16626912]

>>16625536
He got it right as far as his philosophical type is concerned with it.

[Anonymous No.16626926]

>>16625530
About half

[Anonymous No.16626955]

>>16626764
>It is sometimes harder to agree to a thing than to understand it; many will feel this when they consider the proposition—"Mankind must toil unceasingly to bring forth individual great men: this and nothing else is its task."

[Anonymous No.16627056]

he forgot that HEGEL ALWAYS WINS

[Anonymous No.16627078]

>>16625530
wagner

[Anonymous No.16627095]

>>16627056
what does Brassier say about Hegel?

[Anonymous No.16627158]

>>16627095
http://stasisjournal.net/index.php/journal/article/view/27

[Anonymous No.16627166]

>>16627158
Even when other people talk about Hegel I still don't understand what the fuck they're talking about most of the time.

[Anonymous No.16627176]

>>16625958

It's not prophetic if you say it 150 years late

[Anonymous No.16627200]

>>16625615
>t didn’t turn out as he intended it too
Explain

[Anonymous No.16627212]

>>16625530
To take this question seriously: his account of early humans and the development of memory from GM2 is pretty fucking insane. Now, whether it was deliberate and he put all the violence and torture in there as an artistic move or whether this is just a result of 19th century anthropology being wrong is up for debate. When it comes to stuff like that, Nietzsche was significantly less original than people give him credit for. He was a man of his time and was heavily influenced by the sciences of his day.

There are a whole host of Nietzsche scholars (bugmen par excellence) who try to read Nietzsche as writing things that accord with scientific models of truth. Arch retard Brian Leiter argues for this approach to Nietzsche. This is obviously fucking stupid because why would the scientific observations of someone who died 120 years ago (and was basically a vegetable for the last ten) be taken seriously over all the scientific work that has been done since then?

Long story short, Nietzsche wrote a lot of stuff about science and anthropology that is now outmoded. He was wrong about that. He had a lamarckian understanding of evolution and that screwed up his genealogical project at least to the extent that we can't regard the blonde beasts of prey and skittish herd animal slave type people who get tortured into developing memory as being factually correct. Metaphorically correct or true, maybe. Was it his intention to only be metaphorically correct? Probably not but I can't say definitively.

[Anonymous No.16627215]

>>16625762
Qrd?

[Anonymous No.16627222]

>>16626764
You might want to check the news.

[Anonymous No.16627246]

>>16627222
What's the implication here wrt Nietzsche not being infallible

[Anonymous No.16627274]

>>16625530
Threesomes and how to do them.

[Anonymous No.16627314]

>>16627166
Basically, the self-relation is absolute and infinite, and the only path out of darkness is to intensify it step by step, and there's no escape from this. Nietzsche's suspicion that reason is nothing more than an expression of the will to power represents a higher stage of self-consciousness about the power of reason, because it does not have a naive sense of trust of those with power actually believing what they say. However, it risks an unintelligibility in believing that all is power, because in this register it can never believe that anyone could ever actually mean what they say.

It is very trite and almost a cliche to say that Nietzsche's will to power is self refuting, because it would mean that Nietzsche's own words are just an expression of the will to power, and are therefore not to be trusted. The reason why this critique fails to land, is because it implies that one ought to relinquish their sense of suspicion in favour of an infinite trust.

Brassier uses this semantic self-refutation of the will to power, not to dismiss it, but to show its limitations. He believes that a higher state of self-consciousness is a dialectic between suspicion and trust wherein the subject is self-conscious of the will to power, and reserves it as a justification for suspicion, but, understands that its absolution leads to total unintelligbility (stupidity), and therefore also is capable of trusting that someone can mean what they say.

This is why "Hegel always wins" - because the dialectic is the self-consciousness which supersedes the naivety of trust, and stupidity of suspicion.

[Anonymous No.16627315]

>>16627212
Do you have specific examples of scientific works that have come out since and which of his accounts in particular they debunk? Or do you mean the general ideas of master and slave morality, iron-fisted blond beasts, etc.?

[Anonymous No.16627328]

>>16627056
>speculative faggotry
Into the garbage it goes.

[Anonymous No.16627329]

>>16625558
>stachelet

[Anonymous No.16627356]

>>16627314
>Basically, the self-relation is absolute and infinite
Why? Isn't this stretching an observation to a highly abstract, and therefore untenable, premise?

[Anonymous No.16627365]

>>16627314
>because in this register it can never believe that anyone could ever actually mean what they say.
what's the motive for belief
conscious or unconscious, is there much of a difference? one knows how to wield it, the other is more at the mercy of the conditioning but still using it just the same.

[Anonymous No.16627372]

>>16627314
Cringe

[Anonymous No.16627374]

>>16627314
If I'm following along here the conclusion we reach is just 'some statements have ulterior motives and others mostly mean what they say'.

[Anonymous No.16627417]

is that really a pic of him? if so that's the best pic i've ever seen of him

[Anonymous No.16627422]

>>16627417
it's jim carrey

[Anonymous No.16627450]

nvm just found it online it's a render

[Anonymous No.16627480]

>>16627417
>>16627450

[Anonymous No.16627498]

>>16625530

[Anonymous No.16627508]

>>16625538
He had strong neanderthalic facial features you dumb insecure looktard

[Anonymous No.16627547]

>>16627374
yeah
>>16627356
I think Brassier would probably say something like an other self-relation is pre-critical and tell you go to read Kant

[Anonymous No.16627603]

>>16627547
>tell you go to read Kant
Kek what a pseud

[Anonymous No.16627614]

>>16627547
In Nihil Unbound he seems extremely skeptical of any of that type of claim, but that was a while ago at this point and I haven't read his more recent writing. He said he was going to follow up NU with another book fleshing it out but hasn't so far.

[Anonymous No.16627905]

>Suppose Truth is a woman

[Anonymous No.16627925]

>>16625530
He published.

No, really. All of Nietzsche is accurate, but it is not for everyone to read. Once midwit and mediocre academics got hold of him Postmodernity ensued.

[Anonymous No.16628134]

>>16626446
Ugh, no.

Nitsch was a proud Polish-Thuringian lad.

[Anonymous No.16629694]

>>16627905
Kek

[Jesus No.16629758]

>>16625530
pfff... a lot. read castaneda, moron.

[Anonymous No.16629909]

he was right about everything but it never got him any pussy so in the end he was wrong

he admits to this in his final letters