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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 6 KB, 193x262, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17032760 No.17032760 [Reply] [Original]

Why did Nietzsche admire Epicurus? Their philosophies seem so divergent of one another.

>> No.17032762

>There were four pairs who responded to me in my sacrifice: Epicurus and Montaigne, Goethe and Spinoza, Plato and Rousseau, Pascal and Schopenhauer. With them I have to come to terms. When I have long wandered alone, I will let them prove me right or wrong; to them will I listen, if they prove each other right or wrong. In all that I say, conclude, or think out for myself and others, I fasten my eyes on those eight and see their eyes fastened on mine.
-Nietzsche

>> No.17032784

>>17032762
> I will let them prove me right or wrong; to them will I listen
Based, not only answering to dead writers and trying to prove them wrong, but listening to them and letting them prove you wrong if they can.

>> No.17032799

>>17032760
Isn't Nietzsche pretty life-affirming?

>> No.17032812

>>17032799
Yes, but in a very different way than Epicurus. To Nietzsche, a part of affirming life is to strive to become a higher man. Epicurus would heavily disagree with this. To Epicurus, affirming life would be to live a simple, happy life; he discourages striving for greatness.

>> No.17032841

Honestly philosophy is so homoerotic what the fuck. weirdo worshipping since dead eggheads, aspiring to be one himself. holy fuck it's all a big joke isn't it? these guys are morons

>> No.17032951

He admired Dostoyevsky even though they are polar opposites. So what? You can admire people you disagree with.

>> No.17032971

>>17032951
Yes, but they were also similar in a lot of ways. They were both forerunners of existentialism and saw nihilism as a growing problem. So, although they have their differences, they are also very similar. I don't see any similarities between Nietzsche and Epicurus like I can see with every other writer Nietzsche admires.

>> No.17034035

>>17032760
>Their philosophies seem so divergent of one another.
Not really.

>> No.17034049

>>17034035
How are they not?

>> No.17034129

Epicurean philosophy is the philosophy of the last man

>> No.17034145

>>17034129
So then why would Nietzsche admire Epicurus? Nietzsche despised the last man.

>> No.17034192

>>17032760
In the same way he admired de Maistre. Not an abstract literal belief in pleasure being the purpose to life, but a sensical look at life and the individual. It really makes quite a lot of sense why he liked them when you think about it.

>> No.17034203

>>17032762
When did he write this? It seems so much more sincere and beautiful than anything I've ever read by him.

>> No.17034235

>>17032812
>To Nietzsche, a part of affirming life is to strive to become a higher man.
a part but not an essential part. Nietzsche obviously advocated for this to his hyperborean readers, but a misreading of Nietzsche is to say that he thought it was for everyone. Some people are simply herd animals, and Nietzsche does not condemn their existence; he condemns the ressentiment driving the slaves and reversal of power caused by the slave revolt.
A person can embrace life without being a master moralist. Slave morality isn't inherently life-denying; Christian slave morality is.

>> No.17034452

>>17034145
Nietzsche repeatedly mentions how he picks fights only with what deeply admires - including christianity

>> No.17034470

>>17034452
Where did he say this? Also not the anon you're replying to, but this would be a very important quote for anyone.

>> No.17034475
File: 311 KB, 1114x1326, 1599833857548.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17034475

>>17032760
I love all philosophers I've ever read, myself. I see no reason to dislike anyone for a difference of opinion.

>> No.17034487

My take would be that Epicurus criticized the predominant ideas trough the viewpoint of morality. For him, it wasnt that the idea of god or fear of death is illogical or something, but that it prevents from people thriving. The same is with Nietzsche. When he criticizes ideas its not mainly because they are false in some manner (since Nietzsche explicitly praises lying), but because they deny life.

>> No.17034602

>>17034452
Quote? This doesn't sound right. He did not, at all, admire Christianity. He said the only thing he can praise Christianity for is teaching him how to hate. Paul, in particular, Nietzsche absolutely detested and there is no way his quarrels with Paul were birthed out of any admiration. I also doubt he admired Socrates, he pretty much only had terrible things to say about him (going so far as to call him gay, ugly, and "for plebes") whereas Plato he shat on quite a bit but also praised.

>> No.17035120

>>17034602
>>17034470
>From Ecce Homo

"Fourthly, I attack only those things from which all personal differences are excluded, in which any such thing as a background of disagreeable experiences is lacking. On the contrary, attacking is to me a proof of goodwill and, in certain circumstances, of gratitude. By means of it, I do honour to a thing, I distinguish a thing; whether I associate my name with that of an institution or a person, by being against or for either, is all the same to me. If I wage war against Christianity, I feel justified in doing so, because in that quarter I have met with no fatal experiences and difficulties—the most earnest Christians have always been kindly disposed to me."

"To be one's enemy's equal—this is the first condition of an honourable duel. Where one despises one cannot wage war."

>from the geneology of morals

actual ‘love of your enemies’ is also possible here and here alone –
assuming it is possible at all on earth.30 How much respect a noble man
has for his enemies! – and a respect of that sort is a bridge to love . . . For
he insists on having his enemy to himself, as a mark of distinction, indeed
he will tolerate as enemies none other than such as have nothing to be
despised and a great deal to be honoured!

>> No.17035203

>>17035120
>>17035120

>one more looser quote from twilight of the idols

The spiritualization of sensuality is known as love: it is a great triumph
over Christianity. Another triumph is our spiritualization of enmity. It
consists in a deep grasp of the value of having enemies: in short, it is a way
of acting and drawing conclusions that is the reverse of what people used
to do. In every age, the Church wanted its enemies to be destroyed; we, we
immoralists and anti-Christians, see our own advantage in the Church’s
continued existence...

>> No.17035316

>>17032762
>Pascal
I am surprised

>> No.17035377

I am a Christian but I dig Schopenhauer alot.

>> No.17035388

>>17032760
nietzsche wasnt a dogmatic retard so he could appreciate people who he disagreed with