[ 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, 6E852113-10CC-434E-A95E-C3FB4279F5E8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.18827074 [Reply] [Original]

Was he right?

>> No.18827083

He was German

>> No.18827098

>>18827074
Yes but also wrong

>> No.18827099

>>18827083
*Polish

>> No.18827195

>>18827074
I don’t understand Amor Fati.
I would admire a man who could stoically love his life, say “yes” to fate, and be willing to live the same life eternally, sure; but only to a point, for the following reasons
1. If you have been given a horrible or shameful fate, then it would be foolish/cucked/masochistic and embarrassing to accept that and not yearn for something better. The only asshat I’ve talked to who was really into this idea of eternal recurrence and loving his fate was a gay neet twink living a comfortable life in his parents house, grooming himself, reading bl manga, and watching pirated movies and anime all day (and he was delusional enough to have confided in me that he thought himself an “ubermensch” - because nothing says rising above slave morality like pirating Starship Troopers).
2. Fate is ridiculously malleable through alchemy. There are stages of alchemical development that can be extremely shitty, but you can consciously use the art of transformation to order your ultimate destiny and follow your true orbit.

tl:dr Amor Fati seems reasonable once you have created a noble and aesthetically perfect life for yourself with alchemy (a process that takes lifetimes).
There are lives that would be noble to choose to live eternally: but many lives are not worth living more than once. Some not even that.
So Nietszche seems conditionally right.

Granted I haven’t read him because he seems like a faggot.

>> No.18827205

>>18827074
Amor fati and Stoicism is literally the same
Disprove me

>> No.18827227

>>18827205
Both are slave morality except in rare people who are born conquerers.

>> No.18827253

>>18827227
Bro read gay science N didn't say any guy who practice amor fati as slave

>> No.18827271

Why did he love the Greeks so much? If it was just a matter of anti-Christendom, he could’ve latched onto the Germans or the Norse just as easily if not more so. Why didn’t he have as much interest in the Sagas as he did in Greek tragedy?

>> No.18827284

>>18827195
>alchemy
fucking kek stop the larp

>> No.18827289

>>18827271
Because the Greeks were really on top and about that shit

>> No.18827293

>>18827074
"Morality consists of dishonest idealizations created by man! We can free ourselves by flipping it on its head and embracing those suppressed "evil" qualities of man's nature honestly and live with conviction."

"Ok, what kind of change in the world does that translate to?"

"Basically you should undertake the duties imposed upon you with a delusion of self-confidence instead of a delusion of moral servitude."

"Ok, whatever."

>> No.18827299

>>18827253
Wanna try that again in english?

>> No.18827315

>>18827195
>>18827302

>> No.18827335

>>18827315
Why do people like him so much?
“I want to pay attention to things I like, turn away from what I don’t like, and say “Yes” to life :)))”

This is reads like a self help book written by an American woman

>> No.18827337

>>18827315
So what?

>> No.18827368

>>18827335
Read Zarathustra

>> No.18827372

>>18827289
About what shit?

>> No.18827425

>>18827368
Funny, I keep starting that one, getting about halfway through, and dropping it out of boredom.
I don’t get the appeal.

>> No.18827437

>>18827074
No one is "right," that's his point.

>>18827205
Amor fati, like the eternal recurrence, is a litmus test rather than a system of ethics. Nietzsche is anti-system and anti-ethics.

>>18827271
In his early years, his love for the Greeks was probably influenced from the adults around him. 18th and 19th century Germans were obsessed with the Greeks. Later on, he loved them because of their depth.

>>18827335
>This is reads like a self help book written by an American woman
Of course it does, since you're taking one passage out of context without having read anything else.

>> No.18827486

>>18827437
>No one is "right," that's his point.
That's wrong, and easily provable to be so.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: perhaps you've badly summarized one of his ideas.

>> No.18827518

>>18827486
If it was easily provable, someone would have done so and refuted him, but no one yet has done that. In fact, his detractors barely ever even address him and just fixate on either small inconsequential errors he made or attack him personally.

>You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

>Everything goes, everything comes back; eternally rolls the wheel of being. Everything dies, everything blossoms again; eternally runs the year of being. Everything breaks, everything is joined anew; eternally the same House of Being is built. Everything parts, everything greets every other thing again; eternally the ring of being remains faithful to itself. In every Now, being begins; round every Here rolls the sphere There. The center is everywhere. Bent is the path of eternity.

>I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them: the will to a system is a lack of integrity.

>> No.18827564

>>18827437
>18th and 19th century Germans were obsessed with the Greeks. Later on, he loved them because of their depth.
Why? Wagner’s hero was Norse-Germanic, not Greek after all.

>> No.18827577

>>18827564
>Why?
The obsession is sometimes attributed to Winckelmann. Eliza Butler has a book on the topic which I haven't read.

>> No.18827616

>>18827099
He larped as Polish

>> No.18827632

The exact opposite.

>> No.18827639

>>18827074
No

>> No.18827735

>>18827518
>If it was easily provable, someone would have done so and refuted him, but no one yet has done that
Plenty have, but you're too busy sucking Nietzsche's cock to notice.
For example Aleister Crowley writes in his Book of the Law that the law of the Aeon, the current period of 2000 years we find ourselves in, is such: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the Law, love under Will." meaning essentially the same thing as Nietzsche's watery "just do whatever you want maaaan, but don't tell me what to do brooooo" that you posted here:
>You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.
...except that in Crowley's view one's True Will is a duty from Heaven that we have mandated to ourselves. You MUST do your own Will, the GodStar in you, who is you, has given you purpose, and THIS is what is Ultimately Correct. Nietzsche is too passive for me in comparison.
>Everything goes, everything comes back; eternally rolls the wheel of being. [...] The center is everywhere. Bent is the path of eternity.
This is just source, monad, Tielhard Point: the mechanics of which have been explored and elucidated in Eastern thought for thousands of years, and in western esotericism for the same amount of time. Nietzsche doesn't bring anything new to the table here.
>I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them: the will to a system is a lack of integrity.
The total lack of a system is primordial chaos. The human body is a system. Societies, even societies more ideal than abrahamic ones, like that of ancient China, Egypt, or Greece, are systems. Some would will to systems, and as Nietzsche says, "the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist", no? So what you have is a man tepidly asserting his preferences. "uuhhhh... nothing is right, and I just don't like systems, LOL"

The only reason I can see for people to fellate Nietzsche so much is that they like his prose or style, but what he's written that's of practical value, many others have written, and some have written better.

>> No.18827768

>>18827074
he wasn't even wrong

>> No.18828138

>>18827735
>Crowley refuted Nietzsche by repeating him in a shallow manner
lol. Did you really think this was worth responding to seriously?

>> No.18829057

>>18828138
Only a hylic would call Crowley shallow.

>> No.18829164

>>18829057
Next to Nietzsche he is shallow.

>> No.18829202
File: 265 KB, 606x375, Nietzsche and Wagner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18827074
>betrays Wagner
What do you think?

>> No.18829204

>>18829164
In his life he's far more "ubermensch" than Nietzsche ever was, and distilled the intentions of Angels into comprehensible and practically applicable writing.
You've never even read him to boot.

>> No.18829213

>>18829204
The Ubermensch is one who has created beyond oneself to the greatest extent so far, and Crowley had far less influence on the world than Nietzsche did, so he's not "more Ubermensch" than Nietzsche.

>distilled the intentions of Angels
yeah it's schizo time

>> No.18829215

>>18827099
>>18827616
Why did Nietzsche larp as Polish? I've never understood that.

>> No.18829259

>>18829215
Ok nvm I just googled it
https://culture.pl/en/article/was-nietzsche-polish

>> No.18829271

>>18829259
>I am a Polish nobleman pure sang, in whom there is not the slightest admixture of bad blood, least of all German.
holy based

>> No.18829274

>>18829213
>Crowley had far less influence on the world than Nietzsche did, so he's not "more Ubermensch" than Nietzsche.
First of all, personally he went well beyond the bounds of slave morality having essentially created a harem of men and women for himself. Accounts of his death are varied and conflicting to the point where it's unclear whether he did not really evaporate on a Mexican battlefield.
But his influence extends from Hitler, to almost all areas of pop culture (see The Beatles, Led Zepplin, David Bowie, Alien, Star Wars, Gundam, etc. etc. etc.), to space travel through his influence on Jack Parsons and the creation of NASA, and so much more.

>yeah it's schizo time
Ok hylic.

>> No.18829290

>>18827205
Nietzsche is literally just stoic physics but nature has an irrational side and so does man.

>> No.18829306

>>18829274
Crowley's influence hasn't been equivalent to Nietzsche's, which even includes Crowley and other occult figures.

>hylic
Anyone who uses this word doesn't understand Nietzsche.

>> No.18829318

>>18829306
Maybe if you stopped putting your head in the sand like an ostrich you'd get a worthwhile understanding of the world, hylic.

>> No.18829347

>>18827195
>If you have been given a horrible or shameful fate, then it would be foolish/cucked/masochistic and embarrassing to accept that and not yearn for something better.
Yeah thats the entire point. You don't get to choose your fate you can only choose if you enjoy it/make the most of it.

Imagine Nietzsche's eternal reoccurance was real. How would you live your life differently? Would you get depressed and angry over your fate or would you try to live it better?

>> No.18829375

>>18829318
>says nothing
Thanks for playing.

>> No.18829386

>>18829375
Reddit is suited for creatures like (You).

>> No.18829436

>>18829386
Yeah yeah, >>>/x/

>> No.18829450

>>18829347
>Imagine Nietzsche's eternal reoccurance was real. How would you live your life differently? Would you get depressed and angry over your fate or would you try to live it better?
It's a fundamentally retarded idea (that fortunately has no bearing on reality). If eternal recurrence was real, and taken to its logical extreme, then you wouldn't be able to live any differently. Every single thought and emotion you had, every action and reaction, everything would be exactly the same. You wouldn't be able to "live better" or any worse.
>You don't get to choose your fate you can only choose if you enjoy it/make the most of it.
The "Good News" of Eastern philosophy is that you do. You incarnate into your karma. The things you gravitate towards in life will inform your next incarnation (this is also a view held by the Greeks).
Nietzsche presents a worthwhile argument, that you should strive for the good while alive, but with a confused metaphysics that really only has poetic value.

>> No.18829463

>>18829436
When you're being dragged through the dirt, uncomprehending of your incomprehensible torment, your eyes will open to Spirit.

>> No.18829476

>>18827425
you should read it because it illustrates amor fati in more depth than American self help. But it is long-winded and potentially "boring"... but I didn't suggest it for entertainment but for understanding amor fati (and eternal recurrence and other ideas) in a different light

>> No.18829571

>>18829450
Not him, but your answer doesn't seem to take eternal recurrence all that seriously. Because, if it were true, then it would mean:

>1. There is no escape from your life.
As soon as you die and stay dead, you will return to the moment when you start to consciously perceive / remember things again. There is no pause, no relief in between. It would be an instant switch from your perspective. That means that heaven and hell aren't places outside this existence, but are instead feelings towards your own life depending on how you live and view it, and, like any other feelings, they can be changed / overcome.

>2. Your life itself is your immortal soul.
Your soul still lives forever, but now this life itself is your soul. That bit about being able to change / overcome how you feel about your own life? That basically translates to being able to save your soul. Do you want your soul to be stuck in this endlessly recurring cycle as a bitter, miserable thing, that never pursued its dreams, never found joy in itself? Or do you now realize what your immortal soul really is and wish to redeem it? Do you want to reach heaven? Heaven is this life when you have lived it your way. If you live such a way, you will have heaven for eternity, as this eternally recurring existence, which is your immortal soul.

>> No.18829590

>>18829571
Either you or Nietzsche have an immature view of causality.

>> No.18829622

>>18829590
Why do you say that, and how is that relevant to this hypothetical we're talking about?

>> No.18829693

>>18829622
The moral of the hypothetical is self evident if you study anything esoteric having to do with karma and reincarnation. On top of that, eternal recurrence is bad metaphysics. It's simply not the way things work.
If that's the way you learned the lesson, that's good, but it's not unique to Nietzsche, and he poses his moral lesson as a hypothetical, when there is an actual "there" there, that has a mechanical reality...
I don't understand the appeal.

>> No.18829748

>>18829693
>On top of that, eternal recurrence is bad metaphysics. It's simply not the way things work.
What's "the way things work" and how do you know that's the case?

>If that's the way you learned the lesson, that's good, but it's not unique to Nietzsche
I don't see how it not being unique to Nietzsche is degrading of the idea like you seem to imply it. Also, you haven't actually answered the hypothetical yet.

>> No.18829813

>>18829748
I'm only assuming I've been talking to you this whole time, perhaps I haven't been, but I thought this was part of our conversation
>>You don't get to choose your fate you can only choose if you enjoy it/make the most of it.
>The "Good News" of Eastern philosophy is that you do [get to choose your fate]. You incarnate into your karma. The things you gravitate towards in life will inform your next incarnation (this is also a view held by the Greeks).
>Nietzsche presents a worthwhile argument, that you should strive for the good while alive, but with a confused metaphysics that really only has poetic value.
This is my view. That you incarnate into what you cultivate. From this point of view, the moral of Nietzsche's "eternal recurrence" hypothetical is self evident. Of course one would want to cultivate joy in one's current incarnation: because you will receive in your next incarnation what you cultivated in this life.
>I don't see how it not being unique to Nietzsche is degrading of the idea like you seem to imply it.
The idea is fine, it's Nietzsche that's the problem; because he's watery, boring, and has a lot of superfluous prose that isn't practically applicable.

>> No.18829941

>>18829813
>I'm only assuming I've been talking to you this whole time, perhaps I haven't been, but I thought this was part of our conversation
FYI, I prefaced my post before with "Not him," so you haven't been.

I'm aware of the connection between Nietzsche's idea and Eastern philosophy. I just don't see how this matters. Also, the value of the idea for Nietzsche isn't so much in cultivating joy; like you say, everyone desires that. Rather, the value is in how it renders this life and the struggle of living as an inescapable, relentless effort with no relief, and how it renders yourself as the bearer of this never-ending process and as the God of your own kingdom, the one and only kingdom which is your life, which is a lesson we don't get from Western religions.

>The idea is fine, it's Nietzsche that's the problem
Sounds more like a you problem.

>> No.18829985

can an ubermensch live to serve, or must he always be the creator of entirely new systems? I'm trying to figure out if legate Lanius was just a chud as people have said or something more. If he wasn't one or the other then what was he in Nietzsche's terms

>> No.18829996

How does he reconcile the conflict between reason and emotion

>> No.18830005

>>18827271
It wasn't about anti-Christendom, and he did show love for all other civilizations that achieved similar levels of development as the Greeks, which the Germans really didn't.
>Why didn’t he have as much interest in the Sagas as he did in Greek tragedy?
The Sagas aren't at all on the same level as the Greek plays, the plays needed Greek city life to become a thing, the Sagas are just some epic poems by uncivilized barbarians, which a lot of tribes had.

>> No.18830007

>>18827083
Wrong, then. Only the chinese had any right to talk

>> No.18830339

>>18829996
Reason is emotion slowed down

>> No.18830362

>>18830339
why

>> No.18830396

>>18830362
It's all the same nervous system

>> No.18830870

>>18829941
>more like a you problem.
I'm not needlessly fellated.

>> No.18830877

>>18830396
Reason would surely be emotion sped up.

>> No.18830903

>>18827074
on some thing yes, on other wrong

>> No.18830904

>>18829941
>I'm aware of the connection between Nietzsche's idea and Eastern philosophy. I just don't see how this matters. Also, the value of the idea for Nietzsche isn't so much in cultivating joy; like you say, everyone desires that. Rather, the value is in how it renders this life and the struggle of living as an inescapable, relentless effort with no relief, and how it renders yourself as the bearer of this never-ending process and as the God of your own kingdom
God you're frankly a bit retarded, innit.
>Bruh we're like totally the gods of our own insescapable struggles, and the best possible reaction to the relentless struggle of life is ... to accept it joyfully

>> No.18831121

>>18830904
>Bruh we're like totally the gods of our own insescapable struggles
If his eternal recurrence was true, then yes, for the reasons I explained. Do you have a reason for thinking that wouldn't be the case were his idea of the eternal recurrence true?

>the best possible reaction to the relentless struggle of life is ... to accept it joyfully
If you can bear your responsibility with joy, then you are one of Zarathustra's higher men. As I stated earlier in the thread, amor fati / eternal recurrence is a litmus test.

>> No.18831322

>>18831121
Nigga u fuckin retared.
>"if" eternal recurrence was true
The laws of karma and reincarnation are in fact true.
>If you can bear your responsibility with joy, then you are one of Zarathustra's higher men.
So fucking what? You know what bearing life joyfully means in light of reincarnation? You will be more joyful in your next incarnation.
Explain to me the point of fellating this fag again? I have seen him say nothing new or worthwhile.

>> No.18831373

>>18831322
Fuck your karma and reincarnation, cocksucker. We're talking about Nietzsche's ideas here, or at least I am. Why are you even in this thread if you don't care?

>Explain to me the point of fellating this fag again?
Why should I give you anything more? You reply like a faggot every time.

>> No.18831394

FOR THE LAST GODDAMN TIME, FREDERICK NIETZSCHE IS THE FATHER OF THE MODERN LEFT. HIS CELEBRATE RAMBLINGS BIRTHED THE ENTITLED FEMININE FAGGOTS PRANCING AROUND IN LARPY MILITARY TRENCHCOATS AND FURRY HATS WITH FAILED NATION STARS ON THEM. NIETZCHE HAS N O T H I N G TO DO WITH THE RIGHT.

>> No.18831419

>>18831394
But he hated socialism anon, and Adolfo-sama loved him.

>> No.18831425

>>18831394
good

>> No.18831444

>>18831394
The modern left doesn't understand Nietzsche and neither do you.

>> No.18831488

>>18831373
The thread is about whether or not Nietzsche is right, and he's not.
Karma and reincarnation are real, the Greeks understood this, and Nietszche's "eternal return" meme is just the law of karma and reincarnation ... but as a hypothetical ... which is an inherently incorrect view of things because karma and reincarnation are real. He's a spiritual dullard.

>> No.18831522

>>18831488
No system is "right" or "real." You understand nothing.

>> No.18831531

>>18831522
pffft

>> No.18831570

>>18831488
nice digits
>>18831522
Would you not agree that this conversation exists in "reality" (reality being a dream notwithstanding)?
There is a space we (unfortunately) share called reality. You called life and the struggle of living ... an inescapable, relentless effort with no relief.
So if nothing is "real" then what is it that is inescapable?
You fucking retard

>> No.18831606

>>18831570
>Would you not agree that this conversation exists in "reality" (reality being a dream notwithstanding)?
There is no "reality" besides the one desired.

>You called life and the struggle of living ... an inescapable, relentless effort with no relief.
While describing a hypothetical, or a possible reality (possible through desire) if you will.

>You fucking retard
I'm the retard, yet you can't read. Dunning-Kruger effect in full force here.

>> No.18831612

>>18831606
>There is no "reality" besides the one desired.
No, I don’t think so.

>> No.18831651

>>18831612
>think
desire*

>> No.18831659

>>18831651
No, we share a reality and you are unfortunately here.
This is not a desirable state, and yet it is.

>> No.18831664

>>18831659
Do we share wills too?

>> No.18831670

>>18831664
No.

>> No.18831674

>>18831670
Then we don't share a reality. Everything one calls real stems from the will, and you can determine this yourself if you're capable of introspection.

>> No.18831686

>>18831674
If we did not share a reality, this conversation would not exist, fucktard

>> No.18831700

>>18831686
On the contrary, it exists because there are wills that desire it to, and its existence is unique to each will that does. And even these wills are products of desires.

>> No.18831739

>>18831674
>Everything one calls real stems from the will
In a metaphysical sense, sure there is a universal “will”, but this universal will gave birth to the stars. Every man and woman is a star in a literal sense, as the stars in the heavens are our higher selves, and the wills of individuals come from the stars: thus we exist in a shared reality that neither of us willed into being.
>>18831700
I’m not willingly participating in this conversation. I’m fucking bored and have nothing better to do.
My will is to do something other than this, but of my available options, this is the most desirable.

You’ve yet to answer what it is that is “inescapable” in Nietzsche’s mind, if not reality.

>> No.18831776

>>18831739
>In a metaphysical sense, sure there is a universal “will”
No, there is no "universal" will. Universals are like realities in that they are made by desires, existing uniquely for the will that desires.

>I’m not willingly participating in this conversation.
You're willing its existence and this existence is unique to you.

>You’ve yet to answer what it is that is “inescapable” in Nietzsche’s mind, if not reality.
You're taking the word inescapable completely out of context. We were talking about a hypothetical situation, a possible reality, the eternal recurrence, not Nietzsche's mind or "reality."

>> No.18831782
File: 19 KB, 300x225, fema.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

he belongs in a fucking FEMA dumpster

>> No.18831786

>>18831776
Your metaphysics are nonsensical.

>> No.18831790

>>18831786
More complex wills are incomprehensible to simpler wills.

>> No.18831803

>>18831790
No. I comprehend you, and I am calling you a fool.

>> No.18831811

>>18831803
You don't. I'm off for the night.

>> No.18831818

>>18831811
I see you’ve stopped willing yourself to be called a fool.
Goodnight, faggot.

>> No.18831823

>>18831776
the most pseud shit i've ever read

>> No.18831826

>>18831488
I've never seen someone misunderstand a philosopher so badly, embarrassing desu
>Karma and reincarnation are real, the Greeks understood this
No
> and Nietszche's "eternal return" meme is just the law of karma and reincarnation
Fuck no, are you braindead?
> but as a hypothetical ..
This is also wrong.

>> No.18831829

>>18831776
are there commonalities between all wills? at he very least, all wills can be said to "be", no? So there is at least one shared aspect?

>> No.18831832

>>18831826
I’ll admit I haven’t read Nietzsche, and I don’t care to.

>> No.18832069

>>18831832
it shows

>> No.18832134

>>18827735
>"uuhhhh... nothing is right, and I just don't like systems, LOL"
Kek'd hard. But Nietzsche's main criticism of systematic philosophy is that each system a philosopher posits is always grounded in "unquestionable" or "purportedly self-evident" presuppositions of premises.

>> No.18832308

>>18829693
You've fundamentally misunderstood the entire point of Nietzsche's work. This is why you just jump into am author. Neitzsche is not describing anything metaphysical or based in reality in any way. Neitzsche doesn't want to convince you with logic and mathematical proofs, he wants to break you out of the normal way of thinking about life, morality, truth, etc. by essentially telling stories. The ubermensche, eternal reccourrance, even the slave and master morality aren't supposed to be literal they're like atheistic parables.

>> No.18832612

>>18827205
I agree but the idea is that stoicism accepts nature whereas amor fati embraces it. Nietzsche was too passionate to accept the (supposed) complacency of stoicism, he saw it as too "passive" so amor fati is a more "active" version.
But really it's just a cope. Nietzsche seemed determined to live life in an eternal manic episode.

>> No.18832930

was he right about what exactly? he said a lot of things. often contradictory. depends also on what you know about him, his work, what you read...
to me he is one, if not the only one, who seriously tried to help people to cope with life and giving them useful advices. ofc you can't be stupid and just blindly follow but if you read carefuly you might become a better person...
always strive to be a better version of yourself is I think what he wanted people to do...

>> No.18832960

>>18827074
I think if he just hit the gym or became a labourer he wouldn’t have written a word of philosophy.

>> No.18833360

>>18832069
Nietzsche is wrong regardless.

>>18832308
If the point is to “get one out of the normal way of thinking”, this is easily accomplished by one’s own observation of reality.
>inb4 bruh there’s no such thing as reality hahaha
I’ll call you a fool, because there would be no “normal way of thinking” if there were not something we could agree on: a shared reality.

>>18832134
Utterly failed criticism then, given that he used the system of language to communicate it.
The medium, as they say, is the message.

>> No.18833364

>>18831829
Shared aspects do not imply or guarantee a shared reality or a singular will from which all wills stem from, since it is will that perceives these shared aspects in the first place.

>> No.18833381

>>18833360
You are the biggest pseud in this thread. Stop shitting up /lit/ and go actually read something.

>> No.18833491

>>18833381
I do not claim to be even pesudo-intellectual, and I've read all I need to at this time.
This thread is about whether Nietzsche is right, and I have an answer.
According to >>18831674 Nietzsche's point is apparently that there only exists what one wills, no?
And if we are to accept this, I would suppose it is my will that Nietzsche is wrong then, because he is wrong in my reality.
If according to >>18832134 Nietzsvhe's criticism of systematic philosophy is that systems are grounded in the unquestionable and presupposed, he should not have written at all: because the conversation we are having presupposes language.
Here you all are sitting around treating Nietzsche's ideas as a system of philosophy.

>> No.18833500

In short, OP asked if Nietzsche is right, and is getting what he deserves.

>> No.18833520

>>18833491
>I've read all I need to at this time (i.e. Wikipedia)
>I haven't read Nietzsche but he's wrong
kys pseud

>> No.18833546

>>18833491
>Nietzsvhe's criticism of systematic philosophy is that systems are grounded in the unquestionable and presupposed, he should not have written at all
Why? He didn't posit a system.

>because the conversation we are having presupposes language.
So... you're using a method of critique that Nietzsche himself employed all the time to reject Nietzsche? Even though what you're rejecting is anons on /lit/ and not Nietzsche.

>> No.18833556

>>18833520
Hah, I’ve not even read wikipedia articles on Nietzsche, nor do I care to.
I have read other things which prove Nietzsche wrong, but you will not care to read them.
From my prior reading and life experience, (moreso the latter) I know intuitively that Nietzsche is wrong.
And of course: instead of attempting to articulate something worthwhile of Nietzsche’s, to prove him correct, you cry and wish death upon me, because you cannot handle the (correct, according even to Nietzsche if this thread is anything to go by) opinion that he is wrong.
Try being funnier.

>> No.18833568

>>18833556
>I’ve not even read wikipedia articles on Nietzsche
So there's no point in replying to you at all, got it.

/lit/ is so shit these days.

>> No.18833606

>>18833546
>Why? He didn't posit a system.
Language itself is a system. In fact reality is a system. If he were truly devoted to communicating a "non-systemized philosophy" he would have simply evaporated.
Again, the anons in here arguing in his favor are arguing according to his system of philosophy. Just because you say it isn't a system does not mean it is not.
The Nietzschean system is self evident when you all reply with the same things like little Nietzsche-programmed robots.
>So... you're using a method of critique that Nietzsche himself employed all the time to reject Nietzsche? Even though what you're rejecting is anons on /lit/ and not Nietzsche.
Yes. And if, as according to >>18832308 Nietzsche wants to "break [one] out of the normal way of thinking", it's what he would have wanted.

>>18833568
You could ask me what I have read that has proven to me that Nietzsche is wrong, but at this point I'm not going to tell you.

>> No.18833653

>>18833606
>If he were truly devoted to communicating a "non-systemized philosophy" he would have simply evaporated.
And that's what he did, through Dionysus / will to power, which is not a system (for him), can't be turned into one without misquoting him, and is not reducible to language.

>Just because you say it isn't a system does not mean it is not.
Anything can be turned into a system if there is a will to do so, but for Nietzsche, it was not a system. Whoever turns his philosophy into a system is a shallower creature than he was.

>at this point I'm not going to tell you.
It doesn't matter to me either way.

>> No.18833669

>>18833653
>And that's what he did
No I mean he would have literally evaporated, leaving nothing behind, and we would be discussing the mystery of "the man who disappeared before our eyes".
>Whoever turns his philosophy into a system is a shallower creature than he was.
He turned his philosophy into a system by writing it down.

>> No.18833859

>>18833360
>given that he used the system of language to communicate it.
Trite, pedantic criticism, completely devoid of intellectual integrity. Language is a given, one would have to abide by a system of language in order to criticise the usage of language in general, it's entirely paradoxical.
>>18833491
>Nietzsvhe's criticism of systematic philosophy is that systems are grounded in the unquestionable and presupposed, he should not have written at all
You've missed the point. Nietzsche criticises philosophers who posit systems in which stem from established presuppositions, which by nature, are grounded in what these philosophers deem to be unquestionable premises: Nietzsche derides them for being lacklustre inquirers, who are incapable of rigorously inquiring as an end, not a means, an end.

>> No.18833881

>>18827335
“Live, laugh, love”
-Netscape

>> No.18833953

>>18833606
>Just because you say it isn't a system does not mean it is not.
I don't think you understand what the word "system" refers to in accordance to philosophical discourse. Nietzsche isn't a systematic philosopher in the traditional sense of the word. He holds multiple different conceptions that are entirely incompatible with one another, each one of his philosophies (i.e Übermensch, Eternal recurrence, Dionysian and Apollonian spirts, Will to power, etc.) are all supposed to be appreciated by themselves, not strictly in accordance to one another in a congruent manner. Sure, there is certainly overlapping involved, but each one of his conceptions has it's own philosophical merit, wherein Schopenhauer's philosophy, for example, everything revolves around the conception of the primordial, metaphysical will, which manifests and objectifies itself in the phenomenal word in the form of representation. A systematic philosophy would probably begin with something along the lines of: The known presupposes a knower, the knower presupposes a cognizing subject, a subject only exists in accordance to what makes it distinct i.e an object (known)... This isn't Nietzsche at all, it's exactly the type of philosophising he criticises, and It's exactly why he admired Socrates so much, because he was an unrelenting, determined inquirer who didn't conform to an overarching system. Socrates, to Nietzsche, is the ideal philosopher: a physician who applies the knife to virtues and vivisects man.

>> No.18834290

>>18833859
>it's entirely paradoxical
And that is why Nietzsche is wrong.

>> No.18834298

>>18834290
why

>> No.18834408

>>18827271
He started with the Greeks and read them in the original.

>> No.18834568

>>18831522
Go fuck your mom, Chris.

>> No.18834572

>>18827074
He was left. Sorry fashies

>> No.18834584

>>18834568
cringe

>> No.18834830

>>18834572
National Socialism was also left...

>> No.18835093

>>18827074
>Was he right?
on what?

>> No.18836109

>>18833360
>there would be no “normal way of thinking” if there were not something we could agree on: a shared reality.
Or a shared delusion.

>> No.18836699

>>18827074
i'm gay btw

>> No.18837674

>>18834568
>>18834584
wait......christian?

>> No.18838813

>>18837674
y not muslim??

>> No.18838846

>>18833556
>Hah, I’ve not even read wikipedia articles on Nietzsche
please kys yourself, people like you just bring the quality of discussion down on lit

>> No.18839152

>>18838846
Surely the Athenians will give me hemlock any day now.