Nietzsche discussion general

[Anonymous No.19617717]

Is he the most overrated philosopher of all time? He is arguably the most famous philosopher in popular culture. If you want to make your media edgy and grimdark, just inject Nietzsche quotes (e.g. the Dark Knight: "what does not kill me only makes me stranger"; Watchmen "the Abyss Gazes Also") There's a reason edgelords and narcissists have Nietzsche as their first introduction to philosophy.

However, if one actually studies philo, you'd find out that serious philosophers such as Russell (and to an extent, Cioran) actually dismiss him and his "philosophy" as the "power fantasies of an invalid". Compared to fully fledged logical systems like those designed by Aristotle, Kant or Hegel, Nietzsche's "philosophy" seems to be schizo ramblings tainted by obsession with Hellenic heroism and disdain for Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19617733]

>>19617717
stob masterbading :DDDDD

[Anonymous No.19617747]

>>19617717
God said to Nietzsche:
That'll Tietzche,
You irritating little Krietzsche.

[Anonymous No.19617756]

>>19617717
>serious philosophers such as Russell

[Anonymous No.19617781]

>>19617756
Let me guess. You read postmodern schizo garbage like Deleuze.

[Anonymous No.19617820]

>>19617781
Right on the mark.

[Anonymous No.19617840]

Impossible to discuss here as just the mention of him causes great discomfort and distress to the Ignatius posters and their valves.

[Anonymous No.19617922]

>>19617717
He's the only one worth reading with Stirner and Schopenhauer
All the other ones are either christian larper, or faggots that came after and repeated their ideas (also the Greeks, but they're boring and irrelevant today)

[Anonymous No.19617936]

>>19617717
>serious philosophers such as Russell
Masterful.

[Anonymous No.19617945]

>>19617756
This lmao, post disregarded

[Anonymous No.19617960]

>>19617717
>Russell and Cioran

Both these guys are memes.

OP why are you such a salty little bitch? Nietzsche is great, and the fact you're still shilling for Cioran, the lowest grade hack ever shilled here, after years is embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.19617965]

>>19617717
>However, if one actually studies philo, you'd find out that serious philosophers such as Russell (and to an extent, Cioran) actually dismiss him and his "philosophy" as the "power fantasies of an invalid". Compared to fully fledged logical systems like those designed by Aristotle, Kant or Hegel, Nietzsche's "philosophy" seems to be schizo ramblings tainted by obsession with Hellenic heroism and disdain for Christianity.
Analytic philosophy actually takes Nietzsche pretty seriously. The opinions of one or two philosophers do not the opinions of "serious philosophers" make (especially as Cioran did not consider himself a philosopher and considered philosophy moribund -- he was a pessimist, he viewed almost all human striving as futile).

[Anonymous No.19617990]

>>19617960
>Were you reading Nietzsche then?

CIORAN: When I was studying philosophy I wasn’t reading Nietzsche. I read “serious” philosophers. It’s when I finished studying it, at the point when I stopped believing in philosophy, that I began to read Nietzsche. Well, I realized that he wasn’t a philosopher, he was more: a temperament. So, I read him but never systematically. Now and then I’d read things by him, but really I don’t read him anymore. What I consider his most authentic work is his letters, because in them he’s truthful, while in his other work he’s prisoner to his vision. In his letters one sees that he’s just a poor guy, that he’s ill, exactly the opposite of everything he claimed.

>You write in The Trouble with Being Born that you stopped reading him because you found him “too naïve.”

CIORAN:That’s a bit excessive, yes. It’s because that whole vision, of the will to power and all that, he imposed that grandiose vision on himself because he was a pitiful invalid. Its whole basis was false, nonexistent. His work is an unspeakable megalomania. When one reads the letters he wrote at the same time, one sees that he’s pathetic, it’s very touching, like a character out of Chekhov. I was attached to him in my youth, but not after. He’s a great writer, though, a great stylist.

[Anonymous No.19617991]

>>19617717
>serious philosophers such as Russell
stopped reading there, LOL. hes the perfect example of why anglos shouldnt bother with philosophy. leave it to continental europe please

[Anonymous No.19618009]

>>19617991
>leave it to continental europe please
That was true in the era of Hegel. But nowadays continental philosophy had been corrupted by French postmodern schizophrenia. Schizos that based themselves from Nietzsche's perspectivist teachings

[Anonymous No.19618016]

>>19618009
platonism is overturned, there's nothing you can do about it except waiting for Houllebecq's Islamo-Liberalism with French Characteristics to arrive from the future

[Anonymous No.19618047]

>>19617990
This is stupid.
>He advocated for strength when in reality he was weak! Poor little hypocrite, QED refuted.
He wasn't writing self help, he isn't Dale Carnegie, he was trying to provide a basis for an entirely new set of fundamental values. This could come from a rich successful chad like Siddharta Gautama, but it could just as easily come from a miserable weakling who has direct personal experience of what is missing from life and therefore what is most needful going forward. Whether he stands above or below or apart from his fellow men isn't too important, what matters is the distance.

[Anonymous No.19618051]

>>19618047
this

[Anonymous No.19618091]

>>19617717
>Is he the most overrated philosopher of all time?
No. He has roughly the fame he deserves.

[Anonymous No.19618107]

>>19617990
honestly it's sad how many people 'read' nietzsche but fail to comprehend

those who call him a megalomaniac are surface-level readers. there is no depth to them, so they see no depth in others.

really pathetic that you'd take these extremely lame criticisms at face value. try harder next time you pick up a book

[Anonymous No.19618144]

>>19618009
Philosophy is doing fine, just don't look for it at universities.

[Anonymous No.19619446]

>>19618009
I've recently read some books by Deleuze (the one on Nietzsche and the one on Bergson), and I've found him to be extremely insightful, I'm half-convinced he was an actual genius. I wonder if Foucault and Derrida were of comparable of intelligence. If they were, the pomo French tradition might actually be excellent.

[Anonymous No.19619474]

>>19618107
then nietzsche was a surface-level reader of himself, kek

>Letter drafts to Paul Rée and Lou Salomé: circa December 20, 1882.

>Do not be upset by the outbreaks of my 'megalomania" or of my "injured vanity" -- and even if I should happen one day to take my life because of some passion or other, there would not be much to grieve about. What do my fantasies matter to you? (Even my truths mattered nothing to you till now.) Consider me, the two of you, as a semilunatic with a sore head who has been totally bewildered by long solitude.

>To this, I think, sensible insight into the state of things I have come after taking a huge dose of opium -- in desperation. But instead of losing my reason as a result, I seem at last to have come to reason.
https://www.spiralmemoir.com/the-letters-1

[Anonymous No.19619581]

>>19617717
>logical systems
>Hegel
I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.19619713]

>>19617990
>His work is an unspeakable megalomania.
Filtered hard

[Anonymous No.19619930]

>>19617922
Unbelievably based. Although I must add that Schopenhauer himself repeats multiple times that you should have read „critique of pure reason“ by Kant and are a self-important idiot if you think you can gather the essence of Kants works out of his critique of them.

Oh and fuck Hegel.

[Anonymous No.19619972]

>>19618107
While I would like to agree with you this kind of critique really makes no sense.
It can be used any time someone says something you don’t like or interprets something you don’t like. You can always claim they didn’t understand him the right way, that being the way you understood him. It’s just a shitty attempt to take charge of the narrative.

That being said I do kind of agree that brainlets shouldn’t even bother. I’ve seen a bunch of people get filtered by Nietzsche but not only because of lacking intellect but also the I ability to think thoughts outside of societies standards and rules (although I must admit that was a woman)

[Anonymous No.19620000]

I havent read Nietzsche yet, so I might ask: did Nietzsche formulate an ethical system?
From summaries i've read, it seems that Nietzsche posits a specific philosophy if history, which has the Ubermensch as its goal. It also seem (again, according to the summaries I've read) that Nietzsche thinks we should strive towards this goal (or in other terms, we ought to posit ourselves as a bridge to the Ubermensch). This sounds like an ethical system to me. Am I getting something wrong?

[Anonymous No.19620030]

>>19620000
I'm gonna say it
>another thread for people who haven't read N to debate people who didn't understand him about whether it is based and redpilled to agree with him or not

[Anonymous No.19620117]

>>19620000
>did Nietzsche formulate an ethical system?
No, Nietzsche is against systems of thought altogether.

[Anonymous No.19620131]

N was basically a weakling who fantasized about being strong. No wonder such authors like (((Freud))), (((Adorno))), (((Derrida))), (((Benjamin))) or degenerates like Foucault or Deleuze loved N so much.

[Anonymous No.19620140]

>>19619972
I mean it's true though. People miss alot of the deep self criticism in Nietzsche. Like when Nietzsche says the person he feels closest to is Socrates, in the midst of all this criticism of Socrates.

Nietzsche wanted to be a composer but sucked at it, and hated being a lowly "philosopher". If you don't see how self-abasing his criticisms are then you're just not reading carefully.

Nietzsche doesn't want to produce pretentious sub-philosophers, he wants people to stop with him and go live better lives. In some senses his life is a warning.

[Anonymous No.19620248]

>>19620030
Come on, Im not pretending to having read him
>>19620117
Then what about the Ubermensch? Is what Nietzsche said about it irrelevant from a practical standpoint? Does he really offer no reason to prefer the ubermensch over the untermensch?

[Anonymous No.19620272]

>>19618107
>honestly it's sad how many people 'read' nietzsche but fail to comprehend
I see a dozen of these posts every day. I barely ever see anyone explaining what he did mean, and if anyone does try, there will always be someone else claiming they're wrong. I've even seen people claim this total lack of consensus about what he meant is somehow a virtue of his philosophy and proves it right.

[Anonymous No.19620309]

>>19620272
unfortunately you're right, nietzsche readers often try to one-up other nietzsche readers and it's a pain in the ass. >>19618426 i like nietzsche as a philosopher of societal decline, as a way to understand the west's rapid descent. others might read him for other things. he said alot, and i won't say others are wrong in their interpretations, but generally avoid the people who cite one or two passages out of context then insist you read his entire work by that and you'll start to get it.

[Anonymous No.19621059]

>>19617717
What's with all the anti-Nietzsche threads lately? Are you butthurt because he thought that retards like you should be euthanized? It pisses me off when people who obviously have never read a philosopher post these garbage threads. How about you share some actual criticism of your own instead of quoting literal meme whos like Cioran and bitching about Nietzche fan boys?

[Anonymous No.19621258]

>>19619446
Haven't read his book on Bergson, but everything else I've read seems to have been a subtle dilution of Nietzsche's philosophy. Capitalism and Schizofrenia is Niezsche, but absolutely butchered to make way for leftism, and Nietzsche and Philosophy is not offensive like Anti-Oedipus but doesn't really add anything, and misses the subtleties.
On the other hand, Baudrillard is peak french Nietzschean.

[Anonymous No.19621530]

>>19617717
Russel brand is a better philosopher than russel Bertrand. He is a logician, and although I liked as history of philosophy quite a bit, he is clearly flustered by neetch and makes a faggy remark trying to dismiss him without refuting his arguments. Steven “ass” pinker does the same faggy dismissal of neetch, where his refutation is agreeing to neetches philosophy but the kike makes a quip instead of an argument. No surprise. No I did not proof read, proof reading is for kieks

[Anonymous No.19621556]

>>19617717
>serious philosophers such as Russell
Russell was lucky Nietzsche had died and couldn't use "On Denoting" to lay bare what an overly indulged midwit Russell was.

[Anonymous No.19622890]

Enjoyed his books very much. I recommend. However, I believe you have to look at the author of the book himself to judge the truth of the book.

[Anonymous No.19622940]

>>19622890
I have to admit, Nietzsche's books are very enjoyable, no wonder he is so loved by teenagers and philo novices. But in serious academic philosophy, wherein you have to actually study Logic, he's a meme.

[Anonymous No.19623624]

>>19622940
>taking modern academic "philosophy" seriously

[Anonymous No.19623636]

>>19617717
You just hate him because he didn’t suck up to the clergy and your sadistic homosexual cult

[Anonymous No.19623961]

>>19623624
Cope postmodernist, you will never be recognised as legit, logical and systematic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19623977]

>>19623961
>legit, logical and systematic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19624264]

>>19623977
Are you faggots going to cope with postmodernism again?

[Anonymous No.19624281]

>>19623961
Only autists get recognized by the academy, so that's a positive, not a negative.

>>19624264
>Greeks were le postmodernists

[Anonymous No.19624295]

>>19617717
>you'd find out that serious philosophers such as Russell
nice troll op, almost got me.

[Anonymous No.19624361]

>>19618107
Is Nietzsche the most misunderstood of all philosophers?

[Anonymous No.19625739]

>>19617717
Finally someone got to understand the real philosophy and not shitty sophistry<span class="fortune" style="color:#fc532d">

Your fortune: Merry Christmas![/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.19625782]

>>19624361
its marx

[OP No.19625821]

>>19617717
Nietzsche vehemently disagreed with Shopenhauer. Why should one not also vehemently disagree with Nietzsche? Being a philosopher does not make one right. Fuck off and merry Christmas.

[Anonymous No.19625909]

>>19617756
what's not serious about Russell? I'm all ears.

I'LL BE WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSES.

[Anonymous No.19625915]

>>19617922
greeks arent boring and yes they're mostly irrelevant but still great to read and understand foundations.

[Anonymous No.19625975]

whats wrong with hegel?