A common critique of Nietzsche that I hear mostly from Christians is that he was wrong to think that humans can create their own values and therefore require God, specifically the Christian God to create values. I personally don't know where this critique comes from since he never seems to suggest that as a possibility at all. Quite the contrary, he goes as far as to say that free will is a myth and that the ego has fuck all to do with it. What he seems to say is that it is the instincts from which we derive value which later goes on to shape moral systems and belief systems. His critique of Christianity is that Christianity has a bastardized view of the world and is anti-life and nihilistic at its core. All that Nietzsche suggests is that we go with the Will to Power which is pro-life, from which our instincts derive. In Twilight of the Idols he talks about people mistaking cause and effect e.g. A man is not good because he is virtuous, he is virtuous because he is simply good to begin with. Would love to see a discussion on this since most Christian/Nietzsche threads are usually just clickbait bullshit.
Nietzche is a lolcow.Not so much a thinker in the philosophical tradition so much as a novelist.Define "virtue".
>>17408088He was referring to the ancient Greeks, specifically Aristotle to critique the very thing that you brought up.
>>17408070My critique is that he is clearly high on stimulants and it comes through in every sentence he writes.His work is utterly schizotypal, as if you must immerse yourself in his* own ever-changing world where meaning has no meaning.
>free will is a myth>but muh Will to Will though???>>17408091So you can like, actually define "virtue" right?I mean, why even bother talking about the "good" at all?Nietzsche fundamentally did not understand Christianity or morality and ethic.If his critique of the idea of virtue was so strong, he shouldn't have relied on teleological language in his naming of the concept "Will to Power".
>>17408070If people have no free will and their values are completely determined by their own instincts which they have no say over, then what is the point of his entire philosophy?I appreciate him for being able to realize the coming of many societal problems that we're facing today, he was truly ahead of the curve in that matter. But the rest of his philosophy is quite underwhelming and underdeveloped, the solutions he attempts to propose are quite erratic and sometimes contradictory.Also he completely misunderstood both Christianity and Buddhism, although to be fair his wrong understanding of Christianity had basically become the standard during his time, and it has only gotten worse since then.
>>17408099I don't think you understand what the will to power is in the slightest. Which makes me think you never actually read any of his books.
>>17408105HIs view technically undermine that claim because instincts to are the product of the will to power. This idea is either therefore serving the creation of your meaning or an imposition of someone else's upon you.Instinct would be a mask of someone's will.
>>17408105His view is more in line with pre-Socratic thinking which is why it is at first difficult to understand or comprehend by most since most of our worldview derives from mostly Platonic thinking. The concept of fate is so wildly different to our modern worldview in the same sense as to how our modern worldview is wildly different to that of the pre-Socratics. Ex: Going back in time and explaining to ancient Greeks the concept of basing morality on ones actions rather than on ones character. They would look at you as if you were a retard. >he completely misunderstood both Christianity and BuddhismI think that critique is more ideologically (theologically?) driven than anything. Of course someone such as a Christian would have to say that because what he does in something like the Anti-Christ (and also throughout his works) is that he looks at Christianity with its results rather than by what it says. His own concept of "philosophizing with a hammer". He is sounding out the Idol.
>>17408117So....Nietzsche's completely ignorant of biology?
>>17408118He actually does misunderstand Christianity and Buddhism if we think he is talking about them in general. His account of Christianity is influenced by liberal Christians of his time, like Friedrich Schleiermacher. He was an atheist but he did respect figures like St. Anthony. Some academic philosophers have identified a type of secular take on the transfiguration or Eastern Orthodox theosis in his work. Below is a podcast explaining that view.https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/philosopherszone/nietzsche-and-transfiguration/13467550His understanding of Buddhism, which was poor for his time, but also even academics who studied it in in his time had a very poor understanding of it. He seemedto be aimed more at people Schopenhauer and his account of suffering and metaphysics. There is moment in his letters where claimed to seek to become "Europe's Buddha" but this reflects his lack of understanding as well most likely. Pic is of book describing what Nietzsche gets wrong about Buddhism in general, it includes an explanation of that statement.
yeah, yeah we get ithe has no regrets and if he had to do this whole life thing all over again he would freely choose to do the exact same thing over and over again, forever even if he knew what was happeningwow, what an aristocrat of the spirit not of the blood clearlysuch inspiring, many lauds>>17408105for someone so hung up on "herd mentality" he sure didn't grasp the significance of what Jesus said to crowds and how he repudiated them>>17408113cool so you refuse to even engage in the most basic of philosophical dialogue for yourself, and would rather quotemine a notoriously fickle authorhow can you miss the obvious teleological connection between the words "Virtue" and "Will"when someone seeks to dominate and control others in aristocratic fashion they are in fact indulging a natural function of the kind Nietsche spoke of that is to say that the will to power is a very teleological concept and if you reject certain classical ideas about virtue built with that framework you have no buisness using that kind of language to describe natural phenomenon"Will to Power" really isn't some 2deep4u shit man, I read this dude in highschool on the advice of peers and was dissapoint, I have several hardcover translations of his work sitting to my left ATMSchopenhauer did it better IMO
>>17408130Later on he adopts a lamarkian perspective, so he he is wrong on that. If we want to be charitable to him in relation to his account of the wlll to power though, he is stating that all concepts are constructed and science is no different. You and I have a drive to experience life with meaning, that is the will to power. That will drove us to make science but now it sometimes breaks down and does not give us meaning. This podcast will explain the concept.https://www.philosophizethis.org/podcast/the-will-to-power
>>17408133you mean St. Anthony the Great, of the desert I presumevery based indeed, that one
>>17408133He mostly talks about early Christianity and the story of the Gospels and writings of St. Paul in the Anti-Christ. His critique would therefore lay in them rather than on modern, for his time, sentiment of Christianity. He does often talk about Christianity for his time, but in the Anti-Christ which is an essay specific in regards to Christianity, he does not.
>>17408134He doesn't believe in teleology though. He thinks that something we make up and we have to make it again actually but have no illusions that we made it up. This is actually the source of his often misinterpreted statement that we need pagan values. It is his understanding of myth making , a pagan he thinks uses myths but does not believe in them, they make them to make sense of their world.
>>17408140The problem is if we assume that critique, he would really really wrong about how they think. The usual academic answer is that what he associates with them are ideas from liberal Christians, liberal as the theological movement. Early Christian or Patristic philosophy is really alien to that stuff and really is focused on metaphysics, not even value really. Ironically, they are beyond good and evil , just centered on being. Pic is the best book on them.
>>17408134Your very explanation of the will to power in that post shows you have zero understanding of it. Particularly in regards to the "aristocratic fashion". I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume that you think Nietzsche was a materialist too, right? What with your understanding of Teleology being very much rooted purely in Platonic/Christian dogma. protip4u: Maybe you should read some Heraclitus first before you start throwing big words around.
>>17408141>He thinks that something we make up and we have to make it again actually but have no illusions that we made it up.Well, so far the modern world seems to be proving that humans just can't bring themselves to do that.>a pagan he thinks uses myths but does not believe in them, they make them to make sense of their world.The ancient pagans very much believed in their myths. This idea that they didn't is just postmodern nonsense spread by atheist academics projecting their own disbelief onto the past.
>>17408140>He mostly talks about early Christianity and the story of the Gospels and writings of St. Paul in the Anti-Christ.Sure, but he's doing so through his modern (at the time) lense, as a post-Enlightenment, culturally Protestant, German man.
>>17408143That is what Nietzsche critiques though. Metaphysics as a whole, particularly in Twilight of the Idols. It's honestly one of the most important aspects of his thinking that is rarely ever brought up in regards to the "real world" basis of all metaphysics. He also discusses in great length his critique on the notion of "sin" which is what Christianity propagates.
>>17408148>Metaphysics as a wholeThe eternal recurrence, the will to power, amor fati, the Übermensch, slave and master morality, the death of God, the Apollonian and Dyonisian are all metaphysical concepts.
>>17408146>humans just can't bring themselves to do that>Instincts =/= EgoThere you go. >>17408147>Sure, but he's doing so through his modern (at the time) lense, as a post-Enlightenment, culturally Protestant, German man.I mean, sure. But does that mean that the only people who can critique Christianity are Christians that are specifically that sort of Christian? He views it as objectively as he can and applies a proto-psychological lens to it.
>>17408146Sorta, he was a classist and in his time period, they had just rediscovered in Germany that myths were believed but not totally in terms of myth but ritual. They were in process of discovering hero cults, local religious practices centered on heroes, these stories were transmitted as myth but changed from city to city. Nietzsche himself developed this in his own way to refer to aesthetics as the source of value. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaWCdGp8pcE
>>17408143>liberal as the theological movementthat so-called theology, and those affiliated with it even institutionally, have done very serious damage to western culture>>17408141I know. He has the same unfounded hangups about the topic as Spinoza does basically.That's why his talk about the "will" seems so funny to me in that light.>we made it upClearly not so. This is a problem biologists have been struggling with for decades, they even have an entire discipline for the mental gymnastics they have to do in avoiding the use of any teleological language whatsoever.This pathetic state of affairs is a result of materialistic ideology being prioritized over common sense.
>>17408154>But does that mean that the only people who can critique Christianity are Christians that are specifically that sort of Christian?No, but since we're more advanced in our post-Christian society we can perceive things that he of course couldn't, we today know much more about Early Christianity than he could, or the role of Christianity during the Middle Ages.
>>17408148They don't think of another world, they are very much committed to his world as being infused by the grace of God. That idea of another world was more of a thing in their time associated with gnostics. These patristic authors hold that salvation beings here and now. There metaphysical view is of a single story reality, where God is everywhere and found in various rituals like the eucharist. Could we say Nietzsche is right to reject metaphysics in total and therefore them, yeah sure. That is true, however, their view of sin and reality is more associated with Protestant Christianity of his time. This book actually captures some of the figures he is indirectly or perhaps directly referencing too.
>>17408153>The Eternal recurrenceIs just Nietzsche's counter to Pascals wager.>the will to powerIs a psychological understanding of our own instincts and the instincts of life through observation.>amor fatiLove of fate = "it is what it is".>The ÜbermenschA Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal.>Master/Slave moralityAnother observation on how morality naturally is created through the interplay of individuals with competing goals and psychologies. >The death of GodSymbolically representing the death of the idea that we can believe in our values originating from something like God/The Christian God being the source of our modern morality.>The Apollonian and DyonisianNietzsche's personal categorization of worldviews, often in interplay with each other. >are all metaphysical conceptsLiterally none of those concepts are metaphysical and most of them are in exact opposition to the concept of metaphysics as a whole. Now I really don't think you've either read or really understand Nietzsche at all.
>>17408159Biology currently has teleonomy but it is not reflecting what is observed but us grasping the evolutionary selection processes. Biology is usually understood in terms of a bunch of layered processes. Spinoza is a whole other story, there is a lot of debate about whether that comes from. I don't know enough to make a judgement on it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_tNisb1vrs&t=896s
>>17408164What's a metaphysical concept, according to you?
>>17408161>we today know much more about Early Christianity than he could, or the role of Christianity during the Middle AgesIf anything that knowledge would further prove Nietzsche being right than anything with all the evidence of when the Gospels were actually written and all of the proof of backdating. Even the notion that the book of Genesis wasn't written until post-Plato only a couple hundred years before Christ existed.
>>17408070The most common critiques are "I don't realize that I don't know what he's talking about, so I'm going to say a bunch of stupid shit" or "He's been (wrongly) associated with the Nazis, so he's wrong no matter what".>>17408092The reason you have a problem with his writing, is because Nietzsche is a /phil/fag & /lit/fag. He's not writing for the average mouthbreather, but for someone who's already incredibly well-read.He doesn't do things like "I'm now going to talk about Aristotle", he just expects you to be able to tell when he's talking about Aristotle.
>>17408166>What's a metaphysical concept, according to you?Illusions, just like what Nietzsche thought.
>>17408170>Eternal recurrenceIllusion.>Will to power.Illusion.>Amor FatiIllusion.>ÜbermenschIllusion.>Master/Slave moralityIllusion.>The death of GodIllusion.>The Apollonian and DyonisianIllusion.Well, seems like they were metaphysical concepts after all.
>>17408170He really means things as metaphysical real, as in noumenon the world of things in themselves. If you want to think about Nietzsche counter to what he states. He is actually a kinda radical Kantian, just the structures of thought are not the nice boxes Kant thinks, but drives. Pic is of a book that captures this. One critique made aganist him is that he might be indirectly funneled to commit to some type of neo-kantian philosophy like Ernst Cassier.
>>17408162>they are very much committed to his world as being infused by the grace of God. That idea of another world was more of a thing in their time associated with gnostics. These patristic authors hold that salvation beings here and nowthis is very much an overblown take and I hate to see so many subscribe to itbeing called out of the world, forsaking worldly things, is a very common theme in the early Christian monastic writings for a reasonan ethos of "man against the world" is very core to Christianity18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you....15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
>>17408171>He's so stupid that he doesn't really how stupid he is beingYou understand Nietzsche would agree with you in that those concepts are not metaphysical claims? You might as well list every single mathematical, scientific, and every other reasoned concept as illusion then...Which they are :)
>>17408134>he has no regrets and if he had to do this whole life thing all over again he would freely choose to do the exact same thing over and over again, forever even if he knew what was happeningNo, the exact opposite. He completely regretted getting syphilis(incurable at the time) from a prostitute, and is telling you that you should think things through, and act as if you had to do everything over and over again, being aware of everything that's going to happen.That you need to live a life of no regrets, because you're not a retard, and you're making good choices.
>>17408175Rejecting "wordly thing", which can be understood as pointless indulgences and excesses, doesn't mean forsaking the world completely. The entire point of the incarnation in Christianity is that God DID NOT abandon the world but came to save it, and Christianity's evangelizing mission to all the nations is completely against the idea of "being called out of the world", Jesus literally says to his followers:>Go out there and CONVERT EVERYONE.
>>17408177Nietzsche is just stating that they phenomena in the Kantian sense, that is our experience of them involves the imposition of universal and necessary ideas, however, unlike, Kant, it is the will and the meaning imparted that is imposed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TofHMUIs2U
>>17408177>You understand Nietzsche would agree with you in that those concepts are not metaphysical claims?I'm saying that they are, Nietzsche is just a hypocrite.
>>17408173He is in direct opposition to Kantian metaphysics and his idea of things in themselves. Nietzsche just views the sensory world as the true world.
>>17408165>us grasping the evolutionary selection processesyou cannot meaningfully separate our ideas about those processes from the process itself, because "observation" is itself an idea drawn from empiricismempiricism itself is indebted to telos, epistimology is toothe entire scientific process is saturated with it from beginning to end, that's why we do experimentsthere is nothing about your perception of things that is outside your own schema>a bunch of layered processesproceeding towards what, exactlydon't say nothing, reckoning with goal directed behavior is ultimately essential to the field and cannot be brushed aside
>>17408185He did claim to reject Kant. Howeverr, the real world being the sensory world is not exactly correct.In Twilight of the Idols, he dismantles the dichotomy between a supposed "true world" and the sensory world, labeling the former as a fabrication of philosophers and theologians. Nietzsche sees value and truth in the lived, tangible experiences of the sensory world, opposing any denigration of it as "mere appearance." Nietzsche, like Kant, acknowledges that human understanding is constrained by the interpretive frameworks through which we experience the world. Kant posits the distinction between the "phenomenal world" (the world as we experience it) and the "noumenal world" (the world as it is in itself), emphasizing that we cannot access the noumenal directly. While Nietzsche rejects the metaphysical implications of Kant's noumenal realm, his concept of "perspectivism" similarly argues that all knowledge is interpretive and shaped by perspective. Kant himself however, also held that we should not actually reason about or seek the noumena world. Something that commentators like Hegel and others had a huge issue with and some argued entailed that the phenomenal world is the noumeanl world. Nietzsche's way of thinking about it actually is the same view of Kant as seen by Afrikan Spir, who in Kantianese states exactly what you state about the phenomenal world, not having an identity with noumenal but being the only condition of experience and the real world. Real being different than the noumenal.
>>17408187This means you agree with Kant or Nietzsche. A more contemporary take on this is the fitness beats truth problem that has some similarities to Kant, Nietzsche but also Buddhist philosophy. Below is a lecture a contemporary presentation on that.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnoIiinC7wMTelos in this type of view can't reflect something outside of me but is a product of the processes that structure my experience. I impose the end from my cognition or perception. For what is worth in philosophy of biology they would just be committed that what they observe is processes not anything about the metaphysical nature of it.
>>17408180>"wordly thing", which can be understood as pointless indulgences and excesses, doesn't mean forsaking the world completelyyou cannot just separate sin and things of sin from the world like thatthey are the same, Jesus broke the power of sin and death over the whole world but that doesn't mean his kingdom is of it or that it will not pass awayneither does it mean all are saved, far from it>CONVERT EVERYONEThat's technically not the mission. Rather, it's to spread the gospel to men of all nations.Not just Jews, but gentiles too. That's what "nations" refers to, gentiles.There is a difference between evangelization and proselytization.>entire point of the incarnation in Christianity yeah, Jesus came into this prison and freed the prisoners from the insideCan you redeem a prison?
>>17408070Just read Schmitt:>As German and other languages do not distinguish between the private and political enemy, many misconceptions and falsifications are possible. The often quoted “love your enemies” … reads “diligite inimicos vestros” … and not diligite hostes vestros. No mention is made of the political enemy. Never in the thousand-year struggle between Christians and Muslims did it occur to a Christian to surrender rather than defend Europe out of love towards the Saracens or Turks.And Spengler:>And where, on the heights of Faustian morale, from the Crusades to the World War, do we find anything of the “slave-morale," the meek resignation, the deaconess's Caritas? Only in pious and honoured words, nowhere else.Nobody really critiques Nietzsche for his takes on nihilism, the last men, not even his “God is dead” (taken to mean something “we’ve stopped believing in God”). What Nietzsche gets critiqued for are first of all his very lazy critiques of Christianity and his frankly ridiculous solutions and his grecophilia. Nietzsche had a good sense of the times he lived in and where things were going, but he was a lazy philosopher. He was a terrible philosopher actually. There’s a world of difference between having an intuitive sense of things and making sound arguments for what should be done. He had the former but failed to do the latter. But Spengler said more and said it better anyway. He said plainly that Westerners would come to despise the civilization they built for themselves.
>>17408198Some do actually critique that. Some argue it is very arbitrary and that my values are never really my own or imposed. There really is no nihilism, just someone labeling my values nihilism. I coordinate with them. Susan Wolf is a famous critic. Her arguments are that we need to think about what is action first and once we see that we see a lot of claims about the meaning of life are false, such as arbitrary standards. Meaning has to be in our lives not some random idea of values that I come up with.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cagClgae1k&t=7s
>>17408194>this type of view can't reflect something outside of me but is a product of the processes that structure my experiencethe idea that there is some kind of meaningful dividing line between internal mental process and the "real world" outside has to diethey are the samethe things we can say about the phenomenon of personal experience apply broadly to reality as a wholeif telos exists as an idea, or a motive, meaning and reason etc, then it's generalizible to the entire universe"inside" and "outside" are just ideasideas are very real
>>17408198>Nobody really critiques Nietzsche for his takes on [...] “God is dead”There's nothing to critique, assuming people actually read the entire parable he wrote.>https://s3.amazonaws.com/saylordotorg-resources/wwwresources/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/PHIL304-4.3.2-ParableoftheMadman.pdf>Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.What's there to disagree with? It's an objective fact. The "light of the stars", so to speak, managed to travel far enough. We can see that we've culturally moved away from Christianity.The *only* problem with the "God is dead" quote, is that people strip it of all the context of the parable. Which isn't a problem of Nietzsche, but of faggots who don't actually read him.
>>17408201it is pretty plainly clear that I can't universalize my experience to the whole world. I don't see the values that orient my experience in let's say an Ionic bond of Ammonium. I might use that ammonium but that purpose is not a feature of ammonium. Another organism would not find that purpose. Ideas might be but we can't universalize them. It is not obvious in what sense they are real either.
>>17408201It might be that certain causal relations that condition or construct thoughts are generalizable though. That is one way you can critique my claim though. I admit that.
>>17408206ideas aren't real as a result of some spooky emergent phenomenon of material processesmatter is real because it's an ideaBerkeley had it figured the fuck out and he doesn't get enough credit for fixing empiricism>can't universalize my experience to the whole worldyour experience is real, that means it is contiguous with other real thingsthere is no meaningful way in your power to seperate your experience of the world from the world itself>Ionic bond of Ammoniumcool idea broso you affiliate your concept of chemistry with the phenomenon of your sensory field, because you noticed that phenomenon repeat itself when you deliberately repeat certain processessounds to me like you just generalized a concept to things you percieve to be outside your direct control as a force of nature, and that's kind of how science works>we can't universalize themthey are already universalized, we just partake in them
>>17408198That is exactly Nietzsche's point in his critique. Europe never really followed Christianity, it was constantly in opposition to it and had to come up with theological bullshit to justify itself constantly. There is no way to theologically justify things like the Crusades for one of many examples purely from the Bible. All justifications came from the minds of theologians making up bullshit to justify it. Christianity was not a liberating force that turned warlords into kings. It was a debilitating force whos only success was shown by its negation from the strong will of Europeans throughout its history in spite of it. To this day one has to take an extremely symbolic interpretation to make sense of any of it. The truth is, the original take wasn't really that symbolic, nor did it spread through a symbolic understanding but quite the contrary, it spread with a literal interpretation of spite masking as pity and "justice". A big problem with early Christianity was getting people to stop cutting their dicks off and running off into the desert to die a martyrs death. i.e. the true parts of Christianity that is often left out of the discussion. It really isn't until the counsel of Nicene and the establishments of the churches proper do many theologians begin any discussion, because it took Rome stepping in and telling everyone how fucking retarded they were being to make any sense of the death cult that was and still is at its core: Christianity.
romautist cringe jpg is jpgthread killsad many such cases*tips fedora*DOMINA MEA
>>17408166A metaphysical concept is basically pre-scientific. It’s a concept that is foundational to a worldview that will be constructed upon it. E.g, Aristotelian substance.Psychological concepts are not metaphysical concepts, they are terminal rather than foundational.
>>17408213>they are already universalizedWhat is "they"? You can't refer to anything that isn't tied to your perspective. Your thoughts are manufactured by unconscious bodily processes.
People who get lost in the weeds like this are worthless.For all your "noumenons" and "slave morality" and "kantian dialectical neophysics" what have you actually gained? You have no deeper understanding of yourself or the world in any real, practical sense. It's just huffing your own farts. Here's the facts: Nietzsche was a loser. Nietzsche didn't get the girl. Nietzsche was a weirdo moron who only ate milk and fruit and had constant diarrhea and stomach issue. Nietzsche got kicked in the head by a horse, went schizo and then died. There's your messiah. Your hero. Your fathers didn't force you to go outside and get some fresh air enough.
>>17408732>Here's the facts:>first "fact" is an interpretationkek
>>17408779Look at the guy, bro. Look at his picture. Does that scream "high value male" to you?
>>17408070There was a point in life where I despaired over how our current capitalist society and how it baits people so easily with crude desire baits like drugs, forced eroticism and everything that elicits envy on every street ad... At somepoint you might be tempted to go out of the rat race and try to convince yourself that you have to go beyond these base temptations, that they're evil and create suffering. In that you achieve lvl 1 which is basically what a lot of religions achieve.At that time I came across the morality as anti nature in ToTI and being at that point of reflexion made it make a lot more sense of nietzsche and how absolutely steadfast his philosophy is. Basically the lvl 1 believers have hoisted themselves higher spiritually than the masses by having been borne witness to the stench of the real world, but they fed themselves illusions. And in a way, Nietzsche is not denigrating them for it. He just reminds us that beyond all illusions the obvious is that all we have is there, and we should work with matter, not intangible heavens (you know that already). But basically lvl to is relinquishing your disgust and accept to be a disgusting animal, but instead of being a lower lifeform like the lvl 0 masses you have to spiritualize life. In a way Nietzsche has nothing against the elevated man, just that he has to be elevated in a place of reality and palpability.And part of that is accepting the absolute monstruous cards we were dealt, and to play with them in a way that is ours. I'd say our true freedom in that would be to name things however we choseidk if that made sense I forgot halfway what was the realization I had by rereading the passage but it had something to do with ascetism
>>17408794Ok but what does that mean in practical terms?Be a wagie but be smug about it in your head?
>>17408798It means taking what is in to take and make it beautiful.
>>17408802Which means...
The Übermensch starts from the atheist dogma that there is no truth and no morality. Nietzsche being atheist, ie having no critical thinking, he embraces this dogma created by the caste of the bourgeoisie to destroy Christiniaty and absolute monarchies. however there's no really a theology associate to their power grab. The initial propaganda was the rationalist mechanistic view of the world but that's just depressing. Saying there's no truth and no morality is nihilism and nihilism leads people to depression and suicide after they coom. So Nietzsche's idea to make hedonistic nihilism cool is:-to change the definition of nihilism to match Christianity. For the atheist like Nietzsche nihilism now means caring more about being moral now and about life after death than living in the present moment, ie anti-nihilism is following your whim and letting your stream of contradictory desires to control you-Claim that this old nihilism is pro-life-Claim that this new nihilism is anti-life-to build an ideal life, that one of the Übermensch. The Übermensch is a guy who embraces the artificial dogma created by the bourgeoisie to seize power, and instead of attending to orgies and then committing suicide, the Übermensch just attend orgies without committing suicide.So how to do that? Well Nietzsche idea is to let all the little Übermensches create their life-affirming values, after declaring that values aren't real, they don't exist.
>>17408798>>17408802Example:There is such a thing as toxic masculinity. The retard above says things like low value male and shit. Its a tool of control for the masses to apply pressure on individuals. In a spiritual way, its obvious that submitting yourself to the ever fluctuating standards of masculinity is retarded and destructive, nihilistic. But there are also definite pluses and bonuses to appearing alpha and shit. The greatest man will exploit the perks of these retarded social orders but at the same time not let it control their self direction.Same for women. There are a lot of coming of age films where women start as an enviable object of desire and progressively take power and autonomy. They have not given up on the perks of their beauty even though its supposed to apply pressure on them, because they can use it to exploit the world and make their own way. (ex louise brooks)
>>17408815So the Übermensch creates for himself a narrative where he is the hero and his duty is to develop as much as possible those values and to impose them onto others Übermensch who develop their own little values. For any realist, this is called ''sinking further into delusion''. But for atheists it is called ''creating a clown world where every little clown is a moral hero for going against the evil life-denying Christianity''-Now it turns out that for atheists, ''life-affirming values'' are just unbridled hedonistic behaviors. But atheists don't call hedonism ''hedonism''. In the clown world hedonism is called ''vitalism'' or ''behaving like Dionysus''THis is how we end up with all the strong current and counter currents of badly thought ''ideologies'' int eh LGBTQ++ whatever which are just expressions of various and contradictory sexual desires desperately bundled together as an attempt to feed the population some sense of more or less coherent meta-narrative where life will be better if everybody becomes a leftist.This is magnified in a mass consumption society based on mass media created after WW2, and especially after 2008 where the iphone means every little roastie can delude herself that she is the next revolutionary for being a whore during the night and consuming vegan food during the day.
>>17408793Yes
>>17408820He looks like he should be mining coal for a living.
>>17408824Post face
>>17408815>>17408816>>17408819Negro what?
>>17408246Atheists can never get their own internal logic straight.>Christianity is a barbaric belief that caused Inquisitions and Crusades>Christianity is a pacifying force that sissified men and grrr, I wanna be a manly Vikang who rapes and pillages
>>17408246He was basically just continuing Enlightenment era romanticization of pagan antiquity as if it was a paradise of enlightened whatever that Christians ruined, while ignoring the many ways it was very harsh and brutal, and that denying the gods in the Athens of Pericles was a capital offense.
>>17409341so the equiv of /pol/shitters who posts 1950s Pepsi ads and go "This is wat they tuk from yew"
>>17409367Yes. If Nietzsche was transported to 4th century BC Athens he would just be writing how Zeus is a lie and whatever and would end up like Socrates, told to commit suicide for blasphemy.
I remember H.G. Wells in "The Outline of History" shitting on contemporaries who believed classical antiquity an enlightened utopia it never was. He also considered the Roman Empire little more than a vast oppressive slave state with no real redeeming qualities.
>>17409341yes as I said the ancients absolutely did believe the gods were real and modern atheists just project their own beliefs onto them. a lot of the practices like the Inquisition that atheists reeee about predate Christianity and were inherited from the Greco-Roman world.
Nietzsche was guilty of badly misunderstanding Christianity, yes, but the Nazis who misunderstood Nietzsche were yet even more retarded.
>>17408815>The Übermensch starts from the atheist dogma that there is no truth and no morality.Stopped reading. This is a prime example of what I mentioned last night about "I don't realize that I don't know what he's talking about, so I'm going to say a bunch of stupid shit".
>>17409237>Atheists can never get their own internal logic straight.Atheists aren't a monolithic group, but a disorganized label. There's nothing to get straight, because you're trying to combine two completely separate people's ideas together, with no actual basis for doing so.See:>>17408289 for further explanation.
>>17409425>but the Nazis who misunderstood Nietzsche were yet even more retarded.I mean, they had his sister twisting his writing to favour their ideology. When he died, his unfinished work was taken by his sister, and rewritten to appeal to Nazis.She's a total bitch that gave her brother the worst reputation possible.
>>17409425
>>17409341That is not at all what Nietzsche or I am saying.
>>17409425>badly misunderstanding ChristianityDo you have any examples?
>>17409341He quite literally acknowledges and praises their harshness and brutality. Their yea-saying. Not only is your morality judaized, you also didn't even read Nietzsche.
>>17409626>He quite literally acknowledges and praises their harshness and brutality>>17409237as said here.>derp why won't u let me rape and pillage fuckin' Christfags ffs
>>17409237No, Europeans are a barbaric force that caused the crusades (based, awesome, life affirming).Christianity is gay as fuck and completely antithetical to the crusades (cringe, humble, life-denying)
>>17409237Anon, these arguments are made by two different people. The first one is made by a liberal (in the modern sense) atheist. And the second one by an atheist who probably believes in genocide (a Rightist usually, however not necessarily).>>17409809Appealing to retarded shopkeeper morality is not an argument.
>>17410024>Appealing to retarded shopkeeper moralityIs a Kant logical fallacy because he assumes altruism can exist and all things we do don't have some degree of self-interest in mind.
>>17410015now if only atheists didn't rant that the Crusades were an example of Christian un-civility
>>17409626>He quite literally acknowledges and praises their harshness and brutalitylol that's funny that a total incel NEET like Nietzsche would do that because i doubt he was winning too many barroom brawls. why is it always the most scrawny incels who LARP as muscled manly barbarians? probably some kind of warped power fantasy to compensate for their insecurities.
Nietzche was very much a product of 19th century German Protestantism and all its biases; his world view wasn't all that deep or extended much beyond that and he also severely misread Plato.
>>17410071Odysseus was a thousand times much more harsh and brutal than whatever you have in mind.
>>17410062You are conflating the equivalents of Christian Identity and unitarianism together.
>>17410081Not even close.
>>17408820I don't think so
Nietzsche may not have directly caused Nazism but he was certainly part of that toxic strain of 19th century German thought that led up to it.
>>17408717>You can't refer to anything that isn't tied to your perspective. Duh, that's what I've been saying ITT.>there is no meaningful way in your power to seperate your experience of the world from the world itselfThat's because consciousness is a fundamental underlying aspect of reality and not restricted to what you would refer to as "life forms".It's not an emergent phenomenon of "matter" (which is itself just an idea), it's essentially foundational to *everything* you know to be real.>thoughts are manufactured by unconscious bodily processeslmaonothe most charity I can give you here is that bodily processes gives us certain privliged access to certain ideas that already exist independently of our personal conception of them, like math and logic or heat as electromagnetism for example
>>17409509>that his work is without political implicationsI don't see how someone could say his work is. He writes about morals. Political implications will be downwind of morality. Is that trying to say that Nietzsche wasn't trying to push for a particular political ideology of the time?
>>17410444Perspectives are produced by bodies. It's not "I think, therefore I am" but "it thinks, therefore I am."
>>17410432jew pls go back to plebbit
>>17410480you know Nietzsche was an ardent philosemite, right?
>>17410062It's almost as if people can value different things differently. Pretty crazy, huh? One person might see an event one way, and another might see it another way.It's especially dumb, when you're going to try to talk about atheists, as if they're an organized group with an organized belief.
>>17410432>but he was certainly part of that toxic strain of 19th century German thought that led up to it.Wow, it's almost as if his bitch sister took his unfinished work, and rewrote it to appeal to Nazis.
>>17410444>That's because consciousness is a fundamental underlying aspect of realitywut
>>17410490Nietzsche wasn't a "philosemite." He was simply giving credit where it's due. Modern Jews are harder working than modern Germans. We have Jews to thank for much of the intellectual developments over the last few centuries.Never forget that Nietzsche called Christianity a Judaic religion and then condemned Christianity to total annihilation. The Antichrist isn't Jewish, he's hyperborean, a northern warrior people who leave the term "barbarian" in their wake wherever they go due to their intellectual superiority and natural instinct for war.
>>17410471>Perspectives are produced by bodies.nobodies have a certain perspectivebut that doesn't mean perspective itself is a product of material processesbecause "matter" is just a perception rendered in cognitive form to you>>17410498yeah, the universe is aware of youthat's the most basic means I have of describing this phenomenon to one such as yourself
>>17410683How do you know your body is a material process?
>>17408070Why does neetzuh look indian?
>>17410759That's the Yamnaya coming out
>>17410683>yeah, the universe is aware of youwutDo you mean in the "technically other people are part of the universe, and they have consciousness, so technically the universe is conscious" or do you mean "the universe, devoid of life on Earth and any other planet that has aliens, would still be conscious"?
>>17410470Kaufmann built his career on preparing Nietzsche for liberal digestion, that is, sanitizing, de-contextualizing, disassociation of Nietzsche from the most obvious ramification of the man's teaching. It presents Nietzsche as a wisdom writer instead of someone alluding to National Socialism/Fascism. It doesn't mean that Nietzsche is only political, or that he was a political philosopher, or that he was especially interested in it, but in the capacity that his ideas carry through to the political landscape they are far more right like than left.
>and is anti-life and nihilistic at its coreYou lose the right to complain about surface-level criticism of Nietzsche when you write this. This is also a nonsensical complaint that the halfwits on this site level at Buddhism. But there's no substance to it, it's just atheists getting really mad at the fact that religious people believe there is something better than earthly life.
This thread once again show that Christians should really be renamed into Cringetians
>>17411102Saying something better than earth is waiting for you after is a false promise and all it serves to do it withhold people from making life on earth heaven instead while making people feel better. Anti-life.
>>17411082>alluding to National Socialism/FascismHe wasn't. As I've said a few times, his sister took his unfinished work, and rewrote it for the Nazis. Which reframed all of his work into being thought with that lens. It doesn't matter if the Nazis' liked his previous works, he wasn't writing for the proto-Nazis. It has nothing to do with Kaufmann. Only a midwit would be able to read Nietzsche and project Nazi onto him.You'd have to misunderstand what he was writing about, to think he's justifying Nazi beliefs. Especially with On the Genealogy of Morals, you'd have to be especially poorly-read in other philosophic writing, to see it as a justification. If anyone's reading it, and concluding that the slave/master morality is what Nietzsche is advocating for, then stay the fuck away from that person.Every poorly-read person that I've known, who's read Genealogy comes to the conclusion that he's saying really Nazi-like things. Every well-read person that I've know, who's read Genealogy comes to the conclusion that it's really difficult to immediately know what he's saying, and that it takes a few read-throughs, especially after how necessary it was to realize that Nietzsche expects you to be well-read to approach his writing. Then they conclude that he's having sort of a meta-conversation with the philosophies of the past.The average proto-Nazi/Nazi wouldn't be reading a bunch of old philosophy, so of course they're going to think that Nietzsche was writing for their ideology. I knida understand why some philosophers are intentionally difficult to read in the first few chapters, because it filters out the midwits.I don't even think that Nietzsche was right, I just think he's one of the most misunderstood philosophers. He's more like an end game boss of philosophy, not because he's the best or most accurate, but because of what it takes to have an accurate understanding of him, you have to already understand a significant portion of other philosophers.
>>17411082Nietzsche was not a socialist of any kind. He was in favor of aristocracy, globalism, and race mixing. It doesn't mean he was a liberal (he absolutely wasn't), but he was certainly not a socialist; he accuses Christianity as the worst kind of socialism there is, in fact, and we all know his stance on Christianity.
bump
>>17410432One form of greatness inspiring another. Jews hate this.
Calling Nietzche a philosopher is like calling Jordan Peterson a philosopher. He had to have had an IQ at least a standard deviation below any of the thinkers he tries to critique. Schopenhauer was far superior, even Hitler believed this.
>>17408070>I personally don't know where this critique comes fromEvery Abrahamic religion is predicated on the fanatical and singular fetishizing of God's authority. Everything else they allude to or imply concern with is irrelevant: God's glory, that's all it is beneath the bullshit. If you don't want to burn in Hell, you let God define all meaning, good, and evil. Simple as that. If you have to lie to get more people to convert, you do it because you're afraid of Hell after you die. It's as simple as that. If they think you'll mock those rules, they'll lie about them or offer word salad, but that's the truth of it. Every biblecuck is on a mission to avoid Hell when they die, and if they have to be slave fanatics promoting "the boss" they'll do it. Now you understand them, you can stop sounding mystified by their inconsistencies and whatnot. Just observe that none of the people fanatical about faith are motivated by establishing truth, logical rigor, or any other path to certainty. They're superstition jeet-brained subhumans, and the faith was developed to exploit and manage them. Without it, they would be cannibal corpse fucking degenerates, only fear of Hell keeps them in line.
>>17414255Schopenhauer was just a depressed wiener who copy-pasted Buddhist philosophy.Biggest midwit in all of modern philosophy.
>>17414517He reconciled ancient eastern wisdom with the apex of western philosophy (German idealism)
that's nice, Chud Anon
>>17410470>>17411156>>17411575I wouldn't call the self proclaimed "aristocratic radical" apolitical.He was too elitist to be a National Socialist, but that doesn't mean he wasn't his own particular form of radical right winger.
>>17414913As for Kaufmann, I used to have a far harsher opinion until I started reading his literary works.His rhymed translation of Goethe's Faust is elite.
>>17408070>Christian GodWake up. True Christians knows God is one. So, even if you call him Allah, Krishna, etc. it's the same God, in all religions.
>>17414821Nein. Neither of them knew a fucking thing about "real Buddhism", nor could either of them read Sanskrit. As trained Philologists, they should've known better. In fairness, that was all very new and exotic at the time and folks were just starting to notice all the amazing PIE cultural and linguistic connections and all of the Europe was drunk on "Orientalism", one way or another. Regardless, Schopenhauer was a whiny bitch who was hiding by "Buddhism(tm)" to excuse lazy, boring, low-effort Nihilism. Of course, Life was never "so bad" for him to an Hero, so he clearly wasn't buying his own bullshit either. Nietzsche was a Linguist by training and an author by choice. The "Philosopher" title was not really one he ever sought, or wanted. He was closer to Mark Twain, than Marcus Aurelius.
>>17415355muh Monad.......you Platonism is showing again, Sweetie.
>>17414916I ain't buying what Kaufman is selling......Now, that's an "elite" pun across two languages. Let's see if you get it. I bet not.
>>17416133>>Regardless, Schopenhauer was a whiny bitch who was hiding by "Buddhism(tm)"He was a hindu.
>Postmodernism, the school of "thought" that proclaimed "There are no truths, only interpretations" has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for "conversations" in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster.— Daniel Dennett, the greatest philosopher in history.He has been proven right, again and again - in his philosophy, in his disproof of religion. You cannot stop his arguments, they counter all of yours like an unstoppable bulldozer. Within 100 years no one will believe in God except those in asylums, and we will have our fun with the fire hoses on religiontards.
>>17416234It's important to note that that quote is a misreading of Nietzsche. Here's the full passage:>In opposition to Positivism, which halts at phenomena and says “There are only facts and nothing more”, I would say: No, facts are precisely what is lacking; all that exists consists of interpretations. We cannot establish any fact “in itself”: it may even be nonsense to desire to do such a thing. “Everything is subjective”, you say; but that in itself is interpretation. The “subject” is nothing given, but something superimposed by fancy, something introduced behind. – Is it necessary to set an interpreter behind the interpretation already to hand? Even that would be fantasy, hypothesis. To the extent to which “knowledge” has any sense at all, the world is knowable; but may be interpreted differently; it has not one sense behind it, but hundreds of senses. – “Perspectivism”. It is our needs that interpret the world; our instincts and their impulses For and Against. Every instinct is a sort of thirst for power; each one has its point of view, which it would fain impose upon all the other instincts as their norm.The postmodernists only understood half of this. They didn't entirely grasp how the statement "there are only interpretations" necessarily disputes the subject and therefore changes the situation from a matter of truth vs. falsehood to the matter of strong vs. weak wills. His philosophy of the will to power is lost on them; they're unable to see the underlying animistic, panpsychic roots of the concept which he inherited from Schopenhauer and Wagner.
>>17410530>warrior people who leave the term "barbarian" in their wake wherever they go due to their intellectual superiority and natural instinct for war.how would you feel if your home was conquered? why is that something to celebrate?
>>17414913The Nazis thought that they could create a kind of secular religion which kind of could lift oneself up by one's own bootstraps, embracing Nihilism in a heroic act of self-positioning
>>17417084Counterpoint: how would you feel if you were vastly more intelligent than everyone around you? So much more that everyone else seems like dogs to you, incapable of even comprehending you.
>>17408070>work in a nursing home>have to do a quote of the day every day on the activity sheet>quote Nietzsche once, something about the love of family>never grew up reading him, just put the quote on because it was one of the first quotes on Google about family love>Jewish woman from Brooklyn yells at me and goes to my manager: "Nietzsche was Hitler's philosopher and you are an antisemite for supporting him">her husband says "that's bullshit, Nietzsche was Germany's philosopher and was around long before Hitler"Based Clint, always having my back
