Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher, because his philosophy doesn't really make sense and is contradictory.He's a self-help authorWhat he ultimately seems to set out to do is to make you feel good and uplifted. And he succeds at that. He was a good, fragile, emotional and sensitive being who suffered throughout his life and empathetically wanted to help others not to suffer the way he did.As for philosophy, you're better off sticking to Plato
>>23311603Are you jewish ?
>>23311631jews only liked Plato like 2000 years agonow they abhor platonism because it asserts there is an objective Truthare you daft?
Imagine how pathetic weather drives an animal to discourage it’s whereabouts
>>23311603Wrong.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/
>>23311603The idea of the Will to Power, whether you think it is stupid or smart, is a philosophical idea. If you disagree then you must concede that Schopenhauer, the most influential and second most brilliant philosopher of the XIXth century, was not a philosopher which would be retarded.
>>23311603As a Platonist, this is retarded and stupid, as if certain strains of Platonism weren't just a babble of bullshit orderings of monads and henads, and as if there was an edifying "turn to Jesus" feature through a lot of it. Nietzsche may not always have Plato right, but he absolutely does in the preface of Beyond Good and Evil, and you don't have a lick of Nietzsche right.
>>23311684Nietzsche says one thing in one book or even one page, and then another elsewhere. And that there is reason in madness. Sadly it's bollocks but it is affirming and feel-good. Basically he's saying, whatever reflections on life your depressed ass is having, they are right, and feel vindicated by how right you are, confident, happy and grab life by the pussy because you're so right and you're IT
>everyone I don't like is not a philosopherYeah ok retard
>>23311853I think he would be down with the sentiment of your last sentence but he's definitely a philosopher and there's more depth to it than just that
>>23311853>Basically he's saying, whatever reflections on life your depressed ass is having, they are right, and feel vindicated by how right you are, confident, happy and grab life by the pussy because you're so right and you're ITNo he doesn't, his perspectivalism doesn't weight all perspectives equally, hence why he argues for the will to power *as* the most comprehensive interpretation of the facts worth accepting over other interpretations. And this idea of him as some feels validating author isn't grounded in anything, what the acidic and pervasive skepticism from Human, All Too Human on, and his concerns over health and nobility and strength over sickness and baseness and weakness. Absolutely filtered.
>>23311603He was just a good writer
>>23311632Sounds jewish to me
>>23311923uh huh, there is skepticism like his critique of christianity but it's empty desu, in the end he professes a kind of christianity without christianity. also slave morality was taken from Hegel's dialectic of the lord-bondsman. it's hair-splitting and self-indulgent wankery
>>23312353I don't think his critique of christianity is empty. The antichrist is very thorough, and very in depth.And he does not actually profess a christianity without christianity, he professes a the exact opposite to christianity, in fact.
>>23312400Not who you were replying to, and I'm actually quite sympathetic to Nietzsche, but his critique of Christianity in the Antichrist is horrendous. He basically uses Christianity as a stand-in for everything he doesn't dislike, invokes scripture as it suits him, misunderstands or misinterprets pretty much all of it, dismisses scripture as a hoax a few pages later (which makes you wonder why he bothered quoting it in the first place), fumbles both the theological and historical structure of Christianity, and generally continues screeching until he tires himself out. There is a critique of something in the Antichrist, but it is not a serious critique of Christianity proper. Arguably his worst single piece of writing.
>>23312463>misunderstands or misinterprets pretty much all of itI don't know what you are talking about unless you mean diregarding Church-derived common interpretations. Which Nietzsche ois not obligated to abide by.>dismisses scripture as a hoax a few pages later I think you misunderstood what he was saying here. He wasn't calling it a hoax, he was alleging scripture had been adulterated by Christ's later followers, in fact, he directly references the discordance between Jesus in some parts of some Gospels and in others. The bible (and secondary literature) is how he reached his view of Jesus in the first place.> (which makes you wonder why he bothered quoting it in the first place)Perhaps because those adulterations upon the biography of Jesus were commited by Christians/Priests, and are thus still relevant when analysing Christianity.>fumbles both the theological and historical structure of ChristianityIn some cases maybe, in others he is spot on.Like the repurposing of the old testament as just a mere prelude to Christ. You can even partially attribute it to Paul like he does.>There is a critique of something in the AntichrisMany things. Paul, the protestant reformation, the Jews.> critique of Christianity properNot for you to define.
>>23311603NEETzsche is a faggot. Illiterate. Hysterical. Venal.
>>23311603>it's hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering the reasons for them!>the snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well the minds which are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be minds.
>>23311603You would only hold this opinion if you only know about Nietzsche from Wikipedia and video essays. Go read him yourself instead of wasting your time posting uninformed opinions.
>>23311603filtered
>>23312463>not a serious critique of Christianity properWhat were you expecting, his take on trinitarian theology? Christology? He is past that. You aren't being serious if you aren't.
>>23311603What's contradictory in Nietzsche? I'm willing to bet you only have a cursory Wikipedia-level understanding of him.
>>23314599Not OP (who is a retard) but Nietzsche is absolutely self contradictory at times, and he does so wittingly. He had a polemical, poetical, continental style of philosophy. Like he'll say at one place there are no facts only interpretations but that the will to power as the thing in itself is an absolute truth. Just to name one. His politics are all over the place too, no one can make out what they are because he contradicts himself in many places about politics.
>>23311603>He was a good, fragile, emotional and sensitive being who suffered throughout his life and empathetically wanted to help others not to suffer the way he did.he was an edgelord chud who wrote all his books with fantasies of torturing babies to death.
>>23314656I don't remember him ever writing that will to power is an absolute truth. Everything being interpretation doesn't mean one can't assert one's own interpretation. Nietzsche's use of the term "interpretation" is also not the colloquial one of "I can make up whatever I want as I feel like it."
>>23314670>Nietzsche's use of the term "interpretation" is also not the colloquial one of "I can make up whatever I want as I feel like it."Yes I think these kinds of posters are deliberately misinterpreting him. He remains an infamous elitist, and in English, his main translator Kaufmann went through a lot of effort to get you permission to read him. And you can, so there is not much excuse to distort what is plain if you simply read him in context and not in snippet. That "there are no facts and only interpretations" is very consistent with his elitism—no serious egalitarian or believer in a universal truth would blame Christianity for leveling the intellectual and moral spirit of an entire race to that of livestock, he would either defend these efforts or bemoan that they had not gone far enough
>>23311603There's a very fine line between self-help and ethical/moral philosophy. But you know why Nietzsche is a philosopher?>What he ultimately seems to set out to do is to make you feel good and uplifted. And he succeeds at that.That's the point. Nietzsche is, perhaps at the risk of being reductive, an ethical and moral philosopher. To your point about him making the reader feel good and uplifted, his entire argument is that the reason we don't feel good and uplifted is that we are tied down by outdated morals and ethics that make us feel sluggish, lethargic, and depressed.Nietzsche's point is that, to be happy, to be ethical, and to be moral, we must separate ourselves from previous forms of morality and construct and test our own, self-founded ideals and morals. To Nietzsche, that is morality, and that is the right way to live. And while you're correct that Nietzsche suffered physically and mentally, you miss Nietzsche's point about feeling uplifted. The uplift should come from within after numerous trials and tribulations that one succeeds through one's own determination and grit.Read Plato if you enjoy philosophical dogma and bad ontology.
>>23311603OP, you still haven't answered me. Are you Jewish or of Jewish descent ?
>>23311631"all Anti-semites Ought to Be Shot"- Nietzsche
SAR. ARE YOU JEWISH SAR?
>>23315990fuck you kike, Hindus are our aryan pagan brothers. the jew fears the new aryan west-east alliance
>>23316000devi is essenshial reading
>>23316000>>23316002thanks for coming out streetshitter subhuman.
>>23316000>>23316002>>23316185Hindus can't think.
Heidegger said that metaphysics ended with Nietzsche. That’s an academic rhetorician’s way of saying that Nietzsche did not really do philosophy. He didn’t make use of logical reasoning. In fact, he tried exactly to take philosophy and make it go beyond logical reasoning. In the end, you something akin to poetry masquerading as philosophy.
>>23316617>logical reasoningIs just another word for left brain isolation and thus retardation of the whole. Nietzsche connects the left and right sides like a poet.
>>23316617>>23316792Though he was too traumatized to fully set a good path and that's what Heidegger tries to correct.
>>23316797You mean that Heidegger wanted a piece of the pie, so he came up with some bullshit to make it seem like more was needed, even though Nietzsche obliterated the asshole of philosophy once and for all.
>>23311603>What he ultimately seems to set out to do is to make you feel good and upliftedYeah you didn’t read him. Some use him as a self help author with random quotes but that’s not what the intention is for anyone seriously reading his work
>>23318686I read him and you're wrong, literally everyone finishes "understanding" him imagining oneself to be, or wanting to be, the Ubermensch, and imagining everyone else as the last menIt's cope
>>23315205>the reason we don't feel good and uplifted is that we are tied down by outdated morals and ethics that make us feel sluggish, lethargic, and depressed.that's not true. there is an absolute Truth and morals result from it>Nietzsche's point is that, to be happy, to be ethical, and to be moral, we must separate ourselves from previous forms of morality and construct and test our own, self-founded ideals and morals. To Nietzsche, that is morality, and that is the right way to live.that's just satanism/luciferianism. age-old--since before Christ--sophistry.
