Nietzsche gets hit with a trad one-twoRoger Scruton:>“There are philosophers who have repudiated the goal of truth -- Nietzsche, for example, who argued that there are no truths, only interpretations. But you need only ask yourself whether what Nietzsche says is true, to realize how paradoxical it is. (If it is true, then it is false! -- an instance of the so-called 'liar' paradox.) Likewise, the French philosopher Michel Foucault repeatedly argues as though the 'truth' of an epoch has no authority outside of the power-structure that endorses it. There is no trans-historical truth about the human condition. But again, we should ask ourselves whether that last statement is true: for if it is true, it is false. There has arisen among modernist philosophers a certain paradoxism which has served to put them out of communication with those of their contemporaries who are merely modern. A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is "merely relative," is asking you not to believe him. So don't.”Chesterton on Nietzsche>Nietzsche had some natural talent for sarcasm: he could sneer, though he could not laugh; but there is always something bodiless and without weight in his satire, simply because it has not any mass of common morality behind it. He is himself more preposterous than anything he denounces. But, indeed, Nietzsche will stand very well as the type of the whole of this failure of abstract violence. The softening of the brain which ultimately overtook him was not a physical accident. If Nietzsche had not ended in imbecility, Nietzscheism would end in imbecility. Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot. Every man who will not have softening of the heart must at last have softening of the brain.More Scruton on Nietzsche>Nietzsche himself has become a kind of idol. Despite his antagonism towards democracy and mass culture, despite his unashamedly racist attack on the Germans and all things German, despite his advocacy of ‘health’ and strength against the ‘sickness’ of compassion, despite his contempt for socialists, vegetarians, feminists and women generally – despite committing every sin condemned by the morality of ‘political correctness’, Nietzsche is now a cult figure.Even Bertrand Russell has an insightful critique>I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.
>>23558074>Roger Scruton visits a school in London to talk about fox hunting
>>23558098Ideology matters more than color
>>23558107Both matter. I am tired of stupid people unable to grasp more than one principle when forming their views.
>>23558118>da joooos!!!11Failed the IQ test
>>23558074>Man is the cruelest animal The only thing I see here is a lack of ability to kill Nietzsche, and you already know what that means. I am reminded of some French analysis on Nietzsche that posited that the English will never understand Nietzsche, only the Germans and the French will, and the Germans rejected him. The French chose to dissolve Nietzsche through language, upon realizing the dilemma of the fate of the real and the dissolution of the world of Logic there is a convergence between chance and the appointed time. Alternatively, the further we get from straight Nietzsche to watered down Nietzsche the closer we get to -isms, which Nietzsche was notoriously hostile to, and those are easy targets for both trads and Nietzscheans, but the trads usually fall under some sort of -ism, which just leaves the will, and Nietzsche wrote the last book on that one. No one has been able to refute it in the entirety since.
>>23558120>Every single great man, genius, statesman, general, philosopher and thinker added tens of thousands of volumes of knowledge, learning and experience to the human race but was utterly wrong about the jew in every single way.
>>23558118based Pippa follower
>Nietzsche, for example, who argued that there are no truths, only interpretations. But you need only ask yourself whether what Nietzsche says is true, to realize how paradoxical it is. (If it is true, then it is false! -- an instance of the so-called 'liar' paradox.)doesn't follow, if Nietzsche rejects (supposedly) truth, then asking whether the statement is "true" is meaningless, it's just Nietzsche's interpretation
>>23558191Why should we care about his opinion about truth not existing if that's just like his opinion?
Nietzsche is the furthest thing from being trad. One of the biggest mistakes of modern trad culture is trying to learn from him
>>23558484>modern trad culturelmao it's a clown world out there for real
>>23558484Trads outtright reject Nietzsche, no? At least I've never seen a trad embrace Nietzsche's philosophy. What exactly are you referring to?
>>23558334Because his opinions are interesting and well thought out.
>>23558120is this lame pasta the only counterargument you faggots could come up with?
>>23558074>all anglo scum
>>23558688jews use that ironic spelling to deflect criticism of their tribe
>>23558107Conservatards are too dumb to realize this. The western world has opened the ideological Pandora's box and once ideology has been separated from race and color there is no going back. If you are still putting western people into race boxes you are fighting a losing battle, simply because you fail to understand the western world and the western people. You can put highly homogenized people like the Muslims and Asians into these boxes but for truly westernized people this won't work. >things should be le same... unless new thing increases the GDP, then I will sell my le soul for itWhat a useless ideology.
>>23558107Those are lovely words from a man who has never kept his in his life.
>>23558074I am greatly in favor of my receiving oral sex in the future. That is all.
>>23558118Why did Peterson leave the Hindus out?
>>23559142So trad…
>>23559142This dude shall give you oral
>>23558074>Nietzsche is not a good liberal and doesn't follow consensus, unlike me
>>23559196Are you suggesting there is not a rich tradition relating to the oral felicitations of affectionate wives?
>>23559226There is not. The Roman regarded it as a foul act reserved only for whores. Porn has rotted your mind.
>>23559230Oh? And which kind of sex acts did the Romans find completely acceptable? Time for the big think.
>>23558074>(If it is true, then it is false! -- an instance of the so-called 'liar' paradox.)But if your assumption is "there are no truths, only interpretations", then you cannot conclude that the statement is true. You might think this discredits the idea, but it discredits all other ideas as well
>>23558074Nietzsche: The Gamma PhilosopherThe self-styled superman was the ultimate GammaAn interview with the late writer E.M. Cioran reveals the quintessential Gammatude of the faux-philosopher and fantasist Friedrich Nietzsche.LA TIMES: 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.LA TIMES: 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.The crazy thing about Nietzsche is that a lot of people actually took him seriously, when in truth he was never anything more than a talented scribbler of navel-gazing fantasy fiction about himself. His entire ouevre is one gargantuan delusion bubble, or, as Cioran correctly describes it, “an unspeakable megalomania”.
>>23558174Most of them didn't object to them in the same way you tards do. The romans did not think that the jews were influencing the senate or were projecting some kind of interracial cuckoldry onto the Aryan psyche
>>23558107Based!!!
>>23559240Intercourse
>>23559348This is such obvious bait that I don't how you /pol/ idiots fall for it. Those kids are either adopted, African babies were sooo fetch for liberals, or just posing for a picture with a couple doing humanitarian work or something.
>>23558074>Promiscuous woman image>Roger Scruton>Chesterton>Betrand RusselTrad?
>>23558572But Nietzsche's opinions are not the truth, are they?
>>23559399I don't use /pol/, bro. I literally went five years without using cuckchan. I use other imageboards with the exception of /lit/ at the moment.And regardless of whether you are adopted or not, it is being a cuck.
>>23559399
>>23559946kek, catholics are always the wildest sluts and weakest cucks. you wouldn't believe the shit i've seen growing up in strictly catholic small town in EU.
>>23559946Dude. What makes that screenshot hit hard is the affirmation he gets at the end by the woman. Can't believe the good advice was banned! Is this post even real? I think marriage as an institution in this day and age is truly dead, Evola's critique on marriage and family in ride the tiger was spot on. It's almost as if Marriages have a strictly disintegrative value in this day and age truly cursed.
>>23558074People always have these knee jerk reactions against Nietzsche based on stereotype and a surface level understanding of his work. Nietszche is kind of like the bible; people, even serious philosophers like the ones quoted here, talk about him far more than they actually read him.
>>23560037Marriage is unironically a patriarchal institution, but reading obscurantist conservative writers muddles this because they will babble about spiritual union or celestial polarities and whatever else to which a modern person can just say who cares, because they have a fundamentally individualist concept of rights which is hostile to all group or class derived rights. The feminists are totally correct in their analysis, they just conclude that "patriarchy" is wrong because it means women have to give up autonomy and possibly end up with an inferior mate (everybody wants the best they can get, men used to regulate this so everyone got something or was sent to the church, the army, or high fatality labor, but now women wield a permanent veto—they can be married and have five children with you and decide they're done having you around whenever they want no questions asked). And so these inferior mates are now all going unwed and becoming feral, which in the long run is a threat to feminism and womens' liberation, and they have no interest in staving this off because being anti-patriarchy is a decadant ideology. Ultimately marriage makes no sense outside of men establishing rights over women and exchanging them between families, that's what it is for, it is to prevent destablizing conflicts within the society over access to a stake in its future. This is not to say love is impossible or underdesirable in marriage or as a reason to marry, but it is very very very very obvious, especially to feminists, that historical marriage prior to no fault divorces and the legal emancipation of women was not merely a romantic or emotional institution but the economic and political bedrock of a system of human organization they identify as evil. Today's marriages do not reproduce this system but merely reference it—the couple exchanges vows but there is no social enforcement of the vows it is just pure poetics. The couple may even be two men or two women, who are not exhanging anything of value between two families whatsoever. Conservatives struggle to actually make the case for patriarchal marriage—apparently only football players are dull enough to not feel any shame at voicing it, the intellectuals are quite literally too fake and gay. Women should marry because they should marry, it is their honor to do so, our football player says. And he is right, because otherwise half the population is going to be feral childless men and that will quite literally fuck up everything women currently enjoy doing unless they want to start doing the plumbing, electrical work, construction, agriculture, and administration needed to keep the lights on and the public square open. Our football player has no inkling this is the case, he shamelessly tells women they should be wives and mothers, just as their own grandmothers would have advised them. And that's really the important point, women have to transmit this internally, and won't be persuaded by incels.
