>"Read Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, and his sister’s note about how he wrote it, and am absolutely convinced that he was completely mad when he wrote it, and mad not in a metaphorical sense, but in the straightforward and most exact sense: incoherence, jumping from one idea to another, comparisons with no indication of what is being compared, beginnings of ideas with no endings, leaping from one idea to another for contrast or consonance, and all against the background of the pointe of his madness, his idée fixe, that by denying all the higher principles of human life and thought, he is proving his own superhuman genius. What will society be like if such a madman, and an evil madman, is acknowledged as a teacher?”He's right you know...
>>24693213Shrewd diagnosis. Best refutation of Nietzsche I have yet seen. Better than Chesterton's, Voegelin's, Evola's. The idee fixe, yes, the little speck of an idea around which the neurosis endlessly accrues like a pearl wrought within an oyster. But Nietzsche was such a brilliant rhetorician he managed to drag many among the finest minds, stunned and spellbound, into the whirlwind of his madness.
>>24693213Tolstoy suffered from madness himself. He’d say the same thing about Shakespeare: jumping from one idea to the next, his writing it worthless.>>24693236Superficial analysis. Weininger’s description of Nietzsche is the correct one.
>>24693236The most pretentious and distasteful attempt at prose ever seen on this website
>>24693250>He’d say the same thing about Shakespeare: jumping from one idea to the next, his writing it worthless.Is he wrong?
>>24693256Seething neitzche faggot
>>24693213Funny how Tolstoy was everything Nietzsche aspired to be, but arrived at the opposite conclusion about life.
>>24693486Nietzsche didn’t believe in conclusions
Neetchan is pure kinetic prose and intellectual comedy. Supremely entertaining. Reading him for serious insights upon matters other than the nature of solipsism and the relationship between insecurity and arrogance (and arrogance and impotence) is completely insane, I agree. When one reads Neetchan, one must hear the laughter. One must laugh, and slap one's knee, and see the whole thing as one of the greatest jokes ever written (and lived). He was an artist, a jester, not a thinker.
>>24693502Did he not prescribe a way of living?
>>24693291Yes obviously retard.The variation and breadth in Shakespeare that rarely shows any bias to one character/theme over the next is what makes him so appealing. He spoke for everyone.Tolstoy, particular in his later fiction just could not keep his lecturing out of the story and is likely why most people think of Tolstoy as the author of War and Peace/Anna Karenina and forget much of the rest.
>>24693515Yes and no.
>>24693534Enlightening.
>>24693486>Funny how Tolstoy was everything Nietzsche aspired to be???A count who fucked like crazy in his youth and then spent his old age railing against marriage to the unhappiness of his wife (who bore him 13 children) who regretted ever marrying himI’m done with this website, retard levels are off the charts. What N. really wanted to be was an artist, I think especially a musician
>>24693572He had the poetic soul of Whitman but instead of chumming it up in a burgeoning new world, he was poring over the history of a dying continent.No wonder he went mad.
>>24693572Yes. Nietzsche wanted to be an aristocrat so badly, he larped as a Pole. He wanted pussy, but did get it and wrote countless aphorisms seething about women. He wanted to be in the military, but quit due to injury and never saw combat.>railing against marriageWhere did you get that from? He had a Christian view on marriage.
>>24693213Nietzsche's central idea is the death of God, not the overman. Tolstoj was his contemporary so he didn't have the benefit of hindsight, but 200 years later I can't see how you could deny that his diagnosis was absolutely correct in that regard.
>>24693596Seething about women? What are you talking about>Where did you get that from? He had a Christian view on marriage.You know nothing about the subject so you should just fuck off retard
>>24693635Looks like you're projecting. Where did you get the idea Tolstoy was anti-marriage from?
>>24693641>Looks like you're projectingA very bad defense here. And we shouldn’t look past the hypocrisy of someone condemning Nietzsche as a misogynist and referring to women as “pussy”. Anyway there’s no projection involved here, you’re simply out of your depth.>How about the human race? If we admit that celibacy is better and nobler than marriage, evidently the human race will come to an end. But, if the logical conclusion of the argument is that the human race will become extinct, the whole reasoning is wrong.>To that I reply that the argument is not mine; I did not invent it. That it is incumbent on mankind so to strive, and that celibacy is preferable to marriage, are truths revealed by Christ 1,900 years ago, set forth in our catechisms, and professed by us as followers of Christ.Chastity and celibacy, it is urged, cannot constitute the ideal of humanity, because chastity would annihilate the race which strove to realize it, and humanity cannot set up as its ideal its own annihilation. It may be pointed out in reply that only that is a true ideal, which, being unattainable, admits of infinite gradation in degrees of proximity. Such is the Christian ideal of the founding of God’s kingdom, the union of all living creatures by the bonds of love. The conception of its attainment is incompatible with the conception of the movement of life. What kind of life could subsist if all living creatures were joined together by the bonds of love? None. Our conception of life is inseparably bound up with the conception of a continual striving after an unattainable ideal.>But even if we suppose the Christian ideal of perfect chastity realized, what then? We should merely find ourselves face to face on the one hand with the familiar teaching of religion, one of whose dogmas is that the world will have an end; and on the other of so-called science, which informs us that the sun is gradually losing its heat, the result of which will in time be the extinction of the human race.
>Now there is not and cannot be such an institution as Christian marriage, just as there cannot be such a thing as a Christian liturgy (Matt. vi. 5-12; John iv. 21), nor Christian teachers, nor church fathers (Matt. xxiii. 8-10), nor Christian armies, Christian law courts, nor Christian States. This is what was always taught and believed by true Christians of the first and following centuries. A Christian’s ideal is not marriage, but love for God and for his neighbor. Consequently in the eyes of a Christian relations in marriage not only do not constitute a lawful, right, and happy state, as our society and our churches maintain, but, on the contrary, are always a fall.>Such a thing as Christian marriage never was and never could be. Christ did not marry, nor did he establish marriage; neither did his disciples marry. But if Christian marriage cannot exist, there is such a thing as a Christian view of marriage. And this is how it may be formulated: A Christian (and by this term I understand not those who call themselves Christians merely because they were baptized and still receive the sacrament once a year, but those whose lives are shaped and regulated by the teachings of Christ), I say, cannot view the marriage relation otherwise than as a deviation from the doctrine of Christ,—as a sin. This is clearly laid down in Matt. v. 28, and the ceremony called Christian marriage does not alter its character one jot. A Christian will never, therefore, desire marriage, but will always avoid it.If the light of truth dawns upon a Christian when he is already married, or if, being a Christian, from weakness he enters into marital relations with the ceremonies of the church, or without them, he has no other alternative than to abide with his wife (and the wife with her husband, if it is she who is a Christian) and to aspire together with her to free themselves of their sin. This is the Christian view of marriage; and there cannot be any other for a man who honestly endeavors to shape his life in accordance with the teachings of Christ.
>>24693653I don't care about him being a misogynist, I didn't even say he was wrong. >there is such a thing as a Christian view of marriage.>he has no other alternative than to abide with his wifeDid you read your ai synopsis before hitting post? This is word for word what I've said. Notice how he didn't tell people to divorce their partners.
>>24693675So by Christian view of marriage, you meant that marriage and childbearing is evil (rather than say, a sacrament?)? You are either actually retarded (which I didn’t really believe at first) or are panicking with dishonesty.>Such a thing as Christian marriage never was and never could be. Christ did not marry, nor did he establish marriage; neither did his disciples marry. But if Christian marriage cannot exist, there is such a thing as a Christian view of marriage. And this is how it may be formulated: A Christian (and by this term I understand not those who call themselves Christians merely because they were baptized and still receive the sacrament once a year, but those whose lives are shaped and regulated by the teachings of Christ), I say, cannot view the marriage relation otherwise than as a deviation from the doctrine of Christ,—as a sin.
>>24693679>there is no "Christian marriage">there is a Christian view on marriage: according to which it is better to stay married than to leave your partnerI hope that clears it up.
>>24693675Nietzsche really wasn’t a misogynist. He has a high view of many women, he was just anti-feminist
>>24693682He means to cease sexual relations and live as brother and sister. If you read this as some kind of anti-divorce case than you are missing the whole point. I suspect there are layers of dishonesty in your soul that you haven’t begun to fathom
>>24693688I think you never stopped projecting and had fun arguing with yourself.
>>24693698Seethe more Dr. Freud. Hopefully you are still young and can work on your reading ability. But not everyone knows how to read, it’s okay
>>24693486This
>>24693213I literally don’t care what Ru*sian dogs, women or commies have to say about their superiors. You fell for communism your opinion is worthless.
>>24693897you would not know commonality if it broke into your house, ate all your bread, and fucked all your wife, you american curr.
>>24693213source?
>>24693572found the Ukrainian or Polebitch Tolstoy has very respectable (almost sacred) views on marriage (especially on women's moral duty of bearing children)
>>24693901Whatever you say you undeveloped monkey.
>>24693901>commonality is when migrants break into my home, steal and fuck my wife Kek
it's meant to be a parody to the bible and so should be read like so.
>>24693256Wasn't much of an attempt. It's pretty much how I ordinarily write. Besides I wasn't going for any sort of grand effect but simply stating my sincere thoughts. I suppose pearls and whirlwinds in the same paragraph is pretty gay. But it's not about the images. He *did* have an idee fixe and wrote endless grand poetic prose around it and dragged many into his madness. Is that not the case?
>>24693236>Better than Chesterton'sChesterton's "refutation" of Nietzsche was "I didn't like the title of 'Beyond Good and Evil,' also Nietzsche went crazy and hugged a horse."
>>24693531>The variation and breadth in Shakespeare that rarely shows any bias to one character/theme over the next is what makes him so appealing. He spoke for everyone.>Tolstoy, particular in his later fiction just could not keep his lecturing out of the story and is likely why most people think of Tolstoy as the author of War and Peace/Anna Karenina and forget much of the rest.That's retarded. Tolstoy understood people better than anyone.
>>24693256this thanks for sparing me the effort to reply
Nietzsche’s rightness is proven by the fact that none of his critics have anything insightful to say. They do extremely weak psychoanalysis and want to call him a loser of one form or another because they are intellectual cowards scared of the truths he revealed. Even now, more than a century later, most people are scared to look Nietzsche in the eyes.
>>24695066He understood their smallness and social tics. Shakespeare understood the breadth of the soul.
>>24695361It was not my finest moment, prose-wise, and was not intended to be. Incidentally I'm ESL. To his credit Nietzsche does count Wallace Stevens among his admirers. But then there's BAP.
He was possesed by Dionysus, later madder Nietzsche is a prophet.
>>24695443Yeah, he was a regular demoniac.
>>24695475>Yeah, he was a regular demoniac.
>>24695382>truths he revealedhis own mobile army of metaphors, you mean? there's only perspectives, and as many truths as there are perspectives.
>>24695482Cool meme there. You have narrowed me down to the guy in the meme. Pinned me, nailed me, unmasked me. Trad, reddit, perennially basedfacing. That's me to a t. You win.
>>24693572>What N. really wanted to be was an artist, I think especially a musicianWhat he wanted to be was Wagner, or more specifically, the husband of Cosima Wagner.
>>24693572Tolstoy was the chad Nietzsche wished he could be
>>24695413being pretentious is a state of mind. a state of insecurity.
>>24693957It’s from his diary
>>24695382This, they can only ad hom him>What is this writing?! He is mad, mad I tell you!
>>24695382What truths did he reveal?
>>24695967His madness was pressaged from the first. The hubris in his gaze, his tone ever paroxistic. It crested and crested and he finally broke. Broke down in tears, hugged the horse, straitjacket for the rest of his life.
>>24696018>hugged the horseNever happened
>>24693213He was mad with poetic inspiration. I'm amazed how Nietzsche could make such a long chain of metaphors one after the other from beginning to end. To me he was a poet-philosopher, rather than just a philosopher.
>>24695382>because they are intellectual cowards scared of the truths he revealed.And what truths are that?
>>24697198God is dead. Being a kind person means ur a slave. U have to be a sigma wolf bastard in this dog eat dog world. Grindset mindset. And show off dem big muscles. War and violence yall. But also Dionysus, delicateness, poetry.
>>24696158I‘ve heard that in Germany he is remembered as much for his poetry as philosophy but can‘t vouch for this
“The wild worship of lawlessness and the materialist worship of law end in the same void. Nietzsche scales staggering mountains, but he turns up ultimately in Tibet. He sits down beside Tolstoy in the land of nothing and Nirvana. They are both helpless—one because he must not grasp anything, and the other because he must not let go of anything. The Tolstoyan’s will is frozen by a Buddhist instinct that all special actions are evil. But the Nietzscheite’s will is quite equally frozen by his view that all special actions are good; for if all special actions are good, none of them are special. They stand at the crossroads, and one hates all the roads and the other likes all the roads. The result is—well, some things are not hard to calculate. They stand at the cross-roads.”
Everyone shut the fuck upRichard Dawkins perfected Nietzsche's atheismThat is all
>>24697463>Richard Dawkins perfected Nietzsche's atheismnigga please
>>24693213Bertie was even more on point about N>There is a great deal in Nietzsche that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac… It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man’s, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. “Forget not thy whip”–but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks.>He condemns Christian love because he thinks it is an outcome of fear… It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear, which he would fain disguise as lordly indifference. His “noble” man–who is himself in day-dreams–is a being wholly devoid of sympathy, ruthless, cunning, concerned only with his own power. King Lear, on the verge of madness, says: “I will do such things–what they are yet I know not–but they shall be the terror of the earth.” This is Nietzsche’s philosophy in a nutshell.>It never occurred to Nietzsche that the lust for power, with which he endows his superman, is itself an outcome of fear. Those who do not fear their neighbours see no necessity to tyrannize over them… I will not deny that, partly as a result of his teaching, the real world has become very like his nightmare, but that does not make it any the less horrible.>For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or a scientific question. 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 the 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.
>>24697535I thought I didn't like Russell but this is excellent.
>>24693236>managed to drag many among the finest mindsThen they weren't the finest minds to begin with.
>>24693531>The variation and breadth in Shakespeare that rarely shows any bias to one character/theme over the next is what makes him so appealing. He spoke for everyone.Universalist nonsense. Academia is a scam and a liar for pushing Shakespeare as the portrayal of "humanity".
>>24697535Rip
>>24693236Faggot please
>>24697652>Academia is a scam and a liar for pushing Shakespeare as the portrayal of "humanity".I can tell you're an ESL from this sentence. Shakespeare is for native speakers.
Yes it is pretty clear Nietzsche is just a rorscach test. That is why everyone thinks everyone else is misinterpreting him. >>24693250>He’d say the same thing about Shakespeare:Did he actually or are you just speculating? Shapespeare was lucid. Nietzsche wasn't.
>>24697671>implying I wasn't aware of the double entendre
>>24697671>missed the point.Anon..
>>24695543Yes, you know Bulow’s letter to him after he sent his Manfred Overture? Lol, so bizzare>>24695612Tolstoy wasn’t on Nietzsche’s radar. There is no way he desired to be a moralfagging social novelist>>24697700> Did he actually or are you just speculating? Shapespeare was lucid. Nietzsche wasn't.I don’t have access to the essay on King Lear where I get this from, he talks about the Shakespeare language being false, unnatural and tedious.Tolstoy thought Shakespeare’s work was immoral and bad, and dismissed almost all of the canon as worthless. He was an unbelievably arrogant person, as attested in his wife’s diaries.> It is solely due to the critics, who in our times still praise rude, savage, and, for us, often meaningless works of the ancient Greeks: Sophocles, Euripides, Æschylus, and especially Aristophanes; or, of modern writers, Dante, Tasso, Milton, Shakespear; in painting, all of Raphael, all of Michael Angelo, including his absurd “Last Judgment”; in music, the whole of Bach, and the whole of Beethoven, including his last period,—thanks only to them, have the Ibsens, Maeterlincks, Verlaines, Mallarmés, Puvis de Chavannes, Klingers, Böcklins, Stucks, Schneiders; in music, the Wagners, Liszts, Berliozes, Brahmses, and Richard Strausses, etc., and all that immense mass of good-for-nothing imitators of these imitators, become possible in our day.
>>24693213Typical Tolstoy. No real argument, just sentimental huffing and puffing.Why, exactly, is charity a higher principle of life and thought than power? We ought to be able to indicate why, if it truly is. We can say that charity is the greatest power; the universe was formed by it and sustained by it. A creature seeking his own aggrandizement is petty in comparison. Selfishness and egotism is something petty. Great men are great for others, and the sun doesn't shine for itself alone.
>>24697535Again, no argument and insanely off base in many assertions. We can observe from the primitive condition of humanity and in the behavior of little children that men seek power over others before the influence of compulsion or fear. And without god, what reason is there for universal love? Nietzsche was quite right about the anglo saxons. They have not yet discovered morality, not yet discovered how to think, only how to emote.It is all this disgusting political herd consensus, now extended even to sexuality. Russell is pretty close to N's last man, no wonder he could only sniff contemptuously at his precious bourgeois ethics being trampled. Fool.
>>24697323Based
>>24699163We can also observe from Nietzsche's own life that Russel was right about him.
>>24699183True. Even if it's false that justice is the rule of the stronger, it doesn't mean that that idea is not popular throughout the world.Both men can be wrong. We should all be good, but for a definite reason.
>>24699163Nietzsche was a strong and gentle person who felt sympathy and pity very naturally. He hated himself and forced himself to accept the most painful truths as a discipline to reach greatness, the infinite. The funny to me anecdote was Wagner telling Nietzsche’s sister, “Your brother is like Liszt, he doesn’t like my sense of humour,” which apparently was mocking people. That’s funny coming from the antimoralist who was a gentle soul deep down
>>24697468>t. hasn't read The God DelusionYou could have just told me that you have no frame of reference, anon. I haven't read Nietzsche yet, but it's clear that science and objectivity was the only way forward for atheism
>>24699296There's no body less objective than Dawkins. He's just a sentimental careerist with a bad humor
>>24693213I wonder what Tolstoy thought of Kant, Nietzsche's biggest bugbear.
>>24697671lol the ESL argumentget a proper argument dude
>>24693515just bee urself, the worst that can happen is only infinite suffering.
>>24698912Wow that's harsh. What DID he like?
>>24699627I know he loved Homer, the Hebrew Bible (especially the Joseph “primitive novel” as he called it), Dickens and Hugo
>>24699300Dawkins is good because he does push atheism into a territory of aggression somewhat. His chapter on how we show too much tolerance to religion was based.
>>24699753He’s just a talented rhetorician and not important as a scientist. The fact that he won’t even consider for a moment the basis of morality. Tradfags should at least respect Nietzsche for taking atheism to its logical conclusions (though I believe he was more of a mystic than he admitted to himself)
>>24696148of course the story about the Turin horse is apocryphal and never happened. it's too uncharacteristic. if N really did see a horse being whipped he'd more than likely want to join in on the whipping of a slave animal by its master.
>>24699934Idiotic. Horse is an aristocratic animal. This kind of baseless cruelty is not what he was interested in and can be condemned on purely physiological grounds as sick
>>24700048>the slave animal that's used by man to plough fields and travel without his own labor is actually "aristocratic"baseless inversion of reality driven by ressentiment against the strong. that's why the Turin horse story is absurd, you expect N to have pity, the most detestable slave virtue, for a slave animal? laughable.
>>24700138Buddy a horse would kill you in about twenty seconds
>>24700138I'm a retard from the slums of Mumbai and this is my Nietzsche interpretation btw
>>24699890Advocates of scientism have nightmares whenever they think about ethics or politics, since the very practice of science cannot be separated from ethics. Dawkins would approve of taxing 90% of rent for the sake of funding science, or human experimentation? If he says "of course not", then what is the proper taxing to fund science? It puts them in front of the fact that philosophy is still usefull and will ever be so.
It's funny how Tolstoy was the polar opposite of Nietzsche in basically every regard except that they both hated institutional Christianity -- Tolstoy's book What I Believe was an influence on Nietzsche in his last years and he critiques it often in his notes
