He only thinks in dichotomies that are false
Nietszche committed a heckin' logical fallacy? Damn.
I don't know. But his life-affirmation, to me, seems like the ramblings of a beaten housewife. His view requires an absolute acceptance of life, but neither he nor anyone who claims to be a nietzschean actually displays any of this acceptance they make claim to. In fact, they just seem to bitch and moan all the time about how the world and therefore life isn't doing exactly what they want it to do. It's just a bunch of insecure retards who'd turn into blubbering messes the moment some feral chimp rips away their genitals.
>>24725106NIetzsche thought that the decadence of modern times was all pervasive, so no one was really from it, and especially not himself. He recognizes that he, just like everyone else, is degenerate. His ideal human is something like Alcibiades or Napoleon, not himself or his fellow intellectuals.
>>24725120>his ideal human is a decadent fag and a decadent megalomaniacI thought it was Goethe. Guess not.
>>24725125Alcibiades was also a 'megalomaniac', he was almost Athen's dictator, after defecting to Sparta and later Persia and getting called back to help them with the war.The ubersmensch is someone unfettered by morals, which were just a way the weak found to put a yoke on the strong, and who exerts his will upon the world through sheer force and charisma. Leftist interpretors of NIetzsche will disagree though, and will just tell you Nietzsche was writing gay self help books and that you should ignore all those times he talks about eugnenics, the glory of war and how the misshapen have to die.
>>24725135Indeed. The ubermensch is basically just Judge Holden who fucks kids and doesn't afraid of anything.
>>24725135The thing is, both Alcibiades and Napoleon were just decadent retards who would have perished under other circumstances. Imagine, for instance, if, say, a chimp were to ambush Alcibiades and rip his genitals from his groin whilst shrieking like the animal it is. Would Alcibiades be all like "now is the time to be strong and transvaluate values or whatever" or would he be more like a worm writhing on the ground clutching his crotch and crying like a pitiful child?
>>24725244Get off of your phone Joe Rogan
>>24725244I mean, literally anyone would 'perish' under those circumstances, so it's hardly a good test of character
>>24725259>so it's hardly a good test of characterWhy not? What is a "good test of character"? Things that are easier? Things that literally anyone could do? Also, it's beyond me how you cannot take anything from this brute fact. That anyone, given the right circumstances, will be reduced to a blubbering mess, revealing all pretense of strength or fortitude or any other "good" or life-affirming character trait he may have displayed in his sheltered and comfortable existence to have been nothing more than empty fraudulence.
>>24725269You seem to be setting very high standards. Almost anyone would be broken by torture. Does that mean that there aren't qualitative differences in people's characters? That we can't regard some people as being particularly admirable in this or that way? Sure, if you placed Alcibiades in the stocks and placed a fire under his naked soles, he would squeal and cry and beg. So what? Does that diminish his accomplishments? Perhaps you are mistaking excellence with pride/hubris. Remember that Nietzsche regarded Christ as a superman - Christ, who wept and begged to be spared the crucifixion.
>>24725282>Does that diminish his accomplishments?what accomplishments? All I see is some blubbering child in that place. What good are "qualitative differences" when, as you admit in your submission to my view, these differences are actually attributable to things outside the persons. Their "quality" is actually a result of nothing more than dumb luck and nothing inherent in themselves.>Perhaps you are mistaking excellence with pride/hubris.What do you mean by "excellence"?Also, did Christ beg to be spared? I thought he submitted to it resolutely. Then again, I don't know why Nietzsche would regard Christ as a superman. Not that there is any coherence or reason to Nietzsche's fraudulent "philosophy". He's really just a sophisticated hedonist in my book.
>>24725289Nietzsche wouldn't disagree with you that greatness is "attributable to things outside the persons" - that is entirely the point. He thinks we should cultivate the conditions that create great people. Great lives. Beautiful lives. Nietzsche did not believe in free will and was not a bootstraps conservative entrepeneur or some shit>Also, did Christ beg to be spared? it's the Agony in the Garden. He prays to God the Father to let him not go through it
>>24725298>that is entirely the pointNot really. He's clearly a biological determinist some of the time and attributes "greatness" to some inherent biological quality of persons. Also, define "great people, great lives, beautiful lives" and explain how these things are not completely reducible to some hedonic input.>Nietzsche did not believe in free will and was not a bootstraps conservative entrepeneur or some shitI know. In fact, he was just a very dumb philosopher who was completely incapable of taking his silly opinions to their conclusions and only managed to create a system that refutes itself. If free will doesn't exist, then you cannot actually change anything. He even seems to admit as much in some parts of his writing, which makes you wonder why anyone would bother reading him. The only thing people can say to defend their reading him is by implying that he is specifically writing "for them", that they are the super duper person he is talking to. The thought however does not occur to their retarded brains that a true superman would not need to read the ramblings of some delusional incel. Their justification can at best be described as cope. For them, Nietzsche is essentially just a feel-good philosopher meant to... make them feel good and nothing else. (sophisticated hedonism)>He prays to God the Father to let him not go through itAnd then he goes through it. Don't recall him crying, which is not the point. The point is that everyone is just a fraud and their fraudulence is revealed when given the right amount of pain (Nietzsche is quite clearly on the side of anti-suffering and pro-pleasure).
>>24725333What is the problem with 'hedonism'? Most classical philosophies aimed at achieving some kind of 'happiness' or 'eudaimonia'. I don't think it is really possible for any ethical system to escape the charge of hedonism altogether. Present suffering exchanged for future happiness, etc. And this is the same for Nietzsche, who can hardly be called "anti-suffering"I don't get what you mean about fraudulence. You seem to be taking an all-or-nothing mentality. If I say that a man is hardier than I am, because he is, in general, better at handling most forms of pain than me, my claim isn't less true (or meaningless) just because he screams when he is branded.
>>24724716This is Camus' exact argument in The Rebel.
>>24725354I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about a philosopher who was critical of ethical systems. And Nietzsche can very easily be called "anti-suffering," I just called him that. Regardless, there is nothing good or bad about hedonism. It's completely meaningless. However, Nietzsche claims to be against utilitarianism anyway.>If I say that a man is hardier than I am, because he is, in general, better at handling most forms of pain than me, my claim isn't less trueIt is actually meaningless. Nietzsche doesn't speak in terms of pain tolerance, he speaks in terms of life-affirmation, clinging to the rigid steel pole of life-affirmation and sticking it up his ass. Life-affirmation necessitates pure acceptance, however, everyone who claims to accept life or affirm it is demonstrably a fraud, as I have already shown, your misintepretation notwithstanding.
>>24725289>He's really just a sophisticated hedonist in my book.>>24725333>explain how these things are not completely reducible to some hedonic input.>For them, Nietzsche is essentially just a feel-good philosopher meant to... make them feel good and nothing else. (sophisticated hedonism)>Nietzsche is quite clearly on the side of anti-suffering and pro-pleasureThis is a strawman take. In the first place, Nietzsche glorifies struggle and suffering almost to a fault, in the second place, part of his criticism of the Last Men and the "herd" of his day was to live as easy-going hedonists. And, relatedly, his ubermensch, if held up to BGE (e.g., aph. 39: "Something could be true: whether it were harmful and dangerous in the highest degree; indeed it could be part of the fundamental character of existence that someone would perish from complete knowledge of it--*such that the strength of a spirit would be measured by just how much he could still endure of the "truth,"* or more precisely, to what extent he would need it to be diluted, shrouded, sweetened, blunted, falsified."") turns out not to be a pleasure seeking strongman, but a philosopher capable of living with dangerous and harmful truths.To be clear, I don't mind your criticisms per se (I myself find it hard to see how Nietzsche can square his views of the Noble and Base with his perspectivalism and belief in the primacy of Becoming), but he can only very speciously be called a hedonist and criticized on that count.
>>24724716no
>>24725435Perhaps I am more speaking from my experience of so-called Nietzscheans as opposed to the man himself.A stronger critique in line with the thread would probably be this: Nietzsche repeatedly claims that one should embrace life to its fullest in some vague way. However, he propr up the dichotomy of life-affirmation and life-denial as if life-denial does not fall under the purview of life. But how would one truly live a holistic life by denying the ability to show contempt for it? I don't know, but maybe it's not meant to make sense anyway. But I do see some kind of contempt when I read Nietzsche and a desire even to inflict suffering, which I can relate to
>>24725239The ubermensch is just like me frfr
>>24725465I'm actually with you on that, I think that's related to my take on Nietzsche's justification of the Noble and Base distinction. On the philosophical level, I don't think he adequately justifies either that distinction or life-affirmation, but given both what he does affirm as true in The Use and Abuse of History ("the doctrine of the sovereign becoming, of the fluidity of all ideas, types, and styles, of the lack of all cardinal differences between man and animal (doctrines which I consider true but deadly)."), his association of philosophy with poetry, and the doubts he expresses in his notebooks, I'd wonder if his presentations of both would be examples of noble lies that he's aware are lies, and his published works would then be attempts to inject vigor into a decaying late modernity that backs off from action in favor of a passive life. But that's just something I wonder about, I'd have to look through his notebooks again with more focus to see if that's borne out more.
1st rule about Nietzsche: anyone who talks about Nietzsche is wrong.the only thing i will say is the ubermensch is not a brute
>>24727148>he just isn't.... OKAY?!
>>24727150>I havent read nietschzealright retard>Who is noble? One who is not preoccupied with the question of his own preservation; who seeks not to survive but to expend his strength.Not the tyrant, who is a caricature of the strong man, but the one who rules over himself and his passions.”>There is nothing more common than the illusion of the powerful that they are free of envy. The truth is that they are still only slaves of resentment, even if they have clawed their way to the top.”>“The higher man is distinguished from the lower by his fearlessness in facing what is terrible, by his readiness to challenge life. The higher man reveres himself; he does not seek followers, nor does he crave domination.”>Caesar with the soul of Christ — that would be the true overman.”
>>24724716>philosopher creates a new meaningful way of viewing the world through dualityermm.. heraclitus, that's a heckin false dichotomy, everybody knows humans are both wet and dry
>>24727169I suppose you find the Left and Right dichotomy insightful and revolutionary
>>24727174both are family resemblances. a better dichotomy is sex drive and death drive. it's obvious which one represents which
>>24727163>There they enjoy freedom from all social constraint; in the wilderness they make up for the tension brought about by long periods of confinement and enclosure within the peace of the community; they step back into the innocence of the predator conscience as jubilant monsters who perhaps walk away from a horrific string of murder, arson, rape and torture in high spirits, with equanimity of the soul, as if they had merely pulled some student prank, convinced that the poets once again have something to sing and praise for a long time to come. What constitutes the ground of all these noble races is the predator, the magnificent blond beast roaming about lustily after prey and victory; a discharging of this hidden ground is needed from time to time; the animal must emerge once more, must return to the wilderness: - Roman, Arabic, Teutonic, Japanese nobility, Homeric heroes, Scandinavian Vikings - they are all the same in this need. It is the noble races who have left the concept "barbarian" on all tracks wherever they have gone; even from their highest culture an awareness of this betrays itself, and pride in it as well (for example when Pericles says to his Athenians in that famous funeral oration, "to every land and sea our boldness has broken a path, erecting timeless memorials to itself everywhere for things good and wicked").
>>24725672To me, this is just meaningless crap. Vigor? Action? Passive life? What the fuck does this mean? Just reduce it all to pleasure and pain and stop being a coward.
Why did N-ze condemn Christianity as a slave death cult while praising Judaism and the jewish people?
