I picked up some Nietzsche and am disappointed. I don't write this to annoy any Nietszsche fans, but only to air my own frustrations. But his writing is like "I I I I I me me me me me I did this I thought this and us philosophers are like a golden tree from which the precise fruit of truth must not be hidden by the leaves of lies". He doesn't say anything interesting and his mixing of poetry and philosophy is just annoying. Also, his ideas, even when read very liberally and considering multiple interpretations, are full of holes and based on stories and random hypotheticals and thought experiments that probably made sense in his head.No offense to him or his fans, he is not around to defend himself against my shallow and limp accusations nor would he care to if he were, I'm sure.
I used to think this board was dead. I still think it’s dead, but I used to too.
>>24956156I assume you disagree with this thread's premise, would you like to discuss why?
>>24956143It sounds like you're reading Ecce Homo? If so, it's a decent start only for the section where he tells you the roles of his books in his thought, and their intention, but it's less decent an intro on account of his style. A few things to observe on that. He uses a lot of exaggeration for humor, which tends to get missed or intentionally ignored. He exaggerates also for the rhetorical purpose of drawing attention to things. And he doesn't think philosophy as theoria is real. Philosophy isn't just reducible to poetry for him, but a great deal of it is, in his view, absolutely poetic, and what that means can more easily be spelled out by seeing what he says about other authors (especially the Pre-Socratics), value creation, and the subject of both truth and the will to truth.
>>24956159I'm reading On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo, so yeah I think you're right.Not thinking that philosophy as theoria is real is fine by me but his artistry is still annoying and gets in the way. For someone who claims to care about being precise he spends a long time on vague metaphors and thought experiments that could be interpreted in hundreds of ways. Thank you for your response and the information.
>>24956163I don't know offhand what you have in mind about precision (I'm guessing something from the Genealogy?), but if you adjust your expectations with it in mind that he's open to making shit up for the sake of dealing with modern problems, he's easier (and kinda more fun) to take in. To modify myself somewhat, I think his suspicion is that theoria isn't really at bottom different from poesis. Hence, "proper philosophy" is both an invention (instead of a discovery) and an act of will of this or that philosopher to exert themselves on others.
>>24956170To be honest I think that's his artsy-fartsy self's cope. Of course no one is asking for literal axiomatic logic in 100% of your writing but he's just inventing excuses to let being hand-wavey be okay as long as you're holding flowers in your hands. The precision thing was actually something Kaufmann the translator said about him.
>>24956173>To be honest I think that's his artsy-fartsy self's cope. Of course no one is asking for literal axiomatic logic in 100% of your writing but he's just inventing excuses to let being hand-wavey be okay as long as you're holding flowers in your hands.I mean, it's your right to be uncharitable, but he was a trained philologist who was wolfing down books on physics by Friedrich Lange and Robert Boscovich. It's not something he came to flippantly.
>>24956193>Robert BoscovichSorry, *Roger Boscovich
>>24956143bapfags on suicide watch funny sight
>>24956143filtered
>>24956193I can completely appreciate that he has a wealth of study and knowledge and has done more thought and research on an infinity of subjects than me, but at the same time think that he writes drivel.>>24956199bap?>>24956208Rather than me being filtered being a reflection of who I am, it's more that his writing filtering me means that his writing didn't live up to a standard - that's an alternative way to think about it, at least.
>>24956143>He doesn't say anything interesting and his mixing of poetry and philosophy is just annoying. Also, his ideas, even when read very liberally and considering multiple interpretations, are full of holes and based on stories and random hypotheticals and thought experiments that probably made sense in his head.you're unironically an atheist or some other flavour of autist. if you don't understand christianity or 19th century continental thought/ society then no shit you're not going to get how revolutionary his system was. this was written in the same era as dickens and oliver twist
>>24956173>Of course no one is asking for literal axiomatic logic in 100% of your writing but he's just inventing excuses to let being hand-wavey be okay as long as you're holding flowers in your hands.yeah, an autist. back to russell and frege with you, though i doubt you've read frege desu
>>24956229I love dickens, but regardless of how revolutionary his system WAS, I'm criticizing it based on my knowledge and mindset as a 21st century person.>>24956231So saying that I don't need 100% logic but I don't like people being hand-wavey = autistic? Okay, I'm proudly autistic then.
>>24956234*Nietzsche's system was
>>24956211>it's more that his writing filtering me means that his writing didn't live up to a standard>OH MY GOD NIETZSCHE DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY PEER REVIEWED SOURCES OR EVIDENCE FOR HIS BELIEFS!!! i have genuinely no idea which philosophers you have read. hume? a smattering of aristotle? certainly not schopenhauer. i don't know why you randomly decided to read nietzsche and then say "WOW THIS IRRATIONALIST ISN'T VERY RATIONAL, WHAT WOULD THOMAS LOCKE SAY!!!">>24956234>regardless of how revolutionary his system WAS, I'm criticizing it based on my knowledge and mindset as a 21st century person.that's arbitrary and fucking stupid because 99% of what he was saying was a response to the prevailing thought of his day. obviously if you are completely ignorant of philosophy and the ideas he takes contrarian positions against then you will get less than nothing out of him, but the problem is clearly on your end. imagine reading a cultural critic with no understanding of the culture he was critiquing, /lit/ strikes again>So saying that I don't need 100% logic but I don't like people being hand-wavey = autistic? Okay, I'm proudly autistic then.nietzsche expresses positions that are contrary to common beliefs of the time and also build on positions he established in earlier books (which you haven't read). why are you reading ecce homo before BGE? before twilight of the idols? what is this nonsense
>>24956240I'm sorry but I don't feel like replying to all of your points in detail, you probably made some good points but your tone is a bit off-putting.Anyway one example of what annoys me about his writing is he'll randomly say "there's the elite morality and the slave morality, and there are these two groups only because I said so okay? but also there are people who are sorta in the middle so maybe this grouping is retarded but I won't think about other groupings okay?" and then he assumes slave mentality guys and the poor laymen dudes are all about sympathy and pity when if you look in the ghetto in the states you get people robbing and killing each other lol. Or maybe we have to be specifically talking about 1800s Europe for his definitions? But anyway then he says oh because the elites are proud and whatever I will define that everything they do is good, or at least they see themselves that way, it's just retarded. He just likes making autistic categorizations that have no bearing on reality.
>>24956143Yeah he fucking sucks. He has one sort of interesting idea (repetition) but it is not unique to him. If you want to read some edgy melancholic anti-philosopher Kierkegaard was smarter, funnier, and a better human being.>>24956231It amuses me to no end how pseuds think the lesson of philosophy is that thinking is le bad and you should just follow your gut and whatever art-pieces (like Nietzsche's books) move you. This same guy always accuses everyone of being an 'analytic', he doesn't even know what that word means lol.
>>24956577>It amuses me to no end how pseuds think the lesson of philosophy is that thinking is le bad and you should just follow your gut and whatever art-pieces (like Nietzsche's books) move you.Nietzsche does plenty of thinking, but it sounds like you wanted to be told what he thinks in a Euclidean presentation instead of working anything out. Ho hum, some people when they're given freedom can't do anything with it and need the most organized regiment in order to do anything at all.
>>24956240>no arguments>vague appeal to basedness grounded in muh emotions>rude and haughty affect>SchopenhauerfagShocker.
>>24956143For the most part Nietzsche sucks. His central thesis, from what I've gathered, is a refutation of Schopenhauer's negation of the Will via the affirmation of the Will which is to say that rather than to retire, isolate, and aim to suspend the desires of the Will that we charge life head-on, persevere, and live life in bold ways. I think in Beyond Good and Evil he mentions something along the lines of having to live the same life forever and how that concept should shape our decision making. My problem is in his delivery and prose. As you pointed out, he writes in a half-poetic way which I find to be more performative than containing substance. He even states that this is rather intentional, also in BGE, because all good writing has a tempo or rhythm (I forget his exact wording so I am paraphrasing) and this goes all the way down to the language itself that is being used and which is why he dislikes the German language so much, he says it is awkward and lacks the aforementioned musicality (again paraphrasing). Contrast him with someone like Schopenhauer, who Nietzsche quite looked up to at one point, and even wrote an essay about called "Schopenhauer as Educator", who doesn't mince words and clearly put much effort into making sure his writing was clear and to the point. Schopenhauer gives you exactly what he means with no layered or tongue-in-cheek subplots going on. Meanwhile, every Nietzsche fag will tell you, no no that's not actually what he meant. If you have to work that hard to understand what someone is saying it's either because they are too retarded to write clear or because they don't have anything worth saying. It's like having a sealed vault at the end of a labyrinth within a fortress but there is nothing inside. I think if Schopenhauer was able to read Nietzsche's works he would have placed him in the same category of Hegel.
>>24956143>filteredStart with the Greeks, faggot.
>>24956586Here we’re at peak midwit: “I’m too smart for thinking!”
>>24956391>>24956391>Your toneeeeKek, gtfo woman>ghettoHe spoke of white post-enlightenment Christians, not the kind of niggers in the US>he doesn't understand anythingThis nigga just straight up reaffirming what other anons have criticized of him kek, what a fucking midwit, kill yourself you niggertroon; Start with twilight of the idols.
he's just stirner but worse
>>24956143congrats on discovering continental philosophy
>>24956630>if the philosopher writes in a way that forces you to do your own thinking, you don't like thinkingLol, okay
>>24956638>muh help me understand will to power using formal logic please!
>>24956143Well maybe you should have not started with his auto-biography if you did not want to read Nietzsche talking about himself. I won't say I know where one 'should' start Nietzsche, but literally anything other than his autobiography would have been better. Except Zarathustra. >>24956240>THIS IRRATIONALIST ISN'T VERY RATIONALOh my Analysis, perish the thought! I need to sacrifice a goat to Wittgenstein immediately!>>24956588You literally need schopenhauer to understand Nietzsche, though. At least some parts of it. It's not bad, anyway.
>>24956640Nietzsche isn't a philosopher. He never actually argues rationally for an against any propositions. He's just a rhetorician and a sophist and would immediately identified such by Socrates.
>>24956643If it can't be written in formal logic, it is not a philosophical position; it is not a proposition at all, and cannot be proved for or against empirically, or logically. It's just sophism.
>>24956703>ancient greeks were sophists because they didnt use formal logic for platonism
>>24956143Good job, OP. You've seen through Nietzsche. How could anyone be considered a true philosopher (lover of wisdom), when they really only love their own irrational will? "Mother, I am dumb," are his last words. At least he repented for being such a nigger.
>>24956734Nietzsche never even liked being called a philosopher.
>>24956734He was more than a philosopher; he was an Ubermensch. Just kidding, he was a nigger. You think he would have liked being called that? Probably not, because he didn't care for reality.
>>24956760I don't think he would have understood your slurred E-babble in a language he didn't speak, to be frank.
>>24956778>E-babbleOne word that no one from Nietzsche's time would have understand, unlike all the words used in my previous post, which were known at the time. To be frank, if you were a "great thinker" from the past and used the word E-babble to describe your "philosophy", it would have mystified all the apostates and heathens just like Nietzche did, and we would be having a thread now about how (You) were just a hack.
>>24956143>He doesn't say anything interesting and his mixing of poetry and philosophy is just annoying.I mean that's just the kind of thing so up to personal preference you can't even substantially disagree with it. I like his style personally, though I don't read him in English either.
>>24956734>How could anyone be considered a true philosopher (lover of wisdom)You literally didn't make it to the end of the first sentence in BGE
