>Claims that believing in objective, universal truth is a delusion.>Proceeds to make up his own morality that he can't back up by any tangible, objective facts or universal principles, essentially deluding himself in the process.>Makes it convincing enough to influence many people to bring forth the destruction of the social fabric of civilization.Nietzsche was probably one of the few honest atheists, but just like the rest of them, he failed to follow the logical end of his beliefs and ended uo crafting a depressingly influentian ideology based on personal hallucinations.
>>535018095Didn't he say christian morals are stupid because people just believe them to feel better and then he advocated a moral system that he thinks is nice because it makes you feel better?
Nietzsche was a subhuman like Hegel. They all did Hegelei. Schopenhauer was right.
Nietszches will zur macht is a very vital concept but I don't agree with his other values
>>535018197Most Post (((enlightenment))) thinkers are indeed retarded af.
>>535018095Nietzsche wasn't even an atheist, retard
>>535018197He said they were jewish
>>535018095>Proceeds to make up his own morality that he can't back up by any tangible, objective facts or universal principlesisn't that kinda the point?That "god is dead" hence there is no one to judge give you objective universal morality, and anyone who claims to have an objective universal morality or truth is a retard or trying to scam youThats a problem as humans kinda need a morality to function.So you basically have to become your own god (the one who judges) - the ubermensch - that makes his own judgements about himself and others and the world, "stares into the abyss", and create his own rules and principles from his observations.to him, his own morality is the only one that matters, it is backed up by the only thing that can be of importance to an individual, his own thoughts and judgement.
>>535018095I think Nietzsche was still a genius (literally, like with how young he got an appointment to be a philology professor, how extraordinarily well-read and erudite he was), and even the ways in which he went wrong or failed, can be instructive, enlightening, challenging, if you have a thoughtful and philosophical enough bent of mind. He represents most clearly a huge turning-point in modern Western philosophy, a huge challenge to thinkers that came before and many preconceptions of theirs (and ours); an attempt to look into the abysses of relativism, nihilism, perspectivism, and transcend and subordinate them with his conception of the Will-to-Power, the transvaluation of values, self-overcoming or aiming for the state of the Overman, Ubermensch; basically very proto-existentialist.Doesn’t mean I agree with him on everything, poor guy cracked up completely at the end, too, but he was still fascinating, even in his failure. Most ways Nietzsche was “wrong” are still more fascinating and instructive than an average normie being “right” about some trite truisms.
>>535018639>now let me tell how we should all be consensus governed by tranny kike pedophiles
>>535018095>a depressingly influentian ideology based on personal hallucinations
>>535018851>Um I don't know how to engage with that>Let's just say the buzzwords and move on
>>535018830>There is no God>"Why?">there just isn't ok?? so we have to come up with our own morality>"There could be morality without God">NO! they're can't ok???>"Ok fine, so how do you come up with your new morality?"> they're based on being a badass cool guy who does whatever he wants and it's not arbitrary. >"So what's wrong with christians believing in their own morality if all morality is subjective based on what makes you think you're cool?">Shut up NIGGER. you fucking ape NIGGER. fuck YOU. *dies of syphilis*
>>535019030Obviously you will just move on. Your entire perspective is some retarded libshit retcon, where the ubermensch should prostrate before daddy gubment because troons, foreigners, and kikes voted him to.
>>535018830
>>535018095The only atheist I’ve ever respected was Stirner for being consistent. The rest of them, invariably, all want religion without God, which is intellectually dishonest
>>535018095He btfoed christcucks so that's based. That's what great men do, sending christcucks to the lions was more based but still
>>535018095Nietzsche denied Truth, and in so doing, denied Compassion. Nihilism, predictably, leads to annihilation.
The amount that christcucks seethe over this guy is all the evidence you need for his based level. Read him and find out for yourself, anons. A very rewarding experience. Don't believe the memes about him promoting atheism/nihilism. He was warning against those while also advocating for a healthier spiritual mythos for Europe and her descendants outside the desert death cult plantation.
>christkikes still seething about Nietzsche to this dayYou love to see it
>>535019463
>Claims that believing in objective, universal truth is a delusion.>Proceeds to make up his own morality that he can't back up by any tangible, objective facts or universal principlesWhat kinds of facts are you looking for here if not moral ones? And if there are no objective moral facts, then what do you think should be the standard for deriving values? Nietzsche points to a sinking ship and builds a raft. The goal is to take that raft to new shores so we can build new ships. >influentianYou mean like sophistic? Again: if one rejects absolute truth (because there is no "view from nowehere"), then what is left are perspectives and heuristics. To some, this looks like absurdity; to the perspectivist, the former view looks naive. To a perspectivist, heuristics are acceptable because, contrary to metaphysical realists, we simply do not have the luxury of reliable certainty. If you keep acting like we do have that luxury, you do, in fact, delude yourself.
>>535019117>>535019147>>535019176>>535019209>>535019251>>535019321>>535019440>>535019466
>>535018639What are "thoughts"? What is "judgement"? How do we define "good" and "evil"?Saying "just make your own" misses the implications of doing away with objective morality. I'm a pragmatist, so I look at things for what they are and how they serve human beigns.If you take religious morality, or that of schools like Stoicism, Aristotelianism, etc... To their logical end, you get a human who is oriented towards absolute good and has learned to master himself. If we multiply this human being by many more you get a very functional society.If you remove objective morality and take that to its logical end, you would end up dead, because no one would ever stand living in a world as chaotic as this if we can't even determine what is good or evil, however, since most people who claim not to believe in objective morality still adhere to a glimpse of it (like avoiding suffering), they flee to ideologies, behaviors or thought patterns to avoid dealing with the cruel realitiea of the Universe, which end up causing more problems (mental and otherwise) down the road. We are seeing that today play out in real time.You can't argue against someone who claims to be the ultimate source of authority while rejecting the very foundation of logic. In that case, the only thing you can do is show the person how that system will inevitably lead to ruin.
>>535019502based nietzsche was a poet and everyone who talks about him proves how stupid they are when they don't know he's just pointing to schopenhauer and others
>All beings abide on the hazardous road of cyclic births and deaths wherein they are bound to fall into the hell realms, the animal realms, and the realms of the hungry ghosts. They enter the net-trap of wrong views, become confused in the dense forest of delusions, and thus follow along with erroneous paths and pursue practices influenced by the inverted views. In this, they are like blind people with no guide. What is not a path of escape, they take to be a path of escape. They enter into Māra’s realm, fall in with bands of evil thieves, follow the thoughts of Māra, and leave far behind the intentions of the Buddha. I should pull them out of these hazardous difficulties and cause them to abide in the fearless city of all-knowledge.
>>535019479>but anon christcuckery is white men religion and will bring an white ethnostate, you must be jewish
>All of these beings have become submerged in the waves of the great floods. They have been swept up by the flood of desire, the flood of existence, the flood of ignorance, and the flood of views and thus have become caught in the whirling currents of cyclic existence wherein they are tossed about and turned around in the river of craving as they are carried along in its racing rapids and bounding turbulence, finding no leisure in which to ponder their plight.>They are relentlessly driven along by desire-ridden thoughts, by thoughts motivated by hatred, and by thoughts intent on harming others. The rākṣasa of the view imputing the existence of a true self in association with one’s body seizes them and carries them off to dwell eternally within the dense forest of desire wherein they develop a deep defiling attachment for whatever they desire.>They abide on the high plateau of arrogance and take up residence in the village of the six sense bases wherein they have no one well able to come to their rescue and no one who is able to liberate them.
>>535019479
>>535019887Bro real talk please stop tripfagging
>I should bring forth the mind of great compassion for them, should employ roots of goodness as means of rescuing them, should thus prevent their encountering calamitous disasters, and should thus assist their abandonment of defilement, their abiding in quiescent stillness, and their coming to dwell on the jeweled isle of all-knowledge.
>>535018095>atheist Nope. >morality that he can't back up by any tangible, objective facts or universal principles, essentially deluding himself in the process.You haven't read him. >>535018851>>535019289>Makes it convincing enough to influence many people to bring forth the destruction of the social fabric of civilization.>implying kike pedophiles are ubermensch You've revealed yourself as a retard with an axe to grind. He knew the collapse of organized religion was inevitable, and finding purpose in that world would be one of humanity's greatest problems. Nietzsche was an anti-nihilist. >>535018210Nietzsche was right about Schopenhauer.
>>535019463You have a low IQ because you see everytbing through the eyes of political reductionism and can't possibly think in the great scheme of things.The purpose of philosophy and religion is to deal with the underlying metaphysical realities of the Universe and providing man with a way of living and successfully navigating the chaos of the world. Not to support your private delusional ideologies.Nietzsche was very intelligent and made compelling observations but ultimately failed at proposing a logical alternative to God. His system is self-defeating and can't possibly produce a healthy society.The 20th century took Nietzsche's philosophy to its logical end, and what you got was the deadliest century in human history, the most nihilistic and purposeless period of suffering ever recorded.
>>535020011please fuck offhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUuWFr8qQnk
>>535018830>how extraordinarily well-read and erudite he wasHe wasn't. He didn't understand anything that he read, because he was functionally illiterate. Not only was he not a genius, he's one of the dumbest people in history. It takes an astoundingly stupid person to try to argue against the validity of logic itself.
>>535018639He lost his mind and died a weak man in the care of his mother.
>>535020102He left us with that mission of crafting something based upon the Greco/Roman heroic/solar spirituality after he broke down the subversive nature of christcuckery. That was kind of his whole mission in writing, imo.
>>535020042schopenhauer was adolf hitlers favorite philospher. so even without reading him you know he was right. you didnt read nietzsche or schopenhauer or hegel. and even if you did, as a foreigner you can never fully understand them.
>>535020042Yes, but should circumcision and baby murdering be legal?
>>535020042He was an anti-rationalist, which makes him a nihilist whether he wants to be one or not. Purpose, truth and reason are all of the same principle, so to argue against one means you're arguing against all three. Also, his materilaistic mindset is what caused the collapse of organized religion in the first place. If he wanted to preserve meaning, his only option would have been to affirm rationalism.
>>535020421So why did he own Nietzsche's walking cane and not Schopenhauer's then?
>>535020334Why is Christianity "subversive", though? Nietzsche might call it that based on his own rationale, but if each individual is to come up with their own morality (because God is dead), what do we do about the Christians who feel inner peace, power over themselves and improved their lifes and those of the people around them by dilligently following Christian morality? That person wouldn't see it as subverisve but as empowering. If anything, that person might see Nietzsche as subversive.We go back to the same issue, it's impossible to find common ground when you have declared yourself as the ultimate source of truth. You'd argue that Christianity does that with God, and that's true, but that makes logical sense as what God says must be good by definition as he is to be the ultimate good, whereas humans are faulty, illogical and imperfect by default.Nietzsche claims to be a dynamite philosopher, be he relies on axioms and presuppositions too. The idea of "God is dead" being the biggest one.
>>535018095I read beyond good and evil and let me tell you, this guy writes like a drunk uncle at the dinner table ranting after too many drinks.I guess he made a good point about slave morality but he really doesn't do much to elaborate on anything or have any clear train of thought. I just turned my brain off and allowed the drunk uncle to rant until I reached the end. The book I have is a compilation of 3 of his books so I shudder at the thought of what the dirty old drunk unc will rant about in Thus Came Along Zarathrusa or whatever the fuck. That one seems to be even more rambling and nonsensical.
>>535020624i have the same. its what you get when you go wandern. nietzsche didnt invent them.
Schopi was probably too depressed to take a walk >Nietzsche has well observed that the best thoughts come by walking; and it has happened to me, more than once or twice, that really important correspondences have come, as by a flashlight, when I was padding the old hoof.-Aleister Crowley, "Magick without Tears"
>>535020841Nietzsche was very much against ordered systems of proofs like most of the philosophers before him dealt in. He's about an aesthetic, an artistic vision of how to approach life.I also won't hear any whining about drunk unc ranting on the board of drunk uncs ranting.
>>535020841He didn't want to speak things into being. The materialist has no basis for anything. No reason to care about anything, not children or family, hygiene or wealth. Life is a goon sesh of whatever personal fancies one has. And these faggots think they should be allowed to vote..
>>535020927No, Hitler owned the walking cane Friedrich Nietzsche himself usedNot just the same model, he got Nietzsche's cane from his sister, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche
>>535019720>What are "thoughts"? What is "judgement"? How do we define "good" and "evil"?How do we play semantics on an imageboard?Objective morality isn't an option. It's not real. Discussions on whether we should get rid of it or not are totally delusional, it's not on offer. Merely claiming a morality is objective does not make it so. If you want to claims yours is, we get into the issues of evidence for religion which is a fight already well lost.This is why Nietzsche saw the "death" of God as so important. It wasn't a free choice of whether or not we should be objective or subjective, it was the realization that subjective is all we get, and how do we live with that? Nietzsche had a forward looking answer, whatever you think of it. Theists only have the answer of,>What if we just pretend that didn't happen?
>>535019112>I made up some shit, this is what you believe nowYour last reply, sir.
>>535021307>Objective morality isn't an option. It's not realAnd how did you come to that conclusion?
>>535021028Can you tell me three smart things unc said and in what book it was in? I'll give unc a try but jesus christ does he ramble.I'm just baffled as to why he's so well known. I understand the Hitler angle, but I'm not sure if he's just famous because of Hitler, or whether he has some sort of astounding insight, or maybe he was just in the right place at the right time to make edgy books with titles like THE ANTI--CHRIST.I do not understand the dirty old unc, but I would like to.
>>535021436There isn't anything to understand. He's an anti-rationalist, which means everything he ever said was irrational and without meaning.
>>535019209A civilization ruled by a strong man would lead to the masses being perpetually weakened. The strong man can’t have competitors and so would handicap any potential rival. He would not build anyone up but would be constantly tearing others down, playing a perpetual game of whack a mole. He’d be hated and despised by the community he wished to overlord. He’d have no trustworthy friends. Anyone close to him would be suspect. He’d be paranoid of losing his grip on the world which would inevitably happen. A coalition of weaker men would devour him and fight each other for his throne. Neetshe’s ideal is a weak man’s fantasy. He’s the unpopular spiteful dork that yearns to be Superman. It’s revealing that he never attained any power for himself and died poor and sick.
>>535021436You might not be ready to have that discussion https://youtu.be/9r83ZRissyw
>>535021307The death of God isn't an option. It's not real. Discussions on whether we should consider it or not are totally delusional, it's not an offer. Merely claiming God's death does not make it so. If you want to claim it, we get into the issues of evidence for the death of God, which is a fight already well lost.This is why Nietzsche was wrong. It isn't a free choice of whether or not we should be objective or subjective, it was the realization that objective is all we get. Nietzsche came up with his own particular way to do away with all of that and some decades later we started seeing the results, whatever you think of that. Atheists only have the answer of,>What if we just pretend that didn't happen?I hope you understand why this whole argumentation style of yours is retarded.
>>535021171in his gespräch with dietrich eckart, adolf hitler clearly statet that nietzsche is a subhuman, and also in later citates. i dont know why he has his cane to be honest. schopenhauer was his favorite. and schopenhauer called nietzsche a anti-german subhuman
>>535021525?
>>535021490Okay, so perhaps he's a retard, but WHY does a retard get a place in history if he's so retarded? That's what I wonder. I guess I'll need to read the other two books to comprehend.
>>535018095This is the ultimate weakness of philosophy. Eventually if you possess any intelligence at all you realize that either you need to concede the most maximalist nihilistic and solipsistic position, or B you are forced to presuppose metaphysics and assume that your intuition about intelligence and realty is indeed objectively universal. If you do not believe in transcendental categories that exist irrespective of human mind you have effectively admitted nihilism and are coping.This is what Nietzsche is doing, he is effectively an emotivist who is stating what he feels would be a good future for humanity, where allegedly each person eventually starting with the super man will be so sovereign that they will be able to determine and enact their own system of morality. But of course it can't exceed emotivism because if you do not believe in, for example, constant and preeminent objective morality than any construct of a super man would ultimately be a larp enforced by violence.
>>535021762Verifiably untrue >>535018493Why are you lying?
>>535021373>my funko collection would make big mustache man proud
>>535018095>Good and evil is casus belli geopolitical nonsense and everything else is cope
>>535018830The thing is that if you have even a shred of honesty and understand entry level epistemology, you realize that the moment you remove the idea of universal metaphysics that exist pre-eminently you are inevitably and necessarily left only with the maximalist nihilistic and solipsistic view of reality. Any alternative to that becomes an emotive paradigm which does not solve anything unless you are content with just following what feels good in the moment.
>>535020613He wasn't a nihilist, he predicted extending christian morality to rationalism (Christianity without god) would produce nihilist society. Where people want to avoid all pain. Taken to extreme this is a woke society of vibing zoomers of today where offending someone is the greatest sin.He wasn't advocating for nihilism, he saw the nihilism rationality will lead to 140 years into the future.
>>535021816Because there are a lot of little retards who look up to him as king retard. Basically, the entire attempt to tear down rationalism from Nietzsche to the modern day has always been about escaping accountability. These are weak people who don't want to control themselves, moderate their behavior to take responsibility for their character. Any ideology that appeals to weak willed losers will have a lot of followers, because there are a lot of weak willed losers.
>>535021818This.
>>535021889dont act like a american big mouth subhuman
>>535021939Rationality never leads to nihilism, and rationalism predates Christian morality and the entirety of Christian doctrine was built on rationalism. You're confusing rationalism with empiricism, but the two are diametrically opposed. You cannot be a rationalist if you're an empiricist and you cannot be an empiricist if you're a rationalist. Rationalism always and without failure leads to wisdom, to understanding of the virtues and to the necessary existence of Deity.
>>535021983Thanks for giving me a little insight. A retard famous for being retarded seems to be in line with humanity. kek.
>>535018095His criticism of "Christianity" was limited only to German protestardism. Nietzsche wasn't even anti- religious. He simply stated the fact: morons coming from all social and political options, with their combined effort, have killed the very idea of God and the bloodshed following it is inevitable.
>>535022119Wasn't modern rationalism dreamt up by a 200 IQ narcissistic psychopath
>>535021818Metaphysics doesn't rely on any presuppositions. Logic isn't a presupposition. You have it backwards. Anyone with any amount of intelligence will pursue pure rationalism and find genuine meaning, rejecting all forms of nihilism. Logic leads directly to the Good. Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher and his failures were specifically because he rejected philosophy.
>>535022112
The real problem with Nietzsche is that he never even questioned his own presuppositions. He just assumed that all those presuppositions which proceed into relativism were correct, which is…ironic, to say the least. We really ought to understand Nietzsche less as a philosopher though and more as a cultural critic of his time. If you switch his claim for example from “God doesn’t exist” to “We don’t accept that God exists, whether He really does or not”, then what he goes on to say in light of that makes total sense, for the most part anyway. But then again, this is where Spengler becomes a valuable critic of Nietzsche. He points out that Nietzsche didn’t really create anything of his own. Everything he thought, wrote, prescribed, and valued was cultivated in Western history, in some sense Christian history. Orthobro favorite Saint Seraphim Rose was right to point out that only a Western Christian could write so longingly for the Western Christian God. That’s the irony of Nietzsche. There’s two ways in which he can understand his project, and he only makes sense in one of them, and even then only kind of. For me, he’s more of a historical relic than a philosopher worth heeding for this reason.
>>535022119>entirety of Christian doctrine was built on rationalismObvious and blatant strawman to be honest with you
>>535018095You sound like you misinterpreteded him just like so many others.Why would you ever think his way of looking at things is depressing? It's empowering for the individual.
>>535018095His theories are like Rubicks cube puzzle box with shit inside.
>>535022174>one had better put on gloves before reading the New Testament. The presence of so much filth makes it very advisable. One would as little choose "early Christians" for companions as Polish Jews: not that one need seek out an objection to them.... Neither has a pleasant smell.-Friedrich Nietzsche, "Anti-Christ" §46
>>535018830thishe reminds me of jordan peterson, or ben shapiro in many ways. self made, brilliant men. misunderstood, even hated.
>>535021939Brother please genuinely think for a moment, I will try to lay out the vague syllogistic explanation for you and please try to think about it. On the highest level of axioms we need to presuppose if knowledge is possible or impossible, that is if it is possible to know information or reality as an input into yourself from something other than yourself.If you presuppose that information is possible, you are also axiomatically assuming that transcendental categories that you experience first hand like logic, sequentiality of events in time, conceptual frameworks etc. exist pre-eminently outside of yourself, thus objectively.If you do not presuppose that you concede and assume what effectively at its ultimate conclusion is impossibility of knowledge, thus you concede that it is impossible for you to know if you are a real person, a Boltzmanns brain in a jar, a simulation etc. If you concede and assume that transcendental categories do not exist or you do not know if they exist, all the morality you will construct will necessarily be ultimately based on emotivism because any value system in a paradigm without metaphysics is necessarily relativistic.If you are comfortable with that, sure, but that places you into the same bank metaphysically as nihilists.
>>535022215I would argue what we call rationalism is actually Cartesianism. It goes back to de Cartes and his cogito. This midwit is confusing rationalism with reasoning, and that’s why he thinks it predates Christianity. It doesn’t even make sense because of course prior to Christ, the human animal had the reasoning faculty but rationalism is a philosophy which elevates reason to the foundation of being, self, and knowing entirely in blatant contradiction with both ancient philosophy (ancient reasoning) and Christian theology. They are not the same.
>>535022215I have no idea who you're talking about but Rationalism in its proper form is the likes of Plato, Pythagoras and Aristotle. These men used pure reason to discover the nature of reality, and explained that a Deity absolutely must exist in order to avoid self-contradiction, which is the first rule of all logic. Rationalism has been under attack by jews and their cohorts since the 1600's at least, so there are very few modern examples to choose from, if any. Most people these days don't even understand that Rationalism is directly opposed to Empiricism.
>>535022174It’s a little more than that, but yeah, the people who say he was anti Christian are retarded and don’t understand what he was talking about at all. He was diagnosing society. It was descriptive not prescriptive. Modernity killed god, and what would come next was obviously nihilism and materialism. And he saw that as a bad thing, which is why he drove himself mad desperately trying to derive a positive morality that could coexist with the reality of modernity. He failed obviously, which is why the last men are hopping all over the place now.
>>535022440Common Jew tactic that always confused me about rationalism. Makes me irrational trying to understand their motives. Most of the Frenchies were high on their own supply
>>535022426
>>535022235This is the basics of epistemology, and I am in agreement with you so reread my post.You have to axiomatically assume that logic and transcendental categories exist pre-eminently to function as a human. It is a necessity which is why existentialism ultimately fails other than being an interesting deconstruction.
>>535022307Not even a little. Christianity was built on the backs of Aristotle and Plato.
>>535022438Based reader of David Hume To be fair to Nietzsche, he understood this but didn’t care. In his mind, his project was not an exercise of knowledge but of sheer will, which accepted a priori downstream of all the errors made by Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, etc.
>>535019463>"In this moment I am Euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessings. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence."
>>535022498>Rationalism is directly opposed to EmpiricismI don't think Jew rationalism exists
>>535022538The French Revolution was like the prime example of elevation of reason because in the wake of the revolution they literally erected statues and alters to idols symbolizing reason. That’s a much more honest depiction of what rationalism really is, the cult of reason as deity. To be rational is simply to use logical reason. To be a rationalist is to elevate reason as the most fundamental thing that justifies all other things, ironically, for no particular reason at all.
>>535022119Pure rationalism is a form of emotivism unless you also axiomatically assume that knowledge and transcendental categories exist. Otherwise you can be a solipsistic rationalist because there isn't a reason to extrapolate rationalism into highest level of metaphysics. A solipsistic rationalist can act rationally within his reality but ultimately assume and believe that his need for a rational reality is derived from his emotive experience and minimization of personal suffering.
>>535022568Not quite, but both accepted a transcendent prime mover, not some god-like axiom of rationality so your point is totally moot.
>>535022440>I would argue what we call rationalism is actually Cartesianism.You would be extremely wrong. Descartes was against explicitly Rationalism. His whole thing was about casting doubt over reason, doubting reason and its ability to come to truthful conclusions.There are, broadly speaking, only two schools of thought that date back to before the pre-Socratics. Rationalism and Empiricism. Rationalism says that logic is the arbiter of truthful statements. Empiricism says that sensory data is the arbiter of truthful statements. These two propositions cannot mix because you cannot serve two masters, and you cannot avoid choosing one because if you try to insist that truthful statements aren't possible you contradict yourself by making your own statement untruthful.
>>535022498> Rationalism in its proper form is the likes of Plato, Pythagoras and AristotleThis is objectively and obviously false. Read more.
>>535022701Socialism explicitly is about replacing God with the worship of human progress. So there is something else I can't quite understand about the French, like there's some source of fire I can't find outside of the meta narrative
>>535022568
>>535022774“I think therefore I am” is the sharpest most clear cut and undeniable example of rationalistic philosophy that has ever existed.
>>535018639babby's first atheism questions.Removing all potential miracles, witnesses and so on of Jesus and angel or (((demons))), why would humans want morality so bad? we don't have any biological reasons to need morals, yet we suffer tremendously for lacking in morals, both from physical ailments and psychologically wise.It's not that humans made up a God so they can feel happy, is that humans are programmed to realize God is there.It's a wake up call.
>>535022830Socialism is a nebulous term imo, and alludes to on one hand an ethical philosophy and on the other hand an economic philosophy, both of which are downstream of rationalism. I don’t necessarily think “progress” is part and parcel of socialism. It’s rather like progressivism is one style of socialist politics.
>>535022578I agree, but it is very difficult to view it as an actual reconstruction of morality after basics of epistemology clicked for me. I think any person can intuitively understand entry level philosophy like this, and one of the issues is that people get into philosophy backwards usually starting from the most recent and culturally relevant ones even though they are referencing back to previous debates going for 3k years+.
>>535022853It's not, because he rejected the very axioms that make cogito ergo sum possible before asserting cogito ergo sum. If he had been a rationalist, he would have affirmed ex nihilo nihil fit and the law of non-contradiction.
>>535022874Also atheists love having no God yet they will cum at the idea of aliens from outer space inseminating the planet earth who knows what reasons.
>>535018639Yes, but you’ve completely failed to grapple with what’s in question. Is God really dead? What does that even mean? How can an eternal Creator deity die? Nietzsche never even asks these questions. That’s why he’s more of a cultural critic and less of a philosopher. What Nietzsche represents more than anything is the destruction of philosophy completely rather than a culmination of it.
>>535022934No progressivism is the core of socialism. You replace the geist of society with elation fueled by propaganda about how great everything is and will be.
>>535022995I don’t think they can intuitively grasp it lol. Most people are extremely poorly educated and delusions can appear as intuitive truth often. >>535023014You’ve completely failed to understand what Descartes posited. He was almost like a Buddhist. What he posited is that the only thing which cannot be doubted is that he doubts. Descartes accepted a priori that he really does exist, that he really does think all at once. What is the basis for accepting that he really does exist? It’s that he thinks? It contains a logical fallacy but that’s the error of Cartesianism and rationalism. They elevate human reason to the level of a transcendent deity that justifies all things including existence itself. That’s why he’s a rationalist. It’s the most fundamental error and axiom of rationalism.
>>535023044>I am a completely drunk and have access to the printing presses, and nobody can stop me!!Hey, that's sort of like when I make awful posts on purpose.
>>535023045Sorry. I don’t agree.
>>535022438No. The possibility of information does not mean the morality you construct will not be based on emotivism and subjective.Knowing information does not make your perception objective.
>>535023291Descartes was up his own ass, he thought there was a giant floating ice sheet above Italy refracting light
>>535023328You’ve missed his point. Being able to know may not make you morally correct, but being unable to know makes you wrong in a broad sense that includes moral philosophy. Of course a broken clock may be right twice per day, but the clock is still broken.
>>535023291>What is the basis for accepting that he really does exist?Have you ever felt pain and realized that something is happening without your input? That's sort of what life is. Almost every day I have a what the fuck moment, just like that. I'm pretty sure that agony is a real thing.
>>535023291>What he posited is that the only thing which cannot be doubted is that he doubtsWhich is why he's not a rationalist, because with this statement he's doubting logic. But the only reason why he believes that he can't doubt that he doubts in the first place is logic's law of non-contradiction. But the thing about this axiomatic law, is that it automatically establishes other laws. He was absolutely nothing like a Buddhist, because Buddhists are all rationalists.>They elevate human reason to the level of a transcendent deity that justifies all things including existence itself. That’s why he’s a rationalist. It’s the most fundamental error and axiom of rationalism.I don't think you know what Rationalism is at all, nor do you understand religion. All of the desert fathers assert time and time again that reason is divine and can lead directly to God. Religion is rationality and rationality is religion. You cannot have one without the other, because Logos is God.
>>535023502Technically, no, I haven’t. (You’re a philosophylet and don’t understand the difference between episteme and phenomena so you won’t understand this answer.)
>>535022388It's taken out of context.Reminder: the Pope in Zarathustra was one of the 7 "higher men".
>>535023533No, he’s not doubting logic. He’s elevating logic to the most fundamental basis of everything, as something which you can just have absolute faith in. Read Hume on this topic.
>>535023014Ex nihilo omnia fiunt
>>535023291I think this is because of the way our curriculum is organized. I want to test this on my children once they are old enough, if teaching them philosophers chronologically will make it intuitive instead of the way your average philosophy bro is today where they choose a school of philosophy to follow like a sports team, and only those that are exclusively post 18th century. I think a person can naturally build up understanding of ontology, epistemology, teleology if it is fed at a correct pace similar to how you start with addition and move on to algebra etc. I don't think you even need to delve particularly deep having at least bare bones basics to ground your reality is already more than most can do.
>>535023440No. You've missed the point. Claiming that you know or that there is even an I does not make you able to know.Nietzsche in my understanding didn't claim that objective things might not exist. He claimed anyone who tells you what is objective is not realizing his subjectivity.
>>535018095I call him and others like him "failed philosophers".They could think deeply, but they could not think clearly.
>>535022388Reading Spengler puts in light just how ridiculous Nietzsche’s anti-Christianity was. Not only does he point out all the examples that contradict his broad strokes judgements of them, but he also points out that basically every saint, every martyr, and many clergy were superior to him according to his own ethics. If you can’t read Nietzsche as anything other than a childish product of his time, you’ve simply not read and thought enough.
>>535023577To be a philosopher is to be a communicator of ideas. If you cannot communicate what it is that you are saying, perhaps the onus is on you to be a better philosopher?I think therefore I am is a pretty self evident statement. I feel therefore I feel. Perhaps if you weren't such a fucking NERD you could explain how feeling something is not real?
>>535023044>the destruction of philosophyGERMAN philosophy in the XIX century. You're lost without that important detail.
>>535023599Solltest du nicht mein Klo putzen, Polacke?
>>535023632Descartes's goal was to de-elevate logic. Logic had already been elevated as a thing divine by the entire intellectual world leading up to him. You should read less modern sophists like Hume who have no idea what they're talking about and more actual philosophers from the ancient world.
>>535023671Pretty sure sports team organization of philosophers is so you don't actually understand what they say
>I have entered as a Power because of what I know, I have not spoken to men, I have not repeated what was said.
>>535023671Yeah it’s mainly the abandonment of classical education. >>535023684What you just wrote is a contradiction. I’ll leave you to figure out why.
>>535023778Spengler dedicated "Decline of the West" to Nietzsche and Goethe, retard
>>535023328Possibility of information is absolutely necessary for existence of a moral framework, if you are not certain in existence of metaphysics you are unable to justify any form of value judgement, any at all.You can believe that, but once you do there is very little point to argue with you because you do not share the rational basis upon which discourse is built.
>>535018095show me where nietzsche attacks "objective morality" >>535018197niggers just pulling shit out of their asses now huh>>535018294wow good arguement you really gottem theresites down the shitter
>>535023798> I think therefore I am is a pretty self evident statement. I feel therefore I feel.You’re confusing restating the position with being self evident. You’re literally just restating what is precisely in question. “I think therefore I am.” contains a blatant non-sequitur. Who is the I? How do you know you think? Why is the the existence that follows ergo just assumed as a fact when it comes to thinking the existing being does? None of these are answered. This statement is riddled with logical fallacies and is objectively not self-evident. You’re simply mistaken.
>>535023684 >anyone who tells you what is objective is not realizing his subjectivity.This presupposes that objective truth can't be known.Again, a relativist presupposes axioms. That's contradictory. Nietzsche didn't want to embrace objective truth but didn't want to fall into the nihilistic abyss of relativism, so he stayed in the middle even though the natural and logical consequence of embracing one means rejecting the other, leaving no soace for gray areas.
>>535023833So you think the “thinking” in Descartes “I think” didn’t have anything to do with logical reasoning…?
>>535023941Yeah he also dedicated multiple chapters to pointing out Nietzsche errors. You’d know that if you actually read anything beyond a Wikipedia page you pseud.
>>535024018>Who is the I?I am the I?>How do you know you think?Would anime catgirls exist in my head if I didn't?>You're simply mistaken.I'm mistaken, therefore I am.
>>535024148Projection Got the red Anaconda version right here, barely 10 bucks In german, which you can't even read
>>535024023The Plato's cave does not tell you people looking at shadows or those casting know objective truth.Muslims tell you what they claim is objective. Kikes objectively claim Israel was promised to them 3000 years ago. USA protestants objectively claim Jesus will return. Marxists objectively claim it has never been tried.They all claim to be objective. They are all wrong. Just believing in ability to be objective does not make you objective and your morals right.
>>535024276What is an I? You’re just assuming without basis the real existence of an I? But isn’t that what’s precisely in question? Descartes literally justifies “therefore I am” on the basis that there is an “I am” who thinks. He’s assuming what follows from what he already assumed. How can you not get this?
>>535018197My take was that since "god is dead" (people don't literally believe the bible anymore and those who do are dumb), he was free to create his own "god", whatever it may be, that best served his interests, whatever those may be. If you can trick yourself into such a new belief with such an outcome, you will be an ubermensch with power exceeding those stuck in the old ways or wallowing in true atheism.I think the problems arise when you try to scale that up to any kind of agreement amongst the enlightened. You could get a cabal of such people to fabricate a new religion (e.g. a new judaism, a scientology, etc) regardless if they believe it or not, but it would have to be convincing enough to keep everybody on board.I havent thought or read about it a lot so thats all ive got..
>>535024103No, otherwise it would have been "ratio ergo sum", and he would have asserted other people's rationality as the basis for their existence. The point behind "cogito ergo sum" was for him to doubt everything that could be doubted, and what he settled on was that one phrase being the thing that isn't doubtable. But that makes no sense, because the only reason it isn't doubtable is because of the law of non-contradiction, and the law of non-contradiction affirms all of the other logical axioms. So he arbitrarily uprooted logic and its axioms, in favor of his "cogito ergo sum" as if it were capable of being axiomatic on its own, which it isn't. Descartes was an anti-rationalist driving in the direction of atheism, and rationalism always moves towards theism.
People think he's smart simply because he was self aware of his retardation. He doesn't actually provide any concrete solutions, he just points out something in society, offers something retarded, and makes comments that make him seem like he is above it all, despite his solutions not actually doing anything.
>>535024390>Im assuming I have the ability to find the truth>I really don't like the church and their handling of knowledgeSays 200 IQ psychopath that cuts up living animals
>>535024407God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
>>535018095>>535018197He was just a retard. Tried to make up another salvation to mankind instead of God and turned insane, a sad fate really.
>>535024340Alfred A Knopf editionVolume I: Form and Actuality (Introduction/Preface sections, often pp. 3–20 or equivalent in revised editions): Statement on Nietzsche as a romantic who grasped problems but did not fully confront reality appears early in the Introduction (around the discussion of influences and the Copernican turn in historiography). Additional references appear in chapters on Western (Faustian) philosophy, decadence, and cultural symbolism (e.g., Chapter VI: Makrokosmos or sections on Apollinian/Faustian soul). Nietzsche’s ideas like will-to-power and decadence are contextualized as Western-specific in contradiction with Nietzsche’s claims. Volume II: Perspectives of World-History. Critiques tie into broader analyses of nihilism, the “Second Religiousness,” Caesarism, money, ethics in late civilization, and the destiny of the West. Nietzsche’s doctrines (Superman, eternal recurrence) are treated as romantic projections or symptoms rather than universal truths. Further discussions appear in chapters on: The State (or political forms in decline), Money and machine civilization, Late-phase phenomena (nihilism, ethics, “formless” masses). Specifically mentions of Nietzsche’s historical horizon, conceptions of decadence/militarism/transvaluation/will-to-power (e.g., around pp. 24+ in some editions of Vol. I, with parallels in Vol. II). He also heavily implies that Nietzsche is one of his German grecophiles who are wrong in their Grecophilia.
>>535024390>What is an I?My divine intention to do things, separate from YOU, who would oppose I (me) from breaking into your car to steal those loose quarters you left behind.Any other questions?
>>535018095>depressingly influentian ideology based on personal hallucinations.That's schopenhauer. Nietzsche is better than that. You can build many things on nietzschean foundation. You can do post modern and post structuralism. You can do white supremacist imperialism focused on european civilization.
>>535023833Descartes can be viewed as if he was trying to demote scholastic-Aristotelian logic, but in his mental experiments he has effectively proved the absurdity of the contrary. Descartes challenged scholastic logic most importantly because pure traditional rationalism did not necessarily emphasize the necessity of Telos. Without teleology ultimately we still fall into relativism because metaphysics would still be arbitrary.Aristotle assumed borderline automatic teleology, a kind of eternality of matter and a prime mover and the moved existing together, with reality being eternally pulled towards the pure thought or pure act which is his borderline automatic and deistic version of a God.In case of Descartes he emphasizes the necessity for a God that is the efficient cause of the world, effectively that whatever kind of a monad you conceptualize it/he needs to be for all intents and purposes a personal entity that can will and choose.Aristotelian paradigm in its entirety is closer to Buddhism where Cartesian paradigm in its entirety is closer to Christianity.
>>535018095He doesn't really invent a new moral system, just describes the failings of the current moral system, and then explains that there will need to be another type of moral system with certain features he took for granted. It's the same deal as with Marx: "I don't know what the next evolution will be exactly, but I think we need one and I assume it will have XYZ features."His morality is ill-defined because it's just vague soothsaying about how a better way of thinking will come, but he doesn't know the specifics. I say this is similar to communism because it's the same way, a supposedly better way of doing shit but with very little development about how it will actually work, just a general list of features it will accomplish somehow.Dead germans might make good critics but they're incapable of actually creating anything.
>>535024414These are word games. It makes no difference whether Descartes called out reason by name or whether he proposed that which implies the reasoning faculty as his fundamental axiom. It’s the same either way. Descartes is proposing an I think that thinks and reasons and the most fundamental undoubtable axiom there is, and which justifies logic itself. This idea that Descartes uprooted logic itself is something you just made up and doesn’t even make logical sense unless you’re literally the only reader of Descartes ever who believes Descartes rendered all knowledge impossible.
>>535024572Now imagine someone just disagreed
>>535024599You’re still failing to answer the question about how you know of these things. You’re saying “I experience an I” but how do you really know there is one? You can’t seem to answer without restating the position that there just is an I.
>>535024358Assuming that transcendental categories like logic which can be empirically and rationally known is the bare minimum to start a discussion.You would be able to at least have an ability to debate a Jew or a Muslim, if you concede total relativism you only do what you will, which again you can but if you do so you are not different from a Max Stirner level nihilist at the end of the day.
>>535024745>His morality
>>535024679Aristotle, Christianity and Buddhism all belong together under one category. They agree with each other in terms of metaphysics, 100% of the way and without any deviations of any kind. All three assert that existence stems from an ultimate that is both the source of Being and beyond Being, and that this ultimate ground is synonymous with Love/Compassion. Descartes moves away from that understanding of metaphysics, which is why he's not a rationalist.
>>535024358Marxism explicitly rejects metaphysics so it can't be objective. And yes, we can debate metaphysical claims. The reality is that most religions and pre-Christian philosophical schools of thought converge on morality more often than they diverge, that is because truth is intrinsically known to human beings to a certain degree.If you remove the metaphysical framework, which provides an objective moral foundation, you can't coherently discuss ethics.
>>535024758Descartes attempted to uproot logic and failed. This isn't "my idea", it's what every single person who ever read him thinks, because that's what he wrote. Think about it this way: If he were attempting to assert and elevate logic, why would he have even felt the need to write anything in the first place when the entire 1,500+ years of philosophy before him were all in agreement that logic was primary and nearest to God? No one doubted logic's abilities UNTIL people like Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, Occam and other sophists who simply used fallacies to try to attack and undermine reason itself.
>>535018197It comes down to three moral systems.>Master MoralityBasically just doing whatever the fuck you want. There is no Good/Evil, just Good/Bad. Whatever you personally dislike is bad, and whatever you personally like is good. It's basically the morality of a warlord or a nigger; no real wider social consciousness to it.>Slave MoralityBasically the morality of resentment. It comes down to being a list of rules that stop people from acting like warlords/niggers. He says it's morality based on 'resentment' because it basically stems from people collectively banding together to agree on rules that will hold the 'masters' back from fucking other people over left and right.>Ubermensch MoralityMaster Morality but eusocial without being a dickhead, basically. Despite what his fanboys say, it's poorly defined and doesn't work for normal people. You could sum it up as master morality but without the downsides *somehow* that he can't explain well.
>>535018095Atheism is singlehandedly responsible for mass-scale death & destruction on both the individual & social scale.
>>535018095also remember, atheists don't exist, they're actually pagans.
>>535024823>can be empirically and rationally knowncan be? by everyone?>You would be able to at least have an ability to debate a Jew or a MuslimIf you've been here you know how this ends. Logic exists. Smart people still do stupid shit and change their beliefs as they learn.
>>535024812It is literally pointless, there are like three anons in this thread who can even be talked to at all. Effectively an average person becomes paralyzed and is fully unable to reason, like a malfunctioning machine.At least "ratio ergo sum" guy has a common ground to talk about, same with OP.>>535024913>Aristotle, Christianity and Buddhism all belong together under one category. This is an assumption that you can state only if you belong to western, especially Thomist view of Christian metaphysics.Existence does stems from an ultimate that is both the source of Being and beyond Being, but in Aristotelian paradigm God does not choose between possible worlds, he is effectively a pure act and a pure thought, a philosophical principle of pure actuality and final causality. I am an eastern Orthodox which is probably obvious due to flag, our view of God is different due to essence energies distinction and other metaphysics as part of the package that would take too long to debate here. We believe in necessity of God being proactive and actively choosing what reality to manifest from infinite Logoi through Logos, because if there is not a choice being made at the moment of manifestation than Teleology itself is also arbitrary. Aristotelianism does not necessitate a personal creator, in fact for elegancy sake it works better when it is avoided.
>>535024812I know there's an "I" because "I" was sentenced in court and had a court artist draw a sketch of "I". "I" am distinct from "them" because "them" sentenced "I" and "I" was dragged out of the courtroom screaming at "them".
>>535025137Here's an example: while Slave Morality gives alms out of PITY, Master Morality shares from a place of "overflowing with life/vitality"
>>535018095Reminder that half his philosophy was stolen from Philipp Mainländer.
