Idk about that. In many cases, I think that's true. But I also think people who believe in the value of "truth," dismiss or forget that for some people, violence is their argument.
Take Stalin. Stalin didn't give a frick about communist ideology; he understood how it worked, and how the Party worked, and how to climb the ladder and secure his position. Once he secured the position, he consolidated it, then he enforced it through sheer brutality and violence against anyone who opposed him, or who he wanted to make an example out of; or just whoever he felt like fricking with, because he was absolute ruler.
So his argument from day one, was violence. There was no argument in the sense that you allude to. The argument was, "I really think I should be in charge of everything and that anyone who disagrees should die or be too terrified to ever even speak about it."
And he stated his case, directly, through the whip.
Guys like you and I, like to pretend that deep down, somehow, our rationalism or our articulation confers some objective benefit, or objective validity, but the guy who believes he can just beat us into submission, believes in the objectivity of his "argument" just as strongly.
It depends on your goal. If you want to change someone's mind with facts, feelings, and ethics, or if you want to appear correct, reasonable, or intellectual, then there's no worse thing you can do than resorting to violence.
But if you don't care about what people think, don't want to change anyone's opinion, and don't care too much about what's right or wrong - morally or factually - then sure, violence solves everything sooner or later.
>The most intelligent men, like the strongest, find their happiness where others would find only disaster: in the labyrinth, in being hard with themselves and with others, in effort; their delight is in self-mastery; in them asceticism becomes second nature, a necessity, an instinct. They regard a difficult task as a privilege; it is to them a recreation to play with burdens that would crush all others.
>The most intelligent men, like the strongest, find their happiness where others would find only disaster
Become a male prostitute then. You can similarly refute any philosophy of endurance by pointing out that it is pornstars who endure the most.
It would take a good deal of self-mastery for a heterosexual man to overcome his instinct against being pounded in his throat with endless numbers of wieners: but I guess you're just not up for it because you belong with the herd.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I was already in agreement you had experience in the matter. I'm sure you're a wienermaster.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'm not since I do not follow the homosexual philosophy of Nietzsche. You, on the other hand, have two options: reject Nietzsche's philosophy or become a professional wienersucker. No middle path.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You haven't made a case that it meets any standards other than fulfilling your desire to be one or possibly trying to affirm your choices to me. You can suck mine if you really want to prove your skills.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I did make a case though: it is the ultimate act of self-overcoming for a heterosexual man, the ultimate disaster and the burden, the ultimate power.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well it hasn't crushed all the homosexuals yet so clearly it isn't that burdensome or difficult.
Meanwhile the average Nietzschean is some dork who's still crying that Jamal took his lunch money and he never fought back. He can't cope with hardship at all. Every day he whines and every day people have to hear his shit.
Reading these books is his cheap of way of being IQfy.. as if either is ever going to change their fates.
Don't try to turn this on me. I like just about every type of person except these little shits.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I turned nothing, you made the statement. I am inclined to say you started off by whining.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I didn't start off shit. This board and site is inundated with that mindset day after day. The whole place is flooded with bitter, dadless losers who shit on everything decent in society. If you're not one of them, it's your duty to grind them down. Here and elsewhere. It's nothing to be passe about.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Thank god I have a father then
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You already got a leg up on Nietzsche.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I am not inclined to argue with your point about the inundation. There is a pecking order to Nietzschean arguments, and I will say that high intelligence is not necessarily a requirement in order to make exceptionally good ones. In my experience over-rationalizing tends to produce too much conformity of thought and leaves too much sterility. Good Nietzschean arguments should leave an imprint of the person, this is more of an artform in all candor, and one can eventually scent the thought if exposed for some time, I have no doubt many of the regulars here can scent my thought, and I tend to be more rational. Variety of aphorisms, and incorporating Nietzsche at various stages is also an aspect, and ideally there should be some imperfection at prima fascie that is logically circuitous upon examination. I have seen some that appeared to be entirely bereft of any intelligent thought but ended up being quite enjoyable, and I have seen some that appeared innocuous and born of refined thinking that were at root quite barbarous. If enjoying Nietzsche makes someone a midwit then I will happily be a midwit to read what I enjoy, I am still not entirely sure why IQfy is so concerned about the stages of wittery but it seems to go in phases.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
There's like 5 people on IQfy with sentient thought and the rest are tourists and pseuds. I can recognize the 5 people by their styles by now.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah but the people who complain about Nietzscheans being midwits, and more so the people who in 2024 constantly use this term “midwit” to apply with anything they don’t like, are the biggest midwits of all
Agreed but you’re one of the pseuds
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well I hope I made it onto the short list of sentience.
Are you presenting this as an example of how Nietzsche was a deep intellectual, or of how he was basically just a pretentious self-help guru?
According to popular sentiment he was a midwit, so I guess he was just making an observation in this case, or perhaps self-help is actually the real mark of intelligence, or perhaps the process of finding the burden that crushes others for one to play with is contingent on self-mastery. What does the aphorism mean to you?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah. Just understand what it entails.
If I can recognize you by your words; so can others. Think deeply about what that means.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Scent flows deeper than words.
Perhaps you're the kind of person who has no practical skills but brags anonymously about his IQ.
I have nothing to brag about, I have never taken one of the tests. At any given time there are about a handful of IQ threads on here, so you must be addressing the people who brag anonymously about their IQ.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Perhaps you're the kind of person who has no practical skills but brags anonymously about his IQ.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You are clearly projecting hard. Sorry you got beat up as a kid. I’m still going to be a Nietzschean because I believe purpose is as we make it though.
>Define Nietzschean
You just did, and it's why he's for midwits. You either are smart or you sound smart, and Nietzsche is an easy way of sounding smart.
As far as continental philosophy goes stuff like Desiderata is more impressive to me then Nietzsche's entire corpus. It's like how Jordan Peterson will just spout any old bullshit for the purposes of SEO. These people say too much to say anything of consequence. They posit everything, or negate everything, or both, and therefore they say nothing meaningful.
Meanwhile taking a systematic approach means you risk being wrong. You can't just continue to speculate and spout as fact whatever hypotheses just occur to you in the moment. A systematised philosophy requires rigour, what Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, et al. do only requires an inner narrative that you're willing to believe without question. It is just a totally credulous attachment to one's own thoughts.
look at his modern protégé, BAP. It's all a confused satrical LARP that has exposed the holes in right wing thought and pushed us further toward a revival of traditional Christanity.
The issue with Nietzsche is that he is well known, memeable (thus culture war ammo), but still actually read as much as nearly any other philosopher (not at all). Meaning that there is a low barrier to entry to talking about him (even if the level of discourse is abysmal).
Hegel is another, slightly less extreme, example. Marx too, obviously.
>Hegel is another, slightly less extreme, example.
It helps that Hegel is much more difficult to read than Nietzsche, but it is a double edge sword. That barrier being higher means that less people use him in such a way, but it also means that those who do have much wilder interpretations than they do of Nietzsche.
That's not going to stop them. They only respect a ass beating. Do your duty.
an*
I was gonna say a severe ass beating, but they don't deserve that. Just a nice lovetap.
Violence is the last resort of people who don't have an argument.
Idk about that. In many cases, I think that's true. But I also think people who believe in the value of "truth," dismiss or forget that for some people, violence is their argument.
Take Stalin. Stalin didn't give a frick about communist ideology; he understood how it worked, and how the Party worked, and how to climb the ladder and secure his position. Once he secured the position, he consolidated it, then he enforced it through sheer brutality and violence against anyone who opposed him, or who he wanted to make an example out of; or just whoever he felt like fricking with, because he was absolute ruler.
So his argument from day one, was violence. There was no argument in the sense that you allude to. The argument was, "I really think I should be in charge of everything and that anyone who disagrees should die or be too terrified to ever even speak about it."
And he stated his case, directly, through the whip.
Guys like you and I, like to pretend that deep down, somehow, our rationalism or our articulation confers some objective benefit, or objective validity, but the guy who believes he can just beat us into submission, believes in the objectivity of his "argument" just as strongly.
It depends on your goal. If you want to change someone's mind with facts, feelings, and ethics, or if you want to appear correct, reasonable, or intellectual, then there's no worse thing you can do than resorting to violence.
But if you don't care about what people think, don't want to change anyone's opinion, and don't care too much about what's right or wrong - morally or factually - then sure, violence solves everything sooner or later.
>The most intelligent men, like the strongest, find their happiness where others would find only disaster: in the labyrinth, in being hard with themselves and with others, in effort; their delight is in self-mastery; in them asceticism becomes second nature, a necessity, an instinct. They regard a difficult task as a privilege; it is to them a recreation to play with burdens that would crush all others.
>The most intelligent men, like the strongest, find their happiness where others would find only disaster
Become a male prostitute then. You can similarly refute any philosophy of endurance by pointing out that it is pornstars who endure the most.
Nothing particularly difficult about it. Sounds like you have some experience though, I'm sure you would have been Nietzsche's favorite.
It would take a good deal of self-mastery for a heterosexual man to overcome his instinct against being pounded in his throat with endless numbers of wieners: but I guess you're just not up for it because you belong with the herd.
I was already in agreement you had experience in the matter. I'm sure you're a wienermaster.
I'm not since I do not follow the homosexual philosophy of Nietzsche. You, on the other hand, have two options: reject Nietzsche's philosophy or become a professional wienersucker. No middle path.
You haven't made a case that it meets any standards other than fulfilling your desire to be one or possibly trying to affirm your choices to me. You can suck mine if you really want to prove your skills.
I did make a case though: it is the ultimate act of self-overcoming for a heterosexual man, the ultimate disaster and the burden, the ultimate power.
Well it hasn't crushed all the homosexuals yet so clearly it isn't that burdensome or difficult.
Or a drug addict. Imagine going through the pain of withdrawal constantly and the ever present misery of knowing you've ruined yourself
Meanwhile the average Nietzschean is some dork who's still crying that Jamal took his lunch money and he never fought back. He can't cope with hardship at all. Every day he whines and every day people have to hear his shit.
Reading these books is his cheap of way of being IQfy.. as if either is ever going to change their fates.
The amount of whining here and on IQfy leaves me inclined to agree. You sound like a b***h though, keep crying about your lunch money.
Don't try to turn this on me. I like just about every type of person except these little shits.
I turned nothing, you made the statement. I am inclined to say you started off by whining.
I didn't start off shit. This board and site is inundated with that mindset day after day. The whole place is flooded with bitter, dadless losers who shit on everything decent in society. If you're not one of them, it's your duty to grind them down. Here and elsewhere. It's nothing to be passe about.
Thank god I have a father then
You already got a leg up on Nietzsche.
I am not inclined to argue with your point about the inundation. There is a pecking order to Nietzschean arguments, and I will say that high intelligence is not necessarily a requirement in order to make exceptionally good ones. In my experience over-rationalizing tends to produce too much conformity of thought and leaves too much sterility. Good Nietzschean arguments should leave an imprint of the person, this is more of an artform in all candor, and one can eventually scent the thought if exposed for some time, I have no doubt many of the regulars here can scent my thought, and I tend to be more rational. Variety of aphorisms, and incorporating Nietzsche at various stages is also an aspect, and ideally there should be some imperfection at prima fascie that is logically circuitous upon examination. I have seen some that appeared to be entirely bereft of any intelligent thought but ended up being quite enjoyable, and I have seen some that appeared innocuous and born of refined thinking that were at root quite barbarous. If enjoying Nietzsche makes someone a midwit then I will happily be a midwit to read what I enjoy, I am still not entirely sure why IQfy is so concerned about the stages of wittery but it seems to go in phases.
There's like 5 people on IQfy with sentient thought and the rest are tourists and pseuds. I can recognize the 5 people by their styles by now.
Yeah but the people who complain about Nietzscheans being midwits, and more so the people who in 2024 constantly use this term “midwit” to apply with anything they don’t like, are the biggest midwits of all
Agreed but you’re one of the pseuds
Well I hope I made it onto the short list of sentience.
According to popular sentiment he was a midwit, so I guess he was just making an observation in this case, or perhaps self-help is actually the real mark of intelligence, or perhaps the process of finding the burden that crushes others for one to play with is contingent on self-mastery. What does the aphorism mean to you?
Yeah. Just understand what it entails.
If I can recognize you by your words; so can others. Think deeply about what that means.
Scent flows deeper than words.
I have nothing to brag about, I have never taken one of the tests. At any given time there are about a handful of IQ threads on here, so you must be addressing the people who brag anonymously about their IQ.
Perhaps you're the kind of person who has no practical skills but brags anonymously about his IQ.
You are clearly projecting hard. Sorry you got beat up as a kid. I’m still going to be a Nietzschean because I believe purpose is as we make it though.
Nietzsche is for artists you fricking moron. Not people who give a shit about minor inconveniences.
>Nietzsche is for artists
Wow look, someone who understood Nietzsche. A rarity
So Christian monks
If you can find aphorisms to support yourself then sure you can make an argument.
Are you presenting this as an example of how Nietzsche was a deep intellectual, or of how he was basically just a pretentious self-help guru?
They are the biggest midwits of all
ITT
Yes
>dark brown hair is dark blond hair, guys! Hail Odin btw
lol Varg himself doesn't have blond hair, not surprising his son doesn't
>It's dark blond! Call me blond pls!
Define “Nietszchean”
Nietzsche wasn’t systematic so it could produce multiple interpretations
Nietzsches philosophy reads like a teen girls journal
>Define Nietzschean
You just did, and it's why he's for midwits. You either are smart or you sound smart, and Nietzsche is an easy way of sounding smart.
As far as continental philosophy goes stuff like Desiderata is more impressive to me then Nietzsche's entire corpus. It's like how Jordan Peterson will just spout any old bullshit for the purposes of SEO. These people say too much to say anything of consequence. They posit everything, or negate everything, or both, and therefore they say nothing meaningful.
Meanwhile taking a systematic approach means you risk being wrong. You can't just continue to speculate and spout as fact whatever hypotheses just occur to you in the moment. A systematised philosophy requires rigour, what Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, et al. do only requires an inner narrative that you're willing to believe without question. It is just a totally credulous attachment to one's own thoughts.
Yes. It’s one thing to appropriate this or that from Nietzsche but to be a Nietzschean one must be a midwit.
look at his modern protégé, BAP. It's all a confused satrical LARP that has exposed the holes in right wing thought and pushed us further toward a revival of traditional Christanity.
Discord raiding ten different threads to spam the catalog is a bit on the nose.
in not sure varg isn't a moron
The issue with Nietzsche is that he is well known, memeable (thus culture war ammo), but still actually read as much as nearly any other philosopher (not at all). Meaning that there is a low barrier to entry to talking about him (even if the level of discourse is abysmal).
Hegel is another, slightly less extreme, example. Marx too, obviously.
>Hegel is another, slightly less extreme, example.
It helps that Hegel is much more difficult to read than Nietzsche, but it is a double edge sword. That barrier being higher means that less people use him in such a way, but it also means that those who do have much wilder interpretations than they do of Nietzsche.
adulthood is realizing that Russell was right about Nietzsche the whole time.
Damn, I just made a post in another thread staning Nietz.
Everyone in this thread is a moron expect for me.