At last I see

youre not even thinking clearly from your stupid attempt to poke holes. if he has no power why should anyone take his assertions seriously

To be fair, it’s not happiness but “the good”. Nietzsche thought the powerful life was the good life, but not necessarily the happy life. He was wrong either way.

> if he has no power why should anyone take his assertions seriously
Are you implying that you would be unable to analyze Nietzsche’s works without knowing anything about the author? Isn’t it possible for the most detestable people to speak the truth at times, and the most upright people to speak falsely at times? To ignore the work itself and judge the author is either stupidity or cowardice.

> even a broken clock is right twice per day!
> that’s why I use it to check the time every minute of every hour everyday!
You’re just a moron, my man.

yeah, the germans sure took his ideas to their logical extent with the results of ww2. ahead of his time indeed, idiot.

Let me draw a picture, moron.
>anon 1: but Nietzsche was powerless
>anon 2: even if that were true, why does that matter? And aren’t you proving his point by making this criticism?
>anon 3: well you’re actually wrong, Nietzsche was powerful enough to write those books and influence the world
either way, anon 1 is moronic

I’m saying you fundamentally do not understand WtP. Nietzsche’s conception of power is much more broad than what you’re describing.

> no its just incoherent at its core
and you haven’t explained why. As I said, you would deflect the question again. How embarrassing.

> except i did. youre too blind to see it when a reasonable man would have
then why did you spend two posts trying to answer the question instead of already using this excuse? Your moronation is only proving that people judge Nietzsche without having read and understood him, which is the only reason why I’m continuing this conversation

>bc i needed to spell it out for u
excuse me its more accurate to say ur too dumb to see it and u needed me to spell it out for u. my mistake but hopefully this way ur mediocre intellect (which was too weak to go to a good university) can understand it

bc thats an argument stemming from weakness and cowardice and Retroactively Refutes itself

seriously why are nietzsche fanboys who never read him so dumb?

Ok it’s incoherent and you don’t understand it. My weakness? What are you babbling about? Stop projecting, it’s clear Nietzsche scares you boy, which is why you’re lashing out. You don’t have to engage with his ideas if you don’t want to.

It’s more broad in the sense that it is something to put onto everything in the world. Even a rock has WtP, just very little. So if we imagine the world is a collection of WtPs clashing and fighting for more assertion we get a better idea of this. For humans it’s not just domination or conquering, although that could be part of it. But you need to be able to conquer and command yourself, it goes hand in hand with the notion of becoming who you are in the fullest sense. You could be a gardener or cook and fulfill your WtP, and it gets deeper when he talks about an individuals competing drives and such. On that note Nietzsche really was one of the first to start psychologizing. You can read BG&E for more, but it’s important to remember Nietzsche doesn’t systematize any of this. He refrains from giving us some kind of blueprint for life, it’s not the point of his work.

You didn't draw a picture.

>N had a big influence on philosophy and the western world
cutthroat power existed before him. to exaggerate that he was that culturally influential shows historical ignorance

Stop moving goalposts, dipshit. You'd be hard-pressed to find a musician in the 20th century who didn't have a copy of The Birth of Tragedy on their bookshelf, or a psychologist or professor of philosophy with one of his books.

no youre the one moving goalposts. where are all the political nietzscheans you claimed? theyre just following the rules of power, which exist in spite of a random german
just a decoration for virtue signalling look at me i am very smart. same reason they had buddhist shit. is that was nigzsche is? just a prop?

i didnt say he didnt have influence and i also talk about obscure poets who didnt have any real power so whats your point.

You never read him and you don’t understand the impact

"Real" power is any power that influences the external world. Nietzsche influenced the external world of the 20th century to an extraordinary degree compared to the average human.

Stop moving goalposts, dipshit. You'd be hard-pressed to find a musician in the 20th century who didn't have a copy of The Birth of Tragedy on their bookshelf, or a psychologist or professor of philosophy with one of his books.

ur done bc ur incapable of real critical thought and are historically ignorant.
nietzscheans in a nutshell everyone.

Do you disagree with N, then?
>How does one become stronger?— By coming to decisions slowly; and by clinging tenaciously to what one has decided. Everything else follows.

>Power must be radiated and given without gain
That doesn't sound like the blonde-haired Aryo-Celtic beast.

>in Europe they were absolutely buck broken by mediterranean bulls,
Yeah, except for that one time the Celts sacked Rome and cucked the entire patrician class out of their rights

How do the bankers do it?

Especially those that rely on computers. They literally expend no energy unless they find a way to do busywork.

since you are obviously unfamiliar with what is being referenced, read Bataille, The Accursed Share vol 1. It's short, you can ignore the chapter on Stalin. But consider how "bankers" operate during a "recession"—they destroy their own wealth at a scale so enormous some of them collapse. And while there is no longer any aristocratic sensibility to this sacrifice, the principle survives that one cannot accumulate forever. Nietzsche has a similar idea in saying healthiness is not merely not being sick. A healthy person can tolerate being sick. You not being sick is just your luck, it does not automatically make you healthy. As for power, power can be measured in a sense, in what you are capable of destroying, whether that is your own investment portfolio or the spice melange, and still be left standing versus the other contestants who cannot hope to match your expenditure.

>through a debilitating sickness that gave him a lot of issues.
>how can you say the multiply sick man was weak
nietzscheans everyone

youre a weak moron like them too for even responding. and youd be a weak coward by being too afraid to respond too

the incoherence of nietzsche is a never ending comedy lmao

yes wasting time on reading ignorant tards like nietzche

one day youll wise up autist, otherwise youll just be a pathetic old man clinging to dreams of power at the end of his existence. remember my shitposts if and when that happens weak ass homosexual

nietzsche is a parasite of actual power and will be a footnote

thats true in some sense but nietzscheans dont exert nearly as much influence as marxism does, which still has china as a potential world power.

christians are the members of the most powerful religion. any thinking christian realizes that power is a good quality. nietzscheans seethe because they lack the power that christians use to swat them down like the ants they are.

deleuze is a pseud and a perfect example of mediocre philosophical ressentiment. deleuze was just a failed politician turned writer as a cope for having no real power just like nietzsche

you angry response came from weakness
it being full of holes giving me an opportunity to insult you incisively showed lack of forethought and weakness
everything you do comes from weakness and by your own conception, bad

idiot, philosophy is an attempt to influence and invariably coextensive with politics. youd realize this if you actually thought about things.

it necessarily involves a form of power, which is also shared with politics. are you saying they dont overlap or are you really that stupid

Completely wrong. Power is a positive quality to Christians. God is powerful. It is not necessarily wrong to want to be powerful. The problem is that humans are fallen creatures who suck major ass at using power properly. There's also the fact that any given human being, like everything else in creation, is totally dependent on God for their sustained existence. Yes, it is good to be powerful and perhaps God will add such power unto you. But it all proceeds from Him. The idea that you can somehow will yourself to become independently powerful and/or self contained is laughable, insane, and literally how actual fricking demons think.

What schizo babble? I didn't see a single mention of N.

>At least the Christian conceptual god allows for a structure in which to engage with dialectical pursuits of reason and logical metaphors to pursue truth.
this terminates with the atheism you find in all the major historically Christian countries—the quest for truth as you frame it, the abolition of falsehoods and false gods, will eventually require you to deny even Christianity, which even now you are merely pretending to believe in in order to spite the Nietzsche appreciators, who you are wishing an overpowering third party would punish so that you might enjoy their tormented screams. That's some real patristic energy there

>the atheistic tendency caused "truth" to be interpreted in a particular, flawed way
as opposed to the priestly tendency to deny that you are making shit up?

Why would an atheist "quest for truth" be more or less flawed than a Christian or Hindu one? You are of course lying about bodily resurrection and talking snakes and that sort of thing

>theists can easily provide proofs

>this terminates with the atheism you find in all the major historically Christian countries
This atheism isn't sustainable, obviously, nor do I see it as an inevitable end of Christianity. Not to say it couldn't end, but it's still too early to call it.
>which even now you are merely pretending to believe in in order to spite the Nietzsche appreciators
This is quite spergy and tunnel visioned. Is your Nietzschian appreciation a means to spite Christians? I wouldn't think so, so the why do others need to pretend to believe in something that is seemingly at odds with yours?
Think about it. You could pretend to believe in Nietzsche's will to power as a means to feel better about your shortcomings, to feel your ego inflated by Nietzsche's powerful, striving rhetoric. I imagine you're more complicated than that though.
Again I don't see how your Nietzschian appreciation is any different from other seemingly arbitrary belief structures that Nietzsche would denounce. To use it as an ontological or epistemological system to denounce others seems absurd, in that I see Nietzsche's will to power as a mode of action and being, not a mode of reductionist argument.
I know somewhere in Thus Spoke Zarathustra Nietzsche calls for the great men to make their own path, I wish more Nietzsche supporters didn't keep him boxed in like they do. At least the French pedos and necrophiliacs did something different with him.
>who you are wishing an overpowering third party would punish so that you might enjoy their tormented screams
Is it possible that a poster could use an illustrative example that they would never actually wish for? I don't truly wish that on you or any other Nietzschian appreciator, anon. I would even call myself a Nietzsche appreciator. It was an implicit reminder that your power striving might be a sycophantic relationship with what you've construed as powerful.

This statement,
>I don't truly wish that on you or any other Nietzschian appreciator, anon.
is the truth. I am not lying. Please read my question again:
>Is it possible that a poster could use an illustrative example that they would never actually wish for?
I would posit this is possible. For example, a poster might shitpost by saying "kys" but they don't actually want the anon they're conversing with to kill themselves. I wouldn't actually want the ubermensch to crush you beneath his tread or to hear your screams in such a situation, but I believe that kind of hyperbolic and fantastical illustration might be the penny on the track that derails your mental train (or another anon who is passively reading our dialogue). Maybe not though I'm trying to get better at that skill.

>The idea that you can somehow will yourself to become independently powerful and/or self contained is laughable, insane
so yahweh is nuts huh?

Happiness is fake and gay and fleeting.

ok doomer

>That's what God is. Ultimate Reality
cool story... so you agree with Spinoza then?

Do your own research, moron.

>debate etiquette
You have to be 18 to post here.

which i supported by pointing out theres no proof stalin was influenced by nietzsche, which is self evident bc no one can find a stalin quote or anecdote about him doing that

now prove your claim homosexual

You keep saying he’s incoherent, but which part of his writings were incoherent?

the fact that he needs to be defended online by misshapen mentally ill weak homosexuals

oh wow great someone else read him that proves he was significantly influenced by him.

by this shitty logic the quran is one of the most popular books, that means almost every major politicians was influenced by muhammad. guess that makes muhammad more likely to be directly influential in thought than nietzsche. the kicker? muhammad had real power in his own lifetime

> the fact that he needs to be defended online by misshapen mentally ill weak homosexuals
So you would never defend your own beliefs? And you think your attacking Nietzsche isn’t some validation of his power and influence? Anyway, you didn’t answer my question directly. You said that he was incoherent, but you still haven’t given a single example of this. You deflected the question and you will do it again.