>Nietzsche, who represents most prominently this pretentious claim of the fastidious, has a description somewhere—a very powerful description in the purely literary sense—of the disgust and disdain which consume him at the sight of the common people with their common faces, their common voices, and their common minds. As I have said, this attitude is almost beautiful if we may regard it as pathetic. Nietzsche’s aristocracy has about it all the sacredness that belongs to the weak. When he makes us feel that he cannot endure the innumerable faces, the incessant voices, the overpowering omnipresence which belongs to the mob, he will have the sympathy of anybody who has ever been sick on a steamer or tired in a crowded omnibus. Every man has hated mankind when he was less than a man. Every man has had humanity in his eyes like a blinding fog, humanity in his nostrils like a suffocating smell. But when Nietzsche has the incredible lack of humour and lack of imagination to ask us to believe that his aristocracy is an aristocracy of strong muscles or an aristocracy of strong wills, it is necessary to point out the truth. It is an aristocracy of weak nerves.
Chesterton on Nietzsche
>Nietzsche had some natural talent for sarcasm: he could sneer, though he could not laugh; but there is always something bodiless and without weight in his satire, simply because it has not any mass of common morality behind it. He is himself more preposterous than anything he denounces. But, indeed, Nietzsche will stand very well as the type of the whole of this failure of abstract violence. The softening of the brain which ultimately overtook him was not a physical accident. If Nietzsche had not ended in imbecility, Nietzscheism would end in imbecility. Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot. Every man who will not have softening of the heart must at last have softening of the brain.
Nietzschetards can only cope
Ad hominems. Chesterson just cannot admit to himself that God is dead and he no longer functions as a moral arbiter for society. Nietzsche attempts to solve this problem. Chesterson gives us no real solutions except "just keep believing bro". It's just not realistic at all. His philosophy serves no purpose.
Maybe because there's no real solution, and that's just how things are. Welcome to real life, nietzsche boy.
absolute state of chesterton fanboys, "just shut up there is no solution stop asking questions therefore you should be a christian"
>just shut up there is no solution stop asking questions therefore you should be a christian
Based
holy based christsisters
CHRIST IS KING DONOT REDEEM THE QUESTIONS YOU BLOOD MADARFRICKER
in isolation and with pride ends in
" “One, is always too many about me”—thinketh the anchorite. “Always once one—that maketh two in the long run!”
I and me are always too earnestly in conversation: how could it be endured, if there were not a friend?
The friend of the anchorite is always the third one: the third one is the cork which preventeth the conversation of the two sinking into the depth.
Ah! there are too many depths for all anchorites. Therefore, do they long so much for a friend, and for his elevation."
"Unfair to the shining one in its innermost heart, cold to the suns:—thus travelleth every sun.
Like a storm do the suns pursue their courses: that is their travelling. Their inexorable will do they follow: that is their coldness.
Oh, ye only is it, ye dark, nightly ones, that extract warmth from the shining ones! Oh, ye only drink milk and refreshment from the light’s udders!
Ah, there is ice around me; my hand burneth with the iciness! Ah, there is thirst in me; it panteth after your thirst!
’Tis night: alas, that I have to be light! And thirst for the nightly! And lonesomeness!"
man who will not have softening of the heart
"Let thy pity be a divining: to know first if thy friend wanteth pity. Perhaps he loveth in thee the unmoved eye, and the look of eternity.
Let thy pity for thy friend be hid under a hard shell; thou shalt bite out a tooth upon it. Thus will it have delicacy and sweetness."
"Beyond yourselves shall ye love some day! Then learn first of all to love. And on that account ye had to drink the bitter cup of your love."
"When power becometh gracious and descendeth into the visible—I call such condescension, beauty.
And from no one do I want beauty so much as from thee, thou powerful one: let thy goodness be thy last self-conquest.
All evil do I accredit to thee: therefore do I desire of thee the good.
Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings, who think themselves good because they have crippled paws!"
>>this failure of abstract violence
"Verily, I have done this and that for the afflicted: but something better did I always seem to do when I had learned to enjoy myself better.
Since humanity came into being, man hath enjoyed himself too little: that alone, my brethren, is our original sin!
And when we learn better to enjoy ourselves, then do we unlearn best to give pain unto others, and to contrive pain.
<...>
For in seeing the sufferer suffering—thereof was I ashamed on account of his shame; and in helping him, sorely did I wound his pride.
Great obligations do not make grateful, but revengeful; and when a small kindness is not forgotten, it becometh a gnawing worm.
“Be shy in accepting! Distinguish by accepting!”—thus do I advise those who have naught to bestow.
I, however, am a bestower: willingly do I bestow as friend to friends. Strangers, however, and the poor, may pluck for themselves the fruit from my tree: thus doth it cause less shame."
These words will never carry the weight that the speaker of them possessed. Chesterton was so feeble brained he was reduced to repeating Descartes while he still possessed faculties. He was also tossed into the trash heap for irrelevance and I only see him discussed here, Nietzsche never possessed the sheer lard poundage of him but what Nietzsche said is still widely discussed, and people are still morbidly fascinated by his madness letters, so even in a state of mental invalidity Nietzsche is still more interesting than Chesterton. The blinding fog has been pierced and the masses are more interested Nietzsche.
>These words will never carry the weight that the speaker of them possessed.
I scratched my head rereading this 3 times before I realized it was a fat joke, and not a confusing deep statement about how Chesterton was a great man but somehow his words are worthless despite him being a great man.
>listening to fat people
His opinion on N's mental health is factually false.
>listening to short people
Bad faith Anglosphere reception - in bad translations - in Chesterton's day ran interference for these boarding school catamites' shallow engagement with the canon and Latin/Greek studies in light of the Author's mastery, and are universally motivated by politics unchanged from their fathers' bovine unquestioning acceptance of baby bayonetting 'Huns' raping their way through Schlieffen Plan Belgium--
>Nietzsche changed philosophy forever with daring new ideas despite a painful bad difficult life
>Chesterton wrote forgettable silly English novels about how God is real and good and people who disagree are big meanies
I wonder who could be right
>my silly german books are better than your silly english books
Wow you sure owned those christisraelites sis
Frick angloisraelites
Lmaoo angloisraelites seething
As usual, this fat Anglo moron didn't understand Nietzsche.
>I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!
Will to Power
>Only the most intellectual of men have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can goodness escape being weakness. [...] 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... Knowledge—a form of asceticism.
The Antichrist
>[...] the measure of the desire for knowledge depends upon the measure to which the will to power grows in a species: a species grasps a certain amount of reality in order to become master of it, in order to press it into service.
Will to Power
>Little do the people understand what is great—that is to say, the creator. But they have a taste for all showmen and actors of great things. Around the creators of new values revolves the world:—invisibly it revolves. But around the actors revolve the people and the glory: such is the course of things.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Do you want to know what Nietzsche meant when he said "The weak and the botched shall perish—first principle of our charity"? He meant get rid of social welfare programs, and social institutions of any kind that protect the least self-sufficient and ambitious members of society; they are weighing the species down with their extremely small will to power.
Also,
>The softening of the brain which ultimately overtook him was not a physical accident.
Of course not, his father suffered the same thing. It was a hereditary ailment. Of course, when it comes to biology, Christians are like israelites on whiteness — they're biologists when it suits them, Christians when it doesn't. The Abrahamic religions are the religion of snakes hiding in the grass, ironically enough.
let's face facts, chesterton would batter friedrich
Will IQfy ever stop seething about Nietzsche? Either have an actual discussion about his works and present your opinions in some detail, or shut the frick up. Stop shitting up the board with low effort bullshit. Every fricking day I have to hide half a dozen stupid threads like this.
>nietzschegay malding
>Nietzsche hates humans
I'm facepalming so hard.
That’s not what Chesterton said at all. Chungus Chesterton is right about ole Fred the NEET. I like Fred but he got absolutely BTFO by Chesterton
>But when Nietzsche has the incredible lack of humour and lack of imagination to ask us to believe that his aristocracy is an aristocracy of strong muscles or an aristocracy of strong wills, it is necessary to point out the truth. It is an aristocracy of weak nerves.
absolutely bodied him lmao.
I'M BREAKING MY BUALLS OVAH HERE
It’s the same criticism that people make of Hitler who extolled the virtues of the blonde beast without being one himself
Wow it's almost like people dislike hypocrites
>muscles
wat
>his aristocracy
He liked romantic history and Wagner. Sensitivity means one sees further, to places myopic sedated anglos can't imagine.
Ignoring he was a fat parrochial and ugly christian moron. He does make a point in so far as Nietzsche in parts does write from a place of weakness attempting to project power, in my opinion. When speaking of masses, of christianity, he does not speak with the measured derision of someone who observed these calamities occur far below him, which would be the 'true' aristocrats and masters, if they had to talk of the plebs and their mores. No, he speaks of the crowd, of mediocrity, with visceral passion, this has been a man who got dragged through the worst indignities someone of his character could suffer, someone forcefully locked into a barn with loud, banal, braying bovinic-anthropoi and unwillingly made to be charitable to those he found repulsive (among other things, like suffering from sickness). This may be masked with appeals (admittedly often empty) to violence, strength, and vitality. But I believe this is a core weakness that needs to be adressed if we are to better advance the project Nietzsche inherited us, the despoiled nobleman needs to die if we are to actually bring back aristocracy of any sort. Now, the fat man then miscontrues this to make a trite appeal to normalcy, christianity, etc; by calling him weak of nerves for not being able to tolerate the common man, this astoundingly ordinary englishman attempts to degrade him as a weakling masquerading as strong. But I think one look at G.K makes that attempt laughable.
He didn't see, he dreamed and hoped.
I mostly agree. The fat man was ultimately just a sad servant of the vulgus attempting by any means to impose it as the only choice. And as far as I know, his writing is just truisms and village wisdom.
Gotta love the status quo gay tactic of pretending like everyone secretly knew revolutionary ideas the whole time. It's like when you press middle class people on how the US government is a bunch of despots raping the nation -the average person will AGREE with you. But then come tomorrow morning it will be back to the same old spiel about voting and civil obedience. Chesterton blows hot air out both sides of his mouth. The ending of The Man Who Was Thursday is the quintessential cynical, mediocrity enforcing mindset where you admit to a level of corruption and chaos that is impenetrably engrained but then shrug it off as sacred design. His critical voice is the most putrid of all: affirming everything from the outset and accepting degradation as hidden beauty, leaving only work to be done in retroactively validating whatever the current situation might be. Like a parody of the monk being put to death by the roman soldier and saying "do not try to fool me, you too are God" but replacing a superiority over an imperfect world with a subservience to it.
>dead maggots begetting live maggots
But begetting is inherently good so he affirms it as such. Unfortunately, certain times and places DO warrant a maximum of disgust for and even abstinence from participation in conventional/harmonious existence. It's cowardly to avoid the question with witticisms and cheeky jibes. Ironically, if anyone should be LAST to pick up those weapons it should be Chesterton considering he's an obese britbong pre-vatican2 tradcath chucklefrick.
I love a good Chesterton hate thread.
Chesterton's not so bad, the problem is that Catholics beat the figurative horse to death then start kicking its corpse whenever he gets mentioned. He is and should not be the final word on catholic philosophy/hatred of modernism.
t.Catholic
>weak nerves.
what did he mean by this? like cowards?
Pretty scathing, honestly.
Well that was a bloated mess of a polemic.
The only point illustrated is a pointing of the finger back at N and saying "no you" because N isn't perfect. He never claimed to be perfect. Man is something to be overcome. N is not the overman lol. He never claimed to be. In fact, he said that one alive was the overman.
Nietzsche may have felt contempt for people but he aspired to love humanity.
That's a very nice way of saying he was a failure. It's ojay, anon, Nietzsch is dead you don't have to suck his dick.
>I must improoove, I don't know how though
Nietzscxzscsche in a bottle.
>It is an aristocracy of weak nerves.
Nietzsche of course knew he was sickly and made no effort to turn healthiness or strength into vices like Christian thinkers have. Chesterton, a piano crate of a man, would seem to be punching down here, but for what purpose? Should we in fact surround ourselves with hordes of sickly and weak people simply to prove we can? Nietzsche is not so much saying to avoid these people just because they are an intolerable presence, but not to value what they value. But we know Chesterton cherishes those same values, hence his response.
genuinely interested : did Chesterton cherished wordliness, vice or weakness ? Or do you meaning he cherished christianity (which values weakness and vice according to nietzsche) ?
I haven't read the big guy. But there is a typical line of attack from Christian apologists to this day where their response to Nietzsche is to chuckle at something or other he said that would seem to indicate he was a mean or otherwise miserable person, rather than take the ideas he espoused seriously. To be fair, Nietzsche ignored the historical and theological arguments for Christianity that would be upheld by Christians, and instead treated the religion as an ideology rooted in a particular psychology, so for them to do it back to him has a certain poetry to it. But at the same time if you adopt this method it really is a tremendous concession to Nietzsche, to agree that philosophy is, or can be, reduced to the self-expression of personality or of the embodied experience or however you want to frame it. They won't admit they are doing this, of course, since they are backstopped by affirming their belief in revelation and miracle testimonies and such. It really is careless on the part of the apologist to allow such poison into their veins, because it will inevitably lead to people looking at Chesterton (and the people who agree with him) and then agreeing with Nietzsche
because Chesterton basically conceded to Nietzsche's method and left it open to you. Nietzche may be sickly, but Chesterton is pregnant with something he cannot deliver. Which is the superior way? For a person to avoid that which harms his constitution, or to saturate that very constitution, not in a mithradatic way, but because one is entirely incapable of deciding what is good or not for himself?
>But there is a typical line of attack from Christian apologists to this day where their response to Nietzsche is to chuckle at something or other he said that would seem to indicate he was a mean or otherwise miserable person
The outcome of the world war was structural sabotage for how literacy was pursued thereafter-- there is no 'engaging' with Nietzsche's thought in and for itself without getting into the weeds of his immediate forbears like Hegel's religion lectures or they might have gleaned something of what is necessary and what is to come as a consequence of multifarious defective ideation going on in modernity and beyond. Actual mastery of canon and a totalizing understanding informed by such is required-- Apes of Zarathustra as props for proselytization and polemic hardly ever demonstrate the required intimacy with it or his work. The antecedents of our current social media environment's eristics was already haunting them in their time, too.
Chesterton is interesting because he is such a disgusting person, both physically and mentally, but he is nevertheless praised by certain Catholics as a genius. They literally want to beatify him. He is the embodiment of the disease which Nietzsche saw in Christianity. The veneration of all that is lowly, mediocre and depraved. He is their avatar. A soft spoken fat b***h asserting himself over the desire for life, beauty and greatness.
He weighed way more than 130.
Nietzsche cucks BTFO'd forever. I bet Chesterton could eat manlet nietzsche in a single meal. Amen.
proof chungerton should have been a longshoreman and not a writer
>He is the embodiment of the disease which Nietzsche saw in Christianity
Garrulous gentility, noblesse obese. Goethe's fear of a giant sanitarium World just may come to pass, no thanks to his ilk
?si=1aJ6nL6B8d45ufyC
fat
After reading through this thread, fat man is based and neetch and his fans are just weak people coping
dumb diabetic anglofat
>Gluttony is a mortal sin
>Is a glutton himself
Ummm
I'm wondering the same thing
But I feel that gluttony must be a good deal less deadly than some of the other sins. Because it’s affirmative, isn’t it? At least it celebrates some of the good things of life.
I think Chesterton was a great fiction writer and excellent critic of Dickens, but his philosophy got in the way of understanding other points of view and appreciating the artistic output from these views.
Despite his love of romance and early "genre" literature, I always thought it was strange how he was unable to appreciate Poe. One can't find a silver lining in Poe's story, nor can you find a moral. You usually can't find a hero. Chesterton' worldview didn't really have a place for what Poe was writing about and thus couldn't appreciate it.
ah poe, founding father of american literature, who spelt *death* in italic capitals followed by three exclamation marks, just to let you know he was making an important statement
>Chesterton' worldview didn't really have a place for what Poe was writing about and thus couldn't appreciate it.
quite right. i don’t believe, in literature, that anybody can have taste so catholic that he genuinely likes joyce and eliot - and celine. and yet, many people accept all of them. i say there’s a point where somebody can’t really rate that other writer if they rate this one. our eyes, our sensibilities, are only so wide.
>I always thought it was strange how he was unable to appreciate Poe
Wasn't his lane.
>poe, founding father of american literature, who spelt *death* in italic capitals followed by three exclamation marks, just to let you know he was making an important statement
Baudelaire would aver otherwise
>why yes, i too disdain the plebs when in contact with them
>but i am upper class, so i have a palace to retreat to
>when they aren't anywhere near me, i entertain a godly love of the masses
>ho ho ho, why can't you be merry like me?
>heh he's literally hedgehog Schopenhauer too
I genuinely feel bad for Chesterton. He might be right about Nietzsche's proclivity for aristocracy, I'm not sure.
But Chesterton doesn't really ever refute Nietzsche's much more damning point, which is that Christianity just isn't really believable anymore.
Take the prosperity gospel preachers. Most people see the poor suckers who get their money stolen by some vampiric creep, and instead of going "wow, that guy is misinterpreting the word of God, he's a heretic!" (this is a reddit thing to say lol), most people think "I too have done dumb things in a search for meaning." We recognize the temptation to save ourselves from some gnawing pain through faith. There's a general dearth of meaning in our lives, and the times I've tried to convert to Catholicism, it was jtroublingly apparent to me that these people were looking for something, some escape, some release from the increasing anarchy and flippant amorality in the world. When asked why I believed, I was left to say "because I don't want to live a meaningless life." What a bad reason to profess your faith. Like saying you love someone because you don't want to be alone.
I think Chesterton is on the tail end of a tradition that lasted two-thousand years of people who truly believe in Catholicism, insulated in a way almost monastic from the horrendous suspicion that most people now possess. It's not a suspicion of the church, but an ultramoral suspicion of ourselves. "Why do I believe this?" is the question that haunts us, and Chesterton is reduced to saying "we believe Christianity because otherwise we become weak-nerved softheaded Nietzscheans." What a disturbingly naked answer.
Is it better to be strong Christians or weak Nietzscheans?
Is there a third way?
Anticipated by the Mustache himself in innumerable passages, with ample caveats-- the vigorous mountain hiker when in good health had better excuses than our portly porcine fellow here; what it comes down to is The Mob - or better, The Majority - mass murdered its way through the 20th century with the aid of rogue state governments and anointed paramilitary proxies, and of the two Chesterton is read hardly at all (and even less well). We don't countenance the other side of mere gregarity unbound by law when things are all well in our sphere, not in our backyard so to speak ... Chestertons of the world birthed the Boomer.
Chesterton was against eugenics. Therefore nothing that the man said was of any value.
Eugenics is evil, thoughbeit.
Why?
Eugenics is ammoral
Most Eugenists are Euphemists. I mean merely that short words startle them, while long words soothe them. And they are utterly incapable of translating the one into the other, however obviously they mean the same thing. Say to them ‘The persuasive and even coercive powers of the citizen should enable him to make sure that the burden of longevity in the previous generation does not become disproportionate and intolerable, especially to the females’; say this to them and they will sway slightly to and fro like babies sent to sleep in cradles. Say to them ‘Murder your mother,’ and they sit up quite suddenly. Yet the two sentences, in cold logic, are exactly the same.
You guys are forgetting the best one
>Joan of Arc was not stuck at the cross-roads, either by rejecting all the paths like Tolstoy, or by accepting them all like Nietzsche. She chose a path, and went down it like a thunderbolt. Yet Joan, when I came to think of her, had in her all that was true either in Tolstoy or Nietzsche, all that was even tolerable in either of them. I thought of all that is noble in Tolstoy, the pleasure in plain things, especially in plain pity, the actualities of the earth, the reverence for the poor, the dignity of the bowed back. Joan of Arc had all that and with this great addition, that she endured poverty as well as admiring it; whereas Tolstoy is only a typical aristocrat trying to find out its secret. And then I thought of all that was brave and proud and pathetic in poor Nietzsche, and his mutiny against the emptiness and timidity of our time. I thought of his cry for the ecstatic equilibrium of danger, his hunger for the rush of great horses, his cry to arms. Well, Joan of Arc had all that, and again with this difference, that she did not praise fighting, but fought. We know that she was not afraid of an army, while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow. Tolstoy only praised the peasant; she was the peasant. Nietzsche only praised the warrior; she was the warrior. She beat them both at their own antagonistic ideals; she was more gentle than the one, more violent than the other. Yet she was a perfectly practical person who did something, while they are wild speculators who do nothing. It was impossible that the thought should not cross my mind that she and her faith had perhaps some secret of moral unity and utility that has been lost. And with that thought came a larger one, and the colossal figure of her Master had also crossed the theatre of my thoughts."
>Tolstoy only praised the peasant; she was the peasant. Nietzsche only praised the warrior; she was the warrior
Chesterton only praised the woman; she was the woman.
Chesterton is so unmoved or untroubled by his opponents. It perturbs me. Nietzsche was right that the mark of genius is to be pulled apart by the tension of irreconcilable forces. Chesterton could come across the greatest spirit in the world, and if it wasn't his particular flavor of Catholicism, he'd just dismissively wave it off like some sodden diatribe from an idiot at the pub.
simp
>We know that she was not afraid of an army, while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow.
kek
He's fat.
QRD
He was taller than nietsche
> oh wow you showed passion?
> you shouted in anger?
> you are wrong, you are weak and you have a small peepee. Who hurt you? 🙂
Tone policing is a femenine passive aggressive attack
You just need to look at the state of the world to see who was in the right
>this thread
It's astounding to me how well pic related serves as a catch all refutation of Chesterton.
>literally who