A long time ago on here, someone posted a passage from Wagner that was directed against Nietzsche, but didn't name Nietzsche. Specifically Wagner was responding to Nietzsche's idea that Christianity is a slave morality for resentful losers who only follow it because they hate the world. Wagner wrote something along the lines of this, as far as I can remember, but I might be mangling it: "It was always carefully determined if someone was pursuing the monastic[/ascetic/whatever the term was] life only because of some defect or resentment leading them to hate the world, and the Church only admitted the truly holy ones, so those who don't know what they are saying should stop talking about this [i.e. Nietzsche]." I've been looking for hours and I can't find this fricking passage. Can someone please help?
Did Wagner actually care about Nietzsche leaving? I know N. was one of his fanboys but I didn't really know whether their relationship was actually mutual or rather more parasocial.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/478401
Thanks but this doesn't seem to have the passage I'm looking for, unless I'm just a moronic and not seeing it.
oh yea, it's just a commentary on the theme
In the Bayreuther Blatter he responded to Nietzsche's secular philosophy in Human, All-Too Human with innuendos in a series of articles. The particular quote you're talking about is from Hero-dom and Christendom:
>It was a weighty feature of the Christian Church, that none but sound and healthy persons were admitted to the vow of total world-renunciation; any bodily defect, not to say mutilation, unfitted them. Manifestly this vow was to be regarded as issuing from the most heroic of all possible resolves, and he who sees in it a "cowardly self-surrender"—as someone recently suggested [Nietzsche],—may bravely exult in his own self-retention, but had best not meddle any further with things that don't concern him.
AFAIK the articles that contain these innuendos are Public and Popularity, Shall We Hope?, Against Vivisection, Religion and Art, What Boots this Knowledge? and Hero-dom and Christendom.
Thanks, that's it. Anons can now post ITT to make fun of Nietzsche and discuss why Wagner had the better worldview.
>none but sound and healthy persons
>Nietzsche... had best not meddle any further with things that don't concern him.
obliterated
You're probably right nut consider that there's probably a reason walrus based ideas took over the world, a reason Wagner apparently did not account for.
I think the reason is Darwin. People took the idea of "survival of the fittest" to mean "tooth and claw" always rules. The lowest plebs could project their violent worldview on Nietzsche and feel legitimized. His attempt to play the healthy mind like an instrument breaks lesser minds.
Nietzsche got big because he was at the right place at the right time. Nobody until him, Marx and Freud argued along the lines of "you only say that because...", people actually clashed ideas on ideas rather than just psychologizing people they didn't like. But thankfully he came along and gave people the opportunity to not have to ever argue with anyone, which obviously was something the vast majority of people preferred doing to having to actually debate and use rhetoric.
He said he was the first psychologist and his psychology is based on Darwin, evopsych. Later evopsych explains why altruism is the dominant strategy on the planet. That allows us to justify Wagner's worldview but then the point stands that if the Wagnerian Christian ideal or whatever was really unworkable we could not justify it so ultimately we are appealing to power anyway.
It's a cartoonish simplification. Early he was a very Christian professor of history, renowned and considered a prodigy. The kind of life-negation he points at is a thing. Christian peace and prosperity has its negative sides that must be dealt with or the consequences will be worse than any war.
i mean everyone around him noted that he was growing more ill around 1879
a lot of his work like it or not is due to mental illness (possibly due to syphilis)
Beyond Good and Evil is is concise, every line has a clear coherent will behind it. That mind is more like a well oiled machine than any of the minds here, syphilis or not.
Those kinds of stories are not relevant to what the words actually say, that you allow any words or ideas to become guilty by association like that is not healthy, in this context your mind is the diseased one.
ESL (You)
>He said he was the first psychologist and his psychology is based on Darwin, evopsych.
Lol no it's not. Wagner was a follower of Darwin, but Nietzsche was very critical of drawing philosophical assumptions from Darwin's theory.
>Lol no it's not
Why do you do this? It's absolutely braindead. You don't even consider anything said in the posts you reply to so what's the point of replying at all? I have nothing to engage with because you didn't engage with anything.
Always the same feminine thinking through association. What's the point of working so hard to avoid thinking? Why do you show up on forums to undermine thinking? You clearly don't enjoy considering things.
Why do (You) show up to forums where you cannot even write the language correctly? You clearly need more English lessons.
I'm sincerely trying to think about things including different perspectives, you're not, you're just trying to find excuses to avoid thinking.
Did my poor language skills undermine the process of thinking at some point? Can you help me identify the issues like I'm trying to help you identify issues in your thinking? You know, be productive instead of actively undermining anything with any hint of being productive?
>Did my poor language skills undermine the process of thinking at some point
Yes, because you cannot write proper English. Perhaps you would be better suited for Krautchan.
>stop bringing up things that are inconsistent with my argument
That's about as feminine as it gets.
>stop bringing up things that are inconsistent with my argument
The peace he references happened long before industrialization. You don't stop for a second to give anything said any kind of benefit of doubt, you have a bag of excuses with easy ways to shut down any thinking. This is the "debate" mentality where nothing ever gets communicated about anything. A mentality Nietzsche addresses in BGE like he does this entire thread.
Same here. Yes he liked to appeal to Greeks and shit on them. Does that have anything to do with my point that he was moved by the dominant new ideas of his time? He talks about humans as organisms with biological motivations, that's because of Darwin not Greeks. Why can't you morons think, at all?
Be specific, like a productive person would. You spent all this time writing all these posts but no hint of anything slightly additive, productive, healthy or useful.
>Be specific, like a productive person would
I have already pointed out multiple times that you cannot write English at a C1+ level. You don't understand punctuation at any discernible level. Are you Russian? Eastern European?
>mentality Nietzsche addresses in BGE like he does this entire thread
Nietzsche was a moron who outright refused to consider the arguments for theism as such, claiming a genealogical account of religion was somehow adequate to refute theistic belief. Yet he had the gall to turn around and b***h that his critics would dare to dismiss his ideas in light of his obvious personal defectiveness rather than engage them on their own terms. So he was fundamentally a bad-faith narcissistic moron who was not interested in real thinking or communication contrary to his own claims and those of his braindead apologists, e.g. you. He was interested in building up the image of being a great philosopher whilst thinking and acting like a schizophrenic slob.
>claiming a genealogical account of religion was somehow adequate to refute theistic belief
When was that claim made? What's the point of building the argument about slave morality if all he needed to refute belief was reciting its history? A slave makes excuses to keep himself non-threatening to the powerful. That spirit is part of the culture around Christianity historically and that may be something that needs to be addressed.
You're very obviously projecting all this bad-faith nonsense. I don't see it in any of his words but everything you post is dripping in it.
Depends on what you mean with the word. His critique of "I think therefore I am" is a kind of summary of the difference between "philosophy" and what he does. Formality constrains, thinking, exploring and figuring things out is not like math and never will be.
Oh, so the other anon is right and you really are a moron who has never bothered to read Nietzsche but somehow pisses time away trying to defend him.
>In former times, one sought to prove that there is no God - today one indicates how the belief that there is a God arose and how this belief acquired its weight and importance: a counter-proof that there is no God thereby becomes superfluous.
>"God", "immortality of the soul", "redemption", "beyond" -- Without exception, concepts to which I have never devoted any attention, or time; not even as a child. Perhaps I have never been childlike enough for them? I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: It is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers - at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!
Now here is the same homosexual Nietzsche whining when people take the same approach that he endorses re: religion but apply it to his trash:
>Where my critics are concerned, I am often under the impression that they are scoundrels. Not what is said, but that I say it and what should have made me in particular arrive at it - only that seems to interest them . . . . They judge me in order to ignore my work: they explain its genesis, and thereby consider it adequately disposed of.
>In former times, one sought to prove that there is no God - today one indicates how the belief that there is a God arose and how this belief acquired its weight and importance: a counter-proof that there is no God thereby becomes superfluous.
In the short book that explains everything he explains the proper use of language is poetic not formal. You also criticize him for seeming contradictory but that's how he says he'll build points that go beyond the established false dichotomies.
You understand on some level the point being made in the quote but it's still a flawed quote that doesn't encompass the entirety of anything. According to Nietzsche we can always dig deeper into any subject like this and never reach the bottom.
The cultural baggage associated with the concept of "God" that can be accounted for as such is clearly not God but people worship it as God.
I forgot to point out you're a fricking idiot for thinking that anything that qualifies as a "genealogical account" must be merely "reciting ... history." Here's another clear example of your shit English leading to shitthink.
Another good example of intellectual dishonesty. You didn't even hint at what the supposed misunderstanding is, you just assumed there is one and felt the need to say that, without hinting at what it is. Likely because you know I do in fact understand the concept.
dude take more english classes, you sound like a robot because you have a limited vocabulary
Think for a second what motivates these posts. What's the actual content? All I see is a deeply insecure person broadcasting that insecurity. Am I wrong? In my posts there's usually at least a hint of something additive. Why is everything you say rooted in obviously insecure ego stuff? There's never that hint of wanting to think or explore different perspectives.
>Think for a second what motivates these posts.
Your extremely limited English, Vlad. You in Latvia or some shit?
Is there some philosophical foundation you base these posts on? Do you feel like they would be made by the kind of person you want to be? Do they advance anything?
>the angloid mutt language
Not a real language, I'm allowed to shit on it as I please, that's how it was made in the first place.
Ah, maybe you express yourself better in a Slave language? Good thing i have made you my bottom b***h in this thread
Is this actual mutt prison lingo in the wild?
In many ways I know your mutt language better than you because I'm closer to the origins of the metaphors you're blind to.
фaнтacтичecкий пидapac
They made up those moonrunes just to be different. It probably worked better to establish borders than anything else.
>you're obligated to explain every basic and obvious point so my ESL mind can understand it
No.
I wonder how moronic and delusional one must be to twist this clear instance of Nietzsche's self-serving hypocrisy and narcissism into some expression of profound philosophical genius.
>it's still a flawed quote
What the frick are you trying to say, Vlad? Nietzsche screwed up? He didn't mean it? Why is it you pretend to be the only person here who's read and understood Nietzsche but you can't adduce anything to support your bullshit other than some vague "durr that's not what the book really says" statements?
>I wonder how moronic and delusional one must be to twist this clear instance of Nietzsche's self-serving hypocrisy and narcissism into some expression of profound philosophical genius.
I'm not the one emotionally invested in attacking some dead guy. There are many different interpretations you could explore if you were someone interested in thinking but everything you say is based around avoiding thinking at all costs. You have dogma you want to reinforce and thinking won't slow you down for even a second.
Distinctive as in other intellectuals pretend brutal violence has no redeeming qualities or place in the world. It's dishonest to deny this aspect of reality no matter how much more important you think civilizing factors are.
Right, so you can't actually show that my reading of Nietzsche is wrong. All you can do is moronicly object in your broken snowman slav grubalub "English" that "u do notz thinkz guud!"
>Right, so you can't actually show that my reading of Nietzsche is wrong.
I can't show you anything moron, no matter what I say you can just say "no" like I you did this entire thread. You have no interest in even considering the possibility that you're wrong so there's nothing that can be accomplished.
When I read this dead guy I did not see any of the deranged shit you attribute to him. Your posts on the other hand are all pure emotional garbage, deranged resentment with no hint of structured thought. You're so incredibly fricked in the head that you think calling me a slav over and over is clever or relevant. You have never put together a thought in your life, it's all parroting with the occasional incoherent emotional outburst about slavs.
>What the frick are you trying to say
That we can always dig deeper. Clearly you can't but people in general can.
>Why is it you pretend to be the only person here who's read and understood Nietzsche
That's what you do. In this case I gave you an alternative way to interpret but you act as if you already know there's no need to explore any such possibilities because you have it all figured out. You're absolutely sure we don't have to think about anything this man says. We can dismiss him completely based on a few quotes we make no effort to try to understand.
If we attempt to explore any subject you have some preconceived notions about you'll come up with similar objections to any alternative because you clearly despise thinking and exploring. Everything you say is built around avoiding thinking, that's your business but you also go around trying to shut down others trying to think. A spiritual janny with nothing to add to anything.
>continuing to not cite anything from Nietzsche or mount an argument instead of repeating empty generalities
>"you just dumb and don't get it!" (curiously unable to show this by arguing from the particulars of Nietzsche's writing)
>continuing to be a moronic ESL
>continuing to think I'm the only anon ITT who has made fun of you for being a moronic slav ESL
Come back when you can actually try to defend your false philo god.
I gave you plenty to think about. You refused to even try like you refuse to try to interpret these dead guys when you pretend to read them. You come here complaining that you clearly don't understand this particular dead guy, he makes no sense to you. I point out there are a million ways to reconcile the apparent contradictions but you don't want to even consider any of them because you desperately want to promote the point that the dead guy objectively made no sense and has nothing to offer anyone. You don't know how to work in the spirit of finding things out, you just want to jerk off.
Even the title of BGE references reconciling apparent dichotomies but it doesn't occur to you to try to do that while reading the text. Apparently all you know how to do is work as hard as possible to make sure you never find anything out.
Look you slav moron, I made a very simple point. I didn't ever say "he makes no sense to me." I think he makes perfect sense as a schizo intellectual slob. The simple point I made is this: Nietzsche holds God/religion to one standard and himself to another. If what he were doing could be understood as trying to reconcile dichotomies, we'd find him seriously advanced a theist perspective(s) on the one hand and an atheist perspective(s) on the other. But he never does that. He rejects God and smugly does so without even considering the arguments for God's existence, openly because of the moronic genealogical account of Christian belief that he favors and because he just doesn't like the idea of God. Then he turns around to piss and whine about people not considering his ideas on their own terms but rejecting them because, in effect, Nietzsche was just some mentally ill homosexual, i.e. they're guilty of the genetic fallacy (that Nietzsche is equally guilty of re: God). How dare they! How is the reasonable understanding of this that Nietzsche is engaged in some high-minded effort to "reconcile dichotomies" and not that he was just a hypocritical gay advancing whatever line he felt was useful to him in the moment? What dichotomy is he moving toward reconciliation of by "genetic fallacy good for me but bad for you"? Nietzsche worshipping morons expect we take every line from the hysterical schizo homosexual, every argument, every idea, as charitably as possibly and strain to see *any way* he wasn't being as braindead as he was clearly being. Meanwhile a huge portion of the butthole's work is made up of these moronic caricatures and illogical "arguments" against things he didn't like.
>Nietzsche holds God/religion to one standard and himself to another.
Misrepresentation designed to avoid thinking about anything the guy actually raises.
He does in fact talk about benefits of religion and blind faith but focuses more on being a counterpoint to what he considered harmful dominant norms. The point is not that Apollo the warrior should be a tyrant over all but that Dionysus the lazy hedonist is becoming the tyrant.
>he never does that
He does but doesn't give the already dominant ideas equal time, doing so makes no sense. He talks explicitly about balance but points out that we can also get neutered by too much focus on balance. The careful linedancer inches his way across while the joker jumps over him in a single leap.
>he was just a hypocritical gay advancing whatever line he felt was useful to him in the moment
That's you. The difference is obvious. He explores without fear, you put up barricades to fortify the position you like.
>He does in fact talk about benefits of religion and blind faith
This has literally nothing to do with what's at issue here, which is how Nietzsche dealt with the ontological claims of religion. It's obvious that Nietzsche didn't see belief as something that should be solely determined by what is and isn't true. But he clearly nevertheless took the supposed ontological"nothingness" behind religious claims to be a good reason for rejecting them, and one of his own reasons for doing so. The problem is that he was too much of an intellectual slob to deal with those ontological claims in any way but one he himself spazzed over when it was directed at his own philosophical refuse. This is one of many things making him a hypocrite and irritating schizo clown.
>He explores without fear
Right, which is why he had to incessantly lie about and caricature the people and ideas most at odds with the ones he preferred, never squarely, honestly facing what he spent his life attacking.
>But he clearly nevertheless took the supposed ontological"nothingness" behind religious claims to be a good reason for rejecting them
The statement applies to the parts it applies to. The parts of the concept of God that can be traced back to historical accidents are representing those historical accidents instead of some kind of absolute God.
According to him the highest authority is power which means that's his idea of God. I don't agree with totally starting over but the principle still remains, a lot of it is baggage and to analyze God we should think from basic principles before accepting made up dogma. God is omnipotence and a creator. Creation in general like art is special, divine even.
>which is why he had to incessantly lie
You're projecting. He offers multiple narratives/models but you only focus on the parts that disturb you. If it disturbs you that should be a hint to explore further to find out why, not build forts.
Being a moron, you seem to think my point about how Nietzsche deals with the ontological claims of religion is supposed to be some comprehensive btfo of him. It isn't. It's meant to give one example of the sort of homosexualry that makes him a shitty thinker. You apparently think it's illegitimate to take on any particular aspect of what Nietzsche thought and that, instead, we have to drag in his entire corpus in every discussion, which is why you can't stay on topic and keep bringing up irrelevant material like a dumbfrick. Your adolescent-grade poststructuralist spin on Nietzsche is embarrassing.
>you seem to think my point about how Nietzsche deals with the ontological claims of religion
Is a misrepresentation, ignoring what he says about what he's trying to accomplish.
It's just an example of your dishonesty like this post is an example of how you can't think about anything. The only tools you know are feminine appeals to social status and petty associations.
>appeals to social status
What appeal to social status? What the frick are you even trying to say? Why are you trying to discuss philosophy in a language you are so inept with that you couldn't carry a conversation about groceries in it without seriously fricking something up?
>Is a misrepresentation, ignoring what he says about what he's trying to accomplish
The only misrepresentation here stems from your slav-ape inability to understand what I'm addressing, and that it has nothing to do with what you think I'm supposed to be addressing because you can't think clearly about anything.
Most things you say are based on basic ape conditioning you seem completely unaware of. You look for hints that signal what you perceive as low status to use as excuses to dismiss people with alternative views you don't want to think about. That's the point of misrepresenting Nietzsche and the point of your petty personal insults that don't provide any hints on how to do better. Your criticism of my use of language seems to be another reflection of your unexamined presuppositions, you want me to appeal to the concepts you like from academia instead of using clear, emotive language. The Darwin thing is a good example. You still can't grasp the idea that things can in some cases like on meme forums be communicated more effectively with loose language like that with references to well established memes that represent the underlying history. An honest interrogator can ask for clarifications, he doesn't start with the assumption that alternative models must be nonsense.
>Darwin thing is a good example
I haven't said anything about Darwin ITT. You're thinking of one or more other anons. The problem is that because you're a moron, a lot of people have been making fun of you. I guess you cope by thinking it's just one person and you aren't as much of an embarrassing idiot as you really are.
>to the concepts you like from academia
Which ones? I haven't cited or mentioned any academics.
>That's the point of misrepresenting Nietzsche
Something you still haven't been able to show I've done. You've been able to insist that your (dumb, wrong) readings of other things Nietzsche wrote, that you confuse with the thing I've been discussing, are correct, without doing anything to demonstrate that, then getting pissy when nobody is convinced by your poorly articulated, vague shitthink.
>cite things
I presented the idea that he tries to build points that go beyond the accepted dichotomies through poetic impressions, like he said he would attempt to do in BGE. If that's what he's doing then quoting short lines as if they represent the totality of some position is not helpful to understand anything. The entirety of BGE isn't that long and picking out parts that serve whatever conclusion you want to promote doesn't help anyone understand anything.
People are cruel. People are kind. I can build up a picture around each premise that models very different worlds but both models are relevant to reality. If you spend your life studying one of those models you'll be conditioned to think of the premise as obvious and crucial to all models of anything relevant. That guy knows people are cruel, he has mountains of data based on that premise. When someone starts modelling things around the opposite premise that seems like an attack on all his work. He frames it as a dichotomy when it's simply not, both premises describe reality.
>Yes he liked to appeal to Greeks and shit on them.
No, his philosophy finds its origin in the Greeks. That is the horizon of his thought. Yet you're incapable of understanding the importance of the total philosophical frame of reference independent of specific views. He's outlook was not scientific materialism. He even criticised his friend Paul Ree for this outlook.
>He talks about humans as organisms with biological motivations, that's because of Darwin not Greeks.
No, it's not because of Darwin. Do you think this kind of naturalism was new to Romanticism? Do you think Nietzsche is closer to Darwin than Spinoza? You're at the point where you're denying what Nietzsche himself said in favour of cliched pop-phil interpretations of Nietzsche. I refuse to believe you've actually read Nietzsche.
>He's outlook was not scientific materialism
I did not say it was and didn't deny the Greek framing, even though that's also a simplification.
>No, it's not because of Darwin.
Because you say so apparently.
>Do you think Nietzsche is closer to Darwin than Spinoza?
You seem to be making up some kind of claim about some deep philosophical affinity between Nietzsche and Darwin the person. Here's the original post that invoked Darwin.
The idea of evolution by natural selection popularized "tooth and claw" mentality. The dumbest pleb understands that and nobody could really refute it in measurable terms until game theory.
>Nobody until him, Marx and Freud argued along the lines of "you only say that because...",
Here someone/you points out that he talked like a psychologist trying to trace actions to motivations. When I expanded on that and point out he uses biological terms and appeals to being an adaptive organism you completely sperg out. The guy talks about humans as organisms with biological motivations, he spoonfeeds you these ideas from start to finish in a short concise book.
>The idea of evolution by natural selection popularized "tooth and claw" mentality.
Which Nietzsche had found in the Greeks and Schopenhauer long before. Nietzsche was not particularly inspired by Darwin. Your contemporary (low-brow) scientific idea of philosophy, which ends in something as preposterous and charlatanical as game theory, has no connection to the line of thought Nietzsche belongs to.
Also don't know where you got the idea that I was correlating Nietzsche and Darwin personally. ESL moment?
>don't know where you got the idea that I was correlating Nietzsche and Darwin personally
You're still adding some kind of baggage like that to my simple claims. I can't read minds, I don't know why you insist on it while ignoring what I actually say.
>Which Nietzsche had found in the Greeks and Schopenhauer long before.
That's not relevant to my point about why he became influential. The naturalist ideas were popular, obviously Darwin is a product of them. I'm saying 2+2=4 and you reply as if 1+1=2 is some kind of gotcha that invalidates that. What are you trying to accomplish'
>You're still adding some kind of baggage like that to my simple claims
You quite repeatedly scribed the popularity of naturalist ideas to Darwin. Ergo, naturalism is turned from philosophy to basic science.
>That's not relevant to my point about why he became influential. The naturalist ideas were popular,
Once again, you show a pop-phil comprehension of Nietzsche. He's not just 'le strong dominate the weak'. Most of Nietzsche's intellectual reception has not been by people who think 'tooth and claw mentality' is ideal or natural. Nietzsche's philosophy, and what is included under the banner of 'naturalism', is extraordinarily diverse and resists simplification. But above all it is situated in a philosophical, not a scientific, context.
>He's not just 'le strong dominate the weak'.
And why would you think I think he is after describing that as a misrepresentations by violent plebs? Think about it, why would you say this?
These are short posts simplifying complex subjects. Everything is fricking diverse and resists simplification, but especially when homosexuals like you work as hard as you can to increase that resistance. What does that accomplish?
What exactly are you saying about Nietzsche, then?
>And why would you think I think he is after describing that as a misrepresentations by violent plebs?
If that's what you think is responsible for Nietzsche's popularity then you're completely wrong. Nietzsche's popularity comes from his reception by many of the finest minds of the late 19th and early 20th century. And I initially rejected your conflating Nietzsche with Darwinian materialism, which you now seem to forget you did. You seem to have forgotten everything you were wrong about.
the guy is a slav tard who can't do anything but say
>no, that's not what i meant
>what do you mean by that
ESL got hit hard
Kek true. One of the worst conversations I've had on this place.
>your conflating Nietzsche with Darwinian materialism
You know this is dishonest. If you have any interest in finding things out this does not serve you.
I think the idea of evolution by natural selection is an important pivot point when popular thinking changed. It was a large contributor to the retreat of religion. That would have happened with or without Nietzsche but after he became popular among some intellectuals he also became a way to justify materialistic nonsense and anti-religion rhetoric. Someone mentioned he was a precursor to Marx and Freud which I agreed with in the sense that he said he was the first psychologist and he did base that psychology on biology and talked in abstract about organisms instead of humans like the Greeks did. The popularity of psychology that appeals to biology is related to the spread of the idea of evolution.
Whatever the subject is we can always dig deeper, there's no final formulation of the history I'm describing. If you understand roughly what I'm referencing the idea is communicated and we can build on that. It's possible to deconstruct and undermine any statement if the goal is to avoid understanding what the writer is trying to communicate.
>'le strong dominate the weak'
>Most of Nietzsche's intellectual reception has not been by people who think 'tooth and claw mentality' is ideal or natural
I have zero interest in the idea that Darwin influenced Nietzsche. But would you deny that "the strong dominate the weak" is a key, distinctive part of the "moral" aspect of Nietzsche's thought? Because I don't see how anyone can credibly deny that. Nietzsche didn't understand the strong dominating the weak in a pure, vulgarly Darwinian way, as in thinking that the best way for the world to be is "paleo Chad bash small men over head and eat their corpses then frick harem," but at times he didn't seem as far from that as most "scholarly" readers of Nietzsche would have us believe, such as when he likens the higher types' assertion of power over the masses to "beast of prey" strength and aggression or some such. Obviously he thought people with good traits (strength, health, beauty, willpower, intelligence, etc.) naturally do and should lord over their inferiors (those relatively lacking those traits), and shouldn't have compassion or concern for the latter but rather should revel in their greatness and dominance mercilessly. With respect to Nietzsche's reception, a lot of people have clearly wanted to assimilate his thought to views more agreeable to liberal sensibilities and so blunt the "impoliteness" of much of what he maintained.
>You don't even consider anything said in the posts you reply to
Learn to read. Nietzsche's focus was much more on the Greeks than Darwin. To equate Nietzsche at all with contemporary psychology is unbelievably moronic. I find it hard to believe you've read him.
>Christian peace and prosperity has its negative sides
Peace and prosperity have far more to do with industrialization than Christianity. There are a lot of third world countries with populations ~100% Christian.
>Christian peace and prosperity
ah yes - those happy times of Christian peace and prosperity. The dark ages of Europe, modern southern Africa, South America, the Philippines... Bravo
the israelite on a stick worshipper resorts to his most persuasive arguments!
According to what I got from Nietzsche its success is the worst part of Christianity. Peace causes everything to decay, like lack of evolutionary pressure causes organisms to decay.
What success? The enlightenment, industrialisation and so on came long after secularisation kneecapped Christian influence on European society, which was at its zenith in the aptly named Dark Ages (during which Christians were genociding other Europeans for not believing in their philosopher man-god)
Rome was violent, the Celts were violent before that. Whatever else you want to say about Christianity, the pacification seems real.
If Christianity isn't making docile sheep then the problem of Christianity is solved and we as Christian citizens of Christian nations don't have to be as critical of our local leaders.
it's not really nietzsche but degenerate analytic philosophy
for got to add phenomenology and post-structualist/deconstructionist
He isn't posted here all the time because the OPs appreciate him. It's almost always about Nietzsche as framed by people like Bertrand Russell, which is dumb to begin with but even dumber and quite common are the types that read Nietzsche like Russell but then agree with that cartoon version. Like Marx they think tooth and claw is the final authority, violence is the highest God and all we're doing is competing for scraps of the flesh pile.
Nietzsche implies the highest authority is power but even that idea can't be thought of as an unassailable God since any such dogma reduces your own potential power.
He was probably tired of nietzsche trying to suck his dick. Supposedly that is why nietzsche kept growing his mustache out so much.
I've been reading a lot of Nietzsche's attempts to piss all over Christianity lately and had these thoughts, wonder if anons agree or can explain why I am wrong or dumb. My impression is Nietzsche understood the world in basically antagonistic terms (everything is ultimately will to power) because he himself was a frustrated loser. If someone's experience of life is primarily colored by their deprivation and anger over badly lacking the status, power, women, etc. that they want, then it's easy to see how they'll end up seeing life as split into losers not getting those things and winners lording their superiority over everyone else and the competition surrounding that. The problem from my view is that my observations lead me to believe that people who are beautiful, smart, healthy, etc. are often naturally magnanimous and nice, and gravitate to moral systems such as the Christian one--they don't want to lord their superiority over people in an aggressive way and would probably see someone like Nietzsche as a mentally ill freak. Now Nietzsche's cope over this seemingly would be "the slaves have brainwashed them to make them feel guilty and compassionate!" But these successful people don't seem like that's what's behind their prosocial behavior at all. It seems to me like they are naturally inclined to be kind and helpful. They want to act these ways because that's just how they are. It doesn't look like the possibility of this kind of person was considered seriously by Nietzsche. He seemed to think everyone with real greatness would either be a will-to-power oriented psychopath or brainwashed and guilty through slave morality, notwithstanding some possibly contradictory statements here or there. I guess he'd probably further argue that anyone naturally that way just couldn't be a truly great person. Every truly great person is naturally a psychopath like he was. But that just looks like embarrassing homosexual autist cope to me.
I also don't quite understand why Nietzsche seems to understand slave morality as ultimately israeli. Neither OT religion before Christ nor Judaism after Christ seems to promote the values Nietzsche threw a fit over, and he even seems to acknowledge this with respect to the OT and its more militaristic ethic. It does seem the system he opposes is Christianity, hence why the israelites and Jesus didn't get along very well, so I'm not seeing a good rationale for his attempt to make is fundamentally about Judaism. His motivation for this looks to be that he needed some historical basis for the idea of Christianity originating in resentment, and Roman domination of israelites was the most natural source of that in his mind. It seems he realized the problem here, so somewhere he argued that the israelites knew what they were doing and killed Christ, who was actually representative of their real values, so the rest of the world would wrongly think Christ was anti-israeli and thereby be open to Him, which seems like schizo desperate grasping at straws.
Agreed, Wagner and later, Eberhard Arnold argued that Nietzsche's accusations of Christianity being "decadent," "life-negating," and a "religion of pity" were crass and arbitrary misinterpretations.
Honestly, Salome (his crush) should have let him hit
>I also don't quite understand why Nietzsche seems to understand slave morality as ultimately israeli.
Psalm 137.
I don't see that reflecting slave morality but a brutal warrior's intent: "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Up to Jesus' day the israelites seemed to want a violent revolution against their oppressors, which Jesus, and also Paul, weren't interested in. It's that sort of renunciation that seemed to drive Nietzsche insane, and clearly the israelites didn't much like it either.
It was not frustration but a deep seated hatred for Schopenhauer.
Why don't you directly address his arguments rather than writing an entire paragraph psychologizing him? Taking on a cowardly psychoanalytic view, born out of israeli resentment at being alienated from WASP culture, simply proves his points.
1. What you call the "psychoanalytical" approach is the very same one Nietzsche takes in dealing with these matters. It's fair game to apply it to him, no? Why do you think there's such a strong tendency for people who like Nietzsche to like Freud? 2. I did partially address him without any psychologizing. I took issue with his idea that successful, beautiful, strong, etc. people have an overwhelming natural tendency to behave and think and feel the way Nietzsche seemed to believe they do, such that compassion and so on is almost totally alien to them. I also took issue with his genealogy from israeli to Christian religion where resentment is the key explanatory factor. Christianity, which I think is noble unlike Nietzsche, represents a dramatic departure from what preceded it insofar as it has the moral elements that Nietzsche hated and cast as repulsive through caricature and distortion.
>where resentment is the key explanatory factor
It is a factor and it needs to be addressed. To communicate an issue like that in a context dominated by dogmatic thinking partly informed by the problem you're trying to point at is not easy, you would have to offer some heavy emotional weight. During his lifetime he was not taken very seriously. I can relate to something I raise not being taken seriously until I add emotional weight to it. Instead of ignoring what I said you're more likely to think I'm just taking the principle too far, which I am, but at least you understood the principle unlike when I try to be more reasonable.
I guess other anons who replied haven't read him either because you're first paragraph is almost exactly Nietzsche's thoughts on charity and greatness. He didn't condemn charity, he was just concerned with people's underlying motivations for why they did good or bad things and believed the motivation was more important because it determined the sincerity and power of the actions.
He outright states that a truly content person will naturally do good works for their own reasons, which will be genuinely more effective in contrast to someone acting out of guilt and slave morality.
This is also why he dislikes the Old Testament, it condemns the Israelites with guilt and commands obedience rather than sincere thinking.
>good works
The "good works" Nietzsche praised were not of a compassionate character. He saw great men as overwhelmingly having an instrumental orientation to other people. Why do you think he admired Beethoven so much?
The problem is that he conflates genuine compassion with acting out his so-called guilt and slave-morality so that there's functionally no difference, under his supposed "philosophy". Philosophising with a hammer leads nowhere but a broken glasshouse.
>he conflates genuine compassion with acting out his so-called guilt and slave-morality
Where?
You obviously do not understand Nietzsche. He never says that the strongest are psychopaths or that we should praise psychopathy. He actually reflects on the desire to inflict pain as a sign of weakness in the Gay Science.
Nietzsche sees the forefathers of the ubermensch being similar to Goethe. It is not about being psychopathic, it is about worrying about yourself and your own contribution to humanity. He just wants people to stop pitying, which is a very Christian idea.
>He never says that the strongest are psychopaths or that we should praise psychopathy
>He actually reflects on the desire to inflict pain as a sign of weakness in the Gay Science
Psychopaths don't have to desire to inflict pain. It's sufficient for them to be psychopaths to lack the moral emotions and impulses that Nietzsche didn't like, and to be profoundly self-oriented and willing to be highly aggressive to get what they want. What Nietzsche praised was, substantially, what we now know as psychopathy. I really don't get why so many people want to take the edge off of Nietzsche by pretending that in the end the kind of person he admired as of the higher type would have the same good effects shitlibs aspire to get all people to bring about, to make the world a better place for everyone or whatever. It's clear as day Nietzsche simply didn't care about the great mass of people. What was good was good insofar as it benefited the higher types.
I did have in mind generosity in the sense of charity.
>Beethoven was also one of the most giving persons in history
The good effects Beethoven had had nothing to do with his desiring to make life better for animals and the lowly people he disdained. His work was for himself, for his own greatness, he was conscious of this and made it explicit and it's a major part of the reason why Nietzsche admired him so much. This is yet another case of trying to make Nietzsche's morality more digestible for the modern type of person whom Nietzsche hated.
>cloned angloids
Oh look, a slav ape resents the most successful people in all of human history. I wonder what your god Nietzsche would think of that.
>You also haven't provided any hints to what exactly your problem is with the way I use words
>"Please explain why my moronic misuse of English is a problem"
>It seems like you want me to use terms like le "ontology" and because I don't you claim I don't know the dumb shit you're parroting
Anyone who can read knows that isn't a point I made anywhere ITT. You are literally so moronic that you still don't get that I was pointing out that you were missing which aspect of Nietzsche's thought my argument addressed. Apparently in all of this, you thought my problem was with your not using a particular term, something never stated or implied in anything I've written.
>I presented an alternative which reconciles the apparent inconsistencies
You did nothing of the kind. If you weren't sub-100 IQ, you'd see the problem is that the model you proposed has no relevance to, no ability whatsoever to resolve, the contradiction that I highlighted.
>I don't think like that, I don't need an authoritative model
And yet
>I presented an alternative which reconciles the apparent inconsistencies
So you do take your own model to be "authoritative," at least relative to mine. You're such a braindead mong you can't avoid tripping over your own insipid POMO moronery in the space of a couple sentences.
>The good effects Beethoven had had nothing to do with his desiring to make life better for animals and the lowly people he disdained
Like I said, the radiance was a side effect of the power but that side effect helps more Elephants than the kind of posturing you value so highly.
>the most successful people in all of human history
Is that really an honest description of the morons making these meme threads and refusing to think? You're all expressing the same spirit, none of you have any thoughts of your own.
>I was pointing out that you were missing which aspect of Nietzsche's thought my argument addressed
I simply was not, that I don't accept this premise is not a result of any language difficulties, you constantly making vague references to my language skills is pure cope.
>You did nothing of the kind
Simply pointing out that the guy you're criticizing talks about transcending dichotomies like good and evil as important is enough to challenge your idea of interpreting what he says based on short quotes. It's enough for a thinking person to consider alternatives.
>So you do take your own model to be "authoritative,"
No. Why do you do this shit? I explicitly just said it's not. It's an alternative that reconciles apparent inconsistencies. It's still entirely possible that the inconsistencies are simply fundamental to the thought process being communicated but that model shuts down any further exploration of the ideas.
>Why do you do this shit? I explicitly just said it's not
You are also a moron so what you say means little. You say that what I offered is "a moronic model" then present yours as the smart (i.e. right) one. You do this then turn around and get pissy about the fact that I did the same kind of thing: rejected your understanding as moronic and instead favored mine. I see you learned well from your gay god Nietzsche about how to "reason."
>Like I said, the radiance was a side effect of the power but that side effect helps more Elephants than the kind of posturing you value so highly.
So in other words, you're again bringing up a point having nothing at all to do with what I said, and in fact contradicting nothing I've said (did I ever say that Beethoven's self-interested actions *didn't* bring about good things for other people?), because you're a mong and cannot understand simple statements or stay on topic for more than 10 seconds before your slav brain has an overwhelming impulse to start smearing verbal shit all over the discussion.
>Is that really an honest description of the morons making these meme threads and refusing to think? You're all expressing the same spirit, none of you have any thoughts of your own.
moronic slav thinks misdirecting from his earlier focus on "anglos" will hide the resentment of anglos (born of a deep sense of inferiority) that he embarrassingly disclosed.
>talks about transcending dichotomies like good and evil
Right, "transcending dichotomies" means that his reasoning in a certain shitty way against the existence of God, yet going apoplectic, frothing with rage over people turning the same fallacious type of argument on his ideas, is an intellectually profound, high-minded maneuver on his part, and not the self-serving narcissistic hypocrisy it just so happens to look exactly like. You're the type of moron who could be taken in by any scam, because you'd sit there trying, angrily, to defend the scammer once some nice passer-by explained what had happened to you. "What are you saying? The guy SAID he needed my bank account number to wire me $1,000,000 from the dead Persian king who put me in his will!"
>You say that what I offered is "a moronic model" then present yours as the smart (i.e. right) one.
I explained the metric which makes it "better". It blows my mind every time that you morons really think like this. Your ideas aren't holy and won't be expanded when you do this moronic and dishonest shit.
>So in other words, you're again bringing up a point having nothing at all to do with what I said
It's the point of my quote you replied to with, talking about shit that has nothing to do with the point. I brought it back since you didn't understand it.
>his earlier focus on "anglos"
You keep saying I don't know what you're talking about but at least I try to understand things, you don't. You're not even slightly aware of the anglo presuppositions that dominate all discourse and when it's referenced up come the fortifications to make sure no subject is ever explored.
>"transcending dichotomies" means that his reasoning in a certain shitty way against the existence of God
I went into excruciating, spoonfeeding detail about how presenting apparently contradictory statements can be useful, even with examples of such contradictory statements. If you maintain multiple models of a phenomena you don't want the models to be similar, they should account for very different perspectives.
>You're the type of moron who could be taken in by any scam
But never did. You can't predict anything because everything you say is deranged horseshit. You can't even conceive of the basics needed to think about any subject. If the scammer triggers the right conditioned associations in you you'll fall for it because there's no hint of any structured, critical thought.
>You're not even slightly aware of the anglo presuppositions that dominate all discourse and when it's referenced up come the fortifications to make sure no subject is ever explored.
Such as? your posts are vague horseshit because you are either dumb or are esl
Yes, he is yet to say a single thing that isn't ambiguous philo pap any freshman moron could come up with, and yet, every time I respond to him, this stupid drunkard slav frick comes back with "YOU NOZ THINKZ VAURI GUUDZ!"
>philo pap any freshman moron could come up with
But you still don't act as if you understand all this most basic shit. Why don't you ever act like someone interested in expanding his knowledge?
>Such as?
These threads always present as authoritative the anglo interpretation Bertrand Russell and similar braindead anglos promoted. Even the mere suggestion of exploring other possibilities has made your brain explode. Every post is filled with actual ad-hominems, not just petty insults but arguments about how what I say can be dismissed because I'm part of some group you find distasteful.
The issue here is not my abstract thinking skills, that's just cope revealing your inability to think past petty shit like ad-hominems. My way of thinking reliably gives results and made me successful in multiple fields considered difficult. I know for almost certain that you can't say the same, if you have any skills they're not related to thinking. At best you're some kind of academic parrot.
>the anglo interpretation Bertrand Russell and similar braindead anglos promoted
can you even name two other"anglo" writers who promoted this 'theory'?
>Even the mere suggestion of exploring other possibilities has made your brain explode
You're schizophrenic as I have not posted ITT
>At best you're some kind of academic parrot.
>Every post is filled with actual ad-hominems
you're talking about yourself, here? very rude!
>can you even name two other"anglo" writers who promoted this 'theory'?
I can link 50 other Nietzsche threads with the exact same premises presented by anglo morons as holy dogma.
>You're schizophrenic as I have not posted ITT
You're the same braindead anglo spirit trying to kill all human thought before it happens. Thinking is completely beyond any of you.
>Every post is filled with actual ad-hominems
Insults are not ad-hominems. This is the same story every time on this board, none of you morons even understand fallacies.
Not an ad-hominem. I presented a metric for evaluating the two models referenced in the post. You morons did not, and you're also morons. Completely incapable of the simplest thought and then complain that I'm explaining basic things when I try to explain exactly in what way you're being moronic.
>can you even name two other"anglo" writers who promoted this 'theory'?
>>I can link 50 other Nietzsche threads with the exact same premises presented by anglo morons as holy dogma.
that's not what I asked but thanks for the substandard response. You are fundmentally dishonest about your knowledge of philosophy.
>Not an ad-hominem
Yes, it is an ad hominem. You are a fundamentally dishonest person.... You could engage in good argument, but you shun that.
>that's not what I asked
I was talking about these threads. You diverted into bullshit. Yes, it's possible to find other anglo morons making similar criticisms and you know it. You're trying to do this pathetic gotcha game instead of thinking.
>Yes, it is an ad hominem
Look it up you absolute moron. Again, the most basic shit ever.
>I was talking about these threads
So, your knowledge is based on IQfy and not published writers. Very cool!
>You diverted into bullshit
Yes, published writers can be considered to be "bullshit", dude. Totally!
>Yes, it's possible to find other anglo morons making similar criticisms
I'm really sad that you haven't. Maybe you're challenged and dishonest.
>You're trying to do this pathetic gotcha game instead of thinking.
No, I asked you a question since you were the one to originally stipulate that posters ITT did not understand "the anglo interpretation," which apparently you know only Bertrand Russell as having.
Instead of admitting your ignorance of the field of history, you have resulted to name-calling. You are fundamentally dishonest and lazy and not at all devoted to the search of truth.
>So, your knowledge is based on IQfy and not published writers. Very cool!
The subject I raised that you're trying to make sure you avoid understanding anything about was the similarity of the angloid posters in these threads.
>I'm really sad that you haven't
If you're interested in that subject, which is not the subject I raised you suggest you look it up.
>the anglo interpretation
The dominance of braindead angloid presuppositions in these threads, what seems to me to be remnants of war propaganda. You all think the same way whatever the reasons for that are. Your assumptions are supposedly holy and alternatives aren't even worth thinking about for a second.
>The dominance of braindead angloid presuppositions in these threads, what seems to me to be remnants of war propaganda
Even though you stipulated this position, you cannot back it up with evidence. You still cannot even point to two (2) other anglo writers that have this "interpretation," other than Bertrand Russell, and instead of admitting you do not know, you dishonestly focus on name calling. Fundamentally dishonest behavior from (You). It is very sad for me to see!
>You still cannot even point to two (2) other anglo writers that have this "interpretation,"
I could look it up like you could.
>instead of admitting you do not know, you dishonestly focus on name calling
I focused on the actual point I raised, unlike you. Fricking moron.
Yeah, usually people back up stipulations with this word Anglos call "evidence."
Also, don't sign your posts
The threads are evidence of the similarity of thinking in the threads. Anglo authors are not evidence of anything in these threads but Russell has been a recurring meme, a mascot of the eternal angloid and his appeals to what is ultimately war propaganda.
>don't listen to the kraut/slav, just cover your ears men
>don't listen to the kraut/slav, just cover your ears men
Is that a Bertrand Russell quote? You're very welll read.
It's a quote from this thread. Ctrl-f "slav".
>don't listen to the kraut/slav, just cover your ears men
control + f had only (You) saying this. Also, Bertrand Russell never said this. You are fundamentally dishonest
35 instances of angloids appealing to their fear of slavs to avoid thinking. Where does this kind of derangement ever come from if not war propaganda?
>don't listen to the kraut/slav, just cover your ears men
0 instances of anyone but you saying this. Why are you lying?
>Yes, it is an ad hominem.
>Will you ignore this again?
What a surprise that you morons ignored the actual structure of the thoughts you're making claims about again.
>Why don't you ever act like someone interested in expanding his knowledge?
"Expanding knowledge" = agreeing with whatever Razvan says when he posts on IQfy to take a break from punching his sister's head into the wall repeatedly or riding the village mule to Alexsei's Vodka Emporium.
>"Expanding knowledge" = agreeing with whatever Razvan says when he posts on IQfy to take a break from punching his sister's head into the wall repeatedly or riding the village mule to Alexsei's Vodka Emporium.
Yet again. Why do this dishonest shit? There's nothing you could possible gain from it and whatever information may be on the table has no chance of ever reaching you.
Of two given models for a phenomena or text the model that doesn't shut down thought is more interesting to explore. The only possible good forums like this can do is help us explore alternative models of things.
>Your ideas aren't holy and won't be expanded when you do this moronic and dishonest shit.
Oh, but your slav grobalob gurglings are very smart and honest and unassailable. You definitely aren't making any claims of authoritativeness or superiority for your arguments though.
>talking about shit that has nothing to do with the point
Stooping to "no u" because your alcohol-saturated slav brain is at its limit by now. Note how I actually explain why I say what I say, whereas you just insist and grunt like some Bosnian ox, "NO, I doz, how u sayz, korrect; u are the stupitz!"
>anglo presuppositions that dominate all discourse
"U dirtiz angloz, u buckbraak mai ancestorz wit u wurtz!"
>apparently contradictory statements can be useful, even with examples of such contradictory statements
But you haven't once dealt directly with the only case I've been trying to get your tiny mind to come to grips with this whole thread.
>If the scammer triggers the right conditioned associations in you you'll fall for it because there's no hint of any structured, critical thought.
Another stinging "no u." Lay off the vodka, Razvan.
>Oh, but your slav grobalob gurglings are very smart and honest and unassailable. You definitely aren't making any claims of authoritativeness or superiority for your arguments though.
I gave you a fricking metric moron. You did not do the same. Will you ignore this again? Why don't you understand the fricking basics of thinking?
I am definitely not making any claims of knowing the holy truth. You have it all figured out somehow but won't share any of these superior ways you evaluate everything said. From what I gather the method I should be using instead of exploring ideas is looking for anything that might seem "slavish" and when I notice something just say "slav" over and over.
damn... kek and checked
why u ad hominem
>But you haven't once dealt directly with the only case I've been trying to get your tiny mind to come to grips with this whole thread.
I did, so did someone else. The statement is about the cultural baggage of the concept "God". You pretend it's not and then except people to deboonk your nonsense.
>Another stinging "no u."
You really have no awareness of anything you do or say?
>The statement is about the cultural baggage of the concept "God"
Directly addressing what I said is throwing up horseshit having nothing to do with what I said. Got it. There again on display is that awesome slav intellect. "Slav mind iz zwift like bear, grazeful like muuse!"
>I gave you a fricking metric moron
Which I should care about why? You're effectively saying there is no ultimate basis for adjudicating between interpretations, then turbospazzing in vodka rage because I won't recognize your allegedly good (in fact, braindead) interpretation as better than my "moronic" one. And then, after all that, the inevitable follow up of "I am definitely not making any claims of knowing the holy truth." No, you just happen to be acting exactly like you're doing that, while trying and failing to disguise what you're doing in a typically bumbling snowman way.
>Why do this dishonest shit?
I'm starting to think Razvan has not quite figured out what "dishonest" means.
>Bertrand Russell
I think Russell's reading of Nietzsche was basically moronic; it was entirely motivated by Russell's commie homosexualry that I find repulsive. You have no clue what you're talking about.
>Directly addressing what I said is throwing up horseshit having nothing to do with what I said.
A dead guy made strong polarizing statements as part of what he said was a project of overcoming dichotomies.
I pointed out that the statement is countered by more nuanced and reasoned statements about the subject elsewhere. Enough to at least consider the dead guy was attempting something beyond just stating some childish resentment, which is also the kind of thing he says he's against.
>You're effectively saying there is no ultimate basis for adjudicating between interpretations
No I am not, again you have to add baggage to avoid considering anything. When there's any doubt the one out of the two models that shuts down any further thinking reduces our potential to find things out.
>allegedly good (in fact, braindead) interpretation as better than my "moronic" one
If you give the dead guy the slightest benefit of doubt you might get somewhere. If you don't you're guaranteed not to get anything out of it. Same applies to all text.
>I think Russell's reading of Nietzsche was basically moronic
You still have the same dismissive anglo attitude, as if the walrus had no points. You keep working to push that conclusion as if it matters to you for some reason. This dead guy helped me and probably others develop a practical system of thought, if I misinterpreted where he was coming from completely and it's all based on resentment that misinterpreted version still helped me.
>You still have the same dismissive anglo attitude, as if the walrus had no points
What the frick? are you actually schizophrenic? have you been writing all this time just because you thought people on here thought Nietzsche had "no points,"?
I'm not sure whether to laugh at you or pity you
>What the frick? are you actually schizophrenic? have you been writing all this time just because you thought people on here thought Nietzsche had "no points,"?
Stop doing this. Read the fricking post.
>You still have the same dismissive anglo attitude, as if the walrus had no points
>You still have the same dismissive anglo attitude, as if the walrus had no points
>You still have the same dismissive anglo attitude, as if the walrus had no points
Yes and you're still displaying that same smug dismissive attitude. You have no interest in thinking. Stop pretending you do while working to undermine any possibility of it happening.
>smug dismissive attitude
>You still have the same dismissive anglo attitude, as if the walrus had no points
Yes, as if. You took a quote out of context and demand it represents a product of childish resentment, as if it's not the product of someone who added anything. Not allowing any room for interpretation like that is a common anglo thing, often as a result of simply confusing words for meaning. You're so conditioned to think in words you believe that's all thinking is about.
>You still have the same dismissive anglo attitude, as if the walrus had no points
>You're so conditioned to think in words
The distinction between an ad-hominem and simply calling you a moron is still lost on you.
Your posts work based on a dismissive attitude, I tell you that you're a moron but then still offer structured thoughts that don't appeal to you being a moron as a premise.
Notice how we've gone deep into analyzing my throwaway line and specifically just the term anglos, you jumped on it like hyenas and I've spoonfed you what I was talking about now. None of you mindless golems ever make any similar attempts to justify any your moronic shit. I offer metrics and reasoning, you offer dishonest attempts to undermine communication.
>You still have the same dismissive anglo attitude, as if the walrus had no points
>Your posts work based on a dismissive attitude
>No I am not, again you have to add baggage to avoid considering anything
Earlier:
>I don't think like that, I don't need an authoritative model, that's your moronic baggage.
Alcoholic slavtard can't keep track of his own statements. inb4 some moronic incoherent shitpost about how Razvan the orc doesn't understand authoritativeness to mean what everyone would take it to mean in this context, we should just know about this moron's idiosyncratic understanding of the term he's about to drop on us.
>I pointed out that the statement is countered by more nuanced and reasoned statements about the subject elsewhere
You assert that you did this. But you're a fricking moron and never presented anything relevant to my argument.
>When there's any doubt the one out of the two models that shuts down any further thinking reduces our potential to find things out.
Yes, the only way of making intellectual progress is to be some homosexual Nietzsche apologist straining for any way of making his confused dogshit work. It couldn't possibly be that he was wrong about various things. Realizing error is "juzt stapping ze thunk" according to the majestic slavmind of Razvan.
>You still have the same dismissive anglo attitude
You have the ingenous attitude, and cognitive horizons, of an illiterate, shoeless Russian peasant.
>You keep working to push that conclusion as if it matters to you for some reason.
How can you be so dumb to not see you're doing exactly the same thing? What exactly is this mental defect with Nietzscheans? Be so cripplingly moronic that wild self-contradiction and hypocrisy every other sentence is impossible, then rage like a madman when this obvious fact is noted by someone.
Should be "avoiding wild self-contradiction and hypocrisy every other sentence is impossible"
brutal take down
>because he himself was a frustrated loser.
Stopped reading here. Will to power as a concept was his response to Darwinian evolution, but it already basically existed among the Sophists and in Hobbes, Machiavelli, Rousseau, and de Sade anyway.
What a stupid argument. What's at issue is Nietzsche's normative orientation to will to power, one of affirmation, approval, not whether there is something in reality that the concept successfully captures.
>What's at issue is Nietzsche's normative orientation to will to power
His balls were bigger than yours.
>His balls were bigger than yours.
Yet he died childless and sexually frustrated. LOL at him (and you).
>Yet he died childless and sexually frustrated
So did Plato. Who cares? Women are for normalgays anyway.
It's something else to see Nietzsche gays, with all their bravado, reduced to this level of cope. "Well I never WANTED sex anyway!" *gets cucked and humiliated by Salome, has mental breakdown*
If sex is so important to you, why are you on IQfy? You tourist homosexuals make no goddamn sense.
>Cosima and Richard Wagner had three children: Isolde, born 1865; Eva, born 1867; and Siegfried, born 1869.
>"Clearly sex has no place in the life of the literate and cultured!"
Damn anon, I wish I got as much pussy as you. How do you do it, when all you do is shitpost on IQfy all day from your parents' house?
>"everyone on the internet's life is as bad as mine or worse"
The ole "no u," huh? Classic, anon!
Nietzsche was like a Swifty but more sensitive
>thread already ruined by Nietzscheans
Nietzscheans get really upset when you criticize their second-rate philosopher god. In a better world somoene like him who never adequetely argued a single position outside of the Geneology (and barely even did it there) wouldn't even be considered a real philosopher, and would just be a looked at as a skilled literary writer who often waxed philosophical. None of the the great philosophers in history before him would have seen him as one of them, not Plato or Aristotle, or Kant or Leibniz.
The guy that tells you he's not a philosopher is not a philosopher? What a revelation.
You still can't point out anything that actually matters. What part didn't you understand because I punctuated it incorrectly? The commas represent pauses, this is not a fricking scientific paper. Do you have any hints on how to use them more effectively on internet forums you braindead moron?
Again you're following the same old pattern, finding excuses to avoid thinking about anything said.
lel you mad? are you a snowman or what? am i talking to vlad in an eastern european hovel lmao
>The guy that tells you he's not a philosopher is not a philosopher? What a revelation.
It would be quite the revelation to the vast majority of 'Nieztscheans' who will say he's the greatest philosopher (of the 19th century).
>Nietzscheans get really upset when you criticize their second-rate philosopher god
Funny how you could say the same about Galileans and Jesus of Nazareth, though of course they have tended to be more inclined to burn their opponents at the stake and declare holy wars than engage in discussion.
Many such cases!
Also does anyone know what Nietzsche said on Wagner's death? It went something like "a great load has been lifted".. can anyone search it up, I can't seem to find the proper thing.
>I am better now and I even believe that Wagner's death was the most substantial relief that could have been given me just now. It was hard for six years to have to be the opponent of the man one had most reverenced on earth, and my constitution is not sufficiently coarse for such a position. After all it was Wagner grown senile whom I was forced to resist; as to the genuine Wagner, I shall yet attempt to become in a great measure his heir (as I have often assured Fräulein Malvida, though she would not believe it).
Lol. The guy just couldn't take a break could he?
This was the homosexual whose life was one long shitfit over "resentment." One of the most resentful losers ever to have the misfortune to live.
bwahaha what a fricking pussy b***h loser
tough but fair
Wagner was the better man in ever respect. Also ironic that Nietzsche continued to seethe over him even after Wagner was dead. Not very ubermensch like is it?
I genuinely think Nietzsche was deeply closeted for Wagner.
Yeah, nietzsche would have sucked Wagner off.
If this is the board's wagner thread for the week, can someone tell me if it's worth it joining my city's wagner society? Been thinking about it for a while but unsure if it's just a bunch of boomers discussing the singing or something more interesting than that.
>but unsure if it's just a bunch of boomers
Sometimes they have interesting lectures but it's mostly this. Check out Jeffrey Swann's videos:
>self hating israelite praising germans against self hating german praising israelites
Nietzsche was a self-hating israelite?
Any other mediocre composers who also dabbled in philosophy?
Any other mediocre philologists who dabbled in philosophy?
No, I think Nietzsche is it.
Ughh guys, can we get back to Wagner?
Then say something about Wagner moron. He wasn't influential enough to be relevant. Raw power appeals to plebs and self-sacrifice does not. It's much easier to imagine that all noble acts we're told to respect were instead done by grifters or suckers falling for the grift. This way your petty ego driven mind can feel above it all while doing nothing.
>A long time ago on here
It was, like, a month ago
>I took issue with his idea that successful, beautiful, strong, etc. people have an overwhelming natural tendency to behave and think and feel the way Nietzsche seemed to believe they do, such that compassion and so on is almost totally alien to them
Cite the passage, as Nietzsche loves overwhelming generosity. The two issues are your view of what Nietzsche believes are from internet tard fights (and all Wagner vs Nietzsche and Schopenhauer vs Nietzsche threads have this trait, being centered around personalities), but more fundamentally your lowly view of compassion that actually demeans the term
>represents a dramatic departure from what preceded it insofar as it has the moral elements [...] cast as repulsive through caricature and distortion.
You simply accept the outcome of the revolution in values that inverted their meaning, talk about irony. The one mired in caricature and distortion is yourself
Forgive not attributing the quote to
You really seem to be one of these morons who's been duped by modern libshit "academics" aiming to make Nietzsche one of their own.
>"'What has done more harm than the follies of the compassionate?' asks Zarathustra.”
>You really seem to be one of these morons who's been duped by modern libshit "academics" aiming to make Nietzsche one of their own.
>"'What has done more harm than the follies of the compassionate?' asks Zarathustra.”
Apparently compassion is a circa-1200 ecclesiastical term that's a loan-translation of sympatheia, so forgive my ignorance. In this case we could say compassion is a post-revolutionary concept created by slave moralists, but Nietzsche likely wouldn't object to the generosity in compassion, just the pitying that draws compassion downwards and corrupts the instinct into something unhealthy
Maybe so. But this is basically hypothetical and doesn't appear to have any real bearing on how Nietzsche expressed his whole understanding of things. He absolutely revered Beethoven, maybe more than anyone else, largely because Beethoven was not generous, not compassionate, but a world-historical genius solely devoted to his creative work and greatness, to the point that everyone other than him was just a means to be used to his ends by force of his power. Beethoven:
>By the way, I refuse in future to allow the good humor, in which I sometimes find myself, to be destroyed. For yesterday thanks to your Zmeskall-Domanoveczian babble I became quite melancholy. The devil take you, I refuse to hear anything about your whole moral outlook. *Power* is the moral principle of those who excel others, and it is also mine; and if you start off again today on the same line, I will thoroughly pester you until you consider everything I do to be good and praiseworthy
Beethoven was also one of the most giving persons in history. He gave everyone treasures many consider priceless and got nothing in return for it. Elephants get to enjoy Beethoven. The radiance is a side effect of the power but it's more effective at spreading the fruits of creation than posturing about goodness or donating money.
>You're thinking of one or more other anons.
You're all the same cloned angloids that make these dumb threads over and over, parroting the same memes over and over with no thought.
>I haven't cited or mentioned any academics.
You also haven't provided any hints to what exactly your problem is with the way I use words. Like I said in that post I'm trying to fill in the blanks. It seems like you want me to use terms like le "ontology" and because I don't you claim I don't know the dumb shit you're parroting.
>Something you still haven't been able to show I've done.
There are no parameters given that allow that to happen. You presented a moronic model that assumes a given text is incoherent, I presented an alternative which reconciles the apparent inconsistencies. You haven't shown how your model should be taken as an authoritative one any more than I have with mine. I don't think like that, I don't need an authoritative model, that's your moronic baggage.
The principle of assuming coherence applies to interpreting every text including the Bible and other myths, if you have a model that assumes it's incoherent you're not giving the text the minimum amount of benefit of doubt needed for information to be conveyed.
you're pants-on-head stupid, the only smart thing about you is that you enjoy beethoven
Yet you're the one that can't say anything. I'm exploring, you're fortifying.
>You're all the same cloned angloids that make these dumb threads over and over, parroting the same memes over and over with no thought.
Nice schizophrenic paranoia mixed with ESL word salad repetition of "over and over." That's what you're 'exploring,' LMAO
The principle of assuming coherence applies to interpreting every text including the Bible and other myths, if you have a model that assumes it's incoherent you're not giving the text the minimum amount of benefit of doubt needed for information to be conveyed.
Your ideas aren't holy. The only way to expand them, to actually think is by considering alternative models, preferably maintaining multiple ones for any phenomena or text you're interested in.
Are the appeals to Wagner, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Beethoven as personalities supposed to configure the space in a particular way? Do you imagine it as a drama?
Are you East Asian?
Sure I identify as East Asian, go ahead
>was not generous, not compassionate, but a world-historical genius solely devoted to his creative work and greatness
You'll have to describe precisely what you mean by generosity. If you mean the later meaning of generosity this is better understood as charity in the Nietzschean formation. Beethoven may not have been charitable, but he was generous. To go back to Zarathustra which you first cited, he would have liken him to the radiant sun
>It was, like, a month ago
I saw it posted on here 2 or 3 years ago you moron. I wasn't even browsing lit for the past 6 months.
What prompted you to search for the passage after 2-3 years?
>"U MAAST AGRREZ vit Razvan! Agreez iz only vayz to make ze braiin progrezz! Ziz iz glauriouz Zoviet path caumradez! If u no agreez u are ze Baba Yaga demon who vish to stop ze thunk!"
>drinks pint of vodka
>kicks sister in head for leaving horse stable