I read the will to power and beyond good and evil and they’re actually pretty good
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Why exactly is Nietzsche hated.
I read the will to power and beyond good and evil and they’re actually pretty good
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
You're part of the problem.
You literally hate something by virtue of it being well known
Because he's just atheist cope. You have to understand that Nietzsche is an atheist, a nihilist, a postmodernist which appeals to a lot of liberals and other deeply neurotic teenagers because Nietzsche is the achievement of the secular humanism which booted Christianity out of power. Nietzsche is overtly anti-christian, and it permits to all the atheist bug men to actually see themselves as the righteous resilient guy who create his own values.
In effect trannies are the best ubermen ever: they hate to see themselves as they really are, so they change both their neurotic spirit and also their body to match the narrative of the ubermen and even better, they impose their values to non-trannies. Same thing with feminists and all the idolized minorities in Humanism.
Naturally, the atheists cant know right from wrong, so their mental gymnastics about the uberman is flawed. The uberman is actually the last man: the uberman despises so much reality after seeing nihilism, that out of resentment for reality, the uberman CHOSE to sink further in his delusion by building a narrative where he is not the last man, but actually the opposite, ie the uberman who creates his own values, ie living in own brain farts until he dies.
oh and by the way only atheists take him seriously in the first place.
Atheists love him because according to them, he found a way to be nihilistic without leading to suidice.
In order to avoid being called a nihilist, friedrich PUSSY nietzsche re-defined nihilism to be not living in the present moment, which applies to christianity.
So now atheists dont say they are nihilistic, they say they are vitalist.
and as a bonus they get to hit on christianity (their perpetual enemy that they defeated centuries ago, yet they still beat a dead horse to smugly fill up their days).
You have to understand that atheists are braindead hypocrite so even when they say they are vitalist instead of nihilistic, they still remain 100% hedonistic and they still dont know what not do with their lives beyond coomming.
reminder that nietzsche spent most of his adult life simping for some roastie
Holy shit, filtered. You all have brought a grand total of zero arguments hahahahaha
Read the entirety of this and then we can talk.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm#PREFACE
If you think Nietzsche's argument was an affirmation of atheism you shouldn't be on this website.
>nietzsche was a nihilist
Stopped reading right there. Your entirely post is invalidated by this absolutely moronic take by someone who has obviously never touched a single page of Nietzsche.
How is Nietzsche not a nihilist? It's a completely arbitrary definition upon which Nietzsche often sits, people always conflate pessimism/life-denial with nihilism which Nietzsche was actually fervently against.
>It's a completely arbitrary definition
All definitions are arbitrary. Nietzsche is not a precise or systematic thinker, but I believe the consensus is that he uses "nihilism" to represent a constellation of related ideas concerning loss of the idea of inherent meaning, erosion of traditional moral, societal, etc.foundations and attitudes towards these states of affairs.
I'm not a big reader of his, but while it's not particularly neat and tidy, it isn't so arbitrary as to be perverse and consequently incomprehensible. I feel like while there might be legitimate debate as to whether and in what sense Nietzsche is a nihilist given the diversity of meanings, you're missing the more important point: insisting on a particular definition as simply correct and making it a yes/no question for an easy 'win' is futile and misses out on more sophisticated and enlightening explorations on the nature of the subject.
Nietzsche defines nihilism has anti-life, ie anti-present moment.Do you know who else live in the present moment? Women.
Yeah that's right, atheism is feminism.
I will tell you everything there is to know about women, and then you can replace ''women'' with ''atheist'' in general and ''Nietzsche'' in particular.
one of the biggest red pills is the first time you realize that women experience literally no disconnect between saying X when it feels good to say X, and completely betraying and contradicting X five seconds later when it feels good to do that. women like to "try on" male-centric morals and virtues like children playing dress-up, but they don't actually know what it means to set up a virtue as an objective principle for oneself and then resist the temptation to break it in future moments when it stops being convenient and pleasant.
so if you ask a woman what kind of guy she values, she will blab on and on for hours about how noble she is and how she sees through superficiality and only wants sweet genuine men and etc., etc., etc. then five seconds later she'll completely contradict everything she said. the key thing to understand about women is that they don't perceive any difference here. from a man's perspective, you are thinking "but she said 'i only do X' and two seconds later she did 'non-X'?" this is because the fundamental modality of male consciousness is erecting principles and trying to follow them - even if you're a shitty man, it just means you're shitty and weak at erecting principles, not that the FUNDAMENTAL modality of principle-erection is absent. a woman's fundamental modality is "doing what i feel like." to a woman, that behavior is completely consistent: in the first instance, she did what she felt like. then she did what she felt like again. only a man perceives that the CONTENT of the actions was contradictory, i.e., would be contradictory if performed by a man. but for a woman whose primary stream of consciousness is "what do i want to do right now? 🙂 perhaps i'll wear a ribbon in my hair tomorrow, tra lala!," no such contradiction occurred, or indeed is even possible.
Leftists and the working class are not men?
>Nietzsche defines nihilism has anti-life, ie anti-present
I'm assuming that you're
given the restatement of the view that "nihilism" means not living in the present moment. While, naturally, the question of this life versus eternity involves time, I am unaware of Nietzsche ever advocating this kind of view explicitly or implicitly of complete obedience to blind impulse and inability to consider the past and present in relation to action. Indeed, his idea of eternal recurrence stands in contradiction to this and provides a useful insight: it's not that Christianity simply privileges eternity over the present moment, it's that that eternity (both in accordance with Christian morals that he takes to be unnatural and stifling and in the sense that with the notion of a "last judgement" any spontaneity, stakes and their accompanying goods are in doubt) would likely be alien and unwelcome to us. It also helps to think of it less as saying "time = good, eternity = bad" but as trying to erase the distinction between the two and reformulating, rather than destroying man's relation to eternity.
"What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: “This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence – even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!” Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: “You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.” If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you. The question in each and every thing, “Do you desire this once more and innumerable times more?” would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?"
*the past and future in relation to action
based
It's certainly dazzlingly flexible and creative if nothing else.
>Do you know who else live in the present moment? Women.
>Yeah that's right, atheism is feminism.
Can't even tell if this entire post is ironic or not but i truly hope so, i would hate sharing a board with mouthbreathing morons.
>he uses "nihilism" to represent a constellation of related ideas concerning loss of the idea of inherent meaning, erosion of traditional moral, societal, etc. foundations and attitudes towards these states of affairs
I think he believes that the erosion of these things can induce a state of Nihilism however these views are not nihilism in and of itself and that actually the erosion of these things can result in a new more life-affirming philosophy.
>insisting on a particular definition as simply correct and making it a yes/no question for an easy 'win' is futile and misses out on more sophisticated and enlightening explorations on the nature of the subject
I believe that's sort of my point, that depending on the varied definitions of nihilism Nietzsche may or may not fit into that category. This is why I defined Nietzsche's staunchest objection as being pessimism or life-denial as throughout his work he even goes so far as to deny the existence of objective truth, meaning or identity, beliefs usually associated with nihilism.
>I believe that's sort of my point, that depending on the varied definitions of nihilism Nietzsche may or may not fit into that category.
Ah. I misread the "How is Nietzsche not a nihilist?" as more of a rhetorical question and the mention of Nietzsche's own distinction as arbitrary as critical. My apologies.
>I think he believes that the erosion of these things can induce a state of Nihilism however these views are not nihilism in and of itself
I guess that I was just trying to capture that it's arguably both an individual, psychological phenomenon and an objective cultural-historical one with my family resemblance kind of view of Nietzsche's style leading to looser formulations. Though my definition didn't really do it justice due to the more limited scope of the discussion so far, I am aware that for Nietzsche it can be both destructive and productive and that the possible nihilism of Nietzsche transcends the, for want of a better term, "existential" nihilism (i.e. the denial of inherent meaning or significance in the more common-sensical understanding of those words as opposed to a linguistic/semantic/semiotic sense) with his epistemology.
>My apologies.
My bad, I should have been clearer.
>and that the possible nihilism of Nietzsche transcends the, for want of a better term, "existential" nihilism
I broadly agree with the rest of what you said however, I'm not too familiar with Nietzsche advocating his own sort of positive transcendent form of nihilism but I guess that plays into my earlier critique of the word in that it often has very disparate definitions. It would probably be best if you defined what you mean when using the word' nihilism' in these different contexts.
>I'm not too familiar with Nietzsche advocating his own sort of positive transcendent form of nihilism
I wasn't saying that he advocated nihilism per se, just that he saw it as something that could be an occasion for productive freedom and transcendence.
>It would probably be best if you defined what you mean when using the word' nihilism' in these different contexts.
Right. There's the issue of separating what I hold Nietzsche to be meaning by "nihilism" from the various forms of what's called nihilism that can or can't be attributed to Nietzsche.
I've more or less said what I take Nietzsche to be meaning already: I believe that he uses "nihilism" to represent a constellation of related ideas concerning loss of the idea of inherent meaning, erosion of traditional moral, religious, metaphysical, cultural, societal, etc.foundations and attitudes of individuals towards these states of affairs. That looseness of definition is meant to capture how it's both an individually-experienced, psychological phenomenon and an objective cultural-historical one.
Now comes some more difficult (and long-winded) disentangling. Nietzsche is describing a phenomenon which I would argue would be held to be an accurate and/or truthful description of the world by the kind of person who holds to what I've seen referred to as "existential nihilism". It's not just that they believe that this phenomenon of nihilism exists (I've never seen anyone argue that it doesn't), it's that they believe that it reflects the truth in some sense: these aforementioned foundations and inherent meanings were lost because they cannot be believed in anymore for whatever reason(s). As seen earlier in this thread (and likely elsewhere) people often hold that religion and metaphysics on the one hand and morals on the other come together as a kind of package deal. This further tangle is illuminating: this phenomenon of nihilism seems to owe a large part of its existence to the rise of more naturalistic understandings (though they aren't the only ones to implicate, with skeptical views being able to have a similar destructive effect and often complimenting the former) of the world and the human being along with concurrently anti-realist (sometimes called "moral nihilist") and/or naturalistic theories of morals over more traditional realist and/or religious worldviews. In a nutshell, just as the phenomenon of nihilism can be thought of an objective, cultural historical phenomenon as "cause" leading to the individually-experienced psychological as "effect", the broad, more colloquial notion of "existential nihilism" can be understood as the "effect" of several negations as "causes": I explicitly mentioned moral anti-realism or "moral nihilism", but also touched on (though not directly named) were irreligion and/or atheism, and broader skeptical and/or anti-realist positions so potentially nihilism about knowledge, truth, the external world, universals, abstract objects, etc.
TBC
>>I wasn't saying that he advocated nihilism per se, just that he saw it as something that could be an occasion for productive freedom and transcendence.
his overman is jsut delusion of grandeur, zero freedom in that
why do atheists want to salvage nietzche at all cost?
>there's zero freedom in overcoming "because i said so" volcano demon morality
keep licking those boots
>his overman is jsut delusion of grandeur, zero freedom in that
Now there's the questions of the nature of whether or not and in what way Nietzsche could be considered a nihilist. 1) Again, I'm not a big reader of his so make of this what you will and 2) even putting aside the issue of anachronism, the analytic-derived terms that I'm using for clarity's sake are of limited value capturing actual, complex and nuanced positions so take them with a grain of salt and 3) I'm aware that his positions are interconnected, though I'm not familiar enough with him to say much on that.
With all of that in mind, despite the justified protests of his readers, it's not hard to see why he gets called a nihilist. The question of truth and belief is obviously difficult with Nietzsche, you could probably make some kind of case for him being an existential nihilist. For the kind of religious people here, the irreligion/atheism and accompanying preference for more naturalistic (not to imply that he's naturalistic in the more orthodox analytic sense, but in the sense that he views human beings as clever animals and prefers to talk about the body, instinct, forces, etc. instead of immortal souls and pure reason) understandings of the world.
His epistemological and meta-ethical positions are more disputed, but even if he doesn't deny the existence of say moral facts or knowledge and truth in general, or is seen to be able to construct his own perspectivist notions with satisfactory coherence, his approach is at the very least skeptical and antagonistic in tone if not in content and as dynamite he was perhaps more destructive than constructive in all areas. While it's all quite contentious, his epistemology and moral philosophy also at least offer a lot of opportunities for people to call him a nihilist (rightly or wrongly).
All that being said (and it is the main arguably quite superficial at best), it is, as we agreed at the start, not of much help to make it a simple yes/no question and leave it there. The usual suspects who bandy "nihilist" about as a slur would do well to actually try to expand their imaginations a little bit with Nietzsche: viewing nihilism in the objective, cultural-historical sense that I outlined as a process arising from the dissolution of one particular, contingent, but dominant worldview (that Nietzsche saw as unhealthy and dishonest anyway) not as mere privation but as an opportunity for a new (though arguably not without precedent as his affinity the Greeks among others demonstrates) and better way of life would allow them to understand both their own position and those of others far better. Seems like a win-win, but alas, it seems that philosophy must be treated like politics which must be treated like a tribal feud. The libs aren't gonna own themselves after all.
Thanks for your posts anon, enjoyed reading them I also really like and think you're correct on your emphasis on a more cultural-historical sense of nihilism
>How is Nietzsche not a nihilist?
His entire philosophy is a diagnosis of the emergence of nihilism in modernity and how to overcome it. Holy shit.
Nietzsche had a bunch of exhortations in his philosophy, this alone means he thought life was worth living and that there is value in trying to overcome nihilism. A true nihilist would never bother to attempt to overcome it, since that itself is a value. Why would he write a Bible-esque book with a bunch of life advice for atheists, if he thought life is valueless? Saying Nietzsche was a nihilist is either a 90 iq take from a total misunderstanding of nietzsche and or what nihilism is. Or you just didn't read him
I didn't read your entire bait post, but for the purposes of our curious OP,
>a nihilist
Wrong
>the secular humanism which booted Christianity
Wrong
>oh and by the way only atheists take him seriously in the first place
Not correct
>Atheists love him because according to them, he found a way to be nihilistic without leading to suidice.
People do believe this, but it's because they are unfamiliar with him and his work, as you are.
I haven't read much of Nietzsche and am not particularly fond of the man, but even to me, all of this rings quite false.
>Nietzsche is an atheist a nihilist, a postmodernist
Right off the bat, I feel that you're conflating "atheism" as disbelief in god(s) with a more developed ideology (like "New Atheism") and attributing to Nietzsche the latter despite him neither actually devoting a whole lot of time to theism per se nor expressing much solidarity with atheists qua atheists. He was more concerned with the psychological effects of Christianity, especially ressentiment and an emphasis natural human instincts and behaviours as sinful as contrasted with the perfection of the otherworldly leading to the devaluation of life and (perhaps ironically for you) nihilism. As for the charge of postmodernism, historically speaking, he's more of a modernist and despite his influence among "postmodern" thinkers like Foucault and Derrida, the influence is not a case of wholesale acceptance, with the case of (as noted by
) his apparent antiegalitarianism being the most obvious example. Even on the matter of truth, there's not a whole lot of scholarly consensus as to his actual position and its compatibility with "postmodern" thinking e.g. arguably his most "postmodern" work on truth (the unpublished On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense) being dismissed by some Nietzsche scholars (e.g. Maudemarie Clark) as juvenilia and his counterbalancing of skepticism about correspondence theories of truth with a praise of honesty as a virtue.
>Naturally, the atheists cant know right from wrong
With no articulation of why this is the case nor any kind of meta-ethical stipulation on what moral theory should look like and why, this is just question-begging. I'm assuming with your emphasis on atheism, that you hold that right and wrong are dependent on a divine legislator. Nietzsche disagrees with this, and that disagreement goes a long way towards explaining his affinity for both pre-Christian and non-Christian sources of moral thinking especially like Pre-Socratic natural philosophy, the sophists, skeptical interlocutors of Socrates from the dialogues, but also Emerson, the French moralists like Montaigne and La Rochefoucauld, Spinoza, Hinduism and Buddhism, the natural sciences of his time, etc. You are going to get little out of Nietzsche or talk about Nietzsche if you can't even entertain these kinds of alternatives and hold that he's a mere competitor with Christian ethics on the level of prescription rather than a moral psychologist who wants to undermine deep assumptions about what moral thinking ought to be common to many moral theories both religious and secular.
1/2
Wow, one of the rare Nietzsche effortposts with some actual insight. Your attempt to raise the level of discourse around here is much appreciated, anon.
>oh and by the way only atheists take him seriously in the first place.
That is not true. The theologian David Bentley Hart for example (known as one of the sharper contemporary polemicists critical of Atheism) mentions Nietzsche as one of the few Atheists that a Christian ought to take seriously. He's to be taken seriously because (as I said earlier) he's not merely a rival prescriptive theorist, but a moral psychologist deeply interested in the motives of traditional moral behaviour and in the effects of traditional moral beliefs and lifestyles. Good Christians have an interest in engaging with him as it allows them engage in self-criticism and purification (Christ himself was deeply attuned to and concerned with the nature of motives and intentions, moral falseness wearing the garb of righetousness and its converse, etc.) of Christianity in a way firmly grounded in the history of Christianity but even more radical, and as a foil to elucidate their own moral psychologies and philosophical anthropologies.
2/2
If I saw your post a decade ago I would have said it's bait. But since then I've actually read all of Nietzch and agree with most of your points. I've noticed that people ignorant about his philosophy call them a nihilist, then you have the midwit crowd who believes he overcame nihilism, and at the high end once again you realize he is indeed a nihilist after all (see Heidegger).
You are an atheist as well, don't try to lie, god died a long time ago.
I disagree entirely, except for the fact that Neetch's philosophy is pure cope
Nietzsche was deeply religious, at least insofar as he was obsessed with the ideas of devotion to some abstract higher principle that would justify the abject shittiness of life; he was absolutely obsessed with "affirming life" because the idea that existence might actually just be a bad thing with no conceivable purpose or redeeming qualities was something he couldn't come to grips with
His "Ubermensch" is a vanity project, a god sculpted in his own image whose path forward is paved with the bodies of the unlucky and unfortunate who his philosophy utterly insists must be birthed into this cosmic meat grinder for the sake of some nebulous purpose of questionable viability or worth
Notice how his "rebuttals" of philosophical pessimists (who he also shamelessly cribbed from when convenient to him) like Schopenhauer and Mainlander consists entirely of petty insults and namecalling - he isn't willing to engage their arguments seriously because he knows his entire worldview would crumble like wet tissue paper if he tried
decent pasta, nice collection of (You)'s, I appreciate the ruse, my fren
Everybody do axis. Schizophrenia. Knowledge man.
He supports slavery and eugenics
He wants a nu aristocratic regime with strict hierarchies
Holy fricking based. Eugenics is an objectively good thing, it just hurts peoples fee fees because they aren't genetically well endowed enough to be wheat instead of chaff.
(You) probably are the chaff
So what?
>oh no my feefees are hurt because I don't get to spread my seed oh what will I do 🙁
fricking grow up
I don't think his views were that precisely, but the seed of that may very well exist at the center of eugenics for all I know. His idea of the Ubermensch was one of spirit, not genetics or cyborganic transhumanism as he has been repackaged in the last few decades. Also slavery and eugenics are based. Hierarchy is based. Get a new line.
He was pretty precise about eugenics during his final says before becoming insane. Iirc Losurdo’s the Aristocratic Rebel shows a lot of archival evidence for this.
>His idea of the Ubermensch was one of spirit
Spirit stems from the body for Nietzsche. It's an emergent property of the genetic/physiological.
He’s hated (and loved) for many reasons. The “left” hates him because he endorses eugenics (at least in a philosophical capacity), slavery, force. He’s hated by the right because of his virulent censure of religion and traditional (at least since Christianity came to dominate Europe) Western values. Spergs seem to love him, though.
I don't understand why did he name it the Apollonian-Dionysian dialectic and not the Hephaestion-Dionysian dialectic. Hephaestus seems to my way more fitting in spirit for the idea he wished to convey, and the earth on which Hephaestus fell upon was said to cure madness i.e. frenzy.
The more I read from Nietzsche, the more I realized so much of his “philosophy” was just anti-Christianity, but not even really that because what he did was as ascribe the worst basic b***h tier Protestantism to ALL Christianity, which is fallacious. This, and the fact that he never addresses any presuppositions at all and that just evidentially he seems to have been totally wrong and his vision impossible, and you realize you can’t possibly accept anything he says no matter how badly you might want to.
>his “philosophy” was just anti-Christianity
What does that mean?
>what he did was as ascribe the worst basic b***h tier Protestantism to ALL Christianity
This is perhaps the most interesting criticism made in the thread so far. The Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart (mentioned here
) agrees with this, though he still holds that Nietzsche is one of the few atheists to really have any real insight into and legitimate criticisms of Christianity.
>This, and the fact that he never addresses any presuppositions at all and that just evidentially he seems to have been totally wrong and his vision impossible
Could you elaborate on this? Whose presuppositions? Totally wrong about what? Which vision is/was impossible? What can't be accepted?
It means that his “philosophy” was mostly a polemic against a perceived Christianity. He is closer to Julian than to Plato.
Idk what insight he means.
Nietzsche expects you to accept a lot of what he says as true, but he has no way of knowing how they’re true. He just accepts them and has you accept them to. In more particular instances he ascribes beliefs to Christianity which are not accurate. To a Christian, “beyond good and evil” is necessarily just evil, but Nietzsche didn’t get that because he thought Christians had notions of good and evil as willing good and willing evil in an exclusive and positive sense. In reality, they believe evil is just “not the good”. Whether Nietzsche accepts this or not is one thing, but what he said Christians believed was not correct. There are many errors like this and this goes back to his impressions he received from a particular Protestantism.
What you find beyond good and evil is omnipotence. God shows Job the mechanisms behind his perceived adversities and it's just the world doing its thing. Being a good man doesn't guarantee rewards in the world like was the mainstream view at the time before Job but you're still more likely to be rewarded than the evil man and he is likely to receive punishment. The specifics don't have to adhere to principles.
So there exists an ideal and it is rewarded but on the imperfect earth the embodiment of the ideal may still suffer. The reward in heaven is still guaranteed. If you act out the ideal you did everything right, that in your specific instance it may lead to your death isn't the thing that's most important.
Approaching God is about approaching omnipotence, absolute power which is the animating principle of the world. Might is right but the good man is mightier than the evil man. Truth is mightier than lies.
Christianity is about love, not power.
I hate rightists
it's about life affirmation for its own sake.
you're coping tbh though I agree with you sentimentally
the base of nietzschean philosophy is this:
life affirmation - aestheticism - creative elitism
Absolutely based digits that I must respect, but
>it's about life affirmation for its own sake.
Frankly this makes about as much sense to me as jamming a rusty nail into your dickhole "for its own sake"
>Neetch's philosophy is pure cope
I don't know about that. He held that philosophy was a form of unconscious autobiography and never stated that his case was an exception.
>Frankly this makes about as much sense to me as jamming a rusty nail into your dickhole "for its own sake"
What is that you object to about it?
>What is that you object to about it?
Because there is simply no reason to, you are subjecting yourself (and more alarmingly, others, by reproducing) to unspeakable misery and suffering despite there being no actual non-imaginary justification for doing so
You can romanticize suffering in the detached, abstract world of poetry and philosophy, but no child in the real world who's being trafficked, starved, tortured, and kept as a sex slave about "muh life affirmation" - they're literally just being subjected to agony for no reason and they will probably die having known nothing but agony for no reason
"Affirming life" sounds very pretty and elegant on paper until you objectively measure what it is that you are actually being asked to affirm: a cosmic torture chamber
>Because there is simply no reason to, you are subjecting yourself (and more alarmingly, others, by reproducing) to unspeakable misery and suffering
What do you say to people who contradict you on this and talk about how much they love their life and how they happily accept the risk of suffering for the opportunities that life brings and act on that in living and reproducing?
>You can romanticize suffering in the detached, abstract world of poetry and philosophy
I can sympathize with you to some extent on this. While some forms of suffering can be edifying, I agree that there seem to be cases that simply don't edify and perhaps can't edify. The problem with this is that it seems that what we can and can't overcome and affirm varies a great deal from person to person. Along with your example in the realm of the worldly, certain parents who have lost children come to mind. While I wouldn't callously wax lyrical to such people about edification through their suffering and would understand a strong negative reaction to someone trying to do so, I wouldn't be advocating the opposite view to them either. If a person can treat such experience as edifying (as Emerson did), then I feel that it's ultimately a good thing. While the ideas that no evil is insurmountable and that experiencing evil as anything more than apparent is invariably a kind of blindness or moral failing don't sit well with me, the weaker forms that evil is often surmountable and only apparent seem perfectly sensible to me.
>"Affirming life" sounds very pretty and elegant on paper until you objectively measure what it is that you are actually being asked to affirm: a cosmic torture chamber
Few if any people affirm suffering alone for its own sake. They affirm life which contains suffering but much else that is considered wonderful.
>Christianity is about love, not power.
God is omnipotent, absolute power. The delusional propaganda premise you're working from is that power is bad, it "corrupts". Power demands care, love and responsibility.
Commies like you can't imagine a kind king so how can you possibly have any relationship with Christ? You apparently do it by inverting everything. Neutering God, pretending omnipotence isn't powerful, that it's oppressed by evil which is the ultimate power in your mind.
>God is omnipotent, absolute power.
That's a common notion.
>Power demands care, love and responsibility.
Not necessarily. Insofar as God's power is spoken about as worthy of veneration, it is inseparable for his benevolence, grace and wisdom.
>Neutering God, pretending omnipotence isn't powerful
It's not a question of doing that, it's a question of emphasis. If we're talking about Christianity you can't ignore stuff like the great commandment and the sermon on the mount. Your emphasis on power alone is what is odd.
>That's a common notion.
A definitive notion. If you're not talking about the almighty you're talking about something else.
>you can't ignore stuff like the great commandment and the sermon on the mount.
What you don't get is the sermon is an example of power. It's a gift from God that gives humans more power over the world. The emphasis on power is a result of your inversion of the concept. If I allow you to continue to brainwash the masses into believing power is evil and if you want any sort of power over your life you have to be evil then everyone will either be evil brutes or spineless neutered morons like you.
God is very clear in the Bible that you're a moron. You're reiterating that you think when you dig down to the most fundamental, the grounding for everything that it's evil instead of God, the definition of Good. What does the absence of good mean when everything is nested in God and God says creation is good?
The actual definition in the Bible is that what you perceive as evil is just what stops you from enacting your will. The monsters that eat you when you make the wrong move. God loves those monsters, they're good like everything God creates. Good and evil are not nearly equals. Good has absolute power and "evil" is just one mechanism serving that power. Putting them on equal footing is Zoroastrian, not from the Bible. You and your modern commie friends go further and put evil above good. Good is weak and powerless to evil in this worldview.
This means nothing. God is omnipotent, the highest power. Is God evil for allowing himself all that power? What you're trying to say is don't worship earthly power, the meaning of the statement is correctly conveyed in the first commandment without introducing your commie premises.
>If I allow you to continue to brainwash the masses into believing power is evil and if you want any sort of power over your life you have to be evil then everyone will either be evil brutes or spineless neutered morons like you.
I'm not that original anon, nor does this seem like anything close to a fair representation. He was outlining the fairly well-established doctrine of privatio boni and talking about the centrality of love to Christianity and you come from nowhere and start claiming that he's a communist who thinks that power is evil and advocating some eccentric theory as if it's both more authoritative and uncontroversial. Not once did he or I claim that power was inherently evil.
>You're reiterating that you think when you dig down to the most fundamental, the grounding for everything that it's evil instead of God, the definition of Good. What does the absence of good mean when everything is nested in God and God says creation is good?
What is man's fallenness? It's generally understood that God made human beings free and that (moral) evil is using that freedom to do other than the good.
>you come from nowhere and start claiming that he's a communist
You're the one coming out of nowhere with your dishonest attempts to deliberately misinterpret everything I said.
The communist comment was a direct reply to him calling me "rightist" for pointing out that power is not evil or incompatible with any ideas of love as central to the nature of God (the thing defined as omnipotent)
>What is man's fallenness
Alienation from the omnipotent. Notice how that perfectly aligns with the elaboration in Job about what you perceive as "evil" being just parts of the world not immediately conforming to your will, denying you omnipotence.
When there is nothing but unity with omnipotence adversity can only arises from the choice to experience it. The conscious decision to know adversity and experience its fruits.
> t. hasn’t even read the Bible
It’s not a dictionary by the way.
>All of nature, therefore, is good, since the Creator of all nature is supremely good. But nature is not supremely and immutably good as is the Creator of it. Thus the good in created things can be diminished and augmented. For good to be diminished is evil; still, however much it is diminished, something must remain of its original nature as long as it exists at all. For no matter what kind or however insignificant a thing may be, the good which is its 'nature' cannot be destroyed without the thing itself being destroyed. There is good reason, therefore, to praise an uncorrupted thing, and if it were indeed an incorruptible thing which could not be destroyed, it would doubtless be all the more worthy of praise. When, however, a thing is corrupted, its corruption is an evil because it is, by just so much, a privation of the good. Where there is no privation of the good, there is no evil. Where there is evil, there is a corresponding diminution of the good. As long, then, as a thing is being corrupted, there is good in it of which it is being deprived; and in this process, if something of its being remains that cannot be further corrupted, this will then be an incorruptible entity [natura incorruptibilis], and to this great good it will have come through the process of corruption. But even if the corruption is not arrested, it still does not cease having some good of which it cannot be further deprived. If, however, the corruption comes to be total and entire, there is no good left either, because it is no longer an entity at all. Wherefore corruption cannot consume the good without also consuming the thing itself. Every actual entity [natura] is therefore good; a greater good if it cannot be corrupted, a lesser good if it can be. Yet only the foolish and unknowing can deny that it is still good even when corrupted. Whenever a thing is consumed by corruption, not even the corruption remains, for it is nothing in itself, having no subsistent being in which to exist.
St. Augustine
What is corruption? The thing that makes foundations crumble? That's an erosion of the power that holds up the structure.
In a map analogy being forced to take paths of "lesser good" is inevitable when you're not omnipotent. It's a good analogy because we can conceive of a perfect path, it's just a straight line but the path will have to go around obstacles. The problem of evil is just people crying about the obstacle, "How could a kind God ever place a rock right there? God must be evil for betraying me like this".
>Christianity is about love
It is the anti-power creed, it celebrates and encourages the weakness in people. That you are powerless without Christ, that you are worthless without Christ. It is the thought that all that we see, hear, feel, know and cherish is worthless compared to what you will get upon death. So long as your subscription is up to date.
It is a miracle Europe grew out from under it.
>It is the anti-power creed
How can that be when the highest thing we should worship and emulate is the most powerful? There's no way to find your way to this claim if you were just sincerely looking for answers instead of looking for ways to attack this specific thing you decided to spend your life on undermining without understanding any of it. You contribute to the anti-power creed with all your braindead subversion about love being weakness. You don't even give Christians the option of hearing your criticisms because you always make sure to say the problem is fundamental to anyone identifying in any way with Christianity or accepting any of the ideas within. morons like you harp on respecting heritage and then impose a condition on your advice that I can't actually follow it and also respect my heritage.
The anti-power creed is the mantra of the comfortable, the powerful who basically inherited that power. People will start to work from delusional premises like this when they're disconnected from the harshness of reality which they can only do by insulating themselves from it using power over the world. Power that will degrade as generations raised in the comfort provided by it don't grasp what it's protecting them against or how any of it works.
It's Semitic mysticism, anon. Let it go.
>ignore any reasonable interpretation of this ancient text cherished by your culture and purely work by categorizing things into philosemitic cringe things and antisemitic based things.
No. Engage with anything said ever. Stop repeating your braindead premises over and over on every forum on the planet. You are the new trannies.
Toasty tradroastie.
>How can that be when the highest thing we should worship and emulate is the most powerful?
The weak are the only people who worship the strong. You yourself have no power in the Christian faith. You are forbidden from doing so, nowhere is violence commanded unt the return of Christ. Previously all creeds favored the brave, the strong, the bold, the lucky and the powerful.
>The weak are the only people who worship the strong.
You're appealing to strength to try to make your points. It's the foundation for your thoughts. If this represents what you base your actions in life on it's your highest value, the thing your life is a celebration of. You worship it.
>You yourself have no power in the Christian faith
In your delusional fantasies. You can't relate anything you're saying to anything Christ said without being dishonest. "Powerless" Christians took over the world. They were Europeans for thousands of years and didn't take over the world. Then they did.
>all creeds favored the brave, the strong, the bold, the lucky and the powerful.
The earth still does and Christ doesn't refute that. You're not referring to what those words mean, you mean the evil, the brutal, the destructive. That's what you like most of the world today thinks "power" is because that's the propaganda a small group of subversives have filled you with to make you powerless.
>the propaganda a small group of subversives have filled you with to make you powerless.
Christians? (Or the people who started Christianity?)
It will happen no matter what if you raise people in comfort where there is no need to respect power. What power really means never registers, when daddy says it's bedtime he's using his power over you to control you for no reason. It doesn't register that it's all supposed to serve things like waking up early to do things in the world, exercise and expand your power like by planting food. When you're comfortable and spoiled all decrees seem arbitrary so the only reason anyone would tell anyone to do anything is to use that person. The real value of cooperation doesn't occur to the spoiled child because it doesn't grasp real power, it just sees decrees that seem arbitrary.
The people that control the media, the public relations industry grab on to these weaknesses in character and encourage them because it makes them money which translates to power. In older terms they work directly for demons to encourage sin.
>It doesn't register that it's all supposed to serve things like waking up early to do things in the world, exercise and expand your power like by planting food
sorry you had awful low-class and disinterested parent(s)
You sincerely and honestly don't understand anything I said there or are you just coping? You have no grasp of the mechanisms behind the "weak men - strong men" meme loop?
My parents did not let me become too comfortable or spoiled so I grasped the value in power over the world including educating myself and not just pursuing a diploma because it's said to be the thing to do.
> beyond good and evil is omnipotence
Unjustified statement, like everything in Nietzsche.
>To a Christian, “beyond good and evil” is necessarily just evil
Unjustified statement that demands the reader accepts all Christians are brainwashed commie morons like you that believe power is evil and therefore that evil has the power.
Christians are very clear that evil is the absence of good, and thus not-good is necessarily evil. Plato made the same argument.
Power for power’s sake is indeed evil.
>It means that his “philosophy” was mostly a polemic against a perceived Christianity. He is closer to Julian than to Plato.
All of it? While there's a great deal of directly anti-Christian polemic in his work and a general anti-Christian spirit arguably pervades it all, that seems too limited. He had positive influences too like the Pre-Socratics, Emerson and Schopenhauer and they're very visible in his work and while they are exemplary non-Christian alternatives, they're not directly used in a polemical anti-Christian fashion. His love for Emerson at least seems to have predated his break with Christianity.
>Idk what insight he means.
Hart? I believe that he's of the opinion that Nietzsche functions similarly to Kierkegaard in emphasizing how radical and difficult true Christianity is and undermining attempts to make it a comfortable, accommodating, yet false, shallow and ineffectual faith.
>Nietzsche expects you to accept a lot of what he says as true, but he has no way of knowing how they’re true.
What he's doing with his style and what exactly his much-touted positions on truth and morals are and whether they're coherent and consistent or not is kind of an open question in Nietzsche scholarship and yours is a very prominent and understandable complaint. Crucially though, he is an explicitly anti-systematic thinker and like his brother soul Emerson, he wants to provide insights to a receptive, but not blindly acquiescent audience more than elaborate a system or theory.
Too many anons are autistic about him, other anons haven’t read him
He's hated by Hegelian bugmen who want to have their super special political ideology vindicated by "history" (whatever that is)
He's hated by word worshipper Logos-gays for raining on their parade
Make sure you read Genealogy it's my favorite of his books
>On the contradiction between ends and means, and on the lack of any finality to technological growth, see mainly B. Charbonneau: "When it comes to human ends that might guide a plan, we have to content ourselves with pious generalities about a society ‘in which man need only assert himself for the inner satisfaction of his being.' But in regard to the concrete aspects of France in 1985, we learn that she will be ‘developed.' Always along the same lines. . . . What is the goal of economic growth? Economic growth."Likewise, Mumford demonstrates at length that the sole conceivable and real finality of "technics" is the augmentation of power. There is absolutely no other possibility. This brings us back to the problem of the means. Technology is the most powerful means and the greatest ensemble of means. And hence, the only problem of technology is that of the indefinite growth of means, corresponding to man's spirit of power. Nietzsche, exalting this will to power, limited himself to preparing the man predisposed to the technological universe! A tragic contradiction.
People who hate Nietzsche are either a) pure contrarians, b) annoyed at his fanbase, or c) have a stick up their ass about how he wasn’t a Christian, wasn’t a socialist, or whatever their own personal favorite ideology is.
Nietzsche is easily my favorite author across all of fiction and non-fiction. Dude was an absolute genius at writing. A once in a millennium talent.
>a) pure contrarians
Hating him and making out that he's totally worthless is one thing, but his styles (both philosophical and prose) aren't for everybody and they aren't simply the only game in town. You can find similar insights in many writers both before and after him. As good as he may be, he is not all that indispensable in the long run.
>b) annoyed at his fanbase
This is the big one. Not just fans either but especially epigones. What Schopenhauer said of Kant's influence could arguably be said of Nietzsche's a hundredfold.
>c) have a stick up their ass about how he wasn’t a Christian, wasn’t a socialist, or whatever their own personal favorite ideology is.
Not all that common in general after his mid-twentieth century rehabilitation in my experience but this thread and board in general can give the opposite impression.
You're obviously just trying to short and to the point, and there is some merit to what you're saying with these, but your a) and c) are the kinds of things that fans say that piss people who are lukewarm about him off. There's a time and a place for old Fritz, but he's sure as hell not beyond reproach and he wouldn't want to be seen to be.
Seething christcucks in denial
Because no one here has read him.
Misinterpretations.
Nietzsche said God is dead, in the sense that he wanted humanity to ditch the need for higher powers and pursue the meaning of life through art and purpose. He did admit that religion was a good way to organize society though.
If you ever see anything saying Nietzche was a nihilist they've never read Nietzsche.
He also hated atheists, because atheism isn't denying the existence of God but denying the existence of anything altogether and he thought them to be homosexuals who used the excuse of a lack of a higher power as a reason to be lazy homosexuals and do nothing with their lives.
He was however, a "do as I say, not as I do" philosopher like most.
Because he said what everyone doesn't want to say
start with the greeks; if you don't, you are an illiterate tard
he ruined philosophy along with the young hegelians
He’s indirectly attributed to the Nazis.
Nobody reads him, they just shadowbox who they imagine he is.
>Why exactly is Nietzsche hated
Because people who don't read him misconstrues him so badly, it's not even funny.
Nietzsche is cringe but overly anti-Nietzsche autists are cringe too.
Nietzsche's philosophy basically boils down to pre-organization-stage fascism.
he is hated because his values go completely against democracy and egalitarianism, which are still sacred even in our time
he also criticized science and said it was operating on many of the same principles as ascetic religious ideals. this is also a big taboo, since science is also sacred in our time