>>25212650
It's continental, you're not supposed to take it seriously. Treat him like you're watching a TV show and move on. Don't get yourself entangled with these silly language games of continentals.

>>25212654
This. After reading crap like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, some pheno-somethings, Kant, they were all playing language games. Absolutely 0 concrete knowledge flows from any of their works. Nietzsche is doing either witty aphorisms or pop-psychology bullshit. Absolutely embarassing to read him after you're 15.
Hobbes, Hume, the Vienna circle, that shit is gooood.

Only philosophy that's based is Daoist philosophy

File: Meyer M. - Reading Nietzsche through the Ancients (2014) (3).jpg (239.7 KB)

239.7 KB JPG

>>25212650
>he's really just a guy who's obsessed with culture. And morality for some reason.
and logic / cognitive science / epistemology

>>25212671
Thoughts on Heidegger?

>>25212650
How do you define the philosophy of a guy who thought all definitions were retarded and degenerate? Not that easy.

>>25212991
proto-postpositivism + eliminativism

>>25212998
That's retarded.

>>25212671
115 IQ moment

Hume is good though. Don't mention him in the same breath as Thomas "I jack off to triangles" Hobbes ever again.

>>25212998
75 IQ moment

>>25212650
The best advice I've read about Nietzsche is just enjoying his writing/poetry without trying to pull out a belief system from him

>>25212693
Technically thats more religion.

>>25213687
The best advice I can give you about Nietzsche is to read Dostoyevsky instead

>>25213704
You might do that anyway since Dosto is one of the few people who Nietzsche says something nice about

>>25212671
at this point I can’t tell what’s bait, what’s retards parroting the opinion of bait posts that went over their head, and what’s bots imitating those retards in ever-tightening feedback loops. either way kys

Chesterton destroyed this idiot regularly

>>25213737
Embarrassing post.

>>25213687
>just enjoying his writing/poetry without trying to pull out a belief system from him
"To 'give style' to one's character - a great and rare art! It is practised by those who survey all the strengths and weaknesses that their nature has to offer and then fit them into an artistic plan until each appears as art and reason and even weaknesses delight the eye. Here a great mass of second nature has been added; there a piece of first nature removed - both times through lang practice and daily work at it. Here the ugly that could not be removed is concealed; there it is reinterpreted into sublimity. Much that is vague and resisted shaping has been saved and employed for distant views - it is supposed to beckon towards the remote and immense. In the end, when the work is complete, it becomes clear how it was the force of a single taste that ruled and shaped everything great and small - whether the taste was good or bad means less than one may think; it's enough that it was one taste! It will be the strong and domineering natures who experience their most exquisite pleasure under such coercion, in being bound by but also perfected under their own law; the passion of their tremendous will becomes less intense in the face of all stylized nature, all conquered and serving nature; even when they have palaces to build and gardens to design, they resist giving nature free rein.

Conversely, it is the weak characters with no power over themselves who *hate* the constraint of style: they feel that if this bitterly evil compulsion were to be imposed on them, they would have to become *commonplace* under it - they become slaves as soon as they serve; they hate to serve. Such minds - and they may be of the first rank - are always out to shape or interpret their environment as *free* nature - wild, arbitrary, fantastic, disorderly, and surprising - and they are well advised to do so, because only thus do they please themselves!

For one thing is needful: that a human being should *attain* satisfaction with himself - be it through this or that poetry or art; only then is a human being at all tolerable to behold! Whoever is dissatisfied with himself is continually prepared to avenge himself for this, and we others will be his victims if only by having to endure his sight. For the sight of something ugly makes one bad and gloomy. " (GS #290)

I never understood how people dont think Nietzsche believed in might makes right. He literally thinks slavery should be allowed and doesn't think weaklings should be next to "free spirits". He's as aristocratic as a philosopher as there are.

>>25214047
>slavery should be allowed
"The more general and unconditional the influence of an individual or an individual's thought can be, the more homogeneous and the lower must the mass be that is influenced, while counter-movements betray inner counter-needs that also want satisfaction and recognition. Conversely, one may always infer a high level of culture when powerful and domineering natures only manage to have a slight and sectarian influence: this is also true of the individual arts and the areas of knowledge. Where there is ruling, there are masses; where there are masses, there is a need for slavery. Where there is slavery, there are few individuals, and these have herd instincts and conscience against them. " (GS #149)

>>25214047
Theres some passages in beyond good and evil when he becomes completely unhinged and confirms it so I'm not sure either

>>25212650
I gave up trying to understand him. I went past 1 and 2, and when I thought I was beginning to understand him I found that youtube guy who has hundreds of videos on him who says everyone misunderstands him. He seems to pull shit out of his ass most of the time. I read Nietzche and there's no classical philosophical structure, no moral prescriptions, no systematized metaphysics. The superman thing is the asspull of the millennium. He seems more like a poet than a philosopher, but I haven't studied him for 20 years like youtube guy so what do I know?

>>25214047
>how people dont think Nietzsche believed in might makes right
kinda sorta yes, but actually no

"And as the lesser surrendereth himself to the greater that he may have delight and power over the least of all, so doth even the greatest surrender himself, and staketh—life, for the sake of power.
It is the surrender of the greatest to run risk and danger, and play dice for death.
And where there is sacrifice and service and love-glances, there also is the will to be master. By by-ways doth the weaker then slink into the fortress, and into the heart of the mightier one—and there stealeth power."


>He literally thinks slavery should be allowed
*caste system* should be allowed: philosophers, administrators, narrow specialists (mediocrity).

The emphasized point, however, is that mediocrity must be content with its lot. Per Antichrist (#57):
"Let us not underestimate the privileges of the *mediocre*. Life becomes increasingly difficult the higher up you go, - it gets colder, there are more responsibilities. A high culture is a pyramid: it needs a broad base, its first presupposition is a strongly and healthily consolidated mediocrity. Crafts, trade, farming, *science*, most of art - in a word, *employment* can only really function on the basis of a mediocrity of ability and desire: this sort of thing would be out of place among exceptional people, the associated instinct would contradict both aristocratism and anarchism. To be a public utility, a wheel, a function - you need to be destined for this by nature: it is not society but rather the type of happiness that the vast majority of people cannot rise above that make them intelligent machines. For the mediocre, mediocrity is a *happiness*; mastery of one thing, specialization as a natural instinct. It would be completely unworthy of a more profound spirit to have any objection to mediocrity as such. Mediocrity is needed *before* there can be exceptions: it is the condition for a high culture. When an exceptional person treats a mediocre one more delicately than he treats himself and his equals, this is not just courtesy of the heart, - it is his *duty* . . ."

>>25214067
>no moral prescriptions
are you blind, nigger?

"Since humanity came into being, man hath enjoyed himself too little: that alone, my brethren, is our original sin!
And when we learn better to enjoy ourselves, then do we unlearn best to give pain unto others, and to contrive pain.
Therefore do I wash the hand that hath helped the sufferer; therefore do I wipe also my soul.
For in seeing the sufferer suffering—thereof was I ashamed on account of his shame; and in helping him, sorely did I wound his pride.
Great obligations do not make grateful, but revengeful; and when a small kindness is not forgotten, it becometh a gnawing worm."

"So be ye warned against pity: From thence there yet cometh unto men a heavy cloud! Verily, I understand weather-signs!
But attend also to this word: All great love is above all its pity: for it seeketh—to create what is loved!
“Myself do I offer unto my love, and my neighbour as myself”—such is the language of all creators.
All creators, however, are hard."

"Because, for man to be redeemed from revenge—that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms.
Otherwise, however, would the tarantulas have it. “Let it be very justice for the world to become full of the storms of our vengeance”—thus do they talk to one another.
“Vengeance will we use, and insult, against all who are not like us”—thus do the tarantula-hearts pledge themselves.
“And ‘Will to Equality’—that itself shall henceforth be the name of virtue; and against all that hath power will we raise an outcry!” "

>>25214096
Why does he have this cynical view where every humble behavior is necessarily an underhanded grab for power?

And why is a culture's merit defined by the ability of a few at the top of his imagined pyramid to ...what, sit about and philosophize all day?

>>25214114
So here he again seems to be implying that any mercy at all creates resentment and revenge, and the best way to help others is to act only to maximize your own power, which of course is not a moral prescription at all.

>>25214047
You-know-whos love him but they have to pretend he is egalitarian -- which he is, in a certain perverse Nietzschean sense of equality before ruthless tooth and claw -- otherwise it becomes obvious that their high-minded support for Communism is a closeted power grab

>>25214204
>why is a culture's merit defined by the ability of a few at the top of his imagined pyramid to ...what, sit about and philosophize all day?
He read plato believed himself to be born with gold mixed in his clay as well

>>25212671
>Nietzsche is doing either witty aphorisms or pop-psychology bullshit. Absolutely embarassing to read him after you're 15.
>Hobbes, Hume, the Vienna circle
How does some say something so true and the something do retarded between a period

File: meme.png (557.6 KB)

557.6 KB PNG

>>25212650
No discussion of Nietzsche is worth having without acknowledging Wagner.

>>25214204
>So here he again seems to be implying that any mercy at all creates resentment and revenge
Yes. Which is not, however, an argument against helpfulness/mercy. It is an argument that any help is an unfortunate and potentially-hazardous necessity, so it must be treaded with caution, anonymity and obfuscation:


"If I must be pitiful, I dislike to be called so; and if I be so, it is preferably at a distance.
Preferably also do I shroud my head, and flee, before being recognised: and thus do I bid you do, my friends!"

" “Be shy in accepting! Distinguish by accepting!”—thus do I advise those who have naught to bestow.
I, however, am a bestower: willingly do I bestow as friend to friends. Strangers, however, and the poor, may pluck for themselves the fruit from my tree: thus doth it cause less shame.
Beggars, however, one should entirely do away with! Verily, it annoyeth one to give unto them, and it annoyeth one not to give unto them."

"And not to him who is offensive to us are we most unfair, but to him who doth not concern us at all.
If, however, thou hast a suffering friend, then be a resting-place for his suffering; like a hard bed, however, a camp-bed: thus wilt thou serve him best.
And if a friend doeth thee wrong, then say: “I forgive thee what thou hast done unto me; that thou hast done it unto thyself, however—how could I forgive that!”
Thus speaketh all great love: it surpasseth even forgiveness and pity."

>>25214204
>why is a culture's merit defined by the ability of a few at the top of his imagined pyramid to ...what, sit about and philosophize all day?
To give you meanings of life and redeem your lowly existence.

"The highest caste - which I call *the few* -, being the perfect caste, also has the privilege of the few: this includes representing happiness, beauty, goodness on earth. Only the most spiritual human beings are allowed to be beautiful: only among them is goodness not a weakness. *Pulchrum est paucorum hominum* [Beauty is for the few.]: goodness is a privilege. On the other hand, nothing can be tolerated less in this type than ugly manners or a pessimistic look, an eye that *makes things ugly* -, or even an indignation over the way of the world. Indignation is the privilege of the Chandala; pessimism too. '*The world is perfect*' - this is how the instinct of the most spiritual people speaks, the yes-saying instinct: 'imperfection, every type of being that is *beneath* us, distance, the pathos of distance, even the Chand ala belongs to his perfection' . The most spiritual people, being the *strongest*, find their happiness where other people would find their downfall: in labyrinths, in harshness towards themselves and towards others, in trials; they take pleasure in self-overcoming: asceticism is their nature, requirement, instinct. They see difficult tasks as a privilege, they *relax* by playing with burdens that would crush other people ... Knowledge - a form of asceticism. - They are the most admirable type of people: which does not prevent them from being the most cheerful, the kindest. They do not rule because they want to, but rather because they exist, they are not free to be second." (A #57)

>>25214204
>Why does he have this cynical view where every humble behavior is necessarily an underhanded grab for power?
Why do you have this cynical view where power is something bad?

"And this secret spake Life herself unto me. “Behold,” said she, “I am that which must ever surpass itself.
To be sure, ye call it will to procreation, or impulse towards a goal, towards the higher, remoter, more manifold: but all that is one and the same secret.
Rather would I succumb than disown this one thing; and verily, where there is succumbing and leaf-falling, lo, there doth Life sacrifice itself—for power!
That I have to be struggle, and becoming, and purpose, and cross-purpose—ah, he who divineth my will, divineth well also on what crooked paths it hath to tread!
Whatever I create, and however much I love it,—soon must I be adverse to it, and to my love: so willeth my will.
And even thou, discerning one, art only a path and footstep of my will: verily, my Will to Power walketh even on the feet of thy Will to Truth!
He certainly did not hit the truth who shot at it the formula: ‘Will to existence’: that will—doth not exist!
For what is not, cannot will; that, however, which is in existence—how could it still strive for existence!
Only where there is life, is there also will: not, however, Will to Life, but—so teach I thee—Will to Power!
Much is reckoned higher than life itself by the living one; but out of the very reckoning speaketh—the Will to Power!” "

"Good and evil, and rich and poor, and high and low, and all names of values: weapons shall they be, and sounding signs, that life must again and again surpass itself!
Aloft will it build itself with columns and stairs—life itself: into remote distances would it gaze, and out towards blissful beauties—*therefore* doth it require elevation!
And because it requireth elevation, therefore doth it require steps, and variance of steps and climbers! To rise striveth life, and in rising to surpass itself."

>>25213796
>For one thing is needful
uhh saar?

>>25214934
While I agree with his psychological analysis here, I still don't think that all compassion breeds resentment.

>>25214939
Ironically here his concept of the envisioned spirituality of the few at the top, enabled by the work of the "lowly", only begins to approach the heights of the private spirituality of the average lowly Christian (at least back then) who toils the fields

>>25214960
His idea of power here seems to romanticize striving and material progress. Based on the other snippets you've posted, in which he envisions a society divided into discreet sects of status, the lower supporting the upper, combined with his contempt for mercy or compassion, will the pursuit of power of the most powerful not continue to subjugate the masses within this framework? I've gathered that his idea of power affirms a sort of Darwinism applied to humans but I don't think every human behavior is zero sum in the way he seems to imply, i.e. generosity breeds proportional hatred

>>25212671
>Hobbes, Hume, the Vienna circle
there's no reason to throw the vienna circle in there unless you're lazily shitposting

>>25212671
>>25212654
The greeks mog you retards.

>>25215448
>but I don't think every human behavior is zero sum in the way he seems to imply, i.e. generosity breeds proportional hatred

Alleviation of suffering breeds hatred (or rather, witnessing one's shame breeds hatred).
The point however is to find a way for people to feel joy and avoid wounding each other's dignity. To reiterate:
>>25213796
>Whoever is dissatisfied with himself is continually prepared to avenge himself for this, and we others will be his victims if only by having to endure his sight. For the sight of something ugly makes one bad and gloomy.
>>25214114
>Since humanity came into being, man hath enjoyed himself too little: that alone, my brethren, is our original sin!
>And when we learn better to enjoy ourselves, then do we unlearn best to give pain unto others, and to contrive pain.


>will the pursuit of power of the most powerful not continue to subjugate the masses within this framework?
the powerful are expected to treat the masses with care in mind (albeit tough-love-style), and the masses are expected to still get rid of them for it at the moment of their weakness. Change and overcoming are part of nature.

"When power becometh gracious and descendeth into the visible—I call such condescension, beauty.
And from no one do I want beauty so much as from thee, thou powerful one: let thy goodness be thy last self-conquest.
All evil do I accredit to thee: therefore do I desire of thee the good.
Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings, who think themselves good because they have crippled paws!"

"And verily, ye good and just! In you there is much to be laughed at, and especially your fear of what hath hitherto been called “the devil!”
So alien are ye in your souls to what is great, that to you the Superman would be frightful in his goodness!
And ye wise and knowing ones, ye would flee from the solar-glow of the wisdom in which the Superman joyfully batheth his nakedness!
Ye highest men who have come within my ken! this is my doubt of you, and my secret laughter: I suspect ye would call my Superman—a devil!"

"This counsel, however, do I counsel to kings and churches, and to all that is weak with age or virtue—let yourselves be o’erthrown! That ye may again come to life, and that virtue—may come to you!—”"

"Where is innocence? Where there is will to procreation. And he who seeketh to create beyond himself, hath for me the purest will.
Where is beauty? Where I must will with my whole Will; where I will love and perish, that an image may not remain merely an image.
Loving and perishing: these have rhymed from eternity. Will to love: that is to be ready also for death. Thus do I speak unto you cowards!"

>>25215448
>I still don't think that all compassion breeds resentment
Compassion is an invasion into one's sphere of power. Inability to repay properly and restore the status quo causes pain/shame.

"Whenever we love some one and venerate and admire him, and afterwards come to perceive that he is suffering—<...>. It now seems possible to give him something in return, whilst we had previously imagined him as being altogether above our gratitude. Our ability to requite him for what we have received from him arouses in us feelings of much joy and pleasure. We endeavour to ascertain what can best calm the grief of our friend, and we give it to him; if he wishes for kind words, looks, attentions, services, or presents, we give them; but, above all, if he would like to see us suffering from the sight of his suffering, we pretend to suffer, for all this secures for us the enjoyment of active gratitude, which is equivalent in a way to **good-natured revenge**. If he wants none of these things, and refuses to accept them from us, we depart from him chilled and sad, almost mortified; it appears to us as if our gratitude had been declined, and on this point of honour even the best of men is still somewhat touchy." (D #138)

"Our duties are the claims which others have upon us. How did they acquire these claims? By the fact that they considered us as capable of making and holding agreements and contracts, by assuming that we were their like and equals, and by consequently entrusting something to us, bringing us up, educating us, and supporting us. We do our duty, i.e. we justify that conception of our power for the sake of which all these things were done for us. We return them in proportion as they were meted out to us. It is thus our pride that orders us to do our duty—we desire to re-establish our own independence by opposing to that which others have done for us something that we do for them, for in that way the others invade our sphere of power, and would for ever have a hand in it if we did not make reprisals by means of “duty,” and thus encroach upon their power." (D #112)