Has there been a more misunderstood philosopher from the past 500 years?
The Analytics didn't understand anything.
The postmodernists barely understood him.
Atheists don't understand him.
Nihilists half-understand him.
No one is beyond good and evil yet. No one has overcome man. God is still on the outside, and the world is still "battling for the truth" as if there is any.
When will we see a proper heir to the throne he left behind?
Other urls found in this thread:
Heidegger.
But you understood him, right?
>When will we see a proper heir to the throne he left behind?
It's clearly you, my man.
this. it's clearly OP. No one gets him but you, OP, you said so yourself
Nope.
No. But I understand enough to be able to tell where others go wrong.
>No. But I understand enough to be able to tell where others go wrong.
Why don't you give us your analysis of where they go wrong then? Or do you just want us to pat you on your back and say 'yeah man, we're far beyond those cucks'?
>The postmodernists barely understood him.
>No. But I understand enough to be able to tell where others go wrong.
Explain how the postmodernists didn't understand him
why don't you show us this understanding then, OP
Anyone trying to dissect and flesh out Nietzsche's supposed "metaphysics" is always going to be wrong. To live as if there is a "metaphysics" after reading Nietzsche means you haven't grasped him, even if you define it as something paradoxical like 'a metaphysics without a metaphysical base' or some nonsense. Nothing is paradoxical in Nietzsche. There is a very fragile balance with Nietzsche and why he never outright declares truth statements; but everyone else like the Analytics and postmodernists still converse as if that is what they are making, and act as if that is what Nietzsche was making, and often refer to his thought as paradoxical or pluralistic, which means they have not understood him.
Atheists don't understand him. Nietzsche did not write that God did not exist. The matter of God is more than the atheists imagine.
Nihilists half-understand him. Nietzsche was not a nihilist. They should read Will to Power and his "madness" letters; he is in fact one of the only authors who is not nihilistic in the end conclusion of his thought and in his final hours.
Let's hear a critique then. Tell us where, say, Foucault and Deleuze go wrong
You just read my critique.
What have you done to overcome Man?
>everyone who doesn't suck his dick doesn't understand him
If that is the case and there is no metaphysics, then Sartre is the heir apparent.
He literally posited there is no Being, which is a complete and total metaphysical and epistemological reversal of Christianity and the classics.
Foucault and Deleuze BTFO by user. Well done, m'lad *tips cock*
There's no reversal in Nietzsche. He goes completely beyond it. Sartre is also way too simple to possibly be his heir.
actually it is me, some one who is not op
You have absolutely not read Foucault, Heidegger, or Deleuze. This is what you say after reading Nietzsche and think you've overcome metaphysics or something. Point to something specific in those works or fuck off.
>accusing Foucault of all people of ascribing a metaphysics to Nietzsche
I'm not biting. You're one who would continuously avoid the responsibility of investigating what is being said at any length by any means necessary. I already sense that I could talk a blue streak and get nowhere with you.
I'm not that guy. It's just painfully obvious that you haven't read any of the "postmoderns" that you claim to be critiquing. I mean it's obvious that you don't know shit about Foucault if you think his job was to "dissect" Nietzsche's metaphysics. It wasn't. I've read and written extensively on Heideggerian receptions of Nietzsche. You're the one not engaging with the material.
Kiekergaard. If you understood Kierkergaard you understood him too quickly.
Heidegger is the basis for what I said. He mangled Nietzsche. Just look at what the two wrote, they are miles apart to anyone with eyes.
Wittgenstein dissolved Nietzsche
How can anyone think Nietzsche was one of the smartest people ever when he was bad at math and physics at one of the most fertile times to advance both fields? Quantitative sciences are for the most enlightened individuals
>misses a punctuation mark
>thinks he has the right to talk shit about Nitzke
I'm not OP, but i think that the main difference between those "heirs" and Nietzsche is that Nietzsche has humor, he's literally making top-tier comedy sometimes
and that's one of the biggest things you can do in philosophy.
mfw people read the wikipedia page and talk about "leap of faith"
Neechee threads should be banned
I want to know what we mean by truth, and has anyone at any point in history understood what truth means? And isn't the concept of truth changing itself which each passing generation while still remaining in a blurry dream state?
You should try reading philosophy...or you're right, best get your answers here
I...is that not important to Kierkegaard?
In his whole authorship he literally never uses the phrase "leap of faith". Anyone who mentions it outs themselves as having their kierkegaard knowledge limited to wikipedia.
And your reading is evidently fruitful.
I found this thread to be pretty insightful on Nietszche.
Must be a shitty philosopher if nobody understands him.
Common knowledge is poor knowledge.
>Has there been a more misunderstood philosopher from the past 500 years?
me desu