There is no good and evil, only power. And those too weak to seek it

>There is no good and evil, only power. And those too weak to seek it.

Was he right?

Maybe.

I'm going to assume your trying to pull a trickaroo and make people argue against Nietzsche, but the "point" is pointless because we have no real understanding of what good/evil/power actually mean.

I appreciate you summoning the effort required to try.

Perhaps.

It's only right you understand what strength and power actually entails.

hint: its not your edgy Vegeta tier nonsense

I can't answer this right now

*habitually does the right thing at the right time to the right people*

heh....

i mean POSSIBLY but you know

It's hilarious that you've outted yourself as a pleb.
You've been criss-crossed.
This quote was posted under a picture of Nietzsche earlier. You saw this post and assumed it was true. Now it is posted under the JK Rowling character from whence it came and you assume you know better.

You unironically considered JK Rowlings writing as good as Nietzsches and defended it as such with a half assed postmodernist analysis of "whut even is evul???"

Leave this board and never come back

It's not weakness to disregard power seeking.

Hmm; potentially.

I've never seen the first post you're talking about but I know enough to realize people really don't care what anyone has to say on here and just enjoy unloading their emotional baggage by tricking them or just plain insulting them. i.e. Right now. And it's also impossible to determine writing quality from two simple sentences, unless they're really, really bad. Which is why we would never be able to answer the original question from reading two sentences.

It gets better. You, by your own volition and without getting suckered in, decided that a quote from a childrens fantasy series with the depth of baby's first existential crisis was actually the work of Neitzsche.

That's too rich.

Why kid ourselves, people have nothing to say to one another, they all talk about their own troubles and nothing else. Each man for himself, the earth for us all. They try to unload their unhappiness on someone else when making love, they do their damnedest, but it doesn't work, they keep it all, and then they start all over again, trying to find a place for it. "Your pretty, Mademoiselle," they say. And life takes hold of them again until the next time, and then they try the same little gimmick. "You're very pretty, Mademoiselle..."

And in between they boast that they've succeeded in getting rid of their unhappiness, but everyone knows it's not true and they've simply kept it all to themselves. Since at the little game you get uglier and more repulsive as you grow older, you can't hope to hide your unhappiness, your bankruptcy, any longer. In the end your features are marked with that hideous grimace that takes twenty, thrity years or more to climb form your belly to your face. That's all a man is good for, that and no more, a grimace that he takes a whole lifetime to compose. The grimace a man would need to express his true soul without losing any of it is so heavy and complicated that he doesn't always succeed in completing it.

JK once said this in regards to the Elder wand.

>And it also attracts wizards like Voldemort, who confuse being prepared to murder with strength.

I think a lot of psychotic criminals do what they do because they think it makes them strong and sets them apart. They think that no one else has the tenacity to defy society and do horrible twisted things. To a certain extent, they're right.
But stealing power doesn't make you strong, and killing and hurting people isn't hard. What's really is hard is BEING NICE and selfless, and doing it all the time. Going out of your way to do the right thing, and sacrifice your own comfort and safety, when no one had asked you to. Constantly having to be patient and calm in the presence of idiots, and choosing to engage in the impossible task of actively trying trying to FIX the world instead of throwing your hands up and letting other people deal with it -- that's hard.

You are a sperg

You're giving Nietzche waaaaay too much credit. Unfortunately for him, his level of intellectualism is actually as low as Rowling's.

yes

..its profound in as much as it perfectly outlines the essence of a lot of shlock

If you see Voldy as the King of Shlock then by all means he was right

Says the 12 year old still stuck on Nietzsche, who thought he could outlast a blackhole.

Get real man, Neitzsche has been influencing modern philosophy since after his death. It might seem trite now, but he's up there with Freud, Darwin, and Marx in craft the modern world view.

You, in all sincerity, continue to defend your lack of discernment for one of the highest figures in the entire western intellectual tradition.

I don't have to criticize Nietzsche, his actual life suffices.

In an attempt at superiority you descend to an ad hominem statement against Netizsche instead of disputing his ideas in an attempt to defend your confusion over a quote from a children's author.

Being this much of a brainlet must hurt

>riddled with illness
>still only goes for the chicks he actually wants
>doesn't lower his standards to the thots that wanted his dick
he was pretty fucking cool desu

It's no secret that Nietzsche lived one of the most tragic lives in literary history. Initially wanting to be a composer, but turned instead to academic philology (all while his friend Wagner became a famous composer). At university, students avoided his class because of other Professor's disdain for him and his essay The Birth of Tragedy. Becoming increasingly ill while away from society. Remaining unrecognized throughout his life because he was far ahead of his time. Having multiple books unpublished because they were too taboo. No family to call his own. Losing his mind to an unavoidable disease, which, who knows, may have actually been a blessing to him. One of the greatest advocates for life, yet had to endure nothing but trouble and unrecognition. To the statement of the demon, the reaction would most likely be terror.

it's like watching someone say van gogh is a bad painter because his life was shit

I am inclined to agree with this.

It's not, because Van Gogh is entirely about aesthetics, and philosophy is not.

Lel literally read it in his voice

Great post.

nice meme

Voldy may have hated muggles, but it's clear that he was heavily influenced by Foucault.

Hitler actually. He grew up in Hogwarts during WWII and was repeatedly sent back to the orphanage in London even when there would've been bombings.

This is a really good post

The reasons it sucks a quote and why Nietzche would write it

1) Nietzsche does use the word good in his lexicon
2) He does aknowledge evil exists as a perspective but as a universial
3) He says everyone seeks power, some people just suck at acquiring it.

This is sounds like the typing of stuff that a video game character would say.

I find myself doing the right thing out of pride that the "peasants" would have done the wrong thing. Like I'm superior if I can stick to the "code of conduct" and still rise above people. Am I an idiot?

Not sure if you'll be able to keep it up, the same disdain for plebs can convince you to do the opposite. The difference is that one takes strength.

Leaving a life like that and leaving such a life affirming legacy is pretty impressive to me

not bad.

>those with the slave morality are really the strongest

Woah #woke

The problem with fixers of the world and thinking they are being nice is that when they fuck it up, they rarely learn their lesson. They cannot a priori learn their lesson, because they can just shuck their responsibility for their actions by saying they had good intentions and their fixed vision wasn't reached. Which ultimately means more "niceness" and more fixing. Given the mess they've already created, it becomes even more of a mess, often with the fixers clamping down on anyone who dares get in the way of their "niceness" and vision.

Put this in modal terms: the fixers want to reach exactly one possible world among many possible worlds. But given the path from the actual base world to that possible world isn't just a quick step, but a chain of relations among many other possibilities, it's not a given that you have access to that exact possible world. In fact, it's more likely you'll end up in a possible world that isn't like the one you exactly wanted. The reason for this is simple math or metaphysics: There are more possible worlds that can go wrong with your vision than the exact possible world you want access to.

POWAH, UNLIMITED POWAH

After all the philosophies and polemics, we still rule ourselves at the grunt level. He who has the biggest stick, or the most sticks, still rules. We're still motivated by our most basic instincts. We still antagonize each other to achieve and maintain social status. Sophistication is not progress, and complexity is not improvement. For all our logic and reason, our apologetics and rationalizations, we still act like our ancestors before they left the trees.

Reddit the post

the word 'selfish' always muddies the waters

most moral texts don't dwell too long on selfishness because it's a question of degrees, you MUST be selfish about many things to continue existing

without the selfishness meme, evil is simplified: it is simply the declared intent of anything authority which cannot be defied (in the absence of gods, "that which cannot be defied" is our own needs, which confusingly wraps back around to selfishness: relativism and eternal debate!)

I kek'd.

I think we all are responsible to find our own definition of good and evil. A universial good can't exist. Everything's relative to every possible perspective. We can think as much as want about good and evil, but the only thing we know for sure is what we feel when we do perform something. That's why I'd argue for a anthropologic approach to good and evil.
If we would want to judge others for their actions we'd need to feel what they've felt when they performed that certain action.
Most of the time actions we would judge as evil, have inner motives that we don't want to understand. Thus we lock 'em up and forget about them, to live in a unchallangeing and easy world where most ppl we know are easily understandable.

Powerseeking in itself is a statement of weakness.According to Arno Gruen, Power is a mean to escape one's own weaknesses. Whenever people felt weak, they created almighty gods under whom they could submit. Once they've submitted, they started judging others who wouldn't follow their gods laws. In these moments where they enact god's law, they claimed a part of gods power as their own, thus escaped their own weakness.
These people who judge others in god's name are nothing without their god. This cruel truth is something they must deny to keep their selfworth intact. They seek power to be able to deny that truth, because power supports the lie they live.

i hope i make sense lol, plz no h8 engrish no first language

More like Tumblr the post

Moar like Instagram the post.

Hehe

Amirite guys, am I of the 4chin now?

>You unironically considered JK Rowlings writing as good as Nietzsches
No, it's better.

>we don't have to think about being weak if we define being strong as being a pussy

really makes you think...

Good definitely exists. Evil is the absence of good. Voldemort (PBUH) was a pseud and a pleb.

What makes overcoming difficulty commendable?

thrasymachus is that you? thats a mighty stick youre carrying, do you know how to use it?