In origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebs. We know, we can still see for ourselves...

Yes, I've made a post about it before. Does anyone talk about how similar Jeff Mangum is to a messianic figure?

Honestly guys, every single time I come to Veeky Forums, I have to bear your bullshit, what the fuck, I'm almost preferring to go back to /r9k/.

Good god, go! Go back to /r9k/.

You weren't supposed to be allowed to get out.

Interesting how Dostoevsky and Nietzche could still come away on two different sides of the issue.

...

Nietzsche wants to invert the high and low. He is pointing out that philosophy, considered in Germany the expression of the highest tendencies of the soul and mind, if we follow the greeks, was in the beginning a criminal enterprise that they punished with death.

Also phrenology was leftist and used to ask for criminal reform, since it's not the criminal's fault but it was their nature. So he is being a reactionary by making fun of criminologists and their absurdities.

>He is pointing out that philosophy, considered in Germany the expression of the highest tendencies of the soul and mind, if we follow the greeks, was in the beginning a criminal enterprise that they punished with death.

Except that in the Will of Power Nietzsche said that the pre-Socratics were "the real Greek philosophers".

>“The real philosophers of Greece are those before Socrates. They are all noble persons, setting themselves apart from people and state, traveled, serious to the point of somberness, with a slow glance, and no strangers to state affairs and diplomacy.”

>tfw sometimes I prefer Socrates over Nietzsche and vice versa
Why can't I make up my mind and choose the Dionysian over the Apollonian or the other way around?

lol I could hurt you well

>almost preferring to go back to /r9k/.
Please do

Because u obv havent read n.

I've read both Plato and Nietzsche a lot. They're both my favorite philosophers

Then how do u not know what he means by apollo and dionysus

Being incapable of choosing between the two is Dionysian.

Yeah the pre-socratics are at the origin of natural philosophy, science. While socrates originated philosophy as metaphysics.

Nietzsche loves science (in the gay science he talks about how much the study of chemistry has cured his mind) and hates the metaphysical turn (platonism).

There is a whole period of Nietzsche where he was studying psychology and chemistry that some call the enlightenment period because he was getting close to some scientistic position.

Kinda changes in the last nietzsche, but mostly because his interest switches, and needs to be a little bit more sceptical. But I don't think he changed his mind that much. Nietzsche fucking loves science.

Because of perspectivism.exe

In so far as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is INTERPRETABLE otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—"Perspectivism". IT IS OUR NEEDS THAT INTERPRET THE WORLD; OUR DRIVES AND THEIR FOR AND AGAINST. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.

The Will to Power, §481

Also
>Nietzsche fucking loves science
Neightzsche likes this post.

yeah it was, although there was definitely a strain within leftism that was amenable to stuff like this.

It's apocryphal. As as I know, there's no evidence it ever happened.

SOCRATES WAS A NIGGER!

Reminder that Socrates was a badass ripped war veteran who walked around a city mocking philosophy before philosophy was a thing.

Reason is not some semi-divine faculty grants us access to universal truths. Rather reason is embodied, literally so in physical ugliness in this case, but also embedded in certain social and historical contexts, meaning that its motives and its ends are particular and contingent.

I'm just to lazy to explain it. As with any other "modern" thinker you niggers should read the books that influenced him to gain better understandings of his reasoning. Langes "Geschichte des Materialismus" will make it very clear why he spoke of Socrates like that. According to Lange Socrates was the paragon, along with Plato and Aristotle, of the so called "Attic reaction" against the more scientific views held by the Sophists and Presocratics therefore stagnating Greek and European scientific thought by centuries.

physiognomy != phrenology

Also, Socrates was a nigger

The majority of what he wrote was just Emerson, but angrier.

He meant that through historical study of art, particularly the Renaissance, he came to realize that Socrates was plebs.

I've noticed that whenever Nietzsche really dislikes another thinker he always manages to stick in a bunch of ad hominem attacks in addition to critiquing their ideas and assumptions. Sometimes the ad hominems outnumber the rational critiques. It diminishes him in my eyes.

That's what happens when reason, or the will to truth as he called it, is thrown out the window

Invective and polemic have long since been staples of literature, you little prancing queer, as much as intellectual mediocrities like to drone on about "muh fallacies"

Yeah, but two can play that game, and I can just call Nietzsche a hideous goblin and use that as a justification to never read his work. And then we get nowhere.

Nietzsche wouldn't care though. He would just think you're too dumb to understand him.

Likewise, Socrates would think the same of Nietzsche

I think Socrates would be too humble to make that opinion evident though.

And Socrates actually cares about people using their intellect to attain the truth. Nietzsche doesn't give a damn about what other people do except for the ones who are "worthy" enough to understand him.

But Nietzsche both insulted people and read their work. What you're saying you could do is not equivalent to what Nietzsche did.

That would be because he views people as living beings and not as rational ones. Living beings have motives which are often irrational. And it's not ad hominem; he is attacking the idea at the same time he attacks the person behind it because of the missing distinction that he interprets.

Socrates would be bemused that Nietzsche, two thousand years later, was rehashing the same old might makes right sophistry that he had already thoroughly debunked in his conversations with the likes of Callicles and Thrasymachus

>debunked
I don't think you know what that means. After all this is the "rationalist" who committed the most irrational act possible, voluntary suicide.

Kek I've always wondered about this. Isn't old Neetch essentially just a constipated German version of Thrasymachus?

>Suicide
>Irrational
Yeah, if you're a pitiful vitalist. Someone in touch with Logos knows death doesn't exist.

>implying thrasymachus was wrong

Suicide is voluntarily ending your life earlier than you could possibly allow it to exist. You'll have to relive that for eternity, the proper rational man would never commit suicide. He'd never want to die earlier than he had to, there's too much to do.

Looks like someone didn't read Apology, Crito, and Phaedo.

The Republic actually does a really great job proving that Thrasymachus is wrong and that justice is valuable for its own sake. A lot of the other stuff in it--the metaphysics, the political philosophy, the stuff about the soul--is subject to dispute, but I think Socrates, Glaucon, and Adiemantus build a pretty ironclad case that justice, as they define it, is preferable to injustice, even without rewards attached.

Don't mess around my man, the arguments against thrasymachus were childish at best. "Hur dur a society without justice isn't going to prosper and will lose in war"-- the entirety of human history is based on injustice, and even if this is the case, that an entire society works on injustice is completely different from having a personal moral code in which injustice is justified and wrecking havoc for your own individual profit.

Recommend the SEP article on these two. Really good.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/callicles-thrasymachus/

>In origin, user belonged to the lowest class: user was an anime watcher. We know, we can still see for ourselves, how despicable this anime watching is. But anime watching, in itself an objection, is among Veeky Forums almost a refutation. Was user anon at all? Watching anime is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropologists on reddit and the criminologists in our shams of universities tell us that the typical virgin watches anime: capillus tenuis, mentum infirmum. ["thin hair, weak chin"] But the virgin is a decadent. Is user a typical virgin? At least that would not be contradicted by the famous judgment of the physiognomist which sounded so offensive to the friends of user. A newfag who knew about faces once passed through Veeky Forums and told user to his face that he was a beta -- that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites. And user merely answered: "You know me, sir!"

The rational man would know there's no early or later in life, he would be capable of dying fulfilled at any moment of his life, without preparation, because his life is wholesome. He would not force himself to live a life based on a promise but would have the dignity to retire once his time has passed, without being led by passions that aren't even for his own benefit.

>Implying this was the reason Sócrates accepted his death

Cmon' man, if you've actually read the apology he states that he wanted to die because of the purification of the soul, the possibility of living amongst the gods, and the calm that lies in the nether realm of nothing. All this reasons are heavily criticizable from a thinker's perspective and also from a moral one of prefering nothing over something, and thinking of the body as a mere prison to the soul.

>Writing an essay on this

Were their any other sophists who had views on justice and power that differed from these men? I know that in general they pursued different ideas and held different beliefs, but are they all linked by this "might makes right" concept?

I also asked my prof if I could write an essay arguing that Socrates was justly convicted because a) I'm a contrarian and b) it would be a challenge, but I'm starting to lean towards the discussion above. So far, for this one I have:

>He was sexually involved with young children (and developed a relationship with Antyus' son, going so far as to persuade him not to work for his father) (Xenophon)
>He threatened the political structure of his city at a vulnerable time
>And (forgive me) he infringed on peoples' innate right to their own ignorance

I'm not looking for someone to write this for me, just want to spark a discussion. If I'm ignored I will understand.

Funny how Nietzsche was an anti-nationalist and did everything to be seen as a non-German, but he shittalks Socrates for not fitting his definition of greekness.

dumbest post that rids Nietzsche of all nuance and puts in place retarded identity politics that i've sighted thus far

That Socrates gives bad reasons for his death doesn't rule out all suicide as irrational.

And if Socrates had hated life that much, and thought death was absolutely better, then he wouldn't have needed the trial to die and would have taken his life without bothering anybody. Despite what he says, the political situation and not the afterlife must be the reason why he dies. Let's not focus on the central man so much here, that we can't see the wood for the tree.

>Any post that mentions nationalism in any form is about identity politics
Gaze, meet Abyss.

Well, in general the sophists tended to make a distinction between natural justice (might makes right) and conventional justice, and argued for the former. So this means for the sophist virtue was based on the outer life, equating moral excellence with the power to do what you want, that is, satisfy desires. So yeah I think they all endorsed might makes right in some sense.

Okay, I can work with that. Everything in me wants to root for the sophists and against Cock-a-Tease but I am limited by the availability of evidence in primary sources.

Well what I mean is that you're conflating Nietzsche's love for the greek world with nationalistm, and Nietzsche's dislike of germany with anti-nationalism, when in fact it all stemmed from a psychological evaluation of both societies and what each of them brought to the table culturally and spiritually. Germany he thought was constrained, plodding and vulgar, while he thought of Ancient Greece and it's inhabitants as free, joyous and aristocratic. It has nothing to do with nationalism.

What I was getting at was that he dislikes Socrates for being out of place in his society, while he himself responded in the same way toward his own. In that he's more like Socrates than any German or Greek. Sure they say different things, but their functions are the same.

I could also bring up how he thinks he knows more about being living in Ancient Greece than an actual Ancient Greek while being removed two thousand years from them, but that's beside the point.

What

Nietzsche spent the 2nd half of his life outside germany traveling all over europe

Sounds like a train of reasoning heavily influenced by the shit-science of his day.

He wasn't mocking philosophy, he was mocking utilitarian rhetoric.

So?

That's bullshit, at any moment in time you either want to die or you want to live. The second Socrates chose to drink the poison instead of flee, he chose that he didn't want to live. His motivations for not wanting to not live are entirely personal. He wanted to be famous, he wanted to be the 'Jesus' of his day. He was the 'Jesus' of his day. He was entirely interested in choosing his death for personal fame after his death; nothing but a martyr. He valued fame in his death more than his actual life That's anti-life and frankly nihilistic.

some highly speculative speculations there

>at any moment in time you either want to die or you want to live
And on what do you base the assumption that you have to "want" to live in order to live? Do you "want" to have two arms or breathe? Do you "want" or not want everything in your life? Everything in your world? Does the color of the sky depend on your wants as well?

>His motivations for not wanting to not live are entirely personal.
His motivation for not wanting to live do not exist in a vacuum. "The purification of the soul, the possibility of living amongst the gods, and the calm that lies in the nether realm of nothing", none of those are purely dependent on Socrates the person. They did not come from him alone. Today it would sound unconvincing to us, but in his time that's wasn't so much the case.

>He was entirely interested in choosing his death for personal fame after his death
And yet he did not live to see any of his fame. What possessed him to die so pointlessly? It could not have been some regard for his own happiness. Are we to believe he was thinking he'd still see what happens after dead and, perhaps, laugh at our foolishness? But then why watch over what he had supposedly rejected?

Your thinking is strangely Abrahamic, user. It's all the subject's choice for you. Do remember that Socrates considered himself as possessed by his daemon. You might say he's a liar, but then what are you replacing that explaination with?

"The world is will to power and nothing else"? Why, you haven't overcome God at all then. Such nonsense from a man who felt he had to conquer the life he already had in order to live. At least he had the courage to not turn the beautiful into the ugly and so on.

implying Neechee wouldn't have died for his philosophy had he been sentenced to death just to stroke his massive ego cock

There is nothing wrong with any of those

Did he travel back in time to ancient Greece?

>With Socrates, Greek taste changes in favor of logical argument. What
really happened there? Above all, a noble taste is vanquished; with dialectics the plebs
come to the top. Before Socrates, argumentative conversation was repudiated in good
society: it was considered bad manners, compromising. The young were warned
against it. Furthermore, any presentation of one's motives was distrusted. Honest
things, like honest men, do not have to explain themselves so openly. What must first
be proved is worth little. Wherever authority still forms part of good bearing, where
one does not give reasons but commands, the logician is a kind of buffoon: one laughs
at him, one does not take him seriously. Socrates was the buffoon who got himself
taken seriously: what really happened there?
6 One chooses logical argument only when one has no other means. One
knows that one arouses mistrust with it, that it is not very persuasive. Nothing is
easier to nullify than a logical argument: the tedium of long speeches proves this. It is
a kind of self-defense for those who no longer have other weapons. Unless one has to
insist on what is already one's right, there is no use for it. The Jews were
argumentative for that reason; Reynard the Fox also — and Socrates too?

I wish you posted the rest of the text as well since it's so relevant here. He goes on to talk about this this will to logic and how it emerges out of decadence; All of us here are arguing about something even though we have little to no stake in it; We are all plebs as well.

>We shall turn first, as Nietzsche himself does, to his critical remarks in Twilight concerning Socrates. He begins with the very same sort of criticism with which he began in The Birth of Tragedy, that Socrates inaugurates a great decline in Greek culture since he was the “murderous principle” of Greek tragedy. Except that by now, still convinced that Socrates represents a decline, Nietzsche broadens the issue considerably. He begins with the affirmation—really a reaffirmation of an oft-repeated claim—that most of the supposedly great sages of history have made a similar judgment on life, “that it is no good” ([10], p. 473), and that moreover, such a judgment on the part of them all is really an indication of decadence. He includes Socrates among these decadents, based initially on what can only be called a curious reading of Socrates’ last words on his deathbed in Plato’s Phaedo, which Nietzsche mistranslates as “I owe Asclepius the Savior a rooster”8([10], p. 473), and which he interprets as Socrates saying that his life is a sickness. In any case, about Socrates he adds, “The irreverent thought that the great sages are types of decline first occurred to me precisely in a case where it is most strongly opposed by both scholarly and unscholarly prejudice: I recognized Socrates and Plato to be symptoms of degeneration, tools of the Greek dissolution, pseudo-Greek, anti-Greek” ([10], pp. 473–74), and he even cites parenthetically The Birth of Tragedy in support of this. So, Socrates is still paradigmatically a symptom of decline, although now, it is less specifically as the murderer of tragedy and more generally as one of those so-called sages who evaluates life badly, or rather, as Nietzsche insists, that they think that life can be evaluated at all ([10], p. 474).

>To support this, it is on Socrates’ supposed decadence that Nietzsche first concentrates. He cites, as evidence of this, Socrates’ notorious ugliness (“Ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation” ([10], p. 474)), his plebian background, but most importantly and consistent with his evaluation in The Birth of Tragedy, the “hypertrophy of the logical faculty” and “that Socratic equation of reason, virtue, and happiness: that most bizarre of all equations, which, moreover, is opposed to all the instincts of the earlier Greeks” ([10], p. 475). We have seen these themes in the earlier text. Here, Nietzsche concentrates his attention on the so-called Socratic optimism about reason and “dialectic”, by which Nietzsche seems to mean what is often called the “Socratic method” of questioning established views to see if they can withstand Socrates’ elenchus.

Such demand for reasons and dialectical proof Nietzsche now interprets as a form of “bad manners”, dishonesty, and in any case not relevant to genuine insight. “What must first be proved is worth little” ([10], p. 476), he says famously. But by now Nietzsche, steeped in his commitment to what he calls his “geneology”, is most interested in the psychology of such an insistence on reason giving, on what experience of life gives rise to such a commitment. And he decides that it is an instance of the spirit of revenge. “As a dialectician, one holds a merciless tool in one’s hand; one can become a tyrant by means of it; one compromises those one conquers. The dialectician leaves it to his opponent to prove that he is no idiot: he makes one furious and helpless at the same time. The dialectician renders the intellect of his opponent powerless. Indeed, is dialectic only a form of revenge in Socrates?” ([10], p. 476).

>Anyone familiar with Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra knows that the “spirit of revenge” is a quality that Nietzsche sees as one of the worst characteristics of modern culture and as something that must be overcome. He has his Zarathustra say at one point, “For that humanity be delivered from revenge, that for me is the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms” ([2], p. 211. Translation modified). To accuse Socrates of being motivated by the spirit of revenge is for Nietzsche strong criticism indeed.

For further info see: Nietzsche's "Love" For Socrates.
mdpi.com/2076-0787/4/1/3

People don't understand when Nietzsche is being serious and when he's just being provocative. Socrates was and still is a huge figure in Western intellectual culture, and here Nietzsche is having the hilarious gall to criticize him by calling him ugly, and comically using the phrenology of the day and a supposed anecdote about him to suggest that his ugliness was proof of his criminality and inner vices. Also see A great deal of Nietzsche is not even what we think of as straight philosophizing or being logical (as points out, Nietzsche loves ad hominem), but rather a pretty entertaining and bombastic mixture of the some pseudoscientific ideas of the day, literary criticism, psychology and even what we'd later call the psychoanalysis of famous literary, historical, and philosophical figures, and offensive, Emersonian musings. These ideas he posited were not being put forward as ultimate truth, but to stir up the mind of the reader. The philosophical idea behind all this bombast and seeming pretension was that Nietzsche believed any society which adheres too strongly to any number of holy cows eventually becomes dead, sterile, nihilistic, and decadent. He saw all interesting ideas and art in life as coming from people who dared to go against society's norms and sort of "stir up the cesspool" so it doesn't become stagnant.

Another philosophical underpinning to this sometimes hilarious writing of his is that he didn't value ultimate truth as much as he did psychological effect (how strong and life-affirming something makes you feel). In fact, it seems clear from his writings that he doesn't believe in ultimate truth, since there is no God; there are only many subjective truths seen from different perspectives (this is his perspectivism). Thus, again, the best perspective for him is the most life-affirming one.

this is a good post

>Socrates was and still is a huge figure in Western intellectual culture, and here Nietzsche is having the hilarious gall to criticize him by calling him ugly, and comically using the phrenology of the day and a supposed anecdote about him to suggest that his ugliness was proof of his criminality and inner vices.

None of the supposed flavors of the 19th century were truly original, it was a very phil-hellenic century. Nietzsche is primed by his culture, surely, but he is still using old forms to criticize. Athenian contemporaries leveled the same criticisms to Socrates, and he was respected in some circles, but derided in most. One must not forget the Athenians did convict him of impiety (his disbelief in the civic cult is at least likely), and his disciple Alcibiades, goes on to become one of the greatest criminals of his era. Logic was not a new invention, the Pythagoreans had it in abundance, but their doctrine was not to teach openly for fear the unscrupulous would apply the principles towards ruinous ends. Alcibiades played a great role in destroying Athens. Alexander, a later student of philosophy, goes on to destroy not only Persia and Thebes, but also Macedon and all of Hellas, robbing it of independent spirit, and drowning it with poisonous wealth from the east. A teacher is responsible for what the heirs of his tradition do. If Neitzsche is saying that Socrates began the betrayal of the Greek character, there is strong chronological evidence to support the assertion.

>Thus, again, the best perspective for him is the most life-affirming one.

The golden path does not need to be known, only followed.

lurk more

He was a borderline pseud who walked through art galleries, asked artists if they understood things they don't even need to understand in order to produce their craft, and then thought art was a sham as a result.

>their doctrine was not to teach openly for fear the unscrupulous would apply the principles towards ruinous ends

They took over parts of Sicily.

Italy.

Playing devil's advocate.
That's like 50% of what neechee does in his books. The other 50% is bashing philosophers and ideas he genuinely dislikes.

What does he have to do with this? Genuinely curious.