Why do progressive liberals seem to like Nietzsche?

Because he BTFO CHRISTIANITY LMAO SCIENCE!!!!!!!!

your phone seems to have changed AND to LMAO for some reason, phonekun. maybe it knows you as a happy rather than additional person.

>>he thinks Nietzsche=Y=Z=/=Z
I don't think you understood what I said. You haven't demonstrated an understanding of Nietzsche; accusing me of not having read enough Heraclitus or Nietzsche does not demonstrate your own comprehension of Nietzsche.
Eternal return does not imply the actual recurrence of a single event--it is part of a prescription for overcoming nihilism, the idea that some moments are capable of redeeming all others by being worthy of infinite repetition across unending recurrences of history, human and natural. You want me to go back to Heraclitus and Nietzsche but you want me to buy into the idea that Nietzsche was endorsing this as a metaphysical thing-in-itself rather than as a beatitude for the new era in which God is dead, but religion lives on? Or are you too bad at speaking English to make clear the reasons that you think liberals and progressives cannot misunderstand concepts like the Overman or eternal recurrence or the death of God?

>>Namedropping X and Y implies an understanding of Z
>Hmm...does this pass for dialectic where you come from?
If X is Heraclitus and Y is Nietzsche in the name drops, and Z is also Nietzsche, I've demonstrated not only you can't even in2 basic Aristotle, you can't into Nietzsche or his influences.
Who are you planning on fooling with lies that are easily disproven even within this thread without reference to more than logic? Are you trying to sucker yourself? I'd clear up that shit if I were you, which thankfully, I'm not right now. :D

what pretentiousness looks like

>Aristotle
I'm well aware of that Z=Z, that was part of my point, you fucking retard--namedropping two people doesn't prove that you understand either of them.
>No response to what I had to say about the ethical quality of eternal recurrence
Instead of assuming that the person you're talking to doesn't understand logic, maybe you should actually look to see if what's said has content in it.
7/10

>read Herakleitos before Nietzsche is pretentiousness
what happened to Veeky Forums?

>How dare you discuss literature in paragraph form on a literature board with 2,000-character post limits!
Go fuck yourself, desu

Heraclitus is the source for Nietzsche ideas on recurrence. It's the earliest source in Western canon for the idea. This is basic shit, and you fucked up Aristotelian logic which isn't even proper grown up sophomoric logic. If you knew anything, you'd realize how badly you crapped out on this one.

>Why do progressive liberals seem to like Nietzsche?
They don't. He's sexist.

I still see a lot of namedropping.
>Aristotelian logic
Your problem is that you assume logic ends with Aristotle. Z=Z, yes, now let's move on--show me some evidence that you understand Nietzsche and Aristotle that isn't just the bold assertion that Heraclitus directly informed Nietzsche without intervening institutions that preserved the elder's work and trained the younger to interpret it.

Heraclitus isn't that many fragments that you couldn't have read them and found all the "changing it rests", and he is so necessary to understanding Nietzsche, as is a broad understanding of the Greeks, I can tell you probably didn't recognise Diogenes either in ASZ
>inb4 namedropping and passive reference is A-OK when Nietzsche does it
you didn't know what he was saying or whom he was referring to, in one of the most allusive philosophers. It's not my fault you can't operate off a strong base of knowledge in the subject to understand Nietzsche or me. That's all your lack of reading, not Nietzsche's nor mine. Get basic.

"All flows," yes, fire, flux, etc., I still don't understand why you refuse to address the epistemological and historical gap separating the two thinkers.
Eternal recurrence involves a post-Greco-Roman conception of the self. It is an ethical scenario that is particular to a world in which God is dead. Yes, Nietzsche was influenced by Heraclitus, there's no reason to deny it because it's true.

>Get basic
You're too basic to recognize a statement of identity when you see one, don't talk to me about beginnings.

>eternal only meant future
no. It meant eternal and is widely acknowledged as from Heraclitus. Or, more personally, Nietzsche himself said it.
>With the highest respect, I exclude the name of Heraclitus. When the rest of the philosophic crowd rejected the testimony of the senses because it showed multiplicity and change, he rejected their testimony because it represented things as if they had permanence and unity. Heraclitus too did the senses an injustice. They lie neither in the way the Eleatics believed, nor as he believed — they do not lie at all. What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence. "Reason" is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie. But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction. The "apparent" world is the only one: the "true" world is merely added by a lie.
By "eternally right" there, Nietzsche doesn't mean "only after Christianity". You really have a problem with referents. And trouble with a basic understanding of philosophy that a Cliff Notes book could probably out do you at this point.

>still being basic
see how wrong you are my basic, idiotic, arrogant, and very poorly read friend. Or does Nietzsche not know Nietzsche now? kek