Refute this man

He didn't refute him

was he ubermensch irl or just in his bookz?

he refute him by destroying all philosphy

>hasen't understood a lick of Wittgenstein
Tbh N is just a really sharp self-help guru, genealogist, and philologist. The only "true," consistent philosophical claim he tried to make was his refutation of Platonism, which really amounts to him just having read way too far into Kant's "world as appearances" stuff. All you have to do is deny his reading of Kant, buy into some real metaphysics (and ditch whatever weird morality that might seem to accompany it, which N would want us to do anyway), and voila you've refuted N.
>inb4 it's all power

he died a beta bitch and his sister whored out his works to anyone who wanted them

That's what Nietzsche did

He's irrefutable in the same way that you can't convince a man tripping hard that the hallucinations aren't real.

"I am one thing, my writings are another..." Ecce Hommo

To have the clarity of thought necessary to write what he did, you need to be above man.

You paint the way you live

10 iq

why would you have a moustache like that, getting food/drink in yer stache is the worst part about facial hair

Swag

>Refute this man
Checkmate

Ludwig Klages destroys him.

Stop reading Nietzsche.

Try applying actually applying his philosophy in everyday life without going mad in 20 years

As long as you don't get poisoned to death like everyone else who met his standards the nyou should be fine.

looks like he movembered hard. good for him until you actually read his crap after age 16

>Taught classes about Greek philology and tragedy
>Was a respected Classicist until the publication of Birth of a Tragedy; the work was not faulted for a lack of knowledge regarding the works but their manipulation into his framework.
>Never tried to usurp God's kingdom
>Loathed the fact that people would call his name 'holy'

In which work?

Correct. This board is too stupid to get it tho

The Turin episode, however, was either caused by Syphilis (contracted either the one time he went a brothel, or as a medic in the Franco-Prussian war), or it was caused by his genetics as his father had died of "liquidification of the brain"

As for refuting his own work, my favourite dialogue in the Gay Science goes something as follows:
>A: I want to be just like you.
>B: I went my own way.
>A: Exactly.

I know the Turin episode is of doubtful authenticity, but he basically refuted all his philosophy the exact moment when he hugged the horse. It's a symbolic gesture to say: "I regret it. Moral law DOES count as a human value". If it's not so, how come the opponent of pity, goodness, compassion, forgiveness, hug a HORSE? And it's worth noticing he didn't speak or write anything else for 10 years after that episode.

Again: it may be just a legend, just a posterior narrative, but the story still contains and suggests the counter-argument to his philosophy.

He was an incel that made the very first chad

>this thing never happened but when it happened it completely undid a man's entire career

Ever read Crime and Punishment, by the way?

positing force as the nature of the world and adhering to ideology.

No user, I haven't. Why you ask?

I mean, so did like half wetsern philosophers.

Even Wittgenstein realized the Tractatus was garbage after he finished building a bunch of stupid houses or whatever.

Materialism is true = Nietzsche was right about everything

Materialism is not true = Nietzsche was right about only some things

He never even kissed a girl. what a nerd.

"God is dead" ~ Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead" ~ God

live by the sword die by the sword nigga

Not only is the historical accuracy of that incident completely uncertain but it is absolutely retarded to say that trying to comfort a horse after seeing its arrogant, self-absorbed human owner flog it unjustly somehow undoes his entire philosophy. Nietzsche was a harsh critic with strong ideals, but not a fucking douchebag. You have clearly not read him enough.

Neitmeme actually did ONE good thing. Discovering moral is in general subjective (althought i found out some parts are objective).
The rest is bullshit.

ANEX:
this means you are free to believe what you want. It is ok to be racist, sexist, etc. Fuck sjws.

Screencapping this for the cringe of future generations

why would they cringe?

"Finally, we come to the third step, where the sophomoric attitudinizing of the half-witted Nietzsche, which does not even represent anything whole or coherent—mere sketches of immoral, unfounded ideas—is regarded by advanced men as the last word of philosophic science. [....] We have before us the incoherent, most rankly sensational writings of a witty, but narrow-minded and abnormal German, who is obsessed by the mania of greatness."

>sophomoric attitudinizing
being this condescending
>immoral, unfounded ideas
morality?
>abnormal German
normality?
He sounds almost patronizing in his dismissiveness. A sad attempt at character assassination if you ask me.

Everything you wrote is wrong.

Real question, does anyone take him seriously outside of edgy teens and history of philosophy?

Seeing as he's basically the preeminent philosopher in the world since the dawn of the 20th century I would say yes.

nice mustache gayboi

nietzschecircle.com/nietzsche4.html

>On January 3, 1889, Nietzsche collapsed in a piazza in Turin. It is oft repeated that he saw a coach-driver beating his horse, threw his arms around the horse in tears, and collapsed; however, this is but another apocryphal legend that cannot be corroborated with absolute verity. Italian Nietzsche scholar Verrecchia investigated and disputed this tale, which was originally published in an Italian newspaper somewhat akin to the Daily News called Nuova Antologia. It was written on September 16, 1900, nearly one month after Nietzsche's death, which means eleven years after the supposed incident occurred, making the account rather dubious (Verrechia, A. ?Nietzsche's breakdown in Turin? in Harrison, T, ed. Nietzsche in Italy. (Saratoga: Stanford University Press, 1988), pp. 105-112). The journalist who wrote the article did not sign his name to it. It was an anonymous article.

>It may be just a legend, just a posterior narrative, but the story still contains and suggests the counter-argument to his philosophy.

Kill yourself contrarian of my boots.

1. You're resting your case on a rumor.
2. Your case is fucking retarded. There's no counter-argument present.

there's no such thing as a Self or the Will or anything like that

Are you a Nietzsche ass-worshipper or something? More like a dumb edgy kid I suppose. My statement is clear: the Turin episode, NO MATTER IF REAL OR FICTIONAL, taken for what it is at a symbolic level, S-U-G-G-E-S-T-S the refutation of his philosophy, which is to be researched in the value of morality.

>inb4 your random idiotic reply
I'm sorry you can't grasp such simple concepts on a fucking internet imageboard

It doesn't refute him at all.

Nice argument you got there

Until you explain how it refutes anything there's nothing given to argue.

There's a lot to a person. You'll have to explain what specifically we should be refuting. Here's an example"

Nietzsche saw Christian morality as a kind of slave morality, while Greek and Roman culture was characterized as a master morality. However, people such as Scheler disagrees. He begins with a comparison of Greek love and Christian love. Greek love is described as a movement from lower value to higher value. The weaker love the stronger, the less perfect love the more perfect. The perfect do not love the imperfect because that would diminish their value or corrupt their existence. Greek love is rooted in need and want. This is clearly indicated by the Aristotelian concept of God as the "Unmoved Mover". The unmoved mover is self-sufficient being completely immersed in its own existence. The highest object of contemplation, and who moves others through the force of attraction because efficient causality would degrade its nature.

part 1/2

part 2/2
>In Christian love, there is a reversal in the movement of love. The strong bend to the weak, the healthy help the sick, the noble help the vulgar. This movement is a consequence of the Christian understanding of the nature of God as fullness of being. God's love is an expression of His superabundance. The motive for love is not charity nor the neediness of the lover, but it is rooted in a deeply felt confidence that through loving I become more personalized and most real to myself. The motive for the world is not need or lack (à la Schopenhauer), but a creative urge to express the infinite fullness of being. Poverty and sickness are not values to be celebrated in order to spite those who are rich and healthy, but they simply provide the opportunity for a person to express his love. Rich people are harder to love because they are less in need of your generosity. Fear of death is a sign of a declining, sick, and broken life (Ressent 60). St. Francis' love and care for the lepers would have mortified the Greek mind, but for St. Francis, the threats to well-being are inconsequential because at the core of his being there is the awareness that his existence is firmly rooted in and sustained by the ground of ultimate being. In genuine, Christian love, the lower values that are relative to life are renounced not because they are bad, but simply because they are obstacles to those absolute values which allow a person to enter into a relationship with God. It is through loving like God that we are deified. This is why Scheler sees the Christian saint as a manifestation of strength and nobility and not manifesting ressentiment.