Why read any other philosopher when this fucking guy exists...

Hegel is very good you pseud

Hegel has interesting things to say, he just doesn't say it particularly well. My point is that I would rather try to parse Phenomenology of Spirit than listen to Nietzsche jerk himself off

>His writing is long-winded, pretentious, and not even particularly convincing.
So you're a massive pseud who needs citations and drawn out explanations to get your uncreative mind through even the most basic concepts. Good to know.

>Nietzsche doesn't deal with existential crises

Do you know how I can tell you haven't read much Nietzsche?

"Existentialism" was coined by Sartre long after Nietzsche, and Sartre's notion of it is absent in Nietzsche, despite what that toad thought. No, the parable of the madman and the death of God has nothing to do with existential horror and crisis. Nietzsche is at no point in his philosophy in a "crisis" over anything. In fact, in the same passage that he announces the death of God, he immediately moves past nihilism and abandons it in his dust: the Overman is born in practically the same sentence. No "existentialist" that came after him still dealing with "crises" and nihilism in general understand him properly.

Nietzsche doesn't explain his ideas, at least not in a thorough way. He just says his thoughts and acts super emotional about them. I can't think of a bigger pseud wing of philosophy than the egoist wing stirner/nietszche/Rand

No, I just want someone who will get to the fucking point without talking about themselves

Nietzsche's philosophy is classified as existentialist by scholars. And he did deal with a crisis, the crisis of modernity, where morality was no longer given divine sanction. His transvaluation of values in response to this is what is used as the grounds for his existential classification. Sartre has a similar claim, that if we are living in a world without absolutes, our only sense of self comes from how we style ourselves, or what values we choose to adopt.

You seem to be avoiding the words 'existentialist' and 'crisis' because I assume you think they lessen the divine infallible image of Nietzsche placed in your mind by someone. This is not a good way to carry yourself or represent Nietzsche.

>Nietzsche doesn't explain his ideas, at least not in a thorough way.
His writing is crystal clear. The people who have trouble parsing him also have trouble parsing poetry, i.e., their minds are uncreative and are unable to synergize multiple meanings within a single statement and perceive the primary, more complex meaning that lies embedded.

>stirner/nietszche/Rand
These three are all wildly different from one another. WILDLY different.

>can't understand or comprehend any matter without going back to before the Big Bang and enlightening yourself to the nature of all existence
Plato is the true redpill
We've already all been there

>the jealous heathen upset that some people don't want anything to do with their cattle cult

>His writing is crystal clear.
The guy you're responding to is a brainlet but this isn't true. He's very deep and complex and it often takes time to understand the full implications of what he says.

The funny thing is Nietzsche would probably disagree with this. He acknowledged a new line of philosophers coming after him which would, he hoped, surpass him. He also acknowledged that he was no an ubermensch

people who didn't mature properly or something end up remarking how Nietzsche only appeals to adolescent boys. it's like how dumb bitches always talk about how you should want a more mature woman, but they are not examples of women who have matured properly. morons always try to normalize their faults, so they can criticize things that make them feel inferior.
tldr; Nietzsche is superior.

...

>relevant
i always wonder what that means when only people who can recognize him really understand him, and he doesn't try to convince anyone.

Nietzsche's awesome!

what the hell is this?

Hello newfag

>After all, no one can draw more out of things, books included, than he already knows. A man has no ears for that to which experience has given him no access. To take an extreme case, suppose a book contains simply incidents which lie quite outside the range of general or even rare experience—suppose it to be the first language to express a whole series of experiences. In this case nothing it contains will really be heard at all, and, thanks to an acoustic delusion, people will believe that where nothing is heard there is nothing to hear.... This, at least, has been my usual experience, and proves, if you will, the originality of my experience. He who thought he had understood something in my work, had as a rule adjusted something in it to his own image—not infrequently the very opposite of myself, an "idealist," for instance.

Why read any other philosopher when this fucking guy exists, other than in order to understand what this fucking guy was saying? His superiority is so obvious — any random book of his will immediately tell you. And his breadth is exasperating. He will be relevant for as long as society does not entirely collapse and we are forced to start at zero again.

redpill me on ars combinatoria

Why read any other philosopher when this fucking guy exists, other than in order to understand what this fucking guy was saying? His superiority is so obvious — any random book of his will immediately tell you. And his breadth is exasperating. He will be relevant for as long as society does not entirely collapse and we are forced to start at zero again.

lolno

You can just read Stirner and Dostoyevsky themselves, no reason to pick up a cheap rip-off.

>voltaire
literally the most overrated """""""""""philosopher""""""""""" ever

>To be is to be the value of a bound variable.

Continentals btfo

>Nietzsche's philosophy is classified as existentialist by scholars.
Scholars classify philosophers in a multitude of ways, not all valid or meaningful. They are scholars, not philosophers. Existentialism only makes sense as a categorization in hindsight — in reality, almost every single philosopher in history was an existentialist. It's rather arrogant to assume only some of them were. Modern notions of certain ideas are being projected into history when people make that claim.

>And he did deal with a crisis, the crisis of modernity, where morality was no longer given divine sanction. His transvaluation of values in response to this is what is used as the grounds for his existential classification.
That is not exactly existential crisis. He didn't perceive any moral dilemmas revolving around the death of God as momentous a question towards the self as Sartre and the later "existentialists" considered it. It was a transformation with many nuances that would take a long while to come to fruition. To add to that, the fact that Nietzsche spends little time on it himself is important. He doesn't coin it as a crisis, and he doesn't linger on the note long at all. He swiftly continues his march onward into philosophical territory that not even the 20th century existentialists and postmodernists reached despite the fact that they all read him. Needless to say it's just not worth calling it an "existential crisis" and it's better to divorce him from the idea because the minds who surround that term are inferior to him in many ways. You get yourself hooked on scholarly notions that are only slightly, roughly related to Nietzsche then.

>don't call it existentialism because the people that call it that are stoopid!

>Read other people's ideas about a person's work other than the person themselves
Very smart, keep it up.

He is, but contrarians will not admit it because they are too afraid of being associated with the teens on facebook who quote him.

Why read philosophy when this fucking guy exists, other than in order to understand what this fucking guy was saying? His superiority is so obvious — any random book of his will immediately tell you. And his breadth is exasperating. He will be relevant for as long as society does not entirely collapse and we are forced to start at zero again.

what did he mean by this?

The main function of gods within Nietzsche's philosophy is as value-creators. Prophets (true value-creators) use gods to justify their values because it is easier to justify listening to a god than a man.

>prophets
sorry, i havent actually read neetch, is this an excerpt from thus spoke zarathustra?

>Stirner: why hold the unique one to a scale of values?
>Nietzsche: we find abominable any decadent spirit who says: 'Everything only to me!'

He is no better than everyone he denounces before him considering that his intellectual endeavour amounts to nothing more than a seduction. In its own little way it is a sort of immature, petulant and infantile seduction as well, one that does not have the sincere conviction behind it of past ideologies but on the other hand it has the gall to disrupt the game of rhetoric (and I mean rhetoric in the general, system-level sense that I think De Man uses) that ideologues gleefully take part in, sort of like a child who disregards the rules of a game because he is tired of losing at it or some such poor behaviour.

Stirner knows his own doctrine does not have a leg to stand on, that the whole exercise he engages in is contradictory. His whole project is a failure simply because it's a contradiction. The only way you could consider it a success is if you think the overall outcome is that you have the ability to question or attack ideology. But that is hardly a quality specific to Stirner's writings, it's simply the ability to think critically, and it's what most philosophers with a system of thought have done throughout history. Except Stirner appears to be inferior to most of them because where every other philosopher attacks the previous prevailing ideology and replaces its center in its own coherent if not infallible manner, Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement, the attack itself is contradictory, and there is no real insight gained into the lack of the center because Stirner himself has no answer or interest in attempting to solve this contradiction of negation. So where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass. And on the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction.

Assuming that he has ghostbusted the spooks is to assume a very ideologically-charged perspective about the progress of conceptual thought in the west. And it's not only that, we must also consider that language is dialogic, which means that the language, the concepts Stirner uses to poke around with in first place are all shaped and ideologically charged before he even gets to employ them, he inherits his words and thereby whatever ideology is embedded in them, so it is not even clear whether there is really a distinct Stirner-type ideology critique and not just some permutation of a prevailing ideology. His whole endeavour is shot to shit and full of presuppositions, which is why people are debating over ideology, why Stirner did not solve the problem of ideology, and why its usefulness even as a concept today is in question.

No, this is me explaining to you the context of his views so that you can understand the quoted excerpt you were replying to.

>His writing is long-winded,
Yet he is most famous for using the aphoristic form? Did you read him?
>pretentious,
Yet his writings are the opposite of the jargon-heavy "obscurantist" technical books written by German philosophers in that century, he is concise and poetic (combines literal and metaphorical phrases) Did you read him?
>and not even particularly convincing
All the big name philosophers are giants in some way or other, and Nietzsche has the late advantage of describing the limits of systematisation, as well as descriptive (rather than prescriptive) ethics. Did you read him?

i was referring to the pic dood

Oh durr, yeah it is. If you haven't read him before you shouldn't start with that though, in fact you should probably read it last. You should probably start with On the Genealogy of Morals or The Gay Science and definitely read Beyond Good and Evil before Zarathustra. Of course you should read the Greeks, or at least The Republic, before you read Nietzsche because a lot of his stuff is just jerking off to the Greeks.

When Nietzsche says not to confuse him with the Darwinists or Carlyle, does he mean that he's just not an absolutist about genetics or individualism?

The Overman requires cultural (the mind being a higher expression of the body) and collective (the bigger the pyramid grows, the higher a great man reaches) ascendancy?

if voltaire was alive today his claim to fame would probably be having a lot of karma on reddit or maybe a witty panellist on tv

I was impressed while reading his works, and spent a good deal of time mulling over his philosophy before I realized a majority of it was bogus as well as unoriginal. I will say that I really liked his idea of ressentiment. The Apollo-Dionysus split of character is interesting, too.

>I was impressed while reading his works [on Wikipedia], and spent a good deal of time mulling over his philosophy before I realized a majority of it was bogus as well as unoriginal. I will say that I really liked his idea of ressentiment. The Apollo-Dionysus split of character is interesting, too.

>Do you know how I can tell you haven't read much Nietzsche?
>because you don't know what some other people say about him

Uh, no.

If you are such an expert, what specifically did Nietzsche say would come from the death of God?

Obviously you didn't get it if this is the same person.

>person likes Nietzsche but ultimately doesn't find him that deep
>HAHAHA YOU PROBABLY ONLY RAD THE WIKIPEDIER PAGE HEAA!
embarrassing ressentiment and slave morality my untermenschen