There aren't people here who still think Nietzsche was a nihilist, right?

Thats pretty much the same when shit hits the fan senpai

>neechey more like niche gay lol amirite

>He was a piece in orchestrating the fall of religion.
The point of his madman parable is that science was already dismantling religion right under everyone's noses.

why you doing my boy stirner dirty like that in your pic OP

No it's really not.

That's like saying Atheism and Agnosticism are the same.

"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster"

>le edgy teenager
Natural selection and wrath, amirate???

Its kind of like Christians who believe in Satan but denounce him all the same.

No it's really not.

You stupid faggots, Nietzsche was literally a nihilist, you're all just thinking of the word through a pejorative lens

He was a moral nihilist, not a nihilist. I swear the STATE of this board.

>Boring
Omg, sudoku is no longer even an option at this point. Fuck yourself in the ass with a toe-knife and go on a walk around the city until you bleed out

>Nietzsche is boring
I can't even imagine what it means to be that retarded

kys

BORING AS FUCK

>Americans unironically spend a great deal of time reading and discussing the unstructured ramblings of a syphilitic

You could have spent that time reading actual philosophers like Kant or Schopenhauer. You should be ashamed.

>actual philosophers
>shopenhauer
lol

Americans don't read philosophy. Anyone worth their salt since the 19th century has read Nietzsche, though.

MUH NIHILISM MUH NIHILISM
who cares about a stupid fucking word

Why would lowercase god trigger anyone? The Christian God is a god as much as any other god.

"Nietzsche isn't worth reading" should be closer to the bottom and closer to the right.

Convincing yourself that you've escaped the pit of nihilism with the wings of your own crafted morality does not mean you've risen out of nihilism as you say the overman does; you are just sitting in a dark pit of nothing flapping your skinny fat arms, praying that something in your meek head may fill your cavity of a heart.

>I am happy I swear!
>I am Christ
>I TRULY has risen above all
>still flapping away in a forgetful darkness...

It's sad really.

Nihilism is a vague term that doesn't mean anything unless additional qualifiers are added. You can have moral nihilism: epistemological nihilism, metaphysical nihilism, nihilism as meaning life denying. Unless you are going to say what you mean by nihilist we have no idea what you are talking about.

>He was a moral nihilist, not a nihilist.
That depends on weather we are saying that he is right or not. He wouldn't have considered himself a moral nihilist and should he be correct he isn't, though if he is mistaken he is a moral nihilist.

Woops, meant to quote , not

hopefully not

embarassing post desu

Nonsense. Nihilism as a statement, means life has no inherent purpose.

Nietzsche was morally nihilistic. As a statement this meant for him objective morals have no inherent purpose.

It doesn't depend on whether he is right. Nothing that defines anyone depends on if they are right. I, for myself, love God. And embrace God. I dislike Nietzsche as opposed to Kierkegaard. But if we ARE going to classify him, he is not a nihilist (which is an actual thing), but a moral nihilist.

You don't understand how Nietzsche moved beyond the problems of nihilism, though. If you've had actually read him, you would know how he demolished the problem from its roots up. He did not stop his investigation into the matter of value and meaning at "there are no inherent values." For Nietzsche, meaninglessness itself is a value: the problem of nihilism is a self-contradictory and essentially non-problematic one.

>Nonsense. Nihilism as a statement, means life has no inherent purpose.'
It only means that if the word is either used in a context where that definition is implied or it is explained to mean that. Nihilism is a vague term and does not have to mean what you want to define it as. This should be self evident if anyone reads modern academic papers that always qualify the term beyond nihilism either in the paper or implicitly through the context of the paper. It should be evident considering that Nietzsche invents a new definition for it. It should be obvious when every discussion about Nietzsche being a nihilist runs into trouble immediately for people not understanding the differences in definition it can have. It has multiple meanings across every single level of discourse whether or be people on Veeky Forums or philosophers writing peer reviewed papers at the forefront of philosophy.

>It doesn't depend on whether he is right. Nothing that defines anyone depends on if they are right.
The lens you are using to make these definitions will change whether or not Nietzche's perspectivism is true. If Nietzsche is right it doesn't change him, it changes the tools we have to analyses him. His radical perspectivism heavily complicates any attempt to call him a moral nihilist. So if his perspectivism is true then it deeply effects that claim thus meaning whether or not he is right is an important question.

>The ancient savour of nobility is lacking in us, because the ancient slave is lacking in our sentiment.
What did Nigtzsche mean by this?

Honestly I used to like Nietzsche a lot but have only become less enthusiastic over time. A lot of his ideas are compelling, but for a large part that's due to his charismatic writing style (which I'll admit is undeniably very good, but it tricks you into believing anything he says has to be true). It's not hard to see how all the nuance-less banter about "race", "nobility", necessary unequality between people etc. can easily be (mis)used by nazis, alt-righters and the like.
That being said, Twilight of the Idols and Genealogy of Morals are great and are still among the most memorable books i've read. The Antichrist and Ecce Homo are mostly just funny because of how insane and delusional they are. I never got further than the first two pages of Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Embarrassing post.

not as embarrassing as your reply desu

Read the context of that sentence and you'll have a better understanding. Greek nobles could hardly even understand the morality of a slave because of how elevated they were above slave in terms of free will, whereas we're all each and every one of us slavish. Our view of the world has no places for slaves because we're all equally slaves.

nice pasta you faggot, but active nihilism is still nihilism

>Nietzsche overcame nihilism

please tell me no one believes this meme

he tried but failed

rationality is both a great animator of the human spirit and an albatross around our collective necks

>he tried but failed
Wrong. See His will to power overcomes nihilism. It renders all truth as a function of power. The root of nihilism is, quite literally, weakness; and its solution is power.

theres no need for these conceptual acrobatics
>Man hat nur spät den Muth zu dem, was man eigentlich weiß. Daß ich von Grund aus bisher Nihilist gewesen bin, das habe ich mir erst seit Kurzem eingestanden: die Energie, der Radikalism, mit der ich als Nihilist vorwärts gieng, täuschte mich über diese Grundthatsache. Wenn man einem Ziele entgegengeht, so scheint es unmöglich, daß „die Ziellosigkeit an sich“ unser Glaubensgrundsatz ist.
>that i have been fundamentally a nihilist... that is something i admitted to myself only lately.
t. nietzsche 1887
nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/NF-1887,9[123]

i think that and similar bits even ended up in the "will to power" compilations

thats why its important to read "will to power" or the late fragments in general on nietzschesource.org, even if his sister and early editors lost reputation.

Don't you smell the slaughterhouses and ovens of the spirit even now? Does this thread steam with the fumes of a slaughtered spirit?

Don't you see the soul hanging like a limp, dirty rag?

Don't you hear how the spirit has been reduced to plays on words? It vomits revolting verbal swill.

They hound each other and know not where. They overheat each other and know not why. They tinkle with their tin, they jingle with their gold. They are all diseased and sick with public opinions.

Spit on the posters of compressed souls and narrow chests, of popeyes and sticky fingers.

when a philosopher has more courage to second-guess his entire body of work than most of his readers who would rather remain invested in one of his previous self-illusions. thats when you know he's worth reading.

A mad man thinks he's strong enough to overcome it; it's a weight no man can lift, not even a band of men could.

It's sad to see.

>The lens you are using to make these definitions will change whether or not Nietzche's perspectivism is true.
This is just wrong. Definitions don't change because of differences in opinion.

I'll accept your point about the vagueness of the term 'nihilism'

Nietzsche wanted to appear to overcome nihilism because he realized that while nihilism was the ultimate truth of philosophy, it wasn't a mode of thought conducive to the continuation of society if it were to be adopted by the masses.

He wasn't able to reconcile the non-nihilistic portions of his psyche with the truth he had arrived at, and he feared what would become of mankind if nihilism were to become the norm. These things, and his desperation to divert greater society from the truth, were what drove him to madness.

I certainly hope not you’d have to be unbelievably daft to think he was a Nihilist

For Nietzsche nihilism was the highest values devaluing themselves.

That's horse cock tho. Why would anyone accept that definition, that premise? It may be poetic on Nietzsche's part, but that's no reason to believe it.

Nihilism seems to be the highest values being ignored or unseen. Or it could be the absence of any morality.

If Nietzsche's aim was to make the individual's own morality as high as eternal as a sort of replacement for the highest values that devalued themselves, his morality is only eternal until it ascends to his own skull cap

HONESTLY THE LEAST INTERESTING CONVERSATION ANYONE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE ABOUT THE MAN

yeah especially the part when a priest came up with the big bang

okay bud
>5000 posts later

What is the source of that quote, exactly? A letter? I'm having trouble determining it on that website.

Different online translators give different results, but judging by the overall quote, it appears that Nietzsche is admitting that he was a nihilist only up until that point. In 1887 he had not yet written The Case of Wagner, Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, Ecce Homo, Nietzsche contra Wagner, or many of his notes for his work in progress book Will to Power which was published posthumously. The revelations of his will to power philosophy don't start to emerge until these books, especially the last one, where he writes statements such as:

>A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of "in vain" is the nihilists' pathos— at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists. Whoever is incapable of laying his will into things, lacking will and strength, at least lays some meaning into them, i.e., the faith that there is a will in them already. It is a measure of the degree of strength of will to what extent one can do without meaning in things, to what extent one can endure to live in a meaningless world because one organizes a small portion of it oneself.

And then after, in broken, incomplete notes:

>Connection between philosophers and the pessimistic religions: the same species of man (—they ascribe the highest degree of reality to the most highly valued things—). Connection between philosophers and moral men and their evaluations (—the moral interpretation of the world as meaning: after the decline of the religious meaning—). Overcoming of philosophers through the destruction of the world of being: intermediary period of nihilism: before there is yet present the strength to reverse values and to deify becoming and the apparent world as the only world, and to call them good.

There are no conceptual acrobatics going on. It's right there, in his words, written after the quote you posted. Truth is a function of power: meaninglessness is a symptom of powerlessness. At the end, Nietzsche saw this, and was in the process from 1888 on of revaluating all values under his will to power, i.e. he overcame nihilism.

>This is just wrong. Definitions don't change because of differences in opinion.
I misspoke, I meant to say the lens you are using to apply these definitions, not to make.

Nietzsche is a perspectivist. This has a huge amount of importance to what you say here.
>Nietzsche was morally nihilistic. As a statement this meant for him objective morals have no inherent purpose
I quibble with you talking about purpose but I digress. There are two things wrong with what you have said. Nietzsche does not consider himself a moral nihilist and does not consider objective morality as having no inherent purpose. This is cohesive with his philosophy because of his perspectivism.
If his perspectivism is true then the statement about him being a moral nihilist is false because he no longer fits the definition.

This leads us back to where I responded to
>He was a moral nihilist, not a nihilist
With
>That depends on weather we are saying that he is right or not. He wouldn't have considered himself a moral nihilist and should he be correct he isn't, though if he is mistaken he is a moral nihilist.

its among the drafts marked for will to power

gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/der-wille-zur-macht-i-6029/5
here it appears under number 25, published in 1922

i get what you are trying to say but i dont think that his self-diagnosis conflicts with trying to find a cure. he simply declassified himself from knower to seeker.

Yeah, exactly.

I'm just starting to read Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil) for the first time. I'm having a hard time with it because I'm an idiot. Is there anything I should read/watch to give me a better understanding of what he was talking about?

He literally calls himself an immoralist. "Moral objectivity" usually and conventionally means clear rules (most often of the form "thou shalt not") equally valid for everyone. Nietzsche's perspectivism, having an "objective" (more like subject-object combinations) typology and "ontological" differentiations, is usually described as having an ethics rather than a morality. Maybe the distinction is conventional rather than rigorous (ontological, etc.), but it helps avoid some if the usual confusion.

In which order should i read Nietzsche's works? Which book do i start with?

what did he mean by this?