How does anyone read this guy and manage to not have permanent intense anxiety afterwards?

what i mean to say is that any writer who has ever intended to speak to an intellectually sound audience has never outright proclaimed to be an atheist
Dawkins is the worst faggot of all, intolerable fedora faggotry is the only audience he appeals to. like, omg, god doesn't exist lmao, let's write a bunch of angry shit bcuz god isn't real he's fake lmao
WAKE UP CALL GENIUS, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT
There must be some belief in the universality of good in order to proclaim any substantial philosophy

thanks dude

read him more closely. he says that compassion and empathy can in certain cases be useful tools for communities. the eternal recurrence is definitely true though.

I see where you're coming from, but you have to understand that 'positive atheism' (proclaiming atheism) only came about due to the extremely restrictive attitudes the old theists had. Atheism is fine as long as they're tolerant and not an edgelord.

>I see where you're coming from, but you have to understand that 'positive atheism' (proclaiming atheism) only came about due to the extremely restrictive attitudes the old theists had. Atheism is fine as long as they're tolerant and not an edgelord.
thank you for this very reasonable response, but i regret to comment that all atheists are currently edgelords

Eternal return is a thought experiment meant to envision the best possible life. It's not something he argued for

the idea of the eternal recurrence is the "greatest weight": only the strongest persons can sincerely believe it without perishing

>Eternal return is a thought experiment meant to envision the best possible life.

No it's not. It's a thought experiment on how much suffering a human can endure and still hold their head high.

It really isn't.
That's obviously not true. Protestant hell is a much tougher conception to bare

I mean, that was Nietzsche's position. I'm not him. As far as the protestants go, I don't think I can agree. Being tortured for infinity years by the Demiurge? Please.

>It really isn't.

>"What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' [The Gay Science, §341]"

Nietzsche's position is precisely what I stated. Eternal recurrence is a thought experiment to demand the best living.

Sometimes his misunderstandings of physics and philosophy did lead him to posit it as a possibility.

>Dawkins is the worst faggot of all
I misread that as Darwin and I was upset.

What's the easiest Nietzsche book to read and understand by average joe? I'm far away from comprehending Zaratruska spokeman.

Beyond Good and Evil.

>How does anyone read this guy and manage to not have permanent intense anxiety afterwards?
By not being a soyfuck.

For me, Nietzsche was the good cop to Might is Right and Orgy of the Will's bad cop. Nietzsche is a lot more encouraging and friendly than those two, especially OotW

By not being a pussy ass nigga who needs to read philosophy to question and doubt his own existence and only started doing it in his 20's

This actually happened to me. I realized that I was exactly the kind of person he's cautioning against becoming an Epicurian, delved into despair, exactly as he intended, and then gained insight through rigorous attention and striving to overcome what I had been, gaining knowledge of things that I that I'm now willingly committed to gifting to the world.

I always end up pumped as fuck and sort of "energized" after reading niche. But of course must be my brainlet brain playing tricks.

Whats wrong with being epicurean

philosophy is just poetry with fancy words, what is there to be scared about

Nothing in itself, I actually think Nietzche greatly downplays its merits deliberately, but if you're the kind of person who could become great then being tempted by it could result in you settling for contentment in a less ambitious life. This likely won't be bad at all, but is less likely to result in your full capacity for achievement.

If you're the kind of person who possesses the freedom of mind and body to be capable of taking advantage of the Epicurian life and actually achieving joy via the minimization of want, then you're likely the kind of person who could otherwise decide to strive after higher goals on your own terms, and this is what Nietzsche seems to want. I decided that enjoying life without commitment, while genuinely fulfilling and enjoyable, was less noble than dedicating myself to causes that I deemed worthy and which others are unlikely to advance to the degree I can. For me to choose to not do what I am doing would be robbing the world of what I am capable of.

Why on earth would reading him make you anxious? This isn't a problem with Nietzsche, this is a problem with yourself.

Just read Kant afterwards