How do feminists and the like manage to overlook his views on women...

This

this desu

I'm not sure if she counts as feminist, but the prof who taught my Nietzsche course did her PhD at NYU and was fairly progressive.

She acknowledged his racism and sexism and believed he had valuable things to say despite it. Which is a hell of a lot better than trying to write him out of history.

Simone de Beauvoir quotes Nietzsche in The Second Sex, explaining what he got right and where he went wrong. Did you even read the most important text in feminism?

One would argue that the path to true intelligence or enlightenment is overcoming that obstacle.

>Did you even read the most important text in feminism
Why would I waste my time with that shite? Life's too short.

>life's too short
He doesn't know about eternal return lads

>Take, for instance, my Zarathustra; I allow no one to pass muster as knowing that book, unless every single word therein has at some time wrought in him a profound wound, and at some time exercised on him a profound enchantment.

you dont know what that means underage b&

>women
>capable of logical consistency

user I...

Attached: 7678778.jpg (1000x667, 77K)

it's not b8 I'm serious

>eternal recurrence
>recurrence
>life will eternally reoccur ≠ life will continue eternally
>eternal recurrence ≠ eternal life

Come on man seriously just don't post if you don't get it

Not even feminists take Nietzsche seriously. He's THAT bad.

their simply inferior to us as white men

> his racism
> his sexism

my god, why do i keep going on in this world...

There is nothing wrong with being sexist.

Nietzsche likes women more than men. It'd hardly be a problem if either side in that ideological battle could read him intelligently, but they can't. Most of what people take as Nietzsche being "against women" in Nietzsche's world view is closer to genius than men could hope for.

Likewise, he has a sympathy for Jews and Muslims that most white hate groups have never read about, and thinks that people who are afraid of Jews are so weak that putting them out of their misery is the better course of action than falsely elevating them by eliminating those above them in the food chain (Jews, Ubermenschen, et al). Do you think any Aryan fanboy Nietzsche reader read the lines that say he's basically an impotent snivelling worm trying to compensate for his micropenis? Of course not, that would make them cry themselves to sleep sooner and cut into their interracial porn jacking it time.

> sympathy for muslims

elaborate

>ctrl + f
>no back to /pol/ reply

>feminists
>reading

Funny you bring this up, my teacher for my existentialism class was hyper-progressive women. She basically said that parts of his writing were quite wrong and we need not focus on them.

I used a few of his quotes about women on my final paper just to fuck with her.

Same way Kauffman et al explain away his ultrareactionary sympathies

>preferred women
He expressly stated that women are below the shallowest men in intellect, called them sentimental cows and mentally frivolous

Nietzsche believed Jews were superior because the Germans had absorbed too much non aryan blood. No, he doesn’t subscribe to whatever worldview you happened to receive

same reason as most of us on this board, to suffer

Attached: death of the west.gif (500x365, 1.29M)

this but unironically

>I don't agree with his views on
>therefore entire thought is illegitimate
you feminist idiots aren't qualified to judge Nietzsche

Any philosopher who thought women were inferior are said to be "helplessly influenced by the politics of their day" in academia because nobody wants to seriously discuss the topic

he didn't believe they were superior. Where does he say they absorbed too much non-Aryan blood? His hatred of Germans is predicated on their brutishness and their servility. He found them incorrigibly unrefined, boisterous, conceited and uncultured from the very first to the late Germans of his era. His praise for the Vikings was backhanded, he then goes on to call them dumb brutish barbarians who took to Christianity in typical Germanic self-hating guilt.

>Do they just ignore these parts?

Yes

Attached: 0009494894_10.jpg (640x607, 122K)

Aren't women almost always the problem? Look at all the serial killers and a great deal of famous philosophers that had girl problems. There is a common trend.

Anyone that takes Neetche seriously is mentally handicaped

Do you read Dworkin?

This. "It was a different time."

he did refer to socialists as "our friends, the socialists"

he attacks feminism because of its slave morality
nietzsche makes me feel better about fucking hating feminism and feminists, it's only slave/herd morality that compels anyone to buy into that fucking bullcrap

>Is a liberal and boast about being intellectual.
>Refuses to read certain works because author held views they disagreed with.

Like potery

How do breeders and the like manage to overlook his views on heterosexuality? Symposium has quite a few sections in it where he's just relentlessly tearing into them. Do they just ignore these parts?

Attached: plato_360x450.jpg (570x712, 142K)

They don't, I've seen many feminist outright deny the classics

Unless you start with greeks and spend shitton of time trying to understand shit you have no business going into the works of people that write in an extremely condensed way and rely on the works of other people, especially if you don't agree with them. Now that i think about it it's just as true even if you do agree, there is no business reading stuff 4/5 of which you just assume works because the author is smart. I mean I do it at times but it's not the best idea.

Now as far as reading works of people you don't agree with it is a good idea but mostly when that person't presuppositions are clear. as an example, if there is a work that defends dictatorships and the core presupposition is that it's easy to implement changes and then the whole book builds upon that you can stop as soon as you figure out that you don't agree with this core statement. And it's good when this is clearly laid out but there are tons of works that just assume this thing on some level and begin their argument without deeming addressing this core necessary. How much time and energy do you have to waste on something that you deem is wrong when there are tons of works you can be exploring that are built on something that you believe is true? I earnestly peak out of my bubble of truth but most of the time i'm exploring and testing out what I already deem as true.

Never met a college feminist who has read Nietzsche.

Besides, even if you leave out the stuff on women, Nietzsche has written so much that would piss off those types.

>Thus do I speak unto you in parable, ye who make the soul giddy, ye preachers of equality! Tarantulas are ye unto me, and secretly revengeful ones!

Attached: nietzsche-whip-401x372.jpg (401x372, 35K)

>feminist ignoring glaring flaw in their worldview

Huh, I suppose that's a first.

Do you suppose that they don't want to talk about it because they truly believe the current equality dogma is correct, or do they simply shy away from it due to political reticence?
It's very amusing that they never seem to acknowledge the hypocrisy of their situation in saying this

>men create the problems themselves
>duurr it is women's fault

That would have had to be the only thing you read by him on socialism / socialists. In Will to Power he attacks socialism multiple times.

This is what the left is today. They will say stuff like "no topic is out of bounds""there's nobody right we have to hear everyone's say" but once you bring up something that clashes with their views they shut down and go berserk "DID YOU JUST SAY THAT JEWS RUn THE MEDIA NO THAT'S GOING TO FAR I'CAN'T DISCUSS THAT!!"

The progressive subhumans are the focus groups that likes to keep trying to ban the classics because they are "problematic".

But Murdoch and Bezos are not Jewish. Jews do not have carte Blanche. Toxic neoliberalism is being pushed by the elite regardless of race.

Finally someone says it! Thank you. I mean are we really to believe that Aristotle, Kant, Schopenhauer, etc. are wrong simply because it makes women feel bad? And are we today not also "helplessly influenced by the politics of the day" in ascribing to women qualities and virtues that they do not as a sex actually posses? Isn't it pure politics to make believe that women aren't naturally submissive, and happier under the care of a man they respect? It's utterly ridiculous. Take Saudi Arabia. The women there are by most indications actually quite happy. And Western feminists want to crush their social system, the way missionaries use to "civilize the savages." It's almost as if women are only happy when they are making other women miserable. I'm sorry but women aren't an oppressed class and never were.