The mad lad eviscerated stoics in just a few paragraphs

How is he saying that? In the context of the rest of the book he says that philosophy is the largest tyranny and that the stoics, believing in some form of natural, cold truth try to remove themselves from their human condition. He is asserting that this is impossible. That their human condition is their natural condition. That they are the ones trying to assert laws into nature. Not the other way around.

This kills the stoicfag

I see where Derrida gets it from

could you guys give me a quick rundown on where to start with neetzsche please?

absolutely based

Attached: 1491968559081.jpg (292x257, 15K)

Birth of memedy

So many exclamation marks! Ah...

Wow, how can stoics ever recover!

To be fair, is there anyone Freddy didn't kick the shit out of, other than Schopenhauer?

I'm sure they'll take their anal fissures as stoically as possible

Nietzsche later also breaks with Schopenhauer in Human, All too human.

The Gay Science, then Zarathustra, BGE, GM, Twilight of the Idols, then circle back to Birth of Tragedy, then read The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo and The Will to Power together, supplement with Anti-Education and On Truth and Lies in a non-moral sense.

not to be a fag with the doublepost, but please don't choke down everything he says unthinkingly he is a bit daft at times, and goes too far with his master morality in a way that would only cause immense suffering for higher types of human should they implement what he said. Kaufmann is wrong, he was pro-Master Morality but one needn't go full 14/88 global race war just because of this. Try to have some perspective when you read what he says, he was half the time lashing out at his own demons. Though much of what he said was meant to be taken seriously

>State my dumb opinion with over dramatic statements with capital letters and exclamations
Fucking NEETche. I don't even know how people can consider him a philosopher

>believing in some form of natural, cold truth try to remove themselves from their human condition
How? This is fucking stupid. It isbliterally circular logic
>Stoics ignores nature because seeking truth removes human condition ignores nature

Veeky Forums blown away by an aphorism that's within the first 10page of Beyond Good and Evil

didnt even try

Found the stoic

thank you user

Attached: 20180317_154444.jpg (500x816, 58K)

fellas, is human all too human worth reading? I read birth of tragedy and on truth and lies in extramoral sense( wonderful little thing) and I was wondering if I should go straight to the gay science.

Watch and learn. This is how you do it pinker-boy.

all his books are the exact same except for Genealogy of Morals which is more systematic

I'm not really a fan of the stoics, but this is just stupid

I don't think the stoics were too upset about it.

>Neetche is stupid
Geez who would have thpught that a twat that thought opinions>facts would just use a bunch of rhetoric tricks to give the impression that he is not just saying nonesense

stoics are semites in toga

lol

Yes, everyone should start with Human all too Human first

So was this lad just a manic shitposter this whole time?

Pretty much.

Attached: 9be31977-c43d-470d-998b-6f27faec144c.png (960x957, 790K)

W H O
C A R E S

It's just a bunch of fucking nobodies shouting opinions at each other. None of these people have ever achieved anything. They're cloistered upper middle class "professors" professing to know about topics they're probably the least qualified people in the world to talk about.

You should be more concerned about the thoughts of successful people, because at least those might be of some use to you.

>When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is generally something wrong with her sexual nature. Barrenness itself conduces to a certain virility of taste; man, indeed, if I may say so, is ‘the barren animal.’

wdhmbt?

Attached: e22bd80c8f8da.jpg (495x495, 50K)

Human is without a doubt worth reading.

you clearly misread him

>and goes too far with his master morality in a way that would only cause immense suffering for higher types of human should they implement what he said
no, he basically said that you have a choice:
willingly lie to yourself and define the world in a happy, innocent way (if you want this, but be concious of what you're doing) or expose yourself to the inherent tragic, hazardous aspect of it and live like Nietzsche did (this isn't better or worse, it's a choice). He chose the latter. He just said you have a choice, and that he leaned towards the master morality side of things.

>he was pro-Master Morality but one needn't go full 14/88 global race war just because of this.
what the hell are you rambling on about? that comparison makes no sense since Hitler completely misinterpreted him. Racism, being frustrated at groups of people that are better adapted to life than you, being driven by instincts (rage, envy) would all go against what he said. Read again what he wrote. He would never advocate a silly war that had high chances of ending in complete failure (and it did) just because you are frustrated that some races are abusing your people. That's pathetic.

>Try to have some perspective when you read what he says, he was half the time lashing out at his own demons. Though much of what he said was meant to be taken seriously
That's true, but you should also apply this advice to yourself.

Nietzsche was more of a well-read polemicist than a philosopher to be honest.

Okay not that OP, and you make some good points, but Neech clearly states we are unfree.

I don't understand this ability to change perspective of our wills, or choose to view wills honestly. If we are unfree how would we have the agency to make that change? This is where I don't fully grasp what he's going on about in the first chapter of BGE.

He says that the only measure of man is the strength of his will, but if this is mostly do to a process of determined material, atomized systems how can we choose to augment or even view our wills in the light which he references?

Attached: IMG_0173.jpg (800x511, 85K)

>He says that the only measure of man is the strength of his will, but if this is mostly do to a process of determined material, atomized systems how can we choose to augment or even view our wills in the light which he references?
When you see a light switch and think "It's getting late, I should turn off the lights and go to sleep" you're experiencing "will".
When you have a tough exam coming in a few weeks, and you say "that's too difficult, I wanna get drunk and stop going to uni" vs "that exam is tough, but working at McDonald's is tougher, so I'd rather study" this is the difference between a "weak will" that surrenders itself to fear and a "strong will" that knows how to make some order in the mental landscape and can actually command things around.

>I don't understand this ability to change perspective of our wills, or choose to view wills honestly. If we are unfree how would we have the agency to make that change? This is where I don't fully grasp what he's going on about in the first chapter of BGE.
There's a difference between saying "determinism is a thing, it's so terrible, I can't change anything!" i.e. exaggerating determinism and letting it affect you too much VS "determinism is a thing, but I can also make any choice I want, let's assume that the choosing part of my mind is nondeterministic and that I can choose to do anything I want".

You can change your will and your morality, of course. Some people call it "becoming religious", "having a fear of God", psychologists call it "cognitive behavioral therapy", others call it "becoming more mature", some call it "becoming more experienced", conspiratards call it "I took the red pill and it changed my way of thinking", etc.

By saying to yourself "I can change myself" you're just enlarging the range of possible actions you can take.

You can't study for the exam? studying is thrown out of the bucket of "possible actions"
You tricked yourself into seeing that studying is easy, by comparing it to the sadness you'd feel by having no career? studying appears into your bucket of "possible actions".

At least that's how I view it, I'm not trying to preach or anything.

I believe he considered that if you (the "will") take instincts and emotions too seriously, you risk being controlled by them, but you (the "will") know better than that. Maybe you dick wants sex, but YOU know that studying for an exam is the better choice. Maybe you're angry, but YOU know that killing someone is illegal. Maybe you're poor, but YOU know that stealing is bad and getting a job is harder, but better.

YOU is something that is constantly being redefined, shaped by life, and, recursively and confusingly, by YOU. YOU can change YOURSELF, if you want, of course it's possible, but yes, there are some built-in, written in stone, hardcoded limits. Some people can't undertake too much (he rambles on about this in the last chapters of BGE) and it's fine, there's no need to abuse yourself.

Saying "I am not free" is making this mechanism a bit more inefficient, you're placing a stick in your bike's wheel. You can remove that stick and act in a more "free" way.

As far as I know that's what Nietzsche and the Stoics meant by free will, it's a deterministic process but they draw a line at the act of choosing, it is assumed to be a "thing" you can easily change.

Regarding the criticism of "free will" I think he was criticizing the fact that some people think that the ability to choose is completely "free", in the purest, theoretical sense of the world, when in reality it's more about being weak willed or strong willed. Weak willed people surrender themselves too much to outside (current trends in morality and culture) and inner influences (like sex drive, greed, etc.), while strong willed people are able to be more pure, similar like saints, pure in the sense that they are pure to choose what they want and where to go, but this doesn't mean that there isn't still a degree of "determinism" in them, there still is.

I could be an individualist but I will still be influenced by something, maybe my childhood, maybe a role model, etc.

Thanks for the responses fellas. Think I see it more clearly now