Power is the ultimate teleological principle

you've just rendered the former redundant and the latter impossible

Attached: 1520938783980.jpg (655x527, 36K)

Why don't you read Nietzsche on nihilism? He makes himself very clear, and you can stop drawing your philosophical definitions from memes and anime discussion boards.

>he makes himself very clear

good one

>I have not read thing I am pretending to comment on
Do you not realize how obvious it is when you do this?

So when Nietzsche says he's against nihilism I'm juyst supposed to take him at his word, even when he's planting the seeds of relativism?

You are currently asking me whether you should take a philosopher "at his word". What else does he have? You're going to let Walter Kaufmann tell you what Nietzsche really meant?

Do you want Nietzsche's critique of nihilism and defense of his own philosophy against it, or are you looking for someone to arbitrarily reconcile Nietzsche with your own definition of nihilism?

something that might be immoral in that case would be to deify the unreal

You're going to let Nietzsche tell you what Nietzsche really meant? He makes patent in his writings how much he recognizes the heterogeneity of his text (his style) and through it he poses as if trying (and probably tried, unknowingly, seriously too) to unveil truth from its possibility to come forward.

>bad argument.
No it's not. If you don't agree with what the other poster said, then you mustn't agree with the validity of nihilism.

>spirit
doesn't exist
>eternal
doesn't exist

If you want make distinctions, make them meaningful otherwise they're just empty semantic peddling- poor poetry.

why? Is not the act of deification a realized event?

To take a philosopher at their word is to not engage in philosophy yourself. It doesn't matter what any philosopher states as their purpose or goal. It does not matter how they describe their work. It only matters how the logic actually holds together. If someone wishes to argue that Nietzsche is fundamentally a nihilist, despite his protest, then let them make the case. If it lacks rigor, it can be ignored. If it is rigorous, and valid, then you will need to provide an equally rigorous and valid rebuttal if you still disagree.

waaaaa muh nihilism OMG is it..... *gasp* n...ihilism.. ??

>if it's true then how is it sad?
>shoots your mother
>proclaims that your mother is dead
>"well it's true so it's not sad"

>>spirit
doesn't exist
>>eternal
doesn't exist

LMAO!!!

Attached: 1507506742483.jpg (600x750, 228K)

What the fuck is wrong with you? Who doesn’t believe in SPIRIT?

Edgy atheists who think they are too smart for "religion", while actually being stupid enough not to be able to comprehend metaphysics and philosophy.

really over this pretending to be religious meme. self deception does not make you Traditional.

He planted the oak tree of National Socialism at the same time, be fair.

Attached: n8nzjNX.jpg (1920x1200, 260K)

but niezsche clearly defined what power was and what forms of power (self hatred, ascetism, hatred of the powerful by the majorities) are degenerate or as he would say decadent-

It's active nihilism, validated, funnily enough, both by Historicity (the death of God) and necessity (will to power as an immanent principle)