One thing every bad reader of Nietzsche seems to get wrong is they think he advocated selfishness

No it's not. No offense but you're also the most biased person in this thread; I have no reason to trust a roleplaying Christian wannabe priest in his opinion on anything.

Everything I've ever seen you post about Nietzsche is wrong.

Well you don't have to trust me, but it's clear to me that you've never read Dostoevsky, and you should do yourself a favor and start.

Everything I've seen you post about Nietzsche is wrong.

>Costantine is wrong
>Finding this remarkable.

He's not a special snowflake tripfag, so you have no idea what he's said about Nietzsche.

Not an argument.

I know he's said everything he's seen me say is wrong, which wrong, which means everything I've seen him say is wrong.

I've read Notes from Underground and The Brothers Karamazov.

I'm pretty damn sure you're just overestimating how much Dostoevsky actually captured. In any case, he may have just been a good writer. Writing a good philosophical text is not the same as writing a good fiction story.

Epic reply there memer. Why do you use a trip?

You wouldn't know what you've seen me say about Nietzsche, so you're wrong about yourself. I've talked with you about Nietzsche before.

What? A Christian with no self-awareness?

You need to read Crime and Punishment and Devils as well.

You can't deny that Notes from Underground explores the concept of the Last Man, as well as ressentiment, in some detail.

I just find it annoying that he thinks he has any validity to speak with authority; he never justifies his positions with evidence.

Also the tripcode thing really needs to end.

Constantine I have not read much Dostoevsky but frankly you have lost all credibility. You've lied too much, never made a legitimate reply away too many times when someone showed an error in your thinking, and have been too dishonest with how your represent books.

Your entire character seems to be based on resentment and lying.

You've seen what I've said in this thread which you said was wrong which makes you wrong.

>You can't deny that Notes from Underground explores the concept of the Last Man, as well as ressentiment, in some detail.
ressentiment as an idea of course existed long before Nietzsche. To say Nietzsche invented ressentiment is just a strawman. Nietzsche's particular take on it though has nothing to do with Dostoevsky.

The last man is also a minor point in Nietzsche's philosophy and really doesn't relate to the underground man. Of course you've read Nietzsche's letters about it, what did Nietzsche say?

You can stop being a pedantic twat any day now.

No you haven't.

You've seen what you think he's said, he might simply have never said anything and just came into the thread to reply to you.

We have no id's here, you're just assuming.

>it's another constantine thread

Nietzsche doesn't make any extensive commentary on Dostoevsky, he just calls him a kindred spirit and a powerful psychologist.

Nietzsche didn't "invent" ressentiment, but I would say he did significant investigation to it as a source for values, morality and justice, as well as a way the weak justify their weakness, which Dostoevsky also did.

The Last Man is pretty significant, it is Nietzsche's nightmare about utilitarianism. It's not just about a future, it's about the intent.

Threads like these always have so much potential, but this fag has to come in here and shit them up and now he's the center of attention. Tbh, the only way this thread is going to have anymore meaningful conversation is if we ignore him and his reddit-tier faggotry.

Nietzsche disagree with you

Until you read Devils and Crime and Punishment (which really explore this in depth), here is a quote from The Brothers Karamazov which might refresh your memory

>the new man is allowed ti become a man-god, though it be he alone in the whole world, and of course, in this new rank, to jump lightheartedly over any former moral obstacle of the former slave-man, if need be.

Ivan's "Devil"

Here is from Dostoevsky's "Devils"

>No, not in a future everlasting but in an everlasting life here. There are moments, you reach moments, and time comes to a sudden stop, and it will become eternal

>There are seconds, they come only five or six at a time, and you suddenly feel the presence of eternal harmony, fully achieved. It is nothing earthly; not that it's heavenly, but man cannot endure it in his earthly state. One must change physically or die. The feeling is clear and indisputable. As if you suddenly sense the whole of nature and suddenly say: yes, this is true.

cont

>To recognize that there is no God, and not to recognize at the same time that you have become God, is an absurdity, otherwise you must necessarily kill yourself. Once you recognize it, you are king, and you will not kill yourself but live in the chiefest glory. But one, the one who is first, must necessarily kill himself, otherwise who will begin and prove it? It is I who will necessarily kill myself in order to begin and prove it. I am still God against my will, and I am unhappy, because it is my duty to proclaim self-will. Everyone is unhappy, because everyone is afraid to proclaim self-will. That is why man has been so unhappy and poor up to now, because he was afraid to proclaim the chief point of self-will and was self-willed only on the margins, like a schoolboy. I am terribly unhappy, because I am terrible afraid. Fear is man's curse...But I will proclaim self-will, it is my duty to believe that I do not believe. I will begin, and end, and open the door. And save. Only this one thing will save all men and in the next generation transform them physically. for in the present physical aspect, so far as I have thought, it is in no way possible for man to be without the former God. For three years I have been searching for the attribute of my divinity, and I have found it: the attribute of my divinity is--Self-will!

And here are passages from Notes from Underground, you tell me if they are in line with Nietzsche's thoughts

>you say, science itself will teach man (though this is really a luxury in my opinion) that in fact he has neither will nor caprice, and never did have any, and that he himself is nothing but a sort of piano key or a sprig in an organ; and that, furthermore, there also exist in the world the laws of nature; so that whatever he does is done not at all according to his own wanting, but of itself, according to the laws of nature. Consequently, these laws of nature need only be discovered, and then man will no longer be answerable for his actions, and his life will become extremely easy. Needless to say, all human actions will then be calculated according to these laws, mathematically, like a table of logarithms, up to 108,000, and entered into a calendar; or, better still, some well-meaning publications will appear, like the present-day encyclopaedic dictionaries, in which everything will be so precisely calculated and designated that there will no longer be any actions or adventures in the world.

....

>I, for example, would not be the least bit surprised if suddenly, out of the blue, amid the universal future reasonableness, some gentleman of ignoble, or, better, of retrograde and jeering physiognomy, should emerge, set his arms akimbo, and say to us all: “Well, gentlemen, why don't we reduce all this reasonableness to dust with one good kick, for the sole purpose of sending all these logarithms to the devil and living once more according to our own stupid will!”

Some more

>I, for example, quite naturally want to live so as to satisfy my whole capacity for living, and not so as to satisfy just my reasoning capacity alone, which is some twentieth part of my whole capacity for living. What does reason know? Reason knows only what it has managed to learn (some things, perhaps, it will never learn; this is no consolation, but why not say it anyway?), while human nature acts as an entire whole, with everything that is in it, consciously and unconsciously, and though it lies, still it lives. I suspect, gentlemen, that you are looking at me with pity; you repeat to me that an enlightened and developed man, such, in short, as the future man will be, simply cannot knowingly want anything unprofitable for himself, that this is mathematics. I agree completely, it is indeed mathematics. But I repeat to you for the hundredth time, there is only one case, one only, when man may purposely, consciously wish for himself even the harmful, the stupid, even what is stupidest of all: namely, so as to have the right to wish for himself even what is stupidest of all and not be bound by an obligation to wish for himself only what is intelligent. For this stupidest of all, this caprice of ours, gentlemen, may in fact be the most profitable of anything on earth for our sort, especially in certain cases. And in particular it may be more profitable than all other profits even in the case when it is obviously harmful and contradicts the most sensible conclusions of our reason concerning profits – because in any event it preserves for us the chiefest and dearest thing, that is, our personality and our individuality.

And this, this part is very good

>WHAT HAPPENS, for example, with people who know how to take revenge and generally how to stand up for themselves? Once they are overcome, say, by vengeful feeling, then for the time there is simply nothing left in their whole being but this feeling. Such a gentleman just lunges straight for his goal like an enraged bull, horns lowered, and maybe only a wall can stop him. (Incidentally: before a wall, these gentlemen – that is, ingenuous people and active figures – quite sincerely fold.
cont

> For them a wall is not a deflection, as it is, for example, for us, people who think and consequently do nothing; it is not a pretext for turning back, a pretext which our sort usually doesn't believe in but is always very glad to have. No, they fold in all sincerity. For them a wall possesses something soothing, morally resolving and final, perhaps even something mystical . . . But of the wall later.) Well, sirs, it is just such an ingenuous man that I regard as the real, normal man, the way his tender mother – nature – herself wished to see him when she so kindly conceived him on earth. I envy such a man to the point of extreme bile. He is stupid, I won't argue with you about that, but perhaps a normal man ought to be stupid, how do you know? Perhaps it's even very beautiful. And I am the more convinced of this, so to speak, suspicion, seeing that if, for example, one takes the antithesis of the normal man, that is, the man of heightened consciousness, who came, of course, not from the bosom of nature but from a retort (this is almost mysticism, gentlemen, but I suspect that, too), this retort man sometimes folds before his antithesis so far that he honestly regards himself, with all his heightened consciousness, as a mouse and not a man. A highly conscious mouse, perhaps, but a mouse all the same, whereas here we have a man, and consequently . . . and so on . . . And, above all, it is he, he himself, who regards himself as a mouse; no one asks him to; and that is an important point.

Very Nietzsche, eh?

That actually doesn't really capture Nietzsche's philosophy, that's closer to Stirner. Nietzsche isn't about you becoming a tyrannical mangod.

This.

Everything Nietzsche talked about is related to the human condition. So in terms of discussing them as feelings they have been around long before him. You can find the eternal recurrence discussed in all sorts of myth and religions, you can find discussion of ressentment in the show Miraculous Ladybug. But again these are discussing the concepts as FEELINGS. And that's what Dostevesky and any other fiction work is about, feelings.

However in terms of discussing them as philosophy, explaining what they mean, Nietzsche was a trailblazer.

>Let us now have a look at this mouse in action. Suppose, for example, that it, too, is offended (and it is almost always offended), and it, too, wishes to take revenge. For it may have stored up even more spite than l'homme de la nature et de la verité. The nasty, base little desire to pay the offender back with the same evil may scratch still more nastily in it than in l'homme de la nature et de la verité, because l'homme de le nature et de la verité, with his innate stupidity, regards his revenge quite simply as justice; whereas the mouse, as a result of its heightened consciousness, denies it any justice. Things finally come down to the business itself, to the act of revenge itself. The wretched mouse, in addition to the one original nastiness, has already managed to fence itself about with so many other nastinesses in the form of questions and doubts; it has padded out the one question with so many unresolved questions that, willy-nilly, some fatal slops have accumulated around it, some stinking filth consisting of its dubieties, anxieties, and, finally, of the spit raining on it from the ingenuous figures who stand solemnly around it like judges and dictators, guffawing at it from all their healthy gullets. Of course, nothing remains for it but to wave the whole thing aside with its little paw and, with a smile of feigned contempt, in which it does not believe itself, slip back shamefacedly into its crack. There, in its loathsome, stinking underground, our offended, beaten-down, and derided mouse at once immerses itself in cold, venomous, and, above all, everlasting spite. For forty years on end it will recall its offense to the last, most shameful details, each time adding even more shameful details of its own, spitefully taunting and chafing itself with its fantasies.

> It will be ashamed of its fantasies, but all the same it will recall everything, go over everything, heap all sorts of figments on itself, under the pretext that they, too, could have happened, and forgive nothing. It may even begin to take revenge, but somehow in snatches, with piddling things, from behind the stove, incognito, believing neither in its right to revenge itself nor in the success of its vengeance, and knowing beforehand that it will suffer a hundred times more from all its attempts at revenge than will the object of its vengeance, who will perhaps not even scratch at the bite. On its deathbed it will again recall everything, adding the interest accumulated over all that time, and . . . But it is precisely in this cold, loathsome half-despair, half-belief, in this conscious burying oneself alive from grief for forty years in the underground, in this assiduously produced and yet somewhat dubious hopelessness of one's position, in all this poison of unsatisfied desires penetrating inward, in all this fever of hesitations, of decisions taken forever, and repentances coming again a moment later, that the very sap of that strange pleasure I was talking about consists. It is so subtle, sometimes so elusive of consciousness, that people who are even the slightest bit narrow-minded, or who simply have strong nerves, will not understand a single trace of it.”Perhaps,” you will add, grinning, “those who have never been slapped will also not understand” – thereby politely hinting that I, too, may have experienced a slap in my life, and am therefore speaking as a connoisseur. I'll bet that's what you think. But calm yourselves, gentlemen, I have not received any slaps, though it's all quite the same to me whatever you may think about it. Perhaps I myself am sorry for having dealt out too few slaps in my life. But enough, not another word on this subject which you find so extremely interesting.

Nietzsche's philosophy is more full expressed by Raskolnikov's theory, in Crime and Punishment, of the "extraordinary man." Raskolnikov is against society, but does not wish to become merely another "brick of socialism", and he develops a theory that once in a blue moon, nature produces supermen, like Napoleon, who are far above their fellows and therefore not bound to public morality, which is good for the masses, because they are like "cows". But the extraordinary man creates his own values and imposes them upon society, as is his extraordinary right, and he can kill, pillage, or do whatever he pleases to accomplish this, because this is the sort of man who brings in the future.

As I said here What you are quoting is MAI FEELZ. It's not philosophy, it's a piece of art.

Nietzsche spoke almost completely in terms of passions...his philosophy was a turn against the philosophy of utility and reason.

Not really. Dostoevsky's prediction about men in the future having easy lives is different. Nietzsche doesn't believe we can actually make everything pleasant like Dosto implies. He believe we will strive to.

This is really just pathetic. I'd have more respect for you if you admitted you just don't really know Nietzsche that well and remained silent. Dostoevsky talks about the same things as Nietzsche at times. He draws different conclusions. He maybe foreshadows but Nietzsche has volumes of texts of interesting stuff past anything Dostoevsky ever dreamed of.

No it wasn't. Utility, maybe, but reason, absolutely fucking not. Nietzsche more believes irrationality isn't wrong, not that it's superior to rationality.

What would Fred have thought of Stirner?

> Nietzsche doesn't believe we can actually make everything pleasant like Dosto implies
Nietzsche's nightmare of the Last Man is identical to this. Nietzsche DOESN'T consider it pleasant.

He rebels against reason as above passion, yes he does.

Maybe if the only fucking book he wrote was Zarathustra.

Compare this to Nietzsche

>God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

> 'DEAD ARE ALL THE GODS: NOW DO WE DESIRE THE OVERMAN TO LIVE.'

That's a shitty reading of Nietzsche.

The barrier here is that you have a very shallow, Wikipedia understanding of Nietzsche. I've studied him now for about four years. I've read 6 of his full texts, letters, interpretations, and maintained correspondences with top scholars. Still to this day his work surprises me, because it has a degree of nuance and perspective to it that most people just fail to grasp.

You've failed to grasp it.

Literally the only critical method Nietzsche ever uses is philology.

Neither are "above" you doltish child.

History? Psychology? Hell he even starts getting more rational when trying to rebuke Kant.

I've read Beyond Good and Evil, Genealogy, Zarathustra, Birth of Tragedy, Gay Science, Will to Power, Antichrist, Twilight of the Idols, The Dawn, Ecce Homo, and many letters.

Nietzsche doesn't use any critical historical or psychological method. He uses philology for a lot of his psychological conclusions though, especially in Genealogy.

To Nietzsche, will, passion, life, beauty, are all the same thing, and paramount; all other things are to be subject to that. "Above" as in subjecting other things. Reason is not to subject will, but vice versa.

He would say, he's right about many things but wrong about egoism.

It's not identical. Please, please, stop shitposting in my fucking thread and go into some Christian thread and post your stupid bullshit there. I'm here to talk about lesser known sides of Nietzsche, not read the delusional rantings of a stupid Veeky Forums memester Christian.

this

Then you've read them poorly and should remain silent.

Nietzsche doesn't think there is a "should", will subjects reason no matter what. You've gone off the rails again though and changed subjects.

Please stop posting in my thread.

Don't pay attention to Constantine, Nietzsche uses more than the philological method. He's becoming less coherent and more flailing as the thread goes on.

>Let me speak to them of what is most contemptible: but that is the last man."

>And thus spoke Zarathustra to the people: "The time has come for man to set himself a goal. The time has come for man to plant the seed of his highest hope. His soil is still rich enough. But one day this soil will be poor and domesticated, and no tall tree will be able to grow in it. Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer shoot the arrow of his longing beyond man, and the string of his bow will have forgotten how to whirl.

>"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.
cont

>"Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man.

>"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?' thus asks the last man, and he blinks.

>"The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea-beetle; the last man lives longest.

>"We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him, for one needs warmth.

>Becoming sick and harboring suspicion are sinful to them: one proceeds carefully. A fool, whoever still stumbles over stones or human beings! A little poison now and then: that makes for agreeable dreams. And much poison in the end, for an agreeable death.

>"One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.

>"No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.

>"'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink.

>"One is clever and knows everything that has ever happened: so there is no end of derision. One still quarrels, but one is soon reconciled-else it might spoil the digestion.

>"One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health.

>"We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink."

What other method does Nietzsche use? Please, name it.

They don't say the same thing. They say somewhat similar things. Please stop shitposting in my thread. You're not welcome. I don't care what you have to say about Nietzsche. Contain yourself and go away.

>actually good thread about Nietzsche hijacked by the Drag Queen of Resentment

is there any proof that constantine is actually a tranny

I don't care what they are, they just have an insufferable posting style.

What Dostoyevsky is talking about there seems to be about the free will and science destroying it, turning the world into a clockwork, which happens to be very safe and comfortable. The last man is about the liberal democratic sentiment, you know, utilitarian measures of happiness, equality, safety, moderation, good economy, work, pension at 65, peace, mockery of the old "shitty times", all that. What zarathustra doesn't speak of is free will and the mechanistic universe. Furthermore, the last man is the LAST man. There is no coming overman, there is no creators of new values, it's just a big black hole of comfort, a zero state of energy, a perfectly balanced and therefore UNCHANGEABLE system. Dostoyevskys character clearly considers the possibility of the whole setup getting torn down after it became established.

Basically you saw that both were sort of unheroic times and that they were based on modern inventions and instantly shitposted away without thinking further.

Glad someone took the time to say it. I started getting bogged down by the amount of quotations they were posting and gave up trying to talk seriously. Constantine is more about being right than about having a discussion.

>The last man is about the liberal democratic sentiment, you know, utilitarian measures of happiness, equality, safety, moderation, good economy, work, pension at 65, peace, mockery of the old "shitty times"
Have you read Notes from Underground? he talks extensively about this.

Both really go hand-in-hand with Bentham and the like.

No, it's on my reading list. I just went by (some of, because fucking hell) what you posted in this thread. If you have relevant content, post it and not shit that makes you seem super retarded when paired with your arguments. Also go outside, you're in practically every other fucking thread I visit posting dozens of posts in each.

He gives hints in some books, and the fourth book of Will to Power is all about that.

Your point was basically that Nietzsche did nothing original and Dostoevsky did it all first. No amount of pedantic shitposting will defend an irrevocably retarded statement like that.

People really ought to read Goethe when contemplating Nietzsche. Goethe exemplifies a person with a complex, changing moral character that served as a model for Nietzsche.

How so? To recognize the importance of "evil" acts in the general economy of humanity is not the same as advocating selfishness.

How does said passage disagree with me?

He doesn't say passions are "above" reason, but that the latter somehow emerges from the former. And the only thing he has against reason is when it is used AGAINST the passions. I don't know if he says it somewhere, but probably he thought that to use your passions against reason is equally dumb as hell. Reason isn't life-denying by itself.

Shhh, let the Christian strawman Nietzsche, it's amusing

I've not read Goethe very well, I've considered give him a look by what I've read of his influence on Nietzsche. Maybe starting with the conversations mentioned in this thread.

Did you not read past the first passage?

>2. The Intellectual Conscience.
I have the same experience over and over again and always try to resist it for although it is evident to me I still do not want to believe it: in the greater number of men the intellectual conscience is lacking; indeed, it would often seem to me that when demanding such a thing, one is as solitary in the largest cities as if you were in the desert. Everyone looks at you with strange eyes and continues to use of his scales, calling this good and that bad; and no one blushes for shame when you remark that these weights are under-weight - people do not feel indignant; they merely laugh at your doubt. I mean to say that the greater number of people does not find it contemptible to believe this or that, and live according to it, without having been previously aware of the ultimate and surest reasons for and against it, and without even giving themselves any trouble about such reasons afterwards, the most gifted men and the noblest women still belong to this "greater number." But what is kindheartedness, refinement and genius to me, if he who has these virtues harbours lazy sentiments in his faith and judgments, if the longing for certainty does not rule in him, as his innermost desire and profoundest distress - as that which separates higher from lower men! In certain pious people I have found a hatred of reason, and have been favourably disposed to them for it: their bad intellectual conscience was at least exposed by that! But to stand in the midst of this rerum concordia discors and all the marvellous uncertainty and ambiguity of existence, and not to question, not to tremble with desire and delight in questioning, not even to hate the questioner- perhaps even finding him amusing - that is what I regard as contemptible, and it is this sentiment which I first of all search for in every one.

he says people who don't ponder moral questions are basically cows

Nietzsche said the Conversations with Eckermann is the best work in the German language. It's very human, you can definitely watch Goethe struggle with hard questions.

I don't think either men explored original ideas, both men took them from the air of their time. Dostoevsky critiqued them, whereas Nietzsche beautified them. Nietzsche is really the first post-Christian thinker, to offer a truly *poetic* system of thought alternative to Christianity. Christianity is extremely artistic and poetic, and Nietzsche, perhaps, saw this as the greatest lack among secular alternative worldviews of his day.

It's really to long for me to spam it all here

Here's the link to the full story, just read the first fifteen pages: 7chan.org/lit/src/fyodor-dostoevsky-notes-from-underground-1.pdf

Nietzsche isn't opposed to reason per se, he is opposed to reason as the sun which thought orbits. After the end of revelation as the sun, reason took its place, and then among some reaction to that, utility took that place. Nietzsche has no problem with reason as a tool, but as a god he is its bitter enemy.

>Christianity is extremely artistic and poetic, and Nietzsche, perhaps, saw this as the greatest lack among secular alternative worldviews of his day.
Sure, but Christianity today isn't artistic or beautiful at all.

Nietzsche thinks reason CAN'T be the orbit. That's the difference. He says: "thoughts are always the shadows of our feelings: darker, emptier and more shallow", I'm paraphrasing. In every situation ever thoughts are slave to the passions, he's basically a Humean in this regard.

He's against the elevation of reason because he thinks it's just antihuman, it tells people that a fundamental aspect of themselves is wrong. There's nothing about which should be which here, he's diagnosing illnesses like a doctor.

That doesn't make reason bad, or passions bad, he just says improper valuing of them makes a person sick.

>Sure, but Christianity today isn't artistic or beautiful at all.
Orthodox Christianity is, but back then, even Protestant Christianity was.

>he's basically a Humean in this regard.
Yes, but this is just already worked out by Hume. Nietzsche affirms it as a value rather than makes any case of substance against it. Nietzsche argues about *values* more than over truth (since Nietzsche sees truth as nothing but a good produced by power).

>Nietzsche affirms it as a value rather than makes any case of substance against it.
Really? Last I checked, Beyond Good and Evil was a text working out every implication of this for philosophy.

>Nietzsche argues about *values* more than over truth (since Nietzsche sees truth as nothing but a good produced by power).
Not necessarily, he discusses truth quite a bit but it's hidden. He actually lays out an entire pragmatic theory of truth (really William James-esque) in The Gay Science, cf Alexandre Nehamas.

But pragmatic truth does tend to not jive with philosophical truths.

...

kek

fritz is on the fritz again

>Last I checked, Beyond Good and Evil was a text working out every implication of this for philosophy.
But from values expressed through philology and aphorisms, it's nothing like Human's systematic arguments.

>he discusses truth quite a bit but it's hidden
At the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil, he identifies it with a woman--which means he thinks it only looks deep, but is actually quite shallow.

you don't know shit about nietzsche

no, it isn't

Sure, Nietzsche doesn't lay out arguments, he mocks the practice in BG&E

>At the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil, he identifies it with a woman--which means he thinks it only looks deep, but is actually quite shallow.
WOW, now you butchered the fuck out of that.

The actual quote from Nietzsche is: women aren't deep, they aren't even shallow. He basically says "depth" of thought is men's folly, and is a compliment to women.

He's saying that truth is often very simple and very complicated simultaneously.

Now I'm doubling down on my certainty that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

God's death is beautiful

Existence precedes essence

>The actual quote from Nietzsche is: women aren't deep, they aren't even shallow. He basically says "depth" of thought is men's folly, and is a compliment to women.
And all this could be applied to his perspective on truth

Epic burn bro :^)

Also, I've been on Veeky Forums long enough to know that when one critiques Nietzsche, the first criticism is invariably and ALWAYS, "you don't understand"/"you haven't read him". ALWAYS, without fail. Every time. You will never see a single critique pass without this defense, and it will always veer toward some form of literary analysis being treated as gospel.

ie
>the will to power is a natural force that moves through all things
>the will to power is a natural force that only moves through living things
>the will to power is a natural force that only moves through human beings
>the will to power is defined by individual affirmation
>the will to power is a longing for power, not an act
>the will to power is an act, not a longing
>the will to power is both the act and the longing being present

or
>Nietzsche's slave-master dichotomy is purely describe
>Nietzsche exalts masters
>Nietzsche doesn't care for either, preferring an all new morality
>Nietzsche sees both as necessary to combine for the greatest morality
>Nietzsche sees them as both useful, but for different people

or

>the Ubermesnch is a kind of individual man
>the Umbermensch is a future race
>the Ubermenschen is an ideal in flux, it's never meant to be realized
>the Ubermesnch is something realized in certain times and moments and lived, rather than attained

And so on and so forth.

Nietzsche also didn't want you to blindly follow his beliefs

Have you ever considered that maybe different people have a different reading? His work is incredibly in-depth, with ideas being developed over 10+ books, in addition just about every philosopher after him have tried to incomprate their own ideas into Nietzsche, compound this with the fact that Veeky Forums is a bunch of novices rather than experts and this result is not be expected.

In addition a lot of what you said are not contradictions. It is perfectly compatable with literally everything you said about Masters.

Nietzche does say Masters are preferable to slaves. But he acknowledges that it is the slave's circumstance that makes it useful for them. His idea that the ideal morality is never fixed means you can have a powerful morality that combines elements from both Masters and Slaves (for instance he praises the slave's cunning). This also opens up the door for a new morality.

One thing you seem to be incapable of grasping about Nietzche is he is capable of analyzing things from not just his own ideals but from other people's perspective. He is able to accept them as being useful or true for certain people and that certain perspectives performe better in different situations. This deep analysis is possible because he accepts the subjective, perspective nature of reality and (thus morality): something you constantly rebel against.

I think this is why you can never grasp any decent philosophy you are incapable of understanding anything through any perspective but your own so you cannot even begin to understand the thought process of a man who is asking you to do this to understand philosophy. You keep thinking in terms of being "for" or "against" something as a universal ought rather than being able to analyze individual situations.

To even consider the possibility is to renounce your theology that "good"/"correct" is some transcendent divine thing which is wrapped up in your God. Maybe you just lack the divine spark of Gnosis and are Demiurge puppet.