Is there any philosopher more honest (and thus more caring and passionate) than Nietzsche?

>Nietzsche
>relativist

Then Indian most be on the cutting edge.

>I haven't read Nietzsche

Considering Aristotle was Plato's student, I'd say that's not a fair comparison. Nietzsche owes far more to the pre-Socratics than he does to Plato.

Plato's to blame for this inane obsession with "truth" as though it were an objective thing to be discovered.

>I haven't read Nietzsche

No, the (in some ways literal) shitty parts of India would be the negative incline that is coinciding with the positive incline of the current western globalist hemisphere.

>Does that mean everyone should be out trying to be a CEO or Emperor?
No... where do you get that idea and how does that even make sense?

Aristotle was Plato's student, but he was pretty much the opposite of Plato in everything.

Plato conceived of truth as as a subject, not an object. Truth wasn't largely an object until the Enlightenment. Plato's outlook was more about a cooperation with truth, you discover truth as truth guides you.

Was did the /d/eviant mean by this, / his/?

>What Western morality comes from Plato?
Christianity. It in many ways starts with Plato.

And what's your will to power OP, spending your saturday nights shitposting on the slowest section of a Malaysian finger painting board?

Even someone like Goethe could be an ubermensch. Maybe OP's art is posting.

really makes you think

Bouncing ideas back and forth with other strangers almost as if to justify myself, and occasionally educating / getting to mock someone. Oh, and trying to be moral, which for me involves being honest.

can you really be honest while hiding behind anonymity though?

I've got nothing to gain from lying on here. Honesty and dishonesty are expressed through what you write on here.

Nietzsche only got that way because he couldn't reconcile the inner power of Christianity with the lack of external power in Christianity.
The more we externalize our power the less control we have thus less "true" power, we become slaves.
Nietzsche duped you all, he wants you to externalize and be like the Superman, because that's how you lose and become a slave to the self and in the end the Superman.
You all following his philosophy and making yourselves essentially his slaves in that respect is basically him becoming the Superman, even in death.
He's a tricky bastard and you all fell for it.
>tfw you are literally the Superman by being a man among gods in world where folks see themselves as gods among men

>You all following his philosophy and making yourselves essentially his slaves in that respect is basically him becoming the Superman, even in death.
The same exact thing can be said about Christ, or at least the priests that came after him and spun him into "The Church".

I don't know about you, but as a child, growing up healthily and full of energy, the external world was what interested me. Learning and exploring, meeting new people, trying new things, etc. It wasn't until I was faced with the challenge of having to meet the higher expectations society laid out for me that my energy balanced out into an inward investigation, because now I questioned myself and had to overcome myself.

Nietzsche doesn't completely talk this down though. It's a necessary phase. Like masturbation before sex.

but there's nothing to lose for being honest either. Isn't that the morality of honesty? welcoming harm in name of the truth. dishonestly only really happens because you have something to lose/gain from it.

If honesty is a moral, am I being honest by saying that I cheated on my girlfriend to an anonymous board, or do I have to come clean directly to her in order to be truly honest.

One might say the same for Truth and Good, we need freedom from The State, from Society, not from The Truth, not from The Good.
Of course that opens a new can of worms, but Nietzsche would have acknowledged this in the same way Heidegger might of and renamed to Truth to "whatever I say rationally".
Essentially what I am saying is, if men can not find their freedom on their own, internalize their power and overcome the self, then perhaps they should consider slavery to a higher ideal.
More of a soft slavery than an inescapable hard slavery though.
If Christ returned to earth and created the manifestation of the kingdom of God on earth with peace and prosperity for all, and Nietzsche came down at the same time and told everyone to follow him into his kingdom of whatever he says (keep in mind Nietzsche was all about strength and was literally against our current morality, in a rational way)
Who do you think would find more followers?

Is it about Truth or not?
Yes or no, to question the question is to answer in the affirmative as even the acknowledgment is an answer.
The only way to win no is to not respond.
[Answer] Accordingly

>but there's nothing to lose for being honest either
There is something to lose for being dishonest, my personal sense of integrity.

To me it seems to be less about power and more about liberation. People seem to reject power if it is associated with being tightly tied. Otherwise the most powerful people on earth would be OK with being tied and controlled in exchange for more power, which most leaders seem not to be.
>

...

I actually haven't read Neechy.

He thought he was being honest. Doesn't mean he was right. Or not a complete pessimist with clouded world-view because of his loneliness.

It's funny, you call him caring and passionate, but compassion is the one thing he overlooks the most in his conclusions.
There are parents who sacrifice themselves for their children. That isn't will to power, that's compassion.
And before you say that they affirm power through their children, that's not at all what they think about when they do it.

>deep down we all know it's just an attempt to derail something that hurts them, and their reaction to this effect is simply another manifestation of the will to power.
This is an argument like when christfags say that deep down people don't believe in god because they worship themselves and hate what is good.

Intellectual Property is a spook.
T. Nietzche

>That isn't will to power, that's compassion.
That is definitely will to power.

It's clear to me now that there is a necessary distinction between intelligence and understanding which is seldom comprehended. Cognizance is the light which destroys the shadows of consciousness, while intelligence relates only to the appropriation of physicality.Genius loves what is different while retardation relates to itself alone. Believe me when I say that subjectivity is a considerable change and that nothing may be more hard fought than letting go of certainty. Because who really knows? I sure as fuck don't. To tell the truth I think Jesus lied and so should we. All that really matters is how you're going to get what you want.
Free Jays Truth.

Who's your hook up dude? I've been looking for an acid connect.

Nietzsche is easily one of the top 5 minds of all time

Is he "our" guy?

Probably my own hangups on the meaning of the word power. What exactly does Nietzsche mean by power here? Is it temporal power?

>Nietzsche
>a Nazi
He probably would have vomitted if he ever read Mein Kampf.

Nietzsche spoke against Anti-Semitism and German nationalism. He couldn't be further away from a nazi.

t. retard

You're both wrong, it was Socrates, proof neither have read TBoT.

>Is there any philosopher more honest (and thus more caring and passionate) than Nietzsche?
Diogenes, if you believe Nietzsche.

>Life is will to power and nothing besides.
That's the Heideggerian interpretation of Nietzsche.

>The "adult" — that's a concept put forth by weaker half-beings that are not honest to themselves.
In the sense of becoming "an adult" as some sort of magical essence that changes your being, yes.

>Does that mean everyone should be out trying to be a CEO or Emperor?
No. Power is not just limited to the realm of controlling other humans, but it's the most obvious one. Having the power to create a beautiful painting, is as well derived from this same motivation.

Yes, Nietzsche knew he was a philosopher and largely regretted that his whole life. He would have rather been a mad composer, like Beethoven.

Nietzsche is not a relativist, and if you confuse perspectivism for relativism, you're an idiot.

Nietzsche owes to all Greeks in general.

The Will to Power is closer to "you should be a live actor in the world" than it is "take material possession over things". Nietzsche is opposed to base self-interestedness.

>You're both wrong, it was Socrates, proof neither have read TBoT.

I never claimed to have. I just didn't want to blame Socrates since most of what we know of his values comes through Plato, so we don't know what were actually his, and what were Plato's using him as a mouthpiece.

There are other sources on Socrates which confirm much the same impression Plato gives.

>No. Power is not just limited to the realm of controlling other humans, but it's the most obvious one. Having the power to create a beautiful painting, is as well derived from this same motivation.

So would someone trying to be one with the tao be exercising will to power?

I don't know what this is but it sounds like no. Will to power means participating in timeless human activity with passion. Being a yes-sayer, being active and loving everything life has to live.

Everything bad is that which says, "this aspect of life sucks, avoid it". To Nietzsche it's about really doing things, being involved, having great heights and suffering greatly.

I dislike Nietzsche because he argued all attempts at establishing a normative ethics is illegitimate. Thus, he encouraged the transvaluation of ideals, which is retarded and typically leads to Marquis de Sadean outlook. Nietzsche valued both the Apollonian and Dionysian ideals, but when you dismiss all attempts at normativity, then the appeal of the Dionysian ideal is indirectly strengthened. Read this to understand more thoroughly:

slccphilosophyconference.org/file.php?id=71

The best way to defeat Nietzsche and Marquis de Sade's philosophy is to go back to ways of ye old and create plausible systems of metaphysics whereby you can derive normative ethics. People frequently criticize all pointing out of "scientific gaps" as stupid due to lacking evidence, but they are unknowingly following logical positivist thought that Quine refuted. I say, let people not be afraid to defend so-called "ludicrous" metaphysics in order to bring back the contentment associated with a moral compass. For remember, Nietzsche's master-slave morality was influenced by Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, and in that novel, Dostoevsky dismissed such egoism as the whining of a child.

>So would someone trying to be one with the tao be exercising will to power?
Being "one with tao" is seemingly mystical but it's on par with a lot of other eastern philosophies, and Jesus's... it's still a part of will to power but it's in the opposite direction that Nietzsche admired, hence the "Antichrist."

This might sound like some cartoon fantasy, but imagine if the world really was a balance of two forces like yin and yang. The two forces have many different names and meanings depending on who you ask. To Nietzsche, they are: the weak and the strong. The most generic concepts you can apply to them are black (void of color) and white (all colors).

Both the weak and the strong want power, but because they are different in nature, they not only pursue power by different means, they gain power from different sources. Both gain power from within, but since one is strong and full and the other is weak and lacking, their inner sources are different.

Meditation is ego death. Enlightenment, as figures like Bodhidharma understood it, is essentially consciousness without ego and the awareness of such an ability. But psychologically the pursuit of such a thing is bizarre to anyone with a shred of passion for the material world, and the western world is clearly more materialistic overall, hence why such ideas didn't take off here. To Nietzsche, who tries to make a psychological assessment of Jesus, Jesus spoke of inner things, this eternal inner world (like the tao) because psychologically he hated the world, and himself, and found comfort in its total dissolution and in the idea of something eternal and seemingly unbeatable, like the reality of consciousness without ego, or non-reality. If you read the Gospel of Thomas you will see that Jesus is very much speaking about a similar thing as meditation / ego death and post-ego death consciousness from eastern thought ("If you understand these scriptures you will not experience death.")

Have you read Meister Eckhart?

No. Should I?

Nice spin you've got going there!
Its almost like I'm on Reddit.
Nietzsche was a super nationalistic Pole claiming descent from nobility and declaring the Germanics "graced" to be in such close proximity to Polacks.

Nietzsche wouldn't have been a Nazi but he wouldn't have been against them.

>Nietzsche wouldn't have been a Nazi but he wouldn't have been against them.
Actually he probably would have been.

First off, it's kind of ridiculous to try and push the idea that Nietzsche would condone murdering thousands of people based simply on their heritage. He pointed out how retarded the Germans could be, how arrogant they were and how brutishly they handled philosophy, the arts, and culture. Their interest in slaughtering the Jews and the Muslims was a classic example of herd mentality and their brutish instincts.

Second, at some point he does say that Europe should unite. The Nazis were not interested in unity, their entire goal was consuming everyone else and erecting severe national borders like no one else.

Nietzsche spoke of higher politics between individuals which go beyond the petty politics between nations. I think in the end he was more of a globalist than a nationalist. Not a liberal like people try to make him out to be though — a globalist authoritarian with a philosophical edge rather than a petty political / materialistic one.

Best interpretation I've seen.

The level of this board is very low. People not knowing how Aristotle differed from Plato. I'd say Veeky Forums is better.

"It is even part of my ambition to be considered as the despiser of the German par excellence."

"When I try to think of the kind of man who is opposed to me in all my instincts the picture that springs to mind is always that of a German."

"Wherever Germany extends, it ruins culture."

"you can understand the origin of the German intellect — in distressed intestines...German intellect is indigestion, it gets finished with nothing."

"I take it to be a piece of first-class luck to have lived at the right time and to have lived precisely among Germans, so as to be ripe for this work: my psychologist’s curiosity goes that far. The world is poor for one who has never been sick enough for this “voluptuousness of hell""

"The first attack (1873) was directed at German culture, which even at that time I looked down upon with pitiless contempt. Without sense, without substance, without scope: “simply public opinion.” There is no more vicious misunderstanding than to believe that the great military success of the Germans proved anything in favor of this culture — or, of all things, its triumph over France..."

Finally, when there appeared on the bridge spanning two centuries of décadence a force majeure of genius and will strong enough to create a unity out of Europe, a political and economic unity designed to rule the world, the Germans, with their “Wars of Liberation,” robbed Europe of the meaning, of the wonderful meaning of Napoleon’s existence — hence they have everything that came after, everything that exists here today on their conscience, this most cultural-inimical sickness and unreasonableness that there is, nationalism, this névrose nationale with which Europe is sick, this perpetuation of European petty-statesmanship, of petty politics: they have robbed Europe itself of its meaning, of its reason — they have led it into a blind alley. — Does anyone besides me know a way out of this blind alley?...A task great enough to bind the nations once again?...

"Ah these Germans, what they have already cost us! In-vain — that has always been the work of the Germans. — The Reformation; Leibniz; Kant and the so-called German philosophy; the Wars of “Liberation,” the Reich — each time an In-vain for something already there, for something irretrievable ... They are my enemies, I confess it, these Germans: I despise in them every kind of concept and value uncleanliness, every kind of cowardice before every honest Yes and No. For almost a thousand years they have mussed up and messed up everything they laid their hands on, they have on their conscience everything half-hearted — threeeighths-hearted! — from which Europe is sick — they also have on their conscience the uncleanest kind of Christianity there is, the most incurable, the most irrefutable: Protestantism ... If we are not finished with Christianity, the Germans will be to blame ..."

Yes, Nietzsche loved German nationalism and German supremacy.

There wasn't

And he died by the hand of his own honesty

I hate his ass because he twists history to suit his shitty narrative. No, greek religion wasn't like that.
>Everything bad is that which says, "this aspect of life sucks, avoid it"
But lots of things in life suck and should be avoided.

>because he twists history to suit his shitty narrative. No, greek religion wasn't like that.
Examples? Either way, he was definitely more educated on the Greeks than anyone on Veeky Forums can claim to be.

>But lots of things in life suck and should be avoided.
Nietzsche isn't saying "punch yourself in the face because it will suck". It's things like these:

Scientism which says, "all mysticism is bad! religion is bad! only science is good!"
Mysticism which says, "all reason is bad! only myths are good!
Religion which says, "all sin is bad! only morality is good!"

So it's not about specific things which suck, it's about principles of life. Any principle which demands denial of anything wholesale is bad, you should investigate all possible ways to be and find what works for you. Aescetic virtues are fine, if you're trying to paint a good painting, but aescetic virtues for their own sake are bad, because denying yourself pleasures out of a totalizing myth is what an idiot does.

So take the antithesis of a will-less life: life the most willful, empassioned life. Many Eastern philosophies emphasize not desiring, which is exactly wrong. Desire is always a good, even if it gets you into trouble.

>I hate his ass because he twists history to suit his shitty narrative.
Everybody twists history to suit their shitty narrative. At least Nietzsche doesn't tack on the pretense that he's an objective thinker, unlike the twats running around today.

nietzsche wouldnt have the balls to make a fist let less throw one

Why should he? Because that conforms to your idea of manliness?

>t. never read a word of nietzsche

Well, greeks didn't consider struggling and fighting for something in the way he says good.
It understood the cosmos as a closed system, a finite totality, within which gods and mortals alike occupied places determined by fate.
Also, don't try to be a smart-ass towards the gods. They will fuck your shit up faster than the christian God likes to do.
You better plead to them with nice sacrifices and suplications to not smite your ass and give you nice buffs for your crops and whatnot.
Pretty un-ubermenchy if you ask me.
>Any principle which demands denial of anything wholesale is bad, you should investigate all possible ways to be and find what works for you.
So, rape, pillage and burn is good for Nietzche?

Or maybe I've read quite a bit.

>Pretty un-ubermenchy if you ask me
Ubermensch doesn't involve picking a fight with literal gods. Nietzshe's ubermensch as I understand it is a relatively material concept.

>So, rape, pillage and burn is good for Nietzche?
Hypotheticals are funny, but not serious. You can't actually do that stuff in a modern setting and so such hyperbole is stupid.

The thing about those "hyper-destructive" metaphors is they really don't work, human society persists and thrives in opposition to even the worst of us, in the grand scheme even Hitlers don't matter very much.

So yes, rape, pillage and burn is fine, because you'll probably destroy a bunch of weak stuff and get stomped for being a piece of shit. But Nietzsche won't regard that as anything worthy of praise, really, it's a pretty low form of living.

>Hypotheticals are funny, but not serious.
Thought experiments are the basis of judging philosophy. We probably dont have massive utility monsters IRL, but it's a nice critique.
>You can't actually do that stuff in a modern setting and so such hyperbole is stupid.
O rly?
Pic related.
>So yes, rape, pillage and burn is fine, because you'll probably destroy a bunch of weak stuff and get stomped for being a piece of shit.
All i need to know.
>But Nietzsche won't regard that as anything worthy of praise, really, it's a pretty low form of living.
Dunno, seems the ultimate will-to-power to me.

...

Yeah, go ahead and believe Nietzsche justifies ISIS. Doesn't really matter to me because you've clearly made up your mind already.

>Yeah, go ahead and believe Nietzsche justifies ISIS.
I didn't say that. But can't find the pic of that rebel leader in Ukraine that likes to decapitate puppies.
I was just saying your idea that "you can't find places in which to do those things nowadays" is silly.

Nietzsche was the Maddox of philosophy, i.e. a shithead.

Well, I brought up the Tao because in Taoism one of the central ideas seems to be living as part of this world at peace with it, not denying it in any capacity, but not railing against it either. At least with the early philosophical works of the ideal (for instance those of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu) there's no focus on any sort of otherworldly paradise, so life denial doesn't really enter into it. It's just a different way of approaching life.

I suspect Taoism would be at least in some ways Nietzsche's opposite while remaining on a similar playing field (the world itself). In Taoism, they're quite clear: the way of strength is the way of death, and the ultimate aim is a long, peaceful life of simple virtue. Funnily enough, Taoism, being a basically egoistic philosophy that holds little to be truly sacred, least of all authority and hierarchy, would be highly compatible with Stirner's work, which often winds up compared with Nietzsche for its superficial similarities.

Thanks for asking my question.

>At least with the early philosophical works of the ideal (for instance those of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu) there's no focus on any sort of otherworldly paradise, so life denial doesn't really enter into it. It's just a different way of approaching life.
To Nietzsche, it is still life-denying. He considered Buddhism, which has its origins in Taoism, nihilistic despite being much more honest, spiritually hygienic and superior to Christianity. But it is still reductionist at its core, which to Nietzsche is a suppression of many aspects of life rather than a celebration of them.

It is very much an "opposite" to Nietzsche though, at least philosophically. Still, it fits into his model of the will to power.

>Buddhism, which has its origins in Taoism,

>Is there any philosopher more honest (and thus more caring and passionate) than Nietzsche?

Well, yes.

yo ur hair is on fire lol

Neither Taoism, nor Buddhism have their origins in one another.

Also the more I hear about Nietzsche, the more he sounds to me like "every idea and philosopher that isn't my own is absolute garbage." What an arrogant toss.

I'm particularly talking about Zen Buddhism which is part of the Mahayana tradition... my historical reading of Buddhism stopped there.

>Also the more I hear about Nietzsche, the more he sounds to me like "every idea and philosopher that isn't my own is absolute garbage." What an arrogant toss.
You should try reading him instead of hearing about him through others. He criticized everything, but because he dreamt of something greater.

Zarathustra: "I love the great despisers because they are the great adorers..."

bump

>I dont know what relativism is: the post
>>>/Pol/