Behold. It is I, Caliph Friedrich ibn Neetshah, first Caliph of the Ubermensch paradise of Hyperborea...

>Dude like Greeeks were so dope Xd
>Why did Socrates ruined i :-(
>Like dude like reasons and arguments are not needed lmao

He might be referring to some of the rants that were induced by Lou Salome's rejections of him. I would say Nietzsche was a bit of a sexist by today's standards, but I don't think he was a misogynist.

I know he smoked opium (and supposedly other drugs). I mean alcohol specifically which he had strong philosophically grounded feelings against, chiefly that it was a kind of painkiller similar to religion. It makes you satisfied with an incomplete life.

>Feminism borrows from Nietzsche's "sexism". Nietzsche dispelled the myth that women are weak, dainty virgin Marys
Quite right, but he was of the opinion that women were basically lesser anyway (though his precise views on women are quite esoteric) and best suited for being barefoot and pregnant (on this he was clear).

>Like dude like reasons and arguments are not needed lmao

Well, they're not. It's a philosopher's duty to provide commentary on ourselves, our lives, the universe, and our place within it. Something that is true is true (though Nietzsche himself wasn't exactly kind to the concept of "truth") regardless of whether reasons are given for it.

>Something that is true is true (though Nietzsche himself wasn't exactly kind to the concept of "truth") regardless of whether reasons are given for it.
>truths are illusions
This is his whole argument to not give any real argument about his theology I mean """""philosophy""""""

>This is his whole argument to not give any real argument about his theology I mean """""philosophy""""""

Are you the butthurt Thomist from yesterday? Not all philosophy has to follow the dialectical formula, in fact prior to Eleatics, it largely didn't. Are you going to claim Chuang Tzu wasn't a philosopher?

If the Ubermensch were to actually become humanity's future would this mean Europe would become some kind of bizarro China with Nietzsche as it's bizarro Confucius?

>Philosophy:the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
When you don't use rational arguments you are not doing philosophy you are doing something else. Saying that something is one way without explaining why is not philosophy

Nietzsche's arguments aren't irrational. Not explaining something is not the same as irrationality.

Further, that definition of philosophy is crap. Philosophy itself is such a broad field, covering such a broad variety of methods and ideas that the idea of constraining it to a single definition is bound to cut out countless philosophers. Lao Tzu states his ideas without offering a dialectical explanation, is he not a philosopher?

The reality is that he did experiment with these drugs, including alcohol- and stopped for physiological reasons at least according to his own words in letters he wrote. His developing a philosophy against escapism was an afterthought- perhaps a rationalization of his body's rejection of those substances. That's a different reason than the Muslims "don't drink" they don't drink because it's against the rules to be drunk when you're praying (been a while since i've read the koran, so this might not be right).

anti-escapism vs insulting god is the heart of the matter. Those are two different things which happen to overlap.

>basically lesser

Where? it's clear Schopenhaur believes women have 'child-like minds'and Nietzsche was at one point a fan of Schopenhaur, but Nietzsche doesn't take this position- as far as I can tell. The anthology I have next to me has a fucked up unusable index, so it will take me a bit to comb through mentions of women.

>anti-escapism vs insulting god is the heart of the matter. Those are two different things which happen to overlap.
I know. I understand the similarities are totally superficial, it's just obvious enough to be appropriate joke-material.

>Where?
He outright states this a couple of times. And if you read his works with this in mind you'll notice an underlying trend where he seems to rate women based on their ability to give birth and build families in much the same way he rates men on their ability to be creative and industrious.

>“Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman has one solution—that is pregnancy. Man is for woman a means: the purpose is always the child.

>A real man wants two things: danger and play. Therefore he wants woman as the most dangerous plaything. Man shall be educated for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.

>Nietzsche's arguments aren't irrational. Not explaining something is not the same as irrationality.
Not explaining something makes the whole premise weak
>Lao Tzu states his ideas without offering a dialectical explanation, is he not a philosopher?
I don't know him

>Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman has one solution—that is pregnancy. Man is for woman a means: the purpose is always the child.

That doesn't sound to me like a statement that they ought to be that way, just that women are driven to men primarily by their own reproductive urge.

>A real man wants two things: danger and play. Therefore he wants woman as the most dangerous plaything. Man shall be educated for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.

I suspect something out of context, because that sounds very master morality.

>I don't know him
Rationalists everyone.

>Not explaining something makes the whole premise weak

Not really. Again, what is true is true, regardless of what you argue around it. Nietzsche's commentary is often quite insightful, he just doesn't waste time with pointless dialectic.

>I don't know him

Not big on eastern philosophy? Well the inane dialectical pedantry of what you consider philosophy only really took hold in the Plato and Aristotle dominated west.

>Admitting that not knowing someone is supposed to be bad
Why?

>what is true is true
Agreed but claiming that something is a fact without any evidence or real argumentation is not philosophy even if you end up being right somehow it would have just been luck.
>Nietzsche's commentary is often quite insightful
If you fall for cool quotes and rhetoric sure but there is really little substance in it.

>That doesn't sound to me like a statement that they ought to be that way, just that women are driven to men primarily by their own reproductive urge.
You should remember that Nietzsche flatly rejects free will.

As far as he's concerned anyone does, ever did, or ever will do is just an outgrowth of their primal urges and the greatest goal of his philosophy is for man to make his peace with this. To truly accept that humans are animals, something that even though we acknowledge the vast majority of people have yet to accept the full implications of.

>I suspect something out of context, because that sounds very master morality.
Zarathustra said it so you may as well consider it to be Nietzsche's true feelings.

If you're interested in reading the full excerpt hilariously the best link I found was Rap Genius.

genius.com/Friedrich-nietzsche-old-and-young-women-xviii-annotated

>but claiming that something is a fact without any evidence or real argumentation is not philosophy

Providing commentary on the human condition absolutely is philosophy. Do you think all the philosophers before the Eleatics (and for that matter outside the west) weren't philosophers? You haven't actually answered any of these questions by the way, I think it's because you're too weak to take a stance that might stand the chance of us mocking you for being a fool.

>even if you end up being right somehow it would have just been luck.

Very little ever gets proven "right" in philosophy, so it's always a matter of whether you find the particular commentary insightful.

>If you fall for cool quotes and rhetoric sure but there is really little substance in it.

Ooo, big man. Why don't you provide an actual dissection and refutation of some his ideas.

It's no crime to be ignorant.

I was just taking the opportunity to capitalize on that by implying that all rationalists are ignorant. For context Lao Tzu is extremely famous and on places like Veeky Forums you'd be expected to be aware of them.

>You should remember that Nietzsche flatly rejects free will.

That's still not a statement of ought.

>Zarathustra said it so you may as well consider it to be Nietzsche's true feelings.

I can't really dispute that.

>If you're interested in reading the full excerpt hilariously the best link I found was Rap Genius.

I'll pass. I plan to read through all his books myself. I've read a lot of secondary sources on him, but I'd like to read straight from the horse's mouth. First I've got to finish the Bible, however.

I honestly wouldn't be all that surprised if a 19th century German had some views we'd consider very un-PC, but I also take claims like these with a grain of salt, because statements tend to get taken out of context and blown out of proportion in today's climate of gender politics.

>Ooo, big man. Why don't you provide an actual dissection and refutation of some his ideas
not him but that's the problem: it's hard if not impossible to refute an idea if there isn't an argument given for it in the first place.

You can demonstrate conclusively its lack of truth. There have been people taking shots at Lao Tzu for as long as the Tao Te Ching has been around.

>That's still not a statement of ought.
The thing is without free will what is becomes inescapable. You may as well make your peace with it and decide what is natural is also what ought to be desired in order to affirm ones own life.

Even if the will to power itself is a very naturalistic concept. The whole reason Nietzsche assigns so much importance to it is because as he sees it is the guiding principle of humankind from day one, and for all we may try we can never escape the sway it has over us.

Likewise this ties in to his criticism of religion, he doesn't like the fact that it derives oughts that are totally contrary to what is.

it depends on the subject. Nietzsche's idea of master and slave morality we know for certain to be false as you can easily find examples of greeks and romans acting according to what would fall under slave morality before christianity took off. however there isn't really an approach for disproving a lot of his stuff since a large portion of it is simply his opinion.

>Nietzsche's idea of master and slave morality we know for certain to be false
Explain.

>Diana/Artemis the fierce warrior that liked to fuck
What are YOU smoking mate? Diana/Artemis was a virgin goddess (and so were Minerva/Athena and Vesta/Hestia). Like, virginity was an integral part of their character/cult.

hmm why should i bother to explain? Nietzsche didn't need to back up his claim with evidence. if you want to see evidence against master morality having total, exclusive domination until christianity just look at any lawcode ever made. often you'll see lesser punishments for harming lower classes, but even a nobleman will be punished for harming a slave or a free peasant. look to the iliad. look at the emotion that it tries to draw out to the audience for the fate of Hector and his wife. empathy is an integral part of our biology. there is no separate master and slave morality.

>hmm why should i bother to explain?
I assumed you would be happy to explain on the count that up until now you've been of the view that you should defend your statements.

>ften you'll see lesser punishments for harming lower classes, but even a nobleman will be punished for harming a slave or a free peasant.
Except that makes sense in terms of master morality. If you are a higher person you should be held to a higher standard, that's only logical.
> empathy is an integral part of our biology.
Obviously, and Nietzsche in no way rejects this. As a matter of fact in a lot of ways he champions it in his opposition to cruelty. Pic related.

> there is no separate master and slave morality.
There literally is though. And the distinctions between them and their historical precedents are one thing Nietzsche actually does defend quite well in the Genealogy of Morality.

Even to use your own example if you're to suggest that the morals espoused by the Aeneid aren't totally alien to the morals of the Hebrew bible you'd be wise to revisit both.

Forgot the picture.

you need etymology. Virgin simply meant young and unwed. Sex wasn't dirty until the Christians came around late Roman times.

You're both missing that Nietzsche would say that most people have some mix of both master and slave morals. He simply uses pure forms of the two as conceptual tools to understand two distinct approaches to morality.

Diana did not "like to f*ck" you pathetic troll.

She fucked like a wild animal. You need the real stuff, not the fluff you're getting off youtube.

I bet you think wed Roman matrons openly fucking with slaves in softcore shows like Rome etc. was also historically accurate.

Everyone was fucking everyone. you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

I'm not saying that the rise of christianity didn't change what was considered moral in Europe, just that it didn't result in the change that Nietzsche speaks of. the example of Hector, his wife and son is very important here. the basis of "slave morality" is feeling empathy for the loser, which is quite clearly shown in the iliad. nor was wealth seen universally as good by the greeks, as can be seen with Diogenes.

except Niezsche says that this merger occurs due to the rise of christianity, not before.

>the basis of "slave morality" is feeling empathy for the loser
Have you even read Nietzsche?
The basis of slave morality is feeling resentment for the victor. Achilles deciding to show respect for Hector in death is not slave morality. Slave morality would be Hector's father getting mad at Achilles when he returned his corpse.

>nor was wealth seen universally as good by the greeks
wut
1. Wealth=moral good isn't a part of master morality.
2. Diogenes was not very popular in ancient Greece anyway.

provide a source. He claims the jewish slaves toppled the Roman empire with their slave morality. That's not the same as 'there was no slave morality until the jewish slaves came along'.

>>>/Asia/

>1. Wealth=moral good isn't a part of master morality.
that's kinda a fundamental part of it:
>Here I found a that they all lead back to the same conceptual transformation-- that everywhere the basic concept is 'noble,' 'aristocratic' in the sense related to the estates, out of which 'good' in the sense of 'noble of soul,' 'high-natured of soul,' 'privileged of soul' necessarily develops: a development that always runs parallel to that other one which makes 'common,' 'vulgar,' 'base' pass over finally into the concept 'bad'.

I don't see how it matters that Diogenes wasn't the most popular philosopher. He certainly had some support for his ideas to be preserved over the centuries. it still represents a philosophy fundamentally opposed to master morality.

>The basis of slave morality is feeling resentment for the victor.
that's just another side of the same coin. yes, Nietzsche does give an example of someone with master morality feeling empathy for the poor I believe but he does so while also seeing them as wretched little things to perhaps toss a few coins at.

that's not what I said. Nietzsche says that the mixture of the two moralities is due to christianity's triumph

>that's kinda a fundamental part of it:
It isn't though. That's an extremely anachronistic way of evaluating what it meant to be a "master" in the classical era. Prior to the 18th century being wealthy wasn't enough to be part of the upper class. Prior to that, and especially in the ancient world your capacity to rule was determined pretty much solely by force of arms.

Once again exemplified in the Aenid, no one could care less about how wealthy Achilles is. What makes him admirable is his strength and glory.

>I don't see how it matters that Diogenes wasn't the most popular philosopher.
Because he's not in any way exemplary of ancient Greek moral currents. It's like pointing to Stirner to try and discredit the notion that 19th century Germany was extremely religious and statist. Yeah, Stirner lived there and he was an atheist rebel. But part of his being (likewise for Diogenes) is that he was totally opposed to the established order of things.

What makes their philosophy exist is the very fact that it's so contrary to the ideals that surrounded them.

>that's just another side of the same coin. yes
It really isn't though. "That person has suffered and I don't envy their position" is not slave morality, slave morality is the very peculiar position religions like Christianity takes that say "that person has suffered and their position in life is a righteous one" is slave morality - it exalts the loser rather than empathizes with it.

>I believe but he does so while also seeing them as wretched little things to perhaps toss a few coins at.
He very certainly doesn't because Nietzsche highlights pity as a decisively un-masterly outlook. As a matter of fact, along with resentment pity is probably one of the most important features of slave morality.

And before you say anything, no, Achilles respect for Hector was not pity. Hector was great and it would be an insult to pity him.

citation needed.

You aren't even understanding his characterization of noble morality correctly. Master morality isn't some disney villain's behavior. If a noble tosses a few coins to the poor, it's because he wants to. The noble sees poverty and sickness as bad- bad for human health and spirit- as the opposite of good- which is being rich and having good health. A noble casts a few coins to the poor, because he is feeling generous- not because he feels obligated (by gods, by laws, by moral codes). A noble casts a few coins to the poor- because it won't bankrupt him or harm him in any way to lose a few coins. This is the opposite of giving away everything you own- or giving tithings to the church no matter how much money you have and how much it hurts you- or puts you at risk. You simply have a cartoonish understanding of this material. i'd invite you to ask questions about this subject- which you seem genuinely interested in- rather than shitposting all this wrongness that you're simply reinforcing in your own head.