>>26169

but I am arguing that nietzsche wasn't a nihilist???????????

To oppose nihilism you have to propose something else. Nietzsche never believed in metaphysics, and even when he reaches his conclusion metaphysics still do not exist in his mindset. The point in Nietzsche is that nothing has meaning or value, but this should not stop you from giving arbitrary value to your desires and goals (another major point is that many people can't do it because they're too entrenched in a set of morality that suppress those human aspects taht are required to attain your desires in a creative manner, which he identifies with the macro-idea called ''ressentiment'').

You're still arguing semantics pointlessly instead of discussing his work, and now I am too. Get it yet?

>Nietzsche is ALSO a nihilist

Not according to N. He called nihilism the largest hazard facing someone (like him) who rejects all conventions and starts afresh with creating new values. It would accurate enough to call him a rejectionist, but N. wouldn't much like needing to use a label.

Which leads back to OP:
>How did he do it?

Nietzsche about as completely rejected whatever had been handed down to him ("tradition", etymologically) and started, as it were, afresh. To use a pop version, he was a fish who strove to see the water he swam in, and he did so rather successfully. The man was incredibly intelligent and fiercely stubborn to figure out what he did.

To my mind, the best illustration of this is "Human, All Too Human". It's not so late in his writing that you can't still catch sight of how he started out, with lots of observations that feel like stand-up comedy. A lot of that book seems fairly common now, but some still shocks. The thing to know is that when he wrote it, it *all* shocked. That's how influential N. was.

how is arguing what nihilism is arguing semantics

My Little /pol/ny reporting in

I like Nietzsche

>He called nihilism the largest hazard facing someone (like him) who rejects all conventions and starts afresh with creating new values.

Even in this choice no metaphysical aspect is implied, which means that Nietzsche was still a nihilist. More than a metaphysicist he was an aesthetician: he doesn't really believe in ''morality'' but he can see the benefits of it.
In the same way he rejects most metaphysical traditions, but not every single one of them, and shift this judgement from a rational/logical point of view to a dyonisian one.

Even in his deepest, most human moments Nietzsche still does not believe that there is something called ''ethics'' that lives outside of us.

>The point in Nietzsche
Right, Joe "Dumb fuck" Bloggs has it all figured out. Regurgitating, as per.
>To oppose nihilism you have to propose something else.
Nietzsche spent is whole life doing just this, friend.

in last years he wrote that if nihilism cant be prevented, it should at least be get over with quickly... various aphorisms about dancing on the edge of vulcano, pushing that which is falling etc are related to this view. the "hammer" of eternal return was supposed to amplify nihilism in weak persons and select ├╝bermensch material.
so while his overall project was dedicated to analysis and prevention of nihilism, he didnt reject it totally and would use its momentum like in Judo.

lol imagine if everyone in the world except for (you) was Nietzsche tier Ubermensch or greater XD

He did, but he never pretended to have metaphysical foundations for this proposal. This wasn't meant as a dismissal, but just as a confermation of his nihilism.

What changes is that his nihilism does not get the same results that most pessimists got, but his still nihilism.
Don't let labels scare you that much.

What he wanted was something similar to Ancient Greek virtue ethics without religious arguments: the ability of choosing the good without the need of some foundation, since this does not obviously exist. It's a call for trust for the human insight.

In his last years he wrote that ''there is no fact, only interpretations'', but this did not stop him from making any sort of statement, and this was the most poignant point of his philosophy (to which he then attached all the arguments for such a philosophical foundation, all of its implications and all the considerations that derived from it.

Nihilism is not an insult when it comes to Nietzsche.

I'm thinking you've got a Humpty-Dumpty definition of nihilism that can't be discussed.

Whatever.

What's wrong with my definition of nihilism? It's the belief in the non-existence of inherent meaning and value.
Even when Nietzsche makes a statement he still does not think that this statement is justified by metaphysics, nor does he think that there is any sort of metaphysical foundation to his arguments.

Very true, women trying to become men is a very real cancer in modern society.

We need good women who act like women.

>I hope he's not anti-christian

Quality keks

On ethics mostly.

John Stuart Mill FTW.

Does it hurt being such a pleb?