Bridge to Übermensch

A very powerful book for sure. I'm going to have to reread it some time

what is Veeky Forums reading right now?
>pic related

>ironic / joking
Never mentioned any of that. The philosophy is quite inspirational to push one's self into overcoming their setbacks, be it physical or otherwise.

The gambler

I'm assuming this is a self improvement thread
So in that case: there is one thing I really think I should improve. That being my extreme fear of bees

Ever since I was a kid when I hear a bee fly past me I would freak out and quickly dodge it or stay as far away possible
If a bee is lingering around an area I refuse to sit there, and if I force myself to I develop extreme stress until it eventually comes to close to me and I jump out of my chair
I have never been stung by a bee because I am extremely scared and cautious of going near them
I understand they only sting when you piss them off but it's spring and I'm pale as fuck from winter and don't want to sit outside to tan because there's this fucking bee that won't go away

This is not a joke, please tell me how I can get over my fear of bees, it's interfering with me trying to make myself better

see a psychiatrist
srs

I'd say get sting by a bee. You'll notice it doesn't really hurt that much. I was stung once on the chest just before running a marathon. Ran it anyway.

Thank you. Nobody actually reads him, much less his letters. He hated his sister's husband's virulent anti-semitism. You wouldn't know it from the trolls on /pol/.

I think if I put a bee on me I'd have a heart attack desu

buzzlebees are friends. See if you can find a wood bee, they are very friendly and look cute. I have one that visits near daily around 3pm and buzzes around hanging out with me. This might be some fluke bee or some relative turned into a bee asking for help,but he's pretty cool.

The overman isn't really about inspiration. The will to power is about overcoming, yes, but it means overcoming in EVERY respect, including the overcoming of prevailing morals.

"Terribleness is part of greatness, let us not deceive ourselves." Will To Power.

"... we are probably the first to grasp what a pagan faith is: - to have to imagine higher creatures than man, but beyond good and evil; to have to consider all being higher as also being immoral." Will To Power.

I don't think anybody here is really ready to become that. Or really wants to.

Nietzsche is straight fedora tier desu

Maybe you just get trolled a lot cuz you're dumb

This, nothing funnier than people like () who think they are """"""intellectuals"""""" for reading Nietzsche

damn I remember my first Dostoyevsky. It was summer 2007, I was 16 years old and doing a two-week internship in a Law firm. Instead of working that day, I read the Gambler from cover to cover and went to training later that evening. Sweet 16 years old.
Enjoy user, I have loved Dostoyevsky ever since

Yeah, because T.M. Scanlon is so moving.

Kaufman had it right. Nietzsche is one of the few philosophers who other philosophers read for pleasure. It's good shit and modern philosophy (the philosophy of values) is all built on top of the groundwork he laid.

Nietzsche thread, always some idiots pretending to know anything pop up
>>Internship at a law firm at 16

Jesus where are you from?

Since you faggots haven't actually read Nietzsche I will explain.

He says:

In old days men valued war, procreation, food and drink, women, strength, beauty, wisdom, and power. Then came religions which promoted the opposite morality, but still offered a purpose in life and something to live for. When religions died, people no longer lived for god, but maintained its morality. This resulted in total disillusionment and nihilism, in which people are all isolated and depressed and attempt to fill this void with comfort and consumption. Nietzsche advocated that his reader disregard all preconceptions of how the world should be and find their own purpose or project in life, to shape their own worldview around that purpose, and use that project to give their life meaning.

I did note the use of bridge bro, that to me indicated you being into Nietzsche, I was just baiting a little teeny weeny bit myself to revive the thread. Then I dunno I ended up getting into an article about German volume training for some reason.

>haven't actually read Nietzsche
>He says
>not a Nietzsche quote
>online summary

You can't condescend to anybody, you lazy fuck.

Where he gets interesting is the relationship between seemingly opposing forces, i.e. over can be the same as under, coming the same as going. It's like an idea that while you are passively be affected by the world, you can also turn that into part of action. Very nuanced.

I lift for deus vult

>not a Nietzsche quote
Zarathustra actively mocks this style of """academia""", as does Nietzsche is correspondence.

The guy is very misquoteable. Vast expanses of his work is ironic/sarcasm or poetic in nature. He is best viewed in broad strokes.

just bee yourself

nah you are wrong he is danger close to spot on

I dont take germanic/slavic philosifers serious

They are just trying too hard to be a thinking man like ancient philosofers

You lift for god wills?

I know someone from a private school whose daddy got them an internship at 16 in a law office.

They were a bit of a cunt and went to a shitty university despite having the cost of a medium sized house spent on their education. Ha. Ha. Ha.

I have a bunch of solitary bees nesting in different parts of my garden and the adjoining woodland. Good lads.

That was cheeky af on so many levels, noice.

so you disregard like 70% of philosophers past the greeks?

Yes.

no this was just silly mandatory practical training we had to have. Just to get a feel for the field you were kinda interested in. No real internship whatsoever. One lawyer was a family friend and let me hang out there, was boring and tedious as fuck. But I learned that I hated law and everything related to this kind of job

This isn't academia. This is Veeky Forums. If you lead a post with "he says" and proceed to post something other than what he said, in going to call you out. You wrote the shitty misleading post, not me.

>best viewed in broad strokes
Pffft, no. Deep engagement, not "broad strokes" summaries designed for people with ADHD. Fucking READ.

>nah you are wrong
Which of Nietzsche's writings is that citation from, senpai?

>Deep engagement
>out of context quotes
L O L.

I thought this would be a worse read, what with Reich kinda being a quack that thought he could make orgasm powered railguns.

When I was young and gullible and felt impotent I used to take more seriously this Nietzschean attitude towards life. One thing I understood as I got older (29 now) is that most of those philosophers that young men love so much (Schoppenhauer, Heiddeger, Max Stirner...) were all a bunch of literal cuckolds and losers who used their philosophy to overcome themselves, the same way they advocate their readers to do. It's a fantasy, a power play, a mental game for cowards and autists.

It's so great to be nice to others and be confident and happy. Fuck that "Conquer! Dominate!" bullshit mentality. Lots of alpha male CEOs will be the first ones to tell you it's lonely at the top. Be careful what you wish for. I find it amazing how it's always the scared little boys who can't ask a girl out that gravitate towards these philosophies.

>inb4 ignorant fucks who never studied the biography of those philosophers I mentioned claims they weren't chickenshit cuckolds irl

Relax, guys. Take it easy.
youtube.com/watch?v=iZ8so-ld-l0

But young men do not love Heiddeger
Unless you take young man to be a category starting from age 25 and ending at 115 in an argentina whorehouse

>He thinks his opinion matters

Nietzsche was against dogma, or at-least its effects on discourse. Yet he wrote the most dogmatic and ideological pieces.

Zarathustra is so dogmatic and polemic that can only be seen as a study of dogma. If you choose to take it literally then you will be trully worse than the most religious self-righteous fanatic that Nietzsche himself mocks so often in his work.

I dont doubt your ability to believe, faith is for all, but dont for a second try to project your faith as fact on to others. Your faith, although admirable, has much more to do with yourself than with the world that governs your every day. Dont try to triviliaze your own faith by blaming it on the world.

That is the essence of Nietzsche.

Is that a reference to Garcia Marquez?

No, but let's keep that option open

Truly the author is dead.

This is a nice post.

>It's so great to be nice to others and be confident and happy. Fuck that "Conquer! Dominate!" bullshit mentality.
>"I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!"

I'm familiar with them because I actually read the book. They were relevant to the conversation, so I shared them.

Tell you what, I'll just post the entire book next time so it's "in context." Mong.

Word salad.

I loved Heidegger as a college kid and still do. Introduction To Metaphysics changed my life.

>If you lead a post with "he says" and proceed to post something other than what he said, in going to call you out.
there's literally nothing wrong with what he did except format it a bit deceptively, adding quote marks would be a true error but he didn't do that

if he just had instead of "he says: in the old days..." written "he says that in the old days..." nobody would have cared

just excuse his mistake or we will have a giant waste of time on our hands, there's obviously nothing wrong with posting your own summaries of nietzsches ideas instead of directly quoting him

it could have been more concise i agree.

That's just you, mang
Of the lot, heidegger is the most difficult to read, and now that his post-war notebooks have been released he's even more unpopular.

Lo, the philistines lair! Where the air is aloft with praise and embrace of mine folly unto man, within the ash pit of its collective thoughts doth mine hope re-manifest.

Do you like jazz?

A lot of people get his hermeneutics shoved down their throat in undergrad.

>Nietzsche
>the book
>yah like I totally read the shit out of that that Nietzsche book
>also not being self aware enough to recognize the horrible inconsistencies between appeals to academic rigor and comments about this being Veeky Forums
M 8 0

I can get by with it, why?

That's not fair user. You're better than this user.

I heard it's the buzz around town

Maybe in Europe, though not here in the civilized world. Our undergrads learn truth-tables.

I'm really not. I can't stop shit posting and I think it's because I have no one to joke around with anymore.

What the fuck why did I laugh so hard.

Are you still scared of bees, honey?

Heideggerian hermeneutics is p typically covered by literature students in US universities. That's partly because Arendt pushed him real hard over there. In Europe you're more likely to get hit with Derrida on some level. Although influenced heavily by Hurdygurdy I don't think many if any cover Herplederple at all.

Iktf bro

youtu.be/_Qp_nMntvR8
I was swing between the chairs in my back garden and jumped off landing on a bee without even knowing it, it's not as bad as you think

gib souce of stfu you jew

That wasn't me user
And no i'm still terrified of bees

>genealogy of morals specifically mentioned
>that point is first made over the first couple of pages in essay I
>these idiots want to be spoon fed for some reason
I don't understand your endgame here. Do you think if I don't copy paste something for you it means you can make believe you've read him or something? Or are you hoping to steal some shit I post in a poor attempt to look smart later on?

Resist and conquer

If you're not allergic you can do shit like trying beekeeping. You can even do smokeless honey gathering from wild bees in part of Asia.

Like what? Drugs? Porn?

>literature students
well there's your problem

Bretty good so far

if you like DeLillo you’re a fraud — a fool and a fraud. DeLillo is a whore’s whore, a corporate stand-up comic who’s in demand as the hired entertainment at academic sales conventions. And that’s all he is, or will ever be. Strictly for suckers.

You can't really compare Nietzsche's views to what's going on in modern day Europe. He lived in an entirely different world. You seriously think a man that was all about overcoming all weaknesses and thought prisons, and constantly transcending what you and becoming stronger and stronger, would be a-okay with the weak, apathetic, average European who has been brainwashed into submission to actively fight against or not even care about his own folk's survival? Really? The average European and American today is the exact opposite of a Nietzschial ideal: he is a pussy-faggot.

Nietzsche lived during a time of globalism and destroys the whole concept of "own people".

Europe was still homogeneous, but yes, Nietzsche was more about individual evolution than a collective one. The ultimate state/people would strive for both. I don't agree with everything he said, and I think there's no doubt he'd be repulsed by the amount of weakness in the Western man nowadays.

nietzsche had nothing good to say about nationalism and most of the things you complain about were present then, if in a different form and of smaller magnitude

he wrote in the 19th century, which was the heyday of nationalism, remember

I know that. He was afraid of the individual losing himself in the collective once again with overly-nationalistic movements. I only said he hated weakness and self-defacement. What are Europeans doing?

I don't think he would have hated modern europe, but seen it as a necessary development of the illness that had already infested it in his time
I think he predicted that things would reach their turning point in two hundred years, or one hundred from now, so it shouldn't come as a surprise

and I think being aggressive can be just as bad as being overly weak, or rather, weakness can express itself as an outward aggressiveness. Just think of iconoclast uprisings and consider what nietzsche thinks of luther. Indeed, isn't it good that sickness is expressed in as obvious terms as possible, free from all seductions of power so that the lofty of spirit more easily can refuse it? You would rather recieve a house that looks like it can collapse than any moment than a house that turns out to have given you asbestos poisoning ten years down the road, right?

>I think he would have seen modern Europe as a necessary development of the illness that had already started in his time.

Interesting take. It's possible, yes, and something I've thought of as well - that this is just the result of all the universalistic teachings of Christianity, jewish brainwashing, and liberal ideas taken to their end logic. I also believe in the cyclical nature of things, so this would also be in alignment with that view.

However, I'm not totally following you on your "outward aggressiveness" part. I don't think there will be a choice for Europeans other than becoming violent or aggressive in the coming decades, or else they will simply die out. They are going to be like cornered dogs soon. Time is against them, and as I believe nature (the will for survival) is stronger than any humanistic conditioning, life will overcome it at some point.

Heidegger is a rewarding challenge. I've been so excited by stuff I read in Heidegger that I had to pace back and forth to get out the nervous energy. He's a thrilling thinker.

>caring about a philosopher's popularity
Non-issue.

I had to seek him out in my undergrad. His name was never uttered by any of my philosophy professors. Likewise, the only mention of Nietzsche by faculty was a passing comment by my Greek mythology professor, who derided Nietzsche as having gone insane from syphilis (ironically, a myth).

how do i stop being a loser?

will the book in the OP help? please respond

You have autism. Seek help. The Will To Power is a book. I called it a book. It's a collection of miscellaneous aphorisms published in book form. I read it. I also read Beyond Good and Evil. And On The Genealogy of Morals. And Twilight of the Idols. And The Antichrist. And The Birth of Tragedy. And Ecce Homo. All examples of books.

And I didn't appeal to academic rigor. I criticized him (you?) for being misleading. "Speak clearly" is a normal standard for bar room conversation.

What the fuck are you even trying to say?

>2016
>not being a stoic

Cum on m8y

>my comfortable western lifestyle is clearly the correct situation to practice emotional self-defense

Nietzsche never characterized the overman as a racial concept. There is no "volk" in Nietzsche. He was also an unrepentant critic of Germany and lauded France. Kinda dashes the whole "one's own" schtick you want to project onto him.

And never once did I say he was about a volk.

>Interesting take. It's possible, yes, and something I've thought of as well - that this is just the result of all the universalistic teachings of Christianity, jewish brainwashing, and liberal ideas taken to their end logic.

You'd really, really like Hegel and Kojève.

You implied it.
>You seriously think a man that was all about overcoming all weaknesses and thought prisons, and constantly transcending what you and becoming stronger and stronger, would be a-okay with the weak, apathetic, average European who has been brainwashed into submission to actively fight against or not even care about his own folk's survival?

See, this is a rhetorical trick. I'm supposed to say "of course he wouldn't be okay with it," meaning that he would "not be okay" with "not even car[ing] about his own folk's survival." Thus, we've rhetorically projected "caring about his own f/volk's survival" onto Nietzsche.

In reality, he didn't give a shit and thought that mentality was a collectivist trap. Nietzsche was for the individual and against the herd, and "folk" is another herd.

I don't think Nietzsche hated weakness in itself, for the record. He was critical of the way weak people RESENTED the strong ("ressentiment"). There will always be weak people as weakness is part of life.

did Veeky Forums take a liking to this board?

Well, the reality is we have no idea how he'd respond to the modern situation, only guesses, like here My personal opinion is that anyone of his caliber would think "the ends justify the means" and would support or at least be neutral about a movement that would neutralize what is currently going on - the collectivization of all peoples - as long as its vision also included the potential for the individual to transcend.

Thanks for the suggestions!

It's not even that weakness is part of life, weakness is the result of power (and difference in power, and power is itself a form of difference).

And I don't even think he was entirely critical of resentment, just the way it is used to bring down higher people (his guys). Clearly the resentment of the Jews got them places.