Gentle reminder that this guy BTFO'd Christcuckery, inspired the religion of Thelema...

>the study somehow sees migraines as a child and the breakdown at 44 as more closely connected than anything else that ahppened in between then?
>>RESULTS: Nietzsche suffered from migraine without aura which started in his childhood. In the second half of his life he suffered from a psychiatric illness with depression. During his last years, a progressive cognitive decline evolved and ended in a profound dementia with stroke. He died from pneumonia in 1900. The family history includes a possible vascular-related mental illness in his father who died from stroke at 36.
>>Despite the prevalent opinion that neurosyphilis caused Nietzsche's illness, there is lack of evidence to support this diagnosis. Cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) accounts for all the signs and symptoms of Nietzsche's illness.

A lot of folks will read this and intentionally misunderstand it.

It's still a brainlet post.

based brainlet poster

He was a kind and sensitive old man. At least if you read Ecce Homo, that's the perception one has, He might bluster about his destiny and blah blah but his sensitivity engendered a kindness and appreciation for life.

And his writing style spoiled my taste for books for an entire decade. And this is in german-translated-to-english. I can only imagine how poetic he sounds in German.

The horsemen, in due time, BTFO everything. It's just a godamn shame that, after he writes the love letter of Ecce Homo, he's striken with something that stopped him. Once your neural networks are fucked, your integrity as a personality gets fucked. We are more symbiotic associations of neural networks than singular souls. A ship of Theseus that grows and repairs itself until the workers die of disease or violence.

>bluster
How is it bluster if he was pretty much spot-on about his importance? Consider how obscure and un-read he was when he wrote even Ecce Homo.

>And his writing style spoiled my taste for books for an entire decade. And this is in german-translated-to-english. I can only imagine how poetic he sounds in German.
English is more poetic than German though, due to the French influence:
>It strikes me as one of the rarest distinctions anyone can bestow on themselves when they pick up a book of mine; I am even assuming they take their shoes off to do so—not to speak of boots… Once, when Dr Heinrich von Stein was complaining in all honesty that he didn’t understand a word of my Zarathustra, I told him that that was as it should be: understanding—in other words experiencing—six sentences of it, raises you up to a higher level of mortals than ‘modern’ men could ever reach. With this feeling of distance, how could I even just want the ‘moderns’ I know to read me! My triumph is precisely the opposite of Schopenhauer’s—I say ‘non legor, non legar’.*— not that I would want to underestimate the pleasure I often had from the innocence with which people said ‘no’ to my writings.

>He was a protean figure without comparison in history.
Read Marx

Will to power is a more fundamental paradigm than historical materialism.

reproduction of subsistence is a better will to power than Nietzsche who reads more like the Feuerbachian young hegelianism that Marx directly critiques in creating historical materialism

Marxists are the ultimate fanboys and cannot be talked out of how gigantic Marx's philosophy dick is.

>he says, in a Nietzsche thread

The wish to preserve oneself is the symptom of a condition of distress, of a limitation of the really fundamental instinct of life which aims at the expansion of power and, wishing for that, frequently risks and even sacrifices self-preservation. It should be considered symptomatic when some philosophers consider the instinct of self-preservation decisive and had to see it that way; for they were individuals in conditions of distress. That our modern natural sciences have become so thoroughly entangled in this Spinozistic dogma (most recently and worst of all, Darwinism with its incomprehensibly onesided doctrine of the struggle for existence') is probably due to the origins of most natural scientists: In this respect they belong to the "common people"; their ancestors were poor and undistinguished people who knew the difficulties of survival only too well at firsthand. The whole of English Darwinism breathes something like the musty air of English overpopulation, like the smell of the distress and overcrowding of small people. But a natural scientist should come out of his human nook; and in nature it is not conditions of distress that are dominant but overflow and squandering, even to the point of absurdity. The struggle for existence is only an exception, a temporary restriction of the will to life. The great and small struggle always revolves around superiority, around growth and expansion, around power: in accordance with the will to power which is the will of life.

Assuming, however, that there is such a struggle for existence — and, indeed, it occurs — its result is unfortunately the opposite of what Darwin's school desires, and of what one might perhaps desire with them — namely, in favor of the strong, the privileged, the fortunate exceptions. The species do not grow in perfection: the weak prevail over the strong again and again, for they are the great majority — and they are also more intelligent.

I always guessed that his reputation for being "edgy" came from America due to his translations. As an Austrian, I can only say that his works spoiled my taste entirely aswell, ever since. Although I never bothered reading his english translations, the words he often uses for symbolics and metaphysics may sound more like a fantasy villain in english than a serious philosopher. In the german language on the other hand, his words often remind you of a religious text and I don't mean the symbolism, but the way he writes it. As if Socrates had his own belief added with semi-cold philosophical textes. Him being a philologist, really made his writing style seem to surpass classic philosphy.

The only other person, that could be compared to his writing style is Stefan George, who solely wrote poems.-It's an insider tip, don't waste it.

How I dislike when people mention will to power all the time. He never wanted it to be released to public and now people see it as a given in his works.

>How I dislike when people mention will to power all the time. He never wanted it to be released to public and now people see it as a given in his works.
You're confusing the concept of will to power, which features in most of his books, with the book called Will to Power, which was a compilation by his sister.

Will to power is probably his most important conception. Fuck off with your shit reading.

I misread your post, but you are still wrong in couple of things. Will to power was a book he actually plan to write, this is why there are so many papers and notes left. His sister just took those notes, put them together however she felt like it and even add some antisemitic forgery. The notes themself still have a lot of value.

Also his most important conception was his unique existentialism, that there is no cause and effect but only eternal effect. Which gave him the foundation to even come up with will to power and which also made him realise to drop "mechanical philosophy" like Schopenhauers, that ultimately made him become an optimist.

Oooppss

> In the second half of his life he suffered from a psychiatric illness with depression. During his last years, a progressive cognitive decline evolved and ended in a profound dementia with stroke
thats the neursyphilis
the idea that no other info bears this out? they seem to conveniently avoid the delusions of grandeur that are typically seen in progressing syphilitics that nietzsche clearly exhibited
but please, post this AGAIN and I'd be glad to explain how it really doesnt say jack