We have every reason to suppose that Nietzsche had a profound knowledge of the Hegelian movement...

>We have every reason to suppose that Nietzsche had a profound knowledge of the Hegelian movement, from Hegel to Stirner himself. The philosophical learning of an author is not assessed by the number of quotations, nor by the always fanciful and conjectural check lists of libraries, but by the apologetic or polemical directions of his work itself. We will misunderstand the whole of Nietzsche's work if we do not see 'against whom' its principal concepts are directed. Hegelian themes are present in this work as the enemy against which it fights. Nietzsche never stops attacking the theological and Christian character of German philosophy (the 'Tubingen seminary') — the powerlessness of this philosophy to extricate itself from the nihilistic perspective (Hegel's negative nihilism, Feuerbach's reactive nihilism, Stirner's extreme nihilism) — the incapacity of this philosophy to end in anything but the ego, man or phantasms of the human (the Nietzschean overman against the dialectic) — the mystifying character of so-called dialectical transformations (transvaluation against reappropriation and abstract permutations). It is clear that Stirner plays the revelatory role in all this. It is he who pushes the dialectic to its final consequences, showing what its motor and end results are. But precisely because Stirner still sees things like a dialectician, because he does not extricate himself from the categories of property, alienation and its suppression, he throws himself into the nothingness which he hollows out beneath the steps of the dialectic. He makes use of the question 'which one?' but only in order to dissolve the dialectic in the nothingness of the ego. He is incapable of posing this question in anything but the human perspective, under any conditions but those of nihilism. He cannot let this question develop for itself or pose it in another element which would give it an affirmative response. He lacks a method, a typological method which would correspond to the question. Nietzsche's positive task is twofold: the Overman and Transvaluation. Not 'who is man?' but 'who overcomes man?' 'The most cautious peoples ask today: "How may man still be preserved?" Zarathustra, however, asks as the sole and first one to do so: "How shall man be overcome?" The overman lies close to my heart, he is my paramount and sole concern — and not man: not the nearest, not the poorest, not the most suffering, not the best' (Z IV 'Of the Higher Man', 3, p. 297) — the allusion to Stirner is obvious.

Alright Veeky Forums, can we cut the Stirner is better than Nietzsche shit now?

>We have every reason to suppose that Nietzsche had a profound knowledge of the Hegelian movement, from Hegel to Stirner himself.

[Citation Needed]

He did read Hegel & liked it tho. It's Kant he didn't like.

OP, tl;dr

>Veeky Forums
>tl;dr

This is why people on lit say so much stupid shit about philosophy

huh, it's as though you didn't read the post

homie did you even read what you posted? or am i being baited?

He bashes Hegel and young hegelians in his second book: Untimely meditations

Show me the problem senpai

it just sounds like he likes nietzsche better than stirner. that's all he's saying in that quote

it doesn't matter

I'm not sure it's just that he likes Nietzsche better. Rather he sees Stirner's thought as the inevitable and absolute form of nihilism that proceeded from Hegelianism, and that Nietzsche gives birth to a new type of metaphysics which moves beyond dialectics. I guess you could say you "like" Stirner better, but I was speaking more to the lit idiots who try to play Nietzsche off as an edgelord and then blow Stirner (which seems to be common on here these days).

i misread your comment. my bad. soldier on

holy fucking shit all these absolutely braindead replies

Friedrich Nietzsche - A romantic who published works against reason, morality, and religion. A scholar of Greek antiquity, he imitated in philosophy the ancient sophists in sending out the most ridiculous doctrines clothed in seductive rhetoric: like the sophist Thrasymachus, he says that just and law are the fabrications of the powerful; like the sophist Protagoras, he says that truth is a matter of opinion; like the sophist Gorgias, he says that philosophy is more a matter of persuasion than of reason; like Heraclitus, he says that there is no being, but only a perpetual flux. Despite being a timid and sensitive man of weak constitution, Nietzsche was a romanticiser of tyranny, and his works have since been promoted by tyrants, such as Adolf Hitler. Adolescent boys tend to admire his fawning over lawless power, because, as Plato says, the adolescent has a tyrannical urge due to his uncontrolled passions. His philosophy is ultimately a form of pantheism, which sees all things in a perpetual flux called the Will to Power; in this there is neither good nor evil, only strong and weak. He cannot be accused of failing to live out his philosophy, seeing as he spent the last ten years of his life in madness.

Which essay? I would like to see that.

please stop posting Deleuze you fags are going to ruin him

Deleuze's thought is deliberately anti-memetic.

>the Hegelian movement, from Hegel to Stirner himself
>from Hegel to Stirner *himself
>*he throws himself into the nothingness which he hollows out beneath the steps of the dialectic

>But precisely because Stirner still sees things like a dialectician, because he does not extricate himself from the categories of property, alienation and its suppression, he throws himself into the nothingness which he hollows out beneath the steps of the dialectic. He makes use of the question 'which one?' but only in order to dissolve the dialectic in the nothingness of the ego. He is incapable of posing this question in anything but the human perspective, under any conditions but those of nihilism. He cannot let this question develop for itself or pose it in another element which would give it an affirmative response. He lacks a method, a typological method which would correspond to the question. Nietzsche's positive task is twofold: the Overman and Transvaluation.
this is a shorter section and it's still too wordy

This post just shows your inability of dialectical thinking.

Like all French philosophers of the second half of the 20th century, he's a terrible writer, but reading this I'm beginning to think Deleuze's work may be more substantive than I previously thought. I wrote an essay about just this subject without knowing he already covered this ground.

This is retarded on multiple levels.

>Stirner still sees things like a dialectician

No. Just, no.

He does, though. Stirner responds to Hegel on Hegel's terms rather than transcending dialectical thinking like Nietzsche with his Ubermensch.

>Like all French philosophers of the second half of the 20th century, he's a terrible writer,

A style of writing that's philosophically grounded at least for Derrida and Deleuze ( I never readl Baudrillard or Lyotard so I wouldn't know).
Yes you could legit object those groundings, but it wasn't mere posturing.

Yeah, you can definitely tell that Nietzsche was above and beyond both Hegel and Stirner put together, there's no question

They are both god tier but there is no question that Nietzsche is better. Mainly because he just DID more..

Hegel was above both Nietzsche and Stirner, you've gotten confused.

Sure if you don't actually read them.

What?

Nietzsche would have tripped. Hegel wouldn't.

Nietzsche would've wiped the floor with Hegel.

>im so smart u guys

this. americans are too dumb to read anything with more than 10 words.

Philosophy is not about "wiping the floor with someone", get out.

just filter this dumb tripshit already

Stop announcing you filter me every single thread. We understand the inconvenience, but you must deal with it.

others have done this? and you haven't taken the hint?

>implying memers think dialectically

you give this community too wide a breadth

>t. "I never read a single work of Nietzsche"

>implying I'm not a non dialectical memer myself
Dialecticians, will they ever learn? Yes. No. Yes but no really.

*not really

>i just read the wikipedia article on dialectics

>implying I've even read the wikipedia article on dialectics

...

Can't avoid the Freud.

He was a German Philosopher in the 19th century. It would basically be impossible for him NOT to have been drowning in Hegelianism all the time.

underrated post, 10/10

I have taken the hint, but I am not here to please the current demographics here.

Beyond Good And Evil doesn't mean simply strong and weak, senpai

>fanboys defending the honor of their philosifus without discussing their philosophies in any depth or referring to OP's post

you all should really just find something else to do with your time

what's it mean dude?

Care to discuss then? Or are you so above /lit that you refuse to participate? Or do you also have nothing to say?

I was about to say healthy and unhealthy then realized that's just rewording the same thing. But it's not about outright strength and weakness, I think it's moreso psychological, about strong and weak drives.

ok that sounds good too. i guess it doesn't really matter anyway.

I have nothing to say. I haven't read either Hegel, Nietzsche, or Stirner, but I don't claim to know what their all about either, or have internet arguments on their behalf. I don't think I'm better than anyone. Just thought I'd let you guys know how dumb you all sound.

it's more about the transcendence of the ethical binary as such. you're correct to note that the move from "good and evil" to "strong and weak" is really just a reipscription of the same old dyad, but i would argue it is a transcendence of it all the same, moving closer to a transvaluated state of ethical neutrality, i.e., the liquidation of ethics as a meaningful discourse, which i think is what the genealogical method aspires to. there's also the problem of the height metaphor implied in transcendence, which deconstructionists would (again, and paradoxically, in the interest of transcending binaries) criticize as establishing a power relationship between the lower and higher levels of apprehension, or whatever. but i'm not sure that the deconstructive canon ever fully investigated this; i know that to some extent derrida side steps the issue by immanentizing the discourse of binaries and showing how it has "always already" deconstructed itself. but this is the sense in which I think Deleuze, here in Nietzsche and Philosophy () but also much later in Anti-Oedipus, is a better reader of Freddy, in that the only way to really transcend the ethical binary without re-inscribing it into some other onto-theological metaphysic is to absolutely mobilize thought, to schizophrenically engage in a rapid process of meta-transcendence, to apprehend the very motion from one level to the other in and of itself, albeit (and this is crucial) without dialectically paralyzing it as a concept in its own right. of course this latter step is inevitable, and therein lies the meaning of the polarity between paranoia and schizophrenia... but here again we find ourselves thinking dyadically, yet at the very least we might be closer to really grasping what Nietzsche meant in that prepositional phrase, "Beyond Good and Evil."

Poar feet.

10/10

Thanks for the thoughtful response (OP here, different IP). The only thing I might add is that often times I think the post structuralist projects which you are referring to are misread as trying to "destroy" or "remove" structures altogether, which is where we get criticism that postmodernism is a dead end project. At some level you are always going to be working with structures and binaries, which is why I think your post ends with that consolation. I think these criticism are wrong headed though. Nietzsche has a great line in "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" where he says "To dispense with metaphor would be to dispense with man himself" (metaphor here meaning conceptual schemata). I think this is why Nietzsche uses the words "overcome" and "transvaluate" in his writings. It's not that we destroy all structures and binaries and leave them behind for good. It's a revaluation and reappropriation of meaning. This is what he does so incredibly well in his writings, taking the metaphors and concepts he is writing against (like Christianity) and reappropriating them into stories like Zarathustra (who might be seen as a parody of Christ).

Agreed, post-structuralism is post- in the sense of standing beyond structures we know of, looking back at them, while maintaining an ethos of getting outside of the ones our new standpoint encloses us in. Hence the emphasis, latent to Nietzsche's thinking as a whole and brought out in all its spasmodic virulence in Deleuze, on mobility, rapidity, and reconfiguration. meaning is in the process of transition from one level to another.

Dead dog though.

...

>Nietzsche's positive task is twofold: the Overman and Transvaluation. Not 'who is man?' but 'who overcomes man?' 'The most cautious peoples ask today: "How may man still be preserved?" Zarathustra, however, asks as the sole and first one to do so: "How shall man be overcome?" The overman lies close to my heart, he is my paramount and sole concern — and not man: not the nearest, not the poorest, not the most suffering, not the best' (Z IV 'Of the Higher Man', 3, p. 297) — the allusion to Stirner is obvious.

was nietszsche an anti-humanist who wanted to destroy the human race?

Ugh.

Perhaps destroying the (current?) perception of man by man, rather than destroying the human race?

for what purpose though?

we will all die in the heat death of the universe so why worry about anything or do anything? why not just be a hedonist?

>why...do anything?

Why not?

Stirner is less beautiful but more brutishly effective at destroying the grasp of normies than Nietzsche is.

>implying

Hedonists worry very much about getting their pleasure, which they take very seriously for no evident reason. And preaching about the ultimate fate of the universe and man as a means of conditioning how you act? Little different from Christianity. Life, even though and especially because it perishes, is about creation. Sounds like you got an abyss you gotta learn to dance over baby.
>brutishly effective at destroying the grasp of normies
Exactly why he's second-rate compared to Neetch.

>the eternal recurrence was literal and not a rhetorical device

The #1 way to tell someone didn't understand Nietszsche.

>thinking those proofs that Nietzsche came up with in his unpublished fragments concerning the relation between probability and the Eternal Return were ironic

The #1 way to tell someone didn't READ Nietzsche.

Besides, Deleuze thinks it has literal as well as ethical (in the sense of a thought experiment concerning the value of each act). Of course, for Deleuze it wasn't The Eternal Return of the Same, but The Eternal Return of Absolute Difference™ since identity is a spook so to speak.

>proofs

This is literally the Nietzschean project, what is the value of our values now that God is dead, and we actually have to face up to the reality of these questions? This wasn't a problem under the Christian world view which dominated at the time. I think the eternal return, which some people are discussing, is part of the answer for Nietzsche.

>The #1 way to tell someone didn't READ Nietzsche.
#1 way to tell someone didn't do the readings and just half paid attention to the professor

I think Jaspers discusses this in his work on Nietzsche, maybe someone can confirm if people are interested

>beautiful

Shitting on Hegel is a meme. Only an idiot could write off the eminent materialist of the 18th century

>I think the eternal return, which some people are discussing, is part of the answer for Nietzsche.

explain

> i know N O T H I N G about the history of philosophy, let alone philosophy itself

Well it's not really nihilism if this is all there is, eternally. But, nihilism also means life/world denying for Nietzsche so Christianity can be nihilistic if it takes away all meaningfulness from this world and places it somewhere else. Maybe there are better versions of Christianity, but they're hard to conceptualize since a world dualism already makes this world less important ultimately.

Then just stop using that retarded tripcode
You
Stupidddddd
Cunt

The best way to get rid of them is to never reply to their comments, just don't answer to them.

If youre implying nietzsche didnt also know identity to be a lie, it isnt correct, and one of his aphoristic bits in Beyond Good and Evil (I think) is about how mathematics and STEMfags perpetuate this lie by making it appear as if two things can ever be the same

>like the sophist Thrasymachus, he says that just and law are the fabrications of the powerful; like the sophist Protagoras, he says that truth is a matter of opinion; like the sophist Gorgias, he says that philosophy is more a matter of persuasion than of reason

But all of that is correct.

this

Well then get educated user. Start with Hegel

>like Heraclitus, he says that there is no being, but only a perpetual flux
this is the clear difference between reading the source and reading what other people say about a philosopher

that's Russell you cockhead

exactly

Russell is GOAT, sorry about it