How can one man be so based...

How can one man be so based? I've been a Nietzschefag for a while and he completely BTFO of him in such a clear and concise manner my jaw is on the floor.

"Nietzsche had some natural talent for sarcasm: he could sneer, though he could not laugh; but there is always something bodiless and without weight in his satire, simply because it has not any mass of common morality behind it. He is himself more preposterous than anything he denounces. But, indeed, Nietzsche will stand very well as the type of the whole of this failure of abstract violence. The softening of the brain which ultimately overtook him was not a physical accident. If Nietzsche had not ended in imbecility, Nietzscheism would end in imbecility. Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot. Every man who will not have softening of the heart must at last have softening of the brain."

>>Lol Nietzsche sucks because no morals yadayada went crazy because of his thought etc.

Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard overlapped heavily with Neechee and they didn't go nuts.

Scheler's Ressentiment is the greatest "critique" on Nietzsche.

nice ad hom chesterton now try again

oh wait you're dead you fucking faggot lmao

Chesterton is fun, but aphorisms and the similar aren't something I will ever take as anything more than stylized fun.

>Kierkegaard overlapped heavily with Neechee
Not at all

>pseuds being impressed by this
>"Nietzschefag"

>The softening of the brain which ultimately overtook him was not a physical accident. If Nietzsche had not ended in imbecility, Nietzscheism would end in imbecility.
Low blow Chesterton.

Btw I think I'm on to something better in Nietzsche's impact on Lewis.

>but there is always something bodiless and without weight in his satire, simply because it has not any mass of common morality behind it
fucking dropped

He is precisely the cancer Nietzsche hates.

Are you kidding?

Unless you're being particularly picky with your language (poor show if so), there are at least many parallels between the two to the degree Nietzsche was told by a few people he should at least read some Kierkegaard.

Anyone who dramatizes a person's illness like that to denonce their arguments is a scumbag.

>Unironically arguing in favour of 'common' morality
>Dropping ad hominems

And this is coming from someone who loves Chesterbelloc and Nietzsche.

Chesterton was a wrong, fat, unfunny adherent of a false religion. His writings are sentimentalist garbage of the lowest order. The fucker looked like he looked, and wore a cape. As such, he was a fedora among Catholics.

Take his aphorisms. He does the same unwitty, unfunny thing, over and over again:

"It seems to me that the trouble with x and y, is that there is not enough y in x. Oh dear me I'm so fat and clever, darling fetch my muumuu I must run an errand now~"

Absolutely interminable. Happily, an above-average proportion of other anons ITT thus far also seem to hate Chesterton. Good.

Chesterton was obviously wrong about a lot, but still witty and occasionally valuable.

Chesterton's Fence is a great argument to have in your arsenal in an era of hyper-progressivism, for example. Very useful against "change is always good" faggots.

LMAO

if i hadnt read

i would have walked away from this thread thinking OPs pic was a fat Nietzsche

>lit triggered this hard by their hero getting absolutely BTFO

top kek lads

Listen I like Chesterton and feel neutral towards neitzche but he was not btfo here, this is just him sperging on someone he disliked with no content, like Schoppy and Hegel.

He is awful at writing essays. His "Orthodox" essay could have been easily minimized to 5-6 pages.

Except Schoppy was right to sperg on Hegel, because Hegel's work had no content.

the easiest way to ensure that nobody ever reads or likes Chesterton on this board is to open the thread with the assertion that Chesterton "btfo"d Nietzsche

For one, it's pretty obvious that Chesterton had not read much Nietzsche and mostly knew him through second-hand accounts. He also didn't combat Nietzsche in any formal or thorough way.

I think he was right and Nietzsche was wrong, but you'd have to be very stupid to think that his writings on Nietzsche are a compelling and complete refutation of Nietzsche's philosophy

You mean Orthodoxy?
He is well known as one of the greatest essay writers english language has ever seen.
The fact that you think he can be reduced could be said of half of philosophy, beacuse it doesn't account the way he reaches a point or the importance of structure or style.
I think this is correct. Chesterton was not engaged with Nee-Chan himself, but with his contemporary Nee-Chan dick sucking colleagues.
Aside from that, neither was a particularly systematic author and both relied on style as much as substance.

Not an argument faggot

Not a rebuttal faggot

>>dropping ad hominems
>implying that this doesn't constitute much of Nietzsche's """""philosophy""""

It doesn't really. Provide examples.

He looked like a massive child though.

Given his huge size/etc, I imagine he probably had Klinefelter's Syndrome or something.

>Klinefelter's Syndrome
His moustache looks quite thick.

He just looks fat to me. Fat increases estrogen (trufax not broscience)

And he was childishly cheerful.
I love his novels because he does something special, surrealist novels that are incredibly cheerful.

>He is well known as one of the greatest essay writers english language has ever seen.

If writing a 100 page essay where he says "St. Francis of Assisi was an impeccable man. An impeccable, extraordinary man. An impeccable, extraordinary, incredible man. An impeccable, extraordinary, incredible, amazing man. So amazing. So impeccable. So extraordinary... etc., etc.," ad infinitum indicates a good essay, then I would much rather read "terrible" essays.

And there are also immense, insurmountable difference. Kierkegaard was a moral realist, Nietzsche a moral non-realist. Considering that the whole point of both thinkers is ethical it's a pretty big deal.

>A favorite between the ages of 8 and 14. Essentially a writer for very young people. Romantic in the large sense.

>Kierkegaard was a moral realist, Nietzsche a moral non-realist.
I appreciate the sophomoric analysis bud.

You need to work on your compare and contrast skills if your response to "there are deep running similarities" is "there are also differences", and the differences are mostly based on secondary analysis (:^/)

I've read 6 of his books, but nothing on st. Francis.
If we can say anything about Chesterton, it's that he's a man who goes to the point without beating around the bush. He's brisk and never takes long to get to somewhere and when he does he moves away.
Maybe this particular essay was such, but none of his other more famous works is drawn out or repetitive.

Hey man, The Man Who Was Thursday was great

There is a difference between there are also differences and the differences are so great you can't reconcile them ethically.

Kierkergaard is a Christian, and no matter how personal a relationship it is, it acts as something to adhere to. Nietzsche's self striving, the self making of values is impossible if there is an external source of authority.

Sure there are similarities, there is a reason why they are both labeled as existential, but the point of both philosophers are at complete odds from each other.

>and the differences are mostly based on secondary analysis (:^/)
There is no reason to say this. It is pure conjecture.

>A Fat man with a lazy eye is somehow able to criticize the concept of the Ubernmensch

>Kierkergaard is a Christian,
Nietzsche is also a Christian.

>It is pure conjecture.
Unless I missed the parts where K explicitly said "btw I'm a moral realist" and N stated "I am most definitely a moral non-realist" those are your secondary interpretations and so an artificial distinction. There may be parts where one must choose Nietzsche or Kierkegaard but there aren't that many, they write about similar things (they travel in a similar way) but focus on different areas.

Nietzsche is most certainly not a Christian and was a moral relativist and Kierkegaard was a moral realist.
This isn't even up to debate, it's basic facts about them.

>Nietzsche is also a Christian.

So this is b8 right? Nietzsche 101 is that he doesn't believe in objective morality.
'There is no such thing as moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena' Beyond Good and Evil, chapter 4.

>Nietzsche is also a Christian
Just no. Name a single philosopher who thinks this. Give me an aphorism that unequivocally shows his Christianity. What is his rejection of Christianity in his letters to his sister. His entire philosophy is how to act in a world without God to supply us moral truth.

>Unless I missed the parts where K explicitly said "btw I'm a moral realist"
He is a Christian, it is a definition part of it that he must be a moral realist. It's a simple a priori truth.

>Nietzsche is most certainly not a Christian
You got a pleb reading of the guy tbqph. Nietzsche is a radical Christian if anything who has his own view of Christ separate to the one created by St Paul. All his anti Christian writings are anti Paul writings
>The life, the example, the teaching, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of the whole gospels nothing was left of all this after that counterfeiter [that's Paul btw] in hatred had reduced it to his uses.

Yes, that's a non Christian. Christianity is a strictly defined religion.
Making up your own meme version is something other than Christianity, whatever it may be.
Also, read the Bible.

>You got a pleb reading of the guy tbqph. Nietzsche is a radical Christian if anything who has his own view of Christ separate to the one created by St Paul. All his anti Christian writings are anti Paul writings

I wouldn't go as far saying he's a radical Christian but he did have a weak point for Jesus and went on so far as decrying Parsifal for using the messiah in such a vulgar way. Anglo-American interpretations have a hard-on for leaving out anything that's not pure atheism, and it's a shame he's so corrupted by "modern" interpretations trying to make him into some kind of atheist liberal leftie.

>mfw reddit plebs
Yeah, le god is dead that's Nee-chee right? Total atheist QED!

Nothing is so straight cut in Nietzsche m80s. As for that apriori bs, a much simpler argument in line with Kierkegaard's thought is put forward in a clockwork orange. Your way of thinking wouldn't be able to penetrate even that in any meaningful sense.

...

You still haven't named a single philosopher who considers Nietzsche a Christian. If you were able to decipher Nietzsche's Christianity from his text than surely so must plenty of respectable academics. Also you never mentioned his explicit break from Christianity he made in a letter to his sister.

>Christianity is a strictly defined religion.
Since...? You can have your own dogmatic opinions, that's fine, and yes that kind of dogmatism is incompatible with Nietzsche. But again it's you bringing your own baggage to the table "Kierkegaard's philosophy is only in line with dogmatists like myself [it really isn't tho, you forgo any need for choice or faith from your own self] and Nietzsche doesn't fit into my views so is incompatible". So it is not that the two philosophies themselves are incompatible, you lack (or refuse to develop) the ability to combine them.

>Nietzsche
>Christian

This board.

This fuckin' board.

>You still haven't named a single philosopher who considers Nietzsche a Christian.
He outright states in Antichrist that Jesus lived without ressentiment and that that way of being a Christian (living a life like Christ's) has been/will be/is still possible. He calls it genuine primitive Christianity. Covered by chapters 39 and 40.

>There is only one Christian and he died on the cross
translates to:
>There are two Christians, me and my homebody
?

Didn't even try to answer the user's question.

Since the council of Nicea.
Christianity also isn't philosophy.

There's no way you're making sense of any of that chapter with that level of reading. You can't interpret Nietzsche in sound bites. It's not even a correct quotation, AT BOTTOM there WAS one Christian and he died on the cross.

He then goes on to say a kind of Christianity is always possible.

Nietzsche himself advocates what he calls a Christian way of life. He is by his own admission a Christian (although you could say he goes beyond being just a Christian).

If you are unfamiliar with the basics of Nietzsche's philosophy yes I guess it is not obvious, but if you know that Nietzsche is aiming for freedom from ressentiment, then if a life free from ressentiment is a Christian way of life (in Nietzsche's particular conception of an authentic Christianity) Nietzsche is advocating at bottom that Christian way of life.

>He is by his own admission a Christian

>Nietzsche himself advocates what he calls a Christian way of life. He is by his own admission a Christian

Enlighten me Pepe. Make sense of only C 39 of Anti Christ.

hi chiller

this is correct

...

Don't tell me this mouth-breathing retard has a fucking reputation here.

I have no idea who/what chiller is, but I've been posting here semi reg since the start of Veeky Forums. And quite a lot on Nietzsche.

It's interesting to see the waves of people who come in with really dumbass views on philosophy who then must either go away or develop. I wonder which you'll be.

You've yet to cite anyone of significance who shares your dumbass view.

Of course, you may well be the next in a long line of dumbasses who think they've figured out Nietzsche better than anyone else.

That isn't an admission of Christianity. He is merely stating that a) Jesus (as per his understanding of him) is a pretty cool dude and that b) it is possible to emulate this. Give me a direct quote from him that is unequally a positive affirmation of his Christian belief. Something along the lines of I believe in God. Jesus died for our sins on the cross for the sake of humanity. And you still haven't named a single philosopher who considers him a Christian. Or do I take it know know more about Nietzsche than all Nietzsche scholars?

Damn, nice. Im gonna use this

Kek admiring Jesus does not necessarily mean the admirer is a Christian

He didnt like the fact that Jesus martyrd himself though.

"They made signs in blood along the way that they went, and their folly taught them that the truth is proved by blood.

But blood is the worst of all testimonies to the truth; blood poisoneth even the purest teaching and turneth it into madness and hatred in the heart.

And when one goeth through fire for his teaching—what doth that prove? Verily, it is more when one's teaching cometh out of one's own burning!"

> "Hence the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire..."

>Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot.
He didn't think in isolation though. He read thousands of books and commented on hundreds of them, which is akin to having a conversation with other writers. Plus, he traveled Europe and roomed with several colleagues over the years.

>Nietzsche claimed the death of God would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspective on things, and along with it any coherent sense of objective truth.

ITT: Nietzscheans Nietzsching uncontrollably

Jesus didn't martyr himself. There's at least 3 Jesuss outlined in antichrist, the real life not god mortal, the transitional one based on a desire for revenge, and a psychological/theological one made up by Paul. Mortal Jesus just ended up being executed, Disciple Jesus was wrongly executed and is the basis for revenge revolution, St Paul's theological Jesus is the one who martyred himself and went about fulfilling prophecy/scripture willy nilly. Paul fucking martyred Jesus the shit.

Read Beyond Good And Evil (honestly it's chapter 1) and have a long hard think about quoting sound bites from letters. Tbf it's not entirely a terrible point, but even where it's not terrible, as above, the mortal Christ is rebellious. He just has no ressentiment.

The best reading I have so far as Christ is concerned in Nietzsche is as the person who made quite a way in the path the ubermensch. He is not ubermensch but he further than most others. So there are differences for sure in Nietzsche's path and his idea of Jesus.

>Something along the lines of I believe in God.
He categorically does not believe in God. But as put forward in the Parable of the Madman he thinks modern man in general does not believe in God (this is the whole God is dead and we have killed him schtick). We have enlightenment values, but we continue as if there is still a God at work at the centre of our belief system and this gets likened to seeing the lightning but not yet hearing the thunder.

So being Christian and bona fide belief in God in Nietzsche's philosophy are two separate issues really.

Plenty of people have talked about Jesus as ubermensch or something towards ubermensch (if anything this view is boringly orthodox). And finally there is no one right view. That was never my point. Simply that others have a severely lacking engagement with the philosophy we're talking about and (really this is the more fundamental) a very blinkered view of its application (like seeing Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as compatible is crazy or verboten or whatever it was, and that they cannot have any meaningful overlap. Ridiculous tbpqh).

Part of the argument was that Kierkegaard is a christian (holy oil?) And Nietzsche is not (unholy water?) And as such the two are immiscible. I have a consistent interpretation of Nietzsche as a Christian anyway (it's hard to impossible not to view him as "culturally Christian" at least, and a very large part of his philosophy is one way or another to do with Christianity), so I can argue that point well: yes it is possible to take N as a Christian. He says as much himself. Whether we can form a kind of Nietzschean dogma is unimportant and somewhat anathema to his philosophy to boot. So even if you only want Christians to go with Christians hey guess what you can still do it.

I have a feeling tho this is lost on the original guy as I'm p sure he's posting the Nicean creed biz.

Jesus didn't martyr himself. There's at least 3 Jesuss outlined in antichrist, the real life not god mortal, the transitional one based on a desire for revenge, and a psychological/theological one made up by Paul. Mortal Jesus just ended up being executed, Disciple Jesus was wrongly executed and is the basis for revenge revolution, St Paul's theological Jesus is the one who martyred himself and went about fulfilling prophecy/scripture willy nilly. Paul fucking martyred Jesus the shit.

But isn't "standing up against the Romans" martyrdom either way? I havent read the Bible, but he died for his cause, what's the difference between that and martyrdom?

>THE MARTYR IN SPITE OF HIMSELF. There was a man belonging to a party who was too nervous and cowardly ever to contradict his comrades; they made use of him for everything, they demanded everything from him, because he was more afraid of the bad opinion of his companions than of death itself; his was a miserable, feeble soul. They recognised this, and on the ground of these qualities they made a hero of him, and finally even a martyr. Although the coward inwardly always said No, with his lips he always said Yes, even on the scaffold, when he was about to die for the opinions of his party; for beside him stood one of his old companions, who so tyrannised over him by word and look that he really suffered death in the most respectable manner, and has ever since been celebrated as a martyr and a great character.

>standing up against the Romans
You can stand up for shit without martyring yourself. And Nietzsche sees it more as standing up to the pharisees in the gospels. Pilate is the face of Rome and is super sympathetic to Jesus, whereas the Jewish upper classes bray for his execution in the Gospels, and N takes that whole thing as the after the fact ressentiment of the disciples.

There is currently a historical interpretation that has Jesus being a rebel against the Romans, that seems to be more to do with who the early Christians were and how they acted (all Jewish and still went to temple). I don't know how much mileage you'd get out of that with N. It's possible I guess, mortal Jesus wanting a new revised Judaism and Paul turning Christianity into something more like traditional Judaism.

And note in that quote he is described as "a martyr *in spite of himself*". It is not Jesus who wishes to be a martyr in reality. Everybody else turns him into one.

I forgot to put as well, there is a view of Jesus as someone acting instinctually. So it's like he just did what he did and died. But like Socrates I guess.

ITT edgelords fail to bester the Chester

No way Socrates was instinctual, that guy had to think everything out. I know he was 70 and finished with his body of work, but come on, no way youre going to stay in jail if running on instinct.

Your other post was very clear and insightful though. Cheers

>I can argue that point well: yes it is possible to take N as a Christian. He says as much himself.

Source?

>Read Beyond Good And Evil (honestly it's chapter 1)
I have. In no way does it reject him being an atheist as he himself claims in a letter to his sister.

>I have not come to know atheism as a result of logical reasoning and still less as an event in my life: in me it is a matter of instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questioning, too high spirited to be satisfied with such clumsy answers. God is a too palpably clumsy answer; an answer which shows a lack of delicacy towards us thinkers

Read what you posted and reread chapter 1 of BGE (major handhold: it deals with the will to truth).

Socrates was able to unpick arguments with his natural abilities. And his drinking of hemlock wasn't so much him being a martyr as being true to who he was iykwim.

Was it the inconsistency between antichrist and human all too human Jesus? I take that sort of thing as being Nietzsche's reconstruction of real Jesus (for certain reasons I'm unhappy with this part of my reading but it's academic more than anything). So if you know if Hegel's Philosophy of History there are 3 different kinds? I find that Nietzsche's idea of there being a theological Paul Jesus fits (surprisingly) well as a philosophical history. And there is no "written" (as in contemporary at the time reports) history of Jesus. The gospels were written well after the death of Jesus and are as such spirit. It's not a fully formed idea desu.

Anyhow, this becomes less problematic in a general sense, Nietzsche seems to assume there are elements of truth in the gospels and unpicks what's what (and so reconstruct a written account of the man Jesus). There is no correct answer to this of course. So look at it one way, Jesus is the ubermensch like guy that goes around and shakes the foundation of a belief system and his followers get upset when he dies. Look at it another way and he's a miserable guy that actively bends to the will of the group and that's how he fulfills scripture etc etc.

Nah, Hegel was a problematic cuck. Agreed on the rest though, I suppose when youre Socrates-smart (INTP) (INFJ here lols) breaking down arguments comes naturally to you. I can see that.

"Not an argument faggot" is an apt rebuttal to literally everything Hegel wrote

It's an inversion of Hegel if it's there. I know there's some other similar shit out there that does link Hegel and history with Nietzsche but it just seems weird tbph. Like out of character weird.

On the one hand maybe it's because we're talking Nietzsche as a philologist that that framework pops up. On the other hand it's fucking Hegel.

Idk Hegel, I just take Schop's word for it. I did read (and understand) 3 pages from an Intro to Philosophy selection (non-biz class I took as accounting major), and felt that he was long-winded and worthless to interpret further as he was barely saying anything. But Ive heard about that 3 things you were talking about (thesis/antithesis/synthesis)

>But Ive heard about that 3 things you were talking about (thesis/antithesis/synthesis)
That's different bro. That's the dialectics he borrows from Fichte (but with some subtle differences so they become Hegel's) and that's like Hegel's thing that causes history. What I'm talking about are different categories of history that have different timespans and motives p much.

>Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard overlapped heavily with Neechee and they didn't go nuts.
They were actual thinkers though.

>Low blow Chesterton.
Nietzsche's own work is full of that shit
That makes him twice as respectable. Nietzsche's philosophy is asinine
Nietzsche attracts the peasants by taking the brilliant ideas of great thinkers and simplifying them for pseuds.

>his criticism of spinoza
>of kant
>of carlyle

>delicacy towards us thinkers
>has never had an original thought
>his only non subjective work was trashed

By that definition Gandhi was a Christian.

Just fuck off you idiot.

Holy shit you are retarded.

>Nietzsche
Simpleton hacks general?

>I have a consistent interpretation of Nietzsche as a Christian anyway
Consistent doesn't equal true.

>Plenty of people have talked about Jesus as ubermensch or something towards ubermensch
Has nothing to do with whether or not Nietzsche is a Christian.

>it's hard to impossible not to view him as "culturally Christian" at least, and a very large part of his philosophy is one way or another to do with Christianity
By this logic Gibbons would be a Christian, or Richard Dawkins. It's completely irrelevant to what we are asking you to prove.

>So being Christian and bona fide belief in God in Nietzsche's philosophy are two separate issues really.
Yes they are, except you are claiming he is a Christian. That makes it the point at dispute.

>Part of the argument was that Kierkegaard is a christian (holy oil?) And Nietzsche is not (unholy water?) And as such the two are immiscible
That is not what is being said at all. What is being said that Nietzsche's philosophy requires moral non-realism to be true. You could have an ubermensch that looks like some Kierkergaard ideal but that would only be a superficially since the reasons why they would act similarly would necessarily be different. Nietzsche is about arbitrary self willing because there is no higher authority to appeal to. Kierkegaard is that God is beyond human understanding so one must place a trust in Him beyond reason.

>(like seeing Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as compatible is crazy or verboten or whatever it was, and that they cannot have any meaningful overlap
Literally what I just said before. It's your inability to comprehend properly what the people in this thread means that is making this discussion go on.

>He says as much himself
You still have given no one any reason to believe he is a Christian. To say you think it is compatible is not an argument. To say that it is obvious is not an argument. So please, save everyone's time and give is the smoking gun evidence from his works or letter which prove he is a Christian (and not like the poor example you already chose that showed nothing to that extent). Also you still haven't named a single philosopher who shares your opinion. I'm only asking for one. There are thousands of them. Just give me one!

Serious question. Have you just personally reasoned your way to this conclusion? Have you actually read any scholarly opinions on the Nietzsche's supposed Christianity? Also how do you reconcile the ontology of the Will or Power with God?

>I have not come to know atheism as a result of logical reasoning and still less as an event in my life: in me it is a matter of instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questioning, too high spirited to be satisfied with such clumsy answers. God is a too palpably clumsy answer; an answer which shows a lack of delicacy towards us thinkers

BTFO to the Christian Nietzsche guy. Couldn't get blown out more than this very late era Nietzsche quote.

Chesterton is my favorite writer, and most of this board is missing out by not reading his fiction. That being said, philosophical and social critiques have never been his strong point. He was so prolific he was bound to write some crap; I don't see how focusing on that fact is productive.

>and that's like Hegel's thing that causes history.

Wow, I'll be honest, I didnt know those 3 things (that I was talking about) outside of true, rigorous science. But that cleared a SHIT load up for me lmao

I read Being&Time in an Existentialism class (thought about a Philosophy minor, but discovered it too late, and didnt need any more credits), but Heidegger was pretty legit when it came to historicity (also difficult to interpret, but assigned reading, and worthwhile (friggin ISTJs like Heidegger with their shit).

What else is cool about Hegel?

>(friggin ISTJs like Heidegger with their shit)

utter madman

The guy is a retard, honestly its amazing when you find someone so delusional that they think Nietzsche is a christian. This boars finds new lows all the time.

I guess he really was fedora.

>(INTP) (INFJ here lols)
kill yourself