Was he right?

negrophile

I'm redpilled, kid

Yes
plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/

No, he was just an egotistic delirious dudebro with a large vocabulary. The Maddox of philosophy.

Nietzsche was no feminist but he wasn't quite as mysogynistic as people try to make him out to be either. In this quote, he's saying that woman was a mistake because she enticed man to eat from the tree of knowledge and man would go on to become the rival and eventual murderer of God.

Whats wrong with being an egoist?

Certainly not everything. There's plenty that he says that is literally just, like, his opinions and feelings about things. It is easy to say that maybe he sort of overestimates the worth of fighting and suffering and such, maybe he'd felt differently if he had more friends and was less sickly. He doesn't really, himself, justify all of his views any better.

But eh surely he had some great ideas, particularly about morality.

Although right about there being no truth, he was wrong about there being lies.

>Although right about there being no truth
He never said there's no truth though.

Superficially he was wrong about a great number of things. If you read a lot of what he says literally, esp about power, control, eternal return, basically all of his positive ethical claims, he looks and sounds little better than a meek agoraphobe wagging his sticks at all the people who don't understand him and at the big old Nobodaddy in the sky. On subtler readings of these aspects of his works, he's obviously a very profound thinker, if not "right" about everything (he himself would think you were a pleb sheep for wanting a philosophy that was transcendentally correct--he's a thinker of shades and degrees, of subtleties, not of absolute stances).

Read him like you'd read the Bagavad Gita, which any good interpreter will tell you is not about a literal war and a literal battlefield, but is about a war within each human being, as he crawls, then stumbles, then strides gloriously towards self-empowerment, self-control, and enlightenment.

His negative critiques though, his philosophizing with a hammer--I'm inclined to see those as some of the most clear-headed and devastating analyses of previous philosophers in the history of philosophy. We live and think in the shadow of his hermeneutics of suspicion. Dude was a boss at seeing through other people's BS and getting to their true motivations hidden behind their words.

No? Well, he did say the truth wasn't that important, yeah?

He asked why truth instead of lies? And what lies underneath what philosophers always called the will to truth, and refused to problematize legitimately. He found that their "truths" and their "will to truths" were often just immaculately structures edifices that such philosophers built in order to justify their own insecurities and illogical, unjustifiable beliefs.

Like a kind of rigorous ad hominem attack on the entire western tradition of philosophy and ethics. A penetrating and rigorous version of "Well so and so only believed that because he was a cuck. So he proved it was actually logical to be a cuck, and everyone who didn't go along with him was wrong."

They ruin every board

>projection

caught ya fellow.

you like the word cuck huh.

so penetrating.so vigorous.

>He found that their "truths" and their "will to truths" were often just immaculately structures edifices that such philosophers built in order to justify their own insecurities and illogical, unjustifiable beliefs.
But in the end, doesn't he do exactly the same thing?

Projecting.

Arguably. Heidegger certainly thought so--thought his "will to power" was not itself the deconstruction and destruction of metaphysics but was itself just another metaphysical claim. But his way of being suspicious has informed subsequent thinkers profoundly, even though he himself didn't wriggle out of some of the structures of which he claimed to be clear-sightedly suspicious.

That said, N was still much less systematic than just about any philosopher before him. So though he still made some questionable claims that can be interpretated as claims toward a totalizing "theory", he still avoided constructing such an edifice for the most part.

projectors projecting projecting projectors now!

>+$0.2

>Heidegger certainly thought so--thought his "will to power" was not itself the deconstruction and destruction of metaphysics but was itself just another metaphysical claim.

projecting

Glad to see you're engaging with the content intellectually. I spend great deals of time away from this website, because I get the suspicion that people here aren't actually interested in talking about substantive matters, but are instead interested only in vomiting memes on to one another. But you, user, have changed my mind. You've convinced me to stay. Bravo.

WAAAAAAH FUCKIN WAAAAAAAAH

haha

go leave brah

>problematize

I only encounter this word in papers written by very "progressive," usually female, college professors. Along with other buzzwords like "spaces" and "witnessing" it's a huge red flag.

Haha nietszche kek that moustache baka

was this guy right about women, or what?

aren't we all tortured geniuses, we've read so many book synopses, more than the average person!

im so smart i can hardly interact with my peers, just like neitzsche! Joyce! Pynchon!

>I get the suspicion that people here aren't actually interested in talking about substantive matters, but are instead interested only in vomiting memes on to one another

projecting

Even if he was right he wouldn't want you agreeing with him

Language changes. I went to a very conservative university and took a philosophy degree centered on catholic interpretations of Plato, yet my profs used this word all the time. It's common currency in the academy, for better or worse. Isn't confined to SJWs.

But again. I thought this thread was about Nietzsche. Not about language policing. You're as bad as the progressives you demonize.

>even though he himself didn't wriggle out of some of the structures of which he claimed to be clear-sightedly suspicious.
Which structures are you thinking of user?

There's actually a website it's called wordpress

Well metaphysics as such. He inveighs against metaphysics and tries to topple all the towers previous philosophers built in the platonic skies, yet in the end he still needed to rely on a fundamental metaphysical principle--the will to power--as if it were the one, substantive, transcendentally true force underlying all reality. This is what Heidegger critiques him for. Because even though N's conception of will to power does a lot of work undermining previous metaphysicians, it still bears the distinct mark of itself being a metaphysical idea.

Have you by any chance read Koestler's 'The Ghost In The Machine??

Your so wise?

Right about what? if you're even here. If you even want to know

I have not. It sounds anti-cartesian though. What's it about?

Gotcha. Thanks for the reply

Oh it's definitely anti-cartesian. You should read it.

Before you do, read this

reluctant-messenger.com/1enoch01-60.htm

Otherwise you won't know what it's about.

No problem! Read Solomon's "What Nietzsche Really Said" for a good, accessible account of his thought.

You studied Plato at a Catholic University, and yet you call yourself a Nietzschian?

The two could not be more opposed to each other. This is where meming credibility gets you kid.

don't do this

Nietschezen was fundamentalist Christian, that is very true.

>everything is flux

How wonderful, an exception.

First of all, I never identified myself as a Nietzschean. Just because you think people need to label themselves and self-identify as certain things (like SWJs do) doesn't mean they actually have to. Also, just because I studied certain philosophers as a baseline doesn't mean I can't have seriously encountered and studied other philosophers. There's a whole history of thought, of philosophy. And no philosopher is unequivocally right about reality. A good thinker takes in all perspectives, and then weighs them based on evidence and his critical thinking abilities. Nietzsche himself was a student of religion and theology, grew up in a religious household, and was even considering entering the priesthood at one time. Yet he wrote what he wrote.

Stop, out of whatever shame and insecurity or hatred of people who know things you don't, trying to derail genuine discussion about things you know nothing about, and instead sit back any try to learn, or ask questions, or engage. Or leave the site and read a book. You're unhelpful.

Checkmate truthfags!

All your philosophies are belong to overman.

>tl;dr nothing at all lmao

t. Parmenides

>trying to derail genuine discussion about things you know nothing about

projecting

>Heidegger
was also a fucking joke, he wrote his books for academic and political reasons.

Yes. The difference with Nietzsche is that he is honest about it, and because he understands others and himself, his perspective ends up being far superior and far more justifiable in the world than practically any other philosopher's.

Should we just let this thread commit suicide already?

So basically you're going to say things that you shouldn't be held accountable for while everyone else just sits back and listens? And if some peon responds to you, as you sit there on your throne of knowing, you are free to lash them brazenly with insults or dismiss them from your court without question?

You're just gonna wabadabadabadadbdbd?

>Heraclitus

Parmenides, really? But I guess it doesn't really matter of everything is flux.

Spoken like a true Nietzschean, maybe, sometimes, nope, you wish, what? who? huh? ah, gonfuckyourselfgggggghghhhhhhhhhggggggggg.

Every time

>nothing exists

sounds like moms spaghetti

>$0.2

Someone asks about Nietzsche. I give a response. Someone says "haha u sed cuck". Someone else says, "don't listen to him because he used the word progressive." Someone else said "haha you read plato and nietzsche and they hold incompatible things therefore you're retarded and nietzsche is a meme." Ad infinitum. If someone wants to actually talk about some specific philosophical question, I'm more than open to that, and happy about it. But people who just want to wait till people pop their heads out to say something so they can throw shit at them are unhelpful for debate. It leads to leveling of discourse, where people are discouraged from trying to talk and think openly, knowing that if they say something that does conform with the hivemind mentality one-liner interpretations that "the Majority" on Veeky Forums has, they will get steamrolled into place.

Intellectual content shouldn't be attacked based on the standards of Veeky Forumss community. It should be picked apart and criticized using reason, and examples from the history of literature and philosophy. The norms of Veeky Forums are much less comprehensive and interesting than the tradition of western thought, yet those norms keep getting the final say in conversation. It limits the shit out of discourse.

"the word problematic"*

shibidawabwabdewabwabwab

Your comment means bullsht to the truth brother!

>i give no textual evidence for my reasoning
>i expect it in return

wanna know how i know your a pseud

On behalf of Allah

google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&q=everything is flux&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiciY_J9PHOAhVBRSYKHVQdAugQBQgYKAA&biw=375&bih=559&dpr=2

google.com/search?q=nothing exists&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

I for one admire your thoroughness user. You must be oldfag, no?

lmao thanks google o wise one?

tHATS PRETTY GAY FOR A NAZI

>client=safari

>client=safari&hl=en-us

I thought that would push you in the right direction, but please tell me what standard will satisfy you?

It's a extremely well known quote. In any intro to philosophy class it is covered in the first two weeks. I feel like a crazy person talking about this with you.

>client=safari&

You dirt asking ocean what can quench!

Do you really want the truth or not?

>client=safari

I'm on my gayboi phone, it's true.

Hit.

I give a hit to you! Haha. What have you signed up for! We see you soon friend, the called.

As close to a reasonable criticism as anyone's given. Fair enough. I didn't quote texts.

How is oldfag defined these days? I used to be on here a lot more like five years ago

Why didn't you stay away old man?

>safari
please be a grill

IM GONNA BUST A VASE

There's no one to talk about literature and philosophy with. So every couple months, when I get desperate enough wanting to talk about that shit, I come on here in hopes that someone will have something interesting to say.

No I mean that you appear old. I want to be like you one day.
Unless you are grill lol

abyss was too strong .. faggotry at its worst.limited old and gay

Tisk, tisk, tisk, user.

You disappoint yourself.

I'm 24 lol

even steiner denied him he knew a fucked up ass .donkey

Good night to you!

same

Yeah, he was a logical extension of all philosophy at the time. Hating him is just a meme.

Wasn't Fred manipulated by Geist?

Dude, why're you such a faggot?

Ayn Rand was more right about SJW leftist cucks. Although I don't belittle Nietzsche for not being more right since he wasn't alive to see them bloom with marxism.
John Galt's entire speech can be directed at SJW cucks.

If woman was gods second mistake, does that imply that man was the first?